Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats

pe ae

Ce a

The

Bulletin

Zoological —
Nomenclature

HG: ZNI" The Official Periodical

of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Volume 47, 1990

Published on behalf of the Commission by

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
c/o The Natural History Museum

Cromwell Road

London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

ISSN 0007-5167
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Notices . :

Election of the Vice- President of ‘the International Commission on . Zoological
Nomenclature . ;

The International Commission on 1 Zoological Nomenclature and its publications ;

Addresses of members of the Commission . ,

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ;

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- Supplement :

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Instructions to Authors .

Applications

Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia
paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis
Verrill, 1864. B.W.Hoeksema. .

CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CYMATIINAE E Walton
in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy.
A. Jansson& A.G.Beu. .

Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Neriti hebraea. Martyn, 1786 (actuellement Placostylus
fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposée pour les
noms specifiques; et Placostylus Beck, 1837: at ve proposée de L. aes:
comme espéce-type. P. Bouchet

Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): " proposed conservation. M. E.
Gordon . .

Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of
Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. M. S. Harvey

Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustules:
Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the iar
name. R. B. Halliday .

Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, ‘Isopoda): proposed precedence over
Palaega Woodward, 1870. J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck .

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of
Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. R. C. Froeschner &
N. A. Kormilev. Meats de Date h copys Mince awe eae el te

Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata, Mammalia, Cetacea):
proposed conservation of the specific name. W. F. Perrin . ;

Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed conservation, and
Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently Mammuthus primigenius): pro-
posed designation as the type species of Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype.
W.E. Garutt, Anthea Gentry & A. M. Lister . Babee

Note and Comments

On Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species.
P.K. Tubbs .

On the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and. Ranguna Bott, 1966
(Crustacea, Decapoda). P. K. L. Ng; L. B. Holthuis .

On the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of
Saissetia Déeplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera). G. De Lotto; C. Hodgson .

On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey . ‘

On the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes). A. Wheeler; R. Fricke . i

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently
Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea). H. D. Kahlke; A. V. Sher; Alan
Gentry; A. P. Currant. Re 1 Pea! itapee hs

a
&
ve
28

AMmAnABWN WY

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1567. Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus oe Fichtel &
Moll, 1798 designated as the type species Mie raed, tc

Opinion 1568. Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): conserved

Opinion 1569. Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved

Opinion 1570. Dendritina d Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved .

Opinion 1571. Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved. :

Opinion 1572. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus:
Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype . .

Opinion 1573. Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Pine
talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa):
specificnames conserved. . .

Opinion 1574. Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera Rooker
Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved . 5

Opinion 1575. Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): consenvedly ,

Opinion 1576. Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda):
specificname conserved . .

Opinion 1577. Hydrobius Leach, 1815 ‘nsecta, Coleoptera): Dy reco. fuscipes
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): conserved .

Opinion 1578. Vespa pia granivi Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus nea
Insecta, Hymenoptera): specificname conserved . .

Opinion 1579. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea):
specific name conserved . .

Opinion 1580. Cordylodus? yates Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distormoder aul:
Conodonta): specificname conserved .

Opinion 1581. Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes):
Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species. :

Opinion 1582. Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved

Opinion 1583. Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres,
1854 to be taken as the author of the specificname . .

Opinion 1584. Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus
Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species . .

Opinion 1585. Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas: ‘Reptilia,
Squamata): specificname conserved . .

Opinion 1586. Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently. Panonarays rane
Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved . et fill eae ee Mee

Notices . .

Call for nominations for? new vamemibers Of the leafenoationall Commission on n Zoological
Nomenclature . ‘ 3

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology- Supplement ;

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

General Articles

Bully for Brontosaurus. Stephen Jay Gould

Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability.
Alwyne Wheeler 5 RECS AER GE RT set lth a

Applications

Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation. D. Kadolsky .

RISSOOIDEA (Or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence
over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840. G. Rosenberg & G. M.
Davis .

Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina: “Mollusca, Bivalvia):
proposed designation of a neotype. P. B. Mordan & F. R. Woodward .

Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps
Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving Bollandia Reed, 1943. G. Hahn
Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation

of the specific name. L. Borowiec .

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): pro-
posed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes. in
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species. M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert &
C. Ferraris :

Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the
specific name. R.G. Webb . wi a REE CAR Seay MARU tas

Comments

On the adoption of ‘Protected Works’ for purposes of zoological nomenclature.
D. Frost .

On the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren, 1867
(Annelida, Polychaeta). R. T. Becker; A. Mackie;S. Chambers . ;

On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) 0 over
Rhechostica Simon, 1892. R. J. Raven

On the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as the type
species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress
the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. ces Koch, 1857 (Insecta, igus aaa
E. M. Danzig; P. K. Tubbs .

On the valid name for the butterfly known as ‘Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905°
or ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ (Insecta, Lepidoptera). L. B. Holthuis; E. J.
Reissinger & S. Wagener; O. Kudrna; W. G. Tremewan; P.K. Tubbs . :

On the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of
Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera). F. C. Thompson; I. M. White.

On the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by
the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. G. Gibson & J. Huber; G. bea
D. Rosen; J. LaSalle . . : ; :

On the need for stability in fish family- group n names. N. Merrett. :

On the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species
of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving Anguilla.
A. Wheeler; F. C. Thompson, R. A. Cooper :

On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works byR. W. Wells & C. R.
Wellington. P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Cae J. P. Puaeey J. Pierre &
S. Tillier . WMP AM Sarat Be ‘ ,

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1587. Orbitolina dOrbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava
Mamarck,1816.confirmed asithe type species. 131 /).5.,%50 su bey Aye ye do eee

Opinion 1588. Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 onated Digenea):
holotype replaced by alectotype . .

Opinion 1589. Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint- Joseph, 1888 ‘(currently also
Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved

Opinion 1590. Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea,
Copepoda): specific name conserved. . . PCL ea Ws

Opinion 1591. Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda):
Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 confirmed as the type species.

Opinion 1592. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved .

Opinion 1593. Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved

Opinion 1594. Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved

Opinion 1595. Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx. loewii
Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species...

Opinion 1596. Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phtyganea phalaenoides
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802
(Insecta, Megaloptera) ;

Ill

114

LAT,

118

129

132

134
138

138

139

141
143
144
145
147
148
150
152

153

154

Opinion 1597. Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic
and specificnamesconserved . .

Opinion 1598. Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, ‘1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 designated as
the respective type species :

Opinion 1599. Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratéae” major
Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names
carthami and major conserved . .

Opinion 1600. Tachina orbata Wiedemann 1830 (currently Peiiaen oan inci:
Diptera): neotype designation confirmed . .

Opinion 1601. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826):
suppressed for nomenclatural purposes. .

Opinion 1602. Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, “Hymenoptera): specific name
conserved . .

Opinion 1603. Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes)
conserved

Opinion 1604. ICHTHYOPHIIDAE : Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved .

Opinion 1605. Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name
conserved .

Opinion 1606. Semioptera wallacit Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADISAEIDAE): conserved as ‘the
correct spelling of the generic and specific names .

Opinion 1607. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia,
Rodentia): specific name conserved

Notices . .

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints .
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature :
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- -Supplement ;

Applications

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of
Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species. M. S. Harvey

Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation
of the specific name. D. Belk & S. T. Bowen

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. Ss. R. Steinhauser,
L. D. Miller, J. Y. Miller & C.A. Bridges . .

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation
of the specific name. K. Rognes & R. E. Blackith .

Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed c conser-
vation of the specific name. K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith. ;

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of ‘the
specific name. E. O. Willis & Y.Oniki_ . :

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed ‘conservation. 0: M.
Chiappe & M. F. Soria Ndi nie aed its Sep od ebsites

Comments

On the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea
Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea; Mollusca,
Gastropoda). R. T. Abbott; P. Bouchet; A. Gentry; R. Giannuzzi-Savelli . 5

On the proposed precedence of POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 over MESODONTIDAE Tryon,
1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Rosenberg & K. C. Emberton . :

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton,
1834). (Mollusca, Bivalvia). R. W. Scott.

On the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, ‘1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia).
A. H. Clarke; A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams & S. L. H. Fuller ;

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus,
1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780

156

205

(currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M. E. Petersen; S. Chambers &

D.Heppell . . 207
On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) 0 over
Rhechostica Simon, 1892.H. W. Levi& O. Kraus. . . 211

On the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and I. “woodi
Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by ee of the holotype of J. angustus.

G.B.White. . . 211
| On the conservation of the spelling of the specific name . of Macrocheles robustulus
(Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina). R.C. Axtelletal. . 212
On the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea,
Isopoda). J. Forest. . . 212

On the proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as ‘the type species of
Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda). R. C. Brusca; M. H. Thurston 213
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius,
1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga;

PAkKO Dubbs: 3S) Beet rae 213
On the proposed precedence ‘of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera).G.B. White... 214

On the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma
Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White; D.
Strickman .. . 215
On the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type
species of ales Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita). Sir J. Stubblefield; H. B.
Whittington. . . as AE eR ae eS YRC a 216

Rulings of the Commission
Opinion 1608. Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora

densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species . . 217
Opinion 1609. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca,
Ammonoidea): conserved . . 218

Opinion 1610. Valanginites Saynin Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship
of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the type

species. . 220
Opinion 1611. Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name
conserved . 222
Opinion 1612. Altus menicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Siiicis penicillatus: Arachnida,
| Araneae): specificname conserved . . 224

Opinion 1613. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and
| Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea,
i

Copepoda) . . bat Oats 226
Opinion 1614. Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved Ait 228
Opinion 1615. TRAPEZUDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and TRAPEZIIDAE
Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed. . 229
Opinion 1616. Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): “Ptochus porcellus
Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species. . . 235i
Opinion 1617. Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over

Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]. . . . 233
Opinion 1618. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species

Musca azurea Fallén, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement

lectotype. . . 235
Opinion 1619. Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana: Insecta,

Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. . . 237
Opinion 1620. Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by

citation of Lapworth (1876) as author >). J ee Sk 238

Opinion 1621. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, -Osteoglossiformes):
Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated asthe type species . . . . . 239

Notices . .

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature :

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- Supplement :

Financial Report for 1989 . . Be

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—General ‘Session of the
Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990 ;

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—Open Meeting of ‘the
Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990

Applications

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed desig-
nation of ee hystrix Marion & ae in Fischer, 1885 as the type
species.

Helicarion Férussac, 1821. (Mollusca, Gastropoda): " proposed conservation, and
proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species.

Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of Arion
hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species .

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of ‘Leptaena
planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species .

HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence
Over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. . . .

Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine
gender for the name :

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence 0 over : Rang
utricularius Harlan, 1826. : ee

Comments

On the proposed placement of HYDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on
the Official List of Family-Group Names . .

On the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. reppelil Bergh, 1869
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). . .

On the proposed precedence of Bathynomus NE Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea,
Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870 .. .

On the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943
(Trilobita) :

On the proposed conservation of the specific nz names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907
and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera)

On the stability of fish family names . :

On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes,
Scorpaeniformes) . .

On the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, I 1886 6 (Amphibia, Anura)
over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826 . ;

Ruling of the Commission
Opinion 1622. Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis;
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved .

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 47 (1990)

Names and Works placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in rulings of the Commission
published i in volume 47 (1990) . :

Key names in Applications and Comments published i in n volume 47 ( 1990)

Corrigenda. . i a rina :

Publication dates and pagination of volume 47 (1990) .

Instructionsto binder . . A

Table of Contents of volume 47 (1990) .

Volume 47, Part 1, 27 March 1990 pp. 1-84 ISSN 0007-5167

Bulletin

Se bsical
Nomenclature _ a.

On z “OOLO ical Nor ir Ature

“+e eae
ge? OT &

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or
$125, postage included. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers
President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany)
Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Members
Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
(Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y.I. Starobogatov

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F.C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V.A. Trjapitzin

(Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Secretariat

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
MrJ.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 47, part 1 (pp. 1-84) : 27 March 1990

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorized to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi-
cation, but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(b) Invitation to contribute general articles. At present the Bulletin comprises mainly
applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting
comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed amendments
to the Code are also published for discussion.

Articles or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience
wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 46, part 4 (published on 19 December 1989):

(1) Anas arcuata Horsfield, 1824 (currently Dendrocygna arcuata; Aves,
Anseriformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2746). G.F.
Mees.

(2) Strophomena Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed adoption of authorship
and designation of Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species. (Case
2747). L.R.M. Cocks.

(3) Plusia falcifera Kirby, 1837 (currently Anagrapha falcifera; Insecta,
Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2748). J.D.
Lafontaine & R.W. Poole.

(4) Eristalis Latreille, 1804,, Helophilus Meigen, 1822 and Xylota Meigen, 1822
(Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation. (Case 2749). T. Zatwarnicki.

(5) Epizoanthus Gray, 1867 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed conservation. (Case
2750). J.S. Ryland & A. Muirhead.

(6) Paolia vetusta Smith, 1871 (Insecta, Protorthoptera): proposed rejection of the
neotype following rediscovery of the holotype. (Case 2751). C.G. Maples.

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published in
the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of
publication of the Bulletin.

2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Election of the Vice-President of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The members of the Commission have elected Dr H.G. COGGER as Vice-President.

Dr Cogger is from the Australian Museum, Sydney, and was elected to the
Commission in 1976. His research concerns the reptiles and amphibians of Australia
and the western Pacific region.

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
and its publications

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895
by the III International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 28 zoologists
from 19 countries whose interests cover most of the principal divisions (including
palaeontology) of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the
International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS), and its members are elected at open
meetings held in conjunction with Congresses of IUBS or of its associated bodies.
Casual vacancies may be filled between Congresses. Nominations for membership may
be sent to the Commission Secretariat at any time.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has one fundamental aim, which
is to provide ‘the maximum universality and continuity in the scientific names of
animals compatible with the freedom of scientists to classify all animals according
to taxonomic judgements’. The latest (Third) Edition was published in 1985 by the
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission.
Suggested amendments to the Code should be sent to the Secretariat.

Observance of the rules in the Code enables a biologist to arrive at the valid name for
any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and super-family. Its
provisions can be waived or modified in their application to a particular case when
strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an indi-
vidual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission
takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications should follow
the instructions on the inside back cover of the Bulletin, and assistance will be given by
the Secretariat.

The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is published four times each year. It con-
tains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is an
invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may
also be published. The Commission makes a ruling (called an Opinion) on a case only
after a suitable period for comments. All Opinions are published in the Bulletin,
which also contains articles and notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such
contributions may be sent to the Secretariat.

The Commission’s rulings are summarised in The Official Lists and Indexes of Names
and Works in Zoology; a single volume covering the period 1895—1985 was published in
1987, and a free supplement covering 1986—1988 was issued in 1989. Copies may be
obtained from the Secretariat.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 3

In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Commission’s
Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may have nomen-
clatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 1s a charity (non-profit making
company) registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is at present based
in London, and the Trust is established there for legal reasons to handle the financial
affairs of the Commission. The sale of publications (Code, Bulletin and Official Lists
and Indexes) covers only part of the costs of the service given to zoology by the
Commission. Support is given by academies, research councils, associations and
societies from a number of countries, and also by individuals, but despite this assistance
the level of income remains a severe restraint and donations to the Trust are gratefully
received.

Addresses of members of the Commission

Dr F.M. BAYER U.S. National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.

Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027,
U.S.A.

Dr L.R.M. COCKS The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Dr H.G. COGGER Australian Museum, P.O. Box A285, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia
(Vice-President)

Prof J.0. CORLISS P.O. Box 53008, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87153, U.S.A. (Councillor)

Prof C. DUPUIS Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 45 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France

Prof Dr G. HAHN Fachbereich Geowissenschaften, D-355 Marburg (Lahn), Fed. Rep. Germany

Prof DrO. HALVORSEN Zoological Museum, Sars GT, 1. N-0562 Oslo 5, Norway

Mr D. HEPPELL Department of Natural History, Royal Museum of Scotland, Chambers Street,
Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K. (Councillor)

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

Dr Z. KABATA Canada Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Pacific Biological Station,
Nanaimo, B.C., V9R 5K6, Canada

Prof Dr O. KRAUS Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, 2000 Hamburg 13, Fed.
Rep. Germany (President)

Dr P.T. LEHTINEN Zoological Museum, Department of Biology, University of Turku, SF-20500
Turku 50, Finland

Dr E. MACPHERSON Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Paseo Nacional, s/n, 08003 Barcelona,
Spain

Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Case postal 434, CH-1211 Genéve, Switzerland

Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sado Paulo, Caixa
Postal 7172, 01051 Sao Paulo, Brazil

Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova,
Italy

Dr M. MROCZKOWSKI Instytut Zoologii, Polska Akademia Nauk, ul. Wilcza 64, Warsaw,
Poland

Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100, Kobenhavn, Denmark

Dr I.W.B. NYE c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Dr W.D.L. RIDE Department of Geology, The Australian National University, P.O. Box 4,
Canberra, A.C.T. 2600, Australia

Prof J. M. SAVAGE Department of Biology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 249118, Coral
Gables, Florida 33124, U.S.A. (Councillor)

4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Prof Dr R. SCHUSTER Institut fiir Zoologie, Universitat Graz, Universitatsplatz 2, A-8010 Graz,
Austria

Dr Y.I. STAROBOGATOV Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskaya
naberezhnaya 1, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.

Dr F.C. THOMPSON Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum,
Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.

Dr V.A. TRJAPITZIN Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Universitetskayanaberezhnaya
1, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.

Dr Shun-Ichi UENO Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, Hyakunincho 3-23-1,
Shinjukuku, Tokyo 160, Japan

Prof A. WILLINK Universidad Nacional de Tucuman, Instituto Miguel Lillo, Miguel Lillo 205,
4000 Tucuman, Argentina

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Members

Professor H.B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
Dr Keiji Baba

Prof Per Brinck

Prof J.H. Callomon

Dr N.R. Chalmers

Dr H.G. Cogger

Dr P.F.S. Cornelius

Prof C.B. Cox

The Rt. Hon. the Earl of Cranbrook, F.L.S., F.Z.S.
Dr R.W. Crosskey

Sir Arthur Drew, K.C.B.

Prof J. Forest

Col F.J. Griffin, O.B.E.

Dr R.H. Hedley, C.B., F.I.Biol.

Dr L.B. Holthuis

Prof Dr O. Kraus

Dr M. Luc

Dr R.B. Manning

Mr R.V. Melville

Dr I.W.B. Nye

Dr W.D.L. Ride

Dr E.P.F. Rose

Dr G.B. White

Dr A.G. Marshall (Observer for the Royal Society)

Officers

Dr P.K. Tubbs, M.A., Ph.D. (Scientific Controller)

Mr J.D.D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Miss R.A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 5

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in
Zoology—Supplement

The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology was published in 1987.
This book gives details of all the names and works on which the Commission has ruled
since it was set up in 1895, up to 1985. There are about 9,900 entries.

In the three years 1986-1988, 544 names and three works were added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional
entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement
was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies
can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which
the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included).
Payment should accompany orders.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110

or
The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to
members of A.A.Z.N.)

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Instructions to Authors

Authors submitting applications for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature are particularly requested to follow the instructions printed on the inside
back cover of the Bulletin. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process the
large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk
with copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360K B (preferable) or 1.2MB, or
3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be
helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main
references.

6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2714

Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of
Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with
conservation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864

Bert W. Hoeksema

Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden,
The Netherlands

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve usage of the generic names of
the mushroom corals Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 and Lobactis Verrill, 1864, by designating
Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species of Pleuractis.

1. The species Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801 (p. 370) is the type species of Pleuractis
Verrill, 1864 (p. 52). Verrill stated that he selected it as type, and based the desig-
nation on specimens from Singapore which were collected by Captain W. H. A.
Putnam. At present, ten specimens from this collection, labelled as Pleuractis scutaria,
are in the coral collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Examination of this material (MCZ 5398) revealed that all these
specimens were misidentified by Verrill and actually belong to Fungia paumotensis
Stutchbury, 1833 (p. 495, pl. 32, figs. 6a—b).

2. The syntypes of Fungia scutaria Lamarck, 1801 (no type locality given) were
illustrated by Seba (1759, pl. 112, figs. 28-30). One of these figures (fig. 29) resembles
only slightly the species currently known as F. scutaria. Seba’s figures 28 and 30
resemble specimens of F. cyclolites Lamarck, 1801 and F. fungites (Linnaeus, 1758)
respectively. The whereabouts of Seba’s specimens are unknown. In Lamarck’s collec-
tion at the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle at Paris there are two corals from the
Red Sea which are labelled Fungia scutaria. One of these (MNHN 297) was designated
neotype of that species by myself (1989, p. 131). This neotype represents F. scutaria as
it has been interpreted since Déderlein’s (1902) taxonomic revision of Fungia (see
Hoeksema, 1989).

3. Theholotype of F. paumotensis (type locality ‘Paumotos’ = Tuamotu Archipelago,
S. Pacific) is believed to be lost. Stutchbury (1833) did not indicate whether it was
deposited in a museum or left in the field after the illustrations were made. Itis neither in
the British Museum (Natural History) nor in the collection of the Linnean Society of
London, where it most likely would have been deposited. The illustrations of the
holotype given by Stutchbury (1833, pl. 32, figs. 6a—b) are not clear enough to show its
identity. Therefore in my taxonomic revision of the FUNGIIDAE (1989, p. 145) I desig-
nated a neotype (BMNH 1939.1.2.31) from Aku Maru, Gambier Islands, Tuamotu
Archipelago. This neotype represents F. paumotensis as it has been interpreted since
Déderlein’s (1902) revision.

4. The species Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841 (p. 48, pl. 3, figs. 1-2) is the type
species by original designation of Lobactis Verrill, 1864 (p. 52). In Doderlein’s (1902)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 7

revision of Fungia, and in subsequent works, F. dentigera has been considered a junior
subjective synonym of F. scutaria (see Hoeksema, 1989, p. 130).

5. Wells (1966, p. 238), in his generic revision of the FUNGIIDAE, united Pleuractis
and Lobactis under the name Pleuractis as a subgenus in Fungia Lamarck, 1801. I believe
(1989, pp. 129-130, 134, 256-257) that the true Fungia scutaria differs from the Pleuractis
species and should be classified with another subgenus. Since Fungia dentigera, a junior
subjective synonym of F. scutaria, is the type species of Lobactis, F. scutaria should be
classified with Lobactis. Hence maintenance of the nominal species F. scutaria Lamarck
as the type species of Pleuractis, ignoring the misidentification by Verrill (1864), will
cause confusion.

6. This case is being referred to the Commission under Article 70b of the Code. As a
result of the neotype designation of Fungia scutaria, the type species of Pleuractis and
Lobactis are synonymous, and because of Wells’ first reviser action in 1966, Pleuractis
has precedence over Lobactis. To conserve the existing usage of both Pleuractis and
Lobactis, | propose as type species of Pleuractis the species actually considered by
Verrill (1864) and wrongly named in its type fixation, namely Fungia paumotensis.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous designations of type species for
the nominal genus Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 and to designate Fungia paumotensis
Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)

above Fungia paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833;

(b) Lobactis Verrill, 1864 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation
Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841 (a junior subjective synonym of Fungia
scutaria Lamarck, 1801);

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833, as published in the binomen Fungia

paumotensis and as defined by the neotype designated by Hoeksema (1989)
(specific name of the type species of Pleuractis Verrill, 1864, by designation in
(1) above);

(b) scutaria Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Fungia scutaria and as
defined by the neotype designated by Hoeksema (1989) (senior subjective
synonym of Fungia dentigera Leuckart, 1841, the type species of Lobactis
Verrill, 1864).

Acknowledgements
Prof. Dr L. B. Holthuis is gratefully acknowledged for his advice.

References

Déderlein, L. 1902. Die Korallengattung Fungia. Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen naturfor-
schenden Gesellschaft, 27(1): 1-162.

Hoeksema, B. W. 1989. Taxonomy, phylogeny and biogeography of mushroom corals
(Scleractinia: Fungiidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen, Leiden, 254: 1-295.

Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. 1801. Systéme des animaux sans vertébres, viij, 432 pp. Deterville,
Paris.

8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Leuckart, F.S. 1841. Observationes zoologicae de Zoophytis coralliis, speciatim de genere Fungia.
60 pp. 4 pls. Emmerling, Friburgi Brisigavorum.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Seba, A. 1759. Locupletissimi Rerum naturalium Thesauri accuratya Descriptio, vol. 3. Janssonio-
Waesbergios, Amsteloedami.

Stutchbury, S. 1833. An account of the mode of growth of young corals of the genus Fungia.
Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 16: 493—497.

Verrill, A. E. 1864. List of the polyps and corals sent by the Museum of Comparative Zoology to
other institutions in exchange, with annotations. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative
Zoology, 1: 29-60.

Wells, J. W. 1966. Evolutionary development in the scleractinian family Fungiidae. Pp. 223-246,
pl. 1 in Rees, W.J. (Ed.). The Cnidaria and their evolution. Symposia of the Zoological
Society of London, no. 16. 449 pp. Academic Press, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 9

Case 2547

CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and
CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera):
proposal to remove the homonymy

Antti Jansson
Zoological Museum, P. Rautatiekatu 13, SF-00100 Helsinki, Finland

Alan G. Beu

New Zealand Geological Survey, DSIR, PO Box 30368, Lower Hutt,
New Zealand

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to remove the homonymy between the
molluscan family-group name CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) and the insect family-
group name CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940. It is proposed that the latter be
altered to CYMATIAINAE by changing the stem of the type genus Cymatia from CYMATI-
to CYMATIA-.

1. The gastropod family-group name CYMATIDAE was established by Iredale (1913,
p. 56). The type genus of the family is Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (p. 129; see Direction
48 for authorship of this name) with the type species Murex femorale Linnaeus, 1758
(p. 749) by subsequent designation by Dall (1904, p. 133). CYMATMDAE is a junior
synonym of RANELLIDAE Gray, 1854 (p. 37), but Beu & Cernohorsky (1986) have
conserved it under Article 40b as a subfamily name that replaces LAMPUSIIDAE Newton,
1891; LAMPUSIIDAE (published as ‘LAMPUSIDAE’) is based on Lampusia Schumacher,
1817, a junior subjective synonym of Monoplex Perry, 1811, a subgenus of Cymatium.
Lampusia had become a junior subjective synonym of Cymatium, Septa and Monoplex
before Iredale (1913) introduced CYMATIINAE because Cymatium Roding, 1798 was the
oldest relevant nominal genus. LAMPUSIIDAE (proposed by Newton in 1891) was
rejected (i.e. not adopted) by Iredale because of this junior synonymy of Lampusia; it is
true that Iredale did not explicitly ‘replace’ LAMPUSIIDAE by CYMATIINAE, but he was
working nearly 50 years before the Code applied priority to family-group names.
CYMATIINAE has become generally accepted (see BZN 32: 8-11 and Beu & Cernohorsky,
1986). It is therefore appropriate to apply Article 40b to this case.

2. Recently Ponder & Waren (1988, p. 302) have listed the subfamily name
NEPTUNELLINAE Gray, 1854 (p. 38) as a senior synonym of CYMATIINAE Iredale. This
name (which Ponder & Waren spelled as ““NEPTUNELLININAE’’) and that of its type
genus Neptunella Gray, 1854 (p. 38) have never been used; Neptunella is a junior
objective synonym of Cabestana [Réding], 1798 (p. 130), which is closely related to
Cymatium. Because it has been totally unused there is clearly an even stronger case for
rejecting NEPTUNELLINAE than for LAMPUSIIDAE, in the spirit of Article 40b (see para. 1).

10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

We cite CYMATIIDAE as Iredale, 1913 (1854); the double date citation is awkward but is
given by Recommendation 40A of the Code.

3. CYMATIINI was established as a tribe of CORIXINAE (waterboatmen; Insecta) by
Walton in Hutchinson (1940, p. 344) with the type genus Cymatia Flor, 1860, p. 799.
The type species of this genus is Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777 (p. 298) by sub-
sequent designation by Kirkaldy (1898, p. 252). China (1943) upgraded the taxon,
listing it as the subfamily CYMATIINAE. Hungerford (1948, p. 99) also gave the taxon
subfamily status (incorrectly stating “CYMATIINAE subfamily new’), and this has been
accepted in modern classifications almost universally (a representative list is held by the
Commission Secretariat).

4. Although the family-group names by Iredale (1913) and Walton in Hutchinson
(1940) are not based on identically spelled generic names, the family-group names
are homonymous. The existence of this homonymy was pointed out by Jaczewski
(1971) and Cernohorsky & Beu (1972) but, despite the clear statements in Articles 52
and 60, the junior homonym has so far not been replaced. Jaczewski (1971) further
stated that the corixid subfamily CYMATIINAE ‘includes only one genus, Cymatia Flor,
1860, which has no synonymic names or ever had any’. However, Jansson (1982) has
since described the genus Cnethocymatia, so there are two genera in the subfamily at
present.

5. In our opinion, as neither Cymatia Flor nor CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson
has any synonyms which could be used to form a name to replace the junior homonym
(Article 55 b (i)), the case would be solved with the least confusion by following Article
55b(ii) and including all the letters of the generic name Cymatia in the stem of the junior
homonymic name.

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

(1) to useits plenary powers to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 the stem of the

generic name Cymatia Flor, 1860 is CYMATIA-;

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

(a) Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent
designation by Dall (1904) Murex femorale Linnaeus, 1758;
(b) Cymatia Flor, 1860 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Kirkaldy (1898) Sigara coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777;
(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) femorale Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Murex femorale
(specific name of the type species of Cymatium [Roding], 1798);
(b) coleoptrata Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Sigara coleoptrata
and as interpreted by the lectotype designated by Jansson (1986) (specific
name of the type species of Cymatia Flor, 1860);
(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology:
(a) CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854), type genus Cymatium [Roding], 1798;
(b) CYMATIAINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940, type genus Cymatia Flor, 1860
(spelling emended in (1) above);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group names in
Zoology the name CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (spelling emended
to CYMATIAINAE in (1) above).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 11
References

Beu, A. G. & Cernohorsky, W. O. 1986. Taxonomy of gastropods of the families Ranellidae
(= Cymatiidae) and Bursidae. Part 1. Adoption of Ranellidae, and review of Linatella Gray,
1857. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 13: 241-266.

Cernohorsky, W. O. & Beu, A. G. 1972. Replies to comments on proposed validation of
Cymatiidae Iredale, 1913. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 29: 109-110.

China, W. E. 1943. Pp. 217-316 Jn The generic names of British Hemiptera-Heteroptera, with a
check list of the British Species. The generic names of British Insects, vol. 1, part 8. 466 pp.

Dall, W. H. 1904. An historical and systematic review of the frog-shells and tritons. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 47: 114-144.

Fabricius, J. C. 1777. Genera insectorum eorumque characteres naturales secundum numerum,

SLA Dp ea a 310 pp. Bartschii, Chilonii.

Flor, G. 1860. Die Rhynchoten Livlands, vol. 1. 825 pp. Schulz, Dorpat.

Gray, J. E. 1854. On the division of the ctenobranchous gasteropodous Mollusca into larger
groups and families. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 21: 32-44.

Hungerford, H. B. 1948. The Corixidae of the Western Hemisphere (Hemiptera). University of
Kansas Science Bulletin, 32: 1-827.

Hutchinson, G. E. 1940. A revision of the Corixidae of India and Adjacent Regions. Transactions
of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 33: 339-476.

Iredale, T. 1913. The generic name to be used for Murex tritonis Linne. The Nautilus, 27: 55—56.

Jaczewski, T. 1971. Comment on the proposed preservation of Cymatiidae Iredale, 1913.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 28: 142.

Jansson, A. 1982. Notes on some Corixidae (Heteroptera) from New Guinea and New
Caledonia. Pacific Insects, 24: 95-103.

Jansson, A. 1986. The Corixidae (Heteroptera) of Europe and some adjacent regions. Acta
Entomologica Fennica, 47: 1-94.

Kirkaldy, G. W. 1898. On the nomenclature of the European subgenera of Corixa, Geoffr.
(Rhynchota.). Entomologist, 31: 252-253.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Newton, R. B. 1891. Systematic list of the F.E. Edwards collection of British Oligocene and Eocene
Mollusca in the British Museum. xxvii, 365 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Perry, G. 1811. Conchology, or the natural history of shells: containing a new arrangement of the
genera and species ...4 pp. + unpaginated captions, 61 pls. Miller, London.

Ponder, W. F. & Warén, A. 1988. Appendix. Classification of the Caenogastropoda and
Heterostropha—a list of the family-group names and higher taxa. Malacological Review,
Supplement, 4: 288-326.

[Réding, P. F.] 1798. Museum Boltenianum, sive catalogus cimeliorum e tribus regnis naturae quae
olim collegerat joa. Fried. Bolten... pars secunda. viii, 199 pp. Trapii, Hamburg. [facsimile
reprint, Sherborn & Sykes, 1906].

Schumacher, C. F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des vers testacés, avec XXII
planches. 287 pp., 22 pls. Schultz, Copenhagen.

12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2641

Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786
(actuellement Placostylus fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): conservation proposée pour les noms spécifiques; et
Placostylus Beck, 1837: designation proposée de L. fibratus comme
espéce-type

Philippe Bouchet
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, Paris, France

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve two gastropod names, Limax
fibratus Martyn, 1784 and Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, which were published in The
Universal Conchologist by T. Martyn (1784-1787), and to designate L. fibratus as the
type species of Placostylus Beck, 1837. Although in use, the specific names are at present
formally unavailable because Martyn’s work has been rejected as being non-binominal
(Opinion 456, March 1957).

Résumé. L’ objet dela presente requéte est la conservation de deux noms de gastéropodes,
Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786, publiés dans The Universal
Conchologist de T. Martyn (1784-1787), et la désignation de L. fibratus comme espéce-
type de Placostylus Beck, 1837. Bien qu’actuellement utilisés, ces noms spécifiques sont
actuellement indisponibles, le travail de Martyn ayant été rejeté au motif qu'il n’est pas
binominal (Opinion 456, mars 1957).

1. En plagant The Universal Conchologist (Martyn, 1784-1787) sur l’ Index Officiel
des Travaux Rejetés et Invalides en Nomenclature Zoologique, la Commission Inter-
nationale précisait dans son Opinion 456 “‘consideration will be given to applications
for the validation of individual names. ... if submitted by specialists with adequate
data regarding the names concerned’’. Des malacologistes néo-zélandais ont demandé
la validation de neuf noms utilisés pour des espéces de leur région. Leur requéte a été
acceptée (Opinion 479, septembre 1957). Le but de la présente requéte est de demander
de rendre disponibles deux autres noms actuellement utilisés en dépit de Opinion 456.
Dall (1907, p. 187) a montré que les planches 1-80 (volumes 1 et 2) de The Universal
Conchologist ont paru en 1784, les planches 81—120 (volume 3) en 1786, et les planches
121-160 (volume 4 et dernier) probablement au printemps 1787.

2. Lenom Limax fibratus, fondésur la figure de Martyn (1784, pl. 25), estactuellement
utilisé dans la combinaison Placostylus fibratus pour un gastéropode Bulimulidae de
Nouvelle-Calédonie. Pendant la premiére partie du 19éme siécle, la nomenclature de
cette espéce est confuse, et les discussions font usage des noms suivants, généralement
considérés comme des synonymes de Placostylus fibratus: Helix aurismalchi Miller,
1774, Voluta elongata Lightfoot, 1786, Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792, Ellobium
australe Roding, 1798, Voluta australis Dillwyn, 1817, Auricula aurantiaca Schumacher,
1817, Helix aurisbovinus Férussac, 1821 et Bulimus bootis Menke, 1828.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 13

3. Helix aurismalchi Miller, 1774 (p. 112) est introduit pour désigner une coquille de
la collection Spengler, pour laquelle Muller ne donne ni localiteé, ni figure, ni reference
a une figure publi¢e. Bruguiére, 1789 (p. 319) a utilisé le nom dans la combinaison
Bulimus aurismalchi et Gmelin, 1791 (p. 3437) dans la combinaison Voluta aurismalchi.
Bruguiére et Gmelin font reference a Miller et a Chemnitz (1786, pl. 121, figs 1037—
1038), qui figure une coquille de la collection Spengler, probablement holotype de
Muller. Cette coquille n’est pas présente dans la collection Spengler, conservée au
Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn (T. Schiette, comm. pers.). Apres Pfeiffer (1848,
p. 139), ce nom n’a jamais été cite autrement que comme synonyme subjectif de
Placostylus (ou Bulimus) fibratus, bien qwil lui soit antérieur.

4. Voluta elongata Lightfoot, 1786 (pp. 30, 143) est fonde sur la figure (sic) 25 du
volume | de Martyn (1784), avec la localité ““New Caledonia’’. I] s’agit donc d’un
synonyme objectif de Limax fibratus. Ce nom n’a jamais été utilisé, ni méme cite, dans
un quelconque travail avant 1967 et, suite a ’Opinion 456, seuls Rehder (1967, p. 9:
“Since the name fibratus is unavailable, the adoption of Lightfoot’s name should prove
acceptable’’) et Pain (1988) en ont recommandeé Il’adoption.

5. Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792 (p. 345) est fondé avec des reférences a Lister
(1770, pl. 1058, fig. 8; pour les dates des différentes éditions de Lister voir Wilkins
(1957, p. 196)), Favanne (1780, pl. 65, fig. V; 1784, p. 20, no. 81) et Chemnitz (1786,
pl. 121, figs. 1039-1040). Favanne (1784, p. 20) et Chemnitz (p. 42) donnent respec-
tivement la Nouvelle-Hollande (= Australie) et la Nouvelle-Calédonie pour origine
de leur coquille; Bruguiére indique la Nouvelle-Hollande comme origine de l’espéce.
Pfeiffer (1848, p. 139) place le nom bovinus dans la synonymie de Bulimus fibratus de
Nouvelle-Calédonie, mais Petit (1853) considére qu’il s’agit d’une espéce distincte,
synonyme de Bulimus shongii Lesson, 1831 (p. 321, pl. 7, figs. 4 et 5) de Nouvelle-
Zelande (pour les dates de publication du travail de Lesson voir Sherborn &
Woodward (1906, p. 336)). L’opinion de Petit est suivie par la plupart des auteurs de
la deuxiéme moitié du 19éme siécle, qui utilisent donc pour l’espéce néo-zélandaise le
synonyme anterieur Bulimus (ou Placostylus) bovinus Bruguiére (13 utilisations citées
par Pilsbry (1900, p. 22)). Pilsbry (1900, p. 40) au contraire conclut a la synonymie
de Bulimus bovinus avec P. fibratus de Nouvelle-Calédonie et restaure usage du
nom P. shongii pour lespece de Nouvelle-Zélande. Apres Pilsbry, je n’ai pas trouve de
citation du nom bovinus Bruguiére autrement que dans la synonymie de Placostylus
fibratus.

6. En fait, l’examen des figures originales auxquelles se refere Bruguiere ne permet
pas d’identifier avec certitude bovinus. La coquille figurée par Lister (1770) est méconn-
aissable et la figure de Favanne (1780) parait copiée sur celle de Lister. Compte tenu de
la date (1774) de la découverte de la Nouvelle-Calédonie par Cook, elle n’est certaine-
ment pas celle d’un Bulimulidae de Nouvelle-Calédonie; elle pourrait étre celle d’un
Bulimulidae ou d’un Acavidae sud-ameéricain. Malgré la localisation Nouvelle-
Calédonie de la coquille figurée par Chemnitz, la trés grande variabilité intraspécifique
des espéces de ce genre, le manque de détails sur la figure originale de Chemnitz, et
l'absence de matériel type (absent dans la partie de la collection Chemnitz conserveée au
Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavn; T. Schiotte, comm. pers.) rendent interpretation du
nom subjective. Les figures 1039-1040 peuvent tout aussi bien representer une forme
de P. fibratus qwune forme de P. porphyrostomus (Pfeiffer, 1851), partiellement
sympatrique avec P. fibratus.

14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

7. Ellobium australe Roding, 1798 (p. 106) est introduit sans description, mais avec
references a Voluta aurismalchi Gmelin et aux figures 1039-1040 de Chemnitz. En
labsence d’une désignation formelle de figure type, le nom de Roding peut done étre
considéré comme un synonyme objectif ou de Helix aurismalchi Miller, 1774 ou de
Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792. Dillwyn (1817, p. 500) utilise le nom dans la
combinaison Voluta australis.

8. Auricula aurantiaca Schumacher, 1817 (p. 228) est un nom introduit sans
description. La référence aux figures 1039-1040 de Chemnitz et au nom Bulimus bovinus
“Bosc” conduit a traiter ce nom comme un synonyme objectif de Bulimus bovinus
Bruguiére, 1792. Helix aurisbovinus Férussac, 1821 (p. 57) est un nom introduit sans
description, et attribué par Férussac a Bruguiére. Les références aux figures 1039-1040
de Chemnitz conduisent a interpréter ce bin6me comme une émendation injustifiée ou
un nomen novum pro Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere. Bulimus bootis Menke, 1828 (p. 14)
est introduit sans description, mais validé par references aux noms Helix aurisbovina
Férussac, Auricula bovina “Lamarck” et Voluta aurismalchi ““Gmelin”’. Bulimus bootis
doit étre considéré comme un nomen novum pro Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792.

9. Le nom fibratus n’a jamais été remplacé par l’un quelconque de ces synonymes, et
Pusage du nom /fibratus a été continu chez les zoologistes (voir, par exemple, Gassies,
1863, p. 243, pl. 4, fig. 1; Kobelt, 1891, pp. 47—49, pl. 21, figs. 1-5; Cockerell, 1929, pp.
74-76; et Franc, 1956, pp. 152-153, pl. 18, fig. 195). Aprés la publication de l’Opinion
456, peu d’auteurs ont publié sur les Placostylus de Nouvelle-Calédonie, mais tous ont
continue a utiliser le nom fibratus: Pain (1958), Solem (1961, p. 472), StarmiihIner
(1970, p. 312), Cherel (1980, p. 36), et Parkinson et al. (1987, p. 244). Seuls Rehder
(1967) et Pain (1988, dans une analyse d’ouvrage) ont contesté cet usage (voir para-
graphe 4 ci-dessus). L’opinion de Solem, qui ignorait le nom P. elongatus, mérite d’étre
rapportee ici: ‘““The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Opinion
456) invalidated Martyn’s names asa group. ...I prefer to retain Martyn’s name rather
than to try to determine the identity of one of the ill-figured and badly described
synonyms from the late 1700’s and early 1800’s. While this is against the letter of the
International Code, it is a much more practical solution”.

10. Le nom de genre Placostylus a été introduit par Beck (1837, p. 57), pour y placer
la seule espéce P. bootis (Menke, 1828). Beck inclut sous ce nom une liste synonymique
comprenant “‘Voluta australis Dw.”’, “Bul. auris bovinus Brug.” et “Bul. shongi (sic)
Lesson’”’, et donne pour origine géographique de bootis “Nov. Zeel.”. Apres Beck, les
auteurs ont considéré que son concept de bootis comprenait aussi fibratus Martyn,
1784, et bien que ce nom ne figure pas dans la liste originale de synonymes, von Martens
in Albers (1860, p. 185) a désigné fibratus Martyn comme espéce type de Placostylus.
Cette procédure, erronée, a cependant été ultérieurement retenue par certains auteurs
dont Pilsbry (1900, pp. 19, 21) et Solem (1961, p. 472), probablement a cause de
Pincertitude d’interprétation entourant le nom bootis. Bulimus shongii Lesson, 1831 est
lespéce type, par désignation originale, de Maoristylus Haas, 1935 (p. 188). Les noms
Placostylus et Maoristylus sont maintenant universellement acceptés avec pour espéce
type respectivement bootis (compris subjectivement comme un synonyme de fibratus) et
shongii; voir, par exemple, Zilch (1960, p. 497) et Powell (1979, p. 350 et références).
Ainsi qu’il a été vu plus haut, Bulimus bootis doit étre interprété comme un nomen
novum pro B. bovinus Bruguiére, mais le nom bovinus nest pas formellement
reconnaissable.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 1S

11. J’en viens maintenant a la deuxieme espéce concernée par cette requéte. Le nom
Nerita hebraea (Nerita litteris Hebraicis natatus sur les tables de certains exemplaires de
Youvrage de Martyn: voir Dall, 1907, p. 191), fondé sur la figure de Martyn (1786,
pl. 109), est actuellement employe dans la combinaison Natica hebraea ou Naticarius
hebraeus pour un gastéropode Naticidae commun sur le plateau continental de
Méditerranée.

12. Pendant la premiére moiti¢ du 19eme siecle, le statut de l’espéce est incertain; elle
est citée sous des noms trés divers, soit avec un statut d’espéce soit avec un statut de
varieté de Natica millepunctata (Lamarck, 1822), bien que le nom lamarckien lui soit
postérieur. La taxonomie et la nomenclature des Natices des cotes frangaises sont
révisees par Recluz (1852, p. 264), qui stabilise Vutilisation du nom Natica hebraea
(Martyn). A partir de cette époque, l’usage de ce nom devient général, aussi bien dans
les catalogues locaux que dans les ouvrages de détermination. Bucquoy, Dautzenberg
et Dollfus (1883, pp. 139-140) donnent une liste de citations antérieures a 1882.
Exemples de ces utilisations anciennes du nom hebraea: Locard (1886, p. 273), Hidalgo
(1916, pp. 479, 486), Coen (1933, p. 26). L’invalidation en 1957 du travail de Martyn
The Universal Conchologist est passée inapercue des auteurs européens, qui n’ont pas
remarque que cette décision affectait la nomenclature de cette espéce méditerranéenne
et le nom hebraea a continue d’étre employe réguli¢rement dans la littérature. Les
ouvrages ou articles suivants sont parmi les plus récents a maintenir cet usage: Sabelli et
Spada (1980, p. 101), Nordsieck (1982, p. 186, avec l’orthographe hebrdus), Villa (1986,
p. 15). Une liste de huit autres references est deéposée au secretariat de la Commission.
Plusieurs de ces references sont celles de guides trés utilisés pour l’identification des
espéces de la faune méditerranéenne.

13. Le premier synonyme plus récent de Natica hebraea (Martyn, 1786) est Natica
maculata (von Salis, 1793, p. 379), publié dans la combinaison Nerita maculata. Une
confusion dans l’utilisation de ce nom est due au fait que Deshayes (1838, p. 645) a
publié la combinaison Natica maculata sans aucune reference a von Salis. Les deux
noms Natica maculata (von Salis, 1793) et Natica maculata Deshayes, 1838 sont homo-
nymes secondaires et synonymes subjectifs. Le nom maculata est bien plus rarement
utilisé que hebraea et, au cours des 30 derniéres années, je n’ai pu en trouver que deux
utilisations: Ghisotti (1972, p. 81) et Koronéos (1979, p. 10). Ces auteurs n’invoquent
cependant pas l’invalidité du nom de Martyn pour justifier ’emploi du nom maculata.

14. Dans l’interét de la stabilite de la nomenclature et au nom d’un usage continu, il
est demande a la Commission Internationale de Nomenclature Zoologique:

(1) duser de ses pleins pouvoirs pour:

(a) supprimer le nom spécifique aurismalchi Miller, 1774, publie dans le bindme
Helix aurismalchi, au regard du Principe de Priorité mais pas au regard du
Principe d’ Homonymie;

(b) régler que les noms spécifiques suivants sont disponibles:

(i) fibratus Martyn, 1784, publie dans le bindme Limax fibratus;
(11) hebraea Martyn, 1786, publié dans le bindme Nerita hebraea;

(c) écarter toutes les désignations antérieures d’espéce-type du genre Placostylus
Beck, 1837 et designer Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 comme espéce-type;

(2) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Génériques en Zoologie le nom

Placostylus Beck, 1837 (genre: masculin), avec pour espéce-type par désignation

en (1)(c) ci-dessus Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784;

16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

(3) de placer sur la Liste Officielle des Noms Spécifiques en Zoologie les noms
suivants:

(a) fibratus Martyn, 1784, publié dans le bindme Limax fibratus (nom spécifique
de l’espece-type de Placostylus Beck, 1837 par désignation en (1)(c) ci-
dessus);

(b) hebraea Martyn, 1786, publie dans le bindme Nerita hebraea;

(4) de placer sur l’Index Officiel des Noms Spécifiques Rejetés et Invalides en

Zoologie les noms suivants:

(a) aurismalchi Miller, 1774, publi¢ dans le binédme Helix aurismalchi et
supprimé en (1)(a) ci-dessus;

(b) elongata Lightfoot, 1786, publié dans le bindme Voluta elongata, synonyme
objectif postérieur de fibratus, Martyn, 1784, publié dans le bindme Limax
fibratus.

Références

Albers, J.C. 1860. Die Heliceen nach natirlicher Verwandtschaft systematisch geordnet, Ed. 2, par
E. v. Martens. 359 pp. Engelmann, Leipzig.

Beck, H. 1837. Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi Musei Principis Augustissimi Christiani
Frederici. 124 pp. Copenhague.

Bruguiére, J. G. 1789-1792. Encyclopédie meéthodique. Histoire naturelle des Vers, vol. 1, pp. xviii,
1-344 [1789], pp. 345-757 [1792]. Panckoucke, Paris.

Bucquoy, H., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1883. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon, vol. |
(Gastropodes), pars 4 (Familles Naticidae, Pyramidellidae), pp. 136-196. Bailliere, Paris.

Chemnitz, J. H. 1786. Neues systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 9, pars 2, Land- und
Flussschnecken. xxvi, 194 pp., pls. 117-136. Kafpe, Nurnberg.

Chérel, C. 1980. Land snails of the genus Placostylus in New Caledonia. Haliotis, 10(2): 36.

Cockerell, T. D. A. 1929. The genus Placostylus in New Caledonia. The Nautilus, 42(3): 73-78.

Coen, G. 1933. Saggio di una Sylloge Molluscorum Adriaticorum. Memorie Reale Comitato
Talassografico Italiano, 192: 1-186.

Dall, W. H. 1907. Supplementary notes on Martyn’s Universal Conchologist. Proceedings of the
United States National Museum, 33(1565): 185-192.

Deshayes, G. P. 1838. Jn Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de, Histoire des Animaux sans Vertebres. Ed. 2,
vol. 8 (Mollusques), 657 pp. Bailliére, Paris.

Dillwyn, L. W. 1817. A descriptive catalogue of recent shells, arranged according to the Linnaean
method, with particular attention to the synonymy, vol. 1. xii, 580 pp. Arch, London.

Favanne de Montcervelle, G. J. de. 1780. La Conchyliologie, ou histoire naturelle des coquilles de
mer, d'eau douce, terrestres et fossiles; avec un traité de la zoomorphose ... par M. Desalier
d’Argenville.... Ed. 3, vol. 3, 80 pls. De Bure, Paris.

Favanne de Montcervelle, G. J. de. 1784. Catalogue systématique et raisonné, ou description
du magnifique cabinet appartenant ci-devant a M. le C[ompte] de (la Tour d'Auvergne ). xii,
558 pp., 9 pls. Quillau, Paris. '

Férussac, A. E. d’A. de. 1821. Tableaux systématiques des animaux Mollusques.... 114 pp.
Bertrand, Paris; Sowerby, London.

Franc, A. 1956. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de l’archipel néo-calédonien. Mémoires du
Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, Paris, (A) 13: 1-200.

Gassies, J.-B. 1863. Faune Conchyliologique terrestre et fluvio-lacustre de la Nouvelle-
Calédonie. Actes de la Société Linnéenne de Bordeaux, (3) 24(4): 211-326.

Gmelin, J. F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1, pars 6 (Vermes), pp.
3021-3910. Leipzig.

Ghisotti, F. 1972. Le Conchiglie del golfo di Gabés (parte prima). Conchiglie, 8(5—6): 63-89.

Haas, F. 1935. Beschreibung neuer Untergattungen und Arten von Mollusken. Zoologischer
Anzeiger, 109(7/8): 188-195.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 17

Hidalgo, J. G. 1916. Fauna malacologica de Espana, Portugal, y las Baleares. Moluscos testaceos
marinos. 752 pp. Madrid.

Kobelt, W. 1891. Die Gattung Placostylus Beck (Bulimus Neue Folge). Pp. 1-142, pls. 1-32 in
Kuster, H. C. (Ed.), Systematisches Conchylien-Cabinet von Martini und Chemnitz, vol. 1,
pars 13a. Bauer & Raspe, Nurnberg.

Koroneos, J. 1979. Les Mollusques de la Gréce. 36 pp., 48 pls. E. Papadakis, Athénes.

Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de. 1822. Histoire naturelle des Animaux sans Vertébres, vol. 6, pars 2. 232
pp. Paris.

Lesson, R. P. [1831]. Voyage autour du Monde sur la Corvette S. M. ‘La Coquille’’, pendant les
années 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825. Par L. I. Duperrey. Zoologie, vol. 2, pars 1. pp. 241—471.
Bertrand, Paris.

Lightfoot, J. 1786. A Catalogue of the Portland Museum, lately the property of the Duchess
Dowager of Portland, deceased, which will be sold at auction, by Mr Skinner and Co. 194 pp.
London.

Lister, M. 1770. Historiae sive Synopsis Methodicae Conchyliorum, Ed. 3, 4 pp., 1082 pls.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Locard, A. 1886. Catalogue général des Mollusques vivants de France. Mollusques marins. 778 pp.
Henri Georg, Lyon; J.-B. Bailliere, Paris.

Martyn, T. 1784—1787. The Universal Conchologist Exhibiting The Figure of every Known Shell
accurately drawn and painted after Nature, vol. 1, pp. 1-39, Explanatory Table, pls. 1—40
(1784); vol. 2, pp. 26-39, Explanatory Table, pls. 41-80 (1784); vol. 3, Explanatory Table,
pls. 81-120 (1786); vol. 4, Explanatory Table, pls. 121-160 (1787). London.

Menke, C. T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum .. . xii, 92 pp. Gelpke, Pyrmont.

Miiller, O. F. 1774. Vermium Terrestrium et Fluviatilium ... vol. 2, xxxv, 214 pp. Heineck et
Faber, Copenhagen.

Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehduseschnecken (Prosobranchia) vom Eismeer
bis Kapverden, Mittelmeer und Schwarzes Meer, Ed. 2. 539 pp. Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart,
New York.

Pain, T. 1958. On a new sub-species of Placostylus fibratus (Martyn) from New Caledonia.
Journal of Conchology, 24(8): 276-277.

Pain, T. 1988. Review. Tropical Landshells of the World. Journal of Conchology, 33: 81.

Parkinson, B., Hemmen, J. & Groh, K. 1987. Tropical Landshells of the World. 279 pp. Verlag
Christa Hemmen, Wiesbaden.

Petit de la Saussaye, S. 1853. Notice sur le Bulimus auris bovina, Brug. Journal de Conchyliologie,
(1) 4: 403—405.

Pfeiffer, L. 1848. Monographia Heliceorum Viventium . .., vol. 2.594 pp. Brockhaus, Leipzig.

Pilsbry, H. A. 1900. Manual of Conchology, vol. 13. 253 pp., 72 pls. Conchological Section,
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia.

Powell, A. W. B. 1979. New Zealand Mollusca. 500 pp. Collins, Auckland.

Recluz, C. 1852. Des Natices propres aux cotes de la France continentale. Journal de Conchylio-
logie, 3: 263-272.

Rehder, H. A. 1967. Valid zoological names of the Portland catalogue. Proceedings of the United
States National Museum, 121(3579): 1-51.

Réding, J. F. 1798. Museum Boltenianum sive Catalogus cimeliorum, pars secunda continens
Conchylia ... viii, 199 pp. Trapi, Hamburg.

Sabelli, B. & Spada, G. 1980. Guida Illustrata all’identificazione delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo.
Naticidae 3. Bollettino Malacologico Italiano, 16(1—2, supplement): 1—4.

Salis Marschlins, C. U. von. 1793. Reisen in verschiedene Provinzen des Konigreiches Neapel, vol.
1, 442 pp. Ziegler & Sohne, Zurich & Leipzig.

Schumacher, C. F. 1817. Essai d’un nouveau systéme des habitations des Vers Testacés. 287 pp.,
22 pls. Schultz, Copenhague.

Sherborn, C. D. & Woodward, B. B. 1906. Notes on the dates of publication of the natural history
portions of some French voyages—‘Voyage autour du Monde sur la Coquille pendant
1822-25. Par L. I. Duperrey”’ etc.—a Correction. Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
(7) 17(99): 335-336.

18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Solem, A. 1961. New Caledonian land and fresh-water snails. An annotated check list. Fieldiana:
Zoology, 41(3): 413-501.

StarmiihIner, F. 1970. Ergebnisse der Osterreichischen Neukaledonien-Expedition 1965.
Terrestrische Gastropoda 1. Annalen des Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 74: 289-324.

Villa, R. 1986. Revisione sistematica della famiglia Naticidae nel Mar Mediterraneo. Notiziario,
Centro Italiano di Studi Malacologici (Roma), no. 7/8: 15—20.

Wilkins, G. L. 1957. Notes on the Historia Conchyliorum of Martin Lister (1638-1712). Journal
of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 3(4): 196-205.

Zilch, A. 1960. Pars 2 (Euthyneura), no. 3, pp. 401—600 in W. Wenz (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of
Schindewolf, O. H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 19

Case 2558

Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed conservation

Mark E. Gordon

Tennessee Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Department of Biology, PO Box
5114, Tennessee Technological University, Cookeville, Tennessee 38505,
U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Proptera Rafinesque,
1819, for a genus of North American freshwater mussels, by the suppression of the
senior objective synonym Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818.

1. A fairly concise, historical review of Proptera and Potamilus has been presented
by Clarke (1986). The genus Potamilus was described briefly with a list of 24 unde-
scribed species, one of them named a/atus, arranged in five unnamed subgenera
(Rafinesque, 1818a, p. 355), all nomina nuda. Rafinesque stated that he had
*... collected and described over 30 species, the whole of which appear to be new’ and
appended an abbreviation of his name, ‘Raf.’, at the end of the species list for each of
the three presented genera (Potamilus, Pleurocera, and Ambloxis). Rafinesque later
(1818b, p. 107) noted Potamilus as a new genus of fluviatile bivalves with 34 unnamed
species and emended the gender of the name to feminine, as Potamila.

2. In 1819 Rafinesque (p. 420) briefly described Proptera as a subgenus of Unio, and
in it listed three nomina nuda: ‘alata, phaiedra, pallida, etc.’.

3. In 1820 Rafinesque noted his previous use of Potamilus as a catch-all genus,
similar to his contemporaries’ use of Unio, and abandoned it to be replaced by the
‘system’ he initially had outlined in 1819 and which he now presented. He also replaced
Proptera with Metaptera (p. 299: he considered the former name to be inappropriate
due to his earlier misinterpretation of the anterior-posterior orientation of the
mussels), described M. megaptera (p. 300), included (p. 300) U. alatus Say, 1817
(unpaginated, pl. 4, fig. 2; not 1816: see Johnson, 1975) under Metaptera, and specu-
lated that U. ochraceus Say, 1817 and U. cariosus Say, 1817 were in this genus.
Metaptera megaptera is a junior subjective synonym of U. alatus (synonymy originally
proposed by Conrad, 1834, p. 67; justification in Clarke, 1973 , p. 101), and Metaptera
is invalid as a junior objective synonym of Proptera.

4. Potamilus alatus Rafinesque, 1818 and U. (Proptera) alata Rafinesque, 1819 are
not Say’s species but are nomina nuda. Rafinesque did not explicitly refer Say’s alatus
to the genus-group under consideration until 1820 (p. 300), as Metaptera alata.

5. Herrmannsen (1847, p. 41) designated U. alatus Say as the type of Metaptera,
thereby also establishing it as the type of Proptera (Article 67h). In 1969 (p. 24)
Morrison stated: ‘Potamilus alatus Say, 1817 (monotype of Potamilus in 1818)’, thereby
establishing alatus Say as the type of Potamilus. Morrison was the first person to
include a species in Potamilus. This action has made Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 and
Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 objective synonyms.

20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

6. The taxon in question has been incorporated in modern systems of unionid
nomenclature since Baker (1898, p. 97) as Metaptera, and recognized as Proptera since
Simpson (1900, p. 566). Morrison’s 1969 assumption that Potamilus alatus Rafinesque
was the same as Say’s species and his resurrection of Potamilus were not consistent with
any usage by Rafinesque or subsequent authors. Rather than representing any sort of
taxonomic revision, Morrison’s action appears to have been solely to reintroduce an
unused Rafinesque name.

7. In accordance with the Code, Clarke (1986, p. 62) has noted the availability of
Potamilus under Article 12a, and the validity of Morrison’s type designation under the
provision of Article 69a, particularly sections i(1), 11 and vii.

8. In 1971 the name Potamilus was adopted by Valentine & Stansbery (p. 25), and
its usage has been promulgated by the latter, largely through personal communications
to various authors. The name Proptera has remained in common usage within the
literature, included in faunal surveys such as those of Clarke (1973, 1981); Johnson
(1980); Gordon (1981, 1985); van der Schalie (1981), and in systematic reviews of
unionids by Haas (1969a, p. 415), Heard & Guckert (1971, p. 340), Burch (1975, p. 21),
and Davis & Fuller (1981, p. 219). In 1980 Vokes (p. 90) listed both generic names as
valid, and Haas (1969b, p. N454) considered Potamilus to be a possible synonym of
Ligumia Swanson, 1840. Johnson (1980, p. 128) discussed the usage of Proptera v.
Potamilus, noting that priority of authorship was not in question. Citing Article 23, he
concluded that resurrection of Potamilus had resulted in nomenclatural instability and
confusion. These problems have not been resolved.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Potamilus Rafinesque,
1818 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Proptera
Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Herrmannsen (1847) Unio alatus Say, 1817;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alatus Say,
1817, as published in the binomen Unio alatus (specific name of the type species
of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Baker, F. C. 1898. The Mollusca of the Chicago area, the Pelecypoda. Bulletin of the Natural
History Survey of the Chicago Academy of Sciences, 3(1): 1—30.

Burch, J. B. 1975. Freshwater unionacean clams (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America.
204 pp. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan.

Clarke, A. H. 1973. The freshwater molluscs of the Canadian Interior Basin. Malacologia,
13(1—2): 1-509.

Clarke, A. H. 1981. The freshwater molluscs of Canada. 446 pp. National Museum of Natural
Sciences of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Clarke, A. H. 1986. Potamilus Rafinesque (1818) versus Proptera Rafinesque (1819) (Unionidae).
Malacology Data Net Ecosearch Series, 1(3): 58-65.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 21

Conrad, T. A. 1834. New fresh water shells of the United States, with coloured illustrations, and a
monograph of the genus Anculatus of Say; also a synopsis of the American naiades. 76 pp.,
8 pls. Dobson, Philadelphia.

Davis, G. M. & Fuller, S. L. H. 1981. Genetic relationships amongst recent Unionacea (Bivalvia)
of North America. Malacologia, 20(2): 217-253.

Gordon, M. E. 1981. Recent Mollusca of Arkansas with annotations to systematics and
zoogeography. Proceedings of the Arkansas Academy of Science, 34(1980): 56—62.

Gordon, M. E. 1985, Mollusca of Frog Bayou, Arkansas. Nautilus, 99: 6—9.

Haas, F. 1969a. Superfamilia Unionacea. Jn Das Tierreich. x, 633 pp. Berlin, Lieferung 88.

Haas, F. 1969b. [Unionacea] Pp. N411—N417 Jn Moore, R.C. (Ed.). Treatise on invertebrate
paleontology, part N, vol. 1, Mollusca 6. Bivalvia. Geological Society of America,
University of Kansas Press, Lawrence.

Heard, W. H. & Guckert, R. H. 1971. A re-evaluation of the recent Unionacea (Pelecypoda) of
North America. Malacologia, 10(2): 333-353.

Herrmannsen, A. N. 1847. Indices generum malacozoorum primordia. vol. 2. xl, 717 pp. Cassellis.

Johnson, R. I. 1975. First paper on the conchology of the United States by an American author,
Thomas Say, 1817. Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 7:
265-267.

Johnson, R. I. 1980. Zoogeography of North American Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) north of
the maximum Pleistocene glaciation. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology,
149(2): 77-189.

Morrison, J. P. E. 1969. The earliest names for the North American naiads. Annual Reports of the
American Malacological Union, 1969: 22-24.

Rafinesque, C. S. 1818a. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the
western region of the United States. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 3:
354-356.

Rafinesque, C. S. 1818b. General account of the discoveries made in the zoology of the western
states. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Revue, 4: 106—107

Rafinesque, C. S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans l’interieur
des Etats-Unis d’Amerique, durant l’année 1818. VI Classe. Mollusques. Journal de
Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire Naturelle, 88: 423—428.

Rafinesque, C. S. 1820. Monographie des coquilles bivalves fluviatiles de la riviére Ohio, conte-
nant douze genres et soixante-huit espéces. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques,
Bruxelles, 5(13): 287-326.

Say, T. 1817. Conchology. Jn Nicholson, W. First American edition of the British encyclopedia or
dictionary of arts and sciences, etc. Vol. 2 [B—E]. 15 pp. 4 pls. [unpaginated].

Simpson, C. T. 1900. Synopsis of the naiades, or pearly fresh-water mussels. Proceedings of the
U.S. National Museum, 2(1205): 501-1044.

Valentine, B. D. & Stansbery, D. H. 1971. An introduction to the naiades of the Lake Texoma
region, Oklahoma, with notes on the Red River fauna. Sterkiana, 42: 1—40.

Van der Schalie, H. 1981. Mollusks in the Alabama River drainage: past and present. Sterkiana,
71: 24—40.

Vokes, H. E. 1980. Genera of the Bivalvia: a systematic and bibliographic catalogue (revised and
updated ). xxvii, 307 pp. Paleontological Research Institution, Ithaca, New York.

22; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2692

Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed
confirmation of Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species

Mark S. Harvey

Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000,
Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm that the nominal species
Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 is the type of the pseudoscorpion genus Mirochernes
Beier, 1930. In his 1930 definition of Mirochernes, Beier had misidentified the species he
was studying which, in 1932, he named Semeiochernes militaris.

1. Banks (1895, p. 6) described a new species of pseudoscorpion from U.S.A.,
Chelanops dentatus, based on a single male ‘without locality (Hubbard); but probably
from Florida’. Hoff (1947, p. 502) referred to this specimen (in the Museum of
Comparative Zoology, Harvard) as the lectotype but he subsequently (1958, p. 26)
referred to ‘the original specimen on which he [Banks] described the species’. The status
of the specimen as holotype of Chelanops dentatus is unequivocal.

2. Beier (1930, p. 216) established a genus Mirochernes and designated Chelanops
dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type (and only) species. Beier’s concept of ‘C. dentatus’ was
based upon a male from Juan Vinas, Costa Rica (in the Naturhistorisches Museum,
Wien). Beier later (1932, p. 180) designated the same specimen as the holotype of his
new species Semeiochernes militaris, which is the type species by original designation
(and monotypy) of Semeiochernes Beier, 1932 (p. 180). At the same time, Beier (1932, p.
182) altered his definition of Mirochernes to conform with Banks’ concept of Chelanops
dentatus. It is probable that, when he saw the first diagrams of Chelanops dentatus [as
Chernes dentatus (Banks)] published by Chamberlin (1931, p. 124), Beier realised the
error he had made in his 1930 paper in misidentifying the male specimen from Juan
Vinas as Chelanops dentatus. (The name Semeiochernes militaris is printed in Beier,
1933, p. 541, as nov. gen., nov. sp.; however, publication of this work had been delayed
and Beier’s 1932 work has priority, although this does not affect the case.)

3. Mirochernes dentatus (Banks) has been reported several times in the primary
literature, and was redescribed by Hoff (1949, p. 478). It appears to be widely distri-
buted in eastern U.S.A. (Hoff, 1958, p. 25) and, at present, is the only species included
in the genus. Mirochernes is thus used in the sense of Beier (1932).

4. Itisclear that the nominal type species of Mirochernes Beier, 1930 was based upon
a misidentified specimen and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70(b).

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

(1) to confirm that the nominal species Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 is the type

species of the genus Mirochernes Beier, 1930;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 23

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mirochernes
Beier, 1930 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation, as con-
firmed in (1) above, Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name dentatus
Banks, 1895, as published in the binomen Chelanops dentatus (specific name of
the type species of Mirochernes Beier, 1930).

References

Banks, N. 1895. Notes on the Pseudoscorpionida. Journal of the New York Entomological
Society, 3: 1-13.

Beier, M. 1930. Die Pseudoskorpione des Wiener Naturhistorischen Museums. III. Annalen des
Naturhistorischen Museums in Wien, 44: 199-222.

Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea II. Suborder Cheliferinea. Tierreich, 58: 1-294.

Beier, M. 1933. Revision der Chernetidae (Pseudoscorp.). Zoologische Jahrbiicher (Syst.), 64:
509-548.

Chamberlin, J. C. 1931. The arachnid order Chelonethida. Stanford University Publications.
Biological Sciences, 7: 1-284.

Hoff, C. C. 1947. The species of the pseudoscorpion genus Chelanops described by Banks.
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 98: 471-550.

Hoff, C. C. 1949. The pseudoscorpions of Illinois. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey,
24: 413-498.

Hoff, C. C. 1958. List of the pseudoscorpions of North America north of Mexico. American
Museum Novitates, No. 1875: 1—S0.

24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2725

Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently
Macrocheles robustulus; Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as
the correct spelling of the specific name

R.B. Halliday

Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601,
Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the widely used name |
Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) for a mite of probable health importance. The
specific name was originally published as rubustulus, presumably as a typographical
error, but that spelling has not been used for over 30 years and then only by one author.

1. Berlese (1904) described a new species of mite, Holostaspis subbadius. He simul-
taneously described two new varieties of this species, var. scutatus and var. rubustulus
(p. 264). The name rubustulus is spelt only once in this paper and was not subsequently
used by Berlese either with this spelling or as robustulus.

2. The spelling rubustulus has been used in published works by only one other author
(Sellnick, 1940, p. 84; 1958, p. 23) and in both papers is attributed to Berlese, 1904. In
point of fact, Sellnick misapplied the name to a different species (Macrocheles matrius
Hull, 1925) as pointed out by Krauss (1970, p. 18). The spelling rubustulus has not been
used since 1958.

3. The three taxa described by Berlese are currently referred to the genus
Macrocheles Latreille, 1829, as Macrocheles subbadius, M. scutatus and M. robustulus
(sic). The species described as rubustulus has also been referred to as Macrocheles
subbadius var. robustulus and M. robustulus. The spelling robustulus has been used in
at least 35 papers from Leitner (1946, p. 85) onwards. The modern concept of the
synonymy of this species dates from Axtell (1961, p. 748). Since that time the name
robustulus has achieved widespread international usage. The name has been used by
authors from U.S.A. (e.g. Axtell, 1961, p. 748; 1963, p. 628), Italy (e.g. Filipponi &
Pegazzano, 1962, p. 230; Cicolani, 1979, p. 171), Israel (Costa, 1966, p. 532), Germany
(Krauss, 1970, p. 18), Mexico (Halffter & Matthews, 1971, p. 160), India (Prasad, 1974,
p. 155), U.S.S.R. (Bregetova, 1977, p. 374), New Zealand (Emberson, 1980, p. 136),
U.K. (Luxton, 1982, p. 577; Hyatt & Emberson, 1988, p. 106) and Australia (Wallace,
1986, p. 11).

4. The mite species in question is believed to be of health importance. Itis a predator
which occurs in accumulations of dung, where it contributes to the biological control of
the housefly Musca domestica (e.g. Axtell, 1961, 1963, 1969; Filipponi, 1964). For this
reason it has been the subject of a variety of ecological and laboratory studies (e.g.
Axtell, 1961; Filipponi, 1964; Filipponi & Mosna, 1968; Cicolani, 1979; Halliday &
Holm, 1987).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 25

5. The type specimen of rubustulus (slide number 19/18) is in the Berlese Acaroteca,
Florence, and is labelled robustulus in Berlese’s handwriting. The same is true of two
other slides (201/45 and 201/46) and two alcohol vials (38°/1873 and 38°/1874) (F.
Pegazzano, personal communication, 1989). The name rubustulus was never used any-
where else in Berlese’s considerable acarological canon. No material bearing this name
is known to exist in his collection (Castagnoli & Pegazzano, 1985); on the other hand, a
number of Berlese species names have the stem robust-. It appears that the spelling
rubustulus in Berlese’s 1904 paper was a typographical error. However, this spelling
cannot be treated as an incorrect original spelling since the evidence for this is not to be
found ‘in the original publication itself, without recourse to any external source of
information’ (Article 32c of the Code).

6. Under a strict interpretation of Article 33c, all usage of the name robustulus
should be regarded as incorrect subsequent spelling. However, this spelling has
achieved extensive and exclusive usage since 1958 and to revert to the original spelling
would cause needless confusion and would not be in the interests of stability of
nomenclature.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the specific name rubustulus Berlese, 1904,
as published in the trinomen Holostaspis subbadius var. rubustulus, is to be
treated as an incorrect original spelling of the name robustulus;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name robustulus, as
a correction of rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis
subbadius var. rubustulus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name rubustulus Berlese, 1904, as published in the trinomen Holostaspis
subbadius var. rubustulus, and as ruled in (1) above to be treated as an incorrect
original spelling of robustulus.

Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Drs F. Pegazzano, R. C. Axtell and K. H. L. Key for providing
valuable assistance in the preparation of this case.

References

Axtell, R. C. 1961. New records of North American Macrochelidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata)
and their predation rates on the housefly. Annals of the Entomological Society of America,
54: 748.

Axtell, R. C. 1963. Acarina occurring in domestic animal manure. Annals of the Entomological
Society of America, 56: 628-633.

Axtell, R. C. 1969. Macrochelidae (Acarina: Mesostigmata) as biological control agents for
synanthropic flies. Pp. 401-416 in Evans, G. O. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Second Inter-
national Congress of Acarology (Sutton Bonington, 1967). Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest.

Berlese, A. 1904. Acari nuovi. Manipulus ITus. Redia, 1: 258-280.

Bregetova, N. G. 1977. Family Macrochelidae Vitzthum, 1930. Pp. 346—411 in Ghilyarov, M.S.
& Bregetova, N. G. (Eds.), Key to the Soil Inhabiting Mites. Mesostigmata. Nauka,
Leningrad. [In Russian.]

Castagnoli, M. & Pegazzano, F. 1985. Catalogue of the Berlese Acaroteca. 490 pp. Istituto
Sperimentale per la Zoologia Agraria, Firenze.

26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Cicolani, B. 1979. The intrinsic rate of natural increase in dung macrochelid mites, predators of
Musca domestica eggs. Bollettino di Zoologia, 46: 171-178.

Costa, M. 1966. Notes on macrochelids associated with manure and coprid beetles in Israel. I.
Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904), development and biology. Acarologia, 8: 532-548.

Emberson, R. M. 1980. Macrochelidae from the Kermadec Islands and a key to species of
Macrocheles Latreille from the New Zealand region (Acari: Mesostigmata). New Zealand
Entomologist, 7: 135-138.

Filipponi, A. 1964. The feasibility of mass producing macrochelid mites for field trials against
houseflies. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 31: 499-501.

Filipponi, A. & Pegazzano, F. 1962. Specie Italiane del gruppo-glaber (Acarina, Mesostigmata,
Macrochelidae, Macrocheles). Redia, 47: 211-238.

Filipponi, A. & Mosna, B. 1968. Influenza di fattori ecologicie genetici sulla natalita e mortalita di
Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904). Annali dell’Istituto Superiore Sanita, 4: 55\—571.

Halffter, G. & Matthews, E. G. 1971. The natural history of dung beetles. A supplement on
associated biota. Revista Latino-Americana de Microbiologia, 13: 147-163.

Halliday, R. B. & Holm, E. 1987. Mites of the family Macrochelidae as predators of two species of
dung-breeding pest flies. Entomophaga, 32: 333-338.

Hyatt, K. H. & Emberson, R. M. 1988. A review of the Macrochelidae (Acari: Mesostigmata) of
the British Isles. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History) (Zoology), 54: 63-125.

Krauss, W. 1970. Die europadischen Arten der Gattungen Macrocheles Latreille 1829 und
Geholaspis Berlese 1918. Acarologie. Schriftenreihe fiir Vergleichende Milbenkunde, 14:
2-43, 59-60.

Leitner, E. 1946. Zur Kenntnis der Milbenfauna auf Diingerstatten. Zentralblatt fiir das
Gesamtgebiet der Entomologie, 1: 75—96, 129-156.

Luxton, M. 1982. Studies on the invertebrate fauna of New Zealand peat soils. Il. — Restiad
peats. Revue d’Ecologie et de Biologie du Sol, 19: 553-578.

Prasad, V. 1974. A Catalogue of Mites of India. 320 pp. Indira, Ludhiana, India.

Sellnick, M. 1940. Die Milbenfauna Islands. Meddelanden fran Goteborgs Musei Zoologiska
Avdelning, No. 83. Géteborgs Kungl. Vetenskaps- och Vitterhets-Samhdlles Handlingar,
(5),B,6(14): 1-129.

Sellnick, M. 1958. Milben aus landwirtschaftlichen Betrieben Nordschwedens. Meddelanden
fran Staten Vaxtskyddsanstalt. Stockholm, 11: 9-59.

Wallace, M. M. H. 1986. Some macrochelid mites (Acari: Macrochelidae) associated with
Australian dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Acarologia, 27: 3-15.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 27

Case 2721

Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, Isopoda): proposed
precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870

Joel W. Martin & Hans G. Kuck

Life Sciences Division, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County,
900 Exposition Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90007, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name of a well known genus
of deep-sea isopods, Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. It is threatened by the fossil
genus Palaega Woodward, 1870, with which it is sometimes synonymized.

1. Alphonse Milne Edwards (1879, p. 21) first recognized the genus Bathynomus and
described the genus and its type species, Bathynomus giganteus, from a single immature
male, which is therefore the holotype. No illustration was given until the publication of
Filhol’s popular account of deep-sea life (Filhol, 1885, p. 147). About nine extant
species and several possible fossil species are known (see Bruce, 1986, p. 126; Hessler,
1969, p. R374; Wetzer, 1986, p. 26). Because of the large size of species in this genus (up
to 46cm body length in B. giganteus; Wetzer, 1986), Bathynomus is a widely recognized
name in deep-sea biology and is often included in popular accounts of Crustacea and of
deep-sea life (e.g. Schmitt, 1965; Holthuis & Mikulka, 1972; Wetzer, 1986). The genus
is included as an example of the Isopoda and as an example of deep-sea crustaceans in
most invertebrate text books (e.g. Barnes, 1987, p. 769). The large size has also made
Bathynomus an ideal subject for demonstrating isopod morphology and has facilitated
studies on isopod physiology. It is probably the most widely known marine isopod
genus. As far as we know, Bathynomus is the only name that has been used for these
isopods since 1879 (Richardson, 1905, p. 130; Holthuis & Mikulka, 1972, p. 575).

2. The genus Palaega was established by Woodward (1870, p. 496), based on four
specimens of the posterior part of a Cretaceous isopod for which he established the
species P. carteri (p. 496). Because the posterior part of isopods is similar in a great
variety of genera and families, many fossil isopods have subsequently been placed in
the genus Palaega (see Hessler, 1969, p. R380; Wieder & Feldmann, 1989). Palaegais of
doubtful validity (Hessler, 1969, p. R380) and is acknowledged by paleontologists to be
‘a form genus including individuals from several flabelliferan families distinguished
from one another by parts rarely seen in fossil specimens such as the mouthparts’
(Wieder & Feldmann, 1989, p. 78).

3. Imaizumi (1953) placed fossil fragments of a pleon from the Miocene of Japan in
Bathynomus and suggested that Woodward’s specimens should be placed in Bathyno-
mus rather than Palaega. Recent finds of well preserved fossils described as Palaega
(P. goedertorum Wieder & Feldmann, 1989) suggest that at least some fossils currently
placed in Palaega and the extant genus Bathynomus might be equivalent, although the
principal distinguishing characters needed for precise generic placement are not visible
in the fossils. For example, even on the best preserved fossils, no ventral morphology

28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

can be discerned, and mouthpart and pleopod morphology is unknown. Despite this
and the statement quoted in para. 2 above, Wieder & Feldmann (1989, pp. 73, 75)
treated Palaega as the senior synonym of Bathynomus. We consider that this synonymy
is unwarranted on morphological grounds and is unlikely to be followed by other
workers.

4. Because Bathynomus is a well known and clearly defined genus, whereas Palaega
is a vague taxon based on incomplete fossils, we consider that it would be in the interests
of maintaining stability of usage and avoiding confusion for the name Bathynomus to
be given precedence over Palaega whenever these two genera are considered synonyms.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the name Bathynomus A. Milne
Edwards, 1879 over the name Palaega Woodward, 1870 whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (gender: masculine), type species by

monotypy Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, with the endorse-
ment that it is to be given precedence over Palaega Woodward, 1870
whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) Palaega Woodward, 1870 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Palaega carteri Woodward, 1870, with the endorsement that it is not to be
given priority over the name Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 whenever
the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) giganteus A. Milne Edwards, 1879, as published in the binomen Bathynomus

giganteus (specific name of the type species of Bathynomus A. Milne
Edwards, 1879);

(b) carteri Woodward, 1870, as published in the binomen Palaega carteri

(specific name of the type species of Palaega Woodward, 1870).

Acknowledgements
We thank R. C. Brusca and L. B. Holthuis for helpful advice in the preparation of this
request.

References

Barnes, R. D. 1987. Invertebrate Zoology, Ed. 5. 893 pp. Saunders College Publishing,
Philadelphia.

Bruce, N. L. 1986. Cirolanidae (Crustacea: Isopoda) of Australia. Records of the Australian
Museum, Supplement 6: 1-239.

Filhol, H. 1885. La vie au fond des mers. Les explorations sousmarines et les voyages du Travailleur
et du Talisman. viii + 303 pp. Masson, Paris.

Hessler, R. R. 1969. Peracarida. Pp. R360—393, In Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology. Part R, Arthropoda 4. Geological Society of America and University of
Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.

Holthuis, L. B. & Mikulka, W. R. 1972. Notes on the deep-sea isopods of the genus Bathynomus
A. Milne Edwards, 1879. Bulletin of Marine Science, 22: 575-591.

Imaizumi, R. 1953. Note on Bathynomus sp., (Crustacea) from the Miocene of Japan. Short
Papers, Institute of Geology and Paleontology, Tohoku University, Sendai, No. 5: 84-87.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 29

Milne Edwards, A. 1879. Sur un isopode gigantesque des grandes profondeurs de la mer. Comptes
Rendus de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris, 88: 21—23.

Richardson, H. 1905. Monograph on the isopods of North America. Bulletin of the United States
National Museum, No. 54, vii-liii + 1-727.

Schmitt, W. L. 1965. Crustaceans. 204 pp. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

Wetzer, R. 1986. Bathynomus, a living sea monster. Terra, Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County, 25(2): 26-29.

Wieder, R. W. & Feldmann, R. M. 1989. Palaega goedertorum, a fossil isopod (Crustacea) from
Late Eocene to Early Miocene rocks of Washington State. Journal of Paleontology, 63(1):

73-80.
Woodward, H. 1870. Contributions to British fossil Crustacea. Geological Magazine, 7: 493-497.

30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2700

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation
of Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species

Richard C. Froeschner

Department of Entomology, Stop 127, U.S. National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Nicholas A. Kormilev
5924 Gulfport Boulevard S., Gulfport, Florida 33707, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the established meaning of
the ambush bug genus Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 by the designation of C. alutaceus
Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. The first included nominal species was
C. binghami Sharp, 1897, but acceptance of this as the type species would make
Carcinochelis a senior subjective synonym of Carcinocoris Handlirsch, 1897, and would
upset the usage of both generic names.

1. Fieber (1861, p. 34) erected the new genus Carcinochelis in a key without included
species. Walker (1873, p. 170) included Carcinochelis in a modified version of Fieber’s
key, and also assigned no species to it. Lethierry & Severin (1896, p. 29) included under
this genus ‘alutaceus Fieber (non descriptus) — Patria ignota’, a nomen nudum.

2. Sharp (1897, pp. 35-36) discussed Carcinochelis and assigned his new species
binghami to it — thus making binghami the type species by virtue of its being the first
included nominal species.

3. In the same year Handlirsch (1897a, pp. 23-26) also recognized Fieber’s
Carcinochelis, discussed it without included species, and described the related genus
Carcinocoris with his own two new species castetsi and erinaceus. Later that year
Handlirsch (1897b) conceded that Sharp’s publication had preceded his earlier one by
making his own species erinaceus a junior synonym of Sharp’s binghami when he
transferred the latter to Carcinocoris. Distant (1903, p. 151) page C. castetsi as
the type species of Carcinocoris.

4. Handlirsch (1897b, p. 222) described as the only Ronan species included under
Carcinochelis his Carcinochelis alutaceus, based on Fieber’s specimen bearing that
unpublished name. For over 90 years subsequent authors have followed Handlirsch’s
actions. Authors who have used Carcinochelis in the sense of alutaceus include Distant
(1909), Bergroth (1917) and Hsiao & Liu (1979).

5. As pointed out by Maa & Lin (1956, p. 146) — who also followed Handlirsch —
acceptance of Sharp’s 1897 fixation of binghami as the type species of Carcinochelis
would make this name a senior subjective synonym of the widely used genus Carcino-
coris, and would require proposal of a new generic name for alutaceus and its allies.
This action would interrupt 90-plus years of uniform treatment.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 31

6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for
the nominal genus Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861, and to designate Carcinochelis
alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Carcinochelis
Fieber, 1861 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above
Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alutaceus
Handlirsch, 1897, as published in the binomen Carcinochelis alutaceus (specific
name of the type species of Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861).

References

Bergroth, E. 1917. Notes sur le genre Carcinochelis Fieb. et description d’une espéce nouvelle des
iles Philippines [Hem. Macrocephalidae]. Bulletin de la Société Entomologique de France, 16:
282-284.

Distant, W. L. 1903-1904. Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, Rhynchota, vol. 2,
xvii + 503 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. [A note on p. 111 states that pp. 1-242 appeared in
1903].

Distant, W. L. 1909. New Malayan Rhynchota. Transactions of the Entomological Society of
London, 3: 385-396.

Handlirsch, A. 1897a. Carcinocoris, ein neues Hemipteren-Genus, und Bemerkungen Uber die
Raubbeine der Insecten. Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich Koniglichen Zoologisch-Botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 47: 23-26.

Handlirsch, A. 1897b. Monographie der Phymatiden. Amnalen des Kaiserlich Koniglichen
Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, 12: 127-230.

Hsiao, T.-Y. & Liu, S.-L. 1979. New species and new records of Phymatidae from China
(Hemiptera: Heteroptera). Acta Entomologica Sinica, 22: 169-174.

Lethierry, L. & Severin, G. 1896. Catalogue générale des Hémipteres. Vol. 3,275 pp. Musée Royal
d’Histoire Naturelle de Belgique, Bruxelles.

Maa, T.-C. & Lin, K.-S. 1956. A synopsis of the Old World Phymatidae (Hem.). Quarterly
Journal of the Taiwan Museum, 9: 109-154.

Sharp, D. 1897. Description of an anomalous hemipterous insect. Entomologist’s Monthly
Magazine, (2)8: 35—36.

Walker, F. 1873. Catalogue of the specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the collection of the
British Museum, Part 6, 210 pp. British Museum, London.

32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2717

Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata; Mammalia,
Cetacea): proposed conservation of the specific name

William F. Perrin
Southwest Fisheries Center, P.O. Box 271, La Jolla, California 92038, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of the pan-
tropical spotted dolphin, Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1846), the type species of Stenella
Gray, 1866. The specific name is threatened by three subjective synonyms, only one of
which has been mentioned (as a probable synonym) during this century.

1. The currently used specific name of the pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella
attenuata (Gray, 1846), has a number of subjective synonyms. These include De/phinus
velox G. Cuvier, 1829, D. pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, D. brevimanus Wagner, 1846,
and Steno capensis Gray, 1865. It is not known which of the two names attenuatus
Gray, 1846 or brevimanus Wagner, 1846 has priority.

2. The name Delphinus velox was proposed for a new species of dolphin by G. Cuvier
in 1829. It was used by Fischer (1830, p. 455), F. Cuvier (1836, p. 154), Rapp (1837,
p. 30), and was mentioned by Gray (1850, p. 132, where it appeared as a ‘species
requiring further examination’) and Pucheran (1856, pp. 453—456). Trouessart (1898,
p. 1035) placed it tentatively as a synonym of D. malayanus Lesson in Lesson &
Garnot, 1826 (p. 184, pl. 9, fig. 5), considered by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 111) to be a
nomen nudum (but more properly a nomen dubium). Ellerman & Morrison-Scott
(1951, p. 732) repeated Trouessart’s synonymy. Hershkovitz (1966, p. 32) placed
D. velox as a synonym of D. dubius G. Cuvier, 1812 (p. 14; also considered to be a
nomen nudum by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 111), but, again, more properly a nomen
dubium). Perrin et al. (1987, p. 112) identified the holotype specimen of D. velox (a
mounted skin in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, No. 17 of the
Catalogue de la Galerie de Zoologie) as a pantropical spotted dolphin, Stenella
attenuata. The specific name velox G. Cuvier, 1829 is therefore a senior subjective
synonym of attenuatus Gray, 1846, but the former has not been applied to spotted
dolphins during this century.

3. The name Delphinus pseudodelphis was used by Wagner (1846, p. 332) in his
revision of Schreber’s Sdugethiere. Wagner ascribed the name to Wiegmann and stated
that it was based on the plate (pl. 358) of three views of a skull, which he was now
publishing, and that Wiegmann had not provided a description. Volume 7 of the work,
in which the name appeared, was begun by Wiegmann, continued by Stannius, and
finished by Wagner (Wagner, 1846, p. iv) and was finally published in 1846 (see also
Sherborn, 1891, p. 591). Wiegmann’s plates, however, were ready several years earlier,
and Schlegel (1841, p. 22) referred to ‘Delphinus pseudodelphis, Wiegman [sic] im
Schreber, Saugth. Tab. 358’. Schlegel compared the skull with that of other species and
considered that it was closest to D. malayanus. He ascribed a skull in the collections of

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 33

the Leiden museum to the species. Wagner (1846, p. 332) further described the skull and
cited Schlegel’s paragraph. Schlegel’s 1841 work makes the name pseudodelphis avail-
able and it should therefore be attributed to him, although hitherto authors have
ascribed authorship to Wiegmann ‘1840 or earlier’ (Hershkovitz, 1966, p. 32), or
Wiegmann in Schreber (1846). Gray (1850, p. 130), True (1889, pp. 67, 69) and Beddard
(1900, p. 260) considered it to be a synonym of attenuatus, while Trouessart (1898,
p. 1035) thought it was a synonym of malayanus. Later, True (1894, pp. 36—37) con-
sidered pseudodelphis to be a nomen nudum. Oliver (1922, p. 583) stated that ‘probably
it should be united with S / tenella] malayanus Lesson (1826) and S. fraenatus F. Cuvier
(1836) (actually D. froenatus G. Cuvier, 1829, regarded by Perrin et al. (1987, p. 112) as
a junior synonym of Delphinus (now Stenella) frontalis G. Cuvier, 1829). Hershkovitz
(1966, p. 32) placed the species in the synonymy of dubius G. Cuvier, 1812. Perrin et al.
(1987, p. 113) identified the skull in the original illustration published by Wagner as
that of a pantropical spotted dolphin, the name pseudodelphis therefore being a senior
subjective synonym of attenuatus Gray, 1846. They recommended that as pseudodelphis
had been discussed only once in this century (by Oliver, 1922, p. 583, in a qualified way,
as mentioned above) it should not be resurrected.

4. The name Delphinus brevimanus was used by Wagner in 1846 in the caption to a
colored plate of a dolphin (pl. 361, fig. 2) and in the index of plates (p. 427). A plate of a
dolphin (pl. 21, fig. 2), together with views of a skull (pl. 23, figs. 7 and 8), both labeled
‘Dauphin a Petites Pectorales’, appeared in the zoological part of the Atlas of the
Voyage au Pole Sud, Astrolabe et la Zélée (Hombron & Jacquinot, 1842-1853).
Subsequently, the text of the zoological part was published (1853) and the species was
referred to (p. 38) as ‘Dauphin a Petites Pectorales Hombron & Jacquinot, pl. 21, fig. 2;
Delphinus brevimanus Wagner, Schreb. Saug., pl. 361, fig. 2’. The skull figured by
Hombron & Jacquinot is No. 1882—113 in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle in
Paris. Gray based his species Delphinus? microbachium (1850, p. 119) on this skull and
referred to Hombron & Jacquinot’s plates; he subsequently included the species as
Steno? brevimanus in his 1866 Catalogue of Seals and Whales (p. 236; reference 1866a)
but not in his 1868 Synopsis. D. brevimanus was also included by Gervais (1877, p. 605).
True (1889, p. 67) placed it in the synonymy of malayanus, as also did Trouessart (1898,
p. 1035). It was not recognized by Beddard (1900). Hershkovitz (1966, p. 33) thought it
a synonym of dubius, while Perrin et al. (1987, p. 114) placed it in the synonymy of
attenuatus. The name brevimanus has not been used as a senior synonym during this
century.

5. The specific name attenuatus was first used by Gray in 1843 (p. 105) in combi-
nation with De/phinus but without description or figure and it was, therefore, a nomen
nudum. Gray subsequently (1846, p. 44, pl. 28), based attenuatus on a juvenile skull
of unknown provenance, No. 347b, in the British Museum (Natural History) and
included it in his new genus Steno (1846, p. 43). The specific name attenuatus has been
widely used for the pantropical spotted dolphin for many years. After its application by
True to spotted dolphins from the Atlantic (1889, p. 165) , the Indian Ocean (1894) and
the Pacific (1903, p. 43), it was used by Fraser (1950), Hohn & Hammond (1985),
Honacki et al. (1982, p. 296), the International Whaling Commission (1977-1988),
Jones et al. (1986, p. 17), Leatherwood et al. (1983, p. 230), Miyazaki et al. (1974),
Nishiwaki (1967, pp. 5, 36), Nishiwaki et al. (1965), Nowak & Paradiso (1983, p. 877
and others), Perrin (1975a, pp. 125, 128; 1975b, pp. 1061-1063; 1984, pp. 137, 138;

34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

1988), Perrin et al. (1976; 1979; 1985, pp. 4, 21, 23), Rice (1977, pp. 8, 13) and others.
Substitution of any of the synonyms velox, pseudodelphis or brevimanus for attenuatus
would upset long-standing nomenclatural stability for this well-known pantropical
species and cause considerable confusion in the zoological literature, in legal and
institutional documentation, and in the legislative language relating to conservation
and management of the species.

6. The name Delphinus capensis Gray, 1828 (p. 2) was based on a dolphin skin from
the Cape of Good Hope in the British Museum (Natural History). Subsequently, Gray
(1865, p. 522) proposed the name Steno capensis for a dolphin skull in the South
African Museum, Cape Town which was later presented to the British Museum
(Natural History). The two specific names capensis were proposed for species included
in different genera (Delphinus Linnaeus, 1758 and Steno Gray, 1846) and are still
regarded as distinct today. Delphinus capensis Gray, 1828 is presently treated as a junior
synonym of Delphinus delphis Linnaeus, 1758 (Hershkovitz, 1966, p. 43). True (1889, p.
62), Hershkovitz (1966, p. 33) and Perrin (1987, p. 150) listed S. capensis Gray, 1865 asa
junior subjective synonym of attenuatus. There is thus no doubt that Delphinus capensis
Gray, 1828 is not a senior subjective synonym or secondary homonym of Steno capensis
Gray, 1865.

7. The name Prodelphinus was proposed by Gervais (in Van Beneden & Gervais,
1880, p. 604) for a genus distinct from Delphinus by the absence of deep palatine lateral
grooves. True (1889, pp. 61—62) included 23 species in the genus, including attenuatus.
Subsequently, Oliver (1922, p. 582) adopted Stenella, a name proposed by Gray
(1866b, p. 213) for the single species Steno attenuatus, as a name senior to Prodelphinus.
Stenella was poorly defined and was not listed by Simpson (1945) but under Article
12(b)(5) of the Code is an available name. Following its use by Iredale & Troughton
(1934, p. 65), Fraser (1950), Fraser & Purves (1960), and others it has been universally
accepted (see, for example, Corbet & Hill (1986, p. 123)). Steno Gray, 1846 is now
confined to a single species, Steno bredanensis Lesson, 1828 (a replacement name for
Delphinus rostratus Desmarest, 1817 which was preoccupied), the rough-toothed
dolphin with a wide distribution in tropical and warm temperate seas (Hershkovitz,
1966, p. 15).

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following specific names for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy:

(a) velox G. Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Delphinus velox;

(b) pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, as published in the binomen Delphinus
pseudodelphis;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stenella
Gray, 1866 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Steno attenuatus Gray,
1846;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name attenuatus
Gray, 1846, as published in the binomen Steno attenuatus (specific name of the
type species of Stenella Gray, 1866);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 35

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology

the following names:

(a) velox G. Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Delphinus velox and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) pseudodelphis Schlegel, 1841, as published in the binomen Delphinus
pseudodelphis and as suppressed in (1)(b) above;

References

Beddard, F. E. 1900. A Book of Whales. 320 pp. John Murray, London.

Corbet, G. B. & Hill, J. E. 1986. 4 World List of Mammalian Species. Ed. 2,254 pp. Facts on File
Publications & British Museum (Natural History), New York & London.

Cuvier, F. 1836. De l’histoire naturelle des Cétacés. iv, 416 pp.; atlas 8 pp., 22 pls. Roret, Paris.

Cuvier, G. 1812. Rapport fait a la classe de Sciences mathématiques et physiques, sur divers
Cétacés pris sur les cdtes de France, principalement sur ceux qui sont échoués pres de
Paimpol, le 7 janvier 1812. Annales du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 19: 1-16.

Cuvier, G. 1829. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a Uhistoire
naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a d’anatomie comparée. 2nd Ed., vol. 1. 584 pp.
Deterville, Paris.

Ellerman, J. R. & Morrison-Scott, T. C. S. 1951. Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals
1758-1946. 810 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Fischer, J. B. 1830. Addenda, Emendanda et Index ad Synopsis Mammalium. Pp. 329-456,
657-752. Cotta, Stuttgart.

Fraser, F. C. 1950. Description of a dolphin Stenella frontalis (Cuvier) from the coast of French
Equatorial Africa. Pp. 61-84, pls. 6—9 in Atlantide Report No. 1. Scientific Results of the
Danish Expedition to the Coast ef tropical West Africa 1945—1946. Danish Science Press,
Copenhagen.

Fraser, F. C. & Purves, P. E. 1960. Hearing in Cetaceans. Evolution of the accessory air sacs and
the structure and function of the outer and middle ear in Recent cetaceans. Bulletin of the
British Museum ( Natural History), Zoology, 7 (1): 1-140, 53 pls.

Gervais, H. 1880. Pp. 601—634 in Van Beneden, [P.] J. & Gervais, P. [1868-1880]. Ostéographie
des Cétacés vivants et fossiles. 634 pp., 64 pls. (published and distributed 1868-1869).
Bertrand, Paris.

Gray, J. E. 1828. Spicilegia Zoologica; or original figures and short systematic descriptions of new
unfigured animals. Part 1, 8 pp., 6 pls. Treuttel, Wurtz & Co., & W. Wood, London.

Gray, J. E. 1843. List of the Mammalia in the Museum. British Museum, London. xxviii, 216 pp.

Gray, J. E. 1846. On the Cetaceous animals. Pp. 13—53, 37 pls. in Richardson, J. & Gray, J. E.
(Eds.), The Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. ‘Erebus’ and ‘Terror’ during the years 1839 to
1843, vol. 1, Mammalia, Birds. Janson, London.

Gray, J. E. 1850. Catalogue of the specimens of Mammalia in the collections of the British
Museum. Part 1, Cetacea. xii, 153 pp., 8 pls. British Museum, London.

Gray, J. E. 1865. Notices of a new genus of delphinoid whales from the Cape of Good Hope, and
of other cetaceans from the same seas. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London,
1865: 522-529.

Gray, J. E. 1866a. Catalogue of Seals and Whales in the British Museum. 402 pp. British Museum,
London.

Gray, J. E. 1866b. Notes on the skulls of dolphins, or bottlenose whales, in the British Museum.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1866: 211-218.

Gray, J. E. 1868. Synopsis of the species of whales and dolphins in the collection of the British
Museum. 10 pp., 37 pls. Quaritch, London.

Hershkovitz, P. 1966. Catalog of living whales. United States National Museum, Bulletin, 246:
1-259.

36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Hohn, A. A. & Hammond, P. S. 1985. Early postnatal growth of the spotted dolphin, Srenella
attenuata, in the offshore eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 83 (4): 553-566.

Hombron, [J. B.] & Jacquinot, H. 1842-1853. Atlas of the Voyage au Péle Sud et dans l’océanie
sur les corvettes ‘l’Atrolabe’ et ‘la Zélée’ pendant les années 1837—1838—1839—1840 sous le
commandement de M. J. Dumont-D’Urville. Zoologie, part 1 (Vertebrata). 70 pls. Gide &
Baudry, Paris.

Honacki, J. H., Kinman, K. E. & Koeppl, J. W. 1982. Mammal Species of the World. A taxonomic
and geographic reference. 694 pp. Allen Press & the Association of Systematics Collections.
Lawrence, Kansas.

International Whaling Commission. 1977-1988. Reports of the International Whaling
Commission.

Iredale, T. & Troughton, E. Le G. 1934. A check-list of the mammals recorded from Australia.
The Australian Museum, Sydney, Memoir 6, xi, 122 pp.

Jacquinot, H. & Pucheran, J. 1853. Jn Hombron, [J.B.] & Jacquinot, H. Voyage au Péle Sud et
dans l’océanie sur les corvettes ‘l’Astrolabe’ et ‘la Zélée’, vol. 3 (Zoologie), Mammiferes et
Oiseaux. 107 pp. Gide & Baudry, Paris.

Jones, J. K., Jr., Carter, D. C., Genoways, R. H., Hoffman, R.S., Rice, D. W. & Jones, C. 1986.
Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico, 1896. Occasional Papers.
The Museum, Texas Tech University, No. 107. 22 pp.

Leatherwood, S. & Reeves, R. R. 1982. The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales & Dolphins. 302 pp.
Sierra Club Books, San Francisco.

Miyazaki, N., Kasuya, T. & Nishiwaki, M. 1974. Distribution and migration of two species of
Stenella in the Pacific coast of Japan. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute,
Tokyo, 26: 227-243.

Nishiwaki, M. 1967. Distribution and migration of marine mammals in the North Pacific area.
Bulletin of the Ocean Research Institute, University of Tokyo, 1: 1-64.

Nishiwaki, M., Nakajima, M. & Karniya, T. 1965. A rare species of dolphin (Stenella attenuata)
from Arari, Japan. Scientific Report of the Whales Research Institute, Tokyo, 19: 53-64.

Nowak, R. M. & Paradiso, J. L. 1983. Walker’s Mammals of the World. 4th Ed., vol. 2. 1362, xxv
pp. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore & London.

Oliver, W. R. B. 1922. A review of the Cetacea of the New Zealand seas. Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London, 1922 (3): 557-585.

Perrin, W. F. 1975a. Variation of spotted and spinner porpoise (genus Stenel/a) in the eastern
Pacific and Hawaii. Bulletin of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Technical Series, 21:
vi, 1-206.

Perrin, W. F. 1975b. Distribution and differentiation of populations of dolphins of the genus
Stenella in the eastern tropical Pacific. Journal of the Fisheries Board of Canada, 32 (7):
1059-1067.

Perrin, W. F. 1984. Patterns of geographical variation in small cetaceans. Acta Zoologica
Fennica, 172: 137-140.

Perrin, W. F. 1988. Dolphins, porpoises and whales. An action plan for the conservation of
biological diversity: 1988-1992. 29 pp. International Union for the Conservation of Nature
and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland.

Perrin, W. F., Coe, J. M. & Zweifel, J. R. 1976. Growth and reproduction of the spotted
porpoise, Stenella attenuata, in the offshore eastern tropical Pacific. Fishery Bulletin, 74 (2):
229-269.

Perrin, W. F., Mitchell, E. D., Mead, J. G., Caldwell, D. K., Caldwell, M. C., van Bree, P. J.H. &
Dawbin, W. H. 1987. Revision of the spotted dolphins, Stenella spp. Marine Mammal
Science, 3(2): 99-170.

Perrin, W. F., Scott, M. D., Walker, G. J. & Cass, V. L. 1985. Review of Geographical Stocks of
Tropical Dolphins (Stenella spp. and Delphinus delphis) in the Eastern Pacific. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Report of the National Marine Fisheries Service
(U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle), No. 28.28 pp.

Perrin, W. F., Sloan, P. A. & Henderson, J. R. 1979. Taxonomic status of the ‘southwestern
stocks of spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris and spotted dolphin S. attenuata’. Report of
the International Whaling Commission, No. 29, pp. 175-184.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 39,

Pucheran, J. 1856. Notices mammalogiques. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliqué, (2)
8: 449—460.

Rapp, W. 1837. Die Cetaceen zoologisch-anatomisch dargestellt. 182 pp., 8 pls. Cotta, Stuttgart.

Rice, D. W. 1977. A list of the marine mammals of the world (Third edition). National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Report. Report of the National Marine Fisheries
Service (U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle). Special Scientific Report-Fisheries, No.
711.15 pp.

Schlegel, H. 1841. Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie, vol.
1 (Beitrage zur Characteristik der Cetaceen). 44 pp., 6 pls. Arnz, Leiden.

Sherborn, C. D. 1891. On the dates of the Parts, Plates and Text of Schreber’s ‘Saugethiere’.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1891 (4): 587-592.

Simpson, G. G. 1945. The Principles of Classification and a classification of Mammals. Bulletin of
the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1v, 1-350.

Trouessart, E. L. 1898. Catalogus mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Vol. 2, part 5
(Sirenia, Cetacea, Edentata, Marsupialia, Allotheria, Monotremata), part 2, pp. v, 999—
1469. Friedlander & Son, Berlin.

True, F. W. 1889. Contributions to the natural history of the cetaceans, a review of the family
Delphinidae. United States National Museum Bulletin, 36: 1-191, 47 pls.

True, F. W. 1894. Notes on some skeletons and skulls of porpoises of the genus Prodelphinus
collected by Dr. W.L. Abbott in the Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the United States National
Museum, 17: 33-37.

True, F. W. 1903. Notes on a porpoise of the genus Prodelphinus from the Hawaiian Islands. U.S.
Commission of Fish and Fisheries, Government Printing Office, Washington, pp. 41—45,
pls. 1 and 2. (Reprinted in 1906, Bulletin of the United States Fish Commission, 23 (for
1903)(3): 809-815).

Wagner, J. A. 1846. Die Sdugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen von D.
Johann Christian Daniel von Schreber, vol. 7 (Ruderfisser und Fischzitzthiere), vil, 427 pp.
Erlangen, Leipzig.

38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Case 2726

Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Mammalia, Proboscidea): proposed
conservation, and Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 (currently
Mammuthus primigenius): proposed designation as the type species of
Mammuthus, and designation of a neotype

W.E. Garutt

Zoological Institute, U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, 1, University
Embankment, Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.

Anthea Gentry

Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

A.M. Lister

Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Downing Street,-
Cambridge CB2 3EJ, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the generic name Mammuthus
Brookes, 1828, and to designate Elephas primigenius Blumenbach, 1799 as the type
species, in accordance with existing usage. M. primigenius, the woolly mammoth, is
known from Pleistocene deposits in Europe, Asia and northern North America. A
neotype for primigenius is designated.

1. Two specific names for the woolly mammoth were proposed in 1799: Blumenbach
(p. 697) proposed the name Elephas primigenius, while G. Cuvier (p. 21) proposed
E. mammonteus. Blumenbach’s work appeared a few months earlier and primigenius
was the name adopted by subsequent authors. Maglio (1973, p. 60) in his revisionary
work on the ELEPHANTIDAE suggested that Blumenbach did not validly publish the
specific name in 1799 (presumably because primigenius was written with an interrog-
ation mark) and that the name became available from the 1803 French translation of
Blumenbach’s work (p. 407, where the name was cited without the interrogation mark).
Kurtén & Anderson (1980, p. 353) and earlier authors (Falconer, 1868, p. 158;
Lydekker, 1886, p. 175; Trouessart, 1897, p. 711; Hay, 1902, p. 713) have also cited
primigenius with the date 1803. If this date for primigenius were [incorrectly] adopted
Cuvier’s name E. mammonteus would have priority. However, all subsequent authors,
including Cuvier himself (1806, p. 264), have accepted Blumenbach’s name primigenius
as the valid name for the species.

2. Blumenbach did not list any specimens on which the name was established and
which could have been used to designate a lectotype. He stated that bones were often

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 39

found in Germany and referred to a skeleton found near Burgtonna in 1695 as an
example of his new species. This specimen was later recognised (Osborn, 1942, pp.
1118, 1122; Maglio, 1973, p. 40) to be of the straight-tusked elephant, Elephas antiquus
Falconer & Cautley, 1845. The Burgtonna skeleton is not to be regarded as a holotype
since E. primigenius was not based on it alone and was composite according to modern
taxonomy.

3. The collection in the Zoological Institute of Gottingen University included teeth
of the woolly mammoth from Blumenbach’s personal collection which he might have
used in establishing the name E. primigenius, and in 1942, acting on advice from W. O.
Dietrich, Osborn (p. 1122) selected from among them two teeth as ‘lectotypes’. These
were an incomplete last lower molar from Siberia and a last upper milk premolar from
Osterode (Harz) in Germany. In 1965, Gromova (p. 38) proposed that one of the teeth,
that from Siberia, should be the lectotype.

4. We turn now to the question of the generic name. Blumenbach included the
generic name Mammut in his work (1799, p. 698), with the specific name ohioticum, but
this refers to the North American mastodon (Simpson, 1945, pp. 133, 247). The earliest
use of the generic name Mammuthus appears to have been that by Brookes in a sales
catalogue (1828, pp. 73, 74) which has been approved as available for zoological
nomenclature by the Commission (Opinion 1080, July 1977), followed by Burnett
(1830, p. 352). Neither author gave a diagnosis or description of the genus. They both
included two species and used very nearly the same words: ‘Genus Mammuthus, species
borealis, meridionalis. Fossil mammoth’. In both works the name borealis was cited
without authorship or description but Brookes attributed the second species, meridio-
nalis, to ‘(Nesti)’ and Elephas meridionalis Nesti, 1825 (p. 211) was thereby fixed as the
type species of Mammuthus by monotypy; its citation makes Mammuthus available
(Article 12b(5) of the Code). Pohlig (1888, p. 138) later designated Elephas meridionalis
the type species of his new genus Archidiskodon. (The nominal taxon meridionalis was
subsequently recognised as composite, one of the three syntype skulls described by
Nesti (1825, p. 213, skull ‘B’, cat. no. Igf 1067 in the Florence University Museum)
being E. antiquus (Weithofer, 1890, p. 137). Depéret & Mayet (1923, pp. 126, 128, figs.
16a, 16b) selected Nesti’s skull ‘C’ (1825, p. 213, pl. 1, figs. 1 and 2, no. Igf 1054) as the
lectotype of meridionalis; see Azzaroli, 1977, p. 156 for details). Archidiskodon is a
junior objective synonym of Mammuthus Brookes, 1828; it was treated as a distinct
genus by Osborn (1942, pp. 935, 947) and Azzaroli (1977, p. 151) but was synonymised
with Mammuthus by Aguirre (1968-69), Maglio (1973, p. 51), and Coppens et al. in
Maglio & Cooke (1978, p. 357).

5. In 1935 Hopwood (p. 11) adopted the name Mammuthus ‘because it appears to be
the first genus to have Elephas primigenius specified as the type species’. As noted
above, primigenius had not been mentioned in Mammuthus, but Hopwood (p. 98)
accepted the synonymy ‘1799 Elephas primigenius Blumenbach; 1830 Mammuthus
borealis Burnett’ and wrote that ‘by so doing I have attempted to make the Rules [Code]
a useful servant, rather than to allow them to become a blind, unreasoning, master’.
Hopwood was supported by Colbert (1937, in litt. to Osborn (1942, p. 1367)). Because
of uncertainty about the availability of the name Mammuthus, Osborn (1924, p. 2;
1942, pp. 1117, 1126) adopted Mammonteus Camper, 1788 but, as Simpson (1945, p.
249) pointed out, ‘Mammonteus was reconstructed by Osborn from ‘Mammonteum’ in
a Latin work by Camper, but it is perfectly clear that Camper used this only in the

40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

vernacular and neither intended nor inadvertently created a real generic name. It is also
doubtful whether Camper’s ‘mammonteum’ would be available for a mammoth (and
not mastodon) even if it were a generic name’. Mammonteus was regarded as only
doubtfully available by Osborn himself (1924, p. 2; 1942, p. 1177), and Mabel Rice
Percy, editing material for the 1942 volume after Osborn’s death, wrote (p. 1363) ‘it is
possible that Professor Osborn would have abandoned it in the final version of the
present volume and adopted Mammuthus Burnett, 1830’.

6. After Hopwood, Scott (1937, pp. 67, 274-276, 278) adopted the generic name
Mammuthus and other workers followed, usually attributing the name to Burnett
(1830) although Brookes (1828) is the earlier author. The name Mammuthus was
adopted by the following, among others: Simpson, 1945, p. 134; Carrington, 1962, pp.
129-131; Maglio, 1973, p. 50; Coppens et al. in Maglio & Cooke, 1978, pp. 357, 358;
Kurtén & Anderson, 1980, pp. 353-354; Dubrovo, 1982; Stuart, 1982, pp. 44—48:
Beden, 1985, pp. 28-31; Foronova in Kahlke, 1986, pp. 35, 36, 38; and Tassy &
Shoshani in Benton, 1988, pp. 292, 293, 295. When the type species is mentioned the
name Elephas primigenius is that which is cited (Osborn, 1942, p. 1141; Maglio, 1973,
p. 50; Azzaroli, 1977, p. 151; Coppens et al. in Maglio & Cooke, 1978, p. 357). It is
desirable to maintain stability in the nomenclature of this important and interesting
species and the Commission is therefore asked to ratify existing usage, and to interpret
the specific name primigenius by the skeleton designated as the neotype (see para. 8
below). In so doing the generic name Archidiskodon Pohlig, 1888, with the type species
Elephas meridionalis Nesti, 1825, will also be conserved; the name has had recent
usage (Stuart, 1982, pp. 44—48; Foronova in Kahlke, 1986, pp. 29-42). The genus
Mammuthus now includes between seven and ten species, according to different
authors, including primigenius (Maglio, 1973; Madden, 1981).

7. Since the Second World War Blumenbach’s original specimens of E. primigenius
have disappeared and are probably destroyed (Prof Dr H. D. Kahlke, pers. comm.; see
also Comment on p. 51). Osborn (1942, p. 1123) stated that casts of the two teeth
designated as ‘lectotypes’ by him (see para. 3 above) were in the American Museum of
Natural History (the lower molar from Siberia, AMNH no. 26980 and fourth upper
deciduous premolar, no. 26981) and figured the casts (p. 1123, fig. 993). However,
neither specimen would be useful for study purposes since the molar which was cast was
incomplete and had an eroded occlusal surface, while the premolar was hardly worn
and shows little of the occlusal pattern. There are no duplicate casts in the collections of
the Natural History Museum, London (Alan Gentry, pers. comm.). It is not known
what became of the specimens of ‘Mammuthus borealis’ from the Brookesean Museum
after the sale of the collections in 1828; 13 specimens of parts of tusk, teeth, limb bones
and fur were listed in the sales catalogue (1828, pp. 73 and 74) but it is likely that they
have all been destroyed. A copy of the prospectus of the Brookesean Museum
(Brookes, 1827), given by Brookes to J. E. Gray, carries a note by Gray: ‘This collection
was Offered to the British Museum Feb. 1827 for 10.00£ subject to the reference of two
competent persons relation to its value. J. E. Gray’. There is no record of purchase
of mammoth specimens by the Natural History Museum, London, from Brookes’s
collection (Lydekker, 1886; Woodward, 1904). However, a catalogue of specimens
in the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons (1844, p. 466) contains the entry
‘Elephas primigenius. 2374. Portion of a tusk. O.C.F. 631. Locality unrecorded.
Brookes’s collection. Purchased, 1828’ and records (p. xv): ‘Brookes collection. The

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 41

greater part was sold by auction in 1828, on the 14th of July and the twenty-four
following days, when the College was a purchaser to the amount of £800. A few
specimens were also bought at a subsequent sale of the remaining portion of the
collection in 1830’. Most of the collections of the Royal College of Surgeons were
destroyed during the Second World War. Subsequently, the remaining natural history
material was donated to the British Museum (Natural History) (entry no. 6738, for
17th October 1946, in the palaeontology accessions list) but there is no mention of
mammoth remains.

8. The problem of a meaningful type specimen for Elephas primigenius has remained
unresolved until now but it is necessary that the species be typified clearly. During the
past few decades scientists have many times attempted to clarify the species’ intra-
specific variation; these attempts have been made more difficult, however, as
E. primigenius and its nominal subspecies have never been unambiguously defined. We
propose to designate as the neotype the adult male skeleton discovered in 1948 in
permafrost on the Taimir Peninsula, northern Siberia (Garutt, 1982, 1989). The speci-
men is exhibited in the museum of the Zoological Institute of the U.S.S.R. Academy of
Sciences in Leningrad (cat. no. ZIN N 2710). The skeleton was found with remains of
soft tissues, skin and hair in deposits of the second terrace above the flood plain of the
Mamontovaya River, a tributary of the Shrenk in the basin of the Nizhnyaya Taimira
River (Popov, 1950, 1959). Radiocarbon dating of the soft tissues (sample T-297)
gave ages of 12 000 (Vinogradov, 1954) and 11 450 + 250 yr BP (Heintz & Garutt,
1965, p. 76). The Taimir specimen, which is in an excellent state of preservation and is
exceptionally complete, lacking only a few caudal vertebrae and third phalanges, has
been described by Garutt & Dubinin (1951), Garutt (1954, 1964, 1965, 1972 and 1981),
Dubrovo (1982), and Baigusheva & Garutt (1987). The last molars are in mid-wear and
the tusks are well developed. Remains of plants from the same layers as the skeleton
have been studied by Tikhomirov (1950, 1959), Zaklinskaya (1959) and Zhuze (1959).
A description of the recovery of the specimen and a plate showing the mounted
skeleton in the Zoological Institute in Leningrad are included in Augusta & Burian
(1963, pp. 24-26, 34).

9. Both the stratigraphic position and the absolute age show that the Taimir
mammoth existed towards the very end of the Late Pleistocene, during the last part of
the Sartanian glaciation. The skeleton is of the late, advanced form of M. primigenius
which inhabited Eurasia from the Last Interglacial to the end of the Last Cold Stage.
This form is that which occurs most commonly as fossil material and is therefore
considered by most specialists as the typical one (Garutt, 1964, and others).

10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Mammuthus Brookes, 1828, and to designate Elephas primigenius
Blumenbach, 1799 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Mammuthus
Brookes, 1828 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above
Elephas primigenius Blamenbach, 1799;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name primigenius
Blumenbach, 1799, as published in the binomen Elephas primigenius (specific
name of the type species of Mammuthus Brookes, 1828), and as defined by the
neotype designated in para. 8 above.

42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

References

Aguirre, E. 1968—69. Revision sistematica de los Elephantidae por su morfologia y formometria
dentaria. Parts 1-3. Estudios Geologicos, 24(3—4): 109-167; 25(1-2): 123-177, 317-367.

Augusta, J. & Burian, Z. 1963. A Book of Mammoths. 94 pp. Hamlyn, London. (Translated from
the 1962 Czechoslovak Ed.).

Azzaroli, A. 1977. Evolutionary patterns of Villafranchian elephants in central Italy. Atti della
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. Memorie. Classe di Scienze fisiche, matematiche e naturali,
(8)14(2.4): 149-168.

Baigusheva, V. S. & Garutt, W. E. 1987. A skeleton of the steppe elephant Archidiskodon
trogontherii (Pohlig, 1885) from the north-eastern Asov region. Trudy Zoologicheskogo
Instituta Akademii Nauk SSSR, 168: 21—37. [In Russian.]

Beden, M. 1985. Les Proboscidiens des grands gisements a hominidés Plio-Pléistocénes
d’ Afrique orientale. Pp. 21—44 in L’environnement des hominidés au Plio- Pleistocene. 468 pp.
Fondation Singer-Polignac, Masson, Paris.

Blumenbach, J. F. 1799. Handbuch der Naturgeschichte, 6th Ed. xvi, 708 pp. Dietrich, G6ttingen.

Blumenbach, J. F. 1803. Manuel d'Histoire Naturelle, Traduit de l’Allemand, de J. Fr.
Blumenbach, par Soulange Artoud, vol. 2. iii, 472 pp. Collignon, Metz.

Brookes, J. 1827. The Brookesean Museum. The Museum of Joshua Brookes, FRS, FLS,
Anatomical and Zoological Preparations. 15 pp. Gold & Walton, London.

Brookes, J. 1828. A catalogue of the anatomical & zoological museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq.,
F.R.S., F.L.S. etc. Part 1.76 pp. R. Taylor, London.

Burnett, G. T. 1830. Illustrations of the Quadrupeda, or Quadrupeds, being the arrangement of
the true four-footed beasts indicated in outline. Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and
Arts, 1829 (2, October-December): 336-353.

Carrington, R. 1962. Elephants. 285 pp. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. (First published by
Chatto & Windus, 1958.)

Coppens, Y., Maglio, V. J., Madden, C. T. & Beden, M. 1978. Proboscidea. Pp. 336-367 in
Maglio, V.J. & Cooke, H.B.S. (Eds.), Evolution of African Mammals. 641 pp. Harvard
University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Cuvier, G. 1799. Mémoire sur les espéces d’éléphans vivantes et fossiles. Mémoires de I’ Institut
National des Sciences et Arts. Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, 2: \—-22.

Cuvier, G. 1806. Suite du mémoire sur les éléphans vivans et fossiles. Annales du Muséum
d Histoire naturelle, 8: 249-269.

Depéret, C. & Mayet, L. 1923. Monographie des Eléphants Pliocénes d’Europe et de l’ Afrique.
Part 2, pp. 89-224 in Les Eléphants Pliocénes. Annales de l'Université de Lyon, nouvelle série,
(1)43: 1-224.

Dubrovo, I. A. 1982. Morphology of the skeleton of the Yuribei mammoth. Pp. 53—99 in Sokolov,
V.E. (Ed.), Yuribeiskii Mamont. 156 pp. Nauka, Moskva. [In Russian.]

Falconer, H. 1868. Palaeontological Notes and Memoirs, vol. 2 (Mastodon, elephant, rhinoceros,
ossiferous caves, primeval Man and his contemporaries). 675 pp. Hardwicke, London.
Flower, W. H. & Garson, J. G. 1884. Catalogue of the specimens illustrating the osteology and
dentition of vertebrated animals recent and extinct, contained in the museum of the Royal
College of Surgeons of England, part 2. Class Mammalia, other than Man. 779 pp. Royal

College of Surgeons, London.

Foronoya, I. V. 1986. Elephants of the genus Archidiskodon from the late Pliocene and Pleisto-
cene of the Kuznetsk Basin (southeastern west Siberia). Pp. 29—42 in Kahlke, H. D. (Ed.),
Neue Forschungsergebnisse zur Palaontologie des Tertiars und Quartars im europaisch-
asiatischen Raume. Quartdrpaldontologie. Abhandlungen und Berichte des Instituts fur
Quartarpaldontologie Weimar, 6: 1-243.

Garutt, W. E. 1954. The southern elephant Archidiskodon meridionalis Nesti from the Pliocene of
northern coast of the Asov Sea. Trudy Komissii po Izucheniyu Chetvertichnogo Perioda.
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 10(2): 1-78. [In Russian.]

Garutt, W. E. 1964. Das Mammut Mammuthus primigenius Blumenbach. 140 pp. Cosmos
Verlag, Stuttgart.

Garutt, W. E. 1965. Fossil elephants of Siberia. Trudy Nauchno-Issledovatel’skogo Instituta
Geologii Arktiki, 143: 106—130. [In Russian.]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 43

Garutt, W. E. 1972. A skeleton of the Chosarian mammoth Mammuthus cf. chosaricus Dubrovo
from Middle Pleistocene deposits of the Or’ya River (basin of the Kama River). Pp. 35—55 in
Yakhimovich, V. L. (Ed.), Voprosy Stratigrafii i Korrelyatsii Pliotsenovykh i Pleistotseno-
vykh Otlozhenii Severnoi i Yuzhnoi Chastei Predural’ya, vol. 2. 125 pp. UFA. [In Russian.]

Garutt, W. E. 1981. Versuch der graphischen Rekonstruktion des Lebensbildes der Elefanten der
Entwicklungslinie Archidiskodon-Mammuthus. Quartdrpaldontologie, 4: 19—25.

Garutt, W. E. 1982. Species Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach). Abstracts, 11th INQUA
(International Union for Quaternary Research) Congress, Moscow, 1: 103.

Garutt, W. E. 1989. On the necessity to designate a neotype for the woolly mammoth
Mammuthus primigenius (Blumenbach, 1799). Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR, 307(5):
1232-1234. [In Russian.]

Garutt, W. E. & Dubinin, V. B. 1951. On the Taimir mammoth skeleton. Zoologicheskii Zhurnal,
30(1): 17-23. [In Russian. ]

Gromova, V. I. 1965. Kratkii obzor chetvertichnykh mlekopitayushchiich Evropy. 144 pp. Moskva.
{In Russian.]

Hay, O. P. 1902. Bibliography and catalogue of the fossil Vertebrata of North America. Bulletin
of the U.S. Geological Survey, no. 179. 868 pp.

Heintz, A. E. & Garutt, W. E. 1965. Determination of the absolute age of the fossil remains of
mammoth and woolly rhinoceros from the permafrost in Siberia by the help of radiocarbon
(C,,). Norsk Geologisk Tidsskrift, 45(1): 73-79.

Hopwood, A. T. 1935. Fossil Proboscidea from China. Palaeontologia Sinica, (C)9(3): 1-108.

Kurten, B. & Anderson, E. 1980. Pleistocene mammals of North America. 442 pp. Columbia
University Press, New York.

Lyddeker, R. 1886. Catalogue of the fossil Mammalia in the British Museum, part 4 (Order
Ungulata, suborder Proboscidea). xxiv, 233 pp., 32 text figs. British Museum (Natural
History), London.

Madden, C. T. 1981. Mammoths of North America. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University
of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Maglio, V. J. 1973. Origin and evolution of the Elephantidae. Transactions of the American
Philosophical Society, 63(3): 1-149.

Nesti, P. 1825. Lettere sopra alcune ossa fossili del Valdarno non per anco descritte. Sulla nuova
specie di elefante fossile del Valdarno allillustrissimo sig. dott. Prof. Ottaviano Targioni
Tozzetti. Lettera prima. Nuovo Giornale Lettera, 11(24): 195-216.

Osborn, H. F. 1924. Parelephas in relation to phyla and genera of the family Elephantidae.
American Museum Novitates, No. 152, 7 pp.

Osborn, H. F. 1942. Proboscidea, a monograph of the discovery, evolution, migration and extinc-
tion of the mastodonts and elephants of the world, vol. 2 (Stegodontoidea, Elephantoidea).
xili, 805—1675 pp. American Museum of Natural History, New York.

Pohlig, H. 1888. Dentition und Kranologie des Elephas antiquus Falc. mit Beitragen tiber Elephas
primigenius Blum. und Elephas meridionalis Nesti. Nova Acta Academiae Caesareae
Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicae Naturae Curiosorum, 53(1): 1-279.

Popov, A. I. 1950. The Taimir mammoth. Voprosy Geografii, 23: 296—305. [In Russian.]

Popoy, A. I. 1959. The Taimir mammoth and the problem of preservation of remains of
mammoth fauna in Quaternary deposits of Siberia. Pp. 259-275 in Markov, K. K. & Popov,
A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp.
Moskovskovskii Gos. Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.]

Scott, W. B. 1937. A history of land mammals in the western hemisphere. 2nd Ed. xiv, 786 pp.
Macmillan, New York.

Simpson, G. G. 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bulletin of
the American Museum of Natural History, 85: 1-350.

Stuart, A. J. 1982. Pleistocene vertebrates in the British Isles. 212 pp. Longman, London.

Tassy, P. & Shoshani, J. 1988. The Tethytheria: elephants and their relatives. Pp. 283-315 in
Benton, M. J. (Ed.), The phylogeny and classification of the tetrapods, vol. 2 (Mammals). 329
pp. Systematics Association (Special volume no. 35B), Oxford.

Tikhomirov, B. A. 1950. On characterization of vegetation cover of the mammoth epoch in the
Taimir. Botanicheskii Zhurnal, 5: 482—497. [In Russian.]

44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Tikhomiroy, B. A. 1959. Mammutepokens livsbetingelser. Pp. 296-305 in: Naturens Verden,
Marts.

Trouessart, E. L. 1898. Catalogus Mammalium tam viventium quam fossilium. Nova Editio
(Prima Completa), vol. 2, part 4 (Tillodontia et Ungulata), pp. 699-711 (Proboscidea).
Friedlander, Berlin.

Vinogradov, A. P. 1954. Geochemistry of isotopes. Vestnik Akademii nauk SSSR, 5: 26-43. {In
Russian.]

Weithofer, K. A. 1890. Die fossilen Proboscidier des Arnothales in Toskana. Beitrdge zur
Paldontologie Osterreich-Ungarns und des Orients, 8(1.3): 107—240.

Woodward, A. S. 1904. The Department of Geology. Pp. 195-340 in: The History of the collec-
tions contained in the Natural History Departments of the British Museum. 442 pp. British
Museum, London.

Zaklinskaya, E. D. 1959. Sporo-pollen spectra of Quaternary deposits in the area of finding of
the Taimir mammoth. Pp. 276-300 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi
Period na Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskoyskoyskii Gos.
Universitet, Moskva. [In Russian.]

Zhuze, A. P. 1959. Diatom algae in Quaternary deposits in the region of finding of the Taimir
mammoth. Pp. 301-308 in Markov, K. K. & Popov, A. I. (Eds.), Lednikovyi Period na
Territorii Evropeiskoi Chasti SSSR i Sibiri. 351 pp. Moskovskovskii Gos. Universitet,
Moskva. [In Russian.]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 45

Note on Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species
(Case 2225/6: see BZN 45: 116-117, 217-219)

P. K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

In a comment on this case (BZN 45: 217-219) Dr F. T. Banner pointed out that a
neotype of Nautilus melo Fichtel & Moll, 1798 had been validly designated by Smout
(1963, pp. 265-266). This neotype is a specimen corresponding to N. melo ‘“‘var. 8” of
Fichtel & Moll, which de Montfort (1808) named as Borelis melonoides, the only species
he included in Borelis. This neotype defines Borelis and B. melo, the valid synonym of
the type species, and is in accord with established usage (see Loeblich & Tappan, 1988,
p. 362). Drs H. J. Hansen and F. Rogl, the authors of the case, have accepted this and
have stated that NV. melo “‘var. a’ Fichtel & Moll (i.e. Clausulus indicator de Montfort,
1808) and Alveolina haueri d’Orbigny, 1846 should be considered conspecific with
Borelis melo. This case therefore requires no action and is closed.

Comments on the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott,
1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda)
(Case 2624; see BZN 46: 101-103)

(1) Peter K. L. Ng
Department of Zoology, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 0511

Turkay & Naiyanetr have demonstrated that the type species designations for
Ranguna and Larnaudia by Bott (1966) were based on incorrectly identified material.
Their application to fix the type species for these two genera in a group whose
taxonomy is particularly ‘volatile’ is welcomed. There is, however, no strong reason to
recommend that the nominal type species be changed for either genus.

I fully agree with the retention of Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as the
type species of Larnaudia Bott, 1966. Larnaudia was originally established as a sub-
genus of Potamiscus Alcock, 1909, but was later raised to a full genus (Bott, 1970) with
two species, the type and L. browneana (Kemp, 1918). One more species from Thailand,
Larnaudia chaiyaphumi Natyanetr, 1982, was later added. Tirkay & Naiyanetr (1987)
redefined the genus after showing that Bott’s type species had been based on misidenti-
fied material, and transferred Tiwaripotamon beausekomae Bott, 1970 to Larnaudia.
They noted that L. browneana was closely related to Ranguna brousmichei (Rathbun,
1904), and transferred L. browneana to Ranguna. Other than these publications and
several by Naiyanetr pertaining to the identification, ecology and general biology of
Thai crabs, there has not been wide usage of Larnaudia.

The problem with Ranguna Bott, 1966 is more complex because of the larger number
of species that have been assigned to it. Bott (1970) established Ranguna with Potamon
(Potamon) rangoonensis Rathbun, 1904 as type species, although he did not examine
the type specimens. He recognised two subgenera, Ranguna and Demanietta Bott, 1966,
both of which were distinguished by the form of their male first pleopods. In the

46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

nominate subgenus, Bott (1970) recognised 17 species and subspecies. He noted that
three other taxa could also possibly be included in Ranguna ( Ranguna). More species
from Thailand have since been described by Naiyanetr. Ng (1988), however, trans-
ferred two of the Malayan species to a redefined Stoliczia Bott, 1966. I have also
pointed out (Ng, 1985, 1987, 1988) that the character used by Bott (1966, 1970) to
characterise the genus (presence of a dorsal fold on the terminal segment of the male
first pleopod) is not always reliable. My present studies also indicate that the genus
Ranguna as defined by Bott (1970) is probably heterogeneous, and that several of the
species should be classified in other genera. The name Ranguna has only been used by a
restricted circle of carcinologists, and, other than some local studies on crabs and
Paragonimus in Thailand, the name has not been used widely.

Another point that must be considered is that if the type species for Ranguna is
changed, it might lead to unnecessary confusion, especially if future studies show that
Ranguna is not found in the vicinity of Rangoon or even Burma (the present
Myanmar). In establishing Ranguna, Bott (1966) clearly wanted the name to match his
chosen type species. Additional confusion might also arise as there will then be a species
called Potamiscus rangoonensis (Rathbun, 1904) as well as a genus Ranguna, which by
the application of Turkay & Naiyanetr would specifically exclude that species.

I would thus prefer that the type species of Ranguna remain as Potamon rangoonense.
As Tirkay & Naiyanetr (1987) have already noted after their re-examination of the
type specimen of Potamon rangoonense, this would make Ranguna Bott, 1966 a junior
subjective synonym of Potamiscus Alcock, 1909. There are no serious problems with
this. The applicants’ choice of Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as a replace-
ment type species is based mainly on the form of that species’ male first pleopod, which
fits Bott’s diagnosis (Bott & Tirkay, 1977). Other than this character, the other features
of T. longipes agree with those of Potamiscus quite well. There is thus the possibility
that a future revision will require the transfer of T. Jongipes to Potamiscus. To designate
T. longipes as the type species in place of Potamon rangoonense might thus be a futile
exercise.

Additional references

Ng, P. K. L. 1985. Freshwater decapod crustaceans from Pulau Tioman, West Malaysia.
Zoologische Mededelingen, 59(14): 149-162.

Ng, P. K. L. 1987. A revision of the Malayan freshwater crabs of the genus Johora Bott, 1966 stat.
nov. (Decapoda: Brachyura: Potamidae). Malayan Nature Journal, 41: 13—44.

Ng, P. K. L. 1988. The Freshwater Crabs of Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore. viii, 156 pp.
National University of Singapore, Shinglee Press, Singapore.

(2) L. B. Holthuis
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 R A Leiden, The Netherlands

Larnaudia Bott, 1966