8 Volume 62, Part 2, 30 June 2005, pp. 57-124 ISSN 0007-5167

The

Bul letin

a ical
Nomenclature

ial Period;
‘ommi

on 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

Vacant

Members

Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga
(Spain; Coleoptera)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; 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)
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)
Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)

Secretariat

Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa)

Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.)

Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa)
Prof A. Minelli (/taly; 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.A.; 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)

Dr C. MacDonald (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

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 " ry}

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE INNRVAR ao)

Volume 62, part 2 (pp. 57-124) 30 June 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 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 1, 31 March 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 3339: Celaenorrhinus ratna Fruhstorfer, 1908 (Insecta, Lepidoptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. Y.-F. Hsu, H. Chiba & S.-H. Yen.

CASE 3340: Heliacus dOrbigny, 1842 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
precedence over Torinia Gray, 1842. R. Bieler & R.E. Petit.

CASE 3341: Cardium egmontianum Shuttleworth, 1856 (currently Trachycardium
egmontianum; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation of usage of the specific
name by the replacement of the earliest lectotype with a later designated lectotype.
H.G. Les &.K.E.. Petit.

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

CASE 3342: Phalaena croesella Scopoli, 1763 (currently Adela croesella; Insecta,
Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.V. Kozlov.

CASE 3343: Gigantopecten Rovereto, 1899 and Lissochlamys Sacco, 1897 (Mollusca,
Bivalvia, PECTINIDAE): proposed conservation. T.R. Waller & M. Bongrain. |

CASE 3344: Pseudorthocladius Goetghebuer, 1943 and Mesosmittia Brundin, 1956
(Insecta, Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE): proposed conservation of generic names. M. Spies.

Presidency of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

Dr Neal Evenhuis, who has been President of the Commission since November
2001, has found it necessary to resign from both the Commission and the Trust as a
result of an increased workload at the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, Hawaii. It is
with regret that the Commission’s Council has accepted this resignation. Under
ICZN Bylaw 19, Prior Termination of Membership, ‘In the event of the death,
effective resignation or incapacity of the President or of his ceasing to be a member
of the Commission, the Vice-President shall become the President and shall serve as
President for the remainder of the latter’s term of office’. Vice-President Prof Denis
Brothers has agreed to assume the role of the Commission President at least until
April 2007. Dr Evenhuis has also found it necessary to cease hosting the ICZN
discussion list, which has now been transferred to a server in London, U.K., through
the good offices of Mr Lynn Raw, DEFRA, London U.K.

Call for nominations for new members of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Since the last election of five new Commissioners in June 2001, three Commission-
ers have expressed their wish to retire: President Dr N.L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera),
former Vice-President Dr W.N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) and Prof. U.R.
Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera). Their anticipated retirement will therefore
bring at least three vacancies to the Commission.

The Commission therefore invites nominations, from any person or institution,
of potential candidates for election. The nationalities and specialist fields of the
present members of the Commission may be found on the Commission’s Website
(www.iczn.org) or on the inside cover of each part of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature.

Article 2b of the Commission’s Constitution prescribes that:

‘The members of the Commission shall be eminent scientists, irrespective of
nationality, with a distinguished record in any branch of zoology, who are known to
have an interest in zoological nomenclature’.

It should be noted that ‘zoology’ here includes the applied biological sciences
(medicine, agriculture, etc.) which use zoological names.

Nominations made since June 2001 will automatically be taken into account and
need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the age, nationality and
qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each nominee should be sent as
soon as possible, either by e-mail to icznhm.ac.uk or by post to: Executive Secretary,
[International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, clo Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 59

Ernst Mayr, 5 July 1904—3 February 2005

For the second half of his life, Ernst Walter Mayr was primarily occupied with
evolutionary theory and with the history and philosophy of biology. But we must
remember that his training and his empirical research was in avian systematics and
biogeography which formed the foundation of his later theoretical work. The rough
division between these two phases in his scholarly work can be put at 1953 when he
joined the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University. At that time he
left behind the American Museum of Natural History and the superb collection of
Pacific Island birds gathered by the Whitney South Sea Expedition, as well as the
Rothschild Collection on which he had worked for 22 years. During this time he
revised numerous genera, described 26 new species and 445 new subspecies, and most
importantly published his first book, List of New Guinea Birds (1941), which is still
the basic systematic and nomenclatural reference to the birds of this area. Hence
Mayr had to become involved early in zoological nomenclature and published his
first purely nomenclatural paper on the generic name Calao in 1931. Because he
worked with birds, a group for which there probably are more active researchers than
species, Mayr developed the position that the best way to achieve stability in
nomenclature for such groups was by conserving well-established names rather
than only by the use of strict priority. He stressed that stability in zoological
nomenclature was difficult to reach efficiently with a single set of rules that applied to
groups such as birds as well as to groups with large numbers of species and few
specialists.

Mayr was not able to take part directly in meetings of the Commission because
he was only a young assistant at the time of the Budapest Congress in 1927, was
just married at the time of the Lisbon Congress in 1935, and could not attend the
Paris Congress in 1948 because he had not yet obtained his American passport. As
with a number of other zoologists, Mayr was disturbed by some of the extreme
changes advocated at the 1948 International Zoological Congress, Paris, but which
never became part of the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature. He attended the
Nomenclatural Colloquium immediately prior to the Zoological Congress in
Copenhagen (1953) and became the leader of the group advocating stability in
zoological names. Shortly after the 1953 Congress Mayr was elected to the
Commission and served from 1954 to 1976. He was present at the London Congress
(1958) at which the first edition of the new Code was adopted, as well as the
Washington Congress (1963) and the Monaco Congress (1972). His most important
achievement was the adoption of his proposed Preamble to the Code which is an
integral part of this set of rules and has remained essentially unchanged in all editions
of the Code to the present one. The Preamble sets the basic scope and tone of the
Code in emphasizing that stability is predominant, that each taxon has a unique
name and that the Code does not restrict freedom of taxonomic action.

Mayr remained an active member of the Commission and attended all its meetings
until his retirement from the Commission in 1976. Although he did little empirical
research in ornithology after leaving the American Museum of Natural History in
1953, he did remain active in systematic ornithology and nomenclatural matters by
becoming the main editor of the remaining volumes (8 - 15 and volume 1, 2" edition)
of Peters’ Check-list of Birds of the World. The clear presentation of zoological

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

nomenclature is an important part of the three editions of his text book on animal
systematics.

Ernst Mayr retired from the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard
University in 1975, but remained active until his 100'" year. He wrote or edited over
ten books after his retirement, with his last appearing just after his 100'" birthday.
After his wife died in 1990, he continued to live in his home in Cambridge until 1997
when he moved to an apartment in a retirement home in Bedford, Massachusetts,
about 20 miles north of Cambridge, but continued to drive to the Museum of
Comparative Zoology until summer 2003. Ernst was active until early December
2004 when an illness forced him to move to the nursing wing. He passed away
peacefully in the late morning of 3 February 2005S.

Ernst Mayr had a long and remarkable career in the systematics and biogeography
of birds, evolutionary theory and the history and philosophy of biology. It is most
fortunate for zoological nomenclature that this remarkable zoologist took such an
active interest in it for many decades.

Walter J. Bock
Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, 1212 Amsterdam Avenue,
Mail Box 2431, New York, NY 10027-7004, U.S.A. (e-mail: wb4@columbia.edu).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 6]

Reports on meetings at the Global Biodiversity Information Facility
Secretariat (GBIF), Copenhagen, 14 January 2005, and UNESCO,
Paris, 24—29 January and 4 March 2005

Andrew Polaszek, Executive Secretary, ICZN

GBIF Copenhagen

On 14 January 2005 a one-day workshop on the nomenclatural codes was
convened and hosted by GBIF at their headquarters in Copenhagen, Denmark. The
following participants were present: James Edwards, Per de Place Bjorn and
Meredith Lane (GBIF); Chris Lyal (Chair, electronic catalogue of known organism
names — ECAT); David Hawksworth (BioCode); Mike Mayo (virus code); Brian
Tindall (prokaryote code); John McNeill and Nick Turland (botanical code);
Andrew Polaszek (zoological code) and ICZN Commissioner Claus Nielsen.

ECAT — electronic catalogue of names of known organisms. The ECAT project is a
GBIF Initiative that aims to provide a ‘names service’ to the biological user commu-
nity. It does this by forming partnerships with various organisations (‘data provid-
ers’) involved in generating databases on living organisms, and sharing this infor-
mation freely. Most important among the data providers until now is the Catalogue
of Life partnership of ITIS (Integrated Taxonomic Information Service) and Species-
2000. The ECAT Science Subcommittee wishes to expand its names services by
engaging with the nomenclatural representatives of the different biological kingdoms.

A proposal was tabled (Andrew Polaszek) that the ICZN Official Lists and Indexes
of Names in Zoology should be digitised and databased in the very near future, and
thereby form the basis of ICZN’s contribution to GBIF. Such a project would,
however, require financial input which is currently being sought. In order to ratify
ICZN-GBIF cooperation, ICZN will become an Associate Participant of GBIF.

BioCode. The BioCode proposal (David Hawksworth) for a unified nomenclatural
Code for all living organisms received a great deal of attention in publications and
discussion lists in the 1990s. Despite the apparent logic of unifying the Codes, it faced
very widespread opposition. It is generally thought among taxonomists that the
degree of disruption to their current working practices would far outweigh any
benefits. During this meeting it was noted that the viral code is the least compatible
with the others, lacking binominals and having no Principle of Priority.

Code representatives present agreed to work more closely together in future, with
the re-establishment of the International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICBN).
While implementation of the BioCode seems unlikely in the foreseeable future, it
would be desirable for the Code authorities to a) provide links between their Codes
on the web, and b) provide a shared web page where the various Codes could be
discussed, particularly in relation to equivalence between terms or lack thereof. A
large body of literature already exists on this subject; this could be digitised and
placed on the web with relative ease.

UNESCO, Paris, ‘Biodiversity: Science and Governance’

An international congress took place at UNESCO headquarters in Paris
24-28 January 2005. ICZN Commissioner Philippe Bouchet co-chaired a congress

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

workshop ‘Documenting Biodiversity on 27 January, during which ICZN Executive
Secretary Andrew Polaszek gave a verbal presentation entitled ‘The International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature — a strategic approach for the 21st Century’.
A poster with the same title was displayed during the entire meeting. ICZN’s
fundraising Appeal Patron, Professor Edward O. Wilson, was among the plenary
lecturers during the opening day of the meeting, sharing the stage with the French
President Jacques Chirac. The week entailed many interesting and useful presenta-
tions as well as fruitful meetings and discussions with representatives of several
organisations including BioNET International, CITES, GBIF, IUCN, Natural
History Museum, London, Smithsonian Institution, and the Zoological Society of
London. Andrew Polaszek also met with Elliot Morley, U.K. Minister for Environ-
ment and Agroenvironment, to discuss the relevance of ICZN to animal taxonomy
and conservation.

Immediately after the Congress a special meeting of ICZN Commissioners
was convened at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle on 29 January, with
facilities kindly provided by Commissioner Philippe Bouchet. Also present were
Commissioners Miguel Alonso-Zarazaga, Shunsuke Mawatari, Alessandro Minelli
and Jan van Tol, ICZN Executive Secretary Andrew Polaszek (Chair), Director
MNHN Herpetology Department Alain Dubois, and European Association for
Zoological Nomenclature (EAZN) Secretary Donat Agosti. Several agenda items
were discussed in detail as follows: EAZN — prospects and progress, fundraising in
Europe; Code 4'" Edition — problems and solutions; lists of animal names; solutions
to problems in nomenclature of higher taxa; moving BZN to the web; registration of
animal names; ICZN Strategy Document and development programme; GBIF report
and memorandum of cooperation, and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
memorandum of cooperation. Discussion papers are available (from the ICZN
Secretariat) for the agenda items concerning registration, ICZN strategy document
and GBIF Memorandum of Cooperation. The main conclusions of the day’s
discussions were as follows: the European Association for Zoological Nomenclature
needs to be revived and actively involved in fundraising for ICZN in Europe, in
cooperation with the Secretariat; ICZN Secretariat to digitise and database Official
Lists and Indexes and to have them available on the ICZN website; Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature to consider publishing an article by Prof. Dubois on
nomenclature in higher animal taxa, 1.e. above the family-group level; Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature to recruit a panel of Associate Editors to assist with
processing cases; ICZN to develop, in collaboration with other interested parties, a
system of registration of animal names, and finally, ICZN to establish three
committees on: |) registration of animal names; 2) Official Lists and Indexes of names
and works in zoology; and 3) the 5‘ edition of the Code. Membership of these
committees is not yet finalised, and the ICZN Secretariat welcomes inquiries from all
interested parties.

UNESCO, Paris, [UBS-ICZ-ICZN meeting

A meeting was organised at UNESCO, Paris, on 4 March 2005 at the request of the
ICZN Executive Secretary. The meeting was kindly hosted by Natarajan Ishwaran
(UNESCO Director of Ecological Sciences) and involved the following participants:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 63

Salvatore Arico— UNESCO, Man and Biosphere programme; Per de Place
Bjorn — GBIF, ECAT Programme Officer; Philippe Bouchet (MNHN, ICZN
Commissioner); Jean-Marc Jallon (Université Paris-Sud; organising Committee,
20'" ICZ); Hugo von Linstow — GBIF, Dep. Dir. Management & International
Relations; Michael Schmitt, Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn (ISZS); Talal
Younes — Executive Director, IUBS.

The meeting was convened to address two issues: first, the position of ICZN within
IUBS and in relation to the International Congresses of Zoology; second,
the planned 2008 celebration of 250 years since Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae
(10'" Edition). On the first issue it was agreed that the International Committee on
Bionomenclature (ICBN) needs to be re-established. However, the purpose of a
revitalised ICBN would be to address the role of biological nomenclature in general,
and not just the BioCode (the unified Code for all organisms). Andrew Polaszek,
together with the other code representatives, will draft a concept paper detailing the
role and function of the new ICBN. It was also suggested that ICBN could be
reformed under the umbrella of ICSU, the International Council for Science.

Despite certain problems with the last two International Congresses of Zoology in
Greece (2000) and China (2004) with respect to taxonomic and nomenclatural issues,
the consensus of the meeting was that the 20 International Congress of Zoology,
due to take place in Paris in 2008, will provide a good opportunity to re-establish the
important relationship between ICZN and the International Congress of Zoology.
The main organiser of the Paris 2008 ICZ, Jean-Marc Jallon, welcomed ICZN’s
participation in the meeting, and in particular the inclusion of the ‘Systema Naturae
250’ symposium. This event is being developed as a celebration of 250 years since the
publication of Linnaeus’s 10th Edition of Systema Naturae (1758), generally accepted
as the starting point of binominal zoological systematics. The meeting will provide an
opportunity to discuss the state of zoological nomenclature in an age of rapidly
advancing technology, affecting both bioinformatics and systematics. Both GBIF
and the Linnean Society of London have already pledged organisational and
financial support for the meeting. Further financial support, intended to attract
keynote speakers and as many ICZN Commissioners as possible to the meeting, is
currently being sought. The 20'" ICZ will take place in Paris in August 2008. An
Organising Committee and Scientific Committee are currently being assembled, and
anyone interested in participating in either or both should please contact the ICZN
Secretariat.

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Case 3262

Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 (currently Calcarina spengleri) and
C. hispida Brady, 1876 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation of .
usage of the specific names by the designation of a replacement
neotype for C. spengleri

Willem Renema

Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands (e-mail: Renema@naturalis.nl)

Johann Hohenegger

Institut ftir Palaeontologie, Universitat Wien, Universitdtsstrasse 7,
A-1010 Wien, Austria

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is the
designation of a replacement neotype for Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791, the type
species of the prominent reef foraminiferan genus Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (family
CALCARINIDAE). In 1981, H.J. Hansen designated a neotype for N. spengleri, but this
is a specimen of C. hispida Brady, 1876. The prevailing usage of both C. spengleri and
C. hispida will be conserved by the designation of a replacement neotype.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminiferida; CALCARINIDAE; Calcarina
spengleri; Calcarina hispida; Calcarina gaudichaudii; foraminifera.

1. Foraminifera of the genus Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (p. 276) are important
carbonate producers in shallow tropical seas. The type species of Calcarina is the
Indo-Pacific Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 (p. 3371) by designation by Parker &
Jones (1859, p. 482); the original material of N. speng/eri is lost but in 1981 one of a
number of topotypic specimens was designated as neotype (Hansen, 1981, p. 198).
Hansen assumed this specimen, with prominent sharp spikes (the term hispid denotes
the possession of spikes), to be a juvenile example conspecific with larger ‘adult’
non-hispid specimens with smooth blunt spines. Blunt-spined specimens had been
figured by Spengler (1781, p. 379, pl. 2, figs. 9a-c) and Fichtel & Moll (1798, pls. 14,
15), and have been illustrated by modern authors (e.g. Hottinger & Leutenegger,
1980, pl. 6; Rogl & Hansen, 1984, pls. 20, 21). Rogl & Hansen (1984, p. 59) noted that
‘the neotype 1s a young form while the material of Fichtel & Moll compares well with
the adult specimens figured by Hottinger & Leutenegger’.

2. It is now clear (see Lobegeier, 2002, p. 204; Renema & Hohenegger, 2005) that
the ‘juvenile’ hispid and ‘adult’ non-hispid specimens discussed by R6gl & Hansen
(1984) belong to two different taxonomic species rather than to different develop-
mental stages. The ‘juvenile’ specimens (including Hansen’s neotype of Nautilus
spengleri) are conspecific with Calcarina hispida Brady, 1876 (p. 589) while the ‘adult’
specimens are conspecific with C. gaudichaudii dOrbigny, 1840 (p. 131). The name

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 65

C. hispida has been applied only to the small hispid taxon (e.g. Cushman, 1919,
p. 365, pl. 44) and it is desirable to maintain this consistent usage of more than a
century. The name C. spengleri has referred in most cases to the non-hispid species
only, but has also been used in a composite sense by authors (e.g. Hottinger &
Leutenegger, 1980; Rogl & Hansen, 1984) who were unaware that more than one
taxon was involved.

3. Lobegeier (2002, p. 204) noted ‘Calcarina spengleri, as represented by the
neotype [of Hansen, 1981]... 1s conspecific with C. hispida... The name spengleri
has priority’. In accordance with this, she applied the name C. spengleri to the small
hispid taxon known in general usage (see para. 2 above) as C. hispida. The larger
non-hispid species illustrated as spengleri by Fichtel & Moll (1798) and Rogl &
Hansen (1984) and which was described as C. gaudichaudii by d’Orbigny in 1840 is
restricted to the northern part of the West Pacific; it does not occur at the Great
Barrier Reef locality studied by Lobegeier and so was not considered by her.

4. According to current taxonomy there is a group of at least four taxonomic
species of Calcarina relevant to the present issue. These are (A) C. spengleri (Gmelin,
1791) (in the non-hispid sense of most authors), (B) C. gaudichaudii (d’Orbigny,
1840), (C) C. hispida Brady, 1876 (= C. spengleri in the taxonomic sense of Hansen’s
neotype and hence of Lobegeier (2002)) and (D) C. mayori Cushman, 1924 (p. 44).
Due partly to high intraspecific variability, the differences between the species have
not always been clear, but they are clarified by Lobegeier (2002; species C and D) and
Renema & Hohenegger (2005; species A, B, C and D). Species A has thick, blunt
spines; the test shows some tubercles but has no spikes in either adults or juveniles.
Species C is about half the size of species A and has long spikes on the test and short
spines, while species D has relatively shorter spikes and longer spines. Apart from
Lobegeier (2002), all publications have used the name C. hispida for species C, of
which C. mayori has sometimes been regarded as a ‘form’ (in doing this in his
unpublished thesis Baccaert (1987) used the name C. spengleri for the species).

5. Retaining the unfortunate choice of neotype of Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791
by Hansen (1981; MGUH 15076, Copenhagen) would increase confusion, since the
name spengleri would be transferred from species A to species B (as already done by
Lobegeier), displacing the name /ispida consistently used for the latter taxon. C.
hispida has been described and figured in at least 20 publications. In contrast to the
consistent use of hispida, the name spengleri has been applied to species A, B, C and
D. Until 1980, usage of the name for species A was consistent, while since then that
taxon has been called both C. spengleri and C. gaudichaudii. The name spengleri has
also been used for species D due to misidentification. Renema & Hohenegger (2005)
give the full synonymy of these names.

6. We propose in the interests of stability that the ‘juvenile’ hispid neotype of
Nautilus spengleri should be set aside and that the blunt-spined non-hispid specimen
figured by Fichtel & Moll (1798) and by Rogl & Hansen (1984, pl. 21, fig. 1) as N.
spengleri var. y should be designated as replacement. This specimen is preserved in
the Fichtel and Moll collection in the Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna, under the
number NHMW Inv. Mi-541 (see Rogl & Hansen, 1984).

7. The nominal species Tinoporus baculatus Montford, 1808 is conspecific with
Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791, as typified by the proposed neotype (see Hansen &
Rogl, 1984) and is the type species of de Montfort’s genus Tinoporus. In order to

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

conserve the name Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 the generic name Tinoporus de
Montfort was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology (Opinion 1569, March 1990), but the specific name baculatus de Montfort,
1808, as published in the binomen Jinoporus baculatus, was not placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. The presumed con-
specificity of Tinoporus baculatus and Nautilus spengleri is reinstated with the
proposed designation of a replacement neotype for N. spengleri.

8. The nominal species Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791, was placed on the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology in 1990 (Opinion 1569).

9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type fixations for the nominal species
spengleri Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Nautilus spengleri, and to
designate specimen NHMW Inv. Mi-541 as neotype;

(2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for
Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 to record that it is to be interpreted by the
neotype designated in (1) above.

References

Baccaert, J. 1987. Distribution patterns and taxonomy of benthic foraminifera in the Lizard
Island reef complex, Northern Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Ph.D. thesis Université de
Liége, 1-140.

Brady, H.B. 1876. On some foraminifera from the Loo Choo islands. Proceedings of the Royal
Trish Academy, (2)2: 1-600.

Brady, H.B. 1884. Report on the Foraminifera dredged by H. M.S. Challenger, during the years
1873-1876. In: Report on the Scientific Results of the Voyage of the H.M.S. Challenger
during the years 1873-1876, Zoology, 9: 1-814.

Cushman, J.A. 1919. The relationships of the genera Calcarina, Tinoporus, and Baculogypsina
as indicated by recent Philippine material. Bulletin of the United States National Museum,
100: 363-368.

Cushman, J.A. 1924. Samoan foraminifera. Publications of the Carnegie Institution of
Washington 342 Department of Marine Biology Papers, 21: \—75.

Fichtel, L. von & Moll, J.P.C. von. 1798. Testacea microscopia aliaque minuta ex generibus
Argonauta et Nautilus. Anton Pichler, Vienna.

Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Systema Naturae Linnaei. G.E. Beer, Germania.

Hansen, H.J. 1981. On Lorentz Spengler and a neotype for the foraminifer Calcarina spengleri.
Bulletin of the Geological Society of Denmark, 29(4): 191-201.

Hottinger, L. & Leutenegger, S. 1980. The structure of calcarinid foraminifera. Schweizerische
Palaeontologische Abhandlungen, 101: 115—127.

Lobegeier, M.K. 2002. Benthic Foraminifera of the Family Calcarinidae from Green Island
Reef, Great Barrier Reef Province. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 32(3): 201-216.

Orbigny, A. d’. 1826. Tableau méthodologique de la classe des Céphalopodes. Annales des
Sciences Naturelles, 7. 245-314.

Parker, W.K. & Jones, T.R. 1859. On the nomenclature of Foraminifera I: On the species
enumerated by Linnaeus and Gmelin. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (3)3:
474-4872.

Renema, W. & Hohenegger, J. 2005. On the identity of Calcarina spengleri Gmelin. Journal of
Foraminiferal Research, 35(1): 15-21.

Rogl, F. & Hansen, H.J. 1984. Foraminifera described by Fichtel and Moll in 1798 — a
revision of Testacea Microscopica. Neue Denkschriften des Naturhistorischen Museums in
Wien, 3: 1-143.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 67

Spengler, L. 1781. Nogle nyligen opdagede smaa snekkers beskrivelse. Konglige dansk
Videnskabelig Selskapets Skrifte, nve Samling, 1: 365-373.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1.
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).

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Case 3324

Tramea Hagen, 1861 (Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation

K.-D.B. Dijkstra and J. van Tol

National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517,
2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mails: dijkstra@naturalis.nnm.nl;
tol@naturalis.nnm.nl)

J. Legrand

Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire d’Entomologie,
45 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France (e-mail: legrand@mnhn.fr)

G. Theischinger

2A Hammersley Road, Grays Point, N.S.W., Australia 2232
(e-mail: theischinger@epa.nsw.gov.au)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the generic name TJramea Hagen, 1861 for a group of common and
widespread dragonflies by suppression of the senior objective synonym Trapezo-
stigma Hagen, 1849. In addition, it is proposed that all previous fixations of type
species for the nominal genus 7ramea Hagen, 1861 before that by Kirby (1889) of
Libellula carolina Linnaeus, 1763 be set aside.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Odonata; LIBELLULIDAE; Tramea; Trapezo-
stigma; Tramea carolina; dragonflies.

1. Hagen (1849, p. 174) proposed the genus Trapezostigma, defined by indication
as belonging to the first and second groups of the dragonfly (Odonata) genus
Libellula Linnaeus, 1758 in Rambur (1842, pp. 32-46), and to sections A. I. a. 6 and
¢ and b. a of Libellula Linnaeus, 1758 in Burmeister (1839, pp. 852-853). These
groups included L. carolina Linnaeus, 1763 (p. 411) and L. variegata Linnaeus, 1763.
Hagen never used the name 7Jrapezostigma again.

2. Twelve years later, Hagen (1861, p. 143) established the generic name Tramea for
seven nominal species of North American Odonata. Kirby (1889, p. 268) designated
Libellula carolina Linnaeus as the type species of Tramea Hagen. The genus Tramea
presently includes 32 valid species and subspecies, occurring in all tropical and
subtropical regions of the world, including several oceanic islands. Most taxa have
been named from the Old World. Their relationships are poorly understood up to
now. This complexity is probably the combined effect of strong dispersal power and
large but fragmented ranges. The New World species are more distinct; ten species
are known from tropical America and the Caribbean. The ranges of four of them
extend well into North America.

3. The name Trapezostigma Hagen was not used between 1849 and 1913 when Ris
(1913, p. 971), in his monograph of the LIBELLULIDAE, mentioned the existence of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 69

name, but noted that a generic description was lacking and added that resurrection
of the name 7rapezostigma was unnecessary and very undesirable. The status of Ris’s
work was such that the name Tramea became the standard for many authors,
including Needham & Heywood (1929), Williamson (1932), Fraser (1936) and
Lieftinck (1954).

4. Cowley (1935, p. 283) designated Libellula carolina Linnaeus, 1763 as type
species of Trapezostigma. This was already the type species of Tramea Hagen which
therefore became a junior objective synonym of Trapezostigma. Cowley realised that
this would upset the continued use of Tramea, mentioned that Ris’s principle
‘Stabilitat vor Prioritat’ was worthy of every respect, but held the opinion that any
resulting instability would only be temporary. Unfortunately, the expected chaos
remains today. Indeed, after Cowley’s (1935) publication, a minority of authors
adopted the generic name 7rapezostigma, including some influential authors such as
Pinhey (1951), working on the fauna of Africa, and Watson (1967), working in
Australia. However, an overwhelming majority of Cowley’s contemporaries retained
the use of Tramea instead of Trapezostigma, including Fraser (1936), Lieftinck
(1954), Longfield (1947) and Schmidt (1951), who all published much-used regional
faunal overviews or keys. Generally, the name 7ramea was used by authors working
in the Americas and Asia, whereas Trapezostigma was used in Africa and Australia.
A list of references is available from the Commission Secretariat.

5. Gloyd (1972) discussed the use of Tramea and Trapezostigma extensively,
concluding that ‘we end the duality of names by a unanimous return to the time
favored Tramea’. Although her appeal was not formalised with an application to the
Commission, it was widely accepted. Some authors even altered their usage of the
generic name. For instance, Pinhey (e.g. 1974, 1984) published using the name
Tramea from that time on, explicitly referring to Gloyd (1972). Only in Australia has
the name Trapezostigma remained in general use (e.g. Watson, Theischinger &
Abbey, 1991; Hawking & Theischinger, 1999). The usage for African species 1s
inconsistent, both for a single author over time, as well as for contemporary authors.
A count in the Zoological Record on CD (1980-2003) on 30 June 2004 revealed 78
references using 7ramea and two using Trapezostigma. These references (available
from the Commission Secretariat) include numerous handbooks and field guides for
this group of insects attracting growing interest from amateurs and professionals.

6. A recent revival of the name Trapezostigma, most notably by Hedge & Crouch
(2000) in a checklist of the Odonata of South Africa, has made it clear that a ruling
by the Commission is needed to resolve this nomenclatural problem that has existed
for over 150 years. The third and fourth authors of this application have used the
name Trapezostigma in favour of Tramea until now, but stress the necessity for stable
nomenclature by suppression of the name Trapezostigma.

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

(1) to use its plenary power:

(a) to suppress the generic name Trapezostigma Hagen, 1849 for the purposes
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Tramea
Hagen, 1861 before the designation of Libellula carolina Linnaeus, 1763 by
Kirby (1889);

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name 7ramea
Hagen, 1861 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Kirby (1889) Libellula carolina Linnaeus, 1763, as ruled in (1)(b) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name carolina
Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the binomen Libellula carolina (specific name
of the type species of Tramea Hagen, 1861);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the name Trapezostigma Hagen, 1849, as suppressed in (1)(a) above.

References

Burmeister, H. 1839. Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 2, part 2. Pp. 757-1050. Enslin, Berlin.

Cowley, J. 1935. Nomenclature of Odonata: three generic names of Hagen. Entomologist, 68:
283-284.

Fraser, F.C. 1936. The fauna of British India Odonata, vol. 3. 461 pp. Taylor & Francis,
London.

Gloyd, L.K. 1972. Tramea, Trapezostigma, and time (Anisoptera: Libellulidae). A nomen-
clatural problem. Odonatologica, 1(3): 131—136.

Hagen, H. 1849. Uebersicht der neueren Literatur, betreffend die Neuropteren Linn. Schluss.
Entomologische Zeitung, Stettin, 10(6): 167-177.

Hagen, H. 1861. Synopsis of the Neuroptera of North America, with a list of the South
American species. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 4: 1-347.

Hawking, J. & Theischinger, G. 1999. Dragonfly larvae (Odonata). A guide to the identification
of larvae of Australian families and to the identification and ecology of larvae from New
South Wales. [dentification Guide | Co-operative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology
(Australia), no. 24. 1v, 218 pp.

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—S5.

Kirby, W.F. 1889. A revision of the subfamily Libellulinae, with descriptions of new genera and
species. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 12: 249-348.

Lieftinck, M.A. 1954. Handlist of Malaysian Odonata. A catalogue of the dragonflies of the
Malay peninsula, Sumatra, Java and Borneo, including the adjacent small islands.
Treubia, 22 (supplement): 1—202.

Linnaeus, C. 1763. Centuria Insectorum [proposuit Boas Johansson]. Amoenitates Academicae,
6: 384-415.

Longfield, C. 1947. The Odonata of South Angola. Results of the Missions Scientifiques Suisses
1928-29, 1932-33. Arquivos do Museu Bocage, 16: 1-31.

Needham, J.G. & Heywood, H.B. 1929. A handbook of the dragonflies of North America. viii,
378 pp. C.C. Thomas, Springfield.

Pinhey, E. 1951. The dragonflies of Southern Africa. xv, 335 pp. Transvaal Museum, Pretoria.

Pinhey, E. 1974. Odonata of the Northwest Cameroons and particularly of the islands
stretching southwards from the Guinea Gulf. Bonner Zoologische Beitrdge, 25(1-3):
179-212.

Pinhey, E. 1984. A checklist of the Odonata of Zimbabwe and Zambia. Smithersia, no. 3: 1-64.

Rambur, P. 1842. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Névroptéeres. xviii, 534 pp. Roret, Paris.

Ris, F. 1913. Libellulines 3, Libellulinen 8. Collections Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys
Longchamps, 16(1): 965-1042.

Schmidt, Er. 1951. Libellen aus Portugiesisch Guinea, mit Bemerkungen tiber andere
aethiopische Odonaten. Arquivos do Museu Bocage, 20: 125—200.

Watson, J.A.L. 1967. An analysis of Trapezostigma eurybia (Selys, 1878) and related
Indo—Australian species (Odonata, Libellulidae). Nova Guinea, Zoology, no. 36: 377-400.

Watson, J.A.L., Theischinger, G. & Abbey, H.M. 1991. The Australian dragonflies. A guide to
the identification, distributions and habitats of Australian Odonata. vii, 278 pp. CSIRO,
Canberra, Australia.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 71

Williamson, E.B. 1932. Dragonflies collected in Missouri. Occasional Papers of the Museum of
Zoology, University of Michigan, no. 240: 1-40.

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).

ps Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Case 3072

Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762, Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 and other genus-
group names with the suffix —ceris in the family CHRYSOMELIDAE
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed Official Correction of gender to
feminine

Michael Schmitt

Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig,
Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
(e-mail: m.schmitt@uni-bonn.de)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 80.4 of the Code, is to fix the
gender as feminine for the names of two economically important genera of beetles
recognized as crop pests, Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762, Lilioceris Reitter, 1912, and other
genus-group names with the suffix —ceris in the family CHRYSOMELIDAE.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CHRYSOMELIDAE; Crioceris; Crioceris asparagi;
Lilioceris; Lilioceris lilii; beetles; crop pests.

1. The name Crioceris was first used by Geoffroy (1762) in Histoire abrégée des
insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris vol. 1, p. 237. Names published in that
work were ruled to be unavailable for purposes of nomenclature, and the work
was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological
Nomenclature in Opinion 228 (Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 4: 211—220 (21 April 1954)).
The name Crioceris was subsequently placed on the Official List with the following
author and date of publication: Muller, 1764. An application for the conservation of
24 of the generic names published by Geoffroy (1762) was later received from I.M.
Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg, Russia) and
published as Case 2292 (BZN 48: 107-133 (June 1991)) and approved by the
Commission. In the resultant Opinion 1754 para. A(1) (BZN 51: 58-70 (March
1994)) some of the generic names published in that work were deemed to be available
and in para. K(5)(h) the entry on the Official List for Crioceris Muller, 1764 was
emended to Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762.

2. An application (Case Z.N.(S.) 1786) to the Commission to designate, under the
plenary power, type species for the nominal genera Crioceris ‘Miller, 1764 and Lema
Fabricius, 1798 and to place these names and Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 on the Official
List was published in BZN 24: 116-118 (April, 1967). The Commission approved the
proposals in Opinion 908 (BZN 27: 12-13 (June 1970)) and the names Crioceris
‘Miller, 1764’ and Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 were both placed on the Official List with
their gender given as masculine (BZN 27: 12, paras. (2)(a) and (2)(c) respectively).
The name Crioceris is based on the Greek words kpioc (krios: ram) and Képac (kéras:
horn). The name Crioceris has been treated as feminine since it was established.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 73

Geoffroy (1762, p. 237) left no doubt that he intended Crioceris to be feminine since
he listed as the first species C. rubra (L.). Muller (1764, p. xiii) did not include any
nominal species but later (Miller, 1766, p. 85) published numerous species-group
names in this nominal genus, which clearly supported the use of the generic name
as feminine (e.g. duodecimpunctata, cyanella, merdigera, melanopoda, hirta and
elongata). Fabricius (1775, p. 120) also treated Crioceris as feminine by using the
species-group name bifasciata in addition to others in the previous example.
Additionally, Fabricius (1776, p. 222) used the name C. duodecimpunctata (‘magni-
tudo et statura C. duodecimpunctatae’). In the previous (3rd, 1985) edition of the
Code a genus-group name that is or ends in a noun of variable gender, masculine or
feminine, was to be treated as masculine, irrespective of the gender of that noun,
unless its author stated, when establishing the name, that 1t was feminine, or treated
it as feminine in combination with a species-group name. In the current (4th, 2000)
edition of the Code a genus-group name that is or ends in a Greek word transliterated
into Latin without other changes takes the gender given for that word in standard
Greek dictionaries (Article 30.1.2, see example). The gender of the suffix —ceris 1s
neuter (since Képac (keras — horn) is neuter in Greek) however, and the generic
name Crioceris is treated as feminine in current use.

3. The generic names Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 and Metopoceris Heinze, 1931 are also
treated as feminine in current use. The names Pseudocrioceris Pic, 1916 and
Donaciocrioceris Pic, 1936 were treated as masculine or feminine by the original and
subsequent authors. In other animal groups generic names ending in —ceris are
treated as feminine: Cerceris Latreille, 1803 (Hymenoptera, sPHECIDAE, see Poole &
Gentili, 1966, pl. 320f) or Cleoceris Boisduval, 1834 (Lepidoptera, NOCTUIDAE, see
Boisduval, 1834, pl. 71, figs. 1, 2). However, usage is not consistent since the name
Anniceris Stal, 1878 (Orthoptera) was used as masculine (see Kirby, 1910, p. 422).

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

(1) to rule that the gender of generic names in the family CHRYSOMELIDAE ending

with the suffix —ceris are feminine;

(2) to emend the entries on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the

following names to record that their gender is feminine:

(a) Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent
designation Chrysomela asparagi Linnaeus, 1758 and placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Commission in Opinion 908,
Ruling (2)(a);

(b) Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent
designation by Chayjo, 1951, Attelabus lilii Scopoli, 1763 and placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in Opinion 908, Ruling (2)(c).

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to R. Gaedike (Deutsches Entomologisches Institute, Eberswalde,
now Muncheberg) for making available the 18th Century literature and Dr. E.
Rikers (Torino) for providing a list of names from his data file of Neave’s
Nomenclator Zoologicus.

References

Boisduval, J.B.A. 1834. [cones historiques des Lépidopteres nouveaux ou peu connus, vol 2. 208
pp., pls. 48-84. Paris.

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Chajo, M. 1951. A taxonomic study of the Chrysomelidae (Insecta-Coleoptera) of Formosa. I.
Subfamily Criocerinae. Technical Bulletin of Kagawa Agricultural College, 2: 71-120.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1776. Genera Insectorum. 1. 310 pp. Mich. Friedr. Bartsch, Chilonu.

Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol. |.
523 pp., 10 pls. Durand, Paris.

Kirby, W.F. 1910. A synonymic catalogue of Orthoptera, vol. 3, part 2. 674 pp. British Museum
(Natural History), London.

Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectorum Friedrichsdalina Officina. 96 pp. Libraria Io. Frid.
Gleditschii, Hafniae et Lipsiae.

Miller, O.F. 1766. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige-
narum characteres, nomina, et synona imprimis popularium. xxx, 274 pp. Typis Hallageris,
Havniae.

Poole, R.W. & Gentili, P. 1996. Nomina Insecta Nearctica, 2: Hymenoptera, Mecoptera,
Megaloptera, Neuroptera, Raphidoptera, Trichoptera. 793 pp. Entomological Information
Service, Rockville, U.S.A.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 55: 1.

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(2) June 2005 75

Case 3314

Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 and Trichiotinus Casey, 1915
(Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation

Andrew B.T. Smith

Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station D, Ottawa, ON
KIP 6P4, Canada (e-mail: asmith@mus-nature.ca)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the names of two well-established genera of cetoniine scarab beetles,
Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 and Trichiotinus Casey, 1915. Stegopterus
Burmeister & Schaum is a junior synonym of Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827 and
Trichiotinus Casey a junior synonym of Trichinus Kirby, 1827. The two junior names
are in prevailing use and it is proposed that they be conserved by suppression of both
Kirby’s names.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Stegopterus;
Trichiotinus; Stegopterus suturalis; Trichiotinus piger; scarab beetles; North America;
South Africa.

1. Kirby (1827, p. 156) established the names Trichinus and Tetrophthalmus as
subgenera of the genus T7richius Fabricius, 1775. The original spellings of the names
were Trichini and Tetrophthalmi but this was in Latin text as plural nouns. Kirby
explicitly stated that the gender of both subgenera was male, stating: ‘Instead of
giving the denominations of the subgenera a feminine termination as proposed in the
Introduction to Entomology, 1 have followed the gender of the genus [77richius]|’. Kirby
(1837, p. 137) later correctly emended Trichini to Trichinus and designated Trichius
piger Fabricius, 1775 as the type species. The name Tetrophthalmi should also be
emended, retaining the original author and date, to Tetrophthalmus in accordance
with Article 11.8.1 so that the name is in the nominative singular. The type species of
Tetrophthalmus 1s Trichius sutularis Kirby, 1827 by monotypy.

2. Burmeister & Schaum (1840, p. 404) established the name Stegopterus for the
same taxonomic group described as Tetrophthalmus by Kirby, with Trichius suturalis
Gory & Percheron, 1833 (p. 48) as one of the included species. Burmeister & Schaum
mentioned Tetrophthalmus in a footnote, but chose to use the generic name
Stegopterus instead. I (Smith, 2004, p. 288) designated Trichius suturalis Gory &
Percheron as the type species of Stegopterus. The name Tetrophthalmus has not been
used as a valid name for over 150 years and qualifies as a nomen oblitum under
Article 23.9.1.1. However, the name Stegopterus is a little-known genus that has been
mentioned in fewer than 10 papers over the past 50 years, including Krikken (1984),
Evans (1987), Ricchiardi (1998, 2001) and Smith (2004). This limited use of the name
Stegopterus is insufficient 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

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

should use its plenary power to conserve the name Stegopterus by suppression of
Tetrophthalmus.

3. Casey (1915, p. 381) described the genus Trichiotinus without mention of the
name Trichinus, apparently being unaware of its existence. 7richius piger Fabricius,
1775 (p. 41) was designated by Kirby (1837, p. 137) as the type species of Trichinus;
the same nominal taxon is the type species of Trichiotinus by original designation by
Casey (1915, p. 381), making Trichinus and Trichiotinus objective synonyms. The
name Trichiotinus has been used in the majority of publications for this taxonomic
group since 1915, although a few authors lump Trichiotinus under the name Trichius.
The following authors have used Trichiotinus as a valid name in the last 50 years:
Ritcher (1958), Kaul (1960), Woodruff (1960), Dillon & Dillon (1961), Gates & Peters
(1962), Borror & DeLong (1964), Ritcher (1966), Arnett (1968), Howden (1968),
Ritcher (1969a), Ritcher (1969b), Borror & White (1970), Thien (1974), Green (1978),
Lago et al. (1979), Arnett et al. (1980), White (1983), Moron (1984), Schneider &
Nichols (1984), Travis (1984), Howden (1985), Glaser (1986), Lago & Miller (1986),
Lago & Mann (1987), Firmage & Cole (1988), Borror et al. (1989), Howden &
Ratcliffe (1990), Vogt (1990), Delgado-Castillo & Moron (1991), Ratcliffe (1991),
Downie & Arnett (1996), Harpootlian (2001) and Ratcliffe (2002). The only author
to use Trichinus as a valid genus-group name since Kirby (1837) was Hatch (1971,
pp. 482, 484) who used the name as valid without explanation or justification in a
work on the beetles of Washington and Oregon in the United States. Hatch’s use of
Trichinus as a valid name after 1899 prevents its qualification as a nomen oblitum
under Article 23.9.1.1. It is for this reason that I propose that the Commission should
use its plenary power to conserve the name Trichiotinus Casey by suppression of
Trichinus Kirby.

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

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the following names for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827;

(b) Trichinus Kirby, 1827;

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

(a) Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 (gender: masculine), type species
by subsequent designation by Smith (2004) Trichius suturalis Gory &
Percheron; 1633:

(b) Trichiotinus Casey, 1915 (gender: masculine), type species by original
designation Trichius piger Fabricius, 1775;

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

(a) suturalis Gory & Percheron, 1833, as published in the binomen Trichius
suturalis (specific name of the type species of Stegopterus Burmeister &
Schaum, 1840);

(b) piger Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Trichius piger (specific
name of the type species of Trichiotinus Casey, 1915);

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

Zoology the following names:

(a) Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827 (as suppressed in (1)(a) above);

(b) Trichinus Kirby, 1827 (as suppressed in (1)(b) above).

WN
wma

(3

—

(4

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 77
References

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

Arnett, R.H., Downie, N.M. & Jaques, H.E. 1980. How to know the beetles, (Ed. 2). 416 pp.
McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.

Borror, D.J. & DeLong, D.M. 1964. An introduction to the study of insects, revised edition. 819
pp. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, NY.

Borror, D.J., Triplehorn, C.A. & Johnson, N.F. 1989. An introduction to the study of insects,
(Ed. 6). 875 pp. Saunders College Publishing, Philadelphia, PA.

Borror, D.J. & White, R.E. 1970. A field guide to the insects of America North of Mexico. 404
pp. Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Burmeister, H. & Schaum, H. 1840. IV. Kritische Revision der Lamellicornia melitophila.
Zeitschrift fiir die Entomologie, 2(2): 353-378.

Casey, T.L. 1915. A review of the American species of Rutelinae, Dynastinae and Cetoniinae.
Memoirs on the Coleoptera, 6: 1-394.

Delgado-Castillo, L. & Moron, M.A. 1991. A new genus and species of Trichiini from Mexico
(Coleoptera: Melolonthidae). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 67: 181-188.

Dillon, E.S. & Dillon, L.S. 1961. A manual of common beetles of Eastern North America. 884
pp. Row, Peterson & Co., Evanston, IL.

Downie, N.M. & Arnett, R.H. 1996. The beetles of Northeastern North America, vol. 1. 880 pp.
Sandhill Crane Press, Gainesville, FL.

Evans, A.V. 1987. A new species of the genus Brachagenius Kraatz (=Xiphoscelidus Péringuey
syn. nov.) with notes on the synonymy of Elpidus hopei (Burmeister) (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae: Trichinae). Journal of the Entomological Society of South Africa, 50(2):
351-356.

Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae. 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae.

Firmage, D.H. & Cole, F.R. 1988. Reproductive success and inflorescence size of Calopogon
tuberosus (Orchidaceae). American Journal of Botany, 75: 1371-1377.

Gates, D.E. & Peters, L.L. 1962. Insects in Kansas, (Ed. 2). 397 pp. State Printer, Topeka, KS.

Glaser, J.D. 1986. Notes of some Maryland Scarabaeidae and Cerambycidae (Coleoptera).
Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 40: 355-356.

Green, B.B. 1978. Comparative ecology of Geranium richardsonii and Geranium neryvosum.
Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 105: 108—113.

Gory, H.L. & Percheron, A.R. 1833. Monographie des Cétoines et genres voisins . . ., 406 pp.
Paris.

Harpootlian, P.J. 2001. Scarab beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of South Carolina. Biota of
South Carolina, 2: 1-157.

Hatch, M.H. 1971. The beetles of the Pacific northwest. Part V: Rhipiceroidea, Sternoxi,
Phytophaga, Rhynchophora, and Lamellicornia. University of Washington Publications in
Biology, 16: 1-662.

Howden, H.F. 1968. A review of the Trichiinae of North and Central America (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae). Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, 54: \—77.

Howden, H.F. 1985. Expansion and contraction cycles, endemism and area: the taxon cycle
brought full circle. Jn Ball, G.E. (Ed.), Taxonomy, phylogeny and zoogeography of beetles
and ants. W. Junk, Dordrecht, Netherlands.

Howden, H.F. & Ratcliffe, B.C. 1990. An unusual new species of 7rigonope/tastes Burmeister
from Chiapas, Mexico (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Trichiinae). Canadian Entomologist,
122: 1-4.

Kaul, R. 1960. A revision of Asimina and Deeringothamnus (Annonaceae). Brittonia, 12:
233-278.

Kirby, W. 1827. A description of some new genera and species of petalocerous Coleoptera.
Zoological Journal, 3(10): 145-158.

Kirby, W. 1837. The Insects. Jn Richardson, J., Swainson, W. & Kirby, W. (Eds.), Fauna
Boreali-Americana, part 4. 325 pp. Josiah Fletcher, Norwich.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Krikken, J. 1984. A new key to the suprageneric taxa in the beetle family Cetoniidae, with
annotated lists of the known genera. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 210: 1-75.

Lago, P.K. & Mann, M.O. 1987. Survey of Coleoptera associated with flowers of wild carrot
(Daucus carota L.) (Apiaceae) in northern Mississippi. Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 41: 1-8.

Lago, P.K. & Miller, P.R. 1986. Notes of the Coleoptera associated with the flowers of
Magnolia grandiflora in northern Mississippi. Journal of the Mississippi Academy of
Sciences, 31: 141-146.

Lago, P.K., Post, R.L. & Oseto, C.Y. 1979. The phytophagous Scarabaeidae and Trogidae
(Coleoptera) of North Dakota. North Dakota Insects, 12: 1-131.

Moron, M.A. 1984. Escarabajos: 200 Millones de Arios de Evolucion. 132 pp. Instituto de
Ecologia, Museo de Historia Natural, Mexico City.

Ratcliffe, B.C. 1991. The scarab beetles of Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska
State Museum, 12: 1-333.

Ratcliffe, B.C. 2002. Scarabaeidae Latreille 1802: Cetoniinae Leach 1815, chapter 34-VI. Jn
Arnett, R.H., Thomas, M.C., Skelley, P.E. & Frank, J.H. (Eds.), American Beetles,
vol. 2.861 pp. CRC Press, Boca Raton ii

Ricchiardi, E. 1998. Notes on South African Trichiini. On the genus Eriope/tastes Burmeister
& Schaum, 1840, with description of three new species (Coleoptera: Cetoniidae: Trichu-
nae). Elytron, 11: 121-132.

Ricchiardi, E. 2001. Camapterus, a new brachypterous Trichiini genus from South Africa
(Coleoptera: Cetonidae: Trichiinae). Elytron, 14: 201—206.

Ritcher, P.O. 1958. Biology of Scarabaeidae. Annual Review of Entomology, 3: 311-334.

Ritcher, P.O. 1966. White grubs and their allies. 219 pp. Oregon State University Press,
Corvallis, OR.

Ritcher, P.O. 1969a. Spiracles of adult Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) and their phylogenetic
significance. I. The abdominal spiracles. Annals of the Entomological Society of America,
62: 869-880.

Ritcher, P.O. 1969b. Spiracles of adult Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) and their phylogenetic
significance. II. Thoracic spiracles and adjacent sclerites. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America, 62: 1388-1398.

Schneider, E.L. & Nichols, D.M. 1984. Floral biology of Argemone aurantiaca (Papaveraceae).
Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club, 111: 1-7.

Smith, A.B.T. 2004. Clarification on the nomenclatural status of six genus-group names in the
tribe Trichiini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Cetoniinae). Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 58(2):
285-291.

Thien, L.B. 1974. Floral biology of Magnolia. American Journal of Botany, 61: 1037-1045.

Travis, J. 1984. Breeding system pollination and pollinator limitation in a perennial herb,
Amianthium muscaetoxicum (Liliaceae). American Journal of Botany, 71: 941-947.

Vogt, C.A. 1990. Pollination in Cypripedium reginae Orchidaceae. Lindleyana, 5: 145-150.

White, R.E. 1983. A field guide to the beetles of North America. 368 pp. Houghton Mifflin,
Boston, MA.

Woodruff, R.E. 1960. Suppression of the genus Roplisa Casey with notes on the United States
species of Trigonopeltastes Burmeister (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Florida Entomologist,
43: 139-145.

This publication was supported by an NSF/BS&I grant (DEB-0342189) to A.B.T. Smith and
F.C. Ocampo.

Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 78.

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(2) June 2005 79

Case 3280

Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 (currently Chlosyne nycteis; Insecta,
Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name

John V. Calhoun

977 Wicks Drive, Palm Harbor, Florida 34684, U.S.A.
(e-mail: bretcall @verizon.net)

Lee D. Miller and Jacqueline Y. Miller

McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of
Natural History, University of Florida, P.O. Box 112710, Gainesville,
Florida 32611, U.S.A. (e-mail: jmiller@flmnh.ufl.edu)

Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to
conserve the specific name Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 for a widespread North
American species of butterfly (family NYMPHALIDAE) by suppression of the problem-
atic name M. ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1835.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; NYMPHALIDAE; Melitaea; Chlosyne
nycteis; Chlosyne gorgone; Chlosyne ismeria; butterflies.

1. Boisduval & Le Conte (1835, p. 168, pl. 46) described and figured Melitaea
ismeria from ‘la Caroline et la Géorgie’ based on a drawing by John Abbot. There is
no extant type material and the original written description was too vague to
determine the intended species with any certainty. Due to the poor quality of the
engraved plate that accompanied the original description, the true identity of M.
ismeria remained enigmatic.

2. Doubleday (1847, pl. 23, fig. 3) named Melitaea nycteis (currently Chlosyne
nycteis) in association with an illustration by W.C. Hewitson. No written description
was provided, but text issued separately by Doubleday (1848, p. 181) attributed the
species to the “Middle States’. The holotype is deposited in the Natural History
Museum, London (labelled: “B.M. Type no. Rh8433, Melitaea nycteis, 2D. & H.’).

3. Boisduval (1869, p. 53) characterised Melitaea nycteis as similar in appearance
to M. ismeria, but he did not consider these taxa to be conspecific.

4. Scudder (1872, p. 85) identified a John Abbot drawing in the British Museum
as ‘Ismeria (carlota Reek. [sic.])’. Eresia carlota was described in 1866 by Reakirt
(p. 141). Since 1955 (Brown et al., p. 82), car/ota has been treated as a subspecies
of Dryas gorgone (currently Chlosyne gorgone), which was named by Hubner (1810,
pl. [41], figs. 1-2) as Dryas reticulata Gorgone without any textual description or
reference to his published plate. The origin of Hiibner’s figured specimens is
unknown, but Miller & Brown (1981, p. 155) speculated that they came from John
Abbot and the type locality is probably coastal Georgia. Since Scudder (1872), most
authors have tentatively treated M. ismeria as a synonym of D. gorgone.

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

5. Brown (1974, p. 2) concluded that the Abbot drawing examined by Scudder
(1872) did not directly serve as the model for the published plate of Melitaea ismeria.
Due to a lack of supporting evidence, he was unable to determine the intended species
and proposed (p. 10) that nomenclatural stability would perhaps best be served if M.
ismeria were considered nomen incognitum.

6. Gatrelle (1998, p. 1) argued that Melitaea ismeria was synonymous with M.
nycteis. He collected three male M. nycteis on 20 August 1989 in Burke County,
Georgia, and designated (p. 5) one of these specimens as the neotype of Melitaea
ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte (labelled: “‘Neotype, Melitaea ismeria Boisduval &
LeConte, Det. R.R. Gatrelle’ and deposited in the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera
and Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida). Because
M. ismeria, 1835 was described 12 years prior to M. nycteis, 1847, Gatrelle (1998,
p. 5) proposed the priority replacement of nycteis. In addition to the above, Gatrelle
designated a neotype for Dryas reticulata gorgone. Gatrelle collected this neotype
specimen on 27 April 1993 in Burke County, Georgia (labelled: “Neotype d, Dryas
reticulata gorgone’ and deposited in the McGuire Center for Lepidoptera and
Biodiversity, Florida Museum of Natural History, Gainesville, Florida).

7. Kons (2000, p. 505) disagreed with Gatrelle’s (1998) claim that Melitaea ismeria
and M. nycteis were synonymous and hesitantly suggested that M. ismeria could be
synonymous with Phyciodes harrisii Scudder, 1864 (currently Chlosyne harrisii).
Higgins (1960, p. 440) had previously proposed this synonymy, but ultimately treated
M. ismeria as a nomen dubium.

8. Calhoun (2003, p. 208) determined that the Abbot drawing mentioned by
Scudder (1872) (now in the Natural History Museum, London) represented Dryas
gorgone. Through further investigation, Calhoun (2003, p. 211) discovered the
original Abbot drawing that was used for the published plate of M. ismeria (in the
Thomas Cooper Library, University of South Carolina, Columbia). Abbot often
duplicated his own artwork, but his attention to detail varied. It was determined that
the figures in the original drawing in South Carolina are copies of those in Abbot’s
earlier drawing of D. gorgone in the Natural History Museum, London. Two exact
duplicates of Abbot’s earlier drawing of D. gorgone were also found (at the Houghton
Library, Harvard University, and the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New
Zealand). Yet another duplicate of this drawing was recently located (at the Hargrett
Rare Books and Manuscript Library, University of Georgia). The written description
of M. ismeria corresponded to the figures in Abbot’s original drawing in South
Carolina, thus Calhoun (2003, p. 214) concluded that the actual species was
D. gorgone.

9. Gatrelle (2003, p. 8) countered that the original French description of Melitaea
ismeria was indicative of a specimen of M. nycteis. However, Calhoun (2004, p. 161)
claimed that Gatrelle’s translation and interpretation of the description were
erroneous. Calhoun (2004, p. 162) further proposed that Abbot’s drawings of Dryas
gorgone probably portray the subspecies tentatively recognized as D. g. carlota, which
is consistent with an old Georgia specimen of D. gorgone (at the Natural History
Museum, London) that probably corresponds to a specimen that Edward Doubleday
identified as M. ismeria from John Abbot (Calhoun, 2003, p. 114).

10. Calhoun (2004, p. 163) subsequently discovered that James H. McDunnough
examined the surviving Boisduval collection in 1913 and appears to have selected a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 8]

specimen to serve as the ‘type’ of M. ismeria. Calhoun was unable to locate this
missing specimen, ostensibly labelled by Boisduval as M. ismeria, but Barnes &
McDunnough (1917, p. 10) published a checklist of Lepidoptera in which M. ismeria
was treated as a synonym of D. gorgone.

11. Calhoun (in press) found an even earlier and more detailed drawing of Dryas
gorgone by Abbot (at the Natural History Museum, London). The figures are
consistent with those in Abbot’s four other duplicate renderings of D. gorgone,
including the original drawing for Melitaea ismeria. Calhoun has personally exam-
ined nearly 1000 original Lepidoptera drawings by John Abbot and none has been
found to represent M. nycteis. In addition, no specimens of M. nycteis are known to
exist that can be attributed to Abbot.

12. Melitaea nycteis Doubleday has been accepted as a valid name for more than
150 years and commonly associated with actual specimens. Both before and since
Gatrelle (1998), prevailing usage of Melitaea nycteis has remained consistent in
nomenclatural, taxonomic, biological and popular literature. Examples include
Morris (1860, p. 8), Dyar (1902, p. 20), Forbes (1945, p. 188), Higgins (1960, p. 44).
dos Passos (1969, p. 117), Miller & Brown (1981, p. 155), Kons (2000, p. 510),
Wahlberg & Zimmerman (2000, p. 350), Wahlberg (2001, p. 524), Ross (2001, p. 101),
Opler & Warren (2002, p. 32) and Brock & Kaufman (2003, p. 184). M. nycteis is a
widespread North American species.

13. In view of the historical uncertainty regarding the identity of M. ismeria, and
evidence that this taxon is synonymous with Dryas gorgone, the proposed priority
replacement of M. nycteis by M. ismeria would not promote nomenclatural stability.
We therefore propose the suppression of M. ismeria to avoid any further confusion.

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

(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte,
1835, as published in the binomen Melitaea ismeria, 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 following names:
(a) gorgone Hubner, 1810, as published in the trinomen Dryas reticulata

gorgone and as defined by the neotype designated by Gatrelle (1998);
(b) nycteis Doubleday, 1847, as published in the binomen Melitaea nycteis and
as defined by the holotype in the Natural History Museum, London;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the name ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1835, as published in the
binomen Melitaea ismeria and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Barnes, W. & McDunnough, J.H. 1917. Checklist of the Lepidoptera of boreal America. 392 pp.
Herald Press, Decatur, Illinois.

Boisduval, J.B.A.D. de. 1869. Lépidopteres de la Californie. Annales de la Société Ento-
mologique de Belgique, 12: 1-28, 37-94.

Boisduval, J.B.A.D. de & Le Conte, J. 1835. Pp. 168-169, pl. 46 in Boisduval, J.A. & Le Conte,
J. 1829-[1837]. Histoire générale et iconographie des lépidoptéres et des chenilles de
l’ Amérique septentrionale. 228 pp., 78 pls. Roret, Paris.

Brock, J.P. & Kaufman, K. 2003. Butterflies of North America. 384 pp. Houghton Mifflin, New
York.

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Brown, F.M. 1974. The butterfly called /smeria by Boisduval and Le Conte (with a neotype for
Eresia carlota Reakirt). Bulletin of the Allyn Museum, 16: 1-12.

Brown, F.M., Eff, D. & Rotger, B. 1955. Colorado butterflies. Part 2. Danaidae, Heliconidae,
and Nymphalidae. Proceedings of the Denver Museum of Natural History, 2: 34-112.
Calhoun, J.V. 2003. The history and true identity of Melitaea ismeria (Nymphalidae): A
remarkable tale of duplication, misinterpretation, and presumption. Journal of the

Lepidopterists’ Society, 57(3): 204-219.

Calhoun, J.V. 2004. Histoire générale et iconographie des lépidopteres et des chenilles de
l’ Amérique septentrionale by Boisduval & Le Conte (1829-[1837]): original drawings used
for the engraved plates and the true identities of four figured taxa. Journal of the
Lepidopterists’ Society, 58: 143-168.

Calhoun, J.V. In press. An early drawing of Chlosyne gorgone (Hubner) by John Abbot.
Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 59.

dos Passos, C.F. 1969. A revised synonymic list of the Nearctic Melitaeinae with taxonomic
notes (Nymphalidae). Journal of the Lepidopterists’ Society, 23: 115-125.

Doubleday, E. 1847. Pp. 19-132 in Doubleday, E. & Westwood, J.O., The genera of diurnal
Lepidoptera: comprising their generic characters, a notice of their habits and transforma-
tions and a catalogue of the species of each genus, vol. 1 (1846-1850). x1, 250 pp. Longman,
Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Doubleday, E. 1848. Pp. 133-200 in Doubleday, E. & Westwood, J.O., The genera of diurnal
Lepidoptera: comprising their generic characters, a notice of their habits and transforma-
tions and a catalogue of the species of each genus, vol. | (1846-1850). x1, 250 pp. Longman,
Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Dyar, H.G. 1902. A list of North American Lepidoptera and key to the literature of this order
of insects. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 52: \—723.

Forbes, W.T.M. 1945. The genus Phyciodes. Entomologia Americana, 24: 139-206.

Gatrelle, R.R. 1998. The rediscovery, taxonomy, and biology of Chlosyne gorgone gorgone
and Chlosyne ismeria (Nymphalidae) in Burke County, Georgia. Taxonomic Report,
1(2):1-9.

Gatrelle, R.R. 2003. A taxonomic review of Chlosyne ismeria with description of a new
ismeria subspecies from the southern Appalachian Mountains. Taxonomic Report,
4(4):1-15.

Higgins, L.G. 1960. A revision of the Melitaeine genus Chlosyne and allied species (Lepidop-
tera: Nymphalinae). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 112:
381-467.

Hubner, J. 1810. Sammlung Exotischer Schmetterlinge, part 1. 9 pls. Augsberg, Germany.

Kons, H.L. 2000. Phylogenetic studies of the Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) and a
revision of the genus Chlosyne Butler. Ph.D. Dissertation. 796 pp. University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.

Miller, L.D. & Brown, F.M. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America North of
Mexico. Memoir of Lepidopterists’ Society, 2: 1-280.

Morris, J.G. 1860. Catalogue of the described Lepidoptera of North America. 68 pp.
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Opler, P.A. & Warren, A.D. 2002. Butterflies of North America. 2. Scientific name list for
butterfly species of North America, north of Mexico. 79 pp. C.P. Gillette Museum, Fort

Collins, Colorado.

Reakirt, T. 1866. Coloradian butterflies. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of
Philadelphia, 6: 122-151.

Ross, G.N. 2001. New host plant for the silvery checkerspot, Chlosyne nycteis. News of the
Lepidopterists’ Society, 43: 101-105.

Scudder, S.H. 1864. A list of butterflies of New England. Proceedings of the Essex Institute, 3:
161-179.

Scudder, S.H. 1872. Abbott’s [sic] notes on Georgian butterflies. Canadian Entomologist, 4:
73-77, 84-87.

Walhberg, N. 2001. The phylogenetics and biochemistry of host-plant specialization in
Melitaeine butterflies (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Evolution, 55: 522-537.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 83

Wahlberg, N. & Zimmerman, M. 2000. Pattern of phylogenetic relationships among members
of the tribe Melitaeini (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae) inferred from mtDNA sequences.
Cladistics, 16: 347-363.

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).

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Comment on the proposed conservation of Rosacea Quoy & Gaimard, 1827
(Cnidaria, Siphonophora) and the conservation of Desmophyes annectens Haeckel,
1888 and Rosacea plicata Bigelow, 1911

(Case 3309; see BZN 61: 149-153)

Dhugal J. Lindsay

Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, 2-15 Natsushima-cho,
Yokosuka, Japan 237-0061

I am writing in support of the application by Mapstone & Pugh. Use of the name
‘Rosacea plicata for the taxon known as Desmophyes annectens would cause
considerable confusion and not serve the interests of nomenclatural stability.

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; 62: 28-29)

Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga

Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain

In Jameson & Howden’s application (BZN 59: 246-248) as well as in the comment
on Jameson & Howden’s application by Krell, Ziani & Ballerio (BZN 60: 303-311),
a mistake was made regarding the gender of the generic name Bolboceras Kirby,
1819. This name is compounded by the stem bolbo- (from the Greek word bolbos,
‘bulb’) and ending stem -—ceras (from the Greek word kéras — genitive
kératos — meaning ‘horn’) for the bulbose apex of the clypeal horn. Gender of a
genus 1s to be taken from the final component (Article 30.1.1) and kéras is neuter.
Moreover, this ending is so common in generic names that it has been placed among
the Examples of Article 30.1.2 for a neuter ending, an example overlooked by the
above mentioned authors.

I therefore request that the proposals are modified as follows:

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

(a) Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation
by Curtis (1829) Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775, with the endorsement that
it is to be given precedence over the name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 whenever the
two are considered to be synonyms.

Comment on the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLIONIDAE Rafinesque,
1815 (Mollusca) and CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera)
(Case 3211; see BZN 60: 99-102; 61: 167-169)

Philippe Bouchet

Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

I oppose Willan et al.’s comments for nomenclatural (para. 1 below) and
taxonomic (para. 2 below) reasons.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 85

1. Willan et al. argued that the family-group name CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 has
‘neither validity nor standing’ and that ‘the next available name must be brought into
use’. I agree with Willan et al.’s interpretation of ‘Clione R. Clio Brown’ and I agree
that the type genus of the family name should be regarded to be Clione Rafinesque,
1815, not Clione Pallas, 1774. However, a family-group name based on a junior
homonym, although invalid, is still an available name (Articles 11.7, 39; and flow
chart on pp. 123 and 260 of the Code, which however does not form part of the
Code). Thus, we run into the absurd situation that CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, as an
available name, is a senior homonym of any subsequent CLIONIDAE based on Clione
Pallas, 1774.

2. Willan et al. argued that the first author who unequivocally used a family name
CLIONIDAE based on Clione Pallas was Gray (1847) and that the first author who used
a family name CLIIDAE based on Clio Linnaeus, 1767 was Menke (1828). This is
incorrect and reflects the persisting confusion surrounding the spelling and taxo-
nomic extensions of the names Clio and Clione. All authors prior to Gray (1847),
including Menke, used Clio and Clione for the gymnosome (Table 1, p. 86 below); for
the thecosome, they used Cleodora Péron & Lesueur. Although Gray synonymized
Cleodora with Clio Linnaeus, 1767, subsequent authors continued to classify the
latter in CLEODORIDAE, CAVOLINHDAE, OF HYALAEIDAE. I maintain my earlier analysis of
the case as presented in the original application, 1.e. Jeffreys (1869) is the first author
to have used the thecosome genus name Clio as valid, and to have classified it in a
family name based on it.

3. It is clear that, ever since Rafinesque (1815), there has been a continuous usage
of a family name with the stem clio-, based on Clio or Clione, with authorship
attributed to different authors, but consistently extended to designate gymnosomes
and not thecosomes. This should be reflected by a ruling of the Commission that the
type genus of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Clione, should be attributed to Pallas,
1774 and not to Rafinesque, 1815. The rest of the original application remains
unchanged.

Additional references

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1853-1858. The genera of Recent Mollusca arranged according to their
organisation, 2 volumes of text, 1 volume of plates. J. van Voorst, London. [Published in
parts; volume 1, part 2, pp. 33-64, February 1853].

Burmeister, H. 1837. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, vol. 2, Zoologie. 1-xi1, 369-858 pp. Enslin,
Berlin.

Menke, C.T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium et specierum earum quae
in museo Menkeano adservantur. xi, 91 pp. Pyrmonti.

Menke, C.T. 1830. Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium et specierum earum quae
in museo Menkeano adservantur, Ed. 2. xvi, 169 pp. Pyrmonti.

Philippi, R.A. 1853. Handbuch der Conchyliologie und Malacozoologie. xx, 547 pp. Anton,
Halle.

Wiegmann, A.F.A. & Riithe, J.F. 1832. Handbuch der Zoologie. vi, 621 pp. Luderitz, Berlin.

Wiegmann, A.F.A. & Riithe, J.F. 1843. Handbuch der Zoologie, Ed. 2. iv, 670 pp. Luderitz,
Berlin.

Woodward, S.P. 1851-1856. A manual of the Mollusca; or, rudimentary treatise of Recent and
fossil shells. xvi, 486 pp., 24 pls. Weale, London.

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Table 1. Early classifications of the thecosome and gymnosome genera Clio and Clione

Rafinesque Cleodora Péron family HYALINEA Clione R. Clio subfamily
(1815) Brown CLIONIDIA (family
OLIGOPTERIA)

Cleodora Péron family Clio Brown family CLIODINAE
& Lesueur HY ALAEACEAE

Cliodora Péron family Clio Linnaeus; family CLIOIDEA
& Lesueur HY ALAEACEAE Brown (Clione (Gymnosomata,
(Cleodora (Thecosomata, Pallas) Blainville)
Lamarck; Rang) Blainville)

Wiegmann Hyalea Lamarck | family HYALEACEA | Clio Bruguiere family CLIOIDEA
& Rithe
(1832)

Burmeister Hyalea Lamarck | family HYALEACEA | Clio Bruguiére family CLIOIDEA
(1837)

Wiegmann same as Wiegmann & Riuthe (1832)
& Ruthe
(1843)

Gray (1847) | Clio Brown, family Clione Pallas, 1774. family CLIONIDAE
1756: not OLE CLEODORIDAE Clio O.F. Miller,
Muller, 1776; 1776; Péron &
Cleodora Péron Lesueur, 1810;
& Lesueur; Lamarck 1812; not
Lamarck, 1812 Brown, 1756

Woodward Cleodora Péron family HYALEIDAE | C/io (Linnaeus) O.F. | family CLIIDAE
(1851) & Lesueur Miller, 1776

[= Clio L. (part)

not O.F. Muller,

1776]

Clio Linnaeus, family Clione Pallas, 1774 family CLIONACEA
1767 [=Clio CAVOLINIACEA [= Clio O.F. Muller,

Browne, 1756; 1776]

Cleodora Péron

& Lesueur, 1810]

Clio Browne family Clione Pallas [=Clio | family CLIONIDAE
[= Cleodora CAVOLINIIDAE O. Fabricius]

Péron &

Lesueur]

Jeffreys shell-less molluscs not treated by Jeffreys
(1869)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 87

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus concolor
Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes, OSPHRONEMIDAE)
(Case 3255; see BZN 60: 206-207; 61: 114-116, 173-174, 256-257)

The professional systematic ichthyologists listed below (1-17) have individually
submitted comments indicating that they consider the application to be pointless and
unhelpful. They all recorded their preference for using the correct name for this
species, Macropodus spechti Schreitmuller, 1936, concurring with the comments of
Kottelat, Kullander, Fang, Britz & Ferraris (BZN 61: 114-116) and recommend that
the Commission rejects the proposals.

(1) Roberta Barbieri (Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Institute of Inland Waters,
P.O. Box 712, 190 13 Anavyssos, Greece)

(2) Marcelo R. de Carvalho (Departamento de Biologia (FFCLRP), Universidade de
Sdo Paulo, Av. dos Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirdo Preto, SP, 14040-901 Brasil)

(3) Brian Coad (BCoad@mus-nature.ca)
(4) I.-Shiung Chen (iscfish@yahoo.com. tw)

(5) Panos S. Economidis (Aristotle University, Karakasi str. 79, GR-54453
Thessaloniki, Greece)

(6) Renny Kurnia Hadiaty Uchthyological Laboratory, Div. of Zoology, Research
Center for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jl. Raya Bogor Km 46,
Cibinong 16911, Indonesia)

(7) Tan Heok Hui (Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research, National University of
Singapore, Science Drive 2, Kent Ridge, Singapore 117543, Republic of Singapore)

(8) Juraj Holick Unstitute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta
9, 845 06 Bratislava, Slovakia)

(9) Joseph S. Nelson (Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada)

(10) Heok Hee Ng (Fish Division, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 1109
Geddes Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A.)

(11) Jorgen Nielsen (Zoological Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100, Copenhagen @,
Denmark)

(12) Lynne R. Parenti (Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution,
PO Box 37012, National Museum of Natural History, 20013—7012, Washington, D.C.,
U.S.A.)

(13) Rohan Pethiyagoda (Wildlife Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road, Colombo 8,
Sri Lanka).

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

(14) Lukas Ruber (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2,
28006 Madrid, Spain)

(15) Ulrich Schliewen (Zoological State Collection, Muenchhausenstr., 21, D-81247
Munich, Germany)

(16) Chun-guang Zhang (Fish Division, Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Beijing, China)

(17) E. Zhang (Unstitute of Hydrobiology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan
430072, Hubei Province, P.R. China)

(18) Fabian Herder

Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160,
53113 Bonn, Germany

Jorg Freyhof

Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Fisheries, Miiggelseedamm 310, 12561 Berlin,
Germany

1. The comment by Schindler & Staeck (see BZN 61: 256-257) comprises, in our
opinion, a series of invalid arguments and apparent misinterpretations of the Code,
aimed to preserve the name Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 over the older available
name M. spechti Schreitmiuller, 1936. As stated correctly by Kottelat et al. (BZN 61:
114-116), Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 is a permanently unavailable junior
primary homonym of M. concolor Schreitmuller, 1936 and a junior objective
synonym of M. spechti. Schindler & Staeck’s arguments are discussed below.

2. Schindler & Staeck claimed that Schreitmuller’s work (1936a, b) was published
in popular aquarium magazines in contrast to Ahl’s work, published in a zoological
journal. This is irrelevant since all of these works satisfy the criteria of publication
under the Code (see Chapter 3, Articles 8 and 9).

3. Schindler & Staeck misinterpreted the Code when they argued that M. concolor
Ahl, 1937 is not acceptable because it is a junior primary homonym of M. concolor
Schreitmuller, 1936 and because Schreitmuller (1936b) disclaimed the intention to
create a nomen novum. The Code regulates the disclaiming of whole publications
(Article 8.2) and names and acts in a published work (Article 8.3). These Articles refer
to the publication in which the disclaimer is printed. There is no provision in the
Code for a retroactive disclaimer. Similarly misleading, Schindler & Staeck argued
that Schreitmiller did not publish his 1936b work with the purpose to provide a
public and permanent record. In fact, he did publish the article 1936b in a widely
distributed aquarium journal, giving a permanent record to the public. Maybe his
intention was not to give a permanent record of the name M. opercularis concolor
Schreitmuller, 1936, but this is exactly what he did. Therefore, the argument that
Article 8.1.1 was not being fulfilled has to be rejected. Schindler & Staeck erred again,
citing Article 13 they claimed that Schreitmiller’s (1936) work does not fulfil the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 89

requirements of a formal description. This is clearly not the case as Article 13.1.2
explicitly allows the citation of a bibliographic reference giving the required
characters. This means that Schreitmuller (1936b), besides reproducing his original
figure, incorporated all characters included in his original description of M. spechti
(1936a). Therefore, Schreitmuller’s 1936b work fulfils the formal requirements of
descriptions as argued by Kottelat et al. (BZN 61: 114-116) exactly as did his earlier
publication (1936a).

4. There is no reason to doubt that Schreitmuller (1936b) used the name
Macropodus opercularis concolor for the first time as a valid taxon. It is easy to reverse
Schindler & Staeck’s argument: why should Schreitmuller have published his 1936b
statement, if not for introducing the new name?

5. Schindler & Staeck argued that M. concolor Schreitmiller, 1936, like M. spechti
Schreitmiller, 1936, was a nomen oblitum. As explained elsewhere in detail (see
BZN 60: 206-207; 61: 173-174 and Herder & Freyhof, 2002), M. spechti
Schreitmuller, 1936 is not a nomen oblitum. Paepke’s 1994 act declaring M. spechti
Schreitmiller, 1936 as a nomen oblitum was de facto not admissible, because it was
published after 1 January 1973 (Article 23.12). Schindler & Staeck’s arguments to
treat M. spechti as a nomen oblitum have been disproved (see BZN 61: 114-117:
173-174). Though they repeated their view (BZN 61: 256-257), they failed, as Paepke
(BZN 61: 173) did, to give any valid argument for their repeated demand.

6. Schindler & Staeck recorded that Paepke (1994), not Freyhof & Herder (2002),
published the first revision of the genus Macropodus. However, this is irrelevant to
the case discussed here.

7. The argument opposing our application that the Black Paradise Fish could be
compared to cases of commercially important species (Kottelat et al., BZN 61:
114-116) is specious. From our fieldwork in Vietnam, we can agree that the species
is known to some local people around Hue under its local but not under the scientific
name. We visited many fish markets within the distribution area of Macropodus in
Vietnam but recorded only one specimen in a basket of mixed small fish. In fact we
doubt that the name M. concolor is used in Vietnam. We have been unable to see a
single reference to it in the Vietnamese literature. It is hard to understand why the
exceptional conservation of a taxon only used as an aquarium pet should be given
more importance than that of the commercially highly important rainbow trout
Oncorhynchus mykiss, which was renamed following the Code.

8. Schindler & Staeck criticized Herder & Freyhof for having used the name ™.
concolor Ahl themselves before publishing their revision (Herder & Freyhof, 2002).
We fail to see the pertinence of the argument. We maintain that this was the only
responsible attitude awaiting the publication of our nomenclatural conclusions.

9. To conclude, all of the arguments given by Schindler & Staeck (BZN 60:
206-207; 61: 256-257) are flawed or result from a misunderstanding of the Code.
Paepke (BZN 61: 173) also did not give any valid argument. Although we recognize
Schindler & Staeck’s as well as Paepke’s efforts to find arguments for preserving a
name which has been used by aquarists for many years, we recommend that the
Commission does not approve the application.

90

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2105 (Case 3245)

Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich &
Tappan, 1957 (Rhizopoda, Foraminiferida): usage conserved by the
designation of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species
of Hastigerinella

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the generic names
Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 for a group of extant planktonic foramanifera and
Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 for a group of fossil foraminifera is
conserved by the designation of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type
species of Hastigerinella.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminifera; HASTIGERININAE; Hastigerinella;
Clavigerinella; Hastigerinella digitata; Clavigerinella akersi.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name digitata Rhumbler,

(2

(3

)

—

1911, as published in the binomen Hastigerina digitata, is deemed to be the
specific name of a then-new nominal species and is not to be treated as a
misidentification of Globigerina digitata Brady, 1879.

The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names

in Zoology:

(a) Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911;

(b) Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (gender: feminine), type
species by original designation Clavigerinella akersi Bolli, Loeblich &
Tappan, 1957.

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

in Zoology:

(a) digitata Rhumbler, 1911, as published in the binomen Hastigerina digitata
and as defined by the neotype BMNH Cat. no. 1959.5.11.744 in the
collections of the Natural History Museum, London, designated by
Banner (1965), ruled in (1) above to be deemed to be the specific name
of a then-new nominal species (specific name of the type species of
Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927);

(b) akersi Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957, as published in the binomen
Clavigerinella akersi (specific name of the type species of Clavigerinella
Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957).

History of Case 3245

An application to conserve the current usage of the generic names Hastigerinella
Cushman, 1927 for a group of extant planktonic foramanifera and Clavigerinella
Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 for a group of fossil foraminifera was received from

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 9]

Helen Coxall (School of Ocean and Earth Science, Southampton Oceanography
Centre, Southampton SO14 3ZH, U.K.) on 6 May 2002. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 60: 182-187 (September 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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 185-186. At the close of the voting period on |
March 2005 the votes were as follows: 21 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

akersi, Clavigerinella, Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957, Studies in foraminifera. United States
National Museum Bulletin, Smithsonian Institution no. 215, p. 30.

Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957, Studies in foraminifera. United States National
Museum Bulletin, Smithsonian Institution no. 215, p. 30.

digitata, Hastigerina, Rhumbler, 1911, Die allgemeinen Organisationsverhaltnisse der Forami-
niferen, Plankton Expedition Humboldt-Stiftung, Ergeben 3, pp. 163, 202.

Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927, Cushman Laboratory of Foraminiferal Research Contributions,

3: 87.

The following is the reference for the designation of the neotype of Hastigerina digitata
Rhumbler, 1911:

Banner, F.T. 1965. Micropaleontology, 5: 115.

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2106 (Case 3268)

Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida):
conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff,
1934 for a genus of pilisuctorid ciliates (family CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941) parasitic
on marine crustaceans 1s conserved by suppression of the unused probable subjective
synonym Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ciliophora; Pilisuctorida; CONIDOPHRYIDAE;
Conidophrys; Mycodinium; Conidophrys pilisuctor; parasitic ciliates.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the name Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (gender: feminine), type species
by original designation Conidophrys pilisuctor Chatton & Lwoff, 1934, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name pilisuctor Chatton & Lwoff, 1934, as published in the binomen
Conidophrys pilisuctor (specific name of the type species of Conidophrys
Chatton & Lwoff, 1934) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

(4) The name CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941, type genus Conidophrys Chatton &
Lwoff, 1934, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology.

(5) The name Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 3268

An application to conserve the name Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 for a
genus of pilisuctorid ciliates (family CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941) parasitic on
marine crustaceans by suppression of the probable subjective synonym Mycodinium
Averinzeff, 1916 was received from I.V. Dovgal (Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology,
01601 Kiev, Ukraine) on 3 February 2003. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 60: 266-268 (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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 267. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2005 the votes were as follows: 18 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 93

3 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga considered that the limited use of the name
proposed for conservation did not justify suppression of the senior name.

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:

CONIDOPHRYIDAE Kirby, 1941, Protozoa in biological research, p. 954.

Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934, Comptes Rendus des Séances de |’ Académie des Sciences
(Paris), 199(16): 697.

Mycodinium Averinzeff, 1916, Revue Zoologique Russe, 1(6/7): 183.

pilisuctor, Codidophrys, Chatton & Lwoff, 1934, Comptes Rendus des Séances de I’ Académie des
Sciences (Paris), 199(16): 697.

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2107 (Case 3220)

Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
priority maintained over Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (currently
Gisortia gisortiana)

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority is maintained for Cypraea coombii
Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, the senior subjective synonym of Ovula gisortiana Passy,
1859, for an Eocene fossil species of cowrie (family CYyPRAEIDAE) from Western
Europe.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; CyPRAEIDAE; Cypraea
coombii; Gisortia gisortiana; cowrie; Eocene; western Europe.

Ruling

(1) It is hereby ruled that the name coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, as published
in the binomen Cypraea coombii, retains priority over the name gisortiana
Passy, 1859, as published in the binomen Ovula gisortiana, whenever the two
are considered to be synonyms.

(2) The name coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, as published in the binomen
Cypraea coombii, 1s hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

History of Case 3220

An application to conserve the specific name of Cypraea gisortiana Passy, 1859
by giving it precedence over Cypraea coombii Sowerby in Dixon, 1850 was received
from Jean-Michel Pacaud (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Laboratoire de
Paléontologie, rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France) and Luc Dolin (J rue des Sablons,
Mesvres, 37150 Civray-de-Touraine, France) on 22 October 2001. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 59: 173-175 (September 2002). The title,
abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A
comment opposing the application was published in BZN 60: 218-220 to which the
authors replied (BZN 61: 40-42). A further comment in opposition to the application
was published in 61: 104-106.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 59: 174. At the close of the voting period on | March
2005 the votes were as follows: 3 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
17 Commissioners voted AGAINST, 1 Commissioner ABSTAINED, Evenhuis,
Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Voting against, Alsono-Zarazaga commented that both names seemed to belong to
rarely found and poorly understood fossils. He considered the application to be
premature and that priority must be maintained. Likewise, Halliday commented
that the proposed action was unnecessary. Action to give gisortiana Passy, 1859

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 95

precedence over coombii Sowerby, 1850 would only be necessary if these two names
were synonyms. As pointed out by Todd (BZN 61: 104), there was no clear evidence
that this was the case. If the action proposed was taken, the Commission might have
to reverse that decision in the future when more research had been done. He agreed
with Todd that the proposal was premature and unnecessary. Stys, also voting
against and citing the comments opposing the application, further argued that the
Bulletin should not become a forum for solving taxonomic problems.

Original reference

The following 1s the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

coombii, Cypraea, Sowerby in Dixon, 1850, The geology and fossils of the Tertiary and
Cretaceous formations of Sussex, p. 188, pl. 8, fig. 6.

Editorial note:

The title of the paper by Passy (1859) in the list of references should read:

Passy, A. 1959. Note sur une grande ovule du calcaire grossier. Comptes Rendus de |’ Académie
des Sciences, Paris, 48(1): 948.

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005
OPINION 2108 (Case 3260)

Titanodamon johnstonii Pocock, 1894 (currently Damon johnstonii;
Arachnida, Amblypygi): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the widely used specific name 7itanodamon
johnstonii Pocock, 1894 (currently Damon johnstonii; family PHRYNICHIDAE) for a
species of whip spider (Amblypygi) 1s conserved by the suppression of its senior
synonym D. australis Simon, 1886, that has been used doubtfully only once.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amblypygi; PHRYNICHIDAE; Damon; Damon
johnstonii; whip spiders.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the name australis Simon, 1886, as published in the
binomen Damon australis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name johnstonii Pocock, 1894, as published in the binomen Titanodamon
johnstonii (specific name of the type species of Titanodamon Pocock, 1894) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name australis Simon, 1886, as published in the binomen Damon australis
and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3260

An application to conserve the specific name Titanodamon johnstonii Pocock, 1894
(currently Damon johnstonii; family PHRYNICHIDAE) for a species of whip spider
(Amblypygi) by the suppression of its senior synonym D. australis Simon, 1886 was
received from Peter Weygoldt (Unstitut ftir Biologie I, Albert-Ludwigs- Universitat,
D-79104 Freiburg, Germany) on 10 December 2002. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 60: 188-190 (September 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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 189. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2005 the votes were as follows: 16 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no votes were received from Bohme and Martins de Souza.

Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga and Bouchet noted that the names involved had
been little used and considered that priority should be maintained.

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:

australis, Damon, Simon, 1886, Bulletin de la Société zoologique de France, 11: 575-576.
johnstonii, Titanodamon, Pocock, 1894, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)14: 291-292.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 97

OPINION 2109 (Case 3281)

Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Crustacea, Malacostraca, Phyllocarida,
Archaeostraca): given precedence over Dilophaspis Traquair in
Walther, 1903

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 for
a group of Lower Devonian phyllocarid crustaceans (order Archaeostraca) 1s
conserved by giving it precedence over the older name Dilophaspis Traquair in
Walther, 1903 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Phyllocarida; Archaeostraca; Nahecaris;
Dilophaspis; Nahecaris stuertzi; Dilophaspis lata; Hunsruck Slate; Lower Devonian;
Germany.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name Nahecaris Jaekel,
1921 is given precedence over the name Di/ophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation N. stuertzi Jaekel, 1921, with the endorsement that it is to be
given precedence over the name Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 (gender: feminine), type species by
original designation D. lata Traquair in Walther, 1903, with the endorse-
ment that it is not to be given priority over the name Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921
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) stuertzi Jaekel, 1921, as published in the binomen Nahecaris stuertzi
(specific name of the type species of Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921);
(b) /ata Traquair in Walther, 1903, as published in the binomen Dilophaspis
lata (specific name of the type species of Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther,
1903).

History of Case 3281

An application to conserve the generic name Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 for a group
of Lower Devonian phyllocarid crustaceans (order Archaeostraca) by giving it
precedence over the older name Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903 whenever
the two names are considered to be synonyms was received from Derek E.G.
Briggs (Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, New Haven,
CT 06520—8109, U.S.A.) and Christoph Bartels (Deutsches Bergbau-Museum,
Am Bergbaumuseum 28, D-44791 Bochum, Germany) on 2 April 2003. After

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 269-271 (December 2003). The
title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website.
Eight comments in support of this case were published in BZN 61: 109-110.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 270. At the close of the voting period on | March
2005 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und
Paldontologie, 17: 30.

lata, Dilophaspis, Traquair in Walther, 1903, Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und
Paldontologie, 17: 30-31.

Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 72: 290.

stuertzi, Nahecaris, Jaekel, 1921, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Geologischen Gesellschaft, 72: 290.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 99

OPINION 2110 (Case 3253)

Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and

L. flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora
flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata): usage of the specific names
conserved by the replacement of the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly
designated lectotype

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the names of two
dragonfly species, Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and
L. flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora flavomaculata), 1s
conserved by the replacement of the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly designated
lectotype. In 1956, Fraser had designated one of Linnaeus’s specimens as the
lectotype of L. aenea. However, the specimen he designated was the one used by
Vander Linden to denote his species L. flavomaculata and this action made L. aenea
a senior objective synonym of L. flavomaculata.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Odonata; CORDULIIDAE; Cordulia
aenea; Somatochlora flavomaculata; dragonflies.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all type fixations for the
nominal species Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 are set aside and the female
specimen no. 769 in the collection of the Linnean Society of London is
designated as the lectotype.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) aenea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Libellula aenea and as
defined by the lectotype designated in (1) above;
(b) flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825, as published in the binomen Libellula
flavomaculata and as defined by specimen no. 768 in the collection of the
Linnean Society of London.

History of Case 3253

An application to conserve the current usage of the names of two dragonfly species,
Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and L. flavomaculata
Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora flavomaculata), by the replacement of
the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly designated lectotype, was received from
R. Jodicke (Am Liebfrauenbusch 3, Westerstede, Germany) and J. van Tol (National
Museum of Natural History Naturalis, RA Leiden, The Netherlands) on 8 August
2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 272—274 (December
2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the
Commission’s website. Two comments in support of this case were published in BZN
61: 42, 110.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 273-274. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2005 the votes were as follows: 21 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
aenea, Libellula, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 544.
flavomaculata, Libellula, Vander Linden, 1825, Monographiae libellulinarum Europaearum
specimen, p. 19.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 101

OPINION 2111 (Case 3093)

NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, November 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given
precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882; and Cimberis
Gozis, 1881: usage conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the usage of the weevil (CURCULIONOIDEA)
family name NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 (November) is conserved by giving it
precedence over the senior name CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 (March) and also that the
current usage of the generic name Cimberis Gozis, 1881 is conserved by validating
Kuschel’s (1959) designation of Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as its type
species.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CURCULIONIDAE; NEMONYCHIDAE; CIMBERIDIDAE;
Cimberis; Nemonyx; Rhinomacer attelaboides; Rhinomacer lepturoides.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that:

(a) the name NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 (November) and other family-group
names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 are given precedence over
CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 (March) and other family-group names based on
Cimberis Gozis, 1881 whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon;

(b) all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Cimberis Gozis, 1881
before the designation by Kuschel (1959) of Rhinomacer attelaboides
Fabricius, 1787 are set aside.

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

(a) Cimberis Gozis, 1881 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Kuschel (1959) Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius,
1787;

(b) Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Rhinomacer lepturoides Fabricius, 1801.

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

(a) attelaboides Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Rhinomacer
attelaboides (specific name of the type species of Cimberis Gozis, 1881);

(b) /epturoides Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Rhinomacer
lepturoides (specific name of the type species of Nemonyx Redtenbacher,
1845).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group

Names in Zoology:

(a) CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882, type genus Cimberis Gozis, 1881, with the
endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Cimberis are
not to be given priority over NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 and other

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

family-group names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 whenever
their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon;

(b) NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882, type genus Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845, with
the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Nemonyx
are to be given precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 and other
family-group names based on Cimberis Gozis, 1881 whenever their type
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781 (a junior homonym of Rhinomacer Geoffroy,
1762);

(b) Neocimberis O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982 (a nomen nudum).

(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology:

(a) RHINOMACERIDES Schoenherr, 1823 (based on a misidentified type genus);

(b) CIMBERIDAE Gozis, 1882 (an incorrect original spelling of CIMBERIDIDAE).

History of Case 3093

An application to conserve the usage of the weevil (CURCULIONOIDEA) family name
NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882 (November) by giving it precedence over the senior name
CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882 (March), and also to conserve the current usage of the
generic name Cimberis Gozis, 1881 by validating Kuschel’s (1959) designation of
Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as its type species, was received from
Christopher H.C. Lyal (Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.) and M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Depto. de Biodiversidad y
Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), E-28006 Madrid,
Spain) on 2 June 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60:
275-280 (December 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were
published on the Commission’s website. Four comments in support of the application
were published in BZN 61: 171, 256.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 278-279. At the close of the voting period on |
March 2005 the votes were as follows: 19 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, | Commissioner voted FOR Rulings 1(b), 2, 3, 5
and 6 and AGAINST Rulings l(a) and 4, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave
of absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

attelaboides, Rhinomacer, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species nuper
detectas adiectis characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationi-
Dus, VOLT, p, 123;

CIMBERIDAE Gozis, 1882, Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes, 12(137): 58.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 103

CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, 1882, Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes, 12(137): 58.

Cimberis Gozis, 1881, Annales de la Société entomologique de France, (6)1(3)(Bulletin): cxii.

lepturoides, Rhinomacer, Fabricius, 1801, Systema eleutheratorum secundum ordines, genera,
species: adiectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 2, p. 429.

NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, 1882, Annales de la Société entomologique de France, (6)2(3), Publication
Hors Série: 3.

Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845, Die Gattungen der deutschen Kdfer-Fauna nach der analytischen
Methode bearbeitet . . ., p. 96.

Neocimberis O’Brien & Wibmer, 1982, Memoirs of the American Entomological Institute, 34:
18.

Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781, Species insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas,
synonyma auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus,
wolsdle py 199.

RHINOMACERIDES Schoenherr, 1823, Jsis von Oken, 1823(10): col. 1136.

The following is the reference for the designation of Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787
as the type species of Cimberis Gozis, 1881:

Kuschel, G. 1959. Investigaciones Zoologicas Chilensis, 5: 234.

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2112 (Case 3194)

Lius Deyrolle, 1865 (Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 for a group
of jewel beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE) 1s conserved by suppression of its unused senior
primary homonym Lius Chevrolat, 1838.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Lius; Lius ignitus;
buprestids; jewel beetles.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power the name Lius Chevrolat, 1838 is hereby suppressed
for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Cobos (1979) Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840, as published in the binomen Brachys
ignitus (specific name of the type species of Lius Deyrolle, 1865) is hereby
placed on the Officia! List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Lius Chevrolat, 1838, as suppressed in (1) above, 1s hereby placed on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3194

An application to conserve the generic name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 for a group of
jewel beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE) by suppression of its unused senior primary
homonym Lius Chevrolat, 1838 was received from C.L. Bellamy (Plant Pest
Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacramento,
California 95832, U.S.A.) on 8 February 2001. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 60: 132-134 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the
case were published on the Commission’s website. Four comments in support of the
application were published in BZN 61: 45-46.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 133. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
2005 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
no Commissioners voted AGAINST, | Commissioner ABSTAINED, Evenhuis,
Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Abstaining, Stys questioned whether Lius Deyrolle, 1865 might have been a
misapplied name whose availability was questionable.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 105

ignitus, Brachys, Gory & Laporte, 1840, Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes
Coléopteres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 2, p. 6.

Lius Chevrolat, 1838, Revue Entomologique, 5: 104.

Lius Deyrolle, 1865, Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 8: 219.

The following is the reference for the designation of Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840
as the type species of Lius Deyrolle, 1865:
Cobos, A. 1979. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 76: 425.

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2113 (Case 3256)

Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and
the subgeneric name Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 for a widespread group of rove beetles
(family STAPHYLINIDAE) are conserved. Both names were threatened by limited usage
of a senior synonym, Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853, which has been suppressed.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE;
Leptusa; Cyllopisalia; Sipalia; Bolitochara pulchella; Cyllopisalia difformis; rove
beetles.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the generic name Sipalia

Mulsant & Rey, 1853 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of

Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

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

(a) Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species, by subsequent
designation by Gusarov & Herman (2002), Bolitochara pulchella Manner-
heim, 1830;

(b) Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (gender: feminine), type species, by original desig-
nation of the replaced nominal genus Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1966,
Homalota difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853.

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

(a) pulchella Mannerheim, 1830, as published in the binomen Bolitochara
pulchella (specific name of the type species of Leptusa Kraatz, 1856);

(b) difformis Mulsant & Rey, 1853, as published in the binomen Homalota
difformis (specific name of the type species of Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and

Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853, as suppressed in (1) above;

(b) Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1966 (a junior homonym of Parapisalia Scheer-
peltz, 1948).

History of Case 3256

An application to conserve the generic name Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and the
subgeneric name Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 for a widespread group of rove beetles
(family STAPHYLINIDAE) by suppression of a senior synonym, Sipalia Mulsant &
Rey, 1853, was by received from Vladimir I. Gusarov (Natural History Museum,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045-7523, U.S.A.) and Lee H. Herman
(American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY 10024-5192, U.S.A.) on

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 107

26 September 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 191-195
(September 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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 193. At the close of the voting period on | March
2005 the votes were as follows: 19 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, 1 Commissioner ABSTAINED, Evenhuis,
Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

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:

Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982, Bollettino della Societa entomologica Italiana, 114: 40.

difformis, Homalota, Mulsant & Rey, 1853, Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, (2)1: 33.

Leptusa Kraatz, 1856, Naturgeschichte der Insecten Deutschlands. Erste Abteilung. Coleoptera,
Bd.-2, p. 60.

Parapisalia Scheerpeltz, 1966, Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien,
105-106: 18.

pulchella, Bolitochara, Mannerheim, 1830, Précis d’un nouvel arrangement de la famille des
Brachélytres, de lordre des Insectes Coléopteéres, p. 83.

Sipalia Mulsant & Rey, 1853, Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, (2)1: 32.

The following is the reference for the designation of Bolitochara pulchella Mannerheim, 1830
as the type species of the nominal genus Leptusa Kraatz, 1856:

Gusarov, V.I. & Herman, L.H. 2002. Entomologische Blatter ftir Biologie und Systematik der
Kafer, 98: 115.

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2114 (Case 3257)

Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis
Obenberger, 1924 (Insecta, Coleoptera): priority maintained over
Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta deserticola Barr,
1974 respectively

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority is maintained for the specific names
of two species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE), Acmaeodera philippinensis
Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis Obenberger, 1924, whenever they are
considered to be synonyms of Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta
deserticola Barr, 1974 respectively.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera philip-
pinensis; Polycesta aruensis; Acmaeodera oaxacae; Polycesta deserticola; jewel beetles.

Ruling
(1) It is hereby ruled that:

(a) the name philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen
Acmaeodera philippinensis, retains priority over the name oaxacae Fisher,
1949, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera oaxacae, whenever the two
are considered to be synonyms;

(b) the name aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta
aruensis, retains priority over the name deserticola Barr, 1974, as published
in the binomen Polycesta deserticola, 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) philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera
Dhilippinensis;

(b) aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis.

History of Case 3257

An application to conserve the specific names Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949
and Polycesta deserticola Barr, 1974 for two species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTI-
DAE) by giving them conditional precedence over their respective senior synonyms,
Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis Obenberger,
1924, was received from C.L. Bellamy (Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California
Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A.) and R.L.
Westcott (Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon 97310,
U.S.A.) on 27 September 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN
60: 124-126 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published
on the Commission’s website. Three comments opposing and one comment in
support of the application were published in BZN 61: 46.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 109

Decision of the Commission

On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on
the proposals published in BZN 60: 125-126. At the close of the voting period on
1 March 2005 the votes were as follows: 2 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
18 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no votes were received from Bohme and Martins de Souza.

Voting against, some Commissioners noted that inappropriate specific names or
inaccurate locality details did not justify a reversal of precedence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
aruensis, Polycesta, Obenberger, 1924, Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, 2: 100.
philippinensis, Acmaeodera, Obenberger, 1924, Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, 2:
94.

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2115 (Case 3272)

Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by
designation of Staphylinus ochripennis Menétriés, 1832 as the type
species

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the generic name
Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 for a group of rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE) is
conserved by designating Staphylinus ochripennis Ménétriés, 1832 as the type species
of Microsaurus in place of Staphylinus lateralis Gravenhorst, 1802.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; Microsaurus;
Microsaurus ochripennis; rove beetles; Holarctic; Palaearctic.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 are set aside and Staphylinus
ochripennis Ménétriés, 1832 is designated as the type species.

(2) The name Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (gender: masculine), type species Sta-
phylinus ochripennis Ménetriés, 1832 as ruled in (1) above is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name ochripennis Ménétriés, 1832, as published in the binomen Staphyli-
nus ochripennis (specific name of the type species of Microsaurus Dejean, 1833)
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3272

An application to conserve the current usage of the generic name Microsaurus
Dejean, 1833 for a group of rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE) by designating
Staphylinus ochripennis Ménétriés, 1832 as the type species of Microsaurus in place of
Staphylinus lateralis Gravenhorst, 1802 was received from Ales Smetana (Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A 0C6, Canada) on 24 February 2003. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 281—283 (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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 282. At the close of the voting period on | March
2005 the votes were as follows: 17 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 4
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 111

Microsaurus Dejean, 1833, Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean,
pGl:

ochripennis, Staphylinus, Ménétriés, 1832, Catalogue raisonné des objets de zoologie recueillis
dans un voyage au Caucase .. ., p. 145.

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2116 (Case 3279)

Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes; Insecta,
Coleoptera): specific name conserved

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Curculio picipes
Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes) for a widely distributed Palaearctic weevil
(family ERIRHINIDAE) 1s not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of
Curculio picipes Fabricius, 1777. The two nominal species have not been considered
congeneric since the early 1800s and are currently placed in different families.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CURCULIONOIDEA; Procas; Procas
picipes; weevils; Palaearctic.

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name picipes Marsham,
1802, as published in the binomen Curculio picipes, is not invalid by reason of
being a junior primary homonym of Curculio picipes Fabricius, 1777.

(2) The name Procas Stephens, 1831 (gender: masculine), type species by subse-
quent designation by Westwood (1838) Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name picipes Marsham, 1802, as published in the binomen Curculio picipes
(type species of Procas Stephens, 1831) and ruled in (1) above to be not invalid
by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Curculio picipes Fabricius,
1777 is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 3279

An application to conserve the specific name Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802
(currently Procas picipes) for a widely distributed Palaearctic weevil (family ERIRHI-
NIDAE) was received from R.T. Thompson (Department of Entomology, Natural
History Museum, London SW7 5BD, U.K.) on 1 April 2003. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 60: 196-197 (September 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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 197. At the close of the voting period on | March
2005 the votes were as follows: 20 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1
Commissioner voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme. Voting against, Halliday considered that
the proposed action was unnecessary since the situation did not cause instability or
confusion.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 113

Procas Stephens, 1831, ///ustrations of British entomology ... Mandibulata, vol. 4, p. 90.
picipes, Curculio, Marsham, 1802, Entomologia britannica ..., vol. 1, Coleoptera, p. 272.

The following is the reference for the designation of Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 as the
type species of the nominal genus Procas Stephens, 1831:
Westwood, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British insects, [Appended to] An introduction
to the modern Classification of insects, vol. 2, p. 36.

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2117 (Case 3269)

Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia
(Pararhamphomyia) Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): usage of the

subgeneric names conserved by the designation of Empis sulcata
Meigen, 1804 as the type species of Rhamphomyia

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the subgeneric names
Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia)
Frey, 1922 for groups of dance-flies (family EMPIDIDAE) is conserved by designating
Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type species of Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia)
Meigen, 1822. In 1834 Curtis invalidly designated Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the
type species and all subsequent authors have accepted this designation. Acceptance of
the valid type species designation by Guerin in 1828 of Empis marginata Fabricius,
1787 would destabilise the current usage of these subgeneric names and the names of
over 200 species currently included in these groups.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; EmMpiIpDIDAE; Rhamphomyia; Rham-
phomyia (Rhamphomyia) marginata; Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) geniculata;
dance-flies.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all fixations of types species for
the nominal genus Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822 before the designation by

Curtis (1834) of Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 are set aside.

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

(a) Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent
designation by Curtis (1834) as ruled in (1) above Empis sulcata Meigen,
1804;

(b) Pararhamphomyia Frey, 1922 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Empis plumipes Fallén, 1816 (a misidentification of Rham-
phomyia geniculata Meigen, 1830, fixed as the type species by Bartak &
Sinclair (2003)).

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

(a) sulcata Meigen, 1804, as published in the binomen Empis sulcata (specific
name of the type species of Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822);

(b) geniculata Meigen, 1830, as published in the binomen Rhamphomyia
geniculata (specific name of the type species of Pararhamphomyia Frey,
1922):

History of Case 3269
An application to conserve the current usage of the subgeneric names Rham-
phomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) Frey,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 115

1922 for two groups of dance-flies (family EMPIDIDAE) by designating Empis sulcata
Meigen, 1804 as the type species of Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 was
received from M. Bartak (Czech University of Agriculture, 165 21 Praha 6, Czech
Republic) and B.J. Sinclair (Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander
Koenig, 53113 Bonn, Germany) on 6 February 2003. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 60: 203-205 (September 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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 204. At the close of the voting period on | March
2005 the votes were as follows: 21 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no
Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:

Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen
zweifliigeligen Insekten, part 3, p. 42.

Pararhamphomyia Frey, 1922, Notulae Entomologicae, 2: 3.

sulcata, Empis, Meigen, 1804, Klassifikazion und Beschreibung der europdischen zweifligligen
Insekten (Diptera Linn.), Abt. 2, p. 229.

geniculata, Rhamphomyia, Meigen, 1830, Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten
europdischen zweifltigeligen Insekten, part 3, p. 340.

The following is the reference for the designation of Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type
species of the nominal genus Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822:
Curtis, J. 1834. British entomology . . ., vol. 11, p. 517.

The following is the reference for the designation of Rhamphomyia geniculata Meigen, 1830
as the type species of the nominal genus Pararhamphomyia Frey, 1922:
Bartak, M. & Sinclair, B.J. 2003. BZN, 60: 204.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2119 (Case 3277)

Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Testudines): specific name
given precedence over Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Chitra chitra
Nutaphand, 1986 for the Narrow-headed Softshell turtle (Testudines; family TRIONY-
CHIDAE) found in Thailand, Malaysia and on the islands of Sumatra and Java,
Indonesia, is conserved by giving it precedence over the palaeontological name Chitra
selenkae Jaekel, 1911, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Testudines; TRIONYCHIDAE; Chitra
chitra; Chitra selenkae; Narrow-headed Softshell turtles; Thailand; Malaysia;
Indonesia.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name chitra Nutaphand,

1986, as published in the binomen Chitra chitra, is given precedence over the

name selenkae Jaekel, 1911, as published in the binomen Chitra selenkae,

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) chitra Nutaphand, 1986, as published in the binomen Chitra chitra, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name selenkae Jaekel,
1911, as published in the binomen Chitra selenkae, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;

(b) selenkae Jaekel, 1911, as published in the binomen Chitra selenkae, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over chitra Nutaphand, 1986,
as published in the binomen Chitra chitra, whenever the two are considered
to be synonyms.

History of Case 3277

An application to conserve the widely used name Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986
for the Narrow-headed Softshell turtle (Testudines; family TRIONYCHIDAE) by giving
it precedence over the name Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms, was received from William P. McCord (East Fishkill
Animal Hospital, 455 Rte 82, New York, N.Y. 12533, U.S.A.) and Peter C.H.
Pritchard (Chelonian Research Institute, 401 South Central Avenue, Oviedo, Florida
32765, U.S.A.) on 25 January 2003. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 60: 208-210 (September 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 | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 60: 209. At the close of the voting period on 1 March

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 119

2005 the votes were as follows: 18 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
3 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis, Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of
absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
chitra, Chitra, Nutaphand, 1986, Thai Zoological Magazine, 1(4): 66.
selenkae, Chitra, Jaekel, 1911, Die Pithecanthropus-Schichten auf Java. Geologische und
Paldontologische Ergebnisse der Trinil-Expedition (1907 und 1908), p. 80.

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

OPINION 2120 (Case 3240)

Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus;
Mammalia, Chiroptera): specific name given precedence over
Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus Rippell, 1842

Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Pipistrellus nanus
(Peters, 1852) for the African Banana bat (family VESPERTILIONIDAE) is conserved by
giving it precedence over the senior subjective synonym Pipistrellus africanus
(Ruppell, 1842).

Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chiroptera; VESPERTILIONIDAE; Pipistrellus
nanus; Pipistrellus africanus; Banana bat; Africa.

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name nanus Peters, 1852,
as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus, is given precedence over the
name africanus Ruppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio
pipistrellus africanus, 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) nanus Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name africanus
Ruppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus africa-
nus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;

(b) africanus Ruppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrel-
lus africanus, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
the name nanus Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.

History of Case 3240

An application to conserve the name Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 by suppression
of the senior synonym Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus Ruppell, 1842 was received
from Meredith Happold (School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National
University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia) on 11 March 2002. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 60: 42-44 (March 2003). The title, abstract and
keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Two comments
opposing the application were published in BZN 61: 48, 314-315. The second
comment, by V. Van Cakenberghe, put forward an alternative proposal to give V.
nanus precedence over V. pipistrellus africanus rather than to suppress the latter
name. Dr Happold welcomed this proposal.

Decision of the Commission
On | December 2004 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
alternative proposals published in BZN 61: 315. At the close of the voting period on

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 12]

1 March 2005 the votes were as follows: 16 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals,
4 Commissioners voted AGAINST, 1 Commissioner ABSTAINED, Evenhuis,
Kerzhner and Ng were on leave of absence; no vote was received from Bohme.

Voting against, Bouchet said that the problem was essentially a taxonomic one
which should be left to taxonomists to solve and that priority should apply when the
two names were considered to be synonyms.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
africanus, Vespertilio pipistrellus, Ruppell, 1842, Museum Senckenbergianum, 3: 156.
nanus, Vespertilio, Peters, 1852, Naturwissenschaftliche Reise nach Mozambique auf Befehl
seiner Majestdt des Konigs Friedrich Wilhelm IV. in den Jahren 1842 bis 1848 ausgefiihrt.
Zoologie, 1. Sdugethiere, p. 63.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Proposed conservation of the specific names Melania curvicostata
Reeve, 1861 and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (currently Elimia
curvicostata and E. paupercula) (Mollusca, Gastropoda,
PLEUROCERIDAE): case closed

(Case 3232; see BZN 60: 109-112, 300-302; 61: 106—108)

1. Fred G. Thompson (Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.) and Elizabeth E. Mihalcik (Bainbridge College,
Bainbridge, Georgia 31317, U.S.A.) submitted a proposal to conserve a specific name
in prevailing use, Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861, by designating a neotype. This
action was regarded as necessary because the syntypes in the Natural History
Museum, London, attributed to this taxon represent a different species, Goniobasis
paupercula Lea, 1862.

2. Dietrich Kadolsky (BZN 60: 302; 61: 106-108) noted the existence of the
name Melania curvicostata Melleville, 1843 (p. 94, pl. 4, figs. 10-12), which
predates Reeve’s name. The name Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 is therefore a
junior primary homonym and 1s not available under Articles 23.4, 57.2 and 60 of the
Code.

3. The next oldest available name Melania densicostata Reeve, 1861 has been
considered a junior subjective synonym of Elimia curvicostata since Tryon (1864).
The species was described from ‘Florida, USA’. Reeve’s description is lacking
diagnostic features essential for identifying this taxon (see Mihalcik & Thompson,
2002; BZN 60: 109-112). The extant syntypes attributed to this species in the Natural
History Museum, London, bear no resemblance to Reeve’s figure nor does any
known population have the densely costate sculpture depicted in Reeve’s figure. The
name Melania densicostata is a nomen dubium because of the lack of essential
identifying characters in Reeve’s description and illustration and also a nomen
oblitum because it has not been used since Tryon (1864) except as a synonym of
Elimia curvicostata (Article 23.9.1.1).

4. Goniobasis doolyensis Lea, 1862 had been used as the valid name for a species
until Hannibal (1912) placed it without discussion in synonymy with Ambloxis
virginicus (= Elimia virginica (Gmelin, 1791)). Goodrich (1942), also without
discussion, included the name Goniobasis doolyensis in the synonymy of Goniobasis
curvicostata (= Elimia curvicostata (Reeve, 1861)). This action was followed by
Clench & Turner (1956) and Chambers (1990). Chambers designated and figured the
lectotype (United States National Museum 119121). Mihalcik & Thompson (2002)
published a figure of the lectotype and discussed salient features that identified it as
being the species hitherto known as Elimia curvicostata. The name Goniobasis
doolyensis is an available name with an identifiable primary type. Extant populations
of the freshwater snail species hitherto known as Elimia curvicostata may be clearly
identified as belonging to the same taxon. It is the oldest available name for the
species known until now as Elimia curvicostata (Reeve, 1861) (Article 23.12.2) and,
therefore, the name Elimia doolyensis (Lea, 1862) is adopted as the valid name for this
taxon.

5. This case is now closed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005 123

Additional references

Hannibal, H. 1912. A synopsis of the Recent and Tertiary freshwater Mollusca of the
California province, based upon an ontogenetic classification. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 10: 112-211.

Mihalcik, E.E. & Thompson, F.G. 2002. A taxonomic revision of the freshwater snails referred
to as Elimia curvicostata, and related species. Walkerana, 13(29/30): 1-108.

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 62(2) June 2005

Proposed conservation of the specific name of Nicrophorus tomentosus
Weber, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera): case closed
(Case 3288; see BZN 61: 92-94)

1. D.S. Sikes (Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary,
Alberta, Canada T2N 1 N4) and S.T. Trumbo (Department of Ecology and Evolution-
ary Biology, University of Connecticut, Connecticut 06269, U.S.A.) submitted a
proposal to conserve the specific name Nicrophorus tomentosus Weber, 1801 for a
Nearctic species of burying beetle (family sILPHIDAE) by suppressing its presumed
senior, but less frequently used, synonym N. velutinus Fabricius, 1801. The authors
were unable to establish the exact dates of publication of Weber (1801) and Fabricius
(1801).

2. Commissioner Kerzhner has pointed out that Weber’s work was published
before March, 1801 (see Evenhuis, N.L., 1997, Litteratura taxonomica Dipterorum
1758-1930, p. 809), whereas the Preface to Fabricius’s work is dated April 1801.

3. Since Nicrophorus tomentosus Weber, 1801 is shown to be senior to N. velutinus
Fabricius, 1801, the problem is resolved. The case is now closed.

Contents — continued

OPINION 2110 (Case 3253). Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia
aenea) and L. flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora
flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata): usage of the specific names conserved by the
replacement of the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly designated lectotype.

OPINION 2111 (Case 3093). NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, November 1882 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): given precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882; and
Cimberis Gozis, 1881: usage conserved. . .

OPINION 2112 (Case 3194). Lius Deyrolle, 1865 Rasecta: Coteopiera: ceomieved,

OPINION 2113 (Case 3256). Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved BAe a xt

OPINION 2114 (Case 3257). Aopmandaes Aidimeenensis Obenberzer, 1924 and
Polycesta aruensis Obenberger, 1924 (Insecta, Coleoptera): priority maintained
over Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta deserticola Barr, 1974
respectively

OPINION 2115 (Case 3272). Micsanaune. teens, 1833 Cidacia: Pleo niaiay: usage
conserved by designation of sae css i i aaa Ménétriés, 1832 as the type
species . Meee AS iy en Are

OPINION 2116 (Cac 3279). Cres picipes Mahar 1802 papier Procas
picipes; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved . : i eee

OPINION 2117 (Case 3269). Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meicen, 1822 and
Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): usage of the
subgeneric names conserved by the designation of Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as
the type species of Rhamphomyia .

OPINION 2118 (Case 3225). Phymaturus Gravcuhene 1837 te arate acti
Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): usage of the names
conserved by the designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 .

OPINION 2119 (Case 3277). Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Testudines):
specific name given precedence over Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911 tte

OPINION 2120 (Case 3240). Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistr elles
nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): specific name given precedence over Vespertilio
pipistrellus africanus Rippell, 1842 .

Closed cases

Proposed conservation of the specific names Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and
Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (currently Elimia curvicostata and E. ge pebucg
(Mollusca, Gastropoda, PLEUROCERIDAE): case closed .

Proposed conservation of the specific name of Nicrophorus tomentosus is sore 1801
(Insecta, Coleoptera): case closed . Vie AACS Rae ae

99

101

104

106

108

110

if

114

116

118

120

122

124

CONTENTS

Notices .

New applications de Conthieion :

Presidency of the International Commission on -Zaelosiea Nowenctaaae

Call for nominations for new members of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature .

Ernst Mayr, 5 July 1904-3 ened 2005 ;

Reports on meetings at the Global Biodiversity ingommeton eae Seociarar
(GBIF), Copenhagen, 14 January 2005, and UNESCO, Paris, 24-29 ens and
4 March 2005. A. Polaszek . ae

Applications

Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 (currently Calcarina spengleri) and C. hispida Brady,
1876 (Foraminiferida): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by
the designation of a replacement neotype for C. spengleri. W. Renema & J.
Hohenegger .

Tramea Hagen, 1861 (lnsecrs Gdenatsy: pooted coukeovanicaa ‘K. DB. 3 Difkstra
J. van Tol, J. Legrand & G. Theischinger

Crioceris Geoffroy, 1762, Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 and others cea group names with
the suffix —ceris in the family CHRYSOMELIDAE (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed
Official Correction of gender to feminine. M. Schmitt .

Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 and Trichiotinus Casey, 1915 ames
Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation. A.B.T. Smith . ;

Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 (currently Chlosyne nycteis; Insecta, Lepideipeees
proposed conservation of the ha: name. J.V. Calhoun, L:.D. Miller Gx.
Miller ; Sie aa aS

Comments

On the proposed conservation of Rosacea Quoy & Gaimard, 1827 (Cnidaria,
Siphonophora) and the conservation of Desmophyes annectens Haeckel, 1888 and
Rosacea plicata Bigelow, 1911. D.J. Lindsay

On the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) neon Coleoptera)
over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga ‘

On the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLIONIDAE Ramaesnae 1815
(Mollusca) and CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera). P. Bouchet .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937
(Osteichthyes, OSPHRONEMIDAE). R. Barbieri et a/l.; F. Herder & J. Freyhof .

Rulings of the Commission

OPINION 2105 (Case 3245). Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli,
Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (Rhizopoda, Foraminiferida): usage conserved by the
designation of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species of
Hastigerinella ae

OPINION 2106 (Case 3268). Comiapee Chaston & Dhar 1934 (Gnepiices
Pilisuctorida): conserved . .

OPINION 2107 (Case 3220). Syhenee soo Saiherey § in itor: 1850 ‘Aviothices:
Gastropoda): priority maintained over Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 (currently
Gisortia gisortiana)

OPINION 2108 (Case 3260). T cain colaneiane Focoee, 1894 folnicnth ico
johnstonii; Arachnida, Amblypygi): specific name conserved. ar

OPINION 2109 (Case 3281). Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Crustacea, Malacosteac
Phyllocarida, Archaeostraca): given precedence over Dilophaspis Traquair in
Walther, 1903 ae Ree eee , Pee ee

Page
57
57
58
58
59

61

64

68

We

fi)

79

84

84

84

87

90

92

94

96

97

Contents — continued

Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT1 1HD