Hi i Het it ; pn ew 7998 The Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature NG VAR: The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 52, 1995 Published on behalf of the Commission by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature clo The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, U.K. ISSN 007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . ; The International Common on "Zoological Nomenclature stot its Soeaner Addresses of members of the Commission International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. ¥ ‘ Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature : The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology—Second Supplement to 1990 . 3 Uke The European Abekietaa fan Pelee Nanmacne. : Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the International Goats on Zoological Nomenclature . General Article The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review of the problem and of proposed solutions. J.O. Corliss . Applications Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): proposed conservation, and designation of S. gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species. C.W. Stearn Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- vation of the specific name. E. Martinez & J. Ortea. : OCR Langistt Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Teak 1798 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. A. Guerra & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . ERO RARE APRS, Sf UY SIO ET ROR OCC Dodecaceria concharum Gisted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation of the specific names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. P.H. Gibson & D. Heppell 5h BORE di ot ayia Atha tai mer So ra teehee ta Eokdehs LRM dl Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita): proposed conservation. R.M. Owens & A.T. Thomas . Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, Seprefones) Brapo Red eausenation of the rediscovered holotype as the name-bearing type. W.D. Sissom . Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843 (currently Diplonychus rusticus and Belostoma stollii; Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific names. J.T. Polhemus & I.M. Kerzhner : Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct. original spelling, and AsPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859): proposed placement on the Official List. J.V. McHugh XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and QUEDIINI Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, " Coleoptera): proposed precedence over senior synonyms, and Quedius Stephens, 1829: proposed designation of Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 as the type species. A.F. Newton, Jr. Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type gaa N.D. Voinovich, V.A. Trjapitzin & E.S. Sugonjaev Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scoepacuitormes): proposed conser- vation; AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): proposed removal of homonymy. B.A. Sheiko . Proposed conservation of nine specific names of southern Afrotropical birds which are junior synonyms. P.A. Clancey & R.K. Brooke . nan 40 44 48 54 57 61 II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 Comments On the proposed conservation of usage of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Munster, 1839 and Kelaeno Minster, 1842 (Mollusca, oe D.T. Donovan; W. aia M. Nixon; T.S. Engeser On the proposed conservation of Tondtn ene 1818 (ome! eee) as ite correct original spelling. L.B. Holthuis; A. Brandt; N.L. Bruce On the proposed conservation of usage of the generic names Welanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera). S. Bily & C.L. Bellamy. On the proposed eamearetien of the spetiific names oF Mnnoaiens hee (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) (Insecta, Coleoptera). H. Silfverberg; F.-T. Krell; Z.T. Stebnicka . On the proposed conservation of Jschyrus, Lybas and Mycotretus er 1842 and of Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera). R.C. Funk . On the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, |1780] as the type species of Hijitroen Ovi Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera), and peepee of a So for M. lancifer. D.M. Ackland & G.C.D. Griffiths . On the proposed conservation of Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and My opa Fabricius, ‘1775 By the designation of Conops buccata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of ig and on Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Diptera). A. Gentry . On the proposed conservation of the usage of the specific names of ombact terrestris and B. muscorum (Linnaeus, 1758), B. /ucorwm (Linnaeus, 1761) and B. humilis Illiger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). H. Silfverberg . F On the proposed designation of a neotype for Coelophyss pais (Gope 1887) (Reptilia, Saurischia). R.M. Sullivan. On the proposed conservation of the Specific name Bu ee Ee aRE A (Wied-Neuwied, DRED Cents, peeentee) L.J. Witt; E.L. Bell & K.L. Williams On the proposed conservation ‘of some ecisial generic names ate published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. A. Mones; F. Petter; A. Turner; A.L. Gardner; F. de Beaufort, L. Granjon, J.M. Pons & M. Tranier; C. Jones; N. Sivasothi; J.L. Eger; B. Sigé; M.E. Holden; S. Aulagnier; G.B. Corbet; J.-L. Herter bee H. de Bruijn; M. Vianey-Liaud; J.J. Hooker; A. Gentry . Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1792. Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma meneghinii; Mollusca, Gastropoda): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype . OPINION 1793. Chtenopteryx Appell6f, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): confirmed as the correct original spelling . ‘ OPINION 1794. Sigara coleoptrata Bobriens, [1777] (insects Heteropterd)s specitie name conserved, and Notonecta obliqua snes 1787: specific name placed on the Official List . ‘ ae EEE LS Ree ee os OPINION 1795. Corisa eelneate Reiter: 1882 (currently Sigara (Tropocorixa) sexlineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name not conserved, and that of C. confluens Fieber, 1851 placed on Official List . . OPINION 1796. Platynectes Régimbart, 1879 (Insecta, @alzopiera): Eons OPINION 1797. Qecothea Haliday in Curtis, 1837 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved, and Helomyza fenestralis Fallén, 1820 designated as the type species . Seca OPINION 1798. Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprino- dontiformes): given precedence over R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868, and a oe designated for R. marmoratus . hate OPINION 1799. Naucrates Rafidesquss 1810 and | Mpriehipe Cuiviek, 1814 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): conserved. . . : mere OPINION 1800. Emys Duméril, 1806 (Reptilia, Testudines): wonseried : 65 67 70 71 73 74 74 76 76 77 78 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 109 111 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 OPINION 1801. Cetiosauriscus Huene, 1927 (Reptilia, Sauropodomorpha): Cetio- sauriscus stewarti Charig, 1980 designated as the type species. : OPINION 1802. Dinodontosaurus Romer, 1943 (Reptilia, Synapsida): conserved: Information and Instructions for Authors Notices . : Call for peeat manera fon new quenmbers of the iteciasioual onan on alone cal Nomenclature . . Towards Stability in the nha us neat Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology sgeeand a Supplement to 1990. : . polars The International Gods us Zooleeical Nonienclatars The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature . : Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological orienelaince Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoolopical Nomenclature . General Articles Comment on Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth (Hawksworth et al., 1994). A.E. Bogan & E.E. Spamer . On the nomenclature of domestic animals. C.P. Groves Applications Porites Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia): proposed conservation. D.C. Potts . Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of Endodonta wesleyi Sykes, 1896 as the type species. N.L. Evenhuis & R.H. Cowie. PLUTONINAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and pLUTONIINAE Cockerell, 1893 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed removal of ees. R.M. a ae & T. Backeljau . Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Tsopoda): oe conservation ‘of both the generic and specific names. P.T. Lehtinen, S. Taiti & F. Ferrara. Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation or Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 as the type species. D.B. Baker. Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, Hymen- optera): proposed conservation of the specific names. W.E. LaBerge : Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa): proposed designation i Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 as the type species. P.N. Wyse Jackson & A.J. Bancroft . Nectria Gray, 1840 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): moneeed eatin ‘Of Nectri la ocellata Perrier, 1875 as the type species. W. Zeidler Phyllophis carinata Giinther, 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata; pies tits Serpentes): proposed conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, H. Ota & V. Wallach . Aptornis Owen, [1848] (Aves): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. E. Weber & F.-T. Krell. GE 2 Re Comments On the proposed conservation of Fursenkoina Loeblich & paibese 1961 (Fora- miniferida). J.R. Haynes; S.A. Revets . On the proposed conservation of the specific name ‘of Neraplila geyeri Show 192 6 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky . 148 150 153 157 159 162 164 166 170 175 176 IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 On the proposed designation of Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). H.J. Oertli; C. Meisch; 1.G. Sohn On the proposed conservation of Der oneca ofall 1818 (Crustacea, Tsopoda) as the correct original spelling. G. Bello; R.Y. George On the proposai to remove the homonymy between BRACHYPTERINAE Becieor [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera), and proposed precedence of KATERETIDAE Ganglbauer, 1899 over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]. P.A. Audisio; A.F. Newton On the proposed conservation of Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 and Boremhaga Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera). R.H.L. Disney; B.V. Brown On the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Ganda by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species. A. Dubois. On the proposed conservation of Liycuenathophis ipadlensen 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes). H. Ota; R.A. Nussbaum; E.V. Malnate; E.L. Bell et al. . On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first publishied in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. M.R. Dawson; K. Seaman; J.R. Moreira; A.W. Gentry; E.R. Justo; V. Fahlbusch, K. Heissig, H. Mayr & G. Réssner; P.J. Boylan; D. Kock; P. Mein, M. Hugueney, C. Guérin & R. Ballesio . On the proposed conservation of Loris E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 (Mammalia, Primates). R.H. Crompton et ema tere pa Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1803. Robulina nodosa Reuss, 1863 (currently Lenticulina nodosa; Foraminiferida): neotype confirmed as the name-bearing type . : OPINION 1804. Cristellaria humilis Reuss, 1863 (currently Astacolus eae Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered lectotype, and Rotalia schloen- bachi (currently Notoplanulina? schloenbachi; Foraminiferida): placed on the Official List . 5 OPINION 1805. Doris ae Hig Rapp. 1827 tcutrently Dendredonis ania and Doridopsis guttata Odhner, 1917 oe Dendrodoris guttata) (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific names conserved OPINION 1806. Ammonites nodosus (currently Neaahins ners Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): specific name attributed to Schlotheim, 1813, and a lectotype designated. OPINION 1807. Fonnsonee Oustretapes: 1866 (encida Polychaeta): contented OPINION 1808. Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 and Termes meridionalis Froggatt, 1898 (currently Amitermes meridionalis) ete Isoptera): neotypes retained following rediscovery of syntypes ah Re Aa ane OPINION 1809. Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767, Ptinus Tareas 1767 and Mylabris Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved . j OPINION 1810. Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhcaphoee Herbst, 1793 and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved as the correct original spellings, and Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius, 1792 ruled to be the type species of Rhizophagus . OPINION 1811. coLypmpae Erichson, 1842 (nseéta, Coleoptara): given precedente over CERYLONIDAE Billberg, 1820 and ORTHOCERINI Blanchard, 1845 (1820); and Cerylon Latreille, 1802: Lyctus histeroides Fabricius, 1792 designated as the ° type species . OPINION 1812. ELMIDAE Gerais. 1830 (Insecta, Galoapterays oan ee as ih correct original spelling, and the gender of E/mis Latreille, 1802 ruled to be feminine . OPINION 1813. Alestes Miller & Troschel, 1844 pee: seater ge conserved . ee 178 178 179 181 183 186 187 193 194 196 198 200 204 206 208 211 214 217 219 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 OPINION 1814. Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi Mathews, 1912 (currently Catharacta skua lonnbergi) and Catharacta skua hamiltoni Hagen, 1952 (Aves, Charadriiformes): subspecific names conserved . Information and Instructions for Authors Notices . ; Towards Stability i in the Mawes fi etaale. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature . ; Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Magicians Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Polar Nomenclature. Comments by W.D.L. Ride; R.W. ae Z. Kabata; H.M. Smith; F.C. Thompson . ; = ie Applications Patella longicosta Lamarck, 1819 (Mollusca, SES gone proposed conservation of the specific name. D.G. Herbert Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda): poe, geesren eae “yleata Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed conservation of the specific name; and Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda): application for a ruling on its status. P.T. Lehtinen & L.B. Holthuis . . . Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 iGaidees Copepoda): pro- posed conservation. M.J. Grygier . t Chaetodacus latifrons Hendel, 1915 (currently Bacwoeds fatiedis: MEeDEeE Disa: proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Dacus parvulus Hendel, 1912. ILM. White & N.J. Liquido . pease tage Ar Peers Ae eb TY SOY Eudistoma Caullery, 1909 (Tunicata): Did eee precedence over Paessleria Michaelsen, 1907. P. Kott. Cyclodomorphus praealtus (Reptilia, istuamta): a opoeal that availability oF the specific name be taken from the intended ae by Shea, 1995. W.S. Osborne & K. Green . PS $s SSIS Ee ee ee Comments On the proposed conservation of Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromato- poroidea) and designation of S. hea Stearn, 1995 as the gis a. P. Bouchet; J. St. Jean . : On the proposed conservation of the ete name bat Nerouita geyeri S6au: 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). E. Gittenberger . 3 On the proposed conservation of the specific name oe he juin Quey & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). A. Bebbington . On the proposed conservation of the specific names of eaeeaeen eaiearan: Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. F. Pleijel & A.S.Y. Mackie . On the proposed conservation oF ieaphieops Bela} 1935 ee Acemaspis ‘Campbell 1967 (Trilobita). H.B. Whittington On the proposed designation of S. edn ahh niana Kempf, 1971 as ‘the type speties of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). R. Matzke-Karasz. On the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda) as the correct original ee T.E. Bowman; E.H. Williams, Jr. & L.B. Williams; G. Bello F : MWY... Ue eater Dae Get Lo: godt 234 245 VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 On the proposed conservation of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling, and the placement of ASPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) on the Official List. A.F. Newton, Jr. & M.K. Thayer. On the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & aint 1838 as the type species. H.M. Smith, D.B. Wake & M.R. Jennings . 3 On the proposed conservation of the family-group name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura). J.C. Poynton; D.R. Frost & J.M. Savage . On the proposed conservation of ES he ereaiee 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes). L.E. Brown. On the proposed conservation are some mamiealt generic names ieee published in Brisson’s (1762) nase" Animale. A. Currant; M. Freudenthal; M. Wolsan; C, Dupuis . SARE LH Rh LAE A Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1815. Chromadora Bastian, 1865 and Euchromadora de Man, 1886 (Nematoda): conserved by the ae of C. nudicapitata Bastian, 1865 as the type species of Chromadora . . . Oe ee ee OPINION 1816. Lithobius piceus Gs Keck 1862 (Chilopoda): specific name conserved . - OPINION 1817. Clavella ‘Olen, 1815 and Bonnell. Glen, 1815 (Colstacea. Cope: poda): conserved, and Pennella diodontis Oken, 1815: specific name conserved. OPINION 1818. Rhopalosiphum monardae Davis, 1911 (currently Hyalomyzus monardae; Insecta, Homoptera): specific name conserved . SiN, a heer OPINION 1819. Bhatia Distant, 1908 (Insecta, Homoptera): Eutettix olivaceus Melichar, 1903 confirmed as the type species ‘ ; OPINION 1820. A.A.H. Lichtenstein’s (1796, 1797) Gaaiocas muse Decale: A Sectio Tertia. Continens Insecta and D.H. Schneider’s (1800) Verzeichniss einer Parthei Insekten ... : suppressed, with conservation of some Lichtenstein (1796) names (Insecta and Arachnida). . 4 OPINION 1821. Cliola (Hybopsis) topeka Gilbert, 1884 (curently Notrops topes Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): specific name conserved . Information and Instructions for Authors Notices . , Election of the President of the Intevaational Gonsnusion: on WASTES Nomen, clature . Towards Stability; in the ees ah erect tage Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in ice te — Second d Supplement to 1990 . : ; dyelesing The European Association fo Zoological arene aad Financial Report for 1994. ‘ Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition ae the Intemational Code ae Zeolosical Nomenclature. Comments by I.M. Kerzhner & Ya.I. Starobogatov; C.W. Sabrosky; A. Dubois; C.J. Ferraris; G. Rosenberg; A.R. Kabat; T.S. Arnold; P. Bouchet; W. Wiister; N.L. Evenhuis; M. Pavesi : sernts Exvorys General Article The changing paradigms of biological systematics: new challenges to the principles and practice of biological nomenclature. A. Minelli . 2, Pere 264 267 303 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 Applications Paraphronima crassipes Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Sate eee proposed conservation of the specific name. W. Zeidler cl SO ch Peden Sees eee tee Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over Aenasioidea Girault, 1911. J.S. Noyes & J.B. Woolley . Dialictus Robertson, 1902 and Chloralictus Robertson, 1902 (lasecta, Wiymenoptera): proposed precedence over Paralictus Robertson, 1901. C.D. Michener : Monograptus riccartonensis Lapworth, 1876 aes proposed designation of a neotype. D.K. Loydell : Todotropheus sprengerae Oliver & aielic 1972 (Osteichthyes, iBeredoones) proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. J.R. Stauffer, Jr. 3 Siboma atraria Girard, 1856 (currently Gila atraria; Osteichthyes, Gyenmitannes) proposed conservation of the specific name. C.R. Gilbert. Comments On the proposed conservation of Porites Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and saa ee Blainville, 1830 ‘eae Scleractinia). B.R. Rosen On the eee conservation ae ihe eae names a Daiecaceria cape Orsted, 1843 and D. fimbriatus (Verrill, 1879) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. D. Heppell & P.H. Gibson On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Falkner & T. von Proschwitz ; On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Octopus vulgaris Cu uvier, x, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, pon enee D.T. Donovan; M. Vecchione & M.J. Sweeney; J.B. Messenger On the proposal to remove the homonymy between BRACHYPTERINAE IBvichsons [I 845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera), and proposed precedence of KATERETIDAE Ganglbauer, 1899 over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]. A.F. Newton . , MPa ON el Peers lke On the proposed conservation of Sabaerocera navretlles 1804 and Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera). R.H.L. Disney A Bier cries On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 (Amphibia, Caudata). A. Dubois. On the proposed conservation of eiygramantes Gistel, 1848 (Cunniioc, Gandia); fe the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & oe eae 1838 as the es species. S. Salvidio; A. Dubois . On the proposed conservation of the fms -group name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE ‘Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura). B.T. Clarke; A. Dubois . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Phyllophis carinata Guster, 1864 (Reptilia, Serpentes). J.R. Dixon; T. Hikida. . . . On the proposed conservation of Aptornis Owen, [1848] (ves). B. Ui. Gill; Ww. J. ‘Bock On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. A. Gentry Indexes, etc. Authors in volume 52 (1995). Names and works placed on Official Lists Han Tadexesi in milage of the eormnievian published in volume 52 (1995) . Key names and works in Applications and Comments published in ene 52 (1995). Information and instructions for authors . Publication dates and pagination of volume 52 (1995) . Instructions to binder . . . Table of Contents of volume 52 (1995). Vil . —_— * a a OY At Aad ts vats ' Miget jis j 0 oi
¢ ben ony
A, ‘nod 7
waned pi ii i ul
’ } ie... elie nie VO ener Ai? vy dawi mur t Ay
P . DS et 4 sae aibetheyat AT any
igh" an Ah aciescmiceth
‘ nodal as ncaa!
; fy ' Guat; ee Nery
, abd we i i) ly iw Mis ame
* vital)’. / veri ey
¢* sacemane ges) Dil) 05 Senet tal raat dene arTed jee th pipet
2. A tee i
, oy D Latviy: ents a }
2 drodind wh vi
' OT Se cara i wend
a ee, ; 1
sot rai ye
ae ‘ ’
The
Bulletin
of |
Zoological
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 1995 is £88
or $170, 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. 0171-938 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. Tryapitzin
(Russia; Hymenoptera)
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
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 1995
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 199
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 52, part | (pp. 1-116) 30 March 1995
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 4 (published on 20 December 1994). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.
(1) Suchonella Spizharsky, 1937 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation
of S. typica Spizharsky, 1939 as the type species. (Case 2954). I.G. Sohn &
1.1. Molostovskaya.
(2) Iodotropheus sprengerae Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes):
proposed replacement of holotype by a neotype. (Case 2955). J.R. Stauffer, Jr.
(3) Campeloma Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation.
(Case 2956). A.E. Bogan & E.E. Spamer.
(4) Phytobius Schonherr, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed correction of
entry on the Official List of Generic Names and confirmation of Curculio
quadrituberculatus Fabricius, 1787 as the type species. (Case 2957).
H. Silfverberg.
(5) Corisa propinqua Fieber, 1860 (currently Glaenocorisa propinqua; Insecta,
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2958). A.
Jansson.
(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.
TTL TWAT UAL
HISTORY MUSEUM
31 MAR 1995
PURCHASED
ZOOLOGY LIBRARY’
2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
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 28
zoologists from 18 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 (TUBS), and, members are
elected by zoologists attending General Assemblies of TUBS or Congresses of its
associated bodies. Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations
for membership may be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time.
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim,
which is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names
of animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according
to taxonomic judgements’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by
the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the
Commission. A Fourth Edition is in the course of preparation and all zoologists are
invited to comment on a discussion draft.
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 on the inside back cover 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 (not-for-profit
company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present
based in London, and the Trust is established there 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
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 Ss
assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint. Donations to the Trust are
gratefully received and attention is drawn to the tax advantages of legacies.
For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities see BZN 48:
295-299 (December 1991). A Centenary History of the Commission is being
published this year.
Addresses of members of the Commission
Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY
10027, U.S.A.
Dr P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000,
Australia (Vice-President)
Prof J.O. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, U.S.A.
Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Prof Dr G. HAHN Institut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-Universitdt, D-35032
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-2000 Hamburg 13, Germany (President)
Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku,
SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland (Councillor)
Dr E. MACPHERSON Centre d’Estudis Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa
Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain
Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, Case postale 434, CH-1211 Genéve 6,
Switzerland
Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sado 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 c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
(Secretary-General)
Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia (Councillor)
Prof 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 Ya.Il. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Univer-
sitetskaya 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,
Washingten, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.
Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
naberezhnaya 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunin-cho 323-1
Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo 160, Japan
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)
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)
Dr R. Harbach (U.K.)
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.)
Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands)
Dr G.B. White (U.K.)
Prof H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (U.K.)
Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Royal Society)
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 Nomen-
clature. 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 SBD. 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.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 5
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.
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.
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.
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Explanatory notes
The Commission is governed by a Constitution (see Article 76d of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature) which can only be amended by the same procedure
as the Code itself (see Article 82a). The present Constitution is published as Appendix
F of the third (1985) edition of the Code (pp. 236-249). Article 16 of the Constitution
provides that amendments to the Code (and hence to the Constitution also) can only
be voted upon by the Commission if they have been published for at least one year
and if comments made within that period have been considered by the Commission.
The Commission is distributing a discussion draft of a proposed fourth edition of the
Code. It is desirable that the new edition of the Code should contain a Constitution
which includes features whose potential merits were not evident in the circumstances
existing when the present text was formulated, in its essentials more than 20 years
ago. Proposed amendments to the Constitution are put forward now so that the
Code and Constitution can be considered together and be published in the same
volume.
Since the Constitution is administrative rather than nomenclatural in character it
is in the first instance a matter for the Council of the Commission rather than for the
Code Editorial Committee. The proposed amendments were considered by the
Council in June 1994. They include two substantial changes (in Articles 3 and 11)
from the present Constitution, with which the present notes and proposals should be
read.
The proposed Article 3b(i) provides that a Commissioner should not be eligible for
re-election after serving for 18 continuous years, after which re-election would be
possible only following an interval of three years (Article 3b(ii)). The object of this is
to promote turnover of membership, and to counter a widely held belief that
membership of the Commission is effectively life-long. Provision is made to avoid a
Presidency being cut short, and in Article 3b(iii) to allow a particularly appropriate
person to be elected or re-elected to serve as President. If these measures were to take
full effect in 1997, the intended effective date of the new Code, a large number of
vacancies would immediately result. The transitional provision in Article 3b(iv)
means that no sudden disruption and loss of experience will be caused by introduc-
tion of the 18-year rule; however, a number of present Commissioners will reach the
age limit (of 75 years) by 2002 and a considerable change of membership will result
from this, in addition to the normal turnover.
The proposed changes in Article 4 are improvements in the procedure for election
of Commissioners but involve no changes of principle. The changes in Articles 9 and
10 are likewise minor.
Article 11a removes the present obligation on the Commission to have a meeting
at every IUBS General Assembly, but not its ability to do so. The present
requirement was natural in the circumstances of the 1970’s, when IUBS first
succeeded the former International Congresses of Zoology as the Commission’s
supervisory body, but IUBS Assemblies can be very close in time to other Congresses
(such as those of Evolutionary and Systematic Biology (ICSEB)) which are more
widely attended by zoologists. A Commission meeting every third year (the interval
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 ii
between IUBS Assemblies) may be unnecessary when a new Code is not being
prepared. The proposed Article 11a(i) prescribes that a meeting must be held at least
once in six years, but shorter intervals will probably be appropriate and apply in
practice. The formal relationship between IUBS and the Commission is unaffected by
the proposed Constitution amendments.
The suggested changes in Articles 12 and 14 are minor. The tenor of Article 15 is
changed to reflect the proposed change in Article 11a(i), i.e. that meetings of the
Commission will not necessarily be held at every IUBS General Assembly. The
proposals in Articles 16 and 18 do not involve changes of principle.
Comments on the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Commission
are invited, and should be sent by March 1996 to the Executive Secretary (c/o The
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD, U.K.).
Proposed amendments (cf. pp. 236-249 of the Code)
Article 1. Status and Functions of the Commission. — [No changes proposed].
Article 2. Membership of the Commission. — [No changes proposed].
Article 3. Term of service of Members of the Commission. —
(a) Normal term. — The normal term of service of a member of the Commission shall
be reckoned as follows:
(i) Members shall be grouped into classes according to the date of their election or
most recent re-election. A class consists of the members elected at a particular session
of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the International Union of Biological
Sciences (IUBS) together with those elected at by-elections following that session but
preceding the next;
(ii) within a class all members shall have equal seniority and, subject to Section (b),
the term of their service ends at the close of the general session of the Commission
(Article 1la of this Constitution) at which their class is the most senior.
(b) Re-election. — A member whose normal term of service terminates may be
re-elected but:
(i) upon completing a continuous period of service of eighteen years (or, if the
member is President of the Commission, twenty-four years) a person shall cease to be
a member at the next close of a general session of the Commission;
(ii) on completion of the maximum period specified in Subsection (i) three
years must elapse before a former member of the Commission is eligible for
re-election;
(iii) Subsection (ii) shall not apply when a retiring or former member is pre-elected
by the Commission to continue as or to become its President if re-elected as a
member;
(iv) as a transitional arrangement, no service prior to | January 1985 shall be
taken into account for the purposes of Subsection (i).
(c) Prior termination of membership. — The membership of any member of the
Commission shall terminate:
(i) on the date of his or her 75th birthday;
(ii) on acceptance by the Council of notice of resignation tendered in writing to the
Secretary;
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
(iii) if, not being on leave of absence, he or she fails on five consecutive occasions
to record a vote on questions put to the Commission for decision, provided that
within a period of three months following such failure no written explanation has
been made which the Council finds adequate.
Article 4. Election of Members of the Commission. —
(a) Notice. — The Commission shall publish, not less than one year before a general
session of the Commission (Article 11a), a notice which:
(i) gives the names, nationalities and fields of specialisation of the members whose
terms of service will end at the close of that session;
(ii) quotes Article 2b of this Constitution and invites nominations for membership
of the Commission;
(iii) gives a date, not less than three months before the forthcoming general
session, by which nominations must be received.
(b) Circulation. — The notice specified in Section (a) shall be submitted to IUBS, to
the organizers of the Congress where the general session is to be held, and to
appropriate journals in different parts of the world, with a request for its
dissemination.
(c) Nominations. — Nominations, accompanied by a statement of the fields of
specialisation and qualifications under Article 2b of each nominee, are to be sent to
the Secretary of the Commission. Unless the nomination contains the information,
the Secretary shall request each nominee to give consent to the nomination and to
provide a curriculum vitae, a list of publications, and a statement of his or her
nomenclatural experience.
(d) List of Candidates. — The Commission shall at a general session:
(i) determine the number of places, which shall be not less than half the number of
members retiring at the close of the session, to be filled by a ballot of the Section
of Zoological Nomenclature of IUBS;
(ii) consider the nominations which have been made in accordance with Section (c)
and prepare from them a list of twice as many candidates as the number of places to
be filled by ballot in accordance with Subsection (i).
(e) Election. — The Commission shall present the list of candidates to the Section of
Zoological Nomenclature of [UBS for an election by secret ballot.
(f) By-elections. — The Commission may by a postal ballot fill vacancies arising from
prior terminations of membership (Article 3c) or which have not been filled by
election at a session of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of IUBS (Article
4d(i)).
[No changes are proposed in the following Articles]:
Article 5. Duties of Members of the Commission.
Article 6. Officers.
Article 7. Council.
Article 8. Election of Officers and members of Council.
Article 9. Secretariat. —
The Council may appoint an Executive Secretary for such a term and with
such duties as may be fixed in the Bylaws; a member of the Commission may be
appointed similarly as Secretary-General. The Executive Secretary may be an
employee of an appropriate body, such as the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 9
Article 10. Committees. —
(a) Appointment and Functions. —[No change proposed].
(b) Submission of reports. — Each ad hoc committee shall report to the Council at the
time stated in the terms of its appointment or when called upon by the Council to do
so. Ad hoc committees dissolve on submitting their final report or if they are
previously terminated by the Council.
Article 11. Sessions. —
(a) General Sessions. —
(i) The President shall convene general sessions of the Commission at intervals not
exceeding six years, to be held in conjunction with General Assemblies of TUBS,
International Congresses of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB), or other
international Congresses which are widely attended by zoologists.
(ii) A general session shall include a meeting for the preparation of a list of
candidates for election to the Commission and the presentation of that list to a
session of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of IUBS for election by secret
ballot (Article 4).
(iii) A general session may begin before and continue after the Congress with
which it is associated, providing that all members of the Commission are notified in
advance and that elections to the Commission are held only during the period of the
Congress.
(b) Special Sessions. — [No change proposed].
Article 12. Voting. —
(a) In ordinary cases. — [No change proposed].
(b) In cases involving the use of the plenary power or amendments to the Code
or Constitution. — In such cases (see Article 79 of the Code for the use of the
plenary power and Article 16 of this Constitution for amendments to the Code
or Constitution) an affirmative decision shall be deemed to have been taken only
when two thirds of the votes validly cast in a postal vote lasting three months
are in favour of the proposal, and provided that notice of the proposal had
been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and submitted for
publication to at least three appropriate journals at least six months (in the
case of amendments to the Code or Constitution, twelve months) prior to the
vote.
(c) and (d) Conditional and negative votes. — [To be deleted and incorporated into
Bylaws].
Article 13. Financial arrangements. — [No change proposed].
Article 14. Editorial duties of the Commission. — [Delete ‘Directions’ from Section
(a)].
Article 15. Emergency powers. — As a result of an emergency, the Council, or
failing this, the President, may assume and exercise such extraordinary powers as it
(or the President if relevant) may consider necessary to secure the continued
function of the Commission, provided that:
(i) the powers shall cease as soon as the state of emergency permits;
(ii) they shall not include powers to vary the Code, or to issue Declarations or
Opinions which have not been approved by the Commission;
(iii) they, the reasons for their assumption, and their duration, shall be reported to
the Commission and to TUBS as soon as circumstances permit.
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Article 16. Amendments to the Code and Constitution. — The Commission shall
(i) publish the proposed amendment (unless a minor amendment to the Code as
therein defined in Article 77b) in accordance with Article 12b of this Constitution;
(ii) receive and consider comments from zoologists that are received within one
year of the publication of the proposal;
(iii) vote on the proposal (which may be modified in the light of the received
comments) in accordance with Article 12b;
(iv) publish its decision and if two thirds or more of the votes are in the affirmative,
declare that the proposal has become incorporated into the Code or Constitution
subject to ratification by TUBS.
(1) Provisional ratification of the proposed amendment may be sought from IUBS
in advance of the Commission’s vote, such ratification to become effective on
the amendment’s approval by the Commission under Article 12.
Article 17. Bylaws. — [No changes proposed].
Article 18. Inauguration. — This Constitution and all amendments to it shall take
effect when it and they have been approved by the Commission and ratified by [UBS
in accordance with Article 16.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 1]
The ambiregnal protists and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review
of the problem and of proposed solutions
John O. Corliss
P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A.
Abstract. Among the tens of thousands of species of protists recognized today, a
goodly number are known as ‘ambiregnal’ because of their past treatment both as
algae and as protozoa, which caused their names to fall under the jurisdiction of both
the botanical and the zoological Codes of nomenclature. Now that many of them
have been determined to be more closely related to one another than to members of
the plant and animal kingdoms, a solution is needed to relieve their names of the
highly undesirable situation of being subject to different treatment by different
workers, as is possible under the existing Codes. Six proposed solutions of the
complicated problem are examined, with one — harmonization of the relevant Codes
— heralded as the most likely to meet the crying needs of the situation. In addition,
a plea is made for recommendation in the Codes of guidelines useful in the cases of
suprafamilial names of the many diverse high-level protistan assemblages.
The organisms widely known vernacularly as ‘the protists’ — roughly defined as
including all of the protozoa, the eukaryotic algae, and the so-called ‘lower fungi’
(zoosporic and plasmodial species) — have become objects of intensive studies in
recent years as they have been increasingly perceived not only as model cells but also
as groups of great evolutionary significance in the origin of the ‘higher’ eukaryotes,
the plants, animals, and fungi (for latest review, see Corliss, 1994a). While con-
siderable attention has been paid to their ultrastructural, biochemical and molecular
properties on the one hand, and to their phylogenetic interrelationships on the other,
rather few biologists have expressed an interest in the nomenclatural problems arising
from their high-level systematic separation from (most) plants and animals. That is,
they can no longer be treated taxonomically as simply ‘mini-plants’ or ‘mini-animals’
(Corliss, 1983, 1986, 1994b).
Directly involved in their taxonomy and nomenclature, at the lower classification
levels particularly, are the various Codes of nomenclature, which contain both
mandatory and recommended provisions concerning family, generic and specific
names of all living and fossil organisms. The two Codes of special concern to the
topic under consideration are the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature
(Greuter et al, 1994) and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
(International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1985).
Because the great majority of species of protists are, by widespread general
agreement, no longer formally assignable to the kingdoms of plants or animals, their
nomenclature might be considered to fall under no existing Code. This would be an
unacceptable vacuum. These microbial eukaryotes might be assigned to the juris-
diction of one or the other (or some combination of both) of the two major Codes
named above, but this would create an almost equally unsatisfactory situation (see
later sections of this paper). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that some 30,000
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
named species of protists, mostly single-celled, motile, microscopic forms with or
without plastids, have been formally classified, simultaneously, as plants (algae or
fungi) and as animals (protozoa). Thus, their nomenclature fell (or potentially fell)
under two Codes at the same time.
The special category of ‘lower’ eukaryotes described immediately above has come
to be known (adopting the apt term coined by Patterson, 1986) as the ambiregnal
protists. The principal groups involved are: all the euglenids sensu Jato, dinoflagel-
lates, cryptomonads, haptophytes, and glaucophytes; many ‘chromophytes’ (or
heterokonts), particularly those whose flagella bear tripartite hairs; some
‘proteromonads’; scattered species among the ‘chlorophytes’ or green algae (e.g.,
Volvocales sensu lato and prasinophytes); and numerous plasmodial forms (the
so-called myxomycetes/mycetozoa sensu Jato) plus the chytrids — groups claimed by
both mycologists and zoologists (or protistologists).
How can we resolve the unsettled and unsettling nomenclatural problems caused
by the protist situation and especially by the existence of the ambiregnal forms, which
involve some 15% or more of the estimated (Corliss, 1984) 200,000 species?
An understanding of the situation has to be the first step. Encouragingly, the very
recent Report of an IUBS/IUMS committee on harmonization among Codes of
nomenclature (Hawksworth et al., 1994), published in this Bulletin (BZN 51:
188-216) and concurrently as a Special Issue (number 30) of Biology International,
has provided a detailed, informative background. It stresses potential resolution of
current Code differences that are impeding pragmatic progress with respect to some
dozen major issues, ambiregnal organisms prominent among them. That report (see
also Hawksworth, 1991, 1992; Jeffrey, 1990; Ride, 1988; Ride & Younés, 1986) makes
unnecessary my repetition of numerous facts. The interested reader is referred also to
Corliss (1990, 1991, 1993) and Patterson & Larsen (1991, 1992) for recent papers
approaching the problem solely from a protist perspective; they raise some aspects
of the matter (see below) perhaps inadequately addressed by the Hawksworth
committee.
Extent of the Overall Problem
It is not appreciated by many non-protistologically oriented biologists that the
ambiregnal problem extends to suprafamilial taxonomic levels, as well as involving
the lower —currently Code-regulated — categories. That there are inevitably
some areas of overlap in proposed solutions with respect to these two categories
complicates the situation.
Too little attention has been paid to the effect of (the necessity of) abandoning the
single ‘kingdom Protista’ concept for the more supportable multiple eukaryotic
kingdom hypothesis in which protistan groups are distributed among at least six
separate kingdoms (see Cavalier-Smith, 1993; Corliss, 1994a, and references therein),
three of which may be composed solely of protists. Such distribution of diverse algal,
fungal, and protozoan taxa amongst different kingdoms and phyla precludes their
convenient treatment as a single top-level assemblage (and therefore completely
eliminates the notion of a separate Code for protists: Corliss, 1993). The concomitant
shifting of species also confounds any simple Code-regulated solution at the lower
taxonomic levels, often with respect to non-ambiregnal as well as ambiregnal species.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 13
Anxious to have answers to the problems addressed in this paper are not only the
practising taxonomists and nomenclaturists of the world but also general biologists,
textbook writers, teachers, bench investigators using whole organisms or their cells,
ecologists and evolutionary biologists, students of conservation and biodiversity, and
also information retrieval specialists and culture collection and type specimen
collection managers.
Consideration of Specific Solutions
The strengths and weaknesses of full or partial solutions proposed in the past, and
of resolutions currently under study, need to be considered here, albeit very briefly,
mostly to alert the reader to progress being made. The recent increase of interest in
the problems spelled out above is encouraging; and the outlook for successful
resolution of most, if not all, of them is now more optimistic than it has been for
years.
1. Arbitrary Assignment of (Higher) Taxa to a Given Code
With the tacit recognition of the demise of the single kingdom Protista to embrace
all protists (see especially Cavalier-Smith, 1993; Corliss, 1994a,b, 1995; Patterson,
1994), it becomes clear that the notion of ‘one Kingdom, one Code’ is not a feasible
one, as discussed in some detail by Corliss (1993). But it is also true that a proposal
by Cavalier-Smith (1981, 1993) and others — that members of a given kingdom be
arbitrarily assigned to a given Code for nomenclatural purposes —is unwise,
especially in view of the current instability of protistan highest-level taxa and their
precise ranks (and names). Nor would improvement be obtained by having some
international body make the arbitrary assignment, another idea which has been
mentioned in the literature.
Nevertheless, there is logic in Cavalier-Smith’s defense of his assignments: he
places his most ‘animal-like’ (heterotrophic nutrition, presence of locomotory
organelles, lack of cell walls, etc.) kingdoms (viz. the Archezoa, Protozoa, and
Animalia) under jurisdiction of the Zoological Code, and his most ‘plant-like’ ones
(viz. the Chromista, Fungi, and Plantae) under the Botanical Code. Unfortunately,
admitted exceptions involving hundreds of species exist in each case. While I consider
his proposal not satisfactory, it does or would solve most of the problems outlined on
preceding pages and is worthy of consideration or at least citation (neither of which
it has received to date in the growing literature on this subject). In many instances,
his solution coincides with current and past nomenclatural practices (see below) with
regard to numerous — but not all — ambiregnal species of protists; but these other
solutions are, for the most part, also unsatisfactory.
2. Individual Author’s Choice as to which Code to Use
Under this procedure, the individual taxonomist would simply choose to employ a
particular Code. However, whatever he or she decided, the result would surely meet
with opposition and disagreement by other specialists in the field (probably
depending on their training, either as botanists or zoologists). Literature comparisons
would be difficult and there would be confusion for retrieval systems. There is no way
in which this idea can be considered as a proposal of much worth.
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
3. Publication of Both Nomenclatures for Ambiregnal Organisms
This procedure avoids the problem of upsetting most botanical or zoological users
of a given taxonomic work. It has been favored by protistologists such as Patterson
& Larsen (1991, 1992), who urge its adoption. But I consider it to be an
unsatisfactory answer to the dilemma of ambiregnal (or other) protists because it
really begs the question and postpones a solution. Also, requiring all investigators to
be intimately familiar with traditional (and newer) systems of both botanical and
zoological classifications for the microbial eukaryotes they may- happen to be
studying is patently unreasonable. Yet the proposal may be helpful in underscoring
the problem confronting such workers, and it has already been put into operation by
several conscientious groups (see, for example, Larsen & Patterson, 1990; Novarino
& Lucas, 1993, 1995).
4. Piecemeal Repair of Codes on a Case-by-Case Basis
This has already been a policy of all commissions/committees involved in revising
various of the Codes, and it is a laudable approach. Certain specific vexatious
problems, or at least sub-problems, have been taken care of by such repair. Such
solutions, however, represent only a ‘first-aid’ substitute for the major surgery
required, and they are too cumbersome to take care of the major problems addressed
here and in the report by the Hawksworth committee. Nevertheless, they might well
be continued to advantage while international groups are debating methods by which
more drastic revision may be made.
5. Establishment of a Single ‘Ecumenical’ Code of Nomenclature
Nearly the opposite of ‘one Kingdom, one Code’ is the idea of ‘one Code, all
Kingdoms’, which would embrace even the prokaryotes and the viruses. This would
appear to be a possible aim of the Hawksworth committee (Hawksworth et al., 1994),
although most of the emphasis in their enlightening report is on harmonization of the
‘big five’ existing Codes (which deal with plants, cultivated plants, bacteria, animals
and viruses). While there are theoretical merits in a single Code for all contemporary
and fossil life on Earth, many pragmatic reasons militate against its feasibility.
Perhaps the greatest pitfall of all is the instant negative effect such a document would
have on a multitude of nomenclatural decisions of past decades, even past centuries.
Numerous changes in former names would inevitably be required in various groups,
unless some very strong provision were included — a kind of ‘grandfather clause’ —
which would exempt from change all the decisions made before a certain arbitrarily
chosen date. Still, this would not solve many of our ambiregnal problems, such as
homonyms, different starting dates and typification procedures, etc. And practising
protist taxonomists would (once again!) be obliged to be familiar with relevant old
Codes as well as the new one!
Amalgamation of all existing Codes into one does represent the utopian solution
for the future unity of biological nomenclature; but surely it can be, at best, only a
very long-range goal.
6. Relinquishing the (Nearly) Absolute Independence of the Codes
Put more positively, this can be rephrased as harmonization of the existing Codes,
an excellent solution to the ambiregnal and other nomenclatural problems of such
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 15
concern to the taxonomic and general biological communities today. This is the topic
to which the IUBS/IUMS ‘exploratory meeting’ addressed itself. In my view, finding
ways of bringing the Codes into harmony with respect to the various controversial
issues in need of solution does not necessarily mean that a single new Code must be
the eventual result. Some time-honored provisions probably could be preserved
without causing grave conflicts in their application; others could be protected by the
“grandfather clause’ technique. Often, altered or entirely new Articles in the Codes
(e.g., along the lines of proposals in Taylor ef al., 1986, 1987) could suffice to
demonstrate a kind of joint jurisdiction over the nomenclature of taxa of protists.
With respect to our ambiregnal species, only the two major current eukaryotic Codes
need to be so standardized.
Solving all of our problems by this approach will require a lot of time and
co-operation and perhaps compromise, a good deal of dedicated work on the part of
a number of people, and certainly considerable funding. Organizers of the present
Codes have very limited fiscal resources available to them, a block that will need to
be overcome.
7. Guidelines concerning the Names of Suprafamilial Taxa
Harmonization of existing Codes will do little to ease the problem, which
particularly involves protists, of nomenclatural practice for names of the highest
ranking taxa (orders up through at least kingdoms). Under the impact of molecular
studies on the phylogenetics of organisms — and particularly if workers hold strictly
to monophyletic principles — we may some day have nearly as many kingdoms as we
have phyla today! Ultrastructural, biochemical and ribosomal-RNA sequencing
studies are revealing that the protists show a far greater diversity — morphologically,
physiologically and genetically — than all the rest of the eukaryotic groups put
together (Andersen, 1992; Cavalier-Smith, 1993; Corliss, 1994a; Margulis et al., 1990;
Patterson, 1994; Schlegel, 1991). The number of kingdoms (six) of eukaryotes
endorsed by me (e.g. in Corliss, 1994a) is a rather conservative one indeed.
Problems here include choices of the names for the high taxa mentioned above,
dates of origins and authorships, handling of emended names, matters of prefixes and
suffixes, priorities, rejections, nomenclatural effects of splits and consolidations or of
changes in level/rank of taxa, etc.
Is there any way to avoid the ‘undisciplined proliferation’ of high-level names, a
phenomenon so decried by Patterson & Larsen (1991)? The rash of name-giving to
newly created suprafamilial taxa of protists, so prevalent in the 1970s and 1980s,
was — particularly in hindsight — deplorable; and it certainly did not serve to endear
nomenclatural taxonomists to the general biological community (Corliss, 1993). But
it could happen again, if monophyletic lineages only partially identifiable with
classical taxa are all given fresh labels in the shape of new formal names (Patterson,
1994).
Therefore, as I have been suggesting for a number of years (see earlier references
in Corliss, 1993), future editions of the Codes should contain at least some
recommended guidelines concerning nomenclature of suprafamilial taxa, not only of
protists but of all organisms. Along with approved Lists of (names of) organisms (a
proposal moving forward positively: see Hawksworth et a/., 1994), such an action
would go a long way towards stabilization of nomenclature at levels not presently
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
covered by the Codes. As always, however, there must be no infringement upon the
taxonomic freedom of the individual investigator.
References
Andersen, R.A. 1992. Diversity of eukaryotic algae. Biodiversity and Conservation, 1: 267-292.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1981. Eukaryotic kingdoms: seven or nine? BioSystems, 14: 461-481.
Cayalier-Smith, T. 1993. Kingdom Protozoa and its 18 phyla. Microbiological Reviews, 57:
953-994. q
Corliss, J.O. 1983. A puddle of protists: there’s more to life than animals and plants. The
Sciences, 23(3): 34-39.
Corliss, J.O. 1984. The kingdom Protista and its 45 phyla. BioSystems, 17: 87-126.
Corliss, J.O. 1986. Progress in protistology during the first decade following reemergence of
the field as a respectable interdisciplinary area in modern biological research. Progress in
Protistology, 1: 11-63.
Corliss, J.O. 1990. Toward a nomenclatural protist perspective. Pp. xxv—xxx in Margulis, L.,
Corliss, J.O., Melkonian, M. & Chapman, D.J. (Eds.). Handbook of Protoctista. Jones &
Bartlett, Boston.
Corliss, J.O. 1991. Problems in cytoterminology and nomenclature for the protists. Advances
in Culture Collections, 1: 23-37.
Corliss, J.O. 1993. Should there be a separate code of nomenclature for the protists?
BioSystems, 28: 1-14.
Corliss, J.O. 1994a. An interim utilitarian (‘user-friendly’) hierarchical classification and
characterization of the protists. Acta Protozoologica, 33: \—51.
Corliss, J.O. 1994b. The place of the protists in the microbial world. United States Federation
for Culture Collections Newsletter, 24(3): 1-6.
Corliss, J.O. 1995 [in press]. The need for a new look at the taxonomy of the protists. Revista
de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural, 46.
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.
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., McNeill, J., Sneath, P.H.A., Trehane, R.P. & Tubbs, P.K. (Eds.). 1994.
Towards a harmonized bionomenclature for life on Earth. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 51: 188-216.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1985. International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature, Ed. 3. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Jeffrey, C. 1990. Biological Nomenclature, Ed. 3. Edward Arnold, London.
Larsen, J. & Patterson, D.J. 1990. Some flagellates (Protista) from tropical marine sediments.
Journal of Natural History, 24: 801-937.
Margulis, L., Corliss, J.O., Melkonian, M. & Chapman, D.L. (Eds.). 1990. Handbook of
Protoctista. Jones & Bartlett, Boston.
Novarino, G. & Lucas, I.A.N. 1993. Some proposals for a new classification system of the
Cryptophyceae. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 111: 3-21.
Novarino, G. & Lucas, I.A.N. 1995 [in press]. A zoological classification system of crypto-
monads. Acta Protozoologica, 34.
Patterson, D.J. 1986. Some problems of ambiregnal taxonomy and a possible solution.
Symposia Biologica Hungarica, 33: 87-93.
Patterson, D.J. 1994. Protozoa: evolution and systematics. Pp. 1-14 im Hausmann, K. &
Hiilsmann, N. (Eds.). Progress in Protozoology (Proceedings of the IX International
Congress of Protozoology, Berlin 1993). Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 17
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. Koeltz
Scientific Books, Konigstein.
Patterson, D.J. & Larsen, J. 1992. A perspective on protistan nomenclature. Journal of
Protozoology, 39: 125-131.
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. & Younés, T. (Eds.). 1986. Biological Nomenclature Today. ({UBS Monograph
Series, No. 2). IRL Press, Oxford.
Schlegel, M. 1991. Protist evolution and phylogeny as discerned from small subunit ribosomal
RNA sequence comparisons. European Journal of Protistology, 27: 207-219.
Taylor, F.J.R., Sarjeant, W.A.S., Fensome, R.A. & Williams, G.L. 1986. Proposals to
standardize the nomenclature in flagellate groups currently treated by both the botanical
and zoological codes of nomenclature. Taxon, 35: 890-896.
Taylor, F.J.R., Sarjeant, W.A.S., Fensome, R.A. & Williams, G.L. 1987. Standardisation of
nomenclature in flagellate groups treated by both the botanical and zoological codes
of nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 36: 79-85.
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2901
Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): proposed
conservation, and designation of S. gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type
species
Colin W. Stearn
Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, 3450 University Street,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2A7
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of the Devonian
stromatoporoid genus Stictostroma Parks, 1936 as it is currently used. The name is
unavailable from 1936 because the first valid type species designation was by
Galloway & St. Jean (1957) of Stromatopora mammillata Nicholson, 1873 (a junior
homonym that they renamed Stictostroma mamilliferum). However, the specimens
they used to characterize this species (Stromatopora mammillata = Stictostroma
mamilliferum) were not compared with the diagnostic internal structure of
Nicholson’s type specimen. As a result both Parks and Galloway & St. Jean
misidentified as Stictostroma mamilliferum a new taxonomic species named
Stictostroma gorriense by Stearn (1995), whose holotype is one of the specimens used
by Parks in establishing the genus Stictostroma. It is proposed that the name
Stictostroma be taken as available from Parks (1936) and that S. gorriense be
designated the type species.
1. Parks (1936, p. 77) proposed the name Stictostroma for ‘certain species [of
stromatoporoid] that seem to be intermediate between Clathrodictyon and
Stromatoporella’. He wrote “... it is impossible to select a genotype. Cogenotypes
might be named — S. mammillata [Stromatopora mammillata Nicholson, 1873
(p. 94)] characterized by laminae porous in structure but without hollow points [now
called ring pillars], and S. eriense [sp. nov., p. 81] with non-porous laminae inflated
to form hollow points [ring pillars]’. He recognized the unconventional nature of his
action, writing ‘this procedure may not be in accord with the best system of
nomenclature’.
2. Lecompte (1951, p. 137) objected that the genus was invalid under the Code
because it was proposed with two type species. Article 13b of the present Code
requires that, to be available, a genus-group name published after 1930 must ‘be
accompanied by the fixation of the type species by original designation or by
indication’. Parks had not validly designated a type species.
3. Galloway & St. Jean (1957, p. 124) designated Stromatopora mammillata
Nicholson as the type species. They noted that this name was a junior primary
homonym of Stromatopora mammillata Schmidt, 1858 and resolved the problem of
homonymy by renaming Nicholson’s species Stictostroma mamilliferum (p. 125). This
specific name has subsequently been misspelled ‘mammilliferum’ by St. Jean (1962,
pp. 187, 195) and Fagerstrom (1977, p. 416). In choosing one of Parks’s proposed
‘cogenotypes’, Galloway & St. Jean assigned the other, S. eriense, to Stromatoporella
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 19
Nicholson, 1886 and redefined the genus Stictostroma to exclude species with ring
pillars. The name is now used by all palaeontologists in the sense of Galloway &
St. Jean’s revision (for example, Galloway & Ehlers, 1960; St. Jean, 1962; Stearn &
Mehrotra, 1970; Kazmierczak, 1971; Khromych, 1974; Stearn, 1975; Fagerstrom,
1982). A review of the literature (Stearn, 1995) shows that about 32 described species
can be assigned to the genus as redefined.
4. Parks’s (1936) original and Galloway & St. Jean’s (1957) revised concepts of
Stictostroma were not based on a knowledge of the internal structure of the type
specimens of Stromatopora mammillata (= Stictostroma mamilliferum) from Port
Colborne, Ontario, as the type specimens in the Nicholson Collection had never been
cut into thin sections (as noted previously by Whiteaves, 1898, p. 368). They were
based on material collected by Parks from Ashton’s quarry near the village of Gorrie,
Ontario, about 100 km northwest of Port Colborne. Parks identified these as
S. mammillata Nicholson on the basis of resemblance of the growth surfaces alone.
Parks’s genus, in both original concept and revision, had come to be based on a type
species whose diagnostic internal structure was unknown.
5. Fagerstrom (1977, p. 417) examined the types of Stromatopora mammillata
(= Stictostroma mamilliferum) and confirmed that they had not been cut, polished or
sectioned. The Nicholson Collection at the Natural History Museum, London,
includes two specimens in lot P5766 identified in Nicholson’s hand as the type
specimens of Stromatopora mammillata. They appear to be fragments of the same
skeleton. Thin sections cut across the smaller specimen (P5766B), studied by me and
designated as the lectotype (Stearn, 1995, p. 23), show a very thin crust with
steepsided mamelons and only vague traces of internal structure visible through a
pervasive silicification. The Nicholson Collection includes also two paralectotype
lots: P5764 (a single specimen labelled also as “type specimens’) and P5765 (five small
fragments of a silicified crust). These are described and illustrated by Stearn (1995).
The original specimens of the type species selected by Galloway & St. Jean do not
show the features considered by Parks and Galloway & St. Jean as diagnostic of the
genus, and show very few internal features at all.
6. The specimen (Royal Ontario Museum 9360, Parks’s number 1551) Parks
illustrated (1936, pl. 14, figs. 3-6) as ‘Stictostroma mammillata (Nicholson)’ shows the
internal features of Stictostroma clearly. Parks’s specimens differ from Nicholson’s
types in sufficient features to indicate that they are not conspecific, and possibly not
congeneric. They therefore require a new name and have been called Stictostroma
gorriense by Stearn (1995, p. 26). The holotype is Parks’s specimen 1551 (ROM 9360)
in the Royal Ontario Museum from Gorrie, Ontario, illustrated by Parks (1936,
pl. 14, figs. 3-6) and by Stearn (1995, figs. 1.6, 1.7, 2.5, 2.6).
7. Because the name Sfictostroma is invariably attributed to Parks (1936),
although it was not made formally available until the designation by Galloway &
St. Jean (1957) of a type species, to attribute it to Galloway & St. Jean would
be contrary to usage. The genus was based on Parks’s specimens now named
Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to rule that the generic name Stictostroma Parks, 1936 is available although
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
no type species of the nominal genus was validly fixed with the original
publication of the name;
(b) to set aside all previous fixations of the type species for the nominal genus
Stictostroma Parks, 1936 and to designate Stictostroma gorriense Stearn,
1995 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (gender: neuter), type species by wae in (1)(b)
above Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name gorriense
Stearn, 1995, as published in the binomen Stictostroma gorriense (specific name
of the type species of Stictostroma Parks, 1936).
References
Fagerstrom, J.A. 1977. The stromatoporoid genus Stictostroma Parks, 1936: its type species,
type specimens and type locality. Journal of Paleontology, 51: 416-419.
Fagerstrom, J.A. 1982. Stromatoporoids of the Detroit River Group and adjacent rocks in the
vicinity of the Michigan Basin. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Canada, 339: 1-81.
Galloway, J.J. & Ehlers, G.M. 1960. Some Middle Devonian stromatoporoids from Michigan
and southwestern Ontario. Contributions of the University of Michigan, Museum of
Paleontology, 15: 39-120.
Galloway, J.J. & St. Jean, J. 1957. Middle Devonian Stromatoporoidea of Indiana, Kentucky,
and Ohio. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 37: 27-308.
Kazmierczak, J. 1971. Morphogenesis and systematics of the Devonian Stromatoporoidea
from the Holy Cross Mountains, Poland. Palaeontologia Polonica, 26: 1-150.
Khromych, V.G. 1974. Devonskie stromatoporoidei Severo-Vostoka SSSR. Akademiya Nauk
SSSR, Sibirskoe otdelenie, Trudy Instituta Geologii i Geofiziki, 68: 1-104.
Lecompte, M. 1951. Les stromatoporoides du Dévonien moyen et supérieur du Bassin de
Dinant, part 1. Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Mémoir 116: 1-215.
Nicholson, H.A. 1873. On some new species of Stromatopora. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (4)12: 89-95.
Parks, W.A. 1936. Devonian stromatoporoids of North America, Part 1. University of Toronto
Studies, Geological Series, 39: 1-125.
St. Jean, J. 1962. Micromorphology of the stromatoporoid genus Stictostroma Parks. Journal
of Paleontology, 36: 185-200.
Schmidt, F. 1858. Untersuchungen iiber die silurische Formation von Estland: Nord Livland
und Oesel. Archive Naturkunde Livland, Estland, und Kurlands, (1)2: 1-56.
Stearn, C.W. 1975. Stromatoporoid assemblages, Ancient Wall Reef Complex (Devonian),
Alberta. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 12: 1631-1667.
Stearn, C.W. 1995. The type species of Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea).
Journal of Paleontology, 69: 20-27.
Stearn, C.W. & Mehrotra, P.N. 1970. Lower and Middle Devonian stromatoporoids from
northwestern Canada. Geological Survey of Canada Papers, 70(13): 1-43.
Whiteaves, J.F. 1898. On some additional and imperfectly understood fossils from the
Hamilton Formation of Ontario with a revised list of species therefrom. Geological Survey
of Canada, Contributions to Canadian Paleontology, 1(5): 361-418.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 21
Case 2949
Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed conservation of the specific name
E. Martinez & J. Ortea
Departamento de Biologia de Organismos y Sistemas, Laboratorio de
Zoologia, C! Catedratico Rodrigo Uria sIn, 33007 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Aplysia
juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 for a sea hare (Opisthobranchia, Anaspidea) found
worldwide on rocky shores in warm waters. The name is threatened by the unused
senior subjective synonym A. sorex Rang, 1828.
1. Rang (1828, p. 57) described the species Aplysia sorex on the basis of a single
specimen collected in the Pacific by Lesson during the voyage of the Coquille. Rang
did not know the exact locality where the specimen had been found but he noted that
it came from the shores of some Oceania islands. He illustrated (pl. 10, figs. 4-8) a
small (50 mm) specimen with a broad foot and parapodial lobes joined high up
posteriorly, coloured dark green with several black spots. The internal shell showed
an anal sinus which was not deep. Nothing was said about the internal anatomy of
the specimen. Subsequently Lesson (1830, p. 294) recorded that the specimen came
from Oualan (the most eastern of the Caroline islands).
2. Quoy & Gaimard (1832, p. 309) described Ap/ysia juliana from two specimens
in alcohol, caught off Mauritius in the Indian Ocean during the voyage of the
Astrolabe. The taxon was characterised by a rounded disk (“un écusson bien arrondi’)
in the posterior end of the foot. The authors illustrated the species (pl. 24, figs. 5, 6)
to show an animal dark green in colour, with the body surface smooth, and the
parapodial lobes short and joined high up posteriorly. They also figured a narrow
shell with a wide but not deep anal sinus.
3. Pruvot-Fol (1933, p. 400) established Tullia as a new genus, or a subgenus of
Aplysia, based on the single species A. juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832. Tullia was
characterised by a distinct sucker in the posterior edge of the foot and a simple
radular morphology. In a subsequent review of the genus Aplysia, Eales (1960)
considered that the characteristics of the subgenus Tu/lia were also present in the type
species of the genus, A. depilans Gmelin, 1791 (see Opinion 200, January 1954 for the
authorship and date of this name), and in the nominate subgenus, and that Tullia was
thus not a valid subgenus. She included A. juliana in the subgenus Aplysia.
4. Engel & Eales (1957) reviewed the species of Ap/ysia belonging to the subgenus
Tullia, as then conceived. They agreed with the observations on living specimens of
A. juliana made by Macnae (1955), who recorded that movement was either by
gliding or ‘in the fashion of a looper caterpillar’, that the posterior sucking disk was
visible only when the animal was ‘looping’, and that the disk was not a permanent
feature but was distinct in preserved specimens only when the posterior pedal glands
had been actively secreting and the animal had been clinging with the hind part of the
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
foot at the time of preservation. Engel & Eales (1957) examined the type material (of
which only one of the two original specimens could be found) of A. juliana deposited
in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. They also examined several
specimens, both in the Paris museum and in the Natural History Museum in London
from the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, identified by Pruvot-Fol as A. sorex,
and found that almost all the specimens were juveniles of A. juliana. They were
doubtful of the identity only in the case of a few Moroccan specimens in Paris lacking
a disk on the tail that Pruvot-Fol (1953, pp. 33-36, fig. 7, pl. 3, fig. 44) had identified
as A. sorex and which, from the radular morphology figured by her, are probably
identifiable as A. depilans Gmelin, 1791. Two further juvenile specimens in London
from Las Palmas (Canary Islands), previously labelled by Eales as A. sorex, were
identified by Engel & Eales (1957) as A. juliana, although they noted that the radular
denticulations on all the teeth were better developed that in A. juliana adults.
We have examined these two specimens and found that they also belong to
A. depilans.
5. Engel & Eales (1957) also studied another specimen caught during the voyage
of the Coquille, deposited in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle and labelled
as ‘A. sorex, Océanie, Lesson et Garnot, type’. This specimen differed from Rang’s
(1828) original description and illustration in that the foot had a distinct posterior
disk. Engel & Eales identified the specimen as A. juliana. There was no evidence that
this was, indeed, the original specimen described by Rang, and Engel & Eales (1957,
p. 96) therefore noted: ‘It is better to add A. sorex Rang, 1828 with doubt to the
synonyms of A. juliana. This has the advantage that we need not consider the
problem that A. sorex Rang, 1828 is the older name and would have priority over
A. juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 if the type of A. sorex could be identified with
certainty as that species. If, later on, this ever might prove true, it is desirable to ask
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for a decision suppress-
ing A. sorex Rang, 1828’. We ourselves have tried to find Rang’s (1828) original
specimen of A. sorex in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle without success
and have concluded that it is untraceable.
6. Acceptance of sorex Rang, 1828 as the valid specific name of Aplysia juliana
Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 would incur many problems since the name juliana has been
widely used in a great variety of papers concerning not only taxonomy (Marcus &
Marcus, 1957; Kay, 1964; Marcus, 1972, 1977; Bebbington, 1974, 1977, 1982;
Martinez & Ortea, 1994) but also ecology (Carefoot, 1987), larval development
(Switzer-Dunlap & Hadfield, 1977), recruitment (Sarver, 1979) and growth (Usuki,
1970, 1981), among others. A representative list of a further 19 references, dating
from 1957 to 1994 and involving more than 20 additional authors, is held by the
Commission Secretariat. The name A. sorex has remained unused, other than by
Pruvot-Fol (1953, p. 34), who noted ‘Cette espéce, non revue je crois depuis Rang’.
In the absence of type material it is unlikely that A. sorex could ever be used and we
therefore propose that it be suppressed.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name sorex Rang, 1828, as
published in the binomen Aplysia sorex, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 23
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name juliana
Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, as published in the binomen Aplysia juliana;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name sorex Rang, 1828, as published in the binomen Ap/ysia sorex
and as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Bebbington, A. 1974. Aplyssid species from East Africa with notes on the Indian Ocean
Aplysiomorpha (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia). Zoological Journal of the Linnean
Society of London, 54: 63-99.
Bebbington, A. 1977. Aplyssid species from Eastern Australia with notes on the Pacific Ocean
Aplysiomorpha. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 34: 87-147.
Bebbington, A. 1982. Notes on a collection of Aplysiomorpha in the Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle de Paris, from around the Senegalese coasts. Malacologia, 22(1-2):
511-514.
Carefoot, T.H. 1987. Aplysia: its biology and ecology. Oceanography and Marine Biology
Annual Review, 25: 167-284.
Eales, N.B. 1960. Revision of the world species of Ap/ysia (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia).
Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) Zoology, 5(10): 267-404.
Engel, H. & Eales, N.B. 1957. The species of Aplysia belonging to the subgenus Tullia
Pruvot-Fol, 1933: on a generic character in statu nascendi. Beaufortia, 69(6): 83-114.
Kay, E.A. 1964. The Aplysiidae of the Hawaiian Islands. Proceedings of the Malacological
Society of London, 36: 173-190.
Lesson, [R.P.]. 1830. Zoologie. In Duperrey, L.I., Voyage autour du monde ... sur ... La Coquille
pendant 1822-25, vol. 2, part 1. 471 pp. Bertrand, Paris.
Macnae, W. 1955. On four species of the genus Ap/ysia common in South Africa. Annals of the
Natal Museum, 13(2): 223-241.
Marcus, E. 1972. On the Anaspidea (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia) from the warm waters of
the Western Atlantic. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22(4): 841-874.
Marcus, E. 1977. An annotated check list of the Western Atlantic warm waters opistho-
branchs. Journal of Molluscan Studies, supplement 4: 1-22.
Marcus, E. & Marcus, E. 1957. Sea-hares and side-gilled slugs from Brazil. Boletim do Instituto
Oceanografico, Sao Paulo, 6: 348.
Martinez, E. & Ortea, J. 1994. Primeros datos sobre el orden Anaspidea (Mollusca:
Opisthobranchia) en la isla de Cuba. Revista de Biologia de la Universidad de Oviedo, 9-10:
95-110.
Pruvot-Fol, A. 1933. Les opisthobranches de Quoy et Gaimard (Note préliminaire). Bulletin du
Muséum d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 2(5): 400-401.
Pruyot-Fol, A. 1953. Etude de quelques Opisthobranches de la céte Atlantique du Maroc et du
Sénégal. Travaux de l'Institut Scientifique Chérifien, (Zoologie)5: 25-40.
Quoy, J.R.C. & Gaimard, P. 1832. Zoologie. In: Voyage de découvertes de L’ Astrolabe pendant
les années 1826—1827—1828-1829 sous le commandement de M. J. Dumont d'Urville, vol. 2
(Mollusques). 686 pp. Atlas (Mollusques, 93 pls., 1833). Paris.
Rang, S. 1828. Histoire naturelle des Aplysiens, premiére famille de l'ordre des Tectibranches.
83 pp., 24 pls. Didot, Paris.
Sarver, D.J. 1979. Recruitment and juvenile survival in the sea hare Aplysia juliana
(Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia). Marine Biology, 54: 353-361.
Switzer-Dunlap, M. & Hadfield, M.G. 1977. Observations on development, larval growth
and metamorphosis of four species of Aplysiidae (Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia) in
laboratory culture. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 29: 245-261.
Usuki, I. 1970. Studies on the life history of Aplysiae and their allies in the Sado district of the
Japan Sea. Scientific Reports of the Niigata University, (D)7: 91-105.
Usuki, I. 1981. Growth characteristics of the early juvenile of Aplysia juliana collected in
winter. Venus, 39(4): 212-223.
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2922
Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798
(Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names
Angel Guerra
Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas (CSIC), Eduardo Cabello 6,
36208 Vigo (Pontevedra), Spain ;
Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
28006 Madrid, Spain
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of both the
common octopus Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and the common squid Loligo
vulgaris Lamarck, 1798. The names of these economically important species are
threatened by senior subjective synonyms unused in the past century, Sepia octopodia
Linnaeus, 1758 and S. octopus Gmelin, [1791] (octopus) and S. /oligo Linnaeus, 1758
(squid).
1. The common octopus was described and named by Linnaeus (1758, p. 658) as
Sepia octopodia. Schneider (1784, p. 116) used the binomen Octopodia polypus for the
species but both his generic and specific names were suppressed by the Commission
in Opinion 233 (April 1954). The same species was described as Sepia octopus by
Gmelin ({1791], p. 3149).
2. Cuvier ({1797], p. 380) described the genus Octopus, cited Sepia octopus and
proposed the replacement name Octopus vulgare [sic], presumably to avoid tau-
tonymy. Opinion 233 (p. 278) gave the type species of Octopus Cuvier, [1797] “by
Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16)’ as Octopus vulgaris (correction of vulgare) Cuvier,
[1797]. The reference to Linnean tautonymy is incorrect (cf. Article 69e(i) of the
Code). This Opinion overlooked a prior designation of type species by Gray (1847,
p. 205) who listed Sepia octopus as the type species for Octopus Cuvier, [1797].
Also, the senior synonyms Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758 and S. octopus Gmelin,
[1791] were not suppressed in the Opinion. Before 1920 the name Polypus Schneider,
1784 (p. 116) was sometimes used instead of Octopus. Polypus, like Schneider’s
name Loligo (see para. 5 below), was rejected in Opinion 233 as being a specific
name.
3. According to priority the name for the common octopus should therefore be
Octopus octopodia (Linnaeus, 1758), a binomen unused for over a century.
4. The common squid was described by Linnaeus (1758, p. 659) as Sepia loligo; the
type species of Sepia is S. officinalis Linnaeus, 1758 (the common cuttlefish).
5. Lamarck (1798) described the genus Loligo and included (p. 130) Loligo
vulgaris as the name for the common squid. The name “Loligo’ has been ascribed to
Schneider (1784, p. 110) but he used the name for a species only and ‘Loligo’
Schneider, 1784 was rejected by the Commission in Opinion 233. The type species of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 25
Loligo is L. vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 by subsequent designation by Children (1823,
p. 167).
6. The name for the common squid should therefore be Loligo Joligo (Linnaeus,
1758) but this binomen has never been used.
7. Since Cuvier’s ({1797]) and Lamarck’s (1798) descriptions the names Octopus
vulgaris and Loligo vulgaris have been established in a vast literature on the common
octopus and common squid respectively; a list of over 40 references for usage of each
specific name is held by the Commission Secretariat. To adopt the usage of the senior
subjective synonyms octopodia Linnaeus, 1758 or octopus Gmelin, [1791] for the
octopus, or /oligo Linnaeus, 1758 for the squid, would cause severe confusion and
disruption to the nomenclature of these common and economically very important
species.
8. 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) octopodia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sepia octopodia;
(b) octopus Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binomen Sepia octopus;
(c) /oligo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sepia Joligo;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Loligo
Lamarck, 1798 (gender: masculine), type species Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798
by subsequent designation by Children (1823);
(3) to amend the entry for Octopus Cuvier, [1797] on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology to record that the type species is Sepia octopus Gmelin,
[1791] (suppressed senior objective synonym of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797])
by subsequent designation by Gray (1847);
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vulgaris
Lamarck, 1798, as published in the binomen Loligo vulgaris (specific name of
the type species of Loligo Lamarck, 1798):
(5) to amend the entry for Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology to record that vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] is the valid
junior objective synonym of Sepia octopus Gmelin, [1791], the type species of
Octopus Cuvier, [1797];
(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) octopodia Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sepia octopodia
and as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) octopus Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binomen Sepia octopus and
as suppressed in (1)(b) above;
(c) Joligo Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sepia /oligo and as
suppressed in (1)(c) above.
Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge the financial support of research project “Fauna Ibérica II’,
DGICYT PB89-0081. We thank Dr Gary Rosenberg for providing some useful
references.
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
References
Children, J.G. 1823. Lamarck’s genera of shells. 177 pp. Murray, London. [Translated from
French].
Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. [1797]. Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. xvi, 710 pp.,
14 pl. Baudouin, Paris.
Gmelin, J.F. [1791]. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes).
Pp. 3021-3910. Lugduni.
Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London, 1847: 129-219.
Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1798. Sur les genres Séche, Calmar et Poulpe. Bulletin des
Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 17: 129-131.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae..., Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Schneider, J.G. 1784. Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoologie und
Handlungsgeschichten. xvi, 348 pp., 1 pl. Reimer, Berlin.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 27
Case 2899
Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus
Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed
conservation of the specific names by the designation of a neotype for
D. concharum
Peter H. Gibson
Institute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh,
Edinburgh EH9 3JQ, U.K.
David Heppell
Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers
Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, by designation of a neotype
for Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843, the general usage of this name for a
parthenogenetic species, and of D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) for a sexually and
asexually reproducing species, of cirratulid polychaetes from Europe. There is
circumstantial evidence that Orsted’s original material may have been D. fimbriata
but it is proposed that a neotype for D. concharum be designated in accord with
usage. D. concharum is the type species of Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843 by monotypy.
1. Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843 (p. 44) is a worldwide genus of tube-dwelling
cirratulid polychaetes. In the north-east Atlantic the two species discussed here live
in flask-shaped tubes in shallow water, often forming dense colonies in calcareous
substrates such as the encrusting alga Lithothamnion or the shells of bivalve molluscs.
Orsted described the nominal species D. concharum on the basis of specimens found
in ‘wormed’ shells taken from oyster beds on the Danish side of the Oresund, between
Fredrickshavn and Skagen and near Hellebek. He failed to describe a pair of
tentacles ventral to the first pair of branchial cirri and did not indicate either the
presence or absence of eyes or nuchal organs. Nevertheless, Orsted’s original
description and figure were such that later authors felt able to use his specific name
even though the type material is not extant (Wolff & Petersen, 1991, p. 672).
2. Terebella ostreae Dalyell, 1853 (p. 209, pl. 26, fig. 10) was also described from
old oyster shells. No type locality is mentioned but Dalyell’s specimens, which
included both adults and juveniles, were very probably from the Firth of Forth,
Scotland. Johnston (1865, p. 212) synonymized this taxon with D. concharum Orsted,
1843 and recorded specimens from Berwick Bay and Falmouth, England. This
synonymy was accepted by subsequent authors, including McIntosh (1915), Fauvel
(1927) and Hartman (1959). However, further work by Gibson (in press) on the
northern distribution of the two species in relation to the salinity suggests that
Dalyell’s species was more probably D. fimbriata. Terebella ostreae is best regarded
as a nomen dubium but is a threat to the stability of D. fimbriata; we therefore
propose that it be suppressed.
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
3. Heterocirrus Grube, 1855 was established for a single species Heterocirrus
saxicola Grube, 1855 (p. 109, pl. 4, fig. 11) described from Villafranca (i.e.
Villefranche, France). Grube noted that the tentacles each bear a ciliated groove and
occur on the buccal segment together with the first pair of branchial cirri.
Quatrefages (1865, pp. 454, 464-467), misled by the supposed absence of tentacles in
Dodecaceria (but not in Heterocirrus), kept the two genera separate. Dodecaceria
remained monotypic for D. concharum, but in Heterocirrus Quatrefages included not
only H. saxicola Grube, 1855 but also H. frontifilis Grube, 1863 and H. multibranchis
Grube, 1863 and a new species H. ater. One of the characters claimed by Quatrefages
to distinguish Dodecaceria from Heterocirrus was the presence of eyes in the latter
genus, although he thought they might be absent from the type species H. saxicola.
In fact the two rows of minute ‘eyes’, which he described for H. ater, are the nuchal
organs.
4. Marion & Bobretzky (1875, p. 67) synonymized H. saxicola Grube, 1855 with
D. concharum Orsted, 1843. This synonymy has been confirmed by one of us
(P.H.G.), who examined Grube’s specimens from Villefranche, assumed to be the
type material of H. saxicola (1 specimen + fragment: catalogue no. Q.4559,
Zoologisches Museum, Berlin). H. ater was synonymized with D. concharum by
Langerhans (1881, p. 96).
5. Saint-Joseph (1894, pp. 42-58), in a revision of cirratulid genera, accepted
the heterogenous nature of Heterocirrus sensu Quatrefages. He excluded both
H. saxicola, although this was the type species, and H. ater, and redefined the genus
to accommodate H. multibranchis and seven other species. Heterocirrus was main-
tained as a genus distinct from Dodecaceria by several subsequent authors (e.g.
McIntosh, 1915 and Fauvel, 1927) but, as it was originally established as a monotypic
genus for H. saxicola, it can only be a junior subjective synonym of Dodecaceria. The
generic name Heterocirrus is not now in use, although Cabioch, L’Hardy & Rullier
(1968) used that name for three species of Caulleriella. The species of Heterocirrus
sensu Saint-Joseph are now placed in Aphelochaeta Blake, 1991 (= Tharyx auctt., non
Webster & Benedict, 1887) and Caulleriella Chamberlin, 1919.
6. The abundant populations of D. concharum from the extensive Lithothamnion
biotope on the French coast of the English Channel in the region of La Hague, near
Cherbourg, were investigated by Caullery & Mesnil (1898). They concluded that the
species was heteromorphic, with three separate and independent series of individuals,
each with a different reproductive strategy. These series were termed forms A, B and
C. Form A was the commonest, representing about 90% of the individuals studied.
All specimens of form A were female. This form did not appear to undergo
metamorphosis and was assumed to remain a sedentary atoke throughout its life.
Reproduction was parthenogenetic and viviparous. Sexually reproductive adults of
form B were free-swimming epitokes (B,) with equal numbers of males and females,
but for form C only one large epitoke (C,) was found. The atokes of these forms and
their characteristic chaetae were described, with figures of those of A, B, and B,. All
individuals of form C were females but were not viviparous. After discussing whether
these forms should be assigned to more than one species, Caullery & Mesnil
concluded that only one polymorphic species should be recognized.
7. McIntosh (1911) observed in the Channel Islands two forms, referred to as
D. concharum and D. ater, which he distinguished by the size and shape of their
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 29
posterior chaetae. He was, in fact, confusing juvenile and adult individuals of
D. concharum, although specimens of Caullery & Mesnil’s form B must also have
been present, as McIntosh referred to a large epitokous male. McIntosh (1915) added
to this confusion by placing D. concharum and H. ater in different genera. He
included H. saxicola in the synonymy of D. concharum, but for H. ater also he stated:
‘The H. saxatilis [sic] of Grube ... may be the same or an allied form’. His uncertainty
about the distinction between D. concharum and H. ater is further illustrated by his
citation of Nereis sextentaculata (delle Chiaje, 1822) in the synonymy of both, but this
earlier name was not adopted for either. Although McIntosh cited different figures
in each case (pl. 43, fig. 16 of delle Chiaje’s (1822) Memorie for D. concharum, and
pl. 105, fig. 16 of delle Chiaje’s (1841) Descrizione for H. ater), these two figures are
actually the identical illustration. The identity of delle Chiaje’s species is discussed
below (para. 11).
8. Dehorne (1933) studied the reproductive biology of form B of Caullery &
Mesnil (1898) from Le Portel, Boulogne, France. He found it to reproduce asexually
as an atoke and sexually as an epitoke. Dehorne commented that Caullery & Mesnil,
although reluctant to treat their forms A, B and C as three separate species, had
admitted that form B should perhaps be considered distinct, as it had distinct
morphological characters, separate male and female adults, and parasites not found
in forms A and C. After giving further details of taxonomic characters distinguishing
the two species (i.e. form B and forms A+C, on the assumption that form C ‘serait
le véritable état terminal de A’), Dehorne discussed their taxonomy. The original
descriptions of Dodecaceria concharum and Heterocirrus ater enabled both, he
believed, to be recognized as form A, and for that species Dehorne used the name
D. concharum on the basis of priority.
9. Caullery & Mesnil (1898) had noted the similarity between form B and the West
Atlantic species of Dodecaceria, described as Heterocirrus fimbriatus by Verrill (1879,
p. 177) from off Campo Bello Island, Bay of Fundy, Canada, burrowing in dead
shells of Pecten tenuicostatus (= Placopecten magellanicus (Gmelin, 1791)) at a depth
of 110 metres. Caullery subsequently examined living, fixed and sectioned material
of D. fimbriata and thought that it differed from European examples of form
B. Dehorne (1933), relying on that opinion, proposed the name D. caulleryi for the
specimens of form B from Boulogne. Although Dehorne’s type material was
destroyed during the Second World War, there is no doubt about its identity. The
segregation of D. caulleryi from D. concharum effectively defined D. concharum, and
these names have been in general use since that time. The findings of Caullery &
Mesnil and Dehorne were confirmed and added to by Gibson & Clark (1976) and
Gibson (1977, 1978, 1981), who showed that D. concharum is a single parthenogenetic
species which reproduces annually and, if individuals live long enough, becomes
epitokous. Its diploid chromosome number is 6, compared with 12 for D. caulleryi
(= D. fimbriata, see para. 10 below). Trochophore larvae from eggs spawned into
the tube of D. concharum, reared in an aquarium, developed into young atokes of the
adult. These observations showed unquestionably that the two taxa are not forms of
the same species.
10. Gibson (1979) compared D. caulleryi from Cullercoats Bay, Northumberland,
England, and from Cap Gris-Nez, France (near Dehorne’s type locality for
D. caulleryi at Le Portel), with D. fimbriata from the east coast of North America and
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
considered them synonymous. Verrill’s (1879, p. 178) original description was for the
epitoke. Gibson examined this specimen together with an atoke Verrill had from the
same Canadian locality, and compared the reproductive cycles of individuals from
Cullercoats and Cap Gris-Nez with data gathered by Martin (1934) from the east
coast of North America. Asexual regenerates of D. fimbriata, described in detail (as
D. caulleryi) by Dehorne (1933) and Gibson & Clark (1976), have elsewhere been
interpreted as species of CTENODRILIDAE. Cfenodrilus monostylos Zeppelin, 1883 and
Zeppelina mediopigmentata Gillandt, 1979 were shown by George & Petersen (1991)
to be based on such developmental stages.
11. Delle Chiaje (1822, pl. 43, fig. 16; 1828, p. 176) first described Nereis
sextentaculata from crevices and holes on the shore near Naples, Italy. The cephalic
region bore six ‘tentacles’ on each side (‘tentaculis sex unoquoque latere’). In 1841
(p. 97) delle Chiaje provided a very similar description in Italian, but transferred
the species to Lycastis. Plate 43 of 1822 was reissued as pl. 105 of the 1841 work.
The name N. sextentaculata may be a senior synonym of either D. concharum or
D. fimbriata, both of which are likely to occur at Naples, but the brief and inadequate
description makes its identity uncertain. McIntosh (1915) cited it as a synonym of
both D. concharum and H. ater (see para. 7 above), but did not adopt it. Fauvel
(1927) included it as a very doubtful synonym of D. concharum agg., while Hartman
(1959) placed it merely as a possible syllid or cirratulid. The name is not in use but
should be suppressed as a potential threat to later names.
12. As D. concharum and D. fimbriata (or D. caulleryi) are morphologically similar
they are frequently both recorded in faunal studies under the aggregate name
D. concharum, but both species are listed separately (using the name D. caulleryi) in
the marine faunas of Plymouth (Marine Biological Association, 1957), Roscoff
(Cabioch, L’Hardy & Rullier, 1968), the Cullercoats district (Garwood, 1982) and the
Directory of the British marine fauna and flora (Howson, 1987). The geographical
distribution of the two species suggests that D. concharum does not occur where the
salinity is reduced to below about 34 parts per thousand. High precipitation in
northern Norway reduces the salinity of fjords, and the outflow of the Baltic affects
the Kattegat, Skagerrak and its approaches. At 20 sites along the west coasts of
Sweden and Norway, the east and west coasts of Denmark and the west coast of
Germany, 216 specimens of Dodecaceria collected were all D. fimbriata (Gibson, in
press). Both species are found along the coasts of the English Channel, but along the
western coast of Scotland D. concharum seems to be found only on islands, and not
in lochs where again high precipitation reduces salinity. There is a possibility that the
early developmental stages, rather than the adults, are sensitive to reduced salinity.
Many of the coelomic trochophore larvae in specimens from the Channel were found
by Marcel (1963) to be abnormal. The ability of D. fimbriata to reproduce asexually
may allow that species to penetrate less saline waters.
13. The only species of Dodecaceria now found in the Oresund, at the Danish
type locality for D. concharum, is D. fimbriata. In the absence of type material of
D. concharum, and considering the geographical distribution of the two species, the
assumption must be that Orsted was in fact describing the species now known as
D. fimbriata when he proposed the name D. concharum. Consequently, George &
Petersen (1991) proposed that the name D. concharum Orsted be used for the species
generally known as D. fimbriata (or D. caulleryi), and that D. ater (Quatrefages, 1865)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 31
be resurrected as the oldest available name for the parthenogenetic species,
D. concharum of authors. They cited Terebella ostreae Dalyell, 1853 as a synonym of
D. concharum Orsted, 1843, i.e. D. fimbriata auctt., but gave no evidence to support
this interpretation of a name which has (see para. 2 above) always been accepted as
a synonym of D. concharum auctt. Terebella ostreae and Heterocirrus saxicola (which
George & Petersen admit is ‘very similar to D. ater and may prove to be identical with
it’), are both senior to D. ater and would in any case threaten the valid usage of
that name. If generally adopted, the transfer by George & Petersen of the name
D. concharum to the species known as D. fimbriata (or D. caulleryi), and their use of
the name D. ater for the species known for more than a century as D. concharum
Orsted, 1843, would lead to serious confusion. Petersen & George (1991, p. 200) have
already used the name D. concharum when referring to previous work on D. caulleryi.
Such name changes complicate the already difficult separation of these two species.
14. In the absence of extant type material and because of the probability that the
species as generally interpreted does not occur at the published type locality, we
propose that the current usage of the name Dodecaceria concharum be maintained in
the interests of nomenclatural stability by the designation of a neotype. The proposed
neotype, deposited in the National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh (catalogue no.
NMSZ 1993063), is from Cullercoats, Northumberland, England, collected by P.H.
Gibson on 9 December 1969. The name D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) will also be
conserved by this action. We propose that the specific name of Nereis sextentaculata
delle Chiaje, 1822 be suppressed, since it may threaten both concharum and fimbriata
(see para. 11 above), and that the specific name of Terebella ostreae Dalyell, 1853 be
suppressed as it may threaten fimbriata (see para. 2 above). We also propose that the
specific names of Heterocirrus saxicola Grube, 1855 and H. ater Quatrefages, 1865 be
suppressed; we believe these names to be synonymous with concharum but this is only
subjective. If they are synonymous with fimbriata instead they are both senior to that
name and could potentially upset stability. George & Petersen admit that saxicola
and ater may prove to be identical and, on present evidence, if our application is not
approved, saxicola (not ater) would be the oldest name for concharum of authors.
15. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Dodecaceria
concharum Orsted, 1843 and to designate as neotype the specimen proposed
in para. 14 above;
(b) to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(i) sextentaculata delle Chiaje, 1822, as published in the binomen Nereis
sextentaculata;
(ii) ostreae Dalyell, 1853, as published in the binomen Terebella ostreae;
(ili) saxicola Grube, 1855, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus
saxicola;
(iv) ater Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus ater;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843;
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) concharum Orsted, 1843, as published in the binomen Dodecaceria con-
charum (specific name of the type species of Dodecaceria Orsted, 1843), and
as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above;
(b) fimbriatus Verrill, 1879, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus
fimbriatus;
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) sextentaculata delle Chiaje, 1822, as published in the bine Nereis
sextentaculata and as suppressed in (1)(b)(i) above;
(b) ostreae Dalyell, 1853, as published in the binomen Terebella ostreae and as
suppressed in (1)(b)(ii) above;
(c) saxicola Grube, 1855, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus saxicola
and as suppressed in (1)(b)(iili) above;
(d) ater Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen Heterocirrus ater and
as suppressed in (1)(b)(iv) above.
References
Cabioch, L., L’Hardy, J.P. & Rullier, F. 1968. Annélides. Inventaire de la faune marine de
Roscoff (N. S.). 98 pp. Editions de la station biologique de Roscoff.
Caullery, M. & Mesnil, F. 1898. Les formes épitoques et l’évolution des cirratuliens. Annales
de l'Université de Lyon, 39: 1-200.
Dalyell, J.G. 1853. The powers of the Creator displayed in the creation, vol. 2. 359 pp. Van
Voorst, London.
Dehorne, A. 1933. La schizométamérie et les segments tétragemmes de Dodecaceria caulleryi
n. sp. Bulletin Biologique de la France et de la Belgique, 67: 298-326.
delle Chiaje, S. 1822. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di
Napoli, Figure. 69 pls. Societa Tipografica, Napoli.
delle Chiaje, S. 1828. Memorie sulla storia e notomia degli animali senza vertebre del Regno di
Napoli, vol. 3. 232 pp. Societa Tipografica, Napoli.
delle Chiaje, S. 1841. Descrizione e notomia degli animali invertebrati della Sicilia citeriore
osservati vivi negli anni 1822-1830, vol. 3. 142 pp. Batelli, Napoli.
Fauyel, P. 1927. Polychétes sédentaires. Faune de France, 16: 1-494.
Garwood, P.R. 1982. The marine fauna of the Cullercoats District, No. 10. Polychaeta —
Sedentaria incl. Archiannelida. Report of the Dove Marine Laboratory, (3)23: 1-273.
George, J.D. & Petersen, M.E. 1991. The validity of the genus Zeppelina Vaillant (Polychaeta:
Ctenodrilidae). Ophelia, Suppl., 5: 89-100.
Gibson, P.H. 1977. Reproduction in the cirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria concharum and
D. pulchra. Journal of Zoology, 182: 89-102.
Gibson, P.H. 1978. Systematics of Dodecaceria (Annelida: Polychaeta) and its relation to the
reproduction of its species. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 275-287.
Gibson, P.H. 1979. The specific status of the two cirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria fimbriata
and D. caulleryi compared by their morphology and methods of reproduction. Canadian
Journal of Zoology, 57: 1443-1451.
Gibson, P.H. 1981. Gametogenesis in the cirratulid polychaetes Dodecaceria concharum and
D. caulleryi. Journal of Zoology, 193: 355-370.
Gibson, P.H. (in press). Distributions of Dodecacaria fimbriata (Verrill, 1879), D. concharum
Orsted, 1843 and D. diceria Hartman, 1951 in European waters between latitudes 48°N
and 70°N.
Gibson, P.H. & Clark, R.B. 1976. Reproduction of Dodecaceria caulleryi (Polychaeta:
Cirratulidae). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56:
649-674.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 33
Grube, E. 1855. Beschreibungen neuer oder wenig bekannter Anneliden. Archiv fiir Natur-
geschichte, 21: 81-136.
Hartman, O. 1959. Catalogue of the polychaetous annelids of the world. Allan Hancock
Foundation Occasional Papers, 23: 1-628.
Howson, C.M. (Ed.). 1987. Directory of the British marine fauna and flora. 471 pp. Marine
Conservation Society, Ross-on-Wye.
Johnston, G. 1865. A catalogue of the British non-parasitical worms in the collection of the
British Museum. 365 pp. British Museum, London.
Langerhans, P. 1881. Die Wurmfauna von Madeira. 3. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche
Zoologie, 34: 87-143.
McIntosh, W.C. 1911. Notes from the Gatty Marine Laboratory, St Andrews. No. XXXII. 3.
On the British Cirratulidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)7: 151-162.
McIntosh, W.C. 1915. A monograph of the British marine annelids, vol. 3, part 1 (Polychaeta.
Opheliidae to Ammocharidae.) 368 pp. Ray Society, London.
Marcel, R. 1963. Sur quelques larves aberrantes de Dodecaceria concharum Oersted (Annélide
Polychéte). Mémoires de la Société Nationale des Sciences Naturelles et Mathématiques de
Cherbourg, 50: 61-67.
Marine Biological Association. 1957. Plymouth Marine Fauna. 457 pp. Marine Biological
Association of the United Kingdom, Plymouth.
Marion, A.F. & Bobretzky, N. 1875. Etudes sur les annélides du Golfe de Marseille. Annales de
Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (6)2: 1-106.
Martin, E.A. 1934. Sexual and asexual methods of reproduction in the annelid worm
Dodecaceria, the morphology, life cycle and distribution of Dodecaceria coralii and
_ Dodecaceria fimbriatus [sic]. 142 pp. Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University.
Orsted, A.S. 1843. Annulatorum Danicorum Conspectus. Fasc. 1. Maricolae. 52 pp., 7 pls.
Wahlian, Hafniae.
Petersen, M.E. & George, J.D. 1991. A new species of Raricirrus from Northern Europe, with
notes on its biology and a discussion of the affinities of the genus (Polychaeta:
Ctenodrilidae). Ophelia, Suppl., 5: 185-208.
Quatrefages, A. de. 1865. Histoire naturelle des annelés marins et d'eau douce. Annélides et
Gephyriens, vol. 1. 588 pp. Roret, Paris.
Saint-Joseph, A. de. 1894. Les annélides polychétes des cdtes de Dinard. Troisiéme partie.
Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (7)17: 1-395.
Verrill, A.E. 1879. Notice of recent additions to the marine Invertebrata of north eastern coast
of America, with descriptions of new genera and species and critical remarks on others.
Part 1. Annelida, Gephyrea, Nemertina, Nematoda, Polyzoa, Tunicata, Mollusca,
Anthozoa, Echinodermata, Porifera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum,
2: 177-178.
Wolff, T. & Petersen, M.E. 1991. A brief biography of A.S. Orsted, with notes on his travels
in the West Indies and Central America and illustrations of collected polychaetes. Ophelia,
Suppl., 5: 669-685.
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2944
Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita):
proposed conservation
R.M. Owens
Department of Geology, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff CFI 3NP,
U.K.
A.T. Thomas
School of Earth Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,
Birmingham B15 2TT, U.K.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names Eophacops Delo,
1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 for two genera of Silurian phacopid trilobites.
Wedekind (1912) established the nominal genus Pterygometopidella with the nominal
species Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin, [1851] as its type. The specimens on which
Wedekind based his new genus were misidentified and are now assigned to
Eophacops. Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin is now attributed to Acernaspis, which is
therefore formally a junior subjective synonym of Pterygometopidella. Eophacops and
Acernaspis are both in wide use, but Pterygometopidella is essentially unused and its
suppression is proposed to conserve the two junior generic names.
1. Wedekind (1912, p. 324, pl. 15, fig. 9) established the nominal genus
Pterygometopidella for two specimens from Gotland which had been identified by
Gustaf Lindstrém as Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin, [1851]. These two specimens
were in the collections of the University of G6ttingen, but cannot be traced and
may have been lost in the Second World War (Dr H. Jahnke, pers. comm. to
R.M.O., November 1976).
2. Angelin ([{1851], p. 12, pl. 9, figs. Sa-c) had based his species Phacops 4-lineata
[recte 4-/ineatus] on material, now lost, from the Silurian of Gotland. In his review of
the Gotland phacopids, Ramskéld (1985, p. 5, pl. 1, figs. la-f) proposed and
illustrated a neotype for Phacops quadrilineatus and assigned it to Acernaspis
Campbell, 1967 (p. 32), the type species of which is Phacops orestes Billings, 1860
(p. 65) by monotypy and original designation. Ramskéld overlooked the fact that
P. quadrilineatus is the type species of the senior genus Pterygometopidella.
3. Schrank (1972, p. 50) argued that the specimen figured by Wedekind (1912)
might not belong to Angelin’s species Phacops quadrilineatus. Schrank (1972, pl. 15,
figs. 3, 3a) figured a third specimen, in the collections of the Naturkunde Museum,
Humboldt University, Berlin, which had been identified by Lindstrom in 1874 as
belonging to P. quadrilineatus. This specimen is very similar to the one figured by
Wedekind, and there is no doubt that it belongs to the genus Eophacops Delo, 1935,
possibly to E. sprogensis Ramsk6ld, 1985 (p. 30). Chlupaé (1977, p. 126) was also of
the opinion that Wedekind’s (1912) figures suggested identity of Pterygometopidella
with Eophacops.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 35
4. Although Wedekind’s original illustration is small and poor, the outline of the
glabella and other cephalic characters compare closely with Eophacops species, but
are quite different from the equivalent features developed in the neotype of
A. quadrilineatus. It is therefore evident that Lindstrém’s identification as Phacops
quadrilineatus of the two specimens on which Wedekind based Pterygometopidella
was wrong, and that Wedekind established Pterygometopidella for specimens corre-
sponding to Eophacops (see Clarkson, Eldredge & Henry, 1977, p. 122). Eophacops is
therefore taxonomically (though not formally; see para. 5 below) a junior subjective
synonym of Pterygometopidella.
5. Eophacops was established by Delo (1935, p. 405). It is a well-established
genus of the PHACOPIDAE whose type species (Phacops handwerki Weller, 1907,
p. 271) is well known, the type material being in the Walker Museum of the
University of Chicago (now in the Field Museum of Natural History). The generic
name Eophacops has been used in almost all recent relevant publications (e.g.,
Campbell, 1975; Holloway, 1980; Ramskéld & Werdelin, 1991; the Commission
Secretariat holds a list of seven further papers by nine different authors over the
last 33 years). By contrast, Pterygometopidella has remained obscure. It was listed
under PHACOPIDAE ‘subfamily uncertain’ by Struve in the Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology (Moore, 1959, p. O 468) and was not illustrated. So far as we are
aware, the name Pterygometopidella has never been used, except by Schrank (1972,
p. 50), by Shergold & Shirley (1968, p. 125) in a faunal list, in discussion by
Chlupaé (1977, p. 126) and in comparative remarks by Mannil (1970, pp. 344, 345,
347) who demurred from using this genus in favour of Acernaspis because of its
uncertain status and insufficiently known diagnostic characters. We agree with
Holloway (1980, p. 62) and Ramskdéld (1985, p. 21) that it is in the interests
of stability that Pterygometopidella should be suppressed to conserve the usage of
Eophacops.
6. Phacops quadrilineatus Angelin is assigned to Acernaspis Campbell (see para. 2
above). The nominal genus Acernaspis is in current use (e.g. Clarkson, Eldredge &
Henry, 1977; Howells, 1982; Ramskéld, 1985; Zhang & Meng, 1986; Lespérance,
1988). Acernaspis is formally a junior synonym of Pterygometopidella since Wedekind
fixed the nominal species Phacops quadrilineatus (although misidentified) as the type
species of Pterygometopidella. Suppression of the name Pterygometopidella would
have the effect of conserving Acernaspis in addition to Eophacops.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Pterygometopidella
Wedekind, 1912 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those
of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Eophacops Delo, 1935 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation Phacops handwerki Weller, 1907;
(b) Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Phacops orestes Billings, 1860;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) handwerki Weller, 1907, as published in the binomen Phacops handwerki
(specific name of the type species of Eophacops Delo, 1935);
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
(b) orestes Billings, 1860, as published in the binomen Phacops orestes (specific
name of the type species of Acernaspis Campbell, 1967);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912, as suppressed in (1)
above.
Acknowledgement
We are grateful to Professor D. Kaljo for translating Russian text. _
References
Angelin, N.P. [1851]. Palaeontologia Svecica. I. Iconographia crustaceorum formationis
transitionis. Fasc. 1. 24 pp., 24 pls. Weigel, Lipsiae.
Billings, E. 1860. Description of some new species of fossils from the Lower and Middle
Silurian rocks of Canada. Canadian Naturalist and Geologist, 5: 49-69.
Campbell, K.S.W. 1967. Trilobites of the Henryhouse Formation (Silurian) in Oklahoma.
Bulletin, Oklahoma Geological Survey, 115: 1-68.
Campbell, K.S.W. 1975. The functional anatomy of phacopid trilobites: musculature and eyes.
Journal and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, 108: 168-188.
Chlupaé, I. 1977. The phacopid trilobites of the Silurian and Devonian of Czechoslovakia.
Rozpravy Ustredniho ustavu geologického, 43: 1-172.
Clarkson, E.N.K., Eldredge, N. & Henry, J.-L. 1977. Some Phacopina (Trilobita) from the
Silurian of Scotland. Palaeontology, 20: 119-142.
Delo, D.M. 1935. A revision of the phacopid trilobites. Journal of Paleontology, 9: 402-420.
Holloway, D.J. 1980. Middle Silurian trilobites from Arkansas and Oklahoma, USA. 1.
Palaeontographica, A170: 1-85.
Howells, Y. 1982. Scottish Silurian trilobites. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 135:
1-76.
Lespérance, P.J. 1988. Trilobites. Pp. 359-376 in Cocks, L.R.M. & Rickards, R.B. (Eds.). A
global analysis of the Ordovician-Silurian boundary. Bulletin of the British Museum
(Natural History), Geology, 43: 1-394.
Mannil, R. 1970. Phacopid trilobites of the Upper Llandoverian of Estonia. Eesti NSV
Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Keemia, Geoloogia, 19(4): 342-349. [In Russian, English
summary].
Moore, R.C. (Ed.). 1959. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part O (Arthropoda 1). xix,
560 pp. Geological Society of America & University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.
Ramskold, L. 1985. Silurian phacopid and dalmanitid trilobites from Gotland. Stockholm
Contributions in Geology, 40: 1-62.
Ramskold, L. & Werdelin, L. 1991. The phylogeny and evolution of some phacopid trilobites.
Cladistics, 7: 29-74.
Schrank, E. 1972. Proetacea, Encrinuridae and Phacopina (Trilobita) aus silurischen
Geschieben. Zeitschrift fiir das Gesamtgebiet der Geologischen Wissenschaften, Geologie,
76: 1-117.
Shergold, J.H. & Shirley, J. 1968. The faunal-stratigraphy of the Ludlovian rocks between
Craven Arms and Bourton, near Much Wenlock, Shropshire. Geological Journal, 6:
119-138.
Wedekind, R. 1912. Klassifikation der Phacopiden. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen
Gesellschaft (Abhandlungen und Monatsberichte), 63(for 1911): 317-336.
Weller, S. 1907. The paleontology of the Niagaran Limestone in the Chicago area. The
Trilobita. Bulletin, Chicago Academy of Science (The Natural History Survey), 4: 163-281.
Zhang W.-t. & Meng X.-s. 1986. Silurian trilobites from Xichuan, Henan. Acta Palaeontologica
Sinica, 25: 507-515. [In Chinese, English summary].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 37
Case 2914
Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, Scorpiones):
proposed confirmation of the rediscovered holotype as the
name-bearing type
W. David Sissom
Department of Biology and Geosciences, West Texas A & M University,
Box 808 WT Station, Canyon, Texas 79016-0001, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to reinstate the rediscovered holotype as
the name-bearing type of Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861, a species of scorpion
from the states of Mexico and Oaxaca in Mexico (family DIPLOCENTRIDAE Pocock,
1893). The original material had been presumed lost and a neotype designated; the
holotype and neotype are now found to belong to different subspecies. D. mexicanus
is the type species by monotypy of Diplocentrus Peters, 1861. The genus Diplocentrus
includes 30 species distributed from southeastern United States throughout Mexico
to Belize, Guatemala and Honduras.
1. Peters (1861, p. 512) described Diplocentrus mexicanus on the basis of a single
female specimen from ‘Mexico’ (region unstated) deposited in the collection of the
Zoologisches Museum, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin (catalog no. ZMB 74). The
species is the type by monotypy of Dip/ocentrus Peters, 1861, which was not described
separately from the species. Karsch (1879, pp. 98-99) discussed the species and placed
in the genus Scorpio whitei Gervais, 1844, which he considered a senior synonym
of mexicanus. After a careful study Karsch (1880, pp. 407-408) concluded that
both were valid taxa, although whitei continued to be cited for many years as the
valid name for the type species of Diplocentrus. Stahnke (1976, p. 58) and Francke
(1977, pp. 145-146) provided further evidence that the two species were distinct.
Diplocentrus is the type genus of the family DIPLOCENTRIDAE Pocock, 1893.
2. In the early 1960s the late Prof H.L. Stahnke of Arizona State University visited
a number of European museums and borrowed the types of most of the described
North American scorpions, including the type of Diplocentrus mexicanus from Berlin.
There was, however, no record that a loan of the type had been made. In the early
to mid-1970s Oscar Francke began his work on Diplocentrus as a graduate student
at Arizona State University under M. Cazier, and by 1975 had published a paper on
the genus. Francke planned the necessary redescription of D. mexicanus as part of
a large study on Mexican Diplocentrus and requested a loan of the holotype from
Dr M. Moritz, the curator in Berlin. Dr Moritz, who had not been employed at
the museum in the 1960s, replied that the type could not be found, that there was
no evidence that it was on loan, and that it was presumably lost or destroyed in
World War II, as were a number of other types. He later published that the type was
not in the museum (Moritz & Fischer, 1980, p. 319).
3. Stahnke (1976, pp. 58-59) published photographs and descriptive notes on the
holotype of Diplocentrus mexicanus. Unaware of this paper (which must have been in
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
press) and of Stahnke’s possession of the holotype, Francke (1977, pp. 152-164, figs.
1, 9, 17, 27-32) redescribed and illustrated D. mexicanus and designated a male
neotype from ‘Mexico’ (exact locality unknown) housed in the Zoologisches Institut
und Zoologisches Museum der Hamburg Universitat, Hamburg. The species was
poorly understood and designation of the neotype was justified; the designation
satisfied the requirements of Article 75 of the Code. In addition, Francke recognized
two subspecies of mexicanus: the nominate based on the Hamburg neotype and a
female specimen in the Natural History Museum in London, and D. mexicanus
oaxacae based on a male holotype and found from several localities in central Oaxaca
state.
4. In 1986 I examined the presumed holotype of D. mexicanus from the Zoolo-
gisches Museum in Berlin, bearing catalog no. ZMB 74. The specimen in the vial
was clearly not the holotype but a specimen probably inadvertently switched by
Stahnke and sent to Berlin in 1984. The holotype was eventually found among the
H.L. Stahnke collection in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, by
Mr Vincent Lee (personal communication, November 1991). Examination of this
specimen has confirmed that it is indeed the holotype, bearing the characters given
by Peters (1861) and Karsch (1879, 1880), and depicted in Stahnke’s (1976)
photographs. It has now been returned to Berlin.
5. The refound holotype of D. mexicanus and the neotype of D. mexicanus
mexicanus designated by Francke (1977) do not belong to the same subspecies. The
holotype is consubspecific with Francke’s D. mexicanus oaxacae, whilst his neotype
is a separate subspecies, based on the characters used by him to define subspecific
taxa. I have discussed this problem with my colleagues Drs David Richman and
G.B. Edwards and it is our collective opinion that the holotype should be reinstated
as the name-bearing specimen. The name D. mexicanus oaxacae will become a junior
subjective synonym of D. mexicanus mexicanus and the subspecies represented by
Francke’s neotype will require a new name. Francke and I have written a paper
renaming the subspecies; we will wait until the Commission has made a ruling before
submitting the manuscript for publication. Francke’s (1977) division of mexicanus
into subspecies has been mentioned only once (briefly, by myself) since its original
proposal (Sissom, 1991, pp. 123-124).
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to confirm as the name-bearing type for Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861
the rediscovered holotype;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Diplocentrus Peters, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name mexicanus
Peters, 1861, as published in the binomen Diplocentrus mexicanus and as
defined by the holotype (female specimen no. ZMB 74 in the Zoologisches
Museum, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) confirmed in (1) above.
References
Francke, O.F. 1977. Scorpions of the genus Diplocentrus from Oaxaca, México (Scorpionida,
Diplocentridae). Journal of Arachnology, 4: 145-200.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 39
Karsch, F. 1879. Scorpionologische Beitrage II. Mitteilungen Miinchener Entomologischen
Verein, 3: 97-136.
Karsch, F. 1880. Arachnologisch Blatter. X. Scorpionologische Fragmente. Zeitschrift fiir
Gesammten Naturwissenschaften Halle, 53: 404-409.
Moritz, M. & Fischer, S.-C. 1980. Die Typen der Arachniden-Sammlung des Zoologischen
Museums Berlin. III. Scorpiones. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin,
56(2): 309-326.
Peters, W. 1861. Uber eine neue Eintheilung der Skorpione und tuber die von ihm
Mossambique gesammelten Arten von Skorpionen, as welchem hier ein Auszug mitget-
heilt wird. Monatsberichte der Kéniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin, 1861: 507-516.
Pocock, R.I. 1893. Notes on the classification of scorpions, followed by some observations
upon synonymy, with descriptions of new genera and species. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (6)12: 303-330.
Sissom, W.D. 1991. Diplocentrus perezi, a new species of scorpion from southeastern Mexico
(Diplocentridae). Journal of Arachnology, 19: 122-125.
Stahnke, H.L. 1976. The determination of the type-species of Diplocentrus (Sorpionida).
Arizona Academy of Sciences, 11(3): 58-60.
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2941
Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville,
1843 (currently Diplonychus rusticus and Belostoma stollii; Insecta,
Heteroptera): proposed conservation of the specific names
John T. Polhemus
University of Colorado Museum, 3115 South York St., Englewood,
Colorado 80110, U.S.A.
I.M. Kerzhner
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
naberezhnaya 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of
Diplonychus rusticus (Fabricius, 1781) from Asia and Belostoma stollii (Amyot &
Serville, 1843) from the New World. In 1775 Fabricius had applied the name Nepa
rustica to what was probably B. stollii, but in 1781 he changed the description and
provenance and used N. rustica for the Asian species. It is proposed that the 1775 use
of N. rustica be suppressed.
1. Fabricius (1775, p. 691) described Nepa rustica as follows (translated from
Latin): ‘N[epa] without tail, body fuscous, unspotted. Inhabits waters in America,
common. Similar to preceding but three times smaller. Body entirely fuscous,
unspotted, smooth, only femora slightly yellowish’. The preceding species is
N. grandis Linnaeus, 1758 (now in Lethocerus); this measures 90-95 mm in length so
the length of N. rustica was 30 mm or slightly more. Fabricius did not indicate the
collection in which the material was kept, and no type specimens are known. The
description fits well several species of the American genus Belostoma Latreille, 1807.
2. In the next published reference to N. rustica Fabricius (1781, p. 333) gave a
reference to his 1775 work, but he changed both the diagnosis and the distribution.
He stated that the apex of the head, sides and hind margin of the pronotum and the
sides of the hemelytra were pale. He omitted comparison with N. grandis and
indicated that the species was smaller than any other. He stated that the species was
from India (‘Habitat in Coromandel. Mus. Dom. Banks’). In later works Fabricius
(1787, p. 276; 1794, p. 62; 1803, p. 106) repeated in the main his 1781 text, but he did
not further cite his 1775 work (an omission also applying to other species described
in 1775). The description of N. rustica in 1781 and later years fits well the Oriental
species now known as Diplonychus rusticus (Fabricius). The specimens on which the
1781 description was based, which are listed as type specimens by Zimsen (1964,
p. 304), are in the Fabricius collection in the University Zoological Museum,
Copenhagen (two specimens) and the Banks Collection at the Natural History
Museum, London (two specimens, not one as indicated by Zimsen). They have
been examined by one of us (J.T.P.) and belong to the species currently called
Diplonychus rusticus.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 41
3. Sulzer (1776, p. 92, pl. 10, fig. 2) described and figured a new species Nepa plana
‘aus Amerika’. His description and figure do not resemble any known American
species but closely match D. rusticus. Fabricius (1787, p. 276; 1794, p. 62; 1803,
p. 106) synonymized N. plana with his own N. rustica as that was described in 1781.
4. Goeze (1778, p. 177) cited in part Fabricius’ original (1775) description of
N. rustica and added a vernacular name, ‘Der Amerikanische Bauer’. Stoll (1780,
p. 11, pl. 1, fig. 1) described and figured a belostomatid from Surinam under the name
‘Le Paysan Americaine’, with a reference to Fabricius (1775). Many years later
Amyot & Serville (1843, p. 40), with a reference to Stoll, described a species from
‘Cayenne’ as Zaitha stollii; it is now known as Belostoma stollii.
5. Laporte (1833, p. 18) established the genus Diplonychus with ‘Belostoma rustica
Fab. 106.3’ (i.e. Nepa rustica of Fabricius (1803, p. 106), where rustica was used in the
1781 sense) as the type species by monotypy. On p. 88 of his work, published later the
same year (see Harris, 1942), Laporte explained that he used the name rustica for
the species so called in the later works of Fabricius, whereas the insect described by
Fabricius (1775) and by Stoll (1780; see previous para.) as N. rustica belonged to
another genus, i.e. Belostoma. The same observation was published by Herrich-
Schaeffer (1849, p. 35) in the synonymy of Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville: “Nepa
rustica. — F. Syst. Entom. pg. 691 [the 1775 sense], non Ent. Syst. [the 1781 sense]’.
Walker (1873, pp. 177, 182) also pointed out that Fabricius had described two species
under the name N. rustica.
6. To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of Goeze (1778; see para. 4
above) the specific name rustica Fabricius has never been applied to an American
species, but it has consistently and for more than 200 years been used for the Oriental
species known as Diplonychus rusticus. We have about 130 references for the use of
the name rusticus Fabricius for the Diplonychus species, 44 of them from the last 50
years (we have given a list of 30 references to the Commission Secretariat). The
species is very common in India, and the subject of publications in ecology (Dudgeon,
1990), morphology (Cobben, 1968; Goel, 1972) and biological control of mosquitoes
(Raut, 1988; Raut, Saha & Mukhopadhyay, 1988).
7. According to the principle of priority the specific name rustica Fabricius, 1775
should be applied to an American Belostoma species. This could be B. sto/lii (Amyot
& Serville, 1843; see para. 4 above), which has been associated with the name and
with which the brief description of Fabricius (1775) is in accord; on the other hand
the description fits several species and there is no type material. If the name were
applied to an American belostomatid all uses of rusticus for the Indian species would
become misidentifications; the valid specific name for the latter would be planus
Sulzer, 1776 (see para. 3 above), even though Sulzer had wrongly given the habitat as
‘Amerika’ and his name has never been used for any taxon. Diplonychus Laporte,
1833 is based on the Indian species (see para. 5 above), although at the time of
establishing the genus Laporte failed to say explicitly that he was not using Nepa
rustica Fabricius in the original sense.
8. The American species has consistently been known as Belostoma stollii (Amyot
& Serville, 1843); we have given the Commission Secretariat a list of seven references
to illustrate this.
9. It is desirable to retain the accepted usage of the name Diplonychus rusticus
(Fabricius). Since the species was described in 1781 this date should be adopted,
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
rather than 1775 when rustica was used for an American Be/ostoma. One of the
specimens in the Banks Collection in London (see para. 2 above) is proposed
(Polhemus, 1994, p. 692) as the lectotype of Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781, and it will
be so labelled if the present application is approved. Since Nepa plana Sulzer, 1776 is
an unused senior subjective synonym it should be suppressed. The specific name of
Belostoma stollii (Amyot & Serville, 1843) will be conserved if N. rustica Fabricius,
1775 is suppressed.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to suppress the specific name rustica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the
binomen Nepa rustica, and all uses of that name prior to the publication
of Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781, for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(b) to suppress the specific name plana Sulzer, 1776, as published in the
binomen Nepa plana, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not
for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
to confirm that the type species of Diplonychus Laporte, 1843 is Nepa rustica
Fabricius, 1781 by monotypy;
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Diplonychus Laporte, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781, as confirmed in (2) above;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) rustica Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Nepa rustica and as
defined by the lectotype proposed by Polhemus (1994) (specific name of the
type species of Diplonychus Laporte, 1833);
(b) stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843, as published in the binomen Zaitha stollii;
to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) rustica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Nepa rustica and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) plana Sulzer, 1776, as published in the binomen Nepa plana and as
suppressed in (1)(b) above.
(2
~—
(5
—
References
Amyot, C.J.B. & Serville, J.G.A. 1843. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hémiptéres. Ixxvi,
675 pp., 12 pls. Roret, Paris.
Cobben, R.H. 1968. Evolutionary trends in Heteroptera. Part 1. Eggs, architecture of the shell,
gross embryology and eclosion. viii, 475 pp. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and
Documentation, Wageningen.
Dudgeon, D. 1990. Feeding by the aquatic heteropteran Diplonychus rusticus (Belostomatidae):
an effect of prey density on meal size. Hydrobiologia, 190: 93-96.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae ... xxx, 832 pp. Kortii, Flensburgi et Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectorum ..., vol. 2. 517 pp. Bohnii, Hamburgi et Kilonii.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum ..., vol. 2. 382 pp. Proft, Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica ..., vol. 4. 472 pp. Proft, Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1803. Systema Rhyngotorum ..., 314, 23 pp. Reichard, Brunsvigae.
Goel, S.C. 1972. Notes on the stucture of the unguitractor plate in Heteroptera (Hemiptera).
Journal of Entomology, (A)46: 167-173.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 43
Goeze, J.A.E. 1778. Entomologische Beytrége zu des Ritter Linné zwélften Ausgabe des
Natursystems, vol. 2. 1xxii, 352 pp. Weidmanns Erben & Reich, Leipzig.
Harris, H.M. 1942. On the dates of publication of Laporte’s Essai. Pan-Pacific Entomologist,
18: 161-162.
Herrich-Schaeffer, G.A.W. 1849. Die Wanzenartigen Insecten, vol. 9. 348 pp., 35 pls. Lotzbeck,
Nurnberg.
Laporte, F.L. de. 1833. Essai d'une classification systématique de l’ordre des Hémipteéres
(Hémipteres-Heéteropteres, Latr.). Magasin de Zoologie, 2: 17-88.
Polhemus, J.T. 1994. The identity and synonymy of the Belostomatidae (Heteroptera)
of Johann Christian Fabricius 1775-1803. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Washington, 96: 687-695.
Raut, S.K. 1988. Biological assessment of predaceous water bugs in the control potential
of vector prey snails. Abstracts, International Conference Bicovas, Madras, p. 52.
Raut, S.K., Saha, T.C. & Mukhopadhyay, B. 1988. Predaceous water bugs in the control
of vector snails. Abstracts, International Conference Bicovas, Madras, p. 53.
Stoll, C. 1780. Représentation exactement colorée d’apres nature des punaises ..., Lief 1. 20 pp.,
4 pls. Sepp, Amsterdam.
Sulzer, J.H. 1776. Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten nach dem Linnaeischen System. Vol. 1,
274 pp.; vol. 2, 72 pp., 32 pls. Steiner, Winterthur.
Walker, F. 1873. Catalogue of the specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the collection of the
British Museum, part 8. 220 pp. British Museum, London.
Zimsen, E. 1964. The type material of I.C. Fabricius. 656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2918
Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
conservation as the correct original spelling, and ASPIDIPHORIDAE
Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859): proposed placement on the Official List
Joseph V. McHugh
Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York 14853-0999, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the universally accepted
spelling Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 for a genus of 12 nominal species of
small beetles which feed on slime moulds and have a broad distribution in the Old
World. It is also proposed that the name ASPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859)
should be placed on the Official List as the valid name for the family group that
includes both Aspidiphorus and Sphindus Megerle in Dejean, 1821.
1. In the 1821 edition of his catalog, Dejean included two new genera with
authorship attributed as follows: Arpidiphorus Ziegler (p. 47) and Sphindus Megerle
(p. 102). He placed the single nominal species Nitidula orbiculata Gyllenhal, 1808
(p. 242) in Arpidiphorus, and included N. dubia Gyllenhal, 1808 (p. 243) as the only
species in Sphindus. Dejean cited “Sphindus gyllenhali Dej.’ in conjunction with dubia.
It is not clear whether gyllenhali was a manuscript name of Dejean’s or an
unnecessary replacement name for dubia; it has not been used again. Nitidula
orbiculata and N. dubia are the type species by monotypy of Arpidiphorus and
Sphindus respectively. The two new genera were unaccompanied by any description,
diagnosis or illustration, but the requirements of availability under Article 12b(5) of
the Code are met because the included nominal species can be identified by the
citation of their authors.
2. Sturm (1826, pp. 16, 98) used the spelling Aspidiphorus for Arpidiphorus,
attributing the genus to Ziegler and including Nitidula orbiculata Gyllenhal. Latreille
(1829, p. 508) also used Aspidiphorus, attributed to Ziegler and Dejean. He included
N. orbiculata and placed the genus in his suprageneric group “Dermestes’.
3. The original name Arpidiphorus was apparently an error for Aspidiphorus,
which has been used regularly in the literature after Latreille (1829) with either
Dejean, Latreille or Ziegler cited as author. The changed spelling was used by Dejean
himself in the subsequent edition (1837) of his catalog where it too was attributed to
Ziegler, not Sturm or Latreille. Etymological considerations also suggest that a
misspelling occurred in the original publication. There is no meaning for the
stem ‘arpid-’ in the classical languages whereas ‘aspid-’ (= shield), when combined
with ‘phorus’ (= bearer), is perfectly fitting given the form of these beetles. No
internal evidence from Dejean’s (1821) catalog has been found, however, to
support the assumption that a lapsus calami or printer’s error occurred. There
have been four exceptions to the usage of Aspidiphorus in over 170 years: (1) the
unjustified emendation Aspidophorus Agassiz, 1846 (p. 36); (2) the incorrect spelling
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 45
Asphidiphorus Arnold, 1938 (see Burakowski, Mroczkowski & Stefanska, 1986,
p. 121); (3) the incorrect spelling Asphidophorus Kuhnt, 1912 (see Burakowski et al.,
1986, p. 121) and (4) Dejean’s (1821) original spelling Arpidiphorus which was used
by Merk] (1986, p. 177) and Silfverberg (1979, p. 43; 1992, p. 51). As incorrect
subsequent spellings the names noted in (2) and (3) are unavailable. The name
Aspidophorus Agassiz is a junior homonym of the fish name Aspidophorus Lacépéde,
[1801]. An application (Case 2897) for the conservation of the fish name Agonus
Bloch & Schneider, 1801 by the suppression for priority but not homonymy of
Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801] by Dr B.A. Sheiko (Kamchatka Institute of Ecology,
Russian Academy of Sciences, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia) is published in
BZN 52: 57-60 (March 1995). Gistel (1848, p. viii) replaced Aspidiphorus Ziegler by
Box, believing Ziegler’s name to be a junior homonym of ‘Aspidiphorus’ [sic]
Lacépéde. It is proposed that the names Aspidophorus Agassiz and Box Gistel be
placed on the Official Index. A list of 90 references using the generally accepted
spelling Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean has been given to the Commission Secretariat
in support of a request for conservation of the name. These references include the key
works by Crowson (1955), Sen Gupta & Crowson (1979), Sen Gupta & Pal (1982),
Burakowski & Slipinski (1987) and McHugh (1993).
4. Thomson (1859, p. 90) proposed the genus Coniporus, into which he transferred
the single species Aspidiphorus orbiculatus (Gyllenhal, 1808). Coniporus is thus a
junior objective synonym of Aspidiphorus. Thomson placed Coniporus as the single
genus in the new tribe “Coniporina’ (family clomAe). Sphindus was transferred (p. 91)
to the tribe “Cioina’ in the same family.
5. The ‘Famille des Sphindides’ was proposed (p. 224) to accommodate both
Sphindus and Aspidiphorus in Jacquelin du Val’s (“1859-63’) treatment. The text and
catalog sections of this work have been dated as 1860 by Silfverberg (1992, p. 51) and
as 1861 by Burakowski, Mroczkowski & Stefanska (1986, p. 121). For this
application I have adopted the later date but the nomenclatural outcome would be
the same assuming either date.
6. Thomson (1863, p. 175) elevated his tribe (1859) Coniporina to family level. He
described conrporipDAE and redescribed the type genus Coniporus and the only species
Coniporus orbiculatus (Gyllenhal). He maintained Jacquelin du Val’s ({1861]) family
SPHINDIDAE for Sphindus, based on S. dubius (Gyllenhal).
7. Kiesenwetter (1877, p. 198) proposed a new family ASPIDIPHORIDAE in which he
included only Aspidiphorus. He cited both the names Coniporus and CONIPORIDAE as
synonyms.
8. Subsequent to Jacquelin du Val’s ([1861]) placement of Sphindus and Aspidi-
phorus in the family sPHINDIDAE, some authors have continued to recognize a separate
family for Aspidiphorus. For this they have consistently used the name ASPIDI-
PHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 rather than CONIPORIDAE Thomson, 1859 (see, for
example, Houlbert, 1922; Schenkling, 1931; Horion, 1960; Freude, Harde & Lohse,
1967; Merk], 1986). Recent studies indicate that Aspidiphorus and Sphindus are very
closely related and clearly positioned within the clade that includes other generally
accepted confamilial genera (see Sen Gupta & Crowson, 1979; McHugh, 1993). In the
literature that considers Sphindus and Aspidiphorus confamilial, the family-group
Name SPHINDIDAE is often used. A list of references for works using the name
SPHINDIDAE for a family including both Sphindus and Aspidiphorus and further
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
references using the name ASPIDIPHORIDAE (with Sphindus not included) has been
given to the Commission Secretariat. Under Article 40b of the Code the name for the
family including both genera is ASPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859), the date
1859 being derived from Thomson’s tribal name based on Coniporus (see para. 4
above). ASPIDIPHORIDAE thus has priority over SPHINDIDAE Jacquelin du Val, [1861].
9. Ihave recently consulted a number of authorities (J.F. Lawrence, S.A. Slipinski,
A. Newton, J. Pakaluk and Q. Wheeler) on whether the name ASPIDIPHORIDAE or
SPHINDIDAE should be used for the family group that includes both Sphindus and
Aspidiphorus. There was no consensus. Since the group is so poorly known and
the body of literature so small it seems appropriate to follow priority and use
ASPIDIPHORIDAE as the valid name. ASPIDIPHORIDAE has been used in a major
taxonomic work which will be appearing soon (Pakaluk, Slipinski & Lawrence, in
press). As a means of ratifying this and of promoting universality in the usage of
the name I propose that ASPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) be placed on the
Official List.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that Arpidiphorus is an incorrect original
spelling of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Nitidula orbiculata Gyllenhal, 1808;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name orbiculata
Gyllenhal, 1808, as published in the binomen Nitidula orbiculata (specific name
of the type species of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
ASPIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) (type genus Aspidiphorus Ziegler in
Dejean, 1821);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) Arpidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (ruled in (1)(a) above to be an
incorrect original spelling of Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821);
(b) Aspidophorus Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Aspidiphorus
Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 and a junior homonym of Aspidophorus Lacépéde,
[1801));
(c) Box Gistel, 1848 (an unnecessary replacement name for Aspidiphorus
Ziegler in Dejean, 1821);
(d) Coniporus Thomson, 1859 (a junior objective synonym of Aspidiphorus
Ziegler in Dejean, 1821).
Acknowledgements
J.G. Franclemont, Q.D. Wheeler, W.L. Brown Jr. and P.R. Fraissinet (all at Cornell
University) and J. Pakaluk (S.E.L. Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.) reviewed an early version of this proposal.
A.F. Newton Jr. (Field Museum of Natural History) originally encouraged me to
address these nomenclatural issues and provided helpful information. Mrs A. Gentry
of the Commission Secretariat assisted with the preparation of the application.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 47
References
Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, Continens Nomina Systematica
Classium, Ordinum, Familiarum et Generum Animalium Omnium ... viii, 393 pp. Jent &
Gassmann, Soloduri.
Burakowski, B., Mroczkowski, M. & Stefanska, J. 1986. Katalog Fauny Polski. Czes¢ 23,
vol. 12. Chrzaszcze Coleoptera. Cucujoidea. Czes¢ 1. 266 pp. Panstwowe Wydawnictwo
Naukowe, Warszawa.
Burakowski, B. & Slipinski, S.A. 1987. A new species of Protosphindus (Coleoptera:
Sphindidae) from Chile with notes and descriptions of immature stages of related forms.
Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria. Genova, 86: 605-625.
Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 214 pp. Lloyd,
London.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean. 136 pp.
Crevot, Paris.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1837. Catalogue des coléopteres de la collection de M. Le Comte Dejean,
Ed. 3. 503 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Freude, H., Harde, K.V. & Lohse, G.A. 1967. Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 7 (Clavicornia).
310 pp. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.
Gistel, J. 1848. Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs fiir héhere Schulen. xvi, 216 pp., 32 pls.
Hoffmann, Stuttgart.
Gyllenhal, L. 1808. Insecta Svecica, Descripta a Leonardo Gyllenhal, Classis I. Coleoptera sive
Eleuterata, vol. 1. viii, 572, xx pp. Leverentz, Scaris. .
Horion, A. 1960. Faunistik der mitteleuropdischen Kafer, vol. 8. 375 pp. Feyel, Uberlingen-
Bodensee.
Houlbert, C. (Doin, G., Ed.). 1922. Les coléoptéres d'Europe, France et régions voisines, vol. 2.
340 pp. Doin, Paris.
Jacquelin du Val, P.N.C. 1859-1863. Manuel entomologique. Genera des coléoptéres d'Europe,
comprenant leur classification en familles naturelles, la description de tous les genres ...,
vol. 3. 464 pp. Deyrolle, Paris.
Kiesenwetter, E.A.H. von. 1877. Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands (W.F. Erichson),
vol. 1 (Coleoptera), part 5, Halfte 1. 877 pp. Nicolai, Berlin.
Latreille, P.A. 1829. Crustacés, arachnides et partie des insectes. In Cuvier, G.L.F.D., Le régne
animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, Ed. 2, vol. 4. 584 pp. Déterville, Paris.
McHugh, J.V. 1993. A revision of Eurysphindus LeConte (Coleoptera: Cucujoidea: Sphin-
didae) and a review of sphindid classification and phylogeny. Systematic Entomology, 18:
57-92.
Merkl, O. 1986. Erotylidae, Mycetophagidae, Endomychidae, Arpidiphoridae and Cisidae of
the Kiskunsag National Park (Coleoptera). In Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The fauna of the
Kiskunsag National Park, vol. 1. 491 pp. Kiado, Budapest.
Schenkling, S. 1931. Coleopterorum Catalogus, vol. 16, part 117. Sphindidae. 4 pp. Aspidi-
phoridae. 2 pp. Junk, Berlin.
Silfverberg, H. (Ed.). 1979. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. vi, 79 pp.
Helsingin Hyénteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.
Silfverberg, H. 1992. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae, Daniae et Baltiae. v, 92 pp.
Helsingfors Entomologiska Bytesférening, Helsinki.
Sen Gupta, T. & Crowson, R.A. 1979. The coleopteran family Sphindidae. Entomologist's
Monthly Magazine, 113: 177-191.
Sen Gupta, T. & Pal, T.K. 1982. Three new species of Sphindidae (Coleoptera: Clavicornia)
from India and Sri Lanka. Entomologica Basiliensia, 7: 387-393.
Sturm, J. 1826. Catalog meiner Insecten Sammlung, vol. 1 (Kafer). viii, 207, 16 pp., 4 pls.
Niirnberg.
Thomson, C.G. 1859, 1863. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 1, 290 pp.
(1859); vol. 5, 340 pp. (1863). Lund.
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2872
XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and QUEDIINI Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed precedence over senior synonyms, and Quedius
Stephens, 1829: proposed designation of Staphylinus levicollis Brullé,
1832 as the type species
Alfred F. Newton, Jr.
Field Museum of Natural History, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive,
Chicago, Illinois 60605, U.S.A.
Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the staphylinid beetle
family-group names XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and QUEDIINI Kraatz, 1857, which
have senior but unused synonyms. The type species of Quedius Stephens, 1829 has
been cited as “Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802’ but this is not an available name
for the relevant taxon and it is proposed that the valid nominal species S. /evicollis
Brullé, 1832 be designated as the type species in accordance with the current
taxonomic usage.
1. Nordmann (1837) established several new names for ‘familiae’ in what is now
the family STAPHYLINIDAE, including Platycnemidiformes (p. 6) for his new genus
Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837 (p. 135; type species by monotypy P. Jateritius
Nordmann, 1837) and Agraeformes (p. 7) for his new genera Agrodes and Araeo-
cnemus. Although these names do not have modern endings and were not formed
from the correct stem according to the current Code, they are clearly latinized and
based on a type genus (Agrodes was named after Agra (‘ab Agra’, p. 161), and the
family name Agraeformes was apparently derived from the genitive of this (Agrae)
rather than directly from Agrodes). Nordmann’s family names must be considered
available, but neither of them has been used subsequently as the valid name of a
group (see Newton & Thayer, 1992, p. 25), although they were cited as junior
synonyms by Handlirsch (1925, p. 573).
2. Kirby (1837, p. 88) established a new family name GYROHYPNIDAE for
Gyrohypnus ‘Kirb. Steph.’ (actually Samouelle, 1819, p. 172). Problems with
authorship and type species designations for Gyrohypnus were reviewed by
Smetana (1979) and resolved in Opinion 1250 (BZN 40: 85-87; July 1983) where
the genus and its type species were placed on Official Lists. Kirby’s family name
has not been used subsequently as valid, or even cited as a synonym (Newton &
Thayer, 1992, p. 25). However, the name GYROHYPNINI was proposed indepen-
dently by Hatch (1957, p. 233) as a replacement name for XANTHOLININI Erichson,
1839 (p. 626) when the type genus Xantholinus Dejean, 1821 (p. 23) of the
latter tribe was considered a junior objective synonym of Gyrohypnus. Hatch’s
use of GYROHYPNINI has not been followed by later authors (e.g. Arnett, 1963).
The action of Opinion 1250 removed the objective synonymy of Gyrohypnus
and Xantholinus, each of which is now considered a valid genus (e.g. Smetana,
1982).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 49
3. Erichson (1839, p. 28) established the name XANTHOLININI for Xantholinus
‘Dahl.’ (actually Dejean, 1821) and several other genera. As with Gyrohypnus,
problems with authorship and type species designations for Xantholinus were
resolved in Opinion 1250. The name XANTHOLININI (Or XANTHOLININAE) has been in
universal use since the time of Erichson for a large tribe or subfamily of sTAPHYLIN-
IDAE (sometimes including subordinate tribes or subtribes) except for the single use of
GYROHYPNINI by Hatch (1957) noted in para. 2 above. A list of 37 representative
works illustrating usage of family-group names based on Xantholinus has been given
to the Commission Secretariat. Among the more than 120 genus-group names
currently included in the smallest family-group unit containing Xantholinus are
Gyrohypnus and Agrodes (see paras. 1 and 2 above). Agrodes is currently treated as
a subgenus of Plochionocerus Dejean, 1833 (e.g. Blackwelder, 1952, p. 42).
4. Kraatz ([{1857], p. 473) established the family-group name Quediiformes for
Quedius Stephens, 1829 (p. 22) and several other genera. The name QUEDIINI (or
QUEDIINAE, QUEDIINA) has been in universal use since that time for a large tribe (or
subfamily or subtribe) of STAPHYLINIDAE, sometimes including subordinate tribes
or subtribes. A list of 37 representative works illustrating such usage has been given
to the Commission Secretariat. Among the nearly 90 genus-group names currently
included in the smallest family-group unit containing Quedius is Platycnemus, type
genus of the older name PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (see para. 1 above).
Platycnemus is currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Haematodes
Laporte, 1835 (e.g. Blackwelder, 1952, p. 312), which has not been used as the basis
of a family-group name.
5. The composition of the tribe or subtribe QUEDIINI (-INA) has been undergoing
revision and restriction in recent years (e.g. Smetana, 1977, 1984, 1988). The
placement of Haematodes (or Platycnemus) has not been discussed in this connection,
but examination of species of this genus indicates that Haematodes does not fit
Smetana’s restricted concept of QUEDIINI and may eventually be assigned to another
named group of the subfamily sTAPHYLININAE or form part of a new group. Most
other currently recognized groups in the STAPHYLININAE also have younger names
that would be threatened by addition of Haematodes (or Platycnemus) with its older
but unused family-group name PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (see Newton &
Thayer, 1992, pp. 64-66, for complete list of current names and dates). Stability of
group names in the STAPHYLININAE will be served best if the name PLATYCNEMINI is
not allowed to threaten any of the group names in current use in this subfamily, but
is available as the name of a group containing Haematodes (see para. 4 above) and
lacking other available names.
6. Questions about the publication date and type species designation for Quedius,
type genus of the QUEDIINI, require resolution. Stephens (1829, p. 22) first used the
name Quedius in a list, including under it 38 species names of which many are
available names of earlier authors; inclusion of such names establishes availability of
the generic name (Article 12b(5) of the Code). Although Blackwelder (1952, p. 335)
and one or two later authors have cited this (1829) reference, most authors have
continued to date Quedius from the formal description of the genus by Stephens
(1832, p. 214). The earliest and generally accepted type species designation for
Quedius was made by Curtis (1837, plate 638), who named the first-listed species of
Stephens (1829), “Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst’, as type; Blackwelder (1952, p. 335)
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
documents later designations. ‘Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, p. 34’ has been
widely, and is currently, treated as a valid species of Quedius and cited as the type
species of the genus (e.g. by Smetana, 1958, pp. 328, 362; Coiffait, 1978, pp. 9, 192).
However, Gravenhorst (1802, p. 34) did not propose a new name S. tristis but
referred his description under this name to ‘Staphylinus tristis Fabr. Syst. Ent. St. n.
21° (i.e. Fabricius, 1792, p. 524). This Fabricius name has long been placed as a
synonym of Staphylinus picipennis Fabricius, 1792 (p. 521) or, in some recent works,
used as the name of a ‘variety’ of S. picipennis (e.g. by Coiffait, 1974, p. 507).
Staphylinus Linnaeus, 1758 and allied genera into which S. picipennis has often been
moved are placed in the tribe (or subtribe) STAPHYLININI (-INA), whereas Quedius and
its quoted type species ‘S. tristis Gravenhorst’ is currently placed in the tribe (or
subtribe) QUEDIINI (-INA). The problem of the unavailability of the name “Staphylinus
tristis Gravenhorst’ was noted by both Tottenham (1949) and Blackwelder (1952) but
with different results. Tottenham (1949, p. 376) followed previous authors in
considering S. tristis of Gravenhorst and of Fabricius as representing different taxa;
as type species of Quedius he designated ‘Staphylinus laevicollis Brullé, 1832’, a
subjective synonym of ‘Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, nec Fabricius, 1792’.
However, this designation does not meet the strict requirements of Article 69a(i) and
(v) of the Code, since Stephens did not state that S. tristis Gravenhorst was a
misidentification (cf. Article 70c) and S. /aevicollis was not an originally included
nominal species. In contrast, Blackwelder (1952, p. 335) cited Staphylinus tristis
Fabricius, 1792 as type species of Quedius, without comment (and without change in
the taxonomic status and placement of the genus), implicitly assuming that S. tristis
of Gravenhorst and Fabricius represent the same taxon. Blackwelder’s type species
citation is formally valid but the consequential taxonomic assignment of the name
Quedius would be at odds with the conclusions of all other authors that Gravenhorst
misidentified Staphylinus tristis Fabricius and that the Fabricius species belongs in
Staphylinus or an allied genus of the STAPHYLININI. In accordance with the Code
(Articles 41, 65, 70) this case of a misidentified type species of a genus that is the type
genus of a family-group taxon must be referred to the Commission. Stability in the
application of the name Quedius at the generic and subgeneric levels, as well as
application of the family-group name QUEDDNI, will be served best if an available
name for the taxon ‘Staphylinus tristis Gravenhorst, 1802, nec Fabricius, 1792’ is
adopted for the type species. The oldest and therefore valid such name (e.g. Smetana,
1958, p. 362; Coiffait, 1978, p. 192) is the subjective synonym Staphylinus levicollis
Brullé (1832, p. 131), previously selected as the type species of Quedius by Tottenham
(1949, p. 376), as mentioned above. Brullé’s name is generally spelled as the
nomenclaturally equivalent /aevicollis (see Article 58 of the Code). It is proposed here
that the Commission use its plenary powers to set aside all other type designations for
Quedius and designate Staphylinus levicollis Brullé as the type species in taxonomic
agreement with the designation of Curtis (1837) mentioned above.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to rule that the family-group name XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 is
to be given precedence over the names AGRODINI Nordmann, 1837 and
GYROHYPNINI Kirby, 1837;
(2)
(3)
(4)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 51
(b) to rule that the family-group name QUEDIINI Kraatz, 1857 is to be given
precedence over PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837;
(c) to rule that PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 is not to be given priority over
junior family-group names in general current usage in the STAPHYLININAE;
(d) to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus
Quedius Stephens, 1829 and to designate Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832
as the type species;
to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Agrodes Nordmann, 1837 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy
Agrodes elegans Nordmann, 1837;
(b) Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by mono-
typy Platycnemus lateritius Nordmann, 1837;
(c) Quedius Stephens, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by designation
under the plenary powers in (1)(d) above Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832;
to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) elegans Nordmann, 1837, as published in the binomen Agrodes elegans
(specific name of the type species of Agrodes Nordmann, 1837);
(b) Jateritius Nordmann, 1837, as published in the binomen Platycnemus
lateritius (specific name of the type species of Platycnemus Nordmann,
1837);
(c) levicollis Brullé, 1832, as published in the binomen Staphylinus levicollis
(specific name of the type species of Quedius Stephens, 1829);
to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) AGRODINI Nordmann, 1837 (type genus Agrodes Nordmann, 1837), with
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Agrodes
are not to be given priority over XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and other
family-group names based on Xantholinus Dejean, 1821;
(b) XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 (type genus Xantholinus Dejean, 1821),
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on
Xantholinus are to be given precedence over those based on Agrodes
Nordmann, 1837 or Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819;
(Cc) GYROHYPNINI Kirby, 1837 (type genus Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819),
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on
Gyrohypnus are not to be given priority over those based on Xantholinus
Dejean, 1821);
(d) QUEDUNI Kraatz, 1857 (type genus Quedius Stephens, 1829) with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Quedius are to
be given precedence over those based on Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837;
(e) PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (type genus Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837)
with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on
Platycnemus are not to be given priority over over junior family-group
names in general current usage in the STAPHYLININAE.
Acknowledgements
I thank Drs Ales Smetana and Margaret K. Thayer for reading and providing helpful
comments on a draft of this application.
52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
References
Arnett, R.H. Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. A manual for identification. xi, 1112 pp.
Catholic University Press, Washington.
Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae with an essay on
genotypy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 200: 1-483.
Brullé, A. 1832. Jn Bory St Vincent, J.B.G.M., Expédition scientifique de Morée. Section des
sciences physiques, vol. 3, part 1 (Zoologie), section 2 (Des animaux articles). 400 pp.
Levrault, Paris.
Coiffait, H. 1974. Coléopteres Staphylinidae de la région paléarctique occidentale. I. Sous
famille Staphylininae, tribus Philonthini et Staphylinini. Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie,
Supplement, 4(4): 1-593.
Coiffait, H. 1978. Coléoptéres Staphylinidae de la région paléarctique occidentale. III. Sous
famille Staphylininae, tribu Quediini; sous famille Paederinae, tribu Pinophilini. Nouvelle
Revue d'Entomologie, Supplement, 8(4): 1-364.
Curtis, J. 1837. [Species] 638, Quedius lateralis. In: British entomology, being illustrations
and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland ..., vol. 14.
London.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean ... Ed.
1. vii, 136 pp. Crevot, Paris.
Erichson, W.F. 1839. Genera et species staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae,
part 1. vii, 400 pp. Morin, Berolini.
Fabricius, J.C. 1792. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 1 (Eleuterata), part 2.
538 pp. Hafniae.
Grayenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia nec non exoticorum quotquot
exstant in collectionibus entomologorum Brunsvicensium in genera familiae et species
distribuit. \xvi, 206 pp. Reichard, Brunsuigae.
Handlirsch, A. 1925. Systematische Ubersicht. Pp. 377-1140 in Schroder, C. (Ed.), Handbuch
der Entomologie, vol. 3 (Geschichte, Literatur, Technik, Paldontologie, Phylogenie,
Systematik). viii, 1201 pp. Fischer, Jena.
Hatch, M.H. 1957. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest, part 2 (Staphyliniformia). University
of Washington Publications in Biology, 16: 1-384.
Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. Jn Richardson, J. (Ed.), Fauna Boreali-Americana; or the
zoology of the northern parts of British America ..., part 4. 325 pp., 8 pls. Fletcher,
Norwich.
Kraatz, G. [1857]. Staphylini. Pp. 377-768 in Erichson, W.F., Naturgeschichte der Insekten
Deutschlands, Abt. 1 (Coleoptera), vol. 2. 1079 pp. Nicolai, Berlin.
Newton, A.F. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in
Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana Zoology, (n.s.)67: 1-92.
Nordmann, A. 1837. Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum. 167 pp., 2 pls. Academiae
Caesareae Scientiarum, Petropoli.
Samouelle, G. 1819. The entomologist’s useful compendium; or an introduction to the knowledge
of British insects ... 496 pp., 12 pls. Boys, London.
Smetana, A. 1958. Drabcikoviti — Staphylinidae I, Staphylininae (Rad: Brouci — Coleoptera).
Fauna CSR, 12: 1-435.
Smetana, A. 1977. The nearctic genus Beeria Hatch. Taxonomy, distribution and ecology
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Entomologica Scandinavica, 8: 177-190.
Smetana, A. 1979. ‘Staphylinus fulgidus’ as the type species of several staphylinid genera
(Insecta, Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 36: 44-52.
Smetana, A. 1982. Revision of the subfamily Xantholininae of America north of Mexico
(Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 120: 1-389.
Smetana, A. 1984. Le ‘culte de |’édéage’: réflexions additionnelles, suivies d’une discussion sur
le concept de la sous-tribu Heterothopsi Coiffait 1978 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae).
Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie, (n.s.)1: 277-282.
Smetana, A. 1988. Revision of the tribes Quediini and Atanygnathini. Part 2. The Himalayan
region (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Quaestiones Entomologicae, 24: 163-464.
RN
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 53
Stephens, J.F. 1829. The nomenclature of British insects; being a compendious list of such species
| as are contained in the Systematic Catalogue of British insects, and forming a guide to their
classification ... 68 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London.
Stephens, J.F. 1832. Pp. 1-240 in: Illustrations of British entomology, or a synopsis of indigenous
insects ..., Mandibulata, vol. 5. 446 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London.
Tottenham, C.E. 1949. The generic names of the British Staphylinidae with a check list of the
species. Pp. 348-466 in: The generic names of British insects, part 9. 466 pp. Royal
Entomological Society of London, London.
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Case 2916
Metablastothrix Sugonjaey, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed
designation of Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev,
1964 as the type species
Natalia D. Voinovich, Vladimir A. Trjapitzin & Eugeny S. Sugonjaev
Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 1 Universitétskaya
naberezhnaya, 199134 St. Petersburg, Russia
Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Blastothrix (Meta-
blastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species of the encyrtid
genus Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964. At present the type species is Microterys
truncatipennis Ferriere, 1955 but this was based on a misidentification. Metablasto-
thrix has a Holarctic distribution and the species are secondary parasitoids of some
injurious coccids. Conservation of the generic name will help to ensure stability in the
economically important family ENCYRTIDAE Walker, 1837.
1. Mayr (1876, p. 697) established the genus Blastothrix. Its type species is
Encyrtus sericeus Dalman, 1820 (p. 357) by subsequent designation of Ashmead
(1900, p. 389). Blastothrix belongs to the subtribe BLASTOTRICHINA Erdos & Novicky,
1955 (p. 167) (this is the correct spelling, see p. 223 of the Code) of the tribe APHYCINI
Hoffer, 1954 and now includes 24 described species. Members of this genus are
primary endoparasitoids of coccids (Homoptera, COCCIDAE).
2. Ferriére (1955, p. 127) described Microterys truncatipennis from Germany,
which parasitizes the coccid Eulecanium franconicum Lindinger, 1912. Hoffer (1957,
p. 220) transferred Ferriére’s species to Blastothrix Mayr, 1876. Sugonjaev (1959,
p. 169; 1960, p. 378; 1962, pp. 193, 194) identified as B. truncatipennis specimens
reared by him from the same coccid species in the Leningrad (now St. Petersburg)
Province.
3. Sugonjaev (1964, p. 371) established Metablastothrix as a subgenus of Blasto-
thrix and later Sugonjaev & Babaev (1978, p. 66) raised Metablastothrix to generic
rank.
4. Sugonjaev (1964) originally included in Metablastothrix two nominal species:
Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) truncatipennis (Ferriére), designated by him as the type
species, and a new species B. (M.) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 (p. 371) from
Kazakhstan. Trjapitzin & Gordh (1978a, p. 379) transferred to Metablastothrix the
North American species Microterys claripennis Compere, 1928.
5. In 1991-1992 the authors of the present application examined the type series
of Microterys truncatipennis Ferriére, 1955 preserved in the Muséum d’Histoire
naturelle, Geneva. All specimens of the type material, the female holotype (of which
only legs are left), two female paratypes and one male paratype are not congeneric
with the species studied by Sugonjaev (1959) and do not accord with the description
and concept of Metablastothrix, but belong to Blastothrix in accordance with
Hoffer’s (1957) placement (see para. 2 above).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 55
6. The type species of Metablastothrix was based on a misidentification and
retention of the nominal species Microterys truncatipennis Ferriére, 1955 as type
would render Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 a junior subjective synonym of
Blastothrix Mayr, 1876. To preserve the current understanding and usage of the
name Metablastothrix which is already included in some reviews and monographs
(e.g. Trjapitzin & Gordh, 1978a, 1978b; Sugonjaev, 1984; Sugonjaev & Trjapitzin,
1988; Trjapitzin, 1989) it is proposed that Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha
Sugonjaev, 1964 be designated as its type species.
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 Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 and to designate
Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name
Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (gender: feminine), type species by desig-
nation in (1) above Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name isomorpha
Sugonjaev, 1964, as published in the binomen Blastothrix (Metablastothrix)
isomorpha (specific name of the type species of Metablastothrix Sugonjaev,
1964).
References
Ashmead, W.H. 1900. On the genera of the chalcid-flies belonging to the subfamily Encyrtinae.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 22(1202): 323-412.
Dalman, J.W. 1820. Forsok till Uppstallning af Insect-familjen Pteromalini, i synnerhet med
afseende pa de i Sverige funne Arter. Kongliga Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar,
1820(2): 340-385.
Erdés, J. & Novicky, S. 1955. Genera Encyrtidarum regionis palaearticae. Beitrdge zur
Entomologie, 5(1/2): 165-202.
Ferriére, C. 1955. Encyrtides nouveaux ou peu connus (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea).
Mitteilungen der Schweizerischen Entomologischen Gesellschaft, 28(1): 115-136.
Hoffer, A. 1957. Miscellanea encyrtidologica I. Eighth preliminary paper for the monographic
investigation of the Czechoslovak Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea). Acta
Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 31(486): 191-220.
Mayr, G. 1876. Die europdischen Encyrtiden. Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 25: 675-778.
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1959. Fauna of Chalcids (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) — parasites of
Coccoidea (Homoptera) in Leningrad Province. Pp. 168-171 in: Theses of Reports of the
IV Congress of the All-Union Entomological Society (Leningrad, 23 January — 3 February
1960). Vol. 2. [In Russian].
Sugonjaey, E.S. 1960. On the species of the genera allied to Aphycus Mayr (Hymenoptera,
Chalcidoidea) from the European part of the U.S.S.R. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie,
39(2): 364-383. [In Russian].
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1962. On the fauna and ecology of parasitic chalcid wasps (Hymenoptera,
Chalcidoidea) infesting scale insects in the Leningrad region. Trudy Zoologicheskogo
Instituta Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 31: 172-196. [In Russian].
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1964. Palaearctic species of the genus Blastothrix Mayr (Hymenoptera,
Chalcidoidea) with remarks on their biology and economic importance. Part 1.
Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 43(2): 368-390. [In Russian].
Sugonjaev, E.S. 1984. Chalcid-flies (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) parasites of coccids
(Homoptera, Coccoidea) of the fauna of the U.S.S.R. Complex investigation of host-
parasite systems in insects. 234 pp. Nauka, Leningrad. (Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 117). {In Russian].
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Sugonjaey, E.S. & Babaev, T. 1978. On chalcidoid parasites (Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) of
Lecaniid scales (Homoptera, Coccoidea) in Tadjikistan. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie,
57(1): 48-67. [In Russian].
Sugonjaey, E.S. & Trjapitzin, V.A. 1988. Chalcids of the genus Metablastothrix Sugonjaev
(Hymenoptera, Chalcidoidea) and peculiarities of their distribution in North America and
Eurasia. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 67(1): 182-187. [In Russian].
Trjapitzin, V.A. 1989. Parasitic Hymenoptera of the fam. Encyrtidae of the Palaearctic. 488 pp.
Nauka, Leningrad. (Opredeliteli po faune SSSR, issue 158). [In Russian].
Trjapitzin, V.A. & Gordh, G. 1978a. Review of genera of Nearctic Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera,
Chalcidoidea). I. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 57(2): 364-385. [In Russian].
Trjapitzin, V.A. & Gordh, G. 1978b. Review of genera of Nearctic Encyrtidae (Hymenoptera,
Chalcidoidea). Il. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 57(3): 636-653. [In Russian].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 57
Case 2897
Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes):
proposed conservation; AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
and AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes):
proposed removal of homonymy
B.A. Sheiko
Ichthyology, Collections, Kamchatka Institute of Ecology, Russian Academy
of Sciences, Partizanskaya 6, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky 683000, Russia
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Agonus
Bloch & Schneider, 1801 for a single species. The name is threatened by the senior
objective synonym Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801], for which suppression is pro-
posed. Agonus cataphractus (Linnaeus, 1758) is a common fish found in European
northern seas and is of economic importance as a predator on young edible
shellfish. It is also proposed that the homonymy between AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839
(Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) and AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera) be
removed by emending the stem of the generic name Agonum Bonelli, 1810, on which
the insect family-group name is based, to AGONUM-.
1. Lacépéde ({1801], p. 221) established the new genus Aspidophorus in vol. 3 of his
Histoire naturelle des poissons, dated as ‘An X’ (23 September 1801—22 September
1802) of the French republican calendar. The volume was consistently dated as 1802
until Roux (1973) demonstrated that it appeared shortly before 16 October 1801,
when Lacépéde presented the published work to the French Academy of Sciences.
Lacépéde included two nominal species in Aspidophorus. Bory de Saint Vincent
(1822, p. 27) designated Cottus cataphractus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species, which
Lacépéde included in the genus under the synonymy of his own Aspidophorus armatus
Lacépede, [1801].
2. Linnaeus (1758, p. 264) based the description of his species Cottus cataphractus
on two sources, Artedi’s (1738) Ichthyologia (Genera piscium, p. 49; Synonymia,
p. 77; and Descriptiones Specierum, p. 87) and Linnaeus’s own (1754) Museum
Adolphi Friderici (p. 70). Fernholm & Wheeler (1983, p. 236) accepted a specimen in
the Swedish Museum of Natural History in Stockholm (catalogue no. NRM 2808) as
part of the type series.
3. Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 104, pl. 27) established the genus Agonus to include
four nominal species, among them Cottus cataphractus Linnaeus. It has proved
impossible to ascertain the exact date of appearance of Bloch’s work, published
posthumously by Schneider (see Sheiko, [1993]), the earliest mention of the work
known to me being that of 8 April 1802 in the journal Géttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen
unter der Aufsicht der kénigliche Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (1802, vol. 1, parts
56-57, p. 553). Under Article 21c(ii) of the Code publication must therefore be
deemed to be 31 December 1801. The type species of Agonus is C. cataphractus
Linnaeus by subsequent designation by Tilesius in Pallas ({1814], p. 109, footnote; see
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Opinion 212, March 1954 for the date of publication of Pallas’s work). Gill (1861,
p. 161) cited C. cataphractus as the type species.
4. It follows that Agonus Bloch & Schneider is a junior objective synonym of
Aspidophorus Lacépéde. Aspidophorus was occasionally used as valid by authors in
the first half of the 19th century (e.g. Bory de Saint Vincent, 1822, who commented
“C’est l Agonus de Schneider’) but all later authors have placed it in the synonymy of
Agonus. The genus currently includes the single species A. cataphractus which is very
common and is discussed in faunistic, ecological and experimental works. The most
important works published in the last 50 years in which the name has appeared
include Poll (1947), Saemundsson (1949), Andriashev (1954, 1986), Bruun & Pfaff
(1950), Wheeler (1969, 1978), Joensen & Taning (1970), Russell (1976) and Ilyina
(1978). I propose that the name Agonus should be conserved by the suppression of
Aspidophorus.
5. An application (Case 2918) for the conservation of the coleopteran name
Aspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 by Dr Joseph V. McHugh (Cornell University,
Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) is published in BZN 52: 44-47 (March 1995). Dr McHugh
has also proposed that the name Aspidophorus Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified
emendation of Aspidiphorus Ziegler and a junior homonym of Aspidophorus
Lacépéde, [1801]}) be placed on the Official Index.
6. The family name AGONIDAE was established by Swainson (1839, pp. 181, 272)
based on Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801. The name is in general use for a family
which includes some 20 nominal genera and 45 nominal species. Members of this
family are found in all the northern seas and also along the coasts of Chile and
Argentina. Many species are very common and have considerable ecological
importance.
7. The genus Agonum was described by Bonelli (1810). His Observations ento-
mologiques appeared in two parts, part 1 in 1810 (Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale
des Sciences, Littérature et Beaux-Arts de Turin, 18: 21-78) and part 2 in 1813
(Mémoires de |’ Académie Impériale ..., 20: 433-484). Agonum appeared in Bonelli’s
Tabula synoptica, which was not published in either part in the Mémoires but which
appeared (1810) with the reprints of part 1 (see Gaskin & Lewis, 1956; Madge, 1975;
Liebherr, 1986). Part 1 of the Observations entomologiques, including the Tabula
synoptica, was approved as an available work by the Commission in Opinion 1226
(September 1982). There were no species included in Agonum until Panzer (1813,
p. 52) included 12 nominal taxa, among them Carabus marginatus Linnaeus, 1758
(p. 416). The latter was designated the type of Agonum by Curtis (1827, text to
fig. 183; see Madge, 1975 for details).
8. The family AGONIDAE was established by Kirby (1837, p. 23) based on Agonum
Bonelli, 1810. The name AGONIDAE is currently regarded as a junior synonym of
PLATYNINI Bonelli, 1810 (see Habu, 1973, p. 70). The latter (originally published as
‘Platynii’) was based on Platynus Bonelli, 1810. The genera Agonum and Platynus are
closely related (see Liebherr, 1986) and their names are often considered to be
synonyms (see, for example, Habu, 1973; Kryzhanovskij, 1983). However, the
possibility that at some time a family-group based on Agonum might be required
cannot be excluded. I therefore propose that the homonymy between AGONIDAE
Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) and AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta) be removed by
ruling that the stem of Agonum is AGONUM-.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 59
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers:
(a) to suppress the generic name Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801] for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy;
(b) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the
generic name Agonum Bonelli, 1810 is AGONUM-;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent designation by Tilesius in Pallas ([{1814]) Cottus cataphractus
Linnaeus, 1758;
(b) Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Curtis (1827) Carabus marginatus Linnaeus, 1758;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) cataphractus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Cottus cata-
phractus (specific name of the type species of Agonus Bloch & Schneider,
1801);
(b) marginatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Carabus
marginatus (specific name of the type species of Agonum Bonelli, 1810);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839, type genus Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801
(Osteichthyes);
(b) AGONUMIDAE Kirby, 1837, type genus Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (spelling
emended by the ruling in (1)(b) above) (Insecta);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801], as suppressed in (1)(a)
above;
(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (spelling emended to AGONUMIDAE in
(1)(b) above).
References
Andriashev, A.P. 1954. Ryby severnykh morei SSSR. [The fishes of the northern seas of
the USSR]. 567 pp. Akademiya Nauk, Moscow. [In Russian; English translation 1964,
617 pp., 300 figs. IPST, Jerusalem].
Andriashey, A.P. 1986. Agonidae. Pp. 1265-1268 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. 3. Unesco, Paris.
Artedi, P. 1738. Ichthyologiae (C. Linnaeus, Ed.), part 3 (Genera Piscium), 88 pp.; part 4
(Synonymia Nominum Piscium), 118 pp.; part 5 (Descriptiones Specierum Piscium),
112 pp. Wishoff, Lugduni Batavorum.
Bloch, M.E. & Schneider, J.G. 1801. M.E. Blochii ... Systema Ichthyologiae iconibus cx
illustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit J. Gottlob
Schneider ..., vol. 1. 1x, 584 pp. Berlin.
Bonelli, F.-A. 1810. Observations entomologiques. Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera
Carabicorum in Sectiones et Stirpes disposita. Mémoires de l’'Académie Impériale des
Sciences, Littérature et Beaux-Arts de Turin, 18: 21-78.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Bory de Saint Vincent, [J.B.] 1822. Aspidophore. P. 27 in Bory de Saint Vincent, [J.B.] (Ed.),
Dictionnaire classique d'histoire naturelle, vol. 2. 621 pp. Rey, Paris.
Bruun, A.F. & Pfaff, J.R. 1950. Fishes. Pp. 19-60 in: List of Danish vertebrates. 180 pp. Dansk
Vidensk. Forlag, Copenhagen.
Curtis, J. 1827. British entomology ..., vol. 4. Pls. 147-194 and text. Author, London.
Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 78(3): 199-286.
Gaskin, L.J.P. & Lewis, E. 1956. On the ‘Tabula Synoptica’ and the ‘Observations
Entomologiques’ of F.A. Bonelli. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural
History, 3(3): 158-164 [with a fascimile of Bonelli’s Tabula Synoptical.
Gill, T. 1861. Notes on some genera of fishes of the western coast of North America.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 13: 164-168.
Habu, A. 1973. Notes on the generic name Agonum (Coleoptera, Carabidae). Entomological
Review of Japan, 25: 65-70.
Ilyina, M.B. 1978. On the systematic status of the genus Podothecus Gill in the family
Agonidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences, 213: 13-24.
[In Russian]. .
Joensen, J.S. & Taning, A.V. 1970. Marine and freshwater fishes. Pp. 1-241 in Sparck, R. &
Tuxen, S.L. (Eds.), Zoology of the Faroes, vol. 3, part 1. Copenhagen.
Kirby, W. 1837. The insects. Jn Richardson, J., Swainson, W. & Kirby, W. (Eds.), Fauna
Boreali-Americana ..., part 4. xxxix, 325 pp., 8 pls. Fletcher, Norwich.
Kryzhanoyskij, O.L. 1983. Fauna SSSR, Zhestkokrylye, vol. 1, part 2. 341 pp. Nauka,
Leningrad. [In Russian].
Lacépéde, B.G.E. [1801]. Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3. \xvi, 558 pp., 34 pls. Plassan,
Paris.
Liebherr, J.K. 1986. Cladistic analysis of North American Platynini and revision of the
Agonum extensicolle species group (Coleoptera: Carabidae). University of California
Publications in Entomology, 106: 1-198.
Linnaeus, C. 1754. Classis IV. Pisces. Pp. 51-80 in: Museum S:ae R:ae M-tis Adolphi Friderici
Regis ... in quo Animalia rariora imprimis, et exotica ... describuntur ... xxx, 96, [8] pp.,
33 pls. Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Madge, R.B. 1975. The type-species of Bonelli’s genera of Carabidae (Coleoptera). Quaestiones
Entomologicae, 11(4): 579-586.
Pallas, P.S. [1814]. Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, vol. 3. 428 pp. Petropoli.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1813. Index entomologicus sistens omnes insectorum species. Pars 1. Eleuth-
erata. viii, 216 pp. Norimbergae.
Poll, M. 1947. Faune de Belgique. Poissons marins. 452 pp., 267 figs., 2 maps. Musée Royal
d’Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Bruxelles.
Roux, C. 1973. Les dates pour ‘L’Histoire Naturelle des Poissons’ de Lacépéde. Bulletin de
Liaison des Musées d'Histoire Naturelle, 14: 33-36.
Russell, F.S. 1976. The eggs and planktonic stages of British marine fishes. 524 pp., 137 figs.
Academic Press, London.
Saemundsson, B. 1949. Marine Pisces. Jn Fridriksson, A. et al. (Eds.), The zoology of Iceland,
vol. 4, part 72. 150 pp. Copenhagen.
Sheiko, B.A. [1993]. A catalogue of fishes of the family Agonidae (Scorpaeniformes: Cottoidei).
Proceedings of the Zoological Institute, USSR Academy of Sciences, Leningrad, 235:
65-95. [In Russian; English summary]. (The volume is for 1991 but was not published
until 12 March 1993).
Swainson, W.R. 1839. The natural history of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles or monocardian
animals, vol. 2. vi, 452 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, London,
Wheeler, A.C. 1969. The fishes of the British Isles and north-west Europe. 613 pp., 16 pls.
Macmillan, London.
Wheeler, A.C. 1978. Key to the fishes of northern Europe. A guide to the identification of more
than 350 species. xix, 380 pp. Warne, London.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 61
Case 2931
Proposed conservation of nine specific names of southern Afrotropical
birds which are junior synonyms
P.A. Clancey
Durban Natural Science Museum, P.O. Box 4085, Durban, 4000
South Africa
R.K. Brooke
Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of
Cape Town, Rondebosch, 7700 South Africa
Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve nine widely used specific
names of southern Afrotropical birds which are threatened by unused senior
synonyms, eight of which were published in the Encyclopaedia Londinensis
(1795-1829) edited by John Wilkes. The ninth unused name was published by
C.J. Temminck (1807) in his Catalogue systématique du cabinet d’ornithologie.
1. As a result of Rookmaaker’s (1989) work on the early history of the
zoological exploration of southern Africa, nine specific names of southern Afro-
tropical birds in widespread use in the primary and more popular literatures were
found to be antedated by long-overlooked synonyms. Eight of these names were
published in the Encyclopaedia Londinensis (1795-1829) ‘compiled, digested and
arranged’ in 24 volumes by John Wilkes. It appears (Rookmaaker, 1989) that
Wilkes died in 1811; a note at the end of vol. 10 of the Encyclopaedia Londinensis
says that the publishers had all the material necessary for completion of the work.
There is no evidence as to the identity of the contributors, although Cassin (1867)
and Sherborn (1922-1932) attributed the articles on birds to Wilkes in his capacity
as editor. The ninth specific name was published by Temminck (1807, p. 85)
for ‘Le Nabirop, ou etourneau cuivré d’Afrique, Vaill. Ois. d’Af. v. 2, pl. 89’;
Temminck’s specimen was probably presented to him by Frangois Levaillant
(Rookmaaker, 1989, p. 198).
2. Most professional workers are now totally opposed to changing names
unnecessarily, especially in cases such as the present where the recently discovered
names have remained essentially ignored since 1820. Reference to the Wilkes
names was made by the American worker John Cassin (1867) but his findings
seem to have been ignored until the British workers Gregory Mathews & Tom
Iredale (1921, p. 143) mentioned two of the names: Motacilla fimbriata Wilkes,
1817 (p. 100), a junior synonym of Stipiturus malachurus Shaw, 1798, and
M. tractrac Wilkes, 1817 (p. 89), a senior synonym of Oenanthe cinerea Vieillot,
1818. Their paper resulted in the universal adoption of M. tractrac (now
Cercomela tractrac; see Roberts, 1922, p. 231 and Sclater, 1930, p. 456). Curiously,
Roberts (1924, p. 174) attributed the specific name to Boie instead of Wilkes, but
without explanation.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
3. We (Clancey & Brooke, 1990, p. 144) proposed the acceptance of Wilkes’s
authorship of two specific names widely used in the 20th century but normally
attributed to later authors: those of Motacilla familiaris Wilkes, 1817 (p. 86), now
Cercomela familiaris, and of M. formicivora Wilkes, 1817 (p. 88), now Oenanthe
formicivora. The long acceptance of M. tractrac Wilkes, 1817 is the reason why we
have not sought the suppression of the Encyclopaedia Londinensis for the purposes of
zoological nomenclature. Also, we are quite unaware of what the effects of such a
suppression might be on the nomenclature of groups other than African birds.
4. The unused senior synonyms in the list below are threats to long-established
names and we can see no advantages in using them to replace those in general use.
Senior synonym
Sturnus nabirop Temminck, 1807,
p. 85
Alauda rostro-crasso Wilkes,
[1796], p. 235
Alauda percutiens Wilkes,
[1796], p. 236
Motacilla citrina Wilkes, 1817,
p. 78
Motacilla viridis Wilkes, 1817,
p. 80
Motacilla arenarea Wilkes, 1817,
p. 85
Motacilla montana Wilkes, 1817,
p. 89
Motacilla tcheric Wilkes, 1817,
p. 94
Oriolus africanus Wilkes, 1820,
p. 740
Junior synonym in use
Lamprotornis nitens
phoenicopterus Swainson,
[1837], p. 360
Galerida magnirostris
(Stephens, 1826), p. 26
Mirafra apiata (Vieillot,
1816), p. 342
Prinia flavicans (Vieillot,
[1820]), p. 438
Camaroptera brachyura (Vieillot,
[1820]), p. 459
Motacilla aguimp Temminck
[1820], p. xvi
Oenanthe monticola Vieillot,
1818, p. 434
Zosterops pallidus
Swainson, [1837], p. 294
Oriolus larvatus Lichtenstein,
1823, p. 20
5. All the Wilkes names except M. viridis are recorded in Sherborn’s Index
Animalium, where however arenarea and tcheric are spelled as arenaria and teheric.
Sherborn did not record Sturnus nabirop Temminck, 1807, although he did list the
nearly homonymous S. nabouroup Daudin, 1800 (p. 308). Temminck (1807, pp. 85,
87) applied his own name S. nabirop and Daudin’s S. nabouroup to different species,
illustrated by Levaillant (1799) on pls. 89 and 91 with the vernacular names ‘le
nabirop’ and ‘le nabouroup’ of Hottentot origin.
6. The Commission Secretariat holds a list of 56 primary literature references
(mostly checklists and faunal works) published in the last 50 years in which the nine
names proposed by Temminck and Wilkes do not appear but which illustrate usage
of their junior synonyms. An examination of the 20th century periodical and more
popular literature would produce a list of many hundreds of citations in support of
current usage, and demonstrate lack of awareness of the nine names of Temminck
and Wilkes. The case meets the prima facie criteria for conservation of names given
in Article 79c of the Code.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 63
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1)
(2)
(3)
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) nabirop Temminck, 1807, as published in the binomen Sturnus nabirop;
(b) rostrocrasso Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda rostro-
crasso;
(c) percutiens Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda percutiens;
(d) citrinus Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Moracilla citrinus;
(e) viridis Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla viridis;
(f) arenarea Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla arenarea;
(g) montana Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla montana;
(h) tcheric Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla tcheric;
(i) africanus Wilkes, 1820, as published in the binomen Oriolus africanus;
to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) phoenicopterus Swainson, [1837], as published in the binomen Lamprotornis
phoenicopterus;
(b) magnirostris Stephens, 1826, as published in the binomen A/lauda magniros-
tris;
(c) apiata Vieillot, 1816, as published in the binomen A/auda apiata;
(d) flavicans Vieillot, [1820], as published in the binomen Sy/via flavicans;
(e) brachyura Vieillot, [1820], as published in the binomen Sylvia brachyura;
(f) aguimp Temminck, [1820], as published in the binomen Motacilla aguimp;
(g) monticola Vieillot, 1818, as published in the binomen Oenanthe monticola;
(h) pallidus Swainson, [1837], as published in the binomen Zosterops pallidus;
(i) /arvatus Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Oriolus larvatus;
to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) nabirop Temminck, 1807, as published in the binomen Sturnus nabirop and
as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) rostrocrasso Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda rostro-
crasso and as suppressed in (1)(b) above;
(c) percutiens Wilkes, [1796], as published in the binomen Alauda percutiens
and as suppressed in (1)(c) above;
(d) citrinus Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla citrinus and as
suppressed in (1)(d) above;
(e) viridis Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla viridis and as
suppressed in (1)(e) above;
(f) arenarea Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla arenarea and
as suppressed in (1)(f) above;
(g) montana Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla montana and
as suppressed in (1)(g) above;
(h) tcheric Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Moracilla tcheric and as
suppressed in (1)(h) above;
(i) africanus Wilkes, 1820, as published in the binomen Oriolus africanus and
as suppressed in (1)(i) above.
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
References
Cassin, J. 1867. Fasti ornithologiae, no. 3: Encyclopaedia londinensis or Universal dictionary
... Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 19: 212-221.
Clancey, P.A. & Brooke, R.K. 1990. Avian nomenclatural issues arising from the publication
of Rookmaaker’s The zoological exploration of southern Africa 1650-1790. Ostrich, 61:
143-145.
Daudin, F.M. 1800. Traité élémentaire et complét d’ornithologie, vol. 2. 473 pp. Bertrandet,
Paris.
Levaillant, F. 1799. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux d’ Afrique, vol. 2 (pls. 50-97). 206 pp. Fuchs,
Paris.
Lichtenstein, M.H.C. 1823. Verzeichniss der Doubletten des Zoologischen Museum der Kénigl.
Universitat zu Berlin ... 118 pp. Berlin.
Mathews, G.M. & Iredale, T. 1921. Notes of interest. Austral Avian Record, 4: 139-163.
Roberts, A. 1922. Review of the nomenclature of South African birds. Annals of the Transvaal
Museum, 8: 187-272.
Roberts, A. 1924. Synoptic checklist of the birds of South Africa. Annals of the Transvaal
Museum, 10: 89-195.
Rookmaaker, L.C. 1989. The zoological exploration of southern Africa 1650-1790. 368 pp.,
16 pls. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Sclater, W.L. 1930. Systema avium aethiopicarum, part 2. Pp. 305-922. Taylor & Francis,
London.
Sherborn, C.D. 1922-1932. Index Animalium 1801-1850, section 2. 28 parts. cxxxvi, 7056 pp.
British Museum, London.
Stephens, J.F. 1826. Jn Shaw, G., General Zoology (Aves), vol. 14, part 1. 385 pp. Longman,
London.
Swainson, W. [1837]. Animals in menageries. Pp. 281-373 in Lardner, D., The Cabinet of
Natural History. 373 pp. Longman, London.
Temminck, C.J. 1807. Catalogue systématique du cabinet d’ornithologie et de la collection de
quadrumanes de Crd. Jb. Temminck. 270 pp. Sepp Jansz, Amsterdam.
Temminck, C.J. 1820. Manual d’ Ornithologie, Ed. 2, part 1. cxv, 439 pp. Dufour, Paris.
Wilkes, J. [1796]. Alauda. Pp. 234-236 in: Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 1. 847 pp. Privately
published, London.
Wilkes, J. 1817. Motacilla. Pp. 74-104 in: Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16. 804 pp. Privately
published, London.
Wilkes, J. 1820. Oriolus. Pp. 737-743 in: Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 17. 867 pp. Privately
published, London.
Vieillot, L.J.P. 1816. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, Ed. 2, vol. 1, AAL-ANI.
Vieillot, L.J.P. 1818. Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle, Ed. 2, vol. 21, MIN-MOZ.
Vieillot, L.J.P. [1820]. Pp. 403-902 in: Bonnaterre, J.P. & Vieillot, L.J.P., Tableau Encyclo-
paedique et Méthodique, Trois Régnes de la Nature, Ornithologie, vol. 2. 902 pp. Agasse,
Paris.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 65
Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in
Miinster, 1839 and Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda)
(Case 2902; see BZN 51: 219-223)
(1) D.T. Donovan
Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street,
London WCIE 6BT, U.K.
In my application to the Commission I omitted to mention that d’Orbigny, who is
credited with the first available publication of the generic name Kelaeno in 1841,
himself later abandoned that name in the sense in which he had first used it, and
adopted Minster’s name Acanthoteuthis for the taxon in question. In 1845 (p. 407)
he wrote in his systematic text : ‘“ACANTHOTEUTHIS Wagner / Syn. Kelaeno Munster
1846 (non Kelaeno Munster 1842)’. Thus it is clear that he adopted these two generic
names in the sense used by the German palaeontologists Wagner and Minster.
Additional reference
Orbigny, A.d’. 1845. Mollusques vivants et fossiles ou description de toutes les espéces de
coquilles et de mollusques classées suivant leur distribution géologique et géographique,
vol. 1. 432 pp. Gide, Paris.
(2) W. Riegraf
Briiggefeldweg 31, D-48161 Miinster, Germany
Donovan has clearly and correctly presented the facts concerning the state of
Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Miinster, 1839 and Kelaeno Minster, 1842. I fully support
and agree with his proposals to the Commission.
I may mention that Minster (1839, p. 681) referred to Acanthoteuthis in a second
paper, but as a nomen nudum.
Additional reference
Miinster, G. Graf zu. 1839. Uber einige Versteinerungen in den lithographischen Schiefern von
Baiern. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 5:
676-682.
(3) Marion Nixon
Department of Geology, Birkbeck College, Malet Street, London WCI1E 7HX, U.K.
I support the proposed application to conserve the current usage of the names
Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Munster, 1839 and Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 for two genera
of Jurassic teuthoid coleid cephalopods.
(4) Theo S. Engeser
Geologisch-Paldontologisches Institut und Museum, Universitit Hamburg,
Bundesstrasse 55, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
1. I fully agree with Donovan that Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839 is a
valid genus with Acanthoteuthis speciosa Minster, 1839 as its type species as
designated by Bilow-Trummer in 1920.
2. I also agree that Ke/aeno was not made available in Miinster (1839) by the
simple mention of the name. It does not appear in any combination with a valid
specific name, nor is any indication given.
3. D’Orbigny (1841) published Ke/aeno with two nominal species, K. speciosa
(Minster, 1839) and K. prisca (Ruippell, 1829). Under Article 12b(5) of the Code this
makes Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841 an available name. No type species was designated
by d’Orbigny (1841). Later d’Orbigny (1842-1846) figured four specimens under the
name Kelaeno speciosa; three of them belong to Acanthoteuthis and one is the gladius
of Plesioteuthis prisca (Ruppell, 1829). D’Orbigny mixed up the two species, which
belong to different orders of coleoid cephalopods. In Engeser (1986) I stated that
Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841 is an objective synonym of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in
Minster, 1839. However, this is not correct since d’Orbigny had mentioned two
species in combination with Kelaeno and a type species had not then been designated
for that genus. In Engeser (1987) I corrected this and designated Acanthoteuthis
speciosa Minster, 1839 as its type species. Thus Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841 is an
objective synonym of Acanthoteuthis Wagner in Minster, 1839.
4. As stated in para. 2 of the application, it is clear that in 1842 Minster used
Kelaeno in a quite different sense from d’Orbigny the previous year. Minster included
two nominal species, K. scutellaris and K. arquata, and Bilow-Trummer (1920) later
selected K. arquata as type species (para. 5 of the application). However, Kelaeno
Minster, 1842 is a homonym of Kelaeno d’Orbigny, 1841. Celaeno Owen, 1844 is
only an incorrect subsequent spelling and not available, but Wagner (1860) explicitly
‘corrected’ the latinization of Ke/aeno Minster, 1842 to Celaeno and this, although an
unjustified emendation, is an available name. Ce/laeno Wagner, 1860 is a junior
objective synonym of Kelaeno Minster, 1842.
5. Schevill (1950) wrongly interpreted Ke/aeno Miinster, 1839 as an available name
and Kelaeno Minster, 1842 as a junior homonym of it. He proposed the replacement
name Miinsterella, but his designation of K. scutellaris as type species is invalid since
K. arquata is automatically the type under Article 67h of the Code. Roger (1952) and
Krimholz (1958) followed the argument of Schevill (1950). I (Engeser, 1988) rejected
Schevill’s (1950) argument and pointed out the homonymy between Kelaeno
d’Orbigny, 1841 and Kelaeno Minster, 1842. Two junior synonyms were available as
a replacement name — Celaeno Wagner, 1860 and Miinsterella Schevill, 1850. Since
Celaeno Wagner, 1860 is preoccupied (see para. 3 of the application), I adopted
Miinsterella (now spelled Muensterella) Schevill, 1950 instead of Ke/aeno Minster,
1842. I see no reason to change my view and therefore do not support Donovan’s
proposal.
6. I also have a different view of the ‘generally accepted usage’ of Miinster’s
Kelaeno. My synonymy list (Engeser, 1988) shows that in the past 150 years about ten
authors have used the spelling Ke/aeno (including the incorrect subsequent spellings
Kalaeno Krimholz, 1958 and Kelaena Walther, 1904), about five authors have used
Celaeno and four have used Miinsterella (or its corrected form Muensterella). Kretzoi
(1942) figured the genus in question under the generic name Listroteuthis Naef, 1922,
but this was probably a lapsus calami for Celaeno since Listroteuthis was called
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 67
Celaeno. Bandel & Boletzky (1988) called the genus Celaenoteuthis for unknown
reasons. Since 1950, four authors have used Kelaeno (and variants, including
Celaeno) and four authors Muensterella (including Miinsterella). It follows that there
is no consistent use of the generic name Ke/aeno (including Ce/aeno) for the genus of
coleoid cephalopods proposed by Minster in 1842.
7. Since there is confusion in the meaning of Kelaeno and also in its spelling, it
would be best to reject Kelaeno Miinster, 1842 as a junior homonym of Kelaeno
d’Orbigny, 1841, and to use the unambiguous replacement name Muensterella
Schevill, 1950 (with Kelaeno arquata Minster, 1842 as the type species).
8. The family name KELAENIDAE (or CELAENIDAE) based on Kelaeno (or Celaeno)
has a similar inconsistent use in the literature. It would be preferable to replace it by
MUNSTERELLIDAE Roger, 1952 in its corrected form MUENSTERELLIDAE.
9. For the reasons given above, I support Donovan’s proposals regarding
Acanthoteuthis but oppose the conservation of Kelaeno Minster, 1842. Muensterella
Schevill, 1850 should be used rather than Kelaeno.
Additional references
Bandel, K. & Boletzky, S. von. 1988. Features of development and functional morphology
required in the reconstruction of early coleoid cephalopods. Pp. 229-246 in: Wiedman, J.
& Kullmann, J. (Eds.). Cephalopods — present and past. Schweizerbart’sche, Stuttgart.
Engeser, T. 1986. Beschreibung einer wenig bekannten und einer neuen Coleoiden-Art
(Vampyromorphoidea, Cephalopoda) aus dem Untertithonium von Solnhofen und
Eichstatt (Bayern). Archaeopteryx, 4: 27-35.
Engeser, T. 1987. Nachtrag zur Nomenklatur der coleoiden Cephalopoden des “Solnhofener
Plattenkalks’ (Untertithonium). Archaeopteryx, 5: 65-67.
Kretzoi, M. 1942. Necroteuthis n. gen. (Ceph. Dibr., Necroteuthidae n.f.) aus dem Oligozan
von Budapest und das System der Dibranchiata. Féldtani Kézlony, 72: 124-138.
Orbigny, A.d’. 1842-1846. Paléontologie Frangaise. Terrain Jurassique, vol. 1. Masson, Paris.
Walther, J. 1904. Die Fauna der Solnhofener Plattenkalke. Bionomisch betrachtet. Jenaer
Denkschriften, 9: 135-214.
Comments on the proposed conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea,
Isopoda) as the correct original spelling
(Case 2915; see BZN 51: 224-226)
(1) L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
A few remarks in defence of the name Livoneca Leach, 1818 and in opposition to
the application seem to be called for.
As Drs Williams and Bowman have pointed out, in Leach’s original publication
(1818) the spelling Livoneca and its French equivalent Livonéce appeared consistently
(4 and 5 times respectively). No explanation was given for this name nor for the
others in the group, among which are Nelocira, Cirolana, Conilera, Rocinela,
Canolira, Anilocra, Olencira and Nerocila. It was only much later that White (1857,
p. 250) pointed out the connection with the name Carolina in the cases of Cirolana,
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Conilera and Rocinela, which ‘were formed by Dr. Leach from the word Carolina by
transposing the letters, and by changing one of the a’s into an e in the two latter
names’. There is no evidence in the original publication that Livoneca was an
inadvertent spelling error and it thus has to be considered an available name.
For more than a century (1818-1931) the name Livoneca was used practically
exclusively. I know of only two authors who used Lironeca then (White, 1847, p. 109,
and Miers, 1876, p. 106); neither gave any reason for the use of this spelling. The
original spelling Livoneca appeared in all major and widely consulted handbooks
dealing with cymothoid Isopoda published in the 19th century and in the first half of
the 20th.
The first explicit challenge to the spelling Livoneca known to me was by Monod
(1931, p. 5), who remarked in a footnote ‘depuis la création du genre (1818), seul
Miers [1876, as mentioned above] a écrit Lironeca au lieu de Livoneca’. Monod
continued that a typographic error was evident in Leach’s original paper and that
under the Régles Internationales the spelling had to be corrected to Lironeca. This was
understandable, since the Rég/es current in 1931 did not exclude circumstantial
evidence. However, in the Codes published in 1961 and later such evidence is
excluded (see Article 32 of the current edition) and so Livoneca has to be treated
as the correct original spelling; Monod (1931) is the author of the unjustified
emendation Lironeca.
As shown by Drs Williams & Bowman, Livoneca was the dominant spelling until
Bowman (1960) reintroduced Lironeca. I have several times remonstrated to
Dr Bowman and Dr Monod about the ‘error of their ways’ but to no avail.
Dr Bowman’s authority is such that other isopod workers have followed him in using
Lironeca, but use of Livoneca has continued to this day although on a much reduced
scale.
Personally I do not think it right to suppress an available name which was
practically the only one used from 1818 to 1931, which was dominant until 1960,
and which has had some usage since then. I consider that Livoneca Leach, 1818
should be put on the Official List of Generic Names but that no further action is
necessary. However, the referral of the case to the Commission by Drs Williams &
Bowman was a good idea since it will settle the status of the two spellings and end the
controversy.
A final although minor point is that Fowler (1912, p. 278) and not Gurjanova
(1936) was the first to designate L. redmanii as the type species, and this should be
recorded in the eventual Opinion.
Additional references
Bowman, T.E. 1960. Description and notes on the biology of Lironeca puhi, n. sp. (Isopoda:
Cymothoidae), parasite of the Hawaiian moray eel, Gymnothorax eurostus (Abbott).
Crustaceana, 1: 84-89.
Fowler, H.W. 1912. The Crustacea of New Jersey. Annual Report of the New Jersey State
Museum, 1911: 31-650.
Miers, E.J. 1876. Catalogue of the stalk and sessile-eyed Crustacea of New Zealand. Colonial
Museum and Geological Department of New Zealand, Natural History Publication, no. 10.
xii, 133 pp.
White, A. 1857. A popular history of British Crustacea. 358 pp., 20 pls. Reeve, London.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 69
(2) Angelika Brandt
Institut fiir Polarékologie, Christian-Albrechts-Universitat zu Kiel, Wischhofstrasse
1-3, D-24148 Kiel, Germany
Under the Code the first available spelling is Livoneca, and this has often been
used. In my opinion arguments about printing errors are irrelevant, and I oppose the
application.
(3) Niel L. Bruce
Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK 2100 Copenhagen @, Denmark
About 70 species have been included in Livoneca Leach, 1818 (see Bruce, 1990).
Many of these species are common and widely recorded, and some may be regarded
as of potential economic importance as fish parasites. I (Bruce, 1990) revised the
diagnosis of the genus and transferred all but two (or perhaps three) species to other
genera, principally Elthusa Schiodte & Meinert, 1884 and Jchthyoxenus Herklots,
1870. I regard the genus as being restricted to the New World.
I welcome this opportunity of finally resolving the conflict over the correct spelling
of Livoneca. I do not support the application, and I endorse the spelling Livoneca for
the following reasons:
(a) Article 32c(ii) of the Code unambiguously gives Livoneca as the correct
spelling.
(b) There is no taxonomic confusion.
(c) Leach never, in his 1818 publication or elsewhere, gave the reason for his
choice of names. It would appear that the use of Caroline/Carolina anagrams
for blood-sucking parasites was a cunning, repetitive and enduring insult to
Caroline, who was the estranged wife of the Prince of Wales and who has been
described as an unlovable adulteress. The Prince was of similar disposition,
and tried repeatedly to divorce her; on becoming King George IV he prevented
her coronation and had her put on trial for adultery. Evidently Leach was
sympathetic to the Prince’s cause.
In their application Drs Williams and Bowman show that both spellings have
been used to the present time. In the most recent revision of the genus (Bruce,
1990) I followed the Code in the interest of stability, and used Livoneca.
(e) The argument that Leach intended to use Lironeca is irrelevant, even if on
circumstantial grounds it is true: it is what is actually published that determines
the correct original spelling of a name. Livoneca should be put on the Official
List of Generic Names to settle the matter permanently. There is no point in
putting the name LIVONECINAE Schigdte & Meinert, 1884 on the Official List of
Family-Group Names (cf. proposal (4) on BZN 51: 225); it is automatically a
correct spelling but is not needed taxonomically — I (Bruce, 1990, p. 250) gave
precedence to the subfamily name ANILOCRINAE of the same authorship.
(d
SS
Additional reference
Bruce, N.L. 1990. The genera Catoessa, Elthusa, Enispa, Ichthyoxenus, Idusa, Livoneca, and
Norileca n. gen. (Isopoda, Cymothoidae), crustacean parasites of marine fishes, with
descriptions of eastern Australian species. Records of the Australian Museum, 42: 247-300.
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the generic names Melanophila
Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2837/2; see BZN 50: 31-34, 56, 232-234; 51: 43-46)
Svatopluk Bily
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, 14800 Praha 4, Czech
Republic
C.L. Bellamy
Coleoptera Department, Transvaal Museum, P.O. Box 413, Pretoria 0001, South
Africa
With regard to what has become a somewhat heated debate and with deference and
respect to all our colleagues who have previously expressed opinions regarding this
application, we should like to add our views to the mix.
The Old World literature that contains references to the names Melanophila
Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 is much more extensive than that of the
New World and any change will result in extreme confusion. Furthermore, classical
taxonomic literature (regional faunas and catalogues and the like) should receive
some extra consideration in this debate over the quantity and variety of economic
literature.
While it is true that Phaenops has often been regarded as a synonym of
Melanophila in the New World non-economic buprestid literature, until recently and
mostly because of the confusion perpetuated by Leraut’s (1983) inexperienced and
disruptive nomenclatural effort, the only revision of these taxa was that by Sloop
(1937). In that work North American Melanophila was defined as being comprised of
three subgenera, with those of Melanophila and Phaenops discussed in terms of
species that agree with the traditional descriptors of these taxa; Melanophila
acuminata De Geer and Buprestis cyanea Fabricius respectively were listed as the type
species.
Nelson (1989) apparently accepted Leraut’s (1983) opinions. However, in the
first part of a monograph on Melanophila sensu lato, Cobos (1986) neither
incorporated Leraut’s proposals nor argued in any way for a change that conflicts
with Mihle’s application. Cobos listed the type species of Melanophila as acuminata
De Geer and that of Phaenops as cyanea Fabricius. Since this work (as yet
incomplete) is the most recent revision on a global scale and agrees in detail with the
proposals in Mihle’s application, we urge that in this case stability should override
strict priority.
Thus, we support the course that will most reliably preserve the stability of
nomenclature of these taxa. Melanophila and Phaenops should be conserved as valid
generic names with the type species fixed as those proposed in Mihle’s application,
in accord with Sloop’s (1937) revision and Cobos’s (1986) monograph.
Additional reference
Sloop, K.D. 1937. A revision of the North American buprestid beetles belonging to the
genus Melanophila (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). University of California Publications in
Entomology, 7(1): 1-20.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 71
Comments 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, 340-341)
(1) Hans Silfverberg
Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, FIN-00014, Helsinki University, Finland
In their application Krell, Stebnicka & Holm seek to conserve the names Aphodius
rufus (Moll, 1782) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792), both originally described as
Scarabaeus rufus and accordingly junior primary homonyms of Scarabaeus rufus De
Geer, 1778 (currently known as Disticha rufa). Although there might once have been
good reasons to conserve at least one of the names, it is my contention that the time
for that is now long past. By following the Code we will now have a better chance of
achieving stability in the nomenclature.
The first name in question is Aphodius rufus. This is a well known species and in the
past known under that very name. However, almost 40 years ago Landin (1956)
showed that the nomenclaturally correct name is Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius,
1781). The correct name did not come immediately into use and at that time the case
should have been brought to the Commission. No such action was undertaken and
after a while A. scybalarius began to win ground. The application already lists a
considerable number of papers using A. scybalarius and I can add, for example,
Kumari (1985), Muona & Viramo (1986), Hansen & Pritzl (1987), Berlov (1989),
Bistrom, Silfverberg & Rutanen (1991), Hanski & Cambefort (1991), Spuris (1991)
and Milander, Roosileht & Stida (1993).
The second name would probably never have reached the Commission on its own
merits. The species was known in Europe as Aegialia rufa and in America as Aegialia
spissipes LeConte, 1878, until Stebnicka (1977) synonymized them. It has hardly ever
been mentioned outside taxonomy and faunistics. Either Europeans should get used
to the American name, or Americans to the European one. As the former solution is
in agreement with the Code our choice should be simple.
So far I have explained why I think the application is unnecessary. Actually I think
its acceptance would be harmful for stability in nomenclature. Whenever a suffi-
ciently important situation is found, where current use is threatened, an application
should be made without too much delay, not when an ever-growing number of
workers already have accepted the change. Were the Commission to approve this
application it would encourage those who are lax in following the rules.
Additional references
Berlov, E.Ja. 1989. Podsem. Aphodiinae. In Ler, P.A. (Ed.), Opredelitel’ Nasekomyh Dal’nego
Vostoka SSSR, 3(1): 387-402.
Bistrom, O., Silfverberg, H. & Rutanen, I. 1991. Abundance and distribution of coprophilous
Histerini (Histeridae) and Onthophagus and Aphodius (Scarabaeidae) in Finland
(Coleoptera). Entomologica Fennica, 2: 53-66.
Hansen, M. & Pritzl, G. 1987. Nogle interessante biller fra et nordsjaellandsk moseomrade,
med to nye danske, til muldvarpereder knyttede, arter (Coleoptera). Entomologiske
Meddelelser, 54: 133-146.
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Hanski, I. & Cambefort, Y. (Eds.). 1991. Dung beetle ecology. 481 pp. Princeton University
Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
Kumari, E. (Ed.). 1985. Matsalu - rahvusvahelise téhtsusega méargala. 309 pp. Valgus, Tallinn.
Milander, G., Roosileht, U. & Siida, I. 1993. Plastinchatousye zhuki podsemejstva Aphodiinae
(Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) Estonii. [Aphodiinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae) of Estonia].
Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised. Bioloogia, 42: 13-38.
Muona, J. & Viramo, J. 1986. The Coleoptera of the Koillismae area (Ks), North-East
Finland. Oulanka Reports, 6: 1-51.
Spuris, Z. 1991. Latvijas kukainu katalogs. 9. Skarabeju dzimta (Scarabaeidae). Latvijas
Entomologs, 34: 5-27. ,
(2) Frank-Thorsten Krell
Eberhard-Karls-Universitét, Zoologisches Institut, Lehrstuhl fiir Spezielle Zoologie,
Auf der Morgenstelle 28, D-72076 Tiibingen, Germany
I disagree with the comments on this case by Dellacasa (published in BZN 51:
340-341) and Silfverberg (above) on a number of points.
1. The nomenclatural problem with Scarabaeus scybalarius Fabricius, 1781,
S. rufus Moll, 1782 and S. rufus Fabricius, 1792 still exists because the nomenclatural
acts of Silfverberg (1977, 1979) have not been followed by subsequent authors. An act
by a reviser which results in the transference of a well known binomen (S. scybalarius)
from one well known species to another will never be accepted by a majority of
succeeding authors, the more so because such an act works against stability and
universality in scientific names and prevents the name of a taxon from being distinct
and unique. As a result in this case we now have one binomen simultaneously naming
two taxonomic species (those called Scarabaeus rufus by Moll, 1782 and S. foetidus
by Herbst, 1783). Silverberg’s sentence that ‘after a while 4. scybalarius [for rufus
Moll] began to win ground’ is misleading since this name (in the new sense) has not
been winning supremacy. The nomenclatural chaos which exists will continue if
scybalarius remains in use. Silfverberg’s action meant the end of some formal
problems but the beginning of a great number of practical ones.
2. Dellacasa’s proposal (BZN 51: 340, item (1)) to designate a neotype for
Scarabaeus scybalarius Fabricius, 1781 is unecessary since a lectotype, designated by
Landin (1956), already exists. The proposal would override Fabricius’s original
intention and in my view is not acceptable.
3. Dellacasa’s proposed neotype designation for scybalarius, in order to make the
name usable for the species correctly known as Aphodius foetidus (Herbst, 1783),
would not end the confusion because (a) scybalarius has been used for two taxonomic
species simultaneously for a number of years, and (b) a second transfer of the name
from one species to another would cause as much confusion as the first, if not more.
4. In relation to Dellacasa’s proposal (2)(b), the name arcuatus Moll in Schrank &
Moll, 1785, published as Scarabaeus arcuatus, has been used at infrasubspecific rank
by some authors (for example, Balthasar, 1964, p. 406; Dellacasa, 1983, p. 150;
Bearaud, 1992, p. 135). Hence this name is not ‘forgotten’ but, as with most
infrasubspecific names, is unfamiliar to most entomologists, in contrast to Aphodius
rufus (Moll, 1782) which is well known (see para. 4 of the application). Conservation
of the latter will, without doubt, stabilize the nomenclature.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 73
5. In relation to Dellacasa’s proposal (2)(c) and Silfverberg’s comment, Aegialia
spissipes Leconte, 1878 is also an unfamiliar name, in contrast to the well known
A. rufa (Fabricius, 1792) (see para. 7 of the application). Conservation of the latter
is also highly desirable.
6. I see no reason why Dellacasa’s proposal (2)(a) should not be combined with the
second part of his proposal (1), which applies for the conservation of rufus Moll, 1782
and rufus Fabricius, 1792. This would amount to the same as the proposals in our
application.
Additional reference
Schrank, F. von P. & Moll, C.E. von. 1785. Naturhistorische Briefe iiber Oesterreich, Salzburg,
Passau und Berchtesgaden, vol. 1. Mayer, Salzburg.
(3) Z.T. Stebnicka
Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Slawkowska 17, 31-016 Cracow, Poland
Opposition to comments by Dellacasa (BZN 51: 340-341) and Silfverberg (above)
has been expressed by Dr Krell (above). I would like to support Krell’s arguments
and to make some additional points.
The species currently known by the names Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus
(Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) have appeared frequently in the
primary literature. However, the names have been widely published and used not
only in specialist publications but also in the literature dealing with ecology,
faunistics and practical entomology. Dellacasa’s and Silfverberg’s comments are
examples of a unilateral standpoint and of the (unfortunately frequent) disregard of
the urgent need of the non-specialist for nomenclatural stability.
The species which concern us here are represented in a large number of museum
collections around the world. Changing all the specimen records in these collections
would seem to be a pointless task. The substitutions would not take effect because
many taxonomists and non-taxonomists would continue to use the old terminology.
In accord with current usage and the maintenance of nomenclatural stability, and
to avoid name changes and unnecessary confusion, I maintain the application as its
co-author.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Ischyrus, Lybas and Mycotretus
Lacordaire, 1842 and of Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2885; see BZN 51: 128-132)
Richard C. Funk
Zoology Department, Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois 61920-3099,
U.S.A.
After reading the application by Drs Skelley and Goodrich I am convinced that
their proposals for stabilizing the nomenclature of the EROTYLIDAE are logical. I
entirely support the case.
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Comment on the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species of
Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera), and proposal of a neotype
for M. lancifer
(Case 2858; see BZN 51: 28-30, 258-259)
D.M. Ackland
clo Hope Entomological Collections, The University Museum, Parks Road, Oxford
OX1 3PW, U.K.
Graham C.D. Griffiths
Department of Entomology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E3,
Canada
In his comment on this case Crosskey (BZN 51: 258-259) has suggested that a
neotype should be designated for Musca lancifer Harris, [1780], the proposed type
species for Hydrophoria, since Harris’s illustration (p. 126, pl. 36, fig. 59) is
inadequate to distinguish the taxon by modern standards. As mentioned by Crosskey
and by Pont & Michelsen (1982) no Harris specimens of this (or other) species are
known. We agree with Crosskey’s suggestion, and propose that a male specimen in
the Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London should be
designated as the neotype of M. lancifer. This specimen is labelled ‘England, Surrey:
Bookham Common, Broadway North, 25.x.1969, A.C. & B. Pont’ and now, in
anticipation of the proposal below, also ‘“NEOoTYPE 3 Musca lancifer Harris designated
Ackland 1995’. It is in good condition, and the diagnostic genitalia (which are
exserted) agree with those figured for Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817 by Hennig
(1969, pl. 31, fig. 372). Hennig was unaware that there are original specimens of
A. conica in the Naturhistorischen Museum in Vienna (Lichtenberg, 1979, p. 8). The
proposed M. lancifer neotype is in accord with the established concept of A. conica,
which was synonymized with M. lancifer by Pont & Michelsen (1982). As mentioned
in the application, Hydrophoria has long been used in the sense of A. conica although
this was not an originally included nominal species.
In addition to the proposals on BZN 51: 29-30, we ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to set aside all
previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Musca lancifer Harris,
[1780] and to designate as neotype the specimen referred to above.
Additional reference
Lichtenberg, R. 1979. Anthomyliden-Typen und als Typen in Frage kommende Exemplare
klassischer Sammlungen im Naturhistorischen Museum in Wien (Diptera, Calyptratae,
Cyclorrhapha). Kataloge der wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen des Naturhistorischen
Museums in Wien, 5 (Entomologie 3). 16 pp.
Comment 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, and on Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2881; see BZN 51: 31-34, 259-261)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 75
Anthea Gentry
The Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
This comment has the endorsement of Dr Sidney Camras, the author of the
application, who has seen and approved it.
Drs Curtis Sabrosky and Terry Wheeler have supported (BZN 51: 259-261)
the proposals to conserve the names Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius,
1775. However, both authors have pointed out that the rejection of Coenomyia
Latreille, 1796 should not have been proposed in the application (cf. paras. 6
and 7).
Both Sabrosky and Wheeler have noted that the type species of Coenomyia
is Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, and not Sicus ferrugineus Fabricius, 1798 as
stated in the application, and that Coenomyia is therefore not a junior objective
synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763. The ‘Sicus ferruginea F.’ included as the single
species in Coenomyia by Latreille (1802), and cited as the type species by Latreille
(1810), is a subsequent usage of Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, which is not the
same species as Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 (= Sicus ferrugineus of Scopoli
(1763) and Myopa ferruginea of Fabricius (1775)), the type species of Sicus Scopoli.
The name Coenomyia is in use and refers to a genus with a widespread Holarctic
distribution.
A report on dipteran names (BZN 18: 9-64; 1960) prepared by the then
Secretary to the Commission, Francis Hemming, erroneously recorded (p. 46)
Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 as a junior objective synonym of Sicus Scopoli, 1763
and included it among “124 invalid generic names to be placed on the Official Index’.
This error was corrected by Sabrosky in a comment published later in the same
volume (BZN 18: 228; 1961), who noted that Musca ferruginea Scopoli was the
valid name for the type species of Coenomyia. Sabrosky designated the same
nominal species, one of those originally included in Sicus Fabricius, 1798, as
the type species of Fabricius’s genus, rendering Sicus Fabricius a junior objective
synonym of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796, as well as being a junior homonym of Sicus
Scopoli, 1763.
Coenomyia should therefore not be rejected and should be placed on the Official
List in addition to Sicus Scopoli, 1763 and Myopa Fabricius, 1775.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coenomyia
Latreille, 1796 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent monotypy by
Latreille (1802) Musca ferruginea Scopoli, 1763;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ferruginea
Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Musca ferruginea (specific name of
the type species of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796);
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology the name Sicus Fabricius, 1798 (a junior objective synonym
of Coenomyia Latreille, 1796 and a junior homonym of Sicus Scopoli,
1763).
76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
Comment on the proposed conservation of the usage of the specific names of Bombus
terrestris and B. muscorum (Linnaeus, 1758), B. lucorum (Linnaeus, 1761) and
B. humilis Mliger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)
(Case 2638; see BZN 51: 232-236)
Hans Silfverberg
Zoological Museum, P.O. Box 17, FIN-00014, Helsinki University, Finland
This application concerning the Bombus species gets my full approval. I would find
it most unfortunate if such well known names were transferred from one species to
another — it would make usage of the literature extremely difficult.
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, 265-266)
Robert M. Sullivan
Section of Paleontology and Geology, The State Museum of Pennsylvania, P.O. Box
1026, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-1026, U.S.A.
I wish to add to my previous comment (BZN 50: 150-151) on this case, particularly
on the nature of Cope’s original material and Colbert’s (1989) interpretation of it, the
alternative Coelophysis bauri (Cope, 1887) neotype suggested by Hunt & Lucas
(1993), and Paul’s (1993) placement of the Ghost Ranch specimens in Syntarsus
Raath, 1969.
1. There has been some confusion regarding what constitutes the type material of
C. bauri. Padian (1986, p. 46) listed those specimens which are the type series for the
nominal species Coelurus bauri and C. longicollis Cope, 1887. These specimens
include AMNH 2722 (the sacrum designated as C. bauri lectotype by Colbert, 1989).
As mentioned by Colbert (1989), later in 1887 Cope described further material,
transferred C. bauri and C. longicollis to Tanystrophaeus, and described a third
species, T. willistoni. In 1889 all three were placed in the new genus Coelophysis, of
which C. bauri was designated the type by Hay (1930).
2. Colbert (1989) synonymized C. longicollis and C. willistoni with C. bauri,
although without justification. He wrongly regarded some of the specimens described
only in Cope’s second paper as part of the type series of C. bauri. Only a few of the
Cope specimens share common elements, and the material is too fragmentary and
incomplete to permit comparison, let alone establish synonymy. The names C. bauri,
C. longicollis and C. willistoni are nomina dubia and can only be applied to their type
material.
3. Hunt & Lucas (1993) designated AMNH 2724, a pubic fragment referred to
C. bauri by Cope in his second 1887 paper and also by Colbert (1989), as the
‘neotype’ of the species, even though they acknowledged that it was not part of the
originally described material. In any event the designation would be invalid since
Colbert (1989) had already designated AMNH 2722 as lectotype. Hunt & Lucas
noted that AMNH 2724 possessed a ‘pubic foramen ... which could be a diagnostic
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 77
feature’. I have determined that this is actually the obturator foramen, a character
which is present in the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti (AMNH 7224; personal
observation), Liliensternus liliensterni, Syntarsus rhodesiensis (Raath, 1969, p. 15,
fig. 4b), and also in S. kayentakatae to which a number of Ghost Ranch specimens
can be tentatively referred (personal observation).
4. There is now strong evidence (Sullivan, 1994) that suggests that the type
material of C. bauri did not come from the Ghost Ranch (Whitaker) quarry.
Moreover, my preliminary study of the Ghost Ranch specimens strongly suggests
that two closely related yet distinct taxa (Rioarribasaurus and Syntarsus) are
represented there. Colbert’s (1989) concept of Coelophysis bauri is most likely a
composite of these; this would explain the unexpected morphological variation cited
by him (1989, p. 132; 1990, p. 89) amongst the Ghost Ranch theropods. The original
Cope material could belong to either.
5. Paul (1993, p. 400) recognized C. bauri as a nomen dubium. The characters he
(or for that matter Colbert, 1989) used to recognize Rioarribasaurus (or Coelophysis)
and Syntarsus are ambiguous, and Paul’s synonymy of these taxa is unjustified.
However, I believe some of the Ghost Ranch specimens can be referred to Syntarsus;
I base this on my studies of the type material of C. bauri, the holotype of R. colberti,
and other specimens in blocks at the American Museum of Natural History, Carnegie
Museum of Natural History, Yale Peabody Museum of Natural History and The
State Museum of Pennsylvania.
6. In conclusion, (i) the type material of Coelophysis bauri (and of C. longicollis
and C. willistoni) is undiagnostic; (ii) the ‘neotype designation’ by Hunt & Lucas
(1993) is doubly invalid; (iii) there are two distinct theropod taxa (Rioarribasaurus
and Syntarsus) among the Ghost Ranch specimens, and the type material of C. bauri
may belong to either.
Additional references
Colbert, E.H. 1990. Variation in Coelophysis bauri. Pp. 81-90 in Carpenter, K. & Currie, P.J.
(Eds.), Dinosaur systematics: perspectives and approaches. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hunt, A.P. & Lucas, S.G. 1993. Triassic vertebrate paleontology and biochronology of New
Mexico. Pp. 49-60 in Lucas, S.G. & Zidek, J. (Eds.), Vertebrate paleontology in New
Mexico. Bulletin 2, New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque.
Sullivan, R.M. 1994. Topotypic material of Coelophysis bauri (Cope) and the Coelophysis-
Rioarribasaurus-Syntarsus problem. P. 48A in Abstracts of Papers, Journal of Vertebrate
Paleontology, 14(3)(Supplement).
Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Liophis poecilogyrus
(Wied-Neuwied, [1824]) (Reptilia, Serpentes)
(Case 2875; see BZN 51: 250-252)
(1) Laurie J. Witt
Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, 1335 Asp Avenue,
Norman, Oklahoma 73019-0606, U.S.A.
I am in complete agreement with the application by Drs Smith, Dixon and
Wallach. If one of the disused senior synonyms were introduced an incredible
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
confusion would result in future literature, since L. poecilogyrus has been used in
many taxonomic and ecological publications (including some of mine). It would
require all ecologists referring to the species to trace the history of name use, and that
is unlikely to happen. I trust the Commission will approve the application.
(2) Support for the application has also been received from Edwin L. Bell (Albright
College, P.O. Box 15234, Reading, Pennsylvania 19612-5234, U.S.A.) and from
Kenneth L. Williams (Department of Life Science, Northwestern State University of
Louisiana, Natchitoches, Louisiana 71497, U.S.A.). ‘
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, 342-348)
(1) Alvaro Mones
Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Casilla de Correo 399, 11000 Montevideo,
Uruguay
I completely agree with the proposal to conserve 11 of Brisson’s mammal generic
names and hope that it will be accepted by the Commission.
My special concern is Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762. The living capybara has
received several different generic names, most of them being orthographical
variations such as Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762, Hydrochaeris Brinnich, 1771,
Hydrochaerus Erxleben, 1777, Hydrochoeris Allen, 1916 and Hydrocheirus Hollande
& Batisse, 1959, as well as other names such as Capibara Moussy, 1860 and
Capiguara Liais, 1872. Many of these names have been used only once or very seldom
in the extensive bibliography on the family HYDROCHOERIDAE.
Before the publication of Cabrera’s (1961) Catalogo de los mamiferos de América
del Sur, and despite the differences in spelling, all references to Hydrochoerus were
cited with Brisson’s authorship. Following Cabrera’s influential work (and not
Hopwood’s 1947 rediscovery of Briinnich’s Zoologiae Fundamenta) some authors
adopted Briinnich’s name, but many others continued to use Brisson’s. I have
repeatedly defended the latter course (Mones, 1973, 1984, 1991; Mones & Ojasti,
1986), my main argument being the extensive use of Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 by
almost all authors before Cabrera’s work, and by a significant number of workers
after it. Moreover, the suffix -choerus, and not -chaeris, is consistently used for many
other names of related genera (for example, Protohydrochoerus Rovereto, 1914,
Neochoerus Hay, 1926, Hydrochoeropsis Kraglievich, 1930, Xenohydrochoerus
Rusconi, 1934, Nothydrochoerus Rusconi, 1935, Prohydrochoerus Spillmann, 1941,
Anatochoerus Vecetich & Mones, 1991).
As a student who has been working with Recent and fossil capybaras for the last
30 years, I deeply agree with, and emphatically support, Gentry’s application, not
only for the name of the capybara but also for the remaining generic names. I am
convinced that approval by the Commission will bring stability to the nomenclature.
Additional references
Mones, A. 1973. Estudios sobre la familia Hydrochoeridae (Rodentia), 1. Introduccion e
historia taxonémica. Revista Brasileira de Biologia, 33(2): 277-283.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 79
Mones, A. 1984. Estudios sobre la familia Hydrochoeridae (Rodentia), XIV. Revision
sistematica (Mammalia: Rodentia). Senckenbergiana Biologica, 65(1—2): 1-17.
Mones, A. 1991. Monografia de la familia Hydrochoeridae (Mammalia: Rodentia). Courier
Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, 134: 1-235.
Mones, A. & Ojasti, J. 1986. Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris. Mammalian Species (American
Society of Mammalogists), 264: 1-7.
(2) Francis Petter
‘Mammalia (Morphologie, Biologie, Systématiques des Mammifeéres), 55 rue de
Buffon, 75005 Paris, France; Laboratoire de Zoologie des Mammiféres, Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Comme l’éditeur de Mammalia je suis formellement d’accord avec la conservation
des 11 noms de genre de Brisson (1762) et la réjection de Regnum Animale, Ed. 2
(M.J. Brisson, 1762). L’argumentation (Case 2928) me parait tout-a-fait valable.
Mes collégues du Laboratoire de Zoologie des Mammiféres sont également de
Vavis qu'il faut conserver ces 11 noms. Nous souhaitons vivement qu'une décision
dans ce sens soit prise et qu’elle soit définitive.
(3) Alan Turner
Department of Human Anatomy and Cell Biology, The University of Liverpool,
P.O. Box 147, Liverpool L69 3BX, U.K.
I write in support of the conservation of generic names from Brisson’s Regnum
Animale.
I am in favour of maintaining established usage in nomenclature, and find no
problem with agreeing to the use of the Commission’s plenary powers to conserve
names in a rejected work. Furthermore, I find no merit in attributing Brisson’s names
Hyaena, Lutra and Giraffa to Brinnich (1771).
(4) Alfred L. Gardner
National Biological Survey, MRC 111, National Museum of Natural History,
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.
Brisson (1762) is a partial reprinting (with emendations and additions by the
publisher) of a non-binominal publication; therefore, an unavailable work and the
names contained therein are not available for purposes of nomenclature. This is
the nearly universal conclusion of all who have examined Brisson’s Regnum Animale,
Ed. 2, despite Tate’s hope to conserve certain names of genera in his favourable
comparison of the work with Brisson’s (1760) independent publication on birds
(also non-binominal). The problem is adequately outlined by Gentry in the
application; however, while I agree with rejecting Brisson (1762), I disagree with
conserving the 11 names she proposes. I recommend placing Brisson’s work on the
Official Index and treating all of his names (excepting Odobenus; see Opinion 467) as
unavailable.
Part of my disagreement with Gentry’s application stems from the fact that, as
one begins to explore nomenclatural issues, one soon learns that rejection of names
from pre-1758 and non-binominal works, coupled with the Principle of Priority, are
80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
primary bases for a stable nomenclature. In the majority of the cases, a disruption
caused by a change in a familiar scientific name is short-lived. Young workers quickly
learn the new combinations; experienced authors who are aware of scientific names
know the basis for the change. I suspect that most non-systematists who profess
displeasure at what seems to them to be ‘instability’ are uneasy with scientific names
in general and believe nomenclatural issues to be arcane and incomprehensible.
The case concerning Brisson’s names is fraught with the problems caused by
ignorance, human error, and other behaviors such as uncritically following earlier
usage, reluctance to ‘rock the boat’, or the propensity to prefer the familiar whether
valid or not, that confound the meaning of ‘accepted’, ‘common’ or ‘universal’ usage.
That a problem exists today stems partially from the lack of decisive action by the
Commission on Tate’s query in 1938. In all fairness, however, the Commission
recognized the unavailability of names from Brisson (1762) in Opinion 90, Direction
79 and Opinion 467, the latter conserving Odobenus Brisson, 1762 under the plenary
powers of the Commission.
My additional comments are keyed to the numbered sections in Gentry’s
application.
Para. 2. If Brisson (1762) is not an available work and hence the names contained
therein are not available, why must the Commission make a formal decision on its
availability before the work is rejected? A knowledgeable worker simply should not
use any of Brisson’s names (except for Odobenus, conserved by the Commission
under the plenary powers).
Para. 3. Twentieth century authors using names from Brisson were undoubtedly
influenced by Merriam (1895) and Sherborn (1902). Examples were Palmer (1904),
Miller (1924) and Miller & Kellogg (1955). Merriam recognized that Brisson (1762)
was not consistently binominal, yet (with the exception of Philander) he believed that
11 generic names in the keys (pp. 12-13, 218) given for the first time were available
and warranted recognition. Merriam designated type species for each genus on
tautonymy or monotypy, with the exception of Cuniculus (its type selected by
elimination). Although best remembered for contributions in mammalogy and his
Life Zone System, Merriam’s early work was with birds. Certainly Merriam was
familiar with the widespread use of Brisson’s generic names for birds; thus he may
have been inclined to accept Brisson’s generic names for mammals. Sherborn (1902)
believed Brisson’s genera to be available only from the Index. Neave (1939-1940)
likely followed Sherborn’s lead. However, as pointed out by Hopwood (1947), both
the keys and Index are the same as the Latin forms published in the original 1756
edition; hence, the names are not available. There are other significant works in
addition to those cited by Gentry that treated Brisson’s names as unavailable. Those
having the greatest influence in the Western Hemisphere are Cabrera (1957-1961),
Hall & Kelson (1959) and Hall (1981).
Para. 5. Philander. Hershkovitz (1949) rejected Philander Brisson as non-Linnaean
and designated Philander virginianus (= Didelphis opossum Linnaeus, 1758) as the
type species of Philander Tiedemann, 1808. Later, Hershkovitz (1976) selected the
female that Seba (1734) had illustrated as the lectotype of Tiedemann’s Philander
virginianus, thereby retaining Philander Tiedemann for the gray and black opossums.
I cannot see how attributing the authorship of Philander to Brisson furthers ‘the
interest of stability of nomenclature’.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 81
Glis. The information presented by Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) in their
argument for the use of Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780 provides ample evidence
supporting this as the valid name for edible dormice. I recommend rejecting Glis
Brisson.
Cuniculus. Using the American Ornithologists’ Union Code Merriam (1895) fixed
the type as ‘Cuniculus cauda longissima Brisson (= Dipus alactaga Olivier, 1800) by
elimination. Hollister (1913) dissented “because C. cauda longissima was placed in
brackets at the end of the series; and the introduction [by the publisher] to the work
explains that species so placed [by the publisher] were doubtfully referred to the
genus’. Hollister fixed the type as ‘paca’ (= Mus paca Linnaeus).
Tate (1939) used Cuniculus Brisson for the pacas with the reference (p. 183,
footnote) ‘Opinion 90, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’.
However, this Opinion does not conserve the name. Earlier in the same report Tate
did not use Philander Brisson but noted ‘the generally used term [Metachirops] is here
retained pending some opinion from the International Commission’. Most subse-
quent workers either apparently overlooked this statement or assumed that Opinion
90 conserved Cuniculus Brisson, 1762. However, this Opinion pointed out the lack of
consensus on the availability of Cuniculus Brisson with the statement that ‘certain
authors do not accept Brissonian names’.
Agouti Lacépéde, 1799 is the available and approriate name for the pacas. The
argument that the name will cause confusion because the common name agouti is
applied to Dasyprocta is true primarily for users of the English common name. While
the Spanish version (aguti) is heard, vernacular names such as picuré, cotia, guatin
and acuré are among those in more common usage.
Hoffmann (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993, p. 822) cited Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 as a
synonym of Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874. This either was a /apsus or an attempt at
the moment to avoid controversy. Clearly, Oryctolagus enjoys common usage and to
change the name at this late date may be confusing, at least for a few years. If
interested persons wish to continue using Oryctolagus, the easiest solution is to
petition the Commission to suppress Cuniculus Meyer, 1790. This action is infinitely
more desirable than to validate an unavailable name (Cuniculus Brisson) for another
taxon in order to make Cuniculus Meyer invalid by homonymy.
Pteropus, Meles, Hydrochoerus, Lutra, Hyaena, Tapirus, Giraffa. The name
Pteropus is available from Erxleben (1777), Meles is available from Boddaert (1785),
and the remaining are available from Briinnich (1771). Nothing is to be gained by
conserving these names from Brisson (1762).
Tragulus. The situation with Tragulus is more complicated than with the other
names under discussion. Considering the numerous and conflicting designations of
type species for Tragulus (of authors), the simplest and least disruptive resolution of
this problem is to date Tragulus from Pallas (1767), with type species Cervus javanicus
Osbeck, 1765. This is the usage employed by Honacki et al. (1982) and Grubb (in
Wilson & Reeder, 1993), except that they and Hopwood (1947) dated Tragulus Pallas
from 1779 (fasc. 13). Another, but less satisfactory, resolution is to date Tragulus
from Boddaert (1785). This would require setting aside Hopwood’s (1947) desig-
nation of Tragulus pygmaeus Boddaert (= Capra pygmaea Linnaeus) as the type
species of Tragulus and designating Moschus meminna Erxleben, 1777 as the type.
This could be justified on Tragulus Boddaert having been defined as lacking horns,
82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
whereas Capra pygmaea (= Neotragus pygmaea) is a horned African antelope.
Moschiola “Hodgson, 1843’ would become a junior objective synonym of Tragulus
Boddaert (redefined). Of course, Tragu/us Brisson could be conserved under the
plenary powers if the Commission follows the course recommended by Gentry;
Odobenus Brisson has already been conserved. However, if Tragulus Brisson were
conserved, then Merriam’s designation of Capra pygmaea as the type species would
be valid and Tragulus Brisson would become a senior synonym of Neotragus. I argue
against conserving Tragulus Brisson.
Para. 7. While it is true that some of Brisson’s names have been uncritically used
for many years, there have been a number of workers during the past century that
have commented on the non-availability of the same names. Trouessart (1897-1899)
clearly rejected Brisson’s generic names and cited them with the date 1756. To say
that the names were accepted by Simpson (1945) means little except that Simpson
was interested in mammalian phylogeny and relationships and showed little
concern over nomenclatural matters. Furthermore, being at the American Museum
of Natural History, Simpson certainly was aware of Tate’s belief that if Brisson’s
(1760) names for birds were acceptable, then Brisson’s names for mammals
should also be conserved. The comprehensive nomenclator of Schulze, Kiikenthal &
Heider (1929) clearly indicated the non-available status of each of Brisson’s generic
names. Several of the references cited by Gentry as reflecting accepted usage of
the names contain comments on the uncertain or non-available status of Brisson’s
names. The fact that these authors continued to use names that they knew were
not available does not speak well of their scholarship and regard for rules of
nomenclature.
Para. 8. I agree only that, once and for all, Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale be
rejected for nomenclatural purposes.
Para. 9. Obviously I do not believe that these recommendations are in the best
interests of mammalian nomenclature.
(5) F. de Beaufort, L. Granjon, J.M. Pons & M. Tranier
Laboratoire de Zoologie, Mammiféres et Oiseaux, Muséum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
En réponse aux suggestions de A. Gentry a la CINZ concernant le travail de
Brisson (1762), nous exprimons ci-aprés une opinion concernant la validité de
Youvrage (point 9(1)), et ’opportunité de maintenir les onze noms de genres en
question (point 9(2)).
Il nous parait souhaitable de ne pas invalider l’ouvrage dans sa totalité, pour les
raisons suivantes:
Cet ouvrage représente un jalon important dans la mise en ordre de la nomencla-
ture zoologique. Une bonne partie des noms de genres proposés par Linné était
inappropriée, alors que la grande majorité des noms de genre proposés ensuite par
Brisson étaient pertinents et ont été repris constamment depuis le 18eme siécle
(Philander pour Didelphis; Pteropus pour Vespertilio; Glis pour Sciurus; Cuniculus
pour Mus; Hydrochoerus pour Sus; Meles pour Ursus; Lutra pour Mustela; Hyaena
pour Canis; Tapirus pour Hippopotamus; Tragulus pour Cervus; Giraffa pour Cervus).
Par ailleurs, il convient de souligner que |’ouvrage de Brisson (1760) concernant les
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 83
oiseaux, bien que jugé moins bon que l’edition de 1762 sur les mammiféres par
Hemming (lettre 4 Tate, 1945) a été valide (Opinion 37 de 1911 et Direction 16 de
1955).
D’autre part, nous observons que l’Article 11c du Code international nomen-
clature zoologique offre une version frangaise plus souple que la version anglaise.
En effet, ’ouvrage de Brisson peut étre considéré comme ‘coherent’ (au sens du
texte frangais) méme sil n’a pas intégralement (‘consistently’) suivi les regles de
nomenclature binominale. Finalement, il nous parait excessif de rejeter la totalité
de louvrage a cause d’une petite proportion d’irrégularités par rapport aux régles
de la nomenclature, ne représentant finalement que des erreurs de forme alors
que le contenu scientifique du travail de Brisson a été consacré par la posterité et
Pusage.
Concernant la décision de maintenir Brisson (1762) en tant que premier descripteur
pou les onze genres de mammiféres en question, elle nous parait tout-a-fait justifiée
et dans la continuité de celle prise en 1957 (Opinion 467) concernant le genre
Odobenus. Comme précisé ci-dessus, tous ces noms ont ensuite été consacrés par
Pusage, la plupart du temps d’ailleurs par des contemporains de Brisson, et de plus
des espeéces types linnéennes ont été désignées par Merriam en 1895 pour ces genres.
Les invalider n’aboutirait finalement qu’au remplacement de Glis par Myoxus
et Cuniculus par Agouti, changements qui ne nous paraissent ni judicieux ni
souhaitables.
(6) Clyde Jones
Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 79409,
U.S.A.
I write to comment on the proposed rejection of Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale,
with the conservation of 11 generic names of mammals.
If, indeed, a major function of the Code is to *... provide for consistency ... and to
preserve stability of nomenclature’, then I must disagree with portions of the
application. Most recent authors have considered Brisson (1762) unavailable for
nomenclatural purposes; formal acceptance of this consideration by the Commission
would benefit mammalian nomenclature. I therefore urge the Commission to reject
Brisson (1762) with no qualifying conservation of generic names.
(7) N. Sivasothi
Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge 0511, Republic
of Singapore
I have been working mainly with otters in Malaysia and Singapore since 1990 and
am a member of the IUCN/SSC Otter Specialist Group. I strongly support the
application which is a welcome and logical course of action.
1. The authorship of the genus Lurra will not affect the general user of the name.
However, Lutra Brisson, 1762 is well known among taxonomists and has been
adopted in authoritative works such as Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951, p. 275)
and Harris (1968, p. 138). Workers in the field, such as myself, have followed these
authors.
84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
2. The first authority who recognised and named the distinct taxon should be
credited with authorship. In the case of all the 11 genera mentioned in the application
Brisson (1762) was the first to do so.
3. A decision by the Commission on Brisson’s (1762) work Regnum Animale would
be welcome. In the absence of previous action its rejection has been subjectively
assumed by some authors, particularly in the light of comments made by Hemming
(1955), which has resulted in some confusion. For example, reviewers in Honacki,
Kinman & Koeppl (1982, p. 257) preferentially used Lutra Briinnich, 1771. They
supported this decision by stating that Brisson’s publication ‘was ruled an unavail-
able work’, in a misinterpretation of Hemming (1955). Unfortunately, this error is
perpetuated in the recent second edition (Wilson & Reeder, 1993, pp. 311-312).
4. In Honacki et al. (1982), Brisson’s (1762) authorship for the other genera was
dismissed, either as a personal opinion of the reviewer or by citing Hemming (1955).
Whilst I am unable to comment at length about the other names, the same arguments
as above apply. Furthermore, the family name of at least two groups would be
affected by the rejection of Brisson’s names.
Additional references
Harris, C.J. 1968. Otters: a study of the Recent Lutrinae. 397 pp. Weidenfeld & Nicolson,
London.
Hemming, F. 1955. Second report on the status of the generic names ‘Odobenus’ Brisson, 1762
and ‘Rosmarus’ Briinnich, 1771 (Class Mammalia) (A report prepared at the request of the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948). Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 11: 196-198.
(8) Judith L. Eger
Department of Mammalogy, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada MSS 2C6
I agree that the stability of mammalian nomenclature is best served by rejecting
Brisson (1762) but do not agree with Gentry’s proposal to conserve the 11 generic
names. Nine of these names are available from other authors and there is no need to
make them exceptions. Of the remaining two names, Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780
already has been accepted in place of Glis by most authors (Walker, 1975; Honacki,
Kinman & Koeppl, 1982; Wilson & Reeder, 1993; Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden,
1993) and recognised as an alternative generic name by others (Corbet & Hill, 1986,
1991). Clearly there is no need to conserve Giis.
Similarly, most recent authors have rejected Cuniculus and have used Agouti
Lacépéde, 1799 for the pacas. If mammalogists wish to continue using Oryctolagus
Lilljeborg, 1874 for the European rabbit, the most parsimonious approach is to
request the Commission to suppress Cuniculus Meyer, 1790.
Although Odobenus Brisson, 1762 was conserved as the generic name for the
walrus (Opinion 467) it should not be considered a precedent for conserving other
generic names. For example, the name Papio P.L.S. Muller, 1773 and ‘all uses prior
to the publication of Papio Erxleben, 1777’ (which included Papio Brisson, 1756,
1762) were suppressed in Opinion 1199 (March 1982) for the purposes of priority and
homonymy. Brisson’s Papio was based on five references, all pre-1758, clearly
indicating the problem of accepting non-binominal publications.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 85
I hope that the Commission will reject Brisson’s (1762) publication, without
conservation of the 11 generic names.
(9) Bernard Sigé
Institut des Sciences de l’Evolution, Laboratoire de Paléontologie (Case 64),
Université des Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc, Place Eugéne-Bataillon, F-34095
Montpellier, Cedex 5, France
As a palaeontologist specialising in early Tertiary mammals, among them bats,
I firmly defend the proposition to conserve Brisson’s (1762) 11 mammalian generic
names. They relate to universally known animals, unequivocally understood under
their classical names.
Regarding the fruit bat genus Pferopus Brisson, 1762, often known as the
“flying fox’, the name has full practical value, has been used without problem by all
authors since Anderson’s (1912) fruit bat catalogue, and carries knowledge of the
morphology, biogeography and phylogeny. There would be no gain at all in
exchanging this name and authorship for another.
Since stability and universality are the leading virtues promoted by the Commis-
sion, I hope for the wise conservation of what is clear and helpful in science, instead
of the promotion of darkness and fruitless complexity.
(10) Mary Ellen Holden
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 about the application to conserve 11 of Brisson’s (1762) mammal
generic names, including Gilis. I object to the proposal for the reasons outlined
below.
1. Objection to the general argument. The argument given for the conservation of
these 11 names is based upon ‘established usage’. If this criterion is sufficient to
establish the validity of a name, why does there exist a detailed Code that clearly
describes the criteria for determining oldest available names for taxa? Should the
Code be ignored when it is more convenient to do so, or should the Code be the
consistent guidelines by which nomenclatural decisions are made? I favor the latter,
so that decisions are not made simply on common usage of a name in a particular
window of time, but are made to reflect the entire nomenclatural history of a given
group. Anyone who specialises in a particular group will by definition need to have
surveyed the older literature of that group, and hence would already be familiar with
the range of names historically applied to the taxon of interest.
2. Objection to conservation of G/is, and in particular its application to dormice.
Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) and Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993)
have already published arguments as to why GLIRIDAE and Gilis are not valid for
dormice. The components of those arguments are summarized and elaborated upon
below.
(a) Brisson’s (1962) names are unavailable because his work does not satisfy the
Principle of Binominal Nomenclature, as stated in the Code, Article Sa and its
application Article 11c. Trouessart (1898, p. 453) and Schulze, Kiikenthal & Heider
86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
(1929, p. 1375) rejected Glis on the grounds that Brisson’s work is not binominal (see
Wahlert et al., 1993), as did Hopwood (1947).
(b) As noted by Hopwood (1947), Glis is valid in Erxleben (1777) for marmots,
ground-squirrels, voles and lemmings, rendering G/is Storr, 1780 (which included
pedetids, dormice and other rodents) invalid. The oldest available name in the sense
of Glis Brisson is Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, adopted in Linnaeus (1788) for
dormice, and the correct family name for dormice is MYOXIDAE (see Holden, 1993).
Palmer (1899) proposed the family name MUSCARDINIDAE because G/is was unavail-
able due to its previous application to other groups, but MUSCARDINIDAE is a junior
synonym of MYOXIDAE.
(c) Gentry’s assertion that Glis has had ‘established usage for over 230 years’ is
incorrect. As can be verified by perusing the literature, and the Zoological Record
until 1945, MyoxIDAE and Myoxus were the preferred names for the family and genus.
As was explained in Wahlert et al. (1993), GLIRIDAE has only been the most commonly
used family name for dormice since 1945 (50, rather than 230, years). The preference
for GLIRIDAE Over MYOXIDAE (and Glis over Myoxus) arose with Simpson’s (1945)
classification of mammals; this work was cited in the Zoological Record for the year
1945, and the change of that publication’s usage from MYOXIDAE to GLIRIDAE occurred
in that volume (see Wahlert, 1993). Some examples of prominent authors who used
MYOXIDAE prior to the publication of Simpson’s work are Gill (1872), Gray (1821),
Waterhouse (1839), Lydekker (1896) and Trouessart (1898).
Dr Malcolm McKenna is completing a revision of Simpson’s (1945) classification
of mammals, and is recognising Myoxus and MyYOXIDAE as the valid generic and
family names, based on his independent research. The fact that a revision of the work
that engendered the common misuse of Glis and GLIRIDAE for the last 50 years is
finally correcting the misuse should carry some weight in a decision on whether or not
Glis should be conserved.
(d) Despite common usage of Giis in the post-1945 literature, I have yet to meet a
researcher from any country interested in dormice who was not familiar with all three
family names (GLIRIDAE, MUSCARDINIDAE and MYOXIDAE).
(e) The common name of Myoxus (Glis) is the edible dormouse, and hence no
public or amateur confusion will result from a ruling favoring the adoption of the
valid generic name Myoxus. Though some workers feel that this is important in
nomenclatural decisions, I do not give this consideration high priority, but it is an
added bonus in this case.
For the reasons outlined above, I strongly object to the conservation of Glis, and
if it is nonetheless conserved, I object to its being applied to dormice due to its
previous application by Erxleben (1777) to other groups.
Additional references
Gill, T. 1872. Arrangement of the families of mammals with analytical tables. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 11: 1-98.
Lydekker, R. 1896. On the affinities of the so-called giant dormouse of Malta. Proceedings of
the Zoological Society of London, 1895: 860-863.
Palmer, T.S. 1899. The family name of the dormice. Science, (n.s.)10(247): 412-413.
Waterhouse, G.R. 1839. Observations on the Rodentia with a view to point out the groups, as
indicated by the structure of the crania, in this order of mammals. Magazine of Natural
History, (n.s.)3: 184-188.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 87
(11) Stéphane Aulagnier
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Institut de Recherche sur les Grands
Mammiferes, C.R.A. Toulouse, B.P. 27, 31326 Castanet-Tolosan, Cedex, France
I write concerning the application dealing with the names of some mammalian
genera.
As a mammalogist (not ‘merely’ a taxonomist) I do not find it desirable to change
the commonly used names and/or authorship for these genera, particularly for the
edible dormouse and the European badger. For a long time these taxa have carried
the same name for the genus as for the species (i.e. Glis glis and Meles meles), which
is the logical binomen for the type species. These two cases are the most critical since
the animals are widely spread in Europe and so are cited under Brisson’s (1762)
names in many books and papers. Moreover, they are the type genera of a family and
a subfamily, with the major consequence that a change in the higher nomenclature
will follow a change in the generic name (cf. Wilson & Reeder, 1993), making life
more difficult for nearly all mammalogists.
(12) G.B. Corbet
clo Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.; Little Dumbarnie, Upper Largo, Fife KY8 6JQ, U.K.
I strongly support this case. With all of the 11 generic names of Brisson (1762)
conserved the application would have served to stabilize names that are in current,
unambiguous use.
In the case of Glis, the extensive European literature on this predominantly
European monospecific genus has used G/is almost consistently since Miller (1912).
Recent listings as Myoxus in American compilations (Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl,
1982; Wilson & Reeder, 1993) were based upon the rejection of all names from
Brisson (1762), but the consequences of doing so were not consistently followed by
these compilers. In particular, rejection of Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 for the paca (a
senior homonym of Cuniculus Meyer, 1790) would threaten the name Oryctolagus
Lilljeborg, 1874 for the European rabbit, a name used universally in the vast
literature for over a hundred years. The rejection of Tragu/us Brisson, 1762 would be
equally disruptive of other well established names. Although these threatened names
could be conserved independently, the current proposal to solve the problem en bloc
by conserving these names of Brisson (1762) seems an eminently satisfactory solution.
Additional reference
Miller, G.S. 1912. Catalogue of the mammals of western Europe. British Museum (Natural
History), London.
(13) Jean-Louis Hartenberger
Institut des Sciences de |’Evolution, Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Université des
Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc (Montpellier 11), Case Courier 064, Place
Eugéne-Bataillon, F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
I support vigorously the proposition to conserve the 11 generic names first
published by Brisson (1762).
88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
The Preamble to the Code (p. 3) is very clear: “The object of the Code is to promote
stability and universality in the scientific names of animals ...’. Everyone should
conclude that stability is the first and most important purpose of the Code and this
must surely be in the minds of all scientists. However, I am sure that if this year there
is a rejection of Brisson’s 11 names, next year other workers in another group will
propose the rejection of some other well known and very significant names for
parallel reasons. The kind of publication which upsets long-established nomenclature
is not ‘science’ for me.
I recently gave a paper (1994) to a Congress in which I reported that from Roman
times the Latin name Gi/is has denoted the edible dormouse. This might be considered
an unorthodox reason for conserving the name, but it is nevertheless clear that from
as long ago as this epoch this small animal was known by this name, and no one
could claim that there is a risk of a mistake concerning the taxon.
I am a palaeontologist (and joint editor of Journal of Mammalian Evolution) and
the use of GLIRIDAE as a family name is found in old (with very few exceptions) and
all recent papers. My 1994 publication lists 12 works dating from 1967 to 1991 in
which the name appears in the title. To my knowledge all authors who have published
papers on fossil dormice during the last 50 years have used Glis and GLIRIDAE. There
are also many fossil taxa with names coined from Glis (GLIRAVINAE, Pentaglis, etc.).
Additional reference
Hartenberger, J.-L. 1994. The evolution of the Gliroidea. Pp. 19-33 in Tomida, Y., Li, C.K.
& Setoguchi, T. (Eds.), Rodent and lagomorph families of Asian origins and diversification.
National Science Museum Monograph No. 8. Tokyo.
(14) Hans de Bruijn
Department of StratigraphylPaleontology, Institut voor Aardwetenschappen,
Universiteit Utrecht, Budapestlaan 4, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
I fully support the application to conserve 11 of Brisson’s (1762) generic names.
Discarding Glis Brisson as in Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) is not desirable
and, in my opinion, this action abuses the intention of the Code.
In a forthcoming publication (1995, in press) on the classification of the GLIRIDAE,
Dr Remmert Daams (Depto. de Paleontologia, Facultad de Ciencias Geologicas,
Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid, Spain) and I have set out the history of the names Glis
and GLiRwpDaE and urged their continued usage. We have noted: “Holden (1993) and
Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) use the name Myoxidae because they argue that
the name G/is does not fulfil the requirements of the Code. We continue to use the
name Gliridae because the stability of zoological nomenclature is not enhanced by
brushing up a name that has become obsolete since Ellerman’s (1940) and Simpson’s
(1945) classification of the rodents. It is to be hoped that the question will be referred
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’.
Additional references
Ellerman, J.R. 1940. The families and genera of living rodents, vol. 1. 689 pp. British Museum
(Natural History), London.
Daams, R. & de Bruijn, H. 1995 (in press). A classification of the Gliridae (Rodentia) on the
basis of dental morphology. Hystrix.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 89
(15) Monique Vianey-Liaud
Institut des Sciences de L’Evolution, Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Université de
Montpellier II (Sciences et Techniques du Languedoc), Case Courier 064, Place
Eugéne-Bataillon, F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France
I wish to comment on the application to conserve some of Brisson’s mammal
names, and particularly on the conservation of the name Giis.
As a palaeontologist working on rodents, and especially on glirids, I want to
underline that the use of the family name GLIRIDAE for dormice has been almost
universal among specialists for more than 50 years. As a sign of this common use the
names of numerous taxa are built around the generic name G/is (GLIRIDAE, GLIRINAE,
GLIRAVINAE, Gliravus, Miniglis, Tenuiglis, Bransatoglis, Pentaglis, for example),
whereas Myoxus has not been, and is not, used in the same way. I do not see any
advantage in the rejection of Glis in favour of Myoxus; I see only problems with
synonymies and confusion with the meaning of the names of taxa.
(16) J.J. Hooker
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.
I write regarding the application to conserve some of Brisson’s (1762) mammal
generic names.
I strongly support the conservation of the name Glis Brisson, 1762, as advocated
by Anthea Gentry. G/is together with the family GLiIRIDAE Thomas, 1897, of which it
is the type genus, have long been in common and widespread use in the general
literature. For instance, the Zoological Record lists nearly 90 papers (covering
taxonomy, biology, physiology, ecology and conservation) over the past decade using
the name G/is and only one using its junior objective synonym Myoxus Zimmermann,
1780. The latter (Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden, 1993) is in fact the paper which
advocates resurrection of the genus Myoxus and the family MyOxIDAE Gray, 1821.
Moreover, use of the name GLIRIDAE is not restricted to the Recent members of the
family, which are relatively few in number. Numerous systematic papers deal with a
major diversity of glirid genera and species, which existed through much of the
European Tertiary.
I feel that the case for stability is thus clear and presents no problems as to
procedure; the Commission has already conserved Odobenus Brisson, 1762 (Opinion
467). A similar decision to conserve Glis Brisson, 1762 would be in the spirit of
the Code as illustrated by a passage in the fourth of the key elements basic to the
structure of the Code and zoological nomenclature (Code, Introduction, p. xiv):
‘Nomenclatural rules are tools that are designed to provide the maximum stability
compatible with taxonomic freedom. Accordingly they must also enable the Principle
of Priority to be set aside in particular cases when the application of the Principle
would be destructive of stability or universality, or would cause confusion’. The
alternative, a rigid adherence to selected rules in order to upset such stability, such as
resurrecting Myoxus Zimmermann, 1780, would not I believe be in the interests of
effective scientific communication.
90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
(17) Anthea Gentry
clo The Secretariat, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.
I wish to correct a number of mistaken premises and factual errors that have
appeared in comments published in BZN 51: 342-348 (December 1994), in comments
published above, and in recent papers by Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) and
Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993).
Dr Gardner and Miss Holden (comments (4) and (10) above) refer to the Code and
the criteria or rules employed in zoological nomenclature. However, the Code stresses
the primacy of stability and universality of nomenclature over all other consider-
ations and provisions, including priority. The ethos of stability is set out in the
Introduction (p. xiv): ‘The Code recognises that the rigid application of the Principle
of Priority may, in certain cases, upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed
meaning through the validation of a little-known, or even long-forgotten, name ...
The Code contains provisions that enable the International Commission on Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature to set aside, in such cases, the automatic operation of the Code
whether that operation concerns the establishment of a name, the fixation of a
name-bearing type, the spelling of a name, or any other matter’. Explicit provisions
(for example, the Preamble (p. 3) and Articles 23b and 79) expound the need for
stability and these have been cited in their comments above by Drs Hartenberger, de
Bruijn and Hooker (nos. 13, 14 and 16). It follows that, although Brisson’s (1762)
work is not binominal with respect to specific names, under the Code junior
synonyms should not have been introduced in recent compilations (Honacki,
Kinman & Koeppl, 1982 and Wilson & Reeder, 1993) in place of those of Brisson’s
generic names currently in use. It would have been correct for these workers to have
continued to use Brisson’s names, whilst referring the problem to the Commission.
Wahlert, Sawitzke & Holden (1993) recorded that ‘Gliridae is now the name
applied most commonly to the family of dormice ... Preference for the name Gliridae
arose with Simpson’s (1945) classification of mammals’. Nevertheless, these authors
and Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993) introduced the names Myoxus and MYOXIDAE
in place of Glis and GLiriDaE. These authors reasoned that, since the name “Gliridae’
Muirhead, 1819 was not available (the group of genera on which it was based did not
include Glis), then MYOXIDAE Gray, 1821 was the name to be used — and hence the
generic name Myoxus. There is no provision in the Code for this method of selection
of a generic name.
Wahlert et al. (1993) also argued: ‘We disagree with Merriam (1895) that the
uninomial generic key of Brisson (1762) validates the name G/is’. Brisson’s names
were given in the Latin nominative singular in both his “Tabula synoptica
Quadrupedum’ and the ‘Index Alphabeticus’, as noted in para. 3 of the application.
The genera were fully described in the ‘Tabula’; names in this and in the ‘Index’ are
cross-referenced to the names in his text and are therefore available under Article
llc(iii) of the Code (see also Article 12b(2)). Brisson’s (1760) bird names were
accepted by the Commission (Direction 105; October 1963) as available from his
‘Tabula synoptica Avium’.
I can assure Miss Holden (cf. her comment above) that the name G/is has never
been used validly for a taxon other than the edible dormouse. Glis Erxleben, 1777 is
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 91
a junior homonym of Gilis Brisson, 1762 and cannot threaten the latter name.
Furthermore, as noted in the application, Ellerman (1949) forestalled any possible
confusion with Erxleben’s name by rendering it a junior synonym of the name for the
mole rat, Spalax Gildenstaedt, 1770. Reference to the synonymy of Glis Erxleben
and Spalax has been omitted from Wilson & Reeder (1993).
Linnaeus consistently used the name Sciurus glis for the edible dormouse. The 1788
work mentioned by Holden as including the name Myoxus is attributable to Gmelin
(not Linnaeus, who died in 1778). Gmelin probably adopted Myoxus (as did some
other early authors) to avoid tautonomy.
The names Glis and GLIRIDAE Thomas, 1897 (p. 1016) were not introduced de novo
by Simpson (1945) but were in common usage (see Lydekker, 1910, 1911; Miller,
1912). Wahlert et al. themselves (1993, p. 4) noted that “After the middle of the 19th
century the use of the four names [Graphiurus, Eliomys, Glis and Muscardinus] as
genera became common practice’. Simpson (1945, p. 91, footnote) made it clear that
the name Myox1péE had not been used for some time.
Holden (in Wilson & Reeder, 1993 and above) quoted Hopwood (1947), who
considered Brisson’s (1762) generic names to be unavailable, but not the several
authors who have urged the conservation of Brisson’s names. Hopwood was a
mollusc specialist (in 1944 he was Chairman of the Nomenclature Committee of the
Malacological Society of London; see Opinion 200, January 1954) and unfortunately
had little experience in mammal taxonomy and nomenclature. The desirability of
maintaining Brisson’s generic names, citing those for birds, was noted in the first
Code of zoological nomenclature (Strickland et al., 1843).
Dr Gardner states (no. 4 above) that, since Brisson (1762) is a partial reprinting of
a pre-1758 publication, the names cannot be taken from it. A ruling about such works
was made in 1907 (Opinion 5) but it was not included in the 1961 Code and therefore
lapsed. Dr Gardner recommends rejecting Tragu/us Brisson. However, an alternative
course that results in Moschiola ‘Hodgson, 1843’ (the name for the Indian spotted
chevrotain) becoming a junior objective synonym is not a viable one. As was noted
in the application, Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951) considered that ‘indicus’
(included by Brisson in Tragu/us and designated the type by Merriam, 1895) was of
uncertain identity. In accord with the accepted usage of Tragulus, it was proposed
that Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 should be designated the type species under the
Commission’s plenary powers.
The rejection of Brisson’s (1762) names by Honacki et al. (1982) has had little
impact in the subsequent European literature. Wilson & Reeder’s (1993) rejection of
the names is not a reason for abandoning their usage (cf. Dr Wilson’s comment on
BZN 51: 343-344); this is only one publication among hundreds of international,
national, regional and local publications each year, not to mention popular works.
The nomenclatural changes in the 1993 work have been adopted by some American
workers but are by no means universally accepted. This is shown by the comments so
far received on this case, including those by Drs Groves and Grubb (see BZN 51: 342
and 346) who were contributing authors to the volume. It is, moreover, unrealistic to
suppose that the nomenclature used by Wilson & Reeder will remain unchanged,
both on taxonomic and nomenclatural grounds. In their review of that work, Corbet
& Hill (1994) noted that it ‘provides a sound basis for future refinement’; they
criticised the rejection of Brisson’s names. In a forthcoming publication, de Bruijn
92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
& Daams (1995, in press) are maintaining the usage of Glis and GLIRIDAE (see
Dr de Bruijn’s comment above).
It was noted in the application, by Corbet & Hill (1994) and by Dr Corbet above
(no. 12), that although Brisson’s names were rejected in Honacki et al. (1982) and the
second edition of the work (Wilson & Reeder, 1993), the consequential changes
in other names have not been consistently followed. An application to conserve Loris
E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796 as the name for the slender loris in favour of
Tardigradus Boddaert, 1785 (which has been treated as a junior homonym of
Tardigradus Brisson, 1762 and not used) was published in BZN 51: 332-335
(December 1994). In rejecting Brisson’s names, Drs Anderson (see BZN 51: 346) and
Eger (no. 8 above) have suggested that Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 should be suppressed
in order to conserve Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874 as the valid name for the European
rabbit. The priority of Cuniculus Meyer over Oryctolagus was noted by Hopwood
(1947), Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), Corbet (1978) and Hoffman (in Wilson &
Reeder, 1993), but no worker has yet submitted an application to conserve
Oryctolagus. Rejection of Brisson’s 11 names whose conservation I have proposed
would mean a further five applications (known to me, but there may be others as
yet unrecognised; see Dr Groves’s comment on BZN 51: 343) to conserve other
names currently in use. In addition to the suppression of Cuniculus Meyer, 1790,
Commission action would be required as follows:
1. To suppress Cuniculus Wagler, 1830 in order to conserve Dicrostonyx Gloger,
1841 as the name for the lemming (see BZN 51: 139).
2. To set aside Capra pygmea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Tragulus Pallas,
1767 and to designate Cervus javanicus Osbeck, 1765 as the type in order to conserve
Tragulus for the chevrotains. Tragu/us Boddaert, 1785 (a senior objective synonym
of the bovid name Neotragus H. Smith, 1827) would become a junior homonym of
Pallas’s name (see BZN 51: 140-141 and 342).
3. To suppress Lagonobrax Gloger, 1841 as an unused senior objective synonym
of Moschiola ‘Hodgson, 1843’, following designation of Moschus meminna Erxleben,
1777 as the type species of Lagonobrax (see BZN 51: 346). Thomas (1895) recorded
that the great majority of Gloger’s (1841) mammal generic names were synonyms of
names in use.
4. To set aside Agoutis Cuvier as the type genus of AGOUTIDAE Gray, 1821 and to
designate Agouti Lacépede, 1799 as the type, thereby rendering AGOUTIDAE available
for the pacas and also conserving DASYPROCTIDAE Smith, 1842 for the agoutis (see
BZN 51: 347).
It is apparent that it would be more simple and more clear to conserve Brisson’s 11
generic names by approving the current application.
Dr Gardner and Miss Holden (comments above) have remarked on the adapta-
bility of taxonomic specialists to name changes. This ignores the needs of ecologists,
conservationists, behaviourists, physiologists, and all those in applied fields, for
stable nomenclature with as few name changes as possible. The older literature, and
modern data bases, carry information under the previous names, and new names
make archival research difficult and confusing. As an example I can cite a very recent
paper on the distribution of the forest dormouse Dryomus nitedula by Krystufek &
Vohralik (1994); the authors used Myoxipae in their title but cited 15 references dated
from 1983 to 1993 with GLiripAE in the titles (one such includes both MyoxIDAE and
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 93
GLIRIDAE). This would lead those unaware of the nomenclatural situation to conclude
that there are two distinct families.
No useful purpose has been served by upsetting the usage of Brisson’s 11 names,
in some cases by the introduction of names that have not been used in modern times.
Unnecessary and undesirable confusion now exists in the usage of generic names for
the edible dormouse and the paca, and is only avoided in the name for the chevrotain
by using a name in the wrong sense (i.e. Tragulus Pallas, which relates to a bovid). It
seems beneficial and constructive to conserve those names which are established.
Additional references
Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.-E. 1994. Wilson, D.E. and D.M. Reeder (eds.). 1993. Mammal species
of the world; a taxonomic and geographic reference, 2nd Edition. The view from the Old
World. Journal of Mammalogy, 75(1): 239-243.
Krystufek, B. & Vohralik, V. 1994. Distribution of the forest dormouse Dryomys nitedula
(Pallas, 1779) (Rodentia, Myoxidae) in Europe. Mammal Review, 24(4): 161-177.
Lydekker, R. 1910. Dormouse. Pp. 429-430 in: The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 11, vol. 8.
xiv, 1000 pp. University Press, Cambridge.
Lydekker, R. 1911. Rodentia. Pp. 437-447 in: The Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 11, vol. 23.
xili, 1024 pp. University Press, Cambridge.
H.E. Strickland (and 11 others). 1843. Report of a Committee appointed ‘to consider of the
tules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and
permanent basis’. Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1843:
105-121. (Report of the 12th meeting held at Manchester in June 1842).
Thomas, O. 1895. An analysis of the mammalian generic names given in Dr C.W.L. Gloger’s
“Naturgeschichte’ (1841). The Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)15: 189-193.
Thomas, O. 1897. On the genera of rodents: an attempt to bring up to date the current
arrangement of the order. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1896:
1012-1028.
94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
OPINION 1792
Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868 (currently Asthenotoma
meneghinii; Mollusca, Gastropoda): neotype replaced by rediscovered
lectotype
Ruling
(1) All previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Pleurotoma
meneghinii Mayer, 1868 are hereby set aside and specimen no. H 17365 in the
Mayer-Eymar collection in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Basel, figured by Mayer
(1868, pl. 3, fig. 3) and by Gatto (1993, pl. 1, figs. la, 1b), is designated as the
lectotype.
(2) The name Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891 (gender: feminine), type
species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Oligotoma Bellardi, 1875,
Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name meneghinii Mayer, 1868, as published in the binomen Pleurotoma
meneghinii (specific name of the type species of Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891)
and as defined by the lectoype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 2860
An application to replace the neotype for Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868,
designated by Gatto (1990), by a putative lectotype from Mayer’s rediscovered
original type series was received from Dr Roberto Gatto (Dipartimento di Geologia,
Paleontologia e Geofisica dell’ Universita, Padova, Italy) on 10 November 1992. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 209-211 (September 1993). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
It was noted on the voting paper that, in the absence of the type material of
Pleurotoma meneghinii Mayer, 1868, which was presumed to have been lost (para. 3
of the application), Gatto (1990) validly designated a neotype. On rediscovering
Mayer’s original material, Gatto (1993) proposed that the neotype should be replaced
by a lectotype, which he described and figured. The lectotype designation (Gatto,
1993, p. 484) was stated to be ‘conditional upon approval by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’. The application (para. 6(1) on BZN 50:
210) sought to set aside the 1990 neotype and to ‘confirm the lectotype designation
by Gatto (1993)’.
Commission action was required (Article 75h of the Code) for the lectotype to be
recognised as the name-bearing type. However, it might have been considered that a
formal lectotype designation had not been made. To remove all doubt proposals (1)
and (3) on BZN 50: 210, para. 6, were amended on the voting paper to request that
the designation be made by the Commission.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
proposal (2) published in BZN 50: 210, and amended proposals (1) and (3). At the
close of the voting period on 1 December 1994 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 95
Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin,
Willink
Negative votes — none.
No votes were received from Halvorsen and Uéno.
Dupuis, Kraus 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:
Asthenotoma Harris & Burrows, 1891, The Eocene and Oligocene beds of the Paris Basin,
p. 113.
meneghinii, Pleurotoma, Mayer, 1868, Journal de Conchyliologie, 16: 109.
96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
OPINION 1793
Chtenopteryx Appelléf, 1890 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): confirmed as
the correct original spelling
Ruling
(1) It is hereby confirmed that the name Chtenopteryx Appell6f, 1890 is correctly
so spelled.
(2) The name Chtenopteryx Appelléf, 1890 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy Chtenopteryx fimbriatus Appelléf, 1890 (a junior subjective synonym of
Sepioteuthis sicula Verany, 1851), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.
(3) The name sicula Verany, 1851, as published in the binomen Sepioteuthis sicula
(a senior subjective synonym of Chienopteryx fimbriatus Appell6f, 1890, the type
species of Chtenopteryx Appellof, 1890), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 (type genus Chtenopteryx
Appellof, 1890) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology (corrected original spelling).
(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Ctenopteryx Joubin, 1900 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Chtenopteryx
Appellof, 1890);
(b) Ctenopteryx Pfeffer, 1900 (an unjustified emendation of Chtenopteryx
Appell6of, 1890 and a junior homonym of Crenopteryx Flach, 1889).
(6) The name CTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922 is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect
original spelling of CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922).
History of Case 2874
An application to confirm as correct the original spelling of Chtenopteryx
Appellof, 1890 was received from Drs Giambattista Bello (Istituto Arion, Mola di
Bari, Italy) and Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli (Palermo, Italy) on 27 January 1993.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 270-272 (December 1993).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
the proposals published in BZN 50: 271-272. At the close of the voting period on
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn,
Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink
Negative votes — 1: Heppell.
No votes were received from Halvorsen and Uéno.
Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence.
Heppell commented that in his view it was unnecessary to have brought the
application to the Commission’s attention.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 97
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:
CHTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922, Sitzungsberichte der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu
Leipzig, 45-48 (1918-1921): 45 (incorrectly spelled as CTENOPTERYGIDAE).
Chtenopteryx Apelléf, 1890, Bergens Museums Aarsberetning, 1889(33): 3.
CTENOPTERYGIDAE Grimpe, 1922, Sitzungsberichte der naturforschenden Gesellschaft zu Leipzig,
4548 (1918-1921): 45 (an incorrect original spelling of CHTENOPTERYGIDAE).
Ctenopteryx Joubin, 1900, Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques accomplies sur son yacht par
Albert Ier Prince Souverain de Monaco, 17: 9.
Ctenopteryx Pfeffer, 1900, Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 17:
171.
sicula, Sepioteuthis Verany, 1851, Mollusques Méditeranéens, part 1 (Céphalopodes de la
Méditerranée), p. 75.
98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
OPINION 1794
Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, [1777] (Insecta, Heteroptera): specific
name conserved, and Notonecta obliqua Thunberg, 1787: specific name
placed on the Official List
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name marginata Miller, 1776, as
published in the binomen Notonecta marginata, 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) coleoptrata Fabricius, [1777], as published in the binomen Sigara coleoptrata;
(b) obliqua Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Notonecta obliqua.
(3) The name marginata Miller, 1776, as published in the binomen Notonecta
marginata and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 2829
An application for the conservation of the specific name of Notonecta obliqua
Thunberg, 1787 by the suppression of the putative senior subjective synonym
N. marginata Miller, 1776 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 28 August 1991. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 50: 118-120 (June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals.
A comment from Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia),
published in BZN 51: 41-42 (March 1994), supported the placement on the Official
List of the specific name of the notonectid Notonecta obliqua, but identified the
supposed senior synonym N. marginata Miiller, 1776 as a synonym of the corixid
Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, [1777]. A reply by the authors of the application,
published at the same time, accepted the revised synonymy and proposed (BZN 51:
43) that Fabricius’s name should be conserved and placed on the Official List. This
additional proposal was included on the voting paper.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 50: 119 and 51: 43. At the close of the voting period on
1 December 1994 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis,
Kabata, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli (part), Nielsen, Nye, Savage,
Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink
Negative votes — 2: Cogger, Macpherson.
No votes were received from Bayer, Halvorsen and Uéno.
Dupuis, Kraus and Ride were on leave of absence.
Cogger commented that he would have voted for the application if it had included
the designation of a neotype for Notonecta obliqua. Heppell commented: ‘Vol. 2 of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995 99
the original Swansea edition of Turton’s translation of Gmelin’s (1790) work is dated
1800, and is thus two years earlier than the more common London edition cited by
the applicants (para. 3). This is purely bibliographical and does not affect the
nomenclatural issue’. Minelli commented: ‘I support proposals (1) and (3) of the
original application, as well as the amendment concerning Sigara coleoptrata, but I
reject proposal (2), to place on the Official List the specific name of Notonecta
obliqua, because the case does not actually involve this nominal species’.
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:
coleoptrata, Sigara, Fabricius, [1777], Genera insectorum ..., p. 298.
marginata, Notonecta, Miiller, 1776, Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et
Norvegiae indigenarum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium, p. 104.
obliqua, Notonecta, Thunberg, 1787, Donation Thunbergianae 1785, continuat. III. Museum
Naturalium Academiae Upsaliensis, p. 61, footnote.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Sigara coleoptrata
Fabricius, [1777]:
Jansson, A. 1986. Acta Entomologica Fennica, 47: 21.
100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(1) March 1995
OPINION 1795
Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 (currently Sigara (Tropocorixa)
sexlineata; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific name not conserved, and
that of C. confluens Fieber, 1851 placed on Official List
Ruling
(1) The name confluens Fieber, 1851, as published in the binomen Corisa confluens,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 2831
An application to conserve the specific name of Corisa sexlineata Reuter, 1882 by
the suppression of the senior subjective synonym C. confluens Fieber, 1851 was
received from Dr Antti Jansson (Zoological Museum, University of Helsinki, Finland)
on 29 August 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 124-126
(June 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.
The application was submitted for voting on 1 March 1994. The case received a
majority (17 votes in favour, 9 against) but failed by one vote to reach the necessary
two-thirds majority for the conservation of the junior name. Voting against, Dupuis
commented on his voting paper that the labels used in the Puton and Marmottan
collections in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (para. 2 of the
application) demonstrated the use of Fieber’s name confluens in the 19th century. The
name had been listed in Oshanin (1910) and Stichel (1955), which were classic works.
It was not clear that ‘considerable confusion’ would result from the retention of
Fieber’s name (there were not many specialists and no comments had been received).
Holthuis commented: ‘Evidently this is not a widely known species and only familiar
to taxonomists. I do not see that this case is important enough for the use of the
plenary powers by the Commission; for such minor name changes it is better to apply
the Code strictly’. Kabata commented: ‘The Principle of Priority is a linchpin of the
Code which must not be overridden unless there is clear evidence that this is necessary
for stability. The cited frequency of use (16 times during the last 45 years) of the
junior synonym is hardly overwhelming; much more frequently-used names have
been changed without causing a ripple in the world of systematics’. Stys commented:
‘I fail to see why the provisions of the Code should not be applied and priority
observed. Sigara sexlineata is by no means widely known or otherwise especially
important and the name Corisa confluens was used by Jordan (1953) and by Stichel
(1955)’. [Editorial note. Stichel also listed S. sexlineata; para. 4 of the application].
On 1 September 1994 the application was sent to the Commission for a revote
under the Bylaws. It was noted on the voting paper that the references cited and those
held by the Secretariat (para. 3 of the application) showed that the taxon had a wide
distribution (the Near and Middle East and the whole of Africa) and that in the
primary literature of the past half century only the junior name sex/ineata had been
adopted.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 1994 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the
proposals published in BZN 50: 125. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1994 the votes were as follows:
. J eee ea ss es 48
AGRODUNT Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) 0). Se ee ee . . 48
npn Se Motaciia emmineks)(1620]/(Aves)hy 8. re ws sen ea ee eso 61
americana, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera). . . ........2.2.2.. 159
angulosa, Madrepora, Pallas, 1766 (Anthozoa). ........2.2...2..2.. 142, 328
anomalus, Halictus, Robertson, 1892 (Hymenoptera)... ...........2.. 316
pnd Alduda Viciwot. ISIGi(AVES)) sss.’ act y e eee sh) ee ertemen. ) eee 61
PAEROTINSEO WENN [LOFTON CAVES)! <8 cf cot. at wh cise ee ee oe we eens 170, 346
Aprons Owens [US48]\(AVES\ 5 ee es se 170, 346
Prepare VMoMmciia~ Wilkes: *Lol7 (Aves)... SUP ONE R en OE ee 61
ARVIADITLIDAE Brandt, [183i]\(sopoda)..= . . . 2 2). Te 2 236
AVA D ELI DIID AB Brandt 1'833'(sopoda). . . 22. tis fh Nee 2 2236
Armadillidium Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831] (Isopoda) ........ . . .236
PAnmAnINON@uvier,1/92\(Diplopoda). % 7. ease fas oh ee ee ee POA. SO REI3G
ArmaationWwatreilles 1802) (Isopoda)..'s s » 2 2 S22 bee a ee Pe 2386
annanillomOniscus, binnaeuss 1/58 (sopoda)) Sos 92) Foo hee. es 0 3236
Arpidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera). ..............-. 44, 264
ASPiIDIPHORIDAE Kiesenwetter, 1877 (1859) (Coleoptera). . . . 2... .... 44, 264
Aspidipnorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera), . . 2... 2. 44, 264
Misnidopnoyrus Agassiz, U846i(Coleoptera):. 2. 2 2 se ek ee 44, 264
aspidophorus Wacepede; [1801]\(Osteichthyes). 2 . | . 2 2.2 2 2 a 57
ater, Heterocirrus, Quatrefages, 1865 (Polychaeta) ............. 27, 261, 329
atlantica, Viquesnelia, Morelet, 1860 (Gastropoda). . ............+.-. 150
ayarias Siboma, Girard +11856'(Osteichthyes): °. oS en 324
Haare Goelopnysiss (Gope, 1887)\(Reptilia) . . . = . « . ie. ed RR: Te 76
Borophaga Bnderlein O24 (Diptera). oss. . RE SEEE. e 181, 336
HopaGistelwls4en(Coleoptera)) ie a8 Ss 3 2 2 LORD) tS 44, 264
BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] (Coleoptera). . . . .......... 179, 335
BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Plecoptera). . . 2... 22s... WEY SBS:
Brachyura, Sylvia Vietlot.\[1820] (Aves) «= « » Sey L150. SU, eee 61
pramneas Gubaris, Brandt, 833i(Isopoda))... . 3 eeRPan't) 2) oe) ee, 153
BuacniaNConopslbinnacus, WooDIptera). = «ue. = = - ee tom We om wee 74
CACOSTERNINAE Noble, 1931 (Amphibia, Anura) ...........-.. 269, 342
carinata, Phyllophis, Giinther, 1864 (Reptilia). . . . 2... ee ee 166, 345
358 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995
cataphractus, Cottus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes). . ............... 57
cephalotes, Halictus, Dalla Torre, 1896 (Hymenoptera). . ............. 316
Ghloraliciaus Robertson, 1902 (Hymenoptera). tee. (ieee. 7) es eas cy ee 316
cinereus, |Oniscus;, Zenker,in' Panzer, 1/799 \(sopoda)) ...f5. 240. . «+ peer 236
Gitrinus’ Motacilig, WiKES: (LS LAICAVES), Ghicmcleieie) clk: PRE! clo, «ie | been ee 61
Goenomypia Vatreille;, 1796\(Diptera) yi, cyuvieret'ss ON boat waaeihsbNS ase anys EC 74
concharum, Dodecaceria, Orsted, 1843 (Polychaeta). . ......... . .27, 261, 329
Goniporns Thomson, 1859(Coleoptera)ie <= secu kcsesistte ty 29s phate site 44, 264
crassipes, Paraphronima, Claus, 1879 (Amphipoda) ................ 310
cressonii, Halictus, Robertson, 1892 (Hymenoptera) .............-+.-. 316
GUBARIDAE Brandt; 11833 ((sopoda)) .. cy... c., +) casnudacicos) GRE dyad ee a 153
Gubaris Billbere-11820/(sapoda)). c. mey asd: ops) Sean fe arte A Ts. ase civ ee 153
Gubaris Brandt, 1833) ((sopoda)) 4.) 4. ss hess 5 Bulb teas: lp caer Beem ellee]
Guniculus Brisson; 11762)\(Mammialia)) 3.) 2 ee 2) sagel eee ee = = 78, 187, 271, 347
Dendrophylia Blainville, 1830\(Anthozoa): 1...