Ve Mela ane beta oa Gee ‘Sp By ‘4 they” f Vy Ady fey 2 ¥ = 2 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 39 LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature an 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 1982 (All rights reserved) TABLE OF 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 BASSI ATER hahah Hab) aac otis ohegsh 6 tec gentten - Phe SnectaliannOMncCeMentsn? eat Be a ae es ee On the proposed conservation of Chuangia Walcott, 1911 (Trilobita) (WelnChangi&iP Ac JEM) spszein tr Dette ue ells pi lee On the proposed suppression of Rhiniodon Smith, 1828 (Pisces) in favour of Rhincodon Smith, 1829 as the generic name of the whale Shanks(A«, Wneelen) aucun cv. aaruer baleen ot eycke. cas shat iods RG On the proposed designation of a type species for Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta) (I.S. Barskov & A.S. Alekseev; H.R. Lane & W. Ziegler; G.K. Mermill; The-Secretary) ~.........5- > On the proposed conservation of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (J.R. Vockeroth & L. LeSage) ....... Opinion 1199. Papio Erxleben, 1777, and Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824 (Mammalia, Primates): designation of type species ........ Opinion 1200. Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (Pisces, Ophidiidae): COMSC IVE cre snicneiniy NTRP “EI deen: 2a) eee meee gs Opinion 1211. Philodryas nattereri Steindachner, 1870 (Reptilia, Serpentes -CONSeIVed yo gs cee: ota ee ee ma tre: Opinion 1212. Siphonophora Brandt, 1837 (Diplopoda): conserved . Opinion 1213. Toxorhynchites brevipalpis Theobald, 1901 (Insecta, Diptera) iconsenyed! Fee rele oho ete) >) panne ea ern Opinion 1214. Chlorophis carinatus Andersson, 1901 given conditional 6l 64 67 102 104 106 109 111 114 Pilily/ 119 122 precedence over Philothamnus nigrofasciatus Buchholz & Peters, 1875:(ReptiliagSerpentes) ir... see a Sets NT: Opinion 1215. Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (Stromatoporoidea): fixation of the type species, Stromatopora granulata Nicholson, IBIS APOE os. eo VE R20 0S, hee. Soe Is, Opinion 1216. Calymene variolaris Brongniart, 1822 (Trilobita): demmudinion of neotype» 6 fe 249 uss 20 8Ge. OEE I RO Opinion 1217. Liparis koefoedi Parr, 1932 (Pisces): conserved .... . Direction 111. Entomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg (Trilobita) (Official List of specific names No. 1595): date to be cited as [1818] PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1940 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation (A. Dubois) ............-...-.. Belemnites mucronatus (Coleoidea): proposed use of the plenary powers to attribute this name to Schlotheim, 1813, and to designate a neotype in conformity with current usage. (W.K. Christensen, G. Ernst, F. Schmid, M.-G. Schulz & C.J. Wood) . Revived proposal for the suppression of the Aphid names of Rafinesque under the plenary powers (Insecta, Hemiptera, Aphididae) (MEBAStaetzel) erred Se pare eae ATELY Pee 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 Gases ee ee eee. oh Ck SO SIRO Oe eee Special'announcementsey >. eT ee ee ie On the proposal to designate a type species for Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) (R.D. Pope & J.C. Watt) ...... Support for the proposed conservation of TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Ee Sunth & KB Santh)'... 7, *, \ :. Sea eee On the proposed suppression of Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (Insecta, Homoptera, Coccoidea) (H. Komosifska & M. Mroczkowski; IN erence ©.)0wanzigy oa 20) eet ots ee On the proposed designation of type species for Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (I.M. Kerzhner; L.B. Holthuis)......... On proposed nomenclatural validation of Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (L.B. Holthuis; MO WMerznneny, arene ee es ee: Re ee eee, On the proposal to designate the gender and stem of Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (W. Reed) Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Diptera): supporting comment for the suppression of syntypes and designation of a neotype RW resskey) oO ae ee ee es TS On the proposed conservation of Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799 CET. Siliverbere | WP ON RM PIE Std FEL ek Ame OMG) se Opinion 1218. Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910 (Acarina): dempramem ainrmueee S005. Fk te tek ole eee Opinion 1219. Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771, neotype designated; 141 146 153 153 154 156 157 158 161 162 163 164 165 166 VI Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy St Hilaire, 1842 and Simia hoolock Harlan, 1834 (Mammalia, Primates): placed on the Officia Msist-npcopcenyet 2 ).AS8) ..costkagoi wiwsessiosse v7... 274 Opinion 1220. Halecium Oken, 1815 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): ruled to be an available name and conserved ................ Opinion 1221. Baeocera Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): designation of type SPECIES ts.4.09.)< 0205 <2 REN. ten Opinion 1222. Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 (Insecta, Hemiptera): type species dekighinted tnoitiaWh serosa. cute~eontere <2}. Opinion 1223. Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853 (Trilobita): conserved . Opinion 1224. Simia_ syndactyla Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Hylobatidae): given precedence over Simia gibbon C. Miller, LTT Sppcctadee ehh See. apne. Poscnoeansyes 14 Guta sisies' ¥)+ meter." Opinion 1225. Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1776 and Lagis koreni Malmgren, 1866 (Polychaeta): CONSEIVEG AGE J 3 Bo adecein 7). ba. fyermatee «7 koe aE: 2) aeceteals Opinion 1226. Bonelli’s Tabula synoptica ruled to be an available work and to have been publishedin 1810 .................. Direction 112. PPERIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): protectedieN, key. 2 6 Ge Rn ces Ss 4 at arene Opinion 1234. Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 (Foraminiferida): neotype designated .........-.-.-.+-. Opinion 1235. Sebastocles Jordan & MHubbs, 1925 (Pisces, Scorpaenidae): designation of type species ...........-.-- Opinion 1236. Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906 (Reptilia, Pestucines): Conserved ..\vgetoe 6 ie +. + eo Opinion 1237. Pennahia Fowler, 1926 (Pisces, Sciaenidae): designation Ob TYPE SUVEGES ne. e(o oe See ne ess w+ + + 5 8 eee ee Opinion 1238. Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865 (Insecta, Diptera): desimation af type species. 26. ' = 2-2 < ss os es ee Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (Amphibia): problems surrounding these names (The Secretary) (1) L’espéce-type du genre Dendrobates Wagler, 1830: nouvelles propositions (1. Rescute).. 1: sin sea + + + nl ee (2) Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation (A. Dubois) . Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation (C.P. Grotesyo. ... ... ss .« da aioe = so Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827, and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation (C.P. GLOVES eee as ee ec es bro cS RO omc ts Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for invalidation of neotype and validation of a rediscovered original specimen (AT. Botin) 52. o..56 Scene eee = Dees, oh oes Addition to the proposal to designate a type species for Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida) by use of the plenary. powers (O Bagi seo 3 sos. Sin we ye ee tee Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): revised proposals for conservation (A.H. Banner & D.M. Banner) .......... Proposed conservation of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 and ACTINITIDAE Goldfuss, 1820 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (Echinodermata, Holothurioidea) (R.B. Williams, P.F.S. Gomelusisy Aces Clarkia nee as sce ee sicker alae gereter ais Shs Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (Insecta, Trichoptera, Vil 264 267 279 281 283 285 286 288 Vill Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Polycentropodidae): proposed conservation (P.C. Barnard) Galeopsomyia Girault. 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed consenvation.(J.,LaSalie d¢Ro> DeBach)t. 4 2.2iacy i ct. ee Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda): proposed conservation AGI: SCCRO LAT Va hy cae RE a mack, 5 2-6 ak Sara On proposals concerning the type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 (ELS RES AT) ia Se a ene oo LN BOS Index 0: AD th@nsins oot «24 oncgei > MSBM> os rat ensi shee SE Cae ee Bist of Decisionsin this Volume... 3. 2 ee es Se Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in VOLUME SO eur naett: eect ee, «ise. doce Stays ktders IndexctoKev NAMES doce. eacKenSeuichc Gianek- Sctoe SEE thot: aeeesae Corrigendargshes qecremr A -stace. 20). 2orreact- ko neiewourseoue . LEG Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the presentivelumejwasjpublished,....y<4-Potns)-221 5,8 Reatixdtiadieelnes IMS (HUCHONSTOPBINGE pitss ee hk ron can oe 2) ce ol cig sae | eee 293 297 302 304 305 306 308 311 319 320 320 wet OS fern Volume 39, Part 1 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. i-iv, 1 — 76 11th March 1982 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE AGh Mom Nat. HIST aN 2 2 MAR 1982 Xe PURCHASED se s ~*~ [Gy Liss LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) rei 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 5BD). 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 (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, Shimizu City 414 Japan (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH] 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 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, 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 (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 Troms6, 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 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 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, 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. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. Barry Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 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 AOS ee RE ene) Che ac oR a ee ioe Priccial ANNOUNCEMEN(S . fe ss cso te els Seettme a + a) Mh tyet bys Comments On the proposed conservation of Chuangia Walcott, 1911 (Trilobita) VG Ghang, he PAs Jel) koi. pear ee) bisa ys REESE cas ne On the proposed suppression of Rhiniodon Smith, 1828 (Pisces) in favour of Rhincodon Smith, 1829 as the generic name of the whale SHAEKS (CAG WIRGEICT cc 692 6 a cep Mae rac) ite On the proposed designation of a type species for Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta) (I.S. Barskov & A.S. Alekseev; H.R. Lane & W. Ziegler; G.K. Merrill; The Secretary) .............. On the proposed conservation of Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (J.R. Vockeroth & L. LeSage) ....... Opinions Opinion 1199. Papio Erxleben, 1777, and Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824 (Mammalia, Primates): designation of type species ........ Opinion 1200. Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (Pisces, Ophidiidae): PONSCIVEG) cee B ee) Seo Bea Neb ae he ks 5 owl a dandy s Opinion 1201. ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 (Reptilia, Serpentes): ruling to stabilize nomenclature of taxa in this family (and others) .. . New and revived cases Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces): proposed suppression of both generic and specific names (G.W. Mead) ........... Revised proposals for stabilization of the names of certain genera and species ofp HOLOTHURIOIDEA (A.M. Clark & F.W.E. Rowe) Thrips rufa Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, Thripidae): proposed ruling that this is a nomenclaturally valid name for the type species of Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (L.A. Mound & LISA Nes ESTO) ile orgedeaneed ne, gue? ae ens hig RaSh e cre oa en ae Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 (Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed conservation (D. Quintero, Jn.) .................05. Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928, and Globigeraspis tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation (R.M. Stainforth, K. Sztrakos & R.M. Jeffords) .......... ili Page —_ 13 15 19 21 27 29 36 40 45 iv Diademodon tetragonus Seeley, 1894 (Reptilia, Therapsida): proposed conservation of generic and specific names (F.E. Grine) ..... Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1875 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation from 1874 (J.D. Lafontaine) .............. Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida): proposed designation of a type species by use of the plenary PED SaoW sia eco 16 4 Re vine gt el ee RN tt dah GOP anes Ne Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799, non Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation (M. Mroczkowski) .............. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for conservation under the plenary powers (G. Lamas, R.E. SOURCE PME) SE ee PSICUOY ce is ee cig at page ae nate Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Araneae, Salticidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers (G.B. Edwards) .............. Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Diptera, Simuliidae): proposed suppression of syntypes and designation of neotype (A.J. Shelley) Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera): request for designation of type species (K.G.V. Smith & M. Chvdla) .............. Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae): proposed conservation (D. Rosen & P. DeBach) . 50 54 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 39, part 1 (pp. 1-76), 11th March, 1982 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 (those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79(b): “(1)_ Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces): proposed suppression of both generic and specific names. Z.N.(S.) 1393. G.W. Mead. (2) Revised proposals for stabilization of the names of certain genera and species of HOLOTHURIOIDEA. Z.N.(S.) 1782. A.M. Clark & F.W.E. Rowe. (3) Thrips rufa Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera, Thripidae): proposed ruling that this is a nomenclaturally valid name for the type species of Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836. Z.N.(S.) 2067. L.A. Mound & J.M. Palmer. (4) Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 (Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2169. D. Quintero, Jr. (5S) Globigerina cerroazulensis Cole, 1928 and Globigeraspis tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2248. R.M. Stainforth, K. Sztrakos & R.M. Jeffords. (6) Diademodon tetragonus Seeley, 1894 (Reptilia, Therapsida): proposed conservation of generic and specific names. Z.N.(S.) 2249. F.E. Grine. (7) Agrotis redimicula Morrison, 1875 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation from 1874. Z.N.(S.) 2305. J.D. Lafontaine. (8) Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida): proposed designation of a type 2 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) Ula) species by use of the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2335. Q.H. Baqri. Buprestis nana Paykull. 1799, non Gmelin, 1790 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2346. M. Mroczkowski. Papilio fatima Fabricius, 1793 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): request for conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2351. G. Lamas, R.E. Silberglied & A. Aiello. Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846 (Araneae, Salticidae): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.) 2355. G.B. Edwards. Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Diptera, Simuliidae): proposed suppression of syntypes and designation of neotype. Z.N.(S.) 2364. A.J. Shelley. Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (Insecta, Diptera): request for designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2369. K.G.V. Smith & M. Chvala. Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870 (Insecta, Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2320. D. Rosen & P. DeBach. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- tions have been received since the publication of vol. 38(4) on 30 November 1981 (that marked with an asterisk involves the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b.): 1 (2) (3) (4) *(5) (6) Microgaster Latreille, 1804; Microplitis Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2397. Olpium kochi Simon, 1881 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones): proposed neotype description. Z.N.(S.) 2398. Simia_ fascicularis Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2399. Reptomultisparsa d’Orbigny, 1853 (Bryozoa, Cyclostomata): request for the designation of a type species. Z.N.(S.) 2400. Macropris Klug, 1809 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2401. Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2402. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 3 (7) Valanginites Sayn, 1910 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): proposed clarification of author- ship and type species. Z.N.(S.) 2403. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS OBITUARY Eugene Eisenmann, ornithologist, conservationist and Doctor of Jurisprudence (Harvard Law School) died in New York, where he had lived all his life, at the age of 75 in October, 1981. He was a member of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature from 1968 to 1979, a post for which his legal training and self-acquired mastery of the biological as well as the more strictly nomenclatural side of the naming and classification of animals made him a valuable member. He was also Chairman of the Standing Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of the American Ornithologists’ Union and Chairman of the Standing Committee on Nomenclature of the International Ornithological Congress. He combined a keen and incisive mind with a willingness always to see both sides of a question. Personally, Gene Eisenmann was a warm, high spirited individual with broad cultural interests. He was fortunate enough to be able to give up his successful practice of law some two decades or more ago, and devote himself full time to ornithology with headquarters at the American Museum of Natural History, where he was a Research Associate. Born in Panama, Eisenmann returned to that country regularly for field work, and became a leading authority on the birds of tropical America. He will be greatly missed. D. AMADON Curator Emeritus American Museum of Natural History 4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE APPEAL FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT As reported in recent issues of the Bulletin, the Trust continues to appeal for help to all who find the work of the Commission useful, whether as individuals or as members of organisations and institutions. All donations will be gratefully received. Since those notified in the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 38, part 4) we acknowledge with grateful thanks donations from: Academia Sinica, Taiwan; The Moorgate Trust; Sir Charles Fleming, FRS (Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand); Dr K.F. Koopman (American Museum of Natural History, New York); The Lesley-David Trust; Professor T.R.E. Southwood (Oxford University); the Entomological Society of New Zealand; CSIRO (Canberra, Australia) per Professor Owain Richards; Professor Owain Richards (covenanted gift); Sir Eric Smith, FRS (covenanted gift). A larger-scale appeal is now being organised, with the aim of placing the Trust’s office and the Commission’s secretariat on a permanent and realistic financial basis. It is estimated that £70,000 is needed each year to carry out the Commission’s basic duties — namely, to deal with the many applications for formal rulings and the numerous enquiries on nomenclature that come in each year. As regular readers of the Bulletin will realise, applications for rulings mostly need correspondence and careful preparation before they can be published, and once published each case is open to comment by interested zoologists before the Commission can take a vote and record its decision. Because of its quasi-legal character all this work is complicated and time-consuming. The Trust is happy to report that 32 distinguished zoologists and other scientists have kindly lent us their support by acting as Patrons of this Appeal. They come from many parts of the world, including Denmark, New Zealand, Australia, Kenya, the USSR, the USA, as well as from the UK. The President of the Appeals is the RT. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, FLS, FZS. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature February 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 5 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF CHUANGIA WALCOTT, 1911 (TRILOBITA). Z.N.(S.)635 (see vol. 37, pp. 62-64) By W.T. Chang (Nanking Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Academia Sinica, Chi-Ming-Ssu, Nanjing, China) and P.A. Jell (National Museum of Victoria, 285-321 Russell St, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, Australia) In making their proposal to conserve the generic name Chuangia Walcott, 1911 as used at present, with Ptychoparia? batia Walcott, 1905 as type species, Lochman-Balk & Stubblefield overlooked an earlier lectotype designation for that species. In 1911 Walcott (Smithson. misc. Colls. vol. 57 (4), p. 104, explanation of plate 15, fig. 3) designated as lectotype of Chuangia batia the incomplete cranidium USNM 57606. This specimen is available in the U.S. National Museum of Natural History and is considerably less complete than when it was figured by Walcott. We shall refigure this specimen in a forthcoming review of this genus. It is almost completely exfoliated and in this state gives the impression of having a brim between the glabella and the anterior border. It led Opik, 1967 (Bull. Bur. min. Res. Geol. Geophys. Australia, vol. 74, pp. 257, 258) to separate Chuangia Walcott based on a species with this specimen as type from a ‘Chuangia tawenkouensis group’. As in Opik’s interpretation, study of the types led us to believe that C. batia was unique in possessing a brim. On the basis of Lochman-Balk & Stubblefield’s proposal, the name Chuangia would be restricted to this one cranidium and all other species of Chuangia would belong to Opik’s ‘Chuangia tawenkouensis group’ and would demand a new generic name. This would defeat the proposal to retain the name Chuangia. However, we have recently collected a number of almost complete cranidia of Chuangia batia from Jiulung-shan and collections of topotype material in the Nanking Institute of Geology and Palaeontology are also available. These collections lead us to the conclusion that the brim on the lectotype of Chuangia batia is an artefact of exfoliation, as the exoskeleton is very thick and whereas a furrow is visible externally, a flat brim may be inferred on the internal mould. We therefore consider that the proposal of Lochman-Balk & Stubblefield would preserve the name Chuangia in the desired way provided the type is supported by the recent collections. Indeed, the lectotype specimen is quite unsatisfactory. From the recent collections it has also become apparent that Schantungia buchruckeri Lorenz, 1906 (Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. vol. 58 (1), p. 93, not p. 79 as suggested by Lochman-Balk & Stubblefield) and Chuangia nitida are represented by specimens that are juvenile individuals (less than half the size) of Chuangia batia and are subjective junior synonyms. Chuangia tawenkouensis is also considered a subjective junior synonym of C. batia. We point out the unsatisfactory nature of the lectotype of C. batia, but nevertheless, in view of the accessory material now available and better understanding of C. batia, we endorse the proposal of Lochman-Balk & Stubblefield and hope the Commission will accede to it. 6 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF RHINIODON SMITH, 1828 (PISCES) INFAVOUR OF RHINCODON SMITH, 1829 AS THE GENERIC NAME OF THE WHALE SHARK. Z.N.(S.)2090 By Alwyne Wheeler (British Museum (Natural History), London) (See vol. 32, pp. 163-167; vol. 33, pp. 4-5, 70-71; vol. 34, pp. 67-68) At the request of the Secretary to the Commission, I have examined the file on this case and offer the following advice: (1) The generic name has been spelled variously (see Robbins & Lea, 1975, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 163-167) in the nineteenth century and through to about 1948 with no clear majority for any one usage. (2) In 1948 Bigelow & Schroeder published the shark volume of the Fishes of the Western North Atlantic and accepted the spelling Rhincodon A. Smith, 1829 (Zool. J. vol. 4, p. 443) and listed the various spellings in synonymy. (3) This work was the standard reference for writers about sharks for many years. As a result, Rhincodon was used by most authors, whether critical or not, in the post-1948 period. Swift (1977, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 67-68) lists its usage in general books on sharks and fishes published since 1948 and finds eleven use the name with this spelling, three use Rhineodon and one Rhiniodon. Of these exceptions, one (Norman & Fraser, 1948) is a second edition of a book published in 1937 with no updating of nomenclature; Norman, 1966, is a publication of a manuscript completed before 1945; and Nikolskii, 1954, is the second edition of a Russian work and thus might well be expected not to follow an American work (Bigelow & Schroeder) published since the first edition. Only Compagno, 1973, uses a different name, and he was influenced by the publication of Penrith, 1972. (4) It is important to emphasize that Rhincodon was in consistent use by shark specialists and general fish taxonomists, many of whom can be assumed to have made a critical choice of this name, between 1948 and the late 1970s (dates and authors are listed by Swift, loc. cit.). (5) Unfortunately Penrith, 1972, uncovered a variant spelling of the name in an ‘obscure newspaper’ (his own term) and proposed that this be accepted as the original spelling and that the name should be stabilised as Rhiniodon, Smith, 1828 (even though the accompanying description was most inadequate). This paper was the cause of the only use of this spelling in the literature cited by Swift. (6) Hubbs et al., 1976, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 70-71, claim that Rhiniodon Smith, 1828 is the correct original spelling. Against this must be set the evidence produced by Brooke & Bass (ibid. pp. 4-5) that Smith made manuscript corrections in his own copy of the newspaper, changing Rhiniodon to Rineodon. (7) As Smith in 1849 spelled the name Rhinodon in a work over which he had editorial control (as he had not in the newspaper article cited by Penrith), it seems that he (Smith) had no clear preference for any particular spelling of the name. (8) In these circumstances I would advise that (i) the generic name Rhiniodon Smith, 1828, as published in the South African Commercial Advertiser vol. 3, no. 145, 5 November 1828, be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and (ii) the generic name Rhincodon Smith, 1829 and the specific name typus Smith, 1829, as published in the binomen Rhincodon typus, be placed on the appropriate Official Lists. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 a COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES FOR GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA) Z.N.(S.)2279 (see vol. 36, pp. 57-62, 201-202; vol. 37, p. 67; vol. 38, pp. 83-93) (1) By I.S. Barskov & A.S. Alekseev (Palaeontological Institute, Maronovskii 26, 117049 Moscow, USSR) We offer the following data about the locus typicus and stratum typicum for Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856. The locus typicus is a well-known locality described repeatedly over the last hundred years. It was first mentioned in 1844 (2). It is situated on the right bank of the Moscow river just under Dorogomilovo cemetery. In the last century this was outside the city. In the middle of the 19th century this locality was a natural riverside outcrop where horizontally lying Carboniferous deposits were exposed, overlain by Upper Jurassic clays. The outcrop was studied by Pander, 1846 (3) (German version, 1848) (4) where the Carboniferous rocks exposed at Dorogomilovo were mentioned and the typical horizon of yellow-red argillaceous marl changing into reddish and red marl was recorded. Pander handed over his samples to the Russian Geognostic Collection of the Saint Petersburg Mining Institute (now the Mining Institute in Leningrad). There is a document on the receipt of Pander’s collection (5) in the record office of the Mining Institute. It is not known whether all the samples were handed over or whether Pander kept some at his disposal. In the Museum catalogue, the following samples are included: N 53 — Ferruginous clay forming lenses in marl beds on the Moscow river bank (at the Dorogomilovo cemetery near Dorogomilovo village near Moscow) N 54 — Ferruginous clay. This clay ... (words illegible) ... is used by house painters instead of ordinary iron ochre. It is from the same locality N 55 — the same N 56 — marl from the same locality N 57 — limestone from the same locality To our regret we could not find these samples in the Museum collection. There is no doubt that the specimens of G. mosquensis were extracted from the clay (samples 53-55) or the marl (sample 56). It was Pander himself who pointed out the occurrence of conodonts in red marl (6, pp. 8, 33). Pander’s contemporaries confirmed that conodonts and other microfossils could be extracted by washing (7,8). Lane & Ziegler’s assumption (1, p. 58) that Pander studied specimens of G. mosquensis embedded in rock and visible only from one side is not correct. Later, at the end of the 19th century, there were quarries on that outcrop and further upstream. From 1900 all descriptions of the section were based on the exposures in those quarries, which exposed limestone beds overlapping red marls and clays. From the 1950s the locus typicus disappeared owing to the reconstruction of the Moscow river embankment and housing development, but its geographical and stratigraphical position had been accurately determined. It was studied several times (9-15). The most complete and most recent description is given in (16). Beds 11 and 12 (in the numbered composite section of the Dorogomilovo Horizon which includes the section near Dorogomilovo) are the 8 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 marker horizon (red dolomitized clay with red clay at the top) about 4.5 m thick. Pander extracted conodonts from that marker horizon, which is underlain by white and yellow limestones (beds 9-10) and overlapped by dolomitised limestone (beds 13-15). According to the present stratigraphical scheme, the lower limestones can be assigned to the Perkhurovo unit of the Dorogomilovo Horizon, the red marls (beds 11-12) to the Metshera unit of the same horizon, and the overlapping dolomitised limestones (beds 13-15) to the Izmajlovo units of the Jauza Horizon of the Kasimovian stage of the Upper Carboniferous. We studied conodonts from two samples of red marl from the Dorogomilovo locality. One we received from the Palaeontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR and the other from the Geological Museum of the Moscow Geological Prospecting Institute. The following platform conodonts were obtained: Gondolella sublanceolata Gunnell, Streptognathodus ex gr. simulator Ellison, S. firmus Kozitskaya juv., Idiognathodus toretzianus Kozitskaya, I. sp. indet. and ramiform elements. Nevertheless, the material available cannot help us to make a certain choice of a neotype for G. mosquensis. In the spring we hope to get additional material from wells that will be drilled near the locus typicus. A neotype for Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, 1856 which meets the necessary requirements will be submitted for the Commission’s consideration. We cannot express an opinion on all the points in Lane & Ziegler’s proposal, but we have received new information about part of Pander’s collection that was thought to be lost (18). After Pander’s death (1865) his palaeontological collection passed into the hands of P.P. Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky who placed it at V_I. Moller’s disposal (19). From 1867 Médller was an assistant and from 1873 a Professor in the Palaeontological Department of the Mining Institute in St. Petersburg. Pander’s collections of Ordovician invertebrates from the Baltic region and the Devonian fishes described in 1857, 1858 and 1860 are kept in the Mining Museum of this Institute (collections NN 86-88). Alekseev examined these collections in January 1981 and found that the conodonts, the small fish teeth and the thin sections of them were lacking. The conodonts were probably kept in test tubes or as slide preparations apart from the macrofossils and their fate is not known. REFERENCES I. Lane H.R., Ziegler W. Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed designation of a type species under the plenary powers, Z.N. (S.) 2279. "Bull. Zool. Nomencl.,". v.36, pt.I, 1979, 57-62. 2. Rouillier C, Naturhistorische notiz ueber die Umgegend von Moskau. "Bull. Soc. natur, Moscou", 1844, v.17, n.3, 625-635. : 3. Tlannep X. Oruer B TeOrHOCTHYeCKHX MCCIeENOBAHMAX, ee @HHHX KOJWICEKCKAM COBCTHHKOM JlaHnepom seTom 1845 roma no aunum C.lletrep6ypro—MockoBcko# xene3HOK Boporu A B HeEKOTO- pyex yesyax RaanumupcKol wu Karyxcko# rydepyui. "TopHit xypHan", 1846, uacts IY, KH.I0, I-86. Sy 9. 10. IT. I2% I3. 14, I5. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 9 Pander Ch. Geognostische Untersuchungen l&ngs der Peters- burg-Moskauer Eisenbahnlinie und einigen Kreisen der 8 Gouvernements Wladimir und Kaluga, “Archiv flr wissenschaft liche Kunde von Russland", I848, Bd 6, * 250-306. B pycckoe reorHocTuyeckoe co6panve. 1846 roa man 6. # II98,. OkameHesocTa, coOpanHHe r. Komniemckum CoBeTHAKOM Tlannepom B 1845 r. B ryGepHHAx MockoBcKoli, TBepcKoi, Hopropoycko#, C-llerep6yprckof 4 yacTun BO BranAMApcKo# nw Kanymcxow. / Apxus TopHoro mys3ea, weno # 312, AMCTH He HYMepoORaHH/. Pander Ch.H. Monographie der fossilen Fische des siluri- schen Systems der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements, 1856, I-91. PomanoscKoit T.J]. UccneqobaHwe HWKHeErO Apyca WRHOM yACTH TloMMOCKOBHOrO KAMEHHOYTOJbHOTO OOpasoBaHAA. "TopHytt xypHan", 1854, yactb III, KH.9, 305-351. Texxep P.®. A.I].Kapnanckmfi a a3yueHme MpodlemaTHuHHX oKaMeHesocTei. "Boi. Mock. 0-Ba MCD. NpapogH", orl. reon., 1949, 7.24, Bun.2, IOI-III. Pymbe K.®. 0 maBoTHHx MockoBcKow ryGepHum. M., 1845, I-96. Trautschold H, Zeiche der Permischen Zeit im Gouverne- ment Moskau. "BulJ, Soc. natur. Moscou", 1862, t.35, n.3, 222-228, TpayTwomby I. Wro-SanagHan yacTb MockoBcKoH ryGepHHn. KommMeutTapva Ha ChelmalbHyO TeouOrMyeCcKyW KapTy 3TOKM yacTA Poccuu. “Matepnamn yaa reon. Poccuu”", 1870, T.2, 211-266. HuxutTuy C.H. Onan reonormyeckan kapTa Poccum. Juct 57-of. Mockpa, Kopyena, Wpbesn, Boposck, Eropbenck. "Tpymy Teon. KoM.,” 1890, T.Y, # I, I-302. Boromn6os H. Teonormueckne HadinpeHuA Onu3s JloporomH0B— CKOH 3acTtaBH. "Bull. Soc. natur. Moscou", 1I899(1900), n.4, 450-454, Nanpnop A.Il. Teonormueckni owepk oKpecTHocTeli MockBy. M., 1907, I-82. Jlo6pommoéona T.A. Crparurpauyeckoe paciipeeieHHe A 9BONN— IMA KOPALIOB Rugosa cpesHero A BepxHero KapdoHa TlonmockoBHoro GacceitHa. Tp. IIMH AH CCCP, I94I, T.IX, 4, mg I-72. 10 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 I6. Mpanopa E.A., XBopopa U.B. Crparmrpapaa cpenHero xu BepxHero KapO6oHa 3alanHo yactu MockoBckoK CHHeKIM3H. . "Tp. IIMH AH CCCP", 1955, 17.53. I7. Maxnmua M.X., Kyaukopa A.M., HukuTuua H.A. Crpoenne, OuocTpaTurpapMA HM ManeoreorpajmA BepxHero KapooHa MockoBckKo cHHeKIM3H. B KH.: CTpaTurpadua, NaleoHTONOrTAA M NaneoreorpapHA Kapdova MockoBCKOM CHHeKIASH. M., 1979, 25-69. I8. Cepreesa C.J]. 0 moncKax op”TMHaNOB uM COopax ToNOTHNOB KOHONOHTOB X.I'.Mannepa. "Ilaneout. c6.," 1975, #I2,122-126. I9. Mémnep B. Volborthia , HOBHM pon ACKONaemMHX DIeveHOrm MOJLINCKOB.' "HayyHO-ACTOpPAYeCKAA COOpHAK, M37 aHHHi TopHyM MHCTHTYTOM KO JHD ero cToseTHero nomen", CII6, 1873, 35-41. (2) By H.R. Lane & W. Ziegler We are pleased that Dr. Barskov and Dr. Alekseev have provided new information on the stratum typicum of Gnathodus mosquensis Pander, as well as new information concerning Pander’s original samples and the disposal of his conodont collection after his death. We acknowledge the great amount of effort expended by our Soviet colleagues in assembling this information. However, we must persist in our request for the Commission to use its plenary powers to set aside G. mosquensis as the type species of Gnathodus and establish in its place the next younger named species conforming to the traditional generic concept, Gnathodus texanus Roundy, as the new type species. We propose this because: (1) The statement by Pander that the type collection came from the Mountain Limestone (Bergkalk) has been interpreted by most, if not all subsequent conodont specialists, to indicate that the type horizon is Lower Carboniferous in age. For example, to our knowledge, all subsequent attempts at identification of the species (Hinde, 1900; Cooper, 1939; Rexroad & Scott, 1974) have used specimens from the Lower Carboniferous. (2) A large number (80 or more) of species assigned to the genus and a number of Lower Carboniferous biostratigraphic zones based on occurrences of species assigned to Gnathodus are entrenched in the literature. A neotype designated from the Dorogomilov Horizon of the Upper Carboniferous Kasimovian Stage would be younger than any other species assigned to the genus in its traditional sense, and would force conodont specialists to use a different generic name for the Lower Carboniferous species. This would create nomenclatural chaos out of an 80-year old stable usage of the generic concept. Even if our Soviet colleagues do propose a neotype from future collections that they believe to be topotypic, we stress that this would not help in stabilizing the nomenclature of Gnathodus as it is currently used. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 11 (3) By Glen K. Merrill (College of Charleston, South Carolina 29424, U.S.A.) It is obvious that our colleagues in Moscow have done a superb job of detective work in establishing many facts about the geographical, geological and curatorial circumstances regarding Pander’s material, but unless they are able to achieve the (nearly) impossible task of actually finding the original type(s) in the near future, I would continue to urge the Commission to adopt the reasoning of Lane & Ziegler in designating a different type species for Gnathodus. Even granting that Barskov & Alekseev are correct about the geological age of Pander’s material, we still cannot determine what the original specimens were like. This part of the Upper Carboniferous sequence contains an abundance of members of the Idiognathodus-Streptognathodus plexus. The conodont faunas of this age (early Missourian-Stephanian-Kazimovian) contain some of the greatest morphological diversity and least taxonomic stability of any in the Carboniferous; on the other hand, the taxonomy of Gnathodus interpreted as a Lower Carboniferous genus has been stable for at least half a century. To select a member of the [diognathodus- Streptognathodus plexus as the type species of Gnathodus would only add to the taxonomic instability of the Upper Carboniferous forms and would destabilize the half-century old stability among the Lower Carboniferous forms. The degree of taxonomic uncertainty in the Upper Carboniferous forms is underlined by the diametrically opposed positions of workers who lump the two genera of the plexus into a single genus (/diognathodus) with two or three species, and others who recognise both genera and dozens (potentially more than a hundred) of species. Our Soviet colleagues show some tendency toward the latter position in identifying some specimens as belonging to recently proposed species whose names are quite likely to be junior synonyms. In this struggle between priority and stability I should only support the former if it can be established unequivocally. Barskov & Alekseev admit that this cannot be done: the fact that Pander’s specimens represent one or more among several species (and two genera under common modern interpretations) destroys any hope of a valid objective re-establishment of Pander’s concept in the absence of his types. We should therefore pursue stability although we know that this entails a difference or a change from his original concept. As taxonomists we are bound to follow any ruling of the Commission. Discovery of Pander’s original material, if it could be certainly identified as such, would clearly take precedence in any deliberation. Otherwise, a ruling under the plenary powers in accordance with the Lane & Ziegler proposal will, I submit, cause less harm than the adoption of the Barskov & Alekseev proposal. The Commission should act expeditiously, however, because a substantial amount of literature is appearing that bears the polarized opinions of the two schools of thought, and this is not healthy for international stability of nomenclature or understanding. (4) Note by the Secretary In view of the importance of the stratigraphical factors invoked in this case, I thought it might be helpful to the members of the Commission to have a clear and authoritative statement of the stratigraphical relationships between the horizons in North America from which species assigned to Gnathodus come and the Russian 12 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 U.S.A. U.S.S.R. W. EUROPE Kungarian Artinskian Sakmarian Wolfcampian : Asselian Des Moinesian Moscovian Atokan Morrowan Serpukhovia Chesterian Meramecian Osagean : : Tournaisian Kinderhookian Leonardian Lower Permian les Stephanian C Stephanian B Stephanian A Upper Carboniferous Cantabrian Westphalian D Westphalian C Westphalian B Westphalian A G1 Yeadonian R2 Marsdenian Pennsylvanian Upper Carboniferous R1 Kinderscoutian Alportian Chokierian ~n = S) 4 ee) =| Z fe) [oa] pe < iS) Arnsbergian Pendleian Brigantian Asbian Holkerian Mississippian Lower Carboniferous Lower Carboniferous Hastarian Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 13 horizons mentioned by Dr. Barskov and Dr. Alekseev. I therefore asked Dr. W.H.C. Ramsbottom (/nstitute of Geological Sciences, Leeds, U.K.) to prepare such a statement in his capacity as Chairman of the Subcommission on Carboniferous Stratigraphy of the International Union of Geological Sciences. He kindly provided the accompanying tables. These will allow members of the Commission to consult geological colleagues on the extent of the stratigraphical interval between the two interpretations of the genus; it is indeed a very considerable one. formations Burlington S 3 Fern Glen Inset 1. Formations of the g Kinderhookian s Chouteau oO = | Hannibal 2) Glen Park horizons Yauzsky Fe S Dorogomilovsky 2. ‘Horizons’ (i.e. z formations) of the ra Khamovnichesky Kasimovian iw Krevyakinsky COMMENT ON PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF CHRYSOLINA MOTSCHULSKY, 1860 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.)2291 (see vol. 37, pp. 57-61) By J.R. Vockeroth & L. LeSage (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa K1A 0C6) Dr. H. Silfverberg has applied for the conservation of the generic name Chrysolina Motschulsky, 1860, and has requested that it be given nomenclatural precedence over Atechna Chevrolat, 1837. We do not object to such a ruling should it be necessary as a result of present taxonomic placement of the type species of these two genera. We wish, however, to draw attention to two designations of type species which predate those cited by Silfverberg in his application. 14 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Silfverberg wrote: “Atechna was used again a few years later by Duponchel & Chevrolat (in d’Orbigny, 1842, p. 282). As far as I know, no type species has been designated’. However, Chevrolat, 1843, p. 656, wrote ‘Atechna Ch. (élytres semi- globuleuses 4 épipleures tronqués obliquement); type, Chry. 14-guttata Fab., cap de Bonne-Espérance’. We accept this as a valid designation of Chrysomela quatuordecimguttata Fabricius, 1798, as type species of Atechna. Two subsequent designations of type species of Atechna are therefore invalid. They are: (1) Chrysomela striata Fabricius, 1781, by Monros & Bechyné, 1956, p. 1131; (2) Chrysomela vulpina Fabricius, 1781, by Silfverberg, 1980, p. 59. Chevrolat, 1843, p. 656, wrote: ‘Oreina Ch. (Chrysochloa Hope); type Chry. speciosa Fab., Alpes frangaises’. We accept this as a valid designation of Chrysomela speciosa Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 588, as type species of Oreina Chevrolat, 1837, in Dejean, Catal. Coleopt., ed. 2, p. 402. Therefore the designation of Chrysomela tristis Fabricius, 1792, as type species of Oreina by Motschulsky, 1860, p. 202 (accepted by Silfverberg, 1980, p. 58) is invalid. We are not sufficiently familiar with the taxonomy of the type species of the several nominal genera mentioned in Silfverberg’s application to be able to determine whether Atechna should be considered a senior synonym of Chrysolina or whether the application should be modified or withdrawn. This can probably only be determined by someone familiar with the Palaearctic and Afrotropical species of these genera. REFERENCES CHEVROLAT, L.A.A., 1843. Chrysomélines, in C. d’Orbigny, Dict. univ. Hist. nat. vol. 3, pp. 654-657 MONROS, F. & BECHYNE, J., 1956 Entomol Arb. Mus. Georg Frey, vol. 7, pp. 1118-1137 MOTSCHULSKY, V. de, 1860. Schrenk’s Reisen und Forschungen im Amur- Lande, vol. 2(2), pp. 79-258 SILFVERBERG, H., 1980. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 57-61 [In reply to this comment, Dr. Silfverberg observed that he accepted its correctness but that it does not make any essential difference to his application. He notes that Chrysomela quatuordecimguttata Fabricius is listed as a synonym of Chrysomela duodecimguttata Thunberg, 1787, Mus. Nat. Acad. Upsaliensis, part 4, p. 44. It is therefore the latter name that should be placed on the Official List as the valid name of the type species of Atechna. | Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 15 OPINION 1199 PAPIO ERXLEBEN, 1777, AND MANDRILLUS RITGEN, 1824 sere PRIMATES): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers (a) the generic name Papio P.L.S. Miller, 1773 and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Papio Erxleben, 1777, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy: (b) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Papio Erxleben, 1777, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cynocephalus papio Desmarest, 1820 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) the following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Papio Erxleben, 1777 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Cynocephalus papio Desmarest, 1820 (Name Number 2140); (b) Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Allen, 1939, Simia sphinx Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2141). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) papio Desmarest, 1820, as published in the binomen Cynocephalus papio (specific name of type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) oT70); of Papio Erxleben, 1777)(Name Number 2776); (b) sphinx Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Simia sphinx, as defined by the neotype designated by Napier & Delson, 1976 (specific name of type —o of Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824) (Name Number 2777). (4) The generic name Papio P.L.S. Miiller, 1773, and all uses prior to the publication of Papio Erxleben, 1777, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2121. 16 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2093 An enquiry as to the best means of fixing Papio as the generic name for the savannah baboons, and Mandrillus as the generic name of the mandrills was first received from Mrs. P.H. Napier (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 29 April 1974. While an application was being prepared on the basis of this enquiry, an independent application seeking the same end by a different route was received from Dr. Eric Delson (City University of New York) on 23 October 1974. A joint application by both authors was eventually sent to the printer on 27 January 1976 and published on 26 June 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 46-53. 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 six general and two mammalogical serials. The applicants offered two alternative courses of action to the Commission. Of these, Alternative A received no support; Alternative B was supported by Dr. R. Meester and Dr. Reay H.N. Smithers (vol. 33, pp. 149-150) and by Dr. Colin Grubb (vol. 34, pp. 5-6); by nine primatologists listed in vol. 34, p. 6; and by Dr. John G. Fleagle (State University of New York, Stony Brook, N.Y.), Professor B.A. Lupin (Academy of Sciences, Sukhumi, USSR), Dr. Gary T. Moore (for the scientific staff, Southwestern Federation for Research and Education, San Antonio, Texas), Dr. O. Ray Kling (University of Oklahoma), Dr. P. Andrews (British Museum (Natural History), London), Drs. Stuart and Jeanne Altmann (University of Chicago), Drs. William J. Hamilton, Thelma Rowell, Robert Byles and Shirley Strum (of University of California, Davis, Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego), Dr. Craig Packer (University of Sussex, England), Drs. Kathlyn L. Rasmussen and Robin Dunbar (University of Cambridge), Dr. Hans Kummer (University of Zurich), Dr. Umeyo Mori (Kyoto University), Drs. Robert Seyfarth and Dorothy Cheney (Rockefeller University, New York), Drs. Joseph L. Popp and Irven DeVore (Harvard University), Dr. Hans Sigg (CIBA-GEIGY, Basel, Switzerland), Dr. Glen Hausfater (Cornell University), Dr. Montague Demment ( University of Wisconsin) and Dr. Thomas Oliver (Northwestern University). The proposals in Alternative B were criticised on technical grounds by Dr. L.B. Holthuis (vol. 33, p. 148) and were modified accordingly by the applicants (vol. 33, p. 149). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 17 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)35 either for Alternative A as set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 52, or for Alternative B as there set out and modified in vol. 33, p. 149. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 the state of the voting was as follows: For Alternative A — none (0) For Alternative B — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Heppell, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Brinck, Ride, Lehtinen, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Bernardi, Nye, Sabrosky Vokes and Halvorsen were on leave of absence. Dupuis abstained. No voting paper was returned by Kraus. Dupuis commented: ‘Je souhaite m’abstenir pour les raisons suivantes: (1) Une décision préalable — que je demande expressément — sur les noms de Mammiféres de Brisson, 1758 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 47) aurait été nécessaire; (2) la nomenclature des taxa anciens de Mammiféres (et d’Oiseaux) est si compliquée, juridiquement (= nomenclatorialement) et taxinomiquement, qu’elle me parait difficile 4 trancher de maniére vraiment compétente et satisfaisante par une commission ou il y a trés peu de mammalogistes; je redoute en fait des votes de résignation (on suit les requérants) ou aléatoires (on joue la réponse aux dés); (3) il aurait été souhaitable qu’un plus grand nombre de mammalogistes de langue allemande, francaise, néerlandaise, etc. donnent leur avis (ou qu’on le leur demande); (4) les votes avec propositions alternatives sont dangereux, en raison (a) des hésitations dont ils témoignent de la part des requérants eux- mémes, (b) des risques de confusions qu’ils comportent sur le sens des votes émis.’ 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: Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824, Nat. Entheil. Saiigethiere, p. 33 Papio Erxleben, 1777, Syst. regni anim., vol. 1, p. 15 Papio P.L.S. Miiller, 1773, Vollst. Natursystem, p. 118 papio, Cynocephalus, Desmarest, 1820, Encycl. méth., Mammiféres, vol. 1, p. 69 sphinx, Simia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 25. 18 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)35 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in Alternative B of that voting paper have 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. 1199. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 April 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 19 OPINION 1200 GENYPTERUS PHILIPPI, 1857 (PISCES, OPHIDIIDAE): CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name Xiphiurus Smith, 1847, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) The generic name Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Genypterus nigricans Philippi, 1857, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2142; (3) The specific name chilensis Guichenot, 1849, as published in the binomen Conger chilensis (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, for the type species of Genypterus Philippi, 1857) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2778; (4) The generic name Xiphiurus Smith, 1847, 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 2122. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2126 An application for the conservation of the generic name Genypterus Philippi, 1857, was first received from Dr. C.R. Robins and Dr. R.N. Lea (University of Miami) on 29 May 1975. It was sent to the printer on 9 June 1976 and published on 30 September 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 90-92. 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 nine general serials and one ichthyological serial. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)37 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 91-92. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Willink, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Heppell, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Ride, Lehtinen, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Bernardi, Nye, Sabrosky Negative Vote — Dupuis 20 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Vokes and Halvorsen were on leave of absence. No voting paper was returned by Kraus. Bayer commented: ‘Vote contingent upon conditional suppression. As Genypterus is a junior subjective synonym of Xiphiurus, the former should be given nomenclatural precedence by anyone who considers the two names synonymous. As the applicants state that Genypterus is in need of revision, there is a possibility, however remote, that the type species of the two genera may some day prove not to be congeneric. 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: chilensis, Conger, Guichenot, 1849, in Gay, Hist. fis. polit. Chile, Zoologia vol. 2, p. 339 Genypterus Philippi, 1857, Arch. Naturges., Jahrg. 23(1), p. 268 Xiphiurus Smith, 1847, Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa, Pisces, pl. Xxxi. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)37 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 1200. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 April 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 21 OPINION 1201 ELAPIDAE BOIE, 1827 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES): RULING TO STABILIZE NOMENCLATURE OF TAXA IN THIS FAMILY (AND OTHERS) RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Elaps Schneider, 1801, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as type species of that genus; all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Hydrophis Latreille, 1801, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Hydrus fasciatus Schneider, 1801, is hereby designated as type species of that genus; the generic name Elaps Schneider, 1801, as interpreted under the plenary powers in (a) above, is not to be used to displace the generic name Micrurus Wagler, 1824 by any zoologist who considers both names to denote one genus; the family-group name BUNGARIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (as ‘Bungaroidea’) is not to have priority over the family-group names ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 and HYDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, or either of them, whenever they are regarded as synonyms; the family-group name URIECHINAE Cope, 1893 is not to have priority over the family-group name APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968, whenever they are regarded as synonyms. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) (b) Elaps Schneider, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Coluber lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2143); Micrurus Wagler, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Micrurus spixii Wagler, 1824, with a direction that it is to be given precedence over Elaps Schneider, 1801, by any zoologist who believes the _ names to denote one genus (Name Number 2144); Homoroselaps Jan, 1858 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Coluber hygeiae Shaw, 1802 22 (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 (Name Number 2145); Hydrophis Latreille, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Hydrus fasciatus Schneider, 1799 (Name Number 2146); Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Aparallactus capensis A. Smith, 1849 (Name Number 2147); Coluber Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Fitzinger, 1843, Coluber constrictor Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2148); Bungarus Daudin, 1803 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent monotypy, Bungarus annularis Daudin, 1803 (Name Number 2149); Uriechis Peters, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Uriechis lunulatus Peters, 1854 (Name Number 2150). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) lemniscatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber lemniscatus (specific name of type Poy, of Elaps Schneider, 1801) (Name Number 2779); spixii Wagler, 1824, as published in the binomen Micrurus spixii (specific name of type species of Micrurus Wagler, 1824) (Name Number 2780); lacteus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber lacteus (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, for the type species of Homoroselaps Jan, 1858) (Name Number 2781); fasciatus Schneider, 1799, as published in the binomen Hydrus fasciatus (specific name of type species of Hydrophis Latreille, 1801) (Name Number 2782); capensis A. Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Aparallactus capensis (specific name of type species of Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849) (Name Number 2783); constrictor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coluber constrictor (specific name of type species of Coluber Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Number 2784); fasciata Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen (h) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 23 Pseudoboa fasciata (the valid name, at the time of this ruling, for the type species of Bungarus Daudin, 1803) (Name Number 2785); lunulatus Peters, 1854, as published in the binomen Uriechis lunulatus (specific name of type species of Uriechis Peters, 1854) (Name Number 2786). (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 (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 (type genus Elaps Schneider, 1801), given precedence under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above whenever the two nMames are regarded as synonyms over Hes yee te Fitzinger, 1826 (Name Number 518); HYDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus Hydrophis Latreille, 1801), given precedence under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above’ over BUNGARIDAE Fitzinger, 1826, whenever the two are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 519); BUNGARIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Bungarus Daudin, 1803), ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above not to have priority over either ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 or HYDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, whenever they are considered as synonyms of it (Name Number 520); COLUBRIDAR Oppel, 1811 (type genus Coluber Linnaeus, 1758) (Name Number 521); URIECHINAE Cope, 1893 (type genus Uriechis Peters, 1854), ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(e) above not to have priority over APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 522); APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968 (type genus Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849) ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(e) above to have precedence over URIECHINAE Cope, 1893 whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 523). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2128 An application for the stabilization of names in the family ELAPIDAE was first received from Professor Hobart M. Smith and 24 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Mrs. Rozella B. Smith on 4 March 1975. The complexities of the case gave rise to prolonged correspondence, but an application was eventually sent to the printer on 13 February 1976 and published on 30 September 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 73-84. 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 six general serials and two herpetological serials. The application was supported by Dr. R.S. Funk and Professor Lauren E. Brown (vol. 34, p. 8), and by Dr. G.L. Underwood and Dr. A. Stimson (vol. 36, pp. 198-199) with a query on one point. This led to extensive modifications to the original proposals which were published in vol. 36, pp. 199-200. Public notice of the possible additional 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 eight general and three herpetological serials. No further comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 24 November 1980 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1980)40 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, pp. 81-83, as modified in vol. 36, pp. 199-200. At the close of the voting period on 24 February 1981 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Willink, Trjapitzin, Mroczkowski, Alvarado, Starobogatov, Habe, Corliss, Hahn, Welch, Tortonese, Dupuis, Ride, Lehtinen (in part only), Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Nye, Sabrosky, Bernardi Negative Vote — Heppell Vokes and Halvorsen were on leave of absence. No voting paper was received from Kraus. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Lehtinen: ‘For me the proposal is absurd and certainly not according to the basic principles of zoological nomenclature. It is obvious that common usage for the names of Elapid and related taxa is too crowded with errors and inconsistencies to be stabilized as such according to long tradition. The conservation of ELAPIDAE as a family name seems to be important, and is best effected by fixing an appropriate type for species for Elaps Schneider, 1801. I cannot understand fixing a type species for a genus by the plenary powers if the generic name involved cannot be used as the valid name for that genus. Thus the proposed simultaneous conservation of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 25 ELAPIDAE and Micrurus is illogicai. The Commission is entitled to reach illogical decisions, but I think it would be too much for such a generic name as Micrurus. I am not a specialist in ELAPIDAE, but I would like to ask why Elaps furcatus Schneider was not proposed for designation as the type species of Elaps, if Elaps cannot be recommended for E. lemniscatus and its congeners. ‘I can support the following points of the original proposal: (1)(a-b), (2)(c-£), (3)(a-f), (4)(a-c), as well as (1)(d), (2)(g—h) and (3)(g-h) of the modified version.’ Heppell: ‘I support, of course, the general desire not to tamper with the commonly accepted interpretation of the family name ELAPIDAE. I cannot support, however, the clumsy complex of nomenclatural manipulations that has been suggested to bring this result about. If, as seems reasonable, the name ELAPIDAE is to be inviolable, the Commission could have ruled that its type genus is to be accepted not as Elaps but as Micrurus. This seems to me to be the minimum nomenclatural manoeuvre to ensure the validation of those names as requested by the applicants.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968, Publ. Univ. offic. Congo Lumumbashi, vol. 18, p. 165 Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849, Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa, Reptilia, p. 15 BUNGARIDAE Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classification der Reptilien, etc. (Wien, Hiibner), pp. 11, 32 Bungarus, Daudin, 1803, Mag. encycl., An 8, vol. 5 (20), p. 434 capensis, Aparallactus, A. Smith, 1849. Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa, p. 16 Coluber Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 216 COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811, Die Ordnungen, Familien und Gattungen der Reptilien, etc. (Munich, Lindauer), p. 217 constrictor, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1. p.Z ELAPIDAE, Boie, 1827, Isis (Oken), vol. 20(3), p. 510 Elaps Schneider, 1801, Historia amphibiorum naturalis et literariae (Jena), fasc. 2, p. 289 fasciatus, Hydrus, Schneider, 1799, Historia amphibiorum naturalis et literariae (Jena), fasc. 1, p. 240. fasciata, Pseudoboa, Schneider, 1801, Historia amphibiorum naturalis et literariae (Jena), fasc. 2, p. 283 Homoroselaps Jan, 1858, Rev. Mag. Zool., (2) vol. 10, p. 518 26 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 HYDROPHIIDAE, Fitzinger, 1843, Systema _ reptilium (Vindobonae, Braumiiller & Seidel), fasc. 1, p. 28 Hydrophis Latreille, 1801, in Sonnini & Latreille, Hist. nat. rept., etc. (Paris, Deterville), vol. 4, p. 193 lacteus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 220 lemniscatus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 224 lunulatus, Uriechis, Peters, 1854, Monatsber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Micrurus Wagler, 1824, in Spix, J.B., Serpentium brasiliensium, etc. (Munich), p. 48 spixii, Micrurus, Wagler, 1824, in Spix, J.B., Serpentium brasiliensium, etc. (Munich), p. 48 URIECHINAE Cope, 1893, Amer. Nat., p. 480 Uriechis Peters, 1854, Monatsber. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, p. 623 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(80)40 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1201. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 April 1981 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 27 LYCHNOCULUS MIRABILIS MURRAY, 1877 (PISCES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF BOTH GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.)1393 By Giles W. Mead (936 North Alpine Drive, Beverly Hills, California 90210, U.S.A.) [This paper was first published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 19, pp. 295- 296, 1962, when the interpretation of Article 23b was in doubt. In view of the lapse of time since then, it is now republished in full. R.V.M.] The applicant here requests the International Commission to suppress under their plenary powers both the generic and the specific names that form the binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, proposed by Sir John Murray (‘Manchester Lectures’ — Science Lectures Delivered in (the Hulme Town Hall) Manchester, series 9, 1877, p. 132) for the same series of benthonic fishes collected by the ‘Challenger’ which was subsequently given the generic and specific names /pnops murrayi by Dr. Albert Carl Ludwig Gotthilf Gunther en and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 5, no. 8, 1878, p. 187). 2. Of the deep-sea fishes taken by the ‘Challenger’, few attracted such immediate and general interest as a series of small fishes which bore unique structures on the head, structures presumed by some to be eyes, but by others, luminous organs. Consequently, these fishes, or more particularly the cephalic organs, received considerable attention prior to Gilinther’s preliminary diagnoses of certain ‘Challenger’ species in 1878. Most of the workers who discussed this species before Giinther’s description of Jpnops murrayi prudently avoided the use of a binominal Latin name, and Giinther’s name, Jpnops murrayi, has been used exclusively for this species since its proposal eighty years ago. 3. In 1877, Sir John Murray, during the course of a popular science lecture given in the Hulme Town Hall, Manchester, discussed this “wonderful lamp eye” fish, providing it, possibly inadvertently, with the new generic and specific names Lychnoculus mirabilis. This lecture, and the new name proposed there, were published but soon forgotten. It was not known to Ginther in 1878, although he must have known of Sir John’s interest in this fish, for he named it in Murray’s honour. According to the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (Natural History) (vol. 3, 1910, p. 1383; vol. 4, 1913, p. 1881), the first edition of these ‘Manchester Science Lectures’ is wanting in that library, although the 1883 28 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 edition (not seen) is on deposit there. Hence, it seems likely that the publication of Lychnoculus mirabilis was unknown to Giinther, and save for a footnote reference to the Manchester paper in Murray and Hjort’s ‘Depths of the Ocean’ (1912, footnote, p. 687), neither Murray’s name nor the paper in which it was published appears to have been referred to since. 4. Lychnoculus mirabilis is thus an objective senior synonym of Ipnops murrayi, the latter a binomen widely used in both popular and technical publications, a name which represents one of the world’s most remarkable vertebrate animals and part of which forms the stem of the universally used family name IPNOPIDAE. The applicant therefore requests the Commission: (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress each of the following names, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Lychnoculus Murray (Sir John), 1877; (b) the associated specific name mirabilis Murray, 1877; the two published in the combination Lychnoculus mirabilis; (2) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Jpnops Giinther (A.C.L.G.), 1878 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, /pnops murrayi Ginther, 1878; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: murrayi Giinther, 1878, as published in the combination Jpnops murrayi (type- species of Ipnops Giinther, 1878); (4) to place the family-group name IPNOPIDAE Jordan (1923, Stanford Univ. Publ. Biol. Sci. vol. 3, p. 155) (type genus Jpnops Giinther, 1878) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (5) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, suppressed under (1)(a) above; (6) to place the following specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: mirabilis Murray, 1877, as published in the combination Lychnoculus mirabilis; suppressed under (1)(b), above. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 29 REVISED PROPOSALS FOR STABILIZATION OF THE NAMES OF CERTAIN GENERA AND SPECIES OF HOLOTHURIOIDEA. Z.N.(S.)1782. By A.M. Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) and F.W.E. Rowe (Australian Museum, Sydney, N.S.W.) Following criticisms of our earlier extended proposal (Z.N.(S.)1782 of 1967) by Lemche, 1967, and the fact that stability of some of the included names was achieved by designations of type species, while the likelihood of some others making trouble in the future is acknowledged to be remote, we can now make a much restricted submission. This also omits the problem of Thyonidium and Duasmodactyla, which proved to involve even more complication of interpretation than we once thought. (1) Sporadipus Brandt, 1835, p. 46 2. This included two nominal subgenera, Colpochirota, p.46, and Acolpos, p. 46, each with a single species, respectively ualanensis Brandt, p. 46 and maculatus Brandt, p. 46. Sporadipus has been considered a synonym of Holothuria since Selenka so referred to it in 1867, p. 339. Only two subsequent uses of Sporadipus are significant, as detailed in our earlier proposal (1967, p. 98) by Semper, 1868, p. 81, and Panning, 1934, p. 65; 1935, p. 85, for groups of species within the genus Holothuria. Our action then in designating S. ualanensis Brandt as type species of Sporadipus effectively reduced both Sporadipus and Colpochirota to synonyms of Bohadschia Jaeger, 1833,p. 18. 3. Acolpos, with type species by monotypy S. (Acolpos) maculata Brandt, however, remains available. In 1867, p. 339, Selenka, as first taxonomic reviser, regarded maculatus as congeneric with Holothuria (Microthele) maculata Brandt, 1835, p. 46, and so a secondary homonym; accordingly he proposed the replacement name (p. 339) H. brandtii for Sporadipus maculatus. In 1868 Semper referred both maculatus and brandtii to the synonymy of Holothuria (now Bohadschia) marmorata Jaeger, 1833, p. 18, but Ludwig, 1881, p. 595, found from a re-examination of Brandt’s type material that maculatus is conspecific with H. arenicola Semper, 1868. It is unthinkable that the very well-known name H. arenicola should be replaced by maculatus, around which so much confusion has reigned, or the long-disused brandtii. Simultaneously, we would like to see Acolpos suppressed since it has priority over Thymiosycia Pearson, 1914, p. 171, type species (by original designation) Holothuria impatiens Forskaal, 1775, p. 121, which is closely related to and certainly consubgeneric with H. arenicola Semper. (Further 30 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 ramifications of this problem are given in Clark & Rowe, 1967, p. 99} (2) Trepang Jaeger, 1833, p. 24 4. As we explained in 1967, p. 100, H.L. Clark, 1921, p. 184, justifiably designated Holothuria edulis Lesson, 1830, p. 125, as type species of Trepang Jaeger, 1833. Since H. edulis is currently accepted as consubgeneric with Holothuria (Halodeima) atra Jaeger, 1833, p. 22, the type species of Halodeima Pearson, 1914 (by original designation) (regarded as of generic rank by Cherbonnier, e.g. in 1951, p. 399), the name Trepang could pose a threat to Halodeima. Accordingly, we request the Commission to exert its plenary powers to suppress it. In the last fifty years, the name Halodeima has been used, at the generic or subgeneric level, by the following: Heding, 1940, p. 120 Panning, 1944, p.61 Cherbonnier, 1951a, p. 399 Chang & Wu, 1963, p. 65 Rowe, 1969, p. 137 Clark & Rowe, 1971, p. 198 Liao, 1975, p. 210 Gibbs, Clark & Clark, 1976, p.138 Rowe & Doty, 1977, p.230 Pawson, 1978, p. 26 (3) Stichopus (Gymnochirota) Brandt, 1835, p. 51 5. The subgenus Gymnochirota included two nominal species, cinerascens Brandt, p. 51 and leucospilota Brandt, p. 51. S. leucospilota was designated as type species of Mertensiothuria Deichmann, 1958, p. 296, subsequently treated as a subgenus of Holothuria by Rowe, 1969, p. 148, and Clark & Rowe, 1971, p. 199, and the specific name was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in 1966 (Opinion 762). S. (Gymnochirota) cinerascens was designated by Clark & Rowe, 1967, p. 101, as type species of Gymnochirota and said to be consubgeneric with Holothuria languens Selenka, 1867, p. 335, the type species (by original designation) of the subgenus Holothuria (Semperothuria) Deichmann, 1958, p. 302. Since Brandt’s name Gymnochirota appears to have remained in obscurity since 1835 and the genus- group name Semperothuria has gained wide notice from the comprehensive revisions of Holothuria sensu lato by Deichmann, 1958 and Rowe, 1969, we repeat the request made in 1967 for the Commission to suppress the name Gymnochirota under the plenary powers. In the last 23 years the name Semperothuria has been used, at the generic or subgeneric level, by the following: Deichman, 1958, p. 302 Deichmann, 1963, p. 109 Tikasingh, 1963, p. 91 Rowe, 1969, p. 135 Tommasi, 1969, p. 5 Clark & Rowe, 1971, p. 198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 31 Gibbs, Vevers & Stoddart, Liao, 1975, p. 211 1975, p. 146 Sloan, Clark & Taylor, 1979, Rowe & Doty, 1977, p. 230 p. 123 (4) Oncinolabes Brandt, 1835, p. 48 6. Of the two species included by Brandt, fuscescens Brandt, 1835, p. 48, and mollis Brandt, 1835, p. 49, the first (fuscescens) has been designated type species of Oncinolabes by Clark & Rowe, 1967, p. 103. This action effectively reduces Oncinolabes to the synonymy of Synapta Eschscholtz, 1829. However, the second species (mollis), for which no type material remains extant, has been considered by Ludwig, 1881, p. 577, to be conspecific with Synapta glabra Semper, 1868, which is congeneric with Opheodesoma spectabilis Fisher, 1907, the type species of Opheodesoma. It is desirable that mollis be suppressed in order not to invalidate the better-known name Opheodesoma_ glabra (Semper, 1868). In the last fifty-two years the name glabra has been used, in combination with Opheodesoma (or Synapta) by the following: Heding, 1928, p. 123 H.L. Clark, 1946, p. 448 Domantay, 1957, p. 450 Domantay, 1969, p. 78 Clark & Rowe, 1971, p. 184 Domantay, 1972, p. 42 (5) Holothuria (Microthele) aethiops Brandt, 1835, p. 55 7. According to Ludwig, 1881, p. 597, the type material of this nominal species is lost. Nevertheless, he regards it as conspecific with Holothuria pulla Selenka, 1867, p. 326 (referred, e.g. by Rowe, 1969, p. 138, to the subgenus Halodeima). The name pulla is in current use though threatened if aethiops is not suppressed. In the last fifty years the name pulla has been used, in combination with Holothuria or Halodeima, by the following: Panning, 1934, p. 34 Domantay, 1936, p. 398 Cherbonnier, 1951b, p. 16 Domantay, 1953, p. 135 Domantay, 1954, p. 347 Domantay, 1957, p. 433 Rowe, 1969, p. 138 Clark & Rowe, 1971, p. 176 Daniel & Halder, 1976, p.423 Santiago, 1979, p. 94 (6) Holothuria glaberrima Risso, 1826, p. 289 8. This was among the names listed in Théel’s Challenger report, 1886, p. 240, as being “very incompletely known and in need of re-examination”. The name is a senior primary’ homonym of the widely used Holothuria (Selenkothuria) glaberrima Selenka, 1867, p. 328, which can only be preserved by use of the plenary powers. In the last fifty years, the name glaberrima has been used for Selenka’s species, in combination with Holothuria or Selenkothuria, by the following: 32 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Deichmann, 1930, p. 69 H.L. Clark, 1933, p. 104 Panning, 1934, p. 47 Fontaine, 1953, p.30 Deichmann, 1954, p. 391 Deichmann, 1957, p. 12 Tikasingh, 1963, p. 89 Deichmann, 1963, p. 107 Rowe, 1969, p. 135 Bakus, 1973, p. 346 The International Commission is therefore requested: (1) touse its plenary powers: (a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following generic names: (i) Acolpos Brandt, 1835 (subgenus of Sporadipus); (ii) Trepang Jaeger, 1833; (iii) Gymnochirota Brandt, 1835 (subgenus of Stichopus); and the following specific names: (iv) brandtii Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria brandtit; (v) mollis Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Oncinolabes mollis; (vi) aethiops Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Holothuria aethiops; (b) to suppress for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy the specific name glaberrima Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Holothuria glaberrima. (2) to place the names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the appropriate Official Indexes of Re- jected and Invalid Names in Zoology. (3) toplace on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Stichopus Brandt, 1835 (p. 50) (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by H.L. Clark, 1922, Stichopus chloronotos Brandt, 1835. (4) to place the following specific names on the Official List ~~ of Specific Names in Zoology: (i) chloronotos Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Stichopus chloronotos (specific name of type species of Stichopus Brandt, 1835); (ii) glabra Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Synapta glabra. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 33 REFERENCES OPINION 762. 1966. Suppression under the plenary powers of seven specific names of Holothurioidea. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23(1), pp. 15-18. BAKUS, G.J. 1973. The biology and ecology of tropical holothurians. /n: Jones, O.A. & Endean, R. [Eds] Biology and geology of coral reefs. Vol. 2. Biology 1, pp. 325-367. New York & London. BRANDT, J.F. 1835. Prodromus descriptionis animalium ab H. Mertensio in orbis terrarum circumnavigatione observatorum. Vol. 5(1), pp. 1-77. Petropoli (Echinodermata on pp. 42-77). CHANG, F-Y. & WU, B-L. 1963. The economic fauna of China. (Protochordata, Polychaeta and Echinodermata). Science Press, Peking. 141 pp. CHERBONNIER, G. 1951la. Les holothuries de Lesson. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris (2) vol. 23, pp. 295-301; 396-401; 532-536. —1951b. Holothuries de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Mem. Inst., r. Sci. Belg. vol. 41, pp. 1-65. CLARK, A.M. & ROWE, F.W.E. 1967. Proposals for stabilization of the names of certain genera and species of Holothurioidea. Z.N.(S.) 1782. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24, pp. 98-115. — 1971. Monograph of shallow-water Indo-West Pacific echinoderms. (Publ. No. 690, British Museum (Nat. Hist.)), London: vii + 238 pp. CLARK, H.L. 1921. The echinoderm fauna of Torres Strait: its composition and its origin. Pap. Dept. mar. Biol. Carnegie Instn Wash. vol. 10, viii + 223pp. — 1922. The holothurians of the genus Stichopus. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 65, pp. 39-74. —1933. A handbook of the littoral echinoderms of Porto Rico and the other West Indian islands. Scient. Surv. P. Rico vol. 16(1), pp. 1-147. — 1946. The echinoderm fauna of Australia. Pub/ls Carnegie Instn No. 566, pp. 1-567. DANIEL, A. & HALDER, B.P. 1976. Holothuroidea of the Indian Ocean with remarks on their distribution. J. mar. biol. Ass. India vol. 16(2), 1974 [1976] pp. 412-436. DEICHMANN, E. 1930. The holothurians of the western part of the Atlantic Ocean. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harv. vol. 71(3), pp. 43-226. —1954. The holothurians of the Gulf of Mexico. Bull. U.S. Fish. Comm. vol. 55, pp. 381-410. —1957. The littoral holothurians of the Bahama Islands. Amer. Mus. Novit. No. 1821, pp. 1-20. ——1958. The Holothurioidea collected by the Velero III and IV during the years 1932 to 1954. Part 2. Aspidochirota. Allan Hancock Pacific Exped. vol. 11, pp. 249-349. —1963. Shallow water holothurians known from the Caribbean waters. Stud. Fauna Curacao vol. 14, pp. 100-118. DOMANTAY, J.S. 1936. The ecological distribution of the echinoderm fauna of the Puerto Galera Marine Biological Station. Bull. Univ. Philipp. nat. appl. Sci. vol. 5(4), pp. 385-403. ——1953. Littoral holothurians from Zamboanga and vicinity. A brief summary of the Holothurioidea of the Allan Hancock Foundation of California. Philipp. J. Sci. vol. 82, pp. 109-132; 133-140. —1954. Some holothurians from Guam and vicinity. Bull. nat. appl. Sci. vol. 34 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 12, pp. 336-357. —1957. The zoogeographical distribution of the Indo-Pacific littoral Holo- thurioidea. Proc. 8th Pacif. sci. Congr. vol. 3, pp. 417-455. —1969. Summary of a monographic study and checklist of Philippine littoral Echinodermata. Acta manil. vol. SA(3), pp. 46-94. —1972. Monographic studies and checklist of Philippine littoral echinoderms. Acta manil. vol. 9A(15), pp. 36-160. FONTAINE, A. 1953. The shallow-water echinoderms of Jamaica. 4. The sea- cucumbers. Nat. Hist. Notes nat. Hist. Soc. Jamaica Nos. 62-63, pp. 29-33. FORSKAAL, P. 1775. Descriptiones animalium quae in itinere orientale osservavit. Hauniae. 164pp. GIBBS, P.E., VEVERS, H.G. & STODDART, D.R. 1975. Marine fauna of the Cook Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. vol. 190, pp. 133-148. GIBBS, P.E., CLARK, A.M. & CLARK, C.M. 1976. Echinoderms from the northern region of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) vol. 30(4), pp. 103-144. HEDING, S.G. 1928. Synaptidae. Vidensk. Meddr dansk. naturh. Foren. vol. 85, pp. 105-323. — 1940. The holothurians of the Iranian Gulf. Dan. scient. Invest. Iran part 2, pp. 113-137. JAEGER, G.F. 1833. De Holothuriis. (Dissert. inaug.) Turici. 40 pp. LEMCHE, H. 1967. Comment on proposals for stabilization of the names of certain genera and species of Holothurioidea. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24. pp. 268-269. LESSON, R.P. 1830. Centurie zoologique. Paris. 254pp. LIAO, Y. 1975. The echinoderms of Xisha Islands. 1. Holothurioidea. Studia mar. sin. No. 10, pp. 199-230. LUDWIG, H. 1881. Revision der Mertens-Brandtschen Holothurien. Z. wiss. Zool. vol. 35, pp. 575-599. PANNING, A. 1929-35. Die Gattung Holothuria. (1-5) Mitt. zool. StInst. Hamb. vol. 44, pp. 91-138[1929]; vol. 45, pp. 24-50; 65-84[1934]; 85-107[1935]; vol. 46, pp. 1-18[1935]. 1944. Die Trepangfischerei. Mitt. zool. StInst. Hamb. vol. 49, pp. 1-76. PAWSON, D.L. 1978. The echinoderm fauna of Ascension Island, South Atlantic. Smithson. Contr. mar. Sci. No. 2, pp. 1-31. PEARSON, J. 1914. Proposed re-classification of the genera Miilleria and Holothuria. Spolia zeylan. vol. 9(35), pp. 163-172. RISSO, A. 1826. Histoire des principales productions de l'Europe meéridionale. Paris & Strasbourg. vol. 5, pp. 267—272. ROWE, F.W.E. 1969. A review of the family Holothuriidae. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) vol. 18, pp. 117-170. ROWE, F.W.E. & DOTY, J.E. 1977. The shallow-water holothurians of Guam. Micronesica vol. 13(2), pp. 217-250. SANTIAGO, C.M. 1979. The littoral echinoderm fauna of Marinduque between Boac and Santa Cruz. Acta manil. vol. 18A(28), pp. 77-123. SELENKA, E. 1867. Beitrage zur Anatomie und Systematik der Holothurien. Z. wiss. (Zool.) vol. 17, pp. 291-374. SEMPER, C. 1868. Die Holothurien. Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen. vol. 1, x + 288pp., Wiesbaden. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 35 SLOAN, N.A., CLARK, A.M. & TAYLOR, J.D. 1979. The echinoderms of Aldabra and their habitats. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) vol. 37(2), pp. 81-128. THEEL, H. 1886. Holothurioidea. 2. Rep. scient. Results Voy. Challenger, Zool. vol. 39, pp. 1-290. TIKASINGH, E.S. 1963. The shallow-water holothurians of Curacao, Aruba and Bonaire. Stud. Fauna Curacao vol. 14, pp. 77-99. TOMMASI, L.R. 1969. Lista dos Holothurioidea recentes do Brasil. Contribuicoes Inst. oceanogr. Univ. S. Paulo (Oceanogr. biol.) No. 15, pp. 1-29. 36 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 THRIPS RUFA HALIDAY, 1836 (INSECTA, THYSANOPTERA, THRIPIDAE): PROPOSED RULING THAT THIS IS A NOMENCLATURALLY VALID NAME FOR THE TYPE SPECIES OF APTINOTHRIPS HALIDAY, 1836. Z.N.(S.)2067 By L.A. Mound and J.M. Palmer (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) The present application was first published in 1974, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 228-229 and was based on the premise that Thrips rufa Haliday, 1836 is a junior primary homonym of Thrips rufa Gmelin, 1790. It was voted on affirmatively by the Commission in 1978, but no Opinion was issued because of the following comments by two members of the Commission. 2. Dr C.W. Sabrosky remarked: ‘I do not quarrel with the basic purpose of the application, viz., to stabilize the name Thrips rufus in the family THRIPIDAE, but there are basic faults in the approach and [ regret that I did not notice these earlier. ‘(1) There is no such name as “Thrips rufa Haliday”. Haliday clearly cited the reference to Thrips rufa Gmelin, no. 11, and we are thus dealing with 7. rufa Gmelin sensu Haliday, a misidentification. Technically, then, suppression of T. rufa Gmelin leaves rufa (or rufus) of authors nameless, unless there are available synonyms. To achieve the result “Thrips rufa Haliday” (correctly rufus), we must also take plenary powers to date rufa from Haliday, this to take priority and precedence over synonyms, if any, for that graminicolous species.’ ‘(2) The type species of Aptinothrips Haliday should have been designated under Article 70a, misidentified type species, which of course requires action under the plenary powers.’ 3. Mr. Heppell said. “This application is unsatisfactory. Where is it shown that Thrips rufa “Haliday” is anything more thana misidentification of T. rufa Gmelin? What is the nature of the type material? Did Haliday designate a holotype of a new species? The implication is that he did not. As he refers to the same figured specimen as Gmelin, that specimen must at least be one of Haliday’s syntypes. Article 49 expressly states that “The specific name used in an erroneous specific identification cannot be retained for the species to which the name was wrongly applied...”. From this I would assume that, even if that Article were to be waived by use of the plenary powers, action would still be required to establish a type for “T. rufus Haliday” before any objective identity could be Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 a7 assigned to the entry under that name on the Official List. The applicants do not provide the necessary information for the appropriate action to be taken by the Commission. I believe in this case it would be better to suppress 7. rufa Gmelin and select a new type for Aptinothrips under Article 70. If necessary, a new name could be established for 7. rufa Haliday ex parte, non Gmelin, and that nominal species be selected as type.’ 4. The complete reference in Gmelin, 1790, p. 2224, is ‘Thr. rufa. v. Gleichen Neustes in Reich der Pflanz. t.16. £.6.7. Habitat in tritici spicis, an forsan larva minutissimae?’ (the gender of Thrips is, however, masculine). 5. Haliday, 1836, p.445, erected Aptinothrips as a subgenus of Thrips with an unequivocal definition considering that he is referring only to the British fauna: ‘antennae articulus 6tus. apice attenuatus, absque Stylo articulato.’ Haliday placed two species in this subgenus, ‘Thr. Apt. rufa’ [sic] and ‘Thr. Apt. nitidula’ [sic], and these were distinguished by their colour differences. 6. Under the name rufa, Haliday gives the references to Gmelin and Gleichen referred to above, and also the only subsequent reference: Nicholson, 1805, p. 224, fig. 1, which is an unnamed figure. It is clear that Haliday saw the Nicholson publication, but the Gmelin reference is quoted wrongly (species 11 is quoted whereas rufa is actually species 10) and there is no evidence that Haliday actually studied the original Gleichen illustration. 7. All subsequent authors have used the name rufa in the sense of Haliday but have referred to it as ‘rufa Gmelin’. It was so cited by Westwood when he designated it as type species of Aptinothrips (1838, p. 46). Jacot-Guillarmod, 1974, Ann. Cape prov. Museums, vol. 7 (3), pp. 597-607, cites about 300 references to ‘Thrips rufus (or rufa) Gmelin’, more than 150 of them since 1930. The species is widespread in the temperate parts of the world, where it is a minor pest of cereals and grasses. 8. As Jacot-Guillarmod notes, Gmelin was not the first author to publish the name Thrips rufus. Goeze, 1778, Entomol. Beytr. (2), p. 352, gives ‘5. Rufus der rothe Blasenfuss des Waizens. von Gleichen Neuestes im Reich der Pflanzen t.16 (7. Absch.) f.6.7. (Vielleicht die Larve von Thrips minutissima L.)’ This is almost word for word the German equivalent of Gmelin’s entry and undoubtedly refers to the same species. The fact that rufa Gmelin is not an Aptinothrips was first pointed out by Trybom, 1894, p.43, but this was ignored by subsequent authors. The species cannot be recognised either from Goeze’s or Gmelin’s description, but Gleichen’s figure evidently shows the larva of a species of Haplothrips Amyot & Serville, 1843. The specific name must 38 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 remain a nomen dubium because there are several species of Haplothrips associated with Gramineae in Europe, including the common cereal pest H. tritici Kurdjumow, 1912. The name has, however, been consistently used in Haliday’s sense since his time. 9. The choice of the best means for conserving over 140 years’ usage is not easy. First, it would be possible to designate a neotype for the oldest available nominal species, Thrips rufus Goeze, 1778, but as this name has never been associated with that author and date, this would only cause confusion among the many applied workers who use the name. Secondly, it would be possible to rule that 7. rufa Gmelin is a nomenclaturally valid name for the species and erect a suitable neotype. However, this would entail continuing the illogical situation of referring to a minute yellow insect by a name based on a bright red thrips. Thirdly, it would be possible to rule that J. (Aptinothrips) rufa Haliday is a nomenclaturally valid name for the species and select a suitable neotype. Since the usage of the name was established by Haliday’s misidentification and has been followed by many authors, since we have a specimen available as neotype in the Haliday collection which is so designated below, and since the existence of our earlier application is widely known among workers on Thysanoptera, we recommend the latter course. We accordingly propose the following, although we recognise the Commission may prefer one of the two alternatives indicated above (if our preferred course is followed, Thrips rufus Goeze, 1778 will remain available and be nomenclaturally valid for the bright red larva of a Haplothrips figured by Gleichen): (1) to use the plenary powers: (a) to rule that the specific name rufa Haliday, 1836, as published in the combination Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa is, when corrected to rufus, a nomenclaturally valid name for the species that was before Haliday; (b) to set aside all designations of type specimen hitherto made for Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836 and to designate as neotype of that species a specimen in the Haliday Collection, National Museum of Ireland, Dublin, with the following slide data: ‘Haliday/ Haliday Collection/N.M.I. 20.2.82’; (c) to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 and to designate Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, as defined by the neotype designated in (b), as type species of that taxon; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 39 (2) to place the genus-group name Aptinothrips Haliday, 1836 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufus Haliday, 1836, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name rufus Haliday, as published in the combination Thrips (Aptinothrips) rufa, as ruled to be a nomenclaturally valid name in (1)(a) above, and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES GLEICHEN, W.F. von, 1764. Das neuests aus dem Reiche der Pflanzen... Nurnberg. 50 pls. col. [Original not studied, only available copy French translation, 1790, Nuremberg]. GMELIN, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, ed. 13, Tom. 1. Pars. IV, pp. 1517-2224. HALIDAY, A.H. 1836. An epitome of the British genera in the order Thysanoptera, with indications of a few of the species. Entomological Magazine vol. 3, pp. 439-451. JACOT-GUILLARMOD, C.F. 1974. Catalogue of the Thysanoptera of the World, III. Ann. Cape prov. Museums (nat. Hist.), vol. 7 (3), pp. 517-976. KURDJUMOW, N.B. 1912. Two Anthothrips injurious to the cereals (with description of a new species) [in Russian]. Trudy Poltavskoi Selsko- Khoziaistvenno opytnoi Stancii vol. 6, pp. 14. NICHOLSON, W. 1805. A Journal of Natural Philosophy, Chemistry and the Arts. J. nat. Philos. vol. 12, p. 224, pl. 8, fig. 1. TRYBOM, F. 1894. Jakttagelser om Blasfotingar (Physapoder) fran Sommaren 1893. Ent. Tidskr. 1894-5, pp. 41-58. WESTWOOD, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British Insects. In: Westwood, J.O. 1840. An introduction to modern British Insects. London. 40 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 PHRYNUS LAMARCK, 1801 (ARACHNIDA, AMBLYPYGI): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.) 2169 By Diomedes Quintero, Jr. (Director, Museo de Invertebrados, Universidad de Panama) The purpose of the present application is the conservation of the generic name Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 (Arachnida: Amblypygi) in the sense in which it has for long been used. This name, which is that of the largest American genus of amblypygids, has been the source of continual polemics for some two centuries, because the species which was subsequently designated as its type species was misidentified by Lamarck in 1801. 2. Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, pp. 618-619) described the genus Phalangium with three included species: P. opilio, P. caudatum and P. reniforme (p. 619). The genus is now treated as though the first-named species were its type species and is placed in the Order Opiliones of the Arachnida. P. caudatum is the type species, by original designation, of Thelyphonus Latreille, 1810, which is placed in the Order Uropygi of the Arachnida. We are concerned only with P. reniforme, which is now placed in the Order Amblypygi of the Arachnida. 3. The first difficulty in this case is to establish the identity of Phalangium reniforme L., 1758. This was based on (a) Patrick Browne, 1756, The civil and natural history of Jamaica, p. 409, pl. 41, fig. 3, of a specimen from Antigua, and (b) a specimen in the Mus. Lud. Ulr. Lonnberg, 1898, Ent. Tidskr. vol. 18, pp. 187-188, identified this specimen as an East Indian species of Phrynichus auctorum and virtually designated it as lectotype (see E. Lonnberg, 1898, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 1, pp. 82-89). This is the interpretation that is preferred here; 19th century usage of the name varied between the West Indies and East Indies interpretations. 4. Pallas, 1772, Spic. zool. (9), pp. 33-35, followed Gronovius’s interpretation of P. reniforme L. as a species from Ceylon. He described P. Junatum as a new species from Surinam. 5. Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. vol. 2, p. 432, established the genus Tarantula to include Phalangium reniforme and P. caudatum Linnaeus, and ? P. lunatum Pallas. During the 19th century Tarantula competed with Phrynus, but it has scarcely been used as a valid name during the present century. Much of the confusion in this case arises from the fact that Fabricius misidentified P. reniforme L. The species he had before him was (according to Kraepelin, 1899, Das Tierreich (Schulze), Lief. 8, p. 241) Phalangium palmatum Herbst, 1797, Nat. ungefl. Ins. (1), p.82. Herbst gave no locality for his species. Karsch, 1879, Arch. Naturges., Jahrg. 45, vol. 1, p. 194, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 41 said that Fabricius designated P. reniforme Pallas [sic] as type species of Tarantula [sic]. Under Article 69a(iv), this is a valid subsequent designation of P. reniforme L., 1758 as type species. 6. Phrynus Lamarck, 1801, Syst. anim. s. vert., p. 175, was established with two included species: Phalangium reniforme L. and P. caudatum L. The synonymy of P. reniforme included Browne’s figure of an Antigua specimen and the Fabricius reference. Latreille, [1802], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. vol. 3, p. 48, cited Phalangium reniforme as an example of the genus and this was cited by Karsch, Joc. cit. as a type designation. This is therefore a valid subsequent type designation by Karsch, who accepted the logic of his conclusion and synonymised Phrynus with Tarantula Fabricius. However, Karsch made it clear that he was thinking, not of Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, but of the species to which Pallas (and presumably Fabricius) had applied it; and for this species he chose T. pumilio C.L. Koch, 1840 as the valid name. He treated that as the type species of Tarantula and established the new genus Phrynichus with P. reniforme Linnaeus, 1763 [sic] as type species, by original designation. He synonymised P. /unatum Pallas (from Surinam) with that species. 7. Meanwhile C.L. Koch had adopted Phrynus. In 1840, Die Arachniden, vol. 8, p. 4, he used it to include P. /unatus — from the East Indies — P. reniformis (in the sense of Linnaeus, Herbst and Fabricius) from Brazil, and P. pumilio (new), also from Brazil. P. palmatus Herbst, from ‘South America’, was also included. In 1850, Uebersicht des Arachnidensystems, Heft 5, pp. 80-81, Koch did not mention P. reniforme. Phrynus still included P. lunatus, but P. pumilio and P. palmatus were transferred to a new genus Admetus. Butler, 1873, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) vol. 12, p. 118, used Phrynus reniformis ‘sensu Pallas’ for a species from Haiti, P. palmatus Herbst for one from Colombia and Mexico, and (p.120) P. lunatus ‘sensu Fabricius’ for one from Africa. 8. Simon, 1892, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. vol. 61, p. 50, designated P. lunatus Pallas (invalidly: see para 6) as type species of ‘Phryniscus’ (erroneous spelling of Phrynichus) Karsch from tropical E. Africa and Asia, and Admetus palmatus (Herbst) as type species of Admetus. This appears to be the valid designation of a type species for the latter genus. He adopted Tarantula Fabricius, with T. reniformis (L.) as type species and Phrynus as a synonym, for a tropical American genus. Pocock, March 1894, J. Linn. Soc. London, vol. 24, pp. 406, 529 and October 1894, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) vol. 14, pp. 274, 297, demonstrated the synonymy of Tarantula and Phrynus, based on P. reniforme L., but criticised Simon for perpetuating the erroneous identification of that species, and the palmatum group which he traced back to Pallas. He used 42 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Tarantula for reniformis L. and the palmatum group based on Browne’s figure of a specimen from Antigua and proposed a new genus Heterophrynus, with Phrynus cheiracanthus Gervais, as type species, for the genus that contains reniformis sensu Pallas and Simon, non Linnaeus, and which is unknown in the West Indies. 9. At this point it might have been thought that the confusion over the identity of P. reniforme L., with both a Western Hemisphere and a (then unrecognised) Eastern Hemisphere syntype, and P. palmatus Herbst, with no type locality, was on the way to a solution, since both names were being consistently used for one or more Western Hemisphere species. Two works, however, arrested this trend. First, Kraepelin, 1895, Abh. Geb. Naturw. Hamburg, vol. 13(3), p. 9, used Tarantula for an Indian and African genus. He cited Phalangium reniforme L., 1758 as type species, with P. lunatum Pallas (also Fabricius and Herbst) in synonymy. He proposed the new genus Neophrynus for Tarantula auctorum, with Phalangium palmatum Herbst (also Koch and Simon; = P. reniforme Fabricius and Pocock) as type species, for forms from the Antilles, Venezuela, Colombia, Guyana and Brazil; and used Heterophrynus for H. pumilio (Koch) from Venezuela, Colombia and Brazil. Secondly, Lénnberg, 1897 (see para 3) virtually designated the Mus. Lud. Ulr. syntype as lectotype of P. reniforme Linnaeus and identified it as an East Indian species of Phrynichus. 10. In 1899, Kraepelin changed his nomenclature, though not his taxonomic arrangement. In Das Tierreich (Schulze), Lief. 8, p. 236 he adopted Phrynichus where he had used Tarantula in 1895, for P. reniforme L. from India and Africa; Tarantula where he had used Neophrynus in 1895, for the palmatus group; and Admetus where he had used Heterophrynus in 1895. Pocock, 1902, Biol. Centrali-Amer., Arachnida, Scorpiones, Pedipalpi and Solifugae p.50, simply adopted Phrynus, with Phalangium palmatum Herbst, 1798, as type, for the genus which Kraepelin had called Neophrynus in 1895, and Tarantula in 1899. He used Heterophrynus for Phrynus cheiracanthus Gervais, but made no mention of Phrynichus or of Phalangium lunatum Pallas, since they did not come within his field of study. 11. The application of the Code to this case, through the clouds of misidentifications and wrong attributions, is nevertheless clear. Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758, is, under the Code, the nominal type species of Tarantula Fabricius, 1793, of Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 (both by subsequent designation by Karsch, 1879), and of Phrynichus Karsch, 1879, by original designation. Stability of nomenclature, on the other hand, will best be served if quite different conclusions are attained. First, Tarantula is hopelessly compromised, having been used with a variety of meanings in Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 43 Hexapoda and even fora fish, and being associated in the vernacular with a genus far removed from the Amblypygi. It should therefore be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. Secondly, Phrynus has been used for 78 years for the common and widespread Central and northern South American group of species typified by Phrynus operculatus Pocock, 1902, and that species should therefore be designated as the type species of Phrynus. Admetus C.L. Koch, 1850, and Neophrynus Kraepelin, 1895, then fall as junior subjective synonyms of Phrynus. Thirdly, Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758, is now generally used for the eastern species to which Lonnberg assigned it and for which the generic name Phrynichus is generally used. It is the type species of that genus under the Code, and that generic name can be so used if the two steps outlined above are taken under the plenary powers. 12. The Commission is accordingly asked: (1) touse its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Tarantula Fabricius, 1793, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the specific name palmatum Herbst, 1797, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (c) toset aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 hitherto made and to designate Phrynus operculatus Pocock, 1902, as the type species of that genus. (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Phrynus Lamarck, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Phrynus operculatus Pocock, 1902; (b) Phrynichus Karsch, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, Phalangium reniforme Linnaeus, 1758. (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) operculatus Pocock, 1902, as published in the binomen Phrynus operculatus (specific name of type species, by designation under the a4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 (4) (5) (6) plenary powers in (1)(c) above, of Phrynus Lamarck, 1801; (b) reniforme Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phalangium reniforme (specific name of type species, by original designation, of Phrynichus Karsch, 1879). to place on the Official List of Family-Grou Names in Zoology the famiy name PHRYNIDAE Wood, 1863 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 5, p. 375), type genus Phrynus Lamarck, 1801. to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Tarantula Fabricius, 1793, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above. to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific name palmatum Herbst, 1797, as published in the binomen Phalangium palmatum, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 45 GLOBIGERINA CERROAZULENSIS COLE, 1928, AND GLOBIGERASPIS TROPICALIS BLOW & BANNER, 1962 (FORAMINIFERIDA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2248 By R.M. Stainforth (29/0 Cook St, Victoria B.C., Canada), Karoly Sztrakos (/3 rue Gouveno, 77310 Ponthierry, France) and R.M. Jeffords (8002 Beverly Hill, Houston, Texas 77063, U.S.A.) In the course of continuing appraisals of the stratigraphic value of Cenozoic planktonic foraminifers, virtually unused senior synonyms of two specific names in general use have been discovered. Although neither of the junior synonyms fully satisfies the requirements of Articles 23a—b, 79b of the Code, we believe that their importance in economic palaeontology justifies their conservation. One of the senior synonyms is a junior primary homonym. 2. Hantken, 1883, p. 11, pl. 2, figs. 3, 7, proposed Globigerina applanata and G. globosa for fossil foraminifers from the Eocene of Scarena (l’Escaréne), Italy. These names have since been cited, so far as we can determine, only by Fornasini, 1899, prior to their redescription by Sztrakos, 1973, on the basis of Hantken’s original material found in the geological and palaeontological collection of the Hungarian National Museum. 3. Sztrakos designated, redescribed and illustrated a lectotype from among specimens identified by Hantken as Globigerina applanata in 1883 and assigned the species to Turborotalia. He also concluded that the species is transitional between Turborotalia cerroazulensis cerroazulensis (Cole, 1928) and 7.c. pomeroli (Toumarkine & Bolli, 1970) and that its name is therefore a senior synonym of T. cerroazulensis (Cole) [Globorotalia cerroazulensis (Cole) of Stainforth et al., 1975}. 4. Whereas Hantken’s name applanata was used only once before its revival by Sztrakos in 1973, cerroazulensis (described by Cole, 1928, p. 17 but now placed in Globorotalia) has been widely used in studies of Cenozoic foraminifers (e.g. Bermudez, 1949; Cushman & Bermudez, 1949; Bolli, 1957; Mallory, 1959; Bandy, 1964; Blow, 1969; Samanta, 1969; Toumarkine & Bolli, 1970; Postuma, 1971; Sigal, 1974; Stainforth et al., 1975; Barker & Blow, 1976). It is also an outstandingly useful index fossil used to designate a biostratigraphic zone in the late Eocene (e.g. Bandy, 1964; Bolli, 1966, 1972; Baumann, 1970; Toumarkine & Bolli, 1970; Raju, 1971; Jenkins & Orr, 1972; Stainforth et al. 1975). 5. Research on Cenozoic planktonic foraminifers has 46 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 revealed the occurrence of a number of lineages of related species (and/or subspecies) in which successive forms are confined to relatively thin belts of strata (representing geologically short time intervals) over wide areas. They are thus of prime importance in the biostratigraphy of the Cenozoic and are an important tool in the hands of those involved in the search for hydrocarbons in Cenozoic rocks. They can, however, only be used effectively if adequate samples are available in good preservation from precisely known localities (e.g. exact depth in a borehole). The G. cerroazulensis lineage is an excellent example of this. It starts with G.c. pomeroli in the late Middle Eocene, followed by G.c. cerroazulensis, and culminating with G.c. cocoaensis in the late Eocene (there are later forms in the early Oligocene). It is impossible to say where in this lineage G. applanata is to be placed, because the type sample is too small and too ill preserved, while the type locality and type horizon are known only in the most general way. Thus the replacement of any of the subspecific names in the cerroazulensis lineage by applanata — and there is no sound basis for choosing any particular subspecies — would cause widespread confusion. This would affect not only the published literature but also the working documents, chiefly unpublished analyses of wells and surface sections, used by economic paleontologists. The users of these reports are responsible for important financial decisions and will only be confused if presented with unfamiliar names. 6. Sztrakos, 1973, p. 226, pl. 2, figs. 1-3, also cited Globigerina globosa Hantken, 1883, p. 11, pl. 2, fig. 3; a ‘neotype’ [i.e. lectotype] was designated from among the several specimens in the material used by Hantken. Globigerapsis tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962, p. 124, is cited by Sztrakos as a junior synonym, and the ‘neotype’ and associated specimens were interpreted as juvenile specimens of G. tropicalis. G. globosa Hantken was cited subsequently, so far as we can determine, only by Fornasini, 1899, prior to the work of Sztrakos. Globigerapsis tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962, on the other hand is applied extensively (e.g. Eckert, 1964, 1965; Blow, 1969; Baumann, 1970; Bolli, 1972; Campredon & Toumarkine, 1972; Subbotina, 1972; Stainforth et al. 1975; Toumarkine, 1975; Takayanagi & Oda, 1976). 7. Globigerina globosa Hantken, 1883, however, is a junior primary homonymn of Globigerina globosa von Hagenow, 1842, a name that has never been used, so far as we can determine, since its original proposal and is both a nomen dubium and a forgotten name. Globigerapsis tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962 is available under Article 60a to replace the junior primary homonym, which can be placed directly on the Official Index. 8. In view of the important economic contexts in which G. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 47 cerroazulensis (Cole, 1928) is used, we see no point in giving that name nomenclatural precedence over G. applanata Hantken, 1883. The latter name can only be effectively used for the original material on which it was based. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name applanata Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globigerina applanata, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cerroazulensis Cole, 1928, as published in the binomen Globigerina cerroazulensis; (b) tropicalis Blow & Banner, 1962, as published in the binomen Globigerapsis tropicalis; (3) toplace the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) applanata Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globigerina applanata, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above; (b) globosa Hantken, 1883, as published in the binomen Globigerina globosa (a _ junior primary homonym of Globigerina globosa von Hagenow, 1842). REFERENCES BANDY, O.L. 1964. Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal zonation. Micropaleon- tology vol. 10, pp. 1-17, 6 figs. BARKER, R.W. & BLOW, W.H. 1976. Biostratigraphy of some Tertiary formations in the Tampico-Misantla embayment, Mexico. Jour. Foram. Res. vol. 6, pp. 39-58, 2 figs. BAUMANN, P. 1970. Mikropalaeontologische und stratigraphische Unter -suchungen der obereozaenen-oligozaenen Scaglia im zentralen Apennin (Italien). Eclogae Geol. Helv. vol. 63, pp. 1133-1211, 27 figs, 7 pls. BERMUDEZ, P.J. 1949. Tertiary smaller Foraminifera of the Dominican Republic. Spec. Publ. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. vol. 25, 322 pp., 6 figs., 26 pls. BLOW, W.H. 1969. Late middle Eocene to Recent planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy. \st Internatl. Conf. Planktonic Microfossils, Geneva 1967, Proc. vol. 1, pp. 199-422, 43 figs. , 54 pls. ——& BANNER, F.T. 1962. The Mid-Tertiary (Upper Eocene to Aquitanian) Globigerinaceae, in Eames, F.E., et al. Fundamentals of Mid-Tertiary stratigraphical correlation. Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 61-151, figs. 6-20, pls. 8-17. 48 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 BOLLI, H.M. 1957. Planktonic Foraminifera from the Eocene Navet and San Fernando formations of Trinidad, B.W.1I. Bull. U.S. Natl. Mus. vol. 215, pp. 155-172, figs. 25-25, pls. 35-39. ———1966. Zonation of Cretaceous to Pliocene marine sediments based on planktonic Foraminifera. Assoc. Venezolana Geol., Min. y. Petrol. Bol. Inf. vol. 9, pp. 3-32. —_—1972. The genus Globigerinatheka Brénnimann. Jour. Foram. Res. vol. 2, pp. 109-136, 84 figs., 7 pls. CAMPREDON, R. & TOUMARKINE, M. 1972. Les formations paléogenes du synclinal de Puget-Théniers-Entrevaux (Basses-Alpes, France). Rev. Micropaléont. vol. 15, pp. 134-148. COLE, W.S. 1928. A foraminiferal fauna from the Chapapote Formation in Mexico. Bull. Am. Paleont. vol. 14, no. 53, 32 pp, 4 pls. CUSHMAN, J.A. & BERMUDEZ, P.J. 1949. Some Cuban species of Globoro- talia. Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. vol. 25, pp. 26-45, 5-8. ECKERT, H.R. 1964. Die obereozaenen Globigerinen-Schiefer (Stad und Schlimbergschiefer) zwischen Pilatus und Schrattenfluh. Eclogae Geol. Helv. vol. 56, pp. 1001-1072, 35 figs., 7 pls. ———1965. Die Stadschiefer bei Alpnach-Stad. Schweiz. Petrol.-Geol. u. -Ing. Bull. Ver. vol. 31, pp. 121-123. ELLIS, B.F. & MESSINA, A.R. 1940 et seg. Catalogue of Foraminifera. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist., 45 vols. FORNASINI, C. 1898 (1899). Le globigerine fossili d'Italia. Palaeont. Italica vol. 4, pp. 203-216, 5 figs. HAGENOW, F. VON 1842. Monographie der Riigen’schen Kreide-Versteiner- ungen, Abt. III-Mollusken. Neues Jahrb. Min., Geog. u. Geol. Petrefactenkunde 1842, pp. 528-575, pl. 9. HANTKEN, M. VON 1883 (1884?). A Clavulina Szabdi-rétegek, az Euganeak és a tengeri Alpok tertletén és a krétakoru “Scaglia” az Euganeakban [Die Clavulina Szaboi-Schichten im Gebiete der Euganeen und der Meeralpen und die cretacische Scaglia in den Euganeen]. Ertek. Termész. K6rébdél Tud. Akad. vol. 13, pp. 1-47. [Math. Naturw. Ber. Ungarn. vol. 2: 121-169, 4 pls.]. JENKINS, D.G. & ORR, W.N. 1972. Planktonic foraminiferal biostratigraphy of the east equatorial Pacific — DSDP Leg 9. Initial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project vol. 9, pp. 1059-1193, 9 figs., 41 pls. MALLORY, V.S. 1959. Lower Tertiary biostratigraphy of the California coast ranges. Am. Assoc. Petrol. Geol. Publ. 416 pp. 6 figs., 42 pls. POSTUMA, J.A. 1971. Manual of planktonic Foraminifera. Amsterdam, Elsevier Publ. Co., 420 pp, illus. RAJU, D.S., 1971. Upper Eocene to Early Miocene planktonic Foraminifera from the subsurface sediments in Cauvery Basin, south India. Jahrb. Geol. Bundesanstalt Sonderband vol. 17, pp. 7-67, 14 figs., 13 pls. SAMANTA, B.K. 1969. Eocene planktonic Foraminifera from the Garo Hills, Assam, India. Micropaleontology vol. 15, pp. 325-350, 2 figs., 3 pls. SIGAL, J. 1974. Comments on Leg 25 sites in relation to the Cretaceous and Paleogene stratigraphy in the eastern and south-eastern African and Madagascar regional setting. /nitial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project vol. 25, pp. 687-723, 6 figs., 11 pls. STAINFORTH, R.M., ef al. 1975. Cenozoic planktonic foraminiferal zonation and characteristics of index forms. Univ. Kansas Paleont. Contr. Art. 62, 425 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 49 pp, 213 figs. SUBBOTINA, N.N. 1972. Ovidakh roda Globigerapsis iz eotsenovykh oltozhenii yuva SSSR [On species of the genus Globigerapsis in the Eocene deposits of the southern Soviet Union]. Akad. Nauk SSSR Voprosy Mikropaleont. vol. 15, pp. 118-124, 3 pls. SZTRAKOS, K. 1973. Révision des espéces “Globigerina” applanata et “Globigerina” globosa décrites par M. Hantken d’Euganea (Italie). Rev. Micropaléont. vol. 16, pp. 224-228, 2 pls. TAKAYANAGI, Y. & ODA, M. 1976. Shore Laboratory report on Cenozoic planktonic Foraminifera; Leg 33. Initial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project vol. 33, pp. 451-465. TOUMARKINE, M. 1975. Middle and Late Eocene planktonic Foraminifera from the northwestern Pacific, Leg 32 of the Deep Sea Drilling Project. /nitial Repts. Deep Sea Drilling Project vol. 32, pp. 735-751, 5 pls. — & BOLLI, H.M. 1970. Evolution de Globorotalia cerroazulensis (Cole) dans l’Eocéne moyen et supérieur de Possagno (Italie). Rev. Micropaléont. vol. 13, pp. 131-145, 17 figs., 2 pls. 50 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 DIADEMODON TETRAGONUS SEELEY, 1894 (REPTILIA, THERAPSIDA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 2249 By Frederick E. Grine (Department of Palaeontology, South African Museum, Cape Town 8000, Republic of South Africa) The object of the present application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress a virtual nomen oblitum, which, so long as it remains an available name, represents a potential threat to the nomenclatural stability of an important group of therapsid reptiles. The names concerned are Cynochampsa Owen, 1860 (Q.J. geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 16, p. 61) and Janiaria (originally spelled /aniarius) (ibid.), published in combination with the foregoing generic name. By this means, the Commission will conserve the names Diademodon Seeley, 1894 (Phil. Trans. r. Soc. Lond. (B) vol. 185, p. 1030) and tetragonus (ibid.), published in combination with the foregoing generic name. 2. At a meeting of the Geological Society of London on April 20, 1859 Owen (1859, Proc. geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 16(1), p.61) described Cynochampsa, type species laniaria (by monotypy), a diademodontine cynodont from the Triassic of South Africa. Owen’s 1859 paper was published unaltered in 1860 (Q.J. geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 16, pp. 49-63); and in a footnote in a later publication Owen (1876, Descriptive and illustrated catalogue of the fossil Reptilia of South Africa in the collection of the British Museum, Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), London, p. 20) refers to the 1860 paper as containing the definition of Cynochampsa laniaria. In 1894 Seeley (Phil. Trans. r. Soc. Lond. (B) vol. 185, p. 1030) named the genus Diademodon, type species tetragonus (by original designation), but did not recognize any relationship between it and Owen’s Cynochampsa laniaria, although in my view the two were conspecific. Despite the publication of numerous papers dealing with diademodontine anatomy and taxonomy, the name Cynochampsa laniaria was not referred to again after Owen’s 1876 monograph until the fourth decade of the 20th century. In 1932 Broom (Mammal-like reptiles of South Africa, Witherby, London, p. 290) used Cynochampsa laniaria as a senior name, and noted that the holotype of Cynochampsa is the snout of an animal allied to Gomphognathus Seeley, 1895 (Phil. Trans. r. Soc. (B), vol. 186, p. 1) (= Diademodon). In their bibliographic list of the Karoo vertebrates, Haughton & Brink (1954, Palaeont. afr., vol. 2, p. 166) included Cynochampsa in the DIADEMODONTIDAE and noted that it is ‘clearly allied to Diademodon’. In 1961 Lehman (in Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 51 Piveteau, J. (ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, p. 180) again referred to Cynochampsa; he included it in the EUDIADEMODONTINAE and noted that it can be compared to Diademodon. 3. More recently, Romer (1966, Vertebrate Paleontology, p. 372) listed Cynochampsa as a junior synonym of Diademodon but preceded the name Cynochampsa by a question mark. In 1972 Hopson & Kitching (Palaeont. afr., vol. 14, p.77) published a revised classification of the cynodonts in which they used the name Diademodon tetragonus and stated that, ‘the earliest named diademodontine, Cynochampsa laniaria, is based on a fragmentary snout lacking postcanine teeth; we prefer to consider it a nomen vanum’. Their use of the term nomen vanum was as defined by Simpson (1945, Bull. amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 85, p. 27), but see Chorn & Whetstone (1978, J. Paleont., vol. 52, p. 494). In his 1977 monograph, Kitching (Mem. Bernard Price Inst. palaeont. Res.) again considered Diademodon and Cynochampsa as synonyms. In 1979 Brink (Bull. geol. Surv. S. Afr., vol. 65, p.7) notes that whilst he regards Cynochampsa as a diademodontine, the name should be considered as a nomen dubium. 4. Majority usage has favoured the generic name Diademodon. Pertinent publications are: Brink, 1955, Palaeont. afr., vol. 3, pp. 3-39. Crompton, 1963, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 140, pp. 697-753. Fourie, 1963, S. Afr. J. Sci., vol. 59, pp. 211-213. Ziegler, 1969, J. Palaeont., vol. 43, pp. 771-778. Hopson, 1971, Zool. J. linn. Soc. London, vol. 50 (suppl. 1), pp. 1-21. Jenkins, 1971, Bull. Peabody Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 36, pp. 1-216. Crompton, 1972, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Geol.) vol. 21, pp. 27-71. Osborn, 1974, Evolution, vol. 28, pp. 141-157. Brink, 1977, S. Afr. J. Sci. vol. 73, pp. 138-143. Grine, 1977, Palaeont. afr., vol. 20, pp. 123-135. Kitching, 1977, Mem. Bernard Price Inst. palaeont. Res., vol. 1. Grine, 1978, Palaeont. afr., vol. 21, pp. 167-174. Brink, 1979, Bull. geol. Surv. S. Afr., vol. 65, pp. 1-50. The most influential classifications also use the generic name Diademodon: Romer, 1966, Vertebrate Palaeontology, p. 372. Hopson & Kitching, 1972, Palaeont. afr., vol. 14, p. 77. 5. Owen (1860, Q.J. geol. Soc. Lond., vol. 16; 1876, Descriptive and illustrated catalogue of fossil Reptilia of South Africa 52 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 in the collection of the British Museum) stated that the type of Cynochampsa laniaria was found in a ‘claystone’ nodule from the same locality in the Renosterberg Mountains, Cape Province, which yielded the type of Galesaurus planiceps Owen, 1860. However, Kitching (1977, Mem. Bernard Price Inst. palaeont. Res.) has noted that the strata exposed in the Renosterberg Range, which covers an area of between ‘20-30 square miles’ are predominantly of Lystrosaurus Zone age. He has observed no Cynognathus Zone exposures in this area. To date, no diademodontine fossils have been found in Lystrosaurus Zone sediments but they are relatively abundant in Cynognathus Zone strata. Thus, Kitching (ibid.) finds ‘the record of a diademodontid from the “Renosterberg” Cape very doubtful’. He considers that ‘in all probability the type of Cynochampsa laniaria comes from the farm Renosterkop on the border between the Venterstad and Burgersdorp districts’, where Cynognathus Zone strata are exposed. The type locality of Cynochampsa laniaria is thus doubtful. 6. By strict application of Article 23a-b of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Broom’s (1932, Mammal-like reptiles of South Africa) use of Cynochampsa laniaria as a senior name precludes its being considered a nomen oblitum. As such, Romer’s (1966, Vertebrate Palaeontology), Hopson & Kitching’s (1972, Palaeont. afr., vol. 14), Kitching’s (1977, Mem. Bernard Price Inst. palaeont. Res., 1) and the present author’s (Grine & Hahn, 1978, Palaeont. afr., vol. 21; Grine, Hahn & Gow, 1978, S. Afr. J. Sci., vol. 74; Bradu & Grine, 1979, S. Afr. J. Sci., vol. 75) use of Cynochampsa laniaria Owen, 1860 as a junior subjective synonym of Diademodon tetragonus Seeley, 1894 is strictly incorrect — the name Cynochampsa laniaria has priority. However majority usage has favoured the name Diademodon, and most classifications also use Diademodon. The name Cynochampsa laniaria is unfamiliar to most present-day students, and its usage as a senior synonym would undoubtedly disturb a stable and universally accepted nomenclature of an important group of Triassic cynodonts. 7. [therefore request the Commission: (1) to use its plenary powers under Article 79 to suppress (a) the generic name Cynochampsa Owen, 1860, and (b) the specific name laniaria Owen, 1860, as published in the binomen Cynochampsa laniaria for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 53 (2) (3) (4) (5) to place the generic name Diademodon Seeley, 1894 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Diademodon tetragonus Seeley, 1894 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name tetragonus Seeley, 1894, as published in the binomen Diademodon tetragonus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the generic name Cynochampsa Owen, 1860 as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology; to place the specific name Janiaria Owen, 1860 as published in the binomen Cynochampsa laniaria, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 54 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 AGROTIS REDIMICULA MORRISON, 1875 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION FROM 1874. Z.N.(S.) 2305 By J.D. Lafontaine (Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada K1A OC6) This application offers two alternative methods of conserving the name Agrotis redimicula Morrison with the date of 1874. Either method involves the use of the plenary powers. 2. In 1874, p. 165, Morrison described Agrotis redimacula; A. unimacula was also established in the same paper. In 1875, both species were described again, but the former was now spelled ‘redimicula’ with ‘Agrotis redimacula (err.)’ in synonymy. 