os a Fae aie ; SSR pects ze : : mer toa ager ‘ dren yon ‘ oi ital a ee Bene ttiet) : : on ; Scere Gumttios Bia, : t phot : oetiettte 7 oy wes mated Site : . : “ itso Eummee reese oe dopt has Pa ae Hirota rea Bi bie tenes area ; wate Da hateeet A i h tees We Sreeeyety ee “A ie SET tant iee hae oi 31 March 2005, pp. 1-56 ISSN 0007-5 Penn Bulletin Faksical 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 2005 is £130 or $230, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £65 or $115. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.4.; Ornithology) Prof Dr W. Bohme (Germany, Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A4.; Diptera) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.) Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.4.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2005 S, gewoon 5 JUN 0 2 2008 gRAE~ Volume 62, part 1 (pp. 1-56) ~ 31 March 2005 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) May€h 2 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLAT Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover or on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234). (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 61, part 4, 17 December 2004) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage of names in applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3332: Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877 (currently Orobothriurus bivittatus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name. L.E. Acosta. CASE 3333: Scarrittia canquelensis Simpson, 1934 (Mammalia, Notoungulata, LEONTINIIDAE): proposed neotype for the species. A.M. Ribeiro, R.H. Madden & J. Ferigolo. ip} Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 CASE 3334: Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name. J. Grieshuber, R. Worthy & G. Lamas. CASE 3335: Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed fixation of gender as feminine. S. Bily & V. Kuban. CASE 3336: AEGIRINAE Fischer, 1883 (Mollusca, Nudibranchia): proposed conservation of spelling. R.C. Willan & R. Burn. CASE 3337: Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by revocation of Opinion 2065. M.A. Jach, H. Fery, A.N. Nilsson, P.N. Petrov & I. Ribera. CASE 3338: Request for validation or rejection of some Pleistocene glyptodont generic and specific names (Mammalia, Cingulata, GLYPTODONTIDAE). A. Mones. Ernst Mayr (Commissioner 1954-1976) Professor Ernst Mayr died on 3 February 2005 aged 100. As an evolutionary biologist he worked at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and later at Harvard University. He served as a member of the Commission for more than 20 years where he was a powerful advocate of the principle of conserving names in current use, a concept that formed one of the main developments in the 4" Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which came into effect on 1 January 2000. A more detailed account of his contribution to zoological nomenclature will be published in the next issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names (zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by: (a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of animal names; (b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the provisions of the Code, via applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At present, the Commission consists of 25 zoologists from 20 countries whose interests cover most of the main divisions, including palaeontology, of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the patronage of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate congresses. Nomi- nations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of Animals (1995) (see below under ‘Publications’ for details). Further discussion of the Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991) and BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 3 Members of the Commission Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain Prof W.J. Bock, Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-7004, U.S.A. Prof Dr W. Bohme, Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany Prof P. Bouchet, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (Councillor) Prof D.J. Brothers, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa (Vice-President) Dr D.R. Calder, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 2C6 Dr W.N. Eschmeyer, Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94103, U.S.A. Dr N.L. Evenhuis, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. (President) Prof R.A. Fortey, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Dr R.B. Halliday, CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia Dr I.M. Kerzhner, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia (Councillor) Prof Dr G. Lamas, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru Dr E. Macpherson, Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain Dr V. Mahnert, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland Prof U.R. Martins de Souza, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 42494, 04218-970 Sao Paulo, Brazil Prof S.F. Mawatari, Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan Prof A. Minelli, Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy Dr P.K.L. Ng, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260 Dr C. Nielsen, Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 K6benhavn, Denmark Dr L. Papp, Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary Prof D.J. Patterson, Bay Paul Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A. Dr G. Rosenberg, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A. Prof D.X. Song, College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071002 China 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Dr P. Stys, Department of Zoology, Charles University, Vini¢na 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic Mr J. van Tol, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 26 members from 13 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003). Members of the Trust The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr J.A. Compton (U.K.) Mr M.N. Dadd (U.K.) Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) Prof C.S.F. Easmon (U.K) Dr N.L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.) Prof J. Forest (France) Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.) Prof J.I. dos R. Furtado (Singapore and U.K.) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland) Dr M. Luc (France) Mr A. McCullough (U.K.) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) Prof A. Minelli (Italy) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.) Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) Dr J. Taverne (U.K.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 5 The Commission Website Abstracts of applications and Opinions, and a record of the names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology since 2000, are posted on the Commission website “‘www.iczn.org’, together with the Code. It is planned for this website to be extensively revised in the near future. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Code is to provide the greatest universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals without restricting the taxonomy or classification of the animals for which the names are used. The current (4'? Edition) of the Code was published by the Trust in 1999, and came into effect on | January 2000. This edition supersedes all previous editions, and official texts are available in English, Catalan, Chinese, Czech, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian. The Articles of the Code enable the user to decide the valid name for any animal taxon between and including subspecies and superfamily. The provisions of the Code can be waived or modified in particular cases where strict adherence would cause confusion. However, only the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists, can do this in response to formal applications that are published in the Bulletin. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin includes applications relating to animal names, comments on applications and the Commission’s eventual rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes (these are referred to as Opinions). Each Opinion published in the Bulletin is an official ruling of the Commission and comes into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also includes general articles relating to zoological nomenclature and discussion papers on proposed amend- ments to the Code. See below under ‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. Publications All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). With the exception of the Bulletin (which can only be ordered from ITZN), these publications can also be ordered from the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN), Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu). Prices listed below include surface postage. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments can be made to ITZN (but not AAZN). The Bulletin subscription for 2005 is £130 or US$230, including postage by accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount making the subscription £65 or US$115. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999; ISBN 0 85301 006 4; English and French in one volume) 1s available at £40 or US$65, including surface postage. Individual purchasers who are buying the Code for personal use are offered a 25% discount (£30 or US$48), as are institutions or agents buying five or more copies. Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price $39 or £24). Information about the prices and availability of the authorised translations of the Code can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses: Chinese (traditional)—wenhua@oceantaiwan.com German—books@insecta.de Japanese—tomokuni@kahaku Russian—kim@1k3599.spb.edu Spanish—menaz39@mncen.csic.es The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement (2001) lists an additional 2385 entries up to 2000; more recent entries will be found on the Commission website. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or US$110 each, with reductions for both volumes ordered together and for individual buyers for personal use. Details on the Commission website or on request. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals—a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 was published in 1995 in recognition of the Commission’s Centenary. This book (104 pages) contains 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the development of animal nomenclature. The cost is £30 or US$50. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 7 Report on a visit to Boston, Washington D.C. and New York 13-17 December 2004 on behalf of the ITZN Appeal Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman, ITZN) and Andrew Polaszek (Executive Secretary, ICZN) Boston — Prof. Edward O. Wilson This was the second meeting with our Appeal Patron, the first being at Harvard in May 2004. Prof. Wilson once again stressed the importance of coordinating the various codes, and the possibility of revisiting their unification. These issues were also addressed at a one-day meeting at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in Copenhagen (14 January 2005). Prof. Wilson later attended the “Biodiversity & Governance” meeting in Paris (24-28 January) at which ICZN Commissioners Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Mawatari, Minelli, van Tol and Execu- tive Secretary Polaszek also met for discussions. Reports on the Copenhagen and Paris meetings will be published in the June issue of the Bulletin). Prof. Wilson has already been instrumental in soliciting significant funds and publicity for the Appeal. The Harvard meeting was attended by Commissioner David Patterson, and Dr David Remsen from the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, who presented their uBIO (Universal Biological Indexer and Organiser) initiative. This project aims to produce a comprehensive database of all organism names, 1.e. every published name of any organism in whatever form, including systematic names, vernacular names in any language, and even mis-spellings. Drs Patterson & Remsen were congratulated on the successful completion of their project to digitise Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus now available at: http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/ Washington D.C. & New York The primary purpose of our visit to Washington was to liaise with the officers and membership of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN). After an introduction from the current AAZN President, Dr Eric Hoberg, a joint presentation entitled “ICZN — a strategic approach for the 21*' Century” was given. An important outcome of discussions following this meeting was a renewed commitment from AAZN to be proactive in soliciting funding from the zoo- logical community in North America. Some reservations about approaching U.S. foundations and charities on behalf of ICZN (widely perceived to be UK-based) were also aired. Over the next few days in Washington and New York we also met and held productive discussions with staff of the following organisations: U.S. State Department: Bureau of Oceans & International Environmental & Scientific Affairs; National Museum of Natural History & Smithsonian Institution; National Science Foundation; World Wildlife Fund; World Bank; Global Environmental Facility; American Museum of Natural History; Explorers Club. We take this opportunity to thank all those who shared their thoughts with us, and gave us valuable insight into their perceptions of the multiple issues involved in obtaining the resources necessary to sustain the work of ICZN. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation funded travel costs and expenses. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Case 3292 Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation Michael S. Engel Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A. Kumar Krishna Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (and the family-group name based upon it, NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937) and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 for two well-known groups of ecologically and agriculturally important termites. The names Nasutitermes, the largest genus of termites in the world, and Microcerotermes are threatened by the little-known but possibly synonymous name Eutermes Heer, 1849 whose suppression is proposed. The type species of Naswtitermes has been generally confused and we propose that the Commission should designate Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 as its type species in accordance with universal taxonomic usage. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; NASUTITERMITINAE; Nasutitermes; Microcerotermes; Eutermes; Nasutitermes costalis; Microcerotermes — strunckit; termites. 1. Heer (1849, p. 32) described Eutermes as a subgenus of Termes Linnaeus, 1758 and included in it five fossil species (three rock compressions and what were believed to be two Baltic amber inclusions): Termes pristinus Charpentier, 1843; T. obscurus Heer, 1849; T. croaticus Heer, 1849; T. pusillus Heer, 1849; and T. debilis Heer, 1849. No species was originally selected as the type species of Eutermes. 2. Hagen (1858) redescribed the above five species, transferring two to other subgenera, 7. pristinus to Termes sensu stricto and T. pusillus to Kalotermes (under the unjustified emendation Calotermes), while expanding Eutermes to include numer- ous living species in addition to the three remaining fossil species, 7. obscurus, T. croaticus and T. debilis. Hagen (1858, p. 207) further stated that he had examined the type of 7. debilis and found that the fossil was not in ‘Bernstein’ (amber), but in gum copal, and identified the fossil specimen as identical to a Recent species, which he then described from specimens collected from “Porto Rico’. To restate, Hagen (1858, p. 207) redescribed 7. debilis, based not on the fossil specimen but on Recent specimens from ‘Porto Rico’, and indicated that the fossil specimen was identical Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005. 9 with these (see also Banks, 1920, p. 8). Thus, subsequent decisions that 7. debilis is a species of Microcerotermes based on Hagen’s assertion (Hagen’s description does not actually allow for such an identification) are incorrect (e.g. Snyder, 1949; Constantino, 2002), since Hagen’s description is not of the type specimen. 3. Dudley (1890, p. 158) proposed the genus-group name Nasutitermes for the nasute termites but did not include any species. Banks (1918, p. 665) was the first author to explicitly include species in Nasutitermes. Banks subsequently (1920, p. 69) designated Termes morio Latreille, 1805 as the type species of Nasutitermes (which he wrongly stated to be a new genus), but this was not an originally included nominal species. Moreover, Latreille (1805, p. 69) had clearly indicated that he was not proposing a new specific name but was identifying his material as T. morio Fabricius, 1793, just as he had done the year before (Latreille, 1804, p. 60). Latreille had misidentified his specimens as conspecific with Fabricius’s material; Hagen (1858) was the first to note this error but considered Latreille as having thereby authored a new species as 7. morio. Termes morio, therefore, cannot be used as an available name for Latreille’s taxon (Article 49) and the species remained undescribed until Holmgren (1910a, p. 293) proposed the first available name as Eutermes costalis. Based on Hagen’s (1858, p. 200) redescription of Latreille’s material, Emerson (1925) identified Latreille’s taxonomic species as conspecific with E. costalis. Thus, Sands (1965, p. 16) was correct when he asserted that 7. morio Latreille, 1805 did not exist as a valid taxon and could not be a homonym of Fabricius’s name, as erroneously considered by Emerson (1925). However, Sands was incorrect in stating that the misidentified taxonomic species could not be selected as the type of Nasutitermes, as Article 70.3.2 allows for such a designation. Under Article 70.3, because the type species was misidentified by Banks (1919, 1920), yet another explicit subsequent designation is required: either the nominal species (i.e. 7. morio Fabricius, as used by Banks and currently placed in Coptotermes Wasmann, 1897; such a selection would make Nasutitermes a junior synonym of Coptotermes) or the taxonomic species actually involved (i.e. E. costalis). Emerson (1925, p. 379) and authors following him (e.g. Snyder, 1949; Prashad & Sen-Sarma, 1959; Constantino, 2002) cannot be considered as having subsequently designated the type species of Nasutitermes as all of them misused T. morio as an available name dating from Latreille (1805). Thus, no type species designation is currently valid for Nasutitermes. In view of the confusion arising from the double misidentification of 7. morio, we propose that the Commission should, following current usage, designate Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910a as the type species of Nasutitermes. The non-nasute termite 7. morio Fabricius, 1793 is a junior synonym of Hemerobius testaceus Linnaeus, 1758, currently Coptotermes testaceus. Hare (1937, p. 462), believing E. costalis (as T. morio) to be the type species, established the family-group name NASUTITERMITINAE for Nasutitermes and allied nasute genera. 4. Wasmann (1897, p. 151) restricted Ewtermes to nasute species and selected T. morio Latreille, 1805 (a misuse as noted above) as the type species of Eutermes. This type species designation is invalid, as 7. morio was not a species originally included in Eutermes. 5. Silvestri (1901, p. 3) proposed the generic name Microcerotermes for a group of non-nasute termites in the TERMITINAE with Termes strunckii Sérensen, 1884 (p. 2) as the type species by monotypy. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 6. Holmgren (1910b, p. 146), apparently following the understanding of earlier authors (e.g. Miiller, 1873; Froggatt, 1896, 1897; Wasmann, 1897) that Eutermes constituted nasute termites, established the name EUTERMITINAE for Eutermes and related nasute taxa. Holmgren (1910a, 1910b, 1912, 1913) treated the genus Eutermes (with a number of subgenera) in a more restricted sense than Hagen (1858) by including nasute termite species only. 7. Banks (1919, p. 482) examined one of Hagen’s Recent specimens of 7. debilis from Puerto Rico, identified it as a species of Microcerotermes, designated T. debilis as the type species of Eutermes and thereby relegated Microcerotermes to synonymy since Eutermes had priority. Further, in agreement with Hagen (1858), he indicated that T. debilis is not strictly a fossil species although he did not see the fossil type specimen of 7. debilis. Banks reiterated these decisions in 1920 (p. 8). Banks’s designation of a type species is valid despite the failure to confirm the identity of T. debilis. 8. Emerson (1925, 1928) stated that Banks (1919, 1920) was correct in confining the name Eutermes to T. debilis. Snyder (1949) and subsequent authors have similarly confined Eutermes to T. debilis (e.g. Nel & Paicheler, 1993; Constantino, 2002). Heer’s amber specimen has not been seen since Hagen’s time and, moreover, was an Imago, a caste which does not easily offer definitive taxonomic characters for generic determination. Furthermore, Banks based his identification of JT. debilis as a Microcerotermes on Hagen’s Recent Puerto Rican material. Unless Heer’s original specimen (supposedly in Zurich but at present untraceable) can be examined there is no way of knowing whether it belongs to Microcerotermes, Nasutitermes, or any other termite genus. 9. Should T. debilis prove to be a nasute termite, the name Eutermes would take precedence over Nasutitermes. In addition, the family-group name based on Eutermes would take precedence over NASUTITERMITINAE for Nasutitermes and allied nasute termite genera. Alternatively, should T. debilis prove to be a species of Microcero- termes the name Eutermes would take precedence. Indeed, Heer’s T. debilis is probably a species of Microcerotermes, but in the absence of the type material such an identification remains speculative. 10. Regardless of the identity of Heer’s missing type specimen, the genus-group name Eutermes threatens the stability of two well-known groups of ecologically and agriculturally important termites, Nasutitermes and Microcerotermes. Furthermore, should Eutermes prove to be a nasute and thereby have priority over Nasutitermes (the largest genus of termites in the world), the family-group name EUTERMITINAE would replace the universally employed name NASUTITERMITINAE. The names Nasu- titermes and NASUTITERMITINAE have been universally used for the nasute termites since 1937 and in an extensive body of literature (e.g. Lefeuve, 1987; Cookson, 1988; Thorne et al., 1994; Krishna, 1996; Roisin & Pasteels, 1996; Atkinson & Adams, 1997; Hoare & Jones, 1998; Constantino, 1998; Thompson & Hebert, 1998; Noirot, 2001; Buschini & Leonardo, 2002). Similarly, Microcerotermes has been employed as a valid name since 1901 and universally used in the literature for taxa related to Microcerotermes strunckii (e.g. Holmgren, 1910b; Kistner & Doty, 1988; Roisin, 1990; Adams, 1991; Akhtar et al., 1991; Leponce et al., 1996; Tyagi & Sen-Sarma, 1997; Roisin & Pasteels, 2000; Coronel & Porcel, 2002). Presently involved in the completion of a revised world catalog of the termites, we propose that in the interest Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 il of stability the names Eutermes and EUTERMITINAE be suppressed or set aside and placed on the Official Indexes of Invalid and Rejected Generic and Family-Group Names in Zoology, respectively. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to suppress the generic name Eutermes Heer, 1849 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 and to designate Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910a as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(b) above Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910a; (b) Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Termes strunckii Sorensen, 1884; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) costalis Holmgren, 1910a, as published in the binomen Eutermes costalis (specific name of the type species of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890); (b) strunckii SOrensen, 1884, as published in the binomen Termes strunckii (specific name of the type species of Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (type genus: Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890); (5) to place on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Generic Names in Zoology the name Eutermes Heer, 1849, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Family-Group Names in Zoology the name EUTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910b (based on a generic name suppressed in (1)(a) above). Acknowledgements We are grateful to V. Krishna and C.B. Boyko for comments on this petition. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, U.S.A. (DEB-9870097 to K. Krishna and D.A. Grimaldi). References Adams, E.S. 1991. Nest-mate recognition based on heritable odors in the termite Micro- cerotermes arboreus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 88: 2031-2034. Akthar, M.S., Ahmad, M., Arshad, M. & Shahid, A.S. 1991. Effect of container size and group size on survival and wood consumption of Microcerotermes championi Snyder (Isoptera: Termitidae). Punjab University Journal of Zoology, 6: \—6. Atkinson, L. & Adams, E.S. 1997. The origins and relatedness of multiple reproductives in colonies of the termite Nasutitermes corniger. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B, Biological Sciences, 264: 1131-1136. Banks, N. 1918. The termites of Panama and British Guiana. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 38: 659-667. Banks, N. 1919. Antillean Isoptera. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 62: 475-489. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Banks, N. 1920. A revision of the Nearctic termites, part 1. Taxonomy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 108: 1-85. Buschini, M.L.T. & Leonardo, A.M.C. 2002. Biometrics studies of caste development in Nasutitermes coxipoensis (Isoptera; Termitidae). Sociobiology, 40: 465-477. Constantino, R. 1998. Catalog of the living termites of the New World (Insecta: Isoptera). Arquivos de Zoologia, Sado Paulo, 35: 135-231. Constantino, R. 2002. Notes on the type-species and synonymy of the genus Nasutitermes (Isoptera: Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae). Sociobiology, 40: 533-537. Cookson, L.J. 1988. The site and mechanism of '*C-lignin degradation by Nasutitermes exitiosus. Journal of Insect Physiology, 34: 409-414. Coronel, J.M. & Porcel, E. 2002. Morphometric analysis of soldiers of Microcerotermes strunckii (Isoptera: Termitidae, Termitinae). Sociobiology, 40: 307-316. Dudley, P.H. 1890. The termites of the Isthmus of Panama-—part II. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 9: 157-180. Emerson, A.E. 1925. The termites of Kartabo Bartica District, British Guiana. Zoologica, 6: 291-459. Emerson, A.E. 1928. Termites of the Belgian Congo and the Cameroon. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 57: 401-574. Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species. Adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2. vii, 519 pp. Proft, Hafniae. Froggatt, W.W. 1896. Australian Termitidae. Part II: Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 21: 510-552. Froggatt, W.W. 1897. Australian Termitidae. Part III. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 22: 721-758. Hagen, H.A. 1858. Monographie der Termiten. Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 1-342, 459-461. Hare, L. 1937. Termite phylogeny as evidenced by soldier mandible development. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 37: 459-486. Heer, O. 1849. Die insektenfauna der Tertidrgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. iv, 264 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig. Hoare, A. & Jones, D.T. 1998. Notes on the foraging behaviour and taxonomy of the southeast Asian termite Longipeditermes longipes (Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae). Journal of Natural History, 32: 1357-1366. Holmgren, N. 1910a. Versuch einer Monographie der amerikanischen Eutermes-Arten. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum, Hamburg, 27: 171-325. Holmgren, N. 1910b. Isoptera. The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Indian Ocean in 1905 under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, series 2, Zoology, 14: 135-148. Holmgren, N. 1912. Termitenstudien. 3. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familie Metatermitidae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 48: 1-166. Holmgren, N. 1913. Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 50: 1-276. Kistner, D.H. & Doty, J. 1988. A new genus and two new species of athetine staphylinids from the nests of Microcerotermes in Sulawesi and Brunei with a cladistic analysis of their relationships (Coleoptera, Isoptera, Termitidae). Sociobiology, 14: 29-47. Krishna, K. 1996. New fossil species of termites of the subfamily Nasutitermitinae from Dominican and Mexican amber (Isoptera, Termitidae). American Museum Novitates, 3176: 1-13. Latreille, P.A. 1804. Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 3. xi, 467, [1] pp. Dufart, Paris. Latreille, P.A. 1805. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 13. xu, 432 pp. Dufart, Paris. Lefeuve, P. 1987. Replacement queens in the Neotropical termite Nasutitermes coxipoensis. Social Insects, 34: 10-19. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 13 Leponce, M., Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, J.M. 1996. Reproductive mechanisms and dynamics of habitat colonization in Microcerotermes biroi (Isoptera: Termitidae). Ecological Entomology, 21: 178-184. Miiller, F. 1873. Beitrage zur Kenntniss [sic] der Termiten. Jenaische Zeitschrift ftir Medizin und Naturwissenschaft, 7: 333-358, 451-463. 4 Nel, A. & Paicheler, J.-C. 1993. Les Isoptera fossiles. Etat actuel connaissances, implications paléoécologiques et paléoclimatologiques [Insecta, Dictyoptera]. Cahiers de Paléontologie, 1993: 103-179. Noirot, C. 2001. The gut of termites (Isoptera). Comparative anatomy, systematics, phylogeny. II.—Higher termites (Termitidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 37: 431-471. Prashad, B. & Sen-Sarma, P.K. 1959. Revision of the termite genus Nasutitermes Banks [sic] (Isoptera: Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae) from the Indian region. Indian Council of Agricultural Research Monograph, 10(23): 1-66. Roisin, Y. 1990. Queen replacement in the termite Microcerotermes papuanus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 56: 83-90. Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, J.M. 1996. The nasute termites (Isoptera: Nasutitermitinae) of Papua New Guinea. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 10: 507-616. Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, J.M. 2000. The genus Microcerotermes (Isoptera: Termitidae) in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 14: 137-174. Sands, W.A. 1965. A revision of the termite subfamily Nasutitermitinae (Isoptera, Termitidae) from the Ethiopian region. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology, 4: 1-172. Silvestri, F. 1901. Nota preliminare sui Termitidi sud-americani. Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia Comparata della Reale Universita di Torino, 16: 1-8. Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 112: 1-490. Sorensen, W. 1884. Traek af nogle sydamerikanske insecters biologi. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 5: 1-25. Thompson, G.J. & Hebert, P.D.N. 1998. Probing termite social systems through allozyme and mtDNA analysis: A case study of Nasutitermes nigriceps and Nasutitermes costalis (Isoptera, Termitidae). Insectes Sociaux, 45: 289-299. Thorne, B.L., Haverty, M.I. & Collins, M.S. 1994. Taxonomy and biogeography of Nasuti- termes acajutlae and N. nigriceps (Isoptera: Termitidae) in the Caribbean and Central America. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 87: 762-770. Tyagi, B.K. & Sen-Sarma, P.K. 1997. Morphology of the spermatozoa of Microcerotermes beesoni Snyder, with reference to termite phylogeny (Isoptera: Termitidae). Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology, 17: 245-246. Wasmann, E. 1897. Termiten von Madagaskar und Ostafrika (Voeltzkow, Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reisen in Madagaskar und Ost-Afrika, 1889-1895). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 21: 137-182. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Case 3294 Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 and Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 (Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 as the type species of Gynacantha Natalia von Ellenrieder and Rosser W. Garrison California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, 3294 Meadoview Road, Sacramento, CA 95616, U.S.A. (e-mail: odo_nata@hotmail.com; rwgarrison@earthlink.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the accustomed usage of the names Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 and Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 for two genera of aeshnid dragonflies. The names are objective synonyms but are currently in use for two distinct groups of species. It is proposed that Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 should be designated as the type species of Gynacantha. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Odonata; AESHNIDAE; Gynacantha; Triacan- thagyna; Gynacantha nervosa; Triacanthagyna trifida; dragonflies; Neotropical region; tropics. 1. Rambur (1842, p. 209) established the nominal genus Gynacantha for dragonflies of the family AESHNIDAE characterized by females with a two or three pronged sclerotized process on the venter of abdominal segment 10. He included seven new species, G. quadrifida, G. furcata, G. trifida, G. bispina, G. subinterrupta, G. bifida and G. nervosa, without designating a type species. 2. Selys (1883, p. 745) established the nominal genus Triacanthagyna for species characterized by females with a three-pronged process on the venter of abdominal segment 10 and restricted the name Gynacantha to those species with only two-pronged processes. Selys included only G. trifida Rambur, 1842 (p. 210) in his new genus, which made it the type species by monotypy. 3. Kirby (1890, p. 94) retained Gynacantha trifida Rambur in the nominal genus Gynacantha and without explanation designated it as type species of Gynacantha, thus making Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 a junior objective synonym of Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 (Article 61.3.3 of the Code). Kirby (1890, p. 94) established the genus Acanthagyna for the other species originally included in the nominal genus Gynacan- tha Rambur, 1842 and included ten additional species. Although he did not provide a diagnosis or description, nor designate a type species, the name Acanthagyna Kirby, 1890 is available, by indication, under Article 12.2.5 of the Code. Later, Kirby (1897, pp. 614-615) explained why he designated G. trifida as type species of Gynacantha. In a paper on the Cuban fauna, Selys (1857, p. 459) included two species (G. trifida and G. septima n. sp.) in the nominal genus Gynacantha Rambur, 1842, without Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 15 designating a type species. Kirby (1897, pp. 614-615) erroneously thought that Selys (1857) had established G. trifida as the type species of Gynacantha and was only quoting Selys in his 1890 catalogue. 4. Cowley (1934, pp. 201-202) subsequently designated Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 (p. 213), as the type species of Acanthagyna. Calvert (1905, p. 189), who did not use the name Acanthagyna, had also designated G. nervosa as the type species of Gynacantha Rambur, 1842. However, the designation of G. nervosa as type species of Gynacantha was invalid because of the prior designation of G. trifida by Kirby (1890) (see Article 69.1). 5. Although Kirby’s nomenclatural act is valid under Article 69.1 most odona- tologists have followed the usage established by Selys (1883, p. 745) for the names Gynacantha and Triacanthagyna. The name Acanthagyna has been disregarded or completely ignored (see McLachlan, 1896, p. 411; Calvert, 1905, p. 189; Kimmins, 1936, pp. 74-75; Bridges, 1994, pp. ii, 51). 6. The generic names Gynacantha and Triacanthagyna, in the widely accepted sense of Selys (1883, p. 745), are not congeneric; they refer to two undoubtedly different groups (see Williamson, 1923; von Ellenrieder & Garrison, 2003). Triacanthagyna includes nine neotropical species, distributed from Florida in the U.S.A. southwards to eastern Argentina. Gynacantha is the most speciose genus within the family AESHNIDAE with over 80 described pantropical species. The generic names Acan- thagyna Kirby and Gynacantha sensu Kirby have rarely been used in the primary literature since 1890 (see Kirby, 1897; Klots, 1932; Cowley, 1934; Racenis, 1953; Balinsky, 1961; Pinhey, 1962; Hedge & Crouch, 2000). However, the names Gynacantha sensu Selys, 1883 and Triacanthagyna have been widely used for almost a hundred different species of dragonflies worldwide. There are over 60 worldwide references (by 49 authors) (i.e. Williamson, 1923; Paulson, 1977; Davies & Tobin, 1985; Needham et al., 2000; von Ellenrieder & Garrison, 2003) to the name Triacanthagyna and over 120 (by 100 authors) (i.e. Williamson, 1923; Fraser, 1962; Paulson, 1977; Davies & Tobin, 1985; Needham et al., 2000; von Ellenrieder & Garrison, 2003) to the name Gynacantha (sensu Selys, 1883). The Commission Secretariat holds lists of the additional references. In order to maintain stability in the nomenclature of this group we propose that the objective synonymy of Gynacantha and Triacanthagyna be removed by validating the designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842, by Calvert (1905, p. 189) as the type species of Gynacantha. This action will make the confusing name Acanthagyna invalid as a junior objective synonym of Gynacantha. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 before the designation by Calvert (1905) of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Calvert (1905) Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842, as ruled in (1) above; (b) Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Gynacantha trifida Rambur, 1842; 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) nervosa Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen Gynacantha nervosa (specific name of the type species of Gynacantha Rambur, 1842, as ruled in (1) above); (b) trifida Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen Gynacantha trifida (specific name of the type species of Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883). References Balinsky, B.I. 1961. Observations on the dragonfly fauna of the coastal region of Zululand, with descriptions of three new species (Odonata). Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa, 24(1): 72-91. Bridges, C.A. 1994. Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group names of the Odonata of the world (Third Edition). xlvi, 905 pp. Privately published, Urbana, Illinois. Calvert, P.P. 1905. Odonata. Pp. 145-212 in: Biologia centrali-americana: Insecta, Neuroptera. xxx{i], 420 pp. Porter & Dulau, London. Cowley, J. 1934. Changes in the generic names of the Odonata. Entomologist, 67: 200-205. Davies, D.A.L. & Tobin, P. 1985. A systematic list of the extant species of Odonata. The dragonflies of the world, vol. 2, Anisoptera. Societas Internationalis Odonatologica Rapid Communications (Supplement), 5: 1-151. 7 Ellenrieder, N. von & Garrison, R.W. 2003. A synopsis of the genus Triacanthagyna Selys (Odonata: Aeshnidae). International Journal of Odonatology, 6(2): 147-184. Fraser, F.C. 1962. The Gynacanthas of tropical Africa. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 65(1—2): 1-28. , Hedge, T.A. & Crouch, T.E. 2000. A catalogue of the dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of South Africa with nomenclatural clarification. Durban Museum Novitates, 25: 40-55. Kimmins, D.E. 1936. Odonata, Ephemeroptera, and Neuroptera of the New Hebrides and Banks Island. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)18: 68-88. Kirby, W.F. 1890. A synonymic catalogue of Neuroptera Odonata, or dragonflies, with an appendix of fossil species. xi, 202 pp. Gurney & Jackson, London. Kirby, W.F. 1897. List of the Neuroptera collected by Mr. E.E. Austen on the Amazons etc. during the recent expedition of Messrs. Siemens Bros. Cable S.S. ‘Faraday’, with descriptions of several new species of Odonata (dragon-flies). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)19: 598-617. Klots, E.B. 1932. Insects of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Odonata or Dragonflies. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 14, part 1. 107 pp. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. McLachlan, R. 1896. LX. On some Odonata of the subfamily Aeschnina. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)17(102): 409-425. Needham, J.G., Westfall, M.J., Jr. & May, M.L. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Revised Edition, xv, 939 pp. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville. Paulson, D.R. 1977. Odonata. Pp. 170-184 in Hurlbert, S.H. (Ed.), Biota Acuatica de Sudamerica Austral. San Diego State University, San Diego. Pinhey, E. 1962. A descriptive catalogue of the Odonata of the African Continent (up to December 1959), parts 1 &.2. Publicagées culturais Companhia de Diamantes de Angola, 59: 11-161. Racenis, J. 1953. Contribucion al estudio de los Odonata de Venezuela. Anales de la Universidad Central de Venezuela, 35: 3-68. Rambur, M.P. [J.P.] 1842. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Névroptéres. Librairie Ency- clopédique de Roret, Paris. Selys Longchamps, M.E. de. 1857. Odonates de Cuba. Jn: Sagra, R. de la (Ed.), Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de I'Ile de Cuba, 8: 336-472. Selys Longchamps, M.E. de. 1883. Synopsis du Aeschnines. Premiére partie: classification. Bulletin de l Académie Royal de Belgique, (3)5: 712-748. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 17 Williamson, E.B. 1923. Notes on American species of Triacanthagyna and Gynacantha. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 9: 1-80. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Case 3295 Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Shen-Horn Yen Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan (e-mail: shenhornyen@hotmail.com; shenhornyen@mail.nsysu.edu.tw) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 for a common zygaenid moth pest of tea in south Asia, the larvae of which are known as ‘tea slugs’. The older name Eterusia aedea septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862 is a senior subjective synonym of E. cingala, but has not been catalogued or used since 1862. The suppression of E. septentrionicola is therefore proposed to conserve the name E. cingala. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Eterusia; Eterusia cingala; tea slug; Asia. 1. C. Felder & R. Felder (1862, p. 32) described septentrionicola as a variety of Eterusia aedea (Linnaeus, 1763) (published as Heterusia aedea) from Sri Lanka. Since 1862, the name septentrionicola has not been catalogued or used by any author. 2. Moore (1877, p. 343) described the species Eterusia cingala from Sri Lanka in a general descriptive study of Lepidoptera of Sri Lanka. Following Moore (1877), cingala was treated as a valid specific name by Moore (1882, p. 41), Cotes & Swinhoe (1887, p. 68), Kirby (1892, p. 50), Swinhoe (1892, p. 80), Hampson (1893, p. 262) and Green (1898, p. 279). Later, Jordan (1907, p. 34) treated cingala as a valid subspecies of Eterusia aedea in Sri Lanka, and this treatment has been accepted and used by a number of authors, e.g. Hering (1922, p. 64), Fletcher (1925, p. 59), Bryk (1936, p. 207), Gardner (1942, p. 160), Tremewan (1960, p. 109; 1973, p. 125), Fletcher & Nye (1982, p. 50), Owada (1989, p- 197), Endo & Kishida (1999, p. 99) and Yen (2004). 3. Yen (2004) examined the type series of Eterusia aedea var. septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862 in the Natural History Museum, London, and discovered it to be consubspecific with specimens of Eterusia aedea cingala Moore, 1877. The name septentrionicola is therefore a senior subjective synonym of cingala. 4. Eterusia aedea cingala has been reported as a pest of tea (Camellia spp.) in several works (e.g. Green, 1898; Barlow, 1900; Tremewan, 1960; Owada, 1989; Tarmann, 1992; Robinson et al., 2001). To use the name septentrionicola in place of its junior synonym cingala would involve a change in the name of an economically important pest. The resurrection of the long-forgotten name septentrionicola would unnecessarily create confusion and loss of continuity in a growing agricultural and systematic literature and would promote nomenclatural instability. Since the name septentrionicola has not been used since 1899, it qualifies as a nomen oblitum under Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 . 19 Article 23.9.1.1. However, the name cingala has not had sufficient usage in the last 50 years to allow its automatic conservation as a nomen protectum under Article 23.9.1.2. It is for this reason that I propose that the Commission should conserve the name Eterusia cingala by suppression of the name Heterusia aedea septentrionicola. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name sepfentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862, as published in the trinomen Eterusia aedea septentrionicola, 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 cingala Moore, 1877, as published in the binomen Eterusia cingala; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862, as published in the trinomen Eterusia aedea septenrionicola and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Gaden S. Robinson, Klaus Sattler and Martin R. Honey, Natural History Museum, London, for comments on this application. References Barlow, E. 1900. Notes on insect pests from the Entomological Section, Indian Museum. Indian Museum Notes, 5: 14-17. Bryk, F. 1936. Zygaenidae II. Jn Strand, E. (Ed.), Lepidopterorum Catalogus, Pars 71. 132 pp. Junk Verlag fiir Naturwissenschaften, Berlin. Cotes, E.C. & Swinhoe, C. 1887. Catalogue of the moths of India. 3 parts. Indian Museum, Calcutta. Endo, T. & Kishida, Y. 1999. Day-flying moths, Chalcosiinae, Epicopeia. Endless Collection, Series 8. Endless Science Information, Tokyo. Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1862. Observationes de Lepidopteris nonnullis Chinae centralis et Japoniae. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, 6: 22-32. Fletcher, D.S. & Nye, I.W.B. 1982. Bombycoidea, Mimallonoidea, Castnioidea, Sesioidea, Cossoidea, Sphingoidea and Zygaenoidea. Jn Nye, I.W.B. (Ed.), Generic Names of Moths of the World, vol. 4. British Museum (Natural History), London. Fletcher, T.B. 1925. Zygaenidae. Catalogue of Indian Insects, part 9. 92 pp. Gardner, J.C.M. 1942. Immature stage of Indian Lepidoptera. Indian Forest Records, 7(4): 155-163. Green, E.E. 1898. Description of a new parasitic Tachinid fly from Ceylon. Indian Museum Notes, 4: 279. Hampson, G.F. 1893. Moths 1. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Taylor & Francis, London. Hering, M. 1922. Revision der orientalischen Chalcosiinen. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte (Berlin), 88A (11): 1-93. Jordan, K. 1907. Zygaenidae. Pp. 5-56 in Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde Spinner und Schwadrmer, Band 10. Alfred Kernen Verlag, Stuttgart. Kirby, W.F. 1892. Synonymic Catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. 1. Gurney & Jackson, London; R. Friedlander and Son, Berlin. Moore, F. 1877. Descriptions of Ceylon Lepidoptera. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 339-348. Moore, F. 1880-1887. The Lepidoptera of Ceylon, 3 vols. Reeve, London. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Owada, M. 1989. Notes on geographical forms of the Chalcosiine moth Eterusia aedea (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae). Memoirs of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, 22: 197-214. Robinson, G.S., Ackery, P.R., Kitching, I.J., Beccaloni, G.W. & Hernandez, L.H. 2001. Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of the Oriental Region. Natural History Museum, London; Southdene Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur. Swinhoe, C. 1892. Catalogue of eastern and Australian Lepidoptera Heterocera in the collection of the Oxford University Museum, vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Tarmann, G.M. 1992. Foodplants of the Zygaenidae subfamilies Procridinae and Chalcosiinae, with notes on the biology and ecology of these two groups. Jn Dutreix, C., Naumann, C.M., Tremewan, W.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Zygaenidae, Nantes 11-13 September 1987. Recent advances in burnet moth research (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae). Theses Zoologicae, 19: 144-161. Tremewan, W.G. 1960. A list of foodplants of some species of the lepidopterous family Zygaenidae. Entomologist, 93: 108-111. Tremewan, W.G. 1973. A catalogue of the genus-group names of the Zygaenidae (Lepidop- tera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology, 28(3): 111-151. Yen, S.H. 2004. The nomenclatural and systematic problems surrounding Eterusia aedea (Linnaeus, 1763) (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae, Chalcosiinae). Zoological Studies (Taiwan), 43(1): 20-34. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, 1.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 21 Case 3320 Papilio sapho Drury, 1782 (currently Heliconius sapho; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Gerardo Lamas Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru (e-mail: glamasm@unmsm.edu.pe) James L.B. Mallet The Galton Laboratory, Department of Biology, University College London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NWI 2HE, U.K. (e-mail: j.mallet@ucl.ac.uk) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Papilio sapho Drury, 1782 (currently Heliconius sapho) (NYMPHALIDAE). The name has been in use for more than 220 years, but is a junior primary homonym of Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771 (currently Neptis sappho); the names have been placed in separate genera since 1816. They belong to different subfamilies of brush-footed butterflies, Neptis sappho inhabiting the Palaearctic, Heliconius sapho the Neotropics, and their names are in common and widespread use. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; NyMPHALIDAE; Heliconius; Ajantis; Heliconius sapho; Neptis sappho; Neotropics; Palaearctic; brush-footed butterflies. 1. Pallas (1771, p. 471) introduced the name Papilio sappho for a Palaearctic species, currently known as Neptis sappho (NYMPHALIDAE, LIMENITIDINAE), distributed from eastern Europe, across Russia and central Asia to Japan. 2. Drury (1782, first page of the Index) introduced the name Papilio sapho for a New World species, supposedly from Jamaica, which he described and illustrated (p. 54, pl. 38, fig. 4). It does not occur in Jamaica, but is widely distributed in southern Mexico, Central America and northwestern South America. It is currently regarded as a member of the genus Heliconius Kluk, 1780 (NyMPHALIDAE, HELICONIINAE). Heliconius Kluk was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 382, January 1956), with type species Papilio charithonia Linnaeus, 1767 by subsequent designation by Hemming (1933, p. 223), although the date of the generic name was wrongly given as 1802. In fact, Paclt (1955) and Balint et al. (2001) have demonstrated that Heliconius was made available by Kluk in 1780 (p. 82). Papilio sapho Drury is the type species of the genus-group name Ajantis Hiibner, 1816 (p. 13) by subsequent designation by Scudder (1875, p. 106). Ajantis Htibner was recorded as a junior synonym of Heliconius Kluk by Neustetter (1929, p. 4). 3. Despite their slightly different spellings, P. sappho Pallas and P. sapho Drury are primary homonyms under Article 58.7 of the Code, which states that names differing in spelling only by the use of single or double consonants are homonyms. Although neither Pallas (1771) nor Drury (1782) provided an etymology for the names they proposed, it is evident that both names are of the same derivation and meaning, referring to the classical poetess Sappho, born at the island of Lesbos in 630 B.C. 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 (see Seyffert, 1995). Indeed, as early as 1790, Herbst (p. 159) had already spelled Drury’s specific name as Papilio sappho, and called attention to its distinctiveness from Pallas’s species. Interestingly, Fabricius (1793, p. 165) spelled Drury’s name as P. sappho, whereas (p. 246) he cited Pallas’s name as P. sapho. 4. The name Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771 has priority over P. sapho Drury, 1782 and the latter is permanently invalid under Article 57.2 unless conserved by the Commission, which we here propose. Papilio sapho Drury would have to be replaced by its oldest subjective synonym, Heliconia leuce Doubleday, 1847 (p. 102), which has long been regarded as a valid subspecies of Heliconius sapho (Drury) (see Neustetter, 1929). The nominotypical subspecies H. sapho sapho (Drury) has no available and potentially valid synonyms, and a substitute name (nomen novum) would have to be proposed. Such an action would produce considerable confusion and is highly undesirable, as Heliconius sapho is a common species, widely cited in the literature for over 220 years, with numerous biological, systematic, ecological and genetic research papers published on it (e.g. Brown & Benson, 1975; Brown, 1976; Young, 1981; DeVries, 1987; Raguso & Gloster, 1996; Brower & Egan, 1997; Mallet & Joron, 1999; Kapan, 2001; Luis et al., 2003; Gilbert, 2003). Furthermore, Papilio sappho Pallas and P. sapho Drury have long been assigned to widely separate genera in the NYMPHALIDAE, ever since Hubner (1816, p. 13) proposed Ajantis to accommodate P. sapho Drury and two other related species. Neptis sappho (Pallas) belongs to the LIMENITIDINAE, and Heliconius sapho (Drury) to the HELICONIINAE. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name sapho Drury, 1782, as published in the binomen Papilio sapho, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771; (2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Heliconius Kluk to record that the date of publication was 1780 and not 1802; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) sappho Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen Papilio sappho; (b) sapho Drury, 1782, as published in the binomen Papilio sapho (ruled in (1) above to be not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771); (4) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for charithonia Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the bnomen Papilio charithonia, to record that it is the type species of Heliconius Kluk, 1780 and not 1802; (5) to emend the entries for the following names entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology to record that the date of publication of Heliconius Kluk was 1780 and not 1802: (a) Heliconius Latreille, 1804; (b) Heliconia Godart, 1819; (c) Apostraphia Hubner, 1816. References Balint, Z., Guppy, C.S., Kondla, N.G., Johnson, K. & Durden, C.J. 2001. Plebeius Kluk, 1780 or Plebejus Kluk, 1802? (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 62: 177-184. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 23 Brower, A.V.Z. & Egan, M.G. 1997. Cladistic analysis. of Heliconius butterflies and relatives (Nymphalidae: Heliconiiti): a revised phylogenetic position for Eueides based on se- quences from mtDNA and a molecular gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B), 264: 969-977. Brown, K.S., Jr. 1976. Geographical patterns of evolution in Neotropical Lepidoptera. Systematics and derivation of known and new Heliconiini (Nymphalidae: Nymphalinae). Journal of Entomology (B), 44(3): 201-242. Brown, K.S., Jr. & Benson, W.W. 1975. West Colombian biogeography, notes on Heliconius hecalesia and H. sapho (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 29(4): 199-212. DeVries, P.J. 1987. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae. xxii, 327 pp., 50 pls. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Drury, D. 1782. Ilustrations of Natural History. Wherein are exhibited upwards of two hundred figures of exotic insects. According to their different genera; very few of which have hitherto been figured by any author, being engraved and coloured from nature, with the greatest accuracy, and under the author’s own inspection, on fifty copper-plates. With a particular description of each insect: interspersed with remarks and reflections on the nature and properties of many of them, 3. xxvi, 76, [2] pp., 50 pls. White, London. Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 3. 1v, 487 pp. Christian Gottlieb Proft, Fil. et Soc., Hafniae. Gilbert, L.E. 2003. Adaptive novelty through introgression in Heliconius wing patterns. Evidence for a shared genetic ‘toolbox’ from synthetic hybrid zones and a theory of diversification. Pp. 281-318 in Boggs, C.L., Watt, W.B. & Ehrlich, P.R. (Eds.), Butterflies. Ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Herbst, J.F.W. 1790. In Jablonsky, C.G., Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldndischen Insekten als eine Fortsetzung der von Buffonschen Naturgeschichte. Nach dem System des Ritters Carl von Linné. Der Schmetterlinge, vol. 4. viii, 208 pp., pls. 53-80. Joachim Pauli, Berlin. Hemming, A.F. 1933. Additional notes on the types of certain butterfly genera. Entomologist, 66: 222-225. Hiibner, J. 1816. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, 1: 1-16. Jacob Hiibner, Augsburg. Kapan, D.D. 2001. Three-butterfly system provides a field test of Millerian mimicry. Nature, 409: 338-340. Kluk, K. 1780. Zwierzat domowych i dzikich, osobliwie kraiowych, historyi naturalney poczatki i gospodarstwo, vol. 4. [4], 500 pp., 9 pls. J.K. Mosci, Warszawa. Luis, A., Llorente, J.E. & Vargas, I. 2003. Nymphalidae de México I (Danainae, Apaturinae, Biblidinae y Heliconiinae): Distribucion geografica e ilustracion. [ix], 249 pp., 30 pls. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City. Mallet, J.L.B. & Joron, M. 1999. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: Polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and System- atics, 30: 201-233. Neustetter, H. 1929. Nymphalidae: Subfam. Heliconiinae. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, 36: 1-136. Paclt, J. 1955. Die Gattungsnamen von Kluk 1780: Danaus, Heliconius, Nymphalis und Plebejus (Lepidoptera). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 5: 428-431. Pallas, P.S. 1771. Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des russischen Reichs. Erster Theil. [x], 504 pp. Kayserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften, St. Petersburg. [Available online at http://visualiseur. bnf.fr/Visualiseur?Destination=Gallica&8O=NUMM-97333] Raguso, R.A. & Gloster, O. 1996. Preliminary checklist and field observations of the butterflies of the Maquipucuna Field Station (Pichincha Province, Ecuador). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 32: 135-161. Scudder, S.H. 1875. Historical sketch of the generic names proposed for butterflies. Proceed- ings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10: 91-293. Seyffert, O. 1995. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature, and Art. [vi], 714 pp. Gramercy Books, New York. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Young, A.M. 1981. Over-exploitation of larval host plants by the butterflies Heliconius cydno and Heliconius sapho (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Heliconiini) in Costa Rica? Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 88(3): 217-227. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 134. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 25 ‘Published Works in the electronic age: recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the Code’—comment on general article by J.D. Harris (General Article, see BZN 61: 138-148) Frank-Thorsten Krell Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: f.krell@nhm.ac.uk) Peter S. Cranston Entomology Department, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. (e-mail: pscranston@ucdavis.edu) There is much uncertainty amongst taxonomists as to how to deal with the increasing number of papers that are pre-published electronically on the World Wide Web, sometimes many months before the paper version is available. This uncertainty is unnecessary since Article 9.8 of the Code explicitly states that web-publications are to be treated as unpublished for nomenclatural purposes and there is no recommen- dation in the Code suggesting the withholding of new names until they are published formally. The journal Systematic Entomology (which we edit) has joined the electronic pre-publication service of its publisher Blackwell, OnlineEarly (Cranston & Krell, 2005). However, in recognition of some unease amongst taxonomists concern- ing web-publications being unpublished for nomenclatural purposes, we offer our authors the choice to withhold their paper from electronic pre-publication. Indeed, authors of one paper so far have opted for this delay. Recently, Taylor & Francis have withdrawn the Journal of Natural History from their electronic pre-publication service (‘prEview’), because of the same uncertainty (A. Polaszek, pers. comm.). We consider it disadvantageous for taxonomic progress and detrimental for the reputation of both taxonomy and the Commission if an Article of the Code delays publication of taxonomic results, in times when electronic pre-publications in other sciences increasingly become a major source of information. The uncertainty amongst authors (and publishers) would end if electronic pre- publications were accepted as published by the Code, provided there is some strict regulation as suggested by Jerald Harris in his general article published in the Bulletin. Thus we support the validation of web-based documents only if registered with a DOI number (Digital Object Identifier, Paskin, 2004; http://doi.org) and followed by an identical paper publication. The World Wide Web has proved to be a very volatile archive (Dellavalle et al., 2003; Whitfield, 2004), and electronic archiving projects already suffer from ever-changing standards and formats of electronic documents (Malvern, 2004). Harris’s proposal addresses these provisions and is a very sensible and timely step forward for nomenclature. References Cranston, P.S. & Krell, F.-T. 2005. Editorial. Systematic Entomology, 30: 1-2. Dellavalle, R.P., Hester, E.J., Heilig, L.F., Drake, A.L., Kuntzman, J.W., Graber, M. & Schilling, L.M. 2003. Going, going, gone: Lost internet references. Science, 302: 787-788. Malvern, J. 2004. Never mind the book, can I look at the e-mail? The Times, 2.Oct.2004: 9. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Paskin, N. 2004. The DOI® Handbook. Edition 4.0.0. Oxford, International DOI Foundation. http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/DOIHandbook-v4. pdf Whitfield, J. 2004. Web links leave abstracts going nowhere. Nature, 428: 592. Comment on the neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) (General Article, see BZN 59: 165-169; 60: 48-49, 143, 216-217; 61: 39-40) Colin R. Curds, Gianfranco Novarino, Alan Warren and David M. Roberts* Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. * author for correspondence The usefulness of neotypes in modern protistan systematics is not in dispute and we also applaud the principle of redescribing existing taxa, rather than creating new names that so often add to nomenclatural confusion. Nonetheless, we argue that Foissner’s proposal is rather more liberal than is desirable. First, although protistologists often talk about the ciliates and other protists as being ubiquitous (Finlay, 2002), there remains reasonable doubt that it is really and universally so. The crux of the argument depends on how the species are defined. Many morphospecies are demonstrably cosmopolitan, but there are several examples of species not having yet been found outside a particular geographical region. Certain species of the ciliate Blepharisma (B. japonicum, B. stoltei and B. brevifiliformis) have never been found in the Americas (Giese, 1973). The sibling species of Tetrahymena are biochemically, and therefore genetically, distinct despite being extraordinarily difficult to distinguish morphologically (Gates & Berger, 1976). Restricted geographi- cal distributions have also been assigned to several other taxa of ciliates and testate amoebae (Foissner, 1999, 2003; Foissner & Song, 2002; Foissner et al., 2002). The purpose of neotypification is to fix the nomenclatural type of a given taxon when no holotype, syntypes, hapantotypes or lectotype exists. In so doing neo- typification inevitably defines the taxon’s range of morphological variability, normally by restricting it to a greater or lesser degree. To permit the designation of a neotype from material originating in a continent other than that of the original place of collection might lead to its being challenged at a later stage, on the grounds that material from nearer to the type locality was excluded from the newly defined circumscription. This would not aid the Code’s fundamental requirement of achieving nomenclatural stability. The tradition of designating type specimens in protistology is not strong. Although there exist original collections of slides containing specimens of taxa described and illustrated in key taxonomic works, only rarely were these slides formally designated as types by the authors describing the taxa in question: a striking example is the Penard collection at the Natural History Museum, London, (see http://nternt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/perth/protists/) where individual specimens can be clearly matched with the diagrams in Penard’s major work (Penard, 1922). The Natural History Museum holdings also contain the bequest material of many taxonomically active protistologists and could contain original slides which, although not designated as holotypes; hapantotypes or syntypes by the authors, represent an Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Dil obvious source of material from which lectotypes ought to be selected and desig- nated. Such instances could make neotypification superfluous in the best of cases, and damaging in the worst. It may also be possible to re-examine original material of a taxon using methods which were not available at the time of the original description, thus making lectotypification of original collection material not only possible but also much more meaningful within a modern taxonomic context (Novarino & Coute, 2000). So far such cases are rare but they may be more widespread than is commonly believed. In essence, we feel that a thorough check should be made for existing material before new material is designated as neotype. The difficulty of locating slides in private collections is not an acceptable argument for the creation of a neotype any more than it would be acceptable to ignore taxonomic work in hard-to-locate publications. The protistological practice of regarding original published illustrations as an acceptable kind of nomenclatural type should remain, since it has served us well. The practice of redescribing taxa from the old literature to modern standards delivers almost all the benefits of nomenclatural stability. The designation of a neotype brings extra benefit by automatically restricting the circumscription of the taxon, but it carries the risk that the specimens may not clearly show those characters which define the taxon. For instance, some ciliate species would need a silver stain preparation, others nuclear staining, etc. Unfortunately, unlike most biological material, protists cannot be handled easily and that is why little type material exists. We are concerned by the possibility that hasty neotypification might bring more confusion than clarity, especially if the neotypes were not taken from the same geographical region as the original specimens, which would provide ideal grounds for later challenge. Much the same purpose could be achieved by depositing voucher specimens to accompany a taxonomic redescription, which makes material available for later study but reduces the risk of confusion by later studies challenging the neotype status of specimens not taken from the type locality. We therefore oppose the phylum-wide derogation of Article 75.3.6 of the Code. Like Corliss (2003) we support the flexible application of the expression ‘as nearly as practicable’ which can take into account known distribution patterns and potential mechanisms for dispersal. For instance, species that form true cysts, such as Colpoda, are more readily dispersed over large distances by the wind or other mechanisms and are less likely to be geographically constrained. The issue of isolation is important: protists in the Namib desert have been isolated for more than 50 million years (Foissner et al., 2002) and it would require truly remarkable genetic properties for these taxa not to have differentiated in this time. Alternatively, there could be extremely strong morphological constraints operating on these taxa, or else the taxa have not, in fact, been isolated at all. Two issues would advance protistan systematics significantly more than the widespread designation of neotypes. First, a journal of record should be designated so that the search for taxonomic acts can be greatly facilitated. Valuable as Zoological Record undoubtedly is, its coverage is not universal. It is our fervent hope that the next edition of the Code will support a journal of record (Thorne, 2003). Second, the deposition of molecular sequence data to accompany the actual specimens and/or illustrations on which newly described protistan taxa have been based. It is beyond doubt that molecular tools are reshaping the way we study 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 all aspects of the biology of protists. There is an urgent need to provide a taxonomically sound database of molecular sequences to bring the advantages realised in prokaryotic systematics to the protistan realm. It is, in our view, highly desirable that this takes place in parallel with the deposition of voucher specimens for morphological studies. References Corliss, J.O. 2003. Comments on the neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 48. Finlay, B.J. 2002. Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science, N. Y., 296: 1061-1063. Foissner, W. 1999. Protist diversity: estimates of the near-imponderable. Protist, 150: 363-368. Foissner, W. 2003. Morphology and ontogenesis of Bromeliophrya brasiliensis gen. n., sp. 0., a new ciliate (Protozoa: Ciliophora) from Brazilian tank bromeliads (Bromeliaceae). Acta Protozoologica, 42: 55-70. Foissner, W., Agatha, S. & Berger, H. 2002. Soil ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from Namibia (Southwest Africa), with emphasis on two contrasting environments, the Etosha Region and the Namib Desert. Denisia, 5: 1-1459. Foissner, W. & Song, W. 2002. Apofrontonia lametschwandtneri nov gen., nov spec., a new peniculine ciliate (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from Venezuela. European Journal of Protistology, 38: 223-234. Gates, M.A. & Berger, J. 1976. Morphological stability in Tetrahymena pyriformis. Trans- actions of the American Microscopical Society, 95: 11—22. Giese, A.C. 1973. Blepharisma. The biology of a light-sensitive protozoan. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Novarino, G. & Coute, A. 2000. Typification and ultrastructural characterization of flagellate taxa from museum collections - 1. Some Trachelomonas (Euglenophyta = Englenozoa p.p.) from the Deflandre collections in Paris. Nova Hedwigia. Zeitschrift fur Kryptogramenkunde, 70: 505-521. Penard, E. 1922. Etudes sur les Infusoires d’eau douce. Georg, Genéve. Thorne, J. 2003. The Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. The Linnean, 19: 22-26. Comment on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June) (Case 3097; see BZN 59: 246-248, 280-281; 60: 303-311; 61: 43-45, 110-114, 171-173) Pavel Stys and David Kral Department of Zoology, Charles University, Vinicna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic The case caused unusual excitement among nomenclaturally minded coleopterists. We believe that probably everything relevant has already been written, and all the errors and misleading statements contained in the original application by Jameson & Howden (BZN 59: 246-248) have been amended, particularly by Krell et al. (BZN 60: 303-311) and Smetana (BZN 61: 171-173). We feel unhappy that a nomenclatural problem, which could have been solved by direct application of the Articles of the Code, developed into a kind of unnecessary transatlantic battle. It was clear from the beginning that either the Nearticians (should Odonteus be accepted as valid) or Palaearcticians (should the proposed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 29 Bolboceras win) must lose, and the generic component of their cherished binomina must be changed, since in the opinion of all the specialists the names involved are subjective synonyms, more or less equivalent in frequency of usage. What to do in such a case? To count the number of species? There are ten New World and two Old World species of the genus (not one, as stated in BZN 59: 246). Odonteus orientalis Mittal, 1998 (as Odontaeus) described from the Uttar Pradesh province (India) has to be added to the list (Mittal, 1998). To toss a coin? To manipulate the facts? Or, perhaps, to use a simple and unequivocal, but for some probably too old-fashioned Principle of Priority? The latter is, in our opinion, the only acceptable arbiter in this and similar cases. 7 Therefore we unconditionally support the suggestions formulated by Krell et al. (BZN 60: 309) resulting in acceptance of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 as a valid name of the genus. We also cannot see any reason for continuation of this debate. Additional reference Mittal, J.C. 1998: New record of genus Odontaeus Klug (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae: Geotrupinae) with a new species from Oriental Region. Journal of Entomological Research, 22: 385-386. Comment on the proposed precedence of Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepidoptera) over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 (Case 3271; see BZN 60: 290-292) Antonio Vives SHILAP, Apartado de Correos, 331, E-28080, Madrid, Spain I write in support of the application to give the name Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. I agree with the opinion of the authors that the identity of the nominal species T. aldrovandella Villers, 1789 cannot be established with certainty. The name 7. aldrovandella Villers, 1789 should be considered a nomen oblitum. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2091 (Case 3216) Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Phakellia ventilabrum; Porifera): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of the type species of the axinellid sponge Phakellia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 [recte ventilabrum Article 33.2.2] is conserved. The name was threatened by use of the senior objective synonym Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766 which is suppressed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Porifera; AXINELLIDAE; Phakellia; Phakellia ventilabrum; sponges. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that name strigosa Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Spongia ventilabra [recte ventilabrum (Article 33.2.2)] and as defined by the neotype designated by Alvarez & Willan (2003) in the Natural History Museum, London BMNH 10.1.1.2687 (specific name of the type species of Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name strigosa Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa and suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. s History of Case 3216 An application to conserve the specific name of Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 [recte ventilabrum Article 33.2.2], the type species of the axinellid sponge genus Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862, in which a neotype was designated for Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767, was received from Belinda Alvarez and Richard C. Willan (Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Darwin, Australia) on 3 September 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 16-19 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment on the spelling of the specific name was published in BZN 60: 300 and the emended proposals included on the voting paper. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 18 and as amended on the voting paper. At the close Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 31 of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bouchet and Minelli abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Abstaining, Bouchet and Minelli commented that not enough evidence was given in the application of usage of the name ventilabrum in the current literature. An informed vote is not possible without further research by the Commissioners themselves. Voting against, Brothers made the same comment. Also voting against, Patterson commented that the case for neotypification is well made and accepted, but the case for suppression of Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766 is not. 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: Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 152: 1109. strigosa, Spongia, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum sistens Generum Adumbrationes Generaliores et Specierum Cognitarum succinctas Descriptiones cum Selectis Auctorum Synonymis, p. 397. ventilabrum, Spongia, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1296. The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767: Alvarez, B. & Willan, R.C. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 17. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2092 (Case 3223) Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligumia ochracea; Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name given precedence over that of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of the American freshwater mussel Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 is given precedence over that of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; UNIONIDAE; Ligumia ochracea; Mytilus fluviatilis; tidewater mucket; fresh water mussel; clam; America. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, is hereby given precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: : (a) ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 3223 An application to conserve the widely used specific name of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligumia ochracea) for the American freshwater mussel (tidewater mucket) (family UNIONIDAE) by giving it precedence over the little used senior subjective synonym Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 was received from James R. Cordeiro (Science Division, Nature Serve, Boston, MA, U.S.A.) on 2 November 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 20-22 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 21. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting for, Bouchet commented that the application stated (para. 3) that Simpson (1914), Ortmann (1919), Frierson (1927) and Haas (1969) all used the name fluviatilis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 : 33 However, examination of the works in question revealed that these authors cited “Mytilus fluviatilis Dillwyn, 1817 or “Anodonta fluviatilis’ in the synonymy of Anodonta cataracta Say, 1817, and did not use fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 as the valid name of a species. Morrison (1974) is in fact the only 20th century author who used the specific name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 as the valid name of a species, but this is enough to exclude the case from Article 23.9. The application fails to mention that Morrison (1974) designated a neotype for Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, and did not report whether or not there exists original type material of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817. If there is, it would have been relevant to know whether the name-bearing types of the two nominal species are considered by the applicant to be subjective synonyms. If there is not, it could be appropriate to designate the neotype of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 also the neotype of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fluviatilis, Mytilus, Gmelin, 1791, Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes), p. 3359. ochraceus, Unio, Say, 1817, Nicholson’s Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts & Sciences, Ed. 1, vol. 4 (Conchology), pl. 2, fig. 8. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2093 (Case 3249) Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 is conserved for a genus of freshwater prosobranch gastropods (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the eastern United States by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; PLEUROCERIDAE; freshwater prosobranch gastropods; Lithasia; Lithasia geniculata; eastern United States. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818 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 Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818); * (c) Ellipsoma Millard, 1997 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818). History of Case 3249 An application to conserve the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 for a genus of freshwater prosobranch gastropods (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the eastern United States was received from Russell L. Minton (Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.) and Arthur E. Bogan (North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, U.S.A.) on 17 July 2002: The generic name Lithasia, type species by monotypy Lithasia geniculata Haldeman, 1840, was placed on the Official List of Official Names in Zoology in Opinion 1195 (BZN 38: 259, November 1991). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 103-108 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 104. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 35 Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 42. Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium, p. 33. Ellipsoma Millard, 1997, Classification of Mollusca. A classification of world wide Mollusca, p. 86. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2094 (Case 3236) Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): given precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name of the sun spider Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) is to be given precedence over that of Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; SOLPUGIDAE; Zeriassa; Canentis; Zeriassa bicolor; Zeriassa ruspolii; sun spiders; Africa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) is given precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August), 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) Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- nation Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- nation C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 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) bicolor Pocock, 1897, as published in the binomen Zeria bicolor (specific name of the type species of Zeriassa Pocock, 1897); (b) ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, as published in the binomen Canentis ruspolii (specific name of the type species of Canentis Pavesi, 1897). History of Case 3236 An application to conserve the generic name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 for a group of sun spiders (family soLPUGIDAE) by giving it precedence over the unused older name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms was received from Mark S. Harvey (Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia) on 28 February 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 26-27 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 27. At the close of the voting period on 1 December Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 ; 37 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Bouchet commented that priority should apply “because so few authors have studied this group of animals’ (application, para. 4), it cannot entail ‘considerable confusion’ to apply the letter of the Code. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bicolor, Zeria, Pocock, 1897, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)20: 392. Canentis Pavesi, 1897, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 38: 158. ruspolti, Canentis, Pavesi, 1897, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 38: 159. Zeriassa Pocock, 1897, Through unknown African countries, p. 252. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2095 (Case 3238) Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida, Solifugae): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 is conserved for a group of solifuges or sun spiders (family RHAGODIDAE) by suppression of the older name Rhax Hermann, 1804. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; RHAGODIDAE; Rhagodes; Rhagodes melanus; solifuges; sun spiders; Asia; Africa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Rhax Hermann, 1804 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- quent designation by Pocock (1900) Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name melanus Olivier, 1807, as published in the binomen Galeodes melanus (specific name of the type species of Rhagodes Pocock, 1897) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Rhax Hermann, 1804, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3238 An application to conserve the generic name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 for a group of solifuges or sun spiders (family RHAGODIDAE) by proposed suppression of the older name Rhax Hermann, 1804 was received from Mark S. Harvey (Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia) on 28 February 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 117-118 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 118. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: melanus, Galeodes, Olivier, 1807, Voyage dans Il’Empire Othoman, I’ Egypte et la Perse, fait par ordre du gouvernement, pendant les six premieres années de la République, vol. 3, p. 308. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 39 Rhagodes Pocock, 1897, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)20: 252. Rhax Hermann, 1804, Mémoire aptérologique, p. 13. The following is the reference for the designation of Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807 as the type species of the nominal genus Rhagodes Pocock, 1897: Pocock, R.I. 1900. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, vol. 6. Arachnida, p. 148. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2096 (Case 3151) RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): conserved as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the stem of the nominal genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (type genus of RHOPALURUSINAE Bucherl, 1971) is emended to Rhopalurus- (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE), thus removing the homonymy with the family-group name RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (based on Rhopalura Giard, 1877) (Orthonectida). The spelling of the family-group name RHOPALURINAE Bicherl, 1971, a junior homonym of RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, is emended to RHOPALURUSINAE. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Orthonectida; Arachnida; Scorpiones; RHOPALURIDAE; RHOPALURUSINAE; Rhopalura; Rhopalurus; Rhopalura ophiocomae; Rhopalurus laticauda. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 is Rhopalurus-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876, type species by original designation Rhopalurus laticauda Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida); (b) Rhopalura Giard, 1877, type species by monotypy Rhopalura ophiocomae Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: e (a) laticauda Thorell, 1876, as published in the binomen Rhopalurus laticauda (specific name of the type species of Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876) (Arachnida); (b) ophiocomae Giard, 1877, as published in the binomen Rhopalura ophio- comae (specific name of the type species of Rhopalura Giard, 1877) (Orthonectida). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, type genus Rhopalura Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida); (b) RHOPALURUSINAE Bucherl, 1971, type genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Arachnida). (5) The name RHOPALURINAE Bucherl, 1971 (an incorrect original spelling of RHOPALURUSINAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Arachnida) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. = oS) = (4 ~~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 41 History of Case 3151 An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Scorpiones, family BUTHIDAE) and RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (phylum Orthonectida) by emending the spelling of the junior homonym was received from Victor Fet (Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntingdon, West Virginia, U.S.A.), Mary E. Petersen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) and George S. Slyusarev (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Division of Biology & Soil Science, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia) on 16 April 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 23-25 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 24. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: laticauda, Rhopalurus, Thorell, 1876, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)17: 9. ophiocomae, Rhopalura, Giard, 1877, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l Académie des Sciences, Paris, 85: 813. Rhopalura Giard, 1877, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de |’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, 85: 813. RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, American Museum Novitates, 908: 6. RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971, Venomous animals and their venoms, vol. 3, p. 325. Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)17: 9. RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971, Venomous animals and their venoms, vol. 3, p. 325. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2097 (Case 3246) Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name suppressed Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of a South American scorpion, Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782, is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the the Principle of Homonymy. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; BOTHRIURIDAE; Bothriurus; Bothriurus chilensis; Bothriurus coriaceus; Bothriurus keyserlingii; Bothriurus vittatus; Chile; South America; Scorpiones. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis, 1s hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3246 An application to ensure nomenclatural stability by suppression of the name Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis) was received from Luis E. Acosta and Camilo I. Mattoni (CONICET - Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina) on 28 May 2002. The name B. chilensis threatened the use of the names B. coriaceus Pocock, 1893, B. keyserlingii Pocock, 1893 and Bothriurus vittatus (Guérin Meéneville, 1838). After corréspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 113-116 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 115. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 18 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bohme and Minelli abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: chilensis, Scorpio, Molina, 1782, Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili, p. 347. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 43 OPINION 2098 (Case 3239) Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Geostiba Thomson, 1858, for a group of Holarctic and Oriental rove beetles, is conserved. The name was threatened by the limited use of the senior objective synonym, Evanystes Gistel, 1856, which is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; STAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE; Geostiba; Geostiba circellaris; rove beetles; Holarctic; Oriental. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the generic name Evanystes Gistel, 1856 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name circe/laris Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleo- chara circellaris (specific name of the type species of Geostiba Thomson, 1858), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Evanystes Gistel, 1856, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3239 An application to conserve the generic name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 for a well-known genus of Holarctic and Oriental rove beetles (family sTAPHYLINIDAE, subfamily ALEOCHARINAE) threatened by limited use of the senior objective synonym Evanystes Gistel, 1856 was received from V.I. Gusarov (Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A. and Department of Entomology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 28-30 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 29. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 21 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 3 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Stys commented on the unequal reference to the usage of the two names in this application. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 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: circellaris, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806, Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum, p. 155. Evanystes Gistel, 1856, Die Mysterien der Europdischen Insectenwelt, p. 387. Geostiba Thomson, 1858, Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, 15: 33. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) Marck 2005 45 OPINION 2099 (Case 3254) Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Aphodius niger Uliger, 1798 is conserved for a widely distributed and endangered species of European dung beetle by the suppression of the senior secondary homonym Aphodius niger (Panzer, 1797). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Aphodius; Aphodius niger; dung beetle; endangered species; British Red Data Book; U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan; Europe. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus niger, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonomy. (2) The name niger Illiger, 1798, as published in the binomen Aphodius niger and as defined by the lectotype labelled ‘Suec’ and ‘lectotype’ in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus niger and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3254 An application to conserve the specific name Aphodius niger Illiger, 1798 for a widely distributed and endangered species of European dung beetle was received from Frank-Thorsten Krell and Jason F. Maté (Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London, U.K.), Darren J. Mann (Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, U.K.) and Robert B. Angus (School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, U.K.) on 20 August 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 127-131 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 129. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 3 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Martins de Souza abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Bouchet commented: ‘As Illiger did not describe a new species, but merely misapplied Panzer’s name, there is no such thing as a nominal species 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798. Consequently a non-existing nominal species cannot have ‘type material’, and the ‘lectotype designation’ has no purpose. I could have accepted one of the following courses of action: (1) designate one of Illiger’s specimens as neotype of Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797, and if necessary have the Commission rule that this name is not invalid despite being a secondary homonym of Scarabaeus niger Giorna, 1791; (2) accept Adam’s nomenclature and use Aphodius muscorum as the valid name. The first alternative would stabilize current nomenclature and may even perhaps be done without action from the Commission as S. niger Panzer, 1797 may probably be preserved against S. niger Giorna, 1791 under Article 23.9’. Lamas similarly commented that Aphodius niger Iliger, 1798 is a misidentification of Panzer’s name and not a new name. Likewise, Patterson commented that, as niger (Panzer 1797) seems to be in current use, and as the proposal suggests that Illiger did not introduce a new name but merely misidentified material, he believed a better course of action to provide stability would be to retypify Panzer’s name. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Offical Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: niger, Aphodius, Mliger, 1798, Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann Apotheker in Osterode, p. 24. niger, Scarabaeus, Panzer, 1797, Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten, Heft 37, p. 1. The folowing is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Aphodius niger Mlliger, 1798: Krell, F-T., Mann, D.J., Angus, R.B. & Maté, J.F. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 129. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 : 47 OPINION 2100 (Case 3258) Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera Abstract. The Commisssion has ruled that usage of the widely used buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (family BUPRESTIDAE) are conserved by accepting the overlooked designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera; Acmaeoderella; Carininota; Acmaeodera cylindrica; Acmaeoderella flavofasciata; jewel beetles. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 before that of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by Volkovitsh (1979) are hereby set aside. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by the fixation of Volkovitsh (1979) as ruled in (1) above; (b) Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Buprestis discoida Fabricius, 1787. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cylindrica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Buprestis cylindrica (specific name of the type species of Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829); (b) discoida Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Buprestis discoida (specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955). —~ NO ~ (3 ma History of Case 3258 An application to conserve the current usage of the widely used buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (family BUPRESTIDAE) by accepting the designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera was received from C.L. Bellamy (Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacremento, California, U.S.A.) and M.G. Volkovitsh (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia) on 4 November 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 31-33 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Four comments in support of this case were received. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 32-33. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting for, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that the spelling of the specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 is Buprestis discoida Fabricius, 1787 not Buprestis discoidea as published in the application (BZN 60: 32-33, paras. 3, 5, 7(2)(b), (3)(b)). Although both spellings have been in use for this species the original spelling must be retained. See rulings (2)(b) and (3)(b) above. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, p. 9. Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955, Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 31(13): 5. cylindrica, Buprestis, Fabricius, J.C., 1775, Systema entomologia, p. 220. discoida, Buprestis, Fabricius, J.C., 1787, Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2, p. 184. Editor’s note: ; The spelling of the specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955, has been corrected from Buprestis discoidea Fabricius, 1787, as published in the application, to Buprestis discoida. See rulings (2)(b) and (3)(b) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 49 OPINION 2101 (Case 3243) Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhalt, Insecta, Hymenoptera): usage of the specific names conserved by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the existing usage of the names Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and Lyda gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali) is conserved for two species of Palaearctic sawfly (family PAMPHILIIDAE) by the designation of the lectotype of L. maculosa Zaddach, 1866 as the neotype for Lyda latifrons. Stability was threatened by the identification of the holotype of L. Jatifrons as a specimen of L. gyllenhali. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; PAMPHILIIDAE; Pamphilius latifrons; Pamphilius gyllenhali; Palaearctic; sawflies. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous type fixations for the nominal species Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 are hereby set aside and the following specimen is designated as the neotype: the female specimen, lectotype of Lydia maculosa Zaddach, 1866 designated by Benes (1976, p. 162), labelled ‘Type’ [red label], ‘steckte mit maculosa’, ‘maculosa’, ‘Zool. Mus. Berlin’; ‘Lectotype’ [red label] and ‘maculosa Zd. Benes, 1971’, ‘Pamphilius latifrons Fall. 2 det. Bene’ 71,’ ‘Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén) Det. A. Shinohara, 1995’, held in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) latifrons Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda latifrons and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835, as published in the binomen Lyda gyllenhali. History of Case 3243 An application to conserve the existing usage of the names Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and Lyda gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali) for two species of Palaearctic sawfly (family PAMPHILIIDAE) by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons was received from Akihiko Shinohara (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Tokyo, Japan), Matti Viitasaari (Department of Applied Biology, P.O. Box 27, University of Helsinki, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland) and Veli Vikberg, (Liinalammintie 11 as. 6, Turenki, Finland) on 24 April 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 34-37 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. — i) —S Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 35. At the close of the voting period on | December 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: gyllenhali, Lyda, Dahlbom, 1835, Clavis novi hymenopterorum systematis, vol. 5, p. 40, fig. 1. latifrons, Lyda, Fallén, 1808, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 29: 226. The folowing is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Lydia maculosa Zaddach, 1866 (= the neotype of Lyda latifrons Fallen, 1808): Benes, K. 1976. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 73: 162. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 51 OPINION 2102 (Case 3230) Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): existing usage conserved by the designation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the existing usage of the generic name of the fossil fish genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 is conserved by the designation of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perleidiformes; fossil fish; Colobodus; Colobodus bassanii; Middle Triassic; Besano Formation; Italy; Switzerland. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 are hereby set aside and Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above and as defined by the neotype specimen T 4843 in the Palaontologisches Institut und Museum der Universitat Ziirich Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 designated by Mutter (2003), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name bassanii de Alessandri, 1910, as published in the binomen Colobodus bassanii (specific name of the type species of Colobodus Agassiz, 1844) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3230 An application to conserve the existing usage of the name of the fossil fish genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 by the designation of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species was received from Raoul J. Mutter (Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) on 16 January 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 135-137 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 136. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Kerzhner and Stys abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. In abstaining, Stys questioned the need for a neotype for Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910. Voting against, Mahnert commented that since the description of 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Colobodus hogardi Agassiz, 1844 is sufficient to recognize the genus there is no necessity to change the type species of a recognizable genus, even when subsequently better conserved specimens (of another species) are found. Similarly Patterson commented that the case suggests that hogardi and bassanii cannot be distinguished. In which case, he believed that a course of action more in keeping with the provisions of the Code would be to retypify C. hogardi Agassiz and to synonymize the names. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bassanii, Colobodus, de Alessandri, 1910, Memorie della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 7(1): 76. Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, vol. 2, L’histoire de ordre des Ganoides, p. 237. The folowing is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910: Mutter, R. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 136. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 53 OPINION 2103 (Case 3219) Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 (currently Liolaemus periglacialis; Reptilia, Sauria): not given priority over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the Patagonian tropidurine lizard name Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909. A proposal had been made to give precedence to the junior subjective synonym Liolaemus periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; TROPIDURIDAE; Liolaemus; Liolaemus periglacialis; Liolaemus hatcheri; South America; tropidurine lizards. Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that the name Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 is not to be given priority over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. The Principle of Priority is upheld and the name Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 has priority over Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. (2) The name hatcheri Stejneger, 1909, as published in the binomen Liolaemus hatcheri, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3219 An application to conserve the usage of the name Vilcunia periglacialis Cai & Scolaro, 1982 by giving it precedence over the name Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms was received from José A. Scolaro (Centro Nacional Patagonico, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Técnicas CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina) and José M. Cei (Departamento de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, Argentina) on 21 September 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 59: 275-277 (December 2002). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. The application was sent to the Commission for voting on | March 2004. The case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two thirds majority (12 votes FOR and 9 AGAINST). On | September 2004 the application was submitted for a second vote under Bylaw 35). Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote again on the proposals published in BZN 59: 276. At the close of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 10 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 14 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Brothers, Mahnert, Papp and Stys stressed that priority should be maintained in this case. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: hatcheri, Liolaemus, Stejneger, 1909. Reports of the Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896-99, 3(1): 218. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) Marchi 2005 55 OPINION 2104 (Case 3226) Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V., 1788, Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares: rejected as a non-binominal work Abstract. The Commission has ruled that Lacepéde’s (1788) work Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares and all subsequent editions of this work are rejected as an unavailable, non-binominal work. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lacepéde; Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788) and all subsequent editions of this work are not available for nomenclatural purposes, and that no name acquires the status of availability by reason of having been published in any of them. (2) The work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788) and all subsequent editions of this work, as ruled in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. History of Case 3226 An application to ensure nomenclatural stability by rejection of Lacepéde’s (1788) work Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares and all subsequent editions of this work as an unavailable, non-binominal work was received from Jay M. Savage (Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) on 17 December 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 138-140 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 140. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, Bohme abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Bouchet commented voicing strong objection to the structure and content of the application. Original reference The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1788. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Com- mission; 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 all applications on this basis. Applicants should 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 to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably 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 in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160. Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: 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 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, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or 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 2096 (Case 3151). RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): conserved as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida) . wice OPINION 2097 (Case 3246). Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (@xuentiy ‘Bothri iurUus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name suppressed . OPINION 2098 (Case 3239). Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, @oleonteray: con- served OPINION 2099 (Case 3254). Ashroatos alear Miter 1798 (asec, Coleoptera): specific name conserved OPINION 2100 (Case 3258). onneodera neechecholte 1829 and Vemaeoderelta Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera OPINION 2101 (Case 3243). Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gy Nenhali Danibor: 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): usage of the specific names conserved by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons. SEP eet Ae seein cy iy aren anh we a eek OPINION 2102 (Cos 3230). Calesoris Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): existing usage conserved by the cna of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species. OPINION 2103 (Case 3219). Valerian per. panels Cei & Scolaral 1982 (eusreatily Liolaemus periglacialis; Reptilia, Sauria): not given priority over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 re Oo eee eee en feet OPINION 2104 (Case 3226). Lacepede, ‘B. IG. if é Ib V., 1788, Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares: rejected as a non-binominal work. at) Se ae Information and Instructions for Authors CONTENTS SMITHSO Ning + Notices . : 1 New applications to the Conamasion 1 Ernst Mayr (Commissioner 1954-1976) : 2 The International Commission on Zoological Newenclninne : 2 Members of the Commission 3 The International Trust for Zoological Nomendaiane - As: Members of the Trust . ay AE The Commission Website . : 5 The International Code of Hoclogical Nomeneatnre : 5 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 5 Publications . 5 Report on a visit to Boson Wastingion D: C aad New Work — 13 7 Dessiibes 2004 on behalf of the ITZN Appeal. eit MAUR eG ow ae Sip 7 Applications Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna. 8 Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 and Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 (Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 as the type species of Gynacantha. N. von Ellenrieder & R.W. Garrison . 14 Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 (Insecta, mee cs ee conservation of the specific name. S.-H. Yen. . . 18 Papilio sapho Drury, 1782 (Gunaemtiy ioeonts samhae ‘Tse, Wenidonteey, proposed conservation of the specific name. G. Lamas & J.L.B. IMalicun ae 21 Comments ‘Published Works in the electronic age: recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the Code’ — comment on general article by J.D. Harris. F.-T. Krell & P.S. Cranstonseee 73) On the reaiitetion of arses, egnewailly fifties (erorozea! ‘Gilfigainora)) c R Curds, G. Novarino, A. Warren, & D.M. Roberts... . 26 On the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) Aineaain, Coleone) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). P. Stys & D. Kral . . . 28 On the proposed precedence of Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (quent Adela australis; Insecta, rons over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789. A. VIVES EUS. Tre a Na eee BED ac ete RNG, Cte na I as aa 29 Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2091 (Case 3216). Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1761 Cue Phakel- lia ventilabrum; Porifera): specific name conserved . . . 30 OPINION 2092 (CASE 3223). Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 canenty auth adneaces Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name given Bae over that of Mytilus fluviatilis Gwadin, WO . 2. « 32 OPINION 2093 (Case 3249). iLilota Rederiet 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved. . . 34 OPINION 2094 (Case 3236). Zenasea Roeask, 1397 ‘(Ganenibss) Qeachnda Solifugae): given precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) hae 36 OPINION 2095 oe ei eat Pocock, 1897 Paranda Solifugae: conserved. . . 5 : ; 4s 38 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD 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 2005 is £130 or $230, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £65 or $115. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A4.; Ornithology) Prof Dr W. Bohme (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.4.; Diptera) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.) Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S. 4.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2005 HSONI ent ike Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 JUN 02 2005 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE LIBRARIES Volume 62, part | (pp. 1-56) 31 March 2005 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover or on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234). (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 61, part 4, 17 December 2004) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage of names in applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3332: Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877 (currently Orobothriurus bivittatus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name. L.E. Acosta. CASE 3333: Scarrittia canquelensis Simpson, 1934 (Mammalia, Notoungulata, LEONTINIIDAE): proposed neotype for the species. A.M. Ribeiro, R.H. Madden & J. Ferigolo. i) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 CASE 3334: Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, PIERIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name. J. Grieshuber, R. Worthy & G. Lamas. CASE 3335: Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed fixation of gender as feminine. S. Bily & V. Kuban. CASE 3336: AEGIRINAE Fischer, 1883 (Mollusca, Nudibranchia): proposed conservation of spelling. R.C. Willan & R. Burn. CASE 3337: Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by revocation of Opinion 2065. M.A. Jach, H. Fery, A.N. Nilsson, P.N. Petrov & I. Ribera. CASE 3338: Request for validation or rejection of some Pleistocene glyptodont generic and specific names (Mammalia, Cingulata, GLYPTODONTIDAE). A. Mones. Ernst Mayr (Commissioner 1954-1976) Professor Ernst Mayr died on 3 February 2005 aged 100. As an evolutionary biologist he worked at the American Museum of Natural History in New York and later at Harvard University. He served as a member of the Commission for more than 20 years where he was a powerful advocate of the principle of conserving names in current use, a concept that formed one of the main developments in the 4" Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature which came into effect on | January 2000. ‘ A more detailed account of his contribution to zoological nomenclature will be published in the next issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names (zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by: (a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of animal names; (b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the provisions of the Code, via applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At present, the Commission consists of 25 zoologists from 20 countries whose interests cover most of the main divisions, including palaeontology, of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the patronage of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate congresses. Nomi- nations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of Animals (1995) (see below under ‘Publications’ for details). Further discussion of the Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991) and BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 3 Members of the Commission Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain Prof W.J. Bock, Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-7004, U.S.A. Prof Dr W. Bohme, Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany Prof P. Bouchet, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (Councillor) Prof D.J. Brothers, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville 3209, South Africa (Vice-President) Dr D.R. Calder, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada MSS 2C6 Dr W.N. Eschmeyer, Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, 875 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94103, U.S.A. Dr N.L. Evenhuis, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawai 96817-2704, U.S.A. (President) Prof R.A. Fortey, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Dr R.B. Halliday, CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia Dr I.M. Kerzhner, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia (Councillor) Prof Dr G. Lamas, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru Dr E. Macpherson, Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain Dr V. Mahnert, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland Prof U.R. Martins de Souza, Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 42494, 04218-970 Sao Paulo, Brazil Prof S.F. Mawatari, Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan Prof A. Minelli, Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy Dr P.K.L. Ng, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260 Dr C. Nielsen, Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 K6benhavn, Denmark Dr L. Papp, Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary Prof D.J. Patterson, Bay Paul Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A. Dr G. Rosenberg, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A. Prof D.X. Song, College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071002 China 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Dr P. Stys, Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniéna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic Mr J. van Tol, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 26 members from 13 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003). Members of the Trust The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr J.A. Compton (U.K.) Mr M.N. Dadd (U.K.) Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) Prof C.S.F. Easmon (U.K) Dr N.L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.) Prof J. Forest (France) Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.) Prof J.I. dos R. Furtado (Singapore ‘and U.K.) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland) Dr M. Luc (France) Mr A. McCullough (U.K.) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) Prof A. Minelli (Italy) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.) Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) Dr J. Taverne (U.K.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 5 The Commission Website Abstracts of applications and Opinions, and a record of the names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes of Names in Zoology since 2000, are posted on the Commission website “‘www.iczn.org’, together with the Code. It is planned for this website to be extensively revised in the near future. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Code is to provide the greatest universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals without restricting the taxonomy or classification of the animals for which the names are used. The current (4'" Edition) of the Code was published by the Trust in 1999, and came into effect on 1 January 2000. This edition supersedes all previous editions, and official texts are available in English, Catalan, Chinese, Czech, French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian. The Articles of the Code enable the user to decide the valid name for any animal taxon between and including subspecies and superfamily. The provisions of the Code can be waived or modified in particular cases where strict adherence would cause confusion. However, only the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists, can do this in response to formal applications that are published in the Bulletin. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin includes applications relating to animal names, comments on applications and the Commission’s eventual rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes (these are referred to as Opinions). Each Opinion published in the Bulletin is an official ruling of the Commission and comes into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also includes general articles relating to zoological nomenclature and discussion papers on proposed amend- ments to the Code. See below under ‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. Publications All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). With the exception of the Bulletin (which can only be ordered from ITZN), these publications can also be ordered from the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN), Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu). Prices listed below include surface postage. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to “AAZN’ (in dollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments can be made to ITZN (but not AAZN). The Bulletin subscription for 2005 is £130 or US$230, including postage by accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount making the subscription £65 or US$115. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999; ISBN 0 85301 006 4; English and French in one volume) is available at £40 or US$65, including surface postage. Individual purchasers who are buying the Code for personal use are offered a 25% discount (£30 or US$48), as are institutions or agents buying five or more copies. Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price $39 or £24). Information about the prices and availability of the authorised translations of the Code can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses: Chinese (traditional)—wenhua@oceantaiwan.com German—books@insecta.de Japanese—tomokuni@kahaku Russian—kim@ik3599.spb.edu Spanish—mcenaz39@mncn.csic.es The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement (2001) lists an additional 2385 entries up to 2000; more recent entries will be found on the Commission website. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or US$110 each, with reductions for both volumes ordered together and for individual buyers for personal use. Details on the Commission website or on request. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals—a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 was published in 1995 in recognition of the Commission’s Centenary. This book (104 pages) contains 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the development of animal nomenclature. The cost is £30 or US$50. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 — 7 Report on a visit to Boston, Washington D.C. and New York 13-17 December 2004 on behalf of the ITZN Appeal Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman, ITZN) and Andrew Polaszek (Executive Secretary, ICZN) Boston — Prof. Edward O. Wilson This was the second meeting with our Appeal Patron, the first being at Harvard in May 2004. Prof. Wilson once again stressed the importance of coordinating the various codes, and the possibility of revisiting their unification. These issues were also addressed at a one-day meeting at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) in Copenhagen (14 January 2005). Prof. Wilson later attended the “Biodiversity & Governance” meeting in Paris (24-28 January) at which ICZN Commissioners Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Mawatari, Minelli, van Tol and Execu- tive Secretary Polaszek also met for discussions. Reports on the Copenhagen and Paris meetings will be published in the June issue of the Bulletin). Prof. Wilson has already been instrumental in soliciting significant funds and publicity for the Appeal. The Harvard meeting was attended by Commissioner David Patterson, and Dr David Remsen from the Marine Biological Laboratory at Woods Hole, who presented their uBIO (Universal Biological Indexer and Organiser) initiative. This project aims to produce a comprehensive database of all organism names, 1.e. every published name of any organism in whatever form, including systematic names, vernacular names in any language, and even mis-spellings. Drs Patterson & Remsen were congratulated on the successful completion of their project to digitise Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus now available at: http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/ Washington D.C. & New York The primary purpose of our visit to Washington was to liaise with the officers and membership of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN). After an introduction from the current AAZN President, Dr Eric Hoberg, a joint presentation entitled “ICZN — a strategic approach for the 21*' Century” was given. An important outcome of discussions following this meeting was a renewed commitment from AAZN to be proactive in soliciting funding from the zoo- logical community in North America. Some reservations about approaching U.S. foundations and charities on behalf of ICZN (widely perceived to be UK-based) were also aired. Over the next few days in Washington and New York we also met and held productive discussions with staff of the following organisations: U.S. State Department: Bureau of Oceans & International Environmental & Scientific Affairs; National Museum of Natural History & Smithsonian Institution; National Science Foundation; World Wildlife Fund; World Bank; Global Environmental Facility; American Museum of Natural History; Explorers Club. We take this opportunity to thank all those who shared their thoughts with us, and gave us valuable insight into their perceptions of the multiple issues involved in obtaining the resources necessary to sustain the work of ICZN. The Gatsby Charitable Foundation funded travel costs and expenses. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Case 3292 Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation Michael S. Engel Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A. Kumar Krishna Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (and the family-group name based upon it, NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937) and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 for two well-known groups of ecologically and agriculturally important termites. The names Nasutitermes, the largest genus of termites in the world, and Microcerotermes are threatened by the little-known but possibly synonymous name Eutermes Heer, 1849 whose suppression is proposed. The type species of Nasutitermes has been generally confused and we propose that the Commission should designate Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 as its type species in accordance with universal taxonomic usage. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; NASUTITERMITINAE; Nasutitermes; Microcerotermes; Eutermes; Nasutitermes costalis; Microcerotermes strunckit; termites. 1. Heer (1849, p. 32) described Eutermes as a subgenus of Termes Linnaeus, 1758 and included in it five fossil species (three rock compressions and what were believed to be two Baltic amber inclusions): Termes pristinus Charpentier, 1843; 7. obscurus Heer, 1849; 7. croaticus Heer, 1849; T. pusillus Heer, 1849; and T. debilis Heer, 1849. No species was originally selected as the type species of Eutermes. 2. Hagen (1858) redescribed the above five species, transferring two to other subgenera, 7. pristinus to Termes sensu stricto and T. pusillus to Kalotermes (under the unjustified emendation Calotermes), while expanding Eutermes to include numer- ous living species in addition to the three remaining fossil species, T. obscurus, T. croaticus and T. debilis. Hagen (1858, p. 207) further stated that he had examined the type of 7. debilis and found that the fossil was not in ‘Bernstein’ (amber), but in gum copal, and identified the fossil specimen as identical to a Recent species, which he then described from specimens collected from “Porto Rico’. To restate, Hagen (1858, p. 207) redescribed T. debilis, based not on the fossil specimen but on Recent specimens from “Porto Rico’, and indicated that the fossil specimen was identical Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 © 9 with these (see also Banks, 1920, p. 8). Thus, subsequent decisions that T. debilis is a species of Microcerotermes based on Hagen’s assertion (Hagen’s description does not actually allow for such an identification) are incorrect (e.g. Snyder, 1949; Constantino, 2002), since Hagen’s description is not of the type specimen. 3. Dudley (1890, p. 158) proposed the genus-group name Nasutitermes for the nasute termites but did not include any species. Banks (1918, p. 665) was the first author to explicitly include species in Nasutitermes. Banks subsequently (1920, p. 69) designated Termes morio Latreille, 1805 as the type species of Nasutitermes (which he wrongly stated to be a new genus), but this was not an originally included nominal species. Moreover, Latreille (1805, p. 69) had clearly indicated that he was not proposing a new specific name but was identifying his material as T. morio Fabricius, 1793, just as he had done the year before (Latreille, 1804, p. 60). Latreille had misidentified his specimens as conspecific with Fabricius’s material; Hagen (1858) was the first to note this error but considered Latreille as having thereby authored a new species as T. morio. Termes morio, therefore, cannot be used as an available name for Latreille’s taxon (Article 49) and the species remained undescribed until Holmgren (1910a, p. 293) proposed the first available name as Eutermes costalis. Based on Hagen’s (1858, p. 200) redescription of Latreille’s material, Emerson (1925) identified Latreille’s taxonomic species as conspecific with E. costalis. Thus, Sands (1965, p. 16) was correct when he asserted that 7. morio Latreille, 1805 did not exist as a valid taxon and could not be a homonym of Fabricius’s name, as erroneously considered by Emerson (1925). However, Sands was incorrect in stating that the misidentified taxonomic species could not be selected as the type of Nasutitermes, as Article 70.3.2 allows for such a designation. Under Article 70.3, because the type species was misidentified by Banks (1919, 1920), yet another explicit subsequent designation is required: either the nominal species (i.e. T. morio Fabricius, as used by Banks and currently placed in Coptotermes Wasmann, 1897; such a selection would make Nasutitermes a junior synonym of Coptotermes) or the taxonomic species actually involved (i.e. E. costalis). Emerson (1925, p. 379) and authors following him (e.g. Snyder, 1949; Prashad & Sen-Sarma, 1959; Constantino, 2002) cannot be considered as having subsequently designated the type species of Nasutitermes as all of them misused 7. morio as an available name dating from Latreille (1805). Thus, no type species designation is currently valid for Nasutitermes. In view of the confusion arising from the double misidentification of T. morio, we propose that the Commission should, following current usage, designate Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910a as the type species of Nasutitermes. The non-nasute termite 7. morio Fabricius, 1793 is a junior synonym of Hemerobius testaceus Linnaeus, 1758, currently Coptotermes testaceus. Hare (1937, p. 462), believing E. costalis (as T. morio) to be the type species, established the family-group name NASUTITERMITINAE for Nasutitermes and allied nasute genera. 4. Wasmann (1897, p. 151) restricted Eutermes to nasute species and selected T. morio Latreille, 1805 (a misuse as noted above) as the type species of Eutermes. This type species designation is invalid, as 7. morio was not a species originally included in Eutermes. 5. Silvestri (1901, p. 3) proposed the generic name Microcerotermes for a group of non-nasute termites in the TERMITINAE with Termes strunckii Sorensen, 1884 (p. 2) as the type species by monotypy. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 6. Holmgren (1910b, p. 146), apparently following the understanding of earlier authors (e.g. Miiller, 1873; Froggatt, 1896, 1897; Wasmann, 1897) that Eutermes constituted nasute termites, established the name EUTERMITINAE for Eutermes and related nasute taxa. Holmgren (1910a, 1910b, 1912, 1913) treated the genus Eutermes (with a number of subgenera) in a more restricted sense than Hagen (1858) by including nasute termite species only. 7. Banks (1919, p. 482) examined one of Hagen’s Recent specimens of T. debilis from Puerto Rico, identified it as a species of Microcerotermes, designated T. debilis as the type species of Eutermes and thereby relegated Microcerotermes to synonymy since Eutermes had priority. Further, in agreement with Hagen (1858), he indicated that T. debilis is not strictly a fossil species although he did not see the fossil type specimen of 7. debilis. Banks reiterated these decisions in 1920 (p. 8). Banks’s designation of a type species is valid despite the failure to confirm the identity of T. debilis. 8. Emerson (1925, 1928) stated that Banks (1919, 1920) was correct in confining the name Eutermes to T. debilis. Snyder (1949) and subsequent authors have similarly confined Eutermes to T. debilis (e.g. Nel & Paicheler, 1993; Constantino, 2002). Heer’s amber specimen has not been seen since Hagen’s time and, moreover, was an imago, a caste which does not easily offer definitive taxonomic characters for generic determination. Furthermore, Banks based his identification of 7. debilis as a Microcerotermes on Hagen’s Recent Puerto Rican material. Unless Heer’s original specimen (supposedly in Zurich but at present untraceable) can be examined there is no way of knowing whether it belongs to Microcerotermes, Nasutitermes, or any other termite genus. 9. Should T. debilis prove to be a nasute termite, the name Eutermes would take precedence over Nasutitermes. In addition, the family-group name based on Eutermes would take precedence over NASUTITERMITINAE for Nasutitermes and allied nasute termite genera. Alternatively, should 7. debilis prove to be a species of Microcero- termes the name Eutermes would take precedence. Indeed, Heer’s T. debilis is probably a species of Microcerotermes, but in the absence of the type material such an identification remains speculative. 10. Regardless of the identity of Heer’s missing type specimen, the genus-group name Eutermes threatens the stability of two well-known groups of ecologically and agriculturally important termites, Nasutitermes and Microcerotermes. Furthermore, should Eutermes prove to be a nasute and thereby have priority over Nasutitermes (the largest genus of termites in the world), the family-group name EUTERMITINAE would replace the universally employed name NASUTITERMITINAE. The names Nasu- titermes and NASUTITERMITINAE have been universally used for the nasute termites since 1937 and in an extensive body of literature (e.g. Lefeuve, 1987; Cookson, 1988; Thorne et al., 1994; Krishna, 1996; Roisin & Pasteels, 1996; Atkinson & Adams, 1997; Hoare & Jones, 1998; Constantino, 1998; Thompson & Hebert, 1998; Noirot, 2001; Buschini & Leonardo, 2002). Similarly, Microcerotermes has been employed as a valid name since 1901 and universally used in the literature for taxa related to Microcerotermes strunckii (e.g. Holmgren, 1910b; Kistner & Doty, 1988; Roisin, 1990; Adams, 1991; Akhtar et al., 1991; Leponce et al., 1996; Tyagi & Sen-Sarma, 1997; Roisin & Pasteels, 2000; Coronel & Porcel, 2002). Presently involved in the completion of a revised world catalog of the termites, we propose that in the interest Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 © 11 of stability the names Eutermes and EUTERMITINAE be suppressed or set aside and placed on the Official Indexes of Invalid and Rejected Generic and Family-Group Names in Zoology, respectively. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to suppress the generic name Eutermes Heer, 1849 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 and to designate Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910a as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1)(b) above Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910a; (b) Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Termes strunckii Sorensen, 1884; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) costalis Holmgren, 1910a, as published in the binomen Eutermes costalis (specific name of the type species of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890); (b) strunckii Sérensen, 1884, as published in the binomen Termes strunckii (specific name of the type species of Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (type genus: Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890); (5) to place on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Generic Names in Zoology the name Eutermes Heer, 1849, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (6) to place on the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Family-Group Names in Zoology the name EUTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910b (based on a generic name suppressed in (1)(a) above). Acknowledgements We are grateful to V. Krishna and C.B. Boyko for comments on this petition. This work was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, U.S.A. (DEB-9870097 to K. Krishna and D.A. Grimaldi). References Adams, E.S. 1991. Nest-mate recognition based on heritable odors in the termite Micro- cerotermes arboreus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A., 88: 2031-2034. Akthar, M.S., Ahmad, M., Arshad, M. & Shahid, A.S. 1991. Effect of container size and group size on survival and wood consumption of Microcerotermes championi Snyder (Isoptera: Termitidae). Punjab University Journal of Zoology, 6: \-6. Atkinson, L. & Adams, E.S. 1997. The origins and relatedness of multiple reproductives in colonies of the termite Nasutitermes corniger. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series B, Biological Sciences, 264: 1131-1136. Banks, N. 1918. The termites of Panama and British Guiana. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 38: 659-667. Banks, N. 1919. Antillean Isoptera. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 62: 475-489. 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Banks, N. 1920. A revision of the Nearctic termites, part 1. Taxonomy. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 108: 1-85. Buschini, M.L.T. & Leonardo, A.M.C. 2002. Biometrics studies of caste development in Nasutitermes coxipoensis (Isoptera; Termitidae). Sociobiology, 40: 465-477. Constantino, R. 1998. Catalog of the living termites of the New World (Insecta: Isoptera). Arquivos de Zoologia, Sado Paulo, 35: 135-231. Constantino, R. 2002. Notes on the type-species and synonymy of the genus Nasutitermes (Isoptera: Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae). Sociobiology, 40: 533-537. Cookson, L.J. 1988. The site and mechanism of '*C-lignin degradation by Nasutitermes exitiosus. Journal of Insect Physiology, 34: 409-414. Coronel, J.M. & Porcel, E. 2002. Morphometric analysis of soldiers of Microcerotermes strunckii (Isoptera: Termitidae, Termitinae). Sociobiology, 40: 307-316. Dudley, P.H. 1890. The termites of the Isthmus of Panama—part II. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, 9: 157-180. Emerson, A.E. 1925. The termites of Kartabo Bartica District, British Guiana. Zoologica, 6: 291-459. Emerson, A.E. 1928. Termites of the Belgian Congo and the Cameroon. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 57: 401-574. Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species. Adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2. vii, 519 pp. Proft, Hafniae. Froggatt, W.W. 1896. Australian Termitidae. Part II. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 21: 510-552. Froggatt, W.W. 1897. Australian Termitidae. Part III. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, 22: 721—758. Hagen, H.A. 1858. Monographie der Termiten. Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 1-342, 459-461. Hare, L. 1937. Termite phylogeny as evidenced by soldier mandible development. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 37: 459-486. Heer, O. 1849. Die insektenfauna der Tertidirgebilde yon Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. iv, 264 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig. Hoare, A. & Jones, D.T. 1998. Notes on the foraging behaviour and taxonomy of the southeast Asian termite Longipeditermes longipes (Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae). Journal of Natural History, 32: 1357-1366. Holmgren, N. 1910a. Versuch einer Monographie der amerikanischen Eutermes-Arten. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum, Hamburg, 27: 171-325. Holmgren, N. 1910b. Isoptera. The Percy Sladen Trust Expedition to the Indian Ocean in 1905 under the leadership of Mr. J. Stanley Gardiner. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, series 2, Zoology, 14: 135-148. Holmgren, N. 1912. Termitenstudien. 3. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familie Metatermitidae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 48: 1-166. Holmgren, N. 1913. Termitenstudien. 4. Versuch einer systematischen Monographie der Termiten der orientalischen Region. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 50: 1-276. Kistner, D.H. & Doty, J. 1988. A new genus and two new species of athetine staphylinids from the nests of Microcerotermes in Sulawesi and Brunei with a cladistic analysis of their relationships (Coleoptera, Isoptera, Termitidae). Sociobiology, 14: 29-47. Krishna, K. 1996. New fossil species of termites of the subfamily Nasutitermitinae from Dominican and Mexican amber (Isoptera, Termitidae). American Museum Novitates, 3176: 1-13. Latreille, P.A. 1804. Nouveau dictionnaire d'histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 3. xii, 467, [1] pp. Dufart, Paris. Latreille, P.A. 1805. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére, des Crustacés et des Insectes, vol. 13. xu, 432 pp. Dufart, Paris. Lefeuve, P. 1987. Replacement queens in the Neotropical termite Nasutitermes coxipoensis. Social Insects, 34: 10-19. ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 - 13 Leponce, M., Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, JM. 1996. Reproductive mechanisms and dynamics of habitat colonization in Microcerotermes biroi (Isoptera: Termitidae). Ecological Entomology, 21: 178-184. Miiller, F. 1873. Beitrage zur Kenntniss [sic] der Termiten. Jenaische Zeitschrift fiir Medizin und Naturwissenschaft, 7: 333-358, 451-463. , Nel, A. & Paicheler, J.-C. 1993. Les Isoptera fossiles. Etat actuel connaissances, implications paléoécologiques et paléoclimatologiques [Insecta, Dictyoptera]. Cahiers de Paléontologie, 1993: 103-179. Noirot, C. 2001. The gut of termites (Isoptera). Comparative anatomy, systematics, phylogeny. II.—Higher termites (Termitidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 37: 431-471. Prashad, B. & Sen-Sarma, P.K. 1959. Revision of the termite genus Nasutitermes Banks [sic] (Isoptera: Termitidae: Nasutitermitinae) from the Indian region. Indian Council of Agricultural Research Monograph, 10(23): 1-66. Roisin, Y. 1990. Queen replacement in the termite Microcerotermes papuanus. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 56: 83-90. Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, JM. 1996. The nasute termites (Isoptera: Nasutitermitinae) of Papua New Guinea. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 10: 507-616. Roisin, Y. & Pasteels, J.M. 2000. The genus Microcerotermes (Isoptera: Termitidae) in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Invertebrate Taxonomy, 14: 137-174. Sands, W.A. 1965. A revision of the termite subfamily Nasutitermitinae (Isoptera, Termitidae) from the Ethiopian region. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology, 4: 1-172. Silvestri, F. 1901. Nota preliminare sui Termitidi sud-americani. Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia Comparata della Reale Universita di Torino, 16: 1-8. Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 112: 1-490. Sérensen, W. 1884. Traek af nogle sydamerikanske insecters biologi. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 5: 1-25. Thompson, G.J. & Hebert, P.D.N. 1998. Probing termite social systems through allozyme and mtDNA analysis: A case study of Nasutitermes nigriceps and Nasutitermes costalis (Isoptera, Termitidae). Insectes Sociaux, 45: 289-299. Thorne, B.L., Haverty, M.I. & Collins, M.S. 1994. Taxonomy and biogeography of Nasuti- termes acajutlae and N. nigriceps (Isoptera: Termitidae) in the Caribbean and Central America. Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 87: 762-770. Tyagi, B.K. & Sen-Sarma, P.K. 1997. Morphology of the spermatozoa of Microcerotermes beesoni Snyder, with reference to termite phylogeny (Isoptera: Termitidae). Uttar Pradesh Journal of Zoology, 17: 245-246. Wasmann, EF. 1897. Termiten von Madagaskar und Ostafrika (Voeltzkow, Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Reisen in Madagaskar und Ost-Afrika, 1889-1895). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 21: 137-182. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Case 3294 Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 and Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 (Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 as the type species of Gynacantha Natalia von Ellenrieder and Rosser W. Garrison California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, 3294 Meadoview Road, Sacramento, CA 95616, U.S.A. (e-mail: odo_nata@hotmail.com; rwgarrison@earthlink.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the accustomed usage of the names Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 and Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 for two genera of aeshnid dragonflies. The names are objective synonyms but are currently in use for two distinct groups of species. It is proposed that Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 should be designated as the type species of Gynacantha. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Odonata; AESHNIDAE; Gynacantha; Triacan- thagyna; Gynacantha nervosa; Triacanthagyna trifida; dragonflies; Neotropical region; tropics. 1. Rambur (1842, p. 209) established the nominal genus Gynacantha for dragonflies of the family AESHNIDAE characterized by females with a two or three pronged sclerotized process on the venter of abdominal segment 10. He included seven new species, G. quadrifida, G. furcata, G. trifida, G. bispina, G. subinterrupta, G. bifida and G. nervosa, without designating a type species. 2. Selys (1883, p. 745) established, the nominal genus Triacanthagyna for species characterized by females with a three-pronged process on the venter of abdominal segment 10 and restricted the name Gynacantha to those species with only two-pronged processes. Selys included only G. trifida Rambur, 1842 (p. 210) in his new genus, which made it the type species by monotypy. 3. Kirby (1890, p. 94) retained Gynacantha trifida Rambur in the nominal genus Gynacantha and without explanation designated it as type species of Gynacantha, thus making Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 a junior objective synonym of Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 (Article 61.3.3 of the Code). Kirby (1890, p. 94) established the genus Acanthagyna for the other species originally included in the nominal genus Gynacan- tha Rambur, 1842 and included ten additional species. Although he did not provide a diagnosis or description, nor designate a type species, the name Acanthagyna Kirby, 1890 is available, by indication, under Article 12.2.5 of the Code. Later, Kirby (1897, pp. 614-615) explained why he designated G. trifida as type species of Gynacantha. In a paper on the Cuban fauna, Selys (1857, p. 459) included two species (G. trifida and G. septima n. sp.) in the nominal genus Gynacantha Rambur, 1842, without Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 .- 15 designating a type species. Kirby (1897, pp. 614-615) erroneously thought that Selys (1857) had established G. trifida as the type species of Gynacantha and was only quoting Selys in his 1890 catalogue. 4. Cowley (1934, pp. 201-202) subsequently designated Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 (p. 213), as the type species of Acanthagyna. Calvert (1905, p. 189), who did not use the name Acanthagyna, had also designated G. nervosa as the type species of Gynacantha Rambur, 1842. However, the designation of G. nervosa as type species of Gynacantha was invalid because of the prior designation of G. trifida by Kirby (1890) (see Article 69.1). 5. Although Kirby’s nomenclatural act is valid under Article 69.1 most odona- tologists have followed the usage established by Selys (1883, p. 745) for the names Gynacantha and Triacanthagyna. The name Acanthagyna has been disregarded or completely ignored (see McLachlan, 1896, p. 411; Calvert, 1905, p. 189; Kimmins, 1936, pp. 74-75; Bridges, 1994, pp. ii, 51). 6. The generic names Gynacantha and Triacanthagyna, in the widely accepted sense of Selys (1883, p. 745), are not congeneric; they refer to two undoubtedly different groups (see Williamson, 1923; von Ellenrieder & Garrison, 2003). Triacanthagyna includes nine neotropical species, distributed from Florida in the U.S.A. southwards to eastern Argentina. Gynacantha is the most speciose genus within the family AESHNIDAE with over 80 described pantropical species. The generic names Acan- thagyna Kirby and Gynacantha sensu Kirby have rarely been used in the primary literature since 1890 (see Kirby, 1897; Klots, 1932; Cowley, 1934; Racenis, 1953; Balinsky, 1961; Pinhey, 1962; Hedge & Crouch, 2000). However, the names Gynacantha sensu Selys, 1883 and Triacanthagyna have been widely used for almost a hundred different species of dragonflies worldwide. There are over 60 worldwide references (by 49 authors) (i.e. Williamson, 1923; Paulson, 1977; Davies & Tobin, 1985; Needham et al., 2000; von Ellenrieder & Garrison, 2003) to the name Triacanthagyna and over 120 (by 100 authors) (i.e. Williamson, 1923; Fraser, 1962; Paulson, 1977; Davies & Tobin, 1985; Needham et al., 2000; von Ellenrieder & Garrison, 2003) to the name Gynacantha (sensu Selys, 1883). The Commission Secretariat holds lists of the additional references. In order to maintain stability in the nomenclature of this group we propose that the objective synonymy of Gynacantha and Triacanthagyna be removed by validating the designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842, by Calvert (1905, p. 189) as the type species of Gynacantha. This action will make the confusing name Acanthagyna invalid as a junior objective synonym of Gynacantha. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 before the designation by Calvert (1905) of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Calvert (1905) Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842, as ruled in (1) above; (b) Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Gynacantha trifida Rambur, 1842; 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) nervosa Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen Gynacantha nervosa (specific name of the type species of Gynacantha Rambur, 1842, as ruled in (1) above): (b) trifida Rambur, 1842, as published in the binomen Gynacantha trifida (specific name of the type species of Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883). References Balinsky, B.I. 1961. Observations on the dragonfly fauna of the coastal region of Zululand, with descriptions of three new species (Odonata). Journal of the Entomological Society of Southern Africa, 24(1): 72-91. Bridges, C.A. 1994. Catalogue of the family-group, genus-group names of the Odonata of the world (Third Edition). xlvi, 905 pp. Privately published, Urbana, Illinois. Calvert, P.P. 1905. Odonata. Pp. 145-212 in: Biologia centrali-americana: Insecta, Neuroptera. xxx[i], 420 pp. Porter & Dulau, London. Cowley, J. 1934. Changes in the generic names of the Odonata. Entomologist, 67: 200-205. Davies, D.A.L. & Tobin, P. 1985. A systematic list of the extant species of Odonata. The dragonflies of the world, vol. 2, Anisoptera. Soc letas Internationalis Odonatologica Rapid Communications (Supplement), 5: 1-151. Ellenrieder, N. von & Garrison, R.W. 2003. A synopsis of the genus Triacanthagyna Selys (Odonata: Aeshnidae). International Journal of Odonatology, 6(2): 147-184. Fraser, F.C. 1962. The Gynacanthas of tropical Africa. Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaines, 65(1—2): 1-28. Hedge, T.A. & Crouch, T.E. 2000. A catalogue of the dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata) of South Africa with nomenclatural clarification. Durban Museum Novitates, 25: 40-55. Kimmins, D.E. 1936. Odonata, Ephemeroptera, and Neuroptera of the New Hebrides and Banks Island. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)18: 68-88. Kirby, W.F. 1890. A synonymic catalogue of Neuroptera Odonata, or dragonflies, with an appendix of fossil species. xi, 202 pp. Gurney & Jackson, London. Kirby, W.F. 1897. List of the Neuroptera collected by Mr. E.E. Austen on the Amazons ete. during the recent expedition of Messrs. Siemens Bros. Cable S.S. ‘Faraday’, with descriptions of several new species of Odonata (dragon-flies). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)19: 598-617. Klots, E.B. 1932. Insects of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Odonata or Dragonflies. Scientific Survey of Porto Rico and the Virgin Islands, vol. 14, part 1. 107 pp. New York Academy of Sciences, New York. McLachlan, R. 1896. LX. On some Odonata of the subfamily Aeschnina. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)17(102): 409-425. Needham, J.G., Westfall, M.J., Jr. & May, M.L. 2000. Dragonflies of North America. Revised Edition, xv, 939 pp. Scientific Publishers, Gainesville. Paulson, D.R. 1977. Odonata. Pp. 170-184 in Hurlbert, S.H. (Ed.), Biota Acuatica de Sudamerica Austral. San Diego State University, San Diego. Pinhey, E. 1962. A descriptive catalogue of the Odonata of the African Continent (up to December 1959), parts 1 & 2. Publicagées culturais Companhia de Diamantes de Angola, 59: 11-161. Racenis, J. 1953. Contribucion al estudio de los Odonata de Venezuela. Anales de la Universidad Central de Venezuela, 35: 3-68. Rambur, M.P. [J.P.] 1842. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Névroptéres. Librairie Ency- clopédique de Roret, Paris. Selys Longchamps, M.E. de. 1857. Odonates de Cuba. Jn: Sagra, R. de la (Ed.), Histoire physique, politique et naturelle de I’Ile de Cuba, 8: 336-472. Selys Longchamps, M.E. de. 1883. Synopsis du Aeschnines. Premiére partie: classification. Bulletin de ! Académie Royal de Belgique, (3)5: 712-748. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 - 17 Williamson, E.B. 1923. Notes on American species. of Triacanthagyna and Gynacantha. Miscellaneous Publications of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 9: 1-80. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Case 3295 Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Shen-Horn Yen Department of Biological Sciences, National Sun Yat-Sen University, Kaohsiung 804, Taiwan (e-mail: shenhornyen@hotmail.com; shenhornyen@mail.nsysu.edu.tw) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 for a common zygaenid moth pest of tea in south Asia, the larvae of which are known as ‘tea slugs’. The older name Eterusia aedea septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862 is a senior subjective synonym of E. cingala, but has not been catalogued or used since 1862. The suppression of E. septentrionicola is therefore proposed to conserve the name E. cingala. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Eterusia; Eterusia cingala; tea slug; Asia. 1. C. Felder & R. Felder (1862, p. 32) described septentrionicola as a variety of Eterusia aedea (Linnaeus, 1763) (published as Heterusia aedea) from Sri Lanka. Since 1862, the name septentrionicola has not been catalogued or used by any author. 2. Moore (1877, p. 343) described the species Eterusia cingala from Sri Lanka in a general descriptive study of Lepidoptera of Sri Lanka. Following Moore (1877), cingala was treated as a valid specific name by Moore (1882, p. 41), Cotes & Swinhoe (1887, p. 68), Kirby (1892, p. 50), Swinhoe (1892, p. 80), Hampson (1893, p. 262) and Green (1898, p. 279). Later, Jordan (1907, p. 34) treated cingala as a valid subspecies of Eterusia aedea in Sri Lanka, and this treatment has been accepted and used by a number of authors, e.g. Hering (1922, .p. 64), Fletcher (1925, p. 59), Bryk (1936, p. 207), Gardner (1942, p. 160), Tremewan (1960, p. 109; 1973, p. 125), Fletcher & Nye (1982, p. 50), Owada (1989, p. 197), Endo & Kishida (1999, p. 99) and Yen (2004). 3. Yen (2004) examined the type series of Eterusia aedea var. septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862 in the Natural History Museum, London, and discovered it to be consubspecific with specimens of Eterusia aedea cingala Moore, 1877. The name septentrionicola is therefore a senior subjective synonym of cingala. 4. Eterusia aedea cingala has been reported as a pest of tea (Camellia spp.) in several works (e.g. Green, 1898; Barlow, 1900; Tremewan, 1960; Owada, 1989; Tarmann, 1992; Robinson et al., 2001). To use the name septentrionicola in place of its Junior synonym cingala would involve a change in the name of an economically important pest. The resurrection of the long-forgotten name septentrionicola would unnecessarily create confusion and loss of continuity in a growing agricultural and systematic literature and would promote nomenclatural instability. Since the name septentrionicola has not been used since 1899, it qualifies as a nomen oblitum under Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 19 Article 23.9.1.1. However, the name cingala has not had sufficient usage in the last 50 years to allow its automatic conservation as a nomen protectum under Article 23.9.1.2. It is for this reason that I propose that the Commission should conserve the name Eterusia cingala by suppression of the name Heterusia aedea septentrionicola. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862, as published in the trinomen Eterusia aedea septentrionicola, for the purpeses 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 cingala Moore, 1877, as published in the binomen Eferusia cingala; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name septentrionicola Felder & Felder, 1862, as published in the trinomen Eterusia aedea septenrionicola and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements I am grateful to Gaden S. Robinson, Klaus Sattler and Martin R. Honey, Natural History Museum, London, for comments on this application. References Barlow, E. 1900. Notes on insect pests from the Entomological Section, Indian Museum. Indian Museum Notes, 5: 14-17. Bryk, F. 1936. Zygaenidae II. Jn Strand, E. (Ed.), Lepidopterorum Catalogus, Pars 71. 132 pp. Junk Verlag fiir Naturwissenschaften, Berlin. Cotes, E.C. & Swinhoe, C. 1887. Catalogue of the moths of India. 3 parts. Indian Museum, Calcutta. Endo, T. & Kishida, Y. 1999. Day-flying moths, Chalcosiinae, Epicopeia. Endless Collection, Series 8. Endless Science Information, Tokyo. Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1862. Observationes de Lepidopteris nonnullis Chinae centralis et Japoniae. Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, 6: 22-32. Fletcher, D.S. & Nye, I.W.B. 1982. Bombycoidea, Mimallonoidea, Castnioidea, Sesioidea, Cossoidea, Sphingoidea and Zygaenoidea. Jn Nye, I.W.B. (Ed.), Generic Names of Moths of the World, vol. 4. British Museum (Natural History), London. Fletcher, T.B. 1925. Zygaenidae. Catalogue of Indian Insects, part 9. 92 pp. Gardner, J.C.M. 1942. Immature stage of Indian Lepidoptera. Indian Forest Records, 7(4): 155-163. Green, E.E. 1898. Description of a new parasitic Tachinid fly from Ceylon. Indian Museum Notes, 4: 279. Hampson, G.F. 1893. Moths 1. The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Taylor & Francis, London. Hering, M. 1922. Revision der orientalischen Chalcosiinen. Archiv ftir Naturgeschichte (Berlin), 88A (11): 1-93. Jordan, K. 1907. Zygaenidae. Pp. 5—56 in Seitz, A. (Ed.), Die Gross-Schmetterlinge der Erde Spinner und Schwaérmer, Band 10. Alfred Kernen Verlag, Stuttgart. Kirby, W.F. 1892. Synonymic Catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. 1. Gurney & Jackson, London; R. Friedlander and Son, Berlin. Moore, F. 1877. Descriptions of Ceylon Lepidoptera. Annals & Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 339-348. Moore, F. 1880-1887. The Lepidoptera of Ceylon, 3 vols. Reeve, London. 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Owada, M. 1989. Notes on geographical forms of the Chalcosiine moth Eterusia aedea (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae). Memoirs of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, 22: 197-214. Robinson, G.S., Ackery, P.R., Kitching, I.J., Beccaloni, G.W. & Hernandez, L.H. 2001. Hostplants of the moth and butterfly caterpillars of the Oriental Region. Natural History Museum, London; Southdene Sdn Bhd, Kuala Lumpur. Swinhoe, C. 1892. Catalogue of eastern and Australian Lepidoptera Heterocera in the collection of the Oxford University Museum, vol. 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Tarmann, G.M. 1992. Foodplants of the Zygaenidae subfamilies Procridinae and Chalcosiinae, with notes on the biology and ecology of these two groups. Jn Dutreix, C., Naumann, C.M., Tremewan, W.G. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Zygaenidae, Nantes 11-13 September 1987. Recent advances in burnet moth research (Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae). Theses Zoologicae, 19: 144-161. Tremewan, W.G. 1960. A list of foodplants of some species of the lepidopterous family Zygaenidae. Entomologist, 93: 108-111. Tremewan, W.G. 1973. A catalogue of the genus-group names of the Zygaenidae (Lepidop- tera). Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology, 28(3): 111-151. Yen, S.H. 2004. The nomenclatural and systematic problems surrounding Eterusia aedea (Linnaeus, 1763) (Lepidoptera, Zygaenidae, Chalcosiinae). Zoological Studies (Taiwan), 43(1): 20-34. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 178. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 21 Case 3320 Papilio sapho Drury, 1782 (currently Heliconius sapho; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Gerardo Lamas Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru (e-mail: glamasm@unmsm.edu.pe) James L.B. Mallet The Galton Laboratory, Department of Biology, University College London, 4 Stephenson Way, London NWI 2HE, U.K. (e-mail: j.mallet@ucl.ac.uk) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Papilio sapho Drury, 1782 (currently Heliconius sapho) (NYMPHALIDAE). The name has been in use for more than 220 years, but is a junior primary homonym of Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771 (currently Neptis sappho); the names have been placed in separate genera since 1816. They belong to different subfamilies of brush-footed butterflies, Neptis sappho inhabiting the Palaearctic, Heliconius sapho the Neotropics, and their names are in common and widespread use. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; Heliconius; Ajantis; Heliconius sapho; Neptis sappho; Neotropics; Palaearctic; brush-footed butterflies. 1. Pallas (1771, p. 471) introduced the name Papilio sappho for a Palaearctic species, currently known as Neptis sappho (NYMPHALIDAE, LIMENITIDINAE), distributed from eastern Europe, across Russia and central Asia to Japan. 2. Drury (1782, first page of the Index) introduced the name Papilio sapho for a New World species, supposedly from Jamaica, which he described and illustrated (p. 54, pl. 38, fig. 4). It does not occur in Jamaica, but is widely distributed in southern Mexico, Central America and northwestern South America. It is currently regarded as a member of the genus Heliconius Kluk, 1780 (NyMPHALIDAE, HELICONIINAE). Heliconius Kluk was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 382, January 1956), with type species Papilio charithonia Linnaeus, 1767 by subsequent designation by Hemming (1933, p. 223), although the date of the generic name was wrongly given as 1802. In fact, Paclt (1955) and Balint et al. (2001) have demonstrated that Heliconius was made available by Kluk in 1780 (p. 82). Papilio sapho Drury is the type species of the genus-group name Ajantis Hubner, 1816 (p. 13) by subsequent designation by Scudder (1875, p. 106). Ajantis Hubner was recorded as a Junior synonym of Heliconius Kluk by Neustetter (1929, p. 4). 3. Despite their slightly different spellings, P. sappho Pallas and P. sapho Drury are primary homonyms under Article 58.7 of the Code, which states that names differing in spelling only by the use of single or double consonants are homonyms. Although neither Pallas (1771) nor Drury (1782) provided an etymology for the names they proposed, it is evident that both names are of the same derivation and meaning, referring to the classical poetess Sappho, born at the island of Lesbos in 630 B.C. 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 (see Seyffert, 1995). Indeed, as early as 1790, Herbst (p. 159) had already spelled Drury’s specific name as Papilio sappho, and called attention to its distinctiveness from Pallas’s species. Interestingly, Fabricius (1793, p. 165) spelled Drury’s name as P. sappho, whereas (p. 246) he cited Pallas’s name as P. sapho. 4. The name Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771 has priority over P. sapho Drury, 1782 and the latter is permanently invalid under Article 57.2 unless conserved by the Commission, which we here propose. Papilio sapho Drury would have to be replaced by its oldest subjective synonym, Heliconia leuce Doubleday, 1847 (p. 102), which has long been regarded as a valid subspecies of Heliconius sapho (Drury) (see Neustetter, 1929). The nominotypical subspecies H. sapho sapho (Drury) has no available and potentially valid synonyms, and a substitute name (nomen novum) would have to be proposed. Such an action would produce considerable confusion and is highly undesirable, as Heliconius sapho is a common species, widely cited in the literature for over 220 years, with numerous biological, systematic, ecological and genetic research papers published on it (e.g. Brown & Benson, 1975; Brown, 1976; Young, 1981; DeVries, 1987; Raguso & Gloster, 1996; Brower & Egan, 1997; Mallet & Joron, 1999; Kapan, 2001; Luis et al., 2003; Gilbert, 2003). Furthermore, Papilio sappho Pallas and P. sapho Drury have long been assigned to widely separate genera in the NYMPHALIDAE, ever since Hiibner (1816, p. 13) proposed Ajantis to accommodate P. sapho Drury and two other related species. Neptis sappho (Pallas) belongs to the LIMENITIDINAE, and Heliconius sapho (Drury) to the HELICONIINAE. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: : (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name sapho Drury, 1782, as published in the binomen Papilio sapho, is not invalid by reason of being a Junior primary homonym of Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771; (2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Heliconius Kluk to record that the date of publication was 1780 and not 1802; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) sappho Pallas, 1771, as published in the binomen Papilio sappho; (b) sapho Drury, 1782, as published in the binomen Papilio sapho (ruled in (1) above to be not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Papilio sappho Pallas, 1771); ; to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for charithonia Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Papilio charithonia, to record that it is the type species of Heliconius Kluk, 1780 and not 1802; to emend the entries for the following names entered on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology to record that the date of publication of Heliconius Kluk was 1780 and not 1802: (a) Heliconius Latreille, 1804; (b) Heliconia Godart, 1819; (c) Apostraphia Hubner, 1816. S (5 — References Balint, Z., Guppy, C.S., Kondla, N.G., Johnson, K. & Durden, C.J. 2001. Plebeius Kluk, 1780 or Plebejus Kluk, 1802? (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 62: 177-184. ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 23 Brower, A.V.Z. & Egan, M.G. 1997. Cladistic analysis of Heliconius butterflies and relatives (Nymphalidae: Heliconiiti): a revised phylogenetic position for Eueides based on se- quences from mtDNA and a molecular gene. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (B), 264: 969-977. Brown, K.S., Jr. 1976. Geographical patterns of evolution in Neotropical Lepidoptera. Systematics and derivation of known and new Heliconiini (Nymphalidae: Nymphalinae). Journal of Entomology (B), 44(3): 201-242. Brown, K.S., Jr. & Benson, W.W. 1975. West Colombian biogeography, notes on Heliconius hecalesia and H. sapho (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 29(4): 199-212. DeVries, P.J. 1987. The butterflies of Costa Rica and their natural history. Papilionidae, Pieridae, Nymphalidae. xxii, 327 pp., 50 pls. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Drury, D. 1782. Ilustrations of Natural History. Wherein are exhibited upwards of two hundred figures of exotic insects. According to their different genera; very few of which have hitherto been figured by any author, being engraved and coloured from nature, with the greatest accuracy, and under the author's own inspection, on fifty copper-plates. With a particular description of each insect: interspersed with remarks and reflections on the nature and properties of many of them, 3. xxvi, 76, [2] pp., 50 pls. White, London. Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Secundum classes, ordines, genera, species adjectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 3. iv, 487 pp. Christian Gottlieb Proft, Fil. et Soc., Hafniae. Gilbert, L.E. 2003. Adaptive novelty through introgression in Heliconius wing patterns. Evidence for a shared genetic ‘toolbox’ from synthetic hybrid zones and a theory of diversification. Pp. 281-318 in Boggs, C.L., Watt, W.B. & Ehrlich, P.R. (Eds.), Butterflies. Ecology and evolution taking flight. University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London. Herbst, J.F.W. 1790. In Jablonsky, C.G., Natursystem aller bekannten in- und ausldndischen Insekten als eine Fortsetzung der von Buffonschen Naturgeschichte. Nach dem System des Ritters Carl von Linné. Der Schmetterlinge, vol. 4. viii, 208 pp., pls. 53-80. Joachim Pauli, Berlin. Hemming, A.F. 1933. Additional notes on the types of certain butterfly genera. Entomologist, 66: 222-225. Hiibner, J. 1816. Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge, 1: 1-16. Jacob Htibner, Augsburg. Kapan, D.D. 2001. Three-butterfly system provides a field test of Millerian mimicry. Nature, 409: 338-340. Kluk, K. 1780. Zwierzat domowych i dzikich, osobliwie kraiowych, historyi naturalney poczatki i gospodarstwo, vol. 4. [4], 500 pp., 9 pls. J.K. Mosci, Warszawa. Luis, A., Llorente, J.-E. & Vargas, I. 2003. Nymphalidae de México I (Danainae, Apaturinae, Biblidinae y Heliconiinae): Distribucién geogrdfica e ilustracion. [ix], 249 pp., 30 pls. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City. Mallet, J.L.B. & Joron, M. 1999. Evolution of diversity in warning color and mimicry: Polymorphisms, shifting balance, and speciation. Annual Review of Ecology and System- atics, 30: 201-233. Neustetter, H. 1929. Nymphalidae: Subfam. Heliconiinae. Lepidopterorum Catalogus, 36: 1-136. Paclt, J. 1955. Die Gattungsnamen von Kluk 1780: Danaus, Heliconius, Nymphalis und Plebejus (Lepidoptera). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 5: 428-431. Pallas, P.S. 1771. Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des russischen Reichs. Erster Theil. [x], 504 pp. Kayserlichen Academie der Wissenschaften, St. Petersburg. [Available online at http://visualiseur. bnf.fr/Visualiseur? Destination=Gallica&O=NUMM-97333] Raguso, R.A. & Gloster, O. 1996. Preliminary checklist and field observations of the butterflies of the Maquipucuna Field Station (Pichincha Province, Ecuador). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 32: 135-161. Scudder, S.H. 1875. Historical sketch of the generic names proposed for butterflies. Proceed- ings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, 10: 91-293. Seyffert, O. 1995. The Dictionary of Classical Mythology, Religion, Literature, and Art. [vi], 714 pp. Gramercy Books, New York. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Young, A.M. 1981. Over-exploitation of larval host plants by the butterflies Heliconius cydno and Heliconius sapho (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae: Heliconiini) in Costa Rica? Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 88(3): 217-227. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 134. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 25 ‘Published Works in the electronic age: recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the Code’-—comment on general article by J.D. Harris (General Article, see BZN 61: 138-148) Frank-Thorsten Krell Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: f.krell@nhm.ac.uk) Peter S. Cranston Entomology Department, University of California at Davis, Davis, CA 95616, U.S.A. (e-mail: pscranston@ucdavis.edu) There is much uncertainty amongst taxonomists as to how to deal with the increasing number of papers that are pre-published electronically on the World Wide Web, sometimes many months before the paper version is available. This uncertainty is unnecessary since Article 9.8 of the Code explicitly states that web-publications are to be treated as unpublished for nomenclatural purposes and there is no recommen- dation in the Code suggesting the withholding of new names until they are published formally. The journal Systematic Entomology (which we edit) has joined the electronic pre-publication service of its publisher Blackwell, OnlineEarly (Cranston & Krell, 2005). However, in recognition of some unease amongst taxonomists concern- ing web-publications being unpublished for nomenclatural purposes, we offer our authors the choice to withhold their paper from electronic pre-publication. Indeed, authors of one paper so far have opted for this delay. Recently, Taylor & Francis have withdrawn the Journal of Natural History from their electronic pre-publication service (‘prEview’), because of the same uncertainty (A. Polaszek, pers. comm.). We consider it disadvantageous for taxonomic progress and detrimental for the reputation of both taxonomy and the Commission if an Article of the Code delays publication of taxonomic results, in times when electronic pre-publications in other sciences increasingly become a major source of information. The uncertainty amongst authors (and publishers) would end if electronic pre- publications were accepted as published by the Code, provided there is some strict regulation as suggested by Jerald Harris in his general article published in the Bulletin. Thus we support the validation of web-based documents only if registered with a DOI number (Digital Object Identifier, Paskin, 2004; http://doi.org) and followed by an identical paper publication. The World Wide Web has proved to be a very volatile archive (Dellavalle et al., 2003; Whitfield, 2004), and electronic archiving projects already suffer from ever-changing standards and formats of electronic documents (Malvern, 2004). Harris’s proposal addresses these provisions and is a very sensible and timely step forward for nomenclature. References Cranston, P.S. & Krell, F.-T. 2005. Editorial. Systematic Entomology, 30: 1-2. Dellavalle, R.P., Hester, E.J., Heilig, L.F., Drake, A.L., Kuntzman, J.W., Graber, M. & Schilling, L.M. 2003. Going, going, gone: Lost internet references. Science, 302: 787-788. Malvern, J. 2004. Never mind the book, can I look at the e-mail? The Times, 2.Oct.2004: 9. 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Paskin, N. 2004. The DOI® Handbook. Edition 4.0.0. Oxford, International DOI Foundation. http://www.doi.org/handbook_2000/DOIHandbook-v4. pdf Whitfield, J. 2004. Web links leave abstracts going nowhere. Nature, 428: 592. Comment on the neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) (General Article, see BZN 59: 165-169; 60: 48-49, 143, 216-217; 61: 39-40) Colin R. Curds, Gianfranco Novarino, Alan Warren and David M. Roberts* Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. * author for correspondence The usefulness of neotypes in modern protistan systematics is not in dispute and we also applaud the principle of redescribing existing taxa, rather than creating new names that so often add to nomenclatural confusion. Nonetheless, we argue that Foissner’s proposal is rather more liberal than is desirable. First, although protistologists often talk about the ciliates and other protists as being ubiquitous (Finlay, 2002), there remains reasonable doubt that it is really and universally so. The crux of the argument depends on how the species are defined. Many morphospecies are demonstrably cosmopolitan, but there are several examples of species not having yet been found outside a particular geographical region. Certain species of the ciliate Blepharisma (B. japonicum, B. stoltei and B. brevifiliformis) have never been found in the Americas (Giese, 1973). The sibling species of Tetrahymena are biochemically, and therefore genetically, distinct despite being extraordinarily difficult to distinguish morphologically (Gates & Berger, 1976). Restricted geographi- cal distributions have also been assigned to several other taxa of ciliates and testate amoebae (Foissner, 1999, 2003; Foissner & Song, 2002; Foissner et al., 2002). The purpose of neotypification is to fix the nomenclatural type of a given taxon when no holotype, syntypes, hapantotypes or lectotype exists. In so doing neo- typification inevitably defines the taxon’s range of morphological variability, normally by restricting it to a greater or lesser degree. To permit the designation of a neotype from material originating in a continent other than that of the original place of collection might lead to its being challenged at a later stage, on the grounds that material from nearer to the type locality was excluded from the newly defined circumscription. This would not aid the Code’s fundamental requirement of achieving nomenclatural stability. The tradition of designating type specimens in protistology is not strong. Although there exist original collections of slides containing specimens of taxa described and illustrated in key taxonomic works, only rarely were these slides formally designated as types by the authors describing the taxa in question: a striking example is the Penard collection at the Natural History Museum, London, (see http:/Anternt.nhm.ac.uk/cgi-bin/perth/protists/) where individual specimens can be clearly matched with the diagrams in Penard’s major work (Penard, 1922). The Natural History Museum holdings also contain the bequest material of many taxonomically active protistologists and could contain original slides which, although not designated as holotypes, hapantotypes or syntypes by the authors, represent an Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Di obvious source of material from which lectotypes ought to be selected and desig- nated. Such instances could make neotypification superfluous in the best of cases, and damaging in the worst. It may also be possible to re-examine original material of a taxon using methods which were not available at the time of the original description, thus making lectotypification of original collection material not only possible but also much more meaningful within a modern taxonomic context (Novarino & Coute, 2000). So far such cases are rare but they may be more widespread than is commonly believed. In essence, we feel that a thorough check should be made for existing material before new material is designated as neotype. The difficulty of locating slides in private collections is not an acceptable argument for the creation of a neotype any more than it would be acceptable to ignore taxonomic work in hard-to-locate publications. The protistological practice of regarding original published illustrations as an acceptable kind of nomenclatural type should remain, since it has served us well. The practice of redescribing taxa from the old literature to modern standards delivers almost all the benefits of nomenclatural stability. The designation of a neotype brings extra benefit by automatically restricting the circumscription of the taxon, but it carries the risk that the specimens may not clearly show those characters which define the taxon. For instance, some ciliate species would need a silver stain preparation, others nuclear staining, etc. Unfortunately, unlike most biological material, protists cannot be handled easily and that is why little type material exists. We are concerned by the possibility that hasty neotypification might bring more confusion than clarity, especially if the neotypes were not taken from the same geographical region as the original specimens, which would provide ideal grounds for later challenge. Much the same purpose could be achieved by depositing voucher specimens to accompany a taxonomic redescription, which makes material available for later study but reduces the risk of confusion by later studies challenging the neotype status of specimens not taken from the type locality. We therefore oppose the phylum-wide derogation of Article 75.3.6 of the Code. Like Corliss (2003) we support the flexible application of the expression “as nearly as practicable’ which can take into account known distribution patterns and potential mechanisms for dispersal. For instance, species that form true cysts, such as Colpoda, are more readily dispersed over large distances by the wind or other mechanisms and are less likely to be geographically constrained. The issue of isolation is important: protists in the Namib desert have been isolated for more than 50 million years (Foissner et al., 2002) and it would require truly remarkable genetic properties for these taxa not to have differentiated in this time. Alternatively, there could be extremely strong morphological constraints operating on these taxa, or else the taxa have not, in fact, been isolated at all. Two issues would advance protistan systematics significantly more than the widespread designation of neotypes. First, a journal of record should be designated so that the search for taxonomic acts can be greatly facilitated. Valuable as Zoological Record undoubtedly is, its coverage is not universal. It is our fervent hope that the next edition of the Code will support a journal of record (Thorne, 2003). Second, the deposition of molecular sequence data to accompany the actual specimens and/or illustrations on which newly described protistan taxa have been based. It is beyond doubt that molecular tools are reshaping the way we study 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 all aspects of the biology of protists. There is an urgent need to provide a taxonomically sound database of molecular sequences to bring the advantages realised in prokaryotic systematics to the protistan realm. It 1s, in our view, highly desirable that this takes place in parallel with the deposition of voucher specimens for morphological studies. References Corliss, J.O. 2003. Comments on the neotypification of protists, especially ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 48. Finlay, B.J. 2002. Global dispersal of free-living microbial eukaryote species. Science, N. Y., 296: 1061-1063. Foissner, W. 1999. Protist diversity: estimates of the near-imponderable. Protist, 150: 363-368. Foissner, W. 2003. Morphology and ontogenesis of Bromeliophrya brasiliensis gen. n., sp. 0.., a new ciliate (Protozoa: Ciliophora) from Brazilian tank bromeliads (Bromeliaceae). Acta Protozoologica, 42: 55—70. Foissner, W., Agatha, S. & Berger, H. 2002. Soil ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from Namibia (Southwest Africa), with emphasis on two contrasting environments, the Etosha Region and the Namib Desert. Denisia, 5: 1-1459. Foissner, W. & Song, W. 2002. Apofrontonia lametschwandtneri nov gen., nov spec., a new peniculine ciliate (Protozoa, Ciliophora) from Venezuela. European Journal of Protistology, 38: 223-234. Gates, M.A. & Berger, J. 1976. Morphological stability in Tetrahymena pyriformis. Trans- actions of the American Microscopical Society, 95: 11—22. Giese, A.C. 1973. Blepharisma. The biology of a light-sensitive protozoan. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Novarino, G. & Coute, A. 2000. Typification and ultrastructural characterization of flagellate taxa from museum collections - 1. Some Trachelomonas (Euglenophyta = Englenozoa p.p.) from the Deflandre collections in Paris. Nova Hedwigia. Zeitschrift fur Kryptogramenkunde, 70: 505-521. Penard, E. 1922. Etudes sur les Infusoires d’eau douce. Georg, Geneve. Thorne, J. 2003. The Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. The Linnean, 19: 22-26. Comment on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June) (Case 3097; see BZN 59: 246-248, 280-281; 60: 303-311; 61: 43-45, 110-114, 171-173) Pavel Stys and David Kral Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniéna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic The case caused unusual excitement among nomenclaturally minded coleopterists. We believe that probably everything relevant has already been written, and all the errors and misleading statements contained in the original application by Jameson & Howden (BZN 59: 246-248) have been amended, particularly by Krell et al. (BZN 60: 303-311) and Smetana (BZN 61: 171-173). We feel unhappy that a nomenclatural problem, which could have been solved by direct application of the Articles of the Code, developed into a kind of unnecessary transatlantic battle. It was clear from the beginning that either the Nearticians (should Odonteus be accepted as valid) or Palaearcticians (should the proposed Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 29 Bolboceras win) must lose, and the generic component of their cherished binomina must be changed, since in the opinion of all the specialists the names involved are subjective synonyms, more or less equivalent in frequency of usage. What to do in such a case? To count the number of species? There are ten New World and two Old World species of the genus (not one, as stated in BZN 59: 246). Odonteus orientalis Mittal, 1998 (as Odontaeus) described from the Uttar Pradesh province (India) has to be added to the list (Mittal, 1998). To toss a coin? To manipulate the facts? Or, perhaps, to use a simple and unequivocal, but for some probably too old-fashioned Principle of Priority? The latter is, in our opinion, the only acceptable arbiter in this and similar cases. a Therefore we unconditionally support the suggestions formulated by Krell et al. (BZN 60: 309) resulting in acceptance of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 as a valid name of the genus. We also cannot see any reason for continuation of this debate. Additional reference Mittal, J.C. 1998: New record of genus Odontaeus Klug (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae: Geotrupinae) with a new species from Oriental Region. Journal of Entomological Research, 22: 385-386. Comment on the proposed precedence of Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepidoptera) over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 (Case 3271; see BZN 60: 290-292) Antonio Vives SHILAP, Apartado de Correos, 331, E-28080, Madrid, Spain I write in support of the application to give the name Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. I agree with the opinion of the authors that the identity of the nominal species 7. aldrovanaella Villers, 1789 cannot be established with certainty. The name 7. aldrovandella Villers, 1789 should be considered a nomen oblitum. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2091 (Case 3216) Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Phakellia ventilabrum; Porifera): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of the type species of the axinellid sponge Phakellia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 [recte ventilabrum Article 33.2.2] is conserved. The name was threatened by use of the senior objective synonym Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766 which is suppressed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Porifera; AXINELLIDAE; Phakellia; Phakellia ventilabrum; sponges. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that name strigosa Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The name ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Spongia ventilabra [recte ventilabrum (Article 33.2.2)] and as defined by the neotype designated by Alvarez & Willan (2003) in the Natural History Museum, London BMNH 10.1.1.2687 (specific name of the type species of Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name strigosa Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa and suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (3 ma (4 wm History of Case 3216 An application to conserve the specific name of Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 [recte ventilabrum Article 33.2.2], the type species of the axinellid sponge genus Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862, in which a neotype was designated for Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767, was received from Belinda Alvarez and Richard C. Willan (Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, Darwin, Australia) on 3 September 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 16-19 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment on the spelling of the specific name was published in BZN 60: 300 and the emended proposals included on the voting paper. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to yote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 18 and as amended on the voting paper. At the close Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 31 of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bouchet and Minelli abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Abstaining, Bouchet and Minelli commented that not enough evidence was given in the application of usage of the name ventilabrum in the current literature. An informed vote is not possible without further research by the Commissioners themselves. Voting against, Brothers made the same comment. Also voting against, Patterson commented that the case for neotypification is well made and accepted, but the case for suppression of Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766 is not. 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: Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 152: 1109. strigosa, Spongia, Pallas, 1766, Elenchus Zoophytorum sistens Generum Adumbrationes Generaliores et Specierum Cognitarum succinctas Descriptiones cum Selectis Auctorum Synonymis, p. 397. ventilabrum, Spongia, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1296. The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767: Alvarez, B. & Willan, R.C. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 17. 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2092 (Case 3223) Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligumia ochracea; Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name given precedence over that of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of the American freshwater mussel Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 is given precedence over that of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; UNIONIDAE; Ligumia ochracea; Mytilus fluviatilis; tidewater mucket; fresh water mussel; clam; America. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, is hereby given precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) ochraceus Say, 1817, ‘as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the bnomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 3223 An application to conserve the widely used specific name of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligumia ochracea) for the American freshwater mussel (tidewater mucket) (family UNIONIDAE) by giving it precedence over the little used senior subjective synonym Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 was received from James R. Cordeiro (Science Division, Nature Serve, Boston, MA, U.S.A.) on 2 November 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 20-22 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 21. At the close of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting for, Bouchet commented that the application stated (para. 3) that Simpson (1914), Ortmann (1919), Frierson (1927) and Haas (1969) all used the name fluviatilis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005. 33 However, examination of the works in question revealed that these authors cited “Mytilus fluviatilis Dillwyn, 1817 or ‘Anodonta fluviatilis’ in the synonymy of Anodonta cataracta Say, 1817, and did not use fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 as the valid name of a species. Morrison (1974) is in fact the only 20th century author who used the specific name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 as the valid name of a species, but this is enough to exclude the case from Article 23.9. The application fails to mention that Morrison (1974) designated a neotype for Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, and did not report whether or not there exists original type material of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817. If there is, it would have been relevant to know whether the name-bearing types of the two nominal species are considered by the applicant to be subjective synonyms. If there is not, it could be appropriate to designate the neotype of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 also the neotype of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: fluviatilis, Mytilus, Gmelin, 1791, Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae, vol. 1, part 6 (Vermes), p. 3359. ochraceus, Unio, Say, 1817, Nicholson's Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts & Sciences, Ed. 1, vol. 4 (Conchology), pl. 2, fig. 8. 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2093 (Case 3249) Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 is conserved for a genus of freshwater prosobranch gastropods (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the eastern United States by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; PLEUROCERIDAE; freshwater prosobranch gastropods; Lithasia; Lithasia geniculata; eastern United States. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818 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 Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above: (b) Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818); (c) Ellipsoma Millard, 1997 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818). History of Case 3249 An application to conserve the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 for a genus of freshwater prosobranch gastropods (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the eastern United States was received from Russell L. Minton (Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, IL, U.S.A.) and Arthur E. Bogan (North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, U.S.A.) on 17 July 2002. The generic name Lithasia, type species by monotypy Lithasia geniculata Haldeman, 1840, was placed on the Official List of Official Names in Zoology in Opinion 1195 (BZN 38: 259, November 1991). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 103-108 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 104. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 . 35 Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 42. Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium, p. 33. Ellipsoma Millard, 1997, Classification of Mollusca. A classification of world wide Mollusca, p. 86. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2094 (Case 3236) Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): given precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name of the sun spider Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) is to be given precedence over that of Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; sOLPUGIDAE; Zeriassa; Canentis; Zeriassa bicolor; Zeriassa ruspolii; sun spiders; Africa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) is given precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August), whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- nation Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- nation C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bicolor Pocock, 1897, as published in the binomen Zeria bicolor (specific name of the type species of Zeriassa Pocock, 1897); (b) ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, as published in the binomen Canentis ruspolii (specific name of the type species of Canentis Pavesi, 1897). —~ i) ~~ —~ ies) History of Case 3236 An application to conserve the generic name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 for a group of sun spiders (family SoOLPUGIDAE) by giving it precedence over the unused older name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms was received from Mark S. Harvey (Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia) on 28 February 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 26-27 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 27. At the close of the voting period on 1 December Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 . 37 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Bouchet commented that priority should apply “because so few authors have studied this group of animals’ (application, para. 4), it cannot entail ‘considerable confusion’ to apply the letter of the Code. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bicolor, Zeria, Pocock, 1897, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)20: 392. Canentis Pavesi, 1897, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 38: 158. ruspolii, Canentis, Pavesi, 1897, Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 38: 159. Zeriassa Pocock, 1897, Through unknown African countries, p. 252. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2095 (Case 3238) Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida, Solifugae): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 is conserved for a group of solifuges or sun spiders (family RHAGODIDAE) by suppression of the older name Rhax Hermann, 1804. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; RHAGODIDAE; Rhagodes; Rhagodes melanus; solifuges; sun spiders; Asia; Africa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Rhax Hermann, 1804 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species by subse- quent designation by Pocock (1900) Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name me/anus Olivier, 1807, as published in the binomen Galeodes melanus (specific name of the type species of Rhagodes Pocock, 1897) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Rhax Hermann, 1804, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3238 An application to conserve the generic name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 for a group of solifuges or sun spiders (family RHAGODIDAE) by proposed suppression of the older name Rhax Hermann, 1804 was received from Mark S. Harvey (Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia, Australia) on 28 February 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 117-118 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 118. At the close of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: melanus, Galeodes, Olivier, 1807, Voyage dans Il’ Empire Othoman, I Egypte et la Perse, fait par ordre du gouvernement, pendant les six premieres années de la République, vol. 3, p. 308. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005. 39 Rhagodes Pocock, 1897, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)20: 252. Rhax Hermann, 1804, Mémoire aptérologique, p. 13. The following is the reference for the designation of Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807 as the type species of the nominal genus Rhagodes Pocock, 1897: Pocock, R.I. 1900. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, vol. 6. Arachnida, p. 148. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2096 (Case 3151) RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): conserved as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the stem of the nominal genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (type genus of RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971) is emended to Rhopalurus- (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE), thus removing the homonymy with the family-group name RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (based on Rhopalura Giard, 1877) (Orthonectida). The spelling of the family-group name RHOPALURINAE Bicherl, 1971, a junior homonym of RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, is emended to RHOPALURUSINAE. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Orthonectida; Arachnida; Scorpiones; RHOPALURIDAE; RHOPALURUSINAE; Rhopalura; Rhopalurus; Rhopalura ophiocomae; Rhopalurus laticauda. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 is Rhopalurus-. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876, type species by original designation Rhopalurus laticauda Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida); (b) Rhopalura Giard, 1877, type species by monotypy Rhopalura ophiocomae Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) laticauda Thorell, 1876, as published in the binomen Rhopalurus laticauda (specific name of the type species of Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876) (Arachnida); (b) ophiocomae Giard, 1877, as published in the binomen Rhopalura ophio- comae (specific name of the type species of Rhopalura Giard, 1877) (Orthonectida). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, type genus Rhopalura Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida); (b) RHOPALURUSINAE Bucherl, 1971, type genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Arachnida). (5) The name RHOPALURINAE Bicherl, 1971 (an incorrect original spelling of RHOPALURUSINAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Arachnida) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. (2 w— (3 wa (4 wa Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 41 History of Case 3151 An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Scorpiones, family BUTHIDAE) and RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (phylum Orthonectida) by emending the spelling of the junior homonym was received from Victor Fet (Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntingdon, West Virginia, U.S.A.), Mary E. Petersen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) and George S. Slyusarev (Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Division of Biology & Soil Science, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia) on 16 April 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 23-25 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 24. At the close of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: laticauda, Rhopalurus, Thorell, 1876, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)17: 9. ophiocomae, Rhopalura, Giard, 1877, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, 85: 813. Rhopalura Giard, 1877, Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de Il’ Académie des Sciences, Paris, 85: 813. RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, American Museum Novitates, 908: 6. RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971, Venomous animals and their venoms, vol. 3, p. 325. Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)17: 9. RHOPALURUSINAE Bucherl, 1971, Venomous animals and their venoms, vol. 3, p. 325. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 OPINION 2097 (Case 3246) Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name suppressed Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of a South American scorpion, Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782, is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the the Principle of Homonymy. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; BOTHRIURIDAE; Bothriurus; Bothriurus chilensis; Bothriurus coriaceus; Bothriurus keyserlingii; Bothriurus vittatus; Chile; South America; Scorpiones. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3246 An application to ensure nomenclatural stability by suppression of the name Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis) was received from Luis E. Acosta and Camilo I. Mattoni (CONICET - Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Cordoba, Argentina) on 28 May 2002. The name B. chilensis threatened the use of the names B. coriaceus Pocock, 1893, B. keyserlingii Pocock, 1893 and Bothriurus vittatus (Guerin Méneville, 1838). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 113-116 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this ‘case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 115. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 18 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Boéhme and Minelli abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: chilensis, Scorpio, Molina, 1782, Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili, p. 347. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 ° 43 OPINION 2098 (Case 3239) Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Geostiba Thomson, 1858, for a group of Holarctic and Oriental rove beetles, is conserved. The name was threatened by the limited use of the senior objective synonym, Evanystes Gistel, 1856, which is suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; STAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE; Geostiba; Geostiba circellaris; rove beetles; Holarctic; Oriental. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the generic name Evanystes Gistel, 1856 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen A/eo- chara circellaris (specific name of the type species of Geostiba Thomson, 1858), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Evanystes Gistel, 1856, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3239 An application to conserve the generic name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 for a well-known genus of Holarctic and Oriental rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE, subfamily ALEOCHARINAE) threatened by limited use of the senior objective synonym Evanystes Gistel, 1856 was received from V.I. Gusarov (Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A. and Department of Entomology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 28-30 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 29. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 21 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 3 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Stys commented on the unequal reference to the usage of the two names in this application. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 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: circellaris, Aleochara, Gravenhorst, 1806, Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum, p. 155. Evanystes Gistel, 1856, Die Mysterien der Europdischen Insectenwelt, p. 387. Geostiba Thomson, 1858, Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, 15: 33. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 - 45 OPINION 2099 (Case 3254) Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Aphodius niger Mlliger, 1798 is conserved for a widely distributed and endangered species of European dung beetle by the suppression of the senior secondary homonym Aphodius niger (Panzer, 1797). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Aphodius; Aphodius niger; dung beetle; endangered species; British Red Data Book; U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan; Europe. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus niger, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonomy. (2) The name niger Illiger, 1798, as published in the binomen Aphodius niger and as defined by the lectotype labelled “Suec’ and ‘lectotype’ in the Museum fir Naturkunde, Berlin, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus niger and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (3 wa History of Case 3254 An application to conserve the specific name Aphodius niger Illiger, 1798 for a widely distributed and endangered species of European dung beetle was received from Frank-Thorsten Krell and Jason F. Maté (Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London, U.K.), Darren J. Mann (Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Oxford, U.K.) and Robert B. Angus (School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey, U.K.) on 20 August 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 127-131 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 129. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 3 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Martins de Souza abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Bouchet commented: ‘As Illiger did not describe a new species, but merely misapplied Panzer’s name, there is no such thing as a nominal species 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798. Consequently a non-existing nominal species cannot have ‘type material’, and the ‘lectotype designation’ has no purpose. I could have accepted one of the following courses of action: (1) designate one of Illiger’s specimens as neotype of Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797, and if necessary have the Commission rule that this name 1s not invalid despite being a secondary homonym of Scarabaeus niger Giorna, 1791; (2) accept Adam’s nomenclature and use Aphodius muscorum as the valid name. The first alternative would stabilize current nomenclature and may even perhaps be done without action from the Commission as S. niger Panzer, 1797 may probably be preserved against S. niger Giorna, 1791 under Article 23.9’. Lamas similarly commented that Aphodius niger Iliger, 1798 is a misidentification of Panzer’s name and not a new name. Likewise, Patterson commented that, as niger (Panzer 1797) seems to be in current use, and as the proposal suggests that Illiger did not introduce a new name but merely misidentified material, he believed a better course of action to provide stability would be to retypify Panzer’s name. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Offical Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: niger, Aphodius, Wliger, 1798, Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann Apotheker in Osterode, p. 24. niger, Scarabaeus, Panzer, 1797, Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten, Heft 37, p. 1. The folowing is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Aphodius niger Ilhger, 1798: Krell, F-T., Mann, D.J., Angus, R.B. & Mate, J.F. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 129. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 47 OPINION 2100 (Case 3258) Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera Abstract. The Commisssion has ruled that usage of the widely used buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (family BUPRESTIDAE) are conserved by accepting the overlooked designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera; Acmaeoderella; Carininota; Acmaeodera cylindrica; Acmaeoderella flavofasciata; jewel beetles. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 before that of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by Volkovitsh (1979) are hereby set aside. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by the fixation of Volkovitsh (1979) as ruled in (1) above; (b) Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Buprestis discoida Fabricius, 1787. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) cylindrica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Buprestis cylindrica (specific name of the type species of Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829); (b) discoida Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Buprestis discoida (specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955). 3 ma History of Case 3258 An application to conserve the current usage of the widely used buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (family BUPRESTIDAE) by accepting the designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera was received from C.L. Bellamy (Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacremento, California, U.S.A.) and M.G. Volkovitsh (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia) on 4 November 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 31-33 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Four comments in support of this case were received. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 32-33. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting for, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that the spelling of the specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 is Buprestis discoida Fabricius, 1787 not Buprestis discoidea as published in the application (BZN 60: 32-33, paras. 3, 5, 7(2)(b), (3)(b)). Although both spellings have been in use for this species the original spelling must be retained. See rulings (2)(b) and (3)(b) above. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829, Zoologischer Atlas, p. 9. Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955, Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 31(13): 5. cylindrica, Buprestis, Fabricius, J.C., 1775, Systema entomologia, p. 220. discoida, Buprestis, Fabricius, J.C., 1787, Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2, p. 184. Editor’s note: The spelling of the specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955, has been corrected from Buprestis discoidea Fabricius, 1787, as published in the application, to Buprestis discoida. See rulings (2)(b) and (3)(b) above. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 49 OPINION 2101 (Case 3243) Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): usage of the specific names conserved by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the existing usage of the names Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and Lyda gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali) is conserved for two species of Palaearctic sawfly (family PAMPHILIIDAE) by the designation of the lectotype of L. maculosa Zaddach, 1866 as the neotype for Lyda latifrons. Stability was threatened by the identification of the holotype of L. latifrons as a specimen of L. gyllenhali. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; PAMPHILIIDAE; Pamphilius latifrons; Pamphilius gyllenhali; Palaearctic; sawflies. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous type fixations for the nominal species Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 are hereby set aside and the following specimen is designated as the neotype: the female specimen, lectotype of Lydia maculosa Zaddach, 1866 designated by Benes (1976, p. 162), labelled ‘Type’ [red label], “steckte mit maculosa’, ‘maculosa’, ‘Zool. Mus. Berlin’; ‘Lectotype’ [red label] and ‘maculosa Zd. Benes, 1971’, ‘Pamphilius latifrons Fall. 2 det. Benes 71,’ “Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén) Det. A. Shinohara, 1995’, held in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) /atifrons Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda latifrons and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835, as published in the binomen Lyda gyllenhali. History of Case 3243 An application to conserve the existing usage of the names Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and Lyda gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali) for two species of Palaearctic sawfly (family PAMPHILIIDAE) by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons was received from Akihiko Shinohara (Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Tokyo, Japan), Matti Viitasaari (Department of Applied Biology, P.O. Box 27, University of Helsinki, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland) and Veli Vikberg, (Liinalammintie 11 as. 6, Turenki, Finland) on 24 April 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 34-37 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 35. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 2004 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: gyllenhali, Lyda, Dahlbom, 1835, Clavis novi hymenopterorum systematis, vol. 5, p. 40, fig. 1. latifrons, Lyda, Fallen, 1808, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 29: 226. The folowing is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Lydia maculosa Zaddach, 1866 (= the neotype of Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808): BeneS, K. 1976. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 73: 162. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 | 51 OPINION 2102 (Case 3230) Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): existing usage conserved by the designation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the existing usage of the generic name of the fossil fish genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 is conserved by the designation of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perleidiformes; fossil fish; Colobodus; Colobodus bassanii; Middle Triassic; Besano Formation; Italy; Switzerland. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 are hereby set aside and Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above and as defined by the neotype specimen T 4843 in the Palaontologisches Institut und Museum der Universitat Ziirich Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 designated by Mutter (2003), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The name bassanii de Alessandri, 1910, as published in the binomen Colobodus bassanii (specific name of the type species of Colobodus Agassiz, 1844) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3 ma History of Case 3230 An application to conserve the existing usage of the name of the fossil fish genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 by the designation of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species was received from Raoul J. Mutter (Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada) on 16 January 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 135-137 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 136. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2004 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Kerzhner and Stys abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. In abstaining, Stys questioned the need for a neotype for Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910. Voting against, Mahnert commented that since the description of 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Colobodus hogardi Agassiz, 1844 is sufficient to recognize the genus there is no necessity to change the type species of a recognizable genus, even when subsequently better conserved specimens (of another species) are found. Similarly Patterson commented that the case suggests that hogardi and bassanii cannot be distinguished. In which case, he believed that a course of action more in keeping with the provisions of the Code would be to retypify C. hogardi Agassiz and to synonymize the names. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bassanii, Colobodus, de Alessandri, 1910, Memorie della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 7(1): 76. Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, vol. 2, L’histoire de l’ordre des Ganoides, p. 237. The folowing is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910: Mutter, R. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 136. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 . 53 OPINION 2103 (Case 3219) Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 (currently Liolaemus periglacialis; Reptilia, Sauria): not given priority over Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the Patagonian tropidurine lizard name Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909. A proposal had been made to give precedence to the junior subjective synonym Liolaemus periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; TRoPIDURIDAE; Liolaemus; Liolaemus periglacialis; Liolaemus hatcheri; South America; tropidurine lizards. Ruling (1) Itis hereby ruled that the name Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 is not to be given priority over Liolaemus hatcheri Steyneger, 1909 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. The Principle of Priority is upheld and the name Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 has priority over Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. (2) The name hatcheri Stejneger, 1909, as published in the binomen Liolaemus hatcheri, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3219 An application to conserve the usage of the name Vilcunia periglacialis Cei & Scolaro, 1982 by giving it precedence over the name Liolaemus hatcheri Stejneger, 1909 whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms was received from José A. Scolaro (Centro Nacional Patagonico, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Técnicas CONICET, Puerto Madryn, Chubut, Argentina) and José M. Cei (Departamento de Ciencias Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Rio Cuarto, Cordoba, Argentina) on 21 September 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 59: 275-277 (December 2002). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 March 2004. The case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two thirds majority (12 votes FOR and 9 AGAINST). On | September 2004 the application was submitted for a second vote under Bylaw 35. Decision of the Commission On | September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote again on the proposals published in BZN 59: 276. At the close of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 10 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 14 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Brothers, Mahnert, Papp and Stys stressed that priority should be maintained in this case. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: hatcheri, Liolaemus, Stejneger, 1909. Reports of the Princeton University Expedition to Patagonia 1896-99, 3(1): 218. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 55 OPINION 2104 (Case 3226) Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V., 1788, Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares: rejected as a non-binominal work Abstract. The Commission has ruled that Lacepéde’s (1788) work Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares and all subsequent editions of this work are rejected as an unavailable, non-binominal work. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lacepéde; Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788) and all subsequent editions of this work are not available for nomenclatural purposes, and that no name acquires the status of availability by reason of having been published in any of them. (2) The work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788) and all subsequent editions of this work, as ruled in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. History of Case 3226 An application to ensure nomenclatural stability by rejection of Lacepéde’s (1788) work Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares and all subsequent editions of this work as an unavailable, non-binominal work was received from Jay M. Savage (Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, U.S.A.) on 17 December 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 138-140 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 140. At the close of the voting period on | December 2004 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, Bohme abstained, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Bouchet commented voicing strong objection to the structure and content of the application. Original reference The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1788. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(1) March 2005 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Com- mission; 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 all applications on this basis. Applicants should 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 to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references shquld 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 in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160. Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: 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 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, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or 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 2096 (Case 3151). RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): conserved as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida) . OPINION 2097 (Case 3246). Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (@unneniily ‘Roe iurus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): specific name suppressed . fos : OPINION 2098 (Case 3239). Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, (olconteray: con- served ae OPINION 2099 (Case 3254), Vistodusi niger ‘Tilsee, 1798 (asesia, Colenpter): specific name conserved OPINION 2100 (Case 3258). Viewneodera ieschecholtas 1829 and Ym neoibreii Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera : OPINION 2101 (Case 3243). Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gy Wenhali anibere 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): usage of the specific names conserved by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons. : OPINION 2102 (Case 3230). Collsinodis Avgastie, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Iperleidifommes): existing usage conserved by the designation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species. : OPINION 2103 (Case 3219). Walleora sprapiliratas Cei & Scolanal 1982 (eusenily Liolaemus periglacialis; Reptilia, Sauria): not given priority over Liolaemus hatcheri Steyneger, 1909 OPINION 2104 (Case 3226). Lacepéde, ‘B. G. 8, ce ip We 1788, Reeth Net elle as Quadrupédes Ovipares: rejected as a non-binominal work. : Information and Instructions for Authors SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION L! conmes I Notices . : : New applications to the Coummasion Ernst Mayr (Commissioner 1954-1976) es , The International Commission on Zoological INemenelrare : Members of the Commission The International Trust for Zoological Nomnoadiaan . Members of the Trust . The Commission Website . : The International Code of Zeolowical iWomenclatire : The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Publications . Report on a visit to Sosion, \Washingion D. Cc and New or — 13 7 [Disesmibse 2004 on behalf of the ITZN Appeal. BLS Gl lapleen Be 00 dee eee eee Applications Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation. M.S. Engel & K. Krishna. Gynacantha Rambur, 1842 and Triacanthagyna Selys, 1883 (Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Gynacantha nervosa Rambur, 1842 as the type species of Gynacantha. N. von Ellenrieder & R.W. Garrison Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 (Insecta, pa Pronors conservation of the specific name. S.-H. Yen . : Papilio sapho Drury, 1782 (exmeny Riclicaies secalta ‘lnsea, enone proposed conservation of the specific name. G. Lamas & J.L.B. Mallet . : Comments - ‘Published Works in the electronic age: recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the Code’ — comment on general article by J.D. Harris. F.-T. Krell & P.S. Cranston . On the neaaiiienton oP prorists! egaociallly oifiaies (erorezoss ‘GCiligainora). ic R Curds; G. Novarino, A. Warren, & D.M. Roberts . On the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) dasesia, Colonic) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). P. Stys & D. Kral : On the proposed precedence of Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851. (coment Adela australis; Insecta, eae over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789. A. Vives ofS, rete ec ee ese est oer Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2091 (Case 3216). Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Phakel- lia ventilabrum; Porifera): specific name conserved : OPINION 2092 (CASE 3223). Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (eurentiy jiRemratia adfrencore Mollusca, Bivalvia): specific name given ee over that of Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 OPINION 2093 (Case 3249). iiRitesta nial emare 1840 (Mollusca, Gesinopede): conserved . OPINION 2094 (Case 3236). Zrogite Tessas 1897 (Gepteniben) (Sacto Solifugae): given precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) OPINION 2095 Ses ea ea Pocock, 1897 Ba aes Solifugae): conserved . j , AnAnAnbBWNN Se =) 38 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT] 1HD 2 Volume 62, Part 3, 30 September 2005, pp. 125-184 ISSN 0007-5167 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 2006 is £140 or US$250 or €250, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £70 or US$125 or €125. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Vice-President Vacant Executive Secretary Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.) Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.4.; Ornithology) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Prof Dr W. Béhme Crustacea, Ichthyology) (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Brothers Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S. A.; Mollusca) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Prof P. Stys Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Secretariat Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2005 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 62, part 3 (pp. 125-184) 30 September 2005 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover or on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each voiume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 62, part 2, 30 June 2005) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3345: DENDROBATIDAE Cope, 1865 (1850) (Amphibia, Anura): proposed conservation. J.M. Savage. CASE 3346: Fixing the authorship and type locality for Miswmenops nepenthicola, a nomenclaturally invalid concept used for several species in non-taxonomic biological research. P.T. Lehtinen. CASE 3347: Pachyramphus G.R. Gray, 1840 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation. S.M.S. Gregory. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 CASE 3348: Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia): proposed conservation. E.C. Rainforth. CASE 3349: Gnorimus Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, and Osmo- derma Lepeletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. F.-T. Krell, A. Ballerio, A.B.T. Smith & P. Audisio. CASE 3350: Oncopus Thorell, 1876 and oNcopopIDAE Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed conservation. P.J. Schwendinger & J. Martens. CASE 3351: Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (Reptilia: Testudines): proposed conservation. S.A. Thomson. CASE 3352: Productus compressus Waagen, 1884 (Brachiopoda): proposed conservation. M. Sone. CASE 3353: Obovaria Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, UNIONIDAE): proposed conservation. A.E. Bogan, J.D. Williams & J.T. Garner. CASE 3354: Tydeus Koch, 1836 (Acari): proposed designation of Tydeus spathulatus Oudemans, 1928 as the type species. H.M. André & A. Kazmierski. CASE 3355: ORTHOCLADIINAE Kieffer, 1911 and Orthocladius van der Wulp, 1874 (Diptera: CHIRONOMIDAE): proposed conservation of subfamilial name and fixation of type species. M. Spies. American Association for Zoological Nomenclature—Officers The Officers of the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature are: President: Alfred Gardner, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Reseach Center, c/o Smithsonian Institution, MRC-111, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 President-elect: Frank Crandall, Smithsonian Institution, MRC-163, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 Secretary: Neal Woodman, USGS, c/o Smithsonian Institution, MRC-111, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012 Treasurer: Eric Hoberg, U.S. National Parasite Collection, Animal Parasitic Diseases Laboratory, ARS/USDA, Bldg. 1180, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705-2350 (e-mail: ehoberg@anri.barc.usda.gov) Orders for the Commission’s publications (the Code, the Official Lists and the Centenary History) can be sent to Eric Hoberg. Details of these publications can be found on the Commission’s website—www.iczn.org. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 . 127 Reports on meetings at the Smithsonian Center for Research and Conservation, Front Royal, Virginia, U.S.A., 27-28 April 2005, and Convention on Biological Diversity Working Group on Protected Areas, Taxonomy Side Event, Montecatini, Italy, 15 June 2005 Andrew Polaszek, Executive Secretary, ICZN CBOL meeting, Smithsonian, Front Royal The Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) is an international initiative devoted to developing DNA barcoding as an accurate, reliable and cost-effective taxonomic tool. Another of CBOL’s aims is to expand interest and activity in taxonomy, using DNA barcodes. More information about the organisation 1s available on their website at ‘http://barcoding.si.edu/index_detail.htm’. On 27-28 April 2005 a two-day meeting on setting standards for sequence data records, in particular mitochondrial COI sequences (DNA barcodes), was hosted by CBOL. ICZN participation was requested in order to help provide standards for Code-compliance of any animal scientific names used. I was invited to give a presentation on the expanding role of ICZN in the light of recent advances in bioinformatics. The meeting also presented an opportunity to discuss name lists of animal genera and species, and how a possible system for registration of animal names could encompass Code-compliance. I am grateful to our hosts Scott Miller and David Schindel of CBOL and the Smithsonian Institution for the opportunity given for ICZN to contribute to the bar-coding debate, and to CBOL for covering all expenses. CBD, Montecatini, Italy, Taxonomy Side-Event On 15 June, a major meeting of the CBD Working Group on Protected Areas was held in Montecatini, Italy, with a side-event organised to discuss the future of taxonomy. ICZN Commissioner and ex-President Prof Alessandro Minelli presented a paper ‘Italian taxonomists’ contribution to biodiversity knowledge’ which was followed by my paper on the work of the Commission, and how we are adapting to major advances in IT, especially bioinformatics. Useful discussions followed both papers. We thank our hosts, Prof. Alessandro Laposta and Dr Fabio Stoch, for their kindness and hospitality, and the Italian Ministry for Environment and Territory Protection for covering all costs involved. 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature — Annual General Meeting and Management Committee Meeting 18 May 2005 Chairman’s Report The Fundraising Appeal for ICZN was relaunched on 19 May 2004 at the Natural History Museum, London, by the Commission’s President, Dr Neal Evenhuis, and the Trust’s Chairman, Lord Cranbrook. At the same time an Appeal Committee was established, comprising members of the Trust, Commission and Secretariat and Dr Catherine MacDonald as Appeal Secretary. The Appeal comprises three principal fundraising strategies: (1) the revival and augmentation of recurrent support through annual subventions from the user community of zoologists represented by learned societies, national science founda- tions, research councils, etc.; (2) targeted project funding for modernisation of the Commission’s activities, in particular the transfer of much of ICZN’s work to the internet; and (3) the pursuit of an endowment of £3m to safeguard the long-term future of the Commission. Towards objective (1), over 150 learned societies and institutions have been approached. At the time of writing, contributions have been received from the fol- lowing: Academia Sinica (Taiwan), American Society of Parasitologists, Australian Museums, Japanese Society of Systematic Zoology, Malacological Society, Marine Biological Association, North of England Zoological Society, Palaeontographical Society, Royal Entomological Society of London, Swedish Museum of Natural History, and the Zoological Society of London. Further responses are expected. Towards objective (2), approximately 50 letters, accompanied by folders, have been sent to UK charities, and grants for project funding have been generously provided by the following charities: Esmée Fairbairn Foundation (£20K), Gatsby Charitable Foundation (£45K), John Ellerman Foundation (£10K), John Spedan Lewis Foundation (£3K) and Wellcome Trust (£75K). The Commission’s website has been transferred to our direct control, the Code has been placed on the website and it is the intention that in the near future all names on the Official Lists and Indexes will also be made available online. There has been less success towards the achievement of-a £3m endowment. Gifts have been received from individuals, including members of the Trust and Commission, and from charitable sources including Lord Medway’s Charitable Trust and the Ancaster Trust. Continuous effort will be needed to attain this objective. Throughout 2004/5, the Trust’s Chairman, ICZN Executive Secretary and Appeal Secretary have been engaged in fundraising activities, largely within the U.K. but also internationally, in particular in the United States. In association with the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN), a major drive is planned in the U.S. for 2005/6, headed by our Appeal Patron, Professor Edward O. Wilson of Harvard University. In Europe, the membership of the EAZN Secretariat, the European Association for Zoological Nomenclature, has recently changed and a major fundraising push in Europe is also planned for 2005/6. All possible opportunities have been utilised to bring the work of ICZN to the notice of the general public via both printed and broadcast media, both in the U.K. and internationally, and the Secretariat has developed useful collaborative contacts with journalists in both the popular and science press. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005. 129 In summary, since the relaunch of the Appeal we have seen an encouraging reversal of a previous downward trend in ICZN’s income, enabling the Commission to embark on a programme of modernisation of its activities. We are very grateful to those foundations that have recognised that their support is essential for the continuing relevance of ICZN’s work to the zoological community and the general public. Earl of Cranbrook, Chairman, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Case 3319 Helix papillaris Miiller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name F. Giusti and G. Manganelli Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4, I-53100 Siena, Italy (e-mail for Prof Giusti: giustif@unisi.1t) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 for a pulmonate gastropod (family CLAUSILIIDAE) from southern Europe. The name is threatened by a senior synonym Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 for which suppression is proposed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; CLAUSILIIDAE; Helix papillaris,; Turbo bidens; southern Europe. 1. O.F. Muller (1774, p. 120) established a new species of pulmonate gastropod as Helix papillaris based on specimens figured by Buonanni (1681, pl. 41), Gualtieri (1742, pl. 4, figs. D-E) and Ginanni (1757, pl. 3, fig. 23). This species, currently Papillifera papillaris (family CLAUSILIDAE), is widespread in southern Europe and extensively cited in the literature. Forcart (1965) demonstrated that the name previously in use for this taxon, Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758, was not the correct name for the species. Linnaeus (1758, p. 767) cited a figure from Gualtieri (1742, pl. 4, fig. C) which, according to Forcart (1965), illustrated the shell of another clausiliid Cochlodina laminata (Montagu, 1803). 2. Application of the Linnaean name to the species currently known as Papillifera papillaris dates from a statement by Schréter (1784, p. 55) on the synonymy of Turbo bidens, ‘Gualtieri Ind. Testar. taf. 4, fig. D, E. (und nicht fig. C wie Linné vorgiebt, denn diese hat keine Einkerbungen)’ which Forcart (1965) regarded as mistaken: ‘Turbo bidens Linnaeus ist nur auf den bibliographischen Hinweis “Gualt. test. t. 4, f. C begriindet, so dass der name Helix papillaris Miller fir die von Gualtieri (1742, taf. 4, figs. D-E) abgebildete Art giiltig ist’. We agree with Forcart for the reason given under para. 4 below. 3. Falkner et al. (2001) used the name Turbo bidens for the species known as Papillifera papillaris without explanation. Subsequently, Falkner et al. (2002, p. 113) explained that ‘Schroter a restreint extension du nom a l’espéce taxonomique correspondant a la diagnose [Turbo testa turrita pellucida: anfractibus contrartis sutura subcrenata, apertura postice bidentata], et non a celle de la figure C’ which, according to Schroter, Linnaeus selected ‘vraisemblablement par erreur’ (1) ‘Forcart a eu tort de privilégier la figure contre la diagnose, remettent de ce fait en cause pres de deux siécles d’application du nom bidens pour une clausilie a suture crénelée’ and (2) designated the specimen illustrated by Gualtieri (1742, pl. 4, fig. E) as the neotype (Falkner et al., 2002, p. 113). . Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 131 4. We oppose this conclusion for three reasons. Firstly, Article 72.4 of the Code states that the type series of a nominal taxon of the species group consists of ‘all the specimens included by the author in the new nominal taxon (whether directly or by bibliographic references) ...’. It is therefore impossible to accept Schréter’s interpretation as valid without clear evidence that Linnaeus quoted the intended figures incorrectly. In the absence of such indications, Schréter’s action limited ‘extension du nom a lespéce taxonomique correspondant a la diagnose’ to specimens not included by Linnaeus in his species. Secondly, Schréter made the mistake, repeated by Falkner et al., of wrongly interpreting the terms ‘sutura subcrenata’ in Linnaeus’s diagnosis of Turbo bidens. It is evident that Schréter and Falkner et al. considered ‘crenata’ (French: ‘crénelée’; German: “gekerbt’) to mean ‘papillifera’ (French: ‘avec petit tubercules papilliformes’; German: ‘warzentra- gend’) which is incorrect (for the exact meaning of the Latin terms ‘crenata’ and ‘papillifera’, see Rossmassler, 1835, p. 29). Gualtierr’s pl. 4, fig. C therefore matches Linnaeus’s diagnosis because it shows a shell with suture ‘subcrenata’ (i.e. faintly notched or milled) and Forcart was right insofar as he identified Turbo bidens as a clausiliid species with a reddish shell (‘rufescens’ in Gualtieri’s diagnosis of his fig. C) and with non-papillate sutures. Nevertheless, Forcart’s (1965, pp. 122-123) opinion that Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 is the same as Turbo laminatus Montagu, 1803 (currently Cochlodina laminata) cannot be accepted. If Gualtieri’s pl. 4, fig. C is an Italian species then more species of Cochlodina exist in Italy. If fig. C represents a species from near Florence, where Gualtieri lived, then it is probably Cochlodina incisa (Kuster, 1876), a common species with a shell very similar to that of C. laminata and which, by virtue of the faint ribbing, also has a faint crenulation of the sutures recalling the ‘sutura subcrenata’ of Linnaeus. Thirdly, Gualtieri (1742) labelled his pl. 4, figs. D-E as ‘[Turbo terrestris] papillis albis in spirarum commissuris’. The white papillae are cited by Miller (1774) in the description of Helix papillaris: “Helix [. . .] juncturis spirarum punctatis’ and ‘intersectiones anfractuum fuscescunt, punctis elevatis sive papillis parvis candidis pulchre interstinctae’ demonstrating that this conspicuous pattern was cited by early authors as the main character of the species (see also Buonanni, 1681; Ginanni, 1757). It is inconceivable that Linnaeus described the suture of Papillifera papillaris merely as ‘subcrenata’ without mentioning the white papillae. 5. No specimen corresponding to those figured by Gualtieri (pl. 4, figs. C-E) has been identified in the malacological collection of the Museo di Storia Naturale e del Territorio dell’Universita di Pisa at Calci which keeps what remains of Gualtieri’s collection. Some lots of Cochlodina incisa and Papillifera papillaris exist but they were collected later. Consequently, no syntypes of Turbo bidens exist and therefore neither does the neotype designated by Falkner et. al. (2002, p. 113). The nominal clausiliid species Turbo bidens is unidentifiable and threatens nomenclatural stability due to the seniority of the Linnaean name. Therefore, suppression of the name 7. bidens is proposed. 6. There is no problem with the identity of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 (see the clear diagnosis), although no syntypes probably still exist (no material exists in Miiller’s collection at the Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Denmark, O. Tendal, personal communication, 29.10.03). The two shells illustrated by Gualtieri (1742, pl. 4, figs. D-E) are lost (see para. 4) as are those illustrated by Buonanni (1681, 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 p. 184, pl. 41) and Ginanni (1757, pl. 3, fig. 23). It is nevertheless useful to designate a neotype. Papillifera papillaris has a wide distribution and the status of many populations (more or less morphologically characterized) is currently under debate (see Giusti et al., 1995). Moreover, since Nordsieck (2002) claimed that *Papillifera solida and P. bidens cannot always be distinguished easily’, designation of a neotype from an extant population living in a site corresponding to the area in which Gualtieri lived will enable future morphological and molecular studies to address any possible problems. To objectively define this taxon and fix its identity we hereby designate, under Article 75, the specimen (a shell, MZUF no. 24432) in the Museo di Storia Naturale dell’ Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Sezione Zoologica ‘La Specola’ as the neotype of Helix papillaris (fig. 1, p. 133). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name bidens Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo bidens, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place the name papillaris Muller, 1774, as published in the binomen Helix papillaris and defined by the neotype designated in para. 6 above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (3) to place the name bidens Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Turbo bidens and as suppressed in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. References Buonanni, F. 1681. Ricreatione dell’ occhio e della mente nell’ osservation’ delle Chiocciole, proposta a curiosi delle opere della natura, &c. xiv, 384, [16] pp., 109 pls. Roma. Falkner, G., Bank, R.A. & Proschwitz, T. von. 2001. Check-list of the non-marine Molluscan species-group taxa of the States of Northern, Atlantic and Central Europe (CLECOM 1). Heldia, 4: 1-76. Falkner, G., Ripken, Th.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de la France: liste de reference et bibliographie. Patrimoines Naturels, 52: 1-350. Forcart, L. 1965. Rezente Land- und Siisswassermollusken der stiditalienischen Landschaften Apulien, Basilicata und Calabrien. Vethandlungen der naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Basel, 76: 59-184. : Ginanni, G. 1757. Opere postume. Tomo II. Testacei marittimi paludosi e terrestri dell’ Adriatico e del territorio di Ravenna (Memorie del Conte G. Ginanni). viii, 72 pp., 35 pls. Venezia. Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. & Schembri, P.J. 1995. The non-marine molluscs of the Maltese Islands. Monografie Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali (Torino), 15: 1-607. Gualtieri, N. 1742. Index Testarum Conchyliorum quae adservantur in museo Nicolai Gualtieri. 23 pp., 110 pls. Florentiae. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, (Ed. 10), vol. 1. iv, 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Miiller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium, seu animalium infusorium, helminthico- rum, et testaceorum, non marinorum, succinta historia, vol. 2. xxxvi, 214 pp. Heineck & Faber, Havniae et Lipsiae. Nordsieck, H. 2002. Contributions to the knowledge of the Delimini (Gastropoda: Stylom- matophora: Clausiliidae). Mitteilungen deutschen malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 67: 27-39. Rossmassler, E.A. 1835. Iconographie der Land- und Stisswasser-Mellusken, mit vorztiglicher Berticksichtigung der Europdischen noch nicht abgebildeten, Bd. 1, Arten 1(1). vi, 132 pp., pls. 1-5. Dresden, Leipzig. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 133 Schréter, J.S. 1784. Einleitung in die Conchylien-Kenntniss nach Linné, Bd. 2. viii, 726 pp., pls. 4-7. Halle. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 134. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Neotype of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774, Firenze, Giardino di Boboli, UTM 32TPP812482, S. Cianfanelli & E. Lori leg. 13.05.2005 (Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Universita degli Studi di Firenze, Sezione Zoologica “La Specola’’, no. 24432) (height of the shell: 15 mm). 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Case 3321 Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Prosobranchia, RISSOOIDEA): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species Dietrich Kadolsky 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 OBA, U.K. Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the generic name Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 by designating Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species. Bythinella is a replace- ment name for Leachia Risso, 1826 (not Leachia Lesueur, 1821) for which the type species is Leachia viridescens Risso, 1826. Although its identity is uncertain, Leachia viridescens Risso, 1826 is not congeneric with Bythinella in its accustomed sense. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Prosobranchia; RISSOOIDEA; Bythinella; Bythinella viridis; Leachia; Europe. 1. The name Leachia Risso, 1826 (p. 102) (not Lesueur, 1821, pp. 86-87, Cephalopoda) was proposed for four species of presumed aquatic gastropods from the Mediterranean coastal area of France. The four species are: (1) L. viridescens Risso, 1826 (p. 102, pl. 3, fig. 35): ‘fosses aquatiques’, length 6 mm; in the figure list the name is given as ‘Leachia viridis’; (2) L. cornea Risso, 1826 (p. 102): ‘eaux saumatres’, length 4 mm; (3) L. vitrea Risso, 1826 (p. 103, pl. 3, fig. 33): “dans les mares’, length 2 mm; (4) L. Jineolata Risso, 1826 (p. 103): ‘lieux humides’ (i.e. apparently terrestrial); length 9 mm. Monterosato, 1884 (p. 230) designated Leachia viridescens as the type species of Leachia Risso, 1826. Later, Hannibal, 1912 (p. 185) designated Cyclostoma vitreum Draparnaud, 1801 as the type species of Leachia Risso, 1826. This action was invalid because Monterosato’s designation has priority. Hannibal implicitly regarded the name “Leachia vitrea’ Risso, 1826 as a new combination rather than a new species. 2. The Risso collection has been the subject of four publications, but the identity of Leachia viridescens Risso, 1826 has not been satisfactorily documented. Mortillet (1851, p. 107) included the genus Leachia (presumably all four of its nominal species) in synonymy with Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805) without providing details. Bourguignat (1861, p. 65) thought that L. viridescens was a species of Bithynia Leach in Abel, 1818 ‘sur laquelle nous n’avons pu former une opinion précise sur sa valeur spécifique’. Later Bourguignat (1887, p. 8, footnote) corrected himself and placed Leachia viridescens in the genus Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856. This is an astounding change in generic placement, considering the obvious dissimilarity between Bithynia and Bythinella, which Bourguignat explained by his original unfamiliarity with the genera of the ‘Paludinidae’ and the fact that Bythinella was not recognized as a valid genus in 1861. Bourguignat’s taxonomic judgement between 1861 and 1887 seems to have been muddled. He did not provide any details about the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 135 type material of L. viridescens. The original description and figure do not fit the (then) prevailing use of the name Bythinella, even if wider contemporary usage is consid- ered. Caziot (1919, p. 169) and Arnaud (1977, p. 144) placed Leachia viridescens in synonymy with Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805). At that time the taxonomic concept of Hydrobia acuta included at least three species: Hydrobia acuta (species aggregate), Ecrobia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) and Heleobia stagnorum (Gmelin, 1791) (species aggregate). I inspected the remaining putative syntype of Leachia viridescens in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris. It is a very poorly preserved specimen that may be an individual of Ecrobia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) or, less likely, Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805). It is not the specimen depicted in Risso’s original figure from which it differs in several points (e.g. the shell length of 3.8 mm instead of 6 mm). It is not certain that this specimen is actually a syntype since there is evidence of loss of material from the collection as well as mixing of labels and material. On the other hand, its status cannot be disproved and Risso’s description and figure may well be interpreted as referring to a species in the hydrobiid species aggregate referred to above. In any event his figure and measure- ment may be regarded as dubious. The habitat given by Risso, ‘fosses aquatiques’ (water holes) is incompatible with that of Bythinella, which inhabits springs and spring outflows in hilly terrain. The size given for L. viridescens exceeds that of Bythinella species, as well as that of Hydrobia species. Kadolsky (in press) suggested that Leachia viridescens could be identical with Galba truncatula (Miller, 1774) in the family LYMNAEIDAE, subclass Euthyneura, whereas Hydrobia and Bythinella are in the superfamily RISSOOIDEA, subclass Prosobranchia. This presupposes that Risso’s measurement is correct, the putative syntype is incorrectly so labelled and the wording chosen by Risso to characterize the habitat implies a freshwater habitat. Other authors (who do not appear to have inspected the type series) have interpreted it as a form of Hydrobia (aggregate) (e.g. Martens, 1858, p. 198; Frauenfeld, 1865, p. 660; Clessin, 1880, p. 171; Monterosato, 1884, p. 231 and Dollfus, 1912, p. 185). In conclusion, the identity of the type species cannot be determined beyond doubt. Therefore, the use of Leachia viridescens as the type species of Bythinella will cause instability or confusion and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70.2 of the Code. 3. None of the authors who discussed Leachia viridescens had considered the possibility that Risso may have misapplied the name Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 to some material in his collection. According to Arnaud, 1977, Risso commonly used species names without quoting the original author. He added the label (N) (= nova) to each of his four Leachia species, but this could have indicated either a new combination or a new species. The practice of authors to credit themselves with the authorship of new binominal combinations was widespread in the early part of the 19th century (see Zilch, 1970). For example, the name Leachia vitrea Risso was interpreted as a new combination of Cyclostoma vitreum Draparnaud, 1801 by Gray (1847, p. 151, in Hydrobia), Kuster (1852, p. 56, pl. 11, figs. 1-4, in Paludina) and Hannibal (1912, p. 185, in Hydrobia). However, there is no evidence in Risso’s work to support this view and his material is not conspecific with Draparnaud’s species. Risso used the combination Leachia viridis only once and all authors have dismissed this as an error for L. viridescens. He cited the vernacular name Léachie verdatre, not Léachie verte, both in the main text (p. 102) and in the listing for figure 35 associated 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 with plate 3. If Risso’s use of the species name viridis could be attributed to Poiret, 1801 it would offer a convenient, but arbitrary interpretation which is not supported in the literature. I consider Leachia viridescens to be the correct original spelling of the name of a then new nominal species. Use of the name viridis in the figure list is recognized as a lapsus calami. Due to the uncertainty about the identity and status of this nominal species it is considered to be a nomen dubium. Under Article 75.5 the type specimen of a nomen dubium should be replaced by a neotype, however, it would not serve the interests of stability to do so, considering the widespread use of Bulimus viridis as the type species of Bythinella. 4. When Moquin-Tandon, 1856 (pp. 515-516) introduced the name Bythinella as a subgenus of ‘Bythinia’ (= Bithynia Leach in Abel, 1818), he included as synonyms Leachia Risso, 1826 and Bithinella Moquin-Tandon, 1851 (p. 239). The latter is actually a misquotation or emendation of ‘les Bithinelles’, an unavailable vernacular name. Moquin-Tandon noted that Leachia Risso was preoccupied by Leachia Lesueur, 1821 (Cephalopoda). Without this homonymy, there is no reason to assume Moquin-Tandon would not have used the name Leachia Risso. Bythinella was thus implicitly proposed as a replacement name (Article 12.2.3) for the preoccupied Leachia Risso and has the same type species (see Articles 60, Recommendation 60A and 67.8). However, no subsequent author noted this point. Throughout the literature the genus-group name Bythinella was regarded as newly proposed by Moquin-Tandon, 1856 with the type species Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 (pp. 44-47) designated by Stimpson (1865, pp. 17, 44). Topotypical material of Bythinella viridis (Poiret, 1801) was discussed by Boeters (1974, p. 271, figs. 1 (possible syntype), 24-25, 35); Radoman (1976, p. 138, pl. 1, fig. 1; 1983, p. 171, fig. 203 D, pl. 12, fig. 203); Boeters (1998, p. 40, figs. L 5-L 8, P 2); and Gloer (2002, p. 161, fig. 193). Bythinella has been accepted as the valid name of a genus including numerous small species of freshwater RISSOOIDEA inhabiting mainly springs and spring outflows in hilly and mountainous areas of Europe. Although the taxonomic concept of Bythinella has been considerably narrowed since its introduction at least 126 nominal species-group taxa have been associated with this generic name in the past 50 years (excluding all East Asiatic and all Tertiary European species which are all either definitely or very probably incorrectly placed in this genus). A number of these nominal species have been excluded from Bythinella in moré recent studies and there is still debate and on-going research into the status of some of those species remaining in the genus (e.g. Falkner et al., 2002, p. 78 and Giusti & Pezzoli, 1977a, b). In the last 50 years 83 references in which the genus name was used as valid are known to the author. A list of these references, which is far from complete, is held by the Commission Secretariat. 5. Stimpson (1865, pp. 17, 44) designated Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species of Bythinella. However, as a replacement name for Leachia Risso, the type species must be one of the originally included species (Article 67.8.1). The first valid type species designation for one name is also valid for the other (Article 67.8, see example). Although Risso (1826, pl. 3, fig. 35) used the name Leachia viridis in the figure list, it can be interpreted as a lapsus calami (see para. 3 above). There is no evidence to confirm the suggestion that Risso intended to figure Poiret’s nominal species B. viridis; therefore, Stimpson’s type species designation is invalid. Montero- sato’s designation of Leachia viridescens as the type species of Leachia Risso is the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 - 137 valid type species designation for Bythinella. As discussed in para. 3 above, the identity of Leachia viridescens Risso is in doubt. It is certainly not a species of Bythinella in its accustomed sense, despite Bourguignat’s (1887) statement. The prevailing taxonomic concept of the nominal genus Bythinella has, without excep- tion, been based on B. viridis (Poiret). It is therefore proposed that Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 be fixed as the type species of Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 in order to conserve usage of the name in its accustomed sense. 6. There were several later unjustified emendations of the name Bythinella due to the fact that it was derived from the name Bithynia Leach in Abel, 1818, for which some authors had adopted the spellings Bithinia or Bythinia. Moquin-Tandon, 1856 followed this principle by using the spellings ‘Bythinia’ and ‘Bythinella’. Fischer (1885, p. 725) used the spelling Bithinella. He is known to have emended the spelling of many genus-group names for linguistic reasons. In this case he wanted to be consistent with Bithinia. The spelling Bithinella was also used by Clessin (1880, pp. 171, 176) and Cossmann (1888, p. 217; 1921, pp. 121-123). However, Clessin (1880, pp. 192, 194) also used the spelling Bythinella. As he also changed between Bythinia and Bithinia, his intentions are not apparent. Fagot (1886, p. 62) used the spelling Bithynella intentionally to be consistent with Bithynia, which he adopted as the correct spelling. Since he quoted synonyms with their correct spellings there can be no question of error. The spelling Bithynella was also used by Kennard & Woodward (1914, pp. 3, 11). It is proposed that the names Bithinella Fischer, 1885 and Bithynella Fagot, 1886 are placed on the Official Index. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 and to designate Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Bythinella Mogquin-Tandon, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name viridis Poiret, 1801, as published in the binomen Bulimus viridis (specific name of the type species of Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Leachia Risso, 1826 (a junior homonym of Leachia Lesueur, 1821); (b) Bithinella Fischer, 1885 (an unjustified emendation and junior objective synonym of Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856); (c) Bithynella Fagot, 1886 (an unjustified emendation and junior objective synonym of Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856). References Arnaud, P.M. 1977. Révision des taxa malacologiques méditerranéens introduits par Antoine Risso. Annales du Muséum d’ Histoire naturelle de Nice, 5: 101-150. Boeters, H.D. 1974. Die Gattung Bythinella und die Gattung Marstoniopsis in Westeuropa, |: Westeuropaische Hydrobiidae, 4 (Prosobranchia). Malacologia, 14(1—2): 271-285. Boeters, H.D. 1998. Mollusca: Gastropoda: Rissooidea. In Schwoerbel, J. & Zwick, P. (Eds.), Stisswasserfauna von Mitteleuropa, Bd. 5(1/2). 9, 76 pp. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart. 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Bourguignat, J.R. 1861. Etude synonymique sur les mollusques des Alpes Maritimes publiés par A. Risso en 1826. 84 pp., 1 portrait, 1 pl. Bouchard-Huzard, Paris. Bourguignat, J.R. 1887. Etude sur les génériques des petites Paludinidées a opercule spirescent suivie de la description du nouveau genre Horatia. 56 pp., | pl. Paris. Caziot, E. 1919. Synonymic study on the mollusks of the Departement des Alpes-Maritimes mentioned by Antoine Risso with notes on their classification. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 71: 156-170. Clessin, S. 1880. Studien tiber die Familie der Paludiniden. Malakozoologische Blatter, (NF)2: 161-196. Cossmann, M. 1888. Catalogue illustré des coquilles fossiles de ’Eocéne des environs de Paris. Annales de la Société royale malacologique de Belgique, 23: 3-324. Cossmann, M. 1921. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée. 345, 2 pp., pls. A-D, pls. 1-6. Cossmann, Paris. Dollfus, G.F. 1912. Recherches critiques sur quelques genres ou especes d’Hydrobia vivants ou fossiles. Journal de Conchyliologie, 59(3): 179-270. Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1801. Tableau des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France. 116 pp. Renaud, Bossauge, Masson & Besson, Montpellier & Paris. Fagot, P. 1886. Catalogue descriptif des mollusques terrestres et d’eau douce de la région de Toulouse. Bulletin de la Société d'Histoire naturelle de Toulouse, 20: 37-80. Falkner, G., Ripken, Th.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de référence annotée et bibliographie. Patrimoines naturels, 52: 1-305. Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique, part 8. Pp. 689-784. F. Savy, Paris. Frauenfeld, G. von. 1865. Zoologische Miscellen. V. Verhandlungen der kaiserlich-kéniglichen zoologisch- botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 15: 525-536. Giusti, F. & Pezzoli, E. 1977a. Primo contributo alla revisione del genere Bythinella in Italia. Natura Bresciana. Annali dei Musei Civici di Storia Naturale - Brescia, 14: 3-80. Giusti, F. & Pezzoli, E. 1977b. The genus Bythinella in Italy (Prosobranchia, Hydrobioidea). Malacologia, 16(1): 131. Gléer, P. 2002. Mollusca I. Siisswassergastropoden Nord- und Mitteleuropas. Bestimmungs- schliissel, Lebensweise, Verbreitung. Die Tierwelt Deutschlands, 73 Teil. Ed. 2. 327 pp. Conchbooks, Hackenheim. Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent mollusca, their synonyma and their types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15(179): 129-219. Hannibal, H. 1912. A synopsis of the recent and Tertiary freshwater Mollusca of the Californian province, based upon an ontogenetic classification. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 10(3): 167-211. Kadolsky, D. (in press). Family and genus group names assigned to the Prosobranch snail family ‘Hydrobiidae s. lat.’ (Gastropoda, Rissooidea). Heldia, 6, Sonderheft 9. Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1914. List of British non-marine mollusca. 12 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. Kiister, H.C. 1853. Die Gattungen Paludina, Hydrocaena und Valvata. In Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen. Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz, Bd. 1, Abt. 21, livr. 119, pp. 57-96, pls. 9-14. Bauer & Raspe, Nurnberg. Leach, W.E. 1818. P. 362 in Abel, C., Narrative of a journey in the interior of China, in a voyage to and from that country in the years 1816 and 1817 . . . 420 pp., 16 pls. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, Brown, London. Lesueur, C.A. 1821. Descriptions of several new species of cuttle-fish. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 2: 86-101. Martens, E. von. 1858. Ueber einige Brackwasserbewohner aus den Umgebungen Venedigs. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 24(1): 152-208. Monterosato, T. di. 1884. Conchiglie littorali mediterranee. [/ Naturalista Siciliano, 3(8): 227-231. Mogquin-Tandon, A. 1851. Observations sur les genres Paludine et Bithinie (Pa/udina, Lam., et Bithinia, Gray). Journal de-Conchyliologie, 2: 237-245. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005. 139 Moquin-Tandon, A. 1856. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de France, contenant des études générales sur leur anatomie et leur physiologie et la description particuliére des genres, des espéces et des variétés, vol. 2, livr. 6. Pp. 369-646. Bailliére, Paris. Mortillet, G. 1851. Coquilles fluviatiles et terrestres des environs de Nice. Bulletin de la Société d Histoire naturelle de Savoie, 2(3): 72-110. Poiret, J.L.M. 1801. Coquilles fluviatiles et terrestres observées dans le département de I’ Aisne et aux environs de Paris. xi, 119 pp. Paris. Radoman, P. 1976. Speciation within the family Bythinellidae on the Balkans and Asia Minor. Zeitschrift ftir zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 14(2): 130-152. Radoman, P. 1983. Hydrobioidea a superfamily of Prosobranchia (Gastropoda), I. Systemat- ics. Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Monograph, 547. 2, 56 pp., 12 pl. (No. 57). Department of Sciences, Beograd. 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. 438 pp., 12 pls. Levrault, Paris. Stimpson, W. 1865. Researches upon the Hydrobiinae and allied forms chiefly made upon materials in the Museum of the Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 7(201): 1-57. Zilch, A. 1970. Microna Ziegler in Frauenfeld 1863. Archiv ftir Molluskenkunde, 100(3/4): 147-149. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 134. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Case 3329 Mycetoporus forticornis Fauvel, 1875 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Mycetoporus aequalis Thomson, 1868 Michael Schiilke Rue Ambroise Paré 11, D-13405 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: mschuelke.berlin@t-online.de) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Mycetoporus forticornis Fauvel, 1875 for a widespread Palaearctic species of rove beetle (STAPHYLINIDAE). The name is threatened by the recently discovered senior synonym Mycetoporus aequalis Thomson, 1868, which is in current use for another species of the same genus. A change in the application of the name from one widespread species to another would cause considerable confusion. Therefore, precedence of the name Mycetoporus forticornis 1s proposed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; TACHYPORINAE; Mycetoporus; Mycetoporus forticornis; Mycetoporus aequalis; rove beetles; Palaearctic. 1. The name Mycetoporus forticornis was established by Fauvel, 1875 (p. 572) for a widespread Western Palaearctic species of rove beetle (family sTAPHYLINIDAE) based on specimens from Europe (France and Germany). The species is of ecological and conservation interest and lives in xerothermous habitats like heathland, dry meadows and forests. The name of the species has been used without interruption from the time of its original description and has been mentioned in at least 81 papers by 69 authors during the last 50 years. The Commission Secretariat holds a list of these usage references. The provisions of Article 23.9.1.1 are not met because the name of a senior subjective synonym, Mycetoporus aequalis Thomson, 1868, is also in common use (see para. 2). 2. The name Mycetoporus aequalis Thomson,. 1868 (p. 323) was also established for a species of rove beetle from Europe (Sweden). It was used for a long time as a valid name with the synonyms Bolitobius (Mycetoporus) pachyraphis Pandellé, 1869 (p. 344) and M. heeri Luze, 1901 (p. 712). The name was used in at least 34 articles by 32 authors during the past 50 years. A list of the usage references is held by the Commission Secretariat. 3. A study of the type material of the nominal species Mycetoporus forticornis, M. aequalis, M. pachyraphis and M. heeri revealed that M. aequalis is, in fact, synonymous with M. forticornis and that it is not conspecific with M. pachyraphis and M. heeri (Schtlke, 2003a, 2003b, 2004). The name M. aequalis Thomson is a senior subjective synonym of M. forticornis and consequently would have to replace it. The name M. pachyraphis (Pandellé) has to be used for the species referred to during the last fifty years as Mycetoporus aequalis (Schiilke, 2003b). A change in the application of the name Mycetoporus aequalis to another widespread species of the same genus Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 141 would cause considerable confusion, therefore the case is referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.3. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the name forticornis Fauvel, 1875, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus forticornis, precedence over the name aequalis Thomson, 1868, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus aequalis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) forticornis Fauvel, 1875, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus forticornis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name aequalis Thomson, 1868, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus aequalis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) aequalis Thomson, 1868, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus aequalis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name forticornis Fauvel, 1875, as published in the binomen Mycetoporus forticornis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Acknowledgements I am indebted to V. Assing (Hannover, Germany) who reviewed this paper, also for his stylistic improvements of the English manuscript. References Fauvel, C.A.A. 1875. Faune Gallo-Rhénane ou species des insectes qui habitent la France, la Belgique, la Hollande, le Luxembourg, la Prusse Rhenane, la Nassau et le Valais avec tableaux synoptiques et planches gravées. Tome Troisiéme, 6° Livraison. Pp. 545-738. Société Francaise d’Entomologie, F. Le Blanc-Hardel, Caen. Luze, G. 1901. Bolitobiini. Revision der palaarktischen Arten der Staphyliniden-Gattung Bryocharis Boisd. et Lac., Bolitobius Mannh., Bryoporus Kraatz und Mycetoporus Mannh. Verhandlungen der zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 51: 662-746. Pandellé, L. 1869. Etudes monographique sur les staphylins européens de la tribu des Tachyporini Erichson. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 4: 261-366. Schiilke, M. 2003a. Zur Taxonomie und Verbreitung von Mycetoporus montanus Luze, 1901, einer holarktisch verbreiteten Art mit boreomontan disjunktem Verbreitungsgebiet in Europa (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Tachyporinae). Entomologische Blatter, 98: 199-210. Schiilke, M. 2003b. Zur Taxonomie und Verbreitung westpalaarktischer Arten der Gattungen Bryoporus Kraatz und Mycetoporus Mannerheim (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Tachyporinae). Entomologische Blatter, 99: 27—S4. Schiilke, M. 2004. Zur Taxonomie der Tachyporinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) Typen- revision, Typendesignation, Neukombinationen, Untergattungszuordnungen, Nomina nova und neue Synonymien. Linzer biologische Beitrdge, 36: 919-1000. Thomson, C.G. 1868. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptisk bearbetade. Tom. X. 420 pp. Lundbergska Boktryckeriet, Lund. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 210. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Case 3328 Didelphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, DIDELPHIDAE): proposed correction of gender, and Cryptotis Pomel, 1848 (Mammalia, SORICIDAE): proposed fixation of gender Alfred L. Gardner USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012 U.S.A. (e-mail: gardnera@si.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 80.9 of the Code, is to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology to correct the gender of the nominal genus Didelphis Linnaeus, 1758 from masculine to feminine, as originally used by Linnaeus. It is proposed that the gender of the nominal genus Cryptotis Pomel, 1848 is fixed as masculine. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Soricomorpha; DIDELPHIDAE; SORICIDAE; Didelphis; Cryptotis; mammals. Gender of the genus-group name Didelphis: 1. Linnaeus (1758, pp. 54—55) established the nominal genus Didelphis and included five species: marsupialis, philander, opossum, murina and dorsigera. These species-group names are currently used as follows: Didelphis marsupialis, Caluromys philander, Philander opossum and Marmosa murina. Didelphis dorsigera is a synonym of Marmosa murina. No gender was given when Didelphis was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 91, ICZN, 1926), but subsequently its gender was given as masculine in the first comprehensive Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (ICZN, 1958). It may be suggested that when the latter list was prepared, the gender was based on that of the Greek word delphis, which is masculine. Linnaeus (1758) clearly intended Didelphis to be feminine, however, which gave rise to the commonly used variant spelling Didelphys (e.g. Schreber, 1777; Wied-Neuwied, 1826; Wagner, 1843; Burmeister, 1854; Thomas, 1888). These and other authors presumably used the incorrect subsequent spelling Didelphys because it unambiguously expresses Linnaeus’s meaning of Didelphis as ‘two wombs’ (an allusion to an internal womb and the external marsupium; obviously feminine), not ‘two Delphr (masculine), or ‘two dolphins’ (masculine). Mondolfi & Pérez- Hernandez (1984) described Didelphis albiventris imperfectus as masculine, because Didelphis is identified as masculine on the Official List (ICZN, 1958, 1987). Most authors today follow Gardner (1993) in writing the name in the feminine form, imperfecta (e.g. Voss & Emmons, 1996; Lemos & Cerqueira, 2002). It is therefore proposed that the entry on the Official List is emended to record that the gender of Didelphis Linnaeus, 1758 is feminine. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 143 Gender of the genus-group name Cryptotis: 2. Pomel (1848, p. 249) established Cryptotis as a subgenus of Musaraneus Brisson, 1756, with ‘M[usaraneus]. cinereus (sorex cinereus Bachm{an])’ as the only included species. Sorex cinereus Bachman, 1837 (p. 373) is a junior homonym of Sorex arcticus cinereus Kerr, 1792 (p. 206) (currently Sorex cinereus) and junior synonym of Sorex parvus Say in James, 1823 (p. 163, footnote) (currently Cryptotis parvus). Trouessart (1879, p. 262) listed Cryptotis as a synonym of Blarina Gray, 1838 (p. 124). Merriam (1895, p. 16) used Cryptotis as a subgenus of Blarina Gray, 1838, and treated Sorex cinereus Bachman, 1837, as a synonym of Sorex parvus Say, 1823 which he used in the combination Blarina parva. Miller (1911, p. 221) elevated Cryptotis to full generic rank, described C. gracilis, C. frontalis and C. pergracilis macer as new and also used Cryptotis for the following nominal species: C. mexicana, C. mexicana peregrina, C. nelsoni, C. nigrescens, C. orophila, C. soricina and C. tropicalis. All of these names were originally described in the nominal genus Blarina with no change of gender. Subsequently, many authors (e.g. Miller, 1912; Goldman, 1920; Goodwin, 1954a, 1954b) were equally inconsistent in their treatment of the gender of Cryptotis. Miller & Kellogg (1955, pp. 38-43) were the first to treat all Cryptotis name combinations as feminine. Cabrera (1958, pp. 46-48), however, consistently treated the name Cryptotis as masculine. 3. Woodman (1993) addressed the issue of gender and concluded that the name Cryptotis is feminine. Although he should have considered Article 30(a)(i) of the then current edition of the Code, Woodman’s (1993, p. 545) argument hinged on his claim that ‘Greek noun formation dictates that names ending in —ofis are feminine’ and the assumption that Cryptotis refers to a hidden eared-creature. He also concluded that all generic names of mammals ending in —otis should be treated as feminine, apparently unaware that Myotis is on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as masculine. Woodman has continued to treat Cryptotis as feminine (e.g. Woodman, 1996, 2003; Woodman & Timm, 1992, 1993; Woodman, Cuartas & Delgado, 2003). 4. Pritchard (1994, p. 549), commenting on Woodman’s (1993) assertion that Cryptotis is feminine, stated that the —otis ending was a derived form of ofos, the genitive of ous (the neuter word for ear), and not derived from the Greek otis, a feminine word, meaning bustard (Aves) and, as Prichard commented, an inappropri- ate derivation for a genus of mammal. Prichard (1994) interpreted the name Cryptotis to be a combination of adjectives meaning hidden-eared, rather than hidden ear, and certainly not hidden bustard (or hidden, eared creature). To stabilize usage it is proposed that the gender of the genus-group name Cryptotis is confirmed by the Commission to be masculine. Further discussion and examples of genus-group names ending in either —oftis or —otus is provided in a Nomenclatural Note on pp. 183-184. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature accordingly is asked: (1) to use its plenary power to emend the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Didelphis Linnaeus, 1758 to record that the gender is corrected from masculine to feminine; (2) to rule that the gender of the name Cryptotis Pomel, 1848 is masculine; (3) to place the name Cryptotis Pomel, 1848 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Sorex cinereus Bachman, 1837, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 References Bachman, J. 1837. Some remarks on the genus Sorex, with a monograph of the North American species. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7(2): 362 —402. Brisson, M.J. 1756. Regnum Animale in classes IX distributum, sive synopsis methodica . . . Vi, 382 pp. Bauche, Paris. Burmeister, H. 1854. Systematische Uebersicht der Thiere Brasiliens, welche wahrend einer Reise durch die Provinzen von Rio de Janeiro und Minas Geraés gesammelt oder beobachtet wurden von Dr. Hermann Burmeister. SGugethiere (Mammalia), vol. 1. x, 342 pp. Georg Reimer, Berlin. Cabrera, A. 1958. Catalogo de los mamiferos de América del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales , Ciencias Zoologicas, 4(1): xvi, 1—1v, 1-308. Gardner, A.L. 1993. Order Didelphimorphia. Pp. 15-24 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal species of the World, Ed. 2. xviii, 1206 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Goldman, E.A. 1920. Mammals of Panama. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 69(5): 1-309, map, 39 pls. Goodwin, G.G. 1954a. A new short-tailed shrew and a new free-tailed bat from Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Museum Novitates, No. 1670: 1-3. Goodwin, G.G. 1954b. A new short-tailed shrew from western Panama. American Museum Novitates, No. 1677: 1-2. Gray, J.E. 1838. Revision of the genus Sorex, Linn. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1837: 123-126. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1926. Opinion 91. Thirty-five generic names of mammals placed in the Official List of Generic Names. Pp. 1-2 in Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 91 to 97. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 73(4): 1-30. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1958. Official list of generic names in zoology. xxxviil, 200 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1987. Official lists and indexes of names and works in zoology. 4 (unnumbered), 365 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Kerr, R. 1792. The animal kingdom or zoological system, of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus. Class I. Mammalia: containing a complete systematic description, arrangement, and nomenclature, of all the known species and varieties of the mammalia, . . . xii, 1-32, 30 (unnumbered), pp. 33-400, 7 pls. Strahan, Cadell, & Creech, Edinburgh. Lemos, B. & Cerqueira, R. 2002. Morphological and morphometric differentiation in the white-eared opossum group (Didelphidae, Didelphis). Journal of Mammalogy, 83: 354-369. ; Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. Merriam, C.H. 1895. Revision of the shrews of the American genera Blarina and Notiosorex. North American Fauna, No. 10, pp. 5— 34. Miller, G.S. 1911. Three new shrews of the genus Cryptotis. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 24: 221 —224. Miller, G.S. 1912. List of North American land mammals in the United States National Museum, 1911. United States National Museum Bulletin, 79: 1-455. Miller, G.S. & Kellogg, R. 1955. List of North American Recent mammals. United States National Museum Bulletin, 205: 1-954. Mondolfi, E. & Pérez-Hernandez, R. 1984. Una nueva subespecie de zarigiieya del grupo Didelphis albiventris (Mammalia-Marsupialia). Acta Cientifica Venezolana, 35: 407-413. Pomel, A. 1848. Etudes sur les carnassiers insectivores (extrait). Seconde partie, Classification des insectivores. Archive des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles, Geneve, 9: 244-251. Pritchard, P.C.H. 1994. Comment on the gender and declension of generic names. Journal of Mammalogy, 75: 549 — 550. - Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 145 Say, T. in James, E. 1823. Account of an expedition from Pittsburgh to the Rocky Mountains, performed in the years 1819 and '20, by order of the Hon. J.C. Calhoun, Sec’y of War: under the command of Major Stephen H. Long, vol. 1. 1-8, 503 pp. Carey & Lea, Philadelphia. Schreber, J.C.D. von. 1777. Die Saugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, vol. 3(22-25). Pp. 377-440, pls. 104B, 107Aa, 109B, 110B, 115B, 125B, 127B, 136, 146A—165; 1776-1778. Wolfgang Walther, Erlangen. Thomas, O. 1888. Diagnoses of four new species of Didelphys. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)1: 158-159. Trouessart, E.-L. 1879. Catalogue des mammiferes vivants et fossiles. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, 7: 219 — 285. Voss, R.S. & Emmons, L.H. 1996. Mammalian diversity in neotropical lowland rainforests: a preliminary assessment. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 230: 1-115. Wagner, J.A. 1843. Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen von Dr. Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber. Supplementband. Expedition das Schreber’schen Saugthier- und des Esper’sschen Schmetterlingswerkes, Erlangen, und in Commission der Voss’schen Buchhandlung in Leipzig. Dritter Abtheilung: Die Beutelthiere und Nager (erster Abschnitt), vol. 3. xiv, 614 pp., pls. 85-165. Wied-Neuwied, M.P. zu. 1826. Beitrdge zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien. Verzeichniss der Amphibien, Saugthiere und Vogel, welche auf einer Reise zwischen dem 13ten und dem 23sten Grade stidlicher Breite im 6stlichen Brasilien beobachtet wurden. U1. Abtheilung. Mammalia. Saugthiere, vol. 2. 622 pp., 5 pls. Gr. H.S. priv. Landes-Industrie-Comptoirs, Weimar. Woodman, N. 1993. The correct gender of mammalian generic names ending in —ofis. Journal of Mammalogy, 74: 544 — 546. Woodman, N. 1996. Taxonomic status of the enigmatic Cryptotis avia (Mammalia: Insectivora: Soricidae), with comments on the distribution of the Colombian small-eared shrew, Cryptotis colombiana. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 109: 409-418. Woodman, N. 2003. A new small-eared shrew of the Cryptotis nigrescens-group from Colombia (Mammalia: Soricomorpha: Soricidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 116: 853-872. Woodman, N., Cuartas, C.A. & Delgado, C.A. 2003. The humerus of Cryptotis colombiana and its bearing on the phylogenetic relationships of the species (Soricomorpha: Soricidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 84: 832 — 839. Woodman, N. & Timm, R.M. 1992. A new species of small-eared shrew, genus Cryptotis (Insectivora: Soricidae), from Honduras. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 105: 1-12. Woodman, N. & Timm, R.M. 1993. Intraspecific and interspecific variation in the Cryptotis nigrescens species complex of small-eared shrews (Insectivora: Soricidae), with the description of a new species from Colombia. Fieldiana Zoology, (new series) No. 74: 1-30. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 210. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Case 3327 Amyot, Méthode mononymique (1845-1847): proposed correction to Opinion 686 I.M. Kerzhner Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya nab. 1, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 80.4 of the Code, is to amend the ruling given in Opinion 686. Confusion has been caused by the omission of part of the work by C.J.B. Amyot, 1845-1847. The work in question is Entomologie Frangaise. Rhynchotes. Méthode mononymique, and was published in Annales de la Société Entomologique de France and reprinted as a book (Amyot, 1848). It is proposed to amend the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology and to correct a pagination error published therein. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; C.J.B. Amyot, Méthode Mononymique; Hemiptera. 1. C.J.B. Amyot (1845-1847) published in Annales de la Société entomologique de France a large work in 5 parts; it was repaginated and published subsequently as a book (Amyot, 1848). The non-binominal character of nomenclature used in the whole work was clearly stated by Amyot himself in the Preface (1845, p. 369; 1848, p. 1): ‘le mode de nomenclature que nous y avons adopte, sous le titre de Méthode mononymique . . . consiste dans application d’un nom unique, donne a chaque espece, aux lieu de deux, le nom générique et le nom spécifique, comme cela se pratique dans la nomenclature en usage depuis Linne’ (translation: the nomenclature which we adopted here under the title “Uninominal method’ consists of the application of a single name to each species, instead of two, the generic name and the specific name, as this is used in nomenclature after Linnaeus). The unavailability of Amyot’s work for zoological nomenclature has been stressed in the literature many times. At the time the original application (Z.N.(S.) 1478) was submitted the work was unavailable under Article 25 (b) of the rules then in force: International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature (1905). At the time of publication (1962, BZN 19: 42) Article 10 (c) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature reinforced the criteria of availability and all subsequent editions have maintained the Principle of Binominal Nomenclature (see Article 11.4 of the 4th edition of the Code (1999)). 2. None of the subsequent parts (of the journal version) of the work contain the subtitle ‘Méthode mononymique’, but they are clearly marked as continuations (‘suite’) with a reference to all of the previously published parts and do not differ from the first part in nomenclatural approach. 3. Some of Amyot’s uninominals were made available as genus- or species-group names by 19th century authors (Lucas, 1849, p. 83; Dallas, 1852, pp. 524, 525; Gorski, 1852, p. 81; Kolenati,; 1857, pp. 404, 407, 414, 417, 422, 425, 427; Fieber, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 147 1866, p. 505; Mulsant & Rey, 1866, p. 267; 1870, p. 158). Starting with Puton (1899, pp. 13, 17, 18, 89, 99, 100), all these names were credited to these subsequent authors and in concepts used by them, but which do not always coincide with those of Amyot. In most groups this approach was used even earlier (e.g. Stal, 1861, pp. 617, 619 for the names of CICADOIDEA). 4. Amyot’s work (both journal and book) was rejected for nomenclatural purposes in Opinion 686 (BZN 20: 423) because the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature. Unfortunately the pages of one part of the journal version (vol. 5, pp. 143-238) were not cited in the original proposal (BZN 19: 42) or in Opinion 686 (though figures to this part, t. 2, were cited). This obvious omission and the absence of a subtitle (see above) were used to presume that the part of the work that was not listed in the Opinion was available for nomenclatural purposes and that the uninominal species names of CICADOIDEA contained in this part are available as generic names (see Melville & Sims, 1984; Boulard, 1991; Boulard & Weiner, 2001) with resulting changes in the long established generic nomenclature. 5. To eliminate the source of confusion it is proposed under Article 80.4 that the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology should be amended to correct the pagination cited for vol. 5 from Amyot, C.J.B. 1847. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 5: 453-542, t. 2-7 to ibid. 5: 143-238, 453-542, tis 2p To 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to amend the ruling given in Opinion 686 to include vol. 5, pp. 143-238; (2) to correct the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology for the pagination cited for vol. 5 to pp. 143-238, 453-542, t. 2, 7. References Amyot, C.J.B. 1845-1847. Entomologie Frangaise. Rhynchotes. Méthode mononymique. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)3(1845): 369-492, t. 8, 9; (2)4(1846): 73-192, 359-452, t. 10; (2)5(1847): 143-238, 453-542, t. 2, 7. Amyot, C.J.B. 1848. Entomologie Francaise. Rhynchotes. Méthode mononymique. 504 pp. Bailliere. Paris & London. Boulard, M. 1991. Quelle espece type pour le genre Me/ampsalta Amyot, 1847? (Homoptera, Tibicinidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie, (n. s.)8(1); 25-28. Boulard, M. & Weiner, J. 2001. Higher taxonomy and nomenclature of the Cicadoidea or true Cicadas: history, problems and solution (Rhynchota Auchenorrhyncha Cicadomorpha). EPHE, Biologie et Evolution des Insectes, 14(2000): 1-48. Dallas, W.S. 1852. List of the specimens of hemipterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part 2, pp. 369-592, pls. XII-XV. Taylor & Francis, London. Fieber, F.X. 1866. Neue Gattungen und Arten in Homoptern (Cicadina Bur.). Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 16: 496-534. Gorski, S.B. 1852. Analecta ad entomographiam provinciarum occidentali-meridionalium Imperti Rossici I. xix, 214 pp. Nicolai, Berlin. Kolenati, F.A. 1857. Meletemata entomologica, fasc. VII. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 30(2): 399-443. Lucas, H. 1849. Histoire naturelle des animaux articulés. Cinquieme classe, Insectes. Explo- ration scientifique de l’ Algérie pendant les années 1840, 1841, 1842. Zoologie, vol. 3. 527 pp. Bertrand, Paris. Melville, R.V. & Sims, R.W. 1984. Tibicina Amyot, 1847 and Lyristes Horvath, 1926 (Insecta, Hemiptera, Homoptera): proposed conservation by the suppression of Tibicen Berthold, 1827. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 41: 163-184. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1866. Histoire naturelle des punaises de France ( Pentatomides). 372 pp. Savy & Deyrolle, Paris. Mulsant, E. & Rey, C. 1870. Histoire naturelle des punaises de France. Coréides, Alydides, Berytides, Stenocephalides. 250 pp. Deyrolle, Paris. Puton, A. 1899. Catalogue des Hémiptéres (Hétéroptéres, Cicadines et Psyllides) de la faune paléarctique. 4me Ed. 121 pp. Société Francaise d’Entomologie, Caén. Stal, C. 1861. Genera nonnula nova Cicadinorum. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)1: 613-622. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 209. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 149 Comment on the proposed conservation of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera) (Case 3292: see BZN 62: 8-13) Yves Roisin Behavioral & Evolutionary Ecology — CP 160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium 1. The objective of the application is to conserve the names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937, by suppressing the name Eutermes Heer, 1849, because it threatens Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (and the family-group name based upon it, NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937). These two generic names Nasutitermes and Microcerotermes are obviously in broad use for important termites and should be conserved. The question is whether they are actually threatened by Eutermes Heer, 1849 to a point which justifies the suppression of the latter. As pointed out by Engel & Krishna (paras. 1, 2, 6) the type species of Eutermes Heer, 1849 is Termes (Eutermes) debilis Heer, 1849 as designated by Banks (1919, p. 482). The type specimen of T. debilis is presently untraceable. It is an 1mago described as in amber (‘Bernstein’). Neither its age nor its geographic locality are known. Heer’s description (Heer, 1849, p. 35) and illustration (pl. III, fig. 6) are not diagnostic at the generic level. According to Hagen’s (1858) observations, this imago is in gum copal and possibly represents a Recent species from Porto Rico now placed in Microcerotermes, but this assignment is far from conclusive. There is, at best, only weak evidence for considering Eutermes to be a senior synonym of Microcerotermes. Synonymy with Nasutitermes is even less likely. These genera differ from each other to such an extent that they are today placed in different subfamilies. Suspecting that either of them might be a synonym of Eutermes, Heer is symptomatic of the poor characterization of this latter genus. Of course, should the type specimen of T. debilis be found, its study might confirm the synonymy of Eutermes with Nasutitermes, Microcerotermes or another termite genus in use. Engel & Krishna asked the Commission to suppress the name Eutermes as a preventive measure, because the resolution of its identity might create instability. Such a ruling would seem premature to me, because no synonymy with potentially destabilising consequences is suggested by current taxonomic knowledge. Such synonymy remains only a mere possibility in case of a very hypothetical future revision, after which Ewtermes might just as well be recognized as a distinct genus. The Commission should not encourage initiatives aimed at suppressing dubious names before they are adequately characterized for fear they might ultimately turn out to be senior synonyms of well-known taxa. I therefore recommend that the Commission does not use its plenary power, as requested by Engel & Krishna (para. 11(1)(a)), to suppress the name Eutermes Heer, 1849. 2. The second objective of this application 1s to clarify the status of the type species of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890. The status of this nominal genus has been discussed by various authors, most recently Constantino (2002), who concluded that Eutermes 150 Bulletin of Zoclogical Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 costalis Holmgren, 1910 was validly designated as type species by Emerson (1925, p. 379). Engel & Krishna (para. 3), however, returned to the designation by Banks (in Banks & Snyder, 1920, p. 69) of Termes morio Latreille, 1805 as type species of Nasutitermes. There are two problems with this designation: (1) 7. morio was not among the species originally included in Nasutitermes; (2) T. morio is not a new name, but refers .to specimens which Latreille misidentified as 7. morio Fabricius, 1793. Emerson (1925, p. 379) considered that the name Nasutitermes costalis (Holmgren, 1910) should replace Termes morio Latreille and concluded that “N. costalis (Holmgren) will be the type species of Nasutitermes’. Engel & Krishna referred to Article 70.3 of the Code (‘Misidentified type species’) to conclude that the type species should be chosen from the nominal species previously cited as type species (in this case, Termes morio Fabricius, 1793) or the taxonomic species actually involved (Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910). However, Article 67.9 states that the provisions of Article 70.3 apply only if a validly fixed type species is later found to have been misidentified. Since Termes morio was not among the originally included nominal species (Article 67.2), it was not validly fixed by Banks as type species of Nasutitermes and Article 70.3 is not applicable. The discussion by Engel & Krishna of the consequences of the application of Article 70.3 to this case is irrelevant. Termes morio Fabricius is not available for type species fixation and E. costalis Holmgren is not the only alternative. The relevant question is whether Emerson’s (1925) statement constitutes a valid designation of E. costalis Holmgren as type species. It is clear that Emerson accepted the designation of 7. morio, but only considered that the name of the species had to be changed. For this reason, Engel & Krishna rejected Emerson’s statement as a new type species designation. However, according to Constantino (2002, p. 534), the fact that Emerson’s reasoning was wrong does not invalidate the type species designation. Article 69.1.1 states that “... an author is deemed to have designated one of the originally included nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type species’. It is clear that we should follow Constantino in accepting that Emerson (1925) validly designated E. costalis as type species of Nasutitermes, even though his argument was wrong. No ruling of the Commission is needed in this case, since E. costalis is in current use as type species of Nasutitermes. The Commission could, however, use its specific powers (Article 78.2.3) to ‘interpret the provisions of the Code’ and confirm that Emerson’s (1925) statement, reproduced above, does constitute a valid type species designation. Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 (currently Chlosyne nycteis; Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 3280; see BZN 62: 79-83) (1) David M. Wright 124 Heartwood Drive, Lansdale, PA 19446, U.S.A. I support the application by Calhoun, Miller & Miller requesting that the name Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 is conserved, and the problematic name Melitaea Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 151 ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1835 is suppressed. Being familiar with this contentious situation in North America, and having served as reviewer for papers from both sides of the issue, I agree with the conclusions of the authors. From historical research we know that the drawing by John Abbot, used as the template for the illustration of M. ismeria by Boisduval & Le Conte (1833, pl. 46), was copied faithfully by Abbot five times. The evidence (six drawings of the same insect by Abbot) confirms that Abbot painted the insect we know as Dryas gorgone Htibner, 1810. Therefore, the designation by Gatrelle (1998) of a neotype that makes M. ismeria and M. nycteis synonyms was incorrect. In my opinion, the available options are: (1) to suppress the name M. ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte (as proposed in para. 14(1)), or (2) to invalidate the recently designated neotype of M. ismeria. | prefer option 1, which effectively executes both. (2) Mark Salvato 1765 17th Avenue SW, Vero Beach, Florida, U.S.A. I fully agree with authors John V. Calhoun, Lee D. Miller & Jacqueline Y. Miller regarding the conservation of the scientific name Mylitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1947 as proposed in Case 3280. In the recent literature Calhoun (2003, 2004) has presented overwhelming evidence that indicates M. nycteis is the appropriate name for the butterfly in question and that M. ismeria should be suppressed. We now know that the original Abbot drawing used by Boisduval & Le Conte (1835) to describe M. ismeria was actually a drawing of M. gorgone. Therefore, the insect M. ismeria was erroneously named in 1835, as no such insect existed then and all specimens observed to date are either of nycteis or gorgone. In 1847, Doubleday correctly named M. nycteis from examination of a drawing that indeed was of a new insect. The name ismeria is not synonymous with nycteis as Gatrelle (1998) suggests; the name ismeria applies to an insect that never actually existed. The scientific name Mylitaea ismeria should be suppressed as Calhoun, Miller & Miller suggest and this butterfly should continue to be referred to correctly as Mylitaea nycteis. (3) Dale F. Schweitzer Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoologist, NatureServe, 1761 Main Street, Port Norris, NJ 08349, U.S.A. I am writing in support of the petition before you by Calhoun, Miller & Miller regarding Case 3280. I strongly urge use of the Commission’s plenary power to 152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 suppress the name Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1835 and_to place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology to preserve 158 years of nomenclatural stability. As an experienced professional lepidopterist, past curator, author of five moth species, and contributor to a major conservation database, | cannot think of a case where suppression is more warranted among North American Lepidoptera. As is well documented in the petition before you regarding Case 3280, the names Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte and M. nycteis Doubleday have both been around for over 150 years although, being butterflies, generic combina- tions have changed often. The petition gives a very complete history of these names. Gatrelle’s recent neotype designation would upset over 150 years of stability and is counter even to the one 20" century worker, J.H. McDunnough, to have examined an actual Boisduval specimen (perhaps the holotype or a syntype) who synonymized ismeria to gorgone, see the petition point 10. Prior to Gatrelle’s radical change, no author had suggested that AZ. nycteis and M. ismeria refer to the same species. AZ. ismeria has almost universally been treated as conspecific with what is now Chlosyne gorgone (the senior name), which is also the conclusion of the exhaustive study by John Calhoun, the lead author of the petition, or treated as a nomen incognitum. In contrast the name nycfeis has been applied universally to the same widespread and familiar butterfly since it was first proposed [58 years ago. The current (but pre-Gatrelle) combination Ch/osyne nycteis (Doubleday) also is in use in virtually every taxonomic and conservation database and web site that deals with North American butterflies, not to mention most major Lepidoptera collections in the world and many publications popular and scientific. Gatrelle’s case is not conclusive (see petition points 8-11). Calhoun’s argument in a respected peer reviewed journal that ismeria is conspecific with gorgone appears to be the stronger one based on the evidence. Note in particular items 8 and 10 in the petition, Calhoun apparently did, and Gatrelle apparently did not, locate the original Abbott plate upon which the name was based. Some of the ancient figures involved might be best identified as ‘unrecognizable’ rather than as any taxon. I have seen at least one personally and did not know which of these familiar species, if any, it represents. Calhoun’s review and findings, upon which this petition is largely based, agree with, or at least do not contradict, virtually every author before him, except for Gatrelle. Gatrelle’s article notably did not appear in a peer-reviewed periodical. Unfortunately his ill-advised neotype designation appears to me to be valid and, if any workers followed it, it would needlessly upset IS8 years of nomenclatural stability for a widespread North American butterfly and is counter to the conclusions of all other authors who have commented on the matter. This would needlessly create a lot of confusion, at least in the short term. I would support this petition in the name of nomenclatural stability even if I agreed with Gatrelle’s conclusions regarding the true identity of Melitaea ismeria, and in my opinion he should have petitioned to have the name suppressed. Therefore | hope the Commission will resolve this matter by suppressing this poorly founded and little used name, rather than allow it to replace a long-standing familiar name based on very questionable conclusions and an ill-advised neotype designation, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 153 Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 3295; see BZN 62: 18-20) W. Gerald Tremewan Pentreath, 6 Carlyon Road, Playing Place, Truro, Cornwall TR3 6EU, U.K. I fully support the application brought before the Commission by Dr Shen-Horn Yen. 154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 OPINION 2121 (Case 3229) Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): not conserved; priority maintained for Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the generic name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950, for a group of Cambrian fossil sponge-like archaeocyaths (family ERBOCYATHIDAE). The junior replacement name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955, proposed to replace the preoccupied name Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928, is not conserved. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Archaeocyatha; ERBOCYATHIDAE; Erbocyathus; Polycyathus heterovallum; Pluralicyathus; Early Cambrian; fossil. Ruling (1) The proposal to suppress the generic name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy was not approved and priority is thereby maintained for Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950. (2) The name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950 (gender: masculine), type species Polycyathus heterovallumn Vologdin, 1928 by subsequent designation by Simon (1939), is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name heterovallum Vologdin, 1928, as published in the binomen Polycyathus heterovallum (specific name of the type species of Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956, type genus Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zooldégy: (a) Erbocyathus Zhuravleva,- 1955 (a junior objective synonym of Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950); (b) Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 (a junior homonym of Polycyathus Duncan, 1876). — Nn wm History of Case 3229 An application to conserve the generic name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (a replacement name for the preoccupied name Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 (not Duncan, 1876)), for a group of Cambrian fossil sponge-like archaeocyaths (family ERBOCYATHIDAE), threatened by the use in 1955 of an older replacement name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950 was received from Frangoise Debrenne (Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France), Andrey Yu. Zhuravlev (Ministry of Natural Resources, Moscow, Russia) and Peter D. Kruse (Northern Territory Geological Survey, Darwin, Australia) on 4 February 2002. After Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005. 155 correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 12-15 (March 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. The application was sent to the Commission for voting on | September 2004. The case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds majority (13 votes in favour and 11 against; one Commissioner was on leave of absence). Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga and Brothers considered that priority should be maintained; Nielsen and Stys did not accept Zhuravleva’s (1955) text as satisfying the requirements for proposing a replacement name. As a result, the application was submitted for a second vote on 1 March 2005 under Bylaw 35. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote again on the proposals published in BZN 60: 14. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 5: Bock, Halliday, Macpherson, Mahnert and Papp. Negative votes — 13: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Kerzhner, Lamas, Minelli, Nielsen, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Mawatari abstained. No votes were received from Bohme, Ng and Song. 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: ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956, Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., 111: 879. Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955, Trudy, Paleontologicheskiy Institut, Akademiya Nauk S.S.S.R., 56: 44. heterovallum, Polycyathus, Vologdin, 1928, Ezhegodnik Russkogo Paleontologicheskogo Obsh- chestva, 7: 36. Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950, Journal of Paleontology, 24: 503. Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928, Ezhegodnik Russkogo Paleontologicheskogo Obshchestva, 7: 32. The following is the reference for the designation of Polycyathus heterovallum Vologdin, 1928 as the type species of the nominal genus Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950: Simon, W. 1939. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschende Gesellschaft, 448: 34. 156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 OPINION 2122 (Case 3276) Narella Gray, 1870 (Coelenterata, Octocorallia): usage conserved by designation of a neotype for its type species Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the generic name Narella Gray, 1870 (family PRIMNOIDAE) for a deep-sea western Atlantic octocoral is conserved by designating a neotype for its type species Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860. The holotype of P. regularis was recently found to belong in the genus Paracalyptrophora Kinoshita, 1908. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Octocorallia; PRIMNOIDAE; Narella; Paracalyp- trophora; Narella regularis; Lesser Antilles. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous type fixations for the nominal species Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 are hereby set aside and the specimen USNM 49385 in the United States National Museum, Washington, D.C., is designated as the neotype. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Narella Gray, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860; (b) Paracalyptrophora Kinoshita, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Cairns & Bayer (2004) Calyptrophora kerberti Versluys, 1906. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, as published in the binomen Primnoa regularis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of Narella Gray, 1870); (b) kerberti Versluys, 1906 as published in the binomen Calyptrophora kerberti (specific name of the type species of Paracalyptrophora Kinoshita, 1908). =~ i) 7 (3 a History of Case 3276 An application to conserve the current understanding and usage of the generic name Narella Gray, 1870 (family PRIMNOIDAE) for a deep-sea western Atlantic octocoral by designating a neotype for its type species Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 was received from Stephen D. Cairns and Frederick M. Bayer (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, U.S.A.) on 18 March 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 7-10 (March 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 61: 254. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 157 Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 8-9. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Bohme, Ng and Song. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: kerberti, Calyptrophora, Versluys, 1906, Siboga-Expeditie, 13a: 105. Narella Gray, 1870, Catalogue of the lithophytes or stony corals in the collection of the British Museum, p. 49. Paracalyptrophora Kinoshita, 1908, Journal of the College of Science, Imperial University, Tokyo, Japan, 23(12): 58, 63. regularis, Primnoa, Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860, Mémoires des l Académie des Sciences de Turin, (2)19: 293. The following is the reference for the designation of Calyptrophora kerberti Versluys, 1906 as the type species for the nominal genus Paracalyptrophora Kinoshita, 1908: Cairns, S.D. & Bayer, F.M. 2004. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(1): 174-199. 158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 OPINION 2123 (Case 999) F.A. Quenstedt’s trinominal nomenclature (1845-1888): usage of the third names of ammonites stabilized and 34 important Quenstedt names of ammonites placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that all Quenstedt’s third names in the nominal genus Ammonites are subspecific in rank and are therefore available names in the species-group and that seven such third names that are junior homonyms, but are type species of genera or indices of standard chronostratigraphic Zones or Subzones, are not invalid by reason of being junior homonyms. These seven names, together with 27 other Quenstedt second and third names that are in current use as important zonal or subzonal index fossils or as type species of ammonite genera and that are not preoccupied, are placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; F.A. Quenstedt; trinominal nomenclature; ammonites; Jurassic. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that: (a) all the third names published in combination with the genus Ammonites by Quenstedt in three works (1845-49; 1856-57; 1882-88) are subspecific names of the species-group, have availability and status dating from Quenstedt’s first usage, and can be raised to full specific rank under the Principle of Coordination (Article 46) where such action is considered to be appropriate; (b) the following third names are not invalid by reason of being junior homonyms: (1) albus, Ammonites anceps, Quenstedt, 1857; (2) anceps, Ammonites contractus, Quenstedt, 1886; (3) bifurcatus, Ammonites biplex, Quenstedt, 1846; (4) macer, Ammonites humphriesianus, Quenstedt, 1886; (5) numismalis, Ammonites heterophyllus, Quenstedt, 1845; (6) obtusus, Ammonites murchisonae, Quenstedt, 1846; (7) ovalis, Ammonites sowerbyi, Quenstedt, 1886. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) albus, Ammonites anceps, Quenstedt, 1857 (specific name of the type species of Ilovaiskioceras Sazonov, 1960); (b) anceps, Ammonites contractus, Quenstedt, 1886 (specific name of the type species of Epalxites Mascke, 1907); arenatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1886 (specific name of the type species of Prepapillites Buckman, 1927); YS ae wa ~ (c (d) (x) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 159 baculatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857 (specific name of the type species of Baculatoceras Mascke, 1907); bidentosus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857 (specific name of the type species of Trochiskioceras Schairer & Schlamp, 1991); bifer, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1843 (specific name of the type species of Bifericeras Buckman, 1913); bifurcatus, Ammonites biplex, Quenstedt, 1846 (specific name of the type species of Divisosphinctes Beurlen, 1925); bimammatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857 (specific name of the type species of Epipeltoceras Spath, 1924); biruncinatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1847 (specific name of the type species of Simoceras Zittel, 1870); circumspinosus, Ammonites inflatus, Quenstedt, 1857 (senior subjective synonym of Ammonites circumspinosus Oppel, 1863; specific name of the type species of Physodoceras Hyatt, 1900); confusus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1856 (specific name of the type species of Microceras Hyatt, 1867); fasciatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1848 (specific name of the type species of Lytogyroceras Spath, 1925); ibex, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1843; involutus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1846 (specific name of the type species of Involuticeras Salfeld, 1913); laqueus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1856; latisulcatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1883 (specific name of the type species of Epammonites Spath, 1922); longidens, Ammonites parkinsoni, Quenstedt, 1886 (specific name of the type species of Odontolkites Buckman, 1925); macer, Ammonites humphriesianus, Quenstedt, 1886 (specific name of the type species of Skirroceras Mascke, 1907); microbiplex, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1887 (specific name of the type species of Microbiplices Arkell, 1936); nodostrictus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1885 (specific name of the type species of Holcolytoceras Spath, 1924); nodulatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1888 (specific name of the type species of Presimoceras Sarti, 1990); numismalis, Ammonites heterophyllus, Quenstedt, 1845 (specific name of the type species of Tragophylloceras Hyatt, 1900); obtusus, Ammonites murchisonae, Quenstedt, 1846 (specific name of the type species of Cosmogyria Buckman, 1898); ovalis, Ammonites sowerbyi, Quenstedt, 1886; (y) parinodus, Ammonites striatus, Quenstedt, 1884 (specific name of the type species of Parinodiceras Trueman, 1918); (z) pettos, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1843 (specific name of the type species of Coeloceras Hyatt, 1867); (aa) planarmatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1856 (specific name of the type species of Parahyperderoceras Schlatter, 1980); 160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 (bb) ruga, Ammonites armatus, Quenstedt, 1884 (specific name of the type species of Hyperderoceras Spath, 1926); (cc) septenarius, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857 (specific name of the type species of Ceratosphinctes Ziegler, 1959); (dd) spiratissimus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1851 (specific name of the type species of Vermiceras Hyatt, 1889); (ee) tegulatus, Ammonites pictus, Quenstedt, 1887 (specific name of the type species of Taramelliceras (Strebliticeras) Holder, 1955); (ff) tortus, Ammonites lineatus, Quenstedt, 1885 (specific name of the type species of Derolytoceras Rosenberg, 1909); (gg) transversarius, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1847 (specific name of the type species of Gregoryceras Spath, 1924); (hh) unispinosus, Ammonites athleta, Quenstedt, 1847 (specific name of the type species of Unipeltoceras Jeannet, 1951). History of Case 999 An application to stabilize the usage of the third names of a number of ammonites established by F.A. Quenstedt (1845-1888) and to place 34 of his species-group names on the Official List was received from John H. Callomon and Desmond T. Donovan (University College London, Gower Street, London WCIE 6BT, U.K.) and Michael K. Howarth (Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) on 14 December 2003. The case was originally sent to the Commission’s Secretary by Professor Dr Helmut Holder (then at the Institute and Museum of Geology and Palaeontology, University of Tubingen, Germany) on 12 July 1955. Following correspondence, Professor Holder outlined the problem in a paper published in Paldontologische Zeitschrift (Holder, 1958). Hoélder’s proposals were never considered by the Commission for a number of reasons, including the intensive work then being done in formulating what was to become the first International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in 1961. Later Holder (1972) stated that his proposals of 1958 were no longer entirely appropriate. Provisions of the current (fourth) Edition of the Code enabled the case to be considered under Article 45.6.4. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 11-18 (March 2004). A general account of Quenstedt’s system of trinominal nomenclature as applied to ammonites was published in 2004 by Callomon, Donovan & Howarth (Palaeontology, 47(4): 1063-1073). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 16-18. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 16 + 2 split votes: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, voted FOR (1)(a), (1)(b) (3), (1)(b) (7), (2)(a), (2)(b), (2)(g), (2)(r), (2)(v), (2)(w), Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner: (1)(b) (1), (1)(b) (3), (1)(b) (4), (1)(b) (5), 1)(b) (6), (1)(b) (7), Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg and van Tol. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 161 Negative votes — 2 split votes: Bouchet: (1)(b)(1), (1)(b) (2), (1)(b) (4), (1)(b) (5), (1)(b) (6), and Kerzhner: (1)(a), (2)(a), (2)(b) (2)(), (2)(d), (2)(e), (2), (2)(g), (2)(h), (2)G), (2)G), (2)(k), (2)0), (2)(m), (2)(n), (2)(0), (2)(P), (2)(q), 204), (2)(8), (2)(0), (2)(u), (2)(v), (2)(w), (VX), 2)(y), (2)(Z), (2)(aa), (2)(bb), (2)(cc), (2)(dd), (2)(ee), (2)(f)), (2)(gg), (2)(hh). Bouchet abstained on (2)(c), (2)(d), (2)(e), (2)(), (2)(h), (2)(), (2)G), (2)(K), (2)(), (2)(m), (2)(m), (2)(0), (2)(p), (2)(q), (2)(8), AH, ZAM), (2)(0), (2)(y), (2)(Z), (2)(aa), (2)(bb), (2)(cc), (2)(dd), (2)(ee), (2)(f), (2)(gg), (2)(hh), Kerzhner abstained on (1)(b) (2) and Stys abstained. No votes were received from Bohme, Ng and Song. Bouchet commented that ‘it is refreshing to see that the Commission can finally take action on problems that have remained in limbo for decades. However, I feel that the proposals for voting confusingly mix three different issues: (1) to confirm the availability of Quenstedt’s ‘third names’; this is proposal I(a) and I unequivocally vote FOR it; (2) to declare that 7 such ‘third names’ are not invalid by reason of being junior homonyms; I vote FOR the conservation of the two names (bifurcatus and ovalis) that are index species of standard chronostratigraphic Zones, because application of the Principle of Homonymy would cause disruption outside the small world of systematics. However, the other five ‘third names’ in List A are ‘merely’ types of genera. The application does not contain evidence that application of the Principle of Homonymy (i.e., declaring these names nomenclaturally invalid) would cause confusion outside the world of ammonite systematics and what would be the magnitude of the confusion or what is the current level of usage of these names. Therefore, I vote AGAINST exempting these 5 names from the Principle of Homonymy. (3) Finally there are the 22 names in List C, which are standard specific epithets and are not junior homonyms. I see no reason, other than ‘housekeeping’, to place them on the Official List. I abstain on this action. Kerzhner commented, voting for (1)(b) (1, 3-7), except for anceps, which is not threatened by secondary homonymy (Article 59.2). Voting against (1)(a) he com- mented that Article 45.6.4 of the Code is badly worded and confusing, but it does not follow from it that Quenstedt’s third names are infrasubspecific and require special ruling for their conservation and against (2): it is useless to place on Official Lists names for which no ruling is made. Abstaining, Stys commented: ‘in principle I would agree with the proposals, but would have preferred postponing the vote because (1) if F.A. Quenstedt’s trinominal nomenclature of ammonites is that big a problem for palaeontologists, as the authors suggest, I wonder why nobody commented; (2) names included in the List A (para. 5) should not be automatically accepted as subspecific and valid unless the effect of such an action for their senior homonyms was stated and explained case by case; (3) I fail to understand fully the differences between Lists B and C, according to the explanation given in the introductory text the lists should grossly overlap’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: (a) albus, Ammonites anceps, Quenstedt, 1857, Der Jura, p. 617. 162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 (b) anceps, Ammonites contractus, Quenstedt, 1886, Die Ammoniten des Schwa- bischen Jura, p. 521. (c) arenatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1886, Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, U1, Der Braune Jura, p. 482. (d) baculatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857, Der Jura, p. 402. (e) bidentosus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857, Der Jura, p. 616. (f) bifer, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1843, Das Flézgebirge Wiirttembergs, p. 160. (g) bifurcatus, Ammonites biplex, Quenstedt, 1846, Petrefactenkunde Deutsch- lands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 163. (h) bimammatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857, Der Jura, p. 616. (1) biruncinatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1847, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 260. (j) circumspinosus, Ammonites inflatus, Quenstedt, 1857, Der Jura, p. 609. (k) confusus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1856, Der Jura, p. 127. (1) fasciatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1848, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 271. (m) ibex, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1843, Das Flézgebirge Wiirttembergs, p. 179. (n) involutus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1846, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 165. ; (0) laqueus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1856, Der Jura, p. 43. (p) latisulcatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1883, Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, p. 85. (q) longidens, Ammonites parkinsoni, Quenstedt, 1886, Die Ammoniten des Schwéa- bischen Jura, 1, Der Braune Jura, p. 592. (t) macer, Ammonites humphriesianus, Quenstedt, 1886, Die Ammoniten des Schwabischen Jura, 1, Der Braune Jura, p. 528. (s) microbiplex, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1887, Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, p. 876. (t) nodostrictus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1885, Die Ammoniten des Schwdabischen Jura, p. 264. (u) nodulatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1888, Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, p. 981. I (v) numismalis, Ammonites heterophyllus, Quenstedt, 1845, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 100. (w) obtusus, Ammonites murchisonae, Quenstedt, 1846, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 116. (x) ovalis, Ammonites sowerbyi, Quenstedt, 1886, Die Ammoniten des Schwébischen Jura, U1, Der Braune Jura, p. 488. (y) parinodus, Ammonites striatus, Quenstedt, 1884, Die Ammoniten des Schwabischen Jura, 1, Der Schwarze Jura (Lias), p. 227. (z) pettos, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1843, Das Flézgebirge Wiirttembergs, p. 178. (aa) planarmatus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1856, Der Jura, p. 153. (bb) ruga, Ammonites armatus, Quenstedt, 1884, Die Ammoniten des Schwdabischen Jura, 1, Der Schwarze Jura (Lias), p. 206. (cc) septenarius, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1857, Der Jura, p. 614. (dd) spiratissimus, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1851, Handbuch der Petrefaktenkunde, p. 355. wH Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 163 (ee) tegulatus, Ammonites pictus, Quenstedt, 1887, Die Ammoniten des Schwabischen Jura, UW, Der Weisse Jura, p. 1051. (ff) tortus, Ammonites lineatus, Quenstedt, 1885, Die Ammoniten des Schwabischen Jura, 1, Der Schwarze Jura (Lias), p. 309. (gg) transversarius, Ammonites, Quenstedt, 1847, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 199. (hh) unispinosus, Ammonites athleta, Quenstedt, 1847, Petrefactenkunde Deutschlands. Die Cephalopoden, p. 190. 164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 OPINION 2124 (Case 3244) TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): usage conserved by the designation of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis and the family-group name TERMOPSIDAE given precedence over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the generic names Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 and the family name TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 are conserved for well-known groups of termites by designating Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis. Both nominal genera had the same type species, Termopsis procera Heer, 1849. The family-group name TERMOPSIDAE IS given precedence Over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; TERMOPSIDAE; STOLOTERMITINAE; Termopsis; Miotermes; Stolotermes; Termopsis bremii; Miotermes procerus; Stolotermes brunneicornis; termites. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power: (a) the family-group name TERMoPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 and other family- group names based on Termopsis Heer, 1849 are hereby given precedence Over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 and other family-group names based on Stolotermes Hagen, 1858 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Termopsis Heer, 1849 are hereby set aside and Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 is designated as the type species. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List.of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Termopsis Heer, 1849 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)(b) above Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849; (b) Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation Termopsis procera Heer, 1849; (c) Stolotermes Hagen, 1858 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Hodotermes (Stolotermes) brunneicornis Hagen, 1858. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) bremii Heer, 1849, as published in the binomen Termopsis bremii (specific name of the type species of Termopsis Heer, 1849); (b) procera Heer, 1849, as published in the binomen Termopsis procera (specific name of the type species of Miotermes Rosen, 1913); (c) brunneicornis Hagen, 1858, as published in the binomen Hodotermes brun- neicornis (specific name of the type species of Stolotermes Hagen, 1858). —~ i) — —~ (SS) a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 165 (4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (type genus Termopsis Heer, 1849), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Termopsis are to be given precedence over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 and other family-group names based on Stolotermes Hagen, 1858 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 (type genus Stolotermes Hagen, 1858), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Stolotermes are not to be given priority over TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 and other family-group names based on Termopsis Heer, 1849 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. History of Case 3244 An application to conserve the current usage of the generic names Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 and the family name TERMopSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 for well-known groups of termites by designating Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis was received from Michael S. Engel (Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A.) and Kumar Krishna and Christopher Boyko (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.) on 23 April 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 119-123 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment correcting the gender of the name Termopsis and the specific name of the type species of Miotermes was published in BZN 60: 303. The authors replied in agreement and additionally noted the priority of the name sTOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 over TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911; amended proposals were published in BZN 61: 169-170. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the amended proposals published in BZN 61: 169-170. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner (in part), Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg and Stys. Negative votes — 1: van Tol. Kerzhner abstained from voting on (1)(a) and (4). No votes were received from Bohme, Ng and Song. Voting against, van Tol commented that ‘the authors did not provide a sound basis for the reversal of priority of family-group names based on Termopsis and Stolotermes, whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. The family-group name sTOLOTERMITINAE was used, for instance, by Coaton & Sheasby, 1978. Cimbebasia Series A, Natuurwetenskappe, 3: 207-213’. Kerzhner split his vote: voting for ‘except (1)(a) and respective statements in (4) and noted that the problem is covered by Article 35.5 of the Code; no use of plenary powers was needed’. 166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: bremii, Termopsis, Heer, 1849, Die Insektenfauna der Tertidrgebilde von Oeningen und yon Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen, p. 31. brunneicornis, Hodotermes, Hagen, 1858, Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 105. Miotermes Rosen, 1913, Transactions of the Second International Congress of Entomology, Oxford 1912, 2: 325. procera, Termopsis, Heer, 1849, Die Insektenfauna der Tertidrgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen, p. 23. Stolotermes Hagen, 1858, Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 105. STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 35: 285. rERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, L911, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 46(6): 35. Termopsis Heer, 1849, Die Insektenfauna der Tertidrgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen, p. 23. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 167 OPINION 2125 (Case 3287) LABIDAE Burr, 1909 (Insecta, Dermaptera): given precedence over ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the usage of the family-group name LABIIDAE Burr, 1909 is conserved for a widely encountered group of cosmopolitan earwigs. The name LABHDAE Burr, 1909 (type genus Labia Leach, 1815) is given precedence over the unused senior subfamily name ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902 (type genus Jsolabella Verhoeff, 1902) whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Dermaptera; LABIIDAE; ISOLABELLINAE; Isola- bella; Labia; earwigs. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the family-group name LABUDAE Burr, 1909 and other family-group names based on Labia Leach, 1815 are hereby given precedence over ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902 and other family-group names based on Isolabella Verhoeff, 1902 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. (2) The name Jsolabella Verhoeff, 1902 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy I/solabella graeca Verhoeff, 1902, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name graeca Verhoeff, 1902, as published in the binomen /solabella graeca (specific name of the type species of Isolabella Verhoeff, 1902) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) LABIDAE Burr, 1909 (type genus Labia Leach, 1815), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Labia are to be given precedence over ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902 and other family-group names based on Isolabella Verhoeff, 1902 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902 (type genus /solabella Verhoeff, 1902), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Jsolabella are not to be given priority over LABIIDAE Burr, 1909 and other family- group names based on Labia Leach, 1815 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. (4 — History of Case 3287 An application to conserve the usage of the family-group name LABIIDAE Burr, 1909 for a widely encountered group of cosmopolitan earwigs was received from Michael S. Engel (Natural History Museum and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Snow Hall, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7523, U.S.A.) on 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 16 May 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 23-24 (March 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Labia Leach, 1815 and its type species Forficula minor Linnaeus, 1758 were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 149 (December 1943). Decision of the Commission On | March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 24. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 19: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Bohme, Ng and Song. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: graeca, Isolabella, Verhoeff, 1902, Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1902: 16. Tsolabella Verhoeff, 1902, Sitzungsherichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1902: 15. ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902, Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin, 1902: 15. LABUDAE Burr, 1909, Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 1909: 323. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 . 169 OPINION 2126 (Case 3265) Lathrobium geminum Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over L. volgense Hochhuth, 1851 and L. boreale Hochhuth, 1851; L. volgense: given precedence over L. boreale Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the widely used rove beetle name Lathrobium geminum Kraatz, 1857 1s given precedence over the less well used, but senior, names L. boreale Hochhuth, 1851 and L. volgense Hochhuth, 1851, whenever it and either of the senior names are considered to be synonyms and that L. volgense is given precedence over the less well used, but senior, name L. boreale, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; Lathrobium bore- ale; Lathrobium volgense; Lathrobium geminum; rove beetles. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that: (a) the name geminum Kraatz, 1857, as published in the binomen Lathrobium geminum, is given precedence over the name boreale Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium boreale, and the name volgense Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium volgense, when- ever it and either of the others are considered to be synonyms; (b) the name volgense Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathro- bium volgense, is given precedence over the name boreale Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium boreale, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) geminum Kraatz, 1857, as published in the binomen Lathrobium geminum, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name boreale Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium boreale, and the name volgense Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium volgense, whenever it and either of the others are considered to be synonyms. (b) volgense Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium vol- gense, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name boreale Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium boreale, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms and that it is not to be given priority over geminum Kraatz, 1857, as published in the binomen Lathrobium geminum, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (c) boreale Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium boreale, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the names geminum Kraatz, 1857, as published in the binomen Lathrobium geminum, and volgense Hochhuth, 1851, as published in the binomen Lathrobium 170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 volgense, whenever it and either of the others are considered to be synonyms. (3) The name bicolor Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Lathrobium bicolor (a junior homonym of Lathrobium bicolor Gravenhorst, 1802), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3265 An application to stabilize the widespread usage of the name Lathrobium geminum Kraatz, 1857 for a rove beetle (family sTAPHYLINIDAE) by giving it precedence over its supposed synonyms L. boreale Hochhuth, 1851 and L. volgense Hochhuth, 1851 was received from Lee H. Herman (American Museum of Natural History, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.) on 14 January 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 25-28 (March 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 26—27. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 12: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Brothers, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Nielsen, Papp and Patterson. Negative votes — 6: Calder, Kerzhner, Minelli, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Bouchet abstained. No votes were received from Bo6hme, Ng and Song. Voting against, Kerzhner commented that priority should be maintained. Also voting against, Stys commented that ‘the suggested hierarchy of precedence would be confusing for all future taxonomists dealing with the species involved, particularly for those not fully aware of its nomenclatural history. No type specimens were mentioned in the application and therefore their importance to the case could not be established. Strict priority should be maintained’. Abstaining, Bouchet commented that ‘the application contains no information on the name-bearing types of the various names involved, so we have no assurance whether the nomenclatural decisions requested are/are not or will/will not be supported by the types’. 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: bicolor, Lathrobium, Heer, 1839, Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 240. boreale, Lathrobium, Hochhuth, 1851, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 24(2)(3): 41. geminum, Lathrobium, Kraatz, 1857, Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. Abt. 1. Coleoptera. Zweiter Band. Lief. 3-4, p. 673. volgense, Lathrobium, Hochhuth, 1851, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 24(2)(3): 42. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 . 171 OPINION 2127 (Case 3274) Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 for a species of diving beetle (family DyTIscIDAE) from central and western Europe, is conserved by giving it precedence over the senior synonym Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; pyTiscIDAE; Hydroporus; Hydro- porus foveolatus; Hydroporus nivalis; Alps; Europe. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name foveolatus Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus foveolatus, is hereby given precedence over the name nivalis Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus nivalis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) the following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) foveolatus Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus foveolatus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name nivalis Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus nivalis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) nivalis Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus nivalis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name foveolatus Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Hydroporus foveolatus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 3274 An application to conserve the specific name of Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 for a species of diving beetle (family pyTiscIDAE) from the mountains of central and western Europe, by giving it precedence over the senior synonym Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839 was received from Helena V. Shaverdo (Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus, 220072 Minsk, Belarus) and Manfred A. Jach (Naturhistorisches Museum, 1014 Wien, Austria) on 2 March 2003. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 60: 284-286 (December 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 285. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: 172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Affirmative votes — 15: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg and van Tol. Negative votes — 3: Bouchet, Lamas and Stys. No votes were received from Bohme, Kerzhner, Ng and Song. Voting against, Bouchet commented that ‘the presentation of the Case was very confusing. Para. 3 states that for more than a century the two species of diving beetles under consideration have been known as Hydroporus foveolatus and H. nivalis [= sabaudus = alticola|. Then, para. 4 states that ‘the species that has been regarded as nivalis since Ganglbauer is currently known as sabaudus’. This ‘currently’ obviously applies only to the situation since 2003 and has not yet got into the literature. Therefore, under the Code the names foveolatus and nivalis should be stabilized in their pre-2003 sense. This could have been done by designating, under the plenary power, the name-bearing type of sabaudus as holotype of nivalis. If we followed the proposals, the species hitherto known as nivalis would have to change name anyway . Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: foveolatus, Hydroporus, Heer, 1839, Fauna coleopterorum Helvetica, part 1, vol. 2, p. 157. nivalis, Hydroporus, Heer, 1839, Fauna coleopterorum Helvetica, part 1, vol. 2, p. 157. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 . 173 OPINION 2128 (Case 3283) Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833 (currently Trichostetha albopicta) and Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 (currently Oxythyrea albopicta) (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific names Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833 (currently Trichostetha albopicta) and Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 (currently Oxythyrea albopicta) (SCARABAEIDAE, CETONIINAE) for two fruit chafers by ruling that the name Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833. The names have never been in use simultaneously in the same nominal genus. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Oxythyrea albopicta; Trichostetha albopicta; fruit chafers. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845, as published in the binomen Cetonia albopicta, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Cetonia albopicta. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Cetonia albopicta; (b) albopicta Motschulsky, 1845, as published in the binomen Cetonia albopicta. (3) The name Cetonia leucosticta Reiche, 1860 (a nomen oblitum) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3283 An application to conserve the specific names Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833 (currently Trichostetha albopicta) and Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 (currently Oxythyrea albopicta) (SCARABAEIDAE, CETONIINAE) by ruling that the name Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833 was received from Frank-Thorsten Krell (Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.) on 22 April 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 29-31 (March 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 30. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: 174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Alonso-Zarazaga, Brothers, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Negative votes — |: Bouchet. Calder abstained. No votes were received from Bohme, Ng and Song. Voting against, Bouchet commented: ‘I sympathize with the intent of the applica- tion to exempt the name Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 from the Principle of Homonymy. However, I object to the technicalities of declaring Cetonia leucosticta a nomen oblitum. Article 23.9 sets the conditions for declaring simultaneously Cetonia leucosticta Reiche, 1860 a nomen oblitum and Cefonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 a nomen protectum. The conditions for the former are met, but the application contains only 10 references to usage of the younger name, which thus does not qualify as a nomen protectum under the Code. Given this limited usage of the name Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845, it does not justify, in my view, using the plenary powers to protect it’. Abstaining, Calder commented: ‘while I support the major proposals outlined in this case, I see no evidence that Cetonia leucosticta Reiche, 1860 should be considered a nomen oblitum (as stated in the application) under the Code. This matter should have been resolved before voting’. 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: albopicta, Cetonia, Gory & Percheron, 1833, Monographie des Cétoines et genres voisins, formant, dans les familles naturelles de Latreille, la division des Scarabées meélitophiles, p. 256. albopicta, Cetonia, Motschulsky, 1845, Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 18(1): 59. leucosticta, Cetonia, Reiche, 1860, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)7: ccix. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 . 175 OPINION 2129 (Case 3286) Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 is conserved for a widespread Palaearctic species of rove beetle (family STAPHYLINIDAE). The name was threatened by a largely unused senior synonym Thinobius wenckeri Fauvel, 1863 and three other senior names. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; Thinobius; Thinobius crinifer; rove beetles; Holarctic. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the following names are suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) tardus Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius tardus; (b) amphibius Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius amphibius; (c) grandicollis Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius ~ grandicollis. The name crinifer Smetana, 1959, as published in the binomen Thinobius crinifer, 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) tardus Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius tardus and as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) amphibius Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius amphibius and as suppressed in (1)(b) above; (c) grandicollis Notman, 1921, as published in the binomen Thinobius grandicollis and as suppressed in (1)(c) above; (d) wenckeri Fauvel, 1863, as published in the binomen Thinobius wenckeri (a nomen oblitum). =~ i) SS (3 wm History of Case 3286 An application to conserve the specific name Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 for a widespread Palaearctic species of rove beetle (family STAPHYLINIDAE) was received from Michael Schiilke (Rue Ambroise Paré 11, D-13405 Berlin, Germany) on 13 May 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 287-289 (December 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 288. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: 176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Affirmative votes — 14: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson and van Tol. Negative votes — 3: Calder, Minelli and Rosenberg. No votes were received from Bohme, Kerzhner, Ng, Stys and Song. Bouchet commented that he was voting for the proposals on the assumption that Schtilke & Makranczy (2003, pp. 211-223) had provided the 25 references needed to satisfy Article 23.9 of the Code and declared Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 a nomen protectum (and T. wenckeri Fauvel a nomen oblitum). His understanding of Article 23.9 is that providing the references is necessary to ‘give evidence’ in the sense of the Code, and not merely to declare that the conditions of Article 23.9 are met. Reversal of precedence should be a verifiable and falsifiable nomenclatural act. Voting against, Calder commented that he would have supported giving precedence to the name Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 over its three little-used senior subjective synonyms, but opposed the suppression of those names and their relegation to 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: amphibius, Thinobius, Notman, 1921, Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 29(3-4): 149. 6 crinifer, Thinobius, Smetana, 1959, Casopis Ceskoslovenské Spoleénosti Entomologické, 56(3): 271. grandicollis, Thinobius, Notman, 1921, Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 29(3-4): 150. tardus, Thinobius, Notman, 1921, Journal of the New York Entomological Society, 29(3-4): 149. wenckeri, Thinobius, Fauvel, 1863, Catalogue des Coléoptéres de France et matériaux pour servir a la faune des Coléoptéres francais, p. 41. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005. 177 OPINION 2130 (Case 3289) Emphania Erichson, 1847 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by designation of Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850 as the type species Abstract. The Commission has ruled that usage of the name Emphania Erichson, 1847 for a group of scarab beetles (family scARABAEIDAE) is conserved by designating Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850 (the senior subjective synonym of Emphania chloris Burmeister, 1855) as the type species. The genus Emphania was originally established without any included nominal species. The first species were subsequently included in Emphania by Blanchard in 1850, but none fits the original description of the genus or prevailing usage. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; SCARABAEIDAE; Emphania; Emphania metallica; Emphania chloris; scarab beetles. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power the provisions of Article 67.2.2 of the Code are hereby set aside and Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850 is designated as the type species of the nominal genus Emphania Erichson, 1847. (2) The name Emphania Erichson, 1847 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name metallica Blanchard, 1850, as published in the binomen Heptomera metallica (specific name of the type species of Emphania Erichson, 1847 and senior subjective synonym of Emphania chloris Burmeister, 1855), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3289 An application to conserve the usage of the name Emphania Erichson, 1847 for a group of scarab beetles (family sCARABAEIDAE) by designating Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850 (the senior subjective synonym of Emphania chloris Burmeister, 1855) as the type species was received from Dirk Ahrens (Deutsches Entomologisches Institut im Zentrum ftir Agrarlandschafts- und Landnutzungsforschung, D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany) on 29 May 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 32-34 (March 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 33. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 17: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. 178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Negative votes — none. Kerzhner abstained No votes were received from Bohme, Bouchet, Ng and Song. Voting for, Calder commented that he would have preferred designating E. chloris Burmeister, 1855 as the type species of Emphania, acknowledging that it is a junior subjective synonym of Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850. Patterson commented that the case was not well made. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Emphania Erichson, 1847, Naturgeschichte der Insekten Deutschlands. 1. Abteilung. Coleoptera 3. Band, p. 695. metallica, Heptomera, Blanchard, 1850, Catalogue de la collection Entomologique. Classes des Insectes. Ordre des Coléoptéres, part: Melolonthidae, tome I, p. 89. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 179 OPINION 2131 (Case 3271) Nematotis australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the widely used specific name Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 is conserved for a common south European fairy moth (family ADELIDAE) by giving it precedence over the questionable senior synonym Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789. T. aldrovandella was not used after publication until 1980 when it was mentioned as a possible synonym of A. australis. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ADELIDAE; Adela australis; Tinea aldrovandella; fairy moth; Europe. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name australis Heydenreich, 1851, as published in the binomen Nematois australis, is hereby given precedence over the name aldrovandella Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Tinea aldrovandella, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) australis Heydenreich, 1851, as published in the binomen Nematois australis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name aldrovandella Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Tinea aldrovandella, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) aldrovandella Villers, 1789, as published in the binomen Tinea aldro- vandella, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name australis Heydenreich, 1851, as published in the binomen Nematois australis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. History of Case 3271 An application to conserve the widely used specific name Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 for a common south European fairy moth (family ADELIDAE) by giving it precedence over the questionable senior synonym Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 was received from Mikhail V. Kozlov (Section of Ecology, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland) and Erik J. van Nieukerken (National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) on 20 February 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 290-292 (December 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment in support of the application was published in BZN 62: 29. Decision of the Commission On 1 March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 291. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: 180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Affirmative votes — 16: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg and van Tol. Negative votes — 2: Bouchet and Stys. No votes were received from Bohme, Kerzhner, Ng and Song. Voting against, Bouchet commented: ‘I sympathize with the intent of the application to discard the name Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 because (1) the original description of Tinea aldrovandella is very vague, (2) there is no type material, and (3) the name had not been used at all until it was resurrected by Leraut (1980). However, I disagree with the technicalities of the proposal. The name Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 is obviously little used outside a small circle of fairy moths specialists, so usage is not in itself a reason compelling enough to reverse priority. Giving Nematois australis precedence over Tinea aldrovandella still leaves the latter an available name, and thus potentially a senior synonym of another European adelid fairy moth, as stated in the application (para. 2). I think the name Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 should be suppressed’. Also voting against, Stys commented: ‘a more elegant and definitive solution would have been to establish a neotype for Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 in the sense of the holotype of Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 instead of the (probably non-existing) specimen represented by its illustration in Herrich-Schaeffer (1851). We learned nothing about the holotype of this nominal species in the application. Moreover, Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789 remains, unnecessarily, a nomen dubium’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: aldrovandella, Tinea, Villers, 1789, Caroli Linnaei Entomologia, Fauna Suecicae descriptionibus aucta; etc., p. 526. australis, Nematois, Heydenreich, 1851, Lepidopterorum Europaeorum Catalogus Methodicus, joy Wil Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 181 OPINION 2132 (Case 3270) ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): spelling emended to ISOMETRAINAE to remove homonymy with ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between the crinoid subfamily name ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (type genus /sometra Clark, 1908; family ANTEDONIDAE) and the scorpion subfamily name ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (type genus Isometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828; family BUTHIDAE) is removed. The entire generic name Jsometra has been adopted as the stem and the correct spelling of the crinoid subfamily is ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crinoidea; Scorpiones; ANTEDONIDAE; BUTHI- DAE; ISOMETRAINAE; ISOMETRINAE; Jsometra; Isometrus; crinoids; scorpions. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Jsometra Clark, 1908 is ISOMETRA-. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Isometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Buthus (Isometrus) filum Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828 (Scorpiones); (b) Isometra Clark, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by original designa- tion Antedon challengeri Clark, 1907 (Crinoidea). (3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) maculatus DeGeer, 1778, as published in the binomen Scorpio maculatus (senior synonym of Buthus (Isometrus) filum Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828, the specific name of the type species of Isometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828) (Scorpiones); (b) challengeri Clark, 1907, as published in the binomen Antedon chal- lengeri (specific name of the type species of Isometra Clark, 1908) (Crinoidea). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891, type genus /sometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828 (Scorpiones); (b) ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917, type genus /sometra Clark, 1908 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Crinoidea). (5) The name ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (an incorrect original spelling of 1so- METRAINAE, as ruled in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Crinoidea). (4 wna 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 History of Case 3270 ; An application to remove the homonymy between the crinoid subfamily name ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (type genus /sometra Clark, 1908; family ANTEDONIDAE) and the scorpion subfamily name ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (type genus Jsometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828; family BUTHIDAE) by adopting the entire generic name of Jsometra as the stem, so that the correct spelling of the crinoid subfamily will become ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917 was received from Victor Fet (Marshall University, Huntington, West Virginia 25755, U.S.A.) and Charles Messing (Oceanographic Center, Nova Southeastern University, Dania Beach, Florida 33004, U.S.A.) on 6 February 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 293-296 (December 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | March 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 294-295. At the close of the voting period on | June 2005 the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes — 18: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol. Negative votes — none. No votes were received from Bohme, Kerzhner, Ng and Song. 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: challengeri, Antedon, Clark, 1907, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 50(3): 353. Isometra Clark, 1908, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 21: 133. ISOMETRAINAE Clark, 1917, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 7(5): 6. ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917, Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences, 7(5): 6. ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891, Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 8: 6. Isometrus Ehrenberg in Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828, Zoologica II. Arachnoidea. PI. I: Buthus; pl. 11: Androctonus in: Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones animalium evertebratorum sepositis insectis quae.ex itinere per Africam borealem et Asiam occiden- talem, pl. 1, fig. 3. maculatus, Scorpio, DeGeer, 1778, Mémoires pour servir a Uhistoire des insectes, Tom. 7, p. 346. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 183 Nomenclatural Note The gender of genus-group names ending in either —otis or —otus Alfred L. Gardner USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, D.C., 20013-7012 U.S.A. (e-mail: gardnera@si.edu) The gender of genus-group names ending in either —ofis or —otus has been the cause of some confusion. Inappropriate derivation of generic names, in particular of a number of genera of birds and mammals, has led to the incorrect formation of some species-group names associated with them. The genus-group name Cryptotis is a Latinized word derived from the Greek krupt- (the stem of kruptos) plus ot- (from the stem of the genitive form of ous), with the Latin ending —is. Therefore, Article 30.1.2 of the Code does not apply because neither Cryptotis nor —otis can be interpreted as a Greek word of fixed gender transliterated into Latin without other changes. David & Gosselin (2002, p. 266) discussed this problem. Unfortunately, the Code does not offer guidance for generic names ending in —is. Cryptotis is to be treated as a noun in the nominative singular and, because the ending —is does not indicate a specific gender, Cryptotis must be treated as a word of common gender. According to Article 30.1.4.2 a word of common gender ‘is to be treated as masculine unless its author, when establishing the name, stated that it is feminine or treated it as feminine in combination with an adjectival species-group name.’ Even if priority of usage is invoked, Pomel’s (1848, p. 249) description of Cryptotis, with Musaraneus cinereus (masculine) as its only included species, cannot be construed as treatment as feminine. In a different example, David & Gosselin (2002, p. 167) concluded that the avian name Xanthotis Reichenbach, 1852 (Aves) is masculine because it was first established in combination with flaviventris, an adjective not indicating a particular gender. David & Gosselin (2002) also commented that the name Yanthotis (as well as Melanotis and Euptilotis) should not be confused with names ending in the feminine Greek and Latin noun otis, which means bustard. The following is a partial list of genus-group names ending in either —ofis or —otus (formed from the same root, but with the second declension ending —us). Some of these are avian names with the terminal stem derived from otis (bustard). Aotus = A (lacking) + of (ear) + us (Latin second declension ending) = masculine (Mammalia) Ardeotis = Arde (heron-like) + otis (bustard) = feminine (Aves) Chlamydotis = Chlamyd (mantle[ed]) + otis (bustard) = feminine (Aves) Cryptotis = Crypt (hidden) + ot (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) = masculine (Mammalia) Dolichotis = Dolich (long) + ot (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) = treated as neuter by Cabrera (1961) (Mammalia) Eupodotis = Eu (well) + pod (foot[ed]) + otis (bustard) = feminine (Aves) Euptilotis = Eu (well) + ptil (feather[ed]) + ot (ear) + is (Latin third declension ending) = masculine (Aves) 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(3) September 2005 Histiotus = Histi (sail) + ot (ear[ed]) + us (Latin second declension ending) = masculine (Mammalia) Laephotis = Laeph (sail) + ot (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) = masculine (Mammalia) Macrotus = Macr (long, large) + ot (ear[ed]) + us (Latin second declension ending) = masculine (Mammalia) Melanotis = Melan (black) + ot (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) = masculine (Aves) Microtus = Micr (small) + ot (ear[ed]) + us (Latin second declension ending) masculine (Mammalia) Myotis = My (mouse) + of (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) masculine (Mammalia) Otus = Ot (ear[ed]) + us (Latin second declension ending) = masculine (Aves) Phyllotis = Phyll (leaf-like) + ot (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) masculine (Mammalia) Plecotus = Plec (twist[ed]) + ot (ear[ed]) + us (Latin second declension ending) = masculine (Mammalia) Xanthotis = Xanth (yellow) + ot (ear[ed]) + is (Latin third declension ending) = masculine (Aves) These examples are given in support of Case 3328, Didelphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, DIDELPHIDAE): proposed correction of gender, and Cryptotis Pomel, 1848 (Mammalia, soriciDAE): proposed fixation of gender (see BZN 62: 142-145). i References Cabrera, A. 1961. Catalogo de los mamiferos de América del Sur. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales , Ciencias Zoologicas, 4(2): xvii-xxii, 309-732. David, N. & Gosselin, M. 2002. The grammatical gender of avian genera. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 122: 257-282. Pomel, A. 1848. Etudes sur les carnassiers insectivores (extrait). Seconde partie, Classification des insectivores. Archive des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles, Genéve, 9: 244-251. Reichenbach, H.G.L. 1852. Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie. Abth. 2, Meropinae, continuation no. IX, 6 (unnumbered), pp. 45—144. Expedition der Vollstandigsten Naturgeschichte, Dresden und Leipzig. Comments on this note are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Contents — continued OPINION 2126 (Case 3265). Lathrobium geminum Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, Coleop- tera): given precedence over L. volgense Hochhuth, 1851 and L. boreale Hochhuth, 1851; L. volgense: given precedence over L. boreale . : OPINION 2127 (Case 3274). Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 (asec, Csleae- tera): given precedence over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839 . : OPINION 2128 (Case 3283). Cetonia albopicta Gory & Percheron, 1833 (Curent Trichostetha albopicta) and Cetonia albopicta Motschulsky, 1845 (currently Oxythyrea albopicta) (Insecta, Coleoptera): specific names conserved . : OPINION 2129 (Case 3286). Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera specific name conserved 5 OPINION 2130 (Case 3289). ohare Encheons 1847 (meen, Goleopter): usage conserved by designation of Heptomera metallica Blanchard, 1850 as the type SDE CIES Icy ei un ie ane ERS MER Mc Ror rs GN IY ee, may Leh aos aiatnat: ah ty on ee OPINION 2131 (Case 3271). Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, OPINION 2132 (Case 3270). ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): spelling emended to ISOMETRAINAE to remove homonymy with ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) . Nomenclatural Note The gender of genus-group names ending in either —oftis or —otus. A.L. Gardner. 169 171 173 175 177 179 181 183 AON CONTENTS 3 9088 01180 0745 Page Notices. . . LITE OUR, Sond RPS I APR MOO: Are Ae cea 125 New applientions io the Commission SELLE pees Ad. o. 125 American Association for Zoological INomene(atare - Officers per tees 126 Reports on meetings at the Smithsonian Center for Research and Consenaition Front Royal, Virginia, U.S.A., 27-28 April 2005, and Convention on Biological Diversity Working Group on Protected Areas, Taxonomy Side Event, Monte- catini, Italy, 15 June 2005. A. Polaszek ... . 127 International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature — Acaninall Gener iMectine ane Management Committee ian. 18 et 2005. Chairman’s we Earl of Cranbrook ace eee : Mea ee Peery tes in o. p 128 Applications Helix papillaris Muller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation of the specific name. F. Giusti & G. Manganelli. . . . —130 Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 (Molluca, Gastropoda, Prosobranchia, RISSOOIDEA): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species. D. Kadolsky . . . . at 134. Mycetoporus forticornis Fauvel, 1875 (Insecta, Golcoprer) arepoued aueesiones : over Mycetoporus aequalis Thomson, 1868. M. Schilke . . . . 140 Didelphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, DIDELPHIDAE): proposed conection a mondler, and Cryptotis Pomel, 1848 Se SORIODAS): proposed fixation of gender. A.L. Gardner . . . 142 Amyot, Méthode mononymique (845- 1847) proposed pomection to Opinion 686. I.M. Kerzhner. .. . Se abe see 146 Comments On the proposed conservation of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera). Y. Roisin . 149 On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 (currently Chlosyne nycteis; Insecta, PePieR ire) D.M. Wright; M. Salvato; D.F. Schweitzer . . . 150 On the proposed conection of the spactte name of Bicnata afagata Moan, 1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). W.G. Tremewan. ..........2.2.... 153 Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2121 (Case 3229). Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 sehaconiatty): not conserved; priority maintained for Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950. . . . 154 OPINION 2122 (Case 3276). Narella Gray, 1870 (Coelenterata, Octocorallia): ee conserved by designation of a neotype for its type species Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860... . . 156 OPINION 2123 (Case 999). F.A. Quenstedt’s nominal Romenclaare (1845- 1888): usage of the third names of ammonites stabilized and 34 important Quenstedt names of ammonites placed on the Official List of Specific Names in ae (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea) . . . 158 OPINION 2124 (Case 3244). TERMOPSIDAE 23 Hlolinaeer, ‘1911, enone Bed 1349 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): usage conserved by the designa- tion of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis and the family-group name TERMOPSIDAE enea precedence over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 ... . 164 OPINION 2125 (Case 3287). LABIIDAE Sum, 1909 (Insecta, Dermaptera): given precedence over ISOLABELLINAE Verhoeff, 1902. . . . 167 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT1 1HD 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 2006 is £140 or US$250 or €250, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £70 or US$125 or €125. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Vice-President Vacant Executive Secretary Dr A. Polaszek (U.K. ) Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.4.; Ornithology) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Prof Dr W. B6hme Crustacea, Ichthyology) (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Brothers Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A4.; Mollusca) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Prof P. Stys Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Secretariat Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2005 SMITASCATS VAN 1 9 2006 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4. December 2005: 185 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 62, part 4 (pp. 185-256) 16 December 2005 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list. (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 62, part 3, 30 September 2005) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3356: Schizechinus Pomel, 1869 (Echinodermata, Echinoidea): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Psammechinus serresii Desor, 1855 as the type species. A. Kroh & A.B. Smith. CASE 3357: Calamaria H. Boie in F. Boie, 1827 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation and designation of C. linnaei H. Boie in F. Boie, 1827 as the type species. J.M. Savage & C.W. Myers. CASE 3359: Cloeotus Germar, 1843 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation. H.F. Howden. 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 CASE 3360: Coprinisphaera Sauer, 1955 (Ichnotaxa, COPRINISPHAERIDAE): proposed conservation. J.F. Genise, J.H. Laza & A.K. Rindsberg. CASE 3361: Mastigamoeba aspera Schulze, 1875 (Protista, Pelobiontida): proposed conservation. G. Walker & D.J. Patterson. CASE 3362: Phreatamoeba balamuthi Chavez et al., 1986 (Protista, Pelobiontida): proposed conservation. G. Walker. CASE 3364: Scylliorhinus regani Gilchrist, 1922 (currently Holohalaelurus regani: Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes sCcYLIORHINIDAE): proposed conservation of current usage by designation of a neotype. B.A. Human. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 187 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Financial Report for 2004 In view of the falling resources of the Trust during the past few years, the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (the Commission) and members of the Trust devoted a considerable amount of time during 2004 to running an Appeal for funds from the international community in the hope of raising a capital sum that can be invested to allow its work to continue and expand. To this end a new member was recruited to the Secretariat, Dr. Catherine MacDonald, who also made progress in making the work of the Commission available on the world-wide web. The fund raising efforts of the Appeal were responsible for the Trust’s overall surplus for 2004 of £24,533. This sum is a mixture of the results of the normal work of the Commission and the fundraising efforts. When these two activities are accounted for separately, the Appeal made a profit of £20,874, while the Commission’s main work made a profit of £3,659. The latter profit should be viewed in the light of the capital gain of £9,509 that was received when investments in the Trust’s reserve fund had to be sold during the year to maintain cash flow. This capital gain is the difference between the original cost of the investments and the sum obtained when they were sold in 2004, and is therefore income to the Trust for 2004. Ignoring this capital gain, the Trust showed a deficit of £5,850, this being the difference between the income and expenditure for its normal activities, and is an improvement on the deficit of £13,540 for the year 2003. Donations for 2004 amounted to £5,596 compared to £3,131 received in 2003, and are listed at the end of this report. Also listed separately are the donations to the Appeal Fund amounting to £59,040. Work for the Appeal Fund was also successful in receiving promises of sums in excess of £75,000 that will be made available from 2005. Total income received consisted of £33,764 for all publications produced by the Commission, £59,040 for the Appeal Fund, £5,596 in donations, £8,669 in bank interest and investment income, and £9,509 capital gain from the sale of investments, bringing the total income for the year to £116,578. Expenditure in 2004 was £71,827 for the salaries and fees of the Secretariat of the Commission, £9,426 on the Appeal (excluding salaries), £8,634 for printing the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and for the distribution of all publications, and £2,158 for other expenses, bringing the total expenditure to £92,045. The Secretariat of the Commission 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 have contributed to the continuation of its work during the year. DONATIONS RECEIVED: £ American Association for Zoological Nomenclature 2,398 Canadian Society of Zoologists 83 Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters WIS) Royal Society of London 3,000 Total £5,596 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 DONATIONS RECEIVED TO THE APPEAL FUND: Academia Sinica Taiwan Dr D.R. Calder Esmée Fairbairn Foundation Dr N. Evenhuis Gatsby Charitable Foundation Lord Medway Trust Malacological Society of London Mr A. McCulloch North of England Zoological Society Palaeontographical Society Dr A. Polaszek Swedish Museum of Natural History Total M K Howarth, Secretary and Managing Director, 19 April 2005 400 £59,040 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 DECEMBER 2004 Income SALE OF PUBLICATIONS Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature £27,745 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature 4,102 Royalties on Code 481 Official Lists and Indexes 1,180 Centenary History 256 33,764 APPEAL FUND GRANTS AND DONATIONS BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INVESTMENTS Expenditure SALARIES, NATIONAL INSURANCE AND FEES OFFICE EXPENSES PRINTING OF BULLETIN AND DISTRIBUTION OF PUBLICATIONS APPEAL EXPENDITURE (EXCLUDING SALARIES) DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT MEETINGS OF COMMISSIONERS SURPLUS FOR THE YEAR CARRIED TO BALANCE SHEET 59,040 5,596 8,669 9,509 116,578 71,827 739 8,634 9,426 Sil 848 92,045 £24,533 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005. 189 Nomenclature of Higher Taxa: a new approach M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: mcnaz39@mncn.csic.es) Abstract. In the 21st century, Zoology faces many challenges. One of these is the preparation of a Code of Nomenclature that can both meet the new needs of zoologists and fill gaps in the present wording and coverage. One of these gaps concerns the nomenclature of higher taxa. After a discussion of the problems, it is proposed that the new Code should regulate names above the family-group, usually known as phylum-, class- and order-group names, and that non-typified names should be discarded gradually. A logical set of standardized connectors and endings is proposed for use in a single, ‘expanded’ family-group, renamed as the ‘upper uninominal group’. This group would be typified by the names in the immediately inferior group (the genus-group) as is standard in the present Code. This way, the internal logic of the Principle of Typification is maintained. Different problems that may occur are identified and solutions proposed. Introduction The nomenclature of taxa above the family-group was a matter of debate even before the Régles of 1905 were published. A short historical and formal analysis of the problem was presented by Starobogatov (1984) in Russian and a more recent English translation (Starobogatov, 1991). He also reviewed the problems that implementation of a typified system for these names would face, discussed the advantages of such implementation and proposed a “Draft of recommendations for the regulation of the nomenclature of taxa of rank higher than superfamily’ with 40 points. The aim of the present paper is to identify shortcomings in Starobogatov’s proposal and to propose more pragmatic and Code-compliant solutions. Among the remaining problems one of the most important is that the Code does not regulate nomenclature of taxa above superfamily. This extension of coverage, seemingly, has not been undertaken for fear of the ‘serious breakdown in existing customs concerning the formation and utilization of names of higher categories’ (Starobogatov, 1991). However, a more serious problem is found when the number of these taxon names will increase with the future discovery and description of the millions of species thought to be still unknown, and the need for new higher categories to rank them. Examples include the recent description of a new phylum, Cycliophora Funch & Kristensen, 1995, or a new order of insects, Mantophasmatodea Zompro, Klass, Kristensen & Adis, 2002. Phylogenetic analysis is also playing an important role in this multiplication of names. Some authors want a name for every node or branch of a given phylogenetic tree, no matter which analytic tool has been used for its construction. I consider this 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 unnecessary, but I believe the Code must give exact rules for zoologists requiring names under the Linnaean binominal system. Other nomenclatural systems for phylogenetic systematics have been devised, some based on a very strict mathematical analysis of tree topology and hierarchy topology (Papavero et al., 2001). Current Linnaean nomenclature can deal adequately with the naming of phylogenetic tree-based taxa. Other systems are contrary to the Principles of the Code and will not be referred to here. Names above the superfamily level belong, according to Starobogatov (1991), to two categories: typified and descriptive, the first being those linked by their spelling to an included genus-group taxon, the second those based on one or several features of the included organisms. A more complex approach to the attributes of the taxa can be found in Kluge’s works (e.g. Kluge, 1996 in Russian, 1999 in Spanish and English), where a different structure of names of taxa is proposed. However, most of the inherent complexity affects only non-typified taxon names, for which the descriptive term may be taken in different senses depending upon the contents of their taxa, and for these I will use the term ‘non-typified’. This is the only difference that affects the establishment of the rules of the Code, which is covered by the Principle of Typification. In the following description, the term ‘high-level names’ encompasses the main categories (in Latin) phylum, classis and ordo, and the intermediate ranks that can be obtained exclusively by the use of the prefixes super-, sub-, infra- and parv(i)-. No name related to the category ‘kingdom’ is intended. The category ‘cohors’ as a part of the order-group should be avoided because it has been used previously at other ranks. The term ‘low-level’ will be used to encompass uninomina of the family- and genus-groups. Homonymy and hemihomonymy Two problems are inherent in the absence of nomenclatural rules for high level taxa. One is homonymy — two names in use are well known for being homonyms: Decapoda Dujardin, 1834 in Mollusca, and Decapoda Latreille, 1803 in Crustacea. Both are or have been in use at the same time, because the Principle of Priority contained in the Code does not apply to these names. If it did, only Decapoda Latreille, 1803 would be available. Thé number of names falling in this category is probably high, although I have not done any research to count them, since their number is irrelevant to the argument I present here. As envisaged in the present Code, homonymy is to be avoided because of the confusion it brings to scientific communication. Hemihomonymy is a peculiar situation, described by Starobogatov (1991). This happens when a high-level uninomen and a low-level uninomen are identical, even when the high-level uninomen is not typified by a similarly spelt genus-level name. This conflict is already present between some family-group names and some genus-level names ending in —ina, and perhaps in some ending in —oidea. This is a particular feature stemming from the use of some Latin endings, which, as —a, can be both singular feminines or plural neuters. However, atypical generic endings in —ae or in ~7 could also be included in this because of the possible risks incurred (see table 1). Starobogatov (1991) identified both the problems mentioned above as the main sources of nomenclatural problems that could be solved by the introduction of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 191 Table 1. Latin nominative plural endings Ending Gender Declension -ae Feminine, rarely masculine Ist -a Neuter 2nd, 3rd -1a Neuter 3rd -ua Neuter 4th -us Masculine, rarely feminine 4th -eS Masculine or feminine 3rd, Sth -l Masculine, rarely feminine 2nd typified high-level names. I think that typified high-level names will solve many other present-day problems, as it is the uncontrolled proliferation of names linked to different taxonomic concepts in phylogenetic trees, or a change of meaning for nominal taxa introduced by subsequent authors. An in-depth explanation of this issue 1s to be found in Kluge’s (1996, 1999) criticism on the myth of the polyphyly of Hexapoda, a matter complicated by misunderstandings of meanings and ranks of non-typified taxa. Standard endings in high-level taxa names Starobogatov (1991) discussed earlier systems of standardization of name endings for high-level taxa names. He pointed out that a logical development would be to exclude any endings which would lead to homonymic or hemihomonymic identity. He provided a partial check of endings likely to lead to intergroup homonymies. I present here an analysis of genus-group endings based on the recent availability of Neave’s Nomenclator Zoologicus in electronic format as a database (http://uio.mbl.edu/NomenclatorZoologicus/). For this analysis (table 2) I differen- tiate between endings and connectors, from a philological point of view. I consider endings to be in this case the last 1—2 letters (two vowels or vowel plus s) or in a single case the last 3 letters (-ees) of a name. Connectors are the letters linking the stem of the type genus to these endings, e.g. in the family name RANIDAE, the stem would be ran- (from genus Rana), the connector —id- and the ending —ae (a first declension nominative plural). Latin plural endings and their gender and declension are shown in table 1. Connectors have been selected from those present on tables 1—3 in Starobogatov (1991), plus the mandatory ones for family-group names in the Code. I have added most of the commonly used connectors in typified names in Zoology after a survey of Parker (1982), and of Sibley et al. (1988) for Aves. One of the most striking points is the fact that the —a ending has been used with almost every conceivable connector as part of generic names (in fact about 50% of the generic names in zoology end in this letter). This makes a strong reason for avoiding this ending as a part of any high-level name. Unfortunately, we already have the combination connector+ending in —ina mandatory for subtribes, a combination to be found in 9,062 generic names, and similarly the combination —oidea for superfamilies, found in 281 generic names. To distinguish between both kinds of name, the italicisation of suprageneric names should be formally prohibited. Another ending to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 192 *(€9) Wino~ Jo (S]) S90 ‘(LE ]) UOO- *(681) SNO- ‘(gpL) RO- UI “dA SuIpud eJoUDT WoIy paAtop soweRU ATIWeY j0— 10 ul duipug ‘sayiwejiodns 10) AAojooZ ur asn ur Apras ul Suipuq "saqiigns 40j Adoj007 ur asn ut ul duipuq “g ul duipuq “ZL ul duripuq 9 ul duipuq *¢ ul duipuq “pb ul Sulpug Ajtuey quejd L]) B0zO- ul Sulpua eiduad Wo) paAliap saweU ‘(€p) winozo- 10 (ZQ{) UooZ (0) aRaut- *(p9) saye- °(9) aepnarhw- *(9) aeplokyd- *(¢]) episdo- *(Z) sajo9KwW- *(() aeaDKYyd- '(Q) BUNODAW- (7 AWOS UJ “f66| [UN Fulpus+so}99uUOd jo UONeUIqUIOD S| Y JO Jaquinu ay) st []29 Yyora ur andy “JO}DIUUOD B Yons Jo JoUaSqE ay} JOJ spurIs G [OQUIAs ay) ‘JapsO Jronaqeydye ul ‘Furpus ayy oF ways ay) Yul udaq 2ARY 1Nq piepuRIs-UOU aie Z]-g “(1 >I a I I I 8 1 ZI € gsaa- [| I 101 I Iszlé] zs 907 78 LS I ZS1'9 Fa- OT at) [ !o- 8 I rai 5 i fl Ro L9 I OLL'b b S8Ie Ol Tt Seb €S EIL'S 6 € Le9'pt Sa- 9 iS OTT S€ Ss Gi 0z 67I'I OL 98 6It'b ST 76 zoe LI SL9'6L SN- ¢ 8 t £ SOp Bn- p I €99'7 t 8 8 ra Ole . oS 8 98EI €l £601 9€T I 1 S0€Lp BI € I AN Cl Gel 61 woz pS fot] = LI (85 SB WS el Gn! 61 9 OF 790°6l8] O€ 9€1 BL LS LOI T LST Oh SSS‘cSTB {e] I for] for] [9] [s] [r] OE eR- | - plozo- - 020 - -uIuO- - uO - -ulydiowo- - ydiouto - - ulO - - [10 - -UIplo- - plo - -UIpO- - po - -UIUOI- - UOT - -UIPOI- - por - -uTUI- -ORUI- ~~ UL - - WITOJL- -UIPI- - pl - -UIDI- - of - -utlae-- IR --a0R- - G- z ‘1 “9[qv] JY} MOTAq ISI] Ay} 07 puodsar10d pur sjayoRiQ Ul dv s}UdWUOD ASO[OOZ ul saweu dnois-snues ul asn 10}99UUI0D pu aduasoid SuIpug *7 aquL, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 193 be discarded is —us (possible confusion with 2nd declension masculine nominative singular names, representing more than 25% of generic names). The ending —es could also fall into the same category, and is discussed in combination with the connectors. Other duplicated occurrences of combinations of connectort+tending between zoological genera and non-zoological categories are shown in the legend to table 2. From table 2, it can be deduced that several types of ending are rare in other low-level taxon names, and thus are desirable as endings for the high-level taxa in order to establish a difference. These are: -ii (0 hits), -o1 (1), -ei (11), -ees (11), -1 (168). Regarding connectors, table 2 gives also some that could be used in combination with these endings: -inac- (1), -ozoid- (1), -arin- (2), -1onin- (12), -omorphin- (19), -oidin- (20), -iodin- (21), -ozo- (24), -inin- (40), -iform- (43), -oil- (49), -icin- (57), -ace- (59), -oin- (70). From these, those finishing in -in- can be discarded inmediately, since their combination with an -1 ending would give the same ending —ini in use for tribes. This leaves —inac-, -ozoid-, -ozo-, -iform-, -oil- and —ace. I would suggest another possible ending, -omorph-, that is found as a part of generic names only in combination with endings —a, 1a, and —us, endings to be discarded from high-level names. A similar situation should be considered in evaluating the ending —es, which, although present in 24,647 genera, is never present in the combinations —inaces, -ozodes, -ozoes, -1formes, -acees and -omorphes, and only once as —oiles. I do not follow Rasnitsyn’s (1992) recommendation of avoiding this ending. If a system of endings is to be constructed with these connectors and endings, my view is that simple rules should be followed, ascribing a particular ending to every rank and a particular connector to every group, as intended by Starobogatov (1991). Thus, a combination of connectors (1 or 2) and a single ending will immediately indicate the rank of the nominal taxon. Secondary connectors are needed because of the scarcity of available, unmistakably different endings. Starobogatov’s proposal results in a somewhat confused assignment of endings and connectors. For the phylum-group (which in his case includes as a rank the division, not considered here) he uses consistently the connector —ozo- or combinations of this and another connector (for example, -ace-); only the ending —ozoides has one hit as ending for a genus. For the class-group, he uses different connectors (-id-, -iod-, -ion-) and endings; of the resulting combinations, the one selected for the class (-iodes) has 438 hits as a genus ending and should be discarded. For the order-group, the connectors —omorph-, -iform-, -oid- and —oin- are used; hits are 0 or 1 for the combinations. In my opinion, Starobogatov’s system cannot be followed because of its lack of formal logic. My proposal is to use three well known connectors (already in use in some zoological taxa), each for one of the three levels (phylum-group, class-group, and order-group): respectively, -ozo-, -omorph- and ~iform-. These will be combined with five mandatory endings for ranks as shown in table 3. Endings have been selected to avoid changes in some populated groups, such as fish, where they are in common use. The logical reasons for the endings are as follows: the first three (super-, (no prefix) and sub-) are simple and in alphabetical order: -ae, -es, -i; the last two (which are also less likely to be needed) have a secondary connector in alphabetical order (-ace- for infra-, -id- for parv(i)-), keeping the same preferred ending (-i). These two connectors are already in use in Zoology. If there is the belief that more ranks would be needed, the Commission could rule on the same logical basis. Taxon names ending in —ae will be first declension plural feminine substantives, while those ending 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Table 3. Proposal of mandatory combinations (connector(s) + ending) for groups and ranks in Zoology Phylum Class Order Category Connector => -0Z0- -omorph- -iform- Super -ozoae -omorphae -iformae --- (no prefix) -0zZ0eS -omorphes -iformes Sub -OZO1 -omorphi -iformi Infra -ozoacel -omorphacei -iformacei Parv(i) -ozoidi -omorphidi -iformidi in —es and + will be respectively third parisyllabic and second declension plural masculine substantives. It is evident that this proposal is innovative and departs in several points from customary nomenclatural usage in some groups. However, as I have said in the introduction to this paper, the time is right to face such problems, in order to achieve uniform nomenclatural procedures in all animal taxa. Structure of levels and typification The above-mentioned statements are based on Starobogatov’s acceptance of Rohdendorf’s (1977) proposal to keep three different groups of names: phylum- group, class-group and order-group. The Principle of Coordination should apply to these three groups. Starobogatov differentiated the ‘total coordination’ proposal inherent in Rohdendorf’s treatment (where all uninominal high-level names are merged with the family-group names) from his own, which considers the existence of these three groups as separate entities with separate internal coordination. Even if Starobogatov’s proposal is not accepted (and I will present strong reasons not to do so) the formal nomenclatural proposal here presented could be maintained, based on sound logical ground. Rohdendorf’s proposal was rejected on the principle that ‘in doing so, the quantity of names, authors and dates does not grow very much, and the nomenclatural stability of higher-rank taxa is secured more dependably . . . and the names of higher taxa are based primarily on the best known and characteristic genera’. This concern is basic for a system that attempts to incorporate all available names. This would not be an onerous task. He went on: ‘In so doing, the name of a taxon may be formed from any available generic name regardless of which family-group name was published earliest’. This statement is the weakest point in Starobogatov’s system, since the level at which to seek a type-bearing taxon for all high-level taxa should be the genus-group, ignoring the family-group names. This procedure is directly contrary to the Principle of Typification, and would render any Code established on such a procedure deeply illogical. A ‘three-group system of coordination’, as Starobogatov called it, cannot be allowed to undermine the Principle of Typification. In Starobogatov’s concept, the three groups (phylum-, class- and order-groups) would be typified in any included genus whose name was used to typify any high-level taxon name (that is, the family-group names would be discarded). If we strictly follow the rationale of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 195 Code, a phylum-group name should be typified with the oldest available class-group name, this in the oldest available order-group name, and the latter in the oldest family-group name (with the appropriate ending changes). Starobogatov states: “With a three-group system of coordination, we can calmly consider names of the order-group and the family-group, even ones based on the same genus, as originating independently, and to ascribe to them different authors and dates of publication’. This is, plainly, not desirable. This procedure would add to the thousands of uninomina already in use for family-group names, many others with different authors and dates (which would be found in the older literature), and, what is worse, much more debate on precedences, with the consequent requests to the Commission. According to this, it would seem that we would then have to decide whether we consider high-level taxa divided into a ‘three-group system of coordination’ as Starobogatov (1991) proposed (with a stairway typification system, not with his typification directly to genus for each level), or whether we consider them to be a ‘single-group system of coordination’ (Rohdendorf, 1977). In any case, the unique type-bearing taxon should be sought in the family-group. Instead, I am proposing here that we be pragmatic and use what we already have. In the current (4'* Edition) Code, we already have a uninominal level in use and well established: the family-group names. This group has names already typified in genera, and because time, and consequently Priority, is the main criterion, the oldest family-group names are usually based on the oldest (or at least the best known) generic names. I propose here simply to expand the family-group to include all the uninominal names above the genus-group, to be called the ‘upper uninominal group’. In this system, phylum-group, class-group, order-group and family-group would each become a subgroup. Only names given in the family-subgroup would be available for nomenclatural purposes. In the family-subgroup, they would keep author and date as a complementary attribute, but author would not be necessary for taxa above the family-subgroup. Names in the phylum-, class- and order-subgroup would have date only, in order to determine their priority. Typified names given for a taxon in a rank above the family-subgroup would not be available. The new groups of names According to the above proposal, the zoological categories would be gathered into three different groups (or coordination levels): The ‘upper uninominal group’. Its defining characters being plural substantive uninomina that never unite to the specific epithet to form a name, typified on a genus group name, formed by its stem and a set of connectors and endings. To be written in plain fonts. The ‘genus group’ (lower uninominal group’). Its defining characters being singular substantive uninomina that may unite to the specific epithet to form names of the ‘species group’, typified on a species group name. To be written in a different font from the rest of the text, usually italics. The ‘species group’. Its defining characters being binomina or trinomina, typified on specimens (extant or not). To be written in a different font from the rest of the text, usually italics. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Transition from contemporary nomenclature This ruling would alter only minimally the usual names of many taxa. In some cases, just one or two letters may change in typified high-level taxa and the main concept behind the old name is easily recognisable. The addition of a type taxon for comparison and teaching is also an enormous advantage, including the diminution of the necessary effort of memory to learn names that have nothing to do with the included taxa names. An example is to be found for Arthropoda in table 4, following the endings presented in table 3. As can be seen, most of the resulting names are older than those in use, adding to an increasing stability of nomenclature (‘the older the name, the more difficult to find one displacing it’). But, what happens with non-typified nominal taxa? Starobogatov (1991) com- mented: ‘The most simple and radical solution is to reject all descriptive names and change them to typified names. . . . However, . . . such a sudden reform is absolutely impossible since it arouses a resolute protectiveness in all zoologists who are accustomed to certain names . . .. Zoologists were also accustomed to names like Gephyrea or Vermes, which are no more in use. Some other ‘scientific’ names, like Reptilia, are used in a more vernacular sense. Of course, implementation of a system of typified high-level names cannot happen overnight. The new Code should protect the use of typified names by making its naming mandatory side-by-side with non-typified names in those papers where new taxa are described. Descriptions of non-typified names should be considered unavailable. On the other hand, publication of uninominal names in the genus-group with the same endings as the ‘upper uninominal group’ names should also be prohibited, to avoid (hemi)homonymy. The implementation of obligatory registration of all zoological names could play a major role in eliminating errors. Non-typified names would eventually disappear. There are only two ways of keeping them, and both are far from satisfactory: (1) To maintain them for the lowest taxon (in a phylogeny) lumping together all the included taxa in a rank, e.g. genus. As has been repeatedly pointed out, this would make Amphibia Linnaeus, 1758 identical with, and having priority over, Vertebrata Lamarck, 1801, since it originally included the genus Petromyzon Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Cephalaspidomorphi). Moreover the name Nantes Linnaeus, 1758 (forming a taxon under his Amphibia) would also be a synonym, containing the same genus. Following this rule would undoubtedly change the meaning of many names. (2) The other possibility is typification based on one of the included typified taxa of lower rank (either families or genera). Since this has not occurred before, if the new Code allows it, it would lead to a frenetic race for type taxon designation and innumerable applications to the Commission to resolve conflicting typifications. Neither of these solutions is desirable. Non-typified names must disappear in 21st century zoological nomenclature. In the case of the few typified names having available names with the same precedence, a ruling of the Commission (acting as First Reviser or under the Plenary Power) selecting the most appropriate name after consulting with interested zoologists would be desirable, e.g. in the case of Order Coleoptera Linnaeus, 1758 (the original meaning included also cockroaches, crickets and earwigs!) that could be named (following the present proposal): Scarabaeiformes, Carabiformes, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 - 197 Table 4. Nomenclature of a subphylum of Arthropoda and of Order Coleoptera, following the present proposal in table 3. This is just a “scherzo’ and some names may have available alternatives. I have selected those I consider less disruptive. Some fossil taxa have not been considered, although in a formal proposal they should be, unless ruled otherwise. @ Subphylum Scorpionozoi 1802 (= Cheliceromorpha Boudreaux, 1978) Supercl. Scorpionomorphae 1802 (= Chelicerata Heymons, 1901) Cl. Scorpionomorphes 1802 (= Merostomata Fage, 1968) Subcl. Limulomorphi 1885 (= Xiphosura Latreille, 1802) Ord. Limuliformes 1885 (= Limulida Richte & Richte, 1929) Subcl. Scorpionomorphi 1802 (= Scorpionoidea Van der Hammen, 1975) Ord. Scorpioniformes 1802 (= Scorpiones Latreille, 1810) Cl. Acaromorphes 1802 (= Arachnida Lamarck, 1801) Subcl. Araneomorphi 1806 (= Megoperculata Borner, 1902) Ord. Eukoeneniiformes 1955 (= Palpigradi Thorell, 1888) Ord. Thelyphroniformes 1835 (= Uropygi Thorell, 1900) Ord. Hubbardiiformes 1899 (= Schizomida Petrunkevitch, 1949) Ord. Phryniformes 1852 (= Amblypygi Thorell, 1900) Ord. Araneiformes 1806 (= Araneae Clerck, 1758) Subcl. Acaromorphi 1802 (= Acaromorpha Dubinin, 1957) Ord. Ixodiformes 1833 (= Parasitiformes Reuter, 1909) Subord. Dermanyssiformi 1859 (= Gamasida, Mesostigmata) Subord. Ixodiformi 1833 (= Ixodida Leach, 1815) Subord. Holothyriformi 1882 (= Holothyrida) Subord. Opilioacariformi 1902 (= Opilioacarida) Ord. Acariformes 1802 (= Acariformes) Subord. Trombidiiformi 1815 (= Actinedida) Subord. Acariformi 1802 (= Acaridida Latreille, 1802) Subord. Carabodiformi 1837 (= Oribatida Duges, 1834) (This name would be Oribatiformi if family Oribatidae and genus Oribata Latreille, 1802 were correctly used by acarologists.) Subcl. Phalangiomorphi 1802 (= Dromopoda Shultz, 1990) Ord. Phalangiiformes 1802 (= Opiliones Sundevall, 1833) Ord. Poliocheriformes 1884 (= Ricinulei Thorell, 1892) Ord. Solpugiformes 1815 (= Solifugae Leach, 1815) Ord. Cheliferiformes 1826 (= Pseudoscorpiones Pavesi, 1880) Subcl. Eophrynomorphi 1882 (= Soluta Petrunkevitch, 1849) Ord. Anthracomartiformes 1890 (= Anthracomarti Karsch, 1882) Ord. Eophryniformes 1882 (= Trigonotarbi Petrunkevitch, 1849) Supercl. Pycnogonomorphae 1878 (= Pycnogonida Latreille, 1810) Cl. Pycnogonomorphes 1878 Subcl. Pycnogonomorphi 1878 Ord. Palaeopantopodiformes 1978 (= Palaeopantopoda Broili, 1930) Ord. Pycnogoniformes 1878 (= Pantopoda Gerstacker, 1863) @ Ord. Scarabaeiformes 1802 (= Coleoptera Linnaeus, 1758) Subord. Cupediformi 1836 (= Archostemata Kolbe, 1898) Subord. Sphaeriusiformi 1845 (= Myxophaga Crowson, 1955) Subord. Carabiformi 1802 (= Adephaga Clairville, 1806) Subord. Scarabaeiformi 1802 (= Polyphaga Emery, 1886) @ Infraord. Staphyliniformacei 1802 (= Staphyliniformia Lameere, 1900) @ Infraord. Scarabaeiformacei 1802 (= Scarabaeiformia Crowson, 1960) @ Infraord. Byrrhiformacei 1804 (= Elateriformia Crowson, 1960) @ Infraord. Bostrichiformacei 1802 (= Bostrichiformia Forbes, 1926) @ Infraord. Cucujiformacei 1802 (= Cucujiformia Lameere, 1938) OOOO Hydrophiliformes, Staphyliniformes, Bostrichiformes, Cucujiformes, Cleriformes, Tenebrioniformes, Chrysomeliformes or Curculioniformes. There is also the possi- bility of taking into consideration the date of precedence of the non-typified name 198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 being replaced in the competition for naming higher rank taxa: e.g. the name Termitiformes 1802 would have precedence over Perliformes 1802 for the replace- ment naming of Polyneoptera Martynov, 1925 (with the appropriate ending change) since the first name is replacing Isoptera Brullé, 1832, which has precedence over the name Plecoptera Burmeister, 1839, replaced by Perliformes. The application of the system here presented would allow quick finding of available names for every desired category with information on authors and dates for the families included. Proposals to the Commission I expect that the aforementioned opinions and proposals will need to be considered by the compilers of the next edition of the Code. Those of us having a commitment to nomenclature must face the fact that conservatism is good up to a certain point, but can be counter-productive if maintained irrespective of necessary developments. I therefore urge the Commission to begin in-depth discussion of the above- mentioned proposals (and of those of my predecessors) to identify those best meeting the needs of zoologists in the 21st century and to draft them for incorporation in the Code. Unlike Starobogatov, I will not propose a set of rules to be taken into consider- ation. Although I think that my proposals are logical and Code-compliant (with the suggested amendments), I consider that my fellow members of the Commission and, indeed, all working zoologists still have to give their views. However, my views can be summarised as follow: The new Code must regulate those uninomina above the family-group, usually known as phylum-, class- and order-group names. Non-typified names must be discarded in high-level taxa nomenclature. No new non-typified name will be available after the new Code is in force. Typified high-level regulated names must be introduced gradually and in accord- ance with the Code. Non-typified names in publications must be accompanied by the corresponding typified names, and use of non-typified names alone should be prohibited by the Code. New taxa described only under non-typified names should not be made available. A logical set of standardized connectors and endings, such as those proposed here (table 3), should be incorporated in the new Code. Instead of creating either three groups above the family-group (phylum-group, class-group and order-group) or a single group encompassing all of them, I propose the expansion of the family-group name to form an ‘upper uninominal group’. This group would be typified by the names in the immediately inferior group (the genus-group) as is the standard in the present Code. This way, the internal logic of the Principle of Typification is maintained. Depending upon the decision of the Commission, names for this ‘upper uni- nominal group’ could be taken directly from the existing family-group names or, alternatively, extant typified names for upper categories could enter into competition by precedence. It would not be necessary to give authors for these names. With this action, unnecessary efforts will be avoided, since most of the names needed are already available. i Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 . 199 Acknowledgements I wish to thank here my colleagues and friends who discussed some of these points with me, and in particular David Remsen, whose help in querying the Nomenclator Zoologicus database in some particular cases has been much appreciated and has contributed greatly to this paper, and Manuel Sanchez-Ruiz for a critical reading of a first draft. References Kluge, N. Yu. 1996. Miphy v sistematike nasekomykh 1 printsipy zoologichesko} nomen- klatury. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 75(4): 939-944. Kluge, N. Yu. 1999. Mitos en sistematica y principios de nomenclatura zoologica. Myths in systematics and principles of zoological nomenclature. Boletin de la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 26: 347-377. Papavero, N., Llorente-Bousquets, J. & Minoro Abe, J. 2001. Proposal of a new system of nomenclature for phylogenetic systematics. Arquivos de Zoologia, Sado Paulo, 36(1): 1-145. Parker, S.P. (Ed.). 1982. Synopsis and classification of living organisms, 2 vols. 1166, 1232 pp. MacGraw Hill, New York. Rasnitsyn, A.P. 1992. Comment on the article Problems in the Nomenclature of Higher Taxonomic Categories by Ya. I. Starobogatov. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 49(1): 62. Rohdendorf, B.B. 1977. O ratsionalizatsii nazvanij taksonov vysokogo ranga v Zoologii. Paleontologicheskij Zhurnal, 2: 14-22. [Translated in Paleontological Journal, (1977) 11(2): 149-155; reprinted in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, (1982) 39: 200-207]. Sibley, C.G., Ahlquist, J.E. & Monroe, B.L. Jr. 1988. A classification of the living birds of the world based on DNA-DNA hybridization studies. The Auk, 105(3): 409-423. Starobogatoy, Ya. I. 1984. O problemakh nomenklatury vysshikh taksonomicheskikh kate- goriy. Pp. 174-187 in: Tatarinov, L.P. & Shimanskiy, V.N. (Eds.). Spravochnik po sistematike iskopayemykh organizmov (taksony otryadnoy i vyshchikh grupp). \zdatel’svo Nauka, Moscow. Starobogatoy, Ya. I. 1991. Problems in the nomenclature of higher taxonomic categories. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 48(1): 6-18. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Proposals for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked taxa into the Code Alain Dubois Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, Systématique & Evolution, USM 602 Taxonomie & Collections, Reptiles & Amphibiens, 25 rue Cuvier, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: dubois@mnhn.fr) Note. In order to avoid semantic ambiguity, the following terms (Dubois, 2000, 2005a-c) are used here: (1) nomen (plural nomina) for ‘scientific name’ in the Code (to avoid possible confusions with authors’ names, vernacular names, etc.); (2) nominal-series for a set of nomina that interact concerning synonymy, homonymy, priority, etc.: thus, fammily-series is used here instead of ‘family group’ as used in the Code, etc., to avoid confusions such as between the formula ‘species group’ to designate either a taxon or a nomenclatural level. Introduction The Code currently regulates only the nomina of taxa of the species-, genus- and family-series, i.e. from the rank subspecies to the rank superfamily. For a short period, i.e. between the 1953 Copenhagen Congress (Hemming, 1953) and the 1958 London Congress, Rules for the naming of orders and other higher ranked taxa were incorporated in the international “Régles’, with use of type genera for such nomina (Linsley & Usinger, 1959), but these Rules had been deleted when the first edition of the Code (ICZN, 1961) was published. Currently these nomina are not covered by the Code, which raises increasing problems as new phylogenetic analyses of zoological groups are produced: such works usually tend to increase the number of higher taxa and to modify the contents and definitions of these taxa. The absence of Rules for the naming of higher taxa currently results in ambiguity and confusion, and if this situation persists 1t may result in chaos, different authors applying either the same nomen to different taxa or different nomina to the same taxon. This prompted me to propose formal rules for the incorporation of the nomina of higher taxa into the Code. These proposals are widely different and much more detailed than previous proposals already published in BZN (Rasnitsyn, 1982; Brothers, 1983; Starobogatov, 1991). Given the space limitations of this paper, they cannot be presented and discussed here in detail, but details of the project are provided elsewhere (Dubois, 2005a-c). Premises The proposed Rules are presented here in the context of a philosophy of zoological nomenclature that relies on a few simple premises, in agreement with those of the Code for nomina of lower-ranked taxa (Dubois, 2005d): 1. Nomenclature is distinct from taxonomy: the role of the latter is to define or recognize classificatory units or taxa, whereas the role of the former is to provide nomina for these units. Accordingly, nomina are just labels allowing unambiguous, universal and automatic designation of taxa within the frame of any given taxonomy. They are not taxa, or definitions of taxa, or theories about taxa, their properties or Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005. 201 their evolution. They have no meaning or value in isolation. Their function is to allow storage and retrieval of taxonomic information about organisms, not to replace this information. 2. Establishment of the status of a nomen is a three-step or three-storey process (Dubois, 2005a-b): (a) Availability of a nomen is provided by its publication under certain conditions (date, Latin or Latin-like term, presence of a description, definition or indication purported to differentiate the taxon designated by the nomen). (b) Allocation of a nomen to any potential taxon is not made through any kind of definition (be it phylogenetic, phenetic or other), but through the use of a tool unique to biological nomenclature, the ‘name-bearing type’ or onomatophore (Simpson, 1940, 1961), which establishes an objective and permanent link between the real world of organisms and the world of language (Dubois & Ohler, 1997; Dubois, 2005b). Onomatophores provide a means of ‘labelling’ taxa by ostension (Keller et al., 2003), but do not define taxa. Any onomato- phore is included in several (usually many) more or less inclusive taxa of various hierarchical ranks, so that the nomen potentially applies to all of these taxa: which ones will in the end have to bear this nomen will be determined by the next step. (c) In the three nominal-series covered by the Code, combination of the Rule of Coordination and of the Rule of Priority allows the automatic establishment of the hierarchical relationships between nomina designating more or less inclusive taxa. Among several nomina of which the onomatophores are included in a given taxon, the first published is the valid one, and this applies to taxa at all ranks including these onomatophores, up to the most inclusive one: at each rank, a more inclusive taxon bears the same nomen as its nominotypical subordinate taxon, which is the first named of all its subordi- nate taxa; this nomen may be either modified at different ranks as in the family-series, or not as in the other two nominal-series. Therefore, validity of nomen among several synonyms applying potentially to the same taxon is normally determined by priority of publication. However, in a few special cases, in order to preserve well-known nomina, this can be overruled by taking prevalent usage into account. 3. Nomina are historical entities with a given nomenclatural status (regarding their publication date and their onomatophore) which cannot be changed later. Under the Code, because of this ‘founder effect’, a nomen cannot be redefined after its creation. The only changes that can be brought to the nomenclatural status of nomina are through first-reviser actions, but such actions are strictly regulated and can occur only in a few situations, whenever some ambiguity remained after the original creation of the nomen (no onomatophore designation, contemporaneous publication of two synonymous or homonymous nomina, etc.). 4. Ranking of taxa in the nomenclatural hierarchy does not provide any information on the ‘nature’ or properties of taxa, but merely has the function of providing an organizational model (Knox, 1998) for indexing taxonomic infor- mation. This means that ranks are largely arbitrary and that by no means should a family of beetles be construed as equivalent by any criterion to a family of birds. However, in both groups any subfamily is subordinate to a single family and both 202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 taxa occupy a unique and identifiable place in the system, thus allowing unambiguous allocation of any given organism to a single taxon bearing a single nomen, at all levels of the hierarchy. 5. Although very important for communication, nomenclature is at the service of taxonomy, not the reverse, and nomenclatural rules should be devised in such a way as to be able to work simply and automatically, in order for two specialists working on opposite sides of the planet to be able to reach independently the same conclusion as to the valid nomen that a given taxon should bear within the frame of a given taxonomy. This means that the reply to the question ‘do we want a Code or a committee?’ (Fosberg, 1964) should clearly be ‘a Code’. Rules for the allocation of nomina to taxa should therefore be universal, simple, and leave no ground for personal opinions, tastes or interpretations. This is in contrast with the situation currently illustrated by supporters of the PhyloCode, an alternative nomenclatural system, who are engaged in endless discussions about the status of nomina (e.g., Laurin & Anderson, 2004). We are at the beginning of the “century of extinctions’ (Dubois, 2003), and taxonomists, if they act responsibly, have other things to do than to quibble on the status of nomina: they must collect, study and describe our planet’s remaining species before they become extinct. Differences The proposed new Rules have been devised in agreement with these five premises. They differ from all previously proposed systems for the nomenclature of higher taxa (references in Dubois, 2005c) in several important respects: 1. In all previous systems, two or more nominal-series were recognized above the family-series. In the new system, following the original proposal of Dubois (1984), a single nominal-series 1s recognized for higher taxa: the class-series. This is because, as stated above under 4, ranks are largely arbitrary, and there would be no point in discussing whether a given taxon ‘is’ a class or an order: the important point for communication among biologists is not the name given to the rank of the taxon, but the hierarchical arrangement of taxa among which this taxon occupies a unique position. 2. Two other proposals of previous authors were not retained, for reasons explained in detail in Dubois (2005c): (a) the use of standard endings for class-series taxa of a given rank; (b) the use of a-Rule of Coordination between nomina of the class-series: this means that, unlike the situation for the three nominal-series covered by the Code, a given class-series nomen can apply to only one taxon at a given hierarchical rank, not to several coordinate taxa (including ‘nominotypical’ taxa). 3. Concerning the onomatophores of class-series nomina, previous proposals were in favour of designating either a type-genus or a type-family for each nomen. The latter proposal was rejected already in Dubois (1984, 1987). The former proposal, first adopted by Dubois (1984), proved to be impractical because of the absence of a Rule of Coordination for higher nomina. In the class-series, as no nominotypical taxa exist, with a single type-genus it would be impossible to know which nomen applies to the most inclusive taxon and which ones to any of its subordinate taxa having the same onomatophore. A new solution was therefore devised in order to allocate unambiguously each class-series nomen to a single taxon within the frame of a given taxonomy. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 | 203 Rationale 5 The rules proposed rely on a detailed rationale that cannot be fully described here, but the most noteworthy elements of which are briefly presented below: 1. Availability of nomina of the class-series relies on criteria similar to those concerning other nomina governed by the Code: formal publication after 1757 in a permanent medium; nomen first created as a Latin or Latin-like term, or subse- quently latinised if created in another language; nomen published associated with a diagnosis or definition of the taxon it designates, relying on ‘characters purported to differentiate the taxon’. Objective criteria are also proposed to distinguish between class-series and family-series nomina, a distinction which is not always easy. 2. Allocation of nomina to taxa relies on onomatophores of a new kind, combined with a new tool called onomatostasis. This complication is needed in order to allow unambiguous allocation of each nomen to a single taxon in the hierarchical succession of taxa despite the absence of a Rule of Coordination. (a) For reasons already explained by Dubois (1984, 1987), the onomatophores of class-series nomina should be genus-series nomina (nomina of genera or subgenera), not specimens or nomina of other nominal-series. (b) It is proposed that the onomatophore of any class-series nomen be composed of its conucleogenera, 1.e. the indissoluble set of all genus-series nomina referred to the taxon in the original publication. This set is indissoluble, which means that it is impossible to restrict it by exclusion of any genus-series nomen (unlike e.g. the situation in the genus-series, where a type-species may be designated among several originally included species). Application of the nomen will therefore be possible only to taxa that include all these conucleogenera: the exclusion of even a single one of them prevents application of the nomen to the taxon. However, this is not enough to know exactly to which taxon the nomen will apply whenever several (and often many) hierarchically related higher taxa include the same conucleogenera. (c) In order to go further, it is proposed to take into account the alienogenera of the new taxon, i.e. the genera originally excluded from the taxon for which the new nomen was created, and which provided an external limit for this taxon. (d) As usual in nomenclature regulated by the Code, the current allocation of a nomen to a taxon is not given once and for all at the creation of the nomen, but depends on the taxonomy adopted. A class-series nomen potentially applies to any higher taxon that includes all its conucleogenera, but its more precise allocation requires knowledge of the current taxonomic allocation of its alienogenera. Three different situations are possible, for which the following treatments are proposed: (d) (1) Whenever a new nomen was proposed for a class-series taxon defined only by its conucleogenera (i.e., without mention of alienogenera), this nomen applies now to the /east inclusive taxon, in the taxonomy adopted, that includes all its conucleogenera. (d) (2) In both other cases, the new nomen was proposed for a class-series taxon defined both by its conucleogenera and its alienogenera. Two situations remain possible: (d) (2) (1) All original alienogenera are currently extragenera, i.e. genera now placed in taxa excluded from the least inclusive taxon including all the 204 (d) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 conucleogenera. In such a case, the nomen now applies to the. most inclusive taxon including all its conucleogenera and excluding all its extragenera. The latter play a new, particular role in zoological nomenclature: that of onomatostasis, 1.e. they provide an external limit for the extension of the taxon designated by the nomen. In this case, the combination of onomatophore and onomatostasis provides a stable reference for the allocation of the nomen to a taxon, but this is true only as long as the taxonomy does not change, because if it does some alienogenera may well become intragenera, as explained below. (2) (2) The original alienogenera include one or several intragenera, 1.e. genera that are currently classified within the taxon that includes all the conucleo- genera. In such a case, there is no onomatostasis and the taxon to which the nomen applies, just like in situation (d) (1), 1s the /east inclusive taxon including all its conucleogenera. The process described above 1s illustrated in Fig. 1. More details and examples are provided in Dubois (2005c). Implementation of these Rules in any concrete situation results in a completely unambiguous allocation of any given nomen to a single taxon in the taxonomic hierarchy, despite the absence of a Rule of Coordination. (3) Among several synonyms applying to the same taxon, validity of one of them is established through the following succession of Rules: (a) (b) As with other nomina, the basic rule suggested here for validity of these nomina is priority of publication, concerning both synonymy and homonymy. Hopefully, if the Rules here proposed or Rules derived from them are incorporated into the Code, after their implementation Priority will become progressively the only principle regulating validity of higher nomina. However, as higher nomina have until now not been regulated by formal Rules, the sudden request for strict respect of Priority for nomina of the past would have dramatic consequences in some cases, as it would require the replacement of well-known nomina by poorly known or unknown nomina. In order to avoid these problems, attention has been paid to the need to protect well-known nomina even when they do not have priority to designate the taxa. However, in order to avoid arbitrary decisions in this respect, strict Rules are needed to recognize these well-known nomina. The rationale used in this respect relies on making a difference between nomina used only among systematists (i.e., working on taxonomy, phylogeny or faunistics) and nomina used outside this community of specialists (1.e., among other biologists or even in the ‘general literature’). A nomen that is known and used only, even largely, among specialists of systematics, cannot be considered ‘well-known’ and worthy of protection or conservation simply on that account. If priority requires that this nomen be changed, all these specialists are (or should be) able to understand the reasons for this change, should not be perturbed by it, and should accept it, as nomina are just labels allowing unambiguous communication but have no meaning or value in isolation. On the other hand, nomina that have been regularly used in non-systematic literature, and are likely to be known to many biologists and even laymen, should be maintained for this reason. A criterion to recognize the fact that a nomen is well-known and widely used is its presence in the titles of publications, as titles have to be explicit enough to be understood even by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 205 non-specialists. Furthermore they are easy to find in bibliographic databases without having to read all publications in detail. These ideas led me to define strictly several categories of usage for nomina. More details on this rather complex matter are provided in Dubois (20055-c), and only the final conclusions of this reflection are given here. (c) Whenever working on the class-series nomenclature of a given zoological group, all nomina should be referred to one of the following categories: (A) symphonym: nomen used as valid for a taxon by all authors and in all publications after 31.XII.1899; (B) aphonym: nomen considered as available Cl Ol O2 Fl 2 F3 F4 F5 f ] Gl G2 G3! Tea! G5 co | G7 G8 a u Ni N2 ey N3 N4 U FF. O_O [ 16 1f 1f 1f 1 [ Le 1f 16 1f 1 Gl G2 G3 G4 GS G6 G7 G8 G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 b c NB a 7 u N5 N6 y N7 ee ee laa =e eee a ae | ‘or G2 eh “ca! vGs Go! "G7! "Gs! ‘a G2 G3! ‘ca! "Gs G6! 'G7! G8 d e NO Nil SSS TF See aT Cec Pa ae 17 Sac ae ee N10 SS Eee N12 SE Ee i aN tral) Ir Vial ral G1 G2 G3 Gi G5 G6 G7 G8 f f 1 Sa! fh Vi ral Gi G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 GB oO Oo Fig. 1. Diagrammatic illustration of different kinds of relations between taxa (genera G1-G8, families F1-F4, orders O1-O2, class Cl) in a given taxonomy (Fig. la) and twelve nomina N1-N12, originally proposed for taxa of the class-series including some of the genera G1-G8. Two major situations exist: (A) In one of them (Fig. 1b-d), all the genera originally placed in the taxon (its conucleogenera, which act as onomatophores for the nomina) are still placed in this taxon, and all the genera originally excluded from this taxon (its alienogenera) are now excluded from the taxon. The latter are therefore its extragenera and act as onomatostasis for the nomen. The nomen is then applied to the most inclusive taxon (i.e. of highest rank in the current taxonomy) including all its conucleogenera and excluding all its extragenera. In Fig. 1b, all genera originally placed in the taxon designated by the nomen N1 are still placed in the taxon Ol, and all those of N2 are still in O2: the nomina N1 and N2 designate respectively the taxa Ol and O2. The same applies in Fig. le and 1d, although in these cases the conucleogenera and the extragenera represent only part of the genera, and even of the families, included in each order. (B) In the second situation (Fig. le-g), there is an overlap between the taxa as currently recognized and the taxa of the original taxonomy for which the nomina had been created, some alienogenera of the original taxon being currently included in the taxon. The nomen is then allocated to the /east inclusive taxon (i.e. of lowest rank, in the current taxonomy) including all its conucleogenera. In some cases (Fig. 1f-g) this can result in two nomina initially created for taxa considered sister-taxa having now to be considered synonyms, although they do not share a single conucleogenus: this is the case of N9 and N10 in Fig. lf and of N11 and N12 in Fig. 1g, all these four nomina designating the class Cl. 206 (e) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 but invalid by at least one author and in at least one publication after 31.XII.1899; (C) eneonym: nomen never mentioned as available by any author and in any publication after 31.XII.1899; (D) diaphonym: nomen used as valid by at least one author and in at least one publication after 31.XII.1899. The last category includes two major subcategories: (C1) eurydiaphonym: nomen that has been significantly used as valid for a taxon in non-systematic literature after 31.XII.1899; (C2) stenodiaphonym: nomen that has not been significantly used as valid in non-systematic literature after 31.XII.1899. The subcategory of eurydiaphonym consists of two further infracategories: (Cla) paneurydiapho- nym: eurydiaphonym that is the only one to have been used as valid for a taxon in non-systematic literature after 31.XI1I.1899; (Clb) schizeurydiaphonym: eurydiaphonym that has been used as valid for a taxon in non-systematic literature after 31.XII.1899, but alternatively to another eurydiaphonym for the same taxon. For the purpose of this Rule, the term significantly is to be understood as follows: to be considered a diaphonym, a nomen should have been used for a taxon, either in its Latin form or as a vernacular nomen in any recent language (A) either in the titles of at least 25 non-purely systematic books, written by at least 25 independent-authors and published in at least 10 different countries after 31.XII.1899, or (B) in the titles of at least 100 non-purely systematic publications of any kind written by 100 independent- authors and published in at least 10 different countries after 31.XII.1899. In what precedes: (a) purely systematic publications are publications dealing only or mostly with taxonomy, phylogeny and/or faunistics; (b) non-purely system- atic publications are publications a significant portion of which (i.e., at least half of their total volume) deals with non-systematic matters, such as various fields of biology, medicine, agronomy, etc., or even is addressed to non- scientific users, such as members of administrations, governments, customs, conservation organizations, etc.; (c) independent authors are defined as authors who never published together (as co-authors) on the zoological group concerned before the case is considered (Dubois, 1997). These detailed categories of nomina can be grouped in two major groups regarding their need for conservation: sozonyms (symphonyms and paneury- diaphonyms) and distagmonyms (eurydiaphonyms, stenodiaphonyms and aphonyms). Sozonyms are nomina which, being well-known to non-specialists, should be protected in their usual sense, even if this sense is not the original one at the creation of the nomen. In the latter case, the sozonym should be conserved, but credited to the first author who used it in the usual sense, i.e. with an onomatophore in agreement with its current usage. The earlier nomen with a different onomatophore should then be rejected as an invalid senior homonym. In contrast, distagmonyms do not have to be so protected. It is not proposed, however, to use strict priority to validate them, but to have a more sensible rule, according to which, if several nomina are available for a taxon, schizeurydiaphonyms have precedence over stenodiaphonyms, the latter over aphonyms and the latter over eneonyms. Only among these categories will priority allow a choice among competing nomina. These rules of validation of nomina are devised in order to take into account the long period during which higher nomina were not subject to any rules, to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 207 respect real usage outside specialized literature, and to allow a smooth transition into the future, when the automatic Principle of Priority will hopefully play a growing role in order to avoid prolonged debate to settle the valid nomen of any higher taxon. (f) A single example will be given here to illustrate the difference between sozonyms and distagmonyms: that of the vertebrate class-series nomina AMPHIBIA and LISSAMPHIBIA (for more details, see Dubois, 2004). The nomen AMPHIBIA Linnaeus, 1758 was introduced for a taxon much more comprehen- sive than the current amphibians of all zoologists, as it included, beside them, several groups of ‘reptiles’ and ‘fishes’: according to the Rules of allocation of nomina to taxa presented above, this nomen applies to the taxon currently known as VERTEBRATA Cuvier, 1800. However, the nomen AMPHIBIA being a sozonym should be conserved in its usual sense, first found in AMPHIBIA De Blainville, 1816: the latter should be validated as a sozonym, and its senior homonym AmpuHIBIA Linnaeus, 1758 definitively invalidated. Among amphibians, the nomen LISSAMPHIBIA Haeckel, 1866 was created for a taxon including the anurans and urodeles, but excluding the gymnophiones, thus being a strict junior invalid synonym of BATRACHIA Brongniart, 1800. Although in recent years the nomen LISSAMPHIBIA has had a growing use to designate a taxon including the anurans, urodeles and gymnophiones, this use is incorrect and the valid nomen of the latter taxon, according to the proposed Rules, is NEOBATRACHI Sarasin & Sarasin, 1890. The nomen LISSAMPHIBIA is completely unknown to non-specialists and, in contrast with the nomen AMPHIBIA, unlikely to be used in the titles of books written for a vast audience: it should be abandoned. (g) The Rules presented above provide only a general framework for the establishment of the valid nomen of a higher taxon. A number of particular cases, situations and exceptions remain, for which specific solutions had to be proposed. This information is given in Dubois (2005c), which also contains a detailed discussion of the use of ranks in higher (and lower) nomenclature, with proposals of standardization of the designation and treatment of nomen- clatural ranks over the whole of zoology, a question that is not addressed here. The complete proposal is summarised under a set of 24 formal Rules. Discussion and conclusion The proposed rules are offered to the community of zoologists and taxonomists for consideration and discussion, prior to their possible incorporation into the Code. They are considered to be an efficient way of solving the problems posed by the growing need to have rational and universal rules for the nomenclature of higher taxa, agreeing in their basic philosophy with the current rules of the Code. Attention is drawn here to the following major aspects of these rules: (1) they respect the independence between taxonomy and nomenclature and do not ‘infringe upon taxonomic freedom’: they are thus compatible with any philosophy of classification, including ‘phylogenetic taxonomy’; (2) they allow nomina to be used according to their original sense, just as with other nomina covered by the Code, thus avoiding endless discussions and redefinitions of nomina, a major weakness of recent alternative proposals to the Code; (3) they are largely automatic in use, allowing any 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 two zoologists confronted with the same problem to find the same solution by simple rigour, not through personal taste or opinion and without having to petition Committees or to rely on the help of lobbies; (4) once such Rules have been implemented, after a period of transition, the allocation of nomina to higher taxa will become a routine practice that will not require the expense of time, money and energy. Given the current state of our planet, the latter should be concentrated on the real priority of the beginning of the ‘century of extinctions’, which is not to redefine nomina, but to accelerate the exploration, inventory and study of organisms, in order in some cases to be able to struggle for their conservation, but in many more cases to simply (but importantly) store information and specimens for the future generations (Dubois, 2003). In the light of these comments, the heavy investment of hundreds of working hours by dozens of zoologists to discuss pros and cons of a new proposal for an alternative Code appears at best as a mistake and at worst as a criminal operation against the study of biodiversity (Dubois, 20050). In order to limit as much as possible the duration of the ‘period of transition’ mentioned above, it is proposed to build up a Nomenclator zoologicus for class-series nomina, 1.e. a database of all zoological higher nomina ever published since 1758 with information on their status (date, conucleogenera, alienogenera), and with a possi- bility to find this information online. Work is in progress for the implementation of this database with its associated software (Dubois & Gérard, in preparation). Colleagues worldwide who are interested in this project are welcome to contact us. References Brothers, D.J. 1983. Comments on Rasnitsyn’s proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family group. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 40(2): 72-73. Dubois, A. 1984. La nomenclature supragénérique des Amphibiens Anoures. Mémoires du Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, (A) 131: 1-64. Dubois, A. 1987. Again on the nomenclature of frogs. Alytes, 6(1—2): 27-55. Dubois, A. 1997. Proposals concerning the conditions needed for a name being eligible for conservation. Jn: Dubois & Ohler (1997): 317-320. Dubois, A. 2000. Synonymies and related lists in zoology: general proposals, with examples in herpetology. Dumerilia, 4(2): 33-98. Dubois, A. 2003. The relationships between taxonomy and conservation biology in the century of extinctions. Comptes rendus Biologies, 326 (suppl. 1): S9-S21. Dubois, A. 2004. The higher nomenclature of recent amphibians. Alytes, 22(1—2): 1-14. Dubois, A. 2005a. Propositions pour incorporation des nomina de taxons de rang supérieur dans le Code international de nomenclature zoologique. Biosystema, 23: 73-96. Dubois, A. 2005b. Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 1. Some general questions, concepts and terms of biological nomenclature. Zoosystema, 27(2): 365-426. Dubois, A. 2005c. Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher-ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. The proposed Rules and their rationale. Zoosystema, in press. Dubois, A. & Ohler, A. 1997. Early scientific names of Amphibia Anura. I. Introduction. Bulletin du Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, (4) 18(3-4): 297-320. Fosberg, F.R. 1964. Do we want a Code or a Committee? Taxon, 13: 177-178. Hemming, F. (Ed.). 1953. Copenhagen decisions on zoological nomenclature. Additions to, and modifications of, the Régles internationales de la nomenclature zoologique; approved and adopted by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, August, 1953. London, International Trust: for Zoological Nomenclature: xxxi, 135 pp. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 | 209 ICZN 1961. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. First edition. London, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature: xvii, 176 pp. Keller, R.A., Boyd, R.N. & Wheeler, Q.D. 2003. The illogical basis of phylogenetic nomencla- ture. The Botanical Review, 69(1): 93-110. Knox, E. 1998. The use of hierarchies as organizational models in systematics. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 63: 1-49. Laurin, M. & Anderson, J.S. 2004. Meaning of the name Tetrapoda in the scientific literature: an exchange. Systematic Biology, 53(1): 68-80. Linsley, E.G. & Usinger, R.L. 1959. Linnaeus and the development of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Systematic Zoology, 8(1): 39-47. Rasnitsyn, A. 1982. Proposal to regulate the names of taxa above the family group. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 39(3): 200-207. Simpson, G.G. 1940. Types in modern taxonomy. American Journal of Science, 238: 413-431. Simpson, G.G. 1961. Principles of animal taxonomy. New York, Columbia Univ. Press: xii, 247 pp. Starobogatoy, Y. I. 1991. Problems in the nomenclature of higher taxonomic categories. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 48(1): 6-18. 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 ZooBank: the open-access register for zoological taxonomy: Technical Discussion Paper Andrew Polaszek'*, Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga*', Philippe Bouchet™’, Denis J. Brothers*', Neal Evenhuis®, Frank-Thorsten Krell’, Christopher H.C. Lyal*, Alessandro Minelli”'* Richard L. Pyle®, Nigel J. Robinson®, F. Christian Thompson? & J. van Tol'® ‘International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, London U.K.; ?Natural History Museum, London U.K.; *Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain; *Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France; °University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa; Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.; 'University of Padua, Italy; SThomson Zoological Ltd, York, U.K.; ?Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.; '°National Museum of Natural History, Leiden, The Netherlands. Introduction A proposal for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) to establish ZooBank, an open-access, mandatory registration system for descriptions of all new taxa and nomenclatural acts in animal taxonomy was published recently (Polaszek et a/l., 2005). That paper is effectively an argument for the establishment of a registration system, proposed by 29 currently active zoologists from a variety of backgrounds. The purpose of the present paper is to describe the technical details and possible obstacles to implementing such a system, and to attract comments and discussion from potential contributors and users. ZooBank — Summary The widely dispersed nature of taxonomic publications that affect the scientific names of animals is an obstacle to progress in zoology. For example, in entomology alone, there are more than 1100 specialised journals that might contain taxonomi- cally relevant information, and many of these are extremely difficult to access. With advances in bioinformatics answering the need for the more rapid description and cataloguing of our disappearing biodiversity, the necessity for an authoritative name registry is ever greater. Zoological Record has been the resource that until now has come closest to answering that need by its annual publication of all those new animal names and taxonomic acts in zoology that come to its attention. The producers of Zoological Record are therefore the ideal collaborators with the Commission for the development and implementation of ZooBank. Zoological Record will act as the primary data collector with the Commission as the independent archiver of the database. The mechanism for doing this is described below. The Scope of ZooBank It must be emphasised that assessment or judgement of the taxonomic content of a piece of published work, i.e. any form of peer-review, is not part of the function of ZooBank. ZooBank will function as an archived index of zoological names and nomenclatural acts. A statement regarding the availability or unavailability of names Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 211 will be provided. The full scope of nomenclatural acts indexed by ZooBank remains to be established, but should minimally include newly proposed names, and new nomenclatural acts that affect existing names as established in the Code. Registration of Existing Names Retrospective registration of all existing names is clearly a major attraction of ZooBank, and one for which the collaboration with Zoological Record will prove indispensible. Zoological Record staff, during routine scanning and databasing of published articles, will supply ZooBank with all the data needed for registration, enabling the Commission Secretariat to alert authors that their data are being registered. Similarly, Zoological Record will be alerted to any overlooked animal names and taxonomic acts via ZooBank. Free access to Zoological Record’s Index of Organism Names (ION) will enable ZooBank to eventually become a complete database of all animal species. Such a complete list will serve many valuable functions that contribute to increased stability of zoological nomenclature. Mandatory Registration In order for ZooBank to be a complete register of animal names and the nomenclatural acts that affect them, registration must be a mandatory requirement for availability according to the Code. A voluntary system, while potentially of some use, would negate the final aim of complete coverage. In the long term, mandatory registration should eventually apply to a// zoological names and nomenclatural acts. A more practical approach for the short term, however, would be to require registration for all newly proposed names and nomenclatural acts, while accommo- dating voluntary registration of previously existing names and acts. Mandatory registration has the added advantage of ensuring that all new names and taxonomic acts are checked for compliance with the Code before they are made available. Registration as Publication Several recent initiatives, particularly the NSF-funded Planetary Biodiversity Inventories (PBIs), are attempting to promote taxonomy as a largely web-based discipline (e.g. http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/projects/solanum/). It seems inevitable that in the near future the Code will have to cover solely web-published taxonomic descriptions and nomenclatural acts. One possible response would be the development of a system whereby successful registration on the ZooBank database would be equivalent to publication. However, the implications of equating the act of registration in ZooBank as equivalent to publication via more traditional means (as prescribed in the current edition of the Code) are substantial, and demand careful consideration by a broad spectrum of the zoological research community. Paramount among the implications of a “‘registration=publication”’ scenario is the issue of peer review. While current provisions for peer review of taxonomic papers are often far from ideal, standards in taxonomy continue to be maintained largely by consensus. The fact that a carefully enforced peer review system would be an essential component of any “registration=publication” initiative provides an opportunity to reform current procedures. International editorial boards appointed for peer review of solely web-based taxonomic publications would need to be appointed to deal with web taxonomic publications in a systematic way. Collaboration with taxon-focussed 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 learned societies could be a first step to the development of such review boards (e.g. International Society of Hymenopterists for Hymenoptera papers; etc), perhaps via the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Changing the Commission’s Code Mandatory registration as an additional criterion of availability under the Code will require substantial changes to several Code Articles. Changes to the Code can be implemented in one of two ways: as amendments to the existing (4th) edition, or in the context of a new (Sth) edition. Introducing registration as a mandatory requirement for all newly established names and nomenclatural acts, while maintain- ing the current requirement for publication of such names and acts, could be established through amendments to the existing edition of the Code. More sweeping changes, such as equating the act of registration (with peer review) to publication, would probably best be introduced with a new (Sth) edition of the Code. Article 16 of the Commission’s constitution provides a clear protocol for intro- ducing amendments that are major changes to the Code. In summary, the proposed amendments (as detailed below) need to be published (e.g. in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and possibly elsewhere) and comments from zoologists received within one year of publication. The International Union of Biological Sciences must be informed, and asked to approve the major changes. The Commission votes on the proposed amendments and, if approved by a two-thirds majority, requests IUBS to ratify the amendments. Alternatively, provisional ratification by IUBS can be requested at the same time as requesting approval (i.e. in advance of voting), in which case ratification becomes effective after the Commission’s positive vote. After ratification, the Commission will publish the decision and date on which the ratified amendments come in to force. The entire procedure takes a minimum of 15 months. The process of drafting the 5th Edition Code has already started, with several aspects of the current edition in need of clarification or alteration. As with previous editions, extensive discussion with the Code’s users is essential, but the completion of a Sth edition is targeted for 2008. Herein we describe two alternative approaches to revising the Code. The first approach assumes that new names and nomenclatural acts must be published according to rules that are already established in the current edition of the Code, and adds provisions for mandatory registration of new names and nomenclatural acts. These proposed changes are presented in the form of amendments to the existing (4th Edition) of the Code. The other approach represents changes that would not only require mandatory registration of new names and nomenclatural acts, but simultaneously establish a procedure where the act of registration itself constitutes an accepted form of publication alongside traditional publication of new names and nomenclatural acts. This second approach is presented in the form of changes to the Code as they would be implemented in a new (5th Edition) of the Code. It would be premature in the context of this article to propose changes to the Code that would establish mandatory registration of all existing names; however, mandatory registra- tion of certain existing names would be necessary in some cases, as described below. Amendments to the current Code to accommodate mandatory registration The following amendments to the existing (4th Edition) Code would be necessary to minimally establish mandatory registration of new names and nomenclatural acts. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 213 Add Article 16a. Mandatory registration of names published after 2007. 16a.1. All new names and nomenclatural acts published after 2007 must be registered with the Commission within a period of two years from the date of publication to become available (in the case of names) or effective (in the case of nomenclatural acts). 16a.2. If Article 16a.1 is met, the date of publication is determined according to Article 21, i.e. the date to be adopted is the date of publication and not the date of registration. 16a.3. If a name is registered more than two years after its publication, the date of publication is the date of registration as determined by the Commission. An author who has missed the two-year registration period can apply to the Commission for backdating the names published to the original date of publication. Lost mail, force majeure, death of author, failings of publishers and similar hardships will be considered for accepting the original date of publication by the Commission. 16a.4. Within a period of two years from the date of publication, a name cannot be declared to be unavailable solely because it is not registered. It has to be assumed that it is available. Add Recommendation 16aA. Registration by authors. Registration is an integral component of the process of publishing new names. Authors must register new names immediately after publication or ensure registration by another person if they are not able to do it themselves. Add Recommendation 16aB. Posthumous registration. If an author dies before registration, or in the case of posthumous publications, editors are requested to register new names with the Commission immediately after publication. Add Recommendation 16aC. Late registration by the Commission. If a name has not been registered two years after its publication, the Commission must be informed. The Commission Secretariat will then register the name. Amendment to Article 21.1.: Replace ‘Except as provided in Article 3’ by: Except as provided in Articles 3 and 16a.3’. Add: For names published after 2007 the date to be adopted is stated in the database of registered names. Add Article 32.2.3. The spelling of names published after 2007 that are registered with the Commission can only be changed by use of the Commission’s plenary power. Add Article 52.8. Homonymy of registered names. Names registered after 2007 have no precedence over still unregistered older homonyms (regardless of whether the older homonym was published before 2008 or after 2007). If a registered name is a junior homonym, the Commission must be informed immediately. Add Article 78.4.6. register all new names published after 2007, provide an open access database of these names and their original descriptions through the World Wide Web and maintain a paper archive of all original descriptions. Add Article 80.10. Database of registered names published after 2007. New names published after 2007 must be registered by the Commission with the ZooBank database to be available for nomenclatural purposes. The status of registered names does not differ from the status of names published before 2007. They have no precedence over names published before 2007. The Commission will provide an open-access database, ZooBank, of registered names via the World Wide Web. If the open access or maintenance of this database cannot be provided for longer than 214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 12 months, Article 16a will become inoperative until it is reinstated by plenary power. Amendment to Article 83. Replace “The Commission is under no obligation . . .” by: “Apart from the mandatory check for Code-compliance during registration, the Commission is under no obligation... .” The protocol that would be established through ZooBank for registering new names and nomenclatural acts under this procedure is described below. 1. Either prior to or after publication of a new name or nomenclatural act the author (or third party, see below) will log on to the Commission website (www. iczn.org), or alternative approved site as listed on the Commission website, and fill in the form provided. This form requests all details of the new name or nomenclatural act required for Code-compliance and to maintain completeness of ZooBank (a postal service will also be available for those without internet access). 2. A “nomenclatural act” includes the following: (i) the suppression of a name; (il) the proposal of a replacement name; (111) fixation of a spelling of a name; (iv) an emendation of a name; (v) fixation of a type species; (vi) first inclusion of nominal species in a genus-group taxon; (vil) designation of a lectotype; (vill) designation of a neotype; (ix) citation of the type genus of a family-group name published after 1999. 3. ZooBank will check the submitted details automatically, and the author will receive a response stating whether or not the name or act meets the provisions of the Code, and if a proposed name is a junior homonym. The author will be provided with a unique identifier (reference code: e.g. DOI/GUID/LSID) for each name or nomenclatural act. This identifier will be deposited in ZooBank but inaccessible to the general public until completion of the registration procedure. The identifier will be published in the subsequent paper. 4. After publication, and if available, the author will upload a facsimile file (currently pdf), or submit a reprint or good quality photocopy to the Commission Secretariat, for verification and archiving. Alternatively, the author can provide the registration details by post on a form downloadable from the Commission website or available from the Commission Secretariat. These electronic documents, although not mandatory, will become an integral part of ZooBank, and authors, editors and publishers will be strongly encouraged to supply them during the registration process. Copyright issues will need to be negotiated between publishers and the Commission. 5. When the Commission Secretariat has received a copy of the original description or published nomenclatural act, this will be cross-checked with the registration form, checked for Code-compliance, and finally registered. In cases of non Code- compliance, the Commission will contact the author and withhold the registration process until a correction is published. 6. At the point of registration with ZooBank the submitting author will receive confirmation and details of the registration by e-mail or post. The name is now registered and available. 7. Copyright issues allowing, the complete original description will be linked to the registered name in the database immediately, and a paper copy archived in the archive of the Commission. The proposed registration procedure described above has a number of parallels with the current system for deposition of gene sequence data with GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank/index.html). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 215 Changes to the Code for Establishing Registration as Publication A somewhat more ambitious revision to the Code, which would both require registration of new names and nomenclatural acts, and simultaneously establish the act of registration as an alternative to, but running concurrently with, current publication requirements, could be implemented in the next (Sth) Edition of the Code. Such a scenario would require at least the following changes to the current Code: Change to Article 8.3. Replace “‘see Article 8.7.1” by: “see Article 8.8.1”. Change to Article 8.5. Add “it” to the end of the sentence. Change to Article 8.5.1 Remove “it” from the beginning of the sentence. Add Article 8.5.2. is published on durable media, and. Change to Article 8.5.2. Replace “8.5.2” with “8.5.3”. Change to Article 8.5.3. Replace “8.5.3” with “8.5.4”. Change to Article 8.6. Add “and before 2008” to the first sentence, after “produced after 1999”. Replace ““For a work produced after 1999” in the second sentence with “For a work produced between 1999 and 2008”. Add Article 8.7. Names and nomenclatural acts after 2007. All new names and nomenclatural acts proposed after 2007 must be properly registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature [Article 17]. All such registrations entered after 2007 shall themselves constitute the equivalent of a “published work” as defined in this Chapter, and referenced elsewhere throughout this Code. Change to Article 8.7. Replace “8.7” with “8.8”. Change to Article 8.7.1. Replace “8.7.1” with “8.8.1”. Change to Recommendation 8C. Replace “after 1999” with “between 1999 and 2008”. Change to Article 9.8. Add “before 2008” after parenthetical. Change to Article 9.9. Replace full-stop (period mark) at end with **; or” Add Article 9.10. after 2008 any form of information dissemination other than the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature [Art. 17]. Add Article 17. Mandatory registration of names and nomenclatural acts published after 2007. 17.1. Requirements for all names and nomenclatural acts. To be available, every new name and nomenclatural act proposed after 2007 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and Articles 13 through 16, and must also be established for nomenclatural purposes via proper registration with the Commission registry of zoological nomen- clature. Full requirements for proper registration are to be provided at the official registry web site, but shall minimally include items described herein. Items required for both new names and nomenclatural acts include: 17.1.1. indication of the Rank [Art. 1.2.2] to which the newly registered name or nomenclatural act applies; 17.1.2. indication of authorship [Arts. 50, 51] to which the newly registered name or nomenclatural act is attributed; 17.1.3. cross-reference to registration entry for name of family-group taxon 1n which a registered genus-group name is placed, where that family-group name is known; 17.1.4. cross-reference to registration entry for name of genus-group taxon in which a registered genus-group name established at a subgeneric rank or species- group name is placed; 216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 17.1.5. cross-reference to registration entry for name of species-group taxon in which a registered name established at the rank of subgenus is placed. 17.2. Requirements for registration of names. Registration entries for all names, whether published before 2008 and retrospectively registered [Arts. 17.4, 17.5], or newly proposed after 2007 shall include, in addition to the items listed in Article 17.1, the following: 17.2.1. complete spelling of the name, in accordance with rules established in Articles 25 through 49; for new names proposed or published as family-group taxa, name-bearing type species [Art. 67] for new names proposed or published as genus-group taxa, or name-bearing type specimen [Art. 72] for new names proposed or published as species-group taxa [see Article 61.5]; 17.2.3. cross-reference to registration entry or entries for names of one or more taxa from which the newly proposed taxon is distinguished; 17.2.4. description or diagnosis that states in words the characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon [Art. 13.1.1]. 17.3. Requirements for registration of nomenclatural acts. Registration entries for all nomenclatural acts, whether published before 2008 and retrospectively registered [Arts. 17.4, 17.5], or newly proposed after 2007 shall include, in addition to the items listed in Article 17.1, the following: 17.3.1. cross-reference to registration entries of affected names or associated nomenclatural acts; j with the proposed nomenclatural act. 17.4. Retrospective registration of names and nomenclatural acts published before 2008. Except as indicated in Article 17.5, registration is not required for names or nomenclatural acts published before 2008. However, the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature accommodates voluntary retrospective registration of names and nomenclatural acts published before 2008. Such retrospective registration shall include, in addition to the items listed in Articles 17.1 through 17.3 (as applicable), the following: ; 17.4.1. Indication of person(s) and/or organization(s) responsible for providing the information entered into the registry (whether by the original author or authors, or by a third party or parties); 17.4.2. Complete citation details of the publication in which the name or nomenclatural act appeared. 17.5. Mandatory retrospective registration of names and nomenclatural acts pub- lished before 2008. Any name or nomenclatural act published before 2008 that is cross-referenced by another registered name, or by another registered nomenclatural act, must itself be retrospectively registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature in accordance with Article 17.4. 17.6. Unayailability of unregistered names and nomenclatural acts proposed after 2007. As established in this Article, all new names and nomenclatural acts must be registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature in order to be available. Thus, all scientific names of animals [Art. 1] and all nomenclatural acts relating to such names as governed by this Code that appear in any published or Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 . 217 unpublished work after 2007, that are not represented by a corresponding entry in the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature, are to be considered unavailable. Add Recommendation 17A. Cross-reference to registration entry for name of family-group taxon in which a registered subgeneric name is placed. Whenever possible, a cross-reference to the registration entry for the name of the original family-group taxon in which a genus-group name established at a subgeneric rank or species-group name is placed, should be provided. Add Recommendation 17B. Retrospective registration by original authors. Voluntary or mandatory retroactive registration of names or nomenclatural acts should, whenever feasible, be performed by the original authors of said names and nomenclatural acts. Add Recommendation 17C. Retrospective registration of related taxa. Authors who register names or nomenclatural acts are strongly encouraged to retrospectively register [Art. 17.4] names of all other closely related taxa, when feasible, even if not required by Article 17.5. Change to Articles 17-90, including cross-references thereto. Increase Article number by 1. Change to Article 22.1. [=21.1] Replace “Except as provided in Article 3” with “Except as provided in Articles 3 and 21.9”. Add Article 22.9. [=21.9] Date of publication for names and nomenclatural acts subject to mandatory registration. 22.9.1. The publication date of all names and nomenclatural acts proposed after 2007 shall be fixed as the moment at which the complete registration entry for the name or act was submitted to the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature [Art. 17]. 22.9.2. This date shall be included as part of the registration entry, and established by the Commission registration service at the time of registration. 22.9.3. If two (or more) new names or nomenclatural acts with mutual cross references [Art. 17] are simultaneously registered, the publication date for both (or all) such names will be identical, and will be set as the moment at which all mutually cross-referencing names have been completely and properly registered. Example. After 2007, if a new genus-group name and a new species-group name that represents the name-bearing type of the new genus-group name are concurrently registered, each would need to cross-reference the other (the genus-group name would need to cross-reference the new species-group name as its name-bearing type {[Art. 17.2.2]; and the new species-group name would need to cross-reference the new genus-group name in which it is originally placed [Art. 17.1.4]). The publication date for both new names would be identical, and would be established by the Commission registration service as the moment at which the complete registration entry for both names were completed and submitted to the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature [Arts. 22.9.1, 22.9.2]. 22.9.4. Article 22.9 does not apply to names and nomenclatural acts published prior to 2008 that are retrospectively registered [Arts. 17.4, 17.5], which retain the original publication date as established in Articles 22.1 through 22.8 above. Add Article 33.2.3. [=32.2.3]. The original spelling of names proposed after 2007 as registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature [Art. 17] can only be changed by use of the Commission’s plenary power. 218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Add Article 53.8. [=52.8] Homonymy of registered names. Names registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature after 2007 have no precedence over unregistered older homonyms. If a registered name is determined to be a junior homonym, an appropriate nomenclatural act indicating such should be registered. Add Article 62.5. [=61.5] Registration requirement for name-bearing types estab- lished after 2007. All genus-group names designated as name-bearing types of family-group taxa after 2007, and all species-group names designated as name- bearing types of genus-group taxa after 2007, must themselves be properly registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature before they can serve as name-bearing types. This applies equally to name-bearing types published before 2008 and retrospectively registered [Arts. 17.4, 17.5], as well as name-bearing types proposed after 2007 [Art. 17]. Change to Article 79.4.5. [=78.4.5] Replace full-stop (period mark) at end of sentence with “; and” Add Article 79.4.6. [=78.4.6] maintain a registry to accommodate all new names and nomenclatural acts proposed after 2007, and any names or acts published before 2008 that are voluntarily submitted, and provide an open access database of these names and acts through the World Wide Web. Add Article 81.10. [=80.10] Database of registered names and nomenclatural acts proposed after 2007. New names and nomenclatural acts proposed after 2007 must be registered with the Commission registry of zoological nomenclature, maintained and administered by the Commission. The status of registered names does not differ from the status of names published before 2007. They have no precedence over names published before 2007. The Commission will provide an open-access database, ZooBank, of registered names via the World Wide Web. A series of continuously synchronized replicate copies of this database will be distributed among designated institutions throughout the world, with an established ranking such that if the master ZooBank service (located with the Commission’s Secretariat) is interrupted, the official registry designation is transferred to the highest-ranking replicate copy that is online and active. Transfer of the active ZooBank registry will be returned to the master ZooBank server after its online access has been fully restored, and it has been re-synchronized with current registry content. The procedure that would be established through ZooBank for registering new names and nomenclatural acts under this procedure is described below. 1. A taxonomist wishing to register a new name or nomenclatural act would visit the ZooBank service located on the Commission web site. A dynamic, interactive registration form would guide the taxonomist through the process of entering the necessary information (as specified in Article 17, and/or expanded on the registry web site itself). 2. ZooBank will check the submitted details automatically, and provide the author with a unique identifier (reference code: e.g. DOI/GUID/LSID) for each name or nomenclatural act. This code will be deposited in ZooBank but inaccessible to the general public until completion of the registration procedure. 3. After all required details have been entered, and the submitting taxonomist has indicated that the name or nomenclatural act is ready to be officially registered, the primary (master) ZooBank service will propagate the registration entry data to all official replicate copies of the ZooBank database, in the order of their established Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 . 219 ranking [ranking would be determined initially as simply the chronological sequence of established replicate servers, but might be modified later as a function of historical reliability of each replicate service]. Each official replicate copy of the ZooBank service would, upon receiving and verifying accuracy of the registration data, send a confirmation back to the primary (master) service. 4. Once the primary (master) ZooBank service has received sufficient confirmation of data replication, the official date and time of registry would be assigned to the registry record, and that date and time value would be propagated (as described above) to all replicate copies of ZooBank. 5. After a registration entry has received its official date and time of registry, the registration procedure would be complete, and the registry entry would be made available to the general public. Considerations for Discussion: We propose to establish a prototype of ZooBank, as a collaborative project between the Commission, Zoological Record and the Global Biodiversity Infor- mation Facility (GBIF). This will provide a voluntary registration service as a proof of concept. Clearly there are major overlaps with ZooBank in the information content of ZR’s Index of Organism Names (ION) and GBIF’s Electronic Catalogue of Names of Known Organisms (ECAT). The maximum compatibility between these two data- bases and ZooBank needs to be aimed for. With unique identifiers (reference codes: e.g. DOI/GUID/LSID) appearing with registered names in all three databases. For the procedure described above, amending the 4th Edition of the Code to only require mandatory registration of traditionally published names and nomenclatural acts, paper archiving of species descriptions will require resources and space. The Commission is currently in discussions with the Library and Information Services Department of the Natural History Museum (London, UK) to see how such a facility might be jointly developed and funded. Checking published descriptions against ZooBank registration entries will also require additional resources. A business plan is presently being developed to address funding issues. For the situation described above, establishing the act of registration as equivalent to the act of publication, careful consideration must be given to all aspects of the proposed Sth Edition of the Code establishing such a procedure. Under either of these alternatives, the success of ZooBank will depend largely on the willingness of taxonomists to register their work with it. For this reason the registration process must be uncomplicated, and third party registration must also be possible. The three organisations working together on this project, the Commission, GBIF and Thomson Zoological (producers of Zoological Record) will exchange information on unregistered data, as well as alerting authors. ZooBank will also provide an alerting service to authors advising them by e-mail of changes in their groups of interest. Extensive documentation and context-sensitive help features, written in easy-to-understand language, will need to be developed and included as an integral component of the ZooBank web site. Both alternatives also require the resolution of many technical details relating to data integrity assurance, perpetual access (both in terms of continuous day-to-day access and long-term archival access), replication and synchronization, and unique 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 identifiers used as registry keys. Of particular importance for the ZooBank database is access security. The system must be open access such that any taxonomist can register new names and nomenclatural acts with minimal encumbrance. At the same time, the database must be carefully safeguarded against malicious or unintentional hacking, spurious registration entries, and other forms of “data vandalism”. The solution will involve a simple one-time user-registration process for any taxonomist wishing to submit registration records, with associated write-access password protection. Procedures for recognizing illegitimate users will need to be established, and a mechanism for enforcement appropriately implemented. Summary This discussion document attempts to outline a possible procedure for implement- ing ZooBank as an open-access, central web-based registry of animal names and taxonomic acts in zoology. Indications to date are that a consensus can be reached among the zoological taxonomic community that such a register is desirable. However, there are many technical aspects that need to be addressed before it can be implemented. In this document we have attempted to include as many of these as we can envisage at this time, but no doubt there is a great deal still to be discussed. We therefore invite all comments on this paper to be addressed to the dedicated discussion list at: http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/zoobank-list Reference Polaszek, A., Agosti, D., Alonso-Zarazaga, M., Beccaloni, G., Bjorn, P.d.P., Bouchet, P., Brothers, D.J., Cranbrook, G., Evenhuis, N.L., Godfray, H.C.J., Johnson, N.F., Krell, F.-T., Lipscomb, D., Lyal, C.H.C., Mace, G.M., Mawatari, S., Miller, S.E., Minelli, A., Morris, S., Ng, P.K.L., Patterson, D.J., Pyle, R.L., Robinson, N.J., Rogo, L., Taverne, J., Thompson, F.C., Tol, J. van, Wheeler, Q.D. & Wilson, E.O. 2005. A universal register for animal names. Nature, 437: 477 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 221 Case 3304 Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of usage by the designation of Oceania armata KoOlliker, 1853 as the type species Peter Schuchert Muséum dhistoire naturelle, CP 6434, CH-1211 Geneva 6, Switzerland (e-mail: Peter.Schuchert@MHN.ville-ge.ch) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 78.2.3 and 81.1 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the hydrozoan name Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 by validating a previous but invalid designation by Mayer (1910) of Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 as the type species. Previous considerations of the nominal genus by Forbes (1848) and Agassiz (1862) based on suggested nominal species were invalid under Article 67 of the Code. During the last 150 years the genus Oceania has been used exclusively in the sense of Mayer (1910). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Cnidaria; Hydrozoa; Oceania; Oceania armata; hydromedusae. 1. Ina work on all species of medusae then known, Péron & Lesueur (1810, p. 343) established the genus-group name Oceania and assigned to it 14 nominal species of hydromedusae. They did not designate a type species for this new nominal genus. Plates intended to accompany the text were not included as part of the report and most of them were published for the first time only quite recently (Goy, 1995). Many of the nominal species listed under Oceania by Péron & Lesueur were therefore of questionable identity to early authors. Species currently recognizable among those originally included in Oceania have been assigned to several different families and orders of Hydrozoa (Goy, 1995). 2. Eschscholtz (1829, p. 96) established the name OcEANIDAE for the genus Oceania and six other genera, which are classified in several orders. 3. Lesson (1843) employed the generic name Oceania in a more restricted sense to accommodate species of leptomedusae (order Leptothecata) that are currently assigned mostly to the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (see Cornelius, 1982). Lesson did not designate a type species for the genus Oceania. Forbes (1848), in contrast to Lesson (1843) who referred leptomedusae to Oceania, referred several species of anthomedusae (order Anthoathecata) to the nominal genus. 4. Forbes (1848, p. 26) also made an ambiguous type species designation. He stated that ‘the term Oceania has been so often and generally applied to Medusa pileata of Forskal, and similar forms, that I think it best to restrict it to that group. Peron, who first founded the genus, included them within it, though it is doubtful whether he would have regarded the Forskalian species as the type’. Whether Forbes’s statement can be taken as a valid type species designation of Oceania is arguable on grounds that it can be considered ambiguous under Article 67.5.1 and 67.5.3 of the Code. 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Medusa pileata Forskal, 1775 is a well-known species and has been repeatedly cited as Neoturris pileata during the last 85 years. Forbes’s use of the name Oceania was adopted by Kolliker (1853, p. 323) in describing the new species of anthoathecate medusa Oceania armata and by Gegenbaur (1856) in constructing a systematic account of the medusae. 5. Agassiz (1862, p. 346, footnote 2) reverted to Lesson’s (1843) concept of Oceania and attempted to more precisely define the genus. In referring to a group of species now allocated to several families, he stated that ‘I see, however, no reason why the name Nucleiferae, which he [Lesson] proposed for the old Forskalian type, should not be retained for this family, and the name Oceania and Oceanidae applied specifically, as Lesson has done, to Oceania phosphorica, which Péron & LeSueur placed in the first section of the genus. This corresponds to the genus Thaumantias of modern writers’. Whether Agassiz’s statement can be taken as a valid type species designation of Oceania is also arguable on grounds that it could be considered to be ambiguous (see Articles 67.5.1 and 67.5.3). In an accompanying taxonomic overview, Agassiz (1862) employed the genus Oceania in nearly the same sense that Clytia 1s used today. The name Oceania phosphorica Péron & Lesueur, 1810, which Agassiz regarded as a typical member of Oceania, is now considered a probable synonym of Clytia hemisphaerica (Linnaeus, 1767), a possibility acknowledged by Péron & Lesueur (see Goy, 1995). In turn, Clytia hemisphaerica is generally regarded as a senior synonym of Campanularia johnstoni Alder, 1856, type species of Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 by designation under the plenary power (Opinion 1345). 6. Haeckel (1879) rejected the name Nucleiferae Lesson, 1843 as a disparate assemblage and the name never gained acceptance. The family name OcCEANIDAE In the sense that includes Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 continued to be used (e.g. Gegenbaur, 1856; Vanhoffen, 1891; Mayer, 1910; Picard, 1958; Schuchert, 2004). Future usage of the family-group name OCEANIDAE depends on a valid type-species designation for the genus Oceania. 7. In a comprehensive monograph on medusae of the world, Mayer (1910, p. 147) sought to resolve nomenclatural confusion surrounding Oceania and to stabilize usage by designating Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 as its type species. All subsequent authors, including Kramp (1959, 1961, 1968) in a series of influential works on medusae, used Oceania as defined by Mayer (1910). However, Mayer’s type species designation is invalid, as noted by Calder (1988), because O. armata was not one of the species originally included in Oceania (see Article 69.1). 8. Oceania has been retained almost exclusively since 1910 for Oceania armata, a circumglobal species that is well-known and has often been mentioned in the literature over the last 150 years (e.g. Gegenbaur, 1854; Metschnikoff, 1886; Mayer, 1910; Ranson, 1925; Uchida, 1927; Kramp, 1959, 1961, 1965, 1968; Brinckmann-Voss, 1970; Trégouboff & Rose, 1957; Bouillon, 1985; Bleeker & van der Spoel, 1988; Boero & Bouillon, 1993; Bouillon, 1995; Schuchert, 1996; Bouillon & Boero, 2000; Schuchert, 2004). Currently (Bouillon & Boero, 2000), the genus Oceania comprises two valid species, namely Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 and Oceania tydemani Bleeker & van der Spoel, 1988. 9. Long-established usage would be severely disturbed if Oceania were defined according to concepts of the genus held by Lesson (1843) and Agassiz (1862), and especially so if it were considered a senior synonym of the leptothecate genus-group Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 223 name C/ytia Lamouroux, 1812, widely used in the nomenclature of both hydroids and hydromedusae (see Cornelius, 1982; Cornelius & Ostman, 1986). Clytia polyps and medusae are very common hydrozoans worldwide, and the name C/ytia has been used regularly in influential synopses (e.g. Hincks, 1868; Nutting, 1915; Fraser, 1944; Millard, 1975; Calder, 1991; Cornelius, 1995). Replacing Clytia by Oceania would certainly cause much confusion. 10. Article 69.2.2 allows for the designation of a nominal species not originally included in the genus as the type species only if it is considered to be a synonym of one of the originally included nominal species. In the interest of stability the Commission is asked to use its plenary power and set aside the restriction of this article as well as all other fixations of type species prior to that by Mayer (1910) and rule that the nominal species Oceania armata KOlliker, 1853 is the type species of the nominal genus Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 before the designation by Mayer (1910) of Oceania armata Kolliker, 1853 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig- nation by Mayer (1910) Oceania armata KOlliker, 1853 as ruled in (1) above; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name armata Kolliker, 1853, as published in the binomen Oceania armata (specific name of the type species of Oceania Péron & Lesueur, 1810). Acknowledgements I wish to express my sincere thanks to Dr Dale Calder for his encouragement and his assistance in formulating this case. References Agassiz, L. 1862. Contributions to the Natural History of the United States of America, vol. IV. 380 pp., 19 pls. Little Brown, Boston. Bleeker, J. & van der Spoel, S. 1988. Medusae of the Amsterdam Mid North Atlantic Plankton Expeditions (1980-1983) with description of two new species. Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde, 58: 227-258. Boero, F. & Bouillon, J. 1993. Zoogeography and life cycle patterns of Mediterranean hydromedusae (Cnidaria). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 48: 239-266. Bouillon, J. 1985. Essai de classification des hydropolypes-hydroméduses (Hydrozoa- Cnidaria). Indo-Malayan Zoology, 2: 29-243. Bouillon, J. 1995. Hydromedusae of the New Zealand Oceanographic Institute (Hydrozoa, Cnidaria). New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 22: 223-238. Bouillon, J. & Boero, F. 2000. Synopsis of the families and genera of the Hydromedusae of the world, with a list of the worldwide species. Thalassia Salentina, 24: 47-296. Brinckmann-Voss, A. 1970. Anthomedusae/Athecata (Hydrozoa, Cnidaria) of the Mediterranean. Part I. Capitata. Fauna e Flora Golfo di Napoli, 39: 1-96. Calder, D.R. 1988. Turritopsoides brehmeri, a new genus and species of athecate hydroid from Belize (Hydrozoa: Clavidae). Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 101: 229-233. Calder, D.R. 1991. Shallow-water hydroids of Bermuda: the Thecatae, exclusive of Plumularioidea. Royal Ontario Museum Life Sciences Contributions, 154: 1-140. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Cornelius, P.F.S. 1982. Hydroids and medusae of the family Campanulariidae recorded from the eastern north Atlantic, with a world synopsis of genera. Bulletin of the British Museum, Zoology, 42: 37-148. Cornelius, P.F.S. 1995. North-west European thecate hydroids and their medusae. Part 1. Introduction, Laodiceidae to Haleciidae. Pp. 1-347. Part 2. Sertulariidae to Campanulariidae. Pp. 1-386. Synopses of the British Fauna New Series, no. 50. Field Studies Council for Linnean Society of London and Estuarine and Coastal Sciences Association, Shrewsbury. Cornelius, P.F.S. & Ostman, C. 1986. On the names of two species of the genus Clytia Lamouroux, 1812 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) common in western Europe. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 43: 163-169. Eschscholtz, F. 1829. System der Acalephen. Eine ausfiihrliche Beschreibung aller medusenartigen Strahltiere. 190 pp. Ferdinand Dimmler, Berlin. Forbes, E. 1848. 4 monograph of the British naked-eyed medusae. with figures of all the species. 104 pp., 13 pls. Ray Society, London. Forskal, P. 1775. Descriptiones animalium avium, amphibiorium, piscium, insectorum, vermium; quae in itinere orientali observayit Petrus Forskal. 164 pp. Ex officina Molleri, Hauniae. Fraser, C.M. 1944. Hydroids of the Atlantic coast of North America. 451 pp., 94 pls. University of Toronto Press, Toronto. Gegenbaur, C. 1854. Zur Lehre vom Generationswechsel und der Fortpflanzung bei Medusen und Polypen. Verhandlungen der Physikalisch-Medizinischen Gesellschaft zu Wiirzburg, 4: 154-221. Gegenbaur, C. 1856. Versuch eines Systems der Medusen, mit Beschreibung neuer oder wenig gekannter Formen; zugleich ein Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Fauna des Mittelmeeres. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Zoologie, Leipzig, 8: 202-273. Goy, J. 1995. Les méduses de Francois Péron et Charles-Alexandre Lesueur. Un autre regard sur l'expédition Baudin. 392 pp. Ministére de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche. Comité des traveaux historiques et scientifiques, Paris. Haeckel, E. 1879. Das System der Medusen. Erster Teil einer Monographie der Medusen. Denkschriften der Medicinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Jena, 1: 1-360. Hincks, T. 1868. 4 history of the British hydroid zoophytes, vol. 1, \xvii, 338 pp., vol. 2, 67 pls. John van Voorst, London. Kolliker, A. 1853. In Gegenbaur, C., Kolliker, A. & Miller, H. Bericht tiber einige im Herbste 1852 angestellte vergleichend-anatomische Untersuchungen. Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 4: 299-370. Kramp, P.L. 1959. The Hydromedusae of the Atlantic Ocean and adjacent waters. Dana Report, 46: 1-283. Kramp, P.L. 1961. Synopsis of the medusae of the world. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the U.K., 40: 1-469. :; Kramp, P.L. 1965. The Hydromedusae of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Dana Report, 63: 1-162. Kramp, P.L. 1968. The Hydromedusae of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. Sections II & III. Dana Report, 72: 1-200. Lesson, R.P. 1843. Histoire naturelle des zoophytes. Acaléphes. 596 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris. Mayer, A.G. 1910. Medusae of the world. Hydromedusae, vols. 1 & Il. Scyphomedusae, vol. II. 735 pp. Carnegie Institution, Washington. Metschnikoff, E. 1886. Embryologische Studien an Medusen. Ein Beitrag zur Genealogie der Primitiv-Organe. 159 pp., 12 pls. Alfred Hélder, Wien. Millard, N.A.H. 1975. Monograph on the Hydroida of southern Africa. Annals of the South African Museum, 68: 1-513. Nutting, C. 1915. American hydroids. Part III, the Campanularidae and the Bonneviellidae. United States National Museum Special Bulletin, 4: 1-126. Péron, F. & Lesueur, C.A. 1810. Tableau des caractéres génériques et spécifiques de toutes les especes de méduses connues jusqu’a ce jour. Annales du Muséum national d histoire naturelle de Paris, 14: 325-366. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 _ 225 Picard, J. 1958. Origines et affinités de la faune d’hydropolypes (Gymnoblastes et Calypto- blastes) et d’hydroméduses (Anthoméduses et Leptoméduses) de la Méditerranée. Rapports et proces verbaux des Réunions de la Commission Internationale pour l'Exploration Scientifique de la Mer Méditerranée Monaco, 14: 187-199. Ranson, G. 1925. Quelques observations sur le plancton et liste des méduses recueillis par La Tanche pendant sa croisi¢re de 1924. Bulletin du Muséum national d'histoire naturelle, Paris, 31: 379-382. Schuchert, P. 1996. The marine fauna of New Zealand: athecate hydroids and their medusae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa). New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 106: 1-159. Schuchert, P. 2004. Revision of the European athecate hydroids and their medusae (Hydrozoa, Cnidaria): Families Oceanidae and Pachycordylidae. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 111: 315-369. Trégouboff, G. & Rose, M. 1957. Manuel de planctonologie méditerranéenne. Volumes | & II. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. Uchida, T. 1927. Studies on Japanese hydromedusae. I. Anthomedusae. Journal of the Faculty of Science, Imperial University of Tokyo, Section IV, Zoology, 1: 145-241. Vanhoffen, E. 1891. Versuch einer natiirlichen Gruppierung der Anthomedusen. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 14: 439-446. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Case 3305 TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 (Annelida, Clitellata): proposed precedence over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 Christer Erséus Department of Zoology, Géteborg University, Box 463, SE-405 30 Goteborg, Sweden (e-mail: christer.erseus@zool.gu.se) Lena Gustavsson Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: lena.gustavsson@nrm.se) Ralph O. Brinkhurst 3570 Cainsville Rd, Lebanon, TN 37090, U.S.A. (e-mail: oligol@aol.com) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the family-group name TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 for a well known group of aquatic oligochaetous clitellates. Following recent molecular studies it has been concluded that NaipIpar Ehrenberg, 1828 is a phylogenetic member of the taxon previously referred to as TUBIFICIDAE, implying that these two names are synonyms. Both names have long been used by aquatic biologists as associated with two functionally separated groups of worms. The junior name TUBIFICIDAE, with the famous Tubifex worm as its type, has been used for about 800 benthic species, which are burrowing or living interstitially in various limnic and marine sediments. The senior name NAIDIDAE, on the other hand, has been referred to about 175 species, most of which are epibenthic or epiphytic in freshwater habitats. It is proposed that the family-group name TUBIFICIDAE be given precedence over NAIDIDAE. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Annelida; Oligochaeta; Clitellata; NAmDIDAE; TUBIFICIDAE; Nais; Tubifex; sludge worms. 1. Miller (1774, p. 20) established the generic name Nais for several species, including Nais barbata Miller, 1774 (p. 23), which was selected as the type by Sperber (1948, p. 102). Lamarck (1816, p. 224) established the generic name Tubifex for two species, including Tubifex rivulorum Lamarck, 1816 (p. 225) which was introduced by him as a replacement name for Lumbricus tubifex Miller, 1774 (p. 27) (referring to Miller, 1776), apparently to avoid the tautology of ‘“Tubifex tubifex’. Tubifex rivulorum was referred to as the ‘type species of the genus’ by Beddard (1895, p. 243), but in subsequent literature the type species of Tubifex is often quoted as ‘Lumbricus tubifex Miller, 1774 (e.g. Reynolds & Cook, 1976) or ‘Tubifex tubifex (Miller, 1774)’ (e.g. Chekanovskaya, 1962; Brinkhurst, 1963, 1971b; Holmquist, 1985). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 227 2. Early vernacular names based on Miiller’s Nais were used by Bosc (1802, p. 31), who separated the worms later known as oligochaetes into “Naiade’ and “‘Lombric’, and by Cuvier (1817, pp. 528-530), who treated ‘Naides’ as a group within ‘Les Lombrics’. However, it was Ehrenberg (1828) who first established a family-group name (NAIDINA) that is a ‘latinized noun in the nominative plural form from the stem of an available generic name’ (Article 11.7.1 of the Code). This is sufficient for considering Ehrenberg as the author of what later was to become the family NAIDIDAE. The latter form of the name was first used by Vejdovsky (1876), although he did not explicitly refer to Ehrenberg’s NAIDINA. Grube (1851, p. 101), on the other hand, called it ‘Familie NAIDEA Ehrenb.’. 3. Later, Vejdovsky (1884) introduced a new taxon name, (family) NAIDOMORPHA, to replace NAIDINA Ehrenberg as well as his own NAIDIDAE; he also gave references to other vernacular and latinized family-group names stemming from the generic name Nais that had been published earlier by various authors (‘Naides part. Oersted’ [=1842]; ‘NAIDEA part. Grube’ [=1851]; “NAIcIDAE part. d’ Udekem’ [=1855]; “Naides part. Johnston’ [= 1865]). Thus, a posteriori he referred to his own NAIDIDAE as the same taxon as Ehrenberg’s NAIDINA. For some time thereafter, the two names NAIDOMORPHA and NAIDIDAE were variably used by different authors, for largely the same group of oligochaetes. For instance, Benham (1890) and Michaelsen (1900) used NaipIDAE, while others (e.g. Stieren, 1892; Beddard, 1895) preferred NAIDOMORPHA. 4. Vernacular names based on Lamarck’s Tubifex were mentioned by d’Udekem (1855, pp. 541-548: ‘Famille des Tubifex’; 1859, pp. 9-17: “Famille des Tubifécidées’). 5. Vejdovsky (1876) established the latinized family name TUBIFICIDAE in the same publication as the one introducing NAIpDIDAE. It was not clearly stated, but it is evident that he based his name on the genus Tubifex. In 1884, Vejdovsky retained TUBIFICIDAE while he replaced NAIDIDAE by NAIDOMORPHA (see above), and TUBIFICIDAE has been in common use since then (e.g. Beddard, 1895; Michaelsen, 1900; and onwards). 6. NAIDIDAE has been regarded as a clitellate taxon with ancestral traits by some authors (e.g. Chekanovskaya, 1962; Omodeo, 1998), while others (e.g. Beddard, 1895; Stephenson, 1930; Brinkhurst, 197la, 1982, 1994, 1999; Timm, 1981) have considered it as closely related to TUBIFICIDAE. However, regardless of its phylogenetic position, until recently NAIDIDAE has largely been regarded as a taxon separate from TUBIFICIDAE. One exception is Vaillant (1890), who treated TUBIFICINEA and NAIDINEA as two groups within the family NAIDIDAE. 7. Chekanovskaya (1962) proposed NAIDOMoRPHA to be regarded as a taxon at the rank of an order, within which she recognized six different families, including NAIDIDAE and TUBIFICIDAE. This usage of NAIDOMORPHA sensu lato has been retained in some of the modern oligochaete literature (e.g. Kasprzak, 1984) but otherwise has not been widely accepted. 8. Throughout the 20" century, authorships of NAIDIDAE and TUBIFICIDAE were seldom mentioned in taxonomic publications, but Hrabé (1981) erroneously referred to them as NAIDIDAE Benham, 1890 and tTuBiFIcIDAE Vejdovsky, 1884. Thus, the association of NAIDIDAE with Ehrenberg (1828) was largely unnoticed since the late 1800s, while Holmquist (1983) and Erséus et al. (2002) correctly indicated Vejdovsky (1876) as the author of TUBIFICIDAE. Moreover, a subfamily name formed from the 228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 stem of Tubifex was quoted as “TUBIFICINAE Eisen, 1879’, by Brinkhurst (1971b), and Holmquist (1983), and as “TUBIFICINAE Eisen, 1885’, by Hrabé (1981). However, although Eisen (1879) indeed was the first to define TUBIFICINI [sic] as a subfamily of TUBIFICIDAE, Vejdovsky (1876) is the author of all family-group names based on Tubifex (Article 36.1 of the Code). 9. For over 100 years, NAIDIDAE and TUBIFICIDAE have consistently been regarded as two distinctly different groups of aquatic oligochaetes, a separation reflecting differences in morphology, behaviour and reproductive biology. The worms known as tubificids are common and often dominant infaunal elements (i.e. they are either burrowing or interstitial) in freshwater and marine sediments; and to date about 800 species have been described worldwide. They are well known not only to hydrobiologists but also to laymen, partly due to the use of tubificids (‘Tubifex worms’, or ‘sludge worms’) as pet fish food. Species of Tubifex and some other tubificids may occur in astonishingly high densities at organically polluted freshwater sites. Moreover, tubificids can attain a considerable size, e.g. Branchiura sowerbyi Beddard, 1892 may be up to 185 mm, Tubifex tubifex and Limnodrilus grandiseto- sus Nomura, 1932 up to 100 mm long (Chekanovskaya, 1962). A vast majority of tubificids reproduce sexually. The about 175 species hitherto regarded as NAIDIDAE, on the other hand, are characterized by traits deviating from those of most other aquatic oligochaetous clitellates. They are highly active animals, with an epibenthic or epiphytic lifestyle in freshwater or brackish water; some are capable of swimming, and some prey upon other microscopic invertebrates. Reproduction is predominantly asexual (by paratomic fission), and naidid specimens are often observed as chains of zooids; individuals with developed sexual organs are rare. The members of this group are on average smaller than the typical TUBIFICIDAE. A chain of individuals of some Chaetogaster spp. may be less than | mm long, and only rarely naidid chains are longer than 20 mm (Chekanovskaya, 1962). Thus, the name TUBIFICIDAE has been used to denote a worm group that is more conspicuous than, and at least four times as species-rich, as the group hitherto defined as NAIDIDAE. 10. Various morphological and molecular data now support that NAIDIDAE has evolved within the group earlier defined as TupiricibAr (Brinkhurst, 1994; Christensen & Theisen, 1998; Erséus, 1990; Erséus et al., 2000, 2002), implying that these two families should be considered as synonyms. Erséus & Gustavsson (2002) recently suggested that treating the former NAIDIDAE as a subfamily (NAIDINAE) within TUBIFICIDAE would best promote stability in the classification of these clitellate worms. By such an action, all species formerly recognized as TUBIFICIDAE would still be classified as such, and all species formerly known as NAIDIDAE would still be attributed to a taxon, the name of which is based on the stem of Nais, albeit at a lower rank. However, as the family-group name NAIDIDAE Is older than the family-group name TUBIFICIDAE, the Principle of Priority stipulates that all former members of TUBIFICIDAE should rather be regarded as part of NAIDIDAE. This means that a great majority of the species of the former TUBIFICIDAE would lose their association with a family-group name based on Tubifex, and only the about 200 members of the taxon at present defined as the subfamily TUBIFICINAE would retain this association. That is, about 600 species (comprising the current tubificid subfamilies TELMATODRILINAE Eisen, 1879, RHYACODRILINAE ‘Hrabé, 1963, PHALLODRILINAE Brinkhurst, 1971b, and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 229 LIMNODRILOIDINAE Erséus, 1982; see Erséus, 1990) would become subordinates of NAIDIDAE. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the family-group name TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 and other family-group names based on Tubifex Lamarck, 1816 are to be given precedence over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 and other family-group names based on Nais Miller, 1774, whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Tubifex Lamarck, 1816 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Beddard (1895) Lumbricus tubifex Muller, 1774 (senior objective synonym of Tubifex rivulorum Lamarck, 1816); (b) Nais Miller, 1774 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designa- tion by Sperber (1948) Nais barbata Muller, 1774; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) tubifex Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Lumbricus tubifex (specific name of the type species of Tubifex Lamarck, 1816); (b) barbata Miller, 1774, as published in the binomen Nais barbata (specific name of the type species of Nais Muller, 1774); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 (type genus Tubifex Lamarck, 1816), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Tubifex are to be given precedence over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 and other family-group names based on Nais Miller, 1774 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (type genus Nais Muller, 1774), with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Nais are not to be given priority over TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 and other family-group names based on Tubifex Lamarck, 1816 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon. Acknowledgements We are grateful to Dr Philippe Bouchet for technical advice regarding the establishment of the authorship of NAIDIDAE, and to Dr Tarmo Timm for assistance with some literature in Russian, and for valuable comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by a grant from the Swedish Research Council (621—2001—2788 to Christer Erséus). References Beddard, F.E. 1895. 4 monograph of the order of Oligochaeta. 769 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Benham, W.B. 1890. An attempt to classify earthworms. Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science (New Series), 31: 201-315. Bosc, L.A.G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des vers, contenant leur description et leurs moeurs; avec figures dessinées d’apres nature. Vol. 1: 1-300. In Buffon, G.L.L.D. & Castel, R.-R. (Eds.), Histoire naturelle de Buffon: classée par ordres, genres et espéces, d’aprés le systeme de Linné. Deterville, Paris. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Brinkhurst, R.O. 1963. Taxonomical studies on the Tubificidae (Annelida, Oligochaeta). Internationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, Systematische Beihefte, 2: 1-89. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1971a. Phylogeny and classification. Part 1. Pp. 165-177 in Brinkhurst, R.O. & Jamieson, B.G.M. (Eds.), Aquatic Oligochaeta of the world. 860 pp. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1971b. Family Tubificidae. Pp. 444-625 in Brinkhurst, R.O. & Jamieson, B.G.M. (Eds.), Aquatic Oligochaeta of the world. 860 pp. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1982. Evolution in the Annelida. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 60: 1043-1059. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1994. Evolutionary relationships within the Clitellata: an update. Megadrilogica, 5: 109-112. Brinkhurst, R.O. 1999. Retrospect and prospect: reflections on forty years of study of aquatic oligochaetes. Hydrobiologia, 406: 9-19. Chekanoyskaya, O.V. 1962. Vodnye maloshchetinkovye chervi fauny SSSR. 411 pp. Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moskva-Leningrad. (In Russian). Christensen, B. & Theisen, B.F. 1998. Phylogenetic status of the family Naididae (Oligochaeta, Annelida) as inferred from DNA analyses. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 36: 169-172. Cuvier, G. 1817. Le Régne Animal distribué d’aprés son organisation pour servir de base a Vhistoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l'anatomie comparée. Vol. 2: Les reptiles, les poissons, les mollusques et les annélides. 532 pp. Deterville, Paris. Ehrenberg, C.G. 1828. Symbolae physicae. Animalia evertebrata. 293 pp. Berlin. Eisen, G. 1879. Preliminary report on genera and species of Tubificidae. Bihang till Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-akademiens Handlingar, 5(16): 1-26. Eisen, G. 1885. Oligochaetological researches. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, 1883: 879-964. Erséus, C. 1982. Taxonomic revision of the marine genus Limnodriloides (Oligochaeta: Tubificidae). Verhandlungen des naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg (Neue Folge), 25: 207-277. Erséus, C. 1990. Cladistic analysis of the subfamilies within the Tubificidae. Zoologica Scripta, 19: 57-63. Erséus, C. & Gustavsson, L. 2002. A proposal to regard the former family Naididae as a subfamily within Tubificidae (Annelida, Clitellata). Hydrobiologia, 485: 253-256. Erséus, C., Kallersjé, M., Ekman, M. & Hovmiller, R. 2002. 18S rDNA phylogeny of the Tubificidae (Clitellata) and its constituent taxa: Dismissal of the Naididae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 22: 414-422. Erséus, C., Prestegaard, T. & Kallersjé, M. 2000. Phylogenetic analysis of Tubificidae (Annelida, Clitellata) based on 18S rDNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 15: 381-389. . Grube, A.E. 1851. Die Familien der Anneliden, mit Angabe ihrer Gattungen und Arten, Ein systematischer Versuch. 164 pp. Verlag der Nicholai’schen Buchhandlung, Berlin. Holmquist, C. 1983. What is Tubifex tubifex (O.F. Miller) (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae)? Zoologica Scripta, 12: 187-201. Holmquist, C. 1985. A revision of the genera Tubifex Lamarck, Ilyodrilus Eisen, and Potamothrix Vejdovsky & Mrazek (Oligochaeta, Tubificidae), with extensions to some connected genera. Zoologischer Jahrbticher, Abteilung ftir Systematik, 112: 311-366. Hrabé, S. 1963. On Rhyacodrilus lindbergi n. sp., a new cavernicolous species of the fam. Tubificidae (Oligochaeta) from Portugal. Boletim da Sociedade portuguesa de ciéncias naturais (Ser. 2), 10: 52-56. Hrabé, S. 1981. Vodni mialostétinatci (Oligochaeta) Ceskoslovenska. Acta Universitatis Carolinae—Biologica, 1979: 1-167. Johnston, G. 1865. A catalogue of the British non-parasitical worms in the collection of the British Museum. 365 pp. Taylor and Francis, London. Kasprzak, K. 1984. The previous and contemporary conceptions on phylogeny and systematic classifications of Oligochaeta (Annelida). Annales zoologici, Warszawa, 38: 205-223. Lamarck, J.B. 1816. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres. 3. 585 pp. Verdiere, Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 231 Michaelsen, W. 1900. Die Oligochaeten. Pp. 1-575 in Spengel, J. W. (Ed.), Das Tierreich, Vol. 10. Verlag von R. Friedlander und Sohn, Berlin. Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium, seu Animalium Infusoriorum, Helminthicorum et Testaceorum, non Marinorum, Succincta Historia. Volume 1, Part 2. 72 pp. Heineck & Faber, Havniae & Lipsiae. Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae. Prodromus, seu Animalium daniae et norvegiae indigenarum Characteres, Nomina, et Synonyma imprimis popularium. 32, 274 pp. Typis Hallageriis, Havniae. Oersted, A.S. 1842. Conspectus generum specierumque Naidum, ad faunam danicam pertinentium. Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, Kjébenhavn, 4: 128-140. Omodeo, P. 1998. History of Clitellata. Italian Journal of Zoology, 65: 51-73. Reynolds, J.W. & Cook, D.G. 1976. Nomenclatura Oligochaetologica. 217 pp. University of New Brunswick, Fredericton. Sperber, C. 1948. A taxonomical study of the Naididae. Zoologiska Bidrag fran Uppsala, 28: 1-296. Stephenson, J. 1930. The Oligochaeta. 978 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Stieren, A. 1892. Uber einige Dero aus Trinidad, nebst Bemerkungen zur Systematik der Naidomorphen. Sitzungsberichte der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, Dorpat, 10: 103-123. Timm, T. 1981. On the origin and evolution of aquatic Oligochaeta. Eesti NSV Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised ( Bioloogia), 30: 174-181. d’Udekem, J. 1855. Nouvelle classification des Annélides sétigéres abranches. Bulletin de l’ Academie r. de Belgique, Classe des sciences (ser. 8), 22(2): 533-555. d’Udekem, J. 1858. Nouvelle classification des Annélides sétigeres abranches. Mémoires de I’ Academie royale des sciences, des lettres et des beaux-arts de Belgique, 31: 1-28. Vaillant, L. 1890. Histoire naturelle des Annélés marins et d'eau douce. Vol. 3, part 1. 340 pp. Paris. Vejdovsky, F. 1876. Beitrage zur Oligochaetenfauna Bohmens. Sitzungsberichte der k. Bohmischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften, Prag, 1875: 191-201. Vejdovsky, F. 1884. System und Morphologie der Oligochaeten. 166 pp. Commissionsbuch- handlung von Franz Rivnaé, Prague. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Case 3297 Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803 (currently Ty/osurus acus) (Teleostei, BELONIDAE): proposed reinstatement Bruce B. Collette National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory, National Museum of Natural History, MRC 0153, Smithsonian Institution, PO Box 37012, Washington, D.C. 20013-7012, U.S.A. (e-mail: collettb@s1.edu) N. V. Parin P.P. Shirshoy Institute of Oceanology, Russian Academy of Sciences, 36 Nachimoyskii Pr., 117851, Moscow, Russia (e-mail: nparin@sio.rssi.ru) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 80.9 of the Code, is to reinstate the oldest available name, Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803, for a nearly worldwide species of needlefish. The name was suppressed and placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology in Opinion 900. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; BELONIDAE; 7y/osurus acus; needlefish. 1. The name Sphyraena acus was established by Lacepéde, 1803 (p. 325) for a needlefish common in the western Atlantic. For more than 100 years it has been known as Tylosurus (or Strongylura) acus (Jordan & Fordice, 1887; Jordan et al., 1930; Breder & Rasquin, 1954; Lovejoy, 2000; Collette, 2003) (see para. 3 below). In his revisionary papers on the BELONIDAE, Mees (1962; 1964; BZN 23: 149-154) provided important information showing worldwide distribution of several species of needlefishes (including 7ylosurus acus), but he utilized nomenclature that seriously disturbed the stability of the names of several species. A conservative approach that would have kept most of the then-current nomenclature in place was suggested by Collette & Berry (1965) and submitted to the Commission (Case Z.N.(S.) 1723). In the application (BZN 22: 325-329) the Commission was asked to suppress three names considered by Mees (1962; 1964) to be nomina oblita: (1) Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792, and place the name Esox marinus Walbaum, 1792 on the Official List, (2) Esox belone var. marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801, and place the name Belona crocodila Peron & Lesueur, in Lesueur, 1821 on the Official List and (3) Esox imperialis Rafinesque, 1810 and place the name Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803 on the Official List. 2. The original proposals (BZN 22: 325-327) were unanimously supported by the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Nomenclature Committee in a letter dated 26 October 1965. Letters of support were also received from Prof. G.A. Moore (Oklahoma State University, Stillwater) (28 March 1966) and J.S. Ramsey (Universidad de Puerto Rico, Mayaguez) (20 April 1966). None of the comments in support of the application was published. However, Mees (BZN 23: 149-154), in an Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005. 233 opposing comment, defended his use of the name Belone imperialis (Rafinesque, 1810) for the Mediterranean species and requested that the Commission consider his alternative proposals: (1)(a) to suppress Sphyraena acus, (3)(a) place it on the Official Index and (2)(b) place the name Esox imperialis Rafinesque, 1810 on the Official List. Tortonese (BZN 24: 2) agreed with Mees that the name imperialis was widely used for the Mediterranean species and should be conserved. In reply, further comments from Collette were published (BZN 24: 196-198) and from Berry (BZN 24: 199-201) leading to revised proposals (BZN 24: 198): (1) to suppress the names (a) Esox belone var. marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801 and (b) Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792; to place (a) Esox marina Walbaum, 1792 and (b) Belona crocodila Peron & Lesueur, in Lesueur, 1821 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology and (3) to place the names (a) Esox belone var. marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801 and (b) Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792 on the Official Index of Specific Names in Zoology. In spite of his argument for maintaining priority of the name acus, the revised proposals did not reiterate his original request to suppress imperialis (see BZN 22: 327). However, Collette’s comment (para. IV, p. 198) remains unambiguous. Sphyraena acus is the oldest available name and ‘the Commission should follow the law of priority in this case and reject Mees’ request’. The Commission was asked on voting paper V.P. (67)50 to vote (separately) on the proposals to suppress the names as proposed by Collette (BZN 24: 198): (1) Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792; (2) Esox belone marisrubri Bloch & Schneider, 1801 and by Mees (BZN 23: 153): (3) Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803 and (4) Belona argalus Lesueur, 1821. The proposals to suppress the names Esox houttuyni Walbaum, 1792 and Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803 were approved. The other names under consideration received a simple majority, but failed to receive the required two-thirds majority of the votes cast and were resubmitted to the Commission for a second vote [V.P. (69)11]. The result of the second vote did not affect the decision of the Commission on the proposal to suppress the name acus, which was approved on the first ballot and it was accordingly placed on the Official Index and the name Esox imperialis Rafinesque, 1810 placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in Opinion 900 (BZN 26(5/6): 213-216). 3. The name 7Jylosurus acus was used and several geographic subspecies were recognized in papers that we had in press at the time (e.g. Parin, 1967; Collette & Parin, 1970): 7. acus acus (Lacepéde, 1803) (western Atlantic), 7. acus imperialis (Rafinesque, 1810) (Mediterranean), 7. acus rafale Collette & Parin, 1970 (Gulf of Guinea), 7. acus melanotus (Bleeker, 1850) (Indo-West Pacific) and T. acus pacificus (Steindachner, 1876) (eastern Pacific). Most subsequent references, such as Lovejoy (2000) and regional FAO Identification Guides such as Collette (2003) used T. acus or one of its subspecies. Recently, the name of the eastern Pacific population was raised to specific rank (as T. pacificus) by Collette & Banford (2001). The question of which name to use for this almost world-wide species was raised again by Eschmeyer (1998), Collette (2003), Nelson et al. (2004), Collette (2005), in preparing manuscripts for the Sears Foundation series Fishes of the western North Atlantic (BBC) and an FAO world catalogue of beloniform fishes (BBC and NVP), and Eschmeyer (on-line Catalog of Fishes, 4 August 2005 update). 4. We have examined the usage of various names for this species in Zoological Record and the extensive list of belonid references maintained by the first author (1802 references, 675 from the western Atlantic). Other than Mees’s work, we found only 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 two recent papers in which the name 7y/osurus imperialis was used for any population of the species in the western Atlantic (see Schmitter-Soto et al., 2000; Gonzalez- Gandara & Arias-Gonzalez, 2001). Not only is the name Ty/osurus acus the oldest and most commonly used name for this species in checklists and faunal studies, but it is used in other studies such as development (Breder & Rasquin, 1954, Collette et al., 1984, Boughton et al., 1991, Lovejoy, 2000), parasitology (Cressey & Collette, 1970, Kabata, 2003), stomach contents of tunas (Dragovich, 1969, Matthews et al., 1977), injuries to marine mammals (Carrasquillo-Casado et al., 2002), and molecular systematics (Lovejoy, 2000, Banford et al., 2004, Lovejoy et al., 2004). A summary of usage of the specific name of 7. acus (Lacepéde, 1803) is held by the Commission Secretariat. 4. Stability is best served by reinstating the priority of the commonly used species-group name Tylosurus acus. Mees did not make a good case for upsetting prevailing usage. He previously stated (Mees, 1964) that his action was taken ‘not without hesitation’ and that Rafinesque’s description and figure of imperialis leave ‘much doubt’ so it is difficult to understand why he selected a poorly described junior synonym (imperialis Rafinesque, 1810) in preference to a poorly described senior synonym (acus Lacepéde, 1803). There is no confusion with the name Belone belone acus Risso, 1827 when the generic nomenclature recommended by Collette & Berry (1965) and Collette et al. (1984) is utilized. 5. In summary, Belone imperialis has only been used for the Mediterranean population with any frequency (24 references), usually at the species level (14 references) and as a subspecies of T. acus (9 references). In other areas T. acus or the appropriate subspecies name has been used most frequently: 138 references as Tylosurus acus, Strongylura acus, or Belone acus, 73 as the appropriate subspecies of T. acus (a. acus, a. rafale, a. melanotus, or a. pacificus), and 70 references with the subspecies name as a species. 6. In the interest of stability, continued use of 7. acus is recommended (see Collette 2003, p. 10 [on line reference: ref. 27306]). We believe that by continued use of T. acus for the species and utilization of the names that we recognize at the subspecies or species level there will be little confusion with the name T. imperialis for the Mediterranean or what the name T. acus means elsewhere. Therefore, we request that the name Sphyraena acus Lacepede, 1803 be removed from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology and placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 7. The International Commisssion on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked to use its plenary power: (1) to amend the ruling in Opinion 900 (1) to delete the name acus Lacepéde, 1803, as published in the binomen Sphyraena acus, from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology; (2) to place the name acus Lacepéde, 1803, as published in the binomen Sphyraena acus, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Acknowledgments We thank William N. Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco), Thomas A. Munroe (National Marine Fisheries Service National Systematics Laboratory), Joseph S. Nelson (Department of Biological Sciences, University of Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 235 Alberta, Edmonton, Canada), and David G. Smith (Division of Fishes, National Museum of Natural History) for comments on the manuscript. References Banford, H.M., Bermingham, E. & Collette, B.B. 2004. Molecular phylogenetics and bio- geography of transisthmian and amphi-Atlantic needlefishes (Belonidae: Strongylura and Tylosurus): perspectives on New World marine speciation. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 31: 833-851. Boughton, D.A., Collette, B.B. & McCune, A.R. 1991. Heterochrony in jaw morphology of needlefishes (Teleostei: Belonidae). Systematic Zoology, 40(3): 329-354. Breder, C.M. Jr. & Rasquin, P. 1954. The nature of post-larval transformation in Tylosurus acus (Lacépéde). Zoologica, N. Y., 39: 17-30. Carrasquillo-Casado, B., Alsina-Guerrero, M., Cardona-Maldonado, M.A., Williams, E.H. Jr. & Mignucci-Giannoni, A.A. 2002. Fatal pneumonia and pleuritis caused by an agujon beak penetration in a bottlenose dolphin from Puerto Rico. Journal of Aquatic Animal Health, 14: 65-67. Collette, B.B. 2003. Belonidae. Pp. 1104-1113 im Carpenter, K.E. (Ed.), The Living Marine Resources of the Western Central Atlantic. FAO Species Identification Guide for Fishery Purposes, vol. 2. FAO & American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication no. 5. FAO, Rome. Collette, B.B. 2003. Family Belonidae Bonaparte, 1832. Needlefishes. California Academy of Sciences Annotated Checklists of Fishes, No. 16. 23 pp. Collette, B.B. 2005. Belonidae: Needlefishes. Chapter 77. Pp. 909-931 in Richards, W.J. (Ed.), Early stages of Atlantic fishes: an identification guide for the western central North Atlantic. CRC Press. Collette, B.B. & Banford, H.M. 2001. Status of the eastern Pacific agujon needlefish Tylosurus pacificus (Steindachner, 1976) (Beloniformes: Belonidae). Revista Biologia Tropical, 49(suppl. 1): 51-57. Collette, B.B. & Berry, F.H. 1965. Recent studies on the needlefishes (Belonidae): An evaluation. Copeia, 1965(3): 386-392. Collette, B.B., McGowen, G.E., Parin, N.V. & Mito, S. 1984. Beloniformes: Development and relationships. Pp. 335-354 in Ontogeny and systematics of fishes. Moser, H.G. et al. (Eds.), American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists Special Publication No. 1. 1x, 760 pp. Collette, B.B. & Parin, N.V. 1970. Needlefishes (Belonidae) of the eastern Atlantic Ocean. Atlantide Report, 11: 7-60. Cressey, R.F. & Collette, B.B. 1970. Copepods and needlefishes: A study in host-parasite relationships. Fishery Bulletin, 68(3): 347-432. Dragovich, A. 1969. Review of studies of tuna food in the Atlantic Ocean. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report, Fisheries, No. 593. 21 pp. Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed.), 1998. Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences, Special Publication No. 1, 2905 pp. Eschmeyer, W.N. 4 August 2005. Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences, Ichthyology. On-line catalog update. see entry for acus, Sphyraena Lacepéde 1803. http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatmain.asp Gonzalez-Gandara, C. & Arias-Gonzalez, J.E. 2001. Lista actualizada de los peces del arrecife Alacranes, Yucatan, México. Anales del Instituto Biologia, Universidad Nacional Auto- nomica de México, Serie Zoologia, 72(2): 245-258. Jordan, D.S., Evermann, B.W. & Clark, H.W. 1930. Check list of the fishes and fishlike vertebrates of North and Middle America north of the northern boundary of Venezuela and Colombia. Report of the U.S. Commissioner of Fisheries for 1928. Appendix 10. 670 pp. Jordan, D.S. & Fordice, M.W. 1887. A review of the American species of Belonidae. Proceedings of the U.S. National Museum, 9: 339-361. 236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Kabata, Z. 2003. Copepods parasitic on fishes. Synopses of the British Fauna (New Series) No. 47 (revised). 274 pp. Lacepéde, B.G.E. 1803. Histoire naturelle des poissons. 803 pp. Paris, Lovejoy, N.R. 2000. Reinterpreting recapitulation: systematics of needlefishes and their allies (Teleostei: Beloniformes). Evolution, 54(4): 1349-1362. Lovejoy, N.R., Iranpour, M. & Collette, B.B. 2004. Phylogeny and jaw ontogeny of beloniform fishes. Integrative Comparative Biology, 44: 366-377. Matthews, F.D., Damkaer, D.M., Knapp, L.W. & Collette, B.B. 1977. Food of western North Atlantic tunas (Thunnus) and lancetfishes (Alepisaurus). NOAA Technical Report NMFS Special Scientific Report Fisheries, No. 706. 19 pp. Mees, G.F. 1962. A preliminary revision of the Belonidae. Zoologische Verhandelingen, No. 54. 96 pp. Mees, G.F. 1964. Further revisional notes on the Belonidae. Zoologische Mededelingen, 39: 311-326. Nelson, J.S., Crossman, E.J., Espinosa-Pérez, H., Findley, L.T., Gilbert, C.R., Lea, R.N. & Williams, J.D. 2004. Common and scientific names of fishes from the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Ed. 6. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 29. 386 pp. Parin, N.V. 1967. Review of the marine Belonidae of the western Pacific and Indian oceans. Trudy Instituta Okeanologii, 84: 3-83. [In Russian. National Marine Fisheries Service Systematics Laboratory Translation 68] Schmitter-Soto, J.J., Vasquez-Yeomans, L., Aguilar-Perera, A., Curiel-Mondragon, C. & Caballero-Vazquez, J.A. 2000. Lista de peces marinos del Caribe mexicano. Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, Serie Zoologia, 71(2): 143-177. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 262. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 237 Case 3348 Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?): proposed conservation Emma C. Rainforth School of Theoretical and Applied Science, Ramapo College of New Jersey, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah, NJ 07430, U.S.A. (e-mail: erainfor@ramapo.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the name of the reptilian(?) ichnogenus Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845. Palamopus is a junior objective synonym of Sauroidichnites E. Hitchcock, 1837, but Palamopus is in prevailing use and it is proposed that it be conserved by suppression of Sauroidichnites. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; ichnotaxa; Reptilia?; © Ornithichnites; Sauroidichnites; Palamopus; Palamopus palmatus; tetrapod footprints; Triassic, Jurassic. 1. The ichnogeneric name Sauroidichnites was introduced by Edward Hitchcock in an 1837 abstract (E. Hitchcock, 1837, p. 175) for several ichnospecies which he considered to resemble the feet of reptiles (saurians) and were thus distinct from the ichnospecies he had described in 1836 under the ichnogenus Ornithichnites (which resembled the feet of birds). Of five ichnospecies included within this ichnogenus, four are nomina nuda, including the first-listed ichnospecies (S. barrattii). However, one of the included ichnospecies had been previously described and illustrated as Ornithichnites palmatus (E. Hitchcock, 1836, p. 324, fig. 15); Sauroidichnites palmatus is thus valid by explicit bibliographic reference (‘Ornithichnites palmatus of my first report’ [E. Hitchcock, 1837 p. 175]). Ornithichnites palmatus is, therefore, the type ichnospecies of Sauroidichnites. Between 1841 and 1844, Hitchcock named and described an additional 11 ichnospecies of Sauroidichnites (including the four nomina nuda from 1837, which were described in 1841) (E. Hitchcock, 1841, 1843, 1844). 2. In an 1845 abstract, Hitchcock revised his classification scheme for ichnites, and abandoned his previous ichnogeneric names (Ornithichnites, Sauroidichnites and Batrachoidichnites). In their place he erected several new ichnogenera, placing all his previously-described ichnospecies of Sauroidichnites into seven new ichnogenera. The type ichnospecies of Sauroidichnites, O. palmatus, was referred to Palamopus (1845, p. 24), which was monospecific: thus Sauroidichnites and Palamopus are objective synonyms, and Palamopus, being the junior synonym, is invalid. It may be noted that Hitchcock (1845, p. 24) simultaneously replaced the ichnospecific name palmatus with the new ichnospecies anomalus, in the combination Palamopus anomalus; anomalus is an objective junior synonym of pal/matus and thus available but invalid. All of the remaining ichnogenera into which ichnospecies of Sauroidichnites were 238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 transferred in 1845 are valid, because one or more of their included ichnospecies are valid by explicit bibliographic reference to the pre-1845 ichnospecies names. 3. In 1848, Hitchcock again revised his nomenclature, providing new names for many of his 1845 ichnogenera, on the grounds that the 1845 names were published without accompanying descriptions. However, as stated in para. 2, the 1845 ichnogenus names are valid by explicit bibliographic reference to earlier descriptions of their included ichnospecies. Of relevance here, Ornithichnites palmatus was referred to the new ichnogenus Macropterna. E. Hitchcock also, in 1848 (p. 217), named a new monospecific ichnogenus, Palamopus, based on the new ichnospecies P. dananus; this homonymy was resolved by Hay in 1902, who erected the replacement name Eupalamopus for the junior homonym Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1848. Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 and Macropterna were subjectively synonymized by Hay (1902), and this synonymy has been followed by subsequent workers (e.g. Lull, 1904, 1915, 1953; Kuhn, 1963; Haubold, 1971, 1984). Macropterna has not been used as the valid name since C.H. Hitchcock’s 1889 classification; Palamopus (which has priority over Macropterna) has had limited usage since 1899. 4. Sauroidichnites has not been considered valid since 1844 (when it was last used, by E. Hitchcock). However, only one of the two conditions for prevailing usage (and thus Reversal of Precedence; Article 23.9) is met. The senior synonym has not been used as a valid name since 1844 (Article 23.9.1.1) and qualifies as a nomen oblitum. However, Article 23.9.1.2 is not met, because to my knowledge only four authors, in four published works (Kuhn, 1963; Haubold, 1971, 1984; Olsen & Padian, 1986), have used the junior synonym in the last 50 years. The limited use of the name Palamopus is insufficient to allow its automatic conservation under the provisions of the Code. While clearly a largely-ignored ichnogenus, a recent study (Rainforth, 2005) has completely re-evaluated all of Hitchcock’s ichnotaxa, and _ the Sauroidichnites-Palamopus issue should be resolved, with Palamopus conserved in the interests of ichnotaxonomic stability. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the ichnogeneric name Sauroidichnites E. Hitchcock, 1837 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 Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (gender: masculine), type ichnospecies by monotypy Ornithichnites palmatus E. Hitchcock, 1836; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name palmatus E. Hitchcock, 1836, as published in the binomen Ornithichnites palmatus (specific name of the type ichnospecies of Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Sauroidichnites E. Hitchcock, 1837 (as suppressed in (1) above); (b) Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1848 (a junior homonym of Palamopus Hitch- cock, 1845). References Haubold, H. 1971. Ichnia amphibiorum et reptiliorum fossilium. 124 pp. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart. ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005. 239 Haubold, H. 1984. Saurierfahrten. 230 pp. A. Ziemsen Verlag, Wittenberg Lutherstadt. Hay, O.P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of fossil vertebrata of North America. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin, 179: 1-868. Hitchcock, C.H. 1889. Recent progress in ichnology. Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History, 24: 117-127. Hitchcock, E. 1836. Ornithichnology — Description of the foot marks of birds, (Ornithich- nites) on New Red Sandstone in Massachusetts. American Journal of Science (series 1), 29: 307-340. Hitchcock, E. 1837. Fossil footsteps in sandstone and graywacke. American Journal of Science (series 1), 32: 174-176. Hitchcock, E. 1841. Final report on the Geology of Massachusetts. 831 pp. J.H. Butler, Northampton. Hitchcock, E. 1843. Description of five new species of fossil footmarks, from the red sandstone of the valley of Connecticut River. Transactions of the Association of American Geologists and Naturalists, for 1843, pp. 254-264. Hitchcock, E. 1844. Report on ichnolithology, or fossil footmarks, with a description of several new species, and the coprolites of birds, from the valley of Connecticut River, and of a supposed footmark from the valley of Hudson River. American Journal of Science (series 2), 47: 292-322. Hitchcock, E. 1845. An attempt to name, classify and describe the animals that made the fossil footmarks of New England. Proceedings of the American Association of Geologists and Naturalists, 6: 23-25. Hitchcock, E. 1848. An attempt to discriminate and describe the animals that made the fossil footmarks of the United States, and especially of New England. American Academy of Arts and Sciences Memoir (new series), 3: 129-256. Kuhn, O. 1963. Ichnia Tetrapodorum. Fossilium Catalogus I: Animalia (F. Westphal, Ed.). 176 pp. Uitgeverij Dr W. Junk, Gravenhage. Lull, R.S. 1904. Fossil footprints of the Jura-Trias of North America. Memoirs of the Boston Society of Natural History, 5: 461-557. Lull, R.S. 1915. Triassic life of the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin, No. 24, 285 pp. Lull, R.S. 1953. Triassic life of the Connecticut Valley. Connecticut State Geological and Natural History Survey Bulletin, No. 81, 336 pp. Olsen, P.E. & Padian, K. 1986. Earliest records of Batrachopus from the southwestern United States, and a revision of some Early Mesozoic crocodylomorph genera. Pp. 259-273 in K. Padian (Ed.), The beginning of the age of dinosaurs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Rainforth, E.C. 2005. Ichnotaxonomy of the fossil footprints of the Connecticut Valley (Early Jurassic, Newark Supergroup, Connecticut and Massachusetts). 1302 pp. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 62: 126. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Comment on the proposed suppression of Eutermes Heer, 1849 to conserve the generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901, and on the proposed designation of Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 as type species of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (Insecta, Isoptera) (Case 3292; see BZN 62: 8-13, 149-150) Michael S. Engel Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A. Kumar Krishna Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. Recently our colleague Yves Roisin (BZN 62: 149-150) has challenged our petition to conserve the universally applied generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 over the name Eutermes Heer, 1849. Proposed for a fossil taxon, Eutermes has priority over most genus-group names throughout the Isoptera owing to its early establishment (see our application). As such, regardless of its definition, this name threatens to upset any genus name within the Isoptera with the sole exclusion of Termes. However, despite its age, the name has not been employed in modern classifications of the Isoptera, and it is thereby poised to impose maximal disruption to the stability of termite nomenclature. The name poses a further problem in that the family-group name EUTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910b is also in a position to jeopardize universally employed family-group names within the Isoptera. We are preparing a monographic catalog of the Isoptera, and placing Eutermes 1m NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 would thereby render Nasutitermes and NASUTITERMITINAE junior objective synonyms, particularly destructive given that this is the most diverse and intensively studied lineage of termites. Our petition was designed to circumvent this difficulty, and we urge the Commission to approve the suppression of the name Eutermes in the interest of nomenclatural stability. As to the designation of a type species by the Commission for Nasutitermes: this issue 1s moot. In more closely examining Banks’s papers (1918, p. 665, 1920, p. 69) we find that Termes morio Latreille, 1805 was indeed an originally included species (overlooked in our original petition)—a species that Banks later (1920, p. 69) selected as the type species of Nasutitermes. Termes morio Latreille, 1805, however, is an unavailable name as it is a misidentification of the available name 7. morio Fabricius, 1793. Thus, the issue is Banks’s concept of T. morio and whether or not Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 can be considered a replacement name of 7. morio Latreille as erroneously suggested by Emerson (1925) (see our application). Indeed, past authors, Emerson included, despite erroneous reasoning accepted E. costalis as type species of Nasutitermes (as explained in our application). Rather than accept this perpetuated error we have asked the Commission to use its plenary powers to overrule the designation based on erroneous assumptions and instead validate E. costalis based on appropriate grounds (as already stated in the petition). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 | 241 Comment on the proposed conservation of Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 and Trichiotinus Casey, 1915 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE) (Case 3314; see BZN 62: 75-78) Frank-Thorsten Krell Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: f.krell@nhm.ac.uk) I fully support the proposed conservation of the genus-group names Trichiotinus Casey, 1915 and Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 because their senior synonyms Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827 and Trichinus Kirby, 1827 have not or only once been used as valid names in more than 150 years. The last usage of Tetrophthalmus as a valid name, I am aware of, was that of MacLeay (1838, p. 15). Hoffmann (1935, p. 152), in a comprehensive revision of the genus Trichiotinus, explicitly decided not to use the older synonym Trichinus to avoid ‘considerable confusion’. He also listed 12 additional references using the name Trichiotinus covering the years 1920-1934. In none of his 85 references for the species T. piger, 11 for T. rufobrunneus (Casey) and 20 for T. texanus covering the years 1833-1934 had the genus name Trichinus been used. I found three additional recent references documenting the current use of Trichiotinus: Pascarella et al. (2001, p. 561), Sikes (2003, p. 12), and Cook (2004, p. 87). The name Trichius sutularis, type species of the subgenus Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827 should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Although it was introduced as a manuscript name and qualified as an ‘undescribed species’, this specific name is probably available by indication under Article 12.2.6, but the species has never been described and the name has never been used as valid. Additional references Cook, S.P. 2004. Impact of stand management practices on beetle diversity. Jn Guldin, J.M. (Ed.). Ouachita and Ozark Mountains Symposium: Ecosystem management research. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report, SRS-74: 83-88. Hoffmann, C.H. 1935. The biology and taxonomy of the genus Trichiotinus (Scarabaeidae- Coleoptera). Entomologica Americana, 15: 133-209. MacLeay, W.S. 1838. Illustrations of the Annulosa of South Africa, collected during an expedition into the interior, under Andrew Smith. Jn Smith, A., [//ustrations of the zoology of South Africa. Smith, Elder & Co., London. Pascarella, J.B., Waddington, K.D. & Neal, P.R. 2001. Non-apoid flower-visiting fauna of Everglades National Park, Florida. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10: 551—566. Sikes, D.S. 2003. The beetle fauna of the state of Rhode Island, U.S.A. (Coleoptera): 656 new state records. Zootaxa, 340: 1-38. 242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 Comment on the proposed conservation of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora) (Case 3204; see BZN 60: 45-47; 61: 119-122, 257-260) P. Gaubert Departamento de Biologia Aplicada, Estacién Biologica de Dofiana (CSIC), Avda. Maria Luisa sIn Pabellon del Pert, 41013 Sevilla, Spain W.C. Wozencraft Division of Natural Sciences, Bethel College, 1001 W. McKinley Ave., Mishawaka, IN 46545, U.S.A. 1. We considered the comments of Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford- Cabral (2004) (see BZN 61: 119-122, 257-260) on Case 3204 as fundamentally debating an issue of another nature rather than that concerning the original application. In order to clarify this situation, the purpose of Case 3204 is to conserve (under Article 23.9.5 of the Code) the specific name Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata), which is in use for a species of African Genet (a placental carnivore). This name is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (currently Dasyurus maculatus), which is used for a marsupial mammal; however, the names apply to taxa that have not been considered congeneric since 1899. 2. Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) debated the validity of the neotype designation for G. maculata, an issue that was extensively detailed elsewhere by Gaubert et al. (2003). Indeed, the Commission Secretariat explicitly recommended that, in this case, the designation of a neotype does not require action by the Commission since it is a taxonomic issue relating to G. maculata. Thus, the application was received almost without question in the comments of Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004). These authors may have confused nomenclatural and taxonomic considerations. 3. It appears as though Grubb (BZN 61: 119-122) wrongly referred to Case 3204 (p. 121) by stating ‘As an alternative to the proposals in BZN 60: 46, I propose . . . that the holotype of G. rubiginosa be set aside and the holotype of G. letabae . . . be designated as neotype’. This statement is actually not an alternative to the proposal made in Case 3204 and in fact would not interfere with the action of conserving the species name maculata Gray, 1830 as the valid name (not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym). Grubb (2004) did not directly address the issue raised in Case 3204. Surprisingly, the author mentioned (p. 120) that G. maculata (Gray, 1830) ‘is actually invalid as a junior primary homonym of V. maculata Kerr, 1792’, without arguments to support this point of view and without taking into account that the essence of Case 3204 is to refer to Article 23.9.5 of the Code in order to ask for conservation of the name maculata Gray, 1830. Nevertheless, Grubb (2004) asked the Commission ‘to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name maculata Gray, 1830’. 4. Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (BZN 61: 257-260) only once raised a point directly related to Case 3204 by doubting that G. maculata is ‘in use’ for the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 | 243 Rusty-spotted genet (Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 has been used so far by only a minority of the authors concerned with the relevant taxa’). I strongly disagree with this assertion and it is noteworthy that Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) cited Grubb (2004) contrary to his view to justify their statement. Grubb (2004) instead provided a large list of references in which *G. maculata was commonly used as a senior synonym of G. pardina’ (p. 120), which was the case when authors included both G. pardina and the Rusty-spotted genet in a broader ‘large-spotted genet’ taxonomic concept. In addition to previous works, G. maculata has been used frequently as the name for the Rusty-spotted genet in recent years (as explicitly delimiting the Rusty-spotted genet: Bronner et al., 2003; Gaubert, 2003; Gaubert et al., 2002, 2004, 2005; and without specification of taxonomic boundaries: Stuart & Stuart, 2003; De Luca & Mpunga, 2005). Two of the most important new taxonomic references for the mammalogist community, which will be published in late 2005-2006 (Wozencraft, in press; Kingdon & Butinsky, in press) use the name G. maculata strictly for the Rusty-spotted genet. I thus consider that the name G. maculata is and has been commonly used for the Rusty-spotted genet, so Article 23.9.5 of the Code applies. 5. Most of the comments made by Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford- Cabral (2004) concern the validity of neotype designation for G. maculata. This issue is distinct from the purpose of Case 3204 and is therefore not addressed here. However, we would like to state that C.A. Fernandes recently co-authored two papers with the applicants of Case 3204 (P. Gaubert, G. Veron, P.J. Taylor) in which the name G. maculata was explicitly used for the Rusty-spotted genet (Gaubert et al., 2004, 2005). Under the usually explicit statement that all the authors of a publication should agree with its content, this raises serious ambiguities about the actual point of view of the author over the use of the name maculata Gray, 1830. 6. Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004, p. 259) disagreed with Grubb’s proposal to designate the type specimen of G. /etabae as the neotype of G. rubiginosa (‘There is a fundamental problem in assigning maculata or any other name to the Rusty-spotted genet at the moment’). Our recent taxonomic investigations based on morphology, DNA sequencing and karyotypes (Gaubert et al., 2004, 2005) showed that the type specimen of G. letabae Thomas & Schwann, 1906 was indeed needed, following the Principle of Priority, to define a new species of Rusty-spotted genet from southern Africa (in accordance with Crawford-Cabral & Fernandes, 2001). 7. We consider that the comments of Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford- Cabral (2004) do not provide sensible arguments against the proposals in Case 3204 (i.e. to making available, as valid, the name maculata Gray, 1830 under Article 23.9.5 of the Code). The related debate over neotype designation is rather a part of the on-going discussion concerning the taxonomy (i.e. species boundaries) of the Large-spotted genets, and should not interfere with the proposals made in Case 3204. References Bronner, G.N., Hoffmann, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Matthee, C.A. & Robinson, T.J. 2003. A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates, 28: 56-95. Crawford-Cabral, J. & Fernandes, C. 2001. The Rusty-spotted genets as a group with three species in Southern Africa (Carnivora: Viverridae). Pp. 65-80 in Denys, C., Granjon, L. & Poulet, A. (Eds.), African Small Mammals. IRD, Paris. 244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 De Luca, D.W. & Mpunga, N.E. 2005. Small carnivores of the Udzungwa Mountains: presence, distributions and threats. Small Carnivore Conservation, 32: 1—7. Gaubert, P. 2003. Description of a new species of genet (Carnivora; Viverridae; genus Genetta) and taxonomic revision of forest forms related to the Large-spotted Genet complex. Mammalia, 67: 85-108. Gaubert, P., Aniskin, V.M., Dunham, A.E., Crémiére, C. & Volobouey, V.T. 2004. Karyotype of the rare Johnston’s genet Genetta johnstoni (Viverridae) and a reassessment of chromosomal characterization among congeneric species. Acta Theriologica, 49: 457-464. Gaubert, P., Fernandes, C.A., Bruford, M.W. & Veron, G. 2004. Genets (Carnivora, Viverridae) in Africa: an evolutionary synthesis based on cytochrome b sequences and morphological characters. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 81: 589-610. Gaubert, P., Taylor, P.J., Fernandes, C.A., Bruford, M.W. & Veron, G. 2005. Patterns of cryptic hybridization revealed using an integrative approach: a case study on genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, Genetta spp.) from the southern African subregion. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 86: 11-33. Gaubert, P., Taylor, P.J. & Veron, G. 2005. Integrative taxonomy and phylogenetic system- atics of the genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, genus Genetta): a new classification of the most speciose carnivoran genus in Africa. Pp. 371-383 in Huber, B.A., Sinclair, B.J. & Lampe, K.-H. (Eds.), African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Springer, New York. Gaubert, P., Tranier, M., Veron, G., Kock, D., Dunham, A.E., Taylor, P.J., Stuart, C., Stuart, T. & Wozencraft, W.C. 2003. Nomenclatural comments on the Rusty-spotted Genet (Carnivora, Viverridae) and designation of a neotype. Zootaxa, 160: 1-14. Kingdon, J. & Butynski, T. (in press). The Mammals of Africa. Carnivora, Pinnipedia, Pholidota, Tubulidentata, Hyracoidea, Proboscidea, Sirenia, Perissodactyla, vol. 4. Academic Press, London. Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. 2003. A short note on the analysis of the scats of Water Mongoose Atilax paludinosus and Rusty-Spotted Genet Genetta maculata from Kasanka National Park, north-east Zambia. Small Carnivore Conservation, 29: 15. Wozencraft W.C. (in press). Order Carnivora. Jn Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, Ed. 3. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 245 Proposed conservation of the specific name of Porcellio reaumurii and attribution to Milne Edwards, 1840 (currently Hemilepistus reaumurii (Audouin, 1826); Crustacea, Isopoda): case closed (Case 3296; see BZN 60: 261) L. B. Holthuis (National Museum of Natural History, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) submitted a proposal to conserve the specific name Porcellio reaumurii Milne Edwards, 1840 for a species of terrestrial Oniscoid isopod. The name is a junior objective synonym of Porcellio clairvillii Brandt, 1833. The name P. clairvillii was established for the species illustrated by Savigny (1826, pl. 13, fig. 4), but never used as a valid name for that taxon. Budde-Lund, 1885 (p. 174) used the specific name for the specimen illustrated by Savigny (1826, pl. 13, fig. 3) and placed it in the genus Metoponorthus, but he considered it to be a dubious species. Schmalfuss (2003, pp. 161, 221) treated the name c/airvillii as a nomen dubium. It has not been used as a valid name after 1899 and as such the case may be resolved under Article 23.9 of the Code. The case is now closed. References Budde-Lund, G. 1885. Crustacea Isopoda Terrestria per Familias et Genera et Species descripta. 319 pp. Copenhagen. Savigny, M.J.C. 1826. Description de 1’Egypte ou Recueil des observations et des recherches qui ont été faites en Egypte pendant 1’expedition de l’armée frangaise. Crustacés, pls. 1-13. Schmalfuss, H. 2003. World catalog of terrestrial isopods (Isopoda, Oniscoidea). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde, Serie A (Biologie), no. 654, pp. 1-341. 246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(4) December 2005 AUTHORS IN VOLUME 62 (2005) Page Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. . 84, 189, 210 Barbieri, Re See heya re ere Ov Bock wes) See > eee, See 59 Bouche ts 2 sain nn ane 84, 210 BrinkhurstyReOs ey ae eee 2O Brothers! Daa nee 210 Calhoun IRV aie erie nee eer TS) Collette @B3B eee eo Cranbrook, Earlof...... . 7, 128 GranstonSR+San saree ee Curdss\ CARS. 2 eee eae, nen 26 Dijkstra gke-D iB ee ae eos IDs, AL, go sb oo 0 oo oo ol AAO) EllennedersNevonwen arate en 4: lays) IMIS. 6 0 o.0 2 0 0 w 2 a by AAD ETSGUS Gee ee. ry ee es eect OD ENEMAS, INL, 6 cco. 0 0 2 6 6 o o Al IEINO, Jog a oo eo oe os a 0 OS GardnenvAtii ea een Lae lss Gainvigom, RAW ok oe eo 14 Gaubert@ PR. Ta. 2 ee eo eae Gilstl RN CP Te, ee aS 0) GUSIEWRSOM, Ib, o 6 0 0 0 6 0 oo ol AS Plerder ght no. ee ek eS. IsoOlneMNEE, oo ao 0 a oo 8 oo 0 OM! KadolskysD Sec oe SA IX