“Vibe ba oe Stn be be) a Sb MALS AG Ba ath si il, my ihe: i! iv , i“ ‘ _ ae in? | : , Jaa Bp ie ae a uy pare ee Dee ath: — art a by ir ie i. ' i e ar, 7 : ; 3 ca ¢ pares ‘ ih . pat J 4 q atl. A x fae) ee) ee "? \ A oe rosy ti s vote i 7 oe A The Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature HC. ZN; The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 46, 1989 Published on behalf of the Commission by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature c/o British Museum (Natural History) Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, U.K. ISSN 0007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Aly SPA : ; =. =e ‘2 Yao ntetilite ap, CO “ . fi, Pe ot LN aiieiy the Beri data TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . International Commission and its publications Addresses of members of the Commission . : International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . . . Proposed fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature—a call for possible amendments to the third (1985) edition . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology—Supplement International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—General Session of ‘the Commission, Canberra, 15—19 October, 1988 . ait International Union of Biological Sciences—Section of Zoological ‘Nomenclature, Report of Meeting, Canberra, 14—-18 October, 1988 . Applications Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation. E. E. Spamer & A. E. Bogan ‘ Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta; Annelida, Polychaeta): eons conservation of the specific names. S. Chambers & D. Heppell : GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed precedence over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838. K. H. L. Key . ' Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation ‘by confirm- ation of Marshall’s (1916) designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 as the type species. R. T. Thompson Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora j jaceana: Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. 1. M. White & P. Harris Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): proposed conservation of accepted usage by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author. D. K. Loydell : Heliastes ovalis F. Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, ‘Perci- formes): proposed conservation of the specific name. W. I. Follett & J. E. Randall . Heteronota pelagica Girard, 1857 (currently Gymnodactylus, Cyrtodactylus or Nactus pelagicus; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of the specific name. G. R. Zug. Comments On the proposal to designate a new type species for ae en be neues 1979 (Foraminiferida). F. T. Banner. On the proposed order of precedence of the family- -group | names ACRIDIDAE, ‘OEDIPOD- IDAE and LOCUSTIDAE (Insecta, Orthoptera). R. F. Chapman; N. B. Tindale; R. E. Blackith; I. M. Kerzhner; P. K. Tubbs : On the proposed conservation of Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834. (Insecta, Coleoptera). M. K. Thayer . ; On the proposed conservation of Philanthus triangulum (Fabricius, 1775) (Insecta, Hymenoptera). O. Lomholdt; J. Hamon ; On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes). E. Mayr . On the proposed conservation of Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 19 1 3 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea). C. W. Wright . 2 On the specific name (arnouxii Duméril, 1851 or + pelagica Girard, 1857) of: a Pacific- basin gekkonid lizard. A. G. Kluge ; On the proposed conservation of the spelling of Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae). J. Mlikovsky; M. LeCroy & W.J. Bock. . . On the proposed suppression of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 (Aves). M. Pi Walters; Commission Secretariat . ; : AY. II Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1518. Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved Opinion 1519. Anuoniies nciloreteuas Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, “Ammonoidea): to be given precedence over Ammonites chrishna Forbes, 1846. Opinion 1520. Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 and Chagrinichnites osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace fossil; arthropod): conserved . Opinion 1521. Eriophyes von n Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Arachnida, Acarina): Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857 and Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889 designated as the respective type species. Opinion 1522. Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved Opinion 1523. Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 (currently Arctocorisa germari; Insecta, Hemiptera): neotype designated ; Opinion 1524. Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara (Subsigara) ‘distincta; Insecta, Hemiptera): specificnameconserved . . Opinion 1525. Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . . : : Opinion 1526. Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Opinion 1527. Polyommatus emolus Godart, [1824] ae a Anthene emolus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specificname conserved . . Opinion 1528. Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (currently i in C ydia. or Laspeyresia: Insecta, Lepidoptera): specificname conserved . . Opinion 1529. Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824, Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825 and Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved, and Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 and Curculio pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species of Ceutorhynchus and Rhinoncus respectively . Opinion 1530. Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Coeloides scolytcida Wesmael, 1838 designated as the type species . Opinion 1531. Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 designated as the type species ‘ Opinion 1532. Siphonosoma vastum Selenka, De Man & Bilow, 1884, Phascolosoma stephensoni Stephen, 1942, Phascolosoma scolops Selenka, De Man & Bulow, 1884 and Phascolosoma pacificum Keferstein, 1866 (Sipuncula): specific names conserved Opinion 1533. Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea): specific name conserved .. . Opinion 1534. Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia, Testudines): conserved Opinion 1535. Halianassa studeri von “Meyer, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia): neotype designated; and Halitherium Kaup, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia): Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 designated as the type species . ye Notices . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in n Zoology—Supplement Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . Applications Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): proposed designation of Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the type species. P. D. Taylor & E. Voigt. Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): confirmation of the author of the genus, and of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type — P.F.Rawson&E.Kemper. . . POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866. K.C.Emberton . | ames? @oae 53 54 56 91 94 Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: proposed conservation, and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: proposed conservation of the specific name (both Crustacea, Copepoda). K. Hulsemann . Ranguna Bott, 1966 and Larnaudia Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed fixation of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 and Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the respective type species. M. Tuirkay & P. Naiyanetr . Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation. R. A. Cooper Chira Simon, 1902 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. Maria Elena Galiano . Heliophanus kochi Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, emeney proposed conservation ‘of the specific name. Jerzy Proszynski Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus: Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the specific name. Jerzy Proszynski . 3 Thyene Simon, 1885 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. Jerzy Proszyniski. Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species. Y. Ben-Dov : Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed ‘designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species. Y. Ben-Dov & Daniéle Matile-Ferrero . . Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Paul Thiaucourt Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: proposed conservation of usage by designation of a replacement lectotype. C. W. Sabrosky Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): ‘proposed fixation of O. bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the name of the type species. Maurice Kottelat Comments Opposing the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenop- tera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. John LaSalle & Zdenek Boucek On the proposed conservation of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymno- phiona). Hobart M. Smith . Rare eG | ST RAL, 1A Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1536. Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] (Foraminiferida): Nautilus orbiculus Forsskal, Pre Gestenaled asdbesiyie species a) Vie ae oO ARTE VIN tenis haar Opinion 1537. Discocyclina Gimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida): Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847 designated as the type species . . maday 322 Opinion 1538. Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoidea): conserved Opinion 1539. Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): not to be given precedence over Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865. . Opinion 1540. Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name conserved . Opinion 1541. Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): ‘Lieconanche honoluliensis Brady, 1880 confirmed as the type species . : Opinion 1542. Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): conserved Opinion 1543. Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Graphoderus cinereus; Insecta, Coleoptera): neotype replaced . Opinion 1544. erHmmDAE Busck, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence o over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 . . Opinion 1545. Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Insecta: Diptera): Platygaster broticus Zetter- stedt, 1838 designated as the type species Opinion 1546. Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) “and “Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera): names conserved ; Opinion 1547. Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 eacibais figsevila felis Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated . Ill 97 101 104 106 108 110 112 114 119 123 126 130 132 134 135 LST 138 140 141 142 143 145 146 148 149 isi! IV Opinion 1548. Sarotherodon melanotheron ee 1852 Bet ees soieer specific name conserved . ; Notices . Election of the President of the International ‘Commission on n Zoological Nomencla- ronene Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in » Zoology Supplement. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . Applications CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera): a proposal to remove the homonymy. A. R. Kabat . Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. D. J. Brunckhorst, W. B. Rudman & R. C. Willan. Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed precedence over Rhechos- tica Simon, 1892. H. W. Levi & O. Kraus Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and J. woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, “Acari): pro- posed conservation by the replacement of the holotype of J. angustus by a neotype. R.G. Robbins & J. E. Keirans. . Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. i A. Gardner . Helophorus brevipalpis Bedel, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence o over Helophorus creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858. R. B. Angus : Helophorus obscurellus Poppius, 1907 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence o over Helophorus fausti Kuwert, 1887.R.B. Angus. . . Ceratopogon puncticollis Becker, 1903 (currently Culicoides puncticollis; Insecta, Dip- tera): proposed precedence over Ceratopogon algecirensis Strobl, 1900. J. Boorman Micropterus patachonicus King, 1831 and Anas pteneres Forster, 1844 (both currently in Tachyeres Owen, 1875; Aves, Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. B. C. Livezey aks) PORN LY LE Oe Comments Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a contribution to the discussion. R. V. Melville . ‘ On the proposed conservation of Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) and Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M.H. Pettibone . On the proposed designation of Risomurex mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, 1984 as the type species of Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastro- poda). E.H. Vokes & R. Houart . ; On the proposed conservation of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and H yphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). C. W. Wright; P. K. Tubbs On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Arachnida, Araneae). E. E. Minch; C. E. Valerio; F. A. Coyle; R. C. West; P. A. Goloboff . On the proposed conservation of Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea). A. Waren; R. E. Petit; R.S. Houbrick . On the proposed precedence of GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838 (Insecta, Orthoptera). G. W. Ramsay. On the proposed conservation of accepted usage of Monograptus exiguus (Grapto- lithina) by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author. M. Sudbury . On the authorship of the name Testudo ert Pelusios) subnigra (Reptilia, Testu- dines). R. Bour; P. K. Tubbs Nes a Ney Nee Eas et hetigrtomed ti h Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1549. EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878 (Protista, Flagellata) and EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera): homonymy removed, and ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 . 152 153 154 154 155 156 161 165 167 170 173 176 179 181 185 186 187 187 189 190 191 191 192 193 Opinion 1550. Dysidea Johnston, 1842 (Porifera, Keratosa): conserved 4 Opinion 1551. Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (Tardigrada): Macrobiotus dujardini Doyére, 1840 designated as the type species... : Opinion 1552. Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (Nematoda): spelling confirmed Opinion 1553. atyipaE De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea, Decapoda) and aTy1DAE Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): homonymy removed. . Opinion 1554. Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ‘Cryptocoeloma haswelli Rathbun, 1923 designated as the type species : Opinion 1555. Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (Insecta, Heteroptera): Sarit transversa Fieber, 1848 confirmed as the type species . . Opinion 1556. Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently Hybius ater) and Dytiscus planus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Reged planus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved . Opinion 1557. Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, ‘Lepidoptera): conserved, and E. bifasciella Treitschke, 1833 confirmed as the type species ; Opinion 1558. Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Anastrepha parallela; Insecta, Diptera): lectotypereplaced. . Opinion 1559. Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): ii iphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 designated asthe typespecies . . Opinion 1560. Asterias squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828 (currently Amphipholis squamata; Echinodermata, Ophiuroidea): specific name conserved : Opinion 1561. Climacograptus manitoulinensis Caley, 1936 (currently Paraclimaco- graptus manitoulinensis; Graptolithina): specific name conserved. . Opinion 1562. Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently C tenopoma “oxyrhyn- chum; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name not conserved , Opinion 1563. Heliases ternatensis Bleeker, 1856 (currently Chromis ternatensis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved, and Chromis viridis (Cuvier, 1830): name adopted for the fish formerly known as C. caerulea (Cuvier, 1830) . . Opinion 1564. Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912 ore Perciformes): specificnameconserved . . Opinion 1565. Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, ‘Cetacea): conserved . : Opinion 1566. Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 sae ae gang original spellingemended . ‘ Ht 7) SSRN AL 5 Notices . : Election of members of the International Commission « on Zoological Nomenclature . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in FEES NE International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Financial Report for the year 1988 Applications Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834 (currently Texigryphaea pitcheri; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation. B.S. Kues&S.G.Lucas. . + lie gene ee Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 and Myriochele oculata Zaks, "1923 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation. R. Nilsen & T. Holthe ‘ Buthus vittatus (currently Centruroides vittatus; Arachnida, Scorpionida): proposed recognition of Wood (1863) as author of the specific name and designation of a neotype, and Centrurus hentzi (currently Centruroides hentzi) Banks, 1904: proposed conservation of the specific name. S. A. Stockwell & H. W. Levi . Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species. J. K. Lowry & H. E. Stoddart Corisa verticalis Fieber, 1851 (currently Trichocorixa verticalis; Insecta, Rear proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson. Sg Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius- viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name, and Rhyncolus Germar, 1817: proposed designation of Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. R. T. Thompson aeons & CO eee) SE eee mare 226 229 233 236 239 241 VI Ochthebius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798 as the type species. M. Hansen . . Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): pro- posed conservation of the specific names by the suppression of C. peus Speiser, 1904. B. F. Eldridge & R. E. Harbach Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805 as the type species. N. L. Evenhuis & D. J. Greathead . Musca heraclei Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Euleia heraclei; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling of the specific name. I. M. White & PaReSeymour.: =. Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed c conser- vation of the specific name. R. Fricke. Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes): proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species, so conserving Anguilla Shaw, 1803.R. A. Cooper&O.A.Crimmen . . Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia): proposed conservation. S. G. Lucas&A.P.Hunt . . . Atheris Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation, and proposed c con- firmation of Vipera chlorechis Pel, eid 1] as the valid name of the types species. D. G. Broadley . : ULNA OLA? OF : Comments Report on the proposed conservation of the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (Mollusca, Coleoidea), with suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and the designation of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as the type genus. P. K. Tubbs; P. Doyle; W. Riegraf; G. Hahn; C. H. Holland; C. W. Wright; D. T. Donovan; A. B. Challinor; M.K. Howarth. . . On the proposed precedence of GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera) over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838. D. C. F. Rentz HADI WHS Indexes etc. Authors in volume 46 (1989) , Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in ‘rulings of the Commission published in in volume 46 (1989) : Key names in Applications and Comments published i in n volume 46 (1989) Corrigenda . Publication dates and pagination of volume 46 (1989) . Instructionsto Binder . . Table of Contents of present volume 46 (1989) 244 247 250 252 255 259 262 264 Volume 46, Part 1, 29 March 1989 pp. 1-84 ISSN 0007-5167 _ ee sian ae Mah ena The Bulletin © 5 oclogicil” eee iture THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1989 is £60 or $115, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Vice-President (Vacant) Secretary-General Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Dr M. Mroczkowski Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) (Poland; Coleoptera) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada; Ichthyology) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) Prof Dr G. Hahn Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (Norway; Parasitology) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Prof Dr O. Kraus Prof A. Willink (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1989 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 46, part 1 (pp. 1-84) | 29 March 1989 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on appli- cations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 45, part 4 (published on 16 December 1988): (1) Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2683). B. S. Kues & S. G. Lucas. (2) Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia): proposed conserv- ation. (Case 2684). S. G. Lucas & A. P. Hunt. (3) Corisa verticalis Fieber, 1844 (currently Trichocorixa verticalis; Insecta, Hetero- ptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2685). A. Jansson. (4) Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2687). L. Borowiec. (5) Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Gobiesociformes): pro- posed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2688). R. Fricke. (6) Helophorus obscurellus Poppius, 1907 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conserv- ation of the specific name. (Case 2689). R. B. Angus. (7) Helophorus brevipalpis Bedel, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conserv- ation of the specific name. (Case 2690). R. B. Angus. (8) Atheris Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation. (Case 2691). D. G. Broadley. (9) Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confir- mation of Chelonops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. (Case 2692). M. S. Harvey. 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 (10) Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1835 (Reptilia, Testudines); proposed conser- vation of the specific name. (Case 2693). R. G. Webb. (11) Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805 as the type species. (Case 2694). N. L. Evenhuis & D. J. Greathead. (12) Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species. (Case 2695). Y. Ben-Dov & D. Matile-Ferrero. (13) Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 (Arachnida, Acari): proposed conservation of meaning by the replacement of the holotype by a neotype. (Case 2696). R. G. Robbins & J. E. Keirans. (14) Streptograptus Yin, 1937 (Graptolithina): proposed designation of Mono- graptus plumosus Baily, 1871 as the type species. (Case 2697). D. K. Loydell. (15) Lachnabothra Saunders, 1847 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Chlamys braccata Klug, 1824 as the type species, and proposed designation of the holotype of C. braccata as the neotype of Lachnabothra hopei Saunders, 1847. (Case 2698). C. A. M. Reid. (16) RISSOOIDEA (or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840. (Case 2699). G. Rosenberg & G. M. Davis. (17) Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of C. alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. (Case 2700). R. C. Froeschner & N. A. Kormilev. (18) Plateumaris Thomson, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2701). I. S. Askevold & H. Silfverberg. (19) Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation by the suppression of C. peus Speiser, 1904 (Case 2702). B. F. Eldridge & R. E. Harbach. (20) HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed pre- cedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. (Case 2703). H. Hieronimus. (21) Tringa ocrophus Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves, Charadriiformes): proposed conserv- ation of ochropus as the correct original spelling of the specific name. (Case 2704). J. Mlikovsky. (22) EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829. (Case 2706). W. N. Mathis & T. Zatwarnicki. (23) Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea): proposed designation of Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as the type species. (Case 2707). R. Gibson & F. B. Crandall. (24) Colydium Fabricius, 1792 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Bostrichus elongatus Fabricius, 1787 as the type species. (Case 2708). M. A. Ivie. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 3 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 by the III International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 25 zoologists from 16 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions (including palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences ([UBS), and its members are elected at open meetings held in conjunction with Congresses of TUBS or of its associated bodies. Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, which is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according to taxonomic judgments’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 in English and French by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission. Observance of the rules in the Code enables a biologist to arrive at the valid name for any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and super-family. Its provisions can, if necessary, be waived or modified in their application to a particular case; however, this must never be done by an individual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. Proposals for any such action should be addressed to the Commission Secretariat, and should follow the instructions on the inside back cover of the Bulletin. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It con- tains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is an invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may also be published. The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin, which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such contri- butions may be sent to the Secretariat. The Commission’s rulings are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895—1985 was published in 1987, and a free supplement covering 1986-1988 will be issued early in 1989. In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters the Commission’s Secretariat is willing to help any zoologist with advice on any question with nomen- clatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity (non-profit making company) registred in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present located in London, and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial affairs of the Commission. The income of the Trust comes from the sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official Lists), from support by national and international institutions, and from donations by societies and individuals. The level of income has been, and remains, a constraint on the services given to zoology by the Commission, and donations to the Trust are gratefully received. + Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Addresses of members of the Commission Dr F. M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. Prof W. J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A. Dr L. R. M. COCKS British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW17 5BD, U.K. Dr H. G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia Prof John O. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, U.S.A. (Councillor) Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Dr G. C. GRUCHY Canadian Conservation Institute, 1030 Innes Road, Ottawa, K1A 0M8, Canada Prof Dr Gerhard HAHN Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, D-355 Marburg (Lahn), Fed. Rep. Germany Prof DrO. HALVORSEN Jnstitute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromsé, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromsé, Norway Mr David HEPPELL Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K. (Councillor) Dr L. B. HOLTHUIS Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (Councillor) Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, B.C., V9R5K6, Canada Prof Dr Otto KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 arn st is, Fed. Rep. Germany Dr P. T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland Prof U. R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 7172, 04263 Sao Paulo, Brazil Dr M. MROCZKOWSKI Instytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw, Poland Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Kobenhavn, Denmark Dr W. D. L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia (President) Prof Jay M. SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor) Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria Dr Y. I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199164, U.S.S.R. Dr F.C. THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. Dr V. A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R. Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1 Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan Prof A. WILLINK Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 5 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Members Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. Dr G.C. Gruchy (Chairman) Dr R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.I.Biol. Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Prof L.B. Holthuis Managing Director) Dr F.G.W. Jones Prof Per Brinck Prof Dr. O. Kraus ProfJ.H.Callomon . Dr M. Luc Dr N. R. Chalmers Dr R.B. Manning Dr P.F.S. Cornelius Mr R.V. Melville Prof C.B. Cox Dr I.W.B. Nye The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, Dr W.D.L. Ride (ex officio) F.L.S., F.Z.S. Dr E.P.F. Rose, T.D. Dr R.W. Crosskey Dr G.B. White Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B. Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Prof J. Forest Royal Society) Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E. Officers Dr. P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller) Mr. J.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator ) Miss R.A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs. A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Proposed fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature — a call for possible amendments to the third (1985) edition At its recent meeting in Canberra the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided to embark on the preparation of a new (fourth) edition of the Code, and established an Editorial Committee for that purpose. It is expected that publication will be in late 1994 or in 1995, following approval of a final draft by the Commission and its adoption by the International Union of Biological Sciences (TUBS). A considerable number of possible amendments to the Code have been suggested to the Commission or have come to the attention of the Secretariat, and these will be further examined by the Editorial Committee. A preliminary discussion by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of IUBS is reported in BZN 46: 15-17. The Commission now invites the submission of further possible amendments to the current (1985) Code, or comments on those already submitted, and these should be sent to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible. It is intended that proposals received by the end of 1989 will be discussed at meetings held in conjunction with the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB) in Maryland in July 1990. The Commission would welcome wide publicity being given to its call for possible amendments to the Code. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This gave all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature had ruled since it was set up in 1895 up to December 1985. There were about 9,900 entries. In the three years since 1985, 544 names and 3 works have been added to the Official Lists and Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement is circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology can be ordered at the price shown: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 7 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature General Session of the Commission, Canberra, 15—19 October 1988 Present: Dr W. D. L. Ride (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville and Thompson. Dr K. H. L. Key was present, by invitation, for part of the meeting. Dr Tubbs (Executive Secretary), Miss Cooper, Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith from the Secretariat also present. 1. Apologies for absence were received from Commissioners Alvarado, Bayer, Bernardi, Cocks, Gruchy, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno and Willink. 2. The minutes of the previous General Session of the Commission (Budapest, September 1985) had been published in BZN 42: 313-323. Business arising from the Minutes: The Commission considered alternative drafts prepared to implement its decision to amend the Bylaws to provide for electing mem- bers of the Commission from a single list. The Commission adopted the following new Bylaw 3: ‘Bylaw 3. Slate of Nominees, Voting and Determining the Result (a) The Commission shall present a slate of nominees to the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. In preparing the slate, the Commission shall receive all names sub- mitted under the provisions of Bylaw 2 and shall consider for the slate all those qualified to meet the conditions of Articles 2(b) and (c) of the Constitution and Bylaw 1. At that time the Commission may consider additional nominees of its own choice. Retiring members of the Commission who are proposed for re-election (subject to Article 3(b) of the Constitution) shall be indicated on the slate. The Commission may explicitly recommend any nominee whom it considers particularly well qualified, but such recommendation is not binding on the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. (b) In the event that there are insufficient nominees who the Commission is prepared to nominate, the Commission may propose that a vacancy remain unfilled and dealt with as though it were a casual vacancy. (c) The Commission shall endeavour to nominate, wherever possible, two candi- dates for each vacancy. The slate shall not contain more than twice the number of names required to fill the vacancies. (d) The election shall be conducted by the Officers and Council present at the meeting of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature provided that no person who isa candidate for the election shall conduct the election. In the event that no Officer or member of the Council is present and eligible the members of the Commission present shall appoint some from their number to conduct the election. (e) Voting on the slate shall be by secret ballot of members of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature present in person. (f) The ballot of each member voting shall consist of a ballot paper containing the names of the persons on the slate and no others. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 (g) Each member voting may indicate his or her preference for as many candi- dates as are required to fill the vacancies by placing a cross against their names. A completed ballot paper containing more crosses than there are vacancies shall be void and not counted. (h) The result of the ballot shall be ascertained by counting the votes given to each candidate and the candidate or candidates to whom more votes have been given than to the other candidates, up to the number of members of the Commission to be elected, shall be declared to have been elected. (i) If an equality of votes is found to exist between any candidates and the addition of a vote would entitle any of those candidates to be declared elected, the President, or in the absence of the President the Vice-President or the person appointed in accordance with Bylaw 18 to preside over the meeting of the Commis- sion at which the slate was prepared, shall determine which of them is deemed to be elected, giving consideration to the need to secure a balanced representation in the composition of the Commission in accordance with Article 2(c) of the Constitution.’ 3. The Agenda was adopted as circulated. 4. The Executive Secretary’s report to UBS had been circulated and was endorsed by the Commission. 5. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Progress Report on Sales Dr Tubbs reported that more than 6,000 copies of the 3rd Edition of the Code (published February 1985) had been sold but an adequate number remained in stock to avoid the need for an early reprinting. Members thought that a breakdown of sales by countries would indicate the importance attached to zoological nomenclature in those countries and would help in pin-pointing funding sources. The Secretariat was asked to circulate such information as the sales agents could provide. The importance of the Code to editors of zoological journals was stressed. 6. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Dr Tubbs reported that a revised and updated edition of the Official Lists and Indexes had been published in June 1987, bringing together in one volume all the names and works on which the Commission had ruled since it was set up. About 360 copies had already been sold, more than recovering the direct costs of publication. It was planned to issue a supplement listing all the names added up to December 1988. 7. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The new format and cover design of the BZN introduced in 1987 were welcomed by members. It was RESOLVED that the appreciation of the Commission of the work of those responsible be recorded formally. While agreeing that the present style of Applications should be retained, it was suggested that, in due course, straight-forward cases unlikely to generate comment might be dealt with more expeditiously and at less cost by publishing these in abstract accompanied by the formal proposals; photocopies of the full applications would be sent to members of specialist committees and any zoologists requesting them. It was RESOLVED to remit this suggestion to the Council, to report to the Commission in 1991. General articles should continue to be published Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 y subject, as at present, to careful refereeing. It was important that the list of Commissioners given in each part of BZN should show their specialist field and ‘nationality. A poster publicising the Bulletin as the official periodical of the Commis- sion was displayed; copies would be sent to Commissioners for display at specialist meetings they were attending. 8. Specialist Nomenclature Committees The Mammalian Nomenclature Committee (convener: Dr S. B. George) had been very useful in providing comments on cases referred to it. The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) of the International Ornithological Congress was available to assist the Commission. The Committee (Chairman: Professor W. J. Bock) was at present formulating proposals for the stabilisation of avian family-group names. It was RESOLVED that the Secretariat would pursue the intention to establish nomenclature committees where none existed. 9. Use versus Priority in Zoological Nomenclature A general article (BZN 44: 79-85) proposing that the names adopted in authoritative works, selected on the recommendation of specialists, might be protected by the Com- mission from the application of the Principle of Priority was discussed. It was agreed that the proposal should be considered in the revision of the Code in the context of a re-examination of Articles 23(b) and 79(a) and (b). 10. Financial Position Since the last meeting of the Commission, financial support had been received from Denmark, Italy, Japan, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, U.K. and U.S.A. It was inevitable that income from sales of the Code and of the Official Lists and Indexes would drop, and on present trends the annual deficit by 1991 was likely to be between £10,000 and £20,000. There was an urgent need to widen the funding-base and to generate additional funds to enable the Commission’s activities to be maintained, let alone expanded. The Commission set up an ad-hoc Working Party (Commissioners Cogger (Chairman), Kraus, Lehtinen and Thompson) to consider the issue. The main conclusions of the Working Party were that the most likely sources of additional funds were learned societies and relevant industry (pesticide, agricultural, medical, etc.). An endowment fund with at least £500,000 to generate income from interest would be highly desirable, providing it did not entail unacceptable restrictions on the use of funds. Individual members of the Commission were best placed to initiate fund-raising in their own countries and those present agreed to do so. The Secretariat was asked to prepare a series of letters or brochures geared to individual sectors of industry, giving examples of the importance of the Commission’s work. The President reported that there was a possibility that IUBS might be willing to generate a contribution to an endowment fund from its member bodies. 11. Election of Commissioners (i) Procedure for Elections. Five vacancies in Commission membership had been announced, arising from the completion of tenure by Commissioners Alvarado, Bernardi, Dupuis and Holthuis and the death of Commissioner Zheng. Twenty- one nominations had been received including the four retiring members, who had 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 been ruled by the Council as eligible for re-election. In accordance with Article 4(d) of the Constitution, the Commission selected 10 of the nominees to present to the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. Five of the 10 nominees were recommended by the Commission for election to secure the best balance of nationality and zoological field in Commission membership, as laid down in Article 2 of the Con- stitution. In accordance with Article 3(b) of the Statutes of the Section of Zoologi- cal Nomenclature, it was RESOLVED to admit to the Section in Session at the XXIII General Assembly of IUBS all zoologists who had formally enrolled as partici- pants in the pre-General Assembly Biotaxonomy Workshop. In accordance with Article 3 of the Statutes of the Section they, together with members of the Commis- sion and zoologists at the General Assembly being members of national or other delegations, Sections or Commissions of the Union, constituted the membership of the Section eligible to vote in the election. (ii) Election by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. Voting by secret ballot was undertaken by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. The ballot was open throughout the afternoon of 17 October and the morning of 18 October. In accordance with Bylaw 3d, Dr Ride and Professor Corliss conducted the election. Forty-three members of the Section voted. The following five zoologists were elected to the Commission: Bock, Prof W. J. U.S.A. Ornithology Dupuls, Prof C. France Heteroptera Ho.tuuls, Prof L. B. Netherlands Crustacea MARTINS DE Souza, Prof U.R. Brazil Coleoptera NIELSEN, Dr C. Denmark Bryozoa, Mollusca, Coelenterata (iii) Casual Vacancies. The Commission had decided by a postal vote conducted prior to the General Assembly to increase its number to 29. The decision had been taken under Article 2(a) of the Constitution and Bylaw 7. In accordance with its powers under Bylaw 8, the Commission RESOLVED to fill the 3 vacancies so created as though they were casual vacancies. These vacancies, together with the vacancy created by the impending retirement of Mr Melville on reaching the age limit, would be announced in the December 1988 part of BZN and nominations would be invited. All nominations received by 28 February 1989, including those nominations that had been rejected in the election that had taken place at the XXIII General Assembly of IUBS, would be eligible for consideration. Voting would commence on | March 1989 under the 3-month procedure. 12. Section of Zoological Nomenclature Meetings of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature took place on three days between 14 and 18 October 1988, chaired by the President or, in his absence, Dr Cogger. The main tasks of the Section were to elect members to the Commission, to initiate consideration of amendments to the Code, and to consider resolutions for- warded by the IUBS pre-Assembly Biotaxonomy Workshop. [The Minutes of the meeting of the Section of Zoology are published in BZN 46: 14—-18.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 11 13. JUBS pre-Assembly Biotaxonomy Workshop A Workshop entitled ‘Whose Name? What Specimen?’, organised by the Australian Biological Resources Study, had been held in Canberra on 12-14 October 1988, attended by 85 botanists and zoologists, including most of the Commissioners present in Canberra. The objective of the Workshop was to provide a forum for learning and exchanging ideas about some major proposals to change the formal ways in which taxonomists are obliged, under the International Codes of Nomenclature, to deal with biological names. The Workshop passed five resolutions (see Appendix to this report) to be presented to the [UBS General Assembly. The Commission welcomed and supported the resol- utions, recognising that setting up a register of zoological names implied a work load that would have to be met over a large number of years. The President and Executive Secretary had attended a meeting at Kew, London, in April 1988 that had made recommendations about registers of names (see BZN 45: 183-185), although it was concerned primarily with botany. 14. New Edition of the Code The 3rd Edition of the Code had been published in February 1985 and already a large number of significant amendments had been received or had come to the attention of the Secretariat. Proposed amendments had been considered by a Scrutinising Com- mittee which met in London in April 1988. The views and advice of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature would be sought at the General Assembly. It was RESOLVED to work towards a new edition of the Code to be published in 1994 or as soon thereafter as possible. An Editorial Committee (Commissioners Thompson (Chairman), Cogger, Dupuis, Melville and ex officio the President) was set up to prepare the new edition. An announcement of the decision to prepare a new edition would be made in the Bulletin, and comments and amendments invited, to be submitted to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible. Proposals would be published and further comments sought. A first draft, taking account of proposals received by the end of 1989, would be prepared by the Editorial Committee for wide circulation, inviting comments. An opportunity for consideration would arise at meetings of the Commis- sion and of the Section planned in conjunction with ICSEB at its meeting in Maryland in July 1990. The Commission and the Section would then consider the new edition in draft form at the 1991 IUBS Assembly. The Commission would then vote on substan- tive changes. The new edition incorporating the changes authorised by that vote would be presented to TUBS in 1994 for ratification. Publication would follow as soon as possible thereafter. 15. Appointment of Officers and Councillors Dr Ride would complete six years as President on 13 July 1989. The office of Vice- President would become vacant at the close of the IUBS General Assembly, on the completion of Professor Alvarado’s tenure as a member of the Commission. Both offices would be filled by the procedure laid down in the Bylaws. It was RESOLVED that for this purpose Commissioners Melville and Thompson would join with the Council to propose two candidates for the office of President. Voting under the 1-month pro- cedure would start on | April 1989. The office of Vice-President would be filled by the same procedure either at the same time as, or subsequent to, the election of the 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 President. The Executive Secretary would conduct the administration of the election, writing in the first place to Council members and to Commissioners Melville and Thompson. Commissioners Heppell and Holthuis would complete 6 years as Councillors on 12 May 1990, and, under Bylaw. 10, these vacancies would be filled by an election beginning on | April 1990. It was noted that vacancies on the Council might arise as a consequence of the elections of a President and a Vice-President. The appointments of the Secretary-General and the Executive Secretary are the responsibility of the Council and end at the close of the IUBS General Assembly following appointment, both being open to renewal. In view of the President’s impend- ing retirement and the changes to the membership of the Council, it was RESOLVED to extend both appointments until after the election of the new President. 16. Appreciation The Commission RESOLVED to record its very warm appreciation of the services of its two retiring members (Professor Alvarado and Dr Bernardi) to the Commission and to zoological nomenclature, and to thank members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, particularly its Chairman and Secretary, for their support of the Commission’s work. The Commission wished to thank the Trustees and Director of the British Museum (Natural History) for providing the Secretariat with accom- modation and services. Appendix RESOLUTIONS FROM THE IUBS WORKSHOP “WHOSE NAME? WHAT SPECIMEN”? CANBERRA 12-14 OCTOBER 1988 1. The XXIII General Assembly of TUBS: Recalling the conclusions and decisions of previous General Assemblies on the importance of a stable system of names of organisms based on a taxonomic under- standing of their nature, both in fundamental research and applied fields; Noting with approval the reports and conclusions of the [UBS Workshop ‘Whose name? What specimen?’; Resolves that a research program on improvement of stability in Biological Nomenclature be included as a part of the Scientific Program of the Union; Urges international organisations and other appropriate institutions to provide adequate support to efforts to improve the stability of names of organisms; Requests the Commission on Botanical Nomenclature to appoint a Special Committee on Lists of Names in Current Use (cf. Nature 334: 301, 1988); Requests the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to study, in conjunction with appropriate agencies (such as the publisher of Zoological Record) the feasibility of indexing, on an international basis, scientific names in zoology. 2. The XXIII IUBS General Assembly: Appreciating that today an increasing number of biologists are recognising proto- zoa, algae, and the ‘lower’ fungi as comprising an assemblage of lower eukaryotic organisms called protists and that traditionally a considerable number of these Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 13 organisms have been unsatisfactorily subject to simultaneous nomenclatural treat- ment under both botanical (I.C.B.N.) and zoological (I.C.Z.N.) codes; Resolves that a multidisciplinary approach to such problems be continued; Seeks to further harmonise the two codes to allow more equitable infraordinal nomenclatural treatment of the affected groups of protists. . The XXIII IUBS General Assembly: Recognising the importance of taxonomy as a fundamental framework for all bio- logical research; Recognising that taxonomy also provides an essential framework for communi- cation in agriculture, commerce, medicine, and other activity relating to biological products; Resolves to work to convince governments around the world of the urgent need for increased resources to be made available for taxonomic education and taxonomic research in the light of rapidly increasing rates of extinction and the need for that research for the management and conservation of natural resources. . The XXIII TUBS General Assembly: Resolves that its Commission for Biological Education, in consultation with the Section on Plant Taxonomy and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Develop an education programme to: (a) explain the significance of taxonomy, especially in applied fields, and (b) define for users of biological names, the reasons behind taxonomic name changes and how they arise from progress in taxonomy itself. . The XXIII TUBS General Assembly: Encourages the development of lists of scientific names of taxonomic groups of plants and animals on a world and regional basis with such lists including all legitimate names validly and effectively published under the appropriate Code of nomenclature and including data on place and date of publication and typification and that such lists should be published appropriately and wherever possible be integrated with comprehensive accessible databases especially where those data- bases deal with natural (taxonomic) groups. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 International Union of Biological Sciences Section of Zoological Nomenclature Report of Meeting, Canberra, 14-18 October 1988 Present: Dr W. D. L. Ride (Chairman). Dr H. G. Cogger, Miss R. A. Cooper, Pro- fessor J. O. Corliss, Professor C. Dupuis, Dr W. M. Eschmeyer, Mr K. D. Fairey, Mrs A. Gentry, Miss A. J. A. Green, Dr R. B. Halliday, Professor L. B. Holthuis, Dr W. M. K. Houston, Dr K. H. L. Key, Dr M. E. King, Professor O. Kraus, Dr P. T. Lehtinen, Mr R. C. Longmore, Dr M. Meinander, Mr R. V. Melville, Dr E. S. Nielsen, Mr S. Rad, Dr D. C. F. Rentz, Dr B. J. Richardson, Mr J. D. D. Smith, Dr D. L. Strusz, Dr F. C. Thompson, Dr P. K. Tubbs, Dr G. F. Van Tets, Dr D. W. Walton. By invitation: Mr R. J. F. Henderson (Queensland Herbarium). 1. Meetings took place on three days. Not all persons listed were present on all occasions. Dr Cogger took the Chair when Dr Ride was unable to be present. 2. The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming all present. He explained that the Section of Zoological Nomenclature was convened by IUBS and consisted of members of the Commission, any zoologists being members of national or other delegations of IUBS and any other zoologists admitted by the Commission. Any botanists present were by invitation. He explained that the main tasks of the Section were to elect members to the Commission, to initiate consideration of amendments to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and to consider resolutions forwarded by the pre-Assembly Biotaxonomy Workshop. 3. Election of Members to the Commission All members of the Section had a vote in the ballot for new members of the Commis- sion. Five vacancies had been announced, arising from the completion of tenure by Professor Alvarado, Dr Bernardi, Professors Dupuis and Holthuis and the death of Professor Zheng. Twenty-one zoologists had been nominated, including the four retir- ing members, who the Council of the Commission had ruled eligible for re-election. In accordance with Article 4(d) of its Constitution, the Commission had selected 10 of the nominees to present to the Section as candidates. Five of the 10 nominees were rec- ommended by the Commission for election to secure the best balance of nationality and zoological field in Commission membership. The ballot was open throughout the afternoon of 17 October and the morning of 18 October. Forty-three members of the Section voted. Dr Ride and Professor Corliss conducted the election. The following five zoologists were elected to the Commission: Bock, Prof W. J. U.S.A. Ornithology Dupuls, Prof C. France Heteroptera Ho trtuuts, Prof L. B. Netherlands Crustacea MARTINS DE SOUZA, Prof U. R. Brazil Coleoptera NIELSEN, Dr C. Denmark Bryozoa, Mollusca, Coelenterata Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 15 4. Consideration of Amendments to the Code The Chairman explained that proposals to amend the Code could be submitted to the Commission’s Executive Secretary. Proposals would be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (BZN) for discussion by zoologists and would be considered by a committee of the Commission. It was intended to work towards a new edition of the Code which in draft form could be considered by the Commission and the Section in 1991. An opportunity for preliminary consideration would arise at meetings of the Section and the Commission planned in conjunction with ICSEB at its meeting in Maryland in July 1990. The new edition could be ratified by IUBS in 1994 and pub- lished as soon after that as possible. The views and advice of the Section on the general principles involved would provide a valuable input to the Commission. The Section considered a document prepared by the Executive Secretary of the Commission. This incorporated suggestions and proposals for amendments made by a large number of zoologists and by members of the Commission since publication of the 3rd Edition in February 1985, and other points that had come to the attention of the Secretariat. Proposals had been examined by the Commission’s Scrutinising Com- mittee which had met in London in April 1988. This report records the Section’s response to proposals that were discussed, together with additional amendments proposed from the floor. Article 1(a). Zoological Nomenclature. Definition and Scope. Names of animal taxa. A proposal that the fundamental aims of zoological nomenclature should be incorpor- ated in Article l(a) was not favoured since such a definition would be out of place in the Articles and should remain in the Preamble. Article 8. What constitutes publication. It was important to make clear and uniform the status of suppressed works. They could be cited for reference purposes, but names - could not be available in them, nor would they be sources of formal nomenclatural acts, i.e. they would have the same status as works published before 1758. Article 11(f)iii. Criteria of availability. Family-group names. A family-group name published before 1900, but not itself fully latinised, can be available with its original author and date, provided that it has been latinised by later authors and generally accepted as valid by authors interested in the group concerned. It had been proposed that the requirement that acceptance as valid must be by authors ‘interested in the group’ was unnecessarily restrictive and might be dispensed with. No conclusion was reached; some members thought that this requirement should be retained. Articles 12 and 13. Criteria of availability. Names published (a) before 1931, and (b) after 1930. It was agreed that there was a case for simplifying and merging these two Articles into a single Article. The words ‘purported to differentiate the taxon’ could be replaced by ‘purported to make the taxon identifiable’. There was support for the suggestion that, from a future date, a new species-group name would not be available unless a type specimen or specimens had been labelled and deposited in a publicly accessible collection. There would be circumstances when this requirement could not be met, e.g. for specimens that could not be retained for physical or legal reasons. Article 23(b). Principle of Priority. Purpose. This Article is open to criticism since it places on a worker wishing to preserve current general usage of a junior name the onus to apply to the Commission for its conservation. It would be preferable to place on the worker wishing to introduce a forgotten senior synonym to replace a junior synonym in 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 general current use the onus to justify that action. The following amendment was proposed by Dr Key: ‘After 19—, (1) A name that has remained unused in the primary zoological literature for more than 50 years is not to displace a junior synonym in general use unless the Commis- sion so rules; (2) Anauthor who considers that a name unused, or rarely used, within a period of less than 50 years would disturb stability or universality, or cause confusion, if it replaced a junior synonym in general current use, should apply to the Commission requesting a ruling to give precedence to the name in current use’. In discussion, members agreed that the proposed amendment had many attractions but agreement was not reached. It was noted that Articles 23(b), 79, 80 and the Preamble needed to be considered together. Article 24(b). Principle of the First Reviser. It was noted that, in the case of authors citing names established by themselves, the present requirement that the competing names in question must be cited together was unnecessarily restrictive. It was agreed that the wording of this Article should be amplified so that an author who subsequently used only one of two or more synonyms previously published simultaneously by him- self should be held to have acted as the first reviser unless another author had already become the first reviser. Article 29(b) (i). Family-group names. Determination of stem in names of type genera. It had been proposed that, in the construction of family-group names when the genitive singular of the generic name had the form -idis, the stem should be elided so that family- group names had the form -IDAE rather than -IDIDAE. Members had no strong views on this proposal but recognised that some groups of workers, such as ichthyologists, would favour it. Article 31(a). Species-group names formed from personal names. Use of the termina- tions -i and -ii needed clarification. Opinion was divided between the advantages of following the original spelling or of changing -ii to -i, except in certain cases. There was little support for permitting the user to have discretion as to which termination should be used. Article 31(b). Adjectival species-group names. Agreement in gender. There was strong support for a proposal that the spelling of an adjectival specific name should remain as in the original binomen, even when combined with a generic name of a different gender from that in the original combination. Classical knowledge was becoming uncommon and, more significantly, data retrieval techniques required uniform usage. Article 33(a). Formation and treatment of names. Kinds of subsequent spellings. There was strong support for the proposal that the Code should make it absolutely clear that, in all cases of doubt, a different subsequent spelling should be treated as incorrect and not as an unjustified emendation. Article 39. Family-group taxa and names. Homonymy of the type genus. It was thought desirable to maintain the concept of the family-group taxon, so that, when the name of a type genus is found to be a junior homonym, the family-group name should be replaced by the name based on the replacement name of the type genus. Article 40. Family-group taxa. Synonymy of the name of a type genus. The meeting favoured a simplification of this Article, with merging of Sections (a) and (b). It was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 17 most important to maintain continuity of the family-group name in current general usage, even if based on a type genus name itself rejected as a junior synonym. Article 51. Citation of name of author. Use of parentheses in changed combination. It was agreed that the use of parentheses to enclose the name of the author of a species- group name in a changed combination should be abandoned since, while of some value in taxonomic works, it was of little value for other uses. Furthermore, misleading information was given when, as frequently happened, parentheses were wrongly omitted. Article 55. Homonymy, Family-group names. It had been proposed that homonymy in family-group names caused by the similarity of the names of their type genera could be permitted when confusion was unlikely to be caused. However, the view of the meeting was that increased use of data bases made it important to avoid homonymy in family-group names, even when occurring in widely different animal groups. Article 70(b). Types in the genus-group. Misidentified type species. Action to be taken on a misidentified type species required careful consideration since it was important to maintain the meaning of the genus at the time the misidentification was discovered. It was desirable to provide procedures which did not require action by the Commission in every case; a number of possible solutions could be recognised and should be carefully considered. ' Article 75. Types in the species-group. Neotypes. A proposal had been submitted that when, even if types existed, it was not possible to solve a complex zoological problem, the Commission could set aside the status of the existing type material and that a provisionally designated neotype could be treated as the type while the case was under consideration. This proposal was supported. Article 78(c). Effective date of Opinions. It was agreed that the words ‘.. . and are to be reported to the next succeeding Congress’ could be omitted. Article 78(d). Status of Opinions and Directions. It was proposed that simple correc- tions or completions of an Opinion on matters which did not alter the substance of a ruling could be published without the need for a vote by the Commission. The term ‘Direction’ for such corrections and completions could be discontinued. The title ‘Supplementary Opinion’ might be appropriate in cases which required formal action by the Commission. Article 79. Plenary power. The meeting debated the merits (BZN 45: 45-46) of conserving the names of taxa while not suppressing specified senior names. It was pointed out that it would be wrong to prejudge the status of senior synonyms or homonyms that might exist, although unknown at that time. Article 80(b). Status of case under consideration. Date when consideration is deemed to begin. It had been suggested that a case be deemed to be under consideration from the date of its receipt by the Executive Secretary, rather than from the date of publication in the BZN of its receipt. This change was not favoured since it was not until the BZN was published that the existence of the case could be generally known. Article 80(c). Status of case under consideration. Existing usage. It had been suggested that the definition of ‘existing usage’ to be followed while a case was under consideration should be widened to enable an author to use any name he considered best served the purpose of zoological nomenclature. This suggestion was not favoured since it introduced an undesirable element of subjectivity. It was recognised, however, 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 that the present words ‘the most common current usage’ were not appropriate in a minority of cases. Article 87(b). Interpretation of the Code. Status of Recommendations, Examples, Titles, Footnotes, and Appendices. A blanket proposal to include Recommendations, Examples, Titles, Footnotes and Appendices as part of the ‘legislative’ text of the Code was not supported since this would be tantamount to converting them to Require- ments. It was, however, possible that some sections should be made mandatory, but these should be considered on an ad-hoc basis. The term ‘nomenclaturally valid’. A proposal to apply the term ‘nomenclaturally valid’ to denote a name whose nomenclatural credentials were beyond reproach had been published (BZN 43: 308-309 and 44: 131). The meeting favoured the use of this term. 5. IUBS pre-Assembly Biotaxonomy Workshop A Workshop ‘Whose Name? What Specimen?’ had been held at Canberra, 12-14 October 1988, attended by 85 botanists and zoologists including the majority of mem- bers of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature. The objective of the Workshop was to provide a forum for learning and exchanging ideas about some major proposals to change the formal ways in which taxonomists are obliged, under the International Codes of Nomenclature, to deal with biological names. The Workshop passed five resolutions [published as an Appendix to the report of the General Session of the Commission in BZN 46: 12-13] to be presented to the IUBS General Assembly. These resolutions were considered by the Section. As a result of formal voting on each resolution the meeting directed that the Chairman convey to the Assembly its endorsement of, and support for, the resolutions and urge their adoption by the General Assembly. Se ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 19 Case 2668 Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation Earle E. Spamer & Arthur E. Bogan Departmentof Malacology, Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is, by the suppression of the unused generic name Drepanites Benett, 1831, to conserve its junior homonym Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and also its junior subjective synonym Hyphoplites Spath, 1922, each being the name of a Mesozoic ammonite genus. 1. The generic name Drepanites was first published in two works by Miss Etheldred Benett, both dated 1831. The first is A catalogue of Wiltshire fossils in Hoare (1822— 1844), A history of modern Wiltshire. In this publication ‘Drepanites, striatus, n.g.’ is listed (p. 121) under Testacea, without description, definition, illustration or indic- ation. The generic and specific names are, therefore, nomina nuda. 2. Later in 1831, Miss Benett’s work was reset and published with 18 plates in A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. ‘Drepanites, striatus, n.g.’ is listed (p. 3) with its locality (Chute Farm) and is illustrated in pl. 16, upper-left figure. The name is thus made available under Article 12(b) (7) of the Code, provided that the work is to be regarded as published under the Code. 3. On p. [i] of her reprinted work, Miss Benett stated: ‘When this catalogue was first thought of, my geological friends expressed a wish that it should be published separ- ately; but considering it a thing of mere local interest, I have preferred printing a few copies for the acceptance of my friends’. This does not, however, prove that the work could not have been obtained from the printer or the author by purchase or free distribution. The work is quite scarce; we have found only four copies in the U.S.A. One of the two copies at the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia was acquired by Thomas Wilson, who took the collection to Philadelphia. 4. Wright & Wright (1949, p. 481, footnote) reported that Dr L. F. Spath had pointed out to them that the plates were issued only with a reprint of the earlier catalogue and reserved for private circulation, and they concluded that the reprint was technically not ~ a publication. However, the work is frequently referred to in British nineteenth century literature and many of the names in it are treated as available in standard works. In view of this and the uncertainty about the limited circulation it would be inappropriate to propose the suppression of the work asa whole. Taxa erected by Benett (1831b) have been used in the literature on the Porifera, Gastropoda and Bivalvia. 5. Drepanites Benett, 1831 appears in the literature in indexes and abstracts. It has never, so far as we are aware, been used as a valid name since its first publication. Férussac (1835, pp. 55-56) abstracted Benett’s work, noting that she had erected Drepanites striatus; he thought that the figured specimen looked like an oyster. In 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Sherborn’s Jndex Animalium and Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus the name is given as denoting a bivalve. 6. In 1893, Mojsisovics (p. 495) erected Drepanites as a subgenus of the fossil cephalopod genus Arpadites Mojsisovics, 1879, and included six named species, including D. hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893 (p. 495) which was subsequently designated type species by Diener (1915, p. 129). The generic name Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 is a well-established name in use today (a representative list of papers is held by the Secretariat). 7. Wright & Wright (1949, p. 481 footnote) wrote that it was clear from inspection of Benett’s figure of Drepanites striatus ‘that the fossil is, in fact, the cast of a body- chamber fragment of Hyphoplites pseudofalcatus Semenow, 1899’. We agree that Drepanites Benett, 1831 is a senior subjective synonym of Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (p. 110), a name which is in current use (a representative list of papers is held by the Secretariat). 8. The unused name Drepanites Benett, 1831 poses a threat to the names of its junior homonym Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and its junior subjective synonym Hyphoplites Spath, 1922. Similarly, the unused name Drepanites striatus Benett, 1831 poses a threat to its junior subjective synonym Hyphoplites pseudofalcatus Semenow, 1899. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to rule that A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. by Benett (1831) is an available work; (2) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the name Drepanites Benett, 1831 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to suppress the name striatus Benett, 1831 as published in the binomen Drepanites striatus for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Diener (1915) Arpadites (Drepanites) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893; (b) Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Ammonites falcatus Mantell, 1822; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893 as published in the binomen Arpadites (Drepanites) hyatti (specific name of the type species of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893); (b) falcatus, Mantell, 1822 as published in the binomen Ammonites falcatus (specific name of the type species of Hyphoplites Spath, 1922); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Drepanites Benett, 1831, as suppressed in (2) (a) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name striatus Benett, 1831, as published in the binomen Drepanites striatus, as suppressed in (2) (b) above; (7) to place on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. by E. Benett (1831). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 References Benett, E. 183la. A catalogue of Wiltshire fossils. Pp. 117-126 in Hoare, R. C., 1822-1844, A history of modern Wiltshire. Vol. 3, pt. 2. Nichols & Son, London. Benett, E. 1831b. A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. iv, 9 pp. Vardy, Warminster. Diener, C. 1915. Cephalopoda triadica. Jn Frech, F. (Ed.) Fossilium catalogus. 1. Animalia. (8). 369 pp. Junk, Berlin. F. [Férussac, A. E. J. P. J. F. d’A. de]. 1835. A catalogue of the organic remains, etc. Catalogue des fossiles du Comté de Wilts. par Etheldred Benett [abstract]. Bulletin Zoologique. 1835(2): 55—S6. Mojsisovics, E. 1893. Die cephalopoden der Hallstatter kalke. Il Band. Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-K6niglichen Geologischen Reichsanstalt, 6(2): 1-835. Spath, L. F. 1922. On Cretaceous Ammonoidea from Angola, collected by Professor J. W. Gregory. Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 53(6): 91—160. Wright, C. W. & Wright, E. V. 1949. The Cretaceous ammonite genera Discohoplites Spath and Hyphoplites Spath. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 104: 477-496. 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Case 2452 Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific names Susan Chambers and David Heppell Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K. Abstract. Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) (POLYNOIDAE) and Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) (SIGALIONIDAE) are two commonly recorded scale worms of the North Atlantic. The specific name imbricata is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Aphrodita lepidota Pallas, 1766, and minuta is preoccupied by the senior primary homonym Aphrodita minuta Pennant, 1777. 1. Pallas described Aphrodita lepidota from the North Sea in 1766 (p. 94). Malmgren (1865, pp. 59 and 67) regarded the species as being based on an immature specimen of Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767), and McIntosh (1900, p. 326) was of the same view. Hornell (1891, p. 231) described from Liverpool Bay a variety of H. imbricata in which ‘the inner black margins of the elytra to the eye appear to coalesce and thus give the animals the appearance of having a black back extending medianly from head to tail, being edged with a pale uncoloured margin on each side’. This fits the description given by Pallas perfectly and there seems little doubt that he was describing the same species. Although the synonymy of A. /epidota with H. imbricata has been accepted by all authors this century, none has used /epidota as the valid name despite its seniority by one year. Its acceptance now would needlessly disrupt the present nomenclatural stability and its suppression is therefore requested. 2. In 1767 (p. 1084) Linnaeus described Aphrodita imbricata based on material (whether a specimen or a drawing is uncertain) sent from Iceland by J. G. K6nig. The species was later described as A. violacea by Strom (1768, p. 366). Miller (1771, pp. 180—184) published a lengthy description of the species based on an illustration sent by Konig and three specimens in alcohol received from Herr Zoega. He used the vernacular name ‘die flache Aphrodite’ but subsequently (1776, p. 218) named the species Aphrodita cirrata, placing A. imbricata in synonymy. Gmelin later (1791, p. 3108) called Miiller’s ‘flache Aphrodite’ A. plana. 3. Miiller’s name cirrata was used for nearly 100 years, usually in combination with the generic names Polynoe Lamarck, 1818 or Lepidonotus Leach, 1816, until Malmgren (1865, p. 66) recognised its synonymy with imbricata Linnaeus, 1767. He reinstated the earlier name (of Linnaeus, 1767 rather than /epidota of Pallas, 1766) which soon passed into general usage. Recent important works in which imbricata (in combination with Harmothoe Kinberg, 1855) is used include Pettibone (1963), Hartmann-Schréder (1971), and Tebble & Chambers (1982). A list of seven other references by seven different authors is held by the Commission Secretariat. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 23 4. Pennant (1777, p. 38) recorded Aphrodita lepidota from Anglesey, citing the refer- ence to Pallas (1766) but renaming it A. minuta. Johnston (1865, p. 118) included A. minuta Pennant among those which ‘have been indicated as British species, but from the imperfect notices given, they can neither be defined, nor identified with foreign species that bear the same names’. A. minuta Pennant has not been used since its original description as the name for any species; in 1959 Hartman (p. 52) referred it (as A. lepidota minuta) to the synonymy of A. imbricata. It is a senior primary homonym of A. minuta Fabricius (see paragraph 5 below) and its acceptance now would upset nomenclatural stability, and its suppression is therefore requested. 5. In1780(pp. 313 and 314) Otto Fabricius gave detailed descriptions of two sigalion- ids from the Arctic: Aphrodita longa Miller, 1776 and A. minuta Fabricius, 1780. Miiller’s brief description (1776, p. 218) would probably be unrecognisable at the species level but he indicated that his material came from Fabricius, and the species has always been interpreted from Fabricius’ Fauna Groenlandica (1780). Malmgren (1865, p. 91) believed A. minuta Fabricius to be based on small specimens of A. /onga but chose to use the junior name minuta for both. (In fact, his figure of ‘minuta’ (pl. 11, fig. 13) isa specimen of Jonga). All recent authors have accepted A. minuta Fabricius as the common North Atlantic species of Pholoe Johnston, 1839 (p. 428; type species P. inornata Johnston, 1839, p. 437) from British waters. Most authors this century have regarded minuta Fabricius as the valid name of inornata, although McIntosh (1900, p. 437) did mention some differences. 6. The taxonomy of Pholoe is currently under revision; P. /onga is now known to bea separate species (S. Chambers, in preparation) and P. minuta auctt. has proved to bea complex of several species (Chambers, 1985; Chambers & Muir, in press). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names: (a) lepidota Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Aphrodita lepidota, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) minuta Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Aphrodita minuta, and all other uses of this name before the publication of minuta Fabricius, 1780, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) toplace on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) imbricata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Aphrodita imbricata; (b) minuta Fabricius, 1780, as published in the binomen Aphrodita minuta; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) lepidota Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Aphrodita lepidota, and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) minuta Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Aphrodita minuta and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Chambers, S. 1985. Polychaetes from Scottish Waters. Part 2. Families Aphroditidae, Sigalion- idae and Polyodontidae. 38 pp. Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Chambers, S. J. & Muir, A. I. (in press). Polychaetes: British Palmyroidea, Pisionoidea and Aphroditoidea: Keys and notes for the identification of the species. Synopses of the British Fauna. Fabricius, O. 1780. Fauna Groenlandica. xvi, 452 pp. Hafniae et Lipsiae. Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, Vol. 1 (6, Vermes), pp. 3021-3910. Lipsiae. Hartman, O. 1959. Catalogue of the Polychaetous Annelids of the World. Part 1. Occasional Papers of the Allan Hancock Foundation, No. 23, vi, 353 pp. Hartmann-Schréder, G. 1971. Annelida, Borstenwiirmer, Polychaeta. Tierwelt Deutschlands, 58: 1-594. Hornell, J. 1891. Report on the Polychaetous Annelids of the L.M.B.C. District. Proceedings and Transactions of the Liverpool Biological Society, 5: 223-268. Johnston, G. 1839. Miscellanea Zoologica. 6, The British Aphroditaceae. Annals of Natural History, 2(12): 424-441. Johnston, G. 1865. A Catalogue of the British non-parasitical Worms in the Collection of the British Museum. 365 pp. British Museum, London. Kinberg, J. G. H. 1855. Nya Slagten och Arter af Annelider. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps- Akademiens Férhandlingar, 12(9 and 10): 381-388. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2), pp. 533-1327. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Malmgren, A. J. 1865. Nordiska Hafs-Annulater. Part 1. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps- Akademiens Forhandlingar, 22(1): 51-111. McIntosh, W. C. 1900. A Monograph of the British Annelids. Vol. 1(2). Polychaeta, Amphinomidae to Sigalionidae, pp. 215-444. Ray Society, London. Miiller, O. F. 1771. Von Wiirmern des siissen und salzigen Wassers. 200 pp. Heinect und Faber, Kopenhagen. Miller, O. F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus. xxxii, 282 pp. Havyniae. Pallas, P. S. 1766. Miscellanea Zoologica. xii, 224 pp. Hagae Comitum. Pennant, T. 1777. British Zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, 136 pp. Quarto edition. Benjamin White, London. Pettibone, M. H. 1963. Marine polychaete worms of the New England region. 1. Aphroditidae through Trochochaetidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 227 (1): 1-356. Strém, H. 1768. Beskrivelse over Norske Insecter. Andet Stykke. Skrifter. Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskabs, 4: 313-371. Tebble, N. & Chambers, S. 1982. Polychaetes from Scottish Waters. Part 1. Family Polynoidae. 73 pp. Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 25 Case 2603 GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed precedence over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838 BL. Key Division of Entomology, C.SI.R.O., G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (first used at the superfamily level by Zeuner, 1935) by giving family-group names based on Gryllacris Audinet-Serville, 1831 precedence over family-group names based on Stenope/matus Burmeister, 1838. 1. Burmeister (1838, p. 720) published the name STENOPELMATIDAE, type genus Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 (p. 720), and 36 years later Stal (1874, p. 4) published GRYLLACRIDIDAE with type genus Gryllacris Audinet-Serville, 1831 (p. 138). For some reason the priority of STENOPELMATIDAE was completely overlooked until Kevan (1982), all authors proceeding on the tacit assumption that priority rested with GRYLL- ACRIDIDAE. However, this misapprehension gives rise to nomenclatural consequences only when Stenopelmatus and Gryllacris are included in the same family-group taxon. This has happened in two ways. 2. A number of authors downgraded STENOPELMATIDAE and GRYLLACRIDIDAE to subfamily rank within a single family, for which they invariably used the name GRYLL- ACRIDIDAE. Examples are: Hubbell (1936, pp. 24-25); Karny (1937, pp. 35-36; the principal world authority on the group); Zeuner (1939, pp. 59-64; a leading insect palaeontologist); Borror & White (1970, p. 82); and Daly, Doyen & Ehrlich (1978, p. 82). 3. On the other hand, Zeuner (1935, p. 108) retained family rank for the two taxa and included them in a superfamily GRYLLACRIDOIDEA (the correct form of his “Gryllacri- dioidea’). This name, or its equivalent (e.g. ‘“Gryllacridides’ Beier, 1955 (pp. 240—242)), has been used in at least the following major compendia (for details see references). 1949. Traité de Zoologie (Ed. Grassé) — the major work in the French language, p. 651. 1951. Faune de France, p. 170. 1953. Traité de Paléontologie (Ed. Piveteau), p. 469. 1955. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs — one of the major works in the German language, p. 240. 1955. South African Animal life (Eds. Hanstré6m, Brinck & Rudebeck), p. 285. 1970. The Insects of Australia (C.S.1.R.O.), p. 331. 1977. Imms’ General Textbook of Entomology (Ed. 10)— perhaps the best-known textbook of entomology in English, p. 544. 1978. Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa (Ed. Werger), p. 744. The authors of the relevant contributions in the above works include the leading authorities L. Chopard, M. Beier, D. Laurentiaux and O. W. Richards. In addition, 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 GRYLLACRIDOIDEA has been used in various smaller works on the Orthoptera, including those of Kevan (1977, pp. 22 & (19)) and of Rentz (1980, p. 49; 1986, p. 232). 4. Kevan(1982, p. 354) introduced the superfamily name STENOPELMATOIDEA, stating merely ‘(= Gryllacridoidea)’. Vickery & Kevan (1983, pp. 311, 313) sought to justify this substitution by pointing out the priority of the name STENOPELMATIDAE (1838) over GRYLLACRIDIDAE (1874)— these names being ‘coordinate’ with the corresponding superfamily names. While they cited the International Code as their authority, they ignored those provisions of the Code that explicitly limit the operation of the Principle of Priority, i.e. the Preamble, Article 23b, and Article 79. The circumstances of this case bring it very clearly within the scope of those provisions. 5. To accept STENOPELMATOIDEA (or any other superfamily name) as a substitute for GRYLLACRIDOIDEA would be to overturn the extensive usage of 50 years of work on the systematics, palaeontology, and biology of the Orthoptera—Ensifera; in the interest ofa name wholly unused prior to 1982. The situation is particularly serious because of the high categorical rank of the names concerned. This sort of name-changing does nothing for science, confuses the users of the names and conflicts with relevant prov- isions of the Code: it is quite clear that (in the terms of Article 23b) ‘the application of the Principle of Priority [in this case] would disturb stability or universality or cause confusion’. Although presumably Kevan did not ‘consider’ this to be the case, it is open to a later author to come to that conclusion. Accordingly, I now request the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve the name GRYLLACRID- OIDEA. In doing so, I note that ‘use of a name contrary to the purpose of the Principle of Priority [i.e. of STENOPELMATOIDEA since 1982]... will not be accepted as usage unless the Commission is satisfied that special circumstances justify such acceptance’ (Art. 79c (2)(i); and that ‘when a case is under consideration by the Commission, existing usage is to be maintained . ..’ (Art. 80a), ‘existing usage’ being defined as ‘the most common current usage’ (Art. 80c). 6. It remains to consider what isthe most appropriate means for conserving GRYLL- ACRIDOIDEA. As mentioned above, some authors have included subfamilies STENO- PELMATINAE and GRYLLACRIDINAE in a family GRYLLACRIDIDAE. For these reasons the ruling should not be restricted to the superfamily level; it is of course not possible to suppress any of the family-group names while retaining Gryllacris and Stenopelmatus (which are both already on the Official List of Generic Names). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name GRYLLACRIDIDAE Stal, 1874 and other family-group names based on Gryllacris Audinet-Serville, 1831 are to be given precedence over STENOPELMATIDAE Burmeister, 1838 and other family-group names based on Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838, whenever those genera are placed together in any taxon of the family group; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology; (a) GRYLLACRIDIDAE Stal, 1874 (type genus Gryllacris Audinet-Serville, 1831), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Gryll- acris are to be given precedence over STENOPELMATIDAE Burmeister, 1838 (type genus Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838) and other family-group names based on Stenopelmatus whenever those genera are placed together in any taxon of the family group; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 27 (b) STENOPELMATIDAE Burmeister, 1838 (type genus Stenope/matus Burmeister, 1838), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Stenopelmatus are not to be given priority over GRYLLACRIDIDAE Stal, 1874 (type genus Gryllacris Audinet-Serville, 1831), and other family-group names based on Gryllacris whenever those genera are placed together in any taxon of the family group. References Audinet-Serville, J. G. 1831. Revue méthodique des Insectes de l’ordre des Orthoptéres. Annales des Sciences Naturelles ( Zoologie ), 22: 28-65, 134-167, 262-292. Beier, M. 1955. Buch 6, Embioidea und Orthopteroidea. Bronns Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 5, part 3. 585 pp. Leipzig. Borror, D. J. & White, R. E. 1970. A Field Guide to the Insects of America North of Mexico. 404 pp. Boston. Burmeister, H. 1838. Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 2, part 2. pp. 397-1050. Berlin. Chopard, L. 1949. Ordre des Orthopteres. Jn Grasse, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie, vol. 9. 1117 pp. Paris. Chopard, L. 1951. Orthopteroides. Faune de France, vol. 56. 359 pp. Paris. Chopard, L. 1955. Orthoptera Ensifera. Pp. 266-300 in Hanstr6m, B., Brinck, P. & Rudebeck, G. (Eds.), South African Animal Life, vol. 2. 576 pp. Stockholm. Daly, H. V., Doyen, J. T. & Ehrlich, P. R. 1978. Introduction to Insect Biology and Diversity. 564 pp. New York. Hubbell, T. H. 1936. A monographic revision of the genus Ceuthophilus (Orthoptera, Gryllacrid- idae, Rhaphidophorinae). Publications of University of Florida ( Biological Science Series ), vol. 2,no. 1. 551 pp. Karny, H. H. 1937. Orthoptera Fam. Gryllacrididae Subfamiliae Omnes. Genera Insectorum, vol. 206. 317 pp. Brussels. Kevan, D. K. McE. 1977. The higher classification of the orthopteroid insects: a general view, pp. 1-31; and Appendix (26 pp.): Suprafamilial classification of ‘orthopteroid’ and related insects; a draft scheme for discussion and consideration. Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Memoir no. 4. 52 pp.+ Appendix. Keyan, D. K. McE. 1982. Orthoptera. Pp. 352-379 in Parker, S. P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classifi- cation of Living Organisms, vol. 2. 1232 pp. New York. Key, K. H. L. 1970. Orthoptera (Grasshoppers, locusts, crickets). Pp. 323-347 in The Insects of Australia. A Textbook for Students and Research Workers. 1029 pp. C.S.1.R.O., Melbourne. Laurentiaux, D. 1953. Classe des insectes (Insecta Linné 1758). Pp. 397-527 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 3. 1063 pp. Paris. Rentz, D. C. F. 1978. Orthoptera. Pp. 733-746 in Werger, M. J. A. (Ed.), Biogeography and Ecology of Southern Africa, vol. 2 (pp. 663-1439). The Hague. Rentz, D. C. F. 1980. A new family of ensiferous Orthoptera from the coastal sands of southeast Queensland. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 20: 49-63. Rentz, D. C. F. 1986. The Orthoptera family Cooloolidae, including description of two new species and observations on biology and food preferences. Systematic Entomology, 11: 231-246. Richards, O. W. & Davies, R. G. 1977. Imms’ General Textbook of Entomology, Ed. 10, vol. 2. 1354 pp. London. Stal, C. 1874. Recensio Orthopterorum. Revue Critique des Orthopteéres décrit par Linné, De Geer et Thunberg, vol. 2 [8 pp.]+21 pp. Stockholm. Vickery, V. R. & Kevan, D. K. McE. 1983. A Monograph of the Orthopteroid Insects of Canada and Adjacent Regions. Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Memoir no. 13, vol. 1. 679 pp. Zeuner, F. E. 1935. The recent and fossil Prophalangopsidae (Saltatoria). Stylops, 4: 102-108. Zeuner, F. E. 1939. Fossil Orthoptera Ensifera. 321 pp. London. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Case 2646 Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by confirmation of Marshall’s (1916) designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 as the type species R. T. Thompson Department of Entomology, British Museum ( Natural History), London SW7 SD) Cok, Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 for a weevil genus, by setting aside an overlooked and inadvertent type desig- nation of a misidentified species. In addition the Commission is asked to confirm Marshall’s (1916) designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 as type species. This is in accordance with current usage. 1. Ptochus Schénherr is a genus of some sixty species which occur mainly in the Palaearctic and western Oriental Regions. It is included in each of Schonherr’s three major works on the CURCULIONIDAE. The first of these is his catalogue of 1823. Here (column 1144) the name appears without a description and the two included species, Ptochus porcellus (Sch6nherr in litt.) (type) and Omias grandicornis Dejean, (1821, p. 96) are both nomina nuda. In his larger work of 1826, the same type designation is proposed on p. 15 and repeated, after a generic description, on p. 188. This would have validated both Prtochus and porcellus (as type) under Article 12b (6) of the Code (combined description) but Schénherr then adds: ‘Ejusdem generis est: Curc. inustus Steven seu Omias grandicornis Dej.’. Steven’s name is available, having been validly published by Germar (1824, p. 453) in the genus Po/ydrusus, where it stands today. Thus, contrary to Schénherr’s intention, under Article 68d of the Code, the type species of Ptochus is Polydrusus inustus Germar by monotypy. 2. In Schonherr’s third and major work (1834, pp. 481 et seq.) Ptochus porcellus (p. 483, described by Boheman) and ten other species are described but no type designation is made. Omias grandicornis Dejean appears in the synonymy of Ptochus bisignatus Boheman in Schénherr but Polydrusus inustus Germar is listed under Polydrusus (as Polydrosus) (p. 153), with a footnote: ‘Mihi invisus’. The synonymy, first published by Dejean (1821, p. 96), of inustus (‘Russia mer.’) and grandicornis (“‘Dalmat.’) was clearly based on a misidentification of the former species. 3. The only other type species designation for Ptochus is that of Marshall (1916, p. 259) who cites P. porcellus Boheman, in accordance with Schénherr’s intention and in conformity with all subsequent usage. 4. From the above, it is clear that there is an overwhelming case for nullifying Schénherr’s inadvertent type species designation of 1826. Otherwise Ptochus will sink as asynonym of Polydrusus; both it, and the family-group name based upon it (Reitter, 1913, p. 12), will have to be replaced, causing considerable confusion. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 29 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Ptochus Schonherr, 1826, prior to that by Marshall (1916) of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schénherr, 1834; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Marshall (1916) Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name porcellus Boheman in Schoénherr, 1834, as published in the binomen Ptochus porcellus (specific name of the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826). Acknowledgement The author gratefully acknowledges the help and advice of Dr R. B. Madge (CAB International Institute of Entomology) in preparing this case. References Dejean, P. F. M. A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean. viii, 136 pp. Crevot, Paris. Germar, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae. 1. Coleoptera. xxiv, 624 pp. Hendelii, Halae. Marshall, G. A. K. 1916. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera. Rhynchophora: Curculionidae. (Part 1). xv, 367 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Reitter, E. 1913. Bestimmungs-Schlissel der mir bekannten europdischen Gattungen der Curculionidae, mit Einschluss der mir bekannten Gattungen aus dem palaearctischen Gebiete. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereins in Briinn, 51: 1-90. Schonherr, C. J. 1823. Curculionides. Jsis, Jena 7(10): 1132-1152. Schonherr, C. J. 1826. Curculionidum dispositio methodica cum generum characteribus, descriptionibus atque observationibus variis. x, 338 pp. Fleischer, Lipsiae.. Schonherr, C. J. 1834. Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae. Vol. 2, part 1, pp. 1-326, part 2, pp. 327-669. Roret, Parisiis & Fleischer, Lipsiae. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Case 2680 Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933 I. M. White CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K. P. Harris Agriculture Canada Research Station, 5000 Wascana Parkway, P.O. Box 440, Regina, Sk., S4P 3A2, Canada Abstract. The purpose of this application is to request that the well known name of the knapweed gall fly, Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935, be given precedence over E. conyzae Hering, 1933, by any author who considers these nominal species to be synonyms. 1. Hering (1933, p. 309) described Euribia conyzae, based on a pair of specimens found in copula on a capitulum of Inula conyza (Asteraceae, Inuleae); in the title of the paper the spelling ‘conyrac’ was used, but as the name of the fly was later given as conyzae (p. 310), after the plant on which the syntypes were collected, the name conyzae was clearly intended by Hering (Article 32c). Hering separated conyzae from other species of Euribia Meigen, 1800 (now known as Urophora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, following the suppression of Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a Deux Ailes in Opinion 678) by a wing pattern character which subsequent examination (by I.M.W.) has shown to be an aberrant feature that only applies to one wing of the female syntype. One of us (I.M.W.) has dissected the aculeus of the female syntype and found it to be indistinguishable from that of jaceana Hering, 1935; the name conyzae is therefore a senior subjective synonym of jaceana. 2. Hering (1935, p. 169) described Euribia jaceana in detail, and the original descrip- tion included photographs of the typical wing pattern and the gall formed within the capitulum of Centaurea jacea (Asteraceae, Cardueae). The description of jaceana was based on a long reared series, and one of us (I.M.W.) has dissected the aculeus from some female syntypes and from specimens reared from other Centaurea species. Hering (1940, p. 1) supplemented the original description by illustrating the aculeus tip of jaceana, and this was the first use of this character, which is essential for the accurate identification of Urophora species. 3. The name jaceana has been widely used for the knapweed gall fly, whereas conyzae is only mentioned in the original description and, as a name, in a recent catalogue (Foote, 1984, p. 141). Furthermore, the name jaceana was used for the knapweed gall fly in one of the earliest life table studies (Varley, 1947), which has subsequently been described as an example of the application of the life table technique in a student ecology textbook (Varley, Gradwell & Hassell, 1973, p. 96). One of us (P.H.) has used the name jaceana in a proposal (presented to Canadian authorities) for the deliberate Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 31 introduction of the knapweed gall fly into western Canada for the biological control of Centaurea subgenus Jacea species, such as C. (J.) nigra. Other important uses of the name jaceana include the following: Hering (1936), biological notes; Varley (1937), larval description; Shewell (1961), occurrence of an adventive population in eastern North America; White & Clement (1987), taxonomic separation from other European species of Urophora introduced into North America for the biological control of thistles and knapweeds (Asteraceae, tribe Cardueae). 4. Although the availability of a name is not affected by it being inappropriate (Article 18), the following supplementary information is presented to the Commission. The name conyzae is inappropriate because it implies an association with either Jnula conyza (Asteraceae, tribe Inuleae) or Conyza species (Asteraceae, tribe Astereae), neither of which has ever been shown to be a larval host of the knapweed gall fly; such confusion may be detrimental to plans for the use of this fly as a biological weed control agent, because non-specialists could assume from the name conyzae that the fly can attack some plants unrelated to the target weed. The name jaceana is appropriate because the larvae of the fly are only known to develop in the capitula of Centaurea jacea and some other species of Centaurea subgenus Jacea; the name jaceana is there- fore descriptive of the habits of the knapweed gall fly. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, is to be given precedence over the specific name conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever these names are considered synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever these names are con- sidered synonyms; (b) conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, whenever these names are con- sidered synonyms. Acknowledgement Weare grateful to A. C. Pont, British Museum (Natural History), for allowing one of us (I.M.W.) to dissect female syntypes of Urophora jaceana and U. conyzae. References Foote, R. H. 1984. Tephritidae (Trypetidae). In Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 9, pp. 66-149. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. Hering, M. 1933. Euribia conyzae sp. nov. de Lardy (Dipt. Tryp.). Amateur de Papillons, 6: 309-311. Hering, M. 1935. Drei neue Bohrfliegen-Arten aus der Mark Brandenburg. (Dipt. Trypetidae). Markische Tierwelt, 1: 169-174. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Hering, M. 1936. Bohrfliegen. Krancher’s Entomologisches Jahrbuch 46: 162-168. Hering, E. M. [formerly M. Hering], 1940. Neue Arten und Gattungen. Siruna Seva, 2: 1-16. Shewell, G. E. 1961. Notes on three European Diptera recently discovered in Canada. Canadian Entomologist, 93: 1044-1047. Varley, G. C. 1937. The life-history of some trypetid flies with descriptions of the early stages (Diptera). Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, Series A, 12: 109-122. Varley, G. C. 1947. The natural control of population balance in the knapweed gall-fly (Urephora jaceana). Journal of Animal Ecology, 16: 139-187. Varley, G. C., Gradwell, G. R. & Hassell, M. P. 1973. Insect population ecology. an analytical approach. x, 212 pp. Blackwell, Oxford. White, I. M. & Clement, S. L. 1987. Systematic notes on Urophora (Diptera, Tephritidae) species associated with Centaurea solstitialis (Asteraceae, Cardueae) and other Palaearctic weeds adventive in North America. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 89: 571-580. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 33 Case 2674 Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): proposed conservation of accepted usage by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author D. K. Loydell Department of Geology, University ctu of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, SY23 3DB, Wales Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the accepted usage of the Silurian graptolite name Monograptus exiguus by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author, and not Nicholson (1868) who originally established the name. 1. Nicholson (1868, p. 533, pl. 19, figs. 27-28) described Graptolites lobiferus Var. B exiguus from the Coniston Flags (Silurian) of Skelgill Beck in the Lake District of Northern England. 2. Lapworth (1876, p. 503, pl. 20, figs. 6a—b) described specimens which he called Monograptus exiguus Nicholson and illustrated one specimen from beds of the Gala Group at Caddonfoot, South Scotland. Lapworth’s specimens, however, are of a different and stratigraphically younger species than the specimens described and illustrated by Nicholson. 3. Elles & Wood (1913, pp. 453-454, pl. 46, figs. la—d), in their Monograph of British Graptolites, used Lapworth’s specimens for their description and figures of Monograp- tus exiguus. This monograph became the standard guide for graptolite identification for the following 50 years, and is still widely used. 4. All subsequent references to Monograptus exiguus are, where correct, to M. exiguus sensu Lapworth. A representative list of papers is held by the Secretariat. This includes references from China, U.S.S.R. and several European countries, indi- cating the degree of international agreement on the identification of Lapworth’s species. Although virtually all workers cite Nicholson as the author of the species, none have based their identifications on his description. 5. Strachan (1971, p. 54), in his Synoptic Supplement to the Monograph of British Graptolites, which gives details of all known British graptolite type specimens, states that Nicholson’s exiguus type specimen is ‘unlikely to be recognised’. Benton (1979, p. 73), in his catalogue of Nicholson’s type and figured material, suggested that specimen BMNH Q96 (in the British Museum (Natural History)) might be Nicholson’s figured specimen. This has been examined by me and is a specimen of Monograptus lobiferus (McCoy, 1850) s.s. 6. Lapworth’s illustrated specimen of M. exiguus was identified by Elles & Wood (1913, explanation of pl. 46) as housed in the University of Birmingham. Strachan (1971, p. 93) gave it the registration number BU 1654. I hereby designate this specimen as the lectotype of Monograptus exiguus Lapworth, 1876. 7. To use the name Monograptus exiguus in any sense other than that used by Lapworth would cause considerable nomenclatural confusion, especially in view of its wide international acceptance. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the subspecific name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as published in the combination Graptolites lobiferus Var. B exiguus, and all other uses of that name before its publication by Lapworth (1876), for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name exiguus Lapworth, 1876, as published in the binomen Monograptus exiguus, and as defined by the lectotype designated in para. 6 above; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as published in the combination Graptolites lobiferus Var. B exiguus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Benton, M. J. 1979. H. A. Nicholson (1844-1899), invertebrate palaeontologist: bibliography and catalogue of his type and figured material. Royal Scottish Museum Information Series (Geology), 7: 1-94. Elles, G. L. & Wood, E. M. R. 1901-1918. A monograph of British graptolites. Palaeontographi- cal Society (Monograph), \—539. Lapworth, C. 1876. On Scottish Monograptidae. Geological Magazine, (2)3: 308-321, 350-360, 499-507, 544-552. Nicholson, H. A. 1868. On the graptolites of the Coniston Flags; with notes on the British species of the genus Graptolites. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 24: 521-545. Strachan, I. 1971. A synoptic supplement to ‘A monograph of British graptolites by Miss G. L. Elles and Miss E. M. R. Wood.’ Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), \—-130. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 35 Case 2681 Heliastes ovalis F. Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name W. I. Follett Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. John E. Randall Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000—A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the well-known and widely-used name Chromis ovalis (F. Steindachner), 1900 for the Oval Chromis, a damselfish from Hawaii. Steindachner had in 1866 published Chromis ovalis as the name ofan African cichlid, but this name has long been regarded as invalid and the two species have never been classified together in Chromis. 1. The name Chromis ovalis (Steindachner, 1900) is currently, and for many years has been universally, applied to a well-known endemic Hawaiian marine damselfish of the family POMACENTRIDAE. This name, originally published as Heliastes ovalis, is a junior secondary homonym of Chromis ovalis Steindachner, 1866, the name of an African cichlid, which was transferred to Tilapia Smith, 1840 by Boulenger (1899, p. 119), and which is now regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Haplochromis moffati Castelnau, 1861 in accordance with the revision by Regan (1922, p. 257). Both Tilapia and Haplochromis are freshwater genera of the family CICHLIDAE. The species Chromis ovalis Steindachner, 1866 and Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 have never been classified together in the genus Chromis, but under Article 59b of the Code the 1900 specific name is invalid. 2. Jenkins (1903, p. 458) transferred H. ovalis to Chromis, and C. ovalis was used thereafter. Whitley (1929, p. 55) suggested that the junior subjective synonym C. velox Jenkins, 1901 (p. 393) be used instead of C. ovalis because of the formal problem of secondary homonymy. The name velox has been so used in only four publications: Fowler (1931, p. 351; 1938, pp. 235, 291), Tinker (1944, p. 279) and von Wahlert (1955, p. 324). Thus Chromis velox has remained unused for 33 years and both Fowler and Tinker later adopted ovalis (see below). 3. The widespread usage of Chromis ovalis for the damselfish includes the following 22 publications: Allen (1975, pp. 87, 89), Brock (1980, p. [321]), Fowler (1940, p. 784), _ Gosline (1965, p. 824), Gosline & Brock (1960, pp. 212, 331), Hobson (1972, pp. 717, 721, 728; 1974, pp. 984-985), Hobson & Chave (1972, p. 50), Hourigan & Reese (1987, table 3), Jordan & Evermann (1973, pp. 200-201, fig. 114), Masuda & Allen (1987, p. 295), Miller et al. (1979, pp. 69, 179), Nelson (1967, p. 290), Randall (1981, fig. 91; 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 1985, p. 34), Randall & Swerdloff (1973, pp. 329, 341-343), Swerdloff (1970a; 1970b, p. 374), Taylor ({1982], p. 11), Tinker (1978 and 1982, p. 278) and Walsh (1987, tables 1-2, figs 4, 6). The holotype of C. ovalis (Steindachner, 1900) is in the Uberseemuseum in Bremen, and was illustrated by von Wahlert (1955, fig. 2). 4. Under Article 59b of the Code the specific name ovalis Steindachner, 1900 is invalid because its replacement had been proposed before 1961 (Whitley, 1929, p. 55). However, as explained above, the junior subjective synonym ve/ox has not gained acceptance and its substitution now for ovalis would be an unnecessary and unjustified cause of confusion. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (p. 502), as published in the binomen Heliastes ovalis, is not invalid by reason of having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of Chromis ovalis Steindachner, 1866; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ovalis Steindachner, 1900, as published in the binomen Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (not invalid despite having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym). References Allen, G. R. 1975. Damselfishes of the south seas. 240 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey. Boulenger, G. A. 1899. A revision of the African and Syrian fishes of the family Cichlidae. II. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1899: 98-143. Brock, R. E. 1980. Colonization of marine fishes in a newly created harbor, Honokohau, Hawaii. Pacific Science, 34: 313-326. Fowler, H. W. 1931. The fishes of Oceania. Supplement 1. Memoirs of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 11: 311-381. Fowler, H. W. 1938. The fishes of the George Vanderbilt South Pacific Expedition, 1937. The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph 2. 349 pp. Fowler, H. W. 1940. The fishes obtained by the Wilkes Expedition, 1838-1842. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 82: 733-800. Gosline, W. A. 1965. Vertical zonation of inshore fishes in the upper water layers of the Hawaiian Islands. Ecology, 46: 823-831. Gosline, W. A. & Brock, V. E. 1960 Handbook of Hawaiian Fishes. 372 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. Hobson, E. S. 1972. Activity of Hawaiian reef fishes during the evening and oar transitions between daylight and darkness. Fishery Bulletin, 70: 715-740. Hobson, E. S. 1974. Feeding relationships of teleostean fishes on coral reefs in rahi Hawaii. Fishery Bulletin, 72: 915-1031. Hobson, E. S. & Chave, E. H. 1972. Hawaiian reef animals. xiv+315 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Hourigan, T. P. & Reese, E. S. 1987. Mid-ocean isolation and the evolution of Hawaiian reef fishes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2: 187-191. Jenkins, O. P. 1901. Descriptions of fifteen new species of fishes from the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission, 19(1899): 387-404. Jenkins, O. P. 1903. Report on collections of fishes made in the Hawaiian Islands. Bulletin of the U.S. Fish Commission, 22(1902): 417-511. Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. 1973. The shore fishes of Hawaii. 392 pp. Charles E. Tuttle Company, Rutland, Vermont, & Tokyo, Japan. Sateen + — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 37 Masuda, H. & Allen, G. R. 1987. Sea fishes of the world. 527 pp. Yama-Kei Publishers Co. Limited, Tokyo, Japan. [In Japanese]. Miller, J. M., Watson, W. & Leis, J. M. 1979. An atlas of common nearshore marine fish larvae of the Hawaiian Islands. ix, 179 pp. University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu, Hawaii. Nelson, G. J. 1967. Gill arches of some teleostean fishes of the families Girellidae, Pomacentri- dae, Embiotocidae, Labridae, and Scaridae. Journal of Natural History, 1: 289-293. Randall, J. E. 1981. Underwater guide to Hawaiian reef fishes. 8 pp., 177 color plates. Harrowood Books, Newtown Square, Philadelphia; Treasures of Nature, Kaneohe, Hawaii. Randall, J. E. 1985. Guide to Hawaiian reef fishes. 82 pp., 204 color plates. Harrowood Books. Newtown Square, Philadelphia; Treasures of Nature, Kaneohe, Hawaii. Randall, J. E. & Swerdloff, S. N. 1973. A review of the damselfish genus Chromis from the Hawaiian Islands, with descriptions of three new species. Pacific Science, 27: 327-349. Regan, C. T. 1922. The classification of the fishes of the family Cichlidae. I]. On African and Syrian genera not restricted to the Great Lakes. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (9)10: 249-264. Steindachner, F. 1866. Ueber einige neue Siisswasserfische von Angola. Ichthyologische Mittheilungen. (IX.) Verhandlungen Zoologish-botanische Gesellschaft Wien, 16: 761-771. Steindachner, F. 1900. Fische aus dem Stillen Ocean. Ergebnisse einer Reise nach dem Pacific (Schauinsland 1896-97). Denkschriften der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, 70: 316-318, 483-521. Swerdloff, S. N. 1970a. The comparative biology of two Hawaiian species of the damselfish genus Chromis (Pomacentridae). x, 192 pp. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii. Swerdloff, S. N. 1970b. Behavioral observations on Eniwetok damselfishes (Pomacentridae: Chromis) with special reference to the spawning of Chromis caeruleus. Copeia, 1970: 371— 374. Taylor, L. [1982]. Waikiki Aquarium guidebook. 28 pp. Edward Enterprises, Honolulu, Hawaii. Tinker, S. W. 1944. Hawaiian fishes. A handbook of the fishes found among the islands of the central Pacific Ocean. 403 pp. Tongg Publishing Co., Honolulu, Hawaii. Tinker, S. W. 1978 (and reprinted 1982). Fishes of Hawaii. A handbook of the marine fishes of Hawaii and the central Pacific Ocean. xxxx, 532, xxxvi pp. Hawaiian Service, Inc., Honolulu, Hawaii. Wahlert, G. von, 1955. Die Typen und Typoide des Ubersee-Museums Bremen, 2: Pisces. Veréf- fentlichungen aus dem Uberseemuseum Bremen. Reihe A, Band 2, Heft 5, pp. 323-326. Walsh, W. J. 1987. Patterns of recruitment and spawning in Hawaiian reef fishes. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 18: 257-276. Whitley, G. P. 1929. Notes on Chromis ovalis and C. reticulatus. Copeia, 171: 55—56. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Case 2527 Heteronota pelagica Girard, 1857 (currently Gymnodactylus, Crytodactylus or Nactus pelagicus; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of the specific name George R. Zug Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the widely used specific name of a common gekkonid lizard of the Pacific basin. A slightly older synonym, arnouxii Duméril, 1851, was unused in the period 1914—1983 and the lizard does not occur in the given type locality “New Zealand’. 1. A. Duméril (Dumeéril & Dumeril, 1851, p. 44) described a lizard ‘from New Zealand’ as Gymnodactylus arnouxii. This name never obtained common usage, because the gecko bearing it does not occur in New Zealand. 2. From 1914 until 1983 arnouxii was mentioned only four times. After Roux (1913) the name was not applied to a known population of geckos until it was resurrected by Kluge (1983, p. 470). Guibé (1954) listed arnouxii as a type specimen ‘from New Zealand’; he did not give any synonym. McCann (1955, p. 17) stated: ‘There is no authentic evidence to support the occurrence of G. arnouxii within the limits of the fauna [of New Zealand], and accordingly I exclude it’. Wermuth (1965, p. 48) listed it as “?Gymnodactylus arnouxii , and did not use it as valid for a taxon, while Iverson (1978) also simply included it in a list of names. Thus, by the criteria of Article 79c, arnouxii was an unused name and its introduction in 1983 was contrary to Article 23b. 3. Ina review of gekkonid relationships Kluge (1983, p. 470) rediscovered the holo- type of Gymnodactylus arnouxii and found it indistinguishable from Heteronota pelagica Girard, 1857 (p. 197). He included the taxon in his new genus Nactus as N. arnouxii, and found ‘no justification for continuing to use’ pelagica. I strongly disagree with this proposal to replace the commonly used pelagica by an almost unused name with a type specimen with a ‘type locality’ where it does not occur. 4. Since Girard (1857) described the Pacific naked-toed gecko from Fiji as Hetero- nota pelagica this specific name has been used in many technical papers, and also popular literature such as field guides, in combination with the generic names Cyrto- dactylus or Gymnodactylus. As examples one may give de Rooij (1915), Brown (1956), Kluge (1963, 1967), Cogger (1975), Zweifel (1976), Cameron, Cogger & Heatwole (1978) and Amerson et al. (1982), and a further list has been supplied to the Commis- sion Secretariat. Because of the commonness of this lizard it is familiar to Pacific area biologists. 5. Moritz & King (1985) and Moritz (1987), who followed Kluge (1983) in using the name arnouxii, showed that the populations in Australia, New Guinea, the Solomons and northern Vanuatu are bisexual, whereas those in New Caledonia, Fiji, Samoa, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 39 southern Vanuatu and the Cook islands are unisexual and parthenogenetic; they pro- posed that the unisexual populations are of hybrid origin. This information supports the conservation of pelagica, because its precise type locality is Fiji, whereas that of arnouxii is not known. Kluge (1983) suggested New Caledonia as the likely provenance of the type specimens, so that both names apply to the all-female parthenogenetic species. If necessary, junior synonyms are already available for the bisexual popu- lations (e.g. multicarinata for Vanuatu, arfakianus and two other names for New Guinea, eboracensis for Australia). 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly requested: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name arnouxii A. Duméril, 1851, as published in the binomen Gymnodactylus Arnouxii, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pelagica Girard, 1857, as published in the binomen Heteronota pelagica; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name arnouxii A. Dumeéril, 1851, as published in the binomen Gymnodactylus Arnouxii, and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgement I wish to thank J. Carr, R. Crombie and W. R. Heyer for editorial advice. References Amerson, A. B. Jr., Whistler, W. A. & Schwaner, T. D. 1982. Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat of American Samoa. 1. Environment and Ecology. Il. Accounts of Flora and Fauna. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fisheries and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Brown, W. 1956. The distribution of terrestrial reptiles in the islands of the Pacific basin. Proceedings of the 8th Pacific Science Congress, 3A: 1479-1491. Cameron, E., Cogger, H. G. & Heatwole, H. 1978. A natural laboratory. Australian Natural History, 19: 190-197. Cogger, H. G. 1975. Reptiles and Amphibians of Australia. A. H. & A. W. Reed, Sydney. Dumeril, C. & Dumeril, A. 1851. Catalogue Méthodique de la Collection des Reptiles du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. 224 pp. Gide et Baudry, Paris. Girard, C. 1857. Descriptions of some new reptiles, collected by the United States Exploring Expedition, under command of Capt. Charles Wilkes, U.S.N. Fourth part. Including the species of saurians exotic to North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 9: 195-199. Guibe, J. 1954. Catalogue des types de lézards du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 119 pp. Colas, Paris. Iverson, J. B. 1978. Vertebrates of the World. A preliminary list. Amphibia and Reptilia. (Second ed.) 292 pp. National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida. Kluge, A. G. 1963. The systematic status of certain Australian and New Guinean gekkonid lizards. Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 14: 77-86. Kluge, A. G. 1967. Higher taxonomic categories of gekkonid lizards and their evolution. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 135: \—59. Kluge, A. G. 1983. Cladistic relationships among gekkonid lizards. Copeia, 1983: 465-475. McCann, C. 1955. The lizards of New Zealand. Dominion Museum Bulletin, 17: 1-127. Moritz, C. 1987. Parthenogenesis in the tropical gekkonid lizard Nactus arnouxii (Sauria, Gekkonidae). Evolution, 41: 1252-1266. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Moritz, C. & King, D. 1985. Cytogenetic perspectives on parthenogenesis in the Gekkonidae. Pp. 327-337 in Grigg, G., Shine, R. & Ehmann, H. (Eds.), The Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles. 527 pp. Surrey Beatty & Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. Rooij, N. de, 1915. The Reptiles of the Indo-Australian Archipelago. I. Lacertilia, Chelonia, Emydosauria. E. J. Brill, Leiden. Roux, J. 1913. Les Reptiles de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et des Iles Loyalty. Appendice: Note sur quelques reptiles des Nouvelles-Hébrides, des Iles Banks et Santa Cruz. Pp. 79-160 in Sarasin, F. and Roux, J. (Eds.), Nova Caledonia, Zoologie, vol. 1. Kreidels, Wiesbaden. Wermuth, H. 1965. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Gekkonidae, Pygopodidae, Xantusiidae. Das Tierreich, 80: 1-246. Zweifel, R. G. 1976. Herpetological expedition to New Guinea. National Geographical Society Research Report, 1968: 503-510. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 41 Comment on the proposal to designate a new type species for Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 (Foraminiferida) (Case 2449; see BZN 45: 186-187) F. T. Banner Department of Palaeontology, British Museum ( Natural History), London, SW7 SBD, U.K. 1. The case is very clearly put by Loeblich & Tappan to justify the opinion which they have published before (1985, 1988). However, it does not merit further support. The ICZN is asked to confirm a re-identification, by others, of the illustrations of a specimen supposedly misidentified by the author who drew it, in order to set aside its originally given name and also to set aside the designation of the species which should carry that name as a type-species, and to replace that species with another, as a new type-species. This is too complex a procedure to follow in order merely to justify a subjectively reached, albeit recently published conclusion; the plenary power of the Commission should be used only if failure to use it would seriously destabilise nomenclature (Article 79a). In the particular case considered here, no such destabilisa- tion follows if the other Articles of the Code are adhered to, and no plenary power need be invoked. 2. The case is essentially a very simple one. The new species names validly published (1876) by Terquem were based on specimens no longer extant; neotypes were validly proposed by Levy et al. (1975). Among them was a neotype from the beach at Grave- lines, France, for Patellina plicata Terquem; this specimen was competently described and photographed, in a well-known, widely circulated, non-commercial, scientific journal and it is now securely curated in a national museum. Four years later, when describing foraminifera from the Chinese coast, Zheng (1979) designated Patellina plicata Terquem as type species of her new genus Septotrochammina. If Levy et al. (1975) were correct in their opinion that P. plicata Terquem should now be referred to the genus Remaneica Rhumbler, 1938 (an opinion apparently supported by Loeblich & Tappan (1988), inter alia) then Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979, is a junior synonym of Remaneica. 3. Independently, Broénnimann et al. (1983), in an international, non-regional review of the Trochamminacea, proposed the new genus Remaneicella, designating Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964, as its type species; R. gonzalezi, from the coast of Venezuela, was also competently described and illustrated in a reputable journal and its type-specimens are also securely curated (University of Cumana). 4. Loeblich & Tappan (1988) believe that Zheng (1979) had specimens from the Chinese coast which should have been referred to the species gonzalezi Seiglie rather than to the species plicata Terquem. We do not have Zheng’s post-1979 opinion on this. Although Loeblich & Tappan (1988) may be correct in their judgement that the specimen Zheng (1979) drew was congeneric with Remaneicella, it is doubtful if the specimen was conspecific with R. gonzalezi; Zheng drew her specimen as having a spiral side of slowly enlarging, narrow chambers (about three times as long as high), whereas Seiglie (1964) depicted his R. gonzalezi as having a spiral side of rapidly enlarging, wide chambers (in height equal to, to twice as high as, their length). The identity in the species-group of Zheng’s specimens is doubtful. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 5. Application of the Code, without involving any plenary powers by the Commis- sion, would result in regarding: (a) Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979, type species Patellina plicata Terquem, 1876, as a junior synonym of Remaneica Rhumbler, 1938, type species Remaneica helgolandica Rhumbler, 1938; (b) Remaneicella Brénnimann, Zaninetti and Whittaker, 1983, type species Remaneica gonzalezi Seiglie, 1964, as valid; and (c) the specimens misnamed Septotrochammina plicata (Terquem) by Zheng (1979) as Remaneicella sp. until they are restudied and, perhaps, renamed. Comments on the proposed order of precedence of the family-group names ACRIDIDAE, OEDIPODIDAE and LOCUSTIDAE (Insecta, Orthoptera) (Case 2568; see BZN 45: 191-193) (1) R. F. Chapman 201 Wellman Hall, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. As an entomologist who works on the fringes of grasshopper taxonomy, I am par- ticularly concerned that the common usage of family-group names should be retained, which is that ACRIDIDAE has precedence over OEDIPODIDAE. That in turn should have precedence over LOCUSTIDAE (a name which in the past has been used in the sense of TETTIGONIIDAE). The citation of LOCUSTINAE with a tribe OEDIPODINI in the ACRIDIDAE, as Harz (1975) has done, is likely to lead to enormous confusion if generally adopted. I urge that the recommendations by Key in BZN 45: 192-193 be adopted. (2) A comment in support of the application has been received from Norman B. Tindale (2314 Harvard Street, Palo Alto, California 94306, U.S.A) and another from R. E. Blackith (Zoology Department, Trinity College, Dublin-2, Ireland). (3) I. M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, U.S.S-R.). Some details of Key’s application (BZN 45: 191—193) need correction. The reference for LOCUSTIDAE should be W. Kirby (1825, p. 432), since the ‘Locustariae’ of Latreille (1802, p. 277) was based on Locusta sensu Geoffroy (1762), that is on Gryllus ( Tettigo- nia) Linnaeus, 1758 and not on Gryllus (Locusta) Linnaeus [see note below by P. K. Tubbs]. The name Acrydium was introduced by Geoffroy (1762, p. 390) in a work which in 1954 was suppressed for nomenclatural purposes (Opinion 228). Together with other names it was next published by Miller (1764, p. xvii) in a table comparing Geoffroy’s names with those published by Linnaeus. I have previously pointed out (BZN 38: 6-7) that such names have under the Code (Articles 50 and 51) the authorship Geoffroy in Miller, 1764, unless (as in 15 cases) the Commission has ruled them to be available from Geoffroy, 1762. The type species of Acrydium is Gryllus (Locusta) stridulus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 43 Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 432) by the designation of Latreille (1810, pp. 249, 433), so itis a senior objective synonym of Psophus Fieber, 1853, which was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Opinion 149 (1943). Under Article 33 of the Code Acridium Miller, 1776 (p. 100) is an incorrect sub- sequent spelling of Acrydium Geoffroy in Miller, 1764, and the first publication of Acridium as an available emendation is by Illiger (1801, p. 126). Acknowledgement I thank A. V. Gorokhov (Leningrad) for his assistance. Additional references Geoffroy, E. L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 1. 523 pp. Durand, Paris. Illiger, K. 1801. Namen der Insekten-Gattungen, .. . Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 1: 125-155. Kirby, W. 1825. Some remarks on the nomenclature of the Gryllina of Macleay etc. with the characters of a new genus in that tribe. Zoological Journal, 1: 429-432. Latreille, P. A. 1810. Considérations générales sur lordre naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides, et des Insectes; avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres, disposés en familles. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris. (4) P.K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In his comment above Dr Kerzhner has pointed out that the family-group name ‘Locustariae’ of Latreille (1802, p. 277) is not based on Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 431) but on Tettigonia Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 429); the same was suggested by Dr Key in correspondence with the Secretariat and also by Vickery & Kevan (1983, pp. 310, 689, 691). Inspection of the Linnaean species included by Latreille (1802) in his genus Locusta shows this to be the case, and later (1807) Latreille made his concepts of Locusta and Acrydium and their families explicitly clear: on p. 100: ‘Genus LOCUSTA. Sauterelle. Locusta Geoff., de Geer, Fab., Oliv., Lam.,—Gry/lus ( Tettigonia) Linnaet’; on p. 104: “Genus ACRYDIUM. Criquet. Acrydium Geoff., de Geer, Oliv., Lam.,—Gryllus (Locusta) Linn.’ The Locusta of Latreille (and others) is thus a junior homonym of Locusta Linnaeus (type species much later fixed, in Opinion 158, as Gryllus (Locusta) migratorius Linnaeus, 1758), and ‘Locustariae’ is an invalid synonym of TETTIGONIIDAE Krauss, 1902 (p. 541). It is important that W. Kirby (1825, p. 432) be taken as the author of family-group names based on Locusta Linnaeus, or the ‘havoc and con- fusion’ to which Kirby himself referred (p. 430) will continue yet more. It was this confusion that led to the now accepted placing of Linnaeus’ Locusta species in the OEDIPODIDAE by Walker (1870), who used LOcUSTIDAE in the tettigoniid sense of Latreille (and had acripiDaAE based on Acridium rather than on Acrida Linnaeus). It should be noted that the substitution of W. Kirby, 1825 for Latreille, 1802 as the author of LOCUSTIDAE does not affect the precedence proposals of Key (BZN 45: 192). As stated by Key in para. 4 of his application, the names Acrydium and Acridium have not been used as valid for a very long time [this century], and have caused extreme taxonomic and nomenclatural confusion. The ‘authorship’ of these names is debatable (see comment by Dr Kerzhner). The Commission has already, in eight Opinions, ruled that 15 generic names in current use are to be taken as available from Geoffroy, 1762, 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 but since the application seeks the suppression of Acrydium and Acridium an extended consideration of their authorship and date would serve little purpose. There is no formal reason why the Commission should not be asked to suppress these names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority without the citation of a particular author, and I suggest that proposals (2)(a) and (b) in BZN 45: 192 be simplified accordingly. Proposal (2)(c), the suppression of family-group names based on Acrydium or Acridium, is redundant if the generic names are suppressed. The name Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 (p. 188) was placed on the Official List of Generic Names by Opinion 149 (1943), but, as pointed out by Key (BZN 45: 192, para. 5), the unused spelling Oedipode Latreille, 1825 (p. 415) is available under Article 1 1b(ii) of the present Code. In the interests of stability I now propose that the Commission be asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Oedipode Latreille, 1825 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Oedipode Latreille, 1825, as suppressed in (1) above. Additional references Krauss, H. 1902. Die Namen der altesten Dermapteren—(Orthopteren-) Gattungen und ihre Verwendung fiir Familien—und Underfamilien Benennungen auf Grund der jetzigen Nomenclaturregeln. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 25: 530-543. Latreille, P. A. 1807. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum. ... Vol. 3, 258 pp. Koenig, Paris. Vickery, V. R. & Kevan, D. K. McE. 1983. A monograph of the orthopteroid insects of Canada and adjacent regions. Lyman Entomological Museum and Research Laboratory, Memoirs, 13 (two vols., 1462 pp). . Comment on the proposed conservation of Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834, (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 2627; see BZN 45: 197-198) M. K. Thayer Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Rd at Lake Shore Drive, Chicago IL 60605-2496, U.S.A. I support Zerche’s proposal to conserve the generic name Coryphium Stephens, 1834, and the name of its type species, angusticolle Stephens, 1834, by suppression of their respective senior synonyms Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, and robynsii Wesmael, 1833 (and also the placing of the senior misspelling Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834 on the Official Index). The reasons he presents, namely the virtually universal usage of the junior generic and specific names and the lack of any subsequent use of the (correctly spelled) original combination, justify his case and would serve to prevent, rather than cause, any confusion. It should be noted that under Article 40a of the Code the family-group name CORYPHIINI would remain valid even if the Commission were to refuse to conserve Coryphium. There is a typographical error in the Stephens (1834) reference: it should say ‘(pp. 305-368: 1834)’, thus including p. 344, rather than ‘(pp. 30-308: 1834)’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 45 Comments on the proposed conservation of Philanthus triangulum (Fabricius, 1775) (Insecta, Hymenoptera) (Case 2608: see BZN 45: 34-35) (1) Ole Lomholdt Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Kobenhayn, Denmark Conservation of the specific name triangulum Fabricius, 1775 for the sphecid ‘bee- wolf would be greatly appreciated; it has been used in hundreds of papers, whereas the synonym ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767 has occurred in the literature only a very few (less than five) times. (2) Jacques Hamon 4 rue de Coteau, 74240 Gaillard, France I wish to support the application for the conservation of Philanthus triangulum. Simple adoption of priority would, without any justification, jeopardize future retrieval of the very many papers on the biology of P. triangulum (and possibly of other Philanthus species). 1am confident that this is not only my personal view but also that of other French entomologists concerned with the SPHECIDAE. Comment on the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) (Case 2440; see BZN 45: 130-131 and 45: 292) E. Mayr Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. I strongly support the application made by Mr Kenneth D. Vogt. The ruling that family names should be corrected in order to make them classically correct is in principle quite at variance with Article 3la (iii) which deals with the spelling of names in the species category. There, any ‘correction’ is outlawed, even in the case of misspellings of personal or geographical names, unless this clearly is evident from the original publication. This was done for the sake of stability. Personally, as I expressed already (Mayr, 1972), I cannot see why stability is not even more important in the case of family names. Why have the pedantic requirement that they must be ‘corrected’, to be formed exactly according to Greek or Latin grammar? In addition to endorsing Mr Vogt’s application, I strongly urge the Commission to propose an amendment to the Code, incorporating this further addition to nomenclatural stability. Reference Mayr, E. 1972. Six proposed amendments to the International Code. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 29: 99-101. 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Comment on the proposed conservation of Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) (Case 2564: see BZN 45: 125—126) C. W. Wright Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, Dorset DT8 3QY, U.K. I write as a specialist in fossil Asteroidea to support the application of G. Breton to suppress the name Pentetagonaster dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850 and to place the name Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 on the Official List. Pycinaster magnificus is a species of some stratigraphic importance and it would cause confusion if the name dutemplei (a classic case of a nomen oblitum under the pre—1973 Code) were to be introduced into the literature. Comment on the specific name (arnouxii Duméril, 1851 or pelagica Girard, 1857) of a Pacific-basin gekkonid lizard : (Case 2527: see BZN 46: 38-40) Arnold G. Kluge Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, U.S.A. The object of Zug’s application is to suppress the senior specific name of a common Pacific gecko, arnouxii A. Duméril, 1851, and conserve a junior synonym, pelagica Girard, 1857. Zug claims that using arnouxii will introduce an unknown name and destabilise nomenclature. I strongly oppose his application on two grounds. Firstly, arnouxiiis not an unknown name, as the following 26 publications document (Duméril & Dumeéril, 1851; Duméril & Bibron, 1854; Duméril, 1856; Steindachner, 1867; Bavay, 1869, 1872; Peters & Doria, 1878; Sauvage, 1878a, 1878b; Boulenger, 1883, 1885, 1886; Lucas & Frost, 1897; Werner, 1900, 1901; Roux, 1913; Guibé, 1954; McCann, 1955; Wermuth, 1965; Iverson, 1978; Kluge, 1983; Gibbons, 1985; Moritz & King, 1985; Zug, 1985a, 1985b; Moritz, 1987). The majority of these authors do not question arnouxii as a valid taxonomic species. Guibé’s (1954) catalogue of lizard types in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, is particularly noteworthy. This is not a mere list, but a scholarly attempt to judge the validity of the named forms. In many cases, Guibé expressed his doubt as to the validity of a species by setting forth its synonymy. It is obvious that he treated arnouxii as a distinct species, because he did not place it in synonymy. In addition, McCann (1955) doubted the existence of arnouxii in New Zealand; however, he did not question its validity as a good species. The number and temporal pattern of the citations is not unusual for related species described in the mid-nineteenth century. Whether or not New Zealand is the correct type locality is not at issue here. My second objection to Zug’s application is based on Moritz’s recent research (1987; see also Moritz & King, 1985), which indicates that the populations previously referred to as either arnouxii or pelagica consist of a parthenogenetic species and at least two bisexual species. The name arnouxii, with New Caledonia as the most likely place of origin of the type series (Kluge, 1983), should be applied to the recognised asexual Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 47 species. The name pelagica, with Fiji as its type locality, is currently being treated as a junior synonym of arnouxii (Moritz, 1987). The type series of arnouxii (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) and pelagica (United States National Museum) consist only of females, and they also exhibit the distinctive postmental scale pattern typical of the sexual form (C. Moritz, pers. comm.). For those who recognise only one species the name arnouxii should apply. For those who regard a parthenospecies and one or more bisexual species as distinct then arnouxii would apply to the former, and one or more of its junior synonyms that pertain to bisexual populations (arfakianus, cheverti, eboracensis, heteronotus) are available for the latter. In the biologically complex situation at hand, it is not unlikely that additional recognisable taxa will be identified within the currently recognised parthenospecies (cf. the history of parthenospecies in the lizard genera Cnemidophorus and Lacerta). If the Commission were to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name arnouxii, a new name would have to be coined for the New Caledonia partheno- species if it were distinguished from the Fiji one. The primary goal of the Code of nomenclature is to promote stability and universality without in any way restricting freedom of taxonomic thought or action. Simply following the Principle of Priority (Article 23) in this case meets these demands. References Bavay, Arthur 1869. Catalogue des Reptiles de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et description d’especes nouvelles. Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 15: 1-37 [and also reissued separately 1872]. Boulenger, G. A. 1883. On the geckos of New Caledonia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1883: 116-131. Boulenger, G. A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum ( Natural History). 2nd Ed., vol. 1, 436 pp., 32 pls. Taylor and Francis, London. Boulenger, G. A. 1886. On the reptiles and batrachians of the Solomon Islands. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 12(2)1: 35-62. Dumeril, C. & Dumeril, A. 1851. Catalogue Méthodique de la Collection des Reptiles du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle de Paris. 224 pp. Gide et Baudry, Paris. Dumeril, A. 1856. Description des Reptiles nouveaux, ou imparfaitement connus, de la Collect- ion du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, et remarques sur la classification et les caracteres des Reptiles. Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 8: 437—S88. Dumeril, A. & Bibron, G. 1854. Erpétologie générale, ou histoire naturelle complete des Reptiles. Vol. 9. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Gibbons, J. R. H. 1985. The biogeography and evolution of Pacific Island reptiles and amphib- ians. Pp. 125-142 in Grigg, G., Shine, R. & Ehmann, H. (Eds.), The Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. Guibé, J. 1954. Catalogue des types de lézards du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 119 pp. Colas, Paris. Iverson, J. B. 1978. Vertebrates of the World. A preliminary list. Amphibia and Reptilia. Second Ed. 77 pp. National Fish and Wildlife Laboratory, Gainesville, Florida. Kluge, A. G. 1983. Cladistic relationships among gekkonid lizards. Copeia, 1983: 465-475. Lucas, A. H. S. & Frost, C. 1897. The lizards (Lacertilia) indigenous to New Zealand. Trans- actions and Proceedings of the New Zealand Institute, 29[1896]: 264-280. McCann, C. 1955. The lizards of New Zealand. Gekkonidae and Scincidae. Dominion Museum Bulletin, 17: 1-127. Moritz, C. 1987. Parthenogenesis in the tropical gekkonid lizard Nactus arnouxii (Sauria: Gekkonidae). Evolution, 41: 1252-1266. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Moritz, C. & King, D. 1985. Cytogenetic perspectives on parthenogenesis in the Gekkonidae. Pp. 327-337 in Grigg, G., Shine, R. & Ehmann, H. (Eds.), The Biology of Australasian Frogs and Reptiles. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, Australia. Peters, W. & Doria, G. 1878. Catalogo dei Rettili e dei Batraci raccolti da O. Beccari, L. M. D’Albertis e A. A. Bruijn nella sotto-regione Austro-Malese. Anneli del Museo Civico, Genova, 13: 322-433. Roux, J. 1913. Les Reptiles de la Nouvelle-Calédonie et des Iles Loyalty. Appendice: Note sur quelques Reptiles des Nouvelles-Hébrides, des Iles Banks et Santa Cruz. Pp. 79-160 in Sarasin, F. & Roux, J. (Eds.), Nova Caledonia, Zoologie, vol. 1.C. W. Kreidels, Wiesbaden. Sauvage, H.-E. 1878a. Notice sur quelques reptiles nouveaux ou peu connus de la Nouvelle- Guinée. Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris, (7)3: 47-61. Sauvage, H.-E. 1878b. Note sur les Geckoniens de la Nouvelle-Caledonie. Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris, (7)3: 63-73. Steindachner, F. 1867. Reise der Oesterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde,... Zoologischer Theil, Band 1. Reptilien. Karl Gerold’s Sohn, Wien. Wermuth, H. 1965. Liste der rezenten Amphibian und Reptilien. Gekkonidae, Pygopodidae, Xantusiidae. Das Tierreich, 80: 1-246. Werner, F. 1900. Die Reptilien- und Batrachienfauna des Bismarck-Archipels. Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Sammlung des Museums fiir Naturkunde in Berlin, 1(4): 1-132. Werner, F. 1901. Ergebnisse einer Reise nach dem Pacific (Schauinsland 1896-8197[sic]). Reptilien. Zoologische Jahrbucher Abtheilung fiir Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Thiere, 14(5): 380-387. Zug, G. R. 1985a. Pacific island lizards—status of type specimens from the U.S. Exploring Expedition, 1838-1842. Copeia, 1985: 150-154. Zug, G. R. 1985b. Cyrtodactylus pelagicus; correct usage. Herpetological Review, 16(3): 67. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 49 Comments on the proposed conservation of the spelling Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) (Case 2441: see BZN 45: 212-213) (1) Jiri Mlikovsky Department of Evolutionary Biology, Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Sekaninova 28, CS—12800 Praha 2, Czechoslovakia In this application M. LeCroy seeks to conserve the spelling Semioptera wallacii for the name of Wallace’s Standard Wing Bird of Paradise on the grounds of usage. However, as she states (para. 2), the name was first published as Semeioptera wallacei, and since there is no evidence in the original report in the Literary Gazette of any error (cf. Article 32c of the Code) the principle of priority should apply. The etymology of the name supports the original spelling: the generic name is based on the Greek words semeion (sign, mark, star) and pteron (wing), and the specific name was apparently created for Alfred R. Wallace. I therefore propose that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should reject the application and accept the spelling Semeioptera wallacei, as suggested by McAlpine (1979; cited in para. 2 of the application). (2) Mary LeCroy Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. Walter J. Bock Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A. J. Mlikovsky, in his comment, and other workers who argue for adoption of the spelling Semeioptera wallacei rather than the well-established Semioptera wallacii for the name of Wallace’s Standard Wing Bird of Paradise on grounds of strict priority completely overlook the fact that the Preamble is an integral part of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The Preamble states clearly in its second paragraph that ‘The object of the Code is to promote stability and universality in the scientific names of animals and to ensure that the name of each taxon is unique and distinct.’ Nothing would more violate the wording and spirit of the Preamble than to change the spelling of the generic name Semioptera to Semeioptera after 130 years of consistent usage of Semioptera, merely on the basis of an article in a journal of general and current affairs. This article was an anonymous report of the 22 March 1859 meeting of the Zoological Society of London. As mentioned in the original proposal, the only use of Semeioptera during the past 130 years was by Wood (1862) and even that was not in a zoological publication. All zoologists used Semioptera for 130 years; these workers included many nomencla- turists who believed in strict priority and who would have insisted on change to Semeioptera if the evidence supported this move. Further we would like to note that the etymology of the name does not support the spelling Semeioptera. The Greek ‘ev’ is usually latinized to ‘i’, as in Chiroptera, not as ‘ei’ as claimed by Mlikovsky (see page 187 of the Code). 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Acceptance of J. Mlikovsky’s proposal to accept the spelling Semeioptera wallacei will simply result in zoologists using both names for some time into the future, as many workers who would not be aware of the decision of the Commission would use earlier reference sources, a situation not conducive to stability of nomenclature. On the basis of the guidelines in the Preamble to the Code and in Article 79(c), we urge that the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature adopt the several points proposed by M. LeCroy in her original proposal. Comment on the proposed suppression of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 (Aves). (Case 2276; see BZN 40: 249-251 and 44: 126-128) Michael P. Walters British Museum ( Natural History), Tring, Hertfordshire HP23 6AP, U.K. I believe that Rallus nigra does not refer to the rail known as R. tabuensis (currently Porzana tabuensis), the Pacific spotless crake or sooty rail. I also believe that the original description on which the name Rallus tabuensis was based does not refer to the rail currently known by that name, but to the same species as R. nigra. Thus, ironically, Bruce et al. (BZN 40: 249-251) are right, but not for the reasons they think! It would clearly be most unfortunate if the now familiar name tabuensis had to be discarded in favour of a totally unknown name (tahitiensis), but I cannot see that invalidating R. nigra would do anything to solve the problem, and would only confuse the issue still further. I have recently published a paper on the relationships of the species concerned (Walters, 1988). Basically, the situation is as follows: 1. The name Rallus nigrais known only froma plate by J. F. Miller, first published in his Icon Animalium of 1784 and, subsequently in 1796, in a revised edition of his work (called the Cimelia Physica), with an added interleaved text by George Shaw which was taken from Latham (see paragraph 3 below). Miller’s plate may well have been copied and published with little alteration from an unpublished painting of a rail from Tahiti by Georg Forster, made on Cook’s second voyage, which is housed in the British Museum (Natural History), no. 130. Lysaght (1956, p. 97) claimed that the bird depicted was the rail currently known as Porzana tabuensis (Gmelin, 1789), and pro- posed to substitute Miller’s name for Gmelin’s on the grounds of priority. However, the bird is clearly not tabuensis as now understood, as this has a very conspicuous brown mantle which is absent from both Miller’s and Forster’s plates. Peters (1934, p. 188, footnote) wrote: ‘Miller’s plate represents a wholly black rail somewhat larger than tabuensis; it cannot be identified with any of the known forms of tabuensis and possibly represents the bird later named Porzana atra (North, 1908) [from Henderson Island] or at least a bird closely allied to it’. 2. In addition to the two plates, there is a description by J. R. Forster (Georg Forster’s father) written at the time of the voyage but not published until 1844, many years after the author’s death. This description, in which Forster calls the bird Rallus minutus, was identified by Lichtenstein (1844, p. 178), the editor of the published account, as Porzana tabuensis and was clearly based on a specimen or specimens collected by the Forsters on their journey, and not on Georg’s plate, with which it Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 51 disagrees on several points. I compared this description with specimens of Porzana tabuensis in the British Museum (Natural History) and consider it definitely refers to tabuensis. It seems likely, therefore, that the Forsters collected specimens (none now extant) of both nigra and tabuensis but failed to distinguish between them, J. R. Forster’s description probably referring to tabuensis and Georg Forster’s plate being based on a specimen of nigra. 3. Much of the past confusion regarding the two rails seems to have arisen from a failure to interpret correctly the significance of the two descriptions by Latham (1783, pp. 235 and 236) in his General Synopsis of Birds of his Tabuai rail and Tahiti (which he called Otaheite) rail, the origins respectively of Gmelin’s 1789 Rallus tabuensis from Tongatabu, Tahiti and the neighbouring islands, and R. tahitiensis from Tahiti and the Friendly Isles. Although Wiglesworth (1892, pp. 60 and 61) separated tahitiensis from tabuensis, nearly all writers have correctly realised that there is no difference between the populations of the rail now called tabuensis occurring on the islands of Tonga and Tahiti, but have therefore regarded tahitiensis as a synonym of tabuensis in the mis- taken belief that Latham had separated the two populations. In fact, he did no such thing. According to his accounts, both rails occurred on both islands. Furthermore, his descriptions must refer to two different species. The sooty rail is indicated by his description of the Tahiti rail, while his Tabuai rail accords reasonably well with Miller’s rail. Latham probably described his Tabuai rail from Georg Forster’s plate and the Tahiti rail from specimens collected on Cook’s third voyage (Medway, 1979, p. 332). 4. It seems likely that the Tahiti rail Rallus tahitiensis Gmelin, 1789 and R. minutus of J. R. Forster’s description represent the rail now known as Porzana tabuensis and in the interests of nomenclatural stability it would be unfortunate if the name were now altered. Probably Miller’s Rallus nigra, Latham’s Tabuai rail, Gmelin’s 1789 Rallus tabuensis and Georg Forster’s plate all represent another species, now extinct, related to Nesophylax ater of Henderson Island. As Miller’s name is the oldest, the extinct bird is best called Nesophylax niger. Olson & Steadman (BZN 44: 126-128) have previously suggested that the name R. nigra might well represent a taxon distinct from tabuensis, possibly an extinct form of Porzana atra (currently Nesophy/ax ater) from Henderson Island. 5. In the interests of stability of nomenclature I designate a neotype for Rallus tabuensis, as presently understood for the spotless crake or sooty rail. It is specimen no. 1893.7.8.3 in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) and was collected by Andrew Garrett on Huahine, one of the Society Islands. Additional References Forster, J. R. 1844. (Lichtenstein, H. Ed.) Descriptiones Animalium. xiii, 425 pp. Officina Academica, Berolini. Latham, J. 1785. A General Synopsis of Birds. Vol. 3, part 1. iii, 328 pp. Leigh & Sotheby, London. Medway, D. G. 1979. Some ornithological results of Cook’s third voyage. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 9(3): 315-351. Walters, M. P. 1988. Probable validity of Rallus nigra Miller, an extinct species from Tahiti. Nocturnis, 35: 265-269. Wiglesworth, L. W. 1892. Aves Polynesia. A Catalogue of the Birds of the Polynesian Subregion (not including the Sandwich Islands). Abhandlungen und Berichte des Koniglichen Zoologischen und Anthropologisch-Ethnographischen Museums zu Dresden 1890-91, 6: 1-92. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Note by the Commission Secretariat In view of the differing taxonomic opinions (BZN 40: 249-251; 44: 126-128; and the above Comment) involved in this case, and the new information supplied by Mr Walters, it seems appropriate to revise the original proposals published in BZN 40: 250. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to: (a) suppress the specific name tahitiensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Rallus tahitiensis for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the specific name tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Rallus tabuensis and as interpreted by the specimen designated as neotype by Walters (1989) in paragraph 5 above, is to be given precedence over the specific name nigra Miller, 1784, as published in the binomen Rallus nigra, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Rallus tabuensis and as interpreted by the specimen designated as neotype in paragraph 5 above, with an endorsement that it is to be given precedence over nigra Miller, 1784, as published in the binomen Rallus nigra, whenever the two names are con- sidered to be synonyms; (b) nigra Miller, 1784, as published in the binomen Rallus nigra, with an en- dorsement that it is not to be given priority over tabuensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Rallus tabuensis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name tahitiensis Gmelin, 1789, as published in the binomen Rallus tahitiensis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 53 OPINION 1518 Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name delicata Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Harpa delicata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name articularis Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Harpa articularis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name delicata Perry, 1811, as published in the binomen Harpa delicata and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2548 An application for the conservation of Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 was received from Dr H. A. Rehder and Mr R. E. Petit (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.) on 19 December 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 19-20 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, New Zealand). A letter was received from Mr R. E. Petit, who pointed out that Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 is not threatened by H. urniformis Perry, 1811 as published in the Abstract of the application. The latter name was thought to be a possible senior synonym of H. ventricosa Lamarck, 1816 and it was for this reason that its suppression was sought. The ‘Bulletin of the American Malacological Union’ in the Petit (1984) reference (BZN 44: 20) should read ‘American Malacological Bulletin’. Decision of the Commission On | March 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 20. At the close of the voting period on | June 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Alvarado, Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Bernardi, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. It became apparent during the voting period that ventricosa Lamarck dates from 1801, not 1816 as stated in the application. It is now believed that any problems involved with Harpa ventricosa and H. urniformis are purely taxonomic and that portion of the application has been withdrawn. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: articularis, Harpa, Lamarck, 1822, Histoire Naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, part 7, p. 256. delicata, Harpa, Perry, 1811, Conchology, or the Natural History of Shells; containing a new arrangement of the genera and species . . ., p|. 40, fig. 2. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1519 Ammonites neubergicus Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): to be given precedence over Ammonites chrishna Forbes, 1846 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name neubergicus Hauer, 1858, as pub- lished in the binomen Ammonites neubergicus, is hereby given precedence over the specific name chrishna Forbes, 1846, as published in the binomen Ammonites chrishna, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) neubergicus Hauer, 1858, as published in the binomen Ammonites neubergicus, (specific name of the type species of Pachydiscus Zittel, 1884) with the endorse- ment that it is to be given precedence over chrishna Forbes, 1846, as published in the binomen Ammonites chrishna, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) chrishna Forbes, 1846, as published in the binomen Ammonites chrishna, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over neubergicus Hauer, 1858, as published in the binomen Ammonites neubergicus, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 2460 An application for the conservation of Ammonites neubergicus Hauer, 1858 was received from Drs R. A. Henderson (James Cook University of North Queensland, Townsville, Australia) and W. J. Kennedy (University Museum, Oxford, U.K.) on 14 November 1983. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 277-278 (October 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Mr C. W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.). Acomment from Professor G. Hahn, opposing the suppression of Ammonites chrishna, because its synonymy with neubergicus is subjective, was published in BZN 44: 126 (June 1987). The specific name neubergicus was published in combination with Ammonites, not Pachydiscus as stated in BZN 43: 277, para. 5(2). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 277, modified to give precedence to neubergicus rather than to suppress chrishna. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Ride. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Ride commented that an adequate case had been made for the conservation of the name neubergicus; he would have voted for the suppression of chrishna as suggested in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 55 the application, and he considered that the Commission should have been asked to vote for or against this simpler course. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: chrishna, Ammonites, Forbes, 1846, Transactions of the Geological Society, London, 7: 103. neubergicus, Ammonites, Hauer, 1858, Beitraege zur palaeontographie von Osterreich, vol. 1, p. 12. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1520 Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 and Chagrinichnites osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace fossil; arthropod): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Physophyscus Lesquereux, 1891; (b) the specific name bilobatus Lesquereux, 1891, as published in the binomen Physophyscus bilobatus. (2) The name Chagrinichnites Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 (gender: masculine), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978, as published in the binomen Chagrinichnites brooksi; (b) osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983, as published in the binomen Chagrinich- nites osgoodi. (4) The name Physophyscus Lesquereux, 1891 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as suppressed in (1)(a) above. (5) The name bilobatus Lesquereux, 1891, as published in the binomen Physo- physcus bilobatus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2455 An application for the conservation of the trace fossil names Chagrinichnites brooksi and C. osgoodi was received from Drs R. M. Feldmann (Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, U.S.A.) and J.T. Hannibal (Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A.) on 12 October 1983. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 97-98 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 98. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 14: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Melville, Mroczkowski, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Kraus, Lehtinen and Ride. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Kraus considered that the applicants did not sufficiently demonstrate that the case is relevant to non-specialists in Late Devonian trace fossils. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 57 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bilobatus, Physophyscus, Lesquereux, 1891, Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 13: 9. brooksi, Chagrinichnites, Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978, Journal of Paleontology, 52: 288. Chagrinichnites Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978, Journal of Paleontology, 52: 288. osgoodi, Chagrinichnites, Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983, Journal of Paleontology, 57: 706. Physophyscus Lesquereux, 1891, Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 13: 9. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1521 Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and PAhytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Arachnida, Acarina): Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857 and Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889 designated as the respective type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) pseudogallarum Vallot, 1836, as published in the binomen Acarus pseudo- gallarum; (ii) coryli Frauenfeld, 1865, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryli; (iii) coryligallarum Targioni-Tozzetti, 1885, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryligallarum; (b) the specific name avellanae Sorauer, 1886, as published in the binomen Caly- cophthora avellanae, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Phyto- ptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genera Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 are hereby set aside and Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857 and Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889 are designated as the respective type species. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Phytoptus pyri Pagenstecher, 1857; (b) Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (gender: masculine, type species by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1889; (c) Aceria Keifer, 1944 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Eriophyes tulipae Keifer, 1938; (d) Colomerus Newkirk & Keifer, 1971 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Eriophyes gardeniella Keifer, 1964. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pyri Pagenstecher, 1857, as published in the binomen Phytoptus pyri (specific name of the type species of Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851); (b) avellanae Nalepa, 1889, as published in the binomen Phytoptus avellanae (specific name of the type species of Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851); (c) tulipae Keifer, 1938, as published in the binomen Eriophyes tulipae (specific name of the type species of Aceria Keifer, 1944); (d) gardeniella Keifer, 1964, as published in the binomen Eriophyes gardeniella (specific name of the type species of Colomerus Newkirk & Keifer, 1971). (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pseudogallarum Vallot, 1836, as published in the binomen Acarus pseudo- gallarum and as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 59 (b) coryli Frauenfeld, 1865 as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryli and as suppressed in (1)(a)(ii) above; (c) coryligallarum Targioni-Tozzetti, 1885, as published in the binomen Phytoptus coryligallarum and as suppressed in (1)(a)(i11) above; (d) avellanae Sorauer, 1886, as published in the binomen Calycophthora avellanae and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2044 An application for the designation of type species in accordance with established usage for Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 was received from Dr V. G. Shevtchenko (Vice President of the Acarology Section, All-Union Entomologi- cal Society, U.S.S.R.) on 18 April 1973. The case was published in BZN 30: 196—197 (June 1974). The Commission voted on the case in 1977 and by 18 to 3 supported the proposals. However, an Opinion was not published as it became apparent during the voting period that there were problems with the proposed type species for both genera. A revised application by Drs E. E. Lindquist (Biosystematics Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada) and D. C. M. Manson (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Auckland, New Zealand) was published in BZN 44: 41-43 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Two supportive comments for the revised application were pub- lished in BZN 44: 200 (September 1987), together with a note of 14 other comments in support. Three additional supportive comments were received from Mr F. Kadono (Chiba Prefectural Agricultural College, Togane, Japan), Dr Badawi A. Abou-Awad (National Research Centre, Cairo, Egypt) and Dr G. J. de Moraes (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuaria, Embrapa, Brazil). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 42-43. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppel!, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Aceria Keifer, 1944, Bulletin of the California Department of Agriculture, 33(1): 22. avellanae, Calycophthora, Sorauer, 1886, Handbuch der Pflanzenkrankheiten, Ed. 2, vol. 1, p. 827. avellanae, Phytoptus, Nalepa, 1889, Sitzungsberichte der Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathe- matisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, Wien, 98(1): 126. Colomerus Newkirk & Keifer, 1971, Eriophyid Studies, C-5, Agriculture Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, p. 6. coryli, Phytoptus, Frauenfeld, 1865, Verhandlungen der kaiserlich—-kéniglichen zoologisch- botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 15: 263. coryligallarum, Phytoptus, Targioni-Tozzetti, 1885, Atti della R. Accademia economiche-agrario dei Georgofili di Firenze, 1885: 32. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851, Jahresbericht der schlesischen Gesellschaft fiir vaterlandische Kultur, 28: 89. gardeniella, Eriophyes, Keifer, 1964, Eriophyid Studies B-12, California Department of Agricul- ture, p.9. Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851, Annales des Sciences naturelles (Zoology ), (3)15: 167. pseudogallarum, Acarus, Vallot, 1836, Mémoires de |’Académie des Sciences, Arts et Belles- Lettres de Dijon, 1836: 189. pyri, Phytoptus, Pagenstecher, 1857, Verhandlungen des naturhistorisch-medicinischen Vereins zu Heidelberg, 1(2): 48. tulipae, Eriophyes, Keifer, 1938, Bulletin of the California Department of Agriculture, 7(2): 185. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 61 OPINION 1522 Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Jsea Guérin [-Méneville], 1832 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the specific name typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Callianidea typa, is hereby to be given precedence over the specific name elongata Gueérin [-Méneville], 1832, as published in the binomen /sea elongata, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Callianidea typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837; (b) Isaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Isaea montagui H. Milne Edwards, 1830. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) elongata Guérin [-Méneville], 1832, as published in the binomen Jsea elongata, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Callianidea typa, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) montagui H. Milne Edwards, 1830, as published in the binomen /saea montagui (specific name of the type species of Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830); (c) typa H. Milne Edwards, 1837, as published in the binomen Callianidea typa (specific name of the type species of Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837), with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over elongata Guérin [-Meneville], 1832, as published in the binomen Jsea elongata, whenever the two names are considered synonyms. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CALLIANIDEINAE De Man, 1928 (type genus Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837; Crustacea, Decapoda); (b) ISAEINAE Dana, 1853 (type genus, Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830; Crustacea, Amphipoda). (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Callisea Dana, 1852 (a junior objective synonym of Callianisea H. Milne Edwards, 1837); (b) Isaea Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Jsea Guérin [-Méneville], 1832, and a junior homonym of Jsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830); (c) Isea Guérin [-Méneville], 1832, as suppressed in (1)(a) above. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 History of Case 2567 An application for the conservation of Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 was received from Drs K. Sakai (Laboratory of Crustacea, Shikoku Women’s University, Japan) and L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 14 April 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 92-94 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 93-94. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride (in part), Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Ride abstained from voting on Proposal (1)(b) of BZN 44: 93 (the precedence of typa over elongata). He said that the problem could better be solved either by the authors designating a neotype for C. elongata clearly different from C. typa, so that no action by the Commission was necessary, or by the suppression of the name e/ongata. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire naturelle des crustacés, comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux, vol. 2, p. 319. CALLIANIDEINAE De Man, 1928, Siboga Expeditions Monograph, 39(a6): 30. Callisea Dana, 1852, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 6: 11. elongata, Isea, Guérin [-Méneville], 1832, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 1: 300. Tsaea H. Milne Edwards, 1830. Annales des Sciences naturelles, Paris, 20: 380. Isaea Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, p. 196. ISAEINAE Dana, 1853, U.S. Exploring expedition . . . 1838-42... under the command of C. Wilkes, vol. 13, p. 913. Isea Guérin [-Méneville], 1832, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 1: 299. montagui, Isaea, H. Milne Edwards, 1830, Annales des Sciences naturelles, Paris, 20: 380. typa, Callianidea, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire naturelle des crustacés, comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie et la classification de ces animaux, vol. 2, p. 320. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 63 OPINION 1523 Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 (currently Arctocorisa germari; Insecta, Hemiptera): neotype designated Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the type status of any North American specimens referred to as Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 is hereby set aside and the male specimen referred to in BZN 44: 99 (para. 3) and deposited in the Zoologische Museum, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin, DDR is hereby designated as the neotype of Corisa germari Fieber, 1848. (2) The name germari Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa germari and as interpreted by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2543 An application for the designation of a neotype for Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) on 9 December 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 99-100 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 99-100. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: germari, Corisa, Fieber, 1848, Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des naturalistes de Moscou, 21: 531. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1524 Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara (Subsigara) distincta; Insecta, Hemiptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name schellembergii Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Corixa schellembergii, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name distincta Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa distincta and as interpreted by the neotype designated by Jansson (1986), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name schellembergii Spinola, 1837, as published in the binomen Corixa schellembergii and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2544 An application for the conservation of Corisa distincta Fieber, 1848 was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) on 9 December 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 101—102 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 101. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Ueno, Willink | Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: distincta, Corisa, Fieber, 1848, Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des naturalistes de Moscou, 21: 524. schellembergii, Corixa, Spinola, 1837. Essai sur les genres d’insectes appartenants a l’ordre des Hémiptéres, Lin. ou Rhyngotes, Fab. et ala section des Hétéropteres, p. 57. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 65 OPINION 1525 Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are hereby suppressed: (a) Phymatodes Dejean, 1834, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) Merium Kirby, 1837, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (a) Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by LeConte (1850) Cerambyx variabilis Linnaeus, 1761; (b) Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 (gender: masculine), type species by indication Lagria tuberculata Fabricius, 1792; (c) Meriellum Linsley, 1957 (gender: neuter), type species by indication Merium proteus Kirby, 1837. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) variabilis Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cerambyx variabilis (specific name of the type species of Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839); (b) tuberculata Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Lagria tuberculata (specific name of the type species of Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867); (c) proteus Kirby, 1837, as published in the binomen Merium proteus (specific name of the type species of Meriellum Linsley, 1957). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Merium Kirby, 1837 as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2532 An application for the conservation of Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 was received from Dr M. Mroczkowski (Jnstytut Zoologii, Warsaw, Poland) on 3 September 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 107—109 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 108. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, _ Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Véeno, Willink 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Meriellum Linsley, 1957, Canadian Entomologist, 89: 287. Merium Kirby, 1837, Fauna Boreali Americana, The Insects, part 4, p. 172. Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867, Journal of the Linnean Society of London, Zoology, 9: 142. Phymatodes, Dejean, 1834, Catalogue des Coléoptéres, Ed. 2(3), p. 203. Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839, Histoire Naturelle des Coléopteéres de France, vol. 1, p. 39. proteus, Merium, Kirby, 1837, Fauna Boreali Americana, The Insects, part 4, p. 172. tuberculata, Lagria, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1(2), p. 78. | variabilis, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Svecica, Editio altera, p. 192. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 67 OPINION 1526 Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825 is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (gender: masculine), type species desig- nated by Schoenherr (1825; for Nanodes) Curculio lythri Fabricius, 1787 (a junior subjective synonym of Curculio marmoratus Goeze, 1777) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name marmoratus Goeze, 1777, as published in the binomen Curculio marmoratus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838). (4) The name Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (5) The name Nanodes Stephens, 1826 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior homonym of Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825). History of Case 2555 An application for the conservation of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 was received from Drs M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Carretera de Cadiz 89, Malaga, Spain) and L. Dieckmann (Leibnizstr. 17, Eberswalde, D.D.R.) on 31 January 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 15—16 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment was received from Dr D. E. Bright (Biosystematics Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada) and published in BZN 44: 195. A supportive comment from Dr M. G. Morris (Unstitute of Terrestrial Ecology, Wareham, Dorset, U.K.) was published in BZN 44: 195. A further supportive comment was received from Ing. Karel Schon (Litvinov, Czechoslovakia). Nanodes Stephens, 1826 (PSITTACIDAE, Aves) is no longer in use, having been replaced by Lathamus Lesson, 1830 (see pp. 14-15 of Mathews, G. M. 1911, On Some Necessary Alterations in the Nomenclature of Birds, part 2. Novitates Zoologicae, 18(1): 1-148, and p. 166 of Peters, J. L. 1937, Checklist of the Birds of the World, vol. 3, pp. 1-311. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.) A proposal was added to those on BZN 44: 16 to place Nanodes Stephens, 1826 on the Official Index. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 16, together with the additional proposal as above. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 12: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Starobogatov, Uéno Negative votes — 5: Heppell, Lehtinen, Savage, Schuster and Willink. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Bayer and Kabata commented that as 411 nominal species were involved the conserv- ation of Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 was justified. Heppell and Willink agreed with Dr Bright’s comment that priority should apply. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: marmoratus, Curculio, Goeze, 1777, Entomologische Beytrdge zu des Ritter Linne zwélften Ausgabe des Natursystems, vol. 1, p. 413. Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825, /sis (von Oken, Jena), 5: 587. Nanodes Stephens, 1826. In Shaw, General Zoology or systematic Natural History commenced by the late George Shaw, M.D., F.R.S. &c., vol. 14, p. 118. Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838, Genera et species Curculionidum, ... , vol. 4(2), p. 780. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 69 OPINION 1527 Polyommatus emolus Godart, [1824] (currently Anthene emolus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name balliston Hubner, [1823], as pub- lished in the binomen Lampides balliston, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name emolus Godart, [1824], as published in the binomen Polyommatus emolus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name balliston Hubner, [1823], as published in the binomen Lampides balliston and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 1731 An application for the conservation of Polyommatus emolus Godart, [1824] was first received from Mr G. E. Tite (Tring, Herts., U.K.) on 21 December 1965. The case was reopened in 1986 and after correspondence was published in BZN 44: 112-113 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 112. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: ‘Affirmative votes — 15: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: balliston, Lampides, Hubner, [1823], Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge, p. 11. emolus, Polyommatus, Godart, [1824], Jn Latreille & Godart, Encyclopédie Méthodique, vol. 9(2), p. 656. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1528 Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (currently in Cydia or Laspeyresia; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name rusticella Clerck, 1759, as published in the binomen Phalaena rusticella, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name nigricana Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Pyralis nigri- cana, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name rusticella Clerck, 1759, as published in the binomen Phalaena rusti- cella and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2468 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 was received from Dr P. R. Seymour (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Harpenden, Herts., U.K.) on 8 March 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 93-95 (April 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropri- ate journals. An opposing comment by Drs G. S. Robinson (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) and E.S. Nielsen (CSIRO, Canberra, Australia) was published in BZN 44: 196-197 (September 1987) together with a reply by the author of the application (BZN 44: 197-199). Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 94-95. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—13: Bayer, Corliss, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Cocks, Hahn, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cocks agreed with the objections of Robinson & Nielsen and considered that in this case priority should stand. Bayer, Willink and Ueno, although agreeing in principle with Robinson & Nielsen, considered the conservation of nigricana to be justified. Hahn would have preferred placing both nigricana and rusticella on the Official List, with the former being given precedence Original references : The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: nigricana, Pyralis, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia Systematica, vol. 3(2), p. 276. rusticella, Phalaena, Clerck, 1759, Icones Insectorum rariorum, pl. 10, fig. 11. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46( 1) March 1989 71 OPINION 1529 Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824, Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825 and Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved, and Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 and Curculio pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species of Ceutorhynchus and Rhinoncus respectively Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the specific name assimilis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen C urculio assimilis, and all other uses of that name prior to the publication of Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (i) Falciger Dejean, 1821; (ii) Campylirhynchus Dejean, 1821. (2) Under the plenary powers: (a) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 prior to that by Thompson (1859) of Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 are hereby set aside; (b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825 prior to that by Westwood (1838) of Curculio pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (2)(a) above, Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792: (b) Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (2)(b) above, Curculio pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Mononychus Germar, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Schoenherr (1826) Curculio pseudacori Fabricius, 1792 (a junior subjective synonym of Curculio punctumalbum Herbst, 1784); (d) Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Thompson (1859) Curculio quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1787; (e) Coeliodes Schoenherr, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- nation Curculio quercus Fabricius, 1787 (a junior primary homonym replaced by Curculio dryados Gmelin, 1790). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) assimilis Paykull, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio assimilis (specific name of the type species of Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824); (b) pericarpius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio pericarpius (specific name of the type species of Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825); 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 (c) punctumalbum Herbst, 1784, as published in the binomen Curculio punctum- album (senior subjective synonym of Curculio pseudacori Fabricius, 1792, the type species of Mononychus Germar, 1824); (d) quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Curculio quadri- tuberculatus (specific name of the type species of Phytobius Dejean, 1835); (e) dryados Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Curculio dryados, the oldest available synonym of Curculio quercus Fabricius, 1787, rejected because of primary homonymy (specific name of the type species of Coeliodes Schoenherr, 1837). (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Falciger Dejean, 1821, as suppressed in (1)(b)(i) above; (b) Campylirhynchus Dejean, 1821, as suppressed in (1)(b)(ii) above; (c) Compylirhynchus Hummel, 1823 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Campylirhynchus Dejean, 1821). (6) the name assimilis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Curculio assimilis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Cases 2219 and 2593 An application for the conservation of Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 and Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825, and designation of type species for these genera, was received from Dr H. Silfverberg (Universitets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) on 10 March 1977. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 36: 252-256 (February 1980). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Following publication of the first application (Case 2219) it became apparent that there was a senior homonym of one of the proposed type species. The second application (Case 2593), which sought to suppress this senior homonym, was published in BZN 44: 174-175 (September 1987). Supportive comments for the original application were received from Dr M. G. Morris Unstitute of Terrestrial Ecology, Wareham, Dorset, U.K.) and Mr R. T. Thompson (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.). The latter also pointed out that Rhinoncus Schoenherr dates from 1825 (sis von Oken 9, col. 586). Dr Silfverberg discovered after the publication of Case 2219 that Hummel (1823, p. 24) published the generic name Compylirhynchus, including in it three of the species in Dejean’s Campy- lirhynchus. There is no reason to treat Hummel’s name as other than an incorrect subsequent spelling of Camplirhynchus, the suppression of which was requested in Case 2219. Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 36: 253-255; 44: 174, together with the additional pro- posal to place Compylirhynchus Hummel, 1823 on the Official Index. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 73 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: assimilis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 134. assimilis, Curculio, Paykull, 1792, Monographia Curculionum Sueciae, p. 69. Campylirhynchus Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la Collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 84. Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824, Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, p. 214. Coeliodes Schoenherr, 1837, Genera et species Curculionidum, vol. 4, p. 282. Compylirhynchus Hummel, 1823, Essais Entomologiques, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 24. dryados, Curculio, Gmelin, 1790, Caroli Linnaei Systema Naturae, editio 13 aucta, reformata, vol. 1, part 4, p. 1748. Falciger Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la Collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 84. Mononychus Germar, 1824, Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, p. 241. pericarpius, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, Ed. 10, p. 380. Phytobius Dejean, 1835, Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, p. 282. punctumalbum, Curculio, Herbst in Fuessly, 1784, Archiv der Insektengeschichte, Heft 5, pl. 74. quadrituberculatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1, p. 100. Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825, Isis von Oken, 9, col. 586. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1530 Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 prior to that by Telenga (1936) of Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 are hereby set aside. (2) The name Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (gender: masculine), type species by sub- sequent designation by Telenga (1936) Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name scolyticida Wesmael, 1838, as published in the binomen Coeloides scolyticida (specific name of the type species of Coeloides Wesmael, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2360 An application for the designation of Coeloides scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 as the type species of Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 was received from Dr C. van Achterberg (Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) on 8 September 1980. C. scolyticida is the name provisionally proposed by Wesmael, when erecting Coeloides, for one of the two included species in case his identification of it as Bracon initiator Fabricius, 1793 was incorrect; subsequent work showed this to be so. After correspond- ence the case was published in BZN 44: 103-104 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 103, with proposal (1) altered to take account of the fact that the desired type designation had been made by Telenga (1936). At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Coeloides Wesmael, 1838, Nouveaux Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles- Lettres de Bruxelles, 11: 59. scolyticida, Coeloides, Wesmael, 1838, Nouveaux Mémoires de Il’ Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 11: 61. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 75 The reference for the designation of scolyticida Wesmael, 1838 as the type species of Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 is: Telenga, N. A. 1936. Insectes, Hyménoptéres, Family BRACONIDAE, pars 1. Faune de l’URSS (Institut Zoologique de l' Académie des Sciences de | 'URSS) 5(2): xvi, 402 pp. Académie des Sciences de lURSS, Moscou, Leningrad. [In Russian]. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 OPINION 1531 Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Disophrys Foerster, 1862 are hereby set aside and Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 is designated as type species. (2) The name Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Agathis caesa Klug, 1835, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name caesa Klug, 1835, as published in the binomen Agathis caesa (specific name of the type species of Disophrys Foerster, 1862) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2583 An application for the designation of Agathis caesa Klug, 1835 as the type species of Disophrys Foerster, 1862 was received from Dr C. van Achterberg (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 12 September 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 105-106 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 105. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: caesa, Agathis, Klug, 1835, In Waltl, Reise durch Tyrol Oberitalien und Piermont nach den stidlichen Spanien, vol. 2, p. 89. Disophrys Foerster, 1862, Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rhein- lande und Westfalens, 19: 246. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 77 OPINION 1532 Siphonosoma vastum Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884, Phascolosoma stephensoni Stephen, 1942, Phascolosoma scolops Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884 and Phascolosoma pacificum Keferstein, 1866 (Sipuncula): specific names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) violaceus De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phascolosomum ) violaceus; (b) spinicauda De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) spinicauda; (c) guttatus De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) guttatus; (d) javanensis De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) javanensis. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) vastus Selenka, De Man & Bulow, 1884, as published in the binomen Sipunculus vastus; (b) stephensoni Stephen, 1942, as published in the binomen Physcosoma stephensoni; (c) scolops Selenka, De Man & Bilow, 1884, as published in the binomen Phymosoma scolops; (d) pacificum Keferstein, 1866, as published in the binomen Phascolosoma pacificum. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) violaceus De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phascolosomum) violaceus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) spinicauda De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum) spinicauda and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) guttatus De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) guttatus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (d) javanensis De Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Sipunculus (Phymosomum ) javanensis and as suppressed in (1)(d) above. History of Case 2450 An application for the conservation of four sipunculan names was received from Dr J. 1. Saiz Salinas (Universidad del Pais Vasco, Bilbao, Spain) on 8 September 1983. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 89-91 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support by Professor E. B. Cutler (Utica College of Syracuse University, Utica, New York, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 44: 261 (December 1987). 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 90. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 13: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kraus, Melville, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno Negative votes — 4: Kabata, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski and Willink. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Kabata commented that he did not consider unacceptable the inconvenience which might be caused if the senior names were adopted. Willink commented that as the types of Quatrefages have now been studied and recognised the senior names could be used. Bayer said that he supported the application as two of the species concerned in the application (Phascolosoma scolops and P. pacificum) are widespread and have served as a basis for a substantial number of publications in the fields of ecology, physiology and biochemistry, in addition to having numerous references in the taxonomic literature. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: guttatus, Sipunculus (Phymosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Annelés marins et d'eau douce. Annélides et Géphyriens, p. 621. javanensis, Sipunculus (Phymosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Anneles marins et d'eau douce. Annélides et Géphyriens, p. 622. pacificum, Phascolosoma, Keferstein, 1866, Nachrichten von der Koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (und der Georg—Augusts—Universitdat), 1866(14): 221. scolops, Phymosoma, Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen von Dr C. Semper. Zweiter Theil. Wissenschaften Resultate, p. 75. spinicauda, Sipunculus (Phymosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Annelés marins et d'eau douce, Annélides et Géphyriens, p. 621. stephensoni, Physcosoma, Stephen, 1942, Annals of the Natal Museum, 10(2): 250. vastus, Sipunculus, Selenka, De Man & Bulow, 1884, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen von Dr C. Semper. Zweiter Theil. Wissenschaften Resultate, p. 103. violaceus, Sipunculus (Phascolosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Anneles, marins et d’eau douce. Annélides et Géphyriens, p. 619. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 79 OPINION 1533 Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) humilis Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria humilis; (b) brandtii Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria brandtii. (2) The name arenicola Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Holothuria arenicola, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) humilis Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria humilis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) brandtii Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Holothuria brandtii and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2415 An application for the conservation of Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 was received from Drs D. L. Pawson (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.) and J. E. Miller (Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Florida, U.S.A.) on 8 July 1982. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 114-115 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. With relevance to para. 2 of the application, Clark & Rowe (1967, BZN 24: 99 and 1982, BZN 39: 29) pointed out that Ludwig (1881, p. 595) had, by examination of the type specimens, found that Sporadipus maculatus Brandt, 1835 (p. 46) was conspecific with Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868. Selenka (1867, p. 339) had regarded S. macula- tus as congeneric with H. ( Microlethe) maculata Brandt, 1835 (p. 54), and, acting as a first reviser, had given the replacement name brandtii for the former species. Both Brandt’s names maculata, which have caused much confusion, are junior homonyms of H. maculata Chamisso & Eysenhardt, 1821. The valid specific name for H. (M.) maculata Brandt, 1835 is nobilis Selenka, 1867 (see BZN 24: 100). H. brandtii Selenka, 1867 has not been used as valid, and Clark & Rowe (see above) proposed its sup- pression to conserve H. arenicola; this additional proposal was incorporated in the voting papers. Decision of the Commission _ On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 115, together with an additional proposal to suppress H. brandtii Selenka, 1867 and place it on the Official Index. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 15: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Melville, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Mroczkowski. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Mroczkowski considered that the relative precedence procedure should be applied as the names brandtii Selenka, 1867, humilis Selenka, 1867 and arenicola Semper, 1868 are only subjective synonyms. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: arenicola, Holothuria, Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen IT, vol. 1, p. 81. brandtii, Holothuria, Selenka, 1867, Zeitschrift ftir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 17: 339. humilis, Holothuria, Selenka, 1867, Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 17: 339. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 81 OPINION 1534 Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia, Testudines): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Sternothaerus Bell, 1825 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Sternotherus Gray, 1825 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Stejneger (1902), Testudo odorata Latreille, 1801; (b) Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Fitzinger (1843), Testudo subnigra Lacépéde in Bonnaterre, 1789 (valid name at the time of this ruling of Testudo subnigra Lacépeéde, 1788; (c) Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Testudo galeata Schoepff, 1792; (d) Kinosternon Spix, 1824 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by Bell (1828), Kinosternon longicaudatum Spix, 1824. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) odorata Latreille, 1801, as published in the binomen Testudo odorata (specific name of the type species of Sternotherus Gray, 1825); (b) subnigra Lacépéde in Bonnaterre, 1789, as published in the binomen Testudo subnigra (specific name of the type species of Pelusios Wagler, 1830); (c) galeata Schoepff, 1792, as published in the binomen Testudo galeata (specific name of the type species of Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830); (d) longicaudatum Spix, 1824, as published in the binomen Kinosternon longi- caudatum (specific name of the type species of Kinosternon Spix, 1824). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 (type genus Pe/omedusa Wagler, 1830); (b) KINOSTERNIDAE Agassiz, 1857 (spelling corrected; type genus Kinosternon Spix, 1824). (5) The name Sternothaerus Bell, 1825 as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (6) The name STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825 (type genus Sternothaerus Bell, 1825, suppressed in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2278 An application for the conservation of Sternotherus Gray, 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (two turtle genera) was received from Drs H. M. Smith, R. B. Smith and D. Chiszar (University of Colorado, Colorado, U.S.A.) on 1 August 1978. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 37: 124-128 (June 1980). Notice of the 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 case was sent to appropriate journals. An extended comment by Drs R. Bour & A. Dubois (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) was published in BZN 41: 198-204 (November 1984). It contained additional and modified proposals, but was in basic agreement with the original application. In 1985, and again in 1986, Drs Bour & Dubois were sent some minor queries relating to their comment but no reply was received. After voting it was found that the reference for subnigra should have been as given below in the original references. This point is due to Lacépéde’s 1788 work being placed on the Official Index in 1987 (Opinion 1463), the reference below being that of the first validly published name for the taxon in question. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 37: 127, with some of the modifications proposed by Bour & Dubois. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Starobogatov. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: galeata, Testudo, Schoepff, 1792, Historia testudinum iconibus illustrata, p. 12. KINOSTERNIDAE Agassiz, 1857, Contributions to the natural history of the United States, Mono- graph 1, parts 2 and 3, p. 346. Kinosternon Spix, 1824, Animalia nova, sive species novae testudinem, p. 17. longicaudatum, Kinosternon, Spix, 1824, Animalia nova, sive species novae testudinem, p. 17. odorata, Testudo, Latreille, 1801, Histoire naturelle des Reptiles, vol. 1, p. 122. Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830, Natiirliches System der Amphibien ... , p. 136. PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1868: 119. Pelusios Wagler, 1830, Natiirliches System der Amphibien . . . , p. 136. STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825, Zoological Journal, 2: 302. Sternothaerus Bell, 1825, Zoological Journal, 2: 305. Sternotherus Gray, 1825, Annals of Philosophy, (2)10: 211. subnigra, Testudo, Lacépéde in Bonnaterre, 1789, Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois régnes de la nature; erpétologie, p. 30. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 83 OPINION 1535 Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia): neotype designated; and Halitherium Kaup, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia): Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the correct original spelling of the generic name Halytherium Kaup, 1838 is deemed to be Halitherium. (2) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type specimens for the nominal species Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838 are hereby set aside and the fossil premolar from Flonheim, West Germany, bearing the number Az 48 in the Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt (the holotype of Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838) is desig- nated as the neotype. (3) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Halitherium Kaup, 1838 (spelling confirmed in (1) above) are hereby set _ aside and Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 is designated as type species. (4) The name Halitherium (emendation of Halytherium) Kaup, 1838 (gender: neuter), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (3) above, Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (5) The name schinzii Kaup, 1838, as published in the binomen Pugmeodon schinzii (specific name of the type species of Halitherium Kaup, 1838) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 (a junior objective synonym of Halitherium Kaup, 1838); (b) Halytherium Kaup, 1838 (spelling emended to Halitheriumas ruled in (1) above). (7) The name studeri von Meyer, 1838, as published in the binomen Halianassa studeri and as interpreted by the neotype designated in (2) above (a junior objective ' synonym of schinzii Kaup, 1838, as published in the binomen Pugmeodon schinzii) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2569 An application for the designation of a neotype for Halianassa studeri von Meyer, 1838, and of Pugmeodon schinzii Kaup, 1838 as the type species of Halitherium Kaup, 1838, was received from Dr D. P. Domning (Department of Anatomy, Howard Univer- sity, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 12 May 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 122—125 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Three members of the Committee on Mammal Names of the International Theriological Congress (Drs S. B. George, D. Kock & J. Meester) supported the application. Drs Kock & Meester both suggested that suppression of H. studeri would have solved the problem in maintaining the stability of nomenclature. A comment by Dr J. J. Hooker (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) also suggested the latter course. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(1) March 1989 Decision of the Commission On | September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 124. At the close of the voting period on | December 1988 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Heppell. No votes were returned by Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin. Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence. Heppell voted against the original proposals as he agreed with the members of the Specialist Committee and Dr Hooker that the problem would best be resolved by suppression of the names Halianassa and Halianassa studeri for the purposes of the Principle of Priority. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Halianassa von Meyer, 1838, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1838: 667. Halitherium Kaup, 1838, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1838: 536. Halytherium Kaup, 1838, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1838: 319, pl. 2. schinzii, Pugmeodon, Kaup, 1838, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, 1838: 319, pl. 2. studeri, Halianassa, von Meyer, 1838, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Pald- ontologie, 1838: 667. Contents—continued Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1518. Harpa articularis Lamarck, 1822 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). . . . . 53 Opinion 1519. Ammonites neubergicus Hauer, 1858 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). . 54 Opinion 1520. Chagrinichnites brooksi Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 and Chagrinichnites osgoodi Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace fossil; arthropod) . . 56 Opinion 1521. Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 sie aaa, Acarina). . wee ta. 58 Opinion 1522. Callianidea H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) . ayer 61 Opinion 1523. Corisa germari Fieber, 1848 (currently Arctocorisa germari; Insecta, Hemiptera) . . 63 Opinion 1524. Corie distincta Fieber, "1848 (currently Sigara (Subsigara) distincta; Insecta, Hemiptera) . . 64 Opinion 1525. Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 and 'Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 Ainsecta Coleoptera). . : 65 Opinion 1526. Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Mollusca, Coleoptera) Pe 67 Opinion 1527. Polyommatus emolus Godart, 1824 (currently Anthene emolus; Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . 69 Opinion 1528. Pyralis nigricana Fabricius, 1794 (currently i in C y dia or Laspeyresia; Insecta, Lepidoptera). . . 70 Opinion 1529. Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824, Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825 and Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (Insecta, Diptera) . . ana en eee 71 Opinion 1530. Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) OF ae ee ee 74 Opinion 1531. Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . . 76 Opinion 1532. Siphonosoma vastum Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884, Phascolosoma stephensoni Stephen, 1942, Phascolosoma scolops Selenka, De Man & Biilow, 1884 and Phascolosoma pacificum Keferstein, 1866 (Sipuncula) . . 77 Opinion 1533. Holothuria arenicola Semper, 1868 (Echinodermata, Holothuroidea) . 79 Opinion 1534. Sternotherus ae 1825 and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 ee Testudines). . . 81 Opinion 1535. Halianassa studeri' von 1 Meyer, 1838 (Mammalia, Sirenia) . Sa eres 83 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author's name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described . . .” References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices . : International Commission and its publications Addresses of members of the Commission . : International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . . Proposed fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature—a call for possible amendments to the third (1985) edition . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology—Supplement International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—General Session of ‘the Commission, Canberra, 15—19 October, 1988 . ; International Union of Biological Sciences—Section of Zoological ‘Nomenclature, Report of Meeting, Canberra, 14-18 October, 1988 . Applications Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation. E. E. Spamer & A. E. Bogan : Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta) Annelida, Polychaeta): edie conservation of the specific names. S. Chambers & D. Heppell ee GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera): proposed precedence over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838. K.H.L.Key Ptochus Schénherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation ‘by confirm- ation of Marshall’s (1916) designation of Prochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 as the type species. R. T. Thompson ‘ Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. 1. M. White & P. Harris : Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): proposed conservation of accepted usage by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author. D. K. Loydell rate Heliastes ovalis F. Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, ‘Perci- formes): proposed conservation of the specific name. W. I. Follett & J. E. Randall . Heteronota pelagica Girard, 1857 (currently Gymnodactylus, Cyrtodactylus or Nactus pelagicus; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of the specific name. G. R. Zug. Comments On the proposal! to designate a new type species for die kaktede aie 1979 (Foraminiferida). F. T. Banner. On the proposed order of precedence of the family- -proup 1 names ACRIDIDAE, OEDIPOD- IDAE and LOCUSTIDAE (Insecta, Orthoptera). R. F. Chapman; N. B. Tindale; R. E. Blackith; I. M. Kerzhner; P. K. Tubbs : On the proposed conservation of Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.K.Thayer. . . On the proposed conservation of Philanthus triangulum ‘Wabricius; 1775) (Insecta, Hymenoptera). O. Lomholdt; J. Hamon : On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes). E. Mayr . On the proposed conservation of Pycinaster magnificu Spencer, 19 1 3 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea).C.W. Wright . . . On the specific name (arnouxii Duméril, 1851 or + pelagica Girard, 1857) of a Pacific- basin gekkonid lizard. A. G. Kluge On the proposal conservation of the spelling of Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae). J. Mlikovsky; M.Lecroy&W.J.Bock. . . On the proposed suppression of Rallus nigra Miller, 1784 (Aves). M. P. Walters; Commission Secretariat . ; eee : Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Volume 46, Part 2, 23 June 1989 pp. 85-152 ISSN 0007- 516 7 a ae Rae ae 3ulletin ay ee omenclature — oological Nomenclature THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1989 is £60 or $115, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Secretary-General Executive Secretary (Vacant) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen (Norway; Parasitology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) Secretariat Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia) Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Prof A. Willink (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) MrJ.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1989 we BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 46, part 2 (pp. 85—152) 23 June 1989 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on appli- cations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 46, part | (published on 29 March 1989): (1) CLAvIDAE McGrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): a proposal to remove the homonymy. (Case 2710). W. O. Cernohorsky & A. V. Sysoev. (2) Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species. (Case 2711). J. K. Lowry & H. E. Stoddart. (3) Acrophaga Brauer & Bergenstamm, 1891 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed desig- nation of Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species, and Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1794: proposed suppression of the specific name. (Case 2712). K. Rognes. (4) coLypmup4e Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 and SsARROTRUDAE Billberg, 1820; and Cerylon Latreille, 1802: proposed conservation of Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 as the type species. (Case 2713). H. Silfverberg. (5) Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species. (Case 2714). B. W. Hoeksema. (6) Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine gender for the name. (Case 2715). D. A. Etnier & M. L. Warren. ED Y UNI aston | 3% JI IN S3R9 | 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 (7) Ceratopogon puncticollis Becker, 1903 (currently Culicoides puncticollis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over Ceratopogon algecirensis Strobl, 1900. (Case 2716). J. Boorman. (8) Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata, Mammalia, Ceta- cea): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2717). W. F. Perrin. (9) Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Euleia heraclei; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling of the specific name. (Case 2719). I. M. White & P. R. Seymour. (10) Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2720). S. R. Steinhauser, L. D. Miller, J. Y. Miller & C. A. Bridges. (11) Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed prece- dence over Palaega Woodward, 1870. (Case 2721). J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck. (12) Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2722). K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology—Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This gave all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature had ruled since it was set up in 1895 up to December 1985. There were about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and 3 works have been added to the Official Lists and Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. Copies of this supplement can be obtained without charge from either of the follow- ing addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology can be ordered at the price shown: The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 87 Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The following members of the Commission reach the end of their terms of service at the close of the XXIV General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences to be held in Amsterdam, in July 1991: Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia, Herpet- ology); Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany, Arachnology); Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland, Coleoptera); Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia, Mammalia). A further vacancy arises from the resignation of Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada, Ichthyology). The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 46(1) (March 1989). Under Article 3b of the Commission’s Constitution a member whose term of service has terminated is not eligible for immediate re-election unless the Council of the Commission has decided to the contrary. The Commission now invites nominations, by any person or institution, of candi- dates for membership. Article 2b of the Constitution prescribes that: ‘The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to have an interest in zoological nomenclature’. (It should be noted that ‘zoology’ here includes the applied biological sciences (medi- cine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names). Nominations made since September 1987 will be reconsidered automatically and need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the date of birth, nationality and qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each candidate should be sent by 15 June 1990 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1988 Case 2657 Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): proposed designation of Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the type species P. D. Taylor Department of Palaeontology, British Museum ( Natural History ), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. E. Voigt Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut und Museum, Universitat Hamburg, D2000 Hamburg 13, Fed. Rep. Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the nominal species Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the type species of the Cretaceous bryozoan genus Marssonopora Lang, 1914, since the original type species (by monotypy), Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow, 1839, was based on misidentified material. The proposed designation is in accordance with usage of the last 75 years. 1. Lang (1914b, p. 438) established the nominal genus Marssonopora to which he referred a single species, Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow, 1839, which he gave as the ‘genotype’. Cellepora dispersa had been first: briefly described by v. Hagenow (1839, p. 280) without figure, and later redescribed and figured by v. Hagenow (in Geinitz, 1846, p. 629, pl. 23b, fig. 55). Although v. Hagenow’s type material of this species is known to have been destroyed (Voigt, 1959), the species is clearly not the same as that identified as Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow by Lang (1914b) when describing Marssonopora. This misidentification was originally pointed out by Voigt (1930, p. 412). 2. The material of Cellepora dispersa studied by v. Hagenow (1839, p. 280) and also by v. Hagenow in Geinitz (1846) came from the Baltic island of Rigen (now in the German Democratic Republic), from deposits regarded as Lower Maastrichtian. V. Hagenow’s original and subsequent descriptions both made clear the runner-like form of the colony and long autozooids with thread-like proximal parts (caudae). The large size of colonies encrusting ‘Gryphaea’ shells was noted by v. Hagenow in Geinitz (1846). Spine bases, avicularia and ovicells were not mentioned in either of v. Hagenow’s descriptions of Cellepora dispersa, or ina later redescription by Marsson ~ (1887, p. 91, pl. 9, fig. 9). 3. The ‘Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow’ described by Lang (1914b) was also from Riigen. Lang’s only figured specimen (pl. 34, fig. 3), registered in the collections of the British Museum (Natural History) as D. 11498, has the same runner-like form and long, caudate autozooids as v. Hagenow’s species. However, Lang’s figured specimen ——————_—_—_St— i —— ———<—<—— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 89 and other specimens cited by him as ‘Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow’ differ from v. Hagenow’s species in four important respects: (a) a large number of spine bases occur on the mural rim surrounding the opesia of the autozooids (described by Lang as beads on the termen). In well-described specimens the spines from these bases are seen to overarch the opesia (see Voigt, 1987, figs. 2H, J); (b) ovicells are present; (c) small heterozooids (?avicularia) are often present between successive autozooids; (d) all known colonies are small in size. 4. Whereas Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow in lacking ovicells appears to belong to the suborder Malacostegina Levinsen, 1902 (see d’Hondt, 1985; Taylor, 1987), the ovicellate Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow sensu Lang, 1914 belongs to the order Neocheilostomina d’Hondt, 1985. Voigt (1930, p. 409, pl. 1, fig. 1) described specimens of Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow, including topotypes from Rigen, and assigned the species to the malacostegine genus Herpetopora Lang, 1914, the type species of which is Herpetopora anglica Lang (1914a, p. 6) from the Upper Cretaceous. Thomas & Larwood (1960, p. 371) revised the type and several other species of Herpetopora, and placed the genus in subjective synonymy with Pyripora d’Orbigny, 1849 (type species Criserpia pyriformis Michelin, 1847 from the Neogene). However, Voigt (1982, p. 51) and Taylor (1988, p. 519) have given reasons for rejecting this synonymy and retaining Herpetopora as a separate genus. 5. Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow sensu Lang, 1914 was redescribed by Voigt (1930, p. 412, pl. 1, fig. 18) as ‘Marssonopora dispersa Lang (non v. Hagenow)’. Voigt (1930) assigned two further species to Marssonopora:, Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 from the Lower Maastrichtian of Moen, and Marssonopora catenularia Voigt, 1930 from the Danian of Faxe. Although Levinsen (1925, p. 316) failed to observe heterozooids in Membranipora densispina, the occurrence of approximately 18 spine bases and similar sized autozooids suggests that this Lower Maastrichtian species is the same as Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow sensu Lang, 1914. Two Recent species have also been referred to Marssonopora: Marssonopora uncifera Canu & Bassler, 1928 and Marssonopora kermadecensis Gordon, 1984. 6. Article 70 b of the Code specifies that misidentified type species should be referred to the Commission. In order to maintain nomenclatural stability, it is recommended that Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 be designated as the type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914. This is apparently the earliest available name for the species misidentified as Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow, 1839 by Lang when originally propos- ing Marssonopora. The alternative choice of Cellepora dispersa v. Hagenow, 1839 would not only contravene current usage (e.g. Gordon, 1984) of Marssonopora for ovicellate runner-like cheilostomes with spinose autozooids and small heterozooids, but would place Marssonopora Lang, 1914 in subjective synonymy with Herpetopora Lang, 1914. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to-use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Marssonopora Lang, 1914 and to designate Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the type species; 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Marssono- pora Lang, 1914 (gender; feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name densispina Levinsen, 1925, as published in the binomen Membranipora densispina (specific name of the type species of Marssonopora Levinsen, 1925). References Canu, F. & Bassler, R. S. 1928. Fossil and Recent Bryozoa of the Gulf of Mexico region. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 72: 1-199. Geinitz, H. B. 1846. Grundriss der Versteinerungskunde, 817 pp. Arnoldische Buchhandlung, Dresden. Gordon, D. P. 1984. The marine fauna of New Zealand: Bryozoa: Gymnolaemata from the Kermadec Ridge. New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 91: 1-198. Wellington. Hagenow, F. von, 1839. Monographie der Riigen’schen Kreide—Versteinerungen, 1, Phytolithen und Polyparien. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten- kunde, 1839: 253-296. Heidelberg. d’Hondt, J.-L. 1985. Contribution a la systématique des Bryozoaires Eurystomes. Apports récents et nouvelles propositions. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (B), 7: 1-12. Lang, W. D. 1914a. On Herpetopora, a new genus containing three new species of Cretaceous cheilostome Polyzoa. Geological Magazine, NS, decade 6, 1: 5-8. Lang, W. D. 1914b. Some new genera and species of Cretaceous cheilostome Polyzoa. Geological Magazine, NS, decade 6, 1: 436-444. Levinsen, G. M. R. 1902. Studies on Bryozoa. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den Naturhistoriske Forening i Kjobenhavn, 1902: 1-31. Levinsen, G. M. R. 1925. Undersogelser over Bryozoerne i den Danske Kridtformation. Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, Naturvidenskabelig og mathematisk Afdeling, 8, 7: 283-445. Kjobenhavn. Marsson, T. 1887. Die Bryozoen der weissen Schreibkreide der Insel Rigen. Palaeontologische Abhandlungen, 4: 1-112. Berlin. Michelin, H. 1841-1848. Iconographie zoophytologique, description par localités et terrains des polypiers fossiles de France et pays environnants, 348 pp. Bertrand, Paris. Orbigny, A. d’, 1849. Description de quelques genres nouveaux de Mollusques bryozoaires. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, (2), 1: 499-504. Paris. Taylor, P. D. 1987. Skeletal morphology of malacostegan grade cheilostome Bryozoa. Pp. 269-276 in Ross, J. R. P. (Ed.), Bryozoa: present and past. Western Washington University, Bellingham. Taylor, P. D. 1988. Colony growth pattern and astogenetic gradients in the Cretaceous cheilostome bryozoan Herpetopora. Palaeontology, 31: 519-549. Thomas, H. D. & Larwood, G. P. 1960. The Cretaceous species of Pyripora d’Orbigny and Rhammatopora Lang. Palaeontology, 3: 370-386. Voigt, E. 1930. Morphologische und stratigraphische Untersuchungen tiber die Bryozoenfauna der oberen Kreide. I. Teil. Die cheilostomen Bryozoen der jiingeren Oberkreide in Nordwestdeutschland, im Baltikum und in Holland. Leopoldina, 6: 379-579. Halle. Voigt, E. 1959. Revision der von F. v. Hagenow 1839-1850 aus der Schreibkreide von Rigen verOffentlichten Bryozoen. Geologie, 8(25): 1-80. Berlin. Voigt, E. 1982. Uber Pyripora huckei Buge (Bryoz. Cheilostomata) in Geschieben des Holsteiner Gesteins (Unt. Miozan). Der Geschiebesammler, 16: 49-56. Hamburg. Voigt, E. 1987. Thalassinoid burrows in the Maastrichtian Chalk Tuff near Maastricht (The Netherlands) as a fossil hardground microcavern biotope of Cretaceous bryozoans. Pp. 293-300 in Ross, J. R. P. (Ed.), Bryozoa: present and past. Western Washington University, Bellingham. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 91 Case 2403 Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): confirmation of the author of the genus, and of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type species P. F. Rawson Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London, WCIE 6BT, U.K. E. Kemper Bundesanstalt fiir Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Postfach 51 01 53, 3000 Hannover 51, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm Sayn in Kilian, 1910 as the author of the Cretaceous ammonite genus Valanginites, and current usage of Ammon- ites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type species, although the specific name was first introduced by Phillips in 1829. 1. Valanginites is a widely distributed early Cretaceous ammonite genus which has been discussed extensively (see Kemper, Rawson & Thieuloy, 1981, p. 274). The name was attributed to Sayn by Spath (1930, p. 149) and to Sayn in Kilian by Roman (1938, p. 386) and Khimshiashvili et al. (in Luppov & Drushchits, 1958, p. 95) but is usually assigned, erroneously, to Kilian. The type species is generally quoted as Ammonites nucleus Roemer, but Roemer was not the author of the name; it is desirable in the interests of stability that identity of the type species should be placed beyond doubt. 2. Kilian (1910, p. 193) first mentioned Valanginites as ‘H. [Holcostephanus] (Valanginites) Rebouli Sayn (in litt.)’. The specific name rebouli is a nomen nudum, but on page 194 he listed ‘H. (Valanginites) perinflatus Math. sp., H. (Valanginites ) Bachelardi Sayn and H. (Valanginites) simplus D’Orb. sp.’. 3. On page 196 Kilian referred to ‘der Gruppe des Holc. nucleus Roem. sp. (= Valanginites Sayn)’ and in footnote 3 on page 196 he stated ‘G. Sayn hat in dem verkiesten Holcostephaniden-Material der mittleren und oberen Valendis-Stufe Siidost-Frankreichs folgende Beobachtungen gemacht, deren Ver6ffentlichungen in nachster Zeit geschehen wird. (Miindliche Mitteilung von G. Sayn.)—S. G. Valangi- nites G. Sayn: V. Rebouli G. Sayn, V. Bachelardi G. Sayn sp., V. simplus D’Orb. (Gruppe des Holc. nucleus Roem.=s.g. Valanginites G. Sayn—v. Koenen rechnete diese Formen zu Polyptychites); V.(?) perinflatus Math. sp.’ It is thus clear that authorship of Valanginites was attributed to Sayn and the genus should be cited as Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Recommendation 51B of the Code). 4. In 1930, Spath (p. 149, footnote) designated perinflatus Matheron, 1878, as the type species of the genus, although in 1939 (p. 11, footnote 2) he stated that ‘since on p. 196, Kilian definitely identified the sub-genus Valanginites with Ammonites nucleus Roemer, and questioned the generic position of V. (?) perinflatus, my selection is 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 invalid; and V. nucleus (Roemer) must be taken as genotype of Valanginites’. In the meantime, Roman (1938, p. 386) had already designated A. nucleus Roemer, 1841 as the type. Subsequent authors have generally accepted nucleus Roemer as the type species of Valanginites, e.g. Wright (in Moore, 1957, p. L348); Khimshiashvili et al. (in Luppov & Drushchits, 1958, p. 95); Riccardi & Westermann (1970, p. 889); Kemper, Rawson & Thieuloy (1981, p. 274); Company (1987, p. 173). 5. However, as Kemper, Rawson & Thieuloy pointed out, Ammonites nucleus was named and figured, without description, by Phillips in 1829 (p. 174, pl. 2, fig. 43). The holotype is in the Yorkshire Museum, York (numbered YM 415), contrary to the statement by Howarth (1962, p. 133). Itisa smooth ammonite nucleus from the Speeton Clay of Speeton, England, less than 5 mm in diameter. It is probably the nucleus of a Simbirskites or Polyptychites but it is too small to be determined. The species name has not been attributed to Phillips for over 50 years and even in 1889 the species was described as ‘obscure’ (Lamplugh, p. 614). 6. Roemer (1841, p. 87, pl. 13, fig. 2) described and figured a much larger ammonite (about 45 mm in diameter) from Bredenbeck, north Germany, as ‘Ammonites nucleus Phillips (?)’, but stressed that because Phillips’ specimen was so small the specific assignation of the German specimen was uncertain. Subsequent authors, e.g. Khimshiashvili et al. (in Luppov & Drushchits, 1958, p. 95), Struckmann (1892, p. 73) and Thieuloy (1977, p. 426) interpreted the species from Roemer and attributed the name to him. Roemer’s specimen is lost but a cast in the Geologisches—Palaontolo- gisches Institut, Gottingen, was figured by Kemper, Rawson & Thieuloy (1981, pl. 38, figs 1 and 2). 7. To remove uncertainty about authorship of the genus, and to stabilise existing usage of the type species, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to: (a) suppress the specific name nucleus Phillips, 1829, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus, and all other uses of that name prior to Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) set aside all designations of type species for Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 prior to that of V. nucleus Roemer, 1841 by Roman (1938); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Valang- inites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (gender: masculine), type species Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by the ruling in (1) (b) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nucleus Roemer, 1841, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus (specific name of the type species of Valanginites, Sayn in Kilian, 1910 by virtue of the proposal in (1) (b) above); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name nucleus Phillips, 1829, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus, and as suppressed in (1) (a) above. References Company, M. 1987. Los Ammonites del Valanginiense del sector oriental de las Cordilleras Beticas (SE de Espafia). xi, 294 pp. Tesis Doctoral, Universidad de Granada. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 93 Howarth, M. K. 1962. The Yorkshire Type Ammonites and Nautiloids of Young and Bird, Phillips, and Martin Simpson. Palaeontology, 5(1): 93-136. Kemper, E., Rawson, P. F. & Thieuloy, J.-P. 1981. Ammonites of Tethyan ancestry in the early lower Cretaceous of north-west Europe. Palaeontology, 24(2): 251-311. Kilian, W. 1910. Das bathyale Palaeocretacicum im stidéstlichen Frankreich. Lethaea geo- gnostica, Teil II, Das Mesozoicum. Band 3 (Kreide), Zweite Liefrung, pp. 169-287. Stuttgart. Khimshiashvili, N. G. et al. 1958. Jn Luppov, N. P. & Drushchits, V. V. (Vol. Eds.). Fundamentals of Paleontology. Vol. 6, Mollusca—Cephalopoda II. 359 pp. Moscow. [In Russian; English translation by the Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1976. 474 pp. Jerusalem]. Lamplugh, G. W. 1889. On the subdivisions of the Speeton Clay. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 45: 575-618. Phillips, J. 1829. Z/lustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire. Part I. \st edition, xvi+ 192 pp. York. Riccardi, A. C. & Westermann, G. E. G. 1970. The Valanginian Dobrodgeiceras Nikolov(Ammon- itina) from Peru. Journal of Paleontology, 44(5): 888-892. Roemer, F. A. 1840-41. Die Versteinerungen des Norddeutschen Kreidegebirges. | et 2. 145 pp. Hannover. Roman, F. 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. Essai de genera. 554 pp. Masson et Cie., Paris. Spath, L. F. 1930. On the Cephalopoda of the Uitenhage Beds. Annals of the South African Museum, 28: 131-158. Spath, L. F. 1939. The Cephalopoda of the Neocomian Belemnite Beds of the Salt Range. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India. Palaeontologia Indica, new series, 25(1): 1-154. Struckmann, C. 1892. Die Grenzschichten zwischen Hilsthon und Wealden bei Barsinghausen am Deister. Jahrbuch der kéoniglich Preussischen geologischen Landesanstalt und Bergakademie zu Berlin, 10 (year 1889), (2): 55-79. Thieuloy, J.-P. 1977. Les Ammonites boréales des Formations néocomiennes du sud-est frangais (Province Sudméditerranéenne). Geobios, 10(3): 395-461. Wright, C. W. 1957. In Moore, Raymond C. (Ed). Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part L, Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea. xxii, 490 pp. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2642 POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 K. C. Emberton Department of Malacology, Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the established family-group name POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 for a family of terrestrial pulmonates, by giving it precedence over the senior name MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866, a name which has only been used as valid by one author. 1. In 1866-1867 G. W. Tryon, Jr published a monograph of the terrestrial mollusks of the United States in which he named two new subfamilies of the HELICIDAE, one of them being MESODONTINAE (vol. 2, p. 306), which included the genera Mesodon Rafinesque in Férussac, 1821 (vol. 3, p. 38), Polygyra Say, 1818 (Vol. 3, p. 157) and others. The full description (vol. 2, p. 306) was ‘Shell frequently toothed, lip broadly reflected and appressed’. 2. Pilsbry (1894), in his monumental anatomical-conchological Guide to the Study of Helices, erected the subfamily POLYGYRINAE (p. xxxii), in which he included Polygyra, Mesodon, and other genera. He synonymised Mesodon under the section Triodopsis of the genus Polygyra (p. 74). 3. In 1930 Pilsbry elevated his POLYGYRINAE to full family status as POLYGYRIDAE. 4. Volume 1, Part 2 of Pilsbry’s 1940 work retained the name POLYGYRIDAE and re- elevated Mesodon to generic level within the subfamily POLYGYRINAE. This work has not been succeeded as the standard identification manual for North American land Mollusca. 5. The POLYGYRIDAE are an endemic North American family (with the possible exception of one Siberian species — see Richardson, 1986). Some of the species are locally abundant. There has been a voluminous literature since 1940 (summarised in Emberton, 1986) on their systematics, ecology, behaviour, physiology and anatomy, all of it referring to the family as POLYGYRIDAE. For example, all major summaries of land pulmonate classification (Taylor & Sohl, 1962; Solem, 1978; Boss, 1982) have used the name POLYGYRIDAE. Richardson’s (1986) catalog presented synonymies and bibliographies of all species of the Polygyracea. 6. In 1956, H. B. Baker, in a typically terse article entitled Family names in Pulmo- nata, decried the then new (1955) ICZN rules, and presented a list of all the changes they would necessitate in the established nomenclature of pulmonate gastropods. He listed the changes ‘simply as an argument against these proposed amendments’ saying that he accepted none of them. Within this list (p. 138) was the first mention of MESODONTIDAE since its proposal: “Tryon’s (1866) Mesodontinae would be prior to Polygryinae, 1895’ [sic]. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 95 7. The only use of the name MESODONTIDAE since Baker (1956) of which I am aware has been by Nordsieck, in his summary of the distribution of pulmonate families (1986, p. 100), with POLYGYRIDAE in synonymy, and in his 1987 revision of the HELICOIDEA, in which POLYGYRIDAE was again cited in synonymy. The names POLYGYRIDAE and Poly- gyracea are firmly entrenched in a voluminous malacological and other literature; substitution of the names MESODONTIDAE and Mesodontacea for these well-known and common Cretaceous-to-Recent snails poses a serious threat to nomenclatural stability. 8. The genus Mesodon Rafinesque is usually incorrectly cited with the date 1831. The correct citation is Rafinesque in Férussac, 1821 (p. 37). In Férussac two species (helicinum and thyroidus) are given within Mesodon, but helicinum is a nomen nudum. Thus the type of Mesodon is Helix thyroidus Say, 1817 (p. 123) by monotypy (see Johnson, 1975, concerning the date). The type of the genus Polygyra Say, 1818 (p. 276) is Polygyra septemvolva Say, 1818 (p. 278) by subsequent designation by Hermannsen (1847, p. 317). 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the family-group name POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 is to be given precedence over the name MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 whenever the two are considered synonyms; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Mesodon Rafinesque in Férussac, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species Helix thyroidus Say, 1817, by monotypy; (b) Polygyra Say, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species Polygyra septemvolva Say, 1818, by subsequent designation by Hermannsen (1847); (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) thyroidus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Helix thyroidus, specific name of the type species of Mesodon Rafinesque in Férussac, 1821; (b) septemvolva Say, 1818, as published in the binomen Polygyra septem- volva, specific name of the type species of Polygyra Say, 1818; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (type genus Polygyra Say, 1818) with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (type genus Mesodon Rafinesque in Férussac, 1821) with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over POLY- GYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. References Baker, H. B. 1956. Family names in Pulmonata. The Nautilus, 69: 128-139. Boss, K. J. 1982. Mollusca, pp. 945-1166. Jn Parker, S. P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. 1166 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. Emberton, K. C. 1986. The Evolution of Multiple Sympatric Homeomorphy Among Three Genera of Land Snails. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Chicago. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Férussac, A. E. J. P. J. F. 1821. Tableau Systématique de la Famille des Animaux Mollusques. xlviii, 114 pp., 27 pl. Bertrand, Paris. Herrmannsen, A. N. 1847-1849. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia, vol. 2. xiii, 717 pp. Cassellis. Johnson, R. I. 1975. First paper on the conchology of the United States by an American author, Thomas Say, 1817. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 7: 265— 267. Nordsieck, H. 1986. The system of the Stylommatophora (Gastropoda), with special regard to the systematic position of the Clausiliidae, II. Importance of the shell and distribution. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 117: 93-116. Nordsieck, H. 1987. Revision des Systems der Helicoidea (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 118: 9-50. Pilsbry, H. A. 1894. Guide to the Study of Helices, vol. 9 (Helicidae, vol. 7). in Tryon, G. W., Jr, Manual of Conchology, Second Series: Pulmonata, x\viii, 366 pp., 71 pls. Academy of Natu- ral Sciences, Philadelphia. Pilsbry, H. A. 1930. Anatomy and relationships of some American Helicidae and Polygyridae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 82: 303-327. Pilsbry, H. A. 1940. Land Mollusca of North America (North of Mexico), vol. 1, part 2: pp. 575— 994, Academy of Natural Sciences Monographs, no. 3, Philadelphia. Richardson, L. 1986. Polygyracea: Catalog of species, part 1, Polygyridae. Tryonia, 13: 1-139. Say, T. 1817. Description of new species of land and Fresh Water shells of the United States. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(6): 123-134. Say, T. 1818. Account of two new genera, and several new species, of fresh water and land shells. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1: 276-284. Solem, A. 1978. Classification of the land Mollusca. Pp. 49-97 in Fretter, V. & Peak, J. (Eds.), Pulmonates, Volume 2A. Systematics, Evolution and Ecology. Academic Press, London. Taylor, D. W. & Sohl, N. F. 1962. An outline of gastropod classification. Malacologia, 1: 7-32. Tryon, G. W. Jr. 1866-1867. Monograph of the Terrestrial Mollusca of the United States. American Journal of Conchology, 2 (1866): 218-277, 306-327; 3 (1867): 34-80, 155-181, 298-324. a eee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 97 Case 2666 Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: proposed conservation, and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: proposed conservation of the specific name (both Crustacea, Copepoda) Kuni Hulsemann Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Taxonomy Group, Notkestrasse 31, D-2000 Hamburg 52, Federal Republic of Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the widely-used copepod generic name Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898, and the specific name of Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907. Both are threatened by unused senior subjective synonyms (/sochaeta and I. longisetosus). 1. Giesbrecht (1889, p. 812) proposed the genus /sochaeta for his new species I. ovalis. Farran (1926, p. 278) and Vervoort (1957, p. 128) considered ovalis and Lucicutia frigida Wolfenden, 1911 to be conspecific, and Grice (1963, p. 498) synonymised the two species. Grice wrote that the characters of the taxon were ‘neither sufficient for the creation of the genus Jsochaeta nor for the placing of the species in any but the genus Lucicutia’. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 is a replacement name for Leuckartia Claus, 1862 (thought by Giesbrecht (1898, p. 110), who was followed by Neave (1939, p. 929), to be preoccupied by the coelenterate name Leuckartia Agassiz, 1862), and the genus contains a considerable number of species. Grice chose to use the junior generic name Lucicutia rather than Isochaeta. 2. Heptner (1965, p. 1173) drew attention to the irregular situation when he con- sidered Isochaeta ovalis Giesbrecht, 1889, Lucicutia frigida Wolfenden, 1911 and L. ovaliformis Brodsky, 1950 to be one species, following a study of variability in an extensive collection of specimens. However, he also chose to use the junior name Lucicutia in order not to disturb stability or cause confusion. (In proposing to maintain the name Lucicutia he invoked the Principle of the First Reviser (Article 24 of the Code) but this is applicable only to names or nomenclatural acts published on the same date). 3. Apparently unaware of Grice’s and Heptner’s papers, Furuhashi (1966, p. 298) considered the species Lucicutia ovaliformis and Isochaeta ovalis, as figured by Tanaka (1963, p. 54, fig. 174), to be identical and correctly used the name /. ovalis for the single species. Furuhashi was not concerned with detailed taxonomy and did not consider the generic name to be used for the other Lucicutia species, but simply listed and placed them all in Lucicutia. 4. Lucicutia currently contains 42 species (it has formerly contained an additional 15 nominal species, but 13 of these have been synonymised at various times with pre- viously described species, and two are nomina nuda). The great majority of these (oceanic) species live in mid and deep water; shallow-living species are also frequently encountered and regularly reported. At no other time than indicated in para. 2 has use 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 of the name Lucicutia been questioned. It has been used in many recent important faunal and systematic works, including Roe (1972, p. 1022), Bjérnberg (1973, p. 343) and Mauchline (1988, p. 708). A list of 50 selected publications, 30 of them after Grice (1963), is held by the Commission Secretariat. sochaeta has only ever contained two (see para. 7) species (indeed, Grice (1963, p. 498) thought it was a monotypic genus) and, consequently, the name has been rarely used. There appear to be no taxonomic reasons for retaining it. 5. When Grice (1963) placed Isochaeta ovalis Giesbrecht, 1889 in the genus Lucicutia (para. 1 above), L. ovalis Wolfenden, 1906 became a secondary junior homonym; he (p. 498) therefore renamed the latter species as L. gaussae. 6. In 1892 Giesbrecht (p. 62) proposed the subfamily name ‘Leukartiina’, then containing the genera Leuckartia Claus, 1862 (type species by monotypy L. flavicornis Claus, 1863 (p. 183, pl. 32, figs. 1-7)), Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889 and Disseta Giesbrecht, 1889. Sars (1902, p. 73) raised the subfamily to the rank of family. When Leuckartia was found to be a junior homonym, the family-group name based on it also became unavailable and had to be replaced. By that time Giesbrecht (in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898, p. 110) had replaced Leuckartia with his new name Lucicutia and Sars (1902) therefore introduced the family name LUCICUTMDAE. This would remain the valid family name even if Lucicutia were to be treated as a junior synonym of Isochaeta (Article 40a), in contrast to the opinion expressed by Heptner (1965, p. 1173). In 1905, Sars (p. 3) transferred Disseta to the family HETERORHABDIDAE Sars, 1902. 7. I consider Isochaeta longisetosus Thompson, 1903 (p. 26) to be conspecific with Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907 (p. 24) in the family AUGAPTILIDAE Sars, 1905 (p. 4). The name /ongiremis thus becomes a junior subjective synonym of longisetosus. Thompson (1903) referred to his single specimen as a female; it appears to be a stage V copepodid female. His mix-up of mandible and first maxilla (Thompson, 1903, pl. 7, figs 3 and 4) may have contributed to his misplacement of the species. Heptner (1965, p. 1166) pointed out in a footnote that J. Jongisetosus could not be accommodated in the family LucIcUTHDAE. This footnote is the only mention of the species or its status since its description. On the other hand, P. /ongiremis is based on an adequate description (Sars, 1907, p. 24; 1925, p. 310; 1924, pl. 109) of several specimens (kept in the Oceano- graphic Museum in Monaco with the following catalogue numbers (all prefixed MOM 34): 0246 (two specimens), 0247 (one specimen), 0253 (one specimen) and 0254 (three specimens) (Dr C. Carpine, pers. comm.)). The name has been used repeatedly during the last 50 years (Article 79c(2)); a list of 11 references between 1940 and 1982 is held by the Commission Secretariat and includes Jespersen (1940, p. 62), Park (1970, p. 541) and Matthews (1972, p. 55). Adoption now of Jongisetosus would cause quite unnecessary confusion. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Jsochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889; (b) the specific name /ongisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen Isochaeta longisetosus; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (gender: feminine), type species by indication (Article 67h) Leuckartia flavicornis Claus, 1863; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 99 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) flavicornis Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Leuckartia flavicornis (specific name of the type species of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898); (b) /ongiremis Sars, 1907, as published in the binomen Pseudaugaptilus longiremis; (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name LUCICUTIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name /sochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name /ongisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen Jsochaeta longisetosus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Agassiz, L. 1862. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America, Vol. 4 (Hydroidae), vii, 383 pp. Little, Brown and Co., Boston; Trubner and Co., London. Bjornberg, T. K. S. 1973. The planktonic copepods of the Marchile I expedition and of the ‘Eltanin’ cruises 3-6 taken in the SE Pacific. Boletim de Zoologia e Biologia marinha (Nova serie), 30: 245-394. Claus, C. 1862. Untersuchungen tiber die Organisation und Verwandtschaft der Copepoden. Wiirzburger Naturwissenschaftliche Zeitschrift, 3(1): 51-103. Claus, C. 1863. Die Frei Lebenden Copepoden mit Besonderer Berticksichtigung der Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres. x, 230 pp., 37 pls. W. Engelmann, Leipzig. Farran, G. P. 1926. Biscayan plankton collected during a cruise of H.M.S. ‘Research’, 1900. Part 14. The Copepoda. Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 36(243): 219-310. Furuhashi, K. 1966. Studies on the vertical distribution of copepods in the Oyashio region east of Japan and in the Kuroshio region south of Japan. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 14(4): 295-322. Giesbrecht, W. 1889. Elenco dei Copepodi pelagici raccolti dal tenente di vascello Gaetano Chierchia durante il viaggio della R. Corvetta ‘Vettor Pisani’ negli anni 1882-1885, e dal tenente di vascello Francesco Orsini nel Mar Rosso, nel 1884. Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, (4)5(11), semestre 1: 811-815. Giesbrecht, W. 1892. Systematik und Faunistik der pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, 19: 1-831. Giesbrecht, W. 1898. Genus Lucicutia. Pp. 110-112 in Giesbrecht, W. & Schmeil, O. (Eds.), Crustacea, Copepoda. 1. Gymnoplea. Das Tierreich, 6: 1-169. Grice, G. D. 1963. Deep water copepods from the western North Atlantic with notes on five species. Bulletin of Marine Science of the Gulf and Caribbean, 13(4): 493-501. Heptner, M. V. 1965. The revision of the taxonomic position of some species of the genera Lucicutia and Isochaeta (Copepoda, Lucicutiidae). Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 44(8): 1165-1175. [In Russian; English summary]. Jespersen, P. 1940. Non-parasitic Copepoda. Jn Fridriksson, A. & Tuxen, S. L. (Eds.), The Zoology of Iceland, Vol. 3, part 33. 116 pp. Ejnar Munksgaard, Copenhagen & Reykjavik. Matthews, J. B. L. 1972. The genus Euaugaptilus (Crustacea, Copepoda). New descriptions and a review of the genus in relation to Augaptilus, Haloptilus and Pseudaugaptilus. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology), 24(1): 1-71. Mauchline, J. 1988. Taxonomic value of pore patterns in the integument of calanoid copepods (Crustacea). Journal of Zoology, London, Series A, 214(4): 697-749. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Neave, S. A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 2 (D-L). 1025 pp. Zoological Society of London, London. Park, T.S. 1970. Calanoid copepods from the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico. 2. New species and new records from plankton samples. Bulletin of Marine Science, 20(2): 472-546. Roe, H. S. J. 1972. The vertical distribution and diurnal migrations of Calanoid copepods collected on the Sond cruise, 1965. 4. Systematic account of families Lucicutiidae to Candaciidae. The relative abundance of the numerically most important genera. Journal of the Marine Biologicat Association of the United Kingdom, 52(4): 1021-1044. Sars, G. O. 190? an Account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4 (Copepoda, Calanoida), parts 7 and 8 (Centropagidae and Diaptomidae), pp. 73-96. Bergen Museum, Bergen. Sars, G. O. 1905. Liste préliminaire des Calanoidés recueillis pendant les campagnes de S.A.S. le Prince de Monaco, avec diagnoses des genres et des espéces nouvelles (2° partie). Bulletin du Musée Océanographique de Monaco, 40: 1—24. Sars, G. O. 1907. Notes supplémentaires sur les Calanoidés de la Princesse-Alice (Corrections et additions). Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique, 101: 1—27. Sars, G. O. 1924, 1925. Copépodes particuliérement bathypélagiques provenant des Campagnes Scientifiques du Prince Albert IT de Monaco. Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies par le Prince Albert I de Monaco, 69: 1-408 (1925), pls. 1-127 (1924). Tanaka, O. 1963. The pelagic copepods of the Izu region, middle Japan. Systematic account 9. Families Centropagidae, Pseudodiaptomidae, Temoridae, Metridiidae and Lucicutiidae. Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 11(1): 7-55. Thompson, I. C. 1903. Report on the Copepoda obtained by Mr George Murray, F.R.S., during the cruise of the ‘Oceana’ in 1898. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7) 12(67): 1—36, pls. 1—7. Vervoort, W. 1957. Copepods from Antarctic and Sub-antarctic plankton samples. British, Australian and New Zealand Antarctic Research Expedition 1929-31. Report Series B (Zoology and Botany), vol. 3, 160 pp., 138 figs. B.A.N.Z.A.R. Expedition Committee, University of Adelaide. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 101 Case 2624 Ranguna Bott, 1966 and Larnaudia Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed fixation of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 and Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the respective type species M. Tirkay Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, D-6000 Frankfurt am Main 1, Fed. Rep. Germany P. Naiyanetr Chulalongkorn University, Department of Biology, Bangkok, Thailand Abstract. The purpose of this application is the fixation of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 and Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the respective type species of the freshwater crab genera Ranguna Bott, 1966 and Larnaudia Bott, 1966. The original selections being based on misidentified species, this solution maintains the genera in their accustomed and most suitable meaning. 1. In 1966 Bott introduced the subgenera Ranguna (p. 481), with type species Potamon rangoonense Rathbun, 1904, and the monotypic Larnaudia (p. 490) for Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 (p. 166). In his monograph of the European, Asiatic and Australian freshwater crabs (1970) he elevated both taxa to generic rank. In his original paper and in his 1970 monograph he figured the male pleopods of what he considered to be rangoonense (text fig. 15 in 1966, and pl. 38 fig. 35 in 1970) and /arnaudii (text-fig. 26 in 1966, and pl. 39 fig. 50 in 1970). 2. We (Tiirkay & Naiyanetr, 1987) reexamined the types of both species in question as well as the material used by Bott, and gave detailed illustrations. We found that on neither occasion did Bott have type material of T. larnaudii or P. rangoonense before him, despite the fact that in 1970 he stated that he had. We discovered that the material he had examined and figured was a male from Assam (Senckenberg—Museum, Frankfurt a. M, SMF 2807), identified by him as P. rangoonense, and a male from Vietnam [‘Mois—Chero, N—Cochinchina’] (Mus. nat. hist. nat., Paris, MNHN 866-77), identified as T. Jarnaudii. 3. Potamon rangoonense Rathbun (holotype in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) does not belong to the genus Ranguna as orig- inally defined by Bott or according to subsequent usage, and is currently in Potamiscus Alcock, 1910. Thus, to avoid confusion the type species of Ranguna Bott needs to be fixed. Acceptance of P. rangoonense would be highly undesirable, as this would necessi- tate a new name for the genus currently known as Ranguna. Ranguna as presently understood is a widely distributed genus and includes a number of species. As Bott’s monograph has been, and will also in the future be, used as a base for faunistic and 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 taxonomic studies, a type species should be selected to stabilise the usage of Ranguna in its accustomed sense. We do not propose the species to which the Assam specimen belongs, as its identification is unclear. As we have said elsewhere (Turkay & Naiyanetr, 1987) it is probably an adult Potamon pruinosum Alcock, 1909 or Potamon beieri Pretzmann, 1966, a question which must remain open until a good age series is known. It would thus be much better to designate a ‘typical’ species of Ranguna as the type. We propose Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 (p. 183), the lectotype of which is treated in detail by Bott & Turkay (1977). 4. The lectotype of Thelphusa larnaudii (in the Mus. nat. hist. nat., Paris) does not belong to the genus Larnaudia Bott as originally defined. It is very similar to Tiwari- potamon beusekomae Bott, 1970. This species and those closely related to it, including larnaudii, differ so much from the type species of Tiwaripotamon (Geothelphusa annamense Balss, 1914) that they must be assigned to a separate genus. For this the name Larnaudia would be available if Thelphusa larnaudii in its correct sense (A. Milne Edwards, 1869) were to be accepted as type. This would not do any harm as T. larnaudii proper has never been collected again and the whole /arnaudii group is very local, restricted to Thailand. The species /arnaudii sensu Bott has also never been redis- covered and belongs to a monotypic genus apparently restricted to Vietnam. Both the species and the genus need names, and we have introduced the name Neolarnaudia botti Tiirkay & Naiyanetr, 1987 for Larnaudia larnaudii sensu Bott. 5. In order to maintain the current usage and stabilise the danicanintiie of this group, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Ranguna Bott, 1966 and to designate Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the type species; (2) to confirm Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the type species of the nominal genus Larnaudia Bott, 1966; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ranguna Bott, 1966 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869; (b) Larnaudia Bott, 1966 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy and confirmed in (2) above Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869, as published in the binomen Thelphusa longipes (specific name of the type species of Ranguna Bott, 1966); (b) larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869, as published in the binomen Thelphusa larnaudii (specific name of the type species of Larnaudia Bott, 1966). References Alcock, A. 1910. Catalogue of the Indian Decapod Crustacea in the collection of the Indian Museum. Part 1, Brachyura, Fasc. 2. Potamonidae. 135 pp., 14 pls. Trustees of the Indian Museum, Calcutta. Bott, R. 1966. Potamiden aus Asien (Potamon Savigny und Potamiscus Alcock) (Crustacea, Decapoda), Senckenbergiana biologica, 47(6): 469-509. Bott, R. 1970. Die Siibwasserkrabben von Europa, Asien, Australien und ihre Stammes- _geschichte. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Geselschaft, 526: 1-338. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 103 Bott, R. & Tiirkay, M. 1977. Die verwandtschaftlichen Beziehungen von Ranguna ( Ranguna) longipes (A. Milne Edwards 1869) (Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamidae). Senckenbergiana biologica, 58: 93-96. Milne Edwards, A. 1869. Révision du Genre Thelphuse. Nouvelles archives du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 5: 161-191. Rathbun, M. J. 1904. Les crabes d’eau douce. Nouvelles archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, (4)6: 225-312. Tirkay, M. & Naiyanetr, P. 1987. The identity of Potamon rangoonense Rathbun, 1904 and Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne-Edwards, 1869, with introduction of Neolarnaudia botti n. g. n. sp. (Crustacea: Decapoda: Potamidae). Senckenbergiana biologica, 67: 389-396. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2542/2 Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation R. A. Cooper Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the brachyuran generic name Trapezia Latreille, 1828, which is the type genus of the subfamily TRAPEZIINAE Miers, 1886. A case has been published and voted on by the Commission to remove homonymy between this family-group name and another in Mollusca, but this cannot be done until the name of the type genus is stabilised. 1. A case to remove the homonymy between TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea: type genus Trapezia Latreille, 1828) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia: type genus Trapezium Megerle von Mihlfeld, 1811) was received from Dr G. Morgan (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia) and published in BZN 44: 95—96 (June 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Professor L. B. Holthuis, who also suggested that the stem of Trapezium might be better as TRAPEZIUM-, rather than TRAPEZ-, to give a molluscan family-group name of TRAPEZIUMIDAE and avoid possible future homonymy with a family-group name derived from the hemipteran genus Trapezus Distant, 1882 [however, Trapezus was synonymised with Cryphula Stal, 1874 by Barber in 1918 (see Slater, J. A., 1964. Lygaeidae of the World, vol. 2, p. 814)]. 2. On 1 September 1988 members of the Commission were invited to vote on the original proposals. The vote was carried unanimously but problems, with both the type species and the date of the genus, were found at the Opinion stage which this application seeks to resolve. Latreille (1825 p. 269) gave the generic name ‘Trapézie’, and in a footnote to this name refers to: ‘Herbst, Krabb, tab. 47. fig. 6; tab. 20. fig. 115 ...’. Berthold’s 1827 German translation of Latreille’s work gave the name Trapecia (p. 255), a latinized form of Latreille’s 1825 Trapézie. Berthold cited the same reference as given by Latreille (1825), thereby making Trapecia Berthold, 1827 an available name. The Herbst figures refer to the nominal species Cancer glaberrimus Herbst, 1790 and Cancer rufopunctata Herbst, 1799. The former species is the type of the genus Tetralia Dana (1851); the latter is still placed in Trapezia. 3. The original application, concerning the family-group homonyms, wrongly cited the type species of Trapezia as Trapezia ferruginea Latreille, 1825, a species which was not even included in Latreille’s 1825 work. The first valid type designation for Trapezia is by H. Milne Edwards (1842), who on plate 14 [for the date of this plate see Cowan, 1976, p. 60] figures Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828 (p. 695). The statement in the title of this book: ‘accompagnée de planches gravées représentant les types de tous les genres...’ isa type selection. Trapezia dentifrons is one of the nominal species included in Latreille’s 1828 original description of Trapezia (p. 695), and is even the first species Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 105 mentioned. Trapezia dentifrons is a junior subjective synonym of Cancer cymodoce Herbst, 1801 (p. 22). 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Trapecia Berthold, 1827 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by H. Milne Edwards (1842) Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828 (a junior subjective synonym of Cancer cymodoce Herbst, 1801); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cymodoce Herbst, 1801 as published in the binomen Cancer cymodoce (valid specific name at the time of this application of the type species of Trapezia Latreille, 1828, asa senior subjective synonym of Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Trapecia Berthold, 1827, as suppressed in (1) above. References See BZN 44: 96 for other references relevant to this application. Berthold, A. A. 1827. Latreille’s nattirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus dem Franzésischen mit Anmerkungen und Zusatzen, 604 pp. Weimar. Cowan, C. F. 1976. On the Disciples Edition of Cuvier’s Régne Animal. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 8: 32-64. Herbst, J. F. W. 1801. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 3, part 2, 46 pp. Lange, Berlin. Latreille, P. A. 1828. Encyclopédie méthodique d’Histoire naturelle, (Insectes), vol. 10, 832 pp. Agasse, Paris. Milne Edwards, H. 1842. Vol. 18 — Les Crustacés. Jn Cuvier, G. Le Régne Animal, Disciples Edition. 80 pls. Fortin, Masson & Co., Paris. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2656 Chira Simon, 1902 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation Maria Elena Galiano Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Av. Angel Gallardo 470, 1405 Buenos Aires, Argentina Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm the spelling of the jumping spider generic name Chira, although it is an unjustified emendation. The original spelling Shira has been used only once and mentioned only four times since its proposal. 1. The genus Shira was proposed (p. 85) by G. W. & E. G. Peckham in 1896, with type species by monotypy Shira designata (p. 86). Since its proposal the name has been used only once, by Pickard—Cambridge (1901, p. 298), and mentioned in four ‘indexes’: Neave (1940, p. 187); Petrunkevitch (1928, p. 246); Roewer (1954, p. 1069); Waterhouse (1902, p. 343). 2. The name Shira was first emended by Simon (1902, p. 51), intentionally but with no explanation: ‘Chira= Shira’ [sic]. Since 1902 the name has been consistently spelt Chira in 18 scientific papers and in 6 catalogues, nomenclators and lists (a list is held by the Secretariat). Nine authors have described 17 new species in the genus Chira, and six species have been transferred from other genera to form binomina with Chira. 3. To conserve current usage I propose that the emendation of the spelling to Chira be accepted, and under Article 33b(iii) be made available from Simon (1902). The type species of Chira Simon, 1902 will accordingly be, under Article 67h, Shira designata Peckham & Peckham, 1896. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Shira Peckham & Peckham, 1896 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Chira Simon, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species by indication Shira designata Peckham & Peckham, 1896; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name designata Peckham & Peckham, 1896, as published in the binomen Shira designata (specific name of the type species of Chira Simon, 1902); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Shira Peckham & Peckham, 1896 as suppressed in (1) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 107 References Neave, S. A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 4. 758 pp. Zoological Society of London, London. Peckham, G. W. & E. G. 1896. Spiders of the Family Attidae from Central America and Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Natural History Society of Wisconsin, 3: 1-101. Petrunkevitch, A. 1928. Systema Aranearum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 29: 1-270. Pickard—Cambridge, F. O. 1901. Biologia Centrali-Americana. Arachnida, vol. 2. Araneidea and Opiliones. 610 pp., 54 pls. Taylor & Francis, London. Roewer, C. F. 1954. Katalog der Araneae, vol. 2, part b (Salticiformia, Cribellata), pp. 927-1290. Brussels. Simon, E. 1902. Descriptions d’Arachnides nouveaux de la Famille des Salticidae (Attidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 46: 24-54. Waterhouse, C. O. 1902. Index Zoologicus, 421 pp. Zoological Society of London. 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2647 Heliophanus kochi Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the specific name Jerzy Proszynski Zakdad Zoologii WSRP, ul. Prusa 12, 08-100 Siedlce, Poland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name for one of the jumping spiders, Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (family SALTICIDAE), by suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym albosignatus L. Koch, 1867. Although he originally published the specific name as kochii, Simon subsequently used the spelling kochi, and in conformity with usage it is proposed that this spelling be adopted. 1. L. Koch described Heliophanus albosignatus in 1867 (p. 871) from the island of Syra (Cyclades). The name was used six times before 1878, including Simon (1868, p. 702), but has since been quoted in only one paper (Bristowe, 1935, p. 776) and four catalogues, the latest and most complete being Bonnet (1957, p. 2129). The syntypes of the species, two females, are kept in the Natural History Museum in Vienna under the collection number 1884.1.45. No new specimens have been described or old ones redescribed using this name. 2. What appears to be the same species was later described under the names Helio- phanus Kochii Simon (1868, p. 699, pl. III, figs 13 and 13a), from ‘Tyrol, France (Midi)’; H. armatus Simon (1868, p. 700), from the eastern Pyrenees, Spain; H. cernuus Simon (1868, p. 701), from Andalusia; H. calcarifer Simon (1868, p. 701) from Corfu; and Salticus furcatus Cambridge (1872, p. 346) from Palestine. H. armatus and H. kochi [sic] were regarded as synonyms in Simon (1937, p. 1250 (a posthumous work edited by L. Berland and L. Fage); see also Bonnet (1957, p: 2142)); Kochi was selected in preference to armatus, and this may be regarded as the act of a ‘first reviser’ (Article 24 of the Code). As a result of studying type specimens, the names H. armatus, H. cernuus and H. calcarifer were treated as synonyms of H. kochi by Wesolowska (1986, p. 217). Salticus furcatus was also regarded as a synonym. The synonymised names had not been in general use for a number of years. 3. After an examination of their type specimens, Wesolowska (1986, p. 217) also regarded the names H. albosignatus L. Koch, 1867 and H. kochi Simon, 1868 as refer- ring to the same species. Following usage, she used the specific name kochi but realised that albosignatus has one year’s priority. She now endorses this application for the suppression of the senior name. 4. The name kochi has been used in many publications and a representative list of references is held by the Commission Secretariat. Simon’s original material of the species is kept in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (unnumbered); no type specimens have ever been designated. 5. Although first described as kochii and so used by Simon in 1871 (pp. 350, 351 and 360), this spelling of the name has been almost restricted to papers published in the 19th Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 109 century. The spelling kochi has been used in at least 44 publications following the original description, including subsequent papers by Simon himself (1876a, p. 156; 1876b, p. cxxxvi; 1878, p. 208; and 1937, p. 1250). It is now used by all leading arach- nologists and is generally accepted. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as published in the binomen Heliophanus albosignatus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to rule that the correct spelling of the specific name kochii Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Heliophanus kochii, is deemed to be kochi:; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name kochi (emendation of kochii) Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Heliophanus kochii; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as published in the binomen Heliophanus albosignatus, and as suppressed in (1)(a) above. References Bonnet, P. 1957. Bibliographia Araneorum. Analyse méthodique de toute la littérature aranéolo- gique jusqu’en 1939, vol. 2 (1955-1959), pt. G-M, pp. 1926-3026. Toulouse. Bristowe, W. S. 1935. The Spiders of Greece and the adjacent Islands. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1934(4): 733-788. Cambridge, O. Pickard 1872. General List of Spiders of Palestine and Syria. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1872: 212-354. Koch, L. 1867. Zur Arachniden— und Myriapoden—Fauna Siid—Europa’s. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 17: 857-900. Simon, E. 1868. Monographie des espéces européennes de la famille des Attides (ATTIDAE Sund.). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 4(8): 11-72, 529-726 [original pagination 1-260]. Paris. Simon, E. 1871. Revision des Attidae européens. Supplément a la monographie des Attides. (Attidae Sund.). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 5(1): 125-230, 329-360. (Seance du 28 Avril 1869). Simon, E. 1876a. Les Arachnides de France, Tome 3, 370 pp. Libraire Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Simon, E. 1876b. [Nouvelles captures d’Arachnides dans l’ile de Ré]. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5) (6) (3): cxxxv—cxxxvi. Bulletin des Seances (Séance du 12 Juillet 1876). Simon, E. 1878. Liste des Espéces européennes et algériennes de la Famille des ATTIDAE. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5) (8) (3): 201-212. (Séance du 23 Janvier 1878). Simon, E. 1937. Les Arachnides de France, Tome VI. Le Synopsis général et le catalogue des espéces frangaises de l’ordre des Araneae. 5° et derniére partie, pp. 979-1298. Paris. Table de matiéres par P. Bonnet. (Published posthumously by L. Berland and L. Fage). Encyclopédie Roret, Paris. Wesolowska, W. 1986. A revision of the genus Heliophanus C. L. Koch, 1833 (Aranei: SALTICI- DAE). Annales Zoologici Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk. Warszawa, (40) 1: 1-254, 960 figs. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2648 Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus; Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the specific name Jerzy Proszynski Zaklad Zoologii WSRP, ul. Prusa 12, 08-100 Siedlce, Poland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Sitticus penicillatus (Simon, 1875) for a member of the family SALTICIDAE (jumping spiders). The specific name is threatened by the senior subjective synonyms Aftus inequalipes Simon, 1868, A. i/libatus Simon, 1868, and A. guttatus Thorell, 1875, all unused. 1. In 1868 Simon described two species of jumping spiders: Attus illibatus (p. 541) from near Kiev, Ukraine, USSR, the holotype being a juvenile female in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, phial no. 886; and A. inequalipes (p. 614) from ‘Botzen’ [Bolzano, South Tirol, north Italy], the male holotype (no. BM 1919.9.18.3556) being in the British Museum (Natural History), London. Although both names have been quoted a number of times in catalogues (Reimoser, 1919, p. 104; Charitonov, 1932, p. 182; and Bonnet, 1955, p. 778) in combination with the generic names Attus Walckenaer, 1805 and Attulus Simon, 1889, no more specimens have been given these names. 2. In October 1875 Simon described a species from ‘Basses-Alpes’ under the name Attus penicillatus (p. xcii), which has been quoted in monographs, keys, faunal records and catalogues at least 44 times, in combination with the generic names Aftus, Attulus, Sitticulus F. Dahl, 1926 and Sitticus Simon, 1901 (misspelled as Sittacus by Peckham in 1909 (p. 518)). A list of representative publications has been given to the Commission Secretariat. The species is now known to occur in the whole Palearctic Region. The type material is kept in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (Simon collection, unnumbered). No holotype or lectotype has been designated. 3. After examining the type specimens during a revision of the genus Sitticus, I came to the conclusion that the names illibatus, inequalipes and penicillatus represent one species (Proszynski, 1973, p. 72). I used the well known name penicillatus (Simon, 1875) for this species, while realising that i/libatus Simon, 1868 and inequalipes Simon, 1868 have priority. Since then, penicillatus has been used in eight papers written by seven authors. 4. In May 1875 (p. 119) Thorell described the species Attus guttatus based on a male holotype from Jeny—Sala [near the Black Sea coast, USSR], collected by Al. v. Nordmann, which is kept in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseum in Stockholm (numbered 1685). The name was mentioned in a small number of papers, including that of Reimoser in 1919, until synonymised with penicillatus by Simon in 1937 (p. 1258), followed by Bonnet (1955, p. 778). After examining the holotype I agreed with this synonomy (Proszynski, 1973, p. 72). The name guttatus has five months priority over Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 111 penicillatus but as it has not been used for many years it is desirable to suppress it in favour of penicillatus. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;: (a) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus illibatus; (b) inequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus inequalipes; (c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen A ttus guttatus; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name penni- cillatus Simon, 1875, as published in the binomen A/ftus penicillatus; (3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus illibatus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) inequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus inequalipes and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen Attus guttatus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above. References Bonnet, P. 1955. Bibliographia Araneorum. Analyse méthodique de toute la littérature aranéo- logique jusqu’en 1939, vol. 2 (1955-1959), pt. A-B, pp. 1-918. Toulouse. Charitonoy, D. 1932. Katalog der Russischen Spinnen. Annulaire du Musée zoologique Vol. 32, (Supplement), pp. 1-204. Académie des Sciences de l"URSS. Leningrad. Peckham, G. W. & E. G. 1909. Revision of the Attidae of North America. 7; ransactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 16 (part 1, no. 5): 355-646, pls. 29-5]. Proszynski, J. 1973. Revision of the spider genus Sitticus Simon, 1901 (Aranei, SALTICIDAE), III. Sitticus penicillatus (Simon, 1875) and related forms. Annales Zoologici Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa, 30(1): 71-95 (and 57 figs.). Reimoser, E. 1919. Katalog der echten Spinnen (Araneae) des Palaarktischen Gebietes. Abhandlungen der Zoologisch—Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 10(2): 1-280. Simon, E. 1868. Monographie des espéces européennes de la famille des Attides (ATTIDAE Sund.) Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 4(8): 11-72. and 529-727 [original pagination 1-260]. Simon, E. 1875. Les Diagnoses (suivantes) de nouvelles espéces d’Arachnides d’Europe. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)5(4): xcii-xcv. Bulletin des Séances [Seance du 28 Avril 1867]. Simon, E. 1937. Les Arachnides de France, Tome VI. Le Synopsis général et le catalogue des espéces frangaises de l’ordre des Araneae; 5° et derniére partie, pp. 979-1298. Paris. Table de matiéres par P. Bonnet. (Published posthumously by L. Berland and L. Fage). Encyclopédie Roret, Paris. Thorell, T. 1875. Verzeichniss Sudrussischer Spinnen. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 11; 39-122. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2649 Thyene Simon, 1885 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation Jerzy Proszynski Zakdad Zoologii WSRP, ul. Prusa 12, 08—100 Siedlce, Poland Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the generic name Thyene Simon, 1885 for a large genus of spiders of the family SALTICIDAE (jumping spiders). The name is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Mithion Simon, 1884, a genus with a few, poorly known species. 1. Simon described the genus Thya in 1876 (p. 51) with the type species Attus imperialis Rossi, 1847 (p. 12). As the generic name was preoccupied he changed it to Thyene in 1885 (p. 4). According to various authors, the genus Thyene now contains 34 nominal species, easily recognisable by both external characters and genital organ structure, distributed from the Mediterranean to southeast Asia with a number of species in Africa. The names have been quoted in many papers, a complete list of papers and species before 1939 being given by Bonnet (1959) and those since 1939 by myself (in preparation). T. imperialis is the single representative of the genusin the European part of the Mediterranean. 2. In 1884 (p. 4) Simon described the genus Mithion, with the single species M. semiargenteus Simon, 1884, from near Khartoum, Sudan. The syntypes, one male and one female, are kept in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris (Vossion collection) and are numbered 6642 (they were not labelled as types by Simon but by M. E. Galiano in 1959). Subsequently, 10 species were placed in the genus; with later revisions three species have been transferred to other genera and, apart from semi- argenteus, only six poorly-known species of uncertain taxonomic position remain form- ally in Mithion. These species have not been revised since their original descriptions and the descriptions alone are not sufficient for their affinities to be determined. Consequently, the name Mithion has been little used. 3. As a result of my research (Proszynski, 1987, p. 111) I have no doubt that M. semiargenteus is congeneric with Thyene imperialis; the male palpal organ and female epigyne and its internal features, in particular, show similarities in structure. Consequently, the name Mithion becomes a senior subjective synonym of Thyene. A change in generic name, however, is undesirable because of the resulting confusion in nomenclature. As stated above, there are many species known under the name Thyene mentioned in a large number of papers, and some, e.g. T. imperialis, are frequently quoted in non-specialist literature. A representative list of references showing usage of Thyene is held by the Commission Secretariat. 4. The six other remaining species of Mithion can all be left as ‘incertae sedis’ pending further study. When they are better known each can be appropriately placed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 113 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Mithion Simon, 1884 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Thyene Simon, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Aftus imperialis Rossi, 1847; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name imperialis Rossi, 1847, as published in the binomen Attus imperialis (specific name of the type species of Thyene Rossi, 1847). (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Mithion Simon, 1884, as suppressed in (1) above. References Bonnet, P. 1959. Bibliographia araneorum. Analyse méthodique de toute la littérature aranéo- logique jusqu’en 1939, vol. 2 (1955-1959), pt. T-Z, pp. 4231-5058. Toulouse. Proszynski, J. 1987. Atlas rysunkow diagnostycznych mniej znanych Salticidae. Zeszyty Nauk- owe WSRP, SiedIce, 172 pp. (Diagnostic drawings of less known SALTICIDAE (Araneae)). Proszynski, J. (in preparation). Catalogue of SALTICIDAE — a synthesis of quotations since 1940 with basic taxonomic data since 1758. Rossi, F. W. 1847. Neue arten von Arachniden des k.k. Museums, beschrieben und mit Bemer- kungen uber verwandte Formen begleitet. Naturwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen (Wien, Ed. W. Haidinger), 1: 11-19. Simon, E. 1876. Les Arachnides de France, Tome 3, 370 pp. Libraire Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Simon, E. 1884. Arachnides recueillis 4 Khartoum (Soudan égyptien) par M. Vossion, vice- consul de France et appartenant au Muséum de Paris. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 9: 1-28. Simon, E. 1885. Matériaux pour servir a la faune arachnologique de |’Asie meridionale. I. Arachnides recuellis 4 Wagra—Kharoor prés Gundacul, district de Bellary par M. M. Chaper. II. Arachnides recueillis 4 Ramuad, district de Madura par M. l’abbé Fabre. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 10: 1—26, 26-39. 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2677 Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species Yair Ben-Dov Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organisation, The Volcani Center, Bet Dagan 50 250, Israel Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the accepted interpret- ation of Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 as a genus of soft scale insects (COCCIDAE), with some species of economic importance. Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 is commonly taken to be the type species, but the genus was originally based on Saissetia coffeae Déplanche, 1859. The description of Déplanche’s coffeae shows that it was a mealybug (PSEUDOCOCCIDAE), but the species cannot now be identified and the suppression of its name is proposed. 1. Déplanche (1859, pp. 6-7) described the genus Saissetia for one new species, Saissetia coffeae. The description was given in an article on coffee diseases in Tahiti, which was published in the Messager de Tahiti, a weekly newspaper issued in Papeete, Tahiti. In this article Déplanche presented accounts of: the damage caused by the insects in a coffee plantation in Faaa, Tahiti; the distinct difference between the coffee coccoid and a different species on guava; the general appearance of an infested coffee tree; descriptions of the female and the male of S. coffeae on coffee; description of the female during oviposition; development of the egg and the embryo; and a general discussion on the pest and its control. 2. Because of the unavailability of the Messager de Tahiti in scientific libraries, several parts from the description which are relevant to the present request are cited here: ‘... Ainsi le coccinien du caféier n’est pas le méme que le coccinien du Gouyavier, ... Nous nous bornerons donc pour le moment a la description du coccinien du caféier; nous examinerons son mode de développement, ses ravages, . .. Les femelles, se carac- terisent par un corps peu épais, aplati, mou, du forme ovalaire; par des antennes composees de neuf articles, et par des tarses n’en ayant qu’un seul. Lecorps présente des anneaux bien distincts, terminés de deux en deux par des espéces de languettes qui vont en diminuant de longueur de|’arriére a l’avant. A coté des deux postérieures, inégales et les plus longues, et un peu en dehors, sont deux soies noires, allongées, terminées en pointe. Tout le corps sécréte une matiére blanche, cotonneuse qui le recouvre entiére- ment. ... La bouche, est formée de labre epais et munie de quatre soies assez longues, ... Al’époque de la fécondation, le corps des femelles sécréte la matiére cotonneuse en plus grande abondance; ... Parmi de nombreux caractéres semblables a ceux que l’on rencontre chez des insectes de la méme tribu, nous en voyons d’autres qui en different trop essentiellement pour ne pas former un genre nouveau de Il’espéce qui nous occupe. Nous proposons donc, pour le Coccinien du Caféier, de Genre SAISSETIA; (S. coffeae) du nom du Gouverneur actuel des Etablissements Frangais de |’Océanie.’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 115 3. The description, being remarkably detailed for its time, presents several distinct characters which show that Saissetia coffeae Déplanche, 1859 was not a soft scale insect (cocciDAE), but rather represented a species, which cannot now be identified with confidence, in the mealybug family (PSEUDOCOCCIDAE). 4. Eudes-Deslongchamps (1859, pp. 203—207) published an account of Déplanche’s original paper, summarising the description and including the name Saissetia coffeae, in the Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie. 5. Fauvel (1865) published a note (9 lines long) in which he stated that‘. . . l’espéce de Coccinien décrite par M. Emile Déplanches [sic] . . . sous le nom de Saissetia coffeae, Dépl., n’est autre que le Leucanium [sic] coffeae .. .’. Fauvel, a member of the Société Linnéenne de Normandie, was a general biologist but not a scale insect student. There is no indication in the note that he had examined Déplanche’s material, and it is very likely that he introduced this erroneous synonymy because of the identical specific names: S. coffeae Déplanche, 1859 and Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 (p. 1079). This erroneous synonymy, of a mealybug species with that of a soft scale insect, was the origin of the confusion in the genera discussed in this request. 6. The name Saissetia was not used in scale insect studies from the date of its description until the end of the 19th century. For example it was not mentioned in the comprehensive works of Targioni Tozzetti (1868) and Signoret (1877). The fact that Saissetia was not listed in the Signoret Catalogue (1877) is a clear indication that the Deéplanche publication was unknown or not available to Signoret. Eudes- Deslongchamps’ (1859) report was perhaps overlooked because it was not published with a clear title but formed part of the report of a meeting. 7. Ancey (1888) proposed Saissetia as a replacement name for his genus Platystoma (1882; a junior homonym) in the Mollusca. Pilsbry (1894, p. 342) reported a note from T. D. A. Cockerell that Saissetia was preoccupied in Entomology, and therefore introduced Platyrhitida Pilsbry, 1894 as a replacement name for Saissetia Ancey. 8. Cockerell appears to be the first author to have reintroduced the name Saissetia into scale insect nomenclature. By including it in a key for genera related to Lecanium (Cockerell & Parrott, 1899) he established its interpretation as a genus in the COCCIDAE. Later (Cockerell, 1901) he regarded it as a valid genus, placed eight species in it and compared it with his newly described subgenera Platysaissetia and Megasaissetia. 9. Saissetia, erroneously credited to Fauvel, was noted in the Zoological Records (1903) in a footnote on p. 350: ‘Saissetia Fauvel, Bull. Soc. Normand. 9 (1865), genus not previously recorded.’ 10. Following Cockerell (1899, 1901), 20 species, the majority of which had been previously described or placed in Lecanium, were assigned to Saissetia in the Fernald Catalogue (1903). The type-species was given as ‘coffeae [Walker, 1852] = hemisphaeri- cum [Targioni Tozzetti, 1868] while the genus was credited to Fauvel (1865). It should be pointed out that S. coffeae Déplanche was not mentioned in this Catalogue, not listed among the synonyms of S. hemisphaerica, nor among the ‘Species without descriptions or not recognisable’. 11. Ashmead (1891) introduced the genus Bernardia in the tribe LECANIINI of the CocciDAE, but failed to assign to it any species. Subsequently, Lecanium oleae Bernard (correctly Coccus oleae Olivier, 1791, p. 95) was designated the type-species of Bernardia (see Marlatt, 1891, p. 150). Cockerell (1892) noted that the latter name was preoccupied in botany, and suggested the replacement name Neobernardia. If Saissetia 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 were excluded from the cocciDAE Bernardia (which has never been used) might be resurrected as its junior subjective synonym, but I do not propose this. 12. De Lotto (1965, p. 219) presented, for the first time, clear indications that the original publication by Déplanche (1859) was neither seen by earlier workers, nor by himself, and that Saissetia coffeae Déplanche, 1859 must have been a mealybug (PSEUDOCOCCIDAE) and not a soft scale insect (COCCIDAE). 13. Morrison & Morrison’s (1966) reference to Saissetia basically concurred with the findings of De Lotto (1965), and clearly objected to any attempt to remove the name Saissetia from the COCCIDAE. 14. De Lotto (1970) examined the original publication by Déplanche (1859) and confirmed the availability of the names Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 and S. coffeae Déplanche, 1859. However, as stated in paras. 1-5 above, the original taxonomic position was different from that subsequently assumed. 15. Since 1899 to the present Saissetia has been widely accepted and extensively used as a genus in the CoccrDAE, but has never been applied to a mealybug (PSEUDOCOCCI- DAE). This fact is well demonstrated in the following list of number of species: Fernald (1903) — world, 20; Dietz & Morrison (1916)—U.S.A. (Indiana), 2; Leonardi (1920) — Italy, 2; Balachowsky (1932) — Mediterranean, 2; Gomez-Menor (1937) — Spain, 3; Zimmerman (1948) — Hawaii, 3; Borchsenius (1957) — U.S.S.R., 3; De Lotto (1965)— Southern Africa, 12; Beardsley (1966)— Micronesia, 3; Hodgson (1969) — Zimbabwe, 12; Williams & Kosztarab (1972) — U.S.A. (Virginia), 3; Kawai (1980) — Japan, 3; Yang (1982) — China, 6; Ben-Dov (1971, 1985) — Israel, 4; Kozar & Walter (1985) — Palaearctic region, 6. 16. Based on the Fernald Catalogue (1903) and on the Zoological Records, 1 estimate that by 1986 some 50 species of soft scale insects had been described in or assigned to Saissetia. 17. Some species of Saissetia are pests of great economic importance, e.g. the Mediterranean black scale, S. oleae (Olivier) and the hemispherical scale, S. coffeae (Walker). These names have been, and are, used in all works dealing with the biology and control of the species (see Clausen, 1978). 18. As discussed above, the generic name Saissetia is widely used in publications on both systematics and applied studies of scale insects. It is always ascribed to Déplanche (1859), but placed in the cocciDAE, with Lecanium coffeae Walker wrongly taken to be its nominal type species. I consider that stability would best be served by ratifying current practice, particularly since Déplanche’s species coffeae, although plainly differ- ent from Walker’s, cannot now be identified. Because the species evidently belong to different families I do not propose designating a specimen of coffeae Walker as neotype of coffeae Déplanche. 19. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name coffeae Déplanche, 1859, as published in the binomen Saissetia coffeae, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Saissetia Déplanche, 1859, and to designate Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 117 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)(b) above Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name coffeae Walker, 1852, as published in the binomen Lecanium coffeae (specific name of the type species of Saissetia Déplanche, 1859); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name coffeae Déplanche, 1859, as published in the binomen Saissetia coffeae and as suppressed in (1)(a) above. Acknowledgement I wish to thank Mme Daniele Matile-Ferrero, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, who enabled me to obtain a copy of Déplanche (1859), and Dr P. K. Tubbs, Secretary, ICZN, for his constructive comments while preparing this request. References Ancey, M. C. F. 1888. Nouvelles contributions malacologiques. Bulletin de la Société Malaco- logique de France, 5: 341-376. Ashmead, W. H. 1891. A generic synopsis of the Coccidae. Family X.—Coccidae. Transactions of the Entomological Society of America, 18: 92-102. Balachowsky, A. 1932. Etude biologique des coccides du bassin occidental de la Méditerranée. 214 pp. Lechevalier & Fils, Paris. Beardsley, J. W. 1966. Insects of Micronesia. Homoptera: Coccoidea. Insects of Micronesia, 6: 373-562. Ben-Doy, Y. 1971. An annotated list of the soft scale insects (Homoptera: Coccidae) of Israel. Israel Journal of Entomology, 6: 23-34. Ben-Doy, Y. 1985. Further observations on scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea) of the Middle east. Phytoparasitica, 13: 185—192. Borchsenius, N. S. 1957. Scale insects, family Coccidae. Fauna SSSR, Vol. 9, (n.s. 66) [In Russian], 493 pp. Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moscow and Leningrad. Clausen, C. P. 1978. Introduced parasites and predators of arthropod pests and weeds: a world review. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 480, 551 pp. Cockerell, T. D. A. 1892. List of Coccidae observed in Jamaica. Insect Life, 4: 333-334. Cockerell, T. D. A. 1901. The coccid genus Saissetia. Entomological Student, 2: 31-33. Cockerell, T. D. A. & Parrott, P. J. 1899. Contribution to the knowledge of the Coccidae. The Industrialist, 25: 159-165, 227-237, 276-284. De Lotto, G. 1965. On some Coccidae (Homoptera), chiefly from Africa. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History) (Entomology), 16: 175-239. De Lotto, G. 1970. On the status of two genera of soft scales (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Coccidae). Bolletino del Laboratorio di Entomologia Agraria ‘Filippo Silvestri’ Portici, 28: 257-261. Déplanche, E. 1859. Maladie du caféier. Messager de Tahiti, Papeete, 8 (no. 9): 6-7. Dietz, H. F. & Morrison, H. 1916. The Coccidae or scale insects of Indiana. Indiana State Entomologist Annual Report, 8 (1914-1915): 195-321. Eudes-Deslongchamps, J. A. 1859. [Analyse d’une mémoire sur une maladie du cafeéier, publiée a Tahiti par M. E. Déplanche]. Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 4: 203—207. Fauvel, A. 1865. [Note que le nom de Saissetia coffeae, Dépl., n’est autre que la Lecanium coffeae). Bulletin de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 9: 126-127. Fernald, M. E. 1903. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Bulletin of the Hatch Experiment Station, Massachusetts Agricultural College, no. 88, 360 pp. Gomez-Menor Ortega, J. 1937. Coccidos de Espafia. 432 pp. Universidad de Madrid, Madrid. Hodgson, C. J. 1969. Notes on Rhodesian Coccidae (Homopt. Coccoidea): Part III. Arnoldia (Rhodesia), 4: 1-45. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Kawai, S. 1980. Scale insects of Japan in colours. [In Japanese]. 455 pp. National Agricultural Education Association, Tokyo. Kozar, F. & Walter, J. 1985. Check-list of the Palaearctic Coccoidea (Homoptera). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 46: 63-110. Leonardi, G. 1920. Monografia delle cocciniglie italiane. 555 pp. E. Della Torre, Portici. Marlatt, C. L. 1892. General notes. Insect Life, 4: 148-153. Morrison, H. & Morrison, E. R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Miscellaneous Publications U.S. Department of Agriculture, no. 1015. 206 pp. Olivier, A. G. 1791. Encyclopédie méthodique. Vol. 6. 704 pp. Paris. Pilsbry, H. A. 1894. Additions and corrections, p. 342, in Tryon, G. W. & Pilsbry, H. A., Manual of Conchology, Second Series, Vol. IX. 366 pp. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Signoret, V. 1877. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes (Homoptéres — Coccidea), 18e partie et derniére partie. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5), 6: 591-676. Targioni Tozzetti, A. 1868. Introduzione alla seconda Memoria per gli studi sulle Cocciniglie, dei generie delle specie della famiglia dei Coccidi. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 11: 694-738. Walker, F. 1852. List of the specimens of Homopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum, Part IV. 1188 pp. British Museum, London. Williams, M. L. & Kosztarab, M. 1972. Morphology and systematics of the Coccidae of Virginia with notes on their biology (Homoptera: Coccoidea). Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Research Division Bulletin, no. 74. 215 pp. Yang, P. L. 1982. Synopsis of Chinese scale insects. [In Chinese]. 425 pp. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publications, Shanghai. Zimmerman, E. C. 1948. Insects of Hawaii. 5. Homoptera: Sternorhyncha. 464 pp. University of Hawaii, Honolulu. LL LLL Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 119 Case 2695 Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species Yair Ben-Dov Department of Entomology, Agricultural Research Organization, Bet Dagan 50-250, Israel Daniele Matile-Ferrero Entomologie, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 75005 Paris, France Abstract. This application is submitted in order to designate Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, in accord- ance with the type material, as a genus in the mealybug family PSEUDOCOCCIDAE. The original designation of Coccus radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, 1834 was based on a misidentification by Lichtenstein of C. radicumgraminis, which is a species in the soft scale family COCCIDAE. 1. Fonscolombe (1834, p. 212) described the scale insect Coccus radicumgraminis (originally spelled radicum—graminis but emended under Article 31d of the Code) from roots of the grass Festuca caespitosa in southern France. It was assigned to the ‘Gallinsecte’ of that period, which corresponds to the superfamily CocCoIDEA of current usage. No type-material of Fonscolombe’s species is available in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, and to the best of our knowledge it is lost. How- ever, part of the original description of the adult female of this species — ‘rebordeé de tous les cotés’ [indicating a well defined margin], and ‘le postérieur est surmonté d’une pointe conique charnue brunatre’ [probably referring to the anal plates] — strongly Suggests that it is a soft scale species, probably of the genus Lecanopsis Targioni Tozzetti, 1868 (family COCCIDAE), as suggested by earlier authors (Signoret, 1874; Cockerell, 1899; Borchsenius, 1957). The specific name radicumgraminis has not been used for any recognized species. 2. Lichtenstein (1877a; 1877b) erected the genus Fonscolombia. It is explicit in both papers that when Lichtenstein established the genus he believed that he was dealing with the nominal species Coccus radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, 1834, which is there- fore under Article 70a of the Code the type species. However, Lichtenstein shortened the ‘rather long’ specific name to graminis, and deliberately applied the binomen Fonscolombia graminis to the species which he was actually studying. Lichtenstein did not indicate the suprageneric or family placement of his genus. 3. Cockerell (1899, p. 264) treated Fonscolombia as a senior synonym of Pseudo- chermes Nitsche, 1895, thus indicating his interpretation that the genus belonged to the family ERIOCOCCIDAE. This placement was followed in the Fernald Catalogue (1903, p. 114) and by Green (1922, p. 345). 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 4. Lindinger (1908, p. 94), introduced Fonscolombea, an unjustified emendation, to replace Fonscolombia. 5. Lindinger (1935, p. 135) accepted C. radicumgraminis Fonscolombe as a species in Lecanopsis, thus indicating his interpretation that Fonscolombe’s species was a soft scale insect (COCCIDAE); on p. 145 he suggested that F. graminis Lichtenstein was a mealybug (PSEUDOCOCCIDAE), which he considered to be a junior synonym of Ripersia corynephori Signoret, 1875. Lindinger repeated this interpretation in 1937 (p. 185). However, Lindinger’s interpretation was not based on a study of specimens, but rather on a comparison between extremely poor descriptions of both species; the taxonomic characters of R. corynephori are still obscure. 6. Lindinger (1943, p. 250-251) synonymized Ripersia Signoret, 1874 and Fons- colombia Lichtenstein with Tychea Koch, 1857, in accordance with his interpretation of Fonscolombia as a mealybug genus (PSEUDOCOCCIDAE). However, Tychea is a homop- teran genus of unsettled identity which is not in use in the COCccoIDEA (Morrison & Morrison, 1966) nor in the APHIDOIDEA (Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers, 1976). 7. Apart from F. graminis four species have been placed in Fonscolombia. However, all of them are now placed in genera of the family ERIOCOCCIDAE, as listed below with their present generic placement in parentheses: F. braggi Cockerell & Robinson, 1915 (Ovaticoccus); F. fraxini Kaltenbach, 1860 (Pseudochermes); F. peninsularis Ferris, 1921 (Ovaticoccus); F. yuccae Ferris, 1919 (Ovaticoccus) (see Hoy, 1963). Since 1921 the name has not been used in the COCCOIDEA. 8. The contradictory concepts of Fonscolombia, as discussed in paras. 3—7 above, represent subjective interpretations of Lichtenstein’s (1877a) description. No original material of the species studied by Lichtenstein was available to any of these workers. 9. Ferris (1957, p. 86) and Morrison & Morrison (1966, p. 80) considered the nomenclatural status of Fonscolombia, and concluded that this generic name is avail- able when it can be clearly associated with some coccoid taxon. 10. We (Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero, 1989) have examined the original material of the species studied by Lichtenstein (1877a); we showed that Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein is the valid name for this species, designated a lectotype (deposited in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris), redescribed the species, redefined Fonscolombia and showed that it belongs to the family PSEUDOCOCCIDAE. 11. As discussed above, the correct family placement of the genus Fonscolombia was disputed among students of scale insects, because the original material of the species for which the genus was erected by Lichtenstein (1877a) was not available. We (1989) have shown also that the nominal type species of Fonscolombia (C. radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, which was evidently a soft scale insect, COCCIDAE) was a misidentification of a mealybug by Lichtenstein (1877a). We consider that stability would be best served by designating Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 (as redescribed by Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero, 1989) as the type-species of Fonscolombia, in accordance with Lichtenstein’s original work. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, and to designate Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 121 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877, as published in the binomen Fonscolombia graminis and as defined by the lectotype designated by Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero (1989) (specific name of the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877). Acknowledgement Weare grateful to Dr P. K. Tubbs for discussions on the nomenclatural issues. References Ben-Doy, Y. & Matile-Ferrero, D. 1989. Taxonomy and nomenclature of five hitherto inadequately-known genera of mealybugs (Homoptera: Coccoidea: Pseudococcidae). Systematic Entomology, 14(2): 165-178. Borchsenius, N. S. 1957. Fauna of SSSR, scale insects, family Coccidae. Fauna SSSR. Zoologi- cheskii Institut Akademii Nauk SSSR, Moskva & Leningrad. Novaya Seriya, 66: 1-453. [In Russian]. Cockerell, T. D. A. 1899. Some notes on Coccidae. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1899: 253-275. Cockerell, T. D. A. & Robinson, E. 1915. Descriptions and records of Coccidae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 34: 105-113. Eastop, V. F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1976. Survey of the World’s Aphids. 573 pp. W. Junk, The Hague. Fernald, M. E. 1903. A catalogue of the Coccidae of the world. Bulletin of the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, 88: 1-360. Ferris, G. F. 1919. A contribution to the knowledge of the Coccidae of South-western United States. Stanford University Publications Series, 68 pp. Ferris, G. F. 1921. Report upon a collection of Coccidae from Lower California. Stanford University Publications. Biological Sciences, 1: 61-132. Ferris, G. F. 1957. A review of the family Eriococcidae (Insecta: Coccoidea). Microentomology, 22: 81-89. Fonscolombe, L. J. H. Boyer de, 1834. Description des Kermes qu’on trouve aux environs d’Aix. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 3: 201-218. Green, E. E. 1922. The Coccidae of Ceylon. Part 5 (pp. 345-472). Dulau & Co., London. Hoy, J. M. 1963. A catalogue of the Eriococcidae (Homoptera: Coccoidea) of the world. New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research Bulletin, 150: 1-260. Kaltenbach, J. H. 1860. Die Deutschen Phytophagen aus der Klasse der Insekten. Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereins der Preussichen Rheinlande und Westfalens, 17: 203-260. Koch, C. L. 1857. Die Pflanzenlause Aphiden. 336 pp. J. L. Lotzbeck, Nurnberg. Lichtenstein, J. 1877a. [Note]. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (ser. 5), 7: cviii-cix. Lichtenstein, J. 1877b. Apterous males in the Coccidae. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 14: 34-35. Lindinger, L. 1908. Nomenklaturbetrachtungen. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 52: 83-95. Lindinger, L. 1935. Die Nunmehr giltigen Namen der Arten in meinem ‘Schildlaus-Buch’ und in den ‘Schildlausen der Mitteleuropaischen Gewachshauser’. Entomologisches Jahrbuch, 44: 127-149. Lindinger, L. 1937. Verzeichnis der Schildlaus-Gattungen. (Homoptera — Coccoidea Handlirsch, 1903). Entomologisches Jahrbuch, 46: 178-198. Lindinger, L. 1943. Bemerkungen zur Schildlaus-Nomenklatur. Arbeiten iiber Morphologische und Taxonomische Entomologie, 10: 248-252. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Morrison, H. & Morrison, E. R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of scale insects (Homoptera: Coccoidea). United States Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publi- cations, 1015: 1-206. Nitsche, H. 1895. Page 1249 in Judiech, J. F. & Nitsche, H. (Eds.), Lehrbuch der Mitteleuropais- chen Forstinsektenkunde, Vol. 4 (pp. 937-1421). Holzel, Wien. Signoret, V. 1874. Essai sur les cochenilles (Homopteres — Coccides), 12e partie. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (ser. 5), 4: 87-106. Signoret, V. 1875. Essai sur les cochenilles ou gallinsectes (Homoptéres — Coccides), 1Se, 16e et 17e partie. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (ser. 5), 5: 305-394. Targioni Tozzetti, A. 1868. Introduzione alla seconda Memoria per gli studi sulle cocciniglie, dei generi e delle specie della famiglia dei Coccidi. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 9: 694-738. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 123 Case 2665 Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation Paul Thiaucourt Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the notodontid moth generic name Rosema Walker, 1855 by giving it precedence over two unused senior subjective synonyms, Zelica and Rhogalia, both published by Hubner [1825]. 1. Walker (1855, pp. 1159 and 1168) proposed the generic name Rosema for five species of South American moths in the DREPANIDAE. MOschler (1878, p. 696) trans- ferred Rosema to the family NOTODONTIDAE, where it is placed today. Kirby (1892, p. 581) designated R. dorsalis Walker, 1855 (p. 1168) from Brazil as the type species of Rosema. The holotype of R. dorsalis is in the British Museum (Natural History), London. 2. The generic name Rosema has often been used, most notably in two standard reference works: Draudt (1934) in Seitz’s Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde (vol. 6, pp. 1054-1059) and by Gaede (1934) in Aurivillius’ Lepidopterorum Catalogus (part 59, pp. 313-315). A list of 29 other references has been given to the Commission Secretariat. 3. Hubner ([1825], p. 396) proposed two generic names, Zelica and Rhogalia. Each included only one nominal species, which are therefore the types by monotypy. For Zelica this was Phalaena zelica Stoll, [1790] (p. 73, pl. 16, figs. 2, 2C and 2D), which Hubner misspelt as P. zelia, and for Rhogalia it was P. epigena Stoll, [1790] (p. 72, pl. 16, figs 1, 1A and 1B), misspelt as P. epigenana. 4. The name Zelica has been used only twice, by Herrich-Schaffer (1855, pp. 67 and 83, fig. 467) for his new species Z. thalassina, and by Boisduval (1870, p. 99) who provided the unnecessary replacement name Z. prasina for Z. thalassina. Rhogalia has never been used. 5. Draudt (1934, p. 1055) treated Rosema zelica (Stoll) as an apparently rare form of R. dorsalis Walker. Gaede (in Aurivillius, 1934, pp. 313-315) is unclear; dorsalis is given as a good species, but under zelica he treats dorsalis as a junior synonym, with exactly the same references. Forbes (1939, pp. 246-247) gives dorsalis as a variety of the species R. zelica, stating ‘the type [in the meaning of the word type=nominotypical form] seems very rare but is in the National Museum, Washington from French Guiana’. Biezanko (1962, Serie A, p. 11) cited R. zelica Stoll and (1962, Serie B, p. 6) R. zelica f. dorsalis Walker, and other workers have treated dorsalis as a form of zelica. 6. I have examined many specimens recently caught in French Guiana, and also in collections in London, Berlin, Chicago, Maracay, Saarbriicken, Miinchen and Frankfurt, without seeing a ‘typical’ R. zelica. Unfortunately, Stoll’s original specimens, which were in Leyden, are probably lost. I have examined the genitalia of the holotype of R. dorsalis (British Museum (Natural History) slide preparation no. NOTODONTIDAE 720) and of Forbes’ (1939) specimen, kindly sent by Dr E. L. Todd from 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 the U.S. National Museum and, in my opinion, they belong to two distinct but closely related species. It seems that R. dorsalis is widespread but that R. zelica is very scarce or even extinct. . 7. Iconsider that Phalaena epigena Stoll, [1790], the type species of Rhogalia Hiibner (see paragraph 3), is congeneric with Rosema dorsalis and R. zelica. 8. I propose the conservation of the name Rosema Walker, which has been in use for over a century, while its senior subjective synonym Rhogalia has never been used, and Zelica has been used only twice, both times over a hundred years ago. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the generic name Rosema Walker, 1855 is to be given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Rosema Walker, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Kirby (1892) Rosema dorsalis Walker, 1855, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825] whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names; (b) Zelica Hiibner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Pha- laena zelica Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Rosema Walker, 1855 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (c) Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Pha- laena epigena Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Rosema Walker, 1855 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) dorsalis Walker, 1855, as published in the binomen Rosema dorsalis (specific name of the type species of Rosema Walker, 1855); (b) zelica Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena zelica (specific name of the type species of Zelica Hubner, [1825]); (c) epigena Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena epigena (specific name of the type species of Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]). References Biezanko, C. M. 1962. Notodontidae et Dioptidae da Zona Missioneira do Rio Grande do Sul. Arquivos de Entomologia, Serie A (8A), 14 pp.; Serie B (8A), 6 pp. Boisduval, J. B. A. D. De, 1870. Considérations sur des Lépidoptéres Envoyés du Guatemala a M. de l’Orza. 100 pp. Oberthur & fils, Rennes. Draudt, M. 1934. Family Notodontidae. Pp. 905-1070 in Seitz, A. (Ed.) Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde, vol. 6, Kernen, Stuttgart. Forbes, W. T. M. 1939. The Lepidoptera of Barro Colorado Island, Panama. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 85(4): vii, 97-322. Gaede, M. 1934. Notodontidae. Jn Aurivillius, P. O. C., Lepidopterorum Catalogus, part 59. 351 pp. W. Junk, Berlin. Herrich-Schiffer, G. A. W. 1855. Sammlung neuer, oder wenig bekannter, Aussereuropaischer Schmetterlinge, 1850-1858 [-1869], 84 pp., 571 figs. G. J. Manz, Regengsburg. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 125 Hiibner, J. [1825]. 1816 Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge. 431 pp, Anzeiger 72 pp. Augsburg. [The dates to be accepted for the various parts of this work are set out in Opinion 150 (1943)]. Kirby, W. F. 1892. A Synonymic Catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths). Vol. 1. Sphinges and Bombyces. xii, 951 pp. Gurney and Jackson, London. Méschler, H. B. 1878. Beitrage zur Schmetterlinge—Fauna von Surinam. 2. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 27 (1877): 629-700. Stoll, C. [1790]. Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, Voorkomende in de drie Waereld—Deelen Asia, Africa en America door den Pieter Cramer, 184 pp., 42 pls. N. T. Gravius, Amsteldam. Walker, F. 1855. List of the Specimens of Lepidopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part 4. Lepidoptera, Heterocera, pp. 777-1257. British Museum, London. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2658 Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species Musca azurea Fallén, 1817: proposed conservation of usage by designation of a replacement lectotype Curtis W. Sabrosky Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C. 120560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the customary use of the generic name Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 and its type species Musca azurea Fallén, 1817 for the bird blow flies, the larvae of which are obligatory bloodsucking parasites of nestling birds, and to avoid the confusing transfer of the names to a scavenger calliphorid long known as Protophormia terraenovae (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830). The name Protocalli- phora is well known in both entomology and ornithology. 1. The genus Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (p. 65) was proposed in North America for two species then regarded as Holarctic, Musca azurea Fallén, 1817 and Musca chrysorrhoea Meigen, 1826, of which the former was designated (p. 66) as type species. Protocalliphora azurea is now considered a Palearctic species, but Hough’s writings show that he had both Nearctic and Palearctic specimens, so it cannot be said that his ‘azurea’ was only Nearctic and consequently a misidentified type species. 2. Muscaazurea Fallén, 1817 (p. 245) was named and briefly described from ‘39’ sent to him from Westerg6thland [modern Vasterg6tland], Sweden. The number of speci- mens was not stated but obviously there were at least two. In 1821 (p.46), Fallén repeated the description and added a few details, including the phrase ‘squama nigricans’. 3. In 1826, Meigen stated clearly that Fallén’s Musca azurea consisted of two species, and that only the male is azurea, with white calypteres. Meigen was thus the first reviser of this species. Assuredly he saw original material; he visited Fallén in Lund, Sweden (see biography of Meigen by Forster, 1846, p. 137), and at least twice recorded his debt to Fallén (Meigen, 1818, p. xix; 1824, p. vi). 4. Meigen’s revision was supported by Zetterstedt (1838, p. 657) in his Insecta Lapponica. He recognised Musca azurea Fallén in the same sense as Meigen’s interpret- ation, and described the other species, with brown calypteres, as Musca groenlandica (n. sp., p. 657), now a synonym of Protophormia terraenovae (Robineau—Desvoidy, 1830). Under M. azurea, Zetterstedt specifically mentioned Fallén’s original material, ‘which that author had before his eyes when he was about to describe his species’. Van Emden (1954, p. 121) accepted Zetterstedt as first reviser, but Sabrosky (1956, p. 175) called attention to the prior revision by Meigen (1826). The result is the same: Meigen and Zetterstedt agree, and it matters not whether their conclusions were independently arrived at, or one adopted the other’s conclusions, or the effort was joint. 5. At the time of Meigen and Zetterstedt, the Fallén and Zetterstedt collections were at Lund, but the two collections were later sorted out by Zetterstedt and the Fallén Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 127 collection sent to the Riksmuseum in Stockholm. In 1953 I found two males and one female labelled ‘M. azurea’ in the Fallén collection at Stockholm, and four males and one female under azurea in Zetterstedt’s collection at Lund. Of the Lund material, three males and the female bear labels that identify their provenance, and the time of collec- tion as subsequent to 1817, leaving one old specimen without a label and thus of unknown provenance and time. The Stockholm specimens are a brown-calypter species (Protophormia), those in Lund a white—or chiefly white—calypter species (Protocalliphora). This separation agrees with the revisions by Meigen (1826) and Zetterstedt (1838), and as Zetterstedt had sorted out the mixed material. 6. Scattered references in the literature mention a ‘type’ for azurea: Villeneuve (1918, p. 159; le type méme de Fallén); Stein (1924, p. 261: Die Type in Lund); Townsend (1931, p. 375: holotypein Stockholm); Ringdahl (1945, p. 35: type specimenin the Riksmuseum in Stockholm). However, none of these authors labelled a specimen as lectotype (or equivalent term), and they do not qualify as precise designations of lectotype. 7. Hennig (1939) dissected and figured (p. 362, figs. 1-2) the genitalia of a male of ‘azurea loaned from the Stockholm Museum, and he referred to this specimen as ‘der Typus’. He recognised that it was not a Protocalliphora as customarily identified but belonged to the saprophagous species Protophormia terraenovae (Robineau— Desvoidy). The specimen that he dissected and published as ‘der Typus’ bears a printed label ‘hiervon micr. Prap/Kopulat.-Apparat . . .’ plus a small pink label with a number that means a specimen loaned by the Stockholm Museum, so that specimen and the ‘der Typus’ publication are clearly and definitely associated. No doubt Hennig assumed that the specimen loaned to him was ‘der Typus’ and not merely ‘ein Typus’ or syntype. 8. In 1956 I discussed the nomenclature of Protocalliphora, noted that Meigen was actually the first reviser, and opined that (p. 178) ‘action of a first reviser takes prece- dence over later actions, even if one of the latter involves selection of a lectotype or neotype’. Accordingly I designated as lectotype, consistent with Meigen’s revision, the old unlabelled male in Lund, which ‘might have been, or at least cannot be demon- strated not to have been, one of Fallén’s original specimens.’ This conclusion has been accepted by recent workers in the family, thus continuing traditional usage of Protocalliphora for the bird blow flies. A recent description of additional species of Protocalliphora has called into question the specific identity of this specimen. Knut Rognes, now completing a book on the CALLIPHORIDAE for the Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica (in press), has dissected this male specimen and determined that it is azurea in the traditional sense. 9. Unfortunately — in my opinion, and this is a good example of what can occur — action by the XVI International Congress of Zoology (Monaco, 1972) gave lectotype designation absolute precedence over restriction bya first reviser, and this action became part of the Code in 1985 (Article 74aii). The effect of this is that Hennig’s action (1939), which is acceptable under Article 74a as a legitimate lectotype designation, is the valid designation for Musca azurea Fallén because it antedates the action of Sabrosky (1956). 10. Unfortunately, the Hennigian ‘lectotype’ of Musca azurea is, as Hennig recog- nised, a specimen of the scavenger species known as Protophormia terraenovae (the type species of Protophormia). Hough’s designation of Musca azurea as type species of Protocalliphora, although consistent with the revisions of Meigen and Zetterstedt and followed in most subsequent literature, was made a misidentified type species by the decades-later ‘designation’ by Hennig. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 11. Recognition of Hennig’s dissected specimen as lectotype would require the following changes: i. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899, would replace Protophormia Townsend, 1908 ' (p. 123) for the scavenger genus; ii. Protocalliphora azurea (Fallén, 1817) would replace Protophormia terraenovae (Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, p. 467) for the scavenger species; iii. the bird blow fly genus would change from Protocalliphora to Avihospita Hendel, 1901; and iv. Protocalliphora azurea auct. would change to Avihospita caerulea (Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830) [Phormia], or perhaps, because of uncertainty about the identity of caerulea, to A. dispar (Dufour, 1845) [Lucilia]. 12. These upsetting changes would disturb stability in both generic and specific names in these two common and widespread Holarctic genera of blow flies (CALLI- PHORIDAE). More important, and most unfortunately, they would change the estab- lished and well recognised usage of Protocalliphora from bird blow flies and their bloodsucking larvae to a scavenger genus, Protophormia. Both generic names are well established in the literature of entomology, and Protocalliphora in the literature of ornithology (see appended list of usage, para. 13). Straight synonymy is often only briefly upsetting, but such a reversal of established usage is not only upsetting to stability but it introduces confusion into the literature and is therefore especially harmful. Both generic and specific nomenclature would be stabilised by tackling the lectotype problem. 13. The extensive usage of Protocalliphora for the bird blow flies could be abund- antly illustrated by citation from the periodical literature of entomology and ornitho- logy, but it is exemplified here by the following major works, mostly books, briefly identified for present purposes without inclusion in the References. An asterisk (*) - marks those that use the name azurea in addition to Protocalliphora: Catalogues: Aldrich (1905), and *Stone et al. (1965) on Diptera of North America; *Becker & Stein (1907), and *Schumann (1986) on Calliphoridae in Palearctic Diptera. Curran (1934): The families and genera of North American Diptera. *Van Emden (1954): Calliphoridae, in Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects. *Fan (1965): [key to the common synanthropic flies of China]. *Gregor & Povolny (1959): The tribe Phormiini in Europe. *Grunin (1970): Calliphoridae, in Bey-Bienko [Identification of the insects of the European part of the USSR]. *Hall (1948): The blowflies of North America. *Hough (1899): Synopsis of the Calliphorinae of the United States. 14 additional references are held by the Commission Secretariat (10 marked *) but are not included here for economy of space. 14. This application has been read by and is supported by the following specialists interested in CALLIPHORIDAE: Thomas Pape (Copenhagen, Denmark); G. F. Shewell (Ottawa, Canada); Adrian Pont (London, England); Knut Rognes (Stavanger, Norway); B. V. Peterson (Washington, D.C.); and Norman Woodley (Washington, D:C,): Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 129 15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all designations of lectotype for Musca azurea Fallen, 1817 prior to that by Sabrosky (1956) of the specimen described in para. 8 above; (2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species Musca azurea Fallén, 1817 by original designation; (b) Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by mono- typy Phormia terraenovae Robineau—Desvoidy, 1830; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) azurea Fallén, 1817, as published in the binomen Musca azurea (specific name of the type species of Protocalliphora Hough, 1899) and as defined by the lectotype designated by Sabrosky (1956); (b) terraenovae Robineau—Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Phormia terraenovae (specific name of the type species of Protophormia Townsend, 1908). References Emden, F. I. van, 1954. Tachinidae and Calliphoridae. Section a, In Handbooks for the Identifica- tion of British Insects, vol. 10; Cyclorrhapha, part 4: Calyptrata (1), 133 pp. Royal Entomo- logical Society of London. Fallen, C. F. 1817. Beskrifning 6fver de i Sverige funna Fluge Arter, som kunna foras till slagtet Musca. Forsta Afdelningen. Kongl. Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, 1816: 226-254. Fallen, C. F. 1821. Muscides. 94 pp. Diptera Sveciae, vol. 2. Lund. (not continuously paginated). Forster, J. A. 1846. Ueber das Leben und Wirken von J. W. Meigen. Entomologische Zeitung Herausgegeben von dem entomologischen Vereine zu Stettin, 7: 66—74, 130-141. Hennig, W. 1939. Uber Namen und Artenzahl der deutschen ‘Vogelblutfliegen’. Arbeiten tiber physiologische und angewandte Entomologie aus Berlin-Dahlem, 6: 359-364. Hough, G. de N. 1899. Some North American genera of the dipterous group, Calliphorinae Girschner. Entomological News, 10: 62-66. Meigen, J. W. 1818, 1824, 1826, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zwei- : fliigeligen Insekten, vol. 1, xxxvii, 333 pp. Aachen; vol. 4, vii, 428 pp. Hamm; vol. 5, xii, 412 | pp. Hamm. Ringdahl, O. 1945 Forteckning Gver de av Zetterstedt i Insecta Lapponica och Diptera Scandinaviae beskrivna tachiniderna med synonymer jamte anteckningar 6ver en del arter. Opuscula entomologica, 10: 26-35. Robineau-Desvoidy, J. B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savans a l’ Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, 2: 1-813. Rognes, K. In press. The family Calliphoridae. Fauna Entomologica Scandinavica. Brill, Leiden. Sabrosky, C. W. 1956. The nomenclature of Protocalliphora (Diptera: Calliphoridae). The Pro- ceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)25: 175-179. Stein, P. 1924. Die verbreitetsten Tachiniden Mitteleuropas nach ihren Gattungen und Arten. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, (A)90(6): 1-271. Townsend, C. H. T. 1908. The Taxonomy of the Muscoidean Flies, including descriptions of New Genera and Species. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections no. 1803, 51(2): 1-138. Townsend, C. H. T. 1931. Notes on Old-World Oestromuscoid Types, part 1. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)8: 369-391. Villeneuve, J. 1918. Sur Phormia sordida Zett. [Dipt.]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 1918: 158-159. Zetterstedt, J. W. 1838. Insecta Lapponica. Sectio Tertia — Diptera. Pp. 477-868, in Zetterstedt, 1838-1840, Insecta Lapponica, 1140 pp. Lipsiae. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Case 2659 Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes): proposed fixation of O. bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the name of the type species Maurice Kottelat Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchhausenstr. 21, D-8000 Miinchen 60, Fed. Rep. Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 for the Brazilian food fish known as the Aruana (Arawana or Arowana). Cuvier published the combination Osteoglossum vandellii, but synonymised this with the unpublished name Ischnosoma bicirrhosum. The name bicirrhosum is available by reason of subsequent adoption, whereas vandellii has been unused for 160 years. 1. Cuvier (1829, p. 328) described the new genus Osteoglossum. He ended his description with the statement ‘On en connait une espéce assez grande du Brésil (Osteoglossum Vandellii, n., ou Ischnosoma bicirrhosum, Spix, xxv)’. This means Cuvier named the only known (and hence type) species as O. vandellii, and considered that the I. bicirrhosum on Spix’s then unpublished plate 25 was the same species. This makes both specific names available from Cuvier (1829) (bicirrhosum is available under Article lle of the Code because it has been subsequently adopted as valid). [Dates of publi- cation and authorship of names and acts in ‘Spix’, i.e. Spix & Agassiz (1829-1831), follow the conclusions of K ottelat (1988); in this paper the date of publication of Cuvier is taken as not later than 31 March 1829, the relevant Spix plate as between 22 May 1829 and 4 July 1829; alternative conclusions on authorship and dates might be historically correct but are difficult to support with internal evidence]. 2. In 1831 Agassiz (p. 2 of the ‘Conspectus’ of Spix & Agassiz) acted as first reviser and retained Osteoglossum vandellii. The combination Osteoglossum vandellii Cuvier, 1829 has not been used again for this fish. As it is an important food fish (see Goulding, 1980, pp. 36, 211 and 1981, p. 113), the conservation of bicirrhosum is justified. 3. Ischnosoma has been used only once, on plate 25 of Spix & Agassiz (1829; in combination with bicirrhosum), and dates from that publication. All other uses of this name are in synonymies and bibliographies, so no action needs to be taken regarding it. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to set aside all first reviser actions regarding the specific names vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Osteoglossum vandellii, and bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in combination with the manuscript generic name Jschnosoma, and to rule that bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is a senior objective synonym of vandellii Cuvier, 1829; (b) to confirm Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the type species by monotypy of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 131 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in combination with the manuscript generic name Ischnosoma (specific name of the type species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Osteoglossum vandellii, and as ruled in (1) above to be a junior objective synonym of bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as published in the combination IJschnosoma bicirrhosum. References Cuvier, G. 1829. Le régne animal distribué d’apres son organisation pour servir de base a l'histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie comparée. Ed. 2, vol. 2. xvii, 406 pp. Déterville, Paris. Goulding, M. 1980. The Fishes and the Forest — Explorations in Amazonian natural history. 280 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley. Goulding, M. 1981. Man and Fisheries on an Amazon Frontier. Developments in Hydrobiology. no. |. 137 pp. Junk, The Hague. Giinther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, vol. 7. xx, 512 pp. British Museum. Kottelat, M. 1988. Authorship, dates of publication, status and types of Spix and Agassiz’s Brazilian Fishes. Spixiana, 11(1): 69-93. Spix, J. B. de & Agassiz, L. 1829-1831. Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere per Brasiliam annis MDCCCXVII-MDCCCXxX jussu et auspiciis Maximiliani Josephi I. Bavariae regis augustissimi peracto. Collegit et pingendos curavit Dr J. B. de Spix ... descripsit ... L. Agassiz . . . Xvi, 11, 6, 138 pp., 98 pls. Wolf, Monachii. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Comment opposing the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 (Case 2629; see BZN 45: 288-291) John LaSalle & Zdenek Boucek CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London, SW7 5JR, U.K. 1. We are strongly opposed to the proposed suppression of the chalcidoid generic name Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852, in favour of Physcus Howard, 1895, as requested by Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani. The proposed conservation of Physcus cannot be justified on a nomenclatural or systematic basis, and would do more to disrupt stability than to promote it. 2. According to Rosen et al. there are three main objections to the use of Coccobius: (1) the type species of Coccobius, C. annulicornis Ratzeburg, 1852, is currently unrecog- nisable, and as such Coccobius cannot be accepted as synonymous with Physcus; (2) even if Coccobius and Physcus can be shown to be synonymous, use of the name Coccobius rather than Physcus would disrupt stability; (3) the name Physcus is well known in the literature of biological control and economic entomology. We disagree with the authors concerning their first two points, and as to their third point, we feel that overall stability would be more disrupted by conserving the name Physcus (which instead can remain as an available name, but a junior synonym of Coccobius). 3. For their first point, Rosen et al. consider the recognition of the genus Coccobius as doubtful, as type material for the type species C. annulicornis was destroyed in the Second World War. However, as in many cases where original type material is no longer extant, a reasonable assumption can be made as to the identity of this species. As early as 1895 Howard (p. 10) suggested that C. annulicornis might belong to his new genus Physcus. From Ratzeburg’s original description (1852, p. 195) the identity of annulicornis, with distinctive black and white antennae, yellow-brown thorax, and brown abdomen, is clear: only one European aphelinid fits this description. 4. Novitzky had examined the annulicornis type (Graham, 1976, p. 144; Hayat, 1983, p. 79; see also BZN 45: 289, paras 8 and 9), and there is presently a specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) from Novitzky’s collection, which he determined as C. annulicornis through comparison with Ratzeburg’s type (Novitzky, personal com- munication to Z. Boucek). Hayat (1983, p. 79) mentions this specimen as being‘... on a card with the antennae missing and the head partially eaten by psocids.’ In reference to this specimen, which they apparently have not examined, Rosen et al. claim (their para. 10) that *... to the best of our knowledge an aphelinid specimen mounted on a card, without antennae and with part of the head eaten, cannot be identified to genus — let alone to species — with any degree of certainty’. This argument is in seeming contra- diction to a previous statement in their proposal (para. 3, which is a quote from Hayat, 1984) that the genus Physcus ‘is rather distinctive and is not likely to be confused with any other aphelinid genus’. 5. We have examined Novitzky’s annulicornis specimen and it is clearly congeneric with Physcus (and identical to Physcus testaceus Masi, 1910(pp. 36-37), syn.n.). Fortun- ately, one of the antennae of this specimen is present; it had been removed from the head, and glued separately on the card. The distinctive form of both the antenna and thorax in this specimen are in complete agreement with the generic concept of Physcus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 133 It is highly unlikely that Novitzky could have confused this easily recognisable species, and we have no doubt that his specimen represents the species described by Ratzeburg. 6. In order to avoid any further confusion or argument concerning the recognition of the genus Coccobius, we now designate this annulicornis specimen from Novitzky’s collection as neotype of the species Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg, 1852. Although this specimen is slightly damaged, it is easily recognisable, and it is the only specimen that we are aware of, or that has been referred to in the literature, that has been compared with the original type material. Data for this specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) are as follows: [Hungary], ‘Vacz, Tuddsdomb, Bird, 1930.v.31’, ‘Csoroghegy retis ope’. It also bears the label ‘Det. S. Novickij, 2 Coccobius annuli- cornis Ratz’. There can be no further confusion regarding the identity of the genus Coccobius. 7. As to the second point of Rosen et al., we contend that suppression of the name Coccobius would disrupt stability rather than promote it. Hayat’s (1983) work in which he re-established the name Coccobius is the first modern generic treatment of the APHELINIDAE, and as such will be the foundation of further research for years to come. In this work Hayat (p. 81) addressed the matter of whether to use Coccobius or Physcus and concluded‘... I think that we should not reject a name just because some authors ignored, or misunderstood, or have preferred to use a later name without investigating the availability of an earlier published synonym. In this case, the possibility of annuli- cornis being a Physcus was suggested as early as 1895 by Howard, the author of Physcus’. 8. Rosen et al. never make it clear from a systematic point of view for what reason they feel the use of the name Coccobius would disrupt stability, but it clearly does not fall into the category of an unused senior synonym as outlined by Article 79c of the Code. The identity of Coccobius has been established, and the name has been used in systematic and biological control literature (Hayat, 1984, 1985, 1986; Waterhouse & Norris, 1987; Woolley, 1988). 9. The final argument Rosen et al. make is that the generic name Physcus is well known in the literature of biological control and economic entomology. We are not convinced as to the validity of this argument. Nobody, including systematists, likes to learn new names for taxa they have known under another name. However, knowledge- able biological control workers and economic entomologists will appreciate that. advances which provide systematic stability in important groups of poorly understood insects (such as the APHELINIDAE) are of far greater long term benefit to them than the maintenance of previously used names for sentimental reasons. 10. As the name Coccobius is shown to have both its usage and its identity estab- lished, and as Rosen et al. have not provided sufficient evidence to support their proposal to suppress the generic name Coccobius in favour of Physcus, we request the ICZN to reject their appeal. We rather request the Commission: (1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852, (gender: masculine), type species Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg, 1852 by designation by Gahan & Fagan (1923, p. 37); (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name annulicornis Ratzeburg, 1852, as published in the binomen Coccobius annulicornis and as defined by the neotype designated in para. 6 above (specific name of the type species of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852). 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 References Gahan, A. B. & Fagan, M. M. 1923. The type species of the genera of Chalcidoidea or chalcid- flies. United States National Museum Bulletin, 124: 1-173. Graham, M. W. R. de V. 1976. The British species of Aphelinus with notes and descriptions of other European Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology, 1: 123-146. Hayat, M. 1983. The genera of Aphelinidae (Hymenoptera) of the world. Systematic Ento- mology, 8: 63-102. Hayat, M. 1984. Notes on some species of Coccobius and Prophyscus (Hymenoptera: Aphelini- dae), with special reference to Girault and Howard types. Oriental Insects, 18: 289-334. Hayat, M. 1985. Family Aphelinidae. Pp. 226-232 in Subba Rao, B. R. & Hayat, M. (Eds.). The Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India and the adjacent countries. Part I. Reviews of families and keys to families and genera. Oriental Insects, 19: 163-310. Hayat, M. 1986. Family Aphelinidae. Pp. 143-171 in Subba Rao, B. R. & Hayat, M. (Eds.). The Chalcidoidea (Insecta: Hymenoptera) of India and the adjacent countries. Part II. A catalogue of Chalcidoidea of India and the adjacent countries. Oriental Insects, 20: 1-430. Howard, L. O. 1895. Revision of the Aphelininae of North America. U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Division of Entomology, Technical Series no. 1, 44 pp. Masi, L. 1910. Contribuzioni alla conoscenza dei calcididi italiani. Bollettino del Laboratorio di Zoologia Generale e Agraria della R. Scuola Superiore d’Agricoltura in Portici, 4: 3-37. Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten in forstlicher und entomologischer Beziehung, vol. 3. xviii, 272 pp. Nicolai’schen, Berlin. Waterhouse, D. F. & Norris, K. R. 1987. Biological Control: Pacific Prospects. 454 pp. Inkata Press, Melbourne. Woolley, J. B. 1988. Phylogeny and classification of the Signiphoridae (Hymenoptera: Chalci- doidea). Systematic Entomology, 13: 465-501. Comment on the proposed conservation of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) (Case 2616; see BZN 45: 207-209) Hobart M. Smith Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. Although the family name ICHTHYOPHYIIDAE Taylor, 1968 is only 21 years old the circumstances warrant its conservation. The taxonomy of the Gymnophiona (caecilians), on a world-wide basis, remained until 1968 essentially neglected and in a very elementary state, with but one family recognised. Taylor’s monograph of 1968 was the turning point in study of this group, with recognition of three families, including the ICHTHYOPHIDAE; now five families are accepted. The monograph is the baseline for all modern work on the order, and it has stimulated an enormous literature in the succeeding span of little more than 20 years. It is essentially the Systema Naturae of gymnophione taxonomy and biology. That it supplant pre-1968 work is not suggested, but due recognition should be given to it as the starting point for modern work, particularly in view of the magnitude of subsequent literature. In the interests of nomenclatural stability it is important that the application for conservation of the family name ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 be approved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 135 OPINION 1536 Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] (Foraminiferida): Nautilus orbiculus Forsskal, 1775 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] are hereby set aside and Nautilus orbiculus Forsskal, 1775 is designated as type species. (2) The name Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Nautilus orbiculus Forsskal, 1775, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name orbiculus Forsskal, 1775, as published in the binomen Nautilus orbiculus (specific name of the type species of Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name soriTipéE Ehrenberg, [1839] (type genus Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839]) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2600 An application for the designation of Nautilus orbiculus Forsskal, 1775 as the type species of Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] was received from Drs A. R. Loeblich, Jr. & H. Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.) on 3 March 1987. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 44: 160—161 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 161. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Schuster. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Holthuis commented that the case could have been solved without the Commission’s help if the neotype of N. orbiculus had also been designated as the neotype of S. dominicensis, whereby the two species would have become objective synonyms. Kraus would have preferred more information on usage and importance of the generic name in question. The spelling Forsskal has been adopted for the author of Nautilus orbiculus (see BZN 22: 9). Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: orbiculus, Nautilus, Forsskal, 1775, Descriptiones animalium ... p. 125. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 ngen der K@niglichen Akademie der 136 Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839], Physikalische Abhandlu Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838(1840)[1839]: 134. SORITIDAE Ehrenberg, [1839], Physikalische Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1838(1840)[1839]: 109. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 137 OPINION 1537 Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida): Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Discocyclina Gumbel, 1870 are hereby set aside and Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847 is designated as type species. (2) The name Discocyclina Gimbel, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name prattii Michelin, 1847, as published in the binomen Orbitolites prattii (specific name of the type species of Discocyclina Gimbel, 1870) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name DISCOCYCLININAE Galloway, 1928 (type genus Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2599 An application for the designation of Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847 as the type species of Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 was received from Drs A. R. Loeblich, Jr. & H. Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A.) on 3 March 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 162—163 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It should be noted that the correct name of the type species is O. prattii Michelin, 1847, as in the request to the Commission, and not O. pratti of 1846 as cited by the workers quoted in the application. Decision of the Commission On | December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 163. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Kraus would have preferred more information on usage and importance of the generic name in question. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: i Discocyclina, Giimbel, 1870, Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Classe der Koniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 10(2): 687. DISCOCYCLININAE Galloway, 1928, Journal of Paleontology, 2: 55. prattii, Orbitolites, Michelin, 1847, Iconographie zoophytologique, p. 278. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 OPINION 1538 Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoidea): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Discocephalum Linton, 1891 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (gender: masculine), type species by indication under Article 67h Discocephalum pileatum Linton, 1891; (b) Discocephala Laporte, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Discocephala marmorea Laporte, 1833. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pileatum Linton, 1891, as published in the binomen Discocephalum pileatum (specific name of the type species of Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935); (b) marmorea Laporte, 1833, as published in the binomen Discocephala marmorea (specific name of the type species of Discocephala Laporte, 1833). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) DISCULICIPITIDAE Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (type genus Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935; Cestoidea, Lecanicephalidea); (b) DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861 (type genus Discocephala Laporte, 1833; Insecta, Hemiptera). : (5) The name Discocephalum Linton, 1891, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (6) The name DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pinter, 1928 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (a junior homonym of DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861). History of Case 2591 An application for the conservation of Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 was received from Dr J. N. Caira (University of Connecticut, Storrs, U.S.A.) on 6 February 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 168—169 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 168-169. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Hahn. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 139 Hahn considered that it was wrong to replace a generic name only to avoid homonymy between two family-group names, and that it would have been better to have changed the stem of the cestode name. After voting it was noticed that no request had been made to the Commission to place the specific names of the type species on the Official List. This omission from the application and voting papers was a clerical error, and its rectification does not require the use of the plenary powers. The original spelling of DIscULICIPITIDAE Joyeux & Baer, 1935 is correct (cf. BZN 44: 168-169), since the genitive of the Latin -ceps (=head) is -cipitis. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Discocephala Laporte, 1833, Magasin de Zoologie, 2: 57 DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pinter, 1928, Zoologische Jahrbuecher. Abteilung fuer Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere, 50: 87. DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861, Die Europdischen Hemiptera Halfbfluger (Rhynchota Heterop- tera), p. 77. Discocephalum Linton, 1891, Report U.S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1887, 15: 781. DISCULICIPITIDAE Joyeux & Baer, 1935, Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 60: 499. Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935, Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 60: 499. marmorea, Discocephala, Laporte, 1833, Magasin de Zoologie, 2: 57. pileatum, Discocephalum, Linton, 1891, Report U.S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries for 1887, 15: 781. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 OPINION 1539 Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): not to be given precedence over Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865 Ruling The name anabathrum Crosse, 1865, as published in the binomen Conus anabathrum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2563 An application for the conservation of Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865 was received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum, Auckland, New Zealand ) on 18 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 21-22 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment by Dr M. G. Harasewych and Mr R. E. Petit (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) was published in BZN 45:51. Decision of the Commission On | December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 21—22. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—8: Bock, Corliss, Melville, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 14: Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Starobogatov, Uéno, Willink No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Ride abstained. Cocks, Cogger, Kabata, Martins de Souza and Willink agreed with the comments of Dr Harasewych and Mr Petit. Bayer and Hahn said they would have voted for precedence being given to Conus floridanus, but they did not support the proposed suppression of the senior synonym. The case was thus not carried. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: anabathrum, Conus, Crosse, 1865, Journal de Conchyliologie, 13: 304. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 141 OPINION 1540 Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name gryphaeoides Sedgwick, 1829, as published in the binomen A vicula gryphaeoides, and all other uses of that name prior to the publication of Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836, as published in the binomen Avicula gryphaeoides, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name gryphaeoides Sedgwick, 1829, as published in the binomen Avicula gryphaeoides and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2587 An application for the conservation of Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 was received from Miss G. Lee (University College London, Gower Street, London, U.K.) on 23 December 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 164-165 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 165. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. ; No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Dupuis abstained, commenting that he did not find the current taxonomic position of the two A. gryphaeoides sufficiently clear. The senior subjective synonym of A. gryphaeoides Sedgwick, 1829 is Pseudomonotis speluncaria (Schlotheim, 1820, p. 292) and not 1816 as stated in BZN 44: 164, para. 2. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present opinion: gryphaeoides, Avicula, Sedgwick, 1829, Transactions of the Geological Society, London, (2)3: 119. gryphaeoides, Avicula, J. de C. Sowerby, 1836, In Fitton, Transactions of the Geological Society, London, (2)4: 156. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 OPINION 1541 Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) It is hereby confirmed that Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880 is the type species of Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954. (2) The name Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (gender: feminine), type species by orig- inal designation Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name honoluliensis Brady, 1880, as published in the binomen Loxoconcha honoluliensis and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Puri & Hulings (1976) (specific name of the type species of Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2423 An application for the confirmation of Loxoconcha honoluliensis Brady, 1880 as the type species of Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 was received from Drs H. Malz (Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Fed. Rep. Germany) & A. J. Keij (Ry¥swyk, The Netherlands) on 14 September 1982. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 170—171 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appro- priate journals. A comment in support was received from Professor L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands). Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 170-171. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Dupuis. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: honoluliensis, Loxoconcha, Brady, 1880, Report on the Scientific Results of the voyage of HMS Challenger during the years 1873-76, 1(3): 117. Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954, Senckenbergiana Lethaea, 35: 17. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 143 OPINION 1542 Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 is hereby ruled to be available. (2) The name Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Latreille (1810) ‘Scorpio cancroides Fabricius, 1775’ (= Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name cancroides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Acarus cancroides (specific name of the type species of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name CHELIFERIDAE Westwood, 1838 (type genus Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Obisium Illiger, 1798 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762). History of Case 2478 An application for the conservation of Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 was received from Dr M. S. Harvey (Museum of Victoria, Abbotsford, Australia) on 31 May 1984. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 188-189 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support by Professor I. M. Kerzhner (Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Leningrad) was published in BZN 45: 49 (March 1988). A comment by Professor L. B. Holthuis pointed out that the family-group name CHELIFERIDAE can be taken from Westwood (1838, p. 145). Because it did not give single words for specific names Geoffroy’s 1762 work was rejected in Opinion 228 (April 1954). In that Opinion specialists were nevertheless invited to submit proposals for making individual names available as from Geoffroy when, in their view, that course would best serve stability. Since then, 15 of Geoffroy’s 61 new generic names have been ruled (under the plenary powers) to be available. The most recent of the eight opinions concerned is Opinion 1273 (BZN 41: 28-31, March 1984), in which four coleopteran generic names were made available as from Geoffroy, 1762. After Geoffroy, the name Chelifer was next given by Miiller (1764, p. xxiv), without included species, in a table comparing Linnaeus and Geoffroy genera, which synonymised it with Acarus Linnaeus, 1758. Although Miller did not adopt Chelifer as the valid name of a taxon, his listing might perhaps be regarded as making the name available under Articles 1 le and 50g. Chelifer has apparently never been attributed to Miiller (although one of Geoffroy’s new generic names (Crioceris) was put on the Official List with Miiller’s authorship in Opinion 908). The Commission was accordingly asked to vote on proposals (1)}-(5) published in BZN 44: 189, with (4) amended to give Westwood, 1838 as the author of CHELIFERIDAE. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Proposal (6) on BZN 44: 189 (the placing of the invalid name oBIsuDAE on the Official Index) is unnecessary and was withdrawn. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 189, as amended above. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Kraus. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Professor Martins de Souza commented ‘I agree with Professor Dupuis (BZN 41: 30) «que la Commission, dans son Opinion 228, avait agi avec précipitation en rejetant en bloc le travail de Geoffroy . . .” Furthermore, Chelifer cancroides is a synanthropic species with world distribution and the rejection of Chelifer would cause great confusion’. Professor Starobogatov commented that the conservation of Chelifer Geoffroy was very important. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cancroides, Acarus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 616. Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 2, p. 617. CHELIFERIDAE Westwood, 1838, The Entomologist’s text book; an introduction to the natural history, structure, physiology and classification of Insects, including the Crustacea and Arach- nida, p. 145. Obisium Illiger, 1798, In Kugelann, Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann. Ausgearbeitet von Johann Karl Wilhelm Illiger, p. 501. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 145 OPINION 1543 Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Graphoderus cinereus; Insecta, Coleoptera): neotype replaced Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous designations of neotype for the nominal species Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside; (b) the specimen referred to in BZN 44: 176, para. 6, and deposited in the Lund Museum is designated as the neotype of Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758, and the entry in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is amended accordingly. History of Case 2602 An application for the designation of a replacement neotype for Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 was received from Drs A. N. Nilsson (University of Umeda, Sweden) & G. N. Foster (Prestwick, Scotland, U.K.) on 16 March 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 176-177 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting papers that, were the proposals to be approved, the entry on the Official List for Dytiscus cinereus would be amended to record the new neotype designation (and the previous neotype in the British Museum (Natural History) would need to have its label amended). Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 176-177. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza (in part), Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Thompson. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Thompson considered that if Angus (BZN 44: 176) could identify the true cinereus without reference to the neotype, then the original neotype was not needed nor likewise its replacement. Martins de Souza commented that he considered it necessary to set aside the previous designation of a neotype, but he was not convinced of the necessity for the replacement neotype. However, J. Balfour-Brown in 1960 (BZN 17: 248-249) pointed out that a neotype was necessary for D. cinereus, and this argument was accepted by the Commission in Opinion 618. The specimen selected for this purpose was substituted by another before the Commission had voted (see BZN 18: 366-367), and this substitute specimen is unfortunately an example of D. bilineatus De Geer, 1774 (see BZN 44: 176). Original reference The following is the original reference to the name on an Official List, entry amended by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cinereus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 412. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 OPINION 1544 ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is mer ruled that the family-group name ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 is to be given precedence over the name AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906, whenever the two are considered synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ethmia Hibner, [1819] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena pyrausta Hubner, [1819]; (b) Azinis Walker, 1863 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Azinis hilarella Walker, 1863. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pyrausta Hiibner, [1819], as published in the binomen Phalaena pyrausta (specific name of the type species of Ethmia Hubner, [1819]; (b) hilarella Walker, 1863, as published in the binomen Azinis hilarella (specific name of the type species of Azinis Walker, 1863). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ETHMUDAE Busck, 1909 (type genus Ethmia Hiibner, [1819], with the endorse- ment that it is to be given precedence over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 (type genus Azinis Walker, 1863) whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 (type genus Azinis Walker, 1863) with the endorse- ment that it is not to be given priority over ETHMUDAE Busck, 1909 (type genus Ethmia Hiibner, [1819]), whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 2550 An application to give precedence to ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 was received from Professor J. A. Powell (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.) on 13 January 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 185-187 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 186-187. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 22: Bayer, Bock, eae Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Starobogatov. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 147 No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Heppell voted for the case, but with reservation, and made the following comment: ‘It has been stated, in this case as well as in a number of other recent cases, that the family-group name (AZINIDAE) cannot be suppressed without also suppressing its type genus (Azinis). The cumbersome procedure of relative priority is then brought into play as a means of preserving an almost totally unused and unneeded name, just in case it should ever be required at some future date. This procedure, by placing the condition- ally suppressed name on the Official List, may lead zoologists who are not specialists in nomenclature to assume its status has thereby been enhanced. It seems to me worth considering whether the Commission could instead, in such cases, suppress the senior family-group name for the purposes of the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy, using a formula such as ‘AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 and all uses of that name prior to the publication of ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909’, or ‘all uses of the name AZINIDAE prior to [any date up to the date of the Opinion]’, which would: (1) leave taxonomists free to reintroduce the name, with a new author and date but of course with the same type genus, at some date subsequent to that of the family-group name being conserved; (2) place the unwanted name (as of its original usage) on the Official Index rather than the Official List; (3) allow the generic name to retain its potential for becoming the type genus again at any time subsequent to the date determined by the Commission’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)18: 177. Azinis Walker, 1863, List of the specimens of lepidopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum, Part 28, p. 541. Ethmia Hubner, [1819], Verzeichnis bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], p. 163. ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909, Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 11:91. hilarella, Azinis, Walker, 1863, List of the specimens of lepidopterous Insects in the collection of the British Museum, Part 28, p. 541. pyrausta, Phalaena, Hubner, [1819], Verzeichnis bekannter Schmettiinge [sic], p. 163. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 OPINION 1545 Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Insecta, Diptera): Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 are hereby set aside and Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838, is designated as type species. (2) The name Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838, as published in the binomen Platygaster arcticus (specific name of the type species of Glabellula Bezzi, 1902) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838 (a junior homonym of Platygaster Latreille, 1809); (b) Glabella Loew, 1873 (a junior homonym of Glabella Swainson, 1840); (c) Sphaerogaster Zetterstedt, 1842 (a junior homonym of Sphaerogaster Sturm, 1826). History of Case 2584 An application for the designation of Platygaster arcticus Zetterstedt, 1838 as the type species of Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 was received from Dr N. L. Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 30 September 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 180—182 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appro- priate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 181; proposal (2) was deleted as being redundant in view of proposal (1). At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Thompson considered that the Commission should have been asked to vote on proposal (2) of BZN 44: 181, i.e. to declare that Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 is a replacement name for Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: arcticus, Platygaster, Zetterstedt, 1838, Insecta Lapponica descripta, Section 3, Diptera, p. 574. Glabella Loew, 1873, Beschreibung europdischer Dipteren, Band 3, p. 208. Glabellula Bezzi, 1902, Zeitschrift fiir Systematische Hymenopterologie und Dipterologie, 2: 191. Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838, Insecta Lapponica descripta, Section 3, Diptera, p. 574. Sphaerogaster, Zetterstedt, 1842, Diptera Scandinaviae. Disposita et descripta, vol. 1, p. 233. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 149 OPINION 1546 Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) and Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera): names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Anomala von Block, 1799, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Anomala Samouelle, 1819, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Melolontha frischii Fabricius, 1775; (b) Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Curtis (1837) Ichneumon oculator Fabricius, 1775. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) frischii Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Melolontha frischii (specific name of the type species of Anomala Samouelle, 1819); (b) oculator Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Jchneumon oculator (specific name of the type species of Chelonus Panzer, 1806). (4) The name Anomala von Block, 1799, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2336 An application for the conservation of Chelonus Panzer, 1806 and Anomala Samouelle, 1819 was received from Dr C. van Achterberg (Rijksmuseum van Natuur- like Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 5 March 1980. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 172-173 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Nocomments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 173. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink Negative votes—none. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Anomala von Block, 1799, In Becker, Der Plauische Grund bei Dresden, mit Hinsicht auf Naturgeschichte und schéne Gartenkunst, p. 119. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 Anomala Samouelle, 1819, The Entomologist’s Useful Compendium, p. 191. Chelonus Panzer, 1806, Kritische Revision der Insektenfaune Deutschlands, nach dem System bearbeitet, vol. 2, p. 99. Srischii, Melolontha, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 37. oculator, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 338. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 151 OPINION 1547 Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers any type specimen status of the specimen 125 in the Linnean Society of London collection, labelled Silurus felis Linnaeus, No. 19 of Garden, is hereby set aside and the specimen (BMNH 1985.11.11:1), the data for which are given in BZN 44: 33, para. 16, is designated as neotype of Silurus felis. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) felis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Silurus felis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) marinus Mitchill, 1815, as published in the binomen Silurus marinus. History of Case 2533 An application for the designation of a neotype for Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 was received from Dr W. R. Taylor (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 23 September 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 31-35 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support by Dr A. Wheeler (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) was published in BZN 45: 219-221 (September 1988). This also gave an alternative explanation for the cause of confusion over Linnaeus’ type material of Silurus felis. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 34. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Ride abstained. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: felis, Silurus, Linnaeus, 1766, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(1), p. 501. marinus, Silurus, Mitchill, 1815, Transactions of the Literary and Philosophical Society of New York, 1: 433. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(2) June 1989 OPINION 1548 Sarotherodon melanotheron Rippell, 1852 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name melagaster Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Labrus melagaster, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principles of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Sarotherodon Rippell, 1852 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Sarotherodon melanotheron Rippell, 1852, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name melanotheron Riippell, 1852, as published in the binomen Sarotherodon melanotheron (specific name of the type species of Sarotherodon Rippell, 1852) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name melagaster Bloch, 1792, as published in the binomen Labrus melagaster and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2594 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Sarotherodon melano- theron Riippell, 1852 was received from Dr E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) on 20 February, 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 190-191 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 190-191. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Cogger and Thompson. No votes were returned by Gruchy, Halvorsen and Lehtinen. Cogger commented that in the absence of any substantive evidence that the use of the senior name would cause confusion, use of the plenary powers to suppress melagaster was unwarranted. Thompson also considered that the reasons for suppression were inadequate. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: melagaster, Labrus, Bloch, 1792, Naturgeschichte der auslandischen Fische, Part 6, p. 27. melanotheron, Sarotherodon Riippell, 1852, Verzeichniss der in dem Museum der Senkenberg- ischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft aufgestellten Sammlungen, part 4, p. 21. Sarotherodon Rippell, 1852, Verzeichniss der in dem Museum der Senkenbergischen Natur- forschenden Gesellschaft aufgestellten Sammlungen, part 4, p. 21. Contents—continued Opinion 1539. Conus floridanus Gabb, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): not to be given precedence over Conus anabathrum Crosse, 1865. . . 140 Opinion 1540. Avicula gryphaeoides J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name conserved . . : 141 Opinion 1541. Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): ‘Laxeconchh honoluliensis Brady, 1880 confirmed as the type species. . . : 142 Opinion 1542. Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): conserved ‘ 143 Opinion 1543. Dytiscus cinereus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Graphoderus cinereus; Insecta, Coleoptera): neotype replaced . . 145 Opinion 1544. ETHMIIDAE Busck, 1909 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence o over AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906. 146 Opinion 1545. Glabellula Bezzi, 1902, (Insecta: Diptera): Platygaster archicus Zetter- stedt, 1838 designated asthe type species . . 148 Opinion 1546. Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) and “Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera): namesconserved . . 149 Opinion 1547. Silurus felis Linnaeus, 1766 (currently Ariopsis felis; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated. . 151 Opinion 1548. Sarotherodon melanotheron Rippel, 1852 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specificnameconserved . . . ; 152 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author's name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described ...’. References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology—Supplement Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature . Applications Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): proposed designation of Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the type species. P. D. Taylor & E. Voigt. Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): confirmation of the author of the genus, and of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type — P. F. Rawson & E. Kemper . POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866.K.C.Emberton . . Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: proposed conservation, and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: proposed conservation of the specific name (both Crustacea, Copepoda). K.Hulsemann . . Ranguna Bott, 1966 and Larnaudia Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed fixation of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 and Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the respective type species. M. Tirkay & P. Naiyanetr Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation. R. A. Cooper Chira Simon, 1902 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. Maria Elena Galiano Heliophanus kochi Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the — specific name. Jerzy Proszynski Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus; Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the specific name. Jerzy Proszynski . : Thyene Simon, 1885 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. Jerzy Proszynski. Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species. Y. Ben-Dov ‘ Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed ‘designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type species. Y. Ben-Dov & Daniele Matile-Ferrero . Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed. conservation. Paul Thiaucourt Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: proposed conservation of usage by designation of a replacement lectotype.C.W.Sabrosky . . Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, “Osteoglossiformes): ‘proposed fixation of O. bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the name of the type species. Maurice Kottelat Comments Opposing the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenop- tera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. John LaSalle & Zdenek Boucek On the proposed conservation of ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymno- phiona). Hobart M. Smith . MAE EMT 8 3 ie , Rulings of the Commission : Opinion 1536. Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] (Foraminiferida): Nautilus orbiculus Forsskal, 1775 designated as the type'species:' 4.2.) . ha). Sa Opinion 1537. Discocyclina Giimbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida): Orbitolites prattii Michelin, 1847 designated as the type species . . 20 Ah eae Opinion 1538. Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoidea): conserved Continued on Inside Back ¢ Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Volume 46, Part 3, 29 September 1989 pp. 153-220. Bulletin Zoological — = 2 ce "Nomenclature | ee tiicil oN lature ee Or * THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1989 is £60 or $115, postage included; the rates for 1990 will be £65 or $125. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Vice-President (Vacant) Secretary-General Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) DrM.Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) Prof Dr G. Hahn Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (Norway; Parasitology) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Prof Dr O. Kraus Prof A. Willink (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) MrJ.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1989 | (NATURAL HISTG j - 3 OCT 1989 | PURCHASED I ZOE ON th / | IB ¥ BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 46, part 3 (pp. 153-220) 29 September 1989 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on appli- cations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 46, part 2 (published on 23 June 1989): (1) Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed conservation. (Case 2723). L. M. Chiappe & M. F. Soria. (2) Diorchis thomasorum Czaplinski & Aeschlimann, 1987 (Cestoda): proposed confirmation as the nomenclaturally valid name of Diorchis flavescens (Krefft, 1873) sensu Johnston, 1912. (Case 2724). B. Czaplinski & A. Aeschlimann. (3) Holostaspis subbadius var. rubustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustulus; Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation of robustulus as the correct spelling of the specific name. (Case 2725). R. B. Halliday. (4) Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed designation of a neotype. (Case 2726). W. E. Garutt. (5) Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2727). E. O. Willis & Y. Oniki. (6) Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Anostraca): proposed conser- vation of the specific name. (Case 2728). D. Belk & S. T. Bowen. (7) Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed rejection as a generic name. (Case 2729). R. E. Petit & D. Wilson. (8) Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 and Pyrophaena Schiner, 1860 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation, and proposed designation of Syrphus flavipes Panzer, 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 1798 as the type species of Cheilosia. (Case 2730). A. V. Barkalov & I. M. Kerzhner. (9) Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of Platyscelis margelanica Kraatz, 1882 as the type species. (Case 2731). L. V. Egorov. (10) Ceratites nodosus (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): proposed attribution to Schlotheim, 1813, and proposed designation of a lectotype. (Case 2732). M. Urlichs. (11) Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1830 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species, and proposed prece- dence over [schnosoma Stephens, 1829. (Case 2733). J. M. Campbell. (12) Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed desig- nation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species. (Case 2734). M. S. Harvey. (13) Afroditha Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of Chthonius serrulatus Silvestri, 1918 as the type species. (Case 2735). M. S. Harvey. (14) Haustator Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2736). R. E. Petit & J. Le Renard. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the. day of publication of the Bulletin. Election of the President of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The members of the Commission have elected Prof Dr OTTO KRAUS to succeed Dr W. D. L. Ride as President, with effect from 13 July 1989. Prof Kraus is from the Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Hamburg, Federal Republic of Germany. He was first elected to the Commission in 1963, and was re-elected in 1976. His zoological interests lie in the fields of spider taxonomy and zoogeography. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology—Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This gave all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature had ruled since it was set up in 1895 up to December 1985. There were about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and 3 works have been added to the Official Lists and Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology can be ordered at the price shown: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 155 The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Case 2652 CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera): a proposal to remove the homonymy Alan R. Kabat Department of Mollusks, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between two family-group names: CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882, is in limited use for a restricted genus (Choristes) of gastropods of doubtful taxonomic position, and it is proposed that it be emended to CHORISTEIDAE Verrill, 1882 in order to remove the homonymy with CHORIST- IDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (based on the Australian scorpion fly genus Chorista Klug, 1836), which has been used widely and repeatedly. 1. A family-group name ‘Choristidae’ was first proposed by Sollas (1880, p. 386) for the non-lithistid tetractinellid Demospongiae (Porifera). However, it was not based on any extant sponge genus but rather for etymological reasons (Greek, ‘apart, separ- ated’), in that the ‘Choristidae’ were those sponges whose ‘spicules are separate and not locked together into a network’, as opposed to the Lithistida, which have connected spicules (Sollas, 1880, p. 386). Subsequently Sollas elevated this taxon to ordinal level (1886a, p. 112; 1886b, p. 177). The Code does not apply to taxa above superfamily level so the name Choristida is still available at the ordinal level. However, under Articles 11f and 29a which state that a family-group name must be based on a generic name, the name CHORISTIDAE Sollas, 1880, which has never been used since its inception, is unavailable. 2. Verrill (1882, pp. 540-541) proposed the family name CHORISTIDAE, based on the gastropod genus Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (p. 392). The type species of Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 is C. elegans Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (p. 392) by monotypy. Since that time, this taxon has had an unsettled systematic status, both in terms of its rank and its position in gastropod classification. Chorista elegans is a Pleistocene fossil from Canada; hence only its shell form is known, which complicates the systematic analysis. It was originally included in the NATICIDAE (Mesogastropoda). Molluscan taxonomists have taken several approaches for this taxon. Traditionally the CHORISTIDAE has been provisionally placed in the Rissoacea (Mesogastropoda). The compilations of Thiele (1929, p. 179); Wenz (1939, pp. 649-650); Taylor & Sohl (1962, p. 9); Okutani (1964, pp. 388-389); Kuroda, Habe & Oyama (1971, p. 62); Keen (1971, p. 388); and Abbott (1974, p. 90) have taken this approach, sometimes doubtfully. Clarke (1961, pp. 359-360) placed this family in the more primitive order Archaeo- gastropoda, but did not specify a superfamily. However, Golikov & Starobogatov (1975, pp. 212, 220) and Marincovich (1975, pp. 169-171; 1977, pp. 338-342) referred Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 157 this taxon back to the Naticacea. The former retained it as a family within the ‘Aspidophora’ [= Naticacea]. The latter synonymized CHORISTIDAE with NATICIDAE Forbes, 1838, and placed Choristes in the naticid subfamily POLINICINAE; this was followed by Boss (1982, p. 1010). Again, the few species described in the genus Choristes are equivocal: the Eastern Pacific C. carpenteri Dall, 1896 and C. coani Marincovich, 1975 are naticid. However, the Northwest Atlantic C. tenera Verrill, 1882, the South Atlantic C. agulhasae Clarke, 1961 and the Japanese C. vitreus Kuroda & Habe, 1971, C. nipponica Okutani, 1964 and C. mollis Okutani, 1964 are not referable to the NATICIDAE, based on their shell morphology and the radu- lar pattern (of C. tenera). These latter species may be referred to the similar genus Choristella Bush, 1897 (p. 138), an unusual deep-sea member of the Archaeogas- tropoda (Hickman, 1983, p. 86). In conclusion, if C. elegans is a naticid (as claimed by Bouchet & Warén, 1979, p. 225), then the two Eastern Pacific species represent the only described Recent species, and CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 is a junior synonym of NATICIDAE Forbes, 1838, although future classification of the NATICIDAE might resurrect this name at the subfamilial or tribal rank. If, however, the type species of Choristes is non-naticid then the name CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 may well be valid elsewhere in the Gastropoda. At present, there is insufficient anatomical evidence to resolve this problem. The insect genus Choristella Tillyard, 1917 (p. 298) was renamed Microchorista Byers, 1974 (p. 165). 3. Walker (1852, in 1850-1856, p. 197) proposed the generic name Choristus (type species Choristus bifrons Walker, 1852 by monotypy) in the BOMBYLIDAE (Insecta, Diptera). However, Marschall (1873, p. 325) in his compilation of zoological generic names, erroneously listed this name as ‘Choristes Walker ...’. Scudder (1882, p. vi) pointed out the ‘notorious inaccuracy and incompleteness’ of Marschall’s work, and (p. 72) correctly listed Choristus Walker, 1852 in his ‘Supplemental Index’. However, Scudder’s ‘Universal Index’ (1882, p. 67) still included the entry for ‘Choristes Walk.’ after Marschall. Schulze et a/. (1927, p. 680) correctly noted that ‘Choristes Walker’ was an error for Choristus. Thus ‘Choristes Walker’ represents an incorrect subsequent spelling, is not an available name and does not enter into homonymy. Hull’s major revision of the BOMBYLIIDAE (1973, p. 76) placed Choristus Walker, 1852 as a junior synonym of Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758. 4. Esben-Petersen (1915, p. 232) proposed the subfamily name CHORISTINAE (Insecta, Mecoptera), based on the Australian scorpion-fly genus Chorista Klug, 1836 (p. 54). The original description of Chorista did not include a nominal species; however, under Article 69a, C. australis Klug, 1838 (p. 101) is the type species by subsequent monotypy as it was the first species to be expressly included in this genus. Tillyard (1917, p. 286) used CHORISTIDAE at family level (as CHORISTINAE). This family-group name has been used repeatedly and definitively by entomologists, in general reviews of insect classification and in specialist works on the Mecoptera. Among others these include: Esben-Petersen (1921, pp. 11, 97); Tillyard (1917, p. 286; 1926, p. 330); Brues & Melander (1932, p. 191); Grassé (1951, p. 110); Brues, Melander & Carpenter (1954, p. 216); Byers (1965, p. 123); Hennig (1969, pp. 372-376); Riek (1970, p. 644; 1973); Penny (1975, p. 338); Kaltenbach (1978, p. 10); Penny & Byers (1979, p. 372); Willmann (1978, p. 86; 1987); Brown (1982, p. 556) and Byers & Thornhill (1983, p. 204). Each of these workers has consistently recognized the CHORISTIDAE Or CHORISTINAE a8 a distinct taxon in the Mecoptera. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 5. The Commission is asked to conserve the name CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta) on the grounds of stability, as it is frequently used and has been widely recognized as a family-group taxon. This can be achieved by the Commission ruling that the stem of Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (Mollusca) be changed from CHORIST- to CHORISTE-, thereby making the gastropod family-group name CHORISTEIDAE. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: - (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the generic name Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872, for the purposes of Article 29, is Choriste-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Chorista Klug, 1836 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent monotypy Chorista australis Klug, 1838 (Insecta, Mecoptera); (b) Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Choristes elegans Carpenter in Dawson, 1872 (Mollusca, Gastro- poda); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) australis Klug, 1838, as published in the binomen Chorista australis (specific name of the type species of Chorista Klug, 1836); (b) elegans Carpenter in Dawson, 1872, as published in the binomen Choristes elegans (specific name of the type species of Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915, (type genus Chorista Klug, 1836; Insecta, Mecoptera); (b) CHORISTEIDAE Verrill, 1882 (emended under the plenary powers in (1) above, from CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882; type genus Choristes Carpenter in Dawson, 1872; Mollusca, Gastropoda); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (emended to CHORISTEIDAE by use of the plenary powers in (1) above; Mollusca, Gastropoda). Acknowledgements I thank K. J. Boss, G. W. Byers, F. M. Carpenter, W. D. Hartman, R. E. Petit and G. C. Steyskal for helpful discussion. References Abbott, R. T. 1974. American Seashells. The marine mollusca of the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts of North America. Ed. 2. 663 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Boss, K. J. 1982. Mollusca. Pp. 945-1166 Jn Parker, S. P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, New York. Bouchet, P. & Warén, A. 1979. The abyssal molluscan fauna of the Norwegian Sea and its relation to other faunas. Sarsia, 64: 211—243. Brown, W. L., Jr. 1982. Mecoptera. Pp. 555-557 Jn Parker, S. P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classifi- cation of Living Organisms, vol. 2. McGraw-Hill, New York. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 159 Brues, C. T. & Melander, A. L. 1932. Classification of Insects: A key to the known families of insects and other terrestrial arthropods. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 73: 1-672. Brues, C. T., Melander, A. L. & Carpenter, F. M. 1954. Classification of Insects: Keys to the living and extinct families of insects, and to the living families of other terrestrial arthropods. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 108: 1-917. Bush, K. J. 1897. Revision of the marine gastropods referred to Cyclostrema, Adeorbis, Vitrinella, and related genera; with descriptions of some new genera and species belonging to the Atlantic fauna of America. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10(1): 97-144. Byers, G. W. 1965. Families and genera of Mecoptera. Proceedings, XIIth International Congress of Entomology, London, 8—16 July, 1964, p. 123. Byers, G. W. 1974. New generic names for Mecoptera of Australia and New Zealand. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 13(3): 165-167. Byers, G. W. & Thornhill, R. 1983. Biology of the Mecoptera. Annual Review of Entomology, 28: 203-228. Clarke, A. H. Jr. 1961. Abyssal mollusks from the South Atlantic Ocean. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 125(12): 345-387. Dawson, J. W. 1872. The Post-Pliocene geology of Canada. The Canadian Naturalist and Quarterly Journal of Science, (n.s.) 6(4): 369-416. Esben-Petersen, P. 1915. A synonymic list of the order Mecoptera together with descriptions of new species. Entomologiske Meddelelser, (2)5: 216-242. Esben-Petersen, P. 1921. Mecoptera. Collections Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys-Long- champs, Catalogue Systématique et Descriptif, 5(2): 1-172. Golikoy, A. N. & Starobogatov, Y. I. 1975. Systematics of prosobranch gastropods. Malacologia, 15(1): 185-232. Grassé, P.-P. 1951. Super-ordre des Mécoptéroides. Ordre des Mécopteéres. Jn Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), vol. 10. Insectes Supérieurs et Hémiptéroides. Traité de Zoologie. Anatomie, Systéma- tique, Biologie, vol. 1, pp. 71-124. Masson et Cie, Paris. Hennig, W. 1969. Die Stammesgeschichte der Insekten. 436 pp. Kramer, Frankfurt am Main. Hickman, C. S. 1983. Radular patterns, systematics, diversity, and ecology of deep-sea limpets. The Veliger, 26: 73-92. Hull, F. M. 1973. Bee flies of the world: the genera of the family Bombyliidae. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 286: 1-673. Kaltenbach, A. 1978. Mecoptera (Schnabelhafte, Schnabelfliegen). Jn Helmcke, J.-G. et al. (Ed.) Handbuch der Zoologie, eine Naturgeschichte der Stémme des Tierreiches. IV Band: Arthro- poda—2. Haifte: Insecta, Zweite Auflage, 2. Teil. Spezielles, vol. 28, 111 pp. de Gruyter, Berlin. Keen, A. M. 1971. Sea shells of tropical west America. Marine Mollusks from Baja California to Peru. Ed. 2. xiv, 1064 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Klug, F. 1836. [30 Juni, Gesammtsitzung der Akademie]. Bericht tiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der Kéniglichen Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1: 54-SS. Klug, F. 1838. Versuch einer systematischen Feststellung der Insecten-Familie: Panorpatae und Auseinandersetzung ihrer Gattungen und Arten. Physikalische Abhandlungen der Konig- lichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1836: 81—108. Kuroda, T., Habe, T. & Oyama, K. 1971. The sea shells of Sagami Bay. Collected by His Majesty the Emperor of Japan. xix, 741 pp., 489 pp., 51 pp., 121 pls. Maruzen, Tokyo. Marincovich, L., Jr. 1975. New Tertiary and Recent Naticidae from the Eastern Pacific (Mollusca: Gastropoda). The Veliger, 18(2): 168-173. Marincovich, L., Jr. 1977. Cenozoic Naticidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of the Northeastern Pacific. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 70(294): 165-494. Marschall, A. de, 1873. Nomenclator Zoologicus. vi, 482 pp. Ueberreuter, Vindobonae. Okutani, T. 1964. Report on the archibenthal and abyssal gastropod Mollusca mainly collected from Sagami Bay and adjacent waters by the R.V. Soyo-Maru during the years 1955-1963. 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Journal of the Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo, Section 2, Geology, Mineralogy, Geography, Geophysics, 15(3): 371447. Penny, N. D. 1975. Evolution of the extant Mecoptera. Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 48(3): 331-350. Penny, N. D. & Byers, G. W. 1979. A check-list of the Mecoptera of the World. Acta Amazonica, 9(2): 365-388. Riek, E. F. 1970. Mecoptera (Scorpion-flies). Pp. 636-646 Jn Mackeras, I. M. (Ed.), The Insects of Australia, a textbook for students and research workers. Melbourne University Press, Victoria. Riek, E. F. 1973. A revision of Australian scorpion flies of the family Choristidae (Mecoptera). Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 12(2): 103-112. Schulze, F. E., Kiikenthal, W., Heider, K., et al. 1927. Nomenclator animalium generum et sub- generum. Vol. 2, part 7, pp. 637-796. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. Scudder, S. H. 1882. Nomenclator Zoologicus. ...1. Supplemental List. 2. Universal Index. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 19: xxii, 376 pp.; ii, 340 pp. Sollas, W. J. 1880. On the flint nodules of the Trimmingham Chalk. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)6(35): 384-395. Sollas, W. J. 1886a. A classification of the Sponges. The Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, (n.s.)5(2): 112. Sollas, W. J. 1886b. Preliminary account of the Tetractinellid sponges dredged by H.M.S. Challenger, 1872-76, part 1—The Choristida. The Scientific Proceedings of the Royal Dublin Society, (n.s.)5(4): 177-199. Taylor, D. W. & Sohl, N. F. 1962. An outline of gastropod classification. Malacologia, 1(1): 7-32. Thiele, J. 1929. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1, part 1, 376 pp. Fischer, Jena. Tillyard, R. J. 1917. Studies in Australian Mecoptera. No. 1. The new family Nannochoristidae, with descriptions of a new genus and four new species; and an appendix descriptive of a new genus and species from New Zealand. The Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 42(2): 284-302. Tillyard, R. J. 1926. The Insects of Australia and New Zealand. xv, 560 pp. Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Verrill, A. E. 1882. Catalogue of marine Mollusca added to the fauna of the New England region, during the past ten years. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 5(2): 447-588. Walker, F. 1850-1856. Insecta Sandersiana ... Volume 1. Diptera. 414 pp., 8 pls. Van Voorst, London. Wenz, W. 1939. Gastropoda: Allgemeiner Teil und Prosobranchia. Pp. 481—720 Jn Schindewolf, O. H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6, part 3 (Leiferung 4). Borntraeger, Berlin. Willmann, R. 1978. Mecoptera (Insecta, Holometabola). Fossilium Catalogus Animalia, 124: 1-139. Willmann, R. 1987. The phylogenetic system of the Mecoptera. Systematic Entomology, 12: 519-524. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 161 Case 2682 Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation D. J. Brunckhorst | Zoology Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 4067 W. B. Rudman The Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, New South Wales, Australia, 2000 R. C. Willan Zoology Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia, 4067 Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Fryeria Gray, 1853 and the specific name rueppelii Bergh, 1869 as the name of its type species, for a nudibranch gastropod, by suppression of the unused senior synonym Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. 1. Cuvier (1804, p. 268, pl. 18, fig. 8) established the specific name pustulosa for a nudibranch gastropod in the nominal genus Phyllidia. 2. Riippell & Leuckart (1830 or 1831, p. 36, pl. 11, figs. 1a, b) described and figured a specimen from the Red Sea, naming it ‘Phyllidia pustulosa (Cuv.)’. 3. Gray (1853) revised the higher taxonomy of the nudibranchs and decided that the anal position was sufficient to separate one species of phyllidiid from those placed in the genus Phyllidia. He named the new genus Fryeria (p. 221), gave a 2-line generic defi- nition, and listed one species which he named Fryeria pustulosa. After a 4-line descrip- tion of its external features he referred to ‘Phyllidia pustulosa Rippell, Atlas, Moll. t. 11 f. 1, la Inhab. Cosseir. Brit. Museum’. In the following paragraph, Gray said: ‘Phyllidia pustulosa, Cuvier, Ann. Mus. v. 266, t. 18, f. 8, may be a bad figure of this species. Cuvier represents the dorsal anus in the other two species, but it is not marked in this and the colouring somewhat resembles the Museum specimens’. It is apparent that the taxon to which Gray was referring as typical of his genus Fryeria was Phyllidia pustu- losa Riippell & Leuckart, 1830 or 1831 and not Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier, 1804. That Gray had Riippell & Leuckart’s specimens available to him is apparent from Bergh (1875). In giving a full anatomical account of specimens he considered to have been collected by Riippell and to be those referred to and examined by Gray, Bergh (1875, p. 663) wrote: ‘In vain I have searched for an opportunity to examine this form (Fryeria pustulosa) in the Senckenberg Museum. Gray permitted me to do so (1873) in 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 the British Museum.... Although Ruppel’s figure does not readily agree with the animals that I examined the identity . . . cannot be doubted, because according to Gray these specimens originally came from Riippel himself. [They have] the label Fryeria pustulosa. Cosseir. Mr Warwick’s Collection.’ (Translated from German). 4. Itis significant that Gray listed only one species in his new genus Fryeria. The first paragraph [see above] after the genus description began: ‘1. Fryeria pustulosa .. . Phyl- lidia pustulosa, Ruppell...’ The next paragraph, beginning ‘Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier, Ann. Mus. v. 266, t.18, f. 8, may be a bad figure of this species’, was not numbered ‘2’. In contrast, the three species listed under the genus Phyllidia were each prefixed by a number 1, 2 or 3. It is clear that Gray considered that in his genus Fryeria there was only one species, which he called pustulosa Ruppell. As Gray included only one taxonomic species, pustulosa Ruppell & Leuckart, it should be the type species of Fryeria by indication (type by monotypy) ‘regardless of any cited synonyms, subspe- cies, or unavailable names, and regardless of nominal species-group taxa doubtfully included or identified’ (Article 68(d) of the Code). 5. It follows from Article 11(i) (Deliberate use of misidentification) that the valid name for the type species of Fryeria is Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853, not Phyllidia pustulosa Ruppell & Leuckart (on which taxon it was based) or Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier with which Ruppell & Leuckart misidentified their taxon. 6. The clarification of the nomenclatural situation has practical application only if the species described by Ruippell & Leuckart and by Cuvier are identifiable, or at least distinguishable from each other. (a) The species described by Cuvier from a preserved animal is dark with pale, rounded, irregularly placed tubercles. It was one of three species described by Cuvier. Despite Gray’s assertion that nothing was mentioned about anal position, an introduc- tory paragraph discusses and defines the general anatomical features of Phyllidia, including“... l’anus placé par consequent aussi comme dans les doris. . .’ from which it can be assumed that P. pustulosa like the other two species described by Cuvier, P. trilineata and P. ocellata, has a dorsal anus. There are many subsequent references to P. pustulosa Cuvier. They may or may not refer to a single species but all have a dorsal anus and black rhinophores. (b) The species described by Riippell & Leuckart is clearly different. In the original description and colour figure, the rhinophores are yellow and the dorsum is dark blue with a yellow margin and yellow-capped whitish tubercles. No anatomical information is given by Ruppell & Leuckart. However, Bergh (1875) gave a full anatomical account of specimens he considered to have been collected by Riippell and examined by Gray. It is clear that both species are quite different and identifiable. 7. Bergh noted that two genera of the PHYLLIDIIDAE had a species with the same specific name pustulosa. Because of this, Bergh (1869, p. 514) introduced the name Fryeria rtippelii as a replacement name for both Phyllidia pustulosa Ruppell & Leuckart and Fryeria pustulosa Gray to distinguish that taxon from Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier. This replacement name has no validity under the Code but nevertheless has received wide acceptance in the literature. 8. O'Donoghue (1929, p. 732) erroneously stated that the type of Fryeriais Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier by monotypy. Yonow (1986, p. 1418) introduced an unnecessary replacement name Reyfria (type species Reyfria ruppelii (Bergh, 1869)) for Fryeria. She accepted that Gray introduced a new genus Fryeria for Ruppell & Leuckart’s taxon bb FOIPOP ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 163 but erroneously considered that Gray designated P. pustulosa Cuvier as the type species. 9. As stated above, the valid name of the type species of Fryeria is Fryeria pustulosa Gray, but this name has to the best of our knowledge never been used in the literature. With the exception of O’Donoghue (1929) and Yonow (1986), who incorrectly con- sider Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier to be the type of Fryeria, all authors have accepted the name Fryeria riippelii which was proposed by Bergh (1869) as a replacement name for Fryeria pustulosa Gray (= Phyllidia pustulosa Ruppell & Leuckart). The spelling of the specific name has been inconsistent and the following variations have been used: ruippelii, riippellii, riippeli, ruppelli, ruppelii and rueppelli. Bergh (1869) spelt the name riippelii, and this name must be corrected to rueppelii (Article 32(d)(i)(2) of the Code). The species riippelii is named after Ruppell, whom Bergh consistently spelt as ‘Riippel’ in his 1869 paper. It would not be acceptable to amend the name riippelii to riippellii since the Code limits an incorrect original spelling to a case where ‘there is in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information, clear evidence of an inadvertent error’ (Article 32(c) (ii) of the Code). 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name pustulosa Gray, 1853, as published in the binomen Fryeria pustulosa, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Fryeria Gray, 1853 and to designate Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, 1869 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Fryeria Gray, 1853 (gender: feminine), type species, by designation in (1) (b) above, Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, 1869; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name rueppelii Bergh, 1869, as published in the binomen Fryeria riippelii (specific name of the type species of Fryeria Gray, 1853); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Reyfria Yonow, 1986 (a junior objective synonym of Fryeria Gray, 1853); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) pustulosa Gray, 1853, as published in the binomen Fryeria pustulosa and as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) rtippelii Bergh, 1869, as published in the binomen Fryeria riippelii (an incorrect original spelling of rueppelii Bergh, 1869). References Bergh, L. S. R. 1869. Bidrag til kundskab om Phyllidierne, en anatomisk undersegelse. [Bidrag til en monografi af Phyllidierne]. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, Kjobenhavn, (3)5: 357-542. Bergh, L. S. R. 1875. Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Phyllidiaden. Verhandlungen der kaiser- lich-k6niglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 25: 659-674. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Cuvier, G. 1804. Mémoire sur la Phyllidie et sur le Pleurobranche, deux nouveaux genres de mollusques de l’ordre des gastéropodes, et voisins des patelles et des oscabrions, dont l'un est nu et dont Il’autre porte une coquille cachée. Annales du Muséum National d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 266-276. Gray, J. E. 1853. Revision of the families of nudibranch mollusks, with the description of a new genus of Phyllidiadae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)11: 218-221. O’Donoghue, C. H. 1929. Zoological results of the Cambridge expedition to the Suez Canal, 1924. 38. Report on the Opisthobranchiata. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 22(6): 713-841. Riippell, E. & Leuckart, F. S. 1830 or 1831. Pp. 15-47 in Neue wirbellose Thiere des Rothen Meers. Mollusca. Atlas zu der Reise im nérdlichen Afrika von Eduard Riippell. Yonow, N. 1986. Red Sea Phyllidiidae (Mollusca: Nudibranchia), with descriptions of new species. Journal of Natural History, 20: 1401-1428. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 165 Case 2662 Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed precedence over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 H. W. Levi Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. O. Kraus Zoologisches Institut und Museum, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, Universitat Hamburg, D-2000 Hamburg 13, Fed. Rep. Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the generic name Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901, a widely used name of large American theraphosid spiders, whose species are commonly used as experimental animals and are also sold in pet stores. The name is threatened by an essentially unused senior subjective synonym, Rhechostica Simon, 1892. 1. In 1892 Simon proposed the genus Rhechostica (1892b, p. 162) with the type species by monotypy Homoeomma texense Simon, 1892 (1892a, p. 320). 2. Pocock (1901, p. 553) proposed the genus Aphonopelma with type species by original designation Eurypelma seemanni F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1897 (p. 26) from Costa Rica. Raven (1985, p. 149), who stated ‘types examined’, synonymized the genera Aphonopelma and Rhechostica. It is worth noting that Raven also placed six other nominal genera into subjective synonymy with Rhechostica in the same work; three of these (Chaunopelma, Clavopelma, and Gosipelma) date from Chamberlin, 1940; two (Dugesiella and Pterinopelma) from Pocock, 1901; and Delopelma from Petrunkevitch, 1939. 3. The name Aphonopelma is widely used in books on American spiders: Baerg (1958, pp. 43, 56, 57, 62 and others); Levi & Levi (1968, p. 21); Gertsch (1979, pp. 43, 233, 234 and 249); Kaston (1978, p. 67); and Roth (1986, unpaginated). Also, species assigned to the genus are used in experimental zoology. A computer search through journals published during the last 17 years revealed more than 40 papers using the name. Bonnet (1955, pp. 356-357) lists three species in the genus up to 1939, and Brignoli’s Catalog (1983, p. 134) lists the names of 15 species of Aphonopelma described since 1939. The name Aphonopelma is also widely used in the pet trade and in books on pets (Schmidt, 1986, pp. 48, 49; Smith, 1986, pp. 44-49). The Secretariat holds a list of eight general books, eight additional uses in journals not found by the computer search, and four books on pets in which the name Aphonopelma is used. 4. Rhechostica has only been cited in Schmidt (1986, pp. 48, 51), the catalogs of Bonnet (1958, p. 3855) and Roewer (1942, p. 245), and is listed in Comstock (1940, pp. 240, 241). It has never been used in any primary zoological literature, and only Raven (1985, p. 149) has adopted it as a valid name. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 over the name Rhechostica Simon, 1892, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (gender: neuter), type species by original desig- nation Eurypelma seemanni F. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1897, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Homoeomma texense Simon, 1892, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) seemanniF. O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1897, as published in the binomen Eury- pelma seemanni (specific name of the type species of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901): (b) texense Simon, 1892, as published in the binomen Homoeomma texense (specific name of the type species of Rhechostica Simon, 1892). References Baerg, W. J. 1958. The Tarantula. 88 pp. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Bonnet, P. 1955. Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2, part 1 (A—B), 918 pp. Douladoure, Toulouse. Bonnet, P. 1958. Bibliographia Araneorum, vol. 2, part 4 (N—-S), pp. 3027-4230. Douladoure, Toulouse. Brignoli, P. 1983. A Catalog of the Araneae Described between 1940 and 1981.755 pp. Manchester University Press, Manchester. Chamberlin, R. V. 1940. On new American tarantulas of the family Aviculariidae. Bulletin of the University of Utah, Biological Series, 5(8): 3-39. Comstock, J. 1940. The Spider Book. Revised Edition. 729 pp. Doubleday, Doran & Co., New York. Gertsch, W. J. 1979. American Spiders, 2nd Ed. 274 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold. New York. Kaston, B. J. 1978. How to know the Spiders, 3rd Ed. 272 pp. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. Levi, H. & Levi, L. 1968. A Guide to Spiders and their Kin. 160 pp. Golden Press, New York. Petrunkevitch, A. 1939. The status of the genus Eurypelma (order Araneae, family Theraphos- idae). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (11)4(24): 561-568. Pickard-Cambridge, F. O. 1897-1905. Arachnida. Vol. 2, Araneidea and Opiliones. Biologia centrali-Americana, Zoologia. 610 pp. 54 pls. Taylor & Francis, London. Pocock, R. I. 1901. Some new and old genera of S. American Aviculariidae. The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)8(48): 540-555. Raven, R. J. 1985. The spider infraorder Mygalomorphae (Araneae): Cladistics and Systematics. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 182: 1-180. Roewer, C. F. 1942. Katalog der Araneae, vol. 1. 1040 pp. Natura, Bremen. Roth, V. D. 1982. Spider Genera of North America. 89 pp. Publ. by author. Schmidt, G. 1986. Vogelspinnen. 87 pp. Verlag, Minden. Simon, E. 1892a. Listes des espéces de la famille des Aviculariides qui habitent Amerique du Nord. Actes de la Société Linnéene de Bordeaux, (5)4: 307-326. Simon, E. 1892b. Histoire Naturelle des Araignees. 2nd Ed., part 1. 1084 pp. Roret, Paris. Smith, A. 1986. The Tarantula: Classification and Identification Guide. 178 pp. Fitzgerald, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 167 Case 2696 Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and I. woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari): proposed conservation by the replacement of the holotype of I, angustus by a neotype Richard G. Robbins & James E. Keirans Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, c/o Department of Entomology, Museum Support Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name /xodes angustus Neumann, 1899 in its accustomed usage for a tick suspected of transmitting disease in man, by replacement of the holotype by a neotype. This will also conserve the name Ixodes woodi Bishopp, 1911. 1. Neumann (1899, p. 136) described and named the tick Jxodes angustus on the basis of a single damaged specimen now in the U.S. National Parasite Collection, Beltsville, Maryland (NPC 2419, RML 119017). 2. Later, Bishopp (1911, p. 205) described what he believed was a variety of Ixodes angustus under the name Jxodes angustus woodi nov. var. 3. Cooley & Kohls (1945, p. 163) elevated Bishopp’s Ixodes angustus var. woodi to specific rank as Ixodes woodi, a change that has been accepted by tick taxonomists worldwide, e.g. Filippova, 1977 (p. 121); Keirans & Clifford, 1978 (p. 136); Wilson, 1958 (p. 23). In the same publication, it was reported (p. 71) that the senior author (Cooley) had examined Neumann’s type of J. angustus, but this specimen was not identified as I. woodi. 4. The present writers are the first since Cooley to have examined Neumann’s type of Ixodes angustus. Despite the poor condition of this specimen, it definitely is Ixodes woodi. In all life history stages, a number of prominent morphological differences separate J. angustus of authors from I. woodi. 5. However, tick taxonomists throughout the world (e.g. Filippova, 1977 (p. 133); Yamaguti, Tipton, Keegan & Toshioka, 1971 (p. 115)) have consistently applied the name Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 toa particular taxon of species rank that parasit- izes a broad range of cricetid and arvicolid rodents and other small mammals in Japan, eastern Siberia, and much of North America. 6. Since Neumann’s original description, the name Jxodes angustus has been used consistently by acarologists, entomologists, parasitologists and health professionals in the Eastern and Western Hemispheres. Examination of the tick literature reveals that this name has appeared in at least 130 papers published in at least five languages. In addition to those cited above, the following major papers use the name Jxodes angustus Neumann in its accustomed sense: Bequaert, 1946 (p. 147); Gregson, 1956 (p. 38); Nuttall & Warburton, 1911 (p. 195); Serdyukova, 1956 (p. 43). 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 7. Ixodes angustus of authors has occasionally been reported feeding on man (Robbins, 1989, p. 291) and has been suspected of transmitting Powassan virus and the bacterium of tularemia (Artsob, Spence, Surgeoner, McCreadie, Thorsen, Th’ng & Lampotang, 1984 and McLean, Walker, MacPherson, Scholten, Ronald, Wyllie & McQueen, 1961). It would not be surprising if so common and widespread a tick were eventually to be implicated in the transmission of one or more infectious agents. Robbins (1989, p. 291) also reported the first known instance of human parasitization by Ixodes woodi. 8. The problem created by our certain identification of Neumann’s type of Ixodes angustus as Ixodes woodi could be resolved in accordance with a strict application of the Code by accepting Jxodes angustus Neumann as a senior synonym of J. woodi, aban- doning the latter name, and proposing a new specific name for J. angustus of authors. However, the inevitable confusion following such a change of current usage of both names Ixodes angustus and I. woodi could be avoided by suppressing the holotype of Ixodes angustus Neumann and conserving that name as currently used by designating a neotype. We propose as neotype the reared female specimen of J. angustus of authors, whose data and description follow: J. angustus Neumann, female reared from nymph ex nest, Sorex sp. U.S.A.: Montana, Missoula County, Pattee Canyon (46-49N, 113-58W), 28 April 1968, A. G. Canaris. Body unengorged, length (mm) from scapular apices to posterior body margin 1-534, width at level of spiracular plate 0-901; length of capitulum from palpal apices to cornua apices 0-513, width at level of palpal insertions 0-347; palpi 0-396 long, 0-133 wide; hypostome not on a median extension of basis capituli, apex pointed, dental formula 3/3, length of toothed portion 0-251, denticles sharp, those in lateral and median files about equal in size, lateral denticles flaring; scutum 0-909 long, 0-689 wide, scapulae short and sharp, lateral carinae present but not prominent, punctations small, evenly distributed; tarsus I 0-374 long, 0-104 wide. Specimen deposited in the U.S. National Tick Collection, Department of Entomology, Museum Support Center, Smithsonian Institution, as RML 49479. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) tosuppress the type status of the holotype of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899; (b) to designate as neotype of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 the specimen proposed as neotype in para. 8 above; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the names: (a) angustus Neumann, 1899, as published in the binomen Jxodes angustus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) (b) above; (b) woodi Bishopp, 1911, as published in the trinomen Jxodes angustus var. woodi. 10. This application has been reviewed, edited and approved for publication by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. We thank Curtis W. Sabrosky for assistance with an earlier draft of this paper. References Artsob, H., Spence, L., Surgeoner, G., McCreadie, J., Thorsen, J., Th’ng, C. & Lampotang, V. 1984. Isolation of Francisella tularensis and Powassan virus from ticks (Acari: Ixodidae) in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Medical Entomology, 21: 165-168. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 169 Bequaert, J. C. 1946. The ticks, or Ixodoidea, of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. Entomologica Americana, 25: 73-232. Bishopp, F. C. 1911. Some new North American Ixodidae with notes on other species. Proceed- ings of the Biological Society of Washington, 24: 197-208. Cooley, R. A. & Kohls, G. M. 1945. The genus /xodes in North America. National Institute of Health Bulletin, No. 184: 1-246. Filippova, N. A. 1977. Ixodid ticks of the subfamily Ixodinae. Fauna S.S.S.R., Paukoobraznye, 4: 1-396. [In Russian]. Gregson, J. D. 1956. The Ixodoidea of Canada. Publication 930. 92 pp. Science Service, Ento- mology Division, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa. Keirans, J. E. & Clifford, C. M. 1978. The genus /xodes in the United States: A scanning electron microscope study and key to the adults. Journal of Medical Entomology, Supplement No. 2: 1-149. McLean, D. M., Walker, S. J., MacPherson, L. W., Scholten, T. H., Ronald, K., Wyllie, J. C. & McQueen, E. J. 1961. Powassan virus: investigations of possible natural cycles of infection. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 109: 19-23. Neumann, L. G. 1899. Révision de la famille des ixodidés. Mémoires de la Société Zoologique de France, 12: 107-294. Nuttall, G. H. F. & Warburton, C. 1911. Ticks. A monograph of the Ixodoidea. Part II. Ixodidae. Pp. 105-348. University Press, Cambridge. Robbins, R. G. 1989. Ticks of the subgenus /xodiopsis: first report of Ixodes woodi from man and remarks on Ixodes holdenriedi, a new junior synonym of Ixodes ochotonae (Acari: Ixodidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 91: 291-292. Serdyukova, G. V. 1956. Ixodid ticks of the fauna of U.S.S.R. Opredeliteli Po Faune S.S.S.R., Izdavaemye Zoologicheskim Institutom Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., No. 64: 1-121. [In Russian]. Wilson, N. A. 1958. Additions to the tick fauna of Indiana (Acarina: Argasidae, Ixodidae). Journal of Parasitology, 44: 23. Yamaguti, N., Tipton, V. J., Keegan, H. L. & Toshioka, S. 1971. Ticks of Japan, Korea, and the Ryukyu Islands. Brigham Young University Science Bulletin, Biological Series, 15: 1-226. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Case 2672 Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation J. A. Gardner Waite Agricultural Research Institute, Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the buprestid (jewel beetle) name Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837, by the suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym Polychroma Dejean, 1836. 1. In 1836 Dejean introduced the generic name Polychroma (p. 89) by listing it in his Catalogue des Coléoptéres and including under it ten species names (for nine nominal species). The genus was unaccompanied by any diagnosis, description or illustration but, since some of the included nominal species can be identified (by citation of their authors) it meets the requirements of availability under Article 12b(5) of the Code. 2. The name Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (p. 22) was established as a division of the genus Stigmodera Eschscholtz, 1829. Gory & Laporte provided a description of Castiarina and described and illustrated 35 species, including some of those Dejean had placed in Polychroma, but no type species was designated. 3. Mannerheim (1837, pp. 98, 99) described a new species of Polychroma (P. septemmaculata). 4. Imhoff (1856, p. 47) followed Gory & Laporte and listed Castiarina as a subgenus of Stigmodera; he cited Polychroma Dejean as a closely related genus. 5. Lacordaire (1857, p. 60) referred to a group of Stigmodera species as representing the Castiarina of Gory & Laporte or the Polychroma of Dejean. He thereby syn- onymised the subgenera Castiarina and Polychroma but did not indicate which name had priority. 6. Obenberger (1934, p. 678) cited both Polychroma and Castiarina as synonyms of Stigmodera, but in the species list which followed he assigned each species to the subgenus Stigmodera (s.s.), Themognatha or Castiarina only. The name Polychroma was not used, and the species originally listed under Polychroma by Dejean were referred to Castiarina. 7. The name Castiarina has been used by all authors dealing with the subgenera of Stigmodera since Lacordaire (1857), including Kerremans (1903, pp. 204, 206-214); Taschenberg in Heyne & Taschenberg (1907, p. 141); Carter (1931, pp. 349-367); Deuquet (1964, pp. 128-130); Obenberger (1933, pp. 68—76, 104-112); Barker (1979, pp. 1-23; 1986, pp. 1-36); Bellamy (1986, p. 596). A further list of references has been given to the Commission Secretariat. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 171 8. Barker (1979, p. 1) designated Stigmodera pertii Gory & Laporte, 1837 (p. 23) as the type species of Castiarina (the name S. pertii first appeared in [Hope, 1836, p. 5], but Opinion 234 (1954) ruled that work to be unavailable as not properly published). No type species has ever been designated for Polychroma. 9. Gardner (in press) discussed the authorship and date of Gory & Laporte, 1837, and also the status of the higher categories based on phylogenetic studies of the tribe STIGMODERINI. 10. To apply the Principle of Priority would disturb a stable and universally accepted name in favour of one which has not been used for more than 130 years. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Polychroma Dejean, 1836 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species Stigmodera pertii Gory & _ Laporte, 1837 by designation by Barker (1979); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pertii Gory & Laporte, 1837, as published in the binomen Stigmodera pertii (specific name of the type species of Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Polychroma Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1) above. References Barker, S. 1979. New species and a catalogue of Stigmodera (Castiarina) (Coleoptera: Buprest- idae). Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 103: \—23. Barker, S. 1986. Stigmodera (Castiarina) (Coleoptera: Buprestidae): taxonomy, new species and a checklist. Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 110: 1-36. Bellamy, C. L. 1986. The higher classification of Australian Buprestidae, with description of a new genus and species (Coleoptera). Australian Journal of Zoology, 34: 583-600. Carter, H. J. 1931. Notes on the genus Stigmodera (Family Buprestidae) together with descrip- tions of new species and a retabulation of the subgenus Castiarina. Australian Zoologist, 6: 337-367. Dejean, P. F. M. A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléopteéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. Troisiéme edition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. Parts 1-4; 384 pp. Mequiguon-Marvis, Paris. Deuquet, C. M. 1964. Description of two new species of Australian Buprestidae of the genus Stigmodera. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 89: 128-130. Gardner, J. A. (in press). Revision of the genera of the tribe Stigmoderini (Coleoptera; Buprest- idae) with a discussion of phylogenetic relationships. Jnvertebrate Taxonomy, 3 (5). Gory, H. & Laporte, F.-L. 1837. Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres, publiée par monographies séparées. Texte vol. 2. Suite aux Buprestides. Dumenil, Paris. [Genera paged separately — Stigmodera pp. 1-72]. [Hope, F. W. 1836.] Buprestidae. 13 pp. [An anonymously circulated pamphlet]. Imhoff, L. 1856. Versuch zur Einfiihrung in das Studium der Koleoptern. xxxi, 272 pp., 25 pls. Schweighausersche, Basel. Kerremans, C. 1903. Genera Insectorum, ita asiaaa Serricornia, Fam. Buprestidae. Fasc. 12b; 12c; 12d. Pp. 49-338. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles. Lacordaire, M. Th. 1857. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des Coléoptéres. Vol. 4. 579 pp. Roret, Paris. 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Mannerheim, C. G. 1837. Enumeration des Buprestides et description de quelques nouvelles espéces de cette tribu de la famille des Sternoxes de la collection de M. le Compte Mannerheim. Byulleten’ Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytalelei Prirody (Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou), 8: 3-126. Obenberger, J. 1933. Notes on the Australian genus Stigmodera Eschsch. (Col. Bupr.). Acta Societatis Entomologicae Cechoslovenicae, 30: 65-76, 104-112. Taschenberg, E. C. W. von in Heyne, A. & Taschenberg, E. C. W. von. 1907. Die Exotischen Kafer in Wort und Bild. 262 pp., 39 pls. Heyne, Leipzig. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 173 Case 2690 Helophorus brevipalpis Bedel, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Helophorus creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858 R. B. Angus Department of Biology, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give precedence to the name Helophorus brevipalpis Bedel, 1881 for one of the commonest water beetles in Europe, known also from the Pleistocene, over the senior subjective synonym Helophorus creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858. 1. Kiesenwetter (1858, p. 40) described a water beetle Helophorus creticus in Kraatz’s work on the Coleoptera of Greece. 2. Bedel (1881, p. 301), in his key to the Helophorus species occurring in the Seine basin, described Helophorus brevipalpis, a name currently used for one of the commonest water beetles in Europe. 3. Knisch (1924, p. 79) listed four references to H. creticus, the most recent being 1919. He placed H. creticus as a subspecies of brevipalpis, rather than brevipalpis as a subspecies of creticus, presumably in deference to the wide use of the name brevipalpis. I know of no subsequent use of H. creticus as the valid name of a beetle. 4. A. d’Orchymont (1927, p. 232) placed H. brevipalpis as a subspecies of H. guttulus Motschulsky, 1860. Zaitzev (1946, p. 255) showed that this was a misidentification of H. guttulus, and that the species regarded by d’Orchymont as H. guttulus was H. montenegrinus Kuwert, 1885. 5. Smetana (1985, p. 59) listed a number of synonyms of H. brevipalpis, but stated that he had not studied the original material of these synonyms and had simply ac- cepted the synonymy established by previous authors. Three of these synonyms predate the establishment of H. brevipalpis and are recorded by Smetana thus: Helophorus aquaticus Duftschmid, 1805 (ex parte, nec Linné, 1758) Helophorus granularis C. G. Thomson, 1853 (nec Linné, 1761) Helophorus griseus Seidlitz, 1872 (nec Herbst, 1793). These three names are not junior homonyms of the names by Linnaeus or Herbst, but misidentifications of those names. As such they do not affect the priority of H. brevipalpis. 6. Angus (1985, p. 722) designated lectotypes for H. brevipalpis and H. creticus, and showed that they refer to the same species. Angus (1988, p. 216) analysed regional variations shown by H. brevipalpis. He showed that, while material from Lebanon, south eastern Anatolia (Turkey) and eastern Iran appeared to represent a distinct subspecies, variation between European populations was too slight to justify the recog- nition of further subspecies. He further showed (Angus, 1988, p. 226) that the types of 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 both H. brevipalpis and H. creticus belong to populations which resemble one another within the spectrum of variation shown by European material. 7. It is thus clear that H. brevipalpis and H. creticus refer to the same very distinct species and, indeed, to the same infra-specific form of that species. The name H. brevipalpis has been used as a valid name in numerous systematic and ecological works, and also in studies of Pleistocene fossils, such as Balfour-Browne (1958, p. 115), Bellstedt & Fichtner (1985, p. 254) and Coope (1979, p. 256); a list of 7 other papers is held by the Secretariat. As stated in para. 3 above, Iam unaware of the use of the name H. creticus for a valid species since 1924. A change of name from brevipalpis to the unused creticus would cause confusion and would not be in the interests of stability of nomenclature. However, it is possible that subsequent workers, particularly those using cytological or biochemical techniques, may demonstrate the existence of more than one taxon. For this reason it would not be appropriate to suppress the name creticus outright as it may eventually prove to represent a taxon distinct from brevipalpis. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name brevipalpis Bedel, 1881, as published in the binomen Helophorus brevipalpis, is to be given pre- cedence over the specific name creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858, as published in the binomen Helophorus creticus, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) brevipalpis Bedel, 1881, as published in the binomen Helophorus brevipalpis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858, as published in the binomen Helophorus creticus, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858, as published in the binomen Helophorus creti- cus, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over brevipalpis Bedel, 1881, as published in the binomen Helophorus brevipalpis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. References Angus, R. B. 1985. Towards a revision of the palaearctic species of Helophorus F. (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). 2. Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye, 64: 716-747. [In Russian. ] Angus, R. B. 1988. Notes on the Helophorus (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae) occurring in Turkey, Iran and neighbouring territories. Revue suisse de Zoologie, 95: 209-248. Balfour-Browne, W. A. F. 1958. British Water Beetles, 3.210 pp. Ray Society, London. Bedel, L. 1881. Faune des Coléoptéres du Bassin de la Seine, 1. Annales de la Société Entomologi- que de France, 6 (Supplement). 24+ 360 pp. Bellstedt, R. & Fichtner, E. 1985. Wasserkafer und Wasserwanzen (Coleoptera et Heteroptera) des Plothener Teichgebietes in Ostthtiringen. Hercynia, Neue Folge, 22: 250-258. Coope, G. R. 1979. Late Cenozoic fossil Coleoptera: Evolution, Biogeography, and Ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10: 247—267. Kiesenwetter, K. H. 1858. Jn Kraatz, G. Beitrag zur Kaferfauna Griechenlands. 2. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 2: 37-67. Knisch, A. 1924. Coleopterum Catalogus, pars 79: Hydrophilidae. 306 pp. Junk, Berlin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 175 Orchymont, A. d’. 1927. Au sujet de quelques Helophorus (Col. Hydroph.) recueillis aux environs de Perm (Russia or.). /zvestiya Biologicheskeskogo Nauchno-Issledovatel’skogo Instituta i Biologicheskoi Stantsii pri Permskom Gosudarstvennom Universitete, 5; 227-232. Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the subfamily Helophorinae of the Nearctic region (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 131: 1-154. Zaitsev, F. A. 1946. A revision of the caucasian species of Hydrophilidae of the subfamilies Helophorinae and Hydrochinae (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta. Akademiya Nauk Gruzinskoi SSR. Tbilisi, 6: 251-269. [In Russian.] 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Case 2689 Helophorus obscurellus Poppius, 1907 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Helophorus fausti Kuwert, 1887 R. B. Angus Department of Biology, Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give precedence to the name Helophorus obscurellus Poppius, 1907 for a beetle with a wide distribution in the Palaearctic, and known from the Pleistocene, over the senior subjective synonym Helophorus fausti Kuwert, 1887. 1. Kuwert (1887, p. 165) described a beetle Helophorus fausti from Turkestan. It is included in Kuwert’s keys to European Helophorus (Kuwert, 1890, p. 186), but Knisch (1924, p. 67) gives no subsequent reference to it. Apart from Kuwert’s own material in the Musée National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, the only correctly named specimens I have seen are in the Reitter collection in the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest. A series standing as H. fausti in the Zoological Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, is a different species, described as H. beibienkoi by Angus (1984, p. 539). I know of no other reference to H. fausti. 2. Poppius (1907, p. 3) described Helophorus (Trichelophorus) obscurellus from northern Russia (Kanin) and Siberia (Zhigansk, on the river Lena). Knisch (1924, p. 69) gave no subsequent references to H. obscurellus. 3. A.d’Orchymont (1927, p. 103) described a supposedly extinct species, Helophorus wandereri, from Pleistocene fossil material and placed it in a new subgenus, Orphelo- phorus d’Orchymont. Coope & Sands (1963, p. 94) showed that H. wandereri occurred in the British Pleistocene, and showed how it could be identified. 4. Angus (1970, p. 9) designated a lectotype for H. obscurellus in the Zoological Museum of Helsinki University; he also (p. 11) showed that H. wandereri is conspecific with H. obscurellus and gave details of the modern distribution of the species. Subse- quently, H. obscurellus has been found in many Pleistocene deposits in Britain and elsewhere and has been shown to be a good indicator of tundra environments. This environmental information, and the ease with which H. obscurellus can be identified as a fossil, make it a particularly important component of Pleistocene fossil assemblages. 5. Angus (1984, p. 537) showed that H. fausti was conspecific with H. obscurellus and designated a lectotype for H. fausti. He recommended that, in view of the importance of H. obscurellus in Pleistocene assemblages, H. obscurellus should continue to be the name used with H. fausti placed in synonymy as a nomen oblitum (a forgotten name). 6. Sharp (1916, p. 85) described a different species as H. fausti Sharp, overlooking Kuwert’s prior use of that name. Angus (1971, p. 245) showed that H. fausti Sharp is a junior synonym of H. croaticus Kuwert, 1886 and designated lectotypes for both nominal species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 177 7. The name H. obscurellus has been used in many papers including Coope (1979, p. 255), Morgan (1969, p. 112) and Smetana (1985, p. 116); a list of 7 other papers is held by the Secretariat. As stated in para. | above, Iam unaware of the use of the name H. fausti as a valid species since 1924. A change of name from obscurellus to the unused fausti would cause confusion and would not be in the interests of stability of nomen- clature. However, H. obscurellus has a wide and fragmented distribution in the Palaearctic and it is possible that sibling species are involved. For this reason it would not be appropriate to suppress the name fausti outright as it may eventually prove to represent a taxon distinct from obscurellus. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name obscurellus Poppius, 1907, as published in the binomen Helophorus ( Trichelophorus) obscurellus, is to be given precedence over the specific name fausti Kuwert, 1887, as published in the binomen Helophorus fausti, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) obscurellus Poppius, 1907, as published in the binomen Helophorus ( Triche- lophorus) obscurellus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over fausti Kuwert, 1887, as published in the binomen Helophorus fausti, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) fausti Kuwert, 1887, as published in the binomen Helophorus fausti, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over obscurellus Poppius, 1907, as published in the binomen Helophorus (Trichelophorus) obscurellus, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. References Angus, R. B. 1970. A revision of the beetles of the genus Helophorus F. (Coleoptera: Hydrophili- dae) subgenera Orphelophorus d’Orchymont, Gephelophorus Sharp and Meghelophorus Kuwert. Acta zoologica Fennica, 129: 1-62. Angus, R. B. 1971. Revisional notes on Helophorus F. (Col., Hydrophilidae). 3. Species resem- bling H. strigifrons Thoms. and some further notes on species resembling H. minutus F. Entomologist’s monthly Magazine, 106: 238-256. Angus, R. B. 1984. Towards a revision of the palaearctic species of Helophorus F. (Coleoptera, Hydrophilidae). 1. Entomologicheskoye Obozreniye, 63: 533-551. Coope, G. R. 1979. Late Cenozoic fossil Coleoptera: Evolution, Biogeography, and Ecology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 10: 247-267. Coope, G. R. & Sands, C. H. S. 1963. The discovery, in British late Pleistocene deposits, of the extinct species Helophorus wandererid’ Orch. (Col. Hydrophilidae). Opuscula Entomologica, 28: 94-96. Knisch, A. 1924. Coleoptorum Catalogus, pars 79: Hydrophilidae. 306 pp. Junk, Berlin. Kuwert, A. 1887. Vier neue Helophorus-Arten. Wiener entomologische Zeitung, 6: 165—168. Kuwert, A. 1890. Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Hydrophiliden Europas, Westasiens und Nord- afrikas. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Vereines in Briinn. Abhandlungen, 28: 3-121, 159-328. _ Morgan, A. 1969. A Pleistocene fauna and flora from Great Billing, Northamptonshire. Opus- cula Entomologica, 34: 109-129. Orchymont, A. d’. 1927. Uber zwei neue diluviale Helophoren-Arten. Jahresbericht-Abhandlun- gen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft (Isis, Dresden), 1926: 100-104. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Poppius, B. 1907. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Coleopteren-Fauna des Lena-Thalesin Ost-Sibirian. III. Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Georyssidae, Parnidae, Heteroceridae, Lathridiidae und Scarabaeidae. Ofversigt af Finska Vetenskaps-Societetens Férhandlingar, 49: 1-17. Sharp, D. 1916. Studies in Helophorini. 9. Helophorus (Continued). Entomologist’s monthly Magazine, 52: 83-86. Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the subfamily Helophorinae of the Nearctic region (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 131: 1-154. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 179 Case 2716 Ceratopogon puncticollis Becker, 1903 (currently Culicoides puncticollis; Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over Ceratopogon algecirensis Strobl, 1900 J. Boorman Department of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give precedence to the specific name Ceratopogon puncticollis Becker, 1903 of a biting midge over the senior synonym Ceratopogon algecirensis Strobl, 1900. 1. Strobl (1900, p.170) described Ceratopogon pulicaris forma algecirensis on the basis of two females from Algeciras, Spain. Later (Strobl, 1906, p. 398) he promoted algecirensis to specific rank and recorded a further two females from the same locality, with other specimens of both sexes from other localities in Spain. The species was transferred to Culicoides Latreille, 1809 by Kieffer (1919, p. 39). 2. Becker (1903, p. 75) named a female insect from Egypt Ceratopogon puncticollis. This species was transferred to the genus Culicoides by Edwards (1939, p. 133), who listed the names he considered to be synonyms, including algecirensis. He did not accord priority to algecirensis, possibly because its original usage was as a form of Ceratopogon pulicaris, and treated the junior synonym puncticollis as a valid name. 3. Szadziewski (1986, p. 70) was unable to locate the type specimens of algecirensis and inferred that they no longer existed. However, he did locate in the Zoologisches Museum, Berlin, the two additional females from Algeciras mentioned by Strobl (1906). Szadziewski designated one of these females as the neotype of algecirensis and relegated puncticollis to the status of a junior synonym of algecirensis. Bearing in mind _ the wide geographical range of the species from the U.K. to Spain and eastwards to the Middle East, it is possible that, when cytological or other techniques are applied to Culicoides puncticollis, the existence of more than one species may be demonstrated. _ For this reason it would not be appropriate to suppress the name a/gecirensis outright as it may eventually prove to represent a species distinct from puncticollis. 4. The binomen Culicoides puncticollis has been widely used since 1939 in the medi- cal and veterinary entomological literature. It is a species closely associated with live- stock and a potential vector of viruses and filariae. It is readily identified and is not involved in any taxonomic problem. With the sole exception of the 1986 paper by Szadziewski, puncticollis is the only name that has been used as the valid name for the species in numerous papers over the last 50 years. Such papers include Campbell & Pelham-Clinton (1960, p. 234), Khalaf (1961, p. 468) and Kremer, Braverman & } Delecolle (1981, p. 2); a list of 23 other papers is held by the Secretariat. Any change _ of name would cause needless confusion and would not be in the interests of stability of nomenclature. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name puncticollis Becker, 1903, as published in the binomen Ceratopogon puncticollis, is to be given precedence over the specific name algecirensis Strobl, 1900, as published in the trinomen Ceratopogon pulicaris forma algecirensis, whenever the two names are con- sidered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) puncticollis Becker, 1903, as published in the binomen Ceratopogon puncti- collis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over algecirensis Strobl, 1900, as published in the trinomen Ceratopogon pulicaris forma algecirensis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) algecirensis Strobl, 1900, as published in the trinomen Ceratopogon pulicaris forma algecirensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over puncticollis Becker, 1903, as published in the binomen Ceratopogon puncticollis, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. References Becker, T. 1903. Agyptische Dipteren. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 2(3): 67-195. Campbell, J. A. & Pelham-Clinton, E. C. 1960. A taxonomic review of the British species of Culicoides Latreille (Diptera, Ceratopogonidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh (B), 67: 181-302. Edwards, F. W. 1939. In Edwards, F. W., Oldroyd, H. & Smart, J. British blood-sucking flies. 156 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Khalaf, K. T. 1961. More Culicoides from Iraq. Beitrage zur Entomologie, 11: 450-471. Kieffer, J. J. 1919. Chironomides d’Europe conserves au Musée National Hongrois de Budapest. Annales Historico-Naturales Musei Nationalis Hungarici, 17: 1-160. Kremer, M., Braverman, Y. & Delecolle, J. C. 1981. Taxonomy of some species of Culicoides (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae) described by Vimmer (1932) from Palestine, with new syno- nyms. /srael Journal of Entomology, 15: 1-11. Strobl, P. G. 1900. Spanische Dipteren. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 19: 169-174. Strobl, P. G. 1906. Spanische Dipteren II. Beitrag (1). Memorias de la Real Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 3: 27\—422. Szadziewski, R. 1986. Redescriptions and notes on some Ceratopogonidae (Diptera). Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 56: 3-103. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 181 Case 2673 Micropterus patachonicus King, 1831 and Anas pteneres Forster, 1844 (both currently in Tachyeres Owen, 1875; Aves, Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names B. C. Livezey Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A. Abstract. Steamer ducks are large diving ducks of southern South America, classified today in the genus Tachyeres Owen, 1875. There are four species, three of them flight- less. Usage of the names of two of the species is threatened by the unused senior name Oidemia patachonica King, 1828: T. pteneres (Forster, 1844) as a subjective synonym and T. patachonicus (King, 1831) as a secondary homonym. 1. During the surveying voyages of the British ships Adventure and Beagle during 1826-30, Captain P. P. King observed steamer ducks, and an unknown number of skin specimens were collected. In February 1827, King and members of the parties aboard the two ships made an excursion to Eagle Bay, Straits of Magellan, and collected specimens of an apparently flightless species (King, 1839, p. 35). 2. In July 1827, King sent from Rio de Janeiro a selection of 78 specimens, many of which were believed to represent new species, to N. A. Vigors, Secretary of the Zoologi- cal Society of London, in advance of the return of the expedition (King, 1828a, pp. 422-— 423). Among these skins was a single specimen of a large duck which King thought was new and which he named (King 1828b, p. 100) as Oidemia patachonica. 3. The collection of specimens also contained examples of another species which were smaller and more red on the scapulae and throat and in 1831 (p. 14) King named it as a new species, patachonicus, of Micropterus Lesson, 1828 (p. 416). Specimens of this second species were exhibited at a meeting of the Zoological Society of London in December 1830. In 1839, King (p. 542) mentioned that this species was capable of flight, thereby starting a century-long debate concerning the existence of both flighted and flightless species of steamer duck (see Cunningham, 1871, p. 493; Lowe, 1934). The species is currently known as Tachyeres patachonicus (Tachyeres Owen, 1875, p. 254, is the replacement name for Micropterus Lesson, 1828, preoccupied by the fish name Micropterus Lacépéde, 1802). T. patachonicus King, 1831 is a junior secohdary homonym of Oidemia patachonica King, 1828, which is also now placed in Tachyeres. 4. Subsequently, King (1839, pp. 35 and 542) concluded that the specimen he had named Oidemia patachonica corresponded closely with a flightless duck described from the voyage of the French vessel Uranie by Quoy & Gaimard in 1824 (p. 139) under the name Anas brachyptera Latham, 1790 (p. 834) (later placed in the genus Micropterus). King indicated the synonymy of his species with M. brachypterus (as then understood) and this was noted by Strickland (1841, p. 39) and Gibson (1877, p. 185). Eventually, 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 brachypterus was restricted by Murphy (1936, p. 954) to the flightless species endemic to the Falkland Islands, King’s Magellanic species being separated as Anas (now Tachyeres) pteneres (Forster, 1844, p. 338). T. pteneres is the name in use today, although O. patachonica is the older synonym. 5. I recently examined the extant specimens from the original collection of King in the National Museums of Scotland (NMSZ 1926.109.111) and the British Museum (Natural History) (BMNH Old Vellum Catalogue No. 42—73b), which have been regarded as “‘co-types”’ of Oidemia patachonica (Stenhouse, 1929, p. 185; 1930, p. 274 (where the catalogue number of the former specimen is incorrectly cited as 1926.109.90 (R. McGowan, pers. comm.)); Warren, 1966, p. 221; Warren & Harrison, 1973, p. 5) and determined that both are of the Magellanic flightless species (inferred earlier for the former by Gibson, 1877, p. 185). No original material of the flighted species collected by King is known to exist. 6. Since King’s 1839 publication the specific name patachonicus King, 1831 has been used to refer to the flighted species in over 200 ornithological works spanning 150 years, and in papers by both proponents and opponents of according species status to the flighted form; these include Murphy (1936, p. 968), Meyer de Schauensee (1970, p. 33) and Livezey & Humphrey (1986, p. 540). A representative list of a further five refer- ences is held by the Commission Secretariat. The only possible exception to the usage of patachonicus was the parenthetical suggestion of the alternate name Micropterus macropterus by Giglioli (1875, p. 934) for the flighted species; this was an informal, descriptive proposal without nomenclatural justification and Giglioli otherwise used patachonicus and cited only King’s second paper (1831) in reference to the flighted form. 7. The fact that the name patachonicus was used by King for different species in 1828 and 1831 appears to have been overlooked by all but Stenhouse (1929, p. 185), who also mentioned the possible availability of the name suggested by Giglioli. There is variation, however, in the reference given for the name as used in its current (1831) sense; for example Murphy (1936, p. 968) and Delacour (1954, p. 276) both credit King, 1830 (sic, for 1831), whereas Weller (1976, p. 45) and Johnsgard (1979, p. 453) refer to King, 1828. 8. In order to maintain the usage of Tachyeres patachonicus in its accustomed (King, 1831) sense for the flighted species of steamer duck, I propose the suppression of Oidemia patachonica King, 1828 as a senior secondary homonym of Micropterus patachonicus King, 1831 and as a senior subjective synonym of Anas pteneres Forster, 1844. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name patachonica King, 1828, as published in the binomen Oidemia patachonica, and all other uses of the name prior to the publication of patachonicus King, 1831, in the binomen Micropterus patachonicus, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pteneres Forster. 1844, as published in the binomen Anas pteneres; (b) patachonicus King, 1831, as published in the binomen Micropterus patacho- nicus; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 183 (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name patachonica King, 1828, as published in the binomen Oidemia patachonica, and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements Support was provided by U.S. National Science Foundation grant BSR-8516623. I thank R. Y. McGowan (Royal Museums of Scotland) and D. K. Read (formerly of the British Museum (Natural History)) for assistance during visits, and I am especially grateful to D. Heppell (Royal Museums of Scotland) for his considerable advice on nomenclatural convention. References Cunningham, R. O. 1871. On some Points in the Anatomy of the Steamer Duck (Micropterus cinereus). Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, '7(7): 493-501. Delacour, J. 1954. The Waterfowl of the World, vol. 1. 284 pp. Country Life, London. Forster, J. R. 1844. Descriptiones Animalium quae in itinere ad Maris Australis Terras per annos 1772, 1773 et 1774 suscepto collegit. 424 pp. Officina Academica, Berolini. Gibson, J. 1877. On certain birds collected by the late Captain (Rear-Admiral) P. P. King in the Straits of Magellan between the years 1826-27. Proceedings of the Royal Physical Society of Edinburgh, 4: 183-186. Giglioli, E. H. 1875. Viaggio intorno al globo della R. Pirocurvetta Italiana Magenta negli anni 1865-66-67-68 sotto il comando del Capitano di fregata V. F. Arminjon. 1031 pp. Maisner, Milano. Johnsgard, P. A. 1979. Order Anseriformes. Pp. 425-506 in Mayr, E. & Cottrell, G. W. (Eds.), Check-list of Birds of the World, A Revision of the Work of James L. Peters. Ed. 2, vol. 1. xvii+ 547 pp. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. King, P. P. 1828a. Extracts from a letter addressed by Capt. Phillip Parker King, R.N., F.R.S. and L.S., to N. A. Vigors, Esq., on the animals of the Straits of Magellan. Zoological Journal (London), 3: 422-432. King, P. P. 1828b. Extracts from a letter addressed by Capt. Phillip Parker King, R.N., F.R.S. and L.S., to N. A. Vigors, Esq., on the animals of the Straits of Magellan (concluded). Zoological Journal (London), 4: 91-105. King, P. P. 1831. Characters of new genera and species of birds from the Straits of Magellan. Proceedings of the Committee of Science and Correspondence of the Zoological Society of London, 1: 14-16, 29-30. King, P. P. 1839. Narrative of the surveying voyages of his Majesty’s ships Adventure and Beagle, between the years 1826 and 1836, describing their examination of the southern shores of South America, and the Beagle’s circumnavigation of the globe, vol. 1. 597 pp. Henry Colburn, London. Latham, J. 1790. Index Ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiae; complectens avium divisionem in classes, ordines, genera, species, ipsarumque varietates: adjectis synonymis, locis, descrip- tionisbus, vol. 2, pp. 467-920. Leigh & Sotheby, London. Lesson, R.-P. 1828. Manuel d’ornithologie, ou description des genres et des principales espéces d oiseaux, vol. 2. 448 pp. Roret, Paris. Livezey, B. C. & Humphrey, P. S. 1986. Flightlessness in steamer-ducks (Anatidae: Tachyeres): its morphological bases and probable evolution. Evolution, 40(3): 540-558. Lowe, P. R. 1934. On the Evidence for the Existence of Two Species of Steamer Duck (Tachyeres), and Primary and Secondary Flightlessness in Birds. Ibis, (13) 4(3): 467-495. Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1970. A Guide to the Birds of South America. 470 pp. Livingston Publishing Co., Wynnewood, Pennsylvania. Murphy, R. C. 1936. Oceanic Birds of South America, vol. 2, pp. 641-1245. American Museum of Natural History, New York. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Owen, R. 1875. On Dinornis (Part XX): containing a Restoration of the Skeleton of Cnemiornis calcitrans, Ow., with remarks on its affinities in the Lamellirostral group. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 9(3): 253-272. Quoy, J. R. C. & Gaimard, J. P. 1824. Voyage autour de monde par les Corvettes 1’Uranie et la Physicienne, vol. 3 (Zoologie). 712 pp. Pillet Aine, Paris. Stenhouse, J. H. 1929. Some birds of historical interest in the Royal Scottish Museum. I. Birds of the voyage of H.M.S. “Adventure” and “Beagle”, 1826-30. Scottish Naturalist, No. 180: 181-187. Stenhouse, J. H. 1930. Bird-types in the Royal Scottish Museum. Novitates Zoologicae, 35(3): 270-276. Strickland, H. E. 1841. Commentary on Mr. G. R. Gray’s “Genera of Birds”, 1840. Annals of Natural History, 7: 26-41. Warren, R. L. M. 1966. Type-specimens of Birds in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 1 (Non-passerines). 320 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Warren, R. L. M. & Harrison, C. J. O. 1973. Type-specimens of Birds in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 3. 76 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Weller, M. W. 1976. Ecology and behaviour of steamer ducks. Wildfowl, 27: 45-53. V0 te gn Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 185 Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a contribution to the discussion (see BZN 44: 79-85; 45: 45—46, 47, 144, 145) R. V. Melville 93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey TW107LL, U.K. The age-old conflict between usage and priority in zoological nomenclature has been conducted as a series of assaults on the Principle of Priority by the proponents of usage. Yet priority still stands as the central first principle in our Code and it is hard to see what can replace it that will be as easily understood and as equitable. Some landmarks in this struggle stand out clearly: the plenary powers resolution of 1913, which empowered the Commission to set aside the Principle of Priority in individual cases; the repeated but doomed attempts to draft satisfactory limitation of the Principle, culmi- nating in the Monaco (1972) redrafting of Article 23b (which had rejected as nomina oblita names unused for 50 years) and the present text of that provision and Article 79c; and now Cornelius’s proposal (BZN 44: 79-85) for Protected Works. This is a bold and wide-reaching proposal and deserves careful consideration. Key (1988; BZN 45: 45-46) has pointed out the delay inherent in the process of incorporating a provision on Protected Works into the Code and has drawn attention to the positive elements in Article 79 that facilitate conservation without the associated suppression of one or more senior names. This is a helpful suggestion and I hope it will be practically tested without delay. If a list of names to be directly conserved was published, the extent of agreement or disagreement on its contents would quickly appear. The Commission would have to lay down the criteria to be satisfied by any name on such a list; each would have to be accompanied by its original reference and by a statement of its name-bearing type and how this was fixed, with any relevant references. My own experience with works that might well be thought to qualify for protection gives me some misgivings. I can think of two in the Echinoidea: Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides by Lambert & Thiéry (1909-1924); and Th. Mortensen’s splendid Monograph of the Echinoidea (1928-1951). Lambert & Thiéry is a very useful compendium of all echinoid names published to that date and has a very complete bibliography, but the one thing that is not reasoned about it is its nomenclature, especially in the family group. Mortensen, although a fierce defender of usage, thought fit to use a number of pre-Linnaean generic names from polynominal works that had not been used as valid names for many decades (except by an occasional eccentric French author). Thus, even if Mortensen was proposed for protection, much detailed work would need to be done to cull such weeds from it. The example of L. B. Holthuis shows that nomenclatural probity need not necess- arily hinder an active career as a taxonomist. Why can this example not be followed, especially by workers in major museums with access to major libraries? Lastly, Ihave misgivings as to durability of Protected Works for taxonomic relevance. Olson (1987) has analysed 276 name changes in North American birds between 1957 and 1983. Of these, 259 were made for systematic reasons and only 17 for nomenclatural reasons. Of the latter, three arose from secondary homonymies arising from generic mergers (i.e. from taxonomic actions) and only two arose directly from the application of the Principle of Priority. Olson points out that in North American birds — a group 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 considered to be especially thoroughly known and to have an exceptionally stable nomenclature — the nomenclature of 50 years ago would be all but impenetrable now toany buta specialist. _ In spite of my misgivings, I hope that a serious test case for a Protected Work will be prepared. I suspect that the labour of preparing it may be greater, and the durability of its protection less, than its promoters would hope. References Cornelius, P. F. S. 1987. Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a solution to an old problem. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44: 79-85. Key, K. H. L. 1988. Use versus priority: comments on a paper by P. F. S. Cornelius, with alternative proposals for the conservation of well-known names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45: 45—46. Lambert, J. & Thiéry, P. 1909-1924. Essai de nomenclature raisonnée des Echinides. 607 pp., 13 pl. Ferriére, Chaumont. Mortensen, T. 1928-1951. A Monograph of the Echinoidea. Vols. \—S. Reitzel, Copenhagen. Olson, S. 1987. On the extent and source of instability in avian nomenclature as exemplified by North American birds. Auk, 104: 538-542. Comment on the proposed conservation of Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) and Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) (Annelida, Polychaeta) (Case 2452; see BZN 46: 22-24) Marion H. Pettibone National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Chambers and Heppell have made a very good case for conserving the polychaete names Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) and Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780). Both names have been widely used and it would cause great confusion if they were to be replaced. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 187 Comment on the proposed designation of Risomurex mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, 1984 as the type species of Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2507; see BZN 43: 191-192) Emily H. Vokes Department of Geology, Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A. Roland Houart Landen, Belgium We oppose this application by Kemperman & Coomans. Almost simultaneously with the then pending application (which we mentioned), we (Vokes & Houart, 1986) published a revision of the subgenus Risomurex. In this we pointed out (pp. 64, 66-68) that R. mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, 1984 is a junior subjective synonym of Ricinula deformis Reeve, 1846 (pl. 6, fig. 44) and of Sistrum ferrugineum rubidum Dall, 1889; this is the taxon which was misidentified by Olsson & McGinty (1958) as Engina schrammi Crosse, 1863 when designating the type species of Risomurex. We noted (p. 76) also that E. schrammi is known only from the holotype, which is apparently a specimen of Ricinula rosea Reeve, 1846 (pl. 6, fig. 46). We consider that the designation of R. mosquitensis as the type species of Risomurex, as proposed in BZN 43: 191-192, is the least desirable of three choices. The valid name of the species which was actually before Olsson & McGinty (1958) is Ricinula deformis Reeve, 1846, and we propose that this be designated by the Commission as the type species of Risomurex, by appropriate alterations to the proposals on BZN 43: 191-192. References Reeve, L. A. 1846. Conchologia Iconica: or, Illustrations of the Shells of Molluscous Animals, vol. 3. Reeve, London. Vokes, E. H. & Houart, R. 1986. An evaluation of the taxa Muricopsis and Risomurex (Gastropoda: Muricidae), with one new species of Risomurex. Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, 19(2): 63-88. Comments on the proposed conservation of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) (Case 2668; see BZN 46: 19-21) (1) C. W. Wright Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, Dorset DT8 3Q Y, U.K. 1. In this application Spamer & Bogan call for the Commission to suppress Drepa- nites Benett, 1831 in order to conserve the generic names Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922. 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 2. Spamer & Bogan suggest, contrary to Wright & Wright (1949, p. 481), that Benett (1831) should be treated as an available publication. Despite what Spamer & Bogan say, the fact that names used by Benett have appeared in the literature on Porifera, Gastropoda and Bivalvia in no way affects the issue whether Benett (1831) is a publi- cation. 3. As noted in para. 3 of the application, the introduction by Benett contains the following passage: ‘When this catalogue was first thought of, my geological friends expressed a wish that it should be published separately; but considering it a thing of mere local interest, I have preferred printing a few copies only for the acceptance of my friends’. Of course copies were distributed widely — because she sent them to her friends, plenty of them (I have J. de C. Sowerby’s presentation copy). This does not mean that Benett’s perfectly clear statement should or could be denied, and the work therefore does not satisfy Article 8a(1) [that ‘it must be issued publicly for the purpose of providing a permanent scientific record’]. 4. It is absurd that the Commission should be asked, in the face of this clear statement by Miss Benett, to rule that her A catalogue of the organic remains of the county of Wilts. is an available work. If the Code means anything the proposals (1), (2) and (7) on BZN 46: 20 are fundamentally wrong. Proposals (3) to (6) would do no harm. (2) P. K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature In their application Spamer & Bogan do not claim that the Benett catalogue was incontrovertibly published, but rather ask the Commission to rule that for nomencla- tural purposes it should be treated as though it had been published. This is a procedure that has been used by the Commission on a number of occasions to make available works and names that were, originally, not published within the meaning of the Code. Despite Benett’s evident pre-printing intention or expectation, it would appear that more than ‘a few’ copies of the catalogue may have been circulated. It was cited in Férussac (1835), Bulletin Zoologique; in Agassiz (1842-46), Nomenclator Zoologicus; in Bronn (1848), Index Palaeontologicus, and in Herrmannsen (1852), Indicis Generum Malacozoorum. The catalogue contained about 70 new names, a number of which were treated as available and valid in standard 19th century monographs. If the catalogue were simply treated as unpublished and therefore unavailable the status of these names would be doubtful, and also Drepanites Mojsisovics could be rendered invalid by some use of the Benett name in the period 1831-1893 (it is relevant here to note that the words ‘...and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893’ should be inserted in proposal (2)(a) on BZN 46: 20). Similar considerations apply to the post-Benett names Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 and pseudofalcatus Semenow, 1899 (see BZN 46: 20, paras. 7 and 8). In effect, Spamer & Bogan are proposing that pragmatic considerations should outweigh Miss Benett’s statement of her modest plans for the distribution of her catalogue. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 189 Comments on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Arachnida, Araneae) (Case 2662; see BZN 46: 165-166) (1) Edwin E. Minch 2207 West Main No. 15, Mesa, Arizona 85201, U.S.A. I share with other authors the use of the name Aphonopelma in the various publi- cations that have been written on this taxon. If the name is now changed to Rhechostica it will become difficult for future students of the group to make the associations between the two names in the literature. I recall the difficulty I experienced when Aphonopelma was first generally separated from Eurypelma C. L. Koch, 1850. To complicate matters further, there was a considerable period of time after this proposal in which Eurypelma continued to be used by various authors. Failure to invoke the plenary powers would result in the creation of a second such problem for future workers. Tarantulas seem to draw interest from researchers outside the area of systematics. Since these individuals tend to be less familiar with complex questions of nomenclature, the resulting confusion would tend to be magnified. This would have an adverse effect on information exchange between workers. Tarantula taxonomy is in a confused state. It will be unstable under the scrutiny of any active researcher of the group. The next taxonomist could well arrive at a totally different conclusion from that given by Raven. I fear that this could result in an endless list of synonyms for many tarantula species. For the above reasons I urge that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature use its plenary powers to suspend the Principle of Priority in this case based upon the lack of use for the name Rhechostica. (2) Carlos E. Valerio Escuela de Biologia, Universidad de Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica I find the arguments convincing and I would like to endorse the application very strongly. The name Aphonopelma is widely used in this part of the world by biologists, conservationists, pet keepers and others. We would lose a great deal more than we gain if we restore the previously unused name Rhechostica to replace it. (3) Frederick A. Coyle Department of Biology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723, U.S.A. I am hereby stating my support for the application to conserve the generic name Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901, because of its wide use, and to suppress the name Rhechostica Simon, 1892. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 (4) Rick C. West 4034 Glanford Avenue, Victoria, B.C., Canada V8Z 3Z6 I feel it is better to include Aphonopelma in Rhechostica until further characters for differentiation are discovered. Anyone studying Aphonopelma can certainly make the switch. Some people are still using the older generic name Eurypelma! Anyone research- ing the genus Aphonopelma should also be looking under Rhechostica and Eurypelmaas well. (5) Pablo A. Goloboff Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Buenos Aires, Argentina The name Aphonopelma has had a much wider use, indeed, than the name Rhechostica. The conservation of the name Aphonopelma would be justified with regard to Rhechostica. However, Raven (1985) has also synonymised Pterinopelma Pocock, 1901 with Rhechostica (see para. 2 of the application). The name Prerinopelma has been used and several species have been described, and presumably this name also should be conserved with respect to Rhechostica. Comments on the proposed conservation of Jphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea) (Case 2643; see BZN 45: 267-269) (1) Anders Warén Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Box 50007, S-10405 Stockholm, Sweden The gastropod name Jphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 has not been used very often, even if more than the impression given by the application. Examples of recent authors are: Habe (1962, p. 69; as a genus, 4 species, 1 new); Abbott (1974, p. 138; a subgenus, 4 species); Golikov (1986; a genus, 5 species, | new). There has been no revisory work with evidence for keeping the name for a genus; I feel my- self, after having done some work on the family, that the relevant species could well be placed in Trichotropis or Ariadnaria. In any case the replacement name Neoiphinoe Habe, 1978 has been proposed for Iphinoe H. & A. Adams. Additional references Abbott, R. T. 1974. American Seashells. Ed. 2, 663 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Habe, T. 1962. Trichotropidae in Japan. Bulletin of the National Science Museum (Tokyo), 6: 67-77. Habe, T. 1978. A new name for the genus Jphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854. Venus, 36: 194. Golikov, A. N. 1986. Gastropod family Trichotropidae in the temperate and cold waters. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, Leningrad, 152: 11-29. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 191 (2) Richard E. Petit P.O. Box 30, North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina 29582, U.S.A. It should be pointed out that the statement in BZN 45: 268, para. 6 that the dates of publication of Adams & Adams’ The Genera of Recent Mollusca were unknown is incorrect, since p. 661 of their work tabulated the dates. Part IX, containing Jphinoe, was published in January 1854. (3) Richard S. Houbrick Department of Invertebrate Zoology (Mollusks), National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. The name Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 is used for small, virtually unknown groups of trichotropid prosobranchs. It is without question an obscure name, rarely encoun- tered in the literature. In my opinion, suppression of Iphinoe H. & A. Adams would in no way cause any instability in the malacological literature, nor would it upset any of my colleagues. Comment on the proposed precedence of GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838 (Insecta, Orthoptera) (Case 2603; see BZN 46: 25-27) G. W. Ramsay Entomology Division, D.S.I.R., Private Bag, Auckland, New Zealand Iam writing to support Dr K. H. L. Key’s application to give GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 precedence over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838 (and the same at other family-group ranks). As Dr Key shows, GRYLLACRIDOIDEA is in wide general use and to change it would cause confusion. Provisions in the Code explicitly limit the application of the Principle of Priority and should be invoked in this case. Comment on the proposed conservation of accepted usage of Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina) by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author (Case 2674; see BZN 46: 33-34) Margaret Sudbury Moor House Farm, Sandy Lodge Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire WD3 1LW, U.K. I write in support of D. K. Loydell’s application regarding the type of Monograptus exiguus, for the following reasons: 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 (a) The existence of Nicholson’s type specimen is doubtful, whereas Lapworth’s is known, and it is his usage which has been accepted for over 100 years. A return to Nicholson’s species would cause considerable confusion in graptolite taxonomy. (b) The two specimens concerned came from different horizons so that maintaining Nicholson’s usage would cause difficulties and misunderstandings in world-wide stratigraphy as well. I hope, therefore, that the Commission will agree to Mr Loydell’s application. Comments on the authorship of the name Testudo (currently Pelusios) subnigra (Reptilia, Testudines) (Opinion 1534; see BZN 46: 81-82) (1) Roger Bour Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France In this Opinion the authorship of the specific name subnigra is given as ‘Lacépéde in Bonnaterre, 1789’, on the grounds that the work in which the name first appeared, Lacépéde’s 1788 Histoire naturelle des quadrupédes ovipares et des serpens (vol. 1), had been suppressed by the Commission in Opinion 1463 (BZN 44: 265-267). However, only vol. 2 of Lacépéde’s work, which has the shorter title Histoire naturelle des serpens (1789), was suppressed in Opinion 1463, and vol. | is still available. Were the name subnigra to be taken from Bonnaterre’s Tableau encyclopédique the author would be Bonnaterre alone, since the text is his. (2) P. K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature M. Bour is correct in pointing out that Lacépéde’s vol. 1 of 1788 was not suppressed in Opinion 1463, contrary to the statement in BZN 46: 82. However, inspection of Lacépéde (1788) shows that Lacépéde did not consistently apply the principle of binominal nomenclature in this volume and that subnigra is not made available there. The species concerned is described on p. 175 and elsewhere as ‘La Noiratre’. The name Testudo subnigra does appear in the Latin ‘Synopsis methodica’ but even this table is not consistently binominal (for example it includes names such as ‘Jackie’ and ‘Roquet’, and adopts several Latin names different from the Linnaean ones noted in the text). As M. Bour has mentioned, Bonnaterre’s text was his alone. Testudo subnigra should therefore have the authorship Bonnaterre, 1789, and the entries on the Official Lists for both subnigra and Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (of which T. subnigra is the type species) should be correspondingly amended from those given on BZN 46: 81-82. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 193 OPINION 1549 EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878 (Protista, Flagellata) and EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera): homonymy removed, and ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that: (a) for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Euglenes Westwood, 1830 is EUGLENES-; (b) the family-group name ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 is to be given precedence over the family-group name EUGLENESIDAE Bridie, 1875 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Aderus Stephens, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Westwood (1830) Lytta boleti Marsham, 1802; (b) Euglena Ehrenberg, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by Dujardin (1841) Cercaria viridis Miiller, 1786; (c) Euglenes Westwood, 1830 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by Pic (1900) Anthicus oculatus Paykull, 1798. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) boleti Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Lytta boleti (specific name of the type species of Aderus Stephens, 1829); (b) viridis Miller, 1786, as published in the binomen Cercaria viridis (specific name of the type species of Euglena Ehrenberg, 1830); (c) oculatus Paykull, 1798, as published in the binomen Anthicus oculatus (specific name of the type species of Euglenes Westwood, 1830). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927, type genus Aderus Stephens, 1829, with the endorse- ment that it is to be given precedence over EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878, type genus Euglena Ehrenberg, 1830; (c) EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (emendation of EUGLENIDAE), type genus Euglenes Westwood, 1830, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (5) The name EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (emended to EUGLENESIDAE in (1)(a) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. History of Case 2510 An application to remove the homonymy between EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878 (Protista) and EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera), together with the conservation of 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Insecta, Coleoptera), was received from Drs M. Mroczkowski & S. A. Slipinski (Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa, Poland) on 20 March 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 230-232 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 231. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: . . ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927, Catalogus Coleopterum regionis palearcticae, part 7, col. 831. Aderus Stephens, 1829, A systematic Catalogue of British Insects, p. 255. boleti, Lytta, Marsham, 1802, Coleoptera Britannica, sistens insecta Coleoptera Britanniae indigena, p. 486. Euglena Ehrenberg, 1830, Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 94 (N.F. 18): 502. Euglenes, Westwood, 1830, Zoological Journal, London, 5: 59. EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875, Fauna Baltica, p. 380. EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875, Fauna Baltica, p. 380. EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878, Der Organismus der Infusionsthiere, vol. 3(1), p. x. oculatus, Anthicus, Paykull, 1798, Fauna Svecica, vol. 1, p. 256. viridis, Cercaria, Miller, 1786, Animalcula Infusoria, Fluviatilia et Marina, p. 126. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 195 OPINION 1550 Dysidea Johnston, 1842 (Porifera, Keratosa): conserved Ruling * (1) Under the plenary powers the name Spongelia Nardo, 1834 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Dysidea Johnston, 1842 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- sequent designation by deLaubenfels (1948) Spongia fragilis Montagu, 1818, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name fragilis Montagu, 1818, as published in the binomen Spongia fragilis (specific name of the type species of Dysidea Johnston, 1842), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name DYSIDEIDAE Gray, 1867 (type genus Dysidea Johnston, 1842) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Spongelia Nardo, 1834, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Duseideia Johnston, 1842 (an incorrect original spelling of Dysidea Johnston, 1842); (c) Dysidia Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Dysidea Johnston, 1842); (d) Dyseideia Lieberkuhn, 1859 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Dysidea Johnston, 1842); (e) Desidea Koehler, 1855 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Dysidea Johnston, 1842); (f) Duseidea Delage & Heérouard, 1899 (an unjustified emendation of Dysidea Johnston, 1842). History of Case 1229 The application was made originally by Dr M. W. deLaubenfels (Oregon State College, U.S.A.) in 1957 but was then not proceeded with. Dr deLaubenfels commented that until Schmidt’s 1862 description of Spongelia Nardo, 1834 ‘half the sponges of the world might be said to come under it’. Topsent (1938, p. 18) claimed that Spongelia was available as from Nardo, 1834, and in sub- sequent work (e.g. 1945) he included several species in the genus. Topsent regarded Spongelia as a senior subjective synonym of Dysidea Johnston, 1842. However, Dysidea has been generally adopted because Spongelia has been considered unrecognisable until Schmidt’s 1862 description of Spongelia elegans, and there has never been any suggestion that S. elegans is not congeneric with the type species of Dysidea, namely Spongia fragilis Montagu, 1818. A case was formulated by Miss N. Erridge & Mr M. E. Tollitt (formerly of the Commission Secretariat) and published in BZN 44: 233-234 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 233-234. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 16: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 5: Halvorsen, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Mroczkowski and Thompson. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Thompson commented that he would have liked more information on the usage of Dysidea as a generic name. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Desidea Koehler, 1885, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, 20(4): 12. Duseideia Johnston, 1842, History of British Sponges and Lithophytes, p. 185. Duseidea Delage & Hérouard, 1899, Traité de Zoologie concrete, vol. 2(1), p. 230. Dyseideia, Lieberkuhn, 1859, Archiv fiir Anatomie und Physiologie, 1859: 363. Dysidea Johnston, 1842, History of British Sponges and Lithophytes, p. 251. DYSIDEIDAE Gray, 1867, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1867: 511. Dysidia Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici. Index Universalis, p. 131. fragilis, Spongia, Montagu, 1818, Memoirs of the Wernerian Natural History Society, 2: 114. Spongelia Nardo, 1834, Isis, Jena, 27: col. 714. Additional References Topsent, E. 1938. Commentaires sur quelques genres d’Eponges marines. Bulletin de |’Institut Océanographique. Monaco. No. 744. 23 pp. Topsent, E. 1945. Guide pour la connaissance d’Eponges de la Mediterranée. Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique. Monaco. No. 883. 19 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 ' 197 OPINION 1551 Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (Tardigrada): Macrobiotus dujardini Doyére, 1840 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the correct spelling of the following names: (a) dujardin Doyére, 1840, as published in the binomen Macrobiotus dujardin, is deemed to be dujardini; (b) oberhaeuser Doyére, 1840, as published in the binomen Macrobiotus oberhaeuser, is deemed to be oberhaeuseri. (2) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 are hereby set aside and Macrobiotus dujardini Doyére, 1840 (original spelling emended in (1)(a) above) is designated as type species. (3) The name Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (2) above Macrobiotus dujardini Doyére, 1840, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dujardini Doyére, 1840, as published in the binomen Macrobiotus dujardin (spell- ing emended in (1)(a) above), specific name of the type species of Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848; (b) oberhaeuseri Doyére, 1840, as published in the binomen Macrobiotus oberhaeuser (spelling emended in (1)(b) above). (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dujardin Doyére, 1840, as published in the binomen Macrobiotus dujardin (spelling emended to dujardini in (1)(a) above); (b) oberhaeuser Doyére, 1840, as published in the binomen Macrobiotus. oberhaeuser (spelling emended to oberhaeuseri in (1)(b) above). History of Case 2589 An application for the designation of Macrobiotus dujardini Doyére, 1840 as the type species of the tardigrade genus Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 was received from Drs M. G. Binda & G. Pilato (Universita di Catania, Italy) on 11 December 1986. It was proposed that the original spelling of the specific names dujardin and oberhaeuser be emended in accordance with usage and with Recommendation 31A of the Code. After correspond- ence the case was published in BZN 44: 235—236 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 236. Proposal (1) [the emendation of the specific names] and Proposal (2) [the designation of the type species of Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 1848] were voted upon separately; members of the Commission were also asked to agree that the consequential entries on the Official Lists and Indexes should be made, and all those voting did so. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Proposal (1): Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Halvorsen and Savage. Lehtinen abstained. Proposal (2): Affirmative votes—17: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Schuster, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Savage and Thompson. No votes were received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Martins de Souza commented that Marcus (1928) had designated H. oberhaeuseri as the type species of Hypsibius, and that this should not be invalidated by equivocal figures published by Thulin (1928); Thompson also commented that it was not clear whether Thulin’s errors were other than trivial. Savage said that the application seemed intended to conserve the authors’ new genus Ramazzottius Binda & Pilato, 1986 (Animalia, 13(1—3): 159-166) of which H. oberhaeuseri was the type species. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: dujardin, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (Zoologie) (2)14: 288. dujardini, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (Zoologie) (2)14: 288. Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848, Bericht iiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der Kéniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1848: 381. oberhaeuser, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (Zoologie) (2)14: 286. oberhaeuseri, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (Zoologie) (2)14: 286. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 199 OPINION 1552 Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (Nematoda): spelling confirmed Ruling (1) Itis hereby confirmed that the original spelling of the generic name Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802, is correct. (2) The name Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent monotypy Strongylus gigas Rudolphi, 1802 (a junior subjective synonym of Ascaris renales Goeze, 1782), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name renales Goeze, 1782, as published in the binomen Ascaris renales (valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name DIOCTOPHYMIDAE Railliet, 1915 (type genus Dioctophyme Collet- Meygret, 1802) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Dioctophyma Bosc, 1803 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802). (6) The name DIOCTOPHYMATIDAE Railliet, 1915 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (based on an incorrect subsequent spelling of Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802). History of Case 2604 An application to confirm, at the request of the Council for International Organiz- ations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), the spelling of a parasitic nematode genus in the form Dioctophyme was formulated by Mr M. E. Tollitt (formerly of the Commission Secretariat), in 1987. The case was published in BZN 44: 237-239 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. In relation to the designation of a type species for Dioctophyme (BZN 44: 237-238, paras. | and 5(2) and (3)), it should be noted that Ascaris renales Goeze, 1782 (placed in combination with Dioctophyme by C. W. Stiles in 1901) is a senior subjective synonym of Strongylus gigas Rudolphi, 1802, which is the type species by subsequent monotypy (Rudolphi, 1808). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 238. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Lehtinen. No votes were returned by Bayer and Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Dioctophyma Bosc, 1803, Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle ... vol. 7, p. 255. DIOCTOPHYMATIDAE Railliet, 1915, Recueil de Médecine vétérinaire, 41(15): 493. Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire naturelle, 55: 463. DIOCTOPHYMIDAE Railliet, 1915, Recueil de Médecine vétérinaire, 41(15): 493. renales, Ascaris, Goeze, 1782, Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Eingeweidewtirmer thierischer Korper, p. 73. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 201 OPINION 1553 ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea, Decapoda) and ATYIDAE Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): homonymy removed Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Atys Montfort, 1810 is ATYD-. (2) The name Atys Montfort, 1810 (Mollusca; gender: masculine), type species by original designation Atys cymbulus Montfort, 1810 (a junior subjective synonym of Bulla naucum Linnaeus, 1758), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name naucum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bulla naucum (the valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Atys Montfort, 1810), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name ATYDIDAE Thiele, 1925 (emended under the plenary powers in (1) above; type genus Atys Montfort, 1810) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ATYIDAE Thiele, 1925 (an incorrect original spelling of ATyDIDAE Thiele, 1925 by virtue of the ruling in (1) above); (b) ATYDAE Abbott, 1954 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of ATYDIDAE Thiele, 1925). History of Case 2357 An application to remove the homonymy between ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] (Crusta- cea, Decapoda) and ATYIDAE Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) was received from Dr T. T. Crosby (Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Auckland, New Zealand) and Dr A. Carpenter (Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, New Zealand) on 7 August 1980. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 43: 84-88 (April 1986). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. It should be noted that ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] was placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology by Opinion 470 (June 1957). Comments were received from Dr W. O. Cernohorsky (Terranora, N.S.W., Australia), Dr R. C. Willan (University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia) and Dr P. M. Mikkelsen (Harbor Branch, Oceanographic Institution, Florida, U.S.A.) saying (with bibliographic references) that, in contrast to the doubt expressed in BZN 43: 84, para. 2, all recent authors agree that Atys and Haminoea Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830 are confamilial. Dr Cernohorsky commented that in the past ATYDAE was widely used because authors were unaware that HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, [1895] (how- ever spelt: see BZN 44: 166) existed or that ATYIDAE was a homonym. Drs Willan and Mikkelsen supported the proposals on BZN 43: 86, noting that family-group names based on Atys might still be needed. Dr Mikkelsen pointed out that the homonymy between ATYIDAE in Mollusca and Crustacea had been discussed by Burn (1978, pp. 93-112). Drs Cernohorsky and Willan both pointed out that ATYIDAE (Mollusca) dates from Thiele, 1925. 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 43: 86. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen. No votes were received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ATYDAE Abbott, 1954, American Seashells, p. 278. ATYDIDAE Thiele, 1925. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf des Dampfer ‘Valdivia’ 1898-1899. (Gastropoda), vol. 17, part 2, p. 265. ATYIDAE Thiele, 1925. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee-Expedition auf des Dampfer ‘Valdivia’ 1898-1899. (Gastropoda), vol. 17, part 2, p. 265. Atys Montfort, 1810, Conchyliologie systématique, et classification méthodique des coquilles. Coquilles Univalves, non cloisonnées, vol. 2, p. 342. naucum, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 726. The following is the reference for the discussion of homonymy between ATYIDAE in Mollusca and Crustacea: Burn, R. 1978. A review of Australian species of Austrocylichna, Nipponatys, Cylichnatys and Diniatys (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Haminoeidae). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 4(1—2): 93-112. eae ee a ~ « Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 203 OPINION 1554 Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Cryptocoeloma haswelli Rathbun, 1923 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nom- inal genus Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 are hereby set aside and Cryptocoeloma haswelli Rathbun, 1923 is designated as type species. (2) The name Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (gender: neuter), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cryptocoeloma haswelli Rathbun, 1923, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name haswelli Rathbun, 1923, as published in the binomen Cryptocoeloma haswelli (specific name of the type species of Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2611 An application for the designation of Cryptocoeloma haswelli Rathbun, 1923 as the type species of Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 was received from Mr Peter K. L. Ng (National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore) and Dr L. B. Holthuis (Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 240-241 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 240-241. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 20: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Heppell and Kraus. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884, Report on the Zoological collections made in the Indo-Pacific Ocean during the voyage of HMS ‘Alert’ 1881-2, p. 227. haswelli, Cryptocoeloma, Rathbun, 1923, Biological Results Fishing Experiments F.I.S. ‘Endeavour’, 5(1): 111. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 OPINION 1555 Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (Insecta, Heteroptera): Corisa transversa Fieber, 1848 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) It is hereby confirmed that the type species of the nominal genus Parasigara Poisson, 1957 is Corisa transversa Fieber, 1848. (2) The name Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Corisa transversa Fieber, 1848, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name transversa Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa transversa (specific name of the type species of Parasigara Poisson, 1957), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2559 An application for the confirmation of Corisa transversa Fieber, 1848 as the type species of Parasigara Poisson, 1957 was received from Dr A. Jansson (Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland) on 3 March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 242 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 242. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 20: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno Negative votes — none. No votes were returned by Heppell and Willink. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Parasigara Poisson, 1957, Faune de France, 61: 85. transversa, Corisa, Fieber, 1848, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 21(1): 520. ———————— as ~ oe Se OSS ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 205 OPINION 1556 Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently //ybius ater) and Dytiscus planus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Hydroporus planus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ater Forster, 1771, as published in the binomen Dytiscus ater, and all uses of that name prior to the publication of Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ater De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Dytiscus ater; (b) planus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Dytiscus planus. (3) The name ater Forster, 1771, as published in the binomen Dytiscus ater and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2586 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 and Dytiscus planus Fabricius, 1781 was received from Dr A. N. Nilsson (Univer- sity of Umea, Sweden) on 19 December 1986. After correspondence the case was pub- lished in BZN 44: 178-179 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 179, with proposal (1) amended to suppress all uses of ater Forster, 1771 prior to the publication of De Geer’s name. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ater, Dytiscus, Forster, 1771, Novae species Insectorum I, p. 54. ater, Dytiscus, De Geer, 1774, Mémoires pour servir a l’histoire des insectes, vol. 4, p. 401. planus, Dytiscus, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum, vol. 2, p. 501. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 OPINION 1557 Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved, and E. bifasciella Treitschke, 1833 confirmed as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Elachista Kollar, 1832 and all uses of that name before the publication of Elachista Treitschke, 1833 are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus Elachista Treitschke, 1833 prior to that by Meyrick (1915) are hereby set aside. (3) The name Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- sequent designation by Meyrick (1915) Elachista bifasciella Treitschke, 1833, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (4) The name bifasciella Treitschke, 1833, as published in the binomen Elachista bifasciella (specific name of the type species of Elachista Treitschke, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (5) The name ELACHISTIDAE Bruand, 1850 (type genus Elachista Treitschke, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (6) The name Elachista Kollar, 1832, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2481 An application for the conservation of Elachista Treitschke, 1833 and the confirm- ation of E. bifasciella Treitschke, 1833 as its type species was received from Drs E. S. Nielsen (CSIRO Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australia) and 1.W.B. Nye (British Museum ( Natural History), London) on 20 June 1988). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 27-28 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropri- ate journals. In relation to para. 3 on p. 27, it should be noted that under Article 69a(iv) of the Code 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. In the Introduction (pp. 1-154) to his 1836 Histoire naturelles des Insectes Boisduval reviewed earlier classifications of Lepidoptera and designated up to three different ‘type species’ for each generic name. In his ‘Exposé de notre Méthode’ (pp. 155-690) no type species designation was made for any of the genera he himself used. Boisduval’s type ‘designations’, although clearly stated, do not fulfil the requirements of the Code and have therefore not been accepted by lepidopterists. This includes his designation of Elachista canifoliella Treitschke, 1833 as type species of Elachista. Meyrick’s 1915 designation of E. bifasciella Treitschke, 1833 as the type species has been followed by later workers and is in current use. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 28. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 207 Affirmative votes— 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bifasciella, Elachista, Treitschke, 1833. In Ochsenheimer, Die Schmetterlinge von Europa. vol. 9, part 2, p. 182. Elachista Kollar, 1832. Beitrége zur Landeskunde Oesterreich’s unter der Enns, 2: 98. Elachista Treitschke, 1833. In Ochsenheimer, Die Schmetterlinge von Europa. vol. 9, part 2, D177. é' ELACHISTIDAE Bruand, 1850. Mémoires (et Comptes Rendus) de la Société d’Emulation du Doubs - (1)3(5-6): 50. The following is the reference for the designation of E. bifasciella as the type species of Elachista: Meyrick, E. 1915. Description of New Zealand Lepidoptera. Transactions of the New Zealand Institute, 47: 210. 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 OPINION 1558 Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Anastrepha parallela; Insecta, Diptera): lectotype replaced Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of lectotype for the nominal species Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 before that by Zucchi (1979) are hereby set aside. (2) The name parallelus Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Dacus parallelus and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Zucchi (1979), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2590 An application for the designation of a replacement lectotype for the fruit fly species Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 was received from Dr A. L. Norrbom (c/o National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.) on 3 February 1987. After corre- spondence the case was published in BZN 44: 243-245 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 244-245. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: parallelus, Dacus, Wiedemann, 1830, Aussereuropdische zweifliigelige Insekten, vol. 2, p. 515. The reference for the designation of the lectotype of Dacus parallelus is: Zucchi, R. A. 1979. Sobre os tipos de Anastrepha parallela (Wied., 1830), de A. striata Schiner, 1868 e de A. zernyi Lima, 1934 (Diptera, Tephritidae). Revista Brasileira de Entomologia, 23: 263. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 209 OPINION 1559 Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 designated as the type species Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the nom- inal genus Ludita Nagy, 1967 are hereby set aside and Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 is designated as type species. (2) The name Ludita Nagy, 1967 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name villosa Fabricius, 1793 as published in the binomen Tiphia villosa (specific name of the type species of Ludita Nagy, 1967) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2411 An application for the designation of Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 as the type species of Ludita Nagy, 1967 was received from Dr C. van Achterberg (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 May 1982. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 45: 33 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Dr van Achterberg stated that Dr K. V. Krombein (United States National Museum, Washington, U.S.A.) supported the application. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 33. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes—21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Ludita Nagy, 1967, Reichenbachia, 8(24): 197. villosa, Tiphia, Fabricius, 1793. Entomologia systematica . . ., vol 2, p. 227. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 OPINION 1560 Asterias squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828 (currently Amphipholis squamata; Echinodermata, Ophiuroidea): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name e/egans Leach, 1815, as published in the binomen Ophiura elegans, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828, as published in the binomen Asterias squamata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name elegans Leach, 1815, as published in the binomen Ophiura elegans and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2131 An application for the conservation of Asterias squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828 was received from Miss A. M. Clark (formerly of the British Museum (Natural History), London) on 18 July 1975. The Commission Secretariat was unable to proceed with the case at that time, and the case was published in BZN 44: 246-247 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment ‘enthusiastic in sup- port’ was received in October 1988 from Dr G. Hendler (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, California, U.S.A.). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 45: 247. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 2: Cogger and Lehtinen. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Dupuis abstained as he thought the taxonomic position was too unclear. Cogger would have voted for precedence being given to the name squamata. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: elegans, Ophiura, Leach, 1815, Leach & Nodder, Zoological Miscellany, vol. 2, p. 57. squamata, Asterias, Delle Chiaje, 1828, Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di Napoli, vol. 3, p. 77. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 211 OPINION 1561 Climacograptus manitoulinensis Caley, 1936 (currently Paraclimacograptus manitoulinensis; Graptolithina): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name hudsonicus Nicholson, 1875, as published in the binomen Diplograptus hudsonicus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name manitoulinensis Caley, 1936, as published in the binomen Climaco- graptus manitoulinensis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name hudsonicus Nicholson, 1875, as published in the binomen Diplograptus hudsonicus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2596 An application for the conservation of Climacograptus manitoulinensis Caley, 1936 was received from Professor J. F. Riva (Université Laval, Québec, Canada) on 27 February 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 228-229 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 229. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes— 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 3: Holthuis, Mroczkowski and Thompson. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Mroczkowski said that he would have favoured giving manitoulinensis precedence over hudsonicus. , Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: hudsonicus, Diplograptus, Nicholson, 1875, Report on the Paleontology of the Province of Ontario, part 2, p. 38. manitoulinensis, Climacograptus, Caley, 1936, Geological Survey of Canada, Memoir 202(2): 65. 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 OPINION 1562 Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently Ctenopoma oxyrhynchum; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name not conserved Ruling (1) Itis hereby confirmed that the Principle of Priority is to be applied to the specific names of the nominal species Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 and Ctenopoma weeksii Boulenger, 1896. (2) The name weeksii Boulenger, 1896, as published in the binomen Ctenopoma weeksii, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2595 An application for the conservation of Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 was received from Mr S. M. Norris (Oklahoma State University, U.S.A.) on 27 February 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 192-193 (September 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment by Carl J. Ferraris, Jr. (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 45: 143 (June 1988), together with a reply by the author of the application. In para. 4(2) on p. 192 of BZN 44 ‘Anabas oxyrhynchum’ should read ‘Anabas oxyrhynchus’. Decision of the Commission On | March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 192. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes —9: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Halvorsen, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster Negative votes — 12: Bayer, Dupuis, Hahn, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Ride, Thompson, Uéno and Willink. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. The proposal was thus not carried. Hahn, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Ride, Thompson and Willink all agreed with Dr Ferraris’ comment (BZN 45: 143), and said that the Principle of Priority should apply. Hahn and Kraus also commented that stability would be achieved by Mr Norris giving the synonymy of weeksii and oxyrhynchus in his forthcoming revisionary work on the genus Ctenopoma. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: weeksii, Ctenopoma, Boulenger, 1896, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)17: 310. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 213 OPINION 1563 Heliases ternatensis Bleeker, 1856 (currently Chromis ternatensis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved, and Chromis viridis (Cuvier, 1830): name adopted for the fish formerly known as C. caerulea (Cuvier, 1830) Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) caeruleus Cuvier, 1830 as published in the binomen Heliases caeruleus; (b) /episurus Cuvier, 1830 as published in the binomen Heliases lepisurus; (c) frenatus Cuvier, 1830 as published in the binomen Heliases frenatus. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ternatensis Bleeker, 1856, as published in the binomen Heliases ternatensis; (b) viridis Cuvier, 1830, as published in the binomen Pomacentrus viridis, and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Randall, Bouchet & Desoutter (1985). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) caeruleus Cuvier, 1830, as published in the binomen Heliases caeruleus and as suppressed in (1) (a) above; (b) lepisurus Cuvier, 1830, as published in the binomen Heliases lepisurus and as suppressed in (1) (b) above; (c) frenatus Cuvier, 1830, as published in the binomen Heliases frenatus and as suppressed in (1) (c) above. History of Case 2516 An application for the conservation of Helisaes ternatensis Bleeker, 1856 and the adoption of the name Chromis viridis (Cuvier, 1830) for the fish commonly called C. caerulea (Cuvier, 1830) was received from Dr J. E. Randall (Bishop Museum, Hawaii, U.S.A.) and Drs M.-L. Bauchot & M. Desoutter (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 29 April 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 248-250 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. It was suggested by the Secretariat that the specimen in Mertens’ ‘belle figure’ (see BZN 44: 248, para. 2), which is formally a syntype of the nominal species Heliases caeruleus Cuvier, 1830, could be designated the lectotype of that species, and that caeruleus could then, by a first reviser action, be given precedence over Pomacentrus viridis. However, Dr J. E. Randall replied that the ‘belle figure’, like Mertens’ painting of a specimen from Guam (which has the reference no. MS 490 VB 9 and not as given in para. 8 of the application) could be of C. atripectoralis Welander & Schultz, 1951, and does not necessarily represent caerulea auct. (= viridis Cuvier). 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 249-250. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Ueno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Cogger, Hahn, Mroczkowski and Thompson. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Dupuis abstained. Mroczkowski considered it would have been better to have desig- nated the lectotype of P. viridis as the neotype of H. caeruleus, and then ruled that caeruleus be given precedence over viridis. Hahn would have also preferred to have a neotype designated for caeruleus (thereby also solving the ternatensis difficulty), whereas Cogger would have used one of the synonyms /episurus or frenatus for the blue- green damselfish, since these names did not have the ambiguous background of caeruleus. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: caeruleus, Heliases, Cuvier, 1830, Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 5, p. 497. frenatus, Heliases, Cuvier, 1830, Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 5, p. 498. lepisurus, Heliases, Cuvier, 1830, Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 5, p. 498. ternatensis, Heliases, Bleeker, 1856, Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indié, 10: 377. viridis, Pomacentrus, Cuvier, 1830, Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 5, p. 420. —— = le Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 215 OPINION 1564 Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name sphenurus Klunzinger, 1884, as published in the binomen Apogon sphenurus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Neamia Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912, as published in the binomen Neamia octospina (specific name of the type species of Neamia Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name sphenurus Klunzinger, 1884, as published in the binomen Apogon sphenurus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2541 An application for the conservation of Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912 was received from Dr O. Gon (J. L. B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa) on 18 November 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 251—252 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appro- priate journals. The author has stated that Dr J. E. Randall, of Bishop Museum, Hawaii, U.S.A., supports the application. A comment by Professor L. B. Holthuis suggested that instead of suppressing sphe- nurus Klunzinger, 1884 precedence could be given to octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912. The name sphenurus (based on a Red Sea specimen) would then be available if the Red Sea population proved to bea different taxon from that of the Indo- West Pacific (i.e. octospina, with its type locality in the Philippines). However, modern specimens from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean have been referred to octospina and there has been no suggestion that the populations from the two areas differ (Gon, 1987). [Despite the title of Gon’s paper (see the list of references on BZN 44: 252) he used octospina as the valid name]. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 251-252. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 4: Dupuis, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza and Mroczkowski. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. 216 ’ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Dupuis and Mroczkowski would have favoured precedence being given to octospina. Martins de Souza did not consider the case strong enough to override the priority of sphenurus. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Neamia Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912, Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 41: 441. octospina, Neamia, Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912, Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 41: 441. sphenurus, Apogon, Klunzinger, 1884, Fische des Rothen Meeres, p. 20. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 217 OPINION 1565 Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, Cetacea): conserved Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Susu Lesson, 1828 is hereby sup- pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Platanista Wagler, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Delphinus gangeticus Roxburgh, 1801, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name gangeticus Roxburgh, 1801, as published in the binomen Delphinus gangeticus (specific name of the type species of Platanista Wagler, 1830), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Susu Lesson, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 321 The question of the conservation of Platanista Wagler, 1830 was originally raised by Dr G. H. H. Tate in 1947, but due to inadequate resources a case was not prepared at that time. The present case was submitted by Dr D. W. Rice (National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Washington, U.S.A.) and, after correspon- dence, was published in BZN 44: 253-254 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support was received from Drs John E. Heyning and Lawrence G. Barnes (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, U.S.A.) and was published in BZN 45: 223 (September 1988). A note of a second supportive comment, from Dr P. J. H. van Bree (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), was also published in BZN 45: 223. A further supportive com- ment was received from Dr Robert L. Brownell, Jr. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, San Simeon, California, U.S.A.), who also pointed out that some recent authors have recognised two nominal species: Platanista gangetica (Roxburgh, 1801) from the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna river systems in India and Bangladesh, and some rivers in Nepal, and P. minor Owen, 1853 from the Indus river in Pakistan. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 253. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1989 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: gangeticus, Delphinus, Roxburgh, 1801, Asiatic Researches [Calcutta edition], p. 171. Platanista Wagler, 1830, Natiirliches § ystem der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der Susu Lesson, 1828, Histoire Naturelle générale et particuliére des Mammifeéres et des Oiseaux découverts depuis 1788 Jusqu'a nos jours, vol. 1, p.212. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 219 OPINION 1566 Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): original spelling emended Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the correct original spelling of Megalocerus Brookes, 1828 is deemed to be Megaloceros. (2) The name Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (gender: masculine), original spelling emended as in (1) above, type species by monotypy Megaloceros antiquorum Brookes, 1828 (a junior subjective synonym of Alce gigantea Blumenbach, 1799), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name gigantea Blumenbach, 1799, as published in the binomen Alce gigan- tea (valid name at the time of this ruling of the type species of Megaloceros Brookes, 1828), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Megalocerus Brookes, 1828, (spelling emended to Megaloceros in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2606 An application for the adoption of Megaloceros as the correct spelling of the generic name of the ‘Irish elk’ or giant deer was received from Dr A. M. Lister (University of Cambridge, U.K.) on 30 April 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 255-256 (December 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment from Dr P. J. Boylan (Leicester, U.K.) was published in BZN 44: 262. Three members of the Committee on Mammal Names of the International Theriological Congress (Drs S. B. George, D. Kock and J. Meester) favoured the original spelling of Brookes’ generic name, Megalocerus, and this was noted on the voting papers. The spelling Megalocerus has never been used since Brookes’ obscure booklet of 1828; only Megaloceros is listed in Sherborn’s 1928 Index Animalium, while Neave’s 1940 Nomenclator gives Megalocerus as a junior synonym of Megalo- ceros. As documented in the references in para. 4 of BZN 44: 255, Megaloceros has been widely used since its adoption in 1945 by G. G. Simpson, who had evidently not seen Brookes’ publications. The ‘Irish elk’ (which was of wide Palaearctic distri- bution) was until 1945, and by some authors since, known as Megaceros Owen, 1844. It may be noted that both Sherborn and Neave list the name Megalocervus Mantell, 1836 (p. 6). This was applied to the ‘Irish elk’ but seems never to have been mentioned since its original appearance. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 44: 256. At the close of the voting period on | June 1989 the votes were as follows: 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(3) September 1989 Affirmative votes — 20: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Hal- vorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink Negative votes — 1: Ride. No vote was received from Heppell. Starobogatov and Trjapitzin were on leave of absence. Hahn commented that Megaceros should be treated as a junior synonym of Megalo- ceros. Ride commented that as a palacomammalogist he did not consider that any confusion or loss of universality would be caused by use of the original spelling of Brookes’ name, which was Megalocerus, and that it was widely recognized that any continued usage of Megaceros Owen, 1844 was simply wrong. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: gigantea, Alce, Blumenbach, 1799, Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 6th Ed., vol. 16, p. 697. Megaloceros Brookes, 1828. A Catalogue of the Anatomical and Zoological Museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., part 1, p. 61. Megalocerus Brookes, 1828. A Catalogue of the Anatomical and Zoological Museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., part 1, p. 61. Additional reference Mantell, G. A. 1836. A descriptive catalogue of the objects of Geology, Natural History, and Antiquity (chiefly discovered in Sussex), in the Museum, attached to the Sussex Scientific and Literary Institution, at Brighton, 4th Ed., 44 pp., Relfe & Fletcher, London. Contents—continued Opinion 1551. Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (Tardigrada): Macrobiotus dujardini Doyére, 1840 designated as the type species. . . ; 197 Opinion 1552. Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (Nematoda): spelling confirmed : 199 Opinion 1553. ATYIDAE De Haan, [1849] (Crustacea, Decapoda) and ATYIDAE Thiele, 1925 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): homonymy removed. . 201 Opinion 1554. Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Cryptocoeloma haswelli Rathbun, 1923 designated asthe typespecies . . . 203 Opinion 1555. Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (Insecta, Heteroptera): “Corisa transversa Fieber, 1848 confirmed as the type species. . 204 Opinion 1556. Dytiscus ater De Geer, 1774 (currently lly bius ater) and Dy tisc us planus Fabricius, 1781 (currently 1s iia planus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved =... 205 Opinion 1557. Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): conserved, and E. bifasciella Treitschke, 1833 confirmed as the type species . . 206 Opinion 1558. Dacus parallelus Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Ansreata parollela: Insecta, Diptera): lectotype replaced. . 208 Opinion 1559. Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Tiphia villosa Fabricius, 1793 designated asthe type species . . 209 Opinion 1560. Asterias squamata Delle Chiaje, 1828 (currently Amphipholis squamata: Echinodermata, Ophiuroidea): specificname conserved . . 210 Opinion 1561. Climacograptus manitoulinensis Caley, 1936 (currently Paraclimaco- graptus manitoulinensis; Graptolithina): specificname conserved. . . ‘ 211 Opinion 1562. Anabas oxyrhynchus Boulenger, 1902 (currently Ctenopoma coxyrhyn- chum; Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specificname not conserved . . 212 Opinion 1563. Heliases ternatensis Bleeker, 1856 (currently Chromis ternatensis: Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved, and Chromis viridis (Cuvier, 1830): name adopted for the fish formerly known as C. caerulea (Cuvier, 1830) . . 213 Opinion 1564. Neamia octospina Smith & Radcliffe in Radcliffe, 1912 ele Perciformes): specific name conserved . . : 215 Opinion 1565. Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia, ‘Cetacea): conserved . se 217 Opinion 1566. Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, saat original spellingemended . .. . ey, pease nck. Tater ee bc 219 INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author's name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described ...’. References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application: Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices . Election of the President of the International ‘Commission on n Zoological Nomencla- ture. 7< Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology-Supplement International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Applications CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera): a proposal to remove the homonymy. A.R. Kabat . . Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. D. J. Brunckhorst, W. B. Rudman & R. C. Willan. Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed precedence over - Rhechos- tica Simon, 1892.H.W.Levi&O.Kraus . . Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and J. woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, “Acari): pro- posed conservation by the replacement of the holotype of J. angustus by a neotype. R. G. Robbins & J. E. Keirans . Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. J. A. Gardner. . Helophorus brevipalpis Bedel, 1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence o over Helophorus creticus Kiesenwetter, 1858. R. B. Angus Helophorus obscurellus Poppius, 1907 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed précedence o over Helophorus fausti Kuwert, 1887.R.B. Angus. . . Ceratopogon puncticollis Becker, 1903 (currently Culicoides puncticollis; Insecta, Dip- tera): proposed precedence over Ceratopogon algecirensis Strobl, 1900. J. Boorman Micropterus patachonicus King, 1831 and Anas pteneres Forster, 1844 (both currently in Tachyeres Owen, 1875; Aves, Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. B. C. Livezey SOU : Comments Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a contribution to the discussion. R. V. Melville . : On the proposed conservation of Harmothoe imbricata (Linnaeus, 1767) and Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M.H. Pettibone . On the proposed designation of Risomurex mosquitensis Kemperman & Coomans, 1984 as the type species of Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastro- poda). E.H. Vokes & R. Houart . : On the proposed conservation of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and H ryphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). C. W. Wright; P. K. Tubbs On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 over Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Arachnida, Araneae). E. E. Minch; C. E. Valerio; F. A. Coyle; R. C. West; P. A. Goloboff . On the proposed conservation of Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea) A. Waren; R. E. Petit; R.S. Houbrick . : On the proposed precedence of GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838 (Insecta, Orthoptera). G. W. Ramsay. : On the proposed conservation of accepted usage of Monograptus exiguus (Grapto- lithina) by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author. M. Sudbury . ; On the authorship of the name Testudo (currently Pelusios) subnigra (Reptilia, Testu- dines). R. Bour; P. K. Tubbs Se eet was ee oe ane Rulings of the Commission Opinion 1549. EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878 (Protista, Flagellata) and EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera): homonymy removed, and ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 . Opinion 1550. Dysidea Johnston, 1842 (Porifera, Keratosa): conserved Continued on Inside Back Cover 2 Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset Page 153 154 154 155 156 161 165 167 170 173 176 179 181 185 186 187 187 189 190 191 i 192 193 195 Volume 46, Part 4, 19 December 1989 pp. 221-283 ISSN oor 7+ 51 Bulletin THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1989 is £60 or $115, postage included; the rates for 1990 will be £65 or $125. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 01-938 9387) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany) Vice-President (Vacant) Secretary-General Dr L. B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; Myriapoda) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera) Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) (Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia) (Norway; Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink (Argentina; Hymenoptera) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) MrJ.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1989 | 2 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 46, part 4 (pp. 221—283) 19 December 1989 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is entitled to start to vote on appli- cations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. This period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretary within twelve months of the date of publication of the application. (b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments to the Code are also published for discussion. Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience wider than some small group of specialists. (c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received since going to press for volume 46, part 3 (published on 29 September 1989): (1) Brahmaea Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed confirmation of Bombyx certhia Fabricius, 1793 as the type species. (Case 2737). W. A. Nassig & I. W. B. Nye. (2) Acanthophthalmus Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed conservation. (Case 2738). M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert & C. Ferraris, Jr. (3) Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2739). B. J. Smith & R. C. Kershaw. (4) Gongylus (Lygosoma) entrecasteauxii Duméril & Bibron, 1839 (currently Leiolopisma entrecasteauxii; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed precedence over Scincus decemlineatus Lacépéde, 1804 and S. undecimstriatus Kuhl, 1820. (Case 2740). M. N. Hutchinson. (5) Hirudo marmorata Say, 1824 (currently Haemopis marmorata; Annelida, Hirudinea): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2741). E. E. Spamer & A. E. Bogan. (6) Vatellus Aubé, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2742). A.N. Nilsson. (7) HELEOMYZIDAE Bezzi, 1911 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence over HETEROMYZIDAE Fallén, 1820, RHINOTORINAE Williston, 1896 and LERIINAE Czerny, 1904. (Case 2743). A. Woznica & T. Zatwarnicki. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 (8) Alveolites battersbyi H. Milne Edwards & Haime, 1851 (currently Caliapora battersbyi; Cnidaria, Tabulata): proposed designation of a replacement neotype. (Case 2744). F. Tourneur, K. Goodger, C. Iven, B. Mistiaen & C. Scrutton. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration and Direction published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Election of members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Commission has elected the following new members, with effect gi 6 September 1989: Dr ENRIQUE MACPHERSON (instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08003 Barcelona, Spain). Dr Macpherson’s research primarily concerns marine decapod crustaceans. He is a member of the nomenclature panel of the Crustacean Society. Dr VOLKER MAHNERT (Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Case postal 434, CH-1211 Geneve, Switzerland). Dr Mahnert specialises in tropical freshwater ichthyology, with pseudoscorpions as an additional interest. He is an editor of Revue suisse de Zoologie. Prof ALESSANDRO MINELLI (Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Loredan 10, I-35131 Padova, Italy). Prof Minelli’s researches concern myriapods and also free-living planarians. He is currently working on a check list of centipedes. Dr IAN W. B. NYE (c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K.). Dr Nye is Editor of the multi-volume The generic names of moths of the world. He was a member of the Commission from 1972-81. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Supplement The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987. This gave all the names and works on which the International Commission on Zoologi- cal Nomenclature had ruled since it was set up in 1895 up to December 1985. There were about 9,900 entries. In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and 3 works have been added to the Official Lists and Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology can be ordered at the price shown: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 223 The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110 or The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to members of A.A.Z.N.). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomen- clature, c/o British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19.00 or US$35.00 (postage included). Payment should accompany orders. Orders from North America should be sent to University of California Press, Berkeley 94720, California, U.S.A. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report for the year 1988 It is good to report that a small operating surplus of £300 was made in 1988, which is 0:5% of the total income of £59,880 received during that year. It demonstrates the extent to which the Trust relies on the continuation of its generous grants and donations. Approximately half the Trust’s income came from sales of publications. Foremost amongst these were the four parts of the 1988 volume of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, which together with a small amount of back stock of the Bulletin and the Opinions yielded an income of £20,400. Sales of the Official Lists and Indexes continued at the high level of £10,463 in 1988. Total sales of the Lists since publication in June 1987 were £18,124 up to the end of 1988, which brings the profit on that publication up to £2,177, after the printing costs have been deducted. Sales of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature dropped to the unusually low figure of £1,171 in 1988, due mainly to the accounting for stocks held by distributors falling in other years. Steps have now been taken for the Trust to sell the Code direct, and it is expected that sales in a normal year should yield in the region of £3,000. The remaining half of the Trust’s income was from grants, donations and interest. Grants of £1,000 from the Royal Society, and £2,000 each from the Agricultural and Food Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council were received with thanks. The Trust also wishes to express its thanks to the donors listed at the end of this report who supported its work to the total of £9,700. Income from deeds of covenant amounted to £100, and bank and investment interest came to £8,998. The expenses of the Trust in 1988 amounted to £59,580. The largest amount was for the salaries (£45,672) and office expenses (£4,521) of the members of staff of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. This included a modest contribution to the expenses of some of the staff to attend the meeting of the Commission held at the triennial conference of the International Union of Biological Sciences at Canberra in October 1988. Printing and distribution of the Bulletinamounted to £8,872, and for the second year was successfully organised from the office of the Commission. Minor expenses of £290 for depreciation of office equipment and £225 for the audit fee, brought the total expenses up to £59,580. The Commission Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 225 was again housed in the British Museum (Natural History), whom we thank for their continuing support. The investments of the Trust in Charifund and the Charities Official Investment Fund were valued at £125,575 in June 1989, and they yield an increasing rate of interest. The following donations were received: Academia Sinica, Taiwan, £112 American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, £5,313 British Ecological Society, £500 Freshwater Biological Association, £5 Natural Research Council of Sweden, £1,000 Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, £88 Swiss Academy of Science, £1,997 Unione Zoologica Italiana, £685 M. K. HOWARTH Secretary and Managing Director 13 June 1989 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER, 1988 Income SALE OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes GRANTS DONATIONS AND COVENANTS BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST Expenditure SALARIES AND FEES OFFICE EXPENSES AUDIT FEE PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT Surplus for the year 20,400 Hes 7 10,463 9,000 9,848 8.998 45,672 4,521 225 8,872 290 32,034 27,846 £59,880 £59,580 £300 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2683 Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834 (currently Texigryphaea pitcheri; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation Barry S. Kues Department of Geology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico | 87131, U.S.A. . Spencer G. Lucas New Mexico Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 7010, Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834 for a Lower Cretaceous bivalve by suppression of the possible senior synonym Gryphaea corrugata Say, 1823. 1. Say (in Thomas, 1823, pp. 410-411) established the name Gryphaea corrugata fora Lower Cretaceous bivalve from southeastern Oklahoma. He gave only a brief and rather vague description, no illustration and an uncertain locality and stratigraphic unit. The specimen or specimens on which the species is based are not extant. 2. Morton (1834, p. 55) named Gryphaea pitcheri on the basis of specimens collected from the same general area as G. corrugata. Morton’s description was brief but he illustrated the holotype (pl. 15, fig. 9) which is extant (Philadelphia Academy of Sciences no. 14,351). It has been studied by subsequent authors such as Hill & Vaughan (1898, pl. 6, figs. 5—7), Stanton (1947, pl. 10, figs. 4, 5) and Fay (1975, figs. 19, 20). 3. The name Gryphaea corrugata was not used from the time it was established until Hill & Vaughan (1898, pp. 34-35) resurrected it as a senior synonym of G. pitcheri. However, Hill & Vaughan did not designate a lectotype or neotype for G. corrugata although they recognized that Say’s specimens were not available. They made collect- ions of what they called G. corrugata from the upper Kiamichi Formation, 23 km northwest of the mouth of the Kiamichi River (near Goodland, Oklahoma), and stated (p. 57) that this was the ‘exact locality’ of Say’s specimens. 4. Subsequent workers who discussed the Lower Cretaceous North American species of Gryphaea, such as Stanton (1947, p. 26) and Stenzel (1959, p. 27) used G. corrugata as a senior synonym of G. pitcheri on the authority of Hill & Vaughan (1898). Stenzel (1959, p. 22) established the subgenus Texigryphaea for the North American Cretaceous species studied by Hill & Vaughan (1898) and later (1971, p. 1113) raised Texigryphaea to generic rank. 5. Fay (1975) reviewed the occurrence and characteristics of the type specimens of all Texigryphaea species. He stated that the characteristic features of T. corrugata could not be definitely established and ascertained that the area from which Say’s specimens of G. corrugata were collected did not include the locality Hill & Vaughan (1898) believed them to have come from. Fay did establish precisely the locality for Morton’s Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 227 type specimen of G. pitcheri. He recommended (1975, p. 46) that the name Texigry- phaea corrugata, which he described as being a nomen nudum, be suppressed and that T. pitcheri take its place. 6. According to Fay’s information, the area from which Say’s specimens of G. corrugata were collected (west of Fort Towson, Oklahoma) is about 40 square kilometres in extent and includes exposures of the Goodland, Kiamichi and Caddo (= Duck Creek and Fort Worth) formations. These formations in this area contain four species of Texigryphaea. This area is at least 8 km from the location where Hill & Vaughan believed Say’s G. corrugata specimens were obtained. Thus, the locality and stratigraphic unit from which the original specimens of G. corrugata were collected remain uncertain and can be limited only to a relatively large area. Because of the vagueness of Say’s original description of G. corrugata and lack of a type specimen, it is also uncertain which of the four locally-occurring species of Texigryphaea the name T. corrugata applies to. 7. Since 1975, the name Texigryphaea corrugata has been used in fossil lists by some workers (e.g. Kauffman, 1977, p. 227) and the name T. pitcheri by others (e.g. Scott, 1986, p. 200) for the same species. 8. The observations above lead to the following conclusions regarding Gryphaea corrugata: (1) Say’s (1823) description of the species is too general to allow the species to be identified without question, and therefore its status as a senior synonym of G. pitcheri or its identity with some other related species cannot be firmly established; (2) there is no evidence that Say (1823) designated a type specimen, nor have subsequent workers; (3) the specimen on which Say based the species G. corrugata is not extant and was not available to Hill & Vaughan in 1898 when they resurrected the name; (4) the locality and stratigraphic unit from which G. corrugata was originally described cannot be determined exactly and, therefore, meaningful topotypes cannot be collected in order to define the species better. 9. Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834, on the other hand, is represented by a holotype from an accurately known locality and stratum; topotypes can be collected and the original brief description augmented so that this species can be characterized in detail. 10. Although the name Gryphaea corrugata Say predates G. pitcheri by 11 years, strict application of the Principle of Priority and continued usage of G. corrugata would continue to result in an unrecognizable species name being applied to an abundant and widespread species for which a firmly established name, T. pitcheri, is available. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name corrugata Say, 1823, as published in the binomen Gryphaea corrugata, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pitcheri Morton, 1834, as published in the binomen Gryphaea pitcheri; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name corrugata Say, 1823, as published in the binomen Gryphaea corrugata and as suppressed in (1) above. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 References Fay, R. O. 1975. The type species of Mortoniceras and the holotype specimens of Lower Creta- ceous Texigryphaea of the southwestern United States. Oklahoma Geology Notes, 35: 43—-S7. Hill, R. T. & Vaughan, T. W. 1898. The Lower Cretaceous gryphaeas of the Texas region. Bulletin of the U.S. Geological Survey, 151: 1-139. Kauffman, E. G. 1977. Illustrated guide to biostratigraphically important Cretaceous macro- fossils, Western Interior basin, U.S.A. The Mountain Geologist, 14: 225-274. Morton, S. G. 1834. Synopsis of the organic remains of the Cretaceous group of the United States. 88 pp. Key & Biddle, Philadelphia. Say, T. 1823. Descriptions of fossils, in James, E., Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, performed in the years 1819 and ‘20, under the command of Major Stephen H. Long. Vol. 2, 442 pp. Carey & Lea, Philadelphia. Scott, R. W. 1986. Biogeographic influences on Early Cretaceous paleocommunities, Western Interior. Journal of Paleontology, 60: 197-207. Stanton, T. W. 1947. Studies of some Comanche pelecypods and gastropods. Professional Papers of the U.S. Geological Survey, 211: 1-256. Stenzel, H. B. 1959. Cretaceous oysters of southwestern North America. E/ Sistema Cretacico, Congreso Geologico International, XX Sesion, Ciudad de Mexico, 1956: 15-37. Stenzel, H. B. 1971. Oysters, in Moore, R. C. (ed.) Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, Vol. 3, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas, pp. N953-N1224. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 229 Case 2554 Mpyriochele Malmgren, 1867 and Myriochele oculata Zaks, 1923 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation Rune Nilsen Institute of Biology and Geology, University of Tromso, P.O. Box 3085, N-9001 Tromso, Norway Torleif Holthe Granvegen 27a, N-7058 Jakobsli, Trondheim, Norway Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 and the specific name oculata Zaks, 1923 for a marine bristleworm. The generic name is threatened by two senior subjective synonyms, Clymenia Orsted, 1844 and Psammocollus Grube, 1866, both unused for over 50 years. The specific name oculata Zaks, 1923 is preferred to tenuissima Orsted, 1844 for which there is no extant type material. 1. Orsted (1844, p. 79) established the genus C/ymenia for the single species Clymenia tenuissima. His description, in the form of a footnote, was barely adequate even for that time. This description was later repeated by Quatrefages (1865, p. 235), who provided no additional information. The specimens were collected at Hellebek, Denmark, but all original material is almost certainly lost. It could not be found in the collections of the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen when one of us (R.N.) visited the museum in July, 1985. 2. The genus Psammocollus was established by Grube (1866, p. 178) for the single species (type species by monotypy) Psammocollus australis, from St Paul Island (in the Southern Indian Ocean). The type material is not extant; it is not mentioned among the types of Grube by Wiktor (1980) who states that other types from. the same expedition (Novara) are in the collection of the Museum of Natural History at Wroclaw University. 3. Malmgren (1867, pp. 101-102) established the genus Myriochele for his single new species Myriochele heeri (type by monotypy; type localities: Trygghavn, Svalbard and Omenak, Greenland). The types of Myriochele heeri remain in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm. 4. Grube (1866, p. 179) wrote: ‘Die Gattung Cl/ymenia Orsd., von der wir leider bloss eine Beschreibung, keine Abbildung besitzen, und deren einzige Art Cl. tenuissima nicht weiter charakterisirt ist, scheint unserem Psammocollus sehr nahe zu stehen, unterscheidet sich aber dadurch, dass die Segmente zahlreich und deutlich, der Kopftheil keulenformig, der Mund endstandig und das Hinterende plattgedriickt sein soll. Die Borsten sollen wie bei Clymene beschaffen sein’ [The genus Clymenia Orsd., of 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 which we regrettably only have a description and no figure, and whose only species C7. tenuissima is not more precisely characterised, seems to be close to our Psammocollus, but is different by the segments being numerous and distinct, the head region conical, the mouth terminal, and the hind part should be compressed. The bristles should be like those of Clymene.]. Later Grube (1868a, p. 58) mentioned: ‘Er [Malmgren] beschreibt noch eine zweite Gattung Myriochele, die mit Psammocollus Gr. fast zusammenzufallen scheint, .. .” [He (Malmgren) describes another genus Myriochele, which seems to be almost identical with Psammocollus Gr. . . .]. 5. Grube (1868b) published a Latin diagnosis of the genus Psammocollus and the species australis together with a German description and accompanying figures. It has apparently been overlooked that he also published only the Latin diagnosis in Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Koniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, the title page of which bears the date 1866 and thus antedates Malmgren’s work by one year. One reason why the priority of this work has been misinterpreted is that certain authors of standard reference works (e.g. Hartman, 1951; Fauchald, 1977) have erroneously given the year of publication as 1869 rather than 1866. 6. McIntosh (1885, p. 410) was the first author who explicitly stated that Psammo- collus and Myriochele were synonyms: ‘The Psammocollus of Grube is synonymous with Malmgren’s Myriochele’. 7. Webster & Benedict (1887, p. 746) wrote: ‘In the same year (1867) Malmgren described a new genus of this family [Ammocharidae] under the name Myriochele and Grube (Novara-Expedition, Anneliden), the same genus, and probably the same species, giving to it the name Psammocollus (australis). We do not know which name is entitled to priority.’ In fact, Grube’s name was published in 1866 (see para. 5). 8. Arwidsson (1906, p. 23) wrote: ‘Es mag hier erwant werden, dass Clymenia tenuissima Orsted (9, p. 79) offenbar der Gattung Myriochele Malmgren angehGrt, vgl, im ubrigen 7, p. 186!’ [Here it may be mentioned that Clymenia tenuissima Orsted (9, p. 79) obviously belongs to the genus Myriochele Malmgren, cf. additionally 7, p. 186!]. 9. Weagree with earlier authors that Clymeniais a synonym of Myriochele but we do not agree with Grube (1866) and Hartman (1959) that C/ymenia tenuissima is indeter- minable. On the contrary we believe that it is the very species that was later described as Myriochele oculata by Zaks (1923, p. 163; cf. Zachs, 1923). The name oculata has been accepted in Russia since its description, and in the rest of the World since the translation in 1965 of USakov’s (1955) fauna, whereas tenuissima has not been used by any author other than @rsted. In western Europe between 1844 and 1965 this common species was misidentified as either M. heeri or M. danielsseni, which are clearly distinct species, or left unidentified as Myriochele sp. It is pertinent to note here that among all tubicolous polychaetes the genus Myriochele is notorious for the extreme difficulty by which the animals can be removed uninjured from their tubes. Even when the animals are secured free from their tubes, the characters are hard to establish. Our 1985 paper on the Scandinavian and Arctic OWENIIDAE is partly based on scanning electron micro- graphs of the morphological structure. M. oculata is one of the most abundant macro- fauna species in Norwegian fjords, and the suppression of tenuissima @rsted, 1844 is requested for the sake of stability. 10. Dr Mary E. Petersen (pers. comm.) has pointed out the existence in the Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, of a drawing of C. tenuissima probably made by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 231 Thornam, and probably from sketches by Orsted. The drawing has a hand written legend, but there is no manuscript that can be connected with it and it does not constitute publication under the Code. The drawing has a striking resemblance to that published by us of oculata in 1985 (p. 24, fig. 7), and confirms informally the synonymy of C. tenuissima and M. oculata. 11. There can be little doubt that Clymenia, Psammocollus and Myriochele are the same genus. Unfortunately, because various authors have given the date of publication for Psammocollus as either 1867 (Webster & Benedict, 1877; Southern, 1921) or 1868 (Hartman, 1959; Fauchald, 1977; Nilsen & Holthe, 1985) the synonymy between it and Myriochele has generally been overlooked. 12. The genus Galathowenia Kirkegaard, 1959 (type species G. africana Kirkegaard, 1959 by monotypy) is considered by us (1985) and by Blake & Dean (1973) to be a further synonym of Myriochele. This is however a subjective judgement on a junior nominal taxon and should not affect the current problem. 13. Strict application of the Code would require accepting the name Clymenia @rsted or Psammocollus Grube for the species currently included in Myriochele Malmgren. This would necessitate new combinations for 15 species and would alter the widely accepted nomenclature of these taxa. The Secretariat holds a list of twelve central works on polychaete taxonomy and ecology in which Myriochele is preferred to Clymenia and Psammocollus. Conservation of the name Myriochele is therefore essential in order to maintain nomenclatural stability for this cosmopolitan genus which includes some of the most abundant species of the marine level-bottom fauna. As far as we know, the names Clymenia and Psammocollus have been unused for at least the last 50 years. 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) To use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) the generic names: (i) Clymenia Orsted, 1844; (ii) Psammocollus Grube, 1866; (b) the specific name tenuissima Orsted, 1844, as published in the binomen Clymenia tenuissima; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Myriochele heeri Malmgren, 1867; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) heeri Malmgren, 1867, as published in the binomen Myriochele heeri (specific name of the type species of Myriochele Malmgren, 1867); (b) oculata Zaks, 1923, as published in the binomen Myriochele oculata; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Clymenia @rsted, 1844, as suppressed in (1) (a) (i) above; (b) Psammocollus Grube, 1866, as suppressed in (1) (a) (ii) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name tenuissima Orsted, 1844 as published in the binomen Clymenia tenuissima and as suppressed in (1) (b) above. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Acknowledgements We wish to thank Dr Mary E. Petersen, University of Copenhagen, for help in the search of types and literature, and Dr Jon-Arne Sneli, University of Trondheim, for a critical review of the manuscript. References Arwidsson, L. 1906. Studien tiber die skandinavischen und arktischen Maldaniden nebst Zusammenstellung der iibrigen bisher bekannten Arten dieser Familie. Dissertation. 308 pp. Uppsala (also published in 1907 in Zoologische Jahrbuch. Supplement 9: 1-308.) Blake, J. A. & Dean, D. 1973. Polychaetous annelids collected by the R.V. Hero from Baffin Island, Davis Strait, and West Greenland in 1968. Bulletin of the Southern Californian Academy of Sciences, 72(1): 31-39. Fauchald, K. 1977. The polychaete worms. Definitions and keys to the orders, families and genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Science Series, 28: 1-188. Grube, A. E. 1866. Beschreibungen neuer von der Novara-Expedition mitgebrachter Anneliden und einer neuen Landplanarie. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Kéniglichen zoologisch- botanischen Gessellschaft in Wien, 16: 173-184. Grube, A. E. 1868a. Vortrag iiber die Familie der Maldaniden. Jahres-Bericht der schlesischen Gesellschaft fiir vaterlandische Cultur 1867. 45: 52-58. (Translated in Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)2(12): 393-399). Grube, A. E. 1868b. Reise der dsterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde in den Jahren 1857, 1858, 1859 unter den Befehlen des Commodore B. von Wullerstorf-Urbair. Zoologischer Theil, 2: 1—46. Hartman, O. 1951. Literature of the polychaetous annelids. 290 pp. Los Angeles. Hartman, O. 1959. Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. Occasional Papers of the Allan Hancock Foundation, 23(1,2): 1-628. Kirkegaard, J. B. 1959. The Polychaeta of West Africa. Atlantide Report, 5: 7-117. McIntosh, W. C. 1885. Report on the Annelida Polychaeta collected by HMS Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Challenger Report, 12: 1-554. Malmgren, A. J. 1867. Spetsbergens, Grénlands, Islands och den Skandinaviska halféns hittills kdnda Annulata Polychaeta. 127 pp. Frenckell & Son, Helsingfors. Nilsen, R. & Holthe, T. 1985. Arctic and Scandinavian Oweniidae (Polychaeta) with a description of Myriochele fragilis sp. n. and comments on the phylogeny of the family. Sarsia, 70: 17-32. Orsted, A. S. 1844. De regionibus marinis. Elementa topographiae historiconaturalis, Freti Oresund. [Dissertation.] Copenhagen. (Annelida pp. 78-79). 88 pp. Hauniae. Quatrefages, M. A. de 1865. Histoire naturelle des Annelés marins et d’eau douce. Annélides et Géphyriens, vol. 2(1). 588 pp. Librarie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Southern, R. 1921. Polychaeta of the Chilka Lake and also of fresh and brackish waters in other parts of India. Memoirs of the Indian Museum, 5: 563-659. USakov, P. V. 1955. Mnogo&éetinkovye Cervi dal’nevostocnyh morej SSSR. Fauna SSSR, 56: 1-445. Ushakovy, P. V. 1965. Polychaeta of the far eastern seas of the U.S.S.R. Israel programme for Scientific translations, xi, 419 pp. Webster, H. E. & Benedict, J. E. 1887. The Annelida Chaetopoda, from Eastport, Maine. Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 1885: 707—755. Wiktor, J. 1980. Type specimens of Annelida Polychaeta in the Museum of Natural History of the Wroclaw University. Annales Zoologici. Instytut Zoologici, Polska Akademia Nauk, 35(20): 267-283. Zachs, I. G. 1923. Sur un nouveau Ammocharidae (Myriochele oculata n.sp.) provenant de lexpédition du Prof Deruguine dans la Mer-Blanche en 1922. Travaux de la Société des Naturalistes de Petrograd. Comptes Rendus des Séances, 53(1): 171-174. Zaks, I. G. 1923. Novyi vid polikhetyiz sem. Ammocharidae: Myriochele oculata n.sp. Trudy Petrogradskoga Obshchestva Estestvoispytatelei, 53(1): 163. [Russian abstract of French paper on pp. 171-174.] Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 233 Case 2637 Buthus vittatus (currently Centruroides vittatus; Arachnida, Scorpionida): proposed recognition of Wood (1863) as author of the specific name and designation of a neotype, and Centrurus hentzi (currently Centruroides hentzi) Banks, 1904: proposed conservation of the specific name Scott A. Stockwell Department of Entomology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. Herbert W. Levi Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the stabilization of names of North American scorpions which have in the past been misidentified. Say (1821) is commonly cited as the author of Centruroides vittatus, a Texas species, but he gave the name vittatus to the Florida scorpion now known as C. hentzi Banks, 1904. The Texas species was described by H. C. Wood (1863), who misidentified it as Scorpio carolinianus Beauvois, 1805 and gave Buthus vittatus Say in synonymy. 1. Say (1821, p. 61) described Buthus vittatus from the coastal islands of Georgia and Florida. Supposedly deposited in the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, the types of Buthus vittatus cannot be located (Dr A. E. Bogan, Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, pers. comm.). Say apparently took them with him to a commune in New Harmony, Indiana, where they were destroyed by fire (Ms E. Benamy, Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, pers. comm.). 2. Wood (1863, p. 363), thinking that he was dealing with Scorpio carolinianus Palisot de Beauvois, 1805, listed Buthus vittatus Say, 1821 as a junior synonym of Buthus carolinianus. Wood was describing specimens of a new species from Texas and had never seen specimens of S. carolinianus or B. vittatus. While Pocock (1902, p. 24) recognized that Wood had misidentified the Texas species by referring it to Scorpio carolinianus, he (p. 25), Ewing (1928, p. 19) and Comstock (1940, p. 27) continued to recognize the Texas species as Centruroides vittatus (Say, 1821), a much less apparent misidentification. 3. Although lacking several important taxonomic characters, the original descrip- tion of B. vittatus Say, 1821 is sufficient to determine the identity of the taxon. The fact that Say had collected the type series from the coastal islands of southern Georgia and northern Florida further indicates that he had described the taxon currently known as Centruroides hentzi (Banks, 1904), as this is the only species which occurs in that area. The taxon presently recognized as Centruroides vittatus is rarely found east of the Mississippi River and certainly is not indigenous to Florida or Georgia. 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 4. Banks (1904, p. 142) described Centrurus hentzi from Florida. The name hentzi, in combination with Centrurus or Centruroides, is that in use for this scorpion, and a list of 13 representative references has been given to the Commission Secretariat. The name vittatus Say, 1821 has not been used for the species by authors of recent times who have distinguished the Texas and Florida taxa. 5. The name vittatus (with Say, 1821 being cited as the author) has been applied to the Texas species, in combination with Centrurus or Centruroides, in a very large number of papers: a list of 50 references between 1888 and 1987 and a detailed account are held by the Commission Secretariat. 6. Following the Principle of Priority strictly, vittatus Say, 1821 is the senior subjec- tive synonym of hentzi Banks, 1904, and the Texas species currently known as vittatus should be referred to by its otherwise oldest synonym (Centruroides chisosarius Gertsch, 1939, now considered to be merely a color variant of vittatus sensu Wood). These changes would greatly upset stability and create confusion. 7. According to the guidelines given in Article 79 of the Code, accepted usage clearly does not warrant the application now of vittatus Say, 1821 to the Florida taxon, and hentzi Banks, 1904 should continue to be treated as the valid specific name. Usage of the name vittatus warrants its continued application to the Texas scorpion. Thus, there is a conflict between the need to suppress vittatus Say, 1821 to allow the continued use of hentzi Banks, 1904, and the retention of the name vittatus for the Texas species. 8. Since the species currently called vittatus is different from that so named by Say (1821), and Say’s types have long been destroyed, we propose that the authorship of Buthus vittatus be attributed to Wood (1863), since it was he who first described the taxon and applied the name toit (although in erroneous synonymy with B. carolinianus). There are specimens in the U.S. National Museum which may have been labelled by Wood, but their type status is doubtful and they are poorly preserved and difficult to recognize. We propose the designation of a neotype of B. vittatus sensu Wood. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name vittatus Say, 1821, as published in the binomen Buthus vittatus, and all uses of that name before that by Wood (1863), for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name vittatus Wood, 1863, as published in the binomen Buthus vittatus, is an available name; (3) to use its plenary powers to designate as the neotype of Buthus vittatus Wood, 1863 the adult male specimen labelled ‘Buthus vittatus Wood, 1863, NEOTYPE, Det. S.A. Stockwell’, from ‘Brackettville, Kinney Co., Texas, 21 May 1984(S.A. Stockwell)’ which is deposited in the U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) hentzi Banks, 1904, as published in the binomen Centrurus hentzi; (b) vittatus Wood, 1863, as published in the binomen Buthus vittatus, as ruled to be available in (2) above and as defined by the neotype designated in (3) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name vittatus Say, 1821, as published in the binomen Buthus vittatus and as suppressed in (1) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 235 References Banks, N. 1904. The Arachnida from Florida. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 56: 120-147. Comstock, J. H. 1940. The Spider Book; a manual for the study of the spiders and their near relatives, the scorpions, pseudoscorpions, whip-scorpions, harvestmen, and other members of the class Arachnida, found in America north of Mexico, with analytical keys for their classifi- cation and popular accounts of their habits. 729 pp. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Ewing, H. E. 1928. The scorpions of the western part of the United States, with notes on those occurring in northern Mexico. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 73(9): 1-24. Pocock, R. I. 1902. Arachnida Scorpiones, Pedipalpi and Solifugae. In Godman, F. D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali- Americana, Part 12. 71 pp., 12 pls. London. Say, T. 1821. An account of the Arachnides of the United States. Journal of the Philadelphia Academy of Sciences, 1: 59-65. Wood, H. C. 1863. On the Pedipalpi of North America. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5(2): 357-376. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2711 Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species J.K. Lowry & H. E. Stoddart Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, NSW 2000, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the nominal species Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936, a genus of lysianassoid amphipod. The original designation was of a misidentified species. This proposal maintains Shoemakerella in its original meaning. 1. Pirlot (1936, p. 264) established the genus Shoemakerella and designated Lysianassa nasuta Dana, 1853 (p. 915) as the nominal type species, with Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 (p. 29) as a junior subjective synonym. 2. For the reasons given below we believe that Pirlot based his diagnosis of the genus on a misidentified type species, and we refer the case to the Commission in accordance with Article 70b of the Code. 3. Lysianassa nasuta was described trom material collected at Rio de Janeiro by the U.S. Exploring Expedition 1838-1842. The type material is considered lost (T. Bowman, U.S. National Museum of Natural History, in litt.) and the species has not been re-collected from Rio de Janeiro despite recent attempts to find it (J. L. Barnard and J. D. Thomas, in litt.). 4. Lysianax cubensis was described from a single specimen in the Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, collected in Cuba. This type is also considered lost (T. Wolff, Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, in litt., and J. Ellis, British Museum (Natural History), in litt.). Lysianax Stebbing, 1888 is an unnecessary replacement name for Lysianassa H. Milne Edwards, 1830. 5. Shoemaker (1935) pointed out that Lysianassa cubensis had been misidentified as Lysianopsis alba Holmes, 1904. He recorded L. cubensis from Puerto Rico and Florida and re-illustrated some parts. 6. Pirlot (1936, pp. 256, 265) stated that he had identified Lysianopsis alba from material collected at Rio de Janeiro and this led him to think that perhaps Lysianopsis alba was a synonym of Lysianassa nasuta. He had written to Shoemaker about this possibility. Shoemaker sent material of Lysianopsis alba and Lysianassa cubensis to Pirlot, and replied that he [Shoemaker] had overlooked Dana’s Lysianassa nasuta and that in his opinion L. cubensis was a junior synonym of L. nasuta. 7. Acomparison of the third uropods in the original illustrations of L. nasutaand L. cubensis is sufficient to show, however, that they are not conspecific. In L. cubensis the peduncle of uropod 3 is short, with a strong lateral flange, and the rami are short and strongly tapered; in L. nasuta the peduncle is longer, the flange is absent and the rami are longer and more cylindrical. i i ees A thee gaa EN Mi a AGEL EL ALL I AL LE Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 237 8. Inhis diagnosis of the genus Shoemakerella Pirlot (1936, p. 265) described uropod 3 as “court, présentant du c6dte externe et dorsal une expansion lamellaire’”’. This description fits L. cubensis but not L. nasuta. The diagnosis also described antenna 2 as being the same in both sexes, “‘(d’aprés Shoemaker)”’, a character not reported for L. nasuta and known only from Shoemaker’s (1935, p. 234) report of L. cubensis. In designating the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot wrote ““Shoemakerella nasuta Dana, espéce redécrite ensuite par Stebbing sous le nom de Lysianax cubensis.” The conclusion is inescapable that Pirlot’s genus was in fact based on Stebbing’s figures of L. cubensis and the L. cubensis material sent to him by Shoemaker. 9. The species described by Dana as Lysianassa nasuta remains obscure. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that it does not fit Pirlot’s concept of Shoemakerella and probably belongs in either Lysianopsis or Lysianassa. 10. Shoemakerella has twice been placed in synonymy: with Lysianopsis Holmes, 1904 by Hurley (1963, pp. 70, 73), and with Lysianassa Milne Edwards, 1830 by Barnard (1969, p. 175). Both Hurley and Barnard specifically stated that their concept of Shoemakerella was based on L. cubensis. 11. We consider Pirlot’s concept of Shoemakerella, based not on the nominal type species Lysianassa nasuta Dana, 1853 but on actual specimens of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897, to represent a valid genus. We have several new species which should be assigned to this genus and we know of at least one other worker in a similar situation. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936, and to designate as the type species Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Shoemaker- ella Pirlot, 1936 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cubensis Stebbing, 1897, as published in the binomen Lysianax cubensis (specific name of the type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936). References Barnard, J. L. 1969. Gammaridean Amphipoda of the rocky intertidal of California: Monterey Bay to La Jolla. United States National Museum Bulletin, 258: 1-230. Dana, J. D. 1853. Crustacea. Part II. United States Exploring Expedition during the years 1838-42 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., Vol. 13, part 2 (pp. 689-1618). Holmes, S. J. 1904. On some new or imperfectly known species of West American Crustacea. Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, Series 3, 3(12): 307-330. Hurley, D. E. 1963. Amphipoda of the family Lysianassidae from the west coast of North and Central America. Allan Hancock Foundation Publications, Occasional Papers, 25: 1-160. Milne Edwards, H. 1830. Extrait de recherches pour servir 4 l’histoire naturelle des Crustacés Amphipodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 20: 353-399. Pirlot, J. M. 1936. Les amphipodes de l’expédition du Siboga. Deuxiéme partie: Les amphipodes gammarides, II._Les amphipodes de la mer profonde. 3: Addendum et partie générale. III]— Les amphipodes littoraux. 1: Lysianassidae-Gammaridae. Siboga-Expeditie, Monographs, 33e: 237-328. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Shoemaker, C. R. 1935. The amphipods of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands (New York Academy of Sciences), 15: 229-253. Stebbing, T. R. R. 1888. Report on the Amphipoda collected by H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-1876. Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. Challenger during the years 1873-76, Zoology, vol. 29. 1737 pp., 212 pl. Stebbing, T. R. R. 1897. Amphipoda from the Copenhagen Museum and other sources. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, (2), Zoology, 7: 25-45. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 239 Case 2685 Corisa verticalis Fieber, 1851 (currently Trichocorixa verticalis; Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Antti Jansson Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the water- boatman species Corisa verticalis Fieber, 1851 by the suppression of the unused senior subjective synonym Sigara lineata Fabricius, 1787. 1. Forster (1771, p. 70) described Notonecta lineata from the New York area. This species is currently known as Sigara (Lasiosigara) lineata (Forster) (cf. Hungerford, 1948, p. 645). 2. Fabricius (1787, p. 276) described Sigara lineata from Cajennae (=Surinam). Jansson (1986, p. 21) discovered one syntype of this species in the Fabricius collection (Copenhagen), and was able to identify it as conspecific with Trichocorixa verticalis verticalis (Fieber), originally described by Fieber (1851, p. 24; 1852, p. 236) as Corisa verticalis from Pennsylvania. Since Sigara lineata Fabricius, 1787 is no longer congeneric with Sigara lineata (Forster, 1771), the former name cannot be rejected as a junior secondary homonym (Article 59c of the Code). 3. The most recent reference to the name Sigara lineata Fabricius, 1787 seems to be Kirkaldy (1897, p. 240), who for reasons of homonymy replaced Sigara lineata Fieber (1844, p. 15; 1845, p. 293) with S. m-notata, with a note “‘(nec. Fab.)’’; this species is currently known as Micronecta m-notata (Kirkaldy). Quite surprisingly, Hungerford (1948) totally omitted mention of S. lineata Fabricius from his monograph of the CORIXIDAE of the western hemisphere. 4. Being available, Sigara lineata Fabricius, 1787 has priority over Corixa verticalis Fieber, 1851. However, resurrecting this long unused senior synonym would cause considerable confusion, because Trichocorixa verticalis (Fieber) is well known in the recent literature (a comprehensive list of 15 references is held by the Secretariat). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name lineata Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Sigara lineata, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name verticalis Fieber, 1851, as published in the binomen Corisa verticalis; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name /ineata Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Sigara lineata and as suppressed in (1) above. 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 References Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens species nuper detectas adiectas synonymis, observationibus, descriptionibus, emendationibus, vol. 2. 382 pp. Impensis Christ. Gottl., Hafniae. Fieber, F. X. 1844 (1845). Entomologische Monographien. 138 pp., 10 tab. Barth, (Leipzig) Prag (preprint from Abhandlungen der B6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 3: 277-416). Fieber, F. X. 1851 (1852). Species generis Corisa. 48 pp., 2 tab. Calve, Pragae (preprint from Abhandlungen der Béhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, 7: 213-260). Forster, J. R. 1771. Novae species Insectorum. Centuria 1. 100 pp. White, London. Hungerford, H. B. 1948. (reprinted 1977). The Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere (Hemiptera). The University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 32: 1-827. Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 47: 1-94. Kirkaldy, G. W. 1897. Notes on the genus Sigara, Fabr. (Rhynchota). The Entomologist, 30: 238-240. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 241 Case 2678 Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name, and Rhyncolus Germar, 1817: proposed designation of Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species R. T. Thompson Department of Entomology, British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the leaf weevil Phyllobius viridicollis (Fabricius, 1792). The name is threatened by the hitherto misidentified senior subjective synonym Curculio cloropus Linnaeus, 1758. The orig- inally designated type species of Rhyncolus Germar, 1817 was based on a previous misidentification of C. cloropus and it is proposed that Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758 be formally designated, in accordance with Germar’s intention and subsequent usage. Both viridicollis and ater occur commonly in central and northern Europe. 1. The name Curculio cloropus was established by Linnaeus (1758, p. 385) but has been misapplied by all subsequent authors. Its true identity as a senior synonym of C. viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 was recently established (Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga, 1988, p. 84) by examining the syntypes in the collection of the Linnean Society of London. A female lectotype and male paralectotype were designated by Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga (1988, p. 84). 2. The name Curculio viridicollis was proposed by Fabricius in 1792 (p. 469). The species has always been correctly interpreted and has no junior synonyms, subspecies or varieties. I have examined the two syntype specimens, kindly lent to me by Dr O. Martin from the University Zoological Museum, Copenhagen, and found they conform with the customary interpretation of the species. The species, now included in the genus Phyllobius Germar, 1824, is a leaf weevil which occurs commonly in central and northern Europe. The adult has been found on a wide variety of plants, both herbaceous and woody. It has been recorded as a pest of fruit trees (Dieckmann, 1980, p. 206) and of forest trees (Schindler, 1974, p. 269). Fifty references to this species are listed by Lona (1938, p. 453). 3. In 1817 Germar (p. 340) designated ‘Hylesinus cloropus Fab.’ as the type species of his new genus Rhyncolus. Fabricius’s misuse of the name cloropus began in his work of 1787 (p. 117) in which he misidentified Linnaeus’s cloropus and synonymized it with Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758, a wood-boring weevil. This action has caused doubt and confusion ever since. The names ater and cloropus occur on the same page (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 385); a survey of 100 works on European Coleoptera showed that just over half have used ater as the valid name, while the remainder have used cloropus (sometimes spelled chloropus) for the same species (see Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga, 1988, 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 p. 84). Olivier (1790, p. 540) did not accept the synonymy and it has been recognized by many subsequent authors that cloropus of Fabricius is not the same species as cloropus Linnaeus, 1758, and that it, and not cloropus Linnaeus, is synonymous with Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758. C. ater is the valid name for the type species of Rhyncolus; a female lectotype was designated by Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga (1988, p. 85) from syntypes in the collection of the Linnean Society of London. This species has a similar range to Phyllobius viridicollis and is equally prominent in the literature (see Csiki, 1936, p. 179). Both species have occurred together, and will continue to do so, in any comprehensive work on northern or central European weevils. 4. Clearly, to apply the name cloropus Linnaeus, 1758 to the species now known as Phyllobius viridicollis would inevitably cause grave confusion. This can be avoided, and stability of nomenclature maintained, by suppressing the name cloropus Linnaeus, 1758. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the specific name cloropus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio cloropus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Rhyncolus Germar, 1817 and to designate Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Rhyncolus Germar, 1817 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(b) above Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) ater Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio ater (specific name of the type species of Rhyncolus Germar, 1817); (b) viridicollis Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio viridicollis; (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name cloropus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Curculio cloropus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above. References Csiki, E. 1936. Curculionidae: Rhynchophorinae, Cossoninae. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 149: 1-219. Dieckmann, L. 1980. Beitrage zur Insektenfauna der DDR: Coleoptera-Curculionidae (Brachy- cerinae, Otiorhynchinae, Brachyderinae). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, Berlin, 30(1): 145-310. Fabricius, J. C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum sistens eorum species nuper detestas: adjectis characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus. xx, 348 pp. Hafniae. Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Hafniae. Germar, E. F. 1817. Miscellen und Correspondez-Nachrichten. Pp. 339-341 in Germar, E. F. (Ed.), Magazin der Entomologie, vol. 2, x, 346 pp. Germar, E. F. 1824. Insectorum species novae aut minus cognitae, descriptionibus illustratae, vol. 1. xxiv, 624 pp. J. C. Hendel, Halae. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Lona, C. 1938. Curculionidae: Otiorhynchinae 3. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 162: 415-600. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 243 Olivier, G. A. 1790. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle. Insectes, vol. 5. 793 pp. Panckoucke, Paris. Schindler, U. 1974. Adelognathi, Kurzriissler. Pp. 252-271 Forstschddlinge Europas, vol. 2. Kifer. viii, 500 pp. Parey, Hamburg & Berlin. Thompson, R. T. & Alonso-Zarazaga, M. A. 1988. On some weevil species described by Linnaeus (Coleoptera, Curculionidae). Entomologica Scandinavica, 19(1): 81-86. in Schwenke, W. (Ed.), Die 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2676 Ochthebius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798 as the type species M. Hansen Department of Entomology, Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Kobenhavn, Denmark Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798 as the nominal type species of the water beetle genus Ochthebius Leach, 1815, since the first type species designation makes the genus a junior objective synonym of Hydraena Kugelann, 1794. 1. Leach (1815, pp. 95-96) erected the genus Ochthebius with two included species: (i) ‘“Hydraena riparia Mlliger, Latr.” (with the synonyms “ Elopherus [sic] prygmaeus [sic] Paykull’”’, ‘‘Elopherus [sic] minimus Fabr.” and “Hydrophilus impressus Marsham’’) and (ii) ‘““Elophorus marinus Paykull” (with the synonyms “Hydraena margipalleus Latr.” and “Hydrophilus margipalleus Marsh.”). No type species was designated by Leach. 2. The first designation of a type species was by Brullé (1835, p. 308) who designated “Ochthebius riparius Illig.”’ (with the synonyms “Hydraena riparia’ and “Elophorus pygmaeus Gyllenh.”’). However, Hydraena riparia was not described as a new species by Illiger, which is obvious from his (1798, p. 279) reference to ““Kugelann.Schneid. M.579”’, so the species is really Hydraena riparia Kugelann, 1794. This species is the type species of Hydraena Kugelann, 1794 by monotypy. Thus although Leach and Brullé wrongly attributed Kugelann’s species, Ochthebius is formally a junior objective synonym of Hydraena, a name in current use and the type genus of the HYDRAENIDAE. 3. Other authors, e.g. Hope (1839, p. 148), Westwood (1840, p. 9), Chenu (1853, p. 239) and Thomson (1859, p. 15), have designated what they apparently considered to be the same species as the type species of Ochthebius, but under the name pygmaeus Fabricius. These designations might be considered valid if Brullé’s designation were to be suppressed, as Leach included pygmaeus Paykull as a synonym of riparia, and because Paykull (1798, p. 245) in his description of pygmaeus clearly refers to it as a Fabrician species (“Fabr.Ent.Syst.I.p.205.7 . . .”). Also Gyllenhal (1808, p. 133) clearly credits “his” pygmaeus (cf. para. 2) to Fabricius (“‘Fabr.syst.eleut.I.278.7”). Thus, according to the designation of Hope, followed by subsequent authors mentioned above, the type of Ochthebius would be Elophorus pygmaeus Fabricius, 1792. Unfortunately this was also a misidentified species, which later was identified as Helophorus granularis (Linnaeus, 1761), as confirmed by Angus (1969, p. 3). 4. Kuwert (1887) divided Ochthebius into a number of subgenera, placing pygmaeus Gyllenhal (with the synonyms “‘riparius Ill.” and “‘impressus Bedl.”’) in a new subgenus Homalochthebius (p. 383), and marinus Paykull in Ochthebius sensu stricto (p. 384). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 245 Perkins (1980, pp. 293, 388) indicated that Homalochthebius should be synonymised with the subgenus Asiobates Thomson, 1859, but he still maintained this and Ochthebius s.str. as separate subgenera. 5. Knisch (1924, p. 7) designated Hydrophilus impressus Marsham, 1802 as the type species of Ochthebius, but quite inconsistently he followed Kuwert in placing this species in Homalochthebius (p. 17) and marinus Paykull in Ochthebius s.str. (p. 27). 6. In an attempt to conserve the accustomed usage of the subgeneric names Orchymont (1942, p. 2) designated Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798 as the type species of Ochthebius. 7. The name Ochthebius Leach has now been used for more than 150 years for a well known and widely distributed water beetle genus, comprising more than 300 described species. Some authors have separated the two originally included species into different subgenera (of Ochthebius, with wrong priority since Hydraena is senior), with marinus consistently placed in Ochthebius s.str. A list of 15 representative references is held by the Commission Secretariat. ‘ 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress all designations of type species for the nominal genus Ochthebius Leach, 1815 prior to that by Orchymont (1942) of Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ochthebius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Orchymont (1942) Elophorus marinus Paykull, 1798, as ruled in (1) above; - (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name marinus Paykull, 1798, as published in the binomen Elophorus marinus (specific name of the type species of Ochthebius Leach, 1815). References Angus, R. B. 1969. Revisional notes on Helophorus F. |General introduction and some species resembling H. minutus F. The Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 105: 1-24. Brullé, A. 1835. Jn Audouin, B. & Brullé, A. Histoire Naturelle des Insectes, vol. 5. Coléoptéres 2. 436 pp. Pillot, Paris. Chenu, J. C. 1853. Encyclopédie d'Histoire Naturelle ..., vol. 1 Coléoptéres. 312 pp. Havard, Paris. Gyllenhal, L. 1808. Insecta Suecica, vol. 1, part 1. 572 pp. Scaris. Hope, F. W. 1839. The Coleopterist’s Manual, vol. 2. Predaceous Land and Water Beetles. xvi, 168 pp. Bohn, London. Illiger, J. K. W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens....41 pp.+510 pp. Gebauer, Halle. Knisch, A. 1924. Hydrophilidae. Jn Junk & Schenkling. Coleopterorum Catalogus, part 79. 306 pp. Berlin. Kugelann, J. G. 1794. Verzeichniss der in einigen Gegenden Preussens bis jetzt entdeckten K afer- Arten, nebst kurzen Nachrichten von denselben. Pp. 513-582. Jn Schneider, D. H. Neuestes Magazin fiir die Liebhaber der Entomologie, vol. 1, part 5. Kuwert, A. 1887. Uebersicht der europidischen Ochthebius-Arten. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 31: 369-401. Leach, W. E. 1815. Entomology. Pp. 57-172. Jn Brewster, D. Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 9. 766 pp. Balfour, Edinburgh. Orchymont, A. d’ 1942. Revision du sous-genre Homalochthebius Kuwert 1887 du genre Ochthebius Leach. Bulletin du Musée royal d'Histoire naturelle de Belgique, 18(39): 1-16. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Paykull, G. 1798. Fauna Suecica, Insecta. vol. 1. [8], 358 pp. Edman, Upsaliae. Perkins, P. D. 1980. Aquatic Beetles of the family Hydraenidae in the Western Hemisphere: Classification, biogeography and inferred phylogeny (Insecta, Coleoptera). Quaestiones Entomologicae, 16: 3-554. Thomson, C. G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, vol. 1. 290 pp. Lund. Westwood, J. O. 1840. An introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 2, appendix. Synopsis of the Genera of British Insects. 158 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 247 Case 2702 Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific names by the suppression of C. peus Speiser, 1904 Bruce F. Eldridge Department of Entomology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. Ralph E. Harbach Walter Reed Biosystematics Unit, Museum Support Center, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilize the name of the important American ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ as Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907, and also that of the species known as C. thriambus Dyar, 1921. A strict application of the Code would lead to confusion in the names of both species. 1. Speiser (1904, p. 148) published the name Culex peus as a replacement for Culex affinis Adams, 1903 (p. 25) [preoccupied by Culex affinis Stephens, 1825 (p. 452)]. He selected ‘peus’ as the Greek equivalent of the Latin ‘affinis’. Adams had described this species from Oak Creek Canyon, Arizona. 2. Dyar (1907, p. 121) described Culex stigmatosoma from specimens collected in Pasadena, California. Its range extends from the western United States to northern South America (Knight & Stone, 1977, p. 216). In California, it is commonly known as the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ (Bohart & Washino, 1978, p. 125); it is a common pest, and probably plays a role in arbovirus disease ecology. Stone (1958, p. 236) compared the types of C. stigmatosoma and C. peus and concluded that they were conspecific. He accordingly synonymized C. stigmatosoma under C. peus, and the latter name gradually entered general use (see below). 3. Dyar (1921, p. 33) published the name Culex thriambus, based on specimens collected in Kerrville, Texas. The range of this species is southwestern U.S. to northern Central America (Knight & Stone, 1977, p. 225). 4. Strickman (1988a, p. 484) re-examined the holotype of C. affinis Adams (i.e. C. peus) in much greater detail than had Stone (1958, p. 236) and concluded that it was not conspecific with C. stigmatosoma, but rather with C. thriambus. As a consequence, he synonymized C. thriambus under C. peus, and resurrected C. stigmatosoma for the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’. 5. This action has had one very serious negative consequence. It transferred the name C. peus from the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’, where it has been used in public health, ecological, and taxonomic literature for 30 years (1958-1988), to the southwestern species previously known as C. thriambus for 67 years (1921-1988). The 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 strict application of the Code in this way would cause enormous confusion in non-taxonomic literature and in literature indexes. For example, just in the Nowell Index to proceedings and papers of the California Mosquito and Vector Control Association (Nowell, 1982, p. 102) the name Culex peus (for the banded species) is cited at least 125 times. It would be nearly impossible for one doing literature searches to know which species bearing the name C. peus was being referred to, other than by implication from the date of publication. Furthermore, the use and construction of keys to western U.S. mosquito species in the public health literature would become complex and confusing. 6. This problem can be alleviated by suppressing the name Culex peus. Thus the name of the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ would become C. stigmatosoma, as it was for 51 years (1907-1958), and C. thriambus would remain as the name for the southwestern species. This action will have the advantage of stabilizing the name C. thriambus for a well established species concept. 7. We considered a course which would have had the effect of preserving the 1958— 1988 usage of the names peus and thriambus. This would have involved designating the holotype of C. stigmatosoma as a neotype of C. peus, using the Commission’s plenary powers to set aside the holotype of the latter. We discarded this course for the following reasons: (1) Culex stigmatosomaisa well described and aptly named Dyar species. Culex peus is a replacement name which is not in any way descriptive of the species, and is only 3 years senior to stigmatosoma. (2) Much more importantly, and as stated in para. 5, because of the published realignment of names by Strickman (1988a, 1988b) the name C. peus henceforth would be subject to confusion. There would be no such confusion from conservation of the names C. stigmatosoma and C. thriambus. Name changes are nearly always unpopular with applied biologists, and the 1958 change in the name of the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ to C. peus was only slowly accepted. However, with the appearance of the Strickman (1988a) paper, the name C. stigmatosoma has been quickly re-adopted in the economic literature. The Proceedings of the California Mosquito and Vector Control Association (Glenn Yoshimura, Editor, personal communication), the Journal of Medical Entomology (W. K. Reisen, Editor, personal communication), and the Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association (Ronald A. Ward, Editor, personal communication) all now use Culex stigmatosoma as a matter of editorial policy. We conclude that to attempt to go back to the 1958-1988 use of Culex peus at this point would create needless confusion. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name peus Speiser, 1904, as published in the binomen Culex peus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907, as published in the binomen Culex stigmatosoma; (b) thriambus Dyar, 1921, as published in the binomen Culex thriambus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name peus Speiser, 1904, as published in the binomen Culex peus and as suppressed in (1) above. ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 249 References Adams, C. F. 1903. Dipterological contributions. University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 2: 21-47. Bohart, R. M. & Washino, R. K. 1978. Mosquitoes of California, viii+ 153 pp. University of California, Berkeley. Dyar, H. G. 1907. Report on the mosquitoes of the coast region of California, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 32(1516): 121-129. Dyar, H. G. 1921. Ring-legged Culex in Texas (Diptera, Culicidae). Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 9: 32-34. Knight, K. L. & Stone, A. 1977. A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world (Diptera: Culicidae), xi+611 pp. Thomas Say Foundation, Entomological Society of America, College Park, Maryland. Nowell, W. R. 1982. The Nowell index of the proceedings and papers of the first fifty annual conferences of the California Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Inc. 1930-1982. 120 pp. California Mosquito and Vector Control Association, Inc., Sacramento, California. Speiser, P. 1904. Zur nomenclatur blutsaugender Dipteren Amerikas. Jnsektenborse, 21: 148. Stephens, J. F. 1825. Some observations on the British Tipulidae, together with descriptions of the species of Culex and Anopheles found in Britain. Zoological Journal of London, 1: 448-457. Stone, A. 1958. Types of mosquitoes described by C. F. Adams in 1903 (Diptera, Culicidae). Journal of the Kansas Entomological Society, 31: 235-237. Strickman, D. 1988a. Redescription of the holotype of Culex (Culex) peus Speiser and taxonomy of Culex (Culex) stigmatosoma Dyar and thriambus Dyar (Diptera: Culicidae). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 90: 484-494. Strickman, D. 1988b. Culex stigmatosoma and Culex peus: identification of adult females in the United States. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 4: 555—556. 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2694 Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805 as the type species Neal L. Evenhuis Gressitt Center for Research in Entomology, Department of Entomology, Bishop Museum, PO Box 19000-A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. David J. Greathead CAB International Institute of Biological Control, Imperial College, Silwood Park, Ascot, Berks., SL5 7TA, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the confirmation of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805 as the type species of the bombyliid fly genus Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840. This is in accordance with general usage; an overlooked designation of E. audouinii Macquart, 1840 would disturb the meanings of Exoprosopa and Ligyra Newman, 1841. 1. Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (p. 35) was originally established for 41 nominal species, some of which are now placed in other genera of the family BOMBYLIIDAE, commonly known as bee flies. Exoprosopa is a genus whose immatures are parasitoids of other holometabolous insects, primarily Hymenoptera [see DuMerle (1975) for an exhaustive list of hosts]. The concept of this genus has been primarily restricted to those anthracine bombyliid species with a subbasal tooth on the tarsal claw and the presence of three submarginal cells in the wing. The first type species designation in accordance with this usage was by Coquillett (1910, p. 544) of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805. 2. Although recently many species of Exoprosopa have been removed to other genera (Bowden, 1975, 1980), there still remain over 400 species in this cosmopolitan genus, which is the type genus for the bombyliid subfamily ExOPROSOPINAE Becker, 1913 (considered by some as a tribe within the subfamily ANTHRACINAE). The genus has been in common usage since its original description and its concept following Coquillett’s type species designation has been widely accepted. A list of 18 rep- resentative references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 3. Anearlier designation by Duponchel (1845, p. 545), one that had been previously overlooked, gave Exoprosopa audouinii Macquart, 1840, the first species listed under Exoprosopa by Macquart (1840), as the type species. Exoprosopa audouinii is considered a typical member of the pantropical genus Ligyra Newman, 1841 (e.g., Bowden, 1975b; Evenhuis, 1989). Acceptance of Duponchel’s designation would place Exoprosopa as a senior subjective synonym of Ligyra and result in about 100 new combinations. Litorhynchus Macquart, 1840, a little-known generic name with a taxo- nomically confusing history (see Bowden, 1975a), would be the next available name for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 251 those species previously placed in Exoprosopa sensu Coquillett, and such usage would result in hundreds of new combinations. 4. As Exoprosopa Macquartt, 1840 has been the name consistently used for species in this widely distributed genus since its original description, and its concept sensu Coquillett (1910) is widely accepted, we consider that the general current usage should be maintained. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all type species designations for Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 before that by Coquillett (1910) of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Coquillett (1910) Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pandora Fabricius, 1805, as published in the binomen Anthrax pandora (specific name of the type species of Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840). References Bowden, J. 1975a. Studies in African Bombyliidae. X. Taxonomic problems relevant to a catalogue of Ethiopian Bombyliidae, with descriptions of new genera and species. Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa, 38: 305—320. Bowden, J. 1975b. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 165—184 in Delfinado, M. D. & Hardy, D. E. (Eds), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Vol. 2, 459 pp. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Bowden, J. 1980. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 381-430 in Crosskey, R. W. (Ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Coquillett, D. W. 1910. The type-species of the North American species of Diptera. Proceedings of the United States Museum of Natural History, 37: 499-647. Duponchel, P. [1845]. Jn d’Orbigny, C., Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle. Vol. 5. 768 pp. Paris. DuMerle, P. 1975. Les hétes et les stades pré-imaginaux des diptéres Bombyliidae: revue biblio- graphique annotée. Bulletin de la Section Régional Ouest Paléarctique (Organisation Internationale de Lutte Biologique, Wageningen), 1975(4): 1-289. Evenhuis, N. L. 1989. Family Bombyliidae. Pp. 359-374 in Evenhuis, N. L. (Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu, and E. J. Brill, Leiden. Macquart, P. J. M. 1840. Diptéres exotiques nouveaux ou peu connus. Vol. 2, pt. 1. Pp. 5-135, 21 pls. Paris. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2719 Musca heraclei Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Euleia heraclei; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling of the specific name I. M. White CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 SJR, U.K. P. R. Seymour Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Harpenden Laboratory, Hatching Green, Harpenden, Herts. ALS 2BD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the established spelling of the specific name of the celery fly, Euleia heraclei (Linnaeus, 1758), a pest species. Linnaeus published the name, which is derived from the host plant Heracleum, as heraclii, but following Fabricius (1794) it has always been spelled heraclei. 1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 600) described Musca heraclii, with the information ‘Habitat in foliis, Heraclii; subcutanea’. This matches the habits of the celery fly, which as a larva mines the leaves (‘foliis subcutanea’) of many Apiaceae (= Umbelliferae), including members of the genus Heracleum Linnaeus. The original spelling heraclii has been used only by Linnaeus (1761, p. 461; 1767, p. 998). 2. In the first subsequent use of the name (Fabricius, 1794, p. 354) the -ii was replaced by -ei and the name spelt heraclei, the correct genitive of Heracleum. Although there has been some doubt as to whether Fabricius had the same species before him as Linnaeus, the spelling heraclei has been used for the celery fly by all authors. 3. Attention was drawn to the discrepancy in spelling as a result of a recent catalogue by Foote (1984, p. 88) which misspelt the name with -eii, as heracleii; this error was subsequently copied by one of us (White, 1986, p. 159; 1987, p. 103; 1988, p. 37), but as far as we are aware it has not been copied by any other authors. 4. The celery fly is an important European pest of celery (Apium graveolens Linnaeus) and occasionally of related crops, such as carrot (Daucus carota Linnaeus), lovage (Levisticum officinale Koch), parsnip (Pastinaca sativa Linnaeus) and Russian cow parsnip (Heracleum sosnowskyi Maneden). The spelling heraclei has been used in all economic literature known to us, including the following: Bevan (1966), control on celery in the UK; Carden & Oakley (1983), recognition, biology and control on celery and parsnip in the UK; Desroches (1972), recognition of parasitised pupae; Isart (1979), general review and status on celery and carrots in Spain; Jones & Jones (1984), damage, biology and control on celery and parsnip in the UK; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 253 Kabysh (1979), control on Russian cow parsnip in the Moscow region; Leroi (1972; 1974; 1975a; 1975b; 1977), studies of mine formation, mating behaviour, and biology on celery in France; Spitzer (1964), biology, damage and parasites on parsnip and lovage in Czechoslovakia. Taxonomic works using the spelling heraclei include the standard work on Palaearctic TEPHRITIDAE (Hendel, 1927, p. 97) and the British check list (Kloet & Hincks, 1976, p. 69). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the correct spelling of the specific name heraclii Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca heraclii, is heraclei; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name heraclei Linnaeus, 1758, ruled in (1) above to be the correct spelling of heraclii, as published in the binomen Musca heraclii; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name heraclii Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca heraclii (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of herac/ei Linnaeus, 1758). Acknowledgement Weare grateful to Dr A. Freidberg (Tel Aviv University) for drawing attention to the Linnaean spelling of the celery fly. References Bevan, W. J. 1966. Control of carrot fly on celery, with notes on other pests. Plant Pathology, 15: 101-108. : Carden, P. W. & Oakley, J. N. (revised by), 1983. Celery fly. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ADAS leaflet no. 87. 2 pp. London. Desroches, P. 1972. Charactéres distinctifs des pupes parasitées chez Philophylla heraclei L. et évolution dans le temps de ces caractéres. Entomophaga, 17: 365-373. Fabricius, J. C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, adjectis, synonymis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 4. 472 pp. Copenhagen. Foote, R. H. 1984. Tephritidae (Trypetidae). Pp. 66-149 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, Vol. 9. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. Hendel, F. 1927. Trypetidae. Jn Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, vol. 5(49). Stuttgart. Isart, J. 1979 (dated 1977). Observaciones sobre Euleia heraclei (Linneo, 1758) en Espana (Dipt. Tephritidae). Graellsia, 33: 261-278. Jones, F. G. W. & Jones, M. G. 1984. Pests of field crops. Ed. 3. vit+392 pp. Edward Arnold, London. Kabysh, T. A. 1979. Varying the dates of harvest of cow parsnip for the control of a trypetid. Zashchita Rastenii, 5: 41. [In Russian, English abstract in Review of Applied Entomology, (A) 67: 3880.] Kloet, G. S. & Hincks, W. D. 1976. A check list of British Insects. Second edition (completely revised). 5. Diptera and Siphonaptera. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, vol. 11 (5), pp. 69-71. Leroi, B. 1972. Données expérimentales sur les changements de galerie des larves mineuses de Philophylla heraclei (Diptera, Tephritidae). Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 15: 351-359. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Leroi, B. 1974. A study of natural populations of the celery leaf-miner, Philophylla heraclei L. (Diptera, Tephritidae). II. Importance of changes of mines for larval populations. Researches on Population Ecology, 15: 163-182. Leroi, B. 1975a. Importance des arbres pour les populations d’adultes de la mouche du céleri, Philophylla heraclei L. (Diptére, Tephritidae). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, D, 281: 289-292. Leroi, B. 1975b. Influence d’une plant-h6te des larves (Apium graveolens L.) sur la stimulation de la ponte et de la production ovarienne de Philophylla heraclei L. (Diptére, Tephritidae). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de I’ Académie des Sciences, D, 281: 1015—1018. Leroi, B. 1977. Relations biocoenotiques de la mouche du céleri, Philophylla heraclei L. (Dipteére, Tephritidae): necéssité de vegetaux complementaires pour les populations vivant sur céleri. Colloques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 265: 443-454. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Svecica, Ed. 2, xlviii, 578 pp. Stockholmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2). 794 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Spitzer, K. 1964. Beitrag tiber Einfluss biotischer Faktoren auf die Population der Philophylla heraclei L. in der Tschechoslowakei. Zoologické Listy, 13: 155—160. White, I. M. 1986. A new species of Paroxyna Hendel and notes on the nomenclature of other British Tephritidae (Diptera). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 122: 145-163. White, I. M. 1987. The Linnaean species of the family Tephritidae (Insecta: Diptera). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 90: 99-107. White, I. M. 1988. Tephritid flies (Diptera: Tephritidae). Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, Vol. 10(5a), 134 pp. — —$—$ $$ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 255 Case 2688 Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name Ronald Fricke Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Division of Ichthyology, Schloss Rosenstein, D-7000 Stuttgart 1, Fed. Rep. Germany Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809, a fish of the dragonet family CALLIONYMIDAE. The name is threatened by the unused senior subjective synonym C. dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758. 1. Callionymus dracunculus was proposed by Linnaeus in 1758 (pp. 249, 250). Linnaeus’ description (‘C. dorsalis prioris radiis corpore brevioribus’) was not very exact and he referred only to the descriptions of the previous authors Artedi (1738) and Gronovius (1754). He probably did not examine any specimens as nothing new was indicated; this is borne out by the fact that no material labelled as this species exists in the collections of the Linnean Society, London, or the Uppsala Museum. Wheeler (1958, p. 238) identified a specimen, No. 1853.11.12.13, in the Gronovius collection in the British Museum (Natural History), as a syntype of C. dracunculus. However, this specimen is C. /yra (see para. 2 below), as are two other specimens (Nos. 1853.11.12.11 and 1853.11.12.12) listed by Wheeler. A manuscript by Gronovius [1766-1777] on the fish collected and studied by him (see Wheeler, 1958, pp. 197-199), which is kept in the British Museum (Natural History) and which was edited and published by Gray (1854), includes C. dracunculus (Gronovius, p. 51 (subsequent pagination); Gray, p. 41) but gives no indication of specimens in Gronovius’ collection, nor is there an illustration of the species. 2. In the past there has been confusion about the status of C. dracunculus. The name was repeated by Linnaeus in 1766 (p. 434) and used by Nardo (1827, p. 10), but this was only by reference to Linnaeus (1758) and without studying specimens. A few workers (Riedl, 1963, p. 539 and Haas & Knorr, 1965, p. 296) regarded the name as a senior synonym of Callionymus maculatus Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1810 (p. 25, pl. 5, fig. 1). However, other authors (Muus & Dahlstrém, 1964, p. 136; Wheeler, 1973, p. 516; Bauchot & Pras, 1980, p. 340; Nakabo, 1982, pp. 79, 85; Miller, 1983, pp. 253, 254 and Fricke (in Whitehead et al.), 1986, p. 1089), have listed C. maculatus as a distinct species. Giinther (1861, pp. 140-141) considered that C. dracunculus was a synonym of C. lyra Linnaeus (1758, p. 249) and referred to the work of earlier authors. C. /yra isa name in current use and the type species of Callionymus by subsequent designation by Jordan & Evermann (1917, p. 12). Subsequently, most authors treated C. dracunculus as a synonym of that species, including Lozano Rey (1960, p. 235), Svetovidov (1964, p. 382) and Wheeler (1973, p. 516). 3. Recently, during the course of a revisionary study of Atlantic CALLIONYMIDAE, my attention focused on the identity of C. dracunculus, which I had previously 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 mentioned in an earlier work (Fricke, 1982, p. 53). My first step was to check the original sources of Linnaeus’ designation: Artedi (1738, part 3, p. 49 and part 4, p. 77) called the species ‘Cottus pinna secunda dorsi alba’, and Gronovius (1754, pp. 21-23) named it ‘Uranoscopus ossiculo primo pinnae dorsalis primae unciali’. Both authors referred to the previous description of Rondeletius (1554, pp. 304-305), who named the species ‘Dracunculus’, and Gronovius also referred to the subsequent citations of this description by Gesner (1620, p. 80, ‘Dracunculus Aranei species altera’), Willughby (1686, p. 136, pl. H6, no. 3) and others. Gesner first mentioned the species, as ‘Dracunculus Aranei species’, in 1558 (pp. 61-62). Willughby, Artedi and Linnaeus gave the localities Genoa and Rome for the species. 4, An examination of the original description by Rondeletius (1554, p. 304) reveals that a male Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 was described and illustrated. Characteristic features are the second dorsal fin with very few rays (five or six) and anal fin with a greater number of rays, the very high second dorsal fin with all the rays filamentous, the small head, the long caudal fin and the vertical stripes along the sides of the body. Willughby clearly shows the low first and high second dorsal fin (the first dorsal fin is visible in Rondeletius’ original illustration but not in the later copy of Gesner); this condition is only present in males of C. pusillus and cannot be confused with other species (C. Jyra or C. maculatus). C. dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758 must therefore be treated as synonymous with C. pusillus Delaroche, 1809 and not with C. lyra Linnaeus, 1758. Wheeler (1973, p. 517) has previously noted that when Risso (1810, p. 104), Canestrini (1871, p. 178) and Moreau (1881, p. 172) used the name C. dracunculus they were, in fact, referring to C. pusillus and were not following Linnaeus. 5. Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (pp. 315, 330, 331, fig. 16) was described from Ibiza, one of the Balearic Islands in the Mediterranean. I have examined the syntypes in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, numbered MNHN A1525 (two specimens). The name has been very frequently used, by at least 30 authors, the most recent authors including Wheeler (1973, p. 517), Bauchot & Pras (1980, p. 338), Nakabo (1982, p. 79) and Fricke et al. (1984, p. 107), and the species is common and widely distributed in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. Adoption now of Linnaeus’ name C. dracunculus would cause quite unnecessary confusion and loss of stability in the nomenclature. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Callionymus dracunculus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name pusillus Delaroche, 1809, as published in the binomen Callionymus pusillus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Callionymus dracunculus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Artedi, P. 1738. Ichthyologiae, (C. Linnaeus, Ed.), part 3 (Genera Piscium). 84 pp.; part 4 (Synonymia Nominum Piscium). 118 pp. Wishoff, Lugduni Batavorum. ———”,r—creree Er SL = a << SC CC CCC S—< sie Tl _ ha LL AL AE DGD Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 257 Bauchot, M.-L. & Pras, A. 1980. Guide des Poissons marins d'Europe. 427 pp. Delachaux & Niestlé, Lausanne, Paris. Canestrini, G. 1872. Pesci d’Italia. Part 2, Pesci marini, pp. 37-208. Jn Cornalia, E. (Ed.), Fauna d'Italia, vol. 3, 208 pp. Milan. Delaroche, M. 1809. Suite du mémoire sur les espéces de poissons observées a Ivisa. Annales du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle Paris, 13(77): 313-362. Fricke, R. 1982. Nominal genera and species of dragonets (Teleostei: Callionymidae, Draconettidae). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 84: 53-92. Fricke, R. 1986. Callionymidae. Pp. 1086-1093 in Whitehead, P. J. P. et al. (Eds.), Fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, vol. 3, pp. 1015-1473. Unesco, Paris. Fricke, R., Bauchot, M.-L. & Desoutter, M. 1984. Catalogue critique des types de poissons du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Suite). (Sous-ordre des Callionymoides). Bulletin du Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (4)6 (A, 3), Supplement: 103-111. Gesner, C. 1558. Fischbuch ins Teutsch gebracht von Conrad Forer, M.D. 380 pp. Gerlin, Frankfurt. Gesner, C. 1620. Historiae animalium, vol. 4 (Piscium et aquatilium animantium natura). Ed. 2, 1052 pp. Francof. Gray, J. E. (Ed.). 1854. Catalogue of Fish, collected and described by Laurence Theodore Gronow. 196 pp. British Museum, London. Gronoyius, L. T. 1754. Museum ichthyologicum sistens piscium, vol. 1. 70 pp., 7 pls. Haak, Lugduni Batavorum. Gronoyius, L. T. [1766-1777]. MS Catalogue of Fish, collected and described by Laurence Theodore Gronow. 120 pp., 85 pls. Giinther, A. 1861. Catalogue of Fishes in the British Museum, vol. 3. xxv, 586 pp. British Museum, London. Haas, W. de & Knorr, F. 1965. Was lebt im Meer? 216 pp. Keller & Co., Stuttgart. Jordan, D. S. & Evermann, B. W. 1917. The Genera of Fishes [1758-1920]. A contribution to the Stability of Scientific Nomenclature. Part 1. From Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758-1833, seventy- five years, with the accepted type of each. 161 pp. Leland Stanford Junior University Publications, Stanford University, California. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 1, pp. 347-532. Salvii, Holmiae. Lozano Rey, L. 1960. Peces Fisoclistos, part 3. Subseries Toracicos, Pediculados y Asimetricos. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales de Madrid. Serie de Ciencias Naturales, 14: xiv, 1-613. Moreau, E. 1881. Histoire naturelle des poissons de la France, vol. 2, 572 pp. Masson, Paris. Miller, Von H. 1983. Fische Europas. 320 pp. Enke, Stuttgart. Muus, B. J. & Dahlstrém, P. 1964. Guide to the Sea Fishes of Britain and North-Western Europe. 244 pp. Collins, London [English translation]. Nakabo, T. 1982. Revision of genera of the dragonets (Pisces: Callionymidae). Publications of the Seto Marine Biological Laboratory, 27(\—3): 77-131. Nardo, G. D. 1827. Prodromus observationum et disquisitionum Adriaticae ichthyologicae. Diarii Physices, Chemiae et Hist. Nat. 23 pp., 2 pls. Fusi et Socii, Ticini Regil. Rafinesque-Schmaltz, C. S. 1810. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie di animali e piante della Sicilia. 105 pp. 20 pls. Sanfilippo, Palermo. Riedl, R. 1963. Fauna und Flora der Adria. 640 pp. Parey, Hamburg, Berlin. Risso, A. 1810. Jchthyologie de Nice, ou histoire naturelle des poissons du département des Alpes Maritimes. xxxvi, 388 pp., 11 pls. Paris. [Reprint, 1966, Asher, Amsterdam]. Rondeletius, G. 1554. Libri de Piscibus Marinis, in quibus verae Piscium essigies expressae sunt. 583 pp. Bonhomme, Lugduni. Svetovidov, A. N. 1964. The fishes of the Black Sea. Opredeliteli po Faune SSR, Izdavaemye Zoologicheskim Muzeem. Akademii Nauk., 86: 1-552. [In Russian]. Wheeler, A. C. 1958. The Gronovius Fish Collection: a catalogue and historical account. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History ), Historical Series: 1 (5): 187-249. 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Wheeler, A. C. 1973. Family Callionymidae. Pp. 516-518 in Hureau, J. C. & Monod, Th. (Eds). Check-List of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, vol. 1. xxii, 683 pp. Unesco, Paris. Willughby, F. 1686. De historia piscium libri quatuor, jussu et sumptibus Societatis Regiae Londiniensis editi. (J. Rajus, Ed.). 343 pp., Appendix 30 pp., pls. A-X, 10 appendix pls. Londinium. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 259 Case 1173 Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes): proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species, so conserving Anguilla Shaw, 1803 Ruth A. Cooper The Secretariat, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Oliver A. Crimmen Department of Zoology, British Museum ( Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 in its accustomed usage for the familiar genus of moray eels by setting aside an overlooked type designation. The species Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758, which was designated as type of Muraena by Bleeker in 1865, was later designated the type species of Anguilla Shaw, 1803. It is proposed that the earlier type designation be set aside to prevent the loss of the generic name Anguilla as a junior objective synonym, and to conserve both generic names in their accustomed usage. Both generic names are the basis of family-group names. 1. The generic name Muraena was introduced by Linnaeus (1758, p. 244) for 7 species including helena (p. 244, the first species named) and anguilla (p. 245). No type species was designated. 2. In 1865 (p. 113) Bleeker designated Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Muraena. This designation has been overlooked or ignored by subsequent workers. 3. The Commission voted in Opinion 77 (1922) to place Muraena, with M. helena as type, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, but in 1956 the entry was withdrawn when it was realized that the earliest known designation was that of M. anguilla by Bleeker (1865). The then Secretary, F. Hemming, proposed that Bleeker’s designation be set aside but was unable to proceed with the case. 4. Ginther (1870, p. 96) did not specify a type for Muraena, but listed M. helena as the first of 76 species. Similarly, Kaup (1856, p. 55) listed M. helena as the first of 26 species but did not specify a type. However, it was customary for these cataloguers to list what they considered to be the type species first. The first designation of Muraena helena (as ‘Muraena helenae L.’) as the type species of Muraena was made in 1882 by Jordan & Gilbert (p. 355). This is in accordance with the usage of Muraena over the last 200 years. A list of representative references using the names in the accustomed sense is held by the Secretariat. 5. In 1803 (p. 15) Shaw described the genus Anguilla, with type species Muraena anguilla Linnaeus by absolute tautonymy. Anguilla anguilla is the common eel of 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 European rivers. Shaw renamed the species Anguilla vulgaris (possibly to avoid tautonymy) and cited M. anguilla in synonymy. 6. Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 is the type genus of the family MURAENIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (p. 93, correction of MURENIDA), which is currently understood to include the Common Moray of the Mediterranean, M. helena, and about 110 allied species in 12 genera (Nelson 1984, p. 105). These are predatory eels of tropical and sub-tropical seas, some of them very abundant and many of them exhibiting bold spotted or reticulated markings. Other distinguishing features include the muraenids’ long fanglike teeth and the absence of scales and pectoral and pelvic fins. In contrast the anguillid eels have low villiform tooth patches, well developed pectoral fins, minute scales, and are never boldly coloured or marked. 7. The genus Anguilla Shaw, 1803 is the type genus of the family ANGUILLIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (p. 91, correction of ANGUILLINIA). According to Tesch (1977, pp. 83-84) this family of fresh-water eels (usually catadromous) contains one genus and sixteen species. 8. Anguillid eels are important commercial and angling fishes. Tesch (1977, p. 329) discusses eel farming in Japan where it is more important than carp and trout farming. There is clearly an overwhelming case to set aside the earlier type designation for Muraena, to avoid confusion. If this action is not taken, the generic name Anguilla would be lost as a junior objective synonym and the generic name Muraena would be transferred from the morays to the freshwater eels, necessitating a new name for the morays and throwing anguilliform nomenclature into extreme confusion. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 prior to that by Jordan & Gilbert (1882) of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Anguilla Shaw, 1803 (gender: feminine), type species by absolute tautonymy Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Jordan & Gilbert (1882) Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758, as ruled in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) anguilla Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Muraena anguilla (specific name of the type species of Anguilla Shaw, 1803); (b) helena Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Muraena helena (specific name of the type species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758). References Bleeker, P. 1865. Systema Muraenorum revisum. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde, 2: 113-122. Giinther, A. 1870. Catalogue of Fishes, vol. 8. 549 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C. H. 1882. Synopsis of the Fishes of North America. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 16: i-lvi, 1-1018. Kaup, J. J. 1856. Catalogue of Apodal Fish in the collection of the British Museum. 163 pp., xix pls. Trustees of the British Museum, London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 261 Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Nelson, J. S. 1984. Fishes of the World. Ed. 2. xv, 523 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York. Rafinesque, C. S. 1815. Analyse de la Nature ou Tableau de |’Univers et des Corps organisés. 224 pp. Palerme. Shaw, G. 1803. General Zoology, vol. 4, part 1. 186 pp. London. Tesch, F. W. 1977. The Eel. Biology and management of Anguillid Eels. xiv, 434 pp. Chapman & Hall, London. [translation of Der Aal, 1973]. 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2684 Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia): proposed conservation Spencer G. Lucas & Adrian P. Hunt New Mexico Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 7010, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87194, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the Jurassic dinosaur name Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 by suppression of the unused senior objective synonym Haplocanthus Hatcher, 1903. 1. The generic name Haplocanthus was established on 21 February 1903 by Hatcher (1903a, p.1) for a Jurassic sauropod dinosaur from Colorado, the type species by monotypy being Haplocanthus priscus Hatcher (1903a, p. 1). 2. On 25 June 1903, Hatcher (1903b, p. 100), noting that the name Haplocanthus was ‘essentially preoccupied’ by the name Haplacanthus Agassiz, 1845 (p. 114), a genus of acanthodian fish from the Devonian of Russia, proposed Haplocanthosaurus as a replacement name. 3. The name Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 has been used in a number of textbooks, handbooks and catalogues such as Romer, 1966 (p. 370), Steel, 1970 (p. 66) and McIntosh, 1981 (p. 11) as well as in numerous papers (a representative list of 10 papers is held by the Secretariat). As far as we know, the name Haplocanthus Hatcher, 1903 has not been used as a valid name since 1903. 4. Under Article 56(b) of the Code, ‘even if the difference between two genus-group names is only one letter, these two names are not homonyms’. It follows that Haplocan- thus is not a homonym of Haplacanthus, but is an available name and a senior but unused objective synonym of Haplocanthosaurus. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Haplocanthus Hatcher, 1903 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Haplo- canthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 (gender: masculine), type species, by indication, Haplocanthus priscus Hatcher, 1903; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name priscus Hatcher, 1903, as published in the binomen Haplocanthus priscus (specific name of the type species of Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Haplocanthus Hatcher, 1903 as suppressed in (1) above. References Agassiz, J. R. L. 1844. Monographie des poissons fossiles du Vieux Grés Rouge ou Systéme Dévonien (Old Red Sandstone ) des Iles Britanniques et de Russie. xxxvi+ 171 pp. Neuchatel. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 263 Hatcher, J. B. 1903a. A new sauropod dinosaur from the Jurassic of Colorado. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 16: \—2. Hatcher, J. B. 1903b. A new name for the dinosaur Haplocanthus Hatcher. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 16: 100. McIntosh, J. S. 1981. Annotated catalogue of the dinosaurs (Reptilia, Archosauria) in the collections of Carnegie Museum of Natural History. Bulletin of Carnegie Museum of Natural History, No. 18: 1-67. Romer, A. S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology. (3rd Ed.). 468 pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Steel, R. 1970. Saurischia, in Encyclopedia of Paleoherpetology. (Ed. O. Kiihn). 87 pp. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Case 2691 Atheris Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation, and proposed confirmation of Vipera chlorechis Pel, [1851] as the valid name of the type species Donald G. Broadley Natural History Museum, Centenary Park, Selborne Avenue, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Atheris Cope, 1862 for a genus of African tree or bush vipers. It is threatened by the unused senior subjec- tive synonym Chloroechis Bonaparte, 1849. The name of the type species of Atheris, Vipera chloroechis Schlegel, 1855, is a junior subjective synonym of V. chlorechis Pel, [1851], and the valid specific name of the type species is thus chlorechis and not chloroechis. 1. In 1849, Bonaparte (p. 145, footnote) urged the prompt appearance of an unpub- lished catalogue by Temminck and Schlegel of zoological material in the Leiden museum. He briefly mentioned a number of the as yet undescribed species, including a new snake: ‘In the Reptiles a new Viperine may be spoken of with great interest, constituting certainly an independent genus (Chloroechis, Schlegel) ...The green colour of this poisonous serpent from Ashantee [Ghana], as well as its forms, recall the Dendrophidinae, and make it, though a true Viperine, lead an arboreal life, and conceal its perfidious power among the foliage of the trees’. The name Chloroechis was listed by Neave (1939, p. 707) and by Sherborn (1925, p. 1243, where it was cited as a nomen dubium) and was correctly ascribed to Bonaparte, 1849 in both instances (Schlegel never published a generic name Chloroechis). 2. There were no species included in the genus, but subsequently Pel ({1851], p. 172) used the name Vipera chlorechis: ‘Finally a sixth poisonous snake is found near the coast, Vipera chlorechis, which lives in the low lying areas on shrubbery. This species can be easily distinguished from the true tree snakes by its short thick-set shape and wide head’ [translated from the Dutch]. In 1855, Schlegel himself published on the snake and, without reference to Pel, called it Vipera chloroechis (p. 317), recording it as a new species (p. 312). V. chlorechis Pel, [1851] is thus senior to V. chloroechis Schlegel, 1855 (as mentioned by Holthuis, 1968, pp. 25, 30-31), of which it is a subjective synonym. There is no doubt that Pel and Schlegel were referring to the same species. 3. The first volume of Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Jagtkunde, which included Pel’s paper, is dated 1852. Holthuis, however, (1968, pp. 27, 30-31) cited the date for V. chlorechis as 1851; according to him (in litt. to the Commission Secretariat) the volume first appeared in monthly parts, the first 234 pages in 1851, the rest in 1852. Pel’s paper (pp. 149-173) was apparently included in part 4-5 which was first published in November or December 1851. F Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 265 4. The generic name A theris was proposed by Cope (1862, p. 337) with two included species, Toxicoa squamatus, an unjustified emendation for Echis squamigera Hallowell, 1854, p. 193), and “Schlegel’s Vipera chlorocehis” (sic). No type species was designated. 5. Boulenger (1896, p. 508) rejected the generic name Chloroechis on the grounds that it was not properly defined; this may well be the correct view, but it is better to put the issue beyond doubt. Boulenger adopted the name Atheris for the African bush vipers and he has been followed by all subsequent authors. 6. Loveridge (1957, pp. 159, 303) drew attention to the fact that Chloroechis Bonaparte, 1849 wasa senior subjective synonym of A theris Cope, 1862 and considered that the earlier name should be suppressed. He stated that Vipera chloroechis Schlegel was the type species by tautonomy of Chloroechis Bonaparte (anerror as V. chloroechis had never been included in Chloroechis), and stated that the same species was the type of Atheris ‘by monotypy’; this was also an error, but constitutes a valid type species designation (Article 69a(iv) of the Code). 7. Hughes & Barry (1969, p. 1030) drew attention to the original description of Vipera chlorechis by Pel in [1851] and selected specimen 1648 in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, collected by Pel from Butre, Ghana, as the lectotype of the species. 8. The generic name Chloroechis has remained unused, while Atheris has appeared in many faunal lists and revisionary studies; these include Bogert (1940, p. 103), Laurent (1956, p. 330), Perret & Mertens (1957, p. 597), Doucet (1963, p. 327), Marx & Rabb (1965, p. 182), Hughes & Barry (1969, p. 1030), Broadley (1971, p. 107), Pitman (1974, p. 221), Villiers (1975, p. 168) and Rasmussen & Howell (1982, p. 270). In the interests of nomenclatural stability I request that the junior synonym be conserved. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Chloroechis Bonaparte, 1849, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Namesin Zoology the name A theris Cope, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Loveridge (1957) Vipera chloroechis Schlegel, 1855 (a junior subjective synonym of Vipera chlorechis Pel, [1851]); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name chlorechis Pel, [1851], as published in the binomen Vipera chlorechis (valid specific name at the time of this application of the type species of Atheris Cope, 1862); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Chloroechis Bonaparte, 1849 as suppressed in (1) above. References Bogert, C. M. 1940. Herpetological results of the Vernay Angola Expedition. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 77(1): 1-107. Bonaparte, C. L. 1849. On the Lorine genus of parrots, Eclectus, with the description of a new species, Eclectus cornelia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 142-146. Boulenger, G. A. 1896. Catalogue of the Snakes in the British Museum, vol. 3. xiv, 727 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Broadley, D. G. 1971. The reptiles and amphibians of Zambia. The Puku. The Occasional Papers of the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and National Parks, No. 6: 1-143. Cope, E. D. 1862. Notes upon some Reptiles of the Old World. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 14: 337-344. Doucet, J. 1963. Les Serpents de la République de Cote d'Ivoire. 2° partie, Serpents venimeux. Acta Tropica, 20(4): 297-340. Hallowell, E. 1854. Descriptions of new reptiles from Guinea. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7: 193-194. Holthuis, L. B. 1968. Biografische Notities betreffende verzamelaars voor het Rijkmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie te Leiden. 1. Hendrik Severinus Pel (1818-1876). Zoologische Bijdra- gen. No. 10. pp. 32. [In Dutch; English summary]. Hughes, B. & Barry, D. H. 1969. The snakes of Ghana: a checklist and key. Bulletin de l'Institut Frangais d'Afrique Noire, Ser. A, 31(3): 1004-1041. Laurent, R. F. 1956. Contribution a l’Herpétologie de la Région des Grands Lacs de l’ Afrique Centrale. Annales du Musée Royal du Congo Belge. Ser. 8vo. Sciences Zoologiques, 48: 1-390. Loveridge, A. 1957. Check list of the reptiles and amphibians of East Africa. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College Museum, 117(2): 151-362, i-xxxvi. Marx, H. & Rabb, G. B. 1965. Relationships and Zoogeography of the Viperine snakes (Family Viperidae). Fieldiana: Zoology, 44(21): 161-206. Neave, S. A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 1 (A—C). xiv, 957 pp. The Zoological Society, London. Pel, H. S. [1851]. Over de jagt aan de Goudkust, volgens eene tienjarige eigene ondervinding. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor Jagtkunde, 1: 149-173. Perret, J.-L. & Mertens, R. 1957. Etude d’une collection herpétologique faite au Cameroun de 1952 a 1955. Bulletin de l'Institut Francais d’Afrique Noire, Ser. A, 19(2): 548-601. Pitman, C. R. S. 1974. A Guide to the Snakes of Uganda. Revised edition. xxii. 290 pp. Wheldon & Wesley, London. Rasmussen, J. B. & Howell, K. M. 1982. The current status of the rare Usambara Mountain forest viper, Atheris ceratophorus Werner, 1895, including a probable new record of A. nitschei rungweensis Bogert, 1940, and a discussion of its validity (Reptilia, Serpentes, Viperidae). Amphibia- Reptilia, 3: 269-277. Schlegel, H. 1855. Over eenige nieuwe soorten van vergiftige slangen van de Goudkust. Verslagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen ( Afdeeling Natuurkunde ). Amsterdam, 3: 312-317. Sherborn, C. D. 1925. Index Animalium 1801-1850, part 6. Pp. 1197-1452. British Museum (Natural History), London. Villiers, A. 1975. Les serpents de l'Ouest africain. Initiations et Etudes Africaines. No. 2 (3rd Ed.). 195 pp. Université de Dakar, Institut Fondamental d’Afrique Noire, Dakar. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 267 Report on the proposed conservation of the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (Mollusca, Coleoidea), with suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and the designation of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as the type genus (Case 2571; see BZN 43: 355-359; 44: 48, 194; 45: 50) P. K. Tubbs Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The proposals in this case by P. Doyle and W. Riegraf were published in December 1986 and March 1987, and on 1 December 1988 the Commission was asked to vote on them. The voting papers included ‘Notes relating to the case’, which are reproduced below. The members of the Commission voted 20:3 in support of the proposals, but in dissenting Dr W. D. L. Ride asked that the case be re-opened, although he raised no unpublished issue. The ‘Notes’ on the voting papers and the following ‘Request for comments’ were sent to all those who had corresponded on the case, and their edited replies are now pub- lished. Further comments are invited before the Commission re-votes on the proposals of Doyle and Riegraf. Notes relating to the case, as sent to members of the Commission in December 1988 Since publication of the original application, a supplementary proposal for the conservation of the family name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 was made by the authors and published in BZN 44: 48 (March 1987). A comment in support of the original application received from Mr C. W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) was published in BZN 44: 48, together with a reply and the supplementary proposal by the authors. Comments in support of both the original and supplementary proposals received from Professor D. T. Donovan (University College, London, U.K.) and from Dr M. K. Howarth (British Museum (Natural History), London, U.K.) were published in BZN 44: 194 and 45: 50. Dr T. I. Nal’nyaeva (Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Novosibirsk, USSR) also supported the suppression of Belemnites paxillosa (BZN 45: 50). A comment in opposition from Professor G. Hahn was published in BZN 45: 50. The published comments by Donovan, Howarth and Nal’nyaeva are directly relevant to Professor Hahn’s reservation. Further comments have been received from Mr R. V. Melville, Professor C. H. Holland (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland), and Mr B. Challinor (Hamilton, New Zealand), who all agree that the name Belemnites paxillosa cannot be defined by a type designation, but that conservation of the name BELEMNITIDAE (with Passaloteuthis as type genus) is most important. The proposals in BZN 43: 357 and 44: 48 are consolidated below, with unchanged content. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and also the specific name paxillosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Belemnites paxillosa, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 (2) to use its plenary powers to designate Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as the type genus of the nominal family BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845; (3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Belem- nites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843 (name of the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 by designation in (2) above); (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843, as published in the binomen Belemnites bruguierianus (specific name of the type species of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915); (5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (type genus Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 by designation in (2) above); (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799, as suppressed in (1) above; (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name paxillosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Belemnites paxillosa and as suppressed in (1) above. Request for comments, sent to correspondents in March 1989 The above proposals were submitted to the Commission in 1986 by P. Doyle and W. Riegraf, and were supported by a number of workers. The application, the published comments, and notes on the voting papers which were distributed to members of the Commission on | December 1988 are attached. In unpublished comments (mentioned on the voting papers) Mr R. V. Melville wrote ‘I heartily support the proposals of Doyle & Riegraf. . .’, Prof C. H. Holland wrote*.. . as to the problem of BELEMNITIDAE, I agree with Doyle & Riegraf about this’, and Mr B. Challinor said ‘I strongly support the proposal to suppress the names Belemnites and paxillosa of Lamarck but to retain the family name BELEMNITIDAE’. The proposals, which were published in BZN 43: 357 and 44: 48 and repeated on the voting papers, were presented to the Commission for a 3-month vote in December 1988. They were accepted by 20 Commissioners and rejected by 3, as follows: For: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis [abstaining in part, but supporting proposals (2) and (5)], Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Melville, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink. Against: Ride, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin. Voting for, Prof Hahn withdrew his earlier objection [BZN 45: 50], stating “I now agree to the proposals, since (1) the name BELEMNITIDAE is conserved and (2) specialists have shown that the selection of a neotype of Belemnites paxillosa is not possible’. Voting against, Dr Starobogatov said ‘If we conserve the names BELEMNITIDAE and BELEMNITIDA we should conserve the name Belemnites, or in future great confusion could be caused if many families had names different from the type genera. Perhaps it is simpler to designate a neotype’. Of the other two Commissioners voting against, Dr Trjapitzin made no comment, but with his vote Dr Ride wrote ‘The conclusion to secure BELEMNITIDAE and to base it on the taxonomic concept expressed in the nominal taxon Passaloteuthis seems per- fectly desirable but the solution to that end could be most upsetting. It is fundamental Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 269 _in the nomenclature of the family-group that the type of any name in the family-group is determined by the root of the name (Art. 63). The same result can be achieved in a manner less upsetting to nomenclature by (1) setting aside all fixations of type species for Belemnites Lamarck, and (2) by declaring it a junior objective synonym of Passalo- teuthis Lissajous by the relative precedence procedure. B. bruguierianus would become its type. Under Art. 40 BELEMNITIDAE as a taxonomic concept would be interpreted by reference to the taxonomic concept expressed equally by Passaloteuthis and Belemnites. Please re-open the case, as I consider that the action that the Commission is being asked to take under Art. 79 is contrary to a fundamental principle of the Code and would be seriously upsetting if adopted’. Because Dr Ride asked that this case be referred back to the Commission I am sending this material to you for your comments. Your advice would be very much appreciated, so that the Commission can be fully informed when it votes again on this issue. Dr Ride has proposed that, using its plenary powers, the Commission should (1) designate B. bruguierianus [the type species of Passaloteuthis] as the type species of Belemnites and then (2) rule that Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (as re-defined) is to be treated as a junior objective synonym of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915. The object of this is to keep the name Belemnites available for the nominal type genus of BELEMNITIDAE, though for no other purpose (the valid name for the genus would be Passaloteuthis). This would avoid departing from Articles 29 and 63 (eponymous families and type genera) and from zoological tradition, and so setting an undesirable precedent. The alternative view is (1) that specialists have stated that any re-introduction of Belemnites as a generic name, even (or possibly especially) for a purely formal purpose and without its original date priority, would be very confusing to palaeontologists, (2) that all the information has been published and been supported, (3) that no general precedent would be set, since the designation of Passaloteuthis as the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE is an explicit act of the Commission using its plenary powers in an individual and special case, and there is no ‘case law’ in zoological nomenclature (page xiv of the Code, para. 8). Since the Commission will now be asked to vote again on this case, your views would be much appreciated: should Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 have B. bruguierianus desig- nated as its type species and then be treated as a junior objective synonym of Passalo- teuthis Lissajous, 1915, or should Belemnites be suppressed and Passaloteuthis be designated as the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE, as previously voted upon? Replies received (1) P. Doyle Nature Conservancy Council, Northminster House, Peterborough PEI 1UA, U.K. Thank you for the papers summarising the progress of our proposed suppression of the generic name Belemnites, with conservation of the family name BELEMNITIDAE. I note Dr Ride’s alternative suggestion, but it is my view that the original course suggested by Dr Riegraf and myself is the more sensible option. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 The designation of bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843 as type species of Belemnites would not solve the problem painlessly, as though Belemnites and Passaloteuthis would be thus objective synonyms, their priority would be inverted. For clarification, future taxonomists concerned with the group would have to refer to two rulings of the Com- mission; namely the initial reason for the designation of bruguierianus as type, and secondly, the explanation why Belemnites is not then a senior objective synonym of Passaloteuthis. In my view, this is a tortuous alternative to the designation of Passaloteuthis as type genus of the BELEMNITIDAE. It is my view that: 1. The Commission should reject the retention of Belemnites, in any form, for the reasons already published in the Bulletin, and should not accept Dr Ride’s sugges- tion, which would ultimately be more confusing to future systematists than the original proposal. 2. The Commission should accept the designation of Passaloteuthis as type genus of the BELEMNITIDAE, as summarised in BZN 44: 48. Finally, with regard to the current status of the nominal species Belemnites bruguierianus: (a) A specimen of the type series (i.e. a syntype) exists in the British Museum (Natural History), and Dr Goutier of the Paris Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle is proposing to formally select this as lectotype; (b) The present state of knowledge is that Belemnites bruguierianus is a junior sub- jective synonym of B. bisulcatus Blainville, 1827 (p. 79 of his Mémoire sur les Bélemnites considérées zoologiquement et géologiquement). I hope this clarifies the position. (2) Wolfgang Riegraf clo Westfdlisches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Sentruper Strasse 285, D-440 Minster 1, Fed. Rep. Germany There is no other possibility to stabilize the zoological nomenclature than to suppress the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 in favour of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (type Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843). Any synonymization of Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (a nomen dubium) with Passalo- teuthis Lissajous, 1915 (as subjective or objective synonym) would cause further con- fusion. Also, Belemnites cannot be defined by selection of a neotype for its type species, as confirmed by specialists (see cited references in the Bulletin). I strongly emphasise that the family name BELEMNITIDAE should remain valid. (3) Gerhard Hahn Berliner Strasse 31, D-3576 Rauschenberg, Fed. Rep. Germany Thank you very much for the information concerning the suppression of Belemnites. I strongly support the proposal of Dr Ride, and I am happy that it may be perhaps a way to conserve the name Belemnites. As you know, I never was happy with the suppression of that name, but I voted in the affirmative, because it seems to be imposs- ible to select a neotype, as was shown by the comments of the specialists. The proposal of Dr Ride avoids this difficulty. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 271 (4) C.H. Holland Department of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland Thank you for the material concerning Be/emnites. There is no point in going over the same ground. I simply find the proposal by Dr Ride, though no doubt procedurally in order, to promise much future confusion for practising taxonomists. I think matters should be left as they have been decided. It is a very satisfactory decision supported by various people concerned with the cephalopods. I can see no difficulty in maintaining the family name BELEMNITIDAE in spite of the lack of the root. Everybody knows where the root originally was. Finally there is no question of this creating: a widespread practice. This particular situation has its unique character. (5) C. W. Wright The Old Rectory, Seaborough, Beaminster, Dorset DT8 3QY, U.K. Dr Ride says that a plenary powers decision to conserve BELEMNITIDAE while sup- pressing Belemnites would be ‘seriously upsetting’, because it would transgress the principle of having family names based on a currently available generic name. But all plenary powers decisions transgress some principle —in the interests of stability. It would be just as ‘seriously upsetting’ to declare that Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (redefined) was a ‘junior’ objective synonym of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915. In fact, it would be more upsetting, since the Principle of Priority is the most fundamental principle of the Code. (6) D. T. Donovan Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE6BT, U.K. I believe that the most straightforward thing would be to accept the majority vote of the Commission and suppress the generic name Belemnites for all purposes, retaining the name BELEMNITIDAE as a family-group name. The alternative, proposed by Dr Ride, to retain Belemnites with a new type species, but declare it a junior objective synonym, would seem a rather tortuous procedure, and also confusing in making a very old name a junior synonym! However, it must be admitted that it would not make a great deal of difference to systematic authors which solution is adopted, as in either case they would wish to refer to the name Belemnites and explain what had happened to it, once a decision of the Commission is available. (7) A. B. Challinor 25 Bailey Avenue, Hamilton, New Zealand Thank you for the opportunity to comment further on the Belemnites problem. I have read through comments by the Commissioners and others and still consider the majority opinion to be the most practical. As before, I favour suppression of the names Belemnites and paxillosa Lamarck, and designation of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as type genus of BELEMNITIDAE. 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 (8) M.K. Howarth Department of Palaeontology, British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. If the Commission is going to vote again on this case, I would not support the designation of B. bruguierianus as type species of Belemnites as a device to secure Belemnites rather than Passaloteuthis as the type genus of BELEMNITIDAE. The proposals as originally proposed, voted on and accepted, i.e. to suppress Belemnites and to designate Passaloteuthis as type genus of BELEMNITIDAE, seem to me to resolve the difficulty in the best way that is possible. After all the discussion about the difficulty in interpreting Belemnites and its type species, I think that to use the plenary powers to designate a different type species would cause more confusion in the long term than is desirable. I can only support the outcome of the case as originally voted on. Comments on the proposed precedence of GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera) over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838 (Case 2603; see BZN 46: 25-27 and 191) (1) D.C. F) Rentz Division of Entomology, CSIRO Australia, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia I would like to support Key’s proposal to give the name GRYLLACRIDOIDEA prece- dence over the older name STENOPELMATOIDEA. As he points out, many revisions, faunal works, and general textbooks have used the term GRYLLACRIDOIDEA for more than 40 years for the group concerned. It would serve no useful purpose that I can see to replace the name. I urge the Commission to use its powers to conserve it for the superfamily that contains, among others, Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 and Gryllacris Audinet- Serville, 1831. (2) Miss A. J. A. Green (Tasmanian Museum, GPO Box 1164M, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia) and Dr N. D. Jago (Overseas Development Natural Resources Institute, Chatham, Kent ME4 4TB, U.K.) have also written in support of the proposals in BZN 46: 26-27. Angus, R. B. Banner, F. T. Ben-Doy, Y. Bock, W. J. Bogan, A. E. Boorman, J. Boucek, Z. Bour, R. : Broadley, D. G. Brunckhorst, D. J. Challinor, A. B. Chambers, S. Chapman, R. F. Cooper, R. A. Coyle, F. A. Crimmen, O. A. Donovan, D. T. Doyle, P. Eldridge, B. F. Emberton, K. C. Evenhuis, N. L. Follett, W. I. Fricke, R. Galiano, M.E. . Gardner,J.A. . Goloboff, P. A. . Greathead, D. J. Hahn,G. . Hamon, J. Hansen, M. : Harbach, R.E. . Harris: P. . Heppell, D. : Holland,C.H. . Holthe, T. Houart, R. : Houbrick, R. S. Howarth, M. K. Hulsemann, K. . Hunt, A. P. Jansson, A. Kabat, A. R. Keirans, J. E. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 AUTHORS IN VOLUME 46 (1989) Page 173s 104, 176 Kemper, E. : Kerzhner, I. M. Key, Ken: Kluge, A. G. Kottelat, M. Kraus, O. . Kues, B. S. LaSalle, J. LeCroy, M. Levi, H. W. Livezey, B.C. Lomholdt, O. Lowry, J. K. Loydell, D. K. Lucas, S. G. Matile-Ferrero, D. Mayr, E. . Melville, R. V. Minch, E. E. Mlikovsky, J. Naiyanetr, P. Nilsen, R. . Petit, R. E. . Pettibone, M. H. Proszynski, J. Ramsay, G. W. . Randall, J. E. Rawson, P.F. . Rentz DiC RB, Riegraf, W. : Robbins, R. G. . Rudman, W.B. . Sabrosky, C. W. Seymour, P.R. . Smith, H. M. Spamer,E.E. . Stockwell, S. A. . Stoddart, H.E. . Sudbury, M. Taylor, P. D. Thayer, M. K. Thiaucourt, P. Thompson, R. T. Tubbs, P. K. Tirkay, M. 273 yee, 226, 262 ‘ . 186 108, 110, 112 . es 2 oe 26; 2k 43, 188, 192, 267 . d > 101 274 Valerio, C. E. Voigt, E. Vokes, E. H. Walters, M. P. Waren, A. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 West, R. C. White, I. M. Willan, R. C. Wright, C. W. Zug, G. R. - 1 30, 252 : » ee 46, 187, 271 38 a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 275 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 46 (1989) Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 46 are listed below under three headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type. The systematic groups to which names on the Official Lists belong are given but, following past practice, names on the Official Indexes have not been allocated to systematic groups. The Opinion number is given for each entry. Family-Group Names ADERIDAE Winkler, 1927 (Coleoptera) Op. 1549 AtypDAE Abbott, 1954 Op. 1553 ATyDIDAE Thiele, 1925 (Gastropoda) Op. 1553 ATYIDAE Thiele, 1925 Op. 1553 AZINIDAE Walsingham, 1906 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1544 CALLIANIDEINAE De Man, 1928 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 CHELIFERIDAE Westwood, 1838 (Arachnida) Op. 1542 DIOCTOPHYMATIDAE Railliet, 1915, Op. 1552 DIOCTOPHYMIDAE Railliet, 1915 (Nematoda) Op. 1552 DISCOCEPHALIDAE Pinter, 1928 Op. 1538 DISCOCEPHALINAE Fieber, 1861 (Hemiptera) Op. 1538 DISCOCYCLININAE Galloway, 1928 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1537 Generic Names Aceria Keifer, 1944 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 Aderus Stephens, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1549 Anomala Samouelle, 1819 (Coleoptera) Op. 1546 Anomala von Block, 1799 Op. 1546 Atys Montfort, 1810 (Gastropoda) Op. 1553 Azinis Walker, 1863 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1544 Callianidea Milne Edwards, 1837 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 Callisea Dana, 1852 Op. 1522 Campylirhynchus Dejean, 1821 Op. 1529 Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 Chagrinichnites Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 (Trace Fossil) Op. 1520 DISCULICIPITIDAE Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoda) Op. 1538 DYSIDEIDAE Gray, 1867 (Porifera) Op. 1550 ELACHISTIDAE Bruand, 1850 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1557 ETHMUDAE Busck, 1909 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1544 EUGLENESIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 (Coleoptera) Op. 1549 EUGLENIDAE Seidlitz, 1875 Op. 1549 EUGLENIDAE Stein, 1878 (Protista) Op. 1549 ISAEINAE Dana, 1853 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 KINOSTERNIDAE Agassiz, 1857 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 PELOMEDUSIDAE Cope, 1868 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 soriTipaE Ehrenberg, [1839] (Foraminiferida) Op. 1536 STERNOTHAERINA Bell, 1825 Op. 1534 Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762 (Arachnida) Op. 1542 Chelonus Panzer, 1806 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1546 Coeliodes Schoenherr, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 Coeloides Wesmael, 1838 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1530 Colomerus Newkirk & Keifer, 1971 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 Compylirhynchus Hummel, 1823 Op. 1529 Cryptocoeloma Miers, 1884 (Decapoda) Op. 1554 Desidea Koehler, 1855 Op. 1550 Dioctophyma Bosc, 1803 Op. 1552 Dioctophyme Collet-Meygret, 1802 (Nematoda) Op. 1552 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Discocephala Laporte, 1833 (Hemiptera) Op. 1538 Discocephalum Linton, 1891 Op. 1538 Discocyclina Gumbel, 1870 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1537 Disculiceps Joyeux & Baer, 1935 (Cestoda) Op. 1538 Disophrys Foerster, 1862 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1531 Duseidea Delage & Hérouard, 1899 Op. 1550 Duseideia Johnston, 1842 Op. 1550 Dyseideia Lieberkuhn, 1859 Op. 1550 Dysidea Agassiz, 1846 Op. 1550 Dysidea Johnston, 1842 (Porifera) Op. 1550 Elachista Kollar, 1832 Op. 1557 Elachista Treitschke, 1833 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1557 Eriophyes von Siebold, 1851 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 Ethmia Hiibner, [1819] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1544 Euglena Ehrenberg, 1830 (Protista) Op. 1549 Euglenes Westwood, 1830 (Coleoptera) Op. 1549 Falciger Dejean, 1821 Op. 1529 Glabella Loew, 1873 Op. 1545 Glabellula Bezzi, 1902 (Diptera) Op. 1545 Halianassa von Meyer, 1838 Op. 1535 Halitherium Kaup, 1838 (Mammalia) Op. 1535 Halytherium Kaup, 1838 Op. 1535 Hypsibius Ehrenberg, 1848 (Tardigrada) Op. 1551 Isaea Agassiz, 1846 Op. 1522 Isaea Milne Edwards, 1830 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 Isea Guérin[-Meneville], 1832 Op. 1522 Kinosternon Spix, 1824 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 Loxoconchella Triebel, 1954 (Ostracoda) Op. 1541 Ludita Nagy, 1967 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1559 Specific Names anabathrum, Conus, Crosse, 1865 (Gastropoda) Op. 1539 arcticus, Platygaster, Zetterstedt, 1838 (Diptera) Op. 1545 arenicola, Holothuria, Semper, 1868 (Holothuroidea) Op. 1533 articularis, Harpa, Lamarck, 1822 (Gastropoda) Op. 1518 Megaloceros Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia) Op. 1566 Megalocerus Brookes, 1828 Op. 1566 Meriellum Linsley, 1957 (Coleoptera) Op. 1525 Merium Kirby, 1837 Op. 1525 Mononychus Germar, 1824 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 Nanodes Schoenherr, 1825 Op. 1526 Nanodes Stephens, 1826 Op. 1526 Nanophyes Schoenherr, 1838 (Coleoptera) Op. 1526 Neamia Smith & Radcliffe, 1912 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1564 Obisium Mlliger, 1798 Op. 1542 Parasigara Poisson, 1957 (Heteroptera) Op. 1555 Pelomedusa Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 Pelusios Wagler, 1830 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 Phymatestes Pascoe, 1867 (Coleoptera) Op. 1525 Phymatodes Dejean, 1834 Op. 1525 Phymatodes Mulsant, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 1525 Physophyscus Lesquereux, 1891 Op. 1520 Phytobius Dejean, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 Platanista Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia) Op. 1565 Platygaster Zetterstedt, 1838 Op. 1545 Rhinoncus Schoenherr, 1825 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 Sarotherodon Riippell, 1852 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1548 Sorites Ehrenberg, [1839] (Foraminiferida) Op. 1536 Sphaerogaster Zetterstedt, 1842 Op. 1545 Spongelia Nardo, 1834 Op. 1550 Sternothaerus Bell, 1825 Op. 1534 Sternotherus Gray, 1825 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 Susu Lesson, 1828 Op. 1565 assimilis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1775 Op. 1529 assimilis, Curculio, Paykull, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 ater, Dytiscus, De Geer, 1774 (Coleoptera) Op. 1556 ater, Dytiscus, Forster, 1771 Op. 1556 avellanae, Calycophthora, Sorauer, 1886 Op. 1521 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 277 avellanae, Phytoptus, Nalepa, 1889 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 balliston, Lampides, Hubner, [1823] Op. 1527 bifasciella, Elachista, Treitschke, 1833 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1557 bilobatus, Physophyscus, Lesquereux, 1891 Op. 1520 boleti, Lytta, Marsham, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1549 brandtii, Holothuria, Selenka, 1867 Op. 1533 brooksi, Chagrinichnites, Feldmann, Osgood, Szmuc & Meinke, 1978 (Trace Fossil) Op. 1520 caeruleus, Heliases, Cuvier, 1830 Op. 1563 caesa, Agathis, Klug, 1835 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1531 cancroides, Acarus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Arachnida) Op. 1542 chrishna, Ammonites, Forbes, 1846 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1519 coryli, Phytoptus, Frauenfeld, 1865 Op. 1521 coryligallarum, Phytoptus, Targioni- Tozzetti, 1885 Op. 1521 delicata, Harpa, Perry, 1811 Op. 1518 distincta, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Hemiptera) Op. 1524 dryados, Curculio, Gmelin, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 dujardin, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840 Op. 1551 dujardini, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840 (Tardigrada) Op. 1551 elegans, Ophiura, Leach, 1815 Op. 1560 elongata, Isea, Guérin[-Méneville], 1832 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 emolus, Polyommatus, Godart, [1824] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1527 felis, Silurus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1547 fragilis, Spongia, Montagu, 1818 (Porifera) Op. 1550 frenatus, Heliases, Cuvier, 1830 Op. 1563 frischii, Melolontha, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1546 galeata, Testudo, Schoepff, 1792 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 gangeticus, Delphinus, Roxburgh, 1801 (Mammalia) Op. 1565 gardeniella, Eriophyes, Keifer, 1964 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 germari, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Hemiptera) Op. 1523 gigantea, Alce, Blumenbach, 1799 (Mammalia) Op. 1566 gryphaeoides, Avicula, J. de C. Sowerby, 1836 (Bivalvia) Op. 1540 gryphaeoides, Avicula, Sedgwick, 1829 Op. 1540 guttatus, Sipunculus (Phymosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865 Op. 1532 haswelli, Cryptocoeloma, Rathbun, 1923 (Decapoda) Op. 1554 hilarella, Azinis, Walker, 1863 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1544 honoluliensis, Loxoconcha, Brady, 1880 (Ostracoda) Op. 1541 hudsonicus, Diplograptus, Nicholson, 1875 Op. 1561 humilis, Holothuria, Selenka, 1867 Op. 1533 Javanensis, Sipunculus (Phymosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865 Op. 1532 lepisurus, Heliases, Cuvier, 1830 Op. 1563 longicaudatum, Kinosternon, Spix, 1824 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 manitoulinensis, Climacograptus, Caley, 1936 (Graptolithina) Op. 1561 marinus, Silurus, Mitchill, 1815 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1547 marmoratus, Curculio, Goeze, 1777 (Coleoptera) Op. 1526 marmorea, Discocephala, Laporte, 1833 (Hemiptera) Op. 1538 melagaster, Labrus, Bloch, 1792 Op. 1548 melanotheron, Sarotherodon, Riippell, 1852 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1548 montagui, Isaea, Milne Edwards, 1830 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 naucum, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) Op. 1553 neubergicus, Ammonites, Hauer, 1858 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1519 nigricana, Pyralis, Fabricius, 1794 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1528 oberhaeuser, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840 Op. 1551 oberhaeuseri, Macrobiotus, Doyére, 1840 (Tardigrada) Op. 1551 octospina, Neamia, Smith & Radcliffe, 1912 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1564 oculator, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1775 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1546 oculatus, Anthicus, Paykull, 1798 (Coleoptera) Op. 1549 odorata, Testudo, Latreille, 1801 (Reptilia) Op. 1534 orbiculus, Nautilus, Forsskal, 1775 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1536 osgoodi, Chagrinichnites, Hannibal & Feldmann, 1983 (Trace Fossil) Op. 1520 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 pacificum, Phascolosoma, Keferstein, 1866 (Sipuncula) Op. 1532 parallelus, Dacus, Wiedemann, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1558 pericarpius, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 pileatum, Discocephalum, Linton, 1891 (Cestoda) Op. 1538 planus, Dytiscus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera) Op. 1556 prattii, Orbitolites, Michelin, 1847 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1537 proteus, Merium, Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1525 pseudogallarum, Acarus, Vallot, 1836 Op. 1521 punctumalbum, Curculio, Herbst, 1784 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 pyrausta, Phalaena, Hubner, [1819] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1544 pyri, Phytoptus, Pagenstecher, 1857 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 quadrituberculatus, Curculio, Fabricius, 1787 (Coleoptera) Op. 1529 renales, Ascaris, Goeze, 1782 (Nematoda) Op. 1552 rusticella, Phalaena, Clerck, 1759 Op. 1528 schellembergii, Corixa, Spinola, 1837 Op. 1524 schinzii, Pugmeodon, Kaup, 1838 (Mammalia) Op. 1535 scolops, Phymosoma, Selenka, De Man & Bulow, 1884 (Sipuncula) Op. 1532 scolyticida, Coeloides, Wesmael, 1838 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1530 sphenurus, Apogon, Klunzinger, 1884 Op. 1564 spinicauda, Sipunculus (Phymosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865 Op. 1532 squamata, Asterias, Delle Chiaje, 1828 (Ophiuroidea) Op. 1560 stephensoni, Physcosoma, Stephen, 1942 (Sipuncula) Op. 1532 studeri, Halianassa, von Meyer, 1838 Op. 1535 subnigra, Testudo, Lacépéde, 1789 (Reptilia) Op. 1534; see p. 192 ternatensis, Heliases, Bleeker, 1856 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1563 transversa, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Heteroptera) Op. 1555 tuberculata, Lagria, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1525 tulipae, Eriophyes, Keifer, 1938 (Arachnida) Op. 1521 typa, Callianidea, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Decapoda) Op. 1522 variabilis, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1525 vastus, Sipunculus, Selenka, De Man & Bulow, 1884 (Sipuncula) Op. 1532 villosa, Tiphia, Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1559 violaceus, Sipunculus (Phascolosomum), De Quatrefages, 1865 Op. 1532 viridis, Cercaria, Miller, 1786 (Protista) Op. 1549 viridis, Pomacentrus, Cuvier, 1830 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1563 weeksii, Ctenopoma, Boulenger, 1896 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1562 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS (for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 275—278) ACRIDIDAE Karny, 1907(Orthoptera) . . albosignatus, Heliophanus, Koch, 1867 (Arachnida, Araneae) algecirensis, Ceratopogon, Strobl, 1900 (Diptera) é Anguilla Shaw, 1803 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes) F anguilla, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes) . angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) . : angustus, Ixodes, Neumann, 1899 (Arachnida, Acari) . annulicornis, Coccobius, Ratzeburg, 1852 (Hymenoptera) . Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) . arnouxii, Gymnodactylus, Duméril, 1851 (Reptilia, Sauria) ater, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Atheris Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Serpentes) australis, Chorista, Klug, 1838 (Mecoptera) azurea, Musca, Fallén, 1817 (Diptera) . Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) . bicirrhosum, Ichnosoma, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes) . bicirrhosum, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes) . brevipalpis, Helophorus, Bedel, 1881 (Coleoptera) _—: Castiarina Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Coleoptera) . Catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. E. ‘Benett (1831). Chira Simon, 1902 (Arachnida, Araneae) . et Ah: chlorechis, Vipera, Pel, [1851] (Reptilia, Serpentes) . Chloroechis Bonaparte, 1849 (Reptilia, aie Chorista Klug, 1836 (Mecoptera) : CHORISTEIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Gastropoda) . Choristes Carpenter, 1872 (Gastropoda) ee CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Mecoptera) . CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Gastropoda) do! cinereus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera) . cloropus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) . Clymenia Orsted, 1844 (Annelida, Polychaeta) Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 (Hymenoptera) coffeae, Lecanium, Walker, 1852 (Homoptera) coffeae, Saissetia, Déplanche, 1859 (Homoptera) conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933 (Diptera) . corrugata, Gryphaea, Say, 1823 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) creticus, Helophorus, Kiesenwetter, 1858 (Coleoptera) . cubensis, Lysianax, Stebbing, 1897 (Crustacea, ara cymodoce, Cancer, Herbst, 1801 (Decapoda) . deformis, Ricinula, Reeve, 1846 (Gastropoda) : densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925 (Bryozoa) . dentifrons, Trapezia, Latreille, 1828 (Decapoda). . designata, Shira, Peckham & Peckham, 1896 (Arachnida, Araneae) dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) . . : dracunculus, Callionymus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). Drepanites Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) : geal, )): Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) . 279 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 elegans, Choristes, Carpenter, 1872 (Gastropoda) epigena, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera). . exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus var. B, Nicholson, 1868 (Graptolithina . exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876 Se a : Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (Diptera) . falcatus, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822 (Ammonoidea) . fausti, Helophorus, Kuwert, 1887 (Coleoptera) flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863 (Copepoda) . Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877 (Homoptera) Fryeria Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) ; graminis, Fonscolombia, Lichtenstein, 1877 (Homoptera) . GRYLLACRIDIDAE Stal, 1874 (Orthoptera) . GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Orthoptera) . guttatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875 (Arachnida, Araneae) Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia) Haplocanthus Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia) . . heeri, Myriochele, Malmgren, 1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta) helena, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes) hentzi, Centrurus, Banks, 1904 (Arachnida, Scorpionida) . heraclei, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) . rersty heraclii, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera). . hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites), Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) . Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Ammonoidea) alt es ee ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae). . imbricata, Aphrodita, Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothae imbricata: ‘Annelida, Polychaeta) . imperialis, Attus, Rossi, 1847 (Arachnida, Araneae), inequalipes, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae) . Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 (Gastropoda) . Iphinoe Bate, 1856(Cumacea). . . ee Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889 (Copepoda) Jaceana, Euribia, Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Diptera) . kochi, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae) Larnaudia Bott, 1966(Decapoda) . . larnaudii, Thelphusa, Milne Edwards, 1869 (Decapoda) lepidota, Aphrodita, Pallas, 1766 (Annelida, eee { lineata, Sigara, Fabricius, 1787 (Heteroptera) ; LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) . LOCUSTIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Orthoptera) : longipes, Thelphusa, Milne Edwards, 1869 (Decapoda) longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907 (Copepoda) longisetosus, Isochaeta, Thompson, 1903 apie Lucicutia Giesbrecht, 1898 (Copepoda) ; LUCICUTIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda) magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea) marinus, Elophorus, Paykull, 1798 (Coleoptera) . ! Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata) . as, he be 110 262 262 229 259 233 252 252 20 19, 187 134 110 22, 186 112 110 190 190 99 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Mesodon Rafinesque, 1821 (Gastropoda) . MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Gastropoda). . . minuta, Aphrodita, Fabricius, 1780 (currently Pholoe minuta; Annelida, Polychaeta) minuta, Aphrodita, Pennant, 1777 (Annelida, Polychaeta) . Mithion Simon, 1884 (Arachnida, Araneae) mosquitensis, Risomurex, Kemperman & Coomans, 1984 (Gastropoda) . Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes) . Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta) nigra, Rallus, Miller, 1784 (Aves). nucleus, Ammonites, Phillips, 1829 (Ammonoidea) . nucleus, Ammonites, Roemer, 1841 (Ammonoidea) . obscurellus, Helophorus, Poppius, 1907 (Coleoptera) Ochthebius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera) . . oculata, Myriochele, Zaks, 1923 (Annelida, Polychaeta) Oedipode Latreille, 1825 (Orthoptera) . ; OEDIPODIDAE Walker, 1870 (Orthoptera) Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes) ovalis, Heliastes, Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis; Osteichthyes, Perciformes) . pandora, Anthrax, Fabricius, 1805 (Diptera) . : Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (Mollusca, Coleoidea) patachonica, Oidemia, King, 1828 (Aves, Anseriformes) patachonicus, Micropterus, King, 1831 (currently Tachyeres patachonicus: Aves, Anseriformes) pelagica, Heteronota, Girard, 1857 (currently Gymnodactylus, Cyrtodactyls or Nactus pelagicus; Reptilia, Sauria) penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus; " Arachnida, Araneae) . pertii, Stigmodera, Gory & Laporte, 1837 (Coleoptera) peus, Culex, Speiser, 1904 (Diptera) . Physcus Howard, 1895 (Hymenoptera). . pitcheri, Gryphaea, Morton, 1834 (currently Texigryphaca pitcher Mollusca, Bivalvia) * %. 5 : Polychroma Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera) . Polygyra Say, 1818 (Gastropoda) : POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894(Gastropoda). . . porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman, 1834 (Coleoptera) : priscus, Haplocanthus, Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia) Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Diptera) : Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) . . Psammocollus Grube, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta) . pteneres, Anas, Forster, 1844 (currently Tachyeres pteneres; Aves, Anseriformes) . Ptochus Schoenherr, 1826 (Coleoptera) : puncticollis, Ceratopogon, Becker, 1903 (currently Culicoides puncticollis; Diptera). pusillus, Callionymus, Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, heise nike ae pustulosa, Fryeria, Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) . . : pustulosa, Phyllidia, Cuvier, 1804 (Gastropoda) . Ranguna Bott, 1966 (Decapoda) . . Remaneicella Bronnimann, Zaninetti & Whittaker, 1983 (Foraminiferida) Reyfria Yonow, 1986 (Gastropoda). . . Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Arachnida, Araneae) . Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) . 22, 186 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 Rhyncolus Germar, 1817 (Coleoptera) . . hoger Los | sepvonk 241 Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958 (Gastropoda). eeosien Ac Peer ls: 187 Rosema Walker, 1855(Lepidoptera) . . eno NRE si nid at. ote 123 rueppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869 (Gastropoda). . . . .. . 2. 2.02. ee 161 fuppelii, Fryeria, Bergh;,1869 (Gastropoda) .. . iarsamA..atndormi As M2!..2¢ 162 Saissetia Déplanche, 1859(Homoptera) . . “| .2ushte 114 seemanni, Eurypelma, Pickard-Cambridge, 1897 (Arachnida, Araneae) storvarmeciaek 165 Semioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) . . . : em Seem, Phe = 49 septemvolva, Polygyra, Say, 1818 (Gastropoda). . .......4... 95 Septotrochammina Zheng, 1979 (Foraminiferida) . . C3) orlit Zsveter 41 Shira Peckham & Peckham, 1896 (Arachnida, Araneae) . 1681 vstrgo dt atin 106 Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda) . ......... 236 STENOPELMATIDAE Burmeister, 1838 (Orthoptera) . . ........ 25 STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838(Orthoptera). . . ....... DS: 191, 272 susimatosoma, Gulex, Dyar, LO0T(DIptETAa) « Payot: oilhsna | SOR. odek shaken’ 247 striatus, Drepanites, Benett, 1831(Ammonoidea) . 19 subnigra, Testudo, Bonnaterre, 1789 (currently Pelusios subnigra Reptilia, TGOVTGNICS) ey ee eer, duit: : 192 PADUCTISIS: RONUS, GINeNHS Li SOCNMESI cs a” 5 x wines be. se oe Bee a2 Pachycres Owens sia (AVES ADSeEMIOnMes),. |.) sey.. 6 hs ke ee 181 tahitiensis, Rallus, Gmelin, 1789 (Aves). . SET em iiseciate seo 52 tenuissima, Clymenia, Orsted, 1844 (Annelida, Polychaeta) ASD SG E> diced ek ot 229 terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830(Diptera) . . . .... . 129 texense, Homoeomma, Simon, 1892 (Arachnida, Araneae) . . . .... . 165 MNDUSMRICK yar, LOAMUIplera) . . ~ 2 8 6 6s S. 2) ieee 247 Thyene Simon, 1885 (Arachnida, Araneae). es sieseee elk REEL Fin an bE os msunns 112 TLIGIAUS DEICIEX SAY, LS la(GASthOPOGAy sy: ©. Me! secs ¢ chae che onan SF oo ccteeibs 95 Trapecm Berthald1827 (DEGApOda).. vs citweccans EME -accnt dansk = 105 Trapezia Latreille,1828(Decapoda) . . 5 ph edb Dilber sites 104 triangulum, Philanthus (Fabricius, 1775) (Hymenoptera) . acta 4 Be ode eke 45 Valanginites Sayn, 1910(Ammonoidea) . . > Bonaet 91 vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossformes) ee 131 verticalis, Corisa, Fieber, 1851 (Heteroptera). . . . aM DAs i tea ee 239 viridicollis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) . . . . ....... 241 vittatus, Buthus, Say, 1821 (Arachnida, Scorpionida) . . ........ 233 vittatus, Buthus, Wood, 1863 (Arachnida, Scorpionida) . ........ 233 wallacii, Semioptera, Gray, 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae) . ........ 49 woodi, Ixodes, Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) . . ......... 167 Zelica Hiibner, [1825](Lepidoptera) . . Sh end \ chasbaltes A Ari bsastesee os 123 zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) . se abottt otinérich) CARS chinuntt dc 123 . 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46(4) December 1989 283 CORRIGENDA Vol. 44, part 2 page 133, last line For ‘fig. 1’ read ‘fig. 1, la, 1b’ Vol. 45, part 1 page 87, line 24 For ‘In 1910 Opinion 67’ read ‘In 1916 Opinion 67 Vol. 46, part 1 page 38, line 3 For ‘Crytodactylus’ read ‘Cyrtodactylus’ Vol. 46, part 1 page 51, 5 lines from foot of page For ‘Nocturnis’ read *Notornis’ Vol. 46, part 1 page 71, line 3 For ‘Diptera’ read ‘Coleoptera’ PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF THE PRESENT VOLUME Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication 1 1-84 29 March 1989 2 85-152 23 June 1989 3 153-220 29 September 1989 4 221-283 19 December 1989 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: Title page, Table of Contents (I-VI), 1-283 Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume le Contents—continued Indexes etc. Authors in volume 46 (1989) . . . 273 Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in rulings of the Cc ommission published in in volume 46(1989) . . . cal Ape ies 275 Key names in Applications and Comments published i in n volume 46 (1989) aay 279 Corrigenda. . . Se ae tk ss ee 283 Publication dates and pagination of volume 46 (1989) . me Pe, sl de gees 283 Instructionsto Binder . . Se Lee Otro een en 0S 283 Table of Contents of present volume 46 (1989) Pender e Me ae Se NSS he Ae Se ae I INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Parts of the Bulletin since 44 (1) should be consulted as examples. Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current binomen in parentheses. Author’s name. Full postal address should be given. Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission Secretariat. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading toa final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described... .’. References. These should be given for all authors cited. The titles of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages, the publisher and the place of publication. Submission of application: Two copies should be sent to the address on the inside front cover. The Secretariat is willing to offer additional advice at an early stage in the preparation of manuscripts. CONTENTS Notices . Election of members of the International Commission | on Zoological Nomen- clature. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in » Zoology Supplement. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Financial Report for the year 1988 Applications Gryphaea pitcheri Morton, 1834 (currently Texigryphaea pitcheri; eres Bivalvia): proposed conservation. B.S. Kues&S.G. Lucas. . iG sag eae a ie Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 and Myriochele aculies Zaks, 1923 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation. R. Nilsen & T. Holthe ; Buthus vittatus (currently Centruroides vittatus; Arachnida, Scorpionida): proposed recognition of Wood (1863) as author of the specific name and designation of a neotype, and Centrurus hentzi (currently Centruroides hentzi) Banks, 1904: proposed conservation of the specific name. S. A. Stockwell& H.W.Levi. . . Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type species. J. K. Lowry & H. E. Stoddart Corisa verticalis Fieber, 1851 (currently Trichocorixa verticalis; Insecta, sap | proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson. eo ie Curculio viridicollis Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name, and Rhyncolus Germar, 1817: proposed designation of Curculio ater Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. R. T. Thompson : Ochthebius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of Elophoru marinus Paykull, 1798 as the type species. M. Hansen Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): pro- posed conservation of the specific names by the suppression of C. peus Speiser, 1904. B. F. Eldridge & R. E. Harbach és Exoprosopa Macquart, 1840 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation of Anthrax pandora Fabricius, 1805 as the type species. N. L. Evenhuis & D. J. Greathead . Musca heraclei Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Euleia heraclei; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling of the specific name. I. M. White & P.R.Seymour . . Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed c conser- vation of the specificname.R.Fricke . . Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes): proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species, so conserving Anguilla Shaw, 1803.R.A.Cooper&O.A.Crimmen . . Haplocanthosaurus Hatcher, 1903 (Reptilia, Saurischia): proposed conservation. S.G.Lucas&A.P.Hunt . . Atheris Cope, 1862 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation, “and proposed confirmation of Vipera chlorechis Pel, [1851] as sie valid name of the type species. D. G. Broadley . ; Eat LI Woke Sct a ener Comments Report on the proposed conservation of the family-group name BELEMNITIDAE d’Orbigny, 1845 (Mollusca, Coleoidea), with suppression of the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and the designation of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 as the type genus. P. K. Tubbs; P. Doyle; W. Riegraf; G. Hahn; C. H. Holland; C. W. Wright; D. T. Donovan; A. B. Challinor; M. K. Howarth . : On the proposed precedence of GRYLLACRIDOIDEA Stal, 1874 (Insecta, Orthoptera) o over STENOPELMATOIDEA Burmeister, 1838. D. C. F. Rentz SEES orteicy eben teats Page 221 222 222 223 224 226 229 233 236 239 241 244 247 250 252 255 259 262 264 267 272 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ah St sidysety sts