3. The Latin word redimiculum means ‘band’ or ‘fillet’. It is possible that one of the markings on the wing of the moth struck the author as being of this shape. This is more strongly suggested by the second, expanded, description than by the first, which is brief. The species has subsequently been transferred to Carneades Grote, 1883, non Bates, 1869, by Smith, 1890, Paragrotis Pratt, 1902, by Dyar, 1902 [1903], and finally Euxoa Hiibner, [1821], by Hampson, 1903, each time with the specific name spelled redimicula. 4. The spelling redimicula has been used in more than 35 publications including Lafontaine, 1974, and such well-known works as: Hampson, 1903, Holland, 1903, Barnes & McDunnough, 1917, Draudt, 1924, McDunnough, 1938 and 1950, and Forbes, 1954. The spelling redimacula has been used only three times since 1874: in two provincial lists (Dod, 1911; Jones, 1951) and in a list of Nearctic species of Euxoa (Kozhantschikov, 1937). None of these works is widely used by North American workers. 5. It is clear from Morrison’s speedy correction of the spelling of the name that he intended redimicula, and that the original spelling redimacula was, so far as he was concerned, an inadvertent error — possibly because either the printer or the editor thought that the name should be spelled like unimacula. However, the evidence that that was so is not to be found in the original publication itself, as required by Article 32a(ii) of the Code (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, p. 83). Hence the intended, and much more widely used spelling can only be maintained by the use of the plenary powers to rule that redimicula is either a correct original spelling ora justified emendation of redimacula. 6. The International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) touse its plenary powers, either (a) to rule that the specific name redimicula, as Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 a published in the binomen Agrotis redimicula by Morrison in 1875 is the correct original spelling for the specific name redimacula Morrison, 1874, as published in the binomen Agrotis redimacula; or (b) to rule that the specific name redimicula Morrison, as published in the binomen Agrotis redimicula, is a justified emendation of the specific name redimacula Morrison, 1874, as published in the binomen Agrotis redimacula; (2) to place the specific name redimicula Morrison, 1874, as published in the binomen Agrotis redimicula, and as validated under the plenary powers in (1)(a) or (b) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name redimacula Morrison, 1874, as published in the binomen Agrotis redimacula, and as invalidated by the ruling under the plenary powers in (1)(a) or (b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BARNES, W. & McDUNNOUGH, J.H., 1917. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of boreal America. Decatur, Illinois. DOD, F.H.W., 1911. Further notes on Alberta Lepidoptera. Can. Ent. vol. 43, pp. 393-399. DRAUDT, M., 1924. Amerikanischen Faunengebietes: Eulenartige Nachtfalter. In: A. Seitz (editor). Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde, vol. 7. Stuttgart. DYAR, H.G., 1902 [1903]. A list of North American Lepidoptera. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. 52, p. 148. FORBES, W.T.M., 1954. Lepidoptera of New York and neighboring states. Part 3. Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. Exp. Stn. 329, p. 42. HAMPSON, G.R., 1903. Catalogue of the Noctuidae in the collection of the British Museum. vol. 4. London HOLLAND, W.J., 1903. The Moth Book. Doubleday, Page and Co., New York. (Reprinted 1968 by Dover Pub.). JONES, J.R.J.L., 1951. An annotated check list of the Macrolepidoptera of British Columbia. Occas. Pap. ent. Soc. Br. Columb., No. 1. KOZHANTISCHIKOV, I., 1937. Faune de l'URSS. Insectes, Lépidoptéres. vol. 13(3), pp. 1-673. Institut Zoologique de |' Académie des Sciences de P'URSS LAFONTAINE, J.D., 1974. A synopsis of the redimicula group of the genus Euxoa Hbn. (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), with a computer analysis of genitalic characters. Can. Ent. vol. 106, pp. 409-421. McDUNNOUGH, J., 1938. Check list of the Lepidoptera of Canada and the United States of America. Part 1, pp. 1-275. Mem. Sth. Calif. Acad. Sci. vol. 1. 56 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 ——1950. Species of Euxoa of eastern North America, with particular reference to genitalic characters (Lepidoptera, Phalaenidae). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist. vol. 95, pp. 359-408. MORRISON, H.K., 1874. Descriptions of new Noctuidae. Proc. Bost. Soc. nat. Hist. vol. 17, pp. 131-166. —1875. Notes on the Noctuidae with descriptions of certain new species. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. vol. 27, 55-71. SMITH, J.B., 1890. Contribution toward a monograph of the insects of the lepidopterous family Noctuidae of temperate North America. Revision of the species of the genus Agrotis. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 38, pp. 1-237. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 57 INDODORYLAIMUS ALI & PRABHA, 1974 (NEMATODA, DORYLAIMIDA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2335 By Qaiser H. Baqri (Zoological Survey of India, 27 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700016, India) The purpose of this application is to provide a valid type species for the genus Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 because the originally designated type species was misidentified. The facts are as follows. 2. Yeates, 1970, described Thornenema wickeni from female specimens only. Ali & Prabha, 1974, described a population collected in India consisting of both sexes, and misidentified it as T. wickeni. They described the tails of the males as similar to those of the females. 3. Asthe male and female tails are dissimilar in Thornenema Andrassy, 1959, Ali & Prabha, 1974, proposed a new genus Indodorylaimus and designated T. wickeni as the type species. 4. For the present study, the type material of Thornenema wickeni was borrowed from the Rothamsted Experimental Station, and Ali & Prabha’s material misidentified as T. wickeni was made available by the Museum voor Dierkunde, Rijkuniversiteit, Ghent, Belgium. A comparative study showed that the type specimens of T. wickeni differ from Ali & Prabha’s specimens in the following characters: the lip region is narrower and less sclerotised, the amphids are differently shaped. In the paratypes, the cuticle is finely striated and the expanded part of the oesophagus is not highly muscular, as against the coarsely striated cuticle and highly muscular expanded basal part of the oesophagus in Ali & Prabha’s specimens. The vulva and vagina are also differently shaped. This shows clearly that the specimens on which Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 was based were misidentified. The species that was before Ali & Prabha has no valid name. The name /ndodorylaimus elongatus is here proposed for it. 5. The International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the genus Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 and to designate Indodorylaimus elongatus Bagqri, 1982, as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (gender: masculine), type species, 58 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 (3) Indodorylaimus elongatus Bagri, 1982, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the specific name elongatus Bagqri, 1982, as published in the binomen /ndodorylaimus elongatus (specific name of type species of Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ALI, S.M. & PRABHA, M.J. 1974. Nematologica vol. 19, pp. 481-490 BAQRI, Q.H. & JANA, A. 1980. Nematologica vol. 26, pp. 83-107 YEATES, G.W. 1970. Nematologica vol. 16, pp. 273-283 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 59 BUPRESTIS NANA PAYKULL, 1799, NON GMELIN, 1790 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION Z.N.(S.)2346 By M. Mroczkowski (/nstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) In 1790 J.F. Gmelin (in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1, p. 1940) introduced a new name, Buprestis nana, for a species described in 1774 from Surinam by de Geer (Mém. Ins. vol. 4, p. 137) under the name Buprestis pigmaea (in French as ‘Bupreste nain’), now known as Pachyschelus pygmaeus (de Geer, 1774). Thus Buprestis nana is a junior objective synonym of B. pygmaeus de Geer,.1774: 2. In 1799 Paykull (Fauna Suec. vol. 2, p. 233) described from Sweden another species, already described from Italy by P. Rossi in 1790 (Fauna Etrusc. vol. 1, p. 190) as Buprestis minuta Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat., ed. 10, p. 410; Rossi cited the reference to p. 663 of the 12th edition). Paykull showed that Rossi had misidentified Linnaeus’s species. He redescribed Rossi’s species and named it Buprestis nana. Both Buprestis minuta L., 1758 and B. nana Paykull, 1799 now belong to the genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Syst. Eleuth. vol. 2, p. 218), subgenus Habroloma Thomson, 1864 (Skand. Coleopt. vol. 6, p. 42). Some recent authors treat Habroloma as a separate genus. 3. Trachys (or Habroloma) nana (Paykull, 1799) is a common European species. Obenberger, 1937 (Coleopterorum Catalogus, pars 157, pp. 1412-1414) lists 122 references for this species. The following references are examples of more recent usage: Théry, A.,, 1942, Faune de France, vol. 41, p. 200; Schaefer, L., 1949, Misc. Entomol., Suppl., p. 456; Horion, A., 1955, Faunistik mitteleur. Kafer, vol. 4, p. 115; Pochon, H., 1964, /nsecta Helvetica, sauna, no. 2, p. 73; Bily, S., 1977, Klic k urcovani ceskoslovenskych krascu (Buprestidae, Coleoptera), p. 46; Lompe, A., 1979, Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 6, p. 246. The name has no available junior synonyms and was in continuous use until 1977. 4. In 1977 Silfverberg (Notulae entomol. vol. 57, p. 92) observed that Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799 is a junior primary homonym of Buprestis nana Gmelin, 1790, and proposed the new replacement name Trachys geranii. However, as Buprestis nana Gmelin, 1790 is a junior objective synonym of Buprestis pigmaea de Geer, 1774 and has never been used as a valid name since its establishment, Silfverberg’s action in proposing a new replacement name for Paykull’s Trachys nana will disrupt stability and cause confusion. I therefore ask the International Commission on 60 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Zoological Nomenclature: (1) (2) (3) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nana Gmelin, 1790, as published in the ‘binomen Buprestis nana, and all other uses prior to the publication of Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; to place the specific name nana Paykull, 1799, as published in the binomen Buprestis nana, and as validated through the use of the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; to place the specific name nana Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Buprestis nana, and all other uses prior to the publication of Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 61 PAPILIO FATIMA FABRICIUS, 1793 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): REQUEST FOR CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2351 By Gerardo Lamas (Museo de Historia Natural ‘Javier Prado’, Apartado 1109, Lima-100, Pert), Robert E. Silberglied & Annette Aiello (Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Panama). The name Anartia fatima (Fabricius, 1793), p. 81 has been discovered to be a junior primary homonym of Emesis fatima (Cramer, 1780), pp. 141, 174, pl. 271, figs. A,B,C,D), both having been originally described as Papilio fatima. 2. The homonymy has caused no confusion since both names have long been transferred (some 157 years ago) to other genera and belong, indeed, to two different families. 3. The name Anartia fatima is well known and is attached to thousands of museum specimens. It is the name of the most familiar and intensively studied butterfly of Central America (including Mexico). It is ubiquitous in disturbed habitats, and is generally the first and most common nymphalid seen by travellers in the moist tropics of this region. Due to its abundance and ease of capture, it has been the subject of, or a participant in, numerous biological studies, only a few of which are cited in the list of publications supporting the proposal. The species is familiar not only to the authors and readers of the scientific literature, but to hundreds of advanced students of ecology and evolutionary biology who have participated in field research programmes utilising it (such as the courses conducted in Costa Rica by the Organisation for Tropical Studies). The only common name for this butterfly is the same as the specific epithet, Fatima, and is published in the widely-distributed Field Guide to the Butterflies by Klots, 1951. 4. Significant features of the biology of this species, published in the evolutionary, ecological and behavioural literature, and associated with the name Anartia fatima, include: geographic range and _ variation, aberrations, chromosome number, morphology, complete life cycle, habitat preferences and daily activities of adults, larval host-plants, population structure, palatability to predators, behavioural role of wing coloration, change of wing-coloration with age, spectral range of vision, role as a pollinator, courtship behaviour, mating frequency, egg production and hybridisation with A. amathea in eastern Panama. 5. Additional studies on wing-damage by predators, detailed population biology, spermatophore transfer, interspecific 62 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 genetics and assortative mating with A. amathea are in preparation. This situation is in marked contrast to that of most tropical butterfly species, for which only a name is known. If we were to follow the Code strictly, the nymphalid Anartia fatima (Fabricius), as a junior primary homonym of the riodinid Emesis fatima (Cramer), would be invalid. However, considering the large amount of literature published on that species, it would be in the best interest of a stable nomenclature if the name Papilio fatima Fabricius could be conserved. 7. The name fatima Fabricius was first transferred to a different genus by Godart, [1824], p. 375, who included it in Nymphalis Kluk, 1802, p. 86. The name fatima was first used in Anartia Hiibner, [1819], p. 33 by Geyer in Hiibner, 1837, p. 8. No junior synonym of Anartia fatima was published before the year 1907, when Fruhstorfer, 1907, p. 111 described A. venusta, proposed for what he thought was a different subspecies, but which is now known to represent an age-related phenotype of A. fatima (Silberglied et a/l., 1980, and references therein). However, to our knowledge, venusta Fruhstorfer has been cited in print only a few times since its original description, and only four times at subspecific level: by Seitz, 1914, The Macrolepidoptera of the World (American Rhopalocera), vol. 5, pp. 462-463, pl. 94; by Hoffman, 1940, An. Inst. biol. Univ. nac. autonoma México, vol. 11, pp. 275-284 and ibid, vol. 11, pp. 639-739; and by Comstock and Vazquez, 1961, ibid, vol. 31, pp. 379-448. It has been cited at infrasubspecific level by Klots, 1951, Field Guide to the Butterflies of North America east of the Great Plains and by Silberglied et al. , 1980, Psyche, vol. 86 (2— 3), pp. 219-260. Howe, 1975, Butterflies of North America, while using the name at infrasubspecific level, introduced confusion by reversing the association of the ames with the characters that distinguish them, so that his form ‘venusta’ is really the true fatima. The obscurity of the name venusta is shown by the fact that it is not mentioned by Emmel, 1972, Taylor, 1973, or Young & Stein, 1976, although their papers deal with the very character whose variability defines it. 8. The International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suspend the application of the Law of Homonymy to the specific name fatima Fabricius, 1793, as published in the binomen Papilio fatima, and to rule that that name is nomenclaturally valid; (2) to place the above-mentioned name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 63 REFERENCES CRAMER, P. 1780. Papillons Exotiques des Trois Parties du Monde &c. vol. 3, 176 pp., pls. 193-288. 4° Amsterdam & Utrecht. FABRICIUS, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica &c. vol. 3(1), [6], 487 pp. 8° Hafniae. FRUHSTORFER, H. 1907. Uebersicht der bekannten Anartia und Beschreibung neuer Formen. Jnternat. entomol. Z. vol. 1, pp. 97, 101-102, 111-112. GODART, J.B. [1824] (in LATREILLE, P.A. & J.B. GODART, 1819-[1824]). Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle. [Zoologie] vol. 9. Entomologie ii, 828 pp. 4° Paris. HUBNER, J. 1816 [1826]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. pp. 431, 72. 8° Augsburg. —— 1837. Zutrége zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge &c. vol. 5, 52 pp. 4° Augsburg. KLUK, K. 1802. Zwierzat domowych i dzikich &c. vol. 4, 500 pp. 8° Warszawa. SILBERGLIED, R.E., AIELLO, A. & LAMAS, G. 1980. Neotropical butterflies of the genus Anartia: systematics, life histories and general biology (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Psyche (Cambridge) vol. 86, pp. 219-260. * LIST OF TEN WORKS BY TEN DIFFERENT AUTHORS, PUBLISHED IN THE LAST TWENTY YEARS, ON EVOLUTIONARY, ECOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIOURAL STUDIES THAT USE THE NAME ANARTIA FATIMA (FABRICIUS 1793). BARROWS, E.M. 1976. Nectar robbing and pollination of Lantana camara (Verbenaceae). Biotropica vol. 8, pp. 132-135. BERNARD, G.D. 1979. Red-absorbing visual pigment of butterflies. Science vol. 203, pp. 1125-1127. BOYDEN, T.C. 1976. Butterfly palatability and mimicry: experiments with Ameiva lizards. Evolution vol. 30, pp. 73-81. EHRLICH, P.R. & EHRLICH, A.H. 1979. Reproductive strategies in butterflies: I. Mating frequency, plugging, and egg number. J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. vol. 51, pp. 666-697. EMMEL, T.C. 1972. Mate selection and balanced polymorphism in the tropical nymphalid butterfly, Anartia fatima. Evolution vol. 26, pp. 96-107; see also Evolution vol. 27, pp. 164-165. MAEKI, K. & REMINGTON, C.L. 1961. Studies of the chromosomes of North American Rhopalocera. 4. Nymphalinae, Charaxidinae and Libytheinae. J. Lepidopt. Soc. vol. 14, pp. 179-201. SCHEMSKE, D.W. 1976. Pollinator specificity in Lantana camara and L. trifolia (Verbenaceae). Biotropica vol. 8, pp. 260-264. SILBERGLIED, R.E., AIELLO, A., WINDSOR, D.M. 1980. “Disruptive” coloration in butterflies: lack of support in Anartia fatima (Lepidoptera, Nymphalidae). Science vol. 209, pp. 617-619. TAYLOR, O.R., JR. 1973. A non-genetic “polymorphism” in Anartia fatima (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evolution vol. 27, pp. 161-164. YOUNG, A.M. & STEIN, D. 1976. Studies on the evolutionary biology of the neotropical butterfly Anartia fatima in Costa Rica. Contrib. Biol. Geol., Milwaukee Publ. Mus. No. 8, pp. 1-29. 64 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 ATTUS OTIOSUS HENTZ, 1846 (ARANEAE, SALTICIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2355 By G.B. Edwards (Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Division of Plant Industry, P.O. Box 1269, Gainesville, Florida 32602, U.S.A.) The jumping spider known as Phidippus otiosus (Hentz) is common to the southeastern portion of the United States of America and a well-known spider of the region. The species was described as Attus otiosus Hentz, 1846; the name has become well established and has only once been challenged until recently. Walckenaer, 1837, described many species of American spiders; in most cases these descriptions were based on the drawings of John Abbot, 1792. American araneologists considered Walckenaer’s descriptions invalid, as there were no specimens on which the descriptions were based, and the drawings of Abbot were presumed lost. However, McCook, 1888, discovered Abbot’s manuscript in the British Museum (Natural History), but it was not until Chamberlain & Ivie, 1944, studied Abbot’s drawings that any en masse changing of names in favour of Walckenaer occurred. By this time, the names of Hentz had been in continual usage for nearly 100 years. 2. Walckenaer described 3 of Abbot’s drawings as Attus pulcher, Attus pulcher pallida, and Attus peregrinus. Chamberlin & Ivie decided, correctly, that all 3 illustrations represented the same species; they therefore synonymized A. pulcher pallida and A. peregrinus with A. pulcher, which had page and figure number priority. They also synonymized Altus otiosus Hentz with A. pulcher. In so doing, they synonymized an established name in favour of a name which had not even been properly placed to genus before 1944 (Bonnet, 1955, in a review of all araneological works through 1939, lists the species as Aftus pulcher). Even though Chamberlin & Ivie resurrected the name as Phidippus pulcher (Walckenaer), P. otiosus (Hentz) continued to be the name used by American authors, even by Kaston, 1978, and Muma, 1975, who otherwise have followed Chamberlin & Ivie’s resurrections of older names. Recently, the name P. otiosus has been used in the fields of physiology (Anderson, 1966), morphology (Hill, 1979), and ethology (Edwards et al., 1974; Edwards, 1977; Richman, 1977). 3. Peckham & Peckham, the first revisers of Phidippus, used the name P. otiosus (Hentz) for the species in question in 1901 and 1909. The name otiosus has been used more than 20 times in the literature, mostly as Phidippus otiosus, rarely as Dendryphantes Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 65 otiosus or Attus otiosus; since 1930, it has been used at least 13 times by 11 different authors; it is Phidippus otiosus in the popular books by Kaston (1972, 1978, How to Know the Spiders, 2nd and 3rd editions), Gertsch (1979, American Spiders, 2nd edition), and in all printings of Levi & Levi (1968-1978, Spiders and Their Kin). The name Phidippus pulcher has been used only three times since 1944. Richman, 1978, while attempting to determine the status of Walckenaer’s names as they applied to various salticid species, agreed with Chamberlin & Ivie that P. otiosus was a synonym of P. pulcher, and used the name in a salticid checklist (Richman & Cutler, 1978). However, Richman (personal communication, 1978) has agreed that P. otiosus is the name that is used most often and, based on this reason, has no objection to its continued usage. 4. To preserve usage as it has been for 132 out of 134 years of existence of the name otiosus, the Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name _ pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the binomen Attus pulcher, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the specific names pulcher pallida Walckenaer, 1837, and peregrinus Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the trinomen Aftus pulcher pallida and the binomen Altus peregrinus, both junior subjective synonyms of Afttus pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name otiosus Hentz, 1846, as published in the binomen Afttus otiosus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (3) to place the specific and subspecific names pulcher Walckenaer, 1837, pulcher pallida Walckenaer, 1837, and peregrinus Walckenaer, 1837, as published in the combinations Attus pulcher, Attus pulcher pallida, and Attus peregrinus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) and (1)(b) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ABBOT, J. 1792. Spiders of Georgia. Manuscript of 582 figures. 66 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 ANDERSON, J.F. 1966. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. vol. 17, pp. 973-982. BONNET, P. 1955. Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2 (1), p. 805. CHAMBERLIN, R.V. & IVIE, W. 1944. Bull. Univ. Utah, vol. 35 (9), pp. 1-267. EDWARDS, G.B. 1977. Peckhamia 1 (1), pp. 11-12. EDWARDS, G.B., CARROLL, J.F. & WHITCOMB, W.H. 1974. Florida Entomol., vol. 57 (4), pp. 337-346. GERTSCH, W.J. 1979. American Spiders. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. New York. Second Edition. 274p. HENTZ, N.M. 1846. Boston J. nat. Hist. vol. 5, pp. 352-370. HILL, D.E. 1979. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. London, 65 (3), pp. 193-218. KASTON, B.J. 1972. How to Know the Spiders. Wm. C. Brown Co., Pub. Dubuque, Iowa. Second Edition. 289p. —1978. Ibid. Third Edition. 272p. LEVI, H.W. and LEVI, L.R. 1968. Spiders and Their Kin. Golden Press. New York. 160p. McCOOK, H.C. 1888. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia 1888, pp. 1-6. MUMA, M.H. 1975. Florida Entomol. 58 (2), pp. 83-90. PECKHAM, G.W. & PECKHAM, E.G. 1901. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Arts Let. vol. 13 (1), pp.282-358. —1909. Trans. Wisconsin Acad. Sci. Arts Let. vol. 16(1), pp. 355-646. RICHMAN, D.B. 1977. Peckhamia, vol. 1 (3), pp. 36-39. —1978. Peckhamia, vol. 1 (4), pp. 57-61. ——& CUTLER, B. 1978. Peckhamia, vol. 1 (5), pp. 82-110. WALCKENAER, C.A. 1837. Histoire naturelle des insectes aptéres. Paris, vol. 1, pp. 1-682. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 67 SIMULIUM AMAZONICUM GOELDI, 1905 (DIPTERA, SIMULIIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF SYNTYPES AND DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.)2364 By A.J. Shelley (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) The purpose of this request is to provide a reared female neotype of Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, in place of poorly preserved extant syntypes. The division of the S. amazonicum- group, which contains four vector species of two important human filariae in South America, into its constituent species is only possible on the basis of combinations of both pupal and adult characters. The whole concept of the S$. amazonicum-group is therefore totally dependent on the correct identification of S. amazonicum based on a reared name-bearing specimen. 2. The name S. amazonicum was given by Goeldi, 1905, to female specimens collected by A. Ducke at Tefé on the river Solim6es and by J. Huber from the rivers Purus and Acre in the Brazilian State of Amazonas. In his description Goeldi stated that a series of female ‘cotypes’ (syntypes in the modern sense) had been sent to the British Museum (Natural History) but made no mention of their exact provenance nor of any other type series. 3. Asearch for extant syntypes revealed the presence of two series in two depositories, the British Museum (Natural History) and the Naturhistorisches Museum Bern. Although Smart, 1942, referred to 38 female syntypes of S. amazonicum in the former, only 26 still remain. Of these, 20 are preserved in alcohol with a label written by Goeldi reading ‘Pitim, Bom Lugar, (Purus). v. 1904.’, another label by E.E. Austen: ‘Simulium amazonicum Goeldi. - Co-types, (The Pitm) Bom Lugar, Rio Purtis, Amazons Region, Brazil. May, 1904. — Dr. J. Huber. Pres. by Dr. E.A. Goeldi. (Recd. 6-vi.1905)’ and a registration number ‘Brit. Mus. 1941: 19’ added by Smart. All specimens are now reddened by prolonged preservation in alcohol and none shows any clear scutal pattern. The remaining six syntypes are also in poor condition and have been preserved in the following manner: two pinned specimens removed from alcohol by Smart, one of which is incomplete having its abdomen dissected on a slide; four specimens dissected on slides, two by Smart and two by me. 4. The other series of 27 pinned syntypes in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Berne, bears the following labels in Goeldi’s handwriting: ‘Piim. Purts, schreckliche Landplage am Amazonsstrom’ and ‘An Austen in London British Museum 68 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 einsenden zum bestimmen trockenes & Spiritusmater’. All specimens are variously damaged and inadequate for identification purposes. 5. No complete and reliable description of S. amazonicum has yet been published. The only accurate redescription was that of Smart (1942), but this was incomplete as it was based on the British Museum (Natural History) syntypes which had already lost their colour because of prolonged alcohol preservation. The two main redescriptions on which most modern identifications of S. amazonicum have been based are those of Lutz and of Cerqueira and Nunes de Mello. Lutz’s redescription (1910, 1917) of females and pupae collected by him are unreliable since no attempt was made correctly to associate individual pupae with adults and no attempt was made to study syntypes. These redescriptions are now known to be of two other species, distinct from, yet related to, S. amazonicum. Further confusion was caused in the same way when Cerqueira & Nunes de Mello, 1964, redescribed S. amazonicum in all its stages from a mixture of three species (one of which was true S. amazonicum), again without reference to type material. This lack of a clear and correct definition of S. amazonicum has led to incorrect distribution records (Pinto, 1932; Vargas, 1945; Vulcano, 1967), its incorrect incrimination as a vector of Mansonella ozzardi in Brazil by Cerqueira, 1959 (he was dealing with another species in the S. amazonicum-group) and its incorrect incrimination as a vector of Onchocerca volvulus both in Brazil (Rassi et al., 1975) and Venezuela (Rassi et al., 1977). 6. Ihave been investigating the taxonomy of S. amazonicum and its allies in the Brazilian Amazon basin and the relation of these species to the transmission of the two human filariae M. ozzardi and O. volvulus. Although agreeing with past workers that blackflies transmit these two filariae in the Amazon, disagreement occurs over the identifications of the species involved. Thus Rassi et al., 1975, incriminated S. amazonicum as a vector of onchocerciasis at Toototobi in northern Brazil, whereas Shelley et al., 1979, tentatively attributed the species to S. sanguineum after comparing their material with the holotype of this species. However, when Tidwell et al. (in press, but since published) fully redescribed S. sanguineum, it became apparent on pupal characters alone that the vector at Toototobi was not this species and it was then referred to as S. sanguineum s.1. by Shelley et al., 1980. Similarly, Cerqueira, 1959, produced evidence that suggested that S. amazonicum might be a vector of M. ozzardi in Brazil while Shelley et al., 1980, though confirming Cerqueira’s suggestion, regarded the blackfly species as undescribed but related to S. amazonicum. These authors also showed that S. amazonicum is capable of transmitting mansonelliasis. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 69 7. The cause of the lack of a definition for S. amazonicum is that only females are easily obtainable and these are difficult or often impossible to distinguish from closely related species without recourse to pupal characters. A subsequent study of all stages of these closely related species has shown the presence of a group of species, the S. amazonicum-group, which contains three anthropophilic and one zoophilic species in Brazil, and at least three other species, one of which is anthropophilic, from neighbouring countries. Although some of the species are separable on the design of the female scutum alone, in most cases reference to the pupa is essential before identification can be made. 8. As at least four species in the S. amazonicum-group are involved in the transmission of both onchocerciasis and mansonelliasis in various countries in northern South America, and as their distribution in some cases overlaps, it is essential for future epidemiological studies of these diseases and their transmission that vectors may be identified with certainty. This can only be done at present in most cases on reared material. The naming of these species has hinged on the acceptance of a reared female S. amazonicum from its type locality as neotype. 9. The International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress all the original syntypes of Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, whether deposited in the British Museum (Natural History), Naturhistorisches Museum Bern or elsewhere, and all subsequent designations of lectotypes from among those syntypes; (b) to designate the reared female specimen of S. amazonicum whose data follows, deposited in the British Museum (Natural History), as neotype. (S. amazonicum Goeldi, female, with associated pupal pelt. BRAZIL: Amazonas, Bom Lugar, R. Purus. 8°42’S 67°22’W. 22.xi.1977. (A.J. Shelley)). (2) to place the specific name amazonicum Goeldi, 1905, as published in the binomen Simulium amazonicum, and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES CERQUEIRA, N.L., 1959. Sdbre a transmisao da Mansonella ozzardi. Nota le nota 2. J. bras. Med., vol. 1, pp. 885-914. 70 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 CERQUEIRA, N.L. & NUNES DE MELLO, J.A., 1964. Sdbre 0 Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Diptera Simuliidae). Revta bras. Ent., vol. 11, pp. 97-115. GOELDI, E.A., 1905. Os mosquitos no Para. Mems Mus. paraense Hist. nat. Ethnogr., vol. 4, pp. 1-154. LUTZ, A., 1910. Segunda contribuigao para o conhecimento das espécies brazileiras do género ‘Simulium’. Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, vol. 2, pp. 213-267. —1917. Terceira contribuicao para 0 conhecimento das espécies brazileiras do género Simulium. O pium do norte (Simulium amazonicum). Mem. Inst. Oswaldo Cruz, vol. 9, pp. 63-67. PINTO, C.., [1932]. Simulidae [sic] da America Central e do Sul (Diptera). Reun. Soc. argent. Palot. reg. N., vol. 7, pp. 661-763. RASSI, E., LACERDA, N., GUAIMARAES, J.A., VULCANO, M.A., RAMIREZ PEREZ, J. & RAMIREZ, A., 1975. Preliminary report on a new vector of onchocerciasis in the Americas: Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, Lutz, 1910 and 1917). PAHO Bull., vol. 9, pp. 10-12. —MONZON, H., CASTILLO, M., HERNANDEZ, I., RAMIREZ PEREZ, J. & CONVIT, J., 1977. Discovery of a new onchocerciasis focus in Venezuela. PAHO Bull., vol. 11, pp. 41-63. SHELLEY, A.J., LUNA DIAS, A.P.A. & MORAES, M.A.P., 1980. Simulium species of the amazonicum group as vectors of Mansonella ozzardi in the Brazilian Amazon. Trans. r. Soc. trop. Med. Hyg., vol. 74, pp. 784-788. ——PINGER, R.R., MORAES, M.A.P., CHARLWOOD,J.D. & HAYES, J., 1979. Vectors of Onchocerca volvulus at the river Toototobi, Brazil. J. Helminthol., vol. 53, pp. 41-43. SMART, J., 1942. Notes on Simultidae (Diptera). Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond. (B) vol. 11, pp. 46-50. TIDWELL, M.A., TIDWELL, M.A. & PETERSON, B.V., 1981. A redescription of the female of Simulium sanguineum Knab and a description of the male, pupa and larva (Diptera: Simuliidae). Proc. entomol. Soc. Washington, vol. 83, pp. 13-27. VARGAS, L., 1945. Simtilidos del Nuevo Mundo. Monografias Inst. Salubr. trop. Meéx., vol. 1, pp. vi + 241 pp. VULCANO, M.A., 1967. A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States. 16. Family Simuliidae. Departamento de Zoologia. Secretaria da Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brazil. 44pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 71 DAMALIS FABRICIUS, 1805 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES Z.N.(S.) 2369 By Kenneth G.V. Smith (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) and Milan Chvala (Charles University CS-128 44, Prague, Czechoslovakia) Abstract: The Commission is requested to suppress the type species designation by Westwood, 1835, for Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (Damalis curvipes Fabricius, 1805; Diptera: EMPIDIDAE) in favour of the designation by Hull, 1962 (Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805; Diptera: ASILIDAE). Since the revision of Wiedemann, 1828, the genus Damalis Fabr. has been generally accepted as a valid genus in ASILIDAE and ignored in EMPIDIDAE. Fabricius, 1805, p. 147, erected the genus Damalis for four species: (1) D. curvipes Fabricius, 1805, p. 147 (America mer.); (2) D. planiceps Fabricius, 1805, p. 148 (Tranquebariae, India); (3) D. quadricinctus Fabricius, 1805, p. 148 (America mer.); and (4) D. myops Fabricius, 1805, p. 148 (Sumatra). Wiedemann, 1828, p. 415, found the first (curvipes) and the third (quadricinctus) species to be Neotropical EMPIDIDAE and transferred them to the genus Hybos Meigen, 1803. The remaining two species, the second (planiceps) and the fourth (myops) from the Oriental region, he found to be ASILIDAE and left them in the genus Damalis Fabricius. This classification was generally accepted by subsequent authors, but the two empidids were later correctly transferred to the genus Syneches Walker, 1852, when the genus Hybos Meigen, 1803 was split into several distinct genera. 2. Westwood, 1835, apparently without knowing of Wiedemann’s 1828 classification, designated the first named Damalis species, Damalis curvipes Fabricius, 1805, as a type species of the genus Damalis Fabricius. By this action Westwood fixed the genus Damalis in the family EMPIDIDAE, in opposition to the purpose of Wiedemann’s classification. 3. However, Westwood’s 1835 type designation was ignored by dipterists and the genus Damalis has generally been placed in the ASILIDAE, following Wiedemann, 1828, and rejected in the EMPIDIDAE. Hull, 1962, p. 53, following the principle of conservation of names and in the interest of stability of nomenclature, made a new type species designation for Damalis Fabricius; he chose a species of ASILIDAE, the second originally included species, Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805. However, no proposal has yet been put before the I.C.Z.N. and still two different type designations exist for the genus Damalis. Further recent references to and agreements with Hull’s 72 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 1962 action may be found for instance in Smith, 1967, p. 9 and Wilder, 1974, p. 2. Hull, 1962, also supports the usage of the name Damalis in ASILIDAE by the existence of several valid generic names in this family based on Damalis, such as Lasiodamalis Hermann, Lophurodamalis Hermann and Damalina Doleschall. These names indicate the current usage of the genus Damalis in ASILIDAE, whereas the name is practically unknown in the literature on EMPIDIDAE, except for lists of synonyms in monographs and catalogues. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designation of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Damalis Fabricius, 1805, and having done so to designate Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805 as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Damalis Fabricius, 1805 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Damalis planiceps Fabricius, 1805, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name planiceps Fabricius, 1805, as published in the binomen Damalis planiceps (specific name of type species of Damalis Fabricius, 1805) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES FABRICIUS, J.C., 1805. Systema Antliatorum. 372 + 30pp., Brunsvigae. HULL, F.M., 1962. Robber Flies of the World. The Genera of the Family Asilidae. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus. vol. 224 (1) pp. 1-430; (2) pp. 431-907. SMITH, K.G.V., 1967. Family Empididae, in: A Catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States.39, 67pp., Sao Paulo. WESTWOOD, J.O., 1835. Insectorum nonnullorum novorum (ex ordine dipterorum) descriptiones. Ann. Soc. Entomol. France, (1), vol. 4, pp. 681-685. WIEDEMANN, C.R.W., 1828. Aussereuropdische zweifliigelige Insekten, als Fortsetzung des Meigenschen Werkes, vol. 1, pp. i-xxxii, 1-608, Hamm. WILDER, D.D., 1974. A revision of the genus Syneches Walker (Diptera: Empididae) for North America and the Antilles. Contrib. Amer. entomol. Inst. vol. 10(5), pp.1-30. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 73 APHELINUS MYTILASPIDIS LE BARON, 1870 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, APHELINIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2320 By David Rosen (The Hebrew University, Faculty of Agriculture, Rehovot, Israel) and Paul DeBach (University of California, Riverside, California 92521, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to invite the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to exercise its plenary powers to suppress the name Agonioneurus albidus Westwood, 1837, in favour of Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870. 2. Westwood, 1837, p. 442, described the species Agonioneurus albidus, presumably from England, but his brief description was entirely inadequate and the name has been largely forgotten. 3. To the best of our knowledge, the name albidus has hardly ever been used in the zoological literature. Dalla Torre, 1898, p. 220, cited it in his Catalogus Hymenopterorum under the generic name Aphelinus Dalman, 1820. However, Mercet, 1912, p. 92, in his revision of the APHELININAE, listed albidus among the insufficiently described species of that genus. 4. Le Baron, 1870, p. 360, described the species Aphelinus mytilaspidis from specimens reared from the oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.), on apple in Kane and DuPage Counties, Illinois, and called attention to its potential economic importance as a natural enemy of this serious pest. 5. During the last 100 years or so, the name mytilaspidis has been in constant and extensive use in the zoological literature, as is illustrated by the following selected references: Howard, 1881, pp. 354-355, 1895, pp. 25-26; Masi, 1911, pp. 156-158; Mercet, 1912, pp. 82-84, 1930, p. 54, 1932, p. 360; Imms, 1916; Griswold, 1925; Lord, 1947; Lord & MacPhee, 1953; Compere, 1955, pp. 309-310; De Bach, 1964; Ferriére, 1965, pp. 90-91; Nikol’skaya & Yasnosh, 1966, pp. 203-204; Traboulsi, 1969, pp. 59-66; Réssler & DeBach, 1972; Graham, 1976, p. 134; Rosen & DeBach, 1978, p. 112, etc. Peck, 1963, pp. 253-256, listed 105 references to mytilaspidis, mostly from the North American literature on economic entomology, up to 1959. 6. Mercet, 1930, was the first to place mytilaspidis in the genus Aphytis Howard, 1900. Compere, 1955, used the name mytilaspidis to establish the mytilaspidis group of species in that genus. 7. During all that time, albidus remained unrecognizable. 74 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 Novitsky, 1961, placed it in the genus Aphyztis, but stated that it was a different species from mytilaspidis. Graham, 1976, pp. 133-134, reported on the condition of Westwood’s tag-mounted syntypes of albidus. He noted the similarity between albidus and mytilaspidis, but did not place these species in synonymy, pending further study of the types. 8. In a recent monograph on the species of Aphytis of the world, Rosen & DeBach, 1979, revised the mytilaspidis group and redescribed mytilaspidis. Inasmuch as Le Baron’s type series had evidently been lost, in order to preserve that well-established name they designated a neotype from material reared from Lepidosaphes ulmi on privet in Urbana, Illinois. 9. Dry, tag-mounted specimens of Aph/ytis are virtually unrecognisable. Only after remounting Westwood’s syntypes did Rosen & DeBach, 1979, p. 467, determine albidus to be a senior synonym of mytilaspidis. However, they suggested that the name albidus be considered a nomen oblitum. 10. Inasmuch as the specific name albidus was unrecognizable for some 140 years, and has hardly ever been mentioned in the zoological literature during that long period, whereas the name mytilaspidis has been recognized and in constant use for more than 100 years, in the interest of preserving nomenclatural stability, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby requested to: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name albidus Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen Agonioneurus albidus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the specific name mytilaspidis Le Baron, 1870, as published in the binomen Aphelinus mytilaspidis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) place the specific name albidus Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen Agonioneurus albidus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES COMPERE, H. 1955. A systematic study of the genus Aphytis Howard (Hymenoptera, Aphelinidae) with descriptions of new species. Univ. Calif. publ. Entomol. vol. 10, pp. 271-319. DALLA TORRE, C.G. De 1898. Catalogus hymenopterorum hucusque Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 1, March 1982 75 descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Vol. V: Chalcididae et Proctotrupidae. Engelmann, Lipsiae, 598pp. DEBACH, P. 1964. Some species of Aphytis Howard (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) in Greece. Ann. Inst. Phytopathol. Benaki, N.S. vol. 7, pp. 5-18. FERRIERE, C. 1965. Hymenoptera Aphelinidae d’Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen. Faune de l'Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen, vol. 1. Masson, Paris, 206 pp. GRAHAM, M.W.R. de V. 1976. The British species of Aphelinus with notes and descriptions of other European Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera). Syst. Entomol. vol. 1, pp. 123-146. GRISWOLD, G.H. 1925. A study of the oyster-shell scale, Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.), and one of its parasites, Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le B. Part II. Biology of a parasite of the oyster-shell scale. Mem. Cornell Univ. agric. Expt. Sta. vol. 93, pp. 57-67. HOWARD, L.O. 1881. Report on the parasites of the Coccidae in the collection of this department. Report of the Entomologist, Part III, in: Ann. Rep. Commissioner Agric. for 1880, Washington D.C., pp. 350-371, pl. 23-24, ——1895. Revision of the Aphelininae of North America, a sub-family of hymenopterous parasites of the family Chalcididae. U.S. Dept. Agric. Div. Entomol. Tech. Ser. No. 1, 44 pp. IMMS, A.D. 1916. Observations on the insect parasites of some Coccidae. I— On Aphelinus mytilaspidis Le Baron, a chalcid parasite of the mussel scale (Lepidosaphes ulmi L.). Quart. J. microsc. Sci., N.S. vol. 61, pp. 217-274, pl. 19-20. LE BARON, W. 1870. The chalcideous parasite of the apple-tree bark-louse (Chalcis [Aphelinus] mytilaspidis, n.sp.). Amer. Entomol. Bot. Vol. 2, pp. 360-362. LORD, F.T. 1947. The influence of spray programs on the fauna of apple orchards in Nova Scotia. II. Oystershell scale Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.) Canad. Entomol. vol. 79, pp. 196-209. LORD, F.T. & MacPHEE, A.W. 1953. The influence of spray programs on the fauna of apple orchards in Nova Scotia. VI. Low temperatures and the natural control of the oystershell scale, Lepidosaphes ulmi (L.) (Homoptera: Coccidae). Canad. Entomol. vol. 85, pp. 282-291. MASI, L. 1911. Contribuzioni alla conoscenza dei Calcididi Italiani. Boll. Lab. Zool. gen. agr. Portici vol. 5, pp. 140-171. MERCET, R.G. 1912. Los enemigos de los pardsitos de las plantas. Los Afelininos. Trab. Mus. Cienc. nat. Madrid vol. 10, 306 pp. ——1930. Los afelininos de Espana. Segunda parte. Rev. Biol. forest. Limnol. Ser. B, vol. 2, pp. 29-106. ——1932. Notas sobre afelinidos (Hym. Chalc.) 6.* nota. Eos vol. 8, pp. 353-365. NIKOL’SKAYA, M.N. & YASNOSH, V.A. 1966. Aphelinids of the European Part of the USSR and the Caucasus. Opred. Faun. SSSR 91. Nauka, Moscow and Leningrad, 296 pp. (in Russian). NOVITZKY, S. 1961. Note on Agonioneurus subflavescens Westwood and A. albidus Westwood (Hym., Aphelinidae). Entomol. mon. Mag. vol. 97, p. 195. PECK, O. 1963. A catalogue of the Nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Canad. Entomol. Suppl. 30, 1092 pp. 76 Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 39, pt 1, March 1982 ROSEN, D. & DEBACH, P. 1978. Diaspididae. pp. 78-128 in: Clausen, C.P. (Editor), Introduced Parasites and Predators of Arthropod Pests and Weeds: a World Review. Agric. Handbook 480, U.S. Dept. Agric., Washington, ON: ——1979. Species of Aphytis of the World (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, and Junk, The Hague, 801 pp., 1342 fig. ROSSLER, Y. & DEBACH, P. 1972. The biosystematic relations between a thelytokous and an arrhenotokous form of Aphytis mytilaspidis (Le Baron) (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) 1. The reproductive relations. Entomophaga vol. 17, pp. 391-423. TRABOULSI, R. 1969. Contribution a l’étude des Aphytis Howard du Liban (Hym. Chalcidoidea, Aphelinidae). Ann. Soc. entomol. Fr. (N.S.) vol. 5, pp. 5-72. WESTWOOD, J.O. 1837. Descriptions of some new British species of hymenopterous insects. Phil. Mag., Third Ser. vol. 10, pp. 440-442. < 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 donations 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. © 1982 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. Volume 39, Part 2 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. v-viii, 77 — 151 15th June 1982 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE iynee nlo!- Kid 7 JUN 1982 =. PURCHASED © 5 KY Locy Wo £% LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) re ok @ NAT. HIST. ¥ N i9y2 THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON| 2 1 ot ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE rt, PURCHASED & Be G 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 5BD). 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 (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, Shimizu City 414 Japan (20 February 1972) Marine Biology Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 IJF, 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 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI IJnstytut 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 (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, Universitdtsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) 27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Troms6, 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 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 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, 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. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. Barry Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S. Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 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 CBS oe ke cons ante emt Son Sere ae ee ae te} "Receipt of tiew appheavions” >.) 2 OegS Satie Special announcemems eM. Di tt: ee Tre ners Se Comments On the proposed conservation of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (G.R. Zug; R. Wassersug; T. Uzzell; M.J. Littlejohn; L.E. Brown, H.M. Smith & R.S. Funk) ............... Opinions Opinion 1202. COLOBINAE Jerdon, 1867 (1825) (Primates): conserved’: . 1 Aitoiniva:. Anird):... oreonrint . dae Opinion 1203. ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899 conserved: type species designated for Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868 Pinpeota, OMe steta) hh gi ebehdie ' 299A eet me iy Bo OATS 2.W a AS i sa rec tts. a rea clas iN nwa ® vs te ps balje SaSa ee oe at Sov tHE ATT LT neath tele fi % en a gam faves S Aphiailbce), Axis Gr | BY al, Osh or, inte DD. Doct rida fUroinebaery AMIN Sf ahaa Ap “Avni. Erinenl Rahemuriied, vor: tHE), ny ane pomeee OTA. wpe comment (Hidvedin, asin np Roatan Set Lbro\e — ‘oi 429-1; HOTTES, F.C., 1963. Aphid naines P Rahwenner Prececcdumghesinddll ihe potrers Gnsécta,. goa penn ZENE Be * oy 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 donations 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. © 1982 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. Volume 39, Part 3 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. ix-xii, 153 — 228 30th September 1982 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) >" \ x ‘hs \ Q ot v a} ee ix ds ntl THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON “Se Lae od 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 S5BD). Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD). B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Prof. T. HABE (Department of Marine Science, Tokai University, 1000 Orido, Shimizu City 414 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 Tucum4an, 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 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, 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 (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, Universitdtsgebiet 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 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 5BD) (23 August 1979) (Secretary) Palaeontology Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, 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. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. Barry Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 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 CASES ods ts PE EM eee tee, Tene Roe ne Set eee Comments On the proposal to designate a type species for Stethaspis Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) (R.D. Pope & J.C. Watt) ...... Support for the proposed conservation of TEITIDAE Gray, 1827 ERLE RRC T TEL ae CEL ARS TTT) i a Renn tnine a On the proposed suppression of Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (Insecta, Homoptera, Coccoidea) (H. Komosinska & M. Mroczkowski; EM: Kerzhneroc PEM w0anzioye nor coh ee eee On the proposed designation of type species for Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (I.M. Kerzhner; L.B. Holthuis)......... On proposed nomenclatural validation of Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 and Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 (L.B. Holthuis; RSIS GLC) wer ite ek cs canes gee ee. ge en On the proposal to designate the gender and stem of Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (W. Reed) Simulium amazonicum Goeldi, 1905 (Diptera): supporting comment for the suppression of syntypes and designation of a neotype IGM’ CIPS 137)" cout) eae ae goo ete ieee fn Aelita sate z On the proposed conservation of Buprestis nana Paykull, 1799 CH. Silivermegerer ss pk So Neste) ls ee Opinions Opinion 1218. Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910 (Acarina): SESiSOANORGl VOLPE. 6c. ois ohm -nyciileoiteces at “aut Se Opinion 1219. Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771, neotype designated; Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy St Hilaire, 1842 and Simia hoolock Harlan, 1834 (Mammalia, Primates): placed on the COTA CHAISE stn oe ot, Secale, ati oe tgs ae Opinion 1220. Halecium Oken, 1815 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): ruled to be an available name and conserved ................ Opinion 1221. Baeocera Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): designation offypespebies Cotianktion .Of. dope - xe ca.. Opinion 1222. Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 (Insecta, Hemiptera): type species @esipnatedy holier «se o: Arvbleuuntaecio: « 4. Opinion 1223. Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853 (Trilobita): conserved . xl Page 153 153 166 xii Opinion 1224. Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Hylobatidae): given precedence over Simia gibbon C. Miller, ie AP Ate A mel in saci pe RH Na ei ATE te! hr ace Opinion 1225. Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1776 and Lagis koreni Malmgren, 1866 (Polychaeta): CODSERVEC "2 er retn, 1) See We she Oe eae Mo ae as Ba oe ao Opinion 1226. Bonelli’s Tabula synoptica ruled to be an available work and‘to;have beer published mm: USL re ee te ene fs s,s aes os Direction 112. PIERIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): PEQUECHEG ete Mente Leet et EMRE cee teem Sen ed ee Tek ee Direction 113. MORPHIDAE (Insecta, Lepidoptera): further correction to\Oiheralbast entry A we eee ee ey New and revived cases Proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family group (A. FRASNIISY Rho ee ea ee eee ee eo eee Ge Erkan 2 ere Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposal to designate a'type'species (19:S! ‘Bletcher & I7Wi Bu Nye) 929.22 202 Request for suppression of Kinosternon alamose and K. oaxacae Pritchard, 1979 (Reptilia, Testudines) (P.C.H. Pritchard & N. Bronek)) 2°2 tara as peur aetna nace od Line eas oe tae eae Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (Rhizopoda, Amoebida): proposed Comservation (is: Rages. She. pes ee ee ee es Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed con- servation by use of the plenary powers (P.G. Allsopp) .... . Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera): request for designation of type species (M. Chvala & K.G.V. Smith) .......... Further notes on genus-group names in the Hydroid family CAMPANULARIIDAE Johnston, 1836 (P.F.S. Cornelius) . . Clythereis distinguenda Neviani, 1928, Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 and Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed conservation of type material and validation of lectotypes and a holotype (J. Athersuch) ............ 208 212 214 218 220 222 226 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ee 2 OY EY NT RT Volume 39, part 3 (pp. 153-228), 30 September 1982 ee Sa eo aed 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 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b: (1) Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposal to designate a type species. Z.N.(S.)2384. D.S. Fletcher & I.W.B. Nye. (2) Request for suppression of Kinosternum alamose and K. oaxacae Pritchard, 1979 (Reptilia, Testudines). Z.N.(S.)2339. P.C.H. Pritchard & N. Pronek. *(3) Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (Rhizopoda, Amoebida): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2387. F.C. Page. *(4) Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by use of the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.)2296. P.G. Allsopp. (5) Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Insecta, Diptera): request for designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2380. M. Chvdla & K.G.V. Smith. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- tions have been received since the publication of vol. 39(2) on 15 June 1982 (those marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b.): (1) Asterina Nardo, 1834 (Echinodermata, Asterozoa): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.)2410. A.M. Clark. (2) Ludita Nagy, 1867 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2411. C. van Achterberg. (3) Nomenclature of Scolecodonts (Annelida, Polychaeta): nomenclature proposed in J.P. Gries. 1944, Z.N.(S.)2412. J. Jansonius & G.G. Forney. 154 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 (4) Drymus ryeii Douglass & Scott, 1865 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Lygaeidae): request for invalidation of neotype and validation of lectotype. Z.N.(S.)2413. L. Jessop. (5) Carcharias Rafinesque, 1810 (Pisces): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2414. L.J.V. Campago & W.I. Follett. (6) Holothuria arenicola Semper, (1868) (Echinodermata, Holothuridea): proposed conservation under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.)2415. D.L. Pawson & J.E. Miller. *(7) Viverravus gracilis Marsh, 1872 (Mammalia, Carnivora): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2416. R.M. Schoch. *(8) Pandosa _ strigillata Simon, 1876 (Aranei, Lycosidae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2417. A.A. Zjuzin. *(9) Centrolenella Noble, 1920 (Amphibia, Salientia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2418. J.M. Savage & R.W. McDiarmid. *(10) Arcys clavatus Keyserling, 1889 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)2419. S. Heimer. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS THE INTRNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLISHING THE BULLETIN Readers will be interested to know that, as from January 1983, the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) has agreed to publish and distribute the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. This agreement with the Trust and CAB is to run for two years in the first instance, and thereafter will be open to annual re-negotiation. In addition, the Bureaux will pay £10,000 a year to the Trust. The Editor of the Bulletin will continue to be the Secretary of the Commission and as in the past, will have sole responsibility for the supply of matter for publication. No change in editorial policy is envisaged at present. This is very welcome news: it ensures the future of the Bulletin, at least for the foreseeable future, and links the Bulletin to a well-known and respected organisation which has its own Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 155 marketing and publicity departments. We believe this will give the Commission’s publication greater publicity and increase its circulation. In addition, the arrangement will release the Trust’s office staff from some administrative work. The financial arrangement will allow for the employment of an assistant zoologist. Thus the processing of applications and the output of Opinions should be quicker in future. A first major step has been taken to put the Commission’s work on a sound financial footing, even though there is still a very long way to go. PUBLICITY AND APPEAL FOR FINANCIAL SUPPORT Since the last Bulletin was published, the members of the Trust and the Patrons of the Appeal met at the Royal Society, London, on 15 June 1982, and another meeting is planned for 12th October at the Geological Society, London. The President, the Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, attached particular importance to the international character of the Appeal, and it is hoped that support will be forthcoming from many countries. RESIGNATION It is announced with great regret that Professor O.W. Richards, F.R.S., has resigned his membership of the Trust. We thank him for his services to the Trust. 156 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES FOR STETHASPIS HOPE, 1837 (COLEOPTERA, SCARABAEIDAE) Z.N.(S.) 2130 (1) By R.D. Pope (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD) (see vol. 34: pp. 85-87) I have received a separate of Dr Watt’s paper concerning the names Costelytra and Costleya. It would seem to me and to one or two colleagues that the two names are relatively distinct and should not be confused, especially as the pest species of the two groups are different, both in importance and in the type of plant crop attacked. However, given that application to the Commission is mandatory in order to designate a type species for Stethaspis Hope, it would seem to me that the processes leading to the validation of Chlorochiton Arrow (said by Watt to be ‘perhaps the most familiar name to New Zealand entomologists’) are preferable, despite the necessity of invoking the plenary powers. (2) Reply by Dr J.C. Watt Separates of my application were distributed widely to taxonomic and economic entomologists in New Zealand, and to_ specialists on SCARABAEIDAE, especially MELOLONTHINAE, overseas. I received only one written comment apart from Dr Pope’s, from Dr R.M. Emberson (Lincoln College, New Zealand), and that was in support of the application, but expressed doubt concerning whether the similar generic names Costleya and Costelytra were likely to be confused. My own experience is that such confusion is frequent, except among taxonomists. In the period when both names were in current use, typists usually misread Costleya as the much better-known Costelytra. Such lapses appeared in at least one unpublished report, although not apparently in print. One needs to bear in mind that names of pest species are used much more frequently by genera! entomologists than by taxonomists. Verbal comments from a wide cross section of New Zealand entomologists supported the application. Many regretted the demise of the well-known and ‘appropriate’ generic name Chlorochiton, but all preferred Stethaspis to Costleya. Stethaspis longicornis (Arrow)... mumu chafer, and Stethaspis suturalis (Fabricius)... tanguru chafer, were listed thus in Ferro and others, 1977, Standard names for common insects of New Zealand, Bull. entomol. Soc. N.Z., vol. 4, pp. 19, 34, 40. Thus the generic name Stethaspis has already been adopted by the Entomological Society of New Zealand in listing the species of major economic importance. In view of this, the validation of Chlorochiton as proposed in Dr Pope’s comment would only lead to further confusion, especially as it is unlikely that a revised edition of ‘Standard names for common insects of New Zealand’ will be published for several years. The prospect of a checklist of New Zealand Coleoptera is even further removed. In Article 79b of the Code adopted at the Monaco (1972) Congress (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, pp. 87-89) the criterion of current use stated in the former Article 23b is continued — that is, application of a name, as a presumably valid name, by at least five different authors in 10 publications in the preceding 50 years. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 15/, Costelytra meets both requirements, Chlorochiton does not meet the first requirement, and Cosfleya meets neither requirement. As stated in my original application, the validation of Chlorochiton ‘seems an exaggerated use of the plenary powers when a more elegant and simple solution can be found by designating M. suturalis Fabricius as the type species of Stethaspis’. I must, therefore, on both practical and nomenclatural grounds, oppose Pope’s proposal to validate Chlorochiton. SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF TEIIDAE GRAY, 1827, Z.N.S. 1920 (see vol. 38, pp. 194-196) By Hobart M. Smith and Rozella B. Smith (Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado 80309, U.S.A.) and David Chiszar (Department of Psychology, UCB) Certainly the long history of universal acceptance of the family name TEIIDAE, without effective competition of other names for the same taxon, justifies its conservation. However, it appears that TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, may not be available since in that work Tupinambis was not regarded as valid, but was synonymized in error with ‘Uranus Merrem’, 1820, an emendation of Varanus Merrem, 1820 (family VARANIDAE Gray, 1827). The only other genera recognized in the family were Ada Gray, 1825 (=Dracaena Daudin, 1802), Teius Merrem, 1820, and Ameiva ‘Say’ (=Meyer, 1795). Art. 11(e) requires that a family-group name ‘be based on the name then valid for a contained genus’, hence TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, is not available, nor am I aware that any other author has adopted the name at any family-group level. Therefore it seems appropriate to modify this request to make plain that TUPINAMBIDAE Gray is not available, rather than making it junior to TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, ‘when both names are applied to the same taxon.’ The rest of the requests merit approval. At the same time another name, the family AMEIVOIDEA Fitzinger, 1826 (p.21) should be delegated junior status when applied to the same taxon as the name TEIIDAE Gray, 1827. Fitzinger’s name is based on Ameiva ‘Cuvier’ (=Meyer, 1795), which he included in the family. All requirements of the Code for availability of Fitzinger’s name AMEIVOIDEA are met except for its ending, of which Art. 11 (e)(ii) permits correction, without alteration of original date and authorship, in properly emended form, conforming with Art. 29 (i.e., rendering it AMEIVIDAE). We suggest that this petition request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that TEI[DAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820) is to be given nomenclatural precedence over AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795) whenever the two names are applied to the same taxon; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) [asin Presch, 1981]; (b) [as in Presch, 1981]; 158 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 (c) Ameiva Meyer, 1795 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy, Ameiva americana Meyer, 1795 (=Lacerta ameiva ameiva Linnaeus, 1758 = Ameiva a. ameiva [Linnaeus]}); (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) [as in Presch, 1981]; (b) [as in Presch, 1981]; (c) ameiva Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lacerta ameiva (valid specific name of the type species of Ameiva Meyer, 1795); (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology: (a) TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (type genus Teius Merrem, 1820), with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence, by use of the plenary powers in (1) above, whenever it and AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826, are applied to the same taxon; (b) AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 (type genus Ameiva Meyer, 1795), with an endorsement that it is not to have priority over TEIIDAE Gray, 1827, whenever both names are applied to the same taxon; (5) to place the family name TUPINAMBIDAE Gray, 1825, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. SUPPLEMENTARY REFERENCES FITZINGER, L.J.F.J. 1826. Neue Classification der Reptilien ... Wien, Huebner, viii, 66 pp. MEYER, F.A.A. 1795. Synopsis reptilium ... Gottingen, 32 pp. PRESCH, W. 1981. TEIIDAE Gray, 1827 (Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 194-196. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF LECANIUM BURMEISTER, 1835 (INSECTA, HOMOPTERA, COCCOIDEA) Z.N.(S.) 2125 (see vol. 38, pp. 147-152) (1) by H. Komosinska (Warsaw Agricultural University) and M. Mroczkowski (Zoological Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) E.M. Danzig and I.M. Kerzhner (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 147-152, points 7-10) stated the case in relation to the generic name Lecanium which gave their reasons for asking the Commission to use its plenary powers. Their own opinion that to retain Lecanium now would cause more confusion in the nomenclature, does not seem to us well founded. In spite of the transfer of the type species of Lecanium (Lecanium hesperidum Linnaeus sp.) and Lecanium persicae (Fabricius) to another genus, the name Lecanium is still used in the literature, especially in works concerning the applied field (Arias & others, 1964; Bailey, 1964; Boyce, 1965; Flanders, 1959; Flanders, 1970; Fullmer et al. , 1959; Habib et al., 1971; Kagan & Lewartowski, 1977; Madsen Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 159 & Morgan, 1975; Patterson, 1966; Peterson, 1960: Phillips & Smith, 1963; Rubin & Beirne, 1975; Smith & Phillips, 1961; Teran & Guyot, 1969; Wellenstein, 1977) as well as in works dealing with the essential field (Fonseca, 1975; Hafez et al 1971; Husseiny & Madsen, 1962; Kawecki, 1958; Kawecki, in press). Having regard to the usage of the generic name Lecanium for over 140 years, we are submitting below our counter-proposal, which concerns points: Ic, 2c, 3c and 4 (see vol. 38, pp. 150-151). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the genus Lecanium Burmeister, 1835, made prior to the ruling here requested and having done so to designate Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844, to be type species of that genus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 (gender: neuter), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Lecanium corni Bouché, 1844; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: corni Bouché, 1844, as published in the binomen Lecanium corni (specific name of type species of both Lecanium Burmeister, 1835 and Parthenolecanium Sulc, 1908); (4) to place the generic name Parthenolecanium Sule, 1908 (a junior objective synonym of Lecanium Burmeister, 1835) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. REFERENCES ARIAS, R.O., RAMMER, I.A., KURTZ, E.A. & SIEMER. S.R. 1964. The control of mites on deciduous fruit crops with binapacryl: J. econ. Entomol. vol. 57, pp. 116-119. BAILEY, S.F. 1964. A study of the European fruit lecanium scale, Lecanium cornt, on prune. J. econ. Entomol. vol. 57, pp. 934-938. BOYCE, H.R. 1965. Effects of two carbamates on several pests of peach. Proc. entomol. Soc. Ontario. vol. 95, (1964), pp. 125-127. FLANDERS, S.E. 1959. Biological control of Saissetia nigra (Nietn.) in California. J. econ. Entomol. vol. 52, pp. 596-600. ———1970. Observations on host plant induced behavior of scale insects and their endoparasites. Canad. Entomol. vol. 102, pp. 913-926. FONSECA, J.P. 1975. Trés novas especies de coccideos do Brasil (Homoptera- Coccoidea). Arq. Inst. biol. S. Paulo, vol. 42. pp. 79-84. FULLMER, O.H., KURTZ, E.A. and WADE, W.H. 1959. Two new phosphate-oil combinations for scale control on deciduous fruit trees in the dormant period. J. econ. Entomol. vol. 52, pp. 373-376. HABIB, A., SALAMA, H.S. and SALEH, M.R. 1971. Population studies on the soft scale Lecanium acuminatum Signoret (Coccoidea). Z. angew. Entomol. vol. 68, pp. 387-403. HAFEZ, M., SALAMA, H.S. and SALEH, M.R. 1971. Survival and development of Lecanium acuminatum Sign. (Coccoidea) on a host plant and artificial diets. Z. angew. Entomol. vol. 69. pp. 182-186. HUSSEINY, M.M. & MADSEN, H.-F. 1962. The life history of Lecanium kunoensis Kuwana (Homoptera: Coccidae). Hilgardia vol. 33, pp. 179-203. KAGAN, F. & LEWARTOWSKI, R. 1977. Characteristic of development, 160 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 appearance intensity and noxiousness of main pests of fruit trees in Poland in 1975 (in Polish). Bull. Inst. Ochr. Rosl. vol. 61, pp. 321-368. KAWECKI, Z. 1958. Siudies on the genus Lecanium Burm. IV. Materials to a monograph of the brown scale, Lecanium corni Bouché, Marchal (female nec male) (Homoptera, Coccoidea, Lecaniidae). Ann. Zool. vol. 17, pp. 135-245. (in press) Katalog fauny Polski, czerwce — Coccoidea, czes¢ 21, zeszyt 5. MADSEN, B.J. & MORGAN, C.V.G. 1975. Mites and insects collected from vineyards in the Okanagan and Similkameen Valleys, British Columbia. J. entomol. Soc. Brit. Columbia, vol. 72, pp. 9-14. PATTERSON, N.A. 1966. The influence of spray programs on the fauna of apple orchards in Nova Scotia. J. econ. Entomol. vol. 59, pp. 1430-1435. PETERSON, L.O.T. 1960. Lecanium coryli L. (Homoptera: Coccoidea) in Saskatchewan. Canad. Entomol. vol. 92, pp. 851-857. PHILLIPS, J.H.H. & SMITH, E.H. 1963. Further studies on susceptibility of European fruit lecanium, Lecanium corni Bouché, to oil. J. econ. Entomol. vol. 56, pp. 175-180. RUBIN, A. & BEIRNE, B.P. 1975. Natural enemies of the European fruit lecanium, Lecanium tiliae (Homoptera: Coccidae) in British Columbia. Canad. Entomol. vol. 107, pp. 337-347. SMITH, E.H. & PHILLIPS, J.H.H. 1961. The influence of oil viscosity and timing of treatment on semidormant control of European fruit lecanium. J. econ. Entomol. vol. 54, pp. 1165-1171. TERAN, A.L. & GUYOT, N.H. 1969. La cochinilla del delta, Lecanium deltae (Lizer) (Hom., Coccoidea), en Tucuman. Acta zool. Lilloana, vol. 24, pp. 135-149. WELLENSTEIN, G. 1977. Die Grundlagen der Waldtracht und Moglichkeiten ihrer bienenwirtschaftlichen Nutzung. Z. angew. Zool. vol. 64, pp. 291-309. (2) Reply by I.M. Kerzhner & E.M. Danzig Komosinska and Mroczkowski argue for the retention of Lecanium instead of Parthenolecanium mainly because of the usage of Lecanium in the applied literature and they cite in support references to the usage of Lecanium (in the sense of Parthenolecanium, of Eulecanium, of both of these, and of Coccus). To assess the strength of their arguments we analysed the Review of Applied Entomology, the most comprehensive review publication in this field, from 1914 to 1981. All the years mentioned below are the years of publication of the Review, not of its Index, and not in all cases of the papers reviewed. Compilers of the Review had trouble from the beginning with the wide and confusing use of Lecanium and tried to indicate the correct generic position of the species concerned. As a result, cross references were given from Lecanium to more than 10 other generic names. From 1914 to 1926 and since 1945 the compilers have not used Lecanium at all (except for species of uncertain systematic position). From 1927 to 1943 they used Lecanium for Eulecanium and Parthenolecanium, and in 1944 for Parthenolecanium aloiue (in all, 18 years of usage and 50 of non-usage). Since 1971 the compilers have used Eulecanium and Parthenolecanium for distinct genera. The following table shows the original usage in the papers covered by the Review from 1960 to 1981 (a few papers that use Lecanium without explanation, for Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 161 two or more genera, or for genera other than Eulecanium or Parthenolecanium are omitted). Genus implied Name used Number of papers 1960- 1966- 1971- 1976— _— Total 1965 1970 1975 1981 Parthenolecanium | Lecanium Eulecanium Parthenolecanium Eulecanium Lecanium Eulecanium These figures clearly demonstrate the prevailing and increasing usage of the names Parthenolecanium and Eulecanium over Lecanium in the applied literature in recent years. The same result is even more clearly demonstrable in the taxonomic and faunistic literature. This shows that the opinion of the majority of specialists in favour of the suppression of Lecanium is well grounded. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES FOR PANOPEUS H. MILNE EDWARDS, 1834. Z.N.(S.) 2236 (see vol. 36, pp. 158-160) (1) By I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) Whatever H. Milne Edwards’s intention may have been, his Panopeus herbstii should be treated as a new replacement name for Cancer panope Herbst, 1801. This follows from the citation of the latter name in synonymy without any such indication as ‘partim’ or ‘auctorum’ or ‘sensu Say’, and is partly supported by the dedication of the name to Herbst (not to Say) and by the text in Desmarest, 1852. The reason for the replacement was very probably, as in many other early zoological works, the similarity between the generic name Panopeus and the specific name panope (compare the replacement of Scarabaeus melolontha Linnaeus, 1758, by Melolontha vulgaris Fabricius, 1775, or of Hemerobius formicaleo Linnaeus, 1758 by Myrmeleon formicarium Linnaeus, 1767). Formal application of Article 72d to this case will certainly disturb stability of nomenclature. Therefore plenary powers should be used to give nomenclatural validity to the name P. herbstii in the sense determined by Holthuis’s lectotype designation. (2) reply by L.B. Holthuis Article 72 says that only ‘if an author proposes a new specific name expressly as a replacement name for a prior name’ the types of the two nominal species must be the same. However, this is not what H. Milne Edwards did. He proposed a new name, Panopeus herbstii, and cited Cancer panope Herbst in the synonymy. Nowhere did he say that he proposed a new name herbstii expressly to replace the name panope. That he did on occasion expressly propose replacement names in this 162 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 work (Hist. nat. Crustacés) is shown in footnote (1) to page 377 of vol. 1, where under Cancer limbatus he cited as a synonym ‘Xantho granulosus. Ruppell. Crust. Pl. 5, fig. 3 (ce nom spécifique étant un double emploi, nous avons préféré celui sous lequel nous avons depuis longtemps désigné ce Crustacé dans la collection du Muséum)’. I agree that Panopeus herbstii is a replacement name, but as it was not expressly proposed as such, it need not automatically be referred to the same type as Cancer panope. Therefore I was justified in selecting an American specimen to be the type of H. Milne Edwards’s species. I believe we have to interpret Article 72d very narrowly so as not to bind the hands of subsequent authors. That provision, by predetermining the type of a species that has expressly been given a new replacement name, also predetermines a taxonomic decision, and it should therefore not be applied more widely than is strictly necessary. COMMENT ON PROPOSED NOMENCLATURAL VALIDATION OF CAPSUS ATER JAKOVLEV, 1889 AND LYGAEUS QUADRIPUNCTATUS FABRICIUS, 1794. Z.N.(S.) 2148 (see vol. 38, pp. 288-291) (1) By L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889 There is no doubt that Deraeocoris limbicollis Reuter, 1901, is the correct name for Capsus ater Jakovlev, 1889. As according to Dr Kerzhner’s paragraph 4 there is and was no uniformity in the use of a name for this species (both ater and sibiricus being used), why not follow the Code strictly and adopt the correct name? From the application I do not gain the impression that the species is either of great interest in applied science or otherwise very well known, so that a name change would not seriously upset current practice. Lygaeus quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794 In this case too there is no uniformity in the use of a specific name for the taxon involved. In recent years, judging by the proposal, three names have been used for the species: guadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, annulicornis Sahlberg, 1898 and annulatus Carvalho, 1959. The first two are invalid junior homonyms and the third is a junior synonym. The fact that both limbicollis Reuter (in Deraeocoris) and confluens Reuter (in Adelphocoris) have been or may be used for infrasubspecific forms does not matter at all, as both were proposed as subspecific names. The action of later authors does not affect their original status. Any author who considered Capsus ater Jakovlev congeneric with Cimex ater Linnaeus would still have to reject Jakovlev’s name, which could only be saved by the suppression of Linnaeus’s name under the plenary powers. (2) Reply by I.M. Kerzhner Article 59b(i) of the Code protects current usage and permits the restoration under the plenary powers of ‘historical’ junior secondary homonyms replaced before 1961 if their replacement names are not used or only rarely used, or if the use Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 163 of those names is in conflict with current practice. I think that it is logical, even if not strictly laid down in the Code, to extend that principle to cases where the replacement name cannot be used because it is a junior homonym or junior synonym. I find no evidence that Article 59b(i) applies only to names of economic or other importance. I think that if, as a result of nomenclatural (not taxonomic) confusion, two or more names are used for the same species, the nomenclatural validation of one of those names (preferably the oldest and most used) serves stability better than the introduction of a further name that has never come into use for the species. Capsus and Deraeocoris are placed in different, generally accepted, subfamilies. The possible future taxonomic changes referred to by Dr Holthuis are rather theoretical and in my judgment their nomenclatural interpretation is covered by Articles 57 and 59c. I think (and Mr Melville is of the same opinion) that the nomenclatural validation of junior secondary homonyms under Article 59c(i) implies only the rejection of the replacement name proposed before 1961, and not the taxonomic validation of the name. But to avoid any doubts it will be best to modify my proposals as follows: The Commission is now asked (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to rule that the specific name ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen Capsus ater, is not to be rejected as a junior homonym of the specific name ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex ater, by any zoologist who places those species in different genera; (b) to suppress the specific name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Cimex quadripunctatus, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ater Jakovlev, 1889, as published in the binomen Capsus ater, with an endorsement that it is not to be rejected as a junior homonym of ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cimex ater by any zoologist who places those species in different genera; (b) quadripunctatus Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Lygaeus quadripunctatus; (3) to place the specific name quadripunctatus Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Cimex quadripunctatus, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE THE GENDER AND STEM OF HELIOTHIS OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 2306 (see vol. 37, pp. 186-189) By W. Reed (International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru P.O., Andhra Pradesh 502324, India) [The following is an extract from a letter sent by Dr Reed to Dr Nye on 21 January 1982. R.V.M.] “Your paper on the nomenclature of Heliothis was received with interest and 164 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 appreciation by the International Workshop on Heliothis Management. Following its presentation by Dr J.C. Davies it was announced that all participants would be given two days to digest and discuss the contents before being asked to respond to the following referendum: I support the retention of the established nomenclature for H. armigera, H. peltigera, H. punctigera, etc. I support the suggested change in nomenclature to H. armiger, H. peltiger, H. punctiger, etc. ‘Of 47 replies received, 45 were in favour of retaining H. armigera, etc. ‘As this workshop was attended by many of the world’s most experienced and active research specialists concentrating upon Heliothis, I think that there is little doubt about the preference for retention of the established nomenclature among the people who really matter. I hope that you will continue to press the Commission for the retention of the established names,’ SIMULIUM AMAZONICUM GOELDI, 1905 (DIPTERA): SUPPORTING COMMENT FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF SYNTYPES AND DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 2364. (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 67-70) By R.W. Crosskey (British Museum (Natural History), London) In my view the Commission should in general react warily to requests for the suppression of extant primary types of species-group taxa — lest requests for original types to be suppressed in favour of neotypes should become the fashion whenever the original primary type for a name fails to show the ideal taxonomic characters or is inconvenient for some other reason. That said, it is also my view that the Commission should not hesitate to exercise its powers to suppress the use of existing primary types, and to designate neotypes on application from specialists, whenever this can resolve nomenclatural problems concerning animals of direct and demonstrable importance to man, e.g. parasites, disease vectors, destructive pests. Accordingly I fully endorse Dr Shelley’s request for the suppression of the extant syntypes of Simulium amazonicum Goeldi and for designation by the Commission of the specimen that he recommends as neotype (his paragraph 9(1)(b)). The Simulium amazonicum group of blackflies (SIMULIIDAE) is now known to contain several species that are actual or potential vectors of human filariases in South America. It is currently under intensive taxonomic study to determine accurately which species are involved in disease epidemiology, and which are therefore potential targets for vector control. The group is one of unusual taxonomic difficulty, intrinsically because of the close resemblances between species and extrinsically because of sampling problems for the preimaginal stages. Only morphotaxonomic characters are as yet available for species discrimination. Simulium amazonicum is the nomenclatural pivot of the group, but the name has been haphazardly applied (actually in almost all cases misapplied) to several different species that bite man in the Amazon basin and circumjacent areas. The almost inextricably confused history of the name has been unravelled by Dr Shelley, who has recently also provided a comprehensive redescription of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 165 Simulium amazonicum in Shelley et al., 1982. This redescription is based upon material of larvae, pupae and reared adult flies collected personally by Dr Shelley at the original type locality. The new material, because it contains pristine flies from pupae of known morphotype, allows S. amazonicum to be characterized and properly understood in a way not previously possible. Other workers, including recent workers, had not seen material from the type locality and had used the name amazonicum uncritically, thereby perpetuating a situation in which the name was being variously misapplied to several species (including carriers of filarial worms). The existing type material of S. amazonicum being now almost worthless, because of discoloration after nearly 80 years in alcohol storage, it would clearly be sensible to set it aside formally and establish a new type specimen from the original type locality that is associated with the taxonomically important pupal exuvium — as Dr Shelley suggests. A decision by the Commission in favour of Dr Shelley’s request would now serve to stabilize nomenclature by providing a usable name-bearer specimen for Simulium amazonicum against which the conspecificity or otherwise of S. amazonicum group specimens can be judged. It would underpin the redescription that has recently been published with the object of establishing the true specific identity (Shelley et a/., 1982). The paper of Shelley et al. (op. cit., p.8) refers to the then pending application to the Commission for neotype designation. REFERENCE SHELLEY, A.J., PINGER, R.R. & MORAES, M.A.P. 1982. The taxonomy, biology and medical importance of Simulium amazonicum Goeldi (Diptera: Simuliidae), with a review of related species. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Ent.) vol. 44, pp. 1-29. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF BUPRESTIS NANA PAYKULL, 1799. Z.N.(S.) 2346 (see vol. 39, pp. 59-60) By Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, Helsinki University, Finland) I wish to express my support for Dr Mroczkowski’s request for the preservation of the name Trachys nana (Paykull). The suppression of unused senior homonyms is, it seems, the only method by which the Code gives a chance to preserve at least some well known specific names that are junior objective synonyms. Whenever the threatened name is considered sufficiently important, and the senior homonym is an unused synonym, the use of this method should be recommended. 166 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1218 TROMBIDIUM AKAMUSHI BRUMPT, 1910 (ACARINA): DESIGNATION OF NEOTYPE RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, the work by K. Kishida entitled ‘Notes on the Trombidiidae of Japan’, Tokio, which may have been distributed in 1909, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. (2) It is hereby ruled that the specimen designated by Vercammen-Grandjean, 1969, Acarologia, vol. 11, pp. 97-100, as ‘lectotype’ and deposited in the University of California as ‘Holotype No. L/5866/1’ is the neotype of Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910. (3) The generic name Leptotrombidium Nagayo, Miyagawa, Mitamura, Tamiya and Satori, 1915 (gender: neuter), type species, by monotypy, Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2161. (4) The specific name akamushi Brumpt, 1910, as published in the binomen Trombidium akamushi, and as defined by reference to the neotype designated in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2809. (5) The specific name tanakai Kishida, 1909, as published in the binomen Kedania tanakai is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as an unavailable name, having been published in the work suppressed for the purposes of zoological nomenclature under the plenary powers in (1) above, with the Name Number 1100. (6) The work by K. Kishida entitled ‘Notes on the Trombidiidae of Japan’ Tokio, which may have been distributed in 1909, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology with the Title Number 86. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 400 The present case was first brought to the attention of the Commission by Dr Cornelius B. Philip in February 1949. Its subsequent history was elucidated by Dr I.W.B. Nye (Assistant Secretary to the Commission) in a report prepared by him and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 69-74. 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 nine general periodicals and one specialized periodical. No comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 167 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6th October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1981)15, for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 70. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Heppell, Lehtinen, Binder, Habe, Alvarado, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Professor Dupuis commented: ‘Beaucoup de _ points d’incertitude demeurent. Je vote “pour” uniquement pour des raisons évidentes d’usage, tant il est vrai que le Précis de Brumpt fut longtemps, par excellence, l’ouvrage de référence internationale en parasitologie, nonobstant les nombreuses négligences formelles de cet auteur.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names and a title placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: akamushi, Trombidium, Brumpt, 1910, Précis de Parasitologie (ed. 1), p. 506, fig. 335 Leptotrombidium Nagayo, Miyagawa, Mitamura, Tamiya & Satori, 1915, Dobuts. Zasshi, vol. 28, p. 379 tanakai, Kedania, Kishida, 1909, Notes on the Trombidiidae of Japan (Tokio), page not known. The following is the title of a work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology by the ruling given in the present opinion: Notes on the Trombidiidae of Japan (Tokio, 1909), by K. Kishida. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)15 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1218. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 March 1982 168 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1219 HOMO LAR LINNAEUS, 1771, NEOTYPE DESIGNATED: HYLOBATES ENTELLOIDES 1. GEOFFROY ST HILAIRE, 1842 AND SIMIA HOOLOCK HARLAN, 1834 (MAMMALIA, PRIMATES): PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, specimen no. 55.1488 in the British Museum (Natural History) is hereby designated as neotype of Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771 (Official List of Specific Names in Zoology No. 603). (2) Under the plenary powers, the specific name golock Bechstein, 1799, as published in the binomen Simia golock, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) entelloides, 1. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 1842, as published in the binomen Hylobates entelloides (Name Number 2810); (b) hoolock Harlan, 1834, as published in the binomen Simia hoolock (Name number 2811). (4) The specific name golock Bechstein, 1799, as published in the binomen Simia golock, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology as suppressed under the plenary powers in (2) above, with the Name Number 1101. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1844 An application for a ruling on certain nomenclatural problems in the gibbons was first received from Dr C.P. Groves (then at the U.S. National Museum) on 22 April 1968. After an exchange of correspondence, a paper was sent to the printer on 29 August 1968 and published on 17 January 1969 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, pp. 162-164. An intervention by Professor A. Simonetta (University of Florence) was never satisfactorily clarified. A revised application was received from Dr Groves on 24 August 1976. This was sent to the printer on 25 October 1976 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 75-79. 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 eight general and two specialised periodicals. A comment by Professor Holthuis asking that a neotype be designated for Homo lar was answered by Dr Groves (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 197-198). No other comment was received. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 169 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (81)16 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 78 and vol. 35, p. 198. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20), received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Heppell, Lehtinen, Binder, Habe, Alvarado, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Vote — Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride (in part) and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Professor Dupuis commented: ‘Le cas 1844, comme la plupart de ceux relatifs aux Vertébrés, est un cas d’appréciation taxinomique autant que nomenclatoriale, et trop complexe pour étre tranché de maniére simpliste. Pour l’ information précise de la Commission, peut-étre ett-il fallu comparer sous forme tabulée la totalité des noms utilisés et des taxa impliqués dans les travaux des réviseurs, de Linné aI. Geoffroy St Hilaire. ‘La désignation d’un néotype est une simplification que je considére comme arbitraire, et Groves a raison de demander I’avis de la Commission sur ce point. ‘Cette désignation était peut-étre inutile, car je constate que, selon I. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 1851, Mus. d’Hist. nat. Paris, Catal. méthod. de la coll. des mammifeéres, Introd. et Catal. des Primates, p. 6, pour Hylobates Illiger, 1811 “le type est le grand Gibbon de Buffon, H. lar’. ‘A supposer qu’une action nouvelle ait été indispensable, probablement pouvait-on se contenter de désigner un lectotype au moyen d’une figure (Art. 74b) en exceptant de la série-type les spécimens considérés comme variants ou douteux (Art. 72a). Ceci conduisait a choisir le grand Gibbon de Buffon. Celui-ci a, de surcroit, donné lieu, dans Buffon méme, non seulement 4 une figure, mais a une description anatomique détaillée de la femelle, avec mensurations et iconographie. Si, véritablement, l’on devait désigner un néotype, il fallait y procéder dans le cadre d’un travail de révision (Art. 75a), en consultant d’autres spécialistes (Rec. 75A). Ceci aurait conduit 4 désigner un spécimen historique, c’est a dire vu et étudié par un réviseur. Or, je constate avec regret que Groves n’indique ni le sexe ni la date de capture de son néotype, ni les auteurs qui l’ont étudié. ‘Pour l’ensemble de ces raisons, je vote contre la proposition et contre le néotype choisi. 170 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 ‘Je préférerais, cependant, que la décision sur ce point soit ‘différée et réouverte par une consultation de spécialistes, a inititative de la Commission. ‘De toutes maniéres, le fait que la Commission, dans un tel cas, n’ait regu — ou suscité — aucun commentaire est extreémement decevant et, 4 mes yeux, justifierait 4 lui seul le report de la décision.’ Dr Groves replied as follows: ‘The original application suggested the fixing of the name Homo Jar on the Petit Gibbon of Buffon in order to preserve it in a familiar manner (i.e. for the Malayan white-handed Gibbon). This is, admittedly, in part a taxonomic rather than a nomenclatural matter; clearly, however, one such as myself who submits an application to the Commission is more interested in obtaining a decision one way or the other than in necessarily obtaining a favourable decision. ‘If the Commission sees its way to authorizing the proposed neotype, the familiar usage of the name Jar, in the combination Hylobates lar lar, will be preserved. Designation of a lectotype, as proposed by Professor Dupuis, will not do this; on the contrary, it will reverse the familiar nomenclature. ‘As stated in the application, I am reviving a case that had lapsed since 1969. At that time I was engaged on a revision of the genus Hylobates, and that revision has since appeared. Although at that time no neotype was considered, as it had not been suggested as a way to solve the problem, the association of my application with that revision appears to meet the intention of Article 75a that a neotype can only be designated in connection with a revision. Other specialists have been consulted: P.H. Napier is mentioned (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 197): Recommendation 75A is therefore fulfilled. The information that I had inadvertently omitted is that B.M.(N.H.) 55.1488 is a male collected by H.C. Robinson on 17 November 1910. Apart from my study it has been examined by J.E. Hill, 1960, Bull. Raffles Mus. Singapore, vol. 29, p. 29.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: entelloides, Hylobates, 1. Geoffroy St Hilaire, 1842, C.r. Acad. Sci. Paris, vol. 15, p. 717 golock, Simia, Bechstein, 1799, T. Pennant’s ‘Uebersicht der vierfiissigen Thiere’, vol. 1, p. 181 hoolock, Simia, Harlan, 1834, Trans. amer. phil. Soc., n.s. vol. 4 (1); p:52: Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 171 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)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. 1219. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 March 1982 172 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1220 HALECIUM OKEN, 1815, (COELENTERATA, HYDROIDA): RULED TO BE AN AVAILABLE NAME AND CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) The generic name Halecium Oken, 1815, a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatural purposes in Opinion 417, is hereby ruled to be an available name; (b) All designations of type species hitherto made for the genus Thoa Lamouroux, 1816, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Sertularia halecina Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Halecium Oken, 1815 (gender: neuter), type species, by subsequent designation by Naumov, 1860, Sertularia halecina Linnaeus, 1758, and as ruled under the plenary powers to be an available name in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2162. (3) The specific name halecina Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sertularia halecina (specific name of type species of Halecium Oken, 1815) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2812. (4) The family-group name HALECIIDAE Hincks, 1868 (type genus: Halecium Oken, 1815) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 590: (5) The generic name Thoa Lamouroux, 1816, a junior objective synonym of Halecium Oken, 1815 through the ruling under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2126. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2116 An application for the conservation of the generic name Halecium Oken, 1815, was first received from Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (British Museum (Natural History), London) on 10 April 1975. It was sent to the printer on 16 May 1975 and published on 30 January 1976 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, pp. 252-254. 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 ten general periodicals. Dr Lemche observed that the purpose of the application could be met without suppressing Thoa Lamouroux, 1816, as originally proposed, if that name was made a junior objective synonym of Halecium Oken, 1815 by designating Sertularia halecina Linnaeus, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 173 1758 as type species of the genus. This was accepted by Dr Cornelius and resulted in a more economical set of proposals to the Commission. Dr Lemche’s comment and Dr Cornelius’s reply were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33, p. 72. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1981) 17 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32, p. 253, but with points (1)(b), (3), (4)(b) and (5)(b) withdrawn. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Binder, Habe, Heppell, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Votes — none. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Dupuis commented: ‘Je vote pour, compte tenu des amendements Lemche et Cornelius, en exprimant ma satisfaction sur deux points: (1) il faut toujours restreindre une demande au plus petit nombre possible de noms; (2) il ne faut jamais hésiter a remettre en cause une Opinion antérieure (la suppression en bloc des noms d’un ouvrage est une erreur historique: l’on doit seulement supprimer des noms si nécessaire, et un par un).’ 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: HALECIDAE Hincks, 1868, History of British hydroid zoophytes (London), p. 220 halecina, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), vol. 1, 809 p. Halecium Oken, 1815, Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3, pti, p.91 Thoa Lamouroux, 1816, Histoire des polypiers coralligénes flexibles, vulgairement nommeés zoophytes (Caen), p. 210. The following is the original reference to a type-species designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Sertularia halecina as type species of Halecium Oken, 1815, by Naumov, 1960, Fauna SSSR, vol. 70, p. 442. 174 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)17 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1220. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 March 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 175 OPINION 1221 BAEOCERA ERICHSON, 1845 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Baeocera Erichson, 1845, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Baeocera falsata Achard, 1920, is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Baeocera Erichson, 1845 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Baeocera falsata Achard, 1920, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2rOs. (3) The specific name falsata Achard, 1920, as published in the binomen Baeocera falsata (specific name of type species of Baeocera Erichson, 1845), and as interpreted by reference to the lectotype designated below, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2813. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N-(S:)'2194 An application for the designation of a type species for Baeocera Erichson, 1845 that would preserve that author’s intention was first received from Dr I. L6bl (Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Geneva) on 9 April 1976. After some correspondence a draft was sent to the printer on 25 October 1976 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 101-103. 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 eight general and seven entomological periodicals. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote in Voting Paper (1981)18 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 102. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Tortonese, Hahn, Brinck, Heppell, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative votes — nil (0). Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Hahn commented: ‘I vote for this proposal with some 176 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 hesitation because I cannot foresee what will happen now to all the taxa grouped in Eubaeocera in the meantime. Is Eubaeocera in common use, do other specialists agree with Dr Lobl’s view? It is deplorable that no other specialists have made any comment.’ In reply, the Secretary pointed out that a close study of the application showed that Eubaeocera Cornell, 1967 is now treated as a junior synonym of Sciatrophes Blackburn, 1903. He agreed that it was deplorable that no comments had been received. Ride returned a comment which clearly called for clarification before the Opinion could be written, even though his vote was received late. He said: ‘L6bl does not identify the name-bearing type of Baeocera falsata Achard, which need not automatically be the specimen seen by Erichson. Lobl notes that this is unidentifiable. If that specimen is the name-bearing type, action may be required under the plenary powers to complete the case by establishing a meaningful type. I request the Secretary to review the literature and advise the Commission as to what action, if any, should be taken.’ The Secretary referred this question to Dr L6bl, who replied that no type specimen had been designated for B. falsata and added: ‘As Achard proposed the name for concolor auctorum (i.e. Erichson, Casey and Blatchley) a type specimen could be one of the specimens on which these authors based their respective descriptions. The single specimen that Erichson misidentified as Baeocera concolor (Fabricius) and on which he based his description of the genus is a female. Unfortunately, at present only males provide secure diagnostic characters for species in this group. The choice of that specimen is thus not to be recommended. Casey, 1893, Ann. New York Acad. Sci. vol. 7, p. 516, redescribed B. concolor from three specimens including a male (although his description is “taken from a female” one of the male characters is noted). I propose this male as lectotype. It is deposited in the National Museum of Natural History, Washington, remounted ona card and with the genitalia mounted in balsam on a transparent plastic strip on the specimen pin. The labels are, from top to bottom: 1, “Penn.” with a black dot on the second n; 2, a male symbol; 3, Casey bequest, 1925; 4, the name “concolor” in pencil; 5, an identification label “Baeocera falsata Achard det. L6bl 1976”.’ LECTOTYPE DESIGNATION FOR BAEOCERA FALSATA The lectotype designation by Dr L6bl in the preceding paragraph is incorporated into the present Opinion. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 177 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Baeocera Erichson, 1845, Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Abth. 1, Coleoptera vol. 3, p. 4 falsata, Baeocera, Achard, 1920, Bull. Soc. entomol. France for 1920, p. 307. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1221. R.V. MELVILLE : Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 March 1982 178 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1222 CAMPYLOSTEIRA FIEBER, 1844 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA): TYPE SPECIES DESIGNATED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Campylosteira are hereby set aside and the nominal species Tingis verna Fallen, 1826 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tingis verna Fallén, 1826, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2164. (3) The specific name verna Fallén, 1826, as published in the binomen Tingis verna, and as interpreted by reference to the lectotype designated by Péricart, 1977 is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2814. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2193 An application for the designation of a type species for the genus Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 was first received from Monsieur J. Péricart (77130 Montereau, France) on 16 August 1976. It was sent to the printer on 25 October 1976 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 34, pp. 98-100. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to eight general and eight entomological periodicals. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1981)20 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 99. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Votes — two (2): Heppell, Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Dupuis commented: ‘D’aprés le requérant lui-méme, il est “plausible” que le falleni de Fieber (type du genre selon Horvath) soit un spécimen un peu aberrant de verna (proposé comme type du genre). En ces conditions de conspécifité il n’y a ni raisons Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 179 taxinomiques, ni raisons nomenclatoriales de changer la désignation. Du reste, verna était species inquirenda aux yeux de Fieber (ce qui, selon l’Article 67h, interdit son emploi), tandis que falleni, selon le requérant lui-méme, s’accompagne d’une description “précise” et dillustrations “assez claires” (ce qui est conforme aux Recommandations 69A et 69B).’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Campylosteira Fieber, 1844, Entomologische Monographien (Prague), p. 45 verna, Tingis, Fallén, 1826, Supplementum Monographiae Cimicum Sveciae (Lund), p. 16. The following is the original reference to a_ lectotype designation accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of the male syntype of Tingis verna Fallén, 1826, no. 1976/174 at the Zoological Institute, University of Lund, by Péricart, 1977, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 98. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)20 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion Nois222. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 March 1982 180 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1223 ACIDASPIS CORONATA SALTER, 1853 (TRILOBITA): CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name coronata Salter, 1853, as published in the binomen Acidaspis coronata, is to be given precedence over the specific name quadrimucronatus Murchison, 1839, as published in the binomen Paradoxides quadrimucronatus whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) coronata Salter, 1853, as published in the binomen Acidaspis coronata, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name quadrimucronatus Murchison, 1839, as published in the binomen Paradoxides quadrimucronatus, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2815); (b) quadrimucronatus Murchison, 1839, as published in the binomen Paradoxides quadrimucronatus, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name coronata Salter, 1853, as published in the binomen Acidaspis coronata whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2816). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2190 An application for the conservation of Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853 was first received from Dr A.T. Thomas (Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge, England) on 23 July 1976. After some correspondence, it was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 92-93. 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 eight general and two palaeontological periodicals. Dr A.W.A. Rushton (Jnstitute of Geological Sciences, London) pointed out that a lectotype had been designated for Acidaspis coronata (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 16). No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1981) 21 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 181 93. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Nye, Dupuis, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Votes — two (2): Heppell, Lehtinen. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Dupuis: ‘La référence au lectotype est indispensable puisque le probleme est un probleme taxinomique (ainsi qu’en fait foi la rédaction des alinéas 7(1), (2) et (3) de la requéte) et non pas nomenclatorial.’ Ride: ‘The erroneous statement that GSM.36734 is the lectotype does not constitute designation of the specimen as a lectotype. The matter should be placed beyond doubt by selecting that specimen.’ DESIGNATION OF LECTOTYPE FOR ACIDASPIS CORONATA On receiving Dr Ride’s comment, I invited Dr Rushton to take the action suggested. He replied as follows: ‘Thank you for sending me a copy of Dr Ride’s comment on the Acidaspis coronata case. I have studied the Code and have to admit that he is in the right; Whittard’s designation of a “holotype” was invalid as such and did not constitute a lectotype designation. I hasten to repair the omission and hereby designate GSM.36734 as lectotype of Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: coronata, Acidaspis, Salter, 1853, Mem. geol. Surv. U.K., vol. 2 (1), pl. 9, figs. 6-9 quadrimucronatus, Paradoxides, Murchison, 1839, Silurian System, p. 658, pl. 14, fig. 10. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)21 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1223. 182 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London II March 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 183 OPINION 1224 SIMIA SYNDACTYLA RAFFLES, 1821 (MAMMALIA, HYLOBATIDAE): GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER SIMIA GIBBON C. MILLER, 1779 RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the specific name syndactyla Raffles, 1821, as published in the binomen Simia syndactyla, is to be given precedence over the specific name gibbon C. Miller, 1779, as published in the binomen Simia gibbon, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) syndactyla Raffles, 1821, as published in the binomen Simia syndactyla, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name gibbon C. Miller, 1779, as published in the binomen Simia gibbon, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2817); (b) gibbon C. Miller, 1779, as published in the binomen Simia gibbon, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name syndactyla Raffles, 1821, as published in the binomen Simia syndactyla, whenever the two names are considered synonyms (Name Number 2818). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2195 An application for the conservation of Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821, was first received from Dr C. Groves (Australian National University, Canberra) on 24 August 1976. It was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 104-105. 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 eight general and two mammalogical periodicals. Dr Jack Fooden (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago) thought the application was unnecessary but Dr Groves still wished the case to be dealt with by the Commission (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 75, 76). No other comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1981) 22 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 104-105. At the close of the voting period on 6 J anuary 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: 184 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Tortonese, Hahn, Brinck, Lehtinen, Habe, Binder, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Vote — Heppell Abstentions — two (2): Alvarado, Dupuis. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. The following comments were returned by members with their voting papers: Vokes: ‘While I am inclined to agree with Dr Fooden, I strongly believe that the specific name syndactyla should be protected.’ Hahn: ‘| agree to the proposal of Dr Groves — in spite of Dr Fooden’s comment — that the name syndactylus should be conserved by action of the Commission. Heppell: ‘Whatever interpretation may be placed on the name Simia gibbon it is not required. If it was, or is deemed to have been, validly proposed, it is a good candidate for suppression and I do not know why the applicant was not advised to take that course. We certainly do not want Simia gibbon admitted to the Official List only to complicate the priority of Simia syndactyla. 1 am, however, somewhat worried about what action the Commission will take in the event of an “against” vote. If the applicant’s request to conserve the name Simia syndactyla is rejected as unnecessary this should not result in Simia gibbon being conserved instead.’ Cogger: ‘Although I would have preferred to see Simia gibbon suppressed (which, it appears from the application and subsequent correspondence, could be justified on several grounds), the proposal achieves its purpose without pre-empting further action.’ Dupuis: ‘Etant donné (1) la réelle difficulté de décider la signification exacte du nom Simia gibbon dans Miller, 1779, (2) Pintérét d’éviter tout emploi de ce nom, et (3) l’éventualité que “Simia gibbon” figure dans certaines adaptations étrangéres de Buffon publiées entre 1766 et 1779, je ne peux voter verbatim pour aucune des propositions. Je propose de limiter la décision a ce qui suit: les noms “Simia gibbon of Buffon” tel que cité par Miller, 1779, et Simia gibbon Miller, 1779 sont mis a l’ Index de méme que tout emploi antérieur — s’il s’en trouve — d’un nom é€quivalent. J’estime dés lors inutile de parler de Simia syndactyla.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 185 gibbon, Simia, C. Miller, 1779, Phil. Trans. roy. Soc. London vol. 68, pp. 161-179 syndactyla, Simia, Raffles, 1821, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 13, . 241. P CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)22 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1224. R.V. MELVILLE . Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 11 March 1982 186 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1225 PECTINARIA LAMARCK, 1818, NEREIS CYLINDRARIA BELGICA PALLAS, 1766 AND LAGIS KORENI MALMGREN, 1866 (POLYCHAETA): CONSERVED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers (A) 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) cylindraria Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria; (b) tubiformis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Sabella tubiformis; (c) pectinata J. Sowerby, 1805, as published in the binomen Nereis pectinata; (d) pallassii Leach, 1816, as published in the binomen Cistena pallassit; (B) the generic name Cistena Leach, 1816 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (C) all designations of type specimens for, and all the original type material of, the nominal species-group taxon Nereis cylindraria belgica are hereby set aside and the neotype designated by Nielsen, Kierkegaard & Lemche, 1977, is hereby designated type of that species- group taxon; (D) it is hereby ruled that the family-group name PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 is to be given precedence over the family-group name AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Malmgren, 1866, Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1766 (Name Number 2165); (b) Amphictene Savigny, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Malmgren, 1866, Amphitrite auricoma O.F. Miller, 1776 (Name Number 2166). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) (b) (c) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 187 belgica Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria belgica, and as defined by the neotype ratified under the plenary powers in (1) (C) above (specific name of type species of Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818) (Name Number 2819); auricoma O.F. Miller, 1776, as published in the binomen Amphitrite auricoma (specific name of type species of Amphictene Savigny, 1822 (Name Number 2820); koreni Malmgren, 1866, as published in the binomen Lagis koreni (Name Number 2821). (4) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the endorsements and Name Numbers specified: (a) (b) PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 (type genus Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818) with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over AMPHICTENIDALE (type genus Amphictene Savigny, 1822) by anybody who considers that the genera Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 and Amphictene Savigny, 1822 belong to the same family- group taxon (Name Number 539); AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 (type genus Amphictene Savigny, 1822) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 by anyone who believes that Amphictene Savigny, 1822 and Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 belong to the same family-group taxon (Name Number 540). (5) The generic name Cistena Leach, 1816, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(B) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2127. (6) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(A)(a) to (d) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (d) cylindraria Pallas, 1766, as published in the combination Nereis cylindraria (Name Number 1102); tubiformis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Sabella tubiformis (Name Number 1103); pectinata J. Sowerby, 1805, as published 1n the binomen Nereis pectinata (Name Number 1104); pallassii Leach, 1816, as published in the binomen Cistena pallassii (Name Number 1105). 188 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2202 An application for the conservation of the generic name Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 and of the species-group names Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1766 and Lagis koreni Malmgren, 1866 was first received from Dr Claus Nielsen (Marine Biological Laboratory, Helsinggr, Denmark) and Dr J.B. Kierkegaard and the late Professor Henning Lemche (Zoological Museum, Universitetsparken, Copenhagen) on 21 October 1976. It was accompanied by a list of the names of 90 zoologists who supported the application. It was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 112- 122. 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 10 general periodicals. It was also distributed with Aquatic Science and Fisheries Abstracts. Professor Holthuis put forward two alternative sets of proposals, both differing from those of the original applicants. His Alternative B was supported by Dr Torleif Holthe (University of Troms@, Norway) and his Alternative A by Dr Marian H. Pettibone (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.) (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 18-24). The names of nine further zoologists who supported the original proposals were also given there. Nielsen & Kierkegaard put forward a revised set of proposals (ibid. , pp. 25— 29). A comment by Dr Karl Banse (University of Washington, Seattle) was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 36, pp. 146-147. No other comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION Because of the complexity of the case, the Commission was presented with two voting papers. In Voting Paper (81)23 the members were asked to vote, in Part A, for or against the use of the plenary powers in the case. It was explained that a vote ‘against’ would be considered as a vote in favour of Holthuis’s Alternative A. In Part B of this voting paper the members were asked to vote either for the revised proposals of Neilsen & Kierkegaard set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 27-28, or for Holthuis’s Alternative B on p. 23. In Voting Paper (81)24, the members were asked to vote for or against the use of the plenary powers in connexion with the family- group names involved. It was explained that a vote ‘for’ would be taken as a vote in favour of the proposals of Nielsen & Kierkegaard and a vote ‘against’ as a vote in favour of Holthuis (Alternative A, point 3 and Alternative B, point 4). These voting papers were issued under the Three-Month Rule on 6 October 1981. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 189 V.P.(81)23 — Part A Affirmative Votes — ninteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Tortonese, Hahn, Brinck, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Heppell, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Cogger, Mroczkowski Negative Vote — Bayer Part B, Alternative 1 Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Tortonese, Hahn, Brinck, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Heppell, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Cogger, Mroczkowski Part B, Alternative 2 Affirmative Votes — two (2): Sabrosky, Lehtinen » V.P.(81)24 Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Tortonese, Hahn, Brinck, Alvarado (a conditional vote with the majority), Habe, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Mroczkowski Negative Votes — five (5) received in the following order: Sabrosky, Lehtinen, Heppell, Bayer, Cogger. Holthuis abstained on both voting papers. On V.P.(81)23 Halvorsen sent in a late affirmative vote for parts A and B1; Ride and Starobogatov sent in late affirmative votes for parts A and B2. On V.P.(81)24, Halvorsen sent in a late affirmative vote and Ride and Starobogatov late negative votes. Hahn commented: ‘The use of PECTINARIIDAE instead of AMPHICTENIDAE, of Pectinaria instead of Cistena, and of P. koreni sensu Malmgren has made its way even into textbooks and handbooks of zoology, for instance into Kaestner’s Lehrbuch der Zoologie and Grzimek’s Tierleben. To follow the proposals of Dr Holthuis would indeed disturb current use and therefore I vote for the proposals of Dr Nielsen and Dr Kirkegaard.’ THE NAMES OF THE TYPE GENUS OF AMPHICTENIDAE GRUBE, 1851 AND OF THE TYPE SPECIES OF THAT GENUS At this point it was realised that, although the family-group name AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851, had been placed on the Official List, the name of the type genus of that family (and of the type species of that genus) had not been considered; yet without them it is impossible to determine the identity of the family concerned. The Secretary therefore examined this point with the help of Dr A.I. Muir (British Museum (Natural History), London) and found that no type species had been originally designated for Amphictene Savigny, 1822 but that, of the originally included 190 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 species, Amphitrite auricoma O.F. Miller, 1776, had been subsequently designated as type species by Malmgren, 1866. There being no issues requiring the use of the plenary powers on this point, the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.)