RD ry Oo \Al4aqnea
AL wa VV ivuV

The

Bulletin

Zoological
Nomenclature

We ZN: The Official Periodical

of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Volume 50, 1993

Published on behalf of the Commission by

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o The Natural History Museum

Cromwell Road

London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

ISSN 0007-5167
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

iat wap ye yi

te

Y ae
LON ant 2 i
a he

~ se

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notices . ;

The International Commission on oolaeial Nonienclatute sited its publications

Addresses of members of the Commission

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in eh Second 1 Supplement f
1990 . : 2 : picid

Bulletin of eoliecal iveinenciatares Back! Conic’ :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - Crustacea and Mollusca Giipanr

General Article
’ A proposed system for stabilizing the names of species, illustrated with reference to
the ICHNEUMONIDAE (Hymenoptera). D.S. Yu .

Applications

Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa, Cryptostomata): proposed designation of
Ceriopora nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 as the type species. P.N. Wyse
Jackson.

Pleurobranchus Bead Rappell & teen [1828] and P. me ancace
1835 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. W.B.
Rudman

Cryptophagus advena ‘Waltl, 1834 (Caer Terie 5 ieee GEER ehees
proposed conservation of the specific name. R.D. Pope .

Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 area Coe
proposed conservation by the designation of Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758
as the type species of Buprestis. G.H. Nelson & W.F. Barr. . .

Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Samer ata otetteste
1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Buprestis
variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans
Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. H. Mihle. Spiel Ne

Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coenen
proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Buprestis acuminata De
Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila. H. Mihle. salt

Nacaduba Moore, Pel (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over <p yetoie
rus Hubner, [1819]. T. Hirowatari

Banksinella luteolateralis var. albothorax Theoheld 1907 (ena yy Cizontelae
niconion) albothorax), B. luteolateralis var. circumluteola Theobald, 1908 (currently
A. (N.) circumluteolus) and A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 1985 (Insecta, Diptera):
proposed conservation of the specific names and fee! ab ofa dere for A.
(N.) albothorax. T.J. Zavortink. an)

Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): rranosed: conservation Sy
designation of Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as the type species. A. Woznica &
T. Zatwarnicki . ‘

Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi Mathews 1912 fodtgentls: C Giants ele lonnberg
Aves, Charadriiformes): proposed conservation of the subspecific name. J.-F
Voisin, C. Voisin, W.J. Bock & M. Théry

Comments
On the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859

(Cnidaria, sania and CLAVINAE rsd 1904 np a es R.G.
Hughes :

Ane WN

52

Il

On the proposed designation of Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type
species of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). A.R. Kabat;
M.O. Mancefiido & M.F. Lopez Armengol . ;

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Pormtaee even (eorkalopods
Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the sascha ofa akan M. Horn;
F. Strauch & M. Bertling; R.V. Melville .

On the proposed conservation of usage of generic names in the 1 BUPRESTIDAE we Insecta,
Coleoptera). C.L. Bellamy ,

On the proposed precedence of ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 o over CHORAGIDAE Kirby,
1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera). B.A. Holloway & G. Kuschel =

On the proposed designation of Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the ee species
of Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 Crane an da area R.P.S. Jefferies; G.
Ubaghs . i

On the proposed Coneeine er the areas name oe jie eee Taylor, 1942
(Amphibia, Anura). H.M. Smith . :

On the proposed conservation of some generic names oe ae in Eine
abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris Geoffroy, 1762 (Crustacea
and Insecta). I.M. Kerzhner .

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1699. Conus fulmen Reeve, 1843 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name
conserved, and Conus berghausi Michelotti, 1847 given precedence over C.
demissus Philippi, 1836 . : od ES ©) COR MY eee

Opinion 1700. Laeocochlis mikes & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca, apace:
conserved as the correct spelling . : :

Opinion 1701. Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 mad Glyptagnostus Whitehouse 1936
(Trilobita): accepted usage conserved .

Opinion 1702. Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer von Waldhent in Piicuwcild, 1825 (curently
Paladin eichwaldi; Trilobita): neotype designation conserved

Opinion 1703. Goniosoma conspersum Perty, 1833 (currently Milobares conspersus;
Arachnida, Opiliones): specific name not conserved. . .

Opinion 1704. Artemia TP Stash Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Bianchidotay. specihie
name conserved

Opinion 1705. Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 fineees Saga tae nee BS Tes
by rediscovered holotype .

Opinion 1706. Eurymeloides fie eh 1889 (Insecta, beets, apne hates
Erichson, 1842 confirmed as the ‘ype species, and a neotype ale for E.
bicincta . .

Opinion 1707. Bediorines Sianerets 1880 (Insecta, Ee eaee eal (G; ides latipes
Westwood, 1837 confirmed as the type species .

Opinion 1708. Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Insecta, Calcagnie): Pa

Opinion 1709. Diabrotica undecimpunctata Mannerheim, 1843 and D. undecimpunc-
tata howardi Barber, 1947 (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific and epee names
conserved . :

Opinion 1710. J.C. Mosca. S ; (1801- 1805) paetian sige ae = Ae earned
for nomenclatural purposes, withthe specific names of Saperda alboguttata
Megerle, 1803 (currently Apomecyna alboguttata; Coen and asia
variegata Megerle, 1803 (Diptera) conserved

Opinion 1711. Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949 ieee SDipieia): aaaiee! name
conserved .

Opinion 1712. Dpeacnhile, hydei S iartevant, 1921 (insects Dipiera): specifi name
conserved .

Opinion 1713. Some bes Eaniyn -group names paces efycacacabcea)s names based
on Colletes Latreille, 1802, on Paracolletes Smith, 1853, on Halictus Latreille,

52

54

56

57

‘57

57

58

59

61

63

65

66

68

70

2
74
75

Tal

fi)

83

84

1804, on Anthidium Fabricius, 1804 and on Anthophora Latreille, 1803 given
precedence over some senior names. . .

Opinion 1714. Streptograptus Yin, 1937 SGenptchichini): Graptoithus isan Baily
1871 designated as the type species .

Opinion 1715. HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes; Cypriniformes) not
given precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839

Opinion 1716. Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 eam Anura): specifi: name
conserved by the designation of a neotype

Instructions to Authors

Notices . A

Call for nominations fe new aenibens on the initeanationtl Gunenioatey on
Zoological Nomenclature . :

_The European Association for Zevlovical NMaiacuclainrd!

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Secnnl | Supplement to
1990'. es, Sem gs es se shone a Senet Bara dhs fen Api

Obituary Mr R.V. Melville .

Applications

Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] and Tokophyra Bitschli, 1889 (Ciliophora, Suctoria):
proposed conservation; Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834] and Podophyra
quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (currently Tokophyra quadripartita):
proposed conservation of the specific names. I.V. Dovgal & Ya.I. Starobogatovy .

Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Melanella polita; Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed conservation of usage of the specific name, so conserving the specific
name of Buccinum acicula Miiller, 1774 (currently Cecilioides acicula). A. Warén &
E. Gittenberger.

Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898, (Gdiercntly Ganieiennes led: ees ieoptcr).
proposed conservation of the specific name. J.A.L. Watson & H.M. Abbey

Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed replacement of
syntype by a neotype, so conserving usage of the specific name and that of
A. hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878. I1.M. Kerzhner & E. Heiss

Notonecta obliqua Gallén in Thunberg, 1787 (Insecta, Hicterapterty: Beaponedl
conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson & J.T. Polhemus .

Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara (Pseudovermicorixa) nitrelingaic:
Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson &
J.T. Polhemus . :

Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 ‘Ga Spras ig enieered) tne ected
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson. :
Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus; Insecta, Einentany

proposed conservation of the specific name. A.N. Nilsson .

HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed Pee ay H. M.
Smith & D.B. Wake. :

Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 Oidaeaedin Artiodactyla): ee ee eanuicn hoe
L. ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the type species. A.W. Gentry & E.P.J. Heizmann.

Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed designation of
Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the type species. A.W. Gentry & G. Rossner.

Comments

On the proposed conservation of the generic and specific names of Zanclea costata
Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). B.P. Haldar .

101

103

107

112

iD

118

121

124

127

129

133

137

140

IV

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). M. Oliverio

On the proposed precedence of Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca,
Cephalopoda) over T. persica (Naef, 1923). M.R. Clarke.

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus (Mollusca,
Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the oleae of a lectotype. N.J.
Silberling .

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Gebia major capensis ‘Krauss,
1843 and G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently Upogebia capensis and U. africana;
Crustacea, Decapoda) by the designation of a replacement neotype for U. capensis.
C.L. Griffiths; W. Emmerson; K. Baba; T.E. Bowman; J.W. Martin; A.B.
Williams

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybapsa) topeka
Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka) Sa a es H.M.
Smith ;

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Mugil curema and M. liza
Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). I.J.
Harrison .

On a proposed neotype for ‘Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) (Reptilia, Saurischia)
P.K. Tubbs; A.P. Hunt & S.G. Lucas; R.M. Sullivan; H.-D. Sues .

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1717. Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 Cea
conserved in their accepted usage . ; :

Opinion 1718. Balea Gray, 1824 (Mollusca, (eaqcopaday: eee s tae

Opinion 1719. Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Helix
candiota Pfeiffer, 1849 designated as the type species . .

Opinion 1720. Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844 (Mollusca, Nautiloidea): C Teevigatum
M’Coy, 1844 ets aac as the type species, and a neotype designated for
C. laevigatum ‘

Opinion 1721. BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 (Mollusca, Coleoidea): ruled to be unavail-
able; Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and B. paxillosa Lamarck, 1801 suppressed .
Opinion 1722. Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved, and
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829: Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792 designated as the

type species . .

Opinion 1723. Carabus mallis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; ‘Insecta,
Coleoptera): specific name conserved . Se

Opinion 1724. Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as s correct
original spelling

Opinion 1725. Meladema Laren: 1835 finceee esta: eoreced

Opinion 1726. Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Tachinus
punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 designated as the type species; Ischnosoma Stephens,
1829 conserved; and Mycetoporus given precedence over Ischnosoma . .

Opinion 1727. Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 ae Coleoptera): placed on the Official
List of Generic Names. .

Opinion 1728. Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ‘Platyscelis
margelanica Kraatz, 1882 designated as the type species . .

Opinion 1729. Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Tenebrio hypolithus
Pallas, 1781 designated as the type species, so conserving Oodescelis Motschulsky,

Opinion 1730. Graptolithus clintonensis (currently Monograptus_clintonensis;
Graptolithina): specific name attributed to Hall, 1852 and a lectotype designated.

Opinion 1731. Monograptus crenulatus (currently Monoclimacis crenulata;
Graptolithina): specific name attributed to Elles & Wood, 1911, and a es
designated. Fee ores tcl OER, «| aol RP aE att cee

140

141

141

142

179

181

Opinion 1732. Scylliorhinus atlanticus Koefoed, 1927 (currently Apristurus atlanticus;
Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): specific name conserved

Opinion 1733. Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudaise specific
name conserved

Opinion 1734. Ichthyosaurus patio Geo 1340 (oumentts Manfaaetiuns ironies:
Reptilia, Ichthyopterygia): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype.

Opinion 1735. Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 (Reptilia, Squamata): neotype deehecstedl

Opinion 1736. Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 (Mammalia,
Primates): specific name conserved . . .

Opinion 1737. Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Granditier: 1899 (Mammalia, Primates):
generic and specific names conserved ;

Instructions to Authors

Notices .

The European Reaeanen fier Zaoloenal Namenclantre.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology - Secohd Sipalencar to
1990 . P a hs ee

Bulletin of Pamloeicl Remenciaieees Gaeeess eal Molluscs ier

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - Back Copies.

Nomenclatural Note

The dating of certain of d’Orbigny’s brachiopod and bivalve nominal taxa. M.O.
Mancenido, E.F. Owen & N.J. Morris. : Sh ean Athan ea nce:

Applications

Robulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently Lenticulina nodosa; Foraminiferida):
proposed retention of neotype despite rediscovery of syntypes. H. es &
J. Vespermann . ;

Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (ciitrently. Avecohe antie Pormnidentds): pro-
posed replacement of neotype by rediscovered lectotype, and Rotalia schloenbachi
(currently Notoplanulina? schloenbachi; Foraminiferida): proposed placement on
the Official List. H. Meyn & J. Vespermann. . .

Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaia: 1831 (cumently Adeipmeile
nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the
specific names and designation of a neotype for H. nitidula. E. Gittenberger .

Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma meneghinii; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): toe ahs peeps ak of neotype by rediscovered lectotype. R.
Gatto

Platynectes Repinbant 1879 (inecias sGolea pte prapbsed pomeeereeont Hi N.
Nilsson . :

Polycentrus sehenBarohes “Miiller & Toschet 1848 KOstichthyee eceicrine);
proposed conservation of the specific name. H.-J. Paepke

Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed deqenition oF Salina
dra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species. H.M. Smith & D.B.
Wake :

Emys Duméril, 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): propuscd eaiecrvion. R. Ves Webb .

Comments
On the proposed designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta Benson, 1842
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). F. Naggs .

On the proposed designation of Potamolithus wes Pilsbry, 1896. as tie Host species
of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). M.C. Pons da Silva

196

200

202

205

209

212

215

219
224

228

228

VI

On the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus eae
Ammonoidea). M. Urlichs

On the proposed conservation of Seplontarunpia Becca & ee, 1974
(Crustacea, Cumacea) with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as
the type species. L. Watling . ;

On the proposed conservation of Bumestn inane 1758 ane aieieabathnas
Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of B. octoguttata
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis. R.L. Westcott

On the proposed conservation of usage of generic names in the BUPRESTIDAE bigats:
Coleoptera). R.L. Westcott; R.G. Booth . ‘

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Ci ACHE Bl aaa Waltl,
1834 (currently Ahasverus advena; Insecta, Coleoptera). R.G. Booth ,

On the proposed conservation of usage of the mosquito names Aedes (Neomelanico-
nion) albothorax, A. (N.) circumluteolus and A. (N.) mcintoshi asi Diptera).
K.J. Linthicum; J.F. Reinert; P.G. Jupp .

On the proposal to conserve Oecothea Haliday in tern? “1837 and. to desteuee
Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as the type species (Insecta, Diptera). N.L.
Evenhuis, W.N. Mathis & F.C. Thompson . :

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coclophysis haut hp: 1887)
(Reptilia, Saurischia). H.L. Schwartz; R.E. Molnar; Z ‘ie TRS Holtze r=
F.A. Jenkins . 2 :

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1738. Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): Isis encrinula
Lamarck, 1815 designated as the type species . :

Opinion 1739. Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (eecally Malaneda (Balcis) as
Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved .

Opinion 1740. Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Detacodal A aananlied Bate.
1975 designated as the type species . '

Opinion 1741. Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 (cameatly haan paladin; Jncactas
Heteroptera): specific name conserved . re

Opinion 1742. Lincus Stal, 1867 (Insecta, Fiegengioa): oe Mr ag croupius
Rolston, 1983: specific name not conserved . WA.

Opinion 1743. TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Gakapinas paciae Beuied “
TACHINUSIDAE to remove homonymy with TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
(Insecta, Diptera), and TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, einaeanee given
precedence over TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821 . .

Opinion 1744. Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 and Pyrophaena Gehiees 1860 Gases,
Diptera): conserved . ‘

Opinion 1745. Copromyza es Fallén, 1820 (currently Eaters i Rackicpoca)
limosa; Insecta, Diptera): lectotype replaced, so conserving the usage of the specific
name and also that of Leptocera (Rachispoda) lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855) .

Opinion 1746. Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 (Insecta, Diptera): holotype
replaced by a neotype . :

Opinion 1747. Eristalis Latreille, 1804, Hialeah: Baba 1805, wiilota Wieipc
1822 and Eumerus Meigen, 1822 (Insecta; Diptera): conserved.

Opinion 1748. EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 Crete. et given PES
over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829. .

Opinion 1749. Epicrium Wagler, 1828 and ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor 1968 (Amaphibies;
Gymnophiona): conserved, and EPICRIDAE Berlese, 1885 (Arachnida, Acari):
conserved by the emendation of EPICRIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia,
Gymnophiona) to EPICRIUMIDAE . ee hs cee

Instructions to Authors

229

231

231

232

234

234

235

236

240

242

244

245

246

248

251

253

255

256

259

261

264

Notices : H

Fourth Edition of the iiternaliondl Code a cineca Naramnelstars ;

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

Call for nominations for new members of the International Gaaieeson on
Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names sae Werke in Zoology — Sedan ! Supplement to to
1990 . ; RT ne as 5, ameio, holes Spent fe

Financial Report for 1992

Applications

Chtenopteryx Appelléf, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed confirmation as
the correct original spelling. G. Bello & R. Giannuzzi-Savelli . a

Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken, 1815 (Crustacea, Copepoda): apes
conservation. Z. Kabata .

Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 and X none Givice 1814 (Onizichthyes, Peritonsea:
proposed conservation. J.E. Randall & M.L. Bauchot.

Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha): pneocel designation
of C. stewarti Charig, 1980 as the type species. A.J. Charig. E

Comments

On the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus mee
Ammonoidea). U. Lehmann; M. Urlichs .

On the proposed conservation of Clavella Oken, 1815 ad Pencils Dice: 1815
(Crustacea, Copepoda). G.A. Boxshall.

On the proposal to conserve Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, “1837 aa to ee
Helomyza fenestralis as the type species (Insecta, Diptera). C.W. Sabrosky .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka
Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka) (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes). R.L.
Mayden & C.R. Gilbert; B. Kuhajda; F.B. Cross & J.T. Collins .

On the proposed conservation of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Repuitas Sent
apsida). A.R.I. Cruickshank; L.R. Walter; A.J. Charig

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis Mai (Cope 1887)
(Reptilia, Saurischia). D.D. Gillette, J.L. Gillette & E.H. Colbert; B.S. Creisler; N.
Hotton .

On the proposed Coneervationt of fe pabepe ce name ah Ci Gatfaranial antarctica
lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta skua lonnbergi; Aves, Charadrii-
formes). W.R.P. Bourne, P.R. Colston & R.W. Furness .

On the proposed designation of Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 a as the a
species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Saaeeiee x. IL. paaetg A.M.
Lister

On the proposed desienation ‘of Oninlege ficken Genvars ‘1849 as ithe fre Species
of Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). A.M. Lister .

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1750. Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia, Sauria): C. propython Cope, 1869
designated as the type species .

Opinion 1751. Procellaria gigantea Gracia [1789] culy ice saeees psa
Aves, Procellariiformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the designation
of a neotype . os He May

Indexes, etc.
Authors in volume 50 (1993)

Names and works placed on Official Lists pad indees in paises of the Saratision
published in volume 50 (1993) .

Vil

265
266
266
267

267
268

270

273

277

282

284

285

286

287

290

291

294

295

296

297

298

300

302

Vill

Key names and works in Applications and Comments published i in
volume 50 (1993) .

Information and instructions for eine

Corrigenda

Publication dates and patton ae potas 50 (1993).

Instructions to binder . . . + SoHo

Table of Contents of volume 50 ( 1993)

The

Bulletin
Zoological
Nomenclature

,

aK ¥ ome

< Cl iodi
th mm
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 1993 is £80
or $155, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)

Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)

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 P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza

Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)

Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia)

Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany; Arochndioay) (Russia; 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)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1993

~2 APR 1993
|__ PURCHASED |
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY}

| U OUG GS UVGN wh. WI
\
6
ft,

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 50, part 1 (pp. 1-96) 25 March 1993
Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publica-
tion but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(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 49, part 4 (published on 17 December 1992). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.

(1) Diplodactylus marmoratus Gray, 1845 (currently Christinus or Phyllodactylus
marmoratus; Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific
name. (Case 2863). A.M. Bauer & K. Henle.

(2) Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Coptotermes lacteus; Insecta,
Isoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2864). J.A.L.
Watson & H.M. Abbey.

(3) BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE
Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): proposed removal of homonymy. (Case
2865). P.A. Audisio, R. Fochetti & P. Zwick.

(4) MEGALODONTIDAE Zittel, 1881 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and MEGALODONTIDAE
Konow, 1897 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed removal of homonymy.
(Case 2866). N.D. Springate.

(5) Criconemoides Taylor, 1936 (Nematoda): proposed conservation of usage by
the designation of a neotype for Criconema morgense Hofmanner & Menzel,
1914. (Case 2867). A.R. Maggenti.

(6) Hydromantes Gistl, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed designation of
Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species. (Case
2868). H.M. Smith & D.B. Wake.

(7) HEMIDACTYLUDAE Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed conserva-
tion. (Case 2869). H.M. Smith & D.B. Wake.

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

(8) Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (currently Trochoidea geyeri; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2870).
E. Gittenberger.

Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud, 1831 (currently

Aegopinella nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser-

vation of the specific names and designation of a neotype for Helix nitidula.

(Case 2871). E. Gittenberger.

(10) quepuNI Kraatz, 1857 and XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed precedence over unused senior synonyms; and Quedius
Stephens, 1829: proposed designation of Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 as
the type species. (Case 2872). A.F. Newton, Jr.

(11) Emys Dumeéril, 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation. (Case
2873). R.G. Webb.

(d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or 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.

(9

—

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its
publications

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895
by the Third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 29
zoologists from 19 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 members are
elected by zoologists attending General Assemblies of [UBS or Congresses of its associ-
ated 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 judgements’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission.
A Fourth Edition is in the course of preparation and all zoologists will have a full
opportunity to advise the Commission on its contents.

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 superfamily. Its
provisions can be waived or modified in their application to a particular case when
strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an indi-
vidual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission
takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications should follow
the instructions to authors published in each part of the Bulletin, and assistance will be
given by the Secretariat.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 3

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
contributions 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 1986-1990 was issued in 1991. Copies may be
obtained from the Secretariat.

In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Commission’s
Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may have nomenclatural

-(as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature isacharity (non-profit company)
registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present based in London,
and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial affairs of the
Commission. The sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official Lists and Indexes)
covers less than half of the costs of the service given to zoology by the Commission.
Support is given by academies, research councils, associations and societies from a
number of countries, and also by individuals, but despite this assistance the level of
income remains a severe restraint and donations to the Trust are gratefully received.

For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities see BZN 48:
295-299 (December 1991).

Addresses of members of the Commission

Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027,
U.S.A.

Dr P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia
(Vice-President)

Prof J.0. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, U.S.A.

Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

Prof Dr G. HAHN Jnstitut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-Universitat, D-3550
Marburg, Germany

Prof DrO. HALVORSEN Zoological Museum, Sars GT, 1. N-0562 Oslo 5, Norway

Mr D. HEPPELL Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers
Street, Edinburgh EH] 1JF, U.K.

Prof L.B. HOLTHUIS Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The
Netherlands

Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station,
Nanaimo, B.C., V9R5K6, Canada

Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King-Platz
3, D-2000 Hamburg 13, Germany (President)

Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500
Turku 50, Finland (Councillor)

Dr E. MACPHERSON Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08039 Barcelona,
Spain

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, Case postale 434, CH-12I1 Genéve 6,
Switzerland

Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa
Postal 7172, 04263 Sao Paulo, Brazil

Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova,
Italy

Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhayn, Denmark

Dr I.W.B. NYE c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
(Secretary-General) .

Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia (Councillor)

DrJ.M.SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral Gables,
Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor)

Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Jnstitut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz,
Austria

Dr Y.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
naberezhnaya 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

Dr P. STYS Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniénad 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech
Republic

Dr F.C. THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskayanaberezhnaya
1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunin-cho 3—23-1,
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan

Prof A. WILLINK Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205,
4000 Tucuman, Argentina

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)

Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
Dr H.M.F.P.Andreé

Dr Keiji Baba

Prof Per Brinck

Prof J.H. Callomon

Dr N.R. Chalmers

Dr H.G. Cogger

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S.
Dr R.W. Crosskey

Prof J. Forest

Dr L.B. Holthuis

Prof Dr O. Kraus

Dr M. Luc

Dr E. Macpherson

Mr R.V. Melville

Dr J.L. Norenburg

Dr I.W.B. Nye

Dr E.P.F. Rose

Dr G.B. White

Prof H.B. Whittington, F.R.S.

Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Royal Society)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 5
The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established to
facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and to support the
Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with information on
the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to buy the Code and
the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the Treasurer
Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural Council are
Dr H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof. A. Minelli (Italy) and
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open to all European
zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo

‘ Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of
Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £19 or $35, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £15 or $29;
payment should accompany orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987.
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled
since it was set up in 1895; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official Lists
and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries,
together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. Copies
can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies

Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most volumes of the Opinions
and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are
still available. Prices on application to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is offering a subscription for
individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular disciplines.
For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will receive copies of all Applications,
Comments and Opinions relating to either the Crustacea or Mollusca as soon as
they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Offprints are available
back to 1980.

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD,
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 7

A proposed system for stabilizing the names of species, illustrated with
reference to the ICHNEUMONIDAE (Hymenoptera)

Dicky S. Yu

Agriculture Canada Research Station, P.O. Box 3000, Main, Lethbridge,
Alberta, Canada T1J 4B1

Abstract. Based on information (original combinations, changes in generic combina-
tions, homonymies, synonymies, changes in subspecific status and emendations)
extracted from 3 836 references, the family ICHNEUMONIDAE had 31 709 described
species and subspecies, of which 23 762 were considered valid taxa. In total, 61 001
names (binomina or trinomina) were correct under the terms of the /nternational
Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Of the 37 239 extra names, 26 702 were caused by
‘differing generic combinations. As this is the major source of ‘instability’ in
nomenclature, a proposal is put forward to amend the Code by preserving the
original binomen (generic and specific (or subspecific) names) as the ‘nomenclatural
part’ of the full scientific name, irrespective of taxonomic assignment. The taxonomic
placement is indicated by placing the current generic name (and, when relevant,
subgeneric and specific names) in front of the original binomen. Thus taxonomic
changes will not impinge on the integrity of the nomenclatural binomen and the
latter, which acts as a permanent and unambiguous identification label for the taxon,
can be the key for storing and retrieving taxonomic and biological information either
manually or by computer.

Introduction

The binominal system of taxonomic nomenclature was first proposed by Carl
Linnaeus in 1745 and vol. 1 of the tenth edition of his Systema Naturae (1758) has
been adopted as the origin of the current system of zoological nomenclature (see
Usinger, 1964). The rules that govern the formation and application of zoological
names are formalized in the Jnternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature, of which
the current (third) edition was published in 1985.

The Code regulates the formation of specific names and the effects of changes in
generic combination, homonymy, synonymy, emendation and changes in subspecific
status. The literature pertaining to the family ICHNEUMONIDAE was studied to
determine the effect of the current Code on the number of species-group names in this
family. As a result, a proposal is put forward to amend the Code to make
nomenclature more stable and more applicable to computer-oriented technology
without diminishing the very important taxonomic function of the system.

The ICHNEUMONIDAE were used for this discussion because they are a large family,
estimated to include more than 60000 species (Townes, 1969), and a relatively
homogeneous group, consisting of parasitic wasps that lay eggs in or on other insects.
The larva develops at the expense of its host and kills the host in the process. This
family includes many species of wasps that are important in the biological control of
agricultural and forestry pests.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

The Data Set ;

Some 3836 publications related to ICHNEUMONIDAE published between 1900 and
1990 were compiled from Zoological Record (The Zoological Society of London,
1900-1990), Review of Applied Entomology, Series A: Agricultural (CAB Interna-
tional Information Services, 1913-1990), and Entomological Abstracts (Cambridge
Scientific Abstracts, 1969-1990). Some post-1990 references were also included. The
taxonomic information from these publications and pre-1900 information taken from
Dalla Torre (1901) were entered into a computerized data set managed by a program
(‘TAXA’) written by myself.

The Problem

The family ICHNEUMONIDAE, with 31 709 described species-group taxa, of which
23 762 were considered biologically valid, had 61 001 names (binomina or trinomina)
(Table 1). The major source of extra names was differing generic assign-
ments, followed by synonymy and changes in subspecific combinations or status
(Table 1). Replacements because of homonymy created less than 1% of the extra
names. Emendations may be underestimated because they were seldom explicity
stated.

Over half of the supposedly valid taxa had more than one binomen or trinomen
(Table 2). Many cases of multiple names were at least partly the result of lumping
together nominal taxa, i.e. of subjective synonymy. For example Atractodes crocei-
cornis Haliday, 1838 had 75 names of which 36 were junior synonyms (Jussila, 1979,
p: 37):

A nomenclature system that has created 37 239 extra names (i.e. labels for the taxa)
obviously needs improving. Name changes are a serious loss to the information
retrieval capabilities of the present system (Raven, Berlin & Breedlove, 1971). Since
scientific names are the key to storing and retrieving knowledge pertaining to the
biological world, a stable nomenclature is a necessity for the advancement of our
biological knowledge. The wide use of computers in information retrieval systems
necessitates a nomenclature system that does not change names, even by a single
letter. The present system does not fulfil this function.

In the ICHNEUMONIDAE, as in avian nomenclature (Olson, 1987) and elsewhere, the
majority of the changes in names are caused by changes in generic combination. In
the present system this is unavoidable. Generic changes are a result of advances in (or
different interpretations of) our understanding of the relationship between living
things, and as long as our taxonomic knowledge advances generic changes will
follow: as pointed out by Brown (1992) ‘instability of this sort is desirable’. However,
the changes in names are certainly not desirable.

Unfortunately changes permeate down to the specific name due to the traditional
(and Code regulated) need to conform with Latin grammar. For example, Togea
formosana Uchida became Benyllus formosanus (Uchida) as the former generic name
is feminine while the latter is masculine. In a manual literature search this minor
change in ending may be unimportant, as the searcher can take such variations into
account, but in a computer search formosana and formosanus will be assumed to refer
to two different taxa.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 9

The Proposal

To overcome these deficiencies it is proposed that the original binomen (generic
and specific names for species, and generic and subspecific names for taxa originally
treated as subspecies) be preserved in the scientific name, of which they would form
the ‘nomenclatural part’. The taxonomic placement of the taxon would be indicated
by placing the current generic name (if different) in front of the original binomen. To
this end the following rules are proposed (with deviations from the present Code in
italics):

(1) The nomenclatural part of the scientific name for a species-group taxon will
consist of two words: the generic name and the specific (or subspecific) name
given to the species (or subspecies) by the first describer. This original binomen
will be treated as an inseparable, unchangeable unit irrespective of taxonomic
placement.

(a) Because the generic half of the nomenclatural binomen will not be changed,
the need to change the ending of the original specific (or subspecific) name
will not arise.

(b) The first describer’s name and the date of publication should follow the
binomen. Jt will not be necessary to use parentheses to enclose the describer's
name and date in order to denote a change in generic combination.

(2) The taxonomic part of a scientific name will be constituted by the current

generic name (and, where applicable, subgeneric and specific names); it forms

the classificatory hierarchy of the system. The rules for the treatment of the
taxonomic names will be the same as for names in the present Code.

The full scientific name of a species-group taxon will be formed by placing the

taxonomic part in front of the nomenclatural binomen.

(4) When the original binomen and the current name are the same, this constitutes

the full name (so the generic name is not repeated).

The full (taxonomic plus nomenclatural) name should be cited at least once in all

papers, together with the original author and date; for repeated reference to a

species-group taxon the original generic name may be omitted (as in the

present system) if it is different from the current generic assignment.

G3

—

(5

a=

To demonstrate the proposed system, three scientific names of Togea formosana,
first described by T. Uchida in 1926 and which has since been subject to two generic
changes and one change in subspecific status, are illustrated in Table 3.

In the present system, determining if Benyllus formosanus (Uchida, 1926) and
Stirexephanes signatus formosanus (Uchida, 1926) are actually the same taxon is not
easy, because Uchida described 13 species under the same specific name, two of them
in 1926. The name formosanus (-a, -um) is used 34 times in the ICHNEUMONIDAE (the
problem is magnified further in the case of meridionator, which was used by J.-F.
Aubert between 1959 and 1982 for 62 different ‘subspecies’ from southern France!).
In the proposed system Benyllus Togea formosana and Stirexephanes signatus Togea
formosana are obviously the same taxon, since the binomen Togea formosana is
unique. Even errors in (or omission of) the author and date will cause little difficulty.

The proposed system will maintain a stable nomenclature in the midst of a
desirably ‘unstable’ taxonomy, and cater to both needs (taxonomy and information

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

retrieval) at the same time. Only primary homonymy will affect the nomenclatural
part of the name. Had this system been in place since the time of Linnaeus there
would be 29 514 fewer names now (items 2, 4 and 6 in Table 1). These constitute
79% of the extra names created up to 1990 for the family ICHNEUMONIDAE; the rest are
nearly all subjective synonyms due to supposedly new descriptions of (possibly) the
same taxon.

The difficulty in devising a computer search strategy for a taxon with names like
Togea formosana and Stirexephanes signatus formosanus is obvious. However, if we
preserve the binomen Togea formosana in the formal name of the taxon the search
will be easier. Thus the binomen, acting as a permanent identification label for the
taxon, can be used as an anchor for taxonomic and biological information and the
key for storing and retrieving this either manually or by computer.

At the meeting of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
in 1990 at the University of Maryland changes were suggested to the Code ‘to
provide a stable and universal nomenclature for the 21st century’ (Savage, 1990).
Major proposals were explicit restrictions on the reintroduction of unused senior
synonyms and the eventual establishment of “Lists of names in current use’. These
suggestions would solve some problems related to name changes arising from the
principle of priority, but would not solve problems arising from changes in generic
combinations. As instability due to the priority of names is miniscule compared
to ‘instability’ due to generic changes the effort to create Lists of species will solve
few of the present nomenclatural difficulties. Furthermore, there may not
be enough taxonomists willing to take up the task of creating the Lists. The
magnitude of this task can be gauged from the fact that there are 31 709 described
species and subspecies in the ichneumonid family alone, and this is only one
of some 72 families in the order Hymenoptera, and Hymenoptera is only one of
the 23 orders in the class Insecta (Borror, DeLong & Triplehorn, 1976). A
more practical alternative to such Lists is to encourage the production of fre-
quently updated computer-based catalogues which use an improved system of
nomenclature.

From the point of view of a user (such as a biological control practitioner) the
most common concerns when writing species names in publications are (1) is the
generic combination that most widely accepted? (2) is the ending of the specific
name correct? and (3) should the first describer’s name be in parentheses? These may
sound trivial to a taxonomist, but they are real problems to non-taxonomists. The
present system and the suggestions made at the Maryland meeting will only
perpetuate these concerns. The fourth edition of the Code is now in preparation; it is
to be hoped that it will prescribe a nomenclature system that will adequately serve
both the science of taxonomy and the concerns of the majority of users of scientific
names.

Acknowledgements

I thank many authors for reprints which were of tremendous help in creating the data
set. I am grateful to P. Harris, B.D. Schaber and G.R. Pohl of the Lethbridge
Research Station and to J.T. Huber, L. Masner and G. Gibson of the Centre
for Land and Biological Resources Research, Ottawa, for critical review of the
manuscript.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 11

Table 1. Number of species and subspecies names in the family ICHNEUMONIDAE

(1) Number of described valid species and subspecies 23 762
Extra names due to

(2) generic changes 26 702

(3) primary homonymy 333

(4) secondary homonymy 222

(5) synonymy 7364

(6) subspecific changes 2590

(7) emendations 28 37 239
61 001

Table 2. Number of names per valid species or subspecies

Number of names per valid
species or subspecies

Number of valid species
and subspecies

10 562
6605
2600
1265

658
541
330
235
189

10 141

11 to 75 636

23 762

OAANIDNAHWNKe

Table 3. Comparison of the present nomenclature system with the proposed system using
the scientific names of an ichneumonid wasp first described by T. Uchida

The Present System The Proposed System
(1) Togea formosana Uchida, 1926
(2) Benyllus formosanus (Uchida, 1926)

(3) Stirexephanes signatus formosanus
(Uchida, 1926)

Togea formosana Uchida, 1926
Benyllus Togea formosana Uchida, 1926
Stirexephanes signatus Togea formosana
Uchida, 1926

In the proposed system the unchanging binomen Togea formosana constitutes the
nomenclatural part of the full scientific name. This system, unlike the present one,
unambiguously distinguishes the taxon from Ctenichneumon formosanus Uchida,
1926 (= Setana formosana (Uchida, 1926)).

Sources: (1) Uchida, 1926, p. 112. (2) Uchida, 1935, p. 18. (3) Townes, Townes &
Gupta, 1961, p. 348.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

References

Borror, D.J., DeLong, D.M. & Triplehorn, C.A. 1976. An introduction to the study of insects.
852 pp. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York.

Brown, J.H. 1992. [A letter to the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature]. AAZN
Newsletter, May 1992, pp. 3-4.

CAB International Information Services. (1913-1990). Review of Applied Entomology Series A:
Agricultural, vols. 1-78. Wallingford, Oxfordshire.

Cambridge Scientific Abstracts. 1969-1990. Entomological Abstracts, vols. 1-21. Bethesda,
Maryland.

Dalla Torre, C.G. de. 1901. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, hucusque descriptorum, systematicus et
synonymicus. Vol. III. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agriotyp-
idae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. 1141 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature. Third Edition. 338 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
London.

Jussila, R. 1979. A revision of the genus Atractodes (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae) in the
western Palaearctic region. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 34: 1-44.

Olson, S.L. 1987. On the extent and source of instability in avian nomenclature, as exemplified
by North American birds. Auk, 104: 538-542.

Raven, P.H., Berlin, B. & Breedlove, D.E. 1971. The origin of taxonomy; a review of its
historical development shows why taxonomy is unable to do what we expect of it. Science,
174: 1210-1213.

Savage, J.M. 1990. Meetings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Systematic Zoology, 39: 424-425.

Townes, H.K. 1969. The genera of Ichneumonidae, part 1. Memoirs of the American
Entomological Institute, no. 11. 300 pp.

Townes, H.K., Townes, M. & Gupta, V.K. 1961. A catalogue and reclassification of the
Indo-Australian Ichneumonidae. Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, no. 1.
522 pp.

Uchida, T. 1926. Erster Beitrag zur Ichneumoniden Japans. Journal of the College of
Agriculture, Hokkaido Imperial University, 18: 43-173.

Uchida, T. 1935. Zur Ichneumonidenfauna von Tosa (I). Insecta Matsumurana, 10: 6-33.

Usinger, R.L. 1964. The role of Linnaeus in the advancement of entomology. Annual Review
of Entomology, 9: 1-16.

Zoological Society of London. 1900-1990. Zoological Record. Insecta: Hymenoptera, vols.
37-126. London.

(Lethbridge Research Station Contribution no. 3879278)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1992 13

Case 2847

Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa, Cryptostomata): proposed
designation of Ceriopora nodosa Fischer yon Waldheim, 1837 as the type
species

Patrick N. Wyse Jackson
Department of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Ceriopora nodosa
Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 as the type species of the Carboniferous bryozoan
genus Ascopora Trautschold, 1876. This is the taxonomic species misidentified by
' Trautschold as Millepora rhombifera Phillips, 1836.

1. Trautschold (1876, p. 367) established the genus Ascopora for small erect dendroid
bryozoans characterised by an axial region composed of several elongate tubes, based
on material from the Lower Carboniferous of Russia. He assigned his material to the
nominal species Millepora rhombifera Phillips, 1836 and placed several other species
in synonymy with this, including Ceriopora nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 1837,
Millepora gracilis Phillips, 1841 and Monticulipora tumida (Phillips, 1836).
Trautschold (1876, p. 368) described his material as having 13 longitudinal rows of
‘pores’ (autozooecial apertures) and lacking any surface ornament except for the
presence of four small pits which surrounded autozooecial apertures. He stated that he
had not examined the types of Millepora rhombifera and could not be certain if his
material was conspecific with Phillips’s species but thought this likely.

2. In 1836 John Phillips had described and illustrated a number of bryozoans includ-
ing (p. 199, pl. 1, figs. 34-35) a new species Millepora rhombifera from the Lower
Carboniferous of Bolland, Yorkshire, England. He described this species as having
‘branches cylindrical, with acute rhomboidal cells in quincunx’. Millepora rhombifera
was subsequently attributed to the genus Ceriopora by several authors (d’Orbigny,
1850; Morris, 1854; Jukes, 1857; Baily, 1875). John Young (1874, p. 401) reported that
he and Prof J. Young had recognised a central axial cylinder in specimens of Ceriopora
rhombifera. These were described and figured by Young & Young (1874, p. 337) who
established a new genus Rhabdomeson for this and other species of small erect
cylindrical bryozoans with central hollow axes from which autozooecia were budded.

3. Although Phillips’s type specimens of Millepora rhombifera are no longer extant,
specimens of his taxon have been collected by many workers from similar horizons in
the British Isles and elsewhere. Rhabdomeson rhombiferum (Phillips, 1836) consists of
very delicate dendroid zoaria composed of cylindrical branches. Autozooecia are
budded in an annular pattern from an ill-defined central axial cylinder. Autozooecial
apertures are pyriform to ellipsoidal in shape and arranged in eight to 11 longitudinal
rows around branches. Autozooecial apertures vary greatly in size and spacing around
branches. Small heterostyles of varying diameter are developed ina single row surround-
ing apertures and in proximal interapertural areas. Rhabdomeson rhombiferum occurs

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

in strata of Lower to Upper Carboniferous age and has a wide geographical distri-
bution in the British Isles (Phillips, 1836; M’Coy, 1844; Griffith, 1862; Young & Young,
1875; Vine, 1881, 1885, 1889; Bassler, 1929) and in Belgium (Demanet, 1938). Although
‘R. rhombiferum Phillips’ has been recorded from the former Soviet Union (e.g. by
Morozova, 1955; Shulga-Nesterenko, 1955) this material is not conspecific with the
British form.

4. Trautschold (1876) incorrectly identified his material as conspecific with
M. rhombifera Phillips, 1836, which on close examination bears little resemblance to his
own. Ascopora is characterised by an axial bundle of as many as 30 axial zooecia,
whereas Rhabdomeson has an axis consisting of a single axial cylinder. Fritz (1963, p.
54) remarked that Trautschold’s ‘selection of the genotype for Ascopora would seem to
have been not in the best order’. Trautschold’s material belongs to Ceriopora nodosa
Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 (p. 166), an erect delicate cryptostome with a central axial
bundle of as many as 20 axial zooecia (Gorjunova, 1975, 1985). This view is held by
researchers in the former Soviet Union, many of whom cite Ascopora nodosa (Fischer
von Waldheim, 1837) as the type species of the genus Ascopora (e.g. Nikiforova, 1938;
Shulga-Nesterenko, 1955; Gorjunova, 1985). However, in strict accordance with the
Code, the nominal species Millepora rhombifera Phillips is still formally cited as the
type species of Ascopora by western researchers (e.g. McKinney, 1972; Blake, 1983;
Karklins, 1986) and ina few Russian publications, even though they all use the genus in
the taxonomic sense of C. nodosa. To retain Millepora rhombifera as the type species
would contravene current usage and cause confusion and I propose that Ceriopora
nodosa be designated as the type species.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 and to designate Ceriopora nodosa
Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ascopora
Trautschold, 1876 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Ceriopora nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 1837;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nodosa
Fischer von Waldheim, 1837, as published in the binomen Ceriopora nodosa
(specific name of the type species of Ascopora Trautschold, 1876).

Acknowledgements

I thank Dr Dan Blake (Urbana) for locating some papers relevant to this application,
and Dr Ulli Coleman (Trinity College, Dublin) for translating parts of Trautschold
(1876).

References

Baily, W.H. 1875. Figures of characteristic British fossils: (Palaeozoic Division), with descriptive
remarks. 80, 126 pp., 42 pls. Van Voorst, London.

Bassler, R.S. 1929. The Permian Bryozoa of Timor. Paldontologie von Timor, 16(28): 36-89.

Blake, D.B. 1983. Systematic descriptions for the suborder Rhabdomesina. Pp. 550-592 in:
Robison, R.A. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part G (Bryozoa), revised,
vol. 1. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 15

Demanet, F. 1938. La faune des couches de passage du Dinantien au Namurien dans le syn-
clinorium de Dinant. Mémoires du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 84: 1-201.

Fischer de Waldheim, G. 1837. Oryctographie du Gouvernement de Moscou, Ed. 2. 189 pp. Semen,
Moscow.

Fritz, M.A. 1963. An early Middle Pennsylvanian bryozoan fauna from the Banff area, Alberta.
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, 11: 54-58.

Goryunova, R.V. 1975. On the polymorphism of the bryozoan order Rhabdomesonida. Pp.
59-64 in: Pouyet, S. (Ed.), Bryozoa 1974. Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie de la
Faculté des Sciences de Lyon, 3(1): 1-256.

Goryunoya, R.V. 1985. The morphology, systematics and phylogeny of Bryozoa (Order
Rhabdomesida). Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., 208: 1-152. [In Russian].

Griffith, R. 1862. Localities of Irish Carboniferous fossils. Pp. 209-271 in: M’Coy, F., Synopsis of
the characters of the Carboniferous Limestone fossils of Ireland, Ed. 2. Williams &
Norgate, London.

Jukes, J.B. 1857. The student's manual of geology. 607 pp. A. & C. Black, Edinburgh.

Karklins, O.L. 1986. Chesterian (Late Mississippian) bryozoans from the Upper Chainman

Shale and the Lowermost Ely Limestone of Western Utah. Paleontological Society Memoir,
17: 1-48.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1850. Prodrome de paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux
mollusques et rayonnés, vol. 1. 60, 394 pp. Masson, Paris.

M’Coy, F. 1844. A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous Limestone fossils of Ireland.
207 pp. University Press, Dublin.

McKinney, F.K. 1972. Nonfenestrate Ectoprocta (Bryozoa) of the Bangor Limestone (Chester)
of Alabama. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Alabama, 98: |-144.

Morozova, I.P. 1955. Carboniferous bryozoans of the Don Moyen (central) region. Trudy
Paleontologiceskogo Instituta, 58: 1-90. [In Russian].

Morris, J. 1854. A catalogue of British fossils. 372 pp. Author, London.

Nikiforova, A.I. 1938. Types of Carboniferous Bryozoa of the European part of the U.S.S.R.
Paleontologiya S.S.S.R., 4(1): 1-290. [In Russian].

Phillips, J. 1836. illustrations of the geology of Yorkshire. Part 2. The Mountain Limestone
District. 20, 253 pp., 25 pls. John Murray, London.

Shulga-Nesterenko, M.I. 1955. Carboniferous Bryozoa of the Russian Platform. Doklady
Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., 57: 1-207. [In Russian].

Trautschold, H. 1876. Die Kalkbriiche von Mjatschkowa. Eine Monographie des Oberen
Bergkalks. Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 13:
325-374.

Vine, G.R. 1881. Notes of the Carboniferous Polyzoa of North Yorkshire. Proceedings of the
Yorkshire Geological and Polytechnic Society, 7: 329-341.

Vine, G.R. 1885. Notes on the Yoredale Polyzoa of North Lancashire. Proceedings of the
Yorkshire Geological and Polytechnic Society, 9: 70-98.

Vine, G.R. 1889. A monograph of Yorkshire Carboniferous and Permian Polyzoa. Part 2.
Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological and Polytechnic Society, 11: 184-200.

Young, J. 1874. Notes accompanying two slides of Carboniferous Polyzoa, from the fossiliferous
shales at Hairmyres, near East Kilbride, Lancashire. Transactions of the Edinburgh
Geological Society, 2: 400-402.

Young, J. & Young, J. 1874. On a new genus of Carboniferous Polyzoa. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (4)13: 335-339.

Young, J. & Young, J. 1875. On new Carboniferous Polyzoa. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (4)15: 333-336.

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Case 2838

Pleurobranchus forskalii Riippell & Leuckart, [1828] and
P. testudinarius Cantraine, 1835 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation of the specific names

W.B. Rudman

The Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, New South Wales,
Australia 2000

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of the
pleurobranch opisthobranch molluscs Pleurobranchus forskalii Rippell & Leuckart,
[1828] and P. testudinarius Cantraine, 1835. The latter name is threatened by the senior
objective synonym Pleurobranchus forskahli Delle Chiaje, 1822. Additionally, it is
shown that the name ‘Lepus marinus’ mentioned by Forsskal (1776) and others is a
vernacular.

1. Forsskal’s Atlas of Plates of ‘oriental nature’ observed on an expedition to Arabia
was published posthumously in 1776. The illustrations were identified by a list of
binominal latinised names, most with no accompanying description or reference to a
description. The few references to descriptive material or previously published
names were printed in italicised type. Plate 28A is an easily recognised figure of a
common Indo-West Pacific pleurobranch opisthobranch mollusc at present known as
Pleurobranchus forskalii Riippell & Leuckart, [1828]. Forsskal’s entry to this figure
reads: ‘A. Lepus marinus. Arab. Arneb bachri. Avicenna. Libr. II. pag. 63°. In
Forsskal’s text new names are in roman typeface, while names given by earlier authors
are italicised. On page 9, three names are italicised. Two of these, Ascidia gelatinosum
and Ascidia quadridentata, are referred to Linnaeus, while the third, Lepus marinus, is
referred to Avicenna, the Arab physician (980-1037 AD) who republished and
commented on the writings of the early Greeks and Romans. The phrase “Arneb
bachri’ mentioned by Forsskal in the entry for ‘Lepus marinus’ can be loosely translated
from Arabic as ‘wild rabbit’. The name ‘Lepus marinus’ has been used at least since
Roman times (see Cuvier, 1803; Rang, 1828; Eales, 1921, 1960) and was applied gener-
ally to sea hares and large sea slugs, usually Ap/ysia. Linnaeus (1758, p. 653), in the 10th
edition of Systema Naturae, listed four earlier uses of ‘Lepus marinus’ under his genus
Tethys, some of which apply to an aplysiid and others to the nudibranch Tethys.
Linnaeus (p. 57) introduced the mammalian name Lepus, evidently distinguishing
between the formal mammalian genus Lepus and the informal vernacular use of the
descriptive name for sea hares and similar gastropods.

2. Forsskal’s (1776) illustration was referred to by both Cuvier (1817, p. 396) and
Lamarck (1819, p. 339) as probably a specimen of Pleurobranchus peronii Cuvier, 1804;
this is in fact a different species. Lamarck’s reference (1819, p. 339) to the illustration as
‘An Lepus marinus?’ suggests that he did not consider Forsskal’s name to be more than
a descriptive vernacular name. Riippell & Leuckart ([{1828], pp. 18-20, pl. 5, figs. 2a, b)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 17

gave the name Pleurobranchus forskalii to the species illustrated by Forsskal, and
referred to his use of the name ‘Lepus marinus’.

3. Article 11b of the Code requires that to be available a name ‘must be... used as a
scientific name by the author when published’. It is clear that Forsskal did not use
*Lepus marinus’ as a scientific name and that none of the authors listed above (Cuvier,
Lamarck, Leuckart, Linnaeus and Ruppell) accepted it as such, although it consists of
two Latin words. However, Sherborn (1902) listed Lepus marinus Forsskal without
comment as an apparently available name, as did Pilsbry (1896) in his use of the
binomen Oscanius marinus Forsskal as valid for forskalii Rippell & Leuckart.

4. The earliest available name for Forsskal’s Indo-West Pacific species has generally
been thought to be Pleurobranchus forskalii Riippell & Leuckart, [1828]. However, Delle
Chiaje used the name Pleurobranchus forskahli for a different species endemic to the
Mediterranean. With one exception, all workers have considered the date of publication
of both names to be 1828 (see Winckworth, 1942, for dates of publication of Riippell &
Leuckart) and have treated P. forskahli Delle Chiaje (November 1828, p. 154) asa junior
homonym of Pleurobranchus forskalii Rippell & Leuckart. The exception is Issel who
(1869, p. 162) proposed the replacement name P. ruppellii for Ruppell & Leuckart’s
species, but this has been ignored. Delle Chiaje’s specific name forskahliis normally cited
as available from November 1828. However, an Atlas of Plates containing the relevant
figures was published in 1822. The name Pleurobranchus forskahliappears at the bottom
of pl. 41, referring to fig. 11, thereby making that specific name available from 1822. In
his 1828 publication Delle Chiaje, after a two-line Latin description followed by
‘nobis’, cited Forsskal’s reference as ‘An Lepus marinus? FORSKAHL Fn. arab. tab
xxvii’. Although Delle Chiaje identified his species with Forsskal’s this was incorrect
and his illustration and description show that he was introducing a new name for the
Mediterranean species. Cantraine (1835) recognized that there were two distinct
species. He proposed the replacement name Pleurobranchus testudinarius for the
Mediterranean species in the belief that the two names were homonyms and on the mis-
taken assumption that Riippell & Leuckart’s name had priority. Cantraine’s description
bears the annotation ‘V. Leuckart’ implying that he was acting on advice from
Leuckart. Under Article 32d(1) forskalii must be corrected to forskalii; this spelling is
not identical to forskahli and under Article 57f they cannot be treated as homonyms.

5. It follows from this argument that the names Pleurobranchus forskahli Delle
Chiaje, 1822 (for the Mediterranean species) and P. forskalii Ruppell & Leuckart,
[1828] (for the Indo-West Pacific species) are both available. The Indo-West Pacific
species has been given many names, but the two most consistently and recently used are
Pleurobranchus forskalii Riippell & Leuckart and P. semperi (Vayssiere, 1896) for the
dark and light colour forms respectively. The Mediterranean species, after a period of
nomenclatural confusion (see Pilsbry, 1896), has consistently had the specific name
testudinarius Cantraine, 1835 applied to it in combination with the generic name
Pleurobranchus or two of its synonyms, Oscanius Gray, 1847 and Susania Gray, 1857
(see Willan, 1987). Authors using the name festudinarius in these combinations include
Haefelfinger (1960, pp. 334, 347), Schmekel (1968, pp. 113, 149) and Cattaneo-Vietti &
Thompson (1989, p. 195); a further 20 papers are held by the Commission Secretariat.
To adopt the prior name Pleurobranchus forskahli Delle Chiaje, 1822 would cause great
confusion, not only because the species is currently known as P. festudinarius, but also
because the very similar name P. forskalii is used for the Indo-West Pacific species,

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

which has also entered the eastern Mediterranean through the Suez Canal (Barash &
Danin, 1977, pp. 97, 103).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name forskahli Delle Chiaje,
1822, as published in the binomen Pleurobranchus forskahli, for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) forskalii Ruppell & Leuckart, [1828], as published in the binomen

Pleurobranchus forskalii;
(b) testudinarius Cantraine, 1835, as published in the binomen Pleurobranchus
testudinarius;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name forskahli Delle Chiaje, 1822, as published in the binomen
Pleurobranchus forskahli and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Barash, A. & Danin, Z. 1977. Additions to the knowledge of Indo-Pacific Mollusca in the
Mediterranean. Conchiglie, 13: 85-116.

Cantraine, F.J. 1835. Mollusques —“... diagnoses ou descriptions succinctes de quelques espeéces
nouvelles de mollusques’. Bulletins de |'Académie Royale des Sciences et Belle-Lettres de
Bruxelles, 2: 380-401.

Cattaneo-Vietti, R. & Thompson, T.E. 1989. Mediterranean opisthobranch molluscs: a
zoogeographic approach. Bollettino Malacologico, 25: 183-204.

Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1803. Mémoire sur le genre Lap/ysia, vulgairement nomme Liévre marin, sur
son anatomie, et sur quelques-unes de ses espéces. Annales du Muséum National d'Histoire
naturelle, Paris, 2: 287-314.

Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1804. Mémoire sur la Phyllidie et sur le Pleuro-branche, deux nouveaux
genres de mollusques de l’ordre des gastéropodes, et voisins des patelles et des oscabrions,
dont l'un est nu et dont l'autre porte une coquille cachée. Annales du Muséum National
@ Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 266-276.

Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1817. Le régne animal, distribué d’apreés son organisation, vol. 2. 18, 532 pp.
Deterville, Paris.

Delle Chiaje, S. 1822. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di
Napoli, Figure. 69 pls. Napoli.

Delle Chiaje, S. 1828. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di
Napoli, vol. 3. 20, 232 pp. Napoli.

Eales, N.B. 1921. Aplysia. Liverpool Marine Biology Committee Memoirs, 24. Transactions of
the Liverpool Biological Society, 35: 183-266.

Eales, N.B. 1960. Revision of the world species of Aplysia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia).
Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History), Zoology, 5(10): 271-404.

Forsskal, P. 1776. Icones rerum naturalium quas in itinere Orientali depingi curavit P. Forskal.
15 pp., 43 pls. Hauniae.

Haefelfinger, H.-R. 1960. Catalogue des opisthobranches de la rade de Villefranche-sur-Mer et
ses environs (Alpes Maritimes). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 67: 323-351.

Issel, A. 1869. Malacologia del Mar Rosso. 387 pp., 5 pls. Biblioteca Malacologica, Pisa.

Lamarck, J.B. 1819. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 6. 343 pp. Author, Paris.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1896. Manual of Conchology, vol. 16. 262 pp., 74 pls. Academy of Natural Sciences
of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

Rang, S. 1828. Histoire naturelle des Aplysiens, premiére famille de l'ordre des Tectibranches. 7,
83 pp., 24 pls. Firmin Didot, Paris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 19

Riippell, E. & Leuckart, F.S. [1828]. Neue wirbellose Thiere des Rothen Meers. Pp. 1—22, pls. 1-6
in: Atlas zu der Reise im nérdlichen Afrika von Eduard Riippell. Bronner, Frankfurt-am-
Main.

Schmekel, L. 1968. Ascoglossa, Notaspidea und Nudibranchia im litoral des Golfes von Neapel.
Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 75: 103-155.

Sherborn, C.D. 1902. Index Animalium, 1, 1758-1800. 1195 pp. University Press, Cambridge.

Vayssiére, A. 1896. Description des coquilles de quelques espéces nouvelles ou peu connues de
Pleurobranchideés. Journal de Conchyliologie, 44: 113-137.

Willan, R.C. 1987. Phylogenetic systematics of the Notaspidea (Opisthobranchia) with
reappraisal of families and genera. American Malacological Bulletin, 5: 215-241.

Winckworth, R. 1942. A note on Rang, Leuckart and Ehrenberg. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 24: 290.

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Case 2846

Cryptophagus advena Waltl, 1834 (currently Ahasverus advena;
Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

Robert D. Pope

clo Department of Entomology, The Natural History-Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
foreign grain beetle, Ahasverus advena (Waltl, 1834) (family sILVANIDAE), a pest of
stored grain and other foodstuffs. The name is threatened by the identification of the
only known syntype of Lyctus brunneus Fabricius, 1792 as a specimen of Ahasverus
advena. The Fabricius name is a senior secondary homonym of Lyctus brunneus
(Stephens, 1830), a cosmopolitan timber pest; since the species are not now thought
to be congeneric and the Stephens name has never been replaced it remains valid, but
the homonymy strengthens the argument for suppressing L. brunneus Fabricius.

1. Lyctus brunneus Fabricius, 1792 (p. 503) was named and described from
material sent to its author by Dr Pflug, who collected it in the ‘Danish West Indies’
(St Thomas, St John and Santa Cruz). According to Horn & Kahle (1936, p. 208),
Pflug gave all his ‘Danisch-westindische’ material to Fabricius. In Fabricius’s collec-
tion (the Kiel Collection) in the Universitetets Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen,
a single specimen (no. 3882; see Zimsen, 1964, p. 225) bears the name Lyctus
brunneus and is the only known syntype. Although it conforms with the original
description, I found it to be an example of the species currently known as Ahasverus
advena (Waltl, 1834, p. 169) (family sILVANIDAE). The name Lyctus brunneus
Fabricius has not appeared in primary zoological literature since its re-description by
Fabricius in 1801 (p. 561), where a repetition of the original diagnosis and locality
data was given.

2. Xylotrogus brunneus Stephens, 1830 (p. 117) was described from a single
specimen taken from a wasp nest at Dulwich, London. The holotype is in the
Stephens collection in the Natural History Museum, London. Xy/otrogus Stephens,
1830 (p. 116), of which Xylotrogus brunneus is the type species by monotypy, was
synonymised with Lyctus Fabricius, 1792 (p. 502) by Wollaston (1854, p. 152); this
synonymy is now universally accepted, making Lyctus brunneus (Stephens, 1830) a
junior secondary homonym of L. brunneus Fabricius, 1792. However, since the two
species are not now regarded as congeneric (para. 1 above) and since Stephens’s name
brunneus has never been replaced it remains valid (Article 59c of the Code). Lyctus
brunneus (Stephens) is a cosmopolitan timber pest, one of a small group of LYCTIDAE
(powder post beetles), collectively estimated to cause several million pounds worth of
damage annually. Over the years it has been the subject of considerable research
outside the field of taxonomy. Since 1950 the name has been used in the title and/or
text of more than 40 scientific papers, publicly available pamphlets and textbooks in
Europe, America, Africa and Australia (e.g. Gay, 1953; Brimblecombe, 1961; Ito &

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 21

Hirose, 1979; Winstanley, 1987). A further 25 references, dating from 1951 to 1989,
by 24 different authors have been given to the Commission Secretariat.

3. Cryptophagus advena Waltl, 1834 (p. 169) was named and described from a
beetle found among fungi brought back from South America by a Dr Popping. It was
transferred by des Gozis (1881, p. cxxvii) to his new genus Ahasverus of which it is the
type species by monotypy. Like Lyctus brunneus (Stephens), it is now known to be a
cosmopolitan species and is a scavenger found among cargoes of grain and other
foodstuffs from Africa and Asia and ranks also as a pest of stored products.
Woocroffe (1962) evaluated its pest status. Since 1950, the name has been used in
more than 40 scientific papers, textbooks and publicly available pamphlets (e.g. Hill,
1965; Loschiavo & Atkinson, 1967; David & Mills, 1975; Thomas & Clasper, 1986).
A further 32 references, all published after 1962 and the work of at least 29 different
authors, have been given to the Commission Secretariat.

4. The nomenclatural stability of the well-known and cosmopolitan pest species
Ahasverus advena (Waltl, 1834) is threatened by the identification of the only known
syntype of Lyctus brunneus Fabricius, 1792 as a specimen of this species. Although
L. brunneus Fabricius, 1792 does not threaten L. brunneus (Stephens, 1830) the
existence of the secondary homonymy is a further argument for suppression of the
Fabricius name.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name brunneus Fabricius,
1792, as published in the binomen Lyctus brunneus, for the purposes of both
the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Ahasverus
des Gozis, 1881 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Cryptophagus
adyena Waltl, 1834;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) advena Waltl, 1834, as published in the binomen Cryptophagus advena

(specific name of the type species of Ahasverus des Gozis, 1881);
(b) brunneus Stephens, 1830, as published in the binomen Xy/lotrogus brunneus
(specific name of the type species of Xy/otrogus Stephens, 1830);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name brunneus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen
Lyctus brunneus and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Brimblecombe, A.R. 1961. Seasonal starch variation in some Queensland hardwood timber
species and its relation to Lyctus attack. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland,
72: 59-67.

David, M.H. & Mills, R.B. 1975. Development, oviposition, and longevity of Ahasverus
advena. Journal of Economic Entomology, 68: 341-345.

Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica, vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Proft, Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum, vol. 2. 687 pp. Kiliae.

Gay, F.J. 1953. Observations on the biology of Lyctus brunneus (Steph.). Australian Journal of
Zoology, 1: 102-110.

Gozis, M. des. 1881. Quelques rectifications synonymiques touchant différents genres et espéces
de Coléoptéres frangais (3e partie). Bulletin des Séances de la Société Entomologique de
France, (6)1: cxxvi-Cxxvii.

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Hill, S.T. 1965. Axenic culture of the foreign grain beetle, Ahasverus advena (Waltl)
(Coleoptera, Silvanidae), and the role of fungi in its nutrition. Bulletin of Entomological
Research, 55: 681-690.

Horn, W. & Kahle, I. 1936. Uber entomologische Sammlungen. Teil II. Entomologische
Beihefte aus Berlin-Dahlem, 3: 161-296.

Ito, T. & Hirose, C. 1979. Efficacy of some insecticides on the egg, larva and adult of Lyctus
brunneus Stephens. Japanese Journal of Applied Entomology and Zoology, 23: 46-48.
Loschiayo, S.R. & Atkinson, J.M. 1967. A trap for the detection and recovery of insects in

stored grain. Canadian Entomologist, 99: 1160-1163.

Stephens, J.F. 1830. Illustrations of British entomology. Mandibulata, vol. 3. 374 pp. Baldwin
& Cradock, London.

Thomas, K.P. & Clasper, S. 1986. The toxicity of four organophosphorus pesticides
to Ahasverus advena (Waltl) (Col: Silvanidae) and Typhea stercorea (Linn) (Col:
Mycetophagidae). International Pest Control, 28: 102-103.

Waltl, J. 1834. Ueber das Sammeln exotischer Insecten. Faunus, 1: 66-170.

Winstanley, J.K. 1987. First record of natural enemies of Lyctus brunneus Stephens in South
Africa. Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa, 50: 521.

Wollaston, T.V. 1854. Insecta Maderensia. xliii, 634 pp., 13 pls. Van Voorst, London.

Woodroffe, G.E. 1962. The status of the foreign grain beetle, Ahasverus advena (Waltl) (Col.,
Silvanidae), as a pest of stored products. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 53: 537-540.

Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Ne
w

Case 2758

Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of
Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis

G.H. Nelson

College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, College Plaza, Pomona,
California 91766-1889, U.S.A.

W.F. Barr
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho 83843, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the universal understanding
and usage of the names Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz,
1829 (family BUPRESTIDAE Leach, 1815, the jewel beetles) by designating B. octogut-
tata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis. At present B. chrysostigma
Linnaeus, 1758 is the valid type species of both Buprestis and Chrysobothris. Both
genera, which have worldwide distribution, include species which are serious
economic pests.

1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 408) established the genus Buprestis with 19 included species.
Among these were octoguttata, mariana and chrysostigma. By 1800 more than 250
species had been described in the genus although no type species had been designated.
Many of the species originally included by Linnaeus are now placed in other genera.

2. Geoffroy (1762, p. 123) replaced the name Buprestis Linnaeus with his new
name Cucujus and (p. 137) used Buprestis in place of the carabid names Carabus and
Cicindela Linnaeus, 1758. This was recorded by Miller (1764, pp. xvi, xvii). Neither
Cucujus nor Buprestis have been adopted in Geoffroy’s sense; in an application to the
Commission Kerzhner (BZN 48: 120) has proposed the conservation of Cucujus
Fabricius, 1775 (the type genus of the cucusmDAE) by the suppression of all previous
uses of the name Cucujus.

3. Eschscholtz (1829, p. 9) established the genus Chrysobothris with three included
species: Buprestis chrysostigma, B. impressa Fabricius, 1775 (p. 220) and B. affinis
Fabricius, 1794 (p. 450). No type species was designated. Eschscholtz originally
spelled the generic name as Chrysobotris but this has not been used for over 150 years
and an application for the conservation of Chrysobothris has been published (BZN
49: 120-121).

4. A number of type species designations have been made for Buprestis Linnaeus
and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, extending over several years. Latreille (1810, p. 426)
designated Buprestis chrysostigma ‘Fab.’ (i.e. Fabricius, 1775, p. 219, who cited
Linnaeus) as the type species of Buprestis. Subsequently Westwood ([1838], p. 24),
apparently overlooking the earlier designation, designated B. chrysostigma as the
type species of Chrysobothris, thereby rendering the latter name a junior objective

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

synonym of Buprestis. The type species designations in Westwood’s Synopsis of the
genera of British insects were accepted as valid in Opinion 71 (January 1922). The
dates of publication of the work were set out in Direction 63 (June 1957). Gozis
(1886, p. 20) designated B. octoguttata as the type species of Buprestis. Chamberlin
(1926, p. 24) designated B. affinis Fabricius as the type species of Chrysobothris.
Richter (1952, p. 190) designated B. mariana Linnaeus as the type species of Buprestis
and (p. 199) B. impressa Fabricius as the type species of Chrysobothris.

5. In 1837 Kirby (p. 156) established Odontomus as a subgenus of Buprestis;
however, he designated B. chrysostigma as the type species, thereby rendering
Odontomus a junior objective synonym of Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (following
Latreille’s type designation). Odontomus is also a junior objective synonym of
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (as typified by Westwood the following year).
Kirby’s classification did not include a nominotypical (in the modern sense) subgenus
Buprestis (Buprestis).

6. Current usage of Buprestis and Chrysobothris is consistent with octoguttata and
chrysostigma respectively as the type species. However, a strict adherence to the
Principle of Priority and the recognition of Latreille’s (1810) designation of chryso-
stigma as the type of Buprestis would necessitate using Buprestis as the valid name
for the genus now called Chrysobothris, with Chrysobothris being a junior objective
synonym. Another name would be required for Buprestis as currently understood.
The next available is that of Ancylochira Eschscholtz, 1829 (p. 9), published with
octoguttata and Buprestis rustica Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 409) among the seven included
nominal species. Westwood ({1838], p. 24) designated rustica as the type of the genus.
Ancylochira has been considered a junior subjective synonym of Buprestis and has
been used as a valid name by only a single recent author, Richter (1952), who (p. 26)
erroneously cited octoguttata as the type species.

7. The question of the status of the names Buprestis and Chrysobothris has long
been recognized. Kerremans (1906, pp. 174-176) noted that there was confusion
among earlier authors in the use of Buprestis; he accepted B. octoguttata as the type
species. Méquignon (1939, pp. 48-49; a member of the Commission at that time)
pointed out that the usage of the names Buprestis and Chrysobothris did not accord
with Latreille’s (1810) type designation; he proposed to refer the problem to the
International Congress of Zoology for a suspension of the Code. Fisher (1942, p. 3)
noted: ‘On account of the wide distribution and great number of species, and an
unbroken history of constant universal usage for over 100 years, and since a change
of name at this late date would cause greater confusion than uniformity, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be requested to place
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, with Buprestis chrysostigma Linnaeus as type, and
Buprestis Linnaeus, with B. octoguttata Linnaeus as type, on the Official List of
Generic Names under suspension of the rules’. Schaefer (1949, p. 26) and Bellamy
(1985, p. 408) supported Commission action to designate B. octoguttata as the type
of Buprestis. Despite these statements an application to the Commission has not been
made until now.

8. Cobos (1986, p. 112) noted the inclusion of 600 valid species worldwide in
Chrysobothris and 80 species in Buprestis. There has been a considerable amount of
literature published on a number of the common species included in the genera, both
taxonomic and ecological (see, for example, Casey, 1909, p. 51; Arnett, 1962, p. 486;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 25

Bily, 1989, pp. 42, 66; Bright, 1987, p. 94. A list of a further eight references, all except
one (1949) published since 1971, is held by the Commission Secretariat). Several
species are economic pests (for example, Buprestis aurulenta Linnaeus, B. apricans
Herbst, Chrysobothris femorata (Olivier) and C. mali Horn) and much applied
literature has been published on these (see, for example, Knull, 1950, p. 192; Furniss
& Carolin, 1977, p. 257). A transfer of the name Buprestis to the genus currently
called Chrysobothris, and Ancylochira Eschscholtz used in place of Buprestis (para. 6
above), would result in great confusion. Buprestis and Chrysobothris are the type
genera of the family-group taxa BUPRESTIDAE Leach, 1815 and CHRYSOBOTHRINI Gory
& Laporte, [1839] respectively.

9. It has already been proposed (BZN 49: 121) that Chrysobothris Eschscholtz,
1829 and the name of its type species Buprestis chrysostigma Linnaeus, 1758 be placed
on the appropriate Official Lists.

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and to designate Buprestis
octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Buprestis
Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above
Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name octoguttata
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus,
1758 (specific name of the type species of Buprestis);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Odontomus Kirby, 1837 (a junior objective synonym of
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829).

References

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1962. The beetles of the United States (a manual for identification), part 3. Pp.
369-526. The Catholic University Press, Washington.

Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera).
Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472.

Bily, D.E. 1989. Krascoviti Buprestidae. 112 pp. Academia, Praha.

Bright, D.E. 1987. The insects and arachnids of Canada, part 15 (The metallic wood-boring
beetles of Canada and Alaska, Coleoptera: Buprestidae). 335 pp. Canadian Government
Publishing Centre, Ottawa.

Casey, T. 1909. Studies in the American Buprestidae. Proceedings of the Washington Academy
of Sciences, 11(2): 47-178.

Chamberlin, W.J. 1926. Catalogue of the Buprestidae of North America north of Mexico. 289,
1 pp. Corvallis, Oregon.

Cobos, A. 1986. Fauna Iberica de coleopteros Buprestidae. 364 pp., 60 pls. Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid.

Eschscholtz, J.F. 1829. Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen neurer
Thierarten, wahrend des Flottcapitains von Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der
Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 1823-1826, part. 1. 17 pp.
Berlin.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species
. .. [xxxii], 832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae.

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta... adjectis synonymis, locis,
observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 4. [6], 472, [5] pp. Hafniae.

Fisher, W.S. 1942. A revision of the North American species of buprestid beetles belonging
to the tribe Chrysobothrini. United States Department of Agriculture. Miscellaneous
Publications, 470: 1-274.

Furniss, R.L. & Carolin, V.M. 1977. Western forest insects. 654 pp. United States Department
of Agriculture. Miscellaneous Publication No. 1339.

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abregée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. 1.
Xxvili, 523 pp. Durand, Paris.

Gory, H.L. & Laporte, F.L. de (Comte de Castelnau). [1839]. Chrysobothrites. Chrysoboth-
ridae. Pp. 1-77 in: Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléopteres ..., vol. 2. 376
pp. Bailliére, Paris.

Gozis, M. des. 1886. Recherche de l’espéce typique de quelques anciens genres. Rectifications
synonymiques et notes diverses. 36 pp. Montlugon.

Kerremans, C. 1906. Note sur la restitution 4 une des espéce de Linne du nom génerique de
Buprestis. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 50: 174-177.

Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. Jn Richardson, J., Fauna Boreali-Americana, or the zoology of the
northern parts of British America, part 4. xxxix, 325 pp., 8 pls. Fletcher, Norwich.

Knull, J.N. 1950. Family Buprestidae. Pp. 187-197 in Craighead, F.C. (Ed.), Insect enemies of
eastern forests. United States Department of Agriculture. Miscellaneous Publication No.
657.

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur sert le type. Classes
des Insectes. Insecta. Pp. 425-444 in: Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des
animaux composant les classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell,
Paris.

Leach, W.E. 1815. Entomology. Pp. 57-172 in Brewster, D. (Ed.), The Edinburgh Encyclo-
paedia, vol. 9 (ENG-FRU). Pp. 1-766. Blackwood, Edinburgh.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Méquignon, A. 1939. Observations sur quelques noms de genres. III. Le genre Buprestis L.
(Col. Buprestidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 44(3-4): 48-S0.
Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna insectorum Fridrichsdalina. xxiv, 96 pp. Gleditsch, Hafniae & Lipsiae.

Richter, A.A. 1952. Coleoptera (Buprestidae). Fauna SSSR, 13(4): 1-234.

Schaefer, L. 1949. Les buprestides de France. Tableaux analytiques des Coléopteéres de la faune
franco-rhénane. Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplement: 1-511.

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 17-32. Published with An
introduction to the modern classification of insects..., vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 113-160.
Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 27

Case 2837/1

Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and
Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799]
as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as
the type species of Scintillatrix

Hans Mihle
Pfarrstrasse 10, D-8063 Pfaffenhofen/Glonn, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current understanding
and usage of the names Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and
Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (family BUPRESTIDAE Leach, 1815, jewel beetles) by
designating Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and
B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. At present B. rutilans
is the valid type species of Poecilonota and B. festiva Linnaeus, 1767 is the type of
both Palmar and Scintillatrix. Both Poecilonota and Scintillatrix have worldwide
distribution, whilst Palmar is Palaearctic in distribution. All three genera include
species which are pests of plants; Scintillatrix rutilans in particular causes serious
damage to old trees of the lime Tilia cordata.

1. In 1829 Eschscholtz (p. 9) established the genus Poecilonota. He briefly
described the taxon and included two species, Buprestis conspersa Gyllenhall, 1808
(p. 441, who cited B. variolosa Paykull, [1799], p. 219 as a synonym) and B. rutilans
Fabricius, [1777] (p. 235). Westwood ([{1838], p. 24) gave rutilans as ‘the typical
species’ of the genus. The type species designations in Westwood’s Synopsis of the
genera of British insects were accepted as valid in Opinion 71 (January 1922) but, as
explained below, Poecilonota has not been used in the sense of having B. rutilans as
the type. The dates of publication of Westwood’s work were set out in Direction 63
(June 1957).

2. In 1833 Dejean (p. 78) introduced the name Lampra for a genus and included
four species, Buprestis conspersa (with B. variolosa Paykull as a synonym), B. rutilans,
B. festiva ‘Fabr.’ (i.e. Fabricius, 1775, p. 223, who cited Linnaeus, 1767, p. 663) and
decipiens Dejean. The generic name was not accompanied by a diagnosis, description
or illustration but since three of the included nominal species can be identified by
citations of their authors it meets the requirements of availability under Article
12b(5) of the Code. Boisduval & Lacordaire (1835, p. 595) gave the first description
of the genus Lampra and included in it conspersa and rutilans. As noted in para. 6
below Lampra was in fact an invalid name.

3. Spinola (1837, pp. 108-109) established two subdivisions within Lampra, the
first for conspersa (= variolosa) and the second for rutilans and festiva. Marseul (1865,
pp. 151-164) maintained Spinola’s two divisions but, in contrast to Westwood’s type
designation (see para. 1), adopted Lampra for both rutilans and festiva and

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Poecilonota for variolosa. Since Marseul’s (1865) work Poecilonota has been used
either to include both the variolosa group and Lampra (the rutilans group) or to
include only the vario/osa group of species. It has not been used for the rutilans group
alone, with the exception of Leraut (1983; see para. 7). Casey (1909, p. 52), Bily (1982,
p. 40) and Cobos (1986, p. 116) gave, albeit incorrectly, variolosa as the type species
of Poecilonota. The name has appeared (applied to the variolosa group) in the
following recent publications: Volkovitsh (1977, p. 24), Harde (1979, p. 214), Bily
(1989, p. 37) and Weidlich (1989, p. 56). A list of a further 13 references published in
the last 50 years is held by the Commission Secretariat.

4. Gistl (1848, p. ix) believed Lampra ‘Lacordaire’ (i.e. Dejean, 1833) to be a junior
homonym of the fish name Lampris Retzius, 1799 and replaced the buprestid name
with the new name Dendrochariessa. However, the 1985 Code (and previous editions)
states (Article 56b) that even if genus-group names differ by only one letter they are
not to be regarded as homonyms. The name Dendrochariessa is a senior objective
synonym of Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (see para. 6 below) but, with the single
exception of Leraut (1983) (para. 7), it has not been used. For the sake of stability in
the nomenclature I propose that it be suppressed. Neave (1939, p. 36) incorrectly
listed Dendrochariessa Gistl as a replacement for the coleopteran name Dendrocharis
Guérin-Menéeville, 1843.

5. Casey (1909, p. 52) designated Buprestis festiva Linnaeus, 1767 as the type
species of Lampra Dejean, although this appears not to have been followed. In 1949
Schaefer (p. 167) established Palmar as a subgenus of Lampra with festiva as the type
species; he did not mention Casey’s work. The name Palmar was accompanied by a
description (pp. 175-178) and an illustration of a male specimen of festiva (pl. 10, fig.
186). Hellrigl (1972, p. 652) discussed the distinguishing features which separated
Palmar from Lampra and elevated Palmar to generic rank. The latter has been used
for festiva and allied species either as a genus or as a subgenus (see, for example,
Harde, 1979, p. 419; Bellamy, 1985, p. 419; Cobos, 1986, p. 121. The Commission
Secretariat holds a list of a further nine references published within the last 30 years).

6. Since Schaefer’s (1949) work Lampra Dejean has been used solely for rutilans
and related species. Richter (1952, p. 66) cited rutilans as the type species, although
this is invalid because of Casey’s designation of festiva (see para. 5 above). Until
Obenberger (1956) workers appear to have overlooked that Lampra Dejean, 1833 is
a junior homonym of Lampra Hiibner, 1821 in Lepidoptera (type species Phalaena
fimbriata von Schreber, 1759; see Nye, 1975, p. 267). Obenberger (1956, p. 41)
replaced Dejean’s preoccupied name (in its rutilans sense) by the new name
Scintillatrix. The latter has been used by recent authors including Bily (1982, p. 71,
who noted rutilans as the type species; 1989, p. 38), Cobos (1986, p. 118) and Tassi
(1966, pp. 213-216). A list of a further eight references published within the last 30
years is held by the Commission Secretariat. Since Scintillatrix was a replacement
name for Lampra Dejean its type species is B. festiva because of Casey’s (1909)
designation for Lampra (see para. 5), contrary to Obenberger’s intention when
establishing it and to the usage since.

7. Leraut (1983) adopted the name Poecilonota for the genus presently called
Scintillatrix (rutilans and allied species), thereby giving the name a meaning different
from the practice of more than a century (see para. 3 above); he introduced the new
name Descarpentriesina in place of Poecilonota as long understood (the variolosa

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 29

species group). Leraut also adopted the unused name Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 in
place of Palmar (the festiva species group), recording Lampra and Scintillatrix as
synonyms, although they have not been used in this sense. With the exception of
MacRae (1991, pp. 107-109) the name Descarpentriesina has not been used.
Although Leraut’s system of nomenclature is in formal accord with the Code its
adoption would result in great and unnecessary confusion among these buprestid
genera.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 and to designate Buprestis variolosa Paykull,
[1799] as the type species;
(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 and to designate Buprestis rutilans Fabricius,
[1777] as the type species;
(c) to suppress the generic name Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 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 following names:
(a) Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designa-
tion in (1)(a) above Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799];
(b) Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (gender: feminine), type species by designa-
tion in (1)(b) above Buprestis rutilans Fabricius, [1777];
(c) Palmar Schaefer, 1949 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig-
nation Buprestis festiva Linnaeus, 1767;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) variolosa Paykull, [1799], as published in the binomen Buprestis variolosa
(specific name of the type species of Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829);
(b) rutilans Fabricius, [1777], as published in the binomen Buprestis rutilans
(specific name of the type species of Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956);
(c) festiva Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Buprestis festiva (type
species of Palmar Schaefer, 1949);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848, as suppressed in (1)(c) above;
(b) Descarpentriesina Leraut, 1983 (a junior objective synonym of Poecilonota
Eschscholtz, 1829);
(c) Lampra Dejean, 1833 (a junior homonym of Lampra Hiibner, 1821).

References

Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera).
Navorsinge. van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472.

Bily, S. 1982. The Buprestidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomo-
logica Scandinavica, 10: 1-112.

Bily, S. 1989. Krascoviti Buprestidae. 112 pp. Academia, Prague.

Boisduval, J.B.A. & Lacordaire, Th. 1835. Faune entomologique des environs de Paris, vol. 1.
696 pp., 3 pls. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Casey, T. 1909. Studies in the American Buprestidae. Proceedings of the Washington Academy
of Sciences, 11(2): 47-178.

Cobos, A. 1986. Fauna Iberica de coleopteros Buprestidae. 364 pp., 60 pls. Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid.

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed.
2, part 1. Pp. 1-96. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Eschscholtz, J.F. 1829. Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen neurer
Thierarten, wahrend des Flottcapitains von Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der
Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 1823-1826, part. 1. 17 pp.
Berlin.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species
. .. [xxxii], 832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae.

Fabricius, J.C. [1777]. Genera insectorum . . . . xvi, 310 pp. Bartschii, Chilonii.

Gistl, J. 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreiches fiir hGhere Schulen. xv, 216, [4] pp., 32 pls.
Hoffman, Stuttgart.

Gyllenhall, L. 1808. Insecta Suecica descripta. Classis 1. Coleoptera sive Eleutherata, vol. 1. vii,
572, xx pp. Leverentz, Scaris.

Harde, K.W. 1979. Familie: Buprestidae (Prachtkafer). Pp. 204-249 in: Freude, H., Harde,
K.W. & Lohse, G.A., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 6. 367 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Hellrigl, K.G. 1972. Revision der westpalaarktischen Arten der Prachtkafergattung Lampra
Lac., (Col., Buprestidae). Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 76: 649-708.

Leraut, P. 1983. Mise a jour de la nomenclature de quelques genres de Buprestides de France
(Col. Buprestidae, Dicereini, Melanophilini). Entomologica Gallica, 1(1) 5-8.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, pars 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae.

MacRae, T.C. 1991. The Buprestidae of Missouri. Insecta Mundi, 5(2): 101—126.

Marseul, S.A. de. 1865. Monographie des Buprestides d'Europe, du Nord de I’Afrique et de
lAsie. L'Abeille. Journal d’Entomologie, 2: 1-540.

Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 2 (D-L). 1025 pp. Zoological Society of
London, London.

Nye, I.W.B. 1975. The generic names of moths of the world, vol. | (Noctuidea (part): Noctuidae,
Agaristidae, and Nolidae). 568 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Obenberger, J. 1956. Materiaux pour servir a la connaissance des Buprestides paléarctiques-1.
Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 30: 41-47.

Paykull, G. [1799]. Fauna Suecica. Insecta, vol. 2. 234 pp. Upsala.

Richter, A.A. 1952. Coleoptera (Buprestidae). Fauna SSSR, 13(4): 1-234.

Schaefer, L. 1949. Les buprestides de France. Tableaux analytiques des Coléoptéres de la faune
franco-rhénane. Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplement: 1-511.

Spinola, M. 1837. Lettre adressée 4 la Société Entomologique de France, sur un groupe de
buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 6: 101-122.

Tassi, F. 1966. Alcune considerazioni su due interessanti Buprestidi della fauna sarda. Studi
Sassaresi. Annali della Facolta di Agraria dell’ Universita di Sassari, (3)13: 210-217.
Volkovitsh, M.G. 1977. The buprestid-beetles (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) of the forest station
‘Forest at Vorskla River’. Pp. 23-27 in: New and little known species of insects of the
European part of the USSR. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Zoological Institute,

All-Union Entomological Society, Leningrad.

Weidlich, M. 1989. Faunistik und Imaginalokologie der Prachtkafer Bulgarisch-Mazedoniens
(Insecta, Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum fiir
Tierkunde Dresden, 17: 47-177.

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 17-32. Published with An
introduction to the modern classification of insects..., vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 113-160.
Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 31

Case 2837/2

Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of
Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila

Hans Mihle
Pfarrstrasse 10, D-8063 Pfaffenhofen/Glonn, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current understanding
and usage of the names Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833
(family BUPRESTIDAE Leach, 1815, jewel beetles) by designating Buprestis acuminata
.De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila. At present Melanophila and
Phaenops are both typified by B. cyanea Fabricius, 1774. Both genera have a
worldwide distribution. Most species of Melanophila are Nearctic and Neotropical
and most of Phaenops are Palaearctic. M. acuminata, the larvae of which feed on
conifers and broadleaved trees, has the widest distribution of buprestid species.

1. Eschscholtz (1829, p. 9) briefly described and named the genus Me/anophila. He
included two nominal species, Buprestis tarda and B. appendiculata, both of Fabricius
(1792, pp. 209 and 210 respectively). Westwood ([1838], p. 24) gave B. tarda as ‘the
typical species’ of Melanophila. The type species designations in Westwood’s Synopsis
of the genera of British insects were accepted as valid in Opinion 71 (January 1922)
although Melanophila has never been used in the sense of tarda as the type species (see
paras. 5 and 7 below). The dates of publication of Westwood’s work were set out in
Direction 63 (June 1957).

2. Dejean (1833, p. 79) established the name Phaenops and included seven species,
among them Buprestis tarda (with B. cyanea Fabricius, 1775, p. 223 as a synonym),
B. appendiculata and B. decostigma Fabricius, 1787 (p. 180; misspelt as “decastigma’
by many subsequent authors). The name Phaenops was not accompanied by a
diagnosis, description or illustration but since included nominal species can be
identified by citations of their authors it meets the requirements of availability under
Article 12b(5) of the Code.

3. Kirby (1837, p. 160) established Oxypteris as a subgenus of Buprestis; he
designated B. appendiculata Fabricius, 1792 as the type species. Kirby synonymised
appendiculata with Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 (p. 133) and this has been
accepted by all later authors. Kirby (p. 158) also established Trachypteris as a further
subgenus of Buprestis; B. decostigma Fabricius, 1787 was designated as the type
species.

4. Laporte & Gory ({1838], p. 4) established the genus Apatura to include 15
species, among them tarda (= cyanea), appendiculata (= acuminata) and decostigma.
Gory & Laporte ({1840], p. 2) realised that Melanophila was the prior name for the
taxon and Gory ([1840], p. 73) adopted this name. Duponchel & Chevrolat ({1841],
p. 641) designated appendiculata as the type species of Apatura and noted that it was
a junior homonym of Apatura Fabricius, 1807 in Lepidoptera.

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

5. Lacordaire (1857, p. 47) noted that Dejean and other authors had used
Phaenops rather than Melanophila. However, he defined Phaenops and restricted it to
tarda; he did not mention Westwood’s ([1838]) selection of the same species as
‘typical’ of Melanophila (see para. 1). Lacordaire retained appendiculata (= acumina-
ta), decostigma and allied species in Melanophila. Subsequent authors (Gemminger &
Harold, 1869, p. 1384; Saunders, 1870, pp. 1, 10, 24; Saunders, 1871, pp. 47, 49;
Kerremans, 1892, pp. 110, 114; Kerremans, 1903, pp. 162-165; Reitter, 1911, p. 186)
followed this taxonomic arrangement. Kiesenwetter (1857, p. 74) synonymised
decostigma with Buprestis picta Pallas, 1773 (p. 719); this synonymy has been
accepted by very nearly all later authors, exceptions being Richter (1949) and Cobos
(1986, 1987) (see para. 6 below).

6. Recent authors, with the single exception of Leraut (1983), have consistently
used Melanophila for acuminata and related species and Phaenops for the cyanea
(= tarda) group of species. Thery (1942, p. 73) designated cyanea as the type species
of Phaenops, whilst Richter (1949, p. 227), Schaefer (1949, p. 216), Bily (1982,
p. 42) and Cobos (1986, p. 186) gave, albeit incorrectly, acuminata as the type of
Melanophila. The names Melanophila and Phaenops, sensu acuminata and cyanea
respectively, have been used by Tassi (1966, p. 19), Volkovitsh (1977, p. 24), Harde
(1979, pp. 219, 220), Bellamy (1985, p. 420), Bily (1989, p. 45) and Weidlich (1989,
p. 58). A list of a further 10 references published in the last 30 years is held by the
Commission Secretariat. Most of the authors cited above, and all those cited in para.
4, did not distinguish Trachypteris Kirby from Melanophila. The exceptions are
Richter (1949, pp. 230-238) who maintained Trachypteris as a subgenus to include
picta and decostigma, and Cobos (1986, p. 187; 1987, pp. 79-86) who, in his recent
revision of the BUPRESTIDAE, treated Trachypteris as a monospecific genus for picta
(with decostigma as one of a number of subspecies).

7. Leraut (1983) adopted the name Melanophila for the genus currently called
Phaenops (the cyanea group of species), although the name has not been used in this
sense since 1857; he used Trachypteris in place of Melanophila as long understood
(the acuminata-picta group of species), citing Oxypteris Kirby as a synonym. The
usage of the names Melanophila and Phaenops has been stable and universally
accepted for more than 135 years. To my knowledge authors since 1983 have not
adopted Leraut’s nomenclature for these two buprestid genera; its adoption would
cause considerable and unnecessary confusion. Moreover, if picta and decostigma are
separated from acuminata and its allies the latter group would need to be renamed
Oxypteris Kirby, 1837, adding still further confusion, a point which was not
mentioned by Leraut.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and to designate Buprestis
acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designa-

tion in (1) above Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774;
(b) Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by
Théry (1942) Buprestis cyanea Fabricius, 1775;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 33

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) acuminata De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Buprestis acuminata
(specific name of the type species of Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829);
(b) cyanea Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Buprestis cyanea
(specific name of the type species of Phaenops Dejean, 1833).

References

Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera).
Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472.

Bily, S. 1982. The Buprestidae (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna Entomo-
logica Scandinavica, 10: 1-112.

Bily, S. 1989. Krascoviti Buprestidae. 112 pp. Academia, Prague.

Cobos, A. 1986. Fauna Iberica de coleopteros Buprestidae. 364 pp., 60 pls. Consejo Superior de

___ Investigaciones Cientificas, Madrid.

Cobos, A. 1987. Ensayo monografico sobre las Melanophila sensu lato (Coleoptera, Bupres-
tidae). LOS. Revista Espanola de Entomologia, 62: 45-90.

De Geer, C. 1774. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes, vol. 4. xii, 456 pp., 19 pls.
Stockholm.

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed.
2, part 1. Pp. 1-96. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

D[uponchel, P.A.J.] & C[hevrolat, L.A.A.] [1841]. Apatura. Pp. 640-641 in d’Orbigny, C. (Ed.),
Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 1. 649 pp. Paris.

Eschscholtz, J.F. 1829. Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen neurer
Thierarten, wahrend des Flottcapitains von Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der
Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 1823-1826, part. 1. 17 pp.
Berlin.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species
... [xxxui], 832 pp. Flensburgi et Lipsiae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species ... , vol. 1. xx, 348 pp. Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica, vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Proft, Hafniae.

Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de. 1869. Catalogus Coleopterorum ..., vol. 5 (Buprestidae...
Elateridae). Pp. 1347-1608. Monach.

Gory, H.L. [1840]. Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres..., vol. 4
(supplement aux buprestides). 356, 7, 3 pp. Bailliére, Paris.

Gory, H.L. & Laporte, F.L. de (Comte de Castelnau). [1840]. Errata et addenda. 7 pp. in:
Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres ..., vol. 2. Bailliére, Paris.
Harde, K.W. 1979. Familie: Buprestidae (Prachtkafer). Pp. 204-249 in: Freude, H., Harde,

K.W. & Lohse, G.A., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 6. 367 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.

Kerremans, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des buprestides décrits de 1758 a 1890. Mémoires
de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304.

Kerremans, C. 1903. Coleoptera; Serricornia, Family Buprestidae. Pp. 49-338 in: Genera
insectorum (Wytsman, P.), Fasc. 12b—d. Brussels.

Kiesenwetter, H. von. 1857. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands (W.F. Erichson), vol. 1
(Coleoptera), part 4 (Buprestidae). Nicolai, Berlin.

Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. Jn Richardson, J., Fauna Boreali-Americana; or the zoology of the
northern parts of British America, part 4. xxxix, 325 pp., 8 pls. Fletcher, Norwich.

Lacordaire, Th. 1857. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres, vol. 4. 579 pp.

Roret, Paris.
Laporte, F.L. de (Comte de Castelnau) & Gory, H.L. [1838]. Apatura. 10 pp. in: Histoire
naturelle et iconographie des insectes coléoptéres ..., vol. 1. Bailliére, Paris.

Leraut, P. 1983. Mise a jour de la nomenclature de quelques genres de Buprestides de France
(Col. Buprestidae, Dicereini, Melanophilini). Entomologica Gallica, 1(1): 5-8.

Pallas, P.S. 1773. Descriptiones animalium. Pp. 701-744, pls. A-Z in: Reise durch verschiedene
Provinzen des Russischen Reichs, vol. 2. 744 pp. St Petersburg.

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Reitter, E. 1911. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches, vol. 3. 436 pp. Lutz,
Stuttgart.

Richter, A.A. 1949. Coleoptera (Buprestidae). Fauna SSSR, 13(2): 1-255.

Saunders, E. 1870. Catalogue of the species contained in the genus Buprestis of Linnaeus,
previous to its subdivision by Eschscholtz in 1829, referring each to its present genus. 9, 37
pp. van Voorst, London.

Saunders, E. 1871. Catalogus Buprestidarum synonymicus et systematicus. xxii, 171 pp. Janson,
London.

Schaefer, L. 1949. Les buprestides de France. Tableaux analytiques des Coléoptéres de la faune
franco-rhénane. Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplément: 1-511.

Tassi, F. 1966. Su alcuni Buprestidi italiani nuovi o particolarmente interessanti (VII
Contributo alla conoscenza dei Coleotteri Buprestidi d'Italia). Bolletino della Societa
Entomologica Italiana, 96(1, 2): 17-27.

Théry, A. 1942. Coléoptéres Buprestidae. Faune de France, 41: \—-221.

Volkovitsh, M.G. 1977. The buprestid-beetles (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) of the forest station
‘Forest at Vorskla River’. Pp. 23-27 in: New and little known species of insects of the
European part of the USSR. Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Zoological Institute,
All-Union Entomological Society, Leningrad.

Weidlich, M. 1989. Faunistik und Imaginalokologie der Prachtkafer Bulgarisch-Mazedoniens
(Insecta, Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum fiir
Tierkunde Dresden, 17: 47-77.

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 17-32. Published with An
introduction to the modern classification of insects..., vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 113-160.
Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 35

Case 2851

Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence
over Pepliphorus Hiibner, [1819]

Toshiya Hirowatari

Entomological Laboratory, College of Agriculture, University of Osaka
Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka, 593 Japan

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of the Oriental and
Australian lycaenid butterfly genus Nacaduba Moore, [1881]. It is proposed that it be
given precedence over the senior subjective synonym Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819],
rarely used in this sense.

1. Pepliphorus Htibner, [1819] (p. 71) was established for two taxonomic species, the
first being “698. Pepliphorus Euchylas. Hylas Cram.’ and the second “699. P{apilio]
cyanus Eabr. [error for Fabricius]. Cyanea Cram.’; abbreviated references were given
leading to Papilio hylas Cramer, [1781] (p. 142, pl. 363) and Papilio cyanea Cramer,
[1775] (p. 120, pl. 76), of which P. cyanus Fabricius, 1781 (p. 116) is an unjustified
emendation. As noted by Fruhstorfer (1916a, p. 33) Hubner’s specific name euchylas
was a replacement name for hy/as Cramer; there are at least three senior primary
homonyms of the latter, the oldest being Papilio hylas Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 486). The
synonymy of euchylas and hylas Cramer was mentioned by Rothschild (1915, p. 138),
Toxopeus (1927, p. 267) and D’Abrera (1990, p. 356).

2. Scudder (1875, p. 245) listed Papilio cyanea Cramer, [1775] as the type species of
Pepliphorus; this is a valid designation, but subsequently Waterhouse & Lyell (1914,
p. 101) designated Papilio hylas Cramer, [1781]. As noted below Pepliphorus has been
used only in the latter (ewchy/as) sense. It is Scudder’s largely ignored designation which
has caused the present difficulty.

3. Moore ({1881], p. 88) proposed the genus Nacaduba with type species by original
designation Lampides prominens Moore, 1877 (p. 341); this is currently treated as a
subspecies of Lycaena kurava Moore, [1858] (p. 22).

4. The name Nacaduba has been very widely used in both primary research publi-
cations and revisional works (e.g. Fruhstorfer, 1916b; Corbet, 1938; Eliot, 1955, 1973;
Tite, 1963; 10 references published since 1981 and additional to those mentioned in this
application are held by the Commission Secretariat). Nacaduba presently (Hirowatari,
1990) contains 38 species from the Oriental and Australian Regions, including the
South Pacific Islands. Recently two species of Nacaduba, N. berenice (Herrich-
Schaeffer, 1869) and N. normani Eliot, 1969, have been recorded as pests of cocoa in
Sabah, East Malaysia, by Fujii (1987) and Pan & Morishita (1990) respectively.

5. Although Scudder’s designation (see para. 2) of cyanea as the type species of
Pepliphorus was noted by Toxopeus (1927, p. 267) and Hemming (1967, p. 351),
Pepliphorus has scarcely been recorded in this sense; perhaps Bridges’s 1988 Catalogue
entry is the only instance. Butler (1900, p. 442) referred to *... Pepliphorus (P. hylas,

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Cramer, and allies)...’, and as already mentioned (para. 2) Waterhouse & Lyell (1914)

invalidly designated hylas (=euchylas) as the type species. Rothschild (1915) and

Fruhstorfer (1916a) used Pepliphorus for euchylas, as did Joicey & Talbot (1917, under

the name P. hy/as). Toxopeus (1929, p. 230) attempted to deal with the situation by

erecting the new genus Peplodyta with Papilio cyanea Cramer as the type, despite

Scudder’s identical designation for Pepliphorus. In recent years Pepliphorus has hardly

been used at all, and ewchylas and allied species have been included in Jamides Hiibner,

[1819] (p. 71) (see, for example, D’Abrera, 1990, p. 355).

6. Because of its external appearance Papilio cyanea Cramer has customarily been
placed in Danis Fabricius, 1807 (or the objectively synonymous Thysonotis Hiibner,
[1819], p. 20) (e.g. Common & Waterhouse, 1981, p. 576) or in Psychonotis Toxopeus,
1930 (p. 129) (e.g. D’Abrera, 1990, p. 326); the latter assignment ignores the seniority of
Pepliphorus. | (Hirowatari, 1987, p. 35) pointed out the close relationship between
cyanea and species of Nacaduba, but temporarily retained Pepliphorus for cyanea
alone, following Scudder’s type species designation. Current studies (Hirowatari, 1992)
have shown that there is no morphological difference between cyanea and Nacaduba
species, so that Pepliphorus and Nacaduba are subjective synonyms. Since Nacaduba is
a widely used name and Pepliphorus is unused for the species currently attributed to
Nacaduba, | propose that the name Nacaduba be given precedence over Pepliphorus
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Nacaduba Moore, [1881]
over the name Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819], whenever the two are considered to
be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Lampides prominens Moore, 1877, with the endorsement that it
is to be given precedence over Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] (gender: masculine), type species by designation
by Scudder (1875) Papilio cyanea Cramer, [1775], with the endorsement that
it is not to be given priority over Nacaduba Moore, [1881] whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms;

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) prominens Moore, 1877, as published in the binomen Lampides prominens
(specific name of the type species of Nacaduba Moore, [1881]):

(b) cyanea Cramer, [1775], as published in the binomen Papilio cyanea (specific
name of the type species of Pepliphorus Hitibner, [1819]);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Peplodyta Toxopeus, 1929 (a junior objective synonym of Pepliphorus
Hiibner, [1819]).

—
Ww
~—

References

Bridges, C.A. 1988. Catalogue of Lycaenidae & Riodinidae ( Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). 816 pp.
Author, Urbana.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 37

Butler, A.G. 1900. A list of the species of Cyaniris, a well-known group of the family Lycaenidae.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)5: 441-451.

Common, I.F.B. & Waterhouse, D.F. 1981. Butterflies of Australia, (revised edition). 682 pp.
Angus & Robertson, Sydney.

Corbet, A.S. 1938. A revision of the Malayan species of the Nacaduba group of genera
(Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 87:
125-146.

Cramer, P. [1775]. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkommende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa
en America, vol. 1. 155 pp., 96 pls. Baalde, Amsterdam & Wild, Utrecht.

Cramer, P. [1781]. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkommende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa
en America, vol. 4. 252, 29 pp., 111 pls. Baalde, Amsterdam & Wild, Utrecht.

D’Abrera, B.L. 1990. Butterflies of the Australian Region, Ed. 3. 416 pp. Lansdowne,
Melbourne.

Eliot, J.N. 1955. Notes on the Nacaduba hermus (C. Felder) complex (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae).
Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B) 24: 153-158.

Eliot, J.N. 1973. The higher classification of the Lycaenidae (Lepidoptera): a tentative arrange-
ment. Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History), Entomology, 28: 371-505.

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum, vol. 2. 517 pp. Bohn, Hamburgi et Kilonii.

Fruhstorfer, H. 1916a. Revision der Gattung Lampides auf Grund anatomischer Untersuchungen.
Archiv ftir Naturgeschichte, 81A(6): 1-46.

Fruhstorfer, H. 1916b. Revision der Gattung Nacaduba auf Grund der Morphologie der
Generationsorgane. Zoologische Mededeelingen, 2: 103-140.

Fujii, H. 1987. Behaviour of butterflies in Sabah. Pp. 15—44 in: Studies on the behaviour and the life-
cycle strategies of arboreal insects in the humid tropics, 1985, supplement. Kyoto University,
Kyoto.

Hemming, F. 1967. The genericnames of the butterflies and their type-species. Bulletin of the British
Museum ( Natural History), Entomology, Supplement 9: 1-509.

Hirowatari, T. 1987. Systematic position of Pepliphorus cyanea (Cramer) (Lepidoptera,
Lycaenidae). 76 to Ga, 38(1): 31-37.

Hirowatari, T. 1990. Overview on the genus Nacaduba Moore (Lycaenidae). Yadoriga, 142: 2-11.
[In Japanese.]

Hirowatari, T. 1992. A generic classification of the tribe Polyommatini of the Oriental and
Australian regions. (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae, Polyommatinae). Bulletin of the University
of Osaka Prefecture, (B)44 supplement: 1-102.

Hiibner, J. [1819]. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, part 5. Pp. 17-176. Augsburg.

Joicey, J.J. & Talbot, G. 1917. New Lepidoptera from Waigeu, Dutch New Guinea, and Biak.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)20: 216-229.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Moore, F. [1858]. Jn: Horsfield, T. & Moore, F. A catalogue of the lepidopterous insects of the
museum of the Hon. East-India Company, vol. |. 277 pp., 18 pls. Allen, London.

Moore, F. 1877. Descriptions of Ceylon Lepidoptera. Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
(4)20: 339-348.

Moore, F. [1881]. The Lepidoptera of Ceylon, vol. 1, part 3. Pp. 81-136, pls. 37-54. Reeve,
London.

Pan, T.-S. & Morishita, K. 1990. Notes on Nacaduba normani Eliot in Sabah, North Borneo
(Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae). Ty6 to Ga, 41(3): 149-154.

Rothschild, W. 1915. On Lepidoptera from the islands of Ceram (Seran), Buru, Bali, and Misol.
Novitates Zoologicae, 22: 105-144.

Scudder, S.H. 1875. Historical sketch of the generic names proposed for butterflies: a contribution
to systematic nomenclature. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10:
91-293. —

Tite, G.E. 1963. A synonymic list of the genus Nacaduba and allied genera (Lepidoptera:
Lycaenidae). Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History), Entomology, 13: 67-116.

Toxopeus, L.J. 1927. Eine Revision der javanischen, zu Lycaenopsis Felder und verwandten
Genera gehérigen Arten. Lycaenidae Australasiae II. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 70:
232-302.

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Toxopeus, L.J. 1929. De Riodinidae en Lycaenidae van het eiland Java. (Lycaenidae Australasiae
VI). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 72: 215-244.

Toxopeus, L.J. 1930. De soort als functie van plaats en tijd getoetst aan de Lycaenidae van het
Australaziatisch gebied. 198 pp., 4 pls. Paris, Amsterdam.

Waterhouse, G.A. & Lyell, G. 1914. The butterflies of Australia. 239 pp. Angus & Robertson,

Sydney.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 39

Case 2852

Banksinella luteolateralis var. albothorax Theobald, 1907 (currently
Aedes (Neomelaniconion) albothorax), B. luteolateralis var.
circumluteola Theobald, 1908 (currently A. (N.) circumluteolus) and

A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 1985 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation
of the specific names and designation of a neotype for A. (V.) albothorax

Thomas J. Zavortink

Department of Biology, University of San Francisco, Ignatian Heights,
San Francisco, California 94117-1080, U.S.A.

‘Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of Aedes
(Neomelaniconion) albothorax (Theobald, 1907), A. (N.) circumluteolus (Theobald,
1908) and A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 1985 in their accustomed usages. All of these
species are common mosquitoes in sub-Saharan Africa; Aedes circumluteolus and
A. mcintoshi are particularly widespread and both have been found infected with
several arboviruses.

1. Theobald (1907, pp. 470-471) described and named the mosquitoes Banksinella
luteolateralis var. pallida and var. albothorax on the basis of three female specimens
from Inkutu, The Gambia. The two syntype females of pallida were described as having
pale grey scales on the vertex of the head and pale silvery grey scales on the sides of the
scutum. The holotype female of a/bothorax was described as having white scales on the
vertex of the head and on the sides of the scutum.

2. Theobald (1908, p. 107) described and named Banksiella [sic] luteolateralis var.
circumluteola on the basis of a single female from Transvaal, South Africa. The
holotype has pale yellow scales on the vertex of the head and on the sides of the
scutum.

3. Edwards (1915, pp. 273-274) reviewed Banksinella and considered pallida and
albothorax to be varieties of Banksinella lineatopennis (Ludlow, 1905, p. 133), which
was originally described from the Philippines. He did not redescribe the varieties or
cite specimens of them. He did not mention circumluteola, but in his catalog of the
CULICIDAE (1932) he listed (p. 172) albothorax, circumluteola and pallida as varieties of
Aedes (Banksinella) lineatopennis. In 1936 Edwards stated (p. 51) that Theobald’s
‘varieties’ circumluteola and albothorax and perhaps also pallida were better treated as
species. As before, he did not redescribe these taxa or cite specimens.

4. Edwards (1941, pp. 201-214) revised the Ethiopian species of Aedes (Banksinella)
in his volume Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian Region. He considered circumluteolus
(p. 204) and albothorax (p. 205) to be distinct species and reduced pallida to synonymy
with a/bothorax. It is obvious from his remarks that only one syntype of Banksinella
pallida remained in existence. In his key to species (p. 202) he used the color of the scales
on the sides of the scutum to separate circumluteolus and albothorax. Edwards remarked
that specimens of ‘albothorax’ from East Africa differed somewhat from Gambian ones;

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

his illustration of the male genitalia was based on East African material. Edwards used
the name circumluteolus for a species that is widespread in sub-Saharan Africa.

5. All subsequent authors have followed Edwards’s synonymy of pallida with
albothorax, and the former has not been used since as valid for any taxon in Aedes.

6. Huang (1985, pp. 108-120) studied the widespread mosquitoes known as Aedes
(Neomelaniconion) lineatopennis (Ludlow, 1905) and concluded that specimens from
Africa were specifically distinct from those from the Orient. She described (p. 109) the
African species as Aedes (Neomelaniconion) mcintoshi. The holotype male, from
Onderstepoort, Transvaal, South Africa, has yellow to golden yellow scales on the
vertex of the head and on the sides of the scutum.

7. Although the Code (p. 197) recommends spelling the prefix ‘Mc’ as ‘mac’ when
forming a zoological name from a personal name bearing this prefix, Huang did not do
so, and spelled her specific name as mcintoshi. Since mcintoshi differs by one letter from
macintoshi, and since these variant spellings are not deemed to be identical in Article 58
of the Code, Aedes (Neomelaniconion) mcintoshi Huang, 1985 is not to be considered a
homonym of Aedes (Ochlerotatus) macintoshi Marks, 1959.

8. I (Zavortink, 1992) studied the holotypes of albothorax, circumluteolus and
meintoshi and the single extant syntype of pallidus as part of a taxonomic revision of
Aedes (Neomelaniconion). | concluded that the types of a/bothorax and circumluteolus
are conspecific and that the types of pallidus and mcintoshi are specimens of a second
widespread species. I argued that the types of albothorax and pallidus are bleached
(faded) specimens of the two species currently called circumluteolus and mcintoshi
respectively. I considered that synonymizing circumluteolus with albothorax and
mceintoshi with pallidus would disrupt stability and cause confusion, and proposed that
existing usage should be maintained.

9. The name circumluteolus has been used consistently for the same taxon by
mosquito systematists for the 85 years since its original description by Theobald (1908).
The species is one of the commonest and most widespread Aedes in sub-Saharan Africa
(Gillett, 1972, p. 90; Knight & Stone, 1977, p. 120). The name circumluteolus also
appears frequently in non-taxonomic literature because the species has been found
infected with numerous arboviruses (McIntosh, 1971, p. 327).

10. The name albothorax has been applied consistently to an East African species
with white scales on the vertex of the head and sides of the scutum by all authors since
Edwards’s (1941) revision of Aedes (Banksinella).

11. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would require replacement of
circumluteolus (1908) by albothorax (1907) and proposal of a new specific name for the
East African albothorax of Edwards (1941) and later authors. However, such action
would disrupt stability and cause confusion. These problems could be avoided by
setting aside the type status of the Gambian holotype of Aedes albothorax (Theobald,
1907) and conserving the specific name as currently used by designating a neotype. This
would also conserve the name A. circumluteolus (Theobald, 1908). I propose as neotype
of A. albothorax (Theobald, 1907) a female specimen associated with its larval and
pupal skins (KEN 166-17) with the following data: progeny rearing, Kenya, Coast
Province, 2 kilometers north of Kakuyuni, Lake Mbaratumu [3°12’S, 40°00’E;
elevation less than 30 meters; mother collected 23 June 1990, L.P. Lounibos & T.J.
Zavortink]. The taxonomic species to which this specimen belongs was redescribed
and illustrated as Aedes (Banksinella) albothorax by Edwards (1941, pp. 205-206).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 41

The following characters differentiate this species from other taxa of Aedes
(Neomelaniconion): scales on vertex of head and sides of scutum white; proboscis with
long streak of whitish scales on underside; acrostichal bristles not developed; pleural
integument dark brown to black; lower mesepimeral bristles of female usually 3—5
(2-7); pleural scale patches small to moderately large, usually yellowish white to
tannish white; some or all subspiracular scales broad, flat; posterior surface of mid
and hind femora dark-scaled in apical 0.3—0.5; anterior surface of hind femur white-
scaled in basal 0.2—0.4; claws of hind tarsus simple; costal vein completely dark-scaled;
radial vein with creamy white scales from base to or slightly beyond base of radial
sector; plume scales on radial sector, vein R2+3, vein R2, vein R3 and medial vein
dark; abdominal terga with broad basal bands of creamy white to yellowish white
scales; abdominal sterna completely to nearly completely dark-scaled; coxite of male
genitalia broad basally, abruptly narrowed distally and with relatively few (4-12)
widely spaced, slender spiniform setae on inner margin. The neotype will be deposited
in the collection of the Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences,
San Francisco, California, U.S.A., as Type no. 16988.

12. Aedes mcintoshi is a common mosquito widespread in sub-Saharan Africa (all
African localities of ‘/ineatopennis’ in Knight & Stone, 1977, p. 120) and the species is
frequently mentioned (as /ineatopennis or, since 1985, as mcintoshi) in non-taxonomic
literature because it is associated with several arboviruses, including Rift Valley Fever
virus (McIntosh, 1971, p. 325). Although the name mcintoshi was published only eight
years ago it is in general current use. It has been applied to this taxon, as its presumed
valid name, in a considerable number of publications since its publication in 1985 (e.g.
Beier et al., 1990; Cornel, 1991; Gargan, Kamau, Thande & Wagateh, 1989; Jupp &
Cornel, 1988; Linthicum et al., 1988; Logan et al., 1991; Patrican & Bailey, 1989;
Turell, Faran, Cornet & Bailey, 1988). A further six references have been given to the
Commission Secretariat.

13. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would require the replacement of
meintoshi by pallidus. This would be the second name change for this common
African species in less than eight years, and serious confusion could be avoided by the
suppression of pallida Theobald, 1907.

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to set aside the type status of the holotype of Banksinella luteolateralis
albothorax Theobald, 1907 and to designate as neotype the specimen
proposed in para. 11 above;

(b) to suppress the specific name pallida Theobald, 1907, as published in the
trinomen Banksinella luteolateralis var. pallida, for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) albothorax Theobald, 1907, as published in the trinomen Banksinella
luteolateralis var. albothorax and as defined by the neotype designated in
(1)(a) above;

(b) circumluteolus Theobald, 1908, as published in the trinomen Banksiella [sic]
luteolateralis var. circumluteola;

(c) mcintoshiHuang, 1985, as published in the binomen Aedes (Neomelaniconion)
meintoshi;

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name pallida Theobald, 1907, as published in the trinomen Banksinella
luteolateralis var. pallida and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

Acknowledgements

I thank Bruce C. Townsend and Ralph E. Harbach for the loans of types from the
Natural History Museum, London, and the United States National Museum, respect-
ively. I am grateful to Dr P. K. Tubbs for help in preparing this application. This
work was supported in part by the U.S. Army Medical Research Acquisition Activity,
Contract No. DAMD17-86—C--6134. The views, opinions and/or findings contained
in this report are those of the author and should not be construed as an official
Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other
documentation.

References

Beier, J.C., Odago, W.O., Onyango, F.K., Asiago, C.M., Koech, D.K. & Roberts, C.R. 1990.
Relative abundance and blood feeding behavior of nocturnally active culicine mosquitoes in
western Kenya. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 6: 207-212.

Cornel, A.J. 1991. Description of Aedes (Neomelaniconion) aurovenatus Worth (Diptera:
Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics, 23: 54-65.

Edwards, F.W. 1915. New and little-known East African Culicidae. Bulletin of Entomological
Research, 5: 273-281.

Edwards, F.W. 1932. Diptera. Fam. Culicidae. Genera Insectorum (P. Wytsman), fascicle 194.
258 pp. Desmet-Verteneuil, Brussels.

Edwards, F.W. 1936. New African culicine mosquitoes (Diptera, Culicidae). Proceedings of the
Royal Entomological Society of London, (B, Taxonomy) 5: 49-55.

Edwards, F.W. 1941. Mosquitoes of the Ethiopian Region. III. Culicine adults and pupae. 499 pp.
British Museum (Natural History), London.

Gargan, T.P., Kamau, C.W., Thande, P.C. & Wagateh, J.N. 1989. Gynandromorph of Aedes
meintoshi from central Kenya. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association, 5:
599-600.

Gillett, J.D. 1972. Common African mosquitoes and their medical importance. 106 pp. Heinemann,
London.

Huang, Y.-M. 1985. A new African species of Aedes (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics,
17: 108-120.

Jupp, P.G. & Cornel, A.J. 1988. Vector competence tests with Rift Valley Fever virus and five
South African species of mosquito. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association,
4:48.

Knight, K.L. & Stone, A. 1977. A catalog of the mosquitoes of the world ( Diptera: Culicidae), Ed.
2. 611 pp. Thomas Say Foundation, Entomological Society of America, College Park,
Maryland.

Linthicum, K.J., Bailey, C.L., Davies, F.G., Kairo, A. & Logan, T.M. 1988. The horizontal
distribution of Aedes pupae and their subsequent adults within a flooded dambo in Kenya:
implications of Rift Valley Fever virus control. Journal of the American Mosquito Control
Association, 4: 551-554.

Logan, T.M., Linthicum, K.J., Davies, F.G., Binepal, Y.S. & Roberts, C.R. 1991. Isolation of Rift
Valley Fever virus from mosquitoes (Diptera: Culicidae) collected during an outbreak in
domestic animals in Kenya. Journal of Medical Entomology, 28: 293-295.

Ludlow, C.S. 1905. Mosquito notes. No. 3. Canadian Entomologist, 37: 94-102, 129-135.

McIntosh, B.M. 1971. The aedine subgenus Neomelaniconion Newstead (Culicidae, Diptera) in
southern Africa with descriptions of two new species. Journal of the Entomological Society
of Southern Africa, 34: 319-333.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 43

Patrican, L.A. & Bailey, C.L. 1989. Ingestion of immune bloodmeals and infection of Aedes

fowleri, Aedes mcintoshi, and Culex pipiens with Rift Valley Fever virus. American Journal of
Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 40: 534-540.

Theobald, F.V. 1907. A monograph of the Culicidae or mosquitoes, vol. 4. 639 pp. British Museum
(Natural History), London.

Theobald, F.V. 1908. Notes on some Transvaal mosquitoes, including two new species and a new
variety. Entomologist, 41: 106-109.

Turell, M.J., Faran, M.E., Cornet, M. & Bailey, C.L. 1988. Vector competence of Senegalese Aedes
fowleri (Diptera: Culicidae) for Rift Valley Fever virus. Journal of Medical Entomology, 25:
262-266.

Zayortink, T.J. 1992. Bleaching of adult mosquitoes with daylight and its bearing on nomen-
clature in Aedes (Neomelaniconion) (Diptera: Culicidae). Mosquito Systematics, 23 (for
1991): 87-91.

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Case 2836

Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
conservation and designation of Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as
the type species

Andrzej Woznica & Tadeusz Zatwarnicki

Department of Zoology, Agricultural University, ul. Cybulskiego 20, 50-205
Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name of the
heleomyzid fly Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 with Helomyza fenestralis Fallen,
1820 as its type species. There is lack of agreement on the availability of the name as
published in Curtis (1837) and the genus is sometimes spelled Aecothea after Haliday
(1838).

1. The generic name ‘Oecothea Hal.’ was first mentioned in the Addenda to Curtis
(1837, col. 280) after the 17th species (caesia M.) of the 1328th numbered genus
Suillia. Curtis stated in his preface (p. v) that ‘the generic and specific names without
numbers are considered as synonyms’. It follows that the unnumbered name
Oecothea was proposed as a synonym of (i.e. part of) Suillia Robineau-Desvoidy,
1830. In the Addenda the numbers and names of four British species were given
below Oecothea: ‘23 pallescens M., 24b subterranea Desv., 25 laeta M. and 32 silvatica
M.’. In the main text to Curtis preceding the Addenda (1837, col. 272) the specific
name in Helomyza immediately following ‘17 caesia M.” was ‘18 fenestralis Fall.’. The
relationship of the name fenestralis to Oecothea was not stated; the absence of the
species numbered between 18 and 23 meant that the precise position at which
Oecothea related to the main text was not indicated. It is not clear that the four
species (pallescens, subterranea, laeta and silvatica) were originally included in
Oecothea. We take the pragmatic approach that Oecothea Haliday was proposed
without any clearly included species.

2. In 1838 Haliday (p. 187) gave the name Aecothea as a subgenus of Helomyza,
accompanied by a short description; he wrote ‘C.[urtis] App.[endix] 280’, referring to
the name printed as Oecothea in Curtis (1837, Appendix, col. 280). Thompson &
Mathis (1980, p. 86) regarded Aecothea as a lapsus for Oecothea. We suggest that it
was a deliberate transliteration from Greek. Haliday gave Helomyza fenestralis
Fallén, 1820 as the only British species of the genus.

3. Both spellings have been frequently used in the literature. The name has been
spelled Oecothea by Westwood (1840), Loew (1862), Aldrich & Darlington (1908),
Bezzi (1911), Garrett (1921), Czerny (1924, 1927, 1928), Aldrich (1926, who added
that it was ‘originally spelled Aecothea’), Séguy (1934), Collart (1940), Collin (1943),
Gorodkov (1959, 1969, 1984), Papp (1980), Martinek (1987) and Woznica (1991).
The name Aecothea has been used by Gill (1962, 1965, 1968), Cole (1969), Martinek
(1977), Papp (1981), Gill & Peterson (1987) and Okadome (1991).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 45

4. In Opinion 488 (1957) the Commission ruled that type species of genera were
not to be taken as having been fixed in Curtis (1837). Thompson & Mathis (1980, p.
86) considered that the four specific names printed after Oecothea in the Addenda to
Curtis (1837) were associated with that genus. They pointed out that the frequent use
of fenestralis as type species of Oecothea was not valid since it was not an originally
included (i.e. 1837) species, and they designated Curtis’s second numbered species
(Leria subterranea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) as the type species of Oecothea.
However, L. subterranea is a nomen dubium within Heleomyza Fallén, 1810, and
consequently the name Oecothea was regarded as a junior synonym of Heleomyza. If
L. subterranea is taken as the type species of Oecothea then the genus typified by
Helomyza fenestralis (i.e. the Oecothea of authors) is left without a name, as noted by
Thompson & Mathis.

5. Peterson & Gill (1982) accepted Thompson & Mathis’s designation of Leria
‘subterranea as the type species of Oecothea. They (p. 219) proposed a new name
Neoecothea for Oecothea of authors, not Haliday in Curtis (1837) in the sense of
Thompson & Mathis. Peterson & Gill explained clearly the sense in which they used
the name Neoecothea and designated Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as its type
species. McAlpine (1985, p. 206) accepted that Peterson & Gill’s intention was to
propose Neoecothea as a replacement for Oecothea in the fenestralis sense and
accordingly synonymized Neoecothea with Aecothea Haliday, 1838. The name Neo-
ecothea was used by Pitkin (1989), but was not followed by Gill & Peterson (1987).

6. Helomyza fenestralis Fallen, 1820 has often been used as the type species of
Oecothea (first by Westwood, 1840, p. 145), but without any clear indication that it
referred to the name proposed by Haliday in Curtis (1837). The first explicit
designation of Helomyza fenestralis as the type species of Oecothea Haliday in Curtis,
1837 was made by Gorodkov (1984, p. 18), but he qualified this designation with the
words ‘will be proposed for designation under the plenary powers’. We consider that
the most effective resolution of this confusion would be the acceptance of Oecothea
Haliday in Curtis, 1837 as an available name with Helomyza fenestralis Fallén as the
type species.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to rule that the name Oecothea is deemed to have been made available in
Curtis (1837);

(b) to rule that the authorship of Oecothea is deemed to be Haliday in Curtis;

(c) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Oecothea
Haliday in Curtis, 1837 prior to the qualified designation by Gorodkov
(1984) of Helomyza fenestralis Fallen, 1820 and to rule that designation as
valid;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Oecothea
Haliday. in Curtis, 1837 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Gorodkov (1984) Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as ruled in
(1)(c) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name fenestralis
Fallen, 1820, as published in the binomen Helomyza fenestralis (specific name
of the type species of Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837);

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

(4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Aecothea Haliday, 1838 (a junior objective synonym of Oecothea Haliday
in Curtis, 1837);
(b) Neoecothea Peterson & Gill, 1982 (a junior objective synonym of Oecothea
Haliday in Curtis, 1837).

Acknowledgement
Deepest appreciation is extended to Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky for his assistance in the
preparation of this application.

References

Aldrich, J.M. 1926. A new genus of Heleomyzidae from Chile, with key to genera. Jnsecutor
Inscitiae Menstruus, 14(4-6): 96-102.

Aldrich, J.M. & Darlington, P.S. 1908. The dipterous family Helomyzidae. Transactions of the
American Entomological Society, 34: 67-100.

Bezzi, M. 1911. Diptéres — suivi d’un Appendice sur les Diptéres cavernicoles recueillis par le
Dr Absolon dans les Balcans. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, (5)8: 1-87.

Cole, F.R. 1969. The flies of western North America. v, 693 pp., 360 figs. University of
California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles.

Collart, A. 1940. Etudes biospéologiques. 22(1). Helomyzidae (Dipt.) de Transylvanie. Bulletin
du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, 16(35): 1-27.

Collin, J.E. 1943. The British species of Helomyzidae (Diptera). Entomologist’s Monthly
Magazine, 79: 234-251.

Curtis, J. 1837. A guide to an arrangement of British insects; being a catalogue of all the named
species hitherto discovered in Great Britain and Ireland. (Ed. 2). 294 cols. Author, London.

Czerny, L. 1924. Monographie der Helomyziden (Dipteren). Abhandlungen der zoologisch-
botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 15(1): 1-166.

Czerny, L. 1927. Helomyzidae, Trichoscelidae und Chiromyidae, vol. 5. Pp. 1-56 in: Lindner,
E. (Ed.). Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region. Schweizerbart’sche, Stuttgart.

Czerny, L. 1928. Ergaénzungen zu meiner Monographie der Helomyziden. III. Konowia, 7(1):
52-S5.

Garrett, C.B.D. 1921. Notes .on Helomyzidae and descriptions of new species (Diptera).
Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 9(7-9): 119-132.

Gill, G.D. 1962. The heleomyzid flies of America north of Mexico (Diptera: Heleomyzidae).
Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 113: 495-603.

Gill, G.D. 1965. Family Heleomyzidae (Helomyzidae). Pp. 808-816 in: Stone, A. er al. (Eds.),
A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. Agricultural Handbook No. 276. iv,
1696 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington.

Gill, G.D. 1968. Family Heleomyzidae (Helomyzidae) including the Trixoscelididae (Tricho-
scelidae). Pp. 85.1-13 in: Papavero, N. (Ed.), A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas
south of the United States. Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura, Sao
Paulo.

Gill, G.D. & Peterson, B.V. 1987. 89 Heleomyzidae. Pp. 973-980 in: McAlpine, J.F. (Ed.),
Manual of Nearctic Diptera, vol. 2. Monograph no. 28. Pp. 675-1332. Research Branch
Agriculture Canada, Ottawa.

Gorodkoy, K.B. 1959. Revision of the Palaearctic species of the genus Oecothea Hal. (Diptera.
Helomyzidae). Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 38(4): 905—922. [In Russian].

Gorodkoy, K.B. 1969. Heleomyzidae. Ergebnisse der zoologischen Forschungen von Dr Z.
Kaszab in der Mongolei (Diptera). Reichenbachia, 11(24): 255-264.

Gorodkoy, K.B. 1984. Family Heleomyzidae (Helomyzidae). Pp. 15-45 in: Sos, A. & Papp, L.
(Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 10. 402 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 47

Haliday, A.H. 1838. New British insects indicated in Mr Curtis’s guide. Annals of Natural
History, 2: 183-190.

Loew, H. 1862. Ueber die europaischen Helomyzidae und die in Schlesien vorkommenden
Arten derselben. Zeitschrift fiir Entomologie, 13: 1-80.

McAlpine, D.K. 1985. The Australian genera of Heleomyzidae (Diptera: Schizophora) and a
reclassification of the family into tribes. Records of the Australian Museum, 36: 203-251.

Martinek, V. 1977. 75. celed Lanyzovkoviti — Heleomyzidae. Pp. 254-256 in: Doskocil, J.
(Ed.), Klic zvireny C.S.S.R. 373 pp. Dvoukridli, Praha.

Martinek, V. 1987. Heleomyzidae. Pp. 239-241 in: Jezek, J. (Ed.), Enumeratio Insectorum
Bohemoslovakiae check list of Czechoslovak insects II (Diptera). Acta Faunistica
Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 18: 1-341.

Okadome, T. 1991. Heleomyzid flies of Pakistan (Diptera). Japanese Journal of Entomology,
59(2): 425-434.

Papp, L. 1980. Three new species of Helomyzidae (Diptera) from Hungary. Acta Zoologica
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 26(1—3): 211-221.

Papp, L. 1981. 54 csalad: Heleomyzidae-Tuskésszarnyu legyek. Pp. 1-77 in: Papp, L. & Soos,
A. (Eds.), Tiiskésszarnyu legyek-szikilegyek Heleomyzidae-Tethinidae. Magyarorszag Al-
latvilaga Fauna Hungariae, vol. 15. 137 pp. Kiado, Budapest. [In Hungarian].

Peterson, B.V. & Gill, G.D. 1982. Neoecothea, a new name for Oecothea (Diptera: Heleomyz-
idae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Washington, 10: 219.

Pitkin, B.R. 1989. Family Heleomyzidae. Pp. 594-599 in: Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of the
Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian regions. Special publication 86. 1155 pp. Brill &
Bishop Museum, Leiden & Honolulu.

Séguy, E. 1934. Diptéres (Brachyceres) (Muscidae Acalypterae et Scatophagidae). Pp. 314-346
in: Faune de France, vol. 28. Lechevalier, Paris.

Thompson, F.C. & Mathis, W.N. 1980. Haliday’s generic names of Diptera first published in
Curtis’ A Guide to... British Insects (1837). Journal of the Washington Academy of
Sciences, 70(2): 80-89.

Westwood, J.O. 1840. Order XIII. Diptera Aristotle (Antliata Fabricius. Halteriptera Clairv.).
Pp. 125-154 in: Synopsis of the genera of British insects. Published with An introduction to
the modern classification of insects ..., vol. 2, part 16. Pp. 401-587. Longman, Orme,
Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Woznica, A. 1991. Heleomyzidae. Pp. 209-210 in: Razowski, J. (Ed.), Checklist of animals of
Poland, vol. 2. 342 pp. Ossolineum, Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow.

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Case 2816

Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta
skua lonnbergi; Aves, Charadriiformes): proposed conservation of the
subspecific name

J.-F. Voisin & C. Voisin

Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammiféres et Oiseaux, Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

W.J. Bock

Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University in the City of
New York, N.Y. 10027, U.S.A.

M. Thery

C.N.R.S., U.R.A. 1183, Laboratoire d’Ecologie Générale, Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, 4 avenue du Petit Chateau, 91800 Brunoy, Paris, France

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the subspecific name of
Catharacta skua lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (family STERCORARIIDAE). The name is in
universal usage for the brown skua of the subantarctic region but is threatened by
the unused senior subjective synonym Stercorarius antarcticus madagascariensis
Bonaparte, 1856, for which suppression 1s proposed.

Résumé. L’ objet de cette requéte est de conserver le nom subspécifique de Catharacta
skua lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (famille des STERCORARIIDAE). Ce nom, dont l’usage est
couramment accepte pour le Skua brun de la région subantarctique, est menace par le
nom inemployé Stercorarius antarcticus madagascariensis Bonaparte, 1856, synonyme
subjectif plus ancien, dont on propose ici la suppression.

1. Bonaparte (1856, p. 207) described a skua obtained off the coasts of Madagascar
and named it as a subspecies madagascariensis of Stercorarius antarcticus (Lesson,
1831) (p. 616). The completed vol. 2 of Bonaparte’s work is dated 1857. However, dates
printed with the signatures indicate that it was published in parts between 1854 and
1856 (see also Woodward, 1903, p. 194). Pages 193-232 of vol. 2 bear the date 1856 and
this has been adopted here for the name madagascariensis. The name was largely
ignored by subsequent authors and Saunders (1876, pp. 321-322; 1896, p. 320) syn-
onymized it with S. antarcticus. Hartlaub (1877, pp. 380-382) accepted the synonymy
and published measurements of Bonaparte’s specimen (no. 1992-392 in the Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris).

2. Mathews (1912 (January), p. 212) described Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi
based ona single bird (specimen no. 3755) from ‘New Zealand Seas’. This specimen, an

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 49

adult male formerly part of the Rothschild collection, is in the collection of the
American Museum of Natural History, catalogue no. 744457. Mathews also described
the egg (1912 (April), p. 55). A year later (1913, p. 484) he elevated the taxon to specific
rank and (p. 494) proposed three subspecies: C. /. lonnbergi (pl. 122) from New
Zealand, C. /. intercedens from the Kerguelen Islands and C. /. clarkei from the South
Orkneys. However, he has been little followed; Hamilton (1934, p. 174) synonymized
intercedens and clarkei with the nominate /onnbergi and treated this as a subspecies of
Catharacta skua Brinnich, 1764. Since Hamilton’s work the taxon /onnbergi has been
variously considered to be a species, or a subspecies of either skua or antarcticus. These
taxa have been included either in Stercorarius Brisson, 1760 or in Catharacta Briinnich,
1764. Today most authors agree on the trinomen C. skua lonnbergi, in accordance with
the taxonomic conclusions of Hamilton (1934), Devillers (1978) and Furness (1987).

3. Brooke (1978, p. 296; 1981, p. 144) resurrected the name madagascariensis
Bonaparte, 1856 and, on the grounds of a re-examination of the holotype by Dr J.-L.
Mougin and by Drs C. and J.-F. Voisin, adopted it as a senior synonym of C. skua
lonnbergi. This was followed by Voisin (1979, p. 79 and footnote; 1984, p. 15), but
Clancey (1981, p. 197) continued to use the name /onnbergi, noting madagascariensis
as a synonym. Brooke did not publish measurements for the type specimen of
madagascariensis, the identity of which has long been controversial. Those given by
Hartlaub (1877) suggest that it is a specimen of the South Polar skua C. maccormicki
(Saunders, 1893) (p. xii), rather than the brown skua, even if its culmen length is
somewhat long for that species (Furness, 1987). Our own measurements of the same
specimen (culmen length 56.5 mm, tarsus length 85mm, middle toe 76mm, wing
length (tip broken) 370 and 365 mm) do not agree with those of Hartlaub; they bring
_ Bonaparte’s specimen well within the size range of C. skua lonnbergiand completely out
of that of C. maccormicki according to the table of measurements given by Furness
(1987) and our own observations. Moreover, the shape and sculpture of the bill are
clearly those of C. skua lonnbergi (Brooke, 1981, personal observations). We do
not know why Hartlaub’s measurements are so different from our own but our re-
examination of Bonaparte’s specimen proves beyond doubt that it is a small male of
C. skua lonnbergi and not of C. maccormicki, as has already been stated by Brooke
(1978, 1981). If tarsus length, which is the most diagnostic character in discriminating
Catharacta specimens (Brooke, 1978; Furness, 1987), is considered alone Bonaparte’s
specimen could be a New Zealand bird but the fact that it was taken far away from
any known breeding ground of the brown skua makes it difficult to apply the name
madagascariensis to any known breeding population of the species. Many years ago
Milne Edwards & Grandidier (1885, p. 644) included madagascariensis in antarcticus
but commented that Bonaparte’s specimen was ‘remarquablement petit’.

4. Strict adherence to the Principle of Priority would lead to the very undesirable
introduction of the name Catharacta skua madagascariensis (Bonaparte, 1856) for the
taxon which until now has consistently been called /Jonnbergi Mathews, 1912. The name
madagascariensis has rarely been used whereas Jonnbergi has been used by almost all
authors, particularly since Hamilton’s (1934) work. The name has appeared in check
lists as well as taxonomic and ecological works (see, for example, Peters, 1934, p. 310;
Holgersen, 1957; Downes, Ealey, Gwynn & Young, 1959, pp. 103-111; McLachlan &
Liversidge, 1978, p. 204; Parmelee, 1985; Pietz, 1987; Sibley & Monroe, 1990, pp.
253-254). A list of a further 18 references published in the last 40 years demonstrating

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

usage of the name is held by the Commission Secretariat. The taxonomy of the skuas
is most difficult to interpret and has taken a considerable effort to clarify; the use of
madagascariensis instead of (or, more likely, in addition to) the accepted name
lonnbergi would add confusion to this complex taxonomic situation.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the subspecific name madagascariensis
Bonaparte, 1856, as published in the trinomen Svercorarius antarcticus
madagascariensis, 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 /onnbergi
Mathews, 1912, as published in the trinomen Catharacta antarctica lénnbergi;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name madagascariensis Bonaparte, 1856, as published in the trinomen
Stercorarius antarcticus madagascariensis and as suppressed in (1) above.

Acknowledgements
We thank Dr R.K. Brooke for useful comments on the manuscript and Mrs A. Gentry
of the Commission Secretariat for help in the preparation of the application.

References

Bonaparte, C.L. 1856. Conspectus generum avium, vol. 2. Pp. 193-232. Brill, Lugduni
Batavorum.

Brooke, R.K. 1978. The Catharacta skuas (Aves: Laridae) occurring in South African waters.
Durban Museum Novitates, 11(18): 295-308.

Brooke, R.K. 1981. What is Stercorarius madagascariensis Bonaparte? Ardea, 69: 144.

Clancey, P.A. 1981. On birds from Gough Island, central South Atlantic. Durban Museum
Novitates, 12(17): 187-200.

Devillers, P. 1978. Distribution and relationships of South American skuas. Le Gerfaut, 68(3):
374-417.

Downes, M.C., Ealey, E.H.M., Gwynn, A.M. & Young, P.S. 1959. The birds of Heard Island.
A.N.A.R.E. Reports. Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition, (B)1(Zoology):
1-135.

Furness, R.W. 1987. The skuas. 363 pp. Poyser, Calton.

Hamilton, J.E. 1934. The sub-antarctic forms of the great skua (Catharacta skua skua). Discovery
Reports, 9: 161-174.

Hartlaub, G. 1877. Die Végel Madagascars und der benachbarten Inselgruppen. Ein Beitrag zur
Zoologie der athiopischen Region. xlii, 425 pp. Schmidt, Halle.

Holgersen, H. 1957. Ornithology of the ‘Brategg’ expedition. Scientific Results of the ‘Brategg’
Expedition, 1947-1948, 4: \-80.

Lesson, R.P. 1831. Traité d’ornithologie...xxxii, 659 pp. Levrault, Paris.

McLachlan, G.R. & Liversidge, R. 1978. Roberts’ Birds of South Africa, Ed. 4, Impression 1.
Xxxil, 660 pp. John Voelcker Bird Book Fund, Cape Town.

Mathews, G.M. 1912 (January). A reference-list to the birds of Australia. Novitates Zoologicae,
18(3): 171-455.

Mathews, G.M. 1912 (April). Description of new or hitherto undescribed eggs of some
Australian birds. The Australian Avian Record, 1(2): 53-64.

Mathews, G.M. 1913. The birds of Australia, vol. 2, part 5. Pp. 477-527, pls. 121-124. Witherby,
London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 51

Milne Edwards, A. & Grandidier, A. 1885. Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar,
vol. 12 (Histoire naturelle des oiseaux, vol. 1 — texte). Pp. 377-779. Imprimerie Nationale,
Paris.

Parmelee, D.F. 1985. Polar adaptations in the South Polar skua (Catharacta maccormicki) and
the brown skua (Catharacta lonnbergi) at Anvers Island, Antarctica. Congrés International
Ornithologique, Acta XVIII, 1: 520-529.

Peters, J.L. 1934. Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 2. xvii, 401 pp. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge.

Pietz, P.J. 1987. Feeding and nesting ecology of sympatric South Polar and brown skuas. Auk,
104: 617-628.

Saunders, H. 1876. On the Stercorariinae or skua gulls. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London, 1876: 317-332.

Saunders, H. 1893. [A new species of great skua from Victoria Land. Stercorarius maccormicki,
sp. n.]. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 3(13): xii—xiil.

Saunders, H. 1896. Family Stercorariidae. Pp. 314-339 in: Catalogue of the birds in the British
Museum, vol. 25 (Gaviae: terns, gulls and skuas). 476 pp., 8 pls. British Museum (Natural
History), London.

Sibley, C.G & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. xxiv, 1111
pp. Yale University Press, New Haven & London.

Voisin, J.-F. 1979. Observations ornithologiques aux iles Tristan da Cunha et Gough. Alauda,
47: 72-82.

Voisin, J.-F. 1984. Observations on the birds and mammals of ile aux Cochons, Crozet Islands, in
February 1982. South African Journal of Antarctic Research, 14: 11-17.

Woodward, B.B. 1903. Catalogue of the books, manuscripts, maps and drawings in the British
Museum ( Natural History), vol. 1 (A—D). viii, 500 pp. British Museum (Natural History),
London.

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Comment on the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLaviDAE McCrady, 1859
(Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2710; see BZN 48: 192-195; 49: 144-145, 222-223)

R.G. Hughes

School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary and Westfield College, University of
London, London El 4NS, U.K.

The family-group name CLAvIDAE McCrady, 1859 is universally used in the
hydroid literature. The family includes Clava, common and well known intertidal
hydroids, as well as several other well known genera. Since the family name is based
on this well known generic name it would be troublesome and illogical to allow the
mollusc subfamily name, which is junior, to replace it. I therefore support the
application.

Comments on the proposed designation of Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type
species of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2801; see BZN 49: 109-111)

(1) Alan R. Kabat
Division of Mollusks, NHB-118, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian _
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

I write to comment on the recently published application by Lopez Armengol &
Mancenido in which they proposed that publication of the name Potamolithus be
taken from Pilsbry’s second (1896, December) paper, and that Pilsbry’s invalid
designation of P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type species of the genus be accepted as
valid. In fact there already exists a valid type designation for Potamolithus, that by
Clench (1948, p. 105). Clench clearly explained the situation concerning publication
of the generic name and selected Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835, one of the
originally included nominal species, as the type. Clench’s action satisfies Article 69a
of the Code regarding the subsequent designation of type species.

It is indeed unfortunate that this action was overlooked by Parodiz (1955) and
other South American authors (paras. | and 3 of the application). Zilch (1960,
p. 826), however, in his “Berichtigungen...’ to Wenz’s generic treatment of
prosobranch gastropods in the Handbuch der Paldozoologie did note the valid type
species.

Unless the Commission is willing to set aside a valid type species designation (that
of Clench), then the published proposals cannot be justified.

Additional references

Clench, W.J. 1948. The genotype of Potamolithus Pilsbry. The Nautilus, 61(3): 105.

Wenz, W. 1939. Family Hydrobiidae. Gastropoda. Prosobranchia. Jn Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.),
Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6, Teil 1. Pp. 551-581. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Zilch, A. 1960. Gastropoda. Euthyneura. Berichtigungen zu Band 6, I: Prosobranchia. Jn
Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch de Paldozoologie, vol. 6, Teil 2. Pp. 825-834.
Borntraeger, Berlin. (Also issued with the 1960-1962 reprint of Wenz as pp. 1*—10*).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 53

(2) Miguel O. Mancenido & Maria F. Lopez Armengol
Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional La Plata, Paseo del
Bosque sln, (1900) La Plata, Argentina

We thank Dr Kabat for bringing to our attention a most relevant piece of
information. A few additional observations are pertinent.

1. Authorship of the nominal taxon Potamolithus for which Clench’s (1948)
overlooked type designation applies should be credited to Pilsbry & Rush
(November, 1896), rather than to Pilsbry (December, 1896) (paras. | and 2 of the
application).

2. Potamolithus rushii has been considered (for right or wrong) as the type species
of Potamolithus for almost a century (para. 3). It seems unfair to blame oversight of
the earlier designation on ‘South American authors’ alone. Some 40% of those cited
(para. 3) cannot be considered as such. In addition, Clench’s dual citations of type
species appear odd: Clench & Turner (1962) gave rushii as the type, as noted in para.
3. It is possible that in 1962 Clench had simply forgotten about his own earlier paper.

3. Potamolithus lapidum (d’Orbigny, 1835) is a well-known, easily collectable
species with extant type specimens housed in the Natural History Museum, London
(catalogue no. 1854.12.4.339, d’Orbigny collection, from Buenos Aires province,
Argentina). Pons da Silva & Davis (1983, p. 143) designated a lectotype, which was
re-illustrated (text-fig. 26) alongside three of the paralectotypes (text-figs. 27-29),
thus stabilizing interpretation of the taxon.

4. Any potential risks of P. Japidum and P. rushii being eventually recognized as
belonging to different (sub)genera (as might be inferred from the distinct supra-
specific groupings of Pilsbry, 1911 and Figueiras, 1964) are lessened by Parodiz’s
(1965a) arrangement in which both species were attributed to the same species-group.

The earlier designation noted by Kabat is technically objection-free and taxonom-
ically acceptable inasmuch as /apidum and rushii are both currently within the scope
of the genus Potamolithus. However, our published proposals would preserve more
faithfully Pilsbry’s original intentions and a long established subsequent usage.
Therefore the issue of an Opinion to settle the matter is now even more desirable. At
the present state of knowledge the two alternatives do not entail substantially
different immediate consequences, yet each has its own merits and drawbacks.
Rescuing Clench’s valid action from virtual oblivion has the advantage that it does
not involve resorting to the Commission’s plenary powers, yet /apidum has been
recognized as the type by only one (Zilch, 1960) out of 10 workers during the last 45
years and was not adhered to even by Clench himself. To ‘legalize’ existing usage of
rushii as the type requires intervention by the Commission (the proposals in para. 5),
but this would obviate the risk of a shift in generic concept resulting from a change
in the previously recognized type.

We would welcome the views of fellow scientists and are prepared to accept the
course which is most supported.

Additional reference

Figueiras, A. 1964. La malacofauna dulceacuicola del Uruguay (Parte 1). Ensayo de Catalogo
sistematico y sinonimico. Comunicaciones de la Sociedad Malacologica del Uruguay, 1(7):
161-202.

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Comments on the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus
(Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the designation of a lectotype
(Case 2732; see BZN 48: 31—35, 246; 49: 145-149, 290)

(1) M. Horn
Hessisches Landesamt fiir Bodenforschung, Leberberg 9, D-6200 Wiesbaden, Germany

Ceratites nodosus, as used today, is a very important index fossil in the biostrati-
graphy of the Triassic Muschelkalk Group. This name has been used in the maps and
publications concerning the stratigraphy of the uppermost Muschelkalk Group. To
shift the name nodosus to the taxon known today as Ceratites (Doloceratites) robustus
robustus (as prescribed by the Code and following the paper of Rieber & Tozer, 1986)
would seriously disturb biostratigraphic practice (see Diinkel & Vath, 1990, p. 120).
Therefore the Muschelkalk Working Group of the German Perm-Trias Stratigraphy
Subcommission (of which I am Co-ordinator) supports the proposal of Dr Urlichs to
conserve C. nodosus in the sense used today.

Additional reference

Diinkel, H. & Vath, U. 1990. Ein vollstaéndiges Profil des Muschelkalks (Mitteltrias) der
Dransfelder Hochflache, S.W. Géttingen (Stidniedersachsen). Geologisches Jahrbuch
Hessen, 118: 87-126.

(2) F. Strauch & M. Bertling
Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut und Museum, Westfalische Wilhelms- Universitat
Miinster, Corrensstrasse 24, 4400 Miinster, Germany

We have followed the discussion about the holotype of Ceratites nodosus with great
interest. The problem has been outlined by Urlichs and by Tozer, with very different
conclusions. Our position is in favour of the opinion of Urlichs, since the terminology
of local geology and collections would be seriously affected by Tozer’s solution.

We strongly advocate the retention of Ceratites nodosus Schlotheim, 1813, defined
by the proposed lectotype of Urlichs & Mundlos (1987), and the suppression of
Bruguiére’s authorship of Ammonites nodosa, for the following reasons:

(1) Ceratites nodosus has been used for decades in the sense of Schlotheim, and not
for specimens similar to the rediscovered holotype of Scheuchzer; the different
opinion of Tozer is due to a series of misunderstandings. Numerous examples
from the recent literature (see para. 10 of the application) prove the current
usage of Ceratites nodosus in the sense of Schlotheim’s specimen proposed as
lectotype in the application.

(2) If the name Ceratites nodosus were to be used for specimens conspecific with
Scheuchzer’s type, comprehensive and complex changes in the definition of
subgenera and species of Ceratites would be unavoidable (BZN 48: 33, para.
9). In addition, the nodosus-Zone as a biostratigraphical unit would have to be
displaced to a different Stage, with consequences hard to envisage.

For these reasons we ask the Commission to retain the species name in the present

accepted sense, i.e. to adopt the proposals on BZN 48: 34.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 55

(3) R.V. Melville
93 Lock Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey TW10 7LL, U.K.

I offer this comment with the intention of helping the Commission to see clearly the
issues involved in this case.

1. First, Urlichs writes as though two nominal species are involved, Ammonites
nodosa Bruguiére, 1789 and Ammonites nodosus Schlotheim, 1813. This position is
difficult to maintain, since both Bruguiere and Schlotheim based their species, in part,
on Scheuchzer’s specimen figured by him in 1718. There is therefore only one nominal
species involved.

2. Secondly, what specimen is to be the name-bearing type of this nominal species?
In 1986 Rieber & Tozer announced the discovery of Scheuchzer’s figured specimen
(no. L/1651 in the Palaontologisches Museum, Zurich), which was explicitly referred
to by Bruguiére in his description of A. nodosa and by Schlotheim in his descrip-
tion of A. nodosus. Rieber & Tozer (p. 831) validly designated this specimen as
lectotype (see BZN 48: 33, paras. 9 and 10); it agrees with the usage established
by Philippi (1901), Spath (1934) and Wenger (1957). Urlichs & Mundlos (1987,
p. 7) rejected this and designated an alternative (invalid) lectotype of A. nodosus
Schlotheim as though this was a separate nominal species from A. nodosa
Bruguiére. Their specimen (no. C785 in the Museum fiir Naturkunde in the
Humboldt Universitat, Berlin; see para. 10 of the application) is one of 37 specimens
surviving from the 46 identified by Schlotheim as A. nodosus. It was not figured
by Schlotheim and in fact was first figured by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987, p. 7,
fig. 1). It is decorticated and deeply weathered, and it is difficult to see why, if
Scheuchzer’s specimen is to be rejected and the species is to be attributed to
Schlotheim (actions not in accord with the Code), a much more satisfactory specimen
cannot be proposed as a neotype to be designated under the Commission’s plenary
powers.

3. Thirdly, Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) and Urlichs (BZN 48: 33, para. 10) claim
that their proposed lectotype conforms better to current usage than does the
Scheuzcher specimen. They say that their proposed lectotype is an example of a
species that they regard as the index-species of the so-called Ceratites nodosus Zone
in the Middle Triassic Muschelkalk Formation of Germany. The Commission dealt
sensitively with the stratigraphical implications in the cases of Echinocorys scutata
(1973; Opinion 993) and Belemnitella mucronata (1985; Opinion 1328) and palaeon-
tologists are grateful to them for this. In the present case, however, the issue is not
quite so simple.

4. The German Muschelkalk is a formation whose ammonite fauna is compara-
tively poor (when set against those of other parts of the world) and mainly endemic.
The lectotypes proposed by Rieber & Tozer (1986) and by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987)
both come from this formation, but there is no information at all about the relative
horizons from which they came. Urlichs & Mundlos assert that their specimen comes
from a higher horizon (Lower Ladinian) than Scheuchzer’s (Upper Anisian) and is
thus younger in geological age. Such assertions made in the absence of firm
stratigraphical evidence should be treated with the utmost suspicion, since they are
based on unprovable phylogenetic assumptions. Many a great reputation and many
a towering structure of argument have been reduced to ridicule when based upon

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

such assertions. Urlichs & Mundlos maintain that Scheuchzer’s specimen does not
come from the Ceratites nodosus Zone, but there is no evidence to support this.

5. If the Commission confirms the validity of Rieber & Tozer’s lectotype
designation, there is already a name available for the species ‘Ceratites nodosus’
(Schlotheim non Scheuchzer) in the sense of Urlichs & Mundlos (1987, p. 4); this is
Ammonites undatus Reinecke, 1818, p. 86 (see para. 4 of the application, and (c) in
para. 9).

6. Finally, illustrations are of the highest importance to palaeontologists and
Scheuchzer’s figure has influenced them throughout the 19th and 20th centuries.
Schlotheim’s figured (1823, p. 31, fig. 1) specimen has now been redescribed and
reillustrated by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987, fig. 10), but whether the original figure had
influence is now irrelevant, because Urlichs & Mundlos have excluded it from
consideration in this context: to them it 1s Ceratites (Acanthoceratites) spinosus
spinosus Philippi, 1901. This sits uncomfortably with their basing their concept of C.
nodosus on Schlotheim’s version of the species, for to their predecessors who shared
that view Schlotheim’s figure would have been of primary importance (see para. 6
and para. 10(b) in the application). In considering its verdict, therefore, the
Commission may prefer the nomenclaturally more parsimonious solution and
formally confirm Scheuchzer’s specimen as lectotype of Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére.

Additional reference

Reinecke, I.C.M. 1818. Maris protogaei Nautilos et Argonautas vulgo Cornua Ammonis in agro
Coburgico et vicino reperiundos. 90 pp., 13 pls. Coburg.

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of generic names in the BUPRESTIDAE
(Insecta, Coleoptera)

(Case 2772; see BZN 49: 120-121, 290; Cases 2837/1 and 2837/2; see BZN 50: 27-30,
31-34)

Charles L. Bellamy
1651 S. Juniper Street 122, Escondido, California 92025, U.S.A.

I write to support the proposed conservation of the names Chrysobothris and
Dicerca, both of Eschscholtz (1829), as the correct original spellings. Dr Nelson and
I have talked about the issues at length; his arguments are valid and I fully support
his application to the Commission. In addition I have discussed the case with Herr
Hans Miihle, who also applied to the Commission (see footnote on BZN 49:
120).

I also discussed with Herr Mihle his applications concerning the names Poecil-
onota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956
(Case 2837/1), and Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Case
2837/2). Leraut’s (1983) publication is causing much trouble within buprestid
nomenclature. I am in favor of Commission action. Indeed, I believe it would be in
the best interests of stability of nomenclature if the Commission were to suppress all
the changes to established usage introduced in that paper.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 57

Comment on the proposed precedence of ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 over CHORAGIDAE
Kirby, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2795; see BZN 49: 194-195)

Beverley A. Holloway & Guillermo Kuschel
7 Tropicana Drive, Mt. Roskill, Auckland 1004, New Zealand

We fully endorse Silfverberg’s submission to give ANTHRIBIDAE precedence over
CHORAGIDAE, for the reasons given in the proposal.

Comment on the proposed designation of Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type
species of Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea)
(Case 2760; see BZN 49: 41-42)

(1) R.P.S. Jefferies
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.

I support this application. Jaekel’s 1901 paper was a confounded muddle which
was first sorted out by Hecker (=Gekker) in 1940. As set out in para. 3 of the
application, Jaekel’s Rhipidocystis was composite (including material belonging to
three classes and four genera) and his nominal species R. gigas does not represent a
valid taxon. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Ubaghs (1968) correctly
cited Bather’s (1913) designation of R. gigas as the type species, but followed Hecker
in treating Rhipidocystis as being exemplified by R. baltica; he re-illustrated the
holotype of this species. Bockelie (1981) took the same position, and nowadays
everyone accepts Rhipidocystis in the sense of R. baltica. Nothing but confusion
would result from retaining “R. gigas’ as the type species, and Dr Rozhnovy’s
application should therefore be accepted.

(2) G. Ubaghs
Avenue Bois le Comte 28, 4140 Sprimont, Belgium

I fully support the designation of Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type
species of the genus Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901, and agree with Dr Jefferies’s
comments (above) about this designation.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Rana megapoda Taylor,
1942 (Amphibia, Anura)
(Case 2821; see BZN 49: 211-212)

Hobart M. Smith
EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.

The case for conservation of Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942 is supported by its usage
as valid from 1942 through 1991 in 43 works by 32 different authors (one other work

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

appeared in 1982 using the incorrect spelling R. megapodia). Rana trilobata
Mocquard, 1899 was used as a valid name in misidentified senses as late as 1983, but
its status was uncertain until 1991 when Webb identified it with what has been known
for 51 years as R. megapoda Taylor, 1942. To allow a name with such a chequered
history to replace one of such common and unvarying usage as R. megapoda would
be a serious affront to nomenclatural stability. Approval of the application is strongly
recommended.

Comment on the proposed conservation of some generic names first proposed in Histoire
abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762) (Crustacea
and Insecta)

(Case 2292; see BZN 48: 107-134; 49: 71-72, 149-150, 194, 223-227)

I.M. Kerzhner
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

I am grateful to all who have supported my application (BZN 48: 107-134),
including Dr C.W. Sabrosky in a letter to me. I support the simplifying proposals
(1)-(3) by Tubbs (BZN 49: 226, para. 9) that Geoffroy’s 1762 generic names be ruled
to be available, and if they are accepted by the Commission the proposed citation of
the authorship Geoffroy in Miiller, 1764 for the suppressed or rejected names will not
apply.

There is no reason to treat Ase/lus Geoffroy, 1762 differently from his other names;
I do not agree with the suggestion by Holthuis (BZN 49: 224) that it should be
attributed (as has never been done) to Schaeffer’s work of 1766. On a point of detail
I disagree with LaSalle (BZN 49: 71-72): the mention of Eulophus in the synonymy
of a species by Fabricius in 1781 (or previously of another by Linnaeus in 1767) does
not constitute inclusion of the species in the genus (Article 69a(i)). Because Peltis has
universally been attributed to Kugelann (1792) I think it is preferable to conserve this
authorship rather than that of Miiller (1776) as suggested by Silfverberg (BZN 49:
224). Except for these points I accept the amendments to my application proposed by
LaSalle and by Tubbs.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 59

OPINION 1699

Conus fulmen Reeve, 1843 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name
conserved, and Conus berghausi Michelotti, 1847 given precedence
over C. demissus Philippi, 1836

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the specific name modestus Sowerby, [1833], as published in the binomen Conus
modestus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the specific name berghausi Michelotti, 1847, as published in the binomen
Conus berghausi, is hereby given precedence over the specific name demissus
Philippi, 1836, as published in the binomen Conus demissus, 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) fulmen Reeve, 1843, as published in the binomen Conus fulmen;

(b) berghausi Michelotti, 1847, as published in the binomen Conus berghausi, with
the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over demissus Philippi, 1836,
as published in the binomen Conus demissus, whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms;

(c) demissus Philippi, 1836, as published in the binomen Conus demissus, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over berghausi Michelotti, 1847,
as published in the binomen Conus berghausi, whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms.

(3) The name modestus Sowerby, [1833], as published in the binomen Conus

modestus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2766

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Conus fulmen Reeve,
1843, and for C. berghausi Michelotti, 1847 to be given precedence over C. demissus
Philippi, 1836, was received from Prof A.J. Kohn (University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington, U.S.A.) on 12 March 1990. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 48: 196-199 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 197-198. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage,
Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys (in part), Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 5: Bouchet, Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Macpherson.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

No vote was received from Heppell.

Holthuis commented that the two parts of the application should have been
presented separately for voting. Stys supported the conservation of Conus fulmen but
not the precedence of C. berghausi over C. demissus: the latter two names had
apparently not been widely used, both type specimens were extant, and therefore he
considered that priority should apply.

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:

berghausi, Conus, Michelotti, 1847, Natuurkundige Verhandelingen van de Hollandsche
Naatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem, (2)3(2): 342.

demissus, Conus, Philippi, 1836, Enwneratio molluscorum Siciliae, vol. 1, p. 239.

fulmen, Conus, Reeve, 1843, Monograph of the genus Conus. In: Conchologia iconica; a
complete repertory of species, vol. 1, species no. 215, pl. 39, fig. 215.

modestus, Conus, Sowerby, [1833], The conchological illustrations, part 28, Conus, fig. 19.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 61

OPINION 1700

Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
conserved as the correct spelling

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that Laiochochlis, Laeochochlis and
Laiocochlis are incorrect spellings of Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874.

(2) The name Laeocechlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (gender: feminine), type

species by monotypy Laiochochlis [sic] pommeraniae Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (a
junior subjective synonym of Cerithium sinistratum Nyst, 1835), is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
- (3) The name sinistratum Nyst, 1835, as published in the binomen Cerithium
sinistratum (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Laiochochilis [sic]
pommeraniae Dunker & Metzger, 1874, the type species of Laeocochlis Dunker &
Metzger, 1874), and as defined by the neotype designated by Glibert (1958), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The names Laiochochlis, Laeochochlis and Laiocochlis, all with the authorship
Dunker & Metzger, 1874, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (incorrect spellings of Laeocochlis Dunker &
Metzger, 1874).

History of Case 2769

An application for the conservation of Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 as the
correct spelling of the generic name was received from Mr David Heppell (National
Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.) on 6 April 1990. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 48: 27-30 (March 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

A comment from Drs Philippe Bouchet (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, France) and Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden),
published in BZN 48: 322-323 (December 1991), pointed out that the specific name
of Cerithium sinistratum Nyst, 1835 was that valid for the type species of the genus
(L. pommeraniae Dunker & Metzger, 1874), and that sinistratum was defined by the
neotype designated by Glibert (1958). They noted that both the spellings Laiochochlis
and Laiocochlis had had usage and considered that conservation of Laiocochlis would
best serve nomenclatural stability.

A reply by Mr Heppell, published in BZN 49: 70 (March 1992), considered that the
Commission should be asked first to rule that Laiochochlis and Laeochochlis were
incorrect spellings, and then to determine the correct spelling of the generic name
(Laeocochlis or Laiocochlis) by a simple majority. The latter spellings had appeared
in the same publication (Dunker & Metzger, 1874b).

The suppression of the earliest spelling Laiochochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874a,
which had had little use, had been advocated both by Heppell (BZN 48: 27-30; 49:
70) and by Bouchet & Warén (BZN 48: 322-323). This was given on the voting papers
as Proposal A. Proposals B and C differed only in the choice between the two
spellings Laeocochlis and Laiocochlis, both of Dunker & Metzger, 1874b (the third

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

spelling therein, Laeochochlis, had not been used). Proposal B was that of Heppell
(BZN 48: 28-29 with amendments; BZN 49: 70), Proposal C that of Bouchet &
Warén (BZN 48: 322-323).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the
close of the voting period on 1 December 1992 the votes. were as follows:

Proposal A. Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger,
Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Hahn and Nielsen.

Proposal B — 14: Bayer, Bock, Cogger, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Savage, Thompson, Uéno and Willink.

Proposal C — 11: Bouchet, Dupuis, Hahn, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Nye,
Ride, Schuster, Stys and Trjapitzin.

No vote was received from Heppell. Cocks and Starobogatov voted for Proposal
A but abstained from voting for either B or C. Hahn voted against Proposal A but
preferred C rather than B.

Stys commented that, all other things being equal, he preferred Laiocochlis over
Laeocochlis since the former spelling was used for the type genus of the family-group
LAIOCOCHLIINAE Golikov & Starobogatov, 1987 (para. 4 of the application). :

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:

Laeochochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874, Jahrbiicher der Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesell-
schaft, 1(2): 146 (an incorrect spelling of Laeocochlis).

Laiochochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874, Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malakozoologischen
Gesellschaft, 6(1): 7 (an incorrect original spelling of Laeocochiis).

Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874, Nachrichtsblatt der Deutschen Malakozoologischen
Gesellschaft, 6(1): 7 (incorrectly spelled as Laiochochiis).

Laiocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874, Jahrbiicher der Deutschen Malakozoologischen Gesell-
schaft, 1(2): pl. 7, fig. 3 (an incorrect spelling of Laeocochiis).

sinistratum, Cerithium, Nyst, 1835, Recherches sur les coquilles fossiles de la province d' Anvers,
p. 28.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Cerithium sinistratum
Nyst, 1835:
Glibert, M. 1958. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 34(15): 10.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 63

OPINION 1701

Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 and Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936
(Trilobita): accepted usage conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the paper Uber die Agnostiden
by Jaekel is treated:

(a) as though printed so that the definition of Ptychagnostus on p. 401 appeared

at the top of p. 400;

(b) as having been published in its entirety in 1909.

(2) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Agnostus punctuosus Angelin,
1851 is the type species by original designation of the nominal genus Ptychagnostus
Jaekel, 1909.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 (gender: masculine), type species by original

designation Agnostus punctuosus Angelin, 1851, as confirmed in (2) above;

(b) Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936 (gender: masculine), type species by original

designation G/yptagnostus toreuma Whitehouse, 1936.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) punctuosus Angelin, 1851, as published in the binomen Agnostus punctuosus

(specific name of the type species of Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909);
(b) toreuma Whitehouse, 1936, as published in the binomen G/yptagnostus toreuma
(specific name of the type species of Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936).

(5) The paper Uber die Agnostiden by Jaekel (1909) is hereby placed on the Official

List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature.

History of Case 2805

An application for the conservation of the accepted usage of Ptychagnostus Jaekel,
1909 and Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936 was received from Drs J.H. Shergold and
J.R. Laurie (Bureau of Mineral Resources, Canberra, Australia) on 28 December
1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 200-202 (September
1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support
from Dr A.W.A. Rushton (British Geological Survey, Keyworth, Nottingham, U.K.)
and Prof H.B. Whittington (Sedgwick Museum, University of Cambridge, Cambridge,
U.K.) were published in BZN 49: 150-151 (June 1992).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 201-202. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Negative votes — none.
No vote was received from Heppell.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936, Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 11: 101.
Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 61: 401.
punctuosus, Agnostus, Angelin, 1851, Palaeontologia Scandinavica Pars 1. Crustacea Forma-

tionis Transitionis, p. 8.

toreuma, Glyptagnostus, Whitehouse, 1936, Memoirs of the Queensland Museum, 11: 102.

The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Uber die Agnostiden, Jaekel, 1909, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 61:
380-401.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 65

OPINION 1702

Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 (currently
Paladin eichwaldi; Trilobita): neotype designation conserved

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the specific name eichwaldi Fischer von Waldheim
in Eichwald, 1825, as published in the binomen Asaphus eichwaldi, is to be interpreted
by reference to the neotype (specimen no. TML 1557/5107 in the Tshernyshev’s
Museum, St Petersburg, figured by Weber, 1937, pl. 7, fig. 15) designated by
Osmolska (1970).

(2) The name eichwaldi Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825, as published in
the binomen Asaphus eichwaldi and as defined by the neotype designated by
Osmolska (1970), confirmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2778

An application for the confirmation of the neotype designation by Osmolska
(1970) for Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 was received
from Prof Gerhard Hahn (Jnstitut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-
Universitat, Marburg, Germany) on 9 July 1990. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 48: 203-205 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. A comment in support from Prof H.B. Whittington (Sedgwick
Museum, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.) was published in BZN 49: 150
(June 1992).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 204. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride,
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Dupuis, Lehtinen and Macpherson.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Dupuis commented that it was necessary to make clear which specimen was to be
taken as the neotype of Asaphus eichwaldi (cf. para. 5 of the application).

Original references
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
eichwaldi, Asaphus; Fischer von Waldheim, 1825, in Eichwald, E. von, Geognostico-zoologicae
per ingriam marisque Baltici provincias nec non de trilobitis observationes, p. 54.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer
von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825:

Osmélska, H. 1970. Palaeontologia Polonica, 23: 130 (specimen number misprinted as TML
1551/5107; see BZN 48: 204).

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1703

Goniosoma conspersum Perty, 1833 (currently Mitobates conspersus;
Arachnida, Opiliones): specific name not conserved

Ruling

(1) The name Mitobates Sundevall, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by
original designation and by monotypy Mitobates triangulus Sundevall, 1833, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) The name triangulus Sundevall, 1833, as published in the binomen Mitobates
triangulus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2759

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Goniosoma conspersum
Perty, December 1833 by suppressing the unused senior subjective synonym Mito-
bates triangulus Sundevall, April 1833 was received from Dr Adriano B. Kury
(Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) on 14 February 1990.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 105-106 (June 1991). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment from Prof L.B.
Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands), together
with a reply by the author of the application, was published in BZN 48: 323-324
(December 1991).

The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 March 1992. The
proposals on BZN 48: 105—106 received a majority (19 votes ‘For’ and 10 “‘Against’)
but just failed to reach the two-thirds majority required (Article 12b of the
Constitution) for the suppression of M. triangulus. On 1 September 1992 the
application was submitted for a revote under the Bylaws.

It was noted on the voting paper that no type material of M. triangulus, the
nominal type species of Mitobates Sundevall, 1833, apparently existed but three
syntypes of G. conspersum were deposited in Berlin (paras. 1 and 2 of the application).
It was also noted that, voting in March 1992 in favour of the application, Cocks
commented that he was swayed by the survival of the types of G. conspersum and
Kabata commented that he was persuaded, albeit reluctantly, because of the
inadequacy of the original (unillustrated) description of M. triangulus and the
absence of any type material.

A proposal to place the name Mitobates on the Official List, in accord with usual
practice, completed the proposals on BZN 48: 105-106 and was included on the
voting papers circulated in both March and September 1992.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 105-106. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 16: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno,
Willink

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 67

Negative votes — 12: Bouchet, Dupuis, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Minelli,
Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Stys and Thompson.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Ride commented that a prima facie case that stability was threatened had not been
established and that one of the syntypes of Goniosoma conspersum could be
designated as the neotype of Mitobates triangulus. Thompson commented that there
was insufficient documentation of usage of M. conspersus (Perty, 1833) to justify the
suppression of M. triangulus.

Since the required two-thirds majority was not reached the junior name Goniosoma
conspersum was not conserved.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Mitobates Sundevall, 1833, Conspectus arachnidum, p. 34.
triangulus, Mitobates, Sundevall, 1833, Conspectus arachnidum, p. 34, footnote.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1704

Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): specific
name conserved

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) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis guildingi;

(ii) fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis;

(iii) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia
utahensis;

(b) the specific name franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as published in the binomen
Artemia franciscana, is hereby given precedence over the specific name gracilis
Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, 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) franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over gracilis Verrill, -
1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names
are considered to be synonyms;

(b) gracilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over franciscana Kellogg, 1906,
as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana, whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis guildingi and
as suppressed in (1)(a)(1) above;

(b) fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis and as
suppressed in (1)(a)(i1) above;

(c) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia utahensis and
as suppressed in (1)(a)(ii1) above.

History of Case 2728

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Artemia franciscana
Kellogg, 1906 was received from Prof Denton Belk (Our Lady of the Lake University
of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.) and Dr Sarane T. Bowen (San Francisco State
University, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 19 June 1989. After correspondence
the case was published in BZN 47: 178-183 (September 1990). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals.

Comments in support from Drs P. Sorgeloos, P. Lavens & W. Tackaert (Artemia
Reference Center, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium) and Dr Francisco Amat
(Instituto de Acuicultura de Torre de la Sal, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 69

Cientificas, Castellon, Spain) were published in BZN 48: 57 (March 1991). A note of
further comments in support from Prof C. Barigozzi (Universita degli Studi di Milano,
Milano, Italy), Drs Laura Torrentera Blanco (University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin,
U.S.A.), A.M. Maeda-Martinez (Institute of Ecology, University of Gent, Gent,
Belgium) and Graziella Mura (Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Roma, Italy) was
published at the same time.

Comments from five members of the Nomenclature Committee of the Crustacean
Society were published in BZN 48: 246-248 (September 1991). Drs Joel W. Martin
(Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.)
and Gary C.B. Poore (Museum of Victoria, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia)
supported the application. Drs Austin B. Williams (VOAA/NMFS Systematics
Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.) and Thomas E. Bowman
(Smithsonian Institution, Washington, U.S.A.) supported the suppression of the
names Artemia guildingi Thompson, 1834 and A. utahensis Lockington, 1876;
Williams thought that gracilis Verrill, 1869 should be used, whilst Bowman was in
favour of fertilis Verrill, 1869. Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch
Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) suggested that until the taxonomy and nomen-
clature of Artemia Leach, 1819 as a whole had been reviewed it was premature to deal
with the single species A. franciscana.

A reply to Bowman’s and Holthuis’s comments by one of the authors of the
application (Prof Denton Belk) was published in BZN 49: 72-73 (March 1992).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 180-181. At the close of the voting period on |
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Bayer and Holthuis.

Dupuis and Minelli abstained.

No votes were received from Heppell, Lehtinen and Martins de Souza.

Dupuis abstained because of the lack of taxonomic information on Artemia gracilis
Verrill, 1869 (para. 4 of the application). Minelli commented that conservation of the
name A. franciscana Kellogg, 1906 would be better considered within the wider
perspective of the whole genus Artemia.

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:

fertilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869, American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)48: 430.

franciscana, Artemia, Kellogg, 1906, Science, (n.s.)24: 596.

gracilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869, American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)48: 248.

guildingi, Artemis, Thompson, 1834, Zoological researches and illustrations 1828-1834, vol. 1,
part 1, memoir 6, p. 107.

utahensis, Artemia, Lockington, 1876, in [Lawson, H.] (Ed.), The Monthly Microscopical
Journal: Transactions of the Royal Microscopical Society, and Record of Histological
Research at Home and Abroad, 15: 137.

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1705

Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 (Insecta, Protorthoptera): neotype replaced
by rediscovered holotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the neotype designation made by Laurentiaux
(1950) for the nominal species Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 is hereby set aside.

(2) The name Paolia Smith, 1871 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.

(3) The name vetusta Smith, 1871, as published in the binomen Paolia vetusta and
as defined by the holotype (specimen no. HCM A72/51 in the Hanover College
Museum, Hanover, Indiana, U.S.A.) (specific name of the type species of Paolia
Smith, 1871), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2751

An application to replace the neotype of Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 by the
rediscovered holotype was received from Dr C.G. Maples (Kansas Geological Survey,
Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) on 28 December 1989. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 48: 210-211 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that, although the holotype of P. vetusta came
from Indiana and the neotype from the Netherlands, the designation by Laurentiaux
(1950) of the latter (para. 2 of the application) met the requirements of Article 75 of
the Code. Laurentiaux considered the Dutch ‘nouveau genotype’ to be the only other
known specimen of P. vetusta, the type species of Paolia.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 211. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Ride commented that his vote was conditional on an assurance ‘that the name P.
vetusta Smith as interpreted by the neotype has not been used in such a way as to
render a return to the holotype a cause of instability or confusion’. Dr Maples (21
November 1992) confirmed that a return to the holotype would not result in
confusion and noted: ‘Shortly after the neotype was erected, Kukalova (1958)
declared that the neotype was closely related to, but not, Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871
(para. 3 of the application). The neotype has not been used to define the name since
that time’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 71

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Paolia Smith, 1871, American Journal of Science and Arts, (3)1: 44.
vetusta, Paolia, Smith, 1871, American Journal of Science and Arts, (3)1: 44.

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1706

Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889 (Insecta, Homoptera): Eurymela bicincta
Erichson, 1842 confirmed as the type species, and a neotype designated
for E. bicincta

Ruling ;

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the
nominal species Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842 are hereby set aside and the
specimen in the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. labelled
‘Sydney, N.S.W. Austr. m 1—-1095; Coll. Koebele; type of E. bicinctellus Kirk;
Eurymelias bicinctellus 544 (Kirk.); neotype Eurymela bicincta (Erichson)’ is hereby
designated as the neotype.

(2) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Eurymela bicincta Erichson,
1842 is the type species of the nominal genus Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889.

(3) The name Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by
subsequent designation by Kirkaldy (1906) Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842, as
confirmed in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.

(4) The name bicincta Erichson, 1842, as published in the binomen Eurymela
bicincta and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the
type species of Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2755

An application for the confirmation of Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842 as the
type species of Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889, and the designation of a neotype for E.
bicincta, was received from Drs M.M. Stevens (Yanco Agricultural Institute, New
South Wales Agriculture and Fisheries, Yanco, Australia) and M.J. Fletcher (Biologi-
cal and Chemical Research Institute, New South Wales Agriculture and Fisheries,
Rydalmere, Australia) on 23 January 1990. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 48: 212-214 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that Dr Stevens had written (21 May 1991) that,
following Evans (1933), the generic name Eurymelias Kirkaldy, 1907 had been
treated consistently as a junior subjective synonym of Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889
(para. 2 of the application); approval of the application would allow this synonymy
to be maintained.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 213. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno,
Willink

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 73

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Lehtinen and Thompson.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Thompson commented: ‘The justification for the use of the plenary powers in this
case is to preserve the current interpretation (usage) of the name Eurymeloides.
Unfortunately, insufficient documentation of usage was given in this case, as
apparently this name has only been used by three authors in less than 10 papers in the
previous 50 years. When usage arguments are made they should be documented with
at least five different authors of 10 recent publications. Priority is a principle of not
only nomenclature but of science as a whole. Deviation should be made only in
exceptional cases. This is not one, nor in my opinion is any application which does
not provide adequate documentation of usage’. (Editorial note. This was not simply
a case of potential replacement of a name by an older unused synonym; it also
involved the threatened transfer of the recognized names of two taxa (Eurymeloides
and E. bicincta) to two others (Platyeurymela and P. semifascia). The type species of
Eurymeloides was misidentified and the name has never been used in the sense of the
recently rediscovered Erichson specimens of 1842. The taxonomic literature on
Eurymeloides is limited (10 papers mentioned in the application are post-1930), but
the EURYMELIDAE are the dominant leafhoppers of Australia (Evans, 1966), where the
Eurymeloides species live on Eucalyptus).

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
bicincta, Eurymela, Erichson, 1842, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 8(1): 286.
Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1899, Entomologica Americana, 5(7): 126.

The following is the reference for the designation of Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842 as the
type species of the nominal genus Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889:
Kirkaldy, G.W. 1906. Bulletin of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters’ Association Experiment Station
(Entomological Series), 1(9): 354.

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1707

Scoparipes Signoret, 1880 (Insecta, Heteroptera): Cydnus latipes
Westwood, 1837 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the nominal species Cydnus latipes Westwood, 1837
is the type species by original designation of the nominal genus Scoparipes Signoret,
1880.

(2) The name Scoparipes Signoret, 1880 (gender: masculine), type species Cydnus
latipes Westwood, 1837 by original designation, as confirmed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name /atipes Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen Cydnus latipes
and as defined by the neotype designated by Lis (1990) (specific name of the type
species of Scoparipes Signoret, 1880), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2754

An application for the confirmation of Cydnus latipes Westwood, 1837 as the type
species of Scoparipes Signoret, 1880 was received from Dr Jerzy A. Lis (Upper
Silesian Museum, Bytom, Poland ) on 23 January 1990. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 48: 215-216 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 215-216. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
latipes, Cydnus, Westwood, 1837, A catalogue of Hemiptera in the collection of the Rev. F. W.
Hope with short Latin descriptions of new species, part 1, p. 18.
Scoparipes Signoret, 1880, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)9(4): clxxiii.
(Bulletin des Séances. Séance du 24 décembre 1879).

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Cydnus latipes
Westwood, 1837:
Lis, J.-A. 1990. Annals of the Upper Silesian Museum — Entomology, 1: 169.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 75

OPINION 1708

Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Onthotrogus Motschulsky, 1859 is
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of
the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Onthophagus (Proagoderus) ritsemae Lansberge, 1883, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name ritsemae Lansberge, 1883, as published in the binomen Onthophagus

_(Proagoderus) ritsemae (specific name of the type species of Proagoderus Lansberge,

1883), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Onthotrogus Motschulsky, 1859, as suppressed in (1) above, is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 2756

An application for the conservation of the name Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 was
received from Dr Claudia Palestrini (Universita di Torino, Torino, Italy) on 1
February 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 217-218
(September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that included in the 63 references held by the
Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the name Proagoderus between 1883
and 1988 (para. 4 of the application) were 18 published in the last 50 years.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 217-218. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye,
Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 5: Bouchet, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson and Trjapitzin.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Voting for, Ride commented: “While it is true that “the Code does not authorize
the automatic rejection of nomina oblita” (para. 5 of the application) the purpose of
the Principle of Priority is explicitly stated in Article 23b of the Code. In this case the
Commission must accept prima facie that stability is threatened’. Voting against,
Kabata commented: ‘I very much doubt if the revival of the unused senior subjective
synonym (Onthotrogus Motschulsky, 1859) would result in nomenclatural instability.
Consequently I vote with those following priority’.

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:

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Onthotrogus Motschulsky, 1859, Etudes Entomologiques, 8: 153.
Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883, Notes from the Leyden Museum, 5: 15.
ritsemae, Onthophagus (Proagoderus), Lansberge, 1883, Notes from the Leyden Museum, 5: 15.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 77

OPINION 1709

Diabrotica undecimpunctata Mannerheim, 1843 and
D. undecimpunctata howardi Barber, 1947 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
specific and subspecific names conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name sexpunctata Fabricius, 1792, as
published in the binomen Crioceris sexpunctata, 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 Specific Names
in Zoology:

* (a) undecimpunctata Mannerheim, 1843, as published in association with the
generic name Diabrotica Dejean, [1835] and as defined by the lectotype
designated by Smith & Lawrence (1967);

(b) howardi Barber, 1947, as published in the trinomen Diabrotica undecimpunc-
tata howardi.

(3) The name sexpunctata Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Crioceris

sexpunctata and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of

Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 1707

An application from Prof Ray F. Smith (University of California, Berkeley,
California, U.S.A.) for the conservation of the specific name of Diabrotica undecim-
punctata Mannerheim, 1843 by the rejection of Crioceris sexpunctata Fabricius, 1792
was published in BZN 22: 246-247 (November 1965), together with support from six
workers. No further action was taken at that time because the automatic rejection of
nomina oblita such as C. sexpunctata was under review. A revised and expanded
application, to include conservation of the subspecific name of D. undecimpunctata
howardi Barber, 1947, was formulated by Dr P.K. Tubbs (International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, clo The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and
published in BZN 48: 219-221 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. It was noted on the voting paper that the case had the support
of Dr Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland ).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 220-221. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Heppell.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

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:

howardi, Diabrotica undecimpunctata, Barber, 1947, Proceedings of the Entomological Society
of Washington, 49: 153.

sexpunctata, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta . . ., vol. 1,
part 2, p. 4.

undecimpunctata, Diabrotica, Mannerheim, 1843, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Natural-
istes de Moscou, 16: 309. i

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Diabrotica undecim-
punctata Mannerheim, 1843:
Smith, R.F. & Lawrence, J.F. 1967. University of California Publications in Entomology, 45:
136.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 79

OPINION 1710

J.C. Megerle’s (1801-1805) auction catalogues of insects: suppressed
for nomenclatural purposes, with the specific names of Saperda
alboguttata Megerle, 1803 (currently Apomecyna alboguttata;
Coleoptera) and Hippobosca variegata Megerle, 1803 (Diptera)
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the works entitled Catalogus insectorum..., Appendix ad catalogum insec-
torum... and Catalogus duarum collectionem Eleuteratorum ... published by
Megerle (1801-1805) are hereby suppressed for nomenclatural purposes;

(b) the following specific names are hereby ruled to be available despite having
been published in a suppressed work:

(i) alboguttata Megerle, 1803, as published in the binomen Saperda albogut-
tata;

(ii) variegata Megerle, 1803, as published in the binomen Hippobosca varie-
gata.

(2) The-following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) alboguttata Megerle, 1803, as published in the binomen Saperda alboguttata

and as conserved in (1)(b)(i) above;

(b) variegata Megerle, 1803, as published in the binomen Hippobosca variegata
and as conserved in (1)(b)(ii) above.

(3) The works entitled Catalogus insectorum..., Appendix ad catalogum insec-
torum... and Catalogus duarum collectionem Eleuteratorum published by Megerle
(1801-1805) and suppressed in (1)(a) above are hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology.

History of Case 2671

An application for catalogues by J.C. Megerle (1801-1805) to be ruled unavailable
for nomenclatural purposes, together with the conservation of the specific names of
Saperda alboguttata and Hippobosca variegata, both of Megerle (1803), was received
from Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg,
Russia) on 12 July 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48:
206-209 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the application had the support of Mr R.D.
Pope (Coleoptera) and Dr R.W. Crosskey (Diptera) (both of The Natural History
Museum, London, U.K.) and Dr Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum,
Helsingfors, Finland ).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 208. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Bayer commented: ‘I would oppose the suppression of any bona fide scientific work
that may have had the misfortune to become rare, but I believe that a good case can
be made for rejecting auction catalogues such as those of Megerle. Even though
produced by conventional printing and doubtless issued in substantial numbers, their
obvious purpose was to sell the items listed rather than ‘to provide a permanent
scientific record’ (Article 8 of the Code). It seems likely that Megerle, even though he
was a curator of the Wiener Hofmuseum, was more concerned with selling the
catalogued items than with advancing scientific knowledge. It seems to me that this
and other auction catalogues could very reasonably be rejected as unavailable on the
grounds of not being intended for scientific record’.

Martins de Souza noted that S. Breuning (1960; Catalogue des lamiaires du monde,
p. 131) gave Apomecyna histrio Fabricius, 1792 as a senior subjective synonym of A.
alboguttata (Megerle, 1803).

Thompson commented as follows: ‘Kerzhner requested the suppression of
Megerle’s catalogs as the acceptance of the names established therein “would greatly
disturb the stability of nomenclature”. Unfortunately, few data were provided to
substantiate this claim. The two references cited in para. 7 (Schenkling, 1935; Horn,
1937) are articles about Megerle, the catalogs, and old auctions and did not address
nomenclatural issues. No documentation is provided for the “no less than 20
currently used specific names” that “would be invalid as junior primary homonyms”.
Data are provided only for two generic names and in both of these cases the situation
is not exactly as stated by Kerzhner (para. 7). For the beetle genus there needs only
be a change in date (1803 instead of 1807) and spelling (Doriphora instead of
Doryphora) as Megerle attributed the name to Illiger. As for Centrotus, Megerle
attributed the name to Fabricius. On the problem of type species no details are
provided. However, in the case of both these names, the Commission could easily
correct the details without having to suppress the work as a whole.

Kerzhner proposed the conservation of two specific names from Megerle but
argued (para. 9) that two other specific names that have been recently noted as valid
should not be conserved as such action is not “substantiated by usage or to be
appropriate”. When has the principle of priority become inappropriate and been
superseded by that of usage? Neither of these two names is widely used. Accepting
Pyrgota undata from Megerle (as Wiedemann did himself) does not involve a change
of a name in current use; the junior name Xylota chalybea Wiedemann has only been
used a few times in the last 50 years so it cannot be argued that it is “substantiated
by usage’’, even if usage was a principle that the Code endorsed!

The use of the names published in Megerle’s catalogs may “greatly disturb the
stability of nomenclature” in the future, but so far no evidence has been presented for

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 81

such instability. The Commission is asked to suppress publications containing many
names because there appear to be problems with two generic names, but to conserve
two specific names which are being used currently. The Commission should not
suppress works simply because they may pose problems and, in the case of actual
problems, it should deal with the names, not the works. The Commission suppressed
Geoffroy’s 1762 Histoire abrégée des insectes ... but eventually has had to rule on
each name in that work. If the Commission had dealt with the names instead of the
work in the first place much effort would have been ‘saved. So, the Commission
should deal with only the Megerle names that pose real problems. So far there has
been no evidence presented that any Megerle name presents a serious problem to
stability of nomenclature’.

Editorial note. As noted in para. 2 of the application, only one original set of
Megerle’s catalogues is known to exist. In submitting the case Dr Kerzhner wrote:
‘With current techniques for making copies these catalogues, which are extreme
bibliographic rarities, may receive wide distribution. This represents a serious threat
to stability of nomenclature. Proponents of strict priority may find the catalogues
grounds for changing dozens of currently used names, although this would of
course violate the Code. A recent publication seems to me a real forerunner of this
situation; therefore I make haste to submit this proposal, which I have long had in
mind’.

The comment from Dr R.W. Crosskey (Department of Entomology, The Natural
History Museum, London), noted on the voting paper, said (in part): “We in the
Diptera Section are totally for the application. It is necessary to conserve Megerle
authorship for Hippobosca variegata, a very well known Old World ectoparasite. The
Commission should immediately support Kerzhner’s proposal to head off any
digging out of pointless old names from a “work” not intended to be mainstream
science and about as obscure as they come’.

In his comment above Dr Thompson mentions that the rejection (not suppression)
in 1954 by the Commission of Geoffroy’s 1762 work in its entirety was unfortunate
and that it would have saved much subsequent effort had the generic names therein
been considered individually. There is, however, an essential difference between
Geoffroy’s volumes and the Megerle catalogues: 40 of the 59 new generic names in
the former were and are used as valid (see BZN 48: 107), whereas the great majority
of Megerle’s many new names have never been used. Kerzhner (para. 7) remarked
that 20 accepted specific names are junior primary homonyms of unused Megerle
names and that others may well be junior synonyms of catalogue names; to review the
latter category individually is not feasible, and to do so for the former would be
without obvious benefit to stability of nomenclature.

The conservation of Doryphora and Centrotus, the two generic names mentioned in
the application and in Dr Thompson’s comment, was not Dr Kerzhner’s primary
purpos. Under “Doriphora Ill.’ Megerle (1805, p. [8]; see para. 7 of the application)
listed three nominal species, none of them being among the eight included in
Doryphora Mlliger, 1807. The type species of Doryphora is Chrysomela punctatissima
Olivier, 1790 by the designation of Latreille (1810). The “Centrotus F.’ of Megerle
(1802b, p. [14]) would have Membracis clavata Fabricius, 1787 (now placed in
Cyphonia Laporte, 1832) as the type by monotypy, whereas the type species of the

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

accepted Centrotus Fabricius, 1803 is Cicada cornuta Linnaeus, 1758 by the
designation of Curtis (1830).

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
alboguttata, Saperda, Megerle, [1803]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense Novem-
bris MDCCCII Viennae Austriae auctionis lege vendita fuere, p. [10].
variegata, Hippobosca, Megerle, [1803]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense
Novembris MDCCCII Viennae Austriae auctionis lege vendita fuere, p. [17].

The following are the original references to the works, all with the authorship [J.C. Megerle],

placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

[1801]. Catalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriae die XIV et sequentibus Decembris
MDCCCI auctionis lege distrahuntur.

[1802a]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense Decembris MDCCCI Viennae Austriae
auctioni lege vendita fuere.

[1802b]. Catalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriae die IX et sequentibus Novembris
MDCCCI auctionis lege distrahuntur.

[1803a]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense Novembris MDCCCII Viennae
Austriae auctionis lege vendita fuere.

[1803b]. Catalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriae die 28 Novembris 1803 auctionis lege
distrahuntur.

[1804a]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense Novembris MDCCCIII auctionis lege
vendita fuere.

[1804b]. Catalogus duarum collectionem Eleuteratorum die XIV Maji MDCCCIV Viennae
Austriae auctione lege vendendarum.

[1804c]. Catalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriae die XX et sequentibus Septembris
MDCCCIW auctionis lege distrahuntur.

[1804d]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense Septembris MDCCCIV Viennae
Austriae auctionis lege vendita fuere.

[1805a]. Catalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriae die [day not indicated] Junii MDCCCV
auctionis lege distrahuntur.

[1805b]. Appendix ad catalogum insectorum, quae mense Junii MDCCCV Viennae Austriae
auctionis lege vendita fuere.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 83

OPINION 1711

Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949 (Insecta, Diptera): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name canifrons Walker, 1848, as
published in the binomen Chrysops canifrons, is hereby suppressed for the purposes
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name atlanticus Pechuman, 1949, as published in the binomen Chrysops
atlantica, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name canifrons Walker, 1848, as published in the binomen Chrysops
canifrons and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2761

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Chrysops atlanticus
Pechuman, 1949 was received from Mr J.E. Chainey (The Natural History Museum,
London, U.K.) on 22 February 1990. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 48: 225-226 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

A comment from Dr Axel O. Bachmann (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales,
Buenos Aires, Argentina) received during the voting period noted: ‘It is clear that the
name Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949, for an economically important, well
known tabanid fly, is by far the one most used, not only by systematic entomologists
but also by those mainly interested in sanitary problems, both of human and
veterinary concern. Therefore I agree with the proposal to conserve this name and to
suppress the older but unused C. canifrons Walker, 1848’.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 225. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Kraus, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 7: Bouchet, Cogger, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson
and Mahnert.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Cogger commented that he would have voted in favour if a lectotype had been
designated for Chrysops atlanticus (cf. para. 3 of the application).

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:
atlanticus, Chrysops, Pechuman, 1949, Canadian Entomologist, 81: 79 (as atlantica).
canifrons, Chrysops, Walker, 1848, List of the specimens of dipterous insects in the collection of
the British Museum, part 1, p. 197.

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1712

Drosophila hydei Sturtevant, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name marmoria Hutton, 1901, as
published in the binomen Drosophila marmoria, is hereby suppressed for the purposes
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name /ydei Sturtevant, 1921, as published in the binomen Drosophila
hydei, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name marmoria Hutton, 1901, as published in the binomen Drosophila
marmoria and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2767

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Drosophila hydei
Sturtevant, 1921 was received from Drs C.R. Vilela (Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Instituto de Biociéncias, Sdo Paulo, Brazil) and G. Bachli (Zoologisches Museum,
Universitat Ziirich-Irchel, Ziirich, Switzerland) on 27 March 1990. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 48: 222-224 (September 1991). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 223. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Kabata.

No vote was received from Heppell.

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:
hydei, Drosophila, Sturtevant, 1921, Carnegie Institution of Washington Publications, 301: 101.

marmoria, Drosophila, Hutton, 1901, Transactions and Proceedings of the New Zealand ~-

Institute, 33: 91.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 85

OPINION 1713

Some bee family-group names (Insecta, Hymenoptera): names based
on Colletes Latreille, 1802, on Paracolletes Smith, 1853, on Halictus
Latreille, 1804, on Anthidium Fabricius, 1804 and on Anthophora
Latreille, 1803 given precedence over some senior names

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) family-group names based on Colletes Latreille, 1802 are hereby given
precedence over those based on Prosopis Fabricius, 1804 or Hylaeus Fabricius,
1793;

(b) family-group names based on Paracolletes Smith, 1853 are hereby given
precedence over those based on Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912;

(c) family-group names based on Halictus Latreille, 1804 are hereby given
precedence over those based on Rophites Spinola, 1808 or Sphecodes Latreille,
1804;

(d) family-group names based on Anthidium Fabricius, 1804 are hereby given
precedence over those based on Stelis Panzer, 1806;

(e) family-group names based on Anthophora Latreille, 1803 are hereby given
precedence over those based on Eucera Scopoli, 1770, Xylocopa Latreille, 1802,
Ceratina Latreille, 1802 or Nomada Scopoli, 1770.

(2) The entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for
XYLOCOPIDAE is hereby amended to record the authorship of Latreille, 1802 and the
ruling in (1)(e) above that it and other family-group names based on Xylocopa
Latreille, 1802 are not to be given priority over those based on Anthophora Latreille,
1803.

(3) The entry on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology for
CERATINIDAE Latreille, 1802 is hereby amended to record the ruling in (1)(e) above
that it and other family-group names based on Ceratina Latreille, 1802 are not to be
given priority over those based on Anthophora Latreille, 1803.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Prosopis Fabricius, 1804 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by

Morice & Durrant (1915) Mellinus bipunctatus Fabricius, 1798;

(b) Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by
Latreille (1810) Apis annulata Linnaeus, 1758;

(c) Colletes Latreille, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Apis
succincta Linnaeus, 1758;

(d) Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Neopasiphae mirabilis Perkins, 1912;

(e) Paracolletes Smith, 1853 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Paracolletes crassipes Smith, 1853;

(f) Rophites Spinola, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Rophites
quinquespinosus Spinola, 1808;

(g) Sphecodes Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Sphex
gibba Linnaeus, 1758;

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

(h) Halictus Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by designation by
Richards (1935) Apis quadricincta Fabricius, [1777];

(i) Stelis Panzer, 1806 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Apis aterrima
Panzer, 1798 (a junior homonym of Apis aterrima Christ, 1791 and a subjective
synonym of Apis punctulatissima Kirby, 1802);

(j) Anthidium Fabricius, 1804 (gender: neuter), type species by designation by
Latreille (1810) Apis manicata Linnaeus, 1758;

(k) Eucera Scopoli, 1770 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by
Latreille (1810) Apis longicornis Linnaeus, 1758;

(1) Nomada Scopoli, 1770 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by
Curtis (1832) Apis ruficornis Linnaeus, 1758.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) bipunctatus Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Mellinus bipunctatus
(specific name of the type species of Prosopis Fabricius, 1804);

(b) annulata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis annulata (specific
name of the type species of Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793);

(c) succincta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis succincta (specific
name of the type species of Colletes Latreille, 1802);

(d) mirabilis Perkins, 1912, as published in the binomen Neopasiphae mirabilis
(specific name of the type species of Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912);

(e) crassipes Smith, 1853, as published in the binomen Paracolletes crassipes
(specific name of the type species of Paracolletes Smith, 1853);

(f) quinquespinosus Spinola, 1808, as published in the binomen Rophites quinques-
pinosa (specific name of the type species of Rophites Spinola, 1808);

(g) gibba Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sphex gibba (specific name
of the type species of Sphecodes Latreille, 1810);

(h) quadricincta Fabricius, [1777], as published in the binomen Apis quadricincta
(specific name of the type species of Halictus Latreille,1804);

(i) punctulatissima Kirby, 1802, as published in the binomen Apis punctulatissima
(valid subjective synonym of the specific name of Apis aterrima Panzer, 1798,
the type species of Ste/is Panzer, 1806);

(j) manicata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis manicata (specific
name of the type species of Anthidium Fabricius, 1804);

(k) longicornis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis longicornis
(specific name of the type species of Eucera Scopoli, 1770);

(1) ruficornis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis ruficornis (specific
name of the type species of Nomada Scopoli, 1770).

(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) COLLETIDAE Lepeletier, 1841 (type genus Colletes Latreille, 1802), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Colletes are to be
given precedence over those based on Prosopis Fabricius, 1804 or Hylaeus
Fabricius, 1793;

(b) PROsOPIDIDAE Fallén, 1813 (type genus Prosopis Fabricius, 1804), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Prosopis are not
to be given priority over those based on Colletes Latreille, 1802;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 87

(Cc) HYLAEIDAE Viereck, 1916 (1813) (type genus Hy/aeus Fabricius, 1793), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Hy/laeus are not to
be given priority over those based on Colletes Latreille, 1802;

(d) PARACOLLETIDAE Cockerell, 1934 (type genus Paracolletes Smith, 1853), with
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Paracolletes
are to be given precedence over those based on Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912;

(e) NEOPASIPHAEIDAE Cockerell, 1930 (type genus Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912), with
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Neopasiphae
are not to be given priority over those based on Paracolletes Smith, 1853;

(f) HALICTIDAE Thomson, 1869 (type genus Halictus Latreille, 1804), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Halictus are to be
given precedence over those based on Rophites Spinola, 1808 or Sphecodes
Latreille, 1804;

‘(g) ROPHITIDAE Schenck, 1866 (type genus Rophites Spinola, 1808), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Rophites are not
to be given priority over those based on Halictus Latreille, 1804;

(h) spHECOoDIDAE Schenck, [1869] (type genus Sphecodes Latreille, 1804), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Sphecodes are not
to be given priority over those based on Halictus Latreille, 1804;

(i) ANTHIDIIDAE Ashmead, 1899 (type genus Anthidium Fabricius, 1804), with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Anthidium are to
be given precedence over those based on Stelis Panzer, 1806;

(j) STELIDIDAE Schenck, 1860 (type genus Stelis Panzer, 1806), with the endorse-
ment that it and other family-group names based on Sve/is are not to be given
priority over those based on Anthidium Fabricius, 1804;

(k) ANTHOPHORIDAE Dahlbom, 1835 (type genus Anthophora Latreille, 1803), with
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Anthophora
are to be given precedence over those based on Eucera Scopoli, 1770, Xylocopa
Latreille, 1802, Ceratina Latreille, 1802 or Nomada Scopoli, 1770.

(1) BUCERIDAE Latreille, 1802 (type genus Eucera Scopoli, 1770), with the endorse-
ment that it and other family-group names based on Eucera are not to be given
precedence over those based on Anthophora Latreille, 1803;

(m) NOMADIDAE Fallen, 1813 (type genus Nomada Scopoli, 1770), with the endorse-
ment that it and other family-group names based on Nomada are not to be
given priority over those based on Anthophora Latreille, 1803.

History of Case 2535

An application to conserve the usage of some bee family-group names by giving
them precedence over senior but little used names was received from Prof Charles D.
Michener (Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas,
U.S.A.) on 15 October 1985. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48:
227-235 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission
On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the
close of the voting period on 1 December 1992 the votes were as follows:

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin,
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Dupuis.

Holthuis abstained.

No vote was received from Heppell. f

Holthuis abstained because he considered that the five family-group names given
precedence, which were independent of one another, should have been voted on
separately. (Editorial note. This would have been done had opposition to any of the
proposals been received).

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

annulata, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 578.

ANTHIDIDAE Ashmead, 1899, Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 26: 72.

Anthidium Fabricius, 1804, Systema Piezatorum, p. 364.

ANTHOPHORIDAE Dahlbom, 1835, Clavis novi hymenopterorum systematis ..., p. 5.

bipunctatus, Mellinus, Fabricius, 1798, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta...,
Supplementum, p. 265.

Colletes Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle des fourmis, p. 423.

COLLETIDAE Lepeletier de Saint Fargeau, 1841, Histoire naturelle des insectes, Hyménopteres,
vol. 2, p. 295.

crassipes, Paracolletes, Smith, 1853, Catologue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the
British Museum, patt 1, p. 6.

Eucera Scopoli, 1770, Annus IV, historico-naturalis, p. 8.

EUCERIDAE Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des
insectes, vol. 3, p. 376.

gibba, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 571.

HALICTIDAE Thomson, 1869, Opuscula Entomologica, fasc. 1, p. 8.

Halictus Latreille, 1804, Tableau méthodique des insectes. Pp. 129-200 in: Nouveau
Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 24 (Caractéres et Tables), p. 182.

HYLAEIDAE Viereck, 1916, Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin, 22:
737.

Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta..., vol. 2, p. 302.

longicornis, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 574.

manicata, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 577.

mirabilis, Neopasiphae, Perkins, 1912, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)9: 115.

Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)9: 114.

NEOPASIPHAEIDAE Cockerell, 1930, Australian Zoologist, 6(2): 148.

Nomada Scopoli, 1770, Annus IV, historico-naturalis, p. 44.

NOMADIDAE Fallén, 1813, Specimen novam Hymenoptera disponendi methodum exhibens, p. 31. _

Paracolletes Smith, 1853, Catologue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British
Museum, part 1, p. 6.

PARACOLLETIDAE Cockerell, 1934, Australian Zoologist, 8(1): 6.

PROSOPIDIDAE Fallén, 1813, Specimen novam Hymenoptera disponendi methodum exhibens,
p: 32.

Prosopis Fabricius, 1804, Systema Piezatorum, p. 293.

punctulatissima, Apis, Kirby, 1802, Monographia Apum Angliae .. ., vol. 2, p. 231.

quadricincta, Apis, Fabricius, [1777], Genera insectorum .. .., p. 247.

quinquespinosus, Rophites, Spinola, 1808, Insectorum Liguriae species novae aut rariores, vol. 2,
p. 72.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 89

Rophites Spinola, 1808, Insectorum Liguriae species novae aut rariores, vol. 2, p. 8.

ROPHITIDAE Schenck, 1866, Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 10: 322.

ruficornis, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 578.

Sphecodes Latreille, 1804, Tableau méthodique des insectes. Pp. 129-200 in: Nouveau
Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 24 (Caractéres et Tables), p. 182.

SPHECODIDAE Schenck, [1869], Beschreiben der nassauischen Bienen, zweiter Nachtrag.. .,
p. 316.

STELIDIDAE Schenck, 1860, Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 21: 141.

Stelis Panzer, 1806, Kritische Revision der Insektenfaune Deutschlands .. ., vol. 2, p. 246.

succincta, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 576.

xyLocopiwae Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des
insectes, vol. 3, p. 379.

The following are the references for the designation of type species of the nominal genera

shown:

Anthidium Fabricius, 1804: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur . . . les classes des
crustaceés, des arachnides et des insectes ..., p. 439.

Eucera Scopoli, 1770: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur... les classes des
crustaceés, des arachnides et des insectes ..., p. 439.

Halictus Latreille, 1804: Richards, O.W. 1935. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society
of London, 83: 170.

Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur... les classes des
crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes..., p. 438.

Nomada Scopoli, 1770: Curtis, J. 1832. British entomology; being illustrations and descriptions
of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland .. ., vol. 9, pl. 419, text.

Prosopis Fabricius, 1804: Morice, F.D. & Durrant, J.-H. 1915. Transactions of the Entomo-
logical Society of London, 1914: 416-418 [under Articles 67f and 69a(v) of the Code].

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1714

Streptograptus Yin, 1937 (Graptolithina): Graptolithus plumosus
Baily, 1871 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Streptograptus Yin, 1937 are hereby set aside and Graptolithus plumosus Baily,
1871 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Streptograptus Yin, 1937 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Graptolithus plumosus Baily, 1871,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name plumosus Baily, 1871, as published in the binomen Graptolithus
plumosus and as defined by the neotype (specimen no. BELUM: K12274d in the
Ulster Museum, Belfast, Northern Ireland, U.K.) designated by Loydell (1990)
(specific name of the type species of Streptograptus Yin, 1937), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2697

An application for the designation of Graptolithus plumosus Baily, 1871 as the type
species of Streptograptus Yin, 1937 was received from Drs D.K. Loydell (Unstitute of
Earth Studies, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales, U.K.) and Chen Xu
(Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology, Academia Sinica, Nanjing, China) on
4 December 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 236-237
(September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 237. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Dupuis.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Dupuis voted against because of the ambiguity in the citation of the specimen
number in the neotype designation (para. 1 of the application). :

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
plumosus, Graptolithus, Baily, 1871, in Traill, W.A. & Egan, F.W., Explanatory memoir to
accompany Sheets 49, 50 and part of 61 of the maps of the Geological Survey of Ireland . . .,
p22;
Streptograptus Yin, 1937, Bulletin of the Geological Society of China, 16: 297.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 91

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Graptolithus plumosus
Baily, 1871:

Loydell, D.K. 1990. Palaeontology, 33: 938 (specimen number misprinted as K12275a but given

correctly as K12274d in the captions to pl. 1, fig. 4 and p. 940, text-fig. 1; see BZN 48: 236).

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1715

HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): not
given precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839

Ruling

(1) The name Balitora Gray, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Jordan (1919) Balitora brucei Gray, 1830, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) The name brucei Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Balitora brucei and
as defined by the neotype designated by Kottelat (1988) (specific name of the type
species of Balitora Gray, 1830), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

(3) The name BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2703

An application for the conservation of usage of the family-group name
HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 by giving it precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson,
1839 was received from Herr Harro Hieronimus (Solingen, Germany) on 13 January
1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 47: 277-279 (December
1990). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

An opposing comment from Drs Peter K.L. Ng & Kelvin K.P. Lim (National
University of Singapore, Singapore) was published in BZN 48: 148-150 (June 1991).
A reply from the author of the application was published in BZN 48: 253 (September
1991). Further opposing comments from Dr Maurice Kottelat (Zoologische Staatssa-
mmlung, Miinchen, Germany) and Prof J.S. Nelson (University of Alberta, Edmonton,
Canada) were published in BZN 48: 333-335 (December 1991).

In relation to the relative usages of the names HOMALOPTERIDAE and BALITORIDAE
in Zoological Record, cited by Drs Ng & Lim (BZN 48: 149), a comment from Mrs
M. Joan Thorne (Biosis U.K., York, U.K.), published in BZN 49: 144 (June 1992),
pointed out that the names used in headings in the Record were standardized and
were not necessarily those used by authors.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 47: 278. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows: -

Affirmative votes — 4: Bock, Mahnert, Savage, Starobogatov

Negative votes — 24: Bayer, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno and
Willink.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Cocks commented that since views on the usage of the names BALITORIDAE and
HOMALOPTERIDAE were divided priority should apply. Hahn noted that in voting

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 93

against he was following all those who had commented on the case. Thompson
commented that insufficient documentation of usage of the name HOMALOPTERIDAE
had been given to justify use of the plenary powers.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

Balitora Gray, 1830, Illustrations of Indian zoology, chiefly selected from the collection of
General Hardwicke, vol. 1, part 3, pl. 88.

BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839, in Lardner, D. (Ed.), The cabinet cyclopedia, vol. 2, p. 190.

brucei, Balitora, Gray, 1830, Illustrations of Indian zoology, chiefly selected from the collection
of General Hardwicke, vol. 1, part 3, pl. 88.

The following is the reference for the designation of Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 as the type
species of the nominal genus Balitora Gray, 1830:
Jordan, D.S. 1919. The genera of fishes. Part 2. From Agassiz to Bleeker, 1833-1858, twenty-six
years, with the accepted type of each, p. 178.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Balitora brucei Gray,
1830:
Kottelat, M. 1988. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 95(2): 491-492.

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

OPINION 1716

Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, Anura): specific name
conserved by the designation of a neotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimen for the
nominal species Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 are hereby set aside and specimen no.
37293 in the Texas Natural History Collection (University of Texas at Austin) is
hereby designated as the neotype.

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific

Names in Zoology:

(a) chrysoscelis Cope, 1880, as published in the trinomen Hyla femoralis chryso-
scelis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) versicolor Le Conte, 1825, as published in the binomen Hy/a versicolor and as
defined by the neotype (specimen no. 84483 in the American Museum of
Natural History, New York, of which the tetraploid karyotype is no. AMNH
K207) designated by Smith, Fitzgerald & Guillette (1992).

History of Case 2366

An application to set aside the tetraploid holotype of Hy/la chrysoscelis Cope, 1880
and to designate a diploid neotype was received from Profs Hobart M. Smith, Kevin
T. Fitzgerald and Louis J. Guillette (then of the University of Colorado, Boulder,
Colorado, U.S.A.) on 18 November 1980. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 40: 165-166 (October 1983). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

The subsequent history of the case was summarized by the applicants in BZN 49:
151-153 (June 1992). As stated in paras. 2 and 3 on p. 152, in March 1990 the
Commission rejected the proposed authorship of Johnson (1961) for the name Hyla
chrysoscelis, endorsed a previous vote (September 1985) which set aside the type
status of the holotype of H. chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 (unfortunately a specimen of H.
versicolor Le Conte, 1825), and accepted as neotype of chrysoscelis the holotype of H.
versicolor sandersi Smith & Brown, 1947. However, the ploidy of this specimen
(USNM 123978) was questioned. It proved technically not possible to determine the
chromosome number, in effect rendering the specimen useless as the neotype.
Accordingly, no Opinion was published at that stage.

After unavoidable delays a diploid specimen was proposed (BZN 49: 152, paras. 3
and 4) as neotype of H. chrysoscelis Cope, 1880. A neotype for the tetraploid H.
versicolor Le Conte, 1825 was also designated; in March 1990 the Commission had
voted to place the name of this species on the Official List. The proposal to accept the ~
change of neotype for H. chrysoscelis was submitted for voting in September 1992
and the Commission’s approval has allowed the completion of this long-running
case.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to confirm the
1990 vote and accept the neotype for Hyla chryoscelis proposed on BZN 49: 152. At
the close of the voting period on 1 December 1992 the votes were as follows:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993 95

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Dupuis.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:
chrysoscelis, Hyla femoralis, Cope, 1880, Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 17: 29.

versicolor, Hyla, Le Conte, 1825, Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1: 281.
_ The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Hyla versicolor Le Conte,

1825:

Smith, H.M., Fitzgerald, K.T. & Guillette, L.J., Jr. 1992. BZN 49: 152.

On BZN 49: 152 W.E. Duellman was incorrectly printed as ‘Duellmann’.

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(1) March 1993

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis-
sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; the Commission’s Secretariat
reserves the right to return applications not so prepared.

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 .. ... The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title 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 place of publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript
could be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text in IBM PC format. It would
also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of
the main references where this is possible.

Applicants would be well advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the
same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider
implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Contents — continued

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus (Cephalopoda,
Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the Saini ofa cee M. Horn;
F. Strauch & M. Bertling; R.V. Melville .

On the proposed conservation of usage of generic names in the F BUPRESTIDAE ( insect,
Coleoptera). C.L. Bellamy

On the proposed precedence of ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 0 over CHORAGIDAE e Kirby
1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera). B.A. Holloway & G. Kuschel ‘

On the proposed designation of Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type species
of Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, hes arateg R.P.S. Jefferies; G.
Ubaghs.

On the proposed eee oF the specific name a Rann enacts Taylor, 1942
(Amphibia, Anura). H.M. Smith . ;

On the proposed conservation of some generic names Set erases in Distavse
abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris Geoffroy, 1762)
(Crustacea and Insecta). I.M. Kerzhner ees WP

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1699. Conus fulmen Reeve, 1843 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name

. conserved, and Conus berghausi Michelotti, 1847 ig precedence over C.
demissus Philippi, 1836 . eis

Opinion 1700. Laeocochlis Banker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
conserved as the correct spelling .

Opinion 1701. Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 aaa Glypragnosts Whitehouse, 1936
(Trilobita): accepted usage conserved ess

Opinion 1702. Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer von Walken in PEichwald, 1825 (currently
Paladin eichwaldi; Trilobita): neotype designation conserved

Opinion 1703. Goniosoma conspersum Perty, 1833 (currently Milobates conspersus;
Arachnida, Opiliones): specific name not conserved .

Opinion 1704. Artemia dag esi Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Beaciiopoda): poeta
name conserved

Opinion 1705. Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 ae Petechanien: cen eulaced
by rediscovered holotype .

Opinion 1706. Eurymeloides Bees 1889 Ginsecta, ‘Homapter): Harel Grorele
Erichson, 1842 confirmed as the type species, and a neotype sed es for E.
bicincta .

Opinion 1707. Beceamines Sipnareh 1880 (lececta, Pleteropters): C vibes latipes
Westwood, 1837 confirmed as the type species. ;

Opinion 1708. Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ee

Opinion 1709. Diabrotica undecimpunctata Mannerheim, 1843 and D. undecimpunc-
tata howardi Barber, 1947 (Insecta, aoe specific and se oe ge names
conserved .

Opinion 1710. J.C. Meanie’ s ; (1801- 1805) auction catalogues ae: insects: Sree
for nomenclatural purposes, with the specific names of Saperda alboguttata
Megerle, 1803 (currently Apomecyna alboguttata; actin and ee
variegata Megerle, 1803 (Diptera) conserved :

Opinion 1711. Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949 (Insecta, Diptera): goes name
conserved .

Opinion 1712. roeuehtla! bydel Sturtevant, 1921 (nseces, Bree: specific name
conserved . 4

Opinion 1713. Some bee Earaily-ecoup 5 names 5 (insect, iPijvenapiceay names based
on Colletes Latreille, 1802, on Paracolletes Smith, 1853, on Halictus Latreille,
1804, on Anthidium Fabricius, 1804 and on Anthophora Latreille, 1803 given
precedence over some senior names .

Opinion 1714. Streptograptus Yin, 1937 (Graptolithina): Graprlithus fee Baily,
1871 designated as the type species .

Opinion 1715. HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Oxtcichithyes. Cypriniformes): nae
given precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 ... .

Opinion 1716. Hyla chrysoscelis Cope, 1880 Ce Anura): specific name
conserved by the designation of a neotype .

Instructions to Authors .

77

79

83

84

85

90

92

94
96

CONTENTS

Notices . Z

The International Gouimision on : Zoological Nomenclature aad. . publications

Addresses of members of the Commission .

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in sei Second 1 Supplement ie
1990 . , :

Bulletin of Zoological Nombnélature - Back Copies ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - Crustacea and Moitsca Offprints “rk

General Article
A proposed system for stabilizing the names of species, illustrated with reference to”
the ICHNEUMONIDAE (Hymenoptera). D.S. Yu .

Applications i
Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa, Cryptostomata): proposed designation of we j
Ceriopora nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 as the type species. P.N. Wyse :
Jackson. Z
Pleurobranchus jackal Riepell & Leuckatt: [1828] ae P. testudhinaria ‘Canute
1835 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the we names. W.B.
Rudman eae 2
Cryptophagus advena ‘Waltl, 1834 (cancath haters ene pr Coleoptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. R.D. Pope . i
Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (inseutas Coleoptera): y
proposed conservation by the designation of Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758
as the type species of Buprestis. G.H. Nelson & W.F. Barr. . . . ve
Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger,
1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by the designation of Buprestis
variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans
Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. H. Mihle.
Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Colcopteeal
proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Buprestis acuminata ee rs
Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila. H. Mihle. ;
Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed aioe over 1 Peplip)
rus Hiibner, [1819]. T: Hirowatari . . . ,
Banksinella luteolateralis var. albothorax Theobald, 1907 (conenthy pees (Neomel-
aniconion) albothorax), B. luteolateralis var. circumluteola Theobald, 1908 (cur-
rently A. (N.) circumluteolus) and A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 1985 (Insecta, 8
Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific names and designation of a
neotype for A. (N.) albothorax. T.J. Zavortink. Ae i
Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): ERS, conservation Be) -
designation of Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as the type species. A. Woznica &
T. Zatwarnicki . ‘ :
Catharacta antarctica [ee Mathews. 1912 Ganeatty ‘Catharanta eee leanbouee _
Aves, Charadriiformes): proposed conservation of the subspecific name. J.-F.
Voisin, C. Voisin, W.J. Bock & M. Théry 5 ee :

Comments

On the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859
(Cnidaria, Ke aoe and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, bicemns es . R.G. 4G
Hughes . .

On the proposed ‘Aistignation fof Potamolitiucs faohii Pilsbry, "1896 as the ype
species of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, ee A.R. Kabat;
M.O. Mancefiido & M.F. Lopez Armengol. . . . . . i; 3

Continued on Inside Ba

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

AR rare w

Bulletin
Pabical

peegecture

e: } mmi
on Fetal Nomenclature

— 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 1993 is £80
or $155, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)

Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)

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 P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza

Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)

Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) ProfW.D.L. Ride(Australia; Mammalia)

Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany; Arachnology) (Russia; 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)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1993

|

97

}
/
t
i
q

t
Dri

PI

(I
Ss

ZO
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 50, part 2 (pp. 97-192) 30 June 1993

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publica-
tion but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.

(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 50, part | (published on 25 March 1993). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.

(1) Chtenopteryx Appellof, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed confirma-
tion as the correct original spelling. (Case 2874). G. Bello & R. Giannuzzi-
Savelli.

(2) Coluber poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, 1825 (currently Liophis poecilogyrus;
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2875).
H.M. Smith, J.R. Dixon & V. Wallach.

(3) Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha): proposed
designation of C. stewarti Charig, 1980 as the type species. (Case 2876). A.J.
Charig.

(4) Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conserva-
tion. (Case 2877). H.M. Smith & V. Wallach.

(5) Scarabaeus rufus de Geer, 1778 (currently Dischista rufa), S. rufus Moll, 1782
(currently Aphodius rufus), S. rufus Fabricius, 1792 (currently Aegialia rufa),
and S. foetidus Herbst, 1783 (currently Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2878). F.-T.
Krell, Z. Stebnicka & E. Holm.

(6) Aptornis Owen, 1848 (Aves, “Gruiformes’): proposed conservation. (Case
2879). E. Weber & F.-T. Krell.

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

(7) Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes, Perci-
formes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2880). H.-J.
Paepke.

(8) Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of Conops
buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 2881). S. Camras.

(9) Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed designation of
L. ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the type species. (Case 2882). A.W. Gentry &
E.P.J. Heizmann.

(10) Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Actiodactylay proposed designation
of Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the type species. (Case 2883). A.W.
Gentry & G. Rossner.

(11) Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of
Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 as the type species. (Case
2884). D.D. Baker.

(d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or 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.

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 XXV General Assembly of the International Union of Biological
Sciences to be held in Paris in September 1994: Dr F.M. Bayer (U.S.A., Corallia);
Prof J.O. Corliss (U.S.A., Protista); Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita); Prof Dr
O. Halvorsen (Norway, Parasitology); Dr Ya.I. Starobogatov (Russia, Mollusca); Dr
V.A. Trjapitzin (Russia, Hymenoptera).

The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may
be found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 50(1) (March 1993). Under
Article 3b of the Commission’s Constitution a member whose term of service has
ended is not eligible for immediate re-election unless the Council of the Commission
has decided to the contrary.

The Commission invites nominations, by any person or institution, of candidates
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 —
(medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names).

Nominations made since June 1990 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
1 June 1994 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 99
The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established to
facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and to support
the Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with information
on the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to buy the Code
and the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the
Treasurer Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural
Council are Dr H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof. A. Minelli
(Italy) and Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open
to all European zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr M.A.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
28006 Madrid, Spain.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £19 or $35,
but members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the
European Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£15 or $29; payment should accompany orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in
1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission
has ruled since it was set up in 1895; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional
entries, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume.
Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

R. V. Melville
1914-1993

ee

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 101

OBITUARY
Mr R.V. MELVILLE

Richard Valentine Melville — palaeontologist, diplomat, classicist, savant,
raconteur, and nomenclaturist par excellence — died in London on 13 March 1993.

Born in 1914, he went to school at Wellington College and, as an English Speaking
Union scholar, in Providence, Rhode Island, U.S.A. He graduated from Reading
University with Ist class honours in Geology and took an M.Sc. by research.

In 1938 he was appointed to the Geological Survey and Museum (now the British
Geological Survey), working closely with the field survey staff as palaeontologist and
biostratigrapher. He specialised in Mesozoic faunas, particularly the Echinacea, and
contributed a number of papers on their classification; these were amplified and
extended in the Echinodermata volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.
He became Chief Palaeontologist in 1965 and Assistant Director (Specialist Services)
in 1972; he retired from the Survey in 1974. For almost a century and a half the
monographs of the Palaeontographical Society have provided the principal means for
the description of British fossils, and Melville served as Secretary and Editor of the
Society from 1948 to 1961, during which time many important monographs passed
through his hands.

In 1961 he was seconded for four years to the British Embassy in Paris as Scientific
Counsellor, where he was responsible for advising the Ambassador and his staff on
scientific aspects of foreign policy, for reporting on significant developments in
science and for promoting contacts and understanding between scientists in the U.K.
and France.

He was seconded in 1971 for 10 months to the Headquarters of the Natural
Environment Research Council as Deputy Secretary dealing with scientific matters
thoughout the Council.

During his palaeontological career Melville became deeply interested and know-
ledgeable in zoological nomenclature. His association with the International Comm-
ission on Zoological Nomenclature began 40 years ago. He played a prominent part
in the 1953 Copenhagen Colloquium and the International Congress of Zoology
Section on Nomenclature, assisting the Commission’s Secretary, Francis Hemming,
to prepare the daily summaries of the proceedings. He verified and saw through to
publication the “Copenhagen Decisions’ — described by Hemming as ‘that indis-
pensable work of reference to all systematists’. On Hemming’s sudden illness in 1958,
Melville was seconded from the Geological Survey and Museum for 18 months as
Assistant Secretary of the Commission in order to be Secretary of the London
Colloquium and Congress Section on Nomenclature. He was also Secretary of the
Editorial Committee of the Ist Edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature, published in 1961.

Melville was elected to the Commission in 1968 and remained a member until he
reached the age limit in 1989. He was the Commission’s Secretary from 1968 until
retiring in 1985, and played a key role in the preparation of successive editions of the
Code, where his near-perfect knowledge of French was of great value. He compiled
and edited the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and prepared some 500 Opinions
giving the Commission’s rulings. As many zoologists and others around the world

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

can testify, he untiringly gave advice on the often complex (and indeed contentious)
problems that arise in zoological nomenclature. He was widely regarded both as an
expert and as a friend. He had a great ability to simplify issues, and only occasionally
did a pointed turn of phrase betray a sense of irritation when correspondents were
persistently obtuse or intolerant of others.

Melville was appointed to the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature in
1966, and served either as Scientific Controller or member until his death. In the early
1980s the Trust’s funds were nearly exhausted, and in addition to his other tasks he
undertook an Appeal to enable the Commission to continue its work. He succeeded
in raising adequate money to maintain the Commission on a sound financial basis
throughout that decade.

Writing in Biology International at the time of Melville’s retirement as Secretary,
the Commission’s President, Professor W.D.L. Ride, said that ‘the zoological
community as a whole owes a great debt to Richard Melville for his dedication to
zoological nomenclature and the wisdom and skill he has shown in administering the
Commission’s affairs. His experience and scholarship will be greatly missed’.

Ever a diligent worker, Melville continued to serve the cause he loved so well and
was invariably ready to respond to requests for advice. He undertook to write a
history of the Commission for its forthcoming centenary and was well advanced in
this project at the time of his death. Its publication will form a fitting tribute to a man
whose inestimable contribution to zoological nomenclature and hence taxonomy was
matched only by his erudition and his humanity.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 103

Case 2823

Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] and Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889 (Ciliophora,
Suctoria): proposed conservation; Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834]

and Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (currently
Tokophrya quadripartita): proposed conservation of the specific names

I.V. Dovgal

Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, Khmelnitsky Street 15, 252601 Kiev,
Ukraine

Ya.I. Starobogatov

Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
nabarezhnaya I, St Petersburg 199034, Russia

Abstract. The main purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific
name of the much studied suctorian Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834], the type
species of Acineta. Ehrenberg believed that his species was the same as that in brief
descriptions of Brachionus tuberosus and Vorticella tuberosa by Pallas (1766) and
Miller (1786) respectively. This is not the case, and tuberosus has not been used in the
Pallas or Miller senses in the past 150 years. B. tuberosus Pallas may have been a
synonym of the widely used name Tokophrya quadripartita (Claparéde & Lachmann,
1859). The specific name of Acineta tuberosa has recently been attributed to Pallas;
this would cause much confusion, as would adoption of the nomen dubium
Volverella astoma Bory de St Vincent, [1827] for A. tuberosa or for T. quadripartita,
the type species of Tokophrya.

1. Pallas (1766) described a number of freshwater ‘zoophytes’, and on p. 105
named one of them (species 63) as Brachionus tuberosus. Pallas based the brief
description on illustrations (pl. 13, figs. 10-12) of Baker (1753), who on p. 341
referred to the organism as ‘Clustering polypes’. Following Baker’s report of his
freshwater species, Pallas gave the habitat of B. tuberosus as ‘stagna Angliae’.

2. Miiller (1786, p. 308, pl. 44, figs. 8-9) described and illustrated Vorticella
tuberosa. Although using the specific name tuberosa he was evidently unsure of the
identity of his species with that of Baker and Pallas, since he wrote “Pall. Zooph.
63 ? and ‘Baker...t.13. f.10-12 ?’. The species was said to be found in marshes. Baker,
Pallas and Miiller were probably dealing with species of Tokophrya (see para. 10
below).

3. Bory de St Vincent ([1827], p. 781) erected the new genus Volverella containing
the single nominal species V. astoma (p. 782). He synonymized this with the species
described by Baker, Pallas and Miiller, but gave no reason for replacing the tuberosus
and tuberosa of the latter authors. Neither Volverella nor astoma have been used as
valid names in the past 150 years and they cannot be identified with confidence; we
propose their suppression to prevent any threat to the names Acineta, Tokophrya, A.
tuberosa and T. quadripartita discussed in this application.

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

4. Ehrenberg ([1834], p. 284) published the diagnosis of a new genus Acineta in
which he included three nominal species; A. tuberosa was briefly described on p. 287.
Although this was marine, from the Baltic Sea, Ehrenberg mentioned Miller and
considered that Vorticella tuberosa and his own Acineta tuberosa were the same.
However, the descriptions show they were not.

5. Ehrenberg’s paper has usually been quoted with the date 1833, the ‘Jahr’ of the
Abhandlungen. However, it reports (e.g. on pp. 233, 266) observations made as late as
July 1834. The complete volume was published in 1835, but according to a note by
C.D. Sherborn in the copy in the Natural History Museum in London Ehrenberg’s
paper was issued as a separate in 1834.

6. Ehrenberg (1838) described in detail and illustrated the three species he had
placed in Acineta, with tuberosa being on p. 241 and pl. 20, fig. 9. He stated (p. 241)
that Volverella astoma Bory de St Vincent, [1827] was not the same as his own species,
which he still believed to be Vorticella tuberosa Miller, 1786.

7. Claparede & Lachmann (1859, p. 388) discussed A. tuberosa Ehrenberg,
remarking that Ehrenberg’s figures were ‘bonnes’. In 1861 (p. 116) Claparéde &
Lachmann stated that their own freshwater species Podophrya quadripartita (1859, p.
382) was perhaps the species of Baker, Pallas and Miller (see paras. 1 and 2). They
added that Ehrenberg had apparently never seen P. quadripartita and that he had
applied the name tuberosa to his marine species in error. Claparéde & Lachmann
nevertheless continued to use Acineta tuberosa in Ehrenberg’s taxonomic sense, as
well as P. quadripartita, and so have all later authors.

8. Curds (1985a, p. 80) discussed Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg. Despite his accep-
tance of Ehrenberg’s authorship, three of the listed ‘synonyms’ were earlier:
Brachionus tuberosus Pallas, 1766, Vorticella tuberosa Miller, 1786, and Volverella
astoma Bory de St Vincent, 1825 (correctly [1827]). Curds made no comment about
his citation of these senior names in the synonymy of A. tuberosa Ehrenberg.

9. Following the citations of Curds (1985a), Foissner (1988, p. 4) adopted the
name and authorship Acineta tuberosa (Pallas, 1766). However, as explained above,
the tuberosus of Pallas (Baker’s species of 1753) was certainly not identical with the
species always called Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg. The attribution of the name
tuberosa to Pallas or Miller would be very destabilizing; tuberosa in such a
taxonomic sense has not been used as a valid name in the past 150 years. The
literature on A. tuberosa Ehrenberg is very extensive (see for example Collin, 1912;
Guilcher, 1951; Batisse, 1967; Bardele & Grell, 1967; Bardele, 1969, 1970; Farmer,
1980; Curds, 1985a, 1985b; Lee, Hutner & Bovee, 1985; Dale & Blom, 1987; Schédel,
1987; Matthes, Guhl & Haider, 1988). A. tuberosa is the type species of Acineta by the
designation of Collin (1912, p. 336). Acineta is in turn the type genus of the
ACINETIDAE Ehrenberg, 1838 (described on p. 316 and there spelled Acinetinen, but
latinized on p. 533).

10. Butschli (1889, p. 1928) erected the nominal genus Tokophrya, mentioning the
species described by Baker, Pallas, Miiller and Bory de St Vincent (paras. 1-3 above).
Among the included species was Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann,
1859; this has consistently been placed in Tokophrya and was designated the type
species by Curds (1985c, p. 169). The name Tokophrya quadripartita (Claparéde &
Lachmann, 1859), a possible synonym of Pallas’s Brachionus tuberosus (see para. 7
above), is very well established (see the references given in the previous para. and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 105

their bibliographies). To replace quadripartita by tuberosus Pallas or by astoma Bory
de St Vincent would be extremely confusing as well as being of doubtful accuracy.
The generic name Tokophrya is in universal use and to replace it (e.g. by Volverella)
would be very destabilizing.

11. 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 Volverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827];

(b) the following specific names:
(i) tuberosus Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Brachionus tubero-
SUS;
(ii) tuberosa Miller, 1786, as published in the binomen Vorticella tuberosa;
(ii) astoma Bory de St Vincent, [1827], as published in the binomen
Volverella astoma;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Collin (1912) Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834];

(b) Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Curds (1985) Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & Lach-
mann, 1859;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834], as published in the binomen Acineta tuberosa
(specific name of the type species of Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834]);

(b) quadripartita Claparede & Lachmann, 1859, as published in the binomen
Podophrya quadripartita (specific name of the type species of Tokophrya
Bitschli, 1889);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic names in
Zoology the name Volverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827], as suppressed in (1)(a)
above;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:

(a) tuberosus Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Brachionus tuberosus
and as suppressed in (1)(b)(i) above;

(b) tuberosa Miller, 1786, as published in the binomen Vorticella tuberosa and
as suppressed in (1)(b)(ii) above;

(c) astoma Bory de St Vincent, [1827], as published in the binomen Volverella
astoma and as suppressed in (1)(b)(iii) above.

References

Baker, H. 1753. Employment for the microscope. xiv, 452 pp. Dodslay, London.

Bardele, C.F. 1969. Acineta tuberosa. Il. Die Verteilung der Mikrotubuli in Makronucleus
Wahrend der ungeschlechtlichen Fortpflanzung. Zeitschrift fiir Zellforschung und Mik-
roskopische Anatomie, 93: 93-104.

Bardele, C.F. 1970. Budding and metamorphosis in Acineta tuberosa. An electron microscopic
study on morphogenesis in Suctoria. Journal of Protozoology, 17: 51-70.

Bardele, C.F. & Grell, K.G. 1967. Elektronmicroscopische Beobachtung zur Nahrung-
saufnahme bei dem Suktor Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg. Zeitschrift fiir Zellforschung und
Mikroskopische Anatomie, 80: 108-123.

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Batisse, A. 1967. Ultrastructure de la loge et du style chez Acineta tuberosa Ehr. et Paracineta
homari Sand. Protistologica, 2(3): 29-41.

Bory de St Vincent, J.R.G.M. [1827]. Volverelle; volverella. Pp. 781-782 in: Encyclopédie
Meéthodique. Histoire naturelle des Zoophytes, ou Animaux rayonées, 1824-{1827]. 819 pp.
Agasse, Paris.

Biitschli, O. 1889. Suctoria. Pp. 1842-1945 in Bronn, H.G., Klassen und Ordnungen des
Thier-Reichs, Band 1, Protozoa. Winter, Leipzig.

Claparéde, E. & Lachmann, J. 1859. Etudes sur les infusoires et les rhizopodes. Mémoires de
l'Institut National Génevois, 6: 261-482, pls. 1-24.

Claparéde, E. & Lachmann, J. 1861. Etudes sur les infusoires et 43 rhizopodes. Mémoires de
l'Institut National Génevois, 7: 5-291, pls. 1-13.

Collin, B. 1912. Etude monographique sur les Acinétiens. Il. Morphologie, physiologie,
systématique. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 51: 3-457, pls. 1-6.

Curds, C.R. 1985a. A revision of the Suctoria (Ciliophora, Kinetofragminophora). 1. Acineta
and its morphological relatives. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History),
Zoology, 48(2): 75-129.

Curds, C.R. 1985b. A revision of the Suctoria (Ciliophora, Kinetofragminophora). 2. An
addendum to Acineta. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 49:
163-165.

Curds, C.R. 1985c. A revision of the Suctoria (Ciliophora, Kinetofragminophora). 3.
Tokophrya and its morphological relatives. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural
History), Zoology, 49: 167-193.

Dale, T. & Blom, G. 1987. Pavekstorganismer hos oppdrettede hummerlargver. Fauna (Oslo),
40: 16-19.

Ehrenberg, C.G. [1834]. Dritter Beitrag zur Erkenntnis grosser Organisation in der Richtung
des Kleinsten Raumes. Physikalische Abhandlugen der Koéniglichen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften zu Berlin, 1833: 145-336. (Published in the serial in 1835 but issued as a separate
in [1834}).

Ehrenberg, C.G. 1838. Die Infusionsthierchen als vollkommene Organismen. Text 548 pp., Atlas
64 pls. Voss, Leipzig.

Farmer, J.F. 1980. The protozoa. Introduction to protozoology. vii, 732 pp. Mosby, St Louis.

Foissner, W. 1988. Taxonomic and nomenclatural revision of Slada¢ek’s list of ciliates
(Protozoa: Ciliophora) as indicators of water quality. Hydrobiologia, 166: 1-64.

Guilcher, Y. 1951. Contributions a l’étude des ciliés gammipares, chonotriches et tentaculiféres.
Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (11)13: 33-132.

Lee, J.J., Hutner, S.J. & Bovee, E.C. (Eds.). 1985. An illustrated guide to the protozoa. x, 629
pp. Society of Protozoologists, Lawrence, Kansas.

Matthes, D., Guhl, W. & Haider, G. 1988. Suctoria und Urceolariidae. 309 pp. Fischer,
Stuttgart.

Miiller, O.F. 1786. Animalcula Infusoria fluviatilia et marina, ... \vi, 367 pp., 50 pls. Havniae et
Lipsiae.

Pallas, P.S. 1766. Elechus Zoophytorum sistens generum adumbrationes generaliores et
specierum cognitarum succintas descriptiones. 451 pp. Hagae.

Schédel, H. 1987. Sesshafte Wimpertiere (Peritricha, Chonotricha, Suctoria) auf Asellus
aquaticus und Gammariden. Limnologica, 18: 83-166.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 107

Case 2820

Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Melanella polita,; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name, so
conserving the specific name of Buccinum acicula Miller, 1774
(currently Cecilioides acicula)

Anders Warén

Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Sektionen for Evertebratzoologi, Box 50007,
S-10405 Stockholm, Sweden

Edmund Gittenberger

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Mollusca, Postbus 9517, NL 2300 RA
Leiden, The Netherlands

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current universal
understanding and usage of the specific name of the European prosobranch mollusc
Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (family EULIMIDAE Philippi, 1853) for which a neotype
has been designated. Recently discovered syntypes of T. politus are conspecific with
Buccinum acicula Miller, 1774, the type species of Cecilioides Férussac, 1814
(Pulmonata, family FERUSSACUDAE Bourguignat, 1883). C. acicula is found around the
Mediterranean and in western Europe, and has been introduced into the eastern
U.S.A. and Bermuda. Both the names Cecilioides and B. acicula have been placed on
Official Lists (Opinion 335; March 1955).

1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 767) described Turbo politus from “M[are] Mediterraneo’. He
did not refer here (the 10th edition of his Systema Naturae) or later (the 12th edition
of 1767) to the existence of a specimen. The name was used by early authors
(Pulteney, 1799, p. 49; Montagu, 1808, p. 398; Jeffreys, 1867, pp. 167, 203, and
others) for various gastropod species of the family EULIMIDAE Philippi, 1853. Martel
(1905, p. 328), followed by Dautzenberg (1927, p. 162), pointed out that authors were
confusing different taxa under the name and that politus referred exclusively to a
small Mediterranean species (see BZN 49: 113, paras. 4 and 6). Martel noted that
Linnaeus’s description was brief but clear, and that the stated habitat and size (‘Testa
Gr[ani] hordei [barley grain] magnitudine’) applied only to politus. In recent times the
species has been placed in Melanella Bowdich, 1822, Eulima Risso, 1826 or Balcis
Leach in Gray, 1847. A search by one of us (A.W.) in the Linnean Society collection
in London and by Prof A. Holm, former curator at the Zoological Museum of the
University of Uppsala, failed to find a Linnaean specimen. Warén (1988, pp. 20, 21,
figs. 13, 14) discussed the identity and synonymy of politus, and to remove any
ambiguity in the use of the name described and figured a specimen (catalogue no.
1071 in the Zoological Museum, Uppsala) from the Golfe de Gabes, Tunisia,
which he designated the neotype. Warén also designated (p. 20) the same specimen
as the neotype of Eulima intermedia Cantraine, 1835 (p. 390), the type species of

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Polygireulima Sacco, 1892 (p. 592), and of Rissoa sinuosa Scacchi, 1836 (p. 15, figs.
26, 27), thereby rendering the latter two unused and untypified specific names junior
objective synonyms of Turbo politus.

2. The mollusc material in Linnaeus’s collection housed in the Linnean Society,
London was listed by Hanley (1855) and by Dance (1967). Hanley (p. 354) noted:
“My earlier set of notes alludes to the presence in the collection of a wretched example
of E[ulima] polita ... but I have failed in detecting it in a more recent examination’. He
erroneously recorded that Linnaeus had denoted a specimen in his possession in
1758, which was not so denoted in 1767. Dance (1966, p. 22) doubted the existence
of such a specimen. The study by Dodge (1959) of Turbo species described by
Linnaeus remained incomplete and did not include politus.

3. Notes in a manuscript by Linnaeus intended for a 13th edition of Systema
Naturae, kept in the Linnean Society, recorded that specimens of Turbo politus were
procured by Erik Brander, the Swedish Consul in Algiers from 1753-1765, who had
instructions to collect natural history objects for Queen Lovisa Ulrika (see Dance,
1967, p. 16). Specimens originating from Brander were exceptional among those sent
to Linnaeus in having reliable localities (Dance, 1967, p. 16). Linnaeus relied on the
Queen’s collection for the descriptions of molluscs in both the 10th (1758) and 12th
(1767) editions of his Systema Naturae and in 1764 he published a catalogue of the
specimens. This was mostly written in 1751-1752 and had been ready for publication
since 1754; it was intended that it should be illustrated but the preparation of the
plates took too long (see Lovén, 1887, p. 41) and Linnaeus obtained the Queen’s
permission to publish the catalogue privately. The plates which were produced
remain, still unpublished, in the archives of the Swedish Academy of Sciences,
Stockholm, where Warén examined them. Neither the catalogue nor the plates
mentions Turbo politus.

4. Until a few years before he died in 1778 Linnaeus occasionally attended and
curated the Queen’s collection. On his death the care of the collection passed to Olof
Swartz, professor of botany and natural history at the School of Surgeons in
Stockholm. He had lists printed with names used in the 12th edition of Systema
Naturae and these names were then glued on the shells (see Loven, 1887, p. 47). N.H.
Odhner (MS) recorded that the names were “in many cases even pasted on the wrong
subjects’. After the Queen’s death duplicate (only?) specimens were sold (see Wallin,
1992, p. 224). Finally, in 1803 the collection was given to the University of Uppsala
by King Gustav IV Adolf (see Lonnberg, 1916). Swartz became curator (1808-1818)
of the museum of the Royal Academy of Natural Sciences in Stockholm (now the
Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet) and there is good reason (Odhner, MS and Wallin,
1992) to assume that specimens were transferred from the Queen’s collection in
Uppsala to the Academy museum in Stockholm.

5. After the transfer to Uppsala the collection was curated by Prof Carl Peter —
Thunberg, a student of Linnaeus’s, who added his own handwritten labels and
catalogued the collection (Thunberg, 1804). Turbo politus was not listed in this
catalogue. At this time and even after Thunberg’s death in 1828, specimens from the
Queen’s collection were joined to those in Uppsala by donations from collectors who
had bought them (see para. 4 above). The printed labels attached by Swartz have
been used to identify these secondarily incorporated specimens as original material.
The Uppsala collection includes putative types of 637 mollusc species. The Swartz

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 109

labels mean that it is safer to assume they are Linnaean specimens than is the case
with the material in the Linnean Society in London, which was much contaminated
by Linnaeus’s son and during the time (1784-1828) that it was owned by J.E. Smith
(see Hanley, 1855, pp. 2-3 and Dance, 1967, pp. 3-4).

6. During the recent preparation of a list of Linnaeus’s type material in Uppsala
(Wallin, 1991), two lots of specimens labelled [Turbo] politus were found among the
pulmonate molluscs. The locality “M. Mediterraneo (collected by E. Brander and for
Queen Lovisa Ulrika)’ is given. The shells are glued to two small pieces of the same
kind of paper, and neither the shells nor the paper show any sign of having been
reattached. One lot (catalogue no. UUZM 1184a-b) is accompanied by a label
printed by Swartz (see para. 4 above). The second lot (no. UUZM 1185a-b) has a
handwritten label (not prepared by Thunberg; see para. 5 above), glued in the same
way and probably pre-Thunberg. There is good reason to believe that these are
Linnaeus’s hitherto uncatalogued syntypes of 7. politus. Examination of the speci-
mens, however, has shown that they are conspecific with the pulmonate Buccinum
acicula Miller, 1774 (p. 150), the type species by monotypy (as ‘Bulimus acicula
Brug.’, i.e. Bruguiére, [1789], p. 311, who referred to Miller) of Cecilioides Ferussac,
1814 (p. 48; family FERUSSACIDAE Bourguignat, 1883). Both the names Cecilioides
and B. acicula Miller have been placed on Official Lists (Opinion 335; March 1955).

7. The family EULIMIDAE includes more than 4000 species, worldwide, which are
almost all parasitic on echinoderms. The use of the specific name politus Linnaeus,
1758 for a Mediterranean eulimid has been stable for a long time. Recent examples
of its use include Nordsieck (1982, p. 169), D’Angelo & Gargiullo (1978, p. 118),
Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli & Bedulli (1990, pp. 34, 184) and Cossignani, Cossignani,
Di Nisio & Passamonti (1992, fig. 129). The host of politus remains unknown.
Cecilioides acicula (Miller, 1774) is a terrestrial species but is frequently found
washed ashore after being carried out to sea by flooding streams (see Kerney,
Cameron & Jungbluth, 1983, p. 202). It is widely distributed around the Mediterra-
nean. The name acicula has been used consistently for the taxon since its introduction
(the nomenclatural history was summarized by Kennard & Woodward, 1926, pp.
281—283) and is one of the most well known and universally accepted names among
European pulmonates (see, for example, the recent publications of Fromming, 1954,
pp. 70-72; Grossu, 1955, pp. 338, 339, fig. 188; Hasslein, 1966, p. 60; Evans, 1972;
Pintér, Richnovszky & Szigethy, 1979, pp. 98, 258; Pfleger & Chatfield, 1983, pp. 203,
204; Gittenberger, Backhuys & Ripken, 1984, p. 117; Boato, Bodon & Giusti, 1985,
p. 308; Abbott, 1989, p. 84; Robles, 1990, p. 479). Acceptance of the recently
discovered syntypes of politus would necessitate using politus as the valid name for
the species now called acicula, with acicula being a junior subjective synonym.
Another name would be required for politus as currently understood. These changes
would result in considerable and unnecessary confusion in the nomenclature in two
separate families. It is thus very desirable that the interpretation of politus based on
the neotype should be maintained.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimen for

the nominal species Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 and to confirm the neotype
designation by Warén (1988);

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name politus
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo politus and as defined by
the neotype designated by Warén (1988), confirmed in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the names:

(a) intermedia Cantraine, 1835, as published in the binomen Eulima intermedia
(a junior objective synonym of the specific name of Turbo politus Linnaeus,
1758);

(b) sinuosa Scacchi, 1836, as published in the binomen Rissoa sinuosa (a junior
objective synonym of the specific name of Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758).

References

Abbott, R.T. 1989. Compendium of landshells. A color guide to more than 2,000 of the world’s
terrestrial shells. 240 pp. American Malacologists Inc., Melbourne, Florida.

Boato, A., Bodon, M. & Giusti, F. 1985. Molluschi terrestri e d’acqua dolce delle Alpi Liguri.
Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia, (N.S.)9: 237-371.

Bowdich, T.E. 1822. Elements of conchology including the fossil genera and the animals, vol. |
(Univalves). 79 pp., 19 pls. Paris & London.

Bruguiére, J.G. [1789]. Bulimus. Pp. 286-367 in: Encyclopédie Methodique ... Histoire naturelle
des vers, vol. 1. Panckoucke, Paris.

Cantraine, F.J. 1835. Mollusques- *... diagnoses ou descriptions succinctes de quelques espéces
nouvelles de mollusques’. Bulletin de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et Belle-Lettres de
Bruxelles, 2: 380-401.

Cossignani, T., Cossignani, V., Di Nisio, A. & Passamonti, M. 1992. Atlante delle conchligie del
Medio Adriatico. [40] pp., 417 figs. Mostra Mondiale Malacologia, Cupra Marittima.

Dance, S.P. 1967. Report on the Linnaean shell collection. Proceedings of the Linnean Society
of London, 178(1): 1-24.

D’Angelo, G. & Garguillo, S. 1978. Guida alle conchiglie Mediterranee. 224 pp. Gruppo
Editoriale Fabbri, Bompiani, Sonzogno, Etas S.p.A., Milano.

Dautzenberg, P. 1927. Mollusques provenant des campagnes scientifiques du Prince Albert'™
de Monaco dans l’ocean Atlantique et dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Résultats des
Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies par le Prince Albert’, 72: 1-400.

Dodge, H. 1959. A historical review of the mollusks of Linnaeus. Part 7. Certain species of the
genus Turbo of the Class Gastropoda. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural
History, 118(5): 211-255.

Evans, J.G. 1972. Land snails in archaeology, with special reference to the British Isles. xii, 436
pp. Seminar Press, London.

Férussac, A.E.J.P.J.F.d’A. de. 1814. Mémoires géologiques sur les terreins formés sous l'eau
douce par les débris fossiles des mollusques vivant sur la terre ou dans l'eau non salée. 76 pp.
Paris.

Frémming, E. 1954. Biologie der mitteleuropdischen Landgastropoden. 404 pp., 60 figs. Duncker
& Humblot, Berlin.

Gray, J.E. 1847. Leach’s classification of British Mollusca. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, 20(133): 267-273.

Gittenberger, E., Backhuys, W. & Ripken, T.E.J. 1984. De Landslakken van Nederland, Ed. 2. -
184 pp. Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging.

Grossu, A. 1955. Fauna Republicii Populare Romine. Mollusca, vol. 3, fasc. 1 (Gastropoda,
Pulmonata). 518 pp. Academia Republicii Populare Romine.

Hanley, S. 1855. Ipsa Linnaei conchylia. The shells of Linnaeus ... 556 pp., 5 pls. Williams &
Norgate, London.

Hisslein, L. 1966. Die Molluskengesellschaften des Bayrischen Waldes und des anliegenden
Donautales. Bericht der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft. Augsburg, 20: 1-176.

Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British conchology, or account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the British
Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 4. 486 pp., 8 pls. Van Voorst, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 111

Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1926. Synonymy of the British non-marine Mollusca ( Recent
and post-Tertiary). xxiv, 447 pp. British Museum, London.

Kerney, M.P., Cameron, R.A.D. & Jungbluth, J.H. 1983. Die Landschnecken Nord- und
Mitteleuropas. 384 pp. Parey, Hamburg & Berlin.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.

Linnaeus, C. 1764. Museum S:ae Rae M:tis Ludovicae Ulricae Reginae Svecorum, Gothorum,
Vandalorumque ... in quo animalia rariora, exotica, imprimis Insecta et Conchilia discri-
buntur et determinantur. 722 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae.

Lonnberg, E. 1916. Kungliga Vetenskapsakademiens naturaliekabinett 1739-1819. Pp. 1-20
in: Naturhistoriska Riksmuseets Historia. Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien. Almqvist &
Wiksells, Stockholm.

Loyén, S. 1887. On the species of Echinoidea described by Linnaeus in his work: Museum
Ludovicae Ulricae. Bihang till Kung. Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 13(4):
1-185.

Martel, H. 1905. Coquilles marine de Cancale. Iconographie et critique de quelque petites
éspeces. Bulletin de la Société Scientifique et Médicale de |’ Ouest, 14: 326-332.

Montagu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica or natural history of British shells ..., vol. 2. Pp.
293-606, 16 pls. Hollis, Romsey.

Miiller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium ... Testaceorum, non marinorum
succincta Historia, vol. 2. xxxvi, 214 pp. Havniae et Lipsiae.

Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehduseschnecken. xii, 539 pp., 108 pls. Fischer,
Stuttgart.

Odhner, N.H. (MS). Identifications of Linnaean shells in the Museum Ludovicae Ulricae.
Unpublished manuscript, kept in the Zoological Museum of the University of Uppsala
and the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History.

Pintér, L., Richnoyszky, A. & Szigethy, A. 1979. Distribution of the Recent Mollusca of
Hungary. Soosiana, 1 (Supplement): 1-351.

Pfleger, V. & Chatfield, J. 1983. A guide to snails of Britain and Europe. 216 pp. Hamlyn,
London. [Published in German (1984) and French (1989)].

Pulteney, R. 1799. Catalogues of the birds, shells, and some of the more rare plants of Dorsetshire
... 92 pp. Author, London.

Robles, F. 1990. Gasteropodos terrestres de la provincia de Valencia. Revision bibliografica y
lista de especies. [berus, 9(1—-2): 467-481.

Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Annotated check-list of Mediterranean
marine mollusks, part 1. 348 pp. Libreria Naturalista Bolognese, Bologna.

Sacco, F. 1892. I molluschi dei terreni Terziarii del Piemonte e della Liguria. Parte 11,
Eulimidae e Pyramidellidae. Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, (2)42:
585-682.

Scacchi, A. 1836. Catalogus conchyliorum regni Neapolitani. 18 pp., | pl. Naples.

Thunberg, C.P. 1804. Donatio, 1803, Gustavi Adolphi. Museum Naturalium Academiae Upsa-
liensis 23. Dissertation (resp. J.W. Rudolphi). 12 pp. Uppsala.

Wallin, L. 1991. Catalogue of type specimens. 4. Linnaean specimens. 233 pp. Uppsala
University Zoological Museum, Uppsala.

Wallin, L. 1992. Linnaean specimens in the Zoological Museum of Uppsala University.
Archives of Natural History, 19(2): 219-230.

Warén, A. 1988. The identity of Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (Prosobranchia, Eulimidae).
Bollettino Malacologico, 24(1-4): 17-24.

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Case 2864

Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Coptotermes lacteus; Insecta,
Isoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

J.A.L. Watson & H.M. Abbey

Division of Entomology, CSIRO, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601,
Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of
Coptotermes lacteus (Froggatt, 1898), an abundant and well known termite of
south-east Australia. Froggatt published the specific name as J/actis in a ‘popular’
work the previous year, but following his own rejection of this spelling it has
remained unused.

1. Froggatt (1897, unnumbered plate facing p. 297) illustrated parts of a termite
from New South Wales under the name ‘Termes lactis, n. sp... On p. 297 he
commented that ‘in a concluding paper in my Monograph of the Australian
Termitidae, being published in the Proceedings of the Linnean Society of N.S.W., I
propose to call it the ‘Milk Termite’ (Termes Jactis, n. sp.)’. The illustration is an
indication under Article 12b(7) of the Code, so that /actis is an available name even
though no taxonomic description was given.

2. Froggatt (1898, p. 721), in the third and final part of the monograph to which
he had referred in 1897, formally described the species as Termes lacteus; he cited but
evidently rejected his previous spelling. On p. 723 Froggatt mentioned his 1897 work
as being a ‘popular paper’; however this may be, the alteration of the name is an
unjustified emendation and /acteus Froggatt, 1898 is therefore a junior objective
synonym of /Jactis Froggatt, 1897 (Article 33b(ii1) of the Code).

3. Except for entries under the synonymy of /acteus in Desneux (1904, p. 34) and
Hill (1942, p. 156), the name /actis has been ignored or overlooked or, as in Hill
(1926, p. 204) and Hill (1932, p. 142) in which Froggatt (1897) was inaccurately cited
as the author of the name /acteus, has been regarded as being the same as /acteus.

4. Desneux (1904, p. 34) placed T. Jacteus in the subgenus Coptotermes Wasmann,
1896; Silvestri (1909, p. 293) treated Coptotermes as a full genus and so have
subsequent authors.

5. The species has been referred to as Coptotermes lacteus in a very wide range of _
publications, for it is a species that has been studied extensively in terms of its basic
biology, the resistance of materials to attack by it, and its relationships as judged
from the chemistry of its cuticular hydrocarbons. Major works using C. /acteus
include Ratcliffe, Gay & Greaves (1952), Gay & Calaby (1970), Hadlington (1987),
Watson (1988) and Watson & Gay (1991) (general texts); Hill (1942) and Snyder
(1949) (taxonomy); Gay, Greaves, Holdaway & Wetherly (1955, 1957), Gay &
Wetherly (1969), Lenz et al. (1987) and Lenz, Watson, Barrett & Runko (1990)
(maintenance conditions, resistance of materials and soil barriers); Watson & Sewell

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 113

(1981) and Lenz, Barrett & Miller (1988) (castes); and Brown et al. (1990) (cuticular
hydrocarbons and taxonomy). These references are representative rather than
comprehensive and serve as examples.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name /actis Froggatt, 1897, as
published in the binomen Termes Jactis, 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 Jacteus
Froggatt, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes lacteus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name /actis Froggatt, 1897, as published in the binomen Termes
lactis and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Brown, W.V., Watson, J.A.L., Carter, F.L., Lacey, M.J., Barrett, R.A. & McDaniel, C.A. 1990.
Preliminary examination of cuticular hydrocarbons of worker termites as chemotaxo-
nomic characters for some Australian species of Coptotermes (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).
Sociobiology, 16: 305-328.

Desneux, J. 1904. Isoptera, Fam. Termitidae. Genera Insectorum, 25: 1-52.

Froggatt, W.W. 1897. White ants, with some account of their habits and depredations.
Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 8: 297-302.

Froggatt, W.W. 1898. Australian Termitidae. Part III. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of
New South Wales, 22: 721-758.

Gay, F.J. & Calaby, J.H. 1970. Termites of the Australian region. Pp. 393-448 in Krishna, K.
& Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of termites, vol. 2. xvi, 643 pp. Academic Press, New
York & London.

Gay, F.J., Greaves, T., Holdaway, F.G. & Wetherly, A.H. 1955. Standard laboratory colonies
of termites for evaluating the resistance of timber, timber preservatives, and other
materials to termite attack. Bulletin of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization. Australia, 277: 1-60.

Gay, F.J., Greaves, T., Holdaway, F.G. & Wetherly, A.H. 1957. The development and use of
field testing techniques with termites in Australia. Bulletin of the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization. Australia, 280: 1-31.

Gay, F.J., & Wetherly, A.H. 1969. Laboratory studies of termite resistance V. The termite
resistance of plastics. CSIRO Australia Division of Entomology Technical Paper, 10: 1-49.

Hadlington, P. 1987. Australian termites and other common timber pests. vii, 126 pp. New South
Wales University Press, Kensington.

Hill, G.F. 1926. Australian termites (Isoptera). Notes on Stolotermes, Calotermes and
Coptotermes, with descriptions of new species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of
Victoria, (N.S.)38: 192-214.

Hill, G.F. 1932. Australian termites (Isoptera). Biological notes and descriptions of new
species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, (N.S.)44: 134-154.

Hill, G.F. 1942. Termites (Isoptera) from the Australian region. 479 pp. Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research, Melbourne.

Lenz, M., Amburgey, T.L., Dai Zi-rong, Kiihne, H., Mauldin, J.K., Preston, A.F. & Westcott,
M. 1987. Interlaboratory studies on termite-wood decay fungi associations: 1. Determi-
nation of maintenance conditions for several species of termites (Isoptera: Mastotermiti-
dae, Termopsidae, Rhinotermitidae, Termitidae). Sociobiology, 13: 1—-S6.

Lenz, M., Barrett, R.A. & Miller, L.R. 1988. Mechanisms of colony re-establishment after
orphaning in Coptotermes lacteus (Froggatt) (Isoptera; Rhinotermitidae). Sociobiology,
14: 245-268.

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Lenz, M., Watson, J.A.L., Barrett, R.A. & Runko, S. 1990. The effectiveness of insecticidal soil
barriers against subterranean termites in Australia. Sociobiology, 17: 9-36.

Ratcliffe, F.N., Gay, F.J. & Greaves, T. 1952. Australian termites. 124 pp. Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Melbourne.

Silvestri, F. 1909. Isoptera. Pp. 279-314 in Michaelsen, W. & Hartmeyer, R. (Eds.), Die Fauna
Stidwest-Australiens, vol. 2. 494 pp. Fischer, Jena.

Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous
Collections, 112: 1-490.

Watson, J.A.L. 1988. Termites in the Canberra region. viii, 63 pp. Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra.

Watson, J.A.L. & Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera (termites). Pp. 330-347 in CSIRO (Ed.), The insects
of Australia, Ed. 2, vol. 1. xviii, 542 pp. Melbourne University Press, Carlton.

Watson, J.A.L. & Sewell, J.J. 1981. The origin and evolution of caste systems in termites.
Sociobiology, 6: 101-118.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 115

Case 2843

Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed
replacement of syntype by a neotype, so conserving usage of the
specific name and that of A. hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878

I.M. Kerzhner

Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034,
Russia

Ernst Heiss

Entomological Research Group, Tiroler Landesmuseum, Josef-Schrafflstrasse
2A, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
Caucasian flat bug Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 in its current usage. The only
known syntype belongs to the Siberian species A. hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878. It is
proposed that this syntype should be replaced by a neotype representative of the
current usage of A. caucasicus.

1. Ina paper published in 1857 Kolenati (p. 438) described but did not figure a new.
species Aradus caucasicus. The journal in which he established the name bears the
date 1856 on the cover, but that it was not published until the following year is shown
by the printed dates of censor permission which are given as 28.11.1857 [Julian style
= 12.J11.1857] for the journal and 18.111.1857 [Julian style = 30.I1I.1857] for the
separate; the title page of the separate is dated 1857. Kolenati did not state how many
specimens he had in the type series. He reported: “Habitat sub cortice Fagi in Caucaso
et Somchetia’. However, it has long been known that Kolenati included in his
monograph of Caucasian Heteroptera a number of species that do not occur in the
Caucasus; some of them were tropical and others were from Siberia and other regions
of Russia (see Horvath, 1884, pp. 111-112; Kiritshenko, 1918, p. 6). In some cases
Kolenati gave exact localities in the Caucasus from which they were supposed to have
been collected. Apparently Kolenati mixed up specimens he had collected in the
Caucasus with material from other regions in the collections of the Zoological
Museum (now the Zoological Institute) in St Petersburg where he worked as curator
for a year following his Caucasian trip.

2. The only known type specimen of Aradus caucasicus is a pinned female in the
collection of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, where it is labelled
(1) Caucaso Kolenati, (2) caucasicus Kol.’, the second part being in Fieber’s
handwriting. It corresponds with Kolenati’s short original description and with the
redescription of the specimen by Fieber (1861, p. 114). We examined this syntype (see
Kanyukova, 1984, p. 13; Kormiley & Froeschner, 1987, p. 40) and showed that it
belongs to Aradus hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878 (p. 22). This species occurs only from
East Kirgisia through Siberia to Japan; records from the European part of Russia are

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

based on misidentifications (see Kanyukova, 1984, p. 12). The syntype of Aradus
caucasicus was in point of fact collected by Gebler in Altai as were some other aradids
mentioned in Kolenati’s paper.

3. Reuter (1884, p. 129) published another redescription of Aradus caucasicus
based on specimens recorded by Jakovlev (1879, p. 112) from Derbent (East
Caucasus); these specimens, although similar to A. hieroglyphicus, belonged to a
different species. Reuter’s concept of A. caucasicus has been accepted by all
subsequent workers (e.g. Kiritshenko, 1913, pp. 175-179, 1951, p. 297; Kanyukova,
1984, pp. 12-13). A. caucasicus sensu Reuter is known from the Crimea and Caucasus
(nominotypical subspecies), Iran (subspecies persicus Vasarhelyi, 1977) and Middle
Asia (subspecies turkestanicus Jakovlev, 1894 (p. 138) and subspecies margianus
Kiritshenko, 1913).

4. Kolossow (1929) wrongly placed Aradus caucasicus in synonymy with A.
muricatus Hummel, 1827, and was followed by others (e.g. Stichel, 1957, p. 20;
Usinger & Matsuda, 1959, p. 91; Putshkov, 1974, pp. 117-118). The erroneous
synonymy with A. muricatus was corrected by Kanyukova (1984, p. 13).

5. Acceptance of the syntype of Aradus caucasicus referred to in para. 2 above as
the name-bearing type of A. caucasicus would have the following results: the well
known Siberian species A. hieroglyphicus would be called A. caucasicus, the species
currently known as A. caucasicus would be called A. turkestanicus Jakovlev, 1894 and
its Caucasian subspecies would need a new name.

6. To stabilize the current use of the specific names involved (see Kormilev &
Froeschner, 1987, p. 40) we propose that the following specimen be designated as the
neotype of Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857: Male, pinned, labelled *(1) Derbent (2)
13°, from B. Jakovlev’s collection deposited in the Zoological Institute, Russian
Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, specimen figured by Kiritshenko (1913, p. 178,
fig. 63). This specimen belongs to the series of specimens examined by Reuter (1884).

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens
for the nominal species Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 and designate as
neotype the specimen referred to in para. 6;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) caucasicus Kolenati, 1857, as published in the binomen Aradus caucasicus

and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878, as published in the binomen Aradus hiero-
glyphicus.

References

Fieber, F.X. 1861. Die europdischen Hemiptera. Halbfliigler. (Rhynchota Heteroptera). 444 pp.
Gerold, Wien.

Horvath, G. 1884. Ueber Centrocoris variegatus Kolen. und seine Verwandten. Wiener
Entomologische Zeitung, 3: 111-115.

Jakovley, B.E. 1879. Hemiptera Heteroptera of the Caucasus Region. Trudy russkogo
entomologicheskogo Obshchestva, 12(1): 3-176. [In Russian].

Jakovley, B.E. 1894. Hemiptera Heteroptera palaearctica nova. Horae Societatis Entomolog-
icae Rossicae, 28: 72-82. [In Russian].

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 117

Kanyukova, E.V. 1984. Heteroptera of the Aradus betulae group in the U.S.S.R. fauna. Vestnik
Zoologii, 1984(4): 9-14. [In Russian].

Kiritshenko, A.N. 1913. Insectes Hémiptéres. Dysodiidae et Aradidae. Faune de la Russie et des
Pays Limitrophes, 6(1): 1-302. [In Russian].

Kiritshenko, A.N. 1918. Hemiptera-Heteroptera faunae Caucasicae, pars 1. Mémoires du
Musée du Caucase, (A)6: 1-177. [In Russian].

Kiritshenko, A.N. 1951. Heteroptera of the European part of U.S.S.R. (Hemiptera). Key and
bibliography. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 42: 1-423. [In Russian].

Kolenati, F.A. 1857. Meletemata entomologica. (Fasc. VI). Hemipterorum Heteropterorum
Caucasi. Harpagocorisiae, monographice dispositae. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des
Naturalistes de Moscou, 29(4): 419-502.

Kolossow, J. 1929. Was ist Aradus muricatus Hummel? (Hem.). Stettiner Entomologische
Zeitung, 90: 72-74.

Kormiley, N.A. & Froeschner, R.C. 1987. Flat bugs of the world: a synonymic list (Heteroptera:
Aradidae). Entomography, 5: 1-246.

Putshkoy, V.G. 1974. Berytidae, Pyrrhocoridae, Piesmatidae, Aradidae and Tingidae. Fauna
Ukrayiny, 21(4): 1-332. [In Ukrainian].

Reuter, O.M. 1884. Ad cognitionem Aradidarum palaearcticarum. Wiener Entomologische
Zeitung, 3: 129-137.

Sahlberg, J. 1878. Bidrag till Nordvestra Sibiriens Insektfauna, Hemiptera Heteroptera. Kong.
Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 16(4): 1-39.

Stichel, W. 1957. Jllustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. II. Europa (Hemiptera-
Heteroptera Europae), vol. 4, part 1. Pp. 2-32. Author, Berlin-Hermsdorf.

Usinger, R.L. & Matsuda, R. 1959. Classification of the Aradidae ( Hemiptera-Heteroptera).
410 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Case 2829

Notonecta obliqua Gallén in Thunberg, 1787 (Insecta, Heteroptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name

Antti Jansson

Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki,
Finland

John T. Polhemus

University of Colorado Museum, 3115 S. York, Englewood, Colorado 80110,
U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
backswimmer species Notonecta obliqua Gallén in Thunberg, 1787 by the suppression
of the unused senior subjective synonym Notonecta marginata Miller, 1776.

1. Miller (1776, p. 104) briefly described Notonecta marginata by stating ‘elytris
nigris: margine suturaque luteis’ (= elytra black, sutural margins yellow). The origin
of the material was not specified, but since the book dealt mainly with the fauna of
Denmark it can be assumed to have been Danish. The material no longer exists
(Horn & Kahle 1936, p. 184), and the identity of N. marginata has remained unclear
although another of Miiller’s names, N. glauca (1776, pp. 103-104), has generally
been used.

2. Gallen (1787, p. 61, footnote) described Notonecta obliqua (as N. obliqva) but
gave no type locality. The original material does not seem to exist any longer (see
Hungerford, 1933, p. 53).

3. References to Notonecta marginata Miller have been as follows: (1) Gmelin
(1790, p. 2119) repeated the original description and listed the distribution as
Denmark, also stating in a footnote that this taxon did not necessarily belong to the
genus Notonecta. (2) Turton (1802, p. 606) translated Gmelin’s (1790) text into
English as follows: “Upper-wings black, the edge and suture yellow’, thereby
considerably changing the original description and omitting the footnote. (3) Reuter
(1888, p. 282) listed the species as a possible synonym of Cymatia coleoptrata
(Fabricius, [1777], p. 298), a corixid which has yellowish longitudinal stripes on the
clavus and corium but not along the sutural margins. (4) Kirkaldy (1897, pp.
419-421) treated it as a variety of N. glauca Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 439) and as a synonym
of N. furcata Fabricius, 1794, p. 58. (5) Oshanin (1910, p. 975) likewise treated
marginata as a variety of glauca and a synonym of furcata, but two years later (1912,
p. 91) qualified the synonymy with a question mark. (6) Esaki (1928, p. 69) listed it
under N. obliqua obliqua as glauca var. marginata, referring to Kirkaldy (1897) and
stated (p. 75): ‘Kirkaldy identified this species, Notonecta furcata, auct., with
Notonecta marginata Miller’. Esaki then repeated Miiller’s short original description,
said that he did not agree with Kirkaldy (1897), incorrectly stated that the description
did not agree with N. obliqua, and continued by saying that ‘N. marginata is most

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 119

probably identical with one of the Corixa (sensu lat.) species, as the description
covers all the forms which are common in Denmark, and marginata was placed by
Miiller between Notonecta striata and N. minutissima, both of which are Corixids.’
(7) Hungerford (1933, p. 53) repeated and apparently accepted Esaki’s (1928)
discussion.

4. The descriptions favour Kirkaldy’s (1897) view that N. marginata Miller is
conspecific with N. furcata Fabricius, which in turn is a synonym of N. obliqua.
Although the hemelytral suture of many corixid species is a narrow yellowish line, in
the whole of Europe there is no species of CORIXIDAE with black hemelytra. On the
other hand, in Notonecta obliqua (NOTONECTIDAE) the hemelytra are black, and on
both sides of the suturae there are yellow stripes exactly as stated by Miiller (1776)
for his N. marginata, which thus has priority over N. obliqua. However, resurrecting
this long-unused name would cause considerable confusion since N. obliqua is well
known in the recent literature (for example, Bernhard, 1985, p. 17; Nieser, 1978,
p. 283; Savage, 1989, 15 entries; a further 11 references by 15 authors over the last
45 years are held by the Commission Secretariat).

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name marginata Miller, 1776,
as published in the binomen Notonecta marginata, 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 obliqua
Gallen in Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Notonecta obliqua;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name marginata Miller, 1776, as published in the binomen
Notonecta marginata and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Bernhardt, K.-G. 1985. Das Vorkommen, die Verbreitung, die Standortanspriiche und
Gefahrdung der Vertreter der Div. Hydrocoriomorpha und Amphibicoriomorpha Stichel
1955 (Heteroptera) in der Westfalischen Bucht und angrenzenden Gebieten. Abhandlun-
gen aus dem Westfalischen Museum fiir Naturkunde, 47: 1-30.

Esaki, T. 1928. European species of Notonecta. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)2:
65-76.

Fabricius, J.C. [1777]. Genera insectorum ... xvi, 310 pp. Bartschii, Chilonii.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologica systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 4. vi, 434 pp. Hafniae.

Gallén, O. 1787. Donation Thunbergianae 1785, continuat. III. Pp. 59-68 in: Thunberg, C.P.,
Museum Naturalium Academiae Upsaliensis. Upsaliae.

Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, (Ed. 13). Vol. 1, pp. 1517-2224. Lipsiae.

Horn, W. & Kahle, I. 1936. Uber entomologische Sammlungen. Entomologische Beihefte, 3:
161-296.

Hungerford, H.B. 1933. The genus Notonecta of the world. Bulletin of the University of Kansas,
34: 1-195.

Kirkaldy, G.W. 1897. Revision of the Notonectidae. I. Introduction, and systematic revision of
the genus Notonecta. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1897: 393-426.

Miller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige-
narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. 274 pp. Hallageriis,
Havniae.

Nieser, N. 1978. Heteroptera. Pp. 280-285 in Illies, J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea, Ed. 2.
Fischer, Stuttgart.

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Oshanin, B. 1910. Verzeichnis der palaearktischen Hemipteren mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung
ihrer Verteilung im russischen Reiche, vol. 1 (Heteroptera), part 3. Pp. 587-1087.
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, St Petersburg.

Oshanin, B. 1912. Katalog der paldarktischen Hemipteren (Heteroptera, Homoptera-
Auchenorhyncha und Psylloideae). 187 pp. Friedlander, Berlin.

Reuter, O.M. 1888. Revisio synonymica Heteropterorum Palaearcticorum quae descripserunt
auctores vetustiores (Linnaeus 1758 — Latreille 1806) I. Acta Societatis Scientiarum
Fennicae, 15: 241-313.

Savage, A.A. 1989. Adults of the British aquatic Hemiptera Heteroptera: a key with ecological
notes. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication no. 50. 173 pp. Freshwater
Biological Association.

Turton, W. 1802. A general system of nature through the three grand kingdoms of animals,
vegetables, and minerals ..., vol. 2. 717 pp. Lackington, Allen & Co., London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 121

Case 2830

Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara
(Pseudovermicorixa) nigrolineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Antti Jansson

Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki,
Finland

John T. Polhemus

University of Colorado Museum, 3115 S. York, Englewood, Colorado 80110,
U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
water-boatman species Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 by the suppression of the
unused senior subjective synonyms Notonecta minutior Sulzer, 1776 and N. minuta
Gmelin, 1790.

1. Notonecta minutior Sulzer, 1776 (p.. 91, pl. 10, fig. 1) was described from
material collected in Switzerland; the original material is lost (Horn & Kahle, 1936,
p. 273). Sulzer’s comparison to N. minutissima Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 439) was
misleading as he said that N. minutior was smaller, but the drawing in plate 10 shows
its length to be about 6 mm which is more than twice as much as in Linnaeus’s
species. In the description of N. minutior the color of the pronotum and the hemelytra
(green, with several brown transverse lines and strands) showed that the species
belongs to the CORIXIDAE. The only species of matching size with transverse stripes
on the hemelytra and occurring commonly in Switzerland is Corisa nigrolineata
Fieber, 1848 (p. 527), currently known as Sigara (Pseudovermicorixa) nigrolineata
nigrolineata (Fieber).

2. Subsequent references to N. minutior are: (1) Goeze (1778, p. 169) and (2)
Roemer (1789, pp. 14 & 78) who both listed the species but did not add any useful
characteristics for identification. (3) Gmelin (1790, p. 2119) who made an unjustified
emendation by calling the species Notonecta minuta; he repeated the short description
and stated that it did not necessarily belong to the genus Notonecta (note concerning
species number 6-12 under N. marginata); Gallén (1787, p. 61) had already used the
name Notonecta minuta but without author or description, thereby making N. minuta
Gallen, 1787 a nomen nudum. (4) Schrank (1801, p. 60) placed the species in the
genus Sigara, and stated that it occurred with S. striata and was less than half its size.
(5) Turton (1802, p. 605), in a translation of Gmelin (1790), gave the characteristics
of Notonecta minuta in English and gave its distribution as Europe, but did not
translate the note about possible incorrect generic placement. (6) Gistel (1856, p. 256)
listed Sigara minutior Sulzer from European standing waters. (7) Reuter (1888,
p. 283) indicated that the taxon might be a species of Corisa.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

3. Notonecta minutior Sulzer, 1776 and Notonecta minuta Gmelin, 1790 have
priority over Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848. However, to resurrect these long-
unused senior synonyms would cause considerable confusion because Sigara nigro-
lineata (Fieber) is well known in the recent literature (for example, Bosmans, 1982,
p. 49; Bernhard, 1985, p. 12; Savage, 1989, 11 entries; a further 14 references by
19 authors over the last 39 years are held by the Commission Secretariat).

4. 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) minutior Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Notonecta minutior;
(b) minuta Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Notonecta minuta;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nigrolineata
Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa nigrolineata;

(3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) minutior Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Notonecta minutior and
as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) minuta Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Notonecta minuta and as
suppressed in (1)(b) above.

Note: Notonecta minuta Hungerford, 1926 (p. 14) is a junior primary homonym of
Notonecta minuta Gmelin, 1790 (p. 2119). This case will be treated elsewhere by J. T.
Polhemus.

References

Bernhardt, K.-G. 1985. Das Vorkommen, die Verbreitung, die Standortanspriiche und
Gefahrdung der Vertreter der Div. Hydrocoriomorpha und Amphibicoriomorpha Stichel
1955 (Heteroptera) in der Westfalischen Bucht und angrenzenden Gebieten. Abhandlun-
gen aus dem Westfalischen Museum fiir Naturkunde, 47: 1-30.

Bosmans, R. 1982. Distribution and ecology of Belgian Corixidae (Hemiptera). Mededelingen
van de Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie,
44: 21-60.

Fieber, F.X. 1848. Synopsis aller bisher in Europa entdeckten Arten der Gattung Corisa.
Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 21: 505-593.

Gallén, O. 1787. Donation Thunbergianae 1785, continuat. III. Pp. 59-68 in: Thunberg, C.P.,
Museum Naturalium Academiae Upsaliensis. Upsaliae .

Gistel, J. 1856. Die Mysterien der europdischen Insectenwelt. 532 pp. Dannheimer, Kempten.

Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, (Ed. 13). Vol. 1, pp. 1517-2224. Lipsiae. _

Goeze, J.A.E. 1778. Entomologische Beytrdége zu des Ritter Linné zwélften Ausgabe des
Natursystems, vol. 2. Ixxii, 352 pp. Weidmanns, Erben und Reich, Leipzig.

Horn, W. & Kahle, I. 1936. Uber entomologische Sammlungen, part 2. Entomologische
Beihefte, 3: 161-296.

Hungerford, H.B. 1926. Some Notonecta from South America. Psyche, 33: 11-15.

Reuter, O.M. 1888. Revisio synonymica heteropterorum palaearcticorum quae descripserunt
auctores vetustiores (Linnaeus 1758 — Latreille 1806). I. Acta Societatis Scientiarum
Fennicae, 15: 241-313.

Roemer, J.J. 1789. Genera Insectorum Linnaei et Fabricii iconibus illustrata. 86 pp., 37 col. pls.
Henric Steiner, Vitoduri Helvetorum.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 123

Savage, A.A. 1989. Adults of the British aquatic Hemiptera Heteroptera: a key with ecological
notes. Freshwater Biological Association Scientific Publication no. 50. 173 pp. Freshwater
Biological Association.

Schrank, F. von P. 1801. Fauna Boica, vol. 2, part 1. vili, 374 pp. Krill, Ingolstadt.

Sulzer, J.H. 1776. Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten, part 2. 72 pp., 32 col. pls. Steiner,
Winterthur.

Turton, W. 1802. A general system of nature through the three grand kingdoms of animals,
vegetables, and minerals ..., vol. 2. 717 pp. Lackington, Allen & Co., London.

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Case 2831

Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 (currently Sigara (Tropocorixa)
sexlineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific
name

Antti Jansson

Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki,
Finland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
water-boatman species Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882, which is threatened by the
unused senior subjective synonym Corisa confluens Fieber, 1851.

1. In a preprint bearing the date 1851 Fieber (p. 18) established the name Corisa
confluens based on one male specimen collected from ‘Egyptus’ and deposited in the
Halle Museum; the specimen no longer exists. In the Halle Museum there is a series
of three males and one female under the name ‘Cymantia’ confluens, but they belong
to Corixa affinis Leach, 1817. That these specimens were added to the collection after
Fieber’s time is suggested by the facts that Fieber described only male characters, that
C. affinis is much larger than C. confluens, and that the number of transverse lines on
the pronotum of C. confluens is seven but in C. affinis it is 12 to 14.

2. Reuter (1882, p. 42) described the species Corisa sexlineata. Jaczewski (1949, p.
104) later redescribed this species from the male holotype, which was lost while on
loan to him (see Jansson, 1987, p. 6). Fieber’s description of Corisa confluens matches
Reuter’s species, which is now known as Sigara (Tropocorixa) sexlineata. The
synonymy of C. confluens Fieber and C. sexlineata Reuter is supported by the late
19th century collections of Puton and Marmottan, both preserved in the Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. Puton’s collection includes two males and one
female of S. sexlineata (+ two females of Sigara Jateralis) and Marmottan’s one male
of S. sexlineata (+ one female of Sigara (Tropocorixa) sp.), in each case under the
name Corixa confluens.

3. The name Sigara (Tropocorixa) sexlineata Reuter has been extensively used in
recent literature (for example, Jaczewski, 1949, p. 103; Hynes, 1955, p. 47; Linna-
vuori, 1981, p. 5; a further 13 references by 8 authors over the last 45 years are held
by the Commission Secretariat).

4. Subsequent references to Fieber’s species are: (1) Reuter (1891, p. 138) reported _
“Corixa confluens Fieb. verisimiliter. Un 3” from “Egypte: Aioun Mousa (fontaines
de Moise)’. (2) Puton (1892, p. 33) listed “Corixa confluens Fieb. Le Caire, Suez’.
(3) Horvath (1901, p. 480) listed ‘Corixa confluens FIEB. — Akbés. Cette espeéce
n’était connue que d’Egypte’ [this species not known outside Egypt]. The title of
Horvath’s article gives the impression that the species listed would be from Asia
Minor, although Akbé is in Syria. (4) Oshanin (1910, p. 981) listed Corixa confluens
and two years later (1912, p. 91) Arctocorisa confluens (Fieb.) from Egypt and Asia
Minor, evidently on the basis of Horvath’s (1901) data. (5) Royer (1914, p. 135) listed

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 125

‘Corixa confluens Fieb. — Aion Mouga’ referring to Reuter (1891). The only cases of
using Fieber’s taxon within the last 50 years are Stichel (1955, p. 99) who listed the
species from Egypt referring to the original description (listing also S. sex/ineata on
p. 101), and Jordan (1953, p. 119) who mentioned that Sigara confluens (Fieber)
occurred in Egypt and Asia Minor. Jordan stated that he gave references only for the
main works cited; since he gave no reference for the statement about S. confluens it
is likely that he used information either from Horvath (1901) or Oshanin (1910,
1912). Since Jordan (1953) and Stichel (1955) listed only distributional data from
earlier sources, I do not consider these a violation of Art. 79c of the Code which
states that ‘... a prima facie case that stability is threatened will be made if an
assertion that the senior name has not been used as a valid name during the
immediately preceding fifty years is not contradicted ...’.

5. Corisa confluens Fieber, 1851 has priority over its synonym Corisa sexlineata
Reuter, 1888. However, to resurrect Fieber’s long-unused name would cause
considerable confusion because Sigara (Tropocorixa) sexlineata (Reuter) is well
known in the recent literature (see para. 3 above).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name confluens Fieber, 1851,
as published in the binomen Corisa confluens, 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 sex/ineata
Reuter, 1882, as published in the binomen Corisa sexlineata;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name confluens Fieber, 1851, as published in the binomen Corisa
confluens and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Fieber, F.X. 1851. Species generis Corisa. 48 pp., 2 pls. Calve, Pragae. (Preprint from (1852):
Abhandlungen der K6niglichen Béhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, (7)7: 213-260).

Horvath, G. 1901. Hémiptéres du voyage de M. Matinez Escalera dans | Asie-mineure.
Természetrajzi Fiizetek, 24: 469-485.

Hynes, H.B.N. 1955. Biological notes on some East African aquatic Heteroptera. Proceedings
of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (A)30: 43-54.

Jaczewski, T. 1949. Notes on Corixidae. XXIV-XXVIII. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 19:
103-113.

Jansson, A. 1987. Lists of the insect types in the Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki.
1. Heteroptera: Nepomorpha. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 48: \—9.

Jordan, K.H.C. 1953. Zoogeographische Betrachtungen Uber die aquatilen Rhynchoten
Afrikas. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 150: 112-124.

Linnavuori, R. 1981. Hemiptera of Nigeria, with remarks on some species of the adjacent
countries. 1. The aquatic and subaquatic families, Saldidae and Leptopodidae. Acta
Entomologica Fennica, 37: 1-39.

Lundblad, O. 1928. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Corixiden. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 49: 219-243.

Oshanin, B. 1910. Verzeichnis der palaearktischen Hemipteren mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung
threr Verteilung im russischen Reiche, vol. 1 (Heteroptera), part 3. Pp. 587-1087.
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, St Petersburg.

Oshanin, B. 1912. Katalog der paldarktischen Hemipteren (Heteroptera, Homoptera-
Auchenorhyncha und Psylloideae). 187 pp. Friedlander, Berlin.

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Puton, A. 1892. Hémiptéres nouveaux ou peu connus et notes diverses. Revue d’Entomologie,
11: 24-36.

Reuter, O.M. 1882. Ad cognitionem Heteropterorum Africae occidentalis. Ofversigt af Finska
Vetenskaps-Societetens Férhandlingar, 25: 1-43.

Reuter, O.M. 1891. Hétéroptéres de Suez. Revue d'Entomologie, 10: 137-142.

Royer, M. 1914. Hemiptéres du Sinai, de Petra et de la Palestine méridionale. Annales de la
Société Entomologique de France, 83: 131-135.

Stichel, W. 1955. Jllustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen. II. Europa (Hemiptera-
Heteroptera Europae), vol. 1. 168 pp. Berlin. ’

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 127

Case 2777

Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus;
Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

A.N. Nilsson

Department of Animal Ecology, University of Umed, S-901 87 Umea,
Sweden

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the
diving water beetle Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795. It is threatened by the unused
senior homonym Dytiscus biguttatus Gmelin, 1790, which may be a junior synonym
of D. nebulosus Forster, 1771.

1. Gmelin (1790, p. 1959) established the name Dytiscus biguttatus for an aquatic
beetle from ‘Europe’. The description given by Gmelin was cited from Zschach (1788,
p. 36, no. 796) who did not give any name to the species for which he gave a five line
description.

2. Olivier (1795, p. 26, pl. 4, fig. 36) used the same name Dytiscus biguttatus for a
different species of aquatic beetle from near Fréjus, France. Aubé ([1837], p. 166)
transferred this species to the genus Agabus Leach, 1817, where it remains classified
today.

3. The only reference to Dytiscus biguttatus Gmelin is by Zaitzev (1908, p. 121)
who attributed the name to Zschach and thought it was probably a junior synonym
of D. nebulosus Forster, 1771 (p. 56). Zaitzev (1908, p. 121) also noted that Dytiscus
biguttatus Olivier was a junior homonym and proposed the replacement name Agabus
olivieri. However, in his later works (e.g. 1953, p. 227), Zaitzev used A. biguttatus
(Olivier) as a valid name without mentioning his own replacement name.
Zimmermann (1920, p. 157) cited A. olivieri Zaitzev as a junior synonym of
A. biguttatus (Olivier).

4. The name Dytiscus biguttatus Gmelin has been overlooked or ignored by other
authors. The name D. biguttatus is attributed only to Olivier in the catalogues of
Schénherr (1808, p. 19), Gemminger & Harold (1868, p. 453), Van den Branden
(1885, p. 68) and Zimmermann (1920, p. 157) and in the monographs of Aubé (1838,
p- 341) and Sharp (1882, p. 499). All modern workers use the name A. biguttatus
Olivier (for example, Franciscolo, 1979, p. 546; Galewski, 1971, p. 78; Schaeflein &
Wewalka, 1982, p. 13; a further 12 references by 15 authors in the last 22 years are
held by the Commission Secretariat). To reject Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795
because of its homonymy with the unused D. biguttatus Gmelin, 1790 would create
instability in the literature and cause considerable confusion.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name biguttatus Gmelin, 1790, as

published in the binomen Dytiscus biguttatus, and all uses of the name Dytiscus

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

biguttatus prior to that by Olivier, 1795, 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 biguttatus
Olivier, 1795, as published in the binomen Dytiscus biguttatus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name biguttatus Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen
Dytiscus biguttatus and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Aubé, C. [1837]. Hydrocanthares. Pp. 65-224 in Dejean, P.F.M.A. (Ed.), Iconographie et
histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres d'Europe, vol. 5. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Aubé, C. 1838. Species général des Hydrocanthares et Gyriniens. Jn Dejean, P.F.M.A. (Ed.),
Species général des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, vol. 6. 804 pp.
Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Branden, C. Van den. 1885. Catalogue des Coléoptéres carnassiers aquatiques (Haliplidae,
Amphizoidae, Pelobiidae et Dytiscidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique,
29: 5-118.

Forster, J.R. 1771. Novae species Insectorum. 1. 100 pp. Davies, Londini.

Franciscolo, M.E. 1979. Fauna d'Italia, vol. 14 (Coleoptera. Haliplidae, Hygrobiidae, Gyrin-
idae, Dytiscidae). 804 pp. Calderini, Bologna.

Galewski, K. 1971. Keys for identification of Polish insects, part 19, issue 7 (Coleoptera.
Dytiscidae). 112 pp. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo, Warsaw. [In Polish].

Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de. 1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum, vol. 2. Pp. 425-752.
Monachii, Paris.

Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4 (Insecta). Pp.
1517-2224. Lipsiae.

Olivier, A.G. 1795. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 3, no. 40 (Coléopteres,
Dytique, Dytiscus). 39 pp. Lanneau, Paris.

Schaeflein, H. & Wewalka, G. 1982. Catalogus Faunae Austriae, part 15c¢ (Coleoptera.
Hygrobiidae, Haliplidae, Dytiscidae). 27 pp. Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften, Wien.

Schonherr, C.J. 1808. Synonymia insectorum, vol. 1, part 2. 424 pp., 1 pl. Marquard,
Stockholm.

Sharp, D. 1882. On aquatic carnivorous Coleoptera or Dytiscidae. Scientific Transactions of
the Royal Dublin Society, (2)2: 179-1003.

Zaitzey, F.A. 1908. Berichtigungen und Zusatze zu den Haliplidae, Dytiscidae und Gyrinidae
in den neuesten Katalogen der Coleopteren. Russkoe Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 7:
114-124.

Zaitzey, F.A. 1953. Coleoptera: Amphizoidae, Hygrobiidae, Haliplidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae.
Fauna SSSR, (n.s.)58: 1-376.

Zimmermann, A. 1920. Dytiscidae. Pp. 1-62 in: Coleopterorum Catalogus, part 71. 296 pp.
Junk, Berlin.

Zschach, J.J. 1788. Museum N.G. Leskeanum. Pars entomologica ad systema entomologiae Cl.
Fabricii. 136 pp., 3 pls. Milleriano, Lipsiae.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 129

Case 2869

HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed
conservation

Hobart M. Smith

Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.

David B. Wake

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley,
California 94720, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name HEMIDACTYLIINI
Hallowell, 1856 which has been used for nearly 30 years for a tribe of eight genera of
salamanders mainly from eastern North America but with a few species from central
United States and Canada. The name is threatened by MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte,
1850 which has been used only once (in 1984) and is based on the unused
junior objective synonym Mycetoglossus Bonaparte, [1839]. It is proposed that
MYCETOGLOSSINI be invalidated by the suppression of Mycetoglossus.

1. In 1850 Bonaparte established the family-group name MYCETOGLOSSINI (as
“Mycetoglossina’) based upon his own nominal genus Mycetoglossus Bonaparte,
[1839] (Article 11f(i) of the Code), which he described and proposed as an
unnecessary and invalid replacement for Pseudotriton Tschudi, 1838 (pp. 94-95; the
name was spelt ‘Pseudo-Triton’ by Bonaparte). The dates of publication
({1832]-{1841]) of the parts of Bonaparte’s earlier work were set out by Salvadori
(1888). Neither of Bonaparte’s publications was paginated. The family-group name
“Mycetoglossina’ was included in the PLETHODONTIDAE and was published as no. 27
in the table “Classis [V. Amphibia’. The generic name Mycetoglossus appeared as no.
13 of the ‘generi Salamandrini’, an article included within the chapter on Euproctus
platycephalus. The name Mycetoglossus has remained unused whilst its senior
objective synonym Pseudotriton has continued to be recognized as valid up to the
present time.

2. The name HEMIDACTYLUDAE (published as “‘Hemidactylidae’; see para. 6 below)
was proposed by Hallowell (1856, p. 11) based on Hemidactylium Tschudi, 1838
(p. 94), a genus which has continued to be recognized as valid. The single species
H. scutatum was included in the genus and the specific name is available (Article
12b(6)) from Tschudi’s work. Tschudi’s publication was included in the Mémoires de
la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchdtel in 1840 but was issued as a separate
in 1838. Mertens (1967. p. v) accepted Stejneger’s (1907, p. 6) date of October 1838
for the first publication of Tschudi’s work. Tschudi (pp. 59, 94) referred to a specimen
of scutatum in the Leiden museum but not to publication of the name in Siebold’s
Fauna Japonica, as he did with other species; he noted (p. 94) “Hemidactylium

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

scutatum Tsch. Syn. Salamandra scutata Schlegel. Mus. Lugd.’. However, Salaman-
dra scutata, collected from Nashville in Tennessee, was described by Temminck &
Schlegel (p. 119) in the Fauna Japonica, the amphibian part of which has been dated
as either January 1838 (Sherborn & Jentink, 1895, p. 150), or as ‘1838 ... between
May and October, probably ... September’ (Steyneger, 1907, p. 543), or as ‘after May
1838’ (Hoogmoed, 1978, p. 92). Authorship of Temminck & Schlegel, [1838] for
scutata is adopted here (see also Frost, 1985, pp. 589, 590). Sherborn (1930, p. 5826)
credited the specific name to Tschudi (1838). Schlegel (1844, p. 123, pl. 40, figs. 4-6)
figured the species and referred to the earlier Temminck & Schlegel publication. The
holotype specimen of scutatum, on which the description in both Tschudi’s and
Temminck & Schlegel’s publications was based, is no. RMNH 2301 in the Leiden
museum (see Hoogmoed, 1978, pp. 103-104).

3. Hallowell reused his family-group name in 1858 (p. 339). Subsequently neither
Bonaparte’s nor Hallowell’s family-group names was adopted as valid at any level
until 1966, when Wake, in his monographic review of the classification of the
PLETHODONTIDAE, revived Hallowell’s name for a tribe, the HEMIDACTYLINI, to
include eight genera, among them both Hemidactylium and Pseudotriton.

4. Invoking the Principle of Priority, Dubois (1984, pp. 113-114) revived
Bonaparte’s name, as MYCETOGLOSSINI, in place of Hallowell’s HEMIDACTYLINI,
including both Hemidactylium and Pseudotriton in the tribe. However, the Code
(Article 23b) makes it clear that “The Principle of Priority is to be used to promote
stability and is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its
accustomed meaning through the introduction of an unused name that is its senior
synonym’. Neither the senior family-group name MYCETOGLOSSINI nor the name of its
type genus Mycetoglossus has been used since their proposal (except by Bonaparte,
1852, p. 478, as ‘Mycetoglossina’). On the contrary, with the exception of Dubois
(1984), the family-group name HEMIDACTYLIDAE (or its nominotypical subordinates)
has been used consistently, mostly after 1966, to the present time in the classification
of the PLETHODONTIDAE. A non-exhaustive sample of authors includes Wake (1966, p.
50), Rabb (1966, p. 1), Brandon (1967, p. 1; 1970), Bruce (1971, p. 234), Lombard
(1977, p. 49), Sweet (1977, p. 2; 1978, p. 105), Potter & Sweet (1981, p. 64), Wake,
Roth & Wake (1983, p. 208), Frost (1985, pp. 587-591), Duellman & Trueb (1986, p.
507), Lombard & Wake (1986, p. 533), Roth (1987), Sever (1987, p. 105) and Roth,
Nishikawa, Dicke & Wake (1988). The type genus of the family-group, Hemidacty-
lium Tschudi, 1838, has a long history as a valid genus up to the present time, and has
been cited in hundreds of publications in numerous contexts, both scientific and
popular. Its single species, H. scutatum (Temminck & Schlegel, [1838]), is on the list
of protected species in many of the states in which it occurs. Resurrection of

Bonaparte’s family-group name MYCETOGLOSSINI would be uselessly disruptive of ~

nomenclatural stability.

5. Fitzinger (1843, p. 19) proposed a family-group name “Hemidactyli’ based on
the gecko (lizard) genus Hemidactylus. The stem of the generic name is Hemidactyl-
and the family name should be corrected (Article 35d(i)) to give HEMIDACTYLIDAE.
The stem of Hallowell’s salamander generic name Hemidactylium is Hemidactyli-,
yielding the spelling HEMIDACTYLUDAE at the family level. Article 55 makes it clear
that these lizard and salamander family-group names are not homonyms, despite
their similarity. In any event, the lizard family-group name has not been used since

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 131

it was proposed. With the exception of Frost (1985), who used the spelling
‘Hemidactylini’, authors have used the correct spelling of the salamander family-
group name.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Mycetoglossus
Bonaparte, [1839] for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those
of the Principle of Homonymy, thereby invalidating the family-group name
MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1850;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Hemidactylium Tschudi, 1838 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy
Salamandra scutata Temminck & Schlegel, [1838];

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name scutata
Temminck & Schlegel, [1838], as published in the binomen Salamandra scutata
(specific name of the type species of Hemidactylium Tschudi, 1838);

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
HEMIDACTYLINI Hallowell, 1856 (type genus Hemidactylium Tschudi, 1838);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Mycetoglossus Bonaparte, 1839 (a junior objective synonym
of Pseudotriton Tschudi, 1838 and suppressed in (1) above);

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1850 (invalid because the name
of the type genus has been suppressed in (1) above).

References

Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. [1839]. Iconografia della fauna Italica per le quattro classi degli animali
vertebrati, vol. 2 (Amfibi), fasc. 26. Salviucci, Roma.

Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1850. Herpetologiae et Amphibiologiae. Classis IV. Amphibia in:
Conspectus systematum. 4 tables. Brill, Lugduni Batavorum.

Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1852. Conspectus systematum herpetologiae et amphibiologiae. Nuovi
Annali delle Scienze Naturali, (3)5: 477-480.

Brandon, R.A. 1967. Haideotriton and H. wallacei. Catalogue of American Amphibians and
Reptiles, 39: \-2.

Bruce, R.C. 1971. Life cycle and population structure of the salamander Stereochilus
marginatus in North Carolina. Copeia, 1971: 234-246.

Dubois, A. 1984. Miscellanea nomenclatorica batrachologica (V). A/ytes, 3(3): 111-116.

Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. xvii, 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New
York.

Fitzinger, L.J. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus (Amblyglossae). 106, vi pp.
Braumiller & Seidel, Vindobonae.

Frost, D.R. (Ed.). 1985. Amphibian species of the world. v, 732 pp. Allen Press & Association
of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.

Hallowell, E. 1856. Description of several species of Urodela, with remarks on the geographical
distribution of the caducibranchiate division of these animals and their classification.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8: 6-11.

Hallowell, E. 1858. On the caducibranchiate urodele batrachians. Journal of the Academy of
Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, (2)3(4): 337-366.

Hoogmoed, M.S. 1978. An annotated review of the salamander types described in the ‘Fauna
Japonica’. Zoologische Mededelingen, 53(9): 91-105.

Lombard, R.E. 1977. Comparative morphology of the inner ear in salamanders (Caudata:
Amphibia). Contributions to Vertebrate Evolution, 2: 1-140.

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Lombard, R.E. & Wake, D.B. 1986. Tongue evolution in the lungless salamanders, family
Plethodontidae. IV. Phylogeny of plethodontid salamanders and the evolution of feeding
dynamics. Systematic Zoology, 35(4): 532-551.

Mertens, R. 1967. Tschudi’s ‘Classification der Batrachier’. Fascimile reprint, with an intro-
duction by Robert Mertens. Fascimile Reprints, no. 17. vi, 100 pp., 6 pls. Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, U.S.A.

Potter, F.E., Jr. & Sweet, S.S. 1981. Generic boundaries in Texas cave salamanders, and a
redescription of Typhlomolge robusta (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). Copeia, 1981: 64—75.

Rabb, G.B. 1966. Stereochilus and S. marginatus. Catalogue of American Amphibians and
Reptiles, 25: 1-2.

Roth, G. 1987. Visual behavior in salamanders. xi, 301 pp. Springer, New York.

Roth, G., Nishikawa, K., Dicke, U. & Wake, D.B. 1988. Topography and cytoarchitecture of
the motor nuclei in the brainstem of salamanders. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 278:
181-194.

Salvadori, T. 1888. Le date della pubblicazione della ‘Iconografia della Fauna Italica’ del
Bonaparte ed Indice delle specie illustrate in detta opera. Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia
ed Anatomia Comparata della R. Universita di Torino, 3(48): 1-25.

Schlegel, H. 1844. Abbildungen neuer oder unvollstandig bekannter Amphibien ... , part 3. Pp.
81-141 (text), pls. 21-50 (atlas). Diisseldorf.

Sever, D.M. 1987. Hemidactylium scutatum and the phylogeny of cloacal anatomy in female
salamanders. Herpetologica, 43(1): 105-116.

Sherborn, C.D. 1930. Index Animalium ... 1801-1850, part 23 (S littera-serratus). Pp.
5703-5910. British Museum, London.

Sherborn, C.D. & Jentink, F.A. 1895. On the dates of the parts of Siebold’s ‘Fauna Japonica’
and Giebel’s ‘Allgemeine Zoologie’ (first edition). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London, 1895: 149-150.

Stejneger, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bulletin of the United States
National Museum, 58: 1-577.

Sweet, S.S. 1977. Eurycea tridentifera. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, 199:
1-2.

Sweet, S.S. 1978. On the status of Eurycea pterophila (Amphibia: Plethodontidae). Herpeto-
logica, 34(1): 101-108.

Temminck, C.J. & Schlegel, H. [1838]. Les batraciens. Pp. 105-140, 8 pls. in Siebold, P.F. de,
Fauna Japonica, sive descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japoniam ... annis 1823-1830
collegit. Reptilia Elaborantibus. Lugduni-Batavorum.

Tschudi, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Beriicksichtigung der fossilen Thiere
dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de
Neuchatel, 2: 1-102. (Issued in the serial in 1840 but published as a separate in 1838).

Wake, D.B. 1966. Comparative osteology and evolution of the lungless salamanders, family
Plethodontidae. Memoirs of the Southern California Academy of Sciences, 4: 1-111.

Wake, D.B., Roth, G. & Wake, M.H. 1983. Tongue evolution in lungless salamanders, family
Plethodontidae. III. Patterns of peripheral innervation. Journal of Morphology, 178(3):
207-224.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 133

Case 2882

Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed
designation of L. ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the type species

A.W. Gentry

clo Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

E.P.J. Heizmann

Staatliches Museum ftir Naturkunde in Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 7000
Stuttgart 1, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the established understanding
of the name Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 which has been used for nearly 90 years for a
genus of Eurasian Miocene cervoids. The present type designation is of a species of
uncertain identity which renders Lagomeryx either a senior or a junior subjective
synonym. It is proposed that Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 be designated the
type species, thereby also allowing the stable usage of generic names of other Miocene
cervoids to be maintained.

1. By the end of the nineteenth century numbers of cervoid (deer-like) artiodactyls
of Miocene age had come to light in the European fossil record. Schlosser (1887,
p. 295) recorded that material of ‘Palaeomeryx pygmaeus’ (as used in Meyer’s
manuscript notes and therefore not an available name) included at least three species,
two of them represented at Reisensburg, near Giinzburg, Germany, which is now
regarded as a lower Miocene locality. Cervoid antlers from there had been illustrated
but not named by Riitimeyer (1880, pl. 1, figs. 2-7).

2. The specific name of Dicroceros [sic; recte Dicrocerus] minimus Toula, 1884
(p. 395) was founded for some cervoid teeth from Goriach, Austria. Schlosser (1887,
p. 296) considered that the larger of the two Reisensburg ‘Palaeomeryx pygmaeus’
species could be conspecific with Toula’s species.

3. Hofmann (1893, p. 61) replaced Dicrocerus minimus Toula by the name
Palaeomeryx meyeri. This was because, if Toula’s species was assignable to Palae-
omeryx (para. 2 above), it would be a secondary homonym of ‘P. minimus’, a name
also given in Meyer’s manuscript notes and a different species from that at Gériach.
Hofmann rejected “Palaeomeryx pygmaeus’ because this name, as used by Meyer, was
composite. These actions did not take account of the unavailability of Meyer’s
names. Hofmann (1893, pl. 12, figs. 10-15, pl. 13, figs. 1-4, 6) illustrated dental pieces
and a distal metacarpal of P. meyeri, all housed in the Joanneum, Graz. Schlosser
(1916, p. 15, footnote) subsequently asserted that the metacarpal belonged to a
different species, Palaeomeryx furcatus Hensel, 1859, later to be placed in Euprox
Stehlin, 1928, although Thenius (1948, p. 221) preferred Hofmann’s original attri-
bution. At that time no antlers had been attributed to the species described from
Goriach.

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

4. Roger (1904, p. 18) founded the genus Lagomeryx for species of small cervoids
with distinctive clusters of terminal prongs on their antlers. He did not designate
a type species. He included Palaeomeryx meyeri in the genus and placed the
Reisensburg antlers (see para. 1) in this species. He also referred two other species to
Lagomeryx: Palaeomeryx parvulus Roger (1898, p. 38) and P. pumilio Roger (1898,
p. 39). For P. parvulus he had originally illustrated a dentition (Roger, 1898, pl. 2, fig.
7) and an antler (pl. 2, fig. 4), but he later (Roger, 1904, p.18) reassigned the antler
to P. pumilio. Fahlbusch (1977, p. 232) reported that the antler had been destroyed
in the Second World War, and he also regarded it as of uncertain species identity
within Lagomeryx. The only described specimens of L. pumilio were a figured lower
third molar (Roger, 1898, pl. 2, fig. 5), another lower third molar and some limb bone
fragments. The syntypical material of all three originally included species of
Lagomeryx thus failed to include any specifically attributable antlers.

5. Thenius (1948, p. 221; 1950, p. 244, figs. 7-9) recorded that some Goriach upper
teeth (numbered 9572 in the Joanneum, Graz) assigned to L. meyeri were found in
association with an antler resembling those of Euprox sp.; the species could not
therefore include antlers like those at Reisensburg (para. 4 above). Thenius noted
that Meyer’s manuscript name ‘“Palaeomeryx minimus’ could not be a homonym of
Dicrocerus minimus Toula and that the latter therefore had priority over P. meyeri
Hofmann. Because of the morphology of the antler he placed D. minimus in Euprox.
Thenius (1948, p. 221) founded L. ruetimeyeri for Lagomeryx fossils from sites other
than Goriach which had hitherto been placed in L. meyeri and designated as holotype
the Reisensburg left antler illustrated by Riitimeyer (1880, pl. 1, figs. 2, 3). This antler
has an almost complete crown and is housed in the Bayerische Staatssammlungen fir
Paldontologie und historische Geologie, Munich. At one time Ginsburg (1971, p.
1001) thought that the Goriach antler and teeth studied by Thenius could belong to
Heteroprox larteti (Filhol, 1891), but now (personal communication, February 1993)
he regards the antler as belonging to a female Dicrocerus elegans Lartet, 1851, a
species which has also been identified at the site.

6. In spite of the doubtful identity of the nominal taxon Palaeomeryx meyeri
Hofmann, 1893, Vislobokova (1983, p. 24) designated it as the type species of
Lagomeryx. If the interpretation of Palaeomeryx meyeri by Thenius (1948, 1950) or
by Ginsburg (1971) is correct, recognition of this type designation would render
Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 a senior subjective synonym of either Euprox or of
Heteroprox, both founded by Stehlin (1928, p. 255). If Ginsburg’s current interpre-
tation should be correct, Lagomeryx would be a junior subjective synonym of
Dicrocerus Lartet, 1851. Any of these outcomes would introduce considerable
confusion into the nomenclature of Miocene cervoids. All four names, Lagomeryx,
Heteroprox, Euprox and Dicrocerus, are currently in use. Their status was discussed.
by Simpson (1945, pp. 266-268). Lagomeryx, based on the Reisensburg antler, is
regarded as the most distinctive of the genera. The name has consistently been used
to refer to cervoid species having antlers like those of L. ruetimeyeri and unlike those
of Heteroprox, Euprox or Dicrocerus (see, for example, Schlosser, 1916; Roman &
Viret, 1934; Stehlin, 1937; Pilgrim, 1941; Crusafont Pairo, 1952; Rinnert, 1956; Viret,
1961; Young, 1964 and Chow & Shih, 1978).

7. None of the three species originally included in Lagomeryx is suitable as the
type species: Palaeomeryx meyeri is of uncertain identity (paras. 5 and 6 above),

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 135

whilst P. parvulus and P. pumilio were not characterised by specifically identifiable
antlers but based on teeth (para. 4), which are less diagnostic. To maintain the
current concept and nomenclature of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 we propose that
Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 be designated the type species. The latter is the
best choice for type species because its holotype is an antler which is complete almost
to the tip, and which was studied by Roger and placed by him in the first species
assigned to the genus. Moreover, it is the first illustrated antler ascribed to
Lagomeryx. This designation will also safeguard the usage of names for other
nominal genera of Miocene cervoids.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 and to designate Lagomeryx
ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lagomeryx
Roger, 1904 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above
Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ruetimeyeri
Thenius, 1948, as published in the binomen Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri (specific
name of the type species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904).

Acknowledgement
We thank L. Ginsburg for advice in the completion of this application.

References

Chow, B. & Shih, M. 1978. A skull of Lagomeryx from the middle Miocene of Linchu,
Shantung. Vertebrata Palasiatica, 16: 111-122.

Crusafont Pairo, M. 1952. Los jirafidos fosiles de Espaiia. Memorias y Comunicaciones del
Instituto Geologico, 8: 1-239.

Fahlbusch, V. 1977. Die obermiozadne Fossil-Lagerstatte Sandelzhausen 11. Ein neues
Zwerghirsch-Geweih: Lagomeryx pumilio? Mitteilungen Bayerischen Staatssammlungen
fiir Paldontologie und historische Geologie, 17: 227-233.

Filhol, H. 1891. Etudes sur les mammiferes fossiles de Sansan. Annales des Sciences
Géologiques, 21: 1-319. [Also issued as Bibliotheque de I'’Ecole des Hautes Etudes. Section
des Sciences Naturelles, 37: 1-319].

Ginsburg, L. 1971. Un ruminant nouveau des faluns Miocénes de la Touraine et de l’Anjou.
Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (2)42(5): 996-1002.

Hensel, R. 1859. Ueber einen fossilen Muntjac aus Schlesien. Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Geologischen Gesellschaft, 11: 251-279.

Hofmann, A. 1893. Die Fauna von Goriach. Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-K6niglichen Geolo-
gischen Reichsanstalt, 15(6): 1-87.

Lartet, E. 1851. Notice sur la colline de Sansan. L’Annuaire du Département du Gers, 1851:
3-45.

Pilgrim, G.E. 1941. The dispersal of the Artiodactyla. Biological Reviews, 16: 134-163.

Rinnert, P. 1956. Die Huftiere aus dem Braunkohlenmiozan der Oberpfalz. Palaeontographica,
(A)107: 1-65.

Roger, O. 1898. Wirbelthierreste aus dem Dinotheriensande der bayerisch-schwabischen
Hochebene. Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins fiir Schwaben und Neuburg (a.V.)
Augsburg, 33: 1-46.

Roger, O. 1904. Wirbelthierreste aus dem Obermiocan der bayerisch-schwabischen Hoche-
bene. Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins fiir Schwaben und Neuburg (a.V.)
Augsburg, 36: 3-22.

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Roman, F. & Viret, J. 1934. La faune de mammiféres du Burdigalien de La Romieu (Gers).
Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, (NS)9(21): 1-67.

Riitimeyer, L. 1880. Beitrage zu einer natiirlichen Geschichte der Hirsche. Abhandlungen der
Schweizerischen Paldontologischen Gesellschaft, 7: 1-8 (Einleitung), pls. 1-2, captions.

Schlosser, M. 1887. Palaontologische Notizen. Morphologisches Jahrbuch, 12: 287-298.

Schlosser, M. 1916. Neue Funde fossiler Saugetiere in der Eichstatter Gegend. Abhandlungen
der K6niglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Mathematisch-physikalische
Klasse, 28(6): 1-78.

Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350.

Stehlin, H.G. 1928. Bemerkungen tiber die Hirsche von Steinheim am Aalbuch. Eclogae
Geologicae Helvetiae, 21: 245—S6.

Stehlin, H.G. 1937. Bemerkungen tiber die miocaenen Hirschgenera Stephanocemas und
Lagomeryx. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 48: 193-214.
Thenius, E. 1948. Uber ein stammesgeschichtlich interessantes Stadium aus der Geschichte der
Hirsche. Anzeiger der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-

Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Wien, 14: 219-224.

Thenius, E. 1950. Die tertidren Lagomeryciden und Cerviden der Steiermark. Sitzungsberichte
der Oesterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche
Klasse. Wien, (1)159: 219-254.

Toula, F. 1884. Ueber einige Saugethierreste von Goriach bei Turnau (Bruck a.M. Nord) in
Steiermark. Jahrbuch der kaiserlich-kéniglichen geologischen Reichsanstalt, 34: 385-402.

Viret, J. 1961. Artiodactyla. Pp. 887-1084 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 6
(Mammiféres. Evolution, 1). Masson, Paris.

Vislobokova, I.A. 1983. The fossil deer of Mongolia. Trudy Sovmestnaya Sovetsko-
Mongol’skaya Paleontologicheskaya Ekspeditsiya, 23: 5—74. [In Russian].

Young, C.C. 1964. On a new Lagomeryx from Lantian, Shensi. Vertebrata Palasiatica, 8:
329-340.

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 137

Case 2883

Proceryulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed
designation of Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the type species

A.W. Gentry

clo Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

G. Rossner

Universitdts-Institut fiir Paldontologie und historische Geologie, Richard-
Wagner-Strasse 10/11, 8000 Miinchen 2, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current understanding of
the name Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 which is in established usage for a genus of
Miocene cervoids. It is probable that Gaudry misidentified the single species that he
included in the genus. It is proposed that Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 be
designated the type species, thereby also maintaining the usage of other names of
distinct Miocene cervoid genera.

1. The specific name of Antilope dichotoma was made available by Gervais (1849,
p. 549), who listed it and referred in a footnote to the distally bifurcated antler. Such
an antler was subsequently described (vol. 1, p. 78; vol. 2, caption to pl. 23) and
illustrated (vol. 3, pl. 23, figs. 4, 4a) by Gervais ([1850]). The latter work was dated
1848-1852 but surveys of currently published literature (Wagner, 1849, p. 3; 1850,
p. 9; 1851, p. 9) have clarified the year of publication of its successive parts. The name
dichotoma has been used consistently since publication for a species of Miocene
cervoid or cervid with antlers bifurcated at the tip.

2. The genus Procervulus was founded by Gaudry (1877a, p. 88; 1877b, p. 555) for
Miocene cervoids or cervids possessing distally forked antlers but no obvious
coronet or burr to indicate seasonal shedding. Gaudry’s publication as a book was
dated 1878 on the title page. However, the “depdt legal’ of the work was made in
November 1877 and an entry in the Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (3)6:
151 recorded that Gaudry presented a copy of his work to a meeting of the society
on 17 December 1877. The chapter on ruminants from the work also appeared in La
Revue Scientifique de la France et de I’Etranger, (2)13(24): 553-567, dated 15
December 1877. The date 1877 is adopted here for the publication of Gaudry’s work.
Since it is not feasible to ascribe priority to either publication both are cited for the
name Proceryulus. Three of the four antlers illustrated by Gaudry (1877a, fig. 100;
1877b, fig. 32) had complete pedicels and demonstrated unambiguously the author’s
concept of the morphology to be found in his new genus. The illustrated antlers
agreed morphologically with Gervais’s Antilope dichotoma but Gaudry (1877a, p. 88;
1877b, p. 557, footnote) used the name Cervus capreolus aurelianensis Meyer in
Laurillard, 1843 (p. 333) for the single species he placed in Procervulus.

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

C. aurelianensis is thus the type species of the genus by monotypy. Both Laurillard
and Gervais ({1850], p. 86) noted that the name aurelianensis had been used in a
manuscript by Meyer for some dental and antler pieces from Montabuzard, France,
which were illustrated but not named by Cuvier (1823, p. 103, pl. 8, figs. 3-6).

3. The antlers of Cervus aurelianensis Laurillard, figured by Cuvier (1823, pl. 8,
figs. 3, 4), are of uncertain identity within the CERvIDAE, whilst the illustrated upper
dentition (Cuvier, 1823, pl. 8, fig. 6) is congeneric with Dorcatherium Kaup, 1833
(family TRAGULIDAE). Stehlin (1925, p. 88) observed that Cuvier’s antlers probably
came from a more advanced deer than those illustrated by Gaudry. He designated
A. dichotoma Gervais as the type species of Procervulus but this, however desirable,
was an invalid designation (see para. 2 above).

4. Gervais (1859, p. 151) had recorded Lartet’s opinion that not only was Cervus
aurelianensis possibly a species of the Miocene cervid Dicrocerus Lartet, 1851 but so
also was the Antilope dichotoma antler illustrated by Gervais ({1850], vol. 3, pl. 23, fig.
4). We are confident, however, that the latter is correctly placed in Procervulus.

5. The name Procervulus has been used consistently for species having antlers
similar to those illustrated by Gaudry (1877a, fig. 100; 1877b, fig. 32), and
A. dichotoma is currently always included in the genus. Examples of usage include the
works by Roman & Viret (1934), Stehlin (1937), Rinnert (1956), Viret (1961),
Ginsburg & Crouzel (1976), Vislobokova (1983), Ginsburg & Bulot (1987) and
Azanza (1993). Recognition of C. aurelianensis as the type species of the genus would
render Procervulus a subjective synonym of one of the names used for more advanced
Miocene deer, either a junior synonym of Dicrocerus Lartet, 1851, or a senior
synonym of Euprox or Heteroprox, both of Stehlin (1928). The last three names are
all in use. To maintain the established usage of Procervulus we propose that Stehlin’s
(1925) designation be ratified and that Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 be desig-
nated the type species.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 and to designate Antilope
dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Procervulus
Gaudry, 1877 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above
Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name dichotoma
Gervais, 1849, as published in the binomen Antilope dichotoma (specific name
of the type species of Procervulus Gaudry, 1849).

References

Azanza, B. 1993. Systématique et évolution du genre Procervulus, cervidé (Artiodactyla,
Mammalia) du Miocéne inférieur d'Europe. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de
l’ Académie des Sciences, (3)316: 717-723.

Cuvier, G. 1823. Recherches sur les ossemens fossiles, Nouvelle édition, vol. 4. 514 pp. Dufour
& D’Ocagne, Paris.

Gaudry, A. 1877a. Les enchainements du monde animal dans les temps géologiques. Mammifeéres
tertiaires. 293 pp., 312 figs. Savy, Paris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 139

Gaudry, A. 1877b. Les ruminants et leurs parents. La Revue Scientifique de la France et de
Tl Etranger, (2)13(24): 553-567.

Gervais, F.L.P. 1849. Sur la repartition des mammiferes fossiles entre les différents ages
tertiaires qui composent le sol de la France. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de
l’ Académie des Sciences, 28: 546-552.

Gervais, F.L.P. [1850]. Zoologie et Paléontologie Frangaises ..., vol. 1 (text), viii, 271 pp.; vol.
2 (captions to plates, mostly unpaginated); vol. 3 (atlas), 80 pls. Bertrand, Paris.

Gervais, F.L.P. 1859. Zoologie et Paléontologie Frangaises ..., Ed. 2, vol. | (text), viii, 544 pp.;
vol. 2 (atlas), 84 pls. Bertrand, Paris.

Ginsburg, L. & Bulot, C. 1987. Les artiodactyles selenodontes du Miocene de Bézian a La
Romieu (Gers). Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, section C, (4)9(1):
63-95.

Ginsburg, L. & Crouzel, F. 1976. Contribution a la connaissance d’ Heteroprox larteti (Filhol).
Cervidé du Miocéne européen. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (3)399:
345-357. (Sciences de la Terre, no. 58).

Lartet, E. 1851. Notice sur la colline de Sansan. L’Annuaire du Département du Gers, 1851:
3-45.

Laurillard, C.L. 1843. Cerfs fossiles. Pp. 329-333 in d’Orbigny, C. (Ed.), Dictionnaire Universel
d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 3. 744 pp. Paris.

Rinnert, P. 1956. Die Huftiere aus dem Braunkohlenmiozan der Oberpfalz. Palaeontographica,
(A)107: 1-65.

Roman, F. & Viret, J. 1934. La faune de mammiferes du Burdigalien de La Romieu (Gers).
Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, (NS)9(21): 1-67.

Stehlin, H.G. 1925. Catalogue des ossements de mammiféres Tertiaires de la collection
Bourgeois. Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle et d’ Anthropologie de Loir-et-Cher,
18: 77-277.

Stehlin, H.G. 1928. Bemerkungen tiber die Hirsche von Steinheim am Aalbuch. Eclogae
Geologicae Helvetiae, 21: 245-56.

Stehlin, H.G. 1937. Bemerkungen tiber die miocaenen Hirschgenera Stephanocemas und
Lagomeryx. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 48: 193-214.
Vislobokova, I.A. 1983. The fossil deer of Mongolia. Trudy Sovmestnaya Sovetsko-

Mongol’skaya Paleontologicheskaya Ekspeditsiya, 23: 5—74. [In Russian].

Wagner, A. 1849, 1850, 1851. Bericht tiber die Leistungen in der Naturgeschichte der
Satigethiere wahrend des Jahres 1848 (1849, 1850). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 15(2): 1-30
(1849); 16(2): 1-42 (1850); 17(2): 1-32 (1851).

140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic and specific names of Zanclea
costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa)
(Case 2806; see BZN 49: 184-186)

B.P. Haldar
Zoological Survey of India, 27 J.L. Nehru Road, Calcutta 700 016, India

I support the application to conserve the generic and specific names of Zanclea
costata, both of Gegenbaur (1856), which are widely used. Z. costata has appeared
frequently in the primary literature (to my knowledge at least 25 times since its
description) whilst the senior synonym Mnestra parasites Krohn, 1853, used for a
deformed, parasitized medusa, has appeared only six or seven times since 1853. Rees
(1953) was the first to point out that the latter taxon is probably identical with
Z. costata. To replace Zanclea by Mnestra, or by Acrochordium Meyen, 1834, and
costata by parasites would create real and unnecessary confusion, particularly for
non-specialists. Moreover, the substitutions would not take effect for several decades
because many marine ecologists would continue to use the old terminology.

Out of six nominal species of Zanclea at least three have been synonymised with
Z. costata, which is circumtropical and very common.

Comment on the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusus Helbling,
1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2729; see BZN 48: 92-96, 244-246; 49: 68-70, 221-222, 289)

Marco Oliverio
Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’'Uomo, Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’,
Viale dell’ Universita 32, I-00185 Rome, Italy

I should like to comment on the case of Fusus Helbling, 1779 and to support with
observational data the comments by Beu, Marshall & Ponder (BZN 49: 68-70).

The protoconch characters which were used by Beu & Maxwell (1987) to separate
the Indo-Pacific species of Colubraria on the one hand from the Mediterranean
C. reticularia (Blainville, [1829]), which is probably the Fusus intertextus of Helbling
(1779), on the other are not adequately diagnostic. A second Colubraria-like species
has recently been found in the Mediterranean (Oliverio & Tringali, 1991). In the two
closely related Mediterranean species both types of protoconch are represented,
confirming Beu, Marshall & Ponder’s statement (BZN 49: 69) that protoconch
characters cannot be used to separate the Mediterranean species from the Indo-
Pacific group at any supraspecific level. Moreover I have observed that the well -
known C. reticulata (or Fusus intertextus: see BZN 48: 93, paras. 5 and 6) lacks a
radula, which further suggests its close relationship to the Indo-Pacific Colubraria
species.

The suppression of the name Fusus Helbling, 1779 except for purposes of
homonymy, as proposed by Beu, Marshall & Ponder (BZN 49: 69), would prevent it
displacing the well established Co/ubraria Schumacher, 1817, a name in use for many
species. As pointed out by Petit & Wilson (BZN 48: 92-96 and 49: 221—222) the name
Fusus has in the past been used in different senses. Adoption of it either for the

|
|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 141

Colubraria group (following the sense of Helbling, 1779) or for Fusinus species
(following that of Bruguiére, 1789) would be potentially confusing. The suppression
proposed by Beu, Marshall & Ponder conserves Colubraria and also protects the
widely used Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 from its senior synonym Fusus Bruguiére, 1789.
Adoption of this course seems to me to be the best solution of this case.

Additional reference

Oliverio, M. & Tringali, L. 1991. Fusus intertextus and (?)Fusus sp. in the Mediterranean Sea
(Neogastropoda; Buccinidae; Pisaniinae). Notiziario Centro Italiano Studi Malacologici,
13-14: 38-40.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca,
Cephalopoda) over T. persica (Naef, 1923)
(Case 2845; see BZN 49: 261-263)

Malcolm R. Clarke
Ridge Court, Court Road, Newton Ferrers, Plymouth PL8 1DD, Devon, U.K.

The application by Vecchione & Roper is a sensible way out of a problem, and I
support all their proposals.

Comment on the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus
(Mollusca, Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the designation of a lectotype
(Case 2732; see BZN 48: 31-35, 246; 49: 145-149, 290; 50: 54-56)

N.J. Silberling

U.S. Geological Survey, MS-919, Box 25046, Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225,
U.S.A.

In supporting Urlichs’s application regarding Ceratites nodosus, Hahn (BZN 48:
246) states that acceptance of the proposals will conserve the name “as used today’.
In further support, Tichy (BZN 49: 290) says that acceptance will ‘conserve the
established usage of the name nodosus’. Their comments create the impression that
Urlichs’s proposal will stabilize a taxonomic usage that has been established for a
long time, but this view cannot be defended. The first major work dealing with
Ceratites nodosus was Philippi (1901). In this the species is cited as ‘Ceratites nodosus
(Brug.) Schloth.’. Bruguiére’s description of the taxon is in Philippi’s synonymy and
the illustration by Scheuchzer (1718) is given as the first published of the species. It
is the specimen on which this drawing was based which, contrary to Urlichs’s
proposal, was designated as the lectotype for Ceratites nodosus (Bruguiére) by Rieber
& Tozer (1986). Bruguiére is also cited as the author of the species in the
comprehensive works which provide a synonymy of C. nodosus (Riedel, 1916; Spath,
1934; Penndorf, 1951; Wenger, 1957). The taxonomic usage defended by Hahn as
being currently used was only initiated by Urlichs and Mundlos in 1987, hardly long
enough ago to have originated a history of ‘established usage’ as referred to by Tichy.
The complaint by Tichy that acceptance of Tozer’s proposal (BZN 49: 148) will

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

necessitate transfer of the name Ceratites (Ceratites) nodosus to Ceratites (Dolocer-
atites) robustus Riedel, 1916 is not germane. This is not an objective necessity but
only a consequence of accepting the subjective synonymy proposed by Urlichs &
Mundlos (1987).

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Gebia major
capensis Krauss, 1843 and G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently Upogebia capensis
and U. africana; Crustacea, Decapoda) by the designation of a replacement neotype
for U. capensis

(Case 2827; BZN 49: 187-190)

(1) C.L. Griffiths

Marine Biology Research Institute, Zoology Department, University of Cape Town,
Rondebosch 7700, South Africa

The species currently known by the names Upogebia capensis (Krauss, 1843) and
U. africana (Ortmann, 1894) are amongst the better-known elements of the South
African marine fauna and are extensively used by fishermen for bait. The names are
thus well known not only in the specialist literature but also in general guide books
and, indeed, in the laws governing seashore exploitation. It would therefore be very
confusing if these names were unnecessarily changed. I therefore support the
proposed replacement of the neotype for U. capensis, thus conserving the present
usages.

(2) W. Emmerson

Department of Zoology, University of Transkei, Private Bag XI UNITRA, Umtata,
Transkei, Southern Africa

I have recently read the application by Ngoc-Ho & Poore to conserve the specific
names of Upogebia capensis (Krauss, 1843) and U. africana (Ortmann, 1894).
Although I was aware of Sakai’s (1982) name changes these do not appear to have
been followed except in a catalogue by Holthuis (1991) who noted the unfortunate
consequences. Certainly everyone here in South Africa still maintains the established
usages. To avoid confusion I support the application and the proposed replacement
neotype.

Editorial note. The comments below are from members of the Nomenclature
Committee of The Crustacean Society.

(3) K. Baba
Kumamoto University Faculty of Education, 240-1 Kurokami, Kumamoto, 860 Japan

As has been explained by Ngoc-Ho & Poore in their application, Sakai’s (1982)
selection of the neotype for Upogebia capensis from material assigned to U. africana
has caused a problem. The authors believe that capensis and africana are distinct
species, separated from each other not only morphologically but also ecologically

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 143

and geographically. I agree with them and support the replacement of Sakai’s
neotype with the specimen they have selected.

(4) Thomas E. Bowman

Division of Crustacea, NHB-163, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560,
U.S.A.

I agree that Sakai’s choice of a neotype for Upogebia capensis was ill-advised and
upsets the usage of more than 40 years of that name and of U. africana. | recommend
that the Commission approves the application by Ngoc-Ho & Poore.

(5) Joel W. Martin

Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A.

The action proposed by Ngoc-Ho & Poore would remove current confusion
resulting from what was obviously an unfortunate selection of a neotype by Sakai
(1982). The species called Upogebia capensis (Krauss, 1843) and U. africana
(Ortmann, 1894) are distinguishable morphologically and ecologically and it is clear
that Sakai’s choice of a neotype for capensis came from habitat suited for, and
material previously identified as, U. africana. Further confusion resulted from Sakai’s
revival of U. subspinosa (Stimpson, 1860), for which no type exists and which was
previously considered by Barnard (1947) as a synonym of capensis. The selection of
a replacement neotype for U. capensis is clearly warranted and would clarify the
taxonomic and ecological status of the two South African species of Upogebia. I
therefore support the application.

(6) Austin B. Williams

National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.

Evidence presented by Ngoc-Ho & Poore confirms the conclusions of the
numerous authors cited by them that two species of Upogebia occur in South Africa,
known as U. capensis (Krauss, 1843) and U. africana (Ortmann, 1894), that these
names should be conserved, and that a replacement neotype for U. capensis should
be designated from material of that species as currently understood.

The only species of Upogebia that has a gill associated with the fifth pereopod on
the last thoracic somite is africana. That alone should establish the identity of this
species and, in combination with other characters summarized by Ngoc-Ho & Poore,
be entirely sufficient to distinguish it from capensis. USNM 105367 in the crustacean
collection of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C., is a group of 102 specimens of U. africana from Knysna, South
Africa, collected by J.H.O. Day in January 1957. The gill on the last thoracic somite
is clearly present on these specimens. Since Sakai’s (1982) neotype of capensis is from
Knysna there is a strong possibility that the specimen bears such a gill also and is
therefore africana.

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Knysna, about 250 km west of Port Elizabeth, must be the western limit for
U. africana; experimental studies on the species in a heated pond adjacent to a power
plant have been done here on a number of occasions (selected references are given in
the application). Mossel Bay, about 100 km further west, is supposedly the eastern
limit for U. capensis. Sakai’s choice of a neotype for ‘U. capensis’ from Knysna did
not meet the locality requirement of Article 75d(5) of the Code.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybopsis)
topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka) (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes)
(Case 2808; see BZN 49: 268-270)

Hobart M. Smith
Department of EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334,
U.S.A.

The case for the conservation of the specific name of Notropis topeka (Gilbert,
1884) for the Topeka shiner, as presented by Cross & Collins, is overwhelmingly
convincing and has my full support. The attempt in 1989 to revive the specific name
tristis Girard, 1857 for the taxon is another example of the unfortunately frequent
disregard by specialists of the urgent need of non-specialists for nomenclatural
stability.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Mugil curema and
M. liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes)
(Case 2834; see BZN 49: 271-275)

Ian J. Harrison
Laboratoire d’Ichtyologie, Musée Royal de I’Afrique Centrale, B-3080 Tervuren,
Belgium

1. In this contribution I designate lectotypes for the nominal species Mugil curema,
M. liza and M. petrosus, all of Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1836). I
support the application by Alvarez-Lajonchere, Trewavas & Howes.

2. Alvarez-Lajonchere and his co-authors gave good evidence that the type
material of Mugil brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831 and M. gaimardianus
Desmarest, 1831 is no longer available and that the original descriptions were
unreliable. Therefore, I support the proposals to suppress these specific names and to
conserve the names M. curema and M. liza, both of Valenciennes in Cuvier &
Valenciennes (1836). However, the authors noted (para. 7 of the application) that -
M. liza is composite and there are also problems, which were not mentioned in paras.
6 and 7, with the syntypes of both M. curema and M. petrosus Valenciennes, 1836.

3. Alvarez-Lajonchere et al. (para. 7) referred to the four syntypes of M. curema
in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN), listed by Blanc &
Hureau (1971, p. 689): MNHN A.3653, collected by Choris from ‘San Iago de Cuba’
(the 19th century spelling of Santiago de Cuba); A.4641, collected from Maracaibo
by Plée; A.4655 and A.4671, collected from Martinique by Plée. Neither account,
Blanc & Hureau (1971) and Alvarez-Lajonchere et al. (para. 7), mentioned material

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 145

from Brazil despite the fact that Valenciennes (1836, p. 88) stated that he had received
curema from Bahia and referred to a specimen of ‘neuf a dix pouces’. This specimen
exists and is listed in the original registers (MNHN A.3638, from an unstated
collector but perhaps Delalande since he collected other Brazilian mullets) as a
syntype of curema. The specimen (240 mm standard length, 306 mm total length)
generally conforms to Valenciennes’s description of the species: it is moderately
deep-bodied, the head is slightly deeper than broad, the second dorsal and anal fins
are totally covered by scales, A III,9, the body is silvery-gold without longitudinal
brown stripes and the caudal fin has a blackish distal margin. I count nine
filamentous rays in the second dorsal fin of this specimen (Valenciennes stated I,9)
and I count 37 scales between the operculum and the caudal fin base (Valenciennes
stated 35 or 36 in longitudinal line). I do not regard these small meristic differences
as significant. Since the specimen is in better condition than all the other syntypes I
hereby designate it as the lectotype of M. curema.

4. J identify specimen MNHN A.4641 (noted above) as M. hospes Jordan &
Culver, 1895. It has a rather slender body, a long, right pectoral fin (ca. 92% of head
length), ca. 38-40 scales between the opercular opening and the base of the caudal fin,
a rather thin upper lip, and I,14 pectoral rays (cf. I,16 (17?) in the lectotype and other
paralectotypes of curema). The specimen is in very poor condition and could easily be
mistaken for curema. It is marked as a syntype of curema in the register and card
index of the MNHN but I am doubtful about its type status since Valenciennes’s
original description made no reference to material collected from Maracaibo by Plée.
Valenciennes (p. 88) referred to specimens of ‘un pied et de quinze pouces dans les
collections de M. Plée’ but evidently these are the specimens from Martinique.

5. M. petrosus Valenciennes (1836, p. 89) has been cited as a synonym of curema
by previous authors (see para. 6 of the application). The original description was very
short, indicating that the species was similar to curema and referring to specimens
from Brazil, Surinam, Gulf of Mexico, Cuba and New York. Brazilian material was
not included in Blanc & Hureau’s (1971) type catalogue and I cannot find reference
to any in the registers and card indexes of the MNHN. In 1954-1955 a number of dry,
badly preserved specimens were discarded and these included some Brazilian material
(M.-L. Bauchot, pers. comm.) and possibly syntypes of petrosus. The extant syntypes
represent more than one species. Two syntypes from Surinam (MNHN A.3611
collected by Leschenault; MNHN A.3612, collected by Levaillant) are M. incilis
Hancock, 1830. Another two syntypes (MNHN A.3614, from Vera-Cruz, by an
unstated collector, MNHN A.3615, from New York, collected by Milbert) are clearly
curema. The latter species is common in warm, tropical and subtropical coastal
waters of the Caribbean and Atlantic but has also been reported as far north as Cape
Cod, Massachusetts (Jordan & Swain, 1884). This northerly range might be possible
because of the presence of the warm Gulf Stream but, nevertheless, I have some
reservations about the records from New York and Massachusetts. Milbert dis-
patched his material to Paris from New York but his collections were less precisely
defined as coming from the coasts, rivers and lakes of that area (Bauchot, Daget &
Bauchot, 1990, p. 109). Therefore, the reported locality of ‘New York’ for Milbert’s
syntype of petrosus should not be considered as exact and irrefutable.

6. I now designate the remaining syntype of M. petrosus as the lectotype of
that nominal species. This is specimen MNHN A.3613, collected from Cuba by

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Desmarest and referred to by Alvarez-Lajonchere et al. (para. 6). It is 117.9 mm
standard length and 150.1 mm total length. This specimen is very similar to those of
curema but it has a rather long pectoral fin (83% of head length) which almost reaches
the level of the origin of the first dorsal fin, and the first dorsal is positioned closer to
the base of the caudal fin than it is to the snout. Some authors have described or
illustrated these features for the nominal species M. gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831
(for example, Jordan & Swain, 1884; Menezes, 1983, fig. 6) and Alvarez-Lajonchere
et al. noted (para. 6) that the specimen might be the holotype. I agree with them that
this cannot be proved. The morphometric features of the specimen can be interpreted
as within intraspecific variation of curema and I agree with Alvarez-Lajonchere et al.
(para. 6) that it is most likely this species. Designation of this Cuban specimen as the
lectotype of petrosus renders the latter a junior subjective synonym of curema and
thereby ensures nomenclatural stability.

7. In their search for the Cuban holotype of M. gaimardianus Desmarest,
Alvarez-Lajonchere et al. (para. 6) stated ‘there are no specimens from Cuba among
the syntypes of M. curema’. This is incorrect; Valenciennes received a specimen of
curema from Choris (MNHN A.3653; see para. 3 above) who collected in Cuba and
the Antilles in 1827 (Bauchot, Daget & Bauchot, 1990). Desmarest might have used
this specimen for his illustration of gaimardianus but again this cannot be proved.

8. Alvarez-Lajonchere et al. (para. 7) stated that the syntypes of M. liza
Valenciennes include representatives of more than one species but they did not
designate a lectotype. Valenciennes (1836, p. 84) referred to specimens from various
localities but did not ascribe importance to any particular one. He stated that
Delalande brought specimens from Brazil but this material was not included in Blanc
& Hureau’s (1971) type catalogue and I could not find it listed in the original registers
or card indexes of the MNHN; presumably these specimens were either never
incorporated into the collections (and Valenciennes himself did not see them) or they
have been lost subsequently. Two of the extant syntypes (MNHN A.3668, collected
from Surinam by Leschenault & Doumerc; A.6307, collected from Buenos Aires by
d’Orbigny) are M. cephalus Linnaeus, 1758. The remaining syntypes (MNHN
A.1050, A.4642, A.4656, A.4657, A.4659 and A.5763; see Blanc & Hureau, 1971, for
details) have elongate bodies and 29-33 scales between the opercular opening and the
base of the caudal fin. These more closely fit Valenciennes’s original description of
liza. They are all dry specimens and, while none is in exceptionally good condition,
some are better preserved than others. The specimen that I select as lectotype is rather
large but most of its morphological and meristic features are more clearly displayed
than in several other specimens. This is MNHN A.4659, collected from Martinique
by Plée, noted as a female on the baseplate and of 476 mm standard length and at
least 566 mm total length (caudal fin damaged).

9. Valenciennes (1836, p. 84) mentioned that some of Plée’s specimens of /iza came
from Puerto Rico. However, Blanc & Hureau (1971) made no reference to such
material in their type catalogue. They incorrectly noted specimen MNHN A.5763 as
from Martinique and overlooked the presence of an apparently original label placed
securely in the specimen’s mouth recording ‘Porto-Rico’. The incorrect locality
Martinique might have resulted from Plée’s practice of collecting material from
various localities and then dispatching it to Paris from Martinique (M.-L. Bauchot,
pers. comm.).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 147

10. Valenciennes’s description of /iza was short and some fin ray counts were
inaccurate; for example, I find D2 to be 9, not I,8; P is I,15—17? (usually 1,16), not 14.
More complete descriptions were given by various other authors; see, for example,
Jordan & Swain (1884), Thomson (1977), and Menezes (1983) who provided a
detailed and accurate illustration (fig. 7) of the species.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful for the practical assistance of the staff of the MNHN, particularly
M.-L. Bauchot, G. Duhamel and J.-C. Hureau. G.J. Howes and J. Snoeks helpfully
discussed the case. This work was conducted while the author was in receipt of a
Council of the European Communities Science Programme bursary.

Additional references

Bauchot, M.-L., Daget, J. & Bauchot, R. 1990. L’ichtyologie en France au début du XIX*
siécle. L’Histoire naturelle des Poissons de Cuvier et Valenciennes. Bulletin du Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)12A(1) supplement: 3-142.

Blanc, M. & Hureau, J.-C. 1971. Catalogue critique des types de Poissons du Museum national
@Histoire naturelle. (Mugiliformes et Polynémiformes). Bulletin du Muséum National
d Histoire Naturelle, (3)15 : 673-734.

Comments on a proposed neotype for Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) (Reptilia,
Saurischia)
(Case 2840; see BZN 49: 276-279)

(1) P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

If this application is approved by the Commission the names of Coelophysis bauri
and Rioarribasaurus colberti will be objective synonyms; as these are the type species
of the nominal genera, Coelophysis and Rioarribasaurus will also be synonymous
(para. 11 of the application). The mention of Coelurus instead of Coelophysis as the
synonym of Rioarribasaurus in the last sentence of para. 10 was a typographical error
in this office.

(2) Adrian P. Hunt
Department of Geology, University of Colorado at Denver, Campus Box 172, PO Box
173364, Denver, Colorado 80217-3364, U.S.A.

Spencer G. Lucas
New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, 1801 Mountain Road N.W.,
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, U.S.A.

1. We oppose the attempt by Colbert et al. to suppress the binomen Rioarriba-
saurus colberti by establishing a neotype for Coelophysis bauri.

2. Colbert (1947) assigned complete skeletons of Late Triassic dinosaurs from the
Ghost Ranch dinosaur quarry in Rio Arriba County, New Mexico to the nominal

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

species Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887). This assignment has never been adequately
justified, and recent studies (Padian, 1986; Hunt & Lucas, 1991) indicate that the
original specimens of C. bauri (including the lectotype, specimen AMNH 2722) are
not diagnostic. Colbert et al. provide no arguments to the contrary except to state
(para. 8) that the synonymy is ‘obvious’. The purpose of their application is simply
to perpetuate Colbert’s (1947) error by making one of the Ghost Ranch specimens
the neotype of C. bauri, even though this specimen is the validly defined holotype of
another nominal taxon, Rioarribasaurus colberti. Their application, which seeks to
designate a neotype, is not in the context of revisory work as mandated by Article 75b
of the Code; indeed, it asks the Commission to undertake revisory work.

3. Original specimens and a valid lectotype of Coelophysis bauri are extant (Huene,
1915; Colbert, 1989), so that the proposed neotype is contrary to Recommendation
75A of the Code; contrary to Article 75d(5), Colbert et al. choose a specimen
collected 60 years after the lectotype from a locality and stratigraphic horizon
different from the type locality.

4. With regard to the type locality of C. bauri, we note that David Baldwin, who
collected the syntypes, gave very imprecise information and indicated that the
specimens came from two separate localities (Colbert, 1989; Hunt & Lucas, 1991).
One of these localities was ‘Arroyo Seco’, a tributary of the Rio Chama, which
traverses 14.4 km of Triassic strata (Colbert, 1989). Colbert et al. (para. 1) state that
this locality of Baldwin’s was near the confluence of Arroyo Seco and Rio Chama;
this has not been suggested before, notably not by Colbert (1989, pp. 4-6) who
studied Baldwin’s locality information in detail. If this suggestion is correct it places
the type locality of C. bauri several km from the Ghost Ranch dinosaur quarry (Hunt
& Lucas, 1991, fig. 1). The different preservation of the C. bauri bones and those from
the Ghost Ranch quarry has been noted by Padian (1986) and Hunt & Lucas (1991),
and suggests that the material came from different localities.

5. The contention of Colbert et al. (paras. 4 and 8) that the Ghost Ranch quarry
and the type locality of C. bauri are in the same geological formation is based on an
unpublished paper by Schwartz & Gillette. We have conducted detailed geologic
studies of the Upper Triassic strata of the Chama basin and and have measured a
stratigraphic section through the Ghost Ranch quarry which we correlated with
others in surrounding areas (Hunt & Lucas, 1989; Lucas & Hunt, 1992). We are
confident that there is strong circumstantial evidence that Cope’s specimens did not
come from the same geological formation as the Ghost Ranch skeletons: (a) the
Ghost Ranch quarry is in a stratigraphic unit (Rock Point Formation) distinct from
underlying fossiliferous strata (Stewart, Poole & Wilson, 1972; O’Sullivan, 1974;
Dubiel, 1989; Lucas & Hunt, 1992); (b) in the Chama basin there is only one
fossiliferous locality in the Rock Point Formation, and this is the Ghost Ranch _
quarry; (c) the Rock Point Formation has been removed by erosion from the Gallina
area, where some of the Coelophysis syntypes were collected (Colbert, 1989; Hunt &
Lucas, 1991; Lucas & Hunt, 1992); (d) the Rock Point Formation is more silty than
underlying strata and in most areas forms precipitous slopes which are impossible to
prospect for fossils; (e) the majority of fossiliferous strata in the area belong to the
Petrified Forest Formation; and (f) the preservation of the Coelophysis specimens is
distinct from that of Rioarribasaurus, as noted above. It appears very unlikely that
Cope’s specimens came from the Rock Point Formation: they most probably derive

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 149

from the underlying Petrified Forest Formation (Hunt & Lucas, 1991; Lucas & Hunt,
1992). Colbert et al. do not demonstrate that the Ghost Ranch quarry is in the same
stratigraphic formation as the type locality of C. bauri and only cite unpublished
literature to contest our carefully argued claim that the two fossiliferous localities are
in different stratigraphic units which are superposed and thus of different ages.

6. Colbert et al. say (para. 10) that in their opinion the lectotype of Coelophysis
bauri is “undoubtedly conspecific’ with the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti. They
do not say why this ‘synonymy’ is ‘undoubted’ and do not comment on the
morphological arguments to the contrary by Padian (1986) and Hunt & Lucas (1991).
It is clear that primitive ceratosaurian dinosaurs are very similar morphologically.
We note that Colbert (1989, p. 125), in describing the Ghost Ranch skeletons,
stressed the close osteological similarities between the New Mexico specimens and
Syntarsus and stated that ‘these two dinosaurs are so similar in many of their
anatomical characters that more often than not the description of any particular
feature of the one applies equally to the other’. We note further that several
ceratosaurian dinosaurs were present in the Late Triassic (Hunt, 1991). At least one
specimen of Coelophysis has an important morphological feature not found in
Rioarribasaurus. Specimen AMNH 2724 (Huene, 1915, fig. 61; Colbert, 1989, fig.
18.61) is a pubic fragment displaying the dorsal margin of an obturator foramen. No
obturator foramen is present in any specimen of Rioarribasaurus (cf. Colbert, 1989,
fig. 77), and the presence or absence of one is a generic-level distinction in all
dinosaurs. We are confident that Colbert et al. cannot demonstrate the ‘synonymy’
of Coelophysis bauri and Rioarribasaurus. colberti because (a) all the specimens of
C. bauri except AMNH 2724 lack diagnostic features; (b) most of the elements of
Rioarribasaurus are (as noted by Colbert, 1989) similar to those of other Late Triassic
primitive ceratosaurians; (c) specimen AMNH 2724 of Coelophysis has a character
not seen in Rioarribasaurus. If the identity of these two taxa cannot be demonstrated
it is clear that a neotype of C. bauri should not be proposed from among the
specimens of R. colberti.

7. Colbert et al. comment on the wide use of the generic name Coelophysis. This
usage, however, is only entrenched in a technical literature of specialists in dinosaur
studies and, moreover, it is based on Colbert’s (1947) unsupportable assignment of
the nomen dubium Coelophysis bauri to the skeletons from Ghost Ranch. The fact
that one recent paper (Rowe & Gauthier, 1990; see para. 7 of the application)
perpetuates this error is irrelevant. It is also irrelevant that the Ghost Ranch dinosaur
(not named as Coelophysis) is part of the logo of the New Mexico Museum of Natural
History and Science. Even if this dinosaur were named in the logo, does the fact that
Brontosaurus, the junior synonym of Apatosaurus, appeared on a U.S. postage stamp
argue for usage of that invalid name? Similarly, the fact that Coelophysis bauri is the
state fossil of New Mexico is irrelevant. The reason that some dinosaur literature
from 1947 uses the name Coelophysis for the Ghost Ranch specimens and that this
taxonomic assignment has not been questioned until recently is because the
description of the specimens was delayed until Colbert (1989).

8. Colbert et al. (para. 10) note that they wish to make the ‘obvious’ synonymy
objective and to have a ‘much more informative’ type specimen of C. bauri. Thus,
they suggest making the holotype of R. colberti the neotype of C. bauri. This is, quite
simply, a recipe for taxonomic anarchy. Two issues are raised. The first is the

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

adoption of a neotype to make a synonymy objective. Is every worker now to erect
neotypes to protect his favorite nomen dubium and to establish its synonymy with
another valid name? This is clearly against the spirit and the letter of the Code and
is a recipe for taxonomic chaos. The second issue is the suggestion that a neotype
should be erected because a specimen displays more morphological features than an
extant type. Is every new specimen of a taxon which displays more features than a
holotype or lectotype now to be made a neotype? Again this is a very dangerous
suggestion that strikes at the very heart of taxonomic stability.

9. Colbert et al. (para. 8) say that “Hunt & Lucas (1991) did not dispute the
synonymy of C. bauri (as always understood) and R. colberti’. However, we
considered the name Coelophysis bauri to be a nomen dubium and thus obviously did
not consider it to be a synonym of R. colberti.

10. In summary, we believe the application should be rejected because (a) a
lectotype and other original specimens of Coelophysis bauri exist; (b) the proposed
neotype is not from either the type locality or horizon of C. bauri; (c) the proposed
neotype is not demonstrably the same taxon as the lectotype of C. bauri; and (d) the
name Coelophysis is only used in a limited technical literature.

Additional references

Dubiel, R.F. 1989. Depositional environments of the Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in the
eastern San Juan Basin and vicinity. United States Geological Survey Bulletin, 1808B:
1-22.

Hunt, A.P. 1991. The early diversification pattern of dinosaurs in the Late Triassic. Modern
Geology, 16: 43-60.

Hunt, A.P. & Lucas, S.G. 1989. Stratigraphy and vertebrate biochronology of Upper Triassic
strata in the Chama basin, north-central New Mexico. P. 16 in: Abstracts of Symposium
on Southwestern Geology, Museum of Northern Arizona.

Lucas, S.G. & Hunt, A.P. 1992. Triassic stratigraphy and paleontology, Chama basin and
adjacent areas, north-central New Mexico. Pp. 151-172 in Lucas, S.G., Kues, B.S.,
Williamson, T.E. & Hunt, A.P. (Eds.), San Juan Basin IV. New Mexico Geological
Society, Socorro.

O'Sullivan, R.B. 1974. The Upper Triassic Chinle Formation in north-central New Mexico. Pp.
171-174 in Siemers, C.T. (Ed.), Ghost Ranch, central New Mexico. New Mexico
Geological Society, Socorro.

Stewart, J.H., Poole, F.G. & Wilson, R.F. 1972. Stratigraphy and origin of the Chinle
Formation and related Upper Triassic strata in the Colorado Plateau region. United
States Geological Survey Professional Papers, 690: \1—336.

(3) Robert M. Sullivan
The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Third and North Streets, P.O. Box 1026,
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026, U.S.A.

The recent application by Colbert et al. to designate a neotype in lieu of the
lectotype of Coelophysis bauri is indefensible and should be rejected based on the
following points:

1. In the absence of shared-derived characters, the Ghost Ranch dinosaur
specimens (including AMNH 7224, which is the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti
and the would-be neotype of Coelophysis bauri) cannot be referred to the same taxon
as the type (lectotype) material of Coelophysis bauri (see Padian, 1986; Hunt & Lucas,
1991).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 151

2. Despite Colbert’s description and illustrations of the pelves of Ghost Ranch
specimens as lacking both obturator foramina and the pubic fenestrae these
osteological landmarks are now known to occur on the pelves of some Ghost Ranch
skeletons (Rowe & Gauthier, 1990, and personal observation). The lack of these
features in the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti (AMNH 7224) may be real, or
they may have been destroyed in preparation.

3. If the former is the case, the presence of the dorsal margin of an obturator
foramen on a pubis fragment (AMNH 2724) from the syntypic series of Coelophysis
bauri (see Colbert, 1989, p. 38, fig. 61a) is not distinctive (plesiomorphic), because
reference to Syntarus rhodesiensis can also be made.

4. If the pubic fenestrae and obturator foramina were destroyed on the holotype
of R. colberti in the course of preparation, and if it could be unequivocally
determined that only one dinosaur taxon is present among the Ghost Ranch material,
then Coelophysis bauri is a nomen dubium because of the undiagnostic nature of the
type material.

5. The acceptance by Rowe & Gauthier (1990) of the name C. bauri for the Ghost
Ranch specimens was done in the absence of any critical osteological analysis and
merely out of convention, coupled with the assumption that only one saurischian
taxon was present in the Late Triassic strata of New Mexico.

6. It is an established fact that the type (lectotype) material of C. bauri is not from
the Whitaker (Ghost Ranch) quarry. Evidence (Hunt & Lucas, 1991) suggests that
the specimens are from a different geographic locality, albeit nearby (within 2 km).

7. In the absence of diagnostic features, stratigraphic / biostratigraphic position
and geographic proximity cannot be used as evidence in support of, or against,
taxonomic identity of the proposed neotype and the original type material.

8. Therefore, Colbert et al.’s selection of AMNH 7224 as the neotype of
Coelophysis bauri is inappropriate and contrary to Article 75d(5) and Recommen-
dation 75A of the Code.

(4) Hans-Deuter Sues
Department of Vertebrate Palaeontology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park,
Toronto, Ontario M5S 2C6, Canada

I strongly support the application by Dr E.H. Colbert and his colleagues to set
aside all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Coelurus bauri
Cope, 1887 and to designate the complete articulated skeleton AMNH 7224 in the
collections of the American Museum of Natural History (New York) as the neotype.
I also concur that Rioarribasaurus and colberti should be placed on the relevant
Indexes of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology.

I urge the Commission to rule in favour of this important application. The original
type specimens of many other fossil vertebrates pose comparable problems (a
good example is. Archaeopteryx lithographica), and we may expect a profusion of
unnecessary names if this application is not accepted.

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1717

Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda):
conserved in their accepted usage

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the
nominal species Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827 are hereby set aside and
microscopic preparation no. 1655b in the Zoological Museum, Humboldt University,
Berlin (the lectotype of Gasterostomum fimbriatum Siebold, 1848) is designated as the
neotype.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Bucephalus Baer, 1827 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Buceph-

alus polymorphus Baer, 1827;

(b) Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Nicoll (1914) Gasterostomum minimum Wagener, 1852 (a junior
subjective synonym of Monostoma galeatum Rudolphi, 1819).

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) polymorphus Baer, 1827, as published in the binomen Bucephalus polymorphus
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type
species of Bucephalus Baer, 1827);

(b) galeatum Rudolphi, 1819, as published in the binomen Monostoma galeatum
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Gasterostomum minimum
Wagener, 1852, the type species of Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858);

(c) campanula Dujardin, 1844, as published in the binomen Distoma campanula.

(4) The name Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848 is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of
Bucephalus Baer, 1827).

(5) The name fimbriatum Siebold, 1848, as published in the binomen Gasterosto-
mum fimbriatum and as defined by the lectotype designated by Baturo (1979), is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology (a junior objective synonym of the specific name of Bucephalus polymorphus
Baer, 1827).

History of Case 2251

An application for the conservation of the generic and specific names of Bucephalus .
polymorphus Baer, 1827 by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr B.
Baturo (Inland Fisheries Institute, Olsztyn, Poland) on 27 February 1978. Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals. The history of this long-standing case was
summarised in notes on BZN 49: 6 and 62. After correspondence the case was
republished in BZN 49: 6-11 (March 1992) with the agreement of Dr Baturo.

Dr Srivastava (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta), who opposed Dr Baturo’s
original application published in BZN 36: 30-36 (July 1979), was notified (August
1991) of the intention to republish it. Dr David I. Gibson (The Natural History

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 153

Museum, London, U.K.) had also written to Dr Srivastava in September 1988. There
has been no reply to either communication.

A shortened version of Dr Srivastava’s comment (received January 1981) was
published (BZN 49: 62-64) at the same time as the republished application, together
with recent comments in support of Dr Baturo’s application from Dr Gibson,
Dr O.N. Pugachev (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg,
Russia) and Prof J.C. Pearson (University of Queensland, Australia). A copy of these
comments was sent to Dr Srivastava at the time of publication.

It was noted on the voting paper that the essential difference between Dr Baturo’s
position and that of Dr Srivastava was that the former proposed conservation of the
established usage of the names Bucephalus and polymorphus, whereas the latter
(following priority strictly) would transfer these names to the taxon known as
Rhipidocotyle illensis (= campanula). Drs Gibson and Pugachev and Prof Pearson
opposed the replacement of Rhipidocotyle by Bucephalus (and of Bucephalus auctt. by
Gasterostomum) which would result from adherence to priority.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 9-10. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (in part), Cocks, Cogger, Corliss,
Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin,
Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Stys and Thompson.

Bouchet supported conservation of the usage of Bucephalus polymorphus but
considered that the Commission should not be involved with questions of subjective
synonymy such as the placing of Rhipidocotyle galeata and R. campanula on the
Official List of Specific Names. (Editorial note. The type of Rhipidocotyle is the
nominal species Gasterostomum minimum, as given in ruling (2)(b). It has long been
the practice to cite senior subjective synonyms of type species in the Official Lists (in
accordance with Recommendation 67B of the Code) but in this and all other cases it
is not to be inferred that the Commission takes any view on the taxonomic
synonymy. R. campanula is placed on the List as a senior subjective synonym of
R. illensis, repeatedly mentioned in this case; again the Commission has taken no
view on the supposed synonymy and the placing of names on Official Lists confers no
special status on them (Article 78f of the Code)).

Lehtinen and Martins de Souza commented that with the current taxonomic
knowledge of the group it was preferable that priority should apply. Stys commented:
‘In cases concerning names of species with complex development it is better to stay
with the generally understood Principle of Priority when discoveries in taxonomy
lead to concomitant nomenclatural changes, rather than to make exceptions by
invoking the plenary powers. Zoologists studying such groups should expect and be
prepared to accept such name changes’.

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:

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Bucephalus Baer, 1827, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae
Naturae Curiosorum, 13: 570.

campanula, Distoma, Dujardin, 1844, Histoire naturelle des helminthes ou vers intestinaux,
p. 435.

fimbriatum, Gasterostomum, Siebold, 1848, Lehrbuch der vergleichende Anatomie der wirbel-
losen Thiere, vol. 1, p. 129.

galeatum, Monostoma, Rudolphi, 1819, Entozoorum synopsis, cui accedunt mantissa duplex et
indices locupletissimi, p. 86.

Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848, Lehrbuch der vergleichende Anatomie der wirbellosen Thiere,
vol. 1, p. 129.

polymorphus, Bucephalus, Baer, 1827, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae
Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum, 13: 570.

Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858, Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen
Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 32: 313.

The following is the reference for the designation of Gasterostomum minimum Wagener, 1852
as the type species of the nominal genus Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858:
Nicoll, W. 1914. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K., (2)10: 490.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Gasterostomum
fimbriatum Siebold, 1848:
Baturo, B. 1979. BZN 36: 33.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 155

OPINION 1718

Balea Gray, 1824 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778 is
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of
the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Eulima Risso, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Herrmannsen (1847) Turbo subulatus Donovan, 1804 (an unnecessary
replacement name for Strombiformis glaber Da Costa, 1778), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The entry for Balea Gray, 1824 on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology is hereby amended to record the type species as Turbo perversus Linnaeus,
1758 by subsequent designation by Turton (1831).

(4) The name glaber Da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Strombiformis
glaber and as defined by the neotype designated by Warén (1989) (senior objective
synonym of the specific name of Turbo subulatus Donovan, 1804, the type species of
Eulima Risso, 1826), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

(5) The name Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2247

An application which involved the conservation of Balea Gray, 1824 was received
from Dr Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden) on 18
January 1978. After correspondence on various matters the case was published in
BZN 49: 12-15 (March 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Draparnaud’s work Histoire naturelle des mollusques ... was published posthu-
mously in 1805 and included (p. 68, pl. 4, fig. 4) a description and illustration of his
species Pupa fragilis; Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758 was not mentioned. A shorter
version of the work (Tableau des mollusques ...) had appeared in 1801, during
Draparnaud’s lifetime, and here (p. 64) fragilis was more briefly described with
perversus Linnaeus being cited as a synonym. Thus although the name fragilis was
made available in 1801 it was as a junior synonym of perversus. Subsequent authors
have accepted Draparnaud’s own synonymy of fragilis with perversus.

It was noted on the voting paper that Gray (1824) established Balea with three
included species, among them Pupa fragilis Draparnaud, 1801 with T. perversus
placed in synonymy (para. 2 of the application). Gray’s use of the junior synonym
presumably followed Draparnaud. Herrmannsen (1846) designated T. perversus as
the type species without mentioning fragilis but in Opinion 335 (March 1955) Balea
was placed on the Official List of Generic Names with Pupa fragilis wrongly cited as
the designated type species. The senior synonym perversus was placed on the Official
List of Specific Names as being the valid name of the type species. In a later
publication Gray himself (1847) cited T. perversus as the type species of Balea and did
not mention P. fragilis. The usage of Balea has almost always treated perversus as the
nominal type species, with fragilis (when mentioned) as a junior synonym.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

A comment (received during the voting period) from Mr Robert Burn (Newtown,
Geelong, Victoria, Australia) noted that Turton (1831, p. 7) had designated Turbo
perversus ‘Montagu’ as the type species of Bal/ea and that this considerably predated
Herrmannsen’s (1846) designation.

Additional reference

Draparnaud, J.-P.-R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France.
(Ouvrage posthume). viii, 164 pp., 13 pls. Paris.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 13. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Stys,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Starobogatov and Thompson.

Heppell pointed out that the title of the paper by Harris (1894) is correctly cited as
‘On the alteration of the generic name Clausilia’.

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:
Balea Gray, 1824, Zoological Journal, 1: 61.

Eulima Risso, 1826, Histoire naturelle des principales productions de |’ Europe méridionale et
particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4, p. 123.
glaber, Strombiformis, Da Costa, 1778, Historia naturalis testaceorum Britanniae or, the British

conchology .., p. 117.
Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778, Historia naturalis testaceorum Britanniae or, the British
conchology ..., p. 107.

The following is the reference for the designation of Turbo perversus Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the nominal genus Balea Gray, 1824:
Turton, W. 1831. A manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands ..., p. 7.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Strombiformis glaber Da
Costa, 1778:
Warén, A. 1989. Journal of Conchology, 33(4): 220.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 157

OPINION 1719

Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Helix
candiota Pfeiffer, 1849 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 are hereby set aside and Helix candiota Pfeiffer,
1849 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Helix candiota Pfeiffer, 1849, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name candiota Pfeiffer, 1849, as published in the binomen Helix candiota
(specific name of the type species of Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2634

An application for the designation of Helix candiota Pfeiffer, 1849 as the type
species of Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 was received from Profs F. Giusti and
G. Manganelli (Universita di Siena, Siena, Italy) on 7 January 1988. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 49: 16-18 (March 1992). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 17. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Dupuis abstained.

Heppell commented that nineteenth century authors attributed the name Helix
candiota to Friwalsky (or Frivalski) who had named specimens he had collected at
Candia in Crete. This manuscript name was first made available (under Article 1 le of
the Code) by Pfeiffer (1849, p. 255) in the synonymy of Helix turbinata Jan (cf. para.
3 of the application). For the locality Sicily ‘nach Jan’ was indicated, but Pfeiffer
himself knew only Greek material, sent to him by Forbes from the island of Syra and
by Friwalsky (spelt ‘Frivaldsky’) from Crete. The specimens figured by Pfeiffer as ‘H.
turbinata’ (pl. 37, figs. 17, 18) must therefore be H. candiota. More recent authors,
including the present applicants, have attributed candiota to Mousson (1854) who
was the first to separate this taxon from Jan’s turbinata. Some of these authors have
incorrectly cited the name candiota from the publication of Mousson’s work, also in
1854, in vol. 3 (pp. 362-402) of Mittheilungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in
Ziirich. In fact this was only pp. 16-54 of the publication as a separate and did not
include H. candiota (p. 10).

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

candiota, Helix, Pfeiffer, 1849, Die Schnirkelschnecken (Gattung Helix) in Abbildungen nach
der Natur mit Beschreibungen, in Kiister, H.C. (Ed.), Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet
von Martini und Chemnitz, vol. 1, part 12, p. 255. [Pp. 201-288 published in 1849; see
Smith, E.A. & England, H.W. 1937. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural
History, 1: 92}.

Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892, Atti della Reale Accademia di Scienze, Lettere e Belle Arti di
Palermo, (3)2: 25.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 159

OPINION 1720

Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844 (Mollusca, Nautiloidea): C. laevigatum
M’Coy, 1844 designated as the type species, and a neotype designated
for C. laevigatum

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Cycloceras M’Coy,
1844 are hereby set aside and Cycloceras laevigatum M’Coy, 1844 is designated
as the type species;

_(b) all previous fixations of type specimens for Cycloceras laevigatum M’Coy, 1844
are hereby set aside and specimen no. GSI: F03400 in the Geological Survey of
Ireland (figured by Foord, 1897, pl. 5, figs. 1a, 1b) is designated as the neotype.

(2) The name Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844 (gender: neuter), type species designated
in (1)(a) above Cycloceras laevigatum M’Coy, 1844, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name /Jaevigatum M’Coy, 1844, as published in the binomen Cycloceras
laevigatum and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above (specific name of
the type species of Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2753

An application for the conservation of usage of Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844 by the
designation of Cycloceras laevigatum M’Coy, 1844 as the type species, and the
designation of a neotype for C. /aevigatum, was received from Dr Kathleen Histon
(Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland) on 12 January 1990. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 48: 97-99 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that, as mentioned in para. 7 of the application,
Croneis (1926) noted that ‘the genotype of Perigrammoceras is a species which
probably should be designated as the genotype of the original Cycloceras of M’Coy’.
He treated Perigrammoceras Foerste, 1924 ‘as a junior objective synonym of
Cycloceras M’Coy’. However, C. laevigatum M’Coy, 1844 was founded on specimen
F.7212 in the National Museum of Ireland (see paras. 1 and 9), whilst O. laevigatum
sensu Foerste (1924), the basis of Perigrammoceras, was based on Foord’s specimen
F03402 in the Geological Survey of Ireland (paras. 6 and 9).

Croneis’s type designation for Cycloceras was only tentative and did not refer to
laevigatum in its original (M’Coy) sense. The designation was therefore invalid and
proposal (1) in para. 11 of the application, which sought to set aside all previous type
designations for Cycloceras, was amended on the voting paper to omit the words
‘prior to that by Croneis (1926) of Cycloceras laevigatum M’Coy, 1844’.

The specimen proposed as the neotype of Cycloceras laevigatum M’Coy (no. GSI:
F03400) was that figured by Foord (1897, pl. 5, figs. la, 1b) and by Sweet (1964,

/ p. K259, figs. 186 2a, 2b) in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology.

|

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 99, with the amendments noted above. At the close
of the voting period on 1 March 1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 29: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844, A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous Limestone fossils of

Treland, p. 6.
laevigatum, Cycloceras, M’Coy, 1844, A synopsis of the characters of the Carboniferous
Limestone fossils of Ireland, p. 10.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 161

OPINION 1721

BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 (Mollusca, Coleoidea): ruled to be
unavailable; Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and B. paxillosa Lamarck,
1801 suppressed

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers:
(a) the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(i) the generic name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799;
(ii) the specific name paxillosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen
Belemnites paxillosa;

(b) the name BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 is hereby ruled to be unavailable, the name

of its type genus having been suppressed in (1)(a)(i). above.

(2) The name Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (gender: feminine), type species by
original designation Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843 (a junior subjective
synonym of Belemnites bisulcatus Blainville, 1827), is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name bisulcatus Blainville, 1827, as published in the binomen Belemnites
bisulcatus (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Belemnites bruguierianus
d’Orbigny, 1843, the type species of Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922 (type genus Passaloteuthis Lissa-
jous, 1915) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The name Belemnites Lamarck, 1799, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(6) The name paxillosa Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Belemnites
paxillosa and as suppressed in (1)(a)(1i) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(7) The name BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838, as ruled to be unavailable in (1)(b) above,
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names
in Zoology.

History of Case 2571

The case was published in its original form in BZN 43: 355-359 (December 1986).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments were published in 44:
48 (March 1987), 44: 194 (September 1987), 45: 50 (March 1988) and 46: 267-272
(December 1989); later aspects were set out in BZN 49: 66-67 (March 1992). The
generic name Belemnites, first made available by Lamarck in 1799, was not in modern
use but the family name BELEMNITIDAE had been extensively used for the taxon for
which the name PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922 was available. Passaloteuthis
Lissajous, 1915 was in established use.

In March 1989 the Commission accepted the original application by Drs Doyle
and Riegraf, which was supported by palaeontologists, and voted (by 20 for, 3
against) to suppress the names Be/emnites and paxillosa Lamarck, 1801 (p. 104), the

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

latter being the specific name of the nominal type species. The application also
conserved usage of the name BELEMNITIDAE by asking that the type genus be deemed
to be Passaloteuthis. This was agreed by the majority vote, but in voting against
Prof W.D.L. Ride suggested an alternative course for the retention of BELEMNITIDAE:
a ruling that Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 be redefined and, by use of the Commission’s
plenary powers, be deemed to be a junior objective synonym of Passaloteuthis
Lissajous, 1915.

As reported in BZN 46: 267-272, following this vote extensive notes on the case
were distributed to palaeontologists and replies were received supporting the
originally proposed suppression of the name Belemnites but conservation of
BELEMNITIDAE (seven for, one against). In September 1990 the Commission was asked
either (a) to confirm its previous acceptance of the Doyle & Riegraf application or
(b) to define Belemnites as available in the taxonomic sense of Passaloteuthis and to
rule that the latter name be treated as though it were the senior synonym; both
courses included the suppression of paxillosa. The voting papers recorded an eighth
palaeontologist in support of course (a).

Thirteen Commissioners voted in favour of each course. In the light of this Drs
Doyle and Riegraf reiterated that any retention of Belemnites as an available generic
name would be unacceptably confusing to belemnite workers; recognizing the
nomenclatural problems they proposed that BELEMNITIDAE should be abandoned as a
family-group name and be replaced by PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE, which had already had
some use at family and superfamily ranks. The proposals on BZN 49: 67 were
published accordingly; no comments were received subsequently.

Proposal (1)(4) on BZN 49: 67 recorded that the type species of Passaloteuthis was
Belemnites bruguierianus d’Orbigny, 1843 (p. 84, pl. 7, figs. 1-5) by original
designation. As noted by Doyle (1990, p. 19), B. bruguierianus is a junior subjective
synonym of B. bisulcatus Blainville, 1827 (p. 79, pl. 2, fig. 7).

Doyle, P. 1990. The British Toarcian (Lower Jurassic) belemnites. Part 1. Palaeontographical
Society (Monographs), 144: 1-49. (Publication no. 584).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 67. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Stys, Thompson, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 7: Bock, Dupuis, Heppell, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov and
Trjapitzin.

Dupuis commented that, contrary to the advice of some research workers in
palaeomalacology but for the sake of non-specialists, he would have preferred to
retain the names Belemnites and BELEMNITIDAE. Heppell voted against because he
considered that improper pressure had been put on the applicants and other
palaeontologists. He said that the second Commission vote (in September 1990) had
failed to give any majority and the case should have been taken as resolved by the
original vote in March 1989; an Opinion should have been issued accordingly.
Decisions of the Commission should not be set aside or modified because of pressure

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 163

from any dissenting individual or group. (Editorial note. Following the second vote,
and again in March 1993, Dr Doyle was consulted as to the current views of
belemnite specialists. He has stated that the important point was the unequivocal
suppression of the generic name Belemnites, and that the section on Coleoidea of
the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology at present in preparation will use
PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE and not BELEMNITIDAE; Russian workers had already adopted
PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE. It should be emphasized that the Commission ruling in no way
affects the propriety of vernacular terms such as ‘belemnite’ or ‘belemnitid’, or the use
of suprafamily-group taxonomic names (e.g. the Order name Belemnitida Zittel,
1895)).

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:
Belemnites Lamarck, 1799, Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 81.
BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838, Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 2(2): 127.
bisulcatus, Belemnites, Blainville, 1827, Mémoire sur les Belemnites, considérées zoologiquement

et géologiquement, p. 79.

PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922, Die fossilen Tintenfische ..., p. 230.
Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915, Bulletin de la Société d’ Histoire Naturelle de Macon, 1915(1): 9.
paxillosa, Belemnites, Lamarck, 1801, Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, p. 104.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1722

Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved, and
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829: Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792
designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the generic name Elonium Leach in Samouelle, 1819 is hereby suppressed for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

(b) all previous fixations of type species for Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 are hereby
set aside and Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792 is designated as the type
species.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig-
nation Omalium striatum Gravenhorst, 1802;

(b) Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by designation
under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) striatum Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Omalium striatum
(specific name of the type species of Acrolocha Thomson, 1858);

(b) striatulus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Staphylinus striatulus
(specific name of the type species of Coprophilus Latreille, 1829).

(4) The name Elonium Leach in Samouelle, 1819, as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is

hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 2764

An application for the designation of Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792 as the
type species of Coprophilus Latreille, 1829, and the conservation of Acrolocha
Thomson, 1858, was received from Dr Margaret K. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural
History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) on 26 February 1990. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 49: 22-27 (March 1992). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the question had been raised as to whether
the name Elonium, which appeared on pp. 175 and 468 of Samouelle’s work (para. 1 .
of the application), should be attributed to “Leach in Samouelle’ under Article 50a of
the Code, and as given in nomenclators such as Sherborn and Neave, or to
“Samouelle’. The entry (p. 175) reads: “The following species may be considered as
types of as many genera: Genus Elonium. Leach. Omalium striatum ...’. On p. 172
Samouelle wrote: “To my kind and valuable friend Dr. Leach I am indebted for the
above and following notice of new genera, as lately established by the celebrated
entomologists whose names are affixed’. It therefore seems that the authorship ‘Leach
in Samouelle’ is appropriate.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 165

It was also noted that Omalium striatum was the only species included in Elonium,
but an author for the specific name was not cited (para. 1 of the application).
However, in a section of the work (pp. 357-444) called “The Entomologist’s
Calendar, exhibiting the time of appearance and habitation of near three thousand
species of British insects’, O. striatum was ascribed (p. 375) to Gyllenhall (1810,
p. 231), who referred to Gravenhorst (1802).

Additional reference

Gyllenhall, L. 1810. Insecta Svecica. Classis I. Coleoptera sive Eleuterata, vol. 1, part 2.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
-_proposals published in BZN 49: 24-25. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Schuster.

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:

Acrolocha Thomson, 1858, Ofversigt af Kungliga Vetenskapsakadamiens Férhandlingar, 15: 38.

Coprophilus Latreille, 1829, Le régne animal ... (Ed. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D.), Ed. 2, vol. 4, p. 439.

Elonium Leach, 1819, in Samouelle, G., The entomologist’s useful compendium, p. 175.

striatulus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 1,
part 2, p. 525.

striatum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera microptera Brunsvicensia nec non exoti-
corum quotquot exstant in collectionibus entomologorum Brunsvicensium in genera, familiae
et species distribuit, p. 119.

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1723

Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta,
Coleoptera): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name mollis Str6m, 1768, as published in
the binomen Carabus mollis, and all uses of the name Carabus mollis prior to that by
Marsham, 1802, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name mollis Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Carabus mollis
and as defined by the lectotype designated by Aukema & Luff (1992), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name mollis Strom, 1768, as published in the binomen Carabus mollis and
as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2782

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Carabus mollis
Marsham, 1802 was received from Drs B. Aukema (Plant Protection Service,
Wageningen, The Netherlands) and M.L. Luff (University of Newcastle upon Tyne,
U.K.) on 9 July 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 28-29
(March 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the lectotype designation for Calathus mollis
(Marsham, 1802) dated from its publication by Aukema & Luff (1992) in BZN 49: 28
and not from ‘Aukema 1990’ as recorded on the specimen label (para. 2 of the
application).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 28-29. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 29: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

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:
mollis, Carabus, Marsham, 1802, Coleoptera Britannica....., vol. 2, p. 456.
mollis, Carabus, Strom, 1768, Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskabs Skrifter, 4: 330.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Carabus mollis
Marsham, 1802:
Aukema, B. & Luff, M.L. 1992. BZN 49: 28.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 167

OPINION 1724

Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as correct
original spelling

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the correct original spelling of the generic name
Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 is hereby deemed to be Helophorus.

(2) The name Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent designation by Latreille (1810) Silpha aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, spelling ruled in (1) above.

(3) The name aquatica Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Silpha
aquatica (specific name of the type species of Helophorus Fabricius, 1775), is hereby

‘placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect
original spelling).

History of Case 2796

An application for the conservation of the spelling of Helophorus Fabricius, 1775
was received from Dr R.B. Angus (Royal Holloway and Bedford New College, Egham,
Surrey, U.K.) on 18 October 1990. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 49: 30-31 (March 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Comments in support from Drs A. Smetana (Centre for Land and Biological
Resources Research, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Canada), G.N. Foster (The
Balfour-Browne Club, Ayr, Scotland, U.K.), Alfred F. Newton Jr. (Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.), Paul J. Spangler (National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), D.T. Bilton
Unstitutionen for Genetik, Uppsala Universitet, Sweden), Hans Silfverberg (Univer-
sitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) and Prof J.A. Owen (Epsom,
Surrey, U.K.) were published in BZN 49: 230-232 (September 1992).

It was noted on the voting paper that a further comment in support was received
from Dr Franz Hebauer (Jnstitiit fiir Zoologie der Universitat, Kassel, Germany). A
comment from Dr Michael Hansen (Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark),
received during the voting period, noted: ‘The spelling Helophorus is now being
almost universally used, and has been used in most papers during this century (and
this includes hundreds of papers) and all major treatments within the last decades.
Since the genus is often referred to it is desirable to get the correct spelling settled’.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 31. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

Negative votes — 1: Stys.

Voting for, Heppell commented that the spelling Helophorus was that originally
used for the erection of a family-group name. Voting against, Stys did not consider
that the Commission should accept the modern practice of using Helophorus: at least
since Chiesa (1959) and McCorkle (1965) it had been well known that the original
spelling was Elophorus.

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:
aquatica, Silpha, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 362.
Elophorus Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 66 (an incorrect original spelling of
Helophorus).
Helophorus Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 66 (incorrectly spelled as Elophorus).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 169

OPINION 1725

Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Scutopterus Dejean, 1833 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Meladema Laporte, 1835 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy Meladema coriacea Laporte, 1835, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name coriacea Laporte, 1835, as published in the binomen Meladema
coriacea (specific name of the type species of Meladema Laporte, 1835) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Scutopterus Dejean, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2776

An application for the conservation of Meladema Laporte, 1835 was received from
Dr Anders N. Nilsson (University of Umed, Umed, Sweden) on | June 1990. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 32-34 (March 1992). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the application had the support of Dr Hans
Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland).

It was also noted that, since Sharp’s (1882) work, Dytiscus lanio Fabricius, 1775
had been included in Meladema Laporte, 1835 (paras. 4 and 5 of the application) and
under the Code Meladema was a junior subjective synonym of Scutopterus Dejean,
1833. However, Nilsson, Roughley & Brancucci (1989, p. 314) had commented: “The
synonymy of Meladema Laporte and Scutopterus Dejean follows from our fixation of
Dytiscus lanio Fabricius, 1775, as the type species of Scutopterus. This case should be
referred to the Commission for a conservation of Meladema Laporte. To make this
possible Scutopterus Dejean should be suppressed as an unused senior synonym’.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 33. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Cogger and Dupuis.

Dupuis commented that since Meladema and Scutopterus were subjective syn-
onyms he would have preferred Meladema to be given precedence over Scutopterus
rather than suppressing the latter name.

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

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:

coriacea, Meladema, Laporte, 1835, Etudes entomologiques, ou description d'insectes nouveaux;
et observations sur la synonymie, part 1, p. 98.

Meladema Laporte, 1835, Etudes entomologiques, ou description d'insectes nouveaux; et
observations sur la synonymie, part 1, p. 98.

Scutopterus Dejean, 1833, Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed.
2, part 1, p. 54.

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 171

OPINION 1726

Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Tachinus
punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 designated as the type species; [schnosoma
Stephens, 1829 conserved; and Mycetoporus given precedence over
Ischnosoma

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the generic name Jschnosoma Cuvier, 1829, and all uses of the name
Ischnosoma prior to Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829, are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Mycetoporus Mannerheim,
1831 prior to the designation by Thomson (1859) of Tachinus punctus
Gravenhorst, 1806 are hereby set aside.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (gender: masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Thomson (1859) Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806, as

_Tuled in (1)(b) above, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence
over Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829 whenever the two names are considered to be
synonyms;

(b) Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent
designation by Thomson (1859) Tachinus splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806, with
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names

in Zoology:

(a) punctus Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Tachinus punctus
(specific name of the type species of Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831);

(b) splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Tachinus splendidus
(specific name of the type species of Jschnosoma Stephens, 1829).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Ischnosoma Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes), as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Leichotes Gistl, 1834 (a junior objective synonym of Jschnosoma Stephens,
1829);

(c) Myteroxis Gozis, 1886 (a junior objective synonym of Ischnosoma Stephens,
1829);

(d) Ischnosomata Strand, 1935 (a junior objective synonym of Jschnosoma
Stephens, 1829);

(e) Schinomosa Tottenham, 1939 (a junior objective synonym of Mycetoporus
Mannerheim, 1831).

History of Case 2733
An application for the conservation of Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 by the
designation of Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species, for the

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

conservation of Jschnosoma Stephens, [June] 1829, and for Mycetoporus to be given
precedence over /schnosoma was received from Dr J.M. Campbell (Biosystematics
Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) on 24 July 1989.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 35-40 (March 1992). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the application had the support of Dr Hans
Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland).

It was also noted that under the Code Tachinus splendidus Gravenhorst, 1806 was
the type species of both Jschnosoma Stephens, 1829 and Mycetoporus Mannerheim,
1831 (paras. 5 and 6 of the application). Thus, Blackwelder’s (1952) designation of
T. splendidus as the type species of Leichotes Gistl, 1834 rendered the latter name a
junior objective synonym of Jschnosoma and Mycetoporus (not subjective as noted
in para. 4 of the application). Myteroxis Gozis, 1886 (type species by monotypy
T. splendidus) was also a junior objective synonym of both Jschnosoma and
Mycetoporus (cf. para. 7 of the application). Approval of proposal (1)(b) in para. 13
(BZN 49: 37), i.e. the designation of T. punctus as the type species of Mycetoporus
following Thomson’s (1859) designation and subsequent usage, would allow Leicho-
tes and Myteroxis to be placed on the Official Index as junior objective synonyms of
Ischnosoma (and not as stated in proposals (4)(b) and (4)(c)).

In para. 8 of the application it was stated that the fish generic name Ischnosoma
Cuvier, [31 March] 1829 was available under Article lle of the Code; the voting
paper noted that although this may be questioned the name was certainly made
available between May and July 1829 (see BZN 46: 130, para. 1). In Opinion 1621
(BZN 47: 239-240) the name Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 was placed on the Official
List but the synonymous Jschnosoma was not suppressed. Suppression was now
appropriate for the conservation of Jschnosoma Stephens.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 37-38, with the amendments noted above. At the
close of the voting period on 1 March 1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno,
Willink

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Cogger, Lehtinen and Thompson.

No vote was received from Ride.

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:

Ischnosoma Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation ..., Ed, 2, vol. 2,
p. 328.

Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829, The nomenclature of British insects ..., p. 22

Ischnosomata Strand, 1935, Folia Zoologica Hydrobiologica, 7(2): 293.

Leichotes Gistl, 1834, Die Insecten-Doubletten aus der Sammlung des Herrn Grafen Rudolph von
Jenison Walworth zu Regensburg, no. 1, p. 9.

Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831, Mémoires présentés a I’ Académie Impériale des Sciences de
St.-Pétersbourg par Divers Savans, et lus dans ses Assemblées, 1(5): 476.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 173

Myteroxis Gozis, 1886, Recherche de l’espéce typique de quelques anciens genres. Rectifications
synonymiques et notes diverses, p. 14.

punctus, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806, Monographia coleopterorum micropterorum, p. 27.

Schinomosa Tottenham, 1939, Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London,
(B)8(12): 226.

splendidus, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806, Monographia coleopterorum micropterorum, p. 24.

The following is the reference for the designation of Tachinus punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 as
the type species of the nominal genus Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831:
Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 1, p. 47.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1727

Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): placed on the Official
List of Generic Names

Ruling

(1) The name Schizopus Le Conte, [April] 1858 (gender: masculine), type species
by monotypy Schizopus laetus Le Conte, 1858, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(2) The name /aetus Le Conte, 1858, as published in the binomen Schizopus laetus
(specific name of the type species of Schizopus Le Conte, 1858), is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name Schizopus Claparede & Lachmann, [December] 1858 is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a
junior homonym of Schizopus Le Conte, [April] 1858).

History of Case 2773

An application for the conservation of Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 was received
from Prof G.H. Nelson (College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Pomona,
California, U.S.A.) on 14 May 1990. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 48: 305-307 (December 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. Comments by Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum,
Leiden, The Netherlands) and Dr V. Mahnert (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Genéve,
Switzerland), published in BZN 49: 232-233 (September 1992), gave the dates of
publication of the (1858) works by Le Conte and Claparede & Lachmann as April
and December respectively.

It was noted on the voting paper that since Schizopus Le Conte was the prior name
there was no need for Commission action to conserve it. Proposal (4)(1) on BZN 48:
305-306 was therefore withdrawn. The Commission was asked only to place
Schizopus, and the name of its type species S. /aetus, both of Le Conte ({April] 1858),
on appropriate Official Lists, and Schizopus Claparéde & Lachmann, [December]
1858 (a junior homonym) on the Official Index. Use of the plenary powers was not
required and a simple majority vote would suffice.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 306, with proposal (4)(1) withdrawn, as noted above.
At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Heppell and Stys.

Lehtinen abstained.

Heppell, Lehtinen and Stys commented that, in their view, there was no need
to place the senior homonym Schizopus Le Conte on the Official List. (Editorial

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 175

note. This is the most effective way of recording the facts which came to light as a
result of the submission of the case to the Commission).

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:

laetus, Schizopus, Le Conte, [April] 1858, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, 1858: 70.

Schizopus Claparéde & Lachmann, [December] 1858, Mémoires de I’ Institut National Génevois,
5: 182.

Schizopus Le Conte, [April] 1858, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, 1858: 70.

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1728

Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Platyscelis
margelanica Kraatz, 1882 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
subgenus Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 are hereby set aside and Platyscelis marge-
lanica Kraatz, 1882 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Platyscelis margelanica Kraatz,
1882, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name margelanica Kraatz, 1882, as published in the binomen Platyscelis
margelanica (specific name of the type species of Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2731

An application for the designation of Platyscelis margelanica Kraatz, 1882 as the
type species of Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 was received from Dr L.V. Egorov
(Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) on 3 July
1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 300-301 (December
1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 300-301. At the close of the voting period on 1
March 1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin,
Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Dupuis, Halvorsen and Thompson.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
margelanica, Platyscelis, Kraatz, 1882, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 26(1): 84.
Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940, Mitteilungen der Miinchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 30(1):
206. 4

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 177

OPINION 1729

Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Tenebrio hypolithus
Pallas, 1781 designated as the type species, so conserving Oodescelis
Motschulsky, 1845
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 are hereby set aside and Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas,
1781 is designated as the type species.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under
the plenary powers in (1) above Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas, 1781;
(b) Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Kaszab (1940) Blaps polita Sturm, 1807.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) hypolithus Pallas, 1781, as published in the binomen Tenebrio hypolithus
(specific name of the type species of Platyscelis Latreille, 1818);
(b) polita Sturm, 1807, as published in the binomen Blaps polita (specific name of
the type species of Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845).

History of Case 2780

An application for the designation of Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas, 1781 as the type
species of Platyscelis Latreille, 1818, so conserving Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845,
was received from Dr L.V. Egorov (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of
Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) on 13 July 1990. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 48: 302-304 (December 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the additional references held by the
Commission Secretariat (para. 4 of the application) demonstrating usage of the
names Platyscelis and Oodescelis were all published in the last 35 years and included
works by 12 different authors.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 303. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Heppell.

Bouchet abstained.

Heppell and Ride commented that since Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas, 1781 was not
an originally included species of Platyscelis Latreille, 1818, Gueérin’s (1828) designa-
tion (para. 1 of the application) was invalid (cf. proposal (1) in para. 5). This point

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

has been incorporated in the present Opinion. Bouchet and Heppell each commented
that it seemed inappropriate to retain the date and authorship of a monotypic genus
when neither the original description nor the originally included species were in
accord with the current usage of the taxon; they would have preferred to suppress
Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 and to attribute the name to Dejean (1821). T. hypolithus
would then have been the type species by monotypy.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

hypolithus, Tenebrio, Pallas, 1781, Icones insectorum praesertim Russiae Siberiaeque peculiar-
ium, quae collegit et descriptionibus illustravit, p. 44.

Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Sciences des Naturalistes de
Moscou, 18(1): 76.

Platyscelis Latreille, 1818, in: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire naturelle, Ed. 2, vol. 27, p. 23.

polita, Blaps, Sturm, 1807, Deutschlands Fauna in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschrei-
bungen, part 5.2, p. 208.

The following is the reference for the designation of Blaps polita Sturm, 1807 as the type
species of the nominal genus Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845:
Kaszab, Z. 1940. Mitteilungen der Miinchner Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 30(3): 937.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 179

OPINION 1730

Graptolithus clintonensis (currently Monograptus clintonensis;
Graptolithina): specific name attributed to Hall, 1852 and a lectotpye
designated

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name clintonensis Hall, 1843, as
published in the binomen Graptolites clintonensis, and all uses of that name prior to
the publication of Graptolithus clintonensis Hall, 1852, are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name clintonensis Hall, 1852, as published in the binomen Graptolithus
clintonensis and as defined by specimen no. 30951 in the American Museum of
Natural History, New York, U.S.A. (figured by Hall, 1852, pl. A17, fig. 1a) hereby
designated as the lectotype, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

(3) The name clintonensis Hall, 1843, as published in the binomen Graptolites
clintonensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2815

An application to conserve the specific name of Monograptus clintonensis in its
accepted usage by attributing it to Hall (1852) was received from Dr D.K. Loydell
Unstitute of Earth Studies, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales) on 12
April 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 43-45 (March
1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that an alternative approach would have been the
designation of a neotype in the 1852 sense of clintonensis for the nominal species
Graptolites clintonensis Hall, 1843. However, in his 1843 publication Hall based this
species on his illustrated specimen (which is of Monograptus priodon Bronn, 1835;
para. 1 of the application) and Dr Loydell favoured the published approach, i.e.
attribution of the name to Hall (1852) where the species was described in some detail
and the proposed lectotype was figured.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 44. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride,
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 6: Bouchet, Cogger, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen and Thompson.

Dupuis abstained.

Lehtinen commented that since the original reference specimen of Graptolites
clintonensis Hall, 1843 existed there was no reason to change the concept of the
species because of subsequent errors by the original author. Thompson commented

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

that insufficient justification had been given for the suppression of clintonensis Hall,
1843; he considered that the specimen selected as the lectotype of clintonensis Hall,
1852 could have been designated as the neotype of clintonensis Hall, 1843. Kraus
commented that inadequate information had been given on the usage and importance
of clintonensis Hall, 1852 and questioned whether names in current use would be
affected if priority were followed; in addition, the application had not been supported
by other specialists in the field. Dupuis abstained because a European senior
synonym of clintonensis Hall, 1852 might be found which would have correlation
implications.

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:

clintonensis, Graptolites, Hall, 1843, Geology of New York. Part IV. Survey of the Fourth
Geological District, p. 74.

clintonensis, Graptolithus, Hall, 1852, Palaeontology of New York. Volume II, containing
descriptions of the organic remains of the Lower Middle Division of the New York System,
p. 39.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 181

OPINION 1731

Monograptus crenulatus (currently Monoclimacis crenulata;
Graptolithina): specific name attributed to Elles & Wood, 1911, and a
lectotype designated

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name crenulatus Tornquist, 1881, as
published in the binomen Monograptus crenulatus, and all uses of that name prior to
its publication by Elles & Wood (1911), are hereby suppressed for the purposes of
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name crenulatus Elles & Wood, 1911, as published in the trinomen
Monograptus vomerinus crenulatus and as defined by specimen no. BU 1555 in
Birmingham University, Birmingham, U.K. (figured by Elles & Wood, 1911, text fig.
278a) hereby designated as the lectotype, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name crenulatus Térnquist, 1881, as published in the binomen Monograp-
tus crenulatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2826

An application to conserve the specific name of Monograptus crenulatus in its
accepted usage by attributing it to Elles & Wood (1911) was received from Drs D.K.
Loydell (Institute of Earth Studies, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales),
E.E. Bull (Grant Institute of Geology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland)
and P. Storch (Geological Survey, Praha, Czech Republic) on 15 July 1991. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 46-48 (March 1992). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 47. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson and Thompson.

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:
crenulatus, Monograptus, Térnquist, 1881, Geologiska Féreningens i Stockholm Férhandlingar,
5: 438.
crenulatus, Monograptus vomerinus, Elles & Wood, 1911, Palaeontographical Society (Mono-
graph), p. 412.

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1732

Scylliorhinus atlanticus Koefoed, 1927 (currently Apristurus atlanticus;
Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name spinacipellitum Vaillant, 1888, as
published in the binomen Scy/lium? spinacipellitum, is hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name atlanticus Koefoed, 1927, as published in the binomen Scylliorhinus
atlanticus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name spinacipellitum Vaillant, 1888, as published in the binomen Scy/lium?
spinacipellitum and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2797

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Scylliorhinus atlanticus
Koefoed, 1927 was received from Prof K. Nakaya (Hokkaido University, Hokkaido,
Japan) and Dr B. Séret (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 22
October 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 49-S1
(March 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 50. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride,
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Bayer, Bouchet, Lehtinen and Macpherson.

Dupuis abstained.

Bayer commented that since the taxonomy of the catsharks was still unsettled the
suppression of Scyllium spinacipellitum was inadvisable. Dupuis abstained because
insufficient information had been given on other Atlantic catsharks and on the status
of the genus.

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: ]
atlanticus, Scylliorhinus, Koefoed, 1927, Report of the Scientific Results of Michael Sars North

Atlantic Deepsea Expedition 1910, 4(1): 18.
spinacipellitum, Scyllium?, Vaillant, 1888, in Masson, G. (Ed.), Expéditions scientifiques du
Travailleur et du Talisman pendant les années 1880-83, p. 60.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 183

OPINION 1733

Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific
name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name quadrupeda Custis, 1807, as
published in the binomen Syren quadrupeda, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name tridactylum Cuvier, 1827, as published in the binomen Amphiuma
tridactylum, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name quadrupeda Custis, 1807, as published in the binomen Syren
quadrupeda and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2771

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Amphiuma tridactylum
Cuvier, 1827 was received from Prof Harold A. Dundee (Tulane University, New
Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) on 27 April 1990. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 48: 238-239 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. A comment in support from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 49: 151 (June 1992).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 239. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1992 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Macpherson.

No vote was received from Heppell.

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:
quadrupeda, Syren, Custis, 1807, in King, N. (Ed.), An account of the Red River, in Louisiana,
drawn up from the returns of Messrs. Freeman & Custis, to the War Office of the United
States, who explored the same, in the year 1806, p. 60.
tridactylum, Amphiuma, Cuvier, 1827, Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 14: 7.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1734

Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840 (currently Macropterygius
trigonus; Reptilia, Ichthyopterygia): neotype replaced by rediscovered
holotype

Ruling .

(1) It is hereby confirmed that Lydekker (1889) did not validly designate a neotype
of Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840.

(2) The name Macropterygius von Huene, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species
by subsequent designation by von Huene (1923) Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name trigonus Owen, 1840, as published in the binomen Jchthyosaurus
trigonus and as defined by the holotype (specimen no. ANSP 10124 in the Vertebrate
Paleontology collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A.,
figured by Spamer, Bogan & Torrens, 1989) (specific name of the type species of
Macropterygius von Huene, 1922), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2779

An application to replace the putative neotype of Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen,
1840 by the rediscovered holotype was received from Drs Earle E. Spamer (Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) and Hugh S. Torrens
(University of Keele, Keele, Staffordshire, U.K.) on 13 July 1990. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 48: 240-242 (September 1991). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that Lydekker (1889, p. 22) had proposed that
three vertebrae (cervical, dorsal and caudal) figured by Phillips (1871) could
conveniently be taken as ‘representing the types’ of Jchthyosaurus trigonus. However,
the provenance of these vertebrae was unknown and there was no evidence that they
came from the same individual or even locality (para. 2 of the application). The
selection of such a suite as ‘the types’ did not constitute a valid neotype designation
(cf. para. 3). Although this was not referred to in the application, Lydekker (p. 24)
used the expression ‘which may be taken as the type’ when comparing Phillips’s
figured cervical vertebra with another example, but the context suggests that he was
merely referring to it as being the ‘type’ (i.e. the figured) cervical specimen and not
selecting this vertebra as the single name-bearer for the species.

Lydekker’s statements did not constitute a neotype designation and the Commiss-
ion was asked simply to confirm this in an amended version of Proposal (1) on BZN
48: 242. It was also proposed, in accord with usual practice, that Macropterygius von
Huene, 1922 be placed on the Official List of Generic Names; von Huene (1923, p.
465) had designated Jchthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840 as the type species (para. 5 of
the application).

Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
Proposal (2) on BZN 48: 242, together with amended Proposal (1) and the addition

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 185

noted above. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1992 the votes were as
follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis (in
part), Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Heppell.

Dupuis abstained from voting on the amended Proposal (1) because the neotype
concept was unknown at the time of Lydekker (1889) who, in any case, had not (in
terms of the current Code) validly designated a neotype for Macropterygius trigonus.
Stys commented that in his view there had been no need for Commission action. Ride
commented that Lydekker’s action failed to meet the qualifying conditions of Article
75 of the Code and therefore the holotype was not threatened in any way by his
suggestion that Phillips’s (1871) vertebral specimens be treated as ‘types’. It appeared
that no nomenclatural instability was caused by rediscovery of the holotype.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Macropterygius von Huene, 1922, Monographien zur Geologie und Palaeontologie, 1: 98.
trigonus, Ichthyosaurus, Owen, 1840, Report of the 9th Meeting of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1839, 8: 124.

186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1735

Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 (Reptilia, Squamata): neotype designated

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the
nominal species Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 are hereby set aside and specimen no.
64656 in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley,
U.S.A. is designated as the neotype.

(2) The name Anniella Gray, 1852 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology.

(3) The name pulchra Gray, 1852, as published in the binomen Anniella pulchra
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type
species of Anniella Gray, 1852), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

(4) The name argentea Hunt, 1983, as published in the trinomen Anniella nigra
argentea, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852).

History of Case 2552

An application to conserve the accepted usage of the specific name of Anniella
pulchra Gray, 1852 by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr R.W.
Murphy (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) and Prof H.M. Smith
(University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) on 16 January 1986. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 316-318 (December 1991). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Comments in support from Profs Royce E. Ballinger (University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, U.S.A.), Lauren E. Brown (lilinois State University, Normal, U.S.A.),
Wilmer W. Tanner (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.), Robert C.
Stebbins (University of California, Berkeley, U.S.A.), John B. Iverson (Earlham
College, Richmond, Indiana, U.S.A.) and David Chiszar (University of Colorado,
Boulder, U.S.A.) were published in BZN 49: 155-156 (June 1992). A note of further
supportive comments from Profs Carl Gans (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
U.S.A.), Anthony P. Russell (University of Calgary, Canada) and Laurie J. Vitt
(Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, Norman, U.S.A.) was published at the same
time.

Further comments in support from Drs Mark R. Jennings (U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, San Simeon, California, U.S.A.), Robert G.
Sprackland (Belmont, California, U.S.A.), Hugh Griffith (University of California,
Berkeley, U.S.A.) and Richard G. Zweifel (American Museum of Natural History,
New York, U.S.A.) were published in BZN 49: 234-235 (September 1992).

It was noted on the voting paper that copies of the application and of the
comments published in June 1992 had been sent to Dr Lawrence E. Hunt (cf. paras.
4-6 of the application). The Newsletter of the Southwestern Herpetologists Society,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 187

22(8): 5 (August 1992), stated that Dr Hunt now preferred to refer to the California
legless lizard by its older, accepted name, Anniella pulchra, pending a decision by the
Commission.

It was also noted that Gray’s (1852) description was brief but, as noted by Hunt
(1983, p. 80), ‘it would be very difficult to demonstrate that his description was based
on more than one specimen’ (cf. para. 2 of the application).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 317-318. At the close of the voting period on 1
March 1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Stys.

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:
Anniella Gray, 1852, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)10(59): 440.
argentea, Anniella nigra, Hunt, 1983, Copeia, 1983(1): 86.
pulchra, Anniella, Gray, 1852, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)10(59): 440.

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1736

Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 (Mammalia,
Primates): 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) longimana Schreber, [1774], as published in the binomen Simia longimana;
(b) albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828, as published in the binomen Simia
albimana.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) longimana Schreber, [1774], as published in the binomen Simia longimana and
as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828, as published in the binomen Simia
albimana and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2770

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Hy/lobates entelloides
I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 was received from Miss Paulina D. Jenkins (The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Dr Colin P. Groves (Australian
National University, Canberra, Australia) on 24 April 1990. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 49: 58-61 (March 1992). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

The specific name of Hylobates entelloides was placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Opinion 1219 (September 1982; BZN 39: 168-171) but the names
Simia longimana Schreber, [1774] and S. albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828 were not
then considered.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 60. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 29: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (in part), Cocks, Cogger, Corliss,
Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpher-
son, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Bouchet commented that suppression of Simia albimana Vigors & Horsfield, 1828
was justified; however, S. Jongimana Schreber, [1774] could have been stabilised by
designating the neotype of Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771 as a neotype for S. longimana
and Commission action on this name would then not have been necessary.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official Index by the
ruling given in the present Opinion:

a

Se

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 189

albimana, Simia, Vigors & Horsfield, 1828, Zoological Journal, 4(13): 107-109.
longimana, Simia, Schreber, [1774], Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit
Beschreibungen, vol. 1, p. 67, pl. 3.

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

OPINION 1737

Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates):
generic and specific names 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 Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895;

(b) the specific name grandidieri Filhol, 1895, as published in the binomen

Thaumastolemur grandidieri.

(2) The name Palaeopropithecus G. Grandidier, 1899 (gender: masculine), type
species by monotypy Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name ingens G. Grandidier, 1899, as published in the binomen Palaeopro-
pithecus ingens (specific name of the type species of Palaeopropithecus G. Grandidier,
1899), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895, as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology.

(5) The name grandidieri Filhol, 1895, as published in the binomen Thaumastole-
mur grandidieri 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 2785

An application for the conservation of the generic and specific names of Palae-
opropithecus ingens G. Grandidier, 1899 was received from Drs Ian Tattersall
(American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.), Elwyn L. Simons (Duke
University Primate Center, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.) and Martine Vuillaume-
Randriamanantena (Service de Paléontologie, Université d’ Antananarivo, Madagas-
car; Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 6 August 1990. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 55-57 (March 1992). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Eric Delson
(American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) and 16 others from
a number of institutions was published (p. 73) at the same time as the application.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1992 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 56. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, —

Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen.

Lehtinen considered that, since two names for a taxon had been proposed within
four years based on material from adjacent type localities, priority should apply,
particularly as the type material for the older name exists.

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993 191

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:

grandidieri, Thaumastolemur, Filhol, 1895, Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
1(1): 13.

ingens, Palaeopropithecus, G. Grandidier, 1899, Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, 5(7): 345.

Palaeopropithecus G. Grandidier, 1899, Bulletin du Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, 5(7):
345.

Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895, Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 1(1): 13.

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(2) June 1993

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis-
sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be
prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; the Commission’s Secretariat
reserves the right to return applications not so prepared.

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 .. .’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title 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 place of publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time
that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript
could be accompanied by a disk with copy in ASCII text in IBM PC format. It would
also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of
the main references where this is possible.

Applicants would be well advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the
same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider
implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.

Contents — continued

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka
Gilbert, 1884 Bad meee topeka) ih aay ie Sees) H.M.
Smith

On the proposed conservation of the eee names ei Mugil curema and M. ioe
Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). I.J.
Harrison . :

On a proposed neotype for eaves bee (Cope, 1887) fRepulia, Saariniay.
P.K. Tubbs; A.P. Hunt & S.G. Lucas; R.M. Sullivan; H.-D. Sues . ae

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1717. Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer, 1827 eee
conserved in their accepted usage. ; ,

Opinion 1718. Balea Gray, 1824 (Mollusca, iSesapacs): pee es ) Bea oe

Opinion 1719. Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Helix
candiota Pfeiffer, 1849 designated as the type species :

Opinion 1720. Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844 (Mollusca, Wantilaides): C ie Heros
M’Coy, 1844 nes ara as the type species, and a neotype designated for
C. laevigatum d

Opinion 1721. BELEMNITIDAE Guct 1838 (Mollusca: Colesides): mailed a ie paved:
able; Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 and B. paxillosa Lamarck, 1801 suppressed

Opinion 1722. Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved, and
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829: Staphylinus striatulus Fabricius, 1792 designated as the
type species .

Opinion 1723. Caaier aollss eine 1802 een Calathus elias ieee
Coleoptera): specific name conserved ae

Opinion 1724. Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Euleaptean): ee as correct
original spelling

Opinion 1725. Meladema Bapone 1835 (nsec ‘Caleopters): leouseaved

Opinion 1726. Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Tachinus
punctus Gravenhorst, 1806 designated as the type species; Jschnosoma Stephens,
1829 conserved; and Mycetoporus given precedence over Ischnosoma . ;

Opinion 1727. Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): placed on the Official
List of Generic Names .

Opinion 1728. Planoplatyscelis Kaseib) 1940 Gases Galzapien): aise
margelanica Kraatz, 1882 designated as the type species .

Opinion 1729. Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Tenchi pokind:
Pallas, 1781 designated as the type species, so conserving Oodescelis Motschulsky,

Opinion 1730. Graptolithus clintonensis (currently Monograptus clintonensis;
Graptolithina): specific name attributed to Hall, 1852 and a lectotype designated.

Opinion 1731. Monograptus crenulatus (currently Monoclimacis crenulata;
Graptolithina): specific name attributed to Elles & Wood, 1911, and a lectotype
designated. ‘

Opinion 1732. Sli oeiates pens Racfocd: 1927 cimeniiy Jee Fea
Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): specific name conserved .

Opinion 1733. Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata): specif
name conserved at

Opinion 1734. Ichthyosaurus ere Green, 1840 (nent aoe eetenes fous
Reptilia, Ichthyopterygia): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype.

Opinion 1735. Anniella pulchra Gray, 1852 (Reptilia, Squamata): neotype designated.

Opinion 1736. Hylobates entelloides 1. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842 (Mammalia,
Primates): specific name conserved . ;

Opinion 1737. Palaeopropithecus ingens G. Gruden “1899 (Mammalia, Panates):
generic and specific names conserved verb: By ee ei oes ae

Instructions to Authors .

CONTENTS

Notices 7

Call for nominations for new members of the ‘International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature . ;

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature,

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in nin Secénd d Supplement to
1990. ne Toe ean OE aye aoe ae PAN Maker

Obituary Mr R.V. Melville .

Applications

Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] and Tokophyra Bitschli, 1889 (Ciliophora, Suctoria):
proposed conservation; Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834] and Podophyra
quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (currently Tokophyra quadripartita):
proposed conservation of the specific names. I.V. Dovgal & Ya.I. Starobogatov .

Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Melanella polita; Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed conservation of usage of the specific name, so conserving the specific
name of Buccinum acicula Miller, 1774 (currently Cecilioides acicula). A. Warén &
E. Gittenberger.

Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898 (carseat Capris lees Insecta onieiae
proposed conservation of the specific name. J.A.L. Watson & H.M. Abbey

Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed replacement of
syntype by a neotype, so conserving usage of the specific name and that of
A. hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878. I.M. Kerzhner & E. Heiss

Notonecta obliqua Gallén in Thunberg, 1787 (Insecta, Heteropters): sropowal
conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson & J.T. Polhemus .

Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara (Pseudovermicorixa) niraltnenie
Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson &
J.T. Polhemus .

Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 tchrrenitly. Sigara ‘(Gropocariea) liegt “Iocan .
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. A. Jansson.

Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus; Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. A.N. Nilsson .

HEMIDACTYLINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata); proposed conse vane i. M.
Smith & D.B. Wake .

Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Vammalia, Artiodactyla): peapasel ‘deveneten a
L. ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the type species. A.W. Gentry & E.P.J. Heizmann. |

Proceryulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed designation of
Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the type species. A.W. Gentry & G. Rossner.

Comments

On the proposed conservation of the generic and specific names of Zanclea costata
Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). B.P. Haldar . :

On the proposed confirmation of unavailability of the name Fusis Holling. 1779
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). M. Oliverio

On the proposed precedence of Taningia emee ene 1931 (Mollusca
Cephalopoda) over T. persica (Naef, 1923). M.R. Clarke. :

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodeeus (Molluses
Ammonoidea) to Schlotheim, 1813, with the aes of a nae NJ.
Silberling .

On the proposed conservation wt the’ ppeaie names = Gebia major aon Kaeo
1843 and G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently Upogebia capensis and U. africana, _
Crustacea, Decapoda) by the designation of a replacement neotype for U. capensis. —
C.L. Griffiths; W. Emmerson; K. Baba; T.E. Bowman; J.W. Martin; A.B.
Williams Fe Gaia, (ek x “a Mae eS a pen i Say oo

Continued on Inside Back

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Bulletin

Zoological
Nomenclature

| The Offici dic
ofthe Internatior nmi |
on Zoological Nomenclature

— iP Or

mt

|

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 1993 is £80
or $155, postage included; the rate for 1994 will be £85 or $165. All manuscripts,
letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)

Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)

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 P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza

Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)

Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia)

Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany; Arachnology) (Russia; 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)

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1993

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 50, part 3 (pp. 193-264) 30 September 1993

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publica-
tion but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.

(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 50, part 2 (published on 30 June 1993). Under Article
80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission
is published.

(1) Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2885). P.E. Skelley & M.A.
Goodrich.

(2) Dendrodoris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed con-
servation of the specific name. (Case 2886). J. Ortea & A. Valdés.

(3) Brentus Fabricius, 1787 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case
2887). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga.

(4) Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): proposed conservation.
(Case 2888). F.B. Crandall.

(5) Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis Froggatt,
1898 (currently Amitermes meridionalis; Insecta, Isoptera): proposed retention
of neotypes following rediscovery of syntypes. (Case 2889). J.A.L. Watson.

(6) Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus monardae;
Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case
2890). D.J. Voegtlin.

(7) Helix pusilla Lowe, 1831 (currently Punctum pusillum; Mollusca, Gastro-
poda): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2891). M.B.
Seddon, P.G. Oliver & D.T. Holyoak.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

(8) Bulimus doliolum Bruguiére, 1792 (currently Sphyradium doliolum) and Helix
coronata Deshayes, 1850 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of
the specific names. (Case 2892). M.B. Seddon, P.G. Oliver & D.T. Holyoak.

(9) Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation.
(Case 2893). F.-T. Krell.

(10) Monstrilla Dana, 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed conservation. (Case
2894). M.J. Grygier.

(11) Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 (currently Eretmosaurus rugosus; Reptilia,
Plesiosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. (Case 2895). D.S. Brown &
N. Bardet.

(12) Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation
of S. pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species. (Case 2896). E.K.
Kempf.

(13) Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed
conservation; AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and AGONIDAE
Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed removal of
homonymy. (Case 2897). B.A. Sheiko.

(14) Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Caranx or Pseudocaranx
dentex) and Caranx lugubris Poey, 1860 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): pro-
posed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2898). W.F. Smith-Vaniz &
J.E. Randall.

(15) Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1834 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed con-
servation of usage by designation of a neotype. (Case 2899). P.H. Gibson &
D. Heppell.

(16) Porites Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendro-
phyllia Blainville, 1830 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation. (Case
2900). D.C. Potts.

(d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or 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.

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established to
facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and to support
the Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with information
on the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to buy the Code -
and the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the
Treasurer Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural
Council are Dr H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof. A. Minelli
(Italy) and Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open
to all European zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr M.A.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
28006 Madrid, Spain.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 195

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £19 or $35,
but members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the
European Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of
£15 or $29; payment should accompany orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
‘Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in
1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission
has ruled since it was set up in 1895; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional
entries, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume.
Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Back Copies

Back copies of all the volumes of the Bulletin, and of most volumes of the Opinions
and Declarations that were published concurrently with vols. 1-16 of the Bulletin, are
still available. Prices on application to I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is offering a subscription for
individual zoologists wishing to receive offprints of all cases in particular disciplines.
For an annual payment of £15 or $25 subscribers will receive copies of all
Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to either the Crustacea or Mollusca
as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Offprints are
available back to 1980.

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent
to L.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD,
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

The dating of certain of d’Orbigny’s brachiopod and bivalve nominal
taxa

Miguel O. Mancenido

Invertebrate Palaeozoology Division, La Plata Natural Sciences Museum,
Paseo del Bosque, 1900 La Plata, Argentina

Ellis F. Owen & Noel J. Morris

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

The most widely cited sources concerning authorship of higher taxa among
brachiopods are Dall (1877), Schuchert & LeVene (1929), Muir-Wood (1955) and
Williams et al. (1965). Resulting from our work on the revision of the Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology (1965) we have found that changes in some current
assumptions are necessary.

A number of brachiopod families and genera were erected in several publications
by d’Orbigny between 1847 and 1852, and the date of issue of some of these papers
has often been disputed. Thus Sherborn (1899), using the independent evidence of
contemporaneous literature surveys in the Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geog-
nosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde (co-edited by H.G. Bronn), pointed out that
d’Orbigny’s famous Paléontologie Francaise. Terrains Crétacés, vol. 4 (our reference
*1847d’), although displaying the date 1847 on the title page, was in fact issued at
various times between 1848 and 1851. Presumably it is for this reason that authorship
and date of the family RHYNCHONELLIDAE has often been attributed to Gray (1848),
with the notable recent exception of Laurin (1984, pp. 15—16, 360). Laurin postulated
d’Orbigny (1847) as author of this name, though he admitted to uncertainty about
details of its first publication and assumed that Gray and d’Orbigny would have been
ignorant of each other’s papers (see also Zittel, 1880, pp. 661, 689).

We decided to look into the matter further as there are other papers by d’Orbigny
(1847a, b, ‘c’) which are relevant to this issue and have similar titles. D’Orbigny’s
initial contribution was read to the Paris Academy of Sciences at the sessions of 2 and
16 August 1847 and appeared in two different parts of the Comptes Rendus (internally
dated as Second Semester 1847; see pp. 177, 265, footnotes). These are our reference
d’Orbigny (1847a). Fuller versions were subsequently published in the Annales des
Sciences Naturelles, the first part in vol. 8 (internally dated as October 1847) and the
second part in vol. 13 (internally dated as June 1850). The first part of this expanded -
version is our reference d’Orbigny (1847b) and the second is our d’Orbigny (*1847c’).

When external evidence from the Neues Jahrbuch is taken into account it becomes
clear that only d’Orbigny (1847a and 1847b) could have been published, in that
order, in 1847 and fairly late in the year. Neither of them was noted within the Neues
Jahrbuch for 1847, but both parts of d’Orbigny (1847a) were reviewed together and
in essence translated by Bronn (1848, pp. 244-248) quite early in 1848. Bronn
introduced some emendations, unjustified by present standards, to d’Orbigny’s
original spellings. That same issue of the Neues Jahrbuch included a critical report by
Roemer on James Hall’s Palaeontology of New York, vol. 1 (1847), and letters to the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 197

editor dating from 20 October 1847 to 10 January 1848. Later (Neues Jahrbuch, 1848,
p. 478) a report appeared on vol. 8 (for July-October 1847) of the Annales des
Sciences Naturelles which specifically referred to d’Orbigny’s paper and earlier
review. This later issue of the Neues Jahrbuch contains editorial correspondence
dating from 21 April to 18 June 1848.

Gray’s paper (1848) was not printed until the last issue (December) of Annals and
Magazine of Natural History for 1848, and records that d’Orbigny (1847b) was
already published. Hence, d’Orbigny’s (1847a, 1847b) nomenclatural acts have
priority over Gray (1848), and Bronn (1848, pp. 244-248) predates Gray within 1848.
Other nomenclatural contributions by d’Orbigny himself (1848, p. 12; 1850, p. 321;
1851, p. 342; 1852, p. 85) now become irrelevant inasmuch as they postdate Gray.
Consequently the family-group names based on Rhynchonella (RHYNCHONELLACEA,

. RHYNCHONELLIDAE and RHYNCHONELLINAE) should all be attributed to d’Orbigny

(1847a, p. 268). The family name was used subsequently by Gray (1848), Bronn
(1848, p. 246, as RHINCHONELLIDAE) and Carpenter in Davidson (1853, p. 35, as
RHYNCONELLIDAE). The superfamily was first proposed by Schuchert (1896, p. 323)
and the subfamily by Gill (1871, p. 25).

During the course of our inquiry into the validity of d’Orbigny’s taxa we noticed
that the authorship of other family group names also appears to be at variance with
currently accepted citations in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, parts H and
N (Williams et al., 1965; Cox et al., 1969), and also in Sarycheva et al. (1960, pp. 186,
250, 282, 304) and Ehberzin et al. (1960, pp. 158, 160). The necessary corrections, as
we see them, are noted below for the use of colleagues working on the relevant groups
who might find such information useful. Items (a) to (d) concern brachiopods and the
remaining observations relate to molluscs. No criticism of past research on these taxa
is implied here.

(a) On p. H311, the family oRTHIDAE is attributed to Woodward (1852, p. 229) but
it had already been made available (as ORTHISIDAE) by d’Orbigny (1847a, p. 267).
Woodward only corrected the spelling.

(b) On p. H649, the family UNCITIDAE is attributed to Waagen (1883, pp. 487, 494)
as a subfamily, later raised to family rank by Schuchert (Schuchert & LeVene, 1929,
p. 22). In fact it had been made available by d’Orbigny (1847a, p. 268).

(c) On p. H849, the subfamily MAGADINAE is attributed to Davidson (1886, p. 4, as
MAGASINAE), with stem correction by Elliot & Hatai therein. However, earlier uses are
known: as MAGASINAE by H. & A. Adams ([1858], p. 576; see also Dall, 1877, pp. 45,
77) and most importantly by d’Orbigny (1847a, p. 268, as MAGASIDAE). D’Orbigny’s
name threatens, on grounds of priority, the widespread usage of the superfamily
TEREBRATELLACEA and family TEREBRATELLIDAE of King (1850, p. 245), who was
clearly aware of d’Orbigny’s proposal, even though accepting it with a modified scope
(cf. pp. 142, 246). For the sake of stability this may require Commission intervention.

(d) It should be noted that d’Orbigny (1847a) also introduced a number of
brachiopod generic names: Orthisina (p. 267), Hemithiris (p. 268), Spiriferina (p. 268),
Spirigerina (p. 268), Spirigera (p. 268), Terebratulina (p. 268), Terebratella (p. 269),
Terebrirostra (p. 269), Fissirostra (p. 269), Megathiris (p. 269), Orbicella (p. 269),
Orbiculoidea (p. 269). Save for a few minor exceptions most have been adopted as
available from that date and those pages by Williams et al. (1965). The last name was
recorded by the Commission in Opinion 722 (April 1965).

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

In addition, two families of the rudist order Hippuritoida Newell, 1965, now
classed with the Bivalvia but considered by d’Orbigny (1847a) to be an order of the
Brachiopoda, were recognised by him. These were the CAPRINIDAE (p. 269), based on
the genus Caprina C. d’Orbigny, 1822 and also including Hippurites, Caprinula and
Caprinella, and the RADIOLITIDAE (p. 269, as RADIOLIDAE; correctly spelled by Gray,
1848, p. 439), based on Radiolites and including Caprotina A. d’Orbigny, 1842.

The family CAPRINIDAE was first mentioned by d’Orbigny (1842) in the vernacular
form Caprinidées, based on Caprina and additionally including Caprotina and
Icthyosarcolites. The majority of monographic works mention neither author nor
date for this family so it is not available from 1842 under Article 11f(ii1) of the Code.
We recommend that the name CAPRINIDAE d’Orbigny be recognised as available from
its first latinized usage (1847a, p. 269).

The family name HIPPURITIDAE Gray, 1848 (p. 440) was placed on the Official List
in Opinion 613 (November 1961); in 1842 d’Orbigny had used the vernacular
Hippuridées. It follows that in the superfamily recognised by Cox et al. (1969, p.
N749) as the HIPPURITACEA Gray, 1848 there are two older family names of d’Orbigny
(1847a): CAPRINIDAE and RADIOLITIDAE.

We invite comments from specialists interested in either Brachiopoda or Mollusca
concerning the best actions to undertake in order to stabilize nomenclature.

References

Adams, H. & Adams, A. [1858]. The genera of recent Mollusca; arranged according to their
organisation, vol. 2. Pp. 541-661. Van Voorst, London.

{Bronn, H.G.] 1848. A. d’Orbigny: zoologische und geologische Betrachtungen tiber die
Palliobranchiaten oder Brachiopoden. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geol-
ogie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 1848: 244-248, 478.

Cox, L.R. et al. 1969. Bivalvia. In Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
part N. Mollusca 6 (1-2). 952 pp. University of Kansas Press, Kansas.

Dall, W.H. 1877. Index to the names which have been applied to the subdivisions of the Class
Brachiopoda (excluding the rudistes) previous to the year 1877. Bulletin of the United
States National Museum, 8: \-88.

Davidson, T. 1853. A monograph of British fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society
Monographs, 1 (Introduction): 1-136.

Davidson, T. 1886. A monograph of Recent Brachiopoda. Part 1. Transactions of the Linnean
Society of London, (2, Zoology)4(1): 1-73.

Ehberzin, A.G. et al. 1960. Klass Bivalvia. Dvustvorchatye Mollyuski. Pp. 18-192, pls. 144 in
Orlov, Yu.A. (Ed.), Osnovy Paleontologii, vol. 3. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moscow.
Gill, T. 1871. Arrangement of the families of mollusks prepared for the Smithsonian

Institution. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 227: \-49.

Gray, J.E. 1848. On the arrangement of the Brachiopoda. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (2)2(12): 435-440.

King, W. 1850. A monograph of the Permian fossils of England. Palaeontographical Society
Monographs: \-258.

Laurin, B. 1984. Les Rhynchonellidés des plates-formes du Jurassique Moyen en Europe
occidentale. Dynamique des populations — Evolution — Sytématique. Cahiers de
Paléontologie (Section Invertébrés): 1-465.

Muir-Wood, H.M. 1955. A history of the classification of the Phylum Brachiopoda. vii, 124 pp.
British Museum (Natural History), London.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1842. Quelques considérations zoologiques et géologiques sur les Rudistes.
Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (2)17: 173-192.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 199

Orbigny, A. d’. 1847a. Considérations zoologiques et géologiques sur les Brachiopodes ou
Palliobranches (parts 1-2). Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de I’ Académie des
Sciences, 25(5): 193-195; 25(7): 266-269.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1847b. Considérations zoologiques et géologiques sur les Brachiopodes.
Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Zoologie, (3)8: 241-270.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1850 (= ‘1847c’). Memoire sur les Brachiopodes. 2. Classification des
Brachiopodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles. Zoologie, (3)13: 295-353.

Orbigny, A. d’. [1848-1851] (= ‘1847d’). Paléontologie Frangaise. Terrains Crétacés, vol. 4
(Brachiopoda), pp. 1-32 (1848); pp. 33-104 (1849); pp. 105-328 (1850); pp. 329-390
(1851); pl. 490-599. Bertrand, Paris.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1849, 1852. Cours élémentaire de Paléontologie et de Géologie stratigraphiques,
vol. 1, 299 pp. (1849); vol. 2, 848 pp., 17 pls. (1852). Masson, Paris.

Sarycheva, T.G. et al. 1960. Tip Brachiopoda. Brakhiopody. Pp. 113-423 in Orlov, Yu.A.
(Ed.), Osnovy Paleontologii, vol. 7. 75 pls. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moscow.

_ Schuchert C. 1896. Brachiopoda. Pp. 291-343 in Zittel, K.A. von, Textbook of Palaeontology,
Ed. 1, vol. 1, part 1. MacMillan, London.

Schuchert, C. & LeVene, C.M. 1929. Brachiopoda (generum et genotyporum index et
bibliographia). In Pompeckj, J.F. (Ed.), Fossilium Catalogus. 1 Animalia, part 42. 140 pp.
Junk, Berlin.

Sherborn, C.D. 1899. On the dates of the ‘Paléontologie Frangaise’ of D’Orbigny. Geological
Magazine, (N.S)6(5): 223-225.

Waagen, W.H. 1883. Salt Range fossils, vol. 1. Productus-Limestone fossils. Part 4(2)
Brachiopoda. Memoirs of the Geological Survey of India, Palaeontologia Indica, (13)1(4,
2): 391-546.

Williams, A. et al. 1965. Brachiopoda. Jn Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, part H (1-2). 927 pp. University of Kansas Press, Kansas.

Woodward, S.P. 1852 [1854]. A manual of the Mollusca, part 2. Pp. 159-330, pls. 13-24. Weale,
London.

Zittel, K.A. 1880. Handbuch der Palaeontologie, unter Mitwirkung von W. Ph. Schimper.
Classe Brachiopoda. Band 1, Lieferung 4. Pp. 641-722. Oldenbourg, Munich & Leipzig.

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Case 2854

Robulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently Lenticulina nodosa;
Foraminiferida): proposed retention of neotype despite rediscovery of
syntypes

Helen Meyn & Jiirgen Vespermann

Institut fiir Geowissenschaften, Technische Universitat Braunschweig,
Pockelsstrasse 4, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to retain as the name-bearing type the
neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974) of the Cretaceous foraminifer Lenticulina
nodosa (Reuss, 1863) despite the rediscovery of Reuss’s collection.

1. In 1863 Reuss described a large number of foraminifera from the Cretaceous of
North Germany including Robulina nodosa (p. 78, pl. 9, fig. 6). The Reuss collection
was believed to have been lost and Bartenstein (1974, p. 540, pl. 1, fig. 1) designated
and figured a neotype of Lenticulina nodosa (Reuss) from the basal Lower
Hauterivian, N.W. Berklingen (Asse), the type locality of Reuss; it is registered as
C 30169 in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basle.
2. The rediscovery of the Reuss collection was announced by Papp, Rogl &
Schmid (1977), although the catalogue is still missing. We (Meyn & Vespermann,
1989) examined this collection in the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna and
identified the syntypes of Robulina nodosa. We (Meyn & Vespermann, 1993) are
redescribing the syntypes but do not propose a lectotype because all the syntypes are
damaged and none shows the aperture or a complete final chamber. The neotype is
conspecific with, and better preserved than, any of the syntypes.
3. Article 75h of the Code states that ‘if, after the designation of a neotype, the ...
syntypes of the nominal species-group taxon are found still to exist, the case is to be
referred to the Commission to rule whether the neotype is or is not to be retained as
the name-bearing type’. We recommend that the neotype of Robulina nodosa should
be retained as the name-bearing type.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to confirm as the name-bearing type for Robulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 the
neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974);

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nodosa
Reuss, 1863, as published in the binomen Robulina nodosa and as defined by
the neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974).

References

Bartenstein, H. 1974. Lenticulina (Lenticulina) nodosa (Reuss 1863) and its subspecies —
worldwide index foraminifera in the Lower Cretaceous. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 67:
539-562.

Meyn, H. & Vespermann, J. 1989. The Reuss collection (Cretaceous foraminifers) in Vienna.
Journal of Paleontology, 63: 388.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 201

Meyn, H. & Vespermann, J. 1993 [in press]. Taxonomische Revision von Foraminiferen der
Unterkreide SE-Niedersachsens nach Roemer 1839, 1841, 1842, Koch 1851 und Reuss
1863. Courier des Forschungsinstituts Senckenberg.

Papp, A., Rogl, F. & Schmid, M.E. 1977. Zur Kenntnis des Originalmaterials Hauer —
d’Orbigny 1846. Verhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, 1977: 69-77.

Reuss, A.E. 1863. Die Foraminiferen des norddeutschen Hils und Gault. Sitzungsberichte der

Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe,
46(1): 5-100.

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Case 2855

Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (currently Astacolus humilis;
Foraminiferida): proposed replacement of neotype by rediscovered
lectotype, and Rotalia schloenbachi (currently Notoplanulina?
schloenbachi; Foraminiferida): proposed placement on the Official List

Helen Meyn & Jiirgen Vespermann

Institut fiir Geowissenschaften, Technische Universitat Braunschweig,
Pockelsstrasse 4, D-38106 Braunschweig, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to replace the neotype of the Cretaceous
foraminifer Astacolus humilis (Reuss, 1863) with the lectotype designated from
Reuss’s collection recently rediscovered in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna. It
is proposed also to place the specific name of Notoplanulina? schloenbachi (Reuss,
1863) on the Official List.

1. In 1863 Reuss described a large number of foraminifera from the Cretaceous of
North Germany. Two of his species, Cristellaria humilis and Rotalia schloenbachi,
are here considered in turn. The Reuss collection was believed to have been lost but
its rediscovery was announced by Papp, Régl & Schmid (1977). We (Meyn &
Vespermann, 1993) redescribed the material, which is in the Naturhistorisches
Museum, Vienna. We now ask (para. 5 below) the Commission to rule that the
neotype designated by Bartenstein (1974) (see para. 2 below) for Cristellaria humilis
be replaced by the lectotype from the rediscovered Reuss collection.

Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (p. 65, pl. 6, figs. 16, 17)

2. Bartenstein (1974, p. 554, pl. 2, fig. 19) designated and figured a neotype
from the basal Lower Hauterivian, N.W. Berklingen (Asse), the type locality of
Reuss; it is registered as C 30173 in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basle. We (Meyn
& Vespermann, 1989) examined Reuss’s rediscovered collection and (Meyn &
Vespermann, 1993) propose as the lectotype the specimen figured by Reuss in pl. 6,
fig. 16, which is registered as no. 970 in the Reuss collection. The lectotype is better
preserved than the neotype. Even though the aperture of the lectotype is damaged,
the apertural socket shows its rearwards-directed position. Reuss emphasized that his
figure (pl. 6, fig. 16) characterized the ‘typical form of the test’ from the Berklingen -
area. We have topotypic samples from localities mentioned by Reuss and can make
a direct comparison between the syntypes and our own material. The mode of
preservation of the specimens and the faunal composition of the samples have
enabled us to determine the stratigraphic horizon of the syntypes. Cristellaria humilis
is from the lower Lower Hauterivian of Berklingen and the syntypes came from a
sample of the calcareous marls which are found locally only in the eastern part of the
Lower Saxony Basin. The ‘Oberer Hilsthon’ of Reuss does not necessarily corre-
spond with the uppermost Hauterivian to Barremian as stated by Bartenstein (1974,
pp. 541, 555). The ‘tiefster oberer Hilsthon’ of the Berklingen area (Reuss, 1863,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 203

p. 9) is in fact Lower Hauterivian (see Meyn & Vespermann, 1987). The lectotype and
neotype are conspecific so no change in the concept of the species would result from
the replacement of the neotype by the lectotype.

3. Article 75h of the Code states that ‘if, after the designation of a neotype, the ...
lectotype ... is found still to exist, the case is to be referred to the Commission to rule
whether the neotype is or is not to be retained as the name-bearing type’. We
recommend that the neotype of Cristellaria humilis should not be retained as the
name-bearing type.

Rotalia schloenbachi Reuss, 1863 (p. 84, pl. 10, fig. 5)

4. Crittenden & Price (1991, p. 254) designated a neotype for Rotalia schloenbachi
from the same geographical area and the same geological formation (Gault Clay =
‘Minimusthon) as Reuss’s locality. The neotype is numbered BM(NH) P.52254 in the
collections of the Natural History Museum in London. They considered in turn each
of the qualifying conditions for a valid neotype designation given in Article 75d of the
Code. However, they overlooked the fact that Reuss’s collection had been rediscov-
ered, as reported by Papp, Rogl & Schmid (1977) and by us (Meyn & Vespermann,
1989). It follows that their neotype designation was invalid. We (Meyn &
Vespermann, 1993) propose a lectotype (no. 1685 in the Reuss collection). No
Commission action is required to set aside Crittenden & Price’s invalid neotype
designation but we ask the Commission to place Rotalia schloenbachi on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology as the most effective way of recording the
situation.

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to set aside the neotype designation for Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 made
by Bartenstein (1974);
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) humilis Reuss, 1863, as published in the binomen Cristellaria humilis and as
defined by the lectotype proposed by Meyn & Vespermann (1993) (no. 970
in the Reuss collection);
(b) schloenbachi Reuss, 1863, as published in the binomen Rotalia schloenbachi
and as defined by the lectotype proposed by Meyn & Vespermann (1993)
(no. 1685 in the Reuss collection).

References

Bartenstein, H. 1974. Lenticulina (Lenticulina) nodosa (Reuss 1863) and its subspecies —
worldwide index foraminifera in the Lower Cretaceous. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 67:
539-562.

Crittenden, S. & Price, R.J. 1991. The foraminiferid Osangularia schloenbachi (Reuss, 1863);
the erection of a neotype. Journal of Micropalaeontology, 9: 253-256.

Meyn, H. & Vespermann, J. 1987. Critical study of the type localities and type stages published
by Koch 1851, Roemer 1841, 1842, and Reuss 1863 in the Lower Cretaceous of N.W.
Germany. Newsletters on Stratigraphy, 18: 7-19.

Meyn, H. & Vespermann, J. 1989. The Reuss Collection (Cretaceous foraminifers) in Vienna.
Journal of Paleontology, 63: 388.

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Meyn, H. & Vespermann, J. 1993 [in press]. Taxonomische Revision von Foraminiferen der
Unterkreide SE-Niedersachsens nach Roemer 1839, 1841, 1842, Koch 1851 und Reuss
1863. Courier des Forschungsinstituts Senckenberg.

Papp, A., Régl, F. & Schmid, M.E. 1977. Zur Kenntnis des Originalmaterials Hauer —
d’Orbigny 1846. Verhandlungen der Geologischen Bundesanstalt, 1977: 69-77.

Reuss, A.E. 1863. Die Foraminiferen des norddeutschen Hils und Gault. Sitzungsberichte der
Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschafiliche Classe,
46(1): 5-100. :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 205

Case 2871

Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud, 1831
(currently Aegopinella nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed conservation of the specific names and designation of a
neotype for H. nitidula

Edmund Gittenberger

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, NL 2300 RA, Leiden,
The Netherlands

- Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of
Aegopinella nitidula (Draparnaud, 1805) and A. nitens (Michaud, 1831) which are in
universal use for common terrestrial pulmonate species (family ZONITIDAE) from
western Europe. It has long been recognised that the existing syntype of A. nitidula
is a specimen of A. nitens and it is therefore proposed that a neotype be designated
for the former species in accordance with current usage, so conserving also the usage
of A. nitens. The suppression is proposed of Helix nitens Gmelin, [1791], a little-used
senior primary homonym of H. nitens Michaud, 1831 but a junior objective synonym
of H. nitida Miller, 1774. The name H. nitidula Draparnaud was placed on the
Official List in Opinion 336 (March 1955).

1. Draparnaud (1805, p. 117) established the name Helix nitidula for a new species
of mollusc. He described the taxon but did not provide a figure or mention a locality
or specimens. He also briefly described and figured H. nitidula var. B (pp. 117, 118, pl.
8, figs. 21, 22), noting that it was ‘une variété plus petite et plus sensiblement striée’.

2. In 1894 Locard studied Draparnaud’s mollusc collection, housed in the
Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna. Locard (1895, pp. 1-27) recorded that,
following Draparnaud’s death in 1804 and that of his widow, Draparnaud’s heirs had
sold the collection to the Museum in 1820; this included type material for many new
taxa described in Draparnaud’s publications Tableau des mollusques terrestres et
fluviatiles de la France (1801) and Histoire naturelle des mollusques ... de la France
(published posthumously in 1805). Locard (p. 13) recorded that Draparnaud’s own
handwritten labels, giving the name of the taxon (with varieties indicated by Greek
letters) and the number corresponding to that used in the Histoire naturelle, were still
in place in the glass tubes containing each specimen. However, Locard found that the
collection in 1894 was less complete than in 1820, and that the Museum register
recorded that specimens of several of the better represented species had been given to
Bischof von Hohenwarth.

3. Locard (1895, p. 26) noted that of the two original specimens of Helix nitidula
in Draparnaud’s collection in 1820 one had subsequently been removed to Bischof
von Hohenwarth’s collection (which is very probably now lost); he identified (pp.
147-150) the remaining specimen labelled as this species as an adult specimen of
H. nitens Gmelin, [1791] (see para. 5 below). He also noted that the specimen
described and figured by Draparnaud as H. nitidula var. B (see para. 1 above) was a

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

juvenile of a totally distinct species. Under Article 72b(i) of the Code this variant is
excluded from the type series of H. nitidula; it was however included by both Locard
(1895, pp. 26, 147, 148) and Forcart (1957, p. 203; 1959, p. 21; see para. 4 below).
Locard (p. 148) commented that authors had been inconsistent in their use of the
name nitidula; Rossmassler (1835, p. 72, pl. 1, fig. 24; 1838, p. 36, pl. 39, fig. 526),
Dupuy (1848-1849, pp. 226-228, pl. 10, fig. 5) and Westerlund (1886, p. 57) had
described under this name a species which differed from that of Draparnaud (1805)
and Dupuy’s figure showed a more rounded shell than that of Rossmassler.

4. Forcart (1957, p. 203; 1959, pp. 21-22) commented that the current concept of
H. nitidula differed from the taxon described by Draparnaud (1805) under that name,
and that Draparnaud’s (p. 118) statement ‘Animal gris de perle, tacheté de points
noirs et blancs’ did not apply to any species of Aegopinella Lindholm, 1927 (the genus
in which nitidula auctt. is now placed). Forcart (1957, 1959) noted that the current
usage of nitidula dated from Rossmassler (1835, 1838); he recorded (1957, p. 203;
1959, p. 21, pl. 3, fig. 6) Draparnaud’s remaining (adult) syntype of H. nitidula as a
fully-grown specimen of H. nitens Michaud, 1831 (p. 44, pl. 15, figs. 1-5) (cf. Locard’s
identification in para. 3), and that the latter name was a junior primary homonym of
H. nitens Gmelin, [1791] (see para. 5 below).

5. Gmelin ({1791], pp. 3624, 3633) included both Planorbis nitidus Miller, 1774
(p. 163) and Helix nitida Miller, 1774 (p. 32) in Helix Linnaeus, 1758; he replaced the
latter name with H. nitens Gmelin, [1791] (p. 3633), no doubt to avoid secondary
homonymy. Gmelin’s taxonomic placement of P. nitidus was not subsequently
followed (see, for example, Draparnaud, 1805, p. 46, pl. 2, figs. 17-19; pl. 8, figs.
11-12; Michaud, 1831, pp. 46, 82; and Dupuy, 1848, p. 222; 1850, p. 448) and
H. nitens Gmelin has had very little use as a valid name. P. nitidus Miller, 1774 is the
valid name of the type species by monotypy of Segmentina Fleming, 1818 (family
PLANORBIDAE), Whilst H. nitida Miller, 1774 is the type by monotypy of Zonitoides
Lehmann, 1862 (family ZONITIDAE). The names Segmentina, P. nitidus, Zonitoides and
H. nitida have been placed on Official Lists (Opinion 335; March 1955). Forcart
(1957, p. 199) stated that G.L. Hartmann (1807, p. 222) and W. Hartmann (1821,
p. 232) employed the name H. nitens sensu Gmelin; however, he later (1959, p. 24)
concluded that Hartmann (1807) had used the name sensu Michaud (1831). Forcart
(1959, p. 24, pl. 3, fig. 9a-d) designated a specimen in the Lyon Museum, France as
the lectotype of H. nitens Michaud.

6. Both the names nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and nitens Michaud, 1831 are
universally in use for common terrestrial pulmonate species of western Europe. The
taxa are conchologically similar but have different distributions. H. nitidula occurs in
a variety of habitats along the Atlantic side of Europe from Spain to Scandinavia, -
including the British Isles; it is absent from Switzerland. H. nitens is a montane
species, found in abundance in the French and Swiss Jura. Both names have appeared
in field guides in a number of languages, and in works on molluscan biology and
ecology, as well as taxonomy. Recent publications in which both names have been
used include Jaeckel (1962, p. 131), Zilch (1962, p. 15), Lozek (1964, pp. 246, 247),
Riedel (1966, p. 60), Kerney & Cameron (1979, pp. 121, 122), Kerney & Cameron
(1980, p. 136), Kerney, Cameron & Jungbluth (1983, pp. 165, 166), Pfleger &
Chatfield (1983, pp. 90, 193) and Gittenberger, Backhuys & Ripken (1984, pp. 87,
89). A list of a further 16 representative references is held by the Commission

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 207

Secretariat for the name nitidula, and a further six for nitens. The name H. nitidula
was included, without comment, in the mollusc names placed on the Official List in
Opinion 336 (March 1955).

7. Recognition of Draparnaud’s (1805) syntype of H. nitidula would necessitate
using nitidula as the valid name for the species now called nitens Michaud, 1831, with
nitens becoming a junior subjective synonym. Another name would be required for
nitidula as currently understood. These changes would cause considerable and
unnecessary confusion. I therefore propose that the current understanding of the
name nitidula should be conserved by setting aside the type status of Draparnaud’s
syntype and designating a neotype which accords with current usage (see para. 4
above). Since the zonitids in general and Aegopinella species especially are poorly
defined by shell characters, whereas the genitalia are more clearly diagnostic, a
.Specimen from which both shell features and anatomical data can be demonstrated
has been selected. The proposed neotype is from France (Department of Pas-de-
Calais, Forét de Guines, 3 km south-east of Guines, UTM DS13), deposited in the
Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna (catalogue no. 86934). The shell is 4.1 mm high
and 8.1 mm broad. It has four whorls that increase relatively slowly and gradually in
width. The genitalia are similar to those figured for the species by Forcart (1959, figs.
6-8). A full description and illustrations of the specimen are given by Gittenberger
(1993). Lalso propose that the name H. nitens Michaud, 1831 should be conserved by
the suppression of the unused senior homonym H. nitens Gmelin, [1791].

8. Forcart (1957, p. 203; 1959, p. 22) proposed to apply to the Commission to
conserve the current usage of H. nitidula Draparnaud, and (1957, p. 199; 1959, p. 24)
to conserve the name nitens Michaud by the suppression of nitens Gmelin. However,
he made no application. This present application is known to several specialists in the
field and there is agreement on the proposals. During a recent meeting (1992) on
European non-marine molluscan nomenclature, held near Heidelberg, all the 20
participants concurred with the proposals.

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to set aside the type status of the syntype of Helix nitidula Draparnaud,
1805 and to designate as neotype the specimen proposed in para. 7 above;

(b) to suppress the specific name nitens Gmelin, [1791], as published in the
binomen Helix nitens, and all uses of the name Helix nitens prior to the
publication of Helix nitens Michaud, 1831, for the purposes of both
the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to add to the entry for Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology the endorsement that it is defined by the neotype
designated in (1)(a) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nitens
Michaud, 1831, as published in the binomen Helix nitens and as defined by the
lectotype designated by Forcart (1959);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Specific Names in Zoology the name nitens
Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binomen Helix nitens and as suppressed in
(1)(b) above (a junior objective synonym of the specific name of Helix nitida
Miller, 1774).

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

References

Draparnaud, J.-P.-R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France.
(Ouvrage posthume). viii, 164 pp., 13 pls. Paris.

Dupuy, D. 1848, 1849, 1850. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et d'eau douce qui vivent
en France, pp. 107-226, pls. 5-10 (1848); pp. 227-330, pls. 11-14 (1849); pp. 331-458, pls.
15-21 (1850). Paris.

Forcart, L. 1957. Ipsa Studeri Conchylia. Mitteilungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft in
Bern, (N.F.)15: 157-210.

Forcart, L. 1959. Taxionomische Revision palaarktischer Zonitinae, II. Anatomisch unter-
suchte Arten des Genus Aegopinella Lindholm. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 88(1-3): 7-34.

Gittenberger, E. 1993. A neotype for Aegopinella nitidula (Draparnaud, 1805) (Mollusca:
Gastropoda Pulmonata: Zonitidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 67: 331-334.

Gittenberger, E., Backhuys, W. & Ripken, T.E.J. 1984. De Landslakken van Nederland, Ed. 2.
184 pp. Koninklijke Nederlandse Natuurhistorische Vereniging.

Gmelin, J.F. [1791]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes).
Pp. 3021-3910. Lugduni.

Hartmann, G.L. 1807. Verzeichnis meiner innlandischen Conchylien-Sammlung. Alpina, 2:
206-236.

Hartmann, W. 1821. System der Erd- und Flussschnecken der Schweiz. Neue Alpina, 1:
194-268.

Kerney, M.P. & Cameron, R.A.D. 1979. A field guide to the land snails of Britain and north-west
Europe. 288 pp. Collins, London.

Kerney, M.P. & Cameron, R.A.D. (Ed. Gittenberger, E.). 1980. Elseviers slakkengids. 310 pp.
Elsevier, Amsterdam & Brussels.

Kerney, M.P., Cameron, R.A.D. & Jungbluth, J.H. 1983. Die Landschnecken Nord- und
Mitteleuropas. 384 pp. Parey, Hamburg & Berlin.

Jaeckel, S.G.A. 1962. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zum rezenten und quartaren Vor-
kommen der mitteleuropdischen Mollusken. Pp. 27-294 in Zilch, A. & Jaeckel, S.G.A.,
Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas. Mollusken, vol. 2, part 1 (Erganzung). Quelle & Meyer,
Leipzig.

Lindholm, W.A. 1927. Zur Nomenklatur einiger palaearktischer Landschnecken-Gattungen.
Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 59(6): 321-331. _

Locard, A. 1895. Ipsa Draparnaudi conchylia. Etude sur la collection conchyliologique de
Draparnaud au Musée Impérial et Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Vienne. 190 pp. Bailliére,
Paris. (Also published in 1897 in Annales de la Société d’Agriculture, Sciences et Industries
de Lyon, (7)4: 5-190).

Lozek, V. 1964. Quartdrmollusken der Tschechoslowakei. 374 pp. Geologische Zentralanstalt,
Praha.

Michaud, A.L.G. 1831. Complément de l'histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles
de la France, de J.P.R. Draparnaud. xvi, 116, 1, 12 pp. Verdun.

Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium .... Testaceorum, non marinorum
succincta Historia, vol. 2. xxxvi, 214 pp. Havniae et Lipsiae.

Pfleger, V. & Chatfield, J. 1983. A guide to snails of Britain and Europe. 216 pp. Hamlyn,
London. [Published in German (1984) and French (1989)].

Riedel, A. 1966. Zonitidae (excl. Daudebardiinae) der Kaukasuslander (Gastropoda). Annales
Zoologici (Warszaw), 24(1): 1-303.

Rossmissler, E.A. 1835, 1838. Iconographie der Land- und Siisswasser-Mollusken ... , vol. 1,
part 1. 132 pp., pls. 1-5 (1835); vol. 2, part 1. 43 pp., pls. 31-40 (1838). Arnold, Dresden
& Leipzig.

Westerlund, C.A. 1886. Fauna der in der paldarctischen Region ... lebenden Binnenconchylien,
vol. 1, part 1. 88, 7 pp. Lund.

Zilch, A. 1962. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zur Nomenklatur und Systematik. Pp. 1-23
in Zilch, A. & Jaeckel, G.A., Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas. Mollusken., vol. 2, part 1
(Erganzung). Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig.

|
|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 209

Case 2860

Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma
meneghinii; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed replacement of neotype
by rediscovered lectotype

Roberto Gatto

Dipartimento di Geologia, Paleontologia e Geofisica dell’ Universita,
Via Giotto 1, I-35137 Padova, Italy

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to replace the neotype of the Upper
Miocene species Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868, designated in 1990, by a

lectotype selected from the type series of the taxon which has been rediscovered

recently in the Mayer-Eymar collection in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel. The
neotype and proposed lectotype are conspecific. P. meneghinii is the type species of
Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891, a gastropod genus (family TURRIDAE) which
includes mainly species from the European Tertiary.

1. The turrid nominal species Pleurotoma meneghinii was established by Mayer
(1868, pp. 109-110, pl. 3, fig. 3) for specimens found in the Tortonian (Upper
Miocene) strata cropping out near Sassuolo, in the northern Apennines, Italy.

2. Bellardi (1875, p. 21) erected the genus Oligotoma and included *O/. Meneghinii
(May.)’ as the single species, which is thus the type by monotypy. Two years later
(1877, pp. 239-240) he listed Pleurotoma meneghinii as a synonym of Oligotoma
tuberculata, a turrid described by Pusch (1836, p. 522, as Pleurotoma) from the
Badenian (Middle Miocene) Korytnica Clays of the Swietokrzyskie (Holy Cross)
Mountains, southern Poland. Subsequently Oligotoma Bellardi was renamed
Asthenotoma by Harris & Burrows (1891, p. 113) because of the homonymy with
Oligotoma Westwood, 1836 (p. 373, pl. 11, figs. 2, 2a—2f; Insecta). The synonymy
between Pleurotoma meneghinii and P. tuberculata proposed by Bellardi was accepted
by the majority of authors (see, for example, Woodring, 1928, p. 197; Powell, 1942,
p. 111; Wenz, 1943, p. 1413; Glibert, 1960, p. 64; Anderson, 1964, p. 299; Powell,
1966, p. 65; Rasmussen, 1968, p. 197; Amitrov, 1973, p. 140; Shuto, 1980, p. 44).

3. In 1987 a comparison between topotypes of P. meneghinii Mayer, 1868 and
P. tuberculata Pusch, 1836 led me to believe that the two taxa were not conspecific.
In order to confirm this assumption, Dr I. Dieni (Padova) and I attempted to trace
the type specimens of P. meneghinii. The Mayer-Eymar collection, where the
specimens were believed to exist, was housed until 1965 in the Eidgendssische
Technische Hochschule in Ziirich, where Mayer was Professor of Palaeontology and
curator of collections; it was then moved to the Naturhistorisches Museum in Basel,
where it is housed on an unlimited loan. Unfortunately, in spite of a great deal of
search, P. Jung of the Naturhistorisches Museum failed to find the specimens in the
vast collection (P. Jung, written comm. to I. Dieni, 22 June 1987). Consequently, I
(Gatto, 1990, p. 224, pl. 1, figs la,b) designated a neotype for Pleurotoma meneghinii
in accordance with Article 75b of the Code. It was desirable to fix a type specimen

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

because of the doubtful identity of the alleged senior subjective synonym
P. tuberculata, of which the types were destroyed at the beginning of the Second
World War, and because of the problematic status of the genus Asthenotoma, of
which P. meneghinii is the type species (see discussion in Gatto, 1990). The neotype
of P. meneghinii was selected from topotypes preserved in the Doderlein collection of
the Istituto di Paleontologia dell’Universita of Modena, Italy.

4. In 1991, during a visit to the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, I rediscovered
in the Mayer-Eymar collection the eight specimens forming the type series of
P. meneghinii, registered as ‘Po. 4918’ in Mayer’s original catalogue. I found two
labels with the specimens. The first was very probably handwritten by Mayer
(‘Pleurotoma Meneghinii Mayer - J. de Conch. - Tortonien - Sassuolo p. Modéne
(2-3) - Po. 4918. - 8 Ex.’); the second (‘4918 - Oligotoma tuberculata (Pusch)’) is most
likely that of Bellardi who probably received the material on loan from Mayer during
the preparation of his (1877) monograph on the Tertiary molluscs of northwestern
Italy and returned it with his own identification (see para. 2 above). The rediscovered
types of P. meneghinii agree in all respects with Mayer’s (1868) original description,
and also with the neotype designated by me in 1990. Furthermore, they strengthen
the evidence that Mayer’s species is not synonymous with P. tuberculata. | (Gatto,
1993) have redescribed the specimens and illustrated them photographically for the
first time. I have also designated the specimen originally figured in 1868 by Mayer
(now registered in the Basel collection as H 17365) as the lectotype of Pleurotoma
meneghinii subject to approval by the Commission.

5. According to Article 75h of the Code the rediscovery of the original material of
Pleurotoma meneghinii after the designation of the neotype must be referred to the
Commission. Although there will be no change in the concept of the species since
the neotype and lectotype are conspecific, it would be preferable that the neotype of
P. meneghinii selected in 1990 should no longer retain its status of name-bearing type
as the original material has been rediscovered and is available for study.

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the neotype designation for Pleurotoma
meneghinii Mayer, 1868 made by Gatto (1990) and to confirm the lectotype
designation by Gatto (1993);

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Oligotoma Bellardi, 1875, Pleurotoma
meneghinii Mayer, 1868;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name meneghinii
Mayer, 1868, as published in the binomen Pleurotoma meneghinii (specific
name of the type species of Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891) and as
defined by the lectotype designated by Gatto (1993), confirmed in (1) above.

Acknowledgements

I should like to express my gratitude to I. Dieni for discussion of the manuscript. I
would also like to thank P. Jung and R. Panchaud for their considerable assistance
during my visit to the Naturhistorisches Museum in Basel.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 211

References

Amitroy, O.V. 1973. Late Eocene-Early Miocene Turrids from the South of the U.S.S.R. Trudy
Paleontologicheskogo Instituta (Akademiya Nauk SSSR), 135: 1-212. [In Russian].
Anderson, H.J. 1964. Die miocane Reinbek-Stufe in Nord- und Westdeutschland und ihre

Mollusken-Fauna. Fortschritte in der Geologie von Rheinland und Westfalen, 14: 31-368.

Bellardi, L. 1875. Novae Pleurotomidarum Pedemontii et Liguriae fossilium dispositionis
prodromus. Bullettino della Societa Malacologica Italiana, 1(1): 16-24.

Bellardi, L. 1877. I Molluschi dei terreni terziarii del Piemonte e della Liguria. Parte II.
Gasteropoda (Pleurotomidae). Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino,
(2)29: 1-364. (Issued in the serial in 1878 but published as a separate in 1877).

Gatto, R. 1990. Il genere Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891 e la sua specie-tipo Pleurotoma
meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (Gastropoda: Turridae). Bollettino della Societa Paleontologica
Ttaliana, 29(2): 219-232.

Gatto, R. 1993. Rediscovered types of Turridae (Gastropoda) in the Mayer-Eymar collection

, of the Naturhistorisches Museum Basel. Revue de Paléobiologie, 11(2): 483-489.

Glibert, M. 1960. Les Conacea fossiles du Cénozoique étranger des collections de |’Institut
Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences
Naturelles de Belgique, (2)64: 1-132.

Harris, G.F. & Burrows, H.W. 1891. The Eocene and Oligocene beds of the Paris Basin. viii, 129
pp. Geologists’ Association, London.

Mayer, C. 1868. Description de coquilles fossiles des terrains tertiaires supérieurs (suite).
Journal de Conchyliologie, 16: 102-113.

Powell, A.W.B. 1942. The New Zealand Recent and fossil Mollusca of the Family Turridae
with general notes on turrid nomenclature and systematics. Bulletin of the Auckland
Institute and Museum, 2: 1-188.

Powell, A.W.B. 1966. The molluscan families Speightiidae and Turridae. An evaluation of the
valid taxa, both Recent and fossil, with lists of characteristic species. Bulletin of the
Auckland Institute and Museum, 5: \-184.

Pusch, G.G. 1836. Geognostische Beschreibung von Polen, so wie der tibrigen Nordkarpathen-
Lander, vol. 2. xii, 695 pp. Cotta, Stuttgart & Tiibingen.

Rasmussen, L.B. 1968. Molluscan faunas and biostratigraphy of the Marine Younger Miocene
formations in Denmark. Part II: Palaeontology. Danmarks Geologiske Undersogelse,
(2)92: 1-265.

Shuto, T. 1980. A note on the Eocene turrids of the Nangulan Formation, Java. Pp. 25-52 in
Igo, H. & Noda, H. (Eds.), Professor Saburo Kanno memorial volume. Institute of
Geoscience, Tsukuba.

Wenz, W. 1943. Gastropoda. Prosobranchia. Jn Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der
Paldozoologie, Band 6, Teil 6, Lieferung 8. Pp. 1201-1506. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Westwood, J.O. 1836. Characters of Embia, a genus of insects allied to the White Ants
(Termites); with descriptions of the species of which it is composed. Transactions of the
Linnean Society of London, 17(3): 369-374.

Woodring, W.P. 1928. Miocene mollusks from Bowden, Jamaica. Part II. Gastropods and
discussion of results. 564 pp. Publication no. 385. Carnegie Institution of Washington.

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Case 2841

Platynectes Régimbart, 1879 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation

Anders N. Nilsson

Department of Animal Ecology, University of Umeda, S-901 87 Umea,
Sweden

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Platynectes
Regimbart, 1879 for a genus of diving water beetles (family DyTISCIDAE). It is
threatened by the unused senior synonym Plateocolymbus Gistel, 1857.

1. Gistel (1857a, p. 606) established the genus Plateocolymbus; the name and
description were also included in Gistel (1857b, p. 93). There is no evidence which of
these two works was published first but, since Gistel (1857b) is an extract from Gistel
(1857a), the latter work is taken as having priority. Gistel included in Plateocolymbus
only the species Colymbetes lineatus Redtenbacher in Kollar & Redtenbacher, 1844
(p. 503) from Asia, which is the type species by monotypy. Balfour-Browne (1944,
p. 352) noted that Colymbetes lineatus Redtenbacher (which he placed in Platynectes;
see para. 2 below) was a junior primary homonym of C. lineatus Guérin, 1830, and
he proposed Platynectes kashmiranus as a replacement name.

2. In a paper published in 1879 Régimbart (p. 462) described a new genus
Platynectes for a group of South American, Australian and New Zealand species
formerly placed in the genus Agabus Leach, 1817. The cover of Régimbart’s paper
bears the date 26 March 1878, but this is a misprint for 1879. The type species of
Platynectes is Agabus decemnotatus Aubé, 1838 (p. 319), by subsequent designation
by Guignot (1946, p. 117).

3. Gemminger & Harold deliberately omitted Gistel’s names from the Catalogus
Coleopterorum (1868a, p. vi), adding that ‘mit einer sonst seltenen Einstimmigkeit das
gesammte wissenschaftliche Publikum sein Verdikt ausgesprochen hat’. Gistel’s
names have rarely been cited in the literature. One exception is Strand (1917) who
listed all the new names proposed by Gistel (1857b). He included Plateocolymbus
(p. 80), this being the only published reference to the name since its original
publication. Strand gave Colymbetes lineatus Redtenbacher as the type but did not
mention the subjective synonymy of Plateocolymbus and Platynectes (see para. 4
below). Nilsson, Roughley & Brancucci (1989) overlooked all Gistel’s family-group
and genus-group names in the DYTISCIDAE.

4. Sharp (1882, pp. 538, 887) accepted Platynectes as a valid genus and included
13 species. He referred another eight species, including P. /ineatus Redtenbacher (=
kashmiranus Balfour-Browne), to Platynectes with some doubt; his hesitation over
kashmiranus was because he knew this species only from the original description. Van
den Branden (1885, p. 77) listed all these species in Platynectes without reservation.
In Sharp’s and Van den Branden’s classification Platynectes is a junior subjective
synonym of Plateocolymbus. All subsequent workers have accepted Platynectes and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 213

have included /ineatus or kashmiranus in it (for example, Régimbart, 1899, p. 281;
Brinck, 1948, p. 113; Guéorguiev, 1972, p. 34; Vazirani, 1976, p. 171; a further six
references by six authors in the last 23 years are held by the Commission Secretariat).
To reject Platynectes Régimbart, 1879 because of its junior subjective synonymy with
the unused name Plateocolymbus Gistel, 1857 would create instability in the literature
and cause considerable confusion.

5. The International Commission on Zoological. Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Plateocolymbus Gistel, 1857 for
the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not those of the Principle of
Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Platynectes
Régimbart, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation
by Guignot (1946) Agabus decemnotatus Aubé, 1838;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name
decemnotatus Aubé, 1838, as published in the binomen Agabus decemnotatus
(specific name of the type species of Platynectes Régimbart, 1879);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Plateocolymbus Gistel, 1857, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Aubé, C. 1838. Species général des Hydrocanthares et Gyriniens, par le docteur Ch. Aubé; pour
faire suite au species général des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, vol.
6. 804 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.

Balfour-Browne, J. 1944. New names and new synonymies in the Dytiscidae (Col.). Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, (11)11: 345-359.

Branden, C. Van den. 1885. Catalogue des Coléoptéres carnassiers aquatiques (Haliplidae,
Amphizoidae, Pelobiidae et Dytiscidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique,
29: 5-118.

Brinck, P. 1948. Coleoptera of Tristan da Cunha. Results of the Norwegian Scientific
Expedition to Tristan da Cunha 1937-1938, 3(17): 1-121.

Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de. 1868. Catalogus Coleopterorum, vol. 1, pp. i-xxxvi, 1-424;
vol. 2, pp. 425-752. Monachii, Paris.

Gistel, J. 1857a. Vacuna oder die Geheimnisse aus der organischen und leblosen Welt, vol. 2.
1031 pp. Schorner’schen Buchhandlung, Straubing.

Gistel, J. 1857b. Achthundert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschriebene wirbellose Thiere. 94 pp.
Schorner’schen Buchhandlung, Straubing.

Guéorguiev, V.B. 1972. Notes sur les Agabini (Coleoptera, Dytiscidae). Il. Révision des genres
Platynectes Rég. et Colymbinectes Falk. Bulletin de l'Institut de Zoologie et Musée, Sofia,
34: 33-62.

Guignot, F. 1946. Génotypes des Dytiscoidea et des Gyrinoidea. Revue Frangaise
d’Entomologie, 13: 112-118.

Kollar, V. & Redtenbacher, L. 1844. Aufzahlung und Beschreibung der von Freiherrn Carl
v. Higel auf seiner Reise durch Kaschmir und das Himaleyagebirge gesammelten
Insecten. Pp. 393-564 in Hiigel, C. von (Ed.), Kaschmir und das Reich der Siek, vol. 4.
Hallberger’sche, Stuttgart.

Nilsson, A.N., Roughley, R.E. & Brancucci, M. 1989. A review of the genus- and family-group
names of the family Dytiscidae Leach (Coleoptera). Entomologica Scandinavica, 20:
287-316.

Régimbart, M. 1879. Etude sur la classification des Dytiscidae. Annales de la Société
Entomologique de France, (5)8: 447-466.

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Régimbart, M. 1899. Revision des Dytiscidae de la région Indo-Sino-Malaise. Annales de la
Société Entomologique de France, 68: 186-367.

Sharp, D. 1882. On aquatic carnivorous Coleoptera or Dytiscidae. Scientific Transactions of
the Royal Dublin Society, (2)2: 179-1003.

Strand, E. 1917. Ubersicht der in Gistel’s ‘Achthundert und zwanzig neue oder unbeschriebene
wirbellose Thiere’ (1857) behandelten Insekten. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, (A)82(5):
75-101.

Vazirani, T.G. 1976. Contribution to the study of aquatic beetles (Coleoptera). 15. Subgeneric
classification of Platynectes Régimbart (Dytiscidae). Records of the Zoological Survey of
India, 71: 169-173.

n

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 21

Case 2880

Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific name

Hans-Joachim Paepke

Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat, Zoologisches Museum,
Invalidenstrasse 43, 10115 Berlin, Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of
Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848, which has been used consistently

_ Since publication for a leaf fish (family NANDIDAE) found in the Atlantic drainages of
the Guianas and Venezuela, and on Trinidad. The name is threatened by the unused
senior subjective synonym Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, for which suppression is
proposed.

1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 285) based his description of Labrus punctatus on his 1754
(p. 66, pl. 31, fig. 5) description of a specimen in the Museum Adolphi Friderici
and Gronovius’s (1754, p. 36, no. 87) description of ‘Labrus bruneus’. A single
specimen labelled punctatus is present in Linnaeus’s fish collection housed in the
Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm (catalogue no. NRM 43; see Fernholm &
Wheeler, 1983, pp. 252-253) which was designated the lectotype by Kullander (1983,
p. 84).

2. Walbaum (1792, p. 250) was the first author to recognise that Linnaeus’s
specimen of Labrus punctatus and Gronovius’s description were distinct; he noted
‘Labrus bruneus. Gronovii a Linnaeo allegatus, ad Sparos relatus est’ [Labrus
bruneus of Gronovius, referred to by Linnaeus, is related to Sparus]. Gronovius’s
specimen is lost; his description refers to a species of the family CICHLIDAE.

3. Miller & Troschel (1848, p. 622) published the new generic and specific names
Polycentrus schomburgkii with a short description. A year later this was followed by
a more detailed description and illustration (Miller & Troschel, 1849, pp. 25-26, pl.
5, fig. 2). There are 30 syntypes (2 subadults and 28 juveniles) which were collected
in the Essequibo (British Guiana, now Guyana). The specimens are in good condition
and are deposited in the Zoological Museum of the Humboldt-University of Berlin,
catalogue nos. ZMB 1024 and ZMB 20604.

4. Smitt (1893, p. 11) identified Linnaeus’s specimen from the Museum Adolphi
Friderici as P. schomburgkii and recorded: ‘In the Mus. Ad. Frid. p. 66, he [Linnaeus]
assigns no region to Sciaena (Labrus, Syst. Nat.) punctata, which, to judge by the
specimen in the Royal Museum, is the species that has subsequently been named
Polycentrus schomburgkii by Miiller and Troschel’. However, as Smitt’s observation
was published in A history of Scandinavian fishes, until 1983 no worker on the South
American fish fauna was aware of his discovery. During the 90 years following
Smitt’s publication, with very few exceptions (see para. 7 below), only the name
Polycentrus schomburgkii was used for Schomburgk’s leaf fish (see, for example, the
more recent works of Eigenmann, 1912, p. 522; Barlow, 1967a, 1967b; Liem, 1970;

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Magio Leccia, 1970, p. 102; Vilanova, 1979). Linnaeus’s name has never been used
for the species.

5. In 1983 two papers were published (Fernholm & Wheeler (July) and Kullander
(October)) in which P. schomburgkii was recognised as a junior subjective synonym
of L. punctatus. Both papers noted that in 1758 (but not in 1754) Linnaeus had
recorded incorrectly the meristic data of the punctatus specimen; Fernholm &
Wheeler also noted that Linnaeus’s (1754) illustration was very poor. The conclu-
sions in the two papers were very different. Fernholm & Wheeler (1983, p. 253)
commented: ‘We consider there are no grounds for replacing the well-known
binomen Polycentrus schomburgkii Muller & Troschel, 1848 with Labrus punctatus
Linnaeus, 1758. However, as a matter of history, we record that Linnaeus described
this species almost a century before it was rediscovered, and can only regret that his
description and figure were not accurate enough to gain him the priority of
recognition’. In contrast, Kullander (1983, p. 84) noted: “As already pointed out by
Smitt (1892) [sic], the Linnaean specimen is of the species better known as Polycentrus
schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1849 (family Nandidae) ... The species epithet
has priority over P. schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, P. tricolor Gill, 1858 and
Mesonauta surinamensis Sauvage, 1882’ (see para. 7 below). However, Kullander’s
comment, inappropriately included in an extensive revision of the genus Cichlasoma
(family CICHLIDAE), has not influenced the use of the name Polycentrus schomburgkii
during the past nine years (see, for example, Nelson, 1984, p. 314; Hamel, 1987, p. 17;
Sterba 1987, p. 674; Antonio Cabré, Kullander & Lasso, A., 1989, p. 138; Bauchot
& Dessouter, 1989, p. 24; Eschmeyer, 1990, p. 325; Rucks, 1992, p. 420; Staeck, 1992,
p. 584). These authors followed the 135 year-old usage, as was recommended by
Fernholm & Wheeler (1983). Only Stawikowski (1992, p. 687) noted Kullander’s
statement on the priority of the specific name punctatus over schomburgkii, and urged
use of the earlier name; he did not refer to Fernholm & Wheeler’s recommendation.

6. P. schomburgkii is the only species included in Polycentrus and the name has
been used from 1848 until the present in very nearly all scientific and popular papers
and works and all specialists, ichthyologists as well as aquarists, know Schomburgk’s
leaf fish by this name. It would cause unnecessary confusion if Linnaeus’s name were
now to be introduced and, in the interests of stability in the nomenclature, I propose
that it be suppressed.

7. In 1858 Gill (pp. 373-374) described a second nominal species of Polycentrus as
P. tricolor, and in 1882 Sauvage (p. 173) proposed Mesonauta surinamensis. Both are
clearly junior subjective synonyms of Polycentrus schomburgkii. The synonymy
between schomburgkii and tricolor was recorded by Regan (1906, p. 378), Eigenmann
(1912, p. 522) and Kullander (1983, p. 84), and that between schomburgkii and
surinamensis by Bauchot & Dessouter (1989, p. 24). Giinther (1861, p. 370) and
Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1891, p. 66) used the name tricolor as well as schom-
burgkii, and Jordan (1887, p. 588) used only tricolor but, with the exception of these
authors, neither of the names fricolor and surinamensis has been used.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name punctatus Linnaeus,

1758, as published in the binomen Labrus punctatus, for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 217

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Polycentrus
Miller & Troschel, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Polycentrus schomburgkii Muller & Troschel, 1848;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name
schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848, as published in the binomen Polycen-
trus schomburgkii;

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Labrus punctatus and as suppressed in (1) above.

References
Antonio Cabré, M.E., Kullander, S.O. & Lasso, A., C.A. 1989. Description of a new
Apistogramma species (Teleoste1 — Cichlidae) from the Morichal River Slong in

Venezuela. Acta Biologica Venezuelica, 12(3-4): 131-139.

Barlow, G.W. 1967a. The functional significance of the split-head color pattern as exemplified
in a leaf fish, Polycentrus schomburgkii. Ichthyologica, 39(2): 57—70.

Barlow, G.W. 1967b. Social behavior of a South American leaf fish, Polycentrus schomburgkii,
with an account of recurring pseudofemale behavior. American Midland Naturalist, 78:
215-234.

Bauchot, M.-L. & Dessouter, M. 1989. Catalogue critique des types de poissons du Muséum
national d’Histoire naturelle (Suite). Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Section A (Zoologie), (4)11(2, Supplément): 1-58.

Eigenmann, C.H. 1912. The fresh-water fishes of British Guiana, including a study of the
ecological grouping of species, and the relation of the fauna of the plateau to that of the
lowlands. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 5: 1-578.

Eigenmann, C.H. & Eigenmann, R.S. 1891. A catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of South
America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 14: 1-81.

Eschmeyer, W.N. 1990. Catalog of the genera of Recent fishes. 697 pp. California Academy of
Sciences, San Francisco.

Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78(3): 199-286.

Gill, T. 1858. Synopsis of the fresh-water fishes of the Western Portion of the island of
Trinidad, W.I. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 6: 363-430.
Gronovius, L.T. 1754. Museum ichthyologicum sistens piscium ..., vol. 1. 70 pp., 4 pls. Haek,

Lugduni Batavorum.

Giinther, A. 1861. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian fishes in the collection of the British
Museum, vol. 3. 586 pp. British Museum, London.

Hamel, L. 1987. Notes on rearing Polycentrus schomburgkii. Akvarium Terrarium, 30(1): 17-19.

Jordan, D.S. 1887. A preliminary list of the fishes of the West Indies. Proceedings of the United
States National Museum, 9: 554-608.

Kullander, S.O. 1983. A revision of the South American cichlid genus Cichlasoma ( Teleostei:
Cichlidae). 296 pp. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm.

Liem, K.F. 1970. Comparative functional anatomy of the Nandidae (Pisces: Teleostei).
Fieldiana Zoology, 56: 1-166.

Linnaeus, C. 1754. Museum S:ae R:ae M:tis Adolphi Friderici Regis ... in quo Animalia rariora
imprimis, et exotica ... describuntur .... Xxx, 96, [8] pp., 33 pls. Holmiae.

Linnaeus, C. 1758: Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Magio Leccia, F. 1970. Lista de los peces de Venezuela, incluyendo un estudio preliminar sobre
la ictiogeografia del pais. 83 pp. Ministerio de Agricultura y Cria, Caracas.

Miiller, J. & Troschel, F.H. 1848. Fische. Pp. 618-644 in Schomburgk, M.R., Reisen in
Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844, ... part 3 (Versuch einer Zusammenstellung der
Fauna und Flora von Britisch-Guiana), no. 1 (Fauna). Pp. 533-786. Weber, Leipzig.

Miller, J. & Troschel, F.H. 1849. Horae Ichthyologicae. Beschreibung und Abbildung neuer
Fische, part 3. 28 pp., 5 pls. von Veit, Berlin.

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Nelson, J.N. 1984. Fishes of the world. 523 pp. John Wiley, New York.

Regan, C. Tate. 1906. On the fresh-water fishes of the island of Trinidad, based on the
collection, notes and sketches made by Mr. Lechmere Guppy, Junr. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 1906: 378-393.

Rucks, R. 1992. Polycentropsis abbreviata, Beobachtungen und Erkenntnisse. Aquarien- und
Terrarien-Zeitschrift, 45(7): 420-423.

Sauvage, H.E. 1882. Description de quelques poissons de la collection du Muséum histoire
naturelle. Bulletin de la Société de Philomatique de Paris, (7)6: 168-176.

Schultz, L.P. 1949. A further contribution to the ichthyology of Venezuela. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum, 99: 1-211.

Smitt, F.A. (Ed.). 1893. 4 history of Scandinavian fishes by B. Fries, C.U. Ekstrém and C.
Sundevall. Second edition, part 1. 566, viii pp., 27 pls. Norstedt, Stockholm.

Staeck, W. 1992. Apistogramma-Arten Venezuelas. 5: Apistogramma guttata. Aquarien-und
Terrarien-Zeitschrift, 45(9): 584-587.

Stawikowski, R. 1992. Polycentrus punctatus. Aquarien- und Terrarien-Zeitschrift, 45(11): 687.

Sterba, G. 1987. Siisswasserfische der Welt. 915 pp. Urania Verlag, Leipzig.

Vilanova, M. 1979. Un camaleon acuatico: el Polycentrus schomburgkti. Vida Acuatica, 23:
807-810.

Walbaum, J.J. 1792. Petri Artedi sueci genera piscium ... emendata et aucta, part 3 (Ichthyo-
logiae). 723 pp., 3 pls.

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 219

Case 2868

Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed designation
of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species

Hobart M. Smith

Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology,
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.

David B. Wake

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley,
California 94720, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this appplication is to conserve the usage of the name
Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 for a group of five species of salamanders (family
PLETHODONTIDAE Gray, 1850) from the mountain areas of north-central and western
Italy and southern France; Sardinia; and the mountains of northern and central
California, U.S.A. Hydromantes is a replacement name which, with one exception (in
1984), has consistently been used during the past 70 years. It is proposed that
Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 be designated the type species, in
accordance with understanding and usage.

1. Gistel (1848, p. x1) proposed the replacement name Hydromantes for Geotriton.
He did not cite either the authorship or date of the latter name, noting only ‘Unter
den Lurchen, besonders den Batrachiern, ist zu andern ... Geotriton in Hydromantes
.... The name Hydromantes has been used by many authors during the past 70 years
and has been attributed consistently to Gistel (see paras. 5 and 7 below).

2. The first publication of the name Geotriton was by Bonaparte in 1831 (p. 151),
included in the family SALAMANDRIDAE Gray, 1825; since there was neither a
description nor included species the name was a nomen nudum. The name was made
available by Bonaparte ([1832], pp. [243]{244], pl. [83]), who adopted it for a
subgenus of Triton Laurenti, 1768 (the latter was subsequently replaced, as a junior
homonym, by Triturus Rafinesque, 1815). Bonaparte included in Geotriton the single
nominal species Salamandra exigua Laurenti, 1768 (p. 41, pl. 3, fig. 4), which is thus
the type species by monotypy. Subsequently, without referring to his [1832] publi-
cation, Bonaparte ({1837], pp. [255]-{256], pl. [84] used the name Geotriton for
*“Geotriton fuscus’, a misidentification of Salamandra fusca Laurenti, 1768 (p. 42; a
subjective synonym of S. atra Laurenti, 1768, p. 42, pl. 1, fig. 2; see, for example,
Mertens & Wermuth, 1960, pp. 19, 35 and paras. 4-6 below). The dates of
publication ([1832]-{1841]) of the parts of Bonaparte’s work were set out by
Salvadori (1888). Tschudi (1838, pp. 59, 93, 94, pl. 2, fig. 3) adopted the name
Geotriton and attributed it to Bonaparte. Tschudi did not cite a date for the name but
his text makes it clear that Bonaparte ({1837]) was the source. Tschudi’s publication
was included in the Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Neuchatel in
1840 but was issued as a separate in 1838; Mertens (1967, p. v) accepted Stejneger’s

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

(1907, p. 6) date of October 1838 for the first appearance of the work. The single
species Geotriton genei included in the genus by Tschudi was also attributed to
Bonaparte. This appears to have been a manuscript name of Bonaparte’s which was
made available, as Salamandra genei, by Temminck & Schlegel (1838, p. 115).
Temminck & Schlegel’s work has been dated either as January 1838 (Sherborn &
Jentink, 1985, p. 150), or as ‘1838 ... between May and October, probably ...
September’ (Stejneger, 1907, p. 543), or as ‘after May 1838’ (Hoogmoed, 1978, p. 92).
The genus Geotriton was diagnosed by Bonaparte ([1839], p. [263]) among the ‘generi
Salamandrini’;; he again referred to “G. fuscus’ and noted that he used Geotriton in the
restricted sense adopted by Tschudi.

3. Schlegel (1844, p. 122, pl. 39, figs. 5-7) subsequently described and illustrated
Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838. Schlegel, Gray (1850, p. 47) and
Dumeril & Bibron (1854, p. 112) recorded genei as a synonym of ‘G. fuscus’
Bonaparte but the two taxa have otherwise been consistently considered as distinct.
Gray (1850) placed ‘G. fuscus’ in his new family PLETHODONTIDAE.

4. The name Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 remained unused until Dunn (1923, p. 40)
resurrected it in place of Geotriton as used by Bonaparte ([1837]) and Tschudi (1838).
Dunn treated Geotriton Bonaparte, [1837] as a junior homonym of Geotriton
Bonaparte, [1832]. He included two European and one American species in the genus:
Hydromantes italicus Dunn, 1923 (a new name for “Geotriton fuscus’ as misidentified
by Bonaparte ([{1837]); see para. 2 above), Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel,
1838, and Spelerpes platycephalus Camp, 1916 (p. 11). Dunn supposed that the name
Hydromantes, as proposed by Gistel, had been a replacement for ‘Geotriton Tschudr’;
he therefore designated S. genei as the type species of Hydromantes. However, as a
replacement for Geotriton Bonaparte “1837 not 1832’, as cited by Dunn, G. fuscus
would be the type species (see Gorman, 1964a, p. 1), although this was a misidenti-
fication by Bonaparte. Subsequently, Dunn (1926, pp. 344-354) described the genus
Hydromantes and the three included species, and again cited genei as the type.
Hoogmoed (1978, pp. 102, 103) recorded that the seven specimens from Sardinia on
which the description of S. genei was based were in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch
Museum, Leiden and designated an adult male, no. RMNH 2296A, as the lectotype.
Hoogmoed commented that this specimen may have been that illustrated by Schlegel
(1844, pl. 39, figs. 5-7; see para. 3 above).

5. The name Hydromantes Gistel has been universally adopted in the sense of
Dunn (1923) and during the last 70 years has been used in both Europe and North
America in hundreds of works by dozens of authors. It has appeared in major
reference and popular publications as well as in publications on taxonomy. Lanza &
Vanni (1981) noted some of the European literature, and Gorman (1964a, 1964b) _
summarized mostly the American literature up to that time. The evolutionary
relationships and biogeography of Hydromantes have been discussed by many
authors (see, for example, Wake, Maxson & Wurst, 1978, and references in that
work). Three American species are currently recognized; they all have protected
status under national and state laws and the name Hydromantes is therefore cited in
governmental regulations. Lanza & Vanni (1981, p. 119) proposed the name
Hydromantoides (type species Spelerpes platycephalus Camp, 1916) for the North
American group of species, retaining Hydromantes for the European taxa. However,
since 1981, with the exception of Dubois (1984; see para. 6 below), Hydromantes has

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 221

continued to be used for both the North American and European species (see, for
example, Frost, 1985, pp. 590, 591; Stebbins, 1985, p. 60; Duellman & Trueb, 1986,
p. 508; Collins, 1990, p. 7).

6. Dubois (1984, p. 106) noted that an examination of the parts ([{1832], [1837]) of
Bonaparte’s work showed that in both the author had applied the name Geotriton to
the same biological species, which was subsequently named Hydromantes italicus by
Dunn (1923). In the earlier publication ([{1832]) Bonaparte thought that the species
was that called Salamandra exigua by Laurenti (1768), whilst in the later publication
({1837]) Bonaparte considered it to be S. fusca Laurenti, 1768. Both were misidenti-
fications. Dubois commented that Bonaparte had therefore introduced only one
new generic name, Geotriton Bonaparte, [1832], which he had applied successively to
two distinct nominal species: ‘Le nom générique Geotriton qui apparait dans la
combinaison Geotriton fuscus dans le travail de Bonaparte (1837) n’est autre que
Geotriton Bonaparte, 1832’. Dubois noted that Geotriton (type species S. exigua), and
the replacement name Hydromantes Gistel, 1848, were junior subjective synonyms of
Triturus Rafinesque, 1815 (consistently included in the family SALAMANDRIDAE), and
that therefore the name Hydromantes could not be used for the genus which includes
the species genei and italicus. Dubois commented that it would be possible to submit
an application to the Commission to conserve Hydromantes by setting aside S. exigua
as the type species and designating either genei or italicus as the type. However, he
considered that recourse to such action was unjustified. Dubois (1984, pp. 107-109)
adopted the name Hydromantoides Lanza & Vanni, 1981 in place of Hydromantes,
included all the American species in the nominotypical subgenus, and introduced the
new subgenus Speleomantes Dubois, 1984 (type species Hydromantes italicus Dunn,
1923) for the European group of species (including Salamandra genei Temminck &
Schlegel, 1838).

7. Subsequent authors have not adopted Dubois’s (1984) nomenclature. Its
adoption would cause considerable and unnecessary confusion. As noted in para. 5
above, for the last 70 years authors have used the name Hydromantes for a group of
species included in the family PLETHODONTIDAE. With few exceptions (e.g. Lanza &
Vanni, 1981), both the American and European species have been included (and even
Lanza & Vanni’s work retained Hydromantes for the European species). Dunn (1923,
1926) and subsequent authors have universally credited Gistel (1848) with author-
ship. With the exception of Gorman (1964a), authors have followed Dunn and
recognized Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species and it is
proposed that this be designated the type in accordance with usage.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 and to designate Salamandra
genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in
(1) above Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name genei
Temminck & Schlegel, 1838, as published in the binomen Salamandra genei
(specific name of the type species of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848).

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

References

Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. 1831. Saggio d’una distribuzione metodica degli Animali Vertebrati a
sangue freddo. Giornale Arcadico di Scienze Lettere ed Arti, 52: 129-209.

Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. [1832], [1837], [1839]. Jconografia della fauna Italica per le quattro classi
degli animali vertebrati, yol. 2 (Amfibi), fasc. 1 ({1832]), fase. 19 ([1837]), fasc. 26 ({1839]).
Salviucci, Roma.

Camp, C.L. 1916. Spelerpes platycephalus, a new alpine salamander from the Yosemite
National Park, California. University of California Publications in Zoology, 17(3): 11-14.

Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American
amphibians and reptiles, Ed. 3. ii, 41 pp. Herpetological Circular, no. 19. Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, U.S.A.

Dubois, A. 1984. Miscellanea nomenclatorica batrachologica (IV). Alytes, 3(3): 103-110.

Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. xvii, 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New
York.

Duméril, A.-M.-C. & Bibron, G. 1854. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des
reptiles, vol. 9. xx, 440 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.

Dunn, E.R. 1923. Mutanda herpetologica. Proceedings of the New England Zoological Club, 8:
39-40.

Dunn, E.R. 1926. The salamanders of the family Plethodontidae. viii, 441 pp. Smith College,
Northampton, Massachusetts.

Frost, D.R. (Ed.). 1985. Amphibian species of the world. v, 732 pp. Allen Press & Association
of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.

Gistel, J. 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreiches fiir héhere Schulen. xv, 216, [4] pp., 32 pls.
Hoffman, Stuttgart.

. Gorman, J. 1964a. Hydromantes. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, 10: 1-2.

Gorman, J. 1964b. Hydromantes brunus, H. platycephalus, and H. shastae. Catalogue of
American Amphibians and Reptiles, 11: 1-2.

Gray, J.E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia, with a description of some
new species. Annals of Philosophy, (n.s.)10(3): 193-217.

Gray, J.E. 1850. Catalogue of the specimens of Amphibia in the collection of the British Museum,
part 2 (Batrachia Gradientia). 72 pp. British Museum, London.

Hoogmoed, M.S. 1978. An annotated review of the salamander types described in the “Fauna
Japonica’. Zoologische Mededelingen, 53(9): 91-105.

Lanza, B. & Vanni, S. 1981. On the biogeography of plethodontid salamanders (Amphibia
Caudata) with a description of a new genus. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, (n.s.)15:
117-121.

Laurenti, J.N. 1768. Austriaci Viennensis specimen medicum, exhibens synopsin reptilium
emendatum cum experimentis circa venena et antidota reptilium austriacorum. ii, 215 pp. de
Trattnern, Vienna.

Mertens, R. 1967. Tschudi's ‘Classification der Batrachier’. Fascimile reprint, with an intro-
duction by Robert Mertens. Fascimile Reprints, no. 17. vi, 100 pp., 6 pls. Society for the
Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, U.S.A.

Mertens, R. & Wermuth, H. 1960. Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas. xi, 264 pp. Kramer,
Frankfurt am Main.

Salvadori, T. 1888. Le date della pubblicazione della ‘Iconografia della Fauna Italica’ del
Bonaparte ed Indice delle specie illustrate in detta opera. Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia ~
ed Anatomia Comparata della R. Universita di Torino, 3(48): 1-25.

Schlegel, H. 1844. Abbildungen neuer oder unvollstdndig bekannter Amphibien ... , part 3.
Pp. 81-141 (text), pls. 21—S0 (atlas). Diisseldorf.

Sherborn, C.D. & Jentink, F.A. 1895. On the dates of the parts of Siebold’s ‘Fauna Japonica’
and Giebel’s ‘Allgemeine Zoologie’ (first edition). Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
London, 1895: 149-150.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. xvi, 336 pp. Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.

Stejneger, L. 1907. Herpetology of Japan and adjacent territory. Bulletin of the United States
National Museum, 58: 1-577.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 223

Temminck, C.J. & Schlegel, H. [1838]. Les batraciens. Pp. 105-140, 8 pls. in Siebold, P.F. de,
Fauna Japonica, sive descriptio animalium, quae in itinere per Japoniam ... annis 1823-1830
collegit. Reptilia Elaborantibus. Lugduni-Batavorum.

Tschudi, J.J. 1838. Classification der Batrachier, mit Berticksichtigung der fossilen Thiere
dieser Abtheilung der Reptilien. Mémoires de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de
Neuchdtel, 2: 1-102. (Issued in the serial in 1840 but published as a separate in 1838).

Wake, D.B., Maxson, L.R. & Wurst, G.Z. 1978. Genetic differentiation, albumin evolution,
and their geographic implications in plethodontid salamanders of California and southern
Europe. Evolution, 32(3): 529-539.

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Case 2873

Emys Duméril, 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation

Robert G. Webb

Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso,
Texas 79968-0519, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the turtle generic
name Emys Dumeril, 1806. This has the senior synonym Emydes Brongniart, [1805],
which has not been used as a valid name and of which suppression is sought. The type
species of Emys is Testudo lutaria Linnaeus, 1758, long treated as a junior synonym
of Emys orbicularis (Linnaeus, 1758), the European pond turtle.

1. Dumeéril (1806, p. 76) made the name Emys available by providing a brief
description. The entry begins: ‘3. Les EMyDES (emys) forment un genre ...’; other
genera (e.g. ‘Les TORTUES (testudo)’ ) were treated similarly. On the next page the
genus is referred to as ‘Emyde’ in a taxonomic key; in context ‘Emyde’ is used here
as a vernacular name like “Tortue’. No nominal species are mentioned in Dumeril’s
work.

2. Fitzinger (1843, p. 29) designated ‘Emys europaea. Schweigg.’ as the type species
of Emys. The Emys europaea of Schweigger (1812, p. 305) is Testudo europaea
Schneider, 1783 (p. 323). Testudo europaea and T. orbicularis Linnaeus (1758, p. 198)
are regarded as synonyms. Fitzinger’s type species designation has been accepted by
most authors but is invalid (see below).

3. Bell (1828, p. 515) had earlier specifically given Emys picta (Testudo picta
Schneider, 1812, p. 306, currently Chrysemys picta) as the type species of Emys. This
designation would be highly disruptive of nomenclatural stability: Emys would
replace Chrysemys Gray, 1844 (p. 27) for the widespread North American painted
turtle C. picta, and Emys as always used would need another generic name.

4. Fortunately Bell’s type designation is invalid. Lindholm (1929, pp. 281-282,
footnote), noting that Duméril (1806) did not mention any nominal species in his
genera, pointed out that Froriep (1806, p. 77) had in his German translation of
Duméril allocated the two species Testudo lutaria Linnaeus, 1758 and T. ferox
Schneider, 1783 to Emys. These two nominal species were the first to be included in
the genus and only from them can the type species be selected (Article 69a(i)(1) of the
Code). This was done by Lindholm (1929, p. 282, footnote) who designated T. /utaria
as the type species. Loveridge & Williams (1957, p. 201) also cited T. /utaria Linnaeus
as the type. Bell’s and Fitzinger’s designations are invalid because they were not of
either of the nominal species included in Emys by Froriep.

5. Linnaeus published the two names Testudo orbicularis and T. lutaria together
(1758, p. 198). Modern authors have recognized these two names as synonyms (e.g.
Mertens & Wermuth, 1955, p. 349; 1960, p. 63; Loveridge & Williams, 1957, p. 202;
Wermuth & Mertens, 1961, p. 79; 1977, p. 26). Their simultaneous publication
requires first reviser choice of precedence; this was effected by Mertens & Wermuth

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 225

(1960, p. 12) who selected orbicularis as the valid name. All modern works (see, for
example, Alderton, 1956; Ernst & Barbour, 1989) adopt the name Emys orbicularis
for the European pond turtle, whose range extends from North Africa through
southern Europe to S.W. Asia.

6. A number of early authors credited Brongniart, and not Duméril, as author of
Emys (e.g. Gray, 1825, p. 210; 1844, p. 14; [1856], p. 19; Bell, 1828, p. 515; Bonaparte,
1830, pp. 141, 161, 164; Fitzinger, 1835, p. 123; 1843, .p. 29; Agassiz, 1857, p. 441).
Dumeril & Bibron (1834, p. 246, footnote), Agassiz (1857, p. 241) and Smets (1889,
p. 12) specifically stated that Brongniart used the name Emys. However, so far as
known the spelling Emys does not appear in any of Brongniart’s papers.

7. An abbreviated account of Brongniart’s classification, published in An VIII of
the French Revolutionary calendar (i.e. 23 September 1799 to 22 September 1800),
dealt only with higher categories and did not mention generic names. Brongniart’s
generic names first appeared in two papers at about the same time ([1805], p. 27; 1806,
p. 611); the pertinent passage is nearly identical in both papers, and because of its
relative briefness and scarcity it is quoted in its entirety ({1805], p. 27):

“‘2e genre—Emyde, emydes

Les especes de ce genre ont les doigts distincts, tant6t séparés, tantot a demi

palmés, quelquefois méme enti¢rement palmés; ils sont terminés par des ongles

trés-crochus.

Les unes ont un nez cyclindrique en forme de tube; leur carapace est molle, et

l’animal ne peut y renfermer enti¢rement ses membres. Telles sont les E. ferox, E.

rostrata, E. matamata, etc.

Les autres ont la carapace et le plastron solides, et elles peuvent non seulement se

retirer enti¢rement dessous leur carapace, mais quelquefois méme la fermer

exactement, par suite de le mobilite des piéces du plastron. Les especes de cette
division ressemblent beaucoup aux tortues proprement dites. On doit y rapporter

la tortue bourbeuse, E. /utaria; la tortue pensilvanique, E. pensilvanica; la tortue a

boite, E. clausa, etc.

Les emydes vivent dans l’eau douce; quelques espéces sont carnivores et se

nourtrissent de poissons et de coquilles’.

A footnote added: ‘J’avais donné dans le manuscrit de ce mémoire un autre nom
4 ce genre; mais j'ai adopté celui qui a été choisi par M. Duméril dans ses Elémens
@histoire naturelle’. The work referred to is Duméril (1804), which gave only French
vernacular names: p. 233 mentioned “Les émydes’.

8. Brongniart’s [1805] work, a quarto book, was published in An XIII (23
September 1804 to 22 September 1805). The 1806 journal article was published in
January 1806; in this the names were capitalized (e.g. TORTUE, TESTUDO and EMYDE,
EMYDES). Brongniart had originally read his paper long before, on ‘le premier pluviose
An 8 (21 January 1800), using then some other name for Emydes (according to the
footnote mentioned above).

9. Emydes was italicized by Brongniart in 1805 and 1806 and there is no reason to
reject its availability; although Sherborn (1925, p. 2151, citing the 1806 reference) was
doubtful, Neave (1939, p. 224) listed Emydes without comment. Emydes Brongniart,
[1805] antedates Emys Dumeéril, 1806, but the two names are not necessarily objective
synonyms since no type has been selected from among the six included nominal
species of Emydes (presumably because no one has treated Emydes as a valid name).

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Two of Brongniart’s originally included nominal species of Emydes are E. ferox and
E. lutaria, which are the two species placed by Froriep (1806) in Emys (see para. 4
above). Each of Brongniart’s six nominal species of Emydes belongs to an accepted
but junior genus, and to adopt it with any one of them as type would be highly
disruptive of nomenclatural stability.

10. To conserve Emys Duméril, 1806 and to record the correct fixation of its type

species the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Emydes Brongniart,
[1805] 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 Emys
Dumeril, 1806 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Lindholm (1929) Testudo lutaria Linnaeus, 1758 (a junior subjective synonym
of Testudo orbicularis Linnaeus, 1758);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name orbicularis
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Testudo orbicularis (senior
subjective synonym of the specific name of Testudo lutaria Linnaeus, 1758, the
type species of Emys Duméril, 1806, by the first reviser action of Mertens &
Wermuth, 1960);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Emydes Brongniart, [1805], as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Agassiz, L. 1857. Natural history of the United States. North American Testudinata, vol. 1, part
2. Pp. 233-452. Little, Brown & Co., Boston.

Alderton, D. 1956. Tortoises and turtles of the world. 191 pp. Blandford, London.

Bell, T. 1828. Characters of the order, families, and genera of the Testudinata. Zoological
Journal, 3: 513-516.

Bonaparte, C.L. 1830. Sulla seconda edizione del Regno Animale del Barone Cuvier: osservazi-
oni. 175 pp. Bologna.

Brongniart, A. [1805]. Essai d'une classification naturelle des reptiles, avec la description et la
figure de plusieurs espéces. 53 pp., 2 pls. Baudouin, Imprimeur de l'Institut National, Paris.

Brongniart, A. 1806. Essai d’une classification naturelle des reptiles. Mémoires présentés a
l'Institut des Sciences, Lettres et Arts, par divers savans, 1: 587-637.

Duméril, A.M.C. 1804. Traité élémentaire d’histoire naturelle. xii, 394 pp. Déterville, Paris.

Duméril, A.M.C. 1806. Zoologie analytique ou méthode naturelle de classification des animaux,
rendue plus facile a l'aide de tableaux synoptiques. xxxii, 344 pp. Allais, Paris.

Duméril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1834. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des
reptiles, vol. 1. xiv, 451 pp., 12 pls. Librarie encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.

Ernst, C.H. & Barbour, R.W. 1989. Turtles of the world. xii, 313 pp. Smithsonian Institution,
Washington.

Fitzinger, L. 1835. Entwurf einer systematischen Anordnung der Schildkréten nach den
Grundsatzen der natiirlichen Methode. Annalen des Naturhistorisches Museums in Wien,
1: 104-128.

Fitzinger, L. 1843. Systema reptilium. Fasciculus primus (Amblyglossae). 106, ix pp. Brau-
miiller & Seidel, Vindobonae.

Froriep, L.F. 1806. C. Duméril’s Analytische Zoologie aus dem Franzésischen, mit Zusdtzen. 343
pp. Landes-Industrie-Comptoir, Weimar.

Gray, J.E. 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia, with a description of some
new species. Annals of Philosophy, (2)10: 193-217.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 227

Gray, J.E. 1844. Catalogue of the tortoises, crocodiles and amphisbaenians in the collection of the
British Museum. vii, 80 pp. Newman, London.

Gray, J.E. [1856]. Catalogue of shield reptiles in the collection of the British Museum, part |
(Testudinata. Tortoises). 82 pp., 50 pls. Taylor & Francis, London.

Lindholm, W.A. 1929. Revidiertes Verzeichnis der Gattungen der rezenten Schildkroten nebst
Notizen zur Nomenklatur einiger Arten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 81: 275-295.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Loveridge, A. & Williams, E.E. 1957. Revision of the African tortoises and turtles of the
suborder Cryptodira. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College,
115(6): 161-557.

Mertens, R. & Wermuth, H. 1955. Die rezenten Schildkréten, Krokodile und Briickenechsen.
Eine kritische Liste der heute lebenden Arten und Rassen. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, 83(5):
323-440.

Mertens, R. & Wermuth, H. 1960. Die Amphibien und Reptilien Europas. xi, 264 pp. Kramer,
Frankfurt-am-Main.

‘Neaye, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 2 (D-L). 1025 pp. The Zoological Society of
London, London.

Schneider, J.G. 1783. Allgemeine Naturgeschichte der Schildkréten, nebst einem systematischen
Verzeichnisse der einzelnen Arten und zwei Kupfern. x\vii, 365 pp. Miller, Leipzig.
Schweigger, A.F. 1812. Prodromus monographiae cheloniorum. Kénigsberger Archiv fiir

Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik, 1: 271-368, 406-458 [+ addenda 459-462].

Sherborn, C.D. 1925. Index Animalium 180J—1850, vol. 4 (D-G). Pp. 1773-2880. British
Museum, London.

Smets, G. 1889. Les classifications des chéloniens. Annales de la Société Scientifique de
Bruxelles, (Mémoires), 13: 1-107.

Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. 1961. Schildkréten, Krokodile, Briickenechsen. xxvi, 422 pp.
Fischer, Jena.

Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien. Testudines,
Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Das Tierreich, 100: 1-174.

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta Benson,
1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2833; see BZN 49: 258-260)

Fred Naggs
Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7
SBD, U.K.

In my application for the conservation of the usage of Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 by the
designation of a neotype for its type species Achatina erecta Benson, 1842, which had
been misidentified by Pilsbry, I noted (BZN 49: 258, para. 4) that four syntypes in
Calcutta are specimens of Bulimus gracilis Hutton, 1834 (the type species of Allopeas
Baker, 1935).

I have now located four specimens in the Natural History Museum, London
(registration nos. 1842.9.30.10—13) which, like those in Calcutta, have documentation
verifying their status as syntypes of Achatina erecta; inexplicably, however, these are
specimens of Bulimus achatinaceus Pfeiffer, 1846. The designation of the neotype
proposed in my application will thus conserve the specific name of B. achatinaceus,
in addition to that of T. erectus and the usage of Tortaxis and Allopeas.

Comment on the proposed designation of Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the
type species of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2801; see BZN 49: 109-111; 50: 52-53)

Maria Christina Pons da Silva
Fundagao Zoobotdnica do Rio Grande do Sul, Museu de Ciéncias Naturais, Rua Dr
Salvador Franga 1427 — 90.610, Porto Alegre RS, Brazil

The name Potamolithus was established in a paper by Pilsbry & Rush (November
1896). A number of authors (Pilsbry, 1911; Clench & Turner, 1962; Parodiz, 1965a
and Pons da Silva & Davis, 1983) have cited the name from the November paper,
whilst others (Parodiz, 1955, 1965b and Neave, 1940, p. 880) have explicitly adopted
it from the subsequent (December 1896) paper by Pilsbry. The remainder of authors
mentioned in para. 3 of the application did not specify the month of publication.
However, all authors have cited the name with the authorship as Pilsbry (1896).

The only two revisions (Pilsbry, 1911 and Parodiz, 1965a) of the genus Potamo-
lithus adopted P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type species. Thiele (1931, p. 142) and
Wenz (1939, p. 574), two important works in malacology which have had much
influence, also cited the type as P. rushii. The small note by Clench (1948) has been
overlooked by all except Zilch (1960) in the past 45 years.

The spirit of the Code is to promote stability in nomenclature and my recommend-
ation is to conserve P. rushii as the type species of Potamolithus. I therefore agree with
the proposals of Lopez Armengol & Mancenido’s application.

Additional references

Neave, S.A. 1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 3 (M-P). 1065 pp. Zoological Society of
London, London.
Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde, Teil. 1. Fischer, Jena.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 229

Reply to comments on the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites
nodosus (Mollusca, Ammonoidea)
(Case 2732; see BZN 48: 31-35, 246; 49: 145-149, 290; 50: 54-56, 141-142)

Max Urlichs
Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart 1,
Germany

1. Tozer (BZN 49: 145-149) has commented at length on my application (BZN 48:
31-35). However, he has overlooked some points and misinterpreted others, and
therefore it is necessary to discuss some important facts.

2. Tozer (para. 3) correctly stated that the authorship of Ammonites nodosus has

- generally been attributed to Bruguiére, whose description was based on Scheuchzer
(1718). However, in modern times no workers before Rieber & Tozer (1986), for
example Philippi (1901), Spath (1934) and Wenger (1957), had seen any original
Scheuchzer specimens: they only had his inadequate figure and Bourguet’s (1742)
redrawing of it (see para. 1 of my application). Philippi (1901), on whose extensive
work the 20th century concept of Ceratites nodosus is based, made (p. 410) the
following comment on this (my translation): ‘Scheuchzer’s figure is insufficient. The
number and form of the lobes and saddles is properly represented in general, but the
saddles seem to be distinctly crenulated. Elongated-oval nodes, which do not seem to
have any connection with the round, button-shaped external nodes, surround the
umbilicus in such a way that Scheuchzer’s ammonite has an appearance like an
Aspidoceras’ .

3. As I previously pointed out (BZN 48: 32, para. 6), due to the inadequacy of
Scheuchzer’s figure Philippi (pp. 410, 413) interpreted Ceratites nodosus as repre-
sented by Schlotheim’s illustration (not an original specimen, since none were known)
of Ammonites nodosus (1823, pl. 31, fig. 1): ‘Ceratites nodosus is typified according to
Schlotheim’s figure, which is of a specimen without body chamber, large moderately
involute forms with widely separated bulging ribs, unforked on the last coil and a
broad weakly domed venter’ (translation; I quoted the original German in para. 6 of
my application).

4. As noted above, Philippi (1901) never saw the actual specimen on which
Schlotheim had based his figure of Ammonites nodosus, which is a phragmocone
rediscovered by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) in Berlin (Museum fiir Naturkunde,
specimen MB: C.774) and illustrated by them (1987, fig. 10). This specimen proved
not to match Philippi’s concept of C. nodosus, but corresponds to Ceratites
(Acanthoceratites ) spinosus spinosus Philippi, 1901 (p. 404). Therefore, we (Urlichs &
Mundlos, 1987, p. 7) proposed another specimen (MB: C.785) from the Schlotheim
collection as lectotype of Ceratites nodosus Schlotheim; this specimen does accord
with Schlotheim’s figure, Philippi’s usage, and the subsequent 20th century concept
of Ceratites nodosus. We pointed out that our proposal would require ratification by
the Commission’s plenary powers, and this is requested in my application.

5. It can be seen that Philippi (1901) regarded Ceratites nodosus as characterized
by Schlotheim’s (1823) figure, and not by Scheuchzer’s (1718) illustration or by any
physical type specimen known to be extant. Contrary to Tozer (BZN 49: 147, para.
7) and Silberling (BZN 50: 141-142), almost all subsequent authors, and not just

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Urlichs & Mundlos (1987), have followed Philippi in using Ceratites nodosus in the
sense of Schlotheim’s (1823) pl. 31, fig.1. These authors include Riedel (1916), Spath
(1934) and Wenger (1957), and I mentioned 14 other works in para. 10 of my
application. The only exceptions are in fact Rieber & Tozer (1986) and Tozer in his
comment.

6. Tozer (BZN 49: 148, para. 8) has commented that “The taxonomy adopted by
Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) for the ceratitids of the Uppér Muschelkalk is different
from that of Schlotheim, Philippi, Spath and Wenger. It is much more elaborate, with
recognition of genera, subgenera, species and subspecies’. Naturally more taxa have
been described over the decades, and we (Urlichs & Mundlos) followed the species
and subspecies of Wenger (1957) with only three exceptions: we renamed a junior
objective synonym and separated two previously named species he had synonymized.
In all other ways we followed the taxonomy of the above authors, and here again
Tozer’s remarks are not in accordance with the facts.

7. Rieber & Tozer (1986) and Tozer (BZN 49: 148, para. 9) have made the mistake
of treating the specimen (PIMUZ L/1651), which they rediscovered in Zurich and
which was the basis of Scheuchzer’s (1718) illustration, as the lectotype of C. nodosus.
Like Schlotheim’s specimen MB: C.774, the origin of his (1823) figure, Scheuchzer’s
specimen does not belong to Ceratites nodosus as understood by Philippi, Spath,
Wenger and subsequent authors. It is true that under Article 74c of the Code a
lectotype is an original specimen and not an illustration of it, even if the specimen

‘cannot be traced. In the case of C. nodosus, however, the modern (last 92 years)
concept has not been based on actual specimens, the Scheuchzer and Schlotheim
collections being believed lost, but on Philippi’s (1901) interpretation of Schlotheim’s
figure. This essential point has been overlooked by Tozer.

8. ‘Ceratites nodosus’ as defined by Tozer would occur in southern Germany in the
‘Trochitenkalk’ representing the lower part of the Upper Muschelkalk, and not in the
overlying ‘Nodosus Schichten’ for which it is the name-bearing species. Tozer’s
statement (BZN 49: 148, para. 9) ‘Acceptance of my [Tozer’s] proposal [i.e. the
Zurich specimen as lectotype] would make it unnecessary to revise the definition of
Ceratites (Ceratites)’ is emphatically not correct. It would necessitate taxonomic
revision and renaming of several subgenera and species of the genus Ceratites (see
BZN 48: 33 and Urlichs & Mundlos, 1987, p. 33).

9. Neither of the recently rediscovered specimens poorly illustrated by Scheuchzer
(1718) and Schlotheim (1823) belongs to Ceratites (Ceratites) nodosus as interpreted
by Philippi (1901) and subsequently; they are referrable to Ceratites (Doloceratites )
and Ceratites (Acanthoceratites) respectively (see paras. 9 and 6 of my application).
In the interest of stability it follows that neither of them should be taken as the |
name-bearing type of C. nodosus, and this is the reason for my application. On the
other hand, and contrary to the remarks by Tozer in paras. 7 and 8 of his comment,
the Schlotheim specimen (MB: C.785 in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Humboldt
Universitat, Berlin) proposed as lectotype by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) and in my
application does stabilize the 20th century usage of Ceratites nodosus in both its
taxonomic and stratigraphic aspects (this usage also corresponds to the description of
C. nodosus by de Haan (1825) when he established the genus Ceratites, as I pointed
out in para. 5 of the application). I have given the Commission Secretariat a list of
86 works published since 1970 which use the name Ceratites nodosus in this

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 231

taxonomic sense. Accordingly I reiterate the proposals in my para. 11 (BZN 48:
33-34); they have been supported by Hahn (BZN 48: 246), Tichy (BZN 49: 290) and
by Horn and by Strauch & Bertling on BZN 50: 54.

10. I have seen the comments (BZN 50: 55-56) on this case by the late R.V.
Melville, and shall deal with them separately.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974
(Crustacea, Cumacea) with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as
the type species

(Case 2787; see BZN 49: 264-265)

Les Watling
‘Darling Marine Center, University of Maine, Walpole, Maine 04573, U.S.A.

It is unfortunate that Bacescu & Muradian did not specifically designate the one
new species in their new genus Styloptocuma as the type species. Since they indicated
the name of the new species as Styloptocuma antipai n.g. n.sp., it seems reasonable to
assume that this species was intended to be the type for the new genus. In my recent
paper (Watling, 1991), I treated S. antipai as the type species, not realizing that a
violation of the Code had occurred. The attribution of authorship of this genus to the
40 compilers of the Zoological Record would be unreasonable. Therefore, I support
the requests made in this case.

Additional reference

Watling, L. 1991. Rediagnosis and revision of some Nannastacidae (Crustacea: Cumacea).
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 104: 751-757.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of
B. octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis

(Case 2758; see BZN 50: 23-26; see also Case 2772, BZN 49: 120-121)

Richard L. Westcott
Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon
97310-0110, U.S.A.

Nelson & Barr have clearly and thoroughly stated the case to conserve the name
Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 with the type species B. octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758. This is
necessary to conserve the current and ubiquitous concepts of the genera Buprestis and
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829.

There is little I can add to the authors’ overwhelming logic to retain the names. The
beetles are well known, especially popular with collectors and contain several major
(and many more minor) pests of agriculture, horticulture and forestry. There is a
wealth of literature pertaining to them. To change either name, particularly for the
huge genus Chrysobothris, would seriously upset nomenclatural stability.

As a collector and researcher of the BUPRESTIDAE for 35 years I lend my
wholehearted support to the proposals.

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of generic names in the
BUPRESTIDAE (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Cases 2837/1 and 2837/2; see BZN 50: 27-30, 31-34, 56).

(1) Richard L. Westcott

Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon
97310-0110, U.S.A. ;

In relation to the application to conserve the names Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829,
Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Case 2837/1) I agree
wholeheartedly with Hans Mihle’s proposals. There is nothing to be gained but
further confusion by accepting the adoptions of Leraut (1983), even if these are in
accord with the Code. The last two names apply only to Old World species and I
would certainly defer to Herr Mihle’s judgement on what nomenclatural arrange-
ment will promote stability. I had the fortunate opportunity in the summer of 1992
to travel with him and two other European colleagues, both leading researchers on
this group, and the proposals were discussed. These entomologists were in accord.

Poecilonota is the only genus of this group represented in the New World and it
occurs throughout the United States and Canada and a small portion of northern
Mexico. It has not been known here by any other name since LeConte (1859); prior
to that the known species were in the catch-all genus Buprestis. In his application
Miihle omitted all but one reference pertaining to this genus in the New World.
However, the name appears widely in the North American literature, the most
important recent work being Evans (1957). To change the name would only bring
confusion. The case for the Old World species is much more convoluted, but Muhle
certainly speaks for the majority there and we are thus all in agreement.

In relation to the names Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833
(Case 2837/2), matters are not so clear and I doubt that there is such general
agreement. Workers have been incorrect in citing Buprestis acuminata (= appendic-
ulata) as the type species of Melanophila, whereas the valid designation (Westwood,
1838) is B. tarda (= cyanea) as pointed out by Leraut (1983). I do not see any pressing
reason why Leraut’s treatment of Me/anophila/Phaenops should not stand. I do not
believe that the stable usage of these two names exists, as stated by Mihle, at least
in the New World. Part of the problem may lie in that Phaenops has largely been used
as a subgenus of Melanophila, although there is now no question that the B. cyanea
group is generically distinct from the group of species typified by B. acuminata.

Mihle has again omitted the New World references to this group. There are two
or three major, and a few minor, forest pests which all appear widely in the New
World literature under Melanophila, with the exception of Nelson’s (1985) adoption
of Phaenops. Later, Nelson (1989) followed Leraut (1983).

Perhaps this comes down to whether confusion will be caused by adopting the
nomenclaturally correct concept for Melanophila. I cannot speak for the Old World
species because I do not know to what extent any of them are regarded as
economically important forest pests, the names of which will therefore have appeared
widely in the literature. However, I do know that in some European catalogs
both taxa (Melanophila and Phaenops) have appeared under the banner of the
former.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 233

I cast my vote to remain with Leraut’s (1983) correct interpretation of the Code for
Melanophila (i.e. that it should apply to the cyanea group); Phaenops can properly be
placed in its synonymy. Nelson (1989) has clearly stated that the B. acuminata group
of species (to which Mihle wishes Melanophila applied) should now be placed in the
genus Oxypteris and I do not feel that this causes undue confusion or hardship to
anyone. At least in the United States and Canada it will not cause confusion. I
therefore propose that priority should dictate the type species and nomenclature of
these genera.

Additional references

Evans, D. 1957. A revision of the genus Poecilonota in America north of Mexico (Coleoptera:
Buprestidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 50(1): 21-37.

Nelson, G.H. 1985. Clarification of the taxonomic status in various genera of the family

Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 39(2): 133-146.
Nelson, G.H. 1989. Remarks on genera of Buprestidae affected by the Leraut (1983) and Cobos
(1986) papers (Coleoptera). Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 43(4): 393-396.

(2) R.G. Booth
International Institute of Entomology, clo Department of Entomology, The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

In answer to Dr Westcott (comment above) I can confirm Muhle’s statements
(paras. 5 and 6 of the application) that there has been consensus in the European
literature on the usage of Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833.
Apart from Obenberger (1930), who lumped Phaenops species under Melanophila, all
the major European key works and catalogues have consistently treated Phaenops
(the cyanea group of species) as a separate genus from Melanophila (with acuminata
De Geer or its synonym appendiculata Fabricius being accepted, albeit incorrectly, as
the type species). These works include Lacordaire (1857), Gemminger & Harold
(1869), Kerremans (1903), Reitter (1911), Schaefer (1949), Freude, Harde & Lohse
(1979), Cobos (1986) and Bily (1989), which were all mentioned in the application,
and also Portevin (1931). Leraut’s (1983) proposals transfer the name Melanophila to
the genus called Phaenops and, for example, change the familiar Melanophila
acuminata (De Geer), of current, longstanding use, to the unknown Oxypteris
acuminata. 1 therefore support Mithle’s application to conserve the longstanding
usage of Melanophila and Phaenops.
In the application (para. 8) the gender of the name Phaenops was stated to be
feminine. However, Article 30a(ii) of the Code makes a blanket requirement for all
names ending in -ops to be of masculine gender. To my knowledge all workers,
including its author (Dejean, 1833), have consistently treated Phaenops as feminine,
and I therefore propose that the Commission be asked to sanction the continuing use
of the feminine gender for the name.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the gender of the generic name Phaenops
Dejean, 1833 is feminine;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phaenops
Dejean, 1833 (gender: feminine, as ruled in (1) above), type species by
designation by Théry (1942) Buprestis cyanea Fabricius, 1775.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993
Additional references

Obenberger, J. 1930. Buprestidae 2. Pp. 215-568 in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.),
Coleopterorum catalogus, vol. 111. Junk, Berlin.

Portevin, G. 1931. Histoire naturelle des coléoptéres de France, vol. 2 (Polyphaga: Lamelli-
cornia, Palpicornia, Diversicornia). Encyclopédie Entomologique 13. Lechevalier, Paris.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cryptophagus advena
Waltl, 1834 (currently Ahasverus advena; Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2846; see BZN 50: 20-22)

R.G. Booth

International Institute of Entomology, clo Department of Entomology, The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Ahasverus advena (Waltl, 1834) is one of several cosmopolitan species found in
stored products which are frequently submitted to the International Institute of
Entomology for identification. In the interests of stability I strongly support the
conservation of the specific name.

Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of the mosquito names Aedes
(Neomelaniconion) albothorax, A. (N.) circumluteolus and A. (N.) mcintoshi
(Insecta, Diptera)

(Case 2852; see BZN 50: 39-43)

(1) Kenneth J. Linthicum

United States Army Medical Component, Armed Forces Institute of Medical Sciences,
APO Area Pacific 96546, 315 Rajvithi Road, Bangkok 10400, Thailand

I strongly concur with the conservation of these specific names. Since 1980 I have
been studying the biology of these ground-pool Aedes as it relates to the ecology of
Rift Valley fever virus in sub-Saharan Africa. I have published extensively using these
names (although before 1986 treating A. mcintoshi under the name A. /ineatopennis).
I have given the Commission Secretariat a list of 25 such papers of which I am an
author. Strict application of priority would require changing the names of all three
species, thereby confusing understanding of their biology and their role in the
maintenance and transmission of Rift Valley fever virus. :

(2) John F. Reinert
610 N.W. 40th Terrace, Gainesville, Florida 32607, U.S.A.

As a mosquito systematist and biologist for over 27 years, I support Zavortink’s
proposals. They bring needed stability to the names of a taxonomically complex
group of mosquitoes whose members have been incriminated in the transmission of
human pathogens.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 235

(3) P.G. Jupp
Arbovirus Unit, National Institute for Virology, University of the Witwatersrand,
Private Bag X4, Sandringham, 2131 South Africa

I would like to support this application, particularly the conservation of the names
of Ae. (N.) circumluteolus and Ae. (N.) mcintoshi. Both these species are important
vectors of arboviruses and it would cause unnecessary ambiguity if their names were
changed.

Ae. circumluteolus has been incriminated as vector of several arboviruses, notably
Wesselbron, Bunyamwera, Pongola, Spondweni and Rift Valley fever viruses. I have
given the Commission Secretariat a list of six references.

‘Comment on the proposal to conserve Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 and to
designate Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as the type species (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2836; see BZN 50: 44-47)

Neal L. Evenhuis
Department of Entomology, Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000 A, Honolulu, Hawaii
96817, U.S.A.

Wayne N. Mathis
Department of Entomology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, clo Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

We support the basic intent of this application, but some corrections and
comments are needed.

1. The Commission need not use its plenary powers to rule on what is already true
under the Code. Hence proposal (1)(a) is superfluous and should be deleted from the
application. Thompson & Mathis (1980, p. 86) clearly documented that the name
Oecothea Haliday is available from Curtis (1837) under the provisions of Article 11d
of the then current Code (1le of the present edition).

2. While Thompson & Mathis (1980) did use the word ‘lapsus’ in association with
the spelling Aecothea, they did so only after declaring the name ‘an unjustified
emendation of Oecothea’. Their conclusion was the same as Woznica & Zatwarnicki’s
suggestion (their para. 2).

3. The statements by Woznica & Zatwarnicki (para. 1) that ‘it is not clear that the
four species ... were originally included’ and ‘... Oecothea Haliday was proposed
without any clearly included species’ are disputed in Curtis’s own words, as was
clearly outlined by Thompson & Mathis (1980, p. 82). The only thing that is not
explicit, but in retrospect is now obvious to us, is the association of the specific name
fenestralis Fallén with Oecothea. Clearly, the four species that immediately follow
Oecothea in the Addenda were associated with that name by Curtis. The key phrase
in Curtis’s own words (p. vi) is ‘... although many of the former [= synonyms] which
intersect long genera will most probably be eventually adopted, and it may often

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

happen that a// the species following such generic names would not be considered by
the Author who proposed the name as belonging to his group, the one immediately
following is always a typical species ...’. In his Addenda Curtis placed the name
Oecothea after species 17, which meant that Oecothea was inserted immediately in
front of species 18, fenestralis Fallen. Hence, as fenestralis Fallén is the one
immediately following Oecothea, it was a ‘typical species’.

4. Woznica & Zatwarnicki say that ‘the absence of the species numbered between
18 and 23 meant that the precise position at which Oecothea related to the main text
was not indicated’. However, as stated in his introduction, Curtis dealt with large
Diptera genera by using the numbers of Meigen. There are gaps as there were many
species in Meigen that were not known from Britain.

5. In conclusion, we endorse the application to establish formally what Curtis
originally intended, which was to credit the name Oecothea to Haliday and to have
Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as the type species.

Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis bauri (Cope,
1887) (Reptilia, Saurischia)
(Case 2840; see BZN 49: 276-279; 50: 147-151)

(1) Hilde L. Schwartz
Earth and Environmental Sciences, M.S. D469, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los
Alamos, New Mexico 87545, U.S.A.

I would like to express my support for the purpose of the application by Colbert
et al., that is, to conserve the name Coelophysis bauri and to reject Rioarribasaurus
colberti Hunt & Lucas, 1991. My own research on New Mexican Triassic rocks
reveals no stratigraphic justification for the new genus Rioarribasaurus, and the
additional considerations of priority and widespread current usage I believe make
the name Rioarribasaurus colberti a source of taxonomic confusion rather than
clarification.

(2) R.E. Molnar
Queensland Museum, P.O. Box 3300, South Brisbane, Queensland 4101, Australia

I wish to present an argument distinct from, and more philosophical than, those
presented by Colbert et al. in their application, which I support. To me there seems
a basic philosophic and methodologic difference between the approach of Colbert to
the taxonomy of Coelophysis and that of Hunt & Lucas. Colbert seems to subscribe
to the school of taxonomy very largely influenced by G.G. Simpson and E. Mayr in
which fossils are recognized as only examples which have been ‘selected’ from a
population of living organisms. These living organisms varied among themselves, and
hence recognition of diagnostic characters of a taxon, and referral of future
discoveries to the taxon, depend on the character states as exhibited by the hypodigm,
of which the type specimen is the name-bearer. In organisms exhibiting marked
sexual dimorphism, for example, the holotype might be a male specimen and yet
females have the same operational significance as males.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 ey

Hunt & Lucas, on the other hand, seem to subscribe to a more typological school
of thought, emphasizing the necessity of the use of the holotype alone in identifica-
tion (Hunt & Lucas, 1991, p. 194). Since the importance of the population in
evolution is well established, and no appreciation of the degree of variation in a
population can be obtained from examination of any single specimen (holotype or
not) alone, it is clear that use of the holotype in this fashion will lead to
‘over-splitting’ of fossil taxa and an unnecessary proliferation of names. This would
result in a lack of congruence between actual taxa and their names. The ramifications
extend beyond the taxonomy of Triassic saurischians.

Personally, I believe the appropriate action to maintain stability of nomenclature
and taxonomic practice is to support the recommendations of Colbert et al. To
introduce the name Rioarribasaurus colberti implies supporting an at least quasi-

* typological view of taxonomy, inconsistent with the importance of utilising popula-

tions in the study of taxonomy.

Clearly the original specimens of Coelophysis were deemed diagnostic around the
turn of the century by competent taxonomists such as Cope, Hay and von Huene.
Also clearly, they are not now deemed so by competent taxonomists such as Padian,
Colbert et al. and Hunt & Lucas. However, should this not involve the acceptance of
new type material rather than erecting a new name? The latter practice would lead to
changing of name every time a new taxonomic feature is recognized.

I believe these factors should be carefully considered, and that such consideration
will lend support to the proposals of Colbert et al. on BZN 49: 278.

(3) Zdenék V. Spinar
Prysk 66, 471 15, Czech Republic

I strongly support the conservation of the very well established usage of the name
Coelophysis bauri, as proposed in the application by Colbert et al.

(4) Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.
Geological Survey, United States Department of the Interior, MS 970, National Center,
Reston, Virginia 22092, U.S.A.

1. As a theropod worker, I write concerning the proposed replacement of the
lectotype of Coelophysis bauri by a neotype. Although Hunt & Lucas (1991) were
correct in observing that the lectotype of C. bauri is indeed nondiagnostic to the
specific level, I do not believe that their solution (creation of the name Rioarribasau-
rus colberti for the Ghost Ranch specimens) best serves the paleontological commu-
nity.

2. Some authors may write citing the widespread use of the name Coelophysis for
the Ghost Ranch dinosaurs in the popular literature. However, I believe that the
transfer of type suggested in Case 2840 can be supported on technical grounds. Note
that some of these points are reiterations of the observations and suggestions raised
by Colbert et al.

3. Since the late 1940s the concept of Coelophysis in the technical literature has
been almost entirely based on the Ghost Ranch specimens. From a spectacular site
which preserves hundreds of articulated specimens of many growth stages, the Ghost

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Ranch specimens have made Coelophysis bauri the theropod dinosaur with the best
potential for paleopopulational and ontogenetic studies. Likewise, it is one of the few
theropods for which the entire anatomy (including individual, ontogenetic and
possibly sexual variation) is known. Thus, in studies such as those by Rowe &
Gauthier (1990) and myself (Holtz, in press), the Ghost Ranch Coelophysis specimens
allow a phylogenetic framework to be constructed for other ceratosaurian theropods.
In fact, I have proposed (in press) the clades COELOPHYSIDAE and COELOPHYSOIDEA,
with the type form based on the Ghost Ranch dinosaur.

4. Had Cope himself designated a type specimen, I would agree with Hunt &
Lucas and would support the name Rioarribasaurus. However, as Padian (1986),
Hunt & Lucas (1991) and Colbert et al. have all described, the nomenclatural history
of Coelophysis bauri is confused. As the Commission is enabled to deal with
situations of this kind, and a complete specimen exists from a large population
which many authors have agreed comes from the same species, I believe that the
proposed designation of AMNH 7224 as neotype of C. bauri is supportable and
desirable.

5. Although Hunt & Lucas (1991) proposed a new name for the Ghost Ranch
specimens, they did not dispute that these and the type material of Coelophysis bauri
come from the same species. On p. 195, in fact, they suggested that the reason the
Commission should not be petitioned to designate a neotype was not due to
biological differences between the lectotype (vertebral specimen AMNH 2722) and
Rioarribasaurus, but rather that such a petition would be met with rejection because
type material is extant. With the addition of stratigraphic evidence showing that the
original Coelophysis material and the Ghost Ranch quarry are from the same
stratigraphic horizon (Schwartz & Gillette, in press), the case that the complete
specimen AMNH 7224 and the specimens described by Cope in the 1880s are from
the same species is strengthened.

6. Thus, it is my opinion that the adoption of the Ghost Ranch skeleton AMNH
7224 as the neotype of Coelurus bauri (now Coelophysis bauri) is justifiable and
warranted.

(5) Farish A. Jenkins, Jr.
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge,
Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.

I write in support of the well-reasoned proposal by Colbert et al. to retain the
current usage of Coelophysis bauri as the correct name for the small Triassic dinosaur
originally described by Cope in 1887 and redescribed, referenced, analyzed or
otherwise cited by many authors over a century’s time.

There is no question in my mind that unnecessary confusion, in addition to dull
verbiage, would result by adopting the proposal by Hunt & Lucas (1991) of the name
Rioarribasaurus colberti. The claims of Hunt & Lucas are largely vacuous; there is no
compelling evidence that the Ghost Ranch material is in any way different from the
vast selection of other materials by which Coelophysis bauri is so well known.

Coelophysis bauri is a taxon central to our understanding of the early development
of diversification of theropod dinosaurs. Materials of this species are abundantly
represented in six major museums of the United States mentioned in para. 6 of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 239

Colbert et al., which include the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard
University; reference to these specimens, invariably cited as Coelophysis bauri,
appears repeatedly in the literature.

To substitute a new name for a taxon, universally recognized by vertebrate
paleontologists, on the basis of the dubious claims of Hunt & Lucas (1991) would
make a travesty of good sense, not to mention sound taxonomic practice. With no
little sense of urgency, I beg the Commission to adopt the proposal set forth in BZN
49: 278, para. 11.

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

OPINION 1738

Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): Isis encrinula
Lamarck, 1815 designated as the type species

Ruling f

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 are hereby set aside and Isis encrinula Lamarck,
1815 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Jsis encrinula Lamarck, 1815, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name encrinula Lamarck, 1815, as published in the binomen Jsis encrinula
(specific name of the type species of Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816) and as defined by the
lectotype (specimen labelled ‘/sis encrinula. Lk. Mopsea verticillaris. Lamx. De La
Nf[ouv]elle Hollande par MM Péron and Lesueur 1809’ in the Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, illustrated and described by Bayer & Stefani, 1987),
designated by Alderslade (1992), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2788

An application for the designation of Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type
species of Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 was received from Dr Philip Alderslade
(Northern Territory Museum of Arts and Sciences, Darwin, Australia) on 31 August
1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 104-108 (June 1992).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 107. At the close of the voting period on | June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys,
Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Thompson considered the application to be unnecessary because there were valid
type species designations for Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 which predated that of Jsis
dichotoma Linnaeus, 1758 by Milne Edwards & Haime (1850), such as that by
Dujardin ({1846], p. 342). The latter designated the originally included nominal
species M. verticillata Lamouroux, 1816 as the type, and at the same time mentioned
the synonymy of M. verticillata and I. encrinula Lamarck, 1815.

Dujardin, F. [1846]. Mopsea. P. 342 in d’Orbigny, C. (Ed.), Dictionnaire universel d'histoire
naturelle, vol. 8. 766 pp. Paris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 241

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
encrinula, Isis, Lamarck, 1815, Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 1: 415.
Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816, Histoire des Polypiers coralligénes flexibles, vulgairement nommeés
Zoophytes, p. 465.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Isis encrinula Lamarck,
1815:
Alderslade, P. 1992. BZN 49: 104.

The following is the reference for the description and illustration of Jsis encrinula Lamarck,
1815:
Bayer, F. M. & Stefani, J. 1987. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)9(A,1):
Spl 18) fe. i:

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

OPINION 1739

Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (currently Melanella (Balcis)
alba; Mollusca, Gastropoda): 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) /aevis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo laevis;
(b) albus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo albus.

(2) The name Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy Balcis montagui Leach in Gray, 1847 (a junior subjective synonym of
Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

(3) The name albus Da Costa, 1778, as published in the binomen Strombiformis
albus and as defined by the neotype designated by Waren (1989) (senior subjective
synonym of the specific name of Balcis montagui Leach in Gray, 1847, the type
species of Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847), 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 Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) laevis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo Jaevis and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) albus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Turbo albus and as
suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2526

An application involving the conservation of the specific name of Strombiformis
albus Da Costa, 1778 was received from Dr Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska
Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden) on 19 June 1985. After correspondence the present
case was published in BZN 49: 112-115 (June 1992). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.

A comment in support from Dr Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli (Palermo Pallavicino,
Italy) was published in BZN 49: 289-290 (December 1992).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 114. At the close of the voting period on | June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Heppell, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin,
Willink

Negative votes — 2: Holthuis and Stys.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 243

Ride was on leave of absence.

Holthuis commented: ‘I do not agree that the type species of Balcis Leach in Gray,
1847 is Balcis montagui = Helix polita sensu Montagu (1803). The genus was
established merely by the sentence ‘Balcis Montagui. Helix polita Mont.’ (para. 7 of
the application). There is no indication that Leach meant anything else but the
nominal species cited by Montagu, 1.e. Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758, and therefore
T. politus Linnaeus is the type species of Balcis’. (Editorial note. As noted in paras.
4 and 6 of the application, a number of early authors misidentified T. politus
Linnaeus. The species described under the name H. polita by Montagu (1803) in his
Testacea Britannica was considerably larger than Linnaeus’s Mediterranean taxon.
Leach, in an [1820] work published posthumously by Gray (1852; reference below),
synonymised “Helix polita Pulteney’ (1799, 1813), ‘polita Montagu’ (1803, 1808) and
“polita Maton & Rackett’ (1807; reference below) with Turbo laevis Pennant and
Strombiformis albus Da Costa. All these nominal species were described in works on
the British fauna. Turbo politus Linnaeus, as long understood, is a Mediterranean
species which does not occur in the British Isles; the neotype (designated by Warén,
1988; para. 7 of the application) is from Tunisia. The conservation of this neotype
following recent discoveries of Linnaean specimens has been proposed in BZN 50:
107-111).

Leach, W.E. 1852. Jn Gray, J.E. (Ed.), A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 376 pp., pls.
2-13. Van Voorst, London.

Maton, W.G. & Rackett, T. 1807. A descriptive catalogue of the British Testacea. Transactions
of the Linnean Society of London, 8: 17-250.

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:
albus, Strombiformis, Da Costa, 1778, Historia Naturalis testaceorum Britanniae or, the British
conchology ..., p. 116.
albus, Turbo, Pennant, 1777, British zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, p. 130. (Octavo edition).
Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20(133): 271.
laevis, Turbo, Pennant, 1777, British zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, p. 130. (Octavo edition).

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Strombiformis albus Da
Costa, 1778:
Warén, A. 1989. Journal of Conchology, 33(4): 222.

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

OPINION 1740

Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): A. triangulata
Bate, 1975 designated as the type species

Ruling L

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 are hereby set aside and Amicytheridea triangulata
Bate, 1975 is designated as type species.

(2) The name Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (gender: feminine), type species by
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Amicytheridea triangulata Bate,
1975, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name triangulata Bate, 1975, as published in the binomen Amicytheridea
triangulata (specific name of the type species of Amicytheridea Bate, 1975), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2789 A

An application for the designation of Amicytheridea triangulata Bate, 1975 as the
type species of Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 was received from Drs S.C. Khosla, S.R.
Jakhar & M.H. Mohammed (M.L. Sukhadia University, Udaipur, India) on 13
September 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 116-117
(June 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 117. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Bouchet abstained.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was 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:
Amicytheridea Bate, 1975, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Geology, 26(5):
190.
triangulata, Amicytheridea, Bate, 1975, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History),
Geology, 26(5): 192.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 245

OPINION 1741

Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 (currently Aquarius paludum, Insecta,
Heteroptera): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the name a/atus Retzius, 1783, as published in the
trinomen Cimex najas var. alatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name paludum Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Gerris
paludum and as defined by the lectotype designated by Andersen (1990), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

' (3) The name alatus Retzius, 1783, as published in the trinomen Cimex najas var.
alatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2794

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Gerris paludum
Fabricius, 1794 was received from Dr N. Moller Andersen (Zoologisk Museum,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) on 15 October 1990. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 118-119 (June 1992). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 118-119. At the close of the voting period on | June
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen.

No votes were received from Kabata, Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Lehtinen considered that priority should apply; the type material of Cimex alatus
Retzius, 1783 probably exists (para. 3 of the application), and the synonymy of the
name with Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 had been interpreted by a well known
specialist (O.M. Reuter). Thompson commented that most entomologists had
ignored the names published in Retzius (1783) because they believed the work not to
be consistently binominal.

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:
alatus, Cimex najas var., Retzius, 1783, Caroli De Geer genera et species insectorum, p. 89.
paludum, Gerris, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 4, p. 188.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Gerris paludum
Fabricius, 1794:
Andersen, N.M. 1990. Steenstrupia, 16: 59.

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

OPINION 1742

Lincus Stal, 1867 (Insecta, Heteroptera): conserved; L. croupius
Rolston, 1983: specific name not conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Audinetella Spinola, 1850 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Lincus Stal, 1867 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Pentatoma rufospilota Westwood, 1837, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name rufospilota Westwood, 1837, as published in the binomen Pentatoma
rufospilota (specific name of the type species of Lincus Stal, 1867) is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Audinetella Spinola, 1850, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2798

An application for the conservation of the generic name Lincus Stal, 1867 by
suppressing the unused senior subjective synonym Audinetella Spinola, 1850, and for
the conservation of the specific name of L. croupius Rolston, 1983 by suppressing the
senior subjective synonym 4. bipunctata Spinola, 1850, was received from Dr L.H.
Rolston (Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station, Louisiana State University
Agricultural Center, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, U.S.A.) on 5 November 1990. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 19-21 (March 1992). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals.

A comment from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden,
The Netherlands), published in BZN 49: 229-230 (September 1992), supported
conservation of the generic name Lincus but not the specific name of L. croupius. A
reply by the author of the application was published at the same time.

The proposals to conserve the generic name Lincus (para. 5, proposals (1)(a), (2),
(3)(a) and (4) on BZN 49: 20) and the specific name of L. croupius (proposals (1)(b),
(3)(b) and (5) on BZN 49: 20) were offered separately for voting.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the
close of the voting period on 1 June 1993 the votes were as follows:

Proposals (1)(a), (2), (3)(a) and (4) on BZN 49: 20. Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer,
Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Nye, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Savage.

Proposals (1)(b), (3)(b) and (5) on BZN 49: 20. Affirmative votes — 7: Bock,
Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Halvorsen, Nielsen, Savage

Negative votes — 17: Bayer, Cogger, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata,
Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Nye, Schuster, Stys, Thompson
and Trjapitzin.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 247

Martins de Souza and Willink voted on the proposals to conserve the generic name
Lincus but abstained from voting on the specific name.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Voting against the conservation of both Lincus Stal, 1867 and Lincus croupius
Rolston, 1983, Lehtinen commented that since croupius was published only a few
years ago it could not compete with the much older and interpretable name
bipunctata Spinola, 1850.

The required two-thirds majority was reached for the conservation of the generic
name Lincus, but the conservation of the specific name of croupius Rolston, 1983 was
not accepted and it has the status of a junior subjective synonym of bipunctata
Spinola, 1850.

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:

Audinetella Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettanti alla classe degli insetti arthro-
dignati Hemiptera Linn., Latr. Rhyngota Fabr., Rhynchota Burm., p. 86.

Lincus Stal, 1867, Ofversigt af Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps- -Akademiens Forhandlingar, 24(7):
524.

rufospilota, Pentatoma, Westwood, 1837, A catalogue of Hemiptera in the collection of the Rev.
F.W. Hope with short Latin descriptions of new species, part 1, p. 44.

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

OPINION 1743

TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended
to TACHINUSIDAE to remove homonymy with TACHINIDAE
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera), and TACHYPORIDAE
MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over
TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic
name Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 is TACHINUS-;

(b) family-group names based on Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 are hereby
given precedence over those based on Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Tachina Meigen, 1803 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Brauer (1893) Musca grossa Linnaeus, 1758;

(b) Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Latreille (1810) Staphylinus rufipes Linnaeus, 1758;

(c) Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Latreille (1810) Staphylinus chrysomelinus Linnaeus,
1758.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) grossa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca grossa (specific
name of the type species of Tachina Meigen, 1803);

(b) rufipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Staphylinus rufipes
(specific name of the type species of Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802);

(c) chrysomelinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Staphylinus
chrysomelinus (specific name of the type species of Tachyporus Graven-
horst, 1802).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:

(a) TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, type genus Tachina Meigen, 1803
(Insecta, Diptera);

(b) TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821 (spelling emended in (1)(a) above), type genus
Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera), with the endorsement
that it and other family-group names based on Tachinus are not to be given
priority over those based on Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802;

(c) TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825, type genus Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802
(Insecta, Coleoptera), with the endorsement that it and other family-group
names based on Tachyporus are to be given precedence over those based on
Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802.

(5) The name TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (spelling emended in (1)(a) above to
TACHINUSIDAE) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology.

|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 249

History of Case 2786

An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names
TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
(Diptera), and to conserve TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Coleoptera) by giving it
precedence over TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821, was received from Drs Alfred F.
Newton, Jr. and Margaret K. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago,
Illinois, U.S.A.) and Curtis W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (present address: Medford, New
Jersey, U.S.A.)) on 28 August 1990. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 49: 122-126 (June 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that more than half of the representative list of
50 references held by the Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of family-
group names based on Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 (para. 3 of the application)
were published in the last 50 years.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 123-124. At the close of the voting period on 1 June
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part), Cocks, Cogger, Corliss,
Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen,
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster,
Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Bouchet voted for the removal of the homonymy between TACHINIDAE Fleming,
1821 (Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera), but against
giving TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Coleoptera) precedence over TACHINUSIDAE
Fleming, 1821.

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:

chrysomelinus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 423.

grossa, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 596.

rufipes, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 423.

Tachina Meigen, 1803, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (lIlliger), 2: 280.

TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821, in: Supplement to the fourth, fifth and sixth editions of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 5, p. 49 (an incorrect original spelling of TACHINUSIDAE).

TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires préséntés par divers savants a |’ Académie
Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, (2)2: 185.

Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera microptera Brunsvicensia ..., p. 134.

TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821, in: Supplement to the fourth, fifth and sixth editions of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 5, p. 49 (incorrectly spelled as TACHINIDAE).

TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825, Annulosa Javanica, no. 1, p. 49.

Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera microptera Brunsvicensia ..., p. 124.

The following is the reference for the designation of Musca grossa Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of the nominal genus Tachina Meigen, 1803:

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Brauer, F. 1893. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-kéniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in
Wien, 43: 489.

The following is the reference for the designation of Staphylinus rufipes Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the nominal genus Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802, and for the designation of
Staphylinus chrysomelinus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Tachyporus
Gravenhorst, 1802:

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animeaux composants les
classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes... , p. 427.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 251

OPINION 1744

Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 and Pyrophaena Schiner, 1860 (Insecta,
Diptera): conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the generic name Cheilosia Panzer, [1809], and all uses of the name
Cheilosia prior to the publication of Cheilosia Meigen, 1822, are hereby
suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the
Principle of Homonymy;

(b) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Cheilosia Meigen, 1822
prior to the designation by Coquillett (1910) of Syrphus flavipes Panzer,
1798 are hereby set aside.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Coquillett (1910) Syrphus flavipes Panzer, 1798, as ruled in
(1)(b) above;

(b) Pyrophaena Schiner, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Syrphus rosarum Fabricius, 1787.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) flavipes Panzer, 1798, as published in the binomem Syrphus flavipes (specific
name of the type species of Cheilosia Meigen, 1822);

(b) rosarum Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomem Syrphus rosarum
(specific name of the type species of Pyrophaena Schiner, 1860).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Cheilosia Panzer, [1809], as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Chilosia Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Cheilosia Meigen,
1822).

History of Case 2730

An application for the conservation of Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 and Pyrophaena
Schiner, 1860 was received from Dr A.V. Barkalov (Biological Institute, Siberian
Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Novosibirsk, Russia) and Prof 1.M.
Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia)
on 22 June 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 312-315
(December 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An application
which included the conservation of the names Cheilosia Meigen and Pyrophaena
Schiner was received from Dr Tadeusz Zatwarnicki (Wroclaw, Poland) shortly after
that by Dr Barkalov and Prof Kerzhner (see BZN 48: 312, footnote).

It was noted on the voting paper that the published application had the support of
Drs Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) and
F.C. Thompson (USDA, clo U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.).

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

It was also noted that the references mentioned in para. 2 of the application for the
usage of the name Cheilosia also applied to the usage of Pyrophaena (cf. para. 4).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 314. At the close of the voting period on | June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Ueno.

Ride was 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:

Cheilosia Meigen, 1822, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifligeligen
Insekten, vol. 3, p. 296.

Cheilosia Panzer, [1809], Faunae insectorum germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten, Heft
108, p. 14.

Chilosia Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, p. 80.

flavipes, Syrphus, Panzer, 1798, Faunae insectorum germanicae initia oder Deutschlands
Insecten, Heft 54, p. 10.

Pyrophaena Schiner, 1860, Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, 4: 213.

rosarum, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species ..., vol. 2, p. 341.

The following is the reference for the designation of Syrphus flavipes Panzer, 1798 as the type
species of the nominal genus Cheilosia Meigen, 1822:
Coquillett, D.W. 1910. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 37: 521.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 253

OPINION 1745

Copromyza limosa Fallén, 1820 (currently Leptocera (Rachispoda)
limosa; Insecta, Diptera): lectotype replaced, so conserving the usage
of the specific name and also that of Leptocera (Rachispoda) lutosa
(Stenhammar, 1855)

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the lectotype designation made by Kim (1972) for
Copromyza limosa Fallén, 1820 is hereby set aside and in its place the male syntype
in Stockholm is designated as the lectotype.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) limosa Fallen, 1820, as published in the binomen Copromyza limosa and as
defined by the lectotype designated in (1) above;
(b) /utosa Stenhammar, 1855, as published in the binomen Limosina lutosa and as
defined by the lectotype designated by Kim (1972).

History of Case 2803

An application for the lectotype of the nominal species Copromyza limosa Fallén,
1820 to be replaced, so conserving the usage of the specific name and also that of
Leptocera (Rachispoda) lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855), was received from Prof Ke
Chung Kim (The Frost Entomological Museum, Pennsylvania State University,
Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) and Dr Jindiich Rohatek (Slezské Zemské Muzeum Opava,
Opava, Czech Republic) on 12 December 1990. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 49: 127-128 (June 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals.

A comment in support from Dr Terry A. Wheeler (Carleton University, Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada) was published in BZN 49: 291 (December 1992).

It was noted on the voting paper that the representative list of references held by
the Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the specific name of Leptocera
limosa (para. 3 of the application) included the following publications:

Richards, O.W. 1965. Family Sphaeroceridae. Jn Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W.,
Foote, R.H. & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico.
Agricultural Handbook No. 276. [L. limosa on p. 721].

Nartshuk, E.P. 1970. Sphaeroceridae. Jn Bei-Bienko, G.Ya. (Ed.), Opredelitel nasekomykh
evropeiskoi chasti SSSR, vol. 5, part 2. [p. 341].

Papp, L. 1973. Sphaeroceridae — Drosophilidae. Tragyalegyek. Fauna Hungariae, 112. [p. 70].

Richards, O.W. 1980. Family Sphaeroceridae. In Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue of the
Diptera of the Afrotropical region. [p. 622].

Papp, L. 1984. Sphaeroceridae (Borboridae). In Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of
Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 10. [p. 92].

Pitkin, B.R. 1988. Lesser dung flies. Diptera: Sphaeroceridae. Handbook to the identification of
British insects, vol. 10, part Se. [p. 37].

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 128. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1993
the votes were as follows:

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Dupuis and Lehtinen abstained.

No votes were received from Kabata, Starobogatov and Ueno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Dupuis abstained because he considered that it was unwise to substitute a male
lectotype for a female lectotype.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names on an Official List by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:
limosa, Copromyza, Fallén, 1820, Diptera Sueciae Heteromyzides, p. 8.
lutosa, Limosina, Stenhammar, 1855, Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1853: 380.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Limosina lutosa
Stenhammar, 1855:
Kim, K.C. 1972. Entomological News, 83: 206.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 255

OPINION 1746

Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 (Insecta, Diptera): holotype
replaced by a neotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the
nominal species Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 are hereby set aside and the
specimen labelled ‘Drosophila (D.) putrida Sturtevant, 1916, NEoTyPE, Det. D.A.
Grimaldi’ from ‘U.S.A.: New Jersey: Morris County, Pompton Plains, June, 1986,
D.A. Grimaldi, coll.’ in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, is
_ designated as the neotype.

(2) The name putrida Sturtevant, 1916, as published in the binomen Drosophila
putrida and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2804

An application for the holotype of the nominal species Drosophila putrida
Sturtevant, 1916 to be replaced by a neotype was received from Dr David Grimaldi
(American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) on 14 December
1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 129-132 (June 1992).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 130. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Lehtinen.

No votes were received from Starobogatov, Stys and Uéno.

Ride was 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:
putrida, Drosophila, Sturtevant, 1916, Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 9: 339.

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

OPINION 1747

Eristalis Latreille, 1804, Helophilus Fabricius, 1805, Xylota Meigen,
1822 and Eumerus Meigen, 1822 (Insecta; Diptera): conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) 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) Elophilus Meigen, 1803;
(ii) Ewmeros Meigen, 1803;
(iii) Heliophilus Meigen, 1803;

(b) the generic name Eumerus Meigen, 1804, and all uses of the name Eumerus
prior to the publication of Eumerus Meigen, 1822, are hereby suppressed
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of
Homonymy;

(c) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Helophilus Fabricius,
1805 prior to the designation by Curtis (1832) of Musca pendula Linnaeus,
1758 are hereby set aside.

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Curtis (1832) Musca tenax Linnaeus, 1758;

(b) Helophilus Fabricius, 1805 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent
designation by Curtis (1832) Musca pendula Linnaeus, 1758, as ruled in
(1)(c) above;

(c) Xylota Meigen, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy of
the replaced nominal genus Heliophilus Meigen, 1803, Musca sylvarum
Linnaeus, 1758;

(d) Eumerus Meigen, 1822 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Curtis (1839) Syrphus tricolor Fabricius, 1798.

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) tenax Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca tenax (specific
name of the type species of Eristalis Latreille, 1804);

(b) pendula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca pendula
(specific name of the type species of Helophilus Fabricius, 1805);

(c) sylvarum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca sylvarum
(specific name of the type species of Xy/ota Meigen, 1822);

(d) tricolor Fabricius, 1798, as published in the binomen Syrphus tricolor
(specific name of the type species of Eumerus Meigen, 1822).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Elophilus Meigen, 1803, as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above;

(b) Eumeros Meigen, 1803, as suppressed in (1)(a)(11) above;

(c) Heliophilus Meigen, 1803, as suppressed in (1)(a)(ii1) above;

(d) Eumerus Meigen, 1804, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 257

History of Case 2749

An application for the conservation of Eristalis Latreille, 1804, Helophilus
Fabricius, 1805, Xyvlota Meigen, 1822 and Eumerus Meigen, 1822 was received from
Dr Tadeusz Zatwarnicki (Agricultural University, Wroclaw, Poland) on 15 November
1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 308-311 (December
1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the application had the support of Dr Hans
Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland), and that more
than 40 of the additional references held by the Commission Secretariat demonstrat-
ing usage of the four generic names (para. 6 of the application) were published in the
last 50 years.

_Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 310. At the close of the voting period on | June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Holthuis and Thompson.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Holthuis commented that in his view Helophilus was not available from Fabricius
(1805). The latter had adopted the spelling without explaining the change from
Elophilus Meigen, 1803 and the change was therefore not a “demonstrably inten-
tional’ emendation (Article 33b(i) of the Code). (Editorial note. The name Helophilus
was cited by Fabricius (1805) in the synonymy of six species of Eristalis Latreille,
1804 and in para. 3 of the application it was taken as available from Fabricius under
Article 1le). Thompson preferred to adopt Helophilus from Meigen (1822).

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:

Elophilus Meigen, 1803, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), 2: 274.

Eristalis Latreille, 1804, in: Nouveau Dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle ..., Ed. 1, vol. 24, p. 194.

Eumeros Meigen, 1803, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (lIlliger), 2: 273.

Eumerus Meigen, 1804, Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifliigeligen Insek-
ten (Diptera Linn.), vol. 1, part 1, p. xx.

Eumerus Meigen, 1822, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, vol. 3, p. 202.

Heliophilus Meigen, 1803, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), 2: 273.

Helophilus Fabricius, 1805, Systema Antliatorum ... , p. 233.

pendula, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 591.

sylvarum, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 592.

tenax, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 591.

tricolor, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1798, Supplementum entomologiae systematicae, p. 563.

Xylota Meigen, 1822, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen
Insekten, vol. 3, p. 211.

The following is the reference for the designation of Musca pendula Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species of the nominal genus Helophilus Fabricius, 1805, and for the designation of Musca

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

tenax Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Eristalis Latreille, 1804:
Curtis, J. 1832. British entomology; being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects
found in Great Britain and Ireland ..., vol. 9, pl. 429 (text), pl. 432 (text) (respectively).

The following is the reference for the designation of Syrphus tricolor Fabricius, 1798 as the
type species of the nominal genus Eumerus Meigen, 1822:
Curtis, J. 1839. British entomology, being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects
found in Great Britain and Ireland ..., vol. 16, pl. 749 (text).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 259

OPINION 1748

EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): given precedence
over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers family-group names based on Ephydra Fallén, 1810
are hereby given precedence over those based on Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810 (a junior
subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804).

(2) The name Mosillus Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent monotypy Mosillus arcuatus Latreille, 1805 (a junior subjective synonym
of Syrphus subsultans Fabricius, 1794, type species of Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810), is

hereby placed on the Official list of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name subsultans Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Syrphus
subsultans (a senior subjective synonym of Mosillus arcuatus Latreille, 1805, the type
species of Mosillus Latreille, 1804, and the specific name of the type species of
Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

(4) The name GyMNomyziDéE Latreille, 1829 (type genus Gymnomyza Fallén,
1810, a junior subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the endorsement that it and
other family-group names based on Gymnomyza are not to be given priority over
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 and other family-group names based on Ephydra
Fallen, 1810 whenever Ephydra and Mosillus or Gymnomyza are placed in the same
family-group taxon.

(5) To the entry for EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology is hereby added the endorsement that it is to be
given precedence over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 (type genus Gymnomyza Fallén,
1810, a junior subjective synonym of Mosillus Latreille, 1804) whenever Ephydra and
Mosillus or Gymnomyza are placed in the same family-group taxon.

History of Case 2706

An application for the conservation of the family-group name EPHYDRIDAE
Zetterstedt, 1837 by giving it precedence over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 was
received from Drs Wayne N. Mathis (Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.) and Tadeusz Zatwarnicki (Agricultural University, Wroclaw, Poland) on 15
November 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 133-136
(June 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that it had been suggested to the authors of the
application that, since GYMNOMYZINAE Latreille, 1829 was in effect a ‘new’ introduc-
tion and was based on an unknown junior synonym (Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810), an
alternative course would have been to conserve usage of the family-group names
PSILOPINAE Cresson, 1925 and GyYMNOPINI Cresson, 1922. However, the authors
preferred to adopt GYMNOMYZINAE and GYMNOMYZINI.

Decision of the Commission
On | March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

proposals published in BZN 49: 134-135. At the close of the voting period on 1 June
1993 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Holthuis,
Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 7: Bouchet, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Savage, Schuster and
Stys.

Dupuis abstained.

No votes were received from Starobogatoy and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Martins de Souza and Savage commented that the names PSILOPINAE Cresson, 1925
and GYMNOPINI Cresson, 1922 should be conserved, rather than introducing usage of
GYMNOMYZINAE and GYMNOMYZINI. Martins de Souza said that family-group names
based on Gymnomyza Fallén, 1810 were undesirable. This generic name had not been
used for almost 150 years and it was a junior subjective synonym of Mosillus
Latreille, 1804; GyMNOMYZINAE and GYMNOMYZINI had been used (by the authors of
the application) only in 1990. Dupuis commented that, although he preferred to give
precedence to EPHYDRIDAE, the taxonomic situation was still uncertain and he
therefore abstained.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837, Jsis (von Oken), 1837: col. 48.

GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829, in Cuvier, G.C.L.F.D., Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son
organisation ..., Ed. 2, vol. 5, p. 535.

Mosillus Latreille, 1804, in: Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, vol. 24, p. 196.

subsultans, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1794, Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 4, p.
304.

The following is the reference for the fixation of Mosillus arcuatus Latreille, 1805 (a junior
subjective synonym of Syrphus subsultans Fabricius, 1794) as the type species of the nominal
genus Mosillus Latreille, 1804:

Latreille, P.A. 1805. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol.
14, p. 390.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 261

OPINION 1749

Epicrium Wagler, 1828 and ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968
(Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved, and EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885
(Arachnida, Acari): conserved by the emendation of EPICRIIDAE
Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) to EPICRIUMIDAE

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the suppression in Opinion 1604 of the generic name Epicrium Wagler, 1828
is hereby revoked;

(b) it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic
name Epicrium Wagler, 1828 is EPICRIUM-;

(c) it is hereby ruled that ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 and other family-group
names based on Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 are to be given precedence over
EPICRIUMIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 and other family-group names based on
Epicrium Wagler, 1828 whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon.

(2) Caecilia hypocyana Boie, 1827 is hereby designated as the type species of
Epicrium Wagler, 1828.

(3) It is hereby confirmed that the original spelling of the family-group name
ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 is correct.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:

(a) Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in (2)
above Caecilia hypocyana Boie, 1827 (with the deletion of Epicrium from
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology);

(b) Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Epicrius geometricus Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:

(a) hypocyana Boie, 1827, as published in the binomen Caecilia hypocyana
(specific name of the type species of Epicrium Wagler, 1828);

(b) geometricus Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877, as published in the binomen
Epicrius geometricus (specific name of the type species of Epicrius
Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877).

(6) To the entry for ICHTHYOPHUDAE Taylor, 1968 on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology (spelling confirmed in (3) above) is hereby added
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Ichthyophis
Fitzinger, 1826 are to be given precedence over EPICRIUMIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, type
genus Epicrium Wagler, 1828, and other family-group names based on Epicrium
whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.

(7) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:

(a) EPICRIUMIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, type genus Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (spelling
emended in (1)(b) above), with the endorsement that it and other family-
group names based on Epicrium are not to be given priority over

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 and other family-group names based on
Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 whenever their type genera are placed in the
same family-group taxon;
(b) EPICRIDAE Berlese, 1885 (type genus Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877).
(8) The entry for EPICRIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 on the Official Index of Family-Group
Names in Zoology is hereby emended to record the emendation of its spelling to
EPICRIUMIDAE in (1)(b) above. :

History of Case 2616

The case was submitted in its original form by Drs Mark Wilkinson and Ronald
A. Nussbaum (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan,
U.S.A.) and published in BZN 45: 207-209 (September 1988). This led to Opinion
1604 (June 1990; BZN 47: 166-167). The subsequent history of the case was
summarized in BZN 48: 154-155 (June 1991) and 49: 153-154 (June 1992).

As noted in BZN 49: 153, in Opinion 1604 the caecilian generic name Epicrium
Wagler, 1828, which was mistakenly believed to be a replacement for Jchthyophis
Fitzinger, 1826, was suppressed and placed on the Official Index. This was in order
to dispose of the senior but unused family-group name EPICRUDAE Fitzinger, 1843 and
so conserve the established name ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968. However, Prof A.
Dubois (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris) subsequently pointed out
(BZN 48: 152-154) that Epicrium was an available nominal genus, with its own type
species, which might be required for future use. It was therefore proposed (BZN 48:
155) that the suppression of Epicrium should be revoked, and also that ICHTHYO-
PHIIDAE should be given precedence over EPICRIDAE Fitzinger. This latter action was
in accord with the intentions of the original authors and was supported by Prof H.M.
Smith (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) in BZN 46: 134 and 48:
335-336, although not originally by Dubois (BZN 48: 152-154).

The name EPICRUDAE Fitzinger, 1843 is a senior homonym of EPICRIDAE Berlese,
1855, based on Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 and in use for a family of mites
(see BZN 47: 166 and 49: 153, para. 2). Fitzinger’s name was unlikely to be used at
family level (see comment by Smith, BZN 48: 335) and therefore it was proposed
(BZN 49: 154) that this name should be emended to EPICRIUMIDAE, so removing the
homonymy. On BZN 49: 153 it was reported (para. 1) that because of the homonymy
Prof Dubois concluded that EPpIcRMDAE Fitzinger should be rejected (the last sentence
of that paragraph should be emended to read ‘Prof Dubois has since suggested that
EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger should be rejected because it has a junior homonyn in use’).

The Executive Secretary of the Commission reported on BZN 49: 153 (para. 3) that
Epicrium was based on a single biological species with two available specific names:
hypocyana Boie, 1827 and hasseltii Wagler, 1828. To settle the question of the
nominal type species it was proposed that the Commission designate Caecilia
hypocyana Boie, 1827. It was also proposed (para. 4) that ICHTHYOPHIIDAE be
confirmed as the correct original spelling.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 48: 155 (June 1991) and supplemented on 49: 154 (June
1992). At the close of the voting period on | June 1993 the votes were as follows:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993 263

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part), Cocks, Cogger, Corliss,
Dupuis (part), Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (part),
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Schuster, Stys,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Savage.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Bouchet commented: ‘I see no reason why the Principle of Priority should not
apply to ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 and EPICRIDAE Fitzinger, 1843. None can
seriously claim that synonymization of a name introduced as recently as 1968 can
destabilize nomenclature’. He also objected to the ‘barbaric’ spelling EPICRIUMIDAE,
as did Dupuis. Lehtinen commented that still unpublished revisional work had

- shown that Gamasus mollis Kramer, 1876 was not a synonym of E. geometricus
Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877; Kramer’s name could therefore not be treated as a
senior subjective synonym of the type species of Epicrius (cf. BZN 49: 153, 154).
Savage considered that there was no reason to ‘create’ the family-group name
EPICRIUMIDAE.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885, Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 17: 129.

Epicrium Wagler, 1828, Isis (von Oken), 21(7): col. 742.

Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti,
(5)4(1): 131.

EPICRIUMIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, Systema reptilium. Fasciculus primus (Amblyglossae), p. 34.

geometricus, Epicrius, Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877, Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze,
Lettere ed Arti, (5)4(1): 131.

hypocyana, Caecilia, Boie, 1827, Isis (von Oken), 20: col. 565.

ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968, The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review, p. 46.

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(3) September 1993

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with
these guidelines may be returned.

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss
their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so
that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other
zoologists.

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 ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title 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 and plates, the publisher and place of
publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary,
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format,
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.

SS ee

Contents — continued

On the proposal to conserve Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 and to designate
Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 as the type species (Insecta, Diptera). N.L.
Evenhuis, W.N. Mathis & F.C. Thompson . i “oe

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis Gate (Gove, 1887)
(Reptilia, Saurischia). H.L. Schwartz; R.E. Molnar; Z. Spinar; T.R. Holtz, Jr.;
F.A. Jenkins . ft pepe Peek ate, deat rah Vs

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1738. Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): Isis encrinula
Lamarck, 1815 designated as the type species . ;

Opinion 1739. Strombiformis albus Da Costa, 1778 (eumcatly Molancia (Balcis) alba.
Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved .

Opinion 1740. Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): r Pen Bate,
1975 designated as the type species .

Opinion 1741. Gerris paludum Fabricius, 1794 (currently glans pal; Tener!
Heteroptera): specific name conserved . :

Opinion 1742. Lincus Stal, 1867 (Insecta, Beteropica): Coeme hh croupius
Rolston, 1983: specific name not conserved .

Opinion 1743. TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): apelin peeded to
TACHINUSIDAE to remove homonymy with TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830
(Insecta, Diptera), and TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given
precedence over TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821... . See eh i

Opinion 1744. Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 and Pyrophaena Sm 1860 (Insecta,
Diptera): conserved . .

Opinion 1745. Copromyza ae Fallen, 1820 (currently Tee (ears,
limosa; Insecta, Diptera): lectotype replaced, so conserving the usage of the specific
name and also that of Leptocera (Rachispoda) lutosa (Stenhammar, 1855) .

Opinion 1746. Drosophila putrida Sturtevant, 1916 (Insecta, Diptera): holotype
replaced by a neotype .

Opinion 1747. Eristalis Latreille, 1804, aelaphies Fabricius, 1805, iota Menon
1822 and Eumerus Meigen, 1822 (Insecta; Diptera): conserved.

Opinion 1748. EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 a ee given eed
over GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 .

Opinion 1749. Epicrium Wagler, 1828 and ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (canuiees
Gymnophiona): conserved, and EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 (Arachnida, Acari):
conserved by the emendation of EPICRIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia,
Gymnophiona) to EPICRIUMIDAE . SUE) Ghee Sedo N Se GAR ue Soe ee

Instructions to Authors .

CONTENTS

Notices .

The European Association for Zoolopical Nonieidatme:

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology - Second Supplement to
1990 . : :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - Crustacea ‘and Mollusea Offprints

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature - Back Copies.

Nomenclatural Note

The dating of certain of d’Orbigny’s brachiopod and bivalve nominal taxa. M.O.
Mancenido, E.F. Owen & N.J. Morris. : ioe AOA ue See

Applications

Robulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently Lenticulina nodosa; Foraminiferida):
proposed retention of neotype despite rediscovery of syntypes. H. Meyn &
J. Vespermann . :

Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 leuaaiy etatethe lanai Foraniiniferidia’: prod
posed replacement of neotype by rediscovered lectotype, and Rotalia schloenbachi
(currently Notoplanulina? schloenbachi;, Foraminiferida); proposed placement on
the Official List. H. Meyn & J. Vespermann. . .

Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud. 1831 (currently Acgaptaelia
nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the
specific names and designation of a neotype for H. nitidula. E. Gittenberger .

Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma meneghinii; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): Ere ee of neotype by rediscovered leche R.
Gatto

Platynectes Régimbart, 1879 (nsecta, " Coleoptera): proposed conservation. "AN.
Nilsson .

Polycentrus sehaeetnieaki “Miiller & Troschel, 1848 ((Osteichtheyes: Pencifinaiieg?
proposed conservation of the specific name. H.-J. Paepke

Hydromanies Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed dedgaaesd of Salman.
dra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species. H.M. Smith & D.B.
Wake oc -

Emys Duméril, 1806 (Reptilia, ‘Postatiaes): propated conneevauure RG. Webb .

Comments

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta Benson, 1842
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). F. Naggs . :

On the proposed designation of Potamolithus Fushi Pilsbry, 1896 as ‘the type species
of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). M.C. Pons da Silva

On the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus iat.
Ammonoidea). M. Urlichs

On the proposed conservation of Siylopiociinte. Bicescs & Muradin 1974
(Crustacea, Cumacea) with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as
the type species. L. Watling . ils” ee ee

On the proposed conservation of Buprestis ‘Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris
Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of B. octoguttata
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis. R.L. Westcott :

On the proposed conservation of usage of generic names in the BUPRESTIDAE (Insecta,
Coleoptera). R.L. Westcott; R.G. Booth .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of (@ ‘yptophiteal aivens Waltl,
1834 (currently Ahasverus advena; Insecta, Coleoptera). R.G. Booth .

On the proposed conservation of usage of the mosquito names Aedes (Neomelanias:
nion) albothorax, A. (N.) circumluteolus and A. (N.) mcintoshi (Insecta, Die
K.J. Linthicum; J.F. Reinert; P.G. Jupp . Hie ote, ee

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Volume 50, Part 4, 16 December 1993 pp. 265-314. ISSN 0007-5167 its
it
2 ee
[ E NA Se
| Si me \
|

The ©

Bulletin

Fotreical
Nomenclature

~

on Foal) 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 1993 is £80
or $155, postage included; the rate for 1994 will be £85 or $165. All manuscripts,
letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany)

Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)

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 P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza

Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)

Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita) ProfW.D.L.Ride( Australia; Mammalia)

Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
Prof L. B. Holthuis (Russia; Mollusca)

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S. A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Germany; Arachnology) (Russia; 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)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
Dr S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1993

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 265

HISTOR

16 DEC 1

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 50, part 4 (pp. 265-314) 16 besit98° )

arise en.

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publica-
. tion but 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 to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as
possible.

(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 specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 50, part 3 (published on 30 September 1993). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.

(1) Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): proposed conser-
vation, and designation of S. gorriense Stearn, 1994 as the type species. (Case
2901). C.W. Stearn.

(2) Acanthoteuthis Wagner, 1839 and Kelaeno Minster, 1842 (Mollusca, Cepha-
lopoda): proposed conservation of usage. (Case 2902). D.T. Donovan.

(3) Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of
Helix alata Pfeiffer, 1856 as the type species. (Case 2903). N.L. Evenhuis &
R.H. Cowie.

(4) Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. (Case
2904). R.H. Cowie, C.C. Christensen & N.L. Evenhuis.

(d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or 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.

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993
Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Commission proposes to publish a new edition of the Code taking into
account the large number of possible amendments submitted, many of them in
response to a widely circulated invitation published in the Bulletin (BZN 46: 5). It is
planned that the Fourth Edition will be published during 1995 and that on | January
1996 its provisions will supersede those in the current (1985) edition.

The Commission’s Editorial Committee met in Hamburg from 12-16 October to
prepare a discussion draft for the new edition of the Code. This draft will be available
for distribution in February 1994. Copies will be sent without charge to all
subscribers to the Bulletin and to members of the American and European
Associations for Zoological Nomenclature. Any other institution or individual may
order a copy from the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD. The cost of printing and postage is
about £3 or US$5. Bank charges on currency exchange make it uneconomic to charge
the cost of printing and postage (£3 or US$5) except for payment in sterling or US
dollars. The draft of the Code will therefore be sent free of charge, but those able to
pay in sterling or US dollars are asked to enclose a cheque for £3 or US$5 to cover
the cost.

Before completing the definitive text of the Fourth Edition, the Commission will
(in accordance with Article 16 of its Constitution) carefully consider all comments
‘and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year from February 1994.

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature has been established to
facilitate liaison between European zoologists and the Commission, and to support
the Commission’s work. Members will receive a yearly Newsletter with information
on the activities of the Association and Commission, and will be able to buy the Code
and the Official Lists and Indexes at substantial discounts.

The Association’s President is Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland), the Vice-President
Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), the Secretary Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) and the
Treasurer Dr M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain). Other members of the Inaugural
Council are Dr H.M. André (Belgium), Dr J.-P. Hugot (France), Prof. A. Minelli
(Italy) and Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark). Membership of the Association is open
to all European zoologists; further details can be obtained from Dr M.A.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
28006 Madrid, Spain.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 267

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 XXV General Assembly of the International Union of Biological
Sciences to be held in Paris in September 1994: Dr F.M. Bayer (U.S.A., Corallia);
Prof J.O. Corliss (U.S.A., Protista); Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita); Prof Dr
O. Halvorsen (Norway, Parasitology); Dr Ya.I. Starobogatov (Russia, Mollusca); Dr
V.A. Trjapitzin (Russia, Hymenoptera).

The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may
be found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 50(1) (March 1993). Under
Article 3b of the Commission’s Constitution a member whose term of service has

“ended is not eligible for immediate re-election unless the Council of the Commission
has decided to the contrary.

The Commission invites nominations, by any person or institution, of candidates
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
(medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names).

Nominations made since June 1990 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
1 June 1994 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second
Supplement to 1990

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in
1987. This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission
has ruled since it was set up in 1895; there are about 9,900 entries.

Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum
of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but
members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European
Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75;
payment should accompany orders.

In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional
entries, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume.
Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses.

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Financial Report for 1992

The Trust’s high deficit of £8,112 in 1991 was reduced to the more acceptable
deficit of £4,328 in 1992. This was achieved mainly by staff economies that were made
from April 1992, the aim being to break even financially in a full year. The result is
that, with a reduced staff of three in the Secretariat, the work of the Commission, and
especially the production of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, is hardly viable.

Nearly half the Trust’s income came from the sales of publications, mainly from
the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which yielded an income of £25,774. Sales of
the Official Lists and Indexes and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
brought the total income from publications to £28,488. Income from grants remained
at £9,000 but the amounts received from donations (£10,512) and investment interest
(£10,077) were both less than in 1991. The total income for the year was £58,170, a
decrease of £5,382 from 1991.

The main expenditure of the Trust in 1992 was £50,905 for the salaries and
National Insurance of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Printing of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and distribution
of all publications amounted to £8,903. Other costs for office expenses (£1,685),
depreciation of office equipment (£305) and audit fee (£700) brought the total
expenditure to £62,498, a decrease of £9,166 from 1991.

The Commission’s Secretariat was again housed in the Natural History Museum,
London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express
its thanks to all the donors listed below who contributed to its work during the year.
Continuing support of this kind is vital if the Commission is to carry out its work for
the international zoological and palaeontological community.

M.K. HOWARTH
Secretary and Managing Director
14 June 1993

List of donations and grants received during the year 1992

Agricultural and Food Research Council, U.K. £2,000
American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £4,156
W. Ansell £5
British Ecological Society £1,000
Freshwater Biological Association, U.K. £5
German Zoological Society £163
Lynx Promocions, Spain £50
Medical Research Council, U.K. £2,000
Natural Environment Research Council, U.K. £2,000
Palaeontological Association, U.K. £250
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters £82
Royal Entomological Society of London £300
Royal Society of London £1,000

Science and Engineering Research Council, U.K. £2,000

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 269

Spanish Council for Scientific Research £1,500
Swiss National Science Foundation £2,000
Academia Sinica, Taiwan £114
Unione Zoologica Italiana £217
Zoological Societies of Japan £670

Total £19,512

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31 DECEMBER 1992

* Income
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Saceay iil!
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 1,825
Official Lists and Indexes 889
28,488
GRANTS, DONATIONS AND COVENANTS 19,605
BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 10,077
58,170
Expenditure
SALARIES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE 50,905
OFFICE EXPENSES 1,685
AUDIT FEE 700
PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS 8,903
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 305
62,498

Deficit for the year 4,328

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Case 2874

Chtenopteryx Appelléf, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed
confirmation as the correct original spelling

Giambattista Bello
Istituto Arion, Casella Postale, 70042 Mola di Bari, Italy

Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
Via Mater Dolorosa 54, 90146 Palermo, Italy

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm as correct the original spelling
of the name Chtenopteryx Appellof, 1890 for a genus of comb-fin squids. The
unjustified emendation to Ctenopteryx was made in 1900, and this spelling has been
universally used until very recently although with citation of Appellof as author.
However, it is a junior homonym of the coleopteran subgeneric name Ctenopteryx
Flach, 1889. The most appropriate course of action is to confirm Appell6fs original
spelling and to adopt the corrected spelling CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 for the
derived family-group name.

1. Appell6f (1890, p. 3) established the generic name Chtenopteryx for a single new
species of squid, Chtenopteryx fimbriatus [recte: fimbriata] (p. 4, figs. 1-6), from
Messina (Mediterranean). In a footnote he gave the derivation of the generic name
from the Greek words for ‘comb’ and ‘wing’.

2. The name Chtenopteryx in its original spelling was used in the following decade
only by Joubin (1894, p. 64) in describing a new species Chtenopteryx cyprinoides and
referring to Appelléfs species Chtenopteryx fimbriatus. In a paper published on 15
February 1900, Joubin (pp. 9, 10, 13, 47, 49, 121, 129, pl. 14 and its caption) used the
spelling Ctenopteryx, attributing it to Appell6f. He (p. 47) used this incorrect spelling
in quoting from his own 1894 work and (p. 129) in quoting the title of Appellof’s
original paper; he did not mention Appelldf’s original spelling Chtenopteryx. Pfeffer
(28 December 1900, p. 171) decided that Appelléfs name Chtenopteryx was a spelling
mistake and made the unjustified emendation to Ctenopteryx. He wrote (p. 172):
“‘Appell6of schreibt ‘Chth{siclenopteryx’; dies ist jedoch lediglich ein Schreibfehler; es
muss heissen ‘Crenopteryx’ wegen der Kamm-artigen Ausbildung der Querbriicken
auf den Flossen’. It is known that Joubin was in correspondence with Pfeffer and it
is likely that he learned of Pfeffer’s views on the spelling of the generic name prior to
Pfeffer’s publication. The Greek prefix for ‘comb’, although beginning with the letter
chi, is almost always transliterated as cteno-.

3. Grimpe (1922, p. 45) established the subfamily name CTENOPTERYGINAE, with
Ctenopteryx Appell6f as type genus; this taxon has been used at family rank as
CTENOPTERYGIDAE (e.g. Roper, Young & Voss, 1969, p. 8).

4. Until very recently all 20th century authors have used the spelling Ctenopteryx,
invariably citing Appelléf as the author; a representative list of 50 references between
1900 and 1992 is held by the Commission Secretariat. Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli &

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 271

Bedulli (1990, p. 106) revived the original spelling Chtenopteryx, with Appelléf as
author, within the family CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe (spelling corrected under
Article 35d of the Code), and with Chtenopteryx fimbriatus Appelléf, 1890 (a junior
subjective synonym of Sepioteuthis sicula Verany, 1851, p. 75) as type species. Guerra
(1992, p. 315) pointed out the homonymy between Crenopteryx Pfeffer, 1900 and
Ctenopteryx Flach, 1889 (see para. 5 below) and the consequential need to use
Appell6f’s original spelling Chtenopteryx. Our application to the Commission was in
the final stages of preparation when Guerra’s 1992 work was published.

5. Prior to Appelléfs 1890 proposal of the name Chtenopteryx, Flach (1889, p.
517) had established the name Crenopteryx as a subgenus of the coleopteran genus
Trichopteryx Kirby, 1826. Ctenopteryx Flach is therefore a senior homonym of
Ctenopteryx as used by Joubin and Pfeffer in 1900.

6. Under Article 33b(i) Joubin’s use of the spelling Crenopteryx was not an
emendation since the original spelling Chtenopteryx was not given; it is, therefore,
merely an incorrect subsequent spelling. Pfeffer’s (1900) change of Appelléf’s name to
Ctenopteryx was deliberate and is, therefore, available as an unjustified emendation
(Article 33b(ii)). We consider, nevertheless, that it would be confusing to attribute the
cephalopod genus to Pfeffer (or to Joubin), quite apart from its junior homonymy
with Flach’s (1889) coleopteran name.

7. The name Ctenopteryx Flach is widely used in coleopteran literature, sometimes
as a subgenus of Acrotrichis (e.g. Johnson, 1985, pp. 224-227) and sometimes as a
genus (e.g. Bistro6m & Silfverberg, 1979, p. 13). In view of this it would be
inappropriate to ask the Commission to suppress the coleopteran name Ctenopteryx
in order to conserve that spelling of the cephalopod name despite its wide usage. We
consider it desirable that the Commission should confirm the original spelling of the
cephalopod name so that it can rapidly be reintroduced into usage.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to confirm that the name Chtenopteryx Appelléf, 1890 is correctly so spelled;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Chtenopteryx Appelldf, 1890 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Chtenopteryx fimbriatus Appellof, 1890 (a junior subjective syn-
onym of Sepioteuthis sicula Verany, 1851);

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name sicula
Verany, 1851, as published in the binomen Sepioteuthis sicula (a senior
subjective synonym of Chtenopteryx fimbriatus Appelldf, 1890, the type species
of Chtenopteryx Appelléf, 1890);

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 (type genus Chtenopteryx Appellof, 1890),
corrected name for a family-group name based upon an unjustified emendation
of the name of the type genus);
to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the names:

(a) Ctenopteryx Joubin, 1900 (incorrect subsequent spelling of Chtenopteryx
Appelléf, 1890);

(b) Ctenopteryx Pfeffer, 1900 (unjustified emendation of Chtenopteryx
Appellof, 1890 and junior homonym of Ctenopteryx Flach, 1889);

(5

—

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name CTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 (incorrect original spelling
of CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922).

References

Appelléf, A. 1890. Teuthologische Beitrage. I. Chtenopteryx n.g., Veranya sicula Krohn,
Calliteuthis Verrill. Bergens Museums Aarsberetning, 1889(33): 1-34.

Bistrém, O. & Silfverberg, H. 1979. The type species of the European genera of Ptiliidae
(Coleoptera). Annales Entomologici Fennici, 45: 12-15.

Flach, C. 1889. Bestimmungstabelle der Trichopterygidae des europdischen Faunengebietes.
Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-kéniglichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 39:
481-532.

Grimpe, G. 1922. Systematische Ubersicht der europaischen Cephalopoden. Sitzungsberichte
der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Leipzig, 45-48 (1918-1921): 36-52.

Guerra, A. 1992. Mollusca, Cephalopoda. Fauna Iberica, vol. 1. 327 pp. Museo Nacional de
Ciencias Naturales, CSIS, Madrid.

Johnson, C. 1985. Revision of Ptiliidae (Coleoptera) occurring in the Mascarenes, Seychelles
and neighbouring islands. Entomologica Basiliensia, 10: 159-237.

Joubin, L. 1894. Note sur les Céphalopodes recueillis dans l’estomac d’un dauphin de la
Méditerranée. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 19: 61-68.

Joubin, L. 1900. Céphalopodes provenant des campagnes de la Princesse-Alice (1891-1897).
Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies sur son yacht par Albert Ier Prince
Souverain de Monaco, 17: \-135.

Pfeffer, G. 1900. Synopsis der oegopsiden Cephalopoden. Mitteilungen aus dem Natur-
historischen Museum in Hamburg, 17: 145-198.

Roper, C.F.E., Young, R.E. & Voss, G.L. 1969. An illustrated key to the families of the order
Teuthoidea (Cephalopoda). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 13: 1—32.

Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Annotated check-list of Mediterranean
marine mollusks, vol. 1. xiv, 348 pp. Libreria Naturalistica Bolognese, Bologna.

Verany, J.B. 1851. Mollusques Méditeranéens, part 1 (Céphalopodes de la Méditerranée). xvi,
132 pp., 41 pls. Genes.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 273

Case 836

Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken, 1815 (Crustacea, Copepoda):
proposed conservation

Z. Kabata

Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station,
Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5K6 Canada

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names of two parasitic
copepods, Clavella and Pennella (both of Oken, 1815), which were published in vol.
_ 3 (Zoologie) of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte. Both names are in current use
but are formally unavailable because Oken’s work has been rejected on the grounds
that it did not use binominal names for species (Opinion 417, September 1956).
Species of Clavella (family LERNAEOPODIDAE Olsson, 1869) parasitize teleost fish of
four orders and are widespread in both the Atlantic and Pacific; the type species
C. adunca (Strom, 1762) is known as a parasite particularly of cod (Gadus morhua
Linnaeus, 1758) and other Gadus species in the North Sea, but is also found in
other fish with a wide distribution. Species of Pennella (family PENNELLIDAE
Burmeister, 1835) are parasitic on pteropods and cephalopod molluscs, teleost fish
and cetaceans.

1. The question of the status of the names first published in vol. 3 (Zoologie),
1815-1816, of Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte was raised by Allen (1902) in
relation to mammals. In 1944 this problem became the subject of an application to
the Commission for a ruling by Dr W.H. Osgood (Chicago Natural History Museum)
although the application was not published until 1954 (BZN 9: 202-203), after
Osgood’s death. A report (BZN 9: 193-201) prepared by Mr F. Hemming (then
Secretary to the Commission), which included comments from zoologists concern-
ing mainly mammal names, concluded that Oken’s work was non-binominal and
therefore that new names published in it were not available. The work was rejected
for nomenclatural purposes and placed on the Official Index (Opinion 417,
September 1956).

2. Included in Opinion 417 was an invitation to zoologists to submit applications
to conserve names first published in the Oken volume, the rejection of which would
lead to instability or confusion. Three names have since been conserved from the
work: Stentor Oken, 1815 (Protista, Ciliophora) in Opinion 418 (September 1956),
and Pan and Panthera (both Oken, 1816 and both Mammalia) in Opinion 1368
(December 1985).

3. Following his (1954) report on the status of Oken’s (1815-1816) work (para.
1 above), Hemming sought advice from a number of specialists working on
parasitic copepods as to whether, in the interests of stability, it would be desirable
for Commission action to conserve from the work names used in this group. The
specialists replied (in litt., 1954, 1955) as follows. Dr C. Delamere Deboutteville
(Université de Paris, Laboratoire Arago, Banyuls-sur-Mer, France) wrote: ‘Clavella

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

et Pennella doivent étre conservés dans la nomenclature des Copépodes parasites;
ils sont universellement connus, trés employés dans la littérature. Ils ne sont pas
des genres systématiques indifférents, mais de véritables chefs de file, ayant valeur
non seulement d’exemples du points de vue biologique, mais de centres de cristalli-
sations du point de vue taxonomique (Clavellopsis, Clavellina etc.). Leur disparition
serait nettement préjudiciable a la science’. Dr R.Ph. Dollfus (Laboratoire
d'Helminthologie coloniale et de Parasitologie comparée, Museum national d’ Histoire
naturelle, Paris, France) commented: “En ce qui concerne Clavella et Pennella, il n’y
a aucune hesitation. Ces deux noms restent parfaitement valables et il n’y a aucune
raison de les rejeter’. Dr J.P. Harding (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.)
noted: ‘I should be in favour of the validation of Pennella and Clavella. Both these
names are well known in the literature of parasitic copepods’. Prof Paul L. Illg
(University of Washington, Seattle, U.S.A.) noted: “With regard to the rejection of
Oken’s Lehrbuch, there are two important generic names that should be validated,
namely Clavella and Pennella’. Despite these statements, an application to conserve
the names Clavella and Pennella, both of Oken, 1815 (p. 358), has not been made
until now.

4. The nominal genus Clavella was based on the single species Lernaea uncinata
Miller, 1776 (p. 226), which is therefore the type species by monotypy. In his
description of L. uncinata, Miller referred to the figure given by Strom (1762, p. 167,
pl. 1, figs. 7-8) for L. adunca, and noted the implication that adunca and uncinata
were the same species. Miller subsequently twice changed his mind on the identity of
uncinata (see Dollfus, 1953, p. 343). L. adunca and uncinata were synonymised by
Dollfus (1953, p. 339) who noted that Miiller’s uncertainty had arisen because the
morphology of the taxon was variable, depending on its location within the fish host
and the condition of the latter. There are some 29 nominal species currently included
in the genus (four of which I described myself).

5. The nominal genus Pennella Oken was based on the single species Pennella
diodontis Oken, 1815 (p. 358). Wilson (1917, p. 113) synonymised P. diodontis with
Pennatula sagitta Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 819), based on a rather perfunctory statement by
von Nordmann (1832, p. 122) in his study of the latter: ‘Dekay hat, wie es scheint,
dasselbe Thier auf einem Diodon pilosus gefunden’. Wilson commented that the
species other than sagitta placed by Linnaeus in Pennatula are sea pens (Cnidaria,
Anthozoa). Other early authors, among them Ellis, Lamarck and Esper, followed
Linnaeus and placed Pennatula sagitta among the polyps; Nordmann (1832, pp.
52-53, 121, pl. 10, figs. 6-8) was the first to recognise Pennatula sagitta as a parasitic
crustacean and placed it in Pennella. Wilson (1917, p. 105) mistakenly cited sagitta as
the type species of both Pennatula Linnaeus, 1758 and Pennella; the valid type for
Pennatula is Pennatula phosphorea Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 818) by Kiikenthal’s (1915, p.
81) designation. Most authors subsequent to Wilson have not accepted the synonymy
of sagitta with diodontis; the latter has been recognised as a valid taxon by the most
recent reviser (Hogans, 1988), who re-examined and redescribed specimems from
Diodon (porcupine fishes).

6. The generic name Pennella Oken was misspelled as ‘Penella’ by Burmeister
(1835, p. 320), who made it the type genus of a family-group PENELLINA (p. 318),
corrected to PENNELLINAE by Wilson (1917, p. 103). The group is currently considered
to be distinct at family level (see Bowman & Abele, 1982, p. 13).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 275

7. Both Clavella and Pennella have remained in use, attributed to Oken (1815),
both before and after the publication of Opinion 417 in 1956. Both names have
appeared extensively in the literature, both taxonomic and ecological, in the last 40
years. Recent works in which the names have appeared include Dollfus (1953),
Yamaguti (1963), Gaevskaya & Umnova (1977), Kabata (1979), Love & Moser
(1983), Pillai (1985), Castro & Baeza (1989), Luque & Farfan (1990) and Grabda
(1991). A representative list of a further 15 references demonstrating usage of the
names is held by the Commission Secretariat; these involve 13 additional authors and
were all published within the last 23 years. On request I could easily provide another
50 citations.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the following generic names are available

despite having been published in a rejected work:
(a) Clavella Oken, 1815;
(b) Pennella Oken, 1815;
(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Clavella Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Lernaea
uncinata Miller, 1776 (a junior subjective synonym of Lernaea adunca
Strom, 1762);
(b) Pennella Oken, 1815 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Pennella
diodontis Oken, 1815;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) adunca Strom, 1762, as published in the binomen Lernaea adunca (senior
subjective synonym of the specific name of Lernaea uncinata Miller, 1776,
the type species of Clavella Oken, 1815);
(b) diodontis Oken, 1815, as published in the binomen Pennella diodontis
(specific name of the type species of Pennella Oken, 1815).

References

Allen, J.A. 1902. Mammal names proposed by Oken in his “Lehrbuch der Zoologie’. Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History, 16: 373-379.

Bowman, T.E. & Abele, L.G. 1982. Classification of the Recent Crustacea. Pp. 1-27 in Abele,
L.G. (Ed.), The biology of Crustacea, vol. 1 (Systematics, the fossil record, and
biogeography). xx, 319 pp. Academic Press, New York.

Burmeister, H. 1835. Beschreibung einiger neuen oder weniger bekannten Schmarotzerkrebse,
nebst allgemeinen Betrachtungen Uber die Gruppe, welcher sie angehoéren. Nova Acta
Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae Naturae Curiosorum, 17(1):
269-336.

Castro, R. & Baeza, H. 1989. Caracteres para la taxonomia de Pennellidae, basado en
Peniculus, Metapeniculus, Trifur, Lernaeenicus y Lernaeocera. Estudios Oceanologicos, 8:
21-44.

Dollfus, R.Ph. 1953. Parasites animaux de la morue Atlanto-Arctique Gadus callarias L. (=
morhua L.). Encyclopédie Biologique, 43: 1-428.

Gaeyskaya, A.V. & Umnova, B.A. 1977. On parasites of main commercial fish species in
north-western Atlantic. Biologiya Morya. Vladivostok, 1977(4): 40-48. [In Russian].
Grabda, J. 1991. Marine fish parasitology. 306 pp. PWN-Polish Scientific Publishers, Warsaw

& VCH Verlagsgesellschaft, Weinham.

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Hogans, W.E. 1988. Redescription of Pennella sagitta (Copepoda: Pennellidae) from Histrio
histrio (Pisces) in the North-west Atlantic Ocean with a provisional review of the genus
Pennella. Journal of Zoology, 216(2): 379-390.

Kabata, Z. 1979. Parasitic Copepoda of British fishes. [4], 468 pp., 2031 figs. Publication No.
152. Ray Society, London.

Kiikenthal, W. 1915. Pennatularia. Das Tierreich, 43: 1-132.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Love, M.S. & Moser, M. 1983. A checklist of parasites of California, Oregon and Washington
marine and estuarine fishes. NOAA Technical Report NMFS SSRF, 777: \-576.

Luque, J.L. & Farfan, C. 1990. New records of Copepoda parasitic on Peruvian fishes
(Osteichthyes). Revista de Biologia Tropical, 38(2B): 501-503.

Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus, seu animalium daniae et norvegiae indige-
narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. xxxii, 282 pp. Halviae.
Nordmann, A. von. 1832. Mikrographische Beitrdge zur Naturgeschichte der wirbellosen Thiere,
Heft 2, Abt. 2 (Beitrag zur Naturgeschichte der Lernien). Pp. 49-150, pls. 4-10. Reimer,

Berlin.

Oken, L. 1815, 1816. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 3 (Zoologie), part 1 (Fleischlose
Thiere), xxviii, 842, xviii, iv pp., 40 pls. (1815); part 2 (Fleischthiere), xvi, 1270, [2] pp.,
1 pl., and pp. 843-850 supplementary to part 1 (1816). Leipzig & Jena.

Pillai, N.K. 1985. Fauna of India. Parasitic copepods of marine fishes. 900 pp. Zoological Survey
of India, Calcutta.

Strom, H. 1762. Physik og oeconomisk beskrivelse over fogderiet Sondmor, beliggende i Bergens
stift i Norge, part 1. [18], 570, 2 pp., map, 4 pls. Copenhagen.

Wilson, C.B. 1917. North American parasitic copepods belonging to the Lernaeidae with a
revision of the entire family. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 53: 1-150.

Yamaguti, S. 1963. Parasitic Copepoda and Branchiura of fishes. 1104 pp., incl. 333 pls. Wiley
Interscience Publishers, New York.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 277

Case 2842

Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 and Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes): proposed conservation

John E. Randall
Bishop Museum, Box 19000-A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, U.S.A.

M.L. Bauchot

Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire d'Ichtyologie,
43 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 05, France

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names Naucrates
Rafinesque, 1810 and Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 which are both in use. The first refers
to the monotypic pilotfish N. ductor (Linnaeus, 1758) (family CARANGIDAE), a pelagic
species which occurs in all tropical and temperate seas and is common in the
Mediterranean. The second relates to the genus of about 20 species of razorfishes
(family LABRIDAE) which occur circumglobally in tropical, subtropical and temperate
seas, also including the Mediterranean. Both names are threatened by the senior
subjective synonym Hemipteronotus Lacepéde, 1801, for which suppression is
proposed. It is also proposed that Centronotus Lacepede, 1801, an unused senior
objective synonym of Naucrates, be suppressed.

1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 261), following and expanding on Willughby (1686, pp.
213-216), included two species of razorfishes (family LABRIDAE) among the five
species (hippurus, equiselis, pentadactyla, novacula and pompilus) of his genus
Coryphaena (now family CORYPHAENIDAE, the dolphins; type species C. hippurus
Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation of Jordan & Gilbert, 1883, p. 454). The
two razorfish species were Coryphaena novacula of the Atlantic and Mediterranean
and C. pentadactyla, an Indo-Pacific razorfish, the males of which have five or six
dark red spots in a row behind the eye.

2. The nominal species Coryphaena pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 261) was
itself composite. Linnaeus based his description on three sources: (1) “Blennius
maculis 5 utrinque versus caput nigris’, from Act. Stockh. (i.e. Memoirs of
Stockholm), 1740, vol. 1, p. 460, pl. 3, fig. 2; (2) Valent. (for Valentijn, 1724), amb.
(for Amboin), part 5, p. 435, pl. 292; (3) Will. icht. (for Willughby, 1686)
appendix, p. 7, pl. 8, fig. 2. The first of these refers to the Indo-Pacific razorfish
(mentioned in para. 1 above) and the third to the pilotfish, also listed else-
where in Systema Naturae as Gasterosteus ductor Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 295; family
CARANGIDAE). The inclusion of the reference to Willughby (1686, pl. 8, fig. 2)
originated in the latter’s use of the Dutch name ‘Viif Vinger Visch’ for the
pilotfish, figured from a drawing by Nieuhof, so that Linnaeus confused this with
the Indo-Pacific razorfish with its five or six spots behind the eye. Gmelin ({1789],
pp. 1191-1192) corrected the error by omitting the reference to Willughby under

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Coryphaena pentadactyla, thereby restricting the name to the razorfish. Bloch
(1787, p. 115), Cuvier (1815, p. 329) and Valenciennes (1840, pp. 64-69) com-
mented that Linnaeus had mistakenly included two different taxa under the name,
and accepted pentadactyla for the razorfish. With the exception of Lacepéde (1801)
(see para. 3 below), this interpretation of pentadactyla has been followed
consistently by subsequent authors; the taxon is currently known as Xyrichtys
pentadactyla (see paras. 7 and 8 below).

3. Lacepéde (1801, p. 214) erected Hemipteronotus for two new nominal species,
H. gmelini and H. quinquemaculatus. The former, for which Lacepede gave two
fin-ray counts (dorsal rays 14 and pelvic rays 8), was regarded by Valenciennes (1840,
pp. 35, 65) as unidentifiable; Valenciennes noted that it may have been a holocentrid.
H. quinquemaculatus was proposed for ‘Vhémiptéronote cinq-taches’; Coryphaena
pentadactyla was included (p. 215), attributed to Gmelin, [1789], among its syn-
onyms. Lacepéde cited Linnaeus’s synonyms for C. pentadactyla, including the
Willughby reference to the pilotfish.

4. Lacepéde’s (1801, p. 214) description of H. quinquemaculatus was based on
Bonnaterre’s (1788, p. 59, pl. 33, fig. 126) reproduction of Nieuhof’s drawing of
Gasterosteus ductor (used previously by Willughby, 1686, appendix, pl. 8, fig. 2; see
para. 2 above), and described by Bonnaterre (p. 59) as Coryphaena pentadactyla.
Lacepéde (p. 215 and footnote) derived the name ‘hémiptéronote’ from the
Greek words for ‘half’, ‘fin’ and ‘back’, and wrote that the name was intended
to indicate the shortness of the dorsal fin and its similarity to that of the
coryphaenids. This is an obvious reference to the short, posteriorly placed dorsal
fin of Gasterosteus ductor. Cuvier (1815, p. 329) noted that, although Linnaeus had
included two taxa under the name Coryphaena pentadactyla (see para. 2 above),
Lacepéde had considered only one of them (the pilotfish) when he founded
Hemipteronotus. Valenciennes (1840, p. 68), in discussing Lacepéde’s ill-founded
Hemipteronotus, wrote: ‘Jai été bien long-temps a concevoir comment, ayant
sous les yeux toutes les figures qu'il cite dans sa synonymie, il avait pu attribuer
a lespéce un caractére de tout point opposé a la vérité; et jai été obligé de
conclure, que de tant de figures il n’en avait qu'une, et précisément la fausse,
celle de Nieuhof, copiée par Bonnaterre’. Bleeker (1862, p. 414) designated
H. quinquemaculatus as the type species of Hemipteronotus. Subsequently Jordan
(1917, p. 61) cited quinquemaculatus as a synonym of Coryphaena pentadactyla
‘Gmelin’.

5. Lacepéde (1801, pp. 309, 311) established the name Centronotus for a genus of
nine nominal species, including “Gasterosteus conductor Linnaeus’ (Le centronote
pilote’; he intended G. ductor Linnaeus). Willughby’s (1686, pl. 8, fig. 2) reference to
the pilotfish was included among the synonymies. Rafinesque (1810, p. 43) founded
Naucrates for two nominal species, including Centronotus conductor Lacepéde;
Jordan & Gilbert (1883, p. 443) designated ‘Naucrates conductor Raf., = Gasterosteus
ductor Linn.’ as the type species. Jordan (1917, p. 62) used the same notation in
designating a type for Centronotus Lacepéde, rendering the latter name a senior
objective synonym of Naucrates. Until recently, vol. 3 of Lacepéde’s work Histoire
naturelle des poissons, in which the name Centronotus appeared, was thought to date
from 1802. On this basis Jordan (1917, pp. 62, 80) considered the fish name
Centronotus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (p. 165; a junior objective synonym of Pholis

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 279

Scopoli, 1777 (see Eschmeyer, 1990, pp. 89, 312); family PHOLIDAE) to be a senior
homonym of Centronotus Lacepéde and noted that the latter was replaced by
Naucrates; the name Naucrates has consistently been used for the pilotfish. Roux
(1973, p. 34) demonstrated that Lacepéde’s vol. 3 dates from 16 October 1801. To our
knowledge, an exact date for Bloch’s (1801) work (published posthumously by
Schneider) has not been ascertained, and publication must therefore be deemed to be
31 December 1801 (Article 21c(ii) of the Code). It is very desirable that the unused
name Centronotus Lacepéde be suppressed to allow continued usage of Naucrates,
and this we now propose.

6. Cuvier (1814, p. 87; 1815, p. 324) noted that Linnaeus (1758) had included
razorfishes with dolphins in Coryphaena (see para. 1 above) and erected the genus
Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 for the razorfishes. Cuvier (1814, p. 87) noted the name as
“XYRICHTE Xyrichlys’; this was corrected to Xyrichtys in Cuvier (1815, p. 329). The
name has been spelt Yyrichthys by a number of subsequent authors. Cuvier (1814)
included in Xyrichtys the species Coryphaena novacula and C. pentadactyla, both of
Linnaeus (1758), and the American parrotfish C. coerulea Bloch, 1786 (p. 148, pl.
176), the last of which was mistakenly included by Bloch (1787, p. 120, pl. 186)
among the dolphins. Jordan & Gilbert (1883, p. 605) designated XY. novacula as the
type species of Xyrichtys. A specimen in the Linnaean fish collection in London has
been ascribed to this species (see Wheeler, 1985, p. 65).

7. Hemipteronotus Lacepéde, 1801 was treated by some authors as the valid
name for the razorfishes, based on the restriction by early authors of the name
pentadactyla to this group (para. 2 above). However, Bauchot & Quignard (1973,
p. 442) renewed attention to the identity of the Nieuhof drawing in Willughby
(1686) and Bonnaterre (1788) as Naucrates ductor. The meaning of H. quin-
quemaculatus, the type species of Hemipteronotus, is composite and confused,
relating by description to the pilotfish (now N. ductor) and by reference both to
the latter and to the razorfish (C. pentadactyla) (see paras. 3 and 4 above).
Bauchot & Quignard (1973) adopted Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 as the next available
name for the razorfish, and this has been followed since. Eschmeyer (1990, p. 179)
recorded Hemipteronotus as a synonym of Xyrichtys. It is also a senior subjective
synonym of Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810.

8. Both names Naucrates Rafinesque and Xyrichtys Cuvier are used consistently
for the monotypic carangid pilotfish N. ductor (Linnaeus) and for the 20 species of
labrid razorfishes respectively. Recent works in which the names have appeared
include Smith-Vaniz (1984, 1986; Naucrates); Gomon (1984) and Quignard & Pras
(1986) (Xyrichtys); Dor (1984), Smith & Heemstra (1986), Masuda, Amaoka, Araga,
Uyeno & Yoshino (1988) and Randall, Allen & Steene (1990) (both names). A
representative list of a further five publications since 1980 demonstrating usage of the
names is held by the Commission Secretariat. Fernholm & Wheeler (1983, p. 243)
believed three specimens in the Linnaean collection in Stockholm to be part of the
type series of N. ductor.

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names:

(a) Hemipteronotus Lacepéde, 1801 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

(b) Centronotus Lacepéde, 1801, and all uses of the name Centronotus prior to
the publication of Centronotus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, for the purposes
of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 (gender: masculine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by Jordan & Gilbert (1883) Gasterosteus ductor
Linnaeus, 1758;

(b) Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Jordan & Gilbert (1883) Coryphaena novacula Linnaeus,
1758;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) ductor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Gasterosteus ductor
(specific name of the type species of Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810);

(b) novacula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coryphaena novacula
(specific name of the type species of Xyrichtys Cuvier, 1814);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in

Zoology the following names:

(a) Hemipteronotus Lacepéde, 1801, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Centronotus Lacepéde, 1801, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Bauchot, M.L. & Quignard, J.P. 1973. Labridae. Pp. 426-443 in Hureau, J.-C. & Monod, T.
(Eds.), Check-list of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean
(CLOFNAM), vol. 1. xxii, 683 pp. UNESCO, Paris.

Bleeker, P. 1862. Conspectus generum Labroideorum analyticus. Proceedings of the Zoological
Society of London, 1861(3): 408-418. (Also published in 1862 in Verslagen en Mededeelin-
gen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen Amsterdam, 13: 94-109).

Bloch, M.E. 1786. Naturgeschichte der ausldndischen Fische, part 2. 160 pp. Author, Berlin.

Bloch, M.E. 1787. Ichtyologie, ou Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des poissons. Avec
des figures enluminées, dessinées d'aprés nature, part 5. 130, [2] pp., pls. 146-180. Garde,
Berlin.

Bloch, M.E. & Schneider, J.G. 1801. M.E. Blochii ... Systema Ichthyologiae iconibus ex
illustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit J. Gottlob
Schneider ..., vol. 1. 1x, 584 pp. Berlin.

Bonnaterre, J.P. 1788. Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois régnes de la nature.
Ichthyologie. lvi, 215 pp., 100 pls. Panckoucke, Paris.

Cuvier, G. 1814. Observations et recherches critiques sur différens poissons de la Méditerranée
et, 4 leur occasion, sur des poissons des autres mers plus ou moins liés avec eux. Bulletin
des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 1814: 80-92.

Cuvier, G. 1815. Suite des observations et recherches critiques sur différens poissons de la
Méditerranée, et a leur occasion sur des poissons d’autres mers, plus ou moins liés avec
eux. Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 1: 312-330.

Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1840. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 14. xxii, [2], 464, [4] pp.,
pls. 389-420. Pitois-Levrault, Paris.

Dor, M. 1984. Checklist of the fishes of the Red Sea. xxii, 437 pp. Israel Academy of Sciences
and Humanities, Jerusalem.

Eschmeyer, W.N. 1990. Catalog of the genera of Recent fishes. v, 697 pp. California Academy
of Sciences, San Francisco.

Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78(3): 199-286.

Gmelin, J.F. [1789]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 3 (Amphibia and
Pisces). Pp. 1033-1516. Lipsiae.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 281

Gomon, M. 1984. Labridae. Jn Fischer, W. & Bianchi, G. (Eds.), FAO species identification
sheets for fishery purposes. Western Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 51), vol. 5. FAO, Rome.

Jordan, D.S. 1917. The genera of fishes, from Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758-1833, seventy-five
years, with the accepted type of each. A contribution to the stability of scientific
nomenclature. Leland Stanford Junior University Publications, 27: \-161.

Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1883. Synopsis of the fishes of North America. Bulletin of the
United States National Museum, 16: 1—-1018.

Lacepéde, B.G.E. 1801. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3. lxvi, 558 pp. Plassan, Paris.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvi, Holmiae.

Masuda, H., Amaoka, K., Araga, C., Uyeno, T. & Yoshino, T. (Eds.). 1988. Fishes of the
Japanese Archipelago, Ed. 2. xxii, 456 pp., 379 pls. Tokai University Press, Tokyo.
Quignard, J.-P. & Pras, A. 1986. Labridae. Pp. 919-942 in Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L.,
Hureau, J.-C., Nielsen, J. & Tortenese, E. (Eds.), Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and

the Mediterranean, vol. 2. Pp. 517-1007. Unesco, Paris.

_ Rafinesque (as Rafinesque Schmaltz), C.S. 1810. Caratteri di alcuni nuovi generi e nuove specie
di animali e piante della Sicilia, con varie osservazioni sopra i medisimi. iv, 105 pp., 20 pls.
Sanfilippo, Palermo.

Randall, J.E., Allen, G.R. & Steene, R.C. 1990. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea.
xx, 506 pp., 7 pls., 1314 figs. Crawford House Press, Bathurst, N.S.W.

Roux, C. 1973. Les dates pour ‘L’Histoire Naturelle des Poissons’ de Lacepéde. Bulletin de
Liaison des Musées d'Histoire Naturelle, 14: 33-36.

Smith, M.M. & Heemstra, P.C. (Eds.). 1986. Smiths’ sea fishes. xx, 1047 pp., 144 pls., text figs.
Macmillan South Africa, Johannesburg.

Smith-Vaniz, W.F. 1984. Carangidae. Jn Fischer, W. & Bianchi, G. (Eds.), FAO species
identification sheets for fishery purposes. Western Indian Ocean (Fishing Area 51), vol. 2.
FAO, Rome.

Smith-Vaniz, W.F. 1986. Carangidae. Pp. 815-844 in Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L.,
Hureau, J.-C., Nielsen, J. & Tortenese, E. (Eds.), Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and
the Mediterranean, vol. 2. Pp. 517-1007. Unesco, Paris.

Wheeler, A. 1985. The Linnaean fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological
Journal of the Linnean Society, 84(1): 1-76.

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.
Oxonii.

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Case 2876

Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha):
proposed designation of C. stewarti Charig, 1980 as the type species

A.J. Charig

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Cetiosauriscus stewarti
Charig, 1980 as the type species of the Jurassic diplodocid sauropod genus
Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927. The specimen on which this genus was founded, and
which is now the holotype of C. stewarti, was originally identified as Ornithopsis
leedsii Hulke, 1887 but this has been shown to be an unwarranted identification.

1. Hulke (1887, p. 695) described the partial skeleton of a sauropod from the
Kimmeridge Clay of Northamptonshire, England. He referred it to the genus
Ornithopsis Seeley, 1870 (type species O. hulkei Seeley, 1870), but placed it in a new
species O. leedsii (p. 695). The holotype consists of several vertebrae, ribs, ilium,
pubes and ischia; it is registered in the Natural History Museum, London, as
BM(NH) Pal. Dept. no. R.1988.

2. Phillips (1871, p. 291) had established a species Cetiosaurus oxoniensis on a
single incomplete skeleton from the Bathonian of Oxfordshire. Seeley (1889, p. 395)
stated that Ornithopsis leedsii and Cetiosaurus oxoniensis ‘are apparently referable to
one genus’. This view was accepted generally, so that O. /eedsii was attributed to
Cetiosaurus Owen, 1841 (p. 457).

3. Woodward (1905) described a newly found sauropod skeleton from the Oxford
Clay, registered as BM(NH) Pal. Dept. no. R.3078, as another specimen of
Cetiosaurus leedsii. Whereas most English sauropod discoveries consist of only a few
fragments, this one — though lacking any skull material — included an unusually
large number of postcranial elements. It was mounted and for many years was
exhibited in the Dinosaur Gallery of the Natural History Museum in London.

4. Von Huene (1927, p. 453) claimed that this specimen described by Woodward
differed sufficiently from Cetiosaurus to warrant its generic separation. He established
the genus Cetiosauriscus with ‘Cetiosaurus leedsii’ (as exemplified by specimen
R.3078) as the type species. Von Huene described the characters of specimen R.3078
that were diagnostic of his new genus and contrasted them with Cetiosaurus. The type
species of Cetiosaurus, C. medius Owen, 1842 (p. 100), is itself unsatisfactory. Steel
(1970, pp. 64-65) pointed out that C. medius was ‘based upon vertebrae’ and that the
genus Cetiosaurus was ‘founded upon very insubstantial criteria and is hence difficult
to define’.

5. I (Charig, 1980, p. 242) pointed out that the only element preserved in both the
holotype of Ornithopsis leedsii (R.1988, para. 1 above) and the specimen referred
to that species by Woodward (R.3078, para. 3 above) was the ilium. Seeley (1889,
p. 394) had written of R.1988 that ‘from the imperfect fragment preserved it is

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 283

impossible to judge of the form of the ilium’. I re-examined the fragment in question
and confirmed that it was impossible to compare it with the ilium of R.3078. Indeed,
since this is the only element common to both specimens the two cannot be compared
in any particular and R.3078 cannot be referred to O. /eedsii or to any other species.
There being no specific name for the specimen described by Woodward and used by
von Huene to establish Cetiosauriscus, | proposed (1980, p. 242) the new name
Cetiosauriscus stewarti and noted that consideration of this change of nominal type
species (but not of taxonomic basis) should be referred to the Commission. This I
now do under Article 70b (misidentified type species).

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species
for the nominal genus Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927 and to designate
Cetiosauriscus stewarti Charig, 1980 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927 (gender: masculine), type species by desig-
nation in (1) above Cetiosauriscus stewarti Charig, 1980;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name stewarti
Charig, 1980, as published in the binomen Cetiosauriscus stewarti (specific
name of the type species of Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927).

References

Charig, A.J. 1980. A diplodocid sauropod from the Lower Cretaceous of England. Pp.
231-244 in Jacobs, L.L. (Ed.), Aspects of vertebrate history: essays in honor of Edwin
Harris Colbert. xix, 407 pp. Museum of Northern Arizona Press, Flagstaff.

Huene, F. von. 1927. Sichtung der Grundlagen der jetzigen Kenntnis der Sauropoden. Eclogae
Geologicae Helvetiae, 20(3): 444-470.

Hulke, J.W. 1887. Note on some dinosaurian remains in the collection of A. Leeds, Esq., of
Eyebury, Northamptonshire. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 43:
695-702.

Owen, R. 1841. A description of a portion of the skeleton of the Cetiosaurus, a gigantic extinct
saurian reptile occurring in the Oolitic formations of different portions of England.
Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 3(2), no. 80: 457-462.

Owen, R. 1842. Report on British fossil reptiles, part 2. Report of the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, 1841: 60-204.

Phillips, J. 1871. Geology of Oxford and the Valley of the Thames. 523 pp. Clarendon Press,
Oxford.

Seeley, H.G. 1870. On Ornithopsis, a gigantic animal of the pterodactyle kind from the
Wealden. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)5(28): 279-283.

Seeley, H.G. 1889. Note on the pelvis of Ornithopsis. Quarterly Journal of the Geological
Society of London, 45: 391-397.

Steel, R. 1970. Saurischia, vol. 14 in Kuhn, O. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldoherpetologie. v, 87 pp.
Fischer, Stuttgart & Portland.

Woodward, A.S,. 1905. On parts of the skeleton of Cetiosaurus leedsi, a sauropodous dinosaur
from the Oxford Clay of Peterborough. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,
1905: 232-243.

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Comments on the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus
(Mollusca, Ammonoidea)
(Case 2732; see BZN 48: 31—35, 246; 49: 145-149, 290; 50: 54-56, 141-142, 229-231)

(1) Ulrich Lehmann
Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut und Museum, Universitat Hamburg,
Bundesstrasse 55, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany :

The attribution of the name Ceratites nodosus to Schlotheim, as proposed in the
application by Urlichs, seems to me to be desirable. The following points should be
borne in mind.

1. Original specimens of “Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére’ were not examined by (at
least) the majority of authors; that nominal species was based on the rather poor
illustration referred to by Bruguiére, and not a specimen. When original material was
rediscovered it turned out not to belong to Ceratites nodosus as long understood.

2. Tozer (BZN 49: 145-149) underestimates the extent to which Ceratites nodosus
in the sense (based on a Schlotheim figure) which Urlichs seeks to conserve is
established in the literature and in practical field-work, and has been at least since the
time of Philippi (1901). Tozer’s assertion (his para. 8) that the taxonomy adopted by
Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) is ‘unarguably subjective’ and not current usage is not
justified. Their taxonomy is more elaborate than that of Schlotheim, Philippi, Spath
and Wenger, but it is based on them and is the actual ‘current usage’, and that in the
very ‘homeland’ of Ceratites. Every taxonomy is subjective to some extent: there is
nothing wrong about that. The consequences for stratigraphy and taxonomy of
abandoning this usage should be taken very seriously, as pointed out by Urlichs (see
also Abb. 16 of Urlichs & Mundlos (1987)). The danger of confusion and
misunderstandings is immense.

To sum up: in my opinion ‘strict adherence to rules’, as proposed by Tozer, would
in this case have disadvantages for practical taxonomy and stratigraphy which far
outweigh any advantages there might be. I support the application by Urlichs.

(2) Max Urlichs
Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart, Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart,
Germany

1. I should like to reply to the comments by the late R.V. Melville (BZN 50:
55-56).

2. Melville was indeed correct in stating (his para. 6) that ‘Schlotheim’s figure
would have been of primary importance’ to our (Urlichs & Mundlos, 1987)
predecessors, but he was mistaken in saying (para. 2) that Scheuchzer’s specimen in
Zurich designated by Rieber & Tozer as lectotype agrees with the usage established
by Philippi and subsequent workers. It does not so so (BZN 48: 33, para. 9); if it did
I would not have submitted my application. The adoption of this specimen as type
would immediately alter the established meaning of Ceratites nodosus.

3. The Schlotheim specimen designated as lectotype by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987,
p. 7) is not completely decorticated (cf. para. 2 of Melville’s comment). Only one
whorl side of the body chamber is corroded. On the other side the ribs are visible. The

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 285

umbilical width and the cross section are measurable on the phragmocone, and the
suture is uncorroded. Therefore, the characters of taxonomic importance are clearly
visible. There is no doubt about its identity with what we now call Ceratites nodosus.

4. Of course, no information was published about the exact level from which the
lectotypes proposed by Rieber & Tozer (1986) and Urlichs & Mundlos (1987)
originated (see para. 4 of Melville’s comment). However, the species of Ceratites are
very characteristic, and their stratigraphic range within the Upper Muschelkalk
(which reaches a thickness of 70-90m) is well known since Riedel (1916), who
subdivided the Upper Muschelkalk into 10 Ceratites Zones. This subdivision has
often been confirmed and completed by different authors, e.g. Wenger (1957),
Hagdorn & Simon (1985) and Urlichs (1993). Specimens comparable to the lectotype
of Ceratites nodosus proposed by Rieber & Tozer (1986) occur in SW-Germany
~20-23m above the base of the Upper Muschelkalk; those specimens comparable to
the Schlotheim lectotype proposed by Urlichs & Mundlos (1987) are found at
60—65m. The lower level corresponds to the Upper Anisian and the upper to the
Lower Ladinian. The phylogeny of Ceratites has been established from the strati-
graphic ranges of the different species (Riedel, 1916; Wenger, 1957); it is one of the
best known examples.

Additional reference

Urlichs, M. 1993. Zur Gliederung des Oberen Muschelkalks in Baden-Wiurttemberg mit
Ceratiten. Pp. 153-156 in Hagdorn, H..& Seilacher, A. (Eds.), Muschelkalk, Schéntaler
Symposium 1991]. Sonderbande der Gesellschaft fiir Naturkunde in Wiirttemberg, vol. 2.
Korb (Goldschneck).

Comment on the proposed conservation of Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken,
1815 (Crustacea, Copepoda)
(Case 836; see BZN 50: 273-276)

G.A. Boxshall
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Clayella and Pennella are widely used in the taxonomic literature on parasitic
copepods (Kabata, 1979, 1992; Hogans, 1988). Both genera have been redefined and
modern redescriptions are available of their type species, Lernaea uncinata Muller,
1776 (now Clavella adunca) (in Kabata, 1979) and Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815 (in
Hogans, 1988). There is no taxonomic confusion surrounding either genus. These
generic names are also mentioned frequently in non-taxonomic, parasitological
literature (e.g. Dogiel et al., 1958; Kabata, 1970; Sniesko, 1970; Moller & Anders,
1983). I am in favour of the conservation of both generic names and of the binomen
Pennella diodontis because of their wide use in taxonomic and general parasitological
literature.

Additional references

Dogiel, V.A., Petrusheyskii, G.K. & Polyanski, Yu.I. 1958. Parasitology of fishes. Leningrad
University Press, Leningrad. [English edition 1961, translated by Z. Kabata. 384 pp.
Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. ]

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Kabata, Z. 1970. Diseases of fishes. Book 1. Crustacea as enemies of fishes. 171 pp. T.F.H.
Publications, Jersey City.

Kabata, Z. 1992. Copepods parasitic on fishes. Synopses of the British Fauna, (n.s.)47: 1-264.

Moller, H. & Anders, K. 1983. Krankheiten und Parasiten der Meeresfische. 258 pp. Author,
Kiel.

Sniesko, S.F. 1970. A symposium on diseases of fishes and shellfishes. Special Publication
No. 5. 526 pp. American Fisheries Society, Washington.

Comment on the proposal to conserve Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 and to
designate Helomyza fenestralis as the type species (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2836; see BZN 50: 44-47, 235-236)

Curtis W. Sabrosky
205 Medford Leas, Medford, New Jersey 08055, U.S.A.

I support heartily the application by Woznica & Zatwarnicki on Oecothea Haliday
for restoring validity to its over-a-century usage.

Thompson & Mathis (1980), in their thorough and commendable study of the
generic names of Haliday in Curtis (1837), erred, in my opinion, in their treatment of
included species of Oecothea. Their designated type species, while concordant with
their view of included species and the problems with these, left the long-used
Oecothea of authors without a name (later supplied by Peterson & Gill, 1982, but not
widely accepted).

The disputed problem is not availability, well elucidated by Thompson & Mathis
(1980), but the type species, and the crux of this problem is what species, if any, was
or were originally included. Under the plenary powers, of course, any species can be
designated as type, whether or not originally included.

My catalogue of family-group names in Diptera, nearing completion, contains a
detailed analysis of species numbers and position for Oecothea. I do not agree with
Thompson & Mathis (1980) that the four species following Oecothea in Curtis’s
Addenda were necessarily originally included. Indeed, we have Haliday’s (1838, p.
187) own nearly contemporaneous testimony that they were not. The importance of
this paper, entitled New British insects indicated in Mr. Curtis's Guide, is that it is the
author’s explanation of his own names, merely listed in Curtis’s work; his note for
subgenus Aecothea [sic] reads: ‘H{elomyza] fenestralis is the only [italics mine] British
species’. In my view, the pragmatic conclusion, considering only the 1837 Guide,
would have been that Oecothea in 1837 was ambiguous and without clearly
associated species, and that the type was H. fenestralis by subsequent monotypy in
1838. But the designation by Thompson & Mathis (1980) has caused recourse to the
Commission, which the applicants have now provided.

A minor detail concerns Aecothea Haliday, 1838. Thompson & Mathis (1980)
considered this to be an unjustified emendation of Oecothea. The applicants have
suggested that it was ‘a deliberate transliteration of Greek’, which would still be an
unjustified emendation. However, there is, strictly speaking, no evidence of emen-
dation and nomenclaturally Aecothea must be considered an erroneous subsequent
spelling.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 287

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybopsis)
topeka Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka) (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes)
(Case 2808; see BZN 49: 268-270; 50: 144)

(1) Richard L. Mayden
Department of Biology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487, U.S.A.

Carter R. Gilbert
Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611,
U.S.A.

We wish to oppose the application by Drs Cross & Collins to conserve the specific
-name of Notropis topeka (Gilbert, 1884). Our reasons are presented below.

1. Several years ago we published a paper (Mayden & Gilbert, 1989) resurrect-
ing the species name tristis Girard, 1857 for the North American cyprinid fish
previously known as N. topeka (Gilbert, 1884). We were aware at the time that the
option was available by which we could have requested the conservation of the
junior synonym.

2. North American ichthyologists appear equally divided on the issue of
nomenclatural priority versus conservation of younger names. The name change
proposed by us, for example, did not appear in the most recent checklist of
common and scientific names of North American fishes (Robins et al., 1991) but
was used in the Peterson field guide to North American freshwater fishes (Page &
Burr, 1991). It was also used in various chapters of the recently-published
comprehensive book on the systematics and ecology of North American freshwater
fishes (Mayden (Ed.), 1993), which included a complete checklist of native
freshwater fishes.

3. We are not opposed to name changes per se but generally support the
conservation of names in cases where this would result in transposition or transferral
of long-established names among species.

4. The description of Moniana tristis Girard, 1857, although falling well short of
today’s standards, was good according to the standards at the time.

5. Notropis tristis is not considered to be threatened or endangered, is not an
important game species, is not used in biomedical research, and is not ‘important’ in
other ways such that the name change would cause confusion among laymen or
professional scientists.

6. Changes in species names of North American fishes, based exclusively on
nomenclatural priority, have occurred a number of times during the past 65 years
(Hubbs & Brown, 1929; Hubbs, 1935; Hubbs, 1936; Hubbs & Bailey, 1940; Hubbs &
Raney, 1944; Suttkus, 1985; Bohlke et al., 1989; Mayden & Gilbert, 1989; McCosker
et al., 1989). A list (held by the Secretariat), which does not purport to be complete,
includes 12 examples. Of these, seven have occurred within the past ten years, of
which all but the two proposed by us were accepted by Robins et al. (1991). This list
is not restricted to ‘obscure’ species but includes such important and well-known
sport fishes as the bluegill sunfish (formerly Lepomia incisor, now L. macrochirus) and
spotted bass (formerly Micropterus pseudaplites, now M. punctulatus) (Hubbs, 1935;
Hubbs & Bailey, 1940).

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

7. In some cases the desire to conserve established names has transcended what
might be termed ‘scientific integrity’. For example, one of us (R.L.M.) was earlier
urged (not by the authors of the application), in the interest of conserving the species
name topeka, to designate as lectotype of Moniana tristis a specimen of another
species from the mixed syntypic series that obviously was different from the one for
which the original description was intended. We are strongly opposed to such
practices! 3

8. A far greater number of nomenclatural changes among North American
fishes (mostly involving generic reallocations) have occurred in recent years as a
result of continuing systematic research than as a result of strict adherence to the
Code. Probably the most notable example involves the change of the name for
the rainbow trout from Salmo gairdneri to Oncorhynchus mykiss (see Smith &
Stearley, 1989). This change has caused considerable confusion among laymen
and scientists alike, but was an unavoidable consequence of the scientific
evidence presented. By contrast, an ongoing study by one of us (C.R.G.), which
involves reexamination of original descriptions and extant type material of
North American freshwater fishes, has revealed only four other cases of potential
name changes based on nomenclatural priority. Complete nomenclatural stability
among North American fishes, while desirable, is in many respects an unrealistic
goal.

In conclusion, we recommend that the application to conserve the name Notropis
topeka Gilbert, 1884 be rejected and that the senior synonym N. tristis (Girard, 1857)
be retained, as earlier proposed by us (Mayden & Gilbert, 1989).

Additional references

Bohlke, E.B., McCosker, J.E. & Béhlke, J.E. 1989. Fishes of the western North Atlantic.
Family Muraenidae. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research, (1)9(1):
104-206.

Hubbs, C.L. 1935. The scientific names of two sunfishes, Helioperca macrochira (Rafinesque)
and Eupomotis microlophus (Ginther). Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology,
University of Michigan, 305: 1-12.

Hubbs, C.L. 1936. An older name for the black-nosed dace. Copeia, 1936(2): 124-125.

Hubbs, C.L. & Bailey, R.M. 1940. A revision of the black basses (Micropterus and Huro)
with descriptions of four new forms. Miscellaneous Publications. Museum of Zoology,
University of Michigan, 48: 1-51.

Hubbs, C.L. & Brown, D.E.F. 1929. Materials for a distributional study of Ontario fishes.
Transactions of the Royal Canadian Institute, 17(1): 1-56.

Hubbs, C.L. & Raney, E.C. 1944. Systematic notes on North American siluroid fishes of the
genus Schilbeodes. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan,
487: 1-36.

Mayden, R.L. (Ed.). 1993. Systematics, historical ecology, and North American freshwater
fishes. 996 pp. Stanford University Press.

McCosker, J.E., Béhlke, E.B. & Bohlke, J.E. 1989. Fishes of the western North Atlantic.
Family Ophichthidae. Memoirs of the Sears Foundation for Marine Research, (1)9(1):
254-412.

Page, L.M. & Burr, B.M. 1991. A field guide to freshwater fishes (North America north of
Mexico). xii, 432 pp. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Smith, G.R. & Stearley, R.F. 1989. The classification and scientific names of rainbow and
cutthroat trouts. Fisheries, 14(1): 4-10.

Suttkus, R.D. 1985. Identification of the percid, Joa vigil. Copeia, 1985(1): 225-227.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 289

(2) Bernard Kuhajda
Department of Biology, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487, U.S.A.

I am opposed to the proposal of Cross & Collins to conserve the name Notropis
topeka (Gilbert, 1884). Nomenclatural stability is the main reason for their proposal,
which I believe should not take precedence over the rules of nomenclature. I
understand that these citizens of Kansas (from where the nominal species was first
described) would prefer that the name fopeka remain in the literature, but it should
not be at the expense of science.

(3) Frank B. Cross & Joseph T. Collins
Division of Ichthyology, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence,
- Kansas 66045-2454, U.S.A.

We consider it unnecessary and unwise to replace the name Notropis topeka
(Gilbert, 1884), which has been used for this species for more than a century
(following Jordan, 1885), with a name burdened by the uncertainties that attend
Girard’s (1857) name ‘ristis. We grant that Mayden & Gilbert (1989) provided a
useful, insightful interpretation of evidence and historical circumstances which
indicate, arguably, that this taxon is the one to which Girard (1857) intended that the
name Moniana tristis should apply. We believe their case is plausible but inconclu-
sive, for the reasons explained in our application.

The original description of Moniana tristis Girard, 1857, alone and in combination
with supplementary information in Girard (1858), has not enabled assignment of the
name to any known taxon without reference to the type material. Of the two syntypes
that have been relocated and examined, one represents the species known as the
Topeka shiner but the other does not. Three other syntypic specimens remain
undiscovered, judging from Girard’s (1858) account, and a more satisfactory
assignment of the name tristis could be made if their identity were known. There are
several species to which Girard’s description might apply, especially because the type
locality can be established only vaguely and inferentially. The date of capture is
similarly problematic. The name Notropis topeka is free of all such problems.

Name-changes arising from new evidence of phylogenetic relationships among
taxa, as in the recent case affecting the rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, can
be accepted. But the decision at hand is purely nomenclatural and systematic
considerations are not involved.

The general abundance and geographic distribution of the Topeka shiner have
receded greatly in the past century and its decline now seems to be accelerating.
Consequently, its designation as a “Category One Candidate Species’ has been
recommended (Tabor, 1993) and is now being processed through provisions of the
United States Endangered Species Act (as amended) under the name Noztropis topeka.
‘Category One’ species are those which meet Congressional criteria for listing as
endangered or threatened.

Additional reference

Tabor, V. 1993. Status report on the Topeka shiner, Notropis topeka. United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, Manhatten, Kansas, U.S.A. (13 February 1993).

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Comments on the proposed conservation of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia,
Synapsida)
(Case 2807; see BZN 49: 52-54, 291)

(1) A.R.I. Cruickshank
Department of Geology, University of Leicester, Leicester, England, U.K.

The problem with the nominal genus Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936 is that the
material on which it was based still exists, is clearly recognizable and a sufficiently
good description of the skull is available (Caldas, 1936, pp. 243-249, fig. 1) for it not
to be confused with other similar material (contra Cox, 1968, p. 9, footnote).

A simple-minded approach to this problem would clearly be to retain the genus
Diodontosaurus, type species pedroanum (a junior subjective synonym of Dicynodon
turpior Huene, 1935), based on the skull and partial skeleton (DGM 530R) in the
collections of the Divisto de Geologia e Mineralogia, Ministerio das Minas e
Energia, Rio de Janeiro. However, as Lucas points out (BZN 49: 53, para. 7),
Diodontosaurus would replace a universally accepted generic name with one that has
not been used as valid since its proposal and which differs by only one letter from the
accepted name.

The widespread use of Dinodontosaurus, as reviewed by Keyser & Cruickshank
(1979), would make a pedantic reversion to Diodontosaurus a nightmare for workers
in the field of Triassic Dicynodontia. My firm recommendation is to suppress the
name Diodontosaurus. I therefore ask the Commission to accept the proposals by
Lucas in BZN 49: 53; the case fully meets the prima facie criteria of Article 79c of the
Code.

(2) Laurie R. Walter

Department of Biological Sciences, Chicago State University, 95th Street at King
Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60628-1598, U.S.A.

I would like to comment on the proposed conservation of the generic name
Dinodontosaurus. As Dr Lucas commented in his proposal, the name Dinodonto-
saurus is well known to workers on Triassic tetrapods, whereas the senior synonym is
entirely unknown. I therefore urge the Commission to suppress the name Diodonto-
saurus Caldas, 1936 and to conserve the name Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943.

(3) Alan J. Charig

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.

I support most strongly Lucas’s proposal to conserve the dicynodont name
Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943. To switch to the totally unused name Diodontosaurus
Caldas, 1936 would cause great confusion, compounded by the fortuitous difference
of only one letter in the spelling of the two names. It would be inevitable that many
workers (specialist as well as generalist) would continue to use the familiar name
Dinodontosaurus. Such a switch, which has been recommended by nobody, would be
a blatant departure from nomenclatural stability and it has no compensating
advantages whatsoever.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 291

Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis bauri (Cope,
1887) (Reptilia, Saurischia)
(Case 2840; see BZN 49: 276-279; 50: 147-151, 236-239)

(1) David D. Gillette
Division of State History, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101, U.S.A.

J. Lynett Gillette
Ghost Ranch Conference Center, Abiquiu, New Mexico 87510, U.S.A.

Edwin H. Colbert
Museum of Northern Arizona, Route 4, Box 720, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001, U.S.A.

In their proposal of the new binomen Rioarribasaurus colberti, Hunt & Lucas
(1991) declared that Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) is a nomen dubium on the
grounds that none of the syntypes are diagnostic. In the same publication (which was
entitled ‘Rioarribasaurus, a new name for a late Triassic dinosaur from New Mexico’)
they stated: “We believe an effort to petition the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to conserve the name Coelophysis bauri, by designating a
neotype, would be met with rejection ..... This statement indicates that the new
binomen was intended to replace C. bauri, rather than to denote a different taxon,
as they have subsequently elaborated (BZN 50: 147-150). The purpose of the
application in Case 2840 is to establish a neotype for C. bauri.

Despite the claims of Hunt & Lucas (1991 and BZN 50: 147-150), Lucas & Hunt
(1992) and Sullivan (BZN 50: 150-151), the type locality of the original Coelophysis
material collected by David Baldwin somewhere in the vicinity of modern Ghost
Ranch cannot be proven to be not the same locality that Colbert discovered in 1947.
No records exist that precisely identify Baldwin’s locality. The locality cited by him
as ‘Arroyo Seco’ is the major extant drainage for all of the northern half of Ghost
Ranch, including the subsidiary tributary of Arroyo Yeso which drains the Ghost
Ranch dinosaur quarry. This drainage system has been eroding Triassic bedrock at
Ghost Ranch since the Pleistocene. Although we do not know where in this drainage
Baldwin collected, it is not unreasonable to assume that the skeletal material he
collected from Arroyo Seco could have been from the present Ghost Ranch quarry.
Differences in preservation between originally collected material and the present
Ghost Ranch quarry specimens may be due to differential subaerial exposure.
Baldwin’s material was from surface or near-surface material, whereas specimens
collected since Colbert’s discovery in 1947 have been deeply buried and hitherto
unexposed bones.

The assignment of stratigraphic position of the Ghost Ranch quarry to the Rock
Point Formation of the Chinle Group as argued by Hunt & Lucas (1991, 1992 and
BZN 50: 147-150) follows their revisionary stratigraphic nomenclature (Hunt &
Lucas, 1992), which has not been tested. Therefore, nomenclatural disputes related to
differences in stratigraphic opinion are inappropriate in this case. According to Hunt
& Lucas (BZN 50: 148, para. 5) ‘... there is only one fossil locality in the Rock Point
Formation, and this is the Ghost Ranch quarry’ and ‘the majority of fossiliferous
strata in the area belong to the Petrified Forest Formation’. Whether there are fewer

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

or more fossils found from higher or lower in these Triassic strata may be only a
reflection of ease in prospecting and has little if any bearing on arguments regarding
the stratigraphic position of either the original (Baldwin) type locality of Coelophysis
or the Ghost Ranch quarry. Contrary to their claim that it is ‘very unlikely that
Cope’s specimens came from’ the Ghost Ranch quarry locality and ‘most probably
derive from’ a lower stratigraphic position, we argue that it is indeed quite possible
that the original materials and the Ghost Ranch quarry fossils are from the same site
or from nearby in the same horizon.

Hunt & Lucas (1991) correctly remarked on the fact that ‘the name Coelophysis [is]
well entrenched in the scientific literature .... but now contradict that statement by
saying (BZN 50: 149, para. 7): ‘This usage [the generic name Coelophysis] is only
entrenched in a technical literature of specialists in dinosaur studies ...’. Moreover,
their claim that it is *... irrelevant that the Ghost Ranch dinosaur (not named as
Coelophysis) is part of the logo of the New Mexico Museum of Natural History ...’
contradicts their earlier statement (Hunt & Lucas, 1991) that ‘... the name
Coelophysis ... is the well publicized name of the official state fossil of the state of New
Mexico’. The name is widely used in college level textbooks, and has been used
repeatedly in television documentaries about dinosaurs. It is very extensively used in
both technical and popular literature, including field guides and encyclopedias.

Hunt & Lucas (BZN 50: 149, para. 6) say that the obturator foramen is present in
one C. bauri specimen (AMNH 2724) figured by Huene (1915) but is absent in all the
material from the Ghost Ranch quarry. However, some of the recently prepared
Ghost Ranch fossils do indicate an obturator foramen (as mentioned by Sullivan in
BZN 50: 151, para. 2). The presence or absence of the obturator foramen may have
been an ontogenetic character, indicating individual variation in this trait, similar to
the variability in the structure of the mesotarsal joint and in co-ossification of bones
in the hind foot described by Colbert (1989, pp. 108-110). The argument presented
by Hunt & Lucas (BZN 50: 149, para. 6) that the presence or absence of the obturator
foramen is a generic level distinction in all dinosaurs is contradicted by the
observation that this feature is variable in the single population represented by the
dinosaurs in the Ghost Ranch quarry. Thus, the argument that the presence or
absence of the obturator foramen can be used to distinguish between the material
collected by Baldwin and the Ghost Ranch quarry dinosaurs is insupportable.

Hunt & Lucas claim (BZN 50: 149, para. 8) that the establishment of a neotype for
Coelophysis bauri would be a ‘recipe for taxonomic anarchy’. In view of the wide use
of the name Coelophysis, we think just the opposite: the neotype should be
established as a move towards stability.

(2) Benjamin S. Creisler
1705 Belmont 602, Seattle, Washington 98122, U.S.A.

I support the application of E.H. Colbert and others to set aside all previous type
fixations for Coelophysis bauri and to designate the skeleton AMNH 7224 as neotype.
Such an action is consistent with the basic goal of the Code, i.e. to provide the
maximum continuity and universality in the use of scientific names for animals.

In their reply to Colbert et al., Hunt & Lucas (BZN 50: 147-150) object to the
application on the grounds that Coelophysis ‘is only used in a limited technical

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 293

literature’. However, the usage is precisely what has always been understood by
nomenclatural stability (a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning’ (Code,
p. xiv)). The vast majority of names which have been conserved by the Commission
are names with a long historical usage in “a limited technical literature of specialists’,
be it entomology, ichthyology or vertebrate paleontology.

Hunt & Lucas express concern that accepting Colbert’s petition will strike ‘at the
very heart of taxonomic stability’. But ‘taxonomic stability’ is not what the Code and
Commission are intended to provide. As clearly explained in the Introduction to the
Code (pp. xiii, xiv), nomenclatural rules are designed to provide the maximum
stability in scientific names compatible with taxonomic freedom.

The conflict over the use of the name Coelophysis for the Ghost Ranch theropod
must be judged as a nomenclatural rather than a taxonomic issue. Whether Cope’s

- original type material is the same taxon as the Ghost Ranch theropod is the kind of
taxonomic judgment from which the Commission refrains in principle. However, the
Commission has been given plenary powers to act in the name of nomenclatural
stability when a ‘long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning’ is affected by a
taxonomic decision. The tool available to the Commission in the case of Coelophysis
is the designation of a type specimen.

The ‘accustomed meaning’ of Coelophysis for the past 45 years has been the Ghost
Ranch theropod, in both the technical and popular literature. Hunt & Lucas (1991,
p. 195) recognized this usage but, through an apparent misunderstanding of the scope
and nature of the Commission’s plenary powers (Article 79a of the Code), decided
that a petition to conserve the name by designating a neotype from the Ghost Ranch
material would not be successful ‘simply because [Cope’s] type material is extant’,
although Recommendation 75E indicates that the Commission can set aside existing
type material and designate a neotype to resolve a zoological problem. Hunt & Lucas
declared Coelophysis a nomen dubium and proposed a new name for the Ghost
Ranch theropod, citing the difficulties in diagnosing Cope’s fragmentary type
material. However, nothing in that material itself precludes the inclusion of the Ghost
Ranch theropod in Coelophysis (Padian, 1986; Colbert, 1989), and the possible
discrepancy between the geological horizon of Cope’s Arroyo Seco site and the Ghost
Ranch Quarry is currently disputed.

Hunt & Lucas assert that ‘the proposed neotype is not demonstrably the same
taxon as the lectotype of C. bauri’. In Article 6la the Code states that ‘the
name-bearing type provides the objective standard of reference by which the
application of the name it bears is determined, no matter how the boundaries of
the taxon may change’. Importantly, the Code itself sets no standards for determining
the diagnosis of a taxon or subjective synonyms, nor does it favor one particular
approach to taxonomy (morphological or cladistic). The boundaries imposed on a
taxon, subjective synonymies, and the degree to which type material is considered
diagnostic are taxonomic judgments which may differ based on both the training and
the methodology of a particular zoologist. The different taxonomic judgments
concerning Coelophysis made by Colbert and by Hunt & Lucas are not the decisive
issue, but rather the historical usage of the name Coelophysis.

A complication peculiar to fossil animals is the often fragmentary nature of
name-bearing type specimens. Requiring that the name-bearing type specimen itself
must be rigorously diagnostic poses problems for many well established names. For

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

instance, the type material for [guanodon, the first dinosaur named, consists of a few
isolated teeth found in an unidentified spot in Tilgate Forest, England. Most
authorities no longer consider ornithopod teeth alone to be diagnostic. In such cases,
historical usage has based a taxon on later, more informative specimens. If a
long-accepted name attached to such a taxon might be rendered invalid by the alleged
doubtful status of the name-bearing type specimen, a more formal solution is
possible, as suggested by Simpson (1945, p. 30), in which a specimen recognized as
diagnostic is made a neotype. The alternative used by Hunt & Lucas — to reduce
the name to a nomen dubium and to erect a new nominal genus for the later
specimens — may be appropriate in cases in which the name associated with the type
is obscure, but otherwise such a practice is likely to upset nomenclatural stability as
it is both traditionally understood and defined by the provisions of the Code.

Coelophysis is a ‘long-accepted name’ with an ‘accustomed meaning’ (the Ghost
Ranch theropod) and should be conserved as a valid name by designating a neotype
as proposed by Colbert et al.

Additional reference

Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin
of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 85. xvi, 350 pp. American Museum of
Natural History, New York.

(3) Nicholas Hotton III
Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

I wish to support the argument of Colbert et al. on the grounds that the name
Coelophysis bauri is thoroughly and unequivocally established in the technical and
popular literature in the sense of the Ghost Ranch skeletons and that the proposed
neotype comes from the same stratigraphic level as the material described by Cope.

(4) Support for the application has also been received from Dr Dale A. Russell
(Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station D, Ottawa, Ontario K1P 6P4,
Canada).

Comment on the proposed conservation of the subspecific name of Catharacta
antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta skua lonnbergi; Aves,
Charadriiformes)

(Case 2816; see BZN 50: 48-51)

W.R.P. Bourne
Department of Zoology, Aberdeen University, Aberdeen AB9 2TN, U.K.

P.R. Colston
Bird Group, The Natural History Museum, Tring, Hertfordshire HP23 6AP, U.K.

R.W. Furness
Applied Ornithology Unit, Zoology Department, Glasgow University, G12 8QQ, U.K.

We agree with Voisin et al. that disturbance to the current nomenclature of the
brown skua by the resurrection by Brooke (1978) of the name Stercorarius antarcticus

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 295

madagascariensis Bonaparte, 1856 should be avoided. One of us (Bourne) felt that
corrective action on the name to be conserved might be needed but hesitated to
initiate this before seeing Bonaparte’s type specimen.

There is still doubt about the identity of the type of S. a. madagascariensis. The
Catharacta breeding in the Southern Ocean become smaller from /onnbergi of the
New Zealand area westward to the antarctica of the Falklands area (see also Murphy,
1936). A tarsus as long as 85 mm (para. 3 of the application), which Dr Voisin
informs us was checked after dismounting, is only found in the first area, whilst a
wing span near 370 mm is found only in the second (Furness, 1987). Thus, the bird
presumably belongs to one of the intermediate populations, named Catharacta skua
hamiltoni by Hagen (1952), occurring at some of the breeding islands such as Tristan,
Gough, and possibly also St Paul and Amsterdam Islands (Segonzac, 1972); these

" were commoner when the type of madagascariensis was collected.

Hitherto the simplest solution might have been to consider the race of S. a.
madagascariensis indeterminable, eliminating any need for Commission action.
However, with the development of molecular genetic techniques it has become
feasible to obtain taxonomic information from DNA in the skin and feather bases of
museum specimens. Drs B. Cohen, R. Wilson and R. Furness have examined base
sequences among all the skua taxa from which Bonaparte’s type is likely to have
come and it should be possible to identify the actual population.

The specific name of hamiltoni Hagen, 1952 was rejected by Richardson (1984)
among others but some authors, including Furness (1987), are continuing to use it.
Therefore we propose that if the application by Voisin et al. is approved this name,
which is also junior to madagascariensis, should be included with Catharacta
antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 on the Official List.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hamiltoni

Hagen, 1952, as published in the trinomen Catharacta skua hamiltoni.

Additional references

Hagen, Y. 1952. Birds of Tristan da Cunha. Results of the Norwegian Expedition to Tristan da
Cunha 1937-1938, 20: 1-248.

Murphy, R.C. 1936. Oceanic birds of South America. American Museum of Natural History, 2:
1006-1034.

Richardson, M.E. 1984. Aspects of the ornithology of the Tristan da Cunha group and Gough
Island, 1972-1974. Cormorant, 12: 123-201.

Segonzac, M. 1972. Données recentes sur la faune des iles Saint-Paul et Nouvelle Amsterdam.
L’ Oiseau, 42 (Special number): 3-68.

Comments on the proposed designation of Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as
the type species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla)
(Case 2882; see BZN 50: 133-136)

(1) Léonard Ginsburg

Laboratoire de Paléontologie — URA 12 CNRS, Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, 8 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Je pense que le meilleur type de Lagomeryx serait un bois. La piéce figurée par
Riitimeyer est évidemment la meilleure, donc l’espéce créé par Thenius, Lagomeryx
ruetimeyeri, serait, ou sera, la meilleure espéce-type.

(2) A.M. Lister
Department of Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT,
U.K.

I support the application of Gentry & Heizmann to designate Lagomeryx
ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the type species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904. The name
Lagomeryx is understood by all specialists of Miocene artiodactyls to refer to
distinctive, non-deciduous cervoid antlers with very long, upright pedicles and a
cluster of terminal prongs at the top. Antlers of this form from Reisensburg,
Germany, were placed in his new genus Lagomeryx by Roger (1904). However, he
included them under Palaeomeryx meyeri Hofmann, 1893, of which the type material
comprises teeth and limb bones (less diagnostic than antlers), possibly referable
to Euprox or Heteroprox which are genera of very different antler form from
Lagomeryx. Thenius (1948) founded L. ruetimeyeri with a Reisensburg antler as
holotype. Fixing this as the type species of Lagomeryx will crystallise the current, and
indeed the originally intended, usage of both Lagomeryx and the other cervoid
genera.

Comment on the proposed designation of Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the
type species of Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla)
(Case 2883; see BZN 50: 137-139)

A.M. Lister
Department of Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT,
U.K.

I support the application by Gentry & Réssner to designate Antilope dichotoma
Gervais, 1849 as the type species of Procervulus. The name Proceryulus is understood
by all specialists of Miocene artiodactyls to refer to distinctive, non-deciduous
cervoid antlers with a distal bifurcation, as illustrated by Gaudry (1877) when
founding the genus. However, Gaudry used the name Cervus aurelianensis Meyer,
1843, the type material of which cannot be equated with the Procervulus antlers.
A. dichotoma was based on antlers which agree with those of Procervulus, and the
designation of this species as the type will clearly resolve this case of mistaken
identity, as already suggested by Stehlin (1925).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 297

OPINION 1750

Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia, Sauria): C. propython Cope, 1869
designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal
genus Clidastes Cope, 1868 are hereby set aside and Clidastes propython Cope, 1869
is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Clidastes Cope, 1868 (gender: masculine), type species by designa-
tion under the plenary powers in (1) above Clidastes propython Cope, 1869, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name propython Cope, 1869, as published in the binomen Clidastes
propython (specific name of the type species of Clidastes Cope, 1868), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2718

An application for the designation of Clidastes propython Cope, 1869 as the type
species of Clidastes Cope, 1868 was received from Dr Caitlin R. Kiernan (University
of Alabama at Birmingham, Homewood, Alabama, U.S.A.) on 16 March 1989. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 137-139 (June 1992). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the 12 additional references held by the
Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the name Clidastes (para. 5 of the
application) were all published in the last 50 years and most appeared after 1975.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 138. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Lehtinen.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Lehtinen would have preferred to adopt the junior synonym Edestosaurus Marsh,
1871 (cf. para. 5 of the application) even though the name was as yet obscure.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Clidastes Cope, 1868, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 20: 181.
propython, Clidastes, Cope, 1869, Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 12: 258.

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

OPINION 1751

Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] (currently Macronectes giganteus;
Aves, Procellariiformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the
designation of a neotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers specimen no. 1911 340 in the Catalogue Général of
the Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammiféres et Oiseaux, Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, is hereby designated as the neotype for the nominal species
Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789].

(2) The name Macronectes Richmond, 1905 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Ossifraga Hombron & Jacquinot, 1844,
Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789], 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) gigantea Gmelin, [1789], as published in the binomen Procellaria gigantea
(specific name of the type species of Macronectes Richmond, 1905) and as
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;

(b) halli Mathews, 1912, as published in the trinomen Macronectes giganteus halli
and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 91.6.16.6 in the collections at
Tring of the Natural History Museum, London) designated by Bourne &
Warham (1966).

History of Case 2784

An application for the conservation of usage of the specific name of Procellaria
gigantea Gmelin, [1789] by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr J.-F.
Voisin (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) and 16 others on 6
August 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 140-143 (June
1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

It was noted on the voting paper that the Secretariat had received a copy of a letter
from Dr G.F. Mees (Busselton, Western Australia) to one of the authors (Prof W.J.
Bock). Dr Mees supported the taxonomic aims of the proposals but he suggested that
an application was not necessary because of comments by Mathews (1912) on the
geographical ranges of Macronectes giganteus (Gmelin, [1789]) and M. halli
Mathews, 1912. However, Bourne & Warham (1966) and the application had shown
the need for typification of giganteus and halli. It was also noted that the 50
additional references held by the Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the
names giganteus and halli (para. 5 of the application) were all published no earlier
than 1970.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 49: 142. At the close of the voting period on | June 1993
the votes were as follows:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 299

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Kabata, Kraus, Starobogatov and Uéno.

Ride was on leave of absence.

Lehtinen commented that the worldwide authorship of the application had
persuaded him in favour.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
gigantea, Procellaria, Gmelin, [1789], Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 2
(Aves), p. 563.
halli, Macronectes giganteus, Mathews, 1912, The birds of Australia, vol. 2, part 2, p. 187.
Macronectes Richmond, 1905, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 18: 76.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Macronectes giganteus
halli Mathews, 1912:
Bourne, W.R.P. & Warham, J. 1966. Ardea, 54(1—2): 64.

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

AUTHORS IN VOLUME 50 (1993)

Page
Abbey; EuME iA) eee, RSE 112
Armengolt WEA “a tale 53
Babaskashaiaae.'se 3. eae: 142
Barnew P.) 6 cs ks eee 23
Banchot Meiscis (ena, eepere.0e 277
Bellamy;;G.lso.jc. sic ited cat aes 4 gas 56
BelloGe 2 eee eet tis cata atiae 270
Bertling, Miasrid tues}. co eet Aiee 54
Bocks Wile eects cr) re me a 48
Booth, RaGnet 4h Si Ass Sake 233, 234
Bourne We REPS io. eee aos 294
Boyinan JE sas ier wdes ks oe 143
Boxshall \GisAel acc VA fos tarnk. wrote 285
Charig Agi, cathc) . & eae: 282, 290
GlarkedIMIRG., eee ee ee 141
Colbert: BeBe? s ct - £2 1 2 ae 291
Collins; wee Secka afavedcletes ¢ 289
GColstonARyR es eo sill peu cine 294
Gresser IB Sime) cs Na eee hes ue
Cross Be tee ee ease 289
GruickshanksrATR I? 02 SR eek 290
DovealliWerede Siikhs ca coe ss 103
BIMETSONNIWNs cy ci ar ch es is. 142
Byenhiis SNUG, ie ke aes 4 285
uimnesssRAW., s.: ea Ache Hoe 294
Gatton eat ee a, Gk vn CASO
Gentry, AGCWir Be. e Bee 133, 137
Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. ....... 270
Gilber#aGiRan tak “ha te ae 287
GillettesiTs a. <6 <4.’ Se 291
Gillet TDs oss os ae Seep ley 291
Ginsburpyee.. uc. aus = ee a oD
Gittenberser; Ei 2". 25- (=e 107, 205
GuithsveL;s. ares eet 142
Haldar: Bi Rtas: bo cetera ck sh Rao 140
artison. VM es cs et eh ey Via es 144
IGISS Bs oe vncte Gt) CORE Phas! nop 115
Heimann EsPile vcs at cn ck ene 133
Piirowatasn: io. hears, pay alee che 35
Holloway; BiAS. Seok * Scie css 57
Holtz, Rif Bo sata. Riek. es eta 237
Hort, Moe ee a on eee 54
HottensNSeereoe Se 294
Hughes siGaee te) Sects ae. 7 52

Hun ALP eee. Bears 5 oat 147

Page
JanssontAc? 0. ee 118, 121, 124
Jetfertes MRIS” Peso. er eee 57
Jenkins FIA # 10 2°08 60. eae 238
TuppAb:GisAl. hess. Bae 235
Kabat; AgR. 2 <2 2S Eee 52
KabataccZ,.. Ya carci Dv aoa: ae eee 273
Kerzhner,-M: .. 4a 58, 115
KohaydasiBe. shes ai ee aoe 288
Kuschel |G... suctuwe) dose eae 57
Lelimann, Us): 0h ee ee 284
Linthicum: IK ee oie ayereee 234
ister, AcM: 026. ortegiierH ene 296
Inicas SiGe ay: eae 147
Mancenido,M.O. ....... 53, 196
Martin iW. fen ev aac See 143
Mathis: ;W.Ne Wackosnac 3A 235
Mayden, RL, [i455 A ee 287
Melville RV. = so... 3 oe 55
Meyno Hes ss + ynreme 200, 202
Molnar RE: °° 2 9 ae 236
MorrishNs | cee ee 196
Mihient. oi i" 2 ish ee 27, 31
Nagas Fe ss. 6) aes eee 228
Nelson; GH, 32-5 ee 23
Nilsson sAeNs ett sh cols ee 127, 212
Oliverio; Min 5 3 ts 3 140
QwensEthe 5 p= yee 196
Paepke (ede 8: Sed Se 7415)
Polhemus) J: sees . as 118, 121
Pons, da: Silva; MiGs... ai oe 228
Pope RUD. oo geo Eee 20
RandalletE: Ve we. = ae ee 277
Remert DRY W305 i eee 234
Rossner? Goal ti eo 2 cn ee 137
RudmarnitWiBy ater are See ee 16
Sabrosky ©: Wo fea cos- cat ge 286
Sehwattzblcs (are, ost eee 236
Silberling. Nis 0.0 ca, 2 ca ee 141
Smnthsh ls oa, 57, 129, 144, 219
SpinarnZ-Vobotas eee oe ee 237
Starabogatov, Ya: =< suo. °-) =e 103
Strnchth! Ie. eee eee 54
Sues*HED:. a Se ee 151
SullrvansR Mapes: 2 eae ee 150

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 301

phar Ni rae fee &: AE. bs is, h 48 Waren AAT CAM fe & 2AM 107
Mbompsony Fa owt yt Jey 04 | «69-4 24.235 Watlingaisy sey atrs 25 4 231
BISDSS PAKS) See ot eg es aes a 147 Watson yr Avls wrt. sates ere 112
Webbs Ga ee, ie esti aA
RASA DTI RUNS eter, Mate pee me a ees 57 NVESICOLE OLA” Oe a eee hee 25252
Werlich! Ms Se ee 229). 284 Williams) AC BV Ai 4] 08 SRS ee 143
Woznicay As... ite egroe.) Cee 44
WESPELMAND Jin in; Wie teas acl «ee 2005202. Wivse Jackson MPN: Gp) ace emis 13
SOS ETNST G er ne ne ee 48
BUSISINTeP USE eos: ta cays: Laue gis os a oe 48 RAPD Se rc, Sets sos ge. ae eee 7
Nake Brel Daily. ELE eres 129, 219 PAD WATINCKIEL © (ea oh see eRe 44

VELOC) LEO ae ee ee 290 Zavyorink. TJ. - ipa! seAdee tee 39

302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN
RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 50 (1993)

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 50, and amendments to
names already so placed, 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. Titles are given of one work
placed on the Official List and one work placed on the Official Index. The Opinion
number is given for each entry.

Family-Group Names

ANTHIDIIDAE Ashmead, 1899 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
ANTHOPHORIDAE Dahlbom, 1835 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1715
BELEMNITIDAE Owen, 1838 (Coleoidea) Op. 1721
CERATINIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
COLLETIDAE Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
EPHYDRIDAE Zetterstedt, 1837 (Diptera) Op. 1748
EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 (Acari) Op. 1749

EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1749
EPICRIUMIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1749
EUCERIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
GYMNOMYZIDAE Latreille, 1829 (Diptera) Op. 1748
HALICTIDAE Thomson, 1869 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
HYLAEIDAE Viereck, 1916 (1813) (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1749
NEOPASIPHAEIDAE Cockerell, 1930 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
NOMADIDAE Fallen, 1813 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
PARACOLLETIDAE Cockerell, 1934 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
PASSALOTEUTHIDIDAE Naef, 1922 (Coleoidea) Op. 1721
PROSOPIDIDAE Fallén, 1813 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
ROPHITIDAE Schenck, 1866 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
SPHECODIDAE Schenck, [1869] (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
STELIDIDAE Schenck, 1860 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
TACHINIDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1743
TACHINUSIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
XYLOCOPIDAE Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713

Generic Names

Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Coleoptera) Op. 1722
Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Ostracoda) Op. 1740
Anniella Gray, 1852 (Reptilia) Op. 1735

Anthidium Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Audinetella Spinola, 1850 (Heteroptera) Op. 1742

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Balcis Leach in Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) Op. 1739

Balea Gray, 1824 (Gastropoda) Op. 1718

Balitora Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1715

Belemnites Lamarck, 1799 (Coleoidea) Op. 1721

Bucephalus Baer, 1827 (Trematoda) Op. 1717

Cheilosia Meigen, 1822 (Diptera) Op. 1744

Cheilosia Panzer, [1809] (Diptera) Op. 1744

Chilosia Agassiz, 1846 (Diptera) Op. 1744

Clidastes Cope, 1868 (Reptilia) Op. 1750

Colletes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Coprophilus Latreille, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1722
Cycloceras M’Coy, 1844 (Nautiloidea) Op. 1720

Elonium Leach in Samouelle, 1819 (Coleoptera) Op. 1722
Elophilus Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Elophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1724

Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1749
Epicrius Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (Acari) Op. 1749
Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Eucera Scopoli, 1770 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713

Eulima Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda) Op. 1718

Eumeros Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Eumerus Meigen, 1804 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Eumerus Meigen, 1822 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Eurymeloides Ashmead, 1889 (Homoptera) Op. 1706
Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848 (Trematoda) Op. 1717
Glyptagnostus Whitehouse, 1936 (Trilobita) Op. 1701
Halictus Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Heliophilus Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Helophilus Fabricius, 1805 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Helophorus Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1724

Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Ischnosoma Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1726
Ischnosoma Stephens, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726
Ischnosomata Strand, 1935 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726
Laeochochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Gastropoda) Op. 1700
Laeocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Gastopoda) Op. 1700
Laiochochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Gastropoda) Op. 1700
Laiocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Gastropoda) Op. 1700
Leichotes Gistl, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726

Lincus Stal, 1867 (Heteroptera) Op. 1742

Macronectes_ Richmond, 1905 (Aves) Op. 1751
Macropterygius von Huene, 1922 (Reptilia) Op. 1734
Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 1725

Mitobates Sundevall, 1833 (Opiliones) Op. 1703

Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Anthozoa) Op. 1738

Mosillus Latreille, 1804 (Diptera) Op. 1748

Mycetoporus Mannerheim, 1831 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726

303

304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

Myteroxis Gozis, 1886 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726
Neopasiphae Perkins, 1912 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Nomada Scopoli, 1770 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Onthotrogus Motschulsky, 1859 (Coleoptera) Op. 1708
Oodescelis Motschulsky, 1845 (Coleoptera) Op. 1729
Palaeopropithecus Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia) Op. Law
Paolia Smith, 1871 (Protorthoptera) Op. 1705
Paracolletes Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Passaloteuthis Lissajous, 1915 (Coleoidea) Op. 1721
Planoplatyscelis Kaszab, 1940 (Coleoptera) Op. 1728
Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Coleoptera) Op. 1729
Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Coleoptera) Op. 1708
Prosopis Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Ptychagnostus Jaekel, 1909 (Trilobita) Op. 1701
Pyrophaena Schiner, 1860 (Diptera) Op. 1744
Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 (Trematoda) Op. 1717
Rophites Spinola, 1808 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Schinomosa Tottenham, 1939 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726
Schizopus Claparede & Lachmann, 1858 (Coleoptera) Op. 1727
Schizopus Le Conte, 1858 (Coleoptera) Op. 1727
Scoparipes Signoret, 1880 (Heteroptera) Op. 1707
Scutopterus Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1725
Sphecodes Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Stelis Panzer, 1806 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
Streptograptus Yin, 1937 (Graptolithina) Op. 1714
Strombiformis Da Costa, 1778 (Gastropoda) Op. 1718
Tachina Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1743

Tachinus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
Tachyporus Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
Thaumastolemur Filhol, 1895 (Mammalia) Op. 1737
Xeromunda Monterosato, 1892 (Gastropoda) Op. 1719
Xylota Meigen, 1822 (Diptera) Op. 1747

Specific Names

alatus, Cimex najas, Retzius, 1783 (Heteroptera) Op. 1741
albimana, Simia, Vigors & Horsfield, 1828 (Mammalia) Op. 1736
alboguttata, Saperda, Megerle, 1803 (Coleoptera) Op. 1710
albus, Strombiformis, Da Costa, 1778 (Gastropoda) Op. 1739
albus, Turbo, Pennant, 1777 (Gastropoda) Op. 1739

annulata, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
aquatica, Silpha, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1724

argentea, Anniella nigra, Hunt, 1983 (Reptilia) Op. 1735
atlanticus, Chrysops, Pechuman, 1949 (Diptera) Op. 1711
atlanticus, Scylliorhinus, Koefoed, 1927 (Chondrichthyes) Op. 1732
berghausi, Conus, Michelotti, 1847 (Gastropoda) Op. 1699
bicincta, Eurymela, Erichson, 1842 (Homoptera) Op. 1706

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 305

bipunctatus, Mellinus, Fabricius, 1798 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
bisulcatus, Belemnites, Blainville, 1827 (Coleoidea) Op. 1721

brucei, Balitora, Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1715

campanula, Distoma, Dujardin, 1844 (Trematoda) Op. 1717

candiota, Helix, Pfeiffer, 1849 (Gastropoda) Op. 1719

canifrons, Chrysops, Walker, 1848 (Diptera) Op. 1711

chrysomelinus, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
chrysoscelis, Hyla femoralis, Cope, 1880 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1716
clintonensis, Graptolites, Hall, 1843 (Graptolithina) Op. 1730
clintonensis, Graptolithus, Hall, 1852 (Graptolithina) Op. 1730
coriacea, Meladema, Laporte, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 1725

crassipes, Paracolletes, Smith, 1853 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713

* crenulatus, Monograptus, Térnquist, 1881 (Graptolithina) Op. 1731
crenulatus, Monograptus vomerinus, Elles & Wood, 1911 (Graptolithina) Op. 1731
demissus, Conus, Philippi, 1836 (Gastropoda) Op. 1699

eichwaldi, Asaphus, Fischer von Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 (Trilobita) Op. 1702
encrinula, Isis, Lamarck, 1815 (Anthozoa) Op. 1738

fertilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) Op. 1704

fimbriatum, Gasterostomum, Siebold, 1848 (Trematoda) Op. 1717
flavipes, Syrphus, Panzer, 1798 (Diptera) Op. 1744

franciscana, Artemia, Kellogg, 1906 (Branchiopoda) Op. 1704
fulmen, Conus, Reeve, 1843 (Gastropoda) Op. 1699

galeatum, Monostoma, Rudolphi, 1819 (Trematoda) Op. 1717
geometricus, Epicrius, Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877 (Acari) Op. 1749
gibba, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713

gigantea, Procellaria, Gmelin, [1789] (Aves) Op. 1751

glaber, Strombiformis, Da Costa, 1778 (Gastropoda) Op. 1718
gracilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) Op. 1704

grandidieri, Thaumastolemur, Filhol, 1895 (Mammalia) Op. 1737
grossa, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) Op. 1743

guildingi, Artemis, Thompson, 1834 (Branchiopoda) Op. 1704

halli, Macronectes giganteus, Mathews, 1912 (Aves) Op. 1751
howardi, Diabrotica undecimpunctata, Barber, 1947 (Coleoptera) Op. 1709
hydei, Drosophila, Sturtevant, 1921 (Diptera) Op. 1712

hypocyana, Caecilia, Boie, 1827 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1749
hypolithus, Tenebrio, Pallas, 1781 (Coleoptera) Op. 1729

ingens, Palaeopropithecus, Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia) Op. 1737
laetus, Schizopus, Le Conte, 1858 (Coleoptera) Op. 1727

laevigatum, Cycloceras, M’Coy, 1844 (Nautiloidea) Op. 1720

laevis, Turbo, Pennant, 1777 (Gastropoda) Op. 1739

latipes, Cydnus, Westwood, 1837 (Heteroptera) Op. 1707

limosa, Copromyza, Fallén, 1820 (Diptera) Op. 1745

longicornis, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
longimana, Simia, Schreber, [1774] (Mammalia) Op. 1736

lutosa, Limosina, Stenhammar, 1855 (Diptera) Op. 1745

manicata, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
margelanica, Platyscelis, Kraatz, 1882 (Coleoptera) Op. 1728

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

marmoria, Drosophila, Hutton, 1901 (Diptera) Op. 1712
mirabilis, Neopasiphae, Perkins, 1912 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
modestus, Conus, Sowerby, [1833] (Gastropoda) Op. 1699

mollis, Carabus, Marsham, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1723

mollis, Carabus, Strém, 1768 (Coleoptera) Op. 1723

paludum, Gerris, Fabricius, 1794 (Heteroptera) Op. 1741
paxillosa, Belemnites, Lamarck, 1801 (Coleoidea) Op. 1721
pendula, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) Op. 1747

plumosus, Graptolithus, Baily, 1871 (Graptolithina) Op. 1714
polita, Blaps, Sturm, 1807 (Coleoptera) Op. 1729

polymorphus, Bucephalus, Baer, 1827 (Trematoda) Op. 1717
propython, Clidastes, Cope, 1869 (Reptilia) Op. 1750

pulchra, Anniella, Gray, 1852 (Reptilia) Op. 1735

punctulatissima, Apis, Kirby, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
punctuosus, Agnostus, Angelin, 1851 (Trilobita) Op. 1701

punctus, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726
putrida, Drosophila, Sturtevant, 1916 (Diptera) Op. 1746
quadricincta, Apis, Fabricius, [1777] (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
quadrupeda, Syren, Custis, 1807 (Amphibia, Caudata) Op. 1733
quinquespinosus, Rophites, Spinola, 1808 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
ritsemae, Onthophagus (Proagoderus), Lansberge, 1883 (Coleoptera) Op. 1708
rosarum, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1787 (Diptera) Op. 1744

ruficornis, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713

rufipes, Staphylinus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1743
rufospilota, Pentatoma, Westwood, 1837 (Heteroptera) Op. 1742
Sexpunctata, Crioceris, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1709
sinistratum, Cerithium, Nyst, 1835 (Gastropoda) Op. 1700
spinacipellitum, Scyllium?, Vaillant, 1888 (Chondrichthyes) Op. 1732
splendidus, Tachinus, Gravenhorst, 1806 (Coleoptera) Op. 1726
striatulus, Staphylinus, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1722
striatum, Omalium, Gravenhorst, 1802 (Coleoptera) Op. 1722
subsultans, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera) Op. 1748

succincta, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1713
sylvarum, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) Op. 1747

tenax, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) Op. 1747

toreuma, Glyptagnostus, Whitehouse, 1936 (Trilobita) Op. 1701
triangulata, Amicytheridea, Bate, 1975 (Ostracoda) Op. 1740
triangulus, Mitobates, Sundevall, 1833 (Opiliones) Op. 1703
tricolor, Syrphus, Fabricius, 1798 (Diptera) Op. 1747

tridactylum, Amphiuma, Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata) Op. 1733
trigonus, Ichthyosaurus, Owen, 1840 (Reptilia) Op. 1734
undecimpunctata, Diabrotica, Mannerheim, 1843 (Coleoptera) Op. 1709
utahensis, Artemia, Lockington, 1876 (Branchiopoda) Op. 1704
variegata, Hippobosca, Megerle, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1710
versicolor, Hyla, Le Conte, 1825 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1716
vetusta, Paolia, Smith, 1871 (Protorthoptera) Op. 1705

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 307

Work placed on the Official List of Available Works
Jaekel, O. 1909. Uber die Agnostiden. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen
Gesellschaft, 61: 380-401. Op. 1702

Work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works
Megerle, J.C. 1801-1805. Catalogus insectorum ..., Appendix ad catalogum insectorum
..., and Catalogus duarum collectionem Eleuteratorum. Op. 1710

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

KEY NAMES AND WORKS IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS
PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 50 (1993)
(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 302-307)

Page
achatinaceus, Bulimus, Pfeiffer, 1846 (Gastropoda) ............ 228
acicula, Buccinum, Miller, 1774 (Gastropoda) .... . eT Wa i Wy 107
Acmeta\Ehrenbere;i[1834)\(Eiiophora) = ee i ae GS ees 103
acuminata, Buprestis, De Geer, 1774 (Coleoptera)... ........ 31, 232
adunca, Lernaea, Strom; 1762)(Copepoda). =). 2... se 273, 285
advena, Cryptophagus, Waltl, 1834 (Coleoptera). . ...... 2 eth CROSS.
Aecothzaialidaystsss(Diptera)! sens Cees oa 8 eee 44, 235, 286
africana, Gebia, Ortmann, 1894 (Crustacea, Decapoda) .......... 142
AhasverusidesiGozis;leol (Coleoptera) aie n at. ee) =o ee 20
albothorax, Banksinella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1907 (Diptera) . . . . . 39, 234
ANTHRIBIDAB Billberg7i1820)\ (Coleoptera) ate) 292 ae , = olen ene 57
antipai, Styloptocuma, Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Cumacea) ...... . 231
Ascoporaslrautscholds U876\(Bryozoa)| Ae ee hae te Gee 13
Asellus)/Geotraye i762 (Isopoda)) suyeresa. foe eth). etl wees peed so uae 58
Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891 (Gastropoda). ........... 209
astoma, Volverella, Bory de St Vincent, [1827] (Ciliophora) ........ 103
baltica; Rhipidocystis, Jackel, 1901 (Eocrinoidea) . ......:2:.:..: 57
baurraCacluruss Cope, 1887 (Reptilia) (2 9s) hs ea ee 147, 236, 291
biguttatus, Dytiscus, Gmelin, 1790 (Coleoptera) .........2.2... 127
biguttats Dytiscuss Olivier: 1795\(Goleoptera)ie = 8 50% 2). peas 127
brunneus.eEyciussGabrictuss 1792 (Coleoptera)) 02 . 4%. 2 > 2 28s See 20
brunneus, Xylotrogus, Stephens, 1830 (Coleoptera)... .......2.2.. 20
Buprestisslannacusye/.5si(Coleaptera) =: (. oom) Laks 2 eee 233251
capensis, Gebia major, Krauss, 1843 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ........ 142
caucasicus, Aradus, Kolenati, 1857 (Heteroptera) ............. 115
Gentronoius Lacepede ss 0l(@steichthyes)in 7) ae) ss eee 2 eee Qi.
@eGosauriscus von Eiuenc,, 1927 (Reptiliayee) 5) Se. 5 Go, Ge ee eee 282
GCHORAGIDAE Karby; 1819) (Coleoptera) 2 eS a ee 57
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) ........ . . . 23, 56, 231
chrysostigma, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera). . .......... 23
CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 (Cephalopoda). ......... 270
Chienopteryx Appellobwis890) (Cephalopoda) ys 5 = aon 4 a eee 270
circumluteola, Banksiella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1908 (Diptera) . . . . 39, 234
Glayella Okens18isi(Copepoda)iea tain hete 8 Gliese ete 273, 285
CLAVIDAE McCrady; 1859) (Hydrozoa)in GWe0 Da Vee ee ee 52
CLAVINAE GCasey,.1904i(Gastropoda) ity tees it i es 2 52
confiuens., Gorisa? Bieberilss) ((eteroptera) a its) 3's 0 ers) ee 124
costata, Zanclea, Gegenbaur, 1856 (Hydrozoa). ..........4... 140
CTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 (Cephalopoda) .......... 270

Cirenopteryxc Joubin; 1900|(Gephalopoda)) ys visa) see oe ome 270

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 309

Ctenopteryx Pfeffer, 1900 (Cephalopoda) ................ 270
curema, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes)

| eR Pele CAs col. a ao eee Sha at Ce ee 144, 287
cyanea, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera)... ........ wS1h232
cyanea, Papilio, Cramer, [1775] (Lepidoptera). .............. 35
danae, Taningia, Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda) .............. 141
decemnotatus, Agabus, Aubé, 1838 (Coleoptera) ..........2.2.. 212
Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 (Coleoptera) ...........2. 2... 27, 56
Descarpentriesina Leraut, 1983 (Coleoptera)... .........2.. 27, 56
DigercaseE SCuScholtz,(18291(Coleoptera) “2 ek. 2s es eee es 56
dichotoma, Antilope, Gervais, 1849 (Mammalia) ........... 137, 296
Dimodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia)®& 7). SS ee, 290
diodontis, Pennella, Oken, 1815 (Copepoda) ........... . . 273, 285
Diodontosaurus Caldas, 1936 (Reptilia) . . . . gO TA APA? ee 290)
ductor, Gasterosteus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichithyes) ae RR REE, eM AN ae 277
raydes Broneniart. |loos| (Reptilia) . ee. os ee ee te 224
psn Dumen oOo (Reptilia) ee mw ats te ee, ses Gen es ees tal a, eet
erecta, Achatina, Benson, 1842 (Gastropoda). .... . Be hy phils gone Recs 228
Eulopnys Geotiroy, 1762 (Hymenoptera)! 9. 5 ee hast)
fenestralis, Helomyza, Fallén, 1820 (Diptera) . . ......... 44, 235, 286
festiva, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1767 (Coleoptera)... .......2... 27, 56
forskahli, Pleurobranchus, Delle Chiaje, 1822 (Gastropoda) ......... 16
forskalii, Pleurobranchus, Ruppell & Leuckart, ae poaronsy as ire 16
Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Gastropoda). .... . Byes SE NS ey ee ER 140
genei, Salamandra, Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 (Amphibia, Caudata) . . . . 219
HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata) ........ 129
Hemidactylium Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Caudata). . .......2... 129
Hemipteronotus Lacepéde, 1801 (Osteichthyes) ............. .277
hieroglyphicus, Aradus, Sahlberg, 1878 (Heteroptera) ........... 115
humilis, Cristellaria, Reuss, 1863 (Foraminiferida) ............ 202
Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) .........2.2... 219
intermedia, Eulima, Cantraine, 1835 (Gastropoda) ........-.... 107
lacteus, Termes, Froggatt, 1898 (Isoptera) . . .............. jb
JAGIIS NeTINES) BLOPPAth, 1697. (ISOptera)) Artest) 2) Get ls yhcette as wen ye eating 112
Lagomeryx. Roger, 1904 (Mammalia) . 2). 8 1335295
ampra Dejeans\8531(Coleoptera) rey - leh eeie nots Met! =. par tstitectera mann 27, 56
lapidum, Paludina, d’Orbigny, 1835 (Gastropoda) ............. 52

liza, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes) . 144, 287
lonnbergi, Catharacta antarctica, Mathews, 1912 (Aves) ........ 48, 294

310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

madagascariensis, Stercorarius antarcticus, Bonaparte, 1856 (Aves) . . . . 48, 294
marginata, Notonecta, Miller, 1776 (Heteroptera) ........2.2... 118
meintoshi, Aedes (Neomelaniconion), Huang, 1985 (Diptera). . . . . . . 39, 234
megapoda, Rana, Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura). . ........... 57
Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera)... ......... 31, 56, 232
meneghinii, Pleurotoma, Mayer, 1868 (Gastropoda) ............ 209
minuta, Notonecta, Gmelin, 1790 (Heteroptera). . . . . Ee ee toe 121
minutior, Notonecta, Sulzer, 1776 (Heteroptera) .........2.2.2.. 121
MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1850 (Amphibia, Caudata) ....... 129
Mycetoglossus Bonaparte, 1839 (Amphibia, Caudata) ........... 129
Nacaduba Moore; [1881] (Lepidoptera) is; ips fale b oeictee) - cae ee 35
Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 (Osteichthyes). ............... 277
Neoecothea Peterson & Gill, 1982 (Diptera) ........... 44, 235, 286
nigrolineata, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Heteroptera) .........2.... 121
hitens: Helix, Gmelin [79h] (Gastropoda) iv: 0.03 sieacad, accu e 205
nitens) Helix; Michaud 1831) (Gastropoda), 2°) 8.) "ie 0 ne eee 205
hitida; “Helix Muller 17/74) (Gastropoda) © = «ss... .. ya sds ss 205
nitidula, Helix, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) ............. 205
nodosa, Ceriopora, Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 (Bryozoa) ......... 13
nodosa, Robulina, Reuss, 1863 (Foraminiferida) ............. 200
nodosus, Ceratites, Schlotheim, 1813 (Ammonoidea). . ... . 54, 141, 229, 284
novacula, Coryphaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) . .......2... 277
obliqua, Notonecta, Gallén in Thunberg, 1787 (Heteroptera) ........ 118
octoguttata, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) .......... 23, 231
OctopodotenthisiNact,19231(Cephalopoda)y 3 50s. = 2 oe ase (eee ee 141
Odontomuskarby, 1837 (Coleoptera) (i ase) ee) see es ese 23
Oecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Diptera). ........... 44, 235, 286
orbicularis, Testudo; Vinnaeuss, 1758) (Reptilia) >) 224
pallida, Banksinella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1907 (Diptera). . . ... . 39, 234
Palmar Schaefer), 1949) (Coleoptera) Ve ore: fats, 2s ee 27, 56, 232
PeltisKeugelanns1792)(Goleoptera) ie! Ae) IU. Oe ae.) SO 58
Pennella @ken} 1815i(Copepoda) Mew wh 3) GA. eS 273, 285
Pepliphoras’ Hubners[1819] (kepidoptéra)iG.- 4: 2 28 Se ees 35
Peplodytamfoxopeus;, 1929 (Eepidoptera)ia. 2 "ey ae hats pee alee 35
persica, Taningia, Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda) ..........4.... 141
petrosus, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes)

2 Oat E ee Ae Ceti aaa, 5 ae Ee AUIS -O eben eg oes 144, 287
iPhaenops Dejean;1833,)(Coleoptera)) =, A gene-e. EVE! oa a 31, 56, 232
‘Plateocolymbus' Gistel;,1857 (Coleoptera) nese). Oh. Spee pe 22
Platynecies Reeimbart,, 18/9) (Coleoptera)... Sen nsaistie ss ule). Mapa ins 212
Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) . ........-... 27, 56, 232
politus, Turboskannaeus,; 1758\(Gastropoda)):) 2).51 . sees). ontaie". oak 107
Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes). . .......... 215

Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (Gastropoda). .............. 52, 228

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 311

Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia) ...........2.4... 137, 296
prominens, Lampides, Moore, 1877 (Lepidoptera) ............. 35
IDUNCLAatUs) Labrus™ Linnaeus a) 58\(Osteicuthyes) =.) 294 es se ees. 215
quadripartita, Podophyra, Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (Ciliophora) . . . . 103
Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa) ........2..2.2... 13
minniaocystis ackel, 19OIN(Bocrinoidea)) 9.41. 6 elf). sees eee ee 57
rhombifera, Millepora, Phillips, 1836 (Bryozoa) .........2.2.2... 13
Rioarribasaurus Hunt & Lucas, 1991 (Reptilia) ......... 147, 236, 291
ruetimeyeri, Lagomeryx, Thenius, 1948 (Mammalia) ......... 133, 295
rushii, Potamolithus, Pilsbry, 1896 (Gastropoda). ........... 52, 228
rutilans, Buprestis, Fabricius, [1777] (Coleoptera). . .......... 27, 56
schloenbachi, Rotalia, Reuss, 1863 (Foraminiferida) . ........2... 202
schomburgkii, Polycentrus, Miller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes) Be yn tell)
Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Coleoptera) ..........2.. DT s SOW eSy,
scutata, Salamandra, Temminck & Schlegel, [1838] (Amphibia, Caudata). . . 129
sexiineata, Corisa, Reuter, 1882) (Heteroptera). 2. 2 2 2 0) 2 eee ea 124
sicula, Sepioteuthis, Verany, 1851 (Cephalopoda) ............ .270
sinuosa, Rissoa, Scacchi, 1836 (Gastropoda) ...........4.4... 107
stewarti, Cetiosauriscus, Charig, 1980 (Reptilia) ........ oe OF MIDS 2.
Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Cumacea) .......... . 231
testudinarius, Pleurobranchus, Cantraine, 1835 (Gastropoda) ........ 16
Moicopiiyrea Butschiis tooo'(CiHophoray = sae 4.8 en hore. 8 ee oe 103
topeka, Cliola (Hybopsis), Gilbert, 1884 (Osteichthyes) ........ 144, 287
tuberosa, Acineta, Ehrenberg, [1834] (Ciliophora). ............ 103
tuberosa, Vorticella, Miller, 1786 (Ciliophora) ...........2... 103
tuberosus, Brachionus, Pallas, 1766 (Ciliophora) ..........2... 103
variolosa, Buprestis, Paykull, [1799] (Coleoptera)... ......... 27, 56
Volverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827] (Ciliophora) ............ 103
Mopricntps Cuvier, 1814\(Osteichthyes)) = 9.5 8. Pe TP eS ES 277
MncpasesenbaurlSso(blydroz0a)\e 2 1 fs se ee ne 140

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris
ee ee eM RE ES eM e Myc chaos oh ae ac Sp eae Raker 58

312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors
should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the
format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with
these guidelines may be returned.

General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the
Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this
appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases
should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the
Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss
their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so
that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other
zoologists.

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 . . .’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more
relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are
to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title 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 and plates, the publisher and place of
publication.

Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary,
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce
the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the
typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format,
preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied
by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible.

The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the
formulation of an application.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993 313

CORRIGENDA

Vol. 49, part 1

page 95, line 7 For ‘Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (gender: feminine)’ read ‘Liparis
Scopoli, 1777 (gender: masculine)’

Vol. 49, part 2

page 160, line 19 For ‘“Bourguignat, 1883’ read ‘Godwin-Austen, 1882’. Delete
“correction of HELIXARIONIDAE’

page 160, line 26 For ‘an incorrect original spelling of HELICARIONIDAE’ read ‘an
unjustified emendation of HELICARIONIDAE Godwin-Austen,
1882’

page 161, line 27 For “Bourguignat, 1883, Annales des Sciences Naturelles

(Zoologie), (6)15: art. 2, p. 9 (incorrectly spelled as
HELIXARIONIDAE) read ‘“Godwin-Austen, 1882, Land and
freshwater Mollusca of India ..., vol. 1, part 2, p. 65’

page 161, line 32 For ‘an incorrect original spelling of HELICARIONIDAE’ read ‘an
unjustified emendation of HELICARIONIDAE’

Vol. 49, part 4
page 297, line 11 For ‘HELICARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883’ read “HELICARION-
IDAE Godwin-Austin, 1882’

314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 50(4) December 1993

PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 50 (1993)

Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication
1 1-96 25 March 1993
2 97-192 30 June 1993
3 193-264 30 September 1993
4 265-314 16 December 1993

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER

The present volume should be bound up as follows:
Title page, Table of Contents (I-VIII), 1-314
Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume

7)

Contents — continued

Opinion 1751. Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, [1789] (currently Macronectes giganteus;
Aves, Procellariiformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the designation
of a neotype .

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 50 (1993)

Names and works placed on Official Fists and dene 3 in lines of the C ommission
published in volume 50 (1993) .

Key names and works in Applications and Commese published i in

volume 50 (1993) . ae

Information and instructions for Sutton)

Corrigenda

Publication dates sid pearian of volume 50 ( 1993).

Instructions to binder .

Table of Contents of volume 50 (1993)

298

CONTENTS

Notices . :

Fourth Edition of the Tikerribtiarisl Code of Soules Nomenclature :

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature .

Call for nominations for new members of the International Coatuions on
Zoological Nomenclature .

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — eSécond d Supplement to
1990 . Bi iiedy Tee Ais, Wey a ee

Financial Report a 1992

Applications

Chtenopteryx Appellf, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed confirmation as
the correct original spelling. G. Bello & R. Giannuzzi-Savelli . -

Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken, 1815 (Crustacea, Copepoda): proposed
conservation. Z. Kabata .

Naucrates Rafinesque, 1810 and Xj Schone Cae 1814 (Onteichthi yen; Penilonnese
proposed conservation. J.E. Randall & M.L. Bauchot . :

Cetiosauriscus von Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha): propdsed deajeniugtns
of C. stewarti Charig, 1980 as the type species. A.J. Charig.

Comments

On the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus aera |
Ammonoidea). U. Lehmann; M. Urlichs .

On the proposed conservation of Clavella Oken, 1815 ae Pennella Oar 1815
(Crustacea, Copepoda). G.A. Boxshall.

On the proposal to conserve Oecothea Haliday in Gustin: “1837 anid to designate
‘Helomyza fenestralis as the type species (Insecta, Diptera). C.W. Sabrosky .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka
Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis topeka) (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes). R.L.
Mayden & C.R. Gilbert; B. Kuhajda; F.B. Cross & J.T. Collins . 3

On the proposed conservation of Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Svat
apsida). A.R.I. Cruickshank; L.R. Walter; A.J. Charig

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis ae (Cones 1887)
(Reptilia, Saurischia). D.D. Gillette, J.L. Gillette & E.H. Colbert; B.S. Creisler; N.
Hotton .

On the proposed py edten 4; the euhspecitic 3 name Wr Catheter antarctica
lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta skua lonnbergi; Aves, Charadrii-
formes). W.R.P. Bourne, P.R. Colston & R.W. Furness .

On the proposed designation of Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 2 as ‘he tyne
species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Sea ete L. pare A.M.
Lister

On the proposed dexicnation ae aioe Blois Gone: 1849 as the type apecies
of Proceryulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla). A.M. Lister . :

Rulings of the Commission
Opinion 1750. Clidastes Cope, 1868 ee Se abe iC: propyaion ne 1869
designated as the type species . :

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

We de atts
oa

Tee

ae ne

ne
we
:

—
Riley Dunn & Wilson Led

‘CONSERVATORY & BOORBINO