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: LRG ea See 73 Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia) ................0.. 186, 271 magalhaensis, Paessleria, Michaelsen, 1907 (Tunicata). . . . .. 2... 2... ee 254 RAS TTOSITIS. AAUAd« Stephense L826) (AVeS)iv st. veel MERI A t dh) ORR SP 8 en SF RE 61 marginatus, Carabus, Linnaeus, 1758: (Coleoptera)... 2. . ee Sh WMepischyrus:Ccotch: (1873\(Coleoptera))| 2 20s Se eA) SR 73 Wiclanaphila Eschscholtz, 1/829)(Coleoptera)it, oes: 27) iene. a, Bea ® 70 Bele WETISSONWl7O2 CViamiMaAlia)s «ca! ss cela) orc Mace et LO 78, 187, 271, 347 Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Hymenoptera)... ... 2... 22 ee ee eee 54 Merapiycuss Viercetaoli). (Elymenoptera)).,... ee ee) al mee a RR, as 313 mexicanus, Diplocentrus, Peters, 1861 (Arachnida). ................. 37 Micropasiies Warncke,) 1983) (Elymenoptera), ... 2 cidahe ON V2). AiO Se ee, 157 MOnsiivia Danaaissol (Copepoda)... <9. eagee ls ES Sk aD AE, 245 MONSDRILLIDAB, Danas 1849)\(Copepoda) auc) oe 2 Swati) Jf. eed e245 mnoniang,,.fotaciila: Walkes* 18177 ((Aves)is 92) ba) OL OD, OE ek 61 monticoia. OenanthesWVieilot, isis: (Aves) ss. « < = ar . teeth) 287.) aah Ae 61 Waucnserelia schevill950)(Gephalopoda)) | 5 (202) svensk. ema SUE). ae Bes 65 Muriioe Cubaris, Brandt,633)(SOpOda)).\ >. - Arent. leh.) Whee sts aks 153 muscorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) ...............-+.-. 76 MassaOKen a8 5 i(Anthozoa)il 2) sea (el Ok ee eet ee erie eed se 142, 328 360 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 MUSSIDAE Ortmann) 1890/(Anthozoa)y..05 .ypleicetieeed ts SAS See) use 142, 328 Myicoiretus Macordaire; 1842. (Coleoptera), 2. ea. sh) 28) |. gestae 73 Myopa: Babricmis 1775 (Diptera) essen eis)... » bese) Sa) ie, tan 74 udbirop, Sturnus, Temmumcks1807\(Aves): . .aeegett) Fi Ate eet ase en 61 Nectria Grays SA0)(Asteroidea) as os 2), ell nn . ... vweciaSeot 4) A) tee cee ee 254 pallidus, |Zosterops, Swainson, [1837]\(Aves) . . . 2 2. . « epee St) Sisei dee 61 Paralictus) Robertson, 1901 (iiymenoptera)... . . «eee. 21) oe 316 parvulus:*Dacus, Wendel 1912i(Diptera) Wars.) «|= oy 4 Be kept ae) oe 250 pedestris, Hyperia, Guérin-Meéneville, 1836 (Amphipoda) .. ............ 310 pensylvanica, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera)... ........... 159 Pentheus Koch, [1844] \((sopoda)-.- ).), ot tune ey ae |. eile Oe eee 236 percutiens: Alauda Wilkess\|{796]) (Aves) 22) 0-4 Geant.) 2.0: hese Geese 61 PETROPEDETINAE Noble, 1931 (Amphibia, Anura). ............ 269, 342 Phaenops Dejeans 1835) (Coleaptera): (geist) ~~. Capea ees, cate 70 Philadelphica, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera). . . ........... 159 (Philander, Brisson3))762.\ (Mammalia) meres 8 a ws es is 78, 187, 271, 347 phoenicopterus, Lamprotornis, Swainson, [1837] (Aves). . . . - - . 2 2 se ee ee 61 PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura) . . ...... .- 269, 342 phyllophis, Coluber, Boulenger, 1891 (Reptilia)... . 2... 2... ee ee 166, 345 plana: Nena: Sulzer, 1.776) (Heteroptera)! 4.0) cei ee ees Deen 40 PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann; 1837 (Coleoptera): sec0e. 0202 aia 1. ee 48 Platycnemas Nordmann,) 1837 (Coleoptera)! & .) 2) 2) cy 1 aie Pe 48 Plutonia hicks 87 (iiilobitajmaue teak. caressa PC. ve a 150 Plutonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864 (Gastropoda) . . . . 1... 2 ee ee es 150 PLUTONIAINAE Cockerell, 1893 (Gastropoda) . 2... 6 ee eee ee 150 PEUTONIINAE Bollman! 1'893i(Chilopoda) .. {jsptoseeie- 0.) LEAL ae ene 150 PEWRONEINAE GCockerell) 1893:(Gastropoda))........ teh meksc-2). 0082 cs eine 150 Phitonium’ Cayanna;1880\(Chilopoda)) S205) -(eenses ff) bt) eet) SAG Bae 150 poecilogyrus, Coluber, Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (Reptilia)... ...........- 77 Poritesi@uviesel 798 (Anthozma)-o96 tes cha. SER RIAL Py Sane oc 142, 328 Porites Link, 1307\(Anthozoa)) <\..-. >. -.<,.-. % LAS Lees. Sarin eer 142, 328 porites, Madrepora, Pallas, 1766 (Anthozoa). . . .... 1. 2s ee ee eee 142, 328 PORTTIDAE Griys 1842 (Anthozod) © 1c). Prensa 1.78 OF eens Pea 142, 328 praealtus, Cyclodomorphus, Osborne, 1994 (Reptilia). . . . . 6. 2 ee ee es 257 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 361 praealtus, Cyclodomorphus, Shea, 1995 (Reptilia). . 2. 2 6 2. we ee ee 257 progracile, Rhabdomeson, Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 (Bryozoa). . ....... 162 pseudobrowniana, Scottia, Kempf, 1971 (Ostracoda)... ... 2.2... ee ee 178, 263 pieradiscus Pilsbry.1893\(Gastropoda) <_< =| wee ee ke) EAE) cries aman. fe 148 Pizropus Brisson, L762) (Mamimalia)) oe 3 am Spe Gs sil wy ets) Sw 78, 187, 271, 347 Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912 (Trilobita). ..............-.. 34, 262 pustulatus. Oniscus. Fabricius, 1781 (Diplopoda)) . ew ee te 236 quadrilineatus, Phacops, Angelin, [1851] (Trilobita) . . 2... ......2.22. 34, 262 OUEDIIND Kraatz Vs71(Goleoptera): 3% oo 6 aes et eee ee se ee 48 neds stephens, 1829! (Coleoptera)’ . 3 . 2 GRA it) eel ia ele 48 ramen. Madrepora, Lannaeus, 1758 (Anthozoa) .> 5°. 295 2 2s 2. Se Se. 142, 328 Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa)..... 1... 5.2.5.8 5508. 162 riccartonensis, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina) ............ 319 EOMnOLTUSSOs A laudd., Wakes si|1/96]!(AVES)is oc! 2 Ghee es we ee ew 61 RAUTUCT OD ISOINGNSANIONY TL GLO(UUNIGHtA)! .0%) Gm Glee al ein ce) em Ge on 254 Rujus MACALODAcUssRaDiCIISs 792 (Coleoptera) — co = a vc) eh serie ss = 71 Pugs SCOKADOCUS WON i722 (COLEOPLETA) «oa. vs el eh eigrais cues) © ye) Gs) eke 71 mushco-Nepa:, Eabiclus..ly 7a) (Heteroptera), 24: ss ao i 3 eg ee He 40 Fushicd.WNepa, babliclus, 781 (eteroptera) «2 sa. ee os ee ee es 40 saxicola, Heterocirrus, Grube, 1855 (Polychaeta). ........... . .27, 261, 329 scotia Brady & Norman; 1889\(Ostracoda). - .: 2... 2. ee 178, 263 scybalarius, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera). . . ..........-.-2.-. 71 sextentaculata, Nereis, delle Chiaje, 1822 (Polychaeta). ........... 27, 261, 329 Rycnata Diichis alr OoK(DIptena):. ete We. oetelwes cp ae) 28. wee en SAA oun 74 SICHSPSCOPOM al OID Iptera) ae Fests) GW awstats, «We ee Ate, wate eth Seo 74 saree Aplysia. Ranga 1828\(Gastropoda)i 2 . 6 nw 2b ye ales s oe oe fo 2, 260 Sanoerocera loatrele. L804 (Diptera): ce. ce 2s 8 soe sk Ses we 181, 336 SPHINDIDAE Jacquelin du Val, [1861] (Coleoptera). . . 2... 2.2.2.2... .. 44, 264 Sphindus Megerle in Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera). .. ...........2.4.. 44, 264 SIDSSIVEs eAcriaia eMconte: lave (Coleoptera) =. i. ces ge ee ee gs Gee 71 sprengerae, Iodotropheus, Oliver & Loiselle, 1972 (Osteichthyes). . . . 2... .... 321 squammosa, Virgulina, d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) . .........2.... 175 COS FOINDILALKS wlO5on(Lotitera) 8. sae cee ole Me eee Oe, Pees 18, 259 stollii, Zaitha, Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Heteroptera)... 2... 1... 2. eee 40 subsultans. Musca, Jinnaeus,. 17/67 (Diptera)# .92 2. 2 0 2 et 181, 336 HapirussBrisson.1762,(Mamimalia)\. . a. 402 2 «es ee et 78, 187, 271, 347 RGHETIC BIVIOLACIIA WAKES MUO UTC AVES) cade, sakthicues tie sme ol Ai eete ele 61 PCEECSINIS SADIS eliOnaAcis ly Sau (ELYMEROPteLa)! 26s 3 es ees oe me 76 Winaumalcyus Kroyer 1849) (Copepoda)... es . 6 we ee ie ee ss AAD ME QUBIGLOESSIL AGINC eS OSI AVES) cosy enc: « by Mes eh FS esl es Se ey ee 245 Thaumatoessa Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842] (Copepoda) ............. . .245 TRIPLES BISSODN i O2iQVMAMIOIALA) eerste ts eA wl Ae teat 78, 187, 271, 347 Hropidoptera Ancey; 1889\(Gasttopoda) . . . 3. 2. 2 6 ew Be ee ee 148 typica, Thaumatoessa, Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842] (Copepoda). ......... . .245 MARIE SOUS MORISCUS. VIUELS. U/G9\(NSOPOdA)) ce) i es eee es es 236 Manis Monstrilia: Dana. 1849)(Gopepoda) 39. 2 = s 6 =o ew 2 ee @ on ee 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 viridis, Motacilla; Wilkes? 1817 (Awves)'0" .: |: {SUB epast) FRET ol Pee) ae 61 vulgaris, Armadillo, Latreille, 1804 (Isopoda) ...... 2... 2. ee eee ee 236 vulgaris, Loligo, Lamarck, 1798 (Cephalopoda). ................ 24, 333 vulgaris, Octopus, Cuvier, [1797] (Cephalopoda) .. 2.0... 2... 2 24, 333 wesleyi, Endodonta (Pterodiscus), Sykes, 1896 (Gastropoda)... .......... 148 WAN THOLININGErchson1839%(Coleoptera), os ase ue, oc se 48 Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Hymenoptera) 2). 2)... a ee 157 zebratus, Aphycus, Mercet; 191\7 (Hymenoptera); - =. iikpeeie 4) V2) eee ee 313 zwierleini, Plutonium, Cavanna, 1881 (Chilopoda) .............2.2..+s 150 Brisson, M.J. 1762. Regnum Animale in classes 1X distributum, sive synopsis methodica trea ae a ees), Seti ledepyaesh Arsnveeel asitscninys 78, 187, 271, 347 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 363 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned. General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. “Daudin (1800, p. 39) described .. .’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers cf volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application. 364 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 52(4) December 1995 PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF VOLUME 52 (1995) Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication 1-116 30 March 1995 2 117-224 30 June 1995 3 225-288 28 September 1995 4 289-364 20 December 1995 INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER The present volume should be bound up as follows: Title page, Table of Contents (I-VII), 1-364 Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume 6\ Contents — continued On the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Sais 1838 as the ae species. S. Salvidio; A. Dubois . On the proposed conservation of the eet -group name PHRYNOBATRACHINAE Laurent, 1941 (Amphibia, Anura). B.T. Clarke; A. Dubois . On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Phyllophis carinata Gunton 1864 (Reptilia, Serpentes). J.R. Dixon; T. Hikida On the proposed conservation of Aprornis Owen, [1848] (Aves). B. J. Gill: wW. dU. ‘Bock On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. A. Gentry . Indexes, ete. Authors in volume 52 (1995) Names and works placed on Official Lists oad ere in anes of the eoeunaen published in volume 52 (1995) . : Key names and works in Applications and Comments published in ivolume 52 (1995). Information and instructions for authors . z Publication dates and pagination of volume 52 (1995). Instructions to binder . : Table of Contents of volume 52 (1995) CONTENTS Notices . . Election of the Presidiznt aa the temastional cc ommission on 2 Zale pical Memtncde: ture . Towards Stability i in the Nimes of Renin: ; : Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Motrenclature : The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in er id — Secon d Supplement to 1990 . ; : Stree The European Association for Zoological Nomenclature. Financial Report for 1994 Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition ‘of the Tnterational Gude of Zaclenes 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 . j : General Article The changing paradigms of biological systematics: new acta to the principles and practice of biological nomenclature. A. Minelli ae Applications Paraphronima crassipes Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. W. Zeidler . 5 Metaphycus Mercet, 1917 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): propaeed Siicie over ae sioidea Girault, 1911. J.S. Noyes & J.B. Woolley . : Dialictus Robertson, 1902 and Chloralictus Robertson, 1902 ionceia Hi ecenaioaa proposed precedence over Paralictus Robertson, 1901. C.D. Michener Monograptus riccartonensis Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina): proposed sig get ai a neotype. D.K. Loydell . nile: Iodotropheus sprengerae Oliver & eisclls, 1972 (Osteichthyes, Penance oe posed replacement of holotype by a neotype. J.R. Stauffer, Jr. Siboma atraria Girard, 1856 (currently Gila atraria; Osteichthyes, Cypanionaeal 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 oe li Blainville, 1830 ae Scleractinia). B.R. Rosen . On the proposed conservation of the eae names of Dodeemenn conchara 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 Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, mcs Sama D.T. Donovan; M. Vecchione & M.J. Sweeney; J.B. Messenger On the proposal to remove the homonymy between BRACHYPTERINAE Benchcow [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecop- tera), and proposed precedence of KATERETIDAE agains 1899 over BRACH- YPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]. A.F. Newton WAR ae nb Sesetorss On the proposed conservation of Sphaerocera janelle! 1804 and Borophaga Enderlein, 1924 (Insecta, Diptera). R.H.L. Disney . On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Paviewvell, "1856 > (Amphibia Caudata). A. Dubois Page 289 290 290 290 291 291 291 292 294 303 310 313 316 319 321 324 328 329 331 333 335 336 337 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset