Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats

ital Seedyd
ei

: i
ahh ay

ec.

/*
RY
ath \
; i , ‘ x
TAY, \ ba
‘ 7 rr “ PM 7t i
7 |
, :
‘ hig
j f r
A i
~') its ¢
177
Xe. j A
oe Ps : 7 |
ie |
et?
ry : 7
, . 7
i g >
bs : : ; ‘ A :*
how ut ee ;
‘i a? nt Oe Te A h; 1 '
whe * ‘ wy i“ os b ” f
“ “ any, ail So pd us ix
uae (aig y i ? Pe " ah i
‘ ‘

pees ts a iy ar
J cy h ul Lf : é A
a ae ey : eu j

is ie ~~ s sige

irs
x
;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Financial Assistance to the Commission .... 1... 0.0.0.0 eee eee
ration tie Commission S Ontice hyo ote terse’) Srcees «le oo ecu yes eye ove
Comment on Attus audax Hentz, 1845 as type species of Phidippus
Koch, 1846 (Aranea): rebuttal of objections to designation
(Gib Powards tues CULICD) Nace cusdnus ciclo ecaisikn ade sen ceceesan ice
Comments on request for a declaration modifying Article 1 so as to
exclude names proposed for domestic animals from zoological
nomenclature (R.G. Van Gelder;C.P. Groves) ............
Further proposed amendments to the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature ( lie SCCretaty yu. crac ut a5 eco sateen ais eiaaene’ s
Comments by zoologists on the Draft Code (J.D. Holloway & G.S.
RoGmson: WeOsCemono4;rskeyy).. ... 6S cetera clea cue doiovicuie’ Saeue ae
The case for multiple type specimens in parasitic protozoa (P.C.C.
Garnham, R.S. Bray & R. Killick-Kendrick) ..............
Opinion 1125. Ceratophyllus soricis Dale, 1878 (Insecta: Siphonaptera):
designation of a neotype under the plenary powers .........
Opinion 1126. Tanagra cyanea Linnaeus, 1766 (Aves) conserved .....
Opinion 1127. Planaria montenigrina Mrazek, 1904 (Platyhelminthes)
given nomenclatural precedence over Phagocata cornuta
Shishkov T9030. 2c oy toromiphaaks Rema he Rae ase aes. oie sees
Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer. 1827 (Trematoda):
proposed use of the plenary powers to conserve these names in
accordance with general use (B. Baturo) ................
Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 and Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (Cephal-
opoda, Ammonoidea): proposed designation of type species in
conformity with established usage (C.W. Wright & M.R.
COODER) os. 66 ce: vo k-aan pes ks tas ess os nce a a I aa
Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Diptera: TIPULIDAE): proposed
CORSEIVATIONACG.. WirMiCES an kos oe, oun adn Cee SRE Sota hh ak
Ochthera exsculpta Loew, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera, EPHYDRIDAE):
request for invalidation of neotype and validation of a re-
discovered holotype\(B.J2 Clausen)". 46 ase cee ees © an
Staphylinus fulgidus as the type species of several Staphylinid genera
(Insecta, Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE) (A. Smetana) ......
METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and METRIDIIDAE Sars,
1902 (Copepoda): request for a ruling to eliminate the
homonymy (D. Fautin Dunn & K. Hulsemann) ...........
Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed designation of a type
species under the plenary powers (H. Richard Lane & W.
Paepleny Se SLO NS We eee Be pees eS Sean chs, Ser Bot
Report on the generic names Eriophyes Siebold, 1851, and Phytoptus
Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina) (The Secretary) ...............
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: result of vote on
proposals for substartive amendments (first instalment) (The
SOCIELALY)) .. chet Ae Ree Beas esate ee Miele of oul eaeie
Proposed addition to the species group of names for taxa differentiated
by geographical criteria (G. Bernardi & R.V. Melville) .......

Ill

IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Opinion 1128. Platyrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda): designation of
Platyrhacus fuscus Koch, 1847 as type species ..........--
Opinion 1129. Vulpes Frisch, 1775 (Mammalia) conserved under the
Plenary POWER ss 8 8 cn oe nce e ne Jie corel ae eel
Opinion 1130. Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 (Insecta: Coleoptera): correction
GE EVDO SROCICS oo vere abc = wis tgs sim ,= ©. 2 eesheeeeh> ee eee
Opinion 1131. Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): suppressed
under the, plenary POWETS . . - . 20 ose oye 3 8 0 ew wie ne ws ws
Opinion 1132. Two works by Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828, suppressed
under the plenary powers; Heterotis Riippell, 1829, ex Ehrenberg
MS (Pisces) validated under the plenary powers and placed on
the Official List with Arapaima Miller, 1843 (Pisces) .......
Opinion 1133. Suppression under the plenary powers of names for
genera and species of Amphipoda proposed by Rafinesque
hetween Sis and i820 oo. oo hes ote ce eee eee er
Opinion 1134. Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta; Lepidoptera):
conserved under the plenary powers.............-+++--
Opinion 1135. Murex lotorium Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda); ruling on
interpretation. =. coon, ao5, 0 So = eae Us oe ueyele ekel cena

Opinion 1136. Cicadetta strepitans Kirkaldy, 1909 (Insecta; Homoptera):

CUOMISETVE Geis & cccrs cc fee che sudieie aie. 8 © ecco sye tne ohsliet fy aeaaee
Opinion 1137. Aphis gossypii Glover, 1877 (Insecta; Homoptera) vali-
dated under the plenary powers. ..........-.----+-+-+--
Opinion 1138. Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896
(Mammalia) suppressed: . ss ut wis es oe ee gi es = ee
Opinion 1139. Paraonis Grube, 1873 (Polychaeta, PARAONIDAE):
designation of a type species under the plenary powers ......
Opinion 1140. Sesarma rubripes Rathbun, 1897 (Crustacea Decapoda)
given precedence over Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852, under the
plenary POWEES iris ciate os ous opens canes) cb aoe eget ua eae
Opinion 1141. Donacilla Blainville, 1819 (Bivalvia) suppressed; Donacilla
Philippi, 1836, Mesodesma Deshayes, 1832 and Semele Schu-
macher, 1817 (Bivalvia) added to the Official List..........
Opinion 1142. Family-group names based on Platystoma Meigen, 1803
given precedence over those based on Achias Fabricius, 1805
CDipteray.. sco a, «dy axes palette rseieamaees’ siaikiten Saaibcennae ea
Opinion 1143. Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (Hymenoptera): designation
of a type species under the plenary powers ........------
Opinion 1144. Phloeotribus (Coleoptera: SCOLYTIDAE) ruled to be a
justified emendation of Phloiotribus Latreille, 1796 .......-.-
Obituaryei Mr. NUD: Riley, CoB Ba. on aoa enna te cry a) okay ina ed ecalian
Obituary.” Des WBS 5 a.cc yeats ve tet! shin sl Sey 5: s eua rane ala ieee
Comment on Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818: proposed designation of
type species (J.P.E. Morrison, J. Rosewater, A.H. Clarke,
C.B. Stein, Secretary’s observations on Dr. Stein’s comments,
Ry NADY AVIS Jie e ace cic, ead ck th oy.cas coulis) cab cael cal eee eens
Comment on Pectinaria Lamarck, 1818: proposals on generic name
KS BanSe inca coms odvetci airs jar eon gue | aigesas eee te eee a
Comment on Conus fergusoni G.B. Sowerby III, 1873: proposed vali-
dation (W!O- CermOnofsky)'s.-.2;. =< 2 ee sis 2 ss Ge ms eee are

79
82

91
102
105
107
109

114

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Opinion 1145. Dryocoetes Eichhoff, 1864 (Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE):
conserved under the plenary powers .................2.-
Opinion 1146. Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864 (Coleoptera, SCOLYTIDAE):
conserved under the plenary powers .................-..
MEROPIDAE (Aves): proposed amendment of Entry in Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology (P.S. Tomkovich and G.N.
Keashind ys, 4.5) gris een) eer ae eee Seis ee arkia bes ound )s4".

Sciaena nibe Jordan & Thompson, 1911 (Pisces): proposed conservation
of the specific name nibe by use of the plenary powers. (E.
CR TOWAVAS) Rete tsthck Coee Me UNOS FONG a sor oie eh sca om Bas oe ages
Panopeus H. Milne Edwards, 1834 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed
designation of type species under the plenary powers (L.B.
EIOUEHIS Das eT ee oe yas hie n'a! oe tper thoy ate: oie sje; 2
Anaspis Muller, 1764; Luperus Muller, 1974; Lampyris Miller, 1764;
and Clerus Miiller, 1764 (Insecta Coleoptera): proposed desig-
nation of type species (H. Silfverberg) .................
Ptilium Gyllenhal, 1827 and Ptenidium Erichson, 1845 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation by use of plenary powers
CHI SSHIVErDEne)S Se ee OS ee ee ee cect to Meare
Chrysomela flavicornis Suffrian, 1851 and C. tibialis Suffrian, 1851
(Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation by use of the
plenary powers (H.'Silfverberg) sec 2-2 2 io 5.5 Sh oo ee oe ee
Edwardsia Costa, 1834 (Arthropoda, Crustacea): proposed suppression
with conservation of Edwardsia de Quatrefages, 1841 and
EDWARDSIIDAE Andres, 1881 (Coelenterata, Actinaria)
CRAB AWilliams) pet tees en eee FRETS Moretege 3. es eats
Muscicapa ruficauda Swainson, 1838 (Aves, MUSCICAPIDAE): pro-
posed designation of neotype by use of plenary powers (C.W.
Benson) s. 52.5 isi ce Cia cis oe ee ete cnet fa
Polynoe Savigny, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed use of plenary
powers to designate a type species (A.I. Muir) ............
Rhodesiella plumigera (Loew, 1860) (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
suppression by use of plenary powers (C.W. Sabrosky).......

Elections made by the Section on Nomenclature of the Division of
Zoology of IUBS at Helsinki, August 1979 ..............
Financial Support for the Commission ...................-.-
Comment on Pleurocera Rafinesque, 1818: proposed designation of
ty pespecies (Jonacs: Burch)’: 1 eae oe ke. keke
Comment on Linnean species of CARABIDAE (M. Mroczkowski) ....
Comment on Elapid snake names (G.L. Underwood & A.F. Stimson;
(GB A BR eae 8 ob OG ee
Comment on Dicranodonta Woods, 1899; proposed designation of type
SPECIES (SUR AS Kelly laren nae ee oe Sc Sues
Comment on Gnathodus Pander, 1856; proposed designation of type
species (F.H.T. Rhodes; Glen K. Merrill; David L. Clark) .....
Commission Minutes and Report
om sani of special meeting at Stensoffa, Sweden, 15-18 August
Re ee eee eed Se eae. cc pe atoia cS eee a a he
Minutes of general meeting at Helsinki, 20-24 August 1979

155

158

161

167

NA!

180
187

191

195
195

196
197

198

200

201

203
205

VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Report of Commission to Section on Zoological Nomenclature
of Division of Zoology of IUBS, Helsinki ...............
Changes in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
adopted by.Commission in ViP2(79)1 2. Vs Pee ere.
Major changes in Code recommended by special meeting of
Commission to Section on Zoological Nomenclature ........
Matters referred by special session of Commission for discussion
by Section on Zoological Nomenclature ................
Minutes of Section on Zoological Nomenclature ................
Ogygiocaris Angelin, 1854, and Ogygites Tromelin & Lebesconte, 1876
(Trilobita): proposed conservation (G. Henningsmoen, V.

Jaanusson, I.W.B. Nye & C.J. Stubblefield) ..............
Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (Amphibia Salientia): proposed designation
of type species (J.I. Menzies, M.J. Tyler & R.G. Zweifel) .....
Bellota Peckham & Peckham, 1892 (Araneae): proposed designation of
fy pe: species. CMs. Cem ct ee ea eat che geben
Simia leucophaea F. Cuvier, 1807 (Mammalia Primates): proposed con-
servation (C.P. Groves, & PH. Napied) in soutnsacdaidaeotaeinte
Hesperites Pompeckj, 1895 (Cephalopoda: Ammonoidea): withdrawal
of proposal for suppression (Secretary) .................
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Financial Report and
ACCOUMES TOE 19S 0 3 chet, ccna See ietea ae A eee oie
Herrera’s formulae are not names. Proposed Direction supplementary to
Direction:3 2,0HEM.,& ih. BS Smith)... 5va.~.ces.<esod Roencitees See
Barbus altianalis Boulenger, 1900, and B. ruepelli Boulenger, 1902
(Pisces): proposed conservation (G. McG. Reid) ...........

Ceutorhynchus Germar, 1824, and Rhinoncus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta
Coleoptera): proposed conservation and designation of type
species: (EH GUEVETDOIO DN: 3. Si cpcia nuwkienn'-2-ctaaocig, hates, eae

Index. to; AMEN OFS orcs diac or rcne«d chan ees -Givite eS ER ceed

Bast of Decisions.in this VoOUIMe 1. secibsatcennncces nndnncgotelcr Aen

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published
TN. VOIU ME SGe yea hes oe ie ack 6 te eR tie dee

Index to Key Namesics (oe. anus aie eee vena Toe ear oh cee tt ae

Corrigendacine Sis OD SR) Te. Sas eels

Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the
present volume was published; 2s OU WS ae ce

Instruchons te:Binder 2 Vo Ug kk oP,

207
209
211
221
Lie
226
231
236
239
240
241
246
249

Volume 36, Part 1
pp. 1 - 64

ISSN 0007 - 5167
Ist JULY 1979

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS
Page
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:
1. Date of commencement by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature . 1
2. Notice of the possible use by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in
SP AER ted Mahi ag a oses Cel’, Sete ante eee) aie!

—"

(Contents continued on page iii)

LONDON

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o British Museum (Natural History)
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD

Price £6.25
(All rights reserved)

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.).

Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund,
S-223 62, Lund, Sweden).

Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD).

Assistant Secretary: Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD).

B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Dr. Eugene EISENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York 10024, U.S.A.) (30 January 1968) Ornithology

Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary) Palaeontology

Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences,
Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968) Mollusca, Crustacea

Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.)
(20 February 1972) Octocorallia; Systematics

Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972) Protozoa; Systematics

Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology

Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum,
Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca

Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera

~ Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo,
Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972)
Neotropical Hymenoptera

Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Instituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Daimazia
45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata

Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund,
Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology

Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de
Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972)
Echinoidea; Asteroidea

Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6,
Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca

Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca

Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517,
2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor)
Crustacea

Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de
Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Lepidoptera

Dr. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231,
Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera

Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Jnstytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk,
Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera

Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda

Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000
Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda

Dr. W.D.L. RIDE (Department of Science and the Environment Central Office,
Scarborough House, Phillip, P.O. Box 449, Woden, A.C.T. 2606,
Australia) (29 September 1976) (Councillor) Mammalia; Recent and
Fossil

Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September
1976) (President) Diptera

Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia)
(29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods

Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet
Lahnberge, 3550 Marbug, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology

Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of
Troms6, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromséd, Norway) (27 December 1978)
Parasitology

Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad
B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Members of the Trust
Sir Peter E. Kent, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr. F.G.W. Jones (Secretary and Managing Director)
Prof. D. Curry, F.G.S.
Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B.
Mon. J. Forest
Col. Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E.
Dr. R.H. Hedley
Dr. N.E. Hickin
Dr. L.B. Holthuis
Prof. Dr. O. Kraus
Prof. O.W. Richards, F.R.S.
Sir Eric Smith, F.R.S.
Mr. C.W. Wright, C.B.
Dr. G.F. deWitte

B. The Officers of the Trust
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller)
Mr. R.J.A. Lever (Assistant Zoologist)

CONTENTS
(continued from front cover)

Comments

Attus audax Hentz, 1845 as type species of Phidippus
Koch, 1846 (Aranea): rebuttal of objections to
designation (G.B. Edwards & B. Cutler) ..

Comments on request for a declaration modifying Article
1 so as to exclude names proposed for domestic
animals from zoological nomenclature (R.G. Van
Gelder:.C,P. Groves) 4..4¢ 2b U Ree 4% POE DES.

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Further proposed amendments to the International Code
(THe secretary) voir: -aseact- Ie Soe eae aes:
Comments by zoologists on the Draft Code (J.D.
Holloway & G.S. Robinson; W.O. Cernohorsky) .
The case for multiple type specimens in parasitic protozoa
(P.C.C. Garnham, R.S. Bray & R. Killick-Kendrick) .

Opinions
Opinion 1125. Ceratophyllus soricis Dale, 1878 (Insecta:
Siphonaptera): designation of a neotype under the
CL ETUAW TOMEI angie sic Manat. 5 Seen ee ee
Opinion 1126. Tanagra cyanea Linnaeus, 1766 (Aves)
RAPIST VEG tage: ernacslinck, RENES o SIN TESTES e Ie ie os
Opinion 1127. Planaria montenigrina Mrazek, 1904
(Platyhelminthes) given nomenclatural precedence
over Phagocata cornuia Shishkov, 1903 ............

New and Revived Cases

Bucephalus Baer, 1827 and B. polymorphus Baer,
1827 (Trematoda): proposed use of the plenary
powers to conserve these names in accordance with
genciah use (B: Datero) Peis ce ee eee. ws

Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 and Neokentroceras Spath,
1921 (Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea): proposed
designation of type species in conformity with
established usage (C.W. Wright & M.R. Cooper) .

Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Diptera:
TIPULIDAE): proposed conservation (G.W.
anny we, Pea, ee ee ees PE a

ili

Page

pH |

Ochthera exsculpta Loew, 1862 (Insecta, Diptera,
EPHYDRIDAE): request for invalidation of
neotype and validation of a rediscovered holotype
(PJ--Clamsen). ..cinaed 2; APR ORVGO As cease Sehonec -

Staphylinus fulgidus as the type species of several
Staphylinid genera (Insecta, Coleoptera,
STAPHYLINIDAE) (A. Smetana)) .. . oso

METRIDIIDAE- Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and
METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda):
request for a ruling to eliminate the homonymy
(D. Fautin Dunn & K. Hulsemann)................

Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed
designation of a type species under the plenary
powers (H. Richard Lane & W. Ziegler) ..

Report on the generic names Eriophyes Siebold,
1851, and Phytoptus Dujardin, 1851 (Acarina)
CUNGCCMEIATY onc ton gues x: = c.3 6's by eh ne

Page

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 36, part | (pp. 1 - 64) Ist July 1979
NOTICES

(a) Date of commencement of voting. In normal
circumstances the Commission may start to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months
after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes
to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited
to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the
Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case to reach the
Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.

(b) Possible use of the plenary powers. The possible use by
the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following
applications published in the present part of the Bulletin (those
marked with an asterisk involve the application of Articles 23a-b
and 79b):

(1) Bucephalus Baer, 1827, and B. polymorphus Baer,
1827 (Trematoda): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.)
2251

(2) Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921, and Neokentroceras
Spath, 1921 (Ammonoidea): proposed designation of
type species. Z.N.(S.) 2254.

(3) Tipula ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 (Diptera,
TIPULIDAE): proposed conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2255.

(4) “Staphylinus fulgidus” as the type species of several
nominal genera (Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE).
LWA) ool

(S) METRIDITIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and
METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda): proposals to
remove the homonymy. Z.N.(S.) 2263.

(6) Gnathodus Pander, 1856 (Conodonta): proposed
designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2279.

*(7) Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1899 (Acarina):
proposed suppression of unused senior synonyms.
Z.N.(S.) 2044.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica-
tions have been received since the publication of vol. 35(4) on 31

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

May 1979. Those marked with an asterisk involve the application of
Articles 23a-b and 79b.

(1) Cophixalus Boettger, 1892 (Amphibia Salientia):
proposed designation of type species. Z.N.(S.) 2298
(J.I. Menzies, M.J. Tyler & R.G. Zweifel).

*(2) Corisella Lundblad, 1928 and Krizousacorixa Hunger-
ford, 1931 (Heteroptera, CORIXIDAE): proposed
conservation. Z.N.(S.) 2299 (A. Jansson).

*(3) Terebratula triangulus Valenciennes, 1819, T. diphya
von Buch, 1834, and T. catulloi Pictet, 1867
(Brachiopoda, PYGOPIDAE): proposed conservation.
Z.N.(S.) 2300 (F.A. Middlemiss).

(4) Epistomaroides Uchio, 1952 (Foraminifera):
proposed validation. Z.N.(S.) 2301 (H.J. Hansen &
F. Rog).

(5) Species-group names for taxa differentiated by
geographical criteria: proposed modification of Code.
Z.N.(S.) 2302. (G. Bernardi & R.V. Melville).

*(6) Simia leucophaea F. Cuvier, 1807 (Mammalia,

Primates): proposed conservation (see Opinion 935).
Z.N.(S.) 2303 (C. Groves & P.H. Napier).

SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE COMMISSION
Donations to the Trust under the IUBS formula have been
received from Australia and the Republic of South Africa, and are
gratefully acknowledged.

The Advisory Board for Research Councils (which is the
body responsible for allocating funds from the U.K. Government’s
Science Budget) has generously granted £5 000 to the Trust for the
financial year 1979-80, with a promise of similar sums in the two
following years, on condition that the Commission takes steps to
ensure its own long-term sources of finance. This grant comes via
the Royal Society, which has offered help, through the U.K. delega-
tion to IUBS, in securing long-term support.

The Trust, in gratefully acknowledging this generous
assistance, has decided to spend the first year’s grant mainly on
salaries for part-time staff in the Commission’s office, with pro-
vision also for the Secretary’s expenses in attending Commission
meetings. A motion connected with the long-term future will be
presented to the General Assembly of IUBS at Helsinki in August
1h fe aa

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3

STAFF OF THE COMMISSION’S OFFICE
Mr R.J.A.W. Lever has joined the Secretariat of the Com-
mission as an Assistant Zoologist on a part-time basis. Mr Lever also
works for the Commonwealth Institute of Entomology compiling
maps of the distribution of insect pests, and is well known for his
work as an entomologist in developing countries.

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

REBUTTAL OF OBJECTIONS TO DESIGNATION OF ATTUS AUDAX
HENTZ, 1845, AS TYPE SPECIES OF PHIDIPPUS KOCH, 1846
(ARANEA). Z.N.S.) 1904
(see Bull. vol. 27: 103, 213)

(1) By G.B. Edwards (Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Affairs, Bureau of Entomology, Gainesville, Florida 32602, U.S.A.)

In Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27: 213 J.A. Beatty and R. Leech objected to a
petition by H.W. Levi & L. Pinter (ibid.: 103) to suppress Salticus variegatus
Lucas, 1833 and to set aside its fixation as the type species of Phidippus Koch,
1846 in favour of Attus audax Hentz, 1845. I would like to give a point by
point rebuttal of Beatty’s objections (Leech’s objection is the same as Beatty’s
objection C); each rebuttal is coded by the same letter as the objection to
which it refers.

A. The objection is trivial. While Phidippus audax (Hentz) may not be
the most common jumping spider in absolute numbers, it certainly is one of
the most common on and about human dwellings, and without doubt ranks
either first or second in absolute numbers among species of the genus Phidippus
(based on museum collections).

B. Even though the petition by Levi & Pinter indicates that ecologists
and textbook writers have been the primary users of the name Phidippus
audax, this name has also been used in taxonomic works and checklists for the
species in question much more often than has the name P. variegatus (which has
been used usually for the species now known as P. regius C.L. Koch, as
previously indicated by Levi & Pinter).

C. Since no type is available for either Salticus variegatus or Attus
audax, the most logical procedure would be to choose the most stable name,
rather than dig up a third name to add to the confusion. This is what Levi &
Pinter have done: they chose to use the most stable name, Phidippus audax.

D. While at the time of writing (1971) this objection may have had
some validity, it has no validity at present. There are more active taxonomists
working primarily on the SALTICIDAE in the United States (six) than are
working primarily on any other family of spiders in that country. Generic and
even subfamilial relationships have become much more clear due to collabora-
tion by these specialists. There is no disagreement as to the limits of the genus
Phidippus. Most importantly, the name Phidippus audax (Hentz) has been the
only name used for the species in question since the original petition in 1970,
including its use in several internationally distributed handbooks to spiders by
the noted spider authorities B.J. Kaston and H.W. Levi.

It is now time for the reconsideration recommended by Beatty; I am
presently revising the genus Phidippus and I am fully in support of the merits
of nomenclatural stability provided by the Levi & Pinter petition.

(2) By Bruce Cutler (1 747 Eustis Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 551 13, USA)

In 1970 I wrote to the Commission to support the petition by Levi &
Pinter to conserve Attus audax Hentz, and I continue to support it. Dr
ee ee he ee eee eee

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5

Edwards has adequately rebutted the objections by Beatty & Leech. An
additional factor is the paper by Taylor, B.B. & Peck, W.B., J. Arachnol., vol.
2: 89—99, 1975, which reports successful interbreeding between northern and
southern forms of that species. In addition to the confusion with Phidippus
regius C.L. Koch mentioned by Edwards, and by Levi & Pinter in their original
petition, the southern forms had been considered as belonging to P. variegatus,
while northern specimens were considered as P. audax. The interbreeding
demonstrates that one biological species is involved. The overwhelming
preponderance of usage favours the name Phidippus audax (Hentz) for this
taxon.

COMMENTS ON REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION MODIFYING
ARTICLE 1 SO AS TO EXCLUDE NAMES PROPOSED FOR DOMESTIC
ANIMALS FROM ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Z.N((S.) 1935
(see vol. 27: 269—272; vol. 28: 77—78, 140; vol. 29: 108;
vol. 34: 137—140)

(1) By Richard G. Van Gelder (American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th St, New York, N.Y. 10024, USA)

Groves (1971, 1977) has suggested that the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature be modified to exclude names proposed for domestic
animals from zoological nomenclature. Should the Commission choose to
.modify the Code as he suggests, far more disruption to zoological nomen-
clature will occur than currently exists. I do not find the present situation as
deplorable as does Groves.

Groves’ main premise seems to be that domestic animals are not
subspecies because they have evolved ‘artificially’ rather than ‘in nature’, that
they do not have discrete geographic distribution comparable to ‘wild’ sub-
species, and that their existence as discrete entities is dependant upon human
protection. He concludes that if a specific epithet is based upon a domestic
animal, then a trinomen for a wild subspecies cannot nor should not be
included under the specific name that originated from a domestic animal.

Equus caballus Linnaeus is the commonly accepted name for the
domestic horse, and Equus cabailus caballus is the trinominal generally
accepted and used for all breeds of domestic horses. Groves would find
unacceptable the use of Equus caballus przewalskii for the wild Mongolian
horse, a commonly-accepted trinominal that indicates conspecificity between
the wild and domestic forms. He presumably would prefer to remove E&.
caballus from zoological nomenclature, and thereby indicate the wild horse of
Mongolia as Equus ferus przewalskii. (Equus ferus ferus Boddaert, 1785, the
tarpan, would be the nominate race and one of the races from which E£.

Buil. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

caballus Linnaeus may have been domesticated.) Inasmuch as Groves has
indicated that he would not include some feral animals — ones that were
domestic but which escaped into the wild and are now largely free-living — in
his consideration of domestic animals, one wonders what name he would
suggest for the free-living horses of the American West. They could not be
called £. ferus caballus because the subspecific name would have been excluded
from zoological nomenclature and, further, such a combination would be
contrary to the existing Code (caballus dates from Linnaeus, 1758; ferus from
Boddaert, 1785). Further, in this case, the type species of the genus Equus is E.
caballus Linnaeus, and the family-rname EQUIDAE is likewise based on Equus,
type species F. caballus Linnaeus. This example is paralleled by other similar
situations that involve the generic names Capra Linnaeus, type Capra hircus
Linnaeus; Bos Linnaeus, type Bos taurus Linnaeus; Camelus Linnaeus, type
Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus; Ovis Linnaeus, type Ovis aries Linnaeus; Felis
Linnaeus, type Felis catus Linnaeus; and Canis Linnaeus, type Canis familiaris
Linnaeus, each of which is based, at least in part, on a domestic form, and each
of which also serves as a basis for a familytevel name as well. Other examples
such as Bubalus bubalis (Linnaeus), Lama glama (Linnaeus), Rangifer tarandus
(Linnaeus), Equus asinus Linnaeus, Elephas maximus Linnaeus, and Bos
grunniens Linnaeus, 1766, are among those that would be affected should
Groves’ proposal be implemented.

Groves (1977) seems bothered by what he construes as an ancestor-
descendant relationship implied by nomenclature when the name for the
domestic form antedates the wild one. Although he does not state this outright
his example for the cat suggests his upset at the idea (his) that the name com-
bination Felis catus silvestris for the wild cat implies an evolutionary relation-
ship of the wild (silvestris) from the domestic (catus). Zoological nomenclature
does not imply, suggest, nor concern itself with such relationships.

Groves indicates that many of Linnaeus’s taxa that include domestic
animals are based solely on domestic forms. This is not so. As Eisenmann
(1972) has indicated for Fringilla canaria, both the wild and the domestic
animals were included by Linnaeus. The same is true for a number of the
Linnaean mammals, in which the diagnosis is generally equally applicable to
both the wild and the domestic forms, and for which the provenance
(“‘habitat’’) is given either as a place other than in direct association with
human beings or association with human beings is specified, or both. For
example, Linnaeus gives: for Equus asinus “Habitat in oriente”’; for Bos
(=Bubalus Smith, 1827) bubalis, ‘Habitat in Asia, cultus in Italia”; Bos taurus,
the habitat is “Poloniae’’ (where the wild aurochs or urus persisted until some
30 years earlier); Capra hircus for which Ellerman & Morrison-Scott (1951)
state was “the domestic Goat of Sweden”, the habitat was given as
“montosis ...”, while for Felis catus it is given as “Europae australis-sylvis’’.
Not only are the Linnaean diagnoses applicable both to wild and domestic
animals in these instances, but it seems clear from the other material included
by him that it was his intent to consider them both under the same (specific)
epithet. Many of these names were subsequently restricted to the domestic
form, in accordance with Recommendation 69B (1) of the Code.

Groves proposes to modify Article 1 by inserting ‘““domestic animals” in
the line that excludes names given to teratological specimens and to hybrids. In
part, this section of the Code implies an intention to exclude the application of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

zoological nomenclature to deviant individuals rather than to populations. A
major problem that would arise in Groves’s proposal is the critical one of
defining “domestic animal”. As Melville (1977) has indicated, standard
dictionary definitions are imprecise for nomenclatural or biological purposes.
He proposed as a definition, “Any animal of which the living conditions and
breeding are controlled by man for his use or pleasure, other than individuals
taken in the wild for purposes of conservation or research and their progeny.”
By this definition, many of the animals in parks and reserves in which there is
selective culling and other modification of breeding by human beings would be
construed as “domestic’’.

It seems appropriate to distinguish two aspects of the problem of
domestication: 1) the taming of individuals and 2) the selective development of
groups or populations of animals. Thus, I would distinguish between domestic
animals (a population) and domesticated animals (individuals). In this sense,
individuals of any species presumably can be domesticated — ie. made
tractable or tame, and therefore ‘of the home’. On the other hand, domestic
animals are populations that, through direct selection by man, have certain
inherent morphological, physiological, or behavioral characteristics by which
they differ from their ancestral stocks (Van Gelder, 1969). Although this
definition has some shortcomings, it contains the essential elements that the
selection by man was direct, that the breeding was purposeful. It also indicates
that domestic animals are populations, rather than tame individuals, of animals
with human-selected characteristics. By these definitions, the Asiatic elephants
(Elephas maximus Linnaeus) used as work animals would be domesticated, but
not domestic animals. They have not been selectively bred by man, but have
been captured in the wild and tamed (domesticated). What little breeding has
been accomplished has not involved intentional selection, but has been
fortuitous. Similarly, until recently when artificial insemination of honey bees
(Aphis mellifera Linnaeus) was accomplished, these insects were domesticated
rather than domestic.

Under the existing Code, the names of domestic animals are available.
To implement Groves’s proposal would require, under Article 23c(iii), replace-
ment with the next oldest available name. This would not only upset the
existing nomenclature of a number of species but would aiso require realloca-
tion of the type species of a number of genera including Canis, Felis, Bos,
Equus, Camelus, Capra, and Ovis, among others. Groves’s final suggestions, to
treat domestic forms as hypothetical concepts or as probable hybrids lacks
merit. Domestic animals exist as identifiable genetic populations, and the
concept of domestication is far from hypothetical. The definition of a hybrid,
according to the amended glossary of the Code, is “The product of the crossing
of two species.” Although Groves cites a possible formation of a domestic
animal, the alpaca, from a hybridization between two wild species, for the
most part he confuses the influx of genes of wild subspecies into domestic
animals, rather than from wild species, as hybridization. This is not hybridiza-
tion under the Code glossary definition. Not only have many of the type
species involved in this matter been put on the Official List of accepted names,
but the designation of subsequent type species (Recommendation 69B (1))
states “In the case of Linnean genera he should designate the most common
species or one of medical importance ...”” The examples given as preferred
include “Bos taurus, Equus caballus, Ovis aries, ...”’

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

To remove the names of domestic animals from zoological nomen-
clature seems contrary to the sense of the system of nomenclature itself — that
of providing zoologists with a precise and universal designation and language.
The para-nomenclature that Groves suggests as an alternative does not add
anything that is not encompassed in the existing system, and reduces both
precision and universality, as well as removing these animals from usual
zoological consideration. Domestic animals are derived from existing or extinct
species whose names are encompassed in a formal system of nomenclature.
Although the Code is not concerned with the biology of these domestic
animals, their exclusion as nomenclatural entities somehow also deprives
practising zoologists of the nomenclatural link, and thereby the biological link,
that domestic animals truly have to wild species.

I do think that a proliferation of names, primarily trinominals, for
breeds of domestic animals would not serve a useful purpose, and fortunately,
this has not been the case. However, I do believe that an available zoological
name indicating that the animals in question are domestic populations serves a
useful purpose. Whether or not the specific epithet for the domestic taxon was
based on the domestic animal or the wild species is irrelevant, and the use, for
example, of Capra hircus aegagrus for the wild goat, even though the specific
epithet hircus is presumed to have been based on the domestic form, is wide-
spread and seems not to discommode anyone. Similarly, the trinomen Bos
taurus primigenius for the wild aurochs, and Equus caballus przewalskii for the
Mongolian wild horse, and Camelus bactrianus ferus for the wild Bactrian
camel are widespread, convenient, and not misunderstood.

I agree that a proliferation of names, specific or subspecific, based on
domestic variants would be uncalled for. To this end, I think it appropriate for
the Commission to recommend that, in taxa with domestic forms, only one
name be permitted to designate the domesticate. If wild and domestic forms
are considered conspecific, as most are, then the earliest name under the Law
of Priority should hold. In cases in which the species name is based on a
domestic animal, then the tautonym would serve as the trinominal for the
domesticate.

To summarize: Groves’s proposals for the exclusion of names based on
domestic animals from zoological nomenclature would create more problems
than they would presumably solve. The arguments that domestic animals are
hypothetical concepts or hybrids (between species) are false, and his desire to
eliminate them on the grounds that they do not fill his criteria for subspecies is
not within the area of concern of the Commission. I have suggested that the
Commission recommend that only one name within a species be permitted to
represent all domestic forms of that taxon, which would avoid a proliferation
of names based on domesticates in different regions.

REFERENCES CITED

EISENMANN, E. 1972. Comments on proposal to exclude from zoological
nomenclature names for domestic animals. Bull. Zool. Nom., vol.29:108.
ELLERMAN, J.R. & MORRISON-SCOTT, T.C.S. 1951. Checklist of
' palaearctic and Indian mammals. British Museum Trustees, 810 pp.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9

GROVES, C.P. 1971. Request for a declaration modifying Article I so as to
exclude names proposed for domestic animals from zoological nomen-
clature. Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 27: 269—272.

——_——. 1977. Comments on request for a declaration modifying Article I so as
to exclude names proposed for domesticated animals from zoological
nomenclature. Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 34: 137-139.

MELVILLE, R.V. 1977. Comments on request for a declaration modifying
Article I so as to exclude names proposed for domesticated animals
from zoological nomenclature. Bull. Zool. Nom., vol. 34: 139—140.

"VAN GELDER, R.G. 1969. Biology of mammals. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New
York, 197 pp.

(2) Reply by Colin P. Groves

As Dr Van Gelder has been kind enough to send me a copy of his
comment, I should like to reply here and now.

As has been pointed out by Erna Mohr (Das Urwildpferd, 1959: 6),
there is no such name as Equus ferus Pallas. As she notes — but, curiously, does
not act upon — there is an Equus ferus Boddaert, 1785: 159. This name, which
is available and clearly refers to Gmelin’s tarpan, would be the earliest available
name for a wild horse. This is just a minor point, to correct a factual error.

The matter of Linnaeus’s names is not directly relevant: as Van Gelder
himself notes, most of the Linnean names have been restricted by subsequent
usage to the domestic forms in question. Linnaeus himself seems to have been
unclear in many cases whether a given species was domestic or not; for
example, Llama, Alpaca and Dromedary, all of them unknown in the wild
state, are given “Habitat” entries with no indication that the habitats are in
fact locales of domestic occurrence. So that in other cases, such as Goat, Sheep
and Horse, which could have been based on both wild and domestic forms, no
indication is given of which is meant: Ovis aries “habitat in siccis apricis
calidis”’ (dry, sunny, warm areas); Capra hircus “habitat in montosis’”’ (moun-
tainous regions); and Equus caballus “habitat in Europa’’, all of these designa-
tions being as much applicable to the domestic as to the wild forms. Equus
asinus, on the other hand, is stated to be found in both wild and domestic
states, but the wild form is the Onager, a different species: if the Linnean name
were validated for the wild species in this case, oh confusion! Bos bubalis is, as
Van Gelder notes, distinguished as to wild and domestic forms; so is Bos
taurus, which is not mentioned by Van Gelder — the full extent of the habitat
entry reads ‘‘Habitat in Poloniae depressis graminosis ferus Urus’’ (the wild
Urus inhabits low-lying grassy areas in Poland).

Reading my paragraph on the Cat again and again, I cannot see how
Van Gelder reads into it that I am “bothered by what (I) construe as an
ancestor-descendant relationship implied by the nomenclature when the name
for the domestic form antedates the wild one’. I am well aware that no such
phyletic relationship is implied by nomenclatural priority.

Naturally there are considerable difficulties, most familiar to the

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

archaeologist, in deciding what is and what is not domestic, in borderline cases.
For the major domesticates, based on Linnean nomenclature for the most part,
there is no doubt, however. Of the species listed by Van Gelder, only in the
case of the Reindeer is there any difficulty; the Asian Elephant is not domestic
at all, and the various bovines, camelids, etc., are frankly domestic.

The nature of domestication: “domestic animals exist as identifiable
genetic populations, and the concept of domestication is far from hy-
pothetical’’. There are two separate points here:

(a) It is not the concept of domestication that I characterise as hypo-
thetical, but the concept of a domestic species or subspecies;

(b) Domestic species (or subspecies) are surely not identifiable
genetic populations. Every gradation exists, from two breeds that are kept
deliberately reproductively isolated, in a situation that mimics that of two wild
species, via breeds that are allowed to mingle, to breeds that are continuous
with the wild populations of the region concerned. In the first instance there
are not one but many genetic populations; in the third case there is no separate
genetic population at all; only the second case answers to Van Gelder’s
characterization.

Polyphyletic ancestry: Far from calling the Mongolian wild horse Equus
caballus przewalskii, the rejection of this nomenclature is almost the only point
of agreement among hippologists who are otherwise locked in bitter polemic.
What if someone of the polyphyletic school, such as Ebhardt, were right, that
domestic horses derive from about four wild species? How would we then refer
to the domestic horse nomenclaturally? How are we to refer to the Alpaca,
which I noted in my previous comment in this Bulletin has been shown by
Hemmer to be derived with high probability from two wild ancestors?

In the case of domestic cattle, how are we to apply the “one name
permitted to designate the domesticate principle?” Authors using zoological
nomenclature for domesticates commonly refer to the Zebu breeds as Bos
indicus: what, here, is “‘the domesticate?” The domestic ox as a whole? — in
which case the Zebus would become Bos taurus taurus, despite the fact that
the Zebu and Humpless cattle are almost certainly derived from different sub-
species of Bos primigenius. Diphyletic taxa are surely not consistent with good
taxonomic practice.

The strongest argument, to my mind, for excluding domestic animals
from nomenclature is quite simply that all specialists concerned with
domesticable species — whether cat, dog, cattle, buffalo, horses, asses, camelids
or pigs — have with one accord rejected the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature as being inapplicable to them. Such an ad hoc solution as Bos
primigenius {. taurus, or Lama guanicoe f. glama, in which priority goes to the
wall, is understandable in the circumstances but cannot be allowed to persist.
This really is the reason why something must be done about it by the
Commission. Whether the Linnean names are banned, or made by fiat to refer
to wild forms, or whatever solution is adopted, is of less importance to me than
that something be done to regularise the situation so that we do not have to
cope any more with the trauma of battering the square pegs that are domestic
animals in the round holes of zoological nomenclature into which they will not
fit. It is probably no accident that it is a topic such as this that calls forth such
an excruciating cliché.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11

FURTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Z.N(G.) 182

By the Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

In July 1978 the Editorial Committee of the Commission
met in London for a week’s consideration of a number of general
matters of principle affecting the Code. Four main topics were
discussed:

1. Status of names on the Official List

2. Paranomenclature

3. Report of the committee on the typification of species
of protozoa

4.“Type of a name” versus “type of a nominal taxon”

2. On the first and fourth topics, it was agreed that debates
should be initiated in the Bulletin, and this was done (see vol. 35:
151—155, 156—167). On the third topic, the Committee’s report

(see vol. 35: 200—208) was discussed and their detailed proposals

approved. Comments from zoologists on these topics are awaited.
The second topic was discussed at length and agreed proposals were
drafted for substantive changes in the Code. These are presented
here.

PARANOMENCLATURE

3. Paranomenclature is the nomenclature of parataxa. Para-
taxa are fossil fragments or detached organs that can be classified in
genera and species that do not coincide with the genera and species
of the more complete fossils to which they belong. In the groups
concerned, therefore, a dual nomenclature exists, contrary to
Article 24 of the Code. It contributes nothing to say that Article 24
must be applied so that the Law of Priority will determine whether
the name of the first-named fragment will become the name of the
more complete fossil, or vice versa, depending on the individual
case. These dual nomenclatures reflect dual taxonomies and they
exist to meet a real need among palaeontologists. It is therefore in-
cumbent on the Commission to find a way of adapting the Code to
fit that need.

4. The question of whether the Code should or should not
regulate the names of parataxa was exhaustively discussed in the

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

papers prepared for the London (1958) International Congress of
Zoology (see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 15: 5—120, 158—184, 216—246,
296-314, 345-350, 686-690, 705—728, 759-761, 826-851,
968—973, 1241). The Colloquium preceding the Congress decided
to defer consideration of the question, which was eventually en-
trusted to a committee with instructions to report to the
Washington (1963) Congress. The report recommended that no
further consideration be given to the problem of parataxa, and the
matter was accordingly dropped. It may be thought that the matter
was over inflated at London, and that Washington went to the other
extreme.

5. If it is true that the Code does not limit the freedom of
taxonomic thought and action, then it cannot deny palaeontologists
the right to classify fossil fragments in a different pattern from
more complete fossils if, by so doing, they get and transmit a fuller
understanding of the animals in question and make a richer contri-
bution to geology. Furthermore, to apply Article 24b(i) strictly to
discrete conodonts and conodont assemblages; to aptychi and
ammonite phragmocones; to nautiloid jaws and nautiloid phrag-
mocones; would introduce intolerable chaos into fields already
producing a rich enough harvest of difficulties.

6. A different problem in paranomenclature is presented by
the names of trace fossils. These are indisputably signs of the work
of animals, yet Articles 16a(viii) and 24b(iii) reduce their nomen-
clature to chaos in a quite irrational manner: these provisions allow,
in the former case, availability, and in the latter, validity, to names
based on the work of animals if they were published before 1931,
but not if they were published after 1930. Yet the most exciting
developments in ichnology and ichnotaxonomy have taken place in
the last thirty years. The failure of the zoological Code to provide
for the nomenclature of ichnotaxa has caused resentment to the
point where a draft code has been published especially for them
(Sarjeant, W.A.S. & Kennedy, W.J., 1973, Canadian J. Earth Sci.
vol. 10: 460—475). Unfortunately, that draft is modelled closely on
the Botanical Code and introduces into the Animal Kingdom a
number of nomenclatural principles that are foreign to our Code.
Such an introduction would not contribute towards clarity and
uniformity of nomenclature in the Animal Kingdom. However,
Sarjeant & Kennedy state clearly the two chief problems of trace-
fossil nomenclature: one is that a single animal may produce a
variety of structures, to which different names have been given; the
other is, as with parataxa, the confusion caused by applying the
Law of Priority [Article 24b(iii)] to the names of trace-fossils and
to their causative organisms, when these are known.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13

7. The paradox becomes even more acute when it is found
that the Code does, after all, admit a sort of paranomenclature, in
dealing with collective groups, which are, in origin, larval stages of
helminth worms that cannot be allocated to the same genera and
species as the adult worms. Their names are treated in all respects as
generic names, but collective groups require no type species. Here,
then, is a licensed dual nomenclature for different stages in the life
cycle of the same creatures.

8.It appears on examination that the logic of collective-
group nomenclature has never been carefully thought out. At least
some of the names now used for collective groups were first pro-
posed as bona fide generic names and have come to be used as
collective-group names by accretion of usage, though not in accord
with any taxonomic logic. Cercaria Miller, 1773, and Bucephalus
Baer, 1827, both proposed as bona fide generic names, are both
based on the larval cercaria stage of helminth worms; Cercaria has
become a collective-group name, applied only to unallocated
cercariae; Bucephalus is still used as a generic name because the life
cycle of its type species, B. polymorphus Baer, has been fully
worked out. The use of that binomen for the adult worm, however,
is weakly founded in logic, for the type specimen of B. polymor-
phus must be a cercaria which it is not possible to allocate, of itself,
to an adult species. Indeed, the logical relationship between a
cercarian “species”, which cannot perpetuate itself directly as a
natural population by either sexual or asexual reproduction, and a
species that can perpetuate itself may well be open to question.

9. The Editorial Committee had to address itself to the prac-
tical rather than the philosophical aspects of these problems. It was
greatly helped in this by a lucid exposition prepared by Mr Heppell,
who, though not a member of the committee, was invited to take
part in its work for that occasion. It was decided to consider
separately those entities whose taxa at the genus-group level do not
require type species and those whose taxa at that level do require
type species. Trace fossils (ichnotaxa) were placed with collective
groups in the former category, and parataxa in the other. It was not
found necessary to compose an entire new Code for either. More
economical, if more subtle solutions were sought by proposing the
following additions to the 6th draft of the third edition of the
Code:

Article Ja, reorganise from line 3 onwards, as follows:
“... living or extinct, including names based on the work of animals,
names for fossils that are substitutions (replacements, impressions,
moulds and casts) for the actual remains of animals, and names for
fossil ichnotaxa and parataxa. The Code is concerned ...”

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Article 1b, insert a new clause “(8) for traces of living
animals” and renumber existing (8) as (9).

Article 2, add a new Section “‘(c) Names for fossil ichnotaxa.
Names proposed for fossil ichnotaxa at any taxonomic level covered
by the Code are eligible for use in zoological nomenclature provided
that they satisfy the relevant provisions of Chapter IV, but they do
not compete in priority with names given to causative organisms
and the provisions of Article 13b do not apply to them.”

Article 2, add a new Section “(d) Names for fossil parataxa.
Names proposed for fossil parataxa are eligible for use in zoological
nomenclature provided that they satisfy the relevant provisions of
Chapter IV, but they do not compete in priority with names given
to whole animals. Discrete fossil parts that can be arranged in the
same taxa as whole animals at family-group and species-group levels
but not at genus-group level may be treated as collective groups
[Art. 42b(i)].”

Article 10, insert a new Section “(e) Names for ichnotaxa
and parataxa. Names proposed for fossil ichnotaxa and parataxa are
to be treated as family-group, genus-group, or species-group names,
according to the way in which they were first established.” The
existing sections e, f and g become sections f, g and h.

Article 66, add a new clause “(i) If a type species has been
fixed for a collective group, it is to be disregarded.”

7. The following additions are proposed for the Glossary:
“ichnotaxon, n. The fossil work or trace of an animal (but not a

secretion) which cannot be, or has not yet been, related to

the genus or species of causative organism (see Article 2c).”
“parataxon, n. A taxon based on a fragment or detached organ of
an animal which can be classified at genus-group and species-
group levels by comparison with other fragments or detached
organs, but which cannot be assigned to the same taxa at
those levels as the whole animals to which they belong.”

8. Comments on these proposals are invited from zoologists
in general, and palaeontologists in particular. There is one obvious
point that cries out for clarification. It is perfectly well known that
no fossil is a complete animal. The conflict in priority where the
names of parataxa are concerned is, therefore, not between names
for parts and names for whole animals in the strict sense of Article
24b(i), but between names for smaller and larger parts — or
between names for small parts and more nearly complete animals.
How is this to be expressed in the Code?

9.It should also be noted that the proposals for ichnotaxa
concer fossil traces only. Traces of living animals can always be
related to their causative organism, and there is no need to name
them separately.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15

COMMENTS BY ZOOLOGISTS ON THE DRAFT CODE
Z.N.AS.) 2250

(1) Comment on Draft Article 58, by J.D. Holloway and
G.S. Robinson (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, and
British Museum (Natural History), London SW7 SBD)

Kudrna (1978, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 35: 82) has drawn
attention to the fact that etymological expertise is needed in order
to interpret Article 58 of the Code. We agree that the need for
etymological expertise in the interpretation of the Code should be
eliminated wherever possible. Mr Kudrna’s proposal attempts to
deal with confusion arising from interpretation of the phrase ‘of the
same origin and meaning’ by removing this phrase altogether. How-
ever, this proposal is not in the interests of stability as it will
increase the number of species-group names deemed to be junior
primary homonyms. These would require replacement even though
they are not currently considered to be congeneric and are not
liable to cause any confusion. This situation will be aggravated
whenever additions are made to the ‘single-letter differences’ listed
in Article 58.

2.An example of the potential effect on stability of Mr
Kudrna’s proposal may be found in the case of Papilio aristeus Stoll
1780, and a possible junior primary homonym, Papilio (Satyrus)
aristaeus Bonelli, 1826. These species-group names are of different
origin and meaning as shown by Tremewan (1978, Entomologist’s
Gaz., vol. 29: 70—73), but were treated as homonymous by Kuda
(1977, A revision of the genus Hipparchia Fabricius, (Classey,
Faringdon), 300 pp.). The name Hipparchia aristaeus (Bonelli) has
had extensive use and is found widely in popular reference litera-
ture on European butterflies. Papilio aristeus Stoll is a Moluccan
species now placed in the genus Graphium Scopoli (PAPILIONI-
DAE). The Code as it now stands permits retention of the name
aristaeus and thus contributes to stability. Mr Kudma’s proposal
would lead to aristaeus being replaced.

3. There is, however, an alternative solution to the etymologi-
cal problem. We suggest that, as in the case of genus-group names,
even a one-letter difference in spelling (such as those listed in
Article 58) is sufficient to differentiate a species-group name for the
purposes of primary homonymy. Confusion of the user of nomen-
clature by such small spelling differences arises only when such
species-group names come together in current generic combinations.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

4. We therefore propose that the first paragraph of Article 58
be redrafted as follows:

‘Minor variant spellings deemed to be homoyms. — When

species-group names that differ in spelling in any of the

following respects are treated as congeneric, they are deemed

to be secondary homonyms.’

5. This proposal is supported by B.L. d’Abrera, D.S. Fletcher,
S.H. Halsey, W.G. Tremewan, P.E.S. Whalley and E.P. Wiltshire.
The following supported Mr Kudrma’s original proposal but on
reflection consider the above proposal to be a better solution to the
problem: P. Ackery, J.D. Bradley, D.J. Carter, A.H. Hayes, I.W.B.
Nye, A.D. Palmer, R.D. Pope, M. Shaffer, R. Smiles, R.I. Vane-
Wright, A. Watson.

AUTHORS’ NOTE

In circulating this proposal among colleagues, we en-
countered a variety of opinions. Some felt we should have gone
further and sought to remove Article 58 altogether, or sought to
restrict homonymy purely to names in current combinations, i.e.
secondary homonymy. Others felt that it would be unwise to
separate the concepts of primary and secondary homonymy in the
manner we suggest or pointed out that our proposal might create
problems with regard to homonymy involving diacritic marks or
Article 30. Problems were also envisaged where primary homonyms
have already been established under Article 58 but would be
revoked by acceptance of our proposal.

The acceptance or rejection of any proposal for changes to
Article 58 may turn on the relative proportions of
(a) primary homonyms already established under Article

(b) the likely number of such still to be discovered; and
(c) the proportion of (a) and (b) in current combinations.

A case can be made for retaining the Code as it stands in
the hope that the phrase ‘of the same origin and meaning’ will
provide a loophole whereby, when the etymological situation is
unclear, a taxonomist can arbitrate in the interests of stability. We
therefore submit our proposal to the Commission to ensure that all
alternatives are considered along with that of Mr Kudrna as it is
evident that most of the signatories to his proposal have had second
thoughts about it.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17

(2) Comment on Draft Article 10e, Names for primary divisions
of genera. By W.O. Cernohorsky (Auckland Institute and Museum,
Auckland, New Zealand)

I am particularly concerned with the proposal in Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 35: 78 on the interpretation of Draft Article 10e, ‘Names
for primary divisions of genera’.

2.1 would say that about 20 per cent of all molluscan generic
names were proposed as secondary and tertiary divisions of genera,
and such genus-group names, provided at least one nominal species-
group taxon was associated with them, have always been considered
by malacologists as validly established, provided that the genus-
group name was properly latinised and met other requirements of
availability. One could cite as a typical example Thiele’s Handbuch
der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1929—1935, where the author
recognises genera, subgenera and sections. Numerous new genus-
group names have been proposed as ‘sections’ in this work, for
instance:

: 324: Section Proneritula n. sect. Type species, by mono-

typy, N. (P.) westerlundi (Brusina)

: 333: Section Olivellopsis n. sect. Type species, by mono-

typy, B. (O.) simplex (Pease)
and there are many others.

3. Needless to say, if the word ‘primary’ were retained and
strictly interpreted, the effect on molluscan nomenclature would be
not merely disturbing, it would produce chaos. It should also be
made clear that such a name, if meeting the other requirements for
availability, and whether proposed generically, subgenerically or
infrasubgenerically, for one or more species (the proposal mentions
only ‘a group of species’) should be considered valid.

THE CASE FOR MULTIPLE TYPE SPECIMENS IN PARASITIC
PROTOZOA. Z.N.(G.) 185

By P.C.C. Garnham, R.S. Bray and R. Killick-Kendrick (Jmperial
College Field Station, Ashurst Lodge, Ascot, Berks SL5 7DE, U.K.)

For the past seven years or more, protozoologists have

expressed a desire for a change in the Code in special connection
with Articles 72—74. The present situation is that it is practically

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

impossible to designate a single individual as the type of a species,
particularly in the Class formerly known as the Sporozoa and now
termed Apicomplexa (Levine, 1970). This group includes the
economically and medically important malaria parasites, coccidia
and piroplasms.

2. Accordingly, in 1977, the International Commission on
Protozoology, during the V International Congress of Protozoology
in New York, appointed a committee to consider the question and
propose amendments to the Code. The report of this committee
was approved by the International Congress of Parasitology in
Warsaw in September 1978 and is published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol.
35: 200—208.

3. There is little doubt that the unsuitability of Chapter XVI
of the Code has been responsible for the reluctance of most proto-
zoologists to deposit type specimens in museum collections
(Garnham, 1977). There exists a very special need for a base line
from which to compare species and subspecies, and a single in-
dividual or even a clone of a number of individuals on a slide is
often insufficient for the identification of the species. The
suggested changes in the Code do not imply that the types of all
new species of protozoa must be multiple (hapantotypes); but in
species with complicated life cycles, the essential criteria for identi-
fication are in many cases multiple and only to be seen in prepara-
tions showing different stages — which, however, must be directly
related. It is only the combination of characters that enables a
species to be defined and firm identifications to be made. It is
seldom that a single individual will suffice in the Apicomplexa.

4.In most cases, it is necessary to have several directly
related stages before a type can be designated. In the genus Plas-
modium it is impossible to construct a running synoptic key and
instead, as in botany, a tabular key is necessary where, for example,
given 12 features, one species possesses five and another seven, but
the two that differ are shared by a third species with nine of the
features but lacking a feature common to the first two species. Here
a multiple type specimen is necessary.

5. Few type specimens have been designated in the past, and
so little original material exists that neohapantotypes are necessary
for most of the organisms. There seems no reason why the neoha-
pantotype should not include characters not noted by the original
observer, but that became obvious later when the multiple stages of
the life cycle had been worked out.

6.In the groups with which we are here concerned, there
must be many hundreds of species for which types should be
deposited, so that comparisons are possible and exact identifica-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19

tions can be made. The material itself is necessary ; the original des-
cription alone may be inadequate: a feature subsequently recog-
nised as having critical importance may have been overlooked. If
the original type slide is available, a comparison can be made. For
example, when Schwetz described Plasmodium fallax in 1930, he
made no mention of vacuoles. These were subsequently found to be
characteristic of the species and enabled P. gundersi to be differen-
tiated from it; in all other respects the two species are identical
(Bray, 1962). If the description alone had been available, it would
have been impossible to make the distinction. Fortunately, in this
case Schwetz’s original material was extant. This is an instance where
a single, suitably chosen preparation might well serve the function
of a type.

7. There are very many examples of species that need a com-
bination of characters of different stages for their identification.
Five are given below:

(1) Plasmodium ovale Stephens, 1910, and P. vivax (Grassi
& Felletti, 1890): The blood stages of these two para-
sites may look the same, and for 20 years Wenyon
refused to accept the validity of the former; then in
1932 James and others demonstrated a characteristic
difference in the morphology of the respective oocysts
in the mosquito host (a different type of pigment distri-
bution) and later still (Garnham and others, 1955) the
exoerythrocytic stages in the parenchyma cells of the
liver of man were also found to be different. However,
neither the mosquito stages nor the liver stages alone
would be sufficient for identification, for other parasites
show similar features, although in them the blood stages
differ.

(2) The identification of the rodent malaria parasites
depends very much on a comparison of the features in
the exoerythrocytic and sporogonic stages; the blood
forms may be identical. For example, the blood forms
of P. berghei and P. yoelii are indistinguishable, but the
species can be recognised by the length of the sporo-
zoites (Killick-Kendrick, 1974). But a sporozoite alone
cannot satisfactorily be used as a type specimen because
it could not be distinguished from a sporozoite of many
other species of malaria parasites. The sporozoite only
has value if it has been shown to have arisen from a
parasite with the characteristics of the berghei group.
The separate identities of P. berghei and P. yoelii are
now generally accepted not solely on the length of the

(3)

(4)

(5)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

sporozoites, but also on the rate of growth and mor-
phology of the exoerythrocytic schizonts, and the size
of the mature oocyst. Marked differences in isoenzymes
(Beale and others, 1978) offer another critical feature
for differentiating these two species and others in the
berghei species-complex.

Subspecific differences are often only revealed by ob-
serving the complete life cycle. Plasmodium relictum
matutinum can only be differentiated from P. r. relic-
tum by the presence of characteristic vacuoles in the
cytoplasm of phanerozoites in the former (Corradetti
and others, 1962); similar vacuoles are found in P.
gallinaceum, but the blood stages are different — so here
again it would be impossible to select a phanerozoite
alone as the type specimen.

Characteristic features may not be apparent in a single
blood film. Thus, typical schizonts may be present on
one day, typical trophozoites on another, and typical
gametocytes on yet another, e.g. in P. falciparum and
P. cathemerium. Also the typical quartan, tertian, or
quotidian course of development in the blood (from the
ring stage to the mature schizont in the phase of asexual
multiplication) will only be revealed by examining suc-
cessive specimens at daily intervals for at least four days.
This is a critical distinction between P. knowlesi one
day) and P. coatneyi (two days) where the morphology
of the blood forms may be indistinguishable (though in
other species the blood stages may be distinctive).

The isosporan coccidial parasites, formerly placed in the
Toxoplasmatea, present a particularly difficult problem,
owing to the fact that their two stages, in different
hosts, had been placed in separate genera (see Levine,
1977). This is a separate problem, but the hapantotype
concept is also involved, because identification of the
species again depends upon the morphological charac-
ters of both stages. Thus from a genus (Sarcocystis) with
two hosts and distinctive stages in each, let us take three
species, A, B and C. In one host (a prey host), A and B
are morphologically indistinguishable but C is different;
while in the second host (a predator host), A and C are
indistinguishable but B is different. It therefore requires
both forms to define the species and a multiple type
specimen is necessary. This is illustrated in the following
table:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21

Sarcocyst in Sporocyst in
Parasite species prey host predator host
A. Sarcocystis muris thin walled 8.5 x 10.3um
(in the mouse) (in the cat)
B. S. cruzi (synonym S. bovicanis) thin walled 10.8 x 16.3um
(in the ox) (in the dog)
C. S. hirsuta (synonym S. bovifelis) thick walled 7.8 x 12.5um
(in the ox) (in the cat)

In the first two parasites the sarcocysts in the prey are indistinguishable by
light microscopy and in the first and last the range of measurements of the
sporocysts in the predator overlaps.

8. It is therefore our contention that most species in the Api-
complexa cannot be defined by reference to a unique type speci-
men and that a multiple type specimen is essential to the definition
of what are perfectly good species. We prefer the hapantotype
concept to any system based on a holotype supported by paratypes,
or on syntypes, because we frequently find that a single preparation
may contain a number of organisms, each indispensable and of
equal importance in the definition of the species.

REFERENCES

BEALE, G.H., CARTER, R. & WALLIKER, D. 1978. Genetics, Chapter 5 in
Rodent malaria (Killick-Kendrick & Peters eds.) Academic Press,
London, 406 pp.

BRAY, R.S. 1962. On the parasitic protozoa of Liberia. VII. Haemosporidia of
owls. Arch. Inst. Pasteur Algérie, vol. 40: 201—207

CORRADETTI, A., MORCOS, W.M. & NERI, I. 1962. Sulla produzione di
forme endoistocitarie nei canarini infettati con il ceppo italiano di
Plasmodium matutinum derivato di Turdus iliacus. Parassitologia, vol.
4: 105—108

GARNHAM, P.C.C., BRAY, R.S., COOPER, W., LAINSON, R., AWAD, F.I. &
WILLIAMSON, J. 1955. The preerythrocytic stage of Plasmodium
ovale. Trans. roy. Soc. trop. Med. Hygiene, vol. 47: 158—167

GARNHAM, P.C.C. 1969. The preservation of type specimens of protozoa
with special reference to the Haemosporidia. Parassitologia, vol. 11:
1-8

JAMES, S.P., NICOL, W.D. & SHUTE, P.G. 1932. Plasmodium ovale Stephens:
passage of the parasite through mosquitoes and successful transmission
by their bite. Ann. trop. Med. Parasitol., vol. 26: 139—145

KILLICK-KENDRICK, R. 1974. Parasitic protozoa of the blood of rodents. I:
The life-cycle and zoogeography of Plasmodium berghei nigeriensis
subsp. nov. Ann. trop. Med. Parasitol., vol. 67: 261—277

LEVINE, N. 1970. Taxonomy of the protozoa. J. Parasitol., vol. 56(II):

208—209

1977. Nomenclature of Sarcocystis in the ox and sheep and of faecal

coccidia of the dog and cat. J. Parasitol., vol. 63: 36—51

22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1125
CERATOPHYLLUS SORICIS DALE, 1878 (INSECTA;
SIPHONAPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all fixations of type specimen for the nominal species
Ceratophyllus sorecis {sic] Dale, 1878, hitherto made are hereby
set aside and the neotype designated by Smit, 1960, is hereby
designated as type of that species;

(b) the spelling soricis is hereby ruled to be the correct
original spelling of the specific name published as sorecis Dale,
1878, in the binomen Ceratophyllus sorecis.

(2) The specific name soricis Dale, 1878, as defined by
reference to the neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)
(a) above, and as ruled to be the correct original spelling under the
plenary powers in (1) (b) above of the specific name in the binomen
Ceratophyllus soricis, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2661.

(3) The specific name sorecis Dale, 1878, as published in
the binomen Ceratophyllus sorecis (an incorrect original spelling by
reason of the ruling under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) is
hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1047.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1618

An application for the stabilisation of the name Cerato-
phyllus soricis Dale, 1878 was first received from Mr G.H.E.
Hopkins (Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., U.K.) on 18 June
1965. It was sent to the printer on 12 August 1965 and printed on
2 November 1965 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22: 233—234. Public
Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory
serials and to seven entomological serials. Dr Holthuis commented
that the spelling soricis could only be validated by the use of the
plenary powers, and that the original type material could not, as
such, be set aside. Both these points were taken into account in
drafting the ruling here given.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 4 September 1967 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1967) 37 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 22: 234. At the close of the voting period on 4 December 1967
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20), received in the following
order: China, Lemche, Holthuis, Simpson, Vokes, Obruchev,
Sabrosky, do Amaral, Mayr, Ride, Brinck, Munroe, Bonnet,
Alvarado, Boschma, Binder, Uchida, Mertens, Forest, Kraus

Negative Votes — none (0)

Leave of Absence — Evans.

Late affirmative votes were received from Tortonese and
Jaczewski.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following is the original reference to a name placed on an
Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present
Opinion:
soricis (correction under the plenary powers of sorecis),
Ceratophyllus, Dale, 1878, History of Glanville’s Wootton in the
County of Dorset: 321

The following is the original reference to a designation of
neotype ratified under the plenary powers by the ruling given in the
present Opinion: of the specimen designated by Smit, 1960
(August: Bull. brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.), Entom. vol. 9: expl. fig. 10,
p. 378; October, Ent. Gazette, vol. 11: 197) for Ceratophyllus
soricis Dale, 1878.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (67)37 were cast
as set out above, that the proposals contained in that voting paper
have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1125.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

17 October 1978

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1126
TANAGRA CYANEA LINNAEUS, 1766 (AVES) CONSERVED

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name
cyanea Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Loxia cyanea, is
hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and
the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The type locality of Fringilla brissonii Lichtenstein,
1823, is hereby ruled to be Bahia, Brazil.

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified:

(a) brissonii Lichtenstein, 1823, as published in the
binomen Fringilla brissonii (Name Number 2662) with
an endorsement that the type locality of the species is
Bahia, Brazil [see note at end of Ruling] ;

(b) cyanea Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen
Tanagra cyanea (Name Number 2663).

(4) The specific name cyanea Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the binomen Loxia cyanea, and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1048.

[Note on the above Ruling]

[The Commission, when asked to vote on the type locality of
Fringilla brissonii Lichtenstein, 1823, was not asked to place that
name on the Official List. However, as (a) that name becomes the
valid name of the South American Ultramarine Grosbeak through
the suppression of Loxia cyanea Linnaeus, 1758, (b) the request
concerning the type locality was accepted, (c) there is no “Official
List of Type Localities’, and (d) it is necessary to register the
Commission’s ruling in some way or another, I have concluded that
an entry in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for
Fringilla brissonii Lichtenstein, 1823 is implicit in that ruling.
R.V.M. 24 October 1978]

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1929

An application for the conservation of Tanagra cyanea
Linnaeus, 1766, was first received from Dr E. Eisenmann, Dr R.A.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25

Paynter, Jr. and [the late] Charles Vaurie (all of the American
Museum of Natural History, New York) on 18 May 1970. It was
sent to the printer on | July 1970 and published on 29 March 1971
in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 27: 259—261. Public Notice of the possible
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to six ornitho-
logical serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 28 February 1973 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1973)6 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol.
27: 261. At the close of the voting period on 28 May 1973 the state
of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22) received in the
following order: Holthuis, Eisenmann, Lemche, Mayr, Simpson,
Corliss, Vokes, Habe, Alvarado (conditional), Rohdendorf, Melville,
Willink, Starobogatov, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Heppell, Nye, Binder,
Brinck, Bernardi, Bayer, Ride

Negative Vote — Dupuis.

A late affirmative vote was received from Kraus. No voting
paper was returned by Erben.

Dupuis and Ride commented as follows:

Dupuis: “On ne peut supprimer un nom linnéen de 1758 sous
prétexte qu’un zoologiste pense pouvoir réunir deux genres.”

Ride: “The amendment to Article 74a(ii) which was adopted
at Monaco (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29: 181) makes it clear that the
request to fix the type locality should be achieved by the selection
of a neotype if stability is to be reached. The applicants do not
make it clear whether a type exists. If there is no type, the
applicants can be asked to select a neotype from Bahia. If there is
already a type, the Commission may need to annul its selection and
replace it with another.”

Dr Ride’s comment was sent to Dr Eisenmann, who replied:
“The purpose of our application was to avoid the confusion that
would have resulted from the transfer of the name Passerina cyanea
(Linnaeus, 1766) of the common North American Indigo Bunting,
to the South American Blue Grosbeak, Cyanocompsa cyanea
(Linnaeus, 1758) as a result of the generic merger proposed by
Paynter. To accomplish this, the earlier specific name was
suppressed by exercise of the plenary powers and the next oldest
name available for the Brazilian species, based on Fringilla brissonii
Lichtenstein, 1823, was adopted. Loxia cyanea Linnaeus, 1758, had
had its type locality restricted to Bahia, Brazil; we asked that the
type locality of Lichtenstein’s brissonii be similarly restricted, as

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

had been done tentatively by Hellmayr in 1938.

“The Monaco amendment to Art. 74 as to selection of a
lectotype superseding previous restrictions presents no problems, so
far as I can see. This provision applies only to a situation where
there are syntypes, i.e. where there is a type series but no holotype.
Lichtenstein, in describing Fringilla brissonii, had no syntypes or
type series. He was merely giving a binominal name to Loxia
caerulea var 8 Gmelin Syst. Nat. ed. 13, vol. 1 (2): 863, which was
solely based on Brisson’s description of the “Bouvreuil bleu du
Brésil”’ (Orn. vol. 3: 321, pl. 17, fig. 2). There is no indication that
Brisson (to honour whom Lichtenstein named the bird brissonii)
had a series of specimens of the Brazilian species he described. So
there is no danger that someone will select a lectotype of a sub-
species not found in Bahia. As to selecting a neotype, I can see no
justification for this. If Brisson’s holotype should be found here-
after of his “Bouvreuil bleu du Brésil’ and could be proved to be a
subspecies different from that found in Bahia, it would supersede
the neotype, but no harm would result, for the specific name
brissonii would still be the oldest (as a result of the suppression of
the Linnean cyanea, 1758), so I can see no value in trying to
provide a neotype, and I would have to engage in a great deal of
futile work to comply with the Code provisions relating to
neotypes.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the
present Opinion:
brissonii, Fringilla, Lichtenstein, 1823, Verz. Doubl. Berliner Mus.:

pies
cyanea, Loxia, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. ed. 10: 174
cyanea, Tanagra, Linnaeus, 1766, Syst. Nat. ed. 12: 315.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (73)6 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1126.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London 24 October 1978

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27

OPINION 1127
PLANARIA MONTENIGRINA MRAZEK, 1904
(PLATYHELMINTHES) GIVEN NOMENCLATURAL
PRECEDENCE OVER PHAGOCATA CORNUTA
SHISHKOV, 1903

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled
that the specific name montenigrina Mrazek, 1904, as published in
the binomen Planaria montenigrina, is to be given nomenclatural
precedence over the specific name cornuta Shishkov, as published
in the binomen Phagocata cornuta, whenever those two names are
regarded as synonyms.

(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
and endorsements specified:

(a) montenigrina Mrazek, 1904, as published in the
binomen Planaria montenigrina (Name Number 2664),
with an endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural
precedence over the specific name cornuta Shishkov,
1903, as published in the binomen Phagocata cornuta
whenever those two names are regarded as synonyms;

(b) cornuta Shishkov, 1903, as published in the binomen
Phagocata cornuta (Name Number 2665), with an
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the
specific name montenigrina Mrazek, 1904, as published
in the binomen Planaria montenigrina, whenever those
two names are regarded as synonyms.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2079

An application for the conservation of Planaria montenigrina
Mrazek, 1904 (Platyhelminthes) was first received from Dr Roman
Kenk (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.
20560, USA) on 5 February 1973. After correspondence with the
applicant it was sent to the printer on 14 January 1974 and pub-
lished on 31 July 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31: 62—63. Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory
serials. Support was received from Dr Ian R. Ball (Royal Ontario
Museum, Toronto, Canada). No adverse comment was received.

The original application had been for the suppression of
Phagocata cornuta Shishkov, 1903, for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. In February

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1978 Dr Kenk was asked if he would accept the use of the “relative
precedence” procedure in his application, and he agreed to do so.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)9 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 31: 62. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the
state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Vokes,
Sabrosky, Cogger, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado,
Corliss, Starobogatov, Heppell, Welch, Bayer

Negative Votes — four (4): Brinck, Habe, Bernardi, Ride

No votes were returned by Dupuis and Kraus.

The following comments were returned by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Brinck: “I cannot see that the ‘outstanding’ papers are so
outstanding that they (and previous usage) should deprive cornuta
of its rights.”

Sabrosky: “I was disturbed at first by the apparent disregard
by so many authors of the synonymy of montenigrina under
cornuta. However, Dr Kenk has shown me that for many years the
species were referred to the genus Planaria, and in this genus
cornuta Shishkov was preoccupied two or three times over as a
junior secondary homonym, hence authors naturally adopted
montenigrina’’.

Habe: “Shishkov stated that Planaria montenigrina Mrazek
was a synonym of Phagocata cornuta Shishkov. Therefore
Shishkov’s name should be preserved to science.”

Heppell: “I vote for the proposal only in that I vote for the
addition of montenigrina Mrazek to the Official List. If this does
not give the name precedence over cornuta Shishkov and any other
presumed synonyms then the status of names on the Official Lists
must be reviewed as a matter of urgency to return to the Commis-
sion’s original intention of ensuring protection for the listed
names.”

Bernardi: “Il me semble d’aprés le texte de Kenk que cornuta
date de 1903 et montenigrina de 1904. Comme il s’agit d’étres
vivants sans importance économique je préfére appliquer simple-
ment la loi de Priorité et utiliser cornuta.”

Welch: “This is an appropriate application of the ‘relative
precedence’ principle, for the original argument of synonymy seems
weak. Some personal observations would have been welcome

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29

supportive evidence for the applicant’s literature review. Valkanov
(1938) seems to be the last paper on the usage of Phagocata
cornuta, though we are not told that this is so. The question arises
in my mind whether an opponent of the application could give a list
of recent usages of Phagocata cornuta? A comment on this point by
the applicant would have been helpful.”

Ride: “The name is not an unused name. The case is one of a
well known junior subjective synonym that may be threatened by a
less used senior name. Some taxonomic research should be done
before the Commission acts.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
cornuta, Phagocata, Shishkov, 1903, Archs Zool. exp. gen. (4), vol.

1: 401—409, pl. 16
montenigrina, Planaria, Mrdzek, 1904, Sitzungsber. k. bdhm. Ges.

Wiss., Math.-Nat. K1., Jahrg. 1903 (33), 43pp., 2 pls.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)9 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1127.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

6 November 1978

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

BUCEPHALUS BAER, 1827, AND B. POLYMORPHUS
BAER, 1827 (TREMATODA); PROPOSED USE OF THE
PLENARY POWERS TO CONSERVE THESE NAMES IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL USE.
Z.NAS.) 2251

By Barbara Baturo (Research Centre for Parasitology,
Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract. - Recent work on trematode parasites of freshwater fishes has
shown that, if the Law of Priority is strictly applied, the species commonly
known as Rhipidocotyle illensis (Ziegler, 1883) Vejnar, 1956, must be known
as R. polymorphus (Baer, 1827) and the forgotten name Gasterostomum
fimbriatum Siebold, 1848 must be applied to the species widely known as
Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827. At the same time, the well known
generic name Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 must fall as a synonym of
Bucephalus Baer, 1827, and the forgotten name Gasterostomum Siebold, 1848
must be revived for the genus known at present as Bucephalus. The Commis-
sion is asked to take the necessary steps to prevent these changes being made.

In European freshwater fishes there are two common species
of trematodes of the family BUCEPHALIDAE, known as
Bucephalus polymorphus, Baer, 1827 and Rhipidocotyle illensis
(Ziegler, 1883) Vejnar, 1956. It has been assumed that Bucephalus
polymorphus develops from the cercaria described under this name
by Baer in 1827, but the cercaria of the trematode now known by
that name has not yet been described, although it was figured by
Kinkelin (1968).

2. While studying the biology of these two species, both of
which occur in Poland, I examined bivalves (the first intermediate
host), cyprinid fishes (the second intermediate host) and predatory
fishes (the definitive host); I found two different cercariae from
which I experimentally obtained metacercariae of two species, but
the metacercaria of Rhipidocotyle illensis developed from cercariae
identical with those described by Baer as Bucephalus polymorphus.
Detailed data on the morphology of all developmental stages can be
found in Baturo (1977).

3. As a result of this study it has become necessary to set in

order the names of these two species of Trematoda. For stability of
nomenclature it is necessary to maintain the names commonly used

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31

and accepted in all keys, textbooks and monographs: the generic
name Bucephalus and the specific name B. polymorphus for the
species known under this name; the other species, which belongs to
the genus Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858, should under the Law of
Priority be known as R. campanula (Dujardin, 1845). The history
of the case is as follows.

4. Baer (1827:570—589) established the genus Bucephalus
for the new species B. polymorphus (the type species by mono-
typy). He based the description on sporocysts and cercariae from
the bivalves Anodonta mutabilis Clessin and Unio pictorum
Linnaeus.

5.In 1845 Félix Dujardin described from the intestine of
Esox lucius Linnaeus small adult trematodes which, according to
the author, represent the same species as metacercariae that he had
formerly found on the branchia of Cyprinus idus Linnaeus. He
classified them in the genus Distoma and gave the new name cam-
panula. The description of the anterior organ given by Dujardin
suggests that he was dealing with the adult trematode known today
under the name Rhipidocobtyle illensis (Ziegler, 1883).

6. Siebold (1848) gave the first short description of the adult
trematode from the intestine of Perca fluviatilis Linnaeus and
Lucioperca sp. and erected the new genus Gasterostomum for it
with the new species fimbriatum. Siebold expressed the assumption
that the cercaria described by Baer was a larva of this adult stage.

7. Wagener (1852, 1857, 1858) gave in his works a more
accurate description of Gasterostomum fimbriatum, together with
drawings of the trematodes. He states that the trematode G.
fimbriatum that he found is characterised by five tentacles on the
anterior organ. In his next work he presented drawings of the
trematode described and said that G. fimbriatum Siebold was
probably a synonym of Bucephalus polymorphus Baer. A year later
Wagener considered G. fimbriatum Siebold and Distoma campanula
Dujardin to be synonyms of B. polymorphus. He regarded G.
eur Siebold as a sexually mature, tailless B. polymorphus

aer.

8. Ever since Wagener’s papers, the view has been adopted
that the adult trematode G. fimbriatum Siebold, characterised by
the presence of long tentacles on the anterior sucker, develops from
the cercariae described under the name Bucephalus polymorphus.
Diesing questioned this view in 1858, but by reason of erroneous
interpretations by this author in other matters, his works have not
been taken into account.

9.In 1883 Ziegler obtained metacercariae experimentally by
infecting Leuciscus erythrophthalmus Linnaeus with B. poly-
morphus cercariae developed in Anodonta mutabilis Clessin from

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

the Ile river. In describing and illustrating the material obtained, he
pointed out the morphological differences between the specimens
reared and G. fimbriatum Siebold, but he did not determine
unequivocally the specific distinction of these two forms. He stipu-
lated, however, that in case the differences observed by him should
prove to be specific differences, he proposed to call the reared form
Gasterostomum illense.

10. Liihe (1909) considered G. fimbriatum as a synonym of
B. polymorphus Baer, but the description and drawing included in
the key correspond to illensis. Similarly Eckmann (1932) acknow-
ledged the existence of only one species, recognising G. fimbriatum
as a synonym of B. polymorphus and questioning whether the form
obtained by Ziegler was a separate species.

11. A return to the former concept of the occurrence of more
than one species of BUCEPHALIDAE in European freshwater fishes
dates from the work of Koval (1949), who recorded two species in
the fishes of the River Dnieper. She described one of them as a new
species, Bucephalus markewitschi, and used the name B. poly-
morphus Baer for the second species, which corresponded with G.
illense.

12. This proposition was not accepted, and Vejnar (1956), for
example, predicating the existence of two species of trematodes in
Percid fishes, regarded the form with tentacles as B. polymorphus
Baer and identified the other species with the forms described by
Ziegler. He transferred this species to the genus Rhipidocotyle
Diesing, 1858, using the combination Rhipidocotyle illense [sic],
(Ziegler, 1883). Vejnar’s view was supported by Kozicka (1959),
who included in her work the history of the study of one of these
trematodes, together with detailed descriptions and drawings of
adult worms of both species. Kozicka treated the name B. marke-
witschi Koval as a synonym of B. polymorphus Baer. The characters
mentioned by Kozicka as differentiating the two species have
become key characters and are quoted in all recent monographs and
keys (e.g. Skrjabin, 1962, Trematody zhivotnych i cheloveka;
Yamaguti, 1971, Synopsis of Digenetic Trematodes of Vertebrates;
Bykovskij, 1962, Opredelitel’ parazitov preznovodnych ryb SSSR;
Ergens & Lom, 1970, Puvodci parasitarnich nemoci ryb.

13. Dollfus (1968) discussed the problems of synonymy once
again. Presenting the documentation of the manuscript of the
chapter on Trematodes from Dujardin’s L ‘histoire naturelle des
Helminthes, he drew attention to the likeness of the drawing of
Distoma campanula made by Dujardin to R. illensis and proposed
the new combination Rhipidocotyle campanula (Dujardin, 1845)
for this species.

‘14. Finally, it is necessary to mention the paper by Kinkelin

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33

and others (1968) who, in a study of the pathogenic effects of B.
polymorphus cercariae, presented photographs of three develop-
mental stages of this trematode. Cercariae from Dreissena poly-
morpha Pallas differ from B. polymorphus cercariae drawn by Baer.
The metacercariae and adult are characterised by finger-like ten-
tacles on the anterior sucker. Although the authors did not discuss
this problem in their paper, thanks to their correct documentation
the adult stage with finger-like tentacles on the anterior sucker was
for the first time associated with its corresponding cercaria. My
study confirms that these are successive developmental stages of
one species.

15. Thus, according to the Law of Priority, the species
commonly known as Rhipidocotyle illensis (Ziegler, 1883) Vejnar,
1956, whose adult develops from cercariae described by Baer
(1827), should bear the name polymorphus Baer, 1827, while the
forgotten name fimbriatum Siebold, 1848, should be restored for
the species widely known as Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827.
At the same time, it is necessary to regard the generic name
Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858, as a synonym of Bucephalus Baer,
1827, and to validate the forgotten name Gasterostomum Siebold,
1848, for the genus known at present as Bucephalus.

16. The introduction of such changes, though in accordance
with the Law of Priority, disagrees with the principle of stability
and universality of nomenclature. The key characters of trematodes
are based on the morphology of the adults and metacercariae, not
on the cercariae. Likewise, most data in the literature concern these
two developmental stages. Both species are common parasites of
fishes and are widely met as metacercariae and adults. For many
practising parasitologists the cercariae from which the metacercariae
and adults develop are often unknown — as witness the paper by
Kinkelin and others (1968), in which the authors, presenting ade-
quate photographic documentation, did not observe the fact that
they were dealing with unknown cercariae. Strict application of the
Law of Priority to the nomenclature of these common fish parasites
will lead to much confusion and erroneous identification of
material.

17. Through the cooperation of Dr G. Hartwich, syntypes of
G. fimbriatum Siebold, 1848, prepared by Eckmann (1932) have
been found in the Zoological Museum, Humboldt University,
Berlin. By designating one of these as the lectotype of G. fimbria-
tum (and I hereby so designate microscopic preparation No. 1655b)
and also as the neotype of Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827,
stability of nomenclature can be assured. This latter action, how-
ever, can only be taken by the Commission using its plenary

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

powers, because the proposed neotype does not agree “with what is
known of the original type-material” as is required under Article
75c(4).

18. Before putting precise proposals to the Commission, it is
necessary to clarify the status of the genus Rhipidocotyle Diesing,
1858. This was proposed by Diesing (1858: 313, 361) with two
included species, Distoma gracilescens Rudolphi, 1819: 111, 409,
and Gasterostomum minimum Wagener, 1852: 558, neither of
which was designated as type species. According to Eckmann,
1932: 99, Stiles & Hassall “1906” [sic; correctly 1908: 358] were
the first authors to designate a type species, and chose gracilescens.
However, Stiles & Hassall only said “(type probably gracilescens)”,
and that cannot be accepted as a valid designation. Nicoll, 1914:
490, definitely designated Gasterostomum minimum Wagener,
1852: 558, and that stands as the first valid designation of a
nominal type species for Rhipidocotyle. The valid name for this
species is R. galeata (Rudolphi) (Monostoma galeatum Rudolphi,
1819: 86).

19. Accordingly, the International Commission is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of
type specimen hitherto made for the nominal species
Bucephalus polymorphus and to designate microscopic
preparation No. 1655b in the Zoological Museum,
Humboldt University, Berlin, as neotype of that species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in

Zoology:

(a) Bucephalus Baer, 1827 (gender, masculine), type
species, by monotypy, Bucephalus polymorphus
Baer, 1827;

(b) Rhipidocotyle Diesing, 1858 (gender: feminine),
type species, by subsequent designation by Nicoll,
1914, Gasterostomum minimum Wagener, 1852;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in

Zoology:

(a) the specific name polymorphus Baer, 1827, as
published in the binomen Bucephalus polymorphus
(specific name of type species, as defined by the
neotype designated under the plenary powers in (1)
above, of Bucephalus Baer, 1827);

(b) the specific name galeatum Rudolphi, as published
in the binomen Monostoma galeatum;

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in

Zoology the family name BUCEPHALIDAE Poche,

1907 (type genus Bucephalus Baer, 1827).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35

I should like to express my gratitude to Miss G. Supel for her
help in translating my work, and to Docent Dr hab. M.
Mroczkowski for his advice in formulating my application.

REFERENCES

BAER, K. 1827. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der niedern Tiere. Nova Acta Acad.
Nat. Curios., vol. 13: 523—562.

BATURO, B. 1977. Bucephalus polymorphus Baer, 1827, and Rhipidocotyle
illense (Ziegler, 1883) (Trematoda, Bucephalidae): morphology and
biology of developmental stages. Acta parasit. polonica, vol. 24:
203—220.

BYKHOVSKIJ, B.E. (Editor). 1962. Opredelitel’ parazitov presnovodnykh ryb
SSSR. Izd. ALN.SSSR, Moscow and Leningrad, 776 pp.

DIESING, C.M. 1836. Monographie der Gattungen Amphistoma und Diplo-
discus. Ann. Wiener Mus. Naturg., vol. 1: 235—260.

—_._ 1850. Systema Helminthum, vol. 1. Vindobonae.

—_._ 1858. Revision der Myzhelminthen. Abtheilung: Trematoda. Sber. k.
Akad. Wiss. Wien, Math.-nat. Cl., vol. 32: 307—390.

DOLLFUS, R.P. 1968. Les Trématodes de |’Histoire naturelle des Helminthes
de Félix Dujardin (1845). Mém. Mus. nat. Hist. nat. Paris (A) vol: 54:
119-196.

DUJARDIN, F. 1845. Histoire naturelle des helminthes ou vers intestinaux.
Paris XII + 645 + 15 pp.

ECKMANN, F. 1932. Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Trematodenfamilie Buceph-
alidae. Z. Parasitenk., Abt. F, vol. 5: 94—111.

ERGENS, R. & LOM, R. 1970. Puvodci parasitarnich nemocri ryb. Academia,
Prague, 384 pp.

KINKELIN, P. DE, TUFFREY, G., LEYNAUD, G. & ARRIGNON, J. 1968.
Etude épizootiologique de la bucéphalose larvaire (Bucephalus poly-
morphus) dans de peuplement piscicole du bassin de la Seine. Rech.
vétér., No. 1: 77-98.

KOVAL, V.P. 1959. Novyj vid Bucephalus v rybak Dnepra. Dokl. Akad. Nauk
SSSR, vol. 68: 205—208.

KOZICKA, J. 1959. Parasites of fishes of Druzno lake (Parasite fauna of the
biocenosis of Druzno lake — Part VIII). Acta parasit. polonica, vol. 7:
1—72.

LUHE, M. 1909. Parasitische Plattwiirmer. 1. Trematoden. Die Siisswasserfauna
Deutschlands (ed. A. Brauer), Heft 17,217 pp.

NICOLL, W. 1914. The trematode parasites of fishes from the English Channel.
J. mar. biol. Assoc. U.K. (2) vol. 10: 466—505.

PHILIPPI, F. de 1837. Descrizione di nuovi entozoi trovati in alcuni molluschi
d’acqua dolce. Bibi. ital., vol. 87: 333—340.

POCHE, F. 1907. Einige Bemerkungen zur Nomenclatur Trematoden. Zool.
Anz., vol. 31: 124—126.

RUDOLPHI, C.A. 1819. Entozoorum synopsis, cui accedunt mantissa et
indices locupletissimi. Berlin.

SIEBOLD, Th. C. 1848. Lehrbuch der vergleichende Anatomie der wirbellosen
Tiere, Th. 1. Berlin, XV + 679 pp.

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

SKRJABIN, K.I. 1962. Semejstvo Bucephalidae Poche, 1907. In Trematody
zhivotnykh i cheloveka (ed. K.I. Skrjabin), Izd. A.N. SSSR, Moscow
and Leningrad, vol. 20: 183—551.

STILES, C.W. & HASSALL, A. 1908. Index-catalogue of medical and
veterinary zoology. Subjects: Trematoda and trematode diseases.
Washington, D.C.

WAGENER, G.R. 1852. Enthelminthica III. Uber Distoma dimorpha Diesing,
Distoma marginatum Rud. Arch. Anat. Phys. Med. Jahrg 1852: 555—
569.

__ 1857. Beitrage zur Entwicklungs-Geschichte der Eingeweidewurmer.

Natuurk. Verh. holland. Maatsch. Vet., Haarlem, vol. 13: 1—112.

1858. Enthelminthica IV. Uber Distoma campanula (Gasterostomum

fimbriatum Siebold) Duj. und Monostomum bipartitum Wedl. Arch.

Naturges., vol. 24: 250—256.

VEJNAR, F. 1956. Prispevek k helminthofaune nasich okounovitych ryb. Sb.
vys. Sk. zemed. les. Fac. Brne (B), vol. 4 (25): 161—176.

YAMAGUTI, S. 1971. Synopsis of digenetic trematodes of vertebrates, I, II.
Keigaku Publishing Co., Tokyo.

ZIEGLER, H.E. 1883. Bucephalus und Gasterostomum. Z. wiss. Zool., vol. 39:
537-571.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37

PROHYSTEROCERAS SPATH, 1921, AND NEOKENTROCERAS
SPATH, 1921 (CEPHALOPODA, AMMONOIDEA); PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF TYPE SPECIES IN CONFORMITY WITH
ESTABLISHED USAGE. Z.N.(S.) 2254

By C.W. Wright and M.R. Cooper (Department of Geology
and Mineralogy, Parks Road, Oxford, England)

Two well-known genera in the widespread ammonite fauna of
the Albian stage of the Cretaceous both have by strict application
of the Code type species which are contrary to their author’s stated
intentions and which would (in the one case) or could (in the other)
alter the concepts of the genera established for a period of over
fifty years.

2.L.F. Spath erected the genus Prohysteroceras in the
following terms (1921: 286): “ .. . and with compressed forms
converging towards Prohysteroceras} goodhalli on the other” with
footnote “fGen. nov. Genotype P. wordiei nov., a new Angola
species of the candollianum-goodhalli group’’.

3. P. wordiei was only described in 1922 (: 143) and was a
nomen nudum in 1921; the species was thus ineligible as type
species of Prohysteroceras. Ammonites goodhalli J. Sowerby, 1820
(: 100), on the other hand, was a valid species and was included in
Prohysteroceras in 1921. Unless Spath’s reference to the “‘candol-
lianum-goodhalli group” makes Ammonites candollianus Pictet
(1847: 361) also an included species, A. goodhalli is, under the
Code, the type species of Prohysteroceras by monotypy.

4.Spath later (1932: 381) designated Ammonites goodhalli
type species of a new subgenus of Prohysteroceras which he named
Goodhallites and which he also included A. candollianus. Strictly
speaking, Goodhallites is an objective synonym of Prohysteroceras
(or a subjective synonym if A. candollianus were to be treated as an
originally included species and were to be designated type species of
Prohysteroceras). However, Goodhallites is a well-known, wide-
spread and distinct taxon and considerable confusion would be
caused if it had to be treated as a synonym of Prohysteroceras sensu
Stricto.

5. If established usage is to be preserved, the plenary powers
will have to be used, either to designate Prohysteroceras wordiei
Spath type species of Prohysteroceras, although it was only validly
published a year after the genus, or to set aside the establishment of
the genus Prohysteroceras in 1921, although it then included one

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(or two) previously described and valid species. The first alternative
seems preferable.

6. The case of Neokentroceras is similar. Spath introduced
the genus in the following terms: (1921: 306) “ .. . and Neoken-
troceras (gen. nov.*) gracillimum Kossmat sp.” with footnote
“* A post-Subschloenbachia development (Genotype = N. curvi-
cornu, nov., from Angola, allied to N. tectorium, White sp.)”. The
following year (Spath, 1922) he described a number of species of
Neokentroceras from Angola including (1922: 139) N. curvicornu,
again stated (: 105) to be the type species. That species has since

been generally accepted as type species, for example by Haas
(1942), Reyment (1955) and Howarth (1965) in works describing
species of Neokentroceras, and by Basse (1952) and Wright (1957)
in textbooks of palaeontology.

7. Unfortunately N. curvicornu was not validly described
until 1922 and as a nomen nudum in 1921 was ineligible as type
species. Two valid species, Schloenbachia gracillima Kossmat (1895:
188) and Ammonites tectorius White (1887: 225), were included in
Neokentroceras in 1921 and are eligible for selection as type
species in place of curvicornu. However, S. gracillima is almost
certainly not congeneric with N. curvicornu and A. tectorius is
possibly not. Thus selection of either as type species would throw
doubt on the interpretation of Neokentroceras.

8.If stability is to be preserved, therefore, the plenary
powers will have to be used either to designate N. curvicornu as
type species, although it was a nomen nudum in 1921, or to set
aside the establishment of the genus in 1921 although it then
included two valid species. The first alternative seems preferable.

9.The International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature is therefore invited, in order to maintain established usage:

(1) under the plenary powers to

(a) designate as type species of the genus Prohystero-
ceras Spath, 1921, the species Prohysteroceras
wordiei Spath, 1922;

(b) designate as type species of the genus Neokentro-
ceras Spath, 1921, the species Neokentroceras
curvicornu Spath, 1922;

(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List

of Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921 (gender: neuter), type
species by designation under the plenary powers in
(1) (a) above, Prohysteroceras wordiei Spath, 1922;

(b) Neokentroceras Spath, 1921 (gender: neuter), type
species, by designation under the plenary powers in
(1) (b) above, Neokentroceras curvicornu Spath,
1922:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) wordiei Spath, 1922, as published in the binomen
Prohysteroceras wordiei (specific name of type
species of Prohysteroceras Spath, 1921);

(b) curvicornu Spath, 1922, as published in the bino-
men Neokentroceras curvicornu (specific name of
type species of Neokentroceras Spath, 1921).

REFERENCES

BASSE, E. 1952. Classe des Céphalopodes: 461—688 in PIVETEAU, J. [ed.],
Traité de Paléontologie vol. 2, Problémes d’adaptation et de phylo-
génese (Paris, Masson), 790 pp.

HAAS, O. 1942. The Vernay collection of Cretaceous (Albian) ammonites
from Angola. Bull. Amer. Mus. nat. Hist., vol. 81: 1—224.

HOWARTH, M.K. 1965. Cretaceous ammonites and nautiloids from Angola.
Bull. brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Geol.), vol. 10: 335—412.

KOSSMAT, F. 1895. Untersuchungen uber die siidindische Kreideformation.
Beitr. paldont. geol. Ost.-Ung., vol. 9: 97—203.

PICTET, F.J. 1847 in PICTET & ROUX, W. Description des mollusques
fossiles qui se trouvent dans les Grés Verts des environs de Genéve.
Mém. Soc. Phys. Hist. nat. Genéve, vol. 9: 257—412.

REYMENT, R.A. 1955. The Cretaceous ammonites of southern Nigeria and
the southern Cameroons. Bull. geol. Surv. Nigeria, vol. 25: 112 pp.

SOWERBY, J. 1820 in SOWERBY, J. & SOWERBY J. de C., 1812—1846,
The mineral conchology of Great Britain (London), 7 vols., 648 pls.

SPATH, L.F. 1921. On Cretaceous Cephalopoda from Zululand. Ann. S. Afr.
Mus., vol. 12: 217-321.

—____. 1922. On Cretaceous Ammonoidea from Angola, collected by Prof.

J.W. Gregory. Trans. r. Soc. Edinburgh, vol. 53: 91—160.

1932. A monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault. Palaeontogr.

Soc. Monogr.: 379—410.

WHITE, C.A. 1887. Contribugdes 4 Paleontologia do Brasil. Arch. Mus. nac.
Rio de Janeiro, vol. 7: 273 + v pp.

WRIGHT, C.W. 1957. Cretaceous Ammonoidea in ARKELL, W.J. and others,
Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part L, Mollusca 4, Cephalo-
poda, Ammonoidea (Geol. Soc. America and Kansas University Press)
490 pp.

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

TIPULA FERRUGINEA FABRICIUS, 1805 (DIPTERA;
TIPULIDAE): PROPOSED CONSERVATION. Z.N.(S.) 2255

By George W. Byers (Department of Entomology, The
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045, USA)

In 1763 (Entomologia carniolica: 321) Scopoli described
Tipula ferruginea from the region that is now northern Yugoslavia
and northeastern Italy. This species, said to be common, was
characterised as wholly ferruginous, approximately 13.5 mm long,
with hyaline wings spotted near the base, and having short,
attenuate antennae. Villers (1789, C. Linnaei Entom., Fn. suec.
descr. aucta, vol. 3: 400) repeated Scopoli’s description but
thereafter the name seems to have disappeared from the literature.
It was not, for example, included in the Kertesz Catalogus
Dipterorum (1902—1910). No type specimen is known to which
reference can be made, and no species is known that agrees with
Scopoli’s description.

2.In 1805 (Systema antliatorum: 28), J.C. Fabricius
described Tipula ferruginea from North America (without more
precise locality). Its type specimen is in the Fabricius collection in
Copenhagen. This species has been transferred to the genus
Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803, and is accordingly now known as
Nephrotoma ferruginea (Fabricius). In the older American litera-
ture, to about 1920, it appeared as Pachyrhina ferruginea, but
since then Pachyrhina Macquart, 1834, has been dropped as a
synonym of Nephrotoma. N. ferruginea is widespread in the United
States, generally from the Rocky Mountains eastward to the
Atlantic seaboard. It occurs also eastward from Alberta and
probably in northern Mexico. Within this range it is one of the most
commonly seen species of the TIPULIDAE, as it occurs in a variety
of habitats including urban lawns and gardens and is frequently
attracted to lights. Although it is not a serious pest, its larvae are
sometimes destructive of seedling field and garden crops. As a
result, the name has appeared from time to time in the literature of
American economic entomology. The name Nephrotoma ferruginea
is firmly established in taxonomic publications treating North
American TIPULIDAE (for example, the works of Professor Charles
P. Alexander) and in regional lists and catalogues. The larva and
pupa have been described and recent cytological studies have been
published using this name.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41

3.A census of virtually all currently active taxonomists of
the TIPULIDAE in Europe and North America has produced
unanimous support for the conservation of the junior homonym,
Tipula ferruginea Fabricius.

4.1 therefore ask the International Commission on Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature

(1)

(2)

(3)

to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name
ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen
Tipula ferruginea, for the purposes of both the Law of
Priority and the Law of Homonymy;

to place the specific name ferruginea Fabricius, 1805 , as
published in the binomen 7; ipula ferruginea, on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;

to place the specific name ferruginea Scopoli, 1763, as
published in the binomen 7, ipula ferruginea, and as
Suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific
Names in Zoology.

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OCHTHERA EXSCULPTA LOEW, 1862 (INSECTA,
DIPTERA, EPHYDRIDAE):
REQUEST FOR INVALIDATION OF NEOTYPE AND
VALIDATION OF A REDISCOVERED HOLOTYPE.
Z.NAS.) 2256

By P.J. Clausen (Department of Entomology, Fisheries and Wildlife,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, 55108, U.S.A.)

In his Diptera of North America, Loew (1862) described
three species of Ochthera, including Ochthera exsculpta. This
species was described from a single, male specimen collected in
Cuba by Poey. Horn & Kahle (1935—1937) indicated that the
specimens of Loew’s North American species were deposited in the
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard.

2. While conducting a revisional study of the Nearctic,
Neotropical and Palaearctic species of the genus Ochthera in 1973, I
requested the types of all three species of Ochthera described by
Loew (1862) from the Museum of Comparative Zoology. They
responded by loaning me the types of two species, but informed me
that the type of Ochthera exsculpta was missing. A check with the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, which Horn & Kahle
(1935-37) mentioned as the deposition site of Poey’s Cuban
material, again produced no type.

3. Since Ochthera exsculpta Loew is a species which is often
confused with Ochthera loreta Cresson and is often found in the
same localities, I felt it necessary for nomenclatural stability to
designate a neotype (and two “neoparatypes”) for Ochthera
exsculpta Loew (Clausen, 1977). After publication of my revision
and the neotype designation, I returned the specimens to the
Museum of Comparative Zoology and was then informed that the
holotype was present in their collection. The holotype is from
Cuba, Loew Coll., Type 11162, labelled as a male but is actually a
female, and is conspecific with the neotype.

4.In compliance with Article 75(f) of the International
Code, I am referring this rediscovery of the holotype of Ochthera
exsculpta to the Commission, and I therefore request the
International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to:
(1) suppress the neotype designation of Ochthera exsculpta
Loew (1862) made by Clausen, 1977, Trans. amer. ent.
Soc., vol. 103: 496, and

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43

(2) place the specific name exsculpta Loew, 1862, as
published in the binomen Ochthera exsculpta on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, as defined
by the holotype.

LITERATURE CITED

CLAUSEN, P.J. 1977. A revision of the nearctic, neotropical and palaearctic
species of the genus Ochthera, including one Ethiopian species, and one
new species from India. Trans. amer. ent. Soc. vol. 103: 451—529.

HORN, W. & KAHLE, I. 1935-1937. Uber entomologische Sammlungen,
Entomologen & Entomo-Museologie. Ent. Beih., Berlin-Dahlem, vol.
2—4: 1-536, 38 pls., 3 figs.

LOEW, H. 1862. Monographs of the Diptera of North America. Part I. Smiths.
Misc. Coll., vol. 6: 1—221.

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

“STAPHYLINUS FULGIDUS” AS THE TYPE SPECIES OF

SEVERAL STAPHYLINID GENERA (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA,
STAPHYLINIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 2221

By A. Smetana (Biosystematics Research Institute, Canada
Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada)

“Staphylinus fulgidus” has been used by various authors as
the type species of several staphylinid genera, namely Gyrohypnus
Leach, 1819, Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, Othius Stephens, 1829,
and Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1860. Because of the absence of
strict nomenclatural rules, certain usage of the respective generic
names developed in the course of the years. This usage was followed
until 1939 by all modern authors; even after Tottenham (1939,
1949), and especially Blackwelder (1952), introduced drastic
changes based on type species designations, the majority of authors
still followed the accustomed long-standing usage. The purpose of
this paper is to preserve these long-standing usages, especially that
of the name Xantholinus (type genus of the subfamily
XANTHOLININAE), which, due to the changes proposed by
Tottenham and by Blackwelder, disappeared from the list of valid
staphylinid genera.

2. Therefore, application is hereby made for official designa-
tion of type species of the genera concerned to preserve the
accustomed long-standing usage. The cases are being referred to the
Commission in accordance with Article 70a of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature and with the amendments to the
Code (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31, 1974: 79, Art. 23a—b).

3. Blackwelder (1952: 176) has shown that up to 1819, there
were only two proposals of the name Staphylinus fulgidus, both by
Fabricius (1787: 220 and 1792: 525). In 1792, Fabricius did not
consider the junior name fulgidus a homonym since he removed in
the same publication the senior name fulgidus to the genus
Paederus. Blackwelder also has shown (and there is no reason why
his conclusion should not be accepted) that the junior name of
1792 was the species placed in the genus Quedius by Erichson
(1839: 486), and that in the case of the four xantholinid genera
Gyrohypnus, Xantholinus, Othius, and Gauropterus, we are dealing
exclusively with the senior S. fulgidus of 1787 (see Blackwelder,
1952: 176 for details). However, several subsequent misidentifica-
tions by (1) Paykull (1789: 22) [= Othius punctulatus (Goeze,
1777)], (2) Gravenhorst (1802: 48) [= Xantholinus glabratus

Bull..zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45

(Gravenhorst, 1802)], and (3) Stephens (1833: 258) [= Othius
punctulatus (Goeze, 1777)] complicated the matter.

4.It was in 1819 that Samouelle (1819: 172) for the first
time used Staphylinus fulgidus as a type species by designating it as
the type species of his genus Gyrohypnus (ex Kirby MS.) (it was
also the only species). In accordance with Article 16a(v) of the
Code this constituted an indication (Art. 12) and made the name
Gyrohypnus available. Unfortunately, this indication was obviously
ambiguous and later caused considerable confusion. Most sub-
sequent modern authors ignored the publication of Gyrohypnus in
Samouelle’s book, apparently because it was published without any
formal description. They attributed the name to Mannerheim
(1831: 7), who gave the first formal description of Gyrohypnus by
including the genus in his key to genera, and they mostly con-
sidered it as a subgenus of Xantholinus (e.g. Ganglbauer, 1895:
477). In 1939 Tottenham tried to clarify the identity of “Staphy-
linus fulgidus” and arrived at the conclusion from indirect evidence
(all details in Tottenham, 1939: 235), that the species Samouelle
had in mind actually was Staphylinus fulgidus sensu Paykull, 1789
(synonym of Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 and misidentifi-
cation of Staphylinus fulgidus Fabricius, 1787) and therefore used
the name Gyrohypnus for the genus known previously as Othius
Stephens, 1829. In 1952 Blackwelder disregarded Tottenham’s
conclusion, arguing that there was no such species as Staphylinus
fulgidus Paykull, 1789, for Paykull merely cited the Fabricius
species from 1787. He concluded (all details in Blackwelder, 1952:
176) that Staphylinus fulgidus Fabricius, 1787, must be accepted as
the species referred to by Samouelle and therefore the type species
of Gyrohypnus, which becomes the correct name for the genera
known previously as Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, Othius Stephens,
1829, and Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1860.

5.In 1833, Stephens (1833: 258) again employed Staphy-
linus fulgidus as a type species in the following discussion under the
genus “Gyrohypnus, Kirby” [sic]: “Staphylinus fulgidus of
Gravenhorst being given as the type of the genus Xantholinus Dahl,
and that being merely a catalogue one — but subsequently charac-
terised by the lamented Latreille as having the front tarsi dilated in
either sex, a character at variance with the insect above mentioned,
which is the type of the genus Othius, — ....... ”. Tottenham (1939:
236) comments on Stephens’s statement as follows: “On the
assumption, therefore (for which there appears to be no evidence),
that fulgidus is the type of Xantholinus Dahl, and because fulgidus
will not agree with the characters which define Xantholinus,
Stephens resurrects for Xantholinus the name Gyrohypnus Kirby of
which fulgidus was designated type by Samouelle (1819), at the

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

’

same time making fulgidus the type of his new genus Othius.’
Tottenham did not accept Stephens’s statement as the type-species
designation for Xantholinus, but identified Stephens’s Staphylinus
fulgidus, along with Staphylinus fulgidus cited by Samouelle (1819:
172), with Staphylinus fulgidus sensu Paykull, 1789 (all details in
Tottenham, 1939: 236) and consequently synonymised Othius with
Gyrohypnus (see also para. 2). Blackwelder (1952: 176, 279 and
404) considered Stephens’s statement as the type-species designa-
tion for both Xantholinus and Othius; he referred the species back
to fulgidus Fabricius, 1787, although on page 279 (under Othius)
he actually gave it as “Othius fulgidus (Paykull) (Staphylinus)”’, and
consequently synonymised both Xantholinus and Othius with
Gyrohypnus.

6.In 1838, Westwood (1838, Gen. Syn.: 16) cited “Staph.
fulgidus Payk.” as the type species of Othius Leach [sic].
Tottenham (1949: 371) considered this citation as the type-species
designation for Othius, in contradiction to his earlier statement
(1939: 236 — see para. 5); he actually gave the species as “Staphy-
linus punctulatus Goeze, 1777”, although on the previous page
(370) he listed the synonymy “‘Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze,
1777 (= Staphylinus fulgidus Paykull, 1789)”.

7.In 1859, C.G. Thomson (1859: 27) cited “X. fulgidus
(Fab.): Gyll. II. 356. 71” as the type species of Xantholinus Dahl
[sic] .

8. In 1860, C.G. Thomson (1860: 187—188) fixed “Staphy-
linus fulgidus Fab. Mant. Ins. I. 220.14” (i.e. 1787) as the type
species of his new genus Gauropterus, by monotypy. Tottenham
(1939: 237) recognised this as a valid type-species designation of a
valid genus, basically because he identified Staphylinus fulgidus
used by both Samouelle, 1819: 172 and Stephens (1833: 258)
as identical with Staphylinus fulgidus sensu Paykull, 1789 (see
para. 4 and 5). On the other hand, Blackwelder (1952: 168), who
referred the species back to Staphylinus fulgidus Fabricius, 1787
(see para. 4 and 5), synonymised Gauropterus with Gyrohypnus.

9. The above paragraphs give the basic information on all
critical type-species designations using the name Staphylinus
fulgidus, and list the changes in the usage of the four generic names
as they were proposed by Tottenham and by Blackwelder. In the
following paragraphs, additional comments are presented, along
with my proposals to the Commission, separately for each genus.

A. Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, ex Kirby MS

10. The name was first published by Samouelle (1819: 172)
who credited it to Leach (“To my kind and valuable friend Dr

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47

Leach I am indebted for the above and following notice of new
genera, ....... o))

11. Of the two different interpretations of the identity of
Staphylinus fulgidus as used by Samouelle (see para. 4), the one by
Blackwelder certainly was correct and was applied in strict
accordance with the Code, but it was not generally accepted, except
in North America. In addition, even North American authors did
not interpret Blackwelder’s proposal uniformly. Hatch (1957: 237)
and Moore & Legner (1975: 73) applied the name correctly and
included only fulgidus in the genus; Arnett (1960: 247, 274), on
the other hand, misinterpreted Blackwelder and included in Gyro-
hypnus not only fulgidus, but also over 20 other species, which did
not belong there.

12. Under these circumstances Blackwelder’s proposal did not
actually establish any stability and the confusion continued. For
these reasons, I believe that the long-established name Gyrohypnus
should be conserved in its accustomed long-standing usage to
promote the stability and uniformity of the nomenclature of the
group. I request, therefore, that the Commission use its plenary
powers to designate Staphylinus fracticornis O.F. Miller, 1776
(Zool. Dan. Prodr.: 99) (=S. punctulatus sensu auct. non Paykull,
1789) which suits best this purpose, as the type species of Gyrohyp-
nus. This species was assigned to Gyrohypnus ever since Mulsant &
Rey (1877: 76), whose concept of Gyrohypnus was followed by all
subsequent authors, included it there. Hyponygrus (isogenotypic),
proposed by Tottenham (1940: 49) for a section of Xantholinus
under the name Gyrohypnus in Mulsant & Rey, 1877 (for details
see Tottenham, 1940: 49), would become a junior objective
synonym of Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819.

B. Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, ex Dahl

13. There has been confusion over the authorship of this
generic name which led to differences in usage (see Tottenham,
1949: 369 and Blackwelder, 1943: 474; 1952: 404 for details).

14. The name was first published in a catalogue by Dejean
(1821: 23) who included 21 species (several of them having avail-
able names) in it, the first one being ‘Fulgidus. Grav.” In
accordance with Article 16a(v) of the Code, the inclusion of species
with available names constituted an indication (Art. 12) and made
the name Xantholinus available, with Dejean as the author,
although Dejean himself gave Dahl as the author of the genus.

15. Stephens’s statement on page 258 in his 1833 publication
(see para. 5) was decidedly ambiguous and was unfortunately inter-

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

preted differently by Tottenham and by Blackwelder (see para. 5).
What Stephens said was: (1) Dahl [Dejean] gave fulgidus sensu
Gravenhorst, 1802 [a misidentification of fulgidus Fabricius, 1787]
as the type species of Xantholinus [actually Dejean only listed it
first] ; (2) Latreille (1829: 435) characterised Xantholinus later as
having anterior tarsi not, or very little, dilated, which is not true of
fulgidus sensu Gravenhorst [it is true of fulgidus sensu Gravenhorst,
but not of fulgidus sensu Paykull, 1789]; Stephens obviously mis-
identified fulgidus again and the species he really meant was
actually Staphylinus fulgidus sensu Paykull, 1789, as already
suggested by Tottenham (1939: 236). This concept is supported by
the fact that (1) Stephens in 1829b (:284) listed “St. fulgidus.
Payk.F.III.377” first under the genus “Othius, Leach MSS”, (2)
Stephens in 1833 in the same publication (:253) listed “St. fulgidus.
Paykull. — Ot. fulgidus. Steph. Catal. 28 No. 3035” as first under
the “Genus DXV. — Othius Leach MSS”, and (3) Westwood (1838, -
Gen. Syn.: 16) cited “Staph. fulgidus Payk.” as the type species of
“Othius Leach” (see para. 6).

16. Despite these statements and facts, Blackwelder’s proposal
(see para. 5), based on strict interpretation of Article 30 of the
Régles as modified by the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4:
158), was correct, except that he should have referred these misi-
dentified type species to the Commission. However, the name
Xantholinus has been used ever since it was erected by almost all
subsequent authors, especially by all modern authors, and Xantholi-
nus became later the type genus of the subfamily XANTHOLI-
NINAE;; also, Blackwelder’s proposal was not generally accepted,
except in North America. For these reasons, I believe that the long-
established name Xantholinus should be conserved in its accus-
tomed long-standing usage to promote the stability and uniformity
of the nomenclature of the group. I request, therefore, that the
Commission use its plenary powers to designate Staphylinus linearis
Olivier, 1794 (Entomol. vol. 3: No. 42: 19, pl. 4, fig. 38), which
suits best this purpose, as the type species of Xantholinus. The
genus Xantholinus was subsequently subdivided into large numbers
of subgenera; Staphylinus linearis Ol. was invariably assigned by all
authors to the subgenus Xantholinus ever since Mulsant & Rey
(1877: 45) initiated the subdivision of Xantholinus.

C. Othius Stephens, 1829, ex Leach MS

17. The name was first published in a catalogue by Stephens
(1829a: 23) who included 10 species (several of them under
available names) in it, the first one being “fulgidus, Pay.” In
accordance with Article 16a(v) of the Code, the inclusion of species

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49

with available names constituted an indication (Art. 12) and made
the name Othius available, with Stephens as the author, although
Stephens himself gave Leach as the author of the genus.

18. The taxonomic identity of this genus is determined by the
type-species designation made by Stephens (1833: 258) in the state-
ment mentioned in para. 5. The comments made under Xantholinus
in para. 15 above apply also in this case. Stephens obviously

_misidentified fulgidus and the species he really meant was actually
Staphylinus fulgidus sensu Paykull, 1789 (= Staphylinus punctula-
tus Goeze, 1777).

19. As in the case of Xantholinus, Blackwelder’s proposal (see
para. 5) based on strict interpretation of Article 30 of the Régles as
modified by the Paris Congress (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 4: 158) was
correct, except that he did not refer the misidentified type species
to the Commission. However, the name Othius has been used by
almost all subsequent authors, and especially by all modern authors;
Blackwelder’s proposal was not generally accepted, except in North
America. For these reasons, I believe that the long-established name
Othius should be conserved in its accustomed long-standing usage to

- promote the stability and uniformity of the nomenclature of the
group. I request, therefore, that the Commission use its plenary
powers to designate Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 (Ent.
Beitr. vol. 1: 730) which suits best this purpose, as the type species
of Othius.

20. It may be added that Othius is the type genus of a family-
group taxon, used most widely at tribe level OTHIINI. Some authors
treat this as a subdivison of XANTHOLININAE and others, with
XANTHOLININI, as a tribe of STAPHYLININAE. If Othius is not
stabilised as here proposed, OTHIINI will have to be replaced by a
new name based on Gyrohypnus, and this would entail an unneces-
sary disturbance of stability.

D. Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1860

21.In 1859, C.G. Thomson cited fulgidus sensu Gyllenhal (see
para. 7) as the type species of Xantholinus. In 1860, he divided the
genus Xantholinus into three genera: Gauropterus, Nudobius and
Xantholinus, and by including the true fulgidus Fabricius, 1787 (see
para. 8) as the only species in Gauropterus, he automatically
designated it as the type species. No other species has ever been
cited as the type species of Gauropterus.

22. There is no doubt that under the strict application of the
Code the name Gauropterus is a synonym of Gyrohypnus as
proposed by Blackwelder, since there is no internal evidence that
Leach had anything but the true S. fulgidus Fabricius, 1787 in mind

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

(see para. 8). However, the name Gauropterus has been used by
almost all subsequent authors, and especially by all modern authors,
and Blackwelder’s proposal was not generally accepted, except in
North America. For these reasons, I believe that the long-
established name Gauropterus should be conserved in_ its
accustomed long-standing usage to promote the stability and
uniformity of the nomenclature of the group, with Staphylinus
fulgidus Fabricius, 1787 (Mant. Ins. vol. I: 220) as the type species,
as designated by C.G. Thomson (1860: 188).

23. The International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature is hereby requested to take the following actions :—

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to set aside all designations of type species for the
nominal genus Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819, and
having done so, to designate Staphylinus fracticornis
O.F. Muller, 1776, as type species;

(b) to set aside all designations of type species for the
nominal genus Xantholinus Dejean, 1821, and
having done so, to designate Staphylinus linearis
Olivier, 1794, as type species;

(c) to set aside all designations of type species for the
nominal genus Othius Stephens, 1829, and having
done so, to designate Staphylinus punctulatus
Goeze, 1777, as type species;

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

(a) Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819 (gender: masculine),
type species, by designation under the plenary
powers in (1) (a) above, Staphylinus fracticornis
O.F. Miller, 1776;

(b) Xantholinus Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type
species, by designation under the plenary powers in
(1) (b) above, Staphylinus linearis Olivier, 1794;

(c) Othius Stephens, 1829 (gender: masculine), type
species, by designation under the plenary powers in
(1) (c) above, Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777;

(d) Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1860 (gender: mas-
culine), type species, by monotypy, Staphylinus
fulgidus Fabricius, 1787;

(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) fracticornis O.F. Miller, 1776, as published in the

binomen Staphylinus fracticornis (specific name of

type species of Gyrohypnus Samouelle, 1819);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51

(b) linearis Olivier, 1794, as published in the binomen
Staphylinus linearis (specific name of type species of
Xantholinus Dejean, 1821);

(c) punctulatus Goeze, 1777, as published in the
binomen Staphylinus punctulatus (specific name of
type species of Othius Stephens, 1829);

(d) fulgidus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the
binomen Staphylinus fulgidus (specific name of type
species of Gauropterus C.G. Thomson, 1860).

REFERENCES

ARNETT, R.H. Jr. 1960. The beetles of the United States (a manual for
identification). Washington, D.C. 11+1112 pp.

BLACKWELDER, R.E. 1943. Monograph of the West Indian beetles of the
family Staphylinidae. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 182. Washington, D.C.,
VIII+658 pp.
1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae with
an essay on genotypy. Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 200. Washington, D.C.,

IV+483 pp.
-DEJEAN, P.F.M.A. 1821. Catalogue de la collection de coléoptéres de M. le
Baron Dejean, .......... Paris, 136+2 pp.

ERICHSON, W.F. 1837-1839. Die Kafer der Mark Brandenburg. Vol. 1, Abt. 1,
Berlin, 740 pp.

FABRICIUS, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum .......... Vol. I. Hafniae, 20+348
pp.

—___ 1792. Entomologia Systematica. 1.2. Hafniae, 538 pp.

GANGLBAUER, L. 1895. Die Kdfer von Mitteleuropa, Ui. Staphylinoidea 1.
Wien, 880 pp.

GOEZE, J.A.E. 1777. Entomologische Beitrige zu des Ritter Linné 12.
Ausgabe des Natursystems. Vol. 1. Leipzig, 16+736 pp.
GRAVENHORST, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia. Bruns-

vigae, 66+206 pp.

HATCH, M.H. 1957. The beetles of the Pacific Northwest, Part II: Staphylini-
formia. Univ. Wash. Publs Biol. 16, 1X+384 pp.

LATREILLE, P.A. 1829. Le Régne animal ...... par M. le baron Cuvier ......
tome IV: Crustacés, arachnides et partie des insectes. 2nd ed. Paris,
28+584 pp.

MANNERHEIM, C.G. 1831. Precis d’un arrangement de la famille des
Brachélytres. Mém. Acad. Sci. St. Pétersb. vol. 1: 415-501. Sep.
Pub. 87 pp.

MOORE, I. & LEGNER, E.F. 1975. A catalogue of the Staphylinidae of
America north of Mexico (Coleoptera). Univ. Calif. Spec. Publ.

¥ 3015. Berkeley, 514 pp.

MULLER, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, ...... Hafniae, 32+282 pp.

MULSANT, E. & REY, C. 1877. Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France.
Brévipennes Xantholiniens. Paris, 128 pp., 3 pl.

OLIVIER, A.G. 1794. Entomologie, ou histoire naturelle des Insectes, ......

: Vol. 3. Paris, 557 pp., 65 pl.
|

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

PAYKULL, G. 1789. Monographia Staphylinorum Sueciae. Upsaliae, 82 pp.
SAMOUELLE, G. 1819. The entomologist’s useful compendium; London, 496

pp., 12 pl.

STEPHENS, J.F. 1829a. The nomenclature of British Insects ...... London,
68 pp.

__—--— 1829b. A systematic catalogue of British Insects: ...... London,

XXXIV+416 pp. (Mandib.) + 388 pp. (Haustell.).
1832-1835. Illustrations of British Entomology ...... Mandibulata.
Vol. V. London, 448 pp., pl. XXIV-XXVII.

THOMSON, C.G. 1859, 1860. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bear-
betade. Vol. land II. Lund. Vol. I 304 pp., Vol. II 290 pp.

TOTTENHAM, C.E. 1939. Some notes on the nomenclature of the Staphylini-
dae (Coleoptera). Part 2. Proc. r. ent. Soc. London (B) vol. 8:
227-237.
1940. Some notes on the nomenclature of the Staphylinidae
(Coleoptera). Part 3. Proc. r. ent. Soc. London (B) vol. 9: 49-53.
1949. The generic names of the British Insects ...... Part 9. The
generic names of the British Staphylinidae with a check list of the —
species. London, pp. 343-466.

WESTWOOD, J.O. 1838. Synopsis of the genera of British Insects, in
Westwood, 1840, An introduction to the modern classification of
Insects; *..< Vol. 2. London, pp. 148.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53

METRIDIIDAE CARLGREN, 1893 (ANTHOZOA) AND
METRIDIIDAE SARS, 1902 (COPEPODA): REQUEST FOR
A RULING TO ELIMINATE THE HOMONYMY.
Z.NAS.) 2263

by Daphne Fautin Dunn (Department of Invertebrate Zoology,
California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco,
California 94118, U.S.A.) and Kuni Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt
Helgoland, Palmaille 9, 2 Hamburg 50 BRD)

Homonymy as defined in Article 55 of the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature exists between the family-group
names METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (Anthozoa) and
METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda). Both family-group names
are correctly derived as specified in Articles 11(e) and 29 of the
Code, the former from the generic name Metridium Blainville,
1824, and the latter from the generic name Metridia Boeck, 1865.
In neither case has any other name been used to designate the
family in question.

2. The generic name Metridium was first proposed by Oken
(1815) in volume 3 of Okens Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, which
was rejected for nomenclatural purposes by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion 417). The next use
of the name was by Blainville (1824, p. 470) for the species
Metridium dianthus, said by the author to be synonymous with
“Vactinia plumosa de Linnaeus”. Blainville later (1830, 1834)
referred to this species as M. plumosa. Both are now considered
synonyms of M. senile (Linnaeus, 1761: 510) (Stephenson, 1935),
the name most commonly used in the scientific literature to desig-
nate this widespread and variable species of actinian. The generic
name Metridium was incorrectly applied by Ehrenberg (1834) to
the Red Sea species rhodostomum that was subsequently placed
among the Corallimorpharia as type species of the genus Rhodactis
(Carlgren, 1949).

3.In his then-definitive work on the actinians of Britain,
Gosse (1860) referred to the species now known as Metridium
senile by the name Actinoloba dianthus (p. 11), while at the same
time listing a family METRIDIADAE. Since he included no taxa in
it, commenting that there were no European representatives, Gosse
cannot be considered to have made the name available under Article
lle of the Code, although that family name is clearly derived
from the generic name Metridium, which Gosse (1860) apparently

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

was using sensu Ehrenberg (1834). In 1893, Carlgren placed the
genus Metridium in the monospecific subfamily METRIDINAE
(sic) [of SAGARTIDAE (sic)], which he considered new.
Stephenson (1920) raised this category to full family status. Neither
mentioned the family name METRIDIADAE of Gosse (1860). As
currently used, the anthozoan family METRIDIIDAE contains only
the genus Metridium, and either one (Riemann-Ziirneck, 1975) or
two (Hand, 1956) species.

4.The copepod family METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902, as
originally constituted, contained the genera Metridia Boeck, 1865,
and Pleuromamma Giesbrecht (in Giesbrecht and Schmeil), 1898. A
third genus, Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905, was formally placed in this
family by Sewell in 1932.

5. When Boeck introduced the genus-group name Metridia in
1865, he included in it the two new species M. lucens and M.
armata. Subsequently, Giesbrecht (1892) synonymized M. armata
with Calanus longus Lubbock, 1854. Sars (1902) included ™.
armata Boeck, 1865, in the synonymy of M. longa (Lubbock, 1854)
and suggested that M. longa “may be regarded as the type of the
genus’. We accept this suggestion as constituting a valid designation
of M. armata as the type-sspecies under Article 69a(iv) of the Code.

6. Pursuant to Article 55a of the Code, we refer this case to
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Although there are no formal grounds for preferring conservation
of one family-group name over the other, in view of the following
facts, we request that the anthozoan name be conserved:

(a) the anthozoan family name antedates that of copepods,
and

(b) in the indices of volumes 46-60 of Biological Abstracts
(1965—1975), the family-group name METRIDITDAE
is listed only once, that for the actinian; the genus
Metridia is cited from 17 abstracted papers, and the
genus Metridium from 38.

7. In altering the spelling of the copepod family-group name,
we believe the elimination of one of the letters “i’’ preceding the
ending “dae”, or the alteration of the first “i” to “e’ could be
misconstrued as a spelling error. Therefore, we request that the
copepod family-group name be emended as METRIDINIDAE. This
spelling is not based on the genus-group name Metridina, proposed
by Norman (1878, p. 251) “to avoid confusion with Metridium”,
which constitutes an unjustified emendation [ICZN Article 33a(ii)].
However, Norman’s name remains available for use as a possible
replacement name for Metridia should the latter be found invalid
at some future time, another reason we favor this solution to the
problem.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55

8. We therefore request that the Commission:

(1) use its plenary powers to rule that the stem of the
generic name Metridia Boeck, 1865 (Copepoda) for
the purposes of Article 29 is METRIDIN-;

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

(a) Metridium Blainville, 1824 (Anthozoa) (gender:
neuter), type species by monotypy Actinia
dianthus Ellis, 1768;

(b) Metridia Boeck, 1865 (Copepoda) (gender:
feminine), type species by subsequent designation
by Sars, 1902, Metridia armata Boeck, 1865;
1865;

(3) place the following specific names on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) senilis Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the
binomen Priapus senilis (specific name of the
senior subjective synonym of Actinia dianthus
Ellis, the type species of Metridium Blainville,
1824):

(b) longus Lubbock, 1854, as published in the
binomen Calanus longus (specific name of the
senior subjective synonym of Metridia armata
Boeck, the type species of Metridia Boeck, 1856);

(4) place the following family-group names on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology:
(a) METRIDIIDAE Carlgren, 1893 (type genus Metri-

dium Blainville, 1824) (Anthozoa);

(b) METRIDINIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Metridia
Boeck, 1865) (Copepoda);

(5) place the following family-group name on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names
in Zoology:

(a) METRIDIIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Metridia
Boeck, 1865) (Copepoda).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

D.F. Dunn wishes to thank Barry Roth and Lillian Dempster
for their considerable help in the preparation of this appeal.

LITERATURE CITED

BLAINVILLE, M. de, 1824. Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 30
(Mell-Mez). F.G. Levrault, ed. Paris, 485 pp.
1830. Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 60. F.G. Levrault, ed.

56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Strasbourg and Paris, 631 pp.

BLAINVILLE, M.D. de 1834. Manuel d’Actinologie ou de Zoophytologie.
Levrault, Strasbourg, 644 pp.

BOECK, A., 1865. Oversigt over de ved Norges Kyster iagttagne Copepoder
henhgrende til Calanidernes, Cyclopidernes og Harpactidernes Familier.
Forh. Videnskabs-Selsk. Christiania for 1864: 226—281.

CARLGREN, O., 1893. Studien tiber nordische Actinien. I. K. svenska Veten-
skapsakad. Handl., vol. 25 (10): 1-148.

______ 1949. A survey of the Ptychodactiaria, Corallimorpharia and Actiniaria.
K. svenska Vetenskapsakad. Hand. (4) vol. 1 (1): 1-121.

EHRENBERG, C.G., 1834, Beitrage zur physiologischen Kenntniss der Coral-
lenthiere im allgemeinen, und besonders des rothen Meeres, nebst einem
Versuche zur physiologischen Systematik derselben. Abh. k. Akad.
Wissen. Berlin, vol. 1: 225—380.

ELLIS, J., 1768. An account of the Actinia Societa, or clustered animal-flower,
lately found on the sea-coasts of the new-ceded islands. Phil. Trans.
roy. Soc. London, vol. 57: 428—437.

GIESBRECHT, W., 1892. Systematik und Faunistik der pelagischen Cope-
poden des Golfes von Neapel und der angrenzenden Meeresabschnitte.
Fauna Flora Neapel, vol. 19: 1—831.

_____ & SCHMEIL, O., 1898. Copepoda. II. Gymnoplea. Tierreich, vol. 6:
1-169.

GOSSE, P.H. 1860. A History of the British Sea-anemones and Corals. Van
Voorst, London, 362 pp.

HAND, C., 1956. The sea anemones of central California, part III. The acon-
tiarian anemones. Wasmann J. Biol., vol. 13 (for 1955): 189-251.

LINNAEUS, C., 1761. Fauna svecica, 2nd ed. Laur. Salvii, Holmiae, [x1vi] ,
578 pp.

LUBBOCK, J., 1854. On some Arctic species of Calanidae. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist,
ser. 2, vol. 14: 125-129.

NORMAN, A.M., 1878. Notes on the oceanic Copepoda. In: Narrative of a
Voyage to the Polar Sea During 1875-6 in H.M. Ships “Alert” and
“Discovery”. H.W. Feilden, ed. Vol. 2: 249-253.

OKEN, L., 1815. Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte part 3, section 1. Reclam,
Leipzig.

RIEMANN-ZURNECK, K., 1975. Actiniaria des Siidwestatlantik II. Sagartiidae
und Metridiidae. Helgo. wiss. Meeres, vol. 27: 70—95.

SARS, G.O., 1902. An account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4, parts IX
and X: 97—120.

SEWELL, R.B.S., 1932. The Copepoda of Indian seas. Mem. Ind. Mus., vol. 10:
223—407.

STEPHENSON, T.A., 1920. On the classification of Actiniaria. Part I. Forms
with acontia and forms with a mesogloeal sphincter. Quart. J. micros.
Sci., n.s. vol. 64: 425-574.

______ 1935. The British Sea Anemones vol. II. Ray Society, London, 426 pp.

WOLFENDEN, R.N., 1905. Plankton Studies. Part 1. Copepoda. Rebman,
London and New York, 24 pp.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57

GNATHODUS PANDER, 1856 (CONODONTA): PROPOSED
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 2279.

By H. Richard Lane (Research Center, Amoco Production
Company, Tulsa Oklahoma, U.S.A.) and Willi Ziegler
(Geolog.-palaontologisches Institut, Marburg, Germany)

Pander (1856: 33, 34) described the conodont genus
Gnathodus for forms:

“In den Mergeln der untersten Schichten des Bergalks im
Tulaschen und der hodheren des Moskauschen Gouvernements
kommen wohlerhaltene kieferartige Ueberreste vor, die sich durch
ihre Gestalt und die Beschaffenheit ihrer Basis von den bis jetzt
beschriebenen unterscheiden, durch die microscopische Structur
aber sich eng an sie anschliessen. Auf einer hohen, aus doppelten
Wanden bestehenden, schmalen Platte, erheben sich, in einer Reihe,
kleine Zahnchen und geben dieser das Ansehen, als wenn sie von
einem gezahnten Rande begrenzt werde. Nach unten gehen diese
Platten auf der einen Seite stark auseinander und bilden eine Hohle,
wahrend sie auf der entgegengesetzten noch aneinander bleiben.
Diese Hohle, welche die Pulphohle darstellt, verlangert sich
seitwarts hinein und giebt, wie zu vermuthen ist, fur jedes
Zahnchen einen hinaufsteigenden Fortsatz ab.”

2. The type species, by monotypy, is Gnathodus mosquensis.
Pander (1856, pl. 2A, fig. 10, a,b,c) figured one view each of three
specimens of the species. He also illustrated a close-up drawing of
the microstructure of a broken piece of a free blade that
presumably also derived from G. mosquensis. Pander (1856: 83)
stated that these specimens came from the Mountain Limestone
(Bergkalk) in “Moskau, hinter der Dragomilowschen Sastawa’’. A
holotype of the species was not designated and no lectotype has
subsequently been selected. All of the types are now lost and, to
our knowledge, no specialist has ever had the opportunity to study
them. A thorough search for the type material in the cities where
Pander lived — Leningrad, Kazan and Moscow — was undertaken by
S.P. Sergeeva, W.C. Khalymbadzha, I.S. Barskov, A.S. Alekseev and
N.V. Goreva, but this was unsuccessful. It is not clear to us that the
material was ever deposited in a museum.

3. That Pander (1856) illustrated only one view of each of
the types suggests to us that he himself had only one view of each
specimen available. We think it likely that the primary types were

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

embedded in stone in such a way that only one view was available
for study. This was common practice among conodont specialists in
the last century and the beginning of the current one, as techniques
for extracting conodonts intact from stone had not yet been
developed. All modern specialists agree that adequate study of
conodonts necessitates the viewing of all aspects of the specimen. In
the case of Pander’s illustrated specimens, pl.2A, figs. 10, 10a, only
lateral views are shown and in the case of fig. 10b, only a lower
view is available. In the genera Streptognathodus Stauffer &
Plummer, 1932, IJdiognathodus Gunnell, 1931, Idiognathoides
Harris & Hollingsworth, 1933, Neognathodus Dunn, 1970 and
Declinognathodus Dunn, 1966, it is imperative to study the upper
surface in order to make a positive identification and to distinguish
them from Gnathodus. Knowledge of the shape of the basal cavity
(lower surface) limits identification only to the Family
GNATHODIDAE and a lateral view can be easily confused with
representatives of the Family POLYGNATHIDAE. Thus, the
important view for unequivocal identification of Gnathodus was
not originally illustrated by its author and may not have been
available in the original type material.

4. Since Pander’s (1856) original description, Gnathodus has
always been thought to be dominantly Lower Carboniferous in age.
This is probably because he stated that it came from the Mountain
Limestone, a stratigraphic unit that is Lower Carboniferous in age
in its type area in Great Britain. As such, forms having a large
posteriorly set basal cavity and a free blade that continues as a
median carina to the posterior end of the platform, have been
assigned to the genus at least since the study of Roundy (in
Roundy, Girty & Goldman, 1926). However, early Upper
Carboniferous forms now assigned to Neognathodus Dunn, 1970,
and in some cases /diognathoides Harris & Hollingsworth, 1933 and
Declinognathodus Dunn, 1966, have formerly been assigned to
Gnathodus. No less than 1,000 references to this Lower and early
Upper Carboniferous concept of the genus Gnathodus have been
made in the literature and over 80 species have been described.
Thus, even though the true identity of the type specimens of
Gnathodus has never been known, the genus has taken on a definite
meaning for a globally distributed group of conodonts in Lower and
early Upper Carboniferous rocks.

5. Recently, Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977) stated that
the type locality is no longer extant. For unspecified reasons, they
determined the original horizon from which the type material came
to be the Dorogomilaer Horizon within the Dorogomilaer beds of
Kasimovian age (late Upper Carboniferous). If this is correct, then
the type collection is of late Upper Carboniferous age and almost

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59

certainly not a species belonging in the traditional concept of
Gnathodus. These authors examined old samples in the collections
of the Palaeontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the
U.S.S.R. that they stated came from the collecting locality of the
type [by type, we assume they mean the type species of the genus].
But these old samples were vugular dolomites that did not yield any
conodonts. Pander (1856: 33) stated that the original type material
came from marls, a significantly different lithology from a vugular
dolomite. Thus, the true affinities of the type species of Gnathodus
will never be known, nor is it possible to establish a neotype from
topotypic material. However, Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977)
concluded, on the assumption that their determination of the type
horizon is correct, that G. mosquensis is probably a representative
of one of the Upper Carboniferous genera Streptognathodus
Stauffer & Plummer or /diognathodus Gunnell. They recovered
Streptognathodus cancellosus Gunnell, 1931, and S. oppletus
Ellison, 1941, from beds below, above and within the Dorogomilaer
Horizon. However, they stated that Streptognathodus excelsus
Stauffer & Plummer, 1932, was not found within the Dorogomilaer
Horizon, but is known from both older and younger beds. Thus,
they concluded:

(a) because of the impossibility at this time to find the type
material of G. mosquensis, the species must be treated as a nomen
dubium:

(b) it is not yet possible to know the proper affinities of G.
mosquensis. If in the future it becomes necessary to synonymize
the genera /diognathodus and Streptognathodus, then the name
Gnathodus must be used in order not to create nomenclatural
conflict:

(c) in the Lower Carboniferous, species traditionally assigned
to Gnathodus should in the future be placed in the genus
Dryphenotus Cooper, 1939, the next younger Lower Carboniferous
name that had been previously treated as a junior synonym of
Gnathodus.

6. These facts and conclusions were informally presented to
the participants of the VIII International Carboniferous Congress in
Moscow in 1975 by A.S. Alekseev. Later, based on this informal
presentation, Kozur & Mostler (1976) and Kozur & Mock (1977)
synonymized Streptognathodus cancellosus with G. mosquensis and
stated that the generic name Gnathodus should be used only for
Upper Carboniferous forms. It is, of course, impossible for the
latter authors to be certain of this conclusion because the original
type material is not extant and Pander’s illustrations do not show
the critical features necessary to support such a synonymy.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

7. We agree with Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977) that
Gnathodus mosquensis should be treated as a nomen dubium and
that the actions of Kozur & Mostler (1976) and Kozur & Mock
(1977) in synonymizing S. cancellosus with G. mosquensis are
unwarranted. However, we do not agree with their suggestion that
the name Gnathodus should be used for forms previously assigned
to Streptognathodus and/or Idiognathodus. The fact remains that
the primary types of Gnathodus mosquensis are irretrievably lost.
The possibility of establishing a neotype is frustrated by the fact
that the affinities of the original type material, as well as the site of
the original type horizon and locality, cannot be reconstructed.
Therefore, we cannot accept changing the long-established concept
of this important genus based on circumstantial evidence.

8. We believe that in the interest of nomenclatural stability,
the name Gnathodus must be preserved in the sense it has always
retained since Pander’s (1856) original description: it is
nomenclatural stability, not only in the palaeontological literature
that is at stake, but also in stratigraphic literature. In the
biostratigraphic zonation of the British Avonian (Lower
Carboniferous) by Rhodes, Austin & Druce (1969, fig. 12) the
generic name Gnathodus is used no less than five times in the major
subdivisions. In the case of the North American Mississippian
zonation by Collinson, Rexroad & Thompson (1971, table 1), the
name Gnathodus is used eight times in the major subdivisions.
These zonal names have been employed repeatedly in the literature
since their original definitions. If Gnathodus is removed from its
traditional concept, then it will also necessitate zonal name changes
that are now well established in the stratigraphic literature.

9. Gnathodus texanus Roundy represents the next oldest
named species of Gnathodus conforming with the long-employed
concept of the genus. The type specimen of this species, which is
here proposed to be designated as type species of Gnathodus, is a
free specimen that is still available in the collections of the United
States National Museum in Washington, D.C. and we recently have
had the opportunity to examine it. The geographic and stratigraphic
particulars of its type horizon in the Barnett Shale of central Texas
are clearly stated by Roundy (in Roundy, Girty & Goldman, 1926:
17, Locality 2688).

10. Because the type collection is irretrievably lost; because
the affinities of the original type specimen will never with certainty
be established; because the original type horizon and outcrop as
inferred by Barskov, Alekseev & Goreva (1977) is no longer
available and because the genus Gnathodus has always been

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61

employed for a group of conodonts occurring only in Lower and
early Upper Carboniferous rocks, we ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) to exercise its plenary powers to set aside all
designations of type species hitherto made for the
nominal genus Gnathodus Pander, 1856, and having
done so, to designate Gnathodus texanus Roundy,
1926, to be the type species of that genus;

(2) to place the generic name Gnathodus Pander, 1856
(gender: masculine), type species by designation under
the plenary powers in (1) above, Gnathodus texanus
Roundy, 1926, on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology;

(3) to place the specific name texanus Roundy, 1926, as
published in the binomen Gnathodus texanus (specific
name of type species of Gnathodus Pander, 1856), on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

LITERATURE CITED

BARSKOV, I.S., ALEKSEEV, A.S. & GOREVA, N.V. 1977. Taxonomic and
nomenclatural status of the conodont genus Gnathodus Pander, 1856.
Paleont. Zhurn., 1977: 131-134. [In Russian. ]

COLLINSON C., REXROAD, C.B. & THOMPSON, T.L. 1971. Conodont
zonation of the North American Mississippian, in Sweet, W.C. &
Bergstrom, S.M., (eds.), Symposium on Conodont Biostratigraphy.
Geol. Soc. America Mem. No. 127: 353-394.

COOPER, C.L. 1939. Conodonts from a Bushberg-Hannibal horizon in
Oklahoma: J. Paleont., vol. 13: 329-422.

DUNN, D.L. 1966. New Pennsylvanian platform conodonts from south

western United States. J. Paleont., vol. 40: 1294-1303.

1970. Middle Carboniferous conodonts from western United States and

phylogeny of the platform group. J. Paleont., vol. 44: 312-342.

ELLISON, S. 1941. Revision of the Pennsylvanian conodonts: J. Paleont., vol.
15: 107-143.

GUNNELL, F.H. 1931. Conodonts from the Fort Scott Limestone of Missouri.
J. Paleont.; vol. 5: 244-252.

HARRIS, R.W. & HOLLINGSWORTH, R.V. 1933. New Pennsylvanian cono-
donts from Oklahoma. Amer. J. Sci., vol. 25: 193-204.

KOZUR, H. & MOCK, R. 1977. On the age of the Palaeozoic of the Uppony
Mountains (north Hungary). Acta Miner.-Petrogr., Szeged, vol. 23:
91-107.

KOZUR, H. & MOSTLER, H. 1976. Neue Conodonten aus dem Jungpaliao-
zoikum und der Trias. Geol. Palaont. Mitt. Innsbruck, vol. 6: 1-33.

PANDER, C.H. 1856. Monographie der fossilen Fische des Silurischen S: stems
der Russisch-Baltischen Gouvernements. Kaiserl. Akad. Wiss.: 1-91.

62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

RHODES, F.H.T., AUSTIN, R.L. & DRUCE, E.C. 1969. British Avonian
(Carboniferous) conodont faunas, and their value in local and
intercontinental correlation. Bull. brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Geol., vol. 5:
1-313.

ROUNDY, P.V. 1926. Part II. The Micro-fauna, in Roundy, P.V., Girty, G.H.
& Goldman, M.I., Mississippian formations of San Saba County: Texas.
U.S. Geol. Surv. Prof. Paper 146: 5-23.

STAUFFER, C.R. & PLUMMER, H.J. 1932. Texas Pennsylvanian conodonts
and their strategic relations. Texas Univ. Bull. 3201: 13-50...

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63

REPORT ON THE GENERIC NAMES ERIOPHYES SIEBOLD,
1851, AND PHYTOPTUS DUJARDIN, 1851 (ACARINA)
Z.N.(S.) 2044

by the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

The present case started with an application by Dr V.G.
Shevtchenko (All-Union Entomological Society, USSR) (Bull. zool.
Nom. vol. 30: 196—197) for the use of the plenary powers to
designate Phytoptus vitis Pagenstecher, 1857, as type species of
Eriophyes Siebold, 1851, and Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1899,
as type species of Phytoptus. The application was supported by
Dr Evert E. Lindquist (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa,
Canada) and 11 other zoologists from the USSR, Poland, India,
New Zealand and South Africa. It was opposed by Mr Richard
Newkirk (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C.) and Dr H.H. Keifer (Sacramento, California) who were
supported by five other zoologists, all from the U.S.A.

The Commission voted on the case in Voting Paper (1977) 14
from 1 July to 1 October 1977. At the close of that period, there
were 18 votes in favour of Dr Shevtchenko’s proposal and three
against. Four voting papers were not returned. In returning his
voting paper, Dr Sabrosky remarked: “Mr Newkirk tells me that
there are several synonyms senior to avellanae, and we should
consider those before placing avellanae on the Official List”. In
fact, the Commission must either suppress those senior synonyms,
or rule that Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa, 1899, is to be given pre-
cedence over them. On 30 December 1977 I received from Dr
Sabrosky a copy of a letter from Mr Newkirk listing the synonyms
in question:

Acarus pseudogallarum Vallot, 1836, Mém. Acad. Sci. Arts, belles
Lettres Dijon (1836): 189. Available name.

Calycophthora avellanae Amerling, 1862, Sitzungsber. k. bohm.
Ges. Wiss. (1862): 96. Nomen nudum.

Calycophthora avellanae Amerling, 1863, in Kirchner, Lotus
(1863): 44. Nomen nudum.

Phytoptus coryli Frauenfeld, 1865, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien, vol.
15: 263. Available name.

Phytoptus coryligallarum Targioni-Tozzetti, ?71885—1886, Atti
Accad. Georg. Firenze, (4) vol. 8: 144, pl. 2, figs. 2, 8.
Original not seen, but name presumably available from illus-
trations, if no stronger reasons. Sunk as synonym of P.

Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 36, part 1, July 1979

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

pseudogallarum (Vallot, 1836) by Targioni-Tozzetti, 1888,

Ann. Agricolt. (1888), Relazione, parte istorica: 248—9.
Calycophthora avellanae “Amerling” [sic], Sorauer, 1886, Handb.

Pflanzenkr., ed. 2, vol. 1: 827. Available name.

Of the six names listed above, all but the second and third
must be considered by the Commission. I cannot speak for Phytop-
tus coryligallarum Targioni-Tozzetti, ?1885—1886, not having seen
the original, but all the others are based on descriptions of either
the galls or the activity of the mites. It is no doubt for that reason
that none of the names has been used as a valid name (so far as I am
aware) in recent times, because acarologists tend to ignore names
based on galls or on other aspects of the work of the mites in favour
of names connected with descriptions of the mites themselves.

The Commission is therefore invited, first, to vote for or
against using its plenary powers in this case and then, either (a) to
suppress the four available names listed above for the purposes of
the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy
and place them on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology, or (b) to rule that none of them is to be
given nomenclatural precedence over Phytoptus avellanae Nalepa,
1899, whenever it is regarded as a synonym of the latter, and to
place them, with suitable endorsements, on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

Since the above was written, Mr Newkirk has kindly sent me,
among other papers, a photocopy of the following work, which
clearly relates to Item 5 of the list of senior synonyms of Phytoptus
avellanae given above: “Di alcuni rapporti delle coltivazioni cogli
insetti e di due casi di infezioni del nocciolo e dell’olivo per cagione
di insetti. Memoria del Prof. Ad. Targioni-Tozzetti letta alla R.
Accademia dei Georgofili il 1° marzo 1885.” The work, which is
dated “1885” includes an appendix entitled “Insetti e Acari con-
comitanti nelle galle delle gemme del noccidlo’’. This is paginated
from 27 to 38; on: 32 are comparative dimensions of Phytoptus
coryligallarum and two other species. There are two plates headed
“Atti R. Acc. dei Georg. Ser. 4, vol. 8”, and pl. 2, figs. 2, 8
illustrate Phytoptus coryligallarum (the mite, not the gall). This
unused name is thus clearly available as a senior synonym of P.
avellanae. Nalepa, 1898: 9, refers to this work as “(descr. nulla,
fig. insuff.)’’. a

6/4i ie &

a ;
7
\ é 7 ‘
* 4 >
; mp ats
t . >
‘ oom
’
; ~/*
5 Dy = 4
‘ “A ~
-_ ¥
. = ~
* v) *

sinaicciaaal

Readers of the Bulletin are reminded that the only regular source of
income to finance the work of the Commission comes from sales of
this periodical, and that this is insufficient to meet the needs of
zoologists for the services provided by the Commission and to
maintain the office at an efficient level. Help in the form of dona-
tions and bequests will, therefore, be received with gratitude.

sitianigaapetie

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature wishes to
express its appreciation of the facilities provided by the Trustees of
the British Museum (Natural History) for the Secretariat of the
Commission.

© 1979 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in, England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD.

Volume 36, Part 2
pp. 65 - 134

“ISSN 0007 - 5167
&} Ist August 1979

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL

NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS

Notice prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:
BIBI Tew APD CATLONS: 02 ba cc's au ehe oa be ee may cs on Wave eee aba sale
ispeciak Announcement: N.D. Riley’... 5... 6 65. ee ela

International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature: result of vote
on proposals for substantive amendments (first instalment)
MECN EAT Seat cea i 85 opera yun os aed ae had ee aBeee

Proposed addition to the species group of names for taxa differentiated
by geographical criteria (G. Bernardi & R.V. Melville)...

(Contents continued on page vii)

LONDON

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o British Museum (Natural History)
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD

Price £6.25
(All rights reserved)

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

A. The Officers of the Commission ;
€ in

President: Dr.C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.).

Vice-President: Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund,
S-223 62, Lund, Sweden).

Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD).

Assistant Secretary: Dr. 1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD).

B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)

Dr. Eugene EISENMANN (American Museum of Natural History, New York,
New York 10024, U.S.A.) (30 January 1968) Ornithology

Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD) (30 January 1968) (Secretary) Palaeontology

Dr. Y.I. STAROBOGATOV (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences,
Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.) (30 January 1968) Mollusca, Crustacea

Dr. F.M. BAYER (U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.)
(20 February 1972) Octocorallia; Systematics

Prof. John O. CORLISS (University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
20742, U.S.A.) (20 February 1972) Protozoa; Systematics

Prof. T. HABE (National Science Museum, 3-23-1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku,
Tokyo 160, Japan) (20 February 1972) Marine Biology

Mr. David HEPPELL (Department of Natural History, Royal Scottish Museum,
Edinburgh EH1 1JF, Scotland) (20 February 1972) (Councillor) Mollusca

Dr. I.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD) (20 February 1972) (Assistant Secretary) Lepidoptera

Prof. A. WILLINK (Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo,
Miguel Lillo 205, 4000 Tucuman, Argentina) (20 February 1972)
Neotropical Hymenoptera

Prof. Enrico TORTONESE (Istituto Zooprofilattico, Lungo Bisagno Dalmazia
45A, 16141, Genova, Italy) (30 September, 1972) Pisces; Echinodermata

Prof. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund, S-223 62, Lund,
Sweden) (30 September 1972) (Vice-President) Arthropoda; Ecology

Prof. Dr. Raphael ALVARADO (Departamento de Zoologia, Facultad de
Ciencias, Universidad de Madrid, Madrid 3, Spain) (30 September 1972)
Echinoidea; Asteroidea

Prof. E. BINDER (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, CH 1211 Geneva 6,
Switzerland) (30 September 1972) Mollusca

Prof. Harold E. VOKES (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New
Orleans, Louisiana 70118, U.S.A.) (30 September 1972) Mollusca

Dr. L.B. HOLTHUIS (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517,
2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands) (30 September 1972) (Councillor)
Crustacea

Dr. G. BERNARDI (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 bis rue de
Buffon, 75005, Paris, France) (30 September 1972) Lepidoptera

Dr. C. DUPUIS (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231,
Paris, Cedex 05 France) (30 September 1972) Heteroptera

Dr. M. MROCZKOWSKI (Instytut Zoologiczny, Polska Akademia Nauk,
Warsaw, Poland) (14 March 1975) Coleoptera

Prof. H.E. WELCH (Department of Zoology, University of Manitoba,
Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 2N2 Canada) (17 March 1976) Nematoda

Prof. Dr. Otto KRAUS (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000
Hamburg 13, Germany) (29 September 1976) Arachnida, Myriapoda

Dr. Curtis W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA c/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) (29 September
1976) (President) Diptera

Dr. H.G. COGGER (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, N.S.W. Australia)
(29 September 1976) Reptilia; E D P Methods

Prof. Dr. Gerhard HAHN (Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, Universitatsgebiet
Lahnberge, 3550 Marburg, BRD) (27 December 1978) Palaeontology

Prof. Dr. O. HALVORSEN (Institute of Biology and Geology, University of
Troms6, P.O. Box 790, N-9001 Tromséd, Norway) (27 December 1978)
Parasitology

Dr. V.A. TRJAPITZIN, (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad
B-164, USSR) (27 December 1978) Entomology

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

B. The Officers of the Trust
Mr. R.V. Melville, M.Sc. (Scientific Controller)
Mr. R.J.A. Lever (Assistant Zoologist)

CONTENTS
(continued from front cover)

Opinions

Opinion 1128. Platyrhacus Koch, 1847 (Diplopoda): designation of
Platyrhacus fuscus Koch, 1847 as type species ..............
Opinion 1129. Vulpes Frisch, 1775 (Mammalia) conserved under the
PEDALV AGW EIS aut ati cnt ESE TE cys, ieyit cc aks) a od a hd ocak ors eye
Opinion 1130. Lilioceris Reiter, 1912 (Insecta; Coleoptera):
EGTTECLION Of LY Pe SPECIES. + Shee ewe 6 Slee css isles. duu: ay clan mers
Opinion 1131. Amphisbaena mildci Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): suppressed
undentheplenaty POWEISH sett se onehs er. cee cosine Suds Re Oe
Opinion 1132. Two works by Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828,
suppressed under the plenary powers; Heterotis Riippell, 1829,
ex Ehrenberg MS (Pisces) validated under the plenary powers and
placed on the Official List with Arapaima Miiller, 1843
CPISGES) OP tetracaine a nant age) ape
Opinion 1133. Suppression under the plenary powers of names for
genera and species of Amphipoda proposed by Rafinesque between
S14 and) 1 SROKA) ts. eet et. eee nc, oak sd c hee ote Ae
Opinion 1134. Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Insecta; Lepidoptera):
corsenved under theiplenaryipOwersie soem. «ois Ss «22 cee oe
Opinion 1135. Murex lotorium Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda); ruling
OnUnterpretalichee Mer Ie 8- <6 oats seo). Seth stensu oS ae
Opinion 1136. Cicadetta strepitans Kirdaldy, 1909 (Insecta;
omoptera) 2 CONSERVed peters eee aie) SINS 2 Lah ee ee
Opinion 1137. Aphis gossypii Glover, 1877 (Insecta; Homoptera)
Validated under the plenary POWeIs = . 2.5.5.5 2s oh ede ee Oe
Opinion 1138. Giraffa camelopardalis australis Rhoads, 1896
(Uhammialiay Suppresseda sic fai. cee ct Sil eco byt cm cbs Manan os bolo sehen
Opinion 1139. Paraonis Grube, 1873 (Polychaeta, PARAONIDAE):
designation of a type species under the plenary powers
Opinion 1140. Sesarma rubripes Rathbun, 1897 (Crustacea
Decapoda) given precedence over Sesarma trapezium Dana,
(Sse eundentheplenaryapowers=.. 4ek0.6.. S45 26s. e256 21:
Opinion 1141. Donacilla Blainville, 1819 (Bivalvia) suppressed;
Donacilla Philippi, 1836, Mesodesma Deshayes, 1832 and
Semele Schumacher, 1817 (Bivalvia) added to the Official
LEIS) aN ohn el SW enema Neg, 2-8 BPs naa -peetitagh ONE NOME an oe aS
Opinion 1142. Family-group names based on Platystoma Meigen,
1803 given precedence over those based on Achias Fabricius,
TSA AUTRES A) barn oo neh wala ne eco Sara te yan NS cas Awe ava ake dots all
Opinion 1143. Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (Hymenoptera):
designation of a type species under the plenary powers .
Opinion 1144. Phloeotribus (Coleoptera: SCOLYTIDAE) ruled
to be a justified emendation of Phloiotribus Latreille,

Page

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 36, part 2 (pp. 65 - 134 Ist August 1979

NOTICES

(a) Receipt of new applications. The following new applica-
tions have been received since the publication of vol. 36 (1) on Ist
July 1979. None involves the application of Articles 23a-b and
79b.

(1) Heteromastus Eisig, 1887 and Capitella filiformis
Claparéde, 1864 (Polychaeta): proposed conserva-
tion. Z.N.(S.) 2304 (P. Hutchings & S. Rainer).

(2) Agrostis redimicula Morrison, 1875 (Lepidoptera):
proposed validation. Z.N.(S.) 2305 (J.D. Lafontaine).

(3) Heliothis Ochsenheimer, 1816 (Lepidoptera):
proposal to designate gender and stem. Z.N.(S.) 2306
(1.W.B. Nye).

(4) THAIDIDAE Jousseaume, 1888 (Gastropoda):
proposed correction of entry No. 439 in Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Z.N.(S.) 2307
(W.O. Cernohorsky).

NIDPRILEY

We announce, with deep regret, the death of N.D. Riley,
formerly Secretary to the Commission. An obituary will be pub-
lished in the Bulletin as soon as possible.

c/o British Museum (Natural History) R.V. MELVILLE
Cromwell Road Secretary, International
London SW7 5BD Commission on Zoological
United Kingdom Nomenclature

July 1979

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

THE INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE: RESULT OF VOTE ON PROPOSALS FOR
SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS (FIRST INSTALMENT).
Z.N(G.) 182

By the Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature

In November 1977, the Editorial Committee appointed to
prepare the Third Edition of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature published a first instalment of its proposals for
substantive amendments to the Code and Constitution in Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 34: 167—175. This paper appeared at the same time
as the committee’s sixth draft of the Third Edition was published
and available for comment. Notices of the publication of this paper
and of the Sixth Draft were sent to a number of scientific journals.

2. The Editorial Committee’s paper contained 25 proposals
for the amendment of the Code and Constitution of the Commis-
sion. Under Article 16 of the Constitution, the Commission could
not vote on these proposals until a year after their publication.
When the time came to submit them for a vote, the Editorial
Committee took the view that its consideration of eight of the
proposals was not sufficiently advanced for a vote to be taken on
them, and that one proposal should be withdrawn. One proposal
was divided into two parts, so that seventeen points were presented
for voting.

3.In Voting Paper (79)1 issued under the Three-Month Rule
on 14 March 1979, all 25 points were listed and the members of
the Commission were invited to vote for or against the principle of
each, without commitment to a particular form of words. At the
close of the voting period on 14 June the state of the voting was as
follows:

For Against

(1) Should the Glossary form part of the Code? 18 0
(2) Should the term “epithet” replace the term

“‘specific name’? RESERVED
(3) Criteria of publication RESERVED
(4) Definition of an available compound epithet 16 ]
(5) Should a single combined description of a new

genus and a new species continue to make both

names available after 1930 (as it already does

for names published before 1931)? 18 0

—

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67

(6) Extension of acceptance of bibliographic

references as indications 16 2
(7) Should the mandatory provision that a comma

be inserted between author and date (when

cited) be reduced to a Recommendation? 13 5
(8) Greek (etc.) epithets to be indeclinable RESERVED
(9) Deletion of Article 29d adopted at Monaco
(see Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 80, 81) 13 2
(10) Refined differentiation between different
kinds of subsequent spelling 16 1
(11) Correction of diacritic marks RESERVED
(12) Use of ‘*i’’ and ‘“ii’”’ as permissible alternatives RESERVED
(13) Homonymy between names of type genera 17 1
(14) (a) Authorship of names published in synonymy 17
(b) Types of taxa denoted by names published
in Synonymy ney
(15) Status of the fourth term in quadrinominals 16 1
(16) Proposed additions to Article 58 7 1
(17) Suggestion that “generitype” be adopted in
place of type species WITHDRAWN
(18) Deletion of Code Article 67e concerning
objective synonymy of the name of a type species 17 1

(19) Status of single surviving specimen when it is
not known whether the species-group taxon was

based on one specimen or more than one RESERVED
(20) Multiple type specimens in Protozoa RESERVED
(21) Use of term “‘type of a name” or “type of a

nominal taxon’’? RESERVED
(22) Enlargement of number of members of Council 16 2
(23) Secretary to Commission to be secretary to

Council EY 1
(24) Term of office of Secretary 18 0

(25) Removal of requirement to publish (other than
in Bull. zool. Nom.) notices of proposals for
amendment of the Constitution 16 1

Voting papers were not returned by the following members of the
Commission: Bayer, Eisenmann, Habe, Kraus, Tortonese, Welch,
Trjapitzin. Brinck was on leave of absence.

Holthuis abstained on point 4; Dupuis on 9, 10 and 15;
Cogger on 9; Binder on 9 and 14a; and Starobogatov on point 25.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Dupuis: “Point 7: “A mon avis, aucune ponctuation n’est
nécessaire entre le nom d’auteur et la date.

‘Point 9: A mon avis, la priorité des auteurs et dates des
noms en question doit €tre sauvegardée, quelle que soit la correc-
tion orthographique qui s’impose.

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

“Point 15: For, si lon précise ‘outside the scope of the
present Code.’ Against, si ‘excluded from zoological nomenclature.’

“Points 22, 23: Je ne suis pas favorable 4 la notion du Conseil.
Je ne reconnais que des membres de la Commission égaux en droits
et je souhaiterais simplement un bureau exécutif (executive com-
mittee).

“Point 25: La Commission, qui n’a plus un ‘support’ aussi
large que du temps des congrés de zoologie, a tendance a se con-
sidérer comme autonome, omnipotente et autoreproductible. La
disposition prévue accroitrait encore ce repliement et ce secret
autarciques que je considére comme dangereux.”’

Alvarado: “My vote against Point 7, and the votes for, are in
accordance with the opinions of the Entomological Working Group
of the Spanish Society of Natural History and other zoologists, and
do not reflect only my personal opinions on these matters.”

Ride: “Point 18: Article 67e. Providing that a designation
made in contravention of the new provision would remain valid but
the name of the type species should be correctly cited by sub-
sequent authors.”

Nye: “Point 18: Article 67e of the 1964 Code was a watered-
down version of Declaration 21 and dealt with how the name ofa
type species (after fixation) should be cited in the special case of its
being a junior objective synonym. Article 67e of the Sixth Draft of
the third edition appears to extend this rule to cases where a type
species, when fixed, is denoted by a junior subjective synonym.

“The explanation of the EC proposals on this point (Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 34: 172) is confusing and does not agree with the
draft provision. Draft Article 67e gives mandatory force to only
part of Recommendation 69C of 1964 (which has been deleted as
such). There are in fact two points involved here, and they should
be analysed separately:

(A) What is acceptable as a type-species fixation?

(B) How should a type species be cited after fixation?

“(A). What is acceptable as a type-species fixation is reason-
ably well defined in the 1964 Code and the Sixth Draft, except that
it is not made clear whether one made by citing the name of the
type species under an objective synonym is to be accepted as valid
or not. For example, in the Lepidoptera, Epicoma Hubner, [1819],
had an originally included nominal species Epicoma tristis Hubner,
[1819], which is a junior secondary homonym of Bombyx tristis
Donovan, 1805. A new replacement name, Epicoma contristis, was
published by Hiibner in 1823, and the species was cited under that
name when it was fixed as type of the genus by Kirby, 1892. Is this
fixation valid or not? Commonsense indicates that emendations,
new replacement names and other objective synonyms, if denoting

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69

the same type species with the same type specimen, should be
tegarded as different spellings or names for the same nominal
taxon. However, in both the 1964 Code and the Sixth Draft, a
genus-group name and its new replacement name are regarded as
denoting different nominal taxa [Art. 67i], and this seems to me
incorrect. The provision should be reworded to read ‘both names
denote the same nominal taxon’.

“The above concept could be incorporated into Article 69a
(iv) as:

(iv) If an author fixes (or accepts another’s fixation) as type

species, either

(1) a nominal species denoted by an objective synonym
of the epithet under which it was Originally included,
or

(2) a nominal species that was not originally included,
and if, but only if, at the same time he places that
nominal species in Synonymy with one of the
originally included species, his act constitutes the
designation of the Originally included nominal
species as the type species of the nominal genus-
group taxon.’

““(B) I agree with what I think the EC is trying to say, that is
that the type species should be cited under the same epithet (if
available) that was used for it when it was originally included in the
genus. Article 67e should be reduced to a Recommendation
(Recommendation 67B) as:

‘Citation of type species following fixation. — The name of a

nominal species, type of a genus-group taxon, should be cited

first by the original combination by which it was denoted
when it was first included in that taxon, and secondly by its
current valid combination if that is different.’ ”

Bernardi: “Point 15: ‘For’ avec réserves. Cette disposition
était implicitement contenue dans la deuxiéme édition du Code et
mal comprise par de nombreux zoologistes. Il était donc utile de
l’exprimer clairement. Mais elle conduit 4 un chaos en ce qui con-
cerne (1) les noms utilisés pour exprimer la variation géographique,
et (2) les noms des auteurs de ces noms.”

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

will have to be replaced, so that the additional clause would not
promote stability of nomenclature.”

DECLARATION OF RESULT OF VOTE

The result of the vote on V.P. (79)1 is that all the points
submitted for a vote received the two-thirds affirmative majority
required under Article 16a(v) of the Constitution. The publication
of this report therefore constitutes the corresponding recommenda-
tion by the Commission to the Congress that the proposed amend-
ments be incorporated into the Code, in words to be prepared by

the Editorial Committee for the Commission’s approval.
R.V. MELVILLE
Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
18 June 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7

PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE SPECIES GROUP OF NAMES
FOR TAXA DIFFERENTIATED BY GEOGRAPHICAL
CRITERIA. Z.N.(S.) 2302

By G. Bernardi (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris)
and R.V. Melville (Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature)

Many attempts have been made to introduce into species-
group names supplementary epithets representing a certain analogy
with subgeneric names already accepted in the Code. An exhaustive
study of the various terms proposed for this purpose is to be pub-
lished elsewhere by Bernardi in 1979. Here we attempt only to
explain our proposal to add provisions to the Code to deal with
such epithets.

2.The attempts referred to have arisen in studies of
geographical variation and have been concerned mainly with (1)
monophyletic groups of vicarious species (Artenkreis of Rensch,
1928; geogenus of Rensch, 1931; superspecies of Mayr, 1931; the
species forming such groups have been termed “‘prospecies” by
Birula, 1910, “hemispecies” by Mayr, 1940 and ‘“‘allospecies” by
Amadon, 1966); and (2) to groups of closely related subspecies
within a species (Formengruppe of Laubmann, 1921; exerge of
Verity, 1925; citrapsecies of Dujardin, 1956).

3. There are in fact many synonyms denoting each of these
concepts, but the Code is not concerned with these. Article 45 of
the Draft Third Edition of the Code accepts such terms as “‘sub-
species” and “‘race” as equivalent from the nomenclatural point of
view. The role of the Code is simply to lay down a rule for the in-
corporation into scientific names of the epithets representing these
concepts. This is comparatively easy, for even if different modes of
citation have been proposed independently by different authors,
there are many common points between them. These common
points are:

(1) the names at supra-specific level are always placed
between the generic name and the specific epithet, and
the names at supra-subspecific level between the specific
and subspecific epithets;

(2) the epithet applied to the new (intermediate) category is
always the oldest among those of the included species or
subspecies, as the case may be.

The only variation in practice concerns an insignificant point: the
use of parentheses (), or brackets [] , or of neither around the name

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

of the intermediate taxon. This will be examined at length in due
course by Bernardi (in press, 1979).

4. In our opinion, the use of parentheses is to be preferred (a)
because it conforms to the traditional use of parentheses for sub-
generic names in the Code, (b) because it corresponds to the usage
of the majority of authors, and (c) because brackets have been used
to denote other concepts than those considered here. Only Amadon
— and then only in his works published since 1966 — has proposed
the use of brackets around the names of vicarious species.

5. During meetings between us in Paris in April 1978 and in
January and April 1979, we have examined this problem in depth
and propose the following addition to Article 5 of the Draft Third
Edition of the Code:

‘“‘An epithet may be added in parentheses after the genus-
group name, or be inserted in parentheses between the generic
name and the specific epithet to represent a group of
vicarious species; and an additional epithet may be placed in
parentheses between the specific and subspecific epithets to
represent a group of subspecies within a species; such epithets,
which must always be printed with a lower-case initial letter,
are not counted in the number of words in a binomen or
trinomen.

“Examples.— In the genus Ornithoptera Boisduval, 1832,

the species O. priamus (Linnaeus, 1758) is the first-named

member of a group of vicarious species that includes also

O. lydius Felder, 1865 and O. croesus Wallace, 1865. The

supra-specific rank accorded to O. priamus may be expressed

in the notation ‘Ornithoptera (priamus) (Linnaeus, 1758)

and the relationship between the members of the group by

the notations ‘O. (priamus) priamus (Linnaeus, 1758)’,

‘O. (priamus) lydius Felder, 1865’ and ‘O. (priamus) croesus

Wallace, 1865’. In the species Mellicta athalia (Rottemburg,

1775) there are two groups of subspecies of which M. athalia

athalia and M. athalia celadussa (Fruhstorfer, 1910) are

respectively the first-named subspecies. The relationship be-
tween the subspecies in each of these groups may be
expressed by the following notations:

‘M. athalia (athalia) athalia (Rottemburg, 1775)’; ‘M. athalia

(athalia) norvegica (Aurivillius, 1888)’; and ‘M. athalia

(celadussa) celadussa (Fruhstorfer, 1910)’; ‘M. athalia

(celadussa) nevadensis (Ch. Oberthur, 1904)’.”

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73

OPINION 1128
PLATYRHACUS KOCH, 1847 (DIPLOPODA): DESIGNATION
OF PLATYRHACUS FUSCUS KOCH, 1847, AS TYPE SPECIES

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all designations of
type species for the nominal genus Platyrhacus C.L. Koch, 1847
hitherto made are hereby set aside and the nominal species Platyr-
hacus fuscus C.L. Koch, 1847, is hereby designated as type species
of that genus.

(2) The generic name Platyrhacus C.L. Koch, 1847 (gender,
masculine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers
in (1) above, Platyrhacus fuscus Koch, 1847, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2075.

(3) The specific name fuscus C.L. Koch, 1847, as published
in the binomen Platyrhacus fuscus (specific name of type species of
Platyrhacus C.L. Koch, 1847) is hereby placed on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2666.

(4) The family name PLATYRHACIDAE Pocock, 1895
(type genus Platyrhacus C.L. Koch, 1847) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 495.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2078

An application for the use of the plenary powers to designate
a type species for the nominal genus Platyrhacus C.K. Koch, 1847,
was first received from Dr Richard L. Hoffman (Radford College,
Virginia, USA) on 18 July 1974. It was sent to the printer on 27
August 1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool
Nom. vol. 31: 249--251. Public notice of the possible use of the
plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of the
Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven entomo-
logical serials.

The application was supported by Dr R.M. Shelley (North
Carolina State Museum of Natural History) and by Dr H. Enghoff
(Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark). No
adverse comment was received.

At the suggestion of the late Dr Lemche the “old and faded
Square paper label’’ mentioned in paragraph 7 of the application
was examined under ultra-violet light. Dr K.H. Hyatt (British
Museum, Natural History), who made the examination, reported

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

that the following was readable:

Platyrhacus

fuscus Kch.

Polydesmus Heros

Hglch.

Java
No light could be thrown on the meaning of the name “Polydesmus
Heros” or of the abbreviation ““Hglch.”

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 7 April 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)8 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol.
31: 251. At the close of the voting period on 7 July 1978 the state
of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Brinck, Vokes,
Sabrosky, Cogger, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Willink, Nye, Alvarado,
Corliss, Starobogatov, Bernardi, Welch, Bayer, Ride

Negative Vote — Heppell.

No voting papers were returned by Dupuis and Kraus.

Mr Heppell commented as follows in returning his vote: “‘I
do not believe the applicant had made out a sufficiently good case
for the use of the plenary powers in the way proposed. I am not
prepared to vote for the addition of P. fuscus Koch to the Official
List without knowing more about the usage of that name. The
applicant states that it ‘appears to be very similar to, if not
identical with, Platyrhacus flavisternus Pocock, a common Javan
species’ which name is, I presume, junior to fuscus, though no date
is given. Is the name of this common species to be upset by recog-
nition of fuscus, interpreted only by the presumed type? Or is the
name fuscus, which seems to have been identifiable by a sufficiently
good figure which agrees closely with the Koch specimen, also in
general use? Only in the latter case would I think its addition to the
Official List acceptable.”

Dr Hoffman was invited to reply to this comment and did so
as follows:

“So far as I can find out, flavisternus has been cited in the
literature only four times since its original description in 1894. Of
these, a mention in 1899 is possibly a misidentification, references
in 1914 and 1938 are mere lists, and one in 1945 is a bona fide use
as a valid name. I do not think that this amounts to general usage. I

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75

said that the species was common on the basis of a verbal communi-
cation from a colleague who has made large collections of it, but
who has not published on the species.

“On the other hand, fuscus has not been used since 1863
except in several lists of species inquirendae, but this is not
uncommon in diplopod taxonomy. Plenty of well-described species,
with extant types in the larger museums, have fallen into obscurity
because the previous generation of milliped specialists just did not
believe in either restudying types or trying very hard to match up
old names with their material (better to name it all as new!).”

It is thus clear that the case presented by Dr Hoffman is not
concerned with usage, but with the problem of the misidentifi-
cation of the type species of Platyrhacus — a problem which, under
Article 70 of the Code, he was obliged to submit to the Commis-
sion.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references to the names placed

on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

fuscus, Platyrhacus, C.L. Koch, 1847, System der Myriapoden, in
Panzer & Herrich-Schaeffer, Krit. Revis. Insectenfauna
Deutschlands, II] Bandchen: 132

PLATYRHACIDAE Pocock, 1895, (as “PLATYRRHACIDAE’’),
Ann. Mus. Civ. Stor. nat. Genova, vol. 34: 788

Platyrhacus C.L. Koch, 1847; System der Myriapoden, in Panzer
& Herrich-Schaeffer, Krit. Revis. Insectenfauna Deutschlands,
III Bandchen: 131.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)8 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1128.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

13 November 1978

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1129
VULPES FRISCH, 1775 (MAMMALIA) CONSERVED UNDER
THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled

(a) that the generic name Vulpes Frisch, 1775 (a name
published in a work placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen-
clature) is available for the purposes of zoological
nomenclature;

(b) that all previous designations of type species for the
nominal genus Vulpes Frisch, 1775, are set aside and
Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, is ruled to be the type
species;

(c) that the specific names minimus and saarensis Skjolde-
brand, 1777, as published in the combination Vulpes
minimus Saarensis, are suppressed for the purposes of
the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Vulpes Frisch, 1775 (gender:
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in
(1) (b) above, Canis vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2076.

(3) The specific name vulpes Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the binomen Canis vulpes (specific name of type species of
Vulpes Frisch, 1775) is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2667.

(4) The generic name Vulpes Skjoldebrand, 1777 (a junior
homonym of Vulpes Frisch, 1775) is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2104.

(5) The species-group names minimus and saarensis Skjolde-
brand, 1777, as published in the combination Vulpes minimus
Saarensis, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers 1049
and 1050 respectively.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 977
The origins of the present case are obscure. It appears that in
1931 Dr Stiles (then Secretary to the Commission) prepared a list

of generic names for inclusion in the Official List, and that this list

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ae

included ‘“‘Vulpes Oken, 1816”. (The list was of genera in species of
which there had been found parasites common to Man.) The first
formal proposal for the validation of Vulpes Frisch, 1775, was
received on 29 November 1974 from Dr Juliet Clutton-Brock and
Dr G.B. Corbet (British Museum (Natural History), London). This
was sent to the printer on S March 1975 and was published on 22
September 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 110—112. Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory
serials and to two mammalogical serials. No comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper 1978
(10) for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32:
111—112. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18), received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer,
Dupuis, Corliss, Nye, Welch, Bernardi

Negative Votes — none (0).

A late affirmative vote was received from Sabrosky. Ride was
on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Kraus, Heppell and
Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Eisenmann: “Ordinarily I am disinclined to validate a name
on the basis of an ‘invalid’ work merely to give that name priority
in the event of generic merger. But Vulpes is such a well-known
name that I feel an exception is justified, especially as no opposi-
tion has been filed by mammalogists.”’

Dupuis: ““Les cas de Dama et de Vulpes montrent bien le
danger de vouloir effacer l’histoire par le rejet d’un ourvrage.”’

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the
present Opinion:
minimus, Vulpes, Skjéldebrand, 1777, K. svenska Vetensk. Akad.

Handl., vol. 38: 265—267
saarensis, Vulpes minimus, Skjoldebrand, 1777, K. svenska Vetensk.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Akad. Handl., vol. 38: 265—267
Vulpes Frisch, 1775, Das Natur-System der vierftissigen Thiere: 15
Vulpes Skjoldebrand, 1777, K. svenska Vetensk. Akad. Handl., vol.
38: 265—267
vulpes, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1: 40

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)10 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1129.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

19 January 1978

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 79

OPINION 1130
LILIOCERIS REITTER, 1912 (INSECTA; COLEOPTERA)
CORRECTION OF TYPE SPECIES

RULING — (1) The following entries in Official Lists are
hereby corrected as follows:

(a) Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, No. 1893 to
read: “‘Lilioceris Reitter, 1912 (gender: masculine), type species, by
subsequent designation by Heinze, 1937, Chrysomela merdigera
Linnaeus, 1758.”

(b) Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, No. 2369 to
read: “‘Jilii Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Attelabus
lilii.”’

(2) The following specific name is hereby added to the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2668: merdigera Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Chrysomela merdigera (specific name of type species of Lilioceris
Reitter, 1912).

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1786

The original object of this application was to conserve the
generic names Crioceris Muller, 1764 and Lema Fabricius, 1798 in
their accustomed senses. This was achieved by the ruling given in
Opinion 908 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27: 12—13, 1970). Lilioceris
Reitter, 1912, was placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology under the ordinary powers of the Commission as a con-
sequence of the action taken under the plenary powers concerning
Crioceris and Lema. It was then thought that the type species of
Lilioceris was Attelabus lilii Scopoli, 1763, and corresponding
entries were accordingly made in the Official Lists of Generic and
Specific Names in Zoology.

On 13 May 1974 an application was received from Dr
Richard E. White (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o
U.S. National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560) pointing out that
the type species of Lilioceris was not A. lilii Scopoli, 1763, by sub-
sequent designation by Chij6, 1951, as had been thought, but
Chrysomela merdigera Linnaeus, 1758, by subsequent designation
by Heinze, 1937. This did not affect any of the taxonomic con-
sequences of Opinion 908; it meant, however, that what had then
been thought to be a subjective synonymy between the three
generic names became an objective synonymy.

Dr White’s application was sent to the printer on 27 August

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1974 and published on 13 January 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol.
31: 200. No use of the plenary powers was involved. No comments
were received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)12 for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 31: 200. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer,
Dupuis, Corliss, Welch, Bernardi

Negative Votes — none (0).

A late affirmative vote was received from Sabrosky. Ride was
on leave of absence. No voting papers were returned by Heppell,
Kraus and Starobogatov.

Nye abstained from voting and commented: “I cannot vote
on this proposal as the application is incomplete. What is to happen
to the entry of Attelabus lilii at present on the Official List as the
type species of Lilioceris? Is Chrysomela merdigera now to be
placed in the Official List in its place, or in addition? It would be
more satisfactory to correct the error by setting aside under the
plenary powers any type species designation for Lilioceris prior to
that of Chaj6, 1951.”

NOTE BY THE SECRETARY TO THE COMMISSION

In drafting the ruling in this Opinion, I have borne Dr
Nye’s comment in mind. He is right to point out that Dr White’s
proposals were incomplete. On the other hand, the minimum
inferences necessary to complete them seem to me so easily drawn
as not to require a re-opening of the case: the replacement of an
incorrect subsequent type-species designation by the correct one
automatically entails adding the name of the latter species (C.
merdigera L.) to the Official List and the removal from the entry
for A. lilii Scopoli of its citation as the type species of Lilioceris.
No vote was taken on the question of removing that name from
the Official List, however, and in consequence that entry stands as
such.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 81

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following is the original reference to a name placed on
the Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
merdigera, Chrysomela, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1:

The following is the reference to a designation of type species
accepted in the ruling given in the present Opinion: of Chrysomela
merdigera Linnaeus, 1758, as type species of Lilioceris Reitter,
1912, by Heinze, 1937, Bull. Mus. roy. Hist. nat. Belgique, vol. 13
(25); 3:

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)12 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the
decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1130.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

22 January 1979

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1131
AMPHISBAENA MILDEI PETERS, 1878 (REPTILIA):
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name
mildei Peters, 1878, as published in the binomen Amphisbaena
mildei, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The specific name mildei Peters, 1878, as published in
the binomen Amphisbaena mildei, and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1051.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1746

An application from Professor Carl Gans (then of University
of New York, Buffalo, N.Y., U.S.A.) was first received in February
1966 and published in October 1966 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 23:
162—163. It was supported by Professor Hobart M. Smith and Dr
H. Wermuth, but opposed by the Nomenclature Committee of the
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists. The case
involved the application of Article 23b (of the 1964 Code), and the
degree of confusion surrounding that provision is well illustrated by
the erroneous procedural note published by the Secretary to the
Commission in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 25: 211. The case was not
taken to a conclusion at that time.

Professor Gans’s original application had been based on the
position that Amphisbaena mildei was not only an unused name,
but also a nomen dubium, because Peters’s type specimen had been
lost. On 14 August 1973 a letter was received from him announcing
his rediscovery of the lost type and confirming his previous belief
that A. mildei was a senior synonym of A. darwini Duméril &
Bibron, 1839 trachura Cope, 1885. He therefore submitted, on
14 September 1973. a fresh application in which he gave evidence
of a prima facie case for the suppression of A. mildei under the
revised (1972) provisions of Article 23a—b and 79b. He did not ask
that any name be placed on the Official List. This application was
sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and was published on 13
January 1975 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 201—203. Public notice
of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was given in
the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory periodicals

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 83

and to two herpetological journals. It was supported by the Nomen-
clature Committee of the American Society of Ichthyologists and
Herpetologists. No adverse comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on voting paper
1978(11) for or against the proposals in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31:
202. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978 the
state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Corliss, Nye,
Welch

Negative Votes — three (3): Habe, Dupuis, Bernardi.

A late negative vote was received from Sabrosky. Ride was on
leave of absence. Bayer abstained from voting. No voting papers
were returned by Heppell, Kraus and Starobogatov.

The following comments were returned by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Bayer: “It is not clear to me what is required in this case. The
applicant goes to some length (p. 201, first paragraph) to show that
the overlooked name Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878, applies to
the southern form of A. darwini Duméril & Bibron, 1839, later
called trachura Cope, 1885, to support his request for suppression
of mildei in favour of the junior name, which has become generally
accepted. As he then states (p. 202) that the rediscovered type of
mildei belongs to the northern form, it would not appear to be in
competition with the name of the southem form, and I do not see
what its suppression would achieve.” [This question was put to
Professor Gans, who replied that the rediscovered type belongs in
fact to the southern form.]

Bernardi: “Malgré l’appui d’un comité ‘ad hoc’ je vote contre.
Il me parait tout a fait inutile de renoncer au principe de priorité
dans le cas d’un nom subspécifique, concernant seulement quelques
spécialistes.”

Sabrosky: “I think the Nomenclature Committee of the
American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists should have
stood by their original position. The papers they cite are recent
and chiefly taxonomic and I see no overwhelming reason for not
applying the name mildei based on the unexpected discovery of the
type.” , :

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

ORIGINAL REFERENCE

The following is the original reference to a name placed on an
Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
mildei, Amphisbaena, Peters, 1878, Monatsber. k. preuss. Akad.
Wiss., 1878: 778-781

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)11 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1131.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

22 January 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 85

OPINION 1132
TWO WORKS BY HEMPRICH & EHRENBERG, 1828,
SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS; HETEROTIS
RUPPELL, 1829, EX EHRENBERG MS (PISCES) VALIDATED
UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND PLACED ON THE
OFFICIAL LIST WITH ARAPAIMA MULLER, 1843 (PISCES)

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers
(a) the following works are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of zoological nomenclature and it is ruled that no name
acquires the status of availability by virtue of having been published
therein:
(i) Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828a, Symbolae Physicae seu
Icones et Descriptiones Piscium. Berlin (Mittler);

(ii) Hemprich & Ehrenberg, 1828b, Symbolae Physicae seu
Icones et Descriptiones Zootomicrorum. Berlin
(Mittler);

(b) the generic name Heterotis is ruled to be available as
from its publication in synonymy by Rippell, 1829.

(2) The following generic names are placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified:

(a) Heterotis Riippell, 1829 ex Ehrenberg MS (gender:
masculine), type species, by monotypy, Sudis niloticus Cuvier,
1829, ex Ehrenberg MS, as validated under the plenary powers in
(1) (b) above (Name Number 2077):

(b) Arapaima Miller, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species,
by monotypy, Sudis gigas Schinz, 1822 (Name Number 2078).

(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified:

(a) niloticus Cuvier, 1829, ex Ehrenberg MS, as published in
the binomen Sudis niloticus (specific name of type species of
Heterotis Ruppell, 1829 ex Ehrenberg MS) (Name Number 2669);

(b) gigas Schinz, 1822, as published in the binomen Sudis
gigas (specific name of type species of Arapaima Miller, 1843)
(Name Number 2670).

(4) The titles of the two works suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1)(a) above are hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature
with the Title Numbers 83 and 84 respectively.

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1807

An application for the addition of Heterotis Ruppell, ex
Ehrenberg MS to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was
first received from MM. F. d’Aubenton and J. Daget (Muséum
National d ‘Histoire Naturelle, Paris) in April 1967. After an
exchange of correspondence, an amended version was published on
7 December 1967 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 24: 291—293. This
application was in part supported and in part criticised by M. J.
Géry (CNRS, Les Eyzies, France) (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 25: 64).
Dr Harold Roelling (Adelphi University, Long Island, New York)
proposed that Heterotis niloticus should date from Hemprich &
Ehrenberg, 1828 (ibid.: 194). MM. d’Aubenton & Daget wrote
withdrawing their application. Dr William R. Taylor (U.S. National
Museum) proposed that the two works by Hemprich & Ehrenberg
allegedly published in 1828 should be placed on the Official List
with that date (Bull. vol. 26: 180—182), while their rejection was
proposed by Professor J.A.F. Garrick (Victoria University,
Wellington, New Zealand) (Bull. vol. 27: 2).

FIRST VOTE BY THE COMMISSION

On 13 August 1970 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule, in Part | for or against
the rejection of the 1828 folio of Hemprich & Ehrenberg, and in
Part 2 for or against placing on Official Lists: Heterotis Ehrenberg
in Ruppell, 1829 and Arapaima Miller, 1843; their respective type
species, Sudis niloticus Ehrenberg in Cuvier, 1829 and Sudis gigas
Schinz in Cuvier, 1822; and the family name HETEROTIDAE Gill,
1893: and placing Clupisudis Swainson, 1839 (a junior objective
synonym of Heterotis) on the Official Index. At the close of the
voting period on 13 November 1970 there were 14 affirmative and
three negative votes on Part | and 1S affirmative and no negative
votes on Part 2 (which was supported by Holthuis and Sabrosky in
part only). The following comments were sent in with voting
papers:

Holthuis: “In my opinion there is no proof that the two folio
papers of 1828 of Ehrenberg’s were not published and therefore |
have to vote against Part |. I believe that it would have been wiser
to ask the Commission to suppress these publications under the
plenary powers. I vote against paragraph (1) (a) in Part 2 because
(a) Heterotis Ehrenberg in Riippell, 1829, is incorrectly cited; it was
published by Ruippell and should be known as Heterotis Ruppell,
1829: (b) Heterotis Riippell, 1829, was published, as correctly
pointed out by Dr Taylor, as a synonym, and is available only if it

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87

has been treated as a valid name before 1961; (c) as long as
Heterotis Ehrenberg, 1828 is not suppressed, Heterotis Ruppell,
1829 is invalid.”

Sabrosky: “Gender of Arapaima: is this masculine or
feminine? My colleague George Steyskal finds that it is derived
from an aboriginal word and believes that it should be treated under
Article 30b(ii), last sentence, under which a word ending in -a
would normally be considered to have a natural classical feminine
ending.

“T oppose placing Clupisudis on the Official Index because I
do not believe in cluttering up that Index with unnecessary items. A
junior objective syonym is dead without action on our part, so long
as the senior synonym is valid and available. It would also be advan-
tageous, should the senior synonym at some time be found
unavailable for use (e.g. a junior homonym), to be able to resurrect
the junior synonym and use it without needing formal action to
remove it from the Official Index.’’ Dr Sabrosky also asked that the
question of the authorship of Heterotis and of Sudis niloticus be
re-examined.

The study of these comments led me to believe that the
grounds on which the Commission was being asked to act should be
carefully studied. My conclusions were published on 27 March 1975
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 56—59. Public notice of the possible
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to an ichthyologi-
cal periodical. The proposals were supported by Professor
Tortonese, but Mr R.K. Broke (Durban Museum, Durban, RSA)
thought that Arapaima should be treated as neuter (ibid.: 200).

Mr Brooke’s comment caused me to seek the advice of my
colleague, Dr Willink, on South American ichthyologists who might
provide information on the gender of Arapaima. The most
appropriate authority, Dr Heraldo Britski (Museu da Zoologia da
Universidade de Sao Pauio, Brazil) learned from the anthropologist
Dr Egon Schaden, of Sao Paulo University, that “‘arapaima”’ (ori-
ginally “warapaima” of the Macusis tribe) is a word of the Carib
language and without gender. Dr Britski suggested that since the
name of the type species (Sudis gigas) is a masculine noun,
Arapaima should be treated as masculine. Dr Caravello, of the
Department of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Sao
Carlos, Brazil, stated that the generic name is treated as feminine,
as are other names ending in -a derived from aboriginal languages.

There is no doubt in my mind that Dr Sabrosky and Mr
Steyskal have read the Code correctly and that the name is to be
treated as feminine, with gigas as a masculine noun in apposition.
As Dr Britski’s advice was not received until after the close of the

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

second voting period, and as his suggestion could only be implemen-
ted through a fresh application for the use of the plenary powers, I
decided to conclude the matter without further delay.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three- Month Rule on voting paper
(1978)13 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 32: 58. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978
the state of the voting was as follows:

Part |

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Corliss,
Habe, Nye, Dupuis (conditional vote), Welch, Bernardi

Negative Votes — none (0).

Part 2

For feminine — sixteen (16) received in the following order:
Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski, Vokes,
Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Corliss, Habe,
Nye, Welch

For neuter — one (Dupuis)

Sabrosky returned a late affirmative vote in Part 1 and for
“feminine” in Part 2. Bernardi abstained on Part 2. Ride was on
leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Kraus and
Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Eisenmann: “It is less likely to cause confusion if Arapaima
(which looks feminine) is treated as such.”

Willink: ““Not all indigenous names in Spanish or Portuguese
America ending in -a are feminine as Sabrosky and Steyskal imply;
there are masculine nouns ending in -a. In the case of Arapaima, as
a vernacular name, it is used as masculine. Is it then right to make it
feminine?”

Dupuis: “A Vargumentation présentée, il faut ajouter les faits
suivants (€tablis par mon collégue ichthyologiste J.C. Hureau).

“Les manuscrits de |’Histoire naturelle des poissons de Cuvier
& Valenciennes existent a Paris, a la Bibliotheque Centrale du
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Le MS 518 renferme un
calque de la figure d’Ehrenberg, relevé par Valenciennes lors de son
voyage a Berlin en 1827. Ce calque (dont l’échelle différe de celle
de la planche gravée) porte les mentions suivantes: ‘A.V. Berlin
1827’ — ‘Sudis niloticus nov. gen. (de la main de Valenciennes)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89

‘Ehrenberg’ (de la main de Cuvier) ‘Heterotis Ehr.’ (de la main de
Cuvier).

“Ce document prouve que Cuvier a utilisé un manuscrit
d’Ehrenberg; par suite, une citation bibliographique complete aussi
bien du nom niloticus que du nom Heterotis exige la mention de
cette circonstance.

“En conséquence, je vote les propositions du Bull. 32: 58
comme suit:

“‘la — contre (je refuse de supprimer deux publications dont
Vhistoire reste a éclaircir et dont l’une n’a d’ailleurs pas de rapport
avec la question examinée).

“1b — pour, sous les deux conditions expresses suivantes:

(1) on écrira: Sudis niloticus Cuvier, 1829, ex Ehrenberg

(2) on écrira: Heterotis Riippell, 1829, ex Ehrenberg MS

“Ja — pour, a condition qu’on écrive Heterotis Ruppell,
1829, ex Ehrenberg MS.

“Ib — contre le genre féminin et pour le genre neutre
(Arapaima est un nom barbare, sans tradition classique).

“3a — pour, a condition qu’on écrive niloticus Cuvier, 1829
ex Ehrenberg MS.

“3b — pour.

“Par condition expresse, il faut comprendre que si le nom
d’Ehrenberg n’était pas cité dans l’Opinion, je déclare voter contre
l’ensemble de la proposition.’ [Since Monsieur Dupuis’s comment
makes no difference to the nomenclatural aspects of the case, his
wishes as regards the form of bibliographic citation of the names
have been respected. R.V.M.]

Sabrosky: “May I ask why my comment on the authorship of
Heterotis (Z.NAS.) 1925, Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 206—207) was
not cited among the documents on this case? The present proposals
on authorship are, of course, agreeable to me.” [The omission is
regretted. R.V.M.]

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

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

Arapaima J. Miller, 1843, Arch. Naturges., Jahrg. 9, vol. 1: 192
gigas, Sudis, Schinz, 1822, in Cuvier, Das Thierreich aus dem

franzosischen frey iibersetzt ... vol. 2: 305
Hemprich, F.G. & Ehrenberg, C.G., 1828a, Symbolae Physicae seu

Icones et Descriptiones Piscium ... edidit Dr C.G. Ehrenberg

... Berolino ex Officina Academica. Venditur a Mittlero

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Hemprich, F.G. & Ehrenberg, C.G., 1828b. Symbolae Physicae seu

Icones et Descriptiones Zootomicrorum ... edidit Dr C.G.
Ehrenberg ... Berolini ex Officina Academica. Venditur a
Mittlero

Heterotis Ruppell, 1829, ex Ehrenberg MS, Beschreibung und
Abbildung mehrerer neuer Fische im Nil entdeckt: 10

niloticus Cuvier, 1829, ex Ehrenberg MS, Régne Animal (2nd
edition), vol. 2: 328.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)13 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1132.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

31 January 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9]

OPINION 1133
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF NAMES
FOR GENERA AND SPECIES OF AMPHIPODA PROPOSED BY
RAFINESQUE BETWEEN 1814 AND 1820

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers

(a) the following generic names are hereby suppressed for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy:

(i) Psammylla Rafinesque, 1817;
(ii) Sperchius Rafinesque, 1820;

(b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy:

(i) bispinosa Rafinesque, 1814, as published in the
binomen Pisitoe bispinosa;

(ii) Jittoralis Rafinesque, 1817, as published in the
binomen Psammylla littoralis;

(iii) lucidus Rafinesque, 1820, as published in the
binomen Sperchius lucidus;

(iv) potamogeti Rafinesque, 1817, as published in the
binomen Pephredo potamogeti;

(c) all designations of type species hitherto made for the
nominal genus Talitrus Bosc, [1802] are hereby set
aside and the nominal species Cancer (Gammarellus)
saltator Montagu, 1808, is hereby designated as type
species of that genus;

(d) the family name TALITRIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (type
genus Talitrus Bosc, [1802]) is hereby given nomen-
clatural precedence over the family name ORCHESTII-
DAE Leach, 1814 (type genus Orchestia Leach, 1814)
whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms;

(e) it is hereby directed that the following nominal species
are to be interpreted by the neotypes designated by
Holthuis, 1969, Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 26: 106, para-
graph 3a and: 107, paragraph 3c respectively:

(i) Lepleurus rivularis Rafinesque, 1820;
(ii) Pisitoe levifrons Rafinesque, 1814.

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

(a) Crangonyx Bate, 1859 (gender: masculine), type species,

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

(g)

(3)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

by monotypy, Crangonyx subterraneus Bate, 1859
(Name Number 2079);

Orchestia Leach, 1814 (gender: feminine), type species,
by monotypy, Cancer (Gammarus) littoreus Montagu,
1808 (Name Number 2080);

Phronima Latreille, [1802] (gender: feminine), type
species, by monotypy, Cancer sedentarius Forsskal,
1775 (Name Number 2081);

Phrosina Risso, 1822 (gender: feminine), type species,
by subsequent designation by Stebbing, 1888, Phrosina
semilunata Risso, 1822 (Name Number 2082);
Synurella Wrzesniowski, 1877 (gender: feminine), type
species, by monotypy, Synurella polonica Wrzeniowski,
1877 (Name Number 2083);

Talitrus Bosc, [1802] (gender: masculine), type species,
by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (c)
above, Cancer (Gammarellus) saltator Montagu, 1808
(Name Number 2084);

Talorchestia Dana, 1852 (gender: feminine), type
species, by subsequent monotypy (Dana, 1853), Talitrus
gracilis Dana, 1852 (Name Number 2085).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official

List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers

specified:

(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)

(i)

fasciatus Say, 1818, as published in the binomen
Gammarus fasciatus (Name Number 2671);
gammarellus Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen
Oniscus gammarellus (Name Number 2672);

gracilis Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen
Talitrus gracilis (specific name of type species of
Talorchestia Dana, 1852) (Name Number 2673);

locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen
Cancer locusta (Name Number 2674);

longicornis Say, 1818, as published in the binomen
Talitrus longicornis (Name Number 2675);

minus Say, 1818, as published in the binomen
Gammarus minus (Name Number 2676);

platensis Krgyer, 1844, as published in the binomen
Orchestia platensis (Name Number 2677);

polonica Wrzesniowski, 1877, as published in the
binomen Synurella polonica (specific name of type
species of Synurella Wrzesniowski, 1877) (Name
Number 2678);

saltator Montagu, 1808, as published in the combination
Cancer (Gammarellus) saltator (specific name of type

(k)

(1)

(4)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93

species of Talitrus Bosc, [1802] ) (Name Number 2679);
sedentarius Forssk§l, 1775, as published in the binomen
Cancer sedentarius (specific name of type species of
Phronima Latreille, [1802]) (Name Number 2680);
semilunata Risso, 1822, as published in the binomen
Phrosina semilunata (specific name of type species of
Phrosina Risso, 1822) (Name Number 2681):

subterraneus Bate, 1859, as published in the binomen
Crangonyx subterraneus (specific name of type species
of Crangonyx Bate, 1859) (Name Number 2682).
The following names are hereby placed on the Official

List of Family-Group Names in Zoology:

(a)

(b)

(5S)

ORCHESTIIDAE (correction of ORCHESTIDAE)
Leach, 1814 (type genus Orchestia Leach, 1814), with
an endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
TALITRIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 by anybody who
believes that Orchestia Leach and Talitrus Bosc belong
to the same family-group taxon (Name Number 496);
PHRONIMIDAE (correction of PHRONIMIA) Rafines-
que, 1815 (type genus Phronima Latreille, [1802])
(Name Number 497);

PHROSININAE Dana, 1852 (type genus Phrosina Risso,
1822) (Name Number 498):

TALITRIDAE (correction of TALITRIDIA) Rafines-
que, 1815 (type genus Talitrus Bosc, [1802]) with an
endorsement that it is to be given nomenclatural pre-
cedence over ORCHESTIIDAE Leach, 1814 by
anybody who believes that Talitrus Bosc and Orchestia
Leach belong to the same family-group taxon (Name
Number 499).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Numbers specified:

(a)
(b)
(c)

(d)

(6)

Dactylocera Latreille, 1829, a junior objective synonym
of Phrosina Risso, 1822 (Name Number 2 105);

Pisitoe Rafinesque, 1814, a junior objective synonym of
Phronima Latreille, [1802] (Name Number 2 106);
Psammylla Rafinesque, 1814, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) (a) (i) above (Name Number
TAU Ds

Sperchius Rafinesque, 1820, as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) (a) (ii) above (Name Number
2108).

The following names are hereby placed on the Official

Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, with the

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Name Numbers specified:

(a) bispinosa Rafinesque, 1814, as published in the
binomen Pisitoe bispinosa, and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) (b) (i) above (Name Number
1052);

(b) Jevifrons Rafinesque, 1814, as published in the binomen
Pisitoe levifrons, a junior objective synonym of Cancer
sedentarius Forssk&l, 1775 through the neotype designa-
tion made under the plenary powers in (1) (e) (ii) above
(Name Number 1053);

(c) littoralis Rafinesque, 1817, as published in the binomen
Psammylla littoralis, and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) (b) (ii) above (Name Number 1054);

(d) lucidus Rafinesque, 1820, as published in the binomen
Sperchius lucidus, and as suppressed under the plenary
powers in (1) (b) (iii) above (Name Number 1055);

(e) potamogeti Rafinesque, 1817, as published in the
binomen Pephredo potamogeti, and as suppressed under
the plenary powers in (1) (b) (iv) above (Name Number
1056);

(f) rivularis Rafinesque, 1820, as published in the binomen
Lepleurus rivularis, a junior objective synonym of
Gammarus minus Say, 1818 through the neotype desig-
nation made under the plenary powers in (1) (e) (i)
above (Name Number 1057).

NOTE ON THE DATES ASSIGNED TO CERTAIN NAMES
IN THE PRESENT RULING

In his original application (see the History of the Case), Dr
Holthuis cited the date of Phronima Latreille as “[1802—1803]”
and that of Bosc as “[1801—1802]”, and those were the correct
bibliographic dates for the works containing those names, according
to the evidence then available to him, namely that published by
Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist., vol. 1: 157. In the light of
Griffin’s assumptions, the correct nomenclatural date for Latreille’s
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., vol. 3, would have been the last
day of “An XI” corrected to the Gregorian calendar, i.e. [23 Sep-
tember 1803] under Article 21b(ii) of the present Code.

Professor Dupuis, however, has shown (Bull. zool. Nom., vol.
32: 4) that the publication of vols. 3 and 4 of Latreille’s work was
announced in the Journal typographique et bibliographique, 6e
année, No. VI: 42, 15 brumaire, An XI, which corresponds to [6
November 1802] in the Gregorian calendar. Vol. 3 must have been
published at some date between April 1802 (cited on: 369 of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 95

volume) and that date. Since Professor Dupuis showed at the same
time that Bosc’s Hist. nat. Crust., vol. 2 must have been published
before 20 January 1802, the relative priority of the two works is
not in question. It is beyond the terms of the present Opinion to
research further into the exact date of publication of Latreille’s
vol. 3.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1879

An application by Dr E.L. Bousfield (National Museum of
Natural Sciences, Ottawa, Canada) and Professor Holthuis for the
suppression of names proposed for Amphipod genera and species by
Rafinesque was first received on 3 February 1969. It was sent to
the printer on 15 February 1969 and published on 8 August 1969
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 26: 105—112. Public notice of the possible
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to a Crustacean
serial. Dr Sabrosky wrote in February 1970 to protest against the
proposed use of the Commission’s plenary powers to suppress
nomina dubia, drawing attention to his own earlier application on
this subject (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 22: 265—266). Professor
Holthuis replied that “whatever the identity of Rafinesque’s species
and genera is, their names, if revived, will preoccupy well-
established and widely adopted Amphipod names. To me the most
logical solution to this problem is to eliminate these threats. To
leave them dangling in the air forever like so many swords of
Damocles does not seem to have any advantage”.

FIRST VOTE BY THE COMMISSION

On 28 November 1973 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1973)14 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 26: 109—112. At the close of the voting period on 28 February
1974 there were 14 affirmative votes, four negative votes and two
abstentions (two late positive votes and one late negative vote were
also eventually returned). The following comments were submitted
by members of the Commission with their voting papers:

Tortonese: “I vote ‘for’ because too often the revival of old
and unwanted names threatens the stability of nomenclature. I
agree with Dr Holthuis that such a danger is better avoided by
suppressing the names.”

Willink: “I fully agree with Dr Holthuis”’.

Dupuis: “Je déclare m’abstenir car il n’y a pas une seule
proposition, mais plusieurs. Pour la suppression de nomina dubia je

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

partage l’avis de Sabrosky. Pour la désignation de néotypes je suis
toujours trés réticent.”

Sabrosky: “Holthuis’s riposte is clever and appealing, but
misses the main point of my statement in Bull. vol. 22: 265—266.
At this late date, the chances of such old nomina dubia rising from
the dead must surely be exceedingly remote. This case should not
even be considered until the arguments in my application have been
evaluated and voted upon.

“One exception: I will support the requested action for
Talitrus, but with the comment that an application for action on a
misidentified type species should have been a separate case and not
mixed up with Rafinesque’s nomina dubia. A zoologist interested in
Talitrus and TALITRIDAE, and who depends on published lists of
cases before the Commission would not have been alerted by the
title of this application to the fact that the case proposed important
action on the type species of Talitrus Bosc.”

Melville: ‘““No vote. Dr Sabrosky’s comment has not yet been
fully dealt with.”

Rohdendorf: “I vote against because I am almost convinced
of the prematurity of many proposed suppressions of Rafinesque’s
nomina dubia.”’

Heppell: “The case should be treated, as suggested by Dr
Sabrosky, under the provisions for nomina dubia. If the identity of
Rafinesque’s names are eventually decided, the names can then be
dealt with under the provisions for unused names.”

Bernardi: “Je pense, comme le Dr Sabrosky, que les nomina
dubia doivent €tre abordés uniquement d’un point de vue taxono-
mique et n’exigent donc pas l’intervention de la Commission.”

Professor Dupuis was invited to explain more fully the
reasons for his abstention. His explanation, and Professor Holthuis’s
reply, were published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 3—8. No other
comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

A second voting paper — Voting Paper (1978)14 — was
circulated to the members of the Commission under the Three-
Month Rule on 5 September 1978. At the close of the voting period
on 5 December 1978 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — fourteen (14) received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Vokes, Brinck,
Willink, Tortonese, Binder, Bayer, Corliss, Habe, Nye, Welch

Negative Votes — three (3): Mroczkowski, Dupuis, Bernardi.

Cogger abstained from voting; Ride was on leave of absence.
Sabrosky sent in a late abstention. No voting papers were returned

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97

by Heppell, Kraus and Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Cogger: “Despite Holthuis’s reply to Dupuis, the latter’s case
is convincing — the more so because of the errors discovered in the
original proposal. Although such errors are fairly trivial and do not
alter the basic case, they point up the problems inherent in dealing
with a multiplicity of nomenclatural decisions in one vote. I
strongly endorse many of the views held by Dupuis, but as my
views are based largely on principles rather than on specifics, it
seems appropriate to abstain from voting in this case.”

Dupuis: “Je vote contre un trop grand nombre de mesures
proposées simultanément (‘plus le nombre de mesures augmente,
plus il y a de chances de commettre des erreurs’, Dupuis, Bull. vol.
32: 4).

“Si la Commission dans sa majorité votait pour, il convien-
drait que le Secrétaire tienne compte que l’auteur de certains noms
est bien Latreille in Bosc (conformément a Dupuis I|.c.: 4) et non
pas Bosc (Holthuis, Bull. vol. 32: 6).

“Bosc écrit en effet, vol. 1: 29: ‘Latreille, dans les prélimin-
aires d’un savant travail sur les Crustacés, préliminaire [sic] dont il
a permis de faire usage ici...” Il écrit encore, vol. 1: 48: “Le savant
auteur du Précis des caractéres des [sic] génériques des insectes,
Vestimable Latreille, regardant, avec tous les Naturalistes, les crus-
tacés comme faisant partie de son domaine, les a aussi analysés, et il
la fait avec la sagacité qui lui est propre. On ne parlera pas de son
premier travail, de celui consigné dans l’ouvrage qui vient d’étre
cité; il n’étoit qu’un apercu: mais on donnera en entier celui quil a
rédigé pour une nouvelle édition, et dont il a permis de faire usage
ici. Le louer seroit superflu, puisque le lecteur est mis 4 portée
d’apprécier tout son mérite.’

““Au demeurant, Bosc lui-méme donne bien Latreille comme
auteur de Pinnotheres (vol. 1: 239), de Talitrus (vol. 2: 148), de
Bopyrus (vol. 2: 213), de Sphaeroma (vol. 2: 182).

“Latreille a confirmé tout cela (Hist. nat. gén. partic., vol. S:
172—173): ‘L’ouvrage de Bosc présente ... plusieurs observations
sur les Crustacés, que ce naturaliste a recueillies en Caroline .... Je
lui avois communiqué mon nouveau travail dans cette partie des
animaux sans vertébres. L’expression de sa gratitude 4 mon égard a
été celle d'un homme qui sait apprécier les recherches des autres;
qui ne sen sert jamais sans rendre hommage 4 leur auteur, et dont le
coeur est doué d’une sensibilité exquise.’ Italiques de C. Dupuis.”

Bernardi: “Bien que prenant en considération la réponse de
Holthuis, je considere que cette application a un caractere trop
global.”

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Professor Holthuis was invited to comment on Professor
Dupuis’ observations and did so in two letters dated 6 December
1978 and 15 January 1979 (the second in reply to a request from
the Secretary for further information). The first letter read:

“In my opinion Bosc nowhere says that the descriptions of
Pinnotheres, Talitrus, etc., are cited from Latreille or written by
Latreille. The fact that he made use of Latreille’s manuscript does
not imply that he copied the descriptions. The crucial sentence in
Bosc’s book is the one on: 48: ‘mais on donnera en entier celui qu’il
a rédigé pour une nouvelle édition’. I interpreted this as ‘I give here
all the work [celui agreeing with travail] that he has prepared for a
new edition’, but that does not mean that Bosc copied the manu-
script verbatim. When we compare Bosc’s definition of Talitrus
(1801, vol. 1: 78) with Latreille’s (1802, vol. 3: 38, 39), we see that
Bosc used his own words: ‘Quatre antennes simples; les inter-
médiaires, supérieures, et plus courtes que le pédoncule des latérales
et inférieures; dix a quatorze pattes’. Latreille used a similar but
slightly different definition: ‘Antennes simples: les intermédiaires
supérieures et plus courtes que les latérales et inférieures. (Dix a
quatorze pattes). Une queue; des piéces articulées au bout’. In their
more extensive accounts of the genus (Bosc, vol. 2: 148—152;
Latreille, vol. 6: 294-302) the differences are much more striking.
Bosc (vol. 2: 152) even includes a new species (collected by him-
self) in the genus, which Latreille (vol. 6: 300) accepts and refers
to Bosc.

““My impression is that Bosc consulted Latreille’s manuscript,
but did not copy it literally. He used his own wording and made
important changes and additions. I do not think that in these cases
Latreille ‘is alone responsible both for the name and for the condi-
tions that make it available’.

The second letter read:

“Article 50 of the Code says that the author of a scientific
name is the person who first publishes it (here Bosc), unless it is
clear from the contents of the publication that another person (here
supposedly Latreille) is alone responsible both for the name and the
conditions that make it available. I have always interpreted this rule
to mean that there must be a definite statement in the original pub-
lication that someone other than the author of the publication is
responsible for the names and the descriptions of all or some
specifically mentioned taxa. I do not believe that Bosc makes this
clear in his book.

“In the introduction to his Histoire naturelle des Crustacés
(1802, vol. 1: 1—48) Bosc deals extensively with the various classi-
fications of the Crustacea by previous authors (Fabricius, Herbst,
Miller, Cuvier, Lamarck) and then speaks of Latreille’s then un-

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99

published work (Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.). After barely
mentioning Latreille’s first work, his 1796 Précis caract. génériques
Ins. (‘On ne parlera pas de son premier travail’), Bosc continues that
a new edition has been prepared by Latreille and that ‘on donnera
en entier celui qu’il a rédigé pour une nouvelle édition, et dont il a
permis de faire usage ici’. The next 43 pages of Bosc’s Introduction
(: 49—91) then give a classification of the Crustacea down to the
genera. This classification, although it may have been inspired by
Latreille’s unpublished research, is certainly not a verbatim citation
of Latreille’s text. The order in which the genera are treated is
totally different from that published by Latreille (Hist. nat. gén.
partic., vol. 3: 13—43). Thus, for instance, Bopyrus, which Bosc
places among the ‘Crustacés improprement dits’ (which form the
‘Section seconde’ of the Crustacea) was placed by Latreille (vol. 3:
43) with the other Isopoda in the ‘Sous-classe premiére. Tétracéres;
tetracera’ of the Class Insecta and was thus excluded from the
Crustacea.

“That Bosc’s classification is not a citation of Latreille’s is
also shown by the different wording of the diagnoses of the genera.
It is clear that Bosc used Latreille’s results and accepted several of
his genera, but the descriptions are at least partly in his own words,
while he added characters, remarks, etc. Latreille is thus certainly
not ‘alone responsible both for the name and the conditions that
make it available’.

““A comparison of the works of the two authors shows that
each gave first a brief review of the genera with diagnosis of each
(Bosc, vol. 1: 49—91; Latreille, vol. 3: 13—40 (Crustacea), : 40—42
(Insecta Tetracera) and later treated the genera and species more
extensively (Bosc, vol. 1: 161—258, vol. 2; Latreille, vol. 5: 346—
395, vol. 6: 1—338 for the Crustacea, : 339—376, vol. 7: 1—55 for
the Insecta Tetracera). The diagnoses of Bopyrus, Talitrus and
Pinnotheres are similar in the characters used but differ in the
wording. In my opinion, Bosc gave the diagnoses in his own words
as far as he possibly could. The extended accounts of the three
genera are so different that there cannot be any doubt that both
are Original, even if each was influenced by the other.

“Bosc described a new species, 7alitrus grillus, that he had
himself collected in North America, and this was accepted by
Latreille and attributed to Bosc. Latreille further says (vol. 6: 294):
‘Bosc a bien développé les caractéres génériques des talitres. Ils ont,
dit-il, généralement le corps plus €pais ...”. He would scarcely have
said this if Bosc had merely copied his (Latreille’s) description.

“Thus, although Latreille may have been the spiritual father
of Bopyrus, Talitrus and Pinnotheres, nomenclaturally it is Bosc
who is to be cited as their author, for he first published Latreille’s

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

manuscript names with his own descriptions and observations. Why
did these early authors with all their good intentions (both Bosc
and Latreille behaved as perfect gentlemen here) make our nomen-
clatural life so difficult?”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present
Opinion:
bispinosa, Pisitoe, Rafinesque, 1814, Précis Découyv. somiol.: 25
Crangonyx Bate, 1859, Nat. Hist. Rev. Dublin, vol. 6 (Proc. Dublin

zool. bot. Ass., Feb. 18, 1859): 165
Dactylocera Latreille, 1829, in Cuvier, Régne Animal (ed. 2), vol. 4:

117
fasciatus, Gammarus, Say, 1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol.

1:374
gammarellus, Oniscus, Pallas, 1766, Misc. Zool.: 191
gracilis, Talitrus, Dana, 1852, Proc. Amer. Acad. Sci., vol. 2: 201
levifrons, Pisitoe, Rafinesque, Précis Découyv. somiol.: 26
littoralis, Psammylla, Rafinesque, 1817, Amer. mon. Mag. crit.

Review, vol. 2: 41
locusta, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), vol. 1: 634
longicornis, Talitrus, Say, 1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol.

1: 384
lucidus, Sperchius, Rafinesque, 1820, Annals of Nature, vol. 1: 7
minus, Gammarus, Say, 1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philadelphia, vol. 1:

Orchestia Leach, 1814, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encycl., vol. 7, 402,
432

ORCHESTIIDAE (correction of ORCHESTIDAE) Leach, 1814,
Brewster’s Edinburgh Encycl., vol. 7: 432

Phronima, Latreille, [1802], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., vol.
35.38

PHRONIMIDAE (correction of ‘“Phronimia’’) Rafinesque, 1815,
Anal. Nature: 100

Phrosina Risso, 1822, J. Phys. Chim. Hist. nat. Arts, vol. 94: 244

PHROSININAE (correction of “Phrosinia’”) Rafinesque, 1815,
Anal. Nature: 100

Pisitoe Rafinesque, 1814, Précis Découv. somiol.: 25

platensis, Orchestia, Kréyer, 1844, Naturhist. Tidsskr. (2), vol. 1
(3): 304

polonica, Synurella, Wrzesniowski, 1877, in Hoyer, Zeitschr. wiss.
Zool, vol. 28: 403

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 10]

potamogeti, Pephredo, Rafinesque, 1817, Amer. mon. Mag. crit.
Review, vol. 2: 41
Psammylla Rafinesque, 1817, Amer. mon. Mag. crit. Review, vol. 2:
l

rivularis, Lepleurus, Rafinesque, 1820, Annals of Nature, vol. 1: 7

saltator, Cancer (Gammarellus), Montagu, 1808, Trans. linn. Soc.
London, vol. 9: 94

sedentarius, Cancer, Forsskal, 1775, Descr. Anim.: 95

semilunata, Phrosina, Risso, 1822, J. Phys. Chim. Hist. nat. Arts.,
vol. 95: 245

Sperchius Rafinesque, 1820, Annals of Nature, vol. 1: 7

subterraneus, Crangonyx, Bate, 1859, Nat. Hist. Rev. Dublin, vol. 6
(Proc. Dublin zool. bot. Ass., Feb. 18, 1859): 165

Synurella Wrzesniowski, 1877, in Hoyer, Zeitschr. wiss. Zool. vol.
28: 403

TALITRIDAE (correction of “Talitridia’’) Rafinesque, 1815, Anal.
Nature: 101

Talitrus Bosc, [1802], Hist. nat. Crust., vol. 2: 148

Talorchestia Dana, 1852, Amer. J. Sci Arts (2), vol. 14: 310.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)14 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1133.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

16 February 1979

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1134
ZERYNTHIA OCHSENHEIMER, 1816 (INSECTA
LEPIDOPTERA) CONSERVED UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name
Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815, is hereby suppressed for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The generic name Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816
(gender: feminine), type species, through Thais Fabricius, 1807,
non Roeding, 1798, Papilio hypsipyle Fabricius, 1776, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2086.

(3) The specific name polyxena [Denis & Schiffermueller] ,
1775, as published in the binomen Papilio polyxena, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the
Name Number 2683.

(4) The generic name Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815, as
suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology with the Name Number 2109.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1884

An application for the use of the plenary powers to suppress
the generic name Parnalius Rafinesque, 1815, was first received
from Mr N.D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London)
and Dr L.G. Higgins (Focklesbrook Farm, Chobham, Woking, U.K.)
on 20 March 1969. The case was affected by the confusion then
surrounding Article 23b of the Code and was accordingly not
proceeded with. In July 1974 Mr Riley provided the additional
references required under the revised provisions of Articles 23a-b
and 79b; the paper was sent to the printer on 27 August 1974 and
published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 31: 204—
205. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and was sent to the
statutory serials as well as to nine entomological serials. An objec-
tion by O Kudma and P.R. Ackery, with a reply by Riley and
Higgins, was published in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 33: 145. No other
comment was received.

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule in voting paper (1978)
15 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool Nom., vol. 31:
204—205. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17), received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Brinck,
Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Bayer, Dupuis, Corliss, Nye,
Welch, Bernardi, with a conditional vote from Alvarado

Negative Vote — Cogger.

A late negative vote was returned by Sabrosky. Ride was on
leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Kraus and
Starobogatov.

The following comments were returned with voting papers:

Cogger: “Although sympathetic to the original proposal, and
agreeing with the proposers that the issue would probably have
been resolved as they requested had an early vote been taken, the
real question is still one of nomenclatural stability. As the submis-
sions indicate that currently one name is not more widely used or
accepted than the other, I favour the application of the Law of
Priority.”

Nye: “It is certain that Parnalius is the senior objective
replacement name for Thais Fabricius, 1807. It is also certain that
Parnalius was a nomen oblitum at the time of its reintroduction in
1972 in contravention of Article Dates

Bernardi: “Je pense que Parnalius est bien un nom de rem-
placement pour Thais, mais japprouve la suppression du nom
Parnalius tout de méme trés peu connu des lépidoptéristes.”

Sabrosky: “The fact that the family-group name ZERYN-
THIINAE will not be affected (Art. 40), whatever the decision,
removes that reason for the suppression of Parnalius. Unlike the
Secretary, it seems clear to me that, in Rafinesque’s format,
Parnalius was a replacement name for Thais, otherwise he would
merely have cited ‘Thais Fabr.’ as he did ‘Zelima Fabr.’ and the
others.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

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

Parnalius Rafinesque, 181 5, Analyse de la Nature: 128

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

polyxena, Papilio, [Denis & Schiffermueller], 1775, Ankiindung
syst. Werkes Schmett, Wiener Gegend: 162
Zerynthia Ochsenheimer, 1816, Schmett. Europa, vol. 4: 29.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)15 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1134.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

21 February 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 105

OPINION 1135
MUREX LOTORIUM LINNAEUS, 1758 (MOLLUSCA:
GASTROPODA): RULING ON INTERPRETATION

RULING ~— (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled
that the specific name /otorium Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
binomen Murex lotorium, is to be interpreted by reference to the
specimen figured by Reeve, 1844, pl. 6, fig. 19b, British Museum
(Natural History) Number 1967696;

(2) The specific name /otorium Linnaeus, 1758, as pub-
lished in the binomen Murex lotorium, and as interpreted according
to the ruling given in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2684.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1886

An application for the validation of the current interpreta-
tion of Murex lotorium Linnaeus, 1758 was first received from
Dr A.G. Beu (then of Victoria University, Wellington, New Zealand)
on 2 April 1969. It was sent to the printer on 2 May 1969 and
published on 24 October 1969 in Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 26: 174—
176. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and was sent to the
statutory serials as well as to three malacological serials. Alternative
proposals were put forward by Dr H.A. Rehder (Bull. vol. 27: 67)
and Dr W.O. Cernohorsky (Bull. vol. 27: 133); Dr Beu’s reply was
published in Bull. vol. 28: 78.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)16, in Part A for or against the use of the plenary powers in
this case, and in Part B to choose between three alternatives: A, the
specimen figured by Reeve, 1844, specified by Dr Beu; B, the
specimens figured by d’Argenville and Rumphius named by Dr
Rehder; and C, the specimen figured by d’Argenville named by
Dr Cernohorsky. At the close of the voting period on 5 December
1978, the state of the voting was as follows:

Part A

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18), received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Dupuis,

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Corliss, Habe, Nye, Welch, Bernardi

Negative Votes — none (0).

Part B

For Alternative A — fourteen (14), received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski,
Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Corliss, Nye,
Welch

For Alternative B — Dupuis

For Alternative C — Vokes, Habe, Bernardi.

Sabrosky returned a late vote for Part A and Part B Alter-
native C; Ride was on leave of absence; no votes were returned by
Heppell, Kraus and Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Eisenmann: “As all agree that all the old figures relate to the
same species, it seems better to use a figure supported by an extant
specimen.”

Vokes: “I believe that a figure known to the original author
of the name should have preference over one published some 80-
odd years later. Furthermore, there should be only one type figure
(specimen).”

Dupuis voted for Alternative B in Part B “provided that the
figure be coloured”’. [It is not. R.V.M.]

Sabrosky: “The primary manuscript notes are unpublished,
but they indicate that Linnaeus correctly recognised two distinct
species, but erred in citing the figures. Cernohorsky’s proposal
relates the name to Linnaeus, 1758, but shows the error.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCE

The following is the orginal reference to a name placed on an
Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
lotorium, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. 10, vol. 1: 749.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (78)16 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion 1135.

R.V. MELVILLE Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London 2 March 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107

OPINION 1136
CICADETTA STREPITANS KIRKALDY, 1909 (INSECTA:
HOMOPTERA) CONSERVED

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the species-group
name obscura Hudson, 1891, as published in the combination
Cicada [sic] cingulata Fabricius a. var. obscura, is hereby suppres-
sed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy.

(2) The specific name strepitans Kirkaldy, 1909, as
published in the binomen Cicadetta strepitans, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2685.

(3) The species-group name obscura Hudson, 1891, as
published in the combination Cicada [sic] cingulata Fabricius a.
var. Obscura, and as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)
above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1058.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1888

An application from Dr (now Sir) Charles Fleming and Dr
J.S. Dugdale (D.S.1.R., Lower Hutt, New Zealand) for the con-
servation of Cicadetta strepitans Kirkaldy, 1909, was first received
on 8 April 1969. The case was one of a number involving the
application of Article 23b of the 1961 Code, all of which were held
back pending clarification of that provision. A revised application,
adapted to Articles 23a-b and 79b of the 1972 (Monaco) amend-
ments to the Code, was sent to the printer on 29 May 1974 and
published on 20 September 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31:
140—141. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers
in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to
the statutory serials and to nine entomological serials. No
comments were received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)17 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 31: 141. At the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15) received in the following

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann,
Vokes, Brinck, Habe, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Corliss,
Nye, Welch

Negative Votes — three (3): Willink, Dupuis, Bernardi.

Sabrosky returned a late negative vote; Ride was on leave of
absence; no votes were returned by Heppell, Kraus and
Starobogatov.

The following comments were returned with voting papers:

Willink: “It seems to me that Kirkaldy had no reason to
change C. cingulata obscura Hudson to C. strepitans, so why change
it now?”

Bernardi: “Il n’y a aucune difficulté sur ’emploi du nom
obscura puisqu’il existe un lectotype, et il n’y avait aucune raison
de le remplacer par un autre nom (strepitans). Il n’y a donc qu’a
rétablir le nom obscura.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for names placed on
an Official List and an Official Index, by the ruling given in the
present Opinion:
obscura, Cicada cingulata Fabricius a. var., Hudson, 1891, Trans.

N.Z. Inst., vol. 23: 51
strepitans, Cicadetta, Kirkaldy, 1909, Trans. N.Z. Inst., vol. 41: 28.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on V.P. (78)17 were cast as set
out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 1136.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

6 March 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109

OPINION 1137
APHIS GOSSY PI GLOVER, 1877 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA,
HOMOPTERA)
VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the specific name
circezandis Fitch, 1870, as published in the binomen Aphis
circezandis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.

(2) The specific name gossypii Glover, 1877, as published in
the binomen Aphis gossypii, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2686.

(3) The specific name circezandis Fitch, 1870, as published
in the binomen Aphis circezandis, and as suppressed under the
plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 1059.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 1843

An application for the validation of Aphis gossypii Glover,
1877, was first received from Dr Louise M. Russell (USDA Ento-
mology Research Division, Washington, D.C.) on 2 April 1968 and
was sent to the printer.on 13 May 1968. It was published in Bull.
zool. Nom. vol. 25: 116—119 on 27 September 1968. Public notice
of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part
of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven ento-
mological serials. The application was supported by Professor Clyde
F. Smith (North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina).
No adverse comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 9 April 1970 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1970)11 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 25: 118—119. At the close of the voting period on 9 July 1970,
the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — eighteen (18) received in the following
order: Holthuis, Vokes, Bonnet, Lemche, Simpson, Jaczewski, Mayr,
Tortonese, Eisenmann, Sabrosky, Evans, Brinck, Mertens,
Starobogatov, Binder, Alvarado, Kraus, Ride.

Negative Vote — Melville.

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Obruchev was on leave of absence. No votes were returned by
do Amaral, Forest and Munroe.

The following comments were returned by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Eisenmann: “Il would suppress Aphis circezandis Fitch, 1870,
only to the extent that it is deemed conspecific with Aphis gossypii
Glover, 1877, leaving both names available if they are found to
denote different species.”

Melville: “This application is incomplete. A type specimen
(presumably a neotype) should be provided for Aphis gossypii.”

In May 1974 Dr Russell was asked to designate a neotype for
Aphis gossypii and replied that she would ask for fresh specimens
to be provided for this purpose. In 1977 she wrote to say that she
had procured satisfactory examples from cotton, but in March 1979
she wrote again to say that more urgent projects prevented her from
giving immediate attention to this matter but that she will proceed
as soon as possible. Since it appears that a neotype can be desig-
nated within the provisions of Article 75, there seems no need to
delay further the publication of the Commission’s ruling.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the
present Opinion:
circezandis, Aphis, Fitch, 1870, Trans. New York Agric. Soc. for

1869, vol. 29: 501—502
gossypii, Aphis, Glover, 1877, Report of the U.S. Commissioner for

Agriculture for 1876: 36 (in Report of the Entomologist and

Curator of the Museum; not seen)

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on V.P. (1970)11 were cast as set
out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper has
been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion
No. 1137.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

26 March 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 111

OPINION 1138
GIRAFFA CAMELOPARDALIS AUSTRALIS RHOADS, 1896
(MAMMALIA) SUPPRESSED

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the species-group
name australis Rhoads, 1896, as published in the combination
Giraffa camelopardalis australis, is hereby suppressed for the pur-
poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy.

(2) The species-group name australis Rhoads, 1896, as
published in the combination Giraffa camelopardalis australis, and
as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names
in Zoology with the Name Number 1060.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S) 1942

An application for the suppression of Giraffa camelopardalis
australis Rhoads, 1896, was first received from Mr W.F.H. Ansell
(Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Zambia) and Dr Anne
Innis Dagg ( University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada) on 26 October
1970. It was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and published on
8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28: 100—101. Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory
serials and to two mammalogical serials.

The object of the application was to safeguard the name
Giraffa camelopardalis reticulata de Winton, 1899, of which
Rhoads’s name was taken to be a senior synonym. De Winton’s
name had been protected against its senior secondary homonym,
Camelopardalis giraffa reticulata Weinland, 1863, and placed on the
Official List of Specific Names with the Name Number 2430, in
Opinion 944 (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 27: 222—223, 1971). However,
in discussion with Dr A.W. Gentry (British Museum (Natural
History), London), the applicants concluded that G.c. reticulata
de Winton, 1899 applied to the (northern) reticulated giraffe, and
G.c. australis Rhoads, 1896, to the Cape giraffe, and that no
synonymy existed. They accordingly withdrew their application,
and a note to that effect was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31:
171, December 1974.

On 27 January 1975 Dr L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van
Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) wrote to point out that
the ruling in Opinion 944 protected G.c. reticulata de Winton,

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

1899, only from one threat (that posed by the senior secondary
homonym C.g. reticulata Weinland, 1863), but did not render it
inviolable from all threats. If, therefore, the application by Ansell
& Dagg was not acted upon, those who held that there was after all
synonymy between G.c. australis Rhoads, 1896, and G.c. reticulata
de Winton, 1899, would be obliged to use the former name. In a
later letter he stated that, in the interests of preserving a name
already on the Official List, he had no objection to the suppression
of G.c. australis Rhoads. These two letters were combined in a note
published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 33: 136—137 alongside a note by
Dr Dagg listing ten works published between 1949 and 1971 in
which G.c. reticulata de Winton, 1899, had been used for the
reticulated giraffe. In correspondence, Mr Ansell pointed out that,
if G.c. australis Rhoads, 1896, was available for the reticulated
.giraffe it should be suppressed; if not, it was a junior synonym of
G. giraffa Boddaert, 1785; in any event, he and Dr Dagg had shown
the name to be a cause of confusion, so that its suppression would
be justified whatever view was taken of its taxonomic position.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)18 either for (A) the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 28: 100—101, or for (B) the grant of precedence to G.c.
reticulata de Winton, 1899, over G.c. australis Rhoads, 1896. At the
close of the voting period on 5 December 1978, the state of the
voting was as follows:

For Alternative A — twelve (12), received in the following
order: Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Habe,
Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Corliss, Bernardi.

For Alternative B — four (4): Mroczkowski, Dupuis, Welch,
Nye.

Abstention — Bayer.

Sabrosky returned a late affirmative vote. Ride was on leave
of absence. No voting papers were returned by Heppell, Kraus and
Starobogatov.

Dr Holthuis recorded a negative vote on both alternatives in
the following terms: “In my opinion, it is perfectly clear from
Rhoads’s account of G. camelopardalis (1896: 518) (1) that he con-
sidered his own Somali specimen to belong to the northern
(nominate) subspecies, (2) that in his view no name was available
for the southern subspecies from the Cape of Good Hope region, and
(3) that therefore he proposed the new name australis for this
southern subspecies. The species-group name australis Rhoads,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 113

1896, is thus invalid being a junior synonym of the name giraffa
Boddaert, 1785, and there is no need to suppress this name.” The
Secretary replied that he found it impossible to tell, from Rhoads’s
account, whether his name was a senior synonym of reticulata de
Winton or a junior synonym of giraffa, but that as the subject had
been discussed at such length, there was good reason for the Com-
mission to act.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Eisemann: “To preserve reticulata already on the Official List
from possible question from the relatively unknown name australis,
I favour the suppression of australis Rhoads.”

Bayer: “Repeated readings of Rhoads’s text fail to convince
me that he was referring to anything but the Cape giraffe in pro-
posing the name G.c. australis, which is therefore a synonym of
G. giraffa Boddaert, 1785. It is no threat to any name for the
northern subspecies, and I fail to see any need to suppress it or to
give it relative precedence over a name with which it cannot
compete.”

Nye: “As a general rule I consider that subjective synonyms
should be dealt with under the relative precedence procedure. This
application, however, deals with a very well-known group of
animals, and if a majority of the votes are in favour of outright
suppression, my vote should be changed to increase that majority.”

Bernardi: “‘Ce choix me semble le plus simple et je ne tiens
pas a sauvegarder un nom placé sur une ‘Official List’.””

ORIGINAL REFERENCE

The following is the original reference for a name placed on
an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
australis, Giraffa camelopardalis, Rhoads, 1896, Proc. Acad. nat.

Sci. Philadelphia for 1896: 518

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on voting paper (78)18 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and the decision
so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on
oe Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion

Oo. i
R.V. MELVILLE Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London 27 March 1979

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1139
PARAONIS GRUBE, 1873 (POLYCHAETA, PARAONIDAE):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers

(a) all designations of type species hitherto made for the
nominal genus Paraonis Grube, 1873, are hereby set
aside, and the nominal species Aonides fulgens
Levinsen, 1884, is hereby designated type species of
that genus;

(b) it is hereby ruled that the family-group name
PARAONIDAE Cerruti, 1909, is to be given prece-
dence over the family-group name LEVINSENIIDAE
Mesnil & Caullery, 1898, whenever the two names are
held to be synonyms.

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

(a) Paraonis Grube, 1873 (gender: feminine), type
species, by designation under the plenary powers in
(1)(a) above, Aonides fulgens Levinsen, 1884 (Name
Number 2087);

(b) Levinsenia Mesnil, 1897 (gender: feminine), type
species, by subsequent designation under the present
ruling, Aonides gracilis Tauber, 1879 (Name Number
2088).

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

(a) fulgens, Aonides, Levinsen, 1884 (specific name of
type species, by designation under the plenary powers
in (1)(a) above, of Paraonis Grube, 1873) (Name
Number 2687);

(b) gracilis, Aonides, Tauber, 1879 (specific name of type
species of Levinsenia Mesnil 1897 (Name Number
2688).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the endorsements and
Name Numbers specified:

(a) PARAONIDAE Cerruti, 1909 (type genus Paraonis
Grube, 1873) with an endorsement that it is to be
given precedence over LEVINSENIIDAE Mesnil &

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 115

Caullery, 1898, whenever the two names are regarded
as synonyms (Name Number 500);

(b) LEVINSENIIDAE Mesnil & Caullery, 1898 (as
“Lévinséniens’’) (type genus Levinsenia Mesnil, 1897)
with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority
over PARAONIDAE Cerruti, 1909, whenever the two
names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 501).

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1993

An application for the regulation of nomenclatural problems
concerning the generic name Paraonis Grube, 1873, was first
received from Dr V. Strelzov (/nstitut Biologique de Mer, Murmansk,
USSR) and Dr P. Uschakov (Zoological Institute, Academy of
Sciences, Leningrad, USSR) on 20 January 1972. This application,
which asked for the suppression of Paraonis Grube, 1873, in favour
of “Paraonis Cerruti, 1909’, was sent to the printer on 13 April
1972 and published on 29 December 1972 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol.
29: 209-211. Support was received from Dr Gesa Hartmann-
Schroder (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum,
Hamburg, BRD).

In June 1973 the Secretary wrote to the applicants to
explore ways of conserving Paraonis with its original date and
authorship. The applicants commented on their own proposals in
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 9. After consultation with Dr J.D. George
(British Museum (Natural History) London) and Dr Marian H.
Pettibone (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.),
a revised application was published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32:
146—148. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in
the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the
statutory journals and to five other serials. No comments were
received on this application.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 22 November 1977 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1977)19 for or against the proposals set forth in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 32: 147—148. At the close of the voting period on 22 February
1978, the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17), received in the following
order: Melville, Holthuis, Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes,
Mroczkowski, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Welch, Corliss, Starobogatov,
Cogger, Dupuis, Nye, Bayer, Heppell, Ride

Negative Votes — none (0).

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

A late affirmative vote was received from Brinck. No voting
papers were returned by Bernardi, Binder, Habe, Kraus and Willink.

Dr Ride commented with his voting paper: “‘P. tenera Grube,
1873, is a potential source of confusion and should be suppressed
unless the application fails. In that case, the type specimen of A.
fulgens Levinsen, 1883, if suitable, could be made the neotype of
P. tenera Grube, 1873, to achieve the same end.” [The object of the
application — i.e. to stabilise the generic name Paraonis — is
achieved by varying its type species; the interpretation, at specific
level, of P. tenera then becomes irrelevant. Dr Ride’s suggestion, if
adopted, would make Paraonis and Levinsenia objective synonyms
of one another. This would lead in tur to an objective synonymy
between PARAONIDAE and LEVINSENIIDAE, but this was not
the object sought by the applicants. R.V.M.]

In April 1978 the Secretary realised that the decision to
settle the relative precedence of PARAONIDAE and LEVINSENII-
DAE entailed a decision to place the names of the type genera of
both families (and not only of PARAONIDAE), with the names of
their type species, on the Official Lists. He therefore sought advice
from Dr George on this point and found that it was necessary for
the Commission to rule on the type species of Levinsenia Mesnil,
1897 — a nominal genus for which no type species had previously
been fixed. He therefore invited the Commission to vote on this
issue in Voting Paper (78)20, and sent the following report with
that voting paper.

“THE CASE OF PARAONIS GRUBE, 1873: CALL FOR A
SUPPLEMENTARY VOTE TO DETERMINE THE TYPE SPECIES
OF LEVINSENIA MESNIL, 1897
(Report to accompany V.P. (78)20)

“In V.P. (77)19 the Commission voted to use its plenary
powers to designate Aonides fulgens Levinsen, 1883, as the type
species of the Polychaete genus Paraonis Grube, 1873, and to give
the family name PARAONIDAE Cerruti, 1909, precedence over
LEVINSENIIDAE Mesnil & Caullery, 1898. As a corollary to that
decision, the Commission voted to place both those family names
on the Official List.

“It follows from the latter decision that the names of the
type genera of both families, with those of their type species, must
be placed on the Official Lists of Generic and Specific Names in
Zoology. This was duly voted on and approved where Paraonis was
concerned (as a corollary to the plenary powers vote by which the
type species had been designated), but the need to do likewise for
Levinsenia was overlooked. You are now asked to vote on this issue

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117

so as to complete the case.

“Levinsenia was established by Mesnil in 1897 (Bull. sci.
France Belgique, vol. 30: 93) with two included species: Aonides
gracilis Tauber, 1879, Annulata Danica, vol. 1: 115, and Aonides
fulgens Levinsen, 1884, Videnskab. Medd. naturh. Forening
Kgabenhavn for 1883, 1884: 101—103. (The date of this name was
incorrectly given as 1883 in the application). Neither was desig-
nated as type species. Mr Alex Muir (British Museum, Natural
History), guided by Dr David George, has made a thorough search
of the literature and has not found any subsequent designation of a
type species for the genus. Since Aonides fulgens Levinsen has been
designated as type species of Paraonis, it would obviously be
appropriate to designate Aonides gracilis Tauber, 1879, as type
species of Levinsenia, and I invite you to vote for or against that
proposition on the accompanying voting paper.”

The voting period on V.P. (78)20 ran from 5 September
1978 to 5S December 1978. At the close of the period the state of
the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — sixteen (16) received in the following
order: Melville, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann, Vokes, Brinck,
Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Dupuis, Corliss, Nye,
Welch, Bernardi

Negative Vote — Holthuis.

Ride and Sabrosky were on leave of absence. No votes were
returned by Habe, Heppell, Kraus and Starobogatov.

Dr Holthuis commented with his voting paper: “‘By selecting
A. fulgens Levinsen as type species of Levinsenia Mesnil, 1897, the
latter falls as a junior objective synonym of Paraonis Grube, 1873,
which is an elegant way of making the synonymy of the two names
absolute.” [This suggestion would have the same effect as that
made by Dr Ride on V.P.(77)19 and discussed above — namely, of
making PARAONIDAE and LEVINSENIIDAE objective synonyms
of one another. This was not the object sought by the applicants.
R.V.M.]

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
fulgens, Aonides, Levinsen, 1884, Videnskab. Medd. naturh.
Forening Kabenhavn for 1883: 101—103
gracilis, Aonides, Tauber, 1879, Annulata Danica, vol. 1: 115
Levinsenia Mesnil, 1897. Bull. sci. France Belgique, vol. 30: 93

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

LEVINSENIIDAE Mesnil & Caullery, 1898, Bull. sci. France
Belgique, vol. 31: 137

Paraonis Grube, 1873, Jber. schles. Ges. vaterl. Kult., vol. 50: 57

PARAONIDAE Cerruti, 1909, Mitt. zool. Stn Neapel, vol. 19: 503.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (77)19 and
(78)20 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in
the former voting paper has been duly adopted under the plenary
powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly
recorded in the present Opinion No. 1139.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

30 March 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 119

OPINION 1140
SESARMA RUBRIPES RATHBUN, 1897 (CRUSTACEA
DECAPODA) GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER SESARMA
TRAPEZIUM DANA, 1852, UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled
that the specific name rubripes Rathbun, 1897, as published in the
binomen Sesarma rubripes, is to be given precedence over the
specific name trapezium Dana, 1852, as published in the binomen
Sesarma trapezium whenever those two names are regarded as
synonyms.

(2) The specific name rubripes Rathbun, 1897, as published
in the binomen Sesarma rubripes, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is
to be given precedence over the specific name trapezium Dana,
1852, as published in the binomen Sesarma trapezium, whenever
those two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2689).

(3) The specific name trapezium Dana, 1852, as published
in the binomen Sesarma trapezium, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology with an endorsement that it is
not to be given priority over the specific name rubripes Rathbun,
1897, as published in the binomen Sesarma rubripes, whenever
those two names are regarded as synonyms (Name Number 2690).

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 2016

An application for the suppression under the plenary powers
of Sesarma trapezium Dana, 1852, was first received from Dr
Lawrence G. Abele (then of the School of Marine and Atmospheric
Science, University of Miami, Miami, Florida 33149) on 24 July
1972. In correspondence, the applicant stated that Dana’s name had
been cited in only three works other than mere lists of names,
whereas its junior synonym, Sesarma rubripes Rathbun, 1897, had
been cited in connexion with specimens on seven occasions. The
application was sent to the printer on 14 January 1974 and pub-
lished on 31 July 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 49—50. Public
notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the case was
given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the statutory
serials and to a crustacean serial. No comment was received. .

In November 1977 the Secretary proposed to the applicant
the use of the “relative precedence” procedure in this case, and the
applicant concurred.

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)21 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.,
vol. 31: 50, but in terms of the “relative precedence” procedure. At
the close of the voting period on 5 December 1978 the state of the
voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — fifteen (15), received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Mroczkowski, Eisenmann,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Binder, Corliss, Habe, Nye,
Welch, Bernardi

Negative Votes — three (3): Cogger, Bayer, Dupuis.

Ride and Sabrosky were on leave of absence. No votes were
returned by Heppell, Kraus and Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members with their
voting papers:

Cogger: “Although the applicant states that ‘. . . the species
Metasesarma trapezium has been mentioned by seven authors in
eight different works . . .’ he neither cites these references nor
indicates the nature of their significance. On the other hand, the
number of references cited for M. rubripes is only seven. I believe,
therefore, that the case for suppression is inadequate and according-
ly vote against the proposal.”

Bayer: “I have been informed by a senior specialist in
Decapod Crustacea that the quality of Dana’s illustrations (1852)
is insufficient to permit any reliable decision about the identity of
S. trapezium and M. rubripes. The other evidence is purely circum-
stantial, so S. trapezium can be considered no more than a species
inquirenda, not a senior synonym of M. rubripes. Moreover, the
species involved are of little concern outside of the taxonomic field,
so no great body of general usage is threatened even if S. trapezium
should eventually prove to be a senior synonym of M. rubripes.”

Bernardi: “Je vote ‘pour parce que le type de trapezium est
perdu et la localité-type inexacte.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
rubripes, Sesarma, Rathbun, 1897, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington, vol.

11: 89-92
trapezium, Sesarma, Dana, 1852, Crustacea, in U.S. Exploring

Expedition under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N.,

vol. 13 (1): 354

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 12,1

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (78)21 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 1140.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

30 March 1979

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1141
DONACILLA BLAINVILLE, 1819 (BIVALVIA) SUPPRESSED;
DONACILLA PHILIPPI, 1836, MESODESMA DESHAYES, 1832,
AND SEMELE SCHUMACHER, 1817 (BIVALVIA) ADDED TO
THE OFFICIAL LIST

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, the generic name
Donacilla Blainville, 1819, and all other uses of that name prior to
the work of Philippi, 1836, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of
both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy.

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

(a) Donacilla Philippi, 1836 (gender: feminine), type
species, by original designation, Donacilla lamarckii
Philippi, 1836 (Name Number 2089);

(b) Mesodesma Deshayes, [1832] (gender: neuter), type
species, by subsequent designation by Anton, [1838]
Mactra donacia Lamarck, 1818 (Name Number
2090);

(c) Semele Schumacher, 1817 (gender: feminine), type
species, by monotypy, through Article 70b, Semele
reticulata Schumacher, 1817 (Name Number 2091).

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

(a) cornea Poli, 1795, as published in the binomen
Mactra cornea (Name Number 2691);

(b) donacia Lamarck, 1818, as published in the binomen
Mactra donacia (specific name of type species of
Mesodesma Deshayes, [1832] (Name Number 2692);

(4) The following name is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the
Name Number specified:

(a) Donacilla Blainville, 1819, and all other uses of, prior
to the work of Philippi, 1836 (Name Number 2110).

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 1959

On 14 January 1971 an application was received from Dr
A.G. Beu (Geological Survey of New Zealand) for the designation

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123

of type species for Donacilla Blainville, 1818, and Amphidesma
Lamarck, 1818. It was sent to the printer on 18 March 1971 and
published on 8 December 1971 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 28:
121—123. No use of the plenary powers was involved.

Objections to the proposal by Dr Louise de Rooij-Schuiling
(Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands) were
published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 29: 193. A reconciliation of her
approach with that of Dr Beu was published by the Secretary in
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 111—112. Public notice of the possible
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to two mala-
cological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr Harald A.
Rehder (National Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C.
20560). No adverse comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 5 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)19 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 31: 111—112. At the close of the voting period on S December
1978 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17) received in the following
order: Holthuis, Melville, Alvarado, Eisenmann, Mroczkowski,
Vokes, Brinck, Willink, Tortonese, Cogger, Binder, Bayer, Corliss,
Habe, Nye, Welch, Bernardi

Negative Vote — Dupuis.

Sabrosky sent in a late voting paper and abstained. Ride was
on leave of absence. No votes were returned by Heppell, Kraus and
Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Holthuis: “I should prefer to add in para 6(1) on p. 111,
after “Blainville, 1819”, “‘and all uses of this name prior to the
publication of Donacilla Philippi, 1836.” [This was taken into
account in drafting the present ruling. R.V.M.]

Dupuis: “L’interprétation de Iredale (1914: 490), selon
laquelle l’espéce donacilla Lamarck, 1818 est le type par tautony-
mie de Amphidesma Lamarck, 1818, n. lat. nov. pro Donacille
Lmk., 1812 n. gall., me parait conforme a l/histoire. Toutes les
autres propositions — suppressions, mises 4 Il’Index — sont des
simplifications qui font disparaitre histoire. J’aurais préféré que
Yon utilise les pleins pouvoirs pour confirmer l’interprétation de
Iredale et rejeter la désignation de Children, 1823.”

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Nye: “I suggest that the words “and all usages of this name
prior to Donacilla Philippi, 1836”, already present by implication,
should, if this application is approved, be incorporated into the
ruling when dealing with the suppression of Donacilla Blainville,
1819”. [This was taken into account in drafting the present ruling.
R.V.M.]

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references for the names placed
on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the
present Opinion:
cornea, Mactra, Poli, 1795, Testacea utriusque Siciliae, vol. 1:

73-74
donacia, Mactra, Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. anim. s. vert., vol. 5:

479
Donacilla Blainville, 1819, Dict. sci. nat., vol. 13: 429
Donacilla Phillipi, 1836, Enum. moll. Siciliae, vol. 1: 37
Mesodesma Deshayes, [1832], Ency. méth. (Vers), vol. 2 (2): 441
proficua, Tellina, Pulteney, 1799, Catalogues of Birds, Shells and

more rare Plants of Dorsetshire (London): 29
Semele Schumacher, 1817, Essai vers test.: 53, 165

The following is the reference to a subsequent designation of
type species accepted in the present ruling: of Mactra donacia
Lamarck, 1818 as type species of Mesodesma Deshayes, [1832], by
Anton, [1838], Verz. Conch. Samml. Anton: 3. (The date of this
work is taken from Cernohorsky, 1978, Veliger, vol. 20 (3): 299.)

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (78)19 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly accepted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present
Opinion No. 1141.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

3 April 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125

OPINION 1142
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES BASED ON PLA TYSTOMA
MEIGEN, 1803, GIVEN PRECEDENCE OVER THOSE BASED
ON ACHIAS FABRICIUS, 1805 (DIPTERA)

RULING ~— (1) Under the plenary powers, it is hereby ruled
that family-group names based on Platystoma Meigen, 1803, are to
be given precedence over family-group names based on Achias
Fabricius, 1805, whenever those two genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon.

(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
specified:

(a) Platystoma Meigen, 1803 (gender: neuter), type
species, by monotypy, Musca seminationis Fabricius,
1775 (Name Number 2092);

(b) Achias Fabricius, 1805 (gender: masculine), type
species, by monotypy, Achias oculatus Fabricius,
1805 (Name Number 2093).

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

(a) seminationis Fabricius, 1775, as published in the
binomen Musca seminationis (specific name of type
species of Platystoma Meigen, 1803) (Name Number
2694);

(b) oculatus Fabricius, 1805, as published in the binomen
Achias oculatus (specific name of type species of
Achias Fabricius, 1805) (Name Number 2695).

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers
and endorsements specified:

(a) PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1862 (as “Platysto-
minae”) (type genus Platystoma Meigen, 1803)
(Name Number 502), with an endorsement that it is
to be given precedence over ACHIDAE Fleming,
1821 whenever Platystoma Meigen, 1803, and Achias
Fabricius, 1805, are placed in the same family-group
taxon;

(b) ACHIDAE Fleming, 1821 (as ““Achiasidae”’) (type
genus Achias Fabricius, 1805) (Name Number $03)
with an endorsement that it is not to be given priority
over PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1862, whenever

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Platystoma Meigen, 1803, and Achias Fabricius,
1805, are placed in the same family-group taxon.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2053

An application for the suppression of the family name
ACHIDAE Fleming, 1821 was first received from Mr George C.
Steyskal (Systematic Entomology Laboratory USDA, c/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A.) and Dr D.K.
McAlpine (Australian Museum, Sydney 2000, Australia) on 28
September 1973. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent
to the printer on 14 January 1974 and published on 31 July 1974
in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 59—61. Public notice of the possible
use of the plenary powers in the case was given in the same part of
the Bulletin as well as to the statutory serials and to seven ento-
mological serials.

Dr Holthuis pointed out that no family-group name can be
suppressed unless the name of its type genus is suppressed at the
same time. He suggested that the applicants should ask for family-
group names based on Platystoma to be given precedence over
family-group names based on Achias, and his comment was
published in Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 31: 177. The applicants did as he
suggested in the following note, which was circulated with the
voting paper referred to below.

“Of course Dr Holthuis is correct in pointing out that as long
as a generic name is available it may be used as the basis of a family-
group name of some rank or other (a zoological consideration).
Therefore what we are seeking is really the preference of Platy-
stoma over Achias as the basonym for any family-group taxon in
which both genera are included. At any rank in which Achias and
Platystoma are considered to belong to separate named family-
group taxa, those taxa may be typified by those genera. We there-
fore agree to amend and complete our proposals and to ask the
Commission:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that family-group
names based on Platystoma Meigen, 1803, are to be
given precedence over family-group names based on
Achias Fabricius, 1805, whenever those two genera are
placed in the same family-group taxon;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in

Zoology
(a) Platystoma Meigen, 1803, (Jiliger’s) Magazin fiir
Insektenkunde, vol. 2: 277 (gender: neuter) (type
species, Musca seminationis Fabricius, 1775, Systema
Entomologiae: 786, by monotypy);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127

(b) Achias Fabricius, 1805, Systema Antliatorum: 247
(gender, masculine) (type species, Achia oculatus
Fabricius, 1805, loc. cit., by monotypy);
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology
(a) seminationis, Musca, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Ento-
mologiae: 786;
(b) oculatus, Achias, Fabricius, 1805, Systema Antlia-
torum: 247.”
“The citation by Becker (1905, Kat. Paldarkt. Dipt. vol. 4:
103) of “seminationis L. Fauna Suec., 1874. /Musca/ (1766)” is
erroneous, apparently for germinationis, cited further on under
Opomyza correctly. This error unfortunately has been taken up by
a few later authors.”
The action proposed implies the further action incorporated
in paragraph (4) of the present ruling.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)22 for or against the proposals set out in the note quoted
above. At the close of the voting period on 27 December 1978 the
state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — twenty (20) received in the following
order: Melville, Mroczkowski, Holthuis, Brinck, Eisenmann,
Alvarado, Vokes, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Corliss, Welch,
Bayer, Cogger, Kraus, Nye, Sabrosky, Dupuis (for proposal (1)
only), Bernardi

Negative Votes — two (2): Heppell, Dupuis (against proposals
(2) and (3) only).

Ride was on leave. No vote was returned by Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Heppell: “I find it very difficult to vote on such a case. If we
adhere to the rules and favour the little-used ACHIDAE there
would be discouragement to other workers thinking of bringing
similar cases to the Commission; names in general use would
continue to be used, and the prior names would be quietly ignored.
If we grant the applicants’ request we accept that this case is one of
very many where an exception to the rule should be made in con-
formity with general usage, and possibly open the gates to a flood
of similar applications, each of which, if granted, reduces the value
of the rule. Holthuis has pointed out one problem with family
names — that they cannot be suppressed without limiting taxono-

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

mic freedom. Among other associated problems are the difficulty of
ascertaining the earliest usage of family names, the well-established
practice (not authorised by the Code) of basing the family name on
the oldest included generic name, and the use of family names in a
taxonomic sense often before the type genus was objectively
defined by fixation of its type species (Article 41). Unfortunately,
because names on the Official Lists have no enhanced status, the
addition of PLATYSTOMATIDAE to the list would not
automatically give it precedence over ACHIDAE, which is all the
applicants require from the Commission. The Commission has the
option here of adding both names to the Official List, with a grant
of precedence to the junior name, but this is an inelegant solution
that tends to confuse zoologists not familiar with nomenclatural
sophistry.

“The present rule applying priority to family names has been
in force for twenty years, during which time I believe the con-
sequent changes in family-group nomenclature have either been
ignored or not realised. When they have been realised, applications
have been made to suppress the senior unused name in favour of the
junior name in current use, or to grant precedence to the latter over
the former. It seems to me to be time to go back to the zoological
fraternity and ask whether provisions for family-group nomen-
clature should continue to be incorporated in the Code. If the
answer is still in the affirmative, then the Commission should
rigorously vote against such applications as the present one, only
allowing the rules to be waived in exceptional circumstances. There
seems to me to be no sense in keeping provisions in the Code for his-
torical purposes if they are not observed by responsible zoologists
because of practical difficulties. Even in 1956 H.B. Baker (Family
names in Pulmonata, Nautilus, vol. 69: 128—139) was aware of the
problems inherent in the proposed changes to the Code, and
concluded: ‘... the rule of priority, if applied also to families, would
favor the careless splitter, and establish names impetuously applied
to aberrant and isolated forms’. In voting against this application I
feel that the proposals as resubmitted are subordinate to the sole
desired end, namely that PLATYSTOMATIDAE be confirmed as
the valid name for the family subjectively synonymous with
ACHIDAE. If the Commission were to accept the principle that
names on the Official Lists should have automatic precedence over
any synonyms, objective or subjective, not on the Lists, this case
could be effectively dealt with merely by placing PLATYSTOMA-
TIDAE on the Official List.”

Nye: “Although I support the aim of the proposals, they are
still not complete. The names PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner,
1862, and ACHIDAE Fleming, 1821, should both be placed on the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 129

Official List with annotations giving the former precedence over the
latter.” [This has been taken into account in drafting the present
ruling. R.V.M.]

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references to the names placed
on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Achias Fabricius, 1805, Syst. Antl: 247
ACHIIDAE Fleming, 1821, Philos. zool: 55 (as “Achiasidae’’)
oculatus, Achias, Fabricius, 1805, Syst. Antl.: 247
Platystoma Meigen, 1803, Illiger’s Mag. Insektenk., vol. 2: 277
PLATYSTOMATIDAE Schiner, 1862, Wien. ent. Monatschr., vol.
6151
seminationis, Musca, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent.: 786.

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V_P. (78)22 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 1142.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London

3 April 1979

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1143
KERRICHIELLA ROSANOV, 1965 (HYMENOPTERA):
DESIGNATION OF A TYPE SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY
POWERS

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers, all fixations of
type species for the nominal genus Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965, are
hereby set aside and the nominal species Thysanus coleoptratus
Kerrich, 1953, is hereby designated as type species of that genus.

(2) The generic name Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965 (gender:
feminine), type species, by designation under the plenary powers in
(1) above, Thysanus coleoptratus Kerrich, 1953, is hereby placed
on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2094.

(3) The specific name coleoptratus Kerrich, 1953, as pub-
lished in the binomen Thysanus coleoptratus (specific name of type
species of Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2696.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N.(S.) 2063

An application for the use of the plenary powers to vary the
type species of Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965, was first received from
Dr B.R. Subba Rao (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology,
London) on 28 February 1974. It was sent to the printer on 5 April
1974 and published on 31 December 1974 in Bull. zool. Nom. vol.
31: 221—222. Public notice of the possible use of the plenary
powers in the case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well
as to the statutory serials and to seven entomological serials.

The application was supported by Dr David Rosen (Hebrew
University of Jerusalem), Dr Oswald Peck and Dr Carl M.
Yoshimoto (Biosystematics Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada),
Dr J.S. Noyes (British Museum (Natural History) London) and Dr
Z. Boucek (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London). No
adverse comment was received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)24 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 31: 221. At the close of the voting period on 27 December
1978 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21), received in the

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13]

following order: Melville, Holthuis, Brinck, Eisenmann, Alvarado,
Mroczkowski, Vokes, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Binder, Corliss,
Welch, Heppell, Ride, Bayer, Kraus, Nye, Sabrosky, Dupuis,
Bernardi

Negative Votes — none (0).

Cogger abstained from voting. No voting paper was returned
by Starobogatov.

The following comments were sent in by members of the
Commission with their voting papers:

Ride: “My vote is conditional upon the Secretary ascer-
taining that there is no usage of the generic name Kerrichiella in the
sense required by S. giraulti Crawford. If there is such usage, the
current application would, if successful, result in a transfer of
names, and the Commission should be asked to adopt the solution
provided by Article 7Oa(iii) rather than 7Oa(i).”” [Dr Subba Rao
replied that he knew of no usage of Kerrichiella other than in the
sense of his application. R.V.M.]

Cogger: “I abstain from voting on the grounds that the
application does not provide the information necessary to judge the
case in terms of Article 70a. The application of this Article is to
ensure that a type species is chosen that will ‘ . . . best serve
stability and universality of nomenclature’. This issue is not
addressed by the applicant, who provides no information on current
usage.”

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

The following are the original references to the names placed
on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
coleoptratus, Thysanus, Kerrich, 1953, Bull. ent. Res. (London),

vol. 44: 802
Kerrichiella Rosanov, 1965, Ent. Obozr. Moscow, vol. 44: 869,

878, 880

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (78)24 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 1143.

R.V. MELVILLE Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London 4 April 1979

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 1144
PHLOEOTRIBUS (COLEOPTERA: SCOLYTIDAE) RULED TO
BE A JUSTIFIED EMENDATION OF PHLOJOTRIBUS
LATREILLE, 1796

RULING — (1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled
that the spelling Phloeotribus (first published by Latreille, 1804) isa
justified emendation of Phloiotribus Latreille, 1796.

(2) The generic name Phloeotribus Latreille, 1796 validated
under the plenary powers in (1) above (gender: masculine), type
species through Article 67e, Scolytus scarabaeoides Bernard, 1788,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
with the Name Number 2095.

(3) The specific name scarabaeoides Bernard, 1788, as pub-
lished in the binomen Scoly tus scarabaeoides (specific name of type
species of Phioeotribus Latreille, 1796) is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number
2697.

(4) The generic name Philoiotribus Latreille, 1796 (an
incorrect original spelling by virtue of the ruling under the plenary
powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name
Number 2111.

HISTORY OF THE CASE Z.N((S.) 2068

An application for the conservation of the name Phloeotribus
Latreille, 1804, was first received from Dr Stephen L. Wood
(Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah 84601, USA) on 29 April
1974. After an exchange of correspondence it was sent to the
printer on 19 November 1974 and published on 27 June 1975 in
Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 122—123. During the preparation of the
case, criticism by Prof. Dr Karl Schedl (University of Lienz,
Austria) was taken into account and support was received from
Professor Ant. Pfeffer (Prague, Czechoslovakia) and Dr J.J. Menier
(Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, Paris).

Public notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the
case was given in the Bulletin when the application was published
and was given to the statutory serials and to seven entomological
serials. Dr Holthuis suggested (Bull. zool. Nom. vol. 32: 208—9)
that the conservation of Phloeotribus could best be achieved by a
ruling that it was a justified emendation of Phloiotribus Latreille,
1796, since it would then take the priority of the latter. This

Bull. zool. Nom., vol. 36, part 2, August 1979

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 133

suggestion was accepted by the applicant. No other comment was
received.

DECISION OF THE COMMISSION

On 27 September 1978 the members of the Commission were
invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper
(1978)27 for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nom.
vol. 32: 123 as modified on : 208. At the end of the voting period
on 27 December 1978 the state of the voting was as follows:

Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21) received in the
following order: Melville, Holthuis, Mroczkowski, Brinck,
Eisenmann, Alvarado, Vokes, Willink, Habe, Tortonese, Binder,
Corliss, Welch, Heppell, Bayer, Ride, Cogger, Kraus, Nye, Sabrosky,
Bernardi

Negative Votes — none (0).

Dupuis abstained. No vote was returned by Starobogatov.

Professor Dupuis explained that he abstained because, in his
view, the author of Phloeotribus was not Latreille, but Illiger, Mag.
Insektenkunde, vol. 3: 108. The Secretary held that Illiger had
merely erroneously quoted the spelling of Latreille’s name, and
Professor Holthuis likewise concluded that Phloeotribus appeared
to be an erroneous subsequent spelling rather than an emendation.
As such, it would have no status in nomenclature unless the Com-
mission were to give it such status under its plenary powers; its
original authorship would then be of no importance, because as
from the Commission’s ruling, it would have the authorship and
date attributed to it by that ruling.

ORIGINAL REFERENCES

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

Phloeotribus IWlliger, 1804, Illiger’s Mag. Insektenk., vol. 3: 108

Phloiotribus Latreille, 1796, Précis Car. Ins.: 50

scarabaeoides, Scolytus, Bernard, 1788, Mém. pour servir @ lHist.
nat. de Provence, vol. 2: 271. [Original not seen]

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the votes cast on V.P. (78)27 were cast
as set out above, that the proposal contained in that voting paper
has been duly adopted under the plenary powers and that the
decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com-

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

mission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the
present Opinion No. 1144.

R.V. MELVILLE

Secretary

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

London

6 April 1979

ahaa: on Lockivgitia oe
prtent Gpiaion ie oa .

As - at.
Ses FIP 7 hel
s mee

© 1979 THE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Printed in England by INPRINT OF LUTON (Designers & Printers) LTD.

Volume 36, Part 3
pp. 135 - 192

ISSN 0007 - 5167
25 October 1979

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

The Official Organ of

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

CONTENTS

Page

Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:

1. Date of commencement by the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. ..... 135

2. Notice of the possible use by the International Commission

on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in

EOCPAUIMCASCS pti Gteas eats a kl vuladol Mal ora thane els: oie 5 eee aie aee 135

Ser sist. OLMeEW APPHCALIONS ..». 2...) '. sche ee bb wd be a cmv entiewrs 136
Obituaries: Mr. N.D. Riley, C.B:E. . 2... ee ees 137
(DOT Go) DEAL a AY lel Coa aerate arse a an nar tec Reece re Tt ac 137

(Contents continued on page xi)

LONDON

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o British Museum (Natural History)
Cromwell Road, London, SW7 SBD

Price £6.25
(All rights reserved)

Phat di ere
ny

| " %
Q :
, se
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON als GN
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE —s |» %, ©)
Loo& =
A. The Officers of the Commission \‘c “45 . “9 y
re oO, #£

cate! wat > £

President: Dr. C.W. SABROSKY (Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA‘/o U.S.
National Museum, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.).

Vice-President: Prot. Per BRINCK (Ecology Building, University of Lund,
S-223 62, Lund, Sweden).

Secretary: Mr. R.V. MELVILLE (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell
Road, London SW7 SBD).

Assistant Secretary: Dr. I1.W.B. NYE (British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD).