RD & W 2001 The Bulletin Zoological Nomenclature WG ZING The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 53, 1996 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 wig See S ee ee as wee er er roe } R ww de " ati Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . : The International erpratetion! on Zaplosical ere nelaiare seid its publications Addresses of members of the Commission International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Call for nominations for new members of the Infecianonel Chane in on Zoological Nomenclature . F International Congress on Systematic ad Eyotasorary Biolony: Bidapee ie 24 August 1996. A Fourth Edition of the itevaationa Code of Zoolepical Nemenulatine : Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zeoleeical Nomenclature. Comments by W.D.L. Ride; W.J. Bock; A. Smetana; D. Agassiz; G. Rosenberg; S. Shattuck; N.L. Evenhuis; T. Miura; H. Malicky; J. Noyes; C.W. Sabrosky; D.K. McAlpine & G. Cassis; M. Wilkinson; R.W. Gea scientific staff of The Natural History Museum, London Applications Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913 (Nematoda): proposed designation of Dorylaimus brachyuris de Man, 1880 as the type species. P.A.A. Loof & J. Heyns . Cacoxenus indagator Loew, 1858 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the generic and specific names. V.S. Sidorenko . ; Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primate): proposed conser- vation of the specific name. C.P. Groves . : Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal fete names based on wild ie which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock & C.P. Groves. : D.L.G. Karsten (1789), Museum Leskeanum, vol. 1 (Repacn Animale): - proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. G. Rosenberg . Comments On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky; B. Hausdorf : On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Octopus spleen eortey [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). M. Nixon. On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. K. Fauchald, P.A. Hutchings, T. Miura & A.J. Muir . j On the proposed conservation afi Windstrilia ines 1849 pat Thaimnales Kaen 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda). C.C. Davis . On the proposal to remove the homonymy between BRACHYPTERINAE + Beceem, [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecop- tera), and proposed precedence of KATERETIDAE Ganglbauer, 1899 over BRACH- YPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]. R.G. Booth . d On the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Ganda) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species. H.M. Smith, D.B. Wake & M.R. Jennings . ¢ jScoenan video On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 eoee Caudata). H.M. Smith & D:B. Wake . ; On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Phyllophis carinata Ganthes 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata; Reptilia, Serpentes). M. Toriba . 43 45 45 46 47 48 48 50 Il Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1822. Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud, 1831 (currently Aegopinella nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Gastropoda): speene names conserved, and a neotype designated for H. nitidula . : OPINION 1823. Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): aged. OPINION 1824. Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. OPINION 1825. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintill- atrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix. . . OPINION 1826. Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Been 1833 (insesta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila. OPINION 1827. Hydrophoria Robineau- mean? 1830 Gasectas intra) Mics lancifer Harris, lela pone as the type species, and a nee designated for M. lancifer ‘ OPINION 1828. Apis terrestris eanaeas. 1758, re muscorum Linnaeus, 1758 id A. lucorum Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Bombus terrestris, B. muscorum and B. lucorum) and Bombus humilis Uliger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific names conserved, and neotypes designated for B. terrestris and B. muscorum . OPINION 1829. MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling emended to MEGALODONTESIDAE, so removing the homonymy with MEGALODONT- IDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . OPINION 1830. CAECILIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Reaconiee): pallae emeaded to CAECILIUSIDAE, so removing the homonymy with CAECILIIDAE Bahncaisn 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) . OPINION 1831. Plesiosaurus rugosus Geen. 1840 (nannies SPR ES es rugosUs; Reptilia, Plesiosauria): neotype designated . . OPINION 1832. Coluber poecilogyrus Wied- Meuaed "[1824] ESE Liophis poecilogyrus) (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved . OPINION 1833. Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Tec 1807 (currently Calyptorhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, Psittaciformes): specific names conserved . Information and Instructions for Authors . Notices . z Towards Stability i in io Nace of Aeatalee Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — iSécond d Supplement to 1990 . : : ir as The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature : International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary BiolaEy: Bidanese 173 24 August 1996. Fs RS Se The European Association fot Zoological imines! Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the Jnternational Code af maalaeiad Nomenclature. Comments. D.G. Reid, K. Sattler & R.W. Crosskey; R.G. Oberprieler; C.D. Michener; L.B. Holthuis; M. Judson; D. Kadolsky; S.H. McKamey; G.C.D. Griffiths; F.-T. Krell; N.Ju. ick V.O. Becker; S. Endrédy-Younga, C.H. Scholtz, C.D. Eardley et al. Applications Hapalotrema Looss, 1899 (Digenea): proposed designation of H. /oossi Price, 1934 as the type species. T.R. Platt & D. Blair. Nite 8) ais CN eeeed 51 53 54 57 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74 76 77 78 78 79 79 79 80 89 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa): Ebene designation of a replacement neotype. J.S. Ryland & P.S. Cadman . BPP Sa: MUNA ES S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue of Wi oe: Wide Shells: proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. A.R. Kabat . - Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp 1882 (nseeta: Coleoptera): proposed conservation. M. Hansen . Stilpon Loew, 1859 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. Ne iGaciine & N.L. Evenhuis . Labrus Linnaeus, 1758, Cicklanema Gaenices 1839 ail Paice ees Miiller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758. R. Fricke & C.J. Ferraris Holotropis herminieri Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (currently eracephale Veranens and Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (currently Liolaemus bibronii) (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific names. H.M. Smith & E.L. Bell. Tyrannula minima Baird & Baird, 1843 (currently Empidonax minimus) and Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. R.C. Banks & M.R. Browning . Comments On the proposal to remove the homonymy between PLUTONIINAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and PLUTONIINAE Cockerell, 1893 (Mollusca, Gastro- poda). P. Bouchet; T. Backeljau & R.M. Shelley . thks On the proposed conservation of the generic name Gaus Lareille, “1802 (Diplopoda) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda), and the application for a ruling on the status of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda). M. Tavares; G.C.B. Poore; A.B. Williams . On the proposed conservation of the generic names Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (Crustacea, Ses D.M. Damkaer; A.B. Williams; G.C.B. Poore On the proposed popeea ties ao ie ae names of Bahodas: ee (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) (Insecta, * Coleoptera). P. Szwalko; F.-T. Krell On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 maria Ste. names bedi on a will species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. R.H. Meadow. ot Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1834. Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida): conserved. OPINION 1835. Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Annelida, Beer given precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 ; OPINION 1836. Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (omered: Ostracoda) Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 designated as the type species . . . OPINION 1837. Oniscus asellus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Capea Isopoda: neotype designated : OPINION 1838. Tevepiarcia How 1837 (ine. iColeapreray! contented OPINION 1839. Coproica Rondani, 1861 and Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved by the designation of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of Coproica . OPINION 1840. Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, "1846 Gane Femina ee Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated OPINION 1841. Scomber déntex Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (eonent arin or Pseudocaranx dentex) and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names conserved . Ete) EP tena tee eee Il 96 99 120 122 123 138 140 IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 OPINION 1842. Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently ae a eae bauri; eg Saurischia): lectotype replaced by a neotype. : ‘ Notices . ; Fourth Edition ae tie Intemational Gade Gf Zoological Morenclanies : Towards Stability in the Names of Animals. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoolog) — Second d Supplement fe) 1990 . c 5 Pee, The International Gore & Moclonieet Romeacintire ; General Article Draft BioCode: prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. Applications Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation by the designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. D.R. Calder & P.F.S. Cornelius : Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Miolinsea, Gasopeds): proposed eeneeton ae ahaa nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 as the type species. J. Hertz & W. Ponder. Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 (currently Bathyarca pectunculoides and B. philippiana; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the specific names. C. Salas & S. Gofas Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed cotiservation of the specific name. W. Zeidler . Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): proposed devedanon ik Aurypa ines Vanuxem, 1842 as the type species. F. Alvarez. Hemidactylus garnotii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia Sqeamatey: propreed conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, A.G. Kluge, A.M. Bauer & D. Chiszar : Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] sath Troglodyte tes pegen Vieillot, [1809] (ves Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. M.R. Browning & R.C. Banks . : Comments On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and pea rufa (Fabricius, 1792) Gees Coleoptera). D. Kral On the proposed conservation Bs some Tarim eee names tae published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. H.H. Kolb; P. Lips On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names bad on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. D.W. Yalden; G.B. Corbet; L. Bartosiewicz; S.M. Stallibrass; A. Gautier; A. Kitchener; W.F.H. Ansell; A. Azzaroli; R.J. Berry; L.M. Gosling; S. Tonge: S.K. Eltringham; C.S. Churcher; D.L. Harrison & P.J.J. Bates; N. Spassov; T.P. O’Connor; A.M. Muiiz; P.A. Jewell; J. Skinner et al. . Reiner ce pre Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1843. Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): conserved, and Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 designated as the type species OPINION 1844. Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved one OPINION 1845. Tropidoptera Angey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): ‘Endodonta wesleyi Sykes, 1896 designated as the type species ope OPINION 1846. fren Delo, 1935 and kabel Campbell, 1967 (Tritoita: conserved . 187 191 191 192 201 203 204 205 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 OPINION 1847. Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): rediscovered holotype confirmed as the name-bearing type . Ss Werk ature OPINION 1848. Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, pee generic and specific names conserved . : OPINION 1849. Livoneca Leach, 1818 (Ginstaccas oop the oaeaalt epatiae confirmed as correct, and the spelling Lironeca rejected . . . OPINION 1850. Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Dain & Beenie 1843 (currently Diplonychus rusticus and Belostoma stollii; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific names conserved . . OPINION 1851. XANTHOLININI Erichsou, 1839 andid QUEDIINI ‘Kasai [1857] (nee: Coleoptera): given precedence over some senior synonyms; Quedius Stephens, 1829: Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 designated as the type species he OPINION 1852. Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific names conserved : OPINION 1853. Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Insecta, Hymedopieny eamebales oxianus Popov, 1951 designated as the type species . OPINION 1854. Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (any Riahaseon progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 designated as the type species OPINION 1855. Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): conserved; and AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended to AGONUMIDAE, so removing the a ae with AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) OPINION 1856. Lycognathophis Boulenger, "1893 (Reptilia, CORES), semen etl - Information and Instructions for Authors . Notices . : Election of enmen oP the see ines Goranie tons on Zoological Nomerclames Towards Stability in the Names of Animals. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology = Second d Supplement to ODO eR a, ME a SR 6 NE Sn i ily aaa Financial Report fon 1995 ‘ The International Commission on Zapleeical Nipnieneinares — Recon = General Session, Budapest, 16-23 August 1996. I.U.B.S. Section of Zoological Nomenclature — Report a Meeting and Workshop, Budapest, 19 August 1996 ‘ Call for a new International Congress of Zaolaen F. D. Re & R. M. polymer : General Article Origins of the terms Cephalopod, Cephalopoda and pe and any sub- divisions of the Mollusca. D. T. Donovan ; : : Applications Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949, Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 and Belemnoteuthis montefiorei Buckman, 1880 (Mollusca, Coleoidea): proposed conservation. T. Engeser & D.T. Donovan . Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed deseuaten 63 Fier unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 as the type species. A.D. Austin, J.T. Jennings & M.S. Harvey . Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): aaaeared dete toe BE Spirifer ake atus Hall, 1857 as the type species. F. Alvarez. Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 (currently Retiolites geinitzianus; (Gace lithina): proposed designation of a neotype. D.K. Loydell & P. Storch 247 VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): proposed precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833]. O. Rieppel & P.D. Brinkman. Comments On the proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes of S.D. Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells (1973-1992). Y. Finet; M.G. ie ella & R.E. Petit; P. Bouchet; A.G. Beu; A.J. Kohn; T. Schiotte On the proposed conservation of the generic name Glomeris Renee 1802 (Diplo- poda) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda), and the application for a ruling on the status of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda). P.T. Lehtinen . On the proposed conservation of the generic names Crenitis Bedel, “1881, Geonican Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera). A. Smetana On the proposed conservation of some mammal generic names first published in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. C. Dupuis; A. Gentry; V.E. Sokolov . On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. E.A. Voigt; A.V. Abramov; H. Gee; A.W. Gentry. Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1857. Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Blasto- thrix isomorpha Sugonjaey, 1964 designated as the type species . F OPINION 1858. Nectria Gray, 1840 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): Nec Gecliata Perrier, 1875 designated as the type species . OPINION 1859. Nine specific names of southern Atotanical bade conse Indexes, etc. Authors in volume 53 (1996) Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in aalines of the Caminission pected in volume 53 (1996) . ; Key names and works in Applications ye Necnsaicate pablishedd in ‘altigic 53 (1996). Information and instructions for authors . Publication dates and pagination of volume 53 (1996). Instructions to binder . . . Table of Contents of volume 53 (1996) 270 273 ‘277 The : Bulletin 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 1996 is £92 or $175, 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) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof A. Minelli (/taly) Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr V. Mahnert Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza DrH.G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Prof Dr G. Hahn (Germany, Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia) (Norway; Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) Mr D. Heppell (U.K; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Prof L. B. Holthuis Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (The Netherlands; Crustacea) (Russia; Mollusca) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (Germany; Arachnology) (Russia; Hymenoptera) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1996 A riods RY 1 12 APR 4 PURCH LO Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE 1700 Volume 53, part 1 (pp. 1-76) 29 March 1996 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 52, part 4 (published on 20 December 1995). Under Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published. (1) Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2998). C.P. Groves. (2) Umbellula Cuvier, 1798 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling. (Case 2999). F.M. Bayer & M. Grasshoff. (3) Voluta bidentata Montagu, 1808 (currently Auriculinella bidentata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3000). F. Giusti & G. Manganelli. (4) Lactura Walker, 1854 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. (Case 3001). J.B. Heppner. (5) Papilio camillus Fabricius, 1781 (currently Cyrestis camillus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3002). T.B. Larsen. (6) Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 as the type species. (Case 3003). F. Alvarez. (7) LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 and GALAGIDAE Gray, 1825 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation as the correct original spellings. (Case 3004). J.H. Schwartz, J. Shoshani, I. Tattersall, E.L. Simons & G. Gunnell. (8) Crotalus ruber Cope, 1892 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence over C. exsul Garman, 1884. (Case 3005). H.M. Smith, L.E. Brown, D. Chiszar, L.L. Grismer, B.D. Hollingsworth, J.A. McGuire, P. Strimple & V. Wallach. mV wi & 195% iBRAI ee EE 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 (9) Pisidium lilljeborgii Clessin in Esmark & Hoyer, 1886 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3006). H. Kuiper. (10) Trematospira Hall, 1858 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857 as the type species. (Case 3007). F. Alvarez. (11) Euchilus Sandberger, 1870 and Stalioa Brusina, 1870: proposed designation of Bithinia deschiensiana Deshayes, 1862 and Paludina desmarestii Prévost, 1821 as the respective type species, with the conservation of Bania Brusina, 1896 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). (Case 3008). D. Kadolsky. : (12) Polyrachis Smith, 1857 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed precedence over Myrma Billberg, 1820. (Case 3009). W.H.O. Dorow, R.J. Kohout & R.W. Taylor. ‘ (13) Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. (Case 3010). A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock & C.P. Groves. (d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 by the Third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 26 zoologists from 17 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions (including palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences (UBS), and members are elected by zoologists attending General Assemblies of IUBS 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 (see pp. 5-17). 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 instruc- tions on the back page 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 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 E) 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 assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint and donations to the Trust are gratefully received. For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities see BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991). A Centenary History of the Commission — Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — was published in 1995 and is obtainable from the Secretariat. Addresses of members of the Commission Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, U.S.A. Dr P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia (Vice-President) Prof J.O. CORLISS P.O. Box 13191, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87192, 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-20146 Hamburg 13, Germany Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500 Turku 50, Finland (Councillor) 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Dr E. MACPHERSON Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08039 Barcelona, Spain Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire naturelle, Case postale 434, CH-1211 Geneve 6, Switzerland Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 7172, 04263 Sao Paulo, Brazil Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padoya, Italy (President) Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kobenhavn, Denmark Dr I.W.B. NYE clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (Secretary-General) Prof W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia (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 Jnstitut fiir Zoologie, Universitdét Graz, Universitdtsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz, Austria Dr Ya.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitet- skaya naberezhnaya 1, St Petersburg 199034, Russia Dr P. STYS Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniéna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya naberezhnaya I, St Petersburg 199034, Russia International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Members Prof 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 Dr O. Kraus (Germany) Dr A.M. Lister (U.K.) Dr M. Luc (France) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) Prof A. Minelli (Italy) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.) Dr M.J. Oates (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) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 5 Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature There are vacancies on the Commission, and nominations of potential candidates for membership are invited. Nominations should be sent to the Executive Secretary by 1 June 1996; for details see BZN 52: 118. Further vacancies have arisen by the resignations of Dr F.C. Thompson (U.S.A., Diptera) and Dr S.-I. Uéno (Japan, Entomology). International Congress on Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Budapest, 17-24 August 1996 This Congress (ICSEB V) is being hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences at the Education Centre, Budapest. Details of the numerous symposia and other activities may be obtained from the programme co-ordinator: Dr Istvan Molnar, Department of Genetics, Eétvés University, Muzeum krt 4/A, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary (fax +—36—-1—266-2694, e-mail molnari@ludens.elte.hu). The symposia will include one for the discussion of the proposed fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see BZN 52: 120, 121-125). All zoologists attending ICSEB V will be able to take part in elections to fill vacancies on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature A discussion draft of a new (fourth) edition of the Code is available. Copies have been sent without charge to all subscribers to the Bulletin and to members of the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature. Any other institution or individual may order a copy from the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD. The cost of printing and postage is about £3 or US$5. Bank charges on currency exchange make it uneconomic to pay this amount except in sterling or US dollars. The draft of the Code will therefore be sent free of charge, but those able to pay in sterling or US dollars are asked to enclose a cheque for £3 or US$5 to cover the cost. Before completing the definitive text of the Fourth Edition, the Commission will (in accordance with Article 16 of its Constitution) take into account all comments and suggestions on the draft submitted within one year of its original distribution, i.e. by 31 May 1996. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (See also BZN 52: 228-233, 294-302) The following are amongst the comments which have been received. Further comments are invited; they should be sent as soon as possible to the Executive Secretary of the Commission. All comments received by 31 May 1996 will be fully considered by the Code Editorial Committee, whether or not they have been published in the Bulletin. (1) W.D.L. Ride (Chairman, Editorial Committee) Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia Article 11b in the discussion draft was prepared by the Editorial Committee to meet the objective of facilitating the introduction of names into the zoological literature by ensuring that every new name (no matter how obscurely or inaccessibly published) is made known to zoologists through the widest and most generally available medium, as well as in its original published work. This would reduce the likelihood of the subsequent discovery of overlooked names and displacement by them of synonyms that had been widely publicized from their initial publication. Considering that zoologists would be unlikely to agree to a proposal that to become available every new name must be ‘registered’ with a central authority (as occurs in microbiology and is proposed for botany), with both availability and date of precedence determined by the act of registration, the Editorial Committee proposed for discussion that, while precedence would continue to be determined from the date of publication of the original work, to be available a new name must be recorded as such in Zoological Record within five years of its initial publication. Authors are urged to assume responsibility for ensuring that the journal or monograph in which their new name is published is a work that is scanned by Zoological Record (proposed Recommendation 11A); the support of other zoologists using as yet unrecorded names is also envisaged (Recommendations 11B and 11C). Comments on the draft (e.g. Crosskey, BZN 52: 229-232) have drawn attention to the difficulty presented by the period of uncertainty or ‘provisional availability’ of new names resulting from this proposal. There have also been objections to Zoological Record being used in this way on grounds of its inaccessibility to some authors. An alternative to making listing in Zoological Record a condition of availability has been proposed to the Editorial Committee, namely that listing should affect only the relative precedence of new names, leaving their availability unaffected. By affecting validity only, such a provision would continue to support the principle that very obscure and unnoticed names should not be introduced retrospectively to displace names that have become used widely (even in a short time), but would not remove from authors the right to propose and make available names in whatever vehicle of publication they choose. It would maintain the continued availability of overlooked names to be used as valid when they did not threaten names in use. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 7 The proposed use of Zoological Record would be maintained as the best means of notifying publication of new names. As well as being published on paper, Zoological Record is accessible electronically and on compact disk; this is of especial value to those outside major institutions. Its use on international electronic networks will increase steadily and, with the already agreed participation of its publishers, it will be easily possible for zoologists to determine free of charge whether a name has been recorded or not, or whether a work is scanned by Zoological Record (see Rosenberg, BZN 52: 300). As an example of the way in which a shift of the proposal to one that affected validity rather than the availability of a name could work, if only one of two available synonyms had been recorded within five years by Zoological Record, that name would have precedence over the other (which would remain available for use as a valid name when not regarded as synonymous with the recorded name). If neither name had been recorded, the normal rules for determining validity would apply. Both advantages and disadvantages can be foreseen. The Editorial Committee invites comment. (2) Walter J. Bock Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York 10027-7004, U.S.A. I should like first to make four general comments on the draft. (a) I consider that no rules in the Code should rely on the subjective judgments of zoologists, and that the need to refer cases to the Commission should be avoided wherever possible. (b) I urge strongly that a statement be inserted early in the Code that the name of the author and the date of publication are integral parts of the scientific name of any taxon. This is quite fundamental: for example, Procellaria Linnaeus, 1766 is not the same as Procellaria Linnaeus, 1758. (c) All the efforts of the Commission to conserve names are negated by the lack of any appropriate provision in the Code (cf. Article 78f). I know that the 1958 International Congress of Zoology failed to ratify the earlier rules and the original purpose of the Official Lists, but this does not prevent the Commission from formulating adequate rules; this must be done in the present revision of the Code. This matter and the proposed Lists of Available Names in particular taxonomic groups are so important that they should not be immersed in Articles 77 and 78, which deal with the powers and duties of the Commission; they should have Articles of their own. I would recommend strongly that names on the Official Lists should have precedence over other names, as many zoologists already believe to be the case; if not, then a clear statement must be made as to the purpose of the Lists. (d) The Editorial Committee have evidently decided that the numbering of Articles in the new Code should be exactly the same as in the current edition. While this is useful in principle, it is my strong feeling that the result is that material is put together into Articles in a confused way and that some material that should be placed prominently very early in the Code only appears much later, simply in order to preserve the numbering system. I urge that the primary concern should be the proper position of material in order to make the Code clearer to users. Some specific points are as follows (I have supplied a considerable number of other details to the Editorial Committee). Article 1b(3): the expression ‘hybrids as such’ is 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 confusing; the position with regard to taxa which are of hybrid origin should be clarified. Article 2b: the application of the Code to Protistan ‘kingdoms’ should be made clear. Article 23): this will not work in its present wording, as there are systematists who do not accept that instability or confusion is ever caused by the adoption of a long-forgotten senior synonym of an estabished name. The provision should begin more explicitly: “When the conditions of subsection (i) are met, an author must maintain existing usage ...’. Article 23k: this states that action taken under Article 23)(i) is invalid if the prima facie conditions are later found not to have been fully met. I disagree completely. It is important to maintain existing usage even if that is based on past errors, and the provision should state just the opposite, i.e. that a deliberate action under Article 23j(i) is still valid even if an error had been made; a zoologist disagreeing with the action could of course apply to the Commission for its reversal. Article 31: the suggested need to find the original spelling of adjectival epithets would impose a great deal of work, and require suitable library facilities; Professor Ernst Mayr has written to me, and I agree, that it would be ‘a most adverse application of the principle of priority’. If gender agreement is abandoned the simplest solution would be to freeze the endings in the current usage. In any event it would be important to give an explanation so that zoologists could know why the Commission is proposing what appears, in the eyes of many, to be a stupid rule. Article 76: this needs to be completely rewritten, as do parts of Articles 77 and 78. While a brief historical note is needed, it would be totally embarrassing for the Commission to publish a new edition of the Code in the proposed form: the International Congresses of Zoology have been defunct for 25 years and will never be resurrected! The [UBS ‘Section of Zoological Nomenclature’ (see below) may be abolished also. Article 78j(iii): it is not clear why this is confined to senior primary homonyms of species-group epithets: unlisted senior homonyms of genus-group names should also be unavailable (there are obvious objections to treating family-group homo- nyms in the same way). Article 86: this statement about pre-1758 names is completely out of place! Article 88: Does a Section of Nomenclature of TUBS actually exist, and if so will it continue? Is it, or for that matter [UBS itself, truly an international body of zoologists? The real answers to these questions should not be avoided, and they need to be seriously considered by the Commission before the Code is finalized. (3) A. Smetana Agriculture Canada, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Ottawa, Ontario K1A OC6, Canada Please take note of my deepest concern and strong objection to some of the proposals for amendment of the Code; they do not promote the stability of zoological nomenclature which is the aim of the Code. Such retrograde proposals are the compulsory recording of new names in order for them to remain available (Article 11b), the abandonment of gender agreement, and the acceptance of incorrect grammar in the formation of names. I appreciate that, in allowing grammatical laxity yet repeatedly ‘urging’ authors to be correct, the Editorial Committee has been forced to walk a tight-rope, but it is unfortunate that Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 9 the proposals were even put forward. We would have two types of species-group epithets: the correct ones of responsible authors who follow the recommendations and the bastardized ones of those who exploit the leniency of the new Code. Just look at Articles 30 and 31: firstly genus-group names are declared to be words without gender and then three pages of the draft deal with gender! If the suggested provisions are incorporated into the Code they would directly promote chaos and instability. After a while, zoologists would not be able to tell the status of a particular epithet. I most sincerely hope that these Articles in their proposed form will be deleted. (4) David Agassiz International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen's Gate, London SW7 3JR, U.K. In the draft Code I am delighted to see things which really should help promote stability. I am Secretary of the European Lepidopterological Society, and at a recent Council meeting I found that members from major national museums were also pleased with many of the proposals. Some conservative zoologists have argued that name changes affect only a small number of people, and even then only for a short time. This simply is not true. Many users of names are not specialists and purely nomenclatural alterations cause confusion; for example, they mask faunal responses to environmental change. I strongly support the proposal that new names be internationally notified, although the proposed ‘5-year rule’ (Article 11b) does need modification. The abandonment of gender in generic names could be helpful in the Lepidoptera; already this is practised by some systematists. I suggest, however, that where a particular termination of a specific name has been used for a period, say 50 years, it should have precedence over the original spelling. I also support the ‘automatic’ precedence of junior synonyms which have been in established use for 50 years (Articles 23b and 23)). (5) Gary Rosenberg Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-1195, U.S.A. In connection with the proposal that the endings of species-group epithets should always revert to their original forms, I should like to point out that new combinations often result from actions other than revisions of species-group taxa, for example changes in rank from subgenus to genus, or vice versa. These ‘generic’ actions may initially concern the fauna of regions irrelevant to a particular species, whose combination is later made consistent with the new classification. To force examination of the original ending of each species name in such cases would be ludicrous. . It must be remembered that non-scientists, such as copy editors, also deal with names. Under the current Code many of the adjectival names in a genus have similar endings, which is not only euphonious but makes them easier to scan for 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 errors. Under the draft proposals, compulsive people would have to keep referring to original descriptions to satisfy nagging doubt as to whether names had already been checked. Even in cases where the generic placement has never changed, or when the original and later generic names have the same gender, the new rules might still force name changes. For example, apart from original errors, early authors often made specific names agree with ‘varietas’ or ‘forma’, which are feminine. Under the new rules it will often be necessary to check whether epithets are adjectives or not [as a point of curiosity, I note that the Example in Article 31b and 48 of the draft (Psittacus chrysostomus, now Neophema chrysostoma) is inappropri- ate, since under Article 31b(1) of the current Code chrysostomus should be treated as a noun and hence invariant!]. So, what should be done about gender? Answer: leave things as they are. (6) Steve Shattuck Australian National Insect Collection, Division of Entomology, CSIRO, P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia I do not see that the present system of requiring gender agreement between generic names and adjectival epithets has advantages over adoption of the original epithet spellings. In many groups there are catalogues which give the original spellings, so there is no need to have access to the primary publications. The absence of gender requirements will simplify matters rather than complicate them, and will reduce errors. If the present system is abandoned people can spend more time doing taxonomy rather trying to comply with grammatical rules. Many of the Lepidoptera catalogues of the past 10-15 years have ignored the gender requirement of the current Code and used the original endings of the species epithets. This departure is at least partly due to the problems in determining the correct gender of generic names. For example, the Code states (Article 30a(ii)) that the ending -ops makes a name masculine, but it can be feminine. This has caused many epithets to be spelt incorrectly. (7) Neal L. Evenhuis Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-0916, U.S.A. I agree with the preceding comment by Steve Shattuck. As he mentions, there are many catalogs that give original spellings. He does not mention, however, a resource that gives the original spellings of nearly all (more than 98%) of the names published between 1758 and 1850: C.D. Sherborn’s Jndex Animalium. This takes a huge chunk out of the so-called ‘hard-to-get old papers and books’. On a separate subject, I propose that Article 75d should be written to make it clear that specimens which are depicted in illustrations can be designated as neotypes; this would be consistent with the rule for syntypes, holotypes and lectotypes (Articles 72e, 73a and 74c). In many cases suitably diagnostic specimens cannot be physically preserved, and the Code should take account of this. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 11 (8) Tomoyuki Miura Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, 4-50-20, Shimorata, Kagoshima, 890 Japan I think that English should be used for the diagnoses of new species. Its use as the official language would benefit not only speakers of European languages but also those of the rest of the world such as Chinese and Japanese. I believe that in the next few years there will be much more taxonomic work in Asian countries, and it will be a great help if new workers do not have to spend valuable time learning languages which are not essential for conveying scientific facts and thought. (9) Hans Malicky Sonnengasse 13, A-3293 Lunz am See, Austria Article 8d of the draft permits names to be made available in works which are not printed on paper; presumably electronic media would be accepted as publications. I am most strongly opposed to this, and Article 8c should not be limited to works published before 1986. Computer-stored data do not constitute a permanent public scientific record; they are ephemeral and only accessible to the restricted group of workers who have the necessary resources and equipment. I find it an excellent idea that new names should be recorded in Zoological Record, but Article 11b would cause much diifficulty. I suggest, at least as a Recommendation, that editors of journals and books should be responsible for notifying new names in accepted taxonomic manuscripts to the Zoological Record staff, who could immediately allocate a reference number to each name. This number would be published with the name, thereby informing readers that the name had been recorded; if a name had no number every reader would know that it should be brought to the attention of Zoological Record. With regard to Article 16a, it has long been common practice to compare new taxa with related ones. But such a comparison may be useless in some cases; if it is made obligatory it could be a meaningless procedure in which ‘comparison’ is made with arbitrarily chosen taxa purely for formal compliance with the Code. The draft does not contain the Appendices in the current Code; I think Appendices A-D are not necessary, and the size and cost of the new Code would be much reduced if they were omitted. Appendix E (General recommendations) is certainly useful, but the material in it is already in the running text of the Code. (10) John Noyes Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. I should like to first make some general comments. The Code should be greatly simplified (especially if there is any intention to merge it with that for botanical names). Many of the proposals in the discussion document make the Code more complex and several, in my view, would actually cause instability. We should concentrate on the strict application (almost without exception) of the three main considerations of the Code, viz. availability, typification and priority; obviously 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 homonymy must be dealt with. The Code must define whether or not names are available if they are published other than on paper, e.g. on compact disk or electronically. Since almost all taxonomists are not linguists or classical scholars it would be best to accept the original spellings of genus- and species-group names, changed in only such respects as the removal of diacritic marks and the transliteration of numerals. I am not in favour of the automatic conservation of junior synonyms on the grounds of usage (Article 23j), and prefer to adhere strictly to priority except in very rare circumstances. : I have some comments on individual Articles; as well as the following I have given others to the Editorial Committee. With respect to new names published after 1996, I believe that mandatory comparison with related taxa (Article 16a) is a good idea in principle, but that it will cause problems. If an author compares a new species with the others in the genus but does not explicitly mention all of them by name, some workers will accept the new name but others may not. I agree with Article 16e, which requires that new nominal taxa must be unambiguously marked as such. This will prevent new names being established accidentally, for instance in keys; in a recent publication on Russian Hymenoptera more than 30 specific names were not flagged as new, and they will inevitably be missed by Zoological Record and taxonomists. I believe that it should be obligatory (cf. Recommendation 16D) to deposit primary type specimens (holotypes or syntypes) in public institutions which allow them to be accessible. (11) Curtis W. Sabrosky 205 Medford Leas, Medford, New Jersey 08055, U.S.A. As pointed out by Kerzhner & Starobogatov (BZN 52: 297) and Bouchet (BZN 52: 301), Article 13 of the draft differs from the current Code in that it exempts family-group names from the requirement that new names must be accompanied by a description of the taxon. This proposed change would be a giant step backward, and I disagree vehemently. It is not sufficient, in these modern times, merely to state the name of the type genus. Taxonomists faced with a new family-group name should not have to carry out time-consuming research merely to guess the author’s basis for the proposal, in order to evaluate it for agreement or disagreement. As I have commented before (BZN 52: 298), the proposed abolition of gender for generic names has negative consequences. For example, the current Code (Article 30a(1i)) states that all the many names ending in -ops must be treated as masculine; this clear rule, reached after much debate, was a definite contribution to stability and uniformity. The draft merely suggests (Recommendation 31B(1)(ii)) that -ops names should be treated as masculine, and I consider this wording and position a retrograde step. The draft (Article 68a, b) reverses the long-standing rule that original desig- nation takes precedence over monotypy as the cited method of type species fix- ations. Surely stability demands continuity of rule as a basic principle of Code construction. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 13 (12) D.K. McAlpine & G. Cassis Entomology Section, Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S. W. 2000, Australia The discussion draft does not resolve the ambiguity of many lectotype ‘designations’ made before 1997. An improved wording of Article 74a(i) might be as follows below. The date 1999 is specified because 1997 is far too soon to bring far-reaching and often controversial provisions into force. Many manuscripts already in press will not appear until 1997 or later, and we propose that the effective date of all the new rules in the Code should be 1 January 1999. In a lectotype designation made before 1999, either the term lectotype (or an exact translation) must have been unambiguously applied to a particular specimen, or the author must have unambiguously indicated that he or she was making a deliberate selection of a particular syntype to act as the unique name-bearing type of a nominal species-group taxon. This indication must not have been made collectively (e.g. in the introduction to a work containing subsequent mention of ‘type’ specimens). (13) Mark Wilkinson School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1UG, U.K. I should like to endorse and to emphasize the importance of Article 23b in the draft Code: ‘The Principle of Priority is to be applied to promote stability of and universality of names and to prevent taxonomic confusion. Thus it must not be applied to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed usage ... by the introduction of an older unused name ... or an action taken following the discovery of a prior and hitherto unrecognized nomenclatural act (such as a prior type fixation)’. The suppression by the Commission of long-unused synonyms and homonyms is a service to stability. Some authors take a different view; they maintain that a name is only valid if it is the earliest published name and that no other consideration should be taken into account. The principle of priority is not simply an algorithm that can invariably be used to produce a determinate solution, and it is entirely right that the Code prescribes restrictions on its application. The draft (Article 79c), like the existing Code, specifies prima facie criteria for the rejection of disused names and also provides (Article 79b) that these do not limit the powers of the Commission to act in the interests of stability. The credibility of the Code (and of the Commission) rests on how successful it is in meeting the needs of the wide community it serves, and not, as some say, on how rigidly it adheres to nomenclatural priority. I am glad that the draft recognizes this. (14) R.W. Crosskey Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. In addition to my comments (BZN 52: 229-232) opposing the proposition that the availability of new names should be dependent on their listing in Zoological Record, I should like to contribute further to the debate on the new Code. 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Two general remarks are as follows. Many users of names who are not fully familiar with the Code understand ‘species-group’ only in the taxonomic sense of an assembly of species ranked below genus or subgenus, and similarly for genus- and family-group. This causes ambiguity, and I suggest that in the new Code ‘species- group’ etc. be replaced by ‘species-tier’ and so on. The word tier (or étage in French) conveys the idea of different hierarchical levels of names. A second general point is that Roman numerals (such as iv, XVIII) represent, for many, yet another European- origin system to be learned. I suggest that their use in the Code should be discontinued. Some particular points are as follows. (a) Description of new family-group taxa (cf. Article 13a). 1 agree with Curtis Sabrosky (comment 11 above): failure to require a description of a new family-group taxon would be a step back to the dark ages of nomenclature. The last three editions of the Code require characterization of the entity denoted by the name, and this must be continued. (b) Specific epithets and gender accord ( Article 31b and elsewhere). My comment is made from the standpoint of someone who has changed his mind on this. When editing the Catalogue of Afrotropical Diptera (1980) I spent much time in attempting to ensure correct gender agreement, where necessary, for the 16,000 species listed as valid; nevertheless some errors remained. At the time I was convinced that a simpler system must exist, and mandatory use of the original epithet spelling (i.e. Option 4 mentioned by Ride on BZN 52: 229) seemed attractive. I now think that this superficially tempting course is undesirable. Amongst other difficulties, ‘original spelling’— unless hedged with numerous caveats — would open the door to resuscitation of absurdities (e.g. Simulium erythrocephalum would change to S. eritrocephala). None of the other options mentioned by Ride seems any better and, as he notes, all have their disadvantages. Certainly gender agreement has its inconvenience but, given that there is no perfect solution, no overwhelming case can be made for concord abandonment or genderless generic names. I agree with Kerzhner & Starobogatov (BZN 52: 216), Kabata (BZN 52: 232), Sabrosky (BZN 52: 298) and others that we should keep the present system: it is at least as good as any and has the merit of doing no violence to grammar. (c) Primary homonyms (Article 57b). A sacred cow of nomenclature, perpetuated in the draft Code, is the insistence upon the replacement of junior primary homonyms in all circumstances. Few rules, however, are more destructive of stable nomen- clature. Working with old literature, we sometimes find epithets which are senior primary homonyms. The species concerned may not have been considered congeneric in the past 200 years, or indeed ever; they may belong to higher taxa wholly remote in classification. Entomologists frequently come across such cases because of the very wide 18th-century concept of genera such as Musca; an example would be the Congo Floor Maggot (which produces myiasis in man), in which the formally correct but pointless adoption of an ancient synonym as valid upset the textbooks of medical parasitology. This is precisely the kind of change for the sake of ‘nomenclature’ which causes many to despair of the commonsense of taxonomists. We gain nothing from such dogma-based changes. I propose that if a junior primary homonym is published after 1999, or before 2000 but not previously recognized as a homonym, it should not be replaced (unless, of course, the taxa are considered congeneric). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 15 (d) Homonymy in specific epithets (Article 58). There are innumerable instances where epithets ‘of the same derivation and meaning’ differ in spelling yet do not fit any of the 15 listed circumstances in which homonymy is deemed to exist; the most common class is that where the spelling difference results from variant ways of transcribing non-Latin alphabets. The difference may be in a single letter or may be major (pekingensis, beijingensis). It is implicit in Article 58 that epithets are not homonyms if they differ in even the most minor way so long as the difference is not covered by provisos 1-15; I suggest that this be made explicit. (15) Comments by some scientific staff of The Natural History Museum, London This report records comments made by scientific staff of The Natural History Museum, London, at a Flora and Faunas Theme Workshop held on 24 November 1995 to consider a number of the changes in the Code as proposed in the discussion draft. The meeting was convened by Dr R. Huys and chaired by Dr R.A. Fortey. Sixty scientists from the Departments of Botany, Entomology, Palaeontology and Zoology attended. Availability of new names and need for ratification in Zoological Record (Articles Se, 11b) Participants generally welcomed the concept of a comprehensive register of new names and expressed appreciation of the important role of Biosis in publishing Zoological Record. Inevitably there were problems in ensuring complete coverage of all new names, particularly those appearing in texts not using the Latin alphabet or names of ambiregnal organisms. Two representatives of Biosis U.K. were present and emphasised the importance of drawing attention to any names inadvertently omitted from Zoological Record; this was particularly important with books and with journals outside mainstream zoology and palaeontology. Biosis is developing a system whereby users of the Internet can, without charge, readily determine whether a name has been recorded in Zoological Record. Participants thought that the concept of ‘temporary’ (or provisional) availability of names until ratified by publication in Zoological Record would lead to severe problems. It was likely that such a requirement would not be fully understood or implemented in some parts of the world, particularly by zoologists without access to Zoological Record in any form. It was undesirable to complicate the present rules for availability of names by introducing a secondary requirement which might not be met for as long as five years after the publication of a name. The meeting, while recognizing the merits of registration of new names, was against publication in Zoological Record being a requirement for availability. Language and character set for diagnoses and fixation of types (Article 16b) Participants thought that the requirement that diagnoses and type fixations be published in ‘a language using the Latin alphabet’ would create a number of anomalies. Languages such as Danish or Turkish (used by few systematists) would be acceptable, while Chinese, Japanese and Russian (for example) would not. This could lead to inadequate or misleading diagnoses being published in a language not fully 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 understood by the author. The requirement would undoubtedly be ignored by some zoologists not familiar with any Latin alphabet language. However, the establishment of a new taxon should be seen as an act of communication and scientists should be encouraged to ensure that it is understood by readers. The meeting thought it would be preferable to make it a recommendation (not a requirement) that diagnoses and type fixations should be given in one of a limited number of specified languages which are widely understood; there would be advantage in the use of English since this is generally recognized as, in effect, the language of international science. Stability: priority and usage (Articles 23] and 33d) The meeting generally favoured the retention of priority as the keystone of nomenclature and considered that the onus should be on the user of a junior synonym to defend its use. However, in the case of important names there should be some flexibility in allowing continued use of a junior name without requiring a Commission ruling. The present criterion (Article 79c) that, in the absence of any use of the senior synonym, ten papers using a junior name were adequate to make a prima facie case that stability was threatened was too inflexible. In some cases ten papers were too many and in other cases too few; more important was the general perception of the stable and wide (including non-specialist) usage of the junior name. Formation of family-group names (Articles 29a, 29c) The meeting strongly favoured the use of the whole generic name in the formation of new family-group names in order to avoid creating a name homonymous with one already established. Gender of genus-group names, and species-group epithets (Articles 30, 31) The meeting had mixed views on the proposal to abandon the concept of gender for generic names. Some participants would welcome intoduction of such a proposal for future combinations or perhaps making all new generic names have one gender. Others did not consider that there was a significant problem with the present rules and favoured their retention. It was pointed out that any requirement that the original spelling of a species-group epithet must be used would create great problems in many groups. It could result in many early names being spelt in forms not used for 200 or more years, from the time when the Latin ‘j’ was often rendered as ‘1 (‘iavanus’) and the ‘u’ as ‘v’ (‘-nevra’). Even with access to an extensive library it was often difficult to determine the original orthography, particularly where not only the ending had changed. Such a requirement would cause a degree of instability in nomenclature that would not be readily understood or implemented by all zoologists, particularly non-systematists. Misidentified type species, or type specimens not in accord with usage of names; status of rediscovered type specimens The meeting had no common view on whether a misidentified nominal species fixed as the type by the author of a new generic name should be accepted, or whether the taxonomic species actually used should be taken as the type (Articles 6le, 70b). However, with reference to the status of misidentified type specimens, it was generally Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 17 agreed that the proposal that existing usage should take precedence over the actual identity of types (Article 6le) was most undesirable; the name-bearing type should remain the objective standard of reference, with application to the Commission reserved for those special cases in which existing usage is to be preferred. Few participants favoured the automatic retention (Articles 61f, 75j) of a neotype as the name-bearing type when the holotype was rediscovered and found to be conspecific with the neotype. It was felt that this might lead to lazy taxonomic practice and the devaluation of historically important collections. It was thought not normally necessary for the Commission to be involved in such cases. Zoologists should be encouraged to be more careful than at present in ensuring that the holotype no longer exists before designating a neotype. Adoption of Lists of Available and Potentially Valid Names (Article 77c) Participants discussed the proposal that the Commission should be enabled on request to adopt ‘Lists of Available and Potentially Valid Names’. It was emphasised that all databases should be treated as continually under review and always evolving. Such was the case, for example, with the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology in which each edition was improved. There was a view that for the Commission to become involved with the proposed Lists, which would be definitive for names published before the cut-off dates, would tend to stifle not merely nomenclature but also taxonomic research. Furthermore, the preparation and vetting of such Lists would generate an enormous amount of extra work for taxonomists and for the Commission. The general conclusion of the meeting was that the formal adoption of such Lists under the Commission’s aegis was not of perceived value. Harmonization between Codes of nomenclature The meeting discussed briefly proposals for harmonization between Codes of nomenclature (Hawksworth ef al.) as published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and Taxon. It was important that the new edition of the /nternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature should be developed in harmony with the proposed Unified Code, particularly in so far as ambiregnal taxa were concerned. Recognising that systematic papers were often in the press for up to two years it was essential to give a long lead time before implementation of any major changes. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Case 2927 Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913 (Nematoda): proposed designation of Dorylaimus brachyuris de Man, 1880 as the type species P.A.A. Loof Department of Nematology, Agricultural University, Postbus 8123, 6700 ES Wageningen, The Netherlands J. Heyns Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit, Posbus 524, Johannesburg 2000, South Africa Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Dorylaimus brachyuris de Man, 1880 as the type species of the soil nematode genus Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913. At present the type is the nominal species N. pachydermatus Cobb, 1913, but this cannot be identified with any taxonomic species and may not even belong to the superfamily NYGOLAIMOIDEA as at present understood. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nematoda; Nygolaimus; Nygolaimus brachyuris; soil nematodes. 1. Cobb (1913, p. 441) described Nygolaimus pachydermatus n.g., n.sp., giving measurements based on a single specimen from Tokyo, Japan. He mentioned that ‘other species occur in Eastern United States’ but did not give any information about them. 2. The slide of the holotype is no longer present in Cobb’s collection (see Heyns, 1968, p. 16). The description was very short and accompanied only by two drawings of the anterior end. The specimen had three odontostyles, showing that it was (as Cobb said) a juvenile and at the latest a J-3 moulting into the J-4 stage. From the description it is impossible to recognize the species N. pachydermatus, and several features (shape of lip region, shape of odontostyle, thick cuticle) raise serious doubts as to whether the specimen even belonged to the superfamily NYGOLAIMOIDEA as currently understood. Nygolaimus pachydermatus must be regarded as a nomen dubium, and no specimens have been assigned to the species since its original publication. 3. Subsequently many further species have been placed in Nygolaimus (see for example Thorne, 1930, Heyns, 1968 and Jairajpuri & Ahmad, 1992). Thorne (1935, p. 96) based a new subfamily NYGOLAIMINAE on the genus, placing it in the DORYLAIMIDAE; in 1961 this was raised to family rank by both Meyl (p. 104) and Clark (p. 138). Four years later de Coninck (1965, pp. 667, 670) treated the NYGOLAIMIDAE as the type of a superfamily NYGOLAIMOIDEA, and Ahmad & Jairajpuri (1979, p. 29) raised the nygolaims to subordinal rank as the Nygolaimina. The genus Nygolaimus thus occupies an important position in nematode classification as the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 19 name-bearing type of a family, superfamily and (although this is not regulated by the Code) a suborder. 4. For this reason it is important that Nygolaimus should have a recognisable type species in accord with the accepted understanding of the genus, in which about 75 species are at present placed. An appropriate one is Dorylaimus brachyuris de Man, 1880 (p. 83), a cosmopolitan species which was placed in Nygolaimus by Thorne (1930, pp. 450, 454); Thorne misspelled the specific name as brachyurus. Thorne (1930) and Heyns (1968) divided Nygolaimus into subgenera, with D. brachyuris being in the nominotypical one. Loof (1961, p. 239) designated a female specimen with sufficient diagnostic details (original registration H 39) from de Man’s “‘Hollandsche Collectie’ as the lectotype of D. brachyuris; this collection has now been incorporated into that of the Zoological Museum, University of Amsterdam, where the lectotype slide is registered as VAS 254. The specimen (from Katwijk, The Netherlands) was illustrated by Loof (1961, fig. 36) and was discussed and accepted as lectotype by Heyns (1968, p. 17). The collection of Wageningen Agricultural University contains numerous specimens from Katwijk and elsewhere which are unequivocally conspecific with the lectotype. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913 and to designate Dorylaimus brachyuris de Man, 1880 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species Dorylaimus brachy- uris de Man, 1880 by the designation in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name brachyuris de Man, 1880, as published in the binomen Dorylaimus brachyuris and as defined by the lectotype designated by Loof (1961) (specific name of the type species of Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913). References Ahmad, W. & Jairajpuri, M.S. 1979. On the systematics of Nygolaimina new suborder (Nematoda, Dorylaimida). P. 29. Abstracts, Second National Congress of Parasitology. B.H.U., India. Clark, W.C. 1961. A revised classification of the order Enoplida (Nematoda). New Zealand Journal of Science, 4: 123-150. Cobb, N.A. 1913. New nematode genera found inhabiting fresh water and non-brackish soils. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 3: 432-444. Coninck, L.A.P. de. 1965. Systématique des Nématodes. Pp. 586-681 in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie, vol. 4, part 2. Masson, Paris. de Man, J.G. 1880. Die einheimischen, frei in der reinen Erde und im stissen Wasser lebenden Nematoden. Tijdschrift der Nederlandsche Dierkundige Vereeniging, 5: 1-104. Heyns, J. 1968. A monographic study of the nematode families Nygolaimidae and Nygolaimel- lidae. Entomology Memoirs (Pretoria), 19: 1-144. Jairajpuri, M.S. & Ahmad, W. 1992. Dorylaimida, free-living predaceous and plant-parasitic nematodes. 458 pp. Brill, Leiden. Loof, P.A.A. 1961. The nematode collection of Dr J.G. de Man. 1. Beaufortia, 8: 169-254. Meyl, A.H. 1961. Die freilebenden Erd- und Siisswassernematoden (Fadenwiirmer). Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, 1(5a): 1-164. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Thorne, G. 1930. Predaceous nematodes of the genus Nygo/aimus and a new genus, Sectonema. Journal of Agricultural Research, 41: 445-466. Thorne, G. 1935. Notes on free-living and plant parasitic nematodes. II. Proceedings of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 2: 96-98. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 21 Case 2937 Cacoxenus indagator Loew, 1858 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the generic and specific names Vasily S. Sidorenko Institute of Biology and Pedology, Far Eastern Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok-22, Russia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic and specific names of Cacoxenus indagator Loew, 1858, a widespread European fly belonging to the DROSOPHILIDAE which is a symbiont of bees of the genus Osmia Panzer, 1806. The larvae of some Cacoxenus species are predators of coccids and pseudococcids. The original specimens of Domomyza cincta Rondani, 1856 are actually specimens of C. indagator, but since its establishment Domomyza has been placed in the AGROMYZIDAE (usually as a synonym of Agromyza Fallen, 1810) and neither it nor the specific name of D. cincta have had usage for drosophilids. It is proposed that Rondani’s slightly earlier names Domomyza and cincta be suppressed to conserve Cacoxenus and indagator. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; AGROMYZIDAE; DROSOPHILIDAE; Cacoxenus; Domomyza. 1. The nominal genus Domomyza was established by Rondani (1856, p. 121) ina combined key description of the genus and the new species D. cincta; he placed it in the family AGROMyzIDAE. Although under the modern Codes D. cincta is by monotypy the type species of Domomyza, in 1875 Rondani himself stated (p. 168) that Agromyza nigripes Meigen, 1830 was the type; he gave a description of D. cincta on p. 175. 2. Domomyza has been placed in the AGROMYZIDAE ever since Rondani’s time; it has usually been regarded as a synonym of Agromyza Fallen, 1810 (for example by Hendel, 1927, p. 249), and as such it has been very little used. Papp (1984, p. 341) treated Domomyza as a nomen dubium and stated that D. cincta was an unrecognizable species. 3. Loew (1858, p. 217) described the nominal genus Cacoxenus, containing only the new species C. indagator (p. 218); this is therefore the type by monotypy. 4. The name C. indagator has been used in at least 55 papers (of which seven mention it in the titles); the species, which parasitises bees of the genus Osmia Panzer, 1806, is widely distributed in Europe and has been studied in the fields of ecology, morphology, embryology and behaviour (e.g. Osten Sacken, 1892; de Meijere, 1944; Juillard, 1947, 1948; Ashburner, 1981; Olifir, 1990). It appears in the keys to the DROSOPHILIDAE of various regions (for example Duda, 1924, pp. 178 and 225; Kloet & Hincks, 1945, p. 400; Fonseca, 1965, p. 243; Stackelberg, 1970, p. 392). 5. Deeming (1988) studied seven original Rondani specimens of Domomyza cincta and found that they are not agromyzids but are specimens of the drosophilid 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Cacoxenus indagator; he reported that K.A. Spencer had selected a male lectotype for D. cincta from ‘Emilia et Etruria’, Italy. Spencer & Martinez (1987, p. 267) noted Deeming’s finding, then in press, and in their corrections to Papp’s (1984) catalogue removed D. cincta from the AGROMYZIDAE. 6. Apart from two recent instances by myself (Sidorenko, 1990a, p. 216; 1990b, p. 129) the generic name Domomyza has never been used in the DROSOPHILIDAE; the specific name of D. cincta has never been used for a drosophilid (nor even in the AGROMYZIDAE for very many years). I now believe that the replacement of Cacoxenus by Domomyza and of C. indagator by D. cincta would cause confusion and serve no purpose, and there is a prima facie case for suppression of the earlier generic and specific synonyms. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) the generic name Domomyza Rondani, 1856; (b) the specific name cincta Rondani, 1856, as published in the binomen Domomyza cincta; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Cacoxenus Loew, 1858 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Cacoxenus indagator Loew, 1858; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name indagator Loew, 1858, as published in the binomen Cacoxenus indagator (specific name of the type species of Cacoxenus Loew, 1858); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Domomyza Rondani, 1856, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name cincta Rondani, 1856, as published in the binomen Domomyza cincta and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Ashburner, M. 1981. Entomophagous and other bizarre Drosophilidae. Pp. 395-429 in Ashburner, M., Carson, H.L. & Thompson, J.N. (Eds.), The genetics and biology of Drosophila, vol. 3a. 429 pp. Academic Press, New York. Deeming, J.C. 1988. The identity of Domomyza cincta Rondani (Diptera): Drosophilidae not Agromyzidae. Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 124: 81. Duda, O. 1924. Beitrag zur Systematik der Drosophiliden unter besonderer Beriicksichtigung der paldarktischen und orientalischen Arten. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, (A)90(3): 172-234. Fonseca, E.C.M. d’Assis. 1965. A short key to the British Drosophilidae, including a new species of Amiota. Transactions of the Society for British Entomology, 16: 233-244. Hendel, F. 1927. Beitrage zur Systematik der Agromyziden. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 69: 248-271. Juillard, C. 1947. Cacoxenus indagator Loew (Dipt. Drosophilidae). Contribution a la biologie dun parasite d’Osmia rufa L. Mitteilungen der schweizerischen entomologischen Gesellschaft, 20: 587-593. Juillard, C. 1948. Le comportement des larves de Cacoxenus indagator dans les nids de l Osmia rufa. Mitteilungen der schweizerischen entomologischen Gesellschaft, 21: 547-554. Kloet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1945. A check list of British insects. lix, 483 pp. Authors, Stockport. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 23 Loew, H. 1858. Ueber Cacoxenus indagator nov. sp. und seine Verwandten. Wiener entomolo- gischen Monatsschrift, 2: 213-222. Meijere, J.C.H. de. 1944. Over de Metamorphose van Metopia leucocephala Rassi, Cacoxenus indagator Low, Palloptera saltuum L., Paranthomyza nitida Mg. en Hydrellia nigripes Zett. (Dipt.). Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 86: 57-61. Olifir, V.N. 1990. The fly Cacoxenus indagator Loew — cleptoparasite of bees of the genus Osmia (Diptera, Drosophilidae; Hymenoptera, Apoidea). Pp. 97-99 in Tobias, V.I. & Lvovsky, A.L. (Eds.), Uspekhy entomologii v SSSR: Nasekomye perepontchatokrylye i tcheshuekrylye. 232 pp. Nauka, Leningrad. [In Russian]. Osten Sacken, C.B. 1892. On the chaetotaxy of Cacoxenus indagator Lw. Berliner entomolo- gische Zeitung, 36(1891): 411-413. Papp, L. 1984. Family Agromyzidae. Pp. 236-414 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 9 (Micropezidae — Agromyzidae). 460 pp. Elsevier, Amsterdam. Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. 1. Genera italica ordinis Dipterorum ordinatim disposita et distincta et in families et stirpes aggregata. 266 pp. Stoschi, Parmae. Rondani, C. 1875. Species italicae ordinis Dipterorum (Muscaria Rndn.) collectae et observa- tae. Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 7: 166-191. Sidorenko, V.S. 1990a. A review of the Steganinae (Diptera, Drosophilidae) of the south of the Soviet Far East. Second International Congress of Dipterology, Abstracts, p. 216. Sidorenko, V.S. 1990b. A new species of the genus Domomyza Rondani (Diptera, Drosophi- lidae) from the Soviet Far East. Giornale Italiano di Entomologia, 5: 129-131. Spencer, K.A. & Martinez, M. 1987. Additions and corrections to the Agromyzidae section of the Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 23: 253-271. Stackelberg, A.A. 1970. Fam. Drosophilidae. Pp. 390-399 in Bey-Benko, G.Ya. (Ed.), Opredelitel nasekomych evropeyskoi tchasti SSSR, vol. 5(2). 943 pp. Nauka, Leningrad. {In Russian]. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Case 2998 Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed conservation of the specific name Colin P. Groves Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 for an East African fossil primate (tribe HOMININI). The name is a junior subjective synonym of the specific name of Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950 and has been used in place of the latter, which is a junior secondary homonym of the South African hominin name Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1925. It is proposed that the usage of afarensis be maintained whatever the generic association. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Primates; hominids; Pliocene; Australopithecus afarensis; East Africa. 1. Dart (1925, p. 198, figs. 1-6) described and illustrated a fossil (presumed Pliocene) hominin skull from Taung, South Africa, and gave it the new generic and specific names Australopithecus africanus. 2. In 1939 excavations at the Pliocene site of Garusi in Tanganyika Territory (now Tanzania) yielded a hominin maxillary fragment with two premolar teeth. The specimen was referred to as ‘Praeanthropus’ by Hennig (1948, p. 214) but, since Hennig’s publication did not include the fixation of a type species, the name is not available from this work (Article 13b of the Code; see para. 3 below). The first available name for the specimen is Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950 (p. 139, pl. 14, fig. 2). Because of its large size, Weinert compared the fossil with Recent humans and with fossil remains from Java and did not mention Australopithecus. He described it as a new species of the Javanese Pleistocene genus Meganthropus Weidenreich, 1944. 3. Remane (1951, 1954) further described the Garusi maxilla and compared it with other nominal genera, including Plesianthropus Broom, 1938 and Paranthropus Broom, 1938 from South Africa, but maintained Weinert’s name Meganthropus africanus. A further study of the specimen was made by Robinson (1954), who concluded that it was conspecific with Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1925. Von Koenigswald (1954, p. 85) recorded: ‘We agree with Robinson that Meganthropus africanus, collected by Kohl-Larsen in East Africa, has nothing to do with our Javanese form and rather belongs to the Australopithecinae’. He also noted: ‘The view that the specimen in question might belong to an Australopithecinae has already been expressed earlier: first by W. Abel (vide: L. Kohl-Larsen, 1943), later by Teilhard de Chardin (1952, p. 377, footnote) and the present author (von Koenigswald, 1953, p. 132)’. Senyiirek (1955, p. 33), in contrast to Robinson (1954), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 25 not only recognised the specimen as a distinct australopithecine but transferred it to a new genus as Praeanthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950). 4. Further hominin material was discovered during the 1970s at the Garusi site, by now known as Laetoli (the original Garusi maxilla being numbered L.H.1, ‘L.H.’ meaning Laetoli Hominid). On the basis of this new material, together with specimens from the Hadar site in Ethiopia, Johanson, White & Coppens (1978 [after August], pp. 2-9, pls. 2-4) diagnosed and illustrated a new species, Australopithecus afarensis. The name itself was made available a few months earlier in a report of a scientific meeting, and the correct citation (Article 50b of the Code) is therefore Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (June; p. 571). The type specimen of Australopithecus afarensis (stated by Johanson, White & Coppens, 1978 to be the holotype but in fact the lectotype; Article 74b) is a nearly complete mandible numbered L.H.4, collected from Laetoli in 1974 and housed in the National Museums of Kenya, Nairobi. The authors noted: ‘Laetoli Hominid-4 was selected as the holotype [recte lectotype] both because of its distinctive, diagnostic morphology and because it has previously been fully described and illustrated (White, 1977)’. Johanson et al. (1978) included the Garusi maxilla L.H.1 as a ‘paratype’ (recte paralectotype) of the new nominal species A. afarensis. 5. Subsequent commentators have been virtually unanimous in concluding that the Laetoli and Hadar hominins, whether they form a single species or not, are not conspecific with Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1925 (see, for example, Wood & Chamberlain, 1986, and Groves, 1989). Day, Leakey & Olson (1980, p. 1102) noted: ‘Inclusion [by Johanson et al., 1978] of the Garusi | specimen in the type-series of A. afarensis and their listing of M[eganthropus] africanus as a synonym of this name has the effect of making A. afarensis a replacement name (junior subjective synonym) for Weinert’s M. africanus. Johanson was correct in giving a new name to Weinert’s species because his inclusion of this species in the genus Australopithecus Dart, 1925 meant that the nominal species Australopithecus africanus (Weinert, 1950) had to be rejected since it was now a junior secondary homonym of Australopithecus africanus Dart, 1925’. They also noted: ‘The name afarensis is valid as a substitute for Weinert’s prior name only (i) when Weinert’s holotype and the L.H.4 lectotype are included in the same species and (ii) when this species is classified in a genus in which Weinert’s name is a junior homonym’ (Article 59d). The consequences of the latter were spelt out by Olson (1981, p. 118), who transferred the Laetoli and part of the Hadar material to the genus Paranthropus and noted: “The removal of this species from the genus Australopithecus necessitates the restoration of Weinert’s (1950) original nomen, Meganthropus africanus, as the valid species-group name for this taxon and it means that its junior subjective synonym, Australopithecus afarensis, must be rejected (Day et al. 1980). In this present study Paranthropus africanus (Weinert, 1950) is adopted as the valid name of this taxon’. 6. The specific name afarensis Johanson, 1978 is now well entrenched in the literature and has appeared in representative publications such as Howell (1978), Wolpoff (1980), Rak (1983), Leakey (1987), Fleagle (1988), Klein (1989), Allan (1992) and Feder & Park (1993), and several papers in each of the following compilations: Delson (Ed., 1985), Giacobini (Ed., 1989) and Jones, Martin & Pilbeam (Eds., 1992). The senior subjective synonym africanus Weinert, 1950 has been little used and its resurrection would cause considerable confusion with Dart’s 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 (1925) name Australopithecus africanus, which is much in current use. In some cases (see Groves, 1989) it is only the necessity of losing the well-known name afarensis in favour of africanus Weinert that has prevented the taxonomic removal of afarensis from the genus Australopithecus. This unfortunate circumstance is certainly against the spirit of the Code, which refers in its Introduction (p. xiii) to ‘the freedom of scientists to classify animals according to taxonomic judgements’. To allow the uninterrupted use of the specific name afarensis Johanson, 1978 I propose that the name be conserved by the suppression of africanus Weinert, 1950. ; 7. To my knowledge Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955, of which Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950 is the nominal type species (see para. 3 above), has not been used as valid since its publication. It is available if afarensis is removed from Australopithecus and placed in another genus, and it is likely that the name Praeanthropus will be needed in the future. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name africanus Weinert, 1950, as published in the binomen Meganthropus africanus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names In Zoology the name Praeanthropus Senyiirek, 1955 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950 (a suppressed senior subjective synonym of Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name afarensis Johanson, 1978, as published in the binomen Australopithecus afarensis (first available subjective synonym of Meganthropus africanus Weinert, 1950, the type species of Praeanthropus Senytirek, 1955); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name africanus Weinert, 1950, as suppressed in (1) above. References Allan, R. 1992. Human origins: an introduction to human evolution, Ed. 2. 80 pp. Sunrich Promotions, Singapore. Dart, R.A. 1925. Australopithecus africanus: the man-ape of South Africa. Nature, 115(2884): 195-199. Day, M.H., Leakey, M.D. & Olson, T.R. 1980. On the status of Australopithecus afarensis. Science, 207: 1102-1103. Delson, E. (Ed.). 1985. Ancestors: the hard evidence. xii, 366 pp. Liss, New York. Feder, K.L. & Park, M.A. 1993. Human antiquity: an introduction to physical anthropology and archaeology, Ed. 2. xvi, 496 pp. Mayfield, Mountain View, California. Fleagle, J.G. 1988. Primate adaptation and evolution. xix, 486 pp. Academic Press, New York. Giacobini, G. (Ed.). 1989. Hominidae: Proceedings of the 2nd International Congress of Human Paleontology. 520 pp. Editoriale Jaca Book, Milan. Groves, C.P. 1989. A theory of human and primate evolution. 375 pp. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hennig, E. 1948. Quartarfaunen und Urgeschichte Ostafrikas. Naturwissenschaftliche Rund- schau, 1(5): 212-217. Howell, F.C. Hominidae. Pp. 154-248 in Maglio, V.J. & Cooke, H.B.S. (Eds.), Evolution of African mammals. ix, 641 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Johanson, D.C. (in Hinrichson, D.). 1978 (June). How old are our ancestors? New Scientist, 78(1105): 571. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 27 Johanson, D.C., White, T.D. & Coppens, Y. 1978 [after August]. A new species of the genus Australopithecus (Primates: Hominidae) from the Pliocene of Eastern Africa. Kirtlandia (Cleveland), 28: 1-9. Jones, S., Martin, R. & Pilbeam, D. (Eds.). 1992. The Cambridge encyclopedia of human evolution. xiii, 506 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Koenigswald, G.H.R. von. 1953. Die Phylogenie des Menschen. Die Naturwissenschaften, 40(4): 128-137. Koenigswald, G.H.R. yon. 1954. The Australopithecinae and Pithecanthropus. III. Proceedings. Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen. Amsterdam, (B, Physical Sciences), 57: 85-91. Kohl-Larsen, L. 1943. Auf den Spuren des Vormenschen, vol. 2. Strecker & Schréder, Stuttgart. Klein, R.G. 1989. The human career. Human biological and cultural origins. xvi, 524 pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Leakey, M.D. 1987. The Laetoli hominid remains. Pp. 108-109, pls. 5.1-5.9 in Leakey, M.D. & Harris, J.M. (Eds.), Laetoli. A Pliocene site in Northern Tanzania. xxi, 561 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Olson, T.R. 1981. Basicranial morphology of the extant hominoids and Pliocene hominids: the new material from the Hadar Formation, Ethiopia, and its significance in early human evolution and taxonomy. Pp. 99-128 in Stringer, C.B. (Ed.), Aspects of human evolution. Symposia of the Society for the Study of Humam Biology, No. 21. 233 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Rak, Y. 1983. The australopithecine face. Academic Press, New York. Remane, A. 1951. Die Zahne des Meganthropus africanus. Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Anthropologie, 52(3): 311-329. Remane, A. 1954. Structure and relationships of Meganthropus africanus. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (n.s.)12(1): 123-126. Robinson, J.T. 1954. The genera and species of the Australopithecinae. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (n.s.)12(2): 181-200. Senyiirek, M. 1955. A note on the teeth of Meganthropus africanus Weinert from Tanganyika Territory. Belleten (Ankora), 19: 1-54. Teilhard de Chardin, P. 1952. Australopitheques, pithécanthropes et structure phylétique des hominiens. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l' Académie des Sciences. Paris, 234(4): 377-379. Weidenreich, F. 1944. Giant early man from Java and South China. Science, 99: 479-482. Weinert, H. 1950. Uber die neuen Vor- und Friihmenschenfunde aus Afrika, Java, China und Frankreich. Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Anthropologie, 42(1): 113-148. White, T.D. 1977. New fossil hominids from Laetolil, Tanzania. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, (n.s.)46(2): 197-230. Wolpoff, M.H. 1980. Paleoanthropology. xxx, 379 pp. Knopf, New York. Wood, B.A. & Chamberlain, A.T. 1986. Australopithecus: grade or clade? Pp. 220-248 in Wood, B., Martin, L. & Andrews, P., Major topics in human and primate evolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Case 3010 Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals Anthea Gentry Littlewood, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH17 5EB, U.K. Juliet Clutton-Brock Working Group on Nomenclature, International Council of Archaeozoology, clo Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Colin P. Groves Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the usage of 15 specific names for mammals which are distinct from those of their domestic derivatives and which postdate or are contemporary with the latter. A number of systems have been devised for the naming of domestic animals but none has gained universal acceptance. Many taxa first described and named by Linnaeus (1758, 1766) and other authors were either based on domestic animals or encompassed both the wild and domestic forms. The majority of domestic animals and their wild ancestors continue to share the same name but in a few cases a tradition has arisen under which the domestic and wild forms are separately named. Among these are 15 mammals in which the name for the domestic form antedates or is contemporary with that of the wild ancestor and this name has been applied by a minority of authors to the wild species, creating confusion in the literature. It is proposed that majority usage be confirmed by adoption of the first available specific name based on a wild population for the following wild taxa: Equus africanus Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (ass), E. ferus Boddaert, 1785 (tarpan), Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1883 (Bactrian camel), Camelus (currently Lama) guanicoe Miller, [1776] (guanaco), Camelus (currently Vicugna) vicugna Molina, 1782 (vicufia), Bos primigenius Bojanus, 1827 (aurochs), B. gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (gaur), B. (currently Bubalus) arnee Kerr, 1792 (water buffalo), Poephagus (currently Bos) mutus Przewalski, 1883 (yak), Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 (bezoar), Ovis orientalis Gmelin, 1774 (Asian mouflon), Cavia aperea Erxleben 1777 (guinea pig), Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 (wolf) Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758 (polecat) and Felis silvestris Schreber, [1777] (wildcat). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Equus africanus; Equus ferus; Camelus ferus; Lama guanicoe; Vicugna vicugna; Bos primigenius; Bos gaurus; Bubalus arnee; Bos mutus; Capra aegagrus; Ovis orientalis; Cavia aperea; Canis lupus; Mustela putorius; Felis silvestris; domestic animal names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 29 1. The first evidence for the domestication of a wild animal, that of the wolf, is dated between 12000 and 14000 years ago, and the earliest known domestic food animals were goats around 9000 years ago. There is little, if any, evidence that the cultivation of plants began earlier than 7000-8000 years ago, after the end of the last glacial period (see Hillman, Colledge & Harris, 1989, p. 265). Mason (1984, p. vii) considered that a domestic animal, in its most developed form, shows four main characteristics: (1) its breeding is under human control; (2) it provides a product or service useful to man; (3) it is tame; (4) it has been selected away from the wild type. The concept of domestication was further defined by Gautier (1990): ‘It is a microevolutionary process and a form of cultural control over animals, implying that these creatures are forced to live and multiply in captivity; as a result they acquire domestic traits’ (see also various papers in Clutton-Brock, Ed., 1989). Not all animals considered to be ‘domestic’ qualify under all the criteria, and archaeologists and anthropologists have demonstrated many different stages intermediate between wild species and their domestic derivatives (see, for example, Wing, 1993 and references cited in her paper). Van Gelder (1969, p. 151) also drew a distinction between modern ‘domestic’ animals (populations that differ from their ancestral stocks through selection by man) and ‘domesticates’ (individuals that are tame and ‘of the home’). The ultimate distinguishing feature of a domestic animal is the presence of a range of genotypes produced by artificial selection. It is now generally accepted that most domestic animals are monophyletic stocks, each with a single wild ancestor. Some animals which have been domesticated for a long time remain very similar to the wild type (the rabbit, Bali cattle and the water buffalo, for example) and all domestic forms retain the genetic ability to breed with the wild species if that is extant (see, for example, Stains, 1975 for dog/wolf; Novoa & Wheeler, 1984 for llama and alpaca/guanaco and Morris, 1993 for ferret/polecat and domestic cat/wildcat). 2. Domestic animals do not fall into a recognised and consistent system of taxonomy (see Clutton-Brock, 1987; Gautier, 1993; and Groves, 1995) and zoologists and archaeozoologists have been discussing their naming for many years. Many taxa first described and named by Linnaeus (1758, 1766) and a few other authors were either based on domestic animals or encompassed both the wild species and domestic forms. The great majority of wild species and their domestic derivatives share the same name (e.g. Oryctolagus cuniculus (Linnaeus, 1758) for the wild and the domestic rabbit, Myocastor coypus Molina, 1782 for the wild coypu and the domestic nutria, Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758 for the mallard and the domestic duck, and Columba livia Gmelin, 1789 for the rock dove and the domestic pigeon; see Corbet & Clutton-Brock, 1984 and Clutton-Brock, 1987), but some 18 domestic forms have names which are traditionally distinct from those applied to their wild ancestors (see Groves, 1995; those for mammals are set out in the Table, p. 34). Of these, 15 domestic mammals have names which antedate or are contemporary with those for the wild species and a few authors have applied these names to the wild species. This has caused problems and confusion in zoology and especially in archaeozoology where the distinction between wild species, domestic forms and intermediate stages is crucial. 3. The creation of Latin names for domestic animals was fashionable for many decades in the 19th and early 20th centuries and a plethora of names in the literature resulted. The nomenclatural treatment of these names (as species, subspecies, races or 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 breeds) was inconsistent, both between authors and within the works of the same author. Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951), for example, treated the wild and domestic forms of the gaur as separate species, Bos gaurus and B. frontalis; the wild yak as a subspecies, B. grunniens mutus, of the domestic; and the wild and domestic forms of the water buffalo as conspecific, Bubalus bubalis. More recently, attempts have been made to achieve consistency in the naming of domestic animals and a number of nomenclatural systems have been devised. These were summarised and discussed by Gautier (1993); the most notable are mentioned here. Bohlken (1958, 1961) proposed that priority should be suspended for the nomenclature of domestic animals; he labelled them with the specific name of the wild ancestor followed by the name of the domestic form where this had been separately named. In order to indicate that domestic animals were not ‘natural’ subspecies he added the word ‘forma’ and treated the trinominal as infrasubspecific (e.g. ‘Bos primigenius forma taurus’). This system was adopted by Herre & Rohrs (1990) and various European authors, including Zeuner (1963). Dennler de la Tour (1959, 1968) also considered that priority should not apply to the names of domestic animals and proposed that they be labelled with the name of the wild ancestor followed by “familiaris’ to denote their status (e.g. Bos primigenius ‘familiaris’). 4. In response to the inconsistency of treatment in the two systems by then proposed to deal with the naming of domestic animals (para. 3 above), neither of which was in accord with the Code, and the danger of a proliferation of such systems, one of us (C.P.G.) submitted an application to the Commission (BZN 27: 269-272; March 1971) which sought to exclude from the Code names based on domestic animals. Groves proposed that wild species should be referred to by the first available name based on a wild population, whilst vernacular names only would be used for domestic animals (e.g. ‘Bos (domestic cattle)’). Comments on the application were received from eight authors; those from five were published (BZN 28: 77-78, 140 (1971); 29: 108 (1972); 36: 5-10 (1979)). All the commentators opposed the proposal on practical grounds: (a) there are difficulties in interpreting the meaning and boundaries of the word ‘domestic’ (see para. 1 above) and it would be difficult to decide which names were to be treated as outside the scope of zoological nomencla- ture; (b) as noted above (para. 2), relatively few names based on domestic forms are distinct from those applicable to their wild ancestors. The majority of wild species and their domestic derivatives share the same name, which may well have been based on domestic forms. If ‘domestic’ names were excluded from nomenclature under the Code all these names would be affected. Additionally, if excluded from the Code, the ‘domestic’ names could, formally, be re-used for different taxa, leading to consider- able confusion. The application eventually lapsed. Nearly all the commentators, and also Richard Melville (former Secretary to the Commission) in his summing-up (BZN 34; 139-140; November 1977), advocated bringing an application to the Commission to deal individually with the names for wild species which are distinct from and are contemporary with or postdate those for domestic animals. There has been no application until now. 5. The inconsistent treatment of the names for domestic animals has continued until the present day. Following Groves’s (1971) application a number of authors (Clutton-Brock, Corbet & Hills, 1976; Corbet, 1978; Cockerill, 1984) urged that names for domestic forms should be vernacular only. Odening (1979), however, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 31 treating domestic animals and their wild ancestors as conspecific, proposed that the earliest available name for the two components should be adopted, domestic animals being indicated by the notation ‘hemerotype’ and wild species by ‘agriotype’ (e.g. ‘Felis catus’ would denote both wild and domestic cats, ‘F. catus agriot.’ all wildcats, and ‘F. catus hemerot.’ all domestic cats). Where the ancestor of the domestic form was not known separate names would be used for the wild species and domestic form. Corbet & Clutton-Brock (1984) recommended that Linnaean names be used for domestic animals as if separate from the wild species but in quotation marks to indicate their status (e.g. Canis ‘familiaris’). Clutton-Brock (1987) subsequently used names based on domestic animals as valid for domestic forms, and applied the first available names based on wild species to the wild taxa. Gautier (1993) proposed that domestic animals be treated as subspecies of wild species and named accordingly, whilst in the same volume Uerpmann (1993) proposed that domestic animals should be denoted by a single Latin word printed in capitals and italics (e.g. 4LP4c4, BOS, BANTENG, CABALLUS, LAMA). 6. In his compilation of mammalian genera and families Palmer (1904) recorded the type species designations made by earlier authors. In a number of cases the types are domestic animals. The generic names Bos and Ovis were placed on the Official List in Opinion 75 (January 1922), Canis, Capra and Felis in Opinion 91 (October 1926). The type species of these genera (Bos taurus, Ovis aries, Canis familiaris, Capra hircus and Felis catus respectively, in accord with Palmer’s 1904 citations) were placed on the Official List in Direction 22 (November 1955). The specific name of Mustela putorius (type species of Putorius Cuvier, [1816], placed on the Official List in Opinion 91) was also placed on the Official List in Direction 22. Eguus and its type species, E. caballus, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 271 (September 1954). The specific names of Felis silvestris and Bos gaurus were placed on the Official List in Opinions 465 (May 1957) and 1348 (September 1985) respectively. Palmer (1904), following the designation of Hay (1902), cited Camelus dromedarius Linnaeus, 1758, the domestic Arabian camel, as the type species of Camelus. A misleading statement in Opinion 16 (July 1910) has resulted in subsequent authors (see, for example, Allen, 1939 and Ellerman & Morrison-Scott, 1951) citing bactrianus as the type, disregard- ing Hay’s designation. Both dromedarius and bactrianus are currently included in Camelus; none of the names Camelus, dromedarius or bactrianus has been placed on an Official List. 7. Notwithstanding the continuing discussions on what should be the approved nomenclature of domestic animals (paras. 2-5 above), for those with distinct names the naming of their wild ancestors has been relatively stable in recent years. Most authors have adopted the first available name based on the wild species as valid for the taxon (see the Table, p. 34). The names have appeared in current checklists and reference works (see, for example, Corbet, 1978; Corbet & Hill, 1991, 1992; Nowak, 1991, some names) and numerous publications on biology, ecology, behaviour and conservation, as well as taxonomy. Recent representative works in which the names have been used include Groves (1974, 1986), Kingdon (1979, 1982), Stuart (1982), Martin & Klein (1984), Uerpmann (1987), Skinner & Smithers (1990), Harrison & Bates (1991), Morey (1994) and Wheeler (1995). The first available name based on the wild species has also been adopted for endangered taxa in the (1993) 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals, and in legal documentation relating to the conservation 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 and management of protected species (see, for example, CITES Appendices I-III (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)). 8. The new (1993) edition of Mammal species of the world, edited by Wilson & Reeder, is an exception to majority usage. In the chapters on the Perissodactyla and the Artiodactyla names have been used for wild species irrespective of whether they were first described on a wild or a domestic form. Thus the Linnaean names Equus asinus and E. caballus are used for both the wild and domestic forms of ass and horse respectively, and Bos taurus is used for the aurochs, with B. primigenius Bojanus, 1827 included as a synonym. Similarly, Ovis aries and Capra hircus are given as the valid names for the wild progenitors of sheep and goats, which usually appear as Ovis orientalis Gmelin, 1774 and Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 in archaeozoological publications and current checklists (such as Corbet & Hill, 1991). Editorial policy was to adopt the earliest name (see the Introduction, p. 9) but this has not been used for taxa in other chapters of the volume where, for example, the Linnaean name for the domestic cat, Felis catus, is cited as a synonym of F. silvestris Schreber, [1777], the wild cat, and the Linnaean name Cavia porcellus is restricted to the domestic form of the guinea pig. The use for wild species of names that were first described on domestic forms is a retrograde step that will confuse not only biologists, palaeontologists, archaeologists and those in applied fields (ecology, conservation, behaviour studies and physiological research) but also customs officials who have the job of sorting out illegal imports of endangered species. They would find it difficult to impound a trophy head of a wild sheep if it carries the name of Ovis aries. In their review of the Wilson & Reeder volume Corbet & Hill (1994) criticised both the unaccustomed inclusion for these taxa of the domestic form and the wild species under the same name and the inconsistency of treatment in different groups. They noted: ‘The ambiguities ... could easily be avoided by excluding the domestic forms from the wild species’. 9. In accord with the great majority of usage for the 15 mammal taxa listed in the Table (p. 34), we now propose that the usage for wild taxa of the first available names based on wild species should be conserved. Our proposal was discussed and endorsed by the Executive Committee of the International Council of Archaeozoology at a meeting (July 1995) in Cambridge, U.K., and by a meeting (September 1995) of the ICAZ in Basle. 10. Two non-mammalian taxa, Cyprinus (currently Carassius) gibelio Bloch, 1782, the Prussian or gibel carp widely spread from Central Europe to East Asia, and Theophila (currently Bombyx) mandarina Moore, 1872, the mulberry silk moth from China, Korea and Japan, traditionally have distinct names which postdate those of the derived domestic forms, Carassius auratus (Linnaeus, 1758), the goldfish, and Bombyx mori (Linnaeus, 1758), the silkworm. To our knowledge there is no confusion in the use of these names and we have therefore not proposed Commission action to protect the name of the wild species. Aquarist publications such as Axelrod & Vorderwinkler (1976, p. 163) have used Carassius auratus for the ornamental fish; Sterba (Ed., 1983, p. 117) used C.a. auratus and C.a. gibelio for the aquarium fish and wild species respectively. Chinery (1973, pp. 166, 191) used the name Bombyx mori for the domestic silkworm; Tazima (1984, p. 417) used B. mandarina for the wild species of mulberry silk moth and B. mori for the domestic form. Phalaena mori Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 33 Linnaeus, 1758 was designated the type species of Bombyx Linnaeus, 1758 and placed on the Official List in Opinion 450 (March 1957). le asked: (1) (2) (3) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly to use its plenary powers to rule that the name for each of the wild species listed in (2) and (3) below is not invalid by virtue of being antedated by a name based on a domestic form; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names, together with an endorsement to record the ruling in (1) above: (a) africanus Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866, as published in the binomen Equus africanus; (b) ferus Boddaert, 1785, as published in the binomen Equus ferus; (c) ferus Przewalski, 1883, as published in the trinomen Camelus bactrianus ferus; (d) guanicoe Miller, [1776], as published in the binomen Camelus guanicoe; (e) vicugna Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Camelus vicugna; (f) primigenius Bojanus, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos primigenius; (g) arnee Kerr, 1792, as published in the binomen Bos arnee; (h) mutus Przewalski, 1883, as published in the binomen Poephagus mutus; (i) aegagrus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Capra aegagrus; (j) orientalis Gmelin, 1774, as published in the binomen Ovis orientalis; (k) aperea Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Cavia aperea; (1) /upus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Canis lupus; to add to the entries for the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology an endorsement to record the ruling in (1) above: (a) gaurus H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos gaurus; (b) putorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mustela putorius; (c) silvestris Schreber, [1777], as published in the trinomen Felis catus silvestris. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Table. Mammal wild species and their domestic derivatives which traditionally have separate names Wild species Perrisodactyla Equus africanus Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (p. 588) North African wild ass Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785 (p. 159) Russian wild horse, tarpan Artiodactyla Camelus bactrianus ferus Przewalski, 1883 (p. 43, pl. opposite p. 42) Wild Bactrian camel, now restricted to the western Gobi desert Camelus guanicoe Miller, [1776] (p. 50) South American guanaco "Camelus vicugna Molina, 1782 (p. 313) South American vicuna Bos primigenius Bojanus, 1827 (p. 477, pl. 24) Aurochs of Europe, Asia and North Africa, extinct since 1627 Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 (p. 399) Gaur of India, Burma and Malaya Bos arnee Kerr, 1792 (p. 336, figs. opposite pp. 295, 336) Indian water buffalo, arni Poephagus mutus Przewalski, 1883 (p. 191, pl. opposite p. 190) Asian yak Capra aegagrus Erxleben, 1777 (p. 260) Bezoar of the Middle East Ovis orientalis Gmelin, 1774 (pp. 432, 486, pl. 15) Mouflon of Western Asia ?Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 49) Eurasian wild boar Rodentia Cavia aperea Erxleben, 1777 (p. 348) South American cavy Carnivora Canis lupus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 39) Wolf of the Palaearctic, India and North America Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 46) Polecat of Europe, Middle East and Morocco Felis catus silvestris Schreber, [1777], (p. 39) Wildcat of Western Europe to Domestic form Equus asinus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 73) Donkey Equus caballus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 73) Domestic horse Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 65) Domestic Bactrian camel Camelus glama Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 65) Llama Camelus pacos Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 66) Alpaca Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 71) (including B. indicus Linnaeus, 1758, p. 72) Common cattle (including zebu) Bos frontalis Lambert, 1804 (p. 57) Gaur, mithan Bos bubalis Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 72) Domestic water buffalo Bos grunniens Linnaeus, 1766 (p. 99) Domestic yak Capra hircus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 68) Domestic goat Ovis aries Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 70) Domestic sheep (including European moufion; see Uerpmann, 1981) Sus domesticus Erxleben, 1777 (p. 179) Domestic pig Mus porcellus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 59) Domestic guinea pig Canis familiaris Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 38) Dog (including dingo) Mustelo furo Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 46) Ferret Felis catus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 42) Domestic cat Western China and Central India, much of Africa 'There is some archaeological evidence that the domestic alpaca Camelus pacos Linnaeus, 1758 has been derived from the wild South American vicuna Camelus vicugna Molina, 1782 (see Wheeler, 1995). However, comparison of living domestic animals with the wild species has led other researchers to different conclusions. Whatever the final outcome on the ancestry of the alpaca we propose that the usage of the specific name vicugna be conserved for the vicuna. ?The name Sus scrofa Linnaeus, 1758 for the wild boar predates that for the domestic form, S. domesticus Erxleben, 1777, and Commission action is therefore not required to secure the name. Sus was placed on the Official List in Opinion 75, and the type species S. scrofa in Direction 22. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 35 References Allen, G.M. 1939. A checklist of African mammals. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 83: 1-763. Axelrod, H.R. & Vorderwinkler, W. 1976. Encyclopedia of tropical fishes with special emphasis on techniques of breeding, Ed. 23. 631 pp. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. Bloch, M.E. 1782. Oeconomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutschlands, vol. |. Berlin. Boddaert, P. 1785. Elenchus Animalium, vol. | (Sistens Quadrupedia). Pp. 43-174. Rotterdam. Bohlken, H. 1958. Zur Nomenklature der Haustiere. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 160(7—8): 167-168. Bohlken, H. 1961. Haustiere und zoologische Systematik. Zeitschrift fiir Tierztichtung und Ziichtungsbiologie, 76: 107-113. Bojanus, L.H. 1827. De Uro nostrate eiusque sceleto commentatio. Scripsit et Bovis primigenii sceleto auxit. Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino Carolinae, 13(2): 411-478. Chinery, M. 1973. A field guide to the insects of Britain and northern Europe. 352 pp., 60 pls. Collins, London. Clutton-Brock, J. 1987. Appendix 1: nomenclature of the domestic mammals. Pp. 194-197 in: A natural history of domesticated mammals. 208 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Clutton-Brock, J. (Ed.). 1989. The walking larder. Patterns of domestication, pastoralism, and predation. xxii, 368 pp. Unwin Hyman, London. Clutton-Brock, J., Corbet, G.B. & Hills, M. 1976. A review of the family Canidae, with a classification by numerical methods. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 29(3): 119-199. Cockerill, W.R. (Ed.). 1984. The camelid. An all-purpose animal, vol. 1. 544 pp., 5 pls. Scandinavian Institute of African Studies, Uppsala. Corbet, G.B. 1978. The mammals of the Palaearctic region: a taxonomic review. 314 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Corbet, G.B. & Clutton-Brock, J. 1984. Appendix: taxonomy and nomenclature. Pp. 434-438 in Mason, I.L. (Ed.), Evolution of domesticated animals. 452 pp. Longman, London. Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.-E. 1991. A world list of mammalian species, Ed. 3. vii, 243 pp. Natural History Museum, London. Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.-E. 1992. The mammals of the Indomalayan region: a systematic review. 488 pp., 45 figs., 177 maps. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.-E. 1994. Review: 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. Dennler de La Tour, G. 1959. La descendencia del perro. Act. Congr. Sudamer. de Zool., 4: 215-223. Dennler de La Tour, G. 1968. Zur Frage der Haustier-Nomenklatur. Sdugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, 16: 1-20. Ellerman, J.R. & Morrison-Scott, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals 1758 to 1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Erxleben, J.C.B. 1777. Systema regni animalis ... Classis 1 (Mammalia). xlviii, 636 pp. Lipsiae. Gautier, A. 1990. La domestication. Et l'homme créa ses animaux. Errance, Paris. Gautier, A. 1993. ‘What’s in a name?’. A short history of the Latin and other labels proposed for domestic animals. Pp. 91-98 in Clason, A., Payne, S. & Uepmann, H.-P. (Eds.), Skeletons in her cupboard. Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock. 259 pp. Oxbow Monograph no. 34. Gmelin, S.G. 1774. Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche, vol. 3. 508 pp., 57 pls. St Petersbourg. Groombridge, B. (Ed.). 1993. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. \vi, 286 pp. IUCN — The World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Gland, Switzerland. Groves, C.P. 1971. Request for a declaration modifying Article 1 so as to exclude names proposed for domestic animals from zoological nomeclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 27(5/6): 269-272. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Groves, C.P. 1974. Horses, asses and zebras in the wild. 192 pp. David & Charles, London. Groyes, C.P. 1986. The taxonomy, distribution, and adaptations of Recent equids. Pp. 11-65 in Meadow, R.H. & Uerpmann, H.-P. (Eds.), Equids in the Ancient World. Reichert, Wiesbaden. Groves, C.P. 1995. On the nomenclature of domestic animals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomen- clature, 52(2): 137-141. Harrison, D.L. & Bates, P.J.J. 1991. The mammals of Arabia, Ed. 2. xvi, 354 pp. Harrison Zoological Museum, Sevenoaks. Hay, O.P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin of the United States Geological Survey, 179: 1-868. Herre, W. & Rohrs, M. 1990. Haustier — zoologisch gesehen. Fischer, Stuttgart. Heuglin, T. von & Fitzinger, L.J. 1866. Systematische Ubersicht der Saugethiere Nordost- Afrika’s mit Einschluss der arabischen Kiiste, des rothen Meeres, der Somali- und der Nilquellen-Lander, siidwarts bis zum vierten Grade nédlicher Breite. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 54: 537-611. Hillman, G.C., Colledge, S.M. & Harris, D.R. 1989. Plant-food economy during the Epipal- aeolithic period at Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria: dietary diversity, seasonality, and modes of exploitation. Pp. 240-268 in Harris, D.R. & Hillman, G.C. (Eds.), Foraging and farming. The evolution of plant exploitation. xxxili, 733 pp. Unwin Hyman, London. Kerr, R. 1792. The animal kingdom or zoological system of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus, vol. 1, part | (Mammalia). xli, 400 pp. Murray, London. Kingdon, J. 1979, 1982. East African mammals. An atlas of evolution in Africa, vol. 3, part B (Large mammals), pp. 125-179 (Equus) (1979); part C (Bovids), pp. 52-55 (Bovini) (1982). Academic Press, London. Lambert, A.B. 1804. Description of Bos frontalis, a new species, from India. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 7: 57-59. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema naturae, Ed. 12, part 1. 530 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Martin, P.S. & Klein, R.G. 1984. Quaternary extinctions. A prehistoric revolution. x, 892 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Mason, I.L. (Ed.). 1984. Evolution of domesticated animals. 452 pp. Longman, London. Molina, J.I. 1782. Saggio sulle storia naturale del Chile. Bologna. Moore, F. 1872. Descriptions of new Indian Lepidoptera. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1872: 555-583. Morey, D.F. 1994. The early evolution of the domestic dog. American Scientist, 82(4): 336-347. Morris, P.A. 1993. British mammals — their status, research needs and likely future. Mammal Review, 23(3/4): 167-176. Miller, P.L.S. [1776]. Des Ritters Carl von Linné ... voustandigen Natursystems. Supplements und Register. Niirnberg. Novoa, C. & Wheeler, J.C. 1984. Lama and alpaca. Pp. 116-128 in Mason, I.L. (Ed.), Evolution of domesticated animals, 452 pp. Longman, London. Nowak, R.M. 1991. Walker's mammals of the world, Ed. 5. 1629 pp. (in 2 vols.). Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London. Odening, K. 1979. Zur Taxonomie und Benennung der Haustier. Zoologische Garten, N.F. 49: 89-103. Palmer, T.S. 1904. Index Generum Mammalium: a list of the genera and families of mammals. 984 pp. North American Fauna No. 23. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington. Przewalski, N.M. 1883. Third journey in Central Asia. From Zaisan through Khami into Tibet and to the sources of the Yellow River. iv, ii, 473 pp., unumbered plates, maps. St Petersbourg. [In Russian]. Schreber, J.C.D. yon. [1777]. Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, mit Beschreibun- gen, vol. 3. Pp. 283-590, pls. 81-166. Leipzig. Skinner, J.D. & Smithers, R.H.N. 1990. The mammals of the Southern African subregion, Ed. 2. xxxii, 769 pp., 37 pls. University of Pretoria, Pretoria. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 37 [Smith, C.H.] 1827. The Ruminantia. Vol. 4 in Griffith, E., Smith, C.H. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organisation, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed. 498 pp., unnumbered plates. Whittaker, London. Stains, H.J. 1975. Distribution and taxonomy of the canids. Pp. 3-26 in Fox, M.W. (Ed.), The wild canids. Their systematics, behavioral ecology and evolution. xvi, 508 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Sterba, G. (Ed.). 1983. The aquarist’s encyclopedia. [English version edited by Mills, D.; first published 1978 in German]. Stuart, A.J. 1982. Pleistocene vertebrates in the British Isles. 212 pp. Longman, London. Tazima, Y. 1984. Silkworm moths. Pp. 416-424 in Mason, I.L. (Ed.), Evolution of domesticated animals, 452 pp. Longman, London. Uerpmann, H.-P. 1981. Ovis musimon Schreber, 1782 oder Ovis musimon Pallas, 1814? Sdugetierkundliche Mitteilungen, 29(4): 59-60. Uerpmann, H.-P. 1987. The ancient distribution of ungulate mammals in the Middle East. Fauna and archaeological sites in Southwest Asia and Northeast Africa. 173 pp. Reichert, Wiesbaden. Uerpmann, H.-P. 1993. Proposal for a separate nomenclature of domestic animals. Pp. 239-241 in Clason, A., Payne, S. & Uerpmann, H.-P. (Eds.), Skeletons in her cupboard. Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock. 259 pp. Oxbow Monograph no. 34. Van Gelder, R.G. 1969. Biology of mammals. 197 pp. Scribner, New York. Wheeler, J.C. 1995. Evolution and present situation of the South American Camelidae. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 54(3): 271-295. Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.A.M. (Eds.). 1993. Mammal species of the world. A taxonomic and geographic reference, Ed. 2. xviii, 1206 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London. Wing, E.S. 1993. The realm between wild and domestic. Pp. 243-250 in Clason, A., Payne, S. & Uerpmann, H.-P. (Eds.), Skeletons in her cupboard. Festschrift for Juliet Clutton-Brock. 259 pp. Oxbow Monograph no. 34. Zeuner, F.E. 1963. Summary. Man and cattle. Proceedings of a symposium on domestication. Occasional Paper of the Royal Anthropological Institute (London), 18: 158-166. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Case 2962 D.L.G. Karsten (1789), Museum Leskeanum, vol. 1 (Regnum Animale): proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes G. Rosenberg Malacology Department, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to propose the suppression of D.L.G. Karsten’s Museum Leskeanum (1789) for nomenclatural purposes on the grounds that the availability of his new molluscan names would disturb the stability of nomenclature and that the work is not consistently binominal. Only one of Karsten’s molluscan names had been used until Duchamps & Tursch (1994) claimed that Museum Leskeanum was an available work on the grounds that it was no less binominal than Réding’s Museum Boltenianum (1798), which was placed on the Official List in Opinion 26 (1926). Tursch, Duchamps & Greifeneder (1994) have replaced two well-known molluscan names with Karsten names. Other names by authors such as Gmelin (1791) and Réding (1798) are threatened with displacement as junior synonyms or homonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; D.L.G. Karsten; Museum Leskeanum (1789); Mollusca. 1. Museum Leskeanum (1789) by Dietrich Ludwig Gustav Karsten (1768-1810) is a two volume work describing the collections of Nathanael Gottfried Leske (1751-1786). The first volume covers zoology, the second mineralogy. The zoological part, ‘Regnum Animale’, contains six sections entitled Mammalia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces, Insecta, and Vermes. New names are introduced for birds, insects, mollusks, and barnacles; most new taxa are illustrated on eight colored plates (two for birds, three for insects and three for mollusks). The section on insects was authored by J.J. Zschach and was published separately the previous year (1788); the other sections were written by Karsten. Leske’s mineral collection was purchased by the Royal Dublin Society in 1798 (Cleevely, 1982), but the fate of his shell collection is not known — it was not treated by Dance (1986) in the standard reference on the location of mollusk collections. 2. Zschach’s 136-page section on insects is clearly non-binominal, with no distinction between names and descriptions of the new taxa; it has been rightly ignored by entomologists. However, the availability of names in the sections written by Karsten should not be influenced by the non-binominal nature of Zschach’s section. Sherborn (1902) did not note Karsten’s work as non-binominal, and listed those of his new names for birds and mollusks that were accompanied by illustrations (except Conus aulicus var. singularis; see para. 7). 3. Karsten’s section on birds is binominal, but his three new bird names, Certhia longicauda (p. xvi), Pipra tricolor (p. xxiii), and Trochilus maximus (p. xvii), although Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 39 accompanied by illustrations, have been ignored by ornithologists. None of these specific names is in current use and I have found none in 19th and 20th century synonymies that I have examined; they are not mentioned in Peters (1931-1987). Ornithologists I have consulted are unable to identify the illustrations to species level. Thus, the availability of Karsten’s portion of Museum Leskeanum should be determined by a consideration of the ‘Vermes’ section, which includes new names for a number of mollusks and two barnacle species. 4. For most molluscan species, Karsten gave bibliographic references to earlier works, primarily Linnaeus (1767), Born (1780) and Martini & Chemnitz (1769-1788). Martini & Chemnitz’s work, Neues Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, was rejected by the Commission on the grounds that the authors had not consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature (Opinion 184, 1944; Direction 1, 1954). When Karsten cited species from Linnaeus (1767) and Born (1780) he used those authors’ binominal names. When he cited species from Martini & Chemnitz (1769-1788) he in some cases failed to make the names binominal. The great majority of the names in the ‘Vermes’ section are binominal, and many others that at first glance appear to be non-binominal can be interpreted as being binominal. There are a few names, however, that cannot be interpreted in this way, for example, Pinna haud ignobilis and Trochus leviter muricatus. Because of such inconsistencies, Karsten’s names for mollusks have generally been dismissed by malacologists as being non-binominal. For example, Vokes (1971, p. 114) noted that Murex varicosus Karsten was unavailable since it was proposed in a non-binominal work. In the copy of Museum Leskeanum at the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, a former curator of malacology penciled ‘Non-binomial — R.T. Abbott 1962’ on the first page. Until 1994, only a single Karsten name for a mollusk had been used as valid by malacologists: Nerita reticulata (p. 296), for example by Pilsbry (1888, p. 21); however, this taxon is now known as Nerita signata Lamarck, 1822. 5. Duchamps & Tursch (1994) have argued that Karsten’s Museum Leskeanum (1789) should be considered binominal. They claimed that its few departures from binominal nomenclature are no more severe than those in Réding’s Museum Boltenianum (1798), which was accepted by the Commission as available (Opinion 96, 1926) and placed on the Official List (Direction 48, 1956). This comparison is unsound since the availability of R6ding’s work was doubted not because of questions of adherence to binominal nomenclature but because many workers refused to accept a sales catalogue of limited distribution as a valid nomenclatural work (see Rehder, 1945). All apparently trinominal names in Museum Boltenianum either include a name subspecific in intent or have a compound word as the specific name (Rosenberg, 1994). Réding’s work therefore is entirely consistent with binomi- nal nomenclature. Although Duchamps & Tursch (1994) picked a poor example, the principle of their argument has some merit, for some early works on mollusks are accepted despite minor departures from binominal nomenclature. For example da Costa (1778) has three two-word genera, Buccina Canaliculata (p. 120), Buccina Recurvirostra (p. 130), and Buccina Longirostra (p. 133); species named in these genera have been treated as if named in Buccinum Linnaeus, 1758. 6. A more fundamental problem than the few non-binominal names in Museum Leskeanum is the serious disruptions to nomenclature that would result from considering it to be available. Duchamps & Tursch (1994) did not point out these 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 consequences. Many names of Gmelin (1791), R6éding (1798) and other authors would be displaced, because Karsten would become the first source giving indications to many of the figures of Martini & Chemnitz. Pfeiffer (1840) and Richardson et al. (1979) compiled early references to Martini & Chemnitz figures but did not consider Karsten’s work. If Karsten’s (1789) work were accepted as a source of names, at least 30 names in current use would be displaced, and another 14 would be affected by change of authorship, as shown in the following table; all are mollusks except the first two which are barnacles. Names in the second column are based in whole or in part on the same Martini or Chemnitz (1769-1788) figures and so are mostly objective synonyms of Karsten’s names. Homonyms that could not be objective synonyms are listed in brackets in the second column. The third column gives the current names for the species, as far as I can trace them. Thirty-four Karsten names that themselves are probable junior synonyms or homonyms are not listed. Whether Bruguiére (1789) has priority over Karsten (1789) is unknown. Karsten name (page) Lepas coarctata (149) L. spinosa (149) Mya oblonga (152) Tellina spengleri (156) T. inflata (156) T. polygona (156) Venus lusoria (163) V. nebulosa (164) V. cordato-literata (164) V. striata (165) V. cincta (166) Spondylus variegatus (170) Chama lamellosus (172) Arca rhomboidalis I. Orient. (173) Pinna haud ignobilis (186) Conus vexillum (191) C. achatinus (192) Cypraea scurro (200) Voluta olivacea (216) V. nigrita (216) V. magellanica (225) Buccinum scalariforme (237) Murex varicosus (265) Trochus radiatus (268) T. leviter muricatus (272) T. cookianus (270) T. declive Ind. Occ. (270) T. fenestratus imperforatus (273) T. apiarium chinense (267) T. acutangulus (267) T. tuberosus (273) Synonym or homonym Balanus perforatus Bruguiére, 1789 B. spinosus Bruguiére, 1789 Mya oblonga Gmelin, 1791 Tellina spengleri Gmelin, 1791 T. inflata Gmelin, 1791 T. multangula Gmelin, 1791 Venus lusoria Réding, 1798 V. nebulosa Gmelin, 1791 V. japonica Gmelin, 1791 V. striata Gmelin, 1791 V. cincta Gmelin, 1791 Spondylus variegatus Roding, 1798 Chama foliacea Gmelin, 1791 {non C. lamellosa Lamarck, 1806] Arca inaequivalvis Bruguiére, 1789 Pinna nobilis Gmelin, 1791 (var. 6) Conus vexillum Gmelin, 1791 {non C. achatinus Gmelin, 1791] Cypraea scurra Gmelin, 1791 Oliva guttata Fischer, 1807 O. tessellata Lamarck, 1811 Porphyria vidua Réding, 1798 Voluta magellanica Gmelin, 1791 V. nassa Gmelin, 1791 [non B. scalariforme Moller, 1842] Neptunea varicosa Réding, 1798 Trochus radiatus Gmelin, 1791 T. stellatus Gmelin, 1791 {non 7. muricatus Linnaeus, 1758] T. cookii Gmelin, 1791 T. tectum Gmelin, 1791 T. fenestratus Gmelin, 1791 T. alveare Gmelin, 1791 T. conus Gmelin, 1791 T. mauritianus Gmelin, 1791 Current name Balanus perforatus Megabalanus spinosus Lutraria oblonga Tellina spengleri Tellina inflata ?Gastrana multangula Meretrix lusoria Marcia opima (Gmelin, 1791) Marcia japonica Marcia japonica ?Ventricolaria rigida (Dillwyn,1817) Spondylus variegatus ?Chama congregata Conrad, 1833 Chama lamellosa Scapharca inaequivalvis Pinna carnea Gmelin, 1791 Conus vexillum Conus achatinus Cypraea scurra Oliva tessellata Oliva vidua Odontocymbiola magellanica Scalptia nassa Buccinum scalariforme Pseudoneptunea varicosa Trochus radiatus Trochus stellatus Cookia sulcatus (Gmelin, 1791) Modulus tectum Tectus fenestratus ? Tectus fenestratus Tectus conus Tectus mauritianus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Karsten name (page) Turbo cidaris pers. (275) T cidaris rufescens (275) T. castaneus Ind. Occ. (276) T. delphinus nodosus (279) T. helicineus (282) Nerita pellis tigrina (289) zikzak (289) rufescente varia (290) adusta (290) tessellata (295) pica (295) variegata (296) nigerrima (294) Haliotis iridis (297) H. plicata (297) Patella magellanica (302) 22223232 Synonym or homonym T. cidaris Gmelin, 1791 (var. B) T. cidaris Gmelin, 1791 (var. ) T. castanea Gmelin, 1791 T. exasperatus Dillwyn, 1817 T. helicoides Gmelin, 1791 Cochlis tigrina Réding, 1798 Nerita fulminea Gmelin, 1791 N. cruentata Gmelin, 1791 N. melanostoma Gmelin, 1791 N. tessellata Gmelin, 1791 N. pica Gmelin, 1791 N. versicolor Gmelin, 1791 N. aterrima Gmelin, 1791 Haliotis iris Gmelin, 1791 H. australis Gmelin, 1791 Patella ferruginea Gmelin, 1791 Current name Turbo cidaris Turbo cidaris Turbo castanea Angaria nodosus (Reeve, 1842) Aulopoma helicoides Natica tigrina Natica fulminea Natica fulminea Mammilla melanostoma Nerita tessellata ? Nerita tessellata Nerita versicolor Nerita aterrima Haliotis iris Haliotis australis Patella ferruginea 41 {non P. magellanica Gmelin, 1791] — Nacella magellanica 7. Apart from his references to Martini & Chemnitz names, Karsten introduced only six new specific names for mollusks, four of which are listed by Sherborn (1902). Two of these names refer to species not noted by earlier authors: Nerita reticulata (p. 296, fig. 8), now known as Nerita signata Lamarck, 1822 and Conus aulicus var. singularis (p. 198, fig. 1), which appears to be Conus terminus Lamarck, 1810. The other four names are Voluta subpraeputium (p. 227, fig. 4), probably a juvenile of Melo melo {Lightfoot, 1786]; Nerita chrysostomus (p. 290, fig. 7), which is Chrysos- toma paradoxa (Born, 1780); Murex cancellatus (p. 266, fig. 6), which is Phos senticosus (Linnaeus, 1758), and Murex denticulatus (p. 260) which was not illustrated and is therefore of unknown identity. Tursch, Duchamps & Greifeneder (1994) have begun using some of Karsten’s names in preference to well-known later names; in particular, they have replaced Oliva vidua (R6ding, 1798) with Oliva nigrita Karsten, 1789 and Oliva tessellata Lamarck, 1811 with Oliva olivacea Karsten, 1789. This action contravenes Article 23b of the Code, which states that ‘The Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and is not intended to be used to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning through the introduction of an unused name that is its senior synonym’. Apart from the 1994 papers by Duchamps & Tursch and Tursch, Duchamps & Greifeneder, none of Karsten’s names is in current use and disruption to zoological nomenclature would not result from the suppression of Karsten’s work. Although lectotype designations for all the names in the second column of the list in para. 6 (above) have not been traced, it is clear that many would become objective or subjective junior synonyms, or junior homonyms, if Karsten’s work was accepted as available. 8. An earlier draft of this application (Rosenberg, 1994) was posted in July 1994 on the Internet to more than 300 researchers who subscribe to the Mollusca listprocessor at Berkeley, California (listproc@ucmp1.berkeley.edu). Several com- ments were received, all supportive; copies of these comments have been given to the Commission’s Secretariat. No malacologists objected to the idea of rejecting Karsten’s work. I therefore propose that the Commission should suppress this work for nomenclatural purposes because its availability would disturb the stability of nomenclature in the Mollusca. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the work by D.L.G. Karsten (1789) entitled Museum Leskeanum, regnum animale, quod ordine systematico; (2) to place the above work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. References Born, I. 1780. Testacea Musei Caesarei Vindobonensis. xxxvi, 442, 17 pp., 18 pls. Kraus, Vienna. Bruguiére, J.G. 1789, 1792. Encyclopédie Méthodique. Histoire Naturelle des Vers. vol. 1, part 1, pp. 1-344 (1789); part 2, pp. 345-757 (1792). Panckoucke, Paris. Cleevely, R.J. 1983. World palaeontological collections. 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. da Costa, E.M. 1778. Historia Naturalis Testaceorum Britanniae, or The British conchology. xii, 254, viii, 17 pls. Author, London. Dance, S.P. 1986. A history of shell collecting. xv, 265 pp., 32 pls. Brill, Leiden. Duchamps, R. & Tursch, B. 1994. A note on the Museum Leskeanum. Apex, 9(1): 11-16. Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13. Vol. 1 (6, Vermes), pp. 3021-3910. Lipsiae. Karsten, D.L.G. 1789. Museum Leskeanum, regnum animale, quod ordine systematico. [44], xlv, 320 pp., 8 pls. Miller, Lipsiae. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae. Martini, F.H.W. & Chemnitz, J.H. 1769-1788. Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vols. 1-10. (Vols. 1-3 by Martini, 4-10 by Chemnitz.) Raspe, Nurnberg. Peters, J.C. 1931-1987. Check-list of birds of the world, vols. 1-16. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Pfeiffer, L. 1840. Kritisches Register zu Martini und Chemnitz's Systematischen Konchylien- Kabinet. viii, 112 pp. Fischer, Kassel. Pilsbry, H.A. 1888. Monograph of the families Neritidae, Neritopsidae, Adeorbiidae, Cyclos- trematidae, and Liotiidae. Manual of Conchology, 10: 3-160. Rehder, H.A. 1945. A note on the Bolten Catalogue. Nautilus, 59(2): 50-52. Richardson, [C.JL., Abbott, R.T. & Davis, G.M. 1979. Early references to the figures in the Conchylien Cabinet of Martini and Chemnitz: volumes I-XII. Tryonia, no. 2, parts 1-2, 427 pp., 432 pls., 70 vignettes. [Réding, P.F.] 1798. Museum Boltenianum sive catalogus cimeliorum, pars secunda. viii, 199 pp. Trappii, Hamburg. Rosenberg, G. 1994. On the non-binomial nature of Museum Leskeanum (Karsten 1789). Mollusca archive at http://UCMP1.Berkeley.edu/mollusca.html (Internet). Sherborn, C.D. 1902. Index Animalium, 1758-1800. lix, 1195 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tursch, B., Duchamps, R. & Greifeneder, D. 1994. Studies on Olividae. XX. The pre- Lamarckian names for Oliva species. Apex, 9(2/3): 51-78. Vokes, E.H. Catalogue of the genus Murex Linné (Mollusca: Gastropoda); Muricinae, Ocenebrinae. Bulletin of American Paleontology, 61(268): 1-141. Zschach, J.J. 1788. Museum N.G. Leskeanum, pars Entomologica. 136 pp., 3 pls. Lipsiae. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 43 Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2870; see BZN 51: 105-107, 336-338; 52: 176-178, 331-333) (1) Dietrich Kadolsky ‘The Limes’, 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, South Croydon, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K. Prof Gittenberger, in his critique (BZN 52: 259-260) of my previous comment (BZN 52: 176-178), seems to believe that I was referring to himself with my mention of ‘sloppy work’. This was never intended, as should have been evident from the context of my comment. Gittenberger chose to refer to ‘the graveyard of synonymy’ even in the title of his (1993) paper. In his application (BZN 51: 105-107, para. 3) Gittenberger explains that the five names he proposes for suppression were created by disciples of the ‘Nouvelle Ecole’ of French malacologists which was notorious for promoting species splitting. The merits, or otherwise, of this school are, however, not at issue in the application concerning Trochoidea geyeri (Sods, 1926). It would be totally undesir- able for the stability of nomenclature if acceptance of names on the basis of scientific merit of the original publication were to become part of nomenclatural practice. The ‘new respect’ (para. 5 of Gittenberger’s comment) which systematics may have gained is not based on a particular version of the rules of nomenclature. Gittenberger’s implication that systematists must choose between my ‘dogma’ and respectable nomenclature is rather unrealistic, apart from overrating my contri- bution. I put forward (BZN 52: 177) a reasoned proposal (to adopt Helix arceuthophila Mabille, 1881 as the valid name), not a dogma. While Gittenberger feels he needs to prevent readers from ‘falling prey’ to my proposal, I expect them to be sufficiently capable of judging for themselves the merits of my proposal and his comment. My view (BZN 52: 177) that Trochoidea geyeri is one of the less frequent species of European land snail is based on my own collecting experience as well as on published information. This is not invalidated by Gittenberger’s view that the species name geyeri is well known. In the first sentence of my previous comment I acknowledged that Gittenberger’s application to conserve the name geyeri is perfectly admissable under the Code, but I drew attention to the fact that the species is known mainly amongst collectors and taxonomists, who experience name changes all the time. A stronger case for conserving the name geyeri could be made if the species were widely known under this name by non-taxonomist biologists, and/or in agriculture, medicine and in the popular literature; however, to my knowledge, this is not the case. (2) Bernard Hausdorf Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum der Universitat Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany I am in favour of the proposal to conserve the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 by the suppression of the five unused senior subjective synonyms cited by Gittenberger in his application (BZN 51: 105-107), and by the suppression of 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Xerophila striata f. minor Geyer, 1817 (para. 1 of the comment by Falkner & Proschwitz, BZN 52: 331-332). I have the impression that purely theoretical considerations, as well as general discussion about Article 79c of the Code and about the ‘Nouvelle Ecole’, have obscured the facts of this case. It is the purpose of the Principle of Priority and the Code in general to promote stability and not ‘to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed meaning through the introduction of an unused name that is its senior synonym’ (Article 23b). The case for geyeri meets the two requirements for the suppression of unused senior synonyms specified in Article 79c. The five earlier names have not been used as valid during the preceding 100 years (not only the preceding 50 years). In view of this, Bouchet’s argument (BZN 51: 336-338) that the names are not ‘forgotten’ but ‘misinterpreted’ is insignificant. Secondly, geyeri has been applied to the molluscan species as its valid name by far more than five different authors and in far more than 10 publications during the preceding 50 years (see Gittenberger, 1993c, para. 5 of the application, and Gittenberger’s comment on BZN 51: 338). In contrast to Bouchet’s (BZN 51: 336-338) and Kadolsky’s (BZN 52: 176-178) views, T. geyeri is known not only to a small circle of specialist workers and collectors of land snails but also in various subdisciplines of biology (see Gittenberger, BZN 51: 338). It is known to paleontologists as well as to ecologists and is included in several Red Lists. There is no provision in the Code that requires a species to be of public interest for a universally used name to be conserved. In their comments Bouchet, Kadolsky and Falkner & Proschwitz (52: 331-333) have not denied that the prima facie require- ments of Article 79c are met in this case and I can see no reason for rejecting Gittenberger’s proposal. It is true that the nomenclature of Palaearctic pulmonates in general has not yet attained the desired stability. However, in contrast to Bouchet (para. 5 of his comment), I cannot see a connection between the proposed suppression of unused senior synonyms of a hitherto unchallenged and widely used name and name changes of other taxa in the HYGROMIDAE, or between the proposed suppression and the fact that every new species of Palaearctic pulmonate may not yet have been discovered. Falkner & Proschwitz stated in their comment (para. 3) that they are ‘opposed to the general trend of neglecting critical revisory systematic studies’. Similar statements can be found in Kadolsky’s comment. Although I am sure that these are not intended as accusations against Gittenberger, I think it necessary to emphasize that Gittenberger (and not Bouchet, Falkner, Kadolsky or Proschwitz) was the first and only one to revise the types of the senior synonyms of Trochoidea geyeri which were described more than a hundred years ago. It would, indeed, have been desirable to confirm the conspecificity of these taxa with T. geyeri by anatomical studies of topotypical material. Nevertheless, I think that it is justified to place the five senior names in the synonymy of 7. geyeri on the strength of a conchological study. In the areas from which these names were described there are no known species which cannot be distinguished from geyeri by shell characters, and it is rather improbable that there are unknown species which are conchologically identical with T. geyeri. We are indebted to Gittenberger (1993a-c) for not only the time-consuming revision of about 80 names introduced by the ‘Nouvelle Ecole’, but also the qualified evaluation of these names. He did not ‘reject in bulk all the names introduced by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 45 these authors’, as Bouchet has stated (para. 3 of his comment), but has rehabilitated some of them, placed most of them in the synonymy of well known senior names, and proposed the suppression of only five names which threaten an unchallenged, widely known junior name. It would have been easier for Gittenberger to replace T. geyeri with one of the senior names, as recommended by Bouchet and Kadolsky, rather than submit a proposal in line with the Code’s explicit provisions on maintaining stability. I suspect that no one else will do such a time-consuming revision and prepare a proposal to stabilize the nomenclature if this well substantiated proposal is rejected. References Gittenberger, E. 1993a. Digging in the graveyard of synonymy, in search of Portuguese species of Candidula Kobelt, 1871 (Mollusca: Gastropoda Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 67(17): 283-293. Gittenberger, E. 1993b. On Cernuella virgata (Da Costa, 1778) and two Iberian Xerosecta species (Mollusca: Gastropoda Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 67(18): 295-302. Gittenberger, E. 1993c. On Trochoidea geyeri (Sods, 1926) and some conchologically similar taxa (Mollusca: Gastropoda Pulmonata: Hygromiidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 67(19): 303-320. Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) (Case 2922; see BZN 52: 24-26, 333-335) Marion Nixon Geology Department, Birkbeck College, Malet Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. I support the application by Drs Guerra and Alonso-Zarazaga. Both the names Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 are familiar in zoological works. Besides this, these animals have been widely used in experimental studies for more than SO years, and are always referred to in the literature by these names, including neurophysiological, psychological and biochemical journals, and also in books. There would be confusion if these names were now changed. Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879) (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum (Case 2899; see BZN 52: 27-33, 261-262, 329-331) Kristian Fauchald The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Patricia A. Hutchings The Australian Museum, Sydney, N.S.W., Australia 2000 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Tomoyuki Miura Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan 890 Alexander I. Muir The Natural History Museum, London SW7 SBD, U.K. We write as the Nomenclatural Sub-Committee of the International Polychaete Association with a response on the application (BZN 52: 27-33) by Dr P.H. Gibson and Mr David Heppell to conserve the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, 1879), the comment by Pleijel & Mackie (BZN 52: 261-262), and the reply by Heppell & Gibson (BZN 52: 329-331). 1. The argument that the creation of a neotype for Dodecaceria concharum from outside the type locality will stabilise the name cannot be substantiated. The species within this genus have been so poorly defined that they can only be separated by specialist polychaete systematists. Therefore it is not surprising that they have been separated in marine faunas (which are compiled from records of specialists) but not differentiated in ecological reports written by generalists. 2. Pleijel & Mackie further suggest that the current distribution of the genus in northern European waters may be more complicated than currently thought and a correct historical interpretation will be less likely to confuse future workers, and we strongly agree with this. We concur fully with Pleijel & Mackie’s comment that if the designation of a neotype for D. concharum is considered desirable then it should be from one of the localities mentioned by Orsted. 3. The non-systematic literature on the genus Dodecaceria is sparse, mainly consisting of papers on reproductive biology by Dr Gibson. If he publishes the correct name in his next paper it will be picked up by future workers and no confusion will occur. 4. We therefore suggest that there is no need for the Commission to use its plenary powers. No confusion will result from agreeing with the correct nomenclatural conclusion of George & Petersen (1991), rather than the reasoning of Gibson & Heppell. There is no justification for suppressing the specific names requested by Gibson & Heppell: Nereis sextentacula delle Chiaje, 1828 (see Muir, 1989, for the dating of this paper), Terebella ostreae Grube, 1853, Heterocirrus saxicola Grube, 1853 and H. ater Quatrefages, 1865. Additional reference Muir, A.I. 1989. Species of the genus Sigalion (Annelida: Polychaeta) reported from north-west European waters, with a note on the authorship of the generic name. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 30: 339-345. Comment on the proposed conservation of Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda) (Case 2894; see BZN 52: 245-249) Charles C. Davis Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John’s, Newfoundland, Canada A1B 3X9 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 47 I support Dr Grygier’s proposal to suppress the generic name Thaumatoessa Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842]. The genus appeared under the currently universally used name 7haumaleus in Kroyer’s own (1849) work. The valid generic names included in the order Monstrilloida should be given as Monstrilla Dana, 1849, Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849, and probably also Thespesiopsyllus Sars, 1921. Comment on the proposal to remove the homonymy between BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecoptera), and proposed precedence of KATERETIDAE Ganglbauer, 1899 over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, [1845] (Case 2865; see BZN 51: 309-311; 52: 179-181, 335-336) R.G. Booth International Institute of Entomology, clo The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. I support the application (BZN 51: 309-311) to remove the homonymy of the family-group names based on Brachypterus Kugelann, 1794 (Coleoptera) and Brachyptera Newport, 1848 (Plecoptera) by retaining BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson, 1845 in Coleoptera and changing Zwick’s (1977) junior name in Plecoptera. I do feel, however, that giving precedence to the family-group name KATERETIDAE Over BRACHYPTERINAE Erichson (BZN 52: 179-181) is not justified. Prof Newton’s comment (BZN 52: 335-336) shows that the name BRACHYPTERINAE has been used within the last 50 years. In addition to the three recent uses that he cites, Cooter (1995, Coleopterist, 4: 37) also accepted this name which, as BRACHYPTERINA, is familiar to British coleopterists who still use Fowler’s century-old Coleoptera of the British Isles as a standard work. As the family-group concerned was generally regarded as a subfamily of the NITIDULIDAE, the latter containing many species of economic importance, the reversion back to the older BRACHYPTERIDAE, rather than KATERETIDAE, will not affect the economic literature since this group, as far as I am aware, contains no species of economic importance. That taxonomists can rapidly revert to the older name is shown by the three recent references cited by Newton. Pakaluk, Slipinski & Lawrence (1994) mention the family name CERCIDAE Chenu & Desmarest, 1851 (based on Cercus Latreille, 1796, a junior synonym of Kateretes Herbst, 1793). CERCIDAE also has priority over KATERETIDAE. The type species designation for Kateretes appears to date from Audisio (1993). I have seen three earlier designations (for Cateretes and Catheretes: Westwood, [1838-1840]; Hope, 1840; Thomson, 1859) but none is valid since the species designated was not one of those included by Herbst (1793) or listed in synonymy. It is possible that other overlooked designations exist which threaten the current concept of Kateretes. I agree with Newton and suggest upholding the current priority of BRACHYPTERI- DAE over the other homonymous and synonymous names. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Comments on the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species (Case 2868; see BZN 50: 219-223; 51: 149-153; 52: 183-186, 339-342) Hobart M. Smith Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. David B. Wake Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. Mark R. Jennings Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, United States Department of the Interior, 1830 Sharon Avenue, Davis, California 95616, U.S.A. The comments made by Dr Sebastiano Salvidio (published in BZN 52: 339-340) and from Prof Alain Dubois (BZN 52: 340-342) persuade us to endorse the proposals put forward by the latter to replace those made originally by two of us (Smith & Wake) in BZN 50: 221. Dubois’s proposals are to designate the American species Spelerpes platycephalus Camp, 1916 as the type species of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848, rather than the European species Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838, and to place the names Geotriton Bonaparte, [1832] and Hydromantoides Lanza & Vanni, 1981 (which would become a junior objective synonym of Hydromantes) on the Official Index. The overwhelming desires of both European and American workers for stability would, under these proposals, be met by all who ever deal with Hydromantes (auctt., sensu lato) in both the areas that it occupies. Comment on the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLUNI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata) (Case 2869; see BZN 50: 129-132; 51: 153-156, 264-265, 341-342; 52: 337-338) Hobart M. Smith Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. David B. Wake Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, U.S.A. The main points raised by Dubois (BZN 52: 337-338) are that our application ill-advisedly seeks (1) to conserve a ‘rather obscure’ name (HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 49 1856) used ‘less than 20 times’ over a span of ‘less than 30 years’; (2) in so doing, to suppress a family-group name (MYCETOGLOSSINA) that might be revived if its type genus (Mycetoglossus Bonaparte, [1839], the name of which is a junior objective synonym of Pseudotriton Tschudi, 1838) is ever regarded as belonging to a family group different from that to which Hemidactylium Tschudi, 1838 belongs; (3) to make a test case ‘to completely abandon the principle of priority and to free systematics from the tyranny of the past’, and to press selectively, not consistently, for abandonment of priority as a deciding factor in choosing between synonyms. We comment in the following paragraphs upon each of these three points. (1) We maintain that it is preferable to continue use of the name HEMIDACTYLIINI on the basis of its usage despite the priority of MYCETOGLOSSINA, which was a ‘forgotten’ name for 134 years until revived by Dubois (1984). Application of the principle of priority is rightly not limitless, as is attested by the provisions of Article 79 of the Code. (2) It is true that a family-group taxon to which Pseudotriton, the valid senior synonym of Mycetoglossus, belongs may ultimately be regarded as different from the comparable taxon containing Hemidactylium, although at present no such distinction is justified. However, there would be no loss in suppressing MYCETO- GLOSSINA, based as it is on an objectively invalid generic name and never having been used except as revived in 1984 to replace HEMIDACTYLIINI. The name MYCETOGLOSSINA is a nomen oblitum (in the sense of a long-forgotten, unused name) that under the 1961 and 1964 Codes would automatically have been rejected; under the cur- rent Code it requires action by the Commission for suppression, as we have requested. (3) We categorically support the principle of priority, without which biological nomenclature would be chaotic. In referring to ‘mindless adherence to priority’ we simply mean its application without regard to what we call ‘the principle of stability’. Evaluation of stability is subjective, to be sure, whereas priority is objective, but stability merits far more consideration than it gets from some systematists. It is the prime purpose of the Code (see the Preamble, p. 3). The long history of the rule of priority over all else is not easily altered to a balanced consideration of the overall impact of any given name change. At one time the literature was limited to rather a few specialists, whereas these days the general public and leaders in all fields are being broadly educated in the diversity, exploitation, conservation and management of an increasing number of life forms. Use of scientific names in a vast variety of contexts has increased enormously in the last few decades, and will continue to do so. For that reason it has become increasingly important to maintain stability of scientific names, for they are vital to communication far afield from working systematists. Specialists are, however, the guardians of biological nomenclature, and it is their responsibility to see that it remains as stable as possible, consistent with taxonomic knowledge. As stated by Bock (BZN 52: 287): ‘Nothing is gained and much is lost every time an established name is replaced by an unused senior synonym regardless of why the senior synonym had become unused’. ; In conclusion, we reiterate that in our view the proposals of our application are of sound merit. 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Phyllophis carinata Giinther, 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata; Reptilia, Serpentes) (Case 2850; see BZN 52: 166-169, 345-346) Michihisa Toriba Japan Snake Institute, Yabuzuka-honmachi, Nitta-gun, Gunma 379-23, Japan Elaphe carinata (Ginther, 1864) is a large and fairly common snake with a wide distributional range from southwestern Japan, China and Taiwan, to northern Indo-China. It feeds on various vertebrates and is an important predator. A change of name to E. phyllophis (Boulenger, 1891) would cause serious disruption in a number of scientific fields. I therefore support the proposal by Smith, Ota & Wallach to conserve the name E. carinata (Gunther). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 51 OPINION 1822 Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud, 1831 (currently Aegopinella nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific names conserved, and a neotype designated for H. nitidula Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; terrestrial snails; Helix nitidula; Helix nitens. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 are hereby set aside and specimen no. 86934 in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, described and figured by Gittenberger (1993), is designated the neotype; (b) the specific name nitens Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binomen Helix nitens, and all uses of the name Helix nitens prior to the publication of Helix nitens Michaud, 1831, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) To the entry for Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is hereby added the endorsement that it is defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above. (3) The name nitens Michaud, 1831, as published in the binomen Helix nitens and as defined by the lectotype designated by Forcart (1959), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name nitens Gmelin, [1791], as published in the binomen Helix nitens and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of the specific name of Helix nitida Miller, 1774). History of Case 2871 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud, 1831, and for the designation of a neo- type for H. nitidula, was received from Prof Edmund Gittenberger (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 15 December 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 205-208 (September 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The specific name of Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 was placed on the Official List in Opinion 336 (March 1955). However, the identity of the only syntype still remaining (in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna) was not then considered. It was noted on the voting paper that support for the application was given by, among others, all the 20 participants at a European non-marine molluscan nomenclature meeting in Heidelberg in 1992 (para. 8 of the application). It was also noted on the voting papar that Draparnaud lived and died in Montpellier and that Locard (1895) recorded that, following Draparnaud’s death in 1804, his mollusc collection was sold in 1820 to the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna (para. 2 of the application; see also Dance, 1986, p. 210). However, Jeffreys 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 (1862, p. 310) wrote: “After the foregoing part of this volume [British Conchology, vol. 1] had been printed, I received a communication of considerable importance as regards the determination of some of the species described by Draparnaud. It consisted of the original types or specimens of that author, from the public museum at Montpellier, and which, through the great kindness of the Director, M. Michaud, I have now had the opportunity of examining and comparing with my own specimens’. Draparnaud material seen by Jeffreys (1862, p. 310) included three specimens of Helix nitidula var. B (identified by Jeffreys as Zonites purus and Z. radiatulus, both of Alder (1830); paras. 1 and 3 of the application) but no specimens of ‘H. nitidula’. It is not known on how many specimens Draparnaud (1805) based H. nitidula (para. 1 of the application), and the possible existence of Draparnaud original type material additional to that in Vienna delayed voting on the case. Assistance from Dr P. Bouchet (Paris) was sought; he wrote to the Commission Secretariat (March 1995): ‘I am afraid that my investigations in Montpellier have not been very fruitful. A colleague of mine, Dr Joel André, is a malacologist working at the university there. We were both aware of 19th century malacological collections (e.g. Paladilhe) in the local university collections, but we had never heard of Draparnaud material still in existence other than in Vienna. There is currently no natural history museum in Montpellier and it is not clear where the material in the ‘public museum’ referred to by Jeffreys might have ended up. Dr André has been searching in collections of various departments at the University of Montpellier but without success. The material referred to by Jeffreys must be considered lost or, if still in existence, not accessible’. For practical purposes the existence of Draparnaud specimens in Montpellier was ruled out and the case was submitted for voting. Dance, S.P. 1986. A history of shell collecting. xv, 265 pp., 32 pls. Brill, Leiden. Jeffreys, J.G. 1862. British conchology ..., vol. 1 (Land and freshwater shells). cxiv, 341 pp., 8 pls. Voorst, London. Decision of the Commission On | September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 50: 207. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Ride and Ueno. 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: nitens, Helix, Gmelin, [1791], Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 6, p. 3633. nitens, Helix, Michaud, 1831, Complément de I’histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France, de J.P.R. Draparnaud, p. 44. The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Helix nitens Michaud, 1831: Forcart, L. 1959. Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 88(1-—3): 24. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 53 OPINION 1823 Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; terrestrial snails; Nesopupa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881; (b) Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881 (alternate original spelling of Ptychochilus). (2) The name Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation of the replaced nominal genus Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881, Pupa tantilla Gould, 1847, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name tantilla Gould, 1847, as published in the binomen Pupa tantilla (specific name of the type species of Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2904 An application for the conservation of the generic name Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 was received from Drs Robert H. Cowie, Carl C. Christensen and Neal L. Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 19 September 1993. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 51: 217-218 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 218. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — |: Kabata. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 52: 431. Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881, Conchologische Mittheilungen, 1(4): 47. Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881, Conchologische Mittheilungen, 1(4): 48. tantilla, Pupa, Gould, 1847, Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 2: 197. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1824 Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Ischyrus; Lybas; Megischyrus; Mycotretus. : Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for (2) GB (4 ) ~— the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Ischyrus Dejean, 1836, and all uses of the name Jschyrus prior to the publication of Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842; (b) Lybas Dejean, 1836 and all uses of the name Lybas prior to the publication of Lybas Lacordaire, 1842; (c) Mycotretus Dejean, 1836 and all uses of the name Mycotretus prior to the publication of Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Crotch (1873) Erotylus quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792; (b) Lybas Lacordaire, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Crotch (1876) Lybas normalis Lacordaire, 1842; (c) Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Erotylus undatus Olivier, 1792; (d) Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 (gender: masculine), type species by subse- quent designation by Boyle (1956) Erotylus lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792, as published in the binomen Erotylus quadripunctatus (specific name of the type species of Jschyrus Lacordaire, 1842); (b) normalis Lacordaire, 1842, as published in the binomen Lybas normalis (specific name of the type species of Lybas Lacordaire, 1842); (c) undatus Olivier, 1792, as published in the binomen Erotylus undatus (specific name of the type species of Megischyrus Crotch, 1873); (d) /esueuri Chevrolat, 1835, as published in the binomen Erotylus lesueuri (specific name of the type species of Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842). The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Apolybas Alvarenga, 1965 (a junior objective synonym of Lybas Lacordaire, 1842); (b) Zschyrus Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (c) Lybas Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(b) above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 55 (d) Micrischyrus Alvarenga, 1965 (a junior objective synonym of Jschyrus Lacordaire, 1842); (e) Mycotretus Dejean, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(c) above. History of Case 2885 An application for the conservation of the current usage of the generic names Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 was received from Dr Paul E. Skelley (University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.) and Dr Michael A. Goodrich (Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, U.S.A.) on 7 April 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 128-132 (June 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Prof Richard C. Funk (Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, Illinois, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 52: 73 (March 1995). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 130-131. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Martins de Souza and Minelli. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Lehtinen commented: ‘It is important to preserve the current concepts of the genera Ischyrus, Lybas and Mycotretus but I prefer to attribute authorship of the names to Dejean (1836), where they are valid under the Code. As they are older than Lacordaire’s names the risk of confusing synonyms becomes smaller’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Apolybas Alvarenga, 1965, Boletim da Universidade Federal do Paranda, Zoologia, 2(6): 81. Ischyrus Dejean, 1836, Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, Livr. 5, p. 428. Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Monographie des Erotyliens, famille de l’ordre des coléoptéres, p. 89. lesueuri, Erotylus, Chevrolat, 1835, Coléoptera du Mexique, Cent. 2, fasc. 8, no. 175. Lybas Dejean, 1836, Catalogue des coléopteéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, Livr. 5, p. 429. Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Monographie des Erotyliens, famille de l’ordre des coléopteéres, p. 228. Megischyrus Crotch, 1873, Cistula Entomologica, 1: 143. Micrischyrus Alvarenga, 1965, Boletim da Universidade Federal do Parana, Zoologia, 2(6): 86. Mycotretus Dejean, 1836, Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, Livr. 5, p. 428. Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842, Monographie des Erotyliens, famille de l’ordre des coléopteéres, p. 132. normalis, Lybas, Lacordaire, 1842, Monographie des Erotyliens, famille de l’ordre des coléoptéres, p. 235. quadripunctatus, Erotylus, Olivier, 1792, Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 6, p. 437. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 undatus, Erotylus, Olivier, 1792, Encyclopédie méthodique. Histoire naturelle des insectes, vol. 6, p. 434. The following is the reference for the designation of Erotylus undatus Olivier, 1792 as the type species of the nominal genus Megischyrus Crotch, 1873, and of Erotylus quadripunctatus Olivier, 1792 as the type species of the nominal genus /schyrus Lacordaire, 1842: Crotch, G.R. 1873. Cistula Entomologica, 1: 143, 144 respectively. The following is the reference for the designation of Lybas normalis Lacordaire, 1842 as the type species of the nominal genus Lybas Lacordaire, 1842: ; Crotch, G.R. 1876. Cistula Entomologica, 1: 471. The following is the reference for the designation of Erotylus lesueuri Chevrolat, 1835 as the type species of the nominal genus Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842: Boyle, W.W. 1956. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 110(2): 137. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 57 OPINION 1825 Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; jewel beetles; Palmar; Poecilonota; Scintillatrix. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 are hereby set aside and Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] is designated as the type species; (b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 are hereby set aside and Buprestis rutilans Fabricius, [1777] is designated as the type species; (c) the generic name Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799]; (b) Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above Buprestis rutilans Fabricius, [1777]; (c) Palmar Schaefer, 1949 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Buprestis festiva Linnaeus, 1767. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) variolosa Paykull, [1799], as published in the binomen Buprestis variolosa (specific name of the type species of Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829); (b) rutilans Fabricius, [1777], as published in the binomen Buprestis rutilans (specific name of the type species of Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956); (c) festiva Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Buprestis festiva (specific name of the type species of Palmar Schaefer, 1949). The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848, as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (b) Descarpentriesina Leraut, 1983 (a junior objective synonym of Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829): (c) Lampra Dejean, 1833 (a junior homonym of Lampra Hubner, 1821). (4 ~ 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 History of Case 2837/1 An application for the conservation of the generic names Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix was received from Herr Hans Mihle (Munich, Germany) on 27 November 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 27-30 (March 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. : Comments in support were received from Dr C.L. Bellamy (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa, published in BZN 50: 56, March 1993); Dr Richard L. Westcott (Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon, U.S.A., published in BZN 50: 232, September 1993); and Dr G.H. Nelson (College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Pomona, California, U.S.A., published in BZN 51: 45, March 1994). The application sought to place the generic name Palmar Schaefer, 1949, among others, on the Official List. It was noted on the voting paper that, as cited in para. 5, the name was established for a subgenus of Lampra Dejean, 1833 and Buprestis festiva Linnaeus, 1767 was designated as the type species. However, Casey (1909) had designated the same species as the type of Lampra. B. festiva was therefore the type species of the nominotypical subgenus of Lampra (Articles 43a and 61b of the Code), rendering Palmar a junior objective synonym of Lampra. Commission approval of the designation of B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956, a replacement name for the preoccupied Lampra Dejean, would allow the accustomed usage of Palmar to continue, with B. festiva as the type species (Articles 67h and 72e of the Code). Decision of the Commission On | September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 50: 29. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (part), Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Stys. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Voting for, Martins de Souza commented: ‘As noted in para. 7 of the application, Leraut’s (1983) actions were ‘in formal accord with the Code’. However, comments from buprestid workers indicate that great confusion would result if his proposals were adopted. I therefore vote in favour but with some reservations’. Voting against, Bouchet commented: ‘The Commission is requested to validate numerous breaches against the Code. However, usage has not been clearly demonstrated and the references cited are insufficient to convince me that stability of nomenclature will be seriously threatened by a strict application of the Code. The abstract of the application refers to the economic importance of Scintillatrix rutilans but this aspect of the usage of the name has not been developed’. Stys commented: ‘The complex nomenclatural situation concerns six generic names all of which have been correctly interpreted by Leraut (1983) who, unlike other buprestidologists, did not ignore the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 59 valid fixations of type species by Westwood ({1838]) and Casey (1909). In my view the proposed pragmatic solution, maintaining incorrect usage and refuting the work of those who followed the Code, goes too far in this case. Long-term stability of nomenclature would be better served by a strict observance of the Code’. Lehtinen voted for proposals (1)(a), (2)(a), (3)(a), (4)(b) and (4)(c) of para. 8 on BZN 50: 29 but against the remaining proposals. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Dendrochariessa Gist|, 1848, Naturgeschichte des Thierreiches ftir héhere Schulen, p. ix. Descarpentriesina Leraut, 1983, Entomologica Gallica, 1(1): 6. festiva, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 663. Lampra Dejean, 1833, Catalogue des coléopteres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, part 1, p. 78. Palmar Schaefer, 1949, Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplement: 167. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen neurer Thierarten, wahrend des Flottcapitains von Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 1823-1826, part 1, p. 9. rutilans, Buprestis, Fabricius, [1777], Genera insectorum ..., p. 235. Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956, Acta Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 30: 41. variolosa, Buprestis, Paykull, [1799], Fauna Suecica. Insecta, vol. 2, p. 219. The following is the reference for the fixation of Buprestis festiva Linnaeus, 1767 as the type species of the nominal genus Palmar Schaefer, 1949: Schaefer, L. 1949. Miscellanea Entomologica, Supplement: 167. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1826 Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; jewel beetles; Me/anophila; Phaenops. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 are hereby set aside and Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 is designated as the type species; (b) it is hereby ruled that the gender of the generic name Phaenops Dejean, 1833 is feminine. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774; (b) Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (gender: feminine, as ruled in (1)(b) above), type species by designation by Théry (1942) Buprestis cyanea Fabricius, 1775. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) acuminata De Geer, 1774, as published in the binomen Buprestis acuminata (specific name of the type species of Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829); (b) cyanea Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Buprestis cyanea (specific name of the type species of Phaenops Dejean, 1833). History of Case 2837/2 An application for the conservation of the generic names Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 by the designation of Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila was received from Herr Hans Mile (Munich, Germany) on 27 November 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 50: 31-34 (March 1993). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment from Dr Richard L. Westcott (Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 50: 232-233 (September 1993), together with a reply in support from Dr R.G. Booth (/nternational Institute of Entomology, clo The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.). Dr Booth also pointed out that under Article 30a(ii) of the Code the name Phaenops is masculine, although it was treated as feminine by its author and by all subsequent workers. He proposed (BZN 50: 233) that Phaenops should continue to be used as feminine. A reply to Dr Westcott’s comment by the author of the application was published in BZN 51: 43-44 (March 1994), together with a further comment from Dr Westcott and an opposing comment from Dr G.H. Nelson (College of Osteopathic Medicine of the Pacific, Pomona, California, U.S.A.). A comment in support from Drs Svatopluk Bily (National Museum, Praha, Czech Republic) & C.L. Bellamy (Transvaal Museum, Pretoria, South Africa) was published in BZN 52: 70 (March 1995). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 61 It was noted on the voting paper that the application sought to maintain the usage of the name Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 by setting aside the earlier, long overlooked type species designation by Westwood ([1838]) of Bupestris tarda Fabricius, 1792 (= B. cyanea Fabricius, 1775) and by designating Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type. This designation would also conserve the name Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (type species B. cyanea). The usage of these generic names is that which has been traditionally followed by most European workers since the publication of Lacordaire (1857). An exception is Leraut (1983), who followed Westwood’s ({1838]) type species designation and used the name Melanophila for the genus Phaenops as currently understood, and adopted the unused name Trachypteris Kirby, 1837 (type species B. decostigma Fabricius, 1787) for the decostigma-acuminata group of species. Until recently, most workers in the United States, where B. cyanea does not occur, included Phaenops as a subgenus or as a synonym of Melanophila. However, in the past six years (since Nelson, 1989) American workers have used the name Melanophila only for the cyanea-related group of species, following Leraut (1983) but not in accord with previous (and present European) nomenclature, and have adopted the unused name Oxypteris Kirby, 1837 (type species B. appendiculata Fabricius, 1792, a junior synonym of B. acuminata) for acuminata and other species. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 50: 32-33 and 233. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata (part), Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 6: Bouchet, Corliss, Hahn, Holthuis, Minelli and Stys. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Kabata voted for the conservation of the generic names Me/anophila and Phaenops but against the proposal to continue to treat the latter as feminine. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: acuminata, Buprestis, De Geer, 1774, Mémoires pour servir a l'histoire des insectes, vol. 4, p33) cyanea, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species ..., p. 223. Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, enthaltend abbildungen und Beschreibungen neurer Thierarten, wahrend des Flottcapitains von Kotzebue zweiter Reise um die Welt, auf der Russisch-Kaiserlichen Kriegsschlupp Predpriaetié in den Jahren 1523-1826, part. 1, joey Phaenops Dejean, 1833, Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, part 1, p. 79. The following is the reference for the fixation of Buprestis cyanea Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of the nominal genus Phaenops Dejean, 1833: Théry, A. 1942. Faune de France, 41: 73. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1827 Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] designated as the type species, and a neotype designated for M. lancifer Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; Hydrophoria; Hydrophoria lancifer. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] are hereby set aside and the male specimen labelled ‘England, Surrey: Bookham Common, Broadway North, 25.x.1969, A.C. & B. Pont’ in the Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London, is designated as the neotype; (b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 are hereby set aside and Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] is designated as the type species. (2) The name Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above Musca lancifer Harris, [1780], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name J/ancifer Harris, [1780], as published in the binomen Musca lancifer and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above (specific name of the type species of Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2858 An application for the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species of Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 was received from Dr Graham C.D. Griffiths (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) on 21 July 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 28-30 (March 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from Dr Curtis W. Sabrosky (Medford, New Jersey, U.S.A.) and from Dr Roger W. Crosskey (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) were published in BZN 51: 258-259 (September 1994). Dr Crosskey supported the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species of Hydrophoria but noted that it was highly desirable to define the meaning of the name J/ancifer by a neotype. A specimen in the Natural History Museum, London, was proposed as the neotype by Mr D.M. Ackland (c/o The University Museum, Oxford, U.K.) and the author of the application (BZN 52: 74; March 1995). Musca lancifer was described and illustrated on p. 126, pl. 36, fig. 59 by Harris, [1780]. It was noted on the voting paper that the title page of Harris’s An exposition of English insects is dated 1776 and a number of papers and catalogues have cited the work with this date. However, Pont & Michelsen (1982), following others, suggested that the work was published in five parts, each with 10 plates and corresponding text, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 63 and (p. 26) set out the date for each part. Part 4, comprising pages 100-138 and plates 31-40, was given as “?1780’. Decision of the Commission On | September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 29-30 and 52: 74. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Cogger and Dupuis. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Cogger commented: ‘While the purpose of the application is to maintain the long-standing sense of Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817 as the type species of Hydrophoria, it is proposed to designate as type a senior subjective synonym (Musca lancifer Harris, [1780]). Should this synonymy be rejected by later workers on taxonomic grounds then the intention of the application would be overturned. This problem could be avoided either by using the plenary powers to designate A. conica as the type species of Hydrophoria or, if there is some special advantage (of which I am unaware) in having Musca lancifer as the type, then it would be better to designate the type specimen of A. conica in Vienna (noted by Ackland & Griffiths in BZN 52: 74) as the neotype of M. Jancifer, rather than the specimen in London proposed by Ackland & Griffiths, so that A. conica becomes a junior objective synonym of M. lancifer’. Dupuis commented: “The concept of Hydrophoria, established since the time of Macquart (1835), Duponchel (1845) and Rondani (1866), as typified by Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817, lasted 147 years. The synonymy of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] with A. conica is a mere 13 years old (Pont & Michelson, 1982) and only ‘most probable’, hence the desirability of a neotype claimed by Crosskey (BZN 51: 258-259). I think this neotype unnecessary. In my view A. conica should be chosen as the type species and M. Jancifer should be placed on the Official Index’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires présentés par divers savants a I’ Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, (2)2: 503. lancifer, Musca, Harris, [1780], An exposition of English insects, part 4, p. 126. 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1828 Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, A. muscorum Linnaeus, 1758 and A, lucorum Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Bombus terrestris, B. muscorum and B. lucorum) and Bombus humilis Mliger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific names conserved, and neotypes designated for B. terrestris and B. muscorum Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; bumble bees; Bombus humilis; Bombus lucorum; Bombus muscorum; Bombus terrestris. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the following nominal species are hereby set aside and the specimens cited are designated as the neotypes: (a) Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758: the queen specimen with a red label reading ‘NEOTYPE 4pis terrestris L., 1758’, a white label reading “Upl. Radmans6 Vasternaés 7.8.1970 leg. S. Erlandsson’, a white label reading ‘“Bombus terrestris (L.) A. Loken det.’, and a blue label reading ‘Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet Stockholm Loan 262/94’; (b) Apis muscorum Linnaeus, 1758: the queen specimen with a red label reading “‘NEOTYPE Apis muscorum L., 1758’, a white label reading “Sk. Arkelstorp 5.7.1947 B.O. Landin’, a white label reading “Bombus muscorum L., A. Loken det.’, and a blue label reading ‘Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet Stockholm Loan 268/94’. (2) To the entry for Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is hereby added the endorsement that it is defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Apis muscorum and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above; (b) /ucorum Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Apis /ucorum and as defined by the neotype designated by Day (1979); (c) humilis Iliger, 1806, as published in the binomen Bombus humilis. GB — History of Case 2638 An application for the conservation of the usage of the specific names of A. terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, A. muscorum Linnaeus, 1758, A. /ucorum Linnaeus, 1761 and Bombus humilis Mliger, 1806 by the designation of neotypes for A. terrestris and A. muscorum was received from Dr Astrid Loken (Hovseterveien, Oslo, Norway), Dr Antti Pekkarinen (University of Helsinki, Finland) and Prof Pierre Rasmont (Université de Mons-Hainaut, Mons, Belgium) on 21 January 1988. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 51: 232-236 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Hans Silfverberg (Zoological Museum, Helsinki University, Finland) was published in BZN 52: 76 (March 1995). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 65 The name Bombus Latreille, 1802, and that of its type species Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 220 (March 1954). However, the identity of the type material of A. terrestris was not then considered. Decision of the Commission On | September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 235. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Lehtinen commented: “Lectotype designations for Linnaean species should not be allowed to upset the long usage of names’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: humilis, Bombus, Mliger, 1806, Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 5: 171. lucorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Suecica, Ed. 2, p. 425. muscorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 579. terrestris, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 578. The following is the reference for the fixation of Apis terrestris Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Bombus Latreille, 1802: Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire naturelle des Fourmis ..., p. 437. The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Apis /ucorum Linnaeus, 1761: Day, M.C. 1979. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (London), 12: 66. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1829 MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling emended to MEGALODONTESIDAE, So removing the homonymy with MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; Bivalvia; sawflies; MEGALODON- TESIDAE; MEGALODONTIDAE; Megalodon; Megalodontes. Ruling () (3) (4) (5) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (Insecta) is MEGALODONTES-. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Tenthredo cephalotes Fabricius, 1781 (Insecta); (b) Megalodon Sowerby, 1827 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Megalodon cucullatus Sowerby, 1827 (Mollusca). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cephalotes Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Tenthredo cephalotes (specific name of the type species of Megalodontes Latreille, 1802) (Insecta); (b) cucullatus Sowerby, 1827, as published in the binomen Megalodon cucullatus (specific name of the type species of Megalodon Sowerby, 1827) (Mollusca). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) MEGALODONTESIDAE Konow, 1897, type genus Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta); (b) MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853, type genus Megalodon Sowerby, 1827 (Mollusca). The name MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Insecta) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (spelling emended to MEGALODONTESIDAE in (1) above). History of Case 2866 An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names based on Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (Insecta) and Megalodon Sowerby, 1827 (Mollusca) was received from Mr Neil D. Springate (Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Genéve, Switzerland) on 10 November 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 230-231 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 67 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 230-231. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Dupuis and Minelli abstained. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Dupuis, Lehtinen and Minelli commented that a ruling to give MEGALODONIDAE (from Megalodon) for the molluscan family and MEGALODONTIDAE (from Megalodon- tes) for the hymenopteran family would have been preferable. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: cephalotes, Tenthredo, Fabricius, 1781, Species Insectorum ..., vol. 1, p. 408. cucullatus, Megalodon, Sowerby, 1827, The mineral conchology of Great Britain, part 97 (vol. 6), p. 132. Megalodon Sowerby, 1827, The mineral conchology of Great Britain, part 97 (vol. 6), p. 131. Megalodontes Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des crustacés et des insectes, vol. 3, p. 302. MEGALODONTESIDAE Konow, 1897, Annalen des Kéniglichen-Kaiserlichen Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, (Wien), 12: 1 (incorrectly spelled as MEGALODONTIDAE). MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897, Annalen des Koéniglichen-Kaiserlichen Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, (Wien), 12: 1 (an incorrect original spelling of MEGALODONTESIDAE). MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853, A monograph of the Mellusca from the Great Oolite, chiefly from Minchinhampton and the coast of Yorkshire, part 2, p. 78. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1830 CAECILUDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Psocoptera): spelling emended to CAECILIUSIDAE, So removing the homonymy with CAECILIIDAE Rafinesque, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Psocoptera; Amphibia; Gymnophiona; CAECILIAIDAE; CAECILIIDAE; CAECILIUSIDAE; Caecilia; Caecilius. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) paragraphs (1), (4) and (5) of the ruling in Opinion 1462 are hereby revoked; (b) it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Caecilius Curtis, 1837 (Insecta) is CAECILIUS-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CAECILIDAE Rafinesque, 1814, type genus Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia); (b) CAECILIUSIDAE Kolbe, 1880, type genus Caecilius Curtis, 1837 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1)(b) above) (Insecta). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) CAECILIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (an incorrect original spelling of CAECILIUSIDAE) (Insecta); (b) CAECILIAIDAE Rafinesque, 1814 (an emended spelling of CAECILIIDAE, adopted and placed on the Official List in Opinion 1462 but now deleted) (Amphibia); (c) CECILINIA Rafinesque, 1814 (an incorrect original spelling of CAECILIIDAE) (Amphibia). History of Case 2936 An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names based on Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia) and Caecilius Curtis, 1837 (Insecta) by emending the spelling of the insect family-group name to CAECILIUSIDAE, so revoking that part of Opinion 1462 (December 1987) dealing with family-group names, was received from Prof M.H. Wake (University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.), Prof A. Dubois (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, France), Dr D.R. Frost (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) and Drs T.E. Moore & R.A. Nussbaum (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) on 14 November 1990. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 237-239 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in ‘tentative support’ from Dr Mark Wilkinson (University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.) was received during the voting period. It was noted on the voting paper that, as pointed out in the application, all the arguments put forward when this case of homonymy was considered in 1980-1987 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 69 were in favour of retaining the earlier and important amphibian homonym CAECILII- DAE and emending the psocopteran family name based on Caecilius. The only objection that had been raised to the name CAECILIUSIDAE was that it was not euphonious. The generic names Caecilia Linnaeus, 1758 and Caecilius Curtis, 1837, and the valid names of their type species, Caecilia tentaculata Linnaeus, 1758 and Psocus fuscopterus Latreille, 1799 repectively, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1462 (December 1987). Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 237-239. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 3: Dupuis, Holthuis and Kabata: Lehtinen abstained. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Lehtinen commented: ‘This homonymy problem was only recently voted on. If changes to Opinion 1462 (1987) really are necessary they are best discussed when enough information on the drawbacks of the decision is available. The new application seems to me to be argued mainly on personal grounds and sentiments’. Stys commented: ‘After long hesitation I vote for the proposal. It should be made clear that the previous Opinion was based on a proposal which did not serve best the stability of nomenclature, and that the Commission is now correcting its own previous wrong judgement. The psocopteran genus Caecilius Curtis, 1837 is described as ‘relatively obscure’ in para. 7(a) of the application. This is only because the derived family-group name is less well known in comparison with the amphibian name. However, the psocopteran group up to now known as CAECILIIDAE is cited in comprehensive treatments of the Psocoptera, is well known to all systematic entomologists, and is characterized and/or listed in all textbooks and similar comprehensive treatises on systematic entomology. We have to take into account frequency of usage of names but we must treat taxa as equal’. 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: CAECILIAIDAE Rafinesque, 1814, Specchio delle scienze o Giornale Enciclopedico di Sicilia, 2: 104 (an emended spelling of cAEcILIDAE deleted from the Official List and placed on the Index in this Opinion). CAECILIDAE Kolbe, 1880, Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 41: 183 (an incorrect original spelling of CAECILIUSIDAE). CAECILIIDAE Rafinesque, 1814, Specchio delle scienze o Giornale Enciclopedico di Sicilia, 2: 104. CAECILIUSIDAE Kolbe, 1880, Stettiner Entomologische Zeitung, 41: 183 (incorrectly spelled as CAECILIIDAE). ; CECILINIA Rafinesque, 1814, Specchio delle scienze o Giornale Enciclopedico di Sicilia, 2: 104 (an incorrect original spelling of CAECILIDAE). 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1831 Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 (currently Eretmosaurus rugosus; Reptilia, Plesiosauria): neotype designated Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Plesiosauria; Eretmosaurus. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 are hereby set aside and the postcranial skeleton, catalogue no. BMNH 14435, in the Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London, is designated as the neotype. (2) The name Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name rugosus Owen, 1840, as published in the binomen Plesiosaurus rugosus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2895 An application for the conservation of the accustomed usage of the specific name of Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 by the designation of a neotype was received from Dr David S. Brown (The Dental School, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.) and Dr Nathalie Bardet (Laboratoire de Paléontologie des Vertébrés, Université Pierre et Marie Curie, Paris, France) on 18 May 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 247-249 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 248. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Ride and Uéno. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 30: 445. rugosus, Plesiosaurus, Owen, 1840, Reports of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 9: 82. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 7 The following is the reference for the fixation of Plesiosaurus rugosus Owen, 1840 as the type species of the nominal genus Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874: Seeley, H.G. 1874. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 30: 445. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1832 Coluber poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (currently Liophis poecilogyrus) (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; snakes; Liophis poecilogyrus. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) m-nigrum Raddi, 1820, as published in the binomen Coluber m-nigrum; (b) alternans Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Coluber alternans; (c) forsteri Wagler in Spix, 1824, as published in the binomen Natrix forsteri. The name poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824], as published in the binomen Coluber poecilogyrus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) m-nigrum Raddi, 1820, as published in the binomen Coluber m-nigrum and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) alternans Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Coluber alternans and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) forsteri Wagler in Spix, 1824, as published in the binomen Natrix forsteri and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (d) doliatus Wied-Neuwied, [1824], as published in the binomen Coluber doliatus (a junior primary homonym of Coluber doliatus Linnaeus, 1766). ~ bo ~~ ~ (ve) — History of Case 2875 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Coluber poecilogyrus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] was received from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.), Dr James R. Dixon (Texas A & M University, Texas, U.S.A.) and Dr Van Wallach (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on | February 1993. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 51: 250-252 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Prof Laurie J. Vitt (Oklahoma Museum of Natural History, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 52: 77-78 (March 1995). A note of further supportive comments from Prof Edwin L. Bell (Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) and from Prof Kenneth L. Williams (Northwestern State University of Louisiana, Natchitoches, Louisiana, U.S.A.) was published at the same time. It was noted on the voting paper that the specific name of Coluber doliatus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (pl. [44], fig. 3), which is considered to be a synonym of C. poecilogyrus, was published on the same page and the same plate as the latter Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 73 (pl. [44], fig. 2; cf. para. 4 of the application). C. doliatus Wied-Neuwied is a junior primary homonym of C. doliatus Linnaeus, 1766 and it was proposed that it be placed on the Official Index in addition to the names recorded in para. (3)(a)-(c) on BZN 51: 251. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 251. At the close of the voting period on | December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys (part), Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Lehtinen. No votes were received from Ride and Ueno. Bouchet commented: ‘The application (para. 6) refers to ‘a list of ten works of the last 50 years which have used the binomen Liophis poecilogyrus’. In my view this does not qualify as a widespread usage and priority should apply’. Stys voted in favour of conserving the name Coluber poecilogyrus but against placing Coluber doliatus Wied-Neuwied, [1824] on the Official Index. 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: alternans, Coluber, Lichtenstein, 1823, Verzeichniss der Doubletten des zoologischen Museums der Konigl. Universitdt zu Berlin nebst Beschreibung vieler bisher unbekannten Arten von Saugethieren, Vgeln, Amphibien und Fischen, p. 104. doliatus, Coluber, Wied-Neuwied, [1824], Abbildungen zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens, Heft 8, pl. 44, fig. 3. forsteri, Natrix, Wagler, 1824, in Spix, J.B. von, Serpentum Brasiliensium species novae .., p. 16. m-nigrum, Coluber, Raddi, 1820, Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali di Modena, 18: 338. poecilogyrus, Coluber, Wied-Neuwied, [1824], Abbildungen zur Naturgeschichte Brasiliens, Heft 8, pl. 44, fig. 2. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1833 Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Temminck, 1807 (currently Calyptorhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, Psittaciformes): specific names conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Psittaciformes; cockatoos; Coll ory. chus banksii; Calyptorhynchus lathami. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790, as published in the binomen Psittacus magnificus; (b) flavicollo Kerr, 1792, as published in the trinomen Psittacus banksii flavicollo. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) banksii Latham, 1790, as published in the binomen Psittacus banksii; (b) lathami Temminck, 1807, as published in the binomen Psittacus lathami. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) magnificus Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790, as published in the binomen Psittacus magnificus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) flavicollo Kerr, 1792, as published in the trinomen Psittacus banksii flavicollo and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. History of Case 2856 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Temminck, 1807 was received from Dr Richard Schodde (Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO, Lyneham, Australia) and Prof Walter J. Bock (Columbia University, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) on 10 July 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 253-255 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | September 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 254-255. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 1995 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Ride, Schuster and Uéno. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 75 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: banksii, Psittacus, Latham, 1790, Index Ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiae ..., vol. 1, p. 107. flavicollo, Psittacus banksii, Kerr, 1792, The animal kingdom, or zoological system, of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus, vol. 1, part 2, p. 586. lathami, Psittacus, Temminck, 1807, Catalogue systématique du cabinet d’ornithologie et de la collection de quadrumanes de Crd. Jb. Temminck, p. 21. magnificus, Psittacus, Shaw, 1790, in Shaw, G. & Nodder, F.P., The naturalist’s miscellany, vol. 2, p. 50. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned. General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described .. .’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application. Contents — continued OPINION 1823. Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved . OPINION 1824. Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842, Lybas Lacordaire, 1842, Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 and Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved. OPINION 1825. Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829, Palmar Schaefer, 1949 and Scintill- atrix Obenberger, 1956 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis variolosa Paykull, [1799] as the type species of Poecilonota and B. rutilans Fabricius, [1777] as the type species of Scintillatrix . : OPINION 1826. Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 and Phaenops Dejean, 1833 Geeta, Coleoptera): conserved by the designation of Buprestis acuminata De Geer, 1774 as the type species of Melanophila. OPINION 1827. Hydrophoria Robineau- EMeaveidy, 1830 ifiseta Diptera): hong lancifer Harris, Fae iia tas as the type species, and a eared designated for M. lancifer . . OPINION 1828. os terrestris Terres 1758, a muscorum Linnacee 1758 and A. lucorum Linnaeus, 1761 (currently Bombus terrestris, B. muscorum and B. lucorum) and Bombus humilis Mliger, 1806 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific names conserved, and neotypes designated for B. terrestris and B. muscorum . OPINION 1829. MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): spelling emended to MEGALODONTESIDAE, so removing the homonymy with MEGALODONT- IDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) . OPINION 1830. cAEcILmDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Insecta, Tantei Helios eoesded to CAECILIUSIDAE, sO removing the homonymy with CAECILIIDAE aa 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) . : OPINION 1831. Plesiosaurus rugosus Gen 1840 Caney Rremriosauaee TUgOSUS; Reptilia, Plesiosauria): neotype designated . OPINION 1832. Coluber poecilogyrus Wied- Neusvied. [1824] (Gane Liophis poecilogyrus) (Reptilia, Serpentes): specific name conserved . : OPINION 1833. Psittacus banksii Latham, 1790 and P. lathami Tema 1807 (currently Calyptorhynchus banksii and C. lathami; Aves, Psittaciformes): specific names conserved . Information and Instructions for dees : 53 54 57 60 62 CONTENTS Notices . ‘ : The International Conisliision on Zoological Nomenclature aod its publications 5 Addresses of members of the Commission . International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. Call for nominations for new members of the Intemnationed Conunission.: on Zoological Nomenclature . International Congress on Systematic sand Bolaonsey cian? Budapest, 17-24 August 1996. : ae Fourth Edition of the inemational Cade of Beolorcal ‘Nomenelabine ; Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoologia Nomenclature. Comments by W.D.L. Ride; W.J. Bock; A. Smetana; D. Agassiz; G. Rosenberg; S. Shattuck; N.L. Evenhuis; T. Miura; H. Malicky; J. Noyes; C.W. Sabrosky; D.K. McAlpine & G. Cassis; M. Wilkinson; R.W. ee scientific staff of The Natural History Museum, London Applications Nygolaimus Cobb, 1913 (Nematoda): proposed designation of na cha ora de Man, 1880 as the type species. P.A.A. Loof & J. Heyns . Cacoxenus indagator Loew, 1858 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed Gniseevatien! ok the generic and specific names. V.S. Sidorenko . : Australopithecus afarensis Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia, Primates) proposed co conser- vation of the specific name. C.P. Groves . Proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal speotlie names based on wild jocmes which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. A. Gentry, J. Clutton-Brock & C.P. Groves. sie D.L.G. Karsten (1789), Museum Leskeanum, vol. 1 (Remnuat Animale): proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. G. Rosenberg . i Comments On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Xerophila geyeri Sods, 1926 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). D. Kadolsky; B. Hausdorf ae On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Octopus vulgaris Coes [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda). M. Nixon. On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and D. fimbriata (Verrill, ey (Annelida, Polychaeta) by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. K. Fauchald, P.A. Hutchings, T. Miura & A.J. Muir . On the proposed conservation HS Monstrilla Danas 1849 anil! Thanh ‘Kies 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda). C.C. Davis . On the proposal to remove the homonymy between BRACHYPTERINAE , Bricktacny [1845] (Insecta, Coleoptera) and BRACHYPTERINAE Zwick, 1973 (Insecta, Plecop- tera), and proposed precedence of KATERETIDAE Ganglbauer, 1899 over BRACH- YPTERINAE Erichson, [1845]. R.G. Booth. . . . On the proposed conservation of Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (ounlien. Caudata) by the designation of Salamandra genei Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 as the type species. H.M. Smith, D.B. Wake & MLR. Jennings . é On the proposed conservation of HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, "1856 (Amphibia Caudata). H.M. Smith & D.B. Wake . : On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Phyllophis habiinta Giinther, 1864 (currently Elaphe carinata; Reptilia, Serpentes). M. Toriba . Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1822. Helix nitidula Draparnaud, 1805 and H. nitens Michaud, 1831 (currently Aegopinella nitidula and A. nitens; Mollusca, Samageeds)s — names conserved, and a neotype designated for H. nitidula . Page wn 45 46 47 48 48 50 51 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset ~ THENATURAL | HISTORY MLISEUM -5 JUL 1996 PURCHASED ZOOLOGY LIBRARY’ Pdeosical Nomenclature 3 The Bulletin THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1996 is £92 or $175, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 0171-938 9387) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) 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) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany; Arachnology) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Prof A. Minelli (/taly) 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 ([taly; Myriapoda) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (Russia; Mollusca) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (Russia; Hymenoptera) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1996 | THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 199) -5 jut 1996 PURCHASED BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATUREOCLOGY LIBRARY Volume 53, part 2 (pp. 77-144) 28 June 1996 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 53, part 1 (published on 29 March 1996). Under Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published. (1) Strombidium gyrans Stokes, 1887 (currently Strobilidium gyrans; Ciliophora, Oligotrichida): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3011). C.W. Heckman. (2) Eutaenia sirtalis tetrataenia Cope in Yarrow, 1875 and Coluber infernalis Blainville, 1835 (currently Thamnophis s. tetrataenia and T. s. infernalis; Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation of usage of the subspecific names by the designation of a neotype for 7. s. infernalis. (Case 3012). S.J. Barry & M.R. Jennings. (3) Helix (Helicella) draparnaudi Beck, 1837 (currently Oxychilus draparnaudi; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3013). G. Manganelli & F. Giusti. (4) Spondylus princeps Broderip, 1833 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3014). C. Skoglund. (5) Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 (currently Retiolites geinitzianus; Graptolithina): proposed designation of a neotype. (Case 3016). D.K. Loydell & P. Storch. (6) Pseudobiotus Nelson, 1980 (Tardigrada): proposed designation of P. kathmanae Nelson, 1996 as the type species. (Case 3017). N.J. Marley, R. Bertolani & D.R. Nelson. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion 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. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on 18 September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published entitled ‘Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995’ (ISBN 0 85301 005 6). It is 104 pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal nomenclature as universally accepted today. The book contains a list of all the Commissioners from 1895 to the present. The main text was written by R.V. Melville (former Secretary of the Commission) and has been completed and updated following his death. 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., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, clo USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £30 or $50 (including surface postage); members of the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £20 or $35. 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, up to 1985; there are about 9,900 entries. Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £60 or $110, but members of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature or the European Association for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £40 or $75; payment should accompany orders. In the five years 1986-1990, 946 names and five works were added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional entries, together with some amendments and updatings to entries in the 1987 volume. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the above addresses. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 79 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, 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. International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology, Budapest, 17-24 August 1996 This Congress (ICSEB V) is being hosted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences at the Education Centre, Budapest. Details of the numerous symposia and other activities may be obtained from the programme co-ordinator: Dr Istvan Molnar, Department of Genetics, Edtvés University, Muzeum krt 4/A, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary (fax +—36-1—266-2694, e-mail molnari@ludens.elte.hu). The symposia will include one for the discussion of the proposed fourth edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (see BZN 52: 120, 121-125). All zoologists attending ICSEB V will be able to take part in elections to fill vacancies on the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 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) 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. 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: Comments (See also BZN 52: 228-233, 294-302; 53: 6-17) The following are amongst the comments which have been received, all of which (whether published in the Bulletin or not) have been forwarded to the Editorial Committee and are being taken into full consideration. A revised Draft will be discussed at a Workshop at the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB) in Budapest (17-24 August 1996). i (1) David G. Reid Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Klaus Sattler & Roger W. Crosskey Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 SBD, U_K. We would like to draw attention to a significant shift in emphasis in the Discussion Draft, relating to the precedence of ‘established usage’ over the identity of name-bearing types under certain circumstances (see Article 61), and to relaxation of the rules concerning the establishment and status of neotypes (Article 75). In the following comments, we have been guided by two practical consider- ations: first, that long-term nomenclatural stability is dependent upon stability and continuity of the existing, widely-accepted, set of rules; second, that the burden of applications to the Commission for rulings on specific cases should be as light as possible. In addition, we hold firmly to the philosophical principle that ‘the fixation of the name-bearing type of a nominal taxon provides the objective standard of reference for the application of the name it bears’ and ‘once fixed, name-bearing types are stable and provide objective continuity in the applica- tion of names’ (Article 6la). True long-term stability of nomenclature can only be achieved by rigorous maintenance of types as the objective standards of reference. In the proposed Fourth Edition, a new section (e) has been added to the existing Article 61, to the effect that, if the identity of a name-bearing type specimen is found to conflict with usage of a widely accepted name, then existing usage is to be maintained, a replacement name-bearing type (presumably a neotype) is to be nominated, and the case is to be referred to the Commission for ratification. This contrasts with the existing Code, under which the identity of the type specimen is the ultimate arbiter of the application of the name it bears (Article 61a); in this there are no rules or recommendations covering misidentifications but the Commission can use its plenary power to change a name-bearing type, if required in the interests of stability (Article 79a). The consequences of the proposed change will be insidious and potentially far-reaching. It reduces the incentive for confirmation of the identity of type Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 81 specimens during revisory taxonomic studies: it is sufficient merely to establish the existing usage of a name. With the passage of time, such non-rigorous practice will lead to the accumulation of errors, and when these are discovered the workload of the Commission will be increased. The concept of stability must be viewed in the long term; it should not be confused with short-term conven- ience. Thus, while retention of misapplied names may be convenient, the result will be a break in historical continuity, and a devaluation of the status of type specimens. Such a devaluation contradicts the very purpose of typification that is so well expressed in Article 6la. Furthermore, replacement type specimens may be separated from the material of the original author, adding to the dispersal of type material and making future comparative work still more difficult. In the new Article 6le, ‘established usage’ is defined as the use of a name by at least 5 different authors in at least 10 publications during the preceding 50 years. In underworked groups, or where a group has been worked by a single ‘school’ of taxonomists, such criteria have little meaning. In an extreme case, it could be envisaged that in an infrequently studied group a new author could dispense with the examination of historical literature and existing type specimens; the taxonomy could be entirely redone and the necessary number of publications required to establish usage of the new nomenclature could soon be achieved by a small group of researchers. While the result would undoubtedly be convenient for the workers involved, it would unquestionably be contrary to the interests of long-term stability. Poor taxonomic practice of this kind can only be discouraged by strict adherence to the rule of type specimens as unchanging standards of reference. Similarly, we notice that changes to the rules on the establishment of neotypes have been made in the Discussion Draft. The proposed new version of Article 75} covers the rediscovery of a name-bearing type after the designation of a neotype and specifies that, if the two are considered conspecific, the neotype is to retain its status as the name-bearing type, while otherwise the case is to be referred to the Commission. In contrast, in the existing Code (Article 75h) all such cases are to be referred to the Commission, regardless of subjective assessments of taxonomic identity. The proposed new version is clearly a licence to erect neotypes without thorough search for existing types, and again devalues the status of name-bearing types by encouraging poor taxonomic practice. There is also the added element of subjectivity in the assessment of conspecificity. It is an important principle of both the existing and proposed versions of the Code that neotypes are ‘to be designated only in connection with revisory work, and only in exceptional circumstances when a neotype is necessary in the interests of stability of nomenclature’ (Article 75b). The new Sections 75f (previously Recommendation 75E) and 75j of Article 75 could be misused to justify the disregard of existing historical material and the creation of unnecessary neotypes. The inevitable subsequent controversies would add to the workload of the Commission. In summary, therefore, we strongly advocate the removal of the proposed Articles 6le and 61f from the Fourth Edition of the Code, the return of Article 75f to a Recommendation, and the replacement of Article 75j by its existing wording (Article 75h in the Third Edition). 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 (2) Rolf G. Oberprieler Plant Protection Research Institute, Agricultural Research Council, Private Bag X134, Pretoria 0001, South Africa The current Code distinguishes (Articles 45f and 45g) between those pre-1961 infraspecific (but not expressly subspecific) names originally published as ‘varieties’ or ‘forms’ and all others; in general the former are treated as subspecific, and hence available, but the latter are not. However, in the Lepidoptera and many other groups of insects (and no doubt other animals) it is abundantly clear that authors often did not use the category ‘subspecies’ in their descriptive taxonomy. Instead they used a loose range of terms (varieties, variations, forms, aberrations, morphs, natios, etc.) for infraspecific entities. Which term was used often depended on personal, national, linguistic or other factors rather than on clear definitions or concepts. Unless published in addition to a trinomen such names were not unambiguously established as infrasubspecific, but only as infraspecific. Many of the entities denoted by these names have long been treated as valid subspecies or even species, and to change their names on the basis of technicalities of original terminology or futile judgements of the author’s concept would have grave consequences for stability. I would like to suggest that Articles 45f and 45g be simplified so that a// names published before 1961 as the final epithet in a trinomen are deemed to be subspecific and hence available, unless expressly stated otherwise by the author. The availability of names is the concern of nomenclature; their validity is another matter and in the realm of taxonomy. (3) Charles D. Michener Snow Entomological Museum, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, U.S.A. In general I am strongly in favor of the changes in the Discussion Draft, but I have some comments. I am not certain that the requirement (Article 16b) that new names must be accompanied by a diagnosis in a language using the Latin alphabet is practicable. Might it not not tend to cause Chinese or Russian authors (for example) to deviate from the Code, leading to multiple nomenclatures? Zoologists from such countries should be consulted as to their views of the long-term effect of the proposed wording. The lack of gender of generic names (Article 30) is very desirable, but neither of the alternatives offered in Article 31b is satisfactory. The first is the return to the original ending of an adjectival specific epithet, but this would cause many changes and is a bad idea, contrary to the spirit of minimal changes and maximal stability character- istic of other proposed rule changes. The second is the use of the currently accepted ending until a new combination is used, at which time the ending would revert to the original; this leaves potential for changes in endings, essentially for ever. We need the following provision: After 1997, the ending of a species-group epithet is to remain as it is in an existing combination, even when the species is transferred to another nominal genus. If difference in taxonomic opinion had led to a species being placed in different genera in the five[?] years prior to 1998, such that the ending of the specific Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 83 epithet was not constant, then the ending to be accepted is that which is first in alphabetical order (e.g. the order -a, -wm, -us). (4) L.B. Holthuis Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9157, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands I have a number of comments on the Discussion Draft. Article 5a. 1 gladly concur with the (re-)introduction of the term ‘epithet’; it is clear and unambiguous, whereas ‘specific name’ is often confused with ‘species name’. Articles 8e and I1b. It is a good idea to make Zoological Record a kind of ‘official list’ of new names, as it is already the source consulted by all zoologists wanting to find out what species have been recently described. Also, the great increase in publications and the ease with which articles can now be published makes it imperative that there be a single source for reference. The objection that the Record is incomplete is true, but this is mainly the fault of authors. Article 8e will be a powerful incentive to authors to notify new names, and so will greatly facilitate the work of taxonomists. However, the deadline should not be five years after the publication of the new name, but five years after the publication of the volume of Zoological Record dealing with the relevant year (it would be helpful if each volume of the Record were made to cover a calendar year). Article 16a, e. The idea behind these provisions is sound: we have to eliminate from availability names published by authors who did not intend to describe new taxa. The botanists have done this by requiring Latin diagnoses, but the simple requirements of Article 16e are adequate. The proposal (Article 16a) that a new taxon must be compared with a named taxon of equal rank is nonsense. What about a new genus described with a single (new) species? There are no species within the genus with which the new species can be compared. The idea should be at most a Recommen- dation; for the Article itself the words ‘characters that purport to differentiate the new nominal taxon from other taxa’ are sufficient. I hope that the Code will not require a diagnosis (a term not defined in the Glossary of the present Code) as well as a description! Article 16c, e(ii). It would be pedantic to require that the name of a new family-group nominal taxon ‘must be accompanied by a statement in words designating the type genus’ (Article 16c), or that an otherwise excellently defined new species-group taxon must be accompanied ‘by the designation of a holotype, or syntypes’ (Article 16e(ii)). The present rules have caused no difficulty at all. Why make the Code more complicated? It is bad enough as it is. Articles 23j and 35e. I am against this limitation of adherence to priority, which I believe should be strictly followed (with the proviso that the Commission can make exceptions in special cases). Article 29. | am against ‘flexibility’ in the treatment of family-group names, the derivation of which should follow correct grammar except when a change (by the Commission) is necessary to remove homonymy. Articles 30, 31 and 32. The abandonment of gender of generic names should be made retroactive to 1758, and the original spellings of a// names should be used 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 (even if grammatically incorrect or showing typographical or clerical error). This courageous step would be a great simplification of the Code. Article 41a. This is very obscurely worded, but after reading it several times I believe that it is intended that, if a genus is based on a misidentified type genus [who is to prove that?], then the biological species involved has automatically to be taken as the type species. This is confusing taxonomy with nomenclature. The correct ‘automatic’ solution is to accept the nominal species fixed as type by the author; this is in accord with Article 6la(iii). If this causes confusion then the case should be referred to the Commission. If the biological species is to be taken, authors (even if they agree that there was a misidentification) may differ in their opinion about the actual identity of the material. Article 55. These provisions for removing homonymy between family-group names are far too complicated! The present rules are adequate. Article 74a(ii)(5). Why should it be compulsory to give a ‘reason’ in order for a lectotype designation to be valid? This is another unnecessary provision. My general impressions of the changes proposed in the draft are: (1) with the laudable aim of supporting usage, vague wordings which may be interpreted differently by zoologists (‘universally’, ‘widely’, ‘interested zoologists’, ‘substantial agreement’, etc.) are proposed; (2) the draft tries to regulate too much and creates a number of quite unnecessary difficulties for zoologists working in taxonomy — instead of simplifying the Code (already too complicated) the draft will increase confusion. (5) M. Judson Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France The rules of zoological nomenclature only work because there is a consensus of opinion that they should be followed. No Code can be imposed. As joint Editor of a largely taxonomic journal, I am worried that some may find the new proposals sufficiently radical to feel that they would no longer be bound by the Code. It would be disastrous if the community were to split into two camps, those who adhered to the new Code and those who did not. I have in mind particularly the abandonment of grammatical gender agreement, the acceptance of misspellings, and the non-availability of names not registered in the Zoological Record within five years. I see few advantages in the proposed modifications, apart from the welcome tightening of rules on type designations. As they stand, the proposals often seem to run counter to their stated aims. I hope the members of the Commission will carefully consider whether they are acting in accord with the wishes of the majority. (6) Dietrich Kadolsky The Limes, 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K. The draft contains major departures from the present Code, and hence is likely to cause name changes. In addition to this, some of the proposals (such as the requirement that new names must appear within five years in Zoological Record, and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 85 the statement that generic names have no gender) will mean that the Code will not command respect and will be taken less seriously: prevailing practice will overrule it. I have given the Code Editorial Committee a considerable number of detailed comments on the draft. I have some particular remarks on the proposed ‘Lists of Available and Potentially Valid Names’ (Articles 77 and 78). It goes against common sense and the theme of all previous Codes that names should become unavailable simply by omission from a List. Mere omission, which may be due to oversight, must not have any nomenclatural effect. To delegate the compilation of such Lists to (for example) ‘societies representative of international zoologists concerned with a major part of the animal kingdom’ paves the way for the development of divergent nomenclatural practices in different groups of animals and possibly different parts of the world. This would thoroughly undermine the Code. I believe the status of a name should derive from a single source: this has to be the original publication and not Zoological Record or a ‘List’. (7) Stuart H. McKamey Centre for Tropical Biodiversity, Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark I opposed the proposal in the draft (Article 11b) that a new name would cease to be available if it had not been recorded within five years in Zoological Record. However, an alternative has now been put forward on the Internet and also by Ride (BZN 53: 6-7), according to which all new names would [as now] be permanently available from their original publication but a name recorded in Zoological Record would have precedence over a synonym so obscurely published that it was not recorded within five years. I support such a proposal, which should extend to homonyms as well as synonyms. Perhaps a 10-year period would be more appropriate, at least initially; it could be reduced to five years (or even fewer) once systematists worldwide are accustomed to the procedure and electronic data storage and retrieval have advanced further. Thus, the alternative to Article 11b which I propose is: Names are permanently available from their date of publication, but a name recorded in Zoological Record has precedence over a synonym or homonym not recorded within ten years of publication. (8) Graham C.D. Griffiths Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada T6G 2E9 The proposals in Article 31b of the draft relating to the spellings of adjectival species-group epithets would cause unnecessary changes in the usage of names. There are many epithets, at least in entomology, which were first proposed many years ago in huge aggregate genera but which have not been used in the original combination for one or even two centuries, nor are ever likely to be so used again. To revert to the original spellings in such cases would be contrary to stability and long-standing usage. Based on my considerable experience in revisionary work, especially in 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Diptera, I object to both the alternatives proposed in Articles 31b and 48a. I request that a third alternative be considered: that the ending in use at the time the new Code comes into effect shall remain unchanged henceforward, both in existing and in any new combinations subsequently proposed. Please forget about original endings. (9) Frank-Thorsten Krell Theodor-Boveri-Institut fiir Biowissenschaften der Universitat, Am Hubland, D-97074 Wiirzburg, Germany The number of generic names has of course increased enormously since the time of Linnaeus; this is due not only to the discovery of new organisms but also to the ‘splitting’ of nominal genera. Apart from being the expression of taxonomic progress the splitting has had the very useful effect of permitting the same specific epithets to be used in different genera. Even in the 18th-century some coleopterists, for example, followed Linnaeus in using only a few genera while others adopted the more refined Fabrician classification. There were no nomenclatural rules, and once a species with the epithet (say) albus had been removed from a genus a new species placed in the genus could be given that epithet. The identical binomina did not exist simultaneously but successively, often separated by a long interval. Today, one or two hundred years later, the two species names with the epithet albus may have been in wide and stable use in different higher-rank taxa for a very long time. Nevertheless, according to Article 57b in both the draft and the current Code the junior a/bus is ‘permanently invalid’. I agree with Crosskey (BZN 53: 14) that the application of the Code in these circumstances does not promote stability but is a cause of much confusion. I know of four examples of forgotten or recently discovered cases of ancient primary homonymy within the SCARABAEOIDEA (Coleoptera) but I cannot mention them, because to do so would precipitate name changes for well known species. I propose that taxonomically long-separated primary homonyms should not be replaced in future; naturally replacements already made should stand. (10) N.Ju. Kluge Department of Entomology, Biological Faculty, St Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya naberezhnaya 7, St Petersburg 199034, Russia Article 16a in the draft specifies that to be available the name of a new nominal taxon must be accompanied by a diagnosis differentiating the taxon ‘from other taxa of the same rank within the next higher taxonomic category’, and that these ‘must be explicitly cited by name’. This requirement is unsatisfactory and vague. For example, if two new species are described in the same paper and they are compared only one with another, are their names available? If a previously published ‘comparator’ name is unavailable for some technical reason, is the new name therefore also unavailable? Further objections to this provision have already been made by other commentators. The provisions in Article 16a and 16b, taken together, make very complicated rules of availability. Suppose that an author describes and compares a new taxon with Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 87 another in a Russian text, but that the English summary omits the comparison. There could be two opinions: (1) the name is unavailable, because the comparison was not made in ‘a language using the Latin alphabet’; (2) the name is available, because there is a diagnosis in such a language and the comparison (‘differentiation’) can be made in any script. The expression ‘language using the Latin alphabet’ is unsatisfactory. Since the intention is presumably that only a few widely understood (or easily translated) languages should be permitted, these should be specified by name. It would be pleasant for me to see Russian in such a list! Many taxa have been originally described in Russian, and at least for names published before the new Code comes into effect these descriptions have to be translated. Languages apart from English, French and German are used less in the taxonomic literature than is Russian, and if the latter is to be excluded they should be also. (11) Vitor O. Becker P.O. Box 08223, 73301-Planaltina, DF, Brazil The proposition in the draft (Article 30) that genus-group names should be ‘treated as words without gender, even when Greek or Latin or latinized’ is ridiculous. This is for two main reasons: firstly because it is simply wrong, and secondly because the Commission must not use the Code to impose upon others who know how to do something properly that from now on they must do it wrongly. I would not feel it an obligation to submit myself to such an imposition. Some may say ‘Now with computers we have to change this rule. Otherwise information retrieval will become impossible’. This is absolutely untrue. This matter cannot be decided by the vote of a few people. La fuerza de la Ley must prevail, not La Ley de la Fuerza. (12) S. Endrédy-Younga (and eight colleagues) Transvaal Museum, Pretoria 0001, South Africa C.H. Scholtz Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa C.D. Eardley (and four colleagues) Biosystematics Division, Plant Protection Research Institute, Private Bag X134, Pretoria 0001, South Africa Every scientific or technical discipline has its established form of communication in terms of language, chemical or mathematical formulae or rules of diagram structure. The retention of the internationally accepted method of communication is essential for general understanding in the subject. The rules of communication in biological systematics and the formation of scientific names of taxa are fixed in the International Codes of nomenclature, and the 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 chosen language for names is Latin. All living languages are subject to changes due to general usage, but with Latin this is not the case. The proposed changes to remove the grammar from Latin are not appropriate. Such changes would bring the language of communication to the level of the lowest common denominator and make a joke of the [still recommended] Latin. No taxonomist is expected to be proficient in Latin; what is required is a knowledge of the few rules about the construction of sound binomina and the naming of higher taxonomic categories. Advice on these is not difficult to obtain. The problems resulting from the degradation of Latin are reflected by the number of emended rules and recommendations put forward in an effort to make sense of the proposed changes. However, these rules and often contradictory recommendations would only serve to cause further confusion and impede stability in nomenclature. On a separate subject, we fully support the Code Editorial Committee in upholding Zoological Record as an irreplaceable source of information in biological systematics. The reiterated duty of an author to ensure the notification of a publication supports the work of the editorial department of this most important publication. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 89 Case 2932 Hapalotrema Looss, 1899 (Digenea): proposed designation of H. loossi Price, 1934 as the type species Thomas R. Platt Department of Biology, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana 46556, U.S.A. David Blair Department of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate the nominal species Hapalotrema loossi Price, 1934, a spirorchid parasite of marine turtles, as the type species of the blood fluke genus Hapalotrema Looss, 1899. At present the type species is Distoma constrictum Leared, 1862, but this is due to a misidentification and the genus was based on material later named H. Joossi. The name H. mistroides (Monticelli, 1896) is a senior subjective synonym of H. Joossi. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Trematoda; Digenea; Hapalotrema; Hapalotrema loossi; Hapalotrema mistroides. 1. Leared (1862, p. 169) described and figured a spirorchid (digenean) blood fluke Distoma constrictum from the heart of the ‘edible or common’ turtle (probably Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus, 1758)) from an unstated locality. No type specimens are known. 2. Monticelli (1896, p. 144) placed what he believed to be Leared’s species in the genus Mesogonimus Monticelli, 1888; he stated that Leared’s name was preoccupied by Distomum [sic] constrictum Mehlis (in Creplin, 1846, p. 142) but he did not provide an explicit replacement name; he may have considered that homonymy was resolved by his generic separation of the species, but in any event the Mehlis name, listed without any description or reference, is a nomen nudum and so not available as a senior homonym of constrictum Leared. 3. Monticelli (1896) described “Mesogonimus constrictus Leared’ using specimens from the loggerhead turtle Thalassochelys caretta (Linnaeus, 1758) captured near Naples, Italy. On p. 144 he noted ‘Per questo suo caratteristico aspetto, qualora avesse dovuto cambiar nome specifico, il distomide del Leared avrebbe potuto meritar quello mistroides ...’. Translated, this is a suggestion that mistroides might be a more descriptive and appropriate name because his specimens had a posterior end shaped like a spoon or scoop (Greek ‘mystron’). However, the name mistroides was never used again in Monticelli’s text or illustrations (figs. 1-3 and 19), where the species was always called M. constrictus. Since mistroides was not adopted as valid or proposed, even conditionally, as a replacement name for constrictus it was not made available by Monticelli. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 4. Looss (1899, p. 656) erected the genus Hapalotrema, basing it on material which he considered to be Distoma constrictum Leared, 1862 and Mesogonimus constrictus sensu Monticelli, 1896. He provided a detailed description (pp. 750-752) and illustrations (pl. 30; figs. 72, 73) of specimens collected in Egypt from Thalassochelys corticata (= T. caretta). His material is strikingly similar to that reported by Monticelli but quite distinct from Leared’s; however, under the Code the type species of Hapalotrema is the nominal species Distoma constrictum Leared, 1862 by monotypy and original designation. 5. Stiles & Hassall (1908, p. 279) listed Hapalotrema mistroides (Monticelli, 1896) without comment, giving ‘Mesogonimus constrictus (Leared) Monticelli’ as a synonym. This adoption of mistroides as valid makes the specific name available from Monticelli, 1896 (Article lle of the Code). 6. Price (1934) described several new genera and species of blood flukes, including specimens remarkably similar to Leared’s (para. 1 above) from a captive green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Price (p. 138) provided the [unnecessary: see para. 1 above] replacement specific name europaeus for Distoma constrictum Leared and placed this species in his new genus Learedius (p. 136; type species L. learedi Price, 1934). He applied the name Hapalotrema mistroides to Monticelli’s specimens, and created (p. 139) the new name H. Joossi for those of Looss (para. 4 above). 7. Since the time of Looss (1899) his genus Hapalotrema has been treated as valid by all spirorchid specialists, and the concept of the genus has been based on his material (i.e. H. loossi Price, 1934). Authors using Hapalotrema include Stunkard (1923), Price (1934), Byrd (1939), Yamaguti (1958; 1971) and Smith (1972); there is a considerable literature on diseases and parasites of turtles and we have given to the Commission Secretariat a list of a further 29 references up to 1993. As explained above, however, Looss (like Monticelli before him) misidentifed his specimens and the type species is formally Distoma constrictum Leared, 1862 (= Learedius europaeus Price, 1934), which in our opinion cannot be identified with any particular known taxon. In the interest of stability we refer this case to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code and propose that H. Joossi be designated as the type species of Hapalotrema. 8. One of us (T.R.P.) has examined Looss’s material in the Swedish Museum of Natural History (slides 1570, 1571, 1840, 1843, 1855, 2663-2666, plus one slide with no number containing an entire fluke in serial section). This material was included by Price (1934) in H. loossi, and we here designate the specimen on slide 2663 as the lectotype of this nominal species. 9. It appears that none of Monticelli’s material (para. 3 above) survives, so that there are no existing type specimens of H. mistroides. Nevertheless we, like earlier authors, consider it probable that Monticelli was dealing with the species described from the same host (but a different locality) by Looss, so that the valid name of the taxon is H. mistroides (Monticelli, 1896). Since the synonymy is only subjective we do not propose the suppression of the name H. mistroides or the designation of a specimen of H. Joossi as a neotype of H. mistroides. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Hapalotrema Looss, 1899, and to designate Hapalotrema loossi Price, 1934 as the type species; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 91 (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Hapalotrema Looss, 1899 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in (1) above Hapalotrema loossi Price, 1934 (a junior subjective synonym of Mesogonimus mistroides Monticelli, 1896); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name mistroides Monticelli, 1896, as published in the binomen Mesogonimus mistroides (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Hapalotrema loossi Price, 1934, the type species of Hapalotrema Loos, 1899). Acknowledgement T.R.P. was supported by a Faculty Open Fellowship awarded by the Lilly Foundation Inc. References Byrd, E.E. 1939. Studies on the blood flukes of the family Spirorchidae. Part II. Revision of the family and description of new species. Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Sciences, 14: 116-161. Creplin, [F.C.H.]. 1846. Nachtrage zu Gurlt’s Verzeichniss der Thiere, bei welchen Entozoen gefunden worden sind. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 12: 129-160. Leared, A. 1862. Description of a new parasite found in the heart of the edible turtle. Quarterly Journal of the Microscopical Society, (n.s.)2: 168-170. Looss, A. 1899. Weitere Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Trematoden-Fauna Aegyptens, zugleich Versuch einer nattrlichen Gleiderung des Genus Distomum Retzius. Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Jena), 12: 521-784. Monticelli, F.S. 1896. Di un enatozoo della Thalassochelys caretta Linn. Internationale Monatsschrift fiir Anatomie und Physiologie (Leipzig), 13: 141-172. Price, E.W. 1934. New genera and species of blood flukes from a marine turtle, with a key to the genera of the family Spirorchidae. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 24: 132-141. Smith, J.W. 1972. The blood flukes of cold-blooded vertebrates and some comparison with the schistosomes. Helminthological Abstracts, 41: 161-204. Stiles, C.W. & Hassall, A. 1908. Index-catalogue of medical and veterinary zoology. Subjects: Trematoda and trematode diseases. United States Public Health and Marine-Hospital Service, Hygienic Laboratory Bulletin, no. 37. 401 pp. Stunkard, H.W. 1923. Studies on North American blood flukes. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 48: 165-221. Yamaguti, S. 1958. Systema Helminthum, vol. 1. The digenetic trematodes of vertebrates, Part 1. xi, 979 pp. Interscience Publishers, New York. Yamaguti, S. 1971. Synoptical review of life histories of digenetic trematodes of vertebrates. 1100 pp. Keigaku Publishing, Tokyo. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Case 2961 Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa): proposed designation of a replacement neotype John S. Ryland & Peter S. Cadman School of Biological Sciences, University of Wales Swansea, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to set aside a recently designated neotype of Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848, which is not in accord with the original description or probable type locality, and to replace it with a neotype which meets both these criteria and is of a different species of encrusting bryozoan. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Alcyonidium; Alcyonidium mytili. 1. Encrusting marine bryozoans which have been called Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 occur in western Europe, the Arctic (Kluge, 1962) and both coasts of North America (Osburn, 1912; O’Donoghue & O’Donoghue, 1926). Much confusion existed over the characters of this nominal species, including the question of whether it is a valid entity (Marcus, 1940). Following studies during the nineteen-fifties and later, however, it has become clear that in western Europe intertidal and shallow-water specimens occurring mainly on rocks, stones and shells are different from better known sympatric material found on intertidal fucoids. An influential but incomplete description of specimens of the former type was given by Prenant & Bobin (1956) using material fom Brittany, France; nothing was included on reproductive biology, although some information was given by Eggleston (1970), based on observations made in British waters. Much recent work on the taxonomi- cally difficult genus Alcyonidium Lamouroux, 1813 (type species Ulva diaphana Hudson, 1778) has confirmed that the rock- and algal-dwelling forms of so-called ‘A. mytil’ are indeed distinct, but has also shown that neither is a single species. Recently d’Hondt & Goyffon (1992) designated a neotype of A. mytili from the Golfe du Morbihan, Brittany; however, as outlined below, this neotype and much other material identified as 4. mytili does not belong to Dalyell’s species. 2. The observations made by Dalyell in his Rare and remarkable animals of Scotland (vol. 1, 1847; vol. 2, 1848) were discussed in an appreciation (Anon., 1858) of his life by a writer whom we believe to have been John Fleming (see Cadman & Ryland, 1996b). Dalyell (1775-1851) practised law in Edinburgh and had a consider- able reputation as an antiquarian, natural historian, musician and linguist. He was lame as a result of an early accident, and virtually all his material came from the marine and estuarine waters of the Firth of Forth near his home in Edinburgh. Alcyonidium mytili — ‘Mussel Alcyonidium’ — was described in 1848 (vol. 2, pp. 36-39, pl. 11) as occurring as thin spots or extensive spreads on the surface of shells. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 93 3. The most tangible character of A. mytili noted by Dalyell was that the lophophore comprised ‘about 15” tentacles; this is a lower number than found in any other encrusting Alcyonidium with which A. mytili might be confused (Prenant & Bobin, 1956; Hayward, 1985). This distinctive character has been overlooked by many workers this century. Dalyell studied live A. mytili over several weeks during one winter (1848, pp. 37-38), and it is significant that he — noted for his thoroughness — did not describe conspicuous whitish or pink embryo clusters, for these would have been expected in November—December had he been dealing with a larviparous species (see para. 6 below). 4. Dalyell’s work had actually been written much earlier than 1847-1848: a dispute with the publishers had delayed it for five years (see Anon., 1858). It is unclear whether, at the time of writing it, Dalyell was aware of Hassall’s (1841, p. 484) description of the superficially similar Sarchochiton [later Alcyonidium| polvoum from Dublin Bay in Ireland. From at least the time of Hincks’s authoritative A history of the British marine Polyzoa (1880) until recent times it remained controversial as to whether A. polyoum was different from the A. mytili of authors; however, it can be readily distinguished (see Ryland, 1962; Thorpe, Ryland & Beardmore, 1978; d@Hondt & Goyffon, 1992). They also differ in their preferred substrates in that A. polyoum is largely restricted to intertidal Fucus serratus (see Ryland, 1962). 5. We should remark here that the well-known name Alcyonidium polyoum (Hassall, 1841) has been synonymised with A. gelatinosum (Linnaeus, 1761 [but not 1767]). A. gelatinosum (Linnaeus, 1767), one of the world’s best known and most discussed bryozoans, is now (see Thorpe & Winston, 1984; 1986) called A. diaphanum (Hudson, 1778) and the name A. ge/atinosum Linnaeus (with the date 1761) has been transferred to the taxon which was for long, and often is still, called A. polyoum. These changes are in accord with the principle of priority but cause considerable confusion. 6. A larviparous form of ‘A. mytili’, most recently redescribed by Hayward (1985), has 17-18 tentacles (Hayward gives 17-21), shows pale pink brooded embryos (particularly in winter) and occurs on rocks, shells and crustacean carapaces. A specimen of this, from the Golfe du Morbihan, southern Brittany, has been designated (d’Hondt & Goyffon, 1992, pp. 466, 469) as the neotype of Alcyonidium mytili; it is now registered as LBIMM-BRY-19959 in the Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. This larviparous Alcyonidium is distinct both from A. gelatinosum (sensu Linnaeus, 1761, i.e. A. polyoum) and A. mytili as originally described by Dalyell. The designation does not meet the Code requirement (Article 75d(5)) that a neotype should come from as near as possible to the original type locality. One of us (J.S.R.) has surveyed several shores of the Firth of Forth, Dalyell’s locality (para. 3 above), and found that all the material from there is oviparous and has 15-17 tentacles; it is entirely in accordance with the original description, which has been amplified by Cadman & Ryland (1996a, 1996b). We have found that both this species and the larviparous “A. myztili’ of d’ Hondt & Goyffon and others occur sympatrically in our extensively studied areas in south-west Wales. 7. Hincks (1857) introduced Alcyonidium hexagonum as a replacement name for A. mytili on the grounds that “The name which he [Dalyell] has assigned is altogether inappropriate, and conveys a false impression, inasmuch as the species is by no means a parasite of the Mussel exclusively...’. Hincks included a description of 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 A, hexagonum from South Devon, partly taken from an earlier paper (1851), and from this it is clear that he was dealing at least in part not with Dalyell’s species but with a larviparous one, quite probably that represented by d’Hondt & Goyffon’s specimen. However, since A. hexagonum is formally a replacement name for A. mytili it cannot be applied to a separate species (Article 67h of the Code). 8. We have proposed (Cadman & Ryland, 1996a) that the inappropriate neotype designation by d’'Hondt & Goyffon (1992) for A. mytili be set aside and that a specimen of the oviparous species from the Forth be designated. This would make the name A. mytili accord both with Dalyell’s original description and his type locality. It would also facilitate revision of the genus Alcyonidium, and especially of the larviparous species mistaken (e.g. by Prenant & Bobin, 1965 and d’Hondt & Goyffon, 1992) for A. mytili. We should point out that the latter may not be a single species since it seems to be equivalent to at least three genetic species (the ‘A. myzili I, Il and II of Thorpe, Ryland & Beardmore, 1978; see also d’Hondt & Goyffon, 1992). We propose as neotype of A. mytili Dalyell a specimen collected by J.S.R. from Mytilus edulis at Longniddry, East Lothian, Scotland (55°59’ N., 2°53’ W.) in February 1994; it is deposited in the Natural History Museum, London, as specimen BMNH 1994.4.5.1. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside the neotype designation by d’Hondt & Goyffon (1992) for the nominal species Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 and to designate the specimen proposed in para. 8 above; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name mytili Dalyell, 1848, as published in the binomen Alcyonidium mytili and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. References Anon. 1858. Memoir of Sir J.G. Dalyell. In Dalyell, J.G., The powers of the Creator displayed in the Creation; or, observations of life amidst the various forms of the humbler tribes of animated nature, vol. 3, Van Voorst, London. Cadman, P.S. & Ryland, J.S. 1996a. Redescription of Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa: Ctenostomatida). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 116: in press. Cadman, P.S. & Ryland, J.S. 1996b. The characters, reproduction and growth of Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa: Ctenostomatida). Pp. 69-79 in Gordon, D.P., Smith, A. & Grant-Mackie, J. (Eds.), Bryozoans in space and time. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington. Dalyell, J.G. 1847-1848. Rare and remarkable animals of Scotland, represented from living subjects with practical observations on their nature. Vol. 1, 1847; vol. 2, 1848. Van Voorst, London. d’Hondt, J.-L. & Goyffon, M. 1992. Electrophoretic variability of Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1847 (Bryozoa, Ctenostomida) from European coasts. Bollettino Zoologia, 59: 465-470. Eggleston, D. 1970. Embryo colour in Manx ectoprocts. Annual Report of the Marine Biological Station, Port Erin, 82: 39-42. Hassall, A.H. 1841. Description of two genera of Irish zoophytes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 7: 483-486. Hayward, P. 1985. Ctenostome bryozoans. Synopses of the British fauna, no. 33. Academic Press, London and New York. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 95 Hincks, T. 1851. Notes on British Zoophytes, with descriptions of some new species. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)8: 353-362. Hincks, T. 1857. On some new British Polyzoa. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 5: 175-176, 249-250. Hincks, T. 1880. A history of the British marine Polyzoa. 2 vols. Van Voorst, London. Kluge, G.A. 1962. Mshanki Severnykh Morei SSSR. Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 76: 1-584. Marcus, E. 1940. Mosdyr (Bryozoa eller Polyzoa). Danmarks Fauna, 46: 1-401. O'Donoghue, C.H. & O’Donoghue, E. 1926. A second list of the Bryozoa (Polyzoa) from the Vancouver Island region. Contributions to Canadian Biology and Fisheries, (n.s.)3: 49-131. Osburn, R.C. 1912. The Bryozoa of the Woods Hole region. Bulletin of the U.S. Bureau of Fisheries, 30: 201-266. Prenant, M. & Bobin, G. 1956. Bryozoaires, Ire partie. Entoproctes, Phylolactolémes, Cténostomes. Faune de France, 60: 1-398. Ryland, J.S. 1962. The association between Polyzoa and algal substrata. Journal of Animal Ecology, 31: 331-338. Thorpe, J.P., Ryland, J.S. & Beardmore, J.A. 1978. Genetic variation and biochemical systematics in the bryozoan Alcyonidium mytili. Marine Biology, 49: 343-350. Thorpe, J.P. & Winston, J.E. 1984. On the identity of Alcyonidium gelatinosum (Linnaeus, 1761) (Bryozoa: Ctenostomata). Journal of Natural History, 18: 853-860. Thorpe, J.P. & Winston, J.E. 1986. On the identity of Alcyonidium diaphanum Lamouroux, 1813 (Bryozoa, Ctenostomata). Journal of Natural History, 20: 845-848. 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Case 2964 S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells: proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes Alan R. Kabat Division of Mollusks, NHB-118, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Abstract. Between 1973 and 1992 S.D. Kaicher issued 60 card-packs of marine prosobranch gastropods in a Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. These card- packs, with over 6,200 cards, were intended as a guide for shell collectors to identify their specimens. Many of the cards have statements concerning the status of type specimens, some erroneous but others constituting valid lectotype designations. It is proposed that the Card Catalogue be suppressed for nomenclatural purposes, leaving it as originally intended as a valuable guide for shell collectors but without nomenclatural status. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; S.D. Kaicher; Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells (1973-1992); Mollusca; prosobranch gastropods. 1. Mrs Sally Diana Kaicher of St. Petersburg (Florida) issued a series of sixty card-packs titled Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells comprising printed photographs with captions of various species of mollusks. The first card-pack, titled ‘Marginellidae’ was issued in 1973 and contained 98 cards, each card individually numbered and having a photograph of a representative species, together with a caption containing, inter alia, the scientific name, geographic range, a brief diagnosis and the source of the specimen(s) illustrated. Each card-pack also included a ‘title’ or cover card including the name of the family and date of issuance, an ‘acknowledgement’ card thanking the individuals and museums whose shells were figured, and a larger sized ‘errata’ sheet containing corrections to previous card-packs together with an order form for the next card-pack. The date of the individual cards can only be determined with reference to the cover card for the pack containing that card. 2. These card-packs, covering various families, were issued for the next two decades, with about 100 cards per pack. The sixtieth and last such pack, on the family MARGINELLIDAE like the first, was issued on 14 May 1992 and brought the numbering of the series to 6215. In other words, over 6,200 of these index-card sized cards were issued. Despite their broadly inclusive title, these card-packs were restricted to marine prosobranch gastropods: nonmarine prosobranchs, opisthobranchs, pulmonates and the other mollusk classes were not treated. 3. The purpose of these card-packs was to help amateur shell collectors with the identification and generic classification of their personal shell collections. They were available by purchase from Kaicher’s private address. Although sets of this work are present in the Mollusk libraries of several natural history museums, none has been Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 97 formally catalogued (i.e., with library call numbers) nor has this series been cited in Zoological Record or other abstracting sources. 4. Many of these cards were based on photographs of specimens in various private collections, as noted in the acknowledgement card for each pack. Others were based on specimens in certain natural history museums in the United States, Europe and Australia. For these museum specimens, Kaicher often gave the museum catalogue number, but sometimes gave only the museum acronym (“MCZ’, ‘USNM’, etc.). She took pride in the fact that a number of ‘type specimens’ were included, as that appeared to enhance the value of her card-packs for identification purposes. 5. Unfortunately, Kaicher does not appear to have researched the literature or status of the supposed type specimens which she illustrated. This omission resulted in a number of mistakes on her part and has raised a most problematic issue concerning these card-packs as publications. 6. First, do these card-packs meet the criteria for publication (Articles 7-9 of the Code)? Yes, they were printed, widely distributed, readily obtainable, produced in large quantities, and do not contain a formal nomenclatural disclaimer. There is no specific indication that the card-packs were issued ‘for the purpose of providing a permanent scientific record’ (cf. Article 8a). This criterion is subjective in that, while some researchers would not consider a work such as her card-packs to be part of the permanent scientific record, others would do so. 7. Second, what are the impacts of her statements concerning the type status of the various museum specimens illustrated? Four examples have been chosen to illustrate the problems inherent in these card-packs. It must be noted that Article 74b specifies that if any author calls a specimen a ‘holotype’ (or even ‘the type’) when it is actually part of a syntype series, then that author has actually made a lectotype selection. (1) In Card-pack 31 (NASSARMDAE I, issued 2 April 1982), card no. 3207 of Nassarius scissuratus (Dall) has ‘specimen illustrated is the holotype (USNM)...’. There are actually five syntype lots of this species (two in the U.S. National Museum and three in the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard) and it cannot be determined which of the two USNM lots (contain- ing 3 and 6 specimens respectively) includes the specimen figured by Kaicher. (2) In Card-pack 48 (BUcCINIDAE III, issued 10 May 1987), card no. 4910 figured a specimen of Ptychosalpinx globulus (Dall) which was stated to be ‘MCZ — holotype’. This species was described in 1889, based upon two syntype specimens (USNM 86984). Kaicher’s figured specimen, MCZ 135260, is not from the type series or even type locality, having been collected in the twentieth century, and has no type status whatsoever. Other cards have similar errors in attributing type status to a specimen where none such exists (cf. Article 74a(v)). (3) In Card-pack 19 (CANCELLARIIDAE, issued 6 December 1978), card no. 1940 of Admete microscopica (Dall) has ‘specimen illustrated is the holotype (USNM 32977)’. In fact, this species is based upon three syntype lots, USNM 82977, USNM 94297 and USNM 107987. Presumably ‘32977’ was an error for “82977. A number of other type lots illustrated by Kaicher have similar errors in the catalogue numbers, or lack an indication of which syntype in a lot containing several specimens was that illustrated. (4) In Card-pack 27 (TEREBRIDAE II, issued 1981), card no. 2710 of Terebra acrior Dall has ‘specimen illustrated is the holotype (USNM 87294)...’. This number 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 actually refers to a syntype lot (there are two other syntype lots, one each in MCZ and USNM), and here we have what would be a valid lectotype selection by Kaicher, if her work is accepted as a publication for taxonomic purposes. 8. In conclusion, (a) the availability of Kaicher’s privately printed card-packs as a publication for nomenclatural purposes is ambiguous, and (b) numerous statements concerning the status of type specimens were made by Kaicher, many in error but others potentially representing valid lectotype designations. Over 6,200 cards have been issued and the curatorial staff of a number of museums would have to check each of these cards to find specific mentions of ‘type’ specimens from their collections and then determine whether or not her statements were correct (including those that are really lectotype designations) or were in error. Searching and verifying these inadvertent lectotype designations would impose an onerous burden upon curators and professional malacologists conducting taxonomic research on marine prosobranch gastropods. 9. Therefore, I propose that the Commission should suppress Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells for nomenclatural purposes. It was obviously not her intention nor desire to undertake any manner of systematic revision with implications for the status of the type material of the species illustrated. The numerous errors show that such research was not performed in the course of the preparation of these cards. Suppression of her work for nomenclatural purposes would have no effect on their utility for shell collectors which, after all, was the purpose of her card-packs. Instead, it would avoid any problems concerning the type status of the specimens illustrated. In particular, the inadvertent lectotype designations will be completely obviated, as it is clear that she had no intention of making lectotype selections in her card-packs. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the work by S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992) entitled Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells; (2) to place the above work on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. Acknowledgements I thank R.E. Petit for bringing this problem to my attention. F.M. Bayer and C.W. Sabrosky provided helpful discussion on the manuscript. Reference Kaicher, S.D. 1973-1992. Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. Pack | (cards 1-99) through Pack 60 (cards 6110-6215). Privately published, St. Petersburg, Florida. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 99 Case 2925 Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation M. Hansen Department of Entomology, Zoological Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names of three beetle genera which are junior objective synonyms of names which have not been used since the 19th century. The names are Crenitis Bedel, 1881 (threatened by Fontiscrutor Pandellé, 1876), Georissus Latreille, 1809 (threatened by Cathammistes Iliger, 1807) and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (threatened by Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Crenitis; Georissus; Oosternum. 1. This application proposes the conservation of three generic names of beetles, each name being considered separately. Crenitis Bedel, 1881 2. Letzner (1840, p. 81) described the species Hydrobius punctatostriatus. In connection with the description of a new genus of HYDROPHILIDAE (Hemisphaera), Pandellé (1876, p. 58) introduced a new generic name, Fontiscrutor. This name was not accompanied by any description, but was unambiguously proposed for Hydrobius punctatostriatus and is thus available. Five years later Bedel (1881, p. 306) proposed the genus Crenitis for Hydrobius punctatostriatus; Crenitis is therefore a junior objective synonym of Fontiscrutor. 3. In Opinion 583 (1960), the Commission conserved Crenitis by the suppression of a senior objective synonym, Creniphilus Motschulsky, 1845. Crenitis Bedel, 1881 was placed on the Official List with Hydrobius punctatostriatus Letzner, 1840 as type species by monotypy. Crenitis was treated as masculine, but actually should be considered feminine, being derived from the Greek (spring nymph), with the suffix “-tis’ indicating the feminine gender. 4. Apart from Pandellé (1876), no one has used Fontiscrutor as a valid name. Subsequent authors, without exception, have referred to the genus as Crenitis. Orchymont (1942, p. 25) recorded Fontiscrutor as a synonym of Crenitis, but treated it as anomen nudum. Authors using the name Crenitis include Chiesa (1959, p. 121), Leech (1956, p. 338), Matsui & Nakane (1985, p. 89). A further nine references, dating from 1945 to the present and involving a further nine authors, are held by the Commission Secretariat. 5. Thus for more than 100 years the nominal genus Crenitis has been used for a well known, predominantly holarctic, genus of hydrophiloid beetles including about 40 named species. A change to the senior name Fontiscrutor would give rise to considerable confusion. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Georissus Latreille, 1809 6. Rossi (1794, p. 81) and Fabricius (1798, p. 45) respectively described the species Byrrhus crenulatus and Pimelia pygmaea, which were synonymized by Schonherr (1806, p. 136) using the name pygmaea. This synonymy was generally accepted by subsequent authors and the species was for several decades known under the Fabrician name; crenulatus was reinstated as the valid name by Mulsant & Rey (1872, p. 14). 7. Illiger (1807a, p. 297) established a new genus, Cathammistes, which he also mentioned in another paper the same year (1807b, p. 322). The generic name was not accompanied by any description, but was unambiguously proposed for Pimelia pygmaea and is thus available. Two years later Latreille (1809, p. 377) proposed the generic name Georissus for Pimelia pygmaea; Georissus is therefore a junior objective synonym of Cathammistes. Stephens (1828, p. 105) introduced the unjustified emendation Georyssus, which has been adopted by some subsequent authors. 8. After Illiger proposed the name Cathammistes it has never been used as the valid name for the genus. Subsequent authors, without exception, have referred to the genus as Georissus (or Georyssus). A few authors have given Cathammistes as a synonym or nomen nudum under Georissus (e.g. Gemminger & Harold, 1868, p. 930; Ganglbauer, 1904, p. 93; Zaitzey, 1908, p. 313). Other authors using the name Georissus include Crowson (1955, p. 56), Deléve (1967, p. 236), Sato (1972, p. 207). A further 15 references demonstrating the usage of the name Georissus, dating from 1945 to 1995 and involving a further 13 authors, are held by the Commission Secretariat. 9. The current concept of Pimelia pygmaea has been confirmed by my examination of the types in Fabricius’s collection (Zoological Museum, Copenhagen), as is the synonymy with Byrrhus crenulatus Rossi. The latter was redescribed and its identity fixed by the designation of a lectotype by Bameul (1991, pp. 254-257). 10. Thus for almost 200 years the nominal genus Georissus (or Georyssus) has been used for a well known beetle genus, represented in all major biogeographic regions and including about 75 named species; it is the type genus of the family GEORISSIDAE (considered a subfamily of HYDROPHILIDAE by some authors). A change to the senior name Cathammistes would give rise to considerable confusion. Oosternum Sharp, 1882 11. In a published letter from an expedition to America, Motschulsky (1855, p. 20) referred to a species, Cryptopleurum (as ‘Cryptopleurus?’) aequinoctialis, characterized as ‘un gentille espéce fortement sillonnée et plus allongée que celle que nous trouvons chez nous [i.e. in Russia]; peut-étre un genre nouveau?’. Although inadequate from a taxonomic view, the description is adequate to make the specific name available. 12. Eight years later, Motschulsky (1863, p. 448) proposed a new genus, Crypteuna, for Cryptopleurum aequinoctialis [as ‘Cryptopleurus aequinoxialis’], and stated: ‘Il différe des Cryptopleurus et des Cercyon, par son mésosternum ovalaire, applatie et concave au milieu, et par ses elytres fortement sillonées’. Crypteuna was mentioned again by Motschulsky (1868, p. 60), but seems not to have been used as a valid name since. The generic name Crypteuna and the specific name aequinoctialis Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 101 are clearly available, even though they do not appear in standard catalogues or nomenclators such as Knisch, 1924; Neave, 1939; Sherborn, 1922-1924. 13. In 1882 Sharp (p. 112) established the generic name Oosternum for a new species from Central America, O. costatum, which is the type species by monotypy. Subsequent to Motschulsky’s own references to Crypteuna, the name was not mentioned again until Orchymont (1924, p. 262) noted that the name might be synonymous with Oosternum, although he was doubtful if the respective type species would be identical. However, he later (1928, pp. 78-79) referred to Cryptopleurus aequinoxialis [sic] Motschulsky as a dubious synonym of Oosternum costatum Sharp. Subsequently, the synonymies were discussed by Méquignon (1942, p. 28) who noted that: ‘la synonymie des deux genres au moins, sinon des deux espéces, est fort vraisemblable’. The synonymy of the genera, but not of the species, was confirmed by Hansen (1991, pp. 304-305) who treated Crypfeuna as a ‘nomen oblitum’. 14. For more than 100 years the name Oosternum has been used for a genus of hydrophilid beetles. About 15 species — Nearctic, Neotropical, Afrotropical, East Palearctic, Oriental and Australian — have at various times been referred to Oosternum. The genus was redefined by Hansen (1991, pp. 304-305) and comprises more than 30 known species (including the type species of Crypteuna and several yet to be described) restricted to the Nearctic, Neotropical and southeastern Palearctic regions. Crypteuna has not been used as a valid name since Motschulky’s references to it. On the other hand, Oosternum has been used by all subsequent authors (e.g. Arnett, 1960, p. 220; Leech, 1956, p. 339; Smetana, 1978, p. 44; Spangler, 1962, p. 97). A further nine references demonstrating the usage of the name Oosternum, dating from 1945 to 1995 and involving a further four authors, are held by the Commission Secretariat. A change to the senior name Crypteuna would give rise to considerable confusion. 15. A prima facie case exists under Article 79c(2) for the conservation of the three names Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 by the suppression of their senior objective synonyms. 16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Fontiscrutor Pandellé, 1876; (b) Cathammistes Illiger, 1807; (c) Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Georissus Latreille, 1809 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Pimelia pygmaea Fabricius, 1798 (a junior subjective synonym of Byrrhus crenulatus Rossi, 1794); (b) Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Oosternum costatum Sharp, 1882; (3) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Crenitis Bedel, 1881 to read ‘gender: feminine’ in place of “gender: masculine’; 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) crenulatus Rossi, 1794, as published in the binomen Byrrhus crenulatus (senior subjective synonym of the type species of Georissus Latreille, 1809); (b) costatum Sharp, 1882, as published in the binomen Oosternum costatum (specific name of the type species of Oosternum Sharp, 1882); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Fontiscrutor Pandellé, 1876; (b) Cathammistes Iliger, 1807; (c) Crypteuna Motschulsky, 1863. References Arnett, R.H. 1960. The beetles of the United States (a manual for identification). xi, 1112 pp. American Entomological Institute, Washington, D.C. Bameul, F. 1991. Redescription de Georissus crenulatus (Rossi), Coléoptere ripicole mal connu (Col. Georissidae). Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 95 (for 1990): 253-258. Bedel, L. 1881. Pp. i-xxiv, 257-360 in: Faune des Coléoptéres du bassin de la Seine, vol. 1. Société Entomologique de France, Paris. Chiesa, A. 1959. Hydrophilidae Europae. 199 pp. Forni, Bologna. Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 187 pp. Lloyd, London. Deléve, J. 1967. Les Georissus de Madagascar (Coleoptera Georissidae). Bulletin & Annales de la Société Royale d’Entomologique de Belgique, 103: 233-354. Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae ... 4, 572 pp. Hafniae. Ganglbauer, L. 1904. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa, vol. 4, part 1. 286 pp. Gerold’s Sohn, Wien. Gemminger, M. & Harold, B. de. 1868. Pp. 753-978 in: Catalogus Coleopterorum hucusque descriptorum synonymicus et systematicus, vol. 3. Monachii. Hansen, M. 1991. The Hydrophiloid beetles. Phylogeny, classification and a revision of the genera (Coleoptera, Hydrophiloidea). Biologiske Skrifter, det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 40: 1-368. Illiger, J.C.W. 1807a. Nachlese zu den Bemerkungen, Berichtigungen und Zusatzen zu Fabricii Systema Eleutheratorum. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 6: 296-317. Illiger, J.C.W. 1807b. Vorschlag zur Aufnahme im Fabricischen Systeme fehlender Kafergattungen. Magazin fiir Insektenkunde, 6: 318-350. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1960. Opinion 583. Validation of the generic name Creniphilus (Class Insecta, Order Coleoptera) as from Horn, 1890, and associated matters. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 17: 281-289. Knisch, A. 1924. Hydrophilidae. Jn Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus XIV, part 79. 306 pp. Berlin. Latreille, P.A. 1809. Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, secundum ordinem naturalem in Familias disposita, iconibus exemplisque plurimus explicata, vol. 4. 399 pp. Koenig, Parisiis et Argentorati. Leech, H.B. 1956. Hydraenidae, Hydrophilidae. Pp. 330-346 in Usinger, R.L. (Ed.). Aquatic Insects of California, with keys to North American genera and California species. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Letzner, K.W. 1840. Hydrobius punctato-striatus, n. sp. Uebersicht der Arbeiten und Veréinderungen der Schlesischen Gesellschaft fiir vaterléndische Kultur, 1840: 81-82. Matsui, E. & Nakane, T. 1985. Notes on some species of Hydrophilidae in Japan (Insecta, Coleoptera). Reports of the Faculty of Science of Kagoshima University (Earth Sciences and Biology), 18: 89-95. Méquignon, A. 1942. Voyage de MM. L. Chopard et A. Méquignon aux Agores (Aout-Septembre 1930). XIV. Catalogue des Coléoptéres Agoréens. Annales de la Société entomologique de France, 111: 1-66. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 103 Motschulsky, V. 1845. Remarques sur la collection de Coléopteres Russes. 1. Article. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 18: 3-127, 549. Motschulsky, V. 1855. Lettre de Motschulsky a M. Ménétriés. Pp. 8-25 in: Etudes Entomologiques, vol. 4. Helsingfors. Motschulsky, V. 1863. Essai d’un catalogue des insectes de l’ile Ceylan. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 36(1): 421-532. Motschulsky, V. 1868. Genres et espéces dinsectes, publi¢s dans différents ouvrages par Victor Motschulsky. Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 6 (supplement): 1-118. Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1872. Improsternés. Pp. 1-18 in: Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France, part 25. Deyrolle, Paris. Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator Zoologicus, vol. 1, A-C. xiv, 957 pp. Zoological Society of London, London. Orchymont, A.d’. 1924. Hydrophilidae d’Afrique Orientale. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria, 51: 257-268. Orchymont, A.d’. 1928. Catalogue of Indian Insects, part 14. Palpicornia. 2, 146 pp. Calcutta. Orchymont, A.d’. 1942. Contribution a l'étude de la tribu Hydrobiini Bedel, spécialement de sa sous-tribu Hydrobiae (Palpicornia-Hydrophilidae). Mémoires du Musée Royal d'Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, (2)24: 1-68. Pandellé, L. 1876. Hemisphaera Pandellé nov. gen. Pp. 57-59 in Uhagon, S. de, Coleopteros de Badajoz. Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural, 5: 45-78. Rossi, P. 1794. Mantissa Insectorum, exhibens species nuper in Etruria collectas, adjectis faunae Etruscae illustrationibus ac emendationibus, vol. 2. 154 pp. Pisa. Sat6é, M. 1972. The Georissid beetles of Japan. Journal of the Nagoya Women’s College, 18: 207-213. Schénherr, C.J. 1806. Synonymia Insectorum, oder: Versuch einer Synonymie aller bisher bekannten Insecten; nach Fabricii Systema Eleutheratorum geordnet, vol. 1. Eleutherata oder Kafer, part 1 (Lethrus-Scolytes). xxii, 294 pp. Stockholm. Sharp, D. 1882. Insecta. Coleoptera. Vol. 1, part 2 (Halipidae, Dytiscidae, Gyrinidae, Hydrophilidae, Heteroceridae, Parnidae, Georissidae, Cyathoceridae, Staphylinidae). Pp. 1-144 in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. Biologia Centrali-Americana (16). London. Sherborn, C.D. 1922-1924. Index Animalium, A—B. cxxxi, 944 pp. British Museum, London. Smetana, A. 1978. Revision of the subfamily Sphaeridiinae of America north of Mexico (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 105: 1-292. Spangler, P.J. 1962. A new species of the genus Oosternum and a key to the U.S. species (Coleoptera: Hydrophilidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 75: 97-100. Stephens, J.F. 1828-1829. //lustrations of British Entomology ... Mandibulata, vol. 2. 200 pp. Baldwin & Cradock, London. Zaitzev, P. 1908. Catalogue des Coléoptéres aquatiques des familles des Dryopidae, Georyssidae, Cyathoceridae, Heteroceridae et Hydrophilidae. Horae Societatis Entomo- logicae Rossicae, 38: 283-420. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Case 2974 Stilpon Loew, 1859 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation Jeffrey M. Cumming Biological Resources Division, Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, C.E.F., Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0C6, Canada Neal L. Evenhuis J. Linsley Gressitt Center for Research in Entomology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the generic name Stilpon Loew, 1859 for a widely distributed genus of flies placed in the EMPIDIDAE or HYBOTIDAE. The senior subjective synonym Agatachys Meigen, 1830 is available, but it has only once been listed as a valid name and its suppression is proposed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; Agatachys; Stilpon. 1. Meigen (1830, p. 343) described as new the empidoid species Tachydromia celeripes, based on several specimens which he stated he had received from Wilhelm von Winthem under the manuscript name Agatachys flavipes. Because in his treatment of Tachydromia the previously unpublished name 4A. flavipes was only mentioned by Meigen as a synonym of T. celeripes, the genus-group name Agatachys had no standing in zoological nomenclature until it was many years later listed (see para. 3 below) as the valid name of a taxon (Article lle of the Code). 2. Loew (1859, p. 35) proposed the genus-group name Stilpon for two species, Tachydromia graminum Fallén, 1815 (p. 15) and Drapetis lunata Walker, 1851 (p. 136); in 1864 Loew (p. 5) designated 7. graminum as the type species of Stilpon. The genus currently (see Cumming & Cooper, 1992, p. 956) contains some 25 species from the Nearctic, Palearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental Regions, and a fossil specimen is known from Dominican amber (Evenhuis, 1994, p. 355). 3. Coquillett (1910) listed the names of most genus-group taxa of North American Diptera and proposed type species for those taxa which had not previously been typified. In this work Stilpon was treated (p. 504) as the junior synonym of Agatachys, which was listed as the valid name; under Article 1le of the Code Agatachys Meigen, 1830 is thus deemed to be an available name. Tachydromia celeripes Meigen, 1830 is the type species of Agatachys by monotypy (Article 67(1) of the Code). 4. Agatachys and Stilpon are subjective synonyms, and their respective type species (T. celeripes and T. graminum) have been synonymized (Collin, 1961, p. 55). 5. Since its listing by Coquillett (1910) Agatachys has never again been treated as valid, but Stilpon has been used in the EMPIDIDAE or HYBOTIDAE by numerous authors. In addition to those cited here, a list of 12 representative works published between 1961 and 1989 has been given to the Commission Secretariat. Replacement of Stilpon Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 105 Loew, 1859 by Agatachys Meigen, 1830 would result in many new combinations and would cause undue confusion in the nomenclature of the EMPIDOIDEA; it would offer no compensating advantage. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Agatachys Meigen, 1830 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stilpon Loew, 1859 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Loew (1864) Tachydromia graminum Fallén, 1815; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name graminum Fallén, 1815, as published in the binomen Tachydromia graminum (specific name of the type species of Stilpon Loew, 1859); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Agatachys Meigen, 1830, as suppressed in (1) above. References Collin, J.E. 1961. British Flies. Empididae. 782 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Coquillett, D.W. 1910. The type-species of the North American genera of Diptera. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 37: 499-647. Cumming, J.M. & Cooper, B.E. 1992. A revision of the Nearctic species of the tachydromiine fly genus Stilpon Loew (Diptera: Empidoidea). The Canadian Entomologist, 124: 951-998. Evenhuis, N.L. 1994. Empididae. Catalogue of the fossil flies (Insecta: Diptera). viii, 600 pp. Backhuys, Leiden. Fallén, C.F. 1815. Empidiae Sveciae. 16 pp. Berling, Lundae. Loew, H. 1859. Neue Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Dipteren. Sechster Beitrag. Programm der Koniglichen Realschule zu Meseritz, 1859: \—SO0. Loew, H. 1864. Ueber die schlesischen Arten der Gattungen Tachypeza Meig. (Tachypeza, Tachista, Dysaletria) und Microphorus Macq. (Trichina und Microphorus). Zeitschrift fiir Entomologie (Breslau), 14 (for 1860): 1—S0. Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten. Sechster Theil. xi, 401 pp. Schulz, Hamm. Walker, F. 1851. Insecta Britannica. Diptera, vol. 1. vi, 314 pp., 10 pls. Reeve & Benham, London. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Case 2905 Labrus Linnaeus, 1758, Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839 and Polycentrus Miiller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 R. Fricke Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Rosenstein 1, D-70191 Stuttgart, Germany C.J. Ferraris Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118, U.S.A. Abstract. The specific name of Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 has been used for two very different fish. It is used for a common northeastern Atlantic/Mediterranean species (the type species of Labrus Linnaeus, 1758; family LABRIDAE) and for a common freshwater species of South America (which has been wrongly treated as the type species of Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839; family CICHLIDAE). The type species of Cichlasoma is the nominal species L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758. It is proposed that the name L. bimaculatus should be maintained for the labrid species whilst adopting C. punctatum for the cichlid taxon now known as C. bimaculatum. However, the presumed holotype of L. bimaculatus is a specimen of Cichlasoma, and the lectotype of L. punctatus is a specimen of another South American species, Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848 (the type species of Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848; family NANDIDAE). The purpose of this application is to set aside the original type specimens of L. bimaculatus and L. punctatus and to designate neotypes in accordance with the current usages of the generic names Labrus and Cichlasoma respectively, and thus to stabilize the family-group names LABRIDAE and CICHLIDAE. Designation of the L. punctatus neotype will remove the names L. punctatus and Cichlasoma from the formal synonymy of P. schomburgkii and Polycentrus and thereby stabilize the current usage of the latter names. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perciformes; LABRIDAE; CICHLIDAE; NANDIDAE; Labrus; Cichlasoma; Polycentrus. 1. Linnaeus (1758, pp. 282-288) used the name Labrus for 40 nominal species of fish. He based (p. 285) his description of Labrus bimaculatus on his 1754 (p. 66, pl. 31, fig. 6) description of a specimen in the Museum Adolphi Friderici (see para. 4 below). The locality was given as the Mediterranean. Bonaparte ([1841]) is often cited as having designated L. bimaculatus as the type species of Labrus (see, for example, Gomon & Forsyth, 1990, p. 873). However, Bonaparte referred only to the junior synonym L. vetula Bloch, 1792, a nominal species not originally included in Labrus, and his designation, which did not mention L. bimaculatus, is therefore invalid. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 107 first valid type species designation for Labrus is that of L. bimaculatus by Jordan (1891, p. 607). This has been followed by many recent authors (see, for example, Bauchot, 1963, p. 79; Quignard, 1966, p. 23). Labrus is the type genus of the family LABRIDAE (published as Labridi by Bonaparte, [1832], p. [10]) which contains some 500 taxa (see Nelson, 1994, p. 386) and is the second largest family of marine fishes. 2. Linnaeus (1758, pp. 285-286) described Labrus punctatus based on two sources, his own description (1754, p. 66, pl. 31, fig. 5) of a specimen in the Museum Adolphi Friderici and Gronovius’s description (1754, p..36, no. 87) of ‘Labrus bruneus’ from Surinam. The latter was illustrated by Gronovius in 1756 (pl. 5, fig. 4). The type locality of punctatus was given as Surinam. 3. Swainson (1839, p. 230) described the genus Cichlasoma (family CICHLIDAE Bleeker, 1859, p. xviii; published as Cychloidei). Labrus punctatus Bloch, 1792 (pp. 20-22, pl. 295, fig. 1; = the nominal species L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758) was given as the single included species. 4. Fernholm & Wheeler (1983) discussed the identity of Linnaean fish material. They assumed (p. 253) that the single specimen of Labrus bimaculatus in the Adolphi Friderici Museum collection (now deposited in the Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, catalogue no. NRM LP 7) is the holotype and recorded it as a cichlid belonging in the New World genus Cichlasoma. They commented, following earlier authors, on the frequency with which Linnaeus had confused the localities of taxa. Fernholm & Wheeler (1983, p. 252) noted that the nominal species Labrus punctatus was composite, the specimen in the Museum Adolphi Friderici collection (Natur- historiska Riksmuseet catalogue no. NRM LP 4) belonging to the taxon currently called Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848 (a South American species, the type of Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848; family NANDIDAE), whilst Gronovius’s (1754) description referred to a member of the CICHLIDAE, identified by a number of authors (including Eigenmann, 1912, p. 495) as Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758). They noted that in 1758 (but not in 1754) Linnaeus had recorded incorrectly the meristic data of the punctatus specimen, and that his (1754) illustration was rather poor; both of these factors had previously obscured its true identity as a nandid. Gronovius’s specimen is lost. Kullander (1983, p. 84) designated the remaining syntype, Linnaeus’s specimen in the Adolphi Friderici Museum collection, as the lectotype of Labrus punctatus. This removed L. punctatus from the cichlids, placed punctatus and Cichlasoma in the NANDIDAE and rendered the names senior subjective synonyms of Polycentrus schomburgkii and Polycentrus. 5. The specific name of Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 is not in use either in the CICHLIDAE or the NANDIDAE. An application (Case 2880) for the conservation of the much used nandid (leaf fish) specific name of Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848 (the type species of Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848) by suppressing the senior subjective synonym L. punctatus (see para. 4 above) was submitted by Dr Hans-Joachim Paepke (Zentralinstitut Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Institut fiir Systematische Zoologie, Berlin) and published in BZN 50: 215-218 (September 1993). The name P. schomburgkii has had nearly 140 years of usage and, as noted in Dr Paepke’s application, this has not been influenced by Kullander’s (1983) lectotype designation. Of a number of cited post-1983 authors (BZN 50: 216, para. 5) only one (Stawikowski, 1992, p. 687) had adopted Polycentrus punctatus. The 30 syntypes (two adults and 28 juveniles) of 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 P. schomburgkii, collected in the Essequibo (British Guiana, now Guyana), are housed in the Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat of Berlin, catalogue nos. ZMB 1024 and ZMB 20604. 6. The name Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 is well known for the cuckoo wrasse, a common northeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean labrid fish, used by numerous authors (see, for example, Bauchot & Quignard, 1973, p. 426; Quignard & Pras, 1987, p. 927; Fischer, Schneider & Bauchot, 1987, p. 1143; Fricke, 1987, p. 111; Gomon & Forsyth, 1990, p. 875) and has appeared in recent national and international catalogues of endangered species (see, for example, Magalhaes & Rogado, 1993, p. 74; Fricke et al., 1994, 1995; Fricke, Berghahn & Neudecker, 1995, p. 111). The name Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758), also based on Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus (1758, p. 285), has been used for the common and widespread two-spotted cichlid fish of South America (see, for example, Steindachner, 1875, p. 82; Haseman, 1911, p. 339; Miranda Ribeiro, 1915, p. 60; Axelrod, Burgess, Pronek & Walls, 1986, p. 337). However, the species was restricted by Kullander (1983, pp. 65-89, pls. 1 and 2; 1986, p. 335) to a form only distributed from Guiana to Venezuela. The name has therefore been unstable; it was applied in recent years to what is now a complex of species. Thus, references to C. bimaculatum in, for example, the Amazon are incorrect. Eigenmann (1912, p. 494) cited L. bimaculatus as the type of Cichlasoma; although an invalid designation, L. bimaculatus has been treated as the type by a number of recent authors (Kullander, 1983, pp. 9, 65-89; 1986, p. 335; Kullander & Nijssen, 1989, p. 131; Eschmeyer & Bailey, 1990, p. 95}, while the name Cichlasoma punctatum has not been used (para. 5 above). 7. Recognition that the holotype of Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 is a cichlid (para. 4 above) would mean that Labrus Linnaeus, 1758 is formally a senior subjective synonym of Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839 and, since there is no junior synonym for Labrus as currently understood, a new name would be required for this genus. The next available specific name, that of Labrus mixtus Linnaeus, 1758, would be adopted for the common northeastern Atlantic labrid species. The family-group name LABRIDAE Bonaparte, [1832] would be used in place of CICHLIDAE Bleeker, 1859; the name CICHLIDAE, which refers to the second largest family of freshwater fishes containing some 680 taxa (see Nelson, 1984, pp. 315-317), would be replaced by the next available synonym, PHARYNGODOPILIDAE Cocchi, 1864 (p. 89; type genus Pharyngodopilus Cocchi, 1864). These changes would severely threaten the stability of nomenclature. We propose that the use of the name Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 should be maintained in the LABRIDAE, and that Cichlasoma punctatum (Linnaeus, 1758) should be adopted for the cichlid species (see para. 8 below). Wheeler (1969, p. 368) used the name Labrus mixtus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 287), a contemporary synonym for the Mediterranean and Atlantic labrid, but most authors continue to use the name L. bimaculatus. We propose that the cichlid holotype of L. bimaculatus be set aside and that the labrid usage of the name be stabilized by the designation of a neotype. The proposed specimen is a female (SL 299 mm), catalogue no. SMNS 12625 in the Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Stuttgart, Germany, collected by H.A. Pagenstecher in 1865 from Palma de Mallorca (39°34' N, 2°39’ E) in the Balearic Islands, Spain. 8. We propose that the specific name of Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 should be adopted for the South American cichlid by setting aside Kullander’s (1983) nandid Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 109 lectotype (para. 4 above) and designating a cichlid neotype. The proposed specimen is catalogue no. CAS-SU 53337 (SL 102 mm) in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, U.S.A., collected by I.D. White and party on 5 March 1959 south of Paramaribo, near Zanderij airfield, Surinam (5°27'N, 55°12’W). This designation removes L. punctatus and Cichlasoma from the formal synonymy of Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848 and Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848; as a means of conserving the latter names it is acceptable to Dr Paepke (in litt., September 1995; see para. 5 above) and his application to suppress punctatus will not now be pursued. As noted in paras. 5 and 6 above, the name Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758) has been used for the cichlid fish, and treated as the type species of Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839, whilst punctatus has remained virtually unused. How- ever, the name bimaculatus is used much more commonly in the labrids than in the cichlids. Additionally, the nomenclatural situation for northeast Atlantic labrid fish is stable whilst names for South American cichlids are still far from stable and there have been frequent recent changes. For these reasons it is appropriate to change the cichlid use of bimaculatus rather than the labrid one, and to adopt punctatus as the name for the South American fish. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous type fixations for the following nominal species: (a) Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and to designate as neotype the female specimen in the Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde, Stuttgart, catalogue no. SMNS 12625, proposed in para. 7 above; (b) Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758 and to designate as neotype the specimen in the California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, catalogue no. CAS-SU 53337, proposed in para. 8 above; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Labrus Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Jordan (1891) Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Labrus punctatus Linnaeus, 1758; (c) Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Polycentrus schomburgkii Miller & Troschel, 1848; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Labrus bimaculatus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above (specific name of the type species of Labrus Linnaeus, 1758); (b) punctatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Labrus punctatus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above (specific name of the type species of Cichlasoma Swainson, 1839); (c) schomburgkii Miiller & Troschel, 1848, as published in the binomen Polycentrus schomburgkii (specific name of the type species of Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848). References Axelrod, H.R., Burgess, W.E., Pronek, N. & Walls, J.G. 1986. Dr Axelrod’s atlas of freshwater aquarium fishes, Ed. 2. 782 pp., 481 pls. T.F.H. Publications, Neptune City, New Jersey. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Bauchot, M.-L. 1963. Catalogue critique des types de poissons du Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Publications du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), 20: 1-195. Bauchot, M.-L. & Quignard, J.-P. 1973. Labridae. Pp. 426-443 in Hureau, J.C. & Monod, Th. (Eds.), Checklist of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean, vol. 1. xxii, 683 pp. UNESCO, Paris. Bleeker, P.E.A. 1859. Enumeratio Specierum Piscium hucusque in Archipelago Indico observatarum ... Verhandelingen der Natuurkundige Vereeniging in Nederlandsch Indié, 6: i-xxxvi, 1-276. Bloch, M.E. 1792. Naturgeschichte des auslindischen Fische, part 6. vi, 126 pp., pls. 289-323. K6nigl. Akad. Kunsthandl. Morino, Berlin. Bonaparte, C.L.J.L. [1832], [1841]. Jconografia della fauna italica per la quattro classi degli animali vertebrati, vol. 3 (Pesci), fasc. 1 ({1832]); fasc. 30 ([1841]). Unpaginated. Rome. Cocchi, I. 1864. Monografia dei Pharyngodopilidae, nuova famiglia di pesci Labroidi. Annali del R. Museo di Fisica e Storia Naturale di Firenze, (N.S.)1: 63-153. (Published in the serial in 1866 but issued as a separate in 1864). Eigenmann, C.H. 1912. The fresh-water fishes of British Guiana, including a study of the ecological grouping of species and the relation of the fauna of the plateau to that of the lowlands. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 5: \-578. Eschmeyer, W.N. & Bailey, R.M. 1990. Genera of Recent fishes. Pp. 7-433 in Eschmeyer, W.N.. Catalog of the genera of Recent fishes, part 1. v, 697 pp. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78(3): 199-286. Fischer, W., Schneider, M. & Bauchot, M.-L. 1987. Fiches FAO d’indentification des espéces pour les besoins de la péche. Mediterranée et Mer Noire. Zone de Péche 37. Révision 1, vol. 2 (Vertébrés). Pp. i-v, 763-1529. FAO, Rome. Fricke, R. 1987. Deutsche Meeresfische. Bestimmungsbuch. 219 pp. Deutscher Jugendbund fur Naturbeobachtung, Hamburg. Fricke, R., Berghahn, R. & Neudecker, T. 1995. Rote Liste der Rundmauler und Meeresfische des deutschen Wattenmeer- und Nordseebereichs (mit Anhangen: nicht gefahrdete Arten). Schriftenreihe fiir Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, 44: 101-113. Fricke, R., Berghahn, R., Neudecker, T., Berg, S., Krog, C., Muus, B.. Nielsen, J. & Wolff, W.J. 1995. Fishes and lampreys. 15 pp. in: Report on the trilateral Red Data List for the Wadden Sea area. Common Secretariat for the Cooperation on the Protection of the Wadden Sea, Wilhelmshaven. Fricke, R., Berghahn, R., Rechlin, O., Neudecker, T., Winkler, H., Bast, H.-D. & Hahlbeck, E. 1994. Rote Liste und Artenverzeichnis der Rundmauler und Fische (Cyclostomata Pisces) im Bereich der deutschen Nord- und Ostsee. Schriftenreihe fiir Landschaftspflege und Naturschutz, 42: 157-176. Gomon, M.F. & Forsyth, P. 1990. Labridae. Pp. 868-882 in Quéro, J.C., Hureau, J.C., Karrer, C., Post, A. & Saldanha, L. (Eds.), Check-list of the fishes of the eastern tropical Atlantic, vol. 2. Pp. 519-1080. Junta Nacional de Investigagao Cientifica e Tecnologia, European Ichthyological Union & UNESCO, Lisbon & Paris. Gronovius, L.T. 1754. Museum ichthyologicum sistens piscium ..., vol. 1. 70 pp., pls. 14. Haek, Lugduni Batavorum. Gronovius, L.T. 1756. Musei ichthyologici tomus secundus sistens piscium ... 88 pp., pls. 5-7. Leiden. Haseman, J.D. 1911. An annotated catalog of the cichlid fishes collected by the expedition of the Carnegie Museum to central South America, 1907-10. Annals of the Carnegie Museum, 7: 329-373. Jordan, D.S. 1891. A review of the labroid fishes of America and Europe. Report of the U.S. Fish Commission, 15 (for 1887); 599-699. Kullander, S.O. 1983. A revision of the South American cichlid genus Cichlasoma (Teleostei: Cichlidae). 296 pp., 14 pls. Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm. Kullander, S.O. 1986. Cichlid fishes of the Amazon River drainage of Peru. 431 pp., 38 pls. Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 111 Kullander, S.O. & Nijssen, H. 1989. The cichlids of Surinam (Teleostei: Labroidei). xxxii, 256 pp. Brill, Leiden. Linnaeus, C. 1754. Part 4. Pisces. Pp. 51-80, pls. 25-33 in: Museum S:ae R:ae M:tis Adolphi Friderici Regis ... in quo Animalia rariora imprimis, et exotica: Quadrupedia, Aves, Amphibia, Pisces, Insecta, Vermes describuntur et determinantur ... xxx, 96, [8] pp., 33 pls. Holmiae. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Magalhaes, F. & Rogado, L. (Eds.). 1993. Livro vermelho dos vertebrados de Portugal, vol. 3 (Peixes marinhos e estuarinos). 146 pp. Secretaria de Estado do Ambiente e do Consumidor, Instituto da Conservacao da Natureza, Lisboa. Miranda Ribeiro, A. de. 1915. Cichlidae. 70 pp. in Fauna Brasiliense — Peixes. Archivos do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro, 17: 1-70. Miiller, J. & Troschel, F.H. 1848. Fische. Pp. 618-644 in Schomburgk, M.R., Reisen in Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844, ..., part 3 (Versuch einer Zusammenstellung der Fauna und Flora von Britisch-Guiana), no. | (Fauna). Pp. 533-786. Weber, Leipzig. Nelson, J.S. 1994. Fishes of the world, Ed. 3. xiii, 600 pp. Wiley, New York. Quignard, J.-P. 1966. Recherches sur les Labridae des cOtes européennes. Systématique et biologie. Naturalia Monspeliensia (Zoologie), 5: 7-247. Quignard, J.-P. & Pras, A. 1986. Labridae. Pp. 919-942 in Whitehead, P.J.P., Bauchot, M.-L., Hureau, J.-C., Nielsen, J. & Tortonese, E. (Eds.), Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, vol. 2. Pp. 517-1007. UNESCO, Paris. Stawikowski, R. 1992. Polycentrus punctatus. Aquarien- und Terrarien-Zeitschrift, 45(11): 687. Steindachner, F. 1875. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Chromiden des Amazonenstromes. Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, _Mathematisch- Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, Wien, 71(1): 61-137. Swainson, W. 1839. The natural history of fishes, amphibians and reptiles, or monocardian animals, vol. 2. 452 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London. Wheeler, A. 1969. The fishes of the British Isles and north-west Europe. xvii, 613 pp. Macmillan, London. 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Case 2976 Holotropis herminieri Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (currently Leiocephalus herminieri) and Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (currently Liolaemus bibronii) (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific names Hobart M. Smith Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. Edwin L. Bell Department of Biology, Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania 19612-5234, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of the tropidurid lizards Leiocephalus herminieri (Duméril & Bibron, 1837) and Liolaemus bibronii (T. Bell, 1842). The former (now extinct) is known from Martinique, whilst the latter is a southern South American species. The names are threatened by the senior subjective synonyms Tropidolepis aculeatus and T. bellii respectively, both of Gray (1831), which have only once (in 1834) been used. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; tropidurids; Leiocephalus herminieri; Liolaemus bibronii; Martinique; southern South America. 1. Gray (1831, pp. 42-44) recognized ten species in the genus Tropidolepis Cuvier, 1829. Six of these were the species included by Wiegmann (1828, cols. 369-370) in his genus Sceloporus. Three of the species were new and each was accompanied by a description. 2. One of the new species, Tropidolepis aculeatus Gray, 1831 (p. 43), was said to be from Martinique and its brief description agrees with the characteristics of Holotropis herminieri Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (p. 261, pl. 44), the only member of the family TROPIDURIDAE on the island. Gray did not mention a specimen or the location of material. 3. For the remaining two of Gray’s (1831) species, Tropidolepis bellii and T. fasciatus, no locality was given. Both were said to be represented in the Bell Museum, most of the collection from which was subsequently incorporated into the British Museum, London, although some specimens are in the Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris. However, no specimens listed in British Museum catalogs by either Gray (1845) or Boulenger (1885) can be associated with these names. The specimens may be in the Paris Muséum but at present are unaccounted for. The descriptions, without locality or specimens, are inadequate for unequivocal allocation to species. 4. The only subsequent usage of the three species-group names Tropidolepis aculeatus, T. bellii and T. fasciatus was in Wiegmann (1834), where each taxon was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 113 listed as a member of the genus Sce/oporus Wiegmann, 1828. None was cited in the appropriate synopses by Duméril & Bibron (1837), Gray (1845) or Boulenger (1885), although each work cited Gray (1831) in other contexts. Gray himself never subsequently referred to his (1831) new species. These omissions have resulted in the (1831) Gray names remaining unused by other workers. 5. The name Tropidolepis aculeatus Gray, 1831 is clearly referable to the species consistently known as Leiocephalus herminieri (Duméril & Bibron, 1837) and is senior to the latter name. Rigid application of the Principle of Priority would result in the earlier name becoming valid. However, revival of Gray’s name, unused for over 160 years, would be an unacceptable violation of nomenclatural stability. The name L. herminieri has been used by Boulenger (1885, p. 166, who cited three works by four authors), by Etheridge (1964, p. 56, who cited three additional works by four additional authors), and by Etheridge (1966a, p. 56; 1966b, p. 88), Schwartz & Thomas (1975, p. 130), and Schwartz & Henderson (1988, p. 137; 1991, p. 430). No other name has been applied to the taxon since 1837. 6. The only specimens known of Holotropis herminieri, which is now extinct, are the three syntypes in the Paris Muséum, and a skeleton in the Natural History Museum, London. Two of the specimens in Paris, MNHN 1826 and 6829, are labelled “La Martinique’; the third, MNHN 2389, is labelled “Trinité’ (a town on the northeastern coast of Martinique); the skeleton in London, BMNH 1952.12.3.10, is also labelled ‘Martinique’ (see Etheridge, 1964, p. 56, footnote). Gray (1831) described the pointed scales of T. aculeatus and his description was therefore presumably based on one or more of the three specimens in the Paris Muséum, although Dumeéril & Bibron themselves (1837, p. 263) noted that they had seen material in both museums and thought that 7. herminieri was a junior synonym of Gray’s (1827) Leiocephalus carinatus from Cuba. No other specimens are known on which Gray might have based his description of T. aculeatus. 7. Gray’s (1831) Tropidolepis bellii and T. fasciatus were based on Bell Museum specimens and probably pertain to South American taxa. The well known South American polychrid species Leiosaurus bellii (pp. 242-244, pl. 39, fig. 1) and L. (currently Pristidactylus) fasciatus (pp. 244-246) were described by Dumeéril & Bibron (1837). Neither of the descriptions of these taxa agrees with Gray’s of 1831. Gray (1845, p. 224) and Boulenger (1885, p. 127) later cited Leiosaurus fasciatus Dumeril & Bibron (originally described by d’Orbigny & Bibron in 1837) as ‘S. America. Mus. Paris’ and “Rio Negro, N. Patagonia’ respectively. The discrep- ancies in the descriptions of Gray’s (1831) 7. fasciatus and d’Orbigny & Bibron’s (1837) L. fasciatus mean that Gray’s taxon cannot be identified as d’Orbigny & Bibron’s species. The name 7. fasciatus Gray must be considered a nomen dubium and, to avoid confusion with L. fasciatus d’Orbigny & Bibron, we propose that it be suppressed. Gray (1845, p. 224) and Boulenger (1885, p. 125) also cited Leiosaurus bellii Duméril & Bibron, 1837 and listed a specimen from South America. 8. Gray (1845, p. 212) described a nominal species Liolaemus bellii and listed a single specimen from Chile. It is likely that Gray’s (1831) Tropidolepis bellii is the same as his (1845) L. bellii since the two descriptions are reasonably similar. As noted by Boulenger (1885, p. 146), the name Liolaemus bellii Gray, 1845 is a junior synonym of Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (p. 6, pl. 3, fig. 1), described from a young female specimen (BMNH 1946.8.5.68 in the Natural History Museum, 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 London) collected by Charles Darwin from Port Desire, Patagonia. The dates of publication of part 5 of The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle were set out by Vanzolini (1977, p. 61); pp. 1-16 were published in 1842 and the remainder in 1843. The specific name of Liolaemus bibronii has been consistently applied to the southern South American iguanid species and has been used in recent representative works by Peters & Donoso-Barros (1970, p. 180), Cei (1986, pp. 256-258, pl. 28) and Frank & Ramus (1995, p. 168). The numerous references in Donoso-Barros (1966, pp. 204-207) demonstrating usages of the name, and the number of articles using it in the compilation by Duellman (Ed., 1979), provide ample evidence of its fixity. The earlier name 7. be/lii Gray, 1831 constitutes a threat to the nomenclatural stability of L. bibronii and we therefore propose that it be suppressed. 9. 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) aculeatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis aculeatus; (b) bellii Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis bellii; (c) fasciatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis fasciatus; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) herminieri Duméril & Bibron, 1837, as published in the binomen Holotropis herminiert; (b) bibronii T. Bell, 1842, as published in the binomen Proctotretus bibronii; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) aculeatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis aculeatus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) bellii Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis bellii and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) fasciatus Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Tropidolepis fasciatus and as suppressed in (1)(c) above. References Bell, T. 1842. Reptiles. Pp. 1-16 in Darwin, C. (Ed.), The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, under the command of Captain Fitzroy, R.N., during the years 1832-1836, part 5. Smith, Elder, London. Boulenger, G.A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum ( Natural History), Ed. 2, vol. 2. xiil, 497 pp., pls. 1-24. Taylor & Francis, London. Cei, J.M. 1986. Reptiles del centro, centro-oeste y sur de la Argentina. Herpetofauna de las zonas dridas y semiaridas. 527 pp., 48 pls. Monografie 4. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino. Donoso-Barros, R. 1966. Reptiles de Chile. cxlvi, 458 pp. Universidad de Chile, Santiago de Chile. Duellman, W.E. (Ed.). 1979. The South American herpetofauna: its origin, evolution, and dispersal. 485 pp., 172 figs. Monograph of the Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, No. 7. Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Duméril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1837. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des reptiles, vol. 4. 572 pp. Roret, Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 115 Etheridge, R. 1964. Late Pleistocene lizards from Barbuda, British West Indies. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Sciences, 9(2): 43-75. Etheridge, R. 1966a. An extinct lizard of the genus Leiocephalus from Jamaica. Quarterly Journal of the Florida Academy of Sciences, 29(1): 47-59. Etheridge, R. 1966b. The systematic relationships of West Indian and South American lizards referred to the iguanid genus Leiocephalus. Copeia, 1966(1): 79-91. Frank, N. & Ramus, E. 1995. A complete guide to scientific and common names of reptiles and amphibians of the world. 377 pp. NG Publishing, Pottsville, Pennsylvania. Gray, J.E. 1827. A description of a new genus and some new species of saurian reptiles, with a revision of the species of chameleons. Philosophical Magazine, (2)2(9): 207-209. Gray, J.E. 1831. A synopsis of the species of the class Reptilia. Vol. 9 (supplement) in Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organization, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed. 110 pp. Whittaker, Treacher, London. Gray, J.E. 1845. Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the British Museum. xxviii, 289 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Peters, J.A. & Donoso-Barros, R. 1970. Catalogue of the neotropical Squamata: part 2. Lizards and amphisbaenians. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297: 1-293. Schwartz, A. & Henderson, R.W. 1988. West Indian amphibians and reptiles: a check-list. Milwaukee Public Museum Contributions in Biology and Geology, 74: 1-264. Schwartz, A. & Henderson, R.W. 1991. Amphibians and reptiles of the West Indies. xvi, 720 pp. University of Florida, Gainesville. Schwartz, A. & Thomas, R. 1975. A check-list of West Indian amphibians and reptiles. Carnegie Museum of Natural History Special Publication, 1: 1-216. Vanzolini, P.E. 1977. An annotated bibliography of the land and fresh-water reptiles of South America (1758-1975). vol. 1 (1758-1900). iv, 186 pp. Museo de Zoologia, Sao Paulo, Wiegmann, A.F.A. 1828. Beytrage zur Amphibienkunde. /sis (von Oken), 21(3-4): 364-383. Wiegmann, A.F.A. 1834. Herpetologia Mexicana ... Pars Prima. Saurorum species. vi, 54 pp., 10 pls. Liideritz, Berlin. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Case 2970 Tyrannula minima Baird & Baird, 1843 (currently Empidonax minimus) and Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names Richard C. Banks & M. Ralph Browning National Biological Service, National Museum of Natural History, MRC 111, Washington, D.C. 20560-0111, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of two North American tyrant flycatchers (family TYRANNIDAE), Empidonax minima (Baird & Baird, 1843), the least flycatcher, and Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859, the greater pewee. The names are threatened by the virtually unused senior synonyms Platyrhynchus pusillus and Tyrannula musica respectively, both of Swainson (1827). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; tyrant flycatchers; least flycatcher; greater pewee; Empidonax minimus; Contopus pertinax; North America. 1. In a paper on birds collected by William Bullock in Mexico, Swainson (1827, p. 366) described and named Platyrhynchus pusillus from the ‘maritime parts of Mexico’. Later, he (1832, pp. 144-146) gave a detailed description, accompanied by measurements and a color plate, of a bird from Carlton House, Saskatchewan, Canada, under the name Tyrannula pusilla. Although Swainson (1832) mentioned that he compared the Carlton House bird with one from the shores of Mexico, there is no known extant type specimen nor a specimen from Carlton House. On the basis of that comparison, Swainson (1832) placed pusilla in the genus Tyrannula Swainson, 1827. 2. Baird & Baird (1843, p. 284) described and named a tyrant flycatcher (family TYRANNIDAE) Tyrannula minima, noting that the wing formula of their bird differed from the formula given by Swainson (1832) for 7. pusilla. The holotype of T. minima, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, is catalog no. 4465 in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia (see Stone, 1899, p. 23). 3. Within the current genus Empidonax Cabanis, 1855, in the 19th century pusillus was treated in various ways. Usually the species was confused with Empidonax traillii (Audubon, 1828). Baird (1858, p. 194) used pusi/lus as the name of a species occurring geographically between E. traillii and minimus. Coues (1884, p. 442) treated pusillus as a species aligned with, possibly the same as, traillii and replacing that form to the west. The American Ornithologists’ Union (A.O.U.) (1886, p. 235) considered traillii a subspecies of pusillus, which had equal status with minimus. It is not certain, however, that any of those authorities were using pusillus for the same taxon that Swainson did. The confusion is summarized by Brewster (1895, p. 161) who suggested that until Swainson’s type from Mexico was found and studied *... we are justified in ignoring the name pusillus and adopting — or rather retaining — that of rraillii for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 117 the flycatcher which we have just been considering’. Although several writers discussed the identity of Swainson’s pusi/lus after that time, none used it as a valid name between 1895 and 1964. 4. Todd (1963, p. 482) believed that the name Empidonax pusillus belonged to the species generally known as E. minimus but used the latter name ‘to avoid further changes and confusion in the nomenclature of this difficult group of birds’. Phillips, Marshall & Monson (1964, p. 87) and Monson & Phillips (1981, p. 104) used the name Empidonax pusillus (Swainson) for the species known for the previous 70 years as Empidonax minimus (Baird & Baird), but did not give the original citation for Swainson’s name or the reason for its use. Rea (1983, p. 188) followed Phillips et al. (1964) in the use of pusillus, indicating that it was based on Platyrhynchus pusillus Swainson, 1827. To our knowledge, no other writer has used the name pusillus Swainson for a species of Empidonax. 5. Platyrhynchus pusillus Swainson, 1827 has priority over its putative synonym Tyrannula minima Baird & Baird, 1843. However, to resurrect Swainson’s long- unused name would cause considerable confusion because Empidonax minimus (Baird & Baird, 1843) is well known in the recent literature (see, for example, the representative works by Miller, Friedmann, Griscom & Moore, 1957, p. 87; Traylor, 1979, p. 140; A.O.U., 1983, p. 453; and Sibley & Monroe, 1990, p. 354). Furthermore, the identity of Platyrhynchus pusillus Swainson is uncertain in the absence of a holotype. We therefore propose that the usage of Baird & Baird’s (1843) name minimus be maintained and that Swainson’s (1827) name be suppressed. 6. In the same paper (para. 1 above), Swainson (1827, p. 368) also briefly described and named the new species Tyrannula musica. He did not give a locality or designate a holotype and his description was merely ‘Cinereous-brown, beneath dirty yellow, tail forked; wings lengthened, brown; bill strongly hooked’. 7. Cabanis & Heine (1859, p. 72) described and named Contopus pertinax from Xalapa (= Jalapa, Mexico). The location of the holotype, formerly in the Museum Heineanum, is unknown (see Miller, Friedmann, Griscom & Moore, 1957, p. 95). 8. Historic valid use of the name Contopus musicus (Swainson, 1827), for the tyrant flycatcher that is currently universally called Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859, is limited to Swainson (1832, p. 132), Salvin & Godman (1880, pp. 81-82), Sharpe (1901, p. 141) and Dubois (1903, p. 1078). Ridgway (1907, p. 514) listed musica Swainson as a possible synonym of pertinax. Hellmayr (1927, p. 203) remarked that Swainson’s (1827) description of musica ‘appears to me unidentifiable’. 9. Phillips (in Phillips, Marshall & Monson, 1964, p. 90) adopted the name Tyrannula musica in place of the well known T. pertinax without explanation. Later Phillips (in Phillips & Short, 1968, pp. 91-93) reported the discovery of the type of Swainson’s Tyrannula musica. He stated that “both the description [by Swainson] and the name itself apply so clearly to this species’ but did not provide further details. A specimen (catalog no. 27/Tyr/57/e/1 in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, U.K.), considered to be the type of Tyrannula musica by A.R. Phillips in 1966, has the locality ‘Mexico’. This specimen, according to notes by C.W. Benson, was considered by Phillips to be a Bullock specimen and therefore from Swainson’s collection (in litt., R.J. Symonds). There is, however, no label to indicate that the specimen had belonged to Swainson. Measurements of the specimen taken by Phillips 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 in 1966 do not agree with those given by Swainson (1827, p. 368): wing 100 mm (‘4°=108.1 mm in Swainson); tail 83 mm (*3¥=89 mm in Swainson). 10. Recent use of Swainson’s name musica in the genus Contopus has been only by Phillips (in Phillips et al., 1964, p. 90; in Phillips & Short, 1967, pp. 91-93; in Monson & Phillips, 1981). Except as noted in paras. 8 and 9 above, all other authors use the specific name pertinax Cabanis & Heine. Examples of recent works demonstrating this usage include Miller, Friedmann, Griscom & Moore (1957, p. 84), A.O.U. (1957, p. 347; 1983, pp. 447-448), Davis (1972, p. 139), Russell (1964, p. 122), Monroe (1968, p. 265), Binford (1989, p. 176) and Sibley & Monroe (1990, p. 352). Wolters (1977, p. 177) listed musica Swainson as a nomen dubium. Traylor (1979, p. 129, footnote) considered musica Swainson, 1827 a nomen oblitum. We propose that the usage of Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859 be maintained by the suppression of Tyrannula musica Swainson, 1827. 11. 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) pusillus Swainson, 1827, as published in the binomen Platyrhynchus pusillus; (b) musica Swainson, 1827, as published in the binomen Tyrannula musica; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) minima Baird & Baird, 1843, as published in the binomen Tyrannula minima; (b) pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859, as published in the binomen Contopus pertinax; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pusillus Swainson, 1827, as published in the binomen Platyrhynchus pusillus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) musica Swainson, 1827, as published in the binomen Tyrranula musica and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. ~ to ~— (3 — References American Ornithologists’ Union. 1886. The code of nomenclature and check-list of North American birds. 392 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, New York. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. Check-list of North American birds, Ed. 5. 691 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, Baltimore, Maryland. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, Ed. 6. 877 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Baird, S.F. 1858. Birds of North America. Pacific Railroad Reports. Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 1853-6, 9(2): 1100S. Baird, W.M. & Baird, S.F. 1843. Descriptions of two species, supposed to be new, of the genus Tyrannula Swainson, found in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1: 283-286. Binford, L.C. 1989. A distributional survey of the birds of the Mexican state of Oaxaca. Ornithological Monographs, 43: \-418. Brewster, W. 1895. Notes on certain flycatchers of the genus Empidonax. Auk, 12: 157-163. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 119 Cabanis, J. & Heine, F. 1859-1860. Museum Heineanum ..., part 2. 175 pp. Halberstadt. Cory, C.B. & Hellmayr, C.E. 1927. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and. the adjacent islands. Publications of Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 13(5): 1-517. Coues, E. 1884. Key to North American birds, Ed. 2. 863 pp. Estes & Lauriat, Boston. Davis, L.I. 1972. A field guide to the birds of Mexico and Central America. xv, 282 pp., 48 pls. University of Texas Press, Austin. Dubois, A. 1904. Synopsis Avium. Nouveau manuel d’ornithologie, part 2. Pp. 731-1339. Brussels. Miller, A.H., Friedmann, H., Griscom, L. & Moore, R.T. 1957. Distributional check-list of the birds of Mexico. Part 2. Pacific Coast Avifauna, 33: 1-436. Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1968. A distributional survey of the birds of Honduras. Ornithological Monographs, 7: 1-458. Monson, G. & Phillips, A.R. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona, Ed. 2. xxxi, 240 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Phillips, A.R., Marshall, J. & Monson, G. 1964. The birds of Arizona. xviii, 212, [8] pp., 43 pls. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Phillips, A.R. & Short, L.L., Jr. 1968. A probable intrageneric hybrid pewee (Tyrannidae: Contopus) from Mexico. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 88: 90-93. Rea, A.M. 1983. Once a river: bird life and habitat changes on the Middle Gila. xiv, 285 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ridgway, R. 1907. The birds of North and Middle America. Part 4. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 50: 1-973. Russell, S.M. 1964. A distributional study of the birds of British Honduras. Ornithological Monographs, 1: 1-195. Salvin, O. & Godman, F.D. 1880. Aves. Pp. 81-104, pls. 6-7 in Godman, F.D. & Salvin, O. (Eds.), Biologia Centrali-Americana, or, contributions to the knowledge of the fauna and flora of Mexico and Central America. Zoology, part 4. Porter & Dulau, London. Sharpe, R.B. 1901. A hand-list of the genera and species of birds, vol. 3. xii, 367 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. 1111 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven, Connecticut. Stone, W. 1899. A study of the type specimens of birds in the collection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, with a brief history of the collection. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1899(1): 5-62. Swainson, W. 1827. A synopsis of the birds discovered in Mexico by W. Bullock, F.L.S. and H.S., and Mr. William Bullock, jun. Philosophical Magazine, (N.S.)1(5): 364-369. Swainson, W. & Richardson, J. 1832. Fauna Boreali-Americana, or the zoology of the northern parts of British America, part 2 (The birds). 532 pp. Murray, London. Todd, W.E.C. 1963. Birds of the Labrador Peninsula and adjacent areas. xiv, 819 pp., 25 pls. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Traylor, M.A., Jr. 1979. Family Tyrannidae. Pp. 3-228 in Traylor, M.A. (Ed.), Check-list of birds of the world. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters, vol. 8. 365 pp. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Wolters, H.E. 1977. Die Vogelarten der Erde, vol. 3. Pp. 161-240. Parey, Hamburg & Berlin. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Comments on the proposal to remove the homonymy between PLUTONIINAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and pLUTONIINAE Cockerell, 1893 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 2946; see BZN 52: 150-152) (1) Philippe Bouchet Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France The application by Drs Shelley and Backeljau states that the subfamily PLUTONINAE Bollman, based on the myriapod genus Plutonium Cavanna, 1881, is deemed to have been established on 30 November 1893, whilst PLUTONIINAE Cockerell, based on the snail genus P/utonia Morelet in Stabile, 1864, is dated 21 December 1893 and is thus the junior homonym. However, an examination of the serial The Conchologist shows that vol. 2, part 8, in which the name PLUTONIINAE Cockerell was introduced (p. 186), was published on 31 October 1893. The blue wrapper of that issue, comprising pp. 185-232, bears the inscription: ‘Double Number. December 21st, 1893. (Published October 31st)’. This reverses the priority of the two names and PLUTONIINAE Cockerell has one month’s priority over PLUTONIINAE Bollman. (2) Thierry Backeljau Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Vautierstraat 29, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Rowland M. Shelley North Carolina State Museum of Natural Sciences, P.O. Box 29555, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0555, U.S.A. Dr Bouchet has pointed out (above) that the molluscan family-group name PLUTONIINAE Cockerell was published on 31 October 1893, and not 21 December 1893 as stated in our application. The myriapod name PLUTONIINAE Bollman thus becomes the junior homonym. In preparing our application one of us saw only a copy of Cockerell’s paper and not the wrapper of the issue of The Conchologist, whilst the other unfortunately missed the small print at the top of the cover giving the date of publication. The most logical and convenient solution now to this problem of homonymy is to amend the myriapod name to PLUTONIUMINAE under the Commission’s plenary powers, whilst retaining the mollusc name unchanged as PLUTONIINAE, and we formally propose this. Comments on the proposed conservation of the generic name Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda), and the application for a ruling on the status of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda) (Case 2909; see BZN 52: 236-244) | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 121 The following comments have been received from members of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society. (1) Marcos Tavares Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Santa Ursula, Rio de Janeiro, 22231—-045 Brazil The history of this case has been set out by Profs Lehtinen and Holthuis. The unused name Armadillo Cuvier, 1792 (Diplopoda) threatens two much-used names: Armadillo Latreille, (1802) (Isopoda) as a senior homonym and Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda) as a senior synonym. Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841] is the next available name to replace Armadillo Latreille but has been used only once (by Dahl, 1916; see para. 14 of the application). The authors of the application agree that Armadillo Cuvier should be suppressed; however, they do not share the same view on whether the name Armadillo Latreille should be maintained, and advocate different solutions to this problem. Prof Lehtinen proposes that Armadillo Cuvier be suppressed for priority but not homonymy, and that Armadillo Latreille be replaced by Pentheus. Prof Holthuis advocates that Armadillo Cuvier be suppressed for priority and also homonymy, so conserving Armadillo Latreille; he records that the latter has been well used and there is a family-group name based on it, whereas Pentheus has been used only once. I believe that Prof Holthuis’s proposal will best serve stability and universality of nomenclature. It is a much simpler solution, it preserves a name that has been much used, and it avoids unecessarily reintroducing the name Pentheus which was used for the only time in 1916. (2) Gary C.B. Poore Museum of Victoria, 71 Victoria Crescent, Abbotsford, Victoria 3067, Australia This is a complex case and one in which a strict application of the Code would cause great confusion. There is a real chance that a ruling in favour of Pentheus would be largely ignored by those ecologists and physiologists with little interest in the intricacies of the rules of zoological nomenclature. I am in favour, therefore, of following the recommendations of Prof Holthuis and conserving Armadillo Latreille, 1802. (3) A.B. Williams NOAA/NMFS Systematics Laboratory, NHB 163, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Profs P.T. Lehtinen and L.B. Holthuis discuss the bewildering history of generic and specific names that date from Linnaeus (1758), involving composite concepts, neglect, substitution, use and disuse, changes in rules, homonymy and synonymy, together with placement on and withdrawal from the Official List. Anchorage of names to originally described material is impossible. The proposal to conserve the generic name Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda, a conglobating millipede) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Isopoda, a conglobating woodlouse) by the suppression of long-disused senior synonyms seems well supported and favoured. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Armadillo Latreille, 1802 has long been in use, with three, four or more papers listed every year and a family name based on it, though it is formally invalid unless conserved by the Commission. If not, it would be replaced by the synonym Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841], used only once (Dahl, 1916) since proposed; there is no family-group name based on it. In essence, the case concerns the strict priority of a generic name which has been used only twice in over 150 years, or the conservation of a name used repeatedly for nearly 200 years. I support the conservation of Armadillo Latreille, 1802. Comments on the proposed conservation of the generic names Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (Crustacea, Copepoda) (Case 2894; see BZN 52: 245-249) (1) David M. Damkaer 21318-195th Avenue SE, Monroe, Washington 98272-9481, U.S.A. I agree with Dr Grygier that retaining the essentially unused name Thaumatoessa Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842] would jeopardize the established nomenclature of these parasitic copepods. In 1849 the author himself rejected the name by giving a new generic name, Thaumaleus, to the same specimen. Kroyer did not comment on the name change but he was enamoured with Greek and perhaps perceived some subtle difficulty with grammar or usage. Kroyer’s name Thaumatoessa predates Dana’s (1849) widely used name Monstrilla and, as proposed in the application, should be suppressed to retain stability in Monstrilloida nomenclature. Kroyer’s (1849) later and well-used name Thaumaleus will also be conserved for use by those who separate this taxon from Monstrilla. The name Thawmatoessa Kroyer is of uncertain date but was likely published between 1842 and 1845. Damkaer & Damkaer (1979) chose 1845 as the most conservative date for publication, even though evidence pointed mainly toward an earlier date (para. 1 of the application). Regardless of which date is accepted, the problem with Thaumatoessa remains and its seniority relative to Monstrilla and Thaumaleus is unchanged. The following comments have been received from members of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacean Society. (2) A.B. Williams NOAA/NMES Systematics Laboratory, NHB 163, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. M.J. Grygier has pointed out the almost complete disuse of the name Thauma- toessa Kroyer, [1842], which was based on an illustration. There were only three uses of the name for copepods in the period 1842-1868. Monstrilla Dana, 1849, the name for the type genus of the MONSTRILLIDAE and the Monstrilloida, is in current Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 123 worldwide use. The genus contains more than 50 species. The name Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 has appeared in some 50 publications over the last 100 years, with increasing frequency through time. Acknowledging the almost complete obscurity of the unused senior name, the application is justified, the long-term frequent use of its synonyms being the criterion of acceptability. (3) Gary C.B. Poore Museum of Victoria, 71 Victoria Crescent, Abbotsford, Victoria 3067, Australia This is a clear case of a virtually unknown generic name having priority over Monstrilla, which is in wide use and is the basis of family, superfamily and order names. I support the proposal to suppress Thaumatoessa Kroyer in Gaimard, [1842] in favour of Monstrilla Dana, 1849. 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; 52: 71-73) (1) Przemyslaw Szwalko Department of Forest Entomology, Agricultural University, Al. 29 Listopoda 46, PL 31-425 Krakow, Poland As a non-taxonomist interested in stabilization of the nomenclature for the species currently known by the names Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792), I would like to support the majority of the arguments put forward in the application by Drs Krell, Stebnicka and Holm (BZN 51: 121-127), and to agree with Krell’s subsequent comment (BZN 52: 72-73) with the exception of para. 5. I also share Dr Stebnicka’s general view on the stability of these names (BZN 52: 73). The alternative solutions to this problem of homonymy, put forward by Dellacasa (BZN 51: 340-341) and by Silfverberg (BZN 52: 71-72), however logical, cannot be easily accepted for all the taxa. I should therefore like to ask the Commission to make a ruling taking into account the following comments. 1. The name for the species known as Dischista rufa (De Geer, 1778), published as Scarabaeus rufus, is stable and need not be further discussed. 2. The name Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782) refers to a well known, widely distributed and common representative of the subfamily APHODIINAE. Besides taxonomic works it is very often mentioned in ecological and faunistic papers. Under this name it is listed in many keys and catalogues used by non-specialists. Therefore I fully support the application to conserve this name. 3. Use of the name Aphodius scybalarius auct. in the taxonomic sense of A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) would cause much confusion since scybalarius Fabricius, 1781 is also in use as a senior synonym of A. rufus (Moll, 1782). Papers cited by Silfverberg (BZN 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 52: 71-72) are proof of this. However, many additional papers could be cited in which the well known species is referred to under the name foetidus, as noted in para. 6 of the application. 4. Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) is not the sole name for the species commonly mentioned in faunistic and ecological papers, as well as those concerning applied entomology. As a species collected sporadically it is known to specialists under both the names A. rufa and A. spissipes (LeConte, 1878) (para. 7 of the application). For this reason I agree with Dellacasa, Silfverberg and the Code that the first available synonym, spissipes, should be adopted for this taxon. (2) Frank-Thorsten Krell Theodor-Boveri-Institut fiir Biowissenschaften der Universitat, Lehrstuhl Zoologie III, Am Hubland, D-97074 Wiirzburg, Germany I should like to put forward some information on the usages of the names Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782) and Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781) in addition to that given in my joint application (BZN 51: 121-127) and subsequent comment (BZN 52: 72-73). In addition to the references cited in the application (para. 6) I have found a further one (Costesséque, 1993, p. 124) in which Aphodius scybalarius has been used in the sense of Aphodius foetidus (Herbst, 1783). Hence the name Aphodius scybalarius is still in use for two different species. Article 5la of the Code states that citation of the author of the name for a taxon is optional. However, without citing the author’s name the binomen Aphodius scybalarius is ambiguous and it has therefore lost all usefulness as the name for a species. To illustrate how common the name Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782) is I have given the Commission Secretariat a list of 54 references by 53 authors since 1990 in which it is used as valid. The senior authors of these references are from Austria, Czech Republic, France, Georgia, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland and Switzerland. The publications deal with different aspects of biology. Most of them are faunistic but the list also includes works that are veterinary, ecological, agricultural, conservational, comprehensive regional or national faunal lists and identification keys. It is clear that Aphodius rufus (Moll) is a name that is well known, and frequently used in different branches of biology, as noted by Stebnicka (BZN 52: 73). The continued usage of Aphodius rufus (Moll) clearly results neither from national tradition nor from adherence to a single influential reference work. Prior to 1990 the name Aphodius rufus (Moll) was used just as frequently, with the exception only of the 11 citations mentioned in our application (BZN 51: 123) and those listed by Silfverberg (BZN 52: 71). After Landin (1956) discovered the true identity of Aphodius scybalarius (Fabricius, 1781) and emphasized that this name should not be used (para. 3 of the application), only Silfverberg (1977, 1979) used it before Stebnicka in 1979 submitted an application to conserve Aphodius rufus (Moll) by suppressing Scarabaeus scybalarius. Unfortunately this application was not published until 1984 (BZN 41: 265-266) because there was at that time some doubt over the availability of the earliest homonym Scarabaeus rufa De Geer, 1778. During this delay G. Dellacassa (1983) published his influential monograph on Italian Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 125 APHODIINI; he dealt with Landin’s (1956) discovery at some length but did not follow the latter’s recommendation to maintain the usage of Aphodius rufus and adopted scybalarius (para. 4 of the application). Article 80a of the Code states that existing usage (i.e. Aphodius rufus (Moll)) is to be maintained when a case is under consideration by the Commission. Stebnicka’s (1984) application has never been resolved but in the meantime some authors have unfortunately, and in the face of nomenclatural stability, used Aphodius scybalarius in the sense of Aphodius rufus. This usage should not now be legalized by accepting it as established. Furthermore, Aphodius scybalarius in the sense of Aphodius rufus Moll is not the only sense in which this name has been used, as I have shown above. In summary, I reiterate that approval of our application will result in an unambiguous and stable nomenclature for these scarabid species. Additional reference Costesséque, R. 1993. Coprophages d’une vallée du Piémont pyrénéen: le Pays d’Olmes (Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea Laparosticti). Entomologiste, 49: 121-125. Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37) Richard H. Meadow Zooarchaeology Laboratory, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A. I write as a member of the Executive Committee of the International Council for Archaeozoology. I have been delegated to pass on the following official declaration. At a meeting on 9 September 1995 held at Basel, Switzerland, the International Committee of the ICAZ voted to strongly support the application of Juliet Clutton-Brock, Anthea Gentry and Colin Groves (see para. 9 of the application). Names based by Linnaeus (1758, 1766) and some other authors on domestic animals should emphatically not be used for wild animals. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1834 Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida): conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminiferida; Fursenkoina. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Cassidella Hofker, 1953 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Virgulina d’Orbigny, 1826, Virgulina squammosa d Orbigny, 1826, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name sqguammosa d’Orbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Virgulina squammosa and as defined by the neotype (specimen no. P 52796 in the Micropalae- ontology Collections in the Natural History Museum, London) designated by Revets (1995) (specific name of the type species of Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Cassidella Hofker, 1953, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2809 An application for the conservation of the generic name Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 was received from Dr Stefan A. Revets (The University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia) on 15 February 1991. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 98-101 (June 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Prof John R. Haynes (Institute of Earth Studies, University of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, Wales, U.K.) was published in BZN 52: 175 (June 1995). It was noted on the voting paper that support had also been received from Dr Fred R6gl (Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, Austria), who wrote: ‘I think there is a clear case for those of us working with Foraminiferida to keep the genus Fursenkoina’. Publication of Dr Revets’s paper in the Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Geology), in which he intended (para. 9(3) of the application) to designate a neotype for Virgulina squammosa d’Orbigny, 1826, the type species of Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961, was delayed. Dr Revets therefore described and designated the neotype in BZN 52: 176 (June 1995). Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 100-101. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 127 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Cassidella Hofker, 1953, The Micropaleontologist, 7(1): 26. Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961, Journal of Paleontology, 35: 314. squammosa, Virgulina, d’Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 267. Virgulina d’Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 267. The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Virgulina squammosa d’Orbigny, 1826: Revets, S.A. 1995. BZN 52: 176. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1835 Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Annelida, Oligochaeta): given precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Annelida; Oligochaeta; Macrochaetina; Vejdovskyella. Ruling : (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 is hereby given precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Bohemilla Vejdovsky, 1883, Bohemilla comata Vejdovsky, 1883, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus: Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896, Macrochaeta intermedia Bretscher, 1896, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) comata Vejdovsky, 1883, as published in the binomen Bohemilla comata (specific name of the type species of Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903); (b) intermedia Bretscher, 1896, as published in the binomen Macrochaeta inter- media (specific name of the type species of Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Bohemilla Vejdovsky, 1883 (a junior homonym of Bohemilla Barrande, 1872 and a senior objective synonym of Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903); (b) Bohemillula Strand, 1928 (a junior objective synonym of Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903); (c) Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896 (a junior homonym of Macrochaeta Grube, 1850 and a senior objective synonym of Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899). History of Case 2908 An application for the conservation of the generic name Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 by giving it precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 was received from Dr Tarmo Timm (V6rtsjarv Limnological Station, Tartumaa, Estonia) on 29 October 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 302-303 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 129 Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 303. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov Negative votes — 7: Bouchet, Kabata, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Minelli, Stys and Trjapitzin. Bouchet commented: ‘In my view the application fails to demonstrate usage of the name Vejdovskyella outside a small field of specialist literature. Priority should apply’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bohemilla Vejdovsky, 1883, Sitzungsberichte der Kéniglichen Béhmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (Prag), 1883: 218. Bohemillula Strand, 1928, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 92(A, 8): 36. comata, Bohemilla, Vejdovsky, 1883, Sitzungsberichte der Kéniglichen B6hmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften (Prag), 1883: 218. intermedia, Macrochaeta, Bretscher, 1896, Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 3(4): 509. Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896, Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 3(4): 509. Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899, Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 6(2): 392. Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903, Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 19(2): 184. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1836 Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Ostracoda; Scottia; Scottia pseudobrowniana. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 are hereby set aside and Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971, as published in the binomen Scottia pseudobrowniana (specific name of the type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2896 An application for the designation of Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species of Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 was received from Prof Eugen K. Kempf (Geological Institute, University at Cologne, Kéln, Germany) on | June 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 304-305 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Henri J. Oertli (Bizanos, France) was published in BZN 52: 178 (June 1995), together with a note of support from Dr Claude Meisch (Musée d'Histoire Naturelle, Luxembourg) and Dr 1.G. Sohn (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). A further comment in support from Dr Renate Matzke-Karasz (Kassel, Germany) was published in BZN 52: 263 (September 1995). A comment in support from Dr Koen Martens (Royal Belgian Institute of Natural Sciences, Brussels, Belgium), received during the voting period, noted: ‘Dr C. Meisch is currently preparing a revised edition of the Ostracoda volume in the series Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, which will replace the widely known book by Klie (1938), and which will be the identification guide for European ostracods for decades to come. It is important that the type species of Scottia, which has already created much confusion in the past between neontological and palaeontological ostracodologists, is sorted out for inclusion in this new guide. Scotia is the type genus of the subfamily SCOTTIINAE Bronstein, 1947 in the family CYPRIDIDAE’. Klie, W. 1938. Ostracoda, Muschelkrebse. Jn Dahl, F. (Ed.), Die Tierwelt Deutschlands und Angrenzenden Meeresteile, 34(3): 1-230. Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 305. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 131 Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — |: Holthuis. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: pseudobrowniana, Scottia, Kempf, 1971, Eiszeitalter und Gegenwart, 22: 45. Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889, Scientific Transactions of the Royal Dublin Society, (2)4(2): 72. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1837 Oniscus asellus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea, Isopoda): neotype designated Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Isopoda; woodlice; Oniscus asellus. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal subspecies Oniscus asellus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 are hereby set aside and the male specimen (catalogue no. 1994.3341 in the Crustacea Section of the Natural History Museum, London) from the Linnetradgarden, Uppsala, Sweden, is designated as the neotype. (2) The entry for Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is hereby amended to record that O. asellus was designated as the type species by Audouin (1823). (3) To the entry for Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of Specific Names is hereby added the endorsement that it is defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. History of Case 2844 An application to designate a neotype for Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 was received from Dr David T. Bilton (University of York, Heslington, York, U.K.) on 3 February 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 227-229 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. It was noted on the voting paper that support for the application was received from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands). It was also noted that the male holotype from Lydford Gorge, Devon, U.K., of Oniscus asellus occidentalis Bilton, 1994 is numbered 1994.3350 in the Crustacea Section of the Natural History Museum, London (para. 8 of the application). The name Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, and that of its type species Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 104 (September 1928). However, the identity of possible type material of O. asellus was not then considered. Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 228-229. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Original references The following are the original references to the names on Official Lists, entries amended or endorsed by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 133 asellus, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 637. Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 636. The following is the reference for the designation of Oniscus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758: Audouin, J.V. 1823. Cloporte. Oniscus. In Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. (Ed.), Dictionnaire 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1838 Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; Temnorhynchus. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833, Scarabaeus retusus Fabricius, 1781, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name retusus Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus retusus (specific name of the type species of Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Coptorhinus Guérin Méneville, [1838] (Coleoptera; a junior homonym of Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833). History of Case 2893 An application for the conservation of the generic name Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 was received from Dr Frank-Thorsten Krell (Eberhard-Karls- Universitat, Zoologisches Institut, Lehrstuhl fiir Spezielle Zoologie, Ttibingen, Germany) on 10 May 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 306-308 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 307. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 1: Kabata. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833, Catalogue des coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean, Ed. 2, part 2, p. 152. Coptorhinus Guérin Méneville, [1838], Crustacés, arachnides et insectes. Jn Duperrey, L.I. (Ed.), Voyage autour du monde ... sur la corvette de Sa Majesté, La Coquille, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825 ... Zoologie, vol. 2, part 2, p. 72. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 135 retusus, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas synonyma auctorum ..., vol. 1, p. 14. Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837, The coleopterist’s manual, containing the lamellicorn insects of Linneus [sic] and Fabricius, p. 47. 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1839 Coproica Rondani, 1861 and Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved by the designation of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of Coproica Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; SPHAEROCERIDAE; Coproica; Ischiolepta. Ruling : (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Coproica Rondani, 1861 are hereby set aside and Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 is designated as the type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Coproica Rondani, 1861 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847; (b) Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Borborus denticulatus Meigen, 1830. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847, as published in the binomen Limosina acutangula (specific name of the type species of Coproica Rondani, 1861); (b) denticulatus Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Borborus denticulatus (specific name of the type species of [schiolepta Lioy, 1864). (4) The name Heteroptera Macquart, 1835 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a senior objective synonym of Coproica Rondani, 1861 and a junior homonym of Heteroptera Rafinesque, 1814). History of Case 2917 An application for the conservation of the generic names Coproica Rondani, 1861 and Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 by the designation of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of Coproica was received from Dr Terry A. Wheeler (University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada) and Dr John E. Swann (The Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada) on 23 November 1993. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 51: 316-319 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 317-318. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 137 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: acutangula, Limosina, Zetterstedt, 1847, Diptera Scandinaviae disposita et descripta, vol. 6, p. 2499. Coproica Rondani, 1861, Dipterologiae italicae prodromus. Species Italicae ordinis Diptero- rum..., vol. 4, p. 10. denticulatus, Borborus, Meigen, 1830, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifliigeligen Insekten, vol. 6, p. 200. Heteroptera Macquart, 1835, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Diptéres, vol. 2, p. 570. Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864, Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, (3)9(2): 1112. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1840 Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenit; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Siluriformes; catfish; Hemibagrus hoevenii. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 are hereby set aside and specimen no. ZRC 37472 in the Zoological Reference Collection at the Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, is designated as the neotype. (2) The name hoevenii Bleeker, 1846, as published in the binomen Bagrus hoevenii and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2934 An application for the designation of a neotype for Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 was received from Dr Maurice Kottelat (Cornol, Switzerland) and Dr Kelvin K.P. Lim & Dr Peter K.L. Ng (National University of Singapore, Republic of Singapore) on 11 April 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 320-322 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 322. At the close of the voting period on | March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Dupuis, Holthuis and Schuster. Bouchet commented: ‘The authors of the application have demonstrated that Bleeker’s material in Leiden is a mixture of non-type and possibly-type specimens, of several species of Bagrus including hoevenii, and probably of specimens from Java, Sumatra and Borneo. I approve their decision to designate a neotype to stabilize the name Bagrus hoevenii. However, for the designation to be convincing, evidence should be given that the neotype is conspecific with Bleeker’s original concept of hoevenii, based on his description and type locality. This might be the case with their neotype from Peninsular Malaysia, but I am disturbed by the statement (para. 5 of the application) that the authors ‘have been unable to find recent specimens from Java (the type locality) referable to B. hoevenii’. This could indicate that B. hoevenii has become extinct on Java and that their neotype designation is the best course of action to stabilize the name, or it could mean that their ‘hoevenii’ from Peninsular Malaysia is not conspecific with Bleeker’s original hoevenii. Until this point is discussed I find it appropriate to vote against the proposed neotype designation’. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 139 Dupuis also voted against because the proposed neotype was not from Java. Holthuis commented: ‘As the type locality of Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 is Java, and as later material identified by Bleeker as this species came from Sumatra and Borneo, it seems illogical to designate a specimen from outside these three localities as the neotype. As B. hoevenii is ‘an economically important catfish’ it should not have been difficult to obtain a specimen from Java. If this proved to be impossible I would have preferred a specimen examined and illustrated by Bleeker to be the neotype, provided that this specimen was in a sufficiently good condition’. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: hoevenii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846, Natuur- en Geneeskundig Archief voor Néérland’s Indié, 3(2): 154. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1841 Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (currently Caranx or Pseudocaranx dentex) and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perciformes; CARANGIDAE; white trevally; black jack; Caranx dentex; Pseudocaranx dentex; Caranx lugubris. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scomber glaucus; (b) ascensionis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833, as published in the binomen Caranx ascensionis. (2) The name Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801, as published in the binomen Scomber dentex (specific name of the type species of Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863); (b) /ugubris Poey, [1860], as published in the binomen Caranx lugubris; (c) ovatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Gasterosteus ovatus Linnaeus, 1758. (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) glaucus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Scomber glaucus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) ascensionis Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833, as published in the binomen Caranx ascensionis and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) adscensionis Osbeck, 1771, as published in the binomen Scomber adscensionis (unavailable because cited as a synonym from a pre-1758 publication). History of Case 2898 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801 and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] was received from Drs William F. Smith-Vaniz (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Survey, Southeastern Biological Science Center, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.) and John E. Randall (Bernice P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 21 June 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 323-329 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 326-327. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 141 Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: adscensionis, Scomber, Osbeck, 1771, A voyage to China and the East Indies, vol. 2, p. 94. ascensionis, Caranx, Cuvier, 1833, in Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A., Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 9, p. 102. dentex, Scomber, Bloch & Schneider, 1801, Systema ichthyologiae iconibus cx illustratum ..., vol. 1, p. 30. glaucus, Scomber, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 298. lugubris, Caranx, Poey, [1860], Poissons de Cuba. In: Memorias sobre la historia natural de la Isla de Cuba, acompanadas de sumarios Latinos y extractos en Francés, vol. 2, p. 222. ovatus, Gasterosteus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 296. Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863, Natuurkundige Verhandelingen van de Hollandsche Maatschappij der Wetenschappen te Haarlem, (2)18: 82. 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 OPINION 1842 Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (currently Coelophysis bauri; Reptilia, Saurischia): lectotype replaced by a neotype Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Saurischia; theropod dinosaurs; Coelophysis; Coelophysis bauri. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 are hereby set aside and the articulated skeleton no. AMNH 7224 in the American Museum of Natural History, New York, is designated as the neotype. (2) The name Coelophysis Cope, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by sub- sequent designation by Hay (1930) Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name bauri Cope, 1887, as published in the binomen Coe/urus bauri and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above specific name of the type species of Coelophysis Cope, 1889, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Rioarribasaurus Hunt & Lucas, 1991 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Coelophysis Cope, 1889). (5) The name colberti Hunt & Lucas, 1991, as published in the binomen Rioarribasaurus colberti, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887). History of Case 2840 An application to replace the lectotype of Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 with a neotype was received from Dr Edwin H. Colbert (Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona, U.S.A.), Dr Alan J. Charig (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.), Prof Peter Dodson (School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), Dr David D. Gillette (Division of State History — Antiquities, Salt Lake City, Utah, U.S.A.), Dr John H. Ostrom (Peabody Museum, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) and Dr David Weishampel (School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A.) on 9 January 1992. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 49: 276-279 (December 1992). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The name ‘Coe/urus’ in the last sentence of para. 10 of the application should read Coelophysis (see BZN 50: 147, June 1993). Comments in support were received from Dr Hans-Dieter Sues (Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto, Ontario, Canada), published in BZN 50: 151 (June 1993); Dr Hilde L. Schwartz (Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, U.S.A.), Dr R.E. Molnar (Queensland Museum, South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia), | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 143 Prof Zdenék V. Spinar (Prysk, Czech Republic), Dr Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. (Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Center, Reston, Virginia, U.S.A.), and Prof Farish A. Jenkins, Jr. (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.), all published in BZN 50: 236-239 (September 1993); Dr Benjamin S. Creisler (Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.), Dr Nicholas Hotton III (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), both published in BZN 50: 292-294 (December 1993), together with a note of support from Dr Dale A. Russell (Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada); Dr Elizabeth L. Nicholls (Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada), Prof Louis L. Jacobs (Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, U.S.A.), Dr Donald F. Glut (Burbank, California, U.S.A.) and Prof Armand de Ricqlés (Université de Paris VII, Paris, France), all published in BZN 51: 50-51 (March 1994). Opposing comments were received from Drs Adrian P. Hunt (University of Colorado at Denver, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.) & Spencer G. Lucas (New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A.) and Dr Robert M. Sullivan (The State Museum of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), both published in BZN 50: 147-151 (June 1993); Dr S.P. Welles (Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) and Dr George Olshevsky (San Diego, California, U.S.A.), both published in BZN 51: 48-50 (March 1994); Dr Philip Huber (Ohio University, Athens, Ohio, U.S.A.), published in BZN 51: 156-158 (June 1994). A reply to the comments by Drs Hunt & Lucas and Sullivan was published by Dr J. Lynett Gillette (Ghost Ranch Conference Center, Abiquiu, New Mexico, U.S.A.) and two authors of the application, D.D. Gillette & E.H. Colbert, in BZN 50: 291-292 (December 1993). Further comments from Drs Lucas & Hunt and Sullivan were published in BZN 51: 265-266 (September 1994) and 52: 76-77 (March 1995) respectively. It was noted on the voting paper that Cope’s (1887) original Coelophysis bauri material, collected from Upper Triassic deposits in northern New Mexico, is fragmentary and its relationship to the better-preserved Ghost Ranch specimens is debated. Nevertheless, the names Coelophysis and C. bauri have been used since 1947 to denote the Ghost Ranch skeletons and the application by Colbert et al. sought to secure this meaning in the interest of stability. The application was put forward on the basis that the generic name Coelophysis appears in many works as the archetypal theropod dinosaur, and that designation of a Ghost Ranch skeleton as the neotype would define the name Coelophysis bauri in this sense. The Commission Secretariat has a list of 10 textbooks (by 16 authors or editors) which have used the name Coelophysis for the Ghost Ranch skeletons. The case was referred to the Commission for action under the plenary powers since a neotype designation could not meet the requirements of Article 75 of the Code. The Commission was not asked to take a view on the taxonomic identity of specimens, or the stratigraphic provenance or homogeneity of the original type material of Coelophysis bauri and the proposed neotype, but was asked to act only in the overall interest of stability. The specimen proposed as the neotype was the holotype of the nominal taxon Rioarribasaurus colberti Hunt & Lucas, 1991 and approval would render the names Rioarribasaurus and colberti junior objective synonyms of Coelophysis Cope, 1889 and Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(2) June 1996 Decision of the Commission On 1 December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 49: 278. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 8: Cogger, Dupuis, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Savage, Schuster and Stys. Hahn commented: ‘The problem in this case is a common one in palaeontology: the type material is insufficient to be useful in identifying the taxon concerned. Of the nominal genera involved, Coelophysis is the most important in phylogenetic discus- sions and the name is well used in the literature. Therefore, to conserve “common usage’ it is necessary to approve the proposals of Colbert et al.’. Heppell commented: ‘It is clear that the lectotype of Coelurus bauri is manifestly not able to fulfil the essential function of a type specimen. In the event of any dispute as to the correct assignment of a scientific name to a taxon ‘the name-bearing type provides the objective standard of reference by which the application of the name it bears is determined’ (Article 6la of the Code). If the type specimen is inadequate to support this function the name it bears is inevitably a nomen dubium. If, as here, varying interpretations of its identity are current, the pragmatic solution is to set aside its type status in favour of a neotype. No suitable neotype other than the holotype of Rioarribasaurus colberti has been suggested in the present case and I therefore vote in support of the application, believing that it is better to clear the ground of dubious or ambiguous impedimenta and leave the way open for future taxonomic and stratigraphic assessment of this important theropod material’. 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: bauri, Coelurus, Cope, 1887, American Naturalist, 21: 368. Coelophysis Cope, 1889, American Naturalist, 23: 626. colberti, Rioarribasaurus, Hunt & Lucas, 1991, Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 65: 191. Rioarribasaurus Hunt & Lucas, 1991, Palaeontologische Zeitschrift, 65: 191. The following is the reference for the designation of Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 as the type species of the nominal genus Coelophysis Cope, 1889: Hay, O.P. 1930. Second bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America, vol. 2, p. 186. Contents — continued Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1834. Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida): conserved. OPINION 1835. Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Annelida, sess given precedence over Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 oes OPINION 1836. Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (errsceen Ostracoda) Scottia pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 designated as the type species . . . OPINION 1837. Oniscus asellus asellus Linnaeus, 1758 (Crustacea, Isopoda neotype designated . . . é OPINION 1838. Temnagtiehi Hove, 1837 (usceta, ‘Coleapiera); Sonened OPINION 1839. Coproica Rondani, 1861 and Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (Insecta, Diptera): conserved by the designation of Limosina acutangula Zetterstedt, 1847 as the type species of Coproica . eye ere erate ort See tute aod A OPINION 1840. Bagrus hoevenii Blecker, “1846 (currently Hemibagrus hoevenii; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated F OPINION 1841. Scomber dentex Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (cacrently Gane or Pseudocaranx dentex) and Caranx lugubris Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific names conserved . OPINION 1842. Coelurus bauri Cope, 1887 (emeendly Coelophysis bauris i: Reptilia, Saurischia): lectotype replaced by a neotype. 126 128 130 132 134 136 138 140 142 CONTENTS Notices . Towards Stability i in the Nianei es Agindals, Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — Upeecn d Supplement ie 1990 . : é od The International Code of Zoological Womenclatare : International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology Budapest 17-24 August 1996. p j The European Association for Zooloxical eee nclaeias Discussion Draft of the Fourth Edition of the International Code a Seolozeall Nomenclature: Discussion Draft. D.G. Reid, K. Sattler & R.W. Crosskey; R.G. Oberprieler; C.D. Michener; L.B. Holthuis; M. Judson; D. Kadolsky; S.H. McKamey; G.C.D. Griffiths; F.-T. Krell; N.Ju. ee V.O. haiti S. Endrédy-Younga, C.H. Scholtz, C.D. Eardley et al. Applications Hapalotrema Looss, 1899 (Digenea): proposed designation of H. Joossi Price, 1934 as the type species. T.R. Platt & D. Blair. Alcyonidium mytili Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa): Prapased designation of 3 a replacement neotype. J.S. Ryland & P.S. Cadman . . S.D. Kaicher (1973-1992), Card Catalogue oF ‘World- Wide Shells, proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes. A.R. Kabat . Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp: 1882 (ueowe Coleoptera): proposed conservation. M. Hansen . Stilpon Loew, 1859 (Insecta, Diptera): Bipbosed conservation i. M. iCoeming & N-L. Evenhuis . . =). Labrus Linnaeus, 1758, Cichiasons Gaain en 1839. ea Palycentaun Miiller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of neotypes for Labrus bimaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 and L. punctatus Linnaeus, 1758. R. Fricke & C.J. Ferraris Holotropis herminieri Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (antently Latacephalie eroimenh and Proctotretus bibronii T. Bell, 1842 (currently Liolaemus bibronii) (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific names. H.M. Smith & E.L. Bell. Tyrannula minima Baird & Baird, 1843 (currently Empidonax minimus) and Contopus pertinax Cabanis & Heine, 1859 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. R.C. Banks & M.R. Browning . Ae Comments On the proposal to remove the homonymy between PLUTONIINAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda, Chilopoda) and PLUTONIINAE Cockerell, 1893 (Mollusca, Gastro- poda). P. Bouchet; T. Backeljau & R.M. Shelley . On the proposed conservation of the generic name Giomeris ‘Pepeilie 1802 (Diplopoda) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda), and the application for a ruling on the status of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda). M. Tavares; G.C.B. Poore; A.B. Williams . On the proposed conservation of the generic names Monstrilla Dana, 1849 and Thaumaleus Kroyer, 1849 (Crustacea, sel ae D.M. Damkaer; A.B. Williams; G.C.B. Poore On the proposed conservation re the specific names OF Aphodii iafiis (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa tact 1792) waa < Coleoptera). P. Szwalko; F.-T. Krell ; On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 memel epee: names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. R.H. Meadow. . ER Oe Page 77 78 78 79 79 79 80 89 92 96 99 104 106 112 116 120 120 122 123 125 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset as Part 3, 30 September 1996 pp. 145-228 ISSN 0007-5167 Bulletin Pee 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 1996 is £92 or $175, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 0171-938 9387) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Secretary-General Executive Secretary Members (as at 1 August 1996) 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) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany; Arachnology) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly) Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) Dr Y. I. Starobogatov (Russia; Mollusca) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr V. A. Trjapitzin (Russia; Hymenoptera) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1996 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 145 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 53, part 3 (pp. 145-228) 30 September 1996 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 53, part 2 (published on 28 June 1996). Under Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published. (1) Cervus gouazoubira Fischer, 1814 (currently Mazama gouazoubira; Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling of the specific name. (Case 3018). A.L. Gardner. (2) Octopus areolatus de Haan in d’Orbigny, [1841] (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed suppression of the specific name. (Case 3019). I.G. Gleadall. (3) Megalotragus van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): proposed conservation; Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalotragus kattwinkeli): proposed conservation of the specific name, and proposed confirmation of the rediscovered holotype as the name-bearing type. (Case 3020). A.W. Gentry & Anthea Gentry. (d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Starting in mid-May 1995, more than 700 copies of the Discussion Draft of the proposed Fourth Edition of the Code were distributed to zoologists in more than 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 40 countries. Over 500 comments were received, and during the following year all of them were considered by the seven members of the Editorial Committee; a number of the comments were published in the Bulletin (52: 228-233, 294-302: 53: 6-17, 80-88). The comments varied widely in their scope, and while some represented the opinions of one person others were the collective views of members of an institution or society drawn up after a formal meeting to consider the Discussion Draft. The Commission wishes to thank all those who made comments on the Discussion Draft, and also those whose earlier suggestions had been of much assistance. The seven members of the Editorial Committee met in Vicenza (Italy) from 24-30 June 1996 and reviewed the Articles of the Code in the light of all the comments which had been made on the Discussion Draft. The Committee prepared an amended draft of the Code, and in July submitted this and an explanatory report to the members of the Commission prior to its meeting in conjunction with the Inter- national Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB) in Budapest in August. After consideration by the Commission, in the course of which some changes were made, the amended draft was discussed at a Congress workshop on 19 August; this workshop constituted a meeting of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and was attended by about 45 persons. The meeting agreed that after further amendment the draft should be submitted to the full Commission for approval and to TUBS for formal ratification. Further information about the Fourth Edition of the Code will be made known as soon as possible. At present it is planned to publish the edition in 1997 and for its provisions to come into effect on | January 1999. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on 18 September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published entitled ‘Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995° (ISBN 0 85301 005 6). It is 104 pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal nomenclature as universally accepted today. The book contains a list of all the Commissioners from 1895 to the present. The main text was written by R.V. Melville (former Secretary of the Commission) and has been completed and updated following his death. 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., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, clo USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £30 or $50 (including surface postage); members of the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £20 or $35. Payment should accompany orders. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 147 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, up to 1985; there are about 9,900 entries. Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, 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 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates many changes. Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, 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. ~~ THEN re ATUR PURCHASED ZOOLOGY LIBRARY 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Draft BioCode: prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms As reported in BZN 51: 188-216 and elsewhere, an exploratory meeting was held in March 1994 at Egham (U.K.) under the auspices of the International Unions of Biological Sciences and of Microbiological Societies (IUBS and IUMS) to consider the harmonization of the several existing Codes of taxonomic nomenclature, especially with regard to terminology, and the possibility of a unified Code for future names of all biological organisms. A further meeting was convened at Egham in May 1995 by the President of FUBS (Prof D.L. Hawksworth), and a preliminary draft of a unified “BioCode’ was circulated to members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the corresponding bodies concerned with botanical, microbiological and viral nomenclature. A third meeting was held in March 1996, and prepared a revised draft BioCode for discussion at a symposium to be held at the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB) in Budapest in August 1996; this symposium had not yet taken place when the present issue of the Bulletin went to press. The draft BioCode for discussion in Budapest was published in Taxon (45: 349-372: May 1996) and is reproduced below (with the omission of some provisions relating to cultivated plants). Although much of the terminology in it is different from that of the zoological Code, the same is true for botany and microbiology. The changes in content are perhaps more fundamental for botanists than for zoologists (e.g. the incorporation of the principle of coordi- nate status of names within the family-, genus- and species-groups — perhaps the main difference between the existing Codes). The BioCode is much shorter than the existing Codes because it is formulated to regulate only names established in the future (the date 1 January 2000 appears prominently in it, but this is only a notional date and not intended as a realistic starting point). At the time of going to press (early August 1996) the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had not discussed the principles or feasibility of a unified BioCode, but successive Presidents have taken the view that, at the present stage at least, the Commission should cooperate with this IUBS-IUMS project. To this end the then President of the Commission was present at the first two of the meetings mentioned above, and the Executive Secretary attended all three. It is emphasised that the BioCode project is in parallel with, and in no way replaces, the preparation of a Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature; the latter Code will continue to apply to animal names established before the starting point of any BioCode which may be adopted in the future. Further reports on the status of the IUBS-IUMS BioCode initiative will be published in the Bulletin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 149 Draft prepared and edited by W. Greuter', D.L. Hawksworth?, J. McNeill?, M.A. Mayo*, A. Minelli®, P.H.A. Sneath®, B.J. Tindall’, R.P. Trehane® & P.K. Tubbs? (the [UBS/IUMS International Committee for Bionomenclature) Third draft, revised at a meeting of the Committee at Egham, U.K., 8—10 March 1996, by W. Greuter, D.L. Hawksworth, J. McNeill, M.A. Mayo, B.J. Tindall, R.P. Trehane & P.K. Tubbs Introduction The typographical layout of the present Draft follows that of the /nternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature (1994), abbreviated ICBN hereafter, and therefore differs from that of the current editions of the /nternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and of the Jnternational Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (BC). The Draft does not include Recommendations, Notes, Examples or a Glossary. For further relevant explanations, it may be useful to refer to the “Introductory comments’ by Greuter & Nicolson (1996, Taxon, 45: 343-348), a document initially prepared for the benefit of members of the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature. To help those who wish to compare the proposed new rules with the corresponding entries in the current Codes (BC, ICBN, ICZN), cross-references are provided at the end of each paragraph, preceded by a dash. The following, largely self-explanatory abbreviations have been used: App. = Appendix; Art. = Article; G.C. = General Consideration; Pre. = Preamble; Prin. = Principle; Rec. = Recommendation. Equivalences between technical terms used in this Draft and those that appear in the current Codes of biological nomenclature: BC, ICBN, ICZN, and the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), are given in Table 1. PREAMBLE 1. Biology requires a precise, coherent and simple system for the naming of organisms used internationally, dealing both with the terms which denote the ranks of taxonomic groups and with the scientific names which are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of organisms (taxa). — BC, G.C. 1 & 2; ICBN, Pre. 1; ICZN, Pre. [2] & [4], Art. 1. 2. The provisions of this Code shall apply to names of all kinds of non-viral organisms, whether fossil or non-fossil, and of some fossil traces of organisms, that ‘Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Freie Universitat, D-14191 Berlin, Germany. “International Mycological Institute, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, U.K. *Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario MSS 2C6, Canada. “Scottish Crop Research Institute, Virology Division, Invergowrie, Dundee DD2 SDA, U.K. *Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, I-35121 Padova, Italy. “University of Leicester, Department of Microbiology, P.O. Box 138, Leicester LE] 9HN, U.K. ’Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany. “Hampreston Manor, Wimborne, Dorset BH21 7LX, U.K. °ICZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Table 1. Equivalence of nomenclatural terms used in the Draft BioCode and in the current biological Codes (as enumerated in the text). The concepts covered by terms given as equivalent are not always exactly the same. BioCode BC ICBN ICNCP ICZN Publication and date of names published effectively published effectively published published published date date date (or priority) date priority precedence priority priority precedence precedence earlier senior earlier earlier senior later junior later later junior- Nomenclatural status established validly published validly published established available registration validation registration registration — acceptable legitimate legitimate — potentially valid Taxonomic status accepted correct correct accepted valid Types and names name-bearing type nomenclatural type nomenclatural type standard name-bearing type nominal taxon Synonymy homotypic heterotypic replacement name Setting aside the rules conservation suppression name and type objective subjective conservation rejection name and type nomenclatural taxonomic avowed substitute conservation explicit rejection nominal taxon objective subjective replacement name conservation suppression are published and established on or after 1 January 2000, and shall govern the choice of name when these names compete among themselves or with earlier names. They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide, in the interest of nomenclatural stability and security, for the protection, conservation, or suppression of all such names, as well as for their correct form and spelling. — ICBN, Pre. 7; ICZN, Pre. 3. Names of non-viral organisms that have been established (i.e., were validly published or became available) prior to 1 January 2000 and are not yet covered by adopted Lists of Protected Names are in all other respects (including their subsequent typification) governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria, the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, or the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, depending on the accepted taxonomic position of their type. 4. Special provisions apply to the nomenclature of particular groups of organisms, notably viruses and cultivated plants. 5. Separate rules for virus nomenclature, contained in the International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature, have been established in conformity with Principles I & V of this Code and with the thrust of many of its rules. Because names of virus species do not have the binominal form required under this Code, and names of virus taxa in other recognized ranks have mandatory terminations, provisions of this Code proscribing these terminations for non-virus taxa ensure that the names of viruses and other organisms cannot conflict. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 151 6. The nomenclature of cultivated plants follows the provisions of this Code, in so far as these provisions are applicable, but the naming of distinguishable groups of plants whose origin or selection 1s primarily due to the intentional actions of mankind follow the supplementary provisions of the Jnternational Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants. DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES Principle I The Bio Code governs the formation and choice of scientific names of known taxa but not the definition of the taxa themselves. Nothing in this Code may be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic thought or action. — BC, G.C. 4; ICZN, Pre. [2]. Principle II Scientific nomenclature of organisms builds upon the Linnaean system of binary names for species. — BC, Rule 12A; ICBN, Art. 23; ICZN, Art. 5. Principle I The application of names of taxa is determined by means of name-bearing types, although application of this principle is not universal at suprafamilial ranks. — BC, Prin. 5; ICBN, Prin. II; ICZN, Art. 61. Principle IV The nomenclature of a taxon is based upon precedence of publication, although application of this principle is not mandatory at all ranks. — BC, Prin. 6; ICBN, Prin. III; ICZN, Pre. [3]. Principle V Each taxon in the family-group, genus-group or species-group with a particular circum- scription, position, and rank has only one accepted name, except as may be specified in earlier Codes. — BC, Prin. 8; ICBN, Prin. IV; ICZN, Pre. [2]. Principle VI Scientific names of taxa are by convention treated as if they were Latin, regardless of their derivation. — BC, Prin. 3 & Rule 6; ICBN, Prin. V; ICZN, Art. 11. Principle VII The only proper reasons for changing a name are either a change in the circumscription, position or rank of the taxon, resulting from adequate taxonomic study, or the promotion of nomenclatural stability. — BC, Prin. 9; ICBN, Pre. 9; ICZN, Art. 23b. Principle VII In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful, established custom is followed. — BC, Rule 4; ICBN, Pre. 10; ICZN, Art. 80. Principle IX The rules of nomenclature are retroactive unless expressly limited (but see Pre. 2—3). — BC, Rule 2; ICBN, Prin. VI; ICZN, Art. 86. 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 DIVISION Il. RULES CHAPTER I. TAXA AND RANKS Article 1 1.1. Taxonomic groups of any rank will, in this Code, be referred to as taxa (singular: taxon). — BC, G.C. 7; ICBN, Art. 1.1; ICZN, Art. 1. Article 2 2.1. Every individual organism is treated as belonging to an indefinite number of taxa of consecutively subordinate rank, among which genus and species are essential. — ICBN, Art. 2.1. : Article 3 3.1. The principal ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species. — BC, Rule 5b; ICBN, Art. 3.1. 3.2. Taxa that do not consist of whole organisms but only of particular parts of organisms, or part of their life history, or their fossil traces, may receive names under special regulations [to be determined] at only some of these ranks, e.g. fossil organ-genera, the anamorphs of pleomorphic fungi, or ichnotaxa (see Art. 36). Names of such form taxa do not compete for precedence with names applying to the whole organisms and to all stages of their life history. — ICBN, Art. 3.3-4; ICZN, Art. 1d, 10d, 23g & 42b(i). Article 4 4.1. Secondary ranks of taxa, when required, include in descending sequence: domain above kingdom, superfamily above family, subfamily and tribe between family and genus, subgenus, section and series between genus and species, and subspecies, variety and form below species. — BC, Rule 5b; ICBN, Art. 4.1. 4.2. If an even greater number of ranks of taxa is desired, the terms for these are made by adding either of the prefixes super- or sub- to non-prefixed terms denoting principal or secondary ranks. — ICBN, Art. 4.2. 4.3. Throughout this Code the phrase ‘subdivision of a family’ refers only to taxa of a rank between family and genus; ‘subdivision of a genus’ refers only to taxa of a rank between genus and species; ‘family-group’ refers to the ranks from superfamily to subtribe, ‘genus-group’ refers to the ranks of genus and subgenus, and ‘species-group’ to the ranks of species and subspecies. — ICBN, Art. 4 Note 1. 4.4. Further ranks may be intercalated or added, but designations of taxa in such ranks are not governed by this Code. — ICBN, Art. 4.3. CHAPTER II. PUBLICATION Article 5 5.1. Publication, under this Code, is defined as distribution of text or images (but not sound) in several identical, durable and unalterable copies, in a way that makes it generally accessible, as a permanent public record, to the scientific community, be it through sale or exchange or gift, and subject to the restrictions and qualifications in the present Article. — BC, Rule 25a; ICBN, Art. 29.1; ICZN, Art. 8 & 9. 5.2. Normally, publication is by distribution of printed matter. Other non-amendable and generally readable media such as microcards, microfiches, and non-erasable laser disks are also acceptable vectors of published information. — Contrary to BC, Rule 25b (3); ICZN, Art. 8a. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 153 5.3. Any matter containing a disclaimer to the effect that it is not intended for general public use is not considered as a publication. — ICZN, Art. 8b. 5.4. Communication of text or images at a public meeting, in any way unlikely to be durable and reach a wider audience than those in attendance, is not publication. — BC, Rule 25b (1); NGZN; Art. 9. 5.5. The placing of texts or images in collections or exhibits, e.g. on labels (including specimen labels, even if printed) or information sheets, is not publication. — BC, Rule 25b (2); ICZN, Art. 9. 5.6. The reproduction of hand-written material in facsimile, e.g. by print, photostat or microfilm, is not publication. — ICZN, Art. 9. 5.7. Inclusion of names in issued patents and patent applications is not publication. — BC, Rule 25b (5). 5.8. The distribution of films or photographs of text or images is not publication. — ICZN, Art. 9. 5.9. The dissemination of text or images on erasable electronic support, or through electronic communication networks, is not publication. — ICZN, Art. 9. Article 6 6.1. The publication date is the date on which publication as defined in Art. 5 took place. In the absence of proof establishing some other date, the one appearing in the publication itself must be accepted. — BC, Rule 26a; ICBN, Art. 31.1; ICZN, Art. 21. 6.2. When separates from periodicals or other works are issued in advance, the date of the separate is the publication date. — ICBN, Art. 31.2; ICZN, Art. 21h. CHAPTER III. NAMES (GENERAL PROVISIONS) SECTION 1. STATUS Article 7 7.1. For the purposes of this Code, publication of a name is defined in Art. 5-6. — ICBN, Art. 6.1; ICZN, Art. 7-9. 7.2. Established names are those that are published in accordance with Art. 8-13 (see also Art. 38). — ICBN, Art. 6.2; ICZN, Art. 10-11. 7.3. Acceptable names are those that are in accordance with the rules, 1.e., are not unacceptable under Art. 18. — ICBN, Art. 6.3. 7.4. The accepted name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank is the acceptable name which must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 19). —ICBN, Art. 6.5; ICZN, Art. 23. 7.5. In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word ‘name’ means an established name, whether it be acceptable or unacceptable (see Art. 20). — ICBN, Art. 6.6; ICZN, Art. 23. 7.6. The name of a taxon consisting of the name of a genus combined with one epithet is termed a binomen, the name of a species combined with an infraspecific epithet is termed a trinomen; binomina or trinomina are also termed combinations. — ICBN, Art. 6.7; ICZN, Art. 5. SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT Article 8 8.1. In order to be established on or after 1 January 2000, a name of a taxon must: (a) be published as provided for by Art. 5—6; (b) have a form that complies with the provisions of Art. 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 25-33; (c) be adopted by the author(s), who must be a named person (or persons); (d) not be proposed merely in anticipation of the future acceptance of the group concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the group; and (e) comply with the special provisions of Art. 9-12 (see also Art. 38.3). Furthermore, it must be registered as provided for in Art. 13. — BC, Rule 29 & 30; ICBN, Art. 32.1. 8.2. In order to be established, a name of a new taxon must be accompanied by a Latin or English description or diagnosis, or by full and direct reference to a previously published Latin or English description or diagnosis that applies to the taxon when placed in a rank belonging to the same rank group as defined in Art. 9.3. — BC, see Rec. 25a; ICBN, Art. 36.1. 8.3. In order to be established, new names must be clearly identified as such in the original publication, by statements such as ‘new species’, ‘sp. nov.’, ‘new combination’, ‘comb, nov.’, etc. — BC, Rule 33a. 8.4. When a publication contains a disclaimer to the effect that names or nomenclatural acts in it are not to be considered for nomenclatural purposes, names that it may contain are considered as not published. — BC, see Rule 28b; ICZN, Art. 8b. 8.5. When two or more different names are proposed simultaneously for the same taxon by the same author(s) as alternative names, neither is considered to be adopted by its author(s) (Art. 8.1 (c)). Article 9 9.1. A new combination or a replacement name for a previously established name may not be established unless its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or the replaced name is clearly indicated with a direct and unambiguous reference given to its author and place of original publication. — ICBN, Art. 33.2; ICZN, Art. 67h. 9.2. In order for a reference to be direct and unambiguous it must include page or plate reference (where applicable) and date; for publications with a consecutive pagination, page reference is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym was published or on which the protologue is printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that of the protologue. — ICBN, Art. 33 Note 1. 9.3. The basionym or replaced name may be of a different rank than the new combination or replacement name, but only within the following rank groups: ranks above superfamily, family-group ranks, genus-group ranks, ranks between genus-group and _ species-group, species-group ranks, and ranks below subspecies. — ICBN, Art. 41.1. Article 10 10.1. The name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below may not be established unless the name-bearing type is designated (see Art. 14-17). Designation of the type must include one of the words ‘holotype’ (holotypus) or ‘type’ (typus) or its abbreviation. — BC, Rule 27, see also Rule 18b; ICBN, Art. 37.1; ICZN, Art. 13b. 10.2. For the name of a new species or infraspecific taxon for which the holotype is a preserved specimen, the institution or collection in which the type is conserved must be specified. — BC, Rec. 30a; ICBN, Art. 37.5. Article 11 11.1. In order to be established, a name of a new taxon of fossil plants and non-fossil algae of specific or lower rank must be accompanied by an illustration or figure showing the essential characters, in addition to the description or diagnosis, or by a reference to an illustration or figure previously published in accordance with Art. 5-6. — ICBN, Art. 38.1. Article 12 12.1. Only if the corresponding genus or species name is established can the name of a subordinate taxon be established. — BC, Rule 32b; ICBN, Art. 43.1. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 155 SECTION 3. REGISTRATION Article 13 13.1. Registration is effected (a) by submitting the published matter that includes the protologue(s) to a registering office designated by the relevant international body (see Div. III.7), or (b), where an official medium for establishment of names has been designated, by publication in that medium. Registration will be granted to all submitted names that fulfil the requirements of Art. 8-12. 13.2. The date of a name under Art. 13.1 (a) is that of its registration, which is the date of receipt of the relevant matter at the registering office. Under Art. 13.1 (b) it is the date of publication of the official medium. — BC, Rule 24a, 24b & 27; ICBN, Art. 45.1. 13.3. When one or more of the other conditions for establishment have not been met prior to registration, the name must be resubmitted for registration after these conditions have been met. — ICBN, Art. 45.2. SECTION 4. TYPIFICATION Article 14 14.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of superfamily or below, and of those names of taxa in the higher ranks that are ultimately based on generic names, is determined by means of name-bearing types. The unit formed by the name and the type is referred to as the nominal taxon. — BC, Rule 18a; ICBN, Art. 7.1; ICZN, Art. 61a. 14.2. A name-bearing type is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether it be an accepted name or not. — BC, Rule 15; ICBN, Art. 7.2; ICZN, Art. 6la. 14.3. A new name based on a previously published acceptable name, e.g. as a new combination or as a replacement for an older name, is typified by the type of the older name (see Art. 9). — BC, Rule 34a; ICBN, Art. 7.3; ICZN, Art. 67h, 72e. Article 15 15.1. For names of superspecies, species or infraspecific taxa the name-bearing type is a specimen (but see Art. 15.3). A specimen as here defined normally consists of a single individual or parts thereof, but may sometimes consist of (parts of) more than one individual, on the condition that they are all of the same taxon, collected or isolated at the same time and place, and conserved permanently as a single curatorial unit (e.g., herbarium sheet or preparation). — BC, Rule 18a; ICBN, Art. 8.1; ICZN, Art. 61a. 15.2. Type specimens cannot be metabolically active organisms, but may be organisms permanently preserved in a viable but metabolically inactive state, e.g. by lyophilization or cryopreservation. — BC, Rule 18a; ICBN, Art. 8.2. 15.3. When authors of new names explicitly indicate in the protologue that it is not practicable to preserve a specimen, the type may be an illustration. — BC, Rule 18a, see also Rule 18f; ICBN, Art. 8.3; ICZN, Art. 73 (a)(iv). Article 16 16.1. If a type specimen is lost or destroyed, or is unavailable for consultation for an indefinite period of time, a neotype may be designated. A neotype must be selected from among duplicate material of the original type, when such material exists and does not demonstrably differ taxonomically from the original type. — BC, Rule 18c, 18d, 18e & 18g; ICBN, Art. 9.6; ICZN, Art. 75. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 16.2. When a type specimen contains parts belonging to more than one taxon, a part of it may be designated as lectotype so as to fix the application of the name. — ICBN, Art. 9.10; ICZN, Art. 74. 16.3. When a type is demonstrably ambiguous and cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name of a taxon, and it is desirable to fix that application, an epitype may be designated that is not itself ambiguous. — ICBN, Art. 9.7; ICZN, Rec. 75E. Article 17 17.1. The type of a nominal taxon in the rank of genus or subdivision of a genus is a nominal species (see also Art. 22.9). — BC, Rule 20a—g; ICBN, Art. 10.1; ICZN, Art. 63. 17.2. The type of a nominal taxon of the family-group, or of a nominal taxon of higher rank whose name is ultimately based on a generic name, is the nominal genus from which it is derived. — BC, Rule 2la & 21b; ICBN, Art. 10.6; ICZN, Art. 63. SECTION 5. HOMONYMY Article 18 18.1. A family-group, genus-group or species-group name established on or after 1 January 2000, unless conserved (Art. 22) or otherwise protected, is unacceptable if it is a later homonym (see also Art. 18.4), that is, if it, or one of its coordinate names, is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously established for a taxon of the same rank-group. — BC, Rule 51b(4); ICBN, Art. 53.1; ICZN, Art. 52. 18.2. When two or more specific or infraspecific names based on different types are so similar that they are likely to be confused they are treated as homonyms. The same applies in the case of confusingly similar generic botanical names. — BC, Rule 51b(4), 62a; ICBN, Art. 53.3; ICZN, Art. 58. 18.3. When it is doubtful whether names are sufficiently alike to be confused, a request for a decision may be submitted to the appropriate committee(s). A recommendation will then be put forward and, if ratified, will become a binding decision. — BC, Rule 58; ICBN, Art. 53.4. 18.4. When two or more homonyms have the same date, the first of them that is adopted in publication (Art. 5-6) by an author who simultaneously rejects the other(s) is the only one acceptable. Likewise, if an author, in publication, substitutes other names for all but one of these homonyms, the homonym for the taxon that is not renamed takes precedence. — ICBN, Art. 53.6; ICZN, Art. 24. SECTION 6. PRECEDENCE Article 19 19.1. For purposes of precedence the date of a name is either the date attributed to it in an adopted List of Protected Names or, for unlisted names, the date on which it was validly published under the botanical or bacteriological Code, or became available under the zoological Code, or was established under the present Code. Limitations of precedence that under previous Codes affected names in certain groups or of certain categories, even if not provided for in the present Code, still apply to such names if they were published before 1 January 2000. — BC, Rule 24a & 24b; ICZN, Art. 10. 19.2. In no case does a name have precedence outside the rank in which it is published. The automatic establishment of coordinate names in the same rank-group (Art. 27.1, 29.1 and 31.5) is not however affected by the present provision. — BC, Rule 23a; ICBN, Art. 11.2; ICZN, Art. 23c. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 157 19.3. For any taxon from superfamily to genus inclusive, the accepted name is the earliest acceptable one with the same rank, except in cases of limitation of precedence by conservation or protection (see Art. 21-22) or where Art. 19.7, 23, 24, or 36 apply. — BC, Rule 23a; ICBN, Art. 11.3; ICZN, Art. 23. 19.4. For any subgenus or species-group taxon, the accepted name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest acceptable name of the taxon in the same rank, with the accepted name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except (a) in cases of limitation of precedence under Art. 21-24, or (b) if the resulting combination cannot become established under Art. 8.1(b) or is unacceptable under Art. 18, or (c) if Art. 19.7 or 36 rule that a different combination be used. — BC, Rule 23a; ICBN, Art. 11.4; ICZN, Art. 23. 19.5. When, for any taxon of the family-group, genus-group or species-group, a choice is possible between acceptable names of equal date, or between final epithets of acceptable names of equal date, the first such choice to be published (Art. 5—6) establishes the relative precedence of the chosen name, and of any acceptable combination with the same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other competing name(s) (but see Art. 19.6). — BC, Rule 24b; ICBN, Art. 11.5; ICZN, Art. 24. 19.6. A choice as provided for in Art. 19.5 is effected by adopting one of the competing names, or its final epithet in the required combination, and simultaneously rejecting or relegating to synonymy the other(s), or homotypic synonyms thereof. — ICBN, Art. 11 Note 1; ICZN, Art. 24. 19.7. Names of organisms (animals and algae excepted) based on a non-fossil type are treated as having precedence over names of the same rank based on a fossil (or subfossil) type. — ICBN, Art. 11.7. 19.8. The principle of precedence is not mandatory for names of taxa not belonging to the family-group, the genus-group or the species-group. — BC, Rule 23a (up to class); ICBN, Art. 11.9; ICZN, Art. 1b. Article 20 20.1. Unless it has been established (Art. 7.2), a name of a taxon has no status under this Code. — BC, Prin. 7; ICBN, Art. 12.1. Article 21 21.1. In order to stabilize the nomenclatural status of names in current use, and to prevent their being displaced by names no longer in use, published lists of names may be submitted to the appropriate committee for adoption. 21.2. Once a list has been adopted, all listed names and their coordinate names are protected, subject to specified restrictions and exceptions. A protected name is treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and unlisted competing synonyms; it is accepted as established in the place and on the date cited in the list; and its type, when listed, its spelling and, if specified, its gender are treated as if conserved. 21.3. Protection can, for individual lists, be restricted with respect to the options set out in Art. 21.2, and individual entries on a list can be exempted from protection. Such restrictions and exceptions are to be specified upon adoption by the appropriate committee. 21.4. Once a list has been adopted, entries can be added to, modified in or removed from that list only by the mechanisms of conservation or suppression of names (Art. 22-23). Specified restrictions and exceptions can be waived or modified only upon recommendation of the appropriate committee. 21.5. An earlier homonym of a protected name does not lose its status of an established name, but the precedence of the two homonyms is inverted by protection. — ICBN, Art. 15.2. 21.6. When, for a taxon from superfamily to genus inclusive, two or more protected names compete, Art. 19.3 governs the choice of the correct name (see also Art. 21.9). — ICBN, Art. 15.3. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 21.7. When, for a taxon below the rank of genus, two or more protected names and/or two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a protected name compete, Art. 19.4 governs the choice of the correct name. — ICBN, Art. 15.4. 21.8. The date of protection does not affect the date (Art. 19) of a protected name, which is determined only on the basis of its establishment or equivalent actions under previous Codes. — BC, Rule 24b; ICBN, Art. 15 Note 1. 21.9. A name which is neither protected nor has the same type and final epithet as a protected name in the same rank may not be applied to a taxon which includes the type of a protected name in that rank unless the final epithet of the latter cannot be used in the required combination (see Art. 19.4(b)). — ICBN, Art. 15.5. 21.10. Conservation (Art. 20) and suppression (Art. 23.1) override protection. — ICBN, Art. 15.6. Article 22 22.1. Conservation of names, enacted by decisions of appropriately mandated committees, is a means of suspending the application of the rules in the interest of stability of nomenclature of individual names of taxa of the family-group, genus-group and species-group, or, where adopted lists of protected names exist, of amending such lists. — ICBN, Art. 14.1; ICZN, Art. 79c. in the place and on the date cited in that list. — ICZN, Art. 78f. 22.3. A conserved name is conserved against all other names in the same rank-group based on the same type (homotypic synonyms, which are to be rejected), whether explicitly cited as rejected or not, and against those names based on different types (heterotypic synonyms) that are explicitly cited. A conserved binomen or trinomen is conserved against all names listed as rejected, and against all combinations based on the rejected names. — BC, Rule 23a, 56b; ICBN, Art. 14.4. 22.4. When a conserved name competes with one or more names based on different types and against which it is not explicitly conserved, the earliest of the competing names is adopted in accordance with Art. 19, unless Art. 21 applies. — BC, Rule 56b; ICBN, Art. 14.5; ICZN, Art. 78f. 22.5. When a name of a taxon has been conserved against an earlier name based on a different type, the latter is to be restored, subject to Art. 19, if it is considered the name of a taxon at the same rank distinct from that of the conserved name, except when the earlier rejected name is a homonym of the conserved name or when Art. 21 applies. — ICBN, Art. 14.6. 22.6. A rejected name, or a combination based on a rejected name, may not be restored for a taxon which includes the type of the corresponding conserved name. — ICBN, Art. 14.7. 22.7. The stated type of a conserved name may not be changed except by the procedure outlined in Art. 22.14. — BC, Rule 36, 37a; ICBN, Art. 14.8; ICZN, Art. 79c. 22.8. A name may be conserved with a different type from that designated by the author or determined by application of the Code (see also Art. 22.9). Such a name may be conserved either from its place of establishment (even though the type may not then have been included in the named taxon) or from a later publication by an author who did include the type as conserved. In the latter case the original name and the name as conserved are treated as if they were homonyms (Art. 18), whether or not the name as conserved was accompanied by a description or diagnosis of the taxon named. — ICBN, Art. 14.9. 22.9. In exceptional cases, the type of a conserved botanical genus-group name may be a specimen or illustration. — ICBN, Art. 10.4. 22.10. A conserved name, with its corresponding autonyms and coordinate names, if any, is conserved against all earlier homonyms. An earlier homonym of a conserved name does not Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 159 lose its status of an established name, but the precedence of the two homonyms is inverted by conservation. — BC, Rule 56b; ICBN, Art. 14.10. 22.11. A name may be conserved in order to preserve a particular orthography or gender. A name so conserved is to be attributed without change of date to the author who established it, not to an author who later introduced the conserved spelling or gender. — ICBN, Art. 14.11; ICZN, Art. 79c. 22.12. The date of conservation does not affect the date (Art. 18) of a conserved name, which is determined only on the basis of the date of its establishment (Art. 8-13). — ICBN, Art. 14 Note 3. 22.13. The lists of conserved names will remain permanently open for additions and changes. Regulations and procedures for the conservation of names in the major groups of organisms are outlined in an Annex to be provided. 22.14. Any proposal of an additional name, or for the amendment of an existing entry, must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against its conservation. Such proposals must be submitted to the appropriate committee. — BC, App. 8; ICBN, Art. 14.12; ICZN, Art. 79c. 22.15. When a proposal for the conservation of a name has been referred to the appropriate committee for study, retention of that name is authorized pending the committee’s recom- mendation and its ratification. — ICBN, Art. 14.14; ICZN, Art. 80. Article 23 23.1. Any name that would cause a disadvantageous nomenclatural change may be proposed for suppression. A name thus suppressed, or its basionym if it has one, is placed on a list. Along with the listed names, all combinations based on them, and all suprageneric names that may be formed from them, are similarly suppressed, and none is to be used. — ICBN, Art. 56.1; ICZN, Art. 78h. 23.2. The list of suppressed names will remain permanently open for additions and changes. Any proposal for suppression of a name must be accompanied by a detailed statement of the cases both for and against its suppression, including considerations of typification. Such proposals must be submitted to the appropriate committee. That committee’s recommendation, once ratified, must be followed. — BC, Rule 56a; ICBN, Art. 56.2; ICZN, Art. 781. 23.3. When a proposal for the suppression of a name has been referred to the appropriate committee for study, rejection of that name is authorized pending the committee’s recommen- dation and its ratification. — ICBN, Art. 14.14; ICZN, Art. 80. Article 24 24.1. A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 22.1 or 23.1 has been submitted and rejected. — BC, Rule 37a; ICBN, Art. 57.1; ICZN, Art. 23b. CHAPTER IV. NAMES (BY RANK) SECTION 1. TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF SUPERFAMILY Article 25 25.1. Names of taxa above the rank of superfamily are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with a capital initial letter. They may be either (a) typified names (see Art. 14.1) that are formed by adding a termination denoting their rank to the genitive singular stem of a generic name or exceptionally to the whole name, or (b) typeless names (“descriptive names’) 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 that are formed differently, apply to taxa with a recognized circumscription, and may be used unchanged at different ranks. — ICBN, Art. 16.1. 25.2. For typified names, the name of a subphylum which includes the type of the adopted name of a phylum, the name of a subclass which includes the type of the adopted name of a class, or the name of a suborder which includes the type of the adopted name of an order, are to be based on the same type. 25.3. The typified name of a phylum or subphylum is formed from the same generic name as an acceptable name of an included class. The phylum name termination is -mycota for fungi, -phyta for other botanical taxa. The subphylum name termination is -mycotina for fungi, -phytina for other botanical taxa. — ICBN, Rec. 16A.1. 25.4. The typified name of a class or subclass is formed from the same generic name as an acceptable name of an included order. The class name termination is -mycetes for fungi, -phyceae for algae, -opsida for other botanical taxa. The subclass name termination is -mycetidae for fungi, -phycidae for algae, -idae for other botanical taxa. — ICBN, Rec. 16A.2. 25.5. The typified name of an order or suborder is formed from the same generic name as an acceptable name of an included family. The order name termination is -ales for all botanical and bacteriological taxa. The suborder name termination is -ineae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa. — BC, Rule 9; ICBN, Art. 17.1. 25.6. The name of a taxon above the rank of family may not have the termination -virinae, -virales, or viridae, because these terminations are reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre: 5): 25.7. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name retains its authorship and date. — ICBN, Art. 17.3; Rec. 16A.4. SECTION 2. FAMILY-GROUP TAXA Article 26 26.1. Family-group names are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with a capital initial letter. They are formed by adding to the genitive singular stem of a generic name, or to the whole name if necessary to avoid homonymy, a termination denoting their rank. — BC, Rule 9; ICBN, Art. 18.1; ICZN, Art. 11f. (a) The superfamily name termination is -oidea for zoological taxa. — ICZN, Rec. 29A. (b) The family name termination is -aceae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -idae for zoological taxa. — ICZN, Art. 29a. (c) The subfamily name termination is -oideae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -inae for zoological taxa. — ICZN, Art. 29a. (d) The tribe name termination is -eae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -ini for zoological taxa. — ICZN, Rec. 29A. (e) The subtribe name termination is -inae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -ina for zoological taxa. 26.2. The name of a family may not have the termination -viridae, and the name of a subfamily or subtribe may not have the termination -virinae, because these terminations are reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 5). 26.3. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name retains its authorship and date. Normally any required change will be made during the registration process. — ICBN, Art. 18.4; ICZN, Art. 32c. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 161 Article 27 27.1. The establishment of any family-group name automatically establishes coordinate names, formed from the same generic name and having the same authorship and date, at all other ranks of the family-group. — ICBN, Art. 19.4; ICZN, Art. 36. SECTION 3. GENERA AND SUBDIVISIONS OF GENERA Article 28 28.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the singular, or a single word treated as such, and is written with a capital initial letter. It may not have the termination -virus because this termination is reserved for the names of viral genera (see Pre. 5). — BC, Rule 6 & 10a; ICBN, Art. 20.1; ICZN, Art. 4a, 11g. 28.2. The name of a subgenus is a combination of a generic name and a subgeneric epithet (of the same form as a generic name), the latter being placed between parentheses, or the two being connected by the term ‘subgenus’ (subg.). — BC, Rule 10a but see Rule 39a; ICBN, Art. 21.1; ICZN, Art. 4b, 6a. 28.3. Subgeneric names with plural adjectival epithets that were validly published prior to 1 January 2000 under the Jnternational Code of Botanical Nomenclature are not after that date considered as established names. Article 29 29.1. The establishment of any genus-group name automatically establishes a coordinate name at the other rank of the genus-group. The coordinate names have the same type, authorship and date; the generic name is identical with the subgeneric epithet. — ICBN, Art. 22.1; ICZN, Art. 43. 29.2. The name of any subdivision of a genus that includes the type of the accepted name of the genus to which it is assigned is to repeat the generic name unaltered as its epithet. Names published in explicit infringement of this rule cannot be established. — BC, see Rule 11; ICBN, Art. 21.2; ICZN, Art. 44. 29.3. The epithet in the name of a subdivision of a genus may not repeat unchanged the accepted name of the genus to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names have the same type. — ICZN, Art. 44. Article 30 30.1. The name of a section, subsection, series or subseries is a combination of a generic name and an epithet, the two being connected by the term denoting the rank. The epithet is either of the same form as a generic name, or a plural adjective which is written with a capital initial letter and agrees in gender with the generic name. SECTION 4. SPECIES AND INFRASPECIFIC TAXA Article 31 31.1. A name of a species consists of the name of a genus followed by a single specific epithet. The epithet may have the form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition; it is written with a lower-case initial letter. — BC, Rule 12a; ICBN, Art. 23.1; ICZN, Art. 5b. 31.2. In a name of a botanical taxon the specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name. — ICBN, Art. 23.4. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 31.3. A name of a subspecies consists of the name of a species followed by a single subspecific epithet having the same form as a specific epithet, the two being optionally connected by the term ‘subspecies’ (subsp.). — BC, Rule 3la; ICZN, Art. 5b; ICBN, Art. 24.1. 31.4. In a species-group name, the final epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun, agrees grammatically with the generic name. Errors in inflection are to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date. — BC, Rule 12a, 12c, 13b; ICBN, Art. 23.5; ICZN, Art. 32d. 31.5. The establishment of any species-group name automatically establishes a coordinate name at the other rank of the species-group. The coordinate names have the same type, authorship and date; their final epithets are identical. — ICZN, Art. 46. Article 32 32.1. The name of any infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the accepted name of the species to which it is assigned is to repeat the specific epithet unaltered as its final epithet. Names published in explicit infringement of this rule cannot be established. — ICBN, Art. 26.1; ICZN, Art. 47. 32.2. The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat unchanged the epithet of the accepted name of the species to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names have the same type. — ICBN, Art. 27.1; ICZN, Art. 47. Article 33 33.1. The name of an infra-subspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species and an infraspecific epithet connected by the term denoting the rank. — ICBN, Art. 24.1. 33.2. Infra-subspecific epithets have the same form as subspecific epithets. Art. 31.4 applies by analogy. — ICBN, Art. 24.2. CHAPTER V. PROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS SECTION 1. PLANT HYBRIDS AND CULTIVATED PLANTS [Articles 34 and 35 are not reproduced here]. SECTION 2. PARTS OF ORGANISMS, PORTIONS OF LIFE HISTORIES, AND TRACE FOSSILS Article 36 36.1. Except as specified below [see also Article 3.2], names based on any part of an organism or portion of its life history are treated as applicable to the whole organism and compete for precedence as provided for in Art. 19-24. — ICZN, Art. 23f. 36.2. Names referring to specific organs of fossil botanical taxa (organ-taxa), or to mitotic asexual morphs (anamorphs) of ascomycetous and basidiomycetous fungi (excluding those forming lichens) with a pleomorphic life history, are names of form-taxa. These names are applicable only to the organ or morph represented by their type, not to the whole fossil, or to the fungus in all its morphs (holomorph), which is considered to be represented by its meiotic sexual morph (the teleomorph, characterized by the production of asci/ascospores, basidia/basidiospores, teliospores, or other basidium-bearing organs). — ICBN, Art. 59.1. 36.3. The provisions of this article shall not be construed as preventing the publication and use of binomina for form-taxa when it is thought necessary or desirable to refer to fungal anamorphs alone, or to specific organs of botanical fossils, even though the holomorph or whole fossil organism may be known and have been named. For the name of a fossil botanical Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 163 genus, the author’s intent (as apparent from the original description, the material he used, and often from the name itself) is essential in establishing whether it applies to an organ-genus only. Names of fossil botanical taxa in ranks lower than genus are considered to apply to an organ-taxon if they are subordinate to the name of an organ-genus. When their epithet is later transferred to a genus of whole-organism fossils, the new combination is deemed to be the name of a whole-organism taxon and as such takes the date of the transfer, without change of type. — ICBN, Art. 59.5. 36.4. For a name of a taxon of pleomorphic fungi it is the nature of the type that determines whether the name applies to a form-taxon (anamorph) or to the whole taxon (holomorph), irrespective of the nature of the higher ranking taxon to which the named taxon was originally assigned. — ICBN, Art. 59.3. 36.5. Unless the type of a name of a pleomorphic fungus represents the teleomorphic state, and unless the original description or diagnosis refers to this morph, the name is deemed to refer to the anamorph alone. — ICBN, Art. 59.2. 36.6. Names referring to the fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa) are applicable only to that work, not to the organism responsible for the work. — ICZN, Art. 23g (iii). CHAPTER VI. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES Article 37 37.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors, the standardization of terminations required by Art. 39, and the mandatory corrections imposed hereunder. — BC, Rule 61; ICBN, Art. 60.1; ICZN, Art. 32b. 37.2. For names of taxa published on or after 1 January 2000, the words ‘original spelling’ in this Article mean the spelling employed when the name was submitted for registration. As a rule, the required corrections and standardizations will be made during the registration process. — ICBN, Art. 60.2. 37.3. Names consist exclusively of letters of the Latin alphabet, which is taken to include j, k, w and y (rare or absent in classical Latin). When other letters and ligatures foreign to classical Latin or diacritical signs appear in a name, they are transcribed or deleted. The diaeresis, indicating that a vowel is to be pronounced separately from the preceding vowel, is not part of the orthography of a name or epithet. — BC, Rule 64; ICBN, Art. 60.4; 60.6; ICZN, Art. 27, 32 [other details explicitly provided for in version 2 to be dealt with by way of Recommendations]. 37.4. When a name has been published in a work where the letters u, v or i, j are used interchangeably or in any other way incompatible with modern practices (one of those letters is not used, or used only in capitals), those letters are transcribed in conformity with modern usage. — ICBN, Art. 60.5. 37.5. A hyphen in a compound epithet is deleted, except if it links a single letter to a whole word, if an epithet is formed of words that usually stand independently, or if the letters before and after the hyphen are the same, when a hyphen is permitted (see Art. 31.1). — BC, Rule 12a; ICBN, Art. 60.9; ICZN, Art. 31d. 37.6. An apostrophe in an epithet is deleted. — ICBN, Art. 60.10. 37.7. The letters -ae-, when used for linking the elements of a compound adjectival epithet, are corrected to -i- unless they serve to establish an etymological distinction. — BC, see App. 9b; ICBN, Art. 60.8. 37.8. The use of terminations in epithets commemorating persons is standardized [to be specified]. — BC, App. 9A; ICBN, Art. 60.11. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 37.9. Epithet spellings that are contrary to the standard spellings [to be specified] are corrected. 37.10. Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of the host plant but spelled differently are corrected to reflect the accepted spelling of the host’s name. — ICBN, Rec. 60H.1. Article 38 38.1. For the purpose of this Code, orthographical variants are the various spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a name or its epithet (including typographical errors), only one type being involved. — BC, Rule 57b; ICBN, Art. 61.2. 38.2. Confusingly similar names based on the same type are also treated as orthographical variants. — BC, see Rule 57c, 62a. 38.3. Only one orthographical variant of any one name is treated as established, which, except as provided in Art. 37 (typographical or orthographical errors and standardizations), and Art. 22.11 (conserved spellings), is the form which appears in the original publication. — BC, Rule 57c & 61; ICBN, Art. 61.5; ICZN, Art. 32b. 38.4. The orthographical variants of a name are to be corrected to the established form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in print, it is to be treated as if it were printed in its corrected form. — BC, Rule 61; ICBN, Art. 61.4; ICZN, Art. 32c. 38.5. If orthographical variants of a name appear in the original publication, the one that conforms to the rules and best suits current usage is retained; other things being equal, the first author who, in publication, explicitly adopts one of the variants, rejecting the other(s), is followed. BC, Rule 58; ICBN, Art. 61.3; ICZN, Art. 24. Article 39 39.1. A generic name is treated as a noun of masculine, feminine or neuter gender. Gender is established on the basis of classical Latin and Greek grammar as modified by subsequent biological usage. In case of doubt, the gender assigned by the author of the name or, failing this, by the first subsequent author to assign a gender to the name, is accepted. — BC, Rule 65; ICBN, Art. 62.1. 39.2. Compound generic names take the gender of the last word in the nominative case in the compound. [The most usual words used in compounding generic names will be specified]. — BC, Rule 65. 39.3. The gender of generic names often depends on their termination. The most usual terminations used in forming generic names, together with their gender, are listed in Annex ... — BC, App. 9; ICBN, Art. 62.2. 39.4. When a new generic name is submitted for registration without indication of gender, or with an indication of gender that is contrary to the Code, the gender is assigned or corrected during registration. — BC, see Rule 65 (3). CHAPTER VI. AUTHOR CITATION Article 40 40.1. In publications dealing with the taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, it may be necessary, for accurate and complete indication of the name of a taxon, to cite the name of the author(s) who established the name concerned and the date of its establishment. When this is done the following rules apply. — BC, Rule 33b Note 1; ICBN, Art. 46.1; ICZN, Art. 50. 40.2. A name of a new taxon is to be attributed to the author or authors to whom both the name and the original description or diagnosis were ascribed, even though authorship of the publication may be different. A new combination or replacement name is to be attributed to the author or Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 165 authors to whom it was ascribed in the original publication, when this contribution is explicitly acknowledged there. Art. 40.5 notwithstanding, authorship of a new name or combination must always be accepted as ascribed, even when it differs from authorship of the publication, when at least one author is common to both. — ICBN, Art. 46.2. 40.3. When authorship of a name differs from authorship of the publication in which it appears, both are sometimes cited, connected by the word ‘in’. In such a case, ‘in’ and what follows are part of a bibliographic citation and are better omitted unless the place of publication is being referred to, at least by its date. — BC, Adv. Note B(2); ICBN, Art. 46 Note 1. 40.4. For the purposes of this Article, ascription is the direct association of the name of a person or persons with a new name or description or diagnosis of a taxon. Mention of an author’s name in a list of synonyms is not ascription, nor is reference to a basionym or a replaced synonym, including bibliographic errors, nor is reference to a homonym. — ICBN, Art. 46.3. 40.5. A name of a new nominal taxon is to be attributed to the author or authors of the publication in which it appears when only the name but not the original description or diagnosis was ascribed to a different author or different authors. A new combination or a replacement name is to be attributed to the author or authors of the publication in which it appears, even when it was ascribed to a different author or to different authors, when in the publication in which it appears their contribution is not explicitly acknowledged. However, in both cases authorship as ascribed, followed by ‘ex’, may be inserted before the name(s) of the publishing author(s). — ICBN, Art. 46.4. 40.6. In determining the correct author citation, only internal evidence in the publication in which the name appears is to be accepted, including ascription of the name, statements in the introduction, title, or acknowledgements, and typographical distinctions in the text. In this context, all publications appearing under the same title and by the same author, such as different parts of a flora issued at different times (but not different editions of the same work), is to be considered as a whole. — ICBN, Art. 46.6. 40.7. Authors publishing new names and wishing to establish that other persons’ names followed by ‘ex’ may precede theirs in authorship citation may adopt the ‘ex’ citation in the protologue. — BC, Rule 33c; ICBN, Art. 46 Note 2. Article 41 41.1. When a genus or a taxon of lower rank is altered in rank, or is transferred to another genus or species, but retains its name or final epithet, the author of the earlier, name- or epithet-bringing acceptable name (the author of the basionym) is cited in parentheses, optionally followed by the name of the author who effected the alteration (the author of the new name). — BC, Rule 33b; ICBN, Art. 49.1; ICZN, Art. Slc. DIVISION IH. AUTHORITY 1. The BioCode is placed under the joint authority of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and of the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS), to be exercised through an inter-union International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB). 2. The ICB consists of a chairperson appointed by the Executive Committee of [UBS and the Executive Board of I[UMS, and eight members, similarly appointed in consultation with the five international bodies concerned, as follows: two representing The General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature (GCBN), two representing the International Commission on Zoo- logical Nomenclature (ICZN), two representing the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology (ICSB), one representing the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), and one representing the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV). 3. The BioCode will take effect from a date established by the ICB, as soon as practicable, but not before the necessary provisions on authority transfer have been approved by the bodies 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 responsible for the present (special) Codes: an International Botanical Congress for botany (including mycology), the [UBS General Assembly for zoology, and an International Congress of Bacteriology for bacteriology. 4. The ICB has power to resolve present and future ambiguity concerning the provisions of the BioCode, in particular those rules that affect only certain categories of organisms. It shall, in particular — and for nomenclatural purposes only — assign to the jurisdiction of one of the three traditional Codes those organisms that have been or still are treated under different special Codes by different workers. In case of controversy, it will take its decision after due consultation among the specialists in the groups concerned. 5. The first and future editions of the BioCode are published under the auspices of [UBS and IUMS in association with the copyright holders for the special Codes. 6. The ICB has powers to edit future editions of the BioCode, and to amend its provisions where necessary. Any proposed change of substance must, however, be subject to public discussion before being approved, as follows: 6.1. Any proposal for a change must be published beforehand in the appropriate official organs, Taxon (for the GCBN), the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (for the ICZN), the International Journal of Systematic Bacteriology (for the ICSB), and also submitted for publication in other appropriate media such as Biology International (IUBS), Hortax News (ICNCP), and Virology Division News (ICTV). 6.2. After one year, and taking into account any comments received, the GCBN, ICSB, ICTV and ICZN will each inform the ICB of their opinions and recommendations concerning the proposal. 6.3. The ICB will act on the proposal in the light of these opinions, a 75'% majority of voting members being required for the approval of a change. 6.4. Any adopted change that is not of a retroactive nature will take effect from a date established by the ICB, but not prior to the publication of an edition of the BioCode that embodies the change. 7. The ICB takes responsibility for the coordination of a world-wide network of registration offices. It also supervises and coordinates the work of the registration centres that record, maintain and disseminate the registration data. 8. UBS and IUMS will be responsible for convening an International Consultative Group on Bionomenclature, comprising representatives of pertinent inter-governmental bodies and agencies, which will be charged with the development of mechanisms to maintain the registration systems developed in consultation with the ICB. 9. Proposals for the conservation or suppression of names, requests for binding decisions on confusability of names, and applications for the adoption of lists of names in current use, may be submitted to the ICB to be forwarded to the responsible bodies (presently GCBN, ICZN, or ICSB, as the case may be). They may also be submitted directly to those bodies. They will then be acted upon in the same way as under the special Codes; this action is to be ratified by the ICB. — ICBN, Art. 14.12-14.14, 53.4, 56; Div. III.2; ICZN, Art. 79. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 167 Case 2978 Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation by the designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species Dale R. Calder Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Biology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6; Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 1A1 Paul F.S. Cornelius Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the current use of the name Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 for a familiar, near-cosmopolitan genus of thecate hydroids by setting aside two overlooked type species designations. Recognition of the first of these, due to Busk (1851), would result in the name P/umularia becoming a junior subjective synonym of Aglaophenia Lamouroux, 1812. The second, due to Apstein (1915), would result in the name Pluwmularia being applied to the genus of hydroids long known as Kirchenpaueria Jickeli, 1883. In both cases a new name would become necessary for P/wnularia as long understood. It is proposed that the designation by Broch (1918) of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 be formally adopted. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hydrozoa; hydroids; Plumularia; Plumularia setaced. 1. The marine hydroid superfamily PLUMULARIOIDEA Agassiz, 1862 includes several near-cosmopolitan genera. Our application concerns the names of three of them which, at least in temperate latitudes, form conspicuous colonies which can be found intertidally. Their names, Aglaophenia, Plumularia and Kirchenpaueria, are consequently familiar to many non-specialists. Some overlooked type species designations threaten the stability of these names, which our application seeks to protect. 2. Lamouroux (1812, p. 184) included five nominal species in his new genus Aglaophenia, one of which was Sertularia pluma Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 811), but he did not designate a type species. 3. The genus Plumularia Lamarck (1816, p. 123) originally included 17 nominal species, among them Sertularia pinnata and S. setacea, both of Linnaeus (1758, p. 813), and Plumularia cristata Lamarck, 1816 (p. 125). The last name was a new name for Sertularia pluma Linnaeus, 1758 and hence its junior objective synonym. The publication date for Lamarck’s work was given on the title page as March 1816 and this date was accepted by Sherborn (1922, p. Ixxvii). 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 4. Several of the species assigned to Plumularia by Lamarck (1816) were referred to Aglaophenia Lamouroux, 1812 by Lamouroux (1816, pp. 164-174). These included Sertularia pinnata and S. setacea. The publication date of Lamouroux’s (1816) work was given by Sherborn (1922, p. Ixvii) as October 1816. 5. Busk (1851, p. 118) subsequently designated P/umularia cristata Lamarck, 1816 as the type species of Plumularia. This designation, although valid, is not in accord with the concept of the genus that has been accepted for most of the present century, and it has been overlooked. Recognition of Busk’s type designation would render the name Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 a junior subjective synonym of Aglaophenia Lamouroux, 1812 (see para. 7 below), to the detriment of the accepted use of both names. p 6. Busk (1851, p. 118) stated Phimularia to be ‘an artificially constructed genus’, implying that it merited splitting. He noted (p. 119) that, if the genus were eventually to be divided, ‘those species of which P/umularia setacea may be taken as the type, would form a second genus’. Busk thus came close to conceiving the modern concepts of the two genera Aglaophenia and Plumularia, although had his inclinations been followed setacea would have been assigned to Aglaophenia and cristata to Plumularia, the reverse of almost all subsequent practice. 7. The name Plumularia was for many years generally regarded as synonymous with Aglaophenia, albeit by some authors provisionally (see Johnston, 1847 and Busk, 1851; para. 5 above). The distinction hinted at by Busk (1851) was introduced by McCrady (1859, pp. 199-203). It was accepted by Agassiz (1862, p. 358) and has been supported by essentially all authorities. The two genera became the bases of the families PLUMULARIIDAE Agassiz, 1862 and AGLAOPHENIIDAE Marktanner- Turneretscher, 1890 (p. 262), which are still in use today. 8. McCrady (1859, p. 201), in discussing the genus Aglaophenia, stated ‘I take Plumularia cristata as the nucleus of this group’. This statement does not constitute a valid type species designation because P. cristata was not among the five nominal species originally included in Aglaophenia by Lamouroux (1812) and McCrady did not mention the senior objective synonym Sertularia pluma Linnaeus, 1758 (para. 3 above). S. pluma was designated the type species of Aglaophenia by Apstein (1915, p. 126), and this accords both with McCrady’s concept of the genus and with previous, subsequent and current use (see, for example, Svoboda & Cornelius, 1991, p. 10). 9. Sertularia pinnata Linnaeus, 1758 was designated in the same paper by Apstein (1915, p. 127) as the type species of Plumularia. Apstein’s invalid designation has sensibly been disregarded (see Broch, 1918, pp. 52-53; Cornelius, 1995, p. 158). S. pinnata was later designated the type species of another genus, Kirchenpaueria Jickeli, 1883 (p. 645, pl. 28, figs. 25-28), by Broch (1918, p. 195). The genus Kirchenpaueria is commonly recognised and the name widely used, but acceptance of Apstein’s (1915) designation would render Kirchenpaueria a junior objective synonym of Plumularia, upsetting established use. Kirchenpaueria is the type genus of KIRCHENPAUERIINAE Stechow, 1921 (p. 259). This name has been employed in major works, in at least one (Bouillon, 1985) at family level but in more (see, for example, Millard, 1975; Cornelius, 1995) for a subfamily of the PLUMULARIIDAE. 10. Broch (1918, p. 195) attempted to resolve the potential nomenclatural problem introduced by Apstein (1915) (para. 9 above) by designating Plumularia setacea as the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 169 type species of P/umularia, and this accords with common use before and since. This designation was cited in a major work by Millard (1975) but it is invalid because of the earlier designations by Busk (1851) and by Apstein (1915) (paras. 5 and 9 above; Cornelius, 1995, p. 158). Since Broch (1918) the name Plumularia has been applied consistently to a genus having Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as its type species, and Kirchenpaueria has been applied to that having S. pinnata Linnaeus, 1758 as its type (see, for example, Medel & Vervoort, 1995, p. 56; Cornelius, 1995, pp. 129 and following; and numerous papers cited in these works). 11. To maintain accepted use of the well-known name Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 and to prevent its loss in the synonymy of Aglaophenia Lamououx, 1812, needlessly upsetting 150 years of stable use of both names, we propose that Busk’s (1851) designation of Plumularia cristata as the type species of Plumularia be set aside. We also propose that Apstein’s (1915) designation of Sertularia pinnata as the type species be set aside. If adopted, this designation would result in P/hwmularia becoming the valid name for the group of species now known as Kirchenpaueria and the latter being lost as a junior objective synonym; a new name would be needed for Plumularia as currently understood. The name Kirchenpaueria has been intermittently used, always in its original sense, for 113 years and, since Broch (1918), has been almost universally adopted. Stability of hydroid nomenclature would not be served by accepting either of these two designations and we propose that the designation of Sertularia setacea by Broch (1918) as the type species of Plumularia be accepted. 12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 prior to that by Broch (1918) of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Pluwmularia Lamarck, 1816 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Broch (1918) Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758, as ruled in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name setacea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sertularia setacea (specific name of the type species of Plumularia Lamarck, 1816). References Agassiz, L. 1862. Contributions to the natural history of the United States of America. Second Monograph, vol. 4. viii, 380 pp. Little, Brown & Co., Boston. Apstein, C. 1915. Nomina conservanda. Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1915(5): 119-202. Bouillon, J. 1985. Essai de classification des hydropolypes-hydromeéduses (Hydrozoa — Cnidaria). Indo-Malayan Zoology, 1: 29-243. Broch, H. 1918. Hydroida (Part Il). Danish Ingolf-Expedition, 5(7): 1-205. Busk, G. 1851. A list of sertularian zoophytes and Polyzoa from Port Natal, Algoa Bay, and Table Bay, in South Africa; with remarks on their geographical distribution, and observations on the genera Plumularia and Catenicella. Report of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 20: 118-120. Cornelius, P.F.S. 1995. North-west European thecate hydroids and their medusae. Part 2. Sertulariidae to Campanulariidae. Synopses of the British Fauna, (N.S.)50: 1-386. Jickeli, C.F. 1883. Der Bau der Hydroidpolypen. Morphologisches Jahrbuch, 8: 580-680. Johnston, G. 1847. A history of British zoophytes, Ed. 2. 488 pp. Van Voorst, London. 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de. 1816 (March). Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2. Verdiére, Paris. Lamouroux, J.V.F. 1812. Extrait d’un mémoire sur la classification des polypiers coralligénes non entiérement pierreux. Nouveau Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 3: 181-188. Lamouroux, J.V.F. 1816 (October). Histoire des polypiers coralligénes flexibles, vulgairement nommes zoophytes. \xxxiv, 559 pp. Poisson, Caen. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Marktanner-Turneretscher, G. 1890. Die Hydroiden des K.K. naturhistorischen Hofmuseums. Annalen des K.K. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, 5: 195-286. McCrady, J. 1857, 1859. Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor. Proceedings of the Elliott Society of Natural History, 1: 103-104 (1857), 105-221 (1859). Medel, M.D. & Vervoort, W. 1995. Plumularian hydroids (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa) from the Strait of Gibraltar and nearby areas. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 300: 1—72. Millard, N.A.H. 1975. Monograph on the Hydroida of Southern Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, 68: 1-513. Sherborn, C.D. 1922. Index Animalium 1801-1850, part 1 (Introduction, bibliography and index A-Aff). Pp. 1-cxxxi, 1-128. British Museum, London. Stechow, E. 1921. Neue Genera und Species von Hydrozoen und anderen Evertebraten. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, (A, 3)87: 248-265. Svoboda, A. & Cornelius, P.F.S. 1991. The European and Mediterranean species of Aglaophenia (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa). Zoologische Verhandelingen, 274: \—72. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 171 Case 2935 Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed designation of Alvania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 as the type species Jules Hertz Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol Road, Santa Barbara, California 93105, U.S.A. Winston Ponder Malacology Department, Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South 2000, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate A/vania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 as the type species of the gastropod genus Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (family BARLEEIDAE Gray, 1857). A. nigrescens is common in shallow water surround- ing the Galapagos Islands and is the species on which the genus was based. Ponder’s (1983) designated type species was erroneously identified as Alvania galapagensis Bartsch, 1911, a similar deep water species known only from the type material. Keywords. Taxonomy; nomenclature; Gastropoda; Lirobarleeia; Lirobarleeia nigrescens; Lirobarleeia galapagensis; Galapagos Islands. 1. Ponder (1983, p. 243) established the genus Lirobarleeia based on his study (pp. 233-242) of a number of species of the family BARLEEIDAE Gray, 1857. He designated Alvania galapagensis Bartsch, 1911 (pp. 347, pl. 30, fig. 9) as the type of the genus, believing his work on the anatomical, radular, opercular and shell characteristics to be conducted on specimens of this species. The species Ponder studied and described as the type of Lirobarleeia is common in shallow water in the Galapagos Islands, whereas the true 4. galapagensis is known from a single lot (the holotype and two paratypes, catalog no. USNM 207590, in the United States National Museum, Washington) dredged from deep waters (1160 meters) near the Galapagos Islands by the U.S. Fisheries Bureau steamer Albatross. Ponder’s (1983, figs. 12A—D) illus- trations were of specimens from Santa Cruz Island in the Galapagos, now housed in the Australian Museum, Sydney: the shell, protoconch and operculum were of specimen no. AMS C.137206 and the radula was of specimen no. AMS C.137207. 2. Hertz (1994, figs. 1-3) figured the holotype of Alvania galapagensis Bartsch, 1911 and specimen AMS C. 137206 identified by Ponder (1983) as A. galapagensis, and described the differences between the two. Ponder (1983, p. 244) synonymized his ‘A. galapagensis’ with Alvania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 (p. 8, pl. 2, fig. 5) and Hertz (1994, p. 110) confirmed the type species of Lirobarleeia as A. nigrescens. This species was originally described and illustrated from a single specimen (catalog no. USNM 472621 in the United States National Museum), collected during Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1938 Presidential cruise from San Diego, California to 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Pensacola, Florida via the Panama Canal, and reportedly (pp. 8, 18) found in a tide pool on Old Providence Island in the Caribbean Sea (Isla de Providencia, Colombia). However, the locality data are probably incorrect and the true type locality was the Galapagos Islands where the expedition extensively collected during the cruise (see Ponder, 1983, p. 244; Hertz, 1994, p. 113). No specimens of this species have been reported from the Caribbean in the 57 years since A. nigrescens was first found. 3. Lirobarleeia nigrescens (Bartsch & Rehder, 1939) is the most common species of Lirobareelia in the Galapagos Islands but has been misidentified in the past because of its general similarity to Alvania galapagensis Bartsch, 1911. The latter is a deep water species that is more pear-shaped, with more flattened and widely separated nodes and less channeled sutures than L. nigrescens. A. galapagensis is known only from the holotype and two paratypes and no live specimens have ever been collected. Its correct generic placement is uncertain; it is tentatively included in Lirobarleeia based only on shell characters since as yet there have been no anatomical studies. Consequently, because so little is known about this taxon, and because its generic placement has not been confirmed, it would not be suitable as the type species of Lirobarleeia. 4. Hertz (1994, p. 116) noted that, since Ponder’s extensive anatomical studies to support the creation of the genus Lirobarleeia were all conducted on specimens of L. nigrescens (L. galapagensis of Ponder, 1983) and it was clearly this species that was intended as the type of Lirobarleeia, it seemed appropriate that L. nigrescens be specified as the type species of the genus. We are accordingly submitting our application to the Commission under the provisions of Articles 70b and 79a of the Code. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 and to designate Alvania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Alvania nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939, as published in the binomen A/vania nigrescens (specific name of the type species of Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983). References Bartsch, P. 1911. The Recent and fossil mollusks of the genus A/vania from the west coast of America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 41: 333-362. Bartsch, P. & Rehder, H.A. 1939. Mollusks collected on the Presidential Cruise of 1938. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 98(10): 1-18. Hertz, J. 1994. Review of the type species of Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983. The Veliger, 37(1): 110-116. Ponder, W.F. 1983. Review of the genera of the Barleeidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Rissoacea), Records of the Australian Museum, 35(6): 231-281. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 173 Case 2977 Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 (currently Bathyarca pectunculoides and B. philippiana; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of the specific names Carmen Salas Departamento de Biologia Animal, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad de Malaga, E-29071 Malaga, Spain Serge Gofas Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire de Biologie des Invertébrés marins et Malacologie, 55 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 for two European bivalves. Since 1978 the name Arca grenophia Risso, 1826 has been generally, but incorrectly, adopted as a senior synonym of A. pectunculoides, the type species of Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891; however, A. grenophia is conspecific with A. philippiana. Use of A. grenophia in place of A. philippiana would create considerable confusion and its suppression is proposed. Both A. pectunculoides and A. philippiana are widely distributed from Norway to southern Morocco, the Canary Islands, the Azores and seamounts of the North Atlantic, and the Mediterranean. Both were originally described from Pleistocene fossils. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Bivalvia; Bathyarca; Bathyarca pectunculoides; B. philippiana; B. grenophia. 1. Risso (1826, p. 313) described Arca grenophia from a shell from the ‘régions coralligenes’ of the surroundings of Nice in Mediterranean France. He did not illustrate the taxon. Jeffreys (1879, p. 573) used the name Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 as valid (see paras. 2 and 6 below) and noted: ‘Risso described this species in 1826 as A. grenophia; but the name [grenophia] may be considered obsolete’. Kobelt (1891, p. 213) and Lamy (1907, p. 279) cited Jeffreys’s (1879) comment but neither used the name A. grenophia; Lamy had no access to Risso’s types which were donated to the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris only in 1927. The name Arca grenophia was then ignored until 1978 (para. 6 below). 2. Scacchi (1834, p. 82) described Arca pectunculoides from a Pleistocene fossil from Gravina di Puglia, province of Bari, southern Italy, and later (1835, p. 18, pl. 1, figs. 12a—b) figured it accurately. Some subsequent authors have cited 1833 for Scacchi’s description, others have given 1834. The confusion in dating Scacchi’s publications was noted by Boss (1968, p. 35), who gave 1834 as the correct date of appearance of vol. 6 of Annali Civili del Regno delle due Sicilie. Philippi (1844, p. 44, pl. 15, fig. 3) also gave a good description and illustration of A. pectunculoides in a book which became well known, and stated that he had obtained specimens from 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Scacchi. This established the name in the European literature and its use was followed by several authors (see, for example, Weinkauff, 1867, p. 201; Monterosato, 1875, p. 12; Jeffreys, 1879, p. 572; Hidalgo, 1917, p. 147; Dautzenberg, 1927, p. 280; Coen, 1933, p. 96; Ockelmann, 1958, p. 41; Tebble, 1966, p. 32; Bowden & Heppell, 1966, p. 102; Nordsieck, 1969, p. 22). 3. Philippi (1844, p. 43, pl. 15, fig. 2) described and illustrated Arca obliqua from a Pleistocene fossil from the Lamato valley, province of Catanzaro, southern Italy. The exact date of Philippi’s publication is uncertain; under Article 21c(ii) of the Code it must be taken as December 1844. A. obliqua Philippi was generally accepted as a valid species but authors noted that the name was preoccupied by Arca obliqua Portlock, 1843 (p. 429, pl. 34, fig. 6) and A. obliqua Reeve, 1844 (February; Arca, pl. 6, species 41). Nyst (1848, p. 54) renamed Philippi’s species Arca philippiana. Locard (1899, p. 158) did not mention that the name A. obliqua was preoccupied nor that it had been replaced but emended it to A. obliquata, also preoccupied (by A. obliquata Wood, 1828, p. 6, pl. [2], fig. [Sb] and by A. obliquata Zieten, 1833, p. 93, pl. 70, figs. 2a, 2b). Dautzenberg (1927, p. 281) also overlooked Nyst’s name and renamed the species A. obliquatula. The name A. philippiana was cited, but not used, by Lamy (1907, p. 288) but it has become established in the literature in the last few decades (see, for example, Regteren Altena, 1962, p. 2; Nordsieck, 1969, p. 22; Piani, 1980, p. 181; Hoisaeter, 1986, p. 116; Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli & Bedulli, 1990, p. 278; Smith & Heppell, 1991, p. 59; Poppe & Goto, 1993, p. 44). 4. Kobelt (1891, p. 213) established the new nominal taxon Bathyarca. Under Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834, one of the originally included nominal species, Kobelt noted (in translation) ‘I will establish the subgenus Bathyarca for this species’. A. pectunculoides is thus the type species of Bathyarca by original designation. Bathyarca is cosmopolitan and from geological horizons of Eocene to Recent. It has been considered as valid by Newell (1969, p. 254) and by Oliver & Allen (1980, p. 45), among others. 5. Arnaud (1978, p. 119) revised Risso’s molluscan types in the Paris Muséum and designated the single valve in the Risso collection as the lectotype of Arca grenophia. He noted that A. grenophia was a senior synonym of Arca pectunculoides and, unlike Jeffreys a century earlier, adopted the earlier name. This has been followed, and the name A. grenophia adopted, by a majority of recent authors: Piani (1980, p. 181), Rolan (1989, p. 64), Sabelli, Giannuzzi-Savelli & Bedulli (1990, p. 278), Smith & Heppell (1991, p. 59), Cossignani, Cossignani, Di Nisio & Passamonti (1992, fig. 264), Oliver & Cosel (1992, p. 359), Poppe & Goto (1993, p. 44). The publications include checklists and taxonomic works which are intended to stand as references for many years. A few authors (Hoisaeter, 1986, p. 116 and Barash & Danin, 1992, p. 234) have ignored the change and continued to use the name Bathyarca pectunculoides. 6. A re-examination of Risso’s A. grenophia lectotype in the Paris Muséum shows that it is conspecific with A. philippiana Nyst, 1848, and not with A. pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834, as assumed since 1879. The lectotype agrees with Risso’s original figure (not published until Arnaud, 1978, pl. 12, fig. 225) so it is quite certain that the specimen is actually Risso’s type. The specimen is elongate (7 mm), its hinge has seven anterior and 11 posterior teeth, and externally the shell has a radial depression in its anterior third, all enabling unambiguous identification as A. philippiana. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 175 A. pectunculoides is smaller, has only three teeth on each side of the hinge, and is shorter and regularly convex. The use of the name A. grenophia in the sense defined by Risso’s type specimen would lead to considerable confusion. To remove the ambiguity of usage of A. grenophia as a senior synonym of A. pectunculoides, and to conserve the name A. philippiana, we propose that A. grenophia Risso, 1826 be suppressed. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name grenophia Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Arca grenophia, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834, as published in the binomen Arca pectuncu- loides (specific name of the type species of Bathyarca Kobelt, 1891); (b) philippiana Nyst, 1848, as published in the binomen Arca philippiana; (4) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) grenophia Risso, 1826, as published in the binomen Arca grenophia and as suppressed in (1) above; (b) obliqua Philippi, 1844, as published in the binomen Arca obliqua (a junior homonym of Arca obliqua Portlock, 1843 and of A. obliqua Reeve, 1844); (c) obliquata Locard, 1899, as published in the binomen Arca obliquata (a junior objective synonym of Arca obliqua Philippi, 1844 and of A. philippiana Nyst, 1848, and a junior homonym of Arca obliquata Wood, 1828 and of A. obliquata Zieten, 1833); (d) obliquatula Dautzenberg, 1927, as published in the binomen Arca obliquatula (a junior objective synonym of Arca obliqua Philippi, 1844 and of A. philippiana Nyst, 1848). References Arnaud, P. 1978. Révision des taxa malacologiques méditerranéens introduits par Antoine Risso. Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Nice, 5: 101-150. Barash, A. & Danin, Z. 1992. Annotated list of Mediterranean molluscs of Israel and Sinai. Fauna Palaestina. Mollusca 1. 405 pp., 372 figs. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, Jerusalem. Boss, K.J. 1968. The conchological papers of Arcangelo Scacchi. The Nautilus, 82(1): 35-36. Bowden, J. & Heppell, D. 1966. Revised list of British Mollusca. 1. Introduction; Nuculacea — Ostreacea. Journal of Conchology, 26(2): 99-124. Coen, G. 1933. Saggio di una sylloge molluscorum Adriaticorum. Regio Comitato Talas- sografico Italiano Memoria, 192. 186 pp. Cossignani, T., Cossignani V., Di Nisio, A. & Passamonti, M. 1992. Atlante delle conchiglie del Medio Adriatico. 40 pp., 417 figs. L’Informatore Piceno, Ancona. Dautzenberg, P. 1927. Mollusques provenant des campagnes scientifiques du Prince Albert ler de Monaco dans l’Océan Atlantique et dans le Golfe de Gascogne. Résultats des Campagnes Scientifiques Accomplies sur son Yacht par Albert ler, Prince Souverain de Monaco, 72: 1-400. 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Hidalgo, J.G. 1917. Fauna malacologica de Espafia, Portugal y las Baleares: moluscos testaceos marinos. Trabajos del Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Zoologica, 30: 1-752. Hoisaeter, T. 1986. An annotated check-list of marine molluscs of the Norwegian coast and adjacent waters. Sarsia, 71(2): 73-145 Jeffreys, J.G. 1879. On the Mollusca procured during the ‘Lightning’ and ‘Porcupine’ expeditions, 1868-70. Part 2. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1879(3): 553-588. Kobelt, W. 1891. Die Gattung Arca L. In: Martini & Chemnitz Systematisches Conchylien Cabinet (Kiister, H.C., Ed.), vol. 8, part 2. 238 pp., 49 pl. Bauer & Raspe, Nirnberg. Lamy, E. 1907. Révision des Arca vivants du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris. Journal de Conchyliologie, 55: 1-111, 199-307. Locard, A. 1899. Les coquilles marines au large des cétes de France. 198 pp. Bailliére, Paris. Monterosato, T.A. di. 1875. Nuova rivista delle conchiglie mediterranee. A/ti della Accademia di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti di Palermo, (2)5: 1—S0. Newell, N.D. 1969. Superfamily Arcacea Lamarck, 1809. Pp. 250-269 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on invertebrate paleontology, part N, vol. 1, Mollusca 6, Bivalvia. Geological Society of America & University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Nordsieck, F. 1969. Die europdischen Meeresmuscheln ( Bivalvia). Vom Eismeer bis Kapverden, Mittelmeer und Schwarzes Meer. xiii, 256 pp. Fischer, Stuttgart. Nyst, P.H.J. 1848. Tableau synoptique et synonymique des espéces vivantes et fossiles de la famille des Arcacées. Genre Arca. Mémoires de l’'Académie Royale des Sciences, des Lettres et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 22. 79 pp. Ockelmann, W.K. 1958. The zoology of East Greenland. Marine Lamellibranchiata. Meddelelser om Gronland, 122(4): 1-256. Oliver, P.G. & Allen, J.A. 1980. The functional and adaptive morphology of the deep-sea species of Arcacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Atlantic. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 291: 45-76. Oliver, P.G. & Cosel, R. yon. 1992. Taxonomy of tropical West African bivalves. IV. Arcidae. Bulletin du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, (4)14(A, 2): 293-381. Philippi, R.A. 1844. Enumeratio molluscorum Siciliae cum viventium tum in tellure tertiaria fossilium, quae in itinere suo observavit, vol. 2. iv, 303 pp., pls. 13-28. Anton, Halle. Piani, P. 1980. Catalogo dei molluschi conchiferi viventi nel Mediterraneo. Bollettino Malacologico, 16(5—6): 113-224. Poppe, G. & Goto, Y. 1993. European seashells, vol. 2 (Scaphopoda, Bivalvia, Cephalopoda). 221 pp. Hemmen, Wiesbaden. Portlock, J.E. 1843. Report of the geology of the County of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone and Fermanagh. xxxi, 784 pp., 54 pls. Milliken, Dublin. Reeve, L.A. 1844. Conchologia Iconica: or, illustrations of the shells of molluscous animals, vol. 2. London. Regteren Altena, C.O. van. 1962. Notes on some Nuculacea and Arcacea from the Neogene and Lower Pleistocene of the Netherlands. Basteria, 26(1): 1-4. Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe Meéridionale et particuliérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. vii, 439 pp., 12 pls. Levrault, Paris. Rolan, E. 1989. Moluscos de la Ria de Vigo. 2. Poliplacéforos, Bivalvos, Escafopodos, Cefalopodos. Thalassas, anexo 2: 1-276 Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1990. Catalogo annotato dei molluschi marini del Mediterraneo, vol. 1. xiv, 348 pp. Societa Italiana di Malacologia, Bologna. Scacchi, A. 1834, 1835. Notizie intorno alle conchiglie ed a’zoofiti fossili che si trovano nelle vicinanze di Gravina in Puglia. Annali Civili del Regno delle due Sicilie, 6: 75-84 (1834); 7: 5-18 (1835); reprint 1836, 74 pp., 2 pl. Tipografia Fernandes, Napoli. Smith, S.M. & Heppell, D. 1991. Checklist of British marine Mollusca. National Museums of Scotland Information Series, 11: 1-114. Tebble, N. 1966. British bivalve seashells. 212 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 177 Weinkauff, H.C. 1867. Die Conchylien des Mittelmeeres, ihre geographische und geologisches Verbreitung, vol. 1. xix, 307 pp. Fischer, Cassel. Wood, W. 1828. Supplement to the Index Testaceologicus, or a catalogue of shells, British and foreign. 59 pp., [480] figs. Author, London. Zieten, C.H. 1833. Die Versteinerungen Wuertembergs Dr Hartmann befindlichen Petrefacten, mit Angabe der Gebirgs-Formationen, in welchen dieselben vorkommen, und der Fundorte (Les pétrifactions de Wurtemburg ...), part 12. Pp. 89-96, pls. 67-72. Stuttgart. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Case 2992 Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): proposed conservation of the specific name Wolfgang Zeidler South Australian Museum, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia 5000, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 for a pelagic amphipod (family PRONOIDAE) which is widely distributed in tropical and temperate oceans. The name is in universal use but is threatened by a senior subjective synonym which has been incorrectly used for an entirely different species. The earlier name is Typhis rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830, which has been regarded as a synonym of Hemityphis tenuimanus Claus, 1879 (family PLATYSCELIDAE) since Stephensen (1925). A recent examination of the syntypes of T. rapax in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris has demonstrated that they are conspecific with P. crustulum. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphipoda; Parapronoe crustulum; Hemityphis tenuimanus; Hemityphis rapax; pelagic amphipods. 1. The specific name of Typhis rapax was established by Milne-Edwards (1830, p. 395) for a specimen or specimens found in the latitude of the Canary Islands. The species was distinguished from another new species (7. ferus) by means of a key but no additional description or locality data was given. Ten years later Milne-Edwards (1840, p. 97) provided a brief description and said of the locality “Cette espéce se trouve dans les mémes parages que la précédente’, referring to Typhis ferus which was captured near the Canary Islands. 2. The specific name of Typhis rapax is listed by Milne-Edwards (1838, p. 286), and Bate (1862, p. 329) repeated Milne-Edwards’s (1840) description. Apart from these two references it is not referred to again as a species of Typhis; its status is considered uncertain due to the brief description and lack of illustrations. Claus (1879, p. 6) thought that Milne-Edwards’s species might belong to his genus Schizoscelus Claus, 1879, and Bovallius (1887, p. 44) listed it as such. On the other hand, Stebbing (1888, p. 1503) believed that it most likely belonged to the PRONOIDAE. 3. Stephensen (1925, p. 220), under the specific name of Hemityphis tenuimanus Claus, 1879, reported “Quite by chance we are able to prove with certainty that Typhis rapax is Hemityphis tenuimanus, in that our Zool. Mus. possesses a specimen 3, 5mm, somewhat defective, from the ‘Atlantic’, presented in Kréyer’s time by Milne-Edwards under the name of T. rapax; though the chela of p. 2 is broken there is no doubt that it is H. tenuimanus’. 4. The specific name of Hemityphis tenuimanus was established by Claus (1879, p. 12) who gave a relatively detailed description followed by good illustrations in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 179 1887 (pl. 4, figs. 1-13). This nominal species was therefore well established and easily recognised and, until Stephensen (1925), was referred to in the scientific literature by Stebbing (1888, p. 1472); Chevreux (1900, p. 149) and Stewart (1913, p. 259). 5. Most researchers since 1925 have accepted Stephensen’s suggested synonymy of T. rapax and H. tenuimanus, referring to the species described by Claus in 1879 as Hemityphis rapax (Milne-Edwards, 1830). The only exceptions seem to be Spandl (1927, p. 233) who must have been unaware of Stephensen’s remarks, and Vinogradov et al. (1982, p. 446) and Vinogradov (1990, p. 85; 1993, p. 46) who did not accept the proposed synonymy. 6. Recently I examined two specimens labelled Typhis rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830 in the collections of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN-Am4809) and determined not only that they are the syntypes but that they are the same species as Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 (Zeidler, 1996). As mentioned above, Stebbing (1888, p. 1503) suggested that Milne-Edwards’s species may belong to the PRONOIDAE and the description given by Milne-Edwards (1840, p. 97) is not inconsistent with P. crustulum. In fact Milne-Edwards described the first pair of pereopoda as simple, which is unlike H. tenuimanus in which the first pereopoda are partly chelate. 7. The specific name of Parapronoe crustulum was established by Claus (1879, p. 31) who gave an adequate description, followed by good illustrations in 1887 (pl. 15, figs. 1-15). The species is readily distinguished from its three currently recognised congeners by the shape of the gnathopods and the distinct posterodistal excavation of the first epimeral plates. It is a fairly uncommon species, widely distributed in tropical and temperate regions of the world’s oceans. The name Parapronoe crustulum has been extensively used, e.g. Shoemaker (1945, p. 246), Reid (1955, p. 24), Hurley (1960, p. 281), Dick (1970, p. 66), Yoo (1971, p. 62), Brusca (1973, p. 19), Thurston (1976, p. 437), Brusca (1981, p. 44), Vinogradov, Volkov & Semenova (1982, p. 371). 8. The rediscovery of syntype material of Typhis rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830 and my examination of it, confirming it to be conspecific with Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879, leads to the possibility of replacing the specific name of crustulum with rapax as the senior synonym. However, the name rapax has been incorrectly used as a senior synonym of Hemityphis tenuimanus, which belongs to a quite different family. Adoption of the earlier name for P. crustulum would therefore cause unnecessary confusion in the literature and I propose that it be suppressed. The valid name of the species generally known as Hemityphis rapax since 1925 (see para. 5 above) is H. tenuimanus Claus, 1879. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830, as published in the binomen Typhis rapax, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name crustulum Claus, 1879, as published in the binomen Parapronoe crustulum; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830, as published in the binomen Typhis rapax and as suppressed in (1) above. 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Acknowledgements I am most grateful to Mrs Danielle Defaye, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France, for searching the collections in her care for the type specimens of Milne-Edwards and for making specimens available to me on loan. References Bate, C.S. 1862. Catalogue of the specimens of Amphipodous Crustacea in the collection of the British Museum. 399 pp., 58 pls. London. Bovallius, C. 1887. Systematical list of the Amphipoda Hyperiidea. Bihang till Kungliga Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 11(16): 1—SO. Brusca, G.J. 1973. Pelagic Amphipoda from the waters near Oahu, Hawaii, excluding the family Scinidae. Pacific Science, 27(1): 8-27. i Brusca, G.J. 1981. Annotated keys to the Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda) of North American coastal waters. Technical Reports of the Allan Hancock Foundation, 5: 1-76. Chevreux, E. 1900. Amphipodes provenant des campagnes de /’Hirondelle. Pp. 1-195 in: Résultats des campagnes scientifiques accomplies sur son Yacht, par Albert Ier, Prince Souverain de Monaco, vol. 16, pp. 1-195. Claus, C. 1879. Die Gattungen und Arten der Platysceliden in systematischer Ubersicht. Arbeiten aus dem Zoologischen Institut der Universitat zu Wien, 2: 1-52. Claus, C. 1887. Die Platysceliden. 77 pp., 25 pls. Holder, Vienna. Dick, R.I. 1970. Hyperiidea (Crustacea: Amphipoda). Keys to South African genera and species, and a distribution list. Annals of the South African Museum, 57(3): 25-86. Hurley, D.E. 1960. Pelagic amphipods of the N.Z.O.1. Pacific cruise, March 1956. New Zealand Journal of Science, 3(2): 274-289. Milne-Edwards, H. 1830. Extrait de recherches pour servir a ‘histoire naturelle des Crustacés Amphipodes. Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 20: 353-399. Milne-Edwards, H. 1838. Histoire Naturelle des animaux sans vertébres ... par J.B.P.A. de Lamarck. Ed. 2. Revue et augmentée de notes présentant les faits nouveaux dont la science s’est enrichie jusqu’a ce jour; Par MM. G.P. Deshayes et H. Milne-Edwards. Tome Cinquieme. Arachnides, crustacés, annelides, cirrhipédes. 699 pp. Bailliere, Paris & London. Milne-Edwards, H. 1840. Histoire naturelle des Crustacés comprenant l’anatomie, la physiologie, et la classification de ces animaux, vol. 3. 638 pp., 42 pls. Paris. Reid, D.M. 1955. Amphipoda (Hyperiidea) of the coast of tropical West Africa. Atlantide Report, 3: 7-40. Shoemaker, C.R. 1945. The amphipods of the Bermuda Oceanographic Expeditions, 1929-1931. Zoologica, New York, 30: 185-266. Spandl, H. 1927. Die Hyperiiden (exkl. Hyperiidea Gammaroidea und Phronimidae) der Deutschen Siidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903. Deutsche Stidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903, Zoologie, 19(11): 145-287. Stebbing, T.R.R. 1888. Amphipoda. Report of the scientific results of the voyage of H.M.S. ‘Challenger’ during the years 1873-1876, 29: 1-1737. Stephensen, K. 1925. Hyperiidea-Amphipoda 3. Lycaeopsidae, Pronoidae, Lycaeidae, Brachyscelidae, Oxycephalidae, Parascelidae, Platyscelidae. Report on the Danish Oceanographical Expeditions 1908-10, to the Mediterranean and adjacent seas, part 2, Biology, D5: 151-252. Stewart, D.A. 1913. A report on the extra-Antarctic Amphipoda Hyperiidea collected by the ‘Discovery’. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (12)8: 245-264. Thurston, M.H. 1976. The vertical distribution and diurnal migration of the Crustacea Amphipoda collected during the SOND cruise, 1965. Il. The Hyperiidea and general discussion. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 56: 383-470. Vinogradov, G.M. 1990. Pelagic amphipods (Amphipoda: Crustacea) from the south-eastern Pacific. Transactions of the P.P. Shirshov Institute of Oceanology, 124: 27-104. {In Russian]. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 181 Vinogradoy, G.M. 1993. Hyperiid amphipods from the Walters Shoal (southwestern Indian Ocean). Arthropoda Selecta, 2(1): 41-48. Vinogradov, M.E., Volkov, A.F. & Semenova, T.N. 1982. Amfipody-Giperiidy (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) Mrovogo Okeanea. Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Opredeliteli po Faune SSSR, 132: 1-492. Yoo, K.I. 1971. Pelagic hyperiids (Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) of the western North Pacific Ocean. Journal of the National Academy of Science, Republic of Korea. Natural Science Series, 10: 38-89. Zeidler, W. 1992. Hyperiid amphipods (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea) collected recently from eastern Australian waters. Records of the Australian Museum, 44: 85-133. Zeidler, W. 1996. On the identity of Typhis rapax Milne-Edwards, 1830 (Crustacea: Amphipoda: Hyperiidea). Crustaceana, 69(3). 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Case 3003 Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 as the type species F. Alvarez Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Lower Devonian brachiopod name Meristella Hall, 1859 in its accustomed usage. Hall included only one species, Atrypa naviformis Hall, 1843, which was therefore the type species by monotypy. However, A. naviformis is poorly known and seldom cited. The desig- nation by Miller (1889) of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 as type species is almost universally accepted and should be validated. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; Lower Devonian; Meristella; Meristella laevis. 1. The name Meristella was first used by Hall (1859, p. 78) in the 12th Annual Report of the Regents of the University of the State of New York. Hall listed a number of species giving both their original name and the current name. The name Atrypa naviformis Hall, 1843 (p. 72) was changed to ‘Merista? naviformis’, with a footnote which reads: ‘This species, and some others of the Clinton and Niagara groups, differ somewhat from true Meristae; and should these differences prove of generic importance, I propose for them the name Meristella’. Under Article 15 of the Code, the conditional nature of this proposal does not prevent availability. Atrypa naviformis was the only species named with reference to Meristella and is therefore its type species by monotypy. 2. A year later Hall (1860, p. 74) published a detailed description of Meristella with the suffix (n.g.), adding that the name was ‘proposed by me last year’. He (p. 75) included as examples ‘Meristella laevis, M. bella and M. arcuata of the Lower Helderberg group; M. cylindrica and M. oblata of the Niagara and Clinton groups’. He did not refer to M. naviformis. 3. Davidson (1882, p. 83) gave Meristella arcuata (Hall) as type species of Meristella, and this was also accepted as the type by Schuchert (1897, p. 266). 4. Miller (1889, p. 354) ignored Davidson’s paper and gave Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 (p. 120) as the type species of Meristella. He did not include Atrypa naviformis amongst the 20 species he included in Meristella, instead placing it in Athyris McCoy, 1844. Miller’s designation of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem as type species of Meristella was accepted by Hall & Clarke (1893, p. 75) who discussed in detail the characteristics of the various species assigned by Hall to the genus in previous papers, stressing the inadequacy of using A. naviformis as type and the appropriateness of using A. /aevis instead. 5. Atrypa laevis was adopted as type species of Meristella in the first edition of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology by Boucot, Johnson & Staton (1965, p. H656), Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 183 and is taken as such by virtually all recent authors (e.g. Havlicek, 1956, p. 78; Savage, 1971, p. 413; Nikiforova, Modzalevskaia & Bassett, 1985, p. 53; a further 9 references using the same type species by a further 16 authors in the last 50 years are held by the Commission Secretariat). It is intended to give A. /aevis as the type species of Meristella in the forthcoming second edition of the Treatise. 6. To maintain the widely accepted concept of Meristella I propose that Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842 be accepted as its type species. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Meristella Hall, 1859 prior to that by Miller (1889) of Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Meristella Hall, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Miller (1889) Atrypa laevis Vanuxem, 1842; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /aevis Vanuxem, 1842, as published in the binomen A/¢rypa laevis (specific name of the type species of Meristella Hall, 1859). References Boucot, A.J., Johnson, J.G. & Staton, R.D. 1965. Suborder Athyrididina Boucot, Johnson & Staton, 1964. Pp. H654-667 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part H (Brachiopoda), vol. 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Davidson, T. 1882. A monograph of British fossil Brachiopoda. Devonian and Silurian supplements. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 5(1): 1-134. Hall, J. 1843. Geology of New York, part 4, comprising the survey of the fourth geological district. Natural History of New York. 525 pp., 19 pls. Albany. Hall, J. 1859. Contributions to the palaeontology of New York. Catalogue of the species of fossils, described in volumes I., II. and III. of the Palaeontology of New York. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report, 12: 63-96. Hall, J. 1860. Observations on the genera Athyris (= Spirigera), Merista (= Camarium), Meristella and Leiorhynchus. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report, 13: 73-76. Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1893. An introduction to the study of the genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda. II. Brachiopoda Articulata (continued). Paleontology of New York, 8(2): 1-317. Havlicek, V. 1956. The brachiopods of the Branik and Hlubocepy Limestones in the immediate vicinity of Prague. Sbornik Ustredniho Ustavu Geologického, 22: 535-665. [In Czech]. Miller, S.A. 1889. North American geology and paleontology for the use of amateurs, students and scientists. 718 pp., 1194 figs. Cincinnati, Ohio. Nikiforova, O.I., Modzaleyskaia, T.L. & Bassett, M.G. 1985. Review of the Upper Silurian and Lower Devonian articulate brachiopods of Podolia. Palaeontology, Special Papers, 34: 1-66. Sayage, N.M. 1971. Brachiopods from the Lower Devonian Mandagery Park Formation, New South Wales. Palaeontology, 14: 387-422. Schuchert, C. 1897. A synopsis of American fossil Brachiopoda, including bibliography and synonymy. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 87: 1464. Vanuxem, L. 1842. Geology of New York, part 3, comprising the survey of the third geological district. Natural History of New York. 306 pp., 80 figs. Albany. 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Case 2960 Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia, Squamata): proposed conservation of the specific name Hobart M. Smith Department of Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A. Arnold G. Kluge Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A. Aaron M. Bauer Biology Department, Villanova University, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085-1699, U.S.A. David Chiszar Department of Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0345, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the widely used specific name of Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Bibron, 1836 for an all-female triploid species of gecko widespread from India to northern Australia and Polynesia, which has also been introduced into Florida and the Bahama Islands. The name is threatened by the long enigmatic but now assured senior subjective synonym H. peruvianus Wiegmann, 1835. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; GEKKONIDAE; gecko; Hemidactylus garnotii. 1. Wiegmann (1835, p. 240) described the new gecko species Hemidactylus peruvianus on the basis of a single female specimen (catalogue no. ZMB 395 in the Museum fiir Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin) ostensibly from near Tacna, Peru. Although listed as a valid name, even as recently as 1970, the species remained enigmatic because it was ‘never found again, at the type-locality or elsewhere’ (see Peters & Donoso-Barros, 1970, p. 142). 2. In 1969, however, Kluge & Eckardt (1969, pp. 658-659) reported their discovery that Wiegmann’s holotype of Hemidactylus peruvianus represented a species generally known since 1836 (Duméril & Bibron, 1836, p. 368) as Hemidactylus garnotii. The synonymy was reiterated in two more recent monographs by Kluge (1991, 1993). Although widely distributed (India, southeast Asia, the Philippines, through Indonesia to northern Australia and Polynesia), there are no confirmed records of the species for the Western Hemisphere, except for recent introductions into Florida and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 185 the Bahama Islands. The holotype of H. peruvianus presumably has erroneous locality data and was collected elsewhere on F.J.F. Meyen’s trip around the world (see Kluge & Eckardt, 1969, p. 659). 3. Duméril & Bibron (1836, p. 369) recorded that Hemidactylus garnotii was based on two specimens collected by Garnot and Lesson from ‘Vile de Taiti’ (Tahiti). The syntypes are numbered MNHN 2318 and 2318A in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (see Bauer & Henle, 1994, p. 123). Duméril & Bibron (pp. 369-370) also included H. peruvianus in their work, noting that they had reproduced [in French] Wiegmann’s description of Meyen’s specimen ‘n’ayant pas encore eu Yoccasion d’observer aucun échantillon appartenant a cette espéce’. 4. The specific name of Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Bibron, 1836 is a junior subjective synonym of H. peruvianus Wiegmann, 1835 but Kluge & Eckardt (1969, p. 659) properly concluded that ‘it is in the best interest of nomenclatural stability to continue to use the most often cited garnotii rather than the little known name peruvianus which predates it’. Bauer & Gunther (1991, p. 289) agreed in their listing of types in the Berlin Museum. 5. However, as long as the name H. peruvianus remains ostensibly valid it could be revived by any worker rigidly applying the Principle of Priority (Article 23a of the Code). Article 23b makes it clear that if application of that Principle in any given case disturbs stability, existing usage should be maintained and the case submitted to the Commission for a ruling. 6. The specific name of Hemidactylus garnotii has been consistently used for this species of gecko for over 150 years, whereas H. peruvianus was never properly applied until 1969, when Kluge & Eckardt discovered its identity, and the name has never been used as valid for the species to which it actually applies. The exhaustive synonymy for H. garnotii in Bauer & Henle (1994, pp. 123-125) cites 83 usages of the species-group name from 1843-1991, in different works by at least 70 authors. Not since 1934 has any other name been used for the species, during which time H. peruvianus was used twice without knowledge of the species to which it applies. The case for the conservation of the name garnotii clearly meets the prima facie criteria of Article 79c for the conservation of a long-used junior synonym threatened by an unused senior synonym. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name peruvianus Wiegmann, 1835, as published in the binomen Hemidactylus peruvianus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name garnotii Dumeril & Bibron, 1836, as published in the binomen Hemidactylus garnotii; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the name peruvianus Wiegmann, 1835, as published in the binomen Hemidactylus peruvianus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Bauer, A.M. & Giinther, R. 1991. An annotated type catalogue of the geckos (Reptilia: Gekkonidae) in the Zoological Museum, Berlin. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin, 67(2): 279-310. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Bauer, A.M. & Henle, K. 1994. Familia Gekkonidae (Reptilia, Sauria). Part 1. Australia and Oceania. Das Tierreich, 109: 1-306. Duméril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1836. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle complete des reptiles, vol. 3. 518 pp. Roret, Paris. Kluge, A.G. 1991. Checklist of gekkonoid lizards. Smithsonian Herpetological Information Service, 85: 1-35. Kluge, A.G. 1993. Gekkonoid lizard taxonomy. Dactylus, International Gecko Society Special Publications, 1: 1-245. Kluge, A.G. & Eckardt, M.J. 1969. Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril and Bibron, a triploid all-female species of gekkonid lizard. Copeia, 1969: 651-664. Peters, J.A. & Donoso-Barros, R. 1970. Catalogue of the neotropical Squamata. Part 2. Lizards and amphisbaenians. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 297: 1-293. Wiegmann, A.F.A. 1835. Beitrage zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, von Dr F.J.F. Meyen, M.d.A.d.N. Siebente Abhandlung. Amphibien. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlichen Leopoldinisch-Carolinischen Akademie de Naturforscher, 17(1): 183-268. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 187 Case 2969 Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] and Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, [1809] (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names M. Ralph Browning & Richard C. Banks National Biological Service, National Museum of Natural History, MRC 111, Washington, D.C. 20560-0111, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific names of Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] for the cedar waxwing (family BOMBYCILLIDAE) and of Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, [1809] for the North American house wren (family TROGLODYTIDAE). The names are threatened by the little used senior subjective synonyms Ampelis americana and Sylvia domestica respectively, both of Wilson (1808). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; cedar waxwing; North American house wren; Bombycilla cedrorum; Troglodytes aedon. 1. Wilson (1808, p. 107, pl. 7, fig. 1) described, illustrated and named the cedar waxwing as Ampelis americana and (p. 129, pl. 8, fig. 3) the North American house wren as Sy/via domestica. He gave the locality of A. americana as Philadelphia and other parts of Pennsylvania and Canada, and noted that it was ‘also found as far south as Mexico’. (The bird breeds in the northern United States and subarctic Canada and winters from southern Canada to the Greater Antilles and northern South America). The locality of S. domestica was given as Pennsylvania. Hellmayr (1935, p. 104) gave the type locality of A. americana as Pennsylvania, and Oberholser (1934, p. 87) gave that of S. domestica as Philadelphia. 2. Vieillot ({1808], p. 88, pl. 57) described, illustrated and named the cedar waxwing as the new genus and species Bombycilla cedrorum, and gave the locality as ‘en Amérique depuis le Canada jusqu’au Mexique’. The type locality was equated to eastern North America by the American Ornithologists’ Union (A.O.U.) (1931, p. 270) and was further restricted to Pennsylvania by Burleigh (1963, p. 178). Vieillot ({1809], p. 52, pl. 107) also described, illustrated and named the North American house wren as Troglodytes aedon. No locality was given. The type locality was given as northeastern North America by Oberholser (1904, p. 201), who later restricted it to New York City (Oberholser, 1934, p. 87). Vieillot ({1809]) included two nominal species (aedon and arundinaceus) in his new genus Troglodytes; Baird (1858, p. 366) designated aedon as the type species. 3. The specific name of Ampelis americana Wilson was listed as a junior synonym of Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot in standard synonymies (see, for example, Ridgway, 1904, p. 112; Hellmayr, 1935, p. 104) because the latter name was considered to have priority over americana. The date of publication of the name cedrorum was given by several early authors (for example, A.O.U., 1895, p. 260; Ridgway, 1904, p. 111) as 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 1807, the date on the title page of vol. | of Vieillot’s Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l’Amerique septentrionale. Similarly, the date of publication of the name Troglodytes aedon Vieillot was believed by Oberholser (1904) and others to be 1807. 4. The date of the part of Vieillot’s publication that contained Bombycilla cedrorum has been shown to be September 1808 (see, for example, Hellmayr, 1935, p. 104 and Browning & Monroe, 1991, p. 396). Since the precise date in the month is unknown it must be taken as 30 September (Article 21c of the Code). Volume | of Wilson’s American Ornithology, which included Ampelis americana, was published before 21 September 1808 (see Faxon, 1901, p. 216; Hunter, 1983). The specific name of americana has had very limited usage (see references in Ridgway, 1904, p. 112) and is not in current use. The description and illustration of americana Wilson cannot be identified with either the northern or western subspecies of B. cedrorum. The name B. cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] has been universally used in recent publications (see, for example, Greenway, 1960, p. 371; A.O.U., 1983, p. 581; Godfrey, 1986, p. 440; Sibley & Monroe, 1990, p. 506). We propose that the usage of Vieillot’s name cedrorum be maintained by the suppression of americana Wilson. 5. The name Troglodytes domesticus (Wilson, 1808) was listed as a synonym of T. aedon Vieillot, ‘1807’ by Ridgway (1904, p. 581), Oberholser (1904, p. 201) and Hellmayr (1934, p. 217), who all believed the name aedon to have priority (para. 3 above). Subsequently Oberholser (1934) pointed out that the name domestica has priority over aedon because Wilson’s American ornithology was issued in 1808 but the part of Vieillot’s Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l’Amerique septentrionale that contained 7. aedon was not issued until May 1809. Oberholser (1974, pp. 992-993) restated these dates and the priority of domestica. Browning and Monroe (1991, p. 396) confirmed the priority of domestica. 6. Phillips (1962, p. 345) and Phillips, Marshall & Monson (1964, p. 117) used the name Troglodytes aedon, but later Monson & Phillips (1981, p. 126) and Phillips (1986, p. 141) adopted 7. domesticus for the same species. In contrast, however, the name Troglodytes domesticus was used by Oberholser (1934; 1974, pp. 631, 992-993), Aldrich & Bole (1937, p. 113), Sutton & Burleigh (1940, p. 240), Huey (1942, p. 368), Sutton & Pettingill (1943, p. 283), Brandt (1951, p. 677) and Rea (1983, p. 205), some of whom (Aldrich, in Jewett, Taylor, Shaw & Aldrich, 1953, p. 495; Burleigh, 1958, p. 422: 1972, p. 269; Sutton, 1967, p. 406) subsequently adopted 7. aedon for the taxon. Virtually every major taxonomic compilation has continued the use of aedon, including (but not limited to) A.O.U. (1957, p. 406; 1983, p. 531), Miller, Friedmann, Griscom & Moore (1957, p. 161), Paynter (1960, p. 422), Wolters (1980, p. 432), Godfrey (1986, p. 410) and Sibley & Monroe (1990, p. 562). Likewise, dozens of studies of behavior, ecology and physiology by Kendeigh (see, for example, Kendeigh, 1952) and his students, and virtually every other non-taxonomic compi- lation, have continued the use of T. aedon for the species, one of the most well studied birds of North America. We propose that the specific name domestica Wilson, 1808 be suppressed to allow the maintenance of the current usage of 7. aedon Vieillot, [1809]. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 189 (a) americana Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Ampelis americana; (b) domestica Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Sylvia domestica; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808]: (b) Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809] (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Baird (1858) Troglodytes aedon Vieillot, [1809]; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) cedrorum Vieillot, [1808], as published in the binomen Bombycilla cedrorum (specific name of the type species of Bombycilla Vieillot, [1808}); (b) aedon Vieillot, [1809], as published in the binomen Troglodytes aedon (specific name of the type species of Troglodytes Vieillot, [1809]); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) americana Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Ampelis americana and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) domestica Wilson, 1808, as published in the binomen Sy/via domestica and as suppressed in (1)(b) above. References Aldrich, J.W. & Bole, B.P., Jr. 1937. The birds and mammals of the western slope of the Azuero Peninsula (Republic of Panama). Scientific Publications of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 7: 1-198. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1895. Check-list of North American birds, Ed. 2. 372 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, New York. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1931. Check-list of North American birds, Ed. 4. 691 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1957. Check-list of North American birds, Ed. 5. 691 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, Baltimore. American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, Ed. 6. 877 pp. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Baird, S.F. 1858. Birds of North America. Pacific Railroad Reports. Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean, 1853-6, 9(2): 1—1005. Brandt, H. 1951. Arizona and its bird life. 723 pp. Bird Research Foundation, Cleveland. Browning, M.R. & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1991. Clarifications and corrections of the dates of issue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds. Archives of Natural History, 18(3): 381-405. Burleigh, T.D. 1958. Georgia birds. 746 pp. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Burleigh, T.D. 1963. Geographic variation in the cedar waxwing (Bombycilla cedrorum). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 76: 177-180. Burleigh, T.D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. 467 pp. Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho. Faxon, W. 1901. Early editions of Wilson’s Ornithology. Auk, 18: 216-218. Godfrey, W.E. 1986. The birds of Canada, Ed. 2. 595 pp. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. Greenway, J.C., Jr. 1960. Family Bombycillidae. Pp. 369-373 in Mayr, E. & Greenway, J.C., Jr. (Ed.), Check-list of birds of the world. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters, vol. 9. 506 pp. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hellmayr, C.E. 1934, 1935. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and the adjacent islands. Publications of Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series, 13(7): 1-531 (1934): 13(8): 1-541 (1935). 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Huey, L.M. 1942. A vertebrate faunal survey of the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History, 9: 353-376. Hunter, C. (Ed.). 1983. The life and letters of Alexander Wilson. 456 pp. American Philo- sophical Society, Philadelphia. Jewett, S.G., Taylor, W.P., Shaw, W.T. & Aldrich, J.W. 1953. Birds of Washington State. 767 pp. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Kendeigh, S.C. 1952. Parental care and its evolution in birds. I//inois Biological Monographs, 2(1-3): 1-356. Miller, A.H., Friedmann, H., Griscom, L. & Moore, R.T. 1957. Distributional check-list of the birds of Mexico, part 2. Pacific Coast Avifauna, 33. 436 pp. Monson, G. & Phillips, A.R. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona. 240 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Oberholser, H.C. 1904. A review of the wrens of the genus Troglodytes. Proceedings .of the United States National Museum, 27: 197-211. Oberholser, H.C. 1934. A revision of North American house wrens. Ohio Journal of Science, 34(1): 86-96. Oberholser, H.C. 1974. The bird life of Texas. 2 vols. 1069 pp. University of Texas Press, Austin. Paynter, R.A. 1960. Family Troglodytidae. Pp. 379-440 in Mayr, E. & Greenway, J.C., Jr. (Eds.), Check-list of birds of the world. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters, vol. 9. 506 pp. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Phillips, A.R. 1962. Notas sistematicas sobre Aves Mexicanas. I. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, 32: 333-381. Phillips, A.R. 1986. The known birds of North and Middle America, part 1. \xi, 259 pp. Author, Denver. Phillips, A.R., Marshall, J. & Monson, G. 1964. The birds of Arizona. 212 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Rea, A.M. 1983. Once a river: bird life and habitat changes on the Middle Gila. xiv, 285 pp. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Ridgway, R. 1904. The birds of North and Middle America, part 3. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 50: 1-801. Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. 1111 pp. Yale University Press, New Haven. Sutton, G.M. 1967. Oklahoma birds. 674 pp. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Sutton, G.M. & Burleigh, T.D. 1940. Birds of Las Vigas, Veracruz. Auk, 57: 234-243. Sutton, G.M. & Pettingill, O.S., Jr. 1943. Birds of Linares and Galeana, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, Louisiana State University, 16: 273-291. Vieillot, L.-P. 1807-[1809]. Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de I’ Amérique septentrionale ..., vol. |, iv, 8, 90 pp., pls. 1-57 (1807-[1808]); vol. 2, ii, 74 pp., pls. 57 bis, 58-124 ([1808]-{1809)). Desfray, Paris. Wilson, A. 1808. American ornithology; or, the natural history of the birds of the United States, vol. 1. 158 pp., pls. 1-9. Bradford & Inskeep, Philadelphia. Wolters, H.E. 1977-80. Die Vogelarten der Erde, vols. 3-6. Parey, Hamburg & Berlin. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 191 Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and Aegialia rufa (Fabricius, 1792) (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 2878; see BZN 51: 121-127, 340-341; 52: 71-73, 123-125) David Kral Department of Zoology, Charles University, Vinicna 7, CZ-128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic Iam in complete agreement with the application by Krell, Stebnicka & Holm. The authors have clearly and correctly presented the facts concerning this difficult problem and they have put forward the solution which serves stability in zoological nomenclature. At least two of the species discussed, Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782) and A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783), are widespread in almost the whole of Europe and adjacent parts of Asia and their names appear not just in taxonomic studies, but with increasing frequency, in ecological studies, local faunal lists, red data books, and the like. I have given the Commission Secretariat a list of 10 additional references in which all the names are used, but I can supply 30 further citations if requested. Alternative solutions mentioned, for example that in Dellacasa’s second alternative (BZN 51: 340-341), even though perhaps formally correct, have been used only sporadically. 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; 52: 78-93, 187-192, 271-275, 347-350) (1) Hugh H. Kolb 3 High Brae, Torphichen, West Lothian, Scotland EH48 4LX, U.K. (formerly of the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency, Edinburgh EH12 8NJ, Scotland) I fully agree with the application to conserve 11 of Brisson’s (1762) generic names for mammals and am happy to support it. I note that the application (para. 5, BZN 51: 138) seeks the conservation of the name Cuniculus Brisson, 1762 for the South American pacas and that, if the proposal is not approved by the Commission, Cuniculus Brisson would be unavailable and the junior homonym Cuniculus Meyer, 1790 would become a valid name. Meyer’s name relates to the European rabbit and would replace the well-known and universally used, but junior, name Oryctolagus Lilljeborg, 1874. I worked on the rabbit for some years and have supplied the Commission Secretariat with a representative list of 11 papers (1985-1994) which demonstrate the usage of the name Oryctolagus. I am fully in agreement with maintaining the generic name Oryctolagus and would oppose any move to replace it with Cuniculus. 192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 When there are no proposed changes in the taxonomic relationships of species, elevating precedence over usage in the choice of a name serves no purpose and merely causes confusion; this is especially acute if a name (in this instance Cuniculus) switches meaning. (2) Peter Ltips Naturhistorisches Museum, Bernastrasse 15, CH-3005 Bern, Switzerland The spare time that I can devote to research on the Eurasian badger, Meles meles, is concentated on morphology and ecology. I have little or no experience in taxonomy. I do not see any reason to change the authorship of the generic name for this taxon and I therefore support the proposal to keep Meles Brisson, 1762. Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125) (1) D.W. Yalden School of Biological Sciences, The University of Manchester, 3.239 Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PT, U.K. I write as the Managing Editor of Mammal Review. | must congratulate Anthea Gentry, Juliet Clutton-Brock and Colin Groves on a remarkably sensible and well argued case. The specific names discussed were, in most cases, intended to contrast the domestic animal with the wild one, or were coined to distinguish the wild animal from its previously known domestic relative. To attempt now to claim that the specific name of the domestic form is the correct name for its wild relative also is totally confusing, totally destabilising, and totally unhelpful. The contrast between Canis lupus and C. familiaris is well understood in popular as well as scientific writing, and in archaeological as well as zoological literature. The same contrast is equally clear when Ovis orientalis and O. aries are used. Using aries to include orientalis is undermining the well accepted nomenclature of the wild species, and I thoroughly deplore it. I am enough of an archaeologist to understand the very real problem raised by the nomenclature of domestic animals, and can appreciate the difficulties that various attempts to derive a generally acceptable terminology have created. These difficulties in no way justify upsetting the one established and stable part of this problem (the names for the wild taxa), and certainly not doing so in a manner that will cause the maximum confusion. I wish to support the very sensible proposal unreservedly in an attempt to maintain stability and clarity. I trust that these authors or other interested parties will produce an attempt to stabilise the nomenclature of domestic animals in a similarly sane way, in the future and in a separate application, once this one has been settled. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 193 (2) Gordon B. Corbet Little Dumbarnie, Upper Largo, Leven, Fife KY8 6JQ, Scotland, U.K. I strongly support this application. Previous attempts to remove ambiguity in the use of names for domestic forms and their wild ancestors by the adoption of general rules, as documented in this case, have failed both to effect modification of the Code and to prevent the continuing use of inconsistent practices and ambiguous names in influential works such as that of Wilson & Reeder (1993). Implementation of this proposal will stabilize the names of the wild species, while allowing freedom of taxonomic judgement as to what degree of domestication can be encompassed in the species-concept employed. This is particularly important in many archaeozoological studies where the ancestral wild species is usually not in doubt while the evidence of domestication is debatable. (3) Laszlo Bartosiewicz Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Lorand Eétvés University, Muzeum kérut 4/b, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary As a zoologist working in both archaeozoology and the research of modern domestic animals I am in favor of retaining the 15 mammal specific names, as proposed by Gentry et al. Their proposal is based on a convention widely followed in my areas of research. While its more consistent use would be a welcome improvement, I fear that the implementation of radical changes (such as in the 1993 Wilson & Reeder volume) would result in considerable confusion during a prolonged period of transition. All nomenclatures are prone to change with the development of research. However, clarity and the consistent use of terms is most important. Therefore I support the idea of using traditional nomenclature for wild mammal species and their domestic derivatives which traditionally have separate names. (4) S.M. Stallibrass Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, U.K. I have been researching animal bones from archaeological sites for 20 years and agree wholeheartedly with the authors of this application that it is essential that identification makes it clear whether the item concerned derives from a wild or a domestic or an intermediate form. The current variability in nomenclatural systems used and abused by different researchers sometimes makes identifications unclear and this, in turn, renders comparisons and interpretations unfeasible. I welcome, therefore, the authors’s efforts to clarify the situation and feel that the system that they propose, whereby the earliest name for the wild form is adopted even if it post-dates that for a domestic form, is eminently sensible. Since I do not work with some of the taxa that they consider, I do not feel qualified to comment on the names that they recommend for these, but I do support the names that they suggest for Equus africanus (wild ass), E. ferus (tarpan), Bos primigenius (aurochs), Capra aegagrus (bezoar), Ovis orientalis (Asian mouflon), Canis lupus (wolf), Mustela putorius (polecat) and Felis silvestris (wildcat). 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 (5) Achilles Gautier Laboratorium voor Paleontologie, Geologisch Instituut, Universiteit Gent, Krijgslaan 281, B-9000 Gent, Belgium Approval of the usage of the 15 specific names for wild mammals which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on their domestic relatives may be considered a first step in labelling domestic animals; therefore I am very much in favour of the proposal put forward in Case 3010. However, I do think that the same treatment should be applied to non-mammalian wild species (Carassius gibelio (Bloch, 1782), the Prussian carp, and Bombyx mandarina (Moore, 1872), the mulberry silk moth) the domestic forms of which were named before their ancestors. This I consider a more consistent and still less confusing approach; moreover, it may avoid another application in the future. (6) Andrew Kitchener Department of Geology and Zoology, Royal Museum of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland, U.K. I strongly support Gentry et al. in their proposed conservation of the usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species. This is not only for practical reasons, but also because domestication as a process should be equated with allopatric speciation. 1. For all but a very few mammalian species (the polar bear, Ursus maritimus, for example; see Kurtén, 1964; Taberlet & Bouvet, 1992) when they speciated and which species was ancestral is unknown, even though it may be possible to infer common ancestors from cladistic analyses of morphological and molecular data. Domesticated mammals differ because in most cases an ancestor and the time of earliest domestication can be identified, but because this is mediated by humans and has occurred within the last 12000 years, domestication is regarded as being somehow outside other evolutionary change. 2. Domestication can be regarded as having effects similar to allopatric speciation (see Mayr & Ashlock, 1991). In its strictest definition (see, for example, Clutton-Brock, 1981) domestication results in distinctive morphological, molecular and behavioural changes, which are the result of either selection by humans for particular traits or genetic drift in small isolated founder populations derived from an ancestral wild population. Reproductive isolation is brought about by physical barriers created by humans (fences and cages, for example), whereas allopatric speciation is usually due to some form of geographical barrier. Archaeozoologists are able to distinguish between wild and domesticated species in the archaeological record (see, for example, Davis, 1987). It is, therefore, illogical to give both forms the same scientific name and, under the Code, incorrect to cite the domesticated as a subspecies of the wild form (as in ‘Felis silvestris catus’; see, for example, Kratochvil, 1973; Kerby & Macdonald, 1988). 3. In many cases closely related mammal and bird species do not conform to a strict interpretation of the biological species concept (see, for example, Mayr & Ashlock, 1992) because they are fully interfertile. Hybridisation between closely Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 195 related species of many mammals and birds is common (for example, marmosets, Callithrix spp., guenons, Cercopithecus spp., canids, cervids, caprines, ducks and birds of paradise; see Lernould, 1988; Struhsaker, Butynski & Lwanga, 1988; Coimbra-Filho, Pissinatti & Rylands, 1993; Lever, 1994; Fuller, 1995) in areas of sympatry in the wild, or in captivity, or through inroduction of one species into the range of another. For example, the introduction of sika deer, Cervus nippon, to Britain has resulted in extensive introgression with the native red deer, Cervus elaphus (see, for example, Lowe & Gardiner, 1975), but these two taxa are still regarded as distinct (although some authors claim that mainland forms of sika are introgressive hybrids). Therefore, interfertility between wild and domesticated species should not be regarded as negating their separate specific status. Application of other species concepts, including that of phylogenetic species, would support raising domesticated taxa to full specific rank (see, for example, Cracraft, 1989). 4. Feralisation and subsequent introgression with the wild ancestral species also does not negate the basic speciation process produced by domestication. For example, feral domestic ferrets, Mustela furo, from Shetland retain pelage characters, significantly smaller cranial volumes and other skull characters associated with domestication, despite being feral for many generations (Kitchener et al., in preparation). They have not reverted morphologically or genetically to become like their ancestor, the western polecat, M. putorius. 5. Diversification of the domesticated species into a variety of forms which might merit subspecific or even specific status through artificial selection of traits or rare mutant alleles does not invalidate the initial domestication event as a form of speciation. 6. Therefore, in its strictest definition, domestication of a wild species has results similar to allopatric speciation. It follows, therefore, that domesticated forms should be recognised as taxa distinct from their ancestors. Additional references Clutton-Brock, J. 1981. Domesticated animals from early times. British Museum (Natural History), London. Coimbra-Filho, A.F., Pissinatti, A. & Rylands, A.B. 1993. Experimental multiple hybridism and natural hybrids among Callithrix species from eastern Brazil. Pp. 78-94 in Rylands, A.B. (Ed.), Marmosets and tamarins. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Cracraft, J. 1988. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes. Pp. 28-59 in Otte, D. & Endler, J.A. (Eds.), Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer, Sunderland. Davis, S.J.M. 1987. The archaeology of animals. Batsford, London. Fuller, E. 1995. The lost birds of paradise. Swan-Hill, London. Kerby, G. & Macdonald, D.W. 1988. Cat society and the consequences of colony size. Pp. 67-82 in Turner, D.C. & Bateson, P. (Eds.), The domestic cat: the biology of its bahaviour. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kratochyil, Z. 1973. Schadelkriterien der Wild und Hauskatze (Felis silvestris silvestris Schreber 1777 und Felis s. catus L. 1758). Acta Scientiarum Naturalium Brno, 7: \—50. Kurtén, B. 1964. The evolution of the polar bear, Ursus maritimus Phipps. Acta Zoologica Fennica, 108: 1-26. Lernould, J-M. 1988. Classification and geographical distribution of guenons: a review. Pp. 54-78 in Gautier-Hion, A., Bourliere, F. & Gautier, J-P. (Eds.), A primate radiation: evolutionary biology of the African guenons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lever, C. 1994. Naturalized animals. Poyser, London. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Lowe, V.P.W. & Gardiner, A. 1975. Red deer-sika deer hybridisation. Journal of Zoology, London, 177: 553-566. Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P.D. 1991. Principles of systematic zoology, Ed. 2. McGraw-Hill, New York. Struhsaker, T.T., Butynski, T.M. & Lwanga, J.S. 1988. Hybridization between redtail (Cercopithecus ascanius schmidti) and blue (C. mitis stuhlmanni) monkeys in the Kibale Forest, Uganda. Pp. 477-498 in Gautier-Hion, A., Bourliere, F. & Gautier, J-P. (Eds.), A primate radiation: evolutionary biology of the African guenons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Taberlet, P. & Bouvet, J. 1992. Génétique de l’ours brun des Pyrenees (Ursus arctos); Premiér resultats. Compte Rendu de l' Académie des Sciences, Paris, 314: 15-21. (7) W.F.H. Ansell Trenrine, Zennor, St Ives, Cornwall TR26 3BW, U.K. I am in complete agreement with the proposal to conserve the usage of the 15 mammal specific names based on wild species. I adopted this procedure in two of the parts of The mammals of Africa, using the names Bos primigenius for the aurochs and Equus africanus for the wild ass. Additional references Ansell, W.F.H. 1972. Order Artiodactyla. In Meester, A.J. & Setzer, H.W. (Eds.), The mammals of Africa, an identification manual, part 15. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. (Bos primigenius is on p. 17). Ansell, W.F.H. 1974. Order Perissodactyla. In Meester, A.J. & Setzer, H.W. (Eds.), The mammals of Africa, an identification manual, part 14. (Equus africanus is on p. 5). (8) Augusto Azzaroli Museo di Geologia e Paleontologia, Universita di Firenze, Via G. La Pira, 450121 Firenze, Italy I write to express my approval of the proposals made by Gentry et al. on mammalian nomenclature. Until now I have used the names Equus caballus and E. asinus but I confess that the application has convinced me to change my attitude. I regret that I did not see the proposals until my last article on American equids was already published. I also have a paper in press on horses from the Forest Bed Formation and do not know if I will be in time to change the nomenclature. I shall be more careful in future. (9) R.J. Berry Department of Biology, University College London, Darwin Building, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. I write to support the proposal by Gentry et al. to rationalise and stabilise the specific names of mammals which have domesticated forms. This has become important with the increase in conservation legislation (CITES, and such). The case made by the authors seems wholly sensible, and formalises the practice of most workers. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 197 (10) L.M. Gosling Institute of Zoology, The Zoological Society of London, Regent's Park, London NWI 4RY, U.K. I write as Director of Science of the Zoological Society to express my strong support for the conservation of the 15 mammal specific names detailed in the application. It is particularly important to distinguish clearly between wild animals and their domestic counterparts to avoid any confusion in species conservation programmes. (11) Simon Tonge London Zoo, Regent's Park, London NWI 4RY, U.K. I write as Senior Curator. I support the proposition to conserve the usage of 15 mammal specific names on the grounds that stability in the nomenclature of these mammals should override strict priority. Stocks of wild animals in zoological gardens are increasingly part of managed in situ conservation programmes. Staff managing these programmes are not necessarily nomenclatural specialists and changes of name cause confusion and uncertainty. In the 1995 edition of the Mammal Inventory of the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland the nomenclature follows Wilson & Reeder (1993) except in the instances of the African wild ass, Equus africanus, and Przewalski’s wild horse, E. przewalskii (sometimes treated as a synonym of E. ferus). A decision was made that to follow these authors in their use of Equus asinus and E. caballus would (a) cause confusion amongst holders of the species, and (b) distract attention from the conservation importance of these taxa which are, respectively, critically endangered and extinct in the wild. (12) S.K. Eltringham Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. I have read the application by Gentry et al. with great interest and consider the proposal to conserve the specific names of wild animals which are distinct from the domestic forms derived from them to be eminently sensible. It would lead to greater stability in nomenclature and reduce confusion, particularly in the conservation of rare breeds of domestic animals whose wild progenitors have lately been given the same scientific name. I very much hope that the Commission will accept the recommendations of the authors. (13) C.S. Churcher RR 1, Site 42, Box 12, Gabriola Island, British Columbia VOR 1XO, Canada I am writing in support of the application by Gentry et al. I have worked with archaeological, palaeontological and neontological taxa and have found the confusion in usage of the names of some mammalian taxa, as set forth in the proposal, and the formats that are applied to many taxa that are domestic, domesticated or commensal, to be a source of argument and dispute. I find these 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 contentions an unnecessary waste of time and energy and support any move towards simplifying or regularising the situation. Thus I am in full agreement with the proposal in Case 3010. I retired from the Department of Zoology, University of Toronto, last July and have moved to British Columbia. Thus, I am a professional working as a mammalogist in archaeozoology, mammalogy and palaeontology and consider myself reasonably au fait with the situation and with the intentions of the proposers. I should like to see the proposal adopted. (14) David L. Harrison & Paul J.J. Bates Harrison Zoological Museum, Bowerwood House, St Botolph's Road, Sevenoaks, Kent TN13 3AQ, U.K. We are writing to express our strong support for the application. We believe that the conservation of the 15 mammal specific names is advisable for the following reasons: (a) Interests of stability. These existing specific names have been in current use for many years. (b) Ambiguity concerning the biological origin of certain domestic species. The cat, goat, sheep and cattle, for example, may have more than one ancestral species. (c) Nomenclature. The wild species are better defined, often with type material and precise type localities, and related taxa are better compared in these circumstances. For these reasons we wish to support the application very strongly. (15) N. Spassov National Museum of Natural History, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Blvd. Tzar Osvoboditel 1, Sofia 1000, Bulgaria I should like to express my full agreement for the argument and proposal of Gentry et al. to conserve the 15 specific names for mammals based on wild species. With regard to the wild Holocene European horse, the name Equus ferus should be conserved only for the species described by Boddaert (1785) and later by Antonius (1912). This is the horse from the Russian steppes (the tarpan), whose fossils we have found recently, demonstrating its wild nature. Current research seems to show that there is another Late Pleistocene horse which has crossed the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary in East Europe. (16) T.P. O'Connor Department of Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 IDP, U.K. I write with reference to Case 3010 to urge that the proposed conservation of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species be accepted. The authors have set out most clearly the difficulties and differences of view that have surrounded the nomenclature of domesticated animals, and it is clear that this Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 199 debate has some way to run. Wilson & Reeder (1993) have unhelpfully introduced an alternative nomenclature for the wild species, the only merit of which is its rigid adherence to rules of priority, and that only if wild and domestic forms are accepted as conspecific in all cases. As the specific status of domesticated forms is still not the subject of a consensus view, it makes little sense to use Linnaeus’s (1758, 1766) names for domesticated forms to refer to individuals in wild populations. The fact that CITES and other legislative organisations have adopted the first available name based on wild species is also important. It would be irresponsible to compromise the protection of endangered species simply in order to follow a rather questionable interpretation of the rules of priority. (17) Arturo Morales Muniz Laboratorio de Arqueozoologia, Departamento de Biologia, Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, E-28049 Madrid, Spain Ever since I joined the archaeozoological community, back in 1976, a dispute on how to name domestic animals has been going on around me. Although the tempo of the debate slowed down during the past decade, in the first half of the present one it has gone up again (see the list of references in the application). In the early years I was not at all concerned with the issue, which struck me as an empty, formal discussion devoid of any practical value. Over the years, however, my views on this problem have gradually changed, so that at present I appreciate the issue in a completely different way. Thus, for example, to stress one line of argument, I fully subscribe to Gentry et al.’s claim that ‘The use for wild species of names that were first described on domestic species ... will confuse ... customs officials who have the job of sorting out illegal imports of endangered species’. This is no trivial issue for many of the surviving progenitors of domestic animals (the bezoar, the Bactrian camel, and others) are in serious danger of extinction, and customs officials *... would find it difficult to impound a trophy head of a wild sheep if it carries the name Ovis aries’. It should be stated that I feel any solution to the problem will be a compromise. The ultimate reason lies in the virtual impossibility of ‘straightjacketing’ all domestic forms and their ancestors into a formal system of nomenclature. Among other things such systems: (a) Cannot adequately reflect the whole range of genetic events, including repetitive episodes of backcrossing, raciation and hybridisation which charac- terise the configuration of domestic stocks to this day (see Gautier, 1990; Wing, 1993). (b) Have been used by very many authors (even by the same author) in rather inconsistent ways depending on the species involved, the amount of knowledge concerning particular wild species, the philosophy behind their proposals, etc. Due to these operative and historical factors every attempt to either (1) devise a nomenclatural system for domestic animals independent of that of the wild species (no matter how logical or consistent), or (ii) fully integrate domestic animals and make them conform to the Linnean system, has ended in either rejection or oblivion 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 or both (Bolken, 1958; Dennler de la Tour, 1959; Groves, 1971; Odening, 1979; Corbet & Clutton-Brock, 1984; Gautier, 1993; and Uerpmann, 1993, as set out in paras. 3—5 of the application). The eventual compromise must be guided, above all, by practicalities. One of the best ways of being practical in this case is to have the names for wild species intermingling as little as possible with those of domestic forms. (For many species, the rabbit for example, this is impossible because the wild and domestic forms share the same name). From this standpoint, I judge Gentry et al.’s application, which requests the Commission to rule that the names for each of the listed 15 wild species of mammals are not invalid by virtue of being antedated by a name based on a domestic form, to fully conform to the compromise. If only for this reason, therefore, I should like to support their proposal. In science, as elsewhere, formal issues are extremely important but often dwell in the realm of ideas. In addition to its formal connotations, however, I feel that not only are there sound practical arguments in Gentry et al.’s proposal to the Commission, but also that most of these are of far-reaching consequences as well — a matter of deep concern to all of us. (18) P.A. Jewell Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K. I have been dismayed to see that in Mammal species of the world, edited by Wilson & Reeder (1993), they have not adopted the specific names that are in common usage for perissodactyls and artiodactyls. Instead, names based on domestic animals have been introduced. I can find no justification for this action. I have been involved over many years with the problem of how best to assign Latin names to domestic forms and the confusion in that field has gradually been reduced, even if not finally resolved. To use the nomenclature referred to above is a retrograde step. Current practice is sensible in that most authoritative works have adopted the first available name based on the wild species and not an earlier name (often proposed by Linnaeus, 1758, 1766) that was originally proposed on a domestic form. I would most strongly urge the Commission to conserve the 15 specific names of mammals that are set out in the application by Gentry et al. (19) Support for the application has also been received from Prof John Skinner (Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa), Prof Louis Chaix (Département d’archéozoologie, Muséum dhistoire naturelle, Route de Malagnou 1, Case Postale 6434, CH-1211, Genéve 6, Switzerland), Dr Elizabeth Iregren (Department of Historical Osteology, Institute of Archaeology, Lund University, Sandgatan 1, S-223 50 Lund, Sweden), Dr Peter Andrews (Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) and Miss Paulina D. Jenkins (Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 201 OPINION 1843 Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): conserved, and Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Stromatoporoidea; Devonian; Stictostroma; Stictostroma gorriense. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) it is hereby ruled that the generic name Stictostroma Parks, 1936 is available despite the lack of a validly fixed type species at the time of publication; (b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Stictostroma Parks, 1936 are hereby set aside and Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (gender: neuter), type species by desig- nation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name gorriense Stearn, 1995, as published in the binomen Stictostroma gorriense (specific name of the type species of Stictostroma Parks, 1936), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2901 An application for the conservation of the generic name Stictostroma Parks, 1936, and the designation of Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species, was received from Prof Colin W. Stearn (Earth and Planetary Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada) on 14 July 1993. After correspondence and the publication of Stearn (1995) the case was published in BZN 52: 18-20 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment from Dr Philippe Bouchet (Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris, France), published in BZN 52: 259 (September 1995), supported the proposal (para. 8, item (1)(b)) to designate Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species of Stictostroma, but suggested atttribution of the name Stictostroma to Galloway & St Jean (1957) rather than to Parks (1936). A comment in support of the application from Prof Joseph St Jean (University of North Carolina, North Carolina, U.S.A.), also published in BZN 52: 259, noted that Parkes (1936) had used the holotype of S. gorriense when proposing Stictostroma. It was noted on the voting paper that a comment received from Prof C.W. Stearn, the author of the application, stated: ‘I reply to Dr Bouchet’s comment on the validity of the name Stictostroma. What I wrote in my application is supported by St Jean’s comment. Although Bouchet’s point is a valid one and under the Code Stictostroma should be attributed to Galloway & St Jean, the point of my application was not only to clear up the identity of the type species but to request the Commission to validate usage of the last 60 years, including that by Galloway & St Jean themselves, and give credit to Parks who first realized the usefulness of this taxon. The Commission will have to decide this matter and I hope will do so on the 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 basis that future taxonomists will be better guided through the nomenclatural complexities by recognition of Parks as the author’. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 19-20. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet (part), Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza (part), Minelli (part), Nielsen, Nye, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Savage and Stys. A No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Bouchet, Martins de Souza and Minelli voted for the designation of Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 as the type species of Stictostroma, but against attributing the name to Parks (1936). Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Stictostroma Parks, 1936, University of Toronto Studies, Geological Series, 39: 77. gorriense, Stictostroma, Stearn, 1995, Journal of Paleontology, 69: 26. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 203 OPINION 1844 Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): specific name conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; sea hares; Aplysia juliana. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name sorex Rang, 1828, as published in the binomen Aplysia sorex, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, as published in the binomen Aplysia juliana, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name sorex Rang, 1828, as published in the binomen Ap/ysia sorex and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2949 An application for the conservation of the specific name of Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 was received from Drs E. Martinez and J. Ortea (Departamento de Biologia de Organismos y Sistemas, C/ Catedratico Rodrigo Uria s/n, Oviedo, Asturias, Spain) on 6 September 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 21-23 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Alan Bebbington (Uley, near Dursley, Gloucestershire, U.K.) was published in BZN 52: 260-261 (September 1995). Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 22-23. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Dupuis abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: juliana, Aplysia, Quoy & Gaimard, 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), p. 309. sorex, Aplysia, Rang, 1828, Histoire naturelle des Aplysiens, premiére famille de l’ordre des Tectibranches, p. 57. 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1845 Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Endodonta wesleyi Sykes, 1896 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Tropidoptera; Tropidoptera wesleyi; Hawaii. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 are hereby set aside and Endodonta (Pterodiscus) wesleyi Sykes, 1896 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Endodonta wesleyi Sykes, 1896, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name wesleyi Sykes, 1896, as published in the binomen Endodonta (Pterodiscus) wesleyi (specific name of the type species of Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Pterodiscus Pilsbry, 1893 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (a junior objective synonym of Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889). History of Case 2903 An application for the designation of Endodonta (Pterodiscus) wesleyi Sykes, 1896 as the type species of Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 was received from Drs Neal L. Evenhuis and Robert H. Cowie (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 17 September 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 148-149 (June 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 149. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Dupuis abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Pterodiscus Pilsbry, 1893, Part 33, pp. 1-48 in: Manual of Conchology. Structural and systematic. With illustrations of the species. Founded by George W. Tryon, Jr. Second series: Pulmonata, vol. 9, p. 36. Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889, Bulletin de la Société Malacologique de France, 6: 191. wesleyi, Endodonta (Pterodiscus), Sykes, 1896, Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 2(3): 127. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 205 OPINION 1846 Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita): conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Trilobita; Silurian; Acernaspis; Eophacops. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Eophacops Delo, 1935 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Phacops handwerki Weller, 1907; (b) Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phacops orestes Billings, 1860. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) handwerki Weller, 1907, as published in the binomen Phacops handwerki (specific name of the type species of Eophacops Delo, 1935); (b) orestes Billings, 1860, as published in the binomen Phacops orestes (specific name of the type species of Acernaspis Campbell, 1967). (4) The name Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1) above. History of Case 2944 An application for the conservation of the generic names Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 was received from Drs R.M. Owens (National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, U.K.) and A.T. Thomas (University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, U.K.) on 18 July 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 34-36 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Prof H.B. Whittington (University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.) was published in BZN 52: 262 (September 1995). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 35-36. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — |: Bouchet. No vote was received from Halvorsen. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Bouchet commented: “The authors of the application have failed to demonstrate that the names Eophacops Delo, 1935 and Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 are used other than in a very small segment of the paleontological literature, apparently all of it dealing with systematics. Priority should apply; I vote against the suppression of Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Acernaspis Campbell, 1967, Bulletin, Oklahoma Geological Survey, 115: 32. Eophacops Delo, 1935, Journal of Paleontology, 9: 405. handwerki, Phacops, Weller, 1907, Bulletin, Chicago Academy of Science (The Natural History Survey), 4: 271. orestes, Phacops, Billings, 1860, Canadian Naturalist and Geologist, 5: 65. Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft (Abhandlungen und Monatsberichte), 63 (for 1911): 324. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 207 OPINION 1847 Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): rediscovered holotype confirmed as the name-bearing type Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; scorpions; Diplocentrus mexicanus; Mexico. Ruling (1) The name-bearing type for Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 is hereby confirmed as the rediscovered holotype. (2) The name Diplocentrus Peters, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name mexicanus Peters, 1861, as published in the binomen Diplocentrus mexicanus (specific name of the type species of Diplocentrus Peters, 1861) and as defined by the holotype (female specimen no. ZMB 74 in the Zoologisches Museum, Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin), confirmed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2914 An application for the rediscovered holotype to be confirmed as the name-bearing type of Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 was received from Dr W. David Sissom (West Texas A & M University, Canyon, Texas, U.S.A.) on 22 November 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 37-39 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 38. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger 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: Diplocentrus Peters, 1861, Monatsherichte der Kéniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1861: 512. mexicanus, Diplocentrus, Peters, 1861, Monatsberichte der Kéniglichen Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1861: 512. 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1848 Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Isopoda): generic and specific names conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isopoda; Cubaris; Cubaris murina. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed: (a) the generic name Cubaris Billberg, 1820, and all uses of the name Cubaris prior to the publication of Cubaris Brandt, 1833, for the purposes ofboth the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) the following specific names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (1) galbineus Eschscholtz, 1823, as published in the binomen Armadillo galbineus; (ii) brunnea Brandt, 1833, as published in the binomen Cubaris brunnea. (2) The name Cubaris Brandt, 1833 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Budde-Lund (1909) Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name murina Brandt, 1833, as published in the binomen Cubaris murina (specific name of the type species of Cubaris Brandt, 1833), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name cuBARIDAE Brandt, 1833 (type genus Cubaris Brandt, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) The name Cubaris Billberg, 1820 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1)(a) above. (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) galbineus Eschscholtz, 1823, as published in the binomen Armadillo galbineus and as suppressed in (1)(b)(i) above; (b) brunnea Brandt, 1833, as published in the binomen Cubaris brunnea and as suppressed in (1)(b)(ii) above. History of Case 2910 An application for the conservation of the generic and specific names of Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 was received from Dr Pekka T. Lehtinen (Zoological Museum, University of Turku, Turku, Finland) and Drs Stefano Taiti and Franco Ferrara (Centro di studio per la faunistica ed ecologia tropicali, Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Firenze, Italy) on 1 November 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 153-156 (June 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from two members of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacea Society were received during the voting period. Dr A.B. Williams (NOAA/INMFS Systematics Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) noted: ‘The application is directed towards conservation of names in current use and suppression of either threatening or forgotten names that are no longer Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 209 represented by original material. In my opinion this is a worthy proposal’. Dr Gary C.B. Poore (Museum of Victoria, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia) commented: “Of all the groups of isopod Crustacea the terrestrial Oniscidea present the greatest nomenclatural confusion. Cubaris Brandt, 1833 is a generic name that is widely used and understood by isopod taxonomists and ecologists. I support the proposal to conserve the name (and that of Cubaris murina) from the threat of the dubious senior homonym Cubaris Billberg, 1820’. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 154-155. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Dupuis abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: brunnea, Cubaris, Brandt, 1833, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6: 190. CUBARIDAE Brandt, 1833, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6: 189. Cubaris Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg, p. 137. Cubaris Brandt, 1833, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6: 189. galbineus, Armadillo, Eschscholtz, 1823, Mémoires de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6: 112. murina, Cubaris, Brandt, 1833, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 6: 190. The following is the reference for the designation of Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 as the type species of the nominal genus Cubaris Brandt, 1833: Budde-Lund, G. 1909. Denkschriften der Medicinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena, 14(1): 54. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1849 Livoneca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda): the original spelling confirmed as correct, and the spelling Lironeca rejected Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isopoda; Lironeca; Livoneca. Ruling (1) The name Livoneca Leach, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Fowler (1912) Livoneca redmanii Leach, 1818, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The name redmanii Leach, 1818, as published in the binomen lavanecn redmanii (specific name of the type species of Livoneca Leach, 1818), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name LIVONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 (type genus Livoneca Leach, 1818) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (4) The name Lironeca Leach in White, 1847 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (an incorrect spelling of Livoneca Leach, 1818). History of Case 2915 An application for the conservation of Lironeca Leach, 1818 as the correct original spelling of the generic name first published as Livoneca was received from Prof Ernest H. Williams, Jr. (Caribbean Aquatic Animal Health Project, University of Puerto Rico, Lajas, Puerto Rico) and Dr Thomas E. Bowman (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 9 August 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 224-226 (September 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Opposing comments from Prof L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands), from Dr Angelika Brandt (Institut fiir Polarékologie, Christian-Albrechts-Universitdt zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany), and from Dr Niel L. Bruce (Zoologisk Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) were published in BZN 52: 67-69 (March 1995). Replies by Dr Thomas E. Bowman (co-author of the appli- cation) and by Prof Ernest H. Williams, Jr. (co-author) & Dr Lucy Bunkley Williams (University of Puerto Rico, Lajas, Puerto Rico) were published in BZN 52: 263-264 (September 1995). Comments in support from Dr Giambattista Bello (/stituto Arion, Mola di Bari, Italy) and from Prof Robert Y. George (The University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, North Carolina, U.S.A.) were published in BZN $52: 178-179 (June 1995). (Dr Bello’s comment was inadvertently repeated in BZN 52: 264, September 1995, under the name ‘Gianni Bello’). Comments from two members of the Nomenclature Committee of The Crustacea Society were received during the voting period. Dr A.B. Williams (VOAA/NMFS Systematics Laboratory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) noted: ‘I agree with the authors of the application (para. 3) that it is patently obvious from their constructions themselves that Leach (1818) formed five names as anagrams of Caroline and three names as anagrams of Carolina. Though Leach gave no internal Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 211 evidence in his text that the generic names were based on such anagrams, there is evidence from the hand of the author himself on the reprint of his 1818 paper that he sent to Latreille that they are anagrams, for he corrected the names Livonéce and Livoneca to Lironéce and Lironeca every time they occurred (eight times), and there were also other corrected printer’s errors, as pointed out by Williams & Bowman (para. 4). Strict adherence to literal interpretation of Article 32c(ii) would not warrant correction of the published name Livoneca to Lironeca, but documented arguments by the authors make a strong case for effecting this change’. Dr Gary C.B. Poore (Museum of Victoria, Abbotsford, Victoria, Australia) noted: “This is a case where a well used name, Livoneca, has, through the actions of a few influential taxonomists, become slowly displaced during this century by a slightly different spelling, Lironeca. This trend has appeal only in that its proponents are attempting to relieve poor William Leach of the embarrassment of an apparent typographical error. In more recent times, Bruce’s (1990) review of this genus and its relatives has become the definitive work and is likely to be followed. He used Leach’s published spelling Livoneca and this is the one I advocate’. In his comment (BZN 52: 68) Prof Holthuis pointed out that Fowler (1912), and not Gurjanova (1936), was the first to designate Livoneca redmanii Leach, 1818 as the type species of Livoneca (cf. para. 1 of the application). Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 225. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 11: Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Heppell, Kabata, Martins de Souza, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 12: Bayer, Hahn, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Minelli, Macpherson, Mahnert, Nielsen, Nye, Savage and Stys. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Voting for, Kabata commented: ‘It seems that the final judgement as to whether the spelling Livoneca can be seen as a lapsus is bound to be somewhat subjective. Considering the absence of ‘v’ from all other anagrams of the unfortunate, if wicked, Caroline(a), it is difficult to see Leach inserting it into Lironeca. I am in favour of approving the application’. Martins de Souza commented: “The corrections by Leach on the reprint sent to Latreille (para. 4 of the application) clearly indicate that he originally used Lironeca’. Voting against, Lehtinen commented: ‘The facts presented show that Livoneca was not a printer’s error. Therefore a change from the original spelling cannot be supported’. The required majority for the conservation of the spelling Lironeca was not reached. Livoneca Leach, 1818 is placed on the Official List as the correct original spelling. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Lironeca Leach, 1847, in White, A., List of the specimens of Crustacea in the collections of the British Museum, p. 109 (an incorrect spelling of Livoneca Leach, 1818). 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 Livoneca Leach, 1818, in Cuvier, F. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, vol. 12, p. 351. LIVONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (3)14: 325. redmanii, Livoneca, Leach, 1818, in Cuvier, F. (Ed.), Dictionnaire des sciences naturelles, vol. 12, p. 351. The following is the reference for the designation of Livoneca redmanii Leach, 1818 as the type species of the nominal genus Livoneca Leach, 1818: Fowler, H.W. 1912. Annual Report of the New Jersey State Museum, 1911: 278. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 213 OPINION 1850 Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843 (currently Diplonychus rusticus and Belostoma stollii; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific names conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Heteroptera; Diplonychus rusticus; Belostoma stollii. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed: (a) 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) 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. (2) It is hereby confirmed that Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 is the type species by monotypy of Diplonychus Laporte, 1833. (3) The name Diplonychus Laporte, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781, as confirmed in (2) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) rustica Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Nepa rustica and as defined by the lectotype designated 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. (5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (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. (4 ~— History of Case 2941 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii Amyot & Serville, 1843 was received from Dr John T. Polhemus (University of Colorado Museum, Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A.) and Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) on 14 June 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 40-43 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. It was noted on the voting paper that the lectotype designation for the nominal species Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 dated from Polhemus (1994; cf. para. 9 of the application), who noted (p. 691) that Fabricius (1781) referred to “Mus. Dom. Banks’ 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 (the Banks collection in the Natural History Museum, London) as containing the Asian N. rustica. Polhemus (p. 692) designated one of the two specimens in the Banks collection as the lectotype. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 42. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Diplonychus Laporte, 1833, Magasin de Zoologie, 2: 18. plana, Nepa, Sulzer, 1776, Abgekiirzte Geschichte der Insecten nach dem Linnaeischen System, part 1, p. 92. rustica, Nepa, Fabricius, 1775, Systema entomologiae ..., p. 691. rustica, Nepa, Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum ..., vol. 2, p. 333. stollii, Zaitha, Amyot & Serville, 1843, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hémiptéres, p. 40. The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781: Polhemus, J.T. 1994. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 96: 692. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 215 OPINION 1851 XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and QUEDIINI Kraatz, [1857] (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over some senior synonyms; Quedius Stephens, 1829: Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; AGRODINI; GYROHYPNINI; PLATYCNEMINI; QUEDIINI; XANTHOLININI; Agrodes; Gyrohypnus; Platycnemus; Quedius; Xantholinus; Quedius levicollis. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) it is hereby ruled that the family-group name XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and other family-group names based on Xantholinus Dejean, 1821 are given precedence over AGRODINI Nordmann, 1837 and other family-group names based on Agrodes Nordmann, 1837, and over GYROHYPNINI Kirby, 1837 and other family-group names based on Gyrohypnus Samuelle, 1819; (b) it is hereby ruled that the family-group name QUEDIINI Kraatz, [1857] and other family-group names based on Quedius Stephens, 1829 are given precedence over PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 and other family-group names based on Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837; (c) it is hereby ruled that PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (type genus Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837) is not to be given priority over junior family-group names in general current usage in the STAPHYLININAE; (d) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Quedius Stephens, 1829 are hereby set aside and Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 is designated as the type species. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Agrodes Nordmann, 1837 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Agrodes elegans Nordmann, 1837; (b) Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy 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. (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) elegans Nordmann, 1837, as published in the binomen Agrodes elegans (specific name of the type species of Agrodes Nordmann, 1837); (b) /ateritius 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). 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) 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 AGRODINI Nordmann, 1837 (type genus Agrodes Nordmann, 1837) and other family-group names based on Agrodes, and over GYROHYPNINI Kirby, 1837 (type genus Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819) and other family-group names based on Gyrohypnus, whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) AGRopDINI 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 (type genus Xantholinus Dejean, 1821) and other family-group names based on Xantholinus whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (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 XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 (type genus Xantholinus Dejean, 1821) and other family-group names based on Xantholinus whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (d) QUEDIINI 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 PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (type genus Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837) and other family-group names based on Platycnemus whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (e) PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (type genus P/atycnemus Nordmann, 1837) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Platycnemus are not to be given priority over junior family-group names in general current usage when Platycnemus and the relevant type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. History of Case 2872 An application for the family-group names XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 and QUEDIINI Kraatz, [1857] to be given precedence over some senior synonyms, and for the designation of Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 as the type species of Quedius Stephens, 1829, was received from Dr Alfred F. Newton, Jr. (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.) on 21 December 1992. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 52: 50-53 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The names Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819 and Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, and those of their type species, were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 1250 (July 1983). However, the status of the names of the family-group taxa based on these genera was not then considered. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 217 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 50-51. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — |: Holthuis. Stys abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger 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: Agrodes Nordmann, 1837, Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum, p. 161. AGRODINI Nordmann, 1837, Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum, p. 7. elegans, Agrodes, Nordmann, 1837, Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum, p. 161. GYROHYPNINI Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J., Swainson, W. & Kirby, W. (Eds.), Fauna Boreali-Americana; or the zoology of the northern parts of British America ..., part 4, p. 88. lateritius, Platycnemus, Nordmann, 1837, Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum, p. 135. levicollis, Staphylinus, Brullé, 1832, in 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), p. 131. PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837, Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum, p. 6. Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837, Symbolae ad monographiam staphylinorum, p. 135. QUEDUNI Kraatz, [1857], in Erichson, W.F., Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands, Abteilung | (Coleoptera), vol. 2, p. 473. Quedius Stephens, 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 ..., p. 22. XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839, Genera et species staphylinorum insectorum coleopterorum familiae, part 1, p. 28. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1852 Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific names conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; solitary bees; Melissodes. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: ; (a) americana Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera americana; (b) pensylvanica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera pensylvanica; (c) philadelphica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera Philadelphica. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) desponsa Smith, 1854, as published in the binomen Melissodes desponsa; (b) agilis Cresson, 1878, as published in the binomen Melissodes agilis. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (a) americana Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera americana and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) pensylvanica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera pensylvanica and as suppressed in (1)(b) above: (c) philadelphica Lepeletier, 1841, as published in the binomen Macrocera philadelphica and as suppressed in (1)(c) above. — bo ~— (3 — History of Case 2945 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 was received from Dr Wallace E. LaBerge (Center for Biodiversity, Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois, U.S.A.) on 8 August 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 159-161 (June 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 160-161. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Lehtinen. Dupuis abstained. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 219 No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Lehtinen commented: ‘The type material of all three of Lepeletier’s (1841) nominal species is in a well-known museum and Smith’s (1854) original description of Melissodes desponsa suggested that this taxon might be the female of M. americana (para. 3 of the application). The neglect of proper revisionary work by American authors is not a sufficient reason to deviate from priority’. 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: agilis, Melissodes, Cresson, 1878, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 30(2): 204. americana, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hyménopteéres, vol. 2, p. 92. desponsa, Melissodes, Smith, 1854, Catalogue of hymenopterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, part 2 (Apidae), p. 310. pensylvanica, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hymenopteres, vol. 2, p. 97. Philadelphica, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841, Histoire naturelle des insectes. Hyménopteres, vol. 2, p. 110. 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1853 Xerammobates Popoy, 1951 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Ammobates oxianus Popov, 1951 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; parasitic bees; Ammobates; Xerammobates; Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus. Ruling dl ) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Xerammobates Popov, 1951 are hereby set aside and Ammobates oxianus Popov, 1951 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Xerammobates Popoy, 1951 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Ammobates oxianus Popov, 1951, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name oxianus Popoy, 1951, as published in the binomen Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus (specific name of the type species of Yerammobates Popov, 1951), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2884 An application for the designation of Ammobates (Xerammobates) oxianus Popov, 1951 as the type species of Yerammobates Popov, 1951 was received from Dr Donald B. Baker (University Museum, Oxford, U.K.) on 11 March 1993. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 52: 157-158 (June 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment from Dr Charles D. Michener (Snow Entomological Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.), received during the voting period, noted that Micropasites Warncke, 1983, which is a junior homonym of Micropasites Linsley, 1942 (para. 2 of the application), had been renamed Ebmeriana by Pagliano & Scaramozzino (1990; Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 68: 5) and that Ebmeriana was a potentially valid name for the genus. A reply by the author of the application noted that he was treating Ebmeriana (= Micropasites Warncke, 1983; type species Pasites tunensis Warncke, 1983, i.e. Ammobates (X.) minutissimus Mavromoustakis, 1959) as a junior subjective synonym of Xerammobates. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 158. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. Dupuis abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 221 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: oxianus, Ammobates (Xerammobates), Popov, 1951, Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, 9(3): 917. Xerammobates Popov, 1951, Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta, 9(3): 904. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1854 Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa): Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bryozoa; Carboniferous; Rhabdomeson. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 are hereby set aside and Rhabdo- meson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (gender: neuter), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995, as published in the binomen Rhabdomeson progracile (specific name of the type species of Rhab- domeson Young & Young, 1874), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2810 An application for the designation of Rhabdomeson progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 as the type species of Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 was received from Drs P.N. Wyse Jackson (Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland) and A.J. Bancroft (Mynydd Isa, near Mold, Clwyd, Wales, U.K.) on 25 February 1991. After correspondence and the publication of Wyse Jackson & Bancroft (1995) the case was published in BZN 52: 162-163 (June 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 163. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 1: Stys. Dupuis and Holthuis abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger 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: progracile, Rhabdomeson, Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995, Journal of Paleontology, 69: 30. Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)13: 337. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 223 OPINION 1855 Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): conserved; and AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended to AGONUMIDAE, so removing the homonymy with AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Scorpaeniformes; Coleoptera; AGONIDAE; AGONUMIDAE; Agonus; Agonum. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers: (a) the generic name Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801] (Osteichthyes) is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (Insecta) is AGONUM-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Tilesius in Pallas ([1814]) Cottus cataphractus Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes); (b) Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Curtis (1827) Carabus marginatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cataphractus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Coftus cata- phractus (specific name of the type species of Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801) (Osteichthyes); (b) marginatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Carabus margina- tus (specific name of the type species of Agonum Bonelli, 1810) (Insecta). (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (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) The name Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801] (Osteichthyes) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1)(a) above. (6) The name AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (spelling emended to AGONUMIDAE in (1)(b) above). History of Case 2897 An application for the conservation of the generic name Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, and for the removal of the homonymy between the family-group 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 names based on Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes) and Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (Insecta), was received from Dr B.A. Sheiko (Kamchatka Institute of Ecology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky, Russia) on 10 June 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 57-60 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 59. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli (part), Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 2: Dupuis and Lehtinen. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Dupuis commented that he was opposed to the conservation of the name for the monospecific genus Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, which was of uncertain date and, under the Code, a junior synonym. Lehtinen commented: “The coleopteran family-group name is earlier than the homonymous fish family-group name, while both relate to large and well-known groups. The information given in para. 8 of the application on the use of AGONINI Kirby, 1837 in Coleoptera is misleading. The name has recently been used in the European handbook Die Kafer Mitteleuropas by Klausnitzer (1991), as well as in the earlier North American handbook by Hatch (1953). The homonymy could have been avoided by using a family-group name based on the name Aspidophorus Lacepéde, [1801], or by using the stem AGONus- for the junior family-group name for the fishes’. Minelli voted for the conservation of the generic name Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 but not for removing the homonymy between the coleopteran and fish family-group names. 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: AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J., Swainson, W. & Kirby, W. (Eds.), Fauna Boreali-Americana ..., part 4, p. 23 (a now incorrect original spelling of AGONUMIDAE). AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839, The natural history of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles or monocardian animals, vol. 2, p. 181. Agonum Bonelli, 1810, Observations entomologiques, Premiére partie. Tabula Synoptica exhibens genera Carabicorum in Sectiones et Stirpes disposita. (Text published, 1810, in Mémoires de I’Académie Impériale des Sciences, Littérature et Beaux-Arts de Turin, 18: 21-78). AGONUMIDAE Kirby, 1837, in Richardson, J., Swainson, W. & Kirby, W. (Eds.), Fauna Boreali-Americana ..., part 4, p. 23 (spelled as AGONIDAE, now incorrect). Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801, ME. Blochii ... Systema Ichthyologiae iconibus cx illustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit J. Gottlob Schneider ..., vol. 1, p. 104. Aspidophorus Lacépéde, [1801], Histoire naturelle des poissons, vol. 3, p. 221. cataphractus, Cottus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 264. marginatus, Carabus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 416. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 225 The following is the reference for the designation of Cottus cataphractus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801: Tilesius yon Tilenau, W.G. [1814]. /n Pallas, P.S., Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica, vol. 3, p. 109, footnote. The following is the reference for the designation of Carabus marginatus Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the nominal genus Agonuwm Bonelli, 1810: Curtis, J. 1827. British entomology ..., vol. 4, text to pl. 183. 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 OPINION 1856 Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia, Serpentes): conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Serpentes; snakes; Seychelles; Lycognathophis. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the name Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. ; (2) The name Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Psammophis seychellensis Schlegel, 1837, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name seychellensis Schlegel, 1837, as published in the binomen Psammophis seychellensis (specific name of the type species of Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 2877 An application for the conservation of the generic name Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 was received from Prof Hobart M. Smith (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) and Dr Van Wallach (Center for Vertebrate Studies, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) on 12 February 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 330-331 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from Prof Hidetoshi Ota (University of the Ryukyus, Nishihara, Okinawa, Japan), Prof Ronald A. Nussbaum (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A.) and Prof Edmond V. Malnate (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) were published in BZN 52: 186 (June 1995). A note of support from Prof Edwin L. Bell (Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), Dr A. Dale Belcher (Albuquerque Biological Park, Albuquerque, New Mexico, U.S.A.), Dr Donald G. Broadley (Natural History Museum, Centenary Park, Bulawayo, Zimbabwe), Dr Joseph T. Collins (Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A.) and Dr Raymond F. Laurent (Fundacion Lillo, Tucuman, Argentina) was published at the same time. A further comment in support from Prof Lauren E. Brown (Jllinois State University, Normal, Illinois, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 52: 271 (September 1995). Decision of the Commission On | December 1995 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 331. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Kabata and Lehtinen. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 227 Bouchet commented: ‘Dowling (1990) and the application itself demonstrate that the name Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893, although in current use, ‘has appeared in relatively few publications’. Priority should apply’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium. Fasciculus primus (Amblyglossae), p. 26. Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893, Catalogue of the snakes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 1, p. 317. seychellensis, Psammophis, Schlegel, 1837, Essai sur la physionomie des serpens, vol. 1 (Partie générale), p. 155. 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(3) September 1996 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned. General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat applications on this basis. Applicants are advised to discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described .. .”. The Abstract will be prepared by the Secretariat. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more relatively recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. Submission of Application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, preferably in ASCII text. It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application. Contents — continued OPINION 1847. Diplocentrus mexicanus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida, gis eae rediscovered holotype confirmed as the name-bearing type . OPINION 1848. Cubaris murina Brandt, 1833 (Crustacea, Isopoda) Snes ane specific names conserved . . OPINION 1849. Livoneca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, ‘Tsopoda): “the oneal spelling confirmed as correct, and the spelling Lironeca rejected . . OPINION 1850. Nepa rustica Fabricius, 1781 and Zaitha stollii ‘Anayet & Semille, 1843 (currently Diplonychus rusticus and Belostoma stollii; Insecta, Heteroptera): specific names conserved . . . OPINION 1851. XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 gad d QUEDIINI ‘Kania [1857] (usecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over some senior synonyms; Quedius Stephens, 1829: Staphylinus levicollis Brullé, 1832 designated as the type species eens OPINION 1852. Melissodes desponsa Smith, 1854 and M. agilis Cresson, 1878 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific names conserved : OPINION 1853. Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Insecta, Fymciepiee Samoa oxianus Popov, 1951 designated as the type species. . . OPINION 1854. Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryoz0a): Ruaidaneea progracile Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 designated as the type species OPINION 1855. Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): conserved; and AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera): spelling emended to AGONUMIDAE, so removing the eee with AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes) . . OPINION 1856. Lycognathophis Boulenger, "1893 (Reptilia, Gecparies): conserved: Information and Instructions for Authors . CONTENTS Notices . P Fourth Edition of the Ttemationedl Cade af Poolapical Ramencetiee . Towards Stability in the Names of Animals. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology — gecond d Supplement e 1990 . : : a as The International Code Be Zealouics! Iwoaneeclanare ; General Article Draft BioCode: prospective international rules for the scientific names of organisms. . Applications Plumularia Lamarck, 1816 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation by the designation of Sertularia setacea Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. D.R. Calder & P.F.S. Cornelius Lirobarleeia Ponder, 1983 (Mollusca, Caatropoday. proposed deseasean af Abate nigrescens Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 as the type species. J. Hertz & W. Ponder. Arca pectunculoides Scacchi, 1834 and A. philippiana Nyst, 1848 (currently Bathyarca pectunculoides and B. philippiana; Mollusca, Bivalvia): Pees conservation of the specific names. C. Salas & S. Gofas Parapronoe crustulum Claus, 1879 (Crustacea, Arlanda! proposed eoeseavaniae of the specific name. W. Zeidler . Meristella Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): proposed ‘designation "ak Aurypa eee Vanuxem, 1842 as the type species. F. Alvarez. : Hemidactylus garnotii Duméril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia, Squamaial: peondied conservation of the specific name. H.M. Smith, A.G. Kluge, A.M. Bauer & D. Chiszar Bombycilla cedrorum Vieillot, [1808] sud Troglodytes ure Vieillot, [1809] (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the specific names. M.R. Browning & R.C. Banks . se are Comments On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphodius rufus (Moll, 1782), A. foetidus (Herbst, 1783) and agele we Lagi 1792) wes: Coleoptera). D. Kral On the proposed conservation of some peacanal peiede names ‘ioe published i in Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale. H.H. Kolb; P. Liips On the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names eed on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals. D.W. Yalden; G.B. Corbet; L. Bartosiewicz; S.M. Stallibrass; A. Gautier; A. Kitchener; W.F.H. Ansell; A. Azzaroli; R.J. Berry; L.M. Gosling; S. Tonge; S.K. Eltringham; C.S. Churcher; D.L. Harrison & P.J.J. Bates; N. Spassov; T.P. O’Connor; A.M. Mufiiz; P.A. Jewell; J. Skinner et al. . Se. Tee ae Rulings of the Commission OPINION 1843. Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Porifera, Stromatoporoidea): conserved, and Stictostroma gorriense Stearn, 1995 designated as the type species : OPINION 1844. Aplysia juliana Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoday. specific name conserved F OPINION 1845. Tropidoptera Nee A 1889 (Mollusca, Gastropeday Endodoma wesleyi Sykes, 1896 designated as the type species OPINION 1846. Rone Delo, 1935 and ili Campbell, 1967 7 (Trilobitay conserved . Printed in Great Britain by Henry Lino Ltd. at the Dorset Press Dorchester Dorset Volume 53, Part 4, 20 December 1996 pp. 229-30 1996 pp. 22' 7 ISSN 0007-5167 | , | : ‘ ts ke gi 930 £2 The a6 W ay eri Bulletin Taipsical Nomenclature KR wor wneW ee a Or * THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1997 is £95 or $175, 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) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof A. Minelli (/taly) Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia) Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom) Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom) Members Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr V. Mahnert Dr P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof D. J. Brothers Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (South Africa; Hymenoptera) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) DrH.G.Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera) (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Prof W.D.L.Ride(Australia; Mammalia) Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A; Herpetology) Prof Dr O. Kraus Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari) (Germany; Arachnology) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator) Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Prof S. Conway Morris, F.R.S. (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1996 CTAND wy | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 iB MUSE! 23 OFC 1996 | rneoseNTED |ZOOLOGY LIBRE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 53, part 4 (pp. 229-307) 20 December 1996 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 53, part 3 (published on 30 September 1996). Under Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published. (1) Pseudophryne vivipara Tornier, 1905 (currently Nectophrynoides vivipara; Amphibia, Anura): proposed replacement of neotype by a rediscovered syntype. (Case 3021). J.C. Poynton. (2) Catalogue des Mammiféres du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle by E. Geoffroy-Saint-Hilaire (1803): proposed placement on the Official List of Available Works. (Case 3022). P. Hershkovitz. (3) DASyPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Edentata) and DASyPODIDAE Borner, 1919 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed removal of the homonymy. (Case 3023). B.A. Alexander & C.D. Michener. (4) Euscorpius Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation. (Case 3024). V. Fet. (5) Scorpius mingrelicus Kessler, 1874 (currently Euscorpius mingrelicus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3025). V. Fet. (6) Androctonus caucasicus Nordmann, 1840 (currently Mesobuthus caucasicus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3026). V. Fet. (7) Musca balteata De Geer, 1776 (currently Episyrphus balteatus; Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3027). U. Schmid. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 (8) Aphanius Nardo, 1827 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed conservation. (Case 3028). M. Kottelat & A. Wheeler. (9) Acipenser naccarii Bonaparte, 1836 (Osteichthyes, Acipenseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 3029). M. Kottelat & A. Wheeler. (d) Ruling of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. Election of members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature At the International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB V) held in Budapest in August 1996 the members of the [UBS Section of Zoological Nomenclature elected the following zoologists as members of the Commission: Prof DENIS BROTHERS (Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Natal Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa). Prof Brothers’s main research interests are the biology and systematics of aculeate Hymenoptera. Dr WILLIAM ESCHMEYER (Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A.). Dr Eschmeyer’s research is on marine fish, especially Scorpaeniformes. He is the author of the Catalog of the Genera of Recent Fishes. Dr IZYASLAV KERZHNER (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia). Dr Kerzhner’s research is on the taxonomy, faunistics and habits of Heteroptera. He is Editor of Zoosystematica Rossica. Prof SHUNSUKE MAWATARI (Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan). Prof Mawatari’s research is on the taxonomy of marine invertebrates, particularly bryozoans. Dr LASZLO PAPP (Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary). Dr Papp’s research is on the morphology and taxonomy of Diptera, and he is Technical Editor of the Manual of Palaearctic Diptera. Prof DAVID PATTERSON (School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia). Prof Patterson works on the ultrastructure, evolution and classification of Protista, especially flagellates. Prof DA-XIANG SONG (Jnstitute of Zoology, Academia Sinica, 19 Zhongguancun Lu, Haitien, Beijing, China). Prof Song’s research interests include the taxonomy of spiders and of leeches. He is the President of the China Zoological Society, and Editor-in-chief of Acta Zoologica Sinica. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 231 Towards Stability in the Names of Animals The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was founded on 18 September 1895. In recognition of its Centenary a history of the development of nomenclature since the 18th century and of the Commission has been published entitled ‘Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995’ (ISBN 0 85301 005 6). It is 104 pages (250 x 174 mm) with 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the evolution of the system of animal nomenclature as universally accepted today. The book contains a list of all the Commissioners from 1895 to the present. The main text was written by R.V. Melville (former Secretary of the Commission) and has been completed and updated following his death. Copies may be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, clo USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. The cost is £30 or $50 (including surface postage); members of the American and European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered the reduced price of £20 or $35. 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, up to 1985; there are about 9,900 entries. Copies can be ordered from I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. or A.A.Z.N., Attn. Dr Al Norrbom, c/o USDA Systematic Entomology Laboratory, MRC-168, 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. 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report for 1995 In celebration of the centenary of the foundation of the Commission on 18 September 1895, a Centenary History entitled Towards Stability in the Names of Animals was published in August. The costs of printing and distribution were £4,487, but of this £1,386 was donated to the Trust by the family and friends of the author, Richard V. Melville, who died before completion of this book. The Trust is particularly grateful to these generous donors. Sales of the book in 1995 totalled £1,541, so the net cost to the Trust in the year was £1,560. The Trust’s deficit for 1995 was £4,441. This is only partly accounted for by the cost of the Centenary History as stated above, the remainder being the amount by which the Trust’s income from publications, interest and donations failed to keep pace with costs. Nearly half the Trust’s income came from sales of publications, mainly from the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature which yielded an income of £28,811. Sales of the Official Lists and Indexes and the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature brought the total income from publications to £32,824. Income from grants remained at £9,000, but the £15,928 received from donations was slightly less than in 1994. Investment interest of £10,017 was £362 more than in 1994. The total income for the year was £67,834. The main expenditure in 1995 was £53,576 for the salaries and National Insurance of the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Printing of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and the Centenary History and distribution of all publications amounted to £16,386. Other costs for office expenditure (£1,922) and depreciation of office equipment (£391) brought the total expenditure to £72,275. The Commission Secretariat was again housed in The Natural History Museum, London, whom we thank for their continuing support. The Trust wishes to express its thanks to all the donors listed below who contributed to its work during the year. Continuing support of this kind is vital if the Commission is to carry out its work for the international zoological and palaeontological community. M.K. HOWARTH Secretary and Managing Director 14 August 1996 List of donations and grants received during the year 1995 American Association for Zoological Nomenclature £6,079 W.F.H. Ansell £10 Australian Academy of Science £466 Conchological Society, U.K. £50 Freshwater Biological Association, U.K. £5 Amerada Hess Ltd. £250 Ichthyological Society of Japan £64 International Palaeontological Association £30 Mammal Society, U.K. £50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Marine Biological Association, U.K. Melville donations for the Centenary History Nuffield Foundation Paleontological Society of America Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters Royal Entomological Society of London Royal Society of London Royal Society of Victoria Russian Academy of Sciences St John’s College, Cambridge Gesellschaft fiir Naturkunde, Stuttgart Swedish Natural Science Research Council Systematics Association, U.K. Academia Sinica, Taiwan Toyota Foundation, Japan Dr J.A. Waters Zoological Society of London 233 £150 £1,386 £1,000 £635 £101 £300 £9,000 £155 £1,021 £200 £193 £1,000 £500 £125 £1,819 £190 £150 Total £24,928 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 1995 Income SALE OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Official Lists and Indexes Centenary History GRANTS AND DONATIONS SUNDRY INCOME BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST Expenditure SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES OFFICE EXPENSES PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT Deficit for the year £28,811 LPR) 517 1,541 32,824 53,576 1,922 16,386 391 24,928 65 10,017 67,834 T2325 £4.44] 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature General Session of the Commission, Budapest, 16-23 August 1996 Present: Prof A. Minelli (President), Commissioners Bock, Bouchet, Dupuis, Heppell, Kraus, Lehtinen, Nielsen, Ride and (from 18 August) Starobogatov. Dr Tubbs (Executive Secretary) and Mrs A. Gentry were present from the Secretariat. 1. Apologies for absence had been received from Commissioners Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Kabata, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Stys and Trjapitzin. 2. The Minutes of the previous General Session of the Commission (Amsterdam, September 1991; BZN 48: 286-292) were accepted and signed. 3. The Commission noted and accepted the Executive Secretary’s Report to [UBS covering the years 1991-1994. 4. Developments since the previous General Session (a) Changes in membership. Two Commissioners (Prof L.B. Holthuis and Prof A. Willink) had retired on reaching the age limit, and two others (Dr F.C. Thompson and Dr S.-I. Uéno) had resigned. The tenure of six members had been due for completion at the 1994 IUBS General Assembly, but no Session of the Commission had been held then and they had agreed to serve until the close of the current Session; these were Commissioners Bayer, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Starobogatov and Trjapitzin. Members present wished to thank all those who had left, or were leaving, for their services to nomenclature and to the Commission. (b) Officers of the Commission. Prof Dr O. Kraus had completed his six-year term as President, and Prof A. Minelli had been elected to succeed him with effect from 17 November 1995. Dr H.G. Cogger had been elected as Vice-President in December 1991. (c) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Executive Secretary reported that the number of applications for. Commission rulings and Opinions which had been published remained fairly constant, despite the pressure on the Secretariat caused by work on the proposed new edition of the Code. In the past few years there had been some decrease in the number of subscriptions to the Bulletin; although this had been the experience of very many journals it was a matter of concern, since nearly half the income for the support of the Commission’s work came from sale of publications, mainly subscriptions to the Bulletin. (d) Centenary History. A volume entitled Towards Stability in the Names of Animals, written mainly by the late Richard Melville (Commission Secretary from 1968 to 1985), had been published in August 1995 to mark the Commission’s centenary. It reviews the contributions of some of those, from Linnaeus onwards, who have attempted to provide a system ensuring that each animal taxon has a unique name which is to be changed only to reflect advances in taxonomic understanding. (e) Financial position. It was reported that the future financial position of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (which exists solely to support the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 235 Commission’s work) is very uncertain, and that it will deteriorate unless adequate continuous support is forthcoming from international sources. At present various bodies and individuals give generous and much appreciated help, but except in the very short term this will not suffice to prevent a potentially critical situation. In recent years the annual deficit has been about £5000, despite economies which limit the Commission’s efficiency, and the effect of this is cumulative. It was agreed that efforts should be made to ensure long-term support; IUBS might be involved in suitable approaches. 5. Procedure for election of a Vice-President It was agreed, under Bylaw 12b (BZN 34: 178), that Commissioners Bouchet and Lehtinen would augment the Council to nominate two candidates for election as Vice-President following the completion of Dr Cogger’s tenure in December 1997. 6. Proposed amendments to the Constitution Some proposed amendments to the Constitution had been agreed by the Council and had been published in 1995 (BZN 52: 6-10). The Commission noted that the major ones would be discussed on 19 August at a Session of the Section on Zoological Nomenclature (see BZN 53: 239-244 for an account of this), and that amendments would subsequently be approved, or otherwise, in a postal vote in the same way as changes to the Code. If approved, and ratified by IUBS, they would be incorporated into the new edition of the Code. Some minor changes in the wording of the proposed amendments were agreed. 7. Election of new members of the Commission As recorded in para. 4(a) above, ten members had already left the Commission or were about to do so. The present International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology provided a venue for participation by zoologists in elections to the Commission, and it was agreed that it would be appropriate to fill seven vacancies by a ballot; other vacancies could be filled in subsequent by-elections. The Commission reviewed the 33 nominations which had been received, having regard to the qualities of the nominees and, in conjunction with the present membership of the Commission, their taxonomic fields of expertise and their geographical locations. Particulars of all the nominees had been circulated to the Commission. It was agreed to present to the Section of Zoological Nomenclature (i.e. all those present at the Congress or the Workshop who considered themselves to be zoologists) a list of 14 candidates. Five candidates were particularly recommended to the Section because their election would avoid deficiencies which would otherwise exist in the scope of the Commission’s membership. The subsequent ballot of the Section is reported below (BZN 53: 244). 8. New (Fourth) Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature As agreed at the previous meeting of the Commission (BZN 48: 291), a Discussion Draft had been prepared (following a meeting of the Editorial Committee in Hamburg in October 1993) and, starting in May 1995, had been widely distributed throughout the world. Very many comments had been received, by post and electronically (see BZN 53: 145-146 and 240, para. 5); all were circulated to the Editorial Committee and some had been published in the Bulletin (BZN 52: 228-233, 294-302; 53: 6-17, 80-88). 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 After assessment of the responses to the Discussion Draft, the Committee had met in Vicenza (Italy) in June 1996 and had reviewed every Article in the Code in the light of the comments by taxonomists and other users of zoological names. The President had circulated a revised draft to the Commission in July; a Report by the Editorial Committee was also circulated. Guided by the Chairman of the Committee (Prof Ride), members of the Commission present in Budapest discussed the proposed new edition of the Code on 17-18 August, and, following the Workshop on 19 August, again on 22—23 August. By invitation of the President, Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), Dr C.W. Sabrosky (U.S.A.) and Dr F.C. Thompson (U.S.A.) were present for the Commission’s discussions of the Code on 18 August and following days, and Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) was present on 22 August. ; The Commission considered every Article in the proposed Code, although attention was directed primarily at major changes from the current (Third) edition and at points where the Editorial Committee, at their meeting in Vicenza, had recommended significant modifications to the Discussion Draft. Major conclusions reached in discussions on 17-18 August and at the Workshop (Section meeting) on 19 August are summarised in BZN 53: 242-243. Further points agreed by the Commission included the following: (i) a work published after 1998 other than by printing on paper (e.g. on laser disk) would only be available if containing a statement that it was intended for permanent record and that copies printed on paper had been deposited in at least ten named libraries (Art. 8); (ii) electronic sources (e.g. World Wide Web) from which copies could be obtained on demand would not constitute published work (Art. 9); (iii) a family-group name published in the period 1931-1960 without description of the taxon would only be available if it had been adopted before 1999 (Art. 13); (iv) after 1998 the distribution of separates of works published in a serial would not advance the date of publication (Art. 21); (v) cases of homonymy in existing family-group names resulting from similar names of type genera were to be referred to the Commission (Art. 55); (vi) while overlooked type species fixations were to be accepted (unless instability was caused, in which case reference to the Commission was necessary), an author finding that the type species of a genus had been misidentified would be able, under specified conditions, to fix as type species either the misidentified nominal species or the taxonomic species actually involved (Art. 70); (vii) lectotype designations made before 1999 were only to be taken as valid if a particular syntype was unambiguously selected, and the conditions for designations after 1998 were clarified (Art. 74); (viii) rediscovered original type material would automatically displace a neotype as the name-bearing type (Art. 75). It was agreed that the Editorial Committee should revise the Glossary, which was an integral part of the Code, to reflect any necessary changes. The new edition of the Code would initially be published in English and French, with both texts having equal authority (Article 86). The Société Frangaise de Systématique had made a financial contribution (BZN 52: 292) and the Commission Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 237 noted this with gratitude. Dr Bouchet offered to co-ordinate production of the French text, and this was accepted. It was agreed that the Commission could authorise the publication of the Code in any other languages; if it did so, those official texts would have the same authority as those in English and French (Article 87). The President proposed that all members of the Commission should be asked in a postal vote to approve the main principles of the Code as had been accepted by the meetings in Budapest. If such approval is given, final editorial corrections (including those necessary to harmonise the English and French texts) would be made. In accordance with the Constitution, the Commission would then be asked, in a second postal vote, to approve publication of the new edition of the Code. The Officers of IUBS had agreed (see also BZN 53: 240) that copies of the final text of the proposed Code would be circulated to members of the [UBS Executive after the final vote by the Commission, together with a request that the text be ratified by them as the international body in authority over the Commission. Subject to approval by the Commission’s final vote and ratification by IUBS, it was intended that the Fourth Edition of the Code would be published in 1997 and that its provisions would come into effect on 1 January 1999. The Commission accepted the procedure proposed by the President. 9. Proposed ‘International Code of Bionomenclature’ As previously reported (BZN 53: 148), the International Unions of Biological Sciences and Microbiological Societies (IUBS and IUMS) were proposing that a unified International Code of Bionomenclature, or ‘BioCode’, might regulate the form and usage of scientific names for all biological taxa which were first published after some future date; names published before that date would be regulated by the relevant existing Codes. [A draft of the BioCode has been published in the Bulletin (BZN 53: 148-166)]. The President proposed, and it was agreed, that the Commission should continue to cooperate with this project, but that a commitment to endorse a BioCode should not be made at present. 10. Possible future International Congresses of Zoology The President reported a proposal (see BZN 53: 245-246) from Prof F.D. Por (Jerusalem) and Prof R.M. Polymeni (Athens) that International Congresses of Zoology should be revived; the last full Congress had been held in Washington in 1963, although in 1972 there had been a Congress in Monaco which was largely devoted to administrative winding-up purposes. The Commission had a discussion of this suggestion, based on correspondence from Prof Por and a leaflet made available in Budapest. It was agreed to respond to Profs Por and Polymeni that the Commission had sympathy with the principle of their proposal to establish a new International Congress of Zoology to foster the status of Zoology as a unified field of science, and to serve as a forum for exchanges of views in diverse areas at present covered by specialised meetings. It was also agreed to communicate to Profs Por and Polymeni the Commission’s view that the viability of such a Congress (and its successors) would critically depend on the scientific programme, and on the support it achieved. 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 If such a Congress were to be held, and it was affiliated with TUBS, the Commission would decide whether to hold a meeting and a Session of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature in conjunction with it. The proposal to initiate a future Congress did not affect the delegation to IUBS of authority over the Commission which had been made by the 1972 Congress. 11. Conclusion In closing the meeting of the Commission, Prof Minelli said that agreement on the principles to be incorporated into the new edition of the Code was a notable achievement. He thanked Commissioners and other participants in the discussions on the Code for their contributions to this. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 239 1.U.B.S Section of Zoological Nomenclature Report of Meeting and Workshop, Budapest, 19 August 1996 Present: Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Chairman) and 43 other biologists, including nine members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and the Secretary General and Executive Director of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). 1. The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming all present. He explained the dual purposes of the meeting, which had been publicised in the Circulars of the V International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB), the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, Biology International and elsewhere. These were: (a) a Workshop for public discussion of the principles of the proposed Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, and (b) a meeting of the IUBS Section of Zoological Nomenclature. While the main business of the meeting was the Workshop, the session of the Section had the important formal role of considering and, if thought fit, of recommending to the Executive Committee of IUBS that the principles in the proposed edition of the Code and the Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be ratified. 2. With the approval of the meeting, Prof Minelli signed the minutes of the previous session (Amsterdam, 6 September 1991) of the Section as a correct record; these minutes had been published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (BZN 48: 293-294). 3. The Chairman explained that a secret ballot of members of the Section would be open on 19 and 21—22 August to elect new members of the Commission; the members of the Section consisted of members of the Commission who were present in Budapest and any other persons at ICSEB or the Workshop who considered themselves to be zoologists. Since the previous meeting, two members of the Commission had retired on reaching the age limit of 75 years and two others had resigned; at the end of the present Congress a further six vacancies would arise in accord with the Commission’s Constitution. The Commission had concluded that at the present time it would be appropriate for the Section to elect seven new members; 33 nominations for candidature had been received and considered by the Commis- sion, which now presented to the Section a list of 14 candidates to fill the seven vacancies. Five of these candidates were particularly recommended to the Section on the basis of their taxonomic fields of interest and their countries of origin; while the recommendations were not binding on any member of the Section in voting, it was considered that the election of these candidates would result in a membership and balance particularly advantageous to the work of the Commission. [For a report of the ballot see p. 244 below]. 4. The Chairman introduced proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Commission. In accordance with Article 82a of the Code, the Constitution could only be amended by the same procedure as the Code itself (i.e. the proposals had to be published, and comments received within one year had to be taken into consideration 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 before approval by the Commission in a postal vote and ratification by the Executive Committee of TUBS). In the present case proposals to amend a number of Articles had been approved by the Council of the Commission in 1994 and had been circulated to other members. The amendments had been published in full, with detailed explanatory notes, in March 1995 (BZN 52: 6-11); they had also been forwarded at that time to IUBS, and their publication had been cited in the introduction to the Discussion Draft of the proposed new edition of the Code and elsewhere. No adverse comments on any of the proposals had been received. Prof Minelli noted that of the proposed amendments to the Constitution two were major: those to Articles 3 and 11. The former provided that after serving for 18 continuous years a Commissioner would not be eligible for re-election until an interval of three years had passed. The amendments to Article 11 provided that the Commission would no longer be required to have a meeting in conjunction with every IUBS General Assembly. Although meetings at Assemblies could still be held, the President would be able to convene meetings at other Congresses (such as ICSEB) which were widely attended by zoologists, subject to the proviso that meetings of the Commission shall be held at intervals not exceeding six years. Prof Minelli emphasized that the status of TUBS as the body in authority over the Commission was not affected by any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution. In reply to a question from a member of the Section (Dr F.C. Thompson, U.S.A.), the Chairman stated that there were no other proposals for amendments to the Constitution which involved major changes to the Commission’s existing status, structure or procedures. Prof Minelli asked if any member of the Section wished to make observations on proposed amendments to the Constitution; no remarks were made. On a motion proposed from the Chair, the Section then resolved nem. con. to recommend to the IUBS Executive Committee that amendments to the Constitution approved by the Commission should be ratified (explicitly including (i) the limitation to 18 years of the uninterrupted term of service of Commissioners [proposed Art. 3b], (ii) the requirement that the Commission must meet at least every six years but not necessarily at every IUBS General Assembly [proposed Art. lla] and (ili) the abolition of the requirement [present Art. 16a(v)] that amendments to the Code and Constitution be reported to subsequent IUBS General Assemblies). It had already been agreed with the IUBS Officers that the full text of the proposed Constitution (and that of the new Code; see para. 8 below) would be circulated to the [UBS Executive Committee after the definitive postal vote by the Commission had been taken. 5. The Chairman introduced discussion of the proposed Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, which was planned to come into effect on | January 1999 following publication in 1997. After earlier discussions by the Commission and the Section at meetings in Canberra, Maryland and Amsterdam, the Code Editorial Committee had met in Hamburg in October 1993. Distribution of a Discussion Draft began in May 1995; over 700 paper copies were produced and sent to at least 43 countries, and the text was also available Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 241 electronically. More than 500 comments were received; they were sent in batches to the Editorial Committee and some were published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Editorial Committee had met in Vicenza (Italy) from 24-30 June 1996 and had considered every Article in the Discussion Draft in the light of all the comments made by zoologists. Prof Minelli invited the Chairman of the Code Editorial Committee (Prof W.D.L. Ride, Australia) to explain the steps leading to the adoption and publication of the new Code. Prof Ride outlined the procedures in the present Constitution which had been followed by the Commission and the Section in the case of the current (1985) edition. These procedures were now outdated, and in the Fourth Edition would be amended to bring them into line with present practice, which is: (a) on request by the Commission, the Editorial Committee prepares a draft incorporating changes and makes it publicly available for discussion, as required under the Code; (b) following a twelve-month period in which the draft is available for discussion, the Editorial Committee and the Commission meet to consider the proposals and the comments received [in the present case the Committee met in Vicenza in June 1996, as mentioned above, and the Commission was currently meeting in Budapest]; (c) proposed major changes of principle [from the previous text and from the discussion draft] are notified to the Section of Zoological Nomenclature, which is asked to support the principles agreed by the Commission and to recommend to IUBS that the final text which is accepted by the Commission should be ratified; (d) the Commission votes, initially on major changes of principle and secondly on the complete text incorporating the agreed principles; (e) TUBS is asked to ratify the Code text as adopted by the Commission. The Section accepted Prof Ride’s explanation without dissent and agreed to proceed on that basis. The Chairman then asked Prof Ride to guide the discussion of the proposed new edition of the Code. 6. Prof Ride drew attention to the copies of a Report by the Editorial Committee which were in the hands of members of the Workshop and Section; they also had copies of Articles 23 and 78-80 of the draft as amended in Vicenza. The Report summarized the recommended administrative procedures leading to the adoption of the Fourth Edition of the Code and major proposed nomenclatural changes to the current Code. Proposals which involved substantial changes from the current Code were indicated in the Report in some detail, together with the Editorial Committee’s reasons for putting them forward. Prof Ride said that some further changes had been made by the Commission meeting during the previous two days in Budapest, and that he would draw attention to the significant ones. The Report mentioned Code Articles in which the Editorial Committee did not recommend changes previously supported by the Commission or Section. The Report did not draw specific attention to proposed changes which were essentially of an editorial nature to improve presentation and comprehension: Prof Ride emphasized, however, that all proposals were open for discussion, either in the meeting or subsequently with members of the Code Editorial Committee or Commission. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 7. Prof Ride then led the meeting through the Report of the Editorial Committee and some of the proposals to which it referred. Matters mentioned during the meeting included: (a) Article 1 (scope of the Code) Scientific names of taxa above the family group were incorporated, but only to the extent that they must be uninominal and latinized, and be published in or after 1758. Zoological genus-group names published after 1998 which are identical to generic names already published for botanical or microbiological taxa were to be treated as junior homonyms of those names. In discussion, it was pointed out that at present names for protistan taxa presented difficulties with homonymy, but it was thought that these could be overcome. It was noted that the Index Nominum Genericorum (Plantarum) contained 8784 names which were homonyms of zoological genus- group names, but it was not proposed that these existing homonymies be eliminated. Members of the Section pointed out that the imminent provision of comprehensive and accessible lists of generic names would facilitate the avoidance of future inter-kingdom homonymies. (b) Article 8 (publication to determine availability ) The Editorial Committee had concluded that the proposal in the Discussion Draft which required that new names must be registered in Zoological Record was not generally acceptable, and that availability must be determined by criteria of publication. Publication of new names in durable unalterable media which are not readable by eye (such as CD-ROM) should only be acceptable under specified conditions, and electronic networks were not regarded as publications. (c) Article 16 (fixation of type specimens ) It was proposed that after 1998 new species-group names would only be available if holotypes or syntypes were explicitly fixed in the original publication. If the types were preserved specimens (which was not always possible) they would have to be deposited in named and publicly accessible museums or similar institutions. (d) Article 23 (reversal of precedence under specified conditions ) The Code draft proposed that a name which met stringent criteria of wide, universal and sustained use should automatically take precedence over an unused or long disused older synonym or homonym. The Commission considered that in such cases the senior name should not take precedence if it had remained unused since 1899. If the criteria were not met there might still be a case for retaining the junior name in the interest of stability, but the matter would have to be referred to the Commission for resolution under the plenary power. (e) Articles 30 and 31 (agreement in gender in combinations ) The Editorial Committee had concluded that the proposal in the Discussion Draft to abandon grammatical gender agreement in species names (binomina) was not generally acceptable to zoologists, and that it should not now be pursued. (f) Article 42 (trace fossil genera) It was proposed that new genus-group names for trace fossils (ichnotaxa) should only be available if type species were fixed, as was already the case for other genus-group names. (g) Articles 78, 79 and 80 (power to adopt parts of a List of Available Names in Zoology, and the status of Listed Names ) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 243 Prof P.H.A. Sneath (U.K.) noted that in bacteriology names only had status in nomenclature (i.e. were only available) if they were on an officially adopted List (or, in the case of new names, were registered by publication in the Journal of Systematic Bacteriology). The dates, authorship and typification of the named taxa were deemed to be as stated in the List or as registered. Prof Ride stated that the Discussion Draft of the zoological Code contained enabling provisions so that the Commission could adopt Parts of a List of Available Names in Zoology. A Part would relate to a particular taxonomic field and names published in a specified period of time, and would be proposed by an international body of zoologists dealing with that taxonomic field. The List would be intended to include all known names within its scope, not only those used as valid. Adoption could only take place after processes of wide consultation; once a Part had been adopted the listed particulars relating to a name (date, authorship, typification of the nominal taxon) would be deemed to be definitive. The Discussion Draft had proposed that a name which fell within the scope of an adopted Part of the List would be available only it were recorded in the List; this would be analogous to the practice in bacteriology. The Editorial Committee meeting in Vicenza had recommended that names not in a relevant adopted Part of the List would remain available but the Listed names would have precedence over them. The Workshop and Section discussed the two alternatives mentioned above (names not in a relevant adopted Part of the List to be deemed either (i) not available or (ii) not to have precedence over Listed names). Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark) proposed, and Prof W.J. Bock (U.S.A.) seconded, a motion that the Fourth Edition of the Code should prescribe the first alternative, i.e. that names which fell within the scope (taxonomic field, time span) of an adopted Part of the List of Available Names in Zoology but which were not in the List should be deemed to be not available. The Chairman put this motion to a vote by the Section, and it was carried nem. con. 8. Prof Ride proposed, and Dr C. Nielsen seconded, a motion that the Section should support the principles that had been put forward for the planned Fourth Edition of the Code, and should recommend to the Executive Committee of [UBS that the final text approved by postal vote of the Commission (subject to editorial improvements of details) should be ratified. The final text would be submitted to the IUBS Executive Committee for ratification (as with the Constitution; see para. 4 above). The motion was carried nem. con. 9. The Chairman thanked Prof Ride for presenting the Report of the Editorial Committee and for guiding the discussion on the draft of the Code. 10. There was some discussion of the nomenclature of ambiregnal taxa, i.e. those which had been, or might be, treated under more than one Code. Such treatment sometimes led to more than one name for the same taxonomic concept, each correct under a particular Code. Two alternatives were (i) for it to be left to individual workers which Code to follow, or (ii) for appropriate taxa to be treated under the provisions of a particular Code, to which they would be assigned for nomenclatural purposes only and without taxonomic implications. It was agreed that wide consultations would be necessary to resolve the nomenclatural issues involving ambiregnal organisms. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 11. By invitation of Prof Minelli, Mrs J. Thorne (Biosis, U.K.) described the procedures which were currently used in the preparation of Zoological Record. She emphasisised that the publishers (Biosis International) were a not-for-profit company, and that a facility was being developed by which the recording (or otherwise) of a taxon name could be checked on the World Wide Web free of charge. This is the Index to Organism Names, part of the Taxonomy Resource and Index to Organism Names (‘TRITON’). A demonstration was already available. Mrs Thorne said that the assistance of workers was sought in order to make the Record as complete and timely as possible. 12. As Chairman, Prof Minelli asked if anybody wished to raise further business; none did. After thanking all those who had attended the Workshop and Section meeting he closed the session, and declared open the ballot for election of seven new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Report of the ballot for election of new members of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The ballot was open to members of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature on 19 and 21-22 August 1996. The votes were counted by Prof A. Minelli (President of the Commission) and Commissioners W.J. Bock and D. Heppell. Fifty-nine members of the Section voted, and the following zoologists were elected as members of the Commission: Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa), Dr W.N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.), Dr I.M. Kerzhner (Russia), Prof S.F. Mawatari (Japan), Dr L. Papp (Hungary), Prof D.J. Patterson (Australia) and Prof Da-xiang Song (China). i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 245 Call for a new International Congress of Zoology F.D. Por Department of Evolution, Systematics and Ecology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel R.M. Polymeni Department of Biology, University of Athens, Greece We seek the response of zoologists concerning the feasibility of a new International Congress of Zoology, possibly to be convened in Athens in 1999 or 2000. The first International Congress of Zoology was held in Paris in 1889. It was suggested at the XVI Congress in Washington (1963) that the Congresses should be discontinued because Zoology had split into many specialized and unrelated fields, and the last Congress (Monaco, 1972) was largely administrative in nature. It was hoped that the International Congresses of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB) would replace the defunct Zoological Congresses at a higher integrative level, but after several meetings of ICSEB this has not proved to be the case. There has been a general depreciation of Zoology in the academic world, and the replacement of this discipline by a plethora of more fashionable topics. Meanwhile, International Botanical Congresses have continued without interruption. The widely circulated ‘Systematics Agenda 2000’ emphasizes our present incapacity even to scientifically describe a zoological biodiversity which appears to be an order of magnitude greater than was envisaged 25 years ago. A critically depleted and weakened community of zoological systematics cannot rise to the task of investigating, and helping to protect, the heritage of the animal world. On the positive side, there are many advances of the last three decades which need to be appreciated by an international forum of all zoologists. Confined to the pages of strictly specialized journals, these important developments often do not reach the attention of those in other zoological fields. In the case of more classical zoology, it would be useful to acquaint colleagues in other fields with the more recently discovered animal phyla and classes, the new concepts of vertebrate evolution, the biology of clonal animals, present views on the Protista, and so on. A sample of subjects of wider implications might include sociobiology, cladistics, molecular taxonomy, modern embryology, the Cambrian ‘revolution’, vicariance zoogeography, in and ex situ conservation. This is a different Zoology from that of the 1960s. We are ready to try and promote a Congress which would reflect the rich and unifying aspects of Zoology, and which would reassert its general global, human and philosophical role. We hope for the approval and support of the zoological diaspora, and seek suggestions regarding the themes and structure of the proposed Congress. Even more, we need personal commitments to help by organizing symposia and workshops. It will be necessary, even at an early stage, to establish an active and representative Action Committee. Understandably, we shall be able to appeal for funding only after having obtained convincing public support and after having in place a sufficiently prestigious Committee. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Those who are interested in the idea of launching a new International Congress of Zoology are invited to contact Dr Rosa Polymeni, Department of Zoology, University of Athens, 15784 Athens, Greece (fax +—30—-1—7284604, e-mail rpolime@atlas.uoa.gr). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 247 Origins of the terms Cephalopod, Cephalopoda and Gastropoda, and early subdivisions of the Mollusca D.T. Donovan Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. Abstract. The French vernacular term céphalopode originated with Cuvier in 1795, along with gastéropode and acéphale. It was adopted in English as cephalopode (1811) and cephalopod (1826). The formal terms Cephalopoda, Acephala and Gasteropoda date from an English translation (Cuvier, 1802). Early classifications of Cuvier and Lamarck are discussed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Acephala; Brachiopoda; cephalo- pod; Cephalopoda; gastropod; Gastropoda; Pteropoda. Introduction Although the names of Orders and other suprafamilial taxa are not governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature they are of critical importance for zoological nomenclature and their history is of interest. It is the purpose of this note to trace the origin of the name Cephalopoda and other early subdivisions of Mollusca. The origin of the nominal taxon Cephalopoda has been placed as far back as 1784 (Salvini-Plawen, 1980, p. 271, citing Schneider, 1784). Jeletzky (1966, p. 11) cites Cuvier (1794). Most other authorities in the present century attribute Cephalopoda to Cuvier and give the year as either 1797 (Engeser, 1990) or 1798 (Naef, 1921; Clarke & Trueman, 1988). Although Schneider (1784) may have been the first to offer a logical classification of the Cephalopoda, he used the name Octopodia for all the dibranchiate cephalo- pods. The term Octopodia was probably taken from Linnaeus’s use as a species (Sepia octopodia, 1758, p. 658). The words cephalopod or Cephalopoda do not occur in Schneider’s article. Schneider divided his Octopodia into two classes, which he did not name: Classis I. Pedes octoni breves, promuscides binae; venter pinnatus, ossiculum dorsi. Classis I]. Pedes octoni longi basi palmati, absque promuscidibus, pinnis et osse dorsali. Classis I included Sepia, Loligo, Teuthis and Sepiola, Classis Il included Polypus, Moschites, Nautilus and Pompilus. These were referred to in German as “Arten’, a word now used for species, but also used in a more general sense by earlier German writers. The present writer regards these names as genera, but a different interpret- ation was placed upon them by Hemming (1954), who concluded that Octopodia was a generic name and that the eight subdivisions were species of that genus. The 248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Commission suppressed Octopodia (as a genus-group name) and the other eight names from Schneider (whether as genera or species) in Opinion 233 (1954). G.L.C.F.D. Cuvier By the end of the eighteenth century Linnaeus’s (1758) subdivision of all invertebrates into Insecta and Vermes was clearly inadequate. ‘Vermes: Testacea’ included most of the shelled bivalves and gastropods, but also Argonauta and Nautilus, besides chitons and barnacles. ‘Vermes: Mollusca’ included Sepia and members of several other phyla, including the echinoderms. The basis of modern classification was laid by Cuvier (1795a), who replaced ‘Vermes’ by six classes. The term ‘Mollusques’ was retained for one of these and now corresponded more closely with our modern idea of the group. In a second paper published in the same year Cuvier (1795b) divided his Classe Mollusques into three Orders: Cephalopodes, Gastéropodes and Acéphales. Céphalopodes were defined as molluscs with a free head supporting an arm crown and including ‘les seiches, que je divise en seiches [i.e. cuttlefish] et en poulpes [i.e. octopus].’ Cuvier thought that Clio (an opisthobranch gastropod) probably belonged to the group but wrote that as he had not dissected one he could not be certain. Clio was later excluded (Cuvier, 1799). The term ‘céphalo- pode’ was coined from the Greek words for head and foot because of the use of the arms on the head for locomotion (°... grands tentacules sur lequels ils marchent’), presumably referring to Octopus. Gastéropodes had a free head, two or four small tentacles, and crawled on a muscular ventral foot; the name was derived from the last feature. Cuvier included here the modern gastropods and also flukes, planarians and some protochordates (myxines). Acéphales, without head, eyes or ‘ears’, included tunicates, barnacles and brachiopods as well as the modern Bivalvia. The recent comprehensive bibliography of Cuvier’s writings (Smith, 1993) does not list any publications by Cuvier in 1794, and only three before 1795. These, all in 1792, were on ‘Cloportes’ (i.e. woodlice), Patella and Diptera, and do not include reference to cephalopods. Jeletzky’s assignment of Cephalopoda to Cuvier (1794) therefore appears to be an error. Attributions of the name Cephalopoda to Cuvier (1797) or (1798) refer to that author’s Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. The reason for the uncertainty as to the year is that Cuvier’s work was dated only ‘An 6° [Year 6] according to the French Republican Calendar. An 6 lasted from 22 September 1797 until 21 September 1798 (Holland, 1910). Most bibliographies and library catalogues, including that of the Natural History Museum, London, interpret this as 1798. Smith (1993, record 772) has *[1797/1798?]’. However, a copy in the library of the Natural History Museum has a MS note on the title page which refers to “Bibl. Frang. Ann 1 no xi, p. 81’. This is the Bibliographie de la France, which reviewed Cuvier’s book in no. xi, issued on 24 December 1797. The date of publication was therefore between 22 September and 24 December 1797. The year of publication of the ‘Tableau’ is of importance for generic authorship, because it gives priority to Cuvier for the genus Octopus in 1797 over Lamarck, 1798, as correctly stated by Guerra & Alonso-Zarazaga (1995). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 249 As originally conceived ‘Céphalopodes’ comprised only the subdivision later named Dibranchiata (Owen, 1832), and now generally referred to as Coleoidea (Bather, 1888). The same subdivision of molluscs was used in Cuvier’s ‘Tableau’ (1797) as in 1795, and the definition of “Céphalopodes’ was also the same. However, the scope of the group was now extended to include forms with an external shell: Nautilus, the fossil ammonites and orthoceratites. Cuvier also included a third group of fossils, “Camérines’, these in fact being Foraminifera. Cuvier’s inclusion of Nautilus in his céphalopodes followed Linnaeus (1758, p. 709), who after Nautilus had written ‘Animal Sepia?’ and cited Rumpf (1705), who had figured the soft parts. By 1797 Cephalopodes comprised the modern group as then known, with the addition of some Foraminifera. Cuvier (1804) introduced the new order ptéropodes for certain molluscs without an external shell, including C/io. In the first volume of his Legons d’anatomie comparée (1800) Cuvier had retained the three subdivisions of molluscs which he had set up in 1795. In the third and fourth volumes (1805a,b) he employed ptéropodes and added the new term brachiopodes (for the térébratules and lingulées), these still being classified as ‘mollusques acéphales’. J.B.P.A. de M. de Lamarck While Cuvier’s classification of the Mollusca was founded primarily on the soft parts, Lamarck (1792) had explicitly rejected this approach, arguing that, since the animals which inhabited them were known only for a small fraction of shells, the majority of shells in collections would remain indeterminate. His first classification (Lamarck, 1799) was therefore Linnaean. In the order Testacées, “Coquilles univalves uniloculaires’ included Argonauta as well as modern gastropods, while “Coquilles univalves multiloculaires’ included Nautilus, Spirula, Belemnites and several more fossil genera. ‘Coquilles bivalves’ and ‘coquilles multivalves’ each included a wide range of organisms. Lamarck (1799) did not use the term ‘céphalopodes’, or Cuvier’s other subdivisions of 1795. Two years later Lamarck (1801) made a concession to Cuvier’s approach, making his primary division into Mollusques céphalés and Mollusques acéphales. This enabled him to include the forms without obvious shells, the squids and octopuses which had been Cuvier’s original céphalopodes. ‘Mollusques céphalés nus’ included Sepia, Loligo and Octopus but also some opisthobranch gastropods, and ‘Mollusques céphalés conchiliferes’ included the ectocochleate cephalopods and most of the shell-bearing gastropods. Within this group, “Coquilles univalves multiloculaires’ included Nautilus, Spirula, ammonites, belemnites, and Foraminifera. Mollusques acéphales were similarly divided into naked (i.e. the tunicates) and shell-bearing forms, the latter including brachiopods and cirripedes as well as the modern Bivalvia. In later works Lamarck (1804; 1809) adopted Cuvier’s groups brachiopodes, céphalopodes, gastéropodes and ptéropodes. Later History Cuvier, Lamarck and other French authors continued to state their classifications in the vernacular, using latinised generic names without formalising the names of higher categories. ‘Cephalopoda’ as a formal latinised term first appears in the 250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 English translation (Lectures on comparative anatomy, 1802, p. 428, folding table v) of Cuvier’s Legons of 1800. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the year 1802, with the reference ‘Medical Journal VIII, 372’, which in fact is a review (Anon.) of the English translation (Cuvier, 1802) by William Ross of Cuvier (1800). The formal terms Gasteropoda [sic] and Acephala are used in the English translation. Brachiopoda and Pteropoda were latinised from brachiopodes and ptéropodes by Dumeril (1806). A detailed account of the history of the classification of the Gastropoda is given by Cox (1960). Foraminifera were excluded from the Cephalopoda in the 1802 English translation of Cuvier (1800), but they continued to be included by French authors until Dujardin (1835) examined the soft parts of living Foraminifera and showed that they could not be classed with the Mollusca. i For the English vernacular ‘cephalopod’ and ‘gasteropod’ the earliest usage cited by the Oxford English Dictionary is 1826 (Kirby & Spence, 1826, p. 235). Parkinson (1811, p. 99) had used the spelling cephalopode and (1811, p. 165) wrote of ‘bivalve shells, the dwellings of acephalous molluscae’. The terms Brachiopoda, Cephalopoda, Gast(e)ropoda and Pteropoda have retained general currency. Acephala, though used by some nineteenth century authors, has not found general acceptance. Cox (1969, p. N3) found that no less than thirteen different names had been used for the bivalve molluscs, and used the Linnaean name Bivalvia (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 645) in accord with other recent works of reference (e.g. Franc, 1960). Acknowledgements I thank Drs M.K. Howarth and R. Boucher-Rodoni for help with literature references. References Anon. 1802. Lectures on comparative anatomy, translated from the French of G. Cuvier ... by William Ross ... [Review]. The Medical and Physical Journal, 8(44): 365-373; 8(45): 466-469. Bather, F.A. 1888. Professor Blake and shell-growth in Cephalopoda. Geological Magazine, (6)1: 421-427. Clarke, M.R. & Trueman, E.R. 1988. Introduction. Pp. 1-10 in Clarke, M.R. & Trueman, E.R. (Eds.), The Mollusca, vol. 12. Academic Press, San Diego. Cox, L.R. 1960. General characteristics of Gastropoda. Pp. 184-1169 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part | (Mollusca 1). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Cox, L.R. 1969. General features of Bivalvia. Pp. N3-N129 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part N, vol. 1 (Mollusca 6, Bivalvia). Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1795a. Mémoire sur la structure interne et externe, et sur les affinités des animaux auxquels on a donné le nom de vers. La Décade Philosophique, Littéraire et Politique, 5: 385-396. (Dated 10 Prairial An III (i.e. 30 May 1795)). Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1795b. Second mémoire sur l’organisation et les rapports des animaux a sang blanc, dans lequel on traite de la structure des Mollusques et de leur division en ordre. Magazin Encyclopédique, ou Journal des Sciences, des Lettres et des Arts (Année 1), 2: 433-449. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. An 6. [1797]. Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. xvi, 710 pp. Baudouin, Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 251 Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1799. Observations nouvelles sur quelques mollusques. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomathique, 2: 52-53. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. An 8. [1800]. Legons d’anatomie comparée de G. Cuvier. Recueillies et publiées sous ses yeux, par C. Dumeéril. 1. Contenant les organes du mouvement. xxxii, 521 pp. Baudouin, Paris. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1802. Lectures on comparative anatomy. Translated from the French of G. Cuvier ... by William Ross; under the inspection of James Macartney. 1. On the organs of motion. x1, 542 pp. Longman & Rees, London. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1804. Concernant l’animal de l’Hyale, un nouveau genre de mollusques nus intermédiaire entre |’ Hyale et le Clio et l’etablissement d’un nouvel ordre dans la classe des mollusques. Annales du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 4; 223-234. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1805a. Legons d’anatomie comparée de G. Cuvier. Recueillies et publiées sous ses yeux, par C. Dumeéril. 3. Contenant la premiere partie des organes de la digestion. xxvill, 558 pp. Genets, Paris. Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. 1805b. Legons d’anatomie comparée de G. Cuvier. Recueillies et publiées sous ses yeux, par C. Dumeril. 4. Contenant la suite des organes de la digestion et ceux de la circulation, de la respiration et de la voix. xii, 539 pp. Genets, Paris. Dujardin, F. 1835. [Sur les prétendus céphalopodes microscopiques]. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences naturelles de France, 1835(3): 36. Dumeéril, A.M.C. 1806. Zoologie analytique, ou méthode naturelle de classification des animaux. xxxil, 344 pp. Allais, Paris. Engeser, T. 1990. Phylogeny of the fossil coleoid Cephalopoda (Mollusca). Berliner geowis- senschaftliche Abhandlungen, (A)124: 123-191. Franc, A. 1960. Classe des bivalves in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie, 5(fasc. 2): 1845-2133. Masson, Paris. Guerra, A. & Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. 1995. Octopus vulgaris Cuvier, [1797] and Loligo vulgaris Lamarck, 1798 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): proposed conservation of the specific names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52: 24-26. Hemming, F. 1954. On the status of the name ‘Pompilus’ and certain other names commonly alleged to have been published as generic names by Schneider (J.G.) in 1784, ‘Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte’, and on matters incidental thereto. Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 4: 279-287. Holland, A.W. 1910. French Republican calendar. Pp. 170-171 in: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Ed. 11, vol. 11. Jeletzky, J.A. 1966. Comparative morphology, phylogeny, and classification of fossil Coleoidea. Paleontological Contributions. University of Kansas (Mollusca), 7: 1-162. Kirby, W. & Spence, W. 1826. An introduction to entomology. or elements of the natural history of insects, vol. 4. iv, 634 pp. Longman, London. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1792. Sur les coquilles, et sur quelques-uns des genres qu’on a établis dans l’ordre des vers testacés. Journal d'Histoire Naturelle, 2: 269-280. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1798. Extrait d’un mémoire sur le genre de la seche, du calmar et du poulpe, vulgairement nommés, polypes de mer. Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomathique, 17: 129-131. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles, comprenant une rédaction appropriée des caracteres génériques, et l’etablissement d’un grand nombre de genres nouveaux. Mémoires de la Société d'Histoire naturelle de Paris, 1; 63-91. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertebres, ou tableau général des classes, des ordres et des genres de ces animaux ... vili, 432 pp. Author, Paris. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1804. Mémoires sur les fossiles des environs de Paris ..., [part 19]. Annales du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 5: 91-98. Lamarck, J.B.P.A. de M. de. 1809. Philosophie zoologique. xxvi, 428 pp. Dentu, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Naef, A. 1921. Das System der dibranchiaten Cephalopoden und die mediterranen Arten derselben. Mitteilungen aus der zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 22: 527-542. 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Owen, R. 1832. Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus (Nautilus Pompilius, Linn.). 68 pp., 12 pl. Royal College of Surgeons, London. Parkinson, J. 1811. Organic remains of a former world. An examination of the mineralized remains of the vegetables and animals of the antediluvian world; generally termed extraneous fossils. The third volume, containing the fossil starfish, echini, shells, insects, amphibia, mammalia, &c. xvi, 480 pp., 22 pl. Sherwood, Neely & Jones, London. Rumpf, G.E. 1705. D'Amboinsche Rariteitkamer. 340 pp., 60 pl. Halma, Amsterdam. Salvini-Plawen, L. 1980. A reconsideration of systematics in the Mollusca (phylogeny and higher classification). Malacologia, 19: 249-278. Schneider, J.G. 1784. Charakteristik des ganzen Geschlechts und der einzelnen Arten von Blakfischen. Pp. 103-134 in Schneider, J.G. Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklérung der Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte. Unger, Berlin. Smith, J.C. 1993. Georges Cuvier. An annotated bibliography of his published works. xx, 251 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 253 Case 2987 Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949, Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921, Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 and Belemnoteuthis montefiorei Buckman, 1880 (Mollusca, Coleoidea): proposed conservation T. Engeser Institut fiir Paldontologie, Freie Universitat Berlin, Malteserstrasse 74-100, 12249 Berlin, Germany D.T. Donovan Department of Geological Sciences, University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the names of six genera and one species of Jurassic coleoid cephalopods. The six generic names are threatened by the generic name Belemnosepia, a name first used by Agassiz in 1835 but made available by Buckland & Agassiz in 1836. The first person to refer species to Belemnosepia was d’Orbigny (1846), and six of these are now the type species of Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949, Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990, Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839, Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921 and Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921. The name Be/emnosepia has not been used for over 60 years, and in the 19th century was used in senses different from the original; it is proposed that this name should be suppressed. It is also proposed that the specific name of Belemnoteuthis montefiorei Buckman, 1880 should be conserved by suppression of its senior synonym Orthoceras belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cephalopoda; Coleoidea; Jurassic; Belemnosepia; Geopeltis; Geoteuthis; Jeletzkyteuthis; Loligosepia; Parabelopeltis; Paraplesioteuthis; Belemnoteuthis montefiorei. 1. The generic name Belemnosepia appears in the literature with various authors and publication dates. These are: Agassiz (1835) — given as author in d’Orbigny (1846), Gray (1849), Bronn & Roemer (1851-52), Giebel (1852a, 1852b) and Chénu (1859); Buckland & Agassiz (1835 and 1836) — given as authors in Geinitz (1846) and Fischer (1882); Agassiz in Buckland (1839) — given as author in Agassiz (1846) and Bronn (1848); Buckland (1835 and 1836) — given as author in Naef (1921b) and Neave (1939). 2. We shall first elucidate the history, authorship and date of publication of Belemnosepia. Agassiz (1835) stated that, following a visit to the Philpot Collection at Lyme Regis, England, he had made an important discovery regarding belemnites, namely that the ‘sogenannte Onychoteuthis prisca mit Dintensacken’ [the so-called 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Onychoteuthis prisca with ink sacs] of Zieten (1832, pl. 25) was really only the anterior part of a belemnite. In point of fact, the name Onychoteuthis prisca was not used for these fossils by Zieten. Agassiz was referring to Onychoteuthis prisca Minster, 1828. However, the reference to Zieten (pl. 25) shows that he was confusing fossil gladiuses with the pro-ostraca of belemnoid cephalopods. He then wrote: ‘Die Belemniten unterscheiden sich daher von den Sepien hauptsachlich durch die auffallend gréssere Entwicklung des Spitzchens am oberen Rande der sogenannten Sepien-Knochen’ [The belemnites therefore differ from the sepiids chiefly through the strikingly greater development of the little spine at the upper margin of the so-called cuttlebone]. It was for this reason that he coined the name Be/emnosepia for the fossils, although this name does not appear in his brief communication. However, he probably communicated the name Belemnosepia to Buckland during his visit to England in October 1834. Agassiz later (1846, p. 11) recorded Belemnosepia as “Agassiz in Buckland, 1839°, presumably referring to the German translation (Buckland, 1839) of Buckland (1836b) which he had edited. It is evident from the context that this name was applied by Agassiz to a supposed animal which combined the features of a belemnite with those of a different fossil. Thus Agassiz in 1835 initiated the confusion which is apparent in Buckland (1836b) published a year later. The name Belemnosepia (written “‘Belemno-Sepia’) first appears in a report of a talk given by Buckland at a convention of German naturalists and physicians held in Bonn in 1835 (Anon., 1835, p. 627). The original text reads ‘Buckland hielt einen Vortrag tiber ein neues Genus von fossilen Cephalopoden, das er Be/emno-Sepia genannt hat, und tiber die Dintensaicke, welche im Innern der Belemniten-Stacheln gefunden wurden’ {Buckland gave a lecture about a new genus of fossil cephalopods that he called Belemno-Sepia and about ink sacs which have been found in the interior of the belemnite thorns]. No description or figure was given, nor an indication to such a description or figure, nor is a species name mentioned. The name is a nomen nudum. Later, a description was published by Buckland (1836a), although no figure was given and no species name mentioned. He wrote (p. 39): *... ein Geschlecht in der Klasse der Cephalopoden ..., ftir welches ich mit Agassiz den Namen Belemnosepia vorschlagen mochte’ [... a genus in the class Cephalopoda ..., for which I would like to propose in concurrence with Agassiz the name Belemnosepia]. The phrase ‘in concurrence with’ makes it clear that it was Agassiz who had named the taxon and, under Article 50a of the Code, authorship is established as Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland (1836). From the description it is clear that Buckland (1836a) was referring to fossil remains from the Lower Liassic of the Dorset coast near Lyme Regis. He had earlier (1830a, p. 23) described these remains under the name Orthoceras belemnitoeides. A review of his paper was published later that year (Buckland, 1830b, p. 511) in which the name was spelt be/emnitoides; this was an incorrect subsequent spelling and under Article 33c of the Code is unavailable. Buckman (1880, p. 141) later named these remains Belemnoteuthis montefiorei; these are the forms described as unnamed Phragmoteuthida by Donovan (1977, pp. 21-22). The name Orthoceras belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830 has not been used for very many years, and Belemnoteuthis montefiorei is currently used to refer to these remains (e.g. Rietschel, 1977, p. 124; Phillips, 1982, p. 72; Engeser & Clarke, 1988, p. 141; eight further references by five further authors are held by the Secretariat). We propose that the name /montefiorei Buckman, 1880 be conserved by suppression of Orthoceras Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 255 belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830. Buckland (1836b, p. 374) mentioned the name Belemnosepia when describing fossil ink sacs of coleoids whose systematic position had not previously been clear. Plate 44 of this work bears the heading ‘illustrations of the Genus Belemnosepia’; this includes figure | ‘Imaginary restoration of Belemnosepia’ showing a belemnite rostrum. Plate 44” is titled ‘ink bags of Belemnosepia in their nacreous sheaths, from the Lias of Lyme Regis’. In the explanation of plate 44”, figs. 1 and 2 are stated to be “anterior sheath and ink-bag of Belemno-sepia’ and fig. 3 to be ‘Belemno-sepia from the Lias at Lyme, in the Oxford Museum; the ink-bag is preserved entire within the anterior conical sheath’. All the specimens on this plate are recognizable as Belemnoteuthis montefiorei. 3. However, Buckland confused the issue by referring also to two belemnite rostra which had been found associated with ink sacs (Buckland, 1836b, pl. 44’, figs. 7, 9) named in the explanation of the plates (Buckland, 1836b, vol. 2, p. 69) as Belemnites ovalis and B. pistilliformis? respectively. It is now thought that Belemnoteuthis montefiorei and Belemnites belong to different orders, Phragmoteuthida and Belemnitida respectively. Belemnites was a valid generic name at that time although it has been suppressed in Opinion 1721 (1993). 4. For the arguments that follow it is necessary to note that Buckland (1836b) clearly distinguished between ‘fossil pens of Loligo from the Lias of Lyme Regis’ (pls. 28-30), which are fossils now referred to the genera Geopeltis and Loligosepia, and the fossil ink sacs and belemnite rostra which he included in Belemnosepia. Belemnosepia, as originally conceived by Agassiz and by Buckland, was based on a reconstruction of a fossil coleoid under the erroneous assumption that Belemnites (fossil coleoid cephalopods possessing a pro-ostracum, phragmocone and rostrum) was congeneric with other forms (i.e. Belemnoteuthis montefiorei) which did not possess a rostrum. Buckland (1836b, p. 374, footnote) wrote: ‘Each of these specimens contains an ink bag within the anterior portion of the sheath of a perfect Belemnite; and we are henceforth enabled with certainty to refer all species of Belemnites to a family [genus in modern terminology] in the class of Cephalopods, for which I would, in concurrence with M. Agassiz propose the name Belemno-sepia’. It is clear from Buckland (1836a, p. 39, text quoted above) that Buckland intended to use Belemnosepia as a new generic name. Buckland implied that the taxon Belemnosepia was to include all ink-sac-bearing belemnites. 5. Buckland (1836a, 1836b) did not include any nominal species in the new genus Belemnosepia. In accordance with Article 67g(ii) of the Code the type species must be chosen from among the nominal species first referred to the genus by a subsequent author, even though the unnamed specimens in pl. 44” of Buckland (1836b) are recognizable as Belemnoteuthis montefiorei. Species were first referred to Belemnosepia by d’Orbigny (1846, pp. 433-441) and were: Loligo bollensis Zieten, 1832 (recte Schtibler in Zieten, 1832); Geoteuthis lata Minster, 1843; G. sagittata Miinster, 1843; G. orbignyana Minster, 1843; G. speciosa Minster, 1843: G. obconica Minster, 1843; G. hastata Minster, 1843; G. flexuosa Minster, 1843 and Teudopsis agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835. These species represent a number of taxa which are now placed in six different genera (see para. 6 below). They do not, however, include any species that had been placed in Belemnites or the fossils that were later named Belemnoteuthis montefiorei. 256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 6. D’Orbigny (1850) restricted the use of the generic name Belemnosepia to Geoteuthis lata Minster, 1843, placing in Belopeltis Voltz, 1840 the eight other species which he had listed as Belemnosepia in 1846. However, the Table alphabétique (p. 24) of the same work maintained his earlier position, listing all nine species as Belemnosepia, and omitting Belopeltis. Gray (1849), Pictet (1854), Chénu (1859) and Keferstein (1862-66) also used the name in a much broader sense. Fischer (1882, p. 354) mentioned only ‘plusieurs especes du Lias supérieur du Wiirtemberg, du Calvados, de Lyme Regis; et de ’Oxfordien de Chippenham’. Naef (1921b, p. 47) accepted Belemnosepia and even proposed a new family BELEMNOSEPIIDAE (p. 47). On p. 143 he wrote: “‘Belemnosepiidae (p. 47). Hierher Formen vom Typus des Belopeltis simplex Voltz (= Geoteuthis lata Minster = Belemnosepia lata Orb. etc.) ... {Belemnosepiidae. Here forms of the type of Be/opeltis simplex Voltz (= Geoteuthis lata Minster = Belemnosepia lata Orb. etc.)]. According to Article 67 of the Code ‘the term ‘designation’ in relation to fixation of a type species of a genus must be rigidly construed’. Since Naef used the plural (Formen = forms) this cannot be regarded as the fixation of a type species of Belemnosepia. He apparently wanted to include more species which looked like Belopeltis simplex Voltz, but he did not state that Belopeltis simplex Voltz is definitely the type species. Both generic and family names were discarded in a supplement (compare also Naef, 1922). In 1922 Naef described Belemnosepia and Palaeosepia Theodori, 1844 as ‘unnotige Bezeichnungen fur das angenommene Belemnitentier’ [unnecessary designations for the supposed belemnite animal]. No type species has ever been validly designated for Belemnosepia. Six of the species attributed to Belemnosepia by d’Orbigny are type species or subjective synonyms of the type species of other genera, as follows: Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949 (p. 56), type species by original designation Belopeltis simplex Voltz, 1840 (p. 23, pl. 2, fig. 1). Geoteuthis lata Minster, 1843 (p. 71) and G. orbignyana Minster, 1843 (p. 72) are widely regarded as junior subjective synonyms of the type species (see Engeser, 1988, p. 8). Geoteuthis Minster, 1843 (p. 68), type species by subsequent designation by Biilow-Trummer (1920, p. 252) Loligo bollensis Schibler in Zieten, 1832 (p. 34). Loligo bollensis is widely regarded (see Engeser, 1988, p. 8) as a subjective synonym of L. aalensis and on this view Geoteuthis is a junior subjective synonym of Loligosepia. Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990 (p. 198), type species by original designation Teudopsis agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (p. 72). Doyle stated that his name Jeletzkyteuthis was a replacement name for Loliginites Quenstedt, 1849 (p. 497). However, the latter name was applied by Quenstedt to fossils which he believed to belong to the Recent genus Loligo; accordingly, it is available only for the purposes of homonymy (Article 20 of the Code) and cannot be replaced in the sense of Articles 13a(iii) and 67h. It should be noted that 7. agassizii has been widely regarded as a senior synonym of Loliginites coriaceus Quenstedt, 1849 (p. 512), (e.g. by Engeser, 1988; Doyle, 1990), although Guérin-Franiatte & Gouspy (1993) regard T. agassizii as a nomen dubium. Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 (p. 163), type species by subsequent designation by Regteren Altena (1949, p. 58) Loligo aalensis Schibler in Zieten, 1832, p. 34, a probable subjective synonym of Loligo bollensis Schibler in Zieten, 1832, p. 34 (see under Geoteuthis above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 257 Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921a (p. 534), type species by monotypy (p. 539) Geoteuthis flexuosa Minster, 1843 (p. 75). Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921a (p. 534), type species by monotypy and original designation (p. 539) Geoteuthis sagittata Minster, 1843 (p. 72). A type species designation for Belemnosepia of the type species of any of these six genera would invalidate a generic name which is in current use or which could be used by anyone dissenting from its synonymy with others. Designation of any of the other nominal species included by d’Orbigny (1846) would also cause confusion. The forthcoming Coleoidea volume of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology will list as valid or potentially valid the six nominal genera Geopeltis, Geoteuthis, Jeletzky- teuthis, Loligosepia, Parabelopeltis and Paraplesioteuthis, although recognising that Geoteuthis and Loligosepia are generally recognized as subjective synonyms. How- ever, the limited use of these names in recent years is inadequate to meet the criteria of Article 79c of the Code for a prima facie case that stability is threatened by the availability of Belemnosepia. 7. Probably the last author to use Belemnosepia as a valid name was Dreyfuss (1935) who, apparently unaware of Naef (1922), argued that Belemnosepia was the earliest available name for Geoteuthis Minster, 1843, which is a younger subjective synonym of Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 (see Doyle, Donovan & Nixon, 1994, p. 10). Jeletzky (1966) in a preliminary revision of fossil Coleoidea for the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology did not index the name Belemnosepia. No major systematic works (e.g. Wagner, 1860; Naef, 1922; Jeletzky, 1966; Engeser, 1988) have used the name Belemnosepia as valid. Riegraf (1995, p. 141) listed Belemnosepia as a subjective synonym of Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 and cited, with an asterisk indicating type species, ‘B. lata Graf zu Minster, 1837’. However, Munster (1837a, p. 252) did not mention this combination; in a brief report of a meeting he listed Onychoteuthis from the lithographic limestone of Eichstadt, including O. /ata. He mentioned Belemnosepia only to remark that it was an association of belemnite rostra with Onychoteuthis. The same statement, slightly expanded, is found in Minster (1837b, col. 478) where it is made clear that he was referring to an accidental association of belemnites with Onychoteuthis. In both 1837 papers O. lata was a nomen nudum. Riegraf’s citation is not a valid type species designation because the combination Belemnosepia lata did not exist and, if it was intended to refer to O. /ata, this name was not then available. 8. Engeser (1988, pp. 8-9) described the problems detailed above and referred to Belemnosepia as a nomen dubium, suggesting that the Commission be asked for a ruling. Suppression of the name Belemnosepia is desirable for the following reasons: (a) confusion surrounds the original proposal of Belemnosepia; (b) it has been used by later authors in senses different from those of Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland (1836): (c) it has not been used as a valid name in the last sixty years; (d) the name has been rejected by major revisers; (e) any eligible designation of a type species would displace a generic name in use or potentially valid. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: 258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 (a) the generic name Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836; (b) the specific name belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, as published in the binomen Orthoceras belemnitoeides; to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Belopeltis simplex Voltz, 1840; (b) Geoteuthis Munster, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Bilow-Trummer (1920) Loligo bollensis Schibler in Zieten, 1832; (c) Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Teudopsis agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835; (d) Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Regteren Altena (1949) Loligo aalensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832; (e) Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Geoteuthis flexuosa, Minster, 1843; (f) Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation and monotypy Geoteuthis sagittata Minster, 1843; to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) simplex Voltz, 1840, as published in the binomen Belopeltis simplex (specific name of the type species of Geopeltis Regteren Altena, 1949); (b) bollensis Schiibler in Zieten, 1832, as published in the binomen Loligo bollensis (specific name of the type species of Geoteuthis Minster, 1843); (c) agassizii Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835, as published in the binomen Teudopsis agassizii (specific name of the type species of Jeletzkyteuthis Doyle, 1990); (d) aalensis Schibler in Zieten, 1832, as published in the binomen Loligo aalensis (specific name of the type species of Loligosepia Quenstedt, 1839); (e) flexuosa Minster, 1843, as published in the binomen Geoteuthis flexuosa (specific name of the type species of Parabelopeltis Naef, 1921); (f) sagittata Minster, 1843, as published in the binomen Geoteuthis sagittata (specific name of the type species of Paraplesioteuthis Naef, 1921); (g) montefiorei Buckman, 1880, as published in the binomen Belemnoteuthis montefiorel; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Belemnosepia Buckland & Agassiz in Buckland, 1836, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name belemnitoeides Buckland, 1830, as published in the binomen Orthoceras belemnitoeides and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group names in Zoology the name BELEMNOSEPIIDAE Naef, 1921 (invalid because the name of the type genus has been suppressed in (1)(a) above). (2 am ies) — (4 — (5 = (6 — References Agassiz, J.L.R. 1835. Uber Belemniten. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1835: 168. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 259 Agassiz, J.L.R. 1846. Nomina systematica generum molluscorum, tam viventium quam fossilium. Nomenclator Zoologicus ..., fasc. 9. 98 pp. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri. Anon. 1835. Report on ‘Versammlung der deutscher Naturforscher und Arzte, Bonn 1835’. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1835: 627. Bronn, H.G. 1848. Index palaeontologicus, vol. 1. Nomenclator palaeontologicus. 1382 pp. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Bronn, H.G. 1849. Index palaeontologicus, vol 2. Enumerator palaeontologicus. 980 pp. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Bronn, H.G. & Roemer, F. 1851-52. Lethaea geognostica, vol. 2, Meso-Lethaea, part 3. 1106 pp. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart. Buckland, W. 1830a. On the discovery of a new species of Pterodactyle, and of fossil ink and pens, in the Lias at Lyme Regis; also of coprolites or fossil faeces in the Lias at Lyme Regis, and Westbury-on-Severn, and elsewhere, in formations of all ages, from the Carboniferous Limestone to the Diluvium. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 8: 21-26. Buckland, W. 1830b. Uber fossile Dinten-Sacke. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1830: 510-511. Buckland, W. 1836a. Bemerkungen tiber das Genus Belemnosepia und iiber den fossilen Dinten-Sack in dem vorderen Kegel der Belemniten. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1836: 36-40. Buckland, W. 1836b. Geology and mineralogy considered with reference to natural theology. Vol. 1 (599 pp.), vol. 2 (128 pp., 69 pls.). Pickering, London. Buckland, W. 1839. Geologie und Mineralogie in Beziehung zur natiirlichen Theologie. 665 pp. Leibrock, Neuchatel & Braunschweig. Buckman, J. 1880. On the Belemnoteuthis Montefiorei. Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Antiquarian Field Club, 3: 141-143. Bilow-Trummer, E. von. 1920. Fossilium Catalogus 1: Animalia, 11. Cephalopoda dibranchiata. 313 pp. Junk, Berlin. Chénu, J.C. 1859. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique, vol. 1. 508 pp. Masson, Paris. Donovan, D.T. 1977. Evolution of the dibranchiate Cephalopoda. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 38: 15-48. Doyle, P. 1990. Teuthid cephalopods from the Lower Jurassic of Yorkshire. Palaeontology, 33: 193-207. Doyle, P., Donovan, D.T. & Nixon, M. 1994. Phylogeny and systematics of the Coleoidea. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, (n.s.)5: 1-15. Dreyfuss, M. 1935. Description d’un échantillon de Belemnosepia sagittata Minster (Céphalopodes dibranches) provenant de Créveney (Haute-Sa6ne). Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (5)5: 277-279. Engeser, T. 1988. Vampyromorpha (‘Fossile Teuthiden’). Fossilium Catalogus 1: Animalia, 130: 1-167. Engeser, T. & Clarke, M.R. 1988. Cephalopod hooks, both Recent and fossil. Pp. 133-151 in Clarke, M.R. & Trueman, E.R. (Eds.), The Mollusca, vol. 12, Palaeontology and neontology of cephalopods. Academic Press, San Diego. Eudes-Deslongchamps, E. 1835. Mémoire sur les Teudopsidés, animaux fossiles voisins des calmars. Mémoires de la Société Linnéenne de Normandie, 5: 68-78. Fischer, P. 1882. Pp. 305-416 in: Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique. Savy, Paris. Geinitz, H.B. 1846. Grundriss der Versteinerungskunde. 813 pp. Arnold, Dresden & Leipzig. Giebel, C.G.A. 1852a. Allgemeine Palaeontologie. 413 pp. Arnold, Leipzig. Giebel, C.G.A. 1852b. Deutschlands Petrefacten. 706 pp. Abel, Leipzig. Gray, J.E. 1849. Catalogue of the Mollusca in the collection of the British Museum, part I. Cephalopoda antepedia. 164 pp. British Museum, London. Guérin-Franiatte, S. & Gouspy, C. 1993. Découverte de céphalopodes teuthides (Coleoidea) dans le Lias supérieur de Haute-Marne, France. Géobios, Mémoire spécial, 15: 181-189. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Jeletzky, J.A. 1966. Comparative morphology, phylogeny, and classification of fossil Coleoidea. University of Kansas Paleontological Contributions, Mollusca, Article 7: 1-162. Keferstein, W. 1862-66. Dr. H.G. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen der Weichthiere (Malacozoa), vol. 3, part 2. 1500 pp. Winter, Leipzig & Heidelberg. Minster, G. Graf zu. 1837a. Viele neue Gattungen und Arten fossiler K6rper durch Abbildungen oder durch nattirliche Exemplare. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1837: 252. Minster, G. [Graf zu]. 1837b. Fossiler Thiere, im: /sis (von Oken), 1837: cols. 477-478. Minster, G. Graf zu. 1843. Die schalenlosen Cephalopoden im unteren Jura, den Lias-Schiefern von Franken und Schwaben. Pp. 57-77 in Miinster, G. Graf zu, Meyer, H.V. & Wagner, R. (Eds.), Beitrdége zur Petrefacten-Kunde mit xviti nach der Natur gezeichneten Tafeln. Buchner, Bayreuth. Naef, A. 192la. Das System der dibranchiaten Cephalopoden und die mediterranen Arten derselben. Mitteilungen aus der zoologischen Station zu Neapel, 22: 527-542. Naef, A. 1921b. Die Cephalopoden, part 1. Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, 35: 1-148. Naef, A. 1922. Die fossilen Tintenfische — eine paldozoologische Monographie. 322 pp. Fischer, Jena. Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator zoologicus, vol. 1, A-C. 957 pp. Zoological Society of London, London. Orbigny, A.d’. 1846. Pp. 433-576 in: Mollusques vivants et fossiles ou description de toutes les espéeces de coquilles et de mollusques classées suivant leur distribution géologique et géographique, vol. 1. Gide, Paris. Orbigny, A.d’. 1850. Prodrome de paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux mollusques & rayonnés faisant suite au cours élémentaire de paléontologie et géologie stratigraphiques. Vol. | (394 pp.), Table Alphabetique et Synonymique (189 pp.). Masson, Paris. Phillips, D. 1982. Catalogue of the type and figured specimens of fossil Cephalopoda (excluding Mesozoic Ammonoidea) in the British Museum (Natural History). 94 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Pictet, F.-J. 1854. Traité de Paléontologie ou Histoire naturelle des animaux fossiles considérés dans leurs rapports zoologiques et géologiques. Ed. 2, vol. 2. Bailliére, Paris. Quenstedt, F.A. 1839. Loligo Bollensis ist kein Belemniten-Organ. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1839: 156-167. Quenstedt, F.A. 1849. Pp. 473-580 in: Petrefaktenkunde Deutschlands, 1, vol. 1. Fues, Tubingen. Regteren Altena, C.O. van. 1949. Teyler’s Museum. Systematic catalogue of the palaeontological collection. Sixth supplement (Teuthoidea). Archives du Musée Teyler, (3)10: 53-62. Riegraf, W. 1995. Cephalopoda dibranchiata fossiles (Coleoidea). Fossilium Catalogus 1: Animalia, 133: 1-411. Rietschel, S. 1977. Ein Belemnitentier mit Weichteilerhaltung und Rostrum im Senckenberg. Natur und Museum, 107: 121-130. Voltz, P.L. 1840. Observations sur les Belopeltis ou lames dorsal des bélemnites. Mémoires de la Société du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Strasbourg, 3: 1-38. Wagner, A. 1860. Die fossilen Uberreste von nackten Dintenfischen aus dem lithographischen Schiefer und dem Lias des siiddeutschen Juragebirges. Abhandlungen der Kénigliche bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften, mathematisch-physikalische Classe, 8: 750-821. Zieten, C.H. yon. 1832. Die Versteinerungen Wiirttembergs, Expeditum des Werkes “Unsere Zeit’, part 5, pp. 33-40. Stuttgart. —— a ee ee Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 261 Case 2950 Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 as the type species A.D. Austin & J.T. Jennings Department of Crop Protection, Waite Campus, The University of Adelaide, P.O. Glen Osmond, South Australia 5064, Australia M.S. Harvey Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 as the type species of the New Zealand parasitic wasp genus Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (family GASTERUPTIIDAE). At present the nominal species Gasteruption pedunculatum Schletterer, 1889 is the type, but the original male specimen of this lacks the diagnostic genitalia and its name is a junior synonym of either F. unguiculatus or F. crassipes Smith, 1876. The uncertainty would not be resolved by neotype designation because both the latter nominal species are typified by females and the sexes of the Pseudofoenus species have not yet been correlated. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; GASTERUPTIIDAE; parasitic wasps; Pseudofoenus; Pseudofoenus unguiculatus; New Zealand. 1. The genus Pseudofoenus was described by Kieffer (1902, p. 6), who associated with it three nominal species of GASTERUPTIIDAE from New Zealand: Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 (p. 537), F. unguicularis Smith, 1876 (p. 480) and Gasteruption pedunculatum Schletterer, 1889 (p. 466). The first two were cited as ‘species douteuses’ so, as mentioned by Crosskey (1962, p. 392), G. pedunculatum is the type species by monotypy (Article 67g of the Code). Numerous species from outside New Zealand were later placed in Pseudofoenus, but Crosskey (1962, pp. 378, 398) restricted the genus to five nominal species from New Zealand, those listed above and also Foenus crassipes Smith, 1876 (p. 479) and P. nocticolor Kieffer, 1911 (p. 183). The Pseudofoenus species are apparently parasitic or predator-inquilines in the nests of colletid bees. 2. A recent revision (Jennings & Austin, 1994) of Pseudofoenus concluded that there are only two morphologically distinct taxonomic species. Both are known from many specimens from throughout New Zealand and can be distinguished in both sexes by the form of the hind tarsi in females and by the genitalia in males. However, no characters or observations are known at present by which males can be associated with females, and Jennings & Austin therefore treated the sexes separately (i.e. as four nominal species). The lack of sexual correlation leads to nomenclatural 262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 difficulties since, of the five nominal species mentioned above, the types of P. unguiculatus, P. unguicularis and P. crassipes are females and those of P. pedunculatus and P. nocticolor are males. 3. Schletterer (1889, p. 468) stated that there was type material of Gasteruption pedunculatum (the type species of Pseudofoenus, see above) in the Natural History Museums of Berlin and of Zurich (collection now in the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology); however, there is no evidence of a specimen having been deposited in Zurich (B. Merz, pers. comm.). Institutions which received Schletterer specimens of other species have either been visited personally by J.T.J. or contacted by correspon- dence and no G. pedunculatum material has been found. The only surviving Schletterer specimen is no. 21874 in the Museum fir Naturkunde, Humboldt Universitat, Berlin; this lacks the entire metasoma (abdomen), and so the name cannot be assigned to either of the currently recognized taxonomic species and is in effect a nomen dubium. It would be possible to designate a male specimen of the second taxonomic species (i.e. that not conspecific with the undamaged male holotype of P. nocticolor Kieffer, 1911) as neotype of G. pedunculatum, and Jennings & Austin (1994, p. 1293) suggested this course. However, the name pedunculatum Schletterer, 1889 must be invalid since it is a synonym of either unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 (of which unguicularis Smith, 1876 is a synonym) or of crassipes Smith, 1876, both denoting older nominal species typified by females, and it will be displaced by one or other as a result of future information on the relationship between the sexes. The same applies to the name of P. nocticolor Kieffer, 1911. Various authors and ‘cataloguers (Schletterer, 1889; Froggatt, 1891; Dalla Torre, 1902; Valentine & Walker, 1991) have variously synonymised Pseudofoenus specific names without examining the relevant type specimens and sometimes without consideration of the priority of names. 4. As reported in Jennings & Austin (1994, p. 1293), one of us (J.T.J.) has located a female specimen in the Hope Entomological Collections, University of Oxford, which was mentioned by Westwood as the depository of his specimen(s) of Foenus unguiculatus. This is labelled “Foenus unguiculatus Westw.’ in Westwood’s hand- writing; Westwood believed it to be male but was mistaken in this (and in the locality ‘Nova Hollandia’ published in 1841, which he later doubted (1843, p. 259)). Since Westwood mentioned only ‘male’ in his descriptions of the species in 1841 and 1843 and there are no other specimens in Oxford we assume that this is the holotype. The provenances and present locations of numerous other female specimens are given by Jennings & Austin (1994, p. 1294). Since Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 is the oldest nominal species placed in Pseudofoenus its specific name is not only applicable to a taxon but will inevitably remain valid, while pedunculatus meets neither of these criteria. We therefore propose that F. unguiculatus be designated as the type species. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 and to designate Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902 (gender: masculine), type species Foenus unguiculatus Westwood, 1841 by the designation in (1) above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 263 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific names in Zoology the name unguiculatus Westwood, 1841, as published in the binomen Foenus unguiculatus (specific name of the type species of Pseudofoenus Kieffer, 1902). References Crosskey, R.W. 1962. The classification of the Gasteruptiidae (Hymenoptera). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 114: 377-402. Dalla Torre, K.W. 1902. Trigonalidae, Megalyridae, Stephanidae, Ichneumonidae, Agrotypidae, Evaniidae, Pelecinidae. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, 3(2): 545-1141. Froggatt, W.W. 1891. Catalogue of the described Hymenoptera of Australia. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 5: 689-762. Jennings, J.T. & Austin, A.D. 1994. Revision of Pseudofoenus Kieffer (Hymenoptera: Gasteruptiidae), a hyptiogastrine wasp genus endemic to New Zealand. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 8: 1289-1303. Kieffer, J.-J. 1902. Hymenoptera. Fam. Evaniidae. Genera Insectorum (Wytsman, P. (Ed.)), fascicle 2. 13 pp. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles. Kieffer, J.-J. 1911. Etude sur les Evaniides exotiques (Hym.) du British Museum de Londres. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 80: 151-231. Schletterer, A. 1889. Der Hymenopteren-gruppe der Evaniidae. Annalen des K.K. Naturhistorischen HofMuseums (Wien), 4: 107-180, 289-338, 373-546. Smith, F. 1876. Descriptions of new species of hymenopterous insects of New Zealand collected by C.M. Wakefield Esq., principally in the neighbourhood of Canterbury. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1876: 473-492. Valentine, E.W. & Walker, A.K. 1991. Annotated catalogue of New Zealand Hymenoptera. Plant Protection Report, no. 4. 84 pp. DSIR, Wellington. Westwood, J.O. 1841. Evaniidae. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 7: 535-538. Westwood, J.O. 1843. [On the Evaniidae and some allied genera of Hymenopterous insects]. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 3: 257-278. 264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Case 3007 Trematospira Hall, 1859 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857 as the type species F. Alvarez Departamento de Geologia, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Lower Devonian brachiopod name Trematospira Hall, 1859 in its accustomed usage. Hall’s publi- cation was delayed and meanwhile the name was made available in 1858 by Davidson, who attributed authorship to Hall, with Spirifer perforatus Hall, 1857 as the type species by monotypy. Hall & Clarke (1893) designated Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857 as the type species, and this designation is almost universally accepted and should be conserved. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; Lower Devonian; North America; Trematospira; Trematospira multistriatus. 1. The results of investigations made by James Hall during the years 1855 to 1858 were ‘communicated, in part or entirely, at different times, to the Albany Institute; to the Reports of the Regents of the University on the State Collections of Natural History, for the years 1856 and 1858; to the American Association for the Advancement of Science’ (Hall, 1859a, p. 7). These results were printed in the third volume of the Palaeontology of the State of New York. This volume, although ‘printed, in the years 1857 and 1858’ suffered a long delay in publication (see Hall, 1867, footnote on p. 271). So long was the delay that Hall tried to overcome the problem by publishing the results of his investigations, including descriptions of new genera, in the Twelfth Annual Report on the State Cabinet (Hall, 1859a), which appeared before, although in the same year as, the third volume of the Palaeontology of the State of New York (Hall, 1859b). 2. One of the new genera published by Hall was Trematospira (Hall, 1859a, p. 27), after which Hall added the words ‘(Hall, 1857) although the name was not mentioned in any of his papers published in 1857. Species included in Trematospira by Hall were Spirifer perforatus Hall, 1857 (p. 59), Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857 (p. 59), Trematospira costata Hall, 1859, T. simplex Hall, 1859 and Atrypa camura Hall, 1852. When the third volume of the Palaeontology of the State of New York was published later in 1859 the name was written (Hall, 1859b, p. 207) “Trematospira (n.g.)’. 3. In his study of the genera and subgenera of Brachiopoda having spiralia, Davidson (1858, p. 412) included ‘Sub-genus Trematospira, Hall, T. perforata Hall’. Although he did not describe Trematospira in detail, the inclusion of an exist- ing species is adequate to make the generic name Trematospira available with T. perforata as type species by monotypy. Although Hall did not publish the name Trematospira until 1859, it is clear that his ideas had already reached Davidson, who Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 265 in 1858 explicitly attributed authorship to him; under Article 50a of the Code authorship of Trematospira is Hall in Davidson, 1858. In his Monograph of the British Fossil Brachiopoda, Davidson (1882, p. 82) referred to ‘Trematospira Hall, 1857’, but never discussed or described the taxon, which occurs only in North America. He referred to ‘S. multiplicata’ as the type of Trematospira, but gave no author; since Hall never included a species of that name in Trematospira it 1s likely that mu/tiplicata was an error for multistriatus. 4. Hall & Clarke (1893, p. 124) described *Trematospira Hall, 1859’ and (p. 126) gave Spirifer multistriatus Hall as its type species, giving as reason for their choice ‘it is better known and of more frequent occurrence’ than 7. perforata ‘which was the first in the descriptive list’. 5. Spirifer multistriatus was adopted as type species of Trematospira in the first edition of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology by Boucot, Johnson & Staton (1965, p. H652) and is taken as such by virtually all authors (e.g. Likharev, Makridin, Nikiforova & Rzhonsnitkaia, 1960, p. 285; Norris, 1964, p. 63; Grunt, 1986, p. 151; a further nine references by a further 16 authors using Trematospira in this sense are held by the Commission Secretariat). The only recent exception of which I am aware is Feldman (1994, p. 29) who gave Trematospira gibbosa Hall as type species. However, 7. gibbosa was not made available until Hall, 1860 (p. 82) and was not originally included in Trematospira, which was established in 1859; as such, T. gibbosa cannot be accepted as a valid type species. It is intended to give Spirifer multistriatus as the type species of Trematospira in the forthcoming second edition of the Treatise. 6. To maintain the generally accepted concept of Trematospira 1 propose that Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857 be accepted as its type species and that its authorship be attributed to Hall, 1859. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers: (a) to suppress the name Trematospira Hall in Davidson, 1858 and all uses of the name prior to the publication of Trematospira Hall, 1859 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Trematospira Hall, 1859 prior to the designation by Hall & Clarke (1893) of Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Trematospira Hall, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Hall & Clarke (1893) Spirifer multistriatus Hall, 1857; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name multistriatus Hall, 1857, as published in the binomen Spirifer multistriatus (specific name of the type species of Trematospira Hall, 1859); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Trematospira Hall in Davidson, 1858, as suppressed in 1(a) above. References Boucot, A.J., Johnson, J.G. & Staton, R.D. 1965. Suborder Retziidina Boucot, Johnson & Staton, 1964. Pp. H649-654 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Part H (Brachiopoda), vol. 2. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas. Davidson, T. 1858. On the genera and sub-genera of Brachiopoda that are provided with spiral appendages for the support of oral arms, and species so constructed, which have been discovered in British Carboniferous strata. The Geologist, 1: 409-416. Davidson, T. 1882. A monograph of British fossil Brachiopoda. Silurian and Devonian supplements. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 5(1): 1-134. Feldman, H.R. 1994. Brachiopods of the Onondaga Formation, Moorehouse Member (Devonian, Eifelian), in the Genesee Valley, Western New York. Bulletins of American Paleontology, 107(346): 1-56. Grunt, T.A. 1986. Classification of brachiopods of the Order Athyridida. Trudy Paleontol- ogicheskogo Instituta. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, 215: \—200. [In Russian]. Hall, J. 1857. Descriptions of new species of Palaeozoic fossils from the Lower Helderberg, Oriskany Sandstone, Upper Helderberg, Hamilton and Chemung Groups. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report, 10: 41-186. Hall, J. 1859a. Contributions to the palaeontology of New York. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report, 12: 7-62. Hall, J. 1859b. Palaeontology of New York, vol. 3, part I, containing descriptions and figures of the organic remains of the Lower Helderberg Group and Oriskany Sandstone. 532 pp. Geological Survey of New York, Albany. Hall, J. 1860. Descriptions of new fossils from the Hamilton Group of western New York, with notices of others from the same horizon in Iowa and Indiana. New York State Cabinet of Natural History, Annual Report, 13: 76-94. Hall, J. 1867. Palaeontology of New York, vol. 4, part I, containing descriptions and figures of the fossil Brachiopoda of the Upper Helderberg, Hamilton, Portage and Chemung Groups. 428 pp. Geological Survey of New York, Albany. Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1893. An introduction to the study of the genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda. II. Brachiopoda Articulata (continued). Paleontology of New York, 8(2): 1-317. Likharey, B.K., Makridin, B.P., Nikiforova, O.I. & Rzhonsnitkaia, M.A. 1960. Superfamily Athyracea. Pp. 280-285 in Sarycheva, T.G. (Ed.), Principles of paleontology. a handbook for paleontologists and geologists of the USSR. Bryozoans, brachiopods. Moscow. [In Russian]. Norris, A.W. 1964. Brachiopods and other fossils of the Devonian Horn Plateau Formation. Bulletin of the Geological Survey of Canada, 114: 29-68. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 267 Case 3016 Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 (currently Retiolites geinitzianus; Graptolithina): proposed designation of a neotype D.K. Loydell Department of Geology, University of Portsmouth, Burnaby Building, Burnaby Road, Portsmouth POI 3QL, U.K. P. Storch Geological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Rozvojova 135, Praha 6 Suchdol, 165 00, Czech Republic Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Silurian graptolite name Retiolites geinitzianus (Barrande, 1850) in its accustomed usage. In 1944 Boucek & Minch designated as lectotype one of Barrande’s type specimens, which is too fragmentary to assign with certainty to Retiolites geinitzianus. It is proposed that a specimen corresponding with the present usage of R. geinitzianus be designated as the neotype. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Graptolithina; Silurian; Retiolites geinitzianus. 1. Barrande (1850) established a new graptolite genus Gladiolites (p. 68) and described a new species, Gladiolites Geinitzianus (p. 69, pl. 4, figs. 16-33). In a footnote on p. 68, he wrote: ‘Si laffinité entre le nom générique Gladiolites et Gladiolus désignant une plante, pouvait fair élever quelque objection contre le premier, nous proposerions de lui substituer celui de Retiolites’. The substitute name Retiolites was used by virtually all subsequent authors, and in 1954 the Commission (Opinion 199) suppressed the name Gladiolites in order to conserve Retiolites, with Gladiolites geinitzianus as its type species. 2. Assignment of a specimen to one of the species of Retiolites is difficult unless the specimen is complete. The presence of the proximal end is important for identifi- cation purposes, particularly since one of the primary means of distinguishing between Retiolites species is by measuring the dorso-ventral width at a specified distance from the proximal end (see Berry & Murphy, 1975, pp. 98-99; Bjerreskov, 1975, pp. 38-39). 3. Boucek & Miinch (1944, p. 37) designated as lectotype of Retiolites geinitzianus the specimen figured by Barrande, 1850, p. 4, figs. 17-19. We have examined this specimen (L27600 in the National Museum, Prague, from the locality Prague- Vyskocilka). It is a short mesial fragment, with a dorso-ventral width more typical of specimens which would now be assigned to R. angustidens Elles & Wood, 1908, but is too small a fragment for confident assignment to this or any other species of Retiolites. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 4. We have examined the remainder of Barrande’s collection in the National Museum, Prague. The only other Reviolites specimens present are those that were figured by Barrande (1850) as pl. 4, figs. 16, 20-32; the specimen figured in pl. 4, fig. 33 is missing. Of the specimens present, L27602 (fig. 16) and L30063 (figs. 28-32) would now be assigned to R. angustidens; L30059 (figs. 20-23) was recognised by Boucek & Miinch (1944, p. 45) to be Stomatograptus grandis (Suess, 1851); L30062 (figs. 24-25) is an obliquely preserved distal fragment probably, but by no means certainly, of R. geinitzianus as currently understood; and L30064 (figs. 26-27) is a poorly preserved fragment in subscalariform view and of uncertain specific identity. Thus Barrande’s collection contains no specimen which can be identified unequivocally as R. geinitzianus in the sense of current usage. 5. To select L27602 or L30063 as replacement lectotype of R. geinitzianus would result in the nominal species R. angustidens Elles & Wood, 1908 (p. 338) becoming a junior synonym of R. geinitzianus. To select L30059 as replacement lectotype would result in Stomatograptus grandis (Suess, 1851, p. 99) becoming a junior synonym of R. geinitzianus. Both R. angustidens and Stomatograptus grandis have been used consistently and internationally, the latter being a biozonal index species in central Europe (see, for example, Boucek, 1953; Storch, 1994). To select L30062 or 30064 as replacement lectotype of R. geinitzianus would offer no advantage over the existing lectotype since none of these specimens is sufficiently complete to offer a basis for the differentiation of R. geinitzianus from the other species of Retviolites. 6. Boucek & Miinch (1944, pl. 3, figs. 2-4) figured a specimen of R. geinitzianus (L31612 in the National Museum, Prague) from the lower Wenlock of Prague- Vysko¢ilka, Bohemia, the same locality from which the lectotype selected by Boucek & Minch (see para. 3 above) came. 7. It is desirable that the widely used name R. geinitzianus (Barrande, 1850) should continue to be used for this distinctive and widespread species. We therefore propose that specimen L31612, figured by Boucek & Miinch (1944) be designated as neotype of R. geinitzianus. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Gladiolites geinitzianus Barrande, 1850 and to designate as neotype the specimen L31612 in the National Museum, Prague; to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name geinitzianus Barrande, 1850, as published in the binomen Gladiolites geinitzianus, to record its establishment on p. 69 (not p. 68) and that it is defined by the neotype designated in (1) above. p References Barrande, J. 1850. Graptolites de Bohéme. vi, 74 pp., 4 pls. Author, Prague. Berry, W.B.N. & Murphy, M.A. 1975. Silurian and Devonian graptolites of Central Nevada. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, 110: 1-109. Bjerreskoy, M. 1975. Llandoverian and Wenlockian graptolites from Bornholm. Fossils and Strata, 8: 1-94. Boutek, B. 1953. Biostratigraphy, development and correlation of the Zelkovice and Motol Beds of the Silurian of Bohemia. Sbornik Ustredniho Ustavu Geologického, 20: 473-484. i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 269 Bouéek, B. & Miinch, A. 1944. Retioliti stfedoevroského Llandovery a spodniho Wenlocku. Rozpravy I. Tridy Ceské Akademie, 53: 1-50. Elles, G.L. & Wood, E.M.R. 1908. A monograph of British graptolites, part 7. Palaeonto- _ graphical Society (Monograph), 273-358. Storch, P. 1994. Graptolite biostratigraphy of the Lower Silurian (Llandovery and Wenlock) of Bohemia. Geological Journal, 29: 137-165. Suess, E. 1851. Ueber boéhmische Graptolithen. Naturwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, 4(4): 87-134. 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Case 2994 Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (Reptilia, Sauropterygia): proposed precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] Olivier Rieppel Department of Geology, Field Museum, Roosevelt Road at Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496, U.S.A. Paul D. Brinkman Department of Geography, Arizona State University, Box 870104, Tempe, Arizona 85287-0104, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the well known generic name Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 for a genus of sauropterygian reptiles by giving it precedence over the subjective synonym Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833], which predates it by a few months. The genus Nothosaurus is known from the upper Lower to uppermost Middle Triassic of Europe and the Middle East. The type species, N. mirabilis Minster, 1834, was first described on material from the lower Upper Muschelkalk (Late Anisian) at Bayreuth. The genus Conchiosaurus is known from a single incomplete skull from the Saurierkalk of Esperstadt (Germany), which corresponds to the base of the Middle Muschelkalk, Upper Anisian. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauropterygia; Lower-Middle Triassic; Nothosaurus; Conchiosaurus. 1. Meyer ([{1833], p. 8, pl. 1, figs. 3 and 4) established the new nominal genus and species Conchiosaurus clavatus, based on a single, incomplete and badly crushed skull from the Triassic Sauierkalk, which corresponds to the base of the Middle Muschelkalk, Upper Anisian, at Esperstadt, Germany. The specimen, catalogue no. AS I 1446, is housed in the Bayerische Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und Historische Geologie in Munich. The date 1833 is given on the wrapper of Museum Senckenbergianum, Band 1, Heft 1 (pp. 1-96, pls. 1-5), in which Meyer’s paper was included (pp. 8-14), whilst 1834 is given on the front page of the Heft. The accepted dates of publication of the Museum Senckenbergianum were set out by Stearn (1938, p. 155); that for Band 1, Heft 1 was given as ‘1833 (probably October)’. 2. In 1834 Minster (p. 525) proposed a new nominal genus and species Notho- saurus mirabilis, based on an articulated but incomplete skeleton and a tooth-bearing fragment of a lower jaw from the lower Upper Muschelkalk at Bayreuth, Germany. This specimen, catalogue no. BT 1000, is housed in the Oberfrankisches Erdgeschicht- liches Museum in Bayreuth. Minster (p. 526) mentioned Meyer’s ({1833]) taxon but considered his to be distinct. 3. In a revision of Conchiosaurus clavatus, Meyer (1855, p. 107) recognised the similarity between Conchiosaurus and Nothosaurus, noting (in translation) ‘should the two genera concur, I would retain the name Nothosaurus although it is younger, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 271 because it has been widely accepted in the meantime’. Thus the author himself of Conchiosaurus gave precedence to Minster’s name Nothosaurus. 4. The name Conchiosaurus was used as valid by a number of authors who emphasized the genus’s affinities with Simosaurus Meyer, 1842 (see, for example, Quenstedt, [1851], p. 135; Zittel, 1889, p. 484). Following Quenstedt and Zittel, Huene (1948, 1956) listed the genus Conchiosaurus within the family SIMOSAURIDAE. The only information that Huene (1956, p. 412) gave in his description of Conchiosaurus is that (in translation) ‘the palate, dentition and form of the skull are similar to Simosaurus’; he gave no reference to fossil material and relied only on the work of previous authors. Tatarinov & Novoshilov (1964) included Conchiosaurus in their list of the simOsAURIDAE. Like Huene, they made no reference to fossil material. Huene (1956) and Tatarinov & Novoshiloy (1964) believed Nothosaurus to be a distinct taxon (see para. 5 below). Lydekker (1889) also retained names for both Conchiosaurus and Nothosaurus, believing the two taxa to be closely allied. 5. Following Meyer’s (1855) suggestion (para. 3), most authors have adopted Nothosaurus as a valid generic name, among them Edinger (1921), Arthaber (1924), Schmidt (1928), Kuhn (1934, 1964), Huene (1956), Romer (1956, 1966), Tatarinov & Novoshilov (1964) and Carroll (1988). Sanz (1984) used the name Conchiosaurus but considered the two taxa to be most likely congeneric; he cited Conchiosaurus with the date 1842 and used the family-group name NOTHOSAURIDAE, apparently (and erroneously) believing the name Nothosaurus to have priority. 6. Kuhn (1934) used Nothosaurus as a valid name. Later he (Kuhn, 1964) revived the genus Conchiosaurus, suggesting that if Conchiosaurus and Nothosaurus were synonyms, the latter name would have to be conserved. 7. In their review of the genus Nothosaurus, Rieppel & Wild (1996) recognize the ‘unequivocal’ synonymy of Nothosaurus and Conchiosaurus. They acknowledge the latter as the senior synonym but use Nothosaurus as the valid name. In addition to the authors cited in para. 5 above, a list of more than 40 references from the last 50 years, in which the name Nothosaurus has been used as valid, has been given to the Commission Secretariat. The name Conchiosaurus, in contrast, has remained relatively unused and we propose that Nothosaurus be given precedence over it. 8. The validity of the species Conchiosaurus clavatus Meyer, [1833] is a difficult problem. The single specimen of the taxon is diagnostic at generic level, but not at specific level. A case could be made, on the basis of the specimen’s overall size and its geographic and stratigraphic occurrence, for the name clavatus to be considered a senior synonym of Nothosaurus marchicus, but Rieppel & Wild (1996) chose to treat the species name as a nomen dubium. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Nothosaurus Miinster, 1834 over the name Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Nothosaurus mirabilis Minster, 1834, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 (b) Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833] (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Conchiosaurus clavatus Meyer, [1833], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over Nothosaurus Minster, 1834 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) mirabilis Minster, 1834, as published in the binomen Nothosaurus mirabilis (specific name of the type species of Nothosaurus Minster, 1834); (b) clavatus Meyer, [1833], as published in the binomen Conchiosaurus clavatus (specific name of the type species of Conchiosaurus Meyer, [1833]). Acknowledgements 1 Special thanks are due to the Department of Geology, Field Museum, Chicago. This work was supported by NSF grants DEB-9220540 and DEB-9419675 to O.R. References Arthabar, G. von. 1924. Die Phylogenie der Nothosaurier. Acta Zoologica, Stockholm, 5: 439-516. Carroll, R.L. 1988. Vertebrate paleontology and evolution. xiv, 698 pp. Freeman, New York. Edinger, T. 1921. Uber Nothosaurus. 74 pp. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Frankfurt am Main. Huene, F.R. von. 1948. Simosaurus and Corosaurus. American Journal of Science, 246(1): 41-43. Huene, F.R. von. 1956. Paldontologie und Phylogenie der Niederen Tetrapoden. xii, 716 pp. Fischer, Jena. Kuhn, O. 1934, 1964. Fossilium Catalogus, vol. 1 (Animalia), part 69 (Sauropterygia). 127 pp. (1934); part 106 (Sauropterygia), Supplementum 1. 72 pp. (1964). Junk, s’Gravenhage. Lydekker, R. 1889. Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History), part 2 (Ichthopterygia and Sauropterygia). xxi, 307 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Meyer, H. von. [1833]. Beitrage zur Petrefactenkunde. Conchiosaurus clavatus, ein Saurus aus dem Muschelkalke von Bayreuth. Museum Senckenbergianum. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der beschriebenden Naturgeschichte, 1(1): 8-14. Meyer, H. von. 1855. Zur Fauna der Vorwelt, part 2 (Die Saurier des Muschelkalkes mit Riicksicht auf die Saurier aus buntem Sandstein und Keuper), Lieferungen 5—6. Pp. 81-120. Keller, Frankfurt am Main. Minster, G. 1834. Vorladufige Nachricht tber einige neue Reptilien im Muschelkalke von Baiern. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1834: 521-527. Quenstedt, A. [1851]. Handbuch der Petrefaktenkunde, part 1. Pp. iv, 1-256, pls. 1-19. Laupp, Tubingen. Rieppel, O. & Wild, R. 1996. A revision of the genus Nothosaurus (Reptilia, Sauropterygia) from the Germanic Triassic, with comments on the status of Conchiosaurus clavatus. Fieldiana (Geology), n.s., 34: 1-82. Romer, A.S. 1956. The osteology of the reptiles, Ed. 3. xxi, 772 pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Sanz, J.L. 1984. Osteologia comparada de las familias Nothosauridae y Simosauridae (Reptilia, Sauropterygia). Estudios Geologicos, 40(1—2): 81-105. Schmidt, M. 1928. Die Lebewelt unserer Trias. 461 pp. Rau, Ohringen. Stearn, W.T. 1938. The ‘Museum Senckenbergianum’: its dates of publication. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1(5): 155-156. Tatarinoy, L.P. & Novoshilov, N. 1964. Sauropterygia. Pp. 309-337 in Orlov, A.J. (Ed.), Fundamentals of paleontology, vol. 12. 721 pp. [In Russian]. Zittel, K.A. von. 1889. Handbuch der Palaeontologie, Abt. 1, (Palaeozoologie), Band 3 (Vertebrata), Lieferung 3. Pp. 437-632. Oldenbourg, Munich & Leipzig. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 273 Comments on the proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes of S.D. Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells (14973-1992) (Case 2964; see BZN 53: 96-98) (1) Y. Finet Département des Invertébrés, Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, P.O. Box 6434, CH-1211 Geneve 6, Switzerland I support Kabat’s proposal for the suppression for nomenclatural purposes of Sally Diana Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. Mrs Kaicher contacted me once to get pictures of and information on Lamarck’s type material of OLIvIDAE (housed in the Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle of Geneva) when she was preparing a new card pack on this family. I provided her with the most detailed information available, but unfortunately never saw the relevant information on this type material incorporated in her work. As a research worker on the marine mollusks of the eastern Pacific, I wish to point out that for many gastropod species her cards may show type designations (sometimes inadvertent) or erroneous statements about type material, and that it would be a burden to check all her cards; her series is incomplete in many libraries and many of her cards are out of print. (2) M.G. Harasewych & R.E. Petit National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. We are writing to express strong opposition to the application to suppress Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells for nomenclatural purposes on the grounds: (1) that the arguments for suppression are contrived and entirely without basis, and (2) that suppression of this publication would do more to obfuscate than to resolve the underlying cause for the petition, namely the designation of lectotypes of species described by W.H. Dall. While the format of Kaicher’s Card Catalogue is atypical of serial publications, the original petition does not dispute that it meets all criteria for publication (Articles 7-9 of the Code). Neither the taxonomic coverage, the address of the business office, nor a questionable inference of the purpose of this publication have the remotest bearing on the issue. Otherwise, many publications, including Berry’s Leaflets in Malacology, would have to be rejected on this basis. Kaicher’s Card Catalogue has been catalogued by the Smithsonian Libraries, and quite possibly by other libraries. According to the cover sheet accompanying Card Pack 57, 20% of the subscribers were museums and universities. In any event, is the availability of a work for taxonomic purposes to be determined by librarians? Kaicher made special efforts to illustrate species that had not been figured before (or in some cases since), often figuring their type specimens, thereby making the cards a valuable resource to researchers. The reason given for the petition to suppress Kaicher’s publications is the inclusion therein of ‘inadvertent’ type designations for Dall taxa. The four examples of problems cited in the original petition are trivial. The ilustrated specimen of 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Nassarius scissuratus (Dall) has, in fact, been easily recognized and is now segregated (USNM 86988). The outright error in attributing type status to a specimen of Ptychosalpinx globulus (Dall) that was not a syntype has no lasting nomenclatural consequences, is easily rectified, and was probably due to a labeling error at the Museum of Comparative Zoology. The specimen illustrated as ‘holotype’ of Admete microscopica (with a typographical error in one digit of the catalog number) is, in fact, the specimen that Dall (1902, pl. 9, fig. 4) illustrated as this species without attributing type status to it, and would be the logical choice for a lectotype should the need to designate one be brought about by suppressing Kaicher’s ‘inadvertent’ designation. The original description of Terebra acrior (Dall, 1889, p. 66) restricts the taxon to Antillean specimens, and refers to Antillean specimens in the plural. Kaicher illustrates the only specimen from the only Antillean locality given by Dall that can now be found. At the heart of the issue are problems with the status of type specimens of numerous taxa proposed by Dall. While Dall generally based species descriptions on individual specimens that may or may not have been illustrated, in many cases he did not specifically identify a holotype, making all specimens mentioned in the original description syntypes by default (Article 72). For a substantial portion of the marine taxa that Dall described on the basis of specimens collected by the U.S. Coast Survey Steamer Blake, some of the syntypes were deposited 1n the collections of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution (USNM), while others were catalogued in the collections of the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Prior to World War II, type specimens at USNM were housed in the general collections, as they still are in many natural history museums today. During World War II, Drs Harald Rehder and Joseph P.E. Morrison, then curators in the Department of Invertebrate Zoology, removed type material from the general collections for safe storage in Luray, Virginia. These curators had, in most instances, selected one lot per species, even when other syntype lots were present in the collection. A cursory survey (M.G.H.), confirmed by Rehder (personal communication), revealed that illustrated specimens or specimens best conforming to the published descriptions were the ones selected for safekeeping. When the specimens were returned to USNM after the war, they were segregated as a separate “Type Collection’, which was subsequently inventoried. Numerous workers, among them Kaicher, visited the USNM collections and photographed specimens housed in the type collection. In cases in which the catalogued lot selected for the move to Luray contained a single specimen and was labeled ‘type’, these researchers inferred the specimen to be a holotype and attached this epithet to their figure. The publication of a figure of a syntype with the word ‘type’ or ‘holotype’ amounts to a lectotype designation (Article 74b), even when inadvertent. A similar situation existed for workers utilizing the collections of the MCZ where museum labels on some syntype material did not indicate that additional syntypes were at the USNM (e.g. Vokes, 1988). Such type designations were not uncommon, occurring both before (e.g. Bartsch, 1911; Henderson, 1920; Oldroyd, 1927) and after (e.g. Keen, 1971; Bouchet & Waren, 1985; Abbott & Dance, 1982) the segregation of the USNM type collection, and were certainly not restricted to Kaicher. Some ‘inadvertent’ lectotype designations published by Kaicher were repeated by later authors. Were Kaicher’s cards to be suppressed, researchers would be faced with, depending on taxon, the attribution of a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 2qS inadvertent type designation to a subsequent author, formulating a petition to suppress the work of that author for nomenclatural purposes, or re-examining all of the original syntypes, housed in two museums, in order to repeat the process of lectotype selection. We regard the actions of Rehder and Morrison as constituting the actual selections of ‘lectotypes’ for the species in question, although not formal- ized by a published statement of such action. Our brief survey and the work of previous researchers have confirmed that they had selected either figured specimens or specimens that can be recognized from the published descriptions or measurements whenever possible. Suppressing Kaicher would, for many taxa, require that their work be repeated, taking into account MCZ specimens, a tedious and pointless exercise that would result in identical conclusions in the vast majority of cases. In conclusion, the availability of Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells for nomenclatural purposes is clearly not ambiguous. The overwhelming majority of the statements made by Kaicher concerning the type status of specimens merely serve to publish and fix the careful selections by Rehder and Morrison, making a duplication of their efforts unnecessary. Similar ‘inadvertent’ lectotype designations made by other authors should either be allowed to stand, or be evaluated in the course of systematic revisions on a taxon by taxon basis. Additional references Abbott, R.T. & Dance, S.P. 1982. Compendium of seashells. 411 pp. Dutton, New York. Bartsch, P. 1911. The Recent and fossil mollusks of the genus A/vania from the west coast of America. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 41: 333-362. Bouchet, P. & Warén, A. 1985. Revision of the northeast Atlantic bathyal and abyssal Neogastropoda excluding Turridae (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Bollettino Malacologico, Supplement 1: 1-296. Dall, W.H. 1889. [Reports on the results of dredging, under the supervision of Alexander Agassiz, in the Gulf of Mexico (1877-78) and in the Caribbean Sea (1879-80) by the U.S. Coast Survey Steamer ‘Blake’, Lieut.-Commander C.D. Sigsbee, U.S.N., and Com- mander J.R. Bartlett, U.S.N., commanding]. XXIX. Report on the Mollusca. Part II. Gastropoda and Scaphopoda. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 18: 1-492. Dall, W.H. 1902. Illustrations and descriptions of new, unfigured, or imperfectly known shells, chiefly American, in the U.S. National Museum. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 24: 499-566. Henderson, J.B. 1920. A monograph of the east American scaphopod mollusks. U.S. National Museum Bulletin, 111: 1-177. Keen, A.M. 1971. Sea shells of tropical west America. Ed. 2. xi, 624 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Oldroyd, I.S. 1927. The marine shells of the West coast of North America, vol. 2, part 1. 297 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Vokes, E.H. 1988. Muricidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of the Esmeraldas Beds, northwestern Ecuador. Tulane Studies in Geology and Paleontology, 21: \—SO0. (3) P. Bouchet Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 Rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France I write in support of the application by Dr Kabat. The MNHN malacology department library has a set of the Card Catalogue published by Ms Sally Kaicher, and I have personally corresponded with the author in the 1980s when she photographed a number of MNHN type specimens. As pointed out in the 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 application, it had never been Kaicher’s intention to actually designate lectotypes in her card-packs and I had never considered the Card Catalogue to be a likely place to scan for lectotype designations and other nomenclatural acts. Further, Kabat demonstrates the curatorial consequences of these inadequate designations, if they were regarded as nomenclaturally valid. Placing the Card Catalogue on the Official Index has a smack of censorship on an otherwise valuable identification tool, but regrettably there is no alternative. I approve the application. (4) A.G. Beu Institute of Geological & Nuclear Sciences, P.O. Box 30368, Lower Hutt, New Zealand In my area of expertise I had quite a lot to do with Mrs Kaicher’s card-packs and supplied the illustrations for several species. | am very aware that Mrs Kaicher had no intention of proposing any changes to nomenclature or new type designations, and any that appear on her cards are quite accidental. I am unable to discover any such unintended new type designations in the packs of cards illustrating RANELLIDAE and BURSIDAE, and feel that the number involved is quite small. However, it is entirely appropriate and within the spirit of Kaicher’s intentions for the Commission to suppress these card-packs for nomenclatural purposes. I support Kabat’s application for the suppression of this Card Catalogue. (5) A.J. Kohn Department of Zoology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195-1800, U.S.A. I support the proposed suppression for nomenclatural purposes of S.D. Kaicher’s Card Catalogue of World-Wide Shells. My primary basis is the author’s intent. As Dr Kabat points out, ‘there is no specific indication’ that the purpose was ‘providing a permanent scientific record’ (Article 8a of the Code). Moreover, although I do not have it in writing, I asked Ms Kaicher personally some time in the mid- or late-1980s to characterize the purpose of her card-packs because of this problem. She responded that their purpose was as Kabat has stated in paragraph 3 of his application, and that they were not intended as scientific record. The matter that occasioned my direct query of Ms Kaicher was a problem additional to those Kabat raises. I had received two inquiries concerning new species names of other authors that existed only as manuscript names but that Kaicher listed in her card-packs. Here the questions were, are these names available, and if so is Kaicher the author because a brief description and figure(s) appeared on the card? That is, did Kaicher’s cards make such names available? Ms Kaicher assured me that it was not her intent to publish new species names in her card-packs. I also recall discussing the matter with the then Secretary of the Commission (R.V. Melville), who was also of the opinion that these names were not available. (6) T. Schiotte Invertebrate Department, Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen @, Denmark Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 277 I fully support Kabat’s proposal to suppress Kaicher’s Card Catalogue for nomenclatural purposes. The main argument I would see against suppression would be that the Card Catalogue is not a true publication and especially that it was not intended to establish a permanent scientific record. However, that is, as already pointed out by Kabat, something that may be regarded differently by different researchers. Therefore, and especially in order not to have a number of inappropriate lectotypes selected by inference of holotype, I urge the Commission to use its powers to suppress the Card Catalogue for nomenclatural purposes. Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic name Glomeris Latreille, 1802 (Diplopoda) and the specific name of Armadillo vulgaris Latreille, 1804 (Crustacea, Isopoda), and the application for a ruling on the status of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 (Crustacea, Isopoda) (Case 2909; see BZN 52: 236-244; 53: 120-122) Pekka T. Lehtinen Zoological Museum, University of Turku, 20500 Turku, Finland Reading the comments on the application to solve the problem of the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 I have the impression that the complicated history was not carefully studied by those commenting (BZN 53: 120-122). In this case we are not dealing with a simple situation of a much-used younger name and a less-used older name, but with the synonymy of names for two taxa that are now placed in different families. I agree that the name Armadillo Latreille, 1802 has been much used in the sense of Brandt ({1831]) for a group of woodlice in the family ARMADILLIDAE Brandt in Brandt & Ratzeburg, [1831]. However, Armadillo Latreille is actually a subjective synonym of Armadillidium Brandt, [1831] (family ARMADILLIDUDAE Brandt, 1833) (para. 12 of the application), since Latreille’s (1802) and (1804) description of Armadillo was based solely on specimens that are now called Armadillidium vulgare (Latreille, 1804). The proposed (para. 14) type species Armadillo officinalis Duméril, 1816 belongs in Brandt’s family ARMADILLIDAE (see paras. 9 and 12 of the application), but was not originally included and possibly not known to Latreille. In placing Armadillidium on the Official List in 1928 (Opinion 104) with the type species “vulgare Latreille, 1804, armadillo Linnaeus, 1758’ the Commission accepted that Armadillidium was based on the original concept of Armadillo. Armadillidium was withdrawn from the List in 1958 following recognition of unused earlier synonyms of vulgare and armadillo as composite (para. 2 of the application). I willingly support most suggestions to stabilize names which have been much used, but the acceptance of two synonyms (Armadillo and Armadillidium) as the type genera of different families would be confusing and not stabilizing. The only realistic way to preserve Latreille’s Armadillo would be to reject the younger (but very well used) synonym Armadillidium. This equally confusing solution has never been proposed. 278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 My proposal (BZN 52: 241) to solve the nomenclatural problem outlined in this case was not made ‘in favour’ of the unused name Pentheus C.L. Koch, [1841], but its adoption in place of Armadillo Latreille is the only solution that does not violate all the basic rules and is valid under the Code, and it is certainly the least confusing. Moreover, the widely-used family-group name CUBARIDAE Brandt, 1833 could be resurrected in place of ARMADILLIDAE. Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic names Crenitis Bedel, 1881, Georissus Latreille, 1809 and Oosternum Sharp, 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 2925; see BZN 53: 99-103) A. Smetana Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0C6, Canada I am in full support of the well documented application by M. Hansen for the conservation of the three names Crenitis, Georissus and Oosternum by the suppression of their senior objective synonyms. The action is particularly important in the case of the genus Crenitis that was already conserved by the Commission after being threatened by another senior synonym (details in the application). The generic name Crenitis is in fact the Greek noun meaning ‘growing near a spring’ (e.g. for plants), which is undoubtedly of feminine gender (see Liddell & Scott, Greek-English Lexicon). The name Georissus (or Georyssus) was also consistently used in several recent, not strictly taxonomic papers, dealing with larval (Emden, 1956) or adult morphology (most recently Oliva, 1992). The names Georissus and Oosternum are used in a recent work dealing with the families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (Lawrence & Newton, 1995) that will be used as the standard reference for a long time. Additional references Emden, F.I. van. 1956. The Georissus larva — a hydrophilid. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (A)31: 2-24. Lawrence, J.F. & Newton, A.F., Jr. 1995. Families and subfamilies of Coleoptera (with selected genera, notes, references and data on family-group names). Pp. 779-1006 in Pakaluk, J. & Allipinski, S.A. (Eds.), Biology, phylogeny, and classification of Coleoptera. Papers celebrating the 80th birthday of Roy A. Crowson. Warszawa. Oliva, A. 1992. Cuticular microstructure in some genera of Hydrophilidae (Coleoptera) and their phylogenetic significance. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Entomologie, 62: 33-56. 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; 52: 78-93, 187-192, 271-275, 347-350; 53: 191-192) (1) Claude Dupuis Entomologie, Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 279 En complement 4 mes commentaires (BZN 52: 273-275) et a leur discussion par Anthea Gentry (BZN 52: 347-350), il me parait utile d’apporter diverses précisions. Elles font partie de ce que j’'annongais précédemment (p. 273) comme des ‘arguments que je pourrais expliciter longuement si nécessaire’. Mme Gentry et moi sommes d’accord sur la disponibilité des noms de Brisson (1759) aux termes des Articles 1 1c(i), 11 g(1) et 12b(1) du Code. Nous partageons aussi une ‘reluctance to reject old and classic works’. De ce fait, je limiterai mes compléments a une démonstration de la disponibilité des noms de 1759 selon I’ Article 11d (A ci-dessous), 4 exposé d’un moyen de satisfaire notre commune ‘reluctance’ (B) et finalement a l’expression formelle de mes contre-propositions (C). Sur ces trois points, ma démarche se fonde sur un souhait de cohérence des actions de la Commission. Puisque l’on retient en nomenclature la partie de l’ Ornithologie de Brisson (1760) intitulée Tabula synoptica, il faut retenir pour ses noms de genres de Mammiferes, ses Tabulae homologues de 1759 et 1762 consacrées a cette Classe. Il s’'agit, en 1759, de ses Division(s) générale(s), dans le vol. 4 du Dictionnaire raisonné de La Chesnaye (pp. 627-631 et 632) et, en 1762, de ses Tabula(e) synoptica(e) dans lEditio altera auctior du Regnum animale (pp. 12-13 et 218). Ces deux textes equivalents concernent les noms et caractéres des mémes genres et ne citent pas d’especes. Ce sont des extraits fideles des tableaux récapitulatifs bilingues intitulés Table(s)/Tabula(e) que Brisson avait pris soin d’insérer dans son Régne animal de 1756 pour ses 42 genres de Quadrupédes (dépliants face p. 22) et ses quatre genres de Cétacés (p. 346). Les extraits publiés en 1759 et intitulés Division(s) sont en frangais avec ses noms latins de genres au génitif. Les extraits publiés en 1762 et intitulés Tabula(e) sont en latin avec ses noms de genres au nominatif. Ces deux extraits du méme texte initial doivent 4 mon avis étre traités tous deux de maniére identique. Si l'un de ces travaux est attribué a Brisson, l’autre doit l’étre aussi. Si un nom nouveau taxinomiquement valide est 4 conserver a partir de l'un, il l’est aussi a partir de l’autre. A. DISPONIBILITE DES NOMS DE 1759 Mime Gentry ne met pas en cause la disponibilité des noms de 1762 quelle’ ibue implicitement a Brisson. Elle refuse, par contre, la disponibilité des noms de _9 en arguant qu’aux termes de l’Art. I1d, ils seraient publiés par un tiers ‘without acceptance or rejection’. L’Art. 11d est aussi obscur en frangais qu’en anglais (les doubles négations ‘sauf ... sauf’, “except ... unless’ auraient dt étre évitées). Il est singulier car il introduit, dans la linéarité de la chaine publication availability potential validity—validity, une curieuse boucle de ‘feed-back’. La réécriture de son exemple dans le Discussion Draft (1995) du Code a venir souligne cette difficulté, mais ne parait pas heureuse (si un nom reste indisponible, ce n’est pas parce qu’il |’était antérieurement, c'est parce qu il na pas été utilisé avec des éléments nouveaux de disponibilité). Tout au plus parvient-on a comprendre qu’une synonymie sans justification ou une reférence purement bibliographique ne rendent pas un nom disponible. Dans les Divisions de Brisson (1759, pp. 627-632). tous les noms en cause figurent de plein droit, et non pas comme synonymes ou simples réferences puisqu ‘ils s’accompagnent d’un énoncé des caractéres des taxa correspondants. 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Les trois doutes qu’a cet égard Mme Gentry voudrait tirer du ‘Dictionnaire itself’ sont aisement refutables. (1) L’ ‘Approbation du Censeur Royal’, que Mme Gentry cite incomplétement, ne releve pas d’une discussion scientifique (elle est ‘irrelevant’). Elle est datée du 25 octobre 1758 et correspond seulement a une mesure de police a priori. Le Censeur y déclare agir ‘par ordre de Mgr le Chancelier’ pour ‘permettre l’impression’; il ne s’y prévaut pas de son appartenance a l’Académie des Sciences. Ce n’est done pas une évaluation scientifique a posteriori, méme si le libraire l’a placée a la fin (p. 639) du dernier volume, juste avant le Privilége (p. 640). On peut méme se demander si Guettard a vu en manuscrit les pages 593-636 ajoutées au vol. 4 aprés la lettre ‘Z’ du Dictionnaire car annonce de ce dernier dans le Journal des Scavants de janvier 1759 (p. 61) ne mentionne que trois volumes, les quatre volumes n’étant signalés qu’en décembre (p. 831). Si Ton tient cependant a vouloir lire ’Approbation comme un jugement scientifique, il faut la lire en entier. A cdté de ce que Mme Gentry y a lu de neutre ou de négatif (“Cet ouvrage est un abrégé ...”) et qui concerne les noms vernaculaires, on y relevera une opinion plus positive. Guettard déclare en effet que le Dictionnaire peut “étre tres utile pour intelligence & /a concordance des auteurs qui ont traité ou parlé des animaux’ (italiques C.D.). (2) La question de savoir si la publication de La Chesnaye adopte les taxa de Brisson est plus intéressante. Il semble toutefois assez hatif de dire que les pages addition- nelles du vol. 4 du Dictionnaire représentent une ‘section (pp. 593-636) in which taxonomic arrangements by Linnaeus (... various works) ... Brisson (1756) ... and Adanson (1757) are summarised without acceptance or rejection’. Cette section comprend 11 textes. Huit d’entre eux, effectivement, résument (summarise) des travaux de Linné, Geoffroy, Klein, Dezallier d’Argenville et autres, sans jamais dépasser une énumération de noms de genres ni mentionner les caractéres de ceux-ci. Trois de ces textes, par contre, ne sont pas des résumés mais des extraits qui donnent verbatim le detail des arrangements considérés. Ces trois textes ainsi distingués par un traitement privilégié sont précisément tirés du travail de Brisson (1756). Le premier (pp. 625-627) présente les caractéres des neuf classes de la Division générale du Régne animal par M. Brisson. 11 insiste sur les mérites de Brisson et rappelle que l'étude de la riche collection de Réaumur ‘lui a fourni Yidée de disposer les animaux dans un ordre différent de ceux ou on les a mis jusqu’a présent’. I] se termine par les mots: “Les deux premieres classes, celles des Quadrupedes & des Cétacées ont paru en 1756 en un Volume in-4’... Elles font désirer les autres. Voici les deux Divisions générales de ses Quadrupédes & de ses Cétacées’ (ital. C.D.). Suivent les deux autre textes tirés de Brisson. Ils s’intitulent respectivement: Division générale de la classe des Quadrupédes selon l'ordre dans lequel ils sont rangés dans le Régne animal de M. Brisson (pp. 627-631) et Division générale de la Classe des Cétacées par M. Brisson (p. 632). Dans ces deux textes, tous les genres reconnus par Brisson sont donnés avec leurs noms et leurs caractéres! Il est manifeste, au vu de ce traitement privilégieé, que introduction a la fin du vol. 4 du Dictionnaire d’extraits fidéles du travail de Brisson (1756) procede d’une intention d’en souligner la nouveauté taxinomique. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 281 (3) Le ‘Dictionnaire itself’ confirme bien cette intention et dément l’idée que ‘Brisson’s names, among those of many authors, appear throughout the four volumes of the Dictionnaire but always only for comparison with the names used for the same taxon by other authors’. Je n’ai pas examiné ce que le Dictionnaire dit des noms de Brisson pris a Linné ou synonymes de ceux de Linné (voyez les listes, BZN 52: 348) et me suis attaché seulement aux |] genres dont le nom est a conserver. J’ai constaté, pour 10 d’entre eux, que La Chesnaye ne considére pas qu'il s’agisse du ‘same taxon by other authors’ car il déclare expressément que tel ou tel genre est particulier a Brisson, fait par Brisson, etc. Il énumére d’ailleurs, a ’'appui, les caracteres de chacun d’aprés Brisson. Il dit, par exemple, sous ‘Chevrotin’ [Tragulus de la Division générale}, vol. 1, p. 602: ‘Cest un nom générique que M. Brisson (p. 95) donne a des animaux Quadrupédes, dont le caractére est d’avoir ...’ (suit l’@numération des caractéres d’apres Brisson, 1756 et la Division générale). I dit de méme, sous “Chien volant’ [Pteropus], vol. 1, p. 617: ‘M. Linnaeus met cet animal dans l’ordre des Ferae ... mais M. Brisson, p. 215 en fait un genre séparé sous le nom de Roussette, dont le caractére est d’avoir ...’. Il dit encore, sous “Loir’ [Glis], vol. 2, p. 700: ‘M. Brisson, p. 160, fait un genre du Loir, dont le caractere est, dit-i/, d’avoir .... ou, sous “Loutre’ [Lutra], vol. 2, p. 718: ‘M. Brisson (p. 277) fait un genre particulier de la Loutre dont le caractére est d’avoir ...’. Les italiques que j’ai introduites dans ces citations soulignent les formules par lesquelles La Chesnaye a reconnu la nouveauté des genres de Brisson. Jai constaté qu’il emploie des formules semblables, accompagnées du rappel des caractéres, pour six autres des 11 genres de Mammiféres dont les noms sont, avec les quatre précédents, proposés pour conservation: Meles [Blaireau, vol. 1, p. 296]; Hydrochoerus [Cabiai, vol. 1, p. 364]; Hyaena [Hyene, vol. 2, p. 509]; Cuniculus [Lapin du Brésil, vol. 2, p. 600]; Philander [Philander, sous Didelphe, vol. 2, p. 28]; Tapirus [Tapir, vols. 3, p. 19 et 4, p. 268]. Seul des 11 noms génériques discutés, Girafe = Giraffa West pas attribué a Brisson, mais aux ‘modernes’ [vol. 2, p. 386, sous Caméléopard]. Compte tenu de ces dires, il faut, la encore, considérer la publication par La Chesnaye des Divisions de Brisson avec leurs noms et caractéres comme une reconnaissance explicite de leur nouveauté taxinomique. Je conclus de ces trois discussions que, méme si l'on admet un ‘feed-back’ de la validité taxinomique sur la disponibilité nomenclatoriale, on ne peut pas opposer a la disponibilité des noms de Brisson cette exigence de I’Article 11d. B. STATUT DES TRAVAUX DE BRISSON Les rejets en bloc de travaux SES ENS anciens qui n étaient pas uniformément binominaux sont considérés par R.V. Melville (Towards stability in the names of animals, 1995, p. 52) comme ‘the more regrettable’ de (heritage de F. Hemming. Ces décisions rétrospectives, en effet, ont trop souvent été prises sans qu’on songeat a la conservation préalable de noms de genres cependant tenus depuis longtemps pour disponibles (cf. les noms de Geoffroy, 1762, cas invoqué aussi bien par Melville, que par moi-méme, BZN 52: 74). Lidée ‘that ‘binary’ and ‘binominal’ were completely synonymous’, qui depuis 1948 sert a fonder ces rejets, est un sophisme du juriste Hemming (Melville, p. 51). Tout nom binominal étant nécessairement binaire, mais non inverse, la faute est de présenter une simple relation d’inclusion univoque comme une 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 relation d’equivalence réciproque. En bon logicien, l’ingénieur M.A. Chaper, l'un des péres des Reégles (cf. Melville, p. 17), savait bien que la nomenclature linnéenne fut d’abord et longtemps binaire avant de devenir progressivement binominale. A deéfaut d’avoir su, comme l’ont fait les botanistes, graduer les exigences des Régles a légard des ouvrages selon qu’on considérait des noms génériques ou specifiques, il ne faut point persister sans precautions dans ces rejets en bloc. Pour cela, il convient, comme le suggere Mme Gentry, de préserver les noms génériques avant de rejeter les ouvrages. Cette opération est grandement facilitée lorsqu’une partie bien individualisable d'un ouvrage concerne uniquement des noms génériques (elle est prévue par les Art. 11ce(ili) et 12b(2) pour les parties bien individualisables que constituent les Index). Il suffit de reconnaitre cette partie comme un travail autonome ou un index et de la préserver en tant que telle. Cest ce qui a été fait pour la Tabula synoptica de \ Ornithologie de Brisson (1760) et c'est ce que je propose ci-dessous pour ses Divisions et Tabulae de 1759 et 1762. Cette démarche est une reconnaissance des qualités de rigueur et de clarté de Brisson, qui ont valu a ses genres l’assentiment des taxinomistes et des nomenclateurs — y compris Strickland (cf. Melville, p. 8), tant anciens que modernes. C. MY OWN APPLICATION I share the conservative views of Anthea Gentry concerning generic names in current use, and am reluctant to reject entire works on formal grounds which concern only specific names. I therefore propose the following: The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked: (1) to rule: (a) that, as alone responsible for the names included, Brisson is to be considered, for the purposes of Article 50, as the author of the four works entitled: (i) Division générale de la classe des Quadrupédes selon l’ordre dans lequel ils sont rangés dans le Régne animal de M. Brisson and Division générale de la classe des Cétacées par M. Brisson, contained in vol. 4, pp. 627-631, 632 of Dictionnaire raisonné et universel des animaux (1759) by M.D.L. C.D.B. (i.e. M. de La Chesnaye des Bois); (li) Tabula synoptica Quadrupedum and Tabula synoptica Cetaceorum, contained in pp. 12-13, 218 of Brisson, Regnum animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica ... Editio altera auctior (1762) [by J.N.S. Allamand]; (b) that the included new names, having been treated as taxonomically valid when published (Article 11d), are available; (2) to use its plenary powers: (a) to acknowledge that among the new generic names introduced in genitive form in the work of Brisson (1759) and corrected to be in nominative form in his work of 1762, the following 11 names are in current and continual use and are available, despite their inclusion in publications that are otherwise not consistently binominal [the list given in BZN 51: 142, para. (2)(a)]; (b) to set aside all previous type species fixations for the corresponding 11 genera and to make the designations shown [the list given in BZN 51: 142, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 283 para. (2)(b), with the 11 attributions to “Brisson, 1762’ replaced by ‘Brisson, 17595); 4 (3) [as proposed in BZN 51: 142-143, para. (3), with the 11 attributions to ‘Brisson, 1762’ replaced by “Brisson, 1759"); (4) [as proposed in BZN 51: 143, para. (4), with the 11 attributions to “Brisson, 1762’ replaced by “Brisson, 17597}; (5) to place on the Official List of Works approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature the four works by Brisson (1759) and (1762), cited in (1) above, notwithstanding the nomenclatural rejection in (6) below of the publications in which these works are contained; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the two non-consistently binominal publications cited in (1) above and entitled Dictionnaire raisonné by M.D.L.C.D.B. (M. de La Chesnaye des Bois, 1759) and Brisson, Regnum animale ... Editio altera auctior (1762), with the explicit exception of the four contained works by Brisson (Divisions générales, 1759 and Tabulae synopticae, 1762), cited in (1) above and placed in (5) above on the Official List, and with a special endorsement that such rejections of these publications as sources of names are not suppressions regarding their taxonomic use as sources of descriptions and indications. Remerciements En tant que zoologiste, japprécie vivement l'occasion que m’a donnée Mme Gentry de mieux comprendre certains points de lhistoire de nos Regles et de relever les faiblesses de l’Article 11d. J’apprécie surtout qu’elle m’ait permis de reconnaitre en Brisson un taxinomiste dont les travaux tres méthodiques, dans leurs diverses éditions et reéditions, sont judicieusement regardés (Casey Wood, 1931, An introduction to the literature of vertebrate zoology, p. 257) ‘as next in authority to the Linnean productions’! (2) Anthea Gentry clo The Secretariat, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Prof Dupuis’s comment (above) on my application to conserve 11 of Brisson’s (1762) generic names for mammals is an enlargement of his first comment (BZN 52: 273-275; September 1995) to which I have already replied (BZN 52: 347-350; December 1995). It is clear that both Prof Dupuis and I desire the conservation of 11 Brisson names and that it is only on the procedure for doing this that we differ. Prof Dupuis has now made a further set of alternative proposals, which I have studied carefully. I wish to reply to his three main points. 1. Consistency of Commission treatments. Prof Dupuis proposes that the Commis- sion’s treatment of Brisson’s names for mammals should follow that for his (1760) publication for birds, the Ornithologia, and that Brisson’s (1762) work, at least in part, should be placed on the Official List, rather than on the Official Index as I have proposed. The treatment by the Commission of Brisson’s (1760) work was prolonged and complicated and unfortunately resulted in confusion (see my application, BZN 51: 135, para. 1, and previous comment, 52: 347-348). Opinion 37 (1911) noted Brisson’s 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 bird genera as ‘in form and treatment as truly generic groups as there are of any author of his time’ (see Allen, 1910, pp. 322-323). His generic names were recognised as published and accompanied by a description, and his nomenclature was consid- ered to be ‘binary’ (the scientific names being in two parts, a single-word generic name and a specific name of any number of words); a ruling was made that ‘Brisson’s (1760) generic names of birds are available under the [1905] Code’. The Commission settled the long-standing controversy (mentioned by Prof Dupuis above) over the meaning of the words ‘binary’ and ‘binominal’ at the 1948 Congress of Zoology in Paris, and concluded that generic names published by non-binominal authors were unavailable. Brisson’s (1760) Ornithologia was recognised as non- binominal but, to maintain stability and continuity in the use of his names, the work was accepted under the plenary powers as available and placed on the Official List. Opinion 37 was cancelled (see BZN 4: 65-66; 1950) and later (1955) replaced by Direction 16 which embodied the 1948 ruling. By 1962 ornithologists recognised that among Brisson’s (1760) generic names were five senior homonyms and a senior objective synonym of names in current use (see the Report by Francis Hemming, then Secretary to the Commission, in BZN 19: 9-14; February 1962). Direction 105 (October 1963) restricted the availability given to Brisson’s (1760) names to those in Latin in the Tabula synoptica in vol. | of his work. After this action there still remained two names in current use, rendered unavailable by the ruling, which needed to be dealt with individually: Lorius (placed on the Official List from Vigors, 1825 in Opinion 938, December 1970) and Cacatua (for which a ruling has yet to be made). I referred (BZN 52: 347) to my intention to avoid in this present case a recurrence of the uncertainty surrounding the status of Brisson’s (1760) Ornithologia, necessi- tating three separate rulings over more than 50 years. I remain convinced that approval by the Commission of my proposal to place Brisson’s (1762) work, which is clearly non-binominal, on the Official Index, while at the same time conserving his 11 generic names in current use, will result in a simple, clear and unambiguous ruling which is in accord with the Code. 2. Conservation of Brisson’s (1762) mammal generic names. Prof Dupuis proposes to place on the Official List Brisson’s (1762) Tabula Synoptica Quadrupedum and Tabula Synoptica Cetaceorum (pp. 12-13 and p. 218 of the Regnum Animale) while rejecting the greater part of the work. Each taxon listed in the Tabulae is accompanied by a brief description but I can find no merit in separating the Tabulae from the text of the 1762 work which contains much longer descriptions. Prof Dupuis notes that he has not examined the unused and unwanted names in the Tabulae (see the list in my comment on BZN 52: 348). Failure to deal with these would leave the mammal names in an ambiguous and unstable state similar to that for birds following Direction 16. Nine new mammal names in Brisson (1762) have long been treated as junior synonyms of names published by Linnaeus (1758) (see, for example, Merriam, 1895). Nevertheless, if rendered available, Brisson’s names could be used by any worker rigidly applying the Principle of Priority. I give here two examples. Hircus Brisson, 1762, treated by Merriam (1895) as a synonym of Capra Linnaeus, 1758, the name in use for a genus of goats, also encompassed the chamois and species of gazelle and therefore threatens the currently used names Rupicapra and Gazella, both of de Blainville (1816). Tardigradus Brisson, 1762, long treated as a synonym of Bradypus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 285 Linnaeus, 1758, which is currently used for the three-toed sloths (see BZN 51: 332 and 52: 349), included both the two-toed and three-toed sloths and therefore has precedence over Choloepus Illiger, 1811, the name in use for the two-toed sloths. Reintroduction of any unused name from Brisson could not fail to upset some later name now in common use and, if Prof Dupuis’s route were followed, further action would be needed to deal with the unused names. No doubt it would be possible to suppress them one by one. There is little point, however, in making names available only to suppress them. There would, incidentally, also be no point in putting the (1762) Tabulae on the Official List if, as Prof Dupuis has suggested (see below), the Brisson names were to be taken from de La Chesnaye’s (1759) Dictionnaire. 3. Availability of Brisson’s mammal names from de La Chesnaye des Bois’s (1759) “Dictionnaire raisonné et universel des animaux’. Prof Dupuis proposes that Bris- son’s names be accepted as available from their citation in de La Chesnaye’s (1759) Dictionnaire. | noted (BZN 52: 349) that Brisson’s names are repeated by de La Chesnaye from Brisson’s (1756) publication. Contrary to Prof Dupuis’s conclusion (above), I can find no evidence of a treatment for the summary (vol. 4, pp. 625-626) of Brisson’s (1756) taxonomy and the citation of his names different from that accorded by de La Chesnaye to other pre-1758 authors (Linnaeus, Arnault de Nobleville & Salerne, Klein, d’Argenville and Adanson; see BZN 52: 349). As with Brisson’s (1762) Tabulae synopticae (pp. 12-13 and p. 218 of the Regnum Animale), Prof Dupuis proposes to place on the Official List the entire (1759) Division générale de la classe des quadrupedes (vol. 4, pp. 627-631) and the Division générale de la classe des cétacées (p. 632), attributing them to Brisson. The ojections to the (1762) Tabulae outlined above apply here also. Prof Dupuis also proposes that, at the same time, the remaining four volumes of de La Chesnaye’s Dictionnaire should be placed on the Official Index — a procedure to which he has objected (his comment above) in relation to other works. Commissioners would probably not be able to agree to this without a detailed study of the contents of the four volumes and the repercussions of their rejection first being made (see my assessment of Brisson’s 1762 Regnum Animale in BZN 52: 347-349). To my knowledge all authors, classic and modern, have cited Brisson’s names from his (1762) Regnum Animale, and none has attributed them to the report of his (1756) work written by de La Chesnaye in the (1759) Dictionnaire. For the sake of consistency it would be appropriate to maintain the same date (1762) and publication (Brisson’s Regnum Animale) for the 11 generic names now proposed for conservation as for Odobenus in Opinion 467 (1957). I wish to maintain my proposals (BZN 51: 142-144) in this application for several reasons: (1) the availability of Brisson’s names from 1759 is at best debatable; (2) some of Brisson’s names which would be made available by Prof Dupuis’s procedures would need to be suppressed; (3) consistency of authorship and date (Brisson, 1762) and publication (Regnum Animale) would be maintained; and (4) the ruling would be confined to the conservation of the 11 generic names in general usage. Additional reference Allen, J.A. 1910. Collation of Brisson’s genera of birds with those of Linnaeus. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 28: 317-335. 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 (3) Vladimir E. Sokolov Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia The application by Anthea Gentry is aimed at stopping the long debate about the status of 11 mammal generic names and at eliminating uncertainty in their usage. The formation of the names Philander (Marsupialia), Pteropus (Chiroptera), Glis, Cuniculus and Hydrochoerus (Rodentia), Meles, Lutra and Hyaena (Carnivora), Tapirus (Perissodactyla), Tragulus and Giraffa (Artiodactyla), first introduced by Brisson (1762), is not perfect for formal requirements, nor indeed is the whole Regnum Animale. This is why the view of the authors of two recently published reference works (Honacki, Kinman & Koeppl, 1982; Wilson & Reeder, 1993), who rejected Brisson’s names, should be respected. I see, however, at least two arguments against the rejection of Brisson’s names. The first is stability of nomenclature, one of the important principles of the Code and accepted by the international zoological community. The 11 generic names for mammals have been in established and very wide usage for more than two centuries, attributed to Brisson. The names are used in numerous manuals and reference books in many countries, including the former Soviet Union. Since some of the genera include fossil species, the names are also widely used in palaeotheriology. It would not be an exaggeration to say that most of these names are familiar to every student of biology and natural history in our country. The rejection of Brisson’s (1762) generic names would in some cases require substitution by other names which, in some instances, would lead to great confusion, as in the case of Cuniculus, which would have to be called Agouti. In these cases the new names would be unfamiliar to most zoologists. Some names would have to change authorship and date. To overcome the relatively small and well-known formal problem, American workers (cited above) suggested a way that would create many more problems, with various undesirable consequences. Thus, the second reason to oppose the rejection of Brisson’s names is common sense. The solution proposed in the application is based on common sense. In this we are invited to fix the accepted usage of the 11 generic names by their conservation, and at the same time to eliminate future confusion and controversy by rejecting Brisson’s work for nomenclatural purposes as being incompletely binominal. To conclude, I stongly support the reasonable initiative to conserve the 11 mammal generic names, to reject the work by Brisson (1762) for nomenclature purposes, and to make all the concomitant decisions, and I ask the Commission to solve this case positively by applying the fundamentals of stability, common sense and wisdom. Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200) (1) Elizabeth A. Voigt McGregor Museum, 2 Egerton Road, P.O. Box 316, Kimberley 8300, South Africa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 287 As a researcher concerned with the origins of domestic animals in southern Africa, I fully support the proposal of Juliet Clutton-Brock and her colleagues that there should be a clear distinction in the nomenclature between the domestic and wild forms of the relevant species, as laid out in the application. This is particularly important in southern Africa as the wild progenitors of domestic forms never occurred here. Unless there is uniform usage of specific names so as to identify domestic forms there will be considerable confusion in the literature with regard to domestic animals in southern Africa. (2) A.V. Abramov Department of Mammalogy, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia I agree with the proposal (BZN 53: 28-37) put forward by Gentry, Clutton-Brock & Groves to conserve the usage of separate specific names for wild and domestic mammals. In their application the authors have incorrectly cited the source of the original description of the wild Bactrian camel, Camelus ferus, and have attributed it to Przewalski (1883). As colleagues and I (Abramov, Baryshnikov & Tikhonov, 1992, pp. 10-11) have already noted, this species was described by Przewalski (1878, pp. 20, 43) as Camelus bactrianus ferus in an earlier work. Falk (1786, p. 292) described Camelus dromedarius ferus from East Kazakhstan, West China, Mongolia and South Siberia. Whether his description refers to wild or feral specimens, and to the Arabian or Bactrian camel, is not fully clear, but his name is available and is a senior homonym of Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1878. Falk’s name has not been in use for a long time and should be suppressed in order to conserve Przewalski’s (1878) name, as earlier proposed (Heptner, 1966; Abramov et al., 1992). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy the name ferus Falk, 1786, as published in the trinomen Camelus dromedarius ferus, and all uses of the name Camelus ferus prior to the publication of Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1878; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology the name ferus Falk, 1786, as published in the trinomen Camelus dromedarius ferus. Additional references Abramov, A.V., Baryshnikoy, G.F. & Tikhonov, A.N. 1992. The catalogue of type specimens in the collection of the Zoological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Mammalia, part 3. 28 pp. St Petersburg. [In Russian]. Falk, J.P. 1786. Beitrdge zur topographischen Kenntnis des Russischen Reiches, vol. 3. 584 pp. St Petersburg. Heptner, V.G. 1966. On the distribution of the wild camel (Camelus ferus Przew., 1883) on the territory of USSR. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal, 45: 109-118. [In Russian]. Przewalski, N.M. 1878. From Kul’dzha through Tyan’-Shan’ to Lob-Nor. 63 pp. St Petersburg. {In Russian]. (3) Henry Gee 23 Northcroft Road, Ealing, London W13 9SR, U.K. 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 I support fully the proposal to conserve the usage of the 15 mammal specific names which were based on wild species. My studies on British Pleistocene bovines made it clear to me that Bos primigenius Bojanus, 1827 is as different from Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758 in its morphology as it is from any other bovid. Therefore to include primigenius in taurus after their separation seems to me both illogical and unnecessary. To argue in opposition that B. primigenius and B. taurus might have been interfertile is pointless as B. primigenius is now extinct and this cannot be tested; we do know that B. taurus can hybridize with members of other genera such as Bison. One might as well turn the argument on its head by suggesting (with at least equal justification) that taurus should be subsumed within primigenius, but this would — I think wrongly — ignore the well-known differences between wild and domestic forms. I think that the authors of the application are correct in not discussing the nomenclature of domestic animals in this proposal. This would only confuse an already complicated issue, which is probably best tackled piece by piece. (4) Alan W. Gentry Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. I wish to express support for the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal names based on wild species. The inconsistency in the nomenclature of species from which domestic forms have been derived has led to ambiguity in academic studies and administrative difficulties in wildlife legislation and customs documentation. It is deeply undesirable to allow a situation to continue in which workers are confused by the use of names. A substantial improvement of the situation will ensue, if this application is approved, in that the usage of 15 widely used scientific names will be conserved. Success of this application will also produce, as far as any outside change can, better conditions in which nomenclature for domestic animals can be systematized. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 289 OPINION 1857 Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): Blastothrix isomorpha Sugonjaey, 1964 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; Metablastothrix; Metablast- othrix isomorpha. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Metablastothrix Sugonjaey, 1964 are hereby set aside and Blastothrix isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Blastothrix isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964, as published in the binomen Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha (specific name of the type species of Metablastothrix Sugonjaey, 1964), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 2916 An application for the designation of Blastothrix (Metablastothrix) isomorpha Sugonjaev, 1964 as the type species of Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 was received from Dr Natalia D. Voinovich, Prof Vladimir A. Trjapitzin and Dr Eugeny S. Sugonjaev (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia) on 22 November 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 54-56 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 55. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy, Trjapitzin Negative votes — 1: Stys. Bouchet abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Bouchet commented: ‘The application does not give the valid name for the misidentified type species of Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964. It would perhaps be more convenient to have the species from St Petersburg which was studied by Sugonjaev as the type, rather than the less easily accessible B. isomorpha from Kazakhstan. Furthermore, the biology of Sugonjaev’s misidentified species is known, but the application fails to mention if it is also known for B. isomorpha. 1 consider 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 that the data in the application are insufficient for an informed decision and I therefore abstain’. Stys commented: ‘There should be a statement of what, in the view of the authors, is the specific identity of Microterys truncatipennis sensu Sugonjaev (1964), non Ferriére (1955). They leave the formerly designated misidentified type species without identity’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: isomorpha, Blastothrix (Metablastothrix), Sugonjaev, 1964, Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 43(2): 371. Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964, Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 43(2): 371. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 291 OPINION 1858 Nectria Gray, 1840 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea): Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875 designated as the type species Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Echinodermata; Asteroidea; starfish; Nectria; Australia. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Nectria Gray, 1840 are hereby set aside and Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Nectria Gray, 1840 (gender: feminine), type species by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The name ocellata Perrier, 1875, as published in the binomen Nectria ocellata (specific name of the type species of Nectria Gray, 1840) and as defined by the lectotype (specimen no. 1958.7.30.20 in the Natural History Museum, London) designated by Zeidler & Rowe (1986), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 3 — History of Case 2951 An application for the designation of Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875 as the type species of Nectria Gray, 1840 was received from Dr Wolfgang Zeidler (South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia) on 12 September 1994. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 52: 164-165 (June 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 16S. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 20: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — |: Holthuis. Bouchet and Dupuis abstained. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger 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: Nectria Gray, 1840, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (1)6(37): 287. ocellata, Nectria, Perrier, 1875, Révision de la collection de stéllerides du Muséum d'Histoire naturelle de Paris, p. 188. The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Nectria ocellata Perrier, 1875: Zeidler, W. & Rowe, F.W.E. 1986. Records of the South Australian Museum, 19(9): 120. 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 OPINION 1859 Nine specific names of southern Afrotropical birds conserved Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Camaroptera brachyura; Galerida magnirostris; Lamprotornis nitens phoenicopterus; Mirafra apiata; Motacilla aguimp; Oenanthe monticola; Oriolus larvatus; Prinia flavicans; Zosterops pallidus; Africa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) 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 A/auda percutiens; (d) citrinus Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Motacilla citrinus; (e) viridis Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Moztacilla viridis; (f) arenarea Wilkes, 1817, as published in the binomen Moracilla 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. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) phoenicopterus Swainson, [1837], as published in the binomen Lamprotornis phoenicopterus; (b) magnirostris Stephens, 1826, as published in the binomen Alauda magniros- tris; (c) apiata Vieillot, 1816, as published in the binomen Alauda apiata; (d) flavicans Vieillot, [1820], as published in the binomen Sy/via flavicans; (e) brachyura Vieillot, [1820], as published in the binomen Sy/via 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) larvatus Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the binomen Oriolus larvatus. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology: (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 Motracilla 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; GB 2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 293 (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 Motacilla tcheric and as suppressed in (1)(h) above; (1) africanus Wilkes, 1820 as published in the binomen Oriolus africanus and as suppressed in (1)(i) above. History of Case 2931 An application for the conservation of nine specific names of southern Afrotropi- cal birds was received from Dr P.A. Clancey (Durban Natural Science Museum, Durban, South Africa) and Dr R.K. Brooke (Percy FitzPatrick Institute of African Ornithology, University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa) on 22 February 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 61—64 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Decision of the Commission On | March 1996 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 63. At the close of the voting period on | June 1996 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes — none. No vote was received from Halvorsen. Cogger and Ride were on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: africanus, Oriolus, Wilkes, 1820, Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 17, p. 740. aguimp, Motacilla, Temminck, [1820], Manual d’ornithologie, Ed. 2, part 1, p. Ixviii. apiata, Alauda, Vieillot, 1816, Nouveau dictionnaire d’histoire naturelle, Ed. 2, vol. 1, p. 342. arenarea, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817, Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16, p. 85. brachyura, Sylvia, Vieillot, [1820], in Bonnaterre, J.P. & Vieillot, L.J.P., Tableau encyclopae- dique et méthodique, trois régnes de la nature, ornithologie, vol. 2, p. 459. citrinus, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817, Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16, p. 78. flavicans, Sylvia, Vieillot, [1820], in Bonnaterre, J.P. & Vieillot, L.J.P., Tableau encyclopaedique et méthodique, trois régnes de la nature, ornithologie, vol. 2, p. 438. larvatus, Oriolus, Lichtenstein, 1823, Verzeichniss der Doubletten des Zoologischen Museum der Konigl. Universitat zu Berlin ..., p. 20. magnirostris, Alauda, Stephens, 1826, in Shaw, G., General zoology (Aves), vol. 14, part 1, p. 26. montana, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817, Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16, p. 89. monticola, Oenanthe, Vieillot, 1818, Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, Ed. 2, vol. 21, p. 434. nabirop, Sturnus, Temminck, 1807, Catalogue systématique du cabinet d’ornithologie et de la collection de quadrumanes de Crd. Jb. Temminck, p. 85. pallida, Zosterops, Swainson, [1837], Animals in Menageries, part 3. Jn Lardner, D., Cabinet Cyclopaedia, vol. 98, p. 294. 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 percutiens, Alauda, Wilkes, [1796], Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 1, p. 236. phoenicopterus, Lamprotornis, Swainson, [1837], Animals in Menageries, part 3. In Lardner, D., Cabinet Cyclopaedia, vol. 98, p. 360. rostrocrasso, Alauda, Wilkes, [1796], Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 1, p. 235. tcheric, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817, Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16, p. 94. viridis, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817, Encyclopaedia Londinensis, vol. 16, p. 80. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 295 AUTHORS IN VOLUME 53 (1996) Page ADrAMOVNA. Vi... Go beet aes. 287 Weassiz Dim. os Geert ee PG 9 PMIVATOZ GE Sch soy itl cue: go Dea wea he 182, 264 BNOISEM SAW EUEL os cone a) se te see 196 BAQISLIDECAWED ss) wv 5) 1s, ne eee a 20 PRAZATO)IS tAVpmy 3: eg A ae) hy eee 196 BAcKeljatel.. 28 0s oe ee 120 SADC aR Gs, cy es SOM RK sad Gee 116, 187 BaTtOSIEWIGZ AIL. & Sf tins bE ae © 193 SALES HU plicis: cays aici rege aoe eet oe 198 AMEE WAG Ms. ce ccc dhs, acl sce te 184 BECKER MVEON cc) 184 KelgesN Jue) Se ae eae 86 Kohn RAVI. Ft. 8) 5 <2. een ome 276 Kolby HUH": os 2 cee, eee 191 Rica Dy Pere) 5 tii pet eee Re 191 Krell Ei 5 oh 3 ee eee 86, 124 Behtinen3PoDss 2 4. é.qeey oon PHT) | Goyo) ey ty) MRE iar) Men coca) E 18 Woydell Ke fs. 2. Se ee a ee 267 Tipsy Pe eh 88 oc ee 192 McAlpinesDIRS = 2s eae ee 13 MekKdmeysis:bl: ., tcc caren 85 Malicky Ey 2 So. ci. See ae il Meadow: RUBS 5.3, sei ee ee 125 Michenery GAD! 5 cs eee ee ee 82 Mitta is is 2 a me Games ae 11, 46 Mitiitis “AG oe cr mies, ee emer ance 46 INfamIZ. AWM. +. 2 To Gis ea ees 199 Nixon ME 2) Oe. 8 eee heel ee 45 INOVeS Ii Ways Sn Ay for ee eee 11 @berpuclersRiGle ee ees 82 OConnor0"EPs 3 ee ek ele 198 296 Sabrosky, C.W. SalasCe . <.. atten, iene a Schistte; T=. Scholtz, C.H. Shattuck, S. . . Shelley, R.M. . Sidorenko, V.S. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Smetana MAA es Al eee wi ste 8, 278 Smith EMA Soc itn 48, 112, 184 Sokolov; Vib so i) of: (a eee 286 Spassov Nie: cok: oe. 25- P ae 198 Stallibrass;S/Mip. yal. ore aan 193 StOrGh iP cis 25 setae kro 267 Szwalko; Pi. 2 ..-. Wi ee 123 Tavares;.Ms o.. a Sp os ee 121 Monee; Siec. s-s) wy ei-ch tc 197 Toriba, (Mi «.- 2. 4, cs aaa ee 50 VoigtyB.Ay a. tn oe De 286 Wake. DiBn 5s. .2 ae Se 48 Wilkinson; Ma". < ‘0s... .3) 22ers 13 Williams. AUBS 42% oo areeanee 1212122 Walden, Diws 2, os. ee 192 Meidlet: W.. cs i aac, 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 297 NAMES PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 53 (1996) Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 53, and amendments of existing entries, are listed below under three headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes in non-bold type. Family-Group Names AGONIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1855 AGONIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1855 AGONUMIDAE Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1855 AGRODINI Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 CAECILIAIDAE Rafinesque, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1830 CAECILIIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Psocoptera) Op. 1830 CAECILIIDAE Rafinesque, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1830 CAECILIUSIDAE Kolbe, 1880 (Psocoptera) Op. 1830 CECILINIA Rafinesque, 1814 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona) Op. 1830 CUBARIDAE Brandt, 1833 (Isopoda) Op. 1848 GYROHYPNINI Kirby, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 LIVONECINAE Schioedte & Meinert, 1884 (Isopoda) Op. 1849 MEGALODONTESIDAE Konow, 1897 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1829 MEGALODONTIDAE Konow, 1897 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1829 MEGALODONTIDAE Morris & Lycett, 1853 (Bivalvia) Op. 1829 PLATYCNEMINI Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 QUEDIINI Kraatz, [1857] (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 XANTHOLININI Erichson, 1839 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 Generic Names Acernaspis Campbell, 1967 (Trilobita) Op. 1846 Agonum Bonelli, 1810 (Coleoptera) Op. 1855 Agonus Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1855 Agrodes Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 Apolybas Alvarenga, 1965 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Aspidophorus Lacépede, [1801] (Osteichthyes) Op. 1855 Bohemilla Vejdovsky, 1883 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 Bohemillula Strand, 1928 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 Cassidella Hofker, 1953 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1834 Coelophysis Cope, 1889 (Reptilia) Op. 1842 Coproica Rondani, 1861 (Diptera) Op. 1839 Coptorhinus Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1838 Coptorhinus Guérin Meéneville, [1838] (Coleoptera) Op. 1838 Cubaris Billberg, 1820 (Isopoda) Op. 1848 Cubaris Brandt, 1833 (Isopoda) Op. 1848 Dendrochariessa Gistl, 1848 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 Descarpentriesina Leraut, 1983 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Diplocentrus Peters, 1861 (Arachnida) Op. 1847 Diplonychus Laporte, 1833 (Heteroptera) Op. 1850 Eophacops Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) Op. 1846 Eretmosaurus Seeley, 1874 (Reptilia) Op. 1831 Fursenkoina Loeblich & Tappan, 1961 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1834 Heteroptera Macquart, 1835 (Diptera) Op. 1839 Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1827 Ischiolepta Lioy, 1864 (Diptera) Op. 1839 Ischyrus Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Ischyrus Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Lampra Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 Lironeca Leach in White, 1847 (Isopoda) Op. 1849 Livoneca Leach, 1818 (Isopoda) Op. 1849 Lybas Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Lybas Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Lycognathophis Boulenger, 1893 (Reptilia) Op. 1856 Macrochaeta Bretscher, 1896 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 Macrochaetina Bretscher, 1899 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 Megalodon Sowerby, 1827 (Bivalvia) Op. 1829 Megalodontes Latreille, 1802 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1829 Megischyrus Crotch, 1873 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Melanophila Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1826 Metablastothrix Sugonjaev, 1964 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1857 Micrischyrus Alvarenga, 1965 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Mycotretus Dejean, 1836 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Mycotretus Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 Nectria Gray, 1840 (Asteroidea) Op. 1858 Nesopupa Pilsbry, 1900 (Gastropoda) Op. 1823 Oniscus Linnaeus, 1758 (Isopoda) Op. 1837 Palmar Schaefer, 1949 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 Phaenops Dejean, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1826 Platycnemus Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 Poecilonota Eschscholtz, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 Pseudocaranx Bleeker, 1863 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 Pterodiscus Pilsbry, 1893 (Gastropoda) Op. 1845 Pterygometopidella Wedekind, 1912 (Trilobita) Op. 1846 Ptychochilus Boettger, 1881 (Gastropoda) Op. 1823 Ptychochylus Boettger, 1881 (Gastropoda) Op. 1823 Quedius Stephens, 1829 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 Rhabdomeson Young & Young, 1874 (Bryozoa) Op. 1854 Rioarribasaurus Hunt & Lucas, 1991 (Reptilia) Op. 1842 Scintillatrix Obenberger, 1956 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 Scopelophis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia) Op. 1856 Scottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Ostracoda) Op. 1836 Stictostroma Parks, 1936 (Stromatoporoidea) Op. 1843 Temnorhynchus Hope, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1838 Tropidoptera Ancey, 1889 (Gastropoda) Op. 1845 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 299 Vejdovskyella Michaelsen, 1903 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 Xerammobates Popov, 1951 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1853 Specific Names acuminata, Buprestis, De Geer, 1774 (Coleoptera) Op. 1826 acutangula, Limosina, Zetterstedt, 1847 (Diptera) Op. 1839 adscensionis, Scomber, Osbeck, 1771 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 africanus, Oriolus, Wilkes, 1820 (Aves) Op. 1859 agilis, Melissodes, Cresson, 1878 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1852 aguimp, Motacilla, Temminck, [1820] (Aves) Op. 1859 alternans, Coluber, Lichtenstein, 1823 (Reptilia) Op. 1832 americana, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1852 apiata, Alauda, Vieillot, 1816 (Aves) Op. 1859 arenarea, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817 (Aves) Op. 1859 ascensionis, Caranx, Cuvier in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1833 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 asellus, Oniscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Isopoda) Op. 1837 banksii, Psittacus, Latham, 1790 (Aves) Op. 1833 bauri, Coelurus, Cope, 1887 (Reptilia) Op. 1842 brachyura, Sylvia, Vieillot, [1820] (Aves) Op. 1859 brunnea, Cubaris, Brandt, 1833 (Isopoda) Op. 1848 cataphractus, Cottus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1855 cephalotes, Tenthredo, Fabricius, 1781 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1829 citrinus, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817 (Aves) Op. 1859 colberti, Rioarribasaurus, Hunt & Lucas, 1991 (Reptilia) Op. 1842 comata, Bohemilla, Vejdovsky, 1883 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 cucullatus, Megalodon, Sowerby, 1827 (Bivalvia) Op. 1829 cyanea, Buprestis, Fabricius, 1775 (Coleoptera) Op. 1826 dentex, Scomber, Bloch & Schneider, 1801 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 denticulatus, Borborus, Meigen, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1839 desponsa, Melissodes, Smith, 1854 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1852 doliatus, Coluber, Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (Reptilia) Op. 1832 elegans, Agrodes, Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 festiva, Buprestis, Linnaeus, 1767 (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 flavicans, Sylvia, Vieillot, [1820] (Aves) Op. 1859 flavicollo, Psittacus banksii, Kerr, 1792 (Aves) Op. 1833 forsteri, Natrix, Wagler in Spix, 1824 (Reptilia) Op. 1832 galbineus, Armadillo, Eschscholtz, 1823 (Isopoda) Op. 1848 glaucus, Scomber, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 gorriense, Stictostroma, Stearn, 1995 (Stromatoporoidea) Op. 1843 handwerki, Phacops, Weller, 1907 (Trilobita) Op. 1846 hoevenii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1840 humilis, Bombus, Uliger, 1806 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1828 intermedia, Macrochaeta, Bretscher, 1896 (Oligochaeta) Op. 1835 isomorpha, Blastothrix (Metablastothrix), Sugonjaev, 1964 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1857 juliana, Aplysia, Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Gastropoda) Op. 1844 lancifer, Musca, Harris, [1780] (Diptera) Op. 1827 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 larvatus, Oriolus, Lichtenstein, 1823 (Aves) Op. 1859 lateritius, Platyenemus, Nordmann, 1837 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 lathami, Psittacus, Temminck, 1807 (Aves) Op. 1833 lesueuri, Erotylus, Chevrolat, 1835 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 levicollis, Staphylinus, Brulle, 1832 (Coleoptera) Op. 1851 lucorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1761 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1828 lugubris, Caranx, Poey, [1860] (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 magnificus, Psittacus, Shaw in Shaw & Nodder, 1790 (Aves) Op. 1833 magnirostris, Alauda, Stephens, 1826 (Aves) Op. 1859 marginatus, Carabus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1855 mexicanus, Diplocentrus, Peters, 1861 (Arachnida) Op. 1847 m-nigrum, Coluber, Raddi, 1820 (Reptilia) Op. 1832 montana, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817 (Aves) Op. 1859 monticola, Oenanthe, Vieillot, 1818 (Aves) Op. 1859 murina, Cubaris, Brandt, 1833 (Isopoda) Op. 1848 muscorum, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1828 nabirop, Sturnus, Temminck, 1807 (Aves) Op. 1859 nitens, Helix, Gmelin, [1791] (Gastropoda) Op. 1822 nitens, Helix, Michaud, 1831 (Gastropoda) Op. 1822 nitidula, Helix, Draparnaud, 1805 (Gastropoda) Op. 1822 normalis, Lybas, Lacordaire, 1842 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 ocellata, Nectria, Perrier, 1875 (Asteroidea) Op. 1858 orestes, Phacops, Billings, 1860 (Trilobita) Op. 1846 ovatus, Gasterosteus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1841 oxianus, Ammobates (Xerammobates), Popov, 1951 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1853 pallidus, Zosterops, Swainson, [1837] (Aves) Op. 1859 pensylvanica, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1852 percutiens, Alauda, Wilkes, [1796] (Aves) Op. 1859 philadelphica, Macrocera, Lepeletier, 1841 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1852 phoenicopterus, Lamprotornis, Swainson, [1837] (Aves) Op. 1859 plana, Nepa, Sulzer, 1776 (Heteroptera) Op. 1850 poecilogyrus, Coluber, Wied-Neuwied, [1824] (Reptilia) Op. 1832 progracile, Rhabdomeson, Wyse Jackson & Bancroft, 1995 (Bryozoa) Op. 1854 pseudobrowniana, Scottia, Kempf, 1971 (Ostracoda) Op. 1836 quadripunctatus, Erotylus, Olivier, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 redmanii, Livoneca, Leach, 1818 (Isopoda) Op. 1849 retusus, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781 (Coleoptera) Op. 1838 rostrocrasso, Alauda, Wilkes, [1796] (Aves) Op. 1859 rugosus, Plesiosaurus, Owen, 1840 (Reptilia) Op. 1831 rustica, Nepa, Fabricius, 1775 (Heteroptera) Op. 1850 rustica, Nepa, Fabricius, 1781 (Heteroptera) Op. 1850 rutilans, Buprestis, Fabricius, [1777] (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 seychellensis, Psammophis, Schlegel, 1837 (Reptilia) Op. 1856 sorex, Aplysia, Rang, 1828 (Gastropoda) Op. 1844 squammosa, Virgulina, d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1834 stollii, Zaitha, Amyot & Serville, 1843 (Heteroptera) Op. 1850 tantilla, Pupa, Gould, 1847 (Gastropoda) Op. 1823 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 tcheric, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817 (Aves) Op. 1859 terrestris, Apis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1828 undatus, Erotylus, Olivier, 1792 (Coleoptera) Op. 1824 variolosa, Buprestis, Paykull, [1799] (Coleoptera) Op. 1825 viridis, Motacilla, Wilkes, 1817 (Aves) Op. 1859 wesleyi, Endodonta (Pterodiscus), Sykes, 1896 (Gastropoda) Op. 1845 301 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 KEY NAMES AND WORKS IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 53 (1996) (for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 297-301) Page aalensis, Loligo, Schiibler in Zieten, 1832 (Coleoidea) ............ 253 aculeatus.| Tropidolepis, Gray, 183) (Reptilia)) 2 3 2. 2 + st et ees 112 aedon, Troglodytes, Vieillot, [1S09]\(Aves) 3 = 44) - 2 c= 20-2) es ee 187 aegagrus, Capra, Erxleben, 1777 (Mammalia). ......... 28, 125, 192, 286 afarensis, Australopithecus, Johanson, 1978 (Mammalia) ........... 24 africanus, Equus, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866 (Mammalia) . . . . 28, 125, 192, 286 africanus, Meganthropus, Weinert, 1950 (Mammalia) ............ 24 agassizii, Teudopsis, Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1835 (Coleoidea) ........ 253 Agatachys Meizen: T8s0\(Diptera)yy . cary aye | © ee on ee 104 americana, Ampelis. Wilsons /808i(AVES)) <) = |. ates = 99, 278 garnotii, Hemidactylus, Duméril & Bibron, 1836 (Reptilia)... ....... 184 paurus. Bos) Sinith, P827e(NMammalia) 298 :. 5°) <7. 7. =e. 2 28, 1251922086 geinitzianus, Gladiolites, Barrande, 1850 (Graptolithina) .......... . 267 genei, Salamandra, Temminck & Schlegel, 1838 (Amphibia, Caudata) .... . 48 Geonelnis Repteren Altena, 1949 (Coleoidea).. ... 2.2.2... .2 5284 253 Georissus Watreille. 1809(Eoleoptera), = =... sos. 2: | wee ae es 99, 278 ieroreninis ViUnStersls+on(@Oleaided)) 4 4 4420.) = te eee eS aayeris xeropiila. Soos1926\(Gasttopoda)) s 0). % >... ots chee ene 43 Girojfasbrisson, 1762, (Manamalia)i 3 2 5 . ee. et Sen 191, 278 Gissbrisson: 762, (Mammalia)) 3. =<). ee OP ok PS eM 191, 278 iGamerismeatreille SL S021Diplopoda) avs =.) a © = lc) =) ) eee 120, 277 eraminum, Lachydromia, Wallen, 185 (Diptera). ie 2 104 erenophia, Arca, Risso, 1826)(Bivalvia): 2.2. Lo. 2 ee 173 guanicoe, Camelus, Miller, [1776] (Mammalia) ...... . . . 28, 125, 192, 286 IV CIOILeEMma LOOSS, LOO DISENeA)N 2. ey os ag pce a ee oe 89 HEMIDACTYLIINI Hallowell, 1856 (Amphibia, Caudata).......... 48 herminieri, Holotropis, Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (Reptilia) .......... 112 iacnoubtisson: | o2ivamunalia).: oss 6 sos ae of 5 = A sy teh o eS 191, 278 Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 (Mammalia) ................ 191, 278 Hydromantes Gistel, 1848 (Amphibia, Caudata) ............... 48 PRETO OU COXENUS: EOE Wael G5 Oi (DIPtera) ers aprons oe os eae ee mre melewleyicuthis Doyle; 1990\(Coleoidea)! . 5 2 ss ens y pes ey a 28 KATERETIDAE Ganglbauer, 1899 (Coleoptera). .............. 47 meaprsikinnacus: l/5sa(@Osteicnthyes)! « 2 = 2 8m, 2 4 = an oo ols eo 106 laevis, Atrypa, Vanuxem, 1842 (Brachiopoda) ................ 182 iiropariecia.eonder, 1983)\(Gastropoda)\s\2role 8) -o 2d = ioztaial). eee 171 Molisosepia QOuenstedt1839\(Coleoidea) il, mi 'a5 22400) wf ee es i. 253 (possi, Hapaloirema, Price L934) (IDIPeNed)) 245 20. suse as 2 ey eee 89 lupus, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) ........... 28, 125, 192, 286 tira Brisson, 762i (Mammalia)es |. taesec 4d SReG iss eae Gale eee 191, 278 304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 Meles Brisson; 1'762\(Mammialia) pas, aioe antes eeaaneers. etn cit. uy 191, 278 Meristella Hall, 1859.(Brachiopoda)) )-5.-) eased tte calen ie ten oue ree 182 minima, Tyrannula, Baird & Baird, 1843 (Aves) ..........-..-. 116 mirabilis, Nothosaurus, Minster, 1834 (Reptilia)... ............ 270 mistroides, Mesogonimus, Monticelli, 1896 (Digenea) ............. 89 Monsirilla-Dana,1849'\ (Copepoda)! te skutemieaete 2): Seeley nee 46, 122 montefiorei, Belemnoteuthis, Buckman, 1880 (Coleoidea) ........... 253 multistriatus, Spirifer, Hall, 1857 (Brachiopoda) ............... 264 musica, Tyrannula, Swainson, 1827 (Aves)... ..-...... 52... 116 mutus, Poephagus, Przewalski, 1883 (Mammalia) ..... . . . 28, 125, 192, 286 mytili, Alcyonidium, Dalyell, 1848 (Bryozoa) ................4. 492 nigrescens, Alvania, Bartsch & Rehder, 1939 (Gastropoda) .......... 171 Nothosaurus Munsters 1834\(Reptilia) a0 fii Sali caet) as yale bee 270 NygolaimusiGobb, 1913 (Nematoda)as | ss tene olen): ater Capes 18 obliqua, Arca Philippis 1844) (Bivalvia)) © iac9-) sik). 0s) sae 173 abhquata,Arca) Locardss1899)(Bivalvia)|~ .) 2mcoiemcut = p> ila tne eee 173 obliquatula. Arca, Wautzenberss 1927) (Bivalvia) ystare0: 2) 12 ae ee 173 Oostermum Sharpsll882. (Coleoptera). |e. pa edeeteececents lek eee 99, 278 orientalis, Ovis, Gmelin, 1774 (Mammalia) ........... 28, 125, 192, 286 (Parahelopeltis: Naek, 92e(Coleoidea) aay =) 2 fe + 2h) caine ete wio a ae 253 Paraplesioteuthis Nae, 1921 (Coleoidea) sy.) jy 515-428) shay! opie eee 203) pectunculoides, Arca, Scacchi, 1834 (Bivalvia) .............+.. 173 pertinax, Contopus, Cabanis & Heine, 1859 (Aves). ...........-.. 116 peruvianus, Hemidactylus, Wiegmann, 1835 (Reptilia) ............ 184 Philander*Busson, i762 (Mammalia) isn s)cnsue tre, 2s) of tls to 191, 278 philippiana, Arca, Nyst, 1848 (Bivalvia) ... 2... 2... . 2 eee sees 173 Pipmulaniglzamaneksy Sl Gi (ELyGrOZOa)) ay seein sane pot) een pea ee 167 PLUTONIINAE Bollman, 1893 (Arthropoda) ............. 120, 277 PLUTONIINAE Cockerell, 1893 (Gastropoda). ............ 120, 277 Polycentrus Miller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes) .........-.... 106 Praeanthropus. Senyureks)955\(Mammalia))< 2724. = 5 cs es) ee 24 primigenius, Bos, Bojanus, 1827 (Mammalia) .......... 28, 125, 192, 286 Pseudo joenysiictier.s S02a(Eiymenoptetay secs ees ee 261 Picropusetissony lee (Mammalian eae ee = ee eon antes 191, 278 punctatus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) .............. 106 pusillus, Platyrhynchus, Swainson; 1827\(Aves). 2... 6 3 ee 116 putorius, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia) ...... . . . 28, 125, 192, 286 rapax, Typhis, Milne-Edwards, 1830 (Amphipoda). ............. 178 rufa, Aegialia, (Fabricius, 1792) (Coleoptera) ....:......... 123, 191 rufus, Aphodius, (Moll, 1782) (Coleoptera) .............-.. 123, 191 sagittata, Geoteuthis, Minster, 1843 (Coleoidea). .............. 253 schomburgkii, Polycentrus, Miller & Troschel, 1848 (Osteichthyes) ..... . 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53(4) December 1996 305 setacea: Sertularia’ Winndens, 1758\(Hydrozoa)| 24%