RD &W 1997 


The 


Bulletin 


Zoological 
Nomenclature 


HC: ZI: The Official Periodical 


of the International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 


Volume 51, 1994 


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 


i salsairyt tant Oot 
Pe a See 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


TABLE OF CONTENTS 


Notices . ; 

The International eeanisibat on pZeclopical Nomendatnre and its ponblcaacn: 

Addresses of members of the Commission 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. ; : 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nowmenciattke ‘ 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in nace a Second d Supplement to 
1990. ; Acne 

The European Wesoeintion for Vooleriedl Wemenctiture’ 


Applications 

Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora; Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. J. Ortea & A. Valdés. 

Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, be aianiaia proposed conservation. A.S.Y. 
Mackie & J. Gobin . : 

Mastotermes darwiniensis Fropeatt, 1897 and Temes femoral Proseatts 1898 
(currently Amitermes meridionalis) (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed retention of 
neotypes following rediscovery of syntypes. J.A.L. Watson . 

COLYDUDAE Erichson, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed seein over 
CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 and ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820); and Cerylon 
Latreille, 1802: proposed conservation of Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 as the 
type species. H. Silfverberg . . REY ae ee 

Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma eter “1792, Rhiz oninbrs Herbst, 1793 and 
Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta: Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct 
spellings, and proposed conservation of Lyctus ee Fabricius, 1792 as the 
type species of Rhizophagus. H. Silfverberg .. 

ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830 and Elmis Latreille, 1802 Gasccts: besitopisay: mopesed 
conservation as correct spelling and of feminine. gender respectively. M.A. Jach . 
Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of 

Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species. G.C.D. Griffiths . : 

Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Diptera): anaes 
conservation by the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the : Pe 
species of Myopa. S. Camras 

Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (Oseicetaver: Gerace, poeker ation propo- 
sée. J. Géry & V. Mahnert Sites me : 


Comments 

On the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus (Mollusca, 
Ammonoidea). G. Hahn . : 

On the proposed conservation of the goeahe a: name + Wateneets cela Thunberg 
1787 (Insecta, Heteroptera). I.M. Kerzhner; A. Jansson . 

On the proposed conservation of usage of some generic names in the BUPRESTIDAE 
(Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Mihle; R.L. Westcott; G.H. Nelson. 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Rivulus marmoratus rosy, 
1880 (Osteichthyes, ec Lipeaeh aes W.J.E.M. Costa; K.J. Lazara & M.L. 
Smith +... 

On the proposed etenation cf a neshye fi fe pelaneasis bee (Cope, 1887) 
(Reptilia, Saurischia). S.P. Welles; G. “i el ELL. pee L.L. Jacobs; D.F. 
Glut; A. de Ricqles; P.K. Tubbs . é é ; 


17 


21 


25 


28 


31 


35 


41 


41 


43 


46 


48 


ll Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


On the proposed conservation of Emys Duméril, 1806 piece ne H.M. 
Smith Site 

On the proposed conservation oc: the subspeuitic 2 name Bi Gitieracta, antarctica 
lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta skua lonnbergi; Aves, Charadrii- 
formes). J.-F. Voisin, C. Voisin, W.J. Bock & M. Théry . 


Rulings of the Commission 


OPINION 1752. Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, santas ee : 


and specific names conserved 

OPINION 1753. Gebia major capensis Kener, 1843 (currently areca capensis; 
Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype replaced, so conserving the usage of G. capensis 
and also that of G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently Upogebia africana) . 

OPINION 1754. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris 
(Geoffroy, 1762): some generic names conserved (Crustacea, Insecta) . are 

OPINION 1755. Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Insecta, ae” 12 wither 
nis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 designated as the type species : 

OPINION 1756. ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 Sr pena even pieces 
Over CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 . . . 

OPINION 1757. Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 he CRYPTINAE kenhy 1837 (insecus" 
Hymenoptera): conserved. . . 

OPINION 1758. Vipio Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenopten): Agate lioneman 
Boheman, 1853 designated as the type species . : 

OPINION 1759. Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 Gueccen Hymenoptera): Camic 
poeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 designated as the type species . : 

OPINION 1760. Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, ie R. halite 
Jaekel, 1901 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1761. Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Reiter Fane 
perplexa Feltes, 1991 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1762. Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and C. cies ieee 1942 
(Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): specific names conserved . 

OPINION 1763. Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 Ce ‘Anu 
generic and specific names placed on Official Lists, and Leptobrachium parvum 
Boulenger, 1893 (currently Megophrys parva): specific name conserved e 

OPINION 1764. Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824 Pa PERO EMA arcuata, Aves, 
Anseriformes): specific name conserved 3) ray Guan 


Information and Instructions for Authors . 


Notices . ; : 
Fourth Edition of the international Colle oF aclogieal Nomenclature : 
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 


Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in EO REY — Second 1 Supplement 3 
1990 . : ee eee 


Bulletin of Zoolareal Nomencnne — yi a Cauis ; : 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Rroituees, Offprints.. 
The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature . 


General Article 


Towards a polynomial system of zoological nomenclature? A response to the 
proposals of D.S. Yu (1993). E.E. Spamer & A.E. Bogan 


52 


52 


54 


56 


58 


71 


72 


74 


76 


79) 


80 


81 


82 


84 


86 


88 


89 
90 
90 


90 
91 
91 
91 


92 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Applications 

Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation. S.A. 
Revets . : 

Chromadora Bastian, “1865 and udhroniadderd dé Man, 1886 @Newatedak preecaed 
conservation of usage by the designation of C. nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 as the 
type species of Chromadora. P.A.A. Loof. ms hee 

Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (currently Trochoidea geyeri; Mothascs; iGastrapoda): 
proposed conservation of the specific name. E. Gittenberger 

A.A.H. Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici ... Sectio fertia, 
Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) Verzeichniss einer Parthei 
Insekten . . .: proposed suppression, with conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) 
names Gnsecks and Arachnida). I.M. Kerzhner 5 

Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed confinmiation Be Eutettix? 
olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as the type species. M.D. Webb : 

Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus monardae; ivasectat 
Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. D.J. Voegtlin . 

Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 (currently Aphodius rufus), Scarabaeus rufus Fabricius, 
1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus foetidus Herbst, 1783 (currently 
Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the 
specific names. F.-T. Krell, Z. Stebnicka & E. Holm Ade 

Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Ldeordaire; 1842 and 
Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera): i sli conservation. P.E. 
Skelley & M.A. Goodrich. . . 

Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoday propa conservation nef the preci 
name. E.H. Eason 

Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2 (MS. rieate 1762): moma retons mach the 
conservation of the mammalian generic names Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus 
(Chiroptera), Glis, Cuniculus and Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and 
Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus Reeve), Tee and sia (Artiodac- 
tyla). A. Gentry cp. <3 3 , 3, Ae 


Comments 

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus to Schlotheim, 
1813, and the Saas pe eaee of a lectotype (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). 
E.T. Tozer 

On the proposed conservation of Piemontese Gistel, 1848 = ite deienaton e 
Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species (Amphibia, 
Caudata). M.R. Jennings; H.A. Dundee; G. Mancino; B. Lanza; R.G. Webb; 
M.G. Paris; W.R. Branch; D.A. Good; R.F. ak D.M. Hillis; F.R. Cook; R.C. 
Stebbins; M.J. Cox et al. 

On the proposed exeeaaion of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 Coe 
Caudata). R.G. Webb; H.A. Dundee; M.G. Paris; M.J. Cox; R.A. Thomas; D.M. 
Hillis; F.R. Cook; H. Ota; P. Chippindale; R.C. Stebbins et al. ave 

On the proposed designation of a np ype for sek ae bauri (Cope, 1887) 
(Reptilia, Saurischia). P. Huber ae: 


Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1765. Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): suppressed, and 
Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 and Colubraria Schumacher, 1817: conserved . 

OPINION 1766. Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Mfoltasca, 
Gastropoda): conserved by the designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta 
Benson, 1842 


OPINION 1767. Pieaeeb rancho forskah iiencil & ee acter " [1828] Bee P. 
testudinarius Cantraine, 1835 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific names conserved . 


Ii 


135 


147 


149 


153 


156 


159 


162 


164 


IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


OPINION 1768. Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): given 
precedence over Octopodoteuthis persica Naef, 1923. 3 

OPINION 1769. Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Gravina: Guansay 
conserved with S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 saa as the type 
Species: 5 44 & 

OPINION 1770. Bachpermenie Gannat 1824, Somatcdes Schonhem; “1840 nd the 
specific name of Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
conserved): ds. si. a, ie 9 ke oe ee Saree 

OPINION 1771. Cryptophagus advena Waltl, 1834 (currently Ahasverus advena; 
Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved . ; 

OPINION 1772. metopini Raffray, 1904 (Insecta, Colcoptesn): pelle eatended io 
METOPIASINI, and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Insecta, Diptera): spelling emended 
to METOPIAINI, so removing the homonymy with METOPIINAE Foerster, [1869] 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera) 

OPINION 1773. Nacaduba Rea: [1881] Gnsecta, Lepidoptera): piren precedence 
over Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] . . . . 

OPINION 1774. Catocala connubialis Guenée, “1852 (inseetas Lepidoptera) pene 
name conserved .. . 

OPINION 1775. Banksinella testers, var. lets Theobald, 1907 (ausathy 
Aedes (Neomelaniconion) albothorax), B. luteolateralis var. circumluteola 
Theobald, 1908 (currently A. (N.) circumluteolus) and A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 
1985 (Insecta, Diptera): specific names conserved, and A. (N.) albothorax: pe a 
designated. . . . 

OPINION 1776. Rana senses Taylor, 1942 (acme asia: ees name 
conserved. . . 

OPINION 1777. Anisoleps er Boulenger, 1891 1 Reptilia Squamata): specific name 
conserved . 


Information and Instructions for Authors . 


Notices . : 

Fourth Edition if the iiegnaenril (Gade, 0 Galeeical eens : 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second d Supplement to to 
1990 . : ; ; : 

Bulletin of Zeolopedl Nemenetatars _ a Bade Gopics : : 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature. 


Conference Report 

Report of the IUBS/IUMS exploratory meeting on harmonization between Codes of 
Nomenclature. Editors: D.L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, P.H.A. Sneath, R.P. 
Trehane & P.K. Tubbs. 


Applications 

Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. R.H. 
Cowie, C.C. Christensen & N.L. Evenhuis . 

Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Munster, 1839 and Reine iaaetatee! 1842 (Mollusca, 
Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of usage. D.T. Donovan . é 

Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda): aii conservation as the correct 
spelling. E.H. Williams & T.E. Bowman . ‘ 

Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea, leaped): prepined desienatient oie a 
neotype. D.T. Bilton. : a) PU Sater: 


166 


168 


170 


172 


174 


176 


178 


179 
181 
182 
184 
185 
186 
186 
186 
187 


187 
187 


188 


217 


219 


224 


227 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and MEGALODONTIDAE 
Konow, 1897 (Insecta, eepecnien proposed removal of homonymy. N.D. 
Springate . : Secret tewertee) 8721 paged Pareto chest Feed 

Apis terrestris ee “1758, A. muscorum Linnaeus, 1758 and A. /ucorum 
Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Bombus terrestris, B. muscorum and B. lucorum) and 
Bombus humilis Wliger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of 
usage of the specific names. A. Loken, A. Pekkarinen & P. Rasmont . ; 

CAECILUDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) and CAECILIIDAE 
Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): proposed removal of the homonymy by the 
revocation of Opinion 1462 and the adoption of the spelling CAEcILIUsIDAE for the 
psocopteran family name. M.H. Wake, A. Dubois, D.R. Frost, T.E. Moore & 
R.A. Nussbaum 

PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Lament, 1941 (Amphibia, ee proposed « aespeserie a 
Dubois . 

Plesiosaurus rugosus Gwen, 1840. freenthy Pasa rugosus; aiectitia: 
Plesiosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. D.S. Brown & N. Bardet 

Coluber poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (currently Liophis poecilogyrus) 
(Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, 
J.R. Dixon & V, Wallach . 

Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Ternminele 1807 (currently C aly oe 
rhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed conservation of 
the specific names. R. Schodde & W.J. Bock ; 


Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 
(currently Dendrodoris ee Mollusca, Gastropoda). R.C. Willan & R. 
Burn . 

On the proposed cc conservation as ffi cane ispellnt of GC ry afonhiens Herbst, 1792, 
Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 and 
the proposed conservation of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as the type 
species of Rhizophagus (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.G. Booth é 

On the proposed conservation of ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830 as the correct ca eitene ae of 
the feminine gender of Elmis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera). G.N. Foster . 

On the proposed designation of the type species of Hydrophoria oa 
1830 (Insecta, Diptera). C.W. Sabrosky; R.W. Crosskey. . . 

On the proposed conservation of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Babes ‘1775 by 
the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Myopa 
(Insecta, Diptera), and on the proposed Sana of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796. 
C.W. Sabrosky; T.A. Wheeler . ay 

On the proposed conservation of the epecific name of C Tiola Key borsis) levels 
Gilbert, 1884 (currently Notropis oe Se oan tS gale R.L. 
Mayden; R.M. Bailey . 

On the proposed conservation oft HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Astiieaes 
Caudata). A. Dubois 

On the proposed designation on a eee io Coelophyss aa (Gore) 1887 
(Reptilia, Saurischia). S.G. Lucas & A.P. Hunt . 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names inca Ans Penetl in 
Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. J.E. Hill; D.W. Yalden; W.F.H. Ansell . 


Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1778. Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] and Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889 (Cilio- 
phora, Suctoria): conserved, and Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834] and 
Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (currently Tokophrya 
quadripartita): specific names conserved RMS rahe Copa ce rh ene: 


256 


VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


OPINION 1779. Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): placed 
on the Official List with Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835 as the type species 
OPINION 1780. Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Melanella polita; Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): usage of the specific name conserved, so conserving the specific name 
of Buccinum acicula Miller, 1774 (currently Cecilioides acicula) . LT Res. 

OPINION 1781. Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Coptotermes ee 
Insecta, Isoptera): specific name conserved . : 

OPINION 1782. Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 Gimeatigl Sieara (Pxeuaivermied 
rixa) nigrolineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved : 

OPINION 1783. Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): eee 
replaced by a neotype, so conserving the usage of the specific name and that of A. 
hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878 BP eae te by TROIS DNs a ae 

OPINION 1784. Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis octoguttata 
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis, and Chrysobothris and Dicerca 
Eschscholtz, 1829: conserved as the correct original spellings . 

OPINION 1785. Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus ibieateati 
Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved . 

OPINION 1786. Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa, Cryptostomata): Ceasers 
nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1787. Mugil curema and M. liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes 
1836 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names conserved. . . 

OPINION 1788. Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Omithischia) 
lectotype replaced . ; 

OPINION 1789. Béeudoksckopns Giinther, 1881 Gentle Sagres Gonsemmed : 

OPINION 1790. Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): Lagomeryx 
ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1791. Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla) Antilope 
dichotoma Gervais, 1849 designated as the type species 


Information and Instructions for Authors . 


Notices . : : 

Fourth Edition of the i eaentesal One aE Femieuical Memencianice : 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in diese — Second d Supplement to 
1990 . : : sae 

Bulletin of Zaolecical Momenclatuce — ~ Back Eapies : \ 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Molluscs Offprints. 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature. 

Financial Report for 1993 


Applications 

Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): proposed conservation. F.B. 
Crandall ria 

Vejdovskyella Mickeicon: 1903 (Aometa: Oiieechacks): Fonaased precedence over 
Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899. T. Timm . 

Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostencada): piopaded ee ef 
Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species. E.K. Kempf . 

Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. F.-T. 
Krell . vy oe, PRIS. Sees 


271 


273 
275 


277 


279 


280 
283 
285 
286 


288 
289 


290 


291 


292 


293 
294 
294 


294 
295 
295 


295 
296 


298 
302 
304 


306 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 
1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): PRSB aie removal of sit P.A. Audisio, R. 
Fochetti & P. Zwick . 

Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 pak Taare Braterlenst 1924 Gus Diptera): 
proposed conservation; Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805 and Phora flavimana 
Meigen, 1830: proposed conservation of the specific names. B.V. Brown & C.W. 
Sabrosky . 

Coproica Rondani, 1861 ae Iechiolent! Rioys 1864 dase. Dip: ene 
conservation of usage by the designation of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 
as the type species of Coproica. T.A. Wheeler & J.E. Swann Tan oeaciee 

Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenii; Osteichthyes, 
Siluriformes): proposed designation of a neotype. M. Kottelat, K.K.P. Lim & 
P.K.L. Ng. a 

Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider 1801 (Cusreuthy Gar ‘aranx Or Peedoe eae Heres) 
and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conserva- 
tion of the specific names. W.F. Smith-Vaniz & J.E. Randall . a 

Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation. H. M. 
Smith & V. Wallach . : 

Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 none Primates): croposed portenvanon: 
A. Gentry, C.P. Groves, J.E. Hill & P.D. Jenkins Shc gerne 


Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet; E. Gittenberger. . . 

On the proposed conservation of Clavella Oken, 1815 and Peniela Olen: 1815 
(Crustacea, Copepoda). D.W. Rice; A. Gentry. ; 

On the proposed suppression of the catalogues of A.A. H. Bichienstcts (1796, 1797) 
and D.H. Schneider (1800), with the conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) 
names (Insecta and Arachnida). R.D. Pope . 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of vbfeonere ae (Moll, 1782), 
A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and sat ks i me Come aoe (Insecta, 
Coleoptera). G. Dellacasa. 

On the proposed conservation of the specif name Sot Eahobae piceus is Keach, 1862 
(Chilopoda). A. Minelli 

On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 (Amphibia, 
Caudata). H.M. Smith & D.B. Wake . 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal Pact names res published in 
Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. C.P. Groves; D.E. Wilson; R.S. Voss; J.H. 
Wahlert; P.A. Morris; S. Anderson; P. Grubb; D.L. Harrison & P.J.J. Bates; Z. 
Pucek 


Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 51 (1994) 

Names and works placed on Official Lists ea Tidetesi in lace of the Commission 
published in volume 51 (1994) . , 

Key names and works in Applications and eonumients published in ote 51 ( 1994). 

Instructions to authors . 

Publication dates and pagination Ei volume 51 (1994). 

Instructions to binder . . . 

Table of Contents of volume 51 ( 1994) 


VII 


309 


342 


ov wet) soni reat) the eorinloanetne thd ate on 


ted ea epi yt 18 Piety (eer parted aaa hy, 
Sh ecriglndyha: Av scram hee |p enc een GUO 
Me ae HD: Teg pales Dateien we Re eanntty inf ¢ Soma Ee 
ate wrinethe Belt aw. de 
wren Semi iat Bt Haat ‘ 
1 AD A opt? tht ” 


sqUoue vee “oodikagnnb § 


1 < +r soe Ce leer 
eae i 5 oor ere 
ue AD) ad 
if rower mires Vsfitiitht Aad ores 
’ or a en eee on 
OL eg, nye ny Rees ere 1 SOARS 


Rees 
j Nes wee ’ a vineien j >t Eee 


Wan eee eo! 
: Cm hut), Conch pian yee oll 
nr pete meatier satin en 
Mi Pr pine te 
Le 


WN cad (Ses patient ag Mat 5 
ea er Tee re, reat onc Peay aber ods Lo Game rites 
y Lael bs eb lee (CT) ude) | 
gip toe <<, a P xn Cael J 
cal ood ey: moots ¥: arbesy Miccne sth Labaere setulae 
Te ~ lal 
et dm aa (as alh oanse eaahhiens silgnione aya 
Gite. » a ode ed aiiea? Bee 
wr ata iia as ch luaianten Naty aay 
CAINE ee eR RAT TOTO aan: 
Ln evil tet alien ac OM dun ina eaet MY 
Ap heb 


7 es pian einalene: up Dew Cope 
~ ee eta: nisteuty anit Methan 
ten i ty OS wa toe hing. M genase. 
moana mentors Lenrubel, Hae ai olgtO 
tet 7s wy 
mv shai washes lane noc 


O), Ore 
a Bremen 3 
oa ‘a 
ee 


Bulletin 


Fics 
Nomenclature 


: ase 
rey aay 
— 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 1994 is £85 
or $165, 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 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 


Members 


Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.: Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 
(Norway, Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) 
Prof L. B. Holthuis 
(The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 
(Germany, Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) 


Secretariat 


Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 


Dr V. Mahnert 
(Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 
(Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
ProfW.D.L. Ride(Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 
(Russia; Mollusca) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 
(Russia; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. Willink 
(Argentina; Hymenoptera) 


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 1994 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


[ZOOLOG 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 51, part 1 (pp. 1-88) 30 March 1994 


Notices 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- 
cation 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 4 (published on 16 December 1993). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. (Case 
2907). B.V. Brown & C.W. Sabrosky. 

(2) Vejdovskyella Michaelson, 1903 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): proposed pre- 
cedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899. (Case 2908). T. Timm. 

(3) Armadillo: proposed suppression as a scientific name, and consequences for 
the nomenclature of conglobating Isopoda and Diplopoda (including the 
conservation of Armadillidium Brandt, [1831], Pentheus Koch, 1841 and 
Glomeris Latreille, 1802). (Case 2909). P.T. Lehtinen & L.B. Holthuis. 

(4) Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of 
both the generic and specific names. (Case 2910). P.T. Lehtinen, S, Taiti & 
F. Ferrara. 

(5) Spherillo Dana, 1853 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of 
S. vitiensis Dana, 1853 as the type species, with designation of a neotype. 
(Case 2911). P.T. Lehtinen, S. Taiti & F. Ferrara. 

(6) Styloniscus Dana, 1853 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed designation of 
S. magellanicus Dana, 1853 as the type species. (Case 2912). P.T. Lehtinen, 
S. Taiti, F. Ferrara & A.J.A. Green. 

(7) PHILOscmDAE Verhoeff, 1916 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed precedence over 
HALOPHILOSCUDAE Verhoeff, 1908. (Case 2913). P.T. Lehtinen, S. Taiti & 
F. Ferrara. 


is) 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


(8) Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed 
confirmation of rediscovered holotype as the name-bearing type. (Case 2914). 
W.D. Sissom. 

(9) Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation as the 
correct original spelling. (Case 2915). E.H. Williams, Jr. & T.E. Bowman. 

(10) Matablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed desig- 
nation of Blastothrix isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species. (Case 
2916). N.D. Voinovich, V.A. Trjapitzin & E.S. Sugonjaev. 

(11) Coproica Rondani, 1861 and Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (Insecta, Diptera): 
proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Limosina acutangula 
Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of Coproica. (Case 2917). T.A. Wheeler 
& J.E. Swann. 

(12) Aspidophorus Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as 
the correct original spelling. (Case 2918). J.V. McHugh. 

(13) Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of the 
specific name. (Case 2919). E.H. Eason. 

(14) Diemenia atra Macleay, 1884 (currently Demansia atra; Reptilia, Serpentes): 
proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2920). H.M. Smith & 
V. Wallach. 

(15) Lachesis bilineatus var. oligolepis Werner, 1901 and Bothrops albocarinata 
Shreve, 1934 (curently Bothriechis oligolepis oligolepis and B. o. albocarinatus; 
Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific and subspecific 
names. (Case 2921). B. Schatti & H.M. Smith. 

(16) Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, 1797 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. (Case 2922). A. Guerra & M.A. Alonso- 
Zarazaga. 

(17) Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. (Case 2923). A. Guerra & M.A. Alonso- 
Zarazaga. 

(18) Regnum Animale ... (Brisson, 1762): proposed rejection, with the con- 
servation of the mammalian names Cuniculus, Giraffa, Glis, Hyaena, Hydro- 
choerus, Lutra, Meles, Philander, Pteropus, Tapirus, Tardigradus and 
Tragulus. (Case 2928). Anthea Gentry. 


(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 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 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 3 


associated bodies. Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations 
for membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time. 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, 
which is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names 
of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according 
to taxonomic judgements’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by the 
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commis- 
sion. A Fourth Edition is in the course of preparation and all zoologists are now 
invited to comment on a draft text (see p. 5 of this part of the Bulletin). 

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 
individual 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. 

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It 
contains 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 is a charity (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. 

A more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities was published in 
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. 


4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


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. (Councillor) 

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

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

Prof Dr O. 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 EH1 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., V9R 5K6, Canada 

Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King- 
Platz 3, D-20146 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 

Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 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 Kobenhavn, Denmark 

Dr I.W.B. NYE clo 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 

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

Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 
Graz, Austria 

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

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

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

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

Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunin-cho 3-23-I 
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 


Members 

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

Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) 
Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) 

Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 5 


Prof Per Brinck (Sweden) 

Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) 
Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) 

Dr N.R. Chalmers (U.K.) 

Prof W.T. Chang (China) 

Dr H.G. Cogger (Australia) 

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius (U.K.) 

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.) 
Dr R.W. Crosskey (U.K.) 

Prof J. Forest (France) 

Prof L.B. Holthuis (The Netherlands) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 

Dr A.M. Lister (U.K.) 

Dr M. Luc (France) 

Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) 

Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) 

Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.) 

Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) 

Dr G.B. White (U.K.) 

Prof H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (U.K.) 
Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Royal Society) (U.K.) 


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 1 January 
1996 its provisions will supersede those in the current (1985) edition. 

A discussion draft of the new edition of the Code is now available for comments, 
and 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, 
L.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 pay this amount except 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) take into account all comments 
and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original distribution, 
but zoologists are asked to send their comments to the Executive Secretary as soon 
as convenient. 


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 


6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


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. 


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 51(1) March 1994 V/ 


Case 2886 


Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora; 
Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name 


Jesus Ortea & Angel Valdés 


Departamento de Biologia de Organismos y Sistemas, Laboratorio de 
Zoologia, Universidad de Oviedo, 33005 Oviedo, Spain 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the 
Mediterranean nudibranch Dendrodoris grandiflora (Rapp, 1827). This species has 
been widely studied taxonomically and ecologically, and also with regard to some 
unusual chemical compounds present in it and allied species. The specific name of 
Doris guttata Risso, 1826 is a senior subjective synonym of grandiflora, but it has 
never been used and its suppression is proposed. 


1. The species Doris guttata was reported by Risso (1826, p. 33) as occurring under 
stones on the Mediterranean coast of France. The species was described as being of 
transparent grey colour with black spots; no illustration was given and no type 
material is known. Cantraine (1841, p. 61) remarked of Risso’s work “... il est difficile 
de deviner les espéces que le naturaliste de Nice décrit’, but in the light of later 
knowledge of Mediterranean nudibranchs the identity of D. guttata is clear. 

2. Rapp (1827, p. 520) described Doris grandiflora from the Golfo di Napoli in 
Italy and gave a coloured illustration (pl. 27, fig. 3). 

3. Abraham (1877, p. 211) listed both D. guttata and D. grandiflora, and in a 
footnote remarked that both names might be synonyms of D. limbata Cuvier, 1804. 
Ihering (1880, p. 104) regarded D. grandiflora as a species distinct from D. limbata 
and this view has been accepted ever since. Ihering gave D. guttata Risso, 1826 
as a synonym of D. grandiflora Rapp, 1827, without commenting on the priority of 
the former name, and there is little doubt that this synonymy is taxonomically 
correct. 

4. Ihering (1880) placed Doris grandiflora in the genus Doriopsis Pease, 1860; 
Pruvot-Fol (1930) transferred it and other species lacking a radula to Doridopsis 
Alder & Hancock, 1863. Doridopsis is a junior subjective synonym of Dendrodoris 
Ehrenberg, 1831, and for many years Rapp’s species has been placed in Dendrodoris. 

5. The specific name of Doris guttata has not been used as valid since its original 
proposal in 1826. However Dendrodoris grandiflora is in constant use, and we have 
given the Commission Secretariat a list of 45 works (36 from the last 50 years) to 
illustrate this; the case for the conservation of grandiflora clearly meets the prima 
facie criteria mentioned in Article 79c of the Code. As examples of works we mention 
Pruvot-Fol (1954), Nordsieck (1972), Fez (1974), Barletta (1980), Schmekel & 
Portman (1982), Cervera et al. (1988), Cattaneo-Vietti & Thompson (1989) and 
Cattaneo-Vietti, Chemello & Giannuzzi-Savelli (1990). The karyotype of D. grandi- 
flora has been studied by Rasotto & Cardellini (1983). The unusual chemical products 
found in it and allied species have been investigated (Karuso, 1987; Cimino, Sodano 


8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


& Spinella, 1988; Avila et al., 1991; Villani, 1991); these include the compounds 
polygodial and olepupuane which repel predators. 


6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name guttata Risso, 1826, as 
published in the binomen Doris guttata, 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 grandiflora 
Rapp, 1827, as published in the binomen Doris grandiflora; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name guttata Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Doris 
guttata and as suppressed in (1) above. 


References 


Abraham, P.S. 1877. Revision of the anthobranchiate nudibranchiate mollusca, with descrip- 
tions or notices of forty-one hitherto undescribed species. Proceedings of the Zoological 

_ _ Society of London, 1877: 196-269. 

Avila, C., Cimino, G., Crispino, A. & Spinella, A. 1991. Drimane sesquiterpenoids in 
Mediterranean Dendrodoris nudibranchs: anatomical distribution and biological role. 
Experientia, 47: 306-310. 

Barletta, G. 1980. Guide per il riconoscimento delle specie animali delle acque lagunari e costiere 
italiane. 3. Gasteropodi nudi. 124 pp. Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Genova. 

Cantraine, F.J. 1841. Malacologie Méditerranéenne et littorale, ou description des mollusques 
qui vivent dans la Méditerranée ou sur le continent de I’Italie. Nouveaux Mémoires de 
l’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 13: 1-173. 

Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Chemello, R. & Gianuzzi-Savelli, R. 1990. Atlas of Mediterranean 
nudibranchs. 264 pp. Editrice La Conchiglia, Roma. 

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

Cervera, J.L., Templado, J., Garcia-Gémez, J.C., Ballesteros, M., Ortea, J.A., Garcia, F.J., 
Ros, J. & Luque, A.A. 1988. Catalogo actualizado y comentado de los Opistobranquios 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda) de la Peninsula Ibérica, Baleares y Canarias, con algunas 
referencias a Ceuta y la Isla de Alboran. Jberus, (suplemento 1): 1-84. 

Cimino, G., Sodano, G. & Spinella, A. 1988. Occurrence of olepupuane in two Mediterranean 
nudibranchs: a protected form of polygodial. Journal of Natural Products, 51: 1010-1011. 

Fez, S. de. 1974. Ascoglosos y nudibranquios de Espana y Portugal. 325 pp. Consejo Superior 
de Investigaciones Cientificas, Valencia. 

Ihering, H. von. 1880. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Nudibranchien des Mittelmeeres. Malako- 
zoologische Blatter, (2)2: 57-112. 

Karuso, P. 1987. Chemical ecology of the nudibranchs. Pp. 31-60 in Scheuer, P.J. (Ed.), 
Bioorganic marine chemistry, vol. 1. vii, 185 pp. Springer, Berlin. 

Nordsieck, F. 1972. Die europdischen Meeresschnecken. 327 pp. Gustav Fisher, Berlin. 

Pruvot-Fol, A. 1930. Du genre Dendrodoris Ehrenberg et de ses rapports avec le genre Doriopsis 
Pease et avec quelques autres. Notes sur la taxonomie des nudibranches. Bulletin du 
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 11: 291-297. 

Pruvot-Fol, A. 1954. Mollusques Opisthobranches. Faune de France, 58: 1-460. 

Rapp, W. 1827. Uber das Molluskengeschlecht Doris und Beschreibung einiger neuen Arten 
desselben. Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae 
Naturae Curiosorum, 13: 515—522. 

Rasotto, M. & Cardellini, P. 1983. The chromosomes of Dendrodoris limbata and Dendrodoris 
grandiflora (Gastropoda, Mollusca). Caryologia, 36: 175-181. 

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe Meéridionale et 
particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. 439 pp., 12 
pls. Levrault, Paris. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 9 


Schmekel, L. & Portman, A. 1982. Opisthobranchia des Mittelmeeres. Nudibranchia und 
Saccoglossa. Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli, 40: 1-410. 

Villani, G. 1991. Mediatori chimici nelle comunicazioni inter ed intra-specifiche di molluschi 
opisthobranchi del Mediterraneo. Iberus, 10: 59-81. 


10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Case 2859 


Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed 
conservation 


Andrew S.Y. Mackie 


Department of Zoology, National Museum of Wales, Cathays Park, 
Cardiff CF1 3NP, Wales, U.K. 


Judith Gobin 
Institute of Marine Affairs, Carenage, Trinidad and Tobago 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Johnstonia 
Quatrefages, 1866 for a genus of marine polychaetes (family MALDANIDAE). Quatre- 
fages had earlier (1849) applied this name in a different taxonomic sense to an 
indeterminate species in the NEREIDAE. The suppression of the unused senior 
homonym is proposed, as is the formal rejection of the junior homonyms Johnstonia 
Fuhrmann, 1920 (Cestoda) and Johnstonia Basir, 1956 (Nematoda). 


1. The generic name Johnstonia was first published by Quatrefages (1849, p. 304 
footnote) for a polychaete annelid of the family NEREIDAE, evidently in honour 
of George Johnston (1797-1855), an authority on invertebrates. Further reference 
to this genus was made in a summary (Quatrefages, 1850a, p. 42 footnote) of 
the publication in which the type species J. prolifera was described (Quatrefages, 
1850b, p. 350, pl. 8, figs. 1-2). Marschall (1873, p. 434) listed Johnstonia Quatrefages, 
1849 as a synonym of Heteronereis Orsted, 1842; following recognition of the 
true epitokous nature of the latter genus, Ehlers (1868, p. 450) had earlier 
synonymised both Johnstonia (in the sense of Quatrefages, 1849) and Heteronereis 
with Nereis. McIntosh (1910, p. 277) considered Johnstonia prolifera an epitoke of 
Nereis pelagica Linnaeus, 1758 or ‘other species of Nereis’. No type material is 
present in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, or known from 
elsewhere, and J. prolifera must be regarded as a nomen dubium. Apart from 
the references cited above Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1849 has been overlooked or 
misinterpreted. 

2. Jay (1850, p. 95) proposed Johnstonia as a generic name for a gastropod 
mollusc, but this is a nomen nudum since no description, figure or reference was 
given. . 

3. Quatrefages later introduced the name, in a different taxonomic sense from that 
of his previous work, in a generic key to polychaetes of the family MALDANIDAE. It 
first appeared (Quatrefages, 1865a, p. 597; 1865b, p. 293) in the French spelling 
‘Johnstonie’. The latinised name Johnstonia was made available in January 1866 in an 
English translation of the second (1865b) publication (Quatrefages, 1866a, p. 21; see 
also Wright, 1866, p. 720). A detailed description of Jonhstonia [sic] was given later 
that year (Quatrefages, [1866b], p. 244), together with that of the type species 
J. clymenoides (p. 245); although this work is dated 1865 it was not published until 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 11 


summer 1866 (see Wright, 1867, p. 578 and Claparéde, 1870, p. 123). There is no 
reason to take ‘Jonhstonia’ as anything other than a printer’s error for Johnstonia, 
and the latter spelling has been used by subsequent authors. It is curious that 
Quatrefages (1865c, [1866b]) made no mention of his earlier (1849) use of Johnstonia 
for a nereid, though Heteronereis was discussed. 

4. The name Johnstonia has also been introduced for a cestode subgenus 
(Fuhrmann, 1920, p. 18) and for a genus of nematodes parasitic on insects (Basir, 
1956, p. 16). The first has been rejected as a junior synonym (see Fuhrmann, 1924, 
p. 312), but the nematode name remained in use until the submission of the present 
application (see Narayan Rao & Jagannath Rao, 1981 and Adamson & van 
Waerebeke, 1992). The subjective synonym Oryctophila van Waerebeke, 1973 
(p. 535) has now been adopted (Adamson & van Waerebeke, 1994) as valid in place 
of Johnstonia Basir, 1956. 

5. The senior homonym Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1849 is an unused name of 
doubtful meaning in the NEREIDAE (see para. 1 above), but the Commission 
Secretariat has been given a list of 24 works (seven of them, by eight authors, 
since 1955) which use Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 in the MALDANIDAE. These 
references include Kirkegaard (1959), Day (1967) and Fauchald (1977); for a 
complete bibliography see our review of the genus (Mackie & Gobin, 1993). There 
is no confusion as to the identity of Quatrefages’s (1866) genus, the characteristic 
series of vascular cirri on several posterior segments being unique within the 
MALDANIDAE. Two specimens of J. clymenoides from the type locality of San 
Sebastian in Spain and belonging to the Quatrefages collection are in the Muséum 
National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. This material has been recorded by Grube 
(1870, p. 320) in his account of the annelids in the Muséum and by ourselves (Mackie 
& Gobin, 1993), and we (p. 231) designated specimen A’(R)-1868, No. 239b as the 
lectotype. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Jo/nstonia Quatrefages, 
1849 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 Johnstonia 
Quatrefages, 1866 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Jonhstonia 
[sic] clymenoides Quatrefages, [1866]; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
clymenoides Quatrefages, [1866], as published in the binomen Jonhstonia 
[sic] clymenoides (specific name of the type species of Johnstonia Quatrefages, 
1866) and as defined by the lectotype designated by Mackie & Gobin 
(1993); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1849, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Johnstonia Fuhrmann, 1920 (a junior homonym of Johnstonia Quatrefages, 
1866); 

(c) Johnstonia Basir, 1956 (a junior homonym of Johnstonia Quatrefages, 
1866). 


12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Acknowledgements 

We wish to thank David Heppell (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh) and 
Fredrik Pleijel (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm) for their useful 
advice. 


References 


Adamson, M.L. & van Waerebeke, D. 1992. Revision of the Thelastomatoidea, Oxyurida of 
invertebrate hosts. I. Thelastomatidae. Systematic Parasitology, 21: 21-63. 

Adamson, M.L. & van Waerebeke, D. 1994 (in press). Johnstonia Basir (Oxyurida: Nematoda), 
junior homonym of Johnstonia Quatrefages (Polychaeta: Annelida). Systematic Parasit- 
ology, vol. 29. 

Basir, M.A. 1956. Oxyuroid parasites of Arthropoda. A monographic study. 1. Thelastoma- 
tidae. 2. Oxyuridae. Zoologica (Stuttgart), 106: 1-79. 

Claparéde, E. 1870. Les annélides chétopodes du Golfe de Naples, seconde partie. Mémoires de 
la Société de Physique et d'Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, 20: 1-225. 

Day, J.H. 1967. A monograph on the Polychaeta of South Africa. Part 2. Sedentaria. 420 pp. 
British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Ehlers, E. 1864-1868. Die Borstenwiirmer (Annelida Chaetopoda) nach systematischen und 
anatomischen Untersuchungen dargestellt, vol. 1. 748 pp., 24 pls. Engelmann, Leipzig. 

Fauchald, K. 1977. The polychaete worms. Definitions and keys to the orders, families and 
genera. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series, 28: 1-188. 

Fuhrmann, O. 1920. Considérations générales sur les Davainea. Festschrift fiir Zschokke 
(Basel), 27: 1-19. 

Fubrmann, O. 1924. Questions de nomenclature concernant le genre Rallietina Fuhrmann (Syn. 
Davainea Bl.). Annales de Parasitologie Humaine et Comparée, 2: 312-313. 

Grube, A.E. 1870. Bemerkungen tiber Anneliden des Pariser Museums. Archiv fiir Natur- 
geschichte, 36: 281-352. 

Jay, J.C. 1850. A catalogue of the shells ... in the collection of John C. Jay, M.D. (Fourth 
Edition). Craighead, New York. 

Kirkegaard, J.B. 1959. The Polychaeta of West Africa. Part I. Sedentary species. Atlantide 
Report, 5: 7-117. 

McIntosh, W.C. 1910. A monograph of the British annelids, vol. 2, part 2. Syllidae to Ariciidae. 
Ray Society, London. 

Mackie, A.S.Y. & Gobin, J. 1993. A review of the genus Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 
(Polychaeta, Maldanidae), with a description of a new species from Trinidad, West Indies. 
Zoologica Scripta, 22: 229-241. 

Marschall, A.F. von. 1873. Nomenclator zoologicus continens nomina systematica generum 
animalium tam viventium quam fossilium, secundem ordinem alphabeticum disposita. iv, 482 
pp. Salzer, Vindobonae. 

Narayan Rao, P. & Jagannath Rao, V. 1981. Description of two new species belonging to the 
genus Johnstonia Basir, 1956 with a key to all the species of the genus. Proceedings of the 
Indian Academy of Parasitology, 2: 89-95. 

Quatrefages, A. de. 1849. Etudes sur les types inférieurs de l’embranchement des anneleés. 
Mémoire sur la famille des Chlorémiens, Chloraemea, nob. Annales des Sciences Naturelles 
(Zoologie), (3)12: 277-306. 

Quatrefages, A. de. 1850a. Mémoire sur le systeme nerveux des annélides (Extrait). Annales des 
Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (3)13: 4146. 

Quatrefages, A. de. 1850b. Etudes sur les types inférieurs de l’embranchement des annelés. 
Mémoire sur le systéme nerveux des annélides proprement dites. Annales des Sciences 
Naturelles (Zoologie), (3)14: 329-398. 

Quatrefages, A. de. 1865a. Note sur la classification des annélides. Compte Rendu Hebdome- 
daire des Séances de I’ Académie des Sciences (Paris), 60: 586-600. 

Quatrefages, A. de. 1865b. Note sur la classification des annélides, et response aux observations 
de M. Claparéde. Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (5)3: 253-296. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 13 


Quatrefages, A. de. 1865c. Histoire naturelle des annelés marins et d'eau douce. Annélides et 
géphyriens. Tome 1. 588 pp. Roret, Paris. 

Quatrefages, A. de. 1866a. On the classification of the annelides. Annals and Magazine of 
Natural History, (3)17: 1-24. [Translation of 1865b]. 

Quatrefages, A. de. [1866b]. Histoire naturelle des annelés marins et d'eau douce. Annélides et 
géphyriens. Tome 2. 794 pp. Roret, Paris. 

van Waerebeke, D. 1973. Quatre nouvelles espéces d’Oxyurides associées aux Oryctes a 
Madagascar. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (3e série, no. 123), 
Zoologie, 95: 535-553. 

Wright, E.P. 1866. Annelida. Zoological Record, 2: 711-739. 

Wright, E.P. 1867. Annelida. Zoological Record, 3: 578-600. 


14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Case 2889 


Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis 
Froggatt, 1898 (currently Amitermes meridionalis) (Insecta, Isoptera): 
proposed retention of neotypes following rediscovery of syntypes 


The late J.A.L. Watson 


Division of Entomology, CSIRO, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, 
Australia 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to retain as the name-bearing types 
the neotypes designated by Hill (1942) of the Australian termites Mastotermes 
darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis Froggatt, 1898 despite the 
rediscovery of the syntypes of these species. 


1. Froggatt (1897, p. 519) described Mastotermes darwiniensis from specimens 
including seven alates which Mr N. Holtze had collected ‘flying round the lamp at 
night’ at Palmerston, Port Darwin, N.T., Australia. Froggatt (1898, p. 726) later 
described Termes meridionalis (currently Amitermes meridionalis) from specimens 
(soldiers and workers) which Mr Holtze had collected ‘direct from the nests’ about 16 
km inland from Palmerston. As was his custom, Froggatt did not designate type 
specimens of either species, instead referring in a general way to the material that he 
had before him. These two species attracted extensive comment in later publications 
(cited by Hill, 1942), primarily because of the morphologically primitive features and 
destructiveness of Mastotermes darwiniensis and the ‘magnetically’ oriented mounds 
of Amitermes meridionalis. 

2. In a major revision of termites from the Australian region, Hill (1942) sought to 
stabilise nomenclature by the designation of type specimens for these two species 
amongst others. 

3. In the case of Mastotermes darwiniensis, Hill (1942, p. 21) commented: ‘Types 
appear not to have been selected by Froggatt, or, if selected, they have been lost. 
From material collected at Port Darwin and determined by Froggatt, 1 [sic] designate 
a winged adult and a soldier as holoneotype and morphoneotype respectively. These 
specimens are in the C.S.I.R. Collection’. The neotype female alate is now registered 
as Type No. 9033 in the Australian National Insect Collection, CSIRO, Canberra 
(ANIC); it is accompanied by a label ‘Mastotermes darwiniensis Frogg Pt Darwin 
N. Aust’, in pencil in Froggatt’s hand. 

4. In the case of Termes meridionalis, Hill (1942, p. 336) commented: “As 
Froggatt’s specimens are now in poor condition and are not labelled as belonging to 
his type series, I select the holoneotype soldier and morphoneotype winged adult and 
worker from a complete nest series taken from a characteristic nest in the type locality 
on 28th September, 1932. These types are in C.S.I.R. Collection’. The neotype soldier 
is now registered as Type No. 9077 in ANIC. The Froggatt series to which Hill 
referred (now ANIC series No. 17713) contains nymphs, soldiers and workers, and 
bears the labels “Termes meridionalis Frogga’ (end of label missing) and ‘8. Magnetic 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 15 


nest termite Pt Darwin’, in pencil in Froggatt’s hand. There is no label to indicate that 
the specimens are types, but it was not Froggatt’s custom to affix such labels; nor is 
there any mention of the collector, although Froggatt commonly named the collector 
on his labels. These specimens of A. meridionalis from the Froggatt collection need 
not therefore be regarded as syntypes, although this possibility cannot be ruled out. 

5. During a recent check of termite material held in the Museum of Victoria, 
Melbourne (NMV), I found a jar containing vials of termites from the Froggatt 
collection. Among them are what appear to be syntypes of Mastotermes darwiniensis 
and Termes meridionalis. 

6. The specimen of Mastotermes darwiniensis is a female alate, with the pencil 
labels in Froggatt’s hand ‘Pt Darwin N. Terr. Holtze 1895 32’ and ‘Mastotermes 
darwiniensis Froggatt’. The series of Termes meridionalis includes nymphs and 
workers, labelled “Magnetic Nest Holtze. Pt Darwin’ and “Termes meridionalis 
Froggatt’, again in pencil in Froggatt’s hand. These labels indicate that the specimens 
are syntypes, even though Froggatt did not mention nymphs among his material of 
A. meridionalis. The jar also contains a label in Hill’s hand detailing its contents, 
indicating that Hill had at one time seen these Froggatt specimens. The label reads: 
‘Pres. by W W Froggatt Esq. 7.10.98. list written by G F Hill 2.12.25.’ and ‘Mastot. 
darwiniensis Frogg. imago co-type.’ and ‘Hamit. meridionalis workers + nymphs ex 
type col.’. It is clear that Hill did not have the Froggatt material now in NMV in front 
of him when he compiled his 1942 monograph during the late 1930s, but he did 
examine other material from the Museum of Victoria. Thus the vial in NMV 
containing the type series of Leucotermes barretti Hill, 1927 has a label in Hill’s hand 
dated ‘14.9.38’ and there is an annotation dated ‘9.3.38’ on his working copy of his 
1927 paper (see Watson & Abbey, 1994). I can only presume that the jar containing 
Froggatt’s type series of M. darwiniensis and T. meridionalis could not be located and 
that Hill believed it to be lost. 

7. 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’. I now consider the situation for each of the species. 

8. The syntype and the neotype of M. darwiniensis are in good condition, and are 
of the same caste and sex. The designation of the neotype was published in the major 
revision of the Australasian termites which is still a viable publication. The 
designation has thus had a substantial audience and has major taxonomic standing. 
No purpose would be gained in setting aside Hill’s designation and reverting to 
Froggatt’s syntype as the name-bearing type. 

9. The status of species in the Amitermes meridionalis group is uncertain. However, 
the discovery of syntypic nymphs and workers of A. meridionalis does not contribute 
to the solution of these problems, since neither nymphs nor workers are suitable as 
name-bearers. The neotype soldier is essential for any revision of this group. It would 
therefore be a disservice to taxonomy to set aside Hill’s designation of a soldier 
neotype and revert to one of Froggatt’s nymph or worker syntypes as the name- 
bearing type, all the more so since, as with Mastotermes darwiniensis, the designation 
has had a substantial audience and has major taxonomic standing. 

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


16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


(1) to confirm: 

(a) as the name-bearing type for Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 
the neotype designated by Hill (1942) registered as Type No. 9033 in 
the Australian National Insect Collection; 

(b) as the name-bearing type for Termes meridionalis Froggatt, 1898 the 
neotype designated by Hill (1942) registered as Type No. 9077 in the 
Australian National Insect Collection; 

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

(a) darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897, as published in the binomen Mastotermes 
darwiniensis and as defined by the neotype designated by Hill (1942) and 
registered as Type No. 9033 in the Australian National Insect Collection; 

(b) meridionalis Froggatt, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes 
meridionalis and as defined by the neotype designated by Hill (1942) and 
registered as Type No. 9077 in the Australian National Insect Collection. 


References 


Froggatt, W.W. 1897. Australian Termitidae. Part 2. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New 
South Wales, 21: 510-552. 

Froggatt, W.W. 1898. Australian Termitidae. Part 3. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New 
South Wales, 22: 721-758. 

Hill, G.F. 1942. Termites (Isoptera) from the Australian Region. 479 pp. Council for Scientific 
and Industrial Research, Melbourne. 

Watson, J.A.L. & Abbey, H.M. 1994. Isoptera. In Houston, W.W.K. (Ed.), Zoological 
Catalogue of Australia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. [In 
preparation]. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 17 


Case 2713 


COLYDIIDAE Erichson, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed 
precedence over CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 and ORTHOCERINI 
Blanchard, 1845 (1820); and Cerylon Latreille, 1802: proposed 
conservation of Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 as the type species 


Hans Silfverberg 


Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17 (N.Jarnvadgsgatan 13), FIN-00014, 
Helsingfors Universitet, Finland 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of the beetle 
family-group name COLypmDAE Erichson, 1842 by giving it precedence over the senior 
names CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 and ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820). 
Additionally, it is proposed to maintain the nominal genus Cery/on Latreille, 1802 in 
its current usage by designation of Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 as its type 
species. 


1. The genus Colydium was established by Fabricius (1792, p. 495) with four 
included species, among them Bostrichus elongatus Fabricius, 1787 (p. 36; the generic 
name was printed Bostricilus in error). Latreille (1810, p. 431) designated B. elongatus 
as the type species of Colydium. Erichson (1842, p. 213) formed the family 
COLYDIDAE (as Colydii); he based this name on Colydium which he mentioned earlier 
in his paper (p. 114) but not on the pages where the family-group name was given. 
Erichson (1845, p. 251) later discussed the family in more detail and included a 
number of subordinate family-group names. 

2. The genus Orthocerus was established by Latreille (1796, p. 16) who gave a 
description but did not include any species. Later (Latreille, 1807, p. 172) he used this 
generic name for Tenebrio hirticornis De Geer, 1775 (p. 47), which thus became the 
type species of Orthocerus by subsequent monotypy. Blanchard (1845, p. 29) 
established a new family which he called “Orthocérites’, based on the genus 
Orthocerus. Reitter (1882, p. 116) was the next worker to use Orthocerus as the basis 
for a family-group name, the tribe ORTHOCERINI. 

3. Illiger (1798, p. 339) established a new genus Sarrotrium with only one nominal 
species, Hispa mutica Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 604); Linnaeus (1767) had introduced that 
name as an unnecessary replacement for Dermestes clavicornis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 
355). Billberg (1820, p. 9) listed Sarrotrium in a separate family (“Natio Sarrotriides’). 

4. When De Geer (1775) described Tenebrio hirticornis, the type species of 
Orthocerus (para. 2 above), he gave both Dermestes clavicornis and Hispa mutica as 
synonyms. Sarrotrium is a junior subjective synonym of Orthocerus, and it has not 
been used this century. Accordingly, the family-group names based on Sarrotrium 
and Orthocerus are also subjective synonyms. With one exception ORTHOCERINI has 
been in universal use since Reitter (1882). Under Article 40b of the Code it should be 
retained, but given the precedence of the senior synonym, i.e. recorded as ORTHO- 
CERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820). The exception is Burakowski, Mroczkowski & 


18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Stefan’ska (1986) who resurrected the name SARROTRINI, having apparently not 
noticed the effect of Article 40b in either the 1985 or 1964 Codes; Burakowski also 
used SARROTRIINI in a paper jointly with Slipinski (1986). 

5. The genus Cerylon was established by Latreille (1802, p. 205), with ‘Lyctus 
terebrans Fabricius’ as the single included species; this species is Ips terebrans Olivier, 
1790 (no. 18, p. 5). However, Latreille himself (1810, p. 431) later gave Lyctus 
histeroides Fabricius, 1792 (p. 504) as the type species of the genus. This was not an 
originally included species, but has always been accepted as the type species. 
Lawrence & Stephan (1975, p. 157) and Dajoz (1976, p. 261) expressly noted Lyctus 
histeroides as the type species of Cerylon; other authors have used Cery/on in the same 
sense (e.g. Arnett, 1968; Lucht, 1987; Pope, 1977; the Commission Secretariat holds 
a list of a further 15 works by 17 authors over the last 35 years illustrating the current 
usage of Cerylon). Billberg (1820, p. 47) included Cerylon (based upon C. histeroides) 
in a new family, called ‘Natio Cerylonides’. 

6. Ips terebrans Olivier, the type species of Cerylon by monotypy, is currently 
included in the genus Pycnomerus Erichson, 1845 (cf. Burakowski, Mroczkowski & 
Stefanska, 1986; Lucht, 1987), a genus which is the base for the tribe PYCNOMERINI 
Erichson, 1845 (p. 290). This tribe has been included in the coLypmpaE from the very 
beginning, and is still considered to belong there (Lawrence, 1980). To change the 
name Pycnomerus to Cerylon would merely create confusion. 

7. Ever since Erichson (1845) Orthocerus has been included in the COLYDIIDAE 
(subfamily COLYDIINAE), and there have not been any suggestions to remove it (cf. 
Lawrence, 1980). Erichson (1845, p. 293) also included Cerylon in the COLYDIIDAE. 
Following Crowson (1955) many systematists have considered the CERYLONIDAE to be 
a separate family (cf. Pal & Lawrence, 1986), but other workers have continued to list 
CERYLONINAE as a subfamily within the CoLYDIDAE (cf. Lucht, 1987). 

8. The name COLYDIDAE is commonly used, although opinions vary as to its 
limitation (e.g. Arnett, 1968, p. 839; Dajoz, 1977, p. 37; Pope, 1977, p. 65; the 
Commission Secretariat holds a list of 10 further references by 11 authors over 
the last 35 years using COLYDIDAE). Under the Principle of Priority it should be 
replaced by ORTHOCERIDAE; if CERYLONIDAE is not considered to denote a separate 
family it would also replace COLYDIIDAE. To replace COLYDIIDAE by ORTHOCERIDAE or 
CERYLONIDAE would cause considerable confusion and nomenclatural instability. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the family-group name CoLYDmDAE Erichson, 1842 is to be 
given precedence over the names ORTHOCERIDAE Blanchard, 1845 (1820) 
and CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 whenever their type genera are placed in 
the same family-group taxon; 

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Cerylon Latreille, 1802 and to designate Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 
as the type species; 

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

Zoology: 

(a) Colydium Fabricius, 1792 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Bostrichus elongatus Fabricius, 1787; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 19 


(b) Cerylon Latreille, 1802 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in 
(1)(b) above Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792; 
(c) Orthocerus Latreille, 1796 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy Tenebrio hirticornis De Geer, 1775 (a junior subjective synonym 
of Dermestes clavicornis Linnaeus, 1758); 
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) elongatus, Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen ‘Bostricilus’ (= 
Bostrichus) elongatus, specific name of the type species of Colydium 
Fabricius, 1792; 
(b) histeroides, Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Lyctus histeroides, 
specific name of the type species of Cery/on Latreille, 1802; 
(c) clavicornis, Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes clavi- 
cornis (senior subjective synonym of Tenebrio hirticornis De Geer, 1775, the 
type species of Orthocerus Latreille, 1796); 
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology: 
(a) coLypmDAE Erichson, 1842 (type genus Colydium Fabricius, 1792) with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 
1820 and ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820) whenever their type genera 
are placed in the same family-group taxon; 
(b) CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 (type genus Cery/on Latreille, 1802) with the 
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over COLYDUDAE Erichson, 
1842 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; 
(c) ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820) (type genus Orthocerus Latreille, 
1796) with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over 
COLYDUDAE Erichson, 1842 whenever their type genera are placed in the 
same family-group taxon; 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name SARROTRIIDAE Billberg, 1820 (type genus Sarrotrium Illiger, 
1798) (replaced before 1961 as a name based on a junior generic synonym). 


References 


Arnett, R.H. 1968. The beetles of the United States. 1112 pp. American Entomological 
Institute, Ann Arbor. 

Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. 138 pp. Gadelianis, 
Stockholm. 

Blanchard, C.E. 1845. Histoire des insectes, traitant de leurs moeurs et de leurs métamorphoses 
en général, et comprenant une nouvelle classification fondée sur leurs rapports naturels, vol. 
2. 524 pp., 10 pls. Didot, Paris. 

Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefan’ska, J. 1986. Chrzaszcze, Coleoptera. Cucujoidea. 
2. Katalog Fauny Polski, 44: \-278. 

Burakowski, B. & Slipinski, S.A. 1986. Czesc 19, Chrzaszcze — Coleoptera. Gwozdnikowate 
— Colydiidae, Bothrideridae, Cerylidae, Anommatidae. Klucze do oznaczania owadow 
Polski, (59)137: 1-86. 

Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 187 pp. Lloyd, 
London. 

Dajoz, R. 1976. Les Coléoptéres Cerylonidae. Etude des espéces de la faune Paléarctique. 
Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (3, Zoologie)253: 249-281. 

Dajoz, R. 1977. Coléoptéres Colydiidae et Anommatidae Paléarctiques. Faune de l'Europe et du 
Bassin Méditerranéen, 8: 1-280. 


20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


De Geer, C. 1775. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes, vol. 5. 448 pp. Hosselberg, 
Stockholm. 

Erichson, W.F. 1842. Beitrag zur insecten-fauna von Vandiemensland, mit besonderer 
Beriicksichtigung der geographischen Verbreitung der Insecten. Archiv fiir Naturge- 
schichte, 8: 83-287. 

Erichson, W.F. 1845. Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands. I. Coleoptera, vol. 3. 968 pp. 
Berlin. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1. 348 pp. Proft, Hafniae. 

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

Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. 510 pp. Gebauer, Halle. 

Latreille, P.A. 1796. Précis des caractéres génériques des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel. 
201 pp. Bordeaux. 

Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, 
vol. 3. 467 pp. Dufart, Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. 1807. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, vol. 2. 280 pp. Koenig, Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considérations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les 
classes des crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris. 

Lawrence, J.F. 1980. A new genus of Indo-Australian Gempylodini with notes on the 
constitution of the Colydiidae (Coleoptera). Journal of the Australian Entomological 
Society, 19: 293-310. 

Lawrence, J.F. & Stephan, K. 1975. The North American Cerylonidae (Coleoptera: Clavicor- 
nia). Psyche, 82: 131-166. 

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

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

Lucht, W.H. 1987. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Katalog. 342 pp. Krefeld. 

Olivier, G.A. 1790. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 2. 485 pp. Baudouin, 
Paris. 

Pal, T.K. & Lawrence, J.F. 1986. A new genus and subfamily of mycophagous Bothrideridae 
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) from the Indo-Australian Region, with notes on related 
families. Journal of the Australian Entomological Society, 25: 185-210. 

Pope, R.D. 1977. Kloet & Hincks, A check list of British Insects, (Ed. 2), part 3. Coleoptera 
and Strepsiptera. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, 11(3): 1-105. 

Reitter, E. 1882. Bestimmungs-Tabellen der europdischen Coleopteren. VI. Enthaltend die 
Familien: Colydiidae, Rhysodidae, Trogositidae. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden 
Vereines in Brtinn, 20: 113-149. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 21 


Case 2783 


Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus 
Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta: Coleoptera): proposed 
conservation as the correct spellings, and proposed conservation of 
Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Rhizophagus 


Hans Silfverberg 


Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17 (N. Jarnvaégsgatan 13), FIN-00014, 
Helsingfors Universitet, Finland 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names Cryptophagus, 
Dorcatoma, Rhizophagus and Colon for four beetle genera originally spelt Kryptopha- 
gus, Dorkatoma, Ryzophagus and Kolon. These were emended to Cryptophagus (by 
Paykull, 1800), Dorcatoma (by Fabricius, 1801), Rhizophagus (by Illiger, 1801) and 
Colon (by Illiger, 1801) and the emended names are now almost universally used. It 
is proposed to rule that these unjustified emendations are deemed to be the correct 
original spellings. It is also proposed that the designation by Westwood ([1838]) of 
Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as the type species of Rhizophagus be deemed as 
valid. 


1. In parts 4, 5 and 7 of his Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldandischen 
Insekten, published between 1792 and 1797, Herbst established a number of genera 
of which four are considered here. These are Kryptophagus (1792), Dorkatoma (1792), 
Ryzophagus (1793) and Kolon (1797). Within a few years unjustified emendations 
(technically incorrect spellings, although they were clearly deliberate transliterations) 
had been made to each of these names. The spelling of these emendations is almost 
universally used with authorship attributed to Herbst. In addition to the examples 
given of such usage, the Commission Secretariat holds a list of 18 works by 14 
authors over the last 40 years. Each of the four names is considered in turn. 

2. Kryptophagus was established by Herbst (1792, p. 172) with seven included 
species. Among them was Kryptophagus crenatus (p. 177, pl. 42, fig. 14), for which he 
gave Dermestes cellaris Scopoli, 1763 (p. 16) as a synonym. Paykull (1800, p. 352) 
spelled the name Cryptophagus, and this latter spelling has been used ever since (e.g. 
Kocher, 1956, p. 59; Hansen, 1964, p. 263; Brakman, 1966, p. 118). Westwood 
({1838], p. 13) designated Dermestes cellaris Scopoli as the type species of Crypto- 
phagus. The family-group name is invariably spelled CRYPTOPHAGIDAE. 

3. Dorkatoma was established by Herbst (1792, p. 103) with a single species, 
Dorkatoma dresdensis Herbst, 1792 (p. 104, pl. 39, fig. 8), which is the type species by 
monotypy. Fabricius (1801, p. 330) spelled the name Dorcatoma and this latter 
spelling has been used ever since (e.g. Kocher, 1956, p. 127; Hansen, 1964, p. 300; 
Brakman, 1966, p. 134). The family-group name is invariably spelled DORCATOMINAE. 

4. Ryzophagus was established by Herbst (1793, p. 18) with three included new 
species, among them R. bipunctatus (p. 19, pl. 45, fig. 9). Illiger (1801, p. 149) spelled 
the name Rhizophagus. Gyllenhal (1813, p. 420) spelled the genus Rhyzophagus and 


22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


that spelling was used for a few years. Erichson (1845, p. 226) reverted to IIliger’s 
spelling Rhizophagus and this spelling has been used by all subsequent authors with 
the exception of Riha. In a paper published in 1989 Riha wrote (p. 358): ‘Ryzophagus 
Herbst, 1793 is a correct original spelling under Article 32b of the Code and 
should be used. The name Rhyzophagus Gyllenhal 1813 is an incorrect subsequent 
spelling, and Rhizophagus Erichson, 1843 is an unjustified emendation and must be 
regarded as a junior synonym under Article 33b(ii) of the Code. The commonly used 
name ‘Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793’ [sic!] has never been established’. Riha was 
apparently unaware of Illiger’s earlier adoption of Rhizophagus. Westwood ([1838], 
p. 13) designated Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 (p. 503) as the type species 
of Rhizophagus. This designation is technically invalid since, although Ryzo- 
phagus bipunctatus Herbst had long been considered a synonym of L. bipustulatus, 
Westwood did not mention Herbst’s name and Herbst had not cited L. bipustulatus. 
Nevertheless stability would be best served by validation of the long accepted type 
species designation. I am not aware of any designation of an originally included 
nominal species. The family-group name is spelled RHIZOPHAGIDAE by all authors 
other than Riha (1989). 

5. Kolon was established by Herbst (1797, p. 224) with two new included species, 
one of them being K. viennensis Herbst, 1797 (p. 225, pl. 109, fig. 10). Illiger (1801, 
p. 133) spelled the name Co/on and this latter spelling has been used ever since (e.g. 
Kocher, 1958, p. 69; Hansen, 1964, p. 76; Brakman, 1966, p. 32). Thomson (1859, 
p. 60) designated Colon viennensis as type species of the genus. The family-group 
name is invariably spelled COLONIDAE. 

6. As pointed out by Riha (1989) in the case of Rhizophagus (see para. 4 above), 
Herbst’s original spellings are the correct ones. However, they have not been used in 
any subsequent work with the single exception of Ryzophagus in Riha’s paper. Even 
when the correctness of Herbst’s original spellings has been acknowledged, the 
emended spelling has been retained (e.g. Pope, 1977). The family-group names 
CRYPTOPHAGIDAE Kirby, 1837, DORCATOMINAE Thomson, 1859, RHIZOPHAGIDAE 
Redtenbacher, 1845 and COLONIDAE Horn, 1880 are derived from the currently-used 
spellings of the four generic names. A change back to Herbst’s original spelling of 
these four generic names would cause considerable confusion, particularly since such 
names are often listed alphabetically. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that: 

(a) the correct original spellings of the following names are deemed to be as 
shown: 
(i) Kryptophagus Herbst, 1792 to be Cryptophagus; 
(ii) | Dorkatoma Herbst, 1792 to be Dorcatoma; 
(iii) | Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793 to be Rhizophagus; 
(iv) Kolon Herbst, 1797 to be Colon; 
(b) the designation by Westwood ({1838]) of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 
1792 as the type species of Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 is deemed to be valid; 
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Westwood ([1838]) Dermestes cellaris Scopoli, 1763; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 23 


(b) Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792 (gender: neuter), type species by original mono- 
typy Dorkatoma dresdensis Herbst, 1792; 

(c) Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Westwood ([1838]) Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as 
ruled in (1)(b) above; 

(d) Colon Herbst, 1797 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Thomson (1859) Kolon viennensis Herbst, 1797; 

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

(a) cellaris Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Dermestes cellaris 
(specific name of the type species of Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792); 

(b) dresdensis Herbst, 1792, as published in the binomen Dorkatoma dresdensis 
(specific name of the type species of Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792); 

(c) bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Lyctus bipustu- 
latus (specific name of the type species of Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793); 

(d) viennensis Herbst, 1797, as published in the binomen Kolon viennensis 
(specific name of the type species of Colon Herbst, 1797); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) Kryptophagus Herbst, 1792 (incorrect original spelling of Cryptophagus 
Herbst, 1792); 

(b) Dorkatoma Herbst, 1792 (incorrect original spelling of Dorcatoma Herbst, 
1792); 

(c) Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793 (incorrect original spelling of Rhizophagus 
Herbst, 1793); 

(d) Rhyzophagus Gyllenhal, 1813 (incorrect subsequent spelling of Rhizo- 
phagus Herbst, 1793); 

(e) Kolon Herbst, 1797 (incorrect original spelling of Colon Herbst, 1797). 


References 


Brakman, P.J. 1966. Lijst van Coleoptera uit Nederland en het omliggend gebied. Monogra- 
phieen van de Nederlandsche Entomologische Vereeniging, 2: 1-219. 

Erichson, W.F. 1845. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. I. Coleoptera, vol. 3, part 1. 
320 pp. Berlin. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia Systematica emendata et aucta, vol. 1, part 2. 538 pp. Proft, 
Hafniae. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum, vol. 1. 506 pp. Kiliae. 

Gyllenhal, L. 1813. Insecta suecica descripta. Classis I. Coleoptera sive Eleuterata, vol. 1, part 
3. 730 pp. Leverentz, Scaris. 

Hansen, V. 1964. Fortegnelse over Danmarks biller (Coleoptera). Entomologiske Meddelelser, 
33: 1-507. 

Herbst, J.F.W. 1792, 1793, 1797. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. 
Der Kafer. Part 4, 197 pp. (1792); part 5, 392 pp. (1793); part 7, 346 pp. (1797). Pauli, 
Berlin. 

Illiger, K. 1801. Namen der Insekten-Gattungen, ihr Genitiv, ihr grammatisches Geschlecht, 
ihr Silbenmass, ihre Herleitung; zugleich mit den deutschen Benennungen. Magazin fiir 
Insektenkunde, 1: 125-155. 

Kocher, L. 1956. Catalogue commenté des Coléoptéres du Maroc. 4. Travaux de I’ Institut 
Scientifique Chérifien (Zoologie), 11: 1-136. 

Kocher, L. 1958. Catalogue commenté des Coléoptéres du Maroc. 2. Travaux de l'Institut 
Scientifique Chérifien (Zoologie), 14: 1-244. 


24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Paykull, G. 1800. Fauna Suecica. Insecta, vol. 3. 459 pp. Edman, Upsaliae. 

Pope, R.D. 1977. Kloet & Hincks, A check list of British insects, Ed. 2, part 3. Coleoptera and 
Strepsiptera. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, 11(3): 1-105. 

Riha, P. 1989. On the validity of the generic name Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793. (Coleoptera, 
Ryzophagidae). Entomologica Basiliensia, 13: 357-359. 

Scopoli, J.A. 1763. Entomologia Carniolica. 420 pp., 37 pls. Trattner, Vindobonae. 

Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 1. 290 pp. Lund. 

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 1-16. Published with An 
introduction to the modern classification of insects ..., vol. 1, part 1. Pp. 148. Longman, 
Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 25 


Case 2861 


ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830 and Elmis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed conservation as correct spelling and of feminine gender 
respectively 


M.A. Jach 
Naturhistorisches Museum, Burgring 7, A-1014 Wien, Austria 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name ELMIDAE Curtis, 
1830 for a large family of waterbeetles of worldwide distribution, based on the genus 
Elmis Latreille, 1802. There have been a number of different family-group names 
based on this genus. 


1. Latreille (1802, p. 398) established the generic name Elmis with one included 
species E. maugetii Latreille, 1802 (p. 400) which is the type species by monotypy. He 
did not state the derivation of the generic name or its gender. 

2. The correct spelling and the nomenclatural stem of Elmis have long been the 
subject of controversy. In recent times Steyskal (1975, p. 59) argued that the stem was 
Elm- and the gender feminine, the correct family-group name being ELMIDAE. Madge 
& Pope (1980) reviewed the history of the name Elmis and concluded (p. 257) that 
Elmis ‘must be regarded as a modern Latin word, Elmis, Elmidis, m., coined by 
Latreille, but derived from ancient Greek’. The correct spelling of the family-group 
name would therefore be ELMIDIDAE. 

3. The first available family-group name based on Elmis Latreille is ELMIDAE 
Curtis, 1830 (pl. 294). Madge & Pope (1980) argued that ELMmDAE was an incorrect 
original spelling which, under the Code (Article 32d of the 1985 Edition), had to be 
corrected to ELMIDIDAE with the date and authorship of the original spelling. I am 
aware of only two papers since 1980 in which the authors have followed Madge & 
Pope (1980) in adopting the spelling ELMmp1DAg; these are Nilsson & Bondestad (1987) 
and Engblom, Lingdell & Nilsson (1990). On the other hand a large number of 
authors have since 1980 used the spelling ELMIDAE (e.g. Brown, 1981; Jach, 1984; 
Sat6, 1985; Spangler & Santiago-Fragoso, 1992; Kodada, 1993; a list of a further 30 
papers by 21 different authors is held by the Commission Secretariat). Furthermore, 
to the best of my knowledge, no author has accepted the change of gender of Elmis 
to the masculine as proposed by Madge & Pope (1980). 

4. Madge & Pope (1980) pointed out that, in addition to ELMIDAE and ELMIDIDAE 
there were a number of different family-group names which had been applied to the 
Riffle beetles, including: 

LIMNUDAE Stephens, 1828 — unavailable under Article 11f of the Code since, at 
the time of its proposal, Stephens regarded the name on which it was based 
(Limnius Mlliger, 1802) as a junior synonym of Elmis Latreille. Thomson (1859, 
p. 21) made the name LIMNmDAE available, including Limnius and Elmis as separate 
genera. Wiezlak (1986) used the name LIMNIIDAE but it is not otherwise in current 
use. 


26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


ELMINTHIDAE Steffan, 1958 — based on Elmis, with the stem as Elminth-. Olmi 

(1981) used the name ELMINTHIDAE but it is not otherwise in current use. 

HELMIDAE Grouvelle, 1900 — based on an unjustified emendation by Bedel 

(1878) of Elmis to Helmis. HELMIDAE is not in current use. 

HELMINTHIDAE Ganglbauer, 1904 — based on Helmis, with the stem as 

Helminth-. HELMINTHIDAE is not in current use. 

Madge & Pope (1980) pointed out that the names ELMINTHIDAE, HELMIDAE and 
HELMINTHIDAE were junior objective synonyms of the family-group name based on 
Elmis, which they considered to be ELMmpIDAE. Under Article 35d of the Code all 
versions of a family-group name other than the correct one are incorrect spellings. It 
follows that ELMINTHIDAE, HELMIDAE and HELMINTHIDAE are not available names. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to rule that: 

(a) the gender of the generic name E/mis Latreille, 1802 is feminine; 
(b) for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the generic name Elmis Latreille, 
1802 is ELM-; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Elmis 
Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Elmis maugetii 
Latreille, 1802; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name maugetii 
Latreille, 1802, as published in the binomen Elmis maugetii (specific name of 
the type species of E/mis Latreille, 1802); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830, type genus El/mis Latreille, 1802 (spelling as ruled in 
(1)(b) above). 


References 


Bedel, L. 1878. Diverses observations relatives a l’insecte décrit par Latreille sous le nom 
d’Elmis Maugetii (Hist. nat. des Fourmis, 1802 p. 398 et 400). Annales de la Société 
Entomologique de France, (5)8: xxiv—Ixxv. 

Brown, H.P. 1981. A distributional survey of the world genera of aquatic dryopid beetles 
(Coleoptera: Dryopidae, Elmidae, and Psephenidae sens. lat.). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 
57(1): 133-148. 

Curtis, J. 1830. British entomology, vol. 7. Unnumbered pages, pls. 290-337. Author, London. 

Engblom, E., Lingdell, P.-E. & Nilsson, A.N. 1990. The Swedish Elmididae (Coleoptera) — 
identification, distribution, habitat preferences, and environmental indication. Entomolo- 
gisk Tidskrift, 111: 105-121. [In Swedish, English abstract]. 

Ganglbauer, L. 1904. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa, vol. 4. 286 pp. Karl Gerold’s son, Wien. 

Grouvelle, A. 1900. Contribution a l’étude de la faune entomologique de Sumatra (Cote ouest: 
Indrapoera — Vice-résidence de Painan) (Voyage de M.J.-L. Weyers). XIlIe Article. 
Nitidules, Colydiides, Rhysodides, Cucujides, Monotomides, Cryptophagides, Trito- 
mides, Dryopides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 44: 262-268. 

Jach, M.A. 1984. Die Koleopterenfauna der Bergbache von Siidwest-Ceylon. Archiv fir 
Hydrobiologie, supplement, 69(2): 228-332. 

Kodada, J. 1993. Jaechomorphus, a new riffle beetle genus from Sumatra (Coleoptera: Eimidae: 
Larainae). Entomological Problems, 24(2): 1-17. 

Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle des fourmis. 445 pp., 12 pls. Barrois, Paris. 

Madge, R.B. & Pope, R.D. 1980. The valid family-group name based on Elmis Latreille 
(Coleoptera: Dryopoidea). Entomologist’s Gazette, 31: 255-259. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 27 


Nilsson, A.N. & Bondestad, L. 1987. Some interesting records of aquatic insects from the 
RAanealven river in northern Sweden. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 108: 118-119. [In Swedish, 
English summary]. 

Olmi, M. 1981. Results of the Czechoslovak-Iranian entomological expeditions to Iran. Acta 
Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 40: 337-339. 

Saté, M. 1985. Elmidae. Pp. 434-440 in Ueno, S.-I., Kurosawa, Y. & Sat6, M. (Eds.), The 
Coleoptera of Japan in Colour. Hoikusha Publishing, Osaka. 

Spangler, P.J. & Santiago-Fragoso, S. 1992. The aquatic beetle subfamily Larainae 
(Coleoptera: Elmidae) in Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies. Smithsonian 
Contributions to Zoology, 528: 1-74. 

Steffan, A.W. 1958. Die deutschen Arten der Gattungen Elmis, Esolus, Oulimnius, Riolus, 
Aptyktophallus (Coleoptera: Dryopoidea). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 8: 122-178. 

Stephens, J.F. 1828. J/lustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 2 (part). 112 pp. 
Author, London. 

Steyskal, G.C. 1975. The family-group names based on the name of the genus El/mis Latreille 
(Coleoptera). Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 77: 59-60. 

Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, 1. 290 pp. Lund. 

Wiezlak, W. 1986. Coleoptera, 48-49: Parnidae, Limniidae, Psephenidae. Klucze do oznaczania 
owadow Polski. 67 pp. Polskie Towarzystwo Entomologiczne, Warszawa & Wroclaw. 


28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Case 2858 


Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed 
designation of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species 


Graham C.D. Griffiths 


Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, 
Alberta T6G 2E3, Canada 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] 
(a senior subjective synonym of Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817) as the type 
species of Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. This will conserve the universal 
usage of Hydrophoria for a genus in the ANTHOMYIIDAE; Coquillett (1910) cited a type 
species which would make the name applicable to a genus of MUSCIDAE. 


1. The genus Hydrophoria was described by Robineau-Desvoidy (1830, p. 503) 
with nine nominal species, all new. The descriptions of at least two of the species 
(H. tibialis and H. sagittariae, p. 505) are compatible with the common European 
anthomyiid described by Harris ({1780], p. 126, pl. 36) as Musca lancifer and by 
Wiedemann (1817, p. 79) as Anthomyia conica ‘Meig.’. Hydrophoria has been long 
and universally used for a genus in the ANTHOMYIIDAE, but its type species has not 
been validly fixed in this sense. 

2. Macquart (1835, p. 297) discussed Hydrophoria, giving ‘Hydrophoria conica — 
H. tibialis ? Rob.D.’ as the first species. Unfortunately Macquart’s action does 
not constitute a type designation, but Hydrophoria has been used ever since in the 
sense which could be typified by Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817 (see para. 4 
below). 

3. Westwood ({1840], p. 142) designated Musca nigrita Fallén, 1823 (p. 60) as the 
type, but this was not an originally included nominal species (by 1830 Robineau- 
Desvoidy had been unable to obtain a copy of Fallén’s work: see p. 18 of his Essai). 
Coquillett (1910, p. 554) noted Westwood’s selection of M. nigrita, stating this to be 
synonymous with M. vespertina Fallén, 1823 (p. 58) and Robineau-Desvoidy’s H. 
littoralis (an originally included species) as follows: ‘Hydrophoria ... Type, Musca 
vespertina Fallen (as littoralis, new species), the last species, by designation of 
Westwood ... (as nigrita Fallen). Syn., Hebecnema Schnabl, 1889’. This synonymy did 
not derive from Westwood, who had not mentioned Hydrophoria littoralis at all but 
had merely recorded Robineau-Desvoidy’s use (p. 503) of the Latin term “Aricinae 
littorales’ for a group of genera including Hydrophoria. Macquart (1835, p. 301) 
however had earlier synonymized H. littoralis with M. nigrita (but not with M. 
vespertina). 

4. Rondani (1866, p. 72) gave Anthomyia conica as the type species in accordance 
with the usage of Hydrophoria which had already become established. This is invalid 
because A. conica was not an originally included nominal species, but nevertheless it 
has been cited as the type by later authors (e.g. Kloet & Hincks, 1945, p. 423) and has 
been included in Hydrophoria by all authors during the present century. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 29 


5. Coquillett’s action (para. 3 above) has been accepted as a valid (although 
inadvertent) designation of an originally included nominal species (i.e. H. littoralis), 
but this would have the highly unsatisfactory consequence of transferring the 
name Hydrophoria to a genus in the MusciDAE. No author has been willing to make 
this transfer. Huckett (1965, p. 863) well summarized the situation as follows: 
‘Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830: 503. Type-species, Jittoralis Robineau- 
Desvoidy (Coquillett, 1910b: 554). The identity of /ittoralis is in doubt, as is the 
identity of an earlier-suggested senior synonym, nigrita Fallen, which has been 
variously referred to such widely different genera as Hebecnema and Musca. 
Common usage of Hydrophoria has followed the interpretation of Rondani, 1866a: 
72 (1866: 5) who designated as type species Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, a 
species not originally included. The author prefers to maintain this established usage 
of Hydrophoria, either by arbitrarily considering Jittoralis as a true Hydrophoria, 
or if necessary by appplying to the I.C.Z.N. to fix the type species as conica 
Wiedemann’. 

6. Hennig (1969, p. 251) followed MHuckett’s suggestion by arbitrarily 
‘synonymizing’ H. littoralis Robineau-Desvoidy (p. 506) with A. conica, a strategem 
to allow conica to be taken as the valid name of the type species of Hydrophoria. This 
is unacceptable, however, because specialists on the MUSCIDAE continue to assume (on 
the basis of the original description) that Hydrophoria littoralis was a species of 
Hebecnema Schnabl, 1889. In Pont’s (1986) catalogue of Palaearctic MUSCIDAE the 
name Jittoralis is listed (p. 160) as a synonym of Hebecnema nigra (Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830, p. 501). 

7. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 245) listed a previously overlooked designation 
of Anthomyia conica as the type species of Hydrophoria by Duponchel (1845, p. 760), 
in the form ‘H. conica (Minca id. Fallen, H. tibialis ? R.-D.’; Minca is evidently an 
error for Musca. However, the validity of this designation is unfortunately negated by 
the question mark. Duponchel was doubtless following Macquart (see para. 2 above) 
in regarding A. conica as characteristic of Hydrophoria but in being unsure that 
Robineau-Desvoidy (p. 505) had applied his name tibialis to this species. Although 
formally invalid, Duponchel’s designation confirms the early establishment of the 
tradition of regarding A. conica as the ‘typical’ species of Hydrophoria. 

8. This application is made in order to preserve the concept of Hydrophoria, 
established since the time of Macquart (1835), Duponchel (1845) and Rondani 
(1866), as typified by Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817. Pont & Michelsen (1982, 
p. 34) consider A. conica to be a junior subjective synonym of Musca lancifer Harris, 
[1780], and the combination Hydrophoria lancifer has been in use by anthomyiid 
specialists during the past decade (e.g. Fan et al., 1988, p. 113). I therefore propose 
that M. lancifer be designated as the type species of Hydrophoria. 

9. 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 Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, and to designate 
Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation in (1) above Musca lancifer Harris, [1780]; 


30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Jancifer 
Harris, [1780], as published in the binomen Musca lancifer (specific name of the 
type species of Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830). 


References 


Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. Procecduies 
of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647. 

Duponchel, P.A.J. 1845. Hydrophoria. P. 760 in d’Orbigny, C.V.D. (Ed.), Dictionnaire 
Universel d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 6. 792 pp. Renard, Paris. 

Eyenhuis, N.L. & Thompson, F.C. 1990. Type designations of genus-group names of Diptera 
given in d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle. Bishop Museum 
Occasional Papers, 30: 226-258. 

Fallén, C.F. 1820-1823. Monographia Muscidum Sveciae. 94 pp. in: Diptera Sveciae, vol. 1. 
Berlingianis, Lundae. 

Fan, Z.-D. et al. 1988. Economic insect fauna of China. Fasc. 37. Diptera: Anthomyiidae. xiv, 
396 pp., 10 pls. Science Press, Beijing. 

Harris, M. 1776-{1780]. An exposition of English insects. 166 pp. Author, London. 

Hennig, W. 1969. Gattung Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy. Pp. 251-288 in Lindner, E. (Ed.), 
Die Fliegen der paldarktischen Region, vol. 7 (Lieferung 278). Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. 

Huckett, H.C. 1965. Subfamily Anthomyiinae. Pp. 842-869 in Stone, A. et al. (Eds.), A catalog 
of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. United States Department of Agriculture, 
Handbook no. 276. 1696 pp. 

Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1945. A check list of British insects. 483 pp. Authors, Stockport. 

Macquart, P.J.M. 1835. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Diptéres, vol. 2. 703 pp. Roret, Paris. 

Pont, A.C. 1986. Muscidae. Pp. 57-215 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic 
Diptera, vol. 11. 346 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. 

Pont, A.C. & Michelsen, V. 1982. The Muscoidea described by Moses Harris (Diptera: 
Fanniidae, Scathophagidae, Anthomyiidae, Muscidae). Steenstrupia, 8: 2546. 

Robineau-Desvoidy, J.-B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savants 
a l'Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, (2)2: 1-813. 

Rondani, C. 1866. Anthomyinae Italicae collectae distinctae et in ordinem dispositae. Atti della 
Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 9: 68-217. 

Westwood, J.O. [1840]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, pp. 97-154. Published with An 
introduction to the modern classification of insects ..., vol. 2, part 16 (pp. 401-587). 
Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, London. 

Wiedemann, C.R.W. 1817. Neue Zweifliigler (Diptera Linn.) aus der Gegend um Kiel, 
beschrieben vom Herausgeber. Zoologisches Magazin, 1: 61-86. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 31 
Case 2881 


Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Diptera): 
proposed conservation by the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 
1758 as the type species of Myopa 


Sidney Camras 


clo Division of Insects, Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at 
Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the universal understanding 
and usage of the names Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (family cono- 
PIDAE Macquart, 1834) by the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the 
type species of Myopa. At present Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1758 is the valid type 
species of both genera. Species of Sicus are Palaearctic and Oriental (north India) in 
distribution; species placed in Myopa occur world-wide, except for the Afrotropical 
and Oceanic regions. The larvae of conopid species are solitary and internal parasites, 
mainly of adult bees and wasps. The adults are common on flowers. 


1. Scopoli (1763, p. 369) established the genus Sicus for two nominal species, Sicus 
buccatus and S. ferrugineus. He referred to Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 605; 
recte buccatus under Article 30a(1i) of the Code) in his citation of the first species. He 
did not give a citation for the second species but this has been identified with C. 
ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 (p. 468; recte ferrugineus) by subsequent authors. Coquillet 
(1910, p. 605) designated C. ferruginea Linnaeus as the type species of Sicus and this 
has been accepted by subsequent authors (see, for example, Chvala & Smith, 1988, 
p. 269). 

2. Fabricius (1775, p. 798) established the generic name Myopa and included Sicus 
in its synonymy. Among the four included nominal species were buccata and 
ferruginea and synonymies for these species referred to the names as used by 
Linnaeus (1761) and Scopoli (1763). Curtis (1838, pl. 677, text) designated Conops 
buccata Linnaeus as the type species of the genus; with the exception of Robineau- 
Desvoidy (1853; see para. 5 below), this has been accepted by all subsequent authors 
(see, for example, Coquillet, 1910, p. 573) and the genus has been used with this 
concept. However, in an earlier designation, Latreille (1810, p. 444) selected “Myopa 
ferruginea F.’ (i.e. Fabricius = Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761) as the type. This 
designation has been consistently overlooked. Its recognition would render Myopa a 
junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli; Sicus would become the valid name for 
the group of species currently included in Myopa and a new name would be required 
for Sicus as currently understood. For more than 130 years the names Sicus and 
Myopa have been used to refer to two separate genera; before then both groups of 
species were combined under the name Myopa despite this being the junior synonym. 
In 1861 Schiner (p. 138) used Sicus for the single species ferruginea and retained 
Myopa for the buccata group of species. For the name Sicus now to be transferred 
from one genus to the other would cause confusion in the nomenclature of 
bothgenera. Myopa is the type genus of the subfamily MyoPINAE Macquart, 1834 (p. 
333; published as ‘Myopariae’). 


32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


3. Collin (1959, pp. 145-146) set out the problem with Latreille’s (1810) type 
species designation for Myopa and noted that ‘if ... Curtis’ type designation be 
accepted, the two generic names [Sicus and Myopa] can still be retained in the sense 
in which they have for so long been used ... This proposition meets the expressed 
desires of the Zoological Commission that all confusing changes in the use of 
well-known generic names should always be avoided’. The problem was also 
recorded in BZN 18: 43 (December 1960), when it was noted: “The plenary powers 
may be needed to conserve the usage of Myopa and Sicus’. Under the entry for 
Myopa in the Catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico, I (Camras, 1965, 
p. 630) cited M. buccata as the type species but noted that there was a problem: 
“‘Long-standing usage is maintained here, and the case has been submitted to the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’. Despite these statements an 
application to the Commission has not been made until now. 

4. Some eight nominal species are currently placed in the genus Sicus and 43 are 
placed in Myopa. Both names are included in the North American and Palaearctic 
dipteran catalogues, which are already cited in this application (chapters by Camras, 
1965 and Chvala & Smith, 1988 respectively). Both names are also included in the 
catalogues of South American (Papavero, 1971) and Nearctic (Smith & Peterson, 
1987) Diptera. Several further recent works in which the names are used (Chvala, 
1963, 1965; Smith, 1959, 1969, 1970; and Zimina, 1963, 1974, 1975, 1976) are cited in 
the bibliography of vol. 8 of the Palaearctic catalogue. 

5. Collin (1959, p. 145) recorded the unnamed species in the illustration (pl. 120, 
figs. 1-3) on which the name Stomoxoides Schaeffer, 1766 (ref. 1766a) was based as 
a specimen of Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761. The generic name was used 
subsequently only by Schaeffer ([1766b], [1779]), when further unnamed taxa were 
included. Panzer ([{1794], pl. 24) identified Schaeffer’s illustration ({1779], pl. 261, fig. 
3) of Stomoxoides ‘quintus’ as Myopa ferruginea; further taxa were identified as 
species of Myopa by Panzer (1804). Following Panzer’s ((1794]) action, under the 
Code the name Stomoxoides is an objective synonym of both Sicus and Myopa 
(junior to Sicus but senior to Myopa). Approval by the Commission of the 
designation of C. buccata as the type of Myopa will allow Stomoxoides to be placed 
on the Official Index as a junior objective synonym of Sicus. Collin (1959, p. 146) also 
noted that in a revision of the MYOPINAE, Robineau-Desvoidy (1853, p. 113) accepted 
Latreille’s (1810) designation of C. ferruginea as the type (and only species) of Myopa 
and (p. 93) designated M. picta Panzer, 1798 (pl. 22) as the type of Sicus; since picta 
was not originally included in the genus this designation is invalid. Robineau- 
Desvoidy (p. 98) proposed the new name Myopella for M. buccata (Linnaeus), and 
included a further nine nominal species in the genus. Approval by the Commission of 
this application will render Myopella a junior objective synonym of Myopa Fabricius, 
Wey. 

6. The name Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (p. 159) was proposed for a genus without 
included species. Subsequently, Latreille (1802, p. 439) included the single species 
Sicus ferruginea ‘F.’ (i.e. Fabricius), thereby rendering Coenomyia a junior objective 
synonym of both Sicus and Myopa. Lioy (1864, p. 1327) proposed the name 
Cylindrogaster for the single species Conops ferruginea Linnaeus and thus this name 
also is a junior objective synonym of Sicus and Myopa. Following approval by the 
Commission of this application the names Coenomyia and Cylindrogaster will be 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 33 


placed on the Official Index as junior objective synonyms of Sicus Scopoli, 1763. The 
existence of two junior homonyms of Sicus Scopoli has previously been noted (BZN 
18: 43). The type species of Sicus Latreille, 1796 (p. 158) by subsequent monotypy of 
Latreille (1805, p. 312) is Musca cimecoides Fabricius, 1779 (p. 253) and the generic 
name is an invalid senior objective synonym of Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (p. 269; 
see BZN 18: 35-36). The name Tachydromia (family EMPIDIDAE) is currently in use 
(see, for example, Melander, 1965, p. 474). No type designation is known for Sicus 
Fabricius, 1798 (pp. 547, 554); ‘ferruginea’ was one of the included species but this 
was cited without an author and from the listed synonymies the name may well not 
refer to Linnaeus’s taxon (see Collin, 1959, p. 145). It is proposed that the names 
Sicus Latreille, 1796 and Sicus Fabricius, 1798 be placed on the Official Index. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species for the 

nominal genus Myopa Fabricius, 1775 prior to the designation by Curtis (1838) 

of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758; 

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

(a) Sicus Scopoli, 1763 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Coquillet (1910) Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761; 

(b) Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Curtis (1838) Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758, as ruled in (1) 
above; 

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

(a) ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Conops ferruginea 
(specific name of the type species of Sicus Scopoli, 1763); 

(b) buccata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Conops buccata 
(specific name of the type species of Myopa Fabricius, 1775); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) Stomoxoides Schaeffer, 1766 (a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 
1763); 

(b) Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 
1763); 

(c) Cylindrogaster Lioy, 1864 (a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 
1763); 

(d) Myopella Robineau-Desvoidy, 1853 (a junior objective synonym of Myopa 
Fabricius, 1775); 

(e) Sicus Latreille, 1796 (a junior homonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763); 

(f) Sicus Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763). 


References 


Camras, S. 1965. Family Conopidae. Pp. 625-632 in 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. iv, 1696 pp. United States Department of Agriculture, 
Washington. 

Chyala, M. & Smith, K.G.V. 1988. Family Conopidae. Pp. 245-272 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. 
(Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 8. 363 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 


34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Collin, J.E. 1959. The British species of Myopa (Dipt., Conopidae). The Entomologist's 
Monthly Magazine, 95: 145-151. 

Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings 
of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647. 

Curtis, J. 1838. British Entomology; being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects 
found in Great Britain and Ireland ..., vol. 15. Pls. 674-721 (text). Author, London. 
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species 
adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. [xxxii], 832 pp. Flensburgi et 

Lipsiae. j 

Fabricius, J.C. 1779. Reise nach Norwegen mit Bemerkungen aus der Naturhistorie und 
Oekonomie. \xiv, 388, [12] pp. Hamburg. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. 572 pp. Hafniae. 

Latreille, P.A. 1796. Précis des caractéres génériques des insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel. 
xvi, 208 pp. Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. [1802], [1805]. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des 
insectes, vol. 3. 467 pp. ({1802]); vol. 14. 432 pp. ({1805]). Dufart, Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. 1809. Genera crustaceorum et insectorum ..., vol. 4. 399 pp. Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur l’ordre naturel des animaux composant les 
classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris. 

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

Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna svecica sistens animalia sveciae regni. Ed. 2. xlviii, 578 pp., 2 pls. 
Salvii, Stockholmiae. 

Lioy, P. 1864. I ditteri distribuiti secondo un nuovo metodo di classificazione naturale. Atti 
dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (3)9(2): 1311-1352. 

Macquart, P.J.M. 1834. Insectes dipteres du Nord de la France. Athéricéres: Creophiles, 
Oestrides, Myopaires, Conopsaires, Scénopiniens, Céphalopsides. Mémoires de la Société 
(Royale) des Sciences, de I’ Agriculture et des Arts de Lille, 1833: 137-368. 

Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungs Eintheilung der europdischen zweifliigeligen 
Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (TIlliger), 2: 259-281. 

Melander, A.L. 1965. Family Empididae. Pp. 446-481 in 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. iv, 1696 pp. United States Department of 
Agriculture, Washington. 

Panzer, G.W.F. [1794], 1798. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten, 
Heft 22. 24 pp., 24 pls. ({1794]); Heft 54. 24 pp., 24 pls. (1798). Niirnburg. 

Panzer, G.W.F. 1804. D.J.C. Schaefferi Icones Insectorum Ratisbonensium ..., Editio nova, vol. 
4 (D.J.C. Schaefferi Iconum Insectorum circa Ratisbonam indigenorum enumeratio system- 
atica opera et studio D. Georg. Wolfgang. Francisc. Panzeri. (Systematische Nomenclatur 
liber ... J.C. Schaffers ... Abbildungen, Ec)). Erlangae. 

Papavero, N. 1971. Family Conopidae. Pp. 9-10 in (Ed.), A catalogue of the Diptera of the 
Americas south of the United States. No. 47, 24 pp. Museu de Zoologica, Universidade de 
Sao Paulo. 

Robineau-Desvoidy, A.J.B. 1853. Dipteres des environs de Paris (1). Famille des Myopaires. 
Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Historiques et Naturelles de I’ Yonne, 7: 83-160. 

Schaeffer, J.C. 1766a. Elementa entomologica. 168 pp., 135 pls. Weiss, Ratisbonae. 

Schaeffer, J.C. [1766b], [1779]. Icones Insectorum circa Ratisbonam indigenorum coloribus 
naturam referentibus expressae. Vol. 1, pls. 1-100 ([1766]); vol. 3, pls. 201-280 ({1779)). 
Regensburg. 

Schiner, I.R. 1861. Vorlaufiger Commentar zum dipterologischen Theile der ‘Fauna austriaca’. 
III. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, 5: 137-144. 

Scopoli, J.A. 1763. Entomologia carniolica exhibens insecta carnioliae indigena et distributa in 
ordines, genera, species, varietates. Methodo Linneana. [xxxiv], 421, [1] pp., 43 pls. 
Trattner, Vindobonae. 

Smith, K.G.V & Peterson, B.V. 1987. Conopidae. Pp. 749-756 in McAlpine, J.F. (Ed.), Manual 
of Nearctic Diptera, vol. 2. Pp. vi, 675-1332. Monograph no. 28. Biosystematics Research 
Centre, Ottawa. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 35 


Case 2835 


Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes): 
conservation proposée 


Jacques Géry & Volker Mahnert 
clo Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, CP 6434, 1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland 


Résumé. L’objet de la présente requéte est la conservation du nom Alestes Miller & 
Troschel, 1844 (famille des ALESTIDAE Hoedman, 1951), utilisé depuis 150 ans pour un 
groupe de poissons d’eau douce africains comprenant (au sens large) une quarantaine 
d’espéces et répandu depuis le Sénégal jusqu’au Natal. Ce nom est actuellement un 
synonyme subjectif récent du nom inutilis¢é Myletes Cuvier, 1814, dont on propose ici 
la suppression. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Alestes Miller & 
Troschel, 1844 (family ALESTIDAE Hoedman, 1951) which has been in use for 150 
years for a group of African freshwater fishes which comprises (in the broad sense) 
some 40 species, distributed from Senegal to Natal. At present Alestes is a junior 
subjective synonym of the unused name Myletes Cuvier, 1814, for which suppression 
is proposed. 


1. Dans le Mémoire de Cuvier (1814, p. 75), présenté par M. Anselme Desmarest, 
le genre Myletes est proposé pour la premiére fois en ces termes: 

‘M. Cuvier fait le genre My/letes des characins a dents prismatiques triangulaires, 
tels que le raii du Nil ou Salmo dentex d’Hasselquist, et le Salmo niloticus de 
Forskahl, ainsi que de quelques espéces des mers d’Amérique, dont le ventre est 
comprimé et dentelé. Leurs machoires sont conformées commes celles des poissons 
des deux genres précédents’ [c’est-a-dire ‘le genre serrasalme de M. de Lacépéde’ et 
‘le genre tétragonoptére de Seba’). 

(Le second genre nouveau proposé, Hydrocin, comprend ‘le Characin dentex de 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire ou le Salmo dentex de Forskahl’, qu’il ne faut pas confondre 
avec le précédent, le Salmo dentex d’Hasselquist). Une réédition du Mémoire a été 
présentée sous le méme titre l’année suivante (Cuvier, 1815, p. 115), sous une forme 
un peu différente. Les orthographes Mylites, indiquée par Minding (1832, p. 121) et 
Mylestes, indiquée par Monod (1950, p. 49, note 1), n’apparaissent pas dans la 
publication originale du nom. 

2. Une seule espéce est nommée lors de l’établissement du genre, Salmo dentex 
Hasselquist (Salmo niloticus Forsskal, 1775, p. 66; cf. Cuvier, 1816, p. 167, note 2; 
Giinther, 1864, p. 12; Valenciennes, 1849, pp. 185-186; et tous les auteurs suivants). 
Il ne fait aucun doute que dans !’esprit de Cuvier (qui a précisé le fait en 1816 et 1818) 
il n’y a qu’une seule forme africaine, provenant du Nil. Les autres espéces ‘des mers 
d’Ameérique’ ne sont pas citées nominativement. Cuvier ne donne pas de date pour le 
nom établi par Hasselquist. L’ouvrage de cet auteur (Hasselquist, 1757) dans lequel 
le nom est apparu pour la premiére fois (pp. 395-398), est pré-linnéen; la traduction 


36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


allemande (1762) a été rejetée pour des raisons nomenclaturales (Opinion 57, mars 
1914; Direction 32, mai 1956). Salmo dentex Hasselquist, 1762 (pp. 437-439) est de 
ce fait un nom indisponible. Le deuxiéme nom cité, Salmo niloticus ‘Forsskal, 1775’, 
i.e. Linné, 1758, un synonyme subjectif de Cyprinus dentex Linné, 1758, p. 325 (voir 
paragraphe 4 ci-dessous), fondé sur Salmo dentex Hasselquist, 1757, est donc 
Vespéce-type de Myletes par monotypie. Il ne s’agit pas d’une espéce-type par 
désignation ultérieure des “Disciples de Cuvier’ ([1842], pp. 265-266, pl. 103, figs. 1, 
la, ou une seule espéce africaine est figurée), comme indiqué par Travassos (1952, 
p. 159), repris par Géry (1972, p. 161; 1976, p. 48) et Paugy (1984, p. 140). En 1816 
Cuvier (pp. 166-167, 167 note 2) décrit My/letes avec la seule espéce Cyprinus dentex, 
citant Salmo dentex Hasselquist et S. niloticus Forsskal comme synonymes. Linné 
avait decrit un specimen de C. dentex dans le vol. 2 (p. 108) de son Museum Adolphi 
Friderici, ouvrage complété dés 1754 mais non publié avant 1764 (voir Fernholm 
& Wheeler, 1983, p. 203; ces auteurs (pp. 214-215) ont mentionné un spécimen 
(N° NRM LP 49) de la collection linnéenne a Stockholm (qui peut effectivement étre 
le specimen décrit par Hasselquist) comme type de l’espéce). 

3. En 1818, Cuvier (pp. 444-456) consacre un Mémoire aux Myletes, dans lequel 
(pp. 451-454, pl. 21, fig. 3, pl. 22, figs. 1-3) les espéces américaines (MM. macropomus, 
M. rhomboidalis, M. duriventris et M. brachypomus) sont nommées pour la premiére 
fois, aprés une description compléte de Myletes dentex accompagnée de sa synony- 
mie. Depuis ce Mémoire, et en se fiant a Miller & Troschel (1844), la plupart des 
ichtyologistes (sauf, comme on le verra, Gill (1896a,b), Eigenmann & Ogle (1907), 
Eigenmann (1909) et Travassos (1951, 1952)) ont traité Myletes comme un genre 
sud-ameéricain. Jordan (1917, p. 93) cite a tort M. rhomboidalis comme l’espéce-type; 
ultérieurement (1920, p. 467) il reconnaitra l’espéce-type par monotypie et corrigera 
son erreur. I] est dommage que Eschmeyer & Bailey (1990, p. 256) se referent 
seulement a Jordan (1917), et donnent M. rhomboidalis comme espéce-type, tout en 
datant le genre de 1815, en le donnant comme valide dans les SERRASALMIDAE d’aprés 
une lecture incorrecte de Géry (1976, p. 48) mais en remarquant ‘needs more 
research’. 

4. Il est admis depuis longtemps (voir Forsskal, 1775, p. 66) que le nom Salmo 
niloticus Linné, 1758 (p. 312) se rapporte au méme taxon que Cyprinus dentex Linné, 
1758 (pp. 325-326). Récemment, trois spécimens de la collection linnéenne de 
Stockholm (N° NRM LP 79), étiquetés Salmo niloticus, ont été identifiés comme 
Alestes sp. (Fernholm & Wheeler, 1983, pp. 213-214). Valenciennes (1849, pp. 
185-187) est le premier réviseur a avoir fixé la primauté de C. dentex sur S. niloticus. 
La description de Linné (1758 et 1764) de S. niloticus s’applique a un taxon distinct 
de S. niloticus Hasselquist, 1757 (p. 378; répété en 1762, p. 422). Bonnaterre (1788, 
p. 169) a renommé Salmo nefasch le S. niloticus de Hasselquist, ultérieurement 
désigné (comme ‘Characinus nefasch Geoffroy’) comme espéce-type par monotypie 
de Distichodus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (p. 87; famille des DISTICHODIDAE). Daget & 
Gosse (1984, p. 185) ont incorrectement cité S. niloticus Linné comme espéce-type de 
Distichodus (voir aussi Fernholm & Wheeler, 1983, p. 214). 

5. Cuvier (1818, p. 449, pl. 21, fig. 2) a proposé le nom de remplacement Myletes 
hasselquistii pour Salmo dentex Hasselquist et Cyprinus dentex Linné, en raison de la 
confusion de usage de ces derniers noms avec ceux d’autres espéces. Le nom 
M. hasselquisti [sic] a été adopté par Valenciennes (1849, p. 180). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 37 


6. Miiller & Troschel (1844, p. 88) décrivent le genre Alestes en citant les 
deux espéces du Nil ‘Alestes niloticus Nob. (Cyprinus dentex Linn.; Salmo dentex 
Hasselquist; Characinus niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire; Myletes hasselquistii 
Cuvier)’ et ‘Alestes nurse Nob. (Myletes nurse Ruppell)’. Ils réservent (pp. 96-98) le 
genre Myletes a 12 especes sud-américaines énumérées ou décrites. Ceci est répété 
dans Miiller & Troschel (1845, pp. 12-13, 35-39, pl. 22, fig. 6, pl. 9, fig. 3, pl. 10, figs. 
1, 2, 2a) ot d’autres espéces, certaines illustrées, sont placées dans les deux genres. 
L’espéce-type d’Alestes n’est pas désignée. L’espéce-type par désignation ultérieure 
(Jordan, 1919, p. 221) est Salmo [recte Characinus] niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 
1809 (p. 49, pl. 4, fig. 2), fondé par référence a Cyprinus dentex Linné, 1758. 
Travassos (1951, p. 214; 1952, p. 161) accepte que le type (“Cyprinus dentex Linné, 
1758 = Salmo niloticus Geoffroy, 1809’) ait bien été désigné par Jordan, et déclare 
justement Alestes invalidé par Myletes pour cause d’isogénotypie. Paugy (1984, p. 
140) admet Salmo niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (“= Alestes dentex (Linné, 1758)’) 
comme type, en datant sa désignation de Jordan, et en citant Géry (1968, p. 173, note 
infrapaginale). Eschmeyer & Bailey (1990, p. 19) indiquent comme type, sans citer 
correctement Jordan, ‘“Characinus niloticus Geoffroy St. Hilaire... by subsequent 
designation...type above as given by Jordan’, en ajoutant “Earliest type designation 
not researched’. 

7. Entre lérection de Alestes par Miller & Troschel (1844), et la désignation de 
son espéce-type par Jordan (1919), les auteurs suivants ont cité ce nom générique a 
la place de son synonyme plus ancien. Valenciennes (1849, pp. 179, 192), Duméril 
(1856, pp. 458, 463) et Giinther (1864, pp. 312, 372; 1880, pp. 608, 613) réservent le 
genre Myletes aux espéces américaines et le genre Alestes aux espéces africaines; 
Peters (1852, p. 276), Regan (1908, p. xxi) et Boulenger (1909, p. 190) adoptent 
Alestes comme le nom générique pour les taxa africains. Eigenmann & Eigenmann 
(1891, pp. 14, 60-61) emploient Myletes comme un nom général pour 33 espéces 
sud-américaines, y compris celles décrites par Cuvier (1818) (mais sans donner 
dindication sur l'emploi de ce genre pour les espéces africaines). En revanche, 
d’autres auteurs ont correctement traité le genre Myletes. Gill (1896a, p. 209) cite la 
sous-famille des MYLETINAE qui comprend ‘Myletes dentex, Linnaeus’, avec en 
synonymie ‘Alestes dentex Sagemehl, 1885’. Dans une publication suivante consacrée 
au genre Characinus et a Vhistoire de la nomenclature des Characini sensu Linné, Gill 
(1896b, p. 214) retrace histoire de Myletes en rappelant son espéce-type et en créant 
le genre Myloplus pour certaines espéces sud-américaines: ‘*.. .The Myletes niloticus 
or dentex is the Alestes kotschyi (not dentex) of Giinther, and as it was the only 
described species for which Cuvier originally framed the genus, it should retain the 
former generic name. The South American species referred to Myletes should take 
the name Myleus of Miiller and Troschel [1844, p. 98]. This genus has been divided 
into two subgenera, Myletes and Myleus. For the former, Myloplus may be taken as 
a substitute...’ (L’espéce-type de Myloplus, Myletes asterias Miller & Troschel, 1844, 
a été désignée par Eigenmann, 1912, p. 390). Gill, en note de bas de p. 214, remarque: 
‘Dr. Giinther went back for Myletes only to Cuvier, Mém. Mus., IV, p. 444 [1818], 
when the South American species attributed to it were first described’. Eigenmann & 
Ogle (1907, p. 29) citent les deux espéces africaines dentex et baremose comme des 
Myletes, et Eigenmann (1909, p. 258) traite, dans sa clé des TETRAGONOPTERINAE, le 
genre Myletes (africain) de la méme maniére que Alestes est traité par les auteurs 


38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


modernes, montrant par la qu’il considére Alestes comme un synonyme de Myletes. 
Travassos (1951, p. 214; 1952, p. 161) démontre que Myletes Cuvier invalide Alestes 
Miller & Troschel et My/letes Mulsant & Verreaux, 1874 (Aves, un homonyme plus 
récent, genre d’Oiseaux-mouches (famille de TROCHILIDAE) considéré comme un 
synonyme subjectif de Amazilia Lesson, 1828). 

8. Les quatre espéces nominales de Myletes décrites par Cuvier (1818) et placées 
dans Myletes ont été ensuite incluses dans d’autres genres (voir Géry, 1976, pp. 
48-49). M. rhomboidalis est inclus dans Myleus Miller & Troschel, 1844, sous-genre 
Prosomyleus Géry, 1972; M. duriventris dans Mylossoma Eigenmann, 1903, M. 
macropomus dans Colossoma Eigenmann, 1903, et M. brachypomus dans Piaractus 
Eigenmann, 1903. Depuis 1909, a l’exception de Travassos (1951, 1952), de Poll 
(1976, p. 46, qui écrit a tort ‘A Vorigine le type adopté [de My/etes] était Myletes guile 
Joannis [1835], synonyme de Alestes nurse Rippell [1832])), et d'autres listes ou 
catalogues, et malgré la mise au point de Gill (1896a, 1896b), c’est le synonyme le plus 
récent, Alestes, qui est employe. Myletes a été inemployé en systématique zoologique 
depuis plus de 80 ans si l’on ne tient pas compte des citations purement nomen- 
claturales. Il serait nuisible a la stabilité de la nomenclature de revenir en arriére. Une 
telle action, bien que conforme au Code, rendrait caduc, non seulement le genre 
Alestes qui a fait ! objet de nombreux travaux au cours des 50 dernieres années (voir, 
par exemple, Blache, 1964; Daget & IItis, 1965; Jubb, 1967; Géry, 1968, 1977; Paugy, 
1984; Lévéque, Paugy & Teugels, 1990), et dont certaines espéces sont d’importance 
économique en Afrique, mais aussi le nom de la famille des ALESTIDAE Hoedeman, 
1951 (publié comme Alestidi), reconnue par certains auteurs. Dans Vintérét de la 
stabilité de la nomenclature et au nom d’un usage continu, nous demandons que le 
nom Myletes soit supprimé. 

9. En conséquence, il est demandé a la Commission Internationale de Nomen- 
clature Zoologique: 

(1) d’user de ses pleins pouvoirs pour supprimer le nom générique Myletes Cuvier, 

1814 a ’égard du Principe de Priorité mais non du Principe d Homonymie; 

(2) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Genériques en Zoologie le nom 
Alestes Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (genre: masculin), espéce-type par désignation 
ultérieure de Jordan (1919) Characinus niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1809 
(un synonyme subjectif plus récent de Cyprinus dentex Linné, 1758); 

(3) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Spécifiques en Zoologie le nom dentex 
Linné, 1758, publié dans le binéme Cyprinus dentex (un synonyme subjectif 
plus ancien du nom spécifique de Characinus niloticus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 
1809, ’'espéce-type de Alestes Miller & Troschel, 1844); 

(4) de placer sur l’Index Officiel des Noms Génériques Rejetés et Invalides en 
Zoologie le nom Myletes Cuvier, 1814, supprimé ci-dessus en (1); 

(5) de placer sur I’Index Officiel des Noms Spécifiques Rejetés et Invalides en 
Zoologie le nom hasselquistii Cuvier, 1818, publié dans le binodme Myletes 
hasselquistii (un synonyme objectif plus récent de Cyprinus dentex Linné, 
1758). 


Références 


Blache, J. 1964. Les poissons du bassin du Tchad et du bassin adjacent du Mayo Kebbi. Etude 
systématique et biologique. 483 pp., 147 figs. ORSTOM, Paris. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 39 


Bonnaterre, J.P. 1788. Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois régnes de la nature. 
Ichthyologie. \vi, 215 pp., 102 pls. Panckoucke, Paris. 

Boulenger, G.A. 1909. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of Africa in the British Museum 
(Natural History), vol. 1. xi, 373 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Cuvier, G. 1814. Mémoire sur la composition de la machoire supérieure des poissons, et sur le 
parti qu’on peut en tirer pour la distribution méthodique de ces animaux [présenté par M. 
Anselme Desmarest]. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 1814: 

73-78. 

Cuvier, G. 1815. Mémoire sur la composition de la machoire supérieure des poissons, et sur le 
parti que l’on peut en tirer pour la distribution méthodique de ces animaux. Mémoires du 
Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, 1(2): 102-132. 

Cuvier, G. 1816. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, vol. 2. xviii, 532 pp. 
Déterville, Paris. 

Cuvier, G. 1818. Sur les poissons du sous-genre Myletes. Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire 
Naturelle, 4: 444-456. 

Cuvier, G. [1842]. Les raiis (Myletes Cuv.). Pp. 265-266 in: Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son 
organisation. Edition accompagnée de planches gravées ... par une réunion de disciples de 
Cuvier [A.V. Audouin et al.]. Les poissons. Fortin, Masson et Cie, Paris. 

Daget, J. & Gosse, J.-P. 1984. Distichodontidae. Pp. 184-211 in Daget, J., Gosse, J.P. & Thys 
van den Audenaerde, D.F.E. (Eds.), Catalogue des poissons d’eau douce d'Afrique 
(CLOFFA), vol. 1. xviii, 410 pp. ORSTOM, Paris. 

Daget, J. & Iltis, A. 1965. Poissons de Céte d'Ivoire (eaux douces et saumatres). 385 pp., 212 
figs., 4 pls. IFAN-DAKAR. 

Duméril, A.M.C. 1856. Ichthyologie analytique ou classification des poissons, suivant la 
méthode naturelle, a l'aide de tableaux synoptiques. Mémoires de I’ Académie des Sciences, 
27(1): 1-511. 

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: \-81. 

Eigenmann, C.H. 1909. The fresh-water fishes of Patagonia and an examination of the 
Archiplata-Archhelenis theory. Pp. 225-374, pls. 30-37 in: Reports of the Princeton 
University Expeditions to Patagonia 1896-1899, vol. 3 (Zoology), part 3. The University of 
Princeton, Princeton. 

Eigenmann, C.H. 1912. The freshwater 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. & Ogle, F. 1907. An annotated list of characin fishes in the United States 
National Museum and the Museum of Indiana University, with descriptions of new 
species. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 33(1556): 1-36. 

Eschmeyer, W.N. & Bailey, R.M. 1990. Genera of Recent fishes. Pp. 7-433 in Eschmeyer, 
W.N., 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. 

Forsskal, P. 1775. Descriptiones animalium. Avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, ver- 
mium; quae in itinere Orientali ... post mortem auctoris edidit Carsten Niebuhr ... 164 pp., 
1 pl. Heineck & Faber, Hauniae. 

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1809. Histoire naturelle des poissons du Nil. Pp. 1-52, 27 pls. in: 
Description de l’Egypte, histoire naturelle, vol. 1. Imprimerie Impériale, Paris. 

Géry, J. 1968. Un essai de sytématique quantitative: la classification des especes du genre 
Alestes s. lat. (Pisces, Characoidei). Vie et Milieu, (A, Biologie Marine)19(1): 171-193. 

Géry, J. 1972. Poissons characoides des Guyanes. I. Généralités. II. Famille des Serrasalmidae. 
Zoologische Verhandelingen, 122: 1-250. 

Géry, J. 1976. Les genres de Serrasalmidae (Pisces, Characoidei). Bulletin Zoologisch Museum 
Universiteit van Amsterdam, 5(6): 47-54. 

Géry, J. 1977. Characoids of the world. 672 pp., numerous unnumbered pls. T.F.H. 
Publications, Hong Kong. 


40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Gill, T. 1896a. The differential characters of characinoid and erythrinoid fishes. Proceedings of 
the United States National Museum, 18(1056): 205-209. ’ 

Gill, T. 1896b. Note on the fishes of the genus Characinus. Proceedings of the United States 
National Museum, 18(1058): 213-215. 

Giinther, A. 1864. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 5. xxii, 455, 8 pp. British 
Museum, London. 

Giinther, A. 1880. An introduction to the study of fishes. xvi, 720 pp. Black, Edinburgh. 

Hasselquist, F. 1757. Iter palestinum, eller Resa til Heliga Landet forrdattad ifran Ar 1749 til 
1752, med beskrifningar ... utgifven af Carl Linnaeus. [xiv], 619 pp. Stockholm. 

Hasselquist, F. 1762. D. Friedrich Hasselquists ... Reise nach Paldstina in den Jahren von 
1749 bis 1752. Herausgegeben von Carl Linnaeus ... Aus dem Schwedischen (by T.H. 
Gadebusch). [xviii], 606 pp. Rostock. 

Hoedeman, J.J. 1951. Studies on African characid fishes. 1. The tribe Alestidi. Beaufortia, 1(3): 
1-8. 

Jordan, D.S. 1917, 1919, 1920. The genera of fishes. Part 1, pp. 1-161 (1917); part 2, pp. ix, 
163-284, xiii (1919); part 4, pp. 411-576, xviii (1920). Stanford University, California. 

Jubb, R.A. 1967. Freshwater fishes of Southern Africa. 248 pp., 272 figs., 67 pls. Balkema, Cape 
Town. 

Lévéque, C., Paugy, D. & Teugels, G.G. (Eds.). 1990. Faune des poissons d’eau douce et 
saumatre de |’Afrique de l'Ouest. Faune Tropicale, 28: 1-384. 

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

Linné, C. 1764. Museum S:ae R:ae M:tis Adolphi Friderici Regis ... Aves, Amphibia, Pisces 
describuntur. Tomi Secundi Prodromus. 111 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Minding, J. 1832. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte der Fische. xii, 131 pp., | pl. 

Monod, T. 1950. Notes d’ichtyologie ouest-africaine. Bulletin de l'Institut Frangais d’ Afrique 
Noire, 12(1): 1-71. 

Miiller, J. & Troschel, F.H. 1844. Synopsis generum et specierum familiae Characinorum 
(Prodromus descriptionis novorum generum et specierum). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 
10(1): 81-99. 

Miiller, J. & Troschel, F.H. 1845. Horae ichthyologicae. Beschreibung und Abbildung neuer 
Fische, Hefts 1 und 2. 40 pp., 11 pls. Veit & Comp, Berlin. 

Mulsant, M.E. & Verreaux, J.B.E. 1874. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux-mouches ou colubris 
constituant la famille des trochilidés, vol. 1. 343 pp. Société Linnéenne, Lyon. 

Paugy, D. 1984. Characidae. Pp. 140-160 in Daget, J., Gosse, J.-P. & Thys van den 
Audenaerde, D.F.E. (Eds.), Catalogue des poissons d'eau douce d' Afrique (CLOFFA), vol. 
1. xviii, 410 pp. ORSTOM, Paris. 

Peters, [W.C.H.] 1852. Einige neue Saugethiere und Flussfische aus Mossambique vor. Bericht 
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1852: 273-276. 

Poll, M. 1976. Poissons. Exploration du Parc national de l’'Upemba. Mission G.F. de Witte, 73: 
1-127. 

Regan, C.T. 1908. Pisces. Introduction. Pp. i-xxxii in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), 
Biologia Centrali-Americana. Porter, London. 

Riippell, E. 1832. Fortsetzung der Beschreibung und Abbildung mehrerer neuer Fische, in Nil 
endeckt. 14 pp., 3 pls. Frankfurt. 

Sagemehl, M. 1885. Das Cranium der Characiniden nebst allgemeinen Bemerkungen tiber die 
mit einem Weber’schen Apparat versehenen Physostomenfamilien. Morphologisches 
Jahrbuch, 10: 1-119. ‘ 

Travassos, H. 1951, 1952. Catalogo dos géneros e subgéneros da subordem Characoidei 
(Actinopterygii-Cypriniformes). Dusenia, 2: 205-224 (1951); 3: 141-180 (1952). 

Valenciennes, A. 1849. Suite de la famille des Salmonoides. Jn Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A., 
Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 22. xx, 92, 532 pp. Bertrand, Paris. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 41 


Comment 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, 
284-285) 


Gerhard Hahn 
Institut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-Universitat, D-3550 Marburg, 
Germany 


Dr N.J. Silberling (BZN 50: 141) has disputed my previous comment (BZN 48: 
246) that Urlichs’s application will conserve the name Ceratites nodosus as used 
today. My comment referred to the biostratigraphical use of the name nodosus in 
Central Europe. The name (in the sense recommended by Urlichs) has been used here 
for a long time to denote a special index-fossil of the Upper Muschelkalk, and the 
‘nodosus-Zone’ is well known to geologists. To change the name of this index-fossil 
(as would result from Tozer’s counter proposals on BZN 49: 148) would cause very 
much confusion amongst geologists, quite apart from the taxonomic and nomencla- 
tural aspects which have been mentioned by the opponents of Urlichs’s application. 
It is notewothy that most of these opponents come from regions where the practical 
consequences of the application are of little concern because the lithology of the 
Triassic strata is different from that in Central Europe. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Notonecta obliqua 
Thunberg, 1787 (Insecta, Heteroptera) 
(Case 2829; see BZN 50: 118-120) 


(1) LM. Kerzhner 
Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia 


1. The purpose of the application by Jansson & Polhemus is to suppress the name 
Notonecta marginata Miller, 1776 in order to conserve Netonecta obliqua Thunberg, 
1787. The basis of the application was their acceptance of Kirkaldy’s (1897) view that 
N. marginata is conspecific with Notonecta furcata Fabricius, 1794, which is itself a 
synonym of N. obliqua. However, I do not accept Kirkaldy’s synonymy but rather 
Reuter’s (1888) synonymy of N. marginata with the corixid Cymatia coleoptrata 
(Fabricius, [1777]). I base this on the following four lines of evidence: 

a. Miller (1776) included in the genus Notonecta five species in two dissimilar 
groups of waterbugs, the notonectids and the corixids. The first two species 
listed — Notonecta glauca Linnaeus and Notonecta lutea sp. nov. — are 
notonectids. Following their description is a note indicating their common 
features and differences. The third and fifth species are corixids, the third being 
N. striata Linnaeus, 1758 and the fifth N. minutissima Linnaeus, 1758. Placed 
between them was the fourth species — N. marginata. This would be an 
appropriate position for the corixid C. coleoptrata, which is similar in 
appearance to the preceding and following species and intermediate in size 
between them. In contrast, N. obliqua is very dissimilar to the third and fifth 
species and much larger than them and would fit much better with Miiller’s 


42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


first two species; it is most unlikely that Miller would have placed it in the 
position of the fourth species. 

b. The original description of NV. marginata — ‘elytris nigris: margine suturaque 
luteis’ — agrees well with C. coleoptrata, accepting that ‘niger’ can be 
translated ‘dark’ as well as ‘black’, that ‘margine suturaque luteis’ should be 
translated as ‘with the margin and suture yellow’ and not ‘sutural margin 
yellow’, and that the suture refers to the line of contact of hemelytra rather 
than to their whole inner margin. It is clear from a number of dictionaries that 
in classical Latin ‘piceus’ is black, ‘fuscus’ is brown to black and ‘niger’ is dark, 
although in medieval Latin ‘niger’ is used for black. Fabricius used ‘fuscus’ in 
describing hemelytra of both C. coleoptrata and N. furcata (= obliqua). 1 do not 
consider that Miiller’s use of ‘niger’ in describing N. marginata implies any 
difference from C. coleoptrata. 

c. In C. coleoptrata the hemelytra are greyish to blackish brown with a wide 
yellowish lateral margin and very narrow yellow sutural margin. The yellowish 
longitudinal stripes on hemelytra mentioned by Jansson & Polhemus (para. 4) 
are often indistinct, especially if dark specimens are examined with only a hand 
lens; it is therefore not surprising that Fabricius did not mention them in his 
original description of C. coleoptrata. In contrast, the hemelytra in N. obliqua 
are black or blackish brown with two large obliquely longitudinal yellow spots 
or stripes at their base, the inner spot being towards the inner basal margin of 
the hemelytra and more or less touching it at the base, but not touching the 
sutural margin. The lateral and sutural margins have a narrow yellow area 
which is much less apparent than the basal spots. Fabricius’s (1794, p. 58) 
description of N. furcata reads ‘elytris nigricantibus, maculis duabus oblongis 
baseos flavescentibus’ which can be translated ‘hemelytra blackish, with two 
oblong yellowish spots at the base’. Fabricius did not say anything about the 
yellow outer and sutural margins. I do not think that this description of N. 
obliqua can be applied to N. marginata. 

d. C. coleoptrata is the only European corixid fitting Miiller’s description of N. 
marginata. 

2. I should like to refer to the authorship of the name N. obliqua which should be 
credited to Thunberg and not to Gallén. Thunberg’s work consists of dissertations by 
his students. In Scandinavian countries in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries, 
so-called ‘academic dissertations’ were prepared by university professors — referred 
to in the title as ‘praeses’ (presiding over the meeting). Students — referred to in 
the title as ‘respondens’ (respondent) — paid for the preparation and publication of 
the dissertations (see Broberg, 1978). These dissertations were defended to demon- 
strate the acumen of the students in public scientific debate in Latin rather than their 
scientific ability. This procedure was widely used by zoologists such as Linnaeus, 
Fallén, Thunberg and R.F. Sahlberg for the publication of their scientific works. 
It is virtually universal practice to credit the publications and hence any names 
therein to these zoologists and not to the students. Esaki was unaware of this 
when he credited the name N. obliqua to ‘Gallén in Thunberg’, and he was followed 
by later authors. This error should not be perpetuated. Since N. obliqua has been 
involved in confusing synonymy it would still be desirable to place it on the Official 
List. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 43 
Additional reference 


Broberg, G. 1978. Brown-eyed, nimble, hasty, did everything promptly. Carl Linnaeus 
1707-1778. 52 pp. Liber Tryck, Stockholm. 


(2) Antti Jansson 
Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland 


I am most grateful to Dr I.M. Kerzhner for his comments (above) on this 
application. I accept his argument that Notonecta marginata is a senior subjective 
synonym not of N. obliqua, as Dr Polhemus and I believed when submitting our 
application, but of Sigara coleoptrata (now in Cymatia). Resurrecting the long- 
unused name N. marginata would cause considerable confusion since C. coleoptrata 
is well known in the recent literature (for example, Bernhardt, 1985, p. 6; Nieser, 
1978, p. 282; Savage, 1989, six entries; a further 26 references by 28 authors over the 
last 35 years are held by the Commission Secretariat). It follows that the Commission 
should be asked to conserve the name S. coleoptrata and place it on the Official List. 
The lectotype of C. coleoptrata is a male specimen in the Copenhagen Museum (see 
Jansson, 1986, p. 21). 

I agree with Dr Kerzhner that N. obliqua should still be placed on the Official List. 
As stated in para. 2 of my application with Dr Polhemus the original material seems 
no longer to exist. It is possible that a suitable neotype could be selected from the 
collections of the Swedish Museum of Natural History, but this seems unnecessary at 
this time since there is no dispute about the identity of the species. I agree with Dr 
Kerzhner that authorship of N. obliqua should be attributed to Thunberg and not to 
Gallén; indeed, our application to the Commission was originally so framed. 

The three requests made to the Commission in para. 5 of my application with Dr 
Polhemus still stand, except that authorship of Notonecta obliqua should be 
attributed to Thunberg and not Gallén in Thunberg. The following request is now 
added: 

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name coleoptrata 

Fabricius, [1777], as published in the binomen Sigara coleoptrata. 


Additional reference 


Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta 
Entomologica Fennica, 47: 1-94. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of some generic names in the 
BUPRESTIDAE (Insecta, Coleoptera) 
(Cases 2837/1 and 2837/2; see BZN 50: 27-30, 31-34, 56, 232-233) 


(1) Hans Miihle 
Hofangerstrasse 22a, D-81735 Miinchen, Germany 


The comment by Rick Westcott, published in BZN 50: 232-233, does not cover the 
whole story of the usage of the names Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops 
Dejean, 1833. 


4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


As noted in my application (para. 1), in 1829 Eschscholtz introduced the generic 
name Melanophila for two nominal species, Buprestis appendiculata Fabricius, 1792 
(= B. acuminata De Geer, 1774) and B. tarda Fabricius, 1792 (= B. cyanea Fabricius, 
1775). The name was accompanied by a short diagnosis. In 1833 Dejean introduced 
the generic name Phaenops. Among the included species were appendiculata Fabricius 
and tarda Fabricius. 

After Lacordaire (1857) re-used the name Phaenops and adopted it for B. tarda, 
adding a description which allowed the genus to be recognized, entomologists in 
Europe adopted this name (paras. 5 and 6 of the application; comment by Booth on 
BZN 50: 233). Théry (1942), apparently unaware of the earlier designation by 
Westwood ([1838]) of tarda (= cyanea) as the type species of Melanophila, designated 
cyanea as the type species of Phaenops in accordance with usage. Lacordaire retained 
appendiculata (= acuminata) in Melanophila and the name has consistently been used 
in the sense of this species as the type. 

All authors are agreed that the cyanea group of species is distinct from the 
acuminata group and two taxa (now genera) have been recognized. However, strict 
adherence to the Code (i.e. adoption of Westwood’s type designation) would mean 
rejecting the name Phaenops and placing it in the synonymy of Melanophila. This has 
not been done, either by Old World or New World authors. 

Westcott comments that he cannot speak for the usage of generic names for the 
two species groups in the Old World. I can confirm that in the Old World literature 
nearly all authors have followed Lacordaire and Théry in the use of the names 
Phaenops and Melanophila, and to adopt now the name Melanophila for the cyanea 
group of species would be extremely confusing and destablizing. Phaenops is 
currently used and defined by many redescriptions and included species which bear 
no relation to the two-line description of Melanophila by Eschscholtz (1829). There 
are also many redescriptions of Melanophila, the last being that by Cobos (1986) in 
his key revision. 

In summary, both the names Phaenops and Melanophila relate to well-defined 
groups and their usage is stable. I therefore urge that my proposal to designate 
Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila, thereby 
ratifying longstanding practice and allowing the continued usage of both names, 
should be accepted. 


(2) Richard L. Westcott 
Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol Street NE, Salem, Oregon, U.S.A. 


I maintain that Hans Mihle’s position does not take into account all matters in 
relation to the names Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833. 

In his application (para. 1) Miihle says ‘... Melanophila has never been used in the 
sense of tarda as the type species ...’. Continuing this theme (para. 7), he says ‘the 
name has not been used in this sense since 1857 ... 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’. In the New World at 
least, and especially regarding ‘confusion’, nothing could be further from reality. In 
his comment (above), Miihle states that Phaenops has not been placed as a synonym 
of Melanophila. This is misleading because Leraut’s (Old World) adoption of 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 45 


Melanophila for the tarda (= cyanea) species group was made in 1983 and accepted 
by Nelson (1989). 

The treatment of Phaenops at generic rank in the Nearctic literature is mostly of 
recent origin. It has been done only once in the past (Nelson, 1985) — then reversed. 
There certainly is now no disagreement that we are dealing with two generic taxa, as 
Mihle has pointed out (above); however, there certainly is disagreement over what 
names should be applied. For example, in North America we have several species of 
‘Phaenops’ that are of economic importance, some of which are known to cause 
serious damage in our forests. All our literature on this group (except Nelson, 1985), 
and it is considerable, will be found listed under the name Melanophila (see, for 
example, West, 1947). Four species of this group, which appear frequently in the 
literature, particularly concerning forestry, are listed under Melanophila in Common 
names of insects and related organisms published by the Entomological Society of 
America. The rejection of the name Phaenops as a synonym of Melanophila therefore 
causes very little confusion in North America, even with the necessity of adopting 
Oxypteris Kirby, 1837 for those species in the current subgenus Melanophila 
(Melanophila), i.e. typified by Buprestis acuminata, since none of these are of 
economic importance. However, I am concerned that this should not be a cause of 
confusion in the Old World literature relating to forestry and other fields of economic 
importance, particularly if this is extensive. I hope that entomologists will make 
known their views, resulting in greater clarification, so that a decision can be made 
as soon as feasible. 

One last point, albeit a minor one: in the abstract to his application Muhle states 
that most species of Phaenops are Palaearctic. This is true, but according to Cobos 
(1986) it would be by a slim margin. 


Additional reference 


West, A.S. Jr. 1947. The California flatheaded borer (Melanophila californica Van Dyke) in 
ponderosa pine stands of northeastern California. Canadian Journal of Research, Section 
D, 25: 97-118. 


(3) GH. Nelson 
College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, College Plaza, Pomona, California 
91766-1889, U.S.A. 


I wish to comment on the two cases on buprestid names submitted by Hans Mihle. 
Both concern nomenclatural questions raised by Leraut (1983). I believe that the 
principle of priority should be followed unless doing so causes undue confusion and 
impractical results. 

In the first case (no. 2837/1), the applicant seeks to conserve the current usage of 
the generic names Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956. 
I believe Miihle makes a good case for their conservation. The genus Scintillatrix is 
not found in the western hemisphere but nine species of Poecilonota are. While these 
species are not considered as important pests, they are often discussed in economic 
literature and are uniformly referred to under the name Poecilonota. Changing this to 
a new name would serve no useful purpose at this time and would, in fact, lead to 
considerable and unnecessary confusion. I therefore support this application. 


46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


In the second case (no. 2837/2), which involves the names Melanophila and 
Phaenops, the situation is not as clear-cut. Since the establishment of the name 
Phaenops by Dejean (1833), in the New World it was considered either as a synonym 
or as a subgenus of Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 for more than 100 years with few 
exceptions. Therefore, Miihle’s contention that the name Melanophila has not been 
used since 1857 for species now considered under Phaenops is misleading, especially 
in relation to the literature on New World species. The recognition of Phaenops as a 
separate genus is recent enough (largely post-World War II) that, of the more than 
15 valid species in the Nearctic fauna, all were described under Melanophila except 
for two described earlier under Buprestis. Phaenops was considered a subgenus of 
Melanophila as recently as 1987 by Bright. As Westcott has pointed out (BZN 50: 232 
and above), the economic literature is rather extensive, as well as uniform, in referring 
to the pests belonging to this group under the generic name Melanophila. Apparently, 
Mile missed noticing the paper by Nelson (1989) (cited by Westcott, BZN 50: 232) 
which dealt with the necessary changes to adjust to recognizing Bupestris cyanea 
Fabricius as the first designated type species of Melanophila. This would have those 
species most recently considered under Phaenops revert to Melanophila, under which 
most were described, and the species considered under Melanophila would be 
included under Oxypteris. This arrangement preserves intact the usage in the 
economic literature and was followed by Nelson (1993). I do not, therefore, concur 
with the proposals in this application. 


Additional references 


Bright, D.E. 1987. The metallic wood-boring beetles of Canada and Alaska. Coleoptera: 
Buprestidae. The insects and arachnids of Canada, part 15. 335 pp. Biosystematic Research 
Institute, Ottawa. 

Nelson, G.H. 1993. Note on Oxypteris hungarica (Csiki) and a description of the female of 
Xenorhipis mexicana Nelson (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). The Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 47(2): 
150. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Rivulus marmoratus 
Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes) 
(Case 2722; see BZN 47: 191-194; 48: 150-152) 


(1) Wilson J.E.M. Costa 
Laboratorio de Ictiologia Geral e Aplicada, Departamento de Zoologia e Biologia 


Marinha, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Cidade Universitaria, Cx. Postal 
68049, 21944 Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil 


My work on the taxonomy of the Rivulus ocellatus species complex is progressing 
but is not yet complete. This very widespread group, which occurs from Florida to 
Santa Catarina (Brazil), comprises some very similar nominal species, such as 
R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868, R. marmoratus Poey, 1880, R. bonairensis Hoedeman, 1958 
and R. caudomarginatus Seegers, 1984. No rigorous taxonomic studies have so far 
been made comparing material from the several different localities within this large 
area. I am not convinced that these nominal species represent a single taxonomic 
species, although I have not yet examined material from Cuba, one of the probable 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 47 


type localities of R. marmoratus. However, based on available material, I have 
verified that hermaphrodite specimens of R. ocellatus from the type locality (Rio de 
Janeiro) are very different in body depth from hermaphrodite specimens from 
Florida. 

I would be sorry if the Commission were to make so important a nomenclatural 
decision as the suppression of the name R. ocellatus before a comprehensive 
taxonomic study of the group had taken place. 


Additional references 


Costa, W.J.E.M. 1990. Amalise filogenética da familia Rivulidae (Cyprinodontiformes, 
Aplocheiloidei). Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 50(1): 65-82. 

Costa, W.J.E.M. 1991. Redescrigao do género Rivulus .... Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 51(2): 
327-333. 

Costa, W.J.E.M. 1991. Description of two new species of the genus Rivulus (Cyprinodonti- 
formes, Rivulidae) from eastern South American coastal plains. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 
98(3): 581-587. 

Costa, W.J.E.M. & Brasil, G.C. 1991. Description of a new species of the genus Rivulus 
(Cyprinodontiformes, Rivulidae) from the coastal plains of Eastern Brazil. Ichthyol. 
Explor. Freshwaters, 1(4): 379-383. 


(2) Kenneth J. Lazara 
Department of Mathematics and Science, United States Merchant Marine Academy, 
Kings Point, N. Y. 11024, U.S.A. 


Michael L. Smith 
American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, 
N.Y. 11024, U.S.A. 


In our application (BZN 47: 191-194) we proposed that the specific name of 
Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 be conserved for the reasons stated (paras. 3 and 7) 
and we asked the Commission to suppress and place on the Official Index the senior 
synonym R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868. 

Subsequent to our application, Wilson Costa, in a comment (above), a copy of 
which was provided to us, has expressed concern that if the Brazilian populations of 
R. marmoratus were to be recognized as a separate species or as a subspecies the name 
ocellatus, which would normally have been available for these populations, would 
have been officially rejected and by implication a new name would have to be found. 

While our research on all known populations of R. marmoratus indicates that there 
are no more morphological or meristic differences between populations than there are 
within any one population, we recognize that the diversity of opinion which has 
emerged should be accommodated. In view of this we now propose to revise our 
application to request that the name Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 be given 
precedence over R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868, rather than that ocellatus be suppressed, 
so that the latter can continue to be of use, if required, as a specific or subspecific 
name. 

A specimen marked as the type of Rivulus ocellatus is present in the Humboldt 
Museum in Berlin (no. ZMB 7448; para. 4 of the application). However, an 
additional matter which should be addressed is the loss of Poey’s types of 


48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


R. marmoratus. The association of the specific name of marmoratus with a type 
specimen from Cuba would be desirable should populations of marmoratus elsewhere 
be proposed for specific or subspecific status. Rivas (1945) asserted that the types of 
marmoratus were discovered in the United States National Museum. His arguments 
that two specimens labeled R. cylindraceus were, indeed, Poey’s missing types of 
marmoratus were highly conjectural (para. 1 of the application). To our knowledge 
no other specimen has been recognized or designated as a type of marmoratus and, 
to minimize the possibility of any future nomenclatural problems, we hereby propose 
as the neotype of R. marmoratus the same specimen that Rivas designated as the 
lectotype, namely USNM 37429. 

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to set aside all previous fixations of type specimen for the nominal species 
Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 and to designate as neotype specimen no. 
37429 in the United States National Museum; 

(b) to rule that the specific name marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the 
binomen Rivulus marmoratus, is to be given precedence over the name 
ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, 
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 

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

(a) marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus 
and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above, with the 
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name ocellatus 
Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, whenever the 
two names are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, with 
the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name 
marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus, 
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. 


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, 291-294) 


(1) S.P. Welles 
Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. 


I oppose the application by Colbert et al., since it is unnecessary and contrary to 
Article 75 of the Code because there has been no loss or destruction of the original 
type material. We would have complete nomenclatural chaos if the type, even though 
a poor specimen, could be replaced whenever a better specimen was discovered and 
designated a neotype. To carry this to absurdity: if an even better specimen were 
found later, could it be made a neoneotype? I strongly object to replacing an existing 
type specimen. Even though the type be indeterminate (a subjective conclusion) the 
name must remain attached to that specimen. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 49 


(2) George Olshevsky 
Post Office Box 16294, San Diego, California 92176-6924, U.S.A. 


I would like to express my strong support for Hunt & Lucas (1991), who 
recognized the likely indeterminate nature of the type specimen of Coelophysis 
bauri and the probable unsuitability of that name for the numerous well- 
preserved specimens discovered at the Ghost Ranch quarry. In coining the name 
Rioarribasaurus colberti Hunt & Lucas properly exercised their freedom, as pro- 
fessional naturalists, to differ with Colbert about the identity of the Ghost Ranch 
material. It must be emphasized that the debate that Hunt & Lucas opened can be 
resolved only by restudy and comparison of the type material of Coelophysis bauri 
and of Rioarribasaurus colberti, and not by arbitrary exercise of plenary powers by 
the Commission. If the Commission declares the holotype of R. colberti to be the 
neotype of C. bauri, this will sink R. colberti as a junior objective synonym and 
squelch further debate by fiat rather than by science. The procedure already exists for 
doing away with the name R. colberti without involving the Commission, in the event 
that a convincing argument is presented for regarding it as a junior subjective 
synonym of C. bauri. But should their proposal become an official ruling, the 
paleontologists who drafted Case 2840 will have sidestepped their part of the 
necessary debate and revisory work. 

Designation of neotypes by the Commission should be a last resort, as when 
original type specimens cannot be located. Despite the confusion regarding the status 
of Coelophysis bauri, a lectotype was validly designated by Colbert and still exists, 
together with associated material. There is therefore no true or pressing reason to 
designate a neotype. In my opinion, all other approaches have not yet been exhausted 
in the case of C. bauri. Diligent reexamination of the original material could establish 
it to be a valid species of small theropod closely related to the Ghost Ranch species 
R. colberti. Indeed, the new combination Coelophysis colberti could eventually 
prove to be the most apt name for the latter, retaining the well known generic 
name Coelophysis but reflecting a species-level distinction from Cope’s original 
material. 

In coining the name Rioarribasaurus colberti Hunt & Lucas (1991) did not 
‘suppress’ the generic name Coelophysis or the specific name bauri, which would 
have been nomenclaturally improper; they simply gave a new name to material 
which they considered could not be referred to Cope’s taxon. Paleontologists 
who believe that Coelophysis bauri and Rioarribasaurus colberti are synonyms 
are entirely free to apply the former name to the Ghost Ranch specimens and 
to discard R. colberti as a junior subjective synonym, without involving the 
Commission. However, those who disagree with this position now have an available 
name for the Ghost Ranch material. Approval by the Commission of the appli- 
cation by Colbert et al. would leave Cope’s material nameless, if it were considered 
distinct. It could not then be discussed without inventing a third name, which is 
quite inconsistent with the general desire to avoid the proliferation of unnecessary 
names. 

I may add that there is no compelling reason to assume that only one thero- 
pod species is represented at Ghost Ranch, despite the widespread but actually 
unjustified support that this notion enjoys among the paleontological community. 


50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Should further research disclose the existence of multiple taxa the Commission, in 
suppressing Rioarribasaurus colberti, might find itself in the position of having 
suppressed the name of a perfectly valid species. 

The name Coelophysis bauri should remain attached to the material described by 
Cope and von Huene, and more recently by Padian (1986). In my opinion designating 
the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti as the neotype of C. bauri would constitute 
an infringement of the basic freedom of naturalists to name the objects that they 
study. 


(3) Elizabeth L. Nicholls 


Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, P.O. Box 7500, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada 
TOJ 0Y0 ; 


The name Coelophysis bauri is well established in both professional and popular 
literature. The excellent material from Ghost Ranch makes it one of the best known 
dinosaurs. I request that the name Rioarribasaurus colberti Hunt & Lucas, 1991 be 
rejected; our taxonomic literature is already cluttered with an excess of names. 
Creating a new name for a well known species only serves to complicate our work. 
If the type material is non-diagnostic, then I consider the cause of paleontology and 
taxonomy would be better served by designating a neotype than by having an 
unnecessary name. 


(4) Louis L. Jacobs 


Department of Geological Sciences, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas 
75275-0395, U.S.A. 


I wish to express my opinion that the name Coelophysis bauri should be retained 
for the Ghost Ranch specimens. As one who has done research including Coelo- 
physis, I can state that I have had no problems of confusion that require the 
muddying of the waters with a new name for Coelophysis bauri. 


(5) Donald F. Glut 
2805 N. Keystone Street, Burbank, California 91504, U.S.A. 


I accept the argument of Hunt & Lucas (1991) that Cope’s taxon Coelurus bauri 
(= Coelophysis bauri) was based on indeterminate material, and that the thero- 
pod collected in such abundance at Ghost Ranch is therefore not unequivocally 
associated with the name by which it is known in both the paleontological litera- 
ture and popular publications. However, I agree with Colbert et al., and with others 
who have supported their application, that in this particular case strict adherence to 
the Code should be waived in the interest of stability. I support the proposed 
designation of the complete skeleton AMNH 7224 as the neotype of Coelophysis 
bauri. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 51 


(6) Armand de Ricqlés 
Laboratoire d'Anatomie Comparée, Université de Paris VII, 2 Place Jussieu, 75251 
Paris, France 


En tant que chercheur et enseignant dans le domaine des tétrapodes fossiles et 
travaillant personellement sur la paléohistologie des Dinosauriens, je me range 
pleinement a l’opinion présentée par Colbert et al. 

Dans le but pratique de conserver Pusage trés répandu et ne prétant pas a 
confusion du nom du genre Coelophysis, je suis d’avis que la Commission use de ses 
pleins pouvoirs selon la procédure suggérée (BZN 49: 278, para. 11), ou bien qu’elle 
use de toute autre procédure qui pourrait lui apparaitre formellement plus opportune 
mais concourant a la méme fin. 


(7) P.K. Tubbs 
Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. 


The Commission Secretariat has received an offprint of a paper by G.S. Paul (1993) 
which relates to this case. 

Paul discusses the anatomy of the Whitaker Quarry (Ghost Ranch) specimens, and 
considers (p. 397, last para.) that only one species is represented. He finds no 
genus-level distinction between the Ghost Ranch skeletons and specimens of 
Syntarsus rhodesiensis, which is the type species of Syntarsus Raath, 1969. Paul notes 
(p. 400, para. 5) that ‘referring the Whitaker specimens to Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 
1889) has the advantage of retaining a popular name’ but adds that because of the 
fragmentary nature of the original material the name C. bauri ‘is a nomen dubium’. 
He continues ‘the attempt by Colbert et al. (1992) to designate a diagnostic neotype 
for C. bauri (the type of R. colberti) effectively accepts the indeterminate nature of the 
lectotype, and appears to be contrary to Art. 75(a) of the Code, which states that a 
neotype can be designated only ... when no type material is believed to exist’. While 
true, this last statement by Paul (see also the above comment (1) by S.P. Welles) 
overlooks the fact that Colbert et al. have, in accordance with Recommendation 75E, 
sought the use of the Commission’s plenary powers for the very reason that a neotype 
designation would otherwise be invalid. 

Paul continues (p. 400, para. 7) ‘it is here suggested that Rioarribasaurus [Hunt & 
Lucas, 1991] be made a junior synonym of Syntarsus. The latter name has priority, 
and is based on diagnostic type material ... In this case, Syntarsus would include the 
species S. colberti, S. rhodesiensis and S. kayentakatae. Alternatively, if the validity of 
Coelophysis is accepted then it includes C. bauri, C. rhodesiensis and C. kayentakatae’. 
In his paper Paul adopts the name Syntarsus colberti for the Ghost Ranch species, but 
he retains the name COELOPHYSIDAE Paul, 1988 for the family containing Syntarsus 
because ‘the type material cannot be demonstrated to not belong to the higher taxon’. 


Additional reference 


Paul, G.S. 1993. Are Syntarsus and the Whitaker quarry theropod the same genus? Pp. 
397-402 in Lucas, S.G. & Morales, M. (Eds.), The Nonmarine Triassic. New Mexico 
Museum of Natural History & Science Bulletin, no. 3. 


52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Comment on the proposed conservation of Emys Duméril, 1806 (Reptilia, 
Testudines) 
(Case 2873; see BZN 50: 224-227) 


Hobart M. Smith 


Department of EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, 
U.S.A. 


Supportive evidence for the conservation of Emys is overwhelming. Entries for that 
generic name (in its present sense, e.g. excluding Emydoidea Gray, 1870, formerly 
regarded as a junior synonym of Emys) in the ten most recent subannual issues of the 
Reptilia section of the Zoological Record list 198 different publications, and there 
must be many more in the relevant period which mentioned the name. Furthermore, 
Emys is the type genus of the long-recognized family name EMyDIDAE Gray, 1825. 
Clearly, Emydes Brongniart, 1805, which has never been accepted as valid, should not 
replace Duméril’s generic name. 


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, 294-295) 


J.-F. Voisin & C. Voisin 


Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammiféeres 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. Théry 


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 


In their comment on our application to conserve the name of Catharacta 
skua lonnbergi (Mathews, 1912), Bourne and his co-authors expressed the opinion 
(BZN 50: 295) that the identity of the type specimen of Stercorarius antarcticus 
madagascariensis Bonaparte, 1856 is still rather doubtful because ‘a tarsus length as 
long as 85 mm ... is only found in [the New Zealand area], whilst a wing length near 
370 mm is only to be found in [the Falklands area]’. Unfortunately, this argument 
cannot be used as both the longest primaries of the type are broken (para. 3 of the 
application) and an estimated 20 mm, at least, is missing. This brings the wing length 
of this bird to at least 390 mm, and well within the range of males of C. s. lonnbergi 
as well as that of several other populations (Furness, 1987). The same is true for its 
culmen length (56.5 mm), and only its tarsus length shows a discriminating value. The 
most logical solution is to consider this bird as a small specimen of C. s. lonnbergi, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 53 


and since it is agreed that the name madagascariensis should be rejected there is no 
need to examine the specimen’s DNA (cf. Bourne et al.). 

As noted in our application (para. 4), the taxonomy of the skuas is most difficult 
and has taken considerable effort to clarify. The use of the name madagascariensis 
instead of the well known Jonnbergi would add confusion to this difficult taxonomic 
situation, and for this reason we proposed the suppression of the earlier name. Even 
if we agree with the proposal of Bourne et al. to place the name hamiltoni Hagen, 
1952 (published as a subspecies of Catharacta skua) on the Official List we think that 
the taxonomic status of this nominal subspecies deserves a special study; there is 
however no nomenclatural problem with this recent name. 


54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1752 


Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): 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 names: 

(i) Acrochordium Meyen, 1834; 
(ii) Mnestra Krohn, 1853; 

(b) the specific name parasites Krohn, 1853, as published in the binomen Mnestra 

parasites. : 

(2) The name Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy Zanclea costata Gegenbaur, 1856, is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name costata Gegenbaur, 1856, as published in the binomen Zanclea 
costata (specific name of the type species of Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Acrochordium Meyen, 1834 as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above; 

(b) Mnestra Krohn, 1853 as suppressed in (1)(a)(i1) above. 

(5) The name parasites Krohn, 1853, as published in the binomen Mnestra 
parasites 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 2806 

An application for the conservation of the generic and specific names of Zanclea 
costata Gegenbaur, 1856 was received from Dr Dale R. Calder (Royal Ontario 
Museum and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) on 18 January 1991. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 184-186 (September 1992). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr B.P. Haldar (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta, 
India) was published in BZN 50: 140 (June 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 185. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1993 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Hahn, Lehtinen and Thompson. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 55 


Hahn commented that since the synonymy of Acrochordium Meyen, 1834 and 
Mnestra Krohn, 1853 with Zanclea appeared to be uncertain he would have preferred 
to give Zanclea precedence over the other two names rather than suppress them. 
Lehtinen commented that as long as the status of all the specific names was unclear 
suppression of any of the generic names appeared premature. 


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: 
Acrochordium Meyen, 1834, Novorum Actorum Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae 
Naturae Curiosorum, 16(Supplement 1): 165. 
costata, Zanclea, Gegenbaur, 1856, Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 8(2): 229. 
Mnestra Krohn, 1853, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 19(1): 281. 
parasites, Mnestra, Krohn, 1853, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 19(1): 281. 
Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856, Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 8(2): 229. 


56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1753 


Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 (currently Upogebia capensis; 
Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype replaced, so conserving the usage of 
G. capensis and also that of G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently 
Upogebia africana) 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimen for the 
nominal subspecies Gebia major capensis Krauss, 1843 are hereby set aside and the 
female specimen from Saldanha Bay, South Africa, no. 14895 in the South African 
Museum, Cape Town, is designated as the neotype. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) capensis Krauss, 1843, as published in the trinomen Gebia major var. capensis 

and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; 
(b) africana Ortmann, 1894, as published in the binomen Gebia africana. 


History of Case 2827 

An application for the designation of a replacement neotype for Gebia major 
capensis Krauss, 1843 was received from Drs N. Ngoc-Ho (Muséum National 
d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) and Gary C.B. Poore (Museum of Victoria, 
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) on 17 April 1991. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 49: 187-190 (September 1992). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Profs C.L. Griffiths (Marine Biology Research Institute, 
University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa) and W. Emmerson (University of 
Transkei, Umtata, Transkei, Southern Africa), together with those of four members of 
the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society (Drs K. Baba, Kumamoto 
University, Kumamoto, Japan; Thomas E. Bowman, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.; Joel W. Martin, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles 
County, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.; and Austin B. Williams, National Marine 
Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 
U.S.A.), were published in BZN 50: 142-144 (June 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 188-189. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 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, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 57 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
africana, Gebia, Ortmann, 1894, Denkschriften der Medicinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen 
Gesellschaft zu Jena, 8: 22. 
capensis, Gebia major, Krauss, 1843, Die Stidafrikanischen Crustaceen. Eine Zusammenstellung 
aller bekannten Malacostraca ..., p. 54. 


58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1754 


Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris 
(Geoffroy, 1762): some generic names conserved (Crustacea, Insecta) 


Ruling 
A. Histoire abrégée des insectes ... (Geoffroy, 1762) 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that, notwithstanding the use of 
polynominal specific names in the work by E.L. Geoffroy (1762) entitled Histoire 
abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, the generic names published 
in that work are deemed to be available. The ruling is confined exclusively to the 
availability of generic names. Specific names and nomenclatural acts are not to be 
taken from the work. 4 

(2) This work is hereby deleted from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid 
Works in Zoological Nomenclature and placed on the Official List of Works 
Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature with an endorsement to reflect 
the ruling in A(1) above, namely that the generic names published in this work are 
deemed to be available. 

(3) Such editorial changes in the Official Lists and Indexes as are necessary from 
the rulings in A(1) and (2) above and in related previous Opinions are hereby 
authorised. 


B. Crustacea 

(1) It is hereby ruled that the authorship attribution of Binoculus ‘Miller, 1776’ on 
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is corrected to 
Geoffroy, 1762. 

(2) The entry recorded as Binoculus Geoffroy, 1764 is hereby deleted from the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subse- 
quent monotypy (Fourcroy, 1785) Oniscus aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name aquaticus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus 
aquaticus (specific name of the type species of Asellus Geoffroy, 1762), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


C. Insecta, Thysanura 

(1) The name Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of 
Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758). 


D. Insecta, Orthoptera 
(1) Under the plenary powers: 
(a) the generic name Mantes Geoffroy, 1762 is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 
(b) the name Mantis Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby ruled to be an available genus-group 
name; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 59 


(c) the type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby ruled to be Gryllus 
religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation by Latreille (1810). 

(2) The entries on the Official Lists relating to Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 and Gryllus 
religiosus Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby amended to record the rulings in D(1)(b) and (c) 
above, namely that the authorship of Mantis is Linnaeus, 1758. 

(3) The name Mantes Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed in D(1)(a) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 


E. Insecta, Homoptera 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The entry recorded as Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is hereby amended in accordance 
with the ruling in E(1) above. 

(3) The entries recorded as Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785 and Tetigonia Blanchard, 
1852 are hereby deleted from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic 
Names in Zoology. 


F. Insecta, Heteroptera 

(1) The name Hepa Geoffroy, 1762 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Nepa 
Linnaeus, 1758). 


G. Insecta, Neuroptera 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Formicaleo Geoffroy, 1762 is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Formicaleo Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed in G(1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 


H. Insecta, Hymenoptera 
(1) It is hereby confirmed that all uses of the name Crabro prior to that by 
Fabricius (1775) are suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and 
the Principle of Homonymy. 
(2) The following names, conserved by the ruling in A(1) above, are hereby placed 
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 
(a) Diplolepis Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Karsch (1880) Cynips rosae Linnaeus, 1758; 
(b) Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy (Olivier, 1792) Ichneumon ramicornis Fabricius, 1781; 
(c) Urocerus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy (Fourcroy, 1785) Ichneumon gigas Linnaeus, 1758. 
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 
(a) gigas Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Ichneumon gigas (specific 
name of the type species of Urocerus Geoffroy, 1762); 


60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


(b) ramicornis Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Ichneumon ramicornis 
(specific name of the type species of Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762); 
(c) rosae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cynips rosae (specific name 
of the type species of Diplolepis Geoffroy, 1762). 
(4) The entry for Crabro Geoffroy, 1762 on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is hereby amended in accordance with the ruling 
in H(1) above. 


J. Insecta, Lepidoptera 

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus 
Pterophorus Geoffroy, 1762 prior to the designation by Curtis (1827) of Phalaena 
pentadactyla Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside. 

(2) The entry for Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766 on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology is hereby amended to record authorship from Geoffroy, 1762, as ruled in 
A(1) above, and the type species designation by Curtis (1827), as ruled in J(1) above. 

(3) The entry for pentadactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology is hereby amended to record it as the type species of 
Pterophorus Geoffroy, 1762. 

(4) The entry for Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology is hereby amended to record the name as a junior 
objective synonym of Tinea Linnaeus, 1758. 


K. Insecta, Coleoptera 
(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the following 
nominal genera are set aside: 
(a) for Anthrenus Geoffroy, 1762 — prior to the designation by Mroczkowski 
(1968) of Dermestes scrophulariae Linnaeus, 1758; 
(b) for Prionus Geoffroy, 1762 — all previous fixations of type species, and 
Cerambyx coriarius Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby designated as the type species; 
(c) for Stenocorus Geoffroy, 1762 — all previous fixations of type species, and 
Leptura meridiana Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby designated as the type species. 
(2) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 
(a) Cistela Geoffroy, 1762; 
(b) Pistella Miller, 1764; 
(c) Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762. 
(3) Under the plenary powers the following generic names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: 
(a) Byrrhus Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Byrrhus prior to Byrrhus 
Linnaeus, 1767; 
(b) Cucujus Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Cucujus prior to Cucujus 
Fabricius, 1775; 
(c) Melolontha Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Melolontha prior to 
Melolontha Fabricius, 1775; 
(d) Peltis Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Peltis prior to Peltis 
Kugelann, 1792; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 61 


(e) Tritoma Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Tritoma prior to 
Tritoma Fabricius, 1775. 

(4) Under the plenary powers the specific name cylindricus Miller, 1776, as 
published in the binomen Prtilinus cylindricus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes 
of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(5) The following names, conserved under the plenary powers in A(1) and K(3) 
above, are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Altica Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 

nation by Latreille (1810) Chrysomela oleracea Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Anthrenus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Mroczkowski (1968) Dermestes scrophulariae Linnaeus, 1758, 
as ruled in K(1)(a) above; 

(c) Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Jordan (1931) Anthribus fasciatus Forster, 1770; 

(d) Bostrichus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Dermestes capucinus Linnaeus, 1758; 

(e) Byrrhus Linnaeus, 1767 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Dermestes pilula Linnaeus, 1758; 

(f) Cerocoma Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy (Fabricius, 1775) Meloe schaefferi Linnaeus, 1758; 

(g) Copris Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Latreille (1810) Scarabaeus lunaris Linnaeus, 1758; 

(h) Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762 (emendation of entry on Official List for Crioceris 
Miller, 1764); 

Qj) Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Chrysomela sericea Linnaeus, 1758; 

(j) Cucujus Fabricius, 1775 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Cucujus depressus Fabricius, 1775 (a junior subjective synonym of Meloe 
cinnabarina Scopoli, 1763); 

(k) Diaperis Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent mono- 
typy (Miller, 1776) Chrysomela boleti Linnaeus, 1758; 

(1) Galeruca Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Chrysomela tanaceti Linnaeus, 1758; 

(m) Gyrinus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Dytiscus natator Linnaeus, 1758; 

(n) Hydrophilus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Dytiscus piceus Linnaeus, 1758; 

(0) Melolontha Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by absolute 
tautonymy Scarabaeus melolontha Linnaeus, 1758; 

(p) Notoxus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Attelabus monoceros Linnaeus, 1761; 

(q) Omalisus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent mon- 
otypy (Fourcroy, 1785) Omalisus fontisbellaquaei Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785; 

(r) Peltis Kugelann, 1792 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Hope (1840) Silpha grossa Linnaeus, 1758; 

(s) Platycerus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Scarabaeus caraboides Linnaeus, 1758; 


62 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


(t) Prionus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under 
the plenary powers in K(1)(b) above Cerambyx coriarius Linnaeus, 1758; 

(u) Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy (Miller, 1776) Ptilinus cylindricus Miller, 1776 (a suppressed senior 
subjective synonym of Ptilinus fuscus Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785) (see ruling 
in K(4) above); 

(v) Pyrochroa Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Westwood ([1838]) Cantharis coccinea Linnaeus, 1761; 

(w) Stenocorus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in K(1)(c) above Leptura meridiana Linnaeus, 1758; 

(x) Tritoma Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Latreille (1810) Tritoma bipustulata Fabricius, 1775. 

(6) The following names, suppressed in K(2) and K(3) above, are hereby placed on 


the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 


(a) Byrrhus Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Byrrhus prior to Byrrhus 
Linnaeus, 1767; 

(b) Cistela Geoffroy, 1762; 

(c) Cucujus Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Cucujus prior to Cucujus 
Fabricius, 1775; 

(d) Melolontha Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Melolontha prior to 
Melolontha Fabricius, 1775; 

(e) Peltis Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Peltis prior to Peltis 
Kugelann, 1792; 

(f) Pistella Miller, 1764; 

(g) Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762; 

(h) Tritoma Geoffroy, 1762 and all other uses of the name Tritoma prior to 
Tritoma Fabricius, 1775. 

(7) The entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 


Zoology for the name Dyticus Miller, 1776 is hereby amended to read Dyticus 
Geoffroy, 1762. 


in 


(8) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 

Zoology: 

(a) bipustulata Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Tritoma bipustulata 
(specific name of the type species of Tritoma Fabricius, 1775); 

(b) boleti Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela boleti (specific 
name of the type species of Diaperis Geoffroy, 1762); 

(c) capucinus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes capucinus 
(specific name of the type species of Bostrichus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(d) caraboides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus caraboides 
(specific name of the type species of Platycerus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(e) cinnabarina Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Meloe cinnabarina 
(senior subjective synonym of Cucujus depressus Fabricius, 1775, the type 
species of Cucujus Fabricius, 1775); 

(f) coccinea Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cantharis coccinea 
(specific name of the type species of Pyrochroa Geoffroy, 1762); 

(g) coriarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cerambyx coriarius 
(specific name of the type species of Prionus Geoffroy, 1762); 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 63 


(h) fasciatus Forster, 1770, as published in the binomen Anthribus fasciatus 
(specific name of the type species of Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(i) fontisbellaquaei Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen 
Omalisus fontisbellaquaei (specific name of the type species of Omalisus 
Geoffroy, 1762); 

(j) fuscus Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, as published in the binomen Ptilinus fuscus 
(first available subjective synonym of Ptilinus cylindricus Miller, 1776, the type 
species of Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(k) grossa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Silpha grossa (specific 
name of the type species of Peltis Kugelann, 1792); 

(1) lunaris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus lunaris 
(specific name of the type species of Copris Geoffroy, 1762); 

(m) melolontha Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus melolontha 
(specific name of the type species of Melolontha Fabricius, 1775); 

(n) meridiana Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Leptura meridiana 
(specific name of the type species of Stenocorus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(0) monoceros Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Attelabus monoceros 
(specific name of the type species of Notoxus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(p) natator Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus natator (specific 
name of the type species of Gyrinus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(q) oleracea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela oleracea 
(specific name of the type species of Altica Geoffroy, 1762); 

(r) piceus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus piceus (specific 
name of the type species of Hydrophilus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(s) pilula Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes pilula (specific 
name of the type species of Byrrhus Linnaeus, 1767); 

(t) schaefferi Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Meloe schaefferi 
(specific name of the type species of Cerocoma Geoffroy, 1762); 

(u) scrophulariae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dermestes scrophu- 
lariae (specific name of the type species of Anthrenus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(v) sericea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela sericea 
(specific name of the type species of Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762); 

(w) tanaceti Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chrysomela tanaceti 
(specific name of the type species of Galeruca Geoffroy, 1762). 

(9) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for Chrysomela 
asparagi Linnaeus, 1758 is hereby amended to record the author of Crioceris as 
Geoffroy, 1762. 

(10) The name cylindricus Miiller, 1776, as published in the binomen Ptilinus 
cylindricus and as suppressed in K(4) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2292 

An application for the conservation of 24 of the generic names published by 
Geoffroy (1762) in his Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de 
Paris was originally received from Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy 
of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) in 1978. The present case was published in BZN 
48: 107-133 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 


64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


The history of the original application was summarized by Kerzhner (BZN 48: 
107-111, paras. A.1-A.9) and by Tubbs (BZN 49: 223-227; September 1992). 
Geoffroy (1762) published 59 new generic names with descriptions but he did not use 
single-word specific names. Of these generic names, 40 were in use in Geoffroy’s 
taxonomic sense and were regularly attributed to his authorship, five were junior 
synonyms of names in Linnaeus (1758), eight were used in a different taxonomic sense 
and were attributed to later authors, and the remaining six were replaced in usage by 
junior synonyms (for details see Kerzhner’s para. A.7). 

The Commission was first approached about Geoffroy’s work more than 50 years 
ago, when attention was drawn to two facts: that the work was ‘non-binominal’ 
because of the treatment of the names of species, and that most of the generic names 
were currently used as valid. As reported by Kerzhner (BZN 48: 107) and Tubbs 
(BZN 49: 225), specialists then and later urged the conservation of various Geoffroy 
generic names and this had been approved in 16 cases (in nine Opinions; Kerzhner’s 
para. A.9). In Opinion 228 (1954) the Commission recorded that, while Geoffroy’s 
work was non-binominal, ‘some of these [generic] names should, it was agreed, 
certainly be preserved but the position was not so clear as regards others’. Despite 
this the ruling recorded that Geoffroy’s names were ‘not available under the 
Régles’. 

Kerzhner surveyed in detail the 43 new Geoffroy generic names not already 
conserved and recommended the conservation of 24. He proposed the suppression 
of 11 (and supported the proposed suppression of three others) in favour of the 
junior homonyms or synonyms in use, and noted that the five junior synonyms of 
names of Linnaeus (1758) presented no problem. The names Acrydium, Bruchus and 
Mylabris first appeared in Geoffroy (1762). To conserve junior names long treated as 
valid the suppression of these names, in Geoffroy’s taxonomic sense, has been 
proposed by Drs K.H.L. Key (Acrydium; see BZN 45: 191-193) and L. Borowiec 
(Bruchus and Mylabris; see BZN 45: 194-196), and Kerzhner supported these 
applications (his paras. D.1, K.5 and K.19). Voting in these instances has been held 
over pending the determination of their authorship in settlement of the present 
case. 

Kerzhner’s application had the support of Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky (Medford, New 
Jersey, U.S.A.), who commented: ‘I heartily approve of the application on the 
Geoffroy names. I was closely involved with this many years ago and found that in 
Diptera the names had always been used, or virtually always. The dipterists asked to 
have the Diptera names conserved and thus we have been at a big advantage all these 
years’. Other comments in support of Dr Kerzhner’s application were received from 
a number of specialists; these comments are recorded in relation to the taxa 
concerned (pp. 65-66 below). ; 

The procedural complications in voting were of two kinds: (a) the authorship to be 
attributed to the Geoffroy names for which suppression was proposed by Kerzhner, 
and (b) points of detail concerning a few individual names. 


(a) Authorship of suppressed names 

In the original application Kerzhner proposed that the 24 names to be conserved 
should, like those already accepted, be attributed to Geoffroy (1762). In the case of 
those to be suppressed, however, he proposed the citation ‘Geoffroy in Miller, 1764’; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 65 


this was purely to comply with the formal unavailability of those 1762 names not yet 
conserved. However, all the new generic names, conserved or suppressed, could be 
attributed to the work where they actually appeared, i.e. Geoffroy (1762), allowing 
Dr Kerzhner’s aims to be achieved but with greater simplicity. As a result of the 
efforts by him and by others, together with nine previous Opinions, the consequences 
of Opinion 228 on Geoffroy’s generic names were in effect totally superseded, 
even though by instalments. To reflect this, Tubbs (BZN 49: 236, para. 9) proposed 
that generic names in Geoffroy be deemed available (whether to be conserved 
or suppressed), and this amendment was supported by Kerzhner (BZN 50: 58). 
The acceptance of this amendment would not affect the status of any individual 
name. 


(b) Details concerning individual names 

Points of detail were dealt with individually on the voting papers. Comments that 
had been received were noted and the points made by Kerzhner in March 1993 (BZN 
50: 58) were incorporated. 


B. Crustacea 

The conservation of Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 was proposed by Kerzhner (BZN 48: 
112), and Binoculus ‘Geoffroy, 1764 was already suppressed. Holthuis (BZN 49: 223) 
proposed that Asellus and Binoculus should be attributed to Schaeffer (1766) and 
Schluga (1767) respectively; this was opposed by Tubbs (BZN 49: 225, para. 5) and 
by Kerzhner (BZN 50: 58) as being anomalous and not in accord with any previous 
attributions of these names. The proposals on BZN 48: 112 and on BZN 49: 223 were 
offered as alternatives for voting. 


C. Insecta, Thysanura 

The name Lepisma Linnaeus, 1758 was placed on the Official List by Opinion 104. 
Kerzhner (BZN 48: 112, para. C.1) designated its type species (L. saccharina 
Linnaeus, 1758) to be that also of Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762, so rendering the latter a 
junior objective synonym. 


D. Insecta, Orthoptera 

A comment from Dr David R. Ragge (The Natural History Museum, London, 
U.K.) supporting the proposals on Mantis Linnaeus, 1758 and Mantes Geoffroy, 
1762 was published in BZN 49: 71 (March 1992). 


G. Insecta, Neuroptera 

A comment from Dr S.J. Brooks (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) in 
support of the suppression of Formicaleo Geoffroy, 1762 was published in BZN 49: 
150 (June 1992). 


H. Insecta, Hymenoptera 
A comment in support of the conservation of the name Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762 
from Dr John LaSalle (International Institute of Entomology, clo The Natural History 


66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Museum, London, U.K.) was published in BZN 49: 71-72 (March 1992). Dr LaSalle 
pointed out that the date for Olivier’s work was 1792 (and not 1791). Dr Kerzhner 
(BZN 50: 58) did not accept Dr LaSalle’s suggestion concerning the type species of 
Eulophus. 


K. Insecta, Coleoptera 

A comment from Mr R.D. Pope (Slinfold,- Sussex, U.K.) supporting the conser- 
vation of coleopteran names from Geoffroy (1762) was published in BZN 49: 71 
(March 1992). A further supportive comment from Prof Michael Goodrich (Eastern 
Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, U.S.A.) also noted: ‘Amongst the proposed 
conservations for coleopteran names are a large number of which the genera are the 
types for well known families or subfamilies of beetles. It would seem that disruption 
of all these names would not aid in stability, which is, after all, the ultimate goal of 
the application’. i 

Support for the conservation of the names Copris and Platycerus, both from 
Geoffroy (1762), and for Melolontha Fabricius, 1775, from Dr Frank-Thorsten Krell 
(Universitat Tiibingen, Zoologisches Institut, Tiibingen, Germany) was published in 
BZN 49: 149 (June 1992). 

Support for the conservation of Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762 from Dr Hans 
Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) was published 
in BZN 49: 194 (September 1992). However, Dr Kerzhner (BZN 50: 58) did not 
accept Dr Silfverberg’s (BZN 49: 224) proposed amendment (Miller, 1776 instead of 
Kugelann, 1792) for the authorship of the conserved Peltis. 

Support was received for the conservation of Tritoma Fabricius, 1775 by the 
suppression of all previous uses of the name. Prof Michael Goodrich commented: 
‘Tritoma, as used by Fabricius (1775), is a common and widespread genus which has 
been recognized by entomologists for over 200 years. It is a member of a family upon 
which I, as an entomologist, do research, including some important current projects. 
I have papers in preparation on this very genus and I find it of critical importance 
that the use of the name be conserved, as requested by Kerzhner’. Dr Paul E. Skelley 
(University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, 
U.S.A.) noted: ‘The names Tritoma Fabricius, 1775 and Cyrtotriplax Crotch, 1873 
have been used as alternatives for many years. Even recent catalogs have come to no 
consensus. I support the proposed conservation of Tritoma Fabricius, type species 
T. bipustulata Fabricius, 1775’. 


General note 

The proposals voted on were those of Kerzhner but incorporated the published 
amendments supported by him. The application (BZN 48: 107-133) contains the 
detailed information concerning each name, and sections B-K in this Opinion 
correspond to those in the application. 

It should be noted that although Geoffroy’s (1762) work has been transferred from 
the Official Index to the Official List by the ruling in this Opinion, the ruling applies 
exclusively to the availability of generic names published in the work, 1.e. it does not 
extend to specific names, the fixation of type species, or the inclusion of nominal 
species within genera. The type species designations adopted in the present Opinion 
are those set out by Kerzhner in his application. 


: 


| 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 67 


Decision of the Commission 

On | September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote. At the 
close of the voting period on 1 December 1993 the votes were as recorded in each 
instance. 


A. Availability of generic names in Histoire abrégée des insectes ... (Geoffroy, 1762) 

Proposals (1)-(3) on BZN 49: 226 . 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 
Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Heppell and Holthuis. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Heppell commented that he voted against the transfer of Geoffroy’s (1762) work 
from the Official Index to the Official List and that he would have preferred to use the 
plenary powers to make generic names available individually. Having voted against 
these proposals, Holthuis abstained on the votes which followed. 


B. Crustacea 

Proposals on BZN 48: 112. Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, 
Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell (part), Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, 
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Proposals on BZN 49: 223. Affirmative votes — none. 

Heppell commented that he would have preferred to correct the entry on the 
Official Index for Binoculus ‘Miiller, 1776’ to Binoculus ‘Geoffroy in Miller, 1764’ 
(paras. B.3 (2)(b) and 5(a) on BZN 48: 112), in accord with his vote against proposal 
(1) on BZN 49: 226. 


C-K. Insecta (C. Thysanura; D. Orthoptera; E. Homoptera; F. Heteroptera; 
G. Neuroptera; H. Hymenoptera; J. Lepidoptera; K. Coleoptera) 

Sections C-K were voted upon separately. Exceptions to affirmative votes are 
recorded below. 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger (part), Corliss, 
Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell (part), Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (part), 
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, 
Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson (part), Trjapitzin, Willink. 

Cogger and Lehtinen voted against, and Heppell abstained on, the proposals on 
sections C and F. Explaining their votes, Heppell and Lehtinen commented that the 
names Forbicina and Hepa, both of Geoffroy (1762) and junior objective synonyms 
of Linnaeus’s (1758) names, ‘required no action’ by the Commission. Cogger also 
voted against Proposal J(4) (to place Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 on the Official Index) for 
the same reason. (Editorial note. It has long been the Commission’s practice to enter 
on the Official Index junior homonyms and junior objective synonyms when these 
become apparent during the course of an application since this serves as a permanent 
record of the fact that such names cannot be used as valid). Heppell voted against the 


68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


proposals on section E commenting that, although the names Teftigonia Linnaeus, 
1758 and Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 are not homonyms under the present Code 
(Article 56b), they were deemed to be so at the time (Opinion 299; October 1954) 
when Geoffroy’s name was rejected by the Commission as a junior homonym and 
that ruling still stood. Thompson voted without comment against the proposals on 
section K. 


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: 
Altica Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 244. 
Anthrenus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 113. 
Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 306. 
aquaticus, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 637. 
Asellus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 2, p. 671. 
bipustulata, Tritoma, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae ..., p. 68. 
boleti, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 371. 
Bostrichus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 301. 
Byrrhus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 108. 
Byrrhus Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 568. 
capucinus, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 355. 
caraboides, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 354. 
Cerocoma Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 357. 
cinnabarina, Meloe, Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia carniolica, p. 60. 
Cistela Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 115. 
coccinea, Cantharis, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Suecica, Ed. 2, p. 202. 
Copris Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 87. 
coriarius, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 389. 
Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 237. 
Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 231. 
Cucujus Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae ..., p. 204. 
Cucujus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 123. 
cylindricus, Ptilinus, Miller, 1776, Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, p. 81. 
Diaperis Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 337. 
Diplolepis Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 2, p. 308. 
Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 2, p. 312. 
fasciatus, Anthribus, Forster, 1770, A catalogue of British insects, p. 5. 
fontisbellaquaei, Omalisus, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 1, p. 64. 
Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 2, p. 611. 
Formicaleo Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 2, p. 256. 
fuscus, Ptilinus, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 1, p. 4. 
Galeruca Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 251. 
gigas, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 560. 
grossa, Silpha, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 361. 
Gyrinus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 193. 
Hepa Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 479. 
Hydrophilus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 180. 
lunaris, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 346. 
Mantes Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 399. 
Melolontha Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae ..., p. 31. 
Melolontha Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 195. 
melolontha, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 351. 
meridiana, Leptura, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 398. 
monoceros, Attelabus, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Suecica, Ed. 2, p. 185. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 69 


natator, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 412. 
Notoxus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 356. 
oleracea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 372. 
Omalisus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 179. 

Peltis Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 117. 

Peltis Kugelann, 1792, Neuestes Magazin fiir die Liebhaber der Entomologie, 4: 508. 
piceus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 411. 
pilula, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 356. 
Pistella Miiller, 1764, Fauna insectorum Fridrichsdalina, p. xiii. 

Platycerus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 59. 
Prionus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 198. 

Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 64. 
Pyrochroa Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 338. 
ramicornis, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum, vol. 1, p. 441. 
Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 269. 
rosae, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 553. 
schaefferi, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 420. 
scrophulariae, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 356. 
sericea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 374. 
Stenocorus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 221. 
tanaceti, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 369. 
Tritoma Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae ..., p. 68. 

Tritoma Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 1, p. 335. 
Urocerus Geoffroy, 1762, Histoire abrégée des insectes ..., vol. 2, p. 264. 


The following are the references for the designations of type species of Geoffroy’s (1762) 

nominal genera: 

Altica: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 432. 

Anthrenus: Mroczkowski, M. 1968. Annales Zoologici, 26: 139. 

Anthribus: Jordan, K. 1931. Novitates Zoologicae, 36: 287. 

Asellus: Fourcroy, A.F. 1785. Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 2, p. 541. 

Bostrichus: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 431. 

Cerocoma: Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, p. 262. 

Copris: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 428. 

Crioceris: BZN 27: 12-13 (Opinion 908, June 1970). 

Cryptocephalus: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, 
des arachnides et des insectes, p. 432. 

Diaperis: Miller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, p. 74. 

Diplolepis: Karsch, F.A.F. 1880. Zeitschrift fiir die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften, (3. F)5(53): 
288. 

Eulophus: Olivier, A.G. 1792. Encyclopédie méthodique, histoire naturelle, insectes, vol. 6, 
p. 454. 

Galeruca: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 432. 

Gyrinus: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 426. 

Hydrophilus: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 428. 

Notoxus: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 430. 

Omalisus: Fourcroy, A.F. 1785. Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 1, p. 64. 


70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Platycerus: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des 
arachnides et des insectes, p. 429. 

Prionus: This Opinion, p. 60. 

Ptilinus: Miller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, p. 81. 

Pyrochroa: Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the British insects, p. 30. (Published with An 
introduction to the modern classification of insects, vol. 1, part 3). 

Stenocorus: This Opinion, p. 60. 

Urocerus: Fourcroy, A.F. 1785. Entomologia Parisiensis, vol. 2, p. 363. 


The following are the references for the designations of type species of the nominal genera 
shown: 
Byrrhus Linnaeus, 1767: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des 
crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes, p. 428. 
Peltis Kugelann, 1792: Hope, F.W. 1840. The coleopterist’s manual, vol. 3. p. 150. 
Tritoma Fabricius, 1775: Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des 
crustacés, des arachnides et des insectes, p. 432. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 71 


OPINION 1755 


Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Insecta, Heteroptera): P. vittipennis 
Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 designated as the type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 are hereby set aside and Podisus vittipennis 
Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Podisus vittipennis Herrich- 
Schaeffer, 1851, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851, as published in the binomen 
Podisus vittipennis (specific name of the type species of Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 
1851), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2828 

An application for the designation of Podisus vittipennis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 as 
the type species of Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 was received from Dr D.B. 
Thomas (USDA-ARS Subtropical Agricultural Research Station, Westlaco, Texas, 
U.S.A.) and Mr W.R. Dolling (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 
29 July 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 191-193 
(September 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the 20 additional references held by the 
Commission Secretariat (para. 7 of the application) which demonstrate usage of the 
name Podisus were all published since 1984. Dr Thomas noted (in litt., August 1991) 
‘I could easily provide 40 references all published since the compendium on Podisus 
maculiyentris by McPherson (1980)’. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 192. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
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, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Bouchet. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851, in: Die wanzenartigen Insecten, vol. 9, part 6, p. 296. 
vittipennis, Podisus, Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851, in: Die wanzenartigen Insecten, vol. 9, part 6, 
p. 339. 


72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1756 


ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence 
over CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary powers family-group names based on Anthribus Geoffroy, 
1762 are hereby given precedence over those based on Choragus Kirby, 1819. 
(2) The name Choragus Kirby, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- 
typy Choragus sheppardi Kirby, 1819, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology. 
(3) The name sheppardi Kirby, 1819, as published in the binomen Choragus 
sheppardi (specific name of the type species of Choragus Kirby, 1819), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 
Names in Zoology: 
(a) ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (type genus Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762), with the 
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Anthribus are to 
be given precedence over those based on Choragus Kirby, 1819; 

(b) CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 (type genus Choragus Kirby, 1819), with the endorse- 
ment that it and other family-group names based on Choragus are not to be 
given priority over those based on Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762. 


History of Case 2795 

An application for the conservation of the family-group name ANTHRIBIDAE 
Billberg, 1820 by giving it precedence over CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 was received 
from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) 
on 18 October 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 
194-195 (September 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Drs Beverley A. Holloway & Guillermo Kuschel (Mt. 
Roskill, Auckland, New Zealand) was published in BZN 50: 57 (March 1993). 

It was noted on the voting paper that 10 of the 11 representative works held by the 
Commission Secretariat (para. 3 of the application) which demonstrate usage of 
the name ANTHRIBIDAE were published no earlier than 1960. 

Proposals to place on Official Lists the name Anthribus, the type genus of the 
family ANTHRIBIDAE, and that of its type species A. fasciatus Forster, 1770, were 
included in Case 2292 which was voted on concurrently by the Commission. 
Approval of the latter case has allowed Anthribus to be attributed to Geoffroy (1762) 
(see BZN 48: 118, 127 and 129 and Opinion 1754, March 1994). The authorship and 
date of the generic name were not an issue in the present case. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 194-195. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 1993 the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 73 


Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, 
Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Savage. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 

Holthuis abstained because the status of Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762 was undecided 
at the time of voting. 


Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio insectorum in museo Gust. Joh. Billberg, p. 39. 
CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 447. 
Choragus Kirby, 1819, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 447. 
sheppardi, Choragus, Kirby, 1819, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12: 448. 


74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1757 


Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 and CRYPTINAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): conserved 


Ruling é 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Cryptus Panzer, 1804 is hereby 
suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The name cRyPTINAE Kirby, 1837 (type genus Cryptus Fabricius, 1804) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Cryptus Jurine, 1801, as a name published in a work rejected for nomenclatural 

purposes; 
(b) Cryptus Panzer, 1804, as suppressed in (1) above. 


History of Case 2324 

An application for the conservation of Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 was received from 
the late Mr G. van Rossem on 8 October 1979. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 44: 9-10 (March 1987). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

Comments in opposition from the late Dr Henry Townes, and from Drs M.G. 
Fitton & I.D. Gauld (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) were published in 
BZN 48: 325-327 (December 1991). A reply by the author of the application to Dr 
Townes’s comment was published at the same time. Comments in support from the 
late Dr W.R.M. Mason, and from Drs Klaus Horstmann (Zoologisches Institut der 
Universitat Wiirzburg, Wiirzburg, Germany) and C. van Achterberg (Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) were also published in December 
1991 (BZN 48: 327-329). Further notes on the history of the names involved were 
published in BZN 48: 329-330. 

It was noted on the voting paper that, as stated in para. 5 of the application and 
in comment (7) on BZN 48: 329, the problem in this case originated from two facts: 
(i) the failure of Opinion 157 (the purpose of which was to conserve Cryptus 
Fabricius, 1804) to suppress Cryptus Panzer because this was wrongly thought to be 
junior to the Fabricius name, and (ii) the refusal of the late H.K. Townes to accept 
the rejection (Opinion 135; August 1939) of the “Erlangen List’ containing Cryptus 
Jurine, 1801. 

In Opinion 157 (February 1945) Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 was placed on the Official 
List of Generic Names with the type species C. viduatorius Fabricius, 1804; the 
specific name was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Direction 4 
(October 1954) (cf. para. 6 of the application). 

A proposal to place cRYPTINAE Kirby, 1837, the senior family-group name, on the 
Official List completed the proposals on BZN 44: 10 and was included on the voting 


paper. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 75 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 44: 10. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1993 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de 
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Cocks, Heppell and Thompson. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Voting for, Lehtinen commented that while he was in favour of accepting Cryptus 
Fabricius, 1804 and crypTINaE Kirby, 1837, specialists in Hymenoptera were not in 
agreement on the usage of names for the taxa. Voting against, Heppell commented: 
‘I have discussed this case with Dr M.R. Shaw, a specialist on the taxonomy of 
parasitic wasps, who assures me that Cryptus Fabricius is no longer widely used in 
this group. The subfamily name PHYGADEUONTINAE Foerster, [1869] is now generally 
accepted as valid; Horstmann (1971 and numerous subsequent papers) is the only 
major author still to use CRYPTINAE. However, the important issue is for the 
Commission to make a definite decision in order to encourage nomenclatural 
stability, especially at the family-group level’. 


Horstmann, K. 1971. Revision der europdischen Tersilochinen (Hymenoptera, 
Ichneumonidae). Verdéffentlichungen der Zoologischen Staatssammlung Miinchen, 15: 
45-138. 


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: 
CRYPTINAE Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J., Fauna Boreali-Americana, part 4, p. 259. 
Cryptus Jurine, 1801, Intelligenzblatt der Litteratur Zeitung, Erlangen, vol. 1, no. 21, p. 163. 
Cryptus Panzer, 1804, Fauna insectorum Germanicae initia; oder Deutschlands Insecten ..., Heft 
88, pl. 17. 


The following is the reference for the designation of Cryptus viduatorius Fabricius, 1804 as 
the type species of the nominal genus Cryptus Fabricius, 1804: 
Curtis, J. 1837. British Entomology, vol. 14, pl. 668. 


76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1758 


Vipio Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Agathis longicauda 
Boheman, 1853 designated as the type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Vipio Latreille, 1804 are hereby set aside and Agathis longicauda Boheman, 
1853 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Vipio Latreille, 1804 (gender: masculine), type species by designation 
under the plenary powers in (1) above Agathis longicauda Boheman, 1853, is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name /Jongicauda Boheman, 1853, as published in the binomen Agathis 
longicauda (specific name of the type species of Vipio Latreille, 1804) and as defined 
by the lectotype (specimen labelled (1) Sc. ar. [= Scanis arid]; (2) Bhn [= Boheman]; 
(3) 487 91 [pink label designating loan number for 1991]; (4) Riksmuseum Stockholm 
[green]; (5) lectotype label [red]) designated by Wharton (1991), is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2614 

An application for the designation of Agathis longicauda Boheman, 1853 as the 
type species of Vipio Latreille, 1804 was received from Profs R.A. Wharton (Texas 
A & M University, College Station, Texas, U.S.A.) and the late W.R.M. Mason on 
24 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 45—49 (March 
1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

An opposing comment from Dr C. van Achterberg (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch 
Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) was published in BZN 48: 248-250 (September 
1991). Replies by both authors of the application were published in BZN 48: 331-332 
(December 1991). A comment in support from Dr Michael J. Sharkey (Biosystem- 
atics Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) was published in BZN 48: 250, and 
further supportive comments from Dr Paul M. Marsh (Systematic Entomology 
Laboratory, U.S.D.A., clo National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., 
U.S.A.) and Prof Scott R. Shaw & Dr Mian Inayatollah (College of Agriculture, 
University of Wyoming, Wyoming, U.S.A.) were published in BZN 48: 332-333. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the case related to the usage of the generic 
name Vipio Latreille, 1804 in two different senses, referring to taxa in the subfamilies 
BRACONINAE and AGATHIDINAE. Until 1982 the genus was included in the BRACONINAE 
and the usage was stable. z 

Among the three nominal species placed in his new genus Vipio, Latreille (1804) 
included Jchneumon desertor, attributing authorship of the latter to Fabricius. 
However, Fabricius (1775) had misidentified 7 desertor Linnaeus, 1758. Foerster 
(1862), apparently aware of the misidentification, designated “desertor F.’ as the type 
species of Vipio; at the same time he designated the true desertor Linnaeus (under the 
deliberately but invalidly proposed replacement name Bracon deflagrator Spinola, 
1808) as the type of his new genus Cremnops, which has since had long-standing 
usage in the AGATHIDINAE. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 77 


Van Achterberg (1982 and comment on BZN 48: 248) took Vipio to be a 
senior objective synonym of Cremnops in the AGATHIDINAE, since he regarded 
‘desertor Fabricius’ as being nomenclaturally the same as desertor Linnaeus. Van 
Achterberg (1982) used the name Jsomecus Kriechbaumer, 1895 in place of Vipio 
auctt., following its mention (but not adoption) by Fahringer (1928, ref. 1928a in the 
application). 

Kriechbaumer’s (1895) paper, in which the name Jsomecus was published, is a rare 
work; Viereck (1914) recorded that he had been unable to find a copy. A search in 
1992-1993 eventually located a copy in the University of Miinster in Westfalia. The 
paper appeared in a serial publication which consisted of the annual reports of 
a college. Both the name Jsomecus and that of its type species by monotypy, 
I. schlettereri Kriechbaumer, 1895, are available but Jsomecus remained unused until 
van Achterberg’s adoption in 1982. The specific name of [. schlettereri was treated 
as valid for a species in Vipio by Fahringer (1928). Fahringer’s redescription 
of schlettereri is quite clearly that of a species of Vipio (in the sense of Latreille’s 
original description) but its status among other European species is at present 
unresolved. 

After 1982 the stability of usage of both Vipio and Cremnops was disturbed. Three 
generic names, including Vipio, were in use for the same group of braconine species 
(see van Achterberg’s comment on BZN 48: 249; Wharton, in litt., June 1993), whilst 
both Cremnops and Vipio were employed for the agathidinine group of species (para. 
8 of the application and van Achterberg’s comment). 

The identity of desertor sensu Fabricius (1775) cannot be determined from 
Fabricius’s composite syntype collection; the two other nominal species originally 
included in Vipio are the types of distinct genera. 1. nominator Fabricius, 1793, the 
nominal species which has been treated as the type of Vipio, was not an originally 
included species and its name is a junior homonym; the application therefore 
proposed that Agathis longicauda Boheman, 1853, the next available synonym, be 
designated the type species of Vipio. This species belongs to Vipio in the braconine 
sense of Latreille (1804) and is defined by the lectotype designated by Wharton 
(1991). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 48: 48. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1993 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Holthuis. 

Lehtinen abstained. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Lehtinen commented that it was clear that Vipio must be treated as a braconine 
genus but the identity of some of the nominal species involved appeared to be 
uncertain. 


78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
longicauda, Agathis, Boheman, 1853, Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1851: 178. 
Vipio Latreille, 1804, in: Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle ..., Ed. 1, vol. 24, p. 173. 


The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Agathis longicauda 
Boheman, 1853: 
Wharton, R.A. 1991. BZN 48: 332. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 79 


OPINION 1759 


Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): 
Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 designated as the type 
species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 are hereby set aside and Camptopoeum 
submetallicum Spinola, 1851 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (gender: neuter), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Camptopoeum submetallicum 
Spinola, 1851, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name submetallicum Spinola, 1851, as published in the binomen Campto- 
poeum submetallicum (specific name of the type species of Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 
1905), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2812 

An application for the designation of Camptopoeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 
as the type species of Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 was received from Dr Luisa Ruz 
(Universidad Catolica de Valparaiso, Valparaiso, Chile) on 22 March 1991. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 205-206 (September 1992). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 206. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
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, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905, Transactions of the American Entomological Society, 31: 320. 
submetallicum, Camptopoeum, Spinola, 1851, in Gay, C., Historia Fisica y Politica de Chile, 
vol. 6, p. 198. 


80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 
OPINION 1760 


Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): R. baltica 
Jaekel, 1901 designated as the type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 prior to that by Hecker (1940) of Rhipidocystis 
baltica Jaekel, 1901 are hereby set aside. 

(2) The name Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name baltica Jaekel, 1901, as published in the binomen Rhipidocystis 
baltica (specific name of the type species of Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901), is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2760 

An application for the designation of Rhipidocystis baltica Jaekel, 1901 as the type 
species of Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 was received from Dr S.V. Rozhnov (Paleonto- 
logical Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia) on 16 February 1990. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 41-42 (March 1992). Notice of the 
case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Dr R.P.S. Jefferies (The Natural History Museum, 
London, U.K.) and Prof G. Ubaghs (Sprimont, Belgium) were published in BZN 50: 
57 (March 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 42. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
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, Starobogatov, 
Thompson, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Stys. 

No votes were received from Trjapitzin and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Stys commented that insufficient information had been given on the current status 
of Rhipidocystis gigas Jaekel, 1901 and how its acceptance as the type species of 
Rhipidocystis would affect the concepts of this and other genera (cf. paras. 2-4 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: 
baltica, Rhipidocystis, Jaekel, 1901, Zeitschrift der Deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, 52(4): 
665, text-fig. 3. 
Rhipidocystis, Jaekel, 1901, Zeitschrift der Deutschen geologischen Gesellschaft, 52(4): 672. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 81 


OPINION 1761 


Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): Filimanus 
perplexa Feltes, 1991 designated as the type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Filimanus Myers, 1936 are hereby set aside and Filimanus perplexa Feltes, 1991 
is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Filimanus Myers, 1936 (gender: feminine), type species by desig- 
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above Filimanus perplexa Feltes, 1991, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name perplexa Feltes, 1991, as published in the binomen Filimanus 
perplexa (specific name of the type species of Filimanus Myers, 1936), is hereby placed 
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2601 

An application for the designation of Filimanus perplexa Feltes, 1991 as the type 
species of Filimanus Myers, 1936 was received from Dr Ross M. Feltes (Museum of 
Biological Diversity, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.) on 8 August 
1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 209-210 (September 
1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that Feltes (1991) included five species in 
Filimanus Myers, 1936 additional to the type species (para. 3 of the application). The 
paper by Feltes (1993) in which Filimanus is mentioned, noted as ‘in press’ in the 
application, was published in Copeia, 1993(1): 207-215 (February 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 210. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1993 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, 
Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Holthuis. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 


Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Filimanus Myers, 1936, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 26(9): 379. 
perplexa, Filimanus, Feltes, 1991, Copeia, 1991(2): 307. 


82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1762 


Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and C. splendens Myers, 1942 
(Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): specific names conserved 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 
(a) fluminensis Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Gibeeaius 
fluminensis; 
(b) sandrii Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Gynopoecilus ee 
Cynopoecilus) sandrii. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 
(a) opalescens Myers, 1942, as published in the binomen Cynolebias opalescens; 
(b) splendens Myers, 1942, as published in the binomen Cynolebias splendens. 
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) fluminensis Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Cynopoecilus 
fluminensis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 
(b) sandrii Faria & Muller, 1937, as published in the binomen Gynopoecilus (recte 
Cynopoecilus) sandrii and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


History of Case 2792 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Cynolebias opalescens 
and C. splendens, both of Myers (1942), was received from Drs Carl J. Ferraris and 
Kenneth J. Lazara (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) 
on 4 October 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 207-208 
(September 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Further information on the history of the publications by Faria & Muller (1937) 
and Myers (1942) was published in BZN 49: 233 (September 1992). 

It was noted on the voting paper that the species were included under the names 
Cynolebias opalescens and C. splendens in recent publications (1991, p. 39; 1992, 
p. 20) issued by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of 
Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) (para. 3 of the application). 


CITES. 1991. List of CITES Appendix Amendment Proposals. Traffic Bulletin, 
12(3): 38-40. 
CITES. 1992. Amendment Proposals — Results. Traffic Bulletin, 13(1): 19-22. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 208. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 
1993 the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 83 


Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, 
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 5: Holthuis, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Nye and Thompson. 

Bouchet abstained. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented: ‘I am prepared to reject Faria & Muller’s (1937) paper on the 
grounds that Revista Naval was not published for the purpose of providing a 
permanent scientific record but I am not prepared to reject the names fluminensis and 
sandrii ‘only on the question of whether the widespread adoption of a junior synonym 
outside of the systematic community is sufficient to justify its continued use’ (BZN 
49: 233, para. 1). Listing by CITES is not sufficient to demonstrate that there is 
widespread adoption of Myers’s names’. Dupuis commented that he voted in favour 
solely because Myers’s (1942) names were included in CITES publications. Holthuis 
commented that since all the names were relatively recently published priority should 
prevail. Kabata said that he voted for the case with reluctance. Lehtinen commented: 
‘The listing of names in a Red Data Book or similar publication is an important 
additional consideration in problematic cases but the suppression of names which are 
some years older cannot be accepted mainly on this basis’. Thompson commented: 
‘When workers correctly and properly follow the principles and Code of nomen- 
clature and use the senior names for species which were only recently discovered, 
some specialists ignore their actions, waiting a few years until the junior names have 
existed for 50 years so as to apply for their conservation. Such actions are unethical 
and contrary to the principles of science and should not be endorsed’. (Editorial note. 
Drs Ferraris & Lazara did not wait until 50 years after the publication of Myers 
(1942). They submitted their application in October 1990 and wrote (May 1992) that 
they would have supported the resurrection of the names of Faria & Muller (1937) 
were it not for the widespread adoption of Myers’s names by government and 
conservation organisations). 


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: 
fluminensis, Cynopoecilus, Faria & Muller, 1937, Revista Naval, 37(3): 99. 
opalescens, Cynolebias, Myers, 1942, Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin, 2(4): 107. 
sandrii, Gynopoecilus (recte Cynopoecilus), Faria & Muller, 1937, Revista Naval, 37(3): 98. 
splendens, Cynolebias, Myers, 1942, Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin, 2(4): 110. 


84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1763 


Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura): 
generic and specific names placed on Official Lists, and Leptobrachium 
parvum Boulenger, 1893 (currently Megophrys parva): specific name 
conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the specific name monticola Gunther, 1864, as published in the binomen 
Xenophrys monticola, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the name monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as published in the emanen 
Megophrys monticola, is hereby ruled to be an incorrect original spelling of 
Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822. 

(2) The name Megophrys Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (gender: feminine), type 
species by monotypy Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, 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) montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as published in the binomen Mogophrys 
[sic] montana (specific name of the type species of Megophrys Kuhl & van 
Hasselt, 1822); 

(b) parvum Boulenger, 1893, as published in the binomen Leptobrachium parvum 
and as defined by the lectotype designated by Capocaccia (1957). 

(4) The name Megalophrys Wagler, 1830 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (an unjustified emendation of 
Megophrys Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822). 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) monticola Ginther, 1864, as published in the binomen Xenophrys monticola 

and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) monticola Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, as published in the binomen Megophrys 
monticola and as ruled in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original spelling of 
montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822. 


History of Case 2382 

An application for both the generic and specific names of Megophrys montana 
Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 to be placed on Official Lists, and for the conservation of 
the specific name of Leptobrachium parvum Boulenger, 1893, was received from Prof 
Alain Dubois (Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) on 2 June 1981. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 213-216 (September 1992). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that Kuhl & van Hasselt’s article in Dutch 
consisted of two letters originally written three weeks apart (18 July and 8 August 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 85 


1821). The specific name appeared as montana in the first letter and as monticola in 
the second letter; both versions were published simultaneously the following year (ref. 
1822a in the application). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 214-215. At the close of the voting period on 
1 December 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, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 


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: 

Megalophrys Wagler, 1830, Natiirliches System der Amphibien ..., p. 204. 

Megophrys (misspelt as “Mogophrys’) Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, Algemeene Konst- en 
Letter-Bode, 7: 102. 

montana, Mogophrys (recte Megophrys), Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, Algemeene Konst- en 
Letter-Bode, 7: 102. 

monticola, Megophrys, Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822, Algemeene Konst- en Letter-Bode, 7: 104 (an 
incorrect original spelling of montana). 

monticola, Xenophrys, Gunther, 1864, The reptiles of British India, p. 414. 

parvum, Leptobrachium, Boulenger, 1893, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di 
Genova, (2a)13: 344. 


The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Leptobrachium parvum 
Boulenger, 1893: 
Capocaccia, L. 1957. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 69: 211. 


86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


OPINION 1764 


Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824 (currently Dendrocygna arcuata; Aves, 
Anseriformes): specific name conserved 
Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: : 

(a) it is hereby ruled that the specific name arcuata Horsfield, 1824, as published 
in the binomen Anas arcuata, is to be treated as the specific name of a then new 
nominal species; 

(b) all previous fixations of type specimen for the nominal species Anas javanica 
Horsfield, 1821 are hereby set aside and specimen no. 1880.1.1.4742 in the 
collections at Tring of the Natural History Museum, London, is designated as 
the lectotype; 

(c) all previous fixations of type specimen for the nominal species Anas arcuata 
Horsfield, 1824 are hereby set aside and specimen no. 1880.1.1.2436 in the 
collections at Tring of the Natural History Museum, London, is designated as 
the lectotype. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) javanica Horsfield, 1821, as published in the binomen Anas javanica and as 
defined by the lectotype designated in (1)(b) above; 

(b) arcuata Horsfield, 1824, as published in the binomen Anas arcuata and as 
defined by the lectotype designated in (1)(c) above. 


History of Case 2746 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Anas arcuata Horsfield, 
1824 was originally received from Dr G.F. Mees (then of the Nationaal Natuur- 
historisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) in November 1989. Dr Mees wrote in 
1991 that, following his retirement, he did not have ready access to the literature and 
no longer wished to pursue the case; the Commission Secretariat therefore did not 
put it forward in his name. The case was published in BZN 48: 319-321 (December 
1991) and notice was sent to appropriate journals. 

Prof Walter J. Bock (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Ornithological 
Nomenclature (SCON) of the International Ornithological Congress, Columbia 
University, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) reported on support from members of SCON to 
conserve the name Anas arcuata and to designate a lectotype. He noted: ‘For well 
over 100 years ornithologists have consistently used the names Dendrocygna javanica 
(Horsfield, 1821) and D. arcuata (Horsfield, 1824) for two species of ducks despite the 
fact that their nomenclatural history has included errors ... No doubts exist that when 
Horsfield (1821) proposed the name javanica he had a composite type series including 
specimens of species now recognized as Dendrocygna javanica and D. arcuata. 
Moreover, when Horsfield (1824) published the name arcuata it was clearly meant as 
a replacement name for his earlier javanica (cf. Mees, 1989). After Blyth (1865) 
pointed out that the type series of Horsfield contained two species ornithologists used 
the two Horsfield names for each of the species’. Prof Bock added that Dr David 
Holyoak, a member of SCON, had examined the proposed lectotypes of javanica and 
arcuata and had verified that they are specimens of the two species with which these 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 87 


two names have been long associated. Another SCON member, Dr Richard Schodde, 
had discussed the case. 

Prof Bock wrote that he and some members of SCON did not agree with the 
procedure adopted in the application and did not consider that it should have been 
put forward by the Secretariat rather than in the name of Dr Mees. [This was done 
for the reason stated above (with explanation in the footnote on BZN 48: 319) since 
applications are published on behalf of the zoological community as a whole]. 

The application was submitted on the basis of setting aside Article 72e of the Code. 
The Commission was asked (proposal (1) on BZN 48: 320) to use its plenary powers 
to rule that the specific name of A. arcuata Horsfield, 1824 is no longer to be treated 
as a replacement name for (and therefore a junior objective synonym of) A. javanica 
Horsfield, 1821. Approval of this proposal would allow the designation of a lectotype 
for A. arcuata (proposal (2)). 

Since the nominal species A. javanica, as published by Horsfield (1821), was 
composite a lectotype was designated in the application (para. 6). Prof Bock 
proposed that the specific name of A. javanica be placed on the Official List, in 
addition to that of A. arcuata. This proposal was added to those in para. 7 and 
included on the voting paper. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 48: 320, together with the placement of the specific name 
of Anas javanica Horsfield, 1821 on the Official List of Specific Names. At the close 
of the voting period on 1 December 1993 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, 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, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Bock. 

No vote was received from Uéno. 

Bock voted against because he did not agree with the procedure that had been 
followed (see above). Ride commented: ‘I return a conditional vote because, although 
I support the intention of the application, the outcome remains vulnerable without 
additional action under the plenary powers. Since the lectotype selected by the 
applicant is not protected by the plenary powers it could be supplanted by a lectotype 
properly designated prior to the date of the application’. 

To secure completely the ruling in this case the Commission was asked to set aside 
any earlier type fixation for either the nominal species A. javanica or A. arcuata; 
under Article 72e a lectotype fixation for A. arcuata would have applied to A. javanica 
also. A supplementary proposal to this end was sent to the members of the 
Commission for a one-month vote in December 1993; 22 Commissioners voted in 
favour and none against. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
arcuata, Anas, Horsfield, 1824, in: Zoological researches in Java, and the neighbouring islands, 
part 8, pl. [65]. 
Javanica, Anas, Horsfield, 1821, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 13(1): 199. 


88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(1) March 1994 


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. ‘ 


Contents — continued 


On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) 
(Reptilia, Saurischia). S.P. Welles; G. Olshevsky; E.L. Nicholls; L.L. Jacobs; D.F. 
Glut; A. de Ricqlés; P.K. Tubbs . 

On the proposed conservation of Emys Bancal 1806 epi, Pequidanes): H. M. 
Smith : 

On the proposed conservation caf ie abspecise 1 name of Cothanae ta antarctica 
lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta skua lonnbergi; Aves, Charadrii- 
formes). J.-F. Voisin, C. Voisin, W.J. Bock & M. Théry . 


Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1752. Zanclea costata oe 1856 (Cnidaria, ee age 
and specific names conserved ‘ 

OPINION 1753. Gebia major capensis tens 1843 (currently nae capensis; 
Crustacea, Decapoda): neotype replaced, so conserving the usage of G. capensis 
and also that of G. africana Ortmann, 1894 (currently Upogebia africana) . 

OPINION 1754. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris 
(Geoffroy, 1762): some generic names conserved (Crustacea, Insecta) . 

OPINION 1755. Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Insecta, aigniiaes iP: eee 
nis Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 designated as the type species 

OPINION 1756. ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (Insecta, eee: given aie 
over CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 . 

OPINION 1757. Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 eeaWe CRYPTINAE inv. 1837 (insects: 
Hymenoptera): conserved . 

OPINION 1758. Vipio Latreille, 1804 idee, HysnenGptens): Aeashis ee 
Boheman, 1853 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1759. Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 neti, Hymenoptera): Cana 
poeum submetallicum Spinola, 1851 designated as the type species . z 

OPINION 1760. Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): R. paltven 
Jaekel, 1901 designated as the type species . : 

OPINION 1761. Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Peaicnncas Filmanus 
perplexa Feltes, 1991 designated as the type species . : 

OPINION 1762. Cynolebias opalescens Myers, 1942 and C. Sis Myers, 1942 
(Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): specific names conserved . 

OPINION 1763. Megophrys montana Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (enphibia, Anica): 
generic and specific names placed on Official Lists, and Leptobrachium parvum 
Boulenger, 1893 (currently Megophrys parva): specific name conserved : 

OPINION 1764. Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824 ae shi om arcuata; Aves, 
Anseriformes): specific name conserved oe ote ne 


Information and Instructions for Authors . 


86 


88 


CONTENTS 


Notices . : 

The International Conimecionh on Zoological Nomenclature aud its publications 

Addresses of members of the Commission 

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. j 

Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nowencliene 4 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Soi _ Secnad d Supplement to 
1990 . 2 Atay 

The European Association for Zoological Momeusisees 


Applications 

Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora, Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. J. Ortea & A. Valdés. 

Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation. A.S.Y. 
Mackie & J. Gobin . ; 

Mastotermes darwiniensis Freee 1897 feel Cae enmanees Bicone 1398 
(currently Amitermes meridionalis) (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed retention of 
neotypes following rediscovery of syntypes. J.A.L. Watson . 

coLtypmpaE Erichson, 1842 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed eens over 
CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 and ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820); and Cerylon 
Latreille, 1802: proposed conservation of ee histeroides Fabricius, 1792 as the 
type species. H. Silfverberg . : 

Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Bat 1792, Rhioghoae Herbst, 1793 ane 
Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta: Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct 
spellings, and proposed conservation of Lyctus eisai Fabricius, 1792 as the 
type species of Rhizophagus. H. Silfverberg . 

ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830 and Elmis Latreille, 1802 dnscete Goleapters) prope 
conservation as correct spelling and of feminine gender respectively. M.A. Jach . 
Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed designation of 

Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species. G.C.D. Griffiths . 

Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Diptera): aro 
conservation by the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the ee 
species of Myopa. S. Camras 

Alestes Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Characiformes} ocean aoe 
sée. J. Géery & V. Mahnert ‘ Sia) Soa : 


Comments 

On the proposed stabilization of usage of the name Ceratites nodosus (Mollusca, 
Ammonoidea). G. Hahn . : 

On the proposed conservation of the Seca al name ae Notoneeia Sune Thunbers, 
1787 (Insecta, Heteroptera). ILM. Kerzhner; A. Jansson . 

On the proposed conservation of usage of some generic names in the BUPRESTIDAE 
(Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Miihle; R.L. Westcott; G.H. Nelson. 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Rivulus marmoratus Pose 
1880 ee ee W.J.E.M. Costa; K.J. Lazara & M.L. 
Smith : so, YE ee 5 


Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 


The 


Bulletin 


Pikvicel 
Nomenclature 


PW hone 
Pen & 


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 1994 is £85 


or $165, 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 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 


Members 


Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.: Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 
(Norway, Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) 
Prof L. B. Holthuis 
(The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 
(Germany, Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) 


Secretariat 


Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 


Dr V. Mahnert 
(Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 
(Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
ProfW.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 
(Russia; Mollusca) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S. A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 
(Russia; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. Willink 
(Argentina; Hymenoptera) 


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 1994 


THE NATURAL 


HISTORY MUSEU 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 3 f §91 | N 1994 
PURCHASED 


ZOOLOGY LI o}n' AN 
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATORE ——y——EEE——— 


Volume 51, part 2 (pp. 89-184) 30 June 1994 


Notices 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- 
cation 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 51, part 1 (published on 30 March 1994). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) MELoIDAE Gyllenhal, 1810 and NEMOGNATHINAE Cockerell, 1910 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed precedence over HORIDAE Latreille, 1802, and proposed 
precedence of NEMOGNATHINAE Over ZONITIDINAE Mulsant, 1857. (Case 2924). 
M.A. Bologna & J.D. Pinto. 

(2) Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2925). M. Hansen. 

(3) Trichia Hartmann, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and Zalasius Rathbun, 1897 
(Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation. (Case 2926). E. Gittenberger 
& L.B. Holthuis. 

(4) Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913 (Nematoda): proposed designation of Dorylaimus 
brachyuris de Man, 1880 as the type species. (Case 2927). P.A.A. Loof & J. 
Heyns. 

(5) Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed confirmation of Eutet- 
tix? olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as the type species. (Case 2929). M.D. Webb. 

(6) Donax serra Dillwyn, 1817 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the 
specific name. (Case 2930). R.N. Kilburn. 

(7) Proposed conservation of the specific names of nine species of southern 
Afrotropical birds which are junior synonyms. (Case 2931). P.A. Clancey & 
R.K. Brooke. 


90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(8) CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) and 
CAECILHDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): proposed removal of the 
homonymy by the revocation of Opinion 1462 and the adoption of the spelling 
CAECILIUSIDAE for the psocopteran family name. (Case 2936). M.H. Wake, 
A. Dubois, D.R. Frost, T.E. Moore & R.A. Nussbaum. 

(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. 


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). Its 
provisions will supersede those in the current (1985) edition. 

A discussion draft of the new edition of the Code is being distributed for 
comments, and 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 pay this amount except 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) take into account all comments 
and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original distribution, 
but zoologists are asked to send their comments to the Executive Secretary as soon 
as convenient. 


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 9900 entries. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 91 


Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell 
Road, London SW7 S5BD, 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 SBD, 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 .T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, 
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested. 


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. 


92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Towards a polynomial system of zoological nomenclature? A response 
to the proposals of D.S. Yu (1993) 


Earle E. Spamer 


Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1195, U.S.A. 


Arthur E. Bogan 


Freshwater Molluscan Research, 36 Venus Way, Sewell, New Jersey 08080, 
U.S.A. 


Introduction . 

Yu’s ‘proposed system for stabilizing the names of species’ (BZN 50: 7-12) was 
introduced to mitigate the proliferation of “extra names’ for species-group taxa that 
originate largely from the reassignment of species to genera in which they were not 
originally named. He proposed an extension of the Linnean system of binomial 
nomenclature, to accommodate a polynomial name constructed from an immutable 
original binomen prefixed or interleaved with the name of the genus (and when 
relevant subgenus and subspecies) in which the organism is now classed. In this way, 
Yu argued, the taxon’s original identity is always recognized and never lost even if 
there is an error in, or an omission of, the author and date. 

In his proposal, Yu used examples from the entomological literature. The 
particular cases of a taxon with 75 names, including 36 junior synonyms, the 62 
identical subspecies names erected by one author over a period of 23 years, or the 13 
identical species names erected by one author in one year, are particularly enlight- 
ening examples of the potential for taxonomic confusion when organisms are 
reidentified or synonymized. 

It would be a simple matter just to say that complete synonymies provide the 
information that Yu seeks to preserve. Synonymical lists are not always complete, 
nor are they always accurate. It would be simple also to suggest that a table be 
included in all appropriate papers, in which the taxa cited therein are listed with their 
original binomens. But the publication of Yu’s proposal has brought to our minds 
several points of discussion. 


Remarks on the present system 

Since 1758, the system of binomial nomenclature in zoology has functioned in the 
manner it was intended — to provide a name for an organism, within-an artificially 
derived hierarchy. Over more than 230 years biologists have worked within the 
arbitrary confines of Linné’s binomial system. As the result of these centuries’ work, 
synonymies have sometimes become unwieldly, but proper attention to them is a 
requisite for every revisionary work in biology. 

Biologists have always dealt with the inherent problems of reidentification and 
synonymization in the guidelines of a binomial system. This is not to admit that the 
system is wholly adequate; Yu’s observations on the limitations of binomial 
nomenclature are valid. The problems are not unique to zoology; the botanical 
community has developed the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Greuter 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 93 


et al., 1988), and the bacteriologists have devised the International Code of Nomen- 
clature of Bacteria (Lapage et al., 1975) which rigidly controls its nomenclature with 
an approved list of bacteriological names and which places controls on valid 
publication. Nonetheless, all communities practice their different rules within the 
basic framework of binomial nomenclature. Focusing here on zoology, attention had 
been drawn by the beginning of the 20th century to the problems of instability in 
inconsistent uses of nomenclature. The Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature 
Zoologique (1905) were followed by the editions of the International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature (see the Introduction by W.D.L. Ride in the current Code 
(ICZN, 1985, pp. xiti—xix)). 


Remarks on Yu’s proposal 

1. Yu (p. 7) intended that his proposal was ‘to make nomenclature more stable and 
more applicable to computer-oriented technology without diminishing the very 
important taxonomic function of the system’. There Yu raised a point which our 
forebears in biology could not have imagined — computerization. A technology now 
exists which permits us rapidly to organize data into logically divided categories that 
can be manipulated by mechanical devices and programmed directions. Here, as with 
the proliferation of systematic hierarchies, there are potentially as many ways of 
approaching a problem and manipulating its data as there are people doing the work. 
Yu has developed one means of dealing with the data he uses — his TAXA program. 
Here we enter a dangerous area, that of reorganizing the system of taxonomic 
nomenclature to accommodate a current, but perhaps transient, technology. 

The clerical burden of binomial nomenclature, exacerbated by extraordinary 
situations like those cited by Yu, is amplified by the construction of a computerized 
database. The problems of correlating reidentified and synonymized binomens with 
their original binomens become more apparent when these data are divided into the 
arbitrary categories of a computerized database. In a less than sophisticated 
computer program, minor aspects such as parentheses become more complex than 
they should be. Solutions to these problems do exist now through more sophisticated 
programming, and no doubt procedures will become simpler. Both of us have worked 
with specialized databases for molluscan taxonomy, and we each have organized our 
own databases for different subject areas of biological taxonomy. These databases 
have been customized to accommodate special needs. The data in them are 
taxonomic and bibliographical; when more advanced computer programs become 
available we will take advantage of that technology. At this time the problems are 
those of the operators. 

2. Recent years have witnessed the development of ‘standard’ lists of organisms. 
These often are the work of committees of biologists who are working within their 
special disciplines, or who are working at the behest of a governmental or other 
agency on some aspect of biological monitoring and conservation. Heywood (1991) 
has discussed the special needs for a stable nomenclature of organisms especially with 
regard to issues of conservation. His points have become even more well directed in 
light of the growing number of keys and lists of both biological groups and regional 
biotas. 

Standard lists are not designed to usurp systematic thinking — for there are many 
different systematic schemes in use at any given time — but they are designed to 


94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


provide recognized names for organisms for specific non-taxonomic purposes. They 
often arbitrarily accept one name instead of another, and for this reason they are 
inadequate for most works of systematic revision. Many of them also serve as 
compendia of common names. But the purpose of these lists is similar to the objective 
of Yu’s proposal; the binomial nomenclature is unambiguous. These and other 
standard lists would be effectively outmoded with the introduction of a polynomial 
system. 

North American workers have devised standard lists of the names of fishes and 
aquatic invertebrates, coordinated by the American Fisheries Society. These lists are 
devised to provide stability. It is clear that the scientific details of synonymy and 
systematic relationships can be relegated to such professionals working on revisions 
within their respective fields; for most workers, who are under the pragmatic 
constraints of production schedules and legislative due dates, there is some coordi- 
nation provided by a standardized — and revisable — nomenclature. Thus far, 
volumes have been produced for the fishes (Robins et al., 1991), Mollusca (Turgeon 
et al., 1988; second edition is in review), Decapoda (Williams et al., 1989), and 
Ctenophora and Cnidaria (Cairns et al., 1991). Volumes on Crustacea (Isopoda, 
Copepoda, Amphipoda, Cirripedia, Euphausiia), Annelida, Insecta (Plecoptera, 
Heteroptera, Odonata, Coleoptera), Echinodermata, Porifera, Bryozoa, and other 
‘miscellaneous’ groups are currently in review or in preparation. 

To illustrate the widespread availability of what often are prodigeous compilations 
of Linnean taxonomic names, we cite the standard lists of birds of the world (Sibley 
& Monroe, 1990), North American butterflies (Miller, 1992), coleopterids of North 
America north of Mexico (Leng, 1920, and supplements), and the voluminous 
checklists of coleopterids, organized by family, issued by the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture. Linnean taxonomy pervades publicly accessible computerized data- 
bases, such as those reached through the Internet consortium of computers; e.g. the 
Mammal Species of the World checklist on the Smithsonian Institution’s ‘Gopher’ 
(nmnhgoph.si.edu 70), extracted from Wilson & Reeder (1993). Each reader probably 
can add many to our examples. 

3. Latin grammar is seen by some workers as an unfortunate aspect of the Linnean 
system. Changing the spelling of species-group names to agree in gender with the 
genus name is inconvenient for many workers, and mistakes are often made. An 
unsophisticated computer program, too, will see a re-spelled species-group name as 
different, where to a taxonomist it is the same. This is a shortcoming of technology, 
not one of taxonomy, and should have no bearing upon the construction of a full 
scientific name. 

4. What Yu seeks is a universal language, but such efforts have always failed. 
Numerical schemes independent of (or in parallel with) names have already been 
proposed (see Heppell, 1991). Numerical codes have been in use in standard lists (e.g., 
Leng, 1920, and Sibley & Monroe, 1990), but they supplement the Linnean 
taxonomic names. Some databases also employ ‘serial numbers’ which link specific 
groups of taxonomic data in various ways, but here too they supplement the 
taxonomic names. Zoologists are not alone in standardizing and numerically coding 
species; see, for example, the lengthy list of plants of southern Africa edited by 
Arnold & de Wet (1993). We express concern that computerized databases which 
incorporate zoological and botanical data will encounter unnecessary procedural 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 95 


difficulties if they combine the binomial nomenclature of botany with a polynomial 
one of zoology. 

5. Yu (p. 10) brings up the key point of non-taxonomists working with taxonomic 
names. Such people are the majority in biological work, and Yu validly emphasizes 
that points of ambiguity which ‘may sound trivial to a taxonomist ... are real 
problems to non-taxonomists’; for example, the use of different genera, the use of 
parentheses, and the differences of gender endings of specific names. Yu does not 
mention that even established systematic researchers, especially in the years before 
the Reégles and the Code, often faltered on these points, so that synonymies are 
littered with ‘sic’, ‘errore’, ‘(?)’, ‘non’, ‘nec’, and so on. 

In Yu’s proposed system, every worker will be required to verify the original 
binomen if that information is not readily available to them. This will be necessary 
in order to construct the polynomial scientific name for an organism. These workers, 
including the non-taxonomists who Yu strives to assist, will have to pore through the 
literature of previous nomenclature. In most cases they will accept the original 
binomen as published by someone later than the original author, for example in a 
later synonymy. Most workers do not have ready access to comprehensive libraries 
of natural history; they will probably not have a copy of Linné’s (1758) Systema 
Naturae, much less Gmelin’s (1788-[1792]) revised 13th edition of that work. 


Conclusions 

Every few years a new system is proposed, or there are discussions on the need for 
improved stability in taxonomic nomenclature; one has simply to browse through the 
text and references of Hawksworth (1991) for many examples. Savage (1990) has 
called for an Official List of Names in Current Use which, if it were to be 
implemented, would negate the need for Yu’s polynomial taxonomy. To our 
knowledge no one before Yu has proposed a new system of nomenclature which 
scrambles original and subsequent binomens. 

We consider that confusion would result from an implementation of Yu's 
proposed system of nomenclature. In addition to the binomial system that has been 
in place since 1758, the literature would (after some arbitrary date set by a future 
edition of the Code) have a second nomenclatural system to take into consideration. 
Future biological workers would have to decide whether a published binomen was a 
mere relic of the present system or a non-reclassified species in the polynomial 
nomenclature of Yu. Every existing database would have to either retrofit to a 
polynomial taxonomy all of the existing binomial data or it would have to 
accommodate them in parallel with the new taxonomy. This difficulty erodes the 
purpose of Yu’s proposed system. 

Yu has proposed that the original binomen become a part of the full scientific 
name. He has illustrated (p. 11) his proposed taxonomy with the example (in the 
binomial taxonomy) of Togea formosana Uchida, 1926, which has been reclassified as 
Benyllus formosanus (Uchida, 1926) and as Stirexephanes signatus formosanus 
(Uchida, 1926). In the proposed system, the new polynomens would be, respectively, 
Benyllus Togea formosana Uchida, 1926, and Stirexephanes signatus Togea formosana 
Uchida, 1926. Once the structure of the names is understood, in each case the original 
binomen is unambiguous. But in each case the original genus takes up a different 
position in the chain of names, and the subspecific name becomes separated from that 


96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


of the species. To put these names into a database requires disassembling the scientific 
name into both the original binomen and the later classification that is a bi- or 
trinomen — in the style of Linnean taxonomy! 

To change the binomial architecture of nomenclature to provide for more 
convenient computerization is short-sighted. This technology has been available to 
biologists for a couple of decades only. We are led by Yu to suppose that 
restructuring nomenclature to accommodate both current technology and those who 
do not have need to attend to the details of taxonomy will provide for a less 
ambiguous taxonomic environment. When the problems addressed in Yu’s proposals 
can be automatically dealt with by more sophisticated (but easy to use) database 
programming, would biologists then be bound, through some future edition of the 
Code, to Yu’s then-unnecessary polynomial nomenclature? 

Taxonomy provides the stabilizing nomenclatural hierarchy for systematic 
research throughout biology. The scientific literature, particularly in recent years, is 
full of papers that decry the erosion of the importance given to basic systematics in 
biology. To meddle with nomenclature particularly at this critical time is an 
additional aspect which should generate concern. Even though we disagree with the 
specific proposal advanced by Yu, we believe that nomenclatural revision of any kind 
at this time is unwise. Bisby & Hawksworth (1991) have explored the reasons for the 
decline of systematics and have come out in clear support of stability through the 
adoption of a definitive List of Names in Current Usage, and called for ‘user- 
orientated information services for all known organisms’. However, what really is 
needed is a database of synonymies from all of zoological literature — its core would 
be Sherborn’s Index Animalium, Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus, and the Zoological 
Record to date, to which can be added synonymical lists from the literature. The 
technology exists now to make this aid available, and it permits illustrations to be 
incorporated. Unfortunately, the funding to bring such a resource into being is not 
likely to be made available. 


References 


Arnold, T.H. & Wet, B.C. de. (Eds.). 1993. Plants of southern Africa: names and distribution. 
Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa, 62: 1-825. 

Bisby, F.A. & Hawskworth, D.L. 1991. What must be done to save systematics? Pp. 323-336 
in Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.), 1991. 

Cairns, S.D., Calder, D.R., Brinckmann-Voss, A., Castro, C.B., Pugh, P.R., Cutress, C.E., 
Jaap, W.C., Fautin, D.G., Larson, R.J., Harbison, G.R., Arai, M.N. & Opresko, D.M. 
1991. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and 
Canada: Cnidaria and Ctenophora. American Fisheries Society Special Publications, 22: 
1-75. 

Gmelin, J.F. 1788-{1792]. Caroli a Linné ... Systema Naturae per regna tria naturae ... (Tomus 
I) Editio decima tertia, aucta, reformata. Lipsiae. 

Greuter, W., Burdet, H.M., Chaloner, W.G., Demoulin, V., Grolle, R., Hawksworth, D.L., 
Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C., Stafleu, F.A., Voss, E.G. & McNeill, J. (Eds.). 1988. 
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Regnum Vegetabile, vol. 118). xiv, 328 pp. 
Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein, Germany. 

Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). 1991. Improving the stability of names. needs and options; proceedings 
of an international symposium, Kew, 20-23 February 1991. (Regnum Vegetabile, no. 123). 
358 pp. Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein, Germany. 

Heppell, D. 1991. Names without number? Pp. 191-196 in Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.), 1991. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 97 


Heywood, V.H. 1991. Needs for stability of nomenclature in conservation. Pp. 53-58 in 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.), 1991. 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International code of zoological 
nomenclature, 3rd Ed. xx, 338 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
London, and University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Lapage, S.P., Sneath, P.H.A., Lessel, E.F., Skerman, V.B.D., Seeliger, H.P.R. & Clark, W.A. 
1975. International code of nomenclature of bacteria, 1975 revision. American Society of 
Microbiology, Washington, D.C. 

Leng, C.W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America north of Mexico. 470 pp. Sherman, 
Mount Vernon, New York. (and supplements, 1927, 1933 (Leng, C.W. & Motchler, A.J.); 
1939 (Blackwelder, R.E.); 1948 (Blackwelder, R.E. & Blackwelder, R.M.)). 

Linné, C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria natureae . . . . Tomus I. Editio decima, 
reformata. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Miller, J.Y. 1992. The common names of North American butterflies. 192 pp. Smithsonian 
Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Neave, S.A. (Ed.). 1939-1993. Nomenclator zoologicus, 8 vols. Zoological Society of London, 
London. 

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 
1991. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Ed. 5. 
American Fisheries Society Special Publications, 20: 1-183. 

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

Sherborn, C.D. 1902-1933. Index animalium, 10 vols. British Museum, London. 

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

Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Emerson, W.K., Lyons, G., Pratt, W.L., Roper, 
C.F.E., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.G. & Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific 
names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. American 
Fisheries Society Special Publications, 16: \—277. 

Williams, A.B., Abele, L.G., Felder, D.L., Hobbs, H.H. Jr., Mannin, R.B., McLaughlin, P.A. &. 
Farfante, I.P. 1989. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the 
United States and Canada: decapod crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special 
Publications, 17: 1-77. 

Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the world. Ed. 2. 1206 pp. 
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 

Yu, D.S. 1993. A proposed system for stabilizing the names of species, illustrated with 
reference to the ICHNEUMONIDAE (Hymenoptera). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 50: 
7-12. 


98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Case 2809 


Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida): proposed 
conservation 


Stefan A. Revets 


Department of Palaeontology, Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor 
Natuurwetenschappen, Vautierstraat 29, B1040 Brussels, Belgium 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the foraminiferan generic 
name Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961. Fursenkoina is a replacement name for 
Virgulina d’ Orbigny, 1826, which is a junior homonym. The name Cassidella Hofker, 
1953 was proposed for a generic concept which makes it a senior synonym of 
Fursenkoina, although its type species has been misidentified in more than one way. 
The name Cassidella has been misunderstood and little used and its suppression is 
proposed in order to safeguard Fursenkoina, which is in wide use and the basis of a 
family-group name. 


1. d’Orbigny (1826, p. 267) established the genus Virgulina by describing the single 
new species V. sguammosa from Pliocene deposits of the Siena region, Italy. No type 
material can be found among the d’Orbigny material in the Muséum National 
d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, which has been extensively recurated and was extensively 
damaged by flooding of the Seine in 1912. Cushman (1930, p. 63) discussed the 
provenance of d’Orbigny’s foraminifera from Siena, and in a systematic revision 
(Revets, 1995, in press) of the family BOLIvINITIDAE Cushman, 1927 I intend to 
designate specimen P 52796 in the Micropalaeontology collection of the Natural 
History Museum, London as the neotype of V. squammosa. The specimen is from 
Cava Semplice, Coroncina, Siena, Italy. 

2. Hofker (1950, p. 68) mentioned the new generic name Cassidella and 
illustrated (fig. 41a) a toothplate, but in the absence of a description or type 
species designation the name did not become available. Later (1951, p. 264) 
Hofker described Cassidella, but on p. 264 he said that the ‘genotype’ was 
Virgulina tegulata Reuss, 1846 whereas on p. 265 the new species C. oligocenica 
was given as ‘the type of the genus’. The failure to designate a single type species 
meant that the generic name remained unavailable (Article 13b of the Code). 
Hofker (p. 266) included Virgulina squamosa [sic] d’Orbigny in Cassidella, although 
he did retain Virgulina for other species; this is of course incorrect since 
V. squammosa is the type species of Virgulina (para. 1 above). On p. 265 he 
contrasted Virgulina (in the sense of the species included by him) and Cassidella. 
Thalmann (1952, p. 971), in a report on the works published in 1951 concerning 
foraminifera, listed ‘Virgulina (Bolivina) tegulata (Reuss) as the ‘genotype’ of 
Cassidella, citing only p. 264 of Hofker (although giving the wrong bibliographic 
reference); the additional designation of C. oligocenica on p. 265 was overlooked. 
This incomplete and inaccurate citation of Hofker did not make the name 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 99 


available from Thalmann (1952), although that authorship was accepted by 
Loeblich (1953, p. 39) despite his remark (p. 40) that the attribution was ‘certainly 
unfortunate’. 

3. Hofker (1953a) remedied the lack of valid type designations for the genera 
introduced in his earlier (1951) work and on p. 26 designated Virgulina tegulata 
Reuss, 1845 (recte 1846) as the type of Cassidella; the name thereupon finally became 
available. He remarked (p. 27) ‘I am always in a state of war with the Rules of 
Nomenclature, since I believe that these rules have added considerably to the 
confusion in the taxonomy of the foraminifera. This is the reason why I do not always 
follow them in my publications’. Hofker said of V. tegulata: ‘Reuss himself reported 
the species several times from the Turonian as well as from the upper Senonian and 
Maestrichtian. Yet we now know that these forms appear to be different species. 
What is the true Virgulina tegulata ?. From this it is not clear on what taxonomic 
species Hofker (1953a) based his concept of V. tegulata. Wood (1954) commented 
“Neglect of the elementary principles of nomenclature has made nonsense of the 
paper [Hofker, 1953a]’, and he cast doubt on the classificatory characters which had 
been used to separate ‘Virgulina (Hofker non d’Orbigny) and Cassidella (really 
Virgulina)’. 

4. Hofker (1953b) retained V. squammosa in Cassidella, but an editorial note 
reported as follows: ‘Virgulina squammosa d’Orbigny, 1826 is the monotypic 
genotype of Virgulina d’Orbigny, 1826, and consequently cannot be removed from 
Virgulina and placed in Cassidella. This situation was pointed out to Dr. Hofker, who 
replied (personal communication, October 1953) that he agreed, and that he now 
proposes to suppress Cassidella as [it is] a synonym of Virgulina, restricting the name 
Virgulina to Virgulina squammosa and other species having the same wall and 
toothplate structure. He also plans to establish a new genus for those species which 
differ from Virgulina squammosa ... The new genus will be described in the near future 
.... This plan was never carried out. 

5. Loeblich & Tappan (1961, p. 314) proposed the name Fursenkoina as a 
replacement for Virgulina d’Orbigny, 1826 (see para. 1 above), which they pointed 
out was a junior homonym of Virgulina Bory de St. Vincent, 1823, the name 
of a trematode genus. The type species of Fursenkoina is automatically (under 
Article 67h of the Code) that of Virgulina d’Orbigny, i.e. V. squammosa. Loeblich & 
Tappan also replaced the subfamily name VIRGULININAE Cushman, 1927 (p. 68) by 
FURSENKOININAE. 

6. Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p. 732; 1987, p. 530) listed V. tegulata as the 
type species of Cassidella, although they attributed the genus and type desig- 
nation to Hofker (1951) rather than to his 1953a paper or to Thalmann (1952) (see 
paras. 2 and 3 above). In both 1964 and 1987 Loeblich & Tappan treated 
Cassidella and Fursenkoina as separate genera on the ground that V. tegulata 
and V. squammosa were sufficiently different to merit generic distinction. However, 
in doing this Loeblich & Tappan relied on information published by Hofker and 
on their own interpretation of V. tegu/ata, and not on examination of original 
Reuss material. In 1964 they illustrated (fig. 600, 5-7) examples of “C. tegulata’ 
from Arkansas (U.S.A.) and the Netherlands, while in 1987 only the Arkansas 
specimen which they had identified as C. tegulata was illustrated (pl. 578, figs. 26 
and 27). 


100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


7. The specimens identified by Hofker as V. tegulata Reuss and which he 

included in Cassidella were obtained from Maastrichtian chalk of the Jekerdal in 
Belgium (see Hofker, 195la, p. 265), whereas Reuss (1846, p. 40) had described his 
species from the Turonian of Kystra (Czech Republic). Cushman (1937, p. 5) 
mentioned specimens of V. tegulata from other Turonian localities in Central 
Europe and added that some Cretaceous (Austin and Taylor chalk and marl) 
specimens from the southern United States ‘seem identical with the European 
species’. The original Reuss material was destroyed in Budapest in 1956 (H. 
Kollman, pers. comm.). Hofker’s specimens of ‘V. tegulata’ cannot be traced, but 
comparison of his description and drawings with Czech specimens of V. tegulata 
shows that Hofker had misidentified his Belgian material. Unfortunately the 
preservational state of the Turonian material from the Bohemian region precludes 
description of the taxonomically important features of Reuss’s species and hence 
the satisfactory selection of a neotype for it. Hofker’s ‘V. tegulata’ was different 
and clearly congeneric with V. squammosa d’Orbigny, as is Cassidella oligocenica, 
the second ‘type species’ of Cassidella (para. 2 above). Hofker himself included 
both ‘V. tegulata and V. squammosa in Cassidella, and this and his explicit 
statement reported in para. 4 above show that his concept of that genus was 
the same as that of Virgulina d’Orbigny and hence of Fursenkoina Loeblich & 
Tappan. 
_ 8. As already mentioned (para. 6), Loeblich & Tappan also misidentified 
V. tegulata, but whereas Hofker cited Belgian material they relied primarily on 
American specimens. Their distinction between Cassidella and Fursenkoina was 
faulty although their taxonomic misidentification was not the same as Hofker’s. 
Article 70b of the Code requires that Cassidella should be referred to the Commission 
because it has a misidentified type species. It would be inappropriate to fix Virgulina 
tegulata Reuss, 1846 as the type species, since the genus was neither originally 
proposed nor has subsequently been used in that sense, and in any case V. tegulata 
is itself a nomen dubium. The American specimens identified as ‘V. tegulata Reuss’ 
by Loeblich & Tappan (1961, 1964, 1987) and Cushman (1937) probably belong to 
Coryphostoma Loeblich & Tappan, 1962 or to Loxostomum Ehrenburg, 1854, so if 
used in that sense Cassidella would be a subjective synonym of one or both of those 
generic names, both of which are in current use. Although in accord with Hofker’s 
original concept, it would be particularly undesirable to designate either of the 
originally included nominal species Virgulina sguammosa or C. oligocenica as the type 
species of Cassidella Hofker, 1953, for the name would then be confirmed as a senior 
synonym of Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961. Cassidella has been used very 
little, and only in a confused way. On the other hand Fursenkoina is in wide use (see 
e.g. Haynes, 1981; Loeblich & Tappan, 1987) and as mentioned in para. 5 above it is 
the basis of a family-group name. In view of its muddled history and particularly to 
avoid any threat to Fursenkoina I propose that the name Cassidella should be 
suppressed. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Cassidella Hofker, 1953 for the 

purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 101 


(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (gender: feminine), type species by 
monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Virgulina d’Orbigny, 1826 Virgulina 
squammosa @Orbigny, 1826; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name sqguammosa 
d’Orbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Virgulina squammosa and as 
defined by the neotype (specimen P 52796 in the Natural History Museum, 
London to be designated by Revets (1995)) (specific name of the type species 
of Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Cassidella Hofker, 1953, as suppressed in (1) above. 


References 


Cushman, J.A. 1927. An outline of a re-classification of the Foraminifera. Contributions from 
the Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, 3: \-105S. 

Cushman, J.A. 1930. On Uvigerina pigmea dOrbigny. Contributions from the Cushman 
Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, 6: 62-63. 

Cushman, J.A. 1937. A monograph of the subfamily Virgulininae of the foraminiferal family 
Buliminidae. Cushman Laboratory for Foraminiferal Research, Special Publication, no. 9. 
xv, 228 pp. 

Haynes, J.R. 1981. Foraminifera. xii, 433 pp. Macmillan, London. 

Hofker, J. 1950. Wonderful animals from the sea: Foraminifera. Amsterdam Naturalist, 1: 
60-79. 

Hofker, J. 1951. The Foraminifera of the Siboga Expedition. Part III. Ordo Dentata, 
subordines Protoforaminata, Biforaminata, Deuteroforaminata. Siboga Monograph, vol. 
4a. 513 pp., 34 figs. Brill, Leiden. 

Hofker, J. 1953a. Types of genera described in Part III of the ‘Siboga Foraminifera’. The 
Micropaleontologist, 7(1): 26-28. 

Hofker, J. 1953b. Virgulina and Cassidella. The Micropaleontologist, 7(4): 27. 

Loeblich, A.R., Jr. 1953. Types of genera described in Part III of the ‘Siboga Foraminifera’. 
The Micropaleontologist, 7(2): 39-42. 

Loeblich, A.R., Jr. & Tappan, H. 1961. Suprageneric classification of the Rhizopodea. Journal 
of Paleontology, 35: 245-330. 

Loeblich, A.R., Jr. & Tappan, H. 1964. Sarcodina, chiefly “Thecamoebians’ and Foramin- 
iferida. In Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part C (Protista 2, 
vol. 2). 390 pp. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, 
Kansas. 

Loeblich, A.R., Jr. & Tappan, H. 1987. Foraminiferal genera and their classification. Vol. 1, 970 
pp.; vol. 2, 847 pls. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Orbigny, A. d’. 1826. Tableau méthodique de la classe des Céphalopodes. Annales des Sciences 
Naturelles, 7; 245-314. 

Reuss, A.E. 1846. Die Versteinerungen der béhmischen Kreideformation. 148 pp. Schweizerbart, 
Stuttgart. 

Revets, S.A. 1995 (in press). The systematic study of the Bolivinitidae Cushman, 1927 
(Foraminiferida). Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Geology). 

Thalmann, H.E. 1952. Bibliography and index to new genera, species and varieties of 
Foraminifera for the year 1951. Journal of Paleontology, 26: 953-992. 

Wood, A. 1954. Virgulina and Cassidella. The Micropaleontologist, 8(2): 37. 


102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Case 2848 


Chromadora Bastian, 1865 and Euchromadora de Man, 1886 
(Nematoda): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of 
C. nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 as the type species of Chromadora 


P.A.A. Loof 


Department of Nematology, Wageningen Agricultural University, 
Postbus 8123, 6700 ES Wageningen, The Netherlands 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilize the existing usage of the 
names of two genera of aquatic free-living nematodes, Chromadora Bastian, 1865 and 
Euchromadora de Man, 1886. Chromadora is the type genus of a nominal family and 
superfamily, and Euchromadora of a subfamily. The type species of Euchromadora is 
Chromadora vulgaris Bastian, 1865, and according to a long overlooked designation 
this is also the type species of Chromadora. The latter genus is always used in the 
sense of being typified by C. nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 and it is proposed that this 
be fixed as the type species. 


1. Bastian (1865, p. 167) described the nematode genus Chromadora with nine 
included species, all free-living in salt water environments. The first two species 
described, both new, were C. vulgaris and C. nudicapitata. No type species was 
designated. 

2. De Man (1886, p. 67) described the genus Euchromadora, designating as its 
type species Chromadora yulgaris Bastian, 1865. De Man left C. nudicapitata in 
Chromadora. 

3. In 1905 Stiles & Hassall published a paper on the type species of nematode 
genera. They had clearly asked Bastian to designate types for his genera, because in 
each case a type species was given accompanied by the note ‘... designated by Bastian 
in letter to Stiles, dated March 22, 1904; C. vulgaris was given as the type of 
Chromadora on p. 94. The designations in this paper of type species for Bastian’s 
genera are referred to with the authorship of Bastian in Stiles & Hassall (1905). It is 
noteworthy that in each case Bastian designated the species which he had originally 
mentioned first in the genus (cf. para. 1 above for Chromadora). 

4. Filipjev (1918, p. 240 footnote) wrote (in translation) *... de Man acted 
somewhat incorrectly in selecting this species (vulgaris), probably the type of 
the genus Chromadora Bastian, 1865, as type of his genus (Euchromadora)... But: 
(1) he acted justifiably, since he removed only Chr. vulgaris from the other species 
of the genus. Thus only this species changed its name: the numerous other species 
remained in the old genus. (2) Only in 1905 did Bastian definitively designate 
Chr. vulgaris as type of the genus (letter published by Stiles) and this could not 
have been known by de Man, who described his new genus in 1886. (3) When a 
type species is not designated by the author of a genus, an author who separates 
a new genus has the right to designate any species as type of the older genus and 
his designation is binding. (4) Since Chr. vulgaris Bast., which strictly speaking 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 103 


we should accept as type of the genus, had been removed from it, we should 
regard Chr. nudicapitata Bast., described as second species after Chr. vulgaris, 
as type’. 

5. On p. 244 of his paper Filipjev (1918) explicitly gave C. nudicapitata as the type 
species of Chromadora, but this designation is invalid since Bastian had designated 
C. vulgaris in 1905 (para. 3 above). Despite this Gerlach & Riemann (1973, p. 304) 
wrote: “The previous designation of Chromadora vulgaris Bastian, 1865 as type 
species by Bastian in Stiles & Hassall is a lapsus, because this species had been 
designated as type species of the genus Euchromadora by De Man 1886 p. 66’. This 
statement by Gerlach & Riemann is contrary to Articles 67k and 69a(ii) of the present 
Code (and to Article 69 of the then current edition), which make it clear that a species 
can be the type of more than one genus. 

6. Chromadora Bastian, 1865 and Euchromadora de Man, 1886 are objective 
synonyms, since C. vulgaris is the type species of both by the designations of Bastian 
(1905) and de Man (1886) respectively. Euchromadora has always been used in this 
sense. However, for more than 75 years (i.e. long before the erroneous statement by 
Gerlach & Riemann (1973) mentioned in the previous paragraph) Chromadora has 
consistently been used in the sense of Filipjev’s designation of C. nudicapitata as 
the type species (see para. 4 above), which had followed de Man’s (1886) placement 
of C. vulgaris in Euchromadora. Chromadora is the type genus of the family 
CHROMADORIDAE Filipjev, 1917 (p. 27); this is often used at superfamily rank and 
is the basis of the Order name Chromadorida. Euchromadora is the type genus of 
the subfamily EUCHROMADORINAE Gerlach & Riemann, 1973 (p. 328) within the 
CHROMADORIDAE. 

7. The following are representative references from the systematic literature which 
illustrate the established usage of the names Chromadora and/or Euchromadora as 
typified by C. nudicapitata and C. vulgaris respectively: Wieser (1954), Coles (1965), 
de Coninck (1965), Wieser & Hopper (1967), Inglis (1969), Gerlach & Riemann 
(1973). Further references may be found in their bibliographies and there are many 
ecological works which use the names in the same sense. In contrast, the designation 
by Bastian of C. vulgaris as the type species of Chromadora seems never to have been 
followed. 

8. If the designation of C. vulgaris as the type species of Chromadora were to be 
adopted, a most confusing situation would result: the genus known as Euchromadora 
would become Chromadora and that known as Chromadora would require an 
entirely new name since there is no synonym. Chromadora would not be in the 
CHROMADORINAE as long understood, and that taxonomic subfamily would have to be 
renamed. The EUCHROMADORINAE would become the CHROMADORINAE. In the interest 
of stability it is important that these consequences be avoided. 

9. 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 Chromadora Bastian, 1865, and to designate Chromadora 
nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Chromadora Bastian, 1865 (gender: feminine), type species by designation 

in (1) above Chromadora nudicapitata Bastian, 1865; 


104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(b) Euchromadora de Man, 1886 (gender: feminine), type species by original 

designation Chromadora vulgaris Bastian, 1865; 
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) nudicapitata Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Chromadora 
nudicapitata (specific name of the type species of Chromadora Bastian, 
1865); 

(b) vulgaris Bastian, 1865, as published in the binomen Chromadora vulgaris 
(specific name of the type species of Euchromadora de Man, 1886). 


References 


Bastian, C.H. 1865. Monograph of the Anguillulidae or free nematoids, marine, land, and 
fresh-water; with descriptions of 100 new species. Transactions of the Linnean Society of 
London, 25: 73-184. ; 

Coles, J.W. 1965. A critical review of the marine nematode genus Euchromadora de Man 1886. 
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 12(5): 157-194. 

Coninck, L.A.P. de. 1965. Systématique des nématodes. Sous-classe des Adenophorea. 
Pp. 601-731 in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie, vol. 4, fasc. 2 (Némathelminthes 
(Nématodes)). 731 pp. Masson, Paris. 

Filipjev, I.N. 1917. Un nématode libre nouveau de la Mer Caspienne, Chromadorissa gen. nov. 
(Chromadoridae, Chromadorini). Russkii Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 2: 24-29. 

Filipjev, I.N. 1918. Freeliving nematodes from the region of Sevastopol. Part I. Trudy Osoboi 
Zoologicheskoi Laboratorii i Sevastopol’skoi Biologicheskoi Stantsii, Rossiiskoi Akademii 
Nauk’, 2: 1-350. [In Russian]. 

Gerlach, S.A. & Riemann, F. 1973. The Bremerhaven Checklist of aquatic nematodes. I. 
Veréffentlichungen des Instituts fiir Meeresforschung in Bremerhaven, Supplement 4(1): 
1-404. 

Inglis, W.G. 1969. Convergence in the structure of the head and cuticle of Euchromadora 
species and apparently similar nematodes. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural 
History), Zoology, 17(5): 151-204. 

Man, J.G. de. 1886. Anatomische Untersuchungen iiber freilebende Nordsee-Nematoden. 82 pp., 
13 pls. Frohberg, Leipzig. 

Stiles, C.W. & Hassall, A. 1905. The determination of generic types, and a list of roundworm 
genera, with their original and type species. 150 pp. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
Washington. 

Wieser, W. 1954. Reports of the Lund University Chile Expedition 1948-49. 17. Free-living 
marine nematodes. II. Chromadoroidea. Lunds Universitets Arsskrift, (2)50(16): 1-148. 

Wieser, W. & Hopper, B.E. 1967. Marine nematodes of the East Coast of North America. 
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 135: 239-344. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 105 


Case 2870 


Xerophila geyeri Sos, 1926 (currently Trochoidea geyeri; Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name 


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 name of 
Trochoidea geyeri (Soos, 1926) for a terrestrial pulmonate snail (family HYGROMIDAE) 
from western Europe, which is also found in Pliocene and Pleistocene deposits. The 
name is in universal usage but is threatened by five senior subjective synonyms which 
have been unused since publication and for which suppression is proposed. The 
earlier names are Helix arceuthophila and H. ycaunica, both of Mabille (1881); 
H. vicianica Bourguignat in Locard, 1882; H. deana and H. pleurestha, both of 
Berthier (1884). 


1. The specific name of Xerophila geyeri was established by Soos (1926, p. 98, 
pl. 5, figs. 1-3) for a terrestrial pulmonate mollusc from near Erfurt in Germany. 
Material from the type locality is in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden 
(18 shells numbered 56862). 

2. During a revision of parts of Bourguignat’s collection, now housed in the 
Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, I found that the species currently known as 
Trochoidea geyeri (Sods, 1926) was represented by samples of several specimens from 
France, under various earlier names (see Gittenberger, 1993). These are Helix 
arceuthophila Mabille, 1881 (p. 122; originally described from Fontainebleau, Seine 
et Marne), H. ycaunica Mabille, 1881 (p. 122; from Mailly le Chateau, Yonne), 
H. vicianica Bourguignat in Locard, 1882 (pp. 106, 331; from between Thiers and 
Vichy, Allier), H. deana Berthier, 1884 (p. 354; from Die, Drome), and H. pleurestha 
Berthier, 1884 (p. 355; also from Die). The nominal species arceuthophila, ycaunica 
and deana are each represented in Geneva by a single specimen; vicianica and 
pleurestha are each represented by two. The specimens of H. vicianica are known to 
be syntypes and it is possible that specimens of other nominal species are also, having 
been donated to Bourguignat. 

3. All the names were introduced by disciples of the ‘Nouvelle Ecole’, founded and 
guided by Bourguignat. Dance (1986, pp. 163-164) commented that the “Nouvelle 
Ecole’ burdened the molluscan nomenclature with a plethora of ill-conceived new 
species, based on small variations in shell morphology, since ‘every other shell was 
regarded as potentially new to science’. It is not indicated on the labels in 
Bourguignat’s collection which author collected or donated each specimen; how- 
ever, the names and localities that are mentioned are identical with those in the 
original descriptions, and the descriptions fit the shells very well. The names are 
senior subjective synonyms of 7. geyeri but have remained unused since their 
publication. 


106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


4. Trochoidea geyeri (Soos, 1926) is a widespread inland species with a distribution 
that is unique in the genus Trochoidea Brown, 1827, the many species of which are 
otherwise concentrated around the Mediterranean. T. geyeri is known from the 
Swedish island of Gotland in the north-east to the Spanish province of Soria in the 
south-west; most records are from central Europe (see Gittenberger, 1993, pp. 307, 
309). The earliest records of the species are from the Pliocene (the Red Crag in Britain 
and a deposit in the Cote d’Or, France). It had a more widespread and continuous 
distribution during the cold periods of the Pleistocene than the present disjunct range 
(see Magnin, 1989) and inhabited south-east England, where it occurred in certain 
interglacial periods (Bramertonian, Cromerian) and also in many deposits of 
Late-Glacial age. Generally it disappeared very early in the Postglacial period, as 
forests spread, but it has been found from a Late Postglacial deposit in Cornwall 
where it is most common in a layer dated at about 3000 years B.P. (Bronze Age) 
within coastal sand dunes (see Gittenberger, 1993, p. 306). 

5. Trochoidea geyeri has frequently been confused with conchologically similar 
species (see Gitttenberger, 1993, pp. 309-318). These include, in particular, Helix 
striata Miller, 1774 (p. 38; see, for example, Geyer, 1896, p. 30; 1909, p. 44) but the 
misidentification of this taxon has now been recognised (see Kerney & Cameron, 
1979, p. 183; Magnin, 1989, pp. 779, 783). The name 7. geyeri has remained 
unchallenged and has been used consistently for a terrestrial pulmonate snail from 
western Europe, both Recent and fossil (see, for example, the publications of 
Aparicio, 1986, Falkner, 1990 and Nordsieck, 1993. Gittenberger, 1993, cited 21 
works by a number of authors published in the last 50 years in which the name is 
used. Three further representative references, not cited by Gittenberger, are held by 
the Commission Secretariat). Adoption of any of the earlier unused names for the 
taxon (para. 2) would cause unnecessary confusion in the literature and I therefore 
request that they be suppressed. 

6. 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) arceuthophila Mabille, 1881, as published in the binomen Helix arceutho- 
phila; 

(b) yeaunica Mabille, 1881, as published in the binomen Helix ycaunica; 

(c) vicianica Bourguignat in Locard, 1882, as published in the binomen Helix 
vicianica; 

(d) deana Berthier, 1884, as published in the binomen Helix deana; 

(e) pleurestha Berthier, 1884, as published in the binomen Helix pleurestha; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name geyeri Soos, 
1926, as published in the binomen Xerophila geyeri; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) arceuthophila Mabille, 1881, as published in the binomen Helix arceutho- 
phila and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) ycaunica Mabille, 1881, as published in the binomen Helix ycaunica and as 
suppressed in (1)(b) above; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 107 


(c) vicianica Bourguignat in Locard, 1882, as published in the binomen Helix 
vicianica and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; 

(d) deana Berthier, 1884, as published in the binomen Helix deana and as 
suppressed in (1)(d) above; 

(e) pleurestha Berthier, 1884, as published in the binomen Helix pleurestha and 
as suppressed in (1)(e) above. 


Acknowledgement 


Thanks are due to Dr E. Binder, former curator of the mollusc department in the 
Museum d’Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, who kindly allowed me to study the 
Bourguignat collection. 


References 


Aparicio, M.T. 1986. The geographic distribution of the family Helicidae in central Spain. 6 pp. 
Proceedings of the 8th International Malacology Congress, Budapest, 1983. 

Berthier, H. 1884. Hélices inédites de la série de la striata de Miller. Bulletin de la Société 
Malacologique de France, 1: 353-356. 

Dance, S.P. 1986. A history of shell collecting. xv, 265 pp., 32 pls. Brill, Leiden. 

Falkner, G. 1990. Binnenmollusken. Pp. 112—280 in Fechter, R. & Falkner, G., Weichtiere. 
Munich. 

Geyer, D. 1896, 1909. Unsere Land- und Stisswasser-Mollusken. Einftihrung in die Mollusken- 
fauna Deutschlands. Nebst einem Anhang tiber das Sammeln der Mollusken. vi, 85, xii pp., 
12 pls. (1896); viii, 155 pp., 18 pls. (1909). Lutz, Stuttgart. 

Gittenberger, E. 1993. On Trochoidea geyeri (Sods, 1926) and some conchologically similar 
taxa (Mollusca: Gastropoda Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 
67(19): 303-320. 

Kerney. M.P. & Cameron, R.A.D. 1979. A field guide to the land snails of Britain and north-west 
Europe. 288 pp., 24 pls. Collins, London. 

Locard, A. 1882. Prodrome de malacologie Frangaise. Catalogue général des mollusques vivants 
de France. Mollusques terrestres, des eaux douces et des eaux saumatres. vi, 462 pp. Georg, 
Lyon. 

Mabille, J. 1881. Testarum novarum praesertim europaearum diagnoses. Bulletin de la Société 
Philomathique de Paris, (7)5: 122-130. 

Magnin, F. 1989. Les distributions pléistocene et actuelle de Trochoidea (Xeroclausa) geyeri 
(Sods, 1926) (Gastropoda, Helicidae) dans le Sud-Est de la France: un exemple de 
disjonction d’aire li¢e au réchauffement post-glaciaire. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de 
France, (8)5(4): 779-786. 

Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium .... Testaceorum, non marinorum 
succincta Historia, vol. 2. xxxvi, 214 pp. Havniae et Lipsiae. 

Nordsieck, H. 1993. Das System der paldarktischen Hygromiidae (Gastropoda: Stylommato- 
phora: Helicoidea). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 122: 1-23. 

Soos, L. 1926. Eine neue Xerophila aus Deutschland, Xer. geyeri, und anatomische Bemerkun- 
gen Uber Xer. barcinonensis (Bgt.). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 58(2): 96-106. 


108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Case 2862 


A.A.H. Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici ... 
Sectio tertia. Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) 
Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten ... : proposed suppression, with 
conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) names (Insecta and 
Arachnida) 


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


Abstract. It is proposed that the very rare and usually neglected publications by 
Lichtenstein (1796, 1797) entitled Catalogus musei zoologici... Sectio tertia. Continens 
Insecta and by Schneider (1800) entitled Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten be 
suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. Despite this, the conservation as from 
Lichtenstein (1796) is recommended of one generic name (So/puga) and 20 specific 
names being in general current usage (Insecta and Arachnida). 


1. At auctions held in Hamburg between 1793 and 1797 there was sold a large 
collection of animals from all parts of the world belonging to L.F. Holthuizen (also 
spelled Holthuysen, Holthuisen and Holthuyzen) from Amsterdam (see Engel, 1939, 
p. 282; Meise & Stresemann, 1950; Weidner, 1967, pp. 43-50). 

2. For these auctions Lichtenstein published in three sections (1793, 1794 and 
1796) a catalogue, which included many new taxa. The first section (mammals and 
birds) was reprinted in 1882 and is well known to specialists; a number of names 
established in it are used as valid names. The second section (molluscs) also contains 
new names, but seems to be overlooked by malacologists. The third part contains 
insects and some other arthropods. In this part were established four new generic 
names (2 Coleoptera, | Phasmida, | Solifugae) and about 560 new specific names (7 
Odonata, 1 Ephemeroptera, 3 Blattodea, 11 Mantodea, 12 Phasmida, 44 Orthoptera, 
44 Homoptera, 74 Heteroptera, about 200 Coleoptera, 7 Neuroptera, about 100 
Hymenoptera, 30 Lepidoptera, 26 Diptera, 3 Solifugae, 1 Araneae, 1 Crustacea). 
Most of the specific names were made available by a short description or by reference 
to figures in works which are not consistently binominal (Stoll, 1780-1788, 1787— 
1790; Voet, 1766-1806). For about 20 new specific names in Coleoptera Lichtenstein 
gave references to figures in Olivier (1789-1808). It is very possible that Lichtenstein 
had the plates from Olivier’s work but not the text containing the names; that is cer- 
tainly so for the plates to Olivier’s volume 5, the text of which was published in 1807. 
Most new names are marked in Lichtenstein (1796) by ‘nobis’, although the same des- 
ignation is used by him also for some binomina which are merely new combinations. 

3. In 1797 those insects which had not been sold in 1796 were again put up for 
sale, and for this purpose a new catalogue (Lichtenstein, 1797) was published. It 
differs from the first edition (1796) in that the items sold in 1796 were omitted 
(Sherborn, 1899). 

4. In 1800 part of D.H. Schneider’s collection of insects was auctioned in 
Stralsund, including a number of specimens originating from Holthuizen’s collection 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 109 


which had been sold in Hamburg. The catalogue published for this auction 
(Schneider, 1800) contains eight available new specific names (all in Coleoptera) and 
19 of Lichtenstein’s specific names (in various orders), accompanied by data 
providing availability. New names are marked by ‘n.’, ‘nob. or ‘m.’, and 
Lichtenstein’s names mostly by ‘Holth.’. 

5. Some later published redescriptions and/or figures of Lichtenstein’s (1796) 
species are based on types or material compared with types (Lichtenstein & 
Herbst, 1797 — 3 species of Solpuga; Herbst, 1797, pp. 10, 11, 13, 21, 25, 28, 
177, 180, 185, 193, 201, 265; 1799, pp. 105, 115, 278; 280, 292, 310, 318, 322, 
363, 368; 1806, p. 12 — 5 species of Curculio, 2 of Brachycerus, 5 of Brentus, | 
of Sagra, 2 of Pimelia, 6 of Cassida, 2 of Erotylus (one of which Lichtenstein 
placed in Chrysomela), 1 of Elater; Lichtenstein, 1798 — 1 species of Locusta; 
Weber, 1801, pp. 61, 68, 87, 88, 98-104 — 1 species of Sagra, 1 of Cetonia, 2 of 
Cerambyx, 2 of Gryllus, 10 of Vespa; Lichtenstein, 1802 — 12 species of 
Phasma, 8 of Mantis). Herbst worked with Holthuizen’s collection and knew 
Lichtenstein’s catalogue (see Herbst, 1797, pp. 88, 193; 1799, pp. 323, 325), but he 
did not cite Lichtenstein’s work for the species he redescribed and therefore 
Lichtenstein’s authorship was maintained for only 11 names; the remaining 13 
names (four of which are valid) are currently used with Herbst’s authorship. 
Later authors redescribed several species with Lichtenstein’s specific names and 
apparently from his type specimens, but these authors did not refer to 
Lichtenstein’s work and these names have never subsequently been credited to 
Lichtenstein. 

6. Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) and Schneider’s (1800) catalogues are extremely 
rare, only a few copies being known. Sherborn (1902) listed the names established in 
them, with some omissions and misprints. 

7. For at least three of Lichtenstein’s (1796) species the types or specimens 
compared with them are among specimens received from D.H. Schneider in the 
Zoological Museum in Berlin (Burmeister, 1835, p. 355 and personal examination), 
in remnants of C. Stoll’s collection in the Museum of Natural History in Leiden 
(Westwood, 1859, p. 109) and F. Weber’s material (Fabricius’s collection) in the 
Zoological Museum in Copenhagen (Zimsen, 1964, p. 119). Although discovery of 
some other types in these or other collections cannot be excluded, it is clear that most 
of them are lost. 

8. The current usage of Lichtenstein’s (1796) generic names is as follows: 

Anchyceros Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 45) (Insecta, Coleoptera, ?CERAMBYCIDAE), type 
species by monotypy A. flavicollis Lichtenstein, 1796. Both the generic and specific 
names remain unclarified and have not been used later. 

Machla Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 67) (Insecta, Coleoptera, TENEBRIONIDAE), type 
species by monotypy M. media Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 67); M. media is a replacement 
name and hence a junior objective synonym of Tenebrio hispidus Forskal, 1775 (p. 79) 
(indicated by Lichtenstein as ‘Pimelia hispida F{abricius]’). Machla Lichtenstein has 
never been used as valid. Three other generic names in TENEBRIONIDAE need to be 
considered in connection with Machla Lichtenstein: 

(1) Trachyderma Latreille, 1829 (p. 7), type species by subsequent designation 

(Lucas, 1838, p. 50) Tenebrio hispidus Forskal, 1775 (p. 79) (as ‘Pimelia hispida 
de Fabricius’); 


110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(2) Ocnera Fischer von Waldheim, 1822 (p. 169), type species by subsequent 
designation (Gebien, 1937, p. 814) Pimelia imbricata Fischer von Waldheim, 
1820 (pl. 14); 

(3) Machla Herbst, 1799 (p. 152), type species by subsequent designation (Lucas, 
1920, p. 386) Opatrum villosum Olivier, 1795 (p. 5). 

Machla Lichtenstein, 1796 is, with ‘Pimelia hispida Fabricius’ being the only 
included available nominal species, a senior objective synonym of Tracliyderma 
Latreille, 1829, a senior subjective synonym of Ocnera Fischer von Waldheim, 1822 
(when Trachyderma is included in Ocnera) and a senior homonym of Machla Herbst, 
1799. Wilke (1922, p. 260) noted that Machla Lichtenstein, 1796 was a senior 
synonym of Ocnera Fischer von Waldheim, 1822 and a senior homonym of Machla 
Herbst, 1799. He established a replacement name Pseudomachla for Machla Herbst. 
However all later authors continued to use Ocnera (and Trachyderma) as valid names 
(see, for example, Medvedev & Nepesova, 1985, pp. 99, 100), and Koch (1962, p. 119) 
restored the use of Machla Herbst, 1799 as a valid name. If Lichtenstein’s catalogue 
(and hence Machila Lichtenstein) is suppressed, the current usage of the other names 
discussed will be maintained. 

Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 77) (Insecta, Phasmida, PHASMATIDAE) and its type 
species, P. empusa Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 77), have already been placed on Official 
Lists (Opinion 641, September 1962), and under Article 78f are available. 

Solpuga Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 216) (Arachnida, Solifugae, soLPUGIDAE), type 
species by subsequent designation (Pocock, 1897, p. 255) Solpuga chelicornis 
Lichtenstein, 1796 (p. 218), is a name in general current usage (concerning misuse of 
the name So/puga from 1933 to 1981 see Wharton, 1981, p. 62). 

9. To the best of my knowledge, only 20 of Lichtenstein’s (1796) specific names are 
currently used as valid, with his authorship, and merit conservation. These are listed 
in Table I (p. 113) in the current combination and with a reference. 

10. A special situation exists with three of Lichtenstein’s (1796) species of 
Orthoptera (TETTIGONIIDAE): Locusta aurantiaefolia (p. 82), L. daedalea (p. 82) and 
L. salviaefolia (p. 83). In the current literature (Beier, 1960, pp. 285, 325, 355) they are 
known as ‘Cycloptera aurantifolia [sic] (Stoll, 1787), ‘Typophyllum erosum (Stoll, 
1787) and ‘Diophanes salvifolius [sic] (Lichtenstein, 1796)’. If Lichtenstein’s (1796) 
work is suppressed, the currently used names or spellings would be retained, but the 
correct authorship for the first two names would be Houttuyn (1813), since Stoll’s 
part of the work does not contain scientific names, and for the third name would be 
Lichtenstein (1798). 

11. Three of Lichtenstein’s (1796) specific names are believed to be senior 
synonyms but are not used as valid names, 45 are recognised as junior synonyms and 
100 are listed as nomina dubia in the subsequent taxonomic literature; lists of these 
names and references can be provided by me direct or through the Commission 
Secretariat on request. The remaining 400 or so of Lichtenstein’s (1796) names seem 
never to have been mentioned in the taxonomic literature, and the same is true for all 
Schneider’s (1800) names. 

12. It is clear that Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) and Schneider’s (1800) catalogues 
are a potential source of nomenclatural instability. An examination of names of 
Heteroptera made by Mr W.R. Dolling (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) 
and myself shows that most of Lichtenstein’s names based on reference to Stoll’s 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 111 


(1780-1788) figures are interpretable, and about 20 of them are senior synonyms of 
names in general current usage. A similar situation exists in the Homoptera. It is 
likely that, in other groups also, the identity of some species can be clarified and some 
of them will be senior synonyms of currently used names. Furthermore, a number of 
Lichtenstein’s (1796) and two of Schneider’s (1800) specific names are senior primary 
homonyms of names in general current usage. 

13. The best solution to this potential nomenclatural instability would be to 
suppress Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) and Schneider’s (1800) auction catalogues for 
nomenclatural purposes, but to conserve as from Lichtenstein (1796) two generic and 
20 specific names in general current usage. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the following works: 

(i) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1796. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi 
Hamburgi, d. III. Februar 1796 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio 
Tertia. Continens Insecta; 

(11) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1797. Catalogus’ musei zoologici ditissimi 
Hamburgi, d. 16 Majus 1797 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio 
Tertia. Continens Insecta; 

(ii) Schneider, D.H. 1800. Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten welche am 
6ten Marz 1800 zu Stralsund in 6ffentlicher Auction einzeln verkauft 
werden sollen; 

(b) to rule that the generic name So/puga Lichtenstein, 1796 is available despite 
having been published in a suppressed work; 

(c) to rule that the following specific names are available despite having been 
published in a suppressed work (Lichtenstein, 1796), in combination with 
the generic name shown in each case: 

(i) caedemadens, Cassida; 

(ii) caperans, Brachycerus; 

(iii) —chelicornis, Solpuga; 

(iv)  chrysis, Lygaeus; 

(v) chrysothorax, Vespa; 

(vi) coloboptera, Vespa; 

(vil) ephippium, Cassida; 

(viii) ephippium, Reduvius; 

(ix) _fatalis, Solpuga; 

(x) filum, Mantis; 

(xi) — gnatho, Brentus; 

(xii) | haematites, Cassida; 

(xii) junix, Brachycerus; 

(xiv)  neriifolia, Locusta; 

(xv)  nitida, Cicindela; 

(xvi) portentosa, Acheta; 

(xvii) purpurea, Sagra; 

(xvili) umbretta, Phasma; 

(xix)  y-/uteum, Cimex; 


112 


(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Solpuga 
Lichtenstein, 1796 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation 
by Pocock (1897) Solpuga chelicornis Lichtenstein, 1796, as conserved in (1)(b) 


above; 


(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names 
with authorship of Lichtenstein (1796) and first published in combination with 
the generic name shown in each case, as conserved in (1)(c) above: 


(i) 
(ii) 
(iii) 


(iv) 
(v) 
(vi) 
(vii) 
(viii) 
(ix) 
(x) 
(xi) 
(xii) 
(xill) 
(xiv) 
(xv) 
(xvi) 
(xvi) 
(xviii) 
(xix) 


(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological 
Nomenclature the following works as suppressed in (1)(a) above: 

(a) Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1796. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi, d. 

III. Februar 1796 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta; 

(b) Lichtenstein, A-A.H. 1797. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi, d. 

16 Majus 1797 auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta; 

(c) Schneider, D.H. 1800. Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten welche am 6ten 

1800 zu Stralsund in 6ffentlicher Auction einzeln verkauft werden 


Marz 


sollen. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


caedemadens, Cassida; 
caperans, Brachycerus; 


chelicornis, Solpuga (specific name of the type species of Solpuga 


Lichtenstein, 1796); 
chrysis, Lygaeus; 
chrysothorax, Vespa; 
coloboptera, Vespa; 
ephippium, Cassida; 
ephippium, Reduvius; 
fatalis, Solpuga; 
filum, Mantis; 
gnatho, Brentus; 
haematites, Cassida; 
junix, Brachycerus; 
nertifolia, Locusta; 
nitida, Cicindela; 
portentosa, Acheta; 
purpurea, Sagra; 
umbretta, Phasma; 
v-luteum, Cimex; 


Acknowledgements 


I acknowledge with thanks the help of Zara Frenkiel (London), Ursula Géllner- 
K. Giinther (Berlin) in sending me photocopies of the works 
of Lichtenstein (1796) and Schneider (1800). I am also grateful to A.V. Gorochov, 
N.Ju. Kluge, B.A. Korotyaev, O.L. Kryzhanovskij (St Petersburg), H. Aspdck 
(Vienna), L. Borowiec (Wroclaw), W.R. Dolling (London), L.B. Holthuis (Leiden), 
H. Holtzel (Eppersdorf) and the late D.K.McE. Kevan (Ste Anne de Bellevue, 


Scheiding and 


Canada) for consultations. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


113 


TABLE I — Lichtenstein’s (1796) specific names used currently as valid and with his 


authorship 


Order and Family 


Lichtenstein’s name 
and page 


Coleoptera 
CARABIDAE 


BRENTIDAE 


CURCULIONIDAE 


CHRYSOMELIDAE 


Phasmida 
PHASMATIDAE 


BACUNCULIDAE 


Mantodea 
MANTIDAE 


Orthoptera 
TETTIGONIIDAE 


GRYLLIDAE 


Heteroptera 
PENTATOMIDAE 


COREIDAE 


REDUVIIDAE 


Hymenoptera 
VESPIDAE 


Solifugae 
GALEODIDAE 


SOLPUGIDAE 


Cicindela nitida 

(p. 32) 

Brentus gnatho 

(p. 53) 

Brachycerus junix 
(p. 55) 

Brachycerus caperans 
(p. 55) 

Sagra purpurea 

(p. 60) 

Cassida caedemadens 
(p. 65) 

Cassida ephippium 
(p. 65) 


Cassida haematites 


(p. 66) 


Phasma empusa 
(p. 77) 

Phasma umbretta 
(p. 78) 


Mantis filum (p. 81) 


Locusta neriifolia 
(p. 82) 
Acheta portentosa 
(p. 85) 


Cimex v-luteum 
(p. 106) 
Lygaeus chrysis 
(p. 109) 


Reduvius ephippium 
(pp. 111, 112) 


Vespa coloboptera 
(p. 202) 

Vespa chrysothorax 
(p. 203) 


Solpuga fatalis 
(p. 217) 


Solpuga chelicornis 
(p. 218) 


Current name 


Cicindela coerulea 
nitida 

Estenorhinus gnatho 
Brachycerus junix 
Brachycerus caperans 
Sagra femorata 
purpurea 


Agenysa caedemadens 


Stolas ephippium 


Stolas haematites 


Phasma empusa 


Prexaspes umbretta 


Thesprotia filum 


Pseudophyllus 
neriifolius 
Brachytrupes 
portentosus 


Mormidea y-luteum 


Sphictyrtus chrysis 


Heza ephippium 


Parachartergus 
colobopterus 


Polybia chrysothorax 


Galeodes fatalis 


Solpuga chelicornis 


Reference 


Schilder, 1953, p. 564 


Damoiseau, 1966, 
p. 304 
Zumpt, 1937, p. 369 


Pape, 1910, p. 14 


Gressitt & Kimoto, 
1961, p. 11 
Blackwelder, 1946, 
p. 737 

Spaeth, 1914, p. 43; 
Borowiec, in 
preparation 
Blackwelder, 1946, 
p. 739 


Opinion 641 (1962) 
Kirby, 1904, p. 414 


Giglio-Tos, 1927, 
p. 273 


Beier, 1962, p. 39 


Chopard, 1967, p. 42 


Rolston, 1978, p. 208 


Brailovsky & 
Meléndez, 1989, 


p. 29 

Maldonado Capriles, 
1990, p. 216 
Richards, 1978, 

p. 212 

Richards, 1978, 

p. 108 


Kraepelin, 1901, 
p. 19 


Wharton, 1981, p. 69 


114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


References 


Beier, M. 1960. Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae (Pseudophyllinae II). Das Tierreich, 74: 1-396. 

Beier, M. 1962. Orthoptera, Tettigoniidae (Pseudophyllinae I). Das Tierreich, 73: 1-468. 

Blackwelder, R.E. 1946. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the 
West Indies, and South America. Part 4. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 
185(4): 551-763. 

Brailovsky, H. & Meléndez, V. 1989. Revision del género Sphictyrtus Stal (Hemiptera- 
Heteroptera-Coreidae-Coreinae-Coreini). Anales del Instituto de Biologia de la Univer- 
sidad Nacional Auténoma de México (Zoologia), 60(1): 1-76. 

Burmeister, H.C.C. 1835. Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 2, part 1. xii, 396 pp. Enslin, Berlin. 

Chopard, L. 1967. Gryllides. Fam. Gryllidae: Subfam. Gryllinae (Trib. Gymnogryllini, 
Gryllini, Gryllomorphini, Nemobiini). Orthopterorum Catalogus, part 10. 211 pp. Junk, 
*s-Gravenhage. 

Damoiseau, R. 1966. La collection de Brentidae du Musée de Moraviae 4 Brno (Coleoptera- 
Curculionoidea). Acta Musei Moraviae. Scientiae Naturales, 51: 301-312. 

Engel, H. 1939. Alphabetical list of Dutch zoological cabinets and menageries. Bijdragen tot de 
Dierkunde, 27: 247-346. 

Fischer [von Waldheim], G. 1820, 1821, 1822. Entomographia Imperii Russici, vol. 1. 25 pls. 
(1820); Genera Insectorum, 104 pp. (1821); Entomographia Ruthenica, viii, 208 pp. 
(1822). Semen, Mosquae. 

Forskal, P. 1775. Descriptiones animalium, avium, amphibiorum, piscium, insectorum, vermium, 
quae in itinere orientali observavit. 19, xxxiv, 164 pp. Moeller, Havniae. 

Gebien, H. 1937. Katalog der Tenebrioniden (Col. Heteromera). Part 1. Pubblicazioni del 
Museo Entomologico ‘Pietro Rossi’ Duino, 2: 505-883. 

Giglio-Tos, E. 1927. Orthoptera, Mantidae. Das Tierreich, 50: 1-707. 

Gressitt, J.L. & Kimoto, S. 1961. The Chrysomelidae (Coleopt.) of China and Korea. Part 1. 
Pacific Insects Monograph, 1A: 1-299. 

Herbst, J.F.W. 1797, 1799, 1806. Natursystem aller bekannten in- und auslandischen Insekten. 
Kafer. Vol. 7, xi, 346 pp., 26 pls. (1797); vol. 8, xvi, 420 pp., 24 pls. (1799); vol. 10, viii, 
285 pp., 18 pls. (1806). Pauli, Berlin. 

Kirby, W.F. 1904. A synonymic catalogue of Orthoptera, vol. 1. 501 pp. British Museum, 
London. 

Koch, C. 1962. Analysis of the Madagascan components of the subfamily Tentyriinae 
(Tenebrionidae, Coleoptera) with revisions of the generic systematics of the Asidini from 
Africa south of the Sahara and the African, Asiatic and Palaearctic Epitragina of 
Tentyriini. Mémoires de l'Institut Scientifique de Madagascar, Entomologie, 13: 1-146. 

Kraepelin, K. 1901. Palpigradi und Solifugae. Das Tierreich, 12: 1-159. 

Latreille, P.A. 1829. Cuvier’s Le Régne Animal, Ed. 2, vol. 4. xxvii, 584 pp. Déterville, Paris. 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1793. Catalogus rerum naturalium rarissimarum Hamburgi, d XXI. Octobr. 
1793. Auctionis lege distrahendarum. Sectio Prima. Continens Mammalia & Aves. 60 pp. 
Schniebes, Hamburg. 

Lichtenstein, A.A-H. 1794. Catalogus rerum naturalium rarissimarum Hamburgi, ... 1794 
auctionis lege distrahendarum. Sectio Secunda. Continens ... . Hamburg. [Not seen]. 
Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1796. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi, d. III. Februar. 1796 
auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta. 13, 224 pp. Schniebes, 

Hamburg. ; 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1797. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburgi, d. 16 Majus 1797 
auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta. 6, 156 pp. Harmson Witwe, 
Hamburg. 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1798. Essay on the eye-like spot in the wings of the Locustae of Fabricius, 
as indicating the male sex. Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, 4: 51-62. 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1802. A dissertation on two natural genera hitherto confounded under the 
name of Mantis. Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, 6: 1-39. 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1882. Lichtenstein’s Catalogus rerum naturalium rarissimarum. iv, 60 pp. 
Willughby Society, London. 

Lichtenstein, A.A.H. & Herbst, J.F.W. 1797. Naturgeschichte der Insekten-Gattungen Solpuga 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 115 


und Phalangium. viii, 88 pp. Lange, Berlin. [Forms ‘Heft 1’ of Herbst, Natursystem der 
ungefliigelten Insekten]. 

Lucas], H. 1838. Piméliaires. Pp. 49-55 (Livraison 566-567) in: Dictionnaire Pittoresque 
d Histoire Naturelle, vol. 8 (PIE-SCO). 640 pp. Paris. 

Lucas, R. 1920. Catalogus alphabeticus generum et subgenerum Coleopterorum orbis terrarum 
totius (famil., trib., subtr., sect. incl.), part 1. xxxi, 696 pp. Nicolaische Verlags- 
Buchhandlung R. Stricker, Berlin. 

Maldonado Capriles, J. 1990. Systematic catalogue of the Reduviidae of the World (Insecta: 
Heteroptera). x, 694 pp. University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez. 

Medvedev, G.S. & Nepesova, M.G. 1985. Keys to the identification of the darkling beetles of 
Turkmenistan. 178 pp. Ylym, Ashkhabad. [In Russian]. 

Meise, W. & Stresemann, E. 1950. Notes on South African birds described in A. Lichtenstein’s 
“Catalogus’, 1793. Ibis, 92: 22-26. 

Olivier, A.G. 1789-1808. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes. Coléoptéres, 6 vols. 
Vol. 3 (1795); vol. 5 (1807). Baudouin (later Lanneau, Desray), Paris. 

Pape, P. 1910. Brachyceridae. Jn Junk, W. & Schenkling, S., Coleopterorum Catalogus, part 16. 
36 pp. Junk, Berlin. 

Pocock, R.I. 1897. On the genera and species of tropical African Arachnida of the order 
Solifugae, with notes upon the taxonomy and habits of the group. Annals and Magazine 
of Natural History, (6)20: 249-272. 

Richards, O.W. 1978. The social wasps of the Americas excluding the Vespinae. 580 pp., 4 pls. 
British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Rolston, L.H. 1978. A revision of the genus Mormidea (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae). Journal of 
the New York Entomological Society, 86: 161-219. 

Schilder, F.A. 1953. Studien zur Evolution von Cicindela. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der 
Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Reihe, 
3(2): 539-576. 

Schneider, D.H. 1800. Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten, welche am 6ten Marz 1800 zu 
Stralsund in 6ffentlicher Auktion einzeln verkauft werden sollen. 23 pp. 

Sherborn, C.D. 1899. Lichtenstein’s “‘Catalogus rerum naturalium’. Annals and Magazine of 
Natural History, (7)3: 272. 

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

Spaeth, F. 1914. Chrysomelidae: 16. Cassidinae. Catalogus Coleopterorum, part 62. 182 pp. 
Junk, Berlin. 

Stoll, C. 1780-1788. Natuurlyke en naar’t Leeven naauwkeurig gekleurde Afbeeldingen en 
Beschryvingen der Cicaden en Wantzen. Cicaden, 124 pp., 29 pls.; Wantzen, 172 pp., 41 pls. 
Sepp, Amsterdam. 

Stoll, C. 1787-1790. Natuurlijke en naar het Leven nauwkeurig gekleurde Afbeeldingen en 
Beschrijvingen der spoken, wandelende bladen, zabel-springhanen, krekels, trek-springhanen 
en kakkerlakken. Spectres, Lief. 1-4, 36 pp., 18 pls.; Locustes, Lief. 1, 16 pp., 6 pls. Sepp, 
Amsterdam. [Continuation of the work, including all indexes, published by M. Houttuyn 
in 1813]. 

Voet, J.E. 1766-1806. Catalogus systematicus Coleopterorum. 2 vols. Bakhuysen, Haag. 

Weber, F. 1801. Observationes entomologicae, continentes novorum quae condidit generum 
characteres, et nuper detectarum specierum descriptiones. xii, 116 pp. Universitat, Kiliae. 

Weidner, H. 1967. Geschichte der Entomologie in Hamburg. Abhandlungen und Verhandlungen 
des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg, (N.F.)9 supplement: 1—387. 

Westwood, J.O. 1859. Catalogue of orthopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. 
Part I. Phasmidae. 195 pp., x1, 8 pls. British Museum, London. 

Wharton, R.A. 1981. Namibian Solifugae (Arachnida). Cimbebasia, 5: 1-87. 

Wilke, S. 1922. Beitrage zur Systematik und geographischen Verbreitung ungefligelter 
Tenebrioniden (Unterfam. Asidinae). Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, (A)87(12): 248-312. 

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

Zumpt, F. 1937. Curculioniden-Studien XXVII. Revision der palaarktischen Brachycerus- 
Arten. Entomologische Blatter, 33: 348-374, 385-426. 


116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Case 2929 


Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed confirmation of 
Eutettix? olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as the type species 


M. D. Webb 
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm Eutettix? olivaceus Melichar, 
1903 as the type species of the leafhopper genus Bhatia Distant, 1908. Distant (1908) 
was in fact dealing not with E. olivaceus but with a still unnamed closely related 
species when describing Bhatia, but no instability will result from the confirmation of 
E. olivaceus as the type species. 


1. The genus Bhatia Distant (1908, p. 357, fig. 227) was established for the nominal 
species Eutettix? olivaceus Melichar, 1903 (p. 191, pl. 6) from Sri Lanka. Recent 
studies show that the holotype of E. olivaceus (in the Moravian Museum, Brno, 
Czech Republic) is a different species from that used by Distant (1908) for his generic 
description of Bhatia. Distant’s specimens, in the Natural History Museum, London, 
represent a new species of Bhatia currently being described (Zhang & Webb, in 
preparation). 

2. Since Distant (1908) two further misidentifications of Bhatia olivaceus have 
been made by Ishihara (1961, p. 243) and by Linnavuori & Al-Ne’amy (1983, 
p. 22), both providing figures which are identifiable as Omanella johnsoni 
Merino, 1936 (p. 363). A further description by Singh-Pruthi (1934) of ‘B. olivacea’ 
cannot be positively attributed to either B. olivacea or the new species. Linnavuori 
& Al-Ne’amy (1983, p. 21) proposed a tribe BHATINI, based on their misidenti- 
fication of B. olivacea (Melichar). At present this poses no problem since 
O. johnsoni is referable to the BHATINI, and furthermore the name BHATIINI is a 
junior synonym of PARABOLOPONINI Ishihara, 1953 (p. 5) (Zhang & Webb, in 
preparation). 

3. This case is referred to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code. I 
consider that stability would best be served by the simple course of retaining Eutettix? 
olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as the type species of Bhatia Distant, 1908. 

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

(1) to confirm that the type species of Bhatia Distant, 1908 is Eutettix? olivaceus 

Melichar, 1903; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Bhatia 
Distant, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Eutettix? olivaceus 
Melichar, 1903, as confirmed in (1) above; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name olivaceus 
Melichar, 1903, as published in the binomen Eutettix? olivaceus (specific name 
of the type species of Bhatia Distant, 1908). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 117 


References 


Distant, W.L. 1908. The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, vol. 4 (Rhynchota). 
501 pp., 282 figs. Taylor & Francis, London. 

Ishihara, T. 1953. A tentative check list of the superfamily Cicadelloidea of Japan 
(Homoptera). Scientific Reports of the Matsuyama Agricultural College, 11: 1-72. 

Ishihara, T. 1961. Homoptera of Southeast Asia collected by the Osaka City University 
Biological Expedition to Southeast Asia 1957-1958. Nature and Life in Southeast Asia, 1: 
225-257. 

Linnavuori, R.E. & Al-Ne’amy, K.T. 1983. Revision of the African Cicadellidae (subfamily 
Selenocephalinae) (Homoptera, Auchenorrhyncha). Acta Zoologica Fennica, 168: 1-105. 

Melichar, L. 1903. Homopteren-Fauna von Ceylon. 248 pp., 6 pls. Dames, Berlin. 

Merino, G. 1936. Philippine Cicadellidae (Homoptera). Philippine Journal of Science, 61(3): 
307-400. 

Singh-Pruthi, H. 1934. Studies on the Indian Jassidae (Homoptera). Memoirs of the Indian 
Museum, 11(2): 69-99. 

Zhang, Y. & Webb, M.D. (In preparation). A generic revision of the Asian and Pacific 
Selenocephaline leafhoppers (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). Bulletin of the Natural History 
Museum, London (Entomology). 


118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Case 2890 


Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus 
monardae; Insecta, Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific 
name 


David J. Voegtlin 


Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, 607 E. Peabody, 
Champaign, Illinois 61820-6970, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the 
North American aphid Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911. This is threatened by 
the senior subjective synonym Phorodon scrophulariae Thomas, 1879, which has not 
been used in primary literature since 1903. 


1. Thomas (1879, p. 72) described Phorodon scrophulariae from a number of 
wingless individuals which had been collected in ‘the vicinity of Carbondale, Illinois’ 
by a Miss Middleton, who identified the host as Scrophularia nodosa. Thomas was 
apparently not convinced of the identity of the host as at the end of his description 
he wrote: “Note. — The plant on which this species was found was immature, it was 
supposed to be S. nodosa, but there is reason to doubt this, and the matter cannot be 
decided until next season’. 

2. The name Phorodon scrophulariae has been used a number of times. Clarke 
(1903, p. 252) listed the species as occurring on Scrophularia sp. in Berkeley, 
California. Sanborn (1906, p. 249) included it in a host list of North American 
aphids in a paper on Kansas APHIDIDAE; this was not a primary citation and he 
gave no reference for its occurrence in Kansas. Swain (1919, p. 80) referred to 
Phorodon scrophulariae as a ‘doubtful species’ and noted that multiple searches on 
Scrophularia spp. at Stanford, Riverside and San Diego, California had failed to 
find this aphid. Swain (p. 2) recorded that most of Clarke’s material had been 
destroyed in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake so it was not possible to 
determine the identity of his material from Scrophularia. Hottes & Frison (1931, 
p. 343) described Thomas’s slide (no. 2798 in the collection of the Illinois 
Natural History Survey) containing one identifiable female specimen of Myzus 
scrophulariae, one incomplete specimen in balsam outside the coverslip (possibly 
scrophulariae) and one specimen of a second species. Although Thomas’s original 
description referred to several specimens, no additional material has been located 
in the collection of the Illinois Natural History Survey or elsewhere. Mason (1940, 
p. 19) included this species in his revision of the Myzus spp. of North America. 
His description is based solely on the type specimen and he added the following 
comment: ‘With the exception of one record from California by Clark (1903, 
p. 252), this species has not been reported since it was originally described’. Smith 
& Parron (1978, p. 210) listed California, Illinois and Kansas as the distribution 
for Myzus scrophulariae, but presumably based the Kansas occurrence on 
Sanborn’s secondary citation. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 119 


3. Ina paper on the APHIDIDAE of Nebraska, Williams (1910, p. 89) used the name 
‘Phorodon monardae n. sp.’, adding the words ‘No description. Type from Ashland, 
May 24, 1890, on Monarda fistulosa, in collection of University of Nebraska, no. 
160’. Under Article 12c of the Code the mention of host, label or specimen does not 
constitute a description, definition or indication such as is necessary for the 
availability of a name; it follows that Phorodon monardae Williams is a nomen 
nudum. The name Rhopalosiphum monardae was made available by Davis (1911, 
p. 36), who attributed authorship to Williams and gave a detailed description of the 
winged female type specimen. Mason (1940, p. 14) corrected authorship to Davis 
as Myzus monardae (Davis). The species was transferred without comment to 
Hyalomyzus by Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers (1976, p. 219). 

4. Hyalomyzus monardae is known only from North America. It has been found in 
Colorado, Illinois, Idaho, Nebraska, New York and Utah in the United States and 
Manitoba and New Brunswick in Canada. Citations are Davis (1911, p. 36), Hottes 
& Frison (1931, p. 343), Mason (1940, p. 14), Palmer (1952, p. 339), Gittins et al. 
(1976, p. 20); Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers (1976, p. 219), Smith (1982, p. 330), 
Knowlton (1983, p. 44), Voegtlin (1984, p. 569), Eastop & Voegtlin (1990, p. 117), 
Robinson & Lamb (1991, p. 8). All records are from Monarda spp. with the exception 
of Knowlton who recorded it from peppermint and horsemint, Agastache. 

5. Eastop & Voegtlin (1990, p. 117) figured the original specimen (see para. 2 
above) of Phorodon scrophulariae, describing it as the lectotype, and stated that the 
name was a synonym of Hyalomyzus monardae. Phorodon scrophulariae is known 
only from this one specimen in the collection of the Illinois Natural History Survey. 
The name has remained unused in primary literature since Clarke (1903), which is the 
only primary citation other than Thomas’s original description (1879). It would be 
confusing and misleading to replace the well-known and appropriate name monardae 
with the long unused and inappropriate name scrophulariae for an aphid which is 
now known to occur mainly on Monarda spp. 

6. The International Commision on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name scrophulariae Thomas, 
1879, as published in the binomen Phorodon scrophulariae, 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 monardae 
Davis, 1911, as published in the binomen Rhopalosiphum monardae; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name scrophulariae Thomas, 1879, as published in the binomen 
Phorodon scrophulariae and as suppressed in (1) above. 


References 


Clarke, W.T. 1903. A list of California Aphididae. Canadian Entomologist, 35: 247-254. 

Davis, J.J. 1911. Williams’ ‘The Aphididae of Nebraska’; a critical review. University of 
Nebraska Studies, 11(3): 253-291. 

Eastop, V.F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1976. Survey of the world’s aphids. 573 pp. Junk, The 
Hague. 

Eastop, V.F. & Voegtlin, D.J. 1990. Taxonomic notes on some North American aphids. 
Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 92(1): 115-119. 


120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Gittins, A.R., Bishop, G.W., Knowlton, G.F. & Parker, E.J. 1976. An annotated list of the 
aphids of Idaho (Homoptera: Aphidae). Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station Research 
Bulletin, 95: 1-47. 

Hottes, F.C. & Frison, T.H. 1931. The plant lice, or Aphiidae of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois 
State Natural History Survey, 19: 121-447. 

Knowlton, G.F. 1983. Aphids of Utah. An annotated list — Homoptera: Aphididae. Utah State 
University Research Bulletin, 509: 1-155. 

Mason, P.W. 1940. A revision of the North American aphids of the genus Myzus. United States 
Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publications, 371: 1-30. 

Palmer, M.A. 1952. Aphids of the Rocky Mountain region. The Thomas Say Foundation, 5: 
1-452. 

Robinson, A.G. & Lamb, R.J. 1991. Aphids of Manitoba. Agriculture Canada Research Branch, 
Technical Bulletin, 1991(7E): 1-29. 

Sanborn, C.E. 1906. Kansas Aphididae. With catalogue of North American Aphididae and 
host-plant and plant-host list, Part Il. Kansas University Science Bulletin, 3(8): 225-275. 

Smith, C.F. 1982. A key to the species in Hyalomyzus (Homoptera: Aphididae) in North 
America, with the description of a new species. Proceedings of the Entomological Society 
of Washington, 84(2): 325-331. 

Smith, C.F. & Parron, C.S. 1978. An annotated list of Aphididae (Homoptera) of North 
America. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Technical Bulletin, 255: 1-428. 

Swain, A.F. 1919. A synopsis of the Aphididae of California. University of California 
Publications, Technical Bulletins (Entomology), 3(1): 1-221. 

Thomas, C. 1879. Noxious and beneficial insects of the State of Illinois. Third Annual Report 
of the State Entomologist of Illinois, 8: 1-212. 

Voegtlin, D.J. 1984. A new species of Hyalomyzus (Homoptera: Aphididae) from Hypericum 
prolificum in Ullinois. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 86(3): 
563-571. 

Williams, T.A. 1910. The Aphididae of Nebraska. University of Nebraska Studies, 10(2): 
85-175. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 121 


Case 2878 


Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 (currently Aphodius rufus), Scarabaeus 
rufus Fabricius, 1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus 
foetidus Herbst, 1783 (currently Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names 


Frank-Thorsten Krell 


Eberhard-Karls-Universitat, Zoologisches Institut, Lehrstuhl ftir Spezielle 
Zoologie, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, D-72076 Tiibingen, Germany 


Zdzistawa Stebnicka 


Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Systematics and Evolution of 
Animals, ul. Slawkowska 17, PL-31-016 Krakow, Poland 


Erik Holm 


University of Pretoria, Faculty of Science, Department of Entomology, 
0002 Pretoria, South Africa 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of the 
scarab beetles Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 and S. rufus Fabricius, 1792, which are 
junior primary homonyms of S. rufus De Geer, 1778. Despite their homonymy all 
three specific names have been used since publication and are currently in use; they 
have not been considered congeneric for 150 years. It is proposed that the name 
S. scybalarius Fabricius, 1781, a senior subjective synonym of S. rufus Moll which, 
through misidentification, has been used for the taxon correctly called S. foetidus 
Herbst, 1783, should be suppressed. Dischista rufa (De Geer) is a well known and 
widely distributed African species of the subfamily CETONIINAE. The larvae have been 
found in rhinoceros dung; the adults never feed on dung but on fruit and flowers and 
are a common pest in beehives. A lectotype is designated. Aphodius (Agrilinus) rufus 
(Moll) and Aphodius (Aphodius) foetidus Herbst (subfamily APHODIINAE) are 
European species, frequently found in mammal dung. Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) 
(subfamily AEGIALIINAE Or APHODIINAE, tribe AEGIALIINI) is also European and has 
been introduced into the U.S.A. and Canada; it is psammobiontic and littoral, mostly 
found in plant debris. 


1. De Geer (1778, pp. 640, 946, pl. 48, fig. 1) described and figured Scarabaeus 
rufus. The species was transferred to Cetonia Fabricius, 1775 by Schénherr (1817, 
p. 124) and has been cited under five further generic names; it has lately been placed 
(see Holm & Marais, 1992, p. 224) in Dischista Burmeister, 1842 (MELOLONTHIDAE, 
CETONIINAE Or SCARABAEIDAE, CETONIINAE). The species has been treated as valid since 
Kraatz’s work (1883, p. 27). All authors writing after 1921 have considered De Geer’s 
name to be a senior synonym of Cetonia carmelita Fabricius, 1787, Pachnoda 
carbonaria Gory & Percheron, 1833 and P. frenata Burmeister, 1847. Holm & Marais 


122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(1992, p. 224) recorded that type material of S. rufus had not been traced. However, 
two specimens have been found in the De Geer collection in the Naturhistoriska 
Riksmuseet, Stockholm, and one of us (E. Holm) hereby designates one of these as 
the lectotype. It is a male bearing the labels: 

(1) (square orange label without writing); 

(2) ‘Types Scarabaeus rufus de Geer’ (white elongate modern label, handwriting of 

P. Lindskog); 
(3) ‘Lectotype, Scarabaeus rufus de Geer, des. E. Holm’ (white label with red 
margin and printing). 
The second (paralectotype) specimen is female and labelled: 
(1) ‘Sp.’ (square antiquated white label with quill writing); 
(2) ‘Paralectotype, Scarabaeus rufus de Geer, des. E. Holm 1993’ (white label wate 
red margin and printing). 
The usage of rufus De Geer has never been challenged. 

2. Fabricius (1781, p. 16) described Scarabaeus scybalarius. Mliger (1798, p. 33) 
included the species in his new genus Aphodius (p. 15) (SCARABAEIDAE, APHODIINAE) 
where it has remained. The lectotype, designated by Landin (1956, p. 214), is in 
the Banks Collection in the Natural History Museum, London. Moll (1782, 
p. 372) described the same taxon as Scarabaeus rufus and Creutzer (1799, p. 51) 
placed this in Aphodius. No types for Moll’s nominal species are known (see 
M. Dellacasa, 1988, p. 192). Authors in nearly all fundamental works on the 
systematics of the SCARABAEIDAE in the 19th and 20th centuries have used the name 
A. rufus (Moll) and not scybalarius Fabricius, and have erroneously used ‘Aphodius 
scybalarius (Fabricius) for Herbst’s (1783, p. 7, pl. 19, fig. 6) species Scarabaeus 
foetidus. 

3. The synonymy between the names Scarabaeus scybalarius Fabricius and S. rufus 
Moll was pointed out by Landin (1956) on the basis of a study of Fabricius’s type 
material in the Zoological Museum, Kiel and the Natural History Museum, London 
(Banks Collection). Landin (1956, pp. 213, 225) proposed that foetidus should be 
re-instated in place of scybalarius auctt. (nec Fabricius, 1781) as the correct specific 
name for the taxon, but that the usage of rufus Moll should be conserved for the 
species which Fabricius had called scybalarius. Landin (1956, p. 213) commented: 
‘The priority belongs to Fabricius’ specific name scybalarius (1781) before rufus Moll 
(1782). Here an application of the rule of priority would consequently mean that the 
name of scybalarius would be transferred from one common species to another quite 
as widespread one, and that the name of rufus, which has been used for a long time, 
would altogether disappear in the synonymy, which is already difficult to survey, and 
I am quite convinced that such a measure would never come to be commonly 
applied’. Landin realised that Scarabaeus rufus Moll was a junior primary homonym 
and (1957a, pp. 110-111) noted: ‘De Geer already in 1778 described a Scarabaeus 
rufus, belonging to another subfamily and taken from ‘Scarabaeus’ long before the 
homonymy was discovered ... In my opinion, to reject the name of rufus Moll, which 
has been used in the practical treatments of the species for such a long time, is not to 
take a realistic view of the nomenclatorial problems. As a matter of fact ... the species 
should be called Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781), a name which has always 
been wrongly used for quite another species. The confusion would thus be even more 
augmented. As it is quite clear that any change of the name Aphodius rufus (Moll) 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 123 


must involve great nomenclatorial chaos, I propose the preservation of the name’. 
However, Landin did not submit an application to the Commission. 

4. The name Aphodius rufus (Moll) has been used in the publications of Endrodi 
(1956, pp. 51, 179), Panin (1957, p. 186), Landin (1957b, p. 94), Klefbeck & Sjoberg 
(1960, p. 176), Janssens (1960, pp. 173-174), Balthasar (1964, pp. 402, 405), Baguena 
Corella (1967, p. 134), Machatschke (1969, pp. 325-326), Stebnicka (1976, pp. 21, 
115, 419, figs. 433, 434), Pope (1977, p. 45) and Jessop (1986, pp. 23, 25). Introduction 
of A. scybalarius as the name for the taxon would inevitably lead to confusion for all 
who use these standard works, particularly as the name has been mostly used in a 
different sense (paras. 2, 3 and 6), and unfortunately this has sometimes occurred. 
Silfverberg (1977, p. 91; 1979, p. 32; 1992, p. 38), G. Dellacasa (1983, p. 149), 
Lundberg & Gustafsson (1986), Martin Piera, Veiga & Lobo (1986, p. 109), Nikolaev 
(1987, pp. 101, 111), M. Dellacasa (1988, p. 366), Angelini (1991, p. 223), Gangloff 
(1991, p. 41), Lobo (1992, p. 19) and Baraud (1992, p. 134) adopted the name 
A. scybalarius for this taxon although, in addition to Landin (1956, 1957a), Lumaret 
(1990, p. 262), Krell (1992, p. 282; 1993, p. 124) and Krell & Fery (1992, p. 232) 
explicity opposed its use. The name scybalarius has thus been used in two different 
senses in recent years (see also para. 6). 

5. Fabricius (1801, p. 74) introduced the name Aphodius rufescens in place of 
A. rufus Moll, 1782; rufescens was adopted by Kloet & Hincks (1945, p. 199) but has 
not been further used. M. Dellacasa (1988, p. 366) recorded nearly 20 further junior 
synonyms of rufus Moll but none has been adopted as valid. 

6. Scarabaeus foetidus Herbst, 1783 has, since Sturm (1800, p. 30), also been 
included in Aphodius. M. Dellacasa (1988, p. 130) recorded that no type is known. As 
noted in paras. 2 and 3 above, the taxon was misidentified as A. scybalarius Fabricius, 
1781 and in the early literature referred to under this name. A few authors (Endrodi, 
1956, p. 43; Panin, 1957, p. 175; Janssens, 1960, p. 184; Balthasar, 1964, p. 366; 
Baguena Corella, 1967, p. 129; Baraud, 1985, p. 183; Lumaret, 1990, p. 238; Tauzin, 
1990, p. 163 and Rabil, 1992, p. 81) have continued to use scybalarius as the name for 
the taxon. The majority of recent authors, however, have correctly accepted foetidus 
as the valid name, following Landin (1956, 1957a). These authors include Klefbeck 
& Sjoberg (1960, p. 174), Machatschke (1969, p. 320), Stebnicka (1976, pp. 111-112, 
figs. 416, 417), Pope (1977, p. 44), Silfverberg (1979, p. 32; 1992, p. 37), G. Dellacasa 
(1983, p. 186), Jessop (1986, p. 22), Lundberg & Gustafsson (1986), M. Dellacasa 
(1988, p. 370) and Krell & Fery (1992, pp. 219, 232). 

7. Fabricius (1792, p. 39) described a new taxon under the name Scarabaeus rufus. 
Later he (Fabricius, 1801, p. 82) transferred this to Aphodius Illiger. Erichson (1848, 
p- 918) placed the species under Aegialia Latreille, 1807 (p. 96) (SCARABAEIDAE, 
AEGIALIINAE Or APHODIINAE, AEGIALIINI), where it has since remained. The lectotype, 
designated by Landin (1956, p. 223), is deposited in the Zoological Museum, 
University of Copenhagen. S. rufus Fabricius, 1792 is the type species of the subgenus 
Rhysothorax Bedel, 1911 (p. 44) by original designation. The name Aegialia 
(Rhysothorax) rufa (Fabricius) is in current use (see, for example, the recent works of 
Stebnicka, 1977, pp. 418-420, who cited usage references up to 1976, a small fraction 
of all citations; Baraud, 1992, p. 106; Krell & Fery, 1992, p. 210). Stebnicka (1977, 
p. 419) recorded Aegialia spissipes LeConte, 1878 (p. 611), based on a specimen from 
America, where the species had been introduced, as a synonym and noted two 


124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


citations of this name (in 1887 and 1931). Silfverberg (1977, p. 91) noted the 
homonymy between the names Scarabaeus rufus De Geer, 1778 and S. rufus 
Fabricius, 1792 and introduced Aegialia rufina as a replacement for Fabricius’s name. 
Silfverberg (1979, p. 31; 1992, p. 37) treated his name rufina as a junior synonym of 
A, spissipes and adopted the latter name as valid, as did Lundberg & Gustafsson 
(1986). M. Dellacasa (1988, p. 360) and Gordon (1990, p. 273) used rufina. With these 
few exceptions Aegialia rufus (Fabricius, 1792) is in common usage. 

8. The names Dischista rufa (De Geer, 1778), Aphodius (Agrilinus) rufus (Moll, 
1782) and Aegialia (Rhysothorax) rufa (Fabricius, 1792) are currently in use for 
well-known and widespread taxa. None of the species has been included in the 
original genus Scarabaeus since 1817, and rufus Moll and rufa Fabricius have not 
been considered congeneric since 1848, when Fabricius’s species was transferred 
from Aphodius to Aegialia (para. 7 above). The three species are placed in different 
tribes; D. rufa is placed in at least a different sub-family and possibly family. To 
avoid the confusion which would result from upsetting the long-established usage 
of the names, and in the interest of stability of nomenclature, we propose that 
the names be conserved. The specific name of rufa De Geer has been used 
unchallenged since 1883. The name rufus Moll is a junior primary homonym of 
De Geer’s name but it has had, with few exceptions (see paras. 4 and 5 above), 
continuous usage since its publication in 1782. The senior subjective synonym 
Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781) has been misused for Aphodius (Aphodius) 
foetidus (Herbst, 1783) (see para. 6 above) and its status is therefore ambiguous; to 
adopt scybalarius now for the species commonly called rufus Moll would cause 
considerable and unnecessary confusion. Not all workers would accept the change 
and, as a result, not only would the name scybalarius be used for two distinct taxa 
but there would be two names simultaneously in use for the taxon commonly 
called rufus Moll. We therefore propose that the name scybalarius be suppressed 
and that rufus Moll and foetidus Herbst be accepted as valid. The specific name 
of rufus Fabricius, 1792 is a junior primary homonym of rufus De Geer and 
a junior primary (and between 1801 and 1848 a junior secondary) homonym of 
rufus Moll; nevertheless it has had almost unbroken use in Europe. Adoption of 
Aegialia spissipes LeConte, 1878 (based on American material; see para. 7 above) 
instead of (or, more probably, as well as) the accepted name would cause undue 
confusion. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to suppress the specific name scybalarius Fabricius, 1781, as-published in 
the binomen Scarabaeus scybalarius, for the purposes of the Principle of 
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) to rule that the following specific names are not invalid: 

(i) rufus Moll, 1782, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus, by 
reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De 
Geer, 1778; 

(ii) rufus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus, 
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De 
Geer, 1778 and of S. rufus Moll, 1782; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 125 


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

(a) rufus De Geer, 1778, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus and as 
defined by the lectotype designated in para. | above; 

(b) rufus Moll, 1782, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus (not invalid 
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De 
Geer, 1778); 

(c) rufus Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus rufus and as 
defined by the lectotype designated by Landin (1956) (not invalid by reason 
of being a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus rufus De Geer, 1778 and 
of S. rufus Moll, 1782); 

(d) foetidus Herbst, 1783, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus foetidus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology the name scybalarius Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen 

Scarabaeus scybalarius and as suppressed in (1)(a) above. 


References 


Angelini, F. 1991. Coleotterofauna dell’Altipiano della Sila (Calabria, Italia). Memorie della 
Societa Entomologica Italiana, 70: 171-254. 

Baguena Corella, L. 1967. Scarabaeoidea de la fauna Ibero-Balear y Pirenaica. 576 pp. Consejo 
Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas, Instituto Espanol de Entomologia, Madrid. 
Balthasar, V. 1964. Monographie der Scarabaeidae und Aphodiidae der Palearktischen und 
Orientalischen Region. Coleoptera: Lamellicornia, vol. 3 (Aphodiidae). 652 pp. Tschecho- 

slowakische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Prague. 

Baraud, J. 1985. Coléopteres Scarabaeoidea. Faune du Nord de l'Afrique du Maroc au Sinai. 
Encyclopédie Entomologique, 46: 1-652. 

Baraud, J. 1992. Coléopteres Scarabaeoidea d’Europe. Faune de France et Regions Limitro- 
phes, 78: 1-856. 

Bedel, L. 1911. Faune des coléoptéres du Bassin de la Seine, vol. 4, part 1 (Scarabaeidae). 
164 pp. Société Entomologique de France, Paris. 

Creutzer, C. 1799. Entomologische Versuche. 142, 8 pp., 3 pls. Schaumburg, Vienna. 

De Geer, C. 1778. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes, vol. 7. xii, 950 pp., 49 pls. 
Hosselberg, Stockholm. 

Dellacasa, G. 1983. Sistematica e nomenclatura degli Aphodiini italiani (Coleoptera Scara- 
baeidae: Aphodiinae). Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, Monografie, 1: \-467. 

Dellacasa, M. 1988. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, 
Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Memorie della Societa 
Entomologica Italiana, 66: 1-455. 

Endrédi, C. 1956. Lemezescsapt Bogarak Lamellicornia. Fauna Hungariae, 9(4): 1-188. 

Erichson, W.F. 1848. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Abt. 1 (Coleoptera), Band 3, 
Lieferung 6. Pp. vii, 800-968. Nicolai, Berlin. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectorum, vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. Bohn, Hamburg & Kilonii. 

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

Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema Eleutheratorum. Secundum ordines, genera, species ..., vol. 1. 
xxiv, 506 pp. Kiliae. 

Gangloff, L. 1991. Lamellicornia. Scarabaeidae. Lucanidae. Catalogue et Atlas des Coléoptéres 
d'Alsace, 4: 1-107. 

Gordon, R.D. 1990. A new species of Aegialia (Aegialia) (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Aphodii- 
nae) from southern Arizona and new data on north American Aegialia. Coleopterists’ 
Bulletin, 44: 271-273. 

Herbst, J.F.W. 1783. Kritisches Verzeichniss meiner Insektensammlung. Archiv der Insecten- 
geschichte, 4: 1-72. 

Holm, E. & Marais, E. 1992. Fruit chafers of southern Africa (Scarabaeidae: Cetoniini). 
326 pp., 32 pls. Ecogilde, Hartebeespoort. 


126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens ... xli, 510 pp. Gebauer, Halle. 

Janssens, A. 1960. Faune de Belgique, Insectes Coléopteres Lamellicornes. 411 pp. Institut 
Royal des Sciences naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles. 

Jessop, L. 1986. Dung beetles and chafers, Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea. New Edition. 
Handbook for the Identification of British Insects, 5(11): 1-53. 

Klefbeck, E. & Sjéberg, O. 1960. Catalogus insectorum Sueciae. XVI Coleoptera. Opuscula 
Entomologica, 18(Supplement): 1-263. 

Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1945. A checklist of British insects. lix, 477 pp. Authors, Stockport. 

Kraatz, G. 1883. Ueber das mannliche Begattungsglied der sogenannten Goliathiden und 
der Gattung Pachnoda und seine Verwendbarkeit fiir deren scharfe specifische Unter- 
scheidung. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Brinn, 21: 21-30. 

Krell, F.-T. 1992. Lamellicornia-Faunistik in Frankreich. Entomologische Nachrichten und 
Berichte, 36(4): 280-282. 

Krell, F.-T. 1993. Bermerkungen zu Barauds Bestimmungsbuch der Scarabaeoidea Europas. 
Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte, 37(2): 123-125. 

Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H. 1992. Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 200-252 in Lohse, G. A. & 
Lucht, W., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 13. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 

Landin, B.O. 1956. The Fabrician species of Aphodiini and Aegialiini (Col. Lamellicornia). 
Opuscula Entomologica, 21: 203-228. 

Landin, B.O. 1957a. Critical comments upon some nomenclatorial and synonymical questions. 
With a practical application to some Coleoptera Lamellicornia. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 
78: 101-114. 

Landin, B.O. 1957b. Skalbaggar — Coleoptera, Bladhorningar — Lamellicornia. Fam. 
Scarabaeidae. Svensk Insektfauna, 9: 1-155. 

Latreille, P.A. 1807. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum ..., vol. 2. Parisiis. 

LeConte, J.L. 1878. The Coleoptera of Michigan. Descriptions of new species. Proceedings of 
the American Philosophical Society, 17: 593-626. 

Lobo, J.M. 1992. Modificacion de las comunidades de Scarabaeoidea coprofagos (Coleoptera) 
en pastizales de altura del Sistema Central Ibérico (Espafia) a lo largo de un gradiente 
altitudinal. Acta Zoologica Mexicana, (n.s.)53: 15-31. 

Lumaret, J.P. 1990. Atlas des Coléopteres Scarabéides laparosticti de France. /nventaires de 
Faune et de Flore, 1: 1-420. 

Lundberg, S. & Gustafsson, B. 1986. Catalogus Coleopterorum Sueciae. Entomologiska 
Foreningen i Stockholm & Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm. 

Machatschke, J.W. 1969. Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 265-371 in Freude, H., Harde, 
K.W. & Lohse, G.A., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 8. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. 

Martin Piera, F., Veiga, C.M. & Lobo, J.M. 1986. Contribucion al conocimiento de los 
Scarabaeoidea (Col.) coprofagos del macizo central de Guadarrama. Eos, 62: 103-123. 

Moll, C.E. von. 1782. Verzeichniss der Salzburgischen Insecten. Neues Magazin fiir die 
Liebhaber der Entomologie, 1(4): 370-389. 

Nikolaev, G.V. 1987. Plastinchatousye Zhuki (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) Kasachstana i 
Srednej Asii. 232 pp. Nauka, Alma-Ata. 

Panin, S. 1957. Coleoptera Familia Scarabaeidae (Subfamiliile: I Coprinae ... XVI Cetoniinae). 
Fauna Republicii Populare Romine, 10(4): 1-315. 

Pope, R.D. 1977. Kloet and Hincks, a checklist of British insects, Ed. 2, part 3 (Coleoptera and 
Strepsiptera). Handbook for the Identification of British Insects, 11(3): 1-105. 

Rabil, J. 1992. Ah, cette Grésigne! Catalogue des coléopteres de la forét de la Grésigne (Tarn). 
Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Lyon, 29-30: 1-167. 

Schénherr, C.J. 1817. Synonymia insectorum, oder Versuch einer Synonymie aller bisher 
bekannten Insecten ..., vol. 1 (Eleutherata oder Kafer), Theil 3 (Hispa ... Molorchus). xi, 
506 pp., pls. 5, 6. Bruzelius, Upsala. 

Silfverberg, H. 1977. Nomenclatoric notes on Coleoptera Polyphaga. Notulae Entomologicae, 
57: 91-94. 

Silfverberg, H. (Ed.). 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. vi, 79 pp. 
Helsingin Hy6nteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 127 

Silfverberg, H. 1992. Enumeratio coleopterorum Fennoscandiae, Daniae et Baltiae. v, 94 pp. 
Helsingin Hy6nteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki. 

Stebnicka, Z. 1976. Zukowate — Scarabaeidae, Grupa podrodzin: Scarabaeidae laparosticti. 
Klucze do Oznaczania Owadoéw Polski, 19(28a): 1-139. 

Stebnicka, Z. 1977. A revision of the world species of the tribe Aegialiini (Coleoptera, 
Scarabaeidae, Aphodiinae). Acta Zoologica Cracoviensia, 22(11): 397-506. 

Sturm, J. 1800. Verzeichnis meiner Insecten-Sammlung oder Entomologisches Handbuch fiir 
Liebhaber und Sammler, part 1. xvi, 116 pp., 4 pls. Author, Nurnberg. 

Tauzin, P. 1990. Coléopteres Scarabaeoidea Coprophages du Maroc. Entomologiste, 46(4): 


159-165. 


128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Case 2885 


Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus 
Lacordaire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
proposed conservation 


Paul E. Skelley 


Department of Entomology & Nematology, Building 970, Hull Road, 
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-0620, U.S.A. 


Michael A. Goodrich 


Department of Zoology, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 
61920, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names of the American 
beetle genera Jschyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Lacor- 
daire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 in their current usage. Jschyrus, Lybas and 
Mycotretus were first used as available names by Dejean (1836), but they have long 
been used in the sense of Lacordaire (1842) and attributed to that authorship. Crotch 
(1873, 1876) designated Erotylus undatus Olivier, 1792 as type species of his new 
nominal genus Megischyrus; Erotylus quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792 as type species of 
Ischyrus (sensu Lacordaire); and Lybas normalis Lacordaire, 1842 as type species of 
Lybas (sensu Lacordaire). Boyle (1956) designated Erotylus lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835 
as type species of Mycotretus (sensu Lacordaire). Crotch’s (1873) nomenclature for 
Ischyrus and Megischyrus, and Lacordaire’s (1842) nomenclature for Mycotretus and 
Lybas, are those currently used and it is proposed that they be adopted. 


1. The generic names /schyrus (p. 428), Lybas (p. 429) and Mycotretus (p. 428) 
were first used by Dejean (1836) in fascicle 5 of the second edition of his catalog. He 
also used the names in the third edition (1837, pp. 452-453) (see Madge, 1988, for 
dates of publcation). In both instances he attributed authorship of the name Jschyrus 
to Chevrolat, listing Erotylus undatus Olivier, 1792 (p. 434) as the first of 17 included 
species. Dejean (1836) listed a number of species, including Erotylus quadripunctatus 
Olivier, 1792 (p. 437), under the new genus Mycotretus (p. 428), which he also 
attributed to Chevrolat. He listed Erotylus lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835 (no. 175) and 
‘Lybas normalis Lacordaire’ (at that time a nomen nudum) under the new genus 
Lybas, which he attributed to Chevrolat. Dejean’s catalogs did not include any 
description or diagnosis for the genera or species; nevertheless, the names Jschyrus, 
Lybas and Mycotretus were made available under Article 12b(5) of the Code by 
inclusion of previously published nominal species in these genera. 

2. In his monograph of the EROTYLIDAE, Lacordaire (1842) described Jschyrus 
(p. 89), Lybas (p. 228) and Mycotretus (p. 132); like Dejean, he attributed their 
authorship to Chevrolat. Lacordaire included in Jschyrus many of the species which 
Dejean had listed under Mycotretus and included in Mycotretus all the species with 
available names which Dejean had listed under Lybas, explaining that they should be 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 129 


placed in these genera on account of their morphology. Lacordaire did not designate 
type species for these genera. He (1842, p. 235) described Lybas normalis, which had 
been previously attributed to him in the Dejean catalogs, and included other species 
in Lybas. Lacordaire also proposed two divisions of Jschyrus; the first division 
contained the species listed in the Dejean catalogs as Ischyrus, while the second 
division contained many species which Dejean had listed under Mycotretus, including 
Erotylus quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792 (p. 437). 

3. Crotch (1873, pp. 143-144) raised Lacordaire’s divisions of Ischyrus to generic 
rank. He named the first division Megischyrus (p. 143) and designated Erotylus 
undatus Olivier, 1792 (p. 434) as the type species. The second division he maintained 
as Ischyrus and (p. 144) designated Erotylus quadripunctatus as the type species. This 
designation for Ischyrus is invalid under the Code since E. quadripunctatus was not 
included in the genus by Dejean (see para. | above). However, Crotch gave 
Lacordaire (1842) as the describer of Jschyrus, although he remarked that the name 
was ‘first indicated by Chevrolat in 1836’, referring to the Dejean Catalog. Three 
years later, Crotch (1876, pp. 422-433) revised these genera, moving into other 
genera some of the species that he had in 1873 included in Jschyrus (sensu 
Lacordaire’s second ‘division’); he restated his type designations for Megischyrus and 
Ischyrus. Crotch (p. 471) designated Lybas normalis, originally listed under Lybas 
and since 1842 an available name (see paras. 1 and 2 above), as the type species of 
Lybas Dejean, 1836. This designation is invalid because L. normalis was not available 
at the first usage of the name Lybas (see para. 1 above). 

4. Crotch’s classification for Jschyrus and Megischyrus and Lacordaire’s classifi- 
cation for Mycotretus and Lybas have been used in all subsequent taxonomic papers 
and catalogs (for example, Gemminger & Harold, 1876; Gorham, 1883; Kuhnt, 1911; 
Bruch, 1914; Blatchley, 1917; Schenkling, 1919; Leng, 1920; Schaeffer, 1931; Mader, 
1938; Blackwelder, 1945; Guerin, 1949; Boyle, 1954; Delkeskamp, 1957; Dillon & 
Dillon, 1961; Arnett, 1963). 

5. Boyle (1956, p. 137), realizing that no type had been designated, selected 
Erotylus lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835 as the type species of Mycotretus, attributing the 
genus to Lacordaire (1842). He noted that the type species was figured in color by 
Gorham (1887-1899). Under the Code, this designation is invalid for Mycotretus 
Dejean, 1836 since E. /esueuri was not included in the original use (see para. 1 above); 
however, it would be valid for Mycotretus if authorship of that name were attributed 
to Lacordaire (1842). 

6. Alvarenga (1965, pp. 79, 85-86) recognized that Crotch had overlooked or 
ignored the Dejean catalog in establishing the name Megischyrus and in designation 
of the type species of Ischyrus. Alvarenga noted that Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (type 
species Erotylus undatus) had the same included species as, and therefore was a junior 
subjective synonym of, Jschyrus Dejean, 1836, which was made available by inclusion 
of these species; he gave Erotylus undatus as the type species of Jschyrus “Chevrolat’ 
(recte Dejean), and this valid type designation makes Megischyrus a junior objective 
synonym of Jschyrus. Alvarenga (p. 86) proposed the name Micrischyrus as a 
replacement for Jschyrus (sensu Crotch) and designated Erotylus quadripunctatus as 
its type species. The name Micrischyrus has never been used other than by its author 
(Alvarenga, 1977, p. 105) in renaming a homonym within Jschyrus (sensu Crotch), 
nor has Alvarenga’s formally correct treatment of the name Jschyrus been followed. 


130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


In contrast, Jschyrus is still used extensively in Crotch’s sense (see para. 3 above), as 
typified by Erotylus quadripunctatus, and it is usually attributed to Lacordaire (1842) 
(for example, Kirk, 1969; Kirk & Balsbaugh, 1975; White, 1983; Arnett, 1985; 
Skelley, Goodrich & Leschen, 1991; Lawrence, 1991). 

7. Alvarenga (1965, pp. 80-81, 85, 87) also realized that Dejean’s catalogs had 
been overlooked or ignored in the designation of the type species of Lybas by Crotch 
(1876) and of Mycotretus by Boyle (1956). Alvarenga (p. 85) selected Erotylus lesueuri 
as the type species of Lybas Dejean, a species included in that genus in 1836. 
Alvarenga (p. 81) proposed the name Apolybas as a replacement for Lybas (sensu 
Lacordaire, 1842) and designated Lybas normalis as its type species. Alvarenga (p. 87) 
gave Erotylus ornatus Duponchel, 1824 (p. 49) as the type species of Mycotretus 
‘Chevrolat’ (recte Dejean), citing a non-existing designation by Gorham (1888, p. 47); 
following Gemminger & Harold (1876), Gorham (1888) had attributed Mycotretus 
to Lacordaire but did not designate or indicate E. ornatus as the type species 
as Alvarenga stated. Despite the erroneous citation Alvarenga’s designation of 
E. ornatus as the type species of Mycotretus Dejean is valid, under Article 69a(iv) of 
the Code. Alvarenga’s replacement of Lybas (sensu Lacordaire) by Apolybas has 
never been followed, and his typification of Mycotretus has been used only twice since 
1965 in the descriptions of new species by himself (Alvarenga, 1983, 1989). 

8. To avoid confusion it is important to maintain in their current usage (see para. 
4 above) the names Ischyrus, Lybas, Megischyrus and Mycotretus as defined by 
Lacordaire (1842) and Crotch (1873), with the attributions of authorship as indicated 
by Gemminger & Harold (1876). Crotch’s acceptance of Lacordaire as the author of 
Ischyrus and Gemminger & Harold’s acceptance of Lacordaire as the author of Lybas 
and Mycotretus were not invalid at that time, and it would be in the interest of 
stability to maintain these attributions. We therefore propose that Ischyrus, Lybas 
and Mycotretus be attributed to Lacordaire (1842) by suppressing previous uses of 
these names, and that the type species designations for these genera by Crotch (1873, 
1876) and Boyle (1956) be accepted. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the 

purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: 

(a) Ischyrus Dejean, 1836, and all uses of the name Jschyrus prior to the 
publication of Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842; 

(b) Lybas Dejean, 1836, and all uses of the name Lybas prior to the publication 
of Lybas Lacordaire, 1842; 

(c) Mycotretus Dejean, 1836, and all uses of the name Mycotretus prior to the 
publication of Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842; 

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

names: 

(a) Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Crotch (1873) Erotylus quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792; 

(b) Lybas Lacordaire, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Crotch (1876) Lybas normalis Lacordaire, 1842; 

(c) Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (gender: masculine), type species by original 
designation Erotylus undatus Olivier, 1792; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 131 


(d) Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by subse- 

quent designation by Boyle (1956) Erotylus lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835; 
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 

(a) quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792, as published in the binomen Erotylus 
quadripunctatus (specific name of the type species of Jschyrus Lacordaire, 
1842); 

(b) normalis Lacordaire, 1842, as published in the binomen Lybas normalis 
(specific name of the type species of Lybas Lacordaire, 1842); 

(c) undatus Olivier, 1792, as published in the binomen Erotylus undatus 
(specific name of the type species of Megischyrus Crotch, 1873); 

(d) lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835, as published in the binomen Erotylus lesueuri 
(specific name of the type species of Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) Apolybas Alvarenga, 1965 (a junior objective synonym of Lybas 
Lacordaire, 1842); 

(b) Ischyrus Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(c) Lybas Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(b) above; 

(d) Micrischyrus Alvarenga, 1965 (a junior objective synonym of Jschyrus 
Lacordaire, 1842); 

(e) Mycotretus Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(c) above. 


Acknowledgement 
For publication support we thank the Florida Agriculture Experiment Station, 
Journal Series No. R-03114. 


References 


Alvarenga, M. 1965. Espécies tipos dos géneros e subgéneros neotropicais da familia Erotylidae 
(Coleoptera). Boletim da Universidade Federal do Parana, Zoologia, 2(6): 75-92. 

Alvarenga, M. 1977. Notas taxonémicas sobre a familia Erotylidae (Coleoptera). Dusenia, 
10(2): 103-107. 

Alvarenga, M. 1983. Seis espécies nova do genero Mycotretus Chevrolat, 1837, da regiao 
Amazonica. (Coleoptera, Erotylidae). Acta Amazonica, 13: 583-589. 

Alvarenga, M. 1989. Uma espécies nova de genero Mycotretus Chevrolat, 1837, da regiao 
Amazonica (Coleoptera, Erotylidae). Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz, 84(supplement 
4): 35-36. 

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. 1112 pp. The Catholic University of 
America Press, Washington, D.C. 

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1985. American Insects, a handbook of the insects of America North of Mexico. 
850 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 

Blackwelder, R.E. 1945. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the 
West Indies, and South America. Part 3. Erotylidae. Bulletin of the United States National 
Museum, 185: 456-469. 

Blatchley, W.S. 1917. On some new or noteworthy Coleoptera from the west coast of Florida. 
The Canadian Entomologist, 49: 137-143, 236-240, 272-279. 

Boyle, W.W. 1954. Concerning the status of Jschyrus graphicus Lacordaire, with descriptions 
of four new erotylid species from western North America (Coleoptera: Erotylidae). 
Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 62: 39-53. 

Boyle, W.W. 1956. A revision of the Erotylidae of America north of Mexico (Coleoptera). 
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 110(2): 61-172. 


132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Bruch, C. 1914. Catalogo sistematico de los Coledpteros de la Republica Argentina. Pars IX. 
Familias: Chrysomelidae, Cassidae, Hispidae, Languridae, Erotylidae, Coccinellidae, y 
Endomychidae. Revista Museo de La Plata, 19(2) (2nd ser., vol 6): 346-400. 

Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1835. Coléoptera du Mexique. Cent. 2, fasc. 8. Strasbourg. 

Crotch, G.R. 1873. A list of Erotylidae collected by Edward M. Janson, in the vicinity of Santo 
Domingo, Chontales, Nicaragua, with descriptions of new genera and species. Cistula 
Entomologica, 1: 141-150. 

Crotch, G.R. 1876. A revision of the coleopterous family Erotylidae. Cistula Entomologica, 1: 
377-572. 

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, 
Ed. 2. Livr. 5. Pp. 361-443. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. 

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, 
Ed. 3. Revue, corrigée et augmentée. Livr. 5. Pp. 385-503. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. 

Delkeskamp, K. 1957. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Insektenfauna Boliviens. 3. Coleoptera II, 
Erotylidae. (22. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Erotylidae (Col.)). Verdffentlichungen der 
Zoologischen Staatssammlung Miinchen, 5: 93-116. 

Dillon, E.S. & Dillon, L.S. 1961. 4 manual of common beetles of Eastern North America. 884 
pp. Row, Peterson and co., Evanston, Illinois. 

Duponchel, P.A.J. 1824. Monographie du genre Erotyle. Mémoires du Muséum d'Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris, 12: 30-61, 156-176. 

Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. von. 1876. Catalogus Coleopterorum, hucusque descriptorum, 
synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 12. Chrysomelidae (Part 2), Languridae, Erotylidae, 
Endomychidae, Coccinellidae, Corylophidae, Platypsyllidae. Pp. 3479-3822, i-Ixxiii. 
Ackermann, Monachii. 

Gorham, H.S. 1883. Descriptions of new species of beetles belonging to the family Erotylidae. 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1883: 75-87. 

Gorham, H.S. 1887-1899. Insecta. Coleoptera, vol. 7 (Erotylidae, Endomychidae, and 
Coccinellidae). Jn Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali-Americana. 276 
pp., 13 pls. Porter, London. 

Guérin, J. 1949. Descrigao de novas espécies Neotropicais das familias Clytridae, Megalopo- 
didae e Erotylidae (Col.). Revista de Entomologia, 20: 229-236. 

Kirk, V.M. 1969. A list of beetles of South Carolina, Part I — northern coastal plain. South 
Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin, 1033: 1-124. 

Kirk, V.M. & Balsbaugh, E.U. 1975. A list of the beetles of South Dakota. South Dakota State 
University Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin, 42: 1-139. 

Kuhnt, P. 1911. Family Erotylidae. Jn Junk, W. (Ed.). Coleopterorum Catalogus, part 34, 15: 
1-103. 

Lacordaire, J.T. 1842. Monographie des Erotyliens, famille de l'ordre des Coléopteéres. xiv, 543 
pp. Roret, Paris. 

Lawrence, J.F. 1991. Erotylidae (Cucujoidea) (including Dacnidae). Pp. 473-475 in Stehr, 
F.W. (Ed.). Immature Insects, vol. 2. xvi, 975 pp. Kendall Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa. 

Leng, C.W. 1920. Catalogue of the Coleoptera of America north of Mexico. 470 pp. Mt. Vernon, 
New York. | 

Mader, L. 1938. Uber neue und bekannte Erotyliden. Entomologische Blatter, 34(1): 14-19. 

Madge, R.B. 1988. The publication dates of Dejean’s catalogues. Archives of Natural History, 
15(3): 317-321. 

Olivier, A.G. 1792. Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 6. Pp. 369-704. 
Paris. 

Schaeffer, C. 1931. On a few new and known Coleoptera. Bulletin of the Brooklyn Entomo- 
logical Society, 26: 174-176. 

Schenkling, S. 1919. Erotyliden-Studien. I. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 83A(11): 77-93. 

Skelley, P.E., Goodrich, M.A. & Leschen, R.A.B. 1991. Fungal host records for the Erotylidae 
(Coleoptera: Cucujoidea) of America north of Mexico. Entomological News, 102(2): 
57-72. 

White, R.E. 1983. 4 field guide to the beetles of North America. 368 pp. Houghton Mifflin, 
Boston. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 133 


Case 2919 


Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda): proposed conservation of 
the specific name 


E.H. Eason 
Bourton Far Hill, Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire GL56 9TN, U.K. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the 
centipede Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862, a widespread species in Europe. It is 
threatened by the unused senior subjective synonym L. quadridentatus Menge, 1851. 


1. The name Lithobius quadridentatus was published by Menge (1851, p. 12) 
accompanied by a short description of a specimen from northern Poland. Lithobius 
piceus was published by L. Koch (1862, p. 49) accompanied by a fairly detailed 
description of a specimen from Bavaria. 

2. Fanzago (1876, p. 77) identified a specimen from northern Italy as L. 
quadridentatus; in my opinion this was correct. However, Fedrizzi (1877, p. 215) 
questioned Fanzago’s determination of this specimen and concluded that a new 
nominal species, Lithobium violaceus, should be based on it. The name L. violaceus 
has not been used since. 

3. The name L. quadridentatus has not been used since 1876. Eason & Muinelli 
(1976, p. 194) stated that L. violaceus was a junior subjective synonym of L. piceus 
L. Koch, 1862 and noted that L. violaceus was the same as L. quadridentatus 
sensu Fanzago (1876) ‘nec Menge’. However, in this last statement Prof Minelli and 
I were simply following Fedrizzi (1877), and consideration of Menge’s (1851) 
description of L. quadridentatus shows this name to be a senior subjective synonym 
of L. piceus. 

4. The name Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 has been used for a widespread 
European species in over one hundred papers. I give here ten examples (Latzel, 1880; 
Brolemann, 1930; Verhoeff, 1937; Loksa, 1955; Demange, 1958; Dobroruka, 1958; 
Matic, 1966; Jeekel, 1971; Eason, 1972; Serra, 1983), and others are given in their 
bibliographies. The subjective synonym L. quadridentatus Menge, 1851 has not been 
used as valid since Fanzago (1876; see para. 2 above) and to allow it to displace 
L. piceus would contravene the criteria mentioned in Article 79c of the Code. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name quadridentatus Menge, 
1851, as published in the binomen Lithobius quadridentatus, 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 piceus 
L. Koch, 1862, as published in the binomen Lithobius piceus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name quadridentatus Menge, 1851 as published in the binomen 
Lithobius quadridentatus and as suppressed in (1) above. 


134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


References 


Brolemann, H.W. 1930. Eléments d’une faune des myriapodes de France. Chilopodes. Faune de 
France, 25: 1-405. 

Demange, J.M. 1958. Sur quelques myriapodes cavernicoles de France et de Suisse. Revue 
Suisse de Zoologie, 65: 843-855. 

Dobroruka, L.J. 1958. Prispévek k poznani stonozek z Tater (Chilopoda). Véstnik Cesko- 
slovenské Zoologické Spolecnosti v Praze, 22: 113-120. 

Eason, E.H. 1972. The type specimens and identity of the species described in the genus 
Lithobius by C.L. Koch and L. Koch from 1841 to 1878 (Chilopoda: Lithobiomorpha). 
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 22: 103-150. 

Eason, E.H. & Minelli, A. 1976. The identity of the species of Lithobiidae described by 
F. Fanzago and G. Fedrizzi from 1874 to 1881 (Chilopoda, Lithobiomorpha). Fragmenta 
Entomologica, 12: 183-205. 

Fanzago, F. 1876. Nuove contribuzioni alla fauna miriapodologica italiana. Annuario della 
Societa dei Naturalisti e Matematici. Modena, 10: 60-80. 

Fedrizzi, G. 1877. I litobi italiani. Monografia. Atti della Societa Veneto-Trentina di Scienze 
Naturali in Padova, 5: 184-233. 

Jeekel, C.A.W. 1971. Duizend- en miljoenpoten (Chilopoda en Diplopoda) uit Noord-Brabant 
en de noordelijke helft van Limberg. Entomologische Berichten, 31: 191-202. 

Koch, L. 1862. Die Myriapodengattung Lithobius darestellt. 92 pp., 2 pls. Lotzbeck, Nurnberg. 

Latzel, R. 1880. Die Myriopoden der Osterreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie. 1. Die Chilopoden. 
228 pp., 10 pls. Holder, Vienna. 

Loksa, I. 1955. Uber die Lithobiiden des Faunagebiets des Karpatenbeckens. Acta Zoologica 
Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, 1: 331-349. 

Matic, Z. 1966. Chilopoda: Anamorpha. Fauna Republicii Socialiste Romania, 6: \-267. 

Menge, A. 1851. Myriapoden der Umgegend von Danzig. Neueste Schriften der Natur- 
forschenden Gesellschaft in Danzig, 4(2): 1-22. 

Serra, A. 1983. Contribucié al coneixement de la fauna cavernicola (Chilopoda, Lithobio- 
morpha) de les Balears. Speleon, 26: 33-38. 

Verhoeff, K.W. 1937. Chilopoden-Studien. Zur Kenntnis der Lithobiiden. Archiv fir Natur- 
geschichte, 6: 171-257. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 135 


Case 2928 


Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2 (M.J. Brisson, 1762): proposed rejection, 
with the conservation of the mammalian generic names Philander 
(Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Glis, Cuniculus and 
Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and Hyaena (Carnivora), 
Tapirus (Perissodactyla), Tragulus and Giraffa (Artiodactyla) 


Anthea Gentry 


clo The Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve 11 mammal generic names 
which were first published in M.J. Brisson’s Regnum Animale (1762). Brisson did not 
always use binominal names for species and the work is therefore not available; its 
rejection is proposed. However, a number of generic names included in it have had 
established usage for over 230 years. These are Philander (four-eyed opossum of 
South and Central America), Pteropus (fruit bat or flying ‘fox’ from the tropics of the 
Old World), Glis (European fat or edible dormouse), Cuniculus (South and Central 
American lowland paca), Hydrochoerus (South and Central American capybara), 
Meles (European and Asian badger), Lutra (river otter with world-wide distribution 
except Australasia), Hyaena (striped and brown hyaenas of Asia and Africa), Tapirus 
(tapir of Asia, Central and South America), Tragulus (Asian chevrotain or mouse- 
deer) and Giraffa (African giraffe). The genera include both Recent and fossil species. 


1. In 1911 (Opinion 37) and 1955 (Direction 16) the Commission ruled that M.J. 
Brisson’s (1760) work on birds entitled Ornithologia sive Synopsis methodica sistens 
Avium ..., although not consistently binominal, was nevertheless available for generic 
names and it was placed on the Official List. The ruling was later restricted (Direction 
105, October 1963) to generic names listed in the ‘Tabula synoptica Avium secundum 
Ordines, Sectiones & Genera’ within the work. In 1938 Dr G.H.H. Tate enquired 
about the status of the mammal names published in Brisson’s companion work, 
Regnum Animale (1762), and noted: ‘The work on mammals is prepared in a manner 
essentially similar to that on birds. Consequently, by analogy the generic names of 
mammals therein proposed should be accepted’. Notes on the enquiry were published 
(BZN 1: 112 (1945), 4: 313-315 (1950) and 7: 203-204 (1952)) and mammalogists 
were invited to comment. An investigation of Brisson’s (1762) work was entrusted to 
the then Secretary of the Commission (Francis Hemming) by the International 
Congress of Zoology at Paris in 1948. However, the study was never completed. 
Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, pp. 3-4, 350, 547) gave a summary of some of 
Brisson’s (1762) mammal names currently in use, and they urged acceptance of 
Brisson as the author. In 1956 (Opinion 384) several carnivore generic names (of a 
number of authors) were placed on the Official List but three of Brisson’s names 
(Meles, Lutra and Hyaena) were omitted pending a decision on their status. In 1957 
(Opinion 467) the name Odobenus was conserved as the generic name for the walrus, 


136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


attributed to Brisson (1762) ‘without prejudice to the general question of the 
availability of the work’. In 1988 M. van Dort submitted an application to the 
Commission to confirm Brisson (1762) as the author of Tragulus. 

2. In Opinion 465 (May 1957) Morrison-Scott noted: “Brisson used many poly- 
verbal designations for species and certainly cannot be claimed to have applied the 
principles of binominal nomenclature’. Hemming also noted (Opinion 467): “My view 
is that, in the absence of action by the International Commission, the Regnum 
Animale of 1762 is not an available work’ and (Direction 79, October 1957) 
mentioned Brisson’s work as being non-binominal and therefore unavailable for 
names. However, no formal decision has ever been published on this. Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 3) noted *... we have asked the Commission to validate [a 
number] of the generic names of Brisson ...’; they sent notes to Hemming on some of 
the names involved but an application to the Commission for their conservation has 
never been made. 

3. The early part of Brisson’s life was spent on natural history and his work 
Regnum Animale (1756) was intended to cover the whole of zoology in nine classes 
(set out in 1762, pp. 5-6) but only two ‘classes’ (the quadruped and cetacean 
mammals) were completed. Following the death in 1757 of R.A.F. Réaumur, whose 
assistant he was, Brisson abandoned natural history and was appointed professor of 
natural philosophy at Navarre and later at Paris. Brisson’s Regnum Animale (1756) 
and Ornithologia (1760) were published in Paris in French and Latin. The bookseller 
Theodore Haak in Leiden was responsible for the republication in 1762 of a revised 
edition of the 1756 work, solely in Latin and including additional species names, 
denoted by square brackets. The introduction to the 1762 work provided (pp. 12-13) 
a morphological key (Tabula synoptica Quadrupedum ...) in which the generic names 
were given in the Latin nominative singular. They were also given in the singular in 
the Index Alphabeticus (pp. 251-283, 291-294), while in the text and the Index 
Quadrupedum (pp. 239-250) and Index Cetaceorum (pp. 289-290) the generic names 
were given in the plural. The names were cited in the singular in combination with 
names for species; for example, ‘Genus Cuniculi’ is followed by ‘Cuniculus javensis’. 
The names for species are not consistently binominal. Hemming (in litt. to Tate, 
1945) wrote: ‘After a careful examination of both books [Ornithologia and Regnum 
Animale], my view is that neither of them uses a binominal system of nomenclature 
but that the system in the mammal book of 1762 is considerably better and closer to 
the Linnaean system than that in the book of 1760’. The majority of authors (see 
para. 7 below) have accepted Brisson (1762) as the author of a number of mammal 
names currently in use; others have adopted the names but referred to their uncertain 
availability (see, for example, Merriam, 1895; Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951; 
Corbet, 1978). Some editors (for example, Anderson & Jones, 1984; Nowak, 1991) 
have accepted some names from Brisson (where there would otherwise be a change 
of name) but not others. Trouessart (1897-1899), Hopwood (1947, pp. 533-536) and, 
more recently, Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl (1982, and the 1993 second edition edited 
by Wilson & Reeder), noted that Brisson’s 1762 work was not consistently binominal 
and considered it to be unavailable; some of Brisson’s names were adopted from later 
authors whilst others were replaced by different names. 

4. Brisson (1762) described and named 46 mammal genera. Twenty four of the 
names he used were repeated from Linnaeus and are present in the latter’s 10th 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 137 


edition (1758) of Systema Naturae; Brisson cited only the 6th edition (1748) of 
Linnaeus’s work and the first edition (1746) of Linnaeus’s Fauna Suecica in his 
synonymies and his bibliographies (pp. 284-288, 295-296). Brisson also introduced 
22 new names for genera, based on descriptions and references to earlier authors; 10 
of these names have been considered to be junior synonyms of names published by 
Linnaeus (1758) and have remained unused. Several of the taxonomic species in 
Brisson’s work are found in Linnaeus (1758) but Brisson also introduced many new 
taxa; some of the new names for species were univerbal but only one survived into 
modern usage. Morrison-Scott commented (Opinion 465) that ‘although a number of 
important generic names are currently accepted as from Brisson, none of his specific 
names are accepted as available’. 

5. Among the new generic names proposed by Brisson (1762) were 12 which have 
been adopted by mammalogists and which are in current use. One of these 
(Odobenus) has already been conserved (para. 1 above). Merriam (1895) reviewed 
Brisson’s genera and designated type species for the nominal genera which were in 
use. The types were all Linnaean (1758 and 1766) species. It is possible that there were 
earlier type fixations, either by intent or default but, with the exception of the 
designations for Cuniculus and Tragulus (see below), Merriam’s designations reflected 
usage and the species designated have been accepted as the types by all subsequent 
authors (see, for example, G.M. Allen, 1939; Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951; 
Corbet, 1978; Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl (Eds.), 1984; Wilson & Reeder (Eds.), 
1993). Some of Brisson’s generic names are available with the same meaning from 
subsequent authors. Brisson, however, has had long-established citation as the 
author (see para. 6 below). The situation is not so simple with other names and in 
each case rejection of usage dating from Brisson’s work results in a change of generic 
and family-group name and unnecessary confusion. The names are dealt with below. 


Philander (pp. 13, 207; four-eyed opossum). 

The genus was described and nine taxonomic species were included, the first being 
“‘philander’ based on Linnaeus (1748) and other references. 

The name Philander was included in Gronovius (1763) but this work has been 
placed on the Official Index as unavailable (Opinions 20, (July 1910), 89 (December 
1925) and 261 (August 1954)). 

Tate (1939, p. 161) demonstrated that Brisson’s extensive description of 
‘philander’, ending ‘Caput pilis fuscis vestitur, & supra utrumque oculum macula 
inest flava’, referred to the four-eyed opossum, called Didelphis opossum by Linnaeus 
(1758, p. 55), and not to the woolly opossum, D. philander Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 54). 
Since Brisson’s names were under scrutiny following his (1938) enquiry, Tate adopted 
the names Caluromys J.A. Allen, 1900 (p. 189; type species by original designation 
D. philander Linnaeus) and Metachirops Matschie, 1916 (p. 268; D. opossum 
Linnaeus was an originally included species) (although he commented that Philander 
Brisson was the valid name for Metachirops), and this has been followed by some 
authors (see, for example, Pine, 1973; Husson, 1978; Hall, 1981). Other authors 
(among them Collins, 1973; Gardner, 1981; Nowak & Paradiso, 1983; Anderson & 
Jones, 1984; Nowak, 1991; and Wilson & Reeder, 1993) have used the name 
Philander Tiedemann (1808, p. 426) as valid for the four-eyed opossums. Tiedemann 
cited Brisson as the author of Philander and included three species. Hershkovitz 


138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(1949, p. 12) designated the first of these, ‘Das virginische opossum, P. virginianus 
(Did. opossum L.)’, as the type species of the genus. In the interest of stability of 
nomenclature of the four-eyed opossum it is proposed that the usage of the name 
Philander be maintained, and that it be attributed to the earlier authorship of Brisson 
(1762) with D. opossum designated as the type species. 


Pteropus (pp. 13, 153; fruit bat). : 

The genus was described and three taxonomic species were included, among them 
‘pteropus’ based on ‘Vespertilio cauda nulla’ from Linnaeus (1748) and on other 
references. Merriam (1895, p. 376) designated this as the type species under the name 
Vespertilio vampyrus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 31). Andersen (1912, pp. 61, 216) cited the 
type of Preropus as P. niger (Kerr, 1792) (p. 90, published as Vespertilio vampirus [sic] 
niger) and recorded Kerr’s taxon as included in Vespertilio vampyrus Linnaeus. In 
recent literature (see, for example, G.M. Allen, 1939, pp. 59, 60; Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott, 1951, p. 93; Corbet, 1978, p. 38) the type has been cited as P. niger 
(Kerr) and it is proposed that Pteropus Brisson be conserved with this type species, 
in accord with current usage. 

The name Pteropus is available from Erxleben (1777, p. 130). 


Glis (pp. 13, 113; edible dormouse). 

The genus included eight taxonomic species, among them ‘glis’, based on the 
description in Ray (1693, p. 229) and on other references. Merriam (1895, p. 376) 
designated this species as the type under the name Sciurus glis Linnaeus, 1766 (p. 87). 
Glis Brisson is the type genus of the family GLIRIDAE Thomas, 1897. 

The name Glis is available from Erxleben (1777, p. 358) but this refers to mar- 
mots, the European species of which have consistently been known as Marmota 
Blumenbach, 1779 (p. 79) (type species Mus marmota Linnaeus, 1758, p. 60). To 
forestall a transfer of the name G/is to the marmots, Ellerman (1949, p. 894) 
designated Glis zemni Erxleben, 1777 (p. 370), a spalacid species based on the 
‘Podolian marmot’ of Pennant (1771, p. 277) which was included in Glis Erxleben, as 
the type of the latter. The designation rendered Glis Erxleben a junior subjective 
synonym of the mole rat name Spalax Giildenstaedt, 1770 (p. 410). The name 
Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 (p. 351; Zimmermann’s work was placed on the Official 
List in Opinion 257, August 1954), a junior objective synonym of Glis Brisson, was 
used by some early authors and has recently been adopted by some American (e.g. 
Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden, 1993), but not European, authors. Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 547) commented: ‘The retention of Glis for the Fat 
Dormouse, as from Brisson, 1762, seems desirable as the name is in almost universal 
use’, and Corbet (1978, p. 144) noted: ‘Rejection [of Glis Brisson] would make it 
necessary to use the name Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 for this genus but this seems 
neither necessary nor desirable’. 


Cuniculus (pp. 13, 98; paca). 

The genus included nine taxonomic species, described and based on references to 
earlier authors. Merriam (1895, p. 376) noted that the nominal taxon ‘was made up 
of a heterogeneous assemblage comprising no less than six modern genera and five 
families of rodents’ and gave ‘C. cauda longissima Brisson (= Dipus alactaga Olivier, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 139 


1800) as the type species. This designation would place Cuniculus among the 
sciurognath rodents; however, it was made by elimination and is therefore invalid. 
Hollister (1913, p. 79) designated as the type Cavia paca (Linnaeus, 1766) (p. 81, 
originally described as Mus paca), a taxonomic species included by Brisson (’paca’, 
p. 99) based on ‘Cuniculus major palustris ...’ from Barrére (1741) and on other 
references. Hollister’s designation rendered Cuniculus a member of the hystrico- 
gnaths, and this usage of Brisson’s name has been adopted by all subsequent authors. 
Cuniculus is the type genus of the family name CUNICULIDAE Miller & Gidley, 1918. 

The name Cuniculus was included in Gronovius’s (1763, p. 4) work but, as noted 
above, this has been placed on the Official Index as unavailable. The next available 
use of the name is Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 (p. 52). Meyer’s genus included Lepus 
cuniculus Linnaeus, 1758 which refers to the European rabbit. Cuniculus Wagler, 
1830 is a synonym of Dicrostonyx Gloger, 1841 (type species Mus hudsonius Pallas, 
1779), the Arctic lemming. In Opinion 90 (December 1925) Cuniculus Brisson was 
recorded as available but it was noted that ‘certain authors do not accept Brissonian 
names, and for these the name is Agouti Lacepéde, 1799. Same genotype’. A few 
authors have adopted the latter name, the first available synonym of Cuniculus (see, 
for example, Cabrera, 1961, p. 594, who however commented [in translation]: ‘Most 
modern authors, with rare exceptions, have used the name Cuniculus as of Brisson, 
1762, for this genus, in accord with Opinion 90’). Adoption of the name Agouti 
Lacepéde, 1799 (p. 9) would be a change from the well-established Cuniculus and this 
has not generally been followed (see para. 6 below). Moreover, Lacepéde’s name may 
well cause confusion since it applies to the pacas and not the agoutis of vernacular 
usage (related South American rodents placed in Dasyprocta Illiger, 1811 and 
Myoprocta Thomas, 1903). Still greater confusion would be caused, if Cuniculus 
Brisson were not accepted for the paca, by the adoption of Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 
(see above) as the valid name for the European rabbit, currently universally known 
as Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874 (p. 417; type species by original designation Lepus 
cuniculus Linnaeus, 1758, p. 58). Wilson & Reeder (Eds., 1993) used the name 
Oryctolagus and cited Cuniculus Meyer as a synonym. 


Hydrochoerus (pp. 12, 80; capybara). 

The genus included a single described taxonomic species ‘hydrochoerus’, based on 
“Capybara Brasiliensibus: porcus fluviatilis’ from Ray (1693, p. 126) and on other 
references. Merriam (1895, p. 376) designated this as the type under the name Sus 
hydrochaeris Linnaeus, 1766 (p. 103). 

The generic name is available, spelt “Hydrochaeris’, by description (p. 44) in 
Briinnich’s (1771) work, which was placed on the Official List in Opinion 236 (May 
1954). No species were included in Briinnich’s work. The name was spelt 
“Hydrochaerus’ by Erxleben (1777, p. 191) and Boddaert (1785, pp. 51, 161). 


Meles (pp. 13, 183; badger). 

The genus was described with four included taxonomic species, which were 
described and based on references to earlier authors. Merriam (1895, p. 376) 
designated Ursus meles Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 48) as the type species; ‘meles’ was 
included in the genus by Brisson, based on ‘Meles unguibus anticis longissimis’ from 
Linnaeus (1746, 1748) and on other references. 


140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


The name Meles appears in Storr (1780, p. 34 and table A, spelt ‘Melis’) but is a 
nomen nudum (see Hopwood, 1947, p. 535 and Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951, 
p. 3). It is not available from Hasselquist (1762, p. 271) (Hasselquist’s work was 
rejected by the Commission in Opinion 57, March 1914 and Direction 32, May 1956), 
but is available from Boddaert (1785, pp. 45, 80). The junior synonym Taxus Cuvier 
& Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795 (pp. 184, 187; based on Ursus meles Linnaeus), and 
its replacement Melesium Rafinesque, 1815 (p. 59), have never been used. 


Lutra (pp. 13, 201; otter). 

The genus included two taxonomic species. Merriam (1895, p. 376) designated 
Mustela lutra Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 45) as the type species; ‘lutra’ was described by 
Brisson, based on “Lutra digitis aequalibus’ from Linnaeus (1746, 1748) and on other 
references. The second of Brisson’s species, “L. brasiliensis’, based on “Lutra pollice 
digitis breviore’ from Linnaeus (1748), was recorded on the Official Index in 
Direction 79 (October 1957) as being unavailable. 

The name Lutra is available from Briinnich (1771, p. 42) and Boddaert (1785, 
pp. 53, 167). 


Hyaena (pp. 13, 169; striped and brown hyaenas). 

The genus included a single taxonomic species ‘hyaena’, which was described and 
based on ‘Canis pilis cervicis erectis longioribus’ from Linnaeus (1748) and on other 
references. Merriam (1895, p. 376) designated this species as the type under the name 
Canis hyaena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 40). 

The name Hyaena is available from Brinnich (1771, p. 42). Euhyaena Falconer, 
1868 (p. 464) is a junior synonym based on Canis hyaena Linnaeus. 


Tapirus (pp. 12, 81; tapir). 

The genus included a single taxonomic species ‘tapirus’, which was described and 
based on ‘Sus aquaticus multisulcus’ from Barrére (1741) and on other references. 
This species was designated the type by Merriam (1895, p. 376) under the name 
Hippopotamus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 74). 

The generic name is available from Briinnich (1771, p. 44). The name Rhinochoerus 
Wagler, 1830 (p. 17) is a junior synonym of Tapirus Brisson. 


Tragulus (pp. 12, 65; chevrotain). 

The genus included five taxonomic species, only the first of which referred to 
Tragulus as currently used. The genus is the type of the family TRAGULIDAE Milne 
Edwards, 1864. ; 

The name Tragulus was used by Pallas (1767, p. 6) and has been cited with his 
authorship by some workers. Both Brisson (1762) and Pallas (1767) described the 
taxon as hornless in both sexes and with prominent canines in the upper jaw. 
However, the single species included by Pallas (by which his generic name was 
made available) was Capra pygmea Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 69), which had been 
described as having horns. Linnaeus (1766, p. 92) doubtfully included pygmaeus 
[sic] in Moschus Linnaeus, 1758 (also hornless; family CERVIDAE Or MOSCHIDAE). 
The species is currently known as Neotragus pygmaeus, the Royal antelope (family 
BOVIDAE). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 141 


Boddaert (1785, pp. 49, 131) described Tragulus as hornless but also included 
Capra pygmea in the genus. Hopwood (1947, p. 535) designated pygmea as the type 
species of Boddaert’s taxon, thereby placing Tragu/us Boddaert in the BOvIDAE. 

Merriam (1895, p. 375) designated “Tragulus indicus Brisson = Capra pygmea 
Linnaeus, 1758’ as the type species of Tragulus. The taxonomic species ‘indicus’ was 
included in the genus by Brisson based on ‘Capra pedibus digito humano 
angustioribus’ from Linnaeus (1748) and on other references. Ellerman & Morrison- 
Scott (1951, p. 349) considered ‘indicus’ to be of uncertain identity and designated 
Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 (p. 357) as the type. It is proposed that Tragulus 
Brisson be conserved with javanicus as the type species, in accord with accepted 
usage. 


Giraffa (pp. 12, 37; giraffe). 

The genus included a single taxonomic species ‘giraffa’, based on ‘Cervus cornibus 
simplicissimis, pedibus anticis longissimis’ from Linnaeus (1748) and on other 
references. Merriam (1895, p. 375) designated this, under the name Cervus 
camelopardalis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 66), as the type species. 

The name Giraffa is available from Brinnich (1771, p. 46). 


6. It is of interest that the name of the Order Cetacea dates from Brisson (1762), 
but names above the family-group level are not covered by the Code. 

7. Brisson’s (1762) generic names were listed as available by Sherborn (1902) and 
Neave (1939-1940) and accepted by Simpson (1945). They have been used for more 
than 230 years and have appeared extensively in field guides and ecological and 
conservation literature, as well as in taxonomic publications on both Recent and 
fossil fauna. The names have been widely cited, attributed to Brisson (1762), in many 
standard works of reference; these include Gray (1843), Elliot (1907), G.M. Allen 
(1939), Chasen (1940), Poole & Schantz (1942), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), 
Roberts (1951), Ellerman, Morrison-Scott & Hayman (1953), Laurie & Hall (1954), 
Grassé (1955), Gromova (1962), Haltenorth (1963), Heptner & Naumov 
(1966-1980), Meester & Setzer (1971-1978), Sokolov (1973, 1979), Medway (1977), 
Corbet (1978), Niethammer & Krapp (1978), Smithers (1983), Nowak & Paradiso 
(1983, some names), Anderson & Jones (1984, some names), Nowak (1991, some 
names), Harrison & Bates (1991, some names), Corbet & Hill (1991, 1992). In 
rejecting Brisson’s names Honacki et al. (1984) and Wilson & Reeder (1993) cited 
Hopwood (1947) (see para. 3 above) but overlooked the two centuries’ usage of the 
names and, in particular, the works of Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and Corbet 
(1978) where the continued use of Brisson’s names was recommended for the sake of 
stability. Moreover, in rejecting Brisson’s names Honacki et al. (1984) and Wilson & 
Reeder (1993) have not uniformly implemented the logical consequential changes in 
other names. 

8. At the same time as conserving the 11 generic names recorded in this 
application, to avoid any uncertainty in the future it is proposed that Brisson’s (1762) 
Regnum Animale ... be rejected for nomenclatural purposes. It is proposed that only 
the 11 generic names be made available (together with Odobenus already conserved 
in Opinion 467); it is not intended that specific names, the fixation of type species or 
the inclusion of nominal species within the genera be taken from Brisson’s work. 
Since the type species designations noted above (para. 5) may not be the earliest or 


142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


be valid under the modern Code it is proposed that the accepted type for each genus 
be protected by designation under the Commission’s plenary powers. 
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 
(1) to rule that the work by M.J. Brisson (1762) entitled Regnum Animale in classes 
IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica is rejected for nomenclatural planoees 
(2) to use its plenary powers: 
(a) to rule that the following generic names are available from Brisson (1762) 
despite having been published in a suppressed work: 
(i) Philander; 
(ii) Pteropus; 
(iii) Glis; 
(iv) Cuniculus; 
(v) Hydrochoerus; 
(vi) Meles; 
(vii) Lutra; 
(vii) Hyaena; 
(ix) Tapirus; 
(x) Tragulus; 
(x) Giraffa; 
(b) to set aside all previous type species fixations for the following genera and 
to make the designations shown: 
(i) Philander Brisson, 1762 and to designate Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 
1758 as the type species; 
(ii) Pteropus Brisson, 1762 and to designate Vespertilio niger Kerr, 1792 as 
the type species; 
(iii) Glis Brisson, 1762 and to designate Sciurus glis Linnaeus, 1766 as the 
type species; 
(iv) Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 and to designate Mus paca Linnaeus, 1766 as 
the type species; 
(v) Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 and to designate Sus hydrochaeris 
Linnaeus, 1766 as the type species; 
(vi) Meles Brisson, 1762 and to designate Ursus meles Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species; 
(vii) Lutra Brisson, 1762 and to designate Mustela lutra Linnaeus, 1758 as 
the type species; 
(viii) Hyaena Brisson, 1762 and to designate Canis hyaena Linnaeus, 1758 
as the type species; t 
(ix) Tapirus Brisson, 1762 and to designate Hippopotamus terrestris 
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species; 
(x) Tragulus Brisson, 1762 and to designate Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 
as the type species; 
(xi) Giraffa Brisson, 1762 and to designate Cervus camelopardalis 
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species; 
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Philander Brisson, 1762 (gender; masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(i) above Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 1758; 


(4) 


(5) 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 143 


(b) Pteropus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(li) above Vespertilio niger Kerr, 1792; 

(c) Glis Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(iii) above Sciurus glis Linnaeus, 1766; 

(d) Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(iv) above Mus paca Linnaeus, 1766; 

(e) Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designa- 
tion in (2)(b)(v) above Sus hydrochaeris Linnaeus, 1766; 

(f) Meles Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(vi) above Ursus meles Linnaeus, 1758; 

(g) Lutra Brisson, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(vii) above Mustela lutra Linnaeus, 1758; 

(h) Hyaena Brisson, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(viil) above Canis hyaena Linnaeus, 1758; 

(i) Tapirus, Brisson 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(ix) above Hippopotamus terrestris Linnaeus, 1758; 

(j) Tragulus Brisson, 1762 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(x) above Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765; 

(k) Giraffa Brisson, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in 
(2)(b)(x1) above Cervus camelopardalis Linnaeus, 1758; 

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

(a) opossum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Didelphis opossum 
(specific name of the type species of Philander Brisson, 1762); 

(b) niger Kerr, 1792, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio vampirus niger 
(specific name of the type species of Preropus Brisson, 1762); 

(c) glis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Sciurus glis (specific name 
of the type species of Glis Brisson, 1762); 

(d) paca Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Mus paca (specific name 
of the type species of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762); 

(e) hydrochaeris Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Sus hydrochaeris 
(specific name of the type species of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762); 

(f) meles Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Ursus meles (specific 
name of the type species of Meles Brisson, 1762); 

(g) Jutra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mustela lutra (specific 
name of the type species of Lutra Brisson, 1762); 

(h) Ayaena Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Canis hyaena (specific 
name of the type species of Hyaena Brisson, 1762); 

(i) terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hippopotamus 
terrestris (specific name of the type species of Tapirus Brisson, 1762); 

(j) javanicus Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Cervus javanicus 
(specific name of the type species of Tragulus Brisson, 1762); 

(k) camelopardalis Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cervus 
camelopardalis (specific name of the type species of Giraffa Brisson, 1762); 

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in 

Zoological Nomenclature the work entitled Regnum Animale in classes IX 

distributum, sive synopsis methodica by M.J. Brisson (1762), as rejected in (1) 

above; 


144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 (a junior objective synonym of Glis Brisson, 
1762); 

(b) Agouti Lacepede, 1799 (a junior objective synonym of Cuniculus Brisson, 
1762); 

(c) Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 (a junior homonym of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762); 

(d) Cuniculus Wagler, 1830 (a junior homonym of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762); 

(e) Taxus Cuvier & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795 (a junior objective synonym 
of Meles Brisson, 1762); 

(f) Melesium Rafinesque, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Meles Brisson, 
1762); 

(g) Euhyaena Falconer, 1868 (a junior objective synonym of Hyaena Brisson, 
1762); 

(h) Tragulus Pallas, 1767 (a junior homonym of Tragulus Brisson, 1762); 

(i) Tragulus Boddaert, 1785 (a junior homonym of Tragulus Brisson, 1762). 


References 


Allen, G.M. 1939. A checklist of African mammals. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, Harvard College, 83: 1-763. 

Allen, J.A. 1900. Note on the generic names Didelphis and Philander. Bulletin of the American 
Museum of Natural History, 13: 185-190. 

Andersen, K. 1912. Catalogue of the Chiroptera in the collection of the British Museum, Ed. 2, 
vol. 1 (Megachiroptera). ci, 854 pp. British Museum, London. 

Anderson, S. & Jones, J.K. (Eds.). 1984. Orders and families of recent mammals of the world. 
xii, 686 pp. Wiley, New York. 

Barrére, P. 1741. Essai sur l'histoire naturelle de la France équinoxiale ... xxiv, 215 pp. Paris. 

Blumenbach, J.F. 1779. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte. [12], 447 pp., 2 pls. Gottingen. 

Boddaert, P. 1785. Elenchus Animalium, vol. | (Sistens Quadrupedia). Pp. 43-174. Rotterdam. 

Brisson, M.J. 1756. Regnum Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica ... Vi, 382 
pp. Bauche, Paris. 

Brisson, M.J. 1760. Ornithologia sive synopsis methodica sistens Avium divisionem in ordines. 
6 vols. Bauche, Paris. 

Brisson, M.J. 1762. Regnum Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica ..., 
Ed. 2. 296 pp. Haak, Leiden. 

Briinnich, M.T. 1771. Zoologiae Fundamenta. 254 pp. Hafniae et Lipsiae. 

Cabrera, A. 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de America del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino 
de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Ciencias Zoolégicas, part 2, 4: 308-732. 

Chasen, F.N. 1940. A handlist of Malaysian mammals. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum, 
Singapore, Straits Settlement, 15: 1-209. 

Collins, L.R. 1973. Monotremes and marsupials. A reference for zoological institutions. v, 323 
pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. 

Corbet, G.B. 1978. The mammals of the Palaearctic region: a taxonomic review. 314 pp. British 
Museum (Natural History), London. 

Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species, Ed. 3. viii, 243 pp. Natural 
History Museum, London. 

Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. 
488 pp., 45 figs., 177 maps. Natural History Museum, London. 

Cuvier, G.F. & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1795. Mammalogie. Mémoire sur une nouvelle 
division des Mammiféres. Magazin Encyclopédique, 2: 165-190. 

Ellerman, J.R. 1949. On the prior name for the Siberian lemming and the genotype of Glis 
Erxleben. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (12)2(23): 894. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 145 


Ellerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 
1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Ellerman, J.R., Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. & Hayman, R.W. 1953. Southern African Mammals 
1758-1951. A reclassification. 363 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Elliot, D.G. 1907. A catalogue of the collection of mammals in the Field Columbian Museum. 

Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 8: 1-694 (Publication 115). 

Erxleben, J.C.B. 1777. Systema regni animalis ... Classis 1 (Mammalia). Lipsiae. 

Falconer, H. 1868. Palaeontological memoirs and notes, vol. 2. xiii, 675 pp., 38 pls. Hardwicke, 
London. 

Gardner, A.L. 1981. Review. Husson, A.M., The mammals of Surinam. Journal of Mammalogy, 
62(2): 445-448. 

Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.). 1955. Traité de Zoologie. Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie, vol. 17 
(Mammiferes. Les Ordres: anatomie, éthologie, systématique). Part 1 (pp. 1-1170), part 2 
(pp. 1171-2300). Masson, Paris. 

Gray, J.E. 1843. List of Mammalia in the collection in the British Museum. xxviii, 216 pp. 
British Museum, London. 

Gromoya, V.I. (Vol. Ed.). 1962. Fundamentals of Paleontology, vol. 13 (Mammals). 421 pp. 
USSR Academy of Sciences, Moscow. [In Russian; English translation by the Israel 
Program for Scientific Translations. vi, 585 pp. Jerusalem. 1968]. 

Gronovius, L.T. 1763. Zoophylacium Gronovianum, exhibens animalia, part 1 (Animalia 
quadrupeda, Amphibia atquae Pisces). Pp. 1-136. Haak, Leiden. 

Giildenstaedt, A.I. 1770. Spalax, novum glirium genus. Novi Commentarii Academiae Imperialis 
Petropolitanae, 14(1): 409-440. 

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America, Ed. 2, vol. 1. Pp. 1-600, 90. Wiley, New 
York. 

Haltenorth, T. 1963. Klassifikation der Saugetiere: Artiodactyla 1(18). Handbuch der Zoologie, 
8(32): 1-167. 

Harrison, D.L. & Bates, P.J.J. 1991. The mammals of Arabia, Ed. 2. xvi, 354 pp. Harrison 
Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks. 

Hasselquist, F. 1762. D. Friedrich Hasselquists ... Reise nach Paldstina in den Jahren von 1749 
bis 1752. Herausgegeben von Carl Linnaeus ... Aus dem Schwedischen (by T.H. 
Gadebusch). [xviii], 606 pp. Rostock. 

Heptner, V.G. & Naumoy, N.P. (Eds.). 1966-1980. Die Sdugetiere der Sowjetunion. 3 vols. 
Fischer, Jena. 

Hershkovitz, P. 1949. Generic names of the four-eyed opossum and the woolly opossum 
(Didelphidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 62: 11-12. 

Hollister, N. 1913. The type species of Cuniculus Brisson. Proceedings of the Biological Society 
of Washington, 26: 79. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. & Koeppl, J.W. (Eds.). 1982. Mammal species of the world. ix, 694 
pp. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Hopwood, A.T. 1947. The generic names of the mandrill and baboons, with notes on some of 
the genera of Brisson, 1762. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 117(2,3): 
533-536. 

Husson, A.M. 1978. The mammals of Surinam. xxxiv, 569 pp., 161 pls. Brill, Leiden. 

Kerr, R. 1792. The animal kingdom or zoological system of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus. 
Class 1, Mammalia. xli, 644 pp. Murray, London. 

Lacepéde, B.G.E. 1799. Tableau des divisions, sous-divisions, ordres et genres des mammiferes. 
20 pp. in: Discours de l’ouverture et de cléture du cours d'Histoire Naturelle donné dans le 
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle ..., l'an VII de la République, et Tableaux 
méthodiques des Mammiféres et des Oiseaux. 55, 18, 20 pp. Plassen, Paris. 

Laurie, E.M.O. & Hill, J.E. 1954. List of the land mammals of New Guinea, Celebes and 
adjacent islands 1758-1952. 175 pp., 3 pls. British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Lilljeborg, W. 1874. Fauna Ofver Sveriges och Norges Ryggradsdjur, vol. 1 (Daggdjuren). xii, 
550 pp. Schultz, Upsala. 

Linnaeus, C. 1746. Fauna Suecica ... 26, 411 pp. Salvii, Stockholmiae. 

Linnaeus, C. 1748. Systema naturae, Ed. 6. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 


146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


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

Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 532 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Bolmaiae. 

Matschie, P. 1916. Bemerkungen uber die Gattung Didelphis L. Sitzungberichte der Gesell- 
schaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1916: 259-272. 

Medway, Lord. 1977. Mammals of Borneo: field keys and an annotated checklist. xii, 172 pp. 
Malaysian Branch Royal Asiatic Society (monograph no. 7), Kuala Lumpur. 

Meester, J. & Setzer, H.W. (Eds.). 1971-1978. The mammals of Africa. An identification 
manual. 5 parts. Smithsonian Institution Washington. 

Merriam, C.H. 1895. Brisson’s genera of mammals, 1762. Science, n.s., 1(14): 375-376. 

Meyer, U.U. 1790. Magazin fiir Thiergeschichte, Thieranatomie und Thierarzneykunde, vol. 1, 
part 1. Gottingen. 

Neave, S.A. 1939-1940. Nomenclator Zoologicus. 4 vols. Zoological Society of London, 
London. 

Niethammer, J. & Krapp, F. (Eds.). 1978. Handbuch der Sdugetiere Europas. Akademische 
Verlagsgesellschaft, Wiesbaden. 

Nowak, R.M. (Ed.). 1991. Walker's mammals of the world, Ed. 5. 1629 pp. (in 2 vols.). Johns 
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London. 

Nowak, R.M. & Paradiso, J.L. (Eds.). 1983. Walker's mammals of the world, Ed. 4, vol. 2. xxv, 
1362 pp. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. 

Osbeck, P. 1765. Reisenach Ostindien und China, Ed. 2. xxiv, 552 pp., 13 pls. Rostock. 

Pallas, P.S. 1767. Spicilegia Zoologica, fasc. 1. 44 pp., 3 pls. Berlin. 

Pennant, J. 1771. Synopsis of quadrupeds. xxv, 382 pp. Chester. 

Pine, R.H. 1973. Anatomical and nomenclatural notes on opossums. Proceedings of the 
Biological Society of Washington, 86(33): 391-402. 

Poole, A.J. & Schantz, V.S. 1942. Catalog of the type specimens of mammals in the U.S. 
National Museum, including the Biological Surveys collection. Bulletin Smithsonian 
Institution, 178: 1-705. 

Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature ... 214 pp. Author, Palermo. 

Ray, J. 1693. Synopsis methodica animalium Quadrupedum et Serpentini generis. 336 pp. 

Roberts, A. 1951. The mammals of South Africa. x\viii, 701 pp., 46 pls. The Mammals of South 
Africa Book Fund, Johannesburg. 

Sherborn, C.D. 1902. Index animalium ... Sectio prima. lix, 1195 pp. Cambridge University 
Press, Cambridge. 

Simpson, G.G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin 
of the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350. 

Smithers, R.H.N. 1983. The mammals of the southern African subregion. xxii, 736 pp. University 
of Pretoria, Pretoria. 

Sokoloy, V.E. 1973, 1979. Systematics of mammals. Vol. 1, 430 pp. (1973); vol. 2, 529 pp. 
(1979). Vusshaya Shkola, Moscow. [In Russian]. 

Storr, G.C.C. 1780. Prodromus methodi mammalium. 43 pp., 3 tables. Tubingen. 

Tate, G.H.H. 1939. The mammals of the Guiana Region. Bulletin of the American Museum of 
Natural History, 76: 151-229. 

Tiedemann, D.F. 1808. Zoologie, vol. 1 (Allgemeine Zoologie, Mensch und Saugthiere). xvi, 
610 pp. Landshut. 

Trouessart, E.L. 1897-1899. Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Nova Editio 
(Prima Completa). Vol. 1, pp. i-vi, 1-664; vol. 2, pp. 665-1469. Friedlander, Berlin. 
Wagler, J. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der 

Sdugthiere und Vogel. vi, 354 pp. Cotta, Miinich. 

Wahlert, J.H., Sawitzke, S.L. & Holden, M.E. 1993. Cranial anatomy and relationships of 
dormice (Rodentia, Myoxidae). American Museum Novitates, 1993(3061): 1-32. 

Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.A.M. (Eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and 
geographic reference, Ed. 2. xviii, 1206 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & 
London. 

Zimmermann, A.E.W. yon. 1780. Geographische Geschichte des Menschen, und der allgemein 
verbreiteten vierfiissigen Thiere, vol. 2. 432 pp. Leipzig. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 147 


Comment on the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus to 
Schlotheim, 1813, and the proposed designation of a lectotype (Cephalopoda, 
Ammonoidea) 

(Case 2732; BZN 48: 31-35, 246; 49: 145-149, 290; 50: 54-56, 141-142, 229-231, 
284-285) 


E.T. Tozer 


Geological Survey of Canada, 100 West Pender Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, 
Canada V6B 1R8& 


No less than eight persons have now commented on Urlichs’s proposal that 
authorship of Ceratites nodosus be attributed to Schlotheim (1813) instead of 
Bruguiére (1789) and that a specimen from the Schlotheim collection (MB: C 785) 
illustrated for the first time in 1987 be accepted as the lectotype. 

Significantly most of those supporting Urlichs (Hahn, Horn, Strauch, Bertling, 
Lehmann) are from Germany, where ammonoids generally identified as Ceratites 
nodosus are index fossils in the upper part of the Middle Triassic Muschelkalk 
formation. The presence of these index fossils provides the foundation for a 
stratigraphic division — the Ceratites nodosus Zone. Those supporting Urlichs 
believe that he is right in claiming that his proposed lectotype for Ceratites nodosus 
conforms with established usage and is an example of a species that characterizes the 
Ceratites nodosus Zone. They also accept Urlichs’s opinion that the lectotype of 
Ceratites nodosus Bruguiére (PIMUZ L/1651), chosen by Rieber & Tozer in 1986, is 
different from the species in the Ceratites nodosus Zone. PEIMUZ L/1651, in Urlichs’s 
opinion, is a species found in a lower part of the Muschelkalk. According to Urlichs’s 
interpretation, acceptance of the Rieber & Tozer proposal would mean that Ceratites 
nodosus does not occur in the Ceratites nodosus Zone. This would necessitate 
giving a new name to the Zone and would thus disrupt the current stratigraphic 
terminology in Germany. Understandably the geologists do not view this propect 
with favour. 

Opposition to Urlichs’s proposal has been expressed by the late Richard Melville, 
N.J. Silberling and the writer. Our objections addressed the question solely from a 
zoological standpoint. I maintain that from this standpoint our arguments are 
unassailable. Nobody questions that PIMUZ L/1651 is the specimen on which 
Ammonites nodosa Bruguiére, and hence Ceratites nodosus, is based. According 
to Urlichs, current usage of Ceratites nodosus in Germany was established by 
Schlotheim and perpetuated by Philippi in 1901. This view cannot be supported. 

_Schlotheim illustrated only one specimen of what he called Ammonites nodosus. 
Philippi regarded this specimen as a representative of Ceratites nodosus. Urlichs has 
located this specimen but he identifies it as Ceratites (Acanthoceratites) spinosus 
spinosus Philippi, 1901, not as Ceratites nodosus. Schlotheim published no illustration 
that conforms with Urlichs’s concept of Ceratites nodosus. Urlichs’s usage of 
Ceratites nodosus was clearly given in 1987, but not before. 

Concerning use of the name Ceratites nodosus, students of Muschelkalk ammonoid 
stratigraphy seem comparable with Humpty Dumpty: ‘When I use a word ... it means 
just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less’ (Alice through the Looking 
Glass, Lewis Carroll, 1871). 


148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


I still maintain that according to the rules of zoological nomenclature it is wrong 
for the Commission to sanction a taxon named Ceratites nodosus attributed to 
Schlotheim. Schotheim did not propose a new taxon. It is only Urlichs’s opinion that 
the proposed lectotype for ‘Ceratites nodosus (Schlotheim)’ corresponds with 
Schlotheim’s concept of the species. As explained above, there is, in fact, greater 
justification for regarding the taxon identified by Urlichs as ‘Ceratites (Acanthocera- 
tites) spinosus spinosus Philippi, 1901’ as representing Schlotheim’s interpretation of 
Ammonites nodosa. In this light, if one accepts Urlichs’s identification, if any 
ammonoid deserves to be called Ceratites nodosus (Schlotheim), it is Ceratites 
(Acanthoceratites) spinosus spinosus Philippi. 

If the question was purely of a zoological nature it would seem a straightforward 
matter for the Commission to rule that the proper name for the taxon is Ceratites 
nodosus (Bruguiére) with PIMUZ L/1651 as lectotype. This case has been made by 
Melville, Silberling and the writer. Nothing written by Urlichs and his colleagues 
from Germany and Austria refutes our arguments. 

The zoological importance of the decision stems from the fact that Ammonites 
nodosa Bruguiére, 1789 is the type species for the genus Ceratites de Haan, 1825. 
Designation was by J.P. Smith in 1904. As recognized by Urlichs (para. 7 of his 
application) Smith’s designation refers to a non-existent figure but this has never been 
taken to invalidate the designation. 

Acceptance of Urlichs’s proposals would mean that the specimen on which the 
definition of the genus Ceratites depends is MB: C 785, not PIMUZ L/1651. 

The geological importance of the decision relates to the desire of German 
geologists to retain the name Ceratites nodosus for the ammonoids that characterize 
the Ceratites nodosus stratigraphic zone. 

Hence the problem: the ammonoids of the Ceratites nodosus Zone are identified by 
Urlichs as being of a different species compared with the Rieber & Tozer lectotype for 
Ceratites nodosus (Bruguicre). Thus the straight forward zoological case cannot be 
reconciled with the stratigraphic nomenclature advocated by Urlichs and his 
colleagues. Acceptance of Urlichs’s proposal requires that geological considerations 
take priority over zoological rules. 

Throughout this debate I have been reluctant to accept Urlichs’s proposal because 
it necessitates bending the rules of zoological nomenclature to accommodate his 
opinions on the identification of the ammonoids in question in order that they agree 
with the conventional stratigraphic terminology in the Muschelkalk Formation. 

The important consideration is that a clear unambiguous definition of the genus 
Ceratites should emerge as a result of the Commission’s ruling. In my opinion the 
definition of the genus Ceratites will be much the same whether the type species 
be Ceratites nodosus (Bruguiére) (sensu Rieber & Tozer) or Ceratites nodosus 
(Schlotheim) (sensu Urlichs & Mundlos). The ammonoids in question are sufficiently 
similar that I do not anticipate the introduction of problems concerning the 
interpretation of the genus Ceratites if Urlichs’s proposal is accepted by the 
Commission. 

Although in the matter of zoological nomenclature geological arguments should 
presumably be subordinate to the zoological facts, possibly the Commission may 
nevertheless give priority to the geological arguments in this case and thus stabilize 
both the zoological and geological interpretation of the genus Ceratites. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 149 


I therefore now withdraw opposition to Urlichs’s proposal. Withdrawal of my 
opposition should not be construed as withdrawal of the facts and opinions expressed 
in my previous comment (BZN 49: 145-149), or my full agreement with the 
submissions by Richard Melville (BZN 50: 55-56) and N.J. Silberling (BZN 50: 
141-142). I am simply adopting the position that in this case geological consider- 
ations be allowed to override the zoological rules. I take this position, which will 
satisfy the German geologists, only because acceptance of Urlichs’s proposal, 
although contrary to the rules, in my opinion will not result in a radical change in the 
zoological interpretation of the genus Ceratites. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 by the 
designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species 
(Amphibia, Caudata) 

(Case 2868; see BZN 50: 219-223) 


(1) Mark R. Jennings 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, United States Depart- 
ment of the Interior, 1830 Sharon Avenue, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A. and 
Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, California, U.S.A. 


I write to support the application submitted by Prof Hobart Smith & Dr David 
Wake. 

I have been involved in a number of projects dealing with the genus Hydromantes 
in California over the past decade — everything from check lists (e.g. Jennings, 1983) 
to the current status of H. platycephalus in the State (Jennings & Hayes, in press) — 
and I believe that the replacement of this long-established generic name by 
Hydromantoides would cause needless confusion amongst professionals and the lay 
public. 

Looking through my own library resources, I find that I have over 40 pieces of 
primary literature, field guides, popular publications and agency reports dealing with 
this genus. Only three publications (Camp, 1916; Lanza & Vanni, 1981; and Dubois, 
1984) do not utilize the name Hydromantes. Because of the importance of this 
salamander to land management agencies in California (both H. brunus and 
H. shastae are listed by the State of California as threatened; H. platycephalus and an 
undescribed species of Hydromantes from the Owens Valley are also protected by 
other State Laws) and its presence in a number of State and National Parks where it 
is showcased (e.g. Merced River Canyon Ecological Reserve, Yosemite National 
Park), it is desirable to prevent certain confusion in future reports, public interpret- 
ation materials and press releases and to continue to use the name Hydromantes for 
these web-toed salamanders. 

I would also like to point out that, because of its uniqueness and limited 
distribution, Hydromantes (especially H. platycephalus) is represented in a large 
number of museum collections around the world. My own data base indicates 475 
specimens scattered amongst 22 collections. Changing all the specimen name records 
in these collections would seem to be a pointless task. The best mode of action would 
be for the Commission to approve the application and thus negate the need for such 
a task. 


150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 
Additional references 


Jennings, M.R. 1983. An annotated check list of the amphibians and reptiles of California. 
California Fish and Game, 69(3): 151-171. 

Jennings, M.R. & Hayes, M.P. (In press). Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in 
California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho 
Cordova, California. Final Report Under Contract (8023). 


(2) Harold A. Dundee 
Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, 310 Dinwiddie Hall, 
Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana 70118-5698, U.S.A. 


Smith & Wake noted that Gistel (1848) used a replacement name Hydromantes for 
Geotriton, and that Tschudi (1838) used Geotriton genei, a name he attributed to 
Bonaparte but which was made available (as Salamandra genei) by Temminck & 
Schlegel (1838). Although the name Hydromantes was not used until Dunn (1923), 
the post-Dunn usage of Hydromantes has been persistent and voluminous. To change 
this will only create confusion and delay in the retrieval of literature information for 
current and future studies. Name stability, as used in the sophisticated studies of 
recent decades, becomes paramount for systematists. The recommendations of Smith 
& Wake seem most compelling and I therefore strongly support the application. 


(3) Giorgio Mancino 
Dipartimento di Fisiologia e Biochimica, Sezione di Biologia Cellulare e dello Sviluppo, 
Universita degli Studi di Pisa, Via Carducci 13, 56010 Ghezzano, Italy 


Replacement of the name Hydromantes would cause great confusion and in this 
case stability should be allowed to override priority. Moreover, in my opinion, so far 
there is insufficient genetic (e.g. hybridological) and cytogenetic (e.g. meiotic 
abnormalities in species hybrids) evidence to permit the splitting of the genus 
Hydromantes into two different genera (Hydromantes and Hydromantoides). Zoolo- 
gists should continue to use the name Hydromantes for both the Californian and 
European populations until there is further morpho-anatomical, physiological, 
genetical and genomical, as well as etho-ecological, evidence. 


(4) Benedetto Lanza 


Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e Genetica ‘Leo Pardi’, Universita degli Studi di 
Firenze, Via Romana 17/19, 50125 Firenze, Italy 


Lanza & Vanni (1981) assigned the American Hydromantes to the new genus 
Hydromantoides, a view supported by some European herpetologists. Consequently, 
I (Lanza, 1986) raised to generic level the subgenus Speleomantes Dubois, 1984. For 
some years Speleomantes has been used by a number of European authors as the valid 
name for the Old World plethodontid salamanders (three mainland and four 
Sardinian species); Speleomantes has been used also in at least two books (Stumpel- 
Rienks, 1992 and Nollert & No6llert, 1992). However, Profs Luciano Bullini and 
Giuseppe Nascetti (Dipartimento di Genetica e Biologia Evolutiva, Universita di Roma 
‘La Sapienza’, Via Lancisi 29, 00161 Roma, Italy) join with me in supporting Smith 
& Wake’s application (see also Lanza, Nascetti & Bullini, 1986, p. 263). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 151 


Additional references 


Lanza, B. 1986. I Rettili e gli Anfibi. Pp. 60-65, 289-321, 549-550 in Camarda, J., Falchi, S. 
& Nudda, G. (Eds.), L’ambiente naturale in Sardegna (Elementi di base per la conoscenza 
e la gestione del territorio). 557 pp. Carlo Delfino Editore, Sassari. 

Lanza, B., Nascetti, G. & Bullini, L. 1986. A new species of Hydromantes from eastern Sardinia 
and its genetic relationships with the other Sardinian plethodontids (Amphibia: Urodela). 
Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 4(1): 261-289. 

Nollert, A. & Ndllert, C. 1992. Die Amphibien Europas. Bestimmung-Gefahrdung-Schutz. 382 
pp. Franckh-Kosmos, Stuttgart. 

Stumpel-Rienks, S.E. 1992. Nomina herpetofaunae Europeae. The vernacular names of the 
herpetofauna of Europe. Supplemented with Asiatic Turkey, Cyprus, Transcaucasia, the 
Canary and Selvages Islands and Madeira. 271 pp. Aula, Wiesbaden. 


(5) Robert G. Webb 


Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 
79968-0519, U.S.A. 


I commend Dubois (1984) for his nomenclatural sleuthing that would require 
burial of Hydromantes. The case for the conservation of Hydromantes is supported by 
its otherwise consistent usage and long recognition during the past 70 years. In 
accordance with current usage and maintenance of nomenclatural stability, and to 
avoid name changes and unnecessary ultimate confusion, I strongly recommend 
approval of the application. 


(6) Mario Garcia Paris 
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain 


En relacion con el Caso 2868, considero que los argumentos presentados por los 
autores justifican sobradamente la peticion de conservacion del nombre Hydromantes 
y la fijacion de Salamandra genei como especie tipo de dicho genéro. 

En el caso presente considero que el uso sostenido del nombre Hydromantes 
durante los ultimos 70 afios justifica su conservacion y por lo tanto expreso mi apoyo 
a la propuesta de Smith & Wake. 

Dicha propuesta no cuestiona la validez del nombre Hydromantoides Lanza & 
Vanni, 1981, que mientras no sea rechazado bioldgicamente debe ser utilizado para 
designar a les especies americanas previamente incluidas en el genéro Hydromantes. 
En conclusion el uso de Hydromantes se limitaria a las especies europeas incluidas por 
Dubois (1984) en Speleomantes. 


(7) W.R. Branch 
Port Elizabeth Museum, P.O. Box 13147, 6013 Humewood, South Africa 


I urge acceptance of the application by Smith & Wake for the sake of nomencla- 
tural stability. Dubois’s (1984) action threatens established nomenclature and, in 
relation to endangered species of Hydromantes, his usage of names causes unnecess- 
ary confusion in existing conservation legislation. The desirability of maintaining 
existing usage far outweighs any necessity to apply the principle of priority and I 
therefore support the application. 


152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


(8) David A. Good 


Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science, 119 Foster Hall, Baton 
Rouge, Louisiana 70803-3216, U.S.A. 


I am writing in support of the application by Smith & Wake for the conservation 
of the salamander name Hydromantes. This name was the only one in use for many 
decades and the literature in which it is used is voluminous. Blind insistence on 
following priority in the face of such an extensive literature serves no purpose other 
than to confuse systematists and utterly mystify the public. 


(9) Robert F. Inger 


Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road and Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, 
Illinois 60605, U.S.A. 


I write in support of the proposal to conserve a long and frequently used name of 
a salamander genus. Smith & Wake put forward cogent and convincing arguments 
for conservation by the Commission. Two of the most important, indeed critical, 
functions of our system of nomenclature are at issue here: (1) facilitation of 
communication among scientists and between scientists and an interested general 
public, including these days officials in government agencies; (2) facilitation of 
retrieval of relevant literature. In the case of Hydromantes both these critical 
functions can be protected only if the proposals made by Smith & Wake are adopted. 
I urge that the Commission approve them. 


(10) David M. Hillis 
Department of Zoology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A. 


Designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species of 
Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 will maintain the long-standing usage of the generic name. 
Furthermore, none of the actions proposed by Smith & Wake will impinge upon the 
debate over the content of Hydromantes (whether or not the genus should include the 
North American species). Thus, I urge the Commission to accept the proposals 
presented by these authors. 


(11) Francis R. Cook 
Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station ‘D’, Ottawa, Canada K1P 6P4 


Dubois (1984) replaced the name Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 because it was a junior 
synonym of Geotriton Bonaparte, [1832] and could not be used for a genus including 
the species genei and italicus. Dubois apparently made a technically correct argument 
but Hydromantes has been widely used since Dunn (1923). Because of the wide 
conservation and zoogeographical usage of this name it seems highly desirable to 
conserve it through the proposal to use the Commission’s plenary powers. Smith & 
Wake noted that few authorities have followed Dubois (1984) in using the generic 
name Speleomantes Dubois, 1984, proposed for the European species in the complex. 
Since their application one such reference has appeared (Salvidio, 1993), which places 
some urgency on the Commission to approve the proposals before further destabil- 
ization ensues. It therefore seems clear-cut that the Commission should use its 
plenary powers as requested. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 153 


Additional reference 


Salvidio, S. 1993. Life history of the European plethodontid salamander Speleomantes ambrosii 
(Amphibia, Caudata). Herpetological Journal, 3(2): 55-59. 


(12) Robert C. Stebbins 


University of California, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, California 94720, 
U.S.A. 


I strongly support the proposed designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & 
Schlegel, 1838 as the type species of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848. Hydromantes is a 
replacement name which, with one exception (Dubois, 1984), has consistently been 
used during the past 70 years. I may add that in my opinion to place the Californian 
species of this salamander group in a separate genus Hydromantoides will lead to 
confusion and will obscure the evolutionary relationships between the European and 
Californian forms. 


(13) Support for the application has also been received from Drs Merel J. Cox 
(695/17 Pracharaj Road, Soi Pracharaj 19, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand), 
Robert A. Thomas (Society for Environmental Education, P.O. Box 870610, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70187-0610, U.S.A.), Joseph T. Collins (The University of Kansas, 
Museum of Natural History, Dyche Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454, U.S.A.), 
James Lazell (The Conservation Agency, 6 Swinburne Street, Conanicut Island, Rhode 
Island 02835, U.S.A.), Robert C. Drewes (California Academy of Sciences, Golden 
Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A), Robert G. Zweifel 
(American Museum of Natural History, 79th Street and Central Park West, New York, 
N.Y. 11024, U.S.A.) and Paul Chippindale (Department of Zoology, The University of 
Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1064, U.S.A.). 


Comments on the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 
(Amphibia, Caudata) 
(Case 2869, BZN 50: 129-132) 


(1) Robert G. Webb 


Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 
79968-0519, U.S.A. 


Bonaparte’s ({1839] and 1850) names Mycetoglossus and MYCETOGLOSSINI prob- 
ably are unknown to even salamander specialists. Acceptance of the forgotten 
MYCETOGLOSSINI as a valid name for the now-established HEMIDACTYLIINI (and 
other Hemidactylium-based family-group names) would create undue confusion. 
Mycetoglossus has remained unused since its inception and is a junior objective 
synonym of the valid and long-recognised Pseudotriton; suppression of the name 
(thereby invalidating MYCETOGLOsSINI) is justifiable. Thus, I support this proposal 
and recommend its approval. 


(2) Harold A. Dundee 


Department of Ecology, Evolution and Organismal Biology, Tulane University, New 
Orleans, Louisiana 70118-5698, U.S.A. 


154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


I have read the joint proposal by Prof Hobart Smith & Dr David Wake for 
conserving the name HEMIDACTYLINI for a tribe of salamanders. They argue in favor 
of stability of a name in wide usage over priority. 

We should recognise that in the early days of use of our present binominal system 
of nomenclature, when no code to stabilize nomenclatural practice existed, scientists 
were few, communication was poor, and publication, hence usage of names, was very 
limited. That alternative names exist is thus no surprise. Credit should be given to 
authors whose established names have priority but such overlooked, badly underused 
names simply have not become accepted. The huge surge of publication that began 
in the late 19th century produced a vast literature using names such as that 
recommended by Smith & Wake, and systematists now have HEMIDACTYLIINI well in 
memory and use. To regress to the earlier but unused name MYCETOGLOSSINI will only 
retard retrieval of literature needed for examination and citation for current and 
future studies. Consistency thus enhances the advance of systematic studies. 

Only when a balance between alternative names exists would I support priority. 
Older studies are most often meager in detail and even flawed when compared with 
the sophistication of modern systematics. Quality studies using later names are where 
the scientist will find the information for consideration in his endeavors. I therefore 
firmly support the proposal of Smith & Wake. 


(3) Mario Garcia Paris 
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain 


Respecto a los puntos solicitados en el caso deseo expresar mi apoto a la propuesta 
de Smith & Wake en consideracion a los principios de estabilidad nomenclatura. 

Por otra parte las relaciones filogenéticas entre los miembros de la tribu 
HEMIDACTYLIINI no estan resueltas y quiza fuese conveniente posponer la solicitud de 
Smith & Wake hasta que la taxonomia del grupo se considere estabilizada para evitar 
cambios innecesarios. 


(4) Merel J. Cox 
695/17 Pracharaj Road, Soi Pracharaj 19, Bangsue, Bangkok 10800, Thailand 


In this case there is a choice between priority and stability in the literature. 
Certainly priority should prevail if the result were a minimum of confusion and 
nomenclatural instability. However, Smith & Wake have shown that the prior name 
has only once been used and that unnecessary confusion would result if priority were 
followed. 

I hope the Commission will seize this opportunity to defuse a potentially confusing 
situation by approving the proposals put forth. If they do so, they will have served 
their colleagues well. 


(5) Robert A. Thomas 
Society for Environmental Education, P.O. Box 870610, New Orleans, Louisiana 
70187-0610, U.S.A. 


I am writing in support of the application by Smith & Wake to conserve a 
longstanding name in the field of herpetology in the interest of stability, rather than 
using an older name that has remained virtually unused since publication. The name 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 155 


HEMIDACTYLUNI has been widely published and used in both the scientific and popular 
literature. Resurrecting the older name MYCETOGLOSSINI that has been ignored for 
decades, simply for considerations of priority, will create unneeded confusion and 
complexity in the literature and I strongly recommend approval of the proposals. 


(6) David M. Hillis 
Department of Zoology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712, U.S.A. 


Acceptance of the proposal by Smith & Wake to conserve. the name HEMIDAC- 
TYLUNI Hallowell, 1856 is necessary to promote stability in the nomenclature of these 
widely studied salamanders. HEMIDACTYLINI is commonly used as both a formal and 
informal name, whereas MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1980 was unused until resur- 
rected by Dubois (1984), has remained unused since, and is based on a junior 
objective synonym that has also remained unused. Dubois’s action is clearly contrary 
to the Code’s admonition (Article 23b) 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’. 


(7) Francis R. Cook 
Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station ‘D’, Ontario, Canada K1P 6 P4 


The family-group name HEMIDACTYLIINI proposed by Hallowell in 1856, not 
re-used since Hallowell (1858) until Wake (1966) but frequently used since then, is a 
junior synonym of “Mycetoglossina’ Bonaparte, 1850. This was based on the generic 
name Mycetoglossus Bonaparte, [1839], which has remained unused as it is an 
unnecessary and invalid replacement for the name Pseudotriton Tschudi, 1838. 
Clearly nomenclature is best served by conserving the use of Wake (1966) and 
subsequent related publications, rather than allowing the resurrection of an obscure 
and unused family-group name, a term utterly meaningless and confusing to those 
who have followed Wake’s partitioning of the family. 


(8) Hidetoshi Ota 
Department of Biology, University of Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa, 903-01, Japan 


I am fully in support of the proposal by Smith & Wake to conserve the tribal 
name HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 by the suppression of the generic name 
Mycetoglossus Bonaparte, 1839 and invalidation of the tribal name MYCETOGLOSSINI 
Bonaparte, 1850. For promotion of stability of nomenclature which, I believe, is one 
of the most important functions of the Commission, the conservation of a long- 
accepted name is strongly desirable, unless there are reasons to invalidate it. In the 
present case, there are no merits at all in abiding by the principle of priority and 
resurrecting the unused tribal name which derives from the long unused and invalid 
generic name. 


(9) Paul Chippindale 
Department of Zoology, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas 78712-1064, 
U.S.A. 


I am a PhD candidate at the University of Texas at Austin and my dissertation 
research involves an investigation of evolution and phylogeny of the plethodontid 


156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


salamander tribe HEMIDACTYLINI. Since I have been studying plethodontids for 
several years I have a strong interest in the nomenclature of the group and I am 
familiar with the relevant literature. 

In their application to maintain the existing, widely used name for the group, 
Smith & Wake have argued for stability, and I agree with them wholeheartedly. The 
taxon is the subject of an extensive literature, and the proposed alternative name for 
the group (MYCETOGLOSSINI) is obscure. I see absolutely no advantage in using the 
name MYCETOGLOSSINI; the effect of such a change would simply be widespread 
confusion. Herpetologists, evolutionary biologists, ecologists, conservation biologists 
and others who are familiar with the group know it by the name HEMIDACTYLIINI and 
this name only. 

The monophyly of the HEMIDACTYLUNI is problematic because the relationships 
of the genus Hemidactylium are uncertain (work in progress by myself and others 
should help to clarify this issue in the relatively near future). In any case, use of 
the name MYCETOGLOSSINI would not help matters and would only serve to muddy 
the waters further. I will certainly resist use of this name, which has appeared 
in the literature only once (Dubois, 1984) in contrast to the usage of the name 
HEMIDACTYLIINI. 


(10) Support for the application has also been received from Prof Robert C. Stebbins 
(University of California, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, California 94720, 
U.S.A.) and Drs Joseph T. Collins (The University of Kansas, Museum of Natural 
History, Dyche Hall, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454, U.S.A.), James Lazell (The 
Conservation Agency, 6 Swinburne Street, Conanicut Island, Rhode Island 02835, 
U.S.A.), Robert C. Drewes (California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San 
Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A.), Richard G. Zweifel (American Museum of 
Natural History, 79th Street and Central Park West, New York, N.Y. 11024, U.S.A.), 
W.R. Branch (Port Elizabeth Museum, P.O. Box 13147, 6013 Humewood, South 
Africa), David A. Good (Louisiana State University, Museum of Natural Science, 
119 Foster Hall, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70803-3216, U.S.A.) and Robert F. Inger 
(Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road and Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, 
Illinois 60605, U.S.A.). 


Comment 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, 291-294; 51: 48-51) 


Philip Huber 
Department of Geological Sciences, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio 45701, U.S.A. 


Colbert et al. (BZN 49: 276-279) asked the Commission to use its plenary powers 
to set aside previous type designations for the nominal species Coelurus bauri Cope, 
1887, and to designate as neotype the complete skeleton AMNH 7224 from the 
Whitaker Quarry (Ghost Ranch) which is the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti 
Hunt & Lucas, 1991. The names Rioarribasaurus and colberti would thus be rejected 
as junior objective synonyms of Coelophysis Cope, 1889 and bauri, respectively. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 157 


However, the following points argue strongly against acceptance by the Commission 
of the application by Colbert et al. 

(1) The proposal is made in spite of the existence of original material from Cope’s 
collection in the American Museum of Natural History; it does not meet the 
qualifying conditions of Article 75d of the Code, nor the terms of Recommendation 
75A. 

(2) Colbert et al. state (para. 8) that ‘Hunt & Lucas (1991) did not dispute the 
synonymy of C. bauri (as always understood) and R. colberti so their name should 
not be used as valid’. However, in accordance with the Code and in the absence of 
revisory work the name C. bauri refers only to Cope’s original material. Furthermore 
Hunt & Lucas did dispute the synonymy by demonstrating the lectotype of C. bauri 
to be generically indeterminate and by treating C. bauri as a nomen dubium. 
They properly coined the name Rioarribasaurus colberti for the Whitaker Quarry 
coelurosaur, and designated a holotype in accordance with the Code. 

(3) The provenance of Cope’s material is uncertain. Lucas & Hunt (1989, 1992) 
showed that at least some of the specimens from near Gallina (New Mexico) must 
have been derived from the Petrified Forest Formation and not from the Rock Point 
Formation which contains the Whitaker Quarry. Colbert (1947, 1964, 1989) and 
Colbert et al. (1992) incorrectly claim that the Whitaker Quarry is located in the 
Petrified Forest Formation. On the Colorado Plateau, the Petrified Forest and Rock 
Point Formations are easily distinguished by the presence of bentonitic siltstone in 
the former. The Rock Point Formation siltstone lacks a bentonitic fraction, as does 
the siltstone at the Whitaker Quarry. The Whitaker Quarry can be confidently 
assigned to the Rock Point Formation, on stratigraphic and sedimentologic grounds. 
Litwin (1986) and Litwin, Traverse & Ash (1991) sampled both Formations in the 
vicinity of the Whitaker Quarry for palynomorphs in order to determine the age of 
the type locality of R. colberti. They placed the quarry in the Rock Point Formation, 
and showed that this is palynologically younger than the Petrified Forest Formation. 
The locality of some if not all of Cope’s material and the type locality of R. colberti 
are in stratigraphic units of different ages (early-middle Norian and late Norian- 
Rhaetian respectively). Padian (1986) also concluded, on taphonomic evidence, that 
Cope’s specimens were collected from a horizon and locality different from the 
Whitaker Quarry. 

(4) The application by Colbert et al. should be rejected because Cope’s C. bauri 
material, though indeterminate, may belong to a genus different from that 
represented by the R. colberti holotype and all other published specimens of 
Rioarribasaurus from the Whitaker Quarry. The pubis of one of Cope’s specimens 
(AMNH 2724) has an obturator foramen (von Huene, 1915, fig. 61), and Padian 
(1986, p. 50, fig. 5.2) illustrated this character on a partial skeleton from the Petrified 
Forest National Park in Arizona which he referred to C. bauri. This character state 
is widely accepted as meriting generic distinction in dinosaurs, and it would appear 
that Cope’s and Padian’s specimens are more closely related to each other than either 
is to the holotype and the other published specimens of R. co/berti. However, Sullivan 
(1993) noted a single obturator foramen on several Whitaker Quarry specimens, 
while Paul (1993) stated that two obturator foramina are sometimes present. This and 
other observations led Paul (p. 400) to treat Rioarribasaurus as a junior subjective 
synonym of Syntarsus Raath, 1969, and he referred all Whitaker Quarry specimens 


158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


to Syntarsus colberti (nov. comb.). Paul’s conclusions await critical evaluation, but 
they do show that there is no taxonomic need to conserve the binomen Coelophysis 
bauri. Cope’s material is indeterminate and C. bauri is properly to be considered a 
nomen dubium. The specimen reported by Padian (1986) is more complete than 
Cope’s total material but is also indeterminate. 

(5) Colbert et al. (BZN 50: 278, para. 9) state that the name C. bauri ‘is solidly 
entrenched in the literature’. I maintain that it is not, and that perceptions to the 
contrary are largely based on the incorrect application and usage of this name for 
nearly 50 years by Colbert (1947, 1964, 1989), Colbert & Baird (1958), Padian (1986) 
and Rowe & Gauthier (1990), and also by Schwartz & Gillette (in press). Colbert et 
al. seek the effective suppression of the name Rioarribasaurus which 1s already being 
used for the Whitaker Quarry theropod, for example by Olshevsky (1991, 1992), 
Olsen et al. (1992) and Cuny & Galton (1993); as already mentioned Paul (1993) also 
considered Coelophysis bauri to be a nomen dubium. 

(6) A number of comments have been published in the Bulletin which support the 
application by Colbert et al. Unfortunately these comments do not contribute 
information of value about the taxonomic status of Coelophysis bauri and/or serve 
only to perpetuate the errors mentioned in the previous paragraph. In any event the 
taxonomic dispute in this case should not be subject to a ‘yea’ or ‘nay’ popularity 
contest. 


Additional references 


Colbert, E.H. 1964. The Triassic dinosaur genera Podokesaurus and Coelophysis. American 
Museum Novitates, 2168: 1-12. 

Colbert, E.H. & Baird, D. 1958. Coelurosaur bone casts from the Connecticut Valley Triassic. 
American Museum Novitates, 1901: 1-11. 

Cuny, G. & Galton, P.M. 1993. Revision of the Airel theropod from the Triassic-Jurassic 
boundary (Normandy, France). Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, 187: 
261-268. 

Litwin, R.J. 1986. The palynostratigraphy and age of the Chinle and Moenave Formations, 
southwestern USA. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Pennsylvania State University. 
265 pp. 

Litwin, R.J., Traverse, A. & Ash, S.R. 1991. Preliminary palynological zonation of the Chinle 
Formation, southwestern USA, and its correlation to the Newark supergroup (eastern 
USA). Review of Paleobotany and Palynology, 68: 269-287. 

Olsen, P.E., McDonald, N.G., Huber, P. & Cornet, B. 1992. Stratigraphy and paleoecology of 
the Deerfield rift basin (Triassic-Jurassic, Newark Supergroup), Massachusetts. New 
England Intercollegiate Geological Conference, 84th Annual Meeting, Amherst, MA. 
Guidebook for fieldtrips, vol. 2, pp. 488-535. 

Olshevsky, G. 1991. A revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding 
the advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings, vol. 2. 196 pp. (Second printing, 1992, 
268 pp.). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 159 


OPINION 1765 


Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): suppressed, and Fusinus 
Rafinesque, 1815 and Colubraria Schumacher, 1817: conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Fusus Helbling, 1779 is hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species, by subsequent 
monotypy by Lamarck (1799) of the replaced nominal genus Fusus 
Bruguiére, 1789, Murex colus Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Colubraria granulata Schumacher, 1817. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) colus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex colus (specific 
name of the type species of Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815); 

(b) granulata Schumacher, 1817, as published in the binomen Colubraria 
granulata (specific name of the type species of Schumacher, 1817). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Fusus Helbling, 1779, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 (a junior homonym of Fusus Helbling, 1779); 

(c) Fusus [Roding], 1798 (a junior homonym of Fusus Helbling, 1779 and of 
Fusus Bruguiére, 1789). 


History of Case 2729 

An application for Fusus Helbling, 1779 to be confirmed as unavailable was 
received from Mr Richard E. Petit (North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, U.S.A.) and 
Dr Druid Wilson (Lake Wales, Florida, U.S.A.) on 19 June 1989. After correspond- 
ence the case was published in BZN 48: 92-96 (June 1991). Notice of the case was sent 
to appropriate journals. 

Opposing comments from Prof Emily H. Vokes (Tulane University, New Orleans, 
Louisiana, U.S.A.) and from Drs A.G. Beu (DSIR Geology and Geophysics, Lower 
Hutt, New Zealand), B.A. Marshall (National Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, 
New Zealand) & W.F. Ponder (Australian Museum, Sydney South, New South Wales, 
Australia) were published in BZN 48: 245-246 (September 1991) and BZN 49: 68-70 
(March 1992) respectively. A reply by the authors of the application was published 
in BZN 49: 221-222 (September 1992). Further opposing comments from Dr 
Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli (Palermo Pallavicino, Italy) and from Dr Marco Oliverio 
(Universita di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Rome, Italy) were published in BZN 49: 289 
(December 1992) and BZN 50: 140-139 (June 1993) respectively. 

Comments were also received from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch 
Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands, published in BZN 48: 244-245, September 1991) 


160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


and from Dr Barry Roth (Museum of Paleontology, University of California, San 
Francisco, U.S.A., published in BZN 49: 68, March 1992). 

All the malacologists who made observations on this case, including the applicants 
Mr Petit and Dr Wilson, agreed that the name Fusus as published by Helbling (1779) 
should not be used as a valid name. As pointed out in the application, it was not clear 
that Helbling intended to introduce it as a genus-group name and it had had only 
very limited use (para. 8 of the application). j 

Petit & Wilson proposed (BZN 48: 94, para. 18) that the Commission should rule 
it to be unavailable but, to remove any doubt, Beu, Marshall & Ponder (BZN 49: 69) 
proposed that it be suppressed. Adoption of either of these courses would dispose of 
Fusus sensu Helbling as a valid name. The conseqences differed, however, as far as 
some junior names were concerned. 

If Fusus Helbling were taken as unavailable then Fusus Bruguiere, 1789 would not 
be disqualified as a junior homonym and it, rather than its junior objective synonym 
Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815, would be valid. Petit & Wilson favoured this outcome. On 
the other hand, Vokes (BZN 48: 425), Beu, Marshall & Ponder (BZN 49: 68), 
Giannuzzi-Savelli (BZN 49: 289) and Oliverio (BZN 50: 140) considered that Fusinus 
should be conserved on the grounds of its dominant usage in the past 60 years and 
its unambiguity (whereas Fusus has been used in more than one sense). All were 
agreed that the conservation of Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Fusus sensu Helbling) was desirable. 

Vokes and Beu et al. stated that Fusinus is in universal modern use, but Petit & 
Wilson (BZN 48: 94, para. 15 and 49: 221) cited some relatively recent mentions of 
Fusus Bruguiére. However, there was no doubt that during this century Fusinus has 
been used much more (as stated in para. 14 of the application). 

Three votes were presented to allow distinction between the outcomes advocated 
by Petit & Wilson and by Beu, Marshall & Ponder. The votes encompassed all the 
proposals published in BZN 48: 94-95 and 49: 69-70. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
case. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1994 the votes were as recorded 
below: 


Vote 1. The Commission was first asked to use its plenary powers to reject the name 
Fusus Helbling, 1779. 

22 Commissioners were in favour and three (Hahn, Kabata and Macpherson) were 
against. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Hahn commented that, since Fusus Helbling had been used in some important 
works and its synomymy with Colubraria was rather uncertain, he would have 
preferred to give Colubraria precedence over Fusus Helbling, which would remain 
available. As a junior homonym Fusus Bruguiére would not upset the usage of 
Fusinus Rafinesque. 


Vote 2. The Commission was next asked, if vote 1 above were approved, either (a) to 
rule that Fusus Helbling, 1779 is unavailable because it was not treated as a valid 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 161 


name when published (Petit & Wilson proposal (1) on BZN 48: 94), or (b) to suppress 
that name for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the 
Principle of Homonymy (Beu et al. proposal (1) on BZN 49: 69). 

Approval of either vote 2(a) or vote 2(b) would allow the name Colubraria 
Schumacher, 1817 and that of its type species to be placed on Official Lists, in accord 
with proposals (2)(b) and (3)(b) on BZN 49: 69-70. 

Vote 2(a) had 7 in favour: Bouchet, Cocks, Heppell, Nielsen, Starobogatov, 
Trjapitzin, Ueno 

Vote 2(b) had 15 in favour: Bayer, Bock, Cogger, Corliss, Holthuis, Kraus, 
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, 
Willink. 


Vote 3. The Commission was finally asked (if Fusus Helbling had been rejected) either 
(a) to place the name of Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 and that of its type species on Official 
Lists, together with the rejection of Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 (Petit & Wilson 
proposals (2), (3) and (4) on BZN 48: 95), or (b) to suppress Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 
or reject it as a junior homonym of Fusus Helbling, 1779. 

If Fusus Bruguiére were suppressed or rejected the name Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 
and that of its type species would be placed on Official Lists (Beu et al. proposals 
(2)(a) and (3)(a) on BZN 49: 69-70)). 

Two Commissioners (Heppell and Trjapitzin) were in favour of vote 3(a), but 20 
were in favour of vote 3(b), the rejection of Fusus Bruguiére, 1789. 


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: 

Colubraria Schumacher, 1817, Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers testacés ..., 
p. 76. 

colus, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 753. 

Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la nature ou tableau de l'univers ..., p. 145. 

Fusus Bruguiére, 1789, Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des vers, vol. 1, part 1, p. xv. 

Fusus Helbling, 1779, Abhandlungen einer Privatgesellschaft in Bohmen, 4: 116. 

Fusus [Roding], 1798, Museum Boltenianum ... Pars secunda continens Conchylia sive Testacea 
univalvia, bivalvia & multivalvia, p. 118. 

granulata, Colubraria, Schumacher, 1817, Essai d'un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers 
testacés, p. 251. 


The following is the reference for the fixation of Murex colus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type 
species of the nominal genus Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815: 
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. 1799. Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 73. 


162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1766 


Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): conserved by the designation of a neotype for Achatina 
erecta Benson, 1842 


Ruling ° 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the 
nominal species Achatina erecta Benson, 1842 are hereby set aside and specimen no. 
1991104A in the Natural History Museum, London, is designated as the neotype. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation 
Achatina erecta Benson, 1842; 

(b) Allopeas Baker, 1935 (gender: neuter), type species by original designation 
Bulimus gracilis Hutton, 1834. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) erecta Benson, 1842, as published in the binomen Achatina erecta and as 
defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type 
species of Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906); 

(b) gracilis Hutton, 1834, as published in the binomen Bulimus gracilis (specific 
name of the type species of Allopeas Baker, 1935); 

(c) achatinaceus Pfeiffer, 1846, as published in the binomen Bulimus achatinaceus 
and as defined by the lectotype (no. ZMB Moll 65746 in the Pfeiffer collection 
in the Humboldt Zoologisches Museum, Berlin) designated by Naggs (1994). 


History of Case 2833 

An application for the conservation of Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 
1935 by the designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta Benson, 1842 (the type 
species of Tortaxis) was received from Mr Fred Naggs (The Natural History Museum, 
London, U.K.) on 11 October 1991. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 49: 258-260 (December 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 

A comment from Mr Naggs, published in BZN 50: 228 (September 1993), noted 
that four shells in the Natural History Museum, London, U.K., labelled and 
catalogued as syntypes of Achatina erecta Benson, 1842, were specimens of Bulimus 
achatinaceus Pfeiffer, 1846 (p. 82), and that this name would also be conserved by the 
proposed Commission action. ; 

B. achatinaceus was described from Java; it is a common and widespread species 
around the Indo-Pacific region. Naggs (1994, p. 80, fig. 1) designated a lectotype for 
the taxon. A proposal to place the specific name of B. achatinaceus Pfeiffer, 1846 on 
the Official List, in addition to the names in para. 9 on BZN 49: 259, was included 
on the voting paper. 

Naggs, F. 1994. The reproductive anatomy of Paropeas achatinaceum and a new concept of 


Paropeas (Pulmonata: Achatinoidea: Subulinidae). Journal of Molluscan Studies, 60: 
79-95. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 163 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 259, together with the addition noted above. At the 
close of the voting period on 1 March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Ueno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Heppell noted that the type series of Achatina erecta Benson, 1842 included 
specimens of both Bulimus gracilis Hutton, 1834 and B. achatinaceus Pfeiffer, 1846; 
he commented that the designation of a neotype for A. erecta sensu Reeve (1849) in 
accordance with usage was only justified if it were clear that no syntypes existed 
which belonged to this taxonomic species. (Mr Naggs replied that no such material 
could be found in the institution housing most of Benson’s collection (the Zoological 
Museum, Cambridge), or in other institutions where further Benson material was 
kept (the Smithsonian Institution, Washington; the Zoological Survey of India, 
Calcutta; and the Natural History Museum, London)). 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
achatinaceus, Bulimus, Pfeiffer, 1846, Symbolae ad Historiam Heliceorum, part 3, p. 82. 
Allopeas Baker, 1935, The Nautilus, 48(3): 84. 
erecta, Achatina, Benson, 1842, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1)9: 487. 
gracilis, Bulimus, Hutton, 1834, Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 3: 93. 
Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906, in: Tryon, G.W., Jr, Manual of Conchology, ser. 2, vol. 18 (Pulmonata), 


p: 5. 


164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1767 


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


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name forskahli Delle Chiaje, 1822, as 
published in the binomen Pleurobranchus forskahli, 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) forskalii Riippell & Leuckart, [1828], as published in the binomen Pleurobran- 
chus forskalii; 
(b) testudinarius Cantraine, 1835, as published in the binomen Pleurobranchus 
testudinarius. 
(3) The name forskahli Delle Chiaje, 1822, as published in the binomen 
Pleurobranchus forskahli and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2838 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Pleurobranchus 
forskalii Riippell & Leuckart, [1828] and P. testudinarius Cantraine, 1835 was 
received from Dr W.B. Rudman (The Australian Museum, Sydney South, New South 
Wales, Australia) on 6 January 1992. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 50: 16-19 (March 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the application had the support of Mr Robert 
Burn (Geelong, Victoria, Australia), and that 17 of the references held by the 
Commission Secretariat which demonstrate the usage of the name Pleurobranchus 
testudinarius (para. 5 of the application) were published no earlier than 1960. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 18. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, 
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Martins de Souza. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an 
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 165 


forskahli, Pleurobranchus, Delle Chiaje, 1822, Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali 
senza vertebre del Regno di Napoli, Figure, pl. 41, fig. 11. 

forskalii, Pleurobranchus, Riippell & Leuckart, [1828], p. 18, pl. 5, figs. 2a, 2b in: Atlas zu der 
Reise im nérdlichen Afrika von Eduard Riippell. 

testudinarius, Pleurobranchus, Cantraine, 1835, Bulletins de l’ Académie Royale des Sciences et 
Belles-Lettres de Bruxelles, 2: 385. 


166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1768 


Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): given 
precedence over Octopodoteuthis persica Naef, 1923 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name danae Joubin, 1931, as published 
in the binomen Taningia danae, is hereby given precedence over the specific name 
persica Naef, 1923, as published in the binomen Octopodoteuthis persica, whenever 
the two names are considered to be synonyms. 

(2) The name Taningia Joubin, 1931 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Taningia danae Joubin, 1931, 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) danae Joubin, 1931, as published in the binomen Taningia danae (specific 
name of the type species of Taningia Joubin, 1931), with the endorsement 
that it is to be given precedence over persica Naef, 1923, as published in the 
binomen Octopodoteuthis persica, whenever the two names are considered 
to be synonyms; 

(b) persica Naef, 1923, as published in the binomen Octopodoteuthis persica, 
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over danae Joubin, 
1931, as published in the binomen Taningia danae, whenever the two names 
are considered to be synonyms. 


History of Case 2845 

An application for the specific name of Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 to be given 
precedence over that of Octopodoteuthis persica Naef, 1923 was received from Drs 
Michael Vecchione (National Marine Fisheries Service, National Museum of Natural 
History, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and Clyde F.E. Roper (National Museum of 
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 9 March 
1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 261-263 (December 
1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Support for the application from Dr Malcolm R. Clarke (Newton Ferrers, 
Plymouth, Devon, U.K.) was noted in BZN 50: 141 (June 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On | December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 262. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Starobogatov, Stys and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 167 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 


given in the present Opinion: 
danae, Taningia, Joubin, 1931, Annales de l'Institut Océanographique, 10: 181. 
persica, Octopodoteuthis, Naef, 1923, Fauna e Flora del Golfo di Napoli, 35(1,1): 337. 


Taningia Joubin, 1931, Annales de l'Institut Océanographique, 10: 181. 


168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1769 


Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): 
conserved with S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 designated as the 
type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the type species of the nominal 
genus Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 is Styloptocuma antipai Bacescu & 
Muradian, 1974 by original designation. 

(2) The name Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (gender: neuter), type 
species by original designation as ruled in (1) above Styloptocuma antipai Bacescu & 
Muradian, 1974, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974, as published in the binomen 
Styloptocuma antipai (specific name of the type species of Styloptocuma Bacescu & 
Muradian, 1974), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2787 

An application for the conservation of the generic name Styloptocuma Bacescu & 
Muradian, 1974 with the designation of Styloptocuma antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 
1974 as the type species was received from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuur- 
historisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 28 August 1990. After correspond- 
ence the case was published in BZN 49: 264-265 (December 1992). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Prof Les Watling (Darling Marine Center, University 
of Maine, Walpole, Maine, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 50: 231 (September 1993) 

It was noted on the voting paper that in his (1992) paper on Cumacea, Bacescu 
(p. 262) attributed the name Styloptocuma to Bacescu & Muradian (1974) and cited 
S. antipai as the type species; he recorded that there had been no type designation in 
the original publication and that an application to the Commission would be made 
to rectify this. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 264-265. At the close of the voting period on 1 
March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Bouchet. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet commented that he would have preferred to set aside the type species 
designation for Styloptocuma by Vevers et al. (1979) and any other designation prior 
to that by Bacescu (1992), and to date Styloptocuma from Bacescu (1992). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 169 


Original references 


The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
antipai, Styloptocuma, Bacescu & Muradian, 1974, Revue Roumaine de Biologie, 19: 71. 
Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974, Revue Roumaine de Biologie, 19: 74. 


170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1770 


Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824, Somatodes Schoénherr, 1840 and the 
specific name of Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, 
Coleoptera): conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: 

(a) the generic name Somatodes Schénherr, 1823, and all uses of Somatodes prior 
to the publication of Somatodes Schénherr, 1840, for the purposes of both the 
Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; 

(b) the specific name sanctus Schénherr, 1823, as published in the binomen 
Somatodes sanctus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for 
those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Somatodes Schénherr, 1840 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Somatodes misumenus Gyllenhal in Schénherr, 1840, is hereby placed on 
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name misumenus Gyllenhal in Schénherr, 1840, as published in the 
binomen Somatodes misumenus (specific name of the type species of Somatodes 
Schénherr, 1840), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name sOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863 (type genus Somatodes Schonherr, 
1840) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 

(5) The name Somatodes Schénherr, 1823, as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 

(6) The name sanctus Schénherr, 1823, as published in the binomen Somatodes 
sanctus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 

(7) The name sOMATODINI Schénherr, 1823 (type genus Somatodes Schonherr, 
1823) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group 
Names in Zoology (unavailable because the name of its type genus has been 
suppressed). 


History of Case 2825 

An application for the conservation of Pachyrhynchus Germar, 1824, Somatodes 
Schénherr, 1840 and the specific name of Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 
was received from Mr R.T. Thompson (c/o The Natural History Museum, London, 
U.K.) on 25 June 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 
266-267 (December 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

The name Pachyrhynchus and that of the type species of the genus, P. moniliferus, 
both of Germar (1824), were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 928 (August 1970). 
However, the senior synonyms Somatodes and S. sanctus, both of Schonherr (1823), 
were not then considered. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 267. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1994 the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 171 


Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official 
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
misumenus, Somatodes, Gyllenhal in Schénherr, 1840, Genera et species curculionidum, vol. 5, 
part 2, p. 801. 
sanctus, Somatodes, Schonherr, 1823, Isis (von Oken), 7(10): col. 1139. 
Somatodes Schénherr, 1823, Isis (von Oken), 7(10): col. 1139. 
Somatodes Schonherr, 1840, Genera et species curculionidum, vol. 5, part 2, p. 800. 
SOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres. 6. 
Curculionides, p. 319. 
SOMATODINI Schénherr, 1823, Jsis (von Oken), 7(10): col. 1139. 


172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1771 


Cryptophagus advena Waltl, 1834 (currently Ahasverus advena; 
Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name brunneus Fabricius, 1792, as 
published in the binomen Lyctus brunneus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of 
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Ahasverus des Gozis, 1881 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy Cryptophagus advena Waltl, 1834, 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) 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 Xylotrogus brunneus 
(specific name of the type species of Xylotrogus Stephens, 1830). 

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


History of Case 2846 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Cryptophagus advena 
Waltl, 1834 was received from Mr Robert D. Pope (c/o The Natural History Museum, 
London, U.K.) on 17 March 1992. After correspondence the case was published in 
BZN 50: 20-22 (March 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr R.G. Booth (International Institute of Entomology, 
clo The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) was published in BZN 50: 234 
(September 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 21. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Uéno, Willink i 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Uéno commented that he voted in favour only because the insects concerned are 
economically important. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 173 


Ahasverus des Gozis, 1881, Bulletin des Séances de la Société Entomologique de France, (6)1: 
CXXVil. 

advena, Cryptophagus, Waltl, 1834, Faunus, 1: 169. 

brunneus, Lyctus, Fabricius, 1792, Entomologia systematica, vol. 1, part 2, p. 503. 

brunneus, Xylotrogus, Stephens, 1830, Illustrations of British entomology. Mandibulata, vol. 3, 
p. 117. 


174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1772 


METOPIINI Raffray, 1904 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended to 
METOPIASINI, and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Insecta, Diptera): 
spelling emended to METOPIAINI, so removing the homonymy with 
METOPIINAE Foerster, [1869] (Insecta, Hymenoptera) 

Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the 
generic name Metopia Meigen, 1803 is METOPIA-; 

(b) it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the cae 
name Metopias Gory, 1832 is METOPIAS-. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Nemes 

in Zoology: 

(a) Metopia Meigen, 1803 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Musca 
leucocephala Rossi, 1790 (a senior subjective synonym of Tachina argyro- 
cephala Meigen, 1824 but a junior primary homonym of Musca leucocephala de 
Villers, 1789); 

(b) Metopias Gory, 1832 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Metopias 
curculionoides Gory, 1832; 

(c) Metopius Panzer, 1806 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig- 
nation by Viereck (1912) Sphex vespoides Scopoli, 1763. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) argyrocephala Meigen, 1824, as published in the binomen Tachina argyro- 
cephala (valid subjective synonym of the specific name of Musca leucocephala 
Rossi, 1790, the type species of Metopia Meigen, 1803); 

(b) curculionoides Gory, 1832, as published in the binomen Metopias curculion- 
oides (specific name of the type species of Metopias Gory, 1832); 

(c) vespoides Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Sphex vespoides (specific 
name of the type species of Metopius Panzer, 1806). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group 

Names in Zoology: 

(a) METOPIAINI Townsend, 1908, type genus Metopia Meigen, 1803 (spelling 
emended in (1)(a) above) (Insecta, Diptera); 

(b) METOPIASINI Raffray, 1904, type genus Metopias Gory, 1832 (spelling emended 
in (1)(b) above) (Insecta, Coleoptera); 

(c) METOPINAE Foerster, [1869], type genus Metopius Panzer, 1806 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera). 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 

Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: 
(a) METOPINI Townsend, 1908 (spelling emended to METOPIAINI in (1)(a) above); 
(b) MeToPINI Raffray, 1904 (spelling emended to METOPIASINI in (1)(b) above). 
History of Case 2793 


An application to remove the homonymy between the insect family-group names 
based on Metopia Meigen, 1803, Metopias Gory, 1832 and Metopius Panzer, 1806 


vO 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 175 


was received from Drs Margaret K. Thayer & Alfred F. Newton, Jr. (Field Museum 
of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) and Thomas Pape (Zoologisk Museum, 
Kobenhayn, Denmark) on 9 October 1990. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 49: 200-204 (September 1992). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

Dr M.G. Fitton (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) noted (in litt., 
December 1992) that Carlson (1980) demonstrated that the paper by Foerster, in 
which a family-group name based on Metopius Panzer, 1806 first appeared, was 
published in 1869, and not 1868 as stated in the application, and that [1869] is now 
used by most ichneumonid workers as the publication date for the large number of 
new taxa in Foerster’s work. 


Carlson, R.W. 1980. The dates of publication of Foerster’s generic synopsis and Tschek’s 
Pimplariae paper (Hymenoptera, Ichneumonidae). Bulletin Entomologique de Pologne, 50: 
121-126. 


Decision of the Commission 

On | December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 201-202. At the close of the voting period on 1 
March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, 
Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Savage. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official 

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

argyrocephala, Tachina, Meigen, 1824, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen 
zweifliigeligen Insekten, vol. 4, p. 372. 

curculionoides, Metopias, Gory, 1832, Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 42 [2 pp. text, 1 pl.]. 

Metopia Meigen, 1803, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), 2: 280. 

METOPIAINI Townsend, 1908, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 51(2): 64 (incorrectly 
spelled as METOPIINI). 

Metopias Gory, 1832, Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 42 [2 pp. text, 1 pl.]. 

METOPIASINI Raffray, 1904, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 73: 106 (incorrectly 
spelled as METOPIINI). 

METOPIINAE Foerster, [1869], Verhandlungen des Naturhistorischen Vereines der Preussischen 
Rheinlande und Westphalens, 25: 142. 

METOPIINI Raffray, 1904, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 73: 106 (an incorrect 
original spelling of METOPIASINI). 

METOPIINI Townsend, 1908, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 51(2): 64 (an incorrect 
original spelling of METOPIAINI). 

Metopius Panzer, 1806, Kritische Revision der Insektenfauna Deutschlands, vol. 2, p. 78. 

vespoides, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763, Entomologia Carniolica, exhibens insecta Carnioliae indigena 
Beey) D-290- 


The following is the reference for the designation of Sphex vespoides Scopoli, 1763 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Metopius Panzer, 1806: 
Viereck, H.L. 1912. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 14: 176. 


176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1773 


Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over 
Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Nacaduba Moore, [1881] is-hereby 
given precedence over Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] whenever the two names are 
considered to be synonyms. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 

in Zoology: 

(a) Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- 
nation Lampides prominens Moote, 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. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 

in Zoology: 

(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 Hiibner, [1819]). 

(4) The name Peplodyta Toxopeus, 1929 is hereby placed on the Official Index of 

Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of 
Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819]). 


History of Case 2851 

An application to conserve the generic name Nacaduba Moore, [1881] by giving it 
precedence over Pepliphorus Hiibner, [1819] was received from Dr Toshiya Hirowa- 
tari (College of Agriculture, University of Osaka Prefecture, Sakai, Osaka, Japan) on 
5 June 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 35-38 (March 
1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that alternative approaches considered in the case 
were either (1) to set aside Scudder’s (1875) designation of Papilio cyanea Cramer, 
[1775] as the type species of Pepliphorus, and to designate Pepliphorus euchylas 
Hiibner, [1819] as the type in accordance with the small amount of usage the generic 
name has had, or (2) to suppress the name Pepliphorus (the euchylas group of species 
being currently included in Jamides Hubner, [1819], as noted in para. 5 of the 
application). However, Dr Hirowatari preferred the published course, in which the 
name Pepliphorus is retained for possible future use in the cyanea sense. 


Decision of the Commission 

On | December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 36. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1994 
the votes were as follows: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 177 


Affirmative votes — 19: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, 
Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — 6: Bouchet, Macpherson, Minelli, Starobogatoy, Stys and 
Thompson. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Bouchet and Minelli commented that they would have preferred to set aside 
Scudder’s (1875) designation of Papilio cyanea Cramer, [1775] as the type species of 
Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] (alternative (1) noted above). 


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: 
cyanea, Papilio, Cramer, [1775], De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkommende in de drie Waereld- 
deelen Asia, Africa en America, vol. 1, p. 120. 
Nacaduba Moote, [1881], The Lepidoptera of Ceylon, vol. 1, part 3, p. 88. 
Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, part 5, p. 71. 
Peplodyta Toxopeus, 1929, Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 70: 230. 
prominens, Lampides, Moore, 1877, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 341. 


The following is the reference for the designation of Papilio cyanea Cramer, [1775] as the 
type species of the nominal genus Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819]: 
Scudder, S.H. 1875. Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10: 245. 


178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1774 


Catocala connubialis Guenée, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific 
name conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name amasia Smith, 1797, as published 
in the binomen Phalaena amasia, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name connubialis Guenée, 1852, as published in the binomen Catocala 
connubialis, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name amasia Smith, 1797, as published in the binomen Phalaena amasia 
and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected‘and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2811 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Catocala connubialis 
Guenée, 1852 was received from Dr Lawrence F. Gall (Peabody Museum of Natural 
History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) on 15 March 1991. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 196-199 (September 1992). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 197-198. At the close of the voting period on 
1 March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen, Lehtinen and Starobogatov. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an 
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
amasia, Phalaena, Smith, J.E., 1797, The natural history of the rarer lepidopterous insects of 
Georgia including their systematic characters ..., vol. 2, p. 179. ’ 
connubialis, Catocala, Guenée, 1852, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Species général des 
Lépidoptéres, vol. 7 (Noctuelites), part 3, p. 105. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 179 


OPINION 1775 


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): specific names 
conserved, and 4. (N.) albothorax: neotype designated 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) the type status of the holotype of Banksinella luteolateralis albothorax 
Theobald, 1907 is hereby set aside and specimen no. 16988 in the collection 
of the Department of Entomology, California Academy of Sciences, San 
Francisco, U.S.A. is designated as the neotype; 

(b) the specific name pallida Theobald, 1907, as published in the trinomen 
Banksinella luteolateralis var. pallida, 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) albothorax Theobald, 1907, as published in the trinomen Banksinella luteolat- 
eralis var. albothorax and as defined by the neotype designated 1n (1)(a) above; 

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

(c) mcintoshi Huang, 1985, as published in the binomen Aedes (Neomelaniconion) 
meintoshi. 

(3) The name pallida Theobald, 1907, as published in the trinomen Banksinella 

luteolateralis var. pallida 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 2852 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Aedes (Neomelanico- 
nion) albothorax (Theobald, 1907), A. (N.) circumluteolus (Theobald, 1908) and A. 
(N.) mcintoshi Huang, 1985 in their accustomed usages was received from Dr Thomas 
J. Zavortink (University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 16 
June 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 39-43 (March 
1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Drs Kenneth J. Linthicum (United States Armed Forces 
Institute of Medical Sciences, Bangkok, Thailand), John F. Reinert (Gainesville, 
Florida, U.S.A.) and P.G. Jupp (National Institute for Virology, University of the 
Witwatersrand, Sandringham, South Africa) were published in BZN 50: 234-235 
(September 1993). Drs Linthicum and Jupp supplied many further references, very 
nearly all published since 1970, demonstrating the usage of the names. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 41-42. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1994 the votes were as follows: 


180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis (part), Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Holthuis voted against the suppression of the specific name of Aedes (Neomelani- 
conion) pallida (Theobald, 1907). He commented that the junior synonym 4. (N.) 
mceintoshi Huang, 1985 had been published only fairly recently and might be confused 
with A. (Ochlerotatus) macintoshi Marks, 1959 (cf. para. 7 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: 

albothorax, Banksinella luteolateralis var., Theobald, 1907, A monograph of the Culicidae or 
mosquitoes, vol. 4, p. 470. 

circumluteola, Banksiella {recte Banksinella\ luteolateralis var., Theobald, 1908, Entomologist, 
41: 107. 

meintoshi, Aedes (Neomelaniconion), Huang, 1985, Mosquito Systematics, 17: 109. 

pallida, Banksinella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1907, A monograph of the Culicidae or mosquitoes, 
vol. 4, p. 470. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 181 


OPINION 1776 


Rana megapoda Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura): specific name 
conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name trilobata Mocquard, 1899, as 
published in the binomen Rana trilobata, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the 
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name megapoda Taylor, 1942, as published in the binomen Rana 
megapoda, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name trilobata Mocquard, 1899, as published in the binomen Rana 
trilobata and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of 
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2821 
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Rana megapoda Taylor, 
1942 was received from Dr Robert G. Webb (University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, 
Texas, U.S.A.) on 8 May 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 
49: 211-212 (September 1992). 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 50: 57-58 (March 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 September 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 49: 211-212. At the close of the voting period on 
1 March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, 
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Kabata and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Kabata commented that in his view the author of the application had not 
demonstrated that serious disturbance of nomenclatural stability would arise by 
restoring to use the senior synonym Rana trilobata. Savage reported that the holotype 
of R. megapoda is specimen no. 100025 in the Field Museum of Natural History, 
Chicago, U.S.A. 


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: 
megapoda, Rana, Taylor, 1942, University of Kansas Science Bulletin, 28(2): 310. 
trilobata, Rana, Mocquard, 1899, Bulletin de la Société Philomatique de Paris, (9)1(4): 158. 


182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


OPINION 1777 


Anisolepis grilli Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia, Squamata): 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) fitzingeri Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus fitzingeri; 

(b) obtusirostris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus 

obtusirostris. 

(2) The name grilli Boulenger, 1891, as published in the binomen Anisolepis grilli, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) fitzingeri Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus fitzingeri 

_ and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) obtusirostris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Laemanctus 

obtusirostris and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


History of Case 2802 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Anisolepis grilli 
Boulenger, 1891 was received from Prof Richard Etheridge (College of Sciences, San 
Diego State University, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) and Dr Ernest E. Williams 
(Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 
U.S.A.) on 3 December 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 
49: 217-220 (September 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on 
the proposals published in BZN 49: 218-219. At the close of the voting period on 
1 March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — 1: Stys. 

Bouchet abstained. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an 
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 
fitzingeri, Laemanctus, Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetologia Mexicana, seu descriptio amphibiorum 
Novae Hispaniae ... Pars prima, saurorum species amplectens ..., p. 46. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 183 


grilli, Anisolepis, Boulenger, 1891, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, (2)10: 
909. 

obtusirostris, Laemanctus, Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetologia Mexicana, seu descriptio amphib- 
iorum Novae Hispaniae ... Pars prima, saurorum species amplectens ..., p. 46. 


184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(2) June 1994 


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. 


Contents — continued 


Comments 

On the proposed attribution of the specific name of Ceratites nodosus to Schlotheim, 
1813, and the sin ae of a lectotype (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea). 
E.T. Tozer 

On the proposed conservation ae Piaemnies Gistel, 1848 by the designation of 
Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species (Amphibia, 
Caudata). M.R. Jennings; H.A. Dundee; G. Mancino; B. Lanza; R.G. Webb; 
M.G. Paris; W.R. Branch; D.A. Good; R.F. ‘ass D.M. Hillis; F.R. Cook; R.C. 
Stebbins; M.J. Cox et al. 

On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 (Amphibia, 
Caudata). R.G. Webb; H.A. Dundee; M.G. Paris; M.J. Cox; R.A. Thomas; D.M. 
Hillis; F.R. Cook; H. Ota; P. Chippindale; R.C. Stebbins er ai. . 

On the proposed designation of a ee for lesa sar) bauri (Cope, 1887 
(Reptilia, Saurischia). P. Huber 


Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1765. Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): suppressed, and 
Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 and Colubraria Schumacher, 1817: conserved . . . 

OPINION 1766. Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 and Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Mollasca, 
Gastropoda): conserved by the designation of a neotype for Achatina erecta 
Benson, 1842 

OPINION 1767. Eee, ie Rape & iter, " [1828] and P. 
testudinarius Cantraine, 1835 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific names conserved . 

OPINION 1768. Taningia danae Joubin, 1931 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): given 
precedence over Octopodoteuthis persica Naef, 1923. 

OPINION 1769. Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 Guainee isimaceay 
conserved with S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 Snares as the type 
Species) ->\.. 

OPINION 1770. eaiyidan Goes 1824, Somatades Scbeuhes ‘1840 aad the 
specific name of Pachyrhynchus moniliferus Germar, 1824 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 
conserved. . ees tele Pres ar Sok, ite NP ee os 

OPINION 1771. Gane aaa Waltl, 1834 (currently Ahasverus advena; 
Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved . . . 

OPINION 1772. metopuni Raffray, 1904 (Insecta, eoiaetea: peeled Enecaded to 
METOPIASINI, and METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Insecta, Diptera): spelling emended 
to METOPIAINI, so removing the homonymy with METOPIINAE Foerster, [1869] 
(Insecta, Hymenoptera) . . 

OPINION 1773. Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given prevedence 
over Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] . . . 

OPINION 1774. Catocala connubialis Ghee 1852 ee Lepidoptera) sept 
name conserved . . 

OPINION 1775. Ranksinella hacbiorchie var. batberix: Theobald, 1907 fuerte 
Aedes (Neomelaniconion) albothorax), B. luteolateralis var. circumluteola 
Theobald, 1908 (currently A. (N.) circumluteolus) and A. (N.) mcintoshi Huang, 
1985 (Insecta, Diptera): specific names conserved, and A. (N.) albothorax: sis 
designated . 

OPINION 1776. Rana onceade Taylor, 1942 (Arapiibia, ciara: specie name 
conserved . 

OPINION 1777. Anisolepis srl Boulenger, 1891 1 Reptilia, Squamata): specific name 
conserved . 


Information and Instructions for Authors . 


147 


182 


184 


CONTENTS 


Notices . : : 

Fourth Edition of the Tnteraatioaal Code oe Zoolusicdl Namenclagire : 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Second d Supplement " 
1990 . aa pare 

Bulletin of Zeslowical Nomenclature — oye Genie : 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Moliees Gliants: 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature . 


General Article 


Towards a polynomial system of zoological nomenclature? A response to the 
proposals of D.S. Yu (1993), E.E. Spamer & A.E. Bogan 


Applications 

Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 riehee proposed conservation. S.A. 
Revetsyen er 

Chromadora Bastion, 1865 and Buchrormaaes ae Man, 1886 (Nematoda): prapnred 
conservation of usage by the designation of C. nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 as the 
type species of Chromadora. P.A.A. Loof. meh 

Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (currently Trochoidea geyeri; Motiutes! Gashopatal 
proposed conservation of the specific name. E. Gittenberger . 

A.A.H. Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) Catalogus musei zoologici ... Sedu fortis 
Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) Verzeichniss einer Parthei 
Insekten . . .: proposed suppression, with conservation of some ee (1796) 
names (Insecta and Arachnida). I.M. Kerzhner 

Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): proposed connec a Eutettix? 
olivaceus Melichar, 1903 as the type species. M.D. Webb 

Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus niece: linaeren 
Homoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. D.J. Voegtlin . 

Scarabaeus rufus Moll, 1782 (currently Aphodius rufus), Scarabaeus rufus Fabricius, 
1792 (currently Aegialia rufa) and Scarabaeus foetidus Herbst, 1783 (currently 
Aphodius foetidus) (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the 
specific names. F.-T. Krell, Z. Stebnicka & E. Holm 

Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Dace 1842 ana 
Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. P.E. 
Skelley & M.A. Goodrich. 

Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda): mean corsets of the yee 
name. E.H. Eason 

Regnum Animale ..., Ed. 2 (MJ. piles 1762): anes recone tl the 
conservation of the mammalian generic names Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus 
(Chiroptera), Glis, Cuniculus and Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and 
Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus ree ays pias and iiss beg a 
tyla). A. Gentry whe 3 P 5 


Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 


1 AR ere 


The 


| Bulletin 


iil 
Nomenclature 


A at ee 


on pie ee a 


0 Vows 
a ee OT * 


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 1994 is £85 
or $165, postage included; the rate for 1995 will be £88 or $170. 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 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 


Members 


Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.: Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany; Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 
(Norway, Parasitology) 

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) 
Prof L. B. Holthuis 

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 

(Germany; Arachnology) 

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) 


Secretariat 


Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 


Dr V. Mahnert 
(Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 
(Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
ProfW.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 
(Russia; Mollusca) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S. A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 
(Russia; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. Willink 
(Argentina; Hymenoptera) 


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 1994 


1M NAT OTA 
PRALICE] 


T 1994 


Fn te) Oy 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 51, part 3 (pp. 185-292) 30 September 1994 


Notices 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- 
cation 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 51, part 2 (published on 30 June 1994). Under Article 
80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission 
is published. 

(1) Hapalotrema Looss, 1899 (Digenea): proposed designation of H. /oossi Price, 
1934 as the type species. (Case 2932). T.R. Platt & D. Blair. 

(2) Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 (Tunicata): proposed conservation. (Case 2933). 
P. Kott. 

(3) Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1847 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenii; Osteichthyes, 
Siluriformes): proposed designation of a neotype. (Case 2934). M. Kottelat, 
K.K.P. Lim & P.K.L. Ng. 

(4) Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of 
Alvania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 as the type species. (Case 2935). 
J. Hertz & W. Ponder. 

(5) Cacoxenus indagator Loew, 1858 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of 
the generic and specific names. (Case 2937). V.S. Sidorenko. 

(6) EUCNEMIDAE Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence 
Over MELASIDAE Fleming, 1821. (Case 2938). J. Muona. 

(7) Galba Schrank, 1803 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of 
Buccinum truncatulum Miller, 1774 as the type species. (Case 2939). Ya.I. 
Starobogatov. 

(8) Riisea and riisei (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation as the correct 
original spellings of generic and specific names based on the surname Riise by 
Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860. (Case 2940). F.M. Bayer & M. Grasshoff. 


) 


186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


(9) Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 (currently Diplonychus rusticus; Insecta, 
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name and designation of 
a lectotype. (Case 2941). J.T. Polhemus & I.M. Kerzhner. 

(10) Chen Boie, 1822 (Aves, Anseriformes) and generic names ending in -chen: 
proposed fixation of the gender as masculine. (Case 2942). R.K. Brooke & 
W.J. Bock. 

(11) Aporcelaimus Thorne & Swanger, 1936 (Nematoda): proposed designation 
of Dorylaimus superbus de Man, 1880 as the type species. (Case 2943). 
P.A.A. Loof & J. Heyns. 

(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 es on 
the day of publication of the Bulletin. 


Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 


Recent issues of the Bulletin have referred to the availability of a discussion draft 
of a new edition of the Code. However, the final stages of the preparation of this draft 
have been held up and it is still not available for distribution. As soon as the draft 
is ready 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 pay this amount except 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) take into account all comments 
and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original distribution. 


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 9900 entries. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 187 


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. 


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 SBD, 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. 


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 Gutierrez Abascal 2, 
28006 Madrid, Spain. 


188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth 


Report of the IUBS/IITUMS exploratory meeting on harmonization between 
Codes of Nomenclature held on 16-18 March 1994 at the International 
Mycological Institute, Egham, Surrey, U.K. 

Edited by David L. Hawksworth (Chairman), John McNeill, Peter H.A. 
Sneath, R. Piers Trehane & Philip K. Tubbs 


Contents 
Foreword 188 
Executive Summary 189 
1. Background 191 
2. The current state of bionomenclature 193 
(a) The current status of the Codes 193 
(b) Decision making processes 193 
(c) Nomenclatural filters 195 
3. Issues to be addressed 196 
(a) Harmonization of terms 196 
(b) Suprafamilial ranks 198 
(c) Co-ordinate status of names 198 
(d) Infraspecific ranks 199 
(e) Italicization of scientific names 201 
(f) Author citations 201 
(g) Lists of protected names 202 
(h) Registration and valid publication 204 
(i) Electronic publication 205 
(Gj) Ambiregnal organisms 206 
(k) Inter-Code homonyms 208 
(1) Part- and form-taxon nomenclature 209 
(m) Gender of epithets 210 
4. Future prospects 210 
(a) Prospects and principles of a Biological Code 210 
(b) Future liaison and the role of IUBS 212 
5. Participants 213 
6. Bibliography 214 
7. Abbreviations and acronyms 216 
Foreword 


I was very pleased to participate in this important Exploratory Meeting on 
Harmonization between the Codes of Biological Nomenclature. Those working with 
bionomenclature have to devote time to being lawyers as well as scientists. 

Bionomenclature has relevance to two major issues of topical concern: biodiversity 
and its key relevance to the sustainable use of Earth’s resources, the subject of the 


This Report has been published by the International Union of Biological Sciences as Special Issue 30 
(1994) of Biology International. It appears here in the same form, with only minimal alterations. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 189 


Convention on Biological Diversity, and the importance of modern technologies 
made available to the producers and users of names of organisms. Molecular 
biological approaches are shedding new light on the extent of the living world and 
also require a re-thinking of the relationships between many groups of organisms. 
Furthermore, modern information and communication facilities provide new 
avenues for research, training and using the resources of biological nomenclature. 

The long-term benefit of a satisfactory bionomenclatural framework is not always 
appreciated, yet it is fundamental to all who work with or utilize the products of the 
living world. Bionomenclature has to address problems of stability, accessibility, 
simplicity, and communicability. These matters need to be considered in any outputs 
for users. 

The prospects include a unified Code for the bionomenclature of organisms to 
operate from a date in the future, and also an increasing harmonization between the 
existing Codes dealing with the nomenclature of the past. There is also a need to 
teach the principles and practice of bionomenclature more widely so that biologists 
will understand what is involved and how the perceived problems are being 
addressed. This should be an integral part of biodiversity training programmes. The 
planned publication of an authoritative glossary agreed at the meeting will be 
especially important in this regard. 

I am pleased that this Exploratory Meeting was able to identify steps that can be 
taken to move these issues forward in a positive way. 

On behalf of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), I would like 
to express our deep appreciation of the contributions and support provided by 
the International Union of Microbiological Societies (TUMS), the International 
Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), the Royal Society of London, and CAB 
INTERNATIONAL. The Linnean Society of London generously hosted a reception 
for participants. Finally, I wish to express sincere thanks to Professor David L. 
Hawksworth, Director, and Ms Marilyn S. Rainbow, both of the International 
Mycological Institute, for arranging, graciously hosting, and taking all steps to 
ensure the success of this landmark meeting. 

T. Younes 
Executive Director, [UBS 
Paris, 24 May 1994 


Summary 
The Exploratory Meeting on Harmonization between Codes of Nomenclature, 
convened at Egham on 16-18 March 1994 in accordance with a Resolution of the 
General Assembly of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), and 
with the support of the International Union of Microbiological Societies (T('UMS), the 
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), the Royal Society of London, 
and CAB INTERNATIONAL. The following text was agreed by all participants at 
the concluding session of the Meeting. 
The Meeting: 
1. Recognizes the crucial importance of scientific names of organisms in global 
communication to all concerned with the conservation, management, trade 
in, and use of the world’s resources. 


190 


tN 


10. 


ile 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


. Agrees that it would be highly advantageous to work towards a unified system 


of biological nomenclature, and notes that the XVI International Botanical- 
Congress in Japan in 1993 established a Special Committee on Harmonizing 
Codes. 


. Recognizes that while there are differences in procedures between the current 


Codes, which could not be reconciled for the nomenclature of the past 
without an unacceptable disruption of names in use, there is considerable 
scope for harmonization which is to be actively pursued. 


. Considers that the availability of lists of published names, and the registration 


of new names in bacteriology, botany, virology and zoology, will make 
possible the harmonization of nomenclatural procedures in biology. 


. Agrees to work towards producing a Glossary of Biological Nomenclature, 


including both official and unofficial terms. 


. Recommends that, considering divergent rules and traditions concerning 


author citations for scientific names, use of such citations be made optional 
(and be recommended only in a strictly taxonomic context), as is already the 
case in zoology. 


. Recognizes the need to develop common procedures for the nomenclatural 


treatment of fossils, with particular emphasis on form genera and other 
parataxa, and to this end recommends TUBS in cooperation with international 
and national bodies such as the Systematics Association and the Palaeonto- 
logical Association, to organize a discussion meeting on this topic. 


. Agrees that the nomenclature of infraspecific taxa in ranks not regulated by 


the three main Codes is most appropriately regulated by international 
specialist commissions or groups (e.g. International Society for Plant 
Pathology Subcommitee on the Taxonomy of Phytopathogenic Bacteria for 
pathovars of bacteria, International Commission for the Nomenclature of 
Cultivated Plants for cultivars of plants). 


. Encourages international, national, and other agencies to initiate and support 


current initiatives in compiling lists of names in current use and other 
catalogues of names, to be made accessible through hard copy and electronic 
media. 

Notes the rapid advances in electronic media for the storage of and access to 
taxonomic information, and the opportunities they provide in relation to 
inventorying the world’s currently known and unknown biota, and 
encourages the IUBS Commission on Taxonomic Databases, in collabor- 
ation with the Special Committee on Electronic Publishing and Databasing, 
to prepare proposals for consideration by the pertinent nomenclatural 
committees. 

Recognizes the particular nomenclatural problems posed by ambiregnal 
organisms, that is those treated under different Codes, considers that small 
modifications to the Codes can accommodate these organisms to ensure that 
the names used will be unique, and recommends that while discussions 
continue authors should avoid exacerbating the problems. 


. Appreciates the confusion that can be caused by the existence of homonyms 


in use under the different Codes, and recommends that (a) authors of new 
generic names avoid proposing a name established under another Code for a 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 191 


different taxon, and (b) provisions are introduced into each Code to disallow 
new generic names that are junior homonyms under any Code. 

13. Recognizes the importance of continuing the dialogue started at, and imple- 
menting actions identified by, the Exploratory Meeting, recommends that an 
inter-union IUBS/IUMS International Commission on Bionomenclature 
(ICB) be established in 1994, and suggests that the new Commission includes 
a delegate representing each of the current five Codes, together with represen- 
tatives from key user bodies (e.g. FAO, UNEP, IUCN, UNESCO, WHO). 

14. Recommends that the organizers of the Fifth International Congress of 
Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V), to be held in Budapest in 
1996, include a session to review progress towards harmonization and other 
aspects of bionomenclature. 


1. Background 

The name by which an organism is known is vital for two reasons: it is the key to 
all the accumulated human knowledge about its characters, utility, ecology, biology, 
and history, and also the medium by which communication between all biologists is 
effected. The issues relating to the naming of organisms are therefore high on the 
agenda of the two major international unions representing the biologists of the world, 
the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and the International Union 
of Microbiological Societies (IUMS). 

With world attention focussed on biological diversity, and the realization that 
perhaps 10% or less of the Earth’s biota has so far been named (Hammond, 1992; 
Systematics Agenda 2000, 1994), the need to maximize the effectiveness of the system 
of naming organisms of all groups has never been greater. 

The process by which names for all living and fossil organisms that inhabit Earth 
have universally accepted forms is currently regulated by five internationally 
mandated bodies operating under the aegis of either TUBS or [UMS and each issuing 
a periodically revised series of rules or a Code of nomenclatural practices. These 
bodies are the: 

General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature (GC), 

International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), 

International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology (ICSB), 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), 

International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). 

Each of these bodies has a unique history and tradition, but increasingly they 
have issues in common to confront, not only in meeting the demands resulting from 
issues arising from the biodiversity lobby, but further in relation to the scientific 
re-evaluation and classification of phyla between kingdoms, the challenges posed by 
molecular approaches, and the new horizons opened up by innovations in electronic 
communications and data processing. 

IUBS has been aware for some time of the need to keep the systems of biological 
nomenclature under review, and on the occasion of the Third International Congress 
of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB III) in Brighton, U.K., in July 1985 
it convened a workshop ‘to study future developments of the various Codes of 
nomenclature’ following a session organized by the Systematics Association on 
“Codes of Nomenclature’ (Ride & Younés, 1986). 


192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Recognizing that name changes for non-scientific reasons continue to inconve- 
nience all users of the scientific names of organisms, IUBS, in collaboration with the 
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT) and the Systematics Associ- 
ation, organized the first major international meeting convened specifically to address 
the stability of names. This meeting, ‘Improving the Stability of Names: Needs and 
Options’ was held in Kew on 20-22 February 1991, and attracted 123 parnpaae 
from 20 countries (Hawksworth, 1991). 

It became clear at the Kew meeting that there were more common issues to 
confront than had widely been appreciated, and the matter was considered further at 
the 24th General Assembly of TUBS held in Amsterdam on 1-6 September 1991 
(Younés, 1992). That Assembly passed a Resolution on Biological Nomenclature 
which, amongst other things: 

“ENCOURAGES those concerned with biological nomenclature actively to seek 
ways of increasing harmonization in the various Codes, for example, with regard to 
the protection of names in current use, the registration of newly proposed names, 
the treatment of protists, hamonymy between different groups, and where possible, 
the use of identical terms.’ 

As a first step in the implementation of this Resolution, an Exploratory Meeting 
on ‘Harmonization between Codes of Nomenclature’, comprising official represen- 
tatives of the five different Codes together with selected other biologists with 
particular experience on specific topics to be considered, was convened at the 
International Mycological Institute (an Institute of CAB INTERNATIONAL) in 
Egham on 16-18 March 1994 under the joint auspices of TUBS, IUMS, and the 
International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), together with support from 
CAB INTERNATIONAL, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Society of 
London. We believe that the strength of this support, together with the high level of 
representation fielded by the current nomenclatural bodies, reflects the current desire 
to place the nomenclature of living organisms on as secure a basis as practicable with 
the advancement of science. 

This Meeting was scheduled for March 1994 as at that time: (1) the editing of the 
text of the 1994 Tokyo edition of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature 
was largely complete; (2) the discussion draft of the new edition of the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature was undergoing finalization by the ICZN prior to 
wide distribution for comment; (3) the ICSB would meet during the IUMS 
Bacteriology Division Congress in Prague in July 1994; (4) a new edition of the 
International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants was being actively 
planned; (5) the ICTV had adopted new procedures for the treatment of names of 
viruses at the IUMS Virology Division Congress in Glasgow in August 1993; and (6) 
a report with any recommended actions could then be presented to the 25th General 
Assembly of TUBS in Paris on 5-9 September 1994. 

Prior to the start of the Exploratory Meeting, and in order to ensure that issues of 
concern were not overlooked, each of the nominated representatives of the different 
Codes was invited to submit both topics for discussion and background papers for 
circulation to other participants in advance of the occasion. 

This report of the discussions and agreed Executive Summary of the Exploratory 
Meeting is presented here to open up and stimulate new debate on the issues 
identified, without prejudice to any future decisions, and so to expedite progress 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 193 


towards increased harmonization between the various international bodies involved. 
Indeed, it is essential that the widest possible spectrum of biosystematists and other 
users of names contribute to the resolution of the issues raised. This is necessary to 
ensure that any changes in operating procedures are based on the broadest possible 
constituency of biologists. 


2. The Current State of Bionomenclature 
(a) The Current Status of the Codes 

The current (third) edition of the Zoological Code is that of 1985 (International 
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1985). The ICZN is working towards a 
fourth edition; the Editorial Committee met in Hamburg in October 1993. Under the 
Constitution of the ICZN, a discussion draft has to be available to the zoological 
community for comment for one year. The draft is expected later in 1994 and it is 
anticipated that the new Code will be published in 1996 and become operational in 
1997. A major change in emphasis in the draft is to attach somewhat more attention 
to usage than to priority of publication. 

The editing of the text of the Tokyo edition of the Botanical Code, revised in 
accordance with decisions at the XV International Botanical Congress held in 
Yokohama in August-September 1993, was now almost complete and publication 
in June 1994 was anticipated (Greuter ef al., 1994a). This edition differs significantly 
from the previous edition published in 1988, many of the changes representing a 
convergence with, rather than a divergence from, other Codes. 

The ICNCP is moving towards a total revision of the Cultivated Plant Code 
(Brickell et al., 1980), which it is planned to finalize after a symposium being 
convened in Seattle by the Commission in August 1994. The new edition was 
expected in 1995, and there was a desire to ensure that this was fully compatible with 
the Botanical Code. 

The Bacteriological Code was revised completely in the mid-1970s and is working 
well with the new starting-point date of 1980. Changes since the 1976 edition have 
been minor, the latest revision being issued in 1992 (Sneath, 1992). Infraspecific plant 
pathogenic bacteria are considered by the International Society for Plant Pathology 
(ISPP) Subcommittee on Taxonomy of Phytopathogenic Bacteria, which has issued 
lists of approved pathovar names and minimum standards for their naming; the most 
recent available list was published in 1991 (Young ef al., 1991) and a revision is 
planned for late 1994. 

In the case of the viruses, there are Rules and Guidelines (Francki et al., 1990) 
rather than a formal Code, virologists working by good-will rather than regulation. 
It has, however, been suggested that these are tightened and transformed into a Code. 
At the Virology Congress in 1993 various changes were made. 

There has been some discussion as to the merits or otherwise of a separate Code 
for protoctistan (protist) groups (Corliss, 1993), but workers in the field were now 
focussing their attention on bringing about changes in the current Codes to cater for 
the difficulties they were experiencing. 


(b) The Decision Making Processes 
Decision making under the Botanical Code falls into two main domains: those 
concerning rules and those concerning individual names. Everything relating to the 


194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


rules has to be dealt with by the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical 
Congress, and there are no restrictions on those who can register for the Congress 
and thereby participate in the Section meetings. Before the Congress, proposals 
normally have to be published in the IAPT’s journal Taxon; a synopsis of the 
proposals is then presented with comments by two rapporteurs. An exploratory mail 
ballot of IAPT personal members is held, and the results are made available to the 
members of the Nomenclature Section. The proposals are debated and voted at the 
Section meeting; transcripts of these discussions are edited and published (e.g. 
Greuter et al., 1994b). Section actions are then ratified by means of a formal 
Resolution passed at the final plenary session of the Congress, normally a formality. 
There are six group-orientated Permanent Committees that work between Con- 
gresses, whose main task is to consider proposals to conserve or reject names, which 
also have to be published in Taxon, and also Special Committees established by the 
Section to examine particular issues and normally instructed to report to the next 
Congress. The Permanent Committees report through a General Committee (GC) 
which has responsibility for botanical nomenclature between Congresses. Reports of 
the various Committees are published in Taxon. The operation of botanical 
nomenclature is described in detail by McNeill & Greuter (1986). 

The International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants 
(ICNCP) meets largely as determined by the Chair when a revision of the Code is 
considered to be opportune. There is no democratic process, the Chair inviting 
persons from different applied disciplines to a meeting convened at an appropriate 
occasion, for example the International Symposium on the Taxonomy of Cultivated 
Plants being held in Seattle in 1994. The Chair is appointed by TUBS. The 
Commission then works on the Code and arranges for its publication. There is a 
move to increase democratic participation and this will be discussed at the Seattle 
Symposium. There is no official journal in which proposed changes can be published. 

The procedures in zoology were originally on lines similar to those for the 
Botanical Code, but have been modified since the last International Congress of 
Zoology was held in Monaco in 1972. The present position is that under the 
Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), 
amendments to the Zoological Code have to be published for one year prior to final 
approval. The discussion draft of the forthcoming edition for the Code is being made 
widely available at nominal or no cost. Comments received on the draft are 
considered first by the Editorial Committee and then by the Commission. The final 
version is decided by the voting of the ICZN, which has members from 19 countries, 
and has to be ratified by TUBS, the body under whose auspices the Commission 
operates. ‘ 

Decisions on ad hoc issues in zoology, notably those relating to names or published 
works, are taken by the ICZN. The Commission has plenary power to set aside any 
provision of the Code whenever that is judged to be in the best interests of stability. 
Proposals have to be published for at least six months in the Bulletin of Zoological 
Nomenclature, and in addition notices of proposed actions are sent to journals 
relevant to the group concerned. Comments received are also published in the 
Bulletin, and, when the flow of these has ceased, voting papers are sent to the 
members of the ICZN. A two-thirds majority is needed to approve the use of 
the plenary power. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 195 


The ICZN meets at IUBS General Assemblies and ICSEB, and can be 
convened at other congresses. All Committees of the ICZN are established by its 
President. 

The International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology (ICSB) is part of [UMS 
and comprises members elected by societies that are affiliated to [UMS, each of which 
can propose 1-3 members for each nation. Members serve while the nominating 
societies wish them to continue so to do, and the ICSB can also co-opt others when 
necessary. There is an elected Judicial Commission of about twelve members plus the 
officers ex officio; currently 17 in total. The Commission takes decisions but these 
have to approved by the ICSB and the IUMS Bacteriology Division Congress. Code 
changes are made by the Judicial Commission following publication a year in 
advance, but it has wide powers with respect to wording in particular. Ad hoc 
decisions on particular cases are taken by a two-thirds majority on the basis of 
requests published in the Jnternational Journal of Systematic Bacteriology (IJSB), 
published, and finally ratified by the next Congress. 

The ICSB appoints Subcommittees which are responsible for the taxonomy of a 
specified group of organisms. These are not regulated in number or size, and can be 
created or dissolved according to need; there are currently about 30. A key role for 
the Subcommittees is the establishment of minimal standards for the description of 
taxa in those groups; these now exist for six groups. The Subcommittees report by 
minutes published in the IJSB, and deal with taxonomic and methodological 
developments. 

Virus nomenclature is controlled by the International Committee on the 
Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV), a committee of the Virology Division of IUMS. The 
ICTV consists of an Executive Committee and national representatives, and a new 
Executive is formed at each Virology Congress. The Executive Committee consists of 
individual members and the chairs of subcommittees responsible for different areas of 
virology. The President decides which subcommittees are required, the Executive 
votes for chairs of those, and the subcommittee chairs select their own members and 
establish Study Groups. The Study Groups bring taxonomic and nomenclatural 
proposals to the subcommittee and thence to the Executive. The Executive then votes 
on acceptability, and the ICTV Plenary Session at each Congress votes formally on 
any changes in the rules. Proposed changes may be aired in the Virology Division 
News section of the Archives of Virology or in any conventional publication. The 
‘News’ also publishes minutes of ICTV plenary sessions. The rules for viruses are 
evolving rapidly at present; the present emphasis is on taxonomic structures. Species 
are examined at the Study Group level, and if accepted are included in the ICTV 
Report published after each Congress that is a complete taxonomic description of 
virus taxa. 


(c) Nomenclatural Filters 

The steps through which names are sieved in the process of determining the correct 
nomenclature of a taxon can be viewed as a nomenclatural filter. This diagrammatic 
approach, first used by Jeffrey (1973), was felt to be helpful to users of the Codes both 
as a flow chart and to identify cases where terms were used in similar senses. The 
various steps, and the terminology of those steps, are summarized in Figure 1, 
indicating equivalent terms where appropriate (see also Table 1). 


196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


The ‘Nomenclatural Filter’ 


All names (and apparent names) 


Se ‘Names’ in works that are not 
effectively published | UNPUBLISHED, €.g. 


Names in effectively published | PUBLISHED works because not printed or not distributed 


ear Tora ‘Names’ not validly published | 
AVAILABLE, e.g. because pre-starting 
Validly published | AVAILABLE names date, without a description, in a 


suppressed work, or not intended as 
a scientific name 


a ae TN Cad Validly published / AVAILABLE names, 
excluded as belonging to other taxa (as 


; correct / VALID names or as syno’ : 
Names whose type is referable to the bei 


taxon involved 


pr aaeas ee Validly published / AVAILABLE names, 
that are contrary to certain rules 
Names in accordance with the rules and therefore illegitimate / OBJECTIVELY 
(legitimate | POTENTIALLY VALID names) INVALID, e.g. later / JUNIOR homonyms 
or nomenclatural / OBJECTIVE synonyms 
Se Later taxonomic | JUNIOR SUBJECTIVE 
synonyms 


Earliest name applicable to the taxon 


{ 


Correct | VALID name 


Fig. 1. The Nomenclatural Filter. The steps to be taken in determining the name of an organism 
appear in the left-hand column. /ralic type signifies terms used in the Botanical Code; SMALL 
CAPITAL type the equivalent terms in the Zoological Code (see also Table 1). 


Further information on terms and their definition discussed during the Meeting is 
being incorporated into a Glossary. 


3. Issues to be Addressed 


(a) Harmonization of Terms 

Identical words are used in different ways or for different concepts in the various 
Codes. This is a potential source of ambiguity, but most of the differences are not in 
kind but rather in terminology. 

As a component of the Biotaxonomy and Nomenclature Programme of IUBS, its 
24th General Assembly saw ‘advantage in the preparation of a comprehensive 
Glossary of Biological Nomenclature covering officially recognized and also unoffi- 
cial terms used throughout biological nomenclature’ (Younés, 1992). A rough draft 
compilation of both official and unofficial terms used in biological nomenclature had 
been compiled as part of the background material for the Meeting for discussion as 
how best to fulfil the [UBS suggestion. 

The equivalence in meaning of some of the different ‘official’ terms was discussed, 
and the more widely used of these are arranged as equivalents in Table 1. 


—— ae 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Table 1. Botanical and Zoological equivalent terms 


Botanical Code 


Zoological Code 


197 


Effective publication Publication 
Effectively published Published 
Not effectively published Unpublished 
Validity Availability 
Valid/Validly published Available 
Invalid Unavailable 
Legitimacy ar 
Legitimate Potentially valid 
Illegitimate Objectively invalid 
Correctness Validity 
Correct Valid 
Incorrect Subjectively invalid 


Homonymy & synonymy 
Earlier homonym/synonym 
Later homonym/synonym 
Nomenclatural synonym 
Taxonomic synonym 


Homonymy & synonymy 
Senior homonym/synonym 
Junior homonym/synonym 
Objective synonym 
Subjective synonym 


It was felt that a Glossary that could be used in common by all Codes would 
go a long way towards harmonization, and that it should be designed so as to give 
guidance as to what terms should be used, perhaps with comparative tables of 
equivalents. Examples could be particularly helpful for students. Such a glossary 
would need to be widely available, and this could perhaps be achieved by simulta- 
neous publication in three or more outlets familiar to different disciplines. 

The General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature was independently mandated 
by the XV IBC in 1993 to produce a glossary of terms used in botanical 
nomenclature. The botanical entries could perhaps be taken as fulfilling that mandate 
if this were made open as a draft for comment by all botanists. In zoology, the 
glossary is part of the Code, but in principle harmonized terms and definitions could 
be taken into the forthcoming fourth edition during its consultative phase. Bacteri- 
ology could potentially take on some terms from other areas and use them in 
common. 

Because this work needs to proceed with care, as a second stage it was considered 
appropriate to produce a Draft Glossary of Bionomenclature for wide distribution as 
a working document for refinement. A third stage would be the release of a Glossary 
with at least the approval of the appropriately mandated nomenclatural bodies. An 
optional fourth stage would be recognition as official definitions by, for example, the 
XVI International Botanical Congress in 1999. Terms could then be ‘plucked-out’ 
and included in individual Code glossaries. 

In order to reach the second stage participants agreed to supply comments on the 
tabled rough draft for incorporation prior to the wider circulation of the Draft 
Glossary. 


198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


The Meeting agrees to work towards producing a Glossary of Biological Nomen- 
clature, including both official and unofficial terms used in biological nomenclature. 


(b) Suprafamilial Ranks 

While the long-standing issue of the acceptability of the term ‘phylum’ as an 
alternative to ‘division’ had now been approved at the XV International Botanical 
Congress in 1993, as a result of molecular studies there was currently a tendency to 
introduce names at ranks higher than that of kingdom, for example ‘domains’, 
‘empires’, and ‘superkingdoms’. The Botanical Code specifies the order and names to 
be used for all ranks, although it dos not legislate priority above the rank of family. 
In contrast, the Zoological Code does not concern itself in any way with ranks above 
that of superfamily. 

As the number of names for suprafamilial ranks is relatively small, this issue was 
perhaps best left to specialists or specialist committees and not regulated further. 
Usage was an especially important consideration as changes in very high groupings 
would not be readily accepted by users and would tend to bring efforts to standardize 
nomenclature into disrepute. 

No advantage in further regulation was felt to be desirable, and advantage was 
seen in using descriptive names rather than ones based on an included genus. The use 
of standardized endings for particular ranks above kingdom would be desirable when 
a particular practice had come into general use. Nomenclature should not attempt to 
interfere with taxonomy. 

There could, however, be an advantage in specifying in the G/ossary the generally 
used hierarchy of the terms for ranks above kingdom. 

The Botanical Code uses standardized endings for taxa above that of family and 
up to phylum, and the Bacteriological Code employs those same terminations up to 
and including order. However, this is not so in zoology, and the zooiogical practice 
could lead to other difficulties (see below). 


(c) Co-ordinate Status of Names 

In the Zoological Code, names are arranged in categories: species-group, genus- 
group, and family-group names. Names may change in rank within those groups, for 
example species to subspecies, but the author citations and dates remain the same. 
Name changes are limited to the suffix of family-group names. This is a very flexible 
principle limiting name changes with change of rank, but tending to foster them with 
changes in generic limits because subspecies names can compete with those at species 
level. The principle works very well, but is unique to that Code. Indeed this is perhaps 
the main difference from the Bacteriological and Botanical Codes in which a name 
only has priority within its rank, rather than within a group of ranks. — 

While aspects of the concept had been considered for possible adoption in the 
Botanical Code in the past (e.g. Weresub, 1979), it merits more critical evaluation. 
The principle could be acceptable in both bacteriology and botany if it operated only 
downwards and not in both directions; i.e. the name of a species would automatically 
be usable at subspecies rank, but not vice versa. To do otherwise would be 
unacceptably destabilizing as numerous well-established names in the principal ranks 
would otherwise be threatened. Downward coordination would have been an elegant 
solution to the treatment of autonyms in the Botanical Code as revised at the XIII 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 199 


International Botanical Congress in Sydney in 1981. If such a proposal were linked 
with the adoption of a single infraspecific rank in botany (see below), that could 
facilitate its acceptance. 

In some cases in zoology, limiting the principle to downward applications could be 
less disruptive than maintaining the status quo, although the ICZN has the 
mechanism to deal with cases of particular difficulty. It was noted that the Botanical 
Code, as revised at the Tokyo Congress in 1993, now also had mechanisms for the 
rejection and conservation of names in most ranks (Greuter & Nicolson, 1993; 
Hawksworth, 1993; Nicolson & Greuter, 1994). 

A further aspect to co-ordinate status was that in Botany the same epithet can be 
used for names at different ranks within the same genus when the taxa involved are 
based on different types, whereas this is not permissible in the Zoological Code. 

Proposals to bring downward co-ordinate status into the Bacteriological and 
Botanical Codes should be explored for discussion by the International Committee 
on Systematic Bacteriology and at the next International Botanical Congress 
respectively. Particular attention would need to be given to effects on nomenclatural 
stability should downward co-ordination operate retroactively, but this was unlikely 
to cause major disruptions. 

A linked but separate issue is that in the Zoological Code an epithet has priority 
regardless of the genus in which it is placed. For example, if a species is moved into 
a genus in which the same epithet is already in use for a taxon with a different type, 
that just transferred is retained if it was published earlier than the epithet already 
existing in the genus; the latter epithet is then treated as a ‘junior secondary 
homonym’. The opposite situation occurs under the Botanical Code where it is the 
whole combination, and not just the epithet, that is critical for determining the 
priority of homonyms. Consequently, in botany, only the taxon whose taxonomic 
position is being altered is at risk of a change in epithet. 

An example of this would be the case of two imaginary species first described as 
Antonia barbara Smith 1900 and Claudia barbara Larousse 1850. If Freunde placed 
these taxa in the genus Gemma in 1960 and 1975 respectively, a situation of 
homonymy would have arisen in 1975. Under the Botanical Code the existing 
combination Gemma barbara (Smith 1900) Freunde 1960 would remain correct, and 
Larousse’s epithet barbara of 1850 would have to be replaced. In zoology, however, 
the older epithet of Larousse would maintain its priority; Gemma barbara (Larousse 
1850) would be a correct name and the species denoted by the junior epithet barbara 
Smith 1900 would have to be renamed. 


(d) Infraspecific Ranks 

In practice there is often inconsistency in the use of the terms ‘subspecies’ and 
‘variety in botany, the two being used interchangeably according to different schools, 
while other authors recognize broadly geographical subspecies and locally or 
regionally distributed varieties. The Botanical Code currently recognizes five such 
ranks, while the Bacteriological and Zoological Codes only have that of subspecies. 
In zoology any name published as a ‘variety’ or ‘form’ before 1961 can in principle 
be treated as a name in the species-group; any published after that date are ruled as 
unavailable (i.e. not validly published). The Bacteriological Code, because the 
situation was so tangled, decided not to regulate names below the rank of subspecies, 


200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


and recognizes only ‘subgenus’ as a subdivision of a genus. However, bacteriologists 
were now questioning whether the retention of the ranks of subgenus and subspecies 
was worthwhile. 

It was also a matter of convenience when to regulate and when not to. Regulation 
should focus on the ranks most crucial for communication. 

The ranks of ‘variety’ and ‘form’ were viewed as somewhat outmoded. They were 
used principally at a time when the biological status of populations was not 
understood, but ‘variety’ had often persisted in botany for what might be better 
regarded as subspecies. However, as the names of many infraspecific botanical taxa 
had never been catalogued or typified, the abandoning of the regulation of names 
below that of subspecies could help limit nomenclatural changes arising from such 
names. The Bacteriological Code recommends the avoidance of ‘variety’, and regards 
it as identical to ‘subspecies’ for nomenclatural purposes. 

While it was recognized that some workers, especially with plants, still utilized the 
rank of ‘form’, the need to regulate this in any way was questionable and certainly 
priority might be made non-obligatory at that rank. 

It was also important to stress, as highlighted by Meregalli (1993), that the terms 
subspecies and variety should not be used for what are really ‘cultivars’. The 
Cultivated Plant Code seemed to be catering for user needs, although the desirability 
of bringing it as close as possible to the Botanical Code was recognized. Consider- 
ation might be given to the possibility of the Cultivated Plant Code also covering 
cultivated variants of mushrooms and other fungal strains developed by humans. 
Parallel problems occur with domesticated animals, but there is no formal regulation 
and the Zoological Code specifies that it covers taxa that are “known to exist in 
nature’; this issue, and also that of hybrids, are aspects of the Zoological Code that 
merit further exploration. 

There seemed to be no sound reason for changing the procedures used for the 
regulation of pathovar names of plant pathogenic bacteria. The current system was 
a compromise which appeared to be working well (Young ef al., 1991). Plant 
pathologists have a need for a system of infraspecific names for taxa important as 
agents of plant disease. The Bacteriological Code also recognizes the terms biovar, 
chemovar, cultivar, morphovar, phagiovar, and serovar; there is no priority or 
restriction on the kinds of names used. If there is confusion, a specialist group such 
as that in existence for the plant pathogenic bacteria can resolve the situation 
amongst themselves. 

In the case of viruses, the current rules specify that infraspecific nomenclature is 
the responsibility of specialist groups, and also specifically exclude laboratory 
constructed hybrids and engineered organisms. The Bacteriological Code does 
not mention hybrids nor other genetically manipulated organisms, and its standing 
on this issue could be clarified to state that they are best regulated by specialist 
groups. 

The Meeting agrees that the nomenclature of infraspecific taxa in ranks not regulated 
by the three main Codes is most appropriately regulated by international specialist 
commissions or groups (e.g. International Society for Plant Pathology Subcommitee 
on the Taxonomy of Phytopathogenic Bacteria for pathovars of bacteria, Inter- 
national Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants for cultivars of 
plants). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 201 


(e) Italicization of Scientific Names 

The Editorial Committee for the Tokyo edition of the International Code of 
Botanical Nomenclature decided, for the purposes of consistency, to print scientific 
names in all ranks covered by the Code in italic type in the Code itself. This practice 
is already the norm in some leading botanical journals (e.g. Plant Systematics and 
Evolution), and will now be followed in Taxon and perhaps in other botanical 
journals. 

The Bacteriological Code states that all scientific names regulated by it are to be 
distinguished in a different type face, such as italic. The Zoological Code recommends 
that for genus- and species-group names a type face be used which is different from 
the rest of the text. The Zoological Code makes no recommendation for names of 
families and higher ranks. 

The adoption of different type faces makes it clear at a glance whether a higher 
taxon name was being regulated by a Code and used in a formal scientific or a 
colloquial sense, for example Bryophyta / bryophytes, Fungi / fungi, Ascomycetes / 
ascomycetes. The problem is especially acute in English where the vernacular 
language designations for higher units are often identical to the scientific ones. 

The use of italics for all scientific names in zoology could cause difficulties because 
some higher taxon names would look like genus-group names if they were italicized. 
Some generic names could easily be mistaken for the names of superfamilies or 
orders. For example, the butterfly generic name Ornithoptera Boisduval 1832 could 
be an insect order name, and the gastropod generic name Nuculoidea Williams & 
Breger 1916 has the form of a superfamily name. While the use of standardized 
terminations obviates this risk in botany, this is not the case in zoology where not all 
terminations are standardized. However, the italicization of names above the rank of 
genus is not precluded by the Zoological Code. 

The matter was viewed as essentially one of editorial standards and practices. 
Indeed, the Editorial Committee of the Botanical Code did not make this issue a 
recommendation. The Exploratory Meeting saw advantages in using separate 
type-faces for all scientific names as standard practice across biology, and the 
zoologists present suggested the use of small capitals as was already the practice of 
the ICZN for family-group names in its official publications. There could be 
flexibility, for example using all italics in publications dealing only with bacteria and 
botanical groups, but small capitals for names above the rank of genus in zoological 
publications or ones including zoological as well as other taxa. 


(f) Author Citations 

In zoology, authors transferring an epithet to a different genus or to a different rank 
are not usually cited; after transfer the name of the original author of the epithet is 
simply placed in parenthesis. In contrast, in botany the name of the author combining 
the epithet into a different position or rank is retained. The basis of this difference in 
practice relates in part to the issue of co-ordinate status (see above); in zoology 
priority dates from the original author and is unchanged regardless of alterations in 
rank or combination, whereas in botanical groups the date of the transfer is critical as 
it is the whole combination and not just the original epithet that determines priority. 
In botany priority is important for the purposes of homonymy, which operates for the 
whole combination, and synonymy, which operates within a rank. 


202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


While it was recognized that such basic principles could not easily be reconciled for 
the past, this was not necessarily so for the future, especially if there were protected 
lists of some kind. It would be important to evaluate any loss of information in order 
to decide which is the most preferable course to adopt from a date in the future. 

When it comes to citing authors, the current recommendation in the Botanical 
Code is either to give names in full or to abbreviate them according to a standard 
system. Attention was drawn to the compilation of almost 30 000 names of 
authors of scientific names across all botanical groups, together with recommended 
abbreviations, that has recently been prepared (Brummitt & Powell, 1992). 

In bacteriology and zoology, there is no mandatory recommendation on the 
provision of author citations, the practice being to omit citations for familiar 
taxa. 

Whether authors’ names should be cited or not was seen partly as an educational 
matter. They are now the fashion for botanical names in biological literature 
generally and not only for taxonomic publications. This involves considerable cost 
and also time if verification is carefully conducted. In many instances it is 
superfluous, for example in labelling in botanical gardens, and is often misleading 
where author names are added uncritically without direct reference to the original 
source of the name. It should be made clear from some point in the future that these 
are devices for nomenclaturally interested taxonomists that are only of benefit to a 
wide user community when applied critically. 

It was noted that in some journals the editorial practice is to require author 
citations only for scientific names noz in a specified checklist. In non-taxonomic 
works, the general view of the Meeting was that it was preferable for authors to be 
encouraged to indicate the checklist, flora, fauna, etc., or other basis of the 
identifications and names used. This was considered to be of more value than adding 
citations uncritically from unspecified sources. 

The Meeting recommends that, considering divergent rules and traditions concerning 

author citations for scientific names, use of such citations be made optional (and be 

recommended only in a strictly taxonomic context), as is already the case in zoology. 


(g) Lists of Protected Names 

Four lists of names in current use for which protected nomenclatural status was 
being sought had been generated under a scheme proposed in botanical nomenclature 
(Greuter ef al., 1993a, b, c; Jarvis et al., 1993), but not yet authorized by an 
International Botanical Congress; in 1993 the scheme achieved 55% of the votes 
rather than the 60% required for adoption. However, the continuation of exploration 
of that avenue towards increased nomenclatural stability was authorized at the 
Tokyo Congress. This meant that there were six years in which to refine those lists so 
that the issue could be reconsidered by the XVI International Botanical Congress at 
St Louis in 1999. It was envisaged that such lists would become an integral part of the 
nomenclatural system for botanical groups by a modest change in the Code that 
would provide for the protection of lists names on a family or ordinal basis when they 
become sufficiently authoritative. 

In addition, the Botanical Code has two other methods of protection: 
‘sanctioning’, introduced in 1981 to prevent earlier names of fungi which had not 
been adopted in what had formerly been starting-point books from being taken up 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 203 


(Korf, 1983); and ‘conservation and rejection’ of names, which can overrule 
sanctioned names, and was opened up to names in all major ranks at the Tokyo 
Congress. 

The protection of Names in Current Use (NCUs) was seen as more efficient than 
conservation as it would give them protection against other unlisted names (not only 
specified ones, as in normal conservation procedures), and the date, typification, 
gender, and orthography would also be fixed. 

In zoology, “Official Lists and Indexes’ of names and of works already exist. The 
practice has been to deal only with names where a problem existed, and the 
Commission then makes a decision as to which name should be placed on the Official 
List. Major catalogues of names were also available, for example Sherborn’s Index 
Animalium (Sherborn, 1902-33), the Nomenclator Zoologicus (Neave et al., 
1939-1993), and the Zoological Record. A list of the approximately 400 000 generic 
names ever used in zoology is currently in preparation; it is planned to have this 
available on CD-ROM in the near future. That generic list will have no official 
nomenclatural status, and so will be equivalent to the Index Nominum Genericorum 
(Plantarum) (Farr et al., 1979). 

However, the discussion draft of the next edition of the Zoological Code would 
include enabling legislation so that, on the initiative of a group of zoologists 
interested in a particular field, the ICZN will be able to ‘protect’ a list of names with 
dates and types. Such a list would have a closing date, and no relevant name 
published before that date would have any nomenclatural status unless it were 
recorded on the list. 

There were major differences in scale between the different groups due to the 
number of names to be handled, but it was accepted that even within speciose groups 
certain families or orders were relatively well-known and some protection could be 
considered. The experience of the bacteriologists was pertinent; the Gordian Knot 
was cut by producing a list of names, publishing it as a draft, and opening it up for 
addition by other bacteriologists, particularly through subcommittees concerned 
with particular groups. The List of Approved Names (Skerman et al., 1989) for 
bacteria was a new starting-document for the group, and includes about 2330 names 
in all; 130 suprageneric names, 300 generic names, and 1900 species names. 

It was noted that the sequence of protecting names had different consequences 
under the current Codes. In the Botanical Code a specific epithet was validly 
published only if the name of the genus in which it appeared was valid, whereas this 
point was treated as irrelevant in zoology. 

There are two major approaches to the issue of protected names: a method of what 
is effectively “block conservation’, or a new starting document which devalidates all 
unlisted names. The latter approach was accepted by bacteriologists as it avoids 
arguments as to whether or not an unlisted name should have been included on the 
list. It is essentially pragmatic, but omitted names can be reinstated, then taking 
priority only from the date they are revived. This decision needs to be made clearly, 
but there appears to be no reason why a protected NCU or other officially approved 
list for a group could not serve as a new starting document. 

It was necessary to aim for a practical solution rather than a perfect one, but 
to incorporate a mechanism to ‘fix-it? when something appeared to have gone 
wrong. 


204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


The production of lists, although greatly facilitated by advances in computer 
technology, is necessarily a laborious task in need of external funding. The current 
initiatives should be seen as part of an interdisciplinary package working towards a 
common goal of relevance to the whole of biology. They therefore merit appropriate 
financial support. 

The Meeting encourages international, national, and other agencies to initiate 

and support current initiatives in compiling lists of names in current use and 

other catalogues of names, to be made accessible through hard copy and electronic 
media. 


(h) Registration and Valid Publication of Names 

In bacteriology new names have to be published in the International Journal of 
Systematic Bacteriology (IJSB). They are permitted to be effectively published 
elsewhere, but validation is the responsibility of the authors who are required to 
submit a reprint to the IJSB for inclusion on the validation lists; priority is by a list 
of running numbers based on the time that manuscripts were received, or even page 
number within an issue of the IJSB. 

The principle of registration as a new mandatory requirement for the valid 
publication of names was accepted at the XV International Botanical Congress in 
1993, subject to ratification at the XVI Congress in 1999, and if so approved will 
come into effect in 2000. The structure to support the procedure of registration is 
currently under discussion. The principle is similar in concept to the practice 
operational in bacteriology, but would not involve publication in a single journal. 
The critical date was envisaged as that of the submission for registration. A 
decentralized date-stamping system was being contemplated that could involve 
national offices working under an agreement with the International Association for 
Plant Taxonomy (IAPT). The publications and pertinent documentation would then 
be routed, directly or indirectly, to what are at present indexing centres. The names 
would then be published in the existing indices (e.g. Index Kewensis, Index of Fungi), 
which would be registers for that category of included names (perhaps distinguished 
typographically). Some orphan groups without indexing centres would have to be 
covered by IAPT. By 2000, an electronic accessioning and networking system was 
likely to be in existence. 

It was envisaged that: (1) major journal publishers would automatically submit 
issues of their journals for registration in order not to add to the work of the authors; 
(2) authors could submit material directly themselves; and (3) persons other than the 
author could forward material that had not been registered for whatever reason. 
Authors would be free to send material to any registration office, and not necessarily 
that in their own country. 

In the case of zoology, the Zoological Record (published by Biosis International) is 
the proposed de facto registration office for new names, and could be mandated to 
have this role, but the onus will be on authors and editors to submit material in 
journals not scanned by the Zoological Record. The proposed date for purposes of 
priority is that of the original publication of the material. 

Around 8000 names of taxa in botanical groups appear each year, compared with 
10-20 000 in zoological groups and 150-200 in bacteria. Although large overall, the 
scale was considered to be manageable. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 205 


Plant virus names were maintained in the Virus Identification Data Exchange 
(VIDE) database at CAB INTERNATIONAL, from which hard-copy products were 
produced (e.g. Brunt e¢ al., 1990), and plans were being formulated by ICTV to 
produce a universal virus database. 

The process of registration for plant cultivar names was started in the 1950s and 
mainly operates genus by genus, with individual societies or groups of specialists 
taking responsibility for particular groups. Registration of the name is the respon- 
sibility of the person developing the cultivar. The different International Registration 
Authorities (IRAs) also check that names submitted have not been used previously in 
that group and that no rules in the Cultivated Plant Code have been contravened. As 
individual registrars have to interpret the rules, differences in practice can occur. In 
the orchids, for which the Royal Horticultural Society has IRA responsibility, there 
are around 3000 applications to register new cultivar names each year. The 
registration authorities are required to publish periodic lists of registered names. 
There are many cases with multiple usages of the same name within a genus, the 
record being about 70 uses of ‘Defender’ in the genus Dianthus. Cultivar names were 
of crucial importance with respect to names used in plant patents and plant breeders’ 
rights and this posed some difficulties as these have statutory status. 

Concern was expressed as to the failure of those concerned with biodiversity and 
conservation issues to make the link between their indexing procedures and 
nomenclatural practice. The Meeting considered that there needed to be a far greater 
awareness of this issue and of the vulnerability of the current indexing authorities to 
both market conditions and the policies of the disparate organizations operating 
them. Firm long-term financial mechanisms should be devised in collaboration with 
appropriate international agencies. 


(i) Electronic Publication 

The potential of electronic media in connection with the production of compendia 
of names, and also for the registration of names (see above), was enormous. 
However, it was unclear how electronic mail access systems in particular might 
be funded. The costs of indexing and incorporating names into the system should 
not be forgotten. The involvement of international funding agencies would be 
essential if a comprehensive system across the whole range of organisms were ever to 
be realized. 

While a readily accessible system was seen as an ideal, some toll-gate or other 
system would be unavoidable where funds had to be generated to pay for the indexing 
effort involved, just as is the case for current hard-copy indexing products. 

The Botanical and Zoological Codes at present do not consider electronic means 
as a method of effective publication, but a Special Committee on Electronic 
Publication was set up at the XV International Botanical Congress in 1993 to 
consider this question. The time may not yet have come to move away from paper 
publication, but this would have to be accommodated in due course. However, there 
was a desire not to encourage the piecemeal publication of unrefereed material of 
dubious quality by permitting authors to input material directly into databases. 

The issue was of considerable relevance to biodiversity inventorying, with 
the prospect of descriptions of enormous numbers of new species. Mound (in 
Hawksworth & Mound, 1991) calculated that if there were 10 million species of 


206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


insects, at two pages per species this would require 80 000 volumes and occupy 1.6 km 
of shelving. Apart from storage, the cost of publishing specialized monographs which 
have very low sales potential is becoming increasingly difficult. 

The problem posed by the magnitude of biodiversity must be faced by the 
biosystematic community. One option would be a combination of published 
abstracts linked to an archival electronic database (perhaps copied in 3—5 different 
centres around the world) so that the fuller data were available when required. 
CD-ROM storage was another option meriting serious consideration, in that it does 
appear to be as permanent as paper and is also published at one point in time; 
moreover, it is not dissimilar from a microfiche in needing a device to be read. 

This was a matter which required further exploration and on which all Codes could 
potentially develop a common policy. 

The Meeting notes the rapid advances in electronic media for the storage of and 

access to taxonomic information, and the opportunities they provide in relation to 

inventorying the world’s currently known and unknown biota, and encourages the 

IUBS Commission on Taxonomic Databases, in collaboration with the Special 

Committee on Electronic Publishing and Databasing, to prepare proposals for 

consideration by the pertinent nomenclatural committees. 


(j) Ambiregnal Organisms 

Ambiregnal organisms, that is those that have or could be treated under more than 
one of the current Codes, pose particular nomenclatural problems (Patterson & 
Larsen, 1991, 1992; Corliss, 1993) and constituted one of the main reasons for the 
Meeting. Workers in certain protistan groups, such as the dinoflagellates, sooner or 
later come up against such cases. 

Ambiregnal organisms can have more than one ‘correct’ name, depending upon 
which Code is applied to them. The problem can apply to the generic name and/or 
the specific epithet, and to the typification of genera. 

For example, the euglenoid generic name Entosiphon B. Stein 1878, which has been 
widely used, is valid under the Zoological Code, but under the Botanical Code it has 
been replaced by Entosiphonomonas Larsen & Patterson 1991 since the angiosperm 
name Entosiphon Beddome 1864 is an earlier homonym. 

A more complex and less certain case is that of Peranema Dujardin 1841. Dujardin 
first named his genus Pyronema Dujardin in 1836 but then realized this name could 
be confused with the fungal genus Pyronema Carus 1835 published the previous year. 
Later, Trachelius trichophorus Ehrenb. 1838 was combined into Peranema as P. 
trichophorus (Ehrenb.) B. Stein 1878, with one of the three original species of 
Dujardin’s genus (P. protracta Dujardin 1841) as a synonym; this is one of the best 
known heterotrophic euglenids used for teaching purposes. 

From the botanical standpoint, Peranema G. Don 1825 is a genus of ferns so 
Dujardin’s name would be rejected as a later homonym. The organism then has to be 
called Pseudoperanema Christen 1962, based on a different type, if considered as a 
‘plant’, the most appropriate taxonomic placement, but Peranema is acceptable if it 
is treated as an ‘animal’. This case is especially awkward as the type in botany is then 
Pseudoperanema hyalinum, whereas in zoology and in Peranema it is P. trichophorum 
(syn. P. protracta). The generic names and the types thus both differ depending on the 
taxonomic viewpoint. This case is discussed further by Larsen (1987). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 207 


The problems arise for the following reasons: 
Independence of the Botanical and Zoological Codes. 
Latin diagnoses required in the Botanical Code. 
Differences in starting-point dates. 

Differences in typification procedures. 

Coordination of ranks in the Zoological Code. 
Tautonyms not permitted by the Botanical Code. 
Basionym citation required by the Botanical Code. 
Differences in nomenclatural terms and their meanings. 
Homonyms in one Code but not in the other. 
Conventional type material is often lacking. 

Lack of indication of ambiregnal issues in papers. 
Lack of a list of names in current use. 

Different ranks used up to at least family. 

At present the decisions are essentially those of individual authors and some way 
of enabling problems to be handled in a consistent manner is required to resolve the 
current instability and confusion. As up to about 30 000 named species are involved 
this is not a matter that can be dismissed as of little consequence. The situation has 
to be resolved. 

It would be possible to separate the taxonomic and nomenclatural issues by ruling 
which Code should be used for which group. In the case of the Botanical Code as 
revised in 1993, it is explicitly stated that it covers groups traditionally treated under 
it regardless of the kingdoms to which they are currently taxonomically referred (i.e. 
including cyanobacteria, fungi, slime moulds, and certain protists). Special provisions 
for ambiregnal organisms could be included in that Code provided the groups 
to which they were applied were clearly defined. The removal of an entire group 
from a Code under which it has traditionally been treated would be particularly 
destabilizing and should be avoided. 

Ambiregnal questions are not unique to protistan groups, and the treatment of 
names of Cyanobacteria is also a cause of uncertainty. The Botanical Code had 
traditionally handled these organisms, and it was now made clear in it that they are 
still covered by it. Cyanobacterial names are not included in the Approved Lists of 
Bacterial Names, and a considerable number of cyanobacteria have no living type 
strains but are represented by dried type specimens. There had been a proposal for a 
separate Code of Nomenclature for Cyanobacteria, but the Meeting felt that this 
would be most inappropriate in the current climate. In a parallel manner, it would be 
destabilizing to consider that Myxomycota (syn. Mycetozoa), as a protistan phylum, 
should be switched from its traditional treatment under the Botanical Code to the 
Zoological Code (Weresub, 1979). 

The nomenclatural ambiguities posed by ambiregnal organisms could perhaps 
be resolved by a general decision that the correct name for a protistan (or cyano- 
bacterium, slime mould, etc.) is the oldest name which is valid for it under any Code 
and not a homonym under another Code. Each Code could contain an Article to this 
effect, and the usual safeguards to protect general usage against destabilizing 
adoption of strict priority would apply. 

Alternatively, homonymy might be waived for certain groups, provided that there 
were no homonyms within the same group; a protist having the same name as a 


208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


vascular plant or insect was unlikely to cause a problem in practice. The definition of 
the groups involved would require particular care. The permitting of tautonyms in 
the Botanical Code from a particular date should also be considered. 

A mechanism for collaboration between the nomenclatural committees and 
commissions concerned with groups with ambiregnal organisms could be helpful to 
rule on particular cases, but there would also be advantage in having a meeting of 
specialists on this topic before changes were made in the Codes. 

The question of living cultures as types for microbial groups was a long-standing 
area of difference between the Bacteriological and Botanical Codes. However, some 
convergence between these two Codes on this issue was now evident. The 1994 
edition of the Botanical Code made clear, by means of a voted example, that cultures 
permanently preserved in a metabolically inactive state (i.e. stored in liquid nitrogen 
or freeze-dried) were acceptable as nomenclatural types. Conversely, now that DNA 
could be recovered by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology from dried 
material, bacteriologists could find dried or other uncultured material acceptable. 
The use of DNA types in botany had already been proposed by two mycologists 
(Reynolds & Taylor, 1991), but this was not accepted at the XV International 
Botanical Congress in 1993. 

The ‘epitype’ concept introduced into the Botanical Code in 1993 could be helpful 
in typifying protist names; in zoology ‘neotypes’ were sometimes used for what 
otherwise would be nomina dubia, and the term ‘pragmatype’ had been proposed 
unofficially in zoology for parallel situations. 

The Meeting recognizes the particular nomenclatural problems posed by ambiregnal 

organisms, that is those treated under different Codes, considers that small modifi- 

cations to the Codes can accommodate these organisms to ensure that the names used 
will be unique, and recommends that while discussions continue authors should avoid 
exacerbating the problems. 


(k) Inter-Code Homonyms 

The existence of identically spelled generic names correctly in current use for 
organisms treated under different Codes poses practical problems for information 
scientists searching databases on key words, and was not now only a matter for the 
taxonomist. For example, a microbiologist seeking information on the food colour- 
ing pigments produced by a species of the fungus genus Monascus v. Teighem 1884 
would not necessarily wish to have data confused by literature or attributes relating 
to the trematode parasite of fish belonging to Monascus Looss 1907. This can be 
coped with by ‘up-posting’, as in the CAB-ABSTRACTS database where each taxon 
is assigned to a series of higher taxonomic levels, but to utilize such facilities to the 
full a searcher may need a higher level of training. 

While this was not an issue that could be resolved for the names of the past, as it 
would involve a totally unacceptable number of changes, the problem could be 
contained from a date in the future. This issue could be resolved even in the absence 
of any general harmonization of the Codes, as it would be possible to have a parallel 
provision in all Codes requiring that newly coined generic names must not be 
homonyms of those existing under any Code. This will be a practical proposition 
before the turn of the century as by then there will be reasonably complete lists of 
validly published generic names, or at least those in current use, available in 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 209 


CD-ROM or other electronic formats (see above). This provision could be considered 
for inclusion in the next editions of all Codes. 

Acceptability to the users of the different Codes would depend very much both on 
the completeness and quality of the lists, and also their accessibility. It was noted that 
this could be done with a reasonable degree of confidence at the moment for those 
with access to the various hard-copy compilations already available. 

It was also suggested that there could be difficulties with the enormous numbers of 
generic names to be coined for the yet undescribed 90% or more of the Earth’s biota, 
if these names were not to become too long. Provision for homonyms to be permitted 
between specified groups where they were unlikely to be confused taxonomically 
could be proposed, but this would be complex in practice. For example, a paper 
dealing with the biology of a plant may also refer to the insects, nematodes, fungi and 
bacteria occurring on that same plant. 

There could also be an advantage if all Codes, other than the Rules for viruses, 
rendered generic names ending in the suffix ‘-virus’ inadmissible, so that this suffix 
was exclusive to viruses. 

The Meeting appreciates the confusion that can be caused by the existence of 

homonyms in use under the different Codes, and recommends that (a) authors of new 

generic names avoid proposing a name established under another Code for a different 
taxon, and (b) provisions are introduced into each Code to disallow new generic 
names that are junior homonyms under any Code. 


(1) Part- and Form-Taxon Nomenclature 

Names based on parts or ‘traces’ of organisms, extant as well as fossil, are 
considered in various parts of the different Codes. There are problems in common 
ranging from vertebrate palaeontology to palynology and mycology, and it was 
agreed that some discussion of these issues should be held. Separated fossil parts, 
for example, have often been named independently from whole organisms and 
accommodated in separate hierarchical systems, a so-called ‘parataxonomy’. Trace 
structures (ichnotaxa), for example fossilized footprints, have names, and there were 
even taxa based on ‘works’ of animals (such as a bite-hole in a leaf). 

In the case of living taxa, some common problems exist, for example in the cases 
of pleomorphic fungi and algae and animals with complex life-cycles. The interface 
where taxa cross the fossil/living boundary could also be a cause of difficulties, for 
example in dinoflagellates. Under the Zoological Code, names compete on a priority 
basis whether Recent or fossil, or whether based on the whole organism or a part. 
However, under the Botanical Code, names based on Recent types have precedence 
over those based on a type which is a fossil. 

These problems extend between kingdoms, and although the issues had been the 
subject of some inter-Code discussions in the 1950s and 1960s they have not been 
resolved. The problems remain and merit further exploration, and it would be 
valuable to hold an interdisciplinary meeting to see if there were sufficient common 
ground to develop a common procedure for palaeoparataxa. 

There was some concern as to the use of the word ‘parataxon’ because of potential 
confusion with the now much more widely used word ‘parataxonomist’. Paratax- 
onomists, often local people, have basic taxonomic training to enable them to collect 
material for taxonomic study by others as a part of inventory studies (Janzen et al., 


210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


1993). A term to be used instead of parataxa could perhaps be debated at the 
proposed meeting. 

Another example, with many parallels, is the future nomenclature of uncultured 
bacteria and other microorganisms known only from nucleic acid sequences deter- 
mined directly from environmental samples, and found to be very different from any 
recorded at present; the ICSB is currently considering this problem. 

The Meeting recognizes the need to develop common procedures for the nomen- 

clatural treatment of fossils, with particular emphasis on form genera and other 

parataxa, and to this end recommends IUBS in cooperation with international 
and national bodies such as the Systematics Association and Palaeontological 

Association, to organize a discussion meeting on this topic. 


(m) Gender of Epithets 

The employment of the rules of Latin grammar means that the termination of 
adjectival epithets will in the majority of cases change when a species is transferred 
from one genus to another whose name is of a different gender. This can be confusing 
as an epithet may not be quickly recognized as a familiar one after transfer, and 
altered spellings will cause problems in information retrieval. While the principle of 
Latin grammar is perhaps one of the longest traditions of biological nomenclature, if 
the purpose of a name is to communicate is there a scientific rather than a linguistic 
justification for this practice ? The gender of the name does not convey any biological 
information about the organism. 

This issue merits further consideration by botanists in the light of the suggested 
provision in the discussion draft for the next Zoological Code that after 1996 generic 
names will have no gender. The original spellings of epithets would consequently not 
be changed on transfer from one genus to a new generic assignment (although 
existing combinations will remain as they are). Epithets such as alba, albus, and album 
in a genus would be treated as homonyms. 

While the abandonment of gender might seem monstrous to one versed in Latin or 
other European languages with inflections, two-thirds of the world’s people do not 
have a romance language as their native tongue, and even fewer know any Latin. As 
the names of organisms cater for an international audience the removal of gender 
considerations could be a major simplification for many users of names. 

While it would be possible to indicate gender in compilations of generic names to 
help taxonomists without linguistic skills, and guidance on gender is available in the 
recent Zoological Codes and in Stearn (1992), this would not address the question of 
facilitating retrieval. 

If the final version of the Zoological Code includes this change, the matter 
could perhaps be raised with botanists as a part of a package on harmonization, 
and the issue merits careful study with respect to any new harmonized biological 
Code. 


4. Future Prospects 


(a) Prospects and Principles for a Biological Code 
The Meeting had received a challenging document from Dr F.C. Thompson, a 
member of the ICZN, on the possibilities for a Universal Biological Code. Such a 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 211 


Code could be envisaged if it were to operate from a starting date in the future; 
that is, it would initially apply only to new names, and perhaps to certain new 
nomenclatural acts. It would be based on a registration system, building on existing 
and projected databases of names so that old names in use could be incorporated in 
due course. 

There had been an attempt to produce a unified Code by Dall (1877), which was 
arranged in the form of single rules where the Codes were the same, and options as 
to procedures where they differed; i.e. it essentially combined the then current Codes 
into a single document and coped with the differences by means of special provisions 
to maintain current practices. This is paralleled by differences for particular groups 
such as algae and fungi embodied in the Botanical Code. 

It was recognized by the Meeting that some difficulty could be experienced by users 
if different Codes had to be used for new as opposed to older names, especially as for 
some groups these extended back to 1753 or 1758. That might at least partly be 
overcome by having both within a single document. 

The Meeting considered that harmonization should be seen not as a luxury but as 
a necessity. If biological nomenclature is to move towards a truly harmonized Code 
for the future, rather than to put the past into order through a common system, it 
would be necessary for biologists to step back from their specialist perspectives and 
reassess the purposes of Codes. 

Agreement would be needed on the form of names, whether to keep a hierarchy, 
and whether types are to be insisted on as the only way to be sure of what is referred 
to. Rules such as those relating to priority were viewed as of a lesser order, in being 
designed to support the basic underlying ideas of the Codes. Some progress in the 
identification of common principles was made by Savory (1962), but there is now a 
need to extract the key elements and also to explain the role of the nomenclatural 
Codes. Points made at the Meeting which need to be embraced in any harmonized 
Code for the future are summarized in Table 2. 

It would also be in the spirit of the [UBS Resolution passed in 1991 (see p. 192) for 
the existing Codes to start to embrace the issues raised at the Meeting for existing 
nomenclature as well as procedures to be adopted in the future. 

Progress towards such a harmonized Code for the future would not be 
easy, especially for botanists for whom all changes require the consent of a 60% 
majority of the members of the Nomenclature Section of an International Botanical 
Congresses (IBCs), who must therefore be aware of the effects of proposed changes 
well ahead of the meeting. A harmonized Code is, however, a goal to be strived for 
in the interests of biology as a whole. One option would be to make a proposal for 
such a Code to the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology 
(ICSEB) in 1996, ideally with a draft, which could then be considered also by the next 
IBC in 1999, the ICZN, and other relevant bodies. 

The Meeting agrees that it would be highly advantageous to work towards a unified 

system of biological nomenclature, and notes that the XVI International Botanical 

Congress in Japan in 1993 established a Special Committee on Harmonizing Codes. 

The Meeting recognizes that while there are differences in procedures between the 

current Codes, which could not be reconciled for the nomenclature of the past without 

an unacceptable disruption of names in use, there is considerable scope for the 
harmonization which is to be actively pursued. 


212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Table 2. Points to be considered in the development of a harmonized approach to biological 
nomenclature. 


1. CODES REGULATE 
(a) Scientific names of taxa 
(b) Certain nomenclatural acts 


. CLASSIFICATION DETERMINES NOMENCLATURE 


3. SCIENTIFIC NAMES 
(a) ‘Latinized’ (i.e. non-vernacular for easy recognition) 
(b) Fixed hierarchy 
(c) Species as the basic unit (epithet plus genus name) 
(d) Standardized endings of higher taxa 
(e) Labels not descriptors 


4. NAMES SHOULD BE 
(a) Stable (device: priority) 
(b) Unrestricted (device: freedom to propose) 
(c) Necessary (device: stating differentiating characters) 
(d) Unambiguous (device: types) 
(e) Unique (device: homonyms disallowed) 
5. PUBLICATION 
(a) In the scientific literature 
(b) With a description 
(c) With what they refer to 


6. TYPES 
To define what a name refers to (not necessarily ‘typical’); i.e. types are ‘name-bearers’ 


7. NAME CHANGES 
To be strictly regulated 


i) 


(b) Future Liaison and the Role of IUBS 

The Meeting noted that there was an international need for a common approach 
to bionomenclature by regulatory authorities of various kinds, and that these were 
increasingly crossing traditional boundaries, for example in connection with the 
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and ‘Red Data 
Books’. 

In order to make progress with the possibilities identified during the present 
Exploratory Meeting and to provide a mechanism for an on-going dialogue it was 
regarded as essential to establish an appropriate mechanism. [UBS has a Bio- 
taxonomy and Bionomenclature Committee, but to date this had had a wider remit 
and not been concerned with nomenclatural issues. Further, this was a matter for 
IUMS as well as TUBS and an inter-union Commission was therefore required. This 
could appropriately be called the International Commission on Bionomenclature 
(ICB) and would benefit from representation of key user organizations. 

The first task of the new Commission would be to receive the report of the 
Exploratory Meeting and where appropriate consider how to implement its findings. 
There would be an opportunity to report on progress to, and obtain feed-back from, 
a wider systematic community at the Fifth International Congress of Systematic and 
Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) in Budapest in 1996. 

In addition, it was felt that [UBS could promote the inclusion of training in 
bionomenclature and increase the level of awareness amongst biologists as to its 
fundamental importance to all aspects of their discipline. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 213 


The Meeting recognizes the importance of continuing the dialogue started at, and 
implementing actions identified by, the Exploratory Meeting, recommends that an 
inter-union IUBS/IUMS International Commission on Bionomenclature (ICB) be 
established in 1994, and suggests that the new Commission includes a delegate 
representing each of the current five Codes, together with representatives from key 
user bodies (e.g. FAO, UNEP, IUCN, UNESCO, WHO). 

The Meeting recommends that the organizers of the Fifth International Congress of 
Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V), to be held in Budapest in 1996, 
include a session to review progress towards harmonization and other aspects of 
bionomenclature. 


5. Participants 


Mr C.D. Brickell: Chair, International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated 
Plants; Chair, ISHS Commission for Nomenclature and Registration. (U.K.). 

Professor W.G. Chaloner: Past Chair, Committee for Fossil Plants; Editorial and General 
Committees of Botanical Nomenclature. (U.K.). 

Professor J. Dodge: Department of Botany, Royal Holloway College, University of London. 
(U.K.). 

Professor Dr W. Greuter: Rapporteur-général, Botanical Nomenclature; Chair Editorial and 
General Committees on Botanical Nomenclature; Secretary General, IAPT; IUBS 
Standing Committee on Biotaxonomy and Nomenclature. (Germany). 

Professor D.L. Hawksworth (Meeting Chairman); Chair, International Commission on the 
Taxonomy of Fungi; General and Editorial Committees of Botanical Nomenclature; 
Chair, Special Committee on Harmonization between the Codes; [UBS Standing 
Committee on Biotaxonomy and Nomenclature. (U.K.). 

Dr P.M. Kirk: Committee for Fungi. (U.K.). 

Professor Dr O. Kraus: President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 
(Germany). 

Dr J. Larsen: Department of Phycology and Mycology, University of Copenhagen. 
(Denmark). 

Dr A.C. Leslie: International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants, ISHS 
Commission for Nomenclature and Registration; International Registrar for Cultivar 
Names, The Royal Horticultural Society. (U.K.). 

Dr M.A. Mayo: International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses; Chair, Plant Viruses 
Subcommittee. (U.K.). 

Professor J. McNeill: Secretary, Editorial Committee of the International Code of Botanical 
Nomenclature; General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature; Committee for 
Spermatophyta; IUBS Executive Committee. (Canada). 

Dr D.H. Nicolson: President, IAPT; Secretary of General Committee, and member Editorial 
Committee of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. (U.S.A.). 

Dr I.W.B. Nye: Secretary-General, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 
(U.K.). 

Dr G. Saddler: International Society for Plant Pathology Subcommittee on Taxonomy of 
Phytopathogenic Bacteria. (U.K.). 

Professor P.H.A. Sneath: Chair, Bergey’s Manual Trust; Judicial Commission, International 
Committee on Systematic Bacteriology. (U.K.). 

Professor Dr E. Stackebrandt: Secretary, International Committee on Systematic Bacteriol- 
ogy; Co-editor International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology. (Germany). 

Mr R.P. Trehane: Editorial Committee, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; 
Compiler Index Hortensis; International Commission on Nomenclature of Cultivated 
Plants. (U.K.). 

Dr P.K. Tubbs: Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature; 
Editorial Committee, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. (U.K.). 

Dr T. Younés: Executive Director, International Union of Biological Sciences. (France). 


214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


6. Bibliography 

Note: In addition to references cited in the text, this Bibliography also includes 
background papers distributed to participants before the meeting and others tabled 
or consulted in the course of its deliberations. 


Anon. (Ed.). 1944. A discussion on the differences in observance between zoological and 
botanical nomenclature. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London, 156: 126-146. 

Bock, W.J. 1994. (In press). History and nomenclature of avian family-group names. Bulletin 
of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 221. 

Brickell, C.D., Voss, E.G., Kelly, A.F., Schneider, F, & Richens, R.H. (Eds.). 1980. International 
Code of Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants. (Regnum vegetabile No. 36). Bohn, 
Schlechtema & Holkema, Utrecht. 

Brummitt, R.K. & Powell, C.E. 1992. Authors of plant names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. 
Brunt, A., Crabtree, K. & Gibbs, A. 1990. Viruses of tropical plants. CAB INTERNATIONAL, 
Wallingford. : 
Corliss, J.O. 1993. Should there be a separate code of nomenclature for the protists? 

BioSystems, 24: 1-14. 

Cornelius, P.F.S. 1987. Use versus priority in zoological nomenclature: a solution for an old 
problem. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 44: 79-85. 

Dall, W.H. 1877. Report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature to Section B of the 
American Association for the Advancement of Science, at the Nashville meeting, August 
31, 1877. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 26: 7-56. 

Farr, E.R., Leeusink, J.A. & Stafleu, F.A. (Eds.). 1979. Index Nominum Genericorum 
(Plantarum). 3 vols. (Regnum vegetabile Nos. 100-102) Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, 
Utrecht. 

Francki, R.I.B., Fauquet, C.M., Knudson, D.L. & Brown, F. 1990. Classification and nomen- 
clature of viruses. Archives of Virology, Supplement 2: 1-445. 

Greuter, W., Brummitt, R.K., Farr, E., Kilian, N., Kirk, P.M. & Silva, P.C. 1993. NCU-3 
Names in Current Use for Extant Plant Genera. (Regnum vegetabile No. 129). Koeltz 
Scientific Books, K6nigstein. 

Greuter, W., Barrie, F., Burdet, H.M., Chaloner, W.G., Demoulin, V., Hawksworth, D.L., 
Jorgensen, P.M., Nicolson, D.H., Silva, P.C., Trehane, P. & McNeill, J. (Eds.). 1994. 
International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (Tokyo Code). (Regnum Vegetabile No. 
131). Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein. 

Greuter, W., Hoogland, R.D., Reveal, J.L., Crosby, M.J., Grolle, R., Zijlstra, G. & David, J.C. 
1993. NCU-1 Family Names in Current Use for Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi. 
(Regnum Vegetabile No. 126). Koeltz Scientific Books, Konigstein. 

Greuter, W., McNeill, J. & Barrie, F.R. 1994. Report on botanical nomenclature — 
Yokohama 1993. Englera, 14: 1-265. 

Greuter, W. & Nicolson, D.H. 1993. On the threshold to a new nomenclature? Taxon, 42: 
925-927. 

Greuter, W., Pitt, J.I., Samson, R.A., Ahti, T., Farjon, A. & Landolt, E. 1993. NCU-2 Names 
in Current Use in the Families Trichocomaceae, Cladoniaceae, Pinaceae, and Lemnaceae. 
(Regnum vegetabile No. 128). Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein. 

Hammond, P.M. 1992. Species inventory. Pp. 17-39 in Groombridge, B. (Ed.). Global 
Biodiversity: Status of the Earth's Living Resources. Chapman & Hall, London. 

Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). 1991. Improving the stability of names: needs and options. (Regnum 
vegetabile No. 123). Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein. 

Hawksworth, D.L. 1992. The need for a more effective biological nomenclature for the 21st 
century. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 109: 543-567. 

Hawksworth, D.L. 1993. Name changes for purely nomenclatural reasons are now avoidable. 
Systema Ascomycetum, 12: 1-6. 

Hawksworth, D.L. & Greuter, W. 1989. Improvement of stability in biological nomenclature. 
Biology International, 19: 5-11. 

Hawksworth, D.L. & Mound, L.A. 1991. Biodiversity databases: the crucial significance 
of collections. Pp. 17-29 in Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). The biodiversity of microorganisms 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 215 


and invertebrates: its role in sustainable agriculture. CAB INTERNATIONAL, 
Wallingford. 

Huang, L.H. (Ed.). 1991. USFCC/ASM Symposium on Standardizing the Nomenclature, 
Vocabulary and Methodology of Microbiology, May 17, 1990 Anaheim, California. 
(Advances in Culture Collections, vol. 1). United States Federation for Culture Collec- 
tions, Groton. 

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of 
Zoological Nomenclature, Ed. 3. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, 
London. 

Janzen, D.H., Hallwachs, W., Jiminez, J. & Gamez, R. 1993. The role of the parataxonomists, 
inventory managers, and taxonomists in Costa Rica’s National Biodiversity Inventory. 
Pp. 223-254 in Reid, W. et al. (Eds.). Biodiversity prospecting: using genetic resources for 
sustainable development. World Resources Institute, U.S.A. 

Jarvis, C.E, Barrie, F.R., Allan, D.M. & Reveal, J.L. 1993. A list of Linnaean generic names and 
their types. (Regnum vegetabile No. 127). Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein. 

Jeffrey, C. 1973. Biological nomenclature. Edward Arnold, London. 

Jeffrey, C. 1989. Biological nomenclature, Ed. 3. Edward Arnold, London. 

Korf, R.P. 1983. Sanctioned epithets, sanctioned names, and cardinal principles in ‘:Pers.’ and 
‘:Fr.’ citations. Mycotaxon, 16: 341-352. 

Larsen, J. 1987. Algal studies of the Danish Wadden Sea. IV. A taxonomic study of the 
interstitial euglenoid flagellates. Nordic Journal of Botany, 7: 589-607. 

Meregalli, M. 1993. A note on infraspecific terminology in the Cactaceae. International 
Organization for Succulents Bulletin, 5: 214-216. 

McNeill, J. & Greuter, W. 1986. Botanical nomenclature. Pp. 3-25 in Ride, W.D.L. & Younés 
(Eds.). Biological nomenclature today. ((UBS Monograph Series, no. 2). IRL Press, 
Eynsham. 

Mayo, M.A. 1994. (In press). Modifications to the rules for virus nomenclature. Archives of 
Virology. 

Neave, S.A. et al. 1939-1993. Nomenclator Zoologicus. 8 vols. Zoological Society of London, 
London. 

Nicolson, D.H. 1991. A history of botanical nomenclature. Annals of the Missouri Botanical 
Garden, 78: 33-56. 

Nicolson, D.H. & Greuter, W. 1994. Guidelines for proposals to conserve or reject names. 
Taxon, 43: 109-112. 

Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. 1991. Nomenclatural problems with protists. Pp. 197-208 in 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). Improving the stability of names: needs and options. (Regnum 
vegetabile No. 123). Koeltz Scientific Books, K6nigstein. 

Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. 1992. A perspective on protistan nomenclature. Journal of 
Protozoology, 39: 125-131. 

Reynolds, D.R. & Taylor, J.W. 1991. DNA specimens and the ‘International Code of Botanical 
Nomenclature’. Taxon, 40: 311-315. 

Ride, W.D.L. 1988. Towards a unified system of biological nomenclature. Pp. 332-353 in 
Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). Prospects in systematics. Clarendon Press, Oxford. 

Ride, W.D.L. 1991. Justice for the living: a review of bacteriological and zoological initiatives 
in nomenclature. Pp. 105-122 in Hawksworth, D.L. (Ed.). Improving the stability of 
names: needs and options. (Regnum vegetabile No. 123). Koeltz Scientific Books, 
KO6nigstein. 

Ride, W.D.L. & Younés, T. (Eds.). 1986. Biological nomenclature today. (IUBS Monograph 
Series, no. 2). IRL Press, Eynsham. 

Rollins, R.C. (Ed.). 1959. Symposium on Linnaeus and nomenclatural codes. Systematic 
Zoology, 8: 1-45. 

Savory, T. 1962. Naming the living world. English Universities Press, London. 

Sherborn, C.D. 1902-1933. Index Animalium. 11 vols. British Museum, London. 

Skerman, V.D.B., McGowan, V. & Sneath, P.H.A. 1989. Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. 
Amended edition. American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. 


216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Sneath, P.H.A. 1986. Nomenclature of bacteria. Pp. 36-48 in Ride, W.D.L. & Younés, T. 
(Eds.). Biological nomenclature today. ((\UBS Monograph Series No. 2). IRL Press, 
Eynsham. 

Sneath, P.H.A. 1989. Bacterial nomenclature. Pp. 19-23 in Krieg, N.R. & Holt, J.G. (Eds.). 
Bergey's Manual of Systematic Bacteriology, vol. 1. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore. 
Sneath, P.H.A. (Ed.). 1992. International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, 1990 Revision. 

American Society for Microbiology, Washington, D.C. 

Stearn, W.T. 1986. Historical survey of the naming of cultivated plants. Acta Horticulturae, 
182: 19-28. 

Stearn, W.T. 1992. Botanical Latin, Ed. 4. David & Charles, Newton Abbot. 

Styles, B. (Ed.). 1986. Infraspecific classification of wild and cultivated plants. Clarendon Press, 
Oxford. 

Systematics Agenda 2000. 1994. Systematics Agenda 2000. Charting the Biosphere. Technical 
report. Systematics Agenda 2000, New York. 

Taylor, F.J.R., Sarjeant, W.A.S., Fensome, R.A. & Williams, G.L. 1987. Standardization of 
nomenclature in flagellate groups treated by both the Botanical and Zoological Codes of 
Nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 36: 79-85. 

Trehane, P. (Ed.). 1993. The Horticultural Taxonomy Group. Hortax News, 1: 1-3. 

Weresub, L.K. 1970. Automatic tautonyms: zoological vs. botanical Code. Taxon, 19: 787-788. 

Weresub, L.K. 1979. Mycological nomenclature: reflections on its future in the light of its past. 
Beihefte zur Sydowia, 8: 416-431. 

Wildy, P. 1971. Classification and nomenclature of viruses. (Monographs in Virology, no. 5). 
Karger, Basel. 

Young, J.M., Bradbury, J.F., Davis, R.E., Dickey, R.S., Ercolani, G.L., Hayward, A.C. & 
Vidayer, A.K. 1991. Nomenclatural revisions of plant pathogenic bacteria and list of 
names 1980-1988. Review of Plant Pathology, 70: 213-221. 

Younés, T. (Ed.). 1992. Promoting life sciences for a better human life. International Union of 
Biological Sciences, Paris. 


7. Abbreviations and Acronyms 


CABI - CAB INTERNATIONAL 

CITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 
and Flora 

FAO - Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 

GC - General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature 

IAPT = International Association for Plant Taxonomy 

IBC = International Botanical Congress - 

ICB = International Commission on Bionomenclature 

ICNCP = International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants 

ICSB = International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology 

ICSEB = International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology 

ICTV = International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses 

ICZN = International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 

IJSB = International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology 

IRA - International Registration Authority 

ISHS = International Society for Horticultural Science 

IUBS - International Union of Biological Sciences 

IUCN = IUCN — The World Conservation Union 

IUMS = International Union of Microbiological Societies 

NCU ~ Names in Current Use 

UNEP = United Nations Environment Programme 

UNESCO = United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization 

VIDE - Virus Identification Data Exchange 

WHO - World Health Organization 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 217 


Case 2904 
Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation 


Robert H. Cowie, Carl C. Christensen & Neal L. Evenhuis 
Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-0916, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the name Nesopupa 
Pilsbry, 1900 for a genus of land snails by the suppression of Ptychochilus Boettger, 
1881, an unused senior objective synonym. 


1. Ptychochilus was proposed by Boettger (1881, p. 47) as the name of a subsection 
of the section Vertigo Miller, 1774 (in the genus ‘Pupa Drap.’) for a group of Pacific 
island land snail species. There are two alternative original spellings of Boettger’s 
name: Ptychochilus (p. 47) and Ptychochylus (p. 48). The type species of Ptychochilus 
is Pupa tantilla Gould, 1847 (p. 197) by original designation. The taxonomic group 
concerned is currently treated as a genus in either the PUPILLIDAE (e.g. Smith, 1992, 
p. 287) or the VERTIGINIDAE (e.g. Vaught, 1989, p. 80) and is one of the most 
widespread genera of terrestrial Mollusca. Species are most numerous in the islands 
of the Indo-Pacific region (especially the Hawaiian Islands), but occur also, for 
example, in India, Southeast Asia, Australasia and the islands of the Indian Ocean; 
the genus has also been recorded from Africa and St. Helena and from the Galapagos 
Islands. 

2. Pilsbry (1900, p. 431) introduced the name Nesopupa implicitly as a replacement 
name for Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881, considering the latter name preoccupied by 
Ptychocheilus Agassiz, 1855 (p. 227) (Osteichthyes). The name Ptychochilus of Gill 
(1865, p. 70) and Jordan (1877, p. 58) is an incorrect subsequent spelling of 
Ptychocheilus Agassiz, 1855 (see also Eschmeyer, 1990, p. 348) and is unavailable. 
Pilsbry’s action was valid at the time but, under Article 56(b) of the modern Code, 
‘even if the difference between two genus-group names is only one letter, these two 
names are not homonyms’. Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881 is thus not a junior homonym 
of Ptychocheilus Agassiz, 1855 and is available as a senior objective synonym of 
Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900. 

3. Acceptance of the priority of Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881 (or its alternative 
original spelling Ptychochylus) over Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 would overturn accus- 
tomed usage. Neither Ptychochilus Boettger nor its alternative spelling appears to 
have been used as the valid name of this taxon since the proposal of Nesopupa by 
Pilsbry in 1900. Nesopupa, on the other hand, has been and continues to be used 
extensively, e.g. Abbott (1989, p. 213), Chambers (1991, pp. 309, 317, 318), Smith 
(1992, p. 292). A listing of 15 representative references during the past 70 years is held 
by the Secretariat. The family-group name NESOPUPINAE Steenberg, 1925 (p. 201) is 
based on Nesopupa and is also generally accepted, e.g. Pilsbry (1948, pp. 870, 1006), 
Zilch (1959, p. 149), Vaught (1989, p. 80). Acceptance of the priority of Boettger’s 
names over Nesopupa would introduce unnecessary confusion into the nomenclature 
of a widely known and clearly understood genus and of a well-established subfamily. 


218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the 
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 

(a) Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881; 
(b) Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881 (alternate original spelling of Ptychochilus); 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Nesopupa 
Pilsbry, 1900 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation of the 
replaced nominal genus Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881 Pupa tantilla Gould, 1847; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tantilla 

Gould, 1847, as published in the binomen Pupa tantilla (specific name of the 
type species of Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900); 

to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


(4 


— 


References 


Abbott, R.T. 1989. Compendium of landshells. 240 pp. American Malacologists Inc., 
Melbourne, Florida. 

Agassiz, L. 1855. Synopsis of the ichthyological fauna of the Pacific slope of North America, 
chiefly from the collections made by the U.S. Expl. Exped. under the command of Captain 
C. Wilkes, with recent additions and comparisons with eastern types. American Journal of 
Science and Arts, (2)19(56): 215-231. 

Boettger, O. 1881. Die Pupa-Arten Oceaniens. Conchologische Mittheilungen, 1(4): 45-72. 

Chambers, S.M. 1991. Biogeography of Galapagos land snails. Pp. 307-325 in James, M.J. 
(Ed.), Galapagos marine invertebrates. Plenum, New York. 

Eschmeyer, W.N. 1990. Catalog of the genera of Recent fishes. 697 pp. California Academy of 
Sciences, San Francisco. 

Gill, T. 1865. Note on several genera of cyprinoids. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 
Sciences of Philadelphia, 1865: 69-70. 

Gould, A.A. 1847. [Dr. Gould gave descriptions of the following species of Partula, Pupa, and 
Balea, collected by the Exploring Expedition]. Proceedings of the Boston Society of 
Natural History, 2: 196-198. 

Jordan, D.S. 1877. Contributions to North American ichthyology, No. 2. Bulletin of the United 
States National Museum, 10: 1-120. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1900. Note on Polynesian and East Indian Pupidae. Proceedings of the Academy 
of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 52: 431-433. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1948. Land Mollusca of North America (North of Mexico). Volume 2, part 2. 
Monographs of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3: 521-1113. 

Smith, B.J. 1992. Non-marine Mollusca. Pp. 1-399 in Houston, W.W.K. (Ed.), Zoological 
Catalogue of Australia, vol. 8. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. 
Steenberg, C.M. 1925. Etudes sur l’anatomie et la systématique des maillots (Fam. Pupillidae 

s. lat.). Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk naturhistorisk Forening, 80: 1-211. 

Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. xii, 195 pp. American Malacologists 
Inc., Melbourne, Florida. 

Zilch, A. 1959. Gastropoda, Euthyneura. In Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldo- 
zoologie, vol. 6, Teil 2, Lieferung 1. Pp. 1-200. Borntraeger, Berlin. 


ee 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 219 


Case 2902 


Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839 and Kelaeno Minster, 1842 
(Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of usage 


D.T. Donovan 


Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, 
Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current usage of the 
names Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839 and Kelaeno Minster, 1842 for two 
genera of Jurassic teuthoid coleoids. In 1839 Minster had mentioned the name 
Kelaeno as synonymous with Acanthoteuthis but had not made it available. In 1841 
d@’Orbigny used the name Kelaeno in Miinster’s (1839) sense, but in 1842 Minster 
used the name for a different taxon which conforms with current usage. Suppression 
of Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841 is proposed. 


1. The generic name Acanthoteuthis was proposed for certain fossils from 
the Upper Jurassic (Tithonian Stage) lithographic limestones (lithographischen 
Schiefern) of the Solnhofen area of Bavaria in a letter from Rudolf Wagner quoted 
by Georg Graf zu Miinster (1839, p. 94). After describing the fossils Wagner wrote 
‘Was endlich den Namen betrifft, so kénnte man die fossile Gattung vielleicht 
Acanthopus, oder, um gleich die Familie und die Verwandtschaft mit Onychoteuthis 
anzudeuten, Acanthoteuthis nennen. (Lastly, as far as the name is concerned, one 
may perhaps call the fossil genus Acanthopus, or, so as to indicate the family and the 
relationship with Onychoteuthis, Acanthoteuthis). After quoting Wagner’s letter 
Minster wrote: ‘Ich finde den vorgeschlagenen Namen Acanthoteuthis passend und 
vertausche ihn gern mit dem friither vorgeschlagenen Namen Kelaeno (Harpie) ...’. (I 
find the proposed name Acanthoteuthis appropriate and exchange it willingly with the 
earlier proposed name Ke/aeno (Harpy) ...). Notwithstanding the phrase ‘dem friher 
vorgeschlagenen Namen’ the name Ke/aeno had not been previously published. Thus 
Miinster’s (1839) paper mentions three new names for the same genus: Acanthopus, 
Acanthoteuthis and Kelaeno. Of these Miinster selected Acanthoteuthis as the 
available name. The other two names were not made available since they were not 
used as valid names. Wagner (in Minster, 1839) did not cite any species, but Minster 
in his accompanying text described and figured three species: Acanthoteuthis speciosa 
(p. 94, pl. 9), A. Férussacii (p. 95, pl. 10, fig. 1) and A. Lichtensteinii (p. 96, pl. 10, fig. 
2). The first two specific names had been previously published as the nomina nuda 
Onychoteuthis speciosa and O. Ferussacci by Minster (1837, p. 252). 

2. Minster had sent MS descriptions and figures of what he then called Kelaeno 
speciosa and other species to d’Orbigny, who (1841, p. 354) published the combina- 
tions Kelaeno speciosa (Minster, 1839) and Kelaeno prisca (Rippell, 1829) in a list. 
Since Kelaeno had not been made available in Munster (1839), d’Orbigny’s inclusion 
of two available specific names makes this the first valid publication of Kelaeno. 
D’Orbigny later (1843, p. 140, pl. 23, figs. 1-4) published a description and figures of 


220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Kelaeno speciosa, to Minster’s displeasure (1846, p. 54) because by then Minster had 
accepted Acanthoteuthis for this taxon and (1842a, p. 46) had used Kelaeno in a 
different sense for a new genus of cephalopod from the lithographischen Schiefern, 
giving a diagnosis but citing no species. Later the same year Minster (1842b) 
described and figured two species, Kelaeno scutellaris (p. 96, pl. 1, fig. 1) and Kelaeno 
arquata (p. 96, pl. 1, fig. 2). In the same paper Minster (p. 97) described a species of 
Acanthoteuthis. It is clear from this and from the descriptions and figures that 
Minster was not using Kelaeno for the same taxon as Acanthoteuthis but for a 
different and new genus. Quenstedt (1849, p. 522) noted that Minster had used 
Kelaeno in two different senses, and adopted the sense of Minster (1842). 

3. Owen (1844, p. 81) referred to d’Orbigny (1843) and used the spelling Celaeno, 
but did not explain the change of spelling from Kelaeno to Celaeno. A.J. Wagner 
(1860, p. 779) likewise used the spelling Celaeno and explained that this was a 
correction to the latinization of ‘Kelaeno’, a mythical Greek ‘Harpy’. Fischer (1882, 
p. 354) also used the spelling Ce/aeno, with Kelaeno as a synonym, but in the sense 
of Minster (1842). The form Celaeno had been used before 1844 for different taxa by 
at least three different authors: Rafinesque-Schmalz (1815), Leach (1821) and Koch 
(1835). Celaeno Owen is an unjustified emendation and a junior homonym and 
cannot be used as a valid name. 

4. In his Manual of the Mollusca, Woodward (1851, p. 75) adopted Acanthoteuthis, 
with Kelaeno (sensu Minster, 1839) as a synonym. Schenk (1884, pp. 519, 521) in 
Zittel’s Handbuch der Palaeontologie adopted both Acanthoteuthis and Kelaeno 
(sensu Minster, 1842). 

5. Biilow-Trummer (1920, p. 268) designated Acanthoteuthis speciosa Minster, 
1839 as the type species of Acanthoteuthis. Bilow-Trummer also (1920, p. 266) listed 
Celaeno Minster, 1842 with the type species Celaeno arcuata Minster; this is 
accepted as a type species designation for Kelaeno of Kelaeno arquata Minster, 1842, 
which Bulow-Trummer spelt as arcuata in his synonymy. 

6. Naef, an authority on both living and fossil Coleoidea, in two works published 
in 1921 accepted Kelaeno Minster, 1842 and proposed a family KELAENIDAE, 
indicating this as nom. nov. in both papers (1921a, p. 535; 1921b, p. 47). Naef (1921a) 
was published on 31 March 1921; Naef (1921b) is not dated and is presumed to have 
been published later since in his bibliography Naef (1922) placed it after Naef 
(1921a). It follows that KELAENIDAE was established in Naef (1921la). In a compre- 
hensive work on fossil Coleoidea, extensively cited by later authors, Naef (1922, 
p. 150) spelt the names Ce/aeno and CELAENIDAE without explaining the change of 
spelling. 

7. Schevill (1950) regarded Kelaeno Minster, 1842 as preoccupied by Kelaeno 
Miinster, 1839 and therefore unavailable. He proposed as a substitute Miinsterella 
with the type species Kelaeno scutellaris Minster, 1842. This name is to be corrected 
to Muensterella under Article 32d(i)2 of the Code. 

8. Roger (1952, p. 742) in a treatise on invertebrate palaeontology adopted 
Miinsterella in place of Kelaeno and the family-group name MUNSTERELLIDAE in place 
of KELAENIDAE Naef, 1921. He was followed in this generic usage in a Russian treatise 
(Krimholz, 1958, p. 171) which cited Kalaeno [sic — a lapsus calami] Miinster, 1842 
as a synonym, but retained the family group name CELAENIDAE Naef, 1921 with 
MUNSTERELLIDAE Roger, 1952 as a synonym. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 221 


9. Jeletzky, an authority on fossil Coleoidea, in a preliminary study for the 
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, included Acanthoteuthis as a valid genus (1966, 
p. 138) and listed the following (1966, p. 45) without comment: ‘Kelaenidae Jeletzky, 
herein [nom. subst. pro Celaenidae Naef, 1921 (invalid family-group name based on 
nom. van., Code, Art. 11e)], containing Ke/laeno Minster, 1842 (non Minster, 1839) 
[= Celaeno Naef, 1921; Muensterella Schevill, 1950 (ICZN pend.)]’. Jeletzky wrongly 
cited Naef’s 1921 paper as using the incorrect spellings CELAENIDAE and Celaeno. 
Jeletzky did not submit an application to the Commission to. determine the matter, 
and accordingly Engeser (1988) accepted Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841 as valid and 
employed Muensterella and MUENSTERELLIDAE to replace Kelaeno Minster, 1842 and 
KELAENIDAE Naef, 1921. 
10. Acanthoteuthis Wagner, 1839 has been widely used and always in the original 
sense. However, this name is at risk from the minority of workers who have 
considered that Kelaeno Minster, 1839 (or the unjustified emendation Celaeno) is 
the correct name for this taxon. Acanthopus has been generally ignored although 
Minster (1846, p. 59) proposed its use as a subgenus of Acanthoteuthis. Naef (1922, 
p. 115, footnote) noted Acanthopus but did not use it in his main text. The name had 
been used prior to 1839 by Klug (1807), Dahl (1823), Latreille (1829) and de Haan 
(1835) and was placed on the Official Index as a junior homonym in Direction 37 
(1956). 
11. There is confusion with Kelaeno because of the ambiguous nature of Miinster’s 
(1839) use of this name and its publication by d’Orbigny (1841) which had been 
overlooked by most authors. It was generally used by 19th century German palaeon- 
tologists with the meaning of Minster (1842), e.g. (as Celaeno) by A.J. Wagner (1860, 
p. 779) in a critical review of the Coleoidea of the lithographischen Schiefern. A few 
authors have regarded it as preoccupied by Ke/aeno Minster, 1839, and three (Roger, 
1952; Krimholz, 1958; Engeser, 1988) to my knowledge have employed the substitute 
name Muensterella. It is important to stabilise usage of the names Acanthoteuthis 
Wagner, 1839 and Ke/aeno Minster, 1842 in their generally accepted usage. 
12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 
1841, and all uses of the name Kelaeno prior to the publication of Kelaeno 
Minster, 1842, 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) Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839 (gender: feminine), type species 
by subsequent designation by Bilow-Trummer (1920) Acanthoteuthis 
speciosa Munster, 1839; 

(b) Kelaeno Minster, 1842 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Bulow-Trummer (1920) Kelaeno arquata Minster, 1842; 

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

(a) speciosa Minster, 1839, as published in the binomen Acanthoteuthis 
speciosa (specific name of the type species of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in 
Minster, 1839); 

(b) arquata Minster, 1842, as published in the binomen Kelaeno arquata 
(specific name of the type species of Kelaeno Minster, 1842); 


222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) Kelaeno Minster, 1839 (nomen nudum); 

(b) Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(c) Celaeno Owen, 1844 (incorrect subsequent spelling of Ke/aeno Minster, 
1842); 

(d) Kalaeno Krimholz, 1958 (incorrect subsequent spelling of Kelaeno 
Minster, 1842). 


References 


Biillow-Trummer, E. von. 1920. Cephalopoda dibranchiata. Fossilium Catalogus, 1: Animalia, 
part 11. 313 pp. Junk, Berlin. 

Engeser, T. 1988. Vampyromorpha (‘Fossile Teuthiden’). Fossilium Catalogus, 1: Animalia, 
part 130. 167 pp. Kugler, Amsterdam. . 

Fischer, P. 1882. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique ou histoire 
naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 4. Pp. 305-416. Savy, Paris. 

Jeletzky, J.A. 1966. Comparative morphology, phylogeny, and classification of fossil 
Coleoidea. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Mollusca Article 7: 1-162. 

Krimholz, G.Y. 1958. Pp. 145-178 in Luppov, N.P. & Drushchitz, V.V. (Eds.), Endocochlia in 
Osnovy Paleontologii: Molluscs — II. Moscow. 

Minster, G. Graf zu. 1837. Neue Gattungen und Arten fossiler K6rper. P. 252 in Mineral- 
ogische Vortrage bei der Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Arzte in Jena im 
Sept. 1836. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 
1837: 244-252. 

Minster, G. Graf zu. 1839. Acanthoteuthis, ein neues Geschlecht der Cephalopoden, zu der 
Familie der Loligineen oder Teuthidae (Owen) gehérend. Pp. 91-97 in Minster, G. Graf 
zu (Ed.), Beitrdge zur Petrefacten-Kunde, part |. Bayreuth. 

Minster, G. Graf zu. 1842a. Beitrag zur Kenntniss einiger neuen seltenen Versteinerungen aus 
den lithographischen Schiefern in Baiern. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, 
Geologie und Petrefakten-Kunde, 1842: 35-46. 

Minster, G. Graf zu. 1842b. Ueber einige neue fossile schalenlose Cephalopoden und eine neue 
Gattung Ringelwiirmer (Anneliden). Pp. 95-99 in Minster, G. Graf zu (Ed.), Beitrdge zur 
Petrefacten-Kunde, part 5. Bayreuth. 

Minster, G. Graf zu. 1846. Ueber die schalenlosen Cephalopoden des oberen Juragebirgs, der 
lithographischen Kalkschiefer in Bayern. Pp. 51-66 in Dunker, W. (Ed.), Beitrdge zur 
Petrefacten-Kunde, part 7. Bayreuth. 

Naef, A. 1921la. Das System der dibranchiaten Cephalopoden und die mediterranen Arten 
derselben. Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 22: 527-542. 

Naef, A. 1921b. Die Cephalopoden. 35 Monographie der Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel 
und der angrenzenden Meeres-Abschnitte, part 1. 147 pp. Friedlander, Berlin. 

Naef, A. 1922. Die fossilen Tintenfische. vii, 322 pp. Fischer, Jena. 

Orbigny, A. d’. 1841. Considérations paléontologiques et géographiques sur la distribution des 
céphalopodes acétabuliféres. Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, 12: 352-364. 

Orbigny, A. d’. 1843. Paléontologie frangaise. Description zoologique et géologique de tous les 
animaux mollusques et rayonnés fossiles de France, comprenant leur application a la 
reconnaissance des couches. Terrains oolitiques ou jurassiques. Tome premier, comprenant 
les céphalopodes, parts 6-11. Pp. 81-144, pls. 6-44. Author, Paris. 

Owen, R. 1844. A description of certain belemnites, preserved, with a great portion of their soft 
parts, in the Oxford Clay, at Christian-Malford, Wilts. Philosophical Transactions of the 
Royal Society, 1844: 65-83. 

Quenstedt, F.A. 1849. Pp. 473-580, pls. 31-36 in: Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. 1. Die 
Cephalopoden, part 6. Fues, Tiibingen. 

Roger, J. 1952. Sous-classe des Dibranchiata Owen 1836. Pp. 689-755 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), 
Traité de Paléontologie, vol. 2. Masson, Paris. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 223 


Schenk, A. 1884. Pp. 329-522 in Zittel, K.A. (Ed.), Handbuch der Palaeontologie, vol. 1, part 
3 (Palaeozoologie) 2 (Mollusca und Arthropoda). Oldenbourg, Muinchen & Leipzig. 
Schevill, W.E. 1950. Miinsterella, a new name for Kelaeno Minster 1842, non Minster 1839. 

Journal of Paleontology, 24: 117-118. 

Wagner, A.[J.] 1860. Die fossilen Ueberreste von nackten Dintenfischen aus dem litho- 
graphischen Schiefer und dem Lias des siiddeutschen Juragebirges. Kritisch erlautert. 
Abhandlungen der Mathemat.-Physikalischen Classe der kéniglich bayerischen Akademie 
der Wissenschaften, 8(3): 751-821. 

Woodward, S.P. 1851. A manual of the Mollusca; or, rudimentary treatise of Recent and fossil 
shells, part 1. viii, 158 pp., 12 pls. Weale, London. 


224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Case 2915 


Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation as 
the correct original spelling 


Ernest H. Williams, Jr. 


Caribbean Aquatic Animal Health Project, Department of Marine Sciences, 
University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 908, Lajas, Puerto Rico 00667 


Thomas E. Bowman 


Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve Lironeca Leach, 1818 as the 
correct original spelling of a genus of isopods which are parasites in the gill chambers 
of New World fishes. The name originally appeared as Livoneca due to a printer’s 
error. Both Lironeca and Livoneca have been in use over the years but Lironeca has 
been more common in recent times. 


1. Leach (1818, p. 351) in his article on the isopod family “cyMOTHOADEES, 
Cymothoadae’ proposed a series of new generic names formed from anagrams of 
‘Caroline’ and ‘Carolina’, viz. Nelocira, Cirolana, Conilera, Rocinela, Canolira, 
Anilocra, Olencira and Nerocila. Another generic name evidently intended to be an 
anagram of ‘Caroline’ was, through a printer’s error, misspelled Livoneca (type 
species L. redmanii Leach, 1818 by subsequent designation by Gurjanova, 1936, 
p. 66). That these names were based on anagrams is a fact conceded even by those 
who argue that the genus must be spelled Livoneca because Article 32(c)(ii) of the 
Code requires that clear evidence of printer’s error must be present ‘in the original 
publication itself, without recourse to any external source of information’. 

2. Supporters of Livoneca (e.g. Sivertsen & Holthuis, 1980, p. 36) maintain that 
there is no internal evidence in Leach’s text that generic names were based on 
anagrams of Caroline and Carolina, since Leach did not specify the origin of his 
names. 

3. We maintain that it is patently obvious from their constructions themselves that 
Leach formed five names as anagrams of Caroline and three names as anagrams of 
Carolina. This constitutes evidence ‘in the original publication itself’ and further 
evidence in the form of an explicit statement by Leach is not required. The 
handwritten ‘r’ and ‘v’ can be very similar and easily confused by a printer. The 
possibility must be infinitesimal that Leach based eight names on anagrams and 
deliberately formed another name that failed to be an anagram by a single easily 
mistaken letter. The argument in support of this possibility is the kind of pedantic 
legalism that exposes taxonomists to ridicule by other biologists. 

4. In any case, unequivocal evidence for a printer’s error, unfortunately not 
admissible under Article 32(c)(1i), is the discovery by Monod (1931, p. 5, footnote 2) 
that on the reprint sent to Latreille, Leach corrected the names Livonéce and 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 225 


Livoneca to Lironéce and Lironeca every time that they occurred (eight times). There 
are other incorrect original spellings in Leach’s paper: Recineéle (latinized as 
Rocinela), Anilacre (elswhere spelt Anilocra), Desmaretii (for Desmarestii). 

5. We have reviewed the literature in our data base (Bowman et al., in preparation) 
for the use of the Lironeca and Livoneca spellings in the last 50 years and over the 
period as a whole Lironeca predominates. The spelling Livoneca dominated from 
1941 to 1960 (27 vs. 7), the two spellings were equally used from 1961 to 1970 (17 vs. 
18) but Lironeca dominates in the more recent (1971-1990) literature (104 vs. 14) e.g. 
Williams & Bunkley-Williams, 1994; Bunkley-Williams & Williams, 1987; Bowman 
& Tareen, 1983. It would therefore be contrary to stability to ‘revert’ to Livoneca. 

6. Although White (1847) was the first author to use the name Lironeca in print, 
he should not be considered the author of this name. White (1847, p. 109) gave Leach 
as the author of the genus Lironeca. 

7. The subfamily name LIVONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 (p. 325) is 
therefore also based on an incorrect original spelling and we consider that it should 
be corrected to LIRONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 under Article 32c(iii) of the 
Code. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that Livoneca is an incorrect original spelling 

of Lironeca Leach, 1818; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lironeca 
Leach, 1818 (gender: feminine) (spelling corrected in (1) above), type species by 
subsequent designation by Gurjanova (1936) Livoneca redmanii Leach, 1818; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name redmanii 
Leach, 1818, as published in the binomen Livoneca [sic] redmanii (specific name 
of the type species of Lironeca Leach, 1818); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name 
LIRONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 (type genus Lironeca Leach, 1818) 
(correction of LIVONECINAE); 

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Livoneca Leach, 1818 (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect 
original spelling of Lironeca Leach, 1818); 

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name LIVONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 (an incorrect 
original spelling of LIRONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884). 


References 


Bowman, T.E. & Tareen, I.U. 1983. Cymothoidae from fishes of Kuwait (Arabian Gulf) 
(Crustacea: Isopoda). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 382: 1-30. 

Bowman, T.E., Bunkley-Williams, L. & Williams, E.H. Jr. 1995. (In preparation). Database of 
the cymothoid isopods. (Interactive Electronic Data Base). 

Bunkley-Williams, L. & Williams, E.H. Jr. 1987. Three new species of Renocila (Crustacea: 
Isopoda: Cymothoidae) external parasites of coral reef fishes from the Ryukyu Islands of 
Japan. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 100: 417-432. 

Gurjanova, E.F. 1936. Isopodes des mers orientales. Jn Stackelberg, A.A. (Ed.), Fauna de 
l'URSS, vol. 7, Crustacées, part 3. 278 pp. L’Académie des Sciences de !URSS, U.S.S.R. 
{In Russian]. 


226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Leach, W.E. 1818. Cymothoadées, Cymothoadae (Crustacea). Pp. 338-354 in Cuvier, F. (Ed.), 
Dictionnaire des sciences naturelle, vol. 12. 354 pp. Paris & Strasbourg. 

Monod, T. 1931. Sur quelques crustacés aquatiques d’ Afrique (Cameroun et Congo). Revue de 
Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 21(1): 1-36. 

Schioedte, J.C. & Meinert, F. 1884. Symbolae et monographiam cymothoarum crustaceorum 
isopodum familiae, 1V: Cymothoidae. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (3)14: 221-454. 

Sivertsen, E. & Holthuis, L.B. 1980. The marine isopod Crustacea of the Tristan da Cunha 
Archipelago. Gunneria, 35: 1-128. 

White, A. 1847. List of the specimens of Crustacea in the collections of the British Museum. Vill, 
143 pp. British Museum, London. 

Williams, E.H. Jr. & Bunkley-Williams, L. 1994. Ryukyua globosa n. gen., n. sp., and R. 
circulans n. comb., parasites in the opercular chambers of Pacific and Indian Ocean 
clupeid fishes. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 6: 155-161. 


tN 
tN 
~ 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Case 2844 


Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed 
designation of a neotype 


David T. Bilton 


Department of Biology, University of York, Heslington, York YOI SDD, 
U.K. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm as neotype of the nominal 
species Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 a specimen from Uppsala, Sweden proposed 
by Bilton (1994). A specimen labelled “ase/lus’ in Linnaeus’s handwriting belongs to 
the taxon always called Porcellio scaber Latreille, 1804. O. asellus and P. scaber are 
amongst the commonest woodlice of Europe and are the type species of their genera. 
Acceptance of the Linnaean specimen as the name-bearing type of O. asellus would 
transfer this name to P. scaber as always understood, and would confuse isopod 
names at the ranks of family, genus and species. 


1. The nominal species Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 637) was based on a 
four-word description and five references; as originally defined the name could apply 
to almost all non-conglobating species of terrestrial isopod. 

2. The composite nature of O. asellus was recognized by early authors. The taxon 
was first more narrowly defined by De Geer (1778, p. 549, pl. 35, figs. 3-10), who 
applied the name to a woodlouse with seven antennal segments, including three in the 
terminal flagellum, and prominent lateral lobes on the head. The description and 
figures indicate that De Geer was referring to O. asellus as currently interpreted. 
However, the De Geer collection in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet in Stockholm 
contains three specimens below a label bearing the name Oniscus asellus. One of 
these is O. asellus as now understood, one a specimen of Cylisticus convexus 
(De Geer, 1778, p. 553), and the third an undetermined porcellionid possibly of 
non-European origin. The fact that a separate De Geer species (C. convexus) stands 
under the name O. asellus suggests that subsequent arrangement of his material has 
occurred. 

3. Cuvier (1792, p. 22, pl. 26, figs. 11-13) introduced the name Oniscus murarius. 
The description and figures show that the species concerned is O. asellus sensu 
De Geer. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the name O. murarius was 
widely used for the species (e.g. Budde-Lund, 1885; Verhoeff, 1908). Sars (1899) 
adopted O. asellus sensu De Geer (1778) and Latreille (1804), and this application of 
the name has for many years entirely replaced O. murarius for one of the commonest 
woodlice in Europe (see for example Vandel, 1962; Gruner, 1966; Sutton, 1972; 
Bilton, 1994). 

4. Cuvier (1792, p. 23, pl. 26, figs. 9-10) applied the name O. asellus to another 
species, with a two-segmented antennal flagellum. He remarked that he did this for 
the sole reason that the species was the most common, noting that the description by 
Linnaeus applied equally well to three species. Latreille (1804, p. 39) did not follow 


228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Cuvier’s usage, and expressly based his new genus Porcellio (p. 45) on ‘Pespéce qu'il 
[Cuvier] appelle aselle’; this species was described on p. 45 under the name P. scaber, 
which has been adopted by all subsequent authors. The differences between O. asellus 
and P. scaber are well illustrated by Sutton (1972, fig. 27). The Commission rejected 
‘O. asellus Cuvier, 1792’ as a junior homonym of O. ase//us Linnaeus in Direction 88 
(March 1958), but, as mentioned above, Cuvier did not propose a new name and 
merely applied that of Linnaeus in a way which, although different from De Geer 
(1778), was reasonable at the time but not adopted by Latreille (1804) or later 
authors. 

5. The names Oniscus and asellus of Linnaeus, 1758 and Porcellio and scaber of 
Latreille, 1804 were placed on the relevant Official Lists in Opinion 104 (September 
1928). The entry for Oniscus on the Official List (1987) records ‘Stiles, 1928” (i.e. 
Opinion 104) for the designation of O. ase/lus as the type species, but this is an error: 
Direction 88 had noted a designation by E. Desmarest in 1858. An earlier designation 
of O. asellus (in the current sense) is that by Audouin (1823, p. 222). Latreille (1810, 
p. 423) had previously designated O. murarius as the type but he did not there 
synonymize this nominal species, not originally included, with O. asellus (although he 
had done so in 1804 and elsewhere). 

6. The collection at the Linnean Society in London contains a single specimen 
labelled ‘asellus’ in Linnaeus’s handwriting. The label has pin-holes at both ends, and 
may have been attached to this specimen by a later worker (see Day & Fitton, 1978 
for a discussion of this practice). The specimen is an adult male of the species always 
called Porcellio scaber, but this may simply reflect the composite nature of Linnaeus’s 
concept of Oniscus asellus. 

7. Acceptance of the specimen at the Linnean Society as the name-bearing type of 
O. asellus would mean reverting to the specific name murarius Cuvier, 1792 for 
O. asellus auct. Much more seriously, such acceptance would transfer the generic 
name Oniscus to the taxon called Porcellio Latreille, 1804; Porcellio would disappear, 
P. scaber would become O. asellus, and murarius Cuvier would need a new nominal 
genus. The family name ONISCIDAE would take the meaning of PORCELLIONIDAE, and 
a new family name would be needed to replace it. All this would create intolerable 
confusion. 

8. To avoid the situation given in the previous paragraph and because of the early 
history of the name, it is desirable to define O. asellus by a neotype. Another reason 
for the present application is that I have recently described a subspecies, O. asellus 
occidentalis Bilton, 1994 (p. 332). In that paper I have differentiated O. a. asellus and 
O. a. occidentalis, and designated a holotype for the latter from Lydford Gorge, 
Devon, England. The nominotypical subspecies O. a. asellus Linnaeus, 1758 has no 
type locality but I (Bilton, 1994, p. 331) have proposed a neotype from the 
Linnetradgarden, Uppsala, Sweden. The types of both subspecies are deposited in the 
Natural History Museum, London. It is necessary for the proposed neotype 
designation for Oniscus asellus to be validated by the Commission. 

9. 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 Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 and to designate as 
neotype the specimen from Uppsala, Sweden proposed by Bilton (1994); 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 229 


(2) to amend the entry for Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of Generic 
Names in Zoology to record that O. asellus was designated as the type species 
by Audouin (1823); 

(3) to add to the entry for Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology an endorsement recording that this nominal species 
is to be defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. 


References 


Audouin, J.V. 1823. Cloporte. Oniscus. Pp. 222-223 in Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. (Ed.), 
Dictionnaire classique d'Histoire naturelle, vol. 4. 628 pp. Paris. 

Bilton, D.T. 1994. Intraspecific variation in the terrestrial isopod Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 
1758 (Crustacea: Isopoda: Oniscidea). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 
(London), 110: 325-354. 

Budde-Lund, G. 1885. Crustacea Isopoda Terrestria, per familias et genera et species descripta. 
319 pp. Havniae. 

Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1792. Mémoire sur les cloportes terrestres. Journal d'Histoire Naturelle, 2: 
18-31. 

Day, M.C. & Fitton, M.G. 1978. Recuration of the Linnaean Hymenoptera (Insecta), with a 
reassessment of the taxonomic importance of the collection. Biological Journal of the 
Linnean Society (London), 10: 181-198. 

De Geer, C. 1778. Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes, vol. 7. xii, 950 pp., 49 pls. 
Hesselberg, Stockholm. 

Gruner, H.E. 1966. Der Tierwelt Deutschlands: Krebstiere oder Crustacea 5: Isopoda, vol. 2. 
Fischer, Jena. 

Latreille, P.A. 1804. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des crustacés et des insectes, 
vol. 7. 413 pp. Dufart, Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. 1810. Considerations générales sur ... les classes des crustacés, des arachnides, et 
des insectes. 444 pp. Schoell, Paris. 

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

Sars, G.O. 1899. An account of the Crustacea of Norway. I1. Isopoda. 270 pp. Bergen. 

Sutton, S.L. 1972. Woodlice. 144 pp. Ginn, London. 

Vandel, A. 1962. Isopodes terrestres (deuxiéme partie). Faune de France, 66: 417-931. 

Verhoeff, K.W. 1908. Uber Isopoden. 15. Isopoden-Aufsatz. Archiv fiir Biontologie, 2: 335-387. 


230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Case 2866 


MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) and 
MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed 
removal of homonymy 


Neil D. Springate 


Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Geneve 6, 
Switzerland 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between two 
family names of Hymenoptera and fossil Bivalvia. It is proposed that the complete 
name of the sawfly genus Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 be adopted as the stem of the 
corresponding family-group names, giving MEGALODONTESIDAE Konow, 1897. The 
mollusc name MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 would remain unchanged. 


1. Morris & Lycett (1853, p. 78) proposed the family-group name Megalonidae for 
three genera of fossil bivalve molluscs, based on the Triassic genus Megalodon 
Sowerby, 1827 (p. 131), type species M. cucullatus Sowerby, 1827 (p. 132). The family 
name was corrected by Zittel (1881, p. 69) to MEGALODONTIDAE, and has been used at 
superfamily rank as MEGALODONTACEA. Under Article 33b of the Code, Morris & 
Lycett (1853) are the authors of the name MEGALODONTIDAE. 

2. Konow (1897, p. 1) proposed the family-group name Megalodontides, based on 
the genus of extant Symphyta (Insecta, Hymenoptera) Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 
(p. 302), type species by monotypy Tenthredo cephalotes Fabricius, 1781 (p. 408). 
Ashmead (1898, p. 207) corrected the suffix to form MEGALODONTINAE and 
MacGillivray (1906, p. 644) raised it to family rank as MEGALODONTIDAE. 

3. Both the family names MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca) and 
MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Insecta) are correctly formed and are in general use. 
To base a new family-group name on another genus included within MEGALODON- 
TIDAE Konow, 1897 would cause immeasurable confusion. To remove the homonymy 
it is therefore proposed that the full generic name of the genus Megalodontes 
Latreille, 1802 is used as the stem, so that hymenopteran family-group names based 
on it would become MEGALODONTESIDAE (Or MEGALODONTESINAE, as the case may be). 
In accordance with Article 55b of the Code this case is referred to 
the Commission. } 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of 

the generic name Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 is MEGALODONTES-; 

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

(a) Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- 
typy Tenthredo cephalotes Fabricius, 1781; 

(b) Megalodon Sowerby, 1827 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Megalodon cucullatus Sowerby, 1827; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 231 


(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) cephalotes Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Tenthredo cepha- 
lotes (specific name of the type species of Megalodontes Latreille, 1802); 
(b) cucullatus Sowerby, 1827, as published in the binomen Megalodon cucul- 
latus (specific name of the type species of Megalodon Sowerby, 1827); 
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology: 
(a) MEGALODONTESIDAE Konow, 1897, type genus Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Hymenoptera); 
(b) MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853, type genus Megalodon Sowerby, 
1827 (Mollusca, Bivalvia); 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (spelling emended to 
MEGALODONTESIDAE in (1) above). 


Acknowledgements 

The assistance of Barry Bolton and Noel Morris (respectively of the Departments of 
Entomology and Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London) with the 
derivation of Greek nomenclature and the tracing of family-group names in fossil 
Bivalvia respectively is acknowledged gratefully. This paper is part of a Ph.D. study 
supervised by Daniel Burckhardt and Willy Matthey, supported by the Université de 
Neuchatel and funded by the Fonds national suisse de la recherche scientifique 
(project no. 31—30864.91). 


References 


Ashmead, W.H. 1898. Classification of the horntails and sawflies, or the sub-order Phyto- 
phaga. The Canadian Entomologist, 30: 205-213. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum ..., vol. 1. 552 pp. Hamburgi & Kilonii. 

Konow, F.W. 1897. Systematische und kritische Bearbeitung der Blattwespen-Tribus Lydini. 
Annalen des Kéniglichen-Kaiserlichen Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, (Wien), 12: 1-32. 

Latreille, P.A. [1802]. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, 
vol. 3. 468 pp. Dufart, Paris. 

MacGillivray, A. de C. 1906. A study of the wings of the Tenthredinoidea, a superfamily of the 
Hymenoptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 29: 569-654. 

Morris, J. & Lycett, J. 1853. A monograph of the Mollusca from the Great Oolite, chiefly from 
Minchinhampton and the coast of Yorkshire, part 2 (bivalves). 80 pp. Palaeontographical 
Society, London. 

Sowerby, J. de C. 1827. The mineral conchology of Great Britain, part 97 (vol. 6, pp. 121-131). 
Meredith, London. 

Zittel, K.A. 1881. Handbuch der Palaeontologie, Abtheilung | (Palaeozoologie), Band 2 
(Mollusca und Arthropoda). 893 pp. Oldenburg, Munich & Leipzig. 


232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Case 2638 


Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, A. muscorum Linnaeus, 1758 and 

A. lucorum Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Bombus terrestris, B. muscorum 
and B. lucorum) and Bombus humilis Mliger, 1806 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names 


Astrid Loken 
Hoyseterveien 96, N-0768 Oslo, Norway 


Antti Pekkarinen 


Department of Zoology, Division of Ecology, P.O. Box 17 (P. Rautatiekatu 
13), FIN-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland 


Pierre Rasmont 


Laboratoire de Zoologie, Université de Mons-Hainaut, Avenue Maistriau, 
B-7000 Mons, Belgium 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the established usage 
of the specific names of four common species of European bumble bees, all now 
placed in the genus Bombus Latreille, 1802. This usage is in agreement with the 
original descriptions of the species, but lectotype designations for B. terrestris (the 
type species of Bombus) and B. muscorum have been made which, if followed, would 
have the following consequences: B. terrestris would be called B. audax, B. lucorum 
would become B. terrestris, B. muscorum would be called B. laevis, and B. humilis 
would become B. muscorum. These changes, especially the name transfers, would be 
very confusing and it is proposed that they be avoided by the designation of neotypes 
for B. terrestris and B. muscorum. 


1. Linnaeus (1758, p. 578) described Apis terrestris as “A[pis] hirsuta nigra, 
thoracis cingulo flavo, ano albo ... Habitat in Europae terra ...’; he cited eight earlier 
references but mentioned no specimens. The nominal species A. terrestris is the type 
by monotypy of Bombus Latreille, 1802 (p. 437); this generic name was placed on the 
Official List in Opinion 220 (March 1954) but no mention was made of the taxonomic 
sense (i.e. typification) of A. terrestris itself. 

2. The collection of the Linnean Society of London contains four specimens under 
the name A. terrestris. Three queen specimens are mounted in the same row; the first 
of these is labelled ‘terrestris’ while the others are unlabelled. In her revision of 
Scandinavian bumble bees Loken (1973, p. 53) pointed out that only the third queen 
is in agreement with the accepted taxonomic use of the name ferrestris, but in order 
to maintain stability she continued to use the name ‘in sensu past and present 
authors’. Loken considered that two of the Linnean Society specimens were females 
of Bombus lucorum (Linnaeus, 1761) as understood by authors; Linnaeus had 
described this species from the male (see para. 6 below). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 233 


3. Day (1979, p. 74) noted that the third queen in the Linnean Society collection 
(see previous para.) is a specimen of B. terrestris auct. but of British origin (as shown 
by its buff tail segment: continental specimens are white in this respect (cf. Linnaeus’s 
description “ano albo’ in para. 1 above)). Day designated the first (labelled) queen as 
the lectotype of Apis terrestris and the second as a paralectotype, although he noted 
that this lectotype is not in accord with the stable concept of the name (see para. 11 
below). 

4. One of us (P.R.) has studied Day’s lectotype and paralectotype of A. terrestris 
and concluded that, rather than belonging to B. /ucorum (see para. 2 above), they are 
possibly specimens of Bombus cryptarum (Fabricius, 1775 (p. 379)), which is a species 
very closely related to B. /ucorum (see Rasmont et al., 1986). 

5. The specific name of Apis audax Harris, [1776] (p. 130) has been used for British 
specimens of B. terrestris auct. (see Day, 1979, p. 74), and audax could replace 
terrestris for this species if Day’s lectotype designation were followed. Even more 
confusing, the name B. terrestris would be transferred to the B. /ucorum of authors 
(or possibly to B. cryptarum). Williams (1985, 1986) used the names B. audax and 
B. terrestris in this way but authors in general have not adopted the consequences of 
Day’s lectotype designation for Apis terrestris. 

6. Linnaeus (1761, p. 425) described Apis lucorum, which he based on male 
specimens from Sweden. Day (1979, p. 66) designated a labelled male in the Linnean 
Society collection as lectotype, and this is in accord with the established usage of the 
name. 

7. Linnaeus (1758, p. 579) described Apis muscorum, citing three references but 
mentioning no specimens; he had previously described the species as early as 1736. In 
the collection of the Linnean Society there are three specimens (two queens, one of 
which is labelled ‘32 muscorum’, and one worker) under this name, but they are 
conspecific with Bombus humilis Mliger, 1806 (p. 171) and in disagreement with 
Linnaeus’s description and the accepted usage of the name muscorum. The discrep- 
ancy between the description and the labelled specimen was pointed out by Kriiger 
(1932, p. 148) and Richards (1935, p. 74), although Day (1979, p. 68) said ‘It agrees 
with description’. Richards considered that the Linnean Society specimen(s) may not 
be pre-1758 material, and in the interest of stability deliberately maintained the use 
of B. muscorum ‘for the species which is universally known by that name at the 
present time’; Loken (1973, p. 146) did the same. 

8. In 1947 H. Boschma, acting on behalf of the nomenclature committee of the 
Nederlandse Entomologische Vereniging, forwarded an application (originally for- 
mulated by G. Kruseman of the Amsterdam Zoological Museum) to the Commission 
Secretary (F. Hemming) asking for conservation of ‘the well-known name Bombus 
muscorum Linné, 1758 in the sense of Fabricius and later authors’. Hemming (May 
1947) requested ‘an up-to-date statement by a specialist in the group concerned 
regarding the identity of the specimen in the Linnean collection’ but this was not 
forthcoming and no further action was taken. Hemming took the view that ‘there is 
extremely little evidence to support the allegation (sometimes made) that J.E. Smith 
added other specimens after he acquired the collection [in 1784], but in fact 
specimens of Hymenoptera were added after 1757 in Sweden and later also by Smith 
(see Day & Fitton, 1978, p. 183); presumably this had happened in the case of the 
British specimen of A. terrestris (para. 3 above). 


234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


9. Day (1979, p. 68) designated the female specimen in the Linnean Society 
collection labelled “32 muscorum’ (see para. 7 above) as the lectotype of Apis 
muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, despite its discrepancy with the original description of the 
species and the established usage. This designation has the effect of transferring the 
name muscorum to the species known as Bombus humilis Iliger, 1806 and of requiring 
a valid replacement name for B. muscorum as it has long been understood. Day (1979, 
p. 68) suggested that the name /aevis, published by Vogt (1909, p. 63) as B. muscorum 
laevis, ‘may be [the] next available name for the species commonly known as 
B. muscorum’. Williams (1985, 1986) adopted B. muscorum for B. humilis auct. and 
B. laevis for B. muscorum auct., although expressing reservations in the earlier paper, 
but the double name change resulting from Day’s lectotype selection has not been 
generally followed. 

10. We seek conservation of the long established and current usage of the specific 
names of Bombus terrestris, B. lucorum, B. humilis and B. muscorum, and in particular 
to avoid the transfer of names between species. The names have been used in a stable 
sense by numerous workers in hundreds of publications (e.g. Loken, 1973; Alford, 
1975; Pekkarinen, 1979; Rasmont, 1983; Rasmont, 1984; Hagen, 1986; Rasmont et 
al., 1986; Prys-Jones & Corbet, 1987); the Commission Secretariat has a list of 21 
such publications in addition to those mentioned in this application. Macfarlane 
(1988, p. 8), supporting our approach to the Commission over these cases, wrote ‘I 
consider changing the useage away from the longstanding and traditional use does 
not serve science well ... a situation has arisen ... in which confusion in the taxa is 
being generated for scientists other than taxonomic specialists ... The literature on 
these four species is confusing enough without compounding the difficulties by letting 
a gradual or incomplete change in the meaning of the names to occur. B. terrestris 
and B. /ucorum are amongst the best known species of bumble bees, which are well 
known insects of economic value’. Macfarlane mentioned that B. terrestris had been 
introduced into New Zealand, where it was of importance in the pollination of 
lucerne and kiwifruit. He stated that he had received support for the conservation of 
the traditional sense of the Bombus names from ‘eminent researchers who deal with 
bees from France, Belgium, the United States, Chile, and New Zealand, and only one 
objection from the United Kingdom’. 

11. In making his lectotype designations in a contrary sense, Day (1979) himself 
noted (p. 78) “Names are here applied in strict accordance with the International 
Code of Zoological Nomenclature, irrespective of current usage. The current 
application of the names Bombus muscorum (L.), B. humilis Wliger, B. lucorum (L.), 
B. terrestris (L.) ... may well be considered worthy of conservation by interested 
zoologists by suspension of the rules by the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature’. 

12. The usage of the four specific names mentioned in the previous paragraph 
can be conserved by setting aside the lectotypes designated by Day (1979) for 
Apis terrestris and A. muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, and then designating neotypes 
in accord with the established understanding of the names. We propose as 
neotypes two specimens from Sweden, now in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, 
Stockholm. The specimen of A. terrestris is a queen with a red label reading 
‘NEOTYPE Apis terrestris L., 1758 A. Pekkarinen des. 1994’, a white label 
reading “‘Upl. Radmans6 Vasternas 7.8.1970 leg. S. Erlandsson’, a white label 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 235 


reading ‘Bombus terrestris (L.) A. Loken det.’ and a blue label reading ‘Natur- 
historiska Riksmuseet Stockholm Loan 262/94’. The specimen of A. muscorum 
is also a queen, with a red label reading ‘NEoTyPpE Apis muscorum L., 1758 
A. Pekkarinen des. 1994, a white label reading ‘Sk. Arkelstorp 5.7.1947 
B.O. Landin’, a white label reading ‘Bombus muscorum L., A. Loken det.’ and a 
blue label reading ‘Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet Stockholm Loan 268/94’. 

13. 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 Apis terrestris and A. muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, and to 
designate the first and second specimens mentioned in para. 12 above as the 
respective neotypes; 
(2) to add to the entry for Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology the endorsement that the nominal species is defined 
by the neotype designated in (1) above; 
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis muscorum and 
as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; 

(b) Jucorum Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Apis /ucorum and as 
defined by the lectotype designated by Day (1979); 

(c) humilis Mliger, 1806, as published in the binomen Bombus humilis. 


References 


Alford, D.V. 1975. Bumblebees. 352 pp. Davis-Poynter, London. 

Day, M.C. 1979. The species of Hymenoptera described by Linnaeus in the genera Sphex, 
Chrysis, Vespa, Apis and Mutilla. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (London), 12: 
45-84. 

Day, M.C. & Fitton, M.G. 1978. Re-curation of the Linnaean Hymenoptera (Insecta), with a 
reassessment of the taxonomic importance of the collection. Biological Journal of the 
Linnean Society (London), 10: 181-198. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae, ... xxxii, 832 pp. Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae. 

Hagen, E. von. 1986. Hummeln. 224 pp. Neumann, Melsungen. 

Harris, M. [1776-1780]. Exposition of English Insects. viii, 166 pp., 53 pls. Author, London. 

Illiger, J.C.W. 1806. William Kirby’s Familien der Bienenartigen Insecten mit Zusdtzen, 
Nachweisungen u. Bemerkungen. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 5: 28-175. 

Kriiger, E. 1932. Uber die Farbervariationen der Hummelart Bombus agrorum Fabr. I Teil. 
Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 24: 148-237. 

Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle des Fourmis, ... xvi, 445 pp., 12 pls. Barrois, Paris. 

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

Linnaeus, C. 1761. Fauna Suecica, Ed. 2. 578 pp. Salvii, Stockholmiae. 

Loken, A. 1973. Studies on Scandinavian bumble bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Norsk 
Entomologisk Tidskrift, 20: 1-218. 

Macfarlane, R.P. 1988. Bombus terrestris (L.): does a change in its useage really serve science? 
Melissa, 3: 7-9. ; 

Pekkarinen, A. 1979. Morphometric, colour and enzyme variation in bumblebees 
(Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombus) in Fennoscandia and Denmark. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 
158: 1-60. 

Prys-Jones, O.E. & Corbet, S.A. 1987. Bumble bees. Naturalists’ Handbook, no. 6. 86 pp. 
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 

Rasmont, P. 1983. Catalogue commenté des bourdons de la région ouest-paléarctique 
(Hymenoptera, Apoidea, Apidae). Notes fauniques de Gembloux, 7: 1-71. 


236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Rasmont, P. 1984. Les bourdons du genre Bombus Latreille sensu stricto en Europe Occidentale 
et Centrale (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Spixiana, 7: 135-160. 

Rasmont, P., Scholl, A., Jonghe, R. de, Obrecht, E. & Adamski, A. 1986. Identité et variabilité 
des males de bourdons du genre Bombus Latreille sensu stricto en Europe occidentale et 
centrale (Hymenoptera, Apidae, Bombinae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 93: 661-682. 

Richards, O.W. 1935. Bombus muscorum (Linnaeus) and B. smithianus White (Hym.). 
Transactions of the Society for British Entomology, 2: 73-85. 

Vogt, O. 1909. Studien tiber das Artproblem. Uber das Variieren der Hummeln. Sitzungs- 
berichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1909: 28-84. 

Williams, P.H. 1985. A preliminary cladistic investigation of relationships among the bumble 
bees (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Systematic Entomology, 10: 239-255. 

Williams, P.H. 1986. Environmental change and the distributions of British bumble bees. Bee 
World, 67: 50-61. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 237 


Case 2936 


CAECILIIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) 
and CAECILUDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): proposed removal 
of the homonymy by the revocation of Opinion 1462 and the adoption 
of the spelling CAECILIUSIDAE for the psocopteran family name 


M.H. Wake 


Department of Integrative Biology and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 
University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-3140, U.S.A. 


A. Dubois 
Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France 


D.R. Frost 


American Museum of Natural History, 79th St. and Central Park West, 
New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. 


T.E. Moore & R.A. Nussbaum 


Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 
48109-1079, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the very well known 
family name CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 for caecilian amphibians. This 
name is a senior homonym of the insect name CAECILUDAE Kolbe, 1880. Because it 
had been suggested that the emendation CAECILIUSIDAE of the latter would be 
non-euphonious, the amphibian name was emended to CAECILIAIDAE in Opinion 1462 
(December 1987). The reversal of this ruling is sought in pursuit of both stable usage 
and adherence to priority; furthermore CAECILIAIDAE is both non-euphonious and 
cumbersome. 


1. In January 1980 H.M. Smith, U. Lanham and A. Loveridge drew to the 
attention of the then Commission Secretary the homonymy which existed between 
old family-group names based on Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 (caecilian amphibians) 
and Caecilius Curtis, 1837 (psocopteran insects). In 1981 T.E. Moore, R.A. 
Nussbaum and E.L. Mockford independently submitted a detailed application to 
remove the homonymy, and Smith et al. supported the need for this. Smith 
remarked (in litt., 20 February 1981) ‘Caecilius does not lend itself well to a family 
name that accurately reflects the name of the type genus, viz. CAECILIUSIDAE’. The 
application by Moore et al. was published as Case 2333 in July 1983 (BZN 40: 
124-128); they proposed that, because it was the older, the amphibian family name 
(which they attributed to Gray, 1825) should remain unchanged and that the 
psocopteran name CAECILIIDAE Kolbe, 1880 should be emended. The suggested 
spelling was CAECILIONIDAE. 


238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


2. Smith & Polhemus (BZN 41: 108-109) commented that a family name should 
clearly indicate the generic name on which it was based; CAECILIONIDAE did not do 
this and indeed implied a non-existent generic name. They proposed that the 
amphibian name should be emended to CAECILIAIDAE because this was ‘much more 
euphonious’ than would be CAECILIUSIDAE (see Smith’s remark in para. 1 above) in 
the Psocoptera. Moore (BZN 41: 207-208) replied that he and Drs Nussbaum and 
Mockford had rejected both CAECILIAIDAE and CAECILIUSIDAE because of their 
‘unexpected spelling and form’; they had left the amphibian name unchanged because 
of its priority and because ‘psocids are not particularly widely or popularly discussed 
animals and ... only a relatively few authors have used this group name in insects’. We 
note that Dr Mockford is a specialist in the Psocoptera. To meet the objections of 
Smith & Polhemus to the basis of CAECILIONIDAE, Moore et al. ‘reluctantly suggested’ 
a new generic name Caecilionis; this would replace Caecilius, which would have to be 
suppressed by the Commission. M.H. Wake (BZN 42: 220-221) also supported the 
proposal that the amphibian name should remain unchanged; she considered that 
usage made this important, and that CAECILIAIDAE was not easy to pronounce and not 
conspicuously distinct from CAECILIIDAE. 

3. In 1986 Dubois (BZN 43: 6) pointed out that the first publication of the 
amphibian family name was by Rafinesque-Schmaltz (1814), who spelled it as 
‘Cecilinia’. By Article 32c(ili) of the Code this incorrect original spelling is corrected 
to CAECILIIDAE. 

4. In March 1987 the Executive Secretary issued voting papers on the CAECILIIDAE 
case to members of the Commission. The various comments which had been made 
were reviewed, and it was suggested that perhaps the least disruptive course would be 
to emend the amphibian name to CAECILIAIDAE, leaving the insect name unchanged. 
The Commission was not asked to vote on the possible adoption of CAECILIUSIDAE for 
the psocopteran family, because this name had not been advocated (for reasons only 
of euphony, as mentioned above) by any of the participants in the case. 

5. As reported in Opinion 1462 (BZN 44: 263-264, December 1987), by 19 votes 
to 4 the Commission accepted the amendment of CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 
1814 (Amphibia) to CAECILIAIDAE and left CAECILIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Psocoptera) 
unchanged. However, three Commissioners stated that they would have preferred to 
emend the latter name to CAECILIUSIDAE and others commented that it would have 
been desirable to retain CAECILIDAE in Amphibia for reasons of both priority and 
usage. 

6. In December 1988 one of us (Frost) wrote to the Executive Secretary (Dr P.K. 
Tubbs) saying ‘I was dismayed by the resolution of the CAECILIIDAE controversy, as 
were Marvalee Wake and Alain Dubois. It seems that the solution reached was that 
most unacceptable to everyone’. Tubbs replied ‘In retrospect, I do myself regret that 
CAECILIUSIDAE was not adopted for the Psocoptera, leaving CAECILIDAE in amphibia 

. but unfortunately that name had never received support in all the long 
correspondence’. There was further correspondence in 1990-1993 between Wake and 
the Executive Secretary on this case, and we are now applying for the revocation of 
the ruling in Opinion 1462 on the spelling of the family names. 

7. We wish to make the following points: 

(a) The amphibian genus Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 is extremely well known and is 

79 years senior to the relatively obscure Caecilius Curtis, 1837. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 239 


(b) The family-group name based on Caecilia was first published in 1814, 66 years 
before that based on the insect name. In accordance with the Principle of 
Priority and in the absence of a reason for a contrary discrimination between 
the homonyms, the Commission should have protected the earlier (amphibian) 
name and changed the junior homonym, as had been asked by Moore, 
Nussbaum & Mockford (see para. 1 above). 

(c) The amphibian family name CAECILIDAE has been very widely used for over 

150 years, and indeed until 1968 all caecilians were placed in this family. Since 

the publication of Opinion 1462 in December 1987 there has been only limited 

mention of the cumbersome emendation CAECILIAIDAE which was introduced 
there. This usage has been motivated only by attempts at formal compliance 

(but not agreement) with the Opinion, and nearly all of it has been by one or 

more of us (sometimes with co-authors). It is unlikely that this spelling will 

enter general use or be introduced into the popular and semi-popular literature 
dealing with amphibians. 

In cases of identical family-group names we support, as a standard convention 

to remove homonymy and ambiguity, the use of an entire generic name as the 

stem of a family name. Unless there are strong reasons to the contrary it is 
the junior homonym which should be altered. In this case we request that the 
complete name Caecilius be used as the stem, to give CAECILIUSIDAE Kolbe, 

1880. We do not consider that it is too late for this course to be the best in the 

interest of stability. 

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: 
(1) to use its plenary powers: 
(a) to revoke paragraphs (1), (4) and (5) of the Ruling in Opinion 1462; 
(b) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the 
generic name Caecilius Curtis, 1837 is CAECILIUS-; 
(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 
names: 
(a) CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814, type genus Caecilia Linnaeus, 
1758 (Amphibia); 
(b) CAECILIUSIDAE Kolbe, 1880, type genus Caecilius Curtis, 1837 (spelling 
emended in (1)(b) above) (Insecta, Psocoptera); 
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the following names: 
(a) CAECILIIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (spelling emended in (1)(b) above to CAECIL- 
IUSIDAE); 
(b) CECILINIA Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (an incorrect original spelling of 
CAECILIIDAE). 


(d 


— 


References 


The references in this case are those in the Bulletin which are mentioned above, or are cited in 
them. 


240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Case 2362 


PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed 
conservation 


Alain Dubois 


Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum National d’ Histoire ; 
Naturelle, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name PHRYNOBATRACH- 
INAE Laurent, 1941 for a subfamily of frogs (family RANIDAE) found throughout 
sub-Saharan Africa. The name is threatened by three earlier potential synonyms, 
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878, PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 and CACOSTERNINAE 
Noble, 1931. 


1. Noble (1931) proposed a new classification of the Amphibia. He divided the 
family RANIDAE into six subfamilies. One of these, the ARTHROLEPTINAE (p. 515), 
included the genera Arthroleptis A. Smith, 1849, Phrynobatrachus Gunther, 1862, 
Cardioglossa Boulenger, 1900, Dimorphognathus Boulenger, 1906, Schoutedenella De 
Witte, 1921 and Arthroleptella Hewitt, 1926. Another subfamily, the PETROPEDETINAE 
(p. 520), included the genera Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 and Arthroleptides 
Nieden, 1911. In addition, Noble grouped the two genera Cacosternum Boulenger, 
1887 and Anhydrophryne Hewitt, 1919 in a subfamily CACOSTERNINAE (p. 540) of his 
family BREVICIPITIDAE. 

2. The type species of Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 (p. 290) is P. cameronensis 
Reichenow, 1874 (p. 290, pl. 9, figs. 2, 2a, 2b) by monotypy; the type species of 
Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 (p. 51) is C. nanum Boulenger, 1887 (p. 52) also by 
monotypy. In 1849, A. Smith (Appendix, pp. 23-24) described Stenorhynchus 
natalensis as a new genus and species from ‘country around Port Natal’ (i.e. Durban). 
A specimen in the Natural History Museum, London (catalogue no. BM(NH) 
58.11.25), which may well be type material, was recorded (Giinther, 1859, p. 133) as 
‘Adult female. Natal. Presented by Sir A. Smith’. Giinther (1862, p. 190) described 
Phrynobatrachus natalensis, without reference to Smith’s taxon, on ‘a single specimen 
in a collection sent by Mr T. Ayres from Port Natal’. This specimen is catalogue no. 
BM(NH) 62.3.14.20 (re-registered as no. 1947.2.5.13). Subsequently, Giinther (1864, 
p. 481) noted: ‘Phrynobatrachus natalensis, Giinth. Proc. Zool. Soc. 1862, p. 190, is 
identical with Stenorhynchus natalensis, Smith — a frog which I omitted to compare 
when describing Phrynobatrachus ... Peters proposed the generic name of Leptoparius 
for that of Stenorhynchus, because the latter is preoccupied (Monatsber. Akad. Wiss. 
Berl. 1863, p. 452); Phrynobatrachus, however, has the priority’. The synonymy 
between S. natalensis Smith and P. natalensis Ginther, and the replacement of the 
junior homonym Stenorhynchus Smith by Phrynobatrachus, was accepted by Bocage 
(1866, p. 54), Boulenger (1882, pp. 111-112, who listed both Smith’s and Ginther’s 
specimens as female) and all subsequent authors (see, for example, Poynton, 1964, 
p. 139; Poynton & Broadley, 1985, p. 160). The type species of Phrynobatrachus (i.e. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 241 


Phrynobatrachus natalensis Giinther, 1862) thus has the valid name P. natalensis 
(A. Smith, 1849). 

3. On the basis of osteological studies, Laurent (1940, p. 79) suggested that the 
genera Arthroleptis and Phrynobatrachus were not as closely related as had been 
believed by previous workers and proposed a new subfamilial arrangement within the 
RANIDAE. Laurent (1941) removed the genera Phrynobatrachus, Dimorphognathus and 
Arthroleptella, and also Natalobatrachus Hewitt & Methuen, 1913, from the ARTHRO- 
LEPTINAE and placed them in the same subfamily as Petropedetes and Arthroleptides 
and also Phrynodon Parker, 1935. For this subfamily, instead of adopting Noble’s 
existing name PETROPEDETINAE, Laurent (1941, p. 192) proposed the new name 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE. 

4. Laurent (1941, p. 217), after others, referred the genera Cacosternum, 
Anhydrophryne and also Microbatrachella Hewitt, 1926 to the RANIDAE but main- 
tained them in a distinct subfamily CACOSTERNINAE. Poynton (1964, pp. 137-156) 
merged these three genera, and also Nothophryne Poyton, 1963, in the same subfamily 
as the seven other genera already grouped by Laurent (1941) in his PHRYNOBATRACH- 
INAE (para. 3 above). For this subfamily, instead of adopting either PETROPEDETINAE 
Or CACOSTERNINAE, both of Noble (1931), he used the name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE 
Laurent, 1941. Laurent (1972a, p. 104; 1973, p. 666) and others (Haacke, 1970; 
Savage, 1973; Dowling & Duellman, 1978) accepted Poynton’s (1964) taxonomic 
arrangement and included the 11 genera mentioned above in a single subfamily. 
Other authors (Kuhn, 1965; Liem, 1970; Lynch, 1973) still recognized the 
CACOSTERNINAE as a distinct subfamily. 

5. Following Laurent (1941), most authors have agreed with the placement of 
Phrynobatrachus (and related genera) and Petropedetes (and related genera) in a 
single subfamily. However, no general agreement has been reached as to which name 
should be used. Laurent himself changed his mind several times. He (Laurent, 1941, 
p. 192; 1942, p. 417) first used the name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE; subsequently he 
(Laurent, 1951, p. 119) wrote ‘Petropedetinae (= Phrynobatrachinae)’. He (Laurent, 
1961, p. 197; 1972a, p. 104; 1972b, p. 198; 1973, p. 666) later reverted to 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE, then (Laurent, 1980a, p. 419) to PETROPEDETINAE, and finally 
(Laurent, 1980b, p. 85; 1984, p. 98; 1986, p. 763; Laurent & Fabrezi, 1990, p. 42) to 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE. 

6. As a result of Laurent’s inconsistency in the usage of the name for this 
subfamily, both names have appeared in the literature of other authors. The name 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE has, however, been used more than PETROPEDETINAE. The 
following authors have used the name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE: Poynton (1964, p. 137; 
1976, p. 218), Haacke (1970, p. 278), Liem (1970, p. 15), Broadley (1971, p. 117), 
Amiet (1972, p. 71; 1975, p. 48), Savage (1973, p. 354), Perret (1976, p. 21), Dowling 
& Duellman (1978, p. 43.2), Goin, Goin & Zug (1978, p. 237), Ohler & Kazadi (1990, 
p. 38) and Fabrezi (1992, p. 7). The following authors have adopted the name 
PETROPEDETINAE after 1941: De Witte (1952, p. 7), Perret & Mertens (1957, p. 561), 
Fuhn (1960, p. 224), Skelton-Bourgeois (1961, p. 322), Lynch (1973, p. 146) and 
Duellman & Trueb (1986, pp. 544-545). Frost (1985, p. 439) noted: “We use the 
nomenclaturally correct Petropedetinae rather than the widely used junior synonym 
Phrynobatrachinae’. Goin & Goin (1962, p. 230) also used the name PETROPEDETINAE 
but only for the genera Petropedetes and Arthroleptides (i.e. sensu Noble, 1931). 


242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Perret (1966, p. 354) wrote “Petropedetinae ou Phrynobatrachinae’. Kuhn (1965, 
pp. 97-98) tentatively recognized the PETROPEDETINAE and PHRYNOBATRACHINAE as 
distinct subfamilies. These lists are not exhaustive but are given to demonstrate that 
both names have been used in recent publications. Dubois (1987a, p. 121) listed 
a further 12 references for the usage of PHRYNOBATRACHINAE after 1980, and a 
single reference (1981) in which PETROPEDETINAE was used. Recently the name 
PHRYNOBATRACHIDAE was used by Dubois (1992, p. 309) and Fabrezi (1993; p. 56). 

7. As noted in para. 3 above, not all authors agree at present on the systematic 
arrangement for these African frogs. In a procedurally slightly different version of 
this application, I (Dubois, 1982, p. 136) acted as first reviser in selecting the name 
PETROPEDETINAE to have precedence over CACOSTERNINAE; both names were proposed 
by Noble (1931). This choice, which of course still stands, was made in order to avoid 
possible repeated changes in the name of the subfamily including Phrynobatrachus 
and Petropedetes according to whether Cacosternum is or is not included. 

8. The name PETROPEDETINAE is not the oldest available name for the subfamily 
(see Dubois, 1981, p. 252). Most authors have overlooked the existence of an earlier 
synonym, that of HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878 (pp. 613, 635), which has never 
been used as valid. This name was proposed for a subfamily which included the single 
nominal genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863 (p. 451), of which Hoffmann considered that 
Arthroleptis A. Smith, 1849 and Heteroglossa Hallowell, 1858 (= Dimorphognathus 
Boulenger, 1906) were synonyms. Hemimantis (type species by monotypy 
H. calcaratus Peters, 1863, p. 452) is currently considered to be a junior subjective 
synonym of Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862. The name Hemimantis has not been 
used but with better taxonomic knowledge in the future it is possible that it may be 
required. Depending on the placement of Hemimantis the name HEMIMANTIDAE Is a 
senior subjective synonym of PETROPEDETINAE, CACOSTERNINAE Or PHRYNOBATRACH- 
INAE and, if priority were the sole consideration, would be used (as HEMIMANTINAE) as 
the valid name for one of these nominal subfamilies. Since the name has been 
completely forgotten following its original publication and is based on a generic 
name which has never been treated as valid, such a nomenclatural change would be 
disruptive and inappropriate. 

9. Although the name PETROPEDETINAE has priority over PHRYNOBATRACHINAE 
(and CACOSTERNINAE; para. 7 above), I propose that the Commission should conserve 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE as the valid name for the subfamily (or family), with the 
date 1878. I should certainly not have suggested this if no other need existed for 
action by the Commission but, since the discovery of the name HEMIMANTIDAE 
makes an intervention necessary, I think this opportunity should be taken to go even 
further and choose for this subfamily the name which seems the most appropriate 
and likely to stabilize the nomenclature. My reasons for choosing the name 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE are as follows: 

(1) The name HEMIMANTIDAE, the first available for this taxon, is based on 
the nominal genus Hemimantis, a subjective synonym of Phrynobatrachus. 
Conservation of PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 with the date 1878 would 
obtain a result similar to that of Article 40, which cannot be called upon in this 
case (see Dubois, 1987a, p. 121; 1987b, pp. 49-50). 

(2) The name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE has been used more than the name 
PETROPEDETINAE since 1941. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 243 


(3) Since Laurent (1941) the content of the subfamily PHRYNOBATRACHINAE has 
remained unchanged except that additional genera have been incorporated. It 
is therefore appropriate to associate Laurent’s name with the taxon he was the 
first to recognize. 

(4) The genus Phrynobatrachus currently includes some 60 recognized species 
while all the other genera of the subfamily, including Petropedetes, contain less 
than 10 species. The name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE refers to the largest and best 
known of the genera of the subfamily. 

(5) The name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE refers to one of the most primitive, 
‘generalized’ genera of the subfamily, whilst PETROPEDETINAE and CACOSTERN- 
INAE refer to specialized, more ‘extreme’ groups (see, for example, Laurent, 
1941 and Poynton, 1964). 

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers: 

(a) to rule that the family-group name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 and 
other family-group names based on Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862 are to 
be given precedence over HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffman, 1878 and other family- 
group names based on Hemimantis Peters, 1863, over PETROPEDETINAE 
Noble, 1931 and other family-group names based on Petropedetes Reiche- 
now, 1874, and over CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 and other family-group 
names based on Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887; 

(b) to rule that the family-group name PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 and other 
family-group names based on Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 are to be 
given precedence over HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffman, 1878 and other family- 
group names based on Hemimantis Peters, 1863; 

(c) to rule that the family-group name CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 and other 
family-group names based on Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 are to be given 
precedence over HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffman, 1878 and other family-group 
names based on Hemimantis Peters, 1863; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- 

typy Phrynobatrachus natalensis Ginther, 1862 (a junior subjective 
synonym of Stenorhynchus natalensis A. Smith, 1849); 

(b) Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- 
typy Petropedetes cameronensis Reichenow, 1874; 

(c) Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy 
Cacosternum nanum Boulenger, 1887; 

(d) Hemimantis Peters, 1863 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Hemimantis calcaratus Peters, 1863; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) natalensis A. Smith, 1849, as published in the binomen Stenorhynchus 

natalensis (senior subjective synonym of Phrynobatrachus natalensis 
Giinther, 1862, the type species of Phrynobatrachus Gunther, 1862); 

(b) cameronensis Reichenow, 1874, as published in the binomen Petropedetes 
cameronensis (specific name of the type species of Petropedetes Reichenow, 
1874); 


244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


(c) nanum Boulenger, 1887, as published in the binomen Cacosternum nanum 
(specific name of the type species of Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887); 

(d) calcaratus Peters, 1863, as published in the binomen Hemimantis calcaratus 
(specific name of the type species of Hemimantis Peters, 1863); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following 
names: 

(a) PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (1878) (type genus Phrynobatrachus 
Giinther, 1862) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names 
based on Phrynobatrachus are to be given precedence over HEMIMANTIDAE 
Hoffmann, 1878 (type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family- 
group names based on Hemimantis, over PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 
(type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) and other family-group names 
based on Petropedetes, and over CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus 
Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) and other family-group names based on 
Cacosternum, whenever their type genera are placed in the same family- 
group taxon; 

(b) PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 (1878) (type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 
1874) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Petropedetes are to be given precedence over HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffman, 1878 
(type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names based 
on Hemimantis and (by the first reviser action of Dubois, 1982) over 
CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) 
and other family-group names based on Cacosternum but are not to be 
given priority over PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (type genus 
Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862) and other family-group names based on 
Phrynobatrachus, whenever their type genera are placed in the same 
family-group taxon; 

(c) CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (1878) (type genus Cacosternum Boulenger, 
1887) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Cacosternum are to be given precedence over HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffman, 1878 
(type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) and other family-group names based 
on Hemimantis but are not to be given priority over PETROPEDETINAE 
Noble, 1931 (type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) and other family- 
group names based on Petropedetes and PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 
1941 (type genus Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862) and other family-group 
names based on Phrynobatrachus, whenever their type genera are placed in 
the same family-group taxon; 

(d) HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878 (type genus Hemimantis Peters, 1863) 
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on 
Hemimantis are not to be given priority over PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 
1931 (type genus Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874) and other family-group 
names based on Petropedetes, CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (type genus 
Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887) and other family-group names based on 
Cacosternum, and PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (type genus 
Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862) and other family-group names based on 
Phrynobatrachus, whenever their type genera are placed in the same 
family-group taxon. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 245 
References 


Amiet, J.-L. 1972. Compte-rendu d’une mission batrachologique dans le Nord-Cameroun. 
Annales de la Faculté des Sciences du Cameroun, 12: 63-77. 

Amiet, J.-L. 1975. Ecologie et distribution des amphibiens anoures de la région de 
Nkongsamba (Cameroun). Annales de la Faculté des Sciences du Cameroun, 20: 33-107. 

Bocage, J.V. Berboza du. 1866. Lista dos reptis das possessoes portuguezas d’Africa occidental 
que existem no Museo de Lisboa. Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes 
(Lisboa), 1(1): 37-56. 

Boulenger, G.A. 1882. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia S. Ecaudata in the collection of the 
British Museum. xvi, 503 pp., 30 pls. British Museum, London. 

Boulenger, G.A. 1887. Descriptions of new reptiles and batrachians in the British Museum 
(Natural History). Part 3. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)20: 50-53. 

Broadley, D.G. 1971. The reptiles and amphibians of Zambia. Puku, 6: 1-143. 

De Witte, G.F. 1952. Amphibiens et reptiles. Jn: Exploration hydrobiologique du lac Tanganika 
(1946-1947). Résultats scientifiques, vol. 3, part 3. Pp. 1-22, pl. 1. Brussels. 

Dowling, H.G. & Duellman, W.E. 1978. Systematic herpetology: a synopsis of families and 
higher categories. Publications in Herpetology, 7: 1.1—118.3. 

Dubois, A. 1981. Liste des genres et sous-genres nominaux de Ranoidea (Amphibiens Anoures) 
du monde, avec identification de leurs espéces-types: conséquences nomenclaturales. 
Monitore Zoologico Italiano, (n.s.) suppl. 15: 225-284. 

Dubois, A. 1982. Phrynobatrachinae Laurent, 1940 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conserva- 
tion. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 39(2): 134-140. 

Dubois, A. 1987a. Living amphibians of the world: a first step towards a comprehensive 
checklist. Alytes, 5(3): 99-149. 

Dubois, A. 1987b. Again on the nomenclature of frogs. Alytes, 6(1—2): 27-S5. 

Dubois, A. 1992. Notes sur la classification des Ranidae (Amphibiens Anoures). Bulletin 
Mensuel de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, 61: 305-352. 

Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, L. 1986. Biology of amphibians. xvii, 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New 
York. 

Fabrezi, M. 1992. El carpo de los anuros. Alytes, 10: 1-29. 

Fabrezi, M. 1993. The anuran tarsus. Alytes, 11: 47-63. 

Frost, D.R. (Ed.). 1985. Amphibian species of the world. v, 732 pp. Allen Press & Association 
of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Fuhn, I.E. 1960. Amphibia. Fauna Republicii Populare Romine, 14(1): 1-288. 

Goin, C.J. & Goin, O.B. 1962. Introduction to herpetology. ix, 34i pp. Freeman, San Francisco. 

Goin, C.J., Goin, O.B. & Zug, G.R. 1978. Introduction to herpetology, Ed. 3. xiii, 378 pp. 
Freeman, San Francisco. 

Giinther, A. 1859. Catalogue of the Batrachia Salientia in the collection of the British Museum. 
xvi, 160 pp., 12 pls. British Museum, London. 

Giinther, A. 1862. Descriptions of new species of reptiles and fishes in the collection of the 
British Museum. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1862: 188-194. 

Giinther, A. 1864. Descriptions of new species of batrachians from West Africa. Proceedings of 
the Zoological Society of London, 1864: 479-482. 

Haacke, W.D. 1970. New herpetological records from South West Africa. Annals of the 
Transvaal Museum, 26(12): 277-283. 

Hoffmann, C.K. 1873-1878. Amphibia. Pp. 1-726, pls. 1-52 in Bronn, H.G., Die Klassen und 
Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs wissenschaftlich dargestellt in Wort und Bild, vol. 6, part 2. 
Winter, Leipzig. 

Kuhn, O. 1965. Die Amphibien. System und Stammesgeschichte. 102 pp. Oeben, Krailling bei 
Miinchen. 

Laurent, R.F. 1940. Contribution a l’ostéologie et a la systématique des ranides africains. 
Premiére note. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 34(1): 74-97. 

Laurent, R.F. 1941. Contribution a l’ostéologie et a la systematique des ranides africains. 
Deuxiéme note. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 34(2): 192-235. 


246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Laurent, R.F. 1942. Note sur lostéologie des genres Breviceps et Phrynomerus (batraciens). 
Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 35(4): 417-418. 

Laurent, R.F. 1951. Sur la neécessité de supprimer la famille des Rhacophoridae mais de créer 
celle des Hyperoliidae. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 45: 116-122. 

Laurent, R.F. 1961. Notes on some South African amphibians. Publications de I’ Université de 
l'Etat a Elisabethville, 1: 197-209. 

Laurent, R.F. 1972a. Amphibiens. Exploration du Parc National des Virunga, (2)22: 1-125. 
Laurent, R.F. 1972b. Review of ‘The morphology, systematics and evolution of the Old World 
treefrogs (Rhacophoridae and Hyperoliidae)’ by Liem, D.S. Copeia, 1972: 198-201. 
Laurent, R.F. 1973. The natural classification of the Arthroleptinae (Amphibia, Hyperoliidae). 

Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 87: 666-678. 

Laurent, R.F. 1980a. Esquisse d’une phylogenése des anoures. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique 
de France, 104: 397-422. 

Laurent, R.F. 1980b. Géonémie des Anoures. Comptes Rendus de la Société de Biogéographie, 
56: 81-86. 

Laurent, R.F. 1984. La phylogenése des Ranoidea et le cladisme. A/ytes, 3: 97-101. 

Laurent, R.F. 1986. Sous-classe des Lissamphibiens (Lissamphibia). Systématique. Pp. 
594-797 in Grassé, P.-P. & Delsol, M. (Eds.), Traité de zoologie, vol. 14 (Batraciens), fasc. 
1B. Masson, Paris. 

Laurent, R.F. & Fabrezi, M. 1990. Further data on carpal structure in ranoid frogs. Alytes, 
8(2): 41—-SO. 

Liem, D.S. 1970. The status of the Old World treefrogs. Bulletin de Liaison Groupe Traveaux 
Amphibiens Africains, 2: 10-19. 

Lynch, J.D. 1973. The transition from archaic to advanced frogs. Pp. 133-182 im Vial, J.L. 
(Ed.), Evolutionary biology of the anurans. 470 pp. University of Missouri Press, 
Columbia. 

Noble, G.K. 1931. The biology of the Amphibia. xiii, 577 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Ohler, A. & Kazadi, M. 1990. Description d’une nouvelle éspece du genre Aubria Boulenger, 
1917 (Amphibiens, Anoures) et redescription du type d’Aubria subsigillata (A. Dumeéeril, 
1856). Alytes, 8(2): 25-40. 

Perret, J.-L. 1966. Les amphibiens du Cameroun. Zoologische Jahrbiicher. Abteilung fiir 
Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 93(3): 289-464. 

Perret, J.-L. 1976. Revision des amphibiens africains et principalement des types, conserves au 
Musée Bocage de Lisbonne. Arquivos do Museo Bocage, (2)6(2): 15-34. 

Perret, J.-L. & Mertens, R. 1957. Etude d’une collection herpétologique faite au Cameroun de 
1952 a 1955. Bulletin de l'Institut Fondamental d'Afrique Noire, (A)19: 548-601. 

Peters, W. 1863. Mittheilungen tiber neue Batrachier. Monatsberichte der Kéniglichen 
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1863: 445-470. 

Poynton, J.C. 1964. The Amphibia of Southern Africa: a faunal study. Annals of the Natal 
Museum, 17: 1-334. 

Poynton, J.C. 1976. Classification and the Arthroleptinae (Amphibia). Revue de Zoologie et de 
Botanique Africaines, 90: 215-220. 

Poynton, J.C. & Broadley, D.G. 1985. Amphibia Zambesiaca. 2. Ranidae. Annals of the Natal 
Museum, 27(1): 115-181. 

Reichenow, A. 1874. Eine Sammlung Lurche und Kriechthiere von Westafrika. Archiv fiir 
Naturgeschichte, 40(1.3): 287-298. 

Savage, J.M. 1973. The geographic distribution of frogs: patterns and predictions. Pp. 351-445 
in Vial, J.L. (Ed.), Evolutionary biology of the anurans. 470 pp. University of Missouri 
Press, Columbia. 

Skelton-Bourgeois, M. 1961. Reptiles et batraciens d’Afrique orientale. Revue de Zoologie et de 
Botanique Africaines, 63(3-4): 309-338. 

Smith, A. 1838-1849. I/lustrations of the zoology of South Africa ... Reptilia. 78 pls., text. 
Appendix, 28 pp. London. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 247 


Case 2895 


Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 (currently Eretmosaurus rugosus; 
Reptilia, Plesiosauria): proposed designation of a neotype 


David S. Brown 


Department of Oral Biology, The Dental School, Framlington Place, 
Newcastle upon Tyne NE2 4BW, U.K. 


Nathalie Bardet 


Laboratoire de Paléontologie des Vertébrés, Université Pierre et Marie Curie 
(Paris VI) URA 176I—CNRS — Case 106, 4 Place Jussieu, 75252 Paris, 
France 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of 
Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 in accordance with its accustomed understanding 
and usage by the designation of a neotype. The specimen proposed (no. BMNH 
14435 in the Natural History Museum, London) was described and figured by 
Owen in 1865. P. rugosus Owen, 1840 is the type species of Eretmosaurus Seeley, 
1874. 


1. Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 (p. 82) was described from fossil vertebrae 
then in the museums of Bristol and York and in the private collection of Viscount 
Cole (later Earl of Enniskillen). None of the material was figured, nor were any 
catalogue numbers or measurements given. 

2. Searches for Owen’s syntypes were carried out for us at Bristol City Museum, 
the Yorkshire Museum in York and the Natural History Museum in London which 
holds the Enniskillen Collection. No specimens or any records pertaining to them 
could be traced in York or London. Records exist at Bristol of three syntype 
vertebrae (a cervical and two dorsals) from Aust Cliff, Gloucestershire, which were 
numbered Cb 2458 and which were destroyed by bombing on 24 November 1940. A 
brief description and a photograph of the specimens, mounted together with a 
humerus and femur of no association, were published by Swinton (1948, pp. 357-358, 
pl. 13). Swinton gave his opinion that the cervical *... is unsatisfactory for any 
diagnostic purpose, since it is incomplete, worn and smooth.’ Dorsal vertebrae have 
never been considered diagnostic for any plesiosaur species. 

3. The taxonomic characters used by Owen (1840) are sufficient only to identify his 
syntypes at subordinal level: rugosities on vertebral bodies develop ontogenetically; 
the presence of two cervical rib heads is a primitive character for all Plesiosauria; and 
the shape of articular faces and relative length of cervical vertebrae vary with 
ontogeny and with topographical position on the neck (for discussion of characters 
of plesiosaurian cervical vertebrae see Brown, 1981, pp. 329-330). Thus Plesiosaurus 
rugosus Owen, 1840 is a nomen dubium. 

4. Owen in 1865 (pp. 3440, pls. 14-15) described and figured an almost complete 
postcranial skeleton of a plesiosaur which he referred to Plesiosaurus rugosus, 


248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


believing it to belong to his (1840) nominal species. The specimen, from the ‘Lower 
Lias of Leicestershire .. in the neighbourhood of Granby’, is now in the Natural 
History Museum (catalogue number BMNH 14435). 

5. Seeley (1874, p. 445) made P. rugosus Owen, 1840 the type species by monotypy 
of his new genus Eretmosaurus. His diagnosis gives characters shown by Owen’s 
(1865) specimen and a detached pectoral girdle (BMNH 2041). 

6. Lydekker (1889, pp. 249-250), when cataloguing BMNH 14435 as Eretmo- 
saurus rugosus (Owen, 1840), stated that it did not appear absolutely certain that the 
vertebrae were identical with Owen’s types, and concluded that ‘... the species must 
date from the description of the undermentioned skeleton’ (i.e. from Owen, 1865). 

7. Eretmosaurus rugosus (Owen, 1840) has been used as a valid name since 1874 
although descriptions refer only to specimens BMNH 14435 and 2041. Diagnostic 
characters include the total number of cervical vertebrae and the structure of the 
pectoral girdle, which could not have been known from the syntypes. Owen’s 
description of 1840 and the original syntypic series of isolated vertebrae, not 
diagnostic of a single species-group taxon, have remained forgotten in the primary 
literature since Lydekker’s catalogue of 1889. 

8. Although P. rugosus has been treated in the taxonomic sense of Owen (1865) it 
has generally been cited with the date 1840. To avoid confusion and nomenclatural 
instability we propose the designation of specimen number BMNH 14435 in the 
Department of Palaeontology of the Natural History Museum, London as the 
neotype of Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840. 

9. 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 Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 and to designate 
specimen BMNH 14435 in the Natural History Museum, London as the 
neotype; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name rugosus 
Owen, 1840, as published in the binomen Plesiosaurus rugosus (specific name 
of the type species of Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874) and as defined by the neotype 
designated in (1) above. 


Acknowledgements 

We thank Dr P.R. Crowther (Bristol City Museum), Mr P.C. Ensom (The Yorkshire 
Museum, York) and Dr A.C. Milner (The Natural History Museum, London) for 
searching for Owen’s 1840 syntypes in their collections. 


References 


Brown, D.S. 1981. The English Upper Jurassic Plesiosauroidea (Reptilia) and a review of the 
phylogeny and classification of the Plesiosauria. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural 
History) (Geology), 35(4): 253-347. 

Lydekker, R. 1889. Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum 
(Natural History). Part 2. Containing the orders Ichthyopterygia and Sauropterygia. 307 
pp. British Museum, London. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 249 


Owen, R. 1840. Report on British fossil reptiles. Part 1. Reports of the British Association for 
the Advancement of Science, 9: 43-126. 

Owen, R. 1865. Monograph of the fossil Reptilia of the Liassic Formations. Part 3(1). 
Sauropterygia. Palaeontographical Society (Monographs), 1-40. 

Seeley, H.G. 1874. Note on some generic modifications of the plesiosaurian pectoral arch. 
Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 30: 436-449. 

Swinton, W.E. 1948. Plesiosaurs in the City Museum, Bristol. Proceedings of the Bristol 
Naturalist Society, 27(4): 343-360. 


250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Case 2875 


Coluber poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (currently Liophis 
poecilogyrus) (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the 
specific name 


Hobart M. Smith 


Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, 
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. 


James R. Dixon 


Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A & M University, — 
College Station, Texas 77843, U.S.A. 


Van Wallach 


Department of Herpetology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. 
Present address: 4 Potter Park, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the widely used 
specific name of a South American snake, Liophis poecilogyrus (Wied-Neuwied, 
[1824]), by the suppression of the unused senior synonyms Coluber m-nigrum Raddi, 
1820, Coluber alternans Lichtenstein, 1823 and Natrix forsteri Wagler in Spix, 1824. 


1. The earliest name applied to the species now known as Liophis poecilogyrus 
(Wied-Neuwied, [1824], Heft 8, pl. [44]; for date see Woodward, 1915, p. 2315) is 
Coluber m-nigrum Raddi, 1820, as shown by Dixon (1989, p. 19) and Dixon & 
Markezich (1992, p. 133). Two female syntypes of poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied [1824], 
from Rio Espirito Santo, Barra de Juca, Brazil, are located at the American Museum 
of Natural History, New York (Nos. 3593-94). Boulenger (1894, p. 131) correctly 
stated that Raddi’s name was a senior synonym of Wied-Neuwied’s but for unknown 
reasons still used the latter’s name for the species, possibly because he interpreted 
Raddi’s as incorrectly formed. All other publications in which C. m-nigrum appears 
(except for Dixon, 1989 and Dixon & Markezich, 1992) consider it to be a nomen 
dubium. As this name had not been used for over 170 years Dixon & Markezich 
(1992) rejected it in favour of C. poecilogyrus. ; 

2. A second name, Coluber alternans Lichtenstein, 1823 (p. 104), which has 
similarly not been used since its original designation, has also been applied to 
C. poecilogyrus. Boulenger (1894) listed C. alternans as a doubtful senior synonym. 
Dixon & Markezich (1992) likewise rejected it, in spite of its priority, for the same 
reasons as for C. m-nigrum. 

3. Dixon (1987, p. 174) concluded that Natrix forsteri Wagler in Spix, 1824 (p. 16, 
pl. 4, fig. 1) was a synonym of L. poecilogyrus. However, N. forsteri has never been 
accepted as valid as it has been regarded as a junior synonym of other specific names 
in Natrix. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 251 


4. A further synonym, Coluber doliatus Wied-Neuwied, 1825 appeared in the same 
work as C. poecilogyrus but as a junior primary homonym of Coluber doliatus 
Linnaeus, 1766 it is invalid. 

5. The name Liophis poecilogyrus was accepted by Dixon & Markezich (1992) 
‘because of its usage in 52 primary articles as the valid name for the taxon’. This 
usage began as early as Wagler (1830, p. 188), who was also the first to use the now 
accepted combination Liophis poecilogyrus. 

6. We consider that it is imperative in the interest of stability that the specific name 
poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] be maintained for the species to which it now 
applies. We have given the Commission Secretariat a list of ten works of the last 50 
years which have used the binomen L. poecilogyrus; as examples we cite Parker 
(1931), Michaud & Dixon (1989), Pérez-Santos & Moreno (1991), Hofstadler (1992). 

7. 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) m-nigrum Raddi, 1820, as published in the binomen Coluber m-nigrum; 

(b) alternans Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Coluber 
alternans; 

(c) forsteri Wagler in Spix, 1824, as published in the binomen Natrix forsteri; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824], as published in the binomen Coluber 
poecilogyrus; 

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) m-nigrum Raddi, 1820, as published in the binomen Coluber m-nigrum and 
as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) alternans Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Coluber alternans 
and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; 

(c) forsteri Wagler in Spix, 1824 as published in the binomen Natrix forsteri 
and as suppressed in (1)(c) above. 


References 


Boulenger, G.A. 1894. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 2. 
382 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. 

Dixon, J.R. 1987. Taxonomy and geographic variation of Liophis typhlus and related ‘green’ 
species of South America (Serpentes: Colubridae). Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 56: 
173-191. 

Dixon, J.R. 1989. A key and checklist to the Neotropical snake genus Liophis with country lists 
and maps. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service, 79: \-40. 

Dixon, J.R. & Markezich, A.L. 1992. Taxonomy and geographic variation of Liophis 
poecilogyrus (Wied) from South America (Serpentes: Colubridae). Texas Journal of 
Science, 44; 131-166. 

Hofstadler, D.C. 1992. Nota sobre registro de copula heterloga em Liophis Wagler, 1830 
(Serpentes). Acta Biologica Leopold, 14(1): 83-86. 

Lichtenstein, H. 1823. Verzeichniss der Doubletten des zoologischen Museums der Konigl. 
Universitat zu Berlin nebst Beschreibung vieler bisher unbekannten Arten von Sdugethieren, 
Végeln, Amphibien und Fischen. 118 pp. Trautwein, Berlin. 


252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema naturae ..., Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 1. Pp. 1-532. Salvii, Stockholmiae. 

Michaud, E.J. & Dixon, J.R. 1989. Prey items of 20 species of the neotropical colubrid snake 
genus Liophis. Herpetological Review, 20(2): 39-41. 

Parker, H.M. 1931. Reports on an expedition to Brazil and Paraguay in 1926-7. Amphibia— 
Reptilia. Journal of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology, 37: 285-289. 

Pérez-Santos, C. & Moreno, A.G. 1991. Serpientes de Ecuador. Museo Regionale di Scienze 
Naturali, Torino, 11: 1-538. 

Raddi, G. 1820. Die alcune species nuove di rettili e plante Brasilien. Atti della Societa Italiana 
di Scienze Naturali di Modena, 18: \-39. 

Spix, J.B. yon. 1824. Serpentum Brasiliensium species novae ... 75 pp. Hibschmanni, Monachii. 

Wagler, J.G. 1830. Natiirliches System der Amphibien, mit vorangehender Classification der 
Sdugethiere und Vogel. 354 pp. 9 pls. Miinchen, Stuttgart & Tubingen. 

Wied-Neuwied, M.A.P. von. [1824]. Abbildungen zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens, Hefts 5-8, pls. 
25-48. Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, Weimar. 

Wied-Neuwied, M.A.P. von. 1825. Beitrdge zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien, vol. 1. 614 ‘Pp. 
Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, Weimar. 

Woodward, B.B. 1915. Catalogue of the books, manuscripts, maps and drawings in the British 
Museum (Natural History), vol. 5. Pp. 1957-2403. British Museum, London. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 253 


Case 2856 


Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Temminck, 1807 
(currently Calyptorhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, 
Psittaciformes): proposed conservation of the specific names 


Richard Schodde 


Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO, Division of Wildlife and 
Ecology, P.O. Box 84, Lyneham, A.C.T. 2602, Australia 


Walter J. Bock 


Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, 
NY 10027, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific names of 
both the Australian Glossy Black Cockatoo, which has the universally accepted name 
Calyptorhynchus lathami (Temminck, 1807), and the Australian Red-tailed Black 
Cockatoo Calyptorhynchus banksii (Latham, 1790). In recent years C. banksii 
has commonly been called C. magnificus (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790). Shaw’s 
name actually applies to the Glossy Black Cockatoo, C. lathami (Temminck, 1807). 
C. lathami is threatened not only by Psittacus magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 
1790 but also by P. banksi flavicollo Kerr, 1792, an unused senior synonym. It is 
proposed that confusion will be avoided by the suppression of the specific names 
magnificus and flavicollo, so that the Red-tailed and Glossy Black Cockatoos are 
validly named C. banksii and C. lathami respectively. 


1. The two large Australian black cockatoos possessing red patches in the tail have 
long been known as Calyptorhynchus banksii (Latham, 1790), the Red-tailed Black 
Cockatoo and C. lathami (Temminck, 1807), the Glossy Black Cockatoo. Unfortu- 
nately these names acquired a tangled nomenclatural history from 1927 when 
Mathews (1927, p. 223) concluded that Psittacus magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 
1790 applied to the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo and had priority over P. banksii 
Latham, 1790. Nevertheless, the specific name banksii Latham, 1790 maintained 
general currency in the Australian literature until the late 1960’s because of its use in 
the Official checklist of the birds of Australia (R.A.O.U., 1926), which was not finally 
superseded until 1975. 

2. The specific name of P. banksii Latham, 1790 (p. 107) is based on a female 
Red-tailed Black Cockatoo collected by Joseph Banks’s party on the Endeavour 
River during James Cook’s first voyage to Australia (see Parkinson, 1773, p. 144, pl. 
10; Sharpe, 1906, p. 173 and Whittell, 1954, pl. 2). This specimen may be the female 
acquired by the Natural History Museum in Vienna from the sale of the Leverian 
Museum (sale catalogue no. 311; see Pelzeln, 1873, p. 33). The identification of 
the specimen BM(NH) 1863.7.7.53 in the Natural History Museum, London, as 
the ‘type’ of banksii by Salvadori (1891, p. 110) was rejected by Warren (1966, 
p. 29). 


254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


3. The specific name of Calyptorhynchus magnificus (Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 
1790, pl. 50), now in general use for the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo, actually applies 
according to its original description and plate to a different species, the Glossy Black 
Cockatoo C. lathami (Temminck, 1807, p. 21). Nodder’s figure of Psittacus magnifi- 
cus accompanying Shaw’s description has a bulbous horn-brown maxilla, a discrete 
yellowish red band in the tail, ochreish feathers on the cheeks and head, and ochreish 
bars restricted to the belly on the ventral surface. These traits are consistent with a 
young female Glossy Black Cockatoo, not with a Red-tailed Black Cockatoo. Shaw 
and Nodder’s material of P. magnificus was evidently obtained through Surgeon- 
General John White of the First Fleet at Port Jackson (i.e. Sydney; see Lysaght, 1956, 
p. 273) within the range of the Glossy Black Cockatoo. Records of the Red-tailed 
Black Cockatoo have never been confirmed so far south on the east Australian coast. 
White’s material passed to the Leverian Museum and was lost following disposal of 
that museum (see Sharpe, 1906 and Mullens, 1916). 

4. The Glossy Black Cockatoo has been known universally as Calyptorhynchus 
lathami for over 70 years, ever since Mathews (1917, p. 125) concluded that Psittacus 
lathami Temminck, 1807 was the earliest name for this species. The adult male 
holotype, in the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, is of this species. 
However, P. lathami Temminck, 1807 was preceded not only by P. magnificus Shaw 
in Shaw & Nodder, 1790 (para. 3 above) but also by P. banksi flavicollo Kerr, 1792 
(p. 586), which is unused. The description of P. banksi flavicollo was based on 
P. banksii var. B in Latham, 1790 (p. 107), which is the Glossy Black Cockatoo. This 
was appreciated by Salvadori (1891, p. 112), but most workers (e.g. Condon, 1975) 
have followed Mathews (1917, pp. 100, 104) in interpreting P. banksi flavicollo 
Kerr, 1792 as a junior synonym of P. magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790 
(= P. banksii Latham, 1790), the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo. Kerr’s name has 
never been used as valid for any taxon of black cockatoos and the type material is 
evidently lost. 

5. The Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) of the 
International Ornithological Congress reviewed the history of these names at its 
meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand in December 1990. It concluded, to avoid 
nomenclatural confusion and instability as well as taxonomic and geographic 
uncertainty, that the names Psittacus magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790 and 
P. banksi flavicollo Kerr, 1792 should be suppressed, and that both P. banksii 
Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Temminck, 1807 should be conserved. 

6. 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) magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790, as published in the binomen 
Psittacus magnificus; 

(b) flavicollo Kerr, 1792, as published in the trinomen Psittacus banksi 
flavicollo; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) banksii Latham, 1790, as published in the binomen Psittacus banksit; 

(b) lathami Temminck, 1807, as published in the binomen Psittacus lathami; 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 255 


(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the following names: 
(a) magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790, as published in the binomen 
Psittacus magnificus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 
(b) flavicollo Kerr, 1792, as published in the trinomen Psittacus banksi 
flavicollo and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


References 


Condon, H.T. 1975. Checklist of the birds of Australia, part 1 (Non-Passerines). xx, 311 pp. 
Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union, Melbourne. 

Kerr, R. 1792. The animal kingdom, or zoological system of the celebrated Sir C. Linnaeus, Class 
1 (Mammalia), Class 2 (Birds). 644 pp. Murray & Faulder, London. 

Latham, J. 1790. Index Ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiae ..., vol. 1. 466 pp. Leigh & 
Sotherby, London. 

Lysaght, A. 1956. Some eighteenth century bird paintings in the library of Sir Joseph Banks 
(1743-1820). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History).(Historical Series), 1: 
253-371. 

Mathews, G.M. 1917. The birds of Australia, vol. 6. xix, 516 pp. Witherby, London. 

Mathews, G.M. 1927. Points of nomenclature. Emu, 26; 222-224. 

Mullens, W.H. 1916. Some museums of old London. 1. The Leverian Museum. Museums 
Journal, 15: 123-129. 

Parkinson, S. 1773. A journal of a voyage to the South Seas in His Majesty's ship the Endeavour. 
xxili, 22, 212 pp., 27 pls. Parkinson, London 

Pelzeln, A. yon. 1873. On the birds in the Imperial Collection at Vienna obtained from the 
Leverian Museum. Jbis, (3)3: 14-54. 

Royal Australasian Ornithologists’ Union. 1926. Official checklist of the birds of Australia. 
Ed. 2. x, 212 pp. RAOU, Melbourne. 

Salvadori, T.A. 1891. Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum, vol. 20 (Psittaci). xvii, 658 
pp., 18 pls. British Museum, London. 

Sharpe, R.B. 1906. The history of the collections contained in the natural history departments of 
the British Museum, vol. 2, part 3. Pp. 79-515. British Museum (Natural History), 
London. 

Shaw, G. & Nodder, F.P. 1790. The naturalist’s miscellany, vol. 2. 74 pls. with text. Nodder, 
London. 

Temminck, C.J. 1807. Catalogue systématique du Cabinet d’ Ornithologie et de la collection de 
Quadrumanes de Crd. Jb. Temminck. 270 pp. Sepp Janz, Amsterdam. 

Warren, R.L.M. 1966. Type-specimens of birds in the British Museum (Natural History), 
vol. 1, (Non-passerines). ix, 320 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Whittell, H.M. 1954. The literature of Australian birds: a history and bibliography of Australian 
ornithology. xi, 788 pp., 32 pls. Paterson Brokensha, Perth. 


256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Doris grandiflora 
Rapp, 1827 (currently Dendrodoris grandiflora; Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
(Case 2886; see BZN 51: 7-9) 


Richard C. Willan 


Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, G.P.O. Box 4646, Darwin, 
Northern Territory 0810, Australia 


Robert Burn 
3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria 3220, Australia 


In supporting the proposal by Ortea & Valdés to conserve the specific name of the 
Mediterranean dendrodorid nudibranch Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 over that of its 
senior subjective synonym Doris guttata Risso, 1826, we acknowledge that 
grandiflora has gained universal acceptance. This is demonstrated by its usage not 
only in all of the specialist taxonomic and biochemical literature, but importantly 
also in both the definitive modern regional guides (Schmekel & Portmann, 1982; 
Cattaneo-Vietti, Chemello & Giannuzzi-Savelli, 1990). 

Furthermore, we wish to point out that if Dendrodoris guttata (Risso, 1826) were 
treated as a valid name it would be a senior secondary homonym of Doridopsis 
guttata Odhner, 1917. Doridopsis is a junior subjective synonym of Dendrodoris. 

Dendrodoris guttata (Odhner) is a very distinctive species (one of the few 
Indo-Pacific species to be readily identifiable) that occurs in Japan and throughout 
the northern half of Australia from Coffs Harbour in northern New South Wales, 
across the entire northern coast, to Warroora in central Western Australia. It is 
included in two of the guides to the Australian nudibranch fauna (Willan & Coleman, 
1984; Coleman, 1990). Crucially, there are no junior synonyms, so a new name would 
need to be created if guttata Risso, 1826 were to replace grandiflora Rapp, 1827 in 
Dendrodoris. We have supplied the Commission Secretariat with a list of 11 works 
that indicate the acceptance of the name Dendrodoris guttata (Odhner, 1917) in 
Australian and Japanese technical and popular literature. 


Additional references 


Coleman, N. 1990. Nudibranchs of the South Pacific, vol. 1. 64 pp. Neville Coleman’s Sea 
Resource Centre, Springwood, Queensland. 

Odhner, N.H. 1917. Results of Dr E. Mjoberg’s Swedish Scientific Expeditions to Australia 
1910-1913. XVII. Mollusca. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps Akademiens Handligar, §2(19): 
1-115. 

Willan, R.C. & Coleman, N. 1984. Nudibranchs of Australasia. 56 pp. Australasian Marine 
Photographic Index, Sydney. 


Comment on the proposed conservation as the correct spelling of Cryptophagus 
Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 and Colon 
Herbst, 1797 and the proposed conservation of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 
as the type species of Rhizophagus (Insecta, Coleoptera) 

(Case 2783; see BZN 51: 21-24) 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 257 


R.G. Booth 


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


I would like to add my support for this case. Several species of Cryptophagus occur 
as pests in stored products in northern temperate regions, and the name is well used 
in the economic literature. The RHIZOPHAGIDAE are a small but well defined family of 
worldwide distribution. One species of Rhizophagus has been used as a biological 
control agent of an important forestry pest in the U.K. (King, C.J. & Fielding, N.J. 
1989. Bulletin of the Forestry Commission, London, 85, 1-11). 

Although Silfverberg quotes Illiger (1801) and Paykull (1800) as the first users of 
Colon and Cryptophagus respectively, both names appear in the index of Herbst’s 
own work (Herbst, 1799, Natursystem ..., part 8, p. 395). As the names appear in the 
correct alphabetic order, Herbst’s change from K... to C... must have been deliberate. 

Similarly, Dorcatoma was used by Paykull ([1798], Fauna Svecica (Insecta), vol. 1, 
p. 318) before Fabricius (1801). However, close inspection of Herbst (1792, 
pp. 103-105) reveals an interesting variant in spelling. While Dorkatoma was used as 
a heading on pages 103, 104 and 105, the diagnosis (p. 104) of ‘1. Dorkatoma 
Dresdensis’ reads “Mus. Herbst. Dore. atra, glabra, antennis pedibusque piceis.’. 
‘Dore.’ can be accepted either as an abbreviation for Dorcatoma or as a typographical 
error. It was common practice to use the generic name or its abbreviation at the start 
of a latin diagnosis of a species name, and Herbst used abbreviations throughout the 
work in question. The application to conserve Dorcatoma as the original spelling may 
be unnecessary if the Commission accepts that Dorcatoma, as appearing in the 
abbreviation ‘Dorc.’ in the diagnosis, is a valid alternative original spelling to 
Dorkatoma. 


Comment on the proposed conservation of ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830 as the correct 
spelling and of the feminine gender of El/mis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera) 
(Case 2861; see BZN 51: 25-27) 


G.N. Foster 


Honorary Secretary, The Balfour-Browne Club, 3 Eglinton Terrace, Ayr KA7 1JJ, 
Scotland, U.K. 


I wish to support Dr Manfred Jach’s proposal to conserve ELMIDAE as the correct 
spelling of the riffle beetle family name, at the same time retaining the feminine 
gender of the name Elmis. The riffle beetles are an important, worldwide group of 
beetles often cited as indicators of water quality by limnologists. The proposal to use 
the name ELMIDIDAE has not received much support; I am only aware of the two 
Swedish papers cited by Jach. Names such as HELMIDAE and ELMINTHIDAE, both 
apparently unavailable, have occasionally been used in ecological literature, resulting 
in potential confusion. Removal of this uncertainty will be beneficial to all those 
involved in the study of water beetles. 


258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Comments on the proposed designation of the type species of Hydrophoria Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera) 
(Case 2858; see BZN 51: 28-30) 


(1) Curtis W. Sabrosky 
205 Medford Leas, Medford, New Jersey 08055, U.S.A. 


In the past few years I have been finalizing a catalogue of family-group names and 
their type genera in the order Diptera, and the unsettled status of Hydrophoria has 
been duly recorded. The application covers the same ground, and I can only add a 
few details while supporting and applauding the proposal. 

Another invalid designation in the confused history was that of Rondani (1856, 
p. 94) who designated Musca pagana Fabricius, 1794, not an originally included 
nominal species, and now a synonym of Mydaea corni (Scopoli, 1763) (Musca) in the 
MUSCIDAE. 

Rondani (1866, p. 72; see para. 4 of the application) actually designated ‘Musca 
conica Fall.’ (repeated by Rondani, 1877, p. 12), but on a later page he called it 
Anthomyia conica Wiedemann. 

The application (para. 3) mentions a type designation by Coquillett (1910). An 
earlier Coquillett designation (1901, p. 143) was Musca socia Fallén, 1825, not 
originally included, with the Robineau-Desvoidy species Hydrophoria tibialis and 
H. sagittaria in its synonymy. These two were originally included, but the designation 
did not precisely fix one of them as type species. 

The family-group name Hydrophoriti Lioy, 1864 was based on Hydrophoria; 
although it may not be widely accepted by specialists it has been used as 
HYDROPHORIINI (e.g. by Fan et al., 1986, Economic Insect Fauna of China, fasc. 37 
(Diptera: Anthomyiidae, p. 38)). 


Additional references 


Coquillett, D.W. 1901. Types of anthomyid genera. Journal of the New York Entomological 
Society, 9: 134-146. 

Lioy, P. 1864. I ditteri distribuiti secondo un nuovo metodo di classificazione naturale. Atti 
dell’ .R. Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (3) 9: 719-771 (Cont.). 

Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae Prodromus, vol. 1. 228 pp. 

Rondani, C. 1877. Species Italicae ordinis dipterorum ordinatim dispositae, ... Pars quinta. Stirps 
XVII — Anthomyinae. 304 pp. Parma. 


(2) Roger W. Crosskey 
clo Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 SBD, U.K. 


As a dipterist I wholly support, in principle, Griffiths’s application to settle this 
long-vexed question. Unfortunately, however, he asks the Commission to act in a 
void inasmuch as he has left entirely uncovered the type situation for Musca lancifer 
Harris, [1780]. The Moses Harris collection has long been considered destroyed, and 
as Pont & Michelsen (1982) wrote — in the work in which they established junior 
synonymy of Hydrophoria conica (Wiedemann) with /ancifer — ‘it seems inconceiy- 
able that it can still be in existence’. This being so, which species precisely will the 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 259 


Commission be designating if it accedes to Griffiths’s request? For such nondescript 
flies as ANTHOMYIIDAE the ancient illustrations of Harris are hardly up to the needs of 
modern taxonomy, and Pont & Michelsen themselves seem not to have been overly 
convinced that /ancifer should be treated as a senior synonym of conica, writing “We 
think that this [/ancifer] is most probably Hydrophoria conica ...’. In such woolly 
circumstances it is unhelpful (in fact most unwise) of Griffiths to ignore the type 
specimen situation. There is clearly need here, while the type species muddle is sorted, 
for a neotype to be designated for Jancifer Harris: only this will ensure proper 
understanding of the species concerned and make for the needed future stability. The 
Commission’s approval of the designation of /ancifer Harris as type species of 
Hydrophoria should be contingent upon revision of the case so that it deals with this 
important point. A neotype specimen should be designated and such designation 
(part-and-parcel of the application) approved by Commission action. A suitably 
selected neotype would uphold the synonymy of conica with /ancifer that has begun 
to be accepted over the past few years. (A type specimen probably exists for conica 
Wiedemann, and evidence could helpfully be presented simultaneously that this is 
conspecific with the /ancifer neotype: the specific names should then both go on the 
appropriate list). I recommend that the Commission rejects the application as 
formulated, but acts as Griffiths suggests once the type specimen question has been 
properly presented. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa 
Fabricius, 1775 by the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type 
species of Myopa (Insecta, Diptera), and on the proposed rejection of Coenomyia 
Latreille, 1796 

(Case 2881; see BZN 51: 31-34) 


(1) Curtis W. Sabrosky 
205 Medford Leas, Medford, New Jersey 08055, U.S.A. 


I support and applaud the application to resolve the difficulty concerning Sicus 
Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775. This is a useful clarification of confusion 
in the family CONOPIDAE. 

The type species of Sicus is widely accepted as Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 
but an objective examination could lead to another conclusion. Sicus was based on 
two nominal species, S. ferrugineus and S. buccatus. There is no problem with the 
authorship of the second species, under which was cited reference to C. buccata 
Linnaeus, 1758; the latter has long been accepted as the type species of Myopa 
Fabricius, 1775. However, there is no citation under S. ferrugineus, and to all 
appearances this is a new species S. ferrugineus Scopoli, 1763, rather than a simple 
oversight of a citation. Nevertheless, almost all authors have regularly interpreted 
this ferrugineus as Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 and have cited the Linnaean 
nominal species as the type species of Sicus (see, for example, Coquillett, 1910, and 
the three modern regional catalogs of Camras, 1965, Smith, 1975, p. 384 and Majer, 
1988, p. 32, where there is no mention of ferrugineus Scopoli; para. 1 of the 
application). Bezzi (1907, p. 271) listed Scopoli’s species, although as a synonym of 


260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


ferrugineus Linnaeus. The descriptions of ferrugineus in Scopoli and Linnaeus are 
slightly but not impossibly different. If the Scopoli species were considered to be 
S. ferrugineus Scopoli, this could be designated as the type species of Sicus and then 
recognized as a junior synonym (and a junior secondary homonym) of C. ferrugineus 
Linnaeus. 

The name Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 has no place in the Sicus-Myopa problem in 
the CONOPIDAE. It is part of the confusion arising from the usage of the name Sicus 
in three different families of Diptera (para. 6 of the application). Coenomyia is an 
important name in its own right and should not be rejected (cf. paras. 4 and 6 of the 
application). The ‘Sicus ferrugineus F. referred to by Latreille (1802), which is the 
type species of Coenomyia by subsequent monotypy, was Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 
1763 (cf. James, 1965, p. 296; Webb, 1983, pp. 653-664; Majer, 1988, p. 32; 
Thompson & Pont, 1993, p. 75). Coenomyia ferruginea (Scopoli) has a widespread 
Holarctic distribution. It was long placed in its own family COENOMYIIDAE, but has 
been combined recently with the xYLOPHAGIDAE. 

A type designation for Sicus Fabricius, 1798 (said in para. 6 of the application to 
be unknown) was made by myself (Sabrosky, 1961; BZN 18: 228) in a report on 
Meigen’s (1800) work. The type is Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, rendering Sicus 
Fabricius a junior objective synonym of Coenomyia Latreille, as well as being a junior 
homonym of Sicus Scopoli. 


Additional references 

Bezzi, M. 1907. Conopidae. Jn Becker, T. et al. (Eds.), Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren, vol. 
3. 828 pp. 

James, M.T. 1965. Family Xylophagidae. Pp. 296-298 in Stone, A. et 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. 

Majer, J. 1988. Family Coenomyiidae. Pp. 31-34 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of 
Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 5. 446 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam. 

Smith, K.G.V. 1975. Family Conopidae. Pp. 375-386 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. 
(Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 2. 459 pp. University Press of 
Hawaii, Honolulu. 

Thompson, F.C. & Pont, A.C. 1993. Systematic database of Musca names. 219, 2 pp. Koeltz 
Scientific Books, Koenigstein. 

Webb, D.W. 1983. The genus Coenomyia (Diptera: Coenomyiidae) in the Nearctic Region and 
notes on generic placement. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 85: 
653-664. 


(2) Terry A. Wheeler 
Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada 
NIG 2WI1 


I support the application by Camras for the conservation of Myopa Fabricius, 
1775 and Sicus Scopoli, 1763 as currently recognized. However, I disagree with the 
proposal to place Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 on the Official Index as a junior objective 
synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763. Coenomyia is currently in widespread use and is the 
type genus of the family COENOMYIIDAE; rejection of the generic name would cause 
unnecessary confusion in the nomenclature of the Diptera. The proposal is based on 
the erroneous assumption that Coenomyia and Sicus Scopoli have the same type 
species. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 261 


Scopoli (1763) described Sicus ferrugineus (species no. 1004), which is now treated 
as a synonym of Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761, as noted in para. | of the 
application. However, it is another species described in the same publication, Musca 
ferruginea Scopoli, 1763 (p. 349, species no. 913), which has been treated by 
subsequent authors as the type species of Coenomyia. 

Sicus ferrugineus was one of two species originally assigned to Sicus by Scopoli 
(1763). Although Scopoli did not attribute authorship of S. ferrugineus to Linnaeus, 
Fabricius (1775, p. 159) listed both S. ferrugineus Scopoli and Conops ferruginea 
Linnaeus, 1761 as synonyms of Myopa ferrugineus. Most authors subsequent to 
Fabricius considered Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761, Sicus ferrugineus of Scopoli 
(1763) and Myopa ferrugineus of Fabricius (1775) as conspecific and attributed 
authorship of the specific name to either Linnaeus or Fabricius (see Sabrosky’s 
comment above). Coquillett’s (1910) designation of Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 
1761 as the type species of Sicus Scopoli has been accepted by subsequent authors. 

The name Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 was proposed without included species. Later, 
Latreille (1802, p. 439) listed the single species Sicus ferruginea ‘F.’ (i.e. Fabricius) in 
the genus, which he assigned to the TABANIDAE. Latreille (1802, p. 444) assigned the 
genus Myopa (with Sicus Scopoli as a synonym) to the family coNoPIDAE and (p. 445) 
listed Myopa ferruginea ‘F.’ as the only species. Latreille (1810, p. 442) subsequently 
designated Sicus ferrugineus Fabricius as the type species of Coenomyia, and (p. 444) 
Myopa ferruginea Fabricius as the type species of Myopa. It is evident from Latreille’s 
placement of Sicus ferrugineus Fabricius and Myopa ferruginea Fabricius in different 
families that he considered them different species. Fabricius (1805) also assigned the 
two species to different families, placing (p. 75) the genus Sicus (containing Sicus 
ferrugineus) between the genera Atherix and Stratiomys, and (p. 178) Myopa 
(containing Myopa ferruginea) directly after the genus Conops. Fabricius’s placement 
of Sicus in his taxonomic list of genera corresponds roughly to the current placement 
of Coenomyia. 

Most authors (see, for example, Lindner, 1925; Leonard, 1930; Oldroyd, 1966; 
Webb, 1983) have recognised Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763 as the type species of 
Coenomyia and included Sicus ferrugineus Fabricius, 1798 as a synonym of Scopoli’s 
name. 

It seems certain, therefore, that the Sicus ferrugineus Fabricius of Latreille (1802, 
1810) and Fabricius (1805) is conspecific with Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763 and 
that the species is not conspecific with Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761. Musca 
ferruginea Scopoli is widely considered the type species of Ceonomyia and there is no 
justification for treating Coenomyia as a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 
1763. 


Additional references 


Fabricius, J.C. 1805. Systema antliatorum secundum ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, 
locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. 372 pp. Reichard, Brunsvigae. 

Leonard, M.D. 1930. A revision of the dipterous family Rhagionidae (Leptidae) in the United 
States and Canada. Memoirs of the American Entomological Society, 7: 1-181. 

Lindner, E. 1925. Rhagionidae. Jn Lindner, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der Palaearktischen Region, 
vol. 4, part 1. 49 pp. 

Oldroyd, H. 1966. Notes on Coenomyia Latreille (Diptera: Coenomyiidae). Beitrdge zur 
Entomologie, 16: 953-963. 


262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


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, 287-289) 


(1) Richard L. Mayden 
Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 
35487-0344, U.S.A. 


I read with great interest the reply (BZN 50: 289) by Drs Frank B. Cross & Joseph 
T. Collins to my previous comment co-authored with Dr Carter R. Gilbert (BZN 50: 
287-288). I consider that it is both inaccurate and inappropriate with regard to the 
nomenclatural change we (Mayden & Gilbert, 1989) proposed for Notropis topeka to 
N. tristis. ; 

Cross & Collins criticize the Girard (1856) description of Notropis tristis as being 
inaccurate and poor. They regard this description as such because it “has not enabled 
assignment of the name to any known taxon without reference to the type material’. 
This is neither a fair assessment of Girard’s research nor the information provided in 
the description. They state that “There are several species to which Girard’s 
description might apply ...’. This is also incorrect. There are few species that are 
found in the region where Girard conducted his research that are consistent with the 
description. The description is much better than that for many species that we accept 
today as valid and have no extant types. 

Cross & Collins use the argument of Notropis tristis being considered for listing by 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a “Category One’ species in need of further study 
and protection. This is also a very weak argument and one without substance. The 
nomenclatural change from Notropis topeka to N. tristis has already been accepted by 
the Fish and Wildlife Service. The list of candidate species for federal protection lists 
the species as WN. tristis, not N. topeka! 

I believe that the arguments provided by Cross & Collins in their application and 
in their subsequent comment are without scientific merit and reflect a personal bias 
towards a local name for the species. While it may be nice to accommodate personal 
preferences on such issues it is clear that the rules of zoological nomenclature were 
established to eliminate such foolishness. 


(2) Reeve M. Bailey 
Division of Fishes, Museum of Zoology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 
Michigan 48109, U.S.A. 


The date for Girard’s name Moniana tristis is given as 1857 in the application by 
Drs F.B. Cross & J.T. Collins. Since about 23 genera and 133 new species were 
described in Girard’s work accurate dating is important. Although 1857 is often used, 
1856 is more common and is correct. 

Girard’s paper was published in the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural 
Sciences of Philadelphia, vol. 8, pp. 165-213 in 1857 and was recorded (1913) with this 
date in the ‘Index to the scientific contents of the Journal and Proceedings of the 
Academy ... 1812-1912’. However, an entry (p. 1) in the “Correspondence-1857’ 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 263 


section of the Proceedings, vol. 9 (1858) certifies receipt of ‘Proceedings, vol. viii, No. 
5’ (Girard’s paper) by the Trustees of the New York State Library on or before 27 
December 1856. Thus, Girard’s paper was issued sometime between the date of 
acceptance, 30 September (Proceedings, vol. 8, p. 163) and 27 December 1856. It was 
the practice of the Academy to publish and distribute parts of the Proceedings when 
printed, with the title page of the volume showing the date when the volume was to 
be assembled (1857 for vol. 8 of 1856). The situation is further complicated since 
Girard’s paper, with slightly changed title (the words ‘of America’ are lacking) and 
different pagination (pp. 1-54), was issued as an offprint in September 1856. The 
(1913) ‘Index ... 1812-1912’ (p. vii) noted “The issue to authors of separate copies of 
papers from the Proceedings antedates the publication of the numbers of which they 
form a part, the record being printed on the covers of the separata but not otherwise 
preserved’. The type bed in the volume and the separate were the same; the separate 
had a terminal four pages of a list of species and an index (pp. 51—54). 

I have been aware of the application to conserve the specific name of Notropis 
topeka (Gilbert, 1884) since its inception. In fact, I intended to request the 
conservation of this name myself until I learned that Drs Cross and Collins were 
doing so. I therefore support with enthusiasm the proposed conservation of the name 
for the familiar cyprinid fish of north-central United States. 

Identification of the two located syntypes of Moniana tristis Girard, 1856 with two 
well-marked species, Lythrurus (or Notropis) umbratilis Girard, 1856 and Notropis 
topeka (see Mayden, 1987, Mayden & Gilbert, 1989 and paras. 3 and 4 of the 
application) emphasizes the inadequacy of Girard’s original description, which 
C.R. Gilbert (1978, p. 84), following others, ranked as not definitely identifiable. It is 
difficult to rationalize the observation by Mayden & Gilbert (BZN 50: 287, para. 4; 
see above also) that Girard’s description ‘was good according to the standards at the 
time’. 

As Cross & Collins have shown, the consistent and unquestioned use of Notropis 
topeka during this century has served scientific communication well. In their 
opposition to the application, Mayden & Gilbert defend their (unnecessary) selection 
of a lectotype for Moniana tristis that dictates replacement of topeka. They do not 
address the issue of conservation of the latter name but defend nomenclatural 
priority with spirit. In so doing they overlook evidence that the Commission is not 
blind to the fundamental importance of stability (see Article 23b of the Code). 
Recommendation 24A comments on the action of first reviser (which could have been 
exercised in this case; see paras. 3 and 4 of the application): “An author should choose 
the name, homonym, spelling, or nomenclatural act that will best serve stability and 
universality of nomenclature’. Mayden & Gilbert (1989) disregarded this exhortation 
and then (BZN 50: 288, para. 7) challenged the ‘scientific integrity’ of a choice that 
could have avoided a name change. 

I have discussed Cross & Collins’s application, the previous comments and this 
statement with four local ichthyological colleagues, William L. Fink, William A. 
Gosline, Robert Rush Miller and Gerald R. Smith. They agree with me that the three 
actions proposed in para. 6 of the application will contribute substantially to 
nomenclatural stability, and we strongly endorse them. Approval from these 
colleagues indicates that support is not only regional (Kansas), as suggested by 
Kuhajda (BZN 50: 289) and Mayden (above). 


264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Comment on the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 - 
(Amphibia, Caudata) 
(Case 2869; see BZN 50: 129-132; 51: 153-156) 


Alain Dubois 
Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 25 rue 
Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France 


1. In order to try and protect the junior synonym HEMIDACTYLINI Hallowell, 1856, 
Smith & Wake produce in their application a list of 16 references by 15 authors, most 
of whom are not ‘independent’ since they work in Wake’s research team. When one 
deals with family-group names, the concept of stability has a meaning only when 
dozens, if not hundreds, of uses of the name can be called upon, which is very quickly 
obtained if the name has indeed been recognized by the scientific community. In this 
context, the number of 16 references (mostly by a single research team) is simply 
ridiculous and does not even deserve discussion. To add to the weakness of the case, 
the period of use is only 28 years (1966-1994). Of the 16 references, six (of which four 
are from Wake’s team) are subsequent to my paper (Dubois, 1984) where the 
seniority of MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1850 over HEMIDACTYLIINI was first pointed 
out. 

2. Family-group names have not always been strictly regulated by the Code; 
several of the current rules were introduced in the 1961 edition, for example Article 
40 dealing with synonymy of the name of the type genus. A number of zoologists still 
treat family-group names as though they were not regulated. Indeed, there exists a 
clear tendency by some to consider that these names should nor be regulated, as may 
be seen in various recent applications and even in several decisions by the 
Commission. These applications and decisions rely on a philosophy that can be 
summarized in two ‘rules’: (i) family-group names should not follow the principle of 
priority but a principle of ‘current usage’, i.e. all current names, however obscure and 
seldom used, should be protected from change; (ii) family-group names should be 
based on valid generic names, i.e. any based on a junior generic synonym should be 
replaced by one based on the valid generic name, or on another valid generic name 
belonging to the family-group taxon. As discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g. Dubois, 
1987, pp. 48-52), most of the current rules are excellent and should be followed by 
all zoologists. In particular, respect for the rule of priority, for family names as for 
others, is the best way to achieve stability and universality. The current tendency to 
apply tacit ‘rules’ such as (i) and (ii) above, and to ask the Commission to suppress 
more and more names, contains the seeds of major problems for universality and 
stability of zoological nomenclature in the future (for more general discussion see 
Dubois et al., 1988 and Holynski, 1994). 

3. Although this is not explicitly stated, the philosophy underlying Smith & 
Wake’s proposal to conserve the name HEMIDACTYLINI Hallowell, 1856 and to 
suppress MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1850 is clearly based on both ‘rules’ (i) and (ii) 
above. The fact that Wake does not attempt to adhere to the rules in the current 
Code, which should be followed by all zoologists, is illustrated by his statement 
(Wake, 1993, p. 232): ‘The name Hemidactyliini ... has become well established, and 
the rules on zoological nomenclature are in a state of transition, so the case is not so 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 265 


simple as Dubois (1984) implies. Recently an appeal has been made to the 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the name 
Mycetoglossina and to conserve Hemidactyliini ... and I recommend maintaining the 
traditional taxonomy until the matter receives formal attention’. Such a statement is 
indeed very strange to read. Adopting a similar attitude would lead, for example, to 
rejection of the current Highway Code under the pretext that some users were 
criticizing aspects of it and that this Code might be changed in the future. No doubt 
it would be difficult to convince a traffic policeman with this argument; as long as a 
law has not been replaced by another one, it remains in force. 

4. The aim of Smith & Wake’s application is clearly to protect an invalid use first 
introduced by Wake (1966) five years after the publication of the 1961 Code, i.e. after 
the date limit fixed for the conservation of names which had ‘won general 
acceptance’. Mycetoglossina Bonaparte, 1850 belongs to the category of names 
‘forgotten’ simply because later authors have not done their work properly (Dubois 
et al., 1988, p. 148). Usually in science, when someone has made a mistake which is 
pointed out by another author, he has the modesty to remain silent, but apparently 
the recent tendency of a few zoologists to speak loud and attack the basic principles 
of the Code has had such strong effects on the community of zoologists that some of 
them lose all control and sense of proportion. The Commission should not be 
impressed by this and should reject this entirely unwarranted proposal. 


Additional references 


Dubois, A. 1987. Again on the nomenclature of frogs. Alytes, 6: 27-55. 

Dubois, A., Bour, R., Brygoo, E.-R., Lescure, J., Bouchet, P. & Tillier, S. 1988. Comment on 
the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R.W. Wells & C.R. 
Wellington. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45: 146-149. 

Holynski, R.B. 1994. Structure and function or: what kind of nomenclatural regulations do we 
need? Crystal (Zoology series) (G6d, Hungary), 2: 1-50. 

Wake, D.B. 1993. Phylogenetic and taxonomic issues relating to salamanders of the family 
Plethodontidae. Herpetologica, 49: 229-237. 


Comment 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, 291-294; 51: 48-51, 
156-158) 


Spencer G. Lucas 
New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, 1801 Mountain Road N.W., 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104, U.S.A. 


Adrian P. Hunt 
Department of Geology, University of Colorado at Denver, Campus Box 172, P.O. Box 
173364, Denver, Colorado 80217-3364, U.S.A. 


Recent commentary in the BZN that recommends acceptance of Colbert et al.’s 
application may give the impression that most vertebrate paleontologists favor the 
application. Significantly, a growing literature by specialists currently doing original 


266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


research on Late Triassic theropod dinosaur taxonomy and phylogeny shows just the 
reverse. Recent articles in this vein by Olshevsky (1991), Cuny & Galton (1993) and 
Paul (1993) use the name Rioarribasaurus and reject the name Coelophysis for the 
Ghost Ranch dinosaur. Paul’s article is particularly significant because it reveals the 
taxonomic complexity of the Ghost Ranch quarry sample (contra Colbert et al.’s 
claims). Also worthy of notice is the recently published The Dinosaur Society's 
Dinosaur Encyclopedia (Lessem & Glut, 1993), which uses the name Rioarribasaurus 
for the Ghost Ranch dinosaur (although ongoing debate over the name is noted). 
Contrary to the impression gained by reading the commentary in the BZN, it appears 
that many of those now working on Late Triassic theropods, as well as the 
popular literature on dinosaurs, are readily and rapidly recognizing the validity of 
Rioarribasaurus and the inadvisability of perpetuating the nomen dubium 
Coelophysis despite its erroneous use in an earlier literature. 


Additional references 


Cuny, G. & Galton, P.M. 1993. Revision of the Airel theropod dinosaur from the Triassic- 
Jurassic boundary (Normandy, France). Neues Jahrbuch fiir Geologie und Paldontologie 
Abhandlungen, 187: 261-288. 

Lessem, D. & Glut, D.F. 1993. The Dinosaur Society's Dinosaur Encyclopedia. 533 pp. Random 
House, New York. 

Olsheysky, G. 1991. A revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria Cope, 1869, excluding the 
advanced Crocodylia. Mesozoic Meanderings, 2: 1-196. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first 
published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale 
(Case 2928; see BZN 51: 135-146) 


(1) J.E. Hill 
12 Penlee Close, Edenbridge, Kent TN8 5NA, U.K. 


It appears to be generally accepted that M.J. Brisson’s Regnum Animale (1762) is 
not consistently binominal and therefore should not be available for nomenclatural 
purposes. Nevertheless, no formal decision has yet been made and authors cite a 
number of generic names from this work, partly for this reason and because the 
names have long been credited to Brisson, and partly because the rejection of some 
(e.g. Glis, Cuniculus, Tragulus) would involve unwelcome and confusing changes at 
generic and possibly family level. ' 

An increased level of publication of check lists in the past half century and the 
desire to produce a relatively stable (at least in the nomenclatural sense) listing of 
mammalian genera and species has led to the necessity of clarifying this issue, not 
least to achieve consistency of usage. The application does this, expanding and 
formalising the proposals first set out by Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) and 
following the precedent already established by the conservation of Odobenus Brisson, 
1762 for the walrus (Opinion 467). Approval will confirm the advantage of an early 
date for the names of several well-known genera, so ensuring the prospect of present 
and future stability. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 267 


(2) D.W. Yalden 
School of Biological Sciences, Department of Environmental Biology, University of 
Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, U.K. 


I fully support this application. 

I have been particularly perplexed by the unnecessary resurrection of the name 
Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 for the edible dormouse after all these years. Glis 
Brisson, 1762 has been very well established in both scientific and popular literature 
in Europe for at least a century, and Glis glis has even entered popular English usage 
(cf. Rhododendron). Simpson (1945) listed Myoxus as a junior synonym of Glis, which 
is where it usefully could have remained. I approve this formalisation of that 
position. 

The situation with Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 is even more acute. Cuniculus paca is a 
well established combination and usage. The notion that Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874 
would have to be replaced as the name for the European rabbit if Cuniculus is no 
longer valid in the sense of C. paca is too confusing a prospect to contemplate. 

Some other names seem to me to be less contentious (in that there are later, 
available, uses of them in their familiar meanings) but in these cases Brisson’s names 
represent the generally accepted concepts and usages and I approve this proposal as 
a useful endeavour to promote stability. 


(3) W.F.H. Ansell 
Trendrine, Zennor, St Ives, Cornwall TR26 3BW, U.K. 


I agree with the proposals to reject Regnum Animale, Ed. 2 (Brisson, 1762) but to 
conserve certain generic names from the work. For the reasons given by Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott (1951, pp. 3-4), I particularly support the conservation of the names 
which concern my own area of study: Pteropus Brisson, 1762 with Vespertilio niger 
Kerr, 1792 as the type species; Glis Brisson, 1762 with Sciurus glis Linnaeus, 1766 as 
the type species; and Tragulus Brisson, 1762 with Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 as 
the type species. 

There might be a case for not conserving those of Brisson’s names which can be 
dated from Briinnich (1771) with exactly the same meaning. These are Hydrochoerus, 
Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus and Giraffa. However, Hydrochoerus Brisson would have to 
be replaced by the differently spelt Hydrochaeris Briinnich and it would be better to 
conserve these names along with the others from the earlier date of Brisson (1762). 


268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


OPINION 1778 


Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] and Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889 (Ciliophora, 
Suctoria): conserved, and Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834] and 
Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (currently 
Tokophrya quadripartita): 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 Vo/lverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827]; 

(b) the following specific names: 

(i) tuberosus Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Brachionus 
tuberosus; 

(ii) tuberosa Miller, 1786, as published in the binomen Vorticella 
tuberosa; 

(iii) astoma Bory de St Vincent, [1827], as published in the binomen 
Volverella astoma. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Collin (1912) Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834]; 

(b) Tokophrya Bitschli, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Curds (1985) Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & 
Lachmann, 1859. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834], as published in the binomen Acineta tuberosa 
(specific name of the type species of Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834]); 

(b) quadripartita Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859, as published in the binomen 
Podophrya quadripartita (specific name of the type species of Tokophrya 
Biitschli, 1889). 

(4) The name Volverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827], as suppressed in (1)(a) above, 
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology. 

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) tuberosus Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Brachienus 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)(1i) above; 

(c) astoma Bory de St Vincent, [1827], as published in the binomen Volverella 
astoma and as suppressed in (1)(b)(iii) above. 


History of Case 2823 
An application for the conservation of the generic names Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] 
and Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889, and the specific names of Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 269 


[1834] and Podophrya quadripartita Claparede & Lachmann, 1859, was received from 
Drs I.V. Dovgal (Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, Kiev, Ukraine) and Ya.I. 
Starobogatov (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, 
Russia) on 29 May 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 
103-106 (June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 105. At the close of the voting period on | June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Holthuis and Stys. 

Lehtinen abstained. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Ueno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Holthuis commented: ‘Since, when describing Acineta tuberosa, Ehrenberg ([1834]) 
referred to Vorticella tuberosa of Miller (1786) as identical with his species (para. 4 
of the application), he did not describe a new species but misidentified Brachionus 
tuberosus Pallas, 1766. There is thus no such name as Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg’. 
Stys commented: ‘There is only one nominal taxon with the specific name of 
tuberosus — Brachionus tuberosus Pallas, 1766. Vorticella tuberosa sensu Miller 
(1786) and Acineta tuberosa sensu Ehrenberg ([1834]) are only subsequent, incorrect, 
applications of Pallas’s name’. (Editorial note. Drs Dovgal and Starobogatov pointed 
out that Ehrenberg ([1834]) was mistaken in his use of Pallas’s name tuberosus; it was 
for this reason that they sought the conservation of Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg as an 
available name for the taxon for which it has long been used). 


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: 

Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834], Physikalische Mathematische Abhandlungen der Kéniglichen 
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1833: 284. (Published in the serial in 1835 but 
issued as a separate in [1834)). 

astoma, Volverella, Bory de St Vincent, [1827], in: Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire naturelle 
des Zoophytes, ou Animaux rayonées, p. 782. 

quadripartita, Podophrya, Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859, Mémoires de l'Institut National 
Génevois, 6: 382. 

Tokophrya Bitschli, 1889, in Bronn, H.G., Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, Band | 
(Protozoa), p. 1928. 

tuberosa, Acineta, Ehrenberg, [1834], Physikalische Mathematische Abhandlungen der 
KGniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1833: 287. (Published in the serial in 
1835 but issued as a separate in [1834)). 

tuberosa, Vorticella, Miller, 1786, Animalcula Infusoria fluviatilia et marina ..., p. 308. 

tuberosus, Brachionus, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum ..., p. 105. 

Volverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827], in: Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire naturelle des 
Zoophytes, ou Animaux rayonées, p. 781. 


270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


The following is the reference for the designation of Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834] as 
the type species of the nominal genus Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834]: 
Collin, B. 1912. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 51: 336. 


The following is the reference for the designation of Podophrya quadripartita Claparéde & 
Lachmann, 1859 as the type species of the nominal genus Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889: 
Curds, C.R. 1985. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 49: 169. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 271 


OPINION 1779 


Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): placed on 
the Official List with Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835 as the type 
species 


Ruling 

(1) The name Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (gender: masculine), type species 
by subsequent designation by Clench (1948) Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835, is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(2) The name /apidum d’Orbigny, 1835, as published in the binomen Paludina 
lapidum (specific name of the type species of Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896) and 
as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 1854.12.4.339 in the d’Orbigny collection in 
the Natural History Museum, London) designated by Pons da Silva & Davis (1983), 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2801 

An application for the confirmation of Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the 
accepted type species of Potamolithus Pilsbry, 1896 (December) was received from 
Drs Maria F. Lopez Armengol and Miguel O. Mancenido (Universidad Nacional de 
La Plata, La Plata, Argentina) on 23 November 1990. After correspondence the case 
was published in BZN 49: 109-111 (June 1992). Notice of the case was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

An opposing comment from Dr Alan R. Kabat (National Museum of Natural 
History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) was published in BZN 
50: 52 (March 1993), together with a reply by the authors of the application. Dr 
Kabat pointed out that there was a valid type species designation for Potamolithus 
Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (November) by Clench (1948), who had designated Paludina 
lapidum d@’Orbigny, 1835. Dr Kabat subsequently noted (in litt., April and November 
1993) that he (Kabat & Hershler, 1993, p. 44) had cited P. /apidum as the type species 
of Potamolithus, following Clench’s designation, as had (acting on his advice) 
Hershler & Thompson (1992, p. 129). 

A comment from Dr Maria Christina Pons da Silva (Museu de Ciéncias Naturais, 
Porto Alegre, Brazil) in support of the type species designation for Potamolithus of 
P. rushii was published in BZN 50: 228 (September 1993). 


Hershler, R. & Thompson, F.G. 1992. A review of the aquatic gastropod subfamily 
Cochliopinae (Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae). Malacological Review, Supplement 5. 
Kabat, A.R. & Hershler, R. 1993. The prosobranch snail family Hydrobiidae (Gastropoda: 
Rissooidea): review of classification and supraspecific taxa. Smithsonian Contributions to 

Zoology, 547: 1-94. 


A revised version of the original proposals, seeking to set aside Clench’s (1948) 
designation of Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835 as the type species of Potamolithus 
Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 and to designate P. rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type, was offered 
for voting. 


272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
revised proposals. At the close of the voting period on | June 1994 the votes were as 
follows: 

Affirmative votes — 12: Bock, Bouchet, Corliss, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Nielsen, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 14: Bayer, Cocks, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, 
Kabata, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nye, Stys and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Voting in favour of the designation of Potamolithus rushii Pilsbry, 1896 as the type 
species, Bouchet commented: ‘I consider that I am following Pilsbry’s intention when 
he introduced the name Potamolithus. It is clear from Pilsbry’s December 1896 paper 
that Pilsbry regarded the November paper as a preview of his ideas. The November 
footnote confirms this’ (para. 1 of the application). Voting against, Dupuis com- 
mented that Kabat had spoken convincingly for the acceptance of P. lapidum 
d’Orbigny, 1835 as the type species of Potamolithus; the species was included in the 
genus by Pilsbry & Rush (1896) and had been designated as the type in 1948. The 
applicants had not opposed this designation. Hahn commented: ‘Specialists do not 
agree in this case; therefore it may be better to follow the Code and to accept 
P. lapidum as the type species of Potamolithus’. Holthuis commented: ‘Since the 
applicants had noted (BZN 50: 53) that ‘the two alternatives do not entail 
substantially different immediate consegences’, it would be unforgivable to use the 
plenary powers in this case’. Kabata commented: ‘Clench’s (1948) type species 
designation was valid and setting it aside would be justified only if its acceptance 
seriously threatened nomenclatural stability. In spite of Dr Pons da Silva’s comment, 
I do not see it as anything but a small perturbation (if any)’. Nye commented: “As the 
publication of this case has brought to light a valid type species designation that does 
not upset stability there is no need for the Commission to invoke the use of the 
plenary powers and therefore it should not do so’. Stys commented: ‘I cannot see why 
a perfectly clear nomenclatural situation should be interfered with, and why the 
straightforward application of the Code should not be observed’. 

Since the majority required to set aside Clench’s (1948) type species designation 
was not reached, this remains the valid designation and Paludina lapidum is the type 
species of Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896. 


Original references 

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
lapidum, Paludina, @’Orbigny, 1835, Magasin de Zoologie, Classe 5 (Mollusques), 5(62): 29. 
Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (November), The Nautilus, 10(7): 80. 


The following is the reference for the designation of Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896: 
Clench, W.J. 1948. The Nautilus, 61(3): 105. 


The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Paludina lapidum 
d@Orbigny, 1835: 
Pons da Silva, M.C. & Davis, G.M. 1983. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia, 135: 143. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 273 


OPINION 1780 


Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Melanella polita; Mollusca, 
Gastropoda): usage of the specific name conserved, so conserving the 
specific name of Buccinum acicula Miller, 1774 (currently Cecilioides 
acicula) 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimen for the 
nominal species Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and the neotype 
designation by Warén (1988) is confirmed. 

(2) The name politus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo politus 
and as defined by the neotype designated by Warén (1988) (specimen no. 1071 in the 
Zoological Museum, Uppsala), confirmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) 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). 


History of Case 2820 

An application for the conservation of the accustomed usage of the specific name 
of Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758, so conserving also the specific name of Buccinum 
acicula Miller, 1774, was received from Drs Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska 
Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden) and Edmund _ Gittenberger (Nationaal 
Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 29 April 1991. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 50: 107-111 (June 1993). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. 

The name Cecilioides Férussac, 1814, and that of its type species Buccinum acicula 
Miller, 1774, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 335 (March 1955). 


Decision of the Commission 

On | March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 109-110. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an 
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 


274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


intermedia, Eulima, Cantraine, 1835, Bulletins de l'Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles- 
Lettres de Bruxelles, 2: 390. 

politus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 767. 

sinuosa, Rissoa, Scacchi, 1836, Catalogus conchyliorum regni Neapolitani, p. 15. 


The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Turbo politus Linnaeus, 


1758: 
Warén, A. 1988. Bollettino Malacologico, 24: 20. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 275 


OPINION 1781 


Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Coptotermes lacteus; Insecta, 
Isoptera): specific name conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name /actis Froggatt, 1897, as published 
in the binomen Termes /actis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle 
of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name /acteus Froggatt, 1898, as published in the binomen Termes /acteus, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name /actis Froggatt, 1897, as published in the binomen Termes lactis and 
as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2864 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Termes lacteus 
Froggatt, 1898 was received from the late Dr J.A.L. Watson and from Dr H.M. 
Abbey (both of CSIRO, Canberra, Australia) on 21 October 1992. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 50: 112-114 (June 1993). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On | March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 113. At the close of the voting period on | June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 4: Kabata, Lehtinen, Stys and Thompson. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Voting for, Dupuis commented that the Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales 
is a well known journal and it would have been preferable to consider /acteus as a 
valid correction from Froggatt (1897) (para. | of the application). Voting against, 
Kabata commented: ‘Froggatt’s original name /actis is correctly formed under Article 
11h(i)(3) of the Code and it cannot be considered a lapsus. In my view its retention 
or restoration is not going to cause a major disturbance in the literature’. Stys 
commented that the provisions of the Code should be followed in this case. 
Thompson commented: ‘I consider that this application is unnecessary as Termes 
lactis Froggatt, 1897 is not an available name. Froggatt himself (1898) declared this 
when he stated that his 1897 work was a ‘popular paper’ (para. 2 of the application), 
thereby rendering it a work not issued for permanent scientific record (Article 8a(1))’. 


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: 


276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


lacteus, Termes, Froggatt, 1898, Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 22: 
721. 
lactis, Termes, Froggatt, 1897, Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 8: plate facing p. 297. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 277 


OPINION 1782 


Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 (currently Sigara 
(Pseudovermicorixa) nigrolineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): 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) minutior Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Notonecta minutior; 
(b) minuta Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Notonecta minuta. 
(2) The name nigrolineata Fieber, 1848, as published in the binomen Corisa 
nigrolineata, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) 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. 


History of Case 2830 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Corisa nigrolineata 
Fieber, 1848 was received from Drs Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum, University 
of Helsinki, Finland) and John T. Polhemus (University of Colorado Museum, 
Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A.) on 27 August 1991. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 50: 121-123 (June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate 
journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 122. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Macpherson. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Ueno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Holthuis commented that Gmelin’s (1790) Notonecta minuta was not an emenda- 
tion of Sulzer’s (1776) name as he did not explicitly say so. It was either a new name 
(not necessarily a substitute name) or an erroneous spelling. 


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: 


278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


minuta, Notonecta, Gmelin, 1790, Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. .1, part 4, 
p. 2119. 

minutior, Notonecta, Sulzer, 1776, Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten, part 2, p. 91. 

nigrolineata, Corisa, Fieber, 1848, Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes 
de Moscou, 21: 527. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 279 


OPINION 1783 


Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): syntype 
replaced by a neotype, so conserving the usage of the specific name 
and that of A. hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the 
nominal species Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 are hereby set aside and the male 
specimen labelled ‘(1) Derbent; (2) 13’ in the Jakovlev collection in the Zoological 
Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia, is designated as the 
neotype. 
(2) The following names are hereby placed 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 
hieroglyphicus. 


History of Case 2843 

An application for the syntype of Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 to be 
replaced by a neotype, so conserving the usage of the specific name and that of 
A. hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878, was received from Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological 
Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) and Prof Ernst Heiss 
(Tiroler Landesmuseum, Innsbruck, Austria) on 10 February 1992. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 50: 115-117 (June 1993). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 116. At the close of the voting period on | June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Macpherson. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
caucasicus, Aradus, Kolenati, 1857, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 
29(4): 438. 
hieroglyphicus, Aradus, Sahlberg, 1878, Kongliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 
16(4): 22. 


280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


OPINION 1784 


Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis 
octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis, and 
Chrysobothris and Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829: conserved as the correct 
original spellings 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary powers: 

(a) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Buprestis 
Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus, 
1758 is designated as the type species; : 

(b) the correct original spellings of the generic names Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 
1829 and Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829 are hereby ruled to be Chrysobothris 
and Dicerca respectively. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in 
(1)(a) above Buprestis octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758; 

(b) Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), spelling ruled in (1)(b) 
above, type species by subsequent designation by Westwood ({1838]) 
Buprestis chrysostigma Linnaeus, 1758; 

(c) Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), spelling ruled in (1)(b) above, 
type species by subsequent designation by Westwood ([1838]) Buprestis 
aenea Linnaeus, 1761. 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buprestis 
octoguttata (specific name of the type species of Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758); 

(b) chrysostigma Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Buprestis 
chrysostigma (specific name of the type species of Chrysobothris 
Eschscholtz, 1829); 

(c) aenea Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Buprestis aenea (specific 
name of the type species of Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829). 

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 1829 (ruled in (1)(b) above to be-.an incorrect 
original spelling of Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829); 

(b) Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829 (ruled in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original 
spelling of Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829); 

(c) Odontomus Kirby, 1837 (a junior objective synonym of Chrysobothris 
Eschscholtz, 1829). 


History of Cases 2758 and 2772 
An application (Case 2758) to conserve the usage of both Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 
and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 by the designation of B. octoguttata Linnaeus, 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 281 


1758 as the type species of Buprestis was received from Prof G.H. Nelson (College of 
Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Pomona, California, U.S.A.) and Dr W.F. Barr 
(University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, U.S.A.) on 8 February 1990. An application 
(Case 2772) to conserve the spelling of Chrysobothris and of Dicerca Eschscholtz, 
1829 was received from Prof Nelson on 10 May 1990. After correspondence the cases 
were published in BZN 50: 23-26 (March 1993) and BZN 49: 120-121 (June 1992) 
respectively. Notice of the cases was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support of the designation of Buprestis octoguttata as the type 
species of Buprestis was received from Dr Richard L. Westcott (Oregon Department 
of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon, U.S.A.) and published in BZN 50: 231 (September 
1993). 

Comments in support of the conservation of the spellings of Chrysobothris and 
Dicerca from Dr Westcott and from Dr Svatopluk Bily (National Museum, Praha, 
Czech Republic) were published in BZN 49: 290 (December 1992). A further comment 
in support of the spellings from Dr Charles L. Bellamy (Escondido, California, 
U.S.A.) was published in BZN 50: 56 (March 1993). 

Support for both applications was received from Dr Hans Silfverberg 
(Universitetets Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland). 

Herr Hans Miihle (Miinchen, Germany) submitted a similar application for the 
conservation of the spelling of Dicerca (see footnote on BZN 49: 120) subsequent to 
the receipt of that from Prof Nelson. 


Decisions of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote separately 
on the proposals published in BZN 49: 121 (Case 2772) and in 50: 23 (Case 2758). At 
the close of the voting period on | June 1994 the votes for both sets of proposals were 
as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger 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: 

aenea, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Suecica, Ed. 2, p. 213. 

Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 408. 

Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreib- 
ungen neurer Thierarten ... auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den 
Jahren 1823-1826, part 1, p. 9 (incorrectly spelled as Chrysobotris). 

Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen 
neurer Thierarten ... auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 
1823-1826, part 1, p. 9 (an incorrect original spelling of Chrysobothris). 

chrysostigma, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 409. 

Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen 
neurer Thierarten ... auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 


282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


1823-1826, part 1, p. 9 (incorrectly spelled as Dicerea). 

Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen 
neurer Thierarten ... auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 
1823-1826, part 1, p. 9 (an incorrect original spelling of Dicerca). 

octoguttata, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 408. 

Odontomus Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J., Fauna Boreali-Americana, or the zoology of the 
northern parts of British America, part 4, p. 156. 


The following is the reference for the designation of Buprestis chrysostigma Linnaeus, 1758 
as the type species of Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 and of B. aenea Linnaeus, 1761 as the 
type species of Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829: 

Westwood, J.O. [1838]. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, p. 24 (published with An 
introduction to the modern classification of insects ...., vol. 1, part 3, pp. 113-160). 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 283 


OPINION 1785 


Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus; 
Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved 


Ruling 
(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name biguttatus Gmelin, 1790, as 
published in the binomen Dytiscus biguttatus, and all uses of the name Dytiscus 
biguttatus prior to that by Olivier, 1795, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of 
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. 
(2) The name biguttatus Olivier, 1795, as published in the binomen Dyftiscus 
biguttatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) biguttatus Gmelin, 1790, as published in the binomen Dytiscus biguttatus and 
as suppressed in (1) above; 
(b) olivieri Zaitzev, 1908, as published in the binomen Agabus olivieri (a junior 
objective synonym of the specific name of Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795). 


History of Case 2777 

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Dytiscus biguttatus 
Olivier, 1795 was received from Dr A.N. Nilsson (University of Umeda, Umeda, Sweden) 
on | June 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 127-128 
(June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

Support for the application was received from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Universitetets 
Zoologiska Museum, Helsingfors, Finland). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 127-128. At the close of the voting period on | June 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, 
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Macpherson and Stys. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 

Stys commented: ‘The problem of the primary homonymy between Dytiscus 
biguttatus Gmelin, 1790 and D. biguttatus Olivier, 1795 was correctly dealt with by 
Zaitsev (1908), who proposed the replacement specific name of Agabus olivieri for the 
latter. In my view the Commission should not sanction the disregard for the correct 
nomenclatural action by the coleopterological community’. 


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: 


284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


biguttatus, Dytiscus, Gmelin, 1790, Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4, 
p. 1959. 

biguttatus, Dytiscus, Olivier, 1795, Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 3, no. 40, 
p. 26. 

olivieri, Agabus, Zaitzev, 1908, Russkoe Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 7: 121. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 285 


OPINION 1786 


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


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 are hereby set aside and Ceriopora nodosa Fischer 
von Waldheim, 1837 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Ceriopora nodosa Fischer von 
Waldheim, 1837, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

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


History of Case 2847 

An application for the designation of Ceriopora nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 
1837 as the type species of Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 was received from Dr Patrick 
N. Wyse Jackson (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland) on 11 May 1992. After corre- 
spondence the case was published in BZN 50: 13-15 (March 1993). Notice of the case 
was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that support for the designation of Ceriopora 
nodosa as the type species of Ascopora had been received from Prof D.B. Blake 
(University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) (author of the 
relevant section of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology; cf. para. 4 of the 
application), who commented: ‘From the best available data, following the Code 
strictly in this case is confusing’. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 14. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger 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: 
Ascopora Trautschold, 1876, Nouveaux Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de 
Moscou, 13: 367. 
nodosa, Ceriopora, Fischer von Waldheim, 1837, Oryctographie du Gouvernement de Moscou, 
Ed. 2, p. 166. 


286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


OPINION 1787 


Mugil curema and M. liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 
1836 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names conserved 


Ruling : 

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed 
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of 
Homonymy: 

(a) brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831, as published in the binomen 
Mugil brasiliensis; 

(b) gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831, as published in the binomen Mugil 
gaimardianus. 

(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names 
in Zoology: 

(a) curema Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Mugil curema and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 
A.3638 in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) designated by 
Harrison (1993): 

(b) liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836, as published in the 
binomen Mugil liza and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. A.4659 
in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) designated by 
Harrison (1993). 

(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and 
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: 

(a) brasiliensis Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831, as published in the binomen 
Mugil brasiliensis and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) gaimardianus Desmarest, 1831, as published in the binomen Mugil 
gaimardianus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


History of Case 2834 

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Mugil curema and 
M. liza, both of Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1836), was received from Drs 
Luis Alvarez-Lajonchere (Centro de Investigaciones Pesqueras, Ciudad de la Habana, 
Cuba), Gordon J. Howes (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and the late 
Dr Ethelwynn Trewavas on 23 October 1991. After correspondence the case was 
published in BZN 49: 271-275 (December 1992). Notice of the case-was sent to 
appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr Ian J. Harrison (Musée Royal de I’ Afrique 
Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) was published in BZN 50: 144-147 (June 1993). 

It was noted on the voting paper that support for Dr Harrison’s designation of 
lectotypes for Mugil curema, M. liza and M. petrosus, all of Valenciennes in Cuvier 
& Valenciennes (1836), from the type material in the Muséum National d’Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris (cf. paras. 6 and 7 of the application) was received from Dr M.-L. 
Bauchot (curator in the Paris museum), who commented (in litt. to Dr Harrison, 
February 1993): ‘J’ai lu trés attentivement et avec beaucoup d’intérét votre manuscrit 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 287 


et la publication d’Alvarez Lajonchére et al. Je suis sire que votre texte va clarifier 
de fagon deéfinitive le probleme posé par ces Mugilidés’. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 273-274. At the close of the voting period on | June 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger and Uéno. 

Ride was on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an 

Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: 

brasiliensis, Mugil, Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831, Selecta genera et species piscium quos in itinere 
per Brasiliam ..., part 2, p. 134. 

curema, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836, Histoire naturelle des poissons, 
vol. 11, p. 87. 

gaimardianus, Mugil, Desmarest, 1831, in Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. (Ed.), Dictionnaire 
classique d'histoire naturelle, vol. 17 (Atlas et illustration des planches), pl. 109. 

liza, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836, Histoire naturelle des poissons, 
vol. 11, p. 83. 


The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotypes of Mugil curema and 
M. liza, both of Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes (1836): 
Harrison, I.J. 1993. BZN 50: 145, 146 (respectively). 


288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


OPINION 1788 


Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): lectotype 
replaced 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of a lectotype for the 
nominal species Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 are hereby set aside and the skull 
and skeleton BM(NH) Pal. Dept. no. R.1111 in the Natural History Museum, 
London is designated as the replacement lectotype. 

(2) The name Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 (gender: masculine), type species by 
subsequent monotypy Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861, is hereby placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name /arrisonii Owen, 1861, as published in the binomen Scelidosaurus 
harrisonii and as defined by the lectotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the 
type species of Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859), is hereby placed on the Official List of 
Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2857 

An application for the designation of a replacement lectotype for Scelidosaurus 
harrisonii Owen, 1861 was received from Dr Alan J. Charig (The Natural History 
Museum, London, U.K.) and the late Dr Bernard H. Newman on 20 July 1992. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 280-283 (December 1992). Notice 
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

It was noted on the voting paper that the usage of the name Scelidosaurus harrisonii 
was documented by Newman (1968), Charig (1972) and Thulborn (1977). 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 282-283. At the close of the voting period on 
1 March 1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, 
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, 
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, 
Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 


Original references 
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling 
given in the present Opinion: 
Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859, in: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 8, vol. 17, p. 150. 
harrisonii, Scelidosaurus, Owen, 1861, Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society, 1: 1. 


The following is the reference for the fixation of Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 as the 
type species of the nominal genus Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859: 
Owen, R. 1861. Monograph of the Palaeontographical Society, 1: 1. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 289 


OPINION 1789 


Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881 (Reptilia, Serpentes): conserved 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Homalocephalus Jan, 1863 is 
hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of 
the Principle of Homonymy. 

(2) The name Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881 (gender: masculine), type species by 
monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Homalocephalus Jan, 1863, Homalocephalus 
heterurus Jan, 1863, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in 
Zoology. 

(3) The name heterurus Jan, 1863, as published in the binomen Homalocephalus 
heterurus (specific name of the type species of Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881) is 
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 

(4) The name Homalocephalus Jan, 1863, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby 
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2814 

An application for the conservation of Pseudoxyrhopus Gunther, 1881 was 
received from Profs Hobart M. Smith and David Chiszar (University of Colorado, 
Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.), Kenneth L. Williams (Northwestern State University, 
Natchitoches, Louisiana, U.S.A.) and Van Wallach (Museum of Comparative 
Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on 8 April 1991. 
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 284-286 (December 1992). 
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. 


Decision of the Commission 

On 1 December 1993 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 49: 285. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 
1994 the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, 
Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, 
Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink 

Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Holthuis. 

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Lehtinen. 

Dupuis and Ride were on leave of absence. 

Holthuis commented that the genus was small (eight species) with a restricted 
distribution and it was his view that substitution of the name Pseudoxyrhopus by 
Homalocephalus was unlikely to cause confusion. 


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: 
heterurus, Homalocephalus, Jan, 1863, Archivio per la Zoologia, I’ Anatomia e la Fisiologia, 2(2): 
286. 
Homalocephalus Jan, 1863, Archivio per la Zoologia, |'Anatomia e la Fisiologia, 2(2): 286. 
Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)7(41): 359. 


290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


OPINION 1790 


Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): Lagomeryx 
ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 designated as the type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 are hereby set aside and Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri 
Thenius, 1948 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 
1948, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948, as published in the binomen Lagomeryx 
ruetimeyeri (specific name of the type species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904) is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2882 

An application for the designation of Lagomeryx ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 as the 
type species of Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 was received from Drs A.W. Gentry (c/o The 
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and E.P.J. Heizmann (Staatliches Museum 
fiir Naturkunde in Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany) on 8 March 1993. After correspon- 
dence the case was published in BZN 50: 133-136 (June 1993). Notice of the case was 
sent to appropriate journals. 

Comments in support from Prof Léonard Ginsburg (Muséum National d'Histoire 
Naturelle, Paris, France) and Dr A.M. Lister (University College London, London, 
U.K.) were published in BZN 50: 295-296 (December 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On | March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 135. At the close of the voting period on | June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger 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: 
Lagomeryx Roger, 1904, Bericht des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins fiir Schwaben und 
Neuburg (a.V.) Augsburg, 36: 18. 
ruetimeyeri, Lagomeryx, Thenius, 1948, Anzeiger der Oesterreichischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse. Wien, 14: 221. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 291 


OPINION 1791 


Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): Antilope 
dichotoma Gervais, 1849 designated as the type species 


Ruling 

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal 
genus Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 are hereby set aside and Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 
1849 is designated as the type species. 

(2) The name Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (gender: masculine), type species by 
designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849, 
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 

(3) The name dichotoma Gervais, 1849, as published in the binomen Antilope 
dichotoma (specific name of the type species of Procervulus Gaudry, 1877) is hereby 
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 


History of Case 2883 

An application for the designation of Antilope dichotoma Gervais, 1849 as the type 
species of Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 was received from Drs A.W. Gentry (c/o The 
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and G. Réssner (Universitats-Institut fiir 
Paldontologie und historische Geologie, Miinchen, Germany) on 8 March 1993. After 
correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 137-139 (June 1993). Notice of 
the case was sent to appropriate journals. 

A comment in support from Dr A.M. Lister (University College London, London, 
U.K.) was published in BZN 50: 296 (December 1993). 


Decision of the Commission 

On | March 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the 
proposals published in BZN 50: 138. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1994 
the votes were as follows: 

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, 
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, 
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, 
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink 

Negative votes — none. 

No votes were received from Cogger 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: 

dichotoma, Antilope, Gervais, 1849, Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Séances de |’ Académie 
des Sciences, 28: 549. 

Proceryvulus Gaudry, 1877, Les enchainements du monde animal dans les temps géologiques. 
Mammiferes tertiaires, p. 88; La Revue Scientifique de la France et de I’ Etranger, (2)13(24): 
555: 


292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(3) September 1994 


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 SBD, 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. 


Contents — continued 


On the proposed conservation as the correct spelling of Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, 
Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 and 
the proposed conservation of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 as the type 
species of Rhizophagus (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.G. Booth ae 

On the proposed conservation of ELMIDAE Curtis, 1830 as the correct spelling nd oe 
the feminine gender of Elmis Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera). G.N. Foster . 

On the proposed designation of the type species of Hydrophoria 7 alia 
1830 (Insecta, Diptera). C.W. Sabrosky; R.W. Crosskey . 5 

On the proposed conservation of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, ‘1775 by 
the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Myopa 
(Insecta, Diptera), and on the proposed a of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796. 
C.W. Sabrosky; T.A. Wheeler . 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cliola (Hy fees) fapeka 
Gilbert, 1884 (currently aa iipiss i aaa pe RE. 
Mayden; R.M. Bailey . Po pa VA Sh ae 

On the proposed conservation Oh HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, 
Caudata). A. Dubois 568 

On the proposed designation af a Greate for C velophyss Biers (one, 1887) 
(Reptilia, Saurischia). S.G. Lucas & A.P. Hunt "i 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names ane pabidied in 
Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. J.E. Hill; D.W. Yalden; W.F.H. Ansell . 


Rulings of the Commission 

OPINION 1778. Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] and Tokophrya Bitschli, 1889 (Cilio- 
phora, Suctoria): conserved, and Acineta tuberosa Ehrenberg, [1834] and 
Podophrya quadripartita Claparede & Lachmann, 1859 eed Tokophrya 
quadripartita): specific names conserved . . 

OPINION 1779. Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): placed 
on the Official List with Paludina lapidum d’Orbigny, 1835 as the type species 
OPINION 1780. Turbo politus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Melanella polita; Mollusca, 

Gastropoda): usage of the specific name conserved, so conserving the specific name 
of Buccinum acicula Miller, 1774 (currently Cecilioides acicula) . Bk 
OPINION 1781. Termes lacteus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Coptotermes Tneseus: 

Insecta, Isoptera): specific name conserved . : 
OPINION 1782. Corisa nigrolineata Fieber, 1848 Gisenily ‘Sag iw vemiae 
rixa) nigrolineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name conserved : 
OPINION 1783. Aradus caucasicus Kolenati, 1857 (Insecta, Heteroptera): Gabe 
replaced by a neotype, so conserving the usage of the specific name and that of A. 
hieroglyphicus Sahlberg, 1878 a ee ts Fae te oS Ser aay oct 

OPINION 1784. Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis octoguttata 
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Buprestis, and Chrysobothris and Dicerca 
Eschscholtz, 1829: conserved as the correct original spellings . ; 

OPINION 1785. Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus ieaiiatae 
Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved . . 

OPINION 1786. Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa, Cryptostomata): eee 
nodosa Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1787. Mugil curema and M. liza Valenciennes in Cuvier & Weleeacn 
1836 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names conserved . 

OPINION 1788. Scelidosaurus harrisonii Owen, 1861 (Reptilia, Ornithischia): 
lectotype replaced . : - 

OPINION 1789. Beeodoxyhopus (Ganties, 1881 (Renal Secpentes): cored ; 

OPINION 1790. Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): Lagomeryx 
ruetimeyeri Thenius, 1948 designated as the type species . 

OPINION 1791. Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla Antilope 
dichotoma Gervais, 1849 designated as the type species 


Information and Instructions for Authors . 


256 


257 


CONTENTS 


Notices . 5 

Fourth Edition of the iafemational Code oF Zoolopienl Nomenclature : 

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . 

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in gas —- Seca ‘Supplement Ss 
1990. : ; er 2 

Bulletin of Zoological Wartenciatine — eed Gace : 3 

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints 

The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature . 


Conference Report 

Report of the [UBS/IUMS exploratory meeting on harmonization between Codes of 
Nomenclature. Editors: D.L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, P.H.A. Sneath, R.P. 
Trehane & P.K. Tubbs. 


Applications 

Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. R.H. 
Cowie, C.C. Christensen & N.L. Evenhuis . 

Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839 and Relneno aeters 1842 (Molluscs: 
Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of usage. D.T. Donovan . 

Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda): BEsDP conservation as the ace 
spelling. E.H. Williams & T.E. Bowman . F 

Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea, ieonanaye proneedl designation ae a 
neotype. D.T. Bilton. 

MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) antl MEGALODONTIDAE 
Konow, 1897 (Insecta, cies ii eae removal of RescEsy N.D. 
Springate . 

Apis terrestris ihnineeens: 1758, ve muscorum jannacus “1758 a Py ‘bucotion 
Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Bombus terrestris, B. muscorum and B. lucorum) and 
Bombus humilis Wliger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of 
usage of the specific names. A. Loken, A. Pekkarinen & P. Rasmont . ay 

CAECILIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) and CAECILIDAE 
Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): proposed removal of the homonymy by the 
revocation of Opinion 1462 and the adoption of the spelling CAECILIUsIDAE for the 
psocopteran family name. M.H. Wake, A. Dubois, D.R. Frost, T.E. Moore & 
R.A. Nussbaum 

PHRYNOBATRACHINAE amet 1941 (Amphibia Ae: proposed Consens! # 
Dubois . 

Plesiosaurus rugosus Gyan 1840, (curently acunniane qanpae Reprilles 
Plesiosauria): proposed designation of a neotype. D.S. Brown & N. Bardet 

Coluber poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (currently Liophis poecilogyrus) 
(Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, 
J.R. Dixon & V. Wallach . : 

Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. latin emia 1807 Concdle Calypto- 
rhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, Psittaciformes): proposed conservation of 
the specific names. R. Schodde & W.J. Bock sac 2 


Comments 

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Doris grandiflora Rapp, 1827 
(currently Dendrodoris ves wai Ene Dae aaa R.C. Willan & R. 
Burn . ee 


Continued on Inside Back Cover 


Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 


Page 
185 
186. 
186 ‘ 


=e 


186 
187 
187 ‘ 
187 . 


188 


232) 


256 


§ OF en Re nt 
Bulletin. 


loi) 
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 1994 is £85 
or $165, postage included; the rate for 1995 will be £88 or $170. 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 
Vice-President 
Secretary-General 
Executive Secretary 


Members 


Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.- Corallia) 
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) 
Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) 
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) 
DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) 
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) 
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) 
Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita) 
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen 
(Norway, Parasitology) 
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) 
Prof L. B. Holthuis 
(The Netherlands; Crustacea) 
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) 
Prof Dr O. Kraus 
(Germany; Arachnology) 
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) 
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) 


Secretariat 


Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) 
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) 
Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) 


Dr V. Mahnert 
(Switzerland; Ichthyology) 
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza 
(Brazil; Coleoptera) 
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) 
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) 
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) 
Prof W.D.L.Ride( Australia; Mammalia) 
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) 
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) 
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov 
(Russia; Mollusca) 
Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) 
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera) 
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin 
(Russia; Hymenoptera) 
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology) 
Prof A. Willink 
(Argentina; Hymenoptera) 


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 1994 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 


Volume 51, part 4 (pp. 293-364) 20 December 1994 


Notices 


(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications 
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- 
cation 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 51, part 3 (published on 30 September 1994). Under 
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the 
Commission is published. 

(1) Anomalina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): proposed designation of 
A. ariminensis d’Orbigny in Fornasini, 1902 as the type species. (Case 2906). 
S.A. Revets. 

(2) Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita): proposed 
conservation. (Case 2944). R.M. Owens & A.T. Thomas. 

(3) Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, 
Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. (Case 2945). 
W.E. LaBerge. 

(4) PLUTONINAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and PLUTONIINAE 
Cockerell, 1893 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed removal of the hom- 
onymy. (Case 2946). R.M. Shelley & T. Backeljau. 

(5) Patella longicosta Lamarck, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- 
vation of the specific name. (Case 2947). D.G. Herbert. 

(6) Turrilites gravesianus d’Orbigny, 1842 (currently Hypoturrilites gravesianus; 
Mollusca, Ammonoidea): proposed conservation of the specific name and 
designation of a replacement lectotype; Turrilites tuberculatus Bosc, 1801 
(currently Hypoturrilites tuberculatus): proposed designation of a neotype. 
(Case 2948). W.J. Kennedy & C.W. Wright. 

(7) Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed pre- 
cedence over Aplysia sorex Rang, 1828. (Case 2949). E. Martinez & J. Ortea. 


THE NAT URAL 
HISTORY MUSEU 


294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


(8) Gasteruption pedunculatum Schletterer, 1889 (currently Pseudofoenus pedun- 
culatus; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of a neotype. (Case 
2950). A.D. Austin, J.T. Jennings & M.S. Harvey. 
(9) Nectria Gray, 1840 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): proposed designation of 
Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875 as the type species. (Case 2951). W. Zeidler. 
(10) Paraphronima crassipes Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed 
conservation of the specific name. (Case 2952). W. Zeidler. 
(11) Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed 
conservation. (Case 2953). A. Gentry, C.P. Groves, J.E. Hill & P.D. Jenkins. 
(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. : 


Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 


Recent issues of the Bulletin have referred to the availability of a discussion draft 
of a new edition of the Code. However, the final stages of the preparation of this draft 
have been held up and it is still not available for distribution. As soon as the draft 
is ready 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 pay this amount except 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) take into account all comments 
and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original distribution. 


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 9900 entries. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 295 


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. 


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 5BD, 
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested. 


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. 


296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 


Financial Report for 1993 


The Trust’s deficit of £1,450 in 1993 is a considerable reduction on the deficits of 
£4,328 and £8,112 for 1992 and 1991 respectively, and is an acceptable balance 
between income and expenditure for the year. It was achieved, however, with the 
Secretariat reduced to three members of staff. With the increased workload involved 
in the preparation of the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological 
Nomenclature, such a small staff is barely viable and some part-time help had to be 
engaged. 

Half the Trust’s income came from sales of publications, mainly from the Bulletin 
of Zoological Nomenclature which yielded an income of £28,001. Sales of the Official 
Lists and Indexes and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature brought the 
total from publications to £31,456. Income from grants remained at £9,000, but the 
£12,937 received from donations was £2,332 more than in 1992. Investment interest 
of £8,772 was £1,305 less than in 1992, reflecting the continuing fall in interest rates. 
The total income for the year was £62,165. 

The main expenditure of the Trust in 1993 was £51,540 for the salaries and 
National Insurance of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature, together with fees for part-time staff. Printing of the Bulletin of 
Zoological Nomenclature and distribution of all publications amounted to £9,193. 
Other costs for office expenses (£1,837), depreciation of office equipment (£295) and 
audit fee (£750) brought the total expenditure to £63,615. 

The Editorial Committee preparing the 4th edition of the Code met in Hamburg in 
October, and their expenses were met by generous grants from Hamburgische 
Wissenschaftliche Stiftung, Behérde fiir Wissenschaft und Forschung, Hochschul- 
amt, and Stiftungen bei der Universitat Hamburg, whom we thank. 

A large number of donations, totalling £966, were received in memory of Mr R.V. 
Melville (former Secretary of the Commission) who died in March 1993. These 
are being put towards the cost of a Centenary History of the Commission written by 
Mr Melville, to be published in 1995, and do not figure in the 1993 accounts. 

The Commission Secretariat was again housed in The Natural History Museum, 
whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express its thanks 
to all the donors listed below who contributed to support of the Commission 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 


6 June 1994 
List of donations and grants received during the year 1993 
Agricultural and Food Research Council, U.K. £2,000 
American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £5,383 
W. Ansell £5 
Australian Museums £256 


British Ornithologists Union £200 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Freshwater Biological Association, U.K. 
Lynx Promocions, Spain 

Malacological Society, U.K. 

Mammal Society, U.K. 

Marine Biological Association, U.K. 

Medical Research Council, U.K. 

Natural Environment Research Council, U.K. 
Nuffield Foundation 

Palaeontological Association, U.K. 

Royal Danish Academy of Sciences 

Royal Entomological Society of London 
Royal Society of London 

St John’s College, Cambridge 

Science and Engineering Research Council, U.K. 
South African Entomological Society 
Stockholm Natural History Museum 

Swedish Natural Science Research Council 
Swiss National Research Foundation 
Academia Sinica, Taiwan 

Zoological Societies of Japan 


Total 


297 


£5 

£19 
£200 
£50 
£150 
£2,000 
£2,000 
£1,000 
£250 
£605 
£300 
£1,000 
£200 
£2,000 
£100 
£450 
£1,000 
£2,000 
£128 
£646 


£21,937 


INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 


31 DECEMBER 1993 


Income 
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 
Official Lists and Indexes 


GRANTS AND DONATIONS 
BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST 


Expenditure 
SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES 
OFFICE EXPENSES 
AUDIT FEE 
PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS 
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT 


Deficit for the year 


£28,001 
2,760 
695 


51,540 
1,837 
750 
9,193 
295 


31,456 
21,937 
8,772 


62,165 


63,615 
1,450 


298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2888 


Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): proposed 
conservation 


Frank B. Crandall 


Turkey Run Research Institute, 900 Turkey Run Road, McLean, 
Virginia 22101-1700, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the nemertean generic name 
Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923, which is threatened by the senior objective 
synonym Akrostomum Grube, 1840. Akrostomum has not been mentioned, except as 
a synonym, for more than 100 years. 


1. The genus Akrostomum Grube, 1840 (p. 57) was originally established for the 
new nominal species A. stannii. The description was based upon a single preserved 
specimen from the Mediterranean; it clearly referred to a nemertean (and most 
probably a monostiliferan), but was so indeterminate that the name was listed as a 
nomen dubium by Gibson & Crandall (1989). However, the holotype still exists (see 
para. 4 below). 

2. The taxon was listed uncertainly by Orsted (1843, 1844) as Acrostomum [sic] 
stannii, and by Diesing (1850, 1862) as Acrostomum Stannii. Carus (1885) also listed 
A. stannii as dubious, and suggested that Amphiporus hastatus McIntosh, 1873 and 
Amphiporus pugnax Hubrecht, 1879 possibly belonged to the doubtful genus 
“Acrostomum’. Hubrecht (1879) listed A. stannii as a synonym of Amphiporus 
hastatus, but later (1883) listed Amphiporus hastatus and bioculatus McIntosh, 1873 
as synonyms of Akrostomum stannii. Joubin (1890, 1894) also listed Akrostomum 
stannii as a synonym of Amphiporus hastatus, and also (1894) used Carus’s exact 
words (without attribution) to suggest that Amphiporus pugnax might belong to 
Acrostomum [sic]. Vaillant (1890, p. 601) listed Akrostomum stannii as a ‘species 
indeterminata’, questioning whether it was even a nemertean and (p. 609) mentioned 
Hubrecht’s suggested synonymies. None of these authors added any new informa- 
tion, and all of these synonymies have been universally rejected for the past 100 years. 
Amphiporus bioculatus (sensu McIntosh), A. hastatus and A. pugnax are now 
regarded (Gibson & Crandall, 1989) as nomina dubia. : 

3. There is only one other instance of the adoption of the generic name 
Akrostomum or Acrostomum for a species. Diesing (1862) reported Polia canescens 
(Leuckart, 1849) as Acrostomum canescens but Birger (1904) transferred this taxon 
to Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831. Gibson & Crandall (1989) regarded A. canescens as 
a nomen dubium. 

4. Biirger was able to compare a preserved collection of specimens from Naples 
with Grube’s fragmented specimen of Akrostomum stannii contained in the Berlin 
Natural History Museum collections, and satisfied himself that they were the same 
species. The specimen remains in Berlin, where it is listed as Amphiporus stannii (No. 
1962, Holotype). Biirger published (1895a, b) a considerably expanded description of 


Ee 


————— 


EE 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 299 


the taxon under the name Amphiporus staniusi. His altered spelling of the specific 
name possibly resulted from confusion over the proper latinized form of the personal 
name but he later (1904) corrected it to Amphiporus stannii, listing all the earlier 
names as synonyms. His placement of the species in the older genus Amphiporus was 
entirely consistent with Amphiporus as understood at that time but not as more 
recently treated by Gibson & Crandall (1989, 1991), that is with Planaria lactiflorea 
Johnston, 1828 as the type species (see BZN 48: 22-24 & Opinion 1675, BZN 49: 
157). 

5. Stiasny-Wijnhoff (1923), with insight gained through extensive studies of new 
expedition collections, recognized that Amphiporus stannii, as described by Burger 
(1895a, b), and another species obtained from South Africa which Birger (1909) had 
described as Drepanophorus valdiviae, were very closely related and so unique as to 
require a new genus, which she (1923, p. 643) called Valdivianemertes. No type 
material of D. valdiviae is known to exist. Stiasny-Wijnhoff did not designate a type 
species or family placement for Valdivianemertes, although she noted that stannii and 
valdiviae belong to the monostilifera. She did not mention the earlier name 
Akrostomum. 

6. Valdivianemertes was later accepted by Friedrich (1935, 1955, 1957), Stiasny- 
Wijnhoff (1936), Kirsteuer (1963, 1973), Gibson (1972, 1982, 1988), Gibson & 
Crandall (1989) and Crandall (1993a, 1993b). 

7. Ina review of the genus Valdivianemertes, I have noted (1993a) that the generic 
name Akrostomum has not been used, except as a synonym, for over 100 years, and 
that Valdivianemertes is the name by which the genus has been recognized and 
understood since 1923. I retained the name Valdivianemertes in accordance with 
Article 23b of the Code, designated (p. 181) Akrostomum stannii Grube, 1840 as the 
type species, and assigned (p. 183) the genus to the family CRATENEMERTIDAE 
Friedrich, 1968 (p. 35) since it conforms to that diagnosis. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Akrostomum Grube, 
1840 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 
Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (gender: feminine), type species by 
designation by Crandall (1993) Akrostomum stannii Grube, 1840; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name stannii 
Grube, 1840, as published in the binomen Akrostomum stannii (specific name 
of the type species of Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the 
following names: 

(a) Akrostomum Grube, 1840, as suppressed in (1) above; 
(b) Acrostomum Orsted, 1843 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Akrostomum 
Grube, 1840). 


References 


Biirger, O. 1895a. Die Nemertinen des Golfes von Neapel und der Angrenzenden Meeres- 
Abschnitte. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, 22: 1-743. 


300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Biirger, O. 1895b. Beitrage zur Anatomie, Systematik und geographischen Verbreitung der 
Nemertinen. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 61: 16-37. 

Biirger, O. 1904. Nemertini. Das Tierreich, 20: 1-151. 

Biirger, O. 1909. Die Nemertinen. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Tiefsee- 
Expedition auf dem Dampfer Valdivia 1898-1899, 20: 171-221. 

Carus, J.V. 1885. Prodromus Faunae Mediterraneae sive descriptio animalium maris 
mediterranei.., vol. 1 (Coelenterata, Echinodermata, Vermes, Arthropoda). 524 pp. Koch, 
Stuttgart. 

Crandall, F.B. 1993a. The genus Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff 1923 (Nemertea, Enopla, 
Hoplonemertea): its nomenclatural status and proper systematic position. Hydrobiologia, 
266: 175-184. 

Crandall, F.B. 1993b. Major taxonomic characters and enoplan systematics. Hydrobiologia, 
266: 115-140. 

Diesing, K.M. 1850. Systema Helminthum, vol. 1. 679 pp. Braumiiller, Vindobonae. 

Diesing, K.M. 1862. Revision der Turbellarien. Sitzungberichte Akademie der Wissenschaften 
Wien, Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 45: 198-307. 

Ehrenberg, C.G. 1828, 1831. Phytozoa turbellaria Africana et Asiatica in Phytozoorum Tabula 
IV et V delineata. (Pp. 53-67 in: Animalia evertebrata exclusis insectis. 126 pp. Plates 
published in 1828, text in 1831). Jn: Hemprich, P.C. & Ehrenberg, C.G. (Eds.), 1828-1845. 
Symbolae Physicae, seu icones et descriptiones Corporum Naturalium novorum ... Pars 
Zoologica. Officina Academica, Berolina. 

Friedrich, H. 1935. Studien zur Morphologie, Systematik und Okologie der Nemertinen der 
Kieler Bucht. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 4: 293-375. 

Friedrich, H. 1955. Beitrage zu einer Synopsis der Gattung der Nemertini monostilifera nebst 
Bestimmungsschlussel. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 158: 133-192. 

Friedrich, H. 1957. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Arktischen Hoplonemertinen. Videnskabelige 
Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjobenhavn, 119: 129-154. 

Friedrich, H. 1968. Sagaminemertes, eine bemerkenschwerte neue Gattung der Hoplo- 
nemertinen und ihre systematische Stellung. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 180: 33-36. 

Gibson, R. 1972. Nemerteans. 244 pp. Hutchinson, London. 

Gibson, R. 1982. Nemertea. Pp. 823-846 in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and classification of 
living organisms, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, New York. 

Gibson, R. 1988. Evolutionary relationships between mono- and polystiliferous hoplonemerte- 
ans: Nipponnemertes (Cratenemertidae), a ‘missing link’ genus? Hydrobiologia, 156: 61—74. 

Gibson, R. & Crandall, F.B. 1989. The genus Amphiporus Ehrenberg, 1831 (Nemertea, Enopla, 
Monostiliferoidea). Zoologica Scripta, 18: 453-470. 

Gibson, R. & Crandall, F.B. 1991. Amphiporus Ehrenberg (Nemertea): proposed designation of 
Planaria lactiflorea Johnston, 1828 as the type species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla- 
ture, 48(1): 22-24. 

Grube, A.E. 1840. Actinien, Echinodermen und Wiirmer des Adriatischen- und Mittelmeers. 92 
pp. Bon, Konigsberg. 

Hubrecht, A.A.W. 1879. The genera of European nemerteans critically revised, with descrip- 
tion of several new species. Notes from the Leyden Museum, 1(4): 193-232. 

Hubrecht, A.A.W. 1883. On the ancestral form of the Chordata. Quarterly. Journal of 
Microscopical Science, 23: 349-368. 

Joubin, L. 1890. Recherches sur les Turbellaires des cétes de France (Nemertes). Archives de 
Zoologie Experimental et Generale, (2)8: 461-602. 

Joubin, L. 1894. Les Némertiens. Pp. 1-235 in Blanchard, R. & Guerne, J. de (Eds.), Fauna 
Frangaise. Société d’Editions Scientifiques, Paris. 

Kirsteuer, E. 1963. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Systematik und Anatomie der adriatischen 
Nemertinen (Genera Tetrastemma, Oerstedia, Oerstediella). Zoologische Jahrbiicher 
(Abteilung fiir Anatomie und Ontogenie der Tiere), 80: 555-616. 

Kirsteuer, E. 1973. A new polystiliferous hoplonemertean, Curranemertes natans gen. et sp. 0., 
from the Caribbean Sea (Nemertina, Polystilifera, Reptantia). Zoologica Scripta, 2: 
125-140. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 301 


McIntosh, W.C. 1873. A monograph of the British annelids, part 1 (The nemerteans). Pp. i-xiii, 

_ 1-96, pls. 1-10. Ray Society, London. 

Orsted, A.S. 1843. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift (Udgivet af H. Kroyer) Rek. 1, 1837-1843, Bd. 4. 

_ _ Kjobenhavn. 

Orsted, A.S. 1844. Entwurf einer systematischen Eintheilung und speciellen Beschreibung der 
Plattwiirmer, auf microscopische Untersuchungen gegriindet. 96 pp. Reitzel, Copenhagen. 

Stiasny-Wijnhoff, G. 1923. On Brinkmann’s system of the Nemertea Enopla and Siboga- 
nemertes weberi n. gen. n. sp. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 67: 627-669. 

Stiasny-Wijnhoff, G. 1936. Die Polystilifera der Siboga Expedition. Monographie 22, 214 pp. 
in: Uitkomsten op Zoologisch, Botanisch, Oceanographisch en Geologisch ge beid verzameld 
in Nederlandsch Oost-Indie 1899-1900. Brill, Leiden. 

Vaillant, L. 1890. Lombriciniens, Hirudiniens, Bdellomorphes, Teretulariens et Planariens. 
Histoire Naturelle des Animaux Marins et d’Eau Douce, 3(2): 341-768. 


302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2908 


Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): proposed 
precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 


Tarmo Timm 
Vortsjdrv Limnological Station, EE2454 Rannu, Tartumaa, Estonia 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to maintain the usage of the generic name 
Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (family NAIDIDAE) by giving it precedence over the 
senior subjective synonym Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899, which has not been used 
for over 60 years. 


1. Vejdovsky (1883, p. 218) described the oligochaete genus Bohemilla with a new 
single included species B. comata (type species by monotypy). Michaelsen (1903, 
p. 184) proposed a replacement generic name Vejdovskyella as Bohemilla was already 
in use for a trilobite genus, Bohemilla Barrande, 1872. Later Strand (1928, p. 36), 
unaware of this replacement name, proposed the new name Bohemillula for Bohemilla 
Vejdovsky. 

2. Bretscher (1896, p. 509) described the genus Macrochaeta for his new species 
M. intermedia (type species by monotypy). Later, Bretscher (1899, p. 392) modified 
his name to Macrochaetina as the original version was preoccupied (by Macrochaeta 
Grube, 1850, Polychaeta, although he did not say so). 

3. Piguet (1928, p. 86) believed that the two species M. intermedia and B. comata 
belonged to the same genus. Contrary to the principle of priority, he chose 
Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 as the valid name. Since then the name Vejdovskyella 
has been in constant use, including the monograph on the NAIDIDAE by Sperber (1948, 
p. 137). Several new species have been described under the name Vejdovskyella and 
many faunistic and ecological papers have used it as valid (e.g. Brinkhurst & 
Jamieson, 1971; Chekanovskaya, 1981; Ohtaka, 1985; a list of a further seven papers 
by different authors is held by the Commission Secretariat). Macrochaetina has 
remained unused. 

4. Reinstatement of the senior subjective synonym Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 
over the widely used name Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 would cause confusion 
and instability. é 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Vejdovskyella 
Michaelsen, 1903 over the name Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899, whenever the 
two are considered to be synonyms; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species by mono- 

typy of the replaced nominal genus Bohemilla Vejdovsky, 1883, Bohemilla 
comata Vejdovsky, 1883, with the endorsement that it is to be given 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 303 


precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 whenever the two names 
are considered to be synonyms; 

(b) Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species by mono- 
typy of the replaced nominal genus Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896, Macro- 
chaeta intermedia Bretscher, 1896, with the endorsement that it is not to be 
given priority over Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 whenever the two 
names are considered to be synonyms; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) comata Vejdovsky, 1883, as published in the binomen Bohemilla comata 
(specific name of the type species of Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903); 

(b) intermedia Bretscher, 1896, as published in the binomen Macrochaeta 
intermedia (specific name of the type species of Macrochaetina Bretscher, 
1899); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) Bohemilla Vejdovsky, 1883 (a junior homonym of Bohemilla Barrande, 
1872 and a senior objective synonym of Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903); 

(b) Bohemillula Strand, 1928 (a junior objective synonym of Vejdovskyella 
Michaelsen, 1903): 

(c) Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896 (a junior homonym of Macrochaeta Grube, 
1850 and a senior objective synonym of Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899). 


References 


Bretscher, K. 1896. Die Oligochaeten von Zurich. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 3(4): 499-532. 

Bretscher, K. 1899. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Oligochaeten-Fauna der Schweiz. Revue Suisse de 
Zoologie, 6(2): 369-426. 

Brinkhurst, R.O. & Jamieson, B.G.M. 1971. Aquatic Oligochaeta of the world. 860 pp. Oliver 
& Boyd, Edinburgh. 

Chekanoyskaya, O.V. 1981. Aquatic Oligochaeta of the U.S.S.R. 513 pp. Amerind, New Delhi. 

Michaelsen, W. 1903. Hamburgische Elb-Untersuchung. IV. Oligochaeten. Mitteilungen aus 
dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 19(2): 169-210. 

Ohtaka, A. 1985. Taxonomical studies of the Japanese Naididae (Annelida, Oligochaeta). 1. 
Journal of the Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, (Series 6, Zoology) 24(2): 113-121. 

Piguet, E. 1928. Sur quelques Oligochétes de l’Amérique du sud et d'Europe. Bulletin de la 
Société Neuchdteloise des Sciences Naturelles, (n.s.)52(1): 78-101. 

Sperber, C. 1948. A taxonomical study of the Naididae. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala, 28: 
1-296. 

Strand, E. 1928. Miscellanea nomenclatorica zoologica et palaeontologica I-II. Archiv fiir 
Naturgeschichte, 92A(8): 30-75. 

Vejdovsky, F. 1883. Revisio Oligochaetorum Bohemiae. Sitzungsberichte der Koniglichen 
Béhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (Prag), 1883: 215-228. 


304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2896 


Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed 
designation of Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type 
species : 


Eugen K. Kempf 


Geological Institute, University at Cologne, Zuelpicher Str. 49, 
D-50674 Koln, Germany 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Scottia pseudobrowniana 
Kempf, 1971 as the type species of the ostracod genus Scottia Brady & Norman, 
1889. The genus was originally based on S. pseudobrowniana, the only known living 
European species, but the specimens were at that time misidentified as S. browniana 
(Jones, 1850), a species known only in the fossil state. 


1. Jones (1850, p. 25) described Cypris browniana from Pleistocene freshwater 
deposits at Clacton, Essex, England. 

2. Brady (1887, p. 330) reported living specimens of ‘Cypris browniana Jones’ from 
pools by the side of Loch Fadd, Isle of Bute, Scotland. His determination of these 
specimens was solely based on comparison with the figures given by Jones ({1857], 
pl. 1, figs. 1 & 2) for Cypris browniana and Cypris browniana tumida. 

3. Brady & Norman (1889, p. 72, pl. 9, figs. 23 & 24, pl. 11, figs. 19-25) established 
the new genus Scottia. Only one species was assigned to the genus, namely Cypris 
browniana Jones, 1850, so this is the type species by monotypy. The descriptions given 
by Brady & Norman for the genus Scottia and for S. browniana were entirely based 
on the living material from the Isle of Bute. Their illustrations included not only two 
figures of a female carapace but also eight figures of soft parts of a male animal. 
Fossil occurrences were mentioned only by citing the paper of Jones ({1857], 
originally cited as 1856 but actually published in February, 1857). 

4. I (Kempf, 1971) published a monographic revision of all living and fossil 
representatives of the genus Scottia then known from Europe. With the aid of 
colleagues at the Natural History Museum in London it was not only possible to 
trace the extant specimens from the Isle of Bute (Brady, 1887; Brady & Norman, 
1889) deposited in the Department of Zoology, but also the Pleistocene specimens 
from Clacton (Jones, 1850, [1857]), deposited in the Department of Palaeontology. 
The main result of this revision was the discovery that the extant specimens from the 
Isle of Bute are congeneric but not conspecific with the Pleistocene specimens of 
Scottia browniana (Jones, 1850) from Clacton. I consequently used these Isle of Bute 
specimens to describe (p. 45) the new species S. pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971, the 
holotype being BM(NH) Zoology Department no. 1900—3—-6-35A. 

5. The separation of Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 from Scottia 
browniana (Jones, 1850) has been widely accepted by other ostracodologists (e.g. 
Absolon, 1973; De Deckker, 1980; Diebel & Pietrzeniuk, 1977 & 1984; Meisch, 1987; 
Henderson, 1990; a list of 24 references is held by the Commission Secretariat and 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 305 


a further detailed list of literature citations is noted in Kempf, 1980, 1991 and in 
preparation). 

6. In accordance with Article 70b of the Code the case is referred to the 
Commission. I propose the designation of S. pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the 
type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 since this taxon was that actually 
involved, but wrongly identified, when the nominal genus was established. 

7. 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 Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889, and to designate Scottia 
pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Scottia 
Brady & Norman, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) 
above Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971, as published in the binomen Scottia pseudo- 
browniana (specific name of the type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 
1889). 


References 


Absolon, A. 1973. Ostracoden aus einigen Profilen spat- und postglazialer Karbonatablagerun- 
gen in Mitteleuropa. Mitteilungen der Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Paldontologie und 
Historische Geologie, 13(1): 47-94. 

Brady, G.S. 1887. Notes on Entomostraca. Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 
Appendix F, No. 11, 5: 328-330. 

Brady, G.S. & Norman, A.M. 1889. A monograph of the marine and freshwater Ostracoda of 
the North Atlantic and of North-Western Europe. Section 1. Podocopa. Scientific 
Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, (2)4(2): 63-270. 

De Deckker, P. 1980. On Scottia audax (Chapman). Stereo-Atlas of Ostracod Shells, 7(8): 
37-44. 

Diebel, K. & Pietrzeniuk, E. 1977. Ostracoden aus dem Travertin von Taubach bei Weimar. 
Quartdrpaldontologie, 2: 119-137. 

Diebel, K. & Pietrzeniuk, E. 1984. Jungpleistozine Ostrakoden aus Sedimenten der Parkhohlen 
von Weimar. Quartdrpaldontologie, 5: 285-319. 

Henderson, P.A. 1990. Freshwater ostracods — keys and notes for the identification of the 
species. Synopses of the British Fauna, (N.S.)42: 1-228. 

Jones, T.R. 1850. Description of the Entomostraca of the Pleistocene beds of Newbury, 
Copford, Clacton and Grays. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)6: 25—28. 
Jones, T.R. [1857]. A monograph of the Tertiary Entomostraca of England. Palaeontographi- 

cal Society (Monographs), 9: \-68. 

Kempf, E.K. 1971. Okologie, Taxonomie und Verbreitung der nichtmarinen Ostrakoden- 
Gattung Scottia im Quartar von Europa. Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, 22: 43-63. 

Kempf, E.K. 1980. Index and bibliography of nonmarine Ostracoda, 4: Bibliography A. 
Sonderveréffentlichungen des Geologischen Institutes der Universitat zu Kéln, 38: 1-186. 

Kempf, E.K. 1991. Index and bibliography of nonmarine Ostracoda, 5: Bibliography B. 
Sonderveréffentlichungen des Geologischen Institutes der Universitat zu Koln, TT: 1-238. 

Kempf, E.K. [In preparation]. Index and bibliography of nonmarine Ostracoda, 9: Bibli- 
ography C. Sonderveréffentlichungen des Geologischen Institutes der Universitat zu K6éIn. 

Meisch, C. 1987. Liste commentée des ostracodes trouvés au Luxembourg (Crustacea, 
Ostracoda). Archives de l'Institut Grand-Ducal de Luxembourg, section des sciences 
naturelles, physiques et mathematiques, (N.S.)40: 47-51. 


306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2893 


Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed 
conservation 


Frank-Thorsten Krell 


Eberhard-Karls-Universitat, Zoologisches Institut, Lehrstuhl fiir Spezielle 
Zoologie, Auf der Morgenstelle 28, D-72076 Tiibingen, Germany 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Temnorhynchus 
Hope, 1837, a genus of lamellicorn beetles, which is threatened by the unused 
senior objective synonym Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833. Until recently it was believed 
that Coptorhinus Dejean was preoccupied by Coptorhinus Guérin Méneville, [1838] 
but a clarification of the publication dates has shown that Dejean’s name is the 
older. 


1. Dejean (1833, p. 152) made the genus-group name Coptorhinus available by 
including the species Scarabaeus retusus Fabricius, 1781 (p. 14), which is the type 
species by monotypy. This genus is placed in the SCARABAEIDAE Or MELOLONTHIDAE. 

2. Hope (1837, p. 47) proposed the replacement name Temnorhynchus because he 
considered Dejean’s name preoccupied: ‘Sp. 65. Retusus — The Baron De Jean has 
given the generic name of Coptorhinus to this species, a name which was published by 
me some years since in the Zoological Transactions, it must therefore be changed; as 
it is significant of the genus, I substitute for it the term Temnorhynchus’ (see Krell, 
1992, p. 325). On p. 95 Hope wrote ‘Mr Kirby in his MSS. gave it the generic name 
of Pachypus, and the Baron de Jean in his Catalogue adopts the term Coptorhinus; 
both names however must be changed, as they are previously used by other writers, 
for other genera of Lamellicorn beetles’. Pachypus Kirby is a nomen nudum. In fact 
Coptorhinus Hope had not been introduced earlier; Hope (1833, p. 62) had published 
Coptorhina, which according to modern nomenclatural rules is not homonymous 
with Coptorhinus. 

3. Guérin Méneville ({1838], p. 72) described a ‘division’ of Lycus Fabricius 
(LYCIDAE) named Coptorhinus. The title page of the volume bears the date 1830. 
However, Guérin’s part was published in 1838 as indicated by Sherborn & 
Woodward (1906, p. 336) and Sherborn (1925, p. 1510); I have confirmed this (Krell, 
1992, p. 325 and following). The correct publication date had not been noted in the 
taxonomic literature until my nomenclatural revision in 1992. Prell (1936, p. 147), 
Endrédi (1976, p. 232) and Dechambre (1986, p. 32) assumed Coptorhinus Dejean to 
be preoccupied by Coptorhinus Guérin Méneville, but Dejean’s name is the senior 
homonym. 

4. Guérin Méneville ({1838]) did not include any species in his ‘division’ Coptorhi- 
nus, either in the original description or later (L. Bocak in litt., 1993). The name was 
rarely used and was considered by Kleine (1933, p. 28) as a probable synonym of 
Idiopteron Bourgeois, 1905. With no explanation Kleine (1933) chose to use the latter 
name over the senior synonym. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 307 


5. In a complete bibliography of the genus, I (Krell, 1994) list 194 references (e.g. 
Ferreira, 1966; Endroédi, 1985; Dechambre 1986; Baraud, 1992 and Cassis & Weir, 
1992) in which the name Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837, is used as valid, sometimes 
incorrectly spelled (mostly Temnorrhynchus, rarely Themnorhynchus, Themnorrhyn- 
chus, Temnorynchus, Temnorchynchus, Temnorhyncus); some of these are certainly 
printer’s errors. In contrast Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 has not been used since Sturm 
(1843, p. 115) and Rithl (1889). 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Coptorhinus Dejean, 
1833 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 
Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy of 
the replaced nominal genus Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833, Scarabaeus retusus 
Fabricius, 1781; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name retusus 
Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus retusus (specific name 
of the type species of Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837); 

(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid 
Generic Names in Zoology: 

(a) Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above; 
(b) Coptorhinus Guérin Méneville, [1838] (a junior homonym of Coptorhinus 
Dejean, 1833). 


Acknowledgements 
I would like to thank Mr. L. Bocak, Olomuc, for his kindness in informing me about 
the usage of Coptorhinus Guérin Méneville. 


References 


Baraud, J. 1992. Coleéopteres Scarabaeoidea d’Europe. Faune de France, France et régions 
limitrophes, 78: 1-858. 

Cassis, G. & Weir, T.A. 1992. Dynastinae. Pp. 383-425 in Houston, W.W.K. (Ed.), Zoological 
catalogue of Australia, vol. 9 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). AGPS Press, Canberra. 

Dechambre, R.P. 1986. Insectes coléoptéres Dynastidae. Faune de Madagascar, 65: 1-215. 

Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. 
Ed. 2, part 2. Pp. 97-176. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. 

Endrédi, S. 1976. Monographie der Dynastinae (Col. Lamellicornis, Melolonthidae) 4. Tribus: 
Pentodontini der athiopischen Region, 3. Entomologische Arbeiten aus dem Museum G. 
Frey, Miinchen, 27: 118-282. 

Endrédi, S. 1985. The Dynastinae of the world. 800 pp., 46 pls. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. 

Fabricius, I.C. 1781. Species insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas synonyma 
auctorum ..., vol. 1. 522 pp. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kilonii. 

Ferreira, M.C. 1966. Contribuigao para o estudo dos Dinastineos africanos, V. Os Dinastineos 
da regiao etidpica. Revista de Entomologia de Mogambique, 8: 3-348. 

Guérin Méneville, F.C. [1838]. Crustacés, arachnides et insectes. Pp. i-xii, 1-319 in Duperrey, 
L.I. (Ed.), Voyage autour du monde ... sur la Corvette de Sa Majesté, La Coquille, pendant 
les années 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825 ... Zoologie, vol. 2, part 2. Bertrand, Paris. 

Hope, F.W. 1833. On the characters of several new genera and species of coleopterous insects. 
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1: 61-64. 


308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Hope, F.W. 1837. The coleopterist's manual, containing the lamellicorn insects of Linneus and 
Fabricius. 125 pp., 3 pls. Bohn, London. 

Kleine, R. 1933. Lycidae. In: Coleopterum Catalogus. Junk, W. (Ed.), part 128. 145 pp. Junk, 
Berlin. 

Krell, F.T. 1992. Verschmelzung von Antennomeren (Symphysocerie) als Regelfall bei 
Temnorhynchus repandus Burmeister, 1847 ... Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, (Neue 
Folge)39: 295-367. : 

Krell, F.-T. 1994. Phylogenetisch-systematische Revision des Genus Temnorhynchus Hope, 
1837 ..., part 2. Beitrage zur Entomologie, 44: 83-155. 

Prell, H. 1936. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Dynastinen. Uber die Homonymieverhiltnisse der 
Namen von Gattungen und Untergattungen. Entomologische Blatter, 32: 145-152. 
Ruhl, F. 1889. Beitrage zur Charakteristik der Lamellicornien (Fortsetzung.). Societas 

Entomologica, 4: 98. 

Sherborn, C.D. 1925. Index Animalium ..., Sectio secunda, part 7. Index Concolor-Czizeki. 
Pp. 1453-1771. British Museum, London. 

Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1906. Notes on the dates of publication of the natural 
history portions of some French voyages ... Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 
(7)17: 335-336. 

Sturm, J. 1843. Catalog der Kaefer-Sammlung. xii, 386 pp, 6 pls. Niirnberg. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 309 


Case 2865 


BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and 
BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): proposed removal 
of homonymy 


P.A. Audisio & R. Fochetti 


Dipartimento di Biologia Animale e dell’Uomo (Zoologia), Universita degli 
Studi di Roma ‘La Sapienza’, Viale dell’ Universita 32, I-00185 Rome, Italy 


P. Zwick 


Limnologische Flussstation Schlitz des Max-Planck-Instituts fiir Limnologie, 
Postfach 260, D-6407 Schlitz, Germany 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between two 
family-group names in Coleoptera and Plecoptera. It is proposed that the complete 
name of the stone-fly genus Brachyptera Newport, 1848 be adopted as the stem, 
giving the corresponding family-group name BRACHYPTERAINAE Zwick, 1973. The 
beetle name BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 would remain unchanged. 


1. The BRACHYPTERINAE were established as a subfamily of NITIDULIDAE 
(Coleoptera) by Erichson (1845, p. 125), based on the type genus Brachypterus 
Kugelann, 1794 (p. 560), the type species of which is Dermestes urticae Fabricius, 
1792 (p. 235) by subsequent designation by Parsons (1943, p. 141). The stem 
BRACHYPTER- has been widely used in the nitidulids to form family, subfamily and 
tribe names. 

2. Ganglbauer (1899, p. 518) introduced for the same taxonomic group the tribe 
name CATERETINI, emending the ending of Erichson’s (1843, p. 227) name 
“CATERETES , based on the genus Kateretes Herbst, 1793 (p. 11; often erroneously cited 
as Cateretes by many authors). Grouvelle (1913, p. 9) introduced the subfamily name 
CATERETINAE, which was emended by Nunberg (1976, p. 13) to KATERETINAE. 
However, Audisio (1984, p. 5; 1993, p. 781) and Kirejtshuk (1986, p. 25) have recently 
pointed out that the KATERETIDAE should be regarded as a family separate from, 
although closely related to, the NITIDULIDAE and that Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 
belongs to the former family. The name BRACHYPTERINAE now applies to a subfamily 
within the KATERETIDAE. A world-wide revision of this family is now in preparation 
by P. Audisio and J. Jelinek. 

3. One of the authors of this paper (Zwick, 1973, p. 308) proposed the subfamily 
name BRACHYPTERINAE in the TAENIOPTERYGIDAE (Plecoptera), based on the genus 
Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (p. 388), the type species of which is Nemoura trifasciata 
Pictet, 1832 (p. 379, pl. 15, figs. 4-10) by subsequent designation by Frison (1929, 
p. 373). Frison (1929) incorrectly stated that the designation of the type species was 
by Klapalek (1902) and, under Article 69a(iv) of the Code, Frison (1929) himself 
becomes the author of the designation. The existence of the homonymous family- 
group name BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 in the Coleoptera was overlooked. 


310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


4. In accordance with Article 55b of the Code this case of homonymy is referred 
to the Commission. In our opinion neither Brachyptera Newport, 1848 nor 
BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 have any synonyms which could be used to form a 
name to replace the junior homonym. We propose that the full name of Brachyptera 
be used as the stem so that the subfamily name based on it would become 
BRACHYPTERAINAE. : 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that for the purpose of Article 29 of the Code 

the stem of the generic name Brachyptera Newport, 1848 is BRACHYPTERA-; 

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

(a) Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 (gender: masculine), type species by 
subsequent designation by Parsons (1943) Dermestes urticae Fabricius, 
1792; 
(b) Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
designation by Frison (1929) Nemoura trifasciata Pictet, 1832; 
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) urticae Fabricius, 1792, as published in the binomen Dermestes urticae 
(specific name of the type species of Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794); 
(b) trifasciata Pictet, 1832, as published in the binomen Nemoura trifasciata 
(specific name of the type species of Brachyptera Newport, 1848); 
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in 
Zoology: 
(a) BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845, type genus Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 
(Insecta, Coleoptera); 
(b) BRACHYPTERAINAE Zwick, 1973, type genus Brachyptera Newport, 1848 
(spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Plecoptera); 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in 
Zoology the name BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (spelling emended to 
BRACHYPTERAINAE in (1) above). 


References 


Audisio, P. 1984. Necessita di ridefinizione delle sottofamiglie nei Nitidulidae e nuove 
prospettive per la ricostruzione filogenetica del gruppo (Coleoptera). Bollettino di 
Zoologia, 51(Supplementum): 5. 

Audisio, P. 1993. Coleoptera Nitidulidae, Kateretidae. Fauna d'Italia, 32: 1-971. 

Erichson, W.F. 1843. Versuch einer systematischen Eintheilung der Nitidularien. Zeitschrift fir 
Entomologie (Germar), 4: 225-361. ; 

Erichson, W.F. 1845. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands, Abt. 1 (Coleoptera), vol. 3. 
vii, 1-800 pp. Nicolai, Berlin. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia Systematica, vol. 1, part 1. 330 pp. Proft, Hafniae. 

Frison, T.H. 1929. Fall and winter stoneflies, or Plecoptera, of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois 
State Natural History Survey, 18: 345-409. 

Ganglbauer, L. 1899. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa, vol. 3. 1046 pp. Gerold’s Sohn, Wien. 

Grouvelle, A. 1913. Byturidae, Nitidulidae. Pp. 1-223 in Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), 
Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 56. Junk, Berlin. 

Herbst, J.F.W. 1793. Natursystem allen bekannten in- und auslandischen Insecten; nach dem 
System des Ritter Carl von Linné bearbeitet (von C.G. Jablonsky), fortgesetzt von 
J.F.W. Herbst. 392 pp. Pauli, Berlin. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 311 


Kirejtshuk, A.G. 1986. Analysis of the structure of genitalia for reconstructing phylogenesis 
and argumentation to a system of the fam. Nitidulidae (Coleoptera). Trudy Vsesoyuznogo 
Entomologicheskogo Obshchestva, 68: 22—28. [In Russian]. 

Klapalek, F. 1902. Zur Kenntnis der Neuropteroiden von Ungarn, Bosnien und Herzegovina. 
Természetrajzi Fiizetek, 25: 161-180. 

Kugelann, J.G. 1794. Verzeichniss der in einigen Gegenden Preussens bis jetzt entdeckten 
Kaferarten nebst kurtzen Nachrichten von denselben. Neuestes Magazin fiir Liebhaber der 
Entomologie, 1(5): 513-582. 

Newport, E. 1848. Postscript to Mr. Newport’s paper on Pteronarcys regalis. Proceedings of the 
Linnean Society, London, 1: 387-389. 

Nunberg, M. 1976. Klukze do oznaczania owadow Polski, XIX (65): Coleoptera — 
Nitidulidae. Polskie Towarzystwo Entomologiczne, Warszawa, 92: 1-92. 

Parsons, C.T. 1943. A revision of the Nearctic NITIDULIDAE (Coleoptera). Bulletin of the 
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard College, 92: 121-278. 

Pictet, F.J. 1832. Mémoire sur les larves de némoures. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 26: 
369-393. 

Zwick, P. 1973. Insecta: Plecoptera. Phylogenetisches System und Katalog. Das Tierreich, 94: 
1-465. 


312 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2907 


Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 and Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, 
Diptera): proposed conservation; Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805 
and Phora flavimana Meigen, 1830: proposed conservation of the 
specific names 


Brian V. Brown 


Entomology Section, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 
900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A. 


Curtis W. Sabrosky 


Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 
clo Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Sphaerocera 
Latreille, 1804 and that of its type species Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805 (family 
SPHAEROCERIDAE Macquart, 1835), together with the name Borophaga Enderlein, 
1924 and that of its type species Phora flavimana Meigen, 1830 (family PHORIDAE 
Curtis, 1833). The name Sphaerocera has for many years been accepted as valid for 
a group of acalyptrate flies. A specimen of Musca subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 (the type 
species of Borborus Meigen, 1803) which has been treated as the holotype of 
M. subsultans has been identified as an example of P. flavimana. Recognition of the 
identity of this specimen would render the name Borophaga, which is in use for a 
phorid genus, a junior subjective synonym of Borborus, a name which was long used 
in the sense of Sphaerocera. Suppression of Borborus and the specific name of 
M. subsultans is proposed. 


1. Meigen (1800, p. 31) proposed the name Cypse/a for a group of flies with an 
expanded first hind tarsomere, the type of which was designated as Musca subsultans 
Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 993) by Coquillett (1910, p. 530). Meigen’s (1800) work, in which 
the name appeared, was suppressed by the Commission in Opinion 678 (October 
1963). 

2. Meigen (1803, p. 276) proposed the name Borborus for the same group of flies. 
The type of Borborus was designated by Curtis (1833, p. 469) as Musca subsultans. 
Duda (1938, p. 14) proposed the designation of Borborus ater Meigen, 1830 (p. 203) 
as a new type species for Borborus because the identity of the type specimen of 
subsultans was uncertain. This has led some authors to cite incorrectly B. ater as the 
type species of Borborus. 

3. The name Borborus was long used for a genus of acalyptrate flies (family 
BORBORIDAE Newman, 1834, as Borborites), characterized by an expanded first hind 
tarsomere. This use continued until Richards (1930, p. 263), who considered that the 
valid name for the genus Borborus was Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 (p. 197). Richards 
believed that workers should ‘date all genera from the time species were first 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 313 


included’. Meigen did not include any species in Borborus until 1830 and Richards 
therefore believed that Borborus was a junior synonym of Sphaerocera. The type 
species of Sphaerocera is Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805 (p. 394) by subsequent 
monotypy. 

4. Haliday (1851, p. 144) suggested that the supposed type specimen of 
M. subsultans, in the Linnean Society collections in London, belonged in the family 
PHORIDAE Curtis, 1833. This was confirmed by Richards (1930, p. 263), who 
suggested that the original type specimen was probably lost, that a new specimen had 
been erroneously labelled as M. subsultans, and that this specimen belonged to the 
species Phora flavimana Meigen, 1830 (p. 213). Despite this, Richards retained the 
accepted meaning of the name subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 as ‘it is improbable that all 
the early authors should have made so serious a misidentification. I therefore retain 
the name Sphaerocera subsultans Linné ... [for this] very well known fly’. Richards 
also noted that Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805 had been synonymized with 
Musca subsultans Fabricius, 1775 but that ‘the name Musca subsultans dates back to 
Linné (1767). Fabricius (/oc. cit.) merely copies Linné’s diagnosis with a few 
omissions’. Despite Richards’s use of the name M. subsultans subsequent authors 
(e.g. Duda, 1938) have favored S. curvipes as the name for the species because of the 
uncertainty about the typification of subsultans. 

5. Disney (1982, p. 115) also examined the Linnean Society specimen and 
confirmed that it was indeed a phorid. He placed subsultans (as defined by this 
specimen) in the genus Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (p. 277), departing from the long 
accepted interpretation of subsultans, despite the fact that the species is the type of 
Borborus Meigen, 1803. His placement of subsultans in the PHORIDAE rendered 
Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (type species Phora flavimana Meigen, 1830 by original 
designation) a junior synonym of Borborus Meigen, 1803. The name Borophaga is 
widely used in the recent literature (e.g. Borgmeier, 1963; Disney, 1983; Brown, 1992; 
a further list of seven representative works is held by the Commission Secretariat). 

6. Since Richards (1930), the name Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 has become widely 
used in the literature in place of the Borborus of earlier authors (e.g. Kim, 1968; 
Marshall & Richards, 1987; Pitkin, 1988; a further list of seven representative works 
is held by the Commission Secretariat). The genus is the type of the family group 
SPHAEROCERIDAE. Since Borborus has become disused and the meaning of its type 
species Musca subsultans has been uncertain the best course of action would be to 
suppress both Borborus Meigen, 1803 and subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 thereby 
maintaining stability of usage of names in the SPHAEROCERIDAE and the PHORIDAE, i.e. 
Sphaerocera, Borophaga and Phora flavimana. Following this, there would be no 
further need for a debate over the typification of subsultans. Suppression of Borborus 
would also render invalid the family name BORBORIDAE Newman, 1834 and would 
conserve the widely used name SPHAEROCERIDAE Macquart, 1835. 

7. 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 Borborus Meigen, 1803; 

(b) the specific name subsultans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen 
Musca subsultans; 


314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent 
monotypy Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805; 
(b) Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (gender: feminine), type species by original 
designation Phora flavimana Meigen, 1830; 
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) curvipes Latreille, 1805, as published in the binomen Sphaerocera curvipes 
(specific name of the type species of Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804); 
(b) flavimana Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Phora flavimana 
(specific name of the type species of Borophaga Enderlein, 1924); 
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Borborus Meigen, 1803, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; | 
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 
Zoology the name subsultans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen 
Musca subsultans and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. 


Acknowledgements 
We would like to thank N. Erridge and S. Marshall for their help with preparing this 
manuscript. 


References 


Borgmeier, T. 1963. Revision of the North American phorid flies. Part 1. The Phoridae, 
Aenigmatiinae and Metopininae, except Megaselia. Studia Entomologica, 6: 1-256. 
Brown, B.V. 1992. Generic revision of Phoridae of the Nearctic Region and phylogenetic 
classification of Phoridae, Sciadoceridae and Ironomyiidae (Diptera: Phoridea). Memoirs 
of the Entomological Society of Canada, 164: 1-144. 

Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings 
of the United States National Museum, 37: 449-647. 

Curtis, J. 1833. British entomology: being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects 
found in Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 10. Pp. 434-481. Ellis, London. 

Disney, R.H.L. 1982. Confirmation of a suspected synonym in the genus Borophaga (Diptera: 
Phoridae). Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 118: 115. 

Disney, R.H.L. 1983. Scuttle flies — Diptera, Phoridae (except Megaselia). Handbooks for the 
Identification of British Insects, 10: 1-81. 

Duda, O. 1938. Sphaeroceridae (Cypselidae). Pp. 1-182 in Linder, E. (Ed.), Die Fliegen der 
Palaearktischen Region, vol. 6, part 1. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. 

Enderlein, G. 1924. Zur Klassifikation der Phoriden und tiber vernichtende Kritik. Entomolo- 
gische Mitteilungen, 8: 270-281. 

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species 
.... 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae. % 

Haliday, A.H. 1851. Sendschreiben von Alexis H. Haliday an C.A. Dohrn tiber die Dipteren 
aus der in London befindlichen Linneischen Sammlung. Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 
12: 131-145. 

Kim, K.C. 1968. Revision of Sphaerocera, with description of a new genus Afromyia. Annals of 
the Entomological Society of America, 61: 296-312. 

Latreille, P.A. 1804. Tableau méthodique des insectes. Pp. 129-200 in: Nouveau dictionnaire 
d histoire naturelle, vol. 24. Société de Naturalistes et d’Agriculteurs, Paris. 

Latreille, P.A. 1805. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, 
vol. 14. 432 pp. Paris. 

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


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 315 


Macquart, P.J.M. 1835. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Part 2 (Diptéres). 573 pp. Paris. 

Marshall, S.A. & Richards, O.W. 1987. Sphaeroceridae. Pp. 993-1006 in McAlpine, J.F. (Ed.), 
Manual of Nearctic Diptera, vol. 2. Agriculture Canada Monograph, 28: 1-1332. 

Meigen, J.W. 1800. Nouvelle classification des mouches a deux ailes (Diptera L.) d'aprés un plan 
tout nouveau. 40 pp. Paris. 

Meigen, J.W. 1803. Versuch einer neuen Gattungs Eintheilung der Europdischen Zweifliigel- 
igen Insekten. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde (Illiger), 2: 259-281. 

Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten Europdischen Zweifliigeligen, 
vol. 6. 401 pp. Aachen & Hamm, Germany. 

Newman, E. 1834. Attempted division of British insects into natural orders. The Entomological 
Magazine, 2: 379-431. 

Pitkin, B.R. 1988. Lesser dung flies (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae). Handbooks for the Identification 
of British Insects, 10(5): 1-33. 

Richards, O.W. 1930. The British species of Sphaeroceridae (Borboridae, Diptera). Proceed- 
ings of the General Meeting of the Zoological Society of London, 1930: 261-345. 


316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2917 


Coproica Rondani, 1861 and Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (Insecta, 
Diptera): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of 
Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of 
Coproica 


Terry A. Wheeler 


Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, 
Ontario, Canada NIG 2W1 


John E. Swann 


Department of Entomology, The Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, 
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Limosina acutangula 
Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of the sphaerocerid fly genus Coproica Rondani, 
1861 in accordance with the original concept, accepted understanding and usage. The 
original fixation of Ischiolepta pusilla (Fallén, 1820) as the type was based on a 
misidentification. The usage of Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 will also be conserved. 


1. Fallén (1820, p. 8) proposed the name Copromyza pusilla for specimens of a 
sphaerocerid fly currently known as Jschiolepta pusilla, a widespread, frequently 
synanthropic species assigned to the subfamily sPHAEROCERINAE. Han & Kim (1990, 
p. 433) recently designated a lectotype for C. pusilla, fixing its identity as the species 
recognized by modern workers as Ischiolepta pusilla (Fallén, 1820). 

2. Meigen (1830, p. 206) described and illustrated a species that he identified as 
Borborus pusillus (Fallén). However, Meigen’s description and illustration clearly 
indicate that the species before him was not Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820. The only 
sphaerocerid fly whose wing venation corresponds to that described by Meigen and 
illustrated in his plate 62, fig. 19, is the male of the species currently recognized as 
Coproica acutangula (Zetterstedt, 1847) (subfamily LIMOSININAE). 

3. Macquart (1835, p. 570) erected the genus Heteroptera to accommodate the 
single species Heteroptera pusilla, making Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820 the type 
species by monotypy. This was a misidentification: in Macquart’s discussion of the 
species he referred to the modified wing venation that distinguishes’ Copromyza 
pusilla from other sphaerocerid flies, and, as with Meigen (1830), it is obvious from 
Macquart’s description that the species before him was Limosina acutangula 
Zetterstedt, 1847, and not Copromyza pusilla Fallen, 1820. 

4. Zetterstedt (1847, p. 2490) correctly identified and redescribed Copromyza 
pusilla noting the distinctive crenulate scutellum of the species. Zetterstedt stated on 
p. 2491 that Borborus pusillus of Meigen and Heteroptera pusilla of Macquart are not 
the same species as Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820, and that the species that Meigen 
and Macquart had before them is the one that he described as the new species 
Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 (p. 2499). Most modern workers on the 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 317 


SPHAEROCERIDAE consider L. acutangula to represent Coproica Rondani, 1861, a 
cosmopolitan, frequently synanthropic genus of limosinine sphaerocerids. 

5. Rondani (1856, p. 124) included Heteroptera Macquart, 1835 in a key and 
catalogue of sphaerocerid genera, with Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820 listed as type 
species. Papp (1984, p. 81) considered Rondani’s citation of Copromyza pusilla as 
‘Spec. Typ.’ of Heteroptera to be a subsequent designation of the type species. Papp’s 
interpretation was erroneous because Copromyza pusilla was already the type species 
of Heteroptera by monotypy (see para. 3 above). 

6. Rondani (1861, p. 10) proposed Coproica as a replacement name for 
Heteroptera Macquart, 1835 which was preoccupied by Heteroptera Latreille, 1817 
(Insecta, Hemiptera). In fact, both Heteroptera Macquart, 1835 and Heteroptera 
Latreille, 1817 are preoccupied by Heteroptera Rafinesque, 1814 (Mollusca). 

7. Authors of recent catalogues of SPHAEROCERIDAE have cited the type species of 
Coproica Rondani, 1861 as Limosina pusilla (Meigen, 1830) (Richards, 1965, p. 725; 
Richards, 1967, p. 16; Hackman, 1977, p. 400), Borborus pusillus Meigen, 1830 sensu 
Macquart (1835) (Richards, 1980, p. 618), Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820 (Papp, 
1984, p. 81), or Borborus pusillus Meigen, 1830 (Marshall, 1989, p. 603). All the above 
authors recognized Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820 sensu Meigen (1830) and 
Macquart (1835) as a misidentification of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847. 

8. There is no evidence that Macquart’s (1835) designation of Copromyza pusilla 
Fallen, 1820 as the type species of Heteroptera represents a deliberate use of 
misidentification (Article 11(i) of the Code). If Macquart had specified that the type 
of Heteroptera was pusilla in the sense of Meigen (1830) and not of Fallén (1820) then 
Heteroptera pusilla would be a valid name and would be attributed to Macquart 
(1835). However, Macquart referred only to Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820 and did 
not specify that he used pusilla in the sense of Meigen (1830). Furthermore, Macquart 
listed Borborus pusillus of Meigen (1830) as a synonym of Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 
1820, which indicates that he considered the two conspecific. It is clear that Macquart 
(1835) misidentified the type species of the genus and the case must be referred to the 
Commission (Article 70b) to designate a type species for Heteroptera Macquart, 
1835, i.e. Coproica Rondani, 1861. 

9. Designation of Copromyza pusilla Fallén, 1820, the species named in the 
original fixation, as the type species of Coproica Rondani, 1861 would render 
Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (p. 1112, type species by monotypy Borborus denticulatus 
Meigen, 1830 (p. 200)) a junior subjective synonym of Coproica and would change 
the currently accepted concept of both generic names, thereby confusing the 
taxonomy of the family SPHAEROCERIDAE. Designation of the species actually 
involved, in accordance with Article 70b(i), would fix Limosina acutangula 
Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of Coproica Rondani, 1861. This would be in 
accordance with common usage and would also conserve Jschiolepta Lioy, 1864 as 
currently recognized. Limosina acutangula would be automatically (Article 67(h)) the 
type species of the invalidly named nominal genus Heteroptera Macquart, 1835. 

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 Coproica Rondani, 1861 and to designate Limosina 
acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species; 


318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: 
(a) Coproica Rondani, 1861 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in 
(1) above Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847; 
(b) Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy 
Borborus denticulatus Meigen, 1830; 
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: 
(a) acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847, as published in the binomen Limosina 
acutangula (specific name of the type species of Coproica Rondani, 1861); 
(b) denticulatus Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Borborus 
denticulatus (specific name of the type species of Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864); 
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the name Heteroptera Macquart, 1835 (a senior objective synonym of 
Coproica Rondani, 1861 and a junior homonym of Heteroptera Rafinesque, 
1814). 


Acknowledgements 
We thank S.A. Marshall and J.R. Vockeroth for their advice and comments 
concerning this application. 


References 


Fallén, C.F. 1820. Monographia Heteromyzides Sveciae, 10 pp. in: Diptera Sveciae, vol. 2, 
pt. 16. 337 pp. Berlingianis, Lundae. 

Hackman, W. 1977. Family Sphaeroceridae (Borboridae). Pp. 398-406 in Delfinado, M.D. 
& Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental region, Suborder 
Cyclorrhapha (excluding Division Aschiza), vol. 3. 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, 
Honolulu. 

Han, H.-Y. & Kim, K.C. 1990. Systematics of Jschiolepta Lioy (Diptera: Sphaeroceridae). 
Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 83: 409-443. 

Lioy, P. 1864. I ditteri distributi secondo un nuovo metodo di classificazione naturale. Atti 
dell'Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (3)9(2): 1087-1126. 

Macquart, P.J.M. 1835. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Diptéres, vol. 2. 703 pp. Roret, Paris. 

Marshall, S.A. 1989. Family Sphaeroceridae. Pp. 601-607 in Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of 
the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian regions. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum Press, 
Honolulu. 

Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen 
Insekten, vol. 6. 401 pp. Schultz, Hamm. 

Papp, L. 1984. Family Sphaeroceridae. Pp. 68-107 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of 
Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 10. 402 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest. 

Richards, O.W. 1965. Family Sphaeroceridae. Pp. 718-726 in 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. 1696 pp. United States Department of 
Agriculture, Washington. 

Richards, O.W. 1967. Family Sphaeroceridae (Borboridae). A catalogue of the Diptera of the 
Americas south of the United States, no. 72. 28 pp. Museo de Zoologica, Universidade de 
Sao Paulo. 

Richards, O.W. 1980. Family Sphaeroceridae. Pp. 614-626 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue 
of the Diptera of the Afrotropical region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), 
London. 

Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Genera Italica ordinis Dipterorum ..., vol. 
1. 228 pp. Stoschi, Parmae. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 S19 


Rondani, C. 1861. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Species Italicae ordinis Dipterorum..., 
vol. 4. 174 pp. Stocche, Parmae. 

Zetterstedt, J.W. 1847. Diptera Scandinaviae disposita et descripta, vol. 6. Pp. 2163-2580. 
Officina Lundbergiana, Lundae. 


320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2934 


Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenii; 
Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): proposed designation of a neotype 


Maurice Kottelat 
Route de Fregiécourt 96c, Case Postale 57, 2952 Cornol, Switzerland 


Kelvin K.P. Lim & Peter K.L. Ng 


Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, 
Singapore 0511, Republic of Singapore 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to propose a neotype for Hemibagrus 
hoevenii (Bleeker, 1846), an economically important catfish from Southeast Asia, the 
name of which had previously been regarded as a junior subjective synonym of 
H. nemurus (Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1840) but is now regarded as 
valid. Designation of a neotype will resolve the uncertain identity of H. hoevenii and 
stabilise the taxonomy of the species. 


1. Bagrids of the Hemibagrus nemurus (Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 
1840, p. 423) species-group are economically important catfish in South and 
Southeast Asia, and their taxonomy has been particularly confused. There are a large 
number of nominal species for which types are not always readily available or easy 
to identify. 

2. One of these nominal species is Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846, described 
(p. 154) from Java on the basis of an unspecified number of specimens of unstated 
size. Bleeker (1862, p. 56) subsequently noted that he had 10 specimens ranging 
from 126-290 mm in total length from 10 localities in Java, Sumatra and 
Borneo. Bleeker (1862, pl. 70) also provided a figure of B. hoevenii for the first 
time, although the provenance of the specimen on which it was based was not 
stated. 

3. Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 was accepted as a valid species until Weber & de 
Beaufort (1913, p. 341) synonymised it under B. nemurus Valenciennes in Cuvier & 
Valenciennes, 1840. 

4. The problem with Bleeker’s type material is well known. Specimens (including 
syntypes) of what he regarded as one species, even if they were from different 
localities, were often placed in the same bottle without any data or explanation to 
their origins. Some of this material is in poor condition. There is also a very good 
chance that the original type material of B. hoevenii is lost. Bleeker (1846) described 
B. hoevenii while stationed in Batavia (now Jakarta) but was shortly afterwards 
transferred to Samarang. Of this transfer, Bleeker (1878, p. 21) wrote that ‘it was out 
of the question to move my collections to my new station, so I had to leave them 
behind in Batavia’. Boeseman (1973, p. 59) noted that “When Bleeker returned from 
the East Indies [in 1860], he still had in his possession all the original specimens on 
which he had based the descriptions of his new species, excepting a few that had 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 321 


already been lost in the East Indies during the period of his banishment from 
Batavia’. 

5. In the Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum in Leiden there is a series of 
Bleeker’s specimens (NNM 6684) labelled as Bagrus hoevenii. We examined eight 
specimens (97.5—320 mm standard length; 122-400 mm total length), all without any 
data. These specimens seem to be two species but their twisted condition, damaged 
fins and spines as well as their faded coloration make most of them difficult to 
identify. It is noteworthy that while the smallest of these specimens is in agreement 
with Bleeker’s data in his atlas (126 mm total length), the largest are much larger 
(400 mm against 290 mm). Moreover, the largest specimen is H. nemurus. One of the 
specimens (210 mm standard length) is almost certainly the one figured natural size 
by Bleeker (1862, pl. 70) but he did not record if this was one of his original Javanese 
specimens; it may be one of his Sumatran or Bornean specimens. It is not possible to 
be completely sure if this specimen is conspecific with our specimens from Peninsular 
Malaysia and Sumatra as several characteristics are no longer discernible. We have 
been unable to find recent specimens from Java referable to B. hoevenii. 

6. Whether any of the NNM specimens are the type(s) of B hoevenii can never be 
established for certain. This uncertainty, compounded with the poor condition of the 
specimens and the fact that Bleeker had specimens of B. hoevenii from Java, Sumatra 
and Borneo, makes it very unwise to select a lectotype from this series. 

7. Bleeker also distributed some of his specimens to the British (now Natural 
History) Museum in London, and Giinther (1864, p. 81) lists in his catalogue ‘one of 
the typical specimens’ of Bagrus hoevenii. As the specimen sent to the Natural History 
Museum was sent after the publication of vol. 2 of Bleeker’s atlas (1862), the above 
discussion applies to this specimen as well, and there is no way of knowing if it is 
actually a type. The same applies to any of Bleeker’s specimens in other museums (his 
material was auctioned and distributed to other museums after his death). 

8. In an ongoing revision of the Sundaic members of the Hemibagrus nemurus 
species-group, we and our colleagues recognise as valid several species which had 
previously been placed under the synonymy of H. nemurus sensu lato. The identity of 
B. hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 now comes into question as an available name for one of the 
species we recognise. In particular, specimens of a large bagrid with black-edged 
caudal fin from Peninsular Malaysia, Borneo and Sumatra closely resemble what 
Bleeker (1862, pl. 70) had illustrated as B. hoevenii. Hemibagrus hoevenii (in this 
sense) seems to be widely distributed in Sundaic Southeast Asia and has been 
confused under H. nemurus, a widely fished species. H. hoevenii is distinguished from 
H. nemurus mainly in having a black-edged caudal fin with tapering lobes (vs. caudal 
fin without black edges and fairly rounded lobes). Papers on various aspects of the 
taxonomy, phylogeny and ecology of the Hemibagrus nemurus species-group are now 
in preparation. It is thus necessary to firmly fix the identity of Bagrus hoevenii 
Bleeker, 1846 to prevent future confusion. 

9. Recommendation 75E of the Code says ‘Neotypes should be designated to 
clarify the application of names when their continued existence as nomina dubia 
threatens the stability of other names; if, despite the existence of a holotype, or a 
lectotype or syntypes, it is not possible to resolve a complex zoological problem, a 
zoologist should refer the case to the Commission which may, by the use of the 
plenary power, set aside the existing type material and designate a neotype’. 


322 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


10. In view of this and the need to have this name stabilised, we therefore propose 
that a neotype for Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 be chosen to replace the series of 
Bleeker specimens which may or may not include a holotype or syntypes. The 
proposed neotype is a specimen 116 mm standard length, 170 mm total length, 
collected from Kampong Bukit Kebong at Muar River, Johor, Peninsular Malaysia 
by M. Kottelat & K.K.P. Lim on 25 July 1992. It is deposited in the Zoological 
Reference Collection of the Department of Zoology, National University of 
Singapore, under the catalogue number ZRC 37472. Although the specimen is not 
from Java, it conforms to Bleeker’s (1862, p. 56, pl. 70) figure and redescriptions, as 
well as to the specimen in Leiden on which his figure is probably based. 
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 
asked: j 
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens 
for the nominal species Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 and to designate as the 
neotype the specimen ZRC 37472 in the Zoological Reference Collection at the 
Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore described in para. 
10 above; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hoevenii 
Bleeker, 1846, as published in the binomen Bagrus hoevenii and as defined by 
the neotype designated in (1) above. 


References 


Bleeker, P. 1846. Overzigt der Siluroieden welke te Batavia voorkomen. Natuur- en Geneeskun- 
dig Archief voor Néérland’s Indié, 3(2): 135-184. [Reprinted in 1847 in Verhandelingen van 
het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, 21: 1-60). 

Bleeker, P. 1862. Atlas ichthyologique des Indes Orientales Néérlandaises, vol. 2. 112 pp., 
pls. 49-101. Muller, Amsterdam. 

Bleeker, P. 1878. Biographical notices concerning P. Bleeker. Pp. 11-42 in Lamme, W.H. (Ed.), 
1973, Collected fish papers of Pieter Bleeker, vol. 1. 135 pp. Junk, The Hague. 

Boeseman, M. 1973. Some informative remarks in the auction of Bleeker’s collection. 
Pp. 56-61 in Lamme, W.H. (Ed.), Collected fish papers of Pieter Bleeker, vol. 1. 135 pp. 
Junk, The Hague. 

Giinther, A. 1864. Catalogue of fishes in the British Museum, vol. 5. xxii, 455 pp. British 
Museum, London. 

Valenciennes, A. 1840. Jn Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A., Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 14. 
464 pp., pls. 389-420. Pitois-Levrault, Paris. 

Weber, X. & de Beaufort, L.F. 1913. The fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, vol. 2 
(Malacopterygii, Myctophoidea, Ostariophysi: Siluroidea). xx, 404 pp. Brill, Leiden. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 323 


Case 2898 


Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Caranx or 
Pseudocaranx dentex) and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] 
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of the specific 
names 


William F. Smith-Vaniz 


U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey, 
Southeastern Biological Science Center, 7920 N.W. 71st Street, Gainesville, 
Florida 32653, U.S.A. 


John E. Randall 
Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Box 19000-A, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of the 
white trevally Scomber (now Caranx or Pseudocaranx) dentex Bloch & Schneider, 
1801 and the black jack Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (family CARANGIDAE). Scomber 
glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 is a composite species which is an unused senior synonym of 
both S. dentex (the type species of Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863) and Gasterosteus 
(now Trachinotus) ovatus Linnaeus, 1758; suppression of glaucus is proposed. It is 
also proposed that the widely used name Caranx lugubris be conserved by the 
suppression of the senior synonym C. ascensionis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 
1833. “Scomber adscensionis Osbeck, 1771’ is formally unavailable but has been used 
for the species now referred to as C. dentex and, in error, to that referred to as 
C. lugubris; it is proposed that the name ‘adscensionis’ also be placed on the Official 
Index. C. ascensionis Cuvier is currently almost universally regarded as an invalid 
junior secondary homonym of ‘C. adscensionis (Osbeck)’. Caranx (or Pseudocaranx) 
dentex is a widely distributed species from the subtropics and edges of the tropics in 
the Atlantic and Indo-Pacific; C. Jugubris is a circumglobal tropical species. Both 
dentex and lugubris are commercially valuable food species. 


1. In 1758 Linnaeus (p. 298) described the nominal species Scomber glaucus and 
referred to the descriptions of two previous authors. The sources were Scomber 
adscensionis Osbeck, 1757 (p. 296) and a description by Artedi (1738) in the third 
(p. 32) and fourth parts (pp. 51-52) of his Ichthyologia. Translations of Osbeck’s 
Swedish work appeared in 1765 (a German version by J.G. Georgi) and 1771 (an 
English version by J.R. Forster which was a translation from the German). 
Linnaeus’s name glaucus was used in both the (1765) and (1771) translations but 
“‘adscensionis Osbeck’ appeared (p. 94) as a synonym in a footnote in the latter, and 
has been adopted by many subsequent authors as ‘Caranx adscensionis (Osbeck, 
1771)’. However, Osbeck’s name is pre-Linnaean and is therefore not available from 
either 1757 or 1771 (Articles 1la and 1le(i) of the Code). Wheeler (1963, p. 533) 
noted that Osbeck’s description left little doubt that “Scomber adscensionis’ was a 


324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


species of Caranx for which the type locality was the island of Ascension in the 
mid-south Atlantic. In relation to Artedi’s account, Wheeler noted that this referred 
to a species of Trachinotus and wrote ‘it is highly probable that it refers to the 
Trachinotus glaucus of authors’ (now known as T. ovatus (Linnaeus, 1758) or 
T. goodei Jordan & Evermann, 1896; see para. 6 below). Wheeler (1963, p. 534) 
further noted that Linnaeus himself (1764, p. 89) considered the name Scomber 
glaucus to apply to a carangid fish with the posterior lateral line armoured with 
scutes. 

2. A second carangid fish with scutes was described from Ascension Island by 
Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1833 as Caranx ascensionis (p. 102, fig. 249), 
based on a specimen collected by Quoy and Gaimard, a description of Scomber 
glaucus Linnaeus in Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 33) (see para. 5), and on a copy made 
by Sarah Bowdich of G. Forster’s unpublished drawing labeled ‘Scomber 
ascensionis’. Perhaps for this reason Cuvier attributed the name to Forster but the 
description is Cuvier’s and the nominal species should be attributed to him. Cuvier 
noted that his taxon was distinct from the adscensionis described by Osbeck (1757). 
Streets (1877, p. 88) listed Caranx ascensionis Cuvier in his synonymy under the 
heading ‘Carangus ascensionis (Forst.),’ while Gunther (1880, pp. 4, 5) and Seale 
(1901, p. 73) used the citation ‘Caranx ascensionis (Forst.)’. 

3. Osbeck’s (1757) description of Scomber adscensionis was not very detailed and 
no type material is known. The high number of dorsal and anal fin rays (in 
translation, 1771: ‘the first dorsal-fin has seven, the second twenty-five ... the anal-fin 
twenty-five, rays’) would eliminate Caranx ascensionis Cuvier as a likely candidate for 
its identity. One of us (W.F. S.-V.) has examined numerous specimens of Cuvier’s 
species; these have 20-22 dorsal and 16-19 anal fin rays. Osbeck (in translation) had 
stated of his adscensionis: ‘the body is narrow, grey at the top, white below, about a 
foot long ... the mouth oblong ... the teeth small’. None of these characters applies to 
Cuvier’s ascensionis. However, Osbeck’s description agrees well with another car- 
angid locally abundant at Ascension that Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 30) described 
from Brazil as Scomber dentex. The original description and a photograph of the 
holotype (catalogue no. ZMB 14112 in the Humboldt Museum in Berlin), kindly 
provided by Dr H.-J. Paepke, leave no doubt as to the identity of S. dentex. Sixteen 
junior names (a list of which is held by the Commission Secretariat) have been 
proposed for this commercially important and broadly distributed antitropical 
species but it has usually been referred to as Caranx (or Pseudocaranx) dentex in 
recent works. Examples of usage of this name are Barnard (1927, p. 546), Hureau & 
Monod (1973), Smith-Vaniz & Berry (1978), Smith-Vaniz, Bauchot & Desoutter 
(1979, p. 6), Gushiken (1983), Masuda et al. (1984), Seki (1984), Smith-Vaniz (1984, 
1986a, 1986b), Smith & Heemstra (1986, p. 654), Edwards & Glass (1987, p. 1380), 
Paxton, Hoese, Allen & Hanley (1989, p. 582), Randall, Smith & Feinberg (1990, 
p. 20) and Yamaoka, Han & Taniguchi (1992). Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 
1801 is the type species by monotypy of Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863 (p. 82). 

4. Wheeler (1963) used the name Scomber glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 as a senior 
synonym of ‘Caranx adscensionis (Osbeck, 1771)’, and did not mention S. dentex 
Bloch & Schneider. He stated that adscensionis had been accepted by many authors 
(he listed four references) for a widely distributed southern Atlantic carangid. We 
have found eight references in which Osbeck’s name was used rather than dentex: 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 325 


Cuvier & Valenciennes (1833, p. 103), Fowler (1936, pp. 693, 699), Lozano y Rey 
(1952), Albuquerque (1954), Blanc & Bauchot (1961, pp. 489, fig. 8), Smith (1965), 
Smith & Smith (1966), and Blache, Cadenat & Stauch (1970, p. 312). In the following 
eight references the authors applied Osbeck’s name, most using the combination 
“Caranx ascensionis [sic] (Osbeck)’, to the other carangid fish from Ascension that 
Cuvier (1833, p. 102) named C. ascensionis (now widely known as Caranx lugubris 
Poey, [1860]; see para. 7 below): Clark (1915, p. 385), Fowler (1925, 1927, 1928, 
1931), Fowler & Ball (1925), Schultz (1943, pp. 86, 88-89) and Harry (1953, p. 128). 
Additional confusion was introduced by Fowler (1949, p. 77) whose synonymy for 
“Caranx ascensionis (Osbeck)’ included references that apply to both dentex and 
lugubris. Under the heading Caranx ascensionis, Gunther (1860, p. 432; 1876, p. 132, 
pl. 85) had listed “?Scomber ascensionis Osbeck’ and *Caranx ascensionis Forst.’ and 
“Cuv. & Val.’. 

5. Further difficulty was created by Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 33) in their 
description of Scomber glaucus Linnaeus which included the following statement: ‘Ab 
hoc utroque, si vere idem est, diversum facit Scombrum Adscensionis ab Osbeckio 
descriptum p. 387 quem Linnaeus cum glauco conjunxit, J.R. Forster Ms. IV. 83.’ 
[From both of these, if truly the same, Linnaeus takes Scomber adscensionis from 
Osbeck, p. 387, which he united with g/aucus]. This has been erroneously interpreted 
by some authors as having made available the name adscensionis, which was then 
cited as Scomber ascensionis Bloch & Schneider, 1801 or credited to Forster in the 
same work. 

6. We agree with Wheeler’s (1963) conclusion that the name Scomber glaucus 
Linnaeus refers in part to the same taxon as ‘Caranx adscensionis (Osbeck)’, but 
recognition of glaucus as the valid name in place of dentex Bloch & Schneider would 
result in considerable confusion and nomenclatural instability. In the 230 years since 
Linnaeus introduced the name it has never been applied to a species of Caranx. 
Instead, some authors have used the combination Trachinotus glaucus (Linnaeus) for 
the species now widely known as Trachinotus ovatus (Linnaeus, 1758) (p. 296; 
published as Gasterosteus ovatus), while others have used it for Trachinotus goodei 
Jordan & Evermann, 1896 (p. 943; described from the ‘West Indies, north to west 
Florida’). The name ovatus has been adopted by, for example, Hureau & Monod 
(1973), Smith-Vaniz & Berry (1978), Smith-Vaniz, Bauchot & Desoutter (1979), 
Smith-Vaniz (1986b), Smith-Vaniz, Quéro & Desoutter (1990) and Robins et al. 
(1991a). Wheeler (1991, p. 173, fig. 12) identified specimen ZIU 202 [93] in the 
Linnaean fish collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of Uppsala as 
the holotype of 7. ovatus. We propose that Scomber glaucus Linnaeus, 1758 be 
suppressed and, to avoid uncertainty in the future, that “Scomber adscensionis 
Osbeck, 1771’ be placed on the Official Index and Gasterosteus ovatus Linnaeus, 1758 
on the Official List. 

7. Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (p. 222) (see Norman, 1938, pp. 135-137 for the 
dates of publication of Poey’s works) was described from Cuba and compared to 
Caranx ascensionis Cuvier (authorship credited by Poey to Forster) which Poey 
wrongly believed to represent a different species. Poey’s type specimen (760 mm total 
length) is probably not extant (it was not listed by Howell-Rivero, 1938). Poey 
({1866], p. 328) placed both his own species of [1860], C. /ugubris and C. frontalis, in 
the synonymy of ascensionis and referred to Cuvier (1833, p. 102, pl. 249). Poey 


326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


(1875, p. 150) again listed all three names but gave the combination Carangus lugubris 
in bold type, indicating that it was the valid name, and noted that Cuvier’s name 
C. ascensionis had been used for a different species (i.e. dentex Bloch & Schneider) 
described earlier by Osbeck. In his discussion of Forster’s fish drawings and 
paintings, Wheeler (1981, p. 791) correctly noted that Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] 
and Caranx ascensionis Cuvier both apply to the same species, the latter name having 
priority. We know of only three other references in which Cuvier’s name has been 
adopted as the valid name (Cunningham, 1910, pp. 91, 103; Zugmayer, 1911, p. 106; 
Randall, Smith & Feinberg, 1990, p. 20), the last-mentioned quoting Wheeler as the 
basis for the usage. Randall, Allen & Steene (1990), however, reverted to the use of 
Caranx lugubris. 

8. In their monumental work on the fishes of North and Middle America, Jordan 
& Evermann (1896, p. 925) treated Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] as valid. Although 
these authors were aware of the description of Caranx ascensionis Cuvier (listing the 
name as a synonym) they obviously considered it to be an invalid junior secondary 
homonym in Caranx. In their synonymy of C. /ugubris, Jordan & Evermann began 
with the following entry: ‘Scomber ascensionis, Bloch & Schneider, Syst. Ichth., 33, 
1801; not Scomber ascensionis of Osbeck, which may be Caranx guara’. 

9. The overwhelming majority of subsequent authors have followed Jordan & 
Evermann (1896) in recognizing Caranx lugubris as the valid name. As already noted 
(para. 1), Osbeck’s ‘Caranx adscensionis’ is not an available name but it has been 
used, often spelt ‘ascensionis’, and Cuvier’s C. ascensionis has been treated as a junior 
homonym. Such widely followed references as the American Fisheries Society’s list of 
common and scientific names of fishes (Robins at al., 1991b and earlier editions), 
Smith (1965), CLOFNAM (Hureau & Monod, 1973, p. 374), FAO species identifi- 
cation sheets (Smith-Vaniz & Berry, 1978; Smith-Vaniz, 1984), Masuda et al. (1984), 
Smith and Heemstra (1986, p. 647), and Paxton, Hoese, Allen & Hanley (1989, 
p. 577) have all adopted Caranx lugubris. In a far-from-complete search we found a 
total of 80 references in which this name was adopted; a list of these references is held 
by the Commission Secretariat. Smith-Vaniz (1984, 1986a) noted the priority of 
Cuvier’s name, that C. /ugubris had had much greater usage in both the fishery and 
taxonomic literature, and that in the interest of nomenclatural uniformity and 
stability /ugubris should be retained. 

10. 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) glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scomber glaucus; 
(b) ascensionis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833, as published in the 
binomen Caranx ascensionis; 

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 
Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 
Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: 
(a) dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen Scomber 

dentex (specific name of the type species of Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863); 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 327 


(b) Jugubris Poey, [1860], as published in the binomen Caranx lugubris; 

(c) ovatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Gasterosteus ovatus 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in 

Zoology the following names: 

(a) glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scomber glaucus and 
as suppressed in (1)(a) above; 

(b) ascensionis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833, as published in the 
binomen Caranx ascensionis and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; 

(c) adscensionis Osbeck, 1771, as published in the binomen Scomber 
adscensionis (an unavailable name). 


References 


Albuquerque, R.M. 1954. Peixes de Portugal e ilhas adjacentes. Chavas para a sua determi- 
nagao. Portugaliae acta biologica, (B)5: 1-1167. 

Artedi, P. 1738. Ichthyologia sive opera omnia de Piscibus ..., C. Linnaeus (Ed.). 5 parts. 
Lugduni Batavorum. 

Barnard, K.H. 1927. A monograph of the marine fishes of South Africa. Part 2. Annals of the 
South African Museum, 21(2): 417-1065. 

Blache, J., Cadenat, J. & Stauch, A. 1970. Clés de détermination des poissons de mer signalés 
dans l’atlantique oriental (entre le 20e paralléle Nord et le 15e paralléle Sud). Faune 
Tropicale, 18: 1-479. 

Blanc, M. & Bauchot, M.L. 1961. Sur quatre genres de Carangidae (Téléostéens Perciformes) 
de la Céte Occidentale d’Afrique; Decapterus, Caranx, Trachurus, Suraeus. Bulletin du 
Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (2)32(6): 484-497. 

Bleeker, P. 1863. Mémoire sur les poissons de la céte de Guinée. Natuurkundige Verhandelin- 
gen van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem, (2)18: 1-136. 
Bloch, M.E. & Schneider, J.G. 1801. Systema ichthyologiae iconibus cx illustratum ..., vol. 1. 1x, 

584 pp. Berlin. 

Clark, R.S. 1915. Atlantic fishes of the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. Report on the 
Scientific Results. Scottish National Antarctic Expedition. S. Y. Scotia 1902-1904, 4(16): 
379-401. 

Cunningham, J.T. 1910. On the marine fishes and invertebrates of St. Helena. Proceedings of 
the Zoological Society of London, 1910: 86-131. 

Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A. 1833. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 9. 512 pp. Paris. 

Edwards, A.J. & Glass, C.W. 1987. The fishes of Saint Helena Island, South Atlantic Ocean. 
2. The pelagic fishes. Journal of Natural History, 21(6): 1367-1394. 

Fowler, H.W. 1925. Fishes of Guam, Hawaii, Samoa, and Tahiti. Bulletin of the Bernice P. 
Bishop Museum, 22: \-38. 

Fowler, H.W. 1927. Fishes of the tropical central Pacific. Bulletin of the Bernice P. Bishop 
Museum, 38: 1-32. 

Fowler, H.W. 1928. The fishes of Oceania. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 10: 
1-540. 

Fowler, H.W. 1931. The fishes of Oceania — Supplement 1. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop 
Museum, 11: 313-381. 

Fowler, H.W. 1936. The marine fishes of West Africa based on the collection of the American 
Museum Congo Expedition, 1909-1915. Part 2. Bulletin of the American Museum of 
Natural History, 70(2): 607-1493. 

Fowler, H.W. 1949. The fishes of Oceania — Supplement 3. Memoirs of the Bernice P. Bishop 
Museum, 12(2): 37-186. 

Fowler, H.W. & Ball, S.C. 1925. Fishes of Hawaii, Johnston Island, and Wake Island. Bulletin 
of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum, 26: 1-31. 


328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1860. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 2. 548 pp. British 
Museum, London. 

Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1876. Andrew Garrett’s Fische der Siidsee. Heft 5. Journal of the Museum 
Godeffroy, 2(11): 129-216. 

Giinther, A.C.L.G. 1880. Report on the shore fishes procured during the voyage of H.M.S. 
Challenger in the years 1873-1876. Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of H.M.S. 
Challenger 1873-76, Zoology, 1(6): 1-82. 

Gushiken, S. 1983. Revision of the carangid fishes of Japan. Galaxea, 2: 135-264. 

Harry, R.R. 1953. Ichthyological field data of Raroia Atoll, Tuamotu Archipelago. Atoll 
Research Bulletin, 18: 1-190. 

Howell y Rivero, L. 1938. List of the fishes, types of Poey, in the Museum of Comparative 
Zoology. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology (Harvard University), 82(3): 
169-227. 

Hureau, J.C. & Monod, T. (Eds.). 1973. Check-list of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and 
of the Mediterranean (CLOFNAM), vol. 1. xxii, 683 pp. UNESCO, Paris. 

Jordan, D.S. & Evermann, B.W. 1896. The fishes of North and Middle America: a descriptive 
catalogue of the species of fish-like vertebrates found in the waters of North America, 
north of the Isthmus of Panama. Part 1. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 
47: 1-1240. 

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

Linnaeus, C. 1764. Museum S:ae R:ae M:tis Adolphi Friderici Regis ... Aves, Amphibia, Pisces 
describuntur. Tomi Secundi Prodromus. \\1\ pp. Salvii, Holmiae. 

Lozano y Rey, L. 1952. Pesces fisoclistos, subserie toracicos. Memorias de la Real Academia de 
Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales de Madrid (Serie de Ciencias Naturales), 14: 379-705. 

Masuda, H., Amaoka, K., Araga, C., Uyeno, T. & Yoshino, T. (Eds.). 1984. The fishes of the 
Japanese Archipelago. 370 pp. Tokyo. 

Norman, J.R. 1938. Notes on the dates etc. of the ‘Memorias’, ‘Repertorio’, ‘Synopsis’ and 
‘Enumeratorio’ of Felipe Poey. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural 
History, 1(5): 135-137. 

Osbeck, P. 1757. Dagbok éfver en Ostindisk Resa aren 1750, 1751, 1752 ... [6], 376, [16] pp. 
Stockholm. 

Osbeck, P. 1765. Reisenach Ostindien und China, Ed. 2. xxiv, 552 pp., 13 pls. Rostock. [A 
translation by J.G. Georgi from the 1757 Swedish work]. 

Osbeck, P. 1771. A voyage to China and the East Indies, vol. 2. 147 pp. London. [Translated 
by J.R. Forster from the 1765 German version]. 

Paxton, J.R., Hoese, D.F., Allen, G.R. & Hanley, J.E. 1989. Zoological catalogue of Australia, 
vol. 7 (Pisces. Petromyzontidae to Carangidae). 665 pp. Australian Government 
Publishing Service, Canberra. 

Poey, F. [1860], [1861]. Poissons de Cuba. Pp. 115-336 [1860], 337-356 [1861] in: Memorias 
sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba, acompanadas de sumarios Latinos y extractos 
en Francés, vol. 2. Habana. 

Poey, F. [1866]. Revista de los tipos Cuvierianos y Valenciennianos correspondientes 4 los 
Peces de la isla de Cuba. Pp. 308-338 in: Repertorio Fisico-natural de la Isla de Cuba, 
vol. 1. Habana. 

Poey, F. 1875. Enumeratio Piscium Cubensium. Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia 
Natural, 4(1): 75-161. 

Randall, J.E., Allen, G.R. & Steene, R.C. 1990. Fishes of the Great Barrier Reef and Coral Sea. 
xx, 507 pp., 7 pls., 1314 figs. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 

Randall, J.E., Smith, C.L. & Feinberg, M.N. 1990. Report on fish collections from Rapa, 
French Polynesia. American Museum Novitates, 2966: 1-44. 

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 
1991a. World fishes important to North Americans. American Fisheries Society. Special 
Publication, 21: 1-243. 

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B. 
1991b. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and 
Canada, Ed. 5. American Fisheries Society. Special Publication, 20: \—-183. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 329 


Schultz, L.P. 1943. Fishes of the Phoenix and Samoan Islands collected in 1939 during the 
expedition of the U.S.S. Bushnell. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 180: 
1-316. 

Seale, A. 1901. Report of a mission to Guam. Part 2 — Fishes. Occasional Papers of the Bernice 
P. Bishop Museum, 1(3): 61-128. 

Seki, M.P. 1984. The food and feeding habits of the white trevally, Pseudocaranx dentex 
(Bloch and Schneider 1801), in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Pp. 192-208 in Grigg, 
R.W. & Tanoue, K.Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Second Symposium on Resource 
Investigations in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands, vol. 2. University of Hawaii Sea Grant 
College Program, Honolulu. 

Smith, J.L.B. 1965. The sea fishes of Southern Africa. 580 pp. Cape Town. 

Smith, J.L.B. & Smith, M.M. 1966. Fishes of the Tsitsikama Coastal National Park. 161 pp. 
Johannesburg. 

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. 1. 
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F. 1986a. Carangidae. Pp. 638-661 in Smith, M.M. & Heemstra, P.C. (Eds.), 
Smiths’ sea fishes. xx, 1047 pp., 144 pls., text figs. Macmillan South Africa, Johannesburg. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F. 1986b. Carangidae. Pp. 815-844 in Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L., 
Hureau, J.-C., Nielsen, J. & Tortonese, E. (Eds.), Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and 
the Mediterranean, vol. 2. UNESCO, Paris. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F., Bauchot, M.L. & Desoutter, M. 1979. Catalogue critiques des types de 
poissons du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (suite). Familles des Carangidae et des 
Nematistiidae. Bulletin Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Section A (Zoologie), (4)1, 
Supplement 2: 1-66. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F. & Berry, F.H. 1978. Carangidae. Jn Fischer, W., Bianchi, G. & Scott, W.B. 
(Eds.), FAO species identification sheets, eastern central Atlantic, vol. 1. Food and 
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome. 

Smith-Vaniz, W.F., Quéro, J.C. & Desoutter, M. 1990. Carangidae. Pp. 729-755 in Quéro, J.C., 
Hureau, J.-C., Karrer, C., Post, A. & Saldanha, L. (Eds.), Check-list of the fishes of the 
eastern tropical Atlantic, vol. 2. JNICT, Portugal. 

Streets, T.H. 1877. Contributions to the natural history of the Hawaiian and Fanning Islands 
and Lower California. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 7: \-172. 

Wheeler, A. 1963. The nomenclature of the European fishes of the subfamily Trachinotinae. 
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (13)5(57): 529-540. 

Wheeler, A. 1981. The Forsters’ fishes. Pp. 781-806 in James Cook, The Journal of H.M.S. 
Resolution 1772-1775. Genesis Publications, Guildford. 

Wheeler, A. 1991. The Linnaean fish collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of 
Uppsala. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 103: 145-195. 

Yamaoka, K., Han, H.-S. & Taniguchi, N. 1992. Genetic dimorphism in Pseudocaranx dentex 
from Tosa Bay, Japan. Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi, 58(1): 39-44. 

Zugmayer, E. 1911. Poissons provenant des campagnes du Yacht Princesse-Alice (1901-1910). 
Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies sur son yacht par Prince Albert ler, 35: 
1-174. 


330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2877 


Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed 
conservation 


Hobart M. Smith 


Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, 
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. 


Van Wallach 


Department of Herpetology, Museum of Comparative Zoology, 
Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. 
(Present address 4 Potter Park, Cambridge, MA 02138, U.S.A.) 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Lycognathophis 
Boulenger, 1893, a genus of snake from the Seychelles. The name is consistently used 
but is a junior objective synonym of Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843, for which 
suppression is proposed. 


1. Psammophis seychellensis Schlegel, 1837 (p. 155) is probably the only endemic 
snake species of the Seychelle Islands (Nussbaum, 1984). The species was assigned to 
various polytypic genera in its early history (see Dowling, 1990), and was first placed 
in a genus of its own by Fitzinger (1843, p. 26), who named it Scopelophis. That name 
was not used, however, until 1990 when Dowling revived it. Its neglect was initially 
due to rejection of availability of generic names such as Fitzinger’s which were 
published without description but which included previously described species. 

2. Boulenger (1893, p. 317) also concluded that P. seychellensis was generically 
unique and proposed the name Lycognathophis for it. Since then the species has 
consistently been known as Lycognathophis seychellensis. Dowling (1990) revived 
Scopelophis for it, stating that ‘Inasmuch as this invalid (and misleading) name 
[Lycognathophis] has appeared in relatively few publications, and placing it in 
synonymy will have little overall effect on the taxonomic literature, I here refer 
Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 to the synonymy of Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843’. 
However, the title of Dowling’s publication mentioned only Lycognathophis. 

3. On the contrary, Lycognathophis has been used consistently as a valid name for 
a century, during which time Scopelophis had not been used at all. Boulenger’s name 
has appeared in at least 23 works by 21 different authors between 1893 and 1991 (e.g. 
Vesey-FitzGerald, 1948; Honegger, 1966; Underwood, 1967; Gaymer, 1968; Blanc, 
1971; Dowling & Duellman, 1978; Welch, 1982; Nussbaum, 1984; McDowell, 1987; 
Coborn, 1991). The full list of references, held by the Commission Secretariat, is 
certainly not exhaustive, especially for the popular writings. 

4. The span and frequency of usages for these two names overwhelmingly justify 
invoking Article 79(c) of the Code, since ‘the senior name has not been used as a valid 
name during the immediately preceding fifty years’ and the junior name has been 
applied ‘... by at least 5 different authors and in at least 10 publications during the 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 331 


same period’. We regard the usages of Lycognathophis cited above as distinctly more 
than ‘relatively few’ publications, and also point out that a number of those cited are 
highly influential synoptic works, as for example Welch (1982), Nussbaum (1984) and 
Williams & Wallach (1989). We therefore view the revival of Scopelophis as an 
unnecessary, undesirable and significant threat to nomenclatural stability. 

5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly 

asked: 

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Scopelophis Fitzinger, 
1843 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 
Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (gender: masculine), type species by mono- 
typy Psammophis seychellensis Schlegel, 1837; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name 
seychellensis Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Psammophis 
seychellensis (specific name of the type species of Lycognathophis Boulenger, 
1893); 

(4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the 
name Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843, as suppressed in (1) above. 


References 


Blanc, C.P. 1971. Les reptiles de Madagascar et des iles voisines. Annales de I’ Université de 
Madagascar, 8: 95-178. 

Boulenger, G.A. 1893. Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum ( Natural History), vol. 1. 
xili, 448 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Coborn, J. 1991. The atlas of snakes of the world. 591 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City. 

Dowling, H.G. 1990. Taxonomic status and relationship of the genus Lycognathophis. 
Herpetologica, 46: 60-66. 
Dowling, H.G. & Duellman, W.E. 1978. Systematic herpetology: a synopsis of families and 
higher categories. 118 pp. Herpetological Information & Search Service, New York. 
Fitzinger, L.J.F.J. 1843. Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus (Amblyglossae). 106, vi pp. 
Braumiuller & Seidel, Vindobonae. 

Gaymer, R. 1968. Amphibians and reptiles of the Seychelles. British Journal of Herpetology, 4: 
24-28. 

Honegger, R.E. 1966. Beobachtungen an der Herpetofauna der Seychellen. Salamandra, 2: 
21-36. 

McDowell, S.B. 1987. Systematics. Pp. 1-50 in Seigel, R.A., Collins, J.T. & Novak, S.S. (Eds.), 
Snakes: ecology and evolutionary biology. Macmillan, New York. 

Nussbaum, R.A. 1984. Snakes of the Seychelles. Pp. 361-377 in Stoddart, D.R. (Ed.), 
Biogeography and ecology of the Seychelles Islands. Junk, The Hague. 

Schlegel, H. 1837. Essai sur la physionomie des serpens, vol. 1 (Partie générale). xxviii, 251 pp. 
Amsterdam. 

Underwood, G. 1967. A contribution to the classification of snakes. 79 pp. British Museum 
(Natural History), London. 

Vesey-FitzGerald, D. 1948. Reptiles and amphibians from the Seychelles Archipelago. Annals 
and Magazine of Natural History, (2)14: 577-583. 

Welch, K.R.G. 1982. Herpetology of Africa: a checklist and bibliography of the orders 
Amphisbaenia, Sauria and Serpentes. x, 293 pp. Krieger, Florida. 

Williams, K.L. & Wallach, V. 1989. Snakes of the world, vol. 1 (Synopsis of snake generic 
names). viii, 234 pp. Krieger, Florida. 


332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Case 2953 


Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, Primates): 
proposed conservation 


Anthea Gentry 


clo The Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. 


Colin P. Groves 


Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National 
University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia 


J.E. Hill 
12 Penlee Close, Edenbridge, Kent TN8 5NA, U.K. 


Paulina D. Jenkins 


Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, 
London SW7 SBD, U.K. 


Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Loris E. Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire, 1796 for the slender loris (Primates, family LormIDAE Gray, 1821) of 
Sri Lanka and southern India. The name is threatened by the senior subjective 
synonym Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785. The latter has been treated as a junior 
homonym of the sloth name Tardigradus Brisson, 1762 and only once (in 1902) used 
as valid. 


1. The proposed rejection of Brisson’s (1762) work Regnum Animale (Case 2928; 
BZN 51: 135-146) renders the name Tardigradus Brisson, 1762 (pp. 12, 21) (sloths, 
Xenarthra) unavailable and its conservation is not proposed. Brisson’s genus 
included both the three-toed and two-toed sloths. The name Bradypus Linnaeus, 1758 
(p. 34; type species B. tridactylus Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation by Miller 
& Rehn, 1901, p. 8) is currently in use for the three-toed sloths, and Choloepus Illiger, 
1811 (p. 108; type species B. didactylus Linnaeus, 1758 by subsequent designation by 
Gray, 1827, p. 275) is in use for the two-toed sloths. On rejection of the (1762) work 
Tardigradus Brisson will cease to preoccupy Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785 (pp. 43, 67) 
and the latter would become the valid generic name for the slender loris of Sri Lanka 
and southern India, currently called Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796. A change 
of generic name to Tardigradus would also have implications for the family name 
LORIDAE Gray, 1821. 

2. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1796, pp. 48, 49; see also the description on pp. 29-32) 
included two nominal species in his genus Loris, ‘Loris tardigradus’ with a reference 
to Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 29), and the new nominal species Loris 
gracilis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 which was based on an illustrated description 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 333 


by Buffon & Daubenton (1770, pp. 111-118, pls. 31-33). As has been pointed out by 
a number of authors (see, for example, Stone & Rehn, 1902, p. 138; Palmer, 1904, 
p. 384, footnote; W.C.O. Hill, 1933, p. 90; Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951, p. 190), 
Geoffroy’s name gracilis refers to the slender loris and is therefore a junior synonym 
of tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758, whilst his ‘tardigradus’ is a misidentification of 
Linnaeus’s taxon and refers to the slow loris of south-east Asia. In 1812 Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire (p. 163) restricted Loris to the single species L. gracilis and placed his 
misidentified ‘tardigradus’ (under the new name bengalensis) in the new genus 
Nycticebus, the name of which is currently in use for the slow lorises. Geoffroy’s 
original error in his use of the name tardigradus was unfortunately followed during 
the 19th and early 20th centuries and Nycticebus tardigradus was used for the slow 
loris (currently called Nycticebus coucang (Boddaert, 1785), a senior synonym of 
N. bengalensis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812). 
3. Linnaeus (1758) described the nominal species Lemur tardigradus and included 
four previous references: 
L. ecaudatus. Mus[eum] Adfolphi] Frifderici], [Class] 1, p. 3. 
Simia ecaudata, unguibus indicis subulatis. Syst[ema] na[urae], [Ed. 6], p. 5 
[recte p. 3], no. 2. 
Animal cynocephalum tardigradum. Seb[a] mus., vol. 1, p. 55, pl. 35, figs. 1, 2 
& pl. 47, fig. 1. 
Animal elegantissimum robinsoni. Raj [Ray] [Synopsis methodica animalium] 
quadr{upedum] ..., p. 161. 


All four of these references refer to the slender loris. Ray (1693), Seba (1734) and 
Linnaeus (1754, 1758) gave the locality of the species as ‘Ceylon’. 

4. In 1811 Illiger (p. 73) proposed the replacement name Stenops for Loris 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire and gave Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus as the type. This is a 
valid fixation of type species for Loris also (Article 67h of the Code). Recognition of 
the type as tardigradus sensu Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (as opposed to the true 
tardigradus Linnaeus, i.e. gracilis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire) would cause the transfer 
of the generic name from the slender to the slow lorises. Thomas (1911, p. 129) noted 
‘L. tardigradus [Linnaeus has] been made the type of Loris Geoffroy, 1796’. He also 
noted that, on the authority of Lénnberg (curator at the Uppsala museum), the 
specimen recorded in Linnaeus’s (1754) catalogue Museum Adolphi Friderici, which 
could have been one of those illustrated by Seba (1734), was present in the Linnaean 
collection. One of us (C.P.G.) has seen this specimen in the Linnaeus House in 
Uppsala. It is almost certainly a Seba specimen. 

5. Stone & Rehn (1902, p. 138) designated ‘Tardigradus loris Boddaert, 1785 = 
Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758’ as the type species of Tardigradus Boddaert and 
adopted the latter as the generic name for the slender loris. The use of Boddaert’s 
name Tardigradus rather than Loris has not been followed by other authors. The 
name Loris has appeared in works on primate biology, ecology and conservation, as 
well as taxonomy. Recent works in which the name has been used include Corbet & 
J.E. Hill (1991, p. 93; 1992, p. 162), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 190), 
Groves (1989, p. 98; 1993, p. 248), Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl (1982, p. 220), 
Jenkins (1987, pp. 136-143) and Nowak (1991, p. 404). Ever since Illiger (1811) and 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1812) Loris has been regarded as containing only the single 


334 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


species L. tardigradus (Linnaeus, 1758), i.e. L. gracilis E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 
1796. To maintain the usage of the name Loris we propose that Tardigradus Boddaert 
be suppressed. 

6. The replacement name Stenops Illiger, 1811 was used by some authors in the 
early 19th century (see W.C.O. Hill, 1933). The name Loridium Rafinesque, 1815 
(p. 54) was a further replacement for Loris which has never been used. 

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785 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 Loris E. 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (gender: masculine), type species (under Article 
67h of the Code) by subsequent designation by Illiger (1811) Lemur tardigradus 
Linnaeus, 1758; 

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tardigradus 
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Lemur tardigradus (specific name 
of the type species of Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796); 

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in 
Zoology the following names: 

(a) Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785, as suppressed in (1) above; 

(b) Stenops Illiger, 1811 (a junior objective synonym of Loris E. Geoffroy 
Saint-Hilaire, 1796); 

(c) Loridium Rafinesque, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Loris E. 
Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796). 


References 


Boddaert, P. 1785. Elenchus Animalium, vol. | (Sistens Quadrupedia). Pp. 43-174. Rotterdam. 

Brisson, M.J. 1762. Regnum Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica ..., Ed. 
2. 296 pp. Haak, Leiden. 

Buffon, G.L.L. de & Daubenton, L.J.M. 1770. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére, avec la 
description du Cabinet du Roi, Ed. 2, vol. 13. 317 pp., 57 pls. Paris. 

Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species, Ed. 3. viii, 243 pp. Natural 
History Museum, London. 

Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. 
488 pp., 45 figs., 177 maps. Natural History Museum, London. 

Ellerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 
1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1796. Mémoire sur les rapports naturels des makis, Lemur L. et 
description d’une espéce nouvelle de mammifére. Magasin Encyclopédique, .ou journal des 
sciences, des lettres et des arts, (2)1(1): 20-50. 

Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1812. Suite au tableau des quadrumanes. Second famille. Lemuriens. 
Strepsirrhini. Annales du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 19: 156-170. 
Gray, J.E. 1821. On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals. London Medical 

Repository, 15(1): 296-310. 

[Gray, J.E.] 1827. Synopsis of the species of the Class Mammalia, as arranged with reference 
to their organisation by Cuvier, and other naturalists, with specific characters, synonyma, 
&c &c. Vol. 5 in Griffith, E., Smith, C.H. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom 
arranged in conformity with its organisation, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional 
descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed. 391 pp. 
Whittaker, London. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 335 


Groves, C.P. 1989. A theory of human and primate evolution. xii, 375 pp. Clarendon Press, 
Oxford. 

Groves, C.P. 1993. Order Primates. Pp. 243-277 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.A.M. (Eds.), 
Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, Ed. 2. xviii, 1206 pp. 
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London. 

Hill, W.C.O. 1933. A monograph on the genus Loris. With an account of the external, cranial 
and dental characters of the genus: a revision of the known forms; and the description 
of a new form from northern Ceylon. Ceylon Journal of Science, (B, Zoology & 
Geology)18(1): 89-132. 

Honacki, J.H., Kinman, K.E. & Koeppl, J.W. (Eds.). 1982. Mammal species of the world. ix, 694 
pp. Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 

Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus systematis Mammalium et Avium ... xviii, 301 pp. Berlin. 
Jenkins, P.D. 1987. Catalogue of primates in the British Museum (Natural History) and 
elsewhere in the British Isles. x, 189 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. 
Linnaeus, C. 1754. Classis 1. Quadrupedia. Pp. 1-12 in: Museum S:rae R:ae M:tis Adolphi 
Friderici Regis ... Quadrupedia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces, Insecta, Vermes describuntur et 

determinantur. xxx, 96, [8] pp., 33 pls. Holmiae. 

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

Miller, G.S. & Rehn, J.A.G. 1901. Systematic results of the study of North American land 
mammals to the close of the year 1900. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural 
History, 30(1): 1-352. 

Nowak, R.M. (Ed.). 1991. Walker’s mammals of the world, Ed. 5. 1629 pp. (in 2 vols.). Johns 
Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London. 

Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index Generum Mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals, 
vol. 1 (A-O). Pp. 1-492. United States Department of Agriculture, Biological Survey 
Division, Washington. North American Fauna, No. 23. 

Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature ... 214 pp. Author, Palermo. 

Ray, J. 1693. Synopsis methodica animalium Quadrupedum et Serpentini generis. 336 pp. 
London. 

Seba, A. 1734. Locupletissimi rerum naturalium thesauri accurata descriptio, et iconibus 
artificiosissimus expressio, per universam physices historiam..., vol. 1. [27], 178 pp., 111 pls. 
Amsterdam. (See Holthuis, L.B. 1969. Zoologische Mededelingen, 43(19): 239-152 for the 
dates of publication of the four vols. of Seba’s work). 

Stone, W. & Rehn, J.A.G. 1902. A collection of mammals from Sumatra, with a review of the 
genera Nycticebus and Tragulus. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of 
Philadelphia, 54(1): 127-142. 

Thomas, O. 1911. The mammals of the tenth edition of Linnaeus; an attempt to fix the types 
of the genera and the exact bases and localities of the species. Proceedings of the 
Zoological Society of London, 1911: 120-158. 


336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri 
Sods, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) 
(Case 2870; see BZN 51: 105-107) 


(1) P. Bouchet 
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France 


I object to the proposal by Dr Gittenberger to suppress five specific names 
introduced between 1881 and 1884 in order to conserve the name Xerophila geyeri 
Soos, 1926. 

1. The senior names have not been used as valid in the last 50 years but they have 
not remained forgotten after their publication. Helix arceuthophila and H. ycaunica, 
both of Mabille (1881), were cited as valid species by Locard (1882, pp. 103, 106; 
1894, p. 157) and Westerlund (1889, pp. 254, 255). They were also listed in the 
synonymy of Helicella ramburi (Mabille, 1867) by Germain (1928, p. 303; 1930, 
p. 276) and Richardson (1980, p. 94, who erroneously dated the names from 1867). 
Helix vicianica Bourguignat in Locard, 1882, was recorded by Zoological Record for 
1882 (Martens, 1883, p. 69) and listed as a valid species by Westerlund (1889, p. 254) 
and Locard (1894, p. 161). This nominal species was placed in the synonymy of 
Helicella rugosiuscula (Michaud, 1831) by Germain (1928, p. 308; 1930, p. 277) and 
Richardson (1980, p. 96). The nominal species Helix deana and H. pleurestha, both 
of Berthier (1884), recorded by Zoological Record for 1884 (Martens, 1885, p. 68), 
were listed as a single, valid species by Westerlund (1889, pp. 237, 238) and Locard 
(1894, p. 156). The names were placed in the synonymy of Helicella striata (Miller, 
1774) by Germain (1928, p. 314; 1930, p. 280) and Richardson (1980, pp. 181, 182). 
All five names were listed by Pilsbry (1894, p. 256) as ‘insufficiently known forms’ [of 
Helicella}. 

2. The problem posed by these names is thus not that they have been forgotten but 
that they have been misinterpreted and erroneously treated as synonyms of other 
taxa. Admittedly this misinterpretation is understandable; the original descriptions 
were not accompanied by illustrations and important characters of the genitalia 
were not described. However, authors working on Pleistocene faunas have 
used Trochoidea geyeri in palaeoclimatic reconstructions, naturally basing their 
identifications on shell characters alone. The identity of the names H. ycaunica, 
arceuthophila, vicianica, deana and pleurestha could therefore very well have been 
interpreted from shell characters only. The Bourguignat collection has been in the 
Geneva museum for more than a century, and the types of the nominal species now 
under discussion were available for examination. It would seem simply that, prior to 
Gittenberger, no one has cared to do so. 

3. It is true that many nominal taxa were introduced by Mabille, Locard, Servain 
and other members of Bourguignat’s ‘Nouvelle Ecole’, but the same can be said of 
Westerlund, Pallary, Monterosato and others. That many of them are indeed 
synonyms is no justification to reject in bulk all the names introduced by these 
authors. Gittenberger’s attitude (para. 3 of the application) is explained, but not 
excused, by several decades of bias against, and deliberate ignorance of, the works 
and taxa of these authors. However, a basic principle of nomenclature is that each 
work and each name has to be evaluated on an individual basis on its own merit. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 337 


After a long period during which all ‘Nouvelle Ecole’ names were systematically 
lumped into the synonymy of classical European species, the pendulum is now 
swinging back. Some names are being rehabilitated as a result of recent critical work. 
In this respect, it is worth citing de Winter (1990, p. 230) from his paper rehabilitating 
the name Helix phorochaetica Bourguignat, 1864: “Notwithstanding the good 
description and figures provided by Bourguignat (1864), the species was placed by 
both Hesse (1921) and Germain (1930) in the synonymy of Trichia villosa, no doubt 
because of Bourguignat’s reputation’. And also, about hygromiid species described 
from Portugal by ‘Nouvelle Ecole’ authors: ‘It turned out that Nobre (1930, 1941) 
has synonymized several nominal taxa somewhat too easily, thus burying some valid 
species’ (Gittenberger, 1993, p. 283). 

4. Gittenberger gives 25 references of publications where the name Trochoidea 
geyeri has been used during the last 50 years. Strictly speaking, this fulfils the 
requirements of Article 79c(2) but this limited usage demonstrates that the species 
remains little known outside a small circle of specialist workers. 

5. Finally, I wish to place Dr Gittenberger’s application in the wider perspective of 
the taxonomy of Palaearctic pulmonates. Although “Digging in the graveyard of 
synonymy’ (Gittenberger, 1993) may not be the most innovative part of taxonomical 
research, many more names of Palaearctic Pulmonata, especially HELICOIDEA, 
introduced by late 19th century authors need to be evaluated and their true identity 
established. Especially in the Alpine and Mediterranean regions, every year new 
species are discovered, new synonymies are established, and ‘old’ species are 
re-evaluated. Due to convergence in shell characters this is particularly true in the 
very speciose family HYGROMIIDAE. This family is currently undergoing major 
taxonomic reappraisals, with the consequence of mevitable name changes at the 
species-, genus- and family-group levels. Thus, nomenclature is not likely to be 
destabilized when the Principle of Priority is applied to the yet unstabilized 
nomenclature of the species of Trochoidea s.1. 

6. Therefore, rather than making a counter proposal, e.g. placing one of Mabille’s 
(1881) names on the Official List, I suggest that the proposals on BZN 51: 106 should 
simply be rejected, and the Principle of the First Reviser should be applied to deal 
with Mabille’s two (1881) names H. arceuthophila and H. ycaunica. 


Additional references 


Germain, L. [1928]. Les Helicidae de la faune frangaise. Archives du Muséum d'Histoire 
Naturelle de Lyon, 13: \|-484. 

Germain, L. 1930. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles (premiere partie). Faune de France, 21: 
1-477. 

Gittenberger, E. 1993. Digging in the graveyard of synonymy, in search of Portuguese 
species of Candidula Kobelt, 1871 (Mollusca: Gastropoda Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). 
Zoologische Mededelingen, 67: 283-293. 

Locard, A. 1894. Les coquilles terrestres de France. Description des familles, genres et espéces. 
370 pp. Bailliére, Paris. 

Martens, E. von. 1883, 1885. The Zoological Record. Mollusca. 96 pp. (1883, for 1882); 86 pp. 
(1885, for 1884). London. 

Pilsbry, H.A. 1895. Manual of conchology, series 2 (Pulmonata), vol. 9, part 36. Pp. 161-336. 
Philadelphia. 

Richardson, L. 1980. Helicidae: catalog of species. Tryonia, 3(1): 1-350. 


338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Westerlund, C.A. 1889. Fauna der in der paldarctischen Region ...lebenden Binnenconchylien. Il. 
Genus Helix. 473, 31 pp. Lund. 


Winter, A.J. de. 1990. Little known land snails from the French Alps (Pulmonata). Basteria, 
54: 227-237. 


(2) Edmund Gittenberger 


Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, NL 2300 RA, Leiden, The 
Netherlands 


Dr Bouchet writes (above) of his reaction to my application to conserve Trochoidea 
geyeri Sods, 1926 by the suppression of five earlier unused synonyms. I disagree with 
him on several points, of which I would like to mention the following in particular 
(following his para. numbers): 

1. The most recent ‘use’ of the earlier names, in Bouchet’s view, is that by 
Richardson (1980) in a very long list of names, composed uncritically and not 
accompanied by descriptions. We have to go far back in time, as shown by Bouchet, 
to find similar (incorrect) citations in synonymy lists. There is no use of the names in 
a real sense. 

3. I did not merely confine myself to names in the literature. I studied the 
‘Nouvelle Ecole’ type specimens. This time-consuming activity was not under- 
taken ‘to reject in bulk all the names’, as Bouchet suggests. As a result of this 
project some senior synonyms which refer to a well-known species were dis- 
covered. I proposed that these should be suppressed to further the stability of 
nomenclature, in line with the Code’s explicit provisions (e.g. the Preamble, 
Articles 23b and 79). Unscientific feelings of loyalty to ancient colleagues should 
be discounted. The fact that among the hundreds of names a few have been found 
that can be currently applied does not demonstrate that ‘the pendulum is now 
swinging back’. 

4. Bouchet concludes that there is ‘limited usage’ of geyeri because I gave only 
25 references to the name. Apparently he thinks, and suggests in his text, that I 
could find only those 25 citations in the literature. This is simply wrong, however. 
I stopped after 25, selecting them from various languages and subdisciplines 
in biology, to indicate frequent usage. I did so advised by the Commission 
Secretariat. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Oken, 
1815 (Crustacea, Copepoda) 
(Case 836; see BZN 50: 273-276) 


(1) Dale W. Rice 


U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
National Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way N.E., Building 4, 
Seattle, Washington 98115-0070, U.S.A. 


I am strongly in favor of the proposal to conserve the generic name Pennella Oken, 
1815. Species of Pennella are common parasites of cetaceans so the name appears 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 339 


frequently in the cetological literature. Cetologists have long been confused as to 
whether the name should be spelled Pennella or Penella. The few authors of papers 
(e.g. Hogans, 1987) on cetacean parasites who attribute the name continue to cite 
Oken (1815), either in ignorance of, or in spite of, Opinion 417 which declared Oken’s 
Lehrbuch (vol. 3) unavailable. This confusion can be resolved only by placing 
Pennella Oken, 1815 on the Official List of Generic Names, and its type species 
P. diodontis Oken, 1815 on the Official List of Specific Names. I know of no counter 
arguments for either proposal. 


Additional reference 


Hogans, W.E. 1987. Morphological variation in Pennella balaenoptera and P. filosa 
(Copepoda: Pennellidae) with a review of the genus Pennella Oken, 1816 parasitic on 
Cetacea. Bulletin of Marine Science, 40(3): 442-453. 


(2) Anthea Gentry 


International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, clo The Natural History 
Museum, London SW7 SBD, U.K. 


Para. 2 of the application records that three names (Stentor, Pan and Panthera) 
have already been conserved from Oken’s (1815-1816) work. A number of other 
names have also been conserved. Bombina Oken, 1816 (Amphibia) was conserved 
in Opinion 453 (March 1957), Anilius Oken, 1816 (Reptilia) in Opinion 651 (April 
1963), Acropora Oken, 1815 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa) in Opinion 674 (October 1963), 
Doto Oken, 1815 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) in Opinion 697 (April 1964), Bugula 
Oken, 1815 and Scruparia Oken, 1815 in Opinion 902 (April 1970), and Halecium 
Oken, 1815 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) in Opinion 1220 (September 1982). An appli- 
cation for the conservation of two further anthozoan names will be published 
shortly. 


Comment on the proposed suppression of the catalogues of A.A.H. Lichtenstein 
(1796, 1797) and D.H. Schneider (1800), with the conservation of some Lichtenstein 
(1796) names (Insecta and Arachnida) 

(Case 2862; see BZN 51: 108-115) 


Robert D. Pope 


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


I have examined in detail the coleopteran names in this case and agree with all Dr 
Kerzhner’s conclusions. At least as far as Coleoptera are concerned it is important 
that these works be suppressed, for otherwise they would present a constant threat to 
nomenclatural stability. However, as mentioned in Table | and para. 14(c) of the 
application, eight beetle specific names published by Lichtenstein (1796) should be 
conserved with his authorship. 


340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphodius rufus 
(Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) 
(Insecta, Coleoptera) 

(Case 2878; see BZN 51: 121-127) 


Giovanni Dellacasa 
C.P. 921, 16100 Geneva, Switzerland 


I should like to comment on the problem of Scarabaeus (now Aphodius) scybalarius 
Fabricius, 1781. 

Since Landin (1956) discovered that Fabricius’s type of Scarabaeus scybalarius is in 
fact a blackish specimen of the taxon currently known as Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), 
there has been a nomenclatural problem. Landin, however, did not consult the 
Commission (para. 3 of the application). Silfverberg (1977) was the first author to 
address this problem and, with no regard for nomenclatural continuity, considered 
that the name scybalarius must be adopted in place of rufus Moll. At the same time 
he recognised that the specific name of Scarabaeus (now Rhysothorax) rufus 
Fabricius, 1792 was a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus (now Pachnoda or 
Dischista) rufus De Geer, 1778 (para. 7 of the application) and proposed the new 
name rufinus for Fabricius’s taxon. 

In their application, Krell, Stebnicka & Holm have proposed the suppression of 
scybalarius, misapplied by most authors, and the adoption of the name foetidus 
Herbst, 1783 for the taxon, and the conservation of the names rufus Moll and rufus 
Fabricius. However, in my view these proposals are formally incorrect because of 
Silfverberg’s previous (1977, 1979) actions. Silfverberg recognized that scybalarius 
had been misapplied by authors and strictly applied the Principle of Priority to rufus 
Moll and rufus Fabricius. Though these actions did not maintain stability in the 
nomenclature, Krell et al. are now addressing a problem that no longer exists. 

In my view there are two courses that could be followed to solve the nomenclatural 
problem: 

Either: (1) To set aside the lectotype of Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781) 
designated by Landin (1956) and designate a neotype in the sense the 
name has been used by most authors (i.e. for the species correctly known 
as foetidus Herbst, 1783), and to conserve the names rufus Moll, 1782 and 
rufus Fabricius, 1792, notwithstanding their primary homonymy with 
rufus De Geer, 1778. 

This is the more simple course which, if adopted, would avoid any changes in the 

nomenclature of these widely spread, common and well known taxa and would 

maintain the 150 year-old interpretation of the names. 

Or: (2)(a) To suppress the name scybalarius Fabricius, 1781 and adopt for this 
species (in the sense used by most authors) the name foetidus Herbst, 1783; 

(b) to adopt the name Aphodius arcuatus (Moll, 1785), the first available 
synonym of the junior homonym A. rufus (Moll, 1782); 

(c) to adopt the name Rhysothorax spissipes (LeConte, 1878), the first 
available synonym of the junior homonym Rhysothorax rufus (Fabricius, 
1792). In consequence the name rufinus Silfverberg, 1977 becomes an 
unnecessary replacement name. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 341 


This second procedure is much more complex than the first but is nomenclaturally 
more correct and, without any doubt, more logical than the proposals of Krell, 
Stebnicka & Holm. 


Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Lithobius piceus 
L. Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda) 
(Case 2919; see BZN 51: 133-134) 


Alessandro Minelli 
Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, I-135121 Padova, Italy 


I wish to express my full support for Dr E.H. Eason’s application proposing the 
conservation of the specific name of the centipede Lithobius piceus L. Koch, 1862. 


Comment on the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLINI Hallowell, 1856 
(Amphibia, Caudata) 
(Case 2869; see BZN 50: 129-132; 51: 153-156, 264-265) 


Hobart M. Smith 
Department of EPO 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. 


We respond to Prof Dubois’s comment (published in BZN 51: 264-265) on our 
application. 

1. At the time that Dubois (1984) revived MyCETOGLOssINI Bonaparte, 1850 to 
replace HEMIDACTYLINI Hallowell, 1856 (which had been adopted by Wake, 1966, for 
the first time since its proposal), HEMIDACTYLINI had been used (note the ‘non- 
exhaustive’ list in para. 4 of the application) in at least 10 works by nine authors, and 
by the time that our application was submitted those figures had increased to at least 
16 and 15 respectively. 

2. Article 23b of the current (1985) Code came into effect on 1 January 1973 
and was therefore operating at the time that Dubois (1984) adopted MyCETOGLOsSINI. 
This Article states: ‘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’. 
Therefore, Bonaparte’s name should not automatically have been adopted by Dubois 
and, accordingly, it would have been correct for authors to continue to use 
HEMIDACTYLINI after Dubois pointed out the earlier family-group name, whilst 
referring the problem to the Commission. 

3. We requested the suppression of MYCETOGLOSSINI in conformance with Article 
79 and within the spirit of the current Code. The Code encourages nomenclatural 
stability by permitting the suppression (under the plenary powers) of long-unused 
names that threaten established, current usage. Admittedly Cope (1889), Dunn 
(1926) and Wake (1966) overlooked Bonaparte’s name but this was not then known 


342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


in the active literature, and in 1966 the name was a ‘nomen oblitum’ and could not 
have been adopted without Commission action, even if known (Article 23b(i1) of the 
1964 Code). Names unused for over 100 years and buried in unused literature are 
easily overlooked, and have been so countless times by reputable and diligent 
taxonomists; the belated discovery of such names is not to the discredit of reasonable 
nomenclatural search. 

4. Article 80 of the current Code makes it plain that Wake’s (1993) exhortation for 
‘maintaining the traditional taxonomy until the matter receives formal action’ (cited 
by Dubois in his comment, para. 3) is the explicit regulation under the Code, and not 
just a personal stand. 

5. In the present case no useful purpose would be served by upsetting the 
established usage for nearly 30 years of a family-group name by one never used since 
its proposal over 100 years ago, based on a never-used generic name. It is to prevent 
that sort of mindless adherence to priority that the provisions of Article 79 exist. 


Additional references 


Cope, E.D. 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bulletin of the United States National 
Museum, 34: 1-525. 

Dunn, A. 1926. The salamanders of the family Plethodontidae. viii, 441 pp. Smith College, 
Northampton, Massachusetts. 


Comments on the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first 
published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale 
(Case 2928; see BZN 51: 135-146, 266-267) 


(1) Colin P. Groves 
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, 
Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia 


I fully support this application. 

1. Brisson’s (1762) work should finally be suppressed. It is not binominal and 
indeed, bearing in mind its early date, there is no reason why it should have been. Yet 
a number of mammalian generic names in common use have traditionally been dated 
from the book, and would be threatened were its suppression not accompanied by 
action for their conservation. 

2. The cases of Tragulus and Cuniculus are especially horrendous. The long- 
standing fixation of Cervus javanicus Osbeck as the type of Tragulus (by Ellerman & 
Morrison-Scott, 1951, as noted by Gentry) depends on the maintenance of Brisson’s 
name; the type of the next available usage of Tragulus (i.e. Pallas, 1767) is Capra 
pygmaea, the Royal antelope, which is currently placed in Neotragus H. Smith, 1827. 
Thus we would have: 


Current usage Prospective name 
Royal antelope Neotragus pygmaeus Tragulus pygmaeus 
Lesser mouse-deer Tragulus javanicus Moschiola javanica 


This would be an unpleasant and confusing double change of nomenclature. 
3. The type of Cuniculus Brisson has been fixed as Mus paca, the paca. The next 
available generic name for this species is Agouti Lacepéde, 1799, a word which is the 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 343 


same as the vernacular name (in English, French, German and Spanish (‘aguti’), 
among others) for quite a different animal, and the same as the name of a type of 
tegumentary pattern exemplified by the agouti, but not by the paca! The next 
available usage of the name Cuniculus is that of Meyer (1790), which refers to the 
European rabbit. We would then have: 


Current usage Prospective name 
Paca Cuniculus paca Agouti paca 
European rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus Cuniculus cuniculus 


These changes are just as undesirable as in the Tragulus case, with the additional 
element of confusion with a vernacular name. 

4. It is true that several of the names it is proposed to conserve are available from 
other early authors, most of them from Briinnich (1771). However, to ignore their use 
in Brisson and date them from Briinnich would be unsafe. This was a period of 
prolific writing by naturalists (Pallas, Scopoli, Giildenstaedt, Blumenbach, not to 
mention Linnaeus’s own students Osbeck and Thunberg); many of their works are 
poorly known and investigation of them could well turn up names that might 
antedate Briinnich and so threaten stability. 

It is for these reasons that I urge support for Gentry’s proposal in full. 


(2) Don E. Wilson 
Biodiversity Programs, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. 


I am writing to comment on the proposed rejection of Brisson’s (1762) work, with 
conservation of 11 mammal generic names. I have read the application by Anthea 
Gentry with a great deal of interest. The publication is an excellent summary of the 
situation and I applaud the scholarship demonstrated. 

Nevertheless, I find myself in disagreement with portions of the application. I 
believe stability would best be served by simply rejecting Brisson’s work, and by not 
conserving the generic names listed in the proposals. The application outlines quite 
nicely why Brisson (1762) is unavailable due to binominal inconsistency, and 
rejecting it for nomenclatural purposes would be a useful step. This is the course 
followed by most recent authors and it would be helpful for the Commission to rule 
on it officially. 

However, I see no need to conserve the generic names that have been used by 
authors over the years, in spite of the arguments for established usage put forth in the 
application. Nine of the 11 names are available from other authors and have been so 
attributed by most recent workers. Changing these attributions to revert to Brisson 
would be more disruptive than stabilizing at this point. The only names that would 
create major changes are Glis and Cuniculus. 

Most recent authors have rejected Cuniculus as being unavailable from Brisson and 
have used Agouti Lacepéde, 1799. Continuing this usage in no way requires the 
adoption of Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 as the valid name for the European rabbit, 
Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874, as argued in the application. 

The name Gilis has probably enjoyed the widest usage of the 11 in recent years but 
the review by Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) clearly outlines the problem and a 
solution, namely the use of Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 and Myoxiae in place of the 


344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


unavailable Gi/is and GLiRmAE. Ignoring this by conserving a generic name from an 
otherwise unavailable work seems pointless. 

Although I am clearly not an unbiased observer, I would also argue that there is 
merit in following the most complete review of currently used mammalian names 
(Wilson & Reeder, Eds., 1993). This work provides a complete reference for currently 
used mammalian names for the non-specialist, and conserving the 11 names 
suggested in the application would require changing the attribution of nine generic 
names to Brisson’s authorship and changing the names of two genera and one family. 
I would guess that a new edition of Mammal species of the world is unlikely to appear 
before the year 2004, which would result in a considerable period during which 
general usage would not follow the Commission’s ruling. Thus, I would argue against 
conservation of the names on the basis of stability of nomenclature. 

I hope the Commission will vote to reject Brisson (1762) with no qualifying 
conservation of generic names. 


(3) Robert S. Voss 


Department of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park 
West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. 


I am writing to support Case 2928. 

The availability and application of Brisson’s generic names for mammals urgently 
require a decision by the Commission. Even though Brisson’s work is not consistently 
binominal, 12 of his generic names (reviewed by Gentry) are in common and almost 
univeral usage. Only one (Odobenus) has so far been formally conserved. Gentry 
makes a persuasive argument for conserving the remaining 11 (Philander, Pteropus, 
Glis, Cuniculus, Hydrochoerus, Meles, Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus, Tragulus and Giraffa) 
and for designating type species. In each case, the action she recommends will 
contribute to nomenclatural stability. 

The issue is now urgent because the availability of some of Brisson’s genera has 
been challenged in two recent and influential checklists cited by Gentry (Honacki et 
al., 1982; Wilson & Reeder, 1993) without regard to the serious instability that would 
result if all were rejected. I urge the Commissioners to act in accordance with 
Gentry’s sensible recommendations. 


(4) John H. Wahlert 


Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 
79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. 


I am writing in response to the application on Regnum Animale (1762). I do not 
support the conservation of Brisson’s generic name Glis for the edible dormouse and 
I support the retention of Myoxus for this species. 

In a work co-authored with Sawitzke & Holden (1993) I have recently investigated 
the original literature on the appropriate name for the edible dormouse and 
concluded that it should be Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, and not Glis Brisson, 1762. 

This conclusion is by no means new. Trouessart (1897, p. 453), mentioning the 
first edition (1756) of Brisson’s work, rejected it as non-binominal and used glis 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 345 


(i.e. Sciurus glis Linnaeus) as a specific name. Schulze, Kiikenthal & Heider (1932, 
p. 1375) rejected Glis Brisson. 

M.E. Holden arrived independently at the same conclusion that Myoxus is the 
valid name; we combined our view for publication. Holden has also published (in 
Wilson & Reeder, 1993) a separate chapter, “Family Myoxidae’, in which she 
recognizes Myoxus as the generic name of the edible dormouse. 

I have consulted Dr Malcolm C. McKenna, who is completing a revision of G.G. 
Simpson’s (1945) Classification of mammals. He, too, considers the generic name 
Myoxus to be valid for the edible dormouse. 

I am aware that the name Glis is commonly used today but the name Myoxus is 
well known. When European and Asian colleagues visit New York and we discuss 
dormouse systematics, all know both the generic name and the family name 
MYOXIDAE. Myoxus and MYOXIDAE seem current to me because they are used in the 
references that are the starting point for all of my research on rodent anatomy and 
phylogeny, namely Tullberg (1899) and Winge (1941). 

For the following reasons I recommend that the valid generic name Myoxus be 
retained and that the invalid name Glis be rejected: (a) there is a strong scholarly 
tradition for rejecting Glis because the name in Brisson (1762) is not binominal; 
(b) three mammalian systematists independently and concurrently found that the 
generic name Myoxus is fully acceptable according to the Code whereas the name 
Glis is not; (c) the generic and family names Myoxus and MYOxIDAE are very well 
known internationally, despite extensive and recent use of Giis. 


Additional references 


Schulze, F.E., Kiikenthal, W. & Heider, K. 1929. Nomenclator animalium generum et 
subgenerum, vol. 3, part 1 (Fa—Halya). Pp. 1299-1458. Preussischen Akademie der 
Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin. 

Tullberg, T. 1899. Ueber das System der Nagethiere, eine phylogenetische studie. I, II. Nova 
Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis, (3)18(1, 2): 1-328. 

Winge, H. 1941. The interrelationships of the mammalian genera, vol. 2 (Rodentia, Carnivora, 
Primates). 376 pp. Forlag, Kobenhavn. [Translated from the Danish by E. Deichmann & 
G.M. Allen]. 


(5) P.A. Morris 


Department of Biology, Royal Holloway College, University of London, Egham, Surrey 
TW20 OEX, U.K. 


I am particularly interested in Glis. This name was triumphantly discounted at last 
year’s international conference on dormice (in Italy), thereby throwing everyone into 
confusion! Some used G/is Brisson, 1762, some Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, and the 
editors of the published papers now have to decide whether or not to ‘correct’ 
manuscripts before they are published. This is a strongly undesirable muddle. 

Surely the purpose of scientific names is to allow stability and unambiguous 
international communication. In the region where the taxon occurs everyone 
uses Glis, even the man in the street. Some very recent substitution by Myoxus 
is a thoroughly retrograde step, undermining the whole point of internationally 
recognised names. 


346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


I see no need for this change and no benefit from it. I hope that the name Giis will 
be conserved. 

All 11 of Brisson’s generic names are sufficiently familiar and widely used that the 
case for their retention is surely overwhelming. 


(6) Sydney Anderson F 
Department of Mammalogy, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park 
West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. 


This case concerns names from Brisson (1762). One name, Odobenus, has been 
conserved previously. Tragulus may warrant conservation but I see no necessity and 
little desirability in taking any action on the other 10 names. Subsequent authors may 
be cited for Philander, Pteropus, Meles, Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus and Giraffa. 
Alternate names are available for Glis and Cuniculus, namely Myoxus and Agouti, 
and the alternate spelling Hydrochaeris for Hydrochoerus. 1 have been using the 
names Agouti and Hydrochaeris, as have some other authors, in my South American 
work. If there is a problem with Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 vs. Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 
1874 for the European rabbit I recommend just conserving Oryctolagus. That is 
simple and need not concern what we use in South America. 


(7) Peter Grubb 
35 Downhills Park Road, London N17 6PE, U.K. 


I agree with everything that is written in the application on Brisson’s (1762) names 
and am especially happy that Tragulus has been sorted out. The principal reason for 
supporting the application is that it creates stability in the nomenclature. It does 
away with the uncertainty that exists when authors are not in agreement over the 
availability of names because they do not yet have the guidance of the Commission. 
I see no problem in accepting Philander, Pteropus, Meles, Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus and 
Giraffa as these names will remain in general use when attributed to Brisson (1762). 

As is clear from the application, Tragulus Brisson could not be taken from a later 
use of the name. The next available name seems to be Lagonebrax Gloger, 1841 (p. 
137), based on Moschus javanicus (Osbeck, 1765) and Moschiola meminna (Erxleben, 
1777). Lagonebrax predates Moschiola, which seems to be available from Hodgson 
(1844, p. 292), but the use of this unfamiliar and very rarely cited name, overlooked 
in leading checklists, in place of either Tragu/us (unspotted chevrotains) or Moschiola 
(the Indian spotted chevrotain) would not contribute to nomenclatural stability. 
HYEMOSCHIDAE Gray, 1872 (pp. 5, 99; based on the water chevrotain of Africa) would 
replace the established name TRAGULIDAE Milne Edwards, 1864. The proposal to 
confirm Brisson (1762) as the author of Tragulus should certainly be endorsed. 

Even if Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 had some currency long ago, Glis Brisson, 
1762 (and GiirmpAz) has been so generally accepted, particularly by European 
authors (who are most likely to refer to this taxon), that it would be very unfortunate 
to disturb the name. 

Hydrochoerus and Cuniculus, both of Brisson (1762), refer to South and Central 
American mammals and would be most commonly cited by American authors or 
authors working in America. The alternative names Hydrochaeris Brinnich, 1771 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 347 


and Agouti Lacepede, 1799 have become widely accepted in the American literature. 
Examples are Miller & Rehn (1901) and Miller (1912) for Agouti, and Hall & Kelson 
(1959), Cabrera (1961), Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl (Eds., 1982), Anderson & Jones 
(Eds., 1984), Redford & Eisenberg (1992) and Wilson & Reeder (Eds., 1993) for both 
genera. Admittedly there was a change of heart when Hydrochoerus and Cuniculus 
were listed by Miller (1924) and Miller & Kellogg (1955). 

According to Tate (1935), Hydrochoerus was the predominant name used for the 
capybara at least up to 1930; he did not even cite Hydrochaeris Briinnich, 1771. 
Though this latter name is now widely used in American texts (see above), to return 
to Hydrochoerus involves only a very minor difference in spelling. 

The status of Agouti as a name for the paca is uncertain. Tate’s (1935) historical 
review demonstrated long-term lack of consensus over the generic name for the 
taxon. After its original citation, Agouti came back into use early this century and has 
continued to be employed until the present day, as the above references to checklists 
indicate. Anthea Gentry’s application has demonstrated that Cuniculus has been very 
widely cited: The use of both Agouti and Cuniculus represents a long-term state of 
instability. There are likely to be differences of opinion as to which should be 
retained. The application suggests that adoption of Agouti has not been generally 
followed. American workers in particular might take the view that the use of Agouti 
has had a substantial history and has become general in recent decades (references 
cited above). Macdonald (Ed., 1984) employed Glis and Hydrochoerus of Brisson but 
also Agouti, rejecting Cuniculus Brisson without comment. 

On the other hand, there is a difficulty with the use of Agouti. Agouti Lacepéde, 
1799 is commonly or usually regarded as the type genus of AGOUTIDAE Gray, 1821 (p. 
304). However, Gray erected this family to include Agoutis Cuvier (= Dasyprocta 
Illiger, 1811; the agoutis) and Calogenus [sic] F. Cuvier (i.e. Coelogenys Mliger, 1811, 
= Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 and Agouti Lacepéde; the pacas). The type genus of 
AGOUTIDAE is thus Agoutis Cuvier, not Agouti Lacepéde. Whether or not AGOUTIDAE 
Gray threatens the stability of DAsYPROCTIDAE Smith, 1842 (the family including the 
agoutis) it is not available as the family name for the pacas when treated as a separate 
taxon. 

The rejection of Cuniculus Brisson would thus raise an unresolved problem. While 
this strengthens the case for retaining Cuniculus, to which I am entirely sympathetic, 
the issues relating to this name may prove to be contentious. 


Additional references 


Gloger, C.W.L. 1841. Gemeinniitziges Hand- und Hilfsbuch der Naturgeschichte ... , part 2. 
Pp. 81-160. Schulz, Breslau. 

Gray, J.E. 1821. On the natural arrangement of vertebrose animals. London Medical 
Repository, 15(1): 296-310. 

Gray, J.E. 1872. Catalogue of the ruminant Mammalia (Pecora, Linnaeus) in the British 
Museum. viii, 102 pp. British Museum, London. 

Hall, E.R. & Kelson, K.R. 1959. The mammals of North America, vol. 2. Pp. viii, 547-1083, 79. 
Roland Press, New York. 

Hodgson, B.H. 1844. Classified catalogue of the mammals of Nepal. Calcutta Journal of 
Natural History, 4: 284-294. 

Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus systematis Mammalium et Avium ... xviii, 301 pp. Berlin. 

Macdonald, D. (Ed.). 1984. The encyclopedia of mammals, Ed. 2. xv, 895, xvi-xlviii pp. Unwin 
Hyman, London. 


348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Miller, G.S. 1912. List of North American land mammals in the United States National 
Museum, 1911. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 79: 1-455. 

Miller, G.S. & Kellogg, R. 1955. List of North American Recent mammals, 1923. Bulletin of 
the United States National Museum, 205: 1-954. 

Miller, G.S. & Rehn, J.A.G. 1901. Systematic results of the study of North American land 
mammals to the close of the year 1900. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural 
History, 30(1): 1-352. 

Redford, K.H. & Eisenberg, J.F. 1992. Mammals of the neotropics, vol. 2 (The southern cone. 
Chile, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay). 430 pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 

Tate, G.H.H. 1935. The taxonomy of the genera of neotropical hystricoid rodents. Bulletin of 
the American Museum of Natural History, 68: 295-447. 


(8) David L. Harrison & Paul J.J. Bates 
Harrison Zoological Museum (Foundation for Systematic Research), Bowerwood 
House, St Botolph's Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3AQ, U.K. 


We are writing to support the application by Anthea Gentry for the conservation 
of 11 mammal generic names first published in M.J. Brisson’s Regnum Animale in 
1762. Although this work is now generally accepted to be non-binominal there are 
certain generic names which have had established usage for more than 230 years. We 
consider that alteration of these widely used names is highly undesirable after such 
long and general usage. We strongly recommend to the Commissioners that these 
names should be conserved and we fully support the arguments for this as set out in 
the application. There are equally good arguments for placing on the Official List of 
Specific Names those listed on BZN 51: 143. 

We trust that the Commission will give careful consideration to these important 
proposals. 


(9) Zdzislaw Pucek 
Polish Academy of Sciences, Mammal Research Institute, 17-230 Bialowieza, Poland 


I am the editor of Acta Theriologica. | am rather conservative and would like to 
maintain the 11 mammal generic names from Brisson (1762) reviewed in the 
application. Some inconsequential lapses in the formal use of binominal nomencla- 
ture by Brisson should be treated as normal for that time. The long-lasting usage of 
the names for over 230 years is, in my opinion, the main reason for the official 
acceptance of them, with all the formal consequences. 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 349 


AUTHORS IN VOLUME 51 (1994) 


Page 
PMAGETSOM sans ans) ace ates 346 
PATIScIMWabthlo ts 2 4. oO, 
UGISIONEAAt Se Tees SR eS 309 
BaeyAIREM: kos, wth Sht: “eee at 262 
PRERTCTE TaN Ge Jc) She s/c So acs, atu MRC 247 
SLES be Net rss emer oe at) (oe eres 348 
pon Oa. Nt mtb. 8 Sy as 227 
BOCK S Walls 5. She as hopes 52, 253 
BOGAN MAUR Attra, x as Den Sean 92 
Bovtae RG (45 eee cia 256 
ONCHELS DL Oe irik dos. site wl Se 336 
TONG ta Fire Ma) 0 2 ge ae i ha 224 
PRETENCE SW ERG ice yoy ait osc. oy oka con 9 151 
PTS Vee oa ee cee aha toe 312 
BTOWOS DD Soon ee ey ee ce 247 
iG Cote! Sear oiaee PS ee op gc 256 
GAMTASSSAGRI A, Ae Geter, SK 31 
Gahippindale:, Pir: «lip ic is. sett 155 
ROlinstensene Gs en sw cavus, he 217 
(OOK EUR ee ae ce 152, 155 
PORRtONVEI EI: ca fa oe ee 46 
ROOMIE RO er cic. 6 tn um in cs eo 2 
Coxe MEU ae say A oritergct TING Ft: 154 
(Crap td P 1 2 3 ee a ne er 298 
rosskey, RoW... =). 3 c's ss, « 298 
DelArasar Crete me cn nee, ae ae 340 
DIKONWICRAS TA =. Po. SORA, 250 
manOVvanetos ws... wl alas eee. 219 
NH OS AS Fe venrets c ve Se 237, 240, 264 
DUN CCC AG ts pauy spin 150, 153 
LeTCCD Thy 12M (rma  gmm Seine al ag 5 Ne 133 
Evennuiss Nos 2! se ee er 27 
IR OCHetIRCae MEL Ce ok tee LL ee 309 
OsberaGrN iy aiee 3h Sh EY <a eerie’: 257 
PRI DO ee ae oe ee ee 237 
MEINITV VAs, ay sh meee 135, 332, 339 
SSL ee nee RM eet eh, ae 35 
GittenbergersEN 9). 05rs 105, 338 
Glut DRe 4 eee...) 283. eo leeic 50 
BOD Ie Be he te ba oe Seb aktes| 62 10 
ROOD) TAS ene Wo its ie ke og 152 
KSOOdrICnAIMAS on @ 6 a hoon ee 128 
GrihthisnGiC Dies ee, eg eee 
Groves: GPM, ots Etat Oe 332, 342 
Gribbabis Meee 3 Air FR ys. 20a 346 


Page 
TC ne, oss e's al, en acer Me 41 
lancisOne sib. =) ns) ee 46 
Eeawksworth: Di, 9. oh al 2) ee 188 
GRRE ies Ses 22 eon 2665332 
PaaS |e shes oe oo Re 152, 155 
UGE Snes, sos se 45s, OS, ci 121 
EVN DERE tn fhe swe, we Ate nll56 
ENING AC Powis ney a = S = oes e205 
cer eRe. i in ces oe ost RH gt 152 
NaACODS Wilson ay ssh 2 te. Ae 50 
WAGHMIMICAC Eo Sac a cb A owes 25 
ARSSOLSUAGE ey on udets of 2. wean 43 
NETIKINS MEDS. 3 ee Se Lig 82 
VemningsMIMERS 2 2 Ws) ae eae 149 
empire Re. 305 fake, Soe st 304 
Rermnver GMa 2 2). ee aT 08 
ICOtte ate IMIS) hectare Ol ne oe ate 320 
RerellReaIey Tats. ef Sa 121, 306 
NAN AAD ns cre 3 ee aw ee 150 
GAZAL AM CA e rue fy sr ok ysis aa catntes a 47 
[EGET SRS ee er nai oh eemrmeemecnon 320 
leakenwAcees « shah 6 2 swede 232 
MOOR ARVATAN, Ae 8 5 Os 1s Bs A 102 
NUGASHS Ge) wees 5 ae ms 265 
IMackKICwAUSENG: 5. ig) gay Adee 10 
IMG Nei enti crets Bee si 3. tn eed Lan ee od 188 
MahnentiVis ao. ss. a Yeo bse) 
WR CINO NGA oe) vk oan soa) ch ere et Ae ee 150 
Mayden, R.L. i Vay eee 262 
INTINGRAG MR ee esis lr. Ge osu, faa 341 
INIGOLE NEES ose cs -seee Goer 237 
INLOTISMELAC 4) = f Sus, ose pore ane 345 
Miunlemle® oe.) a a a cee eee 43 
INGlSoniGeH.. == 42s. us.) Caen ee 45 
INP AKT | check. Gell ae see 320 
TN tel aYo) Er] El eR AMA eye <c 50 
INussbalumgheAs, 9.1) ton A ae een 237 
OlshevskyiG:.. May 5 2 Pec 49 
reads =... cna tee ies Hota ee 7 
Ota tes as a Ps. Dee Cece de 155 
pAnISSoMG Gh are octane Poa tee 151, 154 
Pekkarinens AS =. % 2%) a 5 * 2 = 252 
RopewRED yee eeeis ai wo Uy ees 339 
PUCK WAI. iis) Ose oe eee 348 


350 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Randall JE: oo 5 <ig, span AS 323 
Rasmont Pe to ee? Be es ees 232 
RevetsSeA oe ex es, ea a cs teenie 98 
Rice DAW. vs. ares) 655 oe sucht es 338 
ICGIES VASOE Taisen col cies aaa 51 
Sabrosky,G:W. fot. t24.4: 258, 259, 312 
Schoddes RS Oo ek. = TRAM. a 253 
Silfverbere; H= = 5 SOR, 17, 21 
Skelley(P EPs ee eS 128 
Smith ceMie” © cee 52, 250, 330, 341 
Smith le passa SPs 47 
Smith Via Niza, Wells t-pain Oss 323 
Sneath vRe bl AG nis, vept re ees ee 188 
SDAMIET EAE r see oh area) om 92 
Springate«N:D: = 2-2 22 : ee 230 
Stebbins: RUGS 9) .WEMOR Se ee 153 
Stebnicka:/Z.«):. :2ocero2 Show ee i 121 
Swann pie 2s ot ea eae 316 
DGhGryscVIS of ca taeteetl com oar 2 eet 52 
Mnomas WRAY pcos: ae oe el 154 
FIST Ts cr AEA Ip, hae CS eae Sealer SPE os 302 
MOZereec ke wos es ee ed 147 


Trenane (REPS VAs. eae. ee 188 
APUDDS oP Kaeo et eae ee 51, 188 
Valdes: Aco '. 4.05 susie ces) ee 7 
Voecetlin: Die een) ace ae 118 
Voisins:G, oo wn es 3 52 
Morin. =P, 5 ora Jarace ee 52 
VOSS UR Sis oi agers ot Sg oe 344 
Weablert.:J7bs ac ce oeces cee, Ee 344 
WakesD Be 9) Bi ey 341 
Wake MEH. so... sce ea 237 
Weallachi"Vi> 7, 3° tev ae ee 250, 330 
Watsons ACL, 7.582012 >. cee 14 
Webb) .MeD! 6.2 0-2 2 Alara ‘116 
Webb RG. oes wae 151, 153 
Welles; S'P.4.. 5 zo. Cage a 48 
Westcott, RoE. 2 a. 2) <a 44 
Wheeler; TiAt 2 >, 260, 316 
Willan; RiG223 OS ae 256 
Walliamis:-E7Hs 62 oc bo ee 224 
Wilson; (D.B ad «acct. asec nee 343 
Yalden:DSWos coos ss os eee 267 
WICK: (Pee Meee eee een ee 309 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 351 


NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN 
RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 51 (1994) 


Names placed on on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 51, 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. The title is given of one work 
deleted from the Official Index and placed on the Official List. 


Family-Group Names 


ANTHRIBIDAE Billberg, 1820 (Coleoptera) Op. 1756 
CHORAGIDAE Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera) Op. 1756 
CRYPTINAE Kirby, 1837 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1757 
METOPIAINI Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) Op. 1772 
METOPIASINI Raffray, 1904 (Coleoptera) Op. 1772 
METOPIINAE Foerster, [1869] (Hymenoptera) Op. 1772 
METOPIINI Raffray, 1904 (Coleoptera) Op. 1772 
METOPIINI Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) Op. 1772 
SOMATODINAE Lacordaire, 1863 (Coleoptera) Op. 1770 
SOMATODINI SchG6nherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 1770 


Generic Names 


Acamptopoeum Cockerell, 1905 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1759 
Acineta Ehrenberg, [1834] (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 
Acrochordium Meyen, 1834 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1752 
Ahasverus des Gozis, 1881 (Coleoptera) Op. 1771 
Allopeas Baker, 1935 (Gastropoda) Op. 1766 

Altica Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Anthrenus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Anthribus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Ascopora Trautschold, 1876 (Bryozoa) Op. 1786 
Asellus Geoffroy, 1762 (Crustacea) Op. 1754 
Binoculus Geoffroy, 1762 (Crustacea) Op. 1754 
Binoculus Geoffroy, 1764 (Crustacea) Op. 1754 
Binoculus Miller, 1776 (Crustacea) Op. 1754 
Bostrichus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
Byrrhus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Byrrhus Linnaeus, 1767 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Cerocoma Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Choragus Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera) Op. 1756 
Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
Chrysobotris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
Cistela Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Colubraria Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 


352 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Copris Geofiroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Crabro Geoffroy, 1762 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 
Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Cryptocephalus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Cryptus Fabricius, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1757 
Cryptus Jurine, 1801 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1757 
Cryptus Panzer, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1757 
Cucujus Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Cucujus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Diaperis Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
Dicerea Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
Diplolepis Geoffroy, 1762 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 
Dyticus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Dyticus Miller, 1776 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Eulophus Geoffroy, 1762 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 
Filimanus Myers, 1936 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1761 
Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762 (Thysanura) Op. 1754 
Formicaleo Geoffroy, 1762 (Neuroptera) Op. 1754 
Fusinus Rafinesque, 1815 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 
Fusus Bruguiére, 1789 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 
Fusus Helbling, 1779 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 

Fusus [R6ding], 1798 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 
Galeruca Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Gyrinus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Hepa Geoffroy, 1762 (Heteroptera) Op. 1754 
Homalocephalus Jan, 1863 (Reptilia) Op. 1789 
Hydrophilus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Lagomeryx Roger, 1904 (Mammalia) Op. 1790 
Mantes Geoffroy, 1762 (Orthoptera) Op. 1754 
Mantis Linnaeus, 1758 (Orthoptera) Op. 1754 
Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 (Orthoptera) Op. 1754 
Megalophrys Wagler, 1830 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1763 
Megophrys Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1763 
Melolontha Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Melolontha Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Metopia Meigen, 1803 (Diptera) Op. 1772 
Metopias Gory, 1832 (Coleoptera) Op. 1772 
Metopius Panzer, 1806 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1772 
Mnestra Krohn, 1853 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1752 
Nacaduba Moore, [1881] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1773 
Notoxus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Odontomus Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
Omalisus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Peltis Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

Peltis Kugelann, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Pepliphorus Hubner, [1819] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1773 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


Peplodyta Toxopeus, 1929 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1773 
Pistella Miller, 1764 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

Platycerus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Podisus Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Heteroptera) Op. 1755 
Potamolithus Pilsbry & Rush, 1896 (Gastropoda) Op. 1779 
Prionus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Procervulus Gaudry, 1877 (Mammalia) Op. 1791 
Pseudoxyrhopus Ginther, 1881 (Reptilia) Op. 1789 
Pterophorus Geoffroy, 1762 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1754 
Pterophorus Schaffer, 1766 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1754 
Ptilinus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Pyrochroa Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1901 (Eocrinoidea) Op. 1760 
Scelidosaurus Owen, 1859 (Reptilia) Op. 1788 
Somatodes Schénherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 1770 
Somatodes Schonherr, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 1770 
Stenocorus Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Styloptocuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Cumacea) Op. 1769 
Taningia Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda) Op. 1768 
Tetigonia Blanchard, 1852 (Homoptera) Op. 1754 
Tetigonia Fourcroy, 1785 (Homoptera) Op. 1754 
Tetigonia Geoffroy, 1762 (Homoptera) Op. 1754 
Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1754 
Tokophrya Biitschli, 1889 (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 
Tortaxis Pilsbry, 1906 (Gastropoda) Op. 1766 

Tritoma Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Tritoma Geoffroy, 1762 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
Urocerus Geoffroy, 1762 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 
Vipio Latreille, 1804 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1758 
Volverella Bory de St Vincent, [1827] (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 
Zanclea Gegenbaur, 1856 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1752 


Specific Names 


achatinaceus, Bulimus, Pfeiffer, 1846 (Gastropoda) Op. 1766 

advena, Cryptophagus, Waltl, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1771 

aenea, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 

africana, Gebia, Ortmann, 1894 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1753 
albothorax, Banksinella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1907 (Diptera) Op. 1775 
amasia, Phalaena, Smith, 1797 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1774 

antipai, Styloptocuma, Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Cumacea) Op. 1769 
aquaticus, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea) Op. 1754 

arcuata, Anas, Horsfield, 1824 (Aves) Op. 1764 

argyrocephala, Tachina, Meigen, 1824 (Diptera) Op. 1772 

asparagi, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

astoma, Volverella, Bory de St Vincent, [1827] (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 


354 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


haltica, Rhipidocystis, Jaekel, 1901 (Eocrinoidea) Op. 1760 

biguttatus, Dytiscus, Gmelin, 1790 (Coleoptera) Op. 1785 

biguttatus, Dytiscus, Olivier, 1795 (Coleoptera) Op. 1785 

bipustulata, Tritoma, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

boleti, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

brasiliensis, Mugil, Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1831 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1787 
brunneus, Lyctus, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1771 

brunneus, Xylotrogus, Stephens, 1830 (Coleoptera) Op. 1771 

capensis, Gebia major, Krauss, 1843 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1753 
capucinus, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

caraboides, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
caucasicus, Aradus, Kolenati, 1857 (Heteroptera) Op. 1783 
chrysostigma, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 
cinnabarina, Meloe, Scopoli, 1763 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

circumluteola, Banksinella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1908 (Diptera) Op. 1775 
coccinea, Cantharis, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

colus, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 

connubialis, Catocala, Guenée, 1852 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1774 

coriarius, Cerambyx, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

costata, Zanclea, Gegenbaur, 1856 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1752 

curculionoides, Metopias, Gory, 1832 (Coleoptera) Op. 1772 

curema, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1787 
cyanea, Papilio, Cramer, [1775] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1773 

cylindricus, Ptilinus, Miller, 1776 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

danae, Taningia, Joubin, 1931 (Cephalopoda) Op. 1768 

dichotoma, Antilope, Gervais, 1849 (Mammalia) Op. 1791 

erecta, Achatina, Benson, 1842 (Gastropoda) Op. 1766 

fasciatus, Anthribus, Forster, 1770 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

fitzingeri, Laemanctus, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia) Op. 1777 

fluminensis, Cynopoecilus, Faria & Muller, 1937 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1762 
fontisbellaquaei, Omalisus, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
forskahli, Pleurobranchus, Delle Chiaje, 1822 (Gastropoda) Op. 1767 
forskalii, Pleurobranchus, Riippell & Leuckart, [1828] (Gastropoda) Op. 1767 
fuscus, Ptilinus, Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
gaimardianus, Mugil, Desmarest, 1831 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1787 

gigas, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 

gracilis, Bulimus, Hutton, 1834 (Gastropoda) Op. 1766 

granulata, Colubraria, Schumacher, 1817 (Gastropoda) Op. 1765 

grilli, Anisolepis, Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia) Op. 1777 

grossa, Silpha, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

harvisonii, Scelidosaurus, Owen, 1861 (Reptilia) Op. 1788 

heterurus, Homalocephalus, Jan, 1863 (Reptilia) Op. 1789 

hieroglyphicus, Aradus, Sahlberg, 1878 (Heteroptera) Op. 1783 
intermedia, Eulima, Cantraine, 1835 (Gastropoda) Op. 1780 

javanica, Anas, Horsfield, 1821 (Aves) Op. 1764 

lacteus, Termes, Froggatt, 1898 (Isoptera) Op. 1781 

lactis, Termes, Froggatt, 1897 (Isoptera) Op. 1781 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 355 


lapidum, Paludina, d’Orbigny, 1835 (Gastropoda) Op. 1779 

liza, Mugil, Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1836 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1787 
longicauda, Agathis, Boheman, 1853 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1758 

lunaris, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

mcintoshi, Aedes (Neomelaniconion), Huang, 1985 (Diptera) Op. 1775 
megapoda, Rana, Taylor, 1942 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1776 

melolontha, Scarabaeus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

meridiana, Leptura, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

minuta, Notonecta, Gmelin, 1790 (Heteroptera) Op. 1782 

minutior, Notonecta, Sulzer, 1776 (Heteroptera) Op. 1782 

misumenus, Somatodes, Gyllenhal in Schonherr, 1840 (Coleoptera) Op. 1770 
monoceros, Attelabus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

montana, Megophrys, Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1763 
monticola, Megophrys, Kuhl & van Hasselt, 1822 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1763 
monticola, Xenophrys, Ginther, 1864 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1763 

natator, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

nigrolineata, Corisa, Fieber, 1848 (Heteroptera) Op. 1782 

nodosa, Ceriopora, Fischer von Waldheim, 1837 (Bryozoa) Op. 1786 
obtusirostris, Laemanctus, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia) Op. 1777 

octoguttata, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1784 

oleracea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

olivieri, Agabus, Zaitzev, 1908 (Coleoptera) Op. 1785 

opalescens, Cynolebias, Myers, 1942 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1762 

pallida, Banksinella luteolateralis, Theobald, 1907 (Diptera) Op. 1775 
parasites, Mnestra, Krohn, 1853 (Hydrozoa) Op. 1752 

parvum, Leptobrachium, Boulenger, 1893 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1763 
pentadactyla, Phalaena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1754 

perplexa, Filimanus, Feltes, 1991 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1761 

persica, Octopodoteuthis, Naef, 1923 (Cephalopoda) Op. 1768 

piceus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

pilula, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

politus, Turbo, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) Op. 1780 

prominens, Lampides, Moore, 1877 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1773 

quadripartita, Podophrya, Claparéde & Lachmann, 1859 (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 
ramicornis, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1781 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 

religiosus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Orthoptera) Op. 1754 

rosae, Cynips, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1754 

ruetimeyeri, Lagomeryx, Thenius, 1948 (Mammalia) Op. 1790 

sanctus, Somatodes, Schonherr, 1823 (Coleoptera) Op. 1770 

sandrii, Cynopoecilus, Faria & Muller, 1937 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1762 
schaefferi, Meloe, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

scrophulariae, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

sericea, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 

sheppardi, Choragus, Kirby, 1819 (Coleoptera) Op. 1756 

sinuosa, Rissoa, Scacchi, 1836 (Gastropoda) Op. 1780 

splendens, Cynolebias, Myers, 1942 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1762 

submetallicum, Camptopoeum, Spinola, 1851 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1759 


356 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


tanaceti, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1754 
testudinarius, Pleurobranchus, Cantraine, 1835 (Gastropoda) Op. 1767 
trilobata, Rana, Mocquard, 1899 (Amphibia, Anura) Op. 1776 
tuberosa, Acineta, Ehrenberg, [1834] (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 

tuberosa, Vorticella, Miller, 1786 (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 

tuberosus, Brachionus, Pallas, 1766 (Ciliophora) Op. 1778 

vespoides, Sphex, Scopoli, 1763 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1772 

vittipennis, Podisus, Herrich-Schaeffer, 1851 (Heteroptera) Op. 1755 


Work deleted from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works and placed on the 
Official List of Available Works 


Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de 
Paris. Op. 1754 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 357 


KEY NAMES AND WORKS IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS 
PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 51 (1994) 


(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 351—356) 


Page 
Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839 Conran) a Del ae el tk cn A) 
Acrostomum Orsted, 1843 (Nemertea). . . RE: CE Ee PE eS 
acutangula, Limosina, Zetterstedt, 1847 (Diciea) 2 eae ier See co bte lee eee kG 
adscensionis, Scomber, Osbeck, 1771 (Osteichthyes) . ........... . . 323 
monuin Lacepede:.L799\(Mammalia)) sia gael oe oles dy ty ae « ell 553,206; 342 
Akrostomum Grube, 1840 (Nemertea). . . » SEE: LO a it Ta 21) 
Alestes Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes) RON, ete ee Ae Te, ea, SD) 
aienmanss Colvbersichtenstein, 1823,)(Reptilia) 2. 2 a ny = oe 7 ee ee 0) 
Apolybas Alvarenga, 1965 (Coleoptera) . . . 5 fae a URL WSEAS S lite ee ein gee 
arceuthophila, Helix, Mabille, 1881 (Gastropoda) Sele en aN Sir Sie dunt senate LODES50: 
arquata, Kelaeno, Munster, 1842 (Cephalopoda) ... . Pn eee AL) 
ascensionis, Caranx, Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833 (Osteichthyes) er a 612s) 
BSEINES LOVISCUSMIUINNACUS i758) (ISOPOda)! ck = a, eee FOL, ae paps es grees So ee 
BEES TE MEST ACUS-) Latham i 79 0K(AVES)i/ 2... ack tee ea ements asens oe os ey ee ae es 20 
Baur. Coelophysis, (Cope, 1887) (Reptilia)) .. . 2... .... . =. « 48; 156, 265 
Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Homoptera) . . . . . Rarer Ct a ee sy PY cle LO 
bipustulatus, Lyctus, Fabricius, 1792 (ealeapte) BS 10 ie SRR RE a ae AY) 
Banemiligny e\dovsky, 1883\(Oligochaeta)) i) 262°: 3 wp es eee i ss we BOL 
BALA a Stang 1928, (Oligachacta)) fe. leat 2 Sty) et es ee es 6, SOZ 
ApERO TES Nicipen SOS (DIDLELA)W rebar cats ei, Sy el as ee oh gee oe 
Bopapooraaendenicin- Loos Diptera)l.: eit fos @ save 6 a wee SR es he ool 
Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (Plecoptera). . . hb betsbeecd sincaleis: caky utes ws ied Oe, 
BRACHYPTERAINAE Zwick, 1973 (Hiccaries) |. Fe Eee 5 sy Bayete SOD 
BRAGHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 (Coleoptera) . ...-...=.-.. =... - 309 
BACH Y PLERINAE Zwick, 1973\(Plecoptera)ary es) hala. 3? 7 ae ws, ee 2 309 
Pracnppicrus Kupelann: i794 (ColeOptera) reek ieee hae a hie el ee. ot OD) 
Brownian, Cypris., Jones, V850)(Ostracoda): = 2s sPayee si eyes > oe td ee BOF 
BurcaigaGonops. innaeus:. W7ssi(Diptera)) = a) 2 Basen tech ote) py ee |e, oy BG 259 
CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (Amphibia, Anura) .........2... =. 240 
Cacosternum Boulenger, 1887 (Amphibia, Anura) . . . ........... . 240 
CAECILIIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Psocoptera) . . . ee i ee ae ERED, 
CAECILIIDAE Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 ees Gymnophiona) RO ree eH 
CAECILIUSIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Psocoptera) . . . ate eres tee 5)7/ 
caedemadens, Cassida, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera) . . . ...... . . 108, 339 
calcaratus, Hemimantis, Peters, 1863 (Amphibia, Anura) . ......... . . 240 
camelopardalis, Cervus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) . . . <5 eetgens 135;.266; 342 
cameronensis, Petropedetes, Reichenow, 1874 (Amphibia, aura RM a cot) 
caperans, Brachycerus, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera) . . . ..... . . . 108, 339 
Cassidella Hofker, 1953 (Foraminiferida). . . a Ee a AUT 
CECILINIA Rafinesque-Schmaltz, 1814 (Amphibia, ‘Gymnophiona). sors Uae yea? 
Celaeno Owen, 1844 (Cephalopoda) . . . aS etn) creel 
cellaris, Dermestes, Scopoli, 1763 (Goledptera) «fants By AES eeeielie ee = pti 22596 
cephalotes, Tenthredo, Fabricius, 1781 (Hymenoptera) . .......... . . 230 


Genvlonleatreilie s1802k(Coleoptera)! tes, -- cee S28) 2 end ceed Geel? 


358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


GERYEONIDAEBillberg?1820\(Goleopteta) te ee tae fe Rr I. Yl 
chelicornis, Solpuga, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Arachnida) . ......... =... . 108 
Ghromadora Bastian, 1865: (Nematoda) eo sieiied &) A ef ee ees Ue, ee oe OZ 
chrysis,, Eygaeus, Lichtenstein, 1796\(Eeteroptera)\-). ea. <0) - 9. . © «9 - seeOS 
chrysothorax, Vespa, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Hymenoptera). . . ........ . . 108 
Clayella Oken, 1815 (Copepoda) ... . Aes ce adanies Ua A) oc 1) ee 
clavicornis, Dermestes, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Wy, Cem stump osivas. jase itt Wee GR eee EL 
clymenoides, Johnstonia, Quatrefages, [1866] (Polychaeta) ........... 2.410 
Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (Diptera) . . . Sarnia rman ral sic. 2)! 25S) 
colberti, Rioarribasaurus, Hunt & Lucas, 1991 (Reptilia) Se se ty oe Re aon LOOeOS 
coleoptrata, Sigara, Fabricius, [1777] (Heteroptera) . . .............41 
coloboptera, Vespa, Lichtenstein, 1796 Mane 087 So hates Fs ie ee a eee LOO 
Colon Herbst, 1797 (Coleoptera) . . . Se Bets on oe Ce ten a eee eee Ee 
COLYDIIDAE Erichson, 1842 (Goleaptera)h SEES es Me TPP R LGR ote el 
Colydium Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera). . . i kmail sn <a, Ii 
comata, Bohemilla, Vejdovsky, 1883 (Olizochixetay = Statin ee ea as oS) en ae eS 
conica, Anthomyia, Wiedemann, 1817 (Diptera) ............ . . 28,258 
Coproica Rondant; 1861 (Diptera) of se a eee ge che se ee 
Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) . . . 2 Me Saas st tence at) oko a Oe 
Coptorhinus Guérin Meéneville, [1838] (Coleoptera) | citig  laele 3 teeth s 9 ok EOS 
Gryptophagus Herbst, 7/92)(Coleoptera)) = = oe. See) go) eee 
cucullatus, Megalodon, Sowerby, 1827 (Bivalvia) ........... SG 028 (1) 
GUICHIESBTISSOD Oo UNiaInmalia)) sty ce ston wa acrid oa ea cme cee 135, 266, 342 
Guniculus: Meyer,.1790' (Mammalia). 9s nw cc ake eg oS OO aD, 
Cuniculus Wagler, 1830 (Mammalia) ............. . .. . 135, 266, 342 
curvipes; Sphaerocera, Latreille; 1805 (Diptera). 2. «ws mis ee ee 
Gylindrogaster Lioy; 1864(Diptera)y 2S 4). 2 en em cee + hy ee 
darwiniensis, Mastotermes, Froggatt, 1897 (Isoptera) . . ...........=.14 
deana, Helix, Berthier; 1884 (Gastropoda) "2" 5... *. SOe .  e OSeo 
dentex, ‘Cyprinus, Linnaeus, 1758/(Osteichthyes)" 2 2. 2 SN Or ees 
dentex, Scomber, Bloch & Schneider, 1801 pea ee ee Pe ete) ee ee Ey Oey 
denticulatus, Borborus, Meigen, 1830 (Diptera) . . . Be La See CO 
Dorcatoma Herbst; 1'792.(Coleoptera)) <2 4 2 Pe = VP ee eo 
Dorkatoma Herbst, 1792 (Coleoptera) . . . foe ty Se! A SU ee ee 
dresdensis, Dorcatoma, Herbst, 1792 (Coleoptera) . joa Liygapka’, sy hie che ak aes gC ee) 
BEMIDAE. Curtis; 1830)(Goleoptera)) 4 iene. be ee en eon 
Elmis Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera). . . xe SO FT a Teas SES) Sian yi 
elongatus, Bostrichus, Fabricius, 1787 (Golcopters) ad iecmechale i nh at ian Saat ts arsed 9. oy Ld 
Emys Duméril, 1806 (Reptilia) . . . He Pola lr be idk taal teat ec Seti Oe 
ephippium, Cassida, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Céléoptera)” AE eS ee ae CDS 
ephippium, Reduvius, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Heteroptera) . .......... . . 108 
Eretmosaurusisceley,874.(Reptilia) = s-).  e e)  e 
Euchromadorade Man; 1886 (Nematoda). 2 6. ee ees ae ee os 102 
Euhyaena Falconer, 1868;\(Mammalia\ie. ss ee 135, 266, 342 
fatalis, Solpuga, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Arachnida). . . ......... =... . 108 
ferruginea, Conops, Linnaeus; 1761 (Diptera). . . . ese ee 59 
Jerruginea, MuseasScopoli, 1763 (Diptera). oe 7 2). Ae a S25) 
filum, Mantis, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Mantodea). . . . . . . 2... 2 2... 108 


flavicollo, Psittacus banksi; Kerr, 1792 (Aves) . . . «WP Tg) 5) et) 8 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 359 


avinand. Phora, Meipens1830)(Diptera) wee, {ERIS 2) ares Sone ootesl2 
foetidus, Scarabaeus, Herbst, 1783 (Coleoptera) . . . ...... =.=. =. =. . 121,340 
forsteri, Natrix, Wagler in Spix, 1824 (Reptilia) . . . .......2.2.2. =... . 250 
Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida) . . . ......... .98 
genei, Salamandra, Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 (Amphibia, Caudata) . . . ... . 149 
geyeri, Xerophila, Soos, 1926 (Gastropoda). . .......,.... . . 105, 336 
Giraffa Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) . . . aul omar seitew gore 611/35, 26640342 
glaucus, Scomber, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthiyes) » (rere ths CLAS retired ore 328 
GiEsBLISsONG aloo (Nammalia)is -s ...a dees tae. S2alIt bees sorlSS) 266.342 
glis, Sciurus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) ........... . . . 135,266, 342 
gnatho, Brentus, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera). . . fOOSt| cet: nace 5 108339 
gracilis, Loris, E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia) ‘irate, 20l35,126653829340 
grandiflora’ Doris, Rapp; 11827 (Gastropoda). ‘aivaensit) 25). acer Inc ce 7256 
guttata, Doridopsis, Odhner, 1917 (Gastropoda). . ............ . 7,256 
guttata, Doris, Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda) 7, 256 
haematites, Cassida, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera) . . . . ..... . . . 108, 339 
hamiltoni, Catharacta skua, Hagen, 1952 (Aves) . .......2.2.2.2.2.2.=. ~.52 
hasselquistii, Myletes, Cuvier, 1818 (Osteichthyes) . . . eke eee TRS 
HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudatay’ Set ee ESSE 264341 
HEMIMANTIDAE Hoffmann, 1878 (Amphibia, Anura) . . . ....... ~. . 240 
idemiunanus Peters, 1863) (Amphibia,,Anura)iy "2 0. PP 240 
ieteropieraiMacguart, Wi8351(Diptera))|s)os1 eee Set Se ee ee, S16, 
histeroides, Tyctus, Fabricius, 1792\(Goleoptera) . . .°) 2. 2 LS OT 
hoevenii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846 (Osteichthyes) . .........2.2..2.. . 320 
humilis, Bombus, Mliger, 1806 (Hymenoptera). . ........2.2...=.. .232 
Epaena@ Brisson, 762\(Mammalia) +5 VPS er! 1855-266) 342 
hyaena, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia). . ......... . . . 135, 266, 342 
hydrochaeris, Sus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) ........ . . . . 135, 266, 342 
Hydrochoerus Brisson, 176 (Mammalia) . ........... .. .. . 135, 266, 342 
Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata). . . . ..........~. =. 149 
Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera). . .......... . . 28, 258 
intermedia, Macrochaeta, Bretscher, 1896 (Oligochaeta). . . ........~. +. 302 
isuiolepia Lioy. 1864(Puptera)’... =, k. os, | aw eOs ROL an, melt sssi16 
Pecayrusibejean, 1836Coleoptera);. |. 0. so LPeesen ae UNS Fn.) ese LDS 
ischyruspacordaite, 1842\(Coleoptera)innetpete) |.1).) 2 AP see eee A eeel28 
javanicus, Cervus, Osbeck, 1765 (Mammalia) ........... .. . 135, 266, 342 
Mann Stonig BAsit- ALS Oi (POlyChacta)s kop p<, 5 >. feuds Ly RUN) chased Seen nlO 
Yonnstonia Bubrmann, (1920) (Polychaeta)) 2%. <<) .0).P il. se dieeos |) ee oot lO 
Jonnstonia Quatrefages, 1849 (Polychaeta) =... . . . .. seiwc) de). 05 - wold 
Johnstonia Quatrefages, 1866 (Polychaeta) . . . ~ + (eyeeaeT: C27E. eit cel 
junix, Brachycerus, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera. Sy 2 opbderet bayer 21085339. 
KGlacnouwmmbolz,.1958(Gephalopoda)is % = =. . 2 2... 2... 5 2.25 + 2 219 
Kelaenoid:Orbieny, 1841i(Eephalopoda)i meer Gne). Sl. ean Genes? ee219 
iKelaeno: Niunster, 1839\(Cephalopoda) Wa tanintes) 2) aoe elk e619 
iKelacno Minster 842i(Cephalopoda)s Aimigens }y. N20 4, cesar a Dae A e219 
iKolopitlerbsts i 97i(Coleaptera)m res ~ = = < . Saceserehene 7. eae: 998219256 


kyptophapusitHerbstyl 792, (Coleoptera) ienaemaimes =.) PA Sesto Slr 21256 


360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


lancifer, Musca, Harris, [1780] (Diptera) 

lathami, Psittacus, Temminck, 1807 (Aves) . 

lesueuri, Erotylus, Chevrolat, 1835 (Coleoptera) . 
Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Isopoda) . F 
LIRONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 (isapeda), 
Livoneca Leach, 1818 (Isopoda) . , 
LIVONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1984 (nape 
lonnbergi, Catharacta antarctica, Mathews, 1912 (Aves) 
Loridium Rafinesque, 1815 (Mammalia) J 
Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (uation) s 
lucorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1761 (Hymenoptera) 

lugubris, Caranx, Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes) . 

Lutra Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) . : 

lutra, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 

Lybas Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera) 

Lybas Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) . : 
Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia) . 


Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896 (Oligochaeta) 
Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 (Oligochaeta) . 


magnificus, Psittacus, Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790 (Aves) ; 


marginata, Notonecta, Miller, 1776 (Heteroptera) 
marmoratus, Rivulus, Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes) 
maugetii, Elmis, Latreille, 1802 (Coleoptera) . 
Megalodon Sowerby, 1827 (Bivalvia) 

Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) . é 
MEGALODONTESIDAE Konow, 1897 (ijmtenopter) 
MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Hymenoptera) 
MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Bivalvia) . 
Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Coleoptera) . nies 
Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) . 

Meles Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) : 

meles, Ursus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) 

Melesium Rafinesque, 1815 (Mammalia) . 

meridionalis, Termes, Froggatt, 1898 (Isoptera) 
Micrischyrus Alvarenga, 1965 (Coleoptera) 

m-nigrum, Coluber, Raddi, 1820 (Reptilia) . ; 
monardae, Rhopalosiphum, Davis, 1911 (Homoptera) . 
muscorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) 


MYCETOGLOSSINI Bonaparte, 1850 Pees Caudalie) ¢ 


Mycotretus Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera) 
Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) . 
Myletes Cuvier, 1814 (Osteichthyes) . 

Myopa Fabricius, 1775 (Diptera) . 
Myopella Robineau-Desvoidy, 1853 (Wiptera) 
Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 (Mammalia) 


nanum, Cacosternum, Boulenger, 1887 (Amphibia, Anura) . 
natalensis, Stenorhynchus, Smith, 1849 (Amphibia, Anura) . 
neriifolia, Locusta, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Orthoptera) 
Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Gastropoda) . a hae 

niger, Vespertilio vampirus, Kerr, 1792 (Mammalia) 


. 135, 266, 332, 342 
. 135, 266, 332, 342 


. 135, 266, 342 
. 135, 266, 342 


mere) 


. 135, 266, 342 
. 135, 266, 342 
. 135, 266, 342 


. 153, 264, 341 


WS TN259) 
Aus 131259. 
: 135, 266, 342 


. 240 
. 240 
. 108 
: eo Nth 
; 135, 266, 342 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


nitida, Cicindela, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera) 
nodosus, Ceratites, Schlotheim, 1813 (Cephalopoda) . 
normalis, Lybas, Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) . 
nudicapitata, Chromadora, Bastian, 1865 (Nematoda) . 


obliqua, Notonecta, Thunberg, 1787 (Heteroptera) 
ocellatus, Rivulus, Hensel, 1868 (Osteichthyes) . 
olivaceus, Eutettix?, Melichar, 1903 (Homoptera) 

Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (Isopoda) oF, 
opossum, Didelphis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) . Pee 
ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820) Serine 
Orthocerus Latreille, 1796 (Coleoptera) : 
ovatus, Gasterosteus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) 


paca, Mus, Linnaeus, 1766 (Mammalia) . 

Pennella Oken, 1815 (Copepoda) ve: 

Petropedetes Reichenow, 1874 (Amphibia, Aunrayil . 
PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 (Amphibia, Anura) . 
Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) eee 
Philander Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) : 
PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Asaphiote reall 
Phrynobatrachus Ginther, 1862 (Amphibia, Anura) se 
piceus, Lithobius, Koch, 1862 (Chilopoda) 

pleurestha, Helix, Berthier, 1884 (Gastropoda) eit: 
poecilogyrus, Coluber, Wied-Neuwied, [1824] Sart ’ 
Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) . 

Porcellio Latreille, 1804 (Isopoda) . 

portentosa, Acheta, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Orthoptera) 
pseudobrowniana, Scottia, Kempf, 1971 (Ostracoda) 
Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863 (Osteichthyes) . 

Pteropus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) 

Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881 (Gastropoda) 

Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881 (Gastropoda) . 

purpurea, Sagra, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Coleoptera) 

pusilla, Copromyza, Fallén, 1820 (Diptera) . 


quadridentatus, Lithobius, Menge, 1851 (Chilopoda) 
quadripunctatus, Erotylus, Olivier, 1792 (Coleoptera) . 


redmanii, Livoneca, Leach, 1818 (Isopoda) . 
retusus, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera) 
Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793 (Coleoptera) . 
Rhyzophagus Gyllenhal, 1813 (Coleoptera) 

rufus, Scarabaeus, De Geer, 1778 (Coleoptera) 
rufus, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera) . 
rufus, Scarabaeus, Moll, 1782 (Coleoptera) . 
rugosus, Plesiosaurus, Owen, 1840 (Reptilia) 
Ryzophagus Herbst, 1793 (Coleoptera) . 


SARROTRIIDAE Billberg, 1820 (Coleoptera) 
scaber, Porcellio, Latreille, 1804 (Isopoda) . 
Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Coleoptera) . 
Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia) . 
Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Ostracoda) 


. 108, 
. Al, 


361 


339 
147 


. 128 
elO2 


. 41 
. 46 


. 116 
BN 


. 135, 266, 


342 


bal 
4 U9 


3323 


. 135, 266, 


342 


. 338 
. 240 
. 240 


. 135, 266, 


. 43 


342 


. 240 
. 240 


S35 
e105! 


341 
336 


. 250 


. 43 


eel 
. 108 
. 304 
. 323 


. 135, 266, 


342 


2217 
5 PAW) 


. 108, 


339 


. 316 


, 341 


. 128 


. 224 
. 306 


, 256 


256 


, 340 
, 340 
, 340 


. 247 


256 


a 17 


m227 


- 43 


- 330 
. 304 


362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


scrophulariae, Phorodon, Thomas, 1879 (Homoptera). . .......... =. . 118 
scybalarius, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera). . . . . ... . . . . 121,340 
seychellensis, Psammophis, Schlegel, 1837 Glan 3s SPSS yuskecow Esa. eee) 
Sicus Fabricius, 1798 (Diptera). . . . . eet} C2Ri. jean. : Roses 59 
Sicusiatretle? 1796; (Diptera) Piece Nis pds eeges o.oo eee soca sia ee 
Sicus Scopoli, 1763 (Diptera) . . Reiser rote tre Morrone een alll. LSB) 
Solpuga Lichtenstein, 1796 (Arachnida) eat 35 Fk: sth Sars checaiie Oe eS 
speciosa, Acanthoteuthis, Minster, 1839 (Genhalgpoday . 2h oe ae ENT hpeskis Ab-wl cee 
Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 (Diptera) . . . fap ec cen’ ae ee 4s) CL ee 
squammosa, Virgulina, d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiterida) . 3} hoes ose tas. pale eS 
stannii, Akrostomum:; Grube; 1840\(Nemertea) 2 2. 6 ess es os 
Sienops Iliger:, 18) (Mammialia) tie eee ce eee one oe a ons sos, 199, 266039525540 
Stomoxoides’Schaeffer, 1766:(Diptera) =... 205. 2 ow 2 8 Se ss 0 ee ORE SD) 
subsultans, Musca; Linnaeus, 1/67 (Diptera)... / te) +, ee ele 
fantilla; Pupa,“Gould, 1847 (Gastropoda) toma A: «sitesi e ) See eyed cee 
Tapirus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) . . aneicar AY 2Pel sadn 4 eepadsor2Gomad2 
Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785 (enna). a ae ss, oh peters 2 tet LSS 26s Soma 
Tardigradus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) .......... .. . . 135, 266, 332, 342 
tardigradus, Lemur, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia). . .... . . . . 135, 266, 332, 342 
Taxus Cuvier & Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1795 (Mammalia)... .. . . . 135, 266, 342 
tegulata, Virgulina, Reuss, 1846 (Foraminiferida). . . .........4... .98 
dhemnorhynchusiWope; 1837 (Coleoptera)i yy) ewes, 2-8 EAI Saat) <a lo, GueeSUO 
terrestris, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) . . .........+.+..~. . 232 
terrestris, Hippopotamus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) ...... . . . 135, 266, 342 
topeka, Cliola (Hybopsis), Gilbert, 1884 Ss SMe + WGloctysuds S685: age, Paes 
Tragulus Boddaert, 1785 (Mammalia). . . . Sf cabsypryetetnd Be oagita el Soap Ome ae, 
Traculus Brisson: W/62)(Mammialia)? i biteteter a SOt. Yer tt ciara nll On 2GOnsae 
Tragulus Pallas; 1767 (Mammalia)... 02°. 4 hae w td ns att)» 135,266,342 
trifasciata,; Nemoura, Pictet, 1832\(Plecoptera)  . 2. 64 cee) Gh) eee ee ws 309) 
tristis, Moniana, Girard; 1857/i(Gastropoda) ~~ | - fsjnnoteeio) J! peeteore! vb lek ee Oe 
umbretta, Phasma, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Phasmida) .............. . 108 
undajus. Brotyius. Olivier. 192 (Coleoptera)... =. e- . 4,0.* rites ce en eee 
uriicae, Dermestes. Rabricias, 1792 (Coleoptera) 22 «5 2s ls ee we OD 
Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea) . . . . . ....... . . 298 
Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Oligochaeta) .. . iad Galt el See ee 
vicianica, Helix, Bourguignat in Locard, 1882 (Gastropoda) ou, ta eatin SOSSSS6 
viennensis, Colon, Herbst, 1797 (Coleoptera). . . . ....... 2 QBQS6 
v-luteum, Cimex, Lichtenstein, 1796 (Heteroptera) . . ........... . . 108 
vulgaris, Chromadora, Bastian, 1865 (Nematoda) ............7 . . 102 
sycaunica: Helix, Mabillen88ili(Gastropoda)) usa pspegieaei- Stee io suerte nin ol OD ease 
Brisson, M.J. 1762. Regnum Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica 
: . 135, 266, 342 
Lichtcustem, A. x H. 1796. "Caples musei E coneies Bhsrnd anpetras d. III. Februar 1796 
auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta . . ALi Is OLOaRas9 
Lichtenstein, A.A.H. 1797. Catalogus musei zoologici ditissimi Hamburet d. 16 rae 1797 
auctionis lege distrahendi. Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta . . a relos 


Schneider, D.H. 1800. Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten Walch am teri Marz 1800 zu 
Stralsund in 6ffenilicher Auction einzeln verkauft werden sollen . ..... . . . 108 


Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 363 


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. 


364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51(4) December 1994 


PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 51 (1994) 


Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication 
1 1-88 30 March 1994 
2 89-184 30 June 1994 
3 185-292 30 September 1994 
4 293-364 20 December 1994 


INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER 


The present volume should be bound up as follows: 
Title page, Table of Contents (I-VII), 1-364 
Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume 


Contents — continued 


On the proposed suppression of the catalogues of A.A.H. Lichtenstein (1796, 1797) 
and D.H. Schneider (1800), with the conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) 
names (Insecta and Arachnida). R.D. Pope . 

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Ushodans ae ( Moll, 1782), 
A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and ea he (Fabricius, 1792) (Insecta, 
Coleoptera). G. Dellacasa. 

On the proposed conservation of the specif name oF Tahabaee piceus =n och, 1862 
(Chilopoda). A. Minelli 

On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 (Amphibia, 
Caudata). H.M. Smith & D.B. Wake . 

On the proposed conservation of some mammal peabnie names tect published in 
Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. C.P. Groves; D.E. Wilson; R.S. Voss; J.H. 
Wahlert; P.A. Morris; S. Anderson; P. Grubb; D.L. Harrison & P.J.J. Bates; Z. 
Pucek 


Indexes, etc. 

Authors in volume 51 (1994) ; 

Names and works placed on Official Lists ane Fades in lines of the feces ein 
published in volume 51 (1994) . ; 

Key names and works in Applications and Suen published in panies 51 (1994). 

Instructions to authors . 

Publication dates and pagination i yet ‘51 (1994). 

Instructions to binder . . . 

Table of Contents of volume 51 (1994) 


339 


340 


341 


341 


342 


CONTENTS 
Page 


INOEICES:\ ree. a JS AL) pares pane 
Fourth Edition of tie Iatecoational Code of Zoological Nomericlature Pee Rae 294 
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . . . 294 
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in es — Second d Supplement to 

112 UT ets , F etre res 294 
Bulletin of Zoological Moniencletute — = Rack Copies ee eet Siete 295 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusea Offprints. Sines 295 
The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature. . . . ....... ° 295 
Finaricial Report for 1993 — 2.0 kas fee a Se Ge) a ee ee 296 
Applications 
Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): proposed conservation. F.B. 

Crandall! Stave: 298 
Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Anmelida, Oheccrsctn Soe sees over 

Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899.T. Timm. . . . 302 
Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Oshratoda): ance nessa: oa 

Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species. E.K. Kempf... . 304 
Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): a conservation. F.-T. 

Kreis 5 seas os 306 


BRACHYPTERINAE ioecrere 1345 (eee (Goleanieeh and BRACHYPTERINAE 2 Zink 

1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera): sega removal of a P.A. Audisio, R. 

Fochetti & P. Zwick. . . 309 
Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 oad ees Endeclein, 1924 fines Peed 

proposed conservation; Sphaerocera curvipes Latreille, 1805 and Phora flavimana 

Meigen, 1830: proposed conservation of the specific names. B.V. Brown & C.W. 

Sabrosky .. . 312 
Coproica Rondani, 1861 at ree aon fies 1864 (Gsecten Dipe-eal: soneed 

conservation of usage by the designation of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 

as the type species of Coproica. T.A. Wheeler & J.E.Swann . . . 316 
Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenii; Osteichthves, 

Siluriformes): proposed designation of a neotype. M. Kottelat, K.K.P. Lim & 

PKS ONE ys eae 320 
Scomber dentex Bloch & Schnewien 1801 fcaseuily Gare or Praidacasee defen, 

and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conser- 


vation of the specific names. W.F. Smith-Vaniz & J.E. Randall . . . 323 
Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes): edie eoctaneatiod H. M. 
Smith & V. Wallach. . . . 330 
Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (@ammalia, Pont iproposed coma 
A. Gentry, CPs Groves, JE Hul & PD» Jenkins) <)>). te settee 332 
Comments 
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Soos, 1926 
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). P. Bouchet; E. Gittenberger. . . 336 
On the proposed conservation of Clavella Oken, 1815 and Pennella Okens 1815 
(Crustacea, Copepoda). D.W. Rice; A. Gentry. . . .. . ; 338 


Continued on Inside Back Cover 


Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset 


iil | a | 
YA aman adiie > ora 


* kee’ 
- 


ans 


c= a ~_ ae May — _— 
oe = ¢ vs 
= a 
as aa 
a r 
5 a oe) 
2-6 a } 
ae ? 
So V 
- - a7 
- , 
- 
ee ae e ‘ 
+ 4 i 
y 
= Poe ' 
em 7 
12 i 
- 9! 
i ' 
t 
‘» 
t Ss ie a 
F a rs 
y 
if -_ 


5 - 7 Th coal ’ 
: | P= -« 


i on " ot ey 7 al “ = as ; 
: : P Te! ss ere - ae. Gee - A. ye a0 Ss “en he