(82)1 on 18 March 1982 for or against placing Amphictene Savigny, 1822 and Amphitrite auricoma O.F. Miller, 1776 on the Official Lists. At the close of the voting period on 18 April 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following order: Melville, Nye, Holthuis, Dupuis, Binder, Sabrosky, Hahn, Brinck, Bayer, Welch, Ride, Halvorsen, Tortonese, Willink, Corliss, Cogger Negative Vote — Heppell. Late affirmative votes were received from Kraus, Vokes and Habe. No votes were returned by Alvarado, Bernardi, Starobogatov, Mroczkowski, Trjapitzin and Lehtinen. Heppell commented: ‘I cannot see any grounds for taking this action. The applicants did not request it and the names involved are not at risk. The Commission has not taken any action in regard to them and the family-group name has been placed on the Official List only to have the qualification that it is not senior to PECTINARIIDAE. In my view it would only confuse zoologists to place the generic and specific names on the List.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Amphictene Savigny, 1822, Descr. de l’Egypte, Hist. nat. vol. 1 (3), Annélides, p. 88 AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851, Familien der Anneliden, Berlin, p.82 auricoma, Amphitrite, O.F. Miller, 1776, Zool. Dan. Prodromus, p. belgica, cylindraria, Nereis, Pallas, 1766, Misc. zoologica, p. 122 Cistena Leach, 1816, Encycl. brit., Annulosa, Suppl. to eds 4—6, vol. 1, p. 452 cylindraria, Nereis, Pallas, 1766, Misc. zoologica, p. 117 koreni, Lagis, Malmgren, 1866, Ofvers. k. Vetenskaps Akad. Forh. for 1865, p. 360 Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert., vol. 5, p. 348 PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865, Hist. nat. Annélés marins et d’eau douce, Annélides et géphyriens, vol. 2, p. 327 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 191 pallassi, Cistena, Leach, 1816, Encycl. brit., Annulosa, Suppl. to eds 4-6, vol. 1, p.452 pectinata, Nereis, J. Sowerby, 1805, British Miscellany, vol. 1, p. 107 tubiformis, Sabella, Pennant, 1777, British Zoology, Crust., Moll., Test., vol. 4, p. 148. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (81)23 and 24 and (O.M.)(82)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposals contained in the two former voting papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decisions so taken, being the decisions of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, are truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1225. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 April 1982 192 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 OPINION 1226 BONELLI’S TABULA SYNOPTICA RULED TO BE AN AVAILABLE WORK AND TO HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED IN 1810 RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that Bonelli’s Observations Entomologiques, Premiére Partie, including his Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera Carabicorum in sectiones et stirpes disposita, is an available work and that it was published in 1810. (2) The title of the above work is hereby placed on the Official List of Works approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 44. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2135 An application from Professor Maciej Mroczkowski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw) for the addition of Bonelli’s Tabula Synoptica to the Official List was first received on 31 July 1975. It was sent to the printer on 25 October 1976 and published on 1 July 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 61-62. 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 eight general and seven specialist periodicals. The application was supported by the late Professor Carl Lindroth (Lund University, Sweden) and by Dr C.L. Kryzhanovskij (Academy of Sciences, Leningrad). An objection by Professor Holthuis was answered by Professor Mroczkowski (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 201-202). Alternative proposals were put forward by Dr R.B. Madge (British Museum (Natural History), London) (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 9-12) and accepted by Professor Mroczkowski. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1981)26 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 11. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Tortonese, Hahn, Brinck, Heppell, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 193 and Starobogatov. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Professor Dupuis commented: ‘I vote for the proposal with the addition “including his Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera Carabicorum in sectiones et stirpes disposita’”’. This was an integral part of the original proposals and has been incorporated in the present ruling. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference to a work of which the title has been added to the Official List of Works approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bonelli, F.A., 1810, Observations entomologiques, Premiére Partie, including Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera Carabicorum in sectiones et stirpes disposita. Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. Litt. et Beaux-Arts de Turin, vol. 18 (Mém. prés. vol. 4), pp. 21-78 plus table. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)26 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1226. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 April 1982 194 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 DIRECTION 112 PIERIDAE DUPONCHEL, [1835] (INSECTA: LEPIDOPTERA): PROTECTED RULING.— (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name PIERIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (Name Number 206 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology) is to be given precedence over the family-group name COLIADINAE Swainson, 1827 (Name Number 227 on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology) by anyone who believes that the type genera of these two taxa lie in the same family-group taxon. (2) It is hereby directed that entries 206 and 227 in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology are to be endorsed in accordance with the ruling given in (1) above. (3) The date of Name Number 206 in the Official List of fea ro Names in Zoology is hereby amended from 1832 to 1835]. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2186 An application for the safeguarding of the family name PIERIDAE Duponchel, and for the correction of its date was first received from Lt-Col. C.F. Cowan (Grange-over-Sands, England) on 5 July 1976. It was sent to the printer on 25 October 1976 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 90-91. 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 eight general and eight entomological periodicals. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1981) 19 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 90-91. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982, the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Binder, Habe, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer, Cogger Negative Vote — Heppell. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. Heppell commented: ‘I cannot agree with the means proposed to achieve the desired end although I would be in favour of the validation of PIERIDAE. Such inverted priorities of name, and Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 195 especially of family-group names, on the Official Lists are a nomenclatural hazard and should be avoided except in the most exceptional cases. In this case no mention is made of the names of other subfamilies included in PIERIDAE — have these been fully considered? It seems that COLIADINAE was placed on the Official List for no good reason, merely as a “tidying-up” exercise, and without its proposal having been advertised to entomologists for comment. The Commission should accept its responsibility for the consequences of its act by the removal of COLIADINAE from the Official List forthwith, either by repealing Direction 99 or by other means under the plenary powers. Far too many of such cases arising from the application of Article 23d(i) have to be brought before the Commission and it is perhaps time that zoologists were asked to reconsider whether they wish this provision of the Code to be maintained. If so they should be more ready to accept the results of its general application.’ CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)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 Sates) Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Direction eniiD R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 March 1982 196 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 DIRECTION 113 MORPHIDAE (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): FURTHER CORRECTION TO OFFICIAL LIST ENTRY RULING.— (1) The entry against Name No. 225 in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology is hereby corrected to read: MORPHIDAE (correction of Morphites) Newman, E., 1834 [remainder of entry unchanged]. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Morphites Newman, 1834, an incorrect original spelling of MORPHIDAE (Name Number 493); (b) Morphoidae J.L.R. Agassiz, 1847, an unjustified emendation of Morphides Boisduval, 1836, itself an incorrect subsequent spelling of MORPHIDAE (Name Number 494). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2201 An error in the authorship and date attributed to the lepidopteran family name MORPHIDAE in entry No. 225 in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology was first drawn to the Commission’s attention by Lt-Col. C.F. Cowan (Grange-over- Sands, England) on 14 October 1976. He asked that that name should be attributed not to ‘Westwood, [1851]’ but to ‘Boisduval, 1836’. His paper was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 109- 111. No use of the plenary powers was involved; no comments were received. On 23 November 1979 a correction to his original application was received from Lt-Col. Cowan. Dr Gerardo Lamas had drawn to his attention an earlier publication of the name MORPHIDAE (as ‘Morphites’) by Newman, 1834. A revised application was sent to the printer on 15 April 1980 and published on 25 September 1980 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 134-135. No use of the plenary powers was involved; no comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (81)27 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 37, pp. 134-135. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 197 Trjapitzin, Corliss, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer r Negative Vote — Heppell. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen and Starobogatov and a late negative vote from Ride. Vokes abstained. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Kraus and Cogger. The following comments were returned by members of the Commission with their votes: Heppell: ‘When errors of fact are detected concerning entries on the Official Lists, but when the error does not affect the interpretation of the nominal taxon concerned, the entry should be subject to automatic correction after due notice has been given without the necessity of a formal application and a Commission vote. In the case of family-group names there is no question of more than one nominal taxon being involved as A-IDAE will always be interpreted by reference to its type genus A-us Smith, 1800, whatever the date or authorship of A-IDAE and whatever the type species of A-us. It is thus the concept of A-IDAE that is enshrined in the Official List and the date and authorship merely regulate its priority relative to other family-group names. Suppose an application was before the Commission to substitute A-IDAE Smith, 1840 for the entry A-IDAE Brown, 1850, placed on the Official List without use of the plenary powers. What if the Commission returned an “against” vote? Would not A-IDAE Smith, 1840, nevertheless be the valid name for the family, just as B- IDAE Green, 1830, would be if it were shown to be a senior synonym? ‘In most zoological groups the dates and authorships of family- group names are poorly known as it was the common practice to use the name based on the most senior valid generic name included in the family or subfamily and not on the relative priority of the family- group names themselves. For this reason the continual discovery of earlier usages of family-group names than those presently known must be expected, even for names already added to the Official List. With the further possibility of acceptance, after proper latinization of the termination, of names coined in the vernacular, the dating of family-group names becomes even more open to varying opinion. Article 1le(iii) allows the acceptance of such a name published before 1900 with its original date and authorship provided that it has been “generally accepted ... as dating from its first publication in vernacular form”. Surely the implication of this provision is that a specified vernacular usage may be accepted if the remaining conditions are met. In the present case the applicant seems to have interpreted this Article as referring to the first publication in vernacular form whatever that may at any time prove to be. The 198 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 argument for authorship of MORPHIDAE earlier than Doubleday, already extremely tenuous in that it seems to depend on a single reference in Agassiz’s Index Universalis being taken as evidence of general acceptance of MORPHIDAE taking priority from Boisduval’s MORPHIDES, is completely vitiated by the substitution of Newman’s MORPHITES which is so far from general acceptance that it had been totally overlooked until after the publication of the application. Finally I would point out that “MORPHOIDES Agassiz, 1847” is an error for “MORPHOIDAE Agassiz, 1847”. Although this error is evident from the original application it has been repeated in the emended proposals (vol. 37, p. 135) and is not corrected on the voting paper. Fortunately Agassiz’s emendation is later than Doubleday’s correctly formed name, of which it is a junior objective synonym, but in any case would have been an incorrect original spelling not in general current use, as the stem of Morpho is Morph- and MORPHIDAE is the only possible spelling of the family name derived from it.’ Ride: ‘Article 11e(iii) requires that a name not fully latinized must have been generally accepted as dating “from its first publication in vernacular form”. No argument has been presented that MORPHIDALE is accepted as dating from Morphites Newman, 1834. The decision that the Commission is being asked to take would require the use of the plenary powers to set aside the normal operation of that provision. Neither stability nor universality would be served by such an action.’ Note by the Secretary: I took ‘Morphites’ not as an English vernacular, but as fully latinized though with an incorrect termination. As such, it would be covered by Article 11le(ii) and I believe the correct procedure has been followed. R.V.M. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for an amended entry in an Official List and for names placed on an Official Index by the decision taken in the present Direction: MORPHIDAE Newman, E., 1834 (correction of Morphites), Entomol. Mag. vol. 2 (4), pp. 379, 381 Morphites Newman, E., 1834, Entomol. Mag. vol. 2 (4), pp. 379, 381 Morphoidae J.L.R. Agassiz, Nomencl. zool., Index univ., 4° edn, p. 239 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 199 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)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 Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Direction No. 113. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 28 April 1982 200 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 PROPOSAL TO REGULATE THE NAMES OF TAXA ABOVE THE FAMILY GROUP. Z.N.(S.)2381 By A. Rasnitsyn (Palaeontological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya 113, Moscow, USSR) [Note by the Secretary. The present proposal consists of a letter from Dr Rasnitsyn dated 30 April 1981 which presented proposals put forward by the late Dr B.B. Rohdendorf in Paleont. Zhur. 1977, pp. 14-22 in Russian. An English translation of Dr Rohdendorf’s paper was issued by Scripta Publishing Co. in Palaeontological Journal vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 149-155. Grateful acknowledgements are due to Scripta Publishing Co. for permission to reproduce their translation here. R.V.M.] As you probably know, the late Professor Boris B. Rohdendorf in his article in Palaeontologecheskii Zhurnal, 1977, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 14-22, proposed to apply the rules regulating family-group names to all higher taxa. This proposal was put into effect by Rohdendorf & Rasnitsyn, 1980. “Historical development of the Class Insecta”, Trans. Palaeontol. Inst. USSR, vol. 175. Inow ask the Commission to consider the article by Rohdendorf as an official proposal to change the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature so as to apply the rules concerning family-group names to the names of all higher taxa. (TRANSLATION OF DR ROHDENDORF’S ARTICLE) The nomenclature of animals and plants has become quite complicated in the course of its lengthy history, beginning with the first attempt by Linnaeus in the compilation of the celebrated ‘Systema Naturae’. The relatively few ranks of categories in the Linnaean system, which included only a few higher categories, in addition to species and genera, namely orders and classes, were later supplemented by systematists in their day-to-day work by a considerably larger number of taxonomic ranks. Thus, the taxa family, tribe and phylum very soon came into use in the nomenclature of animals alongside the Linnaean species, genus, order and class. One important refinement in nomenclature was the use of all kinds of subsidiary, inserted or intercalary categories, the names of which are formed by addition of the prefix ‘sub’ to the names of already adopted taxa (e.g. subspecies, subgenus, etc.). This pattern of subsidiary taxa was subsequently even further complicated in connection with the use of the prefixes ‘super’ (e.g. superorder, superclass) or ‘infra’ (e.g. infra-order). The whole pattern of nomenclature was simultaneously made more Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 201 complicated by the use of quite distinctive new names of taxa, such as, for example, cohort, phalanx, section, series etc. As a result of all these additions the number of taxonomic ranks reaches several tens and, which was particularly important, the objectivity of the systems of taxonomic categories in use was greatly reduced. Not only did this make it very difficult to contrast and compare taxa nominally of the same rank, but the systems themselves became extremely subjective on the whole. The various negative aspects in the development of zoological nomenclature have for long been a source of concern. to Ssystematists. Improvement of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature has become the main subject of the deliberation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The main task of the Code was initially to work out rules for the use of names in the species-group and genus-group taxa. This, the most crucial and best worked out branch of zoological nomenclature, is currently the basis for all subsequent work on the higher taxa. The most important measure in the clarification and codification of the nomenclature of the species-group and genus- group taxa was the consistent application of the rule of the nomenclatural type, the type specimen, or holotype in the establishment of a species and the type species in the establishment of the genus-group taxon. Zoological nomenclature was subsequently developed by the discussion and codification of the names of taxa in the family-group, i.e. family, subfamily and tribe, on the one hand, and superfamily, on the other. Once again the concept of the type, the obligatory use of a generic name as the basis for the formation of names of higher taxa, was the basis for this development. It should be stated that the ‘type rule’ has proved to be the most effective and rigorous condition for the ordering of the nomenclature of taxa. It may be stated without exaggeration that consistent use of the type concept has been the basis of the Code. Experience gained in the codification of taxonomic names in the family-group has shown that the coining of names on the basis of the type rule must simultaneously be accompanied by the obligatory use of definite suffixes and endings characterizing the rank of the taxon concerned. In this way some uniformity was achieved in the taxonomic names of the family-group, and this was consolidated by a special article, Article 29 of the Code, which laid down the suffixes and endings -idae for families and -inae for subfamilies. This decision is now universally recognized. However, no decision was adopted in the Code concerning the other taxa of the family-group, namely the superfamily and the tribe, and it was merely recommended (Article 29A) that special suffixes and terminations 202 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 should be given to these taxa. Hence it is obvious that the further refinement of zoological nomenclature must be to discuss and approve rules codifying the names of animal taxa for the whole of the family-group and for higher ranks, above all the taxa of the order-group. The experience that has now been acquired in the use of the type rule and in the codification of suffixes and terminations is an adequate basis for the solution of these problems. There is no particular need to discuss the usefulness of unifying the procedure for forming names of taxa. The whole experience of zoological nomenclature, which is now consolidated by the Code and by the universal practice of systematic zoologists, has shown that the type rule and the unified procedure for the formation of taxonomic names in the family-group have been a very valuable refinement. Their application has made it possible to assess the rank of any animal from the name of the taxon, and thus more rigorously to compare and contrast the various taxa, and further to achieve stability in naming and, finally, to move closer to the possibility of objective recording of the characteristic features of the system by precise methods for the recording of systematic and faunistic data. It is obvious that it is only by establishing definite rules for the coining of names for higher taxa that the necessary order may be attained in this sphere of zoological nomenclature. In the preface to the first [sic] edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1964, p.IV [Russian translation 1966, p.XIV]; changes and corrections to the ICZN ...., 1973) the President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, J. Chester Bradley, wrote “..... The failure of the Code to deal with names of higher rank than superfamily ..... arises from no failure to recognize the necessity of such names. It exists because the practice of zoologists in regard to them is not sufficiently uniform to permit the formulations of rules covering them at this time.’ I have considered it necessary to quote this statement by Bradley, since it is a clear exposition of the actual state of affairs as regards extension of the use of the established rules of the Code. Although unification of the names of the higher taxa is a problem that has long been the subject of examination by various authors, attention has been concentrated in these attempts on reform of the nomenclature as a whole, and the nomenclatures proposed have proved in most instances to be totally divorced from the real system of species — genera — families. Failure to use the rule of the taxonomic type, the type genus, in these nomenclatures was undoubtedly the reason for their impracticability. In connection with this problem it is worthwhile considering the attempts made by botanists to solve similar questions. We should firstly refer to a paper by Rickett & Camp (1950), in which Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 203 they correctly propose that the names of the type genera of plants should be used as the basis for the names of higher taxa. The examples of actual names of higher taxa given by them do not, however, solve the question: they propose that the generic name should be used in forming the name of a higher taxon, and that its ending should be replaced by the corresponding full name of the rank of the taxon. Consequently, they completely reject the customary suffixes and terminations in their outline, proposing a purely formal list of names arrived at by taking the generic name with a termination taking the form of the name of the taxon - phylum, -classis, -ordo, -familia, -tribus. Such a proposal is clearly unacceptable; in zoology it would call for the unnecessary scrapping of the names of the family-group already embodied in the Code. Other botanists have understood the inconvenience of discarding suffixes and terminations. For example, a new classificatory outline of the higher plants based on use of the concept of the nomenclatural type was proposed in a paper by Cronquist, Takhtadzhan & Zimmermann (1966). Takhtadzhan made practical use of the new nomenclature in the same year (1966) in an examination of the system and phylogeny of the flowering plants. We should note that the new names of the higher botanical taxa in these works were compiled by the use of special suffixes and terminations reflecting the ranks of the taxa, i.e. by a familiar, long adopted and customary procedure. The present author assumes that such a reform of the botanical nomenclature is appropriate and timely, and that it may serve as a good example for zoologists. Admittedly, there are great differences between botanical and zoological nomenclature due primarily to the great diversity of animals, which belong to a considerably greater number of taxa both of lower and, especially, of the highest ranks, for example phyla. All these factors make it very much more difficult to reform the nomenclature of higher zoological taxa as a whole. Gradual inclusion of the ranks of taxa and groups of animals to be considered will be the natural and most consistent measure in the solution of this problem. The first task is to improve the nomenclature of the taxa in the order-group, i.e. the taxa directly incorporating the family-group, which is already regulated in the Code. Apart from the use of the rule of the nomenclatural type, which needs no comment, it is a particularly complicated matter to codify and work out definite suffixes and terminations for the various ranks of taxa. It should be noted that there has hitherto been extreme diversity of approach to the formation of names of higher taxa. This is literally true for taxa of any rank, beginning with phyla. Thus, if we examine the names of the phyla of animals, for example, 204 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 those given in the well-known book by Fedotov (1966), we find it difficult to discern any similarity in word formation among these names, of which there are approximately 20. Apart from the few standardized names, for example Phoronida and Nemertiini, ail the other names of the phyla are very differently constructed, and are simple or compound words having the most varied suffixes and terminations. The suffixes and terminations -ata and -ida, which define the group nature of the name, are used in some names — Chordata, Echinodermata, Coelenterata, Phoronida, Annelida and Pentastomida. We should also include under this heading the names of the two phyla Graptozoa and Bryozoa, which end in the word - zoa, which essentially has a combining group nature. All these remarks are applicable practically in their entirety to the names of taxa of the class-group, which are also extremely diversified. Rather the same may also be said concerning the names of the taxa of the order-group. A definite tendency to strive for the unification of names should be noted in this case in the classifications of many groups of animals. Admittedly, the rule of the nomenclatural type is rarely used, and unification is achieved by the use of definite suffixes and terminations, which are different in different groups of animals. Thus, names of orders ending in the word -ptera are commonly used in the class Insecta, names ending in the word -formes in classifications of fishes and birds, -theria among the mammals, -ata in the nematodes etc. The suffixes and terminations -ida, -oidea, -idea, and -ina are more widely used. It is probably best to select and codify appropriate endings for the taxa of the order-group from among suffixes and terminations of this kind. In the absence of any regulation of the names of the higher taxa all previous attempts at their unification have, however, failed. Alongside the ‘unified’ names haphazardly adopted by most specialists, other names that run counter to the order in course of establishment are widely used in almost all groups of animals. It is obvious that general decisions should be taken concerning the forms for names of higher taxa in zoology, by consistently applying the established rules of word formation: by using the nomenclatural type, the generic name and an appropriate suffix and termination for the taxon of the rank concerned. Regulations of the names of taxa must inevitably be preceded by wide discussion of the proposed rules, a draft of which must be submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature as proposals for ratification. The present author’s object is a first statement of a number of specific proposals on the nomenclature of higher taxa, beginning with the taxa of the family- group. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 205 Before turning to an examination of the specific proposals on nomenclature, we must note that the problem of higher taxa is an intricate one to solve. It seems to the author that the main pre- requisite for solution is the need to distinguish clearly between phylogeny and the system, between outlines of phylogenetic development, on the one hand, and the systematic division of a group into taxa, its classification, on the other. In tracing the paths of historical development some students of phylogeny are frequently prone to regard the phylogenetic relations that they are considering, the various outlines of relationship, as a direct expression of systematic relations. Thus, for example, when examining his concept of ‘sister groups’, i.e. the phenomenon of the inception of two new groups as a result of divergence, Hennig (1953, 1969, 1973) considers it necessary to designate each pair of new forms that develop by special names; he does not define the ranks of these proposed taxa, but they are essentially incompatible with higher taxa. Undoubtedly such a phylogenetic nomenclature only partly reflects the real system of the taxa, which are not characterized solely by phylogenetic relations, but also by the general sum of distinguishing characteristics, and by the degree of segregation, a decisive criterion in the erection of taxa. Nor can the time of each divergence in phylogenetic development (‘sister groups’) be designated by taxa of high rank for the further reason that the number of ranks of such ‘taxa’ would then increase excessively and, as a result, the real system would be replaced by a random profusion of categories that could not be compared and contrasted. It must be stated that the whole of this problem lies entirely outside the scope of the author’s present tasks; nevertheless it was essential to refer to it in order to understand the system of taxa adopted by the author as a basis, a system consisting of a limited number of principal taxa and appropriate supplementary taxa. This outline is widely known and is given, for example, by Simpson in his book on the classification of mammals (1945). We must first establish the need to employ the rule of the nomenclatural type, to use the name of the type genus of the oldest family as the basis for naming the higher taxa, in the first instance taxa of the order-group. The way in which the generic name is used to compile names of higher taxa is in full accord with the procedure for the compilation of names in the family-group, which has already been defined and set out in the appropriate articles of the Code (articles 1le, 23a, 29a, b, c, 35-41, 55, 62-65), merely excluding the use of other suffixes and terminations. Authorship of names of higher taxa is carried forward in accordance with Article 36 of the Code, as adopted for taxa of the family-group. The choice of an appropriate suffix and termination is an 206 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 essential condition if the names of taxa of particular ranks are to have the necessary stability and the required meaning. This obliges us to select with particular care the suffixes and terminations that are the most prevalent and convenient in all respects. The lack of uniformity in the various branches of zoology will oblige us to scrap some of the nomenclature, but this is inevitable in carrying out the essential unification. The following suffixes and terminations may be proposed for the taxa of the order-group: cohort -iformes superorder -idea order -ida suborder -ina infraorder -omorpha The proposed suffix and termination -ida for the main taxon of the group, namely the order, is the one most widely used at the present time in various classifications. It is especially important to note the frequent use of such a form for the order in serial publications, for example, “Principles of Paleontology” and “Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology”, in the classifications of many arthropods, mollusks, coelenterates, echinoderms, etc. Rather the same may be said concerning the names of taxa in the cohort, superorder, suborder and infraorder. As regards the suffix and termination for the superorder, namely -oidea, which is already quite widely used in practice, we should note as an undesirable feature that it is identical in form to the name of the superfamily, which has been incorporated in the Code as a recommendation (Recommendation 29A). This is why the author has proposed the new suffix and termination -idea for the superorder. Standardization of the names of animal taxa of higher rank than the taxa of the order-group must be the next stage in the codification of nomenclature following the establishment of order in the order-group. At the present time we can do no more than put forward suffixes and terminations for these names as a basis for discussion. Thus, it is natural to propose for the taxa of the class- group: superclass -odea class -oda subclass -ona infraclass -ones and for the phylum-group: superphylum -ozoidea phylum -ozoa subphylum -ozoina Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 207 infraphylum -ozoines It will be a fairly complicated and lengthy matter to carry out a reform of the nomenclature for the names of the higher zoological taxa. In addition, it is equally obvious that to do so will need contributions from a large team of specialists concerned with the systematics of the various animal phyla and classes. The principles and conditions for the solution of the problem which we have outlined may provide the initial basis for this. At present the author does not wish to go further than to propose new names for the taxa of the order-group for the Insecta, the class of animals with whose system he is best acquainted and on which there already exist reliable compilations. It is clear from all that has been said above that the first stage in solution of the problem will be to clarify the names of the family- group within the order, which has priority over the others, and thus to establish the type genera, which must become the basis for formation of the names of the higher taxa. The first standardized group names of taxa in the class Insecta were used following the publication of the tenth edition of the ‘Systema Naturae’ by Linnaeus (1758) in the work of the Austrian entomologist Laicharting (1781-1784) on the insects of the Tyrol. Numerous groupings, taxa of the family-group, were defined at the beginning of the 19th century when the new taxonomic rank of the family was established by Latreille (1802-1805). The works of these two naturalists are the primary sources from which to establish the senior synonyms for names of the taxa of the family-group in the class Insecta. [Professor Rohdendorf’s article concluded with a list of standard names for all the taxa of the Class Insecta above the family group, each based on the name of a type genus, and each given a standard termination according to his proposals as set out in the article. This is not reproduced here for reasons of space; interested readers are referred to Palaeontologischeskii Zhurnal, 1977, or to Palaeontological Journal, vol. 11, 1977. R.V.M.]| 208 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 NYMPHULA SCHRANK, 1802 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES Z.N.(S.) 2384 by D.S. Fletcher and I.W.B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) The object of the present application is to remove confusion by the use of the plenary powers under Article 70 of the Code in the case of a misidentified type species. 2. The generic name Nymphula Schrank, 1802, Fauna Boica, vol. 2(2), p. 162, was established for two nominal species in the PYRALIDAE, Pyralis potamogalis [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, Ankiindung syst. Werkes Schmett. Wienergegend, p. 121 footnote, and Pyralis nymphaealis [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, ibidem, p. 121 footnote. At the same time Schrank referred to the listing of the two species on pages 62 and 63 of his work, where he incorrectly attributed potamogalis to Hubner, citing Hiibner’s 1796 text and figure (see below) and placed Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (Edn. 10), vol. 1, p. 529, in synonymy; similarly, on the same page, he incorrectly attributed nymphaealis to Hiibner, citing Hiibner’s 1796 text and figure (see below) and placed Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758 ibidem, vol. 1, p. 529, in synonymy. 3. Pyralis potamogalis [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775, is an unjustified emendation of Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758; the emendation was adopted by Hubner, 1793, Samml. Vogel Schmett. p. 8, pl. 28, and again in 1796, Sammi. eur. Schmett. vol. 6, p. 19, pl. 13, fig. 82. Pyralis nymphaealis [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, is an unjustified emendation of Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758, and was adopted by Hubner, 1796, ibidem, vol. 6, p. 19, pl. 13, fig. 85. Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus and Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus were established in the GEOMETRIDAE, where the Linnaean species-group names ended with “-aria” or “-ata”. When they were transferred to the PYRALIDAE by Denis & Schiffermiiller in 1775, the endings were emended to “-alis”. 4. It is now known that Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758, is the female of Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758; a lectotype of each nominal species was designated by Munroe, 1972, p. 82. The lectotypes are in the collection of the Linnean Society in London. 5. It is evident from Schrank’s description of Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus (= Pyralis potamogalis [Denis & Schiffermiiller]) on pages 62 and 63 of his work, and from the Hiibner figure cited by Schrank, that both he and Hiibner had misidentified Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus and that Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus sensu Hiibner, 1793 and 1796, and sensu Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 209 Schrank, 1802, belong to a taxon later named Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806, Nat. Hist. Br. Insects, vol. 11, p. 10, pl. 363, fig. 2. 6. The first type-species designation for Nymphula Schrank, 1802, was made by Duponchel, 1832, p. 10, who cited Pyralis numeralis Hubner, 1796, a nominal species not originally included in Nymphula, and not linked with one of the originally included nominal species. The designation is therefore invalid. 7. The next designation was by Boisduval, 1836, p. 137, who cited Pyralis potamogalis [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775. In the Introduction to the volume, pages 1-154, Boisduval reviewed earlier classifications of Lepidoptera and designated as many as _ three different type species for each genus. In his ‘Exposé de notre méthode’, pages 155-690, no type-species designation was made for any of the genera that he himself used. Under the Code, Article 69(a)(i1i), the type-species designation of an author is eligible for consideration if he states that it is the type ‘... and if it is clear that he himself accepts it as the type-species’. Boisduval’s type-species designations, although clearly stated, do not fulfil the last requirement and so are invalid. Even though Boisduval’s 1836 work was well known to lepidopterists, the type-species designations contained in it have not been accepted by authors. 8. Guenée, 1854, p. 403, cited as type species Pyralis interpunctalis Httbner, 1796, a nominal species not originally included in Nymphula, and not linked with one of the originally included nominal species. The designation is therefore invalid. 9. Moore, [1887], p. 305, cited as type species ‘N. stagnata (potamagalis, Hiibner)’ [sic]. Moore recognized that both Hiibner and Schrank had misidentified Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758, and that Hiibner’s figure cited by Schrank represented Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806, and not Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758. 10. Authors have differed in their interpretations of Moore’s designation. Hannemann, 1964, p. 276, and Speidel, 1981, p. 129, both accepted Moore’s designation in the precise terms in which it was made and adopted Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806, as the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802. Hannemann (1964) placed Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758 (= P. potamogata Linnaeus, 1758) in Nausinoe Hiibner, [1825]; Speidler (1981) placed it in Elophila Hiibner, 1822. 11. Munroe, 1972, p. 82, also accepted Moore’s type-species designation but placed a different interpretation on it; he has adopted ‘Pyralis potamogalis Hiibner, [1796], a junior objective synonym of Phalaena potamogata as the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802. 12. Meyrick, 1890, pp. 465, 466, placed Phalaena stagnata 210 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 Donovan, 1806, in Nymphula Schrank, 1802, and Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758 (= Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758) in Hydrocampa Berthold, 1827; he retained the same concepts in 1895, p. 403, and 1928, pp. 419, 420. 13. Lhomme, 1935, pp. 99, 100, accepted Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806, as the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802, and included both P. stagnata Donovan and P. nymphaeata Linnaeus in that genus. 14. Hampson, 1897, p. 139, cited Phalaena nymphaeata Linnaeus, 1758 (= Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758) as type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802, and placed both P. stagnata Donovan and P. nymphaeata Linnaeus in that genus. Rebel, 1906, p. 221; Kloet & Hincks, 1945, p. 115; Sylvén, 1947, p. 27; and Beirne, 1952, pp. 130, 131, included both P. stagnata Donovan and P. nymphaeata Linnaeus in Nymphula but cited no type-species designation. 15. Pierce & Metcalfe, 1938, pp. 33, 34, 61, cited Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus 1758, as the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802, and placed P. stagnata Donovan in Cataclysta Hubner, [1825]. 16. Kloet & Hincks, 1972, p. 42; Lempke, 1976, pp. 36, 37; Karsholt & Nielsen, 1976, p. 46; and Leraut, 1980, p. 105, placed P. nymphaeata Linnaeus (= P. potamogata Linnaeus) in Nymphula Schrank, 1802, and P. stagnata Donovan in Parapoynx Hibner, [1825], but cited no type-species designation. 17. Thus two different interpretations of the type-species designation by Moore [1887], are current in the literature of the past twenty years. One is based on Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus, 1758, the nominal species that Schrank listed but misidentified; the other is based on Phalaena potamogata Linnaeus sensu Schrank, 1802, the animal that Schrank described and that was clearly illustrated by Hubner, a taxon that was later named Phalaena stagnata Donovan 1806. 18. In order to establish a stable concept of Nymphula Schrank, 1802, based on Schrank’s own concept of his genus, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1)to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species hitherto made for the nominal genus Nymphula Schrank, 1802, and having done so, to designate Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806, as type species of that genus; (2)to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Nymphula Schrank, 1802 (gender: feminine), with Phalaena stagnata Donovan, 1806, as type species; Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 211 (3)to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name stagnata Donovan, 1806, published in the binomen Phalaena stagnata (specific name of the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802). REFERENCES BEIRNE, B.P., 1952. British Pyralid and Plume Moths. 208 pp., 189 text-figs., 16 col. pls. London & New York. HAMPSON, G.F., 1897. On the Classification of two Subfamilies of Moths of the Family Pyralidae: the Hydrocampinae and Scopariinae. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. for 1897, pp. 127-240. HANNEMANN, H.J., 1964. Jn Dahl, Die Tierwelt Deutschlands part 50. viii + 401 pp., 366 text-figs., 22 pls. Jena. HASENFUSS, I., 1960. Die Larvalsystematik der Ziinsler. 263 pp., 219 text-figs. , 2 tables. Berlin. KARSHOLT, O. & NIELSEN, E.S., 1976. Systematisk fortegnelse over Danmarks sommerfugle. 128 pp. Klampenborg. KLIMA, A., 1937. In Bryk, F., Lepidopterorum Catalogus No. 84 (Pyralidae: Subfam.: Scopariinae et Nymphulinae). 226 pp. ’s-Gravenhage. KLOET, G.S. & HINCKS, W.D., 1945. A Check List of British Insects. lix + 483 pp. Stockport. —1972. A Check List of British Insects (Edn. 2). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects vol. 11(2) (Lepidoptera). viii + 153 pp. London. LEMPKE, B.J., 1976. Naamlijst van de Nederlandse Lepidoptera. 100 pp. Amsterdam. LERAUT, P., 1980. Liste systématique et synonymique des Lépidoptéres de France, Belgique et Corse. 334 pp. Paris. LHOMME, L., 1935. Catalogue des Lépidopteéres de France et de Belgique vol. 2 (1, Pyralidae). 172 pp. Le Carriol, par Douelle (Lot). MARION, H., 1957. Classification et Nomenclature des Pyraustidae d'Europe. Entomologiste vol. 13, pp. 75-87. MEYRICK, E., 1890. On the Classification of the Pyralidina of the European Fauna. Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. for 1890, pp. 429-492, pl. 15. 1895S. A Handbook of British Lepidoptera. vi + 843 pp. London & New York. — [1928]. A revised Handbook of British Lepidoptera. vi + 914 pp. London. MUNROE, E., 1972. In Dominick, R.B. et al., Moths Am. N. of Mexico, vol. 13 (1A). 134 pp. London. PIERCE, F.N. & METCALFE, J.W., 1938. The Genitalia of the British Pyrales with the Deltoids and Plumes. xiii + 69 pp., frontispiece + 29 pls. Northampton. REBEL, H., 1906. /n Spuler, Die Schmetterlinge Europas vol. 2. 523 pp., 239 text- figs., col. pls. Stuttgart. SPEIDEL, W., 1981. Uber einige Gattungsumbenennungen bei den Nymphulinae (Lep., Pyraloidea). Atalanta, vol. 12(2), pp. 129-132. SYLVEN, E., 1947. Systematic Studies of the Swedish Species of Pyralinae, Nymphulinae and Pyraustinae (Pyr., Lep.). Ark. Zool., vol. 38 (A 13), pp. 1-37, 131 text-figs. 212 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 REQUEST FOR SUPPRESSION OF KINOSTERNON ALAMOSE AND K. OAXACAE PRITCHARD, 1979 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES). Z.N.(S.)2339 by Peter C.H. Pritchard (Florida Audubon Society, 1101 Audubon Way, Maitland, Florida, 32751, U.S.A.) and Neal Pronek (7. F.H. Publications, Inc., 211 West Sylvania Avenue, P.O. Box 427, Neptune, New Jersey, 07753, U.S.A.) In 1979 a book authored by the first author of the present petition (Pritchard, 1979) and edited by the second author, acting for the publisher of the book, inadvertently occupied two names, Kinosternon alamose (p. 556) and K. oaxacae (p. 557), that were at the time in manuscript form, authored by Berry & Legler and Berry & Iverson, respectively (although both names were attributed in error to Berry & Iverson), and that were expected by us to have been published before the 1979 book. Characterization of each taxon was given in Pritchard’s words, thereby in application of the Code making their names available and attributable to Pritchard. 2. Subsequently, the full descriptions and discussions of both names have appeared: Kinosternon alamosae in Berry & Legler, 1980, and K. oaxacae in Berry & Iverson, 1980. These are the works, then in press or preparation, to which Pritchard referred in citation’ of the names in the Encyclopedia. The spelling alamose in Pritchard (1979, p. 556) reflected the rendition of the name as used in early stages of development of its description by Berry & Legler. 3. Although the Encyclopedia was certainly intended to serve as a reference work for both amateurs and specialists, at the same time it was envisioned primarily as a ‘popular’ guide — a secondary source of information — and no primary nomenclatural role whatever was intended for it. 4. Since only the two names cited above actually were new and characterized in such a way as to be nomenclaturally occupied (one other new name, K. hirtipes chapalaense (op. cit., p. 557) isanomen nudum), we request that the Commission declare these particular names, as used in the particular work in question, as unavailable nomenclaturally, placing both on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. This would achieve our desires and the proper ends of validation of the names as proposed by Berry, Legler, and Iverson. 5. We prefer this approach to the alternative of placing the entire book on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology, to avoid condemning an entire work that has been widely acknowledged as a major reference that will be long respected (e.g. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 213 Smith, 1980). Suppression of the two names would thereby make nomenclaturally valid the names proposed by Berry & Iverson, 1980, and by Berry & Legler, 1980. 6. We accordingly now request the Commission to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific names (1) alamose Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen Kinosternon alamose, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; and (2) oaxacae Pritchard, 1979, as published in the binomen Kinosternon oaxacae, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; and (b)to add both names cited in (a) to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES BERRY, J.F. & IVERSON, J.B., 1980. A new species of mud turtle, genus Kinosternon, from Oaxaca, Mexico. J. Herpetol., vol. 14(4), pp. 313-320, figs. 1-3. ——& LEGLER, J.M., 1980. A new turtle (genus Kinosternon) from north- western Mexico. Contr. Sci., nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles Co., no. 325, pp. 1-12, figs. 1-6. PRITCHARD, P.C.H., 1979. Encyclopedia of Turtles. Neptune, N.J., T.F.H. Publ. 895 pp., ill. (Partly col.). SMITH, H.M., 1980. Encyclopedia of turtles. By Peter C.H. Pritchard. (Review) Copeia, vol. for 1980(2), pp. 566-567. 214 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 MAYORELLA SCHAEFFER, 1926 (RHIZOPODA, AMOEBIDA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2387. By F.C. Page (Culture Centre of Algae and Protozoa, Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, NERC, 36 Storey’s Way, Cambridge CB3 0DT) One of the best known and most widely recognised genera of Amoebida is Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926, defined by Schaeffer, 1926, p. 56 as having ‘numerous, small, conical pseudopods which are formed continuously along the anterior edge and on the free surface while in locomotion’. However, it is now clear that the name Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, p. 470 is a senior synonym, as evidenced by the definition: ‘Tous les détails mentionnés, mais particuliérement la séparation précise du corps en deux moitiés; la différence de forme des pseudopodes et la constance de leur position démontrent la nécessité d’établir un genre a part, dont le nom générique dépend de la présence des pseudopodes coniques sur l’extrémité antérieure du corps’. The purpose of this application is to remove this threat to stability and avoid the confusion that would be caused by replacing a universally recognised name with a practically unknown one. 2. The type species of Dactylamoeba is by monotypy Dactylamoeba elongata Korotneff, 1880, pp. 469-470. The type species of Mayorella is by original designation (Schaeffer, 1926, p. 56) Amoeba bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, pp. 80-88. 3. The descriptions by Bovee, 1970, of several rather elongated species of Mayorella, the description by Page, 1972, of one somewhat resembling D. elongata, and further unpublished work leave no doubt that D. elongata belongs to the same genus as these more recently described amoebae. It is not possible at this time to determine any synonymy on the specific level. 4. I have found only one mention of the generic name Dactylamoeba in the literature of the past 50 years, and the context of that mention indicates strongly that the author did not intend to apply it as a name that was, in his opinion, valid. Lepsi, 1960, p. 162, listed in a key to the genus Amoeba, as he conceived that genus, a species ‘A. (Dactylamoeba) elongata’. Earlier in the same book (p. 142), he had included Dactylamoeba in a list of synonyms of Amoeba, and his parenthetical mention of the name on p. 162 was undoubtedly intended only to inform the reader of a previous generic classification. He did not mention this generic name in connection with any specific epithet other than elongata. On the other hand, on pp. 318-320, he used the name Mayorella for five of Schaeffer’s species in addition to M. bigemma. It must be said that Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 215 Lepsi’s book is an attempt to compile everything ever published on the taxonomy of free-living amoebae and is marked by a failure to understand generic distinctions and by such unacceptable practices as provisional names. 5. Between 1880 and Schaeffer’s proposal of Mayorella in 1926, the name Dactylamoeba seems to have been overlooked or forgotten. This appropriately descriptive name does not appear even in lists of synonyms in the classic works of Penard, 1902, Cash, 1905, or Cash & Wailes, 1919, nor is Korotneff’s paper mentioned by those authors or by Schaeffer, 1926. It has therefore been all but forgotten for more than a century. 6. The name Mayorella, on the other hand, has appeared frequently, in original taxonomic descriptions (De la Arena, 1953; Bovee, 1970; Hollande et al., 1981; Page, 1972; Sawyer, 1975); in keys for identification (Bovee & Sawyer, 1979; Grospietsch, 1958; Harnisch, 1958; Lepsi, 1960; Page, 1976; Siemensma, 1980); in diverse research papers (Davis et al., 1978; Pennick & Goodfellow, 1975); and in general protozoological works (Chatton, 1953; Mackinnon & Hawes, 1961; Westphal, 1976). These references include only a small sample of the publications in each category, all using Mayorella as a generic name applied to various described species. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the generic name Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the generic name Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Dactylamoeba elongata Korotneff, 1880, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926, whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (b) Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926 (gender: feminine), type species, by original designation, Amoeba bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880, whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) elongata Korotneff, 1880, as published in the 216 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 binomen Dactylamoeba elongata (specific name of type species of Dactylamoeba Korotneff, 1880); (b) bigemma Schaeffer, 1918, as published in the binomen Amoeba bigemma (specific name of type species of Mayorella Schaeffer, 1926). REFERENCES DE LA ARENA, J.F., 1953. Nueva especie de amiba de genero Mayorella Schaeffer. Memorias de la Sociedad Cubana de Historia Natural vol. 21, pp. 315-328. BOVEE, E.C., 1970. The lobose amebas. I. A key to the suborder Conopodina Bovee and Jahn, 1966, and descriptions of thirteen new or little known Mayorella species. Arch. Protistenk. vol. 112, pp. 178-227. ——& SAWYER, T.K., 1979. Marine Flora and Fauna of the Northeastern United States. Protozoa: Amoebae. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington. Circular 419. 56 pp. CASH, J., 1905. The British Freshwater Rhizopoda and Heliozoa vol. 1. The Ray Society, London. 148 pp. + 16 plates. & WAILES, G.H., 1919. The British Freshwater Rhizopoda and Heliozoa vol. 4. The Ray Society, London 130 pp. + 6 plates. CHATTON, E., 1953. Classe des Lobosa Leidy 1879. Ordre des Amoebiens nus ou Amoebaea. In: Grassé, P.-P., ed., Traité de Zoologie vol. 1, fascicle 2, pp. 5-91. Masson et Cie., Paris. DAVIS, P.G., CARON, D.A., & SIEBURTH, J. McN., 1978. Oceanic amoebae from the North Atlantic: culture, distribution, and taxonomy. Trans. amer. micros. Soc. vol. 97, pp. 73-88. GROSPIETSCH, TH., 1958. Wechseltierchen (Rhizopoden). Kosmos-Verlag, Stuttgart. 80 pp. + 4 plates. HARNISCH, O., 1958. Rhizopoda. In: Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P., & Ulmer, G., Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas 1. Band, Lief. 1b. Verlag von Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig. 75 pp. + 26 plates. HOLLANDE, A., NICOLAS, G., & ESCAIG, J., 1981. Véture glycostylaire et ultrastructure d’une Amibe marine libre (Mayorella pussardi nov. sp.: Paramoebidae) observée aprés congélation ultrarapide suivie de cryosubstitution. Protistologica vol. 17, pp. 147-154. KOROTNEFF, A. 1880. Etudes sur les Rhizopodes. Arch. Zool. exp. gén. vol. 8, pp. 467-482. LEPSI, I., 1960. Euamoebidea. In: Botnariuc, N., ed., Fauna Republicii Populare Romine vol. 1 Protozoa fasc. 2 Rhizopoda. Academia Republicii Populare Romine, Bucuresti. 431 pp. MACKINNON, D.L. & HAWES, R.S.J., 1961. An Introduction to the Study of Protozoa. Oxford University Press, London. xx + 506 pp. PAGE, F.C., 1972. A study of two Mayorella species and proposed union of the families Mayorellidae and Paramoebidae (Rhizopodea, Amoebida). Arch. Protistenk. vol. 114, pp. 404-420. 1976. An Illustrated Key to Freshwater and Soil Amoebae. Freshwater Biological Association, Ambleside. Scientific Publication No. 34. 155 pp. PENARD, E., 1902. Faune Rhizopodique du Bassin de Léman. Henry Kiundig, Genéve. 714 pp. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 217 PENNICK, N.C., & GOODFELLOW, L.P., 1975. Some observations on the cell surface structure of species of Mayorella and Paramoeba. Arch. Protistenk. vol. 117, pp. 41-46. SAWYER, T.K., 1975. Marine amoebae from surface waters of Chincoteague Bay, Virginia: two new genera and nine new species within the families Mayorellidae, Flabellulidae, and Stereomyxidae. Trans. amer. micros. Soc. vol. 94, pp. 71-92. SCHAEFFER, A.A., 1918. Three new species of amebas: Amoeba bigemma nov. spec., Pelomyxa lentissima nov. spec. and P. schiedti nov. spec. Trans. amer. micros. Soc. vol. 37, pp. 79-96 + 2 plates. —1926. Taxonomy of the Amebas. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington. Publication No. 345. 116 pp + 12 plates. SIEMENSMA, F.J., 1980. Amoeben. Natura vol. 77, pp. 62-72. WESTPHAL, A., 1976. Protozoa. Blackie & Son Ltd., Glasgow. 325 pp. 218 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 HYBOSORUS ILLIGERI REICHE, 1853 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.)2296 By P.G. Allsopp (Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Toowoomba, 4350, Australia) Abstract.— Hybosorus laportei Westwood, 1845; H. thoracicus Westwood, 1845; H. roei Westwood, 1845; H. pinguis Westwood, 1845; and H. carolinus Le Conte, 1847, all predate and have been synonymized with H. illigeri Reiche, 1853. H. illigeri can be conserved by giving it precedence over the above five names. In 1803 Illiger (Magazin fiir Insektenkunde vol. 2, p. 210) described Scarabaeus arator, the neotype of which is in the collection of the Entomological Institute of the University of Lund, Sweden (Landin, 1964, Opusc. ent. vol. 29, p. 136). Macleay (1819, Horae entomol., p. 120) subsequently erected the genus Hybosorus for this species. However, as Reiche (1853, Annls. ent. Soc. Fr. (3) vol. 1, p. 87) realized, arator Illiger is a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus arator Fabricius, 1775. Reiche proposed the new name Hybosorus illigeri. 2. At the same time, Reiche synonymized /aportei Westwood, 1845 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. ser. 1, vol. 15, p. 440) and thoracicus Westwood, 1845, p. 440 with illigeri. Hence the new name illigeri was unwarranted and either /aportei or thoracicus should have been used as a replacement for arator Illiger. The problem is further confounded as roei Westwood, 1845, p. 440, synonymized by Arrow, 1912 (Coleopt. Cat. vol. 43, p. 36); pinguis Westwood, 1845, p. 440, synonymized by Endrédi, 1957 (Explor. Parc. natn. Upemba Miss. G.F. de Witte vol. 46, p. 45) and carolinus Le Conte, 1847 (J. Acad. nat. Sci. Phil. vol. 1 (1), p. 84), synonymized by Le Conte, 1862 (Smithson, misc. Collns vol. 3, p. 127) all predate and have been synonymized with illigeri. 3. The species has been known as ‘arator’ or “illigeri’ since 1853 (arator must be rejected as a junior primary homonym of arator Fabricius). In accordance with Article 79(b) of the Code, the following are a selection of ‘at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 different publications’ in which illigeri has been used during the past 50 years: Cartwright, O.L. 1934, Entomol. News, vol. 45, p. 239 Paulian, R. 1937, Bull. Acad. malgache n.s. vol. 19, p. 139 1944, Explor. Parc natn. Albert Miss. G.F. de Witte (1933-1935) vol. 46, p.4 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 219 Loding, H.P. 1945, Monogr. geol. Surv. Alabama, vol. 11, p. 100 Panin, S. 1957, Fauna Repub. pop. rom., Insecta vol. 10(4), Landin, B.O. 1964, Opusc. entomol. vol. 29, p. 117 Ritcher, P.O. 1966, Ore. St. Monogr. Stud. Entomol. vol. 4, p. 37 Arnett, R.H. 1968, The Beetles of the United States, p. 415 Howden, H.F. 1970, Can. Entomol. vol. 102, p. 2 Woodruff, R.E. 1973, Arthropods of Florida and neighboring land areas vol. 8(1), p. 145. None of the other names have been used since their synonymization with illigeri. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name illigeri, as published in the combination Hybosorus illigeri Reiche, 1853, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the following specific names whenever any of them is considered a synonym of it: /aportei Westwood, 1845; thoracicus Westwood, 1845; roei Westwood, 1845; pinguis Westwood, 1845 and carolinus Le Conte, 1847, all published in binomina with Hybosorus. (2)to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) the specific name il/ligeri Reiche, 1853, as published in the binomen Aybosorus illigeri, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over laportei Westwood, 1845, thoracicus Westwood, 1845, roei Westwood, 1845, pinguis Westwood, 1845 and carolinus Le Conte, 1847, all published in binomina with Hybosorus, Macleay, 1819, when- ever it is considered a synonym of any of them; (b) the specific names (i) /aportei Westwood, 1845, (ii) thoracicus Westwood, 1845, (iii) roei Westwood, 1845, (iv) pinguis Westwood, 1845, and (v) carolinus Le Conte, 1847, all as published in binomina with Hybosorus Macleay, 1819, with endorsements that none of them is to be given priority over illigeri Reiche, 1853 when considered a synonym of it. 220 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 ANTHALIA ZETTERSTEDT, 1838 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.)2380 By Milan Chvala (Charles University, 128 44 Prague, Czechoslovakia) and Kenneth G.V. Smith (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) Abstract: The Commission is requested to suppress the type species designation by Coquillett, 1903, for Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (Anthalia gyllenhali Zetterstedt, 1838) in favour of the designation by Melander, 1928 (Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838). Since the revision of Melander, 1928, the genus Anthalia Zett. has been generally accepted as a valid genus of the family EMPIDIDAE, but Coquillett’s (1903) type designation automatically sinks the genus Anthalia Zett. as a synonym of Euthyneura Macq. Macquart, 1836, p. 518, erected the genus Euthyneura for a single species E. myrtilli Macquart, 1836, p. 519 (Europe) which became the type species of the genus by monotypy. 2. Zetterstedt, 1838, p. 538, erected the genus Anthalia for three species: (1) A. gyllenhali Zetterstedt, 1838, p. 538 (Europe); (2) A. schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, p. 539 (Europe); and (3) A. pallida Zetterstedt, 1838, p. 539 (Europe). 3. Coquillett, 1903, p. 246, without studying the Anthalia species, designated the first named Anthalia species, A. gyllenhali Zetterstedt, 1838, as type species of the genus Anthalia Zett. As A. gyllenhali Zett. is congeneric with E. myrtilli Macq., Cocquillett (1903) automatically synonymized the genus Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 with the genus Euthyneura Macquart, 1836. 4. Melander, 1928, pp. 52, 57, 61, studied in detail Zetterstedt’s three Anthalia species (gyllenhali, schoenherri and pallida) and correctly found them all to be generically distinct. As the first named species, A. gyllenhali Zett., is congeneric with E. myrtilli Macq., Melander transferred it to the genus Euthyneura Macq. To preserve the generic name Anthalia Zett., he designated the second named Anthalia species, Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, as type species of the genus Anthalia Zetterstedt. The third species, Anthalia pallida Zetterstedt, 1838, was designated by Melander as type species of the newly erected genus Allanthalia Melander, 1928. Melander was well acquainted with Coquillett’s (1903) type designation and he designated a new type species for Anthalia deliberately to preserve the then already well known name, with additional explanatory remarks (Melander, 1928, pp. 57-58). A further ten Nearctic species are now included in the well-founded genus Anthalia. 5. Since the revision of Melander, 1928, his proposed nomenclature has been universally accepted by all subsequent Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 221 authors. Further recent references to and agreements with Melander’s (1928) action may be found for instance in Frey (1956, Empididae in Lindner, Fliegen Palaearkt. Reg. p. 598) and in Stone et al., (A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico, p. 450) where under Anthalia it is noted “Action by the I.C.Z.N. is needed to preserve this name”. 6. 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 Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838, and having done so to designate Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838 as type species of that genus; (2) to place the generic name Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Anthalia schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (3) to place the specific name schoenherri Zetterstedt, 1838, as published in the binomen Anthalia schoenherri (specific name of type species of Anthalia Zetterstedt, 1838) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES COQUILLETT, D.W. 1903. The genera of the dipterous family Empididae, with notes and new species. Proc. entomol. Soc. Wash. vol. 5, pp. 245-272. FREY, R. 1956, in: Engel, E.O. and FREY, R., Family Empididae, Fliegen Palaearkt. Reg. vol. (IV), 4, No. (28) pp. 1-639. MACQUART, J. 1836. Description d’un nouveau genre d’Insectes Diptéres de la famille des Tanystomes. Annis. Soc. entomol. Fr. Ser.(1), vol. 5, pp. 517— 520. MELANDER, A.L. 1928. Diptera, Fam. Empididae, Genera Insect. vol. 185 (1927) pp. 1-434. STONE, \A., SABROSKY, C.W., WIRTH, W-W., FOOTE, R.H. & COULSON, J.R. (eds). 1965. A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico. Agric. Handb. vol. 276, pp. 1-1696. ZETTERSTEDT, J.W. 1838. Sectio tertia, Diptera. Dipterologis scandinaviae amicis et popularibus carissimis pp. 477-868, In /nsecta lapponica vi + 1140 pp. Leipzig, ‘1840’. pos! Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 FURTHER NOTES ON GENUS-GROUP NAMES IN THE HYDROID FAMILY CAMPANULARIIDAE JOHNSTON, 1836. Z.N.(S.)2326 By Paul F.S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD). 1. Introduction These notes follow a submission (Cornelius, 1981) on genus- group names in the hydroid family CAMPANULARIIDAE Johnston, 1836, resulting from an associated generic revision (Cornelius, 1982). The logic of that submission is not undermined but several comments are desirable. 2. Campanularia, Clytia and Gonothyraea 2. I have only recently become aware of Apstein’s (1915) designations of type species of some hundreds of animal genera. Three genera of CAMPANULARIIDAE were included. Apstein (1915, p. 126) designated as type species of the genus Campanularia Lamarck, 1816, p. 112, the species Sertularia verticillata Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811. The same type species was selected by Nutting, 1915, p. 28. Nutting’s designation, dated 10 April 1915, appears to have priority over that of Apstein which was dated 11 May 1915. On this basis my previous proposals (Cornelius, 1981, pp. 209, 216) are unaffected. I do not know if these nominal dates of publication are correct; but this does not matter since in my proposals (Cornelius, 1981, p. 216, para. 28(1)(b)) I requested that all previous designations of type species of this genus be set aside. 3. Apstein (1915, p. 126) designated as type species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, p. 184, the species Campanularia Johnstoni Alder, 1856, p. 359 (nom. nov. pro Sertularia volubilis Ellis & Solander, 1786, p. 51; non S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, which is Campanularia volubilis auct., e.g. Cornelius, 1981, pp. 211, 212, and Cornelius, 1982, p. 70); This accords with but substantially predates my own designation, just cited, of johnstoni as type species of Clytia. 4. Apstein (1915, p. 127) designated as type species of the genus Gonothyraea Allman, 1864, p. 374, the species Laomedea loveni Allman, 1859, p. 138. This designation was given also by Millard (1975, p. 224), and upheld in my own paper (Cornelius, 1982, p. 91). Discussion of the genus name Gonothyraea does not bear directly on my submission but Apstein’s early designation is mentioned for completeness. 3. Clytia and Cuvier 5. The Secretary of the Commission kindly showed me a letter Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 223 written by Dr L.B. Holthuis (dated 11 August 1981) in response to my submission. Dr Holthuis drew attention to an _ inferred designation of the type species of the genus C/ytia in the “Disciples’ edition” of Cuvier’s ‘Régne animal’, based on a phrase in the title of that work (Cuvier, 1836-1849). I understand from Commissioner Dr I.W.B. Nye that the inclusion of the phrase ‘...représentant les types de tous les genres...’ in the title of that work is taken in nomenclatural circles as having a special meaning. Wherever in that book a genus-group taxon includes just one species, then that species is deemed therein to have been designated type-species. I _ must, therefore, accept Dr Holthuis’ point. However, I doubt that the compilers’ intentions were to designate type species in the many genera they treated. (The edition was posthumous to Cuvier, being compiled by eleven biologists: hence the epithet “Disciples’ edition”.) Rather, they were simply describing species which were typical examples of the genera. The argument that the wording of the title indicates that type-designations are to be inferred (but only in the genera in which they included but a single example!) is weak. It hinges tenuously on a dubious semantic point. For these and perhaps other reasons I accept Dr Holthuis’ point a little unhappily. 6. The species illustrated in the Cuvier work (op. cit., pl. 66, fig. 4) was “Clythia volubilis: Lamarck” (unjust. emend. pro Clytia). Original authorship of the species was by Ellis & Solander, 1786, p. 51, pl. 4, figs E-F, e-f. Sertularia volubilis Ellis & Solander is both a junior homonym (of S. volubilis Linnaeus, 1758, p. 811, a distinct and valid species now known as Campanularia volubilis, e.g. Cornelius, 1982, p. 55) anda junior objective synonym (of Sertularia uniflora Ellis, 1768, pl. 19, fig. 9; discussed in Cornelius, 1981, p. 212). Thus the earliest available name for the type species of Clytia is johnstoni, introduced in the combination Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856, pp. 359-360, pl. 13, fig. 8 (discussed in Cornelius, 1981, p. 212). Hence the proposal at Cornelius, 1981, para. 28(1)(c) may stand. 4. The binominal Medusa hemisphaerica 7. Concerning Dr Holthuis’ comment about my citation (Cornelius, 1981, p. 213) of Houttuyn’s (1770) use of the species name hemisphaerica, 1 gratefully confirm his opinion that I was mistaken. As Holthuis says, the binominal Medusa hemisphaerica was validly used (Houttuyn, 1770, p. 423), albeit only implicitly on the page in question. My case is not affected, however, since (as Dr Holthuis concurs) Houttuyn’s volume was published some three years after the binominal M. hemisphaerica was introduced by Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1098. 224 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 Acknowledgements I am grateful to Dr L.B. Holthuis for his comments; and to Drs F.M. Bayer, 1.W.B. Nye and R.B. Williams, and to the Secretary of the Commission, for commenting on the manuscript. I omitted to mention in my previous submission (Cornelius, 1981) that Dr Bayer kindly commented on that too. Comments on that paper were kindly made also by Professor D.V. Naumov and Dr A. Antsulevich but arrived after the paper had gone to press. REFERENCES ALDER, J. 1856. A notice of some new genera and species of British hydroid zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) vol. 18, pp. 353-362. ALLMAN, G.J. 1859. Notes on the hydroid zoophytes. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) vol. 4, pp. 137-144. 1864. On the construction and limitation of genera among the Hydroida. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) vol. 13, pp. 345-380. APSTEIN, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berl. (1915), pp. 119-202. CORNELIUS, P.F.S. 1981. Clytia Lamouroux, 1812, Laomedea Lamouroux, 1812, and Campanularia Lamarck, 1816 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): proposed designations of type species by use of the plenary powers, and comments on related genera. Z.N.(S.)2326. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 38, pp. 208-220. —1982. Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from the eastern North Atlantic, with a world synopsis of genera. Bull. Br. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.) vol. 42, pp. 37-148. CUVIER, G.L.C.F.D. 1836-1849. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a l’histoire naturelle des animaux, et d introduction a l'anatomie comparée. Edition accompagnée de planches gravées, représentant les types de tous les genres, les caractéres distinctifs des divers groupes et les modifications de structure sur lesquelles repose cette classification; par une réunion de disciples de Cuvier, MM. Audouin, Blanchard, Deshayes, Alcide D’Orbigny, Doyére, Duges, Duvernoy, Laurillard, Milne Edwards, Roulin et Valenciennes. Vol. X. Les zoophytes. Compiled by H.M. Edwards. Paris (Fortin, Masson), pp. 1-160, pls 1-100. (The third, or “Disciples’ ”, edition.) ELLIS, J. 1768. An account of the Actinia sociata, or clustered animal-flower, lately found on the sea-coasts of the new-ceded Islands. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. London (1767) vol. 57, pp. 428-437. ——& SOLANDER, D.C. 1786. The natural history of many curious and uncommon zoophytes, collected from various parts of the globe. London (B. White & P. Elmlsy), pp. i-xii, 1-206, pls 1-63 + pp. 207-208 following. Edited by Martha Watt. HOUTTUYN, M. 1770. Natuurlyke Historie of uitvoerige beschryving der Dieren, Planten en Mineraalen, volgens het Samenstel van den Heer Linnaeus. Met naauwkeurige Afbeeldingen. Eerste Deels, veertiende Stuk. De Wormen en Slakken. Amsterdam (De Erven van F. Houttuyn), pp. i-vi, 1-532. JOHNSTON, G. 1836. A catalogue of the zoophytes of Berwickshire. Hist. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 225 Berwicksh. Nat. C.ub. vol. 1. pp. 107-108. (Dating follows Cornelius, 1982, p. 133). LAMARCK, J.B.P.A. DE 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. Vol. 2. Paris (Verdiére), pp. 1-568. LAMOUROUX, J.V.F. 1812. Extrait d’un mémoire sur la classification des polypiers coralligenes non entiérement pierreux. Nouv. Bull. sci. Soc. Philom., Paris, vol. 3, pp. 181-188. LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema naturae. 10th edition. Vol. 1, Holmiae (L. Salvii), pp. i-iv, 1-824. —1767. Systema naturae. 12th edition. Vol. 1, pars 2. Holmiae (L. Salvii), pp. 533-1328 + 36 pp. of indexes and appendix, unpaginated. MILLARD, N.A.H. 1975. Monograph on the Hydroida of southern Africa. Ann. S. Afr. Mus. vol. 68, pp. 1-513. NUTTING, C.C. 1915. American hydroids. Part III. The Campanularidae and the Bonneviellidae. Spec. Bull. U.S. natn. Mus., pp. 1-126. 226 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 CYTHEREIS DISTINGUENDA NEVIANI, 1928, CYTHERE CRISPATA BRADY, 1868 AND CYTHERE PAVONIA BRADY, 1866 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF TYPE MATERIAL AND VALIDATION OF LECTOTYPES AND A HOLOTYPE. Z.N.(S.) 2392. By J. Athersuch (BP Research Centre, Chertsey Road, Sunbury-on-Thames, Middlesex TW16 7LN, England) The purpose of this application to the Commission is to secure the validity of rediscovered type material of three species of Ostracoda (i.e. Cythere oblonga Brady, 1866; Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866; Cythere crispata Brady, 1868). (A) Cythere oblonga Brady, 1866 (i) In 1866 Brady (Trans. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 5 (5), p. 353) described as new a species of ostracod which he named Cythere oblonga. (ii) Neviani, 1928 (Memorie Accad. pont. Nuovi Lincei, Ser. II, vol. XI, p. 105) recognised that Brady’s name was a junior primary homonym of Cythere oblonga McCoy, 1844 and provided a nomen novum, Cythereis distinguenda, for this species. However, his illustration and description were not of Brady’s species. Nevertheless, the name distinguenda was the next available name. (iii) Athersuch, 1977 (Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), vol. 32, p. 257) placed this species in Urocythereis and designated a neotype for three reasons: (a) failure to locate Brady’s material of this species in either the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) London or the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; (b) problems surrounding the identity of this species as conceived by Brady; (c) confusion of this with other species of Urocythereis. (iv) In September, 1981 the original material was rediscovered when it was sent to me (from Australia) by K.G. McKenzie, in whose custody the material had been for many years unbeknown to me or to the curators of either the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) or the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England. (v) In my opinion, there is no doubt that the rediscovered material and the neotype are conspecific. (vi) Of the rediscovered type material, I designate herein as lectotype a ?female carapace from the Levant. It is housed in the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on slide number B215a. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 3, September 1982 PPA | (B) Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 (i) The neotype designation for Cythere pavonia (= Loculicytheretta pavonia) by Athersuch & Bonaduce, 1978 (Pubbl. Staz. zool. Napoli, vol. 40, p. 350) was not valid as there was then, and is now, no confusion over the identity of this species. (ii) Rediscovered type material of C. pavonia from the Levant was sent to me in September 1981 by K.G. McKenzie. It is conspecific with the neotype and automatically takes priority. (iii) Of the surviving type material of C. pavonia, a female carapace is designated herein as lectotype. It is housed in the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on slide number B220 a. (C) Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 (i) The neotype designation for Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 (=Callistocythere crispata (Brady)) by Athersuch & Whittaker, 1980 (Stereo-Atlas Ostracod Shells, vol. 7, p. 69) may also be considered invalid since no mention of possible taxonomic _ confusion was made by the authors. However, the main purpose of the publication of that paper was to remove the long-standing confusion between this species and Callistocythere littoralis (Miiller, 1894). Unfortunately, because of the house-style of the Stereo-Atlas of Ostracod Shells, each species is dealt with in a separate paper. The paper on C. littoralis which accompanied that on C. crispata in the same issue, contains remarks concerning the confusion surrounding these two species. (ii) Rediscovered type material from Tenedos, Greece was sent to me in September, 1981 by K.G. McKenzie. It is conspecific with the neotype and comprises a single carapace which is automatically the holotype and which takes priority over the neotype. It is housed in the Hancock Museum, Newcastle-upon- Tyne, on slide number B327. I therefore ask the Commission: (1) to rule under Article 75f that the rediscovered type material of Cythereis distinguenda Neviani, 1928, Cythere pavonia Brady, 1866 and Cythere crispata Brady, 1868 be given precedence over the neotypes designated for these species by Athersuch (1977). Athersuch & Bonaduce (1978) and Athersuch & Whittaker (1980), respectively; (2) to ratify the designations of lectotypes for Cythereis distinguenda and Cythere pavonia and of a holotype for Cythere crispata, as referred to above; (3) to place the three specific names mentioned in (1) above on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. : : a Ne se a. 7 a i 2 ee Be) eh ee 2-£19. ea ng “i an i! oyun (a aes ig bend sino ngy dun 2 -Y He KS ay F ian pele OD ae ce caes os 2 Ade Boe m od AS . ee Y ve ne Shy iil 0h ANS ate Je Soi, "tama By ew “uy mal BtoB old ges v4 fe ar et ~~ sa at Wy dug Sh SPA ale pti tas cirhesti ge -SOSS@ yadimun Sbilé no sayT Roqu-s oR) mate onset Ie PUT PGE OF Tis appeycatn COnninanticny & rs SO the validly | Boe PDbnie Bs sane pyar $peq SAFE HOMIE bina dey baht eA “ig RoBahigienb’ we Vids tat # ~ Beet Pow HEUER PRAY VP Rdy Gy Dioy, Lit) x ayovl | od ods yam (0 ag 8 dP (ts Hie paerpatkealh-csvaiey, < Siemongysi, pleirti. I FHM SHUI bilganis Pia &. 1) SUE. AE ge caelaa dnuthok SAT AM OR -2nol ant SyYOma1 0] anW I2qeq ists lo: noted } MP ACOMo wey nla baaeomeqa suk nese Ip apap an ont Raseme od ving y . a Shy f Dieoh acr PARAS LBP a oat aes hon Mp : 29 i$ fi = S PAR AANA 208! . VAlzehy Sai poe oF S aoboaa 5 i musi re td neperisie PORE Catterones a rhea * sie Ne Peg ir a. hae Spy) Dapey pppilig ST 148 & “He ts penn 4C ABE) (edaroige? BORO, 2s : : s say 3 Or i. ot} me . mh me A ' a ae z 7 bite be patel hd te or arb REA geese ih ane es weve ye ae - the Hancock rr soca, outa 7 b} problems surroahtin th > id eh ~{ this Soa Nig Se ; coved aR ear AIS ieee on % ng tf Bete vay ttt. 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 donations 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. © 1982 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD. SS Volume 39, Part 4 ISSN 0007 - 5167 pp. xiii-xvi, 229— 320 T.P., I-VIII 7 December 1982 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE | The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LONDON International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD Price £10.00 (All rights reserved) xiii 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 5BD). 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. 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 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 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) (Councillor) Lepidoptera Prof. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005, Paris, 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 (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, Universitdtsgebiet Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) 27 December 1978) Palaeontology Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Troms6, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé6, Norway) (27 December 1978) Parasitology XiV 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 199164, U.S.S.R.) (23 August 1979) Mollusca, Crustacea Dr. P.T. LEHTINEN, (Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku. SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland) (8 August 1980) Arachnida Dr. L.R.M. COCKS (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD) (26 August 1982) Brachiopoda Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (26 August 1982) (Councillor) Mollusca Prof. Jay M. SAVAGE (Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A.) (26 August 1982) Herpetology Prof. R. SCHUSTER (Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria) (26 August 1982) Acari Dr. SHUNICHI UENO (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1. Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan) (26 August 1982) Entomology Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucumaén, Argentina) (26 August 1982) Neotropical Hymenoptera 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. J.H. Callomon, F.R.I.C. Prof. C.B. Cox Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S. Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Sir Charles Fleming, K.B.E., F.R.S. Prof. J. Forest Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Dr. R.H. Hedley Dr. L.B. Holthuis Prof. Dr. O. Kraus Dr. E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr. C.W. Sabrosky (ex officio) Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S. Dr. C.A. Wright (Observer) B. The Officer of the Trust Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller) 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 CAsesV ans Mad, Law A shot ea POE GRABER : (6) OList'ofnew applications. ..c0.0) (tee Eee Specialiannouncementsiirss.: ee eet eeietwi sl). a! etectaat Opinions Opinion 1227. Tinea bjerkandrella Thunberg, 1784 and Phalaena (Noctua) cardui Hubner, 1790 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved Opinion 1228. HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 given nomenclatural precedence over CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885 (Myriapoda, Chilapoda)m™ . .imisiaqasesvH, .,ai sent). cae) Hea). oy Opinion 1229. Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862 (Crustacea, Isopoda): CONSERVEd ete ee ns Ba) LR bc ee. Opinion 1230. Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Pisces): the gender is Masculine... atwmivglos . . .peetereterae.. . - dos sean Opinion 1231. Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Dictuoptera): conserved and designated as type species of Blattella' Gaudelt. T9039 Sh. 22. IIa Ses ON. Seay. eR Opinion 1232. Suppression of names for South American rodents publishediby Branmtss 1827" 0 = 2 ive ie Ste tae este es ones Opinion 1233. Pulteney’s Dorset Catalogues, 1799, added to Official TS Uc 2) oi 5 HEN MMe oS ko ace aka nah a eee an Bhosle a tus Opinion 1234. Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 (Foraminiferida): neotype designated ................. Opinion 1235. Sebastocles Jordan & MHubbs, 1925 (Pisces, Scorpaenidae): designation of type species .............. Opinion 1236. Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906 (Reptilia, MEStUGINES HiGONSEIVEG! (5c jsfco soe as ak wae ose eae een Opinion 1237. Pennahia Fowler, 1926 (Pisces, Sciaenidae): designation OILY PE SPECIESt ety a ee teens tsa ches once Oncaea Sa nee eee Opinion 1238. Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865 (Insecta, Diptera): designation’of type species. OF P2Giee «. . AAS. Ae. FT: New and revived cases Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (Amphibia): problems surrounding these names (The Secretary) (1) L’espéce-type du genre Dendrobates Wagler, 1830: nouvelles Propositions (WeSGNte) eg, cases es aed athe ca Faseowaen oes (2) Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation (A. Dubois) . XV Page Pip de) 264 267 XVi Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed cofiservatiomn (GP: /Groves)ber 340") Watowendege 2 2 ba: Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827, and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation (C.P. Groves) sata oenigtader sen boats: ot Oo ee Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for invalidation of neotype and validation of a rediscovered original spechmen(Ae Kohn) torte gh nto ptticetcineot Be iodsnons Addition to the proposal to designate a type species for Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida) by use of the plenary powers (O.BBagri)s. A1..ece 0, ooetioags. ead: Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): revised proposals for conservation (A.H. Banner & D.M. Banner) .......... Proposed conservation of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 and ACTINIIDAE Goldfuss, 1820 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (Echinodermata, Holothurioidea) (R.B. Williams, P.F.S. CorneliusiaerAMrGlark)a% 3. recneent) US i teioeeid . Witter dene Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (Insecta, Trichoptera, Polycentropodidae): proposed conservation (P.C. Barnard) Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation (J. LaSalle & P. DeBach) ............. Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda): proposed conservation (The Seevetagy)oit> gas, BIA! . oorma nied ahlerie Comments On proposals concerning the type species of Aeolidiella Bergh, 1867 G. Tanhje: nasitsn A, -itucd AcGi zomne ko nomecrgope- SES 279 281 283 285 286 288 293 297 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 39, part 4 (pp. 229—320) 7 December 1982 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 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b: (1) Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (Amphibia): l’espéce—type du genre Dendrobates Wagler, 1830, nouvelles propositions, J. Lescure and Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865, proposed conservation, A. Dubois. *(2) Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation. C.P. Groves. *(3) Antilope depressicornis H. Smith, 1827 and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation. C.P. Groves. (4) Conus antiquus Lamarck, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): request for invalidation of neotype and validation of a rediscovered original specimen. A.J. Kohn. (5) Addition to the proposal to designate a type species for Indodorylaimus Ali & Prabha, 1974 (Nematoda, Dorylaimida) by use of the plenary powers. Q.H. Baqri. (6) Alpheus lottini Guérin, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): revised proposals for conservation. A.H. Banner & D.M. Banner. (7) Proposed conservation of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 and ACTINIIDAE Goldfuss, 1820 (Coelenterata, Actiniaria) and Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (Echinodermata, Holothurioidea). R.B. Williams, 230 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 P.F.S. Cornelius & A.M. Clark. *(8) Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 _ (Insecta, Trichoptera, Polycentropodidae) proposed conservation. P.C. Barnard. *(9) Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation. J. LaSalle & P. DeBach. *(10) Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 (Brachiopoda): proposed conservation. The Secretary. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica- tions have been received since the publication of vol. 39(3) on 30 September 1982 (any marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b and 79b.): (1) Neoadmete Habe, 1961 (Gastropoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2420. R.O. Petit. (2) Laspeyresia Hubner, [1825] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2421. V.I. Kuznetzov & I.M. Kerzhner. (3) Brachychthonius Berlese, 1910 (Acari): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2422. S. Mahanka. (4) Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2423. H. Malz & A.J. Keig. *(5) Heteroclonium bicolor Cope, 1896 (Reptilia, Lacertilia): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2424. S.C. Ayala. (6) DISCOGLOSSIDAE Giinther, 1858 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2425. A. Dubois. (7) Lycaena mirza P\6tz, 1880 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2426. T.B. Tarsen. (8) Elachistocles Parker, 1927 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2427. A. Dubois. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ELECTION OF NEW MEMBERS TO THE COMMISSION In the course of the General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences held at Ottawa from 22-28 August, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 231 1982 the following elections to the Commission were made by the Section on Zoological Nomenclature: Mr David Heppell (U.K.) and Professor A. Willink (Argentina) were re-elected. The following new Commissioners were elected to replace Professor T. Habe (Japan), Dr. I.W.B. Nye (U.K.), Professor E. Tortonese (Italy) and Professor H. Vokes (U.S.A.): Dr L.M.R. Cocks (U.K.) (Brachiopoda) Professor Jay M. Savage (U.S.A.) (Reptilia) Professor R. Schuster (Austria) (Soil invertebrates) Dr Shunichi Ueno (Japan) (Entomology) The Commission cordially welcomes these new Commissioners and expresses its grateful thanks to the retiring Commissioners for their valuable service. NEW ARRANGEMENTS FOR PUBLISHING THE BULLETIN Further to the announcement in the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 39, part 3, published 30 September 1982) that the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux will publish and distribute the Bulletin as from January 1983, we are happy to report that the price of Volume 40 for 1983 will be held at the current price of £40 er volume of four parts. Despite rising costs, this is the same as for 1981 and 1982. FINANCIAL SUPPORT We acknowledge with grateful thanks the following donations towards the work of the Trust and the Commission, received since the last list was published in Volume 39, part 2 in June 1982: The Moorgate Trust; CSIRO, Australia; Australian Academy of Sciences; Lesley David Trust; Sir Charles Fleming, FRS; Academia Sinica, Taiwan; Entomological Society of New Zealand; Professor S.J. Gould; Dr Karl Koopman; Dr H.W. Ball; E nest Kleinwort Charitable Trust; New Zealand Academy of Sciences; Professor W. Biittiker; Dr A.J. Sutcliffe; Dennis Curry’s Trust; London & Scottish Marine Oil Co. Ltd; Dr & Mrs D.J. Lewis. Covenanted subscriptions have been received from: Sir Eric Smith, FRS, Professor O.W. Richards, FRS, Dr W.R. Boon, FRS, Dr E.C. Manley, Dr R.T. Thompson, Dr J.W. Whittaker, Dr. I.W.B. Nye, Dr Juliet Jewell, Dr C.P. Nuttall, Dr. F.R. Wanless, Mrs P.L. Davies, Dr P.D. Lane, Dr M.G. Bassett and Dr L.R.M. Cocks. 232 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 CHANGES IN THE COMMISSION’S OFFICE Dr Adrian Penrose joined the staff on 11 October as an Assistant Zoologist. He will work on the preparation of applications for publication in the Bulletin through the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux. BIOSIS (U.K.) Ltd have kindly lent the part- time services of Mr Paul Couture for similar work. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 233 OPINION 1227 TINEA BJERKANDRELLA THUNBERG, 1784 AND PHALAENA (NOCTUA) CARDUI HUBNER, 1790 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): CONSERVED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name cardui Stro6m, 1783, as published in the combination Phalaena (Tortrix) cardui, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) bjerkandrella Thunberg, 1784, as published in the binomen Tinea bjerkandrella (Name Number 2822); (b) cardui Hiibner, 1790, as published in the combination Phalaena (Noctua) cardui (Name Number 2823). (3) The specific name cardui Str6m, 1783, as published in the combination Phalaena (Tortrix) cardui, 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 1106. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2204 An application for the conservation of Tinea bjerkandrella Thunberg, 1784 and Phalaena (Noctua) cardui Hiibner, 1790 was first received on 29 October 1976 from Dr I.W.B. Nye (British Museum (Natural History), London), Dr. O. Karsholt (Skibinge, Praestg, Denmark) and Dr E.S. Nielsen (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). It was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 106-108. 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, seven general and eight entomological serials. No comments were received except one pointing out a misspelling (see vol. 35, p. 265). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (81)28 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 107, 108. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Lehtinen, Alvarado, 234 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Habe, Heppell, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Bayer, Welch, Cogger, Mroczkowski Negative Votes — none (0). Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bjerkandrella, Tinea, Thunberg, 1784, D.D. Dissertatio Entomo- logica sistens Insecta Svecica, vol. 1, p. 24, fig. cardui, Phalaena Noctua, Hiibner, 1790, Beitr. Gesch. Schmett. vol. 2, p. 84, pl. 1, fig. B cardui, Phalaena Tortrix Strom, 1783, Nye Saml. k. dansk. Vid. Selsk. Christ. vol. 2, p. 87. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)28 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1227. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 27 May 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 235 OPINION 1228 HENICOPIDAE POCOCK, 1901 GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL PRECEDENCE OVER CERMATOBIIDAE HAASE, 1885 (MYRIAPODA, CHILOPODA) RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the family-group name HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 (type genus Henicops Newport, 1844) is to be given precedence over the family-group name CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885 (type genus Cermatobius Haase, 1885) by any zoologist who considers that Henicops and Cermatobius belong to the same family-group taxon. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Henicops Newport, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Pocock, 1901, Henicops maculata [sic] Newport, 1845 (Name Number 2167); (b) Cermatobius Haase, 1885 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Cermatobius martensii Haase, 1885 (Name Number 2168). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) maculatus Newport, 1845, as published in the binomen Henicops maculata [sic] (specific name of type species of Henicops Newport, 1844) (Name Number 2824); (b) martensii Haase, 1885, as published in the binomen Cermatobius martensii (specific name of type species of Cermatobius Haase, 1885) (Name Number 2825). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 (type genus Henicops Newport, 1844) with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885 (type genus Cermatobius Haase, 1885) by any zoologist who believes that Henicops and Cermatobius belong to the same family-group taxon (Name Number 541); (b) CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885 (type genus Cermatobius Haase, 1885) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 (type genus Henicops Newport, 1844) by any zoologist who considers that Henicops and Cermatobius belong to the same family-group taxon (Name Number 542). 236 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2206 An application for the conservation of the family name HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901, was first received from Dr Marcus Wiirmli (Tutzing, Switzerland) on 8 November 1976. After some correspondence it was rewritten as an application for HENICOPIDAE to be given nomenclatural precedence over CERMATOBIIDAE and sent to the printer on 24 June 1977. It was published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 123— 125. 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 general periodicals and seven specialist periodicals. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (81)29 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 124-125. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Habe, Hahn, Alvarado, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Bayer, Welch, Mroczkowski Negative Votes — two (2): Lehtinen, Heppell. Late affirmative votes were returned by Halvorsen, Ride and Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Cogger and Kraus. Lehtinen commented: ‘Both CERMATOBIIDAE and HENICOPIDAE have been widely enough used. In this situation priority should be preferred.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885, Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 8, p. 695 Cermatobius Haase, 1885, Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 8, p. 695 HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 8, p. 448 Henicops Newport, [May] 1844, Proc. linn. Soc. London, vol. 1, no. 20, p. 192 maculata, Henicops, Newport, [Nov.] 1845, Trans. linn. Soc. London, vol. 19, p. 372. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)29 were cast as Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 237 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. 1228. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 June 1982 238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 OPINION 1229 ATHELGES GERSTAECKER, 1862 (CRUSTACEA, ISOPODA): CONSERVED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers (a) it is hereby ruled that the names ‘Athelgue’, ‘cladophore’ and ‘fullode’ as published by Hesse in 1861 are vernacular names, not available for use in zoological nomenclature; (b) the generic name Botryllofer Dalyell, 1851 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Markham, 1977, Athelges phyllodes Gerstaecker, 1862, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2169. (3) The specific name paguri Rathke, 1843, as published in the binomen Phryxus paguri (the valid name, at the time of the present Ruling, for the type species of Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2826. (4) The family-group name ATHELGINAE Codreanu & Codreanu, 1956 (type genus Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 543. (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) ‘Athelgue’ Hesse, 1861, ruled under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above to be an unavailable name (Name Number 2128): (b) Botryllofer Dalyell, 1851, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above (Name Number 2129); (c) ‘Prosthéte’ Hesse, 1861, a vernacular name (Name Number 2130). 2a (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) ‘cladophore’ and (b) ‘fullode’ Hesse, 1861 as published in the combinations ‘Athelgue cladophore’ and ‘Athelgue fullode’, ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above to be unavailable names (Name Numbers 1107 and 1108 respectively); (c) ‘cannelée’ Hesse, 1861, as published in_ the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 239 combination ‘Prosthéte cannelée’, a vernacular name (Name Number 1109). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2207 An application for the conservation of the generic name Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862 was first received from Dr John C. Markham (Bermuda Biological Station) on 2 December 1976. After some correspondence it was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 126— 130. 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 general periodicals and one specialist periodical. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (81)30 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 128-129. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Habe, Binder, Dupuis, Nye, Bayer, Welch. Hahn gave an affirmative vote except for proposal (1)(b) and Heppell gave an affirmative vote except for (Da) (4), (5)(a), (6)(a) and (6)(b). Negative Votes — none ( Halvorsen, Ride and Gesunde sent in late affirmative votes. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Cogger and Kraus. Hahn commented: ‘I do not agree with (1)(b). Athelges should be given precedence over Botryllofer only when both names are considered synonyms. The same applies to Prosthetus’. Ride observed that the correct spelling of Athelges ‘fullodes’ Gerstaecker, 1862 was Athelges phyllodes. This was verified and the latter spelling has accordingly been used in the present Ruling. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862, Wiegmann’s Archiv Naturges., vol. 28, p. 558 ATHELGINAE Codreanu & Codreanu, 1956, Bull. biol. France Belgique, vol. 90, p. 119 240 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Athelgue Hesse, 1861, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (4) vol. 15, pp. 91, 112 Botryllofer Dalyell, 1851, The powers of the Creator displayed in the Creation ... vol. 1, p. 252, pl. 67, fig. 6 cladophore Hesse, 1861, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (4) vol. 15, p. 91 cannelée Hesse, 1861, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (4) vol. 15, p. 109 fullode Hesse, 1861, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (4) vol. 15, p. 97 paguri, Phryxus, Rathke 1843, Verh. kaiserl. Leopold.-Carolin. Akad. Naturf. vol. 20 (1), p. 57 Prosthéte Hesse, 1861, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (4) vol. 15, pp. 109, 113 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)30 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1229. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 June 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 241 OPINION 1230 NOTROPIS RAFINESQUE, 1818 (PISCES): THE GENDER IS MASCULINE RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the gender of the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 is hereby ruled to be masculine. (2) The generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (gender, by the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) above, masculine) type species, by monotypy, Notropis atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2170. (3) The specific name atherinoides Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Notropis atherinoides, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2827. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)663 An application for a ruling that the gender of the generic name Notropis Rafinesque, 1818, is masculine was first received from Dr Reeve M. Bailey and Dr Robert R. Miller (University of Michigan) on 20 March 1952. This was published in October 1954 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 9, pp. 272-274. A counter proposal that the correct feminine gender of the name be accepted, by the late Dr Carl Hubbs and Mr W.I. Follett, was published on pp. 274-275. The alternatives were voted on under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (55)3. At the close of the voting period on 19 August 1955 there were 13 votes for Alternative A (the Bailey—Miller proposals) and 11 for Alternative B (the Hubbs—Follett proposals). Faced with a majority less than a two-thirds majority in a case requesting the use of the plenary powers, the then Secretary to the Commission, Mr Hemming, decided that it would be best to wait until the International Congress of Zoology (London, 1958) should have clarified the views of zoologists in general on the relative merits of usage and strict linguistic rules. The case was not re-examined until August 1977 when I presented a fresh draft to Dr Bailey for his approval. An agreed text was sent to the printer on 27 September 1977 and published on 28 February 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 240-242. 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 eight general and two specialist periodicals. The application was supported by 41 zoologists from the United States and Canada whose names were circulated to the Commission. No adverse comment was received. 242 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)1 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 242. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Tortonese, Trjapitzin, Vokes, Halvorsen, Habe, Cogger, Brinck, Bayer, Welch, Sabrosky, Nye, Lehtinen, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — one (1): Hahn. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. Hahn commented: “The Greek word “tropis” is unequivocally feminine. This is a fact and the Commission should state it, not the reverse. I cannot see that much confusion would arise if Notropis is ruled to be feminine. Only specific names ending in -us would be changed. Those ending in -is, nouns in apposition and names based on personal names would not.’ ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: atherinoides, Notropis, Rafinesque, 1818, Amer. mon. Mag. crit. Rev., vol. 2, p. 204 Notropis Rafinesque, 1818, Amer. mon. Mag. crit. Rev., vol. 2, p. 204. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)1 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion Number 1230. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 9 June 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 243 OPINION 1231 BLATTA GERMANICA LINNAEUS, 1767 (INSECTA, DICTUOPTERA): CONSERVED AND DESIGNATED AS TYPE SPECIES OF BLATTELLA CAUDELL, 1903 RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers (a) it is hereby ruled that the specific name germanica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Blatta germanica, is to be given precedence over the name transfuga Brinnich, 1763, as published in the binomen Blatta transfuga, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Blattella Caudell, 1903, are hereby set aside and Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767 is hereby designated type species of that genus; (c) the following family-group names are to be given precedence in the order in which they appear below whenever they are used within a single superfamily: 1. EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type genus Epilampra Burmeister, 1838); 2. ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type genus Ectobius Stephens, 1835); 3. BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 (replacement name for PHYLLODROMIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865) (type genus Blattella Caudell, 1903); 4. PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 (type genus Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831). (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Blattella Caudell, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767 (Name Number 2171); (b) Epilampra Burmeister, 1838 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent designation by Kirby, 1903, Blatta brasiliensis Fabricius, 1775 (Name Number 2172); (c) Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Blatta oblongata Linnaeus, 1758 (Name Number 2173). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: 244 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 (a) germanica Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Blatta germanica (specific name of type species of Blattella Caudell, 1903) with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name transfuga Briinnich, 1763, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms (Name Number 2828); brasiliensis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Blatta brasiliensis (specific name of type species of Epilampra Burmeister, 1838 (Name Number 2829); (c) oblongata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Blatta oblongata (specific name of type species of Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831) (Name Number 2830). (d) transfuga Brinnich, 1763, as published in the binomen Blatta transfuga, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms (Name Number 2831). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with an endorsement that they are to be given nomenclatural precedence in the order shown, and with the Name Numbers specified: (a) EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type genus Epilampra Burmeister, 1838) (Name Number 544); (b) ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (type genus Ectobius Stephens, 1835) (Name Number 545); (c) BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 (type genus Blattella Caudell, 1903) (Name Number 546); (d) PPEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 (type genus Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831) (Name Number 547). (b — HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)680 An application for the conservation of Blatta germanica Linnaeus, 1767, was first received from Dr D.K. McE. Kevan (then of University of Nottingham, England) and Dr K. Princis (University of Lund, Sweden) on 24 May 1952. Due to various delays it was not published until 10 November 1961 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 18, pp. 330-331. For reasons that cannot now be ascertained, that application was never put to a vote. The case was reopened in October 1974. Dr Kevan (now of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 245 Macdonald Campus of McGill University, Quebec, Canada) found that it was more complex than it had formerly appeared. His revised application was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 34-39. 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 eight general and seven specialised periodicals. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)2 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 37-39. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis (in part), Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Vokes, Halvorsen, Habe, Cogger, Bayer, Welch, Brinck, Sabrosky, Nye, Hahn (in part), Lehtinen (in part), Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — none (0). Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘I vote against proposal (1)(c) and against the endorsement to proposal (4)’. Nye: ‘As a consequence of proposal (1)(a) the specific name transfuga, as published in the binomen Blatta transfuga, should also be placed on the Official List with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Blatta germanica. The endorsement giving precedence to Blatta germanica should also be added to the Official List entry’. (These points have been taken into account in drafting the present Ruling.) Hahn: ‘I do not agree with (1)(c) as presented. Anyone who decides that EPILAMPRIDAE, BLATTELLIDAE, ECTOBIIDAE and PSEUDOMOPIDAE are _ independent families, each with its own type genus, and not competing with each other, may be hindered in his systematic approach if the Commission adopts this proposal. The proposed precedence is useful if the names compete with each other, but this is not expressed distinctly enough in (1)(c)’. Lehtinen: ‘I vote against (1)(c) and (4)’. 246 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Blattella Caudell, 1903, Proc. entomol. Soc. Washington, vol. 5, p. 234 BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908, Mitt. natur. Ver. Univ. Wien, vol. 6, p. 112 brasiliensis, Blatta, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Entomol., p. 272 ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865, Nouv. Syst. Blatt. (Wien), pp. 46, 51 Epilampra Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Entomol. vol. 2 (2), p. 504 EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865, Nouv. Syst. Blatt. (Wien), pp. 47, 147. germanica, Blatta, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 668 oblongata, Blatta, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 425 PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903, Trans. amer. entomol. Soc., vol. 29, p. 260 Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831, Ann. Sci. nat. vol. 22, p. 41 transfuga, Blatta, Briinnich, 1763 in Pontoppidan, Den Danske Atlas, vol. 1, p. 679, pl. 29. The following is the original reference for a type-species designation accepted in the present ruling: of Blatta brasiliensis Fabricius, 1775, as type species of Epilampra Burmeister, 1838 by Kirby, 1903, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) vol. 12, p. 276. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1231. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 June 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 247 OPINION 1232 SUPPRESSION OF NAMES FOR SOUTH AMERICAN RODENTS PUBLISHED BY BRANTS, 1827 RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827 is hereby suppressed under the plenary powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific names agreste, blanco debaxo, colibreve, espinoso and tucotuco Brants, 1827, as published in combination with the generic name Ratton, are hereby ruled to be vernacular names, and as such not available for use in zoological nomenclature. (3) The generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, 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 2131. (4) The following specific names, ruled in (2) above to be vernacular names and, as such, not available for use in zoological nomenclature, all published in combination with the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a agreste Brants, 1827 (Name Number 1110); (b) blanco debaxo Brants, 1827 (Name Number 1111); (c) colibreve Brants, 1827 (Name Number 1112); (d) espinoso Brants, 1827 (Name Number 1113); (e) tucotuco Brants, 1827 (Name Number 1114). HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)1775 An application for the suppression of names published for South American rodents by Brants, 1827, was first received from Dr Alfredo Langguth (then at Frankfurt am Main, Germany) on 1 August 1966. It was published in December 1966 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23, pp. 243-244. For reasons that cannot be ascertained that application was never put to a vote. It was reopened in July 1975 and a revised text was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 October 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 115- 120. 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 eight general and two specialist periodicals. No comments were received. 248 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (82)3 ‘for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 117-118’. Dr Holthuis drew the Secretary’s attention to the fact that that voting paper did not reflect the complexity of the proposals. It was accordingly withdrawn and replaced by one issued on 5 March 1982 and divided into Parts A and B. In Part A members were invited to vote for or against the use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name Ratton Brants, 1827 (an affirmative vote would imply a vote in favour of proposal (4) to place that name on the Official Index). In Part B they were asked to vote either for proposals (2) and (5) or for proposals (3), (6) and (7) set out on p. 118 of the application. At the close of the voting period on 5 June 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Part A Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Vokes, Halvorsen, Mroczkowski, Habe, Brinck, Nye, Heppell, Hahn, Lehtinen, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer Negative Vote — Alvarado Part B For proposals (2) and (5) — fifteen (15) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Vokes, Halvorsen, Mroczkowski, Habe, Brinck, Nye, Hahn, Kraus, Corliss, Bayer For proposals (3), (6) and (7) — three (3): Alvarado, Heppell, Lehtinen. Sabrosky abstained. Welch returned a late affirmative vote in Part A and for proposals 2 and 5 in Part B. Cogger and Starobogatov voted only on the withdrawn voting paper. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘Although Ratton as used by Brants is also a vernacular name (erroneous spelling of Ratén), there is no harm in suppressing it’. Sabrosky: ‘I would prefer to regard Brants, 1827, as a non- binominal work, thus disposing of both Ratton and the “specific names”. If Desmarest, 1819, has given Linnean names to the species, aren’t Brants’s name synonyms anyway? It is curious that the applicant says no more of Desmarest’s names’. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 249 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: agreste, Ratton, Brants, 1827, Het Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld (Berlin), p. 184 blanco debaxo, Ratton, Brants, 1827, Het Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld (Berlin), p. 185 colibreve, Ratton, Brants, 1827, Der Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld (Berlin), p. 186 espinoso, Ratton, Brants, 1827, Der Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld (Berlin), p. 186 Ratton Brants, 1827, Der Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld (Berlin), p. 184 tucotuco, Ratton, Brants, 1827, Der Geslacht der Muizen door Linnaeus opgesteld (Berlin), p. 187. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)3 (revised) 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. 1232. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 10 June 1982 250 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 OPINION 1233 PULTENEY’S DORSET CATALOGUES, 1799, ADDED TO OFFICIAL LIST RULING.—(1) It is hereby ruled that the Catalogues of the birds, shells and some of the more rare plants, of Dorsetshire by ae Pulteney, 1799, were published within the meaning of the ode. (2) The title of the work cited in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Works approved as available in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 45. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2110 An application from the late Dr L.R. Cox (British Museum (Natural History), London) for the suppression of Pulteney’s Catalogues of the birds, shells, and some of the more rare plants, of Dorsetshire, 1799, was first received on 12 September 1950. Dr Cox was concerned to conserve the names of certain common Cretaceous molluscs that were junior synonyms of names published by Pulteney. To this end he had published a paper in Proc. malac. Soc. London, vol. 24, pp. 121-128, 1940, showing the effect on nomenclature of adopting Pulteney’s names. The effect of this paper was, contrary to expectations, to encourage the use of Pulteney’s names and the proposal to suppress the work was never published in Bull. zool. Nom. On 20 January 1975 an application was received from Commissioner David Heppell for the placing of the title of Pulteney’s work on the Official List. This application sought to show the effect on the nomenclature of extant Mollusca of not using Pulteney’s names. It was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 40-43. 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 eight general and three specialist serials. In the event, however, that part of Mr Heppell’s application that postulated the use of the plenary powers was not proceeded with. No comments were received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in Voting Paper (1982)4 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 251 35, p. 42, paragraph 8 only. At the close of the voting period on 25th May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — nineteen (19) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Bayer, Welch, Brinck, Sabrosky, Nye, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus Negative Vote — Cogger. Lehtinen abstained. Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. The following comments were returned by members of the Commision with their voting papers: Holthuis: ‘Pulteney’s publication is perfectly available under the present Code and no special ruling by the Commission is required’. Cogger: ‘In voting against the proposal I do so on two grounds: (a) that an affirmative vote would appear to be contrary to Article 8(3), and (b) that the applicant does not provide any evidence that nomenclatural stability would be seriously disturbed by strict application of the Code. However, I fully endorse the applicant’s desire to clarify, by more careful definition if possible, the status of preprints as publications’. Brinck: ‘I vote in favour because of the importance of the names involved, since in principle I am against such action’. Kraus: “The impression is that Pulteney’s work, as a preprint, was not issued for the purpose of public, permanent record (Article 8 and Article 9(2)). There is no need to validate the authorship of Pulteney, 1799, and according to Winkworth, 1932, it seems preferable to attribute the names in question to Montagu, 1803’. ORIGINAL REFERENCE The following is the original reference to a work whose title has been placed on the Official List of Works approved as available in Zoological Nomenclature by the ruling given in the present Opinion: R. Pulteney, 1799, Catalogues of the birds, shells, and some of the more rare plants, of Dorsetshire (privately published). CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)4 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 252 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1233. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 13 July 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 253 OPINION 1234 ROTALIA MENARDII PARKER, JONES & BRADY, 1865 (FORAMINIFERIDA): NEOTYPE DESIGNATED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers (a) all designations of type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 are hereby set aside; (b) the specimen described and figured by Stainforth, Lamb & Jeffords, 1978, is hereby designated as neotype of that species. (2) The specific name menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865, as published in the binomen Rotalia menardii, and as defined by reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2832. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z..N.(S.)2145 An application for the designation of a neotype for Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 prepared by Dr R.M. Stainforth, Dr J.L. Lamb and Dr R.M. Jeffords was first received from Dr Jeffords (Exxon Production Research Company, Houston, Texas 77001) on 9 September 1975. After some exchanges of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 12 September 1977 and published on 28 February 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 252- 261. 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 eight general and two specialist serials. The application was supported by Dr Ruth Todd (Vineyard Haven, Massachusetts), Dr H.B. Billman (Austin, Texas), Dr D. Graham Jenkins (Open University, Milton Keynes, U.K.), Dr M.A. Furrer (Caracas, Venezuela), Dr H.H. Renz (Coral Gables, Florida) and Professor Zeev Reiss (Hebrew University of Jerusalem). No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)6 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 257. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, 254 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Cogger, Bayer, Brinck, Welch, Nye, Lehtinen, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — none (0). Ride was on leave of absence. Sabrosky abstained. Corliss sent in a late affirmative vote. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference to a name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: menardii, Rotalia, Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) vol. 16, p. 20, pl. 3, fig. 81. The following is the original reference to the proposition of a neotype for Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865: Stainforth, Lamb & Jeffords, 1978, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 260-261, pls. 1, 2. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)6 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1234. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 14 July 1982 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 255 OPINION 1235 SEBASTOCLES JORDAN & HUBBS, 1925 (PISCES, SCORPAENIDAE): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of type species for the nominal genus Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs, 1925 hitherto made are hereby set aside and Sebastichthys hubbsi Matsubara, 1937 is hereby designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Sebastichthys Jordan & Hubbs, 1925 (gender: masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Sebastichthys hubbsi Matsubara, 1937, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2174. (3) The specific name hubbsi Matsubara, 1937, as published in the binomen Sebastichthys hubbsi (specific name of type species of Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs, 1925) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2833. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2183 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs, 1925 was first received from Professor Lo-chai Chen (San Diego State University, California, U.S.A.) on 14 June 1976. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 31 August 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 88-89. 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 eight general serials and one specialist serial. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 6 October 1981 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1981)25 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 88. At the close of the voting period on 6 January 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Willink, Trjapitzin, Corliss, Vokes, Brinck, Tortonese, Hahn, Heppell, Lehtinen, Alvarado, Binder, Habe, Dupuis, Nye, Welch, Bayer Negative Votes — none (0). Cogger abstained. Late affirmative votes were received from Halvorsen, Starobogatov and Ride (with a proviso quoted below). No votes were returned by Bernardi and Kraus. 256 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 The following comments were sent in by members of the Commission with their voting papers: Cogger: ‘I abstain from voting. The application is incomplete as it fails to explore the taxonomic and nomenclatural ramifications of either the proposal or the failure of the proposal. It also fails to demonstrate a need for the use of the plenary powers. Why is there a need to preserve Sebastocles? No evidence is presented to allow any judgment to be made under Article 70 as to what action will best serve stability and uniformity of nomenclature.’ Ride: ‘Article 70 requires the Commission to act in the interests of stability and uniformity of nomenclature. The Commission is without power to act otherwise. The application contains no information as to current usage. I approve the proposal provided the Secretary ascertains that current usage is not violated by it. If he discovers that the purpose of the application is merely to remove subjective synonymy between Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs and Takenokius Matsubara when both are used as though Sebastes elegans is the name-bearing type, the case should be reopened with an argument favouring the solution in Article 70a(i) or (iii) in terms of stability and uniformity’. Dr Ride’s comment generated a lengthy correspondence between himself, the Secretariat and Professor Chen. Dr Holthuis eventually intervened to point out that the application was rendered necessary by the terms of Article 70a, regardless of usage, of which there happened to be very little in this case. He suggested a change in that provision to allow a misidentified type species to continue to be used as such unless confusion arose, in which case alone need the matter be referred to the Commission. This proposition has been retained for later consideration. R.V.M. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: hubbsi, Sebastichthys, Matsubara, 1937, Copeia, 1937 (1), p. 57 Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs, 1925, Mem. Carnegie Mus. vol. 10 (2), p. 260 fn. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(81)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 257 so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1235. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 20 July 1982 258 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 OPINION 1236 TRIONYX STEINDACHNERI SIEBENROCK, 1906 (REPTILIA, TESTUDINES): CONSERVED RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name californiana Rivers, 1889, as published in the binomen Aspidonectes californiana, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The specific name steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906, as published in the binomen Trionyx steindachneri, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name ‘Number 2834. (3) The specific name californiana Rivers, 1889, as published in the binomen Aspidonectes californiana, 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 1115. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2162 An application for the conservation of Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906 was first received from Dr Robert Webb (University of Texas at El Paso) on 27 January 1976. It was sent to the printer on 16 February 1978 and published on 31 July 1978 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, pp. 47-48. 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 periodicals, to seven general and two specialist periodicals. The application was supported by a working committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. No adverse comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (82)7 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 35, p. 48. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Cogger, Bayer, Welch, Brinck, Sabrosky, Lehtinen, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus Negative Vote — Nye. Corliss sent in a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 259 Nye commented: ‘While in full agreement with the aim of this case to conserve the use of T. steindachneri as a valid name, I am not prepared to endorse a subjective synonymy. It would be preferable to grant nomenclatural precedence to steindachneri over its senior subjective synonym’. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: californiana, Aspidonectes, Rivers, 1889, Proc. California Acad. Sci. (2), vol. 2, pp. 233-236 steindachneri, Trionyx, Siebenrock, 1906, Zool. Anzeiger, vol. 30, p. 579 CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)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. 1236. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 4 August 1982 260 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 OPINION 1237 PENNAHIA FOWLER, 1926 (PISCES, SCIAENIDAE): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus Pennahia Fowler, 1926, hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species Ofolithus macrophthalmus Bleeker, 1850, is designated as type species of that genus. (2) The generic name Pennahia Fowler, 1926, (gender: feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Otolithus macrophthalmus Bleeker, 1850, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2175. (3) The specific name macrophthalmus Bleeker, 1850, as published in the binomen Otolithus macrophthalmus (specific name of type species of Pennahia Fowler, 1926) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2835. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2167 An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type species for Pennahia Fowler, 1926, was first received from Dr Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London) and Dr P.K. Talwar (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta) on 17 February 1976. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the printer on 3 August 1977 and published on 1 November 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 185-186. 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 ten general serials and one specialised serial. Notices were also distributed through Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)8 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 186. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 261 Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Habe, Vokes, Cogger, Brinck, Bayer, Welch, Nye, Sabrosky, Lehtinen, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — none (0). A late affirmative vote was returned by Corliss. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: macrophthalmus, Otolithus, Bleeker, 1850, Verhandel. Batav. Genootsch., vol. 23, p. 16 Pennahia Fowler, 1926, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc., vol. 31, p. 776. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)8 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. 1237. R.V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 August 1982 262 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 OPINION 1238 MYCTEROMYIA PHILIPPI, 1865 (INSECTA, DIPTERA): DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES RULING.—(1) The nominal species Pangonia conica Bigot, 1857 is hereby designated as type species of the nominal genus Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865. (2) The generic name Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865 (gender; feminine), type species, by designation under (1) above, Pangonia conica Bigot, 1857, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2176. (3) The specific name conica Bigot, 1857, as published in the binomen Pangonia conica (specific name of type species of Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2836. HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.)2199 An application for the designation of a type species for Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865, was first received from Dr Cornelius B. Philip (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco) on 21 September 1976. It was sent to the printer on 19 April 1977 and published on 1 November 1977 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, pp. 187- 188. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 25 February 1982 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (1982)9 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 34, p. 188. At the close of the voting period on 25 May 1982 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the following order: Melville, Holthuis, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Willink, Trjapitzin, Tortonese, Halvorsen, Vokes, Habe, Cogger, Bayer, Brinck, Welch, Nye, Sabrosky, Lehtinen, Hahn, Heppell, Kraus Negative Votes — none (0). Corliss returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder and Dupuis. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 263 ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: conica, Pangonia, Bigot, 1857, Ann. Soc. entomol. France, vol. 5, p. 278 Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol. 15, p. 712. CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P.(82)9 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. 1238. Ray) MEEVEE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 August 1982 264 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 DENDROBATES WAGLER, 1830 AND DENDROBATIDAE COPE, 1865: (AMPHIBIA): PROBLEMS SURROUNDING THESE NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1930 [Note by the Secretary, I.C.Z.N. This matter was the subject of an application by Silverstone, 1971, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 27, pp. 262-264. Comments were sent in by Myers & Daly, 1971 (vol. 28, p. 141), by Cuellar and others, 1972 (vol. 29, p. 24) and by the Nomenclature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, 1972 (vol. 29, pp. 107-108). In May 1975 Monsieur Dupuis asked me to defer the issue of a voting paper on the case until he and Monsieur Lescure had prepared some new relevant evidence that they had discovered, and which is here presented by Monsieur Lescure. The essence of this paper is a criticism of the locality from which Silverstone designated a neotype for ‘Hyla tinctoria Daudin’. Monsieur Lescure cannot at present propose a more satisfactory specimen, but is actively looking for one. Monsieur Dubois, on the other hand, is more concerned with the conservation of the generic name Dendrobates and the family name DENDROBATIDAE. His paper immediately follows Monsieur Lescure’s. R.V.M.] (1) LESPECE-TYPE DU GENRE DENDROBATES WAGLER, 1830: NOUVELLES PROPOSITIONS. Z.N.(S.)1930 Par Jean Lescure (Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, Laboratoire de Zoologie, Reptiles et Amphibiens, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France Wagler, 1830 (Nat. syst. Amph... Class. Satig. Vogel, Munich, p. 202) inclut dans son genre nouveau Dendrobates trois espéces: ‘Hyla nigerrima Spix |.c. p. 12 t.9f.2 ... Hyla tinctoria Daud. Ran. p. 25 t.8 — Hyla trivittata Spix |.c. p.11t.9 f.1 [ef. Spix, 1824, Animalia nova ... Testud. Ran ... per Brasiliam annis 1817-1820; Daudin, 1803, Hist. nat. rainettes grenouilles crapauds, Paris, 4°]. Wagler ne désigne aucune de ces trois espéces comme espéce-type. 2. Tous les auteurs, notamment parmi les plus récents, (Savage, 1968 (Copeia, p. 747), Silverstone, 1971, loc. cit et les autres auteurs mentionnés par le Secrétaire ci-dessus) croient que l’espéce-type de Dendrobates est Hyla nigerrima Spix par la désignation subséquente de Fitzinger, 1843 (Systema Reptilium, Vienne, vol. 1, p. 32). Or, ce sont Duméril & Bibron, 1841 (Erpét. gén., Paris, vol. 8, p. 651), les premiers réviseurs du genre Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 265 Dendrobates Wagler, qui ont désigné l’espéce type de ce genre. Ils écrivent en effet: ‘Dés l’année 1827, Boié avait proposé de former sous le nom d’Hylaplesia un groupe générique qui réunirait Hyla tinctoria de Daudin, ou l’espéce-type de notre genre Dendrobate, et deux autres Anoures a extrémités digitales épatées...’. Remarquons que Duméril & Bibron, 1841, p. 649, emploient le nom frangais Dendrobate pour Dendrobates Wagler, et que les termes employés par les deux auteurs sont, on ne peut plus clairs et modernes, pour une désignation d’espéce-type. 3. Duméril & Bibron, 1841, p. 652, déclarent 4 nouveau: ‘laissant de cdté le genre Hylaplesia, aprés toutefois en avoir retiré la Hyla tinctoria, il iWagler] créa pour cette derniére et les Hyla trivittata et nigerrima de Spix, le genre Dendrobates’. Plus loin, ils ajoutent: ‘nous avons préféré d’adopter le nom de Dendrobates pour le présent genre... pour le cas ot l’on reconnaitrait que la Hylaplesia borbonica doit étre séparée génériquement de la Hyla tinctoria de Daudin et des espéces que nous y réunissons’. Ainsi par trois fois, ils expriment nettement leurs intentions de premiers réviseurs de voir dans Hyla tinctoria Daud. le noyau du genre Dendrobates et, une fois, ils le qualifient explicitement d’espéce- type. Déja dans leur analyse de l’ouvrage de Wagler au début du méme volume (p.39) ils retiennent préférentiellement ‘H. tinctoria’ en parlant du genre Dendrobate. 4. Hyla nigerrima Spix, synonyme de Hyla trivittata Spix sur la seule opinion de Peters, 1872 (Monatsber. k. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, pp. 196-277), n’étant pas l’espéce-type du genre Dendrobates Wagler, la requéte de Silverstone auprés de la Commission est sans objet. Le probléme de savoir si Hyla trivittata Spix appartient au genre Phyllobates sensu Silverstone, 1975 (Bull. nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County, Sci. No. 21, p. 8) ou au genre Dendrobates sensu Myers & Daly, 1976 (Bull. am. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 157, p. 180) ne concerne plus l’espéce-type valide du genre Dendrobates, Hyla tinctoria, Daudin. 5. Sous le nom spécifique finctoria, cité dans le binodme Hyla tinctoria, Daudin (1803, p. 25; 1800, Hist. Quad. ovipares, Paris, p. 5, pl. 4) renvoie a tinctorius Schneider, 1799 (Hist. Amph. nat. litt., Jena, vol. 1, p. 175) et ala ‘Raine a tapirer’ de Lacepéde, 1788 (Hist. nat. Quad. ovip. Serpents, Paris, vol. 1, p. 567, pl. 39). Or, le premier auteur a avoir donné un nom spécifique en latin a’la Raine a tapirer’ de Lacepéde est Cuvier, 1797 (Tabl. élém. Hist. Anim., Paris, p. 295) et non Schneider [cf. Harper, 1940, Amer. Midl. Nat., vol. 23, p. 699, et Lescure, 1976, Bull. Mus. nat. Hist nat. Paris, (3), no. 377, Zool. vol. 265, p. 484]. Cuvier traduit le mot tapirer, qui signifie donner artificiellement la couleur rouge ou jaune, en tinctoria pour former le bindme Rana tinctoria. 266 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 6. Schneider, 1799 (loc. cit.), qui ne donne pas de nom d’auteur a tous les bindmes décrits dans son livre, ne nomme pas Cuvier mais se référe explicitement au texte et a la figure de Lacepéde, 1788, loc. cit. Il considére cependant son Calamita tinctoria dont il n’a vu aucun spécimen comme une espéce douteuse. I] ne devait pas savoir le sens précis d’un terme aussi particulier que ‘tapirer’, qui provient de ‘tapire’, un mot Galibi de Guyane désignant la couleur rouge (Ahlbrinck, 1956, l’encyclopédie des Caraibes, Paris, p. 229), mais il connaissait bien le livre de Cuvier: il le cite en effet 4 deux reprises dans son ouvrage de 1799 (pp. 110 et 184). Il est donc évident que son taxon finctorius est celui de Cuvier. 7. Quelle est Pidentité de “La raine a tapirer”, Rana tinctoria, de Cuvier, 1797? Son nom spécifique en frangais et sa description sont empruntés a Lacepéde, 1788, qui lui-méme se référe 4 Buffon, 1779 (Hist. nat. Oiseaux, Paris, vol. 6, p. 235). Les descriptions de ces deux auteurs sont assez claires et précises pour désigner uniquement le Dendrobate endémique de Guyane que tous les auteurs appellent actuellement Dendrobates tinctorius (voir Lescure, 1976, p. 485). De plus Daudin, 1800 et 1803, affirme que cette espéce vit surtout au Surinam et en Guyane et qu’il y ena trois individus dans la Galerie du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle a Paris; deux ont sans doute été vus par Lacepéde et Cuvier et l’un d’entre eux a servi comme modéle a Daudin pour les fig. 1 et 2 des planches 4 de 1800 et 8 de 1803. Ce spécimen est sans aucun doute possible un Dendrobates tinctorius. Les deux exemplaires dont je viens de parler sont apparemment perdus aujourd’hui. 8. Le troisiéme individu qui est pourvu d’une troisiéme bande longitudinale, existe toujours au Muséum de Paris et y est enregistré sous le numéro MNHNP 4904. Il ne nous est connu qu’a partir de l’époque de Daudin, quis’en est servicomme modéle pour sa figure 3 des planches 4 de 1800 et 8 de 1803 et qui l’a nettement considéré comme une variété de Hyla tinctoria dans son Hist. nat. Rept., 1803, Paris, vol. 8, p. 50. C’est un Dendrobates quinquevittatus Fitzinger in Steindachner, 1862 (cf. Lescure, 1976, pp. 483, 484 pour la reproduction de la planche de Daudin). 9. Pour fixer le taxon tinctorius, Silverstone (1975, Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Sci. Bull. vol. 21, p. 47) a désigné comme néotype de Calamita tinctoria Schneider, 1799, le spécimen du Los Angeles County Museum, LACM 43927, dont le ‘pattern’ dorsal est assez proche de celui de la figure 1 de la planche 8 de Daudin (Joc. cit., 1803). Cette désignation n’est pas valide parce que Schneider n’est pas l’auteur de tinctorius. Ce néotype pourrait-il devenir celui de Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797? Ce serait possible car la série-type de Cuvier est le matériel vu par Lacepéde (loc. cit., 1788) auquel se référe aussi Schneider (Joc. cit., 1799) et dont un spécimen a sans Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 267 doute servi de modéle a Daudin pour les figures 1 et 2 des planches citées ci-dessus. Le Muséum posséde toujours les dessins originaux de ces planches. 10. Cependant le choix possible du spécimen LACM 43927 comme néotype de Rana tinctoria Cuvier suscite plusieurs remarques: (1) cet exemplaire ne provient pas de la région de Cayenne, ou furent sirement re¢oltés les spécimens vus par Buffon et Cuvier, mais de celle de la riviére Matarony, qui n’était sans doute pas explorée a cette €poque 1a; ceci n’est pas conforme a l’article 75c(5) du Code; (2) le dessin dorsal de cet exemplaire n’est pas exactement semblable a celui de la figure 1 de Daudin, 1803, pl. 8, qui a une bande en forme de double croissant sur la face dorsale de la téte; (3) sa taille (49.0 mm) est plus grande que celle des individus de la région de Cayenne; (4) sa coloration en vie décrite par Silverstone, 1975, p. 45 est différente de celle €voquée par Buffon, 17729, p25. 11. Le dessin dorsal du spécimen représenté par Daudin, 1803, pl. 8, fig. 1, la coloration bleu azur et jaune d’or et une taille plus petite que chez les individus du bassin de l Approuague, qui comprend le Matarony, ou de l’intérieur de la Guyane sont caractéristiques des populations des environs de Cayenne. 12. Il est donc souhaitable de choisir le néotype de Rana tinctoria Cuvier parmi des exemplaires capturés dans cette région. Malheureusement nous ne disposons pas actuellement d’un spécimen en excellent état qui satisfait 4 toutes les exigences énnumérées ci-dessus et qui, par conséquent, serait susceptible de remplir cette fonction. 13. Rappelons que du point de vue de la _ stabilité nomenclaturale, l’espéce endémique des Guyanes, Dendrobates tinctorius (Cuvier), a toujours été considérée comme caractéristique du genre Dendrobates, que celui-ci soit pris au sens restreint de Silverstone, 1975, ou plus large de Myers & Daly, 1971, p. 141; 1976, p. 180 (Laurent, 1942, Bull. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belgique, vol. 43, p. 12; Hoogmoed, 1969, Zool. Meded., vol. 44, p. 133). (2) DENDROBATES WAGLER, 1830 AND DENDROBATIDAE COPE, 1865 (AMPHIBIA, ANURA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION By Alain Dubois (Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France) Silverstone, 1971, submitted in this Bulletin an application concerning the generic name Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 (Amphibia, Anura). He asked the International Commission on 268 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to designate Calamita_ tinctoria Schneider, 1799 as the type-species of Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 and to place both these names on the Official Lists; he also asked the Commission to place the generic name Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841 and the specific name Phyllobates bicolor Duméril & Bibron, 1841, its type-species by monotypy, on the Official Lists. 2. Asa result of the comments on this application submitted by Myers & Daly, 1971, Cuellar et al., 1972 and Peters et al., 1972, who pointed to several uncertainties and difficulties in this case, the Commission deferred its decision and no action has until now been taken concerning the above mentioned names. This is highly fortunate, because, as will be shown below, the original application and the subsequent comments were suffering from several misinterpretations and omissions concerning the basic facts. The following new points are discussed below: (a) as correctly mentioned by Lescure, p. 265, the first valid designation of a type species for Dendrobates Wagler, 1830, was not made by Fitzinger, 1843, as stated by Silverstone, 1971, and accepted by the subsequent commentators of this application, but by Duméril & Bibron, 1841, who chose the nominal species ‘Hyla tinctoria Daudin’ (= Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797); no action of the Commission is therefore needed in this respect; (b) the name Dendrobates Wagler, 1830, was not proposed as the name of a new genus, but as a substitute name for Hylaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1827, which is itself a substitute name for Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826; according to the Rules, the valid name of this genus would therefore be Hysaplesia and not Dendrobates; in order to conserve this latter name, an action by the Commission is necessary; (c) difficulties are pointed out concerning the valid name of the family including the genera Dendrobates and Phyllobates: the names PHYLLOBATAE Fitzinger, 1843, EUBAPHIDAE Bonaparte, 1850 and HYLAPLESIDAE Giinther, 1858 have priority over the name DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865; action by the Commission is therefore necessary to conserve this latter name. 3. After a detailed presentation of these basic facts, new proposals will be made to solve the nomenclatural problems in existence. 4. Boie, in Schlegel, 1826, p. 239, created the genus Hysaplesia for seven nominal species of frogs of which none was designated as type; one year later, the same name was again proposed as new (Boie in Schlegel, 1827, p. 294), but under the different spelling Hylaplesia. Stejneger, 1937, is probably correct in stating that the spelling Hysaplesia was due to a misprint and was Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 269 later corrected into Hylaplesia, but since only the first spelling appears in the original publication and since there exists in the original publication itself no ‘clear evidence of an inadvertent error’, Hysaplesia must be considered the correct original spelling of this name (Art. 32). Hylaplesia is therefore an unjustified emendation and hence a substitute name of Hysaplesia, and has its own status in nomenclature (Art. 33). 5. The seven nominal species mentioned by Boie (in Schlegel, 1826, 1827) as members of the genus Hysaplesia (or Hylaplesia) are “H.borbonica Kuhl & Van Hasselt” (nomen nudum), “H. achatina Kuhl & Van Hasselt” (nomen nudum), Hyla trivittata Spix, Hyla nigerrima Spix, Hyla punctata Daudin, Hyla tinctoria Daudin and Hyla luteola Max. 6. Fitzinger, 1843, p. 31, designated “Hylapl. achatina Boie” as type species of Hylaplesia. However the specific name achatina, which appeared in Schlegel’s (1826, 1827) papers, was not accompanied therein by any description or indication and was therefore anomen nudum at that date. The species achatina was first briefly described by Tschudi, 1838, p. 71, who erected for it his new genus Microhyla. The name Microhyla achatina Tschudi, 1838, has Status in nomenclature and is still in use for a species of frog from Java (see Parker, 1934, p. 136). However, this name became available only in 1838 and the nominal species Microhyla achatina Tschudi, 1838, cannot be regarded as being part of the originally included species of Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826. Therefore the designation of this species (which had by then been described) as type species of Hylaplesia (and hence Hysaplesia) by Fitzinger, 1843, is invalid. 7. The name borbonica being in the same case as achatina, five valid names remain, among which the one that denotes the type species of Hysaplesia must be chosen. Stejneger, 1937, p. 139, believing that no such designation had ever been made, designated ‘Hyla punctata Daudin’ (= Calamita punctata Schneider, 1799) as type species of Hylaplesia (and hence Hysaplesia). Duellman, 1977, p. 23, regarded this action as valid, and consequently included Hylaplesia (but not Hysaplesia, which he failed to mention) in the synonymy of Hyla Laurenti, 1768. However, as will be shown below, Stejneger’s action is invalid and the name Hylaplesia must be removed from this synonymy. 8. Wagler, 1830, p. 202, created the generic name Dendrobates. Silverstone, 1971, p. 262, presented the history of this nominal genus and of its type-species designation as follows: “Wagler 1830 included three species in his genus Dendrobates, Hyla nigerrima Spix, 1824, p. 36, Calamita tinctoria Schneider, 1799, p. 175, and Hyla trivittata Spix, 1824, p. 35, but did not designate one of 270 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 them as the type-species. Fitzinger 1843, p. 32 designated Hyla nigerrima as the type-species..’ 9. Myers & Daly, 1971, Cuellar et al., 1972, and Peters et al., 1972, did not discuss the above statements of Silverstone, 1971, but focussed their discussions on other aspects of Silverstone’s application. However, as will be shown below, these statements are misleading, and consequently the discussions relying on them are irrelevant. 10. Silverstone, 1971, credited Wagler, 1830, with the creation of a new genus Dendrobates. However, an examination of Wagler’s book shows clearly that this author only proposed a substitute name for the genus already created by Boie under the name Hysaplesia (later emended to Hylaplesia). 11. Just after the newly introduced name Dendrobates, Wagler (1830, p. 202) added a footnote, which reads as follows: “1) Aevdeos arbor, et Barv@ incedo. — Gen. Hylaplesia H. Boie Isis 1827. p. 294. — Hylaplesia borbonica und H. achatina H. Boie a.m. O., aus Indien, kenne ich nicht.” This is a clear indication of Dendrobates being a mere synonym of Hylaplesia, i.e. a substitute name for it. Similar other cases of substitute names, followed by a footnote indicating the etymology of the new name and the replaced name, are to be found in Wagler’s text. Curiously, subsequent authors have applied a different treatment to these various cases: while some of these names were clearly recognized as substitute names, other ones, although proposed in exactly the same way, were considered as the names of new genera. As concerns the Amphibia Anura, the substitute names proposed by Wagler, 1830, are four in number: Asterodactylus (p. 199) for Pipa Laurenti, 1768; Dendrobates (p. 202) for Hylaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1827; Enydrobius (p. 202) for Hylodes Fitzinger, 1826; and Systoma (p. 205) for Engystoma Fitzinger, 1826. Wagler, 1830, also introduced unjustified emendations (a particular case of substitute names) for generic names, such as, in the Anura, Megalophrys (p. 204) for Megophrys Kuhl & Van Hasselt, 1822. Among the above mentioned names, Enydrobius was recognized by subsequent authors as a substitute name for Hylodes (see e.g. Myers, 1962, p. 196; Lynch, 1971, p. 166) and Megalophrys as an unjustified emendation of Megophrys (see e.g. Gorham, 1966, p. 15; Dubois, 1980, p. 472). On the other hand, Asterodactylus was erroneously believed to be a new genus, with a type species different from that of Pipa (see e.g. Gorham, 1966, p. 4); the same applies to Dendrobates versus Hylaplesia, and to Systoma versus Engystoma. 12. The name Dendrobates being a substitute name for Hylaplesia, which is in its turn a substitute name for Hysaplesia, this latter name, which has no senior homonym, would under the Rules Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 271 be the valid name for the genus universally known under the name Dendrobates since more than a century (see Appendix). Such a 13. Silverstone, 1971, stated that Fitzinger, 1843, was the author of the first valid designation of a type species for Dendrobates. As pointed out by Lescure, Pp. 265, this is incorrect. Silverstone overlooked the fact that Duméril & Bibron, 1841, p. 651, clearly made such a designation. 14. Duméril & Bibron, 1841, retained Dendrobates as the valid generic name for a genus including ‘Hyla tinctoria Daudin’. On 15. Remains Duméril & Bibron’s 1841 action concerning the generic name Dendrobates. As was discussed by Lescure, p. 265, Duméril & Bibron, 1841, p. 651, made a clear designation of ‘Hyla tinctoria Daudin’ (= Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797) as type species of 272 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 junior synonym of Dendrobates, namely Eubaphus Bonaparte, 1831. This new genus was proposed by Bonaparte, 1831, p. 76, as follows: ‘Eubaphus, Nob. mss. (Rana tinctoria, Shaw)’. The name Eubaphus was later used again in several different works by Bonaparte (1832 a, p. 318; 1832 b, p. 25; 1833, p. 1196), but, to my knowledge, no other author has ever mentioned the existence of this name. This nominal genus, based on the type species ‘Rana tinctoria Shaw’ (= Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797) is an objective synonym of Hysaplesia, Hylaplesia and Dendrobates, but being a junior synonym of these names its existence does not threaten in the least the stability of generic nomenclature. However, as will be shown below, it has some bearing on the nomenclatural problems at the family level in this group. 19. Starting with Boulenger, 1882, p. 140, most herpetologists (see Appendix) have used the name DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865, under this’ spelling or under’ the _ spelling DENDROBATINAE Gadow, 1901 [sic] as the valid name for the family or the subfamily including the genera Dendrobates Wagler, 1830, Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841 and Colostethus Cope, 1866. However, there exist three other family-group names, two of which have been overlooked until now, which have priority over this name. To maintain the stability of nomenclature, an action of the Commission is therefore necessary. 20. The first available name for this family-group is PHYLLOBATAE Fitzinger, 1843, based on the generic name Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841. Savage, 1968, pointed to the existence of this senior synonym of DENDROBATIDAE, but used the latter name for the family. He wrote (1968, p. 747): ‘The name Dendrobatidae was first used by Cope (1865), but this name has been generally used for the family during the last 25 years. Under terms of Art. 23d(ii) of the Rules, Dendrobatidae should be retained as the family name.’ Curiously, however, he did not ‘request the Commission to decide which name is to be accepted for the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology’, as was implied by his reference to Art. 23. Myers & Daly, 1976, p. 180 agreed with Savage and wrote: ‘We follow Savage (1968, p. 747) in using the family name Dendrobatidae Cope, rather than an older available name (Phyllobatidae Fitzinger); such usage eventually should be legalized by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, even though Savage seemed to suggest that the matter is settled’. However, I know of at least two authors who made use of the name PHYLLOBATIDAE as the valid name of this family: Parker, 1933, p. 12 and, very recently, Laurent, 1980 a, p. 404; 1980 b, p. 83; none of them gave a justification of this action. 21. The second name available for this family is that of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 273 EUBAPHIDAE, proposed, together with the subfamilial name EUBAPHINA, for a family including Eubaphus Bonaparte, 1831, by Bonaparte himself (1850) and mentioned again later (1852, p. 478) by this author, but never, to my knowledge, by subsequent authors. Eubaphus being an objective synonym of Dendrobates, EUBAPHIDAE is also an objective synonym of DENDROBATIDAE. 22. The last senior synonym of DENDROBATIDAE is HYLAPLESIDAE Giinther, 1858, also proposed as a subfamily HYLAPLESINA, names based on the generic name Hylaplesia, an objective senior synonym of Dendrobates. 23. The name DENDROBATIDAE was first published by Cope, 1865, p. 100, who later (1867, p. 191) also proposed the name COLOSTETHIDAE, based on the generic name Colostethus Cope, 1866. Both these new family-group names are junior synonyms of all the other family-group names mentioned above. 24. A strict application of the Law of Priority in this case would require Parker’s 1933 and Laurent’s 1980 a, b action to be followed and the name of the family to be changed to PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843. However, as mentioned above, the name DENDROBATIDAE has been in almost universal use among herpetologists, since Boulenger’s 1882 work, for the family including Rana tinctoria and related species, and conservation of this name is to be commended. 25. Since the name Eubaphus isa junior objective synonym of Dendrobates, the replacement of the name EUBAPHIDAE by the name DENDROBATIDAE, which took place before 1961 and which has won general acceptance, may be considered as valid by virtue of Art. 40a. The name DENDROBATIDAE takes therefore the date 1850 and must be considered a senior synonym of EUBAPHIDAE. This does not solve, however, the problem of the priority of PHYLLOBATIDAE, for which an action of the Commission is necessary. 26. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to suppress the generic names Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826, and Hylaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1827, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to. rule’ that the family-group name DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the family- group nane PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 whenever the two names are considered synonyms; 274 (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent designation by Duméril & Bibron, 1841, Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797; (b) Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841 (gender: masculine), type species, by monotypy, Phyllobates bicolor Duméril & Bibron, 1841; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) tinctoria Cuvier, 1797, as published in the binomen Rana tinctoria (specific name of type species of Dendrobates Wagler, 1830); (b) bicolor Duméril & Bibron, 1841, as published in the binomen Phyllobates bicolor (specific name of type species of Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841); to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (type genus: Dendrobates Wagler, 1830), with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841) whenever the two names are considered synonyms; (b) PHYLLOBATIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus: Phyllobates Duméril & Bibron, 1841) with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Hysaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1826, and (b) Hylaplesia Boie in Schlegel, 1827, both as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above; to place the family-group name HYLAPLESIDAE Giinther, 1858 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (invalid because the name of its type genus has been suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 275 APPENDIX Partial list of references of works where the names Dendrobates and DENDROBATIDAE (or DENDROBATINAE) are used as the valid names of the genus and family (or subfamily) including the species Rana tinctoria Cuvier, 1797. See also the references given by Silverstone, 1971, p. 262. Reference Dendrobates DENDROBATINAE DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865: 104 — 100 Cope, 1867: 197 — 197 Boulenger, 1882: 142 _ 140 Gadow, 1901: 272 139 — Fejérvary, 1921: 28 — 28 Noble, 1931: 507 507 oe Taylor, 1952: 633 632 — Griffiths, 1959: 470 477 (483) Rivero, 1961: 154 — 153 Goin & Goin, 1962: 227 227 _ Savage, 1968: 745 — 745 Cochran & Goin, 1970: 13 13 — Crump, 1972: 195 — 195 Bogart, 1973: 348 — 337 Lynch, 1973: 135 — 135 Savage, 1973: — — 354 Trueb, 1973: 100 — 92 Gorham, 1974: 113 — 113 Duellman, 1975: _ _ 5 Silverstone, 1975: 1 — 1 Myers & Daly, 1976: 177 — 179 Silverstone, 1976: 1 = 1 Daly et al., 1978: 163 — 163 Dowling & Duellman, 1978: 35.1 — 35.1 Duellman, 1978: 124 — 121 Goin, Goin & Zug, 1978: 243 — 243 Neuwirth et al. , 1979: 756 os 756 REFERENCES BOGART, J.P. 1973. Evolution of Anuran karyotypes. In: VIAL, J.L. (ed.), Evolutionary biology of the Anurans, Columbia, Univ. Missouri Press, pp. 337-349. BONAPARTE, C.L. 1831. Saggio di una distribuzione metodica degli animali vertebrati. Roma, Boulzaler, pp. 1-78. —— 1832 a. Versuch einer methodischen Eintheilung der Wirbelthiere. sis von Oken, vol. 1832, col. 283-320. —— 1832 b. Saggio d'una distribuzione metodica degli animali vertebrati a sangue freddo. Roma, Boulzaler, pp. 1-86. 276 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 — 1833. Versuch einer methodischen Bertheilung der Wirbelthiere mit kaltem Blut. Isis von Oken, vol. 1833, col. 1183-1230. — 1850. Conspectus systematum Herpetologiae et Amphibiologiae. Editio altera reformata. Lugduni Batavorum, Brill, 1 pl. —1852. Conspectus systematum Herpetologiae et Amphibiologiae. Nuovi Ann. Sci. nat. Bologna, ser. 3, vol. 5, pp. 477-480. BOULENGER, G.A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia s. Ecaudata in the collection of the British Museum. London, Taylor and Francis, pp. i-xvi + 1— 503, pls. I-XXX. COCHRAN, D.M. & GOIN, C.J. 1970. Frogs of Columbia. U.S. nat. Mus. Bull., vol. 288, pp. i-xii + 1-655. COPE, E.D. 1865. Sketch of the primary groups of Batrachia Salientia. Nat. Hist. Rev., n.s., vol. 5, pp. 97-120. — 1866. Fourth contribution to the herpetology of tropical America. Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 1866, pp. 123-132. ———1867. On the families of the Raniform Anura. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, ser. 2, vol. 6, pp. 189-206. CRUMP, M.L. 1972. Territoriality and mating behavior in Dendrobates granuliferus (Anura: Dendrobatidae). Herpetologica, vol. 28, pp. 195-198. CUELLAR, H.S., FAWCETT, J.D., FERNER,J.W., MASLIN, P., OLDHAM, J.C., ROTH, J.J., SAVITZKY, A. & SMITH, H.M. 1972. Comment on Dendrobates. Z.N.(S.)1930. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 29, p. 24. CUVIER, G. 1797. Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. Paris, Baudoin, pp. 1-710. DALY, J.W., BROWN, G.B. & MENSAH-DWUMALH, M. 1978. Classification of skin alkaloids from neotropical poison-dart frogs (Dendrobatidae). Toxicon, vol. 16, pp. 163-188. DOWLING, H.G. & DUELLMAN, W.E. 1978. Systematic herpetology: a synopsis of families and higher categories. Publications in Herpetology, Hiss Publications, New York, vol. 7, pp. i-vii + 1.1-118.3 + i-viii. DUBOIS, A. 1980. Notes sur la systématique et la répartition des Amphibiens Anoures de Chine et des régions avoisinantes. IV. Classification générique et subgénérique des Pelobatidae Megophryinae. Bull. Soc. linn. Lyon, vol. 49, pp. 469-482. DUELLMAN, W.E. 1975. On the classification of frogs. Occ. Pap. Mus. nat. Hist. Univ. Kansas, no. 42, pp. 1-14. ———1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Hylidae, Centrolenidae, Pseudidae. Das Tierreich, vol. 95, pp. i-xix + 1-225. ——1978. The biology of an equatorial herpetofauna in Amazonian Ecuador. Univ. Kansas Mus. nat. Hist. Misc. Publ., no. 65, pp. 1-352, pl. 1+4. DUMERIL, A.-M.-C. & BIBRON, G. 1841. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des Reptiles. Tome 8. Paris, Roret, pp. i-vii + 1-792. FEJERVARY, G.J.V. 1921. Kritische Bemerkungen zur Osteologie, Phylogenie und Systematik der Anuren. Arch. Naturgesch., vol. 87, pt. 3, pp. 1-30. FITZINGER, L. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus. Amblyglossae. Vindobonae, Braumiiller and Seidel, pp. 1-106 + i-ix. GADOW., H. 1901. Amphibia and Reptiles. London, Macmillan and Co., pp. i-xiii + 1-668, 1 pl. GOIN, C. J. & GOIN, O.B. 1962. Introduction to herpetology. San Francisco and London, Freeman and Co., pp. i-ix + 1-341. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 277 GOIN, C.J., GOIN, O.B. & ZUG, G.R. 1978. Introduction to herpetology. Third edition. San Francisco, Freeman and Co., pp. i-xiii + 1-378. GORHAM, S.W. 1966. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Ascaphidae, Leiopelmatidea (sic), Pipidae, Discoglossidae, Pelobatidae, Leptodactylidae, Rhinophrynidae. Das Tierreich, vol. 85, pp. i-xvi + 1-222. ——1974. Checklist of world Amphibians up to January 1, 1970. Saint-John, The New Brunswick Museum, pp. 1-173. GRIFFITHS, I. 1959. The phylogeny of Sminthillus limbatus and the status of the Brachycephalidae (Amphibia Salientia). Proc. zool. Soc. London, vol. 132, _ pp. 457-487, pls. 1-4. GUNTHER, A. 1858. On the systematic arrangement of the Tailless Batrachians and the structure of Rhinophrynus dorsalis. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., vol. 1858. pp. 339-352. LAURENT, R.F. 1980a. Esquisse d’une phylogenése des Anoures. Bull. Soc. zool. France, vol. 104, pp. 397-422. ——1980b. Géonémie des Anoures. C. r. Soc. Biogéogr., vol. 56, pp. 81-86. LESCURE, J. 1982. L’espéce-type du genre Dendrobates Wagler, 1830: nouvelles propositions. Z.N.(S.) 1930. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 39, pp. 264-267. LYNCH, J.D. 1971. Evolutionary relationships, osteology, and zoogeography of leptodactyloid frogs. Univ. Kansas Mus. nat. Hist. misc. Publ., no. 53, pp. 1— 238. ——1973. The transition from archaic to advanced frogs. In: VIAL, J.L. (ed.), Evolutionary biology of the Anurans, Columbia, Univ. Missouri Press, pp. 153-182. MYERS, C.W. & DALY, J.W. 1971. Comment on the proposed designation of a new type-species of Dendrobates Wagler, 1830. Z.N.(S.) 1930. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 28, p. 141. ——1976. Preliminary evaluation of skin toxins and vocalizations in taxonomic and evolutionary studies of poison-dart frogs (Dendrobatidae). Bull. Am. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 157, pp. 173-262, pls. 1-2. MYERS, G.S. 1962. The American leptodactylid frog genera Eleutherodactylus, Hylodes (= Elosia), and Caudiverbera (= Calyptocephalus). Copeia, vol. 1962, pp. 195-202. NEUWIRTH, M., DALY, J.W., MYERS, C.W. & TICE, L.W. 1979. Morphology of the granular secretory glands in skin of poison-dart frogs (Dendrobatidae). Tissue & Cell, vol. 11, pp. 755-771. NOBLE, G.K. 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. New York, Dover, pp. i-xviii + 1-577. PARKER, H.W. 1933. A list of the frogs and toads of Trinidad. Tropical Agriculture, vol. 10, pp. 8-12. ——1934. A monograph of the frogs of the family Microhylidae. London, British Museum, pp. i-viii + 1-208. PETERS, J.A., DUELLMAN, W.E., LYNCH, J.D., MYERS, C.W., SAVAGE, J.M. & WALKER, C.F. 1972. Comment on the proposed designation of type-species for the Amphibian genus Dendrobates. Z.N.(S.)1930. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 29, pp. 107-108. RIVERO, J.A. 1961. Salientia of Venezuela. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll., vol. 126, pp. 1-207, 1 pl. SAVAGE, J.M. 1968. The dendrobatid frogs of Central America. Copeia, vol. 1968, pp. 745-776. 278 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 ——1973. The geographic distribution of frogs: patterns and predictions. /n: VIAL, J.L. (ed.), Evolutionary biology of the Anurans, Columbia, Univ. Missouri Press, pp. 351-445. SCHLEGEL, H. 1826. Notice sur l’erpétologie de Vile de Java; par M. Boié (Ouvrage manuscrit). Bull. Sci. nat. Géol., vol. 9, pp. 233-240. — 1827. Erpetologische Nachrichten. Isis von Oken, vol. 20, col. 281-294. SCHNEIDER, I.G. 1799. Historiae Amphibiorum naturalis et literariae. Vol. 1. Iena, pp. i-xv + 1-266, pls. I-II. SILVERSTONE, P.A. 1971. Dendrobates Wagler, 1830 (Amphibia: Anura): proposed designation of type-species under the plenary powers. Z.N.(S.)1930. Bull. zool. Nomencl., vol. 27, pp. 262-264. —1975. A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Dendrobates Wagler. Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Sci. Bull., no. 21, pp. i-v + 1-55. — 1976. A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra (family Dendrobatidae). Nat. Hist. Mus. Los Angeles County Sci. Bull., no. 27, pp. i-vi + 1-53. STEJNEGER, L. 1937. Designation of genotype for Hylaplesia Boie. Copeia, vol. 1937, px139. TAYLOR, E.H. 1952. The frogs and toads of Costa Rica. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull., vol. 35, pp. 577-942. TRUEB, L. 1973. Bones, frogs, and evolution. In: VIAL, J.L. (ed.), Evolutionary biology of the Anurans, Columbia, Univ. Missouri Press, pp. 65-132. TSCHUDI, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Berticksichtigung der fossilen Thiere dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Neuchatel, pp. 1-102, pls. I- VI. WAGLER, J. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der Sdugethiere und Végel. Munchen, Stuttgart and Tiibingen, Cotta, pp. i-vi + 1-354. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 279 BOS GAURUS H. SMITH, 1827 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2309 By Colin P. Groves (Australian National University, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia) In 1792 Kerr, Animal Kingdom, p. 339, described under the name ‘Bos Bubalus Guavera’ a supposed variety of Bos bubalus, the wild buffalo, saying that it (1) has a hunch on the back, (2) has the lower half of the legs white, and (3) inhabits Ceylon. He refers to Pennant, 1781, History of Quadrupeds, vol. 1, Buffalo no. 8c, page [27], and the description, as is usual with Kerr, is in fact only a paraphrase of Pennant. Both authors also refer to Knox, 1681, An historical relation of the island Ceylon, p. 21, from whose description — whether of actual specimens or taken from hearsay — theirs are drawn. Brief as they are, the descriptions of Pennant and Kerr at once recall the Gaur (Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827, in Griffith’s Cuvier, Mammals, vol. 4, p. 399) which is not, however, an inhabitant of Ceylon at the present time, though it occurs throughout India. 2. Blyth, 1842, J. asiatic Soc. Bengal, vol. 11, pp. 444-470, mentions Knox’s Guavera and says it is the Gaur. He quotes J. Forbes, 1840, Journal of eleven years’ residence in Ceylon, vol. 2, p. 159, who says that the Gaur lived in Ceylon but had been exterminated there for more than half a century. Hard evidence that the Gaur had once lived in Ceylon was provided by Deraniyagala, 1958, Pleistocene of Ceylon, pp. 141-144, who described a fossil or subfossil form as Bibos gaurus sinhaleyus. 3. The likelihood that Kerr’s name refers to this species thus threatens the stability of Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827. The Recent Gaur of Ceylon may have been identical to the living Indian form, or to the fossil Ceylon form, or different from both. Subspecifically it is indeterminable, though specifically it is evidently not. 4. In order to protect the universally known name Bos gaurus, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is hereby asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the species-group name guavera Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Bos bubalus guavera, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place the specific name gaurus H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos gaurus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the species-group name guavera Knox, 1792, as 280 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 published in the combination Bos bubalus guavera, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES No author in the past 50 years has used any name but gaurus for the Gaur. The following references support the proposals here put forward: ELLERMAN, J.R. & MORRISON-SCOTT, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals, 1758-1947. p. 381. PRATER, S.H. 1965. The Book of Indian Animals. Bombay, p. 243. PEACOCK, E.H. 1933. A Game Book for Burma. p. 99. MEDWAY, LORD (GATHORNE-HARDY, G.) 1969. The Wild Mammals of Malaysia (the Peninsula of Malaysia and Singapore). Kuala Lumpur, p. 109. LEKAGUL, B. & MCNEELY, J.A. 1977. Mammals of Thailand. Bangkok, p. 707. CHASEN, F.N. 1940. Handlist of Malaysian Mammals. Bull. Raffles Mus. Singapore. vol. 15, p. 204. BOHLKEN, H. 1964. Vergleichende Untersuchungen an den Schadeln wilder und domestizierter Rinder. Z. wiss. Zool. vol. 170, p. 304. BOHLKEN, H. 1958. Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Wildrindern (Tribus Bovini Simpson, 1945). Zool. Jahrb. Abt. Phys. vol. 68, pp. 113-202. (passim). COOLIDGE, H.J. 1940. The Indo-Chinese Forest Ox or Kouprey. Mem. Mus. Comp. Zool. Harvard. vol. 54, passim. HALTENORTH, Th. & TRENSE, W. 1956. Das Grosswild der Erde und seine Trophden. Bonn (Bayerische Landwirtschaftsverlag). p. 146. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 281 ANTILOPE DEPRESSICORNIS H. SMITH, 1827, AND ANOA QUARLESI OUWENS, 1910 (MAMMALIA, ARTIODACTYLA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2310 By Colin P. Groves (Australian National Museum, Canberra ACT 2600, Australia) According to a recent revision by Groves, Beaufortia, 1969, no. 223, the valid names for the two species of Anoa are Anoa depressicornis (H. Smith, 1827), in Griffith’s Cuvier, Mammals, vol. 4, p. 293, and Anoa quarlesi Ouwens, 1910, Bull. Dep. Agric. Indes néerl., vol. 38, p. 1. The two species are, broadly speaking, separated by altitude and are known as the Lowland Anoa and the Mountain Anoa respectively. 2. Kerr, 1792, Animal Kingdom, Class I, Mammalia, p. 239, gives a short description of an Anoa under the name Bos Bubalus Anoa, referring to Pennant whose words he paraphrases. Pennant, 1781, History of Quadrupeds, vol. 1, p. 26, Buffalo no. 8b, says: ‘The Anoa is a very small species of buffalo, of the size of a middling sheep. They are wild, in small herds, in the mountains of Celebes, which are full of caverns. Are taken with great difficulty; and even in confinement are so fierce that Mr Soten lost in one night fourteen stags, which were kept in the same paddock, whose bellies they ripped up’. 3. Ernest P. Walker, 1964, Mammals of the World, vol. 2, p. 1425, used the name Anoa anoa for the Mountain Anoa, probably on the basis of Kerr, for I have been unable to trace any other specific name ‘anoa’. If so, Walker would seem to be placing undue emphasis on Kerr’s reference to ‘mountains’ in using anoa to replace quarlesi. His use of the name is the only one I have found in the last fifty years. 4. In the absence of any closer indication, Kerr’s species appears to be unidentifiable below generic or subgeneric level. It is the earliest name for an anoa and would thus threaten the stability of the well-known name depressicornis, at least for those who deem all anoas to be conspecific. It thus seems best to suppress the name. The International Commission on _ Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked: (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress the species-group name anoa Kerr, 1792, as published in the combination Bos Bubalus Anoa for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (i) depressicornis H. Smith, 1827, as published in the 282 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 binomen Antilope depressicornis; (ii) quarlesi Ouwens, 1910, as published in the binomen Anoa quarlesi; (c) to place the species-group name anoa Kerr, 1791, as published in the combination Bos Bubalus Anoa, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (a) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. REFERENCES No author in the past 50 years has used any name but depressicornis for the lowland Anoa. Only Ernest Walker’s Mammals of the World uses the specific name anoa (in the combination Anoa anoa) for the Mountain Anoa; Groves (1969 — reference (4) below) listed “Anoa anoa Walker, 1964” in the synonymy of Bubalus (Anoa) quarlesi, being unable to find the origin of Walker’s name. The following references support the proposals here put forward: LAURIE, E.M.O., & HILL, J.E. 1954. List of Land Mammals of New Guinea, Celebes and Adjacent Islands, 1758-1952. London, Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.). p..o1: MASON, I.L. 1974. Wild buffaloes and their domestication. In Cockrill, W. Ross, ed., The Husbandry and Health of the domestic Buffalo. Rome (Food and Agriculture Organisation). p. 3. BARTIKOVA, J. & DOBRORUKA, L.J. 1974. On some external characters of the mountain anoa, Bubalus (Anoa) quarlesi (Ouwens, 1910). Lynx, NS, vol. 15, p. 58. GROVES, C.P. 1969. Systematics of the Anoa (Mammalia, Bovidae). Beaufortia, vol. 17 (passim). BOHLKEN, H. 1958. Vergleichende Untersuchungen an Wildrindern (Tribus Bovini Simpson, 1945). Zool. Jahrb, Abt. Phys. vol. 68, pp. 113-202 (passim). DOLAN, J.M. 1965. Breeding of the Lowland Anoa, Bubalus (Anoa) d. depressicornis (Smith, 1827) in the San Diego Zoological Garden. Z.f. Sdugetierkunde, vol. 30, pp. 241-248. (depressicornis, passim; quarlesi, p. 243). HOOJER, D.A. 1950. Man and other mammals from Toalian sites in Southwestern Celebes. Verh. k. Ned. Akad. Wet. afd. Natuurk, vol. 46, pp. 131-144. DOBRUKA, L.J. et al. 1975. An outline classification of mammals and their Czech names. Lynx, NS, suppl. 4, p. 98. CORBET, G.B. & HILLJ.E. 1980. A world list of mammalian species. London. p. 122. GROVES, C.P. 1972. Anoa. Encyclopedia of the Animal World (Elsevier), vol. 1, p. 76. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 283 CONUS ANTIQUUS LAMARCK, 1810 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA): REQUEST FOR INVALIDATION OF NEOTYPE AND VALIDATION OF A REDISCOVERED ORIGINAL SPECIMEN. Z.N.(S.)2325 By Alan J. Kohn (Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, U.S.A.) This communication requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the neotype of Conus antiquus Lamarck designated by Hall, 1964, because original type- material has been located in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN). 2. Hall, 1964, noted that the type specimen of C. antiquus was lost and designated as neotype a specimen from Baldissero Sciolze or Albugnaro, Piedmont region, Italy, in the collection of F. Sacco, Istituto di Giologia, Turin. The specimen was identified as bearing 6b) label no. 4, and was illustrated by Sacco (1893, pl. 3, figs. 6a, 6b). 3. In 1979, I located a specimen of C. antiquus in the paleontology collection of the MNHN bearing the words ‘Cone du Piémont. C. antiquus.’ The first phrase appears to have been written by Louis Dufresne (1752-1832), aide-naturaliste and ‘chef pour la zoologie’ at the MNHN from 1794 to 1832 (B. Métivier, personal communication). Dufresne was responsible for arranging the collection of shells, and Lamarck authorised him to make species determinations after Lamarck became blind (Lamy, 1915). ‘C. antiquus’ is unquestionably in Lamarck’s hand (see Mermod, 1947, pp. 158-159). The specimen is 86 x 48 mm, slightly smaller than the dimension given by Lamarck (1810) in the original description (92 mm), but it is slightly broken at both apex and base. This was true of the specimens of several species of Conus described by Lamarck in the same work, and he apparently corrected for damage in presenting shell lengths. The specimen now bears No. B35774. 4. Lamarck, 1810, p. 439 referred to specimens of C. antiquus in the MNHN (No. 1) and in the collection of B. Faujas de Saint- Fond, the first Professor of Geology at the MNHN. The specimen referred to above agrees in all details (except length as noted) with Lamarck’s original description. I therefore here designate it as the lectotype of C. antiquus Lamarck, 1810. 5. In compliance with Article 75 f of the International Code, I refer this rediscovery of an original specimen of Conus antiquus to the Commission, and I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to: (1) suppress the neotype designation of Conus antiquus Lamarck (1810) made by Hall, 1964, Boll. soc. pal. ital., 284 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 vol. 3, p. 129, and (2) place the specific name antiquus Lamarck, 1810, as published in the binomen Conus antiquus on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, as defined by the lectotype here designated. REFERENCES HALL, C.A., JR. 1964. Middle Miocene Conus (Class Gastropoda) from Piedmont, Northern Italy. Boll. Soc. pal. ital. vol. 3, pp. 111-171. LAMARCK, J.B.P. 1810. Sur la détermination des espéces parmi les animaux sans vertébres, et particuli¢rement parmi les mollusques testacés. Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. vol. 15, pp. 20-40, 263-286, 422-442. LAMY, E. 1915. Note sur une collection conchyliologique du commencement du xix® siécle. Bull. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. vol. 21, pp. 101-104. MERMOD, G. 1947. Catalogue des types et des exemplaires de Cones. Rev. Suisse Zool. vol. 54, pp. 155-217. SACCO, F. 1893. I molluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte e della Liguria, pt. 13, Fasc. 1. Mem. Reale Accad. Sci. Torino, (2), vol. 44, pp. 1-54. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 285 ADDITION TO THE PROPOSAL TO DESIGNATE A TYPE SPECIES FOR INDODORYLAIMUS ALI & PRABHA, 1974 (NEMATODA, DORYLAIMIDA) BY USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N(S.)2335. (see vol. 39, pp. 57-58) By Qaiser H. Bagqri (Zoological Survey of India, 27 Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Calcutta-700016, India) The purpose of this application is to designate a lectotype for the species Indodorylaimus elongatus Baqri, 1982. The facts are as follows: 1. Bagri, 1982, proposed a new species, Indodorylaimus elongatus, to represent the species misidentified by Ali & Prabha, 1974, when they established the new genus /ndodorylaimus. Unfortunately the species was named without designating a holotype and not following the other practices recommended in the Code under Recommendations 72A, 72C, 74B and 74C. 2. Out of 81 females and 4 males misidentified by Ali & Prabha, 1974, 7 females and one male were made available by the Museum voor Dierkunde, Rijksuniversiteit, Gent, Belgium. The remaining specimens of the series under the custody of the authors are not traceable. One of the available specimens has been designated as lectotype. The measurements of the lectotype and paralectotypes are given below: Lectotype female: L = 1.11mm; a = 23;b =5.2;c=6.5; V= eee Paralectotype females (n = 6): L = 1.05-1.15mm; a = 22-23; b = 5.05.4; c = 5.8-6.8; V = 99934 4013-3. Paralectotype male (No. 1): L = 1.08mm; a = 22.5;b = 5.0;c = 5.8; T = 36 3. The description and illustrations of Indodorylaimus wickeni provided by Ali & Prabha, 1974, and the illustrations of Ali & Prabha’s misidentified specimens by Baqri & Jana, 1980 are sufficient for identification. 4. The lectotype along with the 6 paralectotype females mounted on slide PMJ/57/1.3 and a single male on slide PMJ/57/1.2 have been deposited in the nematode collection of the Museum voor Dierkunde, 35 Ledeganckstraat, Gent, Belgium. 5. Type habitat and locality: collected by Miss M.J. Prabha from soil around roots of Luffa acutangula Roxb. from Badanpur, district Aurangabad, Maharashtra, India. REFERENCES ALI, S.M. & PRABHA, M.J. 1974. Nematologica vol. 19, pp. 481-490. BAQORI, Q.H. 1982. Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 39, pp. 57-58. BAQRI, Q.H. & JANA, A. 1980. Nematologica vol. 26, pp. 83-107. 286 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 ALPHEUS LOTTINI GUERIN, 1829 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): REVISED PROPOSALS FOR CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2370 By Albert H. & Dora M. Banner (Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96744, USA) (see vol. 38, pp. 297-304) We wish to modify our original proposals in this case as a consequence of a letter from Professor Holthuis pointing out the unfortunate consequences of Opinion 846 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25, pp. 14-15, 1968). At the time of that ruling it was thought that Mullus auriflamma Forskal, 1775, was a senior synonym of Mullus barberinus Lacepéde, 1802; and as the latter name was much more widely used than the former in the Indo-West Pacific ichthyological literature, the Commission was requested to suppress Forskal’s name for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. This request was granted in Opinion 846. It has recently been found that the Red Sea form (i.e. the form studied by Forskal) shows consistent differences from the main Indo-West Pacific population, but because of the Commission’s ruling, a new name has had to be proposed for it. This would not have been necessary if the original applicants had asked for M. barberinus to be given precedence over M. auriflamma whenever the two names are considered synonyms. We therefore wish to withdraw the proposals in paragraph 10 of our proposal concerning Alpheus lottini Guérin and replace them by the following. The Commission is now asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name lottini Guérin, 1829, as published in the binomen Alpheus lottini, is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name sublucanus Forskal, as published in the binomen Cancer sublucanus, by anyone who considers that these two names denote the same taxon; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) Jottini Guérin, 1829, as published in the binomen Alpheus lottini, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over the specific name sublucanus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer sublucanus, by anyone who considers that both names denote the same taxon; (b) sublucanus Forskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer sublucanus, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name Jottini Guérin, 1829, as published in the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 287 binomen Alpheus lottini, by anyone who considers that both names denote the same taxon. 288 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ACTINIA LINNAEUS, 1767 AND ACTINIIDAE GOLDFUSS, 1820 (COELENTERATA, ACTINIARIA) AND PENTACTA GOLDFUSS, 1820 (ECHINODERMATA, HOLOTHURIOIDEA). Z.N.(S.)825 by R.B. Williams (Norfolk House, Western Road, Tring, Hertfordshire, HP23 4BN) and Paul F.S. Cornelius and Ailsa M. Clark (Department of Zoology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD) For over two centuries the name Actinia has been applied to a genus of sea anemones (Coelenterata: Actiniaria) and has also formed the etymological basis of various suprageneric taxa and the vernacular name ‘actinian’. Probably no other actiniarian genus has been allocated to many nominal species or is so widely known by scientists in general and yet the name is, in fact, invalid, as is the family name formed from it, ACTINIIDAE. The purpose of this paper is to describe the various ramifications of this nomenclatural problem and to make recommendations to the Commission for the validation of certain coelenterate and echinoderm names unfortunately wrongly used for so many years. 2. Linnaeus, 1758, p. 656, established the genus Priapus, currently regarded as an actiniarian, including two species, P. equinus and P. humanus. Following the recommendation of van der Land, 1971, the Commission, by Opinion 1013, suppressed the specific name humanus (one of three objective synonyms of a species of priapulid) and placed it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology, leaving equinus still available for a species of sea anemone. As an indication of the latter, Linnaeus cited his own description of “Tethys semiovatus” (Linnaeus, 1754, p.93). The material from the Swedish Royal Collection upon which this Cite & was based is presumed to have been lost (Holm, $957). 3. Pallas (1766, p. 152) proposed the monotypic genus Actinia with the new species A. doliolum, currently regarded as a holothurian (see Deichmann, 1930, 1948; Cherbonnier, 1952) which is type species, also by monotypy, of the well known genus Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820, p. 177. The name Actinia Pallas, 1766 is thus a senior objective synonym of Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820, threatening established usage, although it has not been used for over a century and a half. 4. Linnaeus 1767, p. 1088, subsequently employed the replacement name Actinia (sensu Browne, 1756; non Pallas, 1766) for Priapus. The genus Actinia Linnaeus comprised five nominal Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 289 species, including A. equina. This name ever since has been applied to a sea anemone, in fact one of the most common species in Europe. It occurs intertidally from the Kola Peninsula southwards into the Mediterranean, Black Sea and Sea of Azov, extending also down the west coast of Africa (see Pax, 1908, p. 499, map 3 for distribution and Stephenson, 1935, p. 113 for synonymy). [Many authors, including Stephenson, 1935, Carlgren, 1949, and Schmidt, 1972, have cited Browne, 1756, p.387, as the author of Actinia (Actiniaria). This is clearly inadmissible since Actinia Browne was published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature and is thus an unavailable tg 5. Thus, the established usage of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 is threatened by both the senior synonym Priapus Linnaeus, 1758 and the senior homonym Actinia Pallas, 1766. The synonymy of the names Priapus and Actinia Linnaeus has in fact been long recognized (e.g. Johnston, 1838; Gray, 1848; Hollard, 1851; Andres, 1883) but the priority of Priapus was not accepted. Despite the recommendations of Poche, 1907, and Pax, [1927], that the older name Priapus be used, no modern author appears to have done so, although in addition Bell, 1891, had recognized that Actinia should be applied to a holothurian (sensu Pallas) rather than to an anemone (sensu Linnaeus). Poche, 1907, as well as suggesting the revival of the use of the name Priapus, proposed the replacement of the name Holothuria (auct.) by the then almost. unknown Bohadschia Jaeger, 1833, provoking considerable opposition from taxonomists which resulted in suspension of the Rules in order to validate Holothuria as from Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 80). Although part of the same complex nomenclatural problem, the case of Actinia was nc. then dealt with by the Commission. 6. A further ramification of this problem is that the family- group name ACTINIIDAE is invalid since the name of its nominal type genus, Actinia Linnaeus, is a junior homonym. The replacement, as required by the Rules, of such a well known family name would cause considerable confusion. Various suprageneric names of taxa based on Actinia Linnaeus have been used so frequently over a very long period, often with no attribution to a previous author, that it has not been an easy task to trace the earliest valid use of the family name with the type genus Actinia Linnaeus. After a long search, however, we believe that the family name ACTINIIDAE (originally published as ACTINIAE) should be attributed to Goldfuss, 1820, p. 166. The family comprised the genera Zoantha Cuvier, Actinia Linnaeus and Lucernaria Miller. [Although Martin, 1786, made an explicit reference to ‘three different kinds of ACTINIAE, which may be considered as of this 290 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Family’, it seems clear from the context that his use of the word ‘Family’ merely indicates members of the genus Actinia. | 7. It is crucial in this case to establish whether Linnaeus, 1767, intended to use Actinia (sensu Browne: Actiniaria) as a replacement name (for whatever reason) for Priapus or whether he used Actinia (sensu Pallas: Holothurioidea) because he believed that he had misidentified some holothurian species which he previously included (Linnaeus, 1758, 1761) under Priapus (actiniarians and holothurians were sometimes confused by eighteenth century authors, e.g. Gaertner, 1762). However, when he first used the name Actinia, he stated “Actiniae genus quondam sub Priapi nomine proposui” (Linnaeus, 1767, p. 1088) and did not include Actinia doliolum Pallas, 1766 in the genus. Actinia Linnaeus is therefore regarded as a replacement name (revived sensu Browne) for Priapus and hence both nominal genera must have the same type species. Thompson, 1858, p. 146 has designated P. equinus as type species of Actinia Linnaeus. 8. Nomenclatural stability would best be served by the following suggested actions. The Commission is requested: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the generic name Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the generic name Actinia Pallas, 1766, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Actinia Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: feminine), type species Priapus equinus Linnaeus, 1758, as subsequently designated by Thompson, 1858; (b) Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Actinia doliolum Pallas, 1766; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) equinus Linnaeus, 1758 as published in the binomen Priapus equinus (specific name of the type species of Actinia Linnaeus, 1767); (a) doliolum Pallas, 1766 as published in the binomen Actinia doliolum (specific name of the type species of Pentacta Goldfuss, 1820); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ACTINIIDAE Goldfuss, 1820 (type genus Actinia Linnaeus, 1767); Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 291 (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) the name Priapus Linnaeus, 1758, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above; (b) the name Actinia Pallas, 1766, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above. REFERENCES ANDRES, A. 1883. Le Attinie. Atti Accad. naz. Lincei Memorie (3), vol. 14, pp. 211-673. BELL, F.J. 1891. A test case for the Law of Priority. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6), vol. 8, pp. 108-109. BROWNE, P. 1756. The Civil and Natural History of Jamaica. 1st edn., London. CARLGREN, O. 1949. A survey of the Ptychodactiaria, Corallimorpharia and Actiniaria. K. svenska VetenskAkad Hand. (fjarde serien), vol. 1 (1), pp. 1- 121. CHERBONNIER, G. 1952. Contribution a la connaissance des holothuries de P Afrique du Sud. Trans. r. Soc. S. Afr., vol. 33, pp. 469-509. DEICHMANN, E. 1930. The holothurians of the western part of the Atlantic Ocean. Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard, vol. 71, pp 43-226. —1948. The holothurian fauna of South Africa. Ann. Natal. Mus., vol. 11, pp. 325-376. GAERTNER, J., 1762. An account of the Urtica Marina. Phil. Trans. r. Soc. vol. 52(1) (for 1761), pp. 75-85. GOLDFUSS, G.A., 1820. Handbuch der Zoologie. Vol. 1, Niirnberg. GRAY, J.E., 1848. List of the specimens of British animals in the collection of the British Museum. Part 1. Centroniae or radiated animals. London. HOLLARD, H., 1851. Monographie anatomique du genre Actinia de Linné, considéré comme type du groupe général des polypes zoanthaires (d’aprés les Act. senilis et equina). Annls. Sci. nat (Zool.) (3), vol. 15, pp. 257-291. HOLM, A., 1957. Specimina Linnaeana i Uppsala beverade zoologiska samlingar fran Linnés tid. Acta Univ. upsaliensis, vol. 6, pp. 1-68. JAEGER, G.F., 1833. De Holothuriis. Zurich. JOHNSTON, G., 1838. A History of the British Zoophytes. 1st edn, Edinburgh. LAND, J. VAN DER, 1971. Priapus humanus Linnaeus, 1758 and Holothuria priapus Linnaeus, 1767 (Priapulida): proposed suppression under the plenary powers. N.(S.) 1932. Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 27, pp. 267-268. LINNAEUS, C., 1754. Museum Regis Adolphi Friderici. Stockholm. ——1758. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae. Vol. 1, 10th edn. Stockholm. — 1761. Fauna Suecica. 2nd edn. Stockholm. —1767. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae. vol. 1, part 2, 12th edn. Stockholm. MARTIN, M. 1786. Observations on marine Vermes, Insects, etc. Fasc. I, Exeter. PALLAS, P.S. 1766. P.S. Pallas Miscellanea Zoologica. The Hague. PAX, F. 1908. Anthozoa. Die aktinienfauna Westafrikas. Denkschr. med. -naturw. Ges. Jena, vol. 13, pp. 463-504. —[1927] Anthozoa. Tierwelt Dil., vol. 4, pp. 189-240. [Although dated 1928, 292 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 received on 19 December 1927 in the Zoology Library of the British Museum (Natural History).] : POCHE, F. 1907. Uber den richtigen Gebrauch der Gattungsnamen Holothuria und Actinia, nebst einigen andern, grosstenteils dadurch bedingten oder damit in Zusammenhang stehenden Anderungen in der Nomenclatur der Coelenteraten, Echinodermen und Tunicaten. Zool. Anz. vol. 32, pp. 106- 109. SCHMIDT, H. 1972. Prodromus zu einer Monographie der mediterranen Aktinien. Zoologica, Stuttg., vol. 42 (2), pp. 1-146. STEPHENSON, T.A. 1935. The British Sea Anemones. vol. 2, London. THOMPSON, W. 1858. Remarks on the British Actiniadae, and rearrangement of the genera. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., for 1858, pp. 145-149. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 293 HOLOCENTROPUS McLACHLAN, 1878 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA, POLYCENTROPODIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 1591 by P.C. Barnard (Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London) This application was originally drafted by D.E. Kimmins in 1963 in the form of a proposed addition of Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology as a ‘nomen oblitum’, under the provisions of Art. 23 b of the Code in force at that time. Mr Kimmins ceased taxonomic work on his retirement from the British Museum (Natural History), and I have therefore entirely re-drafted the application to conform to the 1974 amendment of Arts. 23 and 79, while retaining his original intentions. 2. Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813, p. 17, was established for the amber fossil caddis-fly Phryganeolitha vetusta Germar, 1813, the sole included species. Hagen, 1854, p. 229, transferred this species to the genus Polycentropus Curtis, 1835 in an unannotated list. Later, Hagen, 1856, p. 113, commented on the species description, and stated that he had examined Germar’s type specimen. Giebel, 1856, pp. 268-269, repeated Germar’s original description, but stated that he could not find the type material (possibly because it was being examined by Hagen at the time!). In his index of fossil insects Scudder, 1891, listed the species name vetusta under Phryganeolitha on p. 362, and under Polycentropus (following Hagen) on p. 366, merely cross-referencing the two. Giebel’s and Scudder’s papers are the only two in the literature to use the generic name Phryganeolitha since Germar. 3. In his mongraph on the Baltic Amber Trichoptera, Ulmer, 1912, examined new material which he assigned to vetusta Germar, although he, like Giebel, was also unable to examine Germar’s type material, which now seems to have disappeared. On the basis of Hagen’s 1856 redescription he transferred the species to the genus Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878. In the absence of Germar’s type material this referral of the species to Holocentropus must be open to some doubt. The only recent reference to the species is in the World Catalogue (Fischer, 1962, p. 117) where it remains in the genus Holocentropus. 4. Application of the Law of Priority would require that the generic name Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (type species, by original designation, Philopotamus dubius Rambur, 1842) should fall as a subjective synonym of Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 (type species, by monotypy, Phryganeolitha vetusta Germar, 1813). This 294 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 would cause unnecessary confusion and instability, as the name Holocentropus has been in continuous use since its inception. In the World Catalogue (Fischer, 1892; 1972) are listed several hundred references using the name Holocentropus, covering all aspects of freshwater biology. The following ten examples are cited under the requirements of Art. 79b: Ulmer, 1907, p. 185 (review of world genera) King & Halbert, 1910, p. 103 (list of Irish Trichoptera) Lestage, 1921, p. 496 (freshwater insect larvae of Europe) Martynov, 1924, pp. 72-77 (Trichoptera of U.S.S.R.) Mosely, 1939, pp. 205-208 (handbook of British Trichoptera) Wesenberg-Lund, 1943, pp. 152, 193-194 (biology of European freshwater insects) Lepneva, 1964, pp. 440-450 (larvae of U.S.S.R.) Kimmins, 1966, p. 112 (British check-list) Hickin, 1967, pp. 180-185 (descriptions of British larvae) Botosaneanu & Malicky, 1978, p. 345 (distribution of European species). The extant species of the genus are distributed throughout the Holarctic. It is therefore desirable to conserve the name Holocentropus McLachlan. 5. Germar (1813) gave no separate diagnosis for the genus Phryganeolitha but described only the species vetusta, which he compared with Phryganea waeneri Linnaeus, 1758. The latter is the type species of the genus Tinodes Curtis, 1834 in the family PSYCHOMYIIDAE, whereas Phryganeolitha vetusta is currently placed in the POLYCENTROPODIDAE. It is apparent, therefore, that Germar had no clear concept of his genus or of its affinities. Moreover, since the type material of vetusta has not been examined since Hagen’s 1856 account, and is presumably now lost, this increases the undesirability of having to use the name Phryganeolitha for a well-known group of living species. 6. Neither the generic name Phryganeolitha Germar nor Holocentropus McLachlan has been used as the basis of a family- group name. 7. The Commission is therefore asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the generic name Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 is to be given precedence over the generic name Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878 (gender: masculine), type species, by original designation, Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 295 Philopotamus dubius Rambur, 1842, with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813, whenever these two names are applied to the same taxon; (b) Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813 (gender: feminine), type species, by monotypy, Phryganeolitha vetusta Germar, 1813, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878, whenever these two names are applied to the same taxon; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dubius Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen Philopotamus dubius (specific name of type species of Holocentropus McLachlan, 1878); (b) vetusta Germar, 1813, as published in the binomen Phryganeolitha vetusta (specific name of type species of Phryganeolitha Germar, 1813). REFERENCES BOTOSANEANU, L. & MALICKY, H., 1978. Trichoptera. In Illies, J, (Ed.) Limnofauna Europaea, pp. 333-359. Stuttgart. CURTIS, J., 1834. Descriptions of some nondescript British species of may-flies of anglers. Lond. Edinb. Phil. Mag. vol. 4, pp. 120-125, 212-218. ——1855. British Entomology vol. 12, pl. 544. London. FISCHER, F.C.J., 1962. Trichopterorum Catalogus, vol. 3, vi, 236 pp. Amsterdam. ——1972. Trichopterorum Catalogus, vol. 13, viii, 172 pp. Amsterdam. GERMAR, E.F., 1813. Insecten in Bernstein eingeschlossen, beschrieben aus dem academischen Mineralien-Cabinet zu Halle. Magazin Ent. (Germar), vol. 1, pp. 11-18. GIEBEL, C.G.A., 1856. Fauna der Vorwelt mit steter Beriicksichtigung der lebenden Thiere. Bd. 2. Die Insecten und Spinnen der Vorwelt. xvii, 511 pp. Leipzig~ HAGEN, H.A., 1854. Uber die Neuropteren der Bernsteinfauna. Verh. zool. — bot. Ver. Wien, vol. 4, pp. 221-232. ——1856. In Pictet, F.J. & Hagen, H.A. Die im Bernstein befindlichen Neuropteren der Vorwelt. In Berendt, G.C. Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt, Bd. 2, Abt. 2, pp. 41-126. Berlin. HICKIN, N.E., 1967. Caddis larvae: larvae of the British Trichoptera. xii, 476 pp. London. KIMMINS, D.E., 1966. A revised check-list of the British Trichoptera. Entomologist’s Gaz., vol. 17, pp. 111-120. KING, J.J.F.X. & HALBERT, J.N., 1910. A list of the Neuroptera of Ireland. Proc. R. Ir. Acad. (B), vol. 28, pp. 29-110. LEPNEVA, S.G., 1964. Trichoptera. II. 1. Larvae and pupae of Annulipalpia. 296 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Fauna SSSR (N.S.), vol. 88, pp. 1-560. [In Russian. ] LESTAGE, J.A., 1921. Trichoptera. In Rousseau, E. Les larves et nymphes aquatiques des insectes d’ Europe, vol. 1, xx, 967 pp. Brussels. LINNAEUS, C. 1758. Systema naturae. 10th ed., vol. 1, p. 548. MARTYNOV, A.V., 1924. Practical Entomology, vol. 5, Trichoptera, iv, 388 pp. Leningrad. [In Russian. ] McLACHLAN, R., 1878. A monographic revision and synopsis of the Trichoptera of the European fauna. Part 7, pp. 349-428. London. MOSELY, M.E., 1939. The British caddis flies. xiii, 320 pp. London. RAMBUR, P., 1842. Histoire naturelle des Insectes. Névroptéres. xviii, 534 pp. Paris. SCUDDER, S.H., 1891. Index to the known fossil insects of the world including Myriapods and Arachnids. Bull. U.S. Geol. Surv., vol. 71, pp. 1-744. ULMER, G., 1907. Trichoptera. Genera Insect., vol. 60, pp. 1-259. —1912. Die Trichopteren des Baltischen Bernsteins. Schr. phys.-6kon. Ges. K6nigsb., vol. 10, pp. 1-380. WESENBERG-LUND, C., 1943. Biologie der Stisswasserinsekten. (viii), 682 pp. Copenhagen. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 297 GALEOPSOMYIA GIRAULT, 1916 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.)2402 by J. LaSalle and P. DeBach (Division of Biological Control, Department of Entomology, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, U.S.A.) Foerster (1856, p. 84) described Trichaporus in the Tetrastichoidea, but included no species. Although the genus was subsequently mentioned (Taschenberg, 1866, p. 109; Kirchner, 1867, p. 186; Dalla Torre, 1898, pp. 27, 159), it remained without included species until Ashmead (1900. p. 561) listed the genus ‘Trichoporus Forst’ and placed E. columbianus in it. This species is undoubtedly Euderus columbianus Ashmead, 1888 (p. 104), and it automatically becomes type species by subsequent monotypy. 2. Although Ashmead consistently used the spelling Trichoporus it is apparent from the fact that he attributed this genus to Foerster that he was referring to the same taxon as Trichaporus Foerster. We consider Ashmead’s spelling to be an unjustified emendation and this name becomes Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900. Trichoporus is an objective junior synonym of Trichaporus and must share the same type species, Euderus columbianus. Girault (1916, p. 348) designated E. columbianus type species of his new genus Galeopsomyia. Since they share the same type species, Trichaporus Foerster, Trichoporus Ashmead and Galeopsomyia Girault are all objective synonyms, Trichaporus being senior. 3. The genus Trichaporus has never been used with its correct type species, E. columbianus. Girault (1912, p. 50) designated Trichoporus melleus Ashmead 1904 (p. 512) as type species and Kurdjumov (1913, p. 244) designated the nomen nudum Trichoporus solutus as type species. Nowicki (1929, pp. 155-158) discussed Trichaporus and Trichoporus. He felt that none of the species already designated as type species for Trichaporus suitably matched Foerster’s original description, and therefore none could be considered valid. He designated the nomen nudum Trichaporus aleyrodis, an aphelinid, as type species, and recommended recognizing a separate genus, Trichoporus Ashmead, 1904, (with T. melleus Ashmead, 1904 as type species) to hold the eulophids that Ashmead (1904, p. 512) had included in it. Unfortunately, this usage was accepted and since 1929 workers have considered Trichaporus as an aphelinid and Trichoporus as an eulophid. The nomen nudum T. aleyrodis was later described by Mercet (1930a, p. 196) and the species became Trichaporus aleyrodis Mercet, 1930. A more complete history of Trichaporus Foerster and Trichoporus 298 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Ashmead is given by DeBach & DeSalle (1981, pp. 651-655). 4. There are several problems with accepting the correct usage of E. columbianus as type species of Trichaporus. First, for over 50 years workers have considered Trichaporus an aphelinid (with T. aleyrodis as type species) and not a eulophid (Mercet, 1930b, p. 82; Dozier, 1933, p. 91; DeSantis, 1948, p. 252; Boucek, 1963, p. 277; Peck et al., 1964, p. 107; Ferriére, 1965, p. 127; Nikol’skaya & Jasnosh, 1966, p. 264; Jasnosh, 1976, p. 117; Khan & Shafee, 1976, p. 438; Jasnosh, 1978, p. 474; Viggiani & Mazzone, 1979, p. 43, 44). The correct use of this name in the EULOPHIDAE at this point would create confusion for workers in both families. Another problem is that by accepting the correct usage one recognizes an unused senior synonym of Galeopsomyia, a name which has been in use for over 65 years (Peck, 1951, p. 442; Peck 1963, p. 118; Burks, 1971, p. 82; Burks, 1975, p. 144; Boucek, 1977, pp. 19, 23; Burks, 1979, p. 989). Boucek (1977, p. 19) uses the name Galeopsomyia in the most recent key to the TETRASTICHINAE. 5. For these reasons we feel that accepting the correct usage of Trichaporus with the type species Euderus columbianus, as a senior synonym of Galeopsomyia would be confusing and not in the interest of stability in the EULOPHIDAE or APHELINIDAE. One alternative, that of requesting that the type species of Trichaporus be changed to T. aleyrodis to match usage for the past 50 years is equally unacceptable. Trichaporus aleyrodis has been synonymized with Encarsia partenopea Masi, 1909 (Nikol’skaya & Jasnosh, 1966, p. 267). If T. aleyrodis were made type species of Trichaporus it would make Trichaporus a senior synonym of Encarsia Foerster, 1878 (p. 65). Encarsia is an important name in aphelinid systematics and one of the most important and best known names in the literature of biological control. To create a senior synonym to Encarsia would be very unfortunate. 6. Since adopting the correct usage of Trichaporus would create confusion in the EULOPHIDAE and the APHELINIDAE, and an appeal asking to match the type species of Trichaporus with its current usage would create a senior synonym of an economically important genus (Encarsia) and disrupt stability even more than the correct usage of Trichaporus, we request that the International Commission: (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic names Trichaporus Foerster, 1856 and Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900 for the purpose of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy; (2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916 (gender: feminine), Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 299 type species, by original designation, Euderus columbianus Ashmead, 1888; (b) Encarsia Foerster, 1878 (gender; feminine), type species, by original designation, Encarsia tricolor Foerster, 1878; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) columbianus Ashmead, 1888, as published in the binomen Euderus columbianus (specific name of type species of Galeopsomyia Girault, 1916); (b) tricolor, Foerster, 1878, as published in the binomen Encarsia tricolor (specific name of type species of Encarsia Foerster, 1878); (4) place the following generic names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Trichaporus Foerster, 1856; (b) Trichoporus Ashmead, 1900. REFERENCES ASHMEAD, W.H. 1888. Descriptions of some new North American Chalcididae. Can. Entomol. vol. 20, pp. 101-107. ASHMEAD, W.H. 1900. “Order Hymenoptera”. Jn SMITH, John R., Insects of New Jersey. 27th Annual Report State Board of Agr., Trenton. Supplement. 755 pp. ASHMEAD, W.H. 1904. Classification of the chalcid flies of the superfamily Chalcidoidea, with descriptions of new species in the Carnegie Museum, collected in South America by Herbert H. Smith. Mem. Carnegie Mus. vol. 1 (4), 551 pp. BOUCEK, Z. 1963. Studien uber europaische Eulophidae, III: Euderinae. Beitrage zur Entomologie, vol. 13 (3/4), pp. 257-281. BOUCEK, Z. 1977. Descriptions of Tachinobia gen. n. and three new species of Tetrastichinae (Hymenoptera, Eulophidae), with a tentative key to genera. Bull. ent. Res. vol. 67, pp. 17-30. BURKS, B.D. 1971. The nearctic species of Horismenus Walker (Hymenoptera: Eulophidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. vol. 73 (1), pp. 68-83. BURKS, B.D. 1975. The species of Chalcidoidea described from North America north of Mexico by Francis Walker (Hymenoptera). Bull. Br. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Entomol. vol. 32 (4), pp. 137-170. BURKS, B.D. 1979. Family EULOPHIDAE, pp. 967-1022. In KROMBEIN, K.V. et al., Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. I. Symphyta and Apocrita (Parasitica). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1198 pp. DALLA TORRE, C.G. DE. 1898. Catalogus hymenopterum hucusque descriptorum systematicus et synonymicus. Vol. V: Chalcididae et Proctotrupidae. Engelmann, Lipsiae. 598 pp. DEBACH, P. & LASALLE, J. 1981. The taxonomic status of Encarsia, 300 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Prospaltella and Trichaporus and a description of Primaprospaltella, new genus (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea, Aphelinidae). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. vol. 83(4), pp. 642-657. DESANTIS, L.D. 1948. Estudio monografico de las afelinidos de la Republica Argentina (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Rev. Mus. La Plata, Zool. (N. Ser.), vol. 5, pp. 23-280. DOZIER, H.L. 1933. Miscellaneous notes and descriptions of chalcidoid parasites (Hymenoptera). Proc. Entomol. Soc. Wash. vol. 35 (6), pp. 85-100. FERRIERE, C. 1965. Hymenoptera Aphelinidae d’Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen. Faune de Il’Europe et du Bassin Méditerranéen, vol. 1. Masson, Paris. 206 pp. FOERSTER, A. 1856. Hymenopterologische Studien, 2 Heft. Chalcididiae and Proctotrupii. Ernst Meer, Aachen. 152 pp. FOERSTER, A. 1878. Kleine Monographien parasitischer Hymenopteren. Naturh. Ver. Rheinlande, Verh. 35, pp. 42-82. GIRAULT, A.A. 1912. Notes on the Chalcidoid Trichaporus Foerster, of the family Eulophidae, with description of one new North American form from Illinois. Can. Entomol. vol. 44, pp. 49-52, 74-83. GIRAULT, A.A. 1916. A new genus of Tetrastichini (Chalcidoid Hymenoptera). Entomol. News. vol. 27, p. 348. JASNOSH, V.A. 1976. Classification of the Parasitic Hymenoptera of the Family Aphelinidae (Chalcidoidea). Ent. Rev. vol. 55(1), pp. 114-120. JASNOSH, V.A. 1978. Family Aphelinidae, pp. 469-501. In MEDVEDEVA, G.S., ed. Handbook of the Insects of the European part of the USSR, vol. III, Hymenoptera. 2nd part. Nauka, Leningrad. 758 pp. (in Russian). KHAN, M.Y. & SHAFEE, S.A. 1976. Revised classification of the family Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Jour. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. vol. 74 (3), pp. 436-443. KIRCHNER, L. 1867. Catalogus Hymenopterum Europae. Vindobonae. 285 pp. KURDJUMOV, N.B. 1913. Notes on _ Tetrastichini (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Rev. Russe Entomol. vol. 13(2), pp. 243-255 (in Russian). (French translation by S. Nowicki, 1927. Eos, Rev. Esp. Entomol. vol. 3(4), p. 514. MASI, L. 1909. Contribuzioni alla conoscenza dei Calcididi italiani (parte 3a). Boll. Portici Lab. vol. 4, pp. 1-37. MERCET, R.G. 1930a. Afelinidos Palearticos (Hym., Chalc.) 4a nota. Eos, Rev. Esp. Entomol. vol. 6 (2), pp. 191-199. MERCET, R.G. 1930b. Los afelinidos de Espafia. Segunda Parte, Rev. Biol. Forest. Limnol. ser. B, pp. 29-106. NIKOL’SKAYA, M.N. & JASNOSH, V.A. 1966. Aphelinids of the European part of the USSR and the Caucasus. Opred. Faun. SSSR, 91. Nauka, Moscow and Leningrad. 296 pp. (in Russian). NOWICKI, S. 1929. Bemerkungen zu den europaischen Apheliniden—Gattungen (Hym., Chalc.). Neue Beitr. System. Insektenk. vol. 4. (13/14), pp. 153-160. PECK, O, 1951. Superfamily Chalcidoidea, pp. 410-593. In MUESEBECK, C.F.W. et al., eds., Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico, Synoptic Catalog. U.S. Dept. Agric., Agric. Monogr. 2, Washington, D.C. 1420 pp. PECK, O, 1963. A catalogue of the nearctic Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Can. Entomol. Suppl. 30. 1420 pp. PECK, O., BOUCEK, Z. & HOFFER, A. 1964. Keys to the Chalcidoidea of Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 301 Czechoslovakia (Insecta: Hymenoptera). Entomol. Soc. Canada, Mem. 34, pp. 1-120. TASCHENBERG, E.L. 1866. Die Hymenopteren Deutschlands nach ihren Gattungen und theilweise nach ihren Arten als Wegweiser. Edward Kummer, Leipzig. 277 pp. VIGGIANI, G. & MAZZONE, P. 1979. Contributi alla conoscenza morfobiologica delle specie del complesso Encarsia Foerster — Prospaltella 302 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 LINGULA ANATINA LAMARCK, 1801 (BRACHIOPODA): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 1598 By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In 1964 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 21, pp. 222-224) Dr. A.J. Rowell (then of University of Nottingham, U.K.) applied for the use of the plenary powers to designate Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 as type species of the nominal genus Lingula Bruguiére, [1797]. No comments were received on this application and the Commission voted on it from March to June 1966. There were 20 votes in favour and none against, with two late affirmative votes and three voting papers not returned. 2. During the voting period a note was received from Dr Harald Rehder (U.S. National Museum) pointing out that Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 (Catalogue of the Portland Museum, p. 77) was a senior synonym of Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 and suggesting that it should be placed on the Official List as the specific name of the type species of Lingula Bruguiére, [1797]. Consultations were immediately opened with specialists on the best course to follow. 3. Dr Christian Emig (Station Marine d’Endoume, Marseille) thought that Lingula anatina should be confirmed as type species of Lingula and that the synonymy of L. lingua with L. anatina had not been, and could not be, proved. Dr Rowell also saw that the synonymy was not primarily a nomenclatural point, but that, as a matter of expediency, Lingula anatina should be confirmed as type species. He pointed out that L. lingua, if not actually a nomen oblitum, denoted a poorly known taxon and he leant towards suppressing the name. Dr L.S. Hammond (James Cook University of North Queensland) thought that there was no problem about accepting the synonymy, that the use of L. lingua as the valid name would almost certainly cause confusion and that it should therefore be suppressed. 4, It may be mentioned in passing that the authorship of the Portland Catalogue has been a matter of some debate. Kay, 1965, however (Nautilus, vol. 79, pp. 10-19) showed that Lightfoot must be accepted as the author, thus confirming Dance’s more empirical conclusion (1962, J. Soc. Biblphy nat. Hist. vol. 4, pp. 30-34). 5. It is thus clear that further action by the Commission is necessary before the question of the type species of Lingula can be brought to a conclusion. The name is familiar to students because the genus was for long regarded as the most primitive known brachiopod, and it is certainly the longest-lived known genus in the Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 303 Animal Kingdom (?Ordovician, Silurian to present day). Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 has been widely regarded as the type species since 1892, and, as Dr Rowell pointed out, even those authors who correctly took Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 as the type species regarded it as a synonym of L. anatina. 6. The choice thus lies between the suppression of Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786, on the one hand, and the grant of precedence over it to L. anatina on the other. In favour of suppression it may be argued that M. lingua has hardly ever, if at all, been used as a valid name; and that if it does not denote the same species as L. anatina it is unlikely that its species will ever be ascertained. Against suppression it may be argued that there is nevertheless, in principle, a possibility that the name may one day be found to denote a different species. 7. The Commission is accordingly asked (1) to decide whether or not to use its plenary powers in this case, and then, either (2) use those powers to suppress the specific name lingua Lightfoot, 1786 as published in the binomen Mytilus lingua for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, and, having done so, place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; or (3) to rule that Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801 is to be given nomenclatural precedence over Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786, whenever the two names are considered synonyms, and (4) place the specific name anatina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Lingula anatina, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name lingua Lightfoot, 1786, as published in the binomen Myztilus lingua, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms; and (5) place the specific name lingua Lightfoot, 1786, as published in the binomen Myztilus lingua, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name anatina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Lingula anatina, whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms. It should be pointed out that the vote taken in 1966 made Lingula anatina Lamarck, 1801, the type species of Lingula Bruguiére, [1797] and placed it on the Official List. It follows that a refusal to use the plenary powers on the present occasion would 304 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 reverse that decision and implicitly assume that Mytilus lingua Lightfoot, 1786 is the valid name of the species — and this is something that no specialist in brachiopods is ready to aver. COMMENT ON PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE TYPE SPECIES OF AEOLIDIELLA BERGH, 1867. Z.N.(S.)1986 (see vol. 38, pp. 294-296) Par J. Tardy (Laboratoire de Biologie Biochimie Institut Universitaire de Technologie, 17026 La Rochelle, France) Jai eu avec Dr G.H. Brown un échange épistolaire au sujet de ses propositions concernant l’espéce-type d’Aeolidiella car j’ai fait en 1969 la révision des espéces de ce genre qui habitent les c6tes d’Europe. J’ai exprimé au Dr Brown mon point de vue, qui est le suivant: Eolida soemmerringii Leuckart, 1828 ne peut étre prise en considération pour plusieurs raisons: (a) parce que sa diagnose est si mauvaise qu’elle ne permet pas de savoir si lanimal décrit est une Amphorina ou une Aeolidiella, genres pourtant trés éloignés l’un de l’autre; (b) parce que !’échantillon de Leuckart ayant été perdu, il est impossible d’effectuer une vérification; (c) parce que si l’on accepte l’opinion de Bergh, 1882, indiquant que c’est une Amphorina, il s’agit alors d’un synonyme plus récent de Doris coerulea Montagu, 1804; (d) parce que Aeolidiella soemmerringii Bergh, 1864, est un synonyme plus récent de Eolis alderi Cocks, 1852. Je suis donc en parfait accord avec l’opinion exprimé par le Dr Brown et considére sa proposition comme la seule solution satisfaisante. C’est d’ailleurs celle que j’avais adoptée implicitement dans mon étude de 1969 (Bull. Inst. Océanogr. Monaco, vol. 68, pp. 1-40). Je serais donc trés satisfait si la Commission acceptait de suivre l’opinion exprimée par le Dr Brown, opinion a laquelle je souscrits enti€rement. Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 305 INDEX TO AUTHORS Page Page Ajello, Act gesicaste} +505. ..ceaaue 61 MeadniG. Wi, Sex IEE A. Sk 2... 27 NE KSECY,. AS. cc pecngcsmocsnewmsnecces i Melville, R.V. (Secretary) ....... 11, Pep. BG. tox tsuenie0..| Socesee 218 264, 302 AmadonsD 42 iac$ aticiss. .Ceeskees:. 3 1 well Cat Soe ener EAS bs OOS Se See 11 PAMETSUCH ols. scnencasscicaacheceotebe 226 Mound: ExAl2 Seine. 36 Banner, Ag vy. 30) oes seg ssenasecen 286 or lee a gE AE at Sete ~ Banner, D.M. ..............0.+20+5 286 Nyei LWBe ay asicccit 208 Bag, Oly oi... lcscustecese. 57, 285 Barnard, RiGee Fee ie: 293 Page, RCo ahaa. aerate 214 (a) ier a 7 Paliner,. J. Ma nes: 2002. asc-nadann nase. 36 SE ee Ta as ee 84 Pope, R.D. ...........eceeseeeeneese 156 Pritchard: PoC bia ha co cceesacte 212 Chang, W.T. ..........:: cesses 5 PRONE. Net 212 Chiszar DS 6.0245... 20802.28 SBR 157 Christensen, W.K. ................ 141 Quintero; BAGany? Lei)... 40 Ghvala, Mito 22h) oe oe.0sce28 71, 220 : Clark, OU So pawlaines let eanaiaaats 29, 288 Rasnitsyn, Ai ahes tt ahs i 200 Cornelius, P.F.S. ..........- 222, 288 pat eh siseetetacaeneneneseeenetecs . ¥: ssaamed Oath hal amar IL RLwE, Foy ct a. 29 Danzig, E-M.. .2...55.9 0) at os. 160 . BeBach, Pe. ek mane... 73, 297 SCHNMG:. Ps cmt. << se paseo 141 Ey ne 134, 267 SSRI on cae aera 141 Shelley pAs Jc qc2s0snccts sas. seeees. - 67 Edwards GuBe van... J.1.0.csereecee ss 64 SiMeT owed, Fe. icgneameemmee ees 61 MIS BAS Artec: Pmt ot 5, 141 Silfverberg, HD. As cena ce 165 Smite gd Mice aa: waccan ee ae 84, 157 oe Be ee te 71. 220 FS he adh Oe a ea Oe STUY UL RN 0-8 ee I a OS 157 ON oe 500 aire ath paeartngl are 50 Stainforth, R.M. ............. 45 Karoves. (CoP sisson c.ocseaack. 279, 281 Stoetzel IM Bis eras oscecmcaaenci 146 : SZtrakGsy Kear 20... actenneseeete ee == 45 Holthuis, L.B. ............... 161, 162 Pears sates 45 Lardy ates tents tien ttenner es 304 MBI AY. Sees frees. cette ce ee cee coaec es 5 Uzzell Te Sea... 83 Kerzhner,I.M. ........ 160, 161, 162 Vockeroth, JR oo stet ban dnctts os 13 ORME ACU cect soe cc eck acnncaoee 283 Mromiositiska Hi o)255.3.02552500; 158 Wasser Wee artis. oN iennane ona2 81 4 ETRE kt Cap naagenrie a aerenermManctnee 156 Lafontaine, J.D. ..................... 54 WhiceteL OA Oe) .| ONT 6 | Ce an Ce Oe Bee RE ee 61 Willianis RB Ra) eee 288 Lane, H.R... eeeeeeeeeeteteeeeees 10 Wedd) CF! 220 Su 141 We Es cad sa uteaidngatagacdcusey 13 Wasalle, > sccinentests.:(erse: 297 PieslertIWHORkee A . ROTI... .. 10 “oS ETERS BR ae eee aes 264 Littlejohn, M.J. oo... eee. 84 ZUSAG. ROT. HARA.2.. 80 306 Opinion 1199 1200 1201 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 1221 1222 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 LIST OF DECISIONS IN THIS VOLUME Papio Erxleben 1777 and Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824 (Mammalia, Primates): designation of type species ................2cseee cess eee eees Genypterus Philippi, 1857 (Pisces, Ophidiidae): conserved ....... ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 (Reptilia, Serpentes): ruling to stabilize nomenclature of taxa in this family (and others). .................... COLOBINAE Jerdon, 1867 (1825) (Primates): conserved ....... ERIOCOCCIDAE Cockerell, 1899 conserved; type species designated for Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868 (Insecta, Ug CTT Tas) 15 22) Ro ae eS eA baa Ras aria Ge, Acrydium undulatum J. Sowerby, 1806 (Insecta, Orthoptera): placedion-the Onhicial East aoe = cic caatesmceeinne sso csempeareae deat Cardisoma hirtipes Dana, 1852 and Thelphusa rotunda Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved ................. Lectotypes designated for Alburnops plumbeolus Cope, 1865 and Hypsilepis cornutus cerasinus Cope, 1868 (Pisces, Cyprinidae) .. Leptotyphlops and Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia, SERBERtes): COMSEEVOU iE. 5-52 -BRE MUG snes serenasaneesesyarof BegBDePUebE UMocapgbnGe ss tears ee Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771, neotype designated; Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy St Hilaire, 1842 and Simia hoolock Harlan, 1834 (Mammalia, Primates): placed on the Official List ........... Halecium Oken, 1815 (Coelenterata, Hydroida): ruled to be an available name and conserved ..............ccceceeeeeeeecneeeeeeeeeenens Baeocera Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): designation of PVPS SPREIES:. Loc cianagac hos Soeaan oantiitvs nM anasdanspradaaayaungnt teense Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 (Insecta, Hemiptera): type species ESTE ATCC rs hone. caowes sostiianlsincseGorasiohecoe veeebeeeaaeerateneneseaeccee Page 15 19 21 91 95 99 102 104 106 109 111 114 117 119 122 124 126 128 130 166 168 172 175 178 Opinion 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1231 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Acidaspis coronata Salter, 1853 (Trilobita): conserved ............ Simia syndactyla Raffles, 1821 (Mammalia, Hylobatidae): given precedence over Simia gibbon C. Miller, 1779 ................0.0000- Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818, Nereis cylindraria belgica Pallas, 1776 and Lagis koreni Malmgren, 1866 (Polychaeta): conserved ...... Bonelli’s Tabula synoptica ruled to be an available work and to ave been published in:1810\..........0 05... RGR ae dosetesn ts Tinea bjerkandrella Thunberg, 1784 and Phalaena (Noctua) cardui Hiibner, 1790 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved ........... HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 given nomenclatural precedence over CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885 (Myriapoda, Chilopoda) Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862 (Crustacea, Isopoda): conserved Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 (Pisces): the gender is masculine Blatta. germanica Linnaeus, 1767 (Insecta, Dictuoptera): conserved and designated as type species of Blattella Caudell, PRR etre Fa geeccerccsarac'h.... 1.0... l.0sveans BER. Tee ate Suppression of names for South American rodents PNG HS Git Cants {VG27 tnt... .......0..s.0s0sesn eRe atpepadt oe Bade Pulteney’s Dorset Catalogues, 1799, added to Official List ........ Rotalia menardii Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 (Foraminiferida): ATER Mi MP MICO suit Le... en nccsnecegnspen odie han teen a Sebastocles Jordan & Hubbs, 1925 (Pisces, Scorpaenidae): GesionationiOf tyPE SPECIES. .........cscsnsss-cuseeneessarcesnonoetsest+sene Trionyx steindachneri Siebenrock, 1906 (Reptilia, Testudines): ego i Sree ERM: Ret welt lee ae ae Re Pennahia Fowler, 1926 (Pisces, Sciaenidae): designation of type RPGR, RE AOTS TOSI... oso csopn acoh heres anes LON AEE |. ae Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865 (Insecta, Diptera): designation of TYPEISPECIES Wai sere A. (sj... s.ocance cba eatantens - LSC Direction 111 112 113 Entomostracites punctatus Wahlenberg (Trilobita) (Official List of Specific Names No. 1595): date to be cited as [1818] ............ PIERIDAE Duponchel, [1835] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): PRLCENL DADS P OI. AO... 0002 tenet EME. SOG. SED MORPHIDAE (Insecta, Lepidoptera): further correction to Gimicta! Pastentny ss... uciud........:... BAL 2nolewnGs . mace 307 194 196 308 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN DECISIONS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 39 Official List of Generic Names in Zoology Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875 Amphictene Savigny, 1822 Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849 Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862 Baeocera Erichson, 1845 Blattella Caudell, 1903 Borhyaena Ameghino, 1887 Bungarus Daudin, 1803 Campylosteira Fieber, 1844 Cermatobius Haase, 1885 Coluber Linnaeus, 1758 Elaps Schneider, 1801 Epilampra Burmeister, 1838 Eriococcus Targioni-Tozzetti, 1868 Genypterus Philippi, 1857 Goniurellia Hendel, 1927 Halecium Oken, 1815 Henicops Newport, 1844 Homoroselaps Jan, 1858 Official List of Specific Names in Zoology aceris, Acanthococcus, Signoret, 1875 akamushi, Trombidium, Brumpt, 1910 atherinoides, Notropis, Rafinesque, 1818 auricoma, Amphitrite, O.F. Miller, 1776 belgica, cylindraria, Nereis, Pallas, 1776 bjerkandrella, Tinea, Thunberg, 1784 brasiliensis, Blatta, Fabricius, 1775 buxi, Coccus, Fonscolombe, 1834 capensis, Aparallactus, A. Smith, 1849 cardui, Phalaena (Noctua), Hiibner, 1790 carinatus, Chlorophis, Andersson, 1901 cerasinus, Hypsilepis cornutus, Cope, 1868 chilensis, Conger, Guichenot, 1849 conica, Pangonia, Bigot, 1857 constrictor, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 coronata, Acidaspis, Salter, 1853 entelloides, Hylobates, 1. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, 1842 Hydrophis Latreille, 1801 Leptotrombidium Nagayo, Miyagawa, Mitamura, Tamiya & Satori, 1915 Leptotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 Mandrillus Ritgen, 1824 Micrurus, Wagler, 1824 Mycteromyia Philippi, 1865 Notropis Rafinesque, 1818 Papio Erxleben, 1777 Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818 Pennahia Fowler, 1926 Presbytis Eschscholtz, 1821 Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831 Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 Sebastichthys Jordan & Hubbs, 1925 Semnopithecus Desmarest, 1822 Siphonophora Brandt, 1837 Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 Uriechis Peters, 1854 entellus, Simia, Dufresne, 1797 falsata, Baeocera, Achard, 1920 fasciata, Pseudoboa, Schneider, 1801 fasciatus, Hydrus, Schneider, 1799 germanica, Blatta, Linnaeus, 1767 gibbon, Simia, C. Miller, 1779 granulata, Stromatopora, Nicholson, 1873 halecina, Sertularia, Linnaeus, 1758 hirtipes, Cardisoma, Dana, 1852 hoolock, Simia, Harlan, 1834 hubbsi, Sebastichthys, Matsubara, 1937 koefoedi, Liparis, Parr, 1932 koreni, Lagis, Malmgren, 1866 lacteus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 lemniscatus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 lunulatus, Uriechis, Peters, 1854 macrophthalmus, Otolithus, Bleeker, 1850 maculatus, Henicops, Newport, 1845 martensii, Cermatobius, Haase, 1885 menardii, Rotalia, Parker, Jones & Brady, 1865 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 mitrata, Presbytis, Eschscholtz, 1821 multilineatus, Typhlops, Schlegel, 1839 nattereri, Philodryas, Steindachner, 1870 nigricans, Typhlops, Schlegel, 1839 nigrofasciatus, Philothamnus, Buchholz & Peters, 1875 oblongata, Blatta, Linnaeus, 1758 paguri, Phryxus, Rathke, 1843 papio, Cynocephalus, Desmarest, 1820 plumbeolus, Alburnops, Cope, 1865 portoricensis, Siphonophora, Brandt, 1837 punctatus, Entomostracites, Wahlenberg, [1818] quadrimucronatus, Paradoxides, Murchison, 1839 309 rotunda, Thelphusa, Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 sphinx, Simia, Linnaeus, 1758 spixti, Micrurus, Wagler, 1824 steindachneri, Trionyx, Siebenrock, 1906 subtaeniata, Psammophis sibilans var., Peters, 1882 syndactyla, Simia, Raffles, 1821 transfuga, Blatta, Briinnich, 1763 tridens, Urellia, Hendel, 1910 tuberata, Boryhaena, Ameghino, 1887 undulatum, Acrydium, J. Sowerby, 1806 variolaris, Calymene, Brongniart, 1822 verna, Tingis, Fallén, 1826 Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology ACANTHOCOCCIDAE Signoret, 1875 AMPHICTENIDAE Grube, 1851 APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968 ATHELGINAE Codreanu & Codreanu, 1956 BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 BUNGARIDAE Fitzinger, 1826 CERMATOBIIDAE Haase, 1885 COLOBINAE Jerdon, 1867 COLUBRIDAE Oppel, 1811 ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 ELAPIDAE Boie, 1827 EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 ERIOCOCCINI Cockerell, 1899 HALECIIDAE Hincks, 1868 HENICOPIDAE Pocock, 1901 HYDROPHIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE Stejneger, 1891 (1890) PECTINARIIDAE Quatrefages, 1865 PIERIDAE Duponchel, [1835] PRESBYTINAE Gray, 1825 PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 SEMNOPITHECIDAE Owen, 1843 SIPHONOPHORIDAE Newport, 1844 URIECHINAE Cope, 1893 Official List of Available Works in Zoology F.A. Bonnelli, 1810: Observations entomologiques, Premiére Partie, including Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera Carabicorum in sectiones et stirpes disposita. Mém. Acad. imp. Sci. Litt. et Beaux-Arts de Turin, vol. 18 (Mém. prés. vol. 4) pp. 21-78 plus table. R. Pulteney, 1799: Catalogues of the birds, shells, and some of the more rare plants of Dorsetshire (privately published). 310 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology Acyon Ameghino, 1887 “Athelgue’ Hesse, 1861 Boryhaena Ameghino, 1887 Botryllofer Dalyell, 1851 Cistena Leach, 1816 Papio P.L.S. Miller, 1773 ‘Prosthéte’ Hesse, 1861 Ratton Brants, 1827 Siphonophora Fischer de Waldheim, 1823 Thoa Lamouroux, 1816 Xiphiurus Smith, 1847 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology agreste, Ratton, Brants, 1827 bilineatus, Psammophis moniliger var. , Peters, 1867 blanco debaxo, Ratton, Brants, 1827 californiana, Aspidonectes, Rivers, 1889 ‘cannelée, Prosthéte’, Hesse, 1861 cardui, Phalaena (Tortrix), Strom, 1783 ‘cladophore, Athelgue’, Hesse, 1861 colibreve, Ratton, Brants, 1827 cylindraria, Nereis, Pallas, 1766 espinoso, Ratton, Brants, 1827 ‘fullode, Athelgue’, Hesse, 1861 golock, Simia, Bechstein, 1799 hirtipes, Gecarcinus, Lamarck, 1818 loewi, Culex, Giebel, 1862 molochina, Psammophis, Berthold, 1846 pallassii, Cistena, Leach, 1816 parrii, Ophidium, Ross, 1826 pectinata, Nereis, J. Sowerby, 1805 tanakai, Kedania, Kishida, 1909 tubiformis, Sabella, Pennant, 1777 tucotuco, Ratton, Brants, 1827 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology Acyonidae Ameghino, 1891 Morphites Newman, 1834 Morphoidae, J.L.R. Agassiz, 1847 Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology K. Kishida: Notes on the Trombidiidae of Japan. Tokio (this may have been distributed in 1909). Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 311 INDEX TO KEY NAMES Page ACANTHOCOCCIDAE Signoret, 1875 (Opinion 1203) ................... 95 Acanthococcus Signoret, 1875 (Opinion 1203) ................ccceseeeeeeeeeees 95 uearoides, Aphis: Ratinesque 1818 128.83. Saintes oa. date sbest do. caeGaebonsgat 149 aceris, Acanthococcus, Signoret, 1875 (Opinion 1203) .................20200 95 Err POs Brandt: 183904. . 0.5 Fics s Reed eek) Week oe Rea A OES | seaN mS EAN, 29 Meanid Pallas? 1766) 2227... SSES 2S. sence a TERE atceea tl: sored aac 288 PHCHML LE TANACHSS (1767 oo oo. 8 ss congo en edans bees toeeerEeees seek eek | Seeaeee 288 Se PINIIDAE Goldfuss) 1820. .° 4.200 cckwRs ROA1 was hsRALIELN 289 Acyon Ameghino, 1887 (Opinion 1209) .......... 2. cece eee eee eee neeeee ences 111 ACYONIDAE Ameghino, 1891 (Opinion 1209) .....................eeeeeees 111 maactynus Ratinesque; 1818) ...............4 aos teeeeaieeees dd cebee Ades eaae Ets 148 ErcoludielifBershe 1867" .......5..68 Latah: INDE awe ee ee RE 304 aethiops, Holothuria (Microthele), Brandt, 1835. .................0ceeeeeeeen es 31 Hereste: “Ratton, Brants; 1827:(Opinion; 1232): ..: ROR een. sas poeta 247 akamushi, Trombidium, Brumpt, 1910 (Opinion 1218) ...................... 166 alamose, Kinosternon, Pritchard, 1979 ...............ccscceseceeeeeceseseeeenenes 212 albidus, Agonioneurus, Westwood, 1837 .............2..c.cceseceeeseneneneeeees 13 amazonicum, Simulium, Goeldi, 1905 ................ccececeeeeee eens ee ees 67, 164 MELONI DIS. KeAliNeSues TOLG ....5.c.--.-0repecsdecteerseesecneesteesesees 149 ame, Lacerta, Linnaeus, 1758) ....:.....:.. 2295. cee eS 158 PAVHEEVE NICYCTy L795. .-2- 8 ete n SETS tea. s Ae eds ERRERE . eta ame a: Sees 157 AMEIVIDAE Fitzinger; 1826 .:..:.....:.26 8). nese RASA Le 158 Amphictene, Savigny, 1822 (Opinion 1225) ................eeeceeeeeeeeeee eee 186 AMPHICTENIDAE, Grube, 1851 (Opinion 1225) ....................0.0088 186 nnaune. Lancula, lamatrck, 1801"... seeseea. Loh exes... paced 302 annularis, Bungarus, Daudin, 1803 (Opinion 1201) .......................68- 22 annulipes, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 ............ 0... cece eceeeeeeeee eee es eeeeeees 149 WHOM, BOS, DUDGHS, Kern WIDE he RO SRI REY 281 PARA ZettETStedt, L858 0s.52- 26s saeeh ed nce eek ER. AR: 220 aunquus: ‘Conus, Lamarck; 1810 ............. et 2 Wil PRR RRA. 283 APARALLACTINAE Bourgeois, 1968 (Opinion 1201) .................... 21 Aparallactus A. Smith, 1849 (Opinion 1201) ................ cece ceeeeeee eee eees 22 eepiniia, Globigerina, Hantken, 1883... 25:2: .200).2. Ses. SEAS 45 Peuncinrens Halliday, 1836... 22.225. 55c see ahs Gath -pe oad. «RISE 36 aquilegiacanadensis, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1817 ...........-...20220e0eeeeese eee 149 arabismollis, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 .................0ccecececee eee ee eeeeeee es 149 munahispida,- Aphis, Rafinesque, 1817. ..-.....daec-.80t. BR SI RU 149 PHIPENNG GHEVIOIAL, LOST: cccccchsacdracdegadiandwe ovsderssocareratee tenet eee eM 13 ier, Capsus, JakOvley, T8890... --daareavae seo ematee Usted tock stk tenes tated 162 Athelges Gerstaecker, 1862 (Opinion 1229) .................ccceeeeeeeee eee eens 238 ATHELGINAE Codreanu & Codreanu, 1956 (Opinion 1229) ............ 238 PPanelpue’ Hesse, 1861 (Opinion 1229) AT) RR Shade 238 atherinoides, Notropis, Rafinesque, 1818 (Opinion 1230) ................... 241 auricoma, Amphitrite, O.F. Miller, 1776 (Opinion 1225) ................... 186 Baeocera Erichson, 1845 (Opinion 1221) ...............ccceeeeee senescence ee eee 175 312 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 Page batiayChnangrapW dleott, 1901 250.025. 52 ..- UI E Ee os woe ee 5 Malenmella Nowak TOTS: 2. occas sess .acos sans 2 Sy TOME Seat eee eed 145 Belemnitella'@Orbigny, 1840 °. PsA). 0. TR, EOE 141 BELEMNITELLEIDAE Pavlow,. 1914.3. SRM An Re 145 bicolor, Phyllobates, Duméril & Bibron, 1841 .0..............e eee 268 bigemma; Amoeba, Schactier M1918 32244 1). 5: AL. POUT ose. RTI 214 bjerkandrella, Tinea, Thunberg, 1784 (Opinion 1227) .....................5. 233 blanco debaxo, Ratton, Brants, 1827 (Opinion 1232) ......................64- 247 Blaitella Gaudell, 1903:(Opinion 1231) ...0c.s00steececoeseos. 5. eee tn Cee eee 243 BLATTELLIDAE Karny, 1908 (Opinion 1231) ...................eceeeeeee ee 243 Borhyaena Ameghino, 1889 (Opinion 1209) ............... ce cece cee ee eee eee 111 Boryhaena Ameghino, 1887 (Opinion 1209) ...................cceceeeeeeeee eee 111 Botryllofer. Dalyell, 1851 (Opinion 1229) ..../.2...200.. 0.0 coe ee 238 brasiliensis, Blatta, Fabricius, 1775, (Opinion 1231) .....................202+ 243 brassicanapus, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 ....................ccececeeee eee ee ee ee es 149 bubalusiguavera, Bos, Kierny1 7924 .. 45/55 eB) NBL. Ga. ON 279 buchruckeri, Schantungia,) orenz;1906..} $28 sense 214 Mactynotus Rahnesque,, 1818... «0-0: .ss0see ese sence tee 34os ae re sbipena Sd ack 148 MepIaUIS PADTACIUS | SOD pe 2225 «ender ints =P siede + aap asin nde da p= ns pre oie wan aase Ad PEM ATUOIES WAPLEL LOSU” iisisacte oa csanee ss ieee nntennasee sada oeeaeacaaen seas eeease 264 BEN DROBATIDAL Cone, 1865... spsecy ccs seseastee aaets- s-denc tb - 04-0 -08™s 267 HeRTeSSICOMs,; Antilope, E14 .. Smith 5 (82 fpr sos. ccinep se egies condo io op tance anon ce 281 MDITAPINOGOMSCEIEY HLS OS oso cic ctes a2 Feesiae Reese aad ee aaa d= oan cary 50 Miarvilleiuien, Aphis, Ratinesque, 1817 | .. ..:....0.---yasaer arp peeuesenans seas 149 giniepha; Aphis, Ratinesque, 1818... sic5.- sarees annarangyeee sts ona dors ss a 149 mnoucnad, .Cythereis;,Neviaml, 1928 2. << sac ose sce ocfe'aap'g--nnaseanienen. 226 erie. Actnige: Pallas. 1 Ops. « ss iene een code te de ee oasis aces Ese en 288 dubius, Philopotamus, Rambur, 1842 ................cececeeeeeeeerenenecececeees 293 duodecimguttata, Chrysomela, Thunberg, 1787 ...............-2e0eeeeeeeeeees 14 ECTOBIIDAE Brunner von Wattendyl, 1865 (Opinion 1231) ............ 243 BLAPIDAE Boie, 1827 (Opinion TOL) so. cops oyaese-onnrapyescec-conmnencme 21 Misns schneider. sil: (@ pinion | 201) pace caine Span noe enn ociccan= 21 elongata, Dactylamoeba, Korotneff, 1880 .................cc0ceeeceeneneeeeeeee 214 elongatus, Indodorylaimus, Baqri, 1982. ................ccsceeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 57, 285 PIG ME RTM CT SEC Teo po heiisn 3 ick ss 5 Seo cased dap AL a aimee ce see toes 299 entelloides, Hylobates, 1. Geoffroy St Hilaire, 1842 (Opinion 1219) ...... 168 entellus, Simia, Dufresne, 1797 (Opinion 1202) .................2..-seeeeeeee 91 Epilampra Burmeister, 1838 (Opinion 1231) ................ceceeeeeeeeeeeee ees 243 EPILAMPRIDAE Brunner von Wattenwyl, 1865 (Opinion 1231) ....... 243 MURS; ETIGDUS, LADRACUSS, L158 os... «5000 Parr! 1932)’ Gopnmom Ziyi! coco. keg soto wot se upehak es ep ene 130 koreni, Lagis, Malmgren, 1866 (Opinion 1225) ..................2eeeeeeeeenes 187 Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 315 Page lacteus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1201) ......................eeeeeee 22 lanceolatus, Belemnites, Schlotheim, 1813. ...............0ccececeseeeeeeeenenees 142 laniaria, Cynochampsa, Owen, 1860 ............0c0c0cecceeeeeeeeececeeeeeenenens 50 laportei, Hybosorus, Westwood, 1845 ...........cccccseeeeneeeeneeeeeeneeeenenees 219 lar, Homo, Linnaeus, 1771 (Opinion 1219) ................ceceseeeeeneeeeeeees 168 PRTLIIL EXVTTUCISEEN LOO” yp sc an ceemcaas teosmendee deat steeds sccesisacnaes scenes ef 158 lemniscatus, Coluber, Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 1201) ................06.000 21 Leptotrombidium Nagayo, Miyagawa, Mitamura, Tamiya and Satori, 1915 POP MMIOM 1218) oo ee cn ndcigetaene neseececwepsine aon MRLs A SERSERA sean aelTy «ok 166 LEPTOTYPHLOPIDAE Stejneger, 1891 (1890) (Opinion 1207) ........ 106 Leptotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (Opinion 1207) .............:.ceeeeeeeneeeee sees 106 PRET SNIPES EC AESIRESCOE UPS rere wn cialis cigar owe pea pate eee leek 303 loewi, Culex, Giebel, 1862 (Opinion 1213) ...............ccccceeee cess ec eeeen ees 122 lamar. Alpheus: Guerin, 1829 os CEE cwaceneates) athe. oahgeee- > pawaane- 286 lunulatus, Uriechis, Peters, 1854 (Opinion 1201) ...............0.ceeeeeeeeeeee 22 iayennociius Murray, 1877 ......2.c-cccreucct tat kanes eet - TE es 27 macrophthalmus, Otolithus, Bleeker, 1850 (Opinion 1237) ................. 260 maculata [sic], Henicops, Newport, 1845 (Opinion 1228) ................... 235 maculatus, Henicops, Newport, 1845 (Opinion 1228) ..................0.000 235 Mandrilus Ritgen, 1824 (Opmion 1199) ooo AEE. ae ban adel con-nsgmanses plumbeolus, Alburnops, Cope, 1865 (Opinion 1206) ..................::66+++ polanisiagraveolens, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 ............-.....0eeeeeeeeeeeeee polygalasenega, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 ..................sececeeeeeeeenereeees populusgrandidentata, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 .................:..eeeeeeeee ee populustrepida, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818 ...................cseeeeeeeeeeee nee ee es portoricensis, Siphonophora, Brandt, 1837 (Opinion 1212) ................. PRESB Y Tan Gray: 1825 (Opinion PN) irri a ci peepee PRESS Priel Gray, 1825 (Opinion F202 rer oon cons c nce ars << tac-ndenneme Ft Be es aL Co RRR GRe e Ce PRE tae Cea Heer eerie atte: Senet "Prosthere Plesse- 1nar (Opinii Po79) ent -- toc n ote caasanvecnpesaneen PSEUDOMOPIDAE Rehn, 1903 (Opinion 1231) ..................:0ceeeeee Bull. zool. Nom., vol 39, pt 4, December 1982 317 Page Pseudomops Audinet-Serville, 1831 (Opinion 1231) ......................045 243 pterisaquilinoides, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1817. ................ce0eeeeeeeeeeeee ee es 149 sracher, Aitus; Walckenaer, 1837 § sss... iBRS eae cewees Fas os teen debt 65 ipracher pallida, Attus, Walckenaer,, 1831)... 32c.. igides eek t= aocpoed-§- nse a- 65 punctatus, Entomostracites, Wahlenberg, [1818] (Direction 111) .......... 132 quadrimucronatus, Paradoxides, Murchison, 1839 (Opinion 1223) ....... 180 quadripunctatus, Lygaeus, Fabricius, 1794 ...............cccccececeeeneeeneeeees 162 meanest, Anod Ouwens, 1910. .....0:.0cc.c--s0ss0: hen wataseaeete ewer 281 quatuordecimguttata, Chrysomela, Fabricius, 1798 ................0..-0e0e0+ 14 Ramphotyphlops Fitzinger, 1843 (Opinion 1207) ...................0ceeeeeeees 106 Raaion Brants, 1827 (Opinion l232)); «icf geek ese sd Bebgeswish. avweeayageads- 247 geapnacula,. Agrotis,. Morrison, (VST4 sesacsese 93-50-88 oboe reac e gaa os = 54 reaumnicula, Agrotis, Morrison, 1875 ¢205 sesteacte OE . deste eee segs: 54 reniforme,.Phalangium, Linnaeus, 1758 : ....0cas.. ee des- odadesndoeoesteesw ee 40 PUPFICOCOTU SIMU O29: cocoa cxcoente oxteus a aaee ees eee ae Sees. obec cd 6 Finiodon Smith, 1828, A520 5. secckedesl SRR «revs es bocce Bese wes a 6 Ehodryas, Aphis, Rafinesque, 1818.4 )6itsssqangdeeids he oeaes'- 3 WE fe SEED 149 roel, Hybosorus,, Westwood, 1845... .....-----an-0ncSeeeederpadeh pie ter= tes tag- te cea SS 156 OT TT Us 6S ee, where <7 oi Be ke 68 Coe meee, 8 eee 32 Beckopus (Gymnochiroia) Brandt, 1835) i2:....ccsent... SRS PEE, 30 wiria,-Aphis: Ratinesque, 1814 -....25:. 2 castes. «deed -2anoco acces apssan-sase 149 Stromatoporella Nicholson, 1886 (Opinion 1215) ..................0ee0ee eee 126 Bsublnmenus. Cancer, FOrskal, 17-75 | <:.<..cdeuestcaqueenes Bn. sstuctnee- deese ls sae 286 syndactyla, Simia, Raffles, 1821 (Opinion 1224) ..................2seseeeee eee 183 tanakai, Kedania, Kishida, 1909 (Opinion 1218) .....................00020e0e 166 MNTEATFLETIIIMAARSTACIUIS 107 9 Serense. wo tac den eedtaa ana saw San ous Ghaaa et chao Comenneveseees 40 MSI AM Gray, 1S27 | 3.00. cos 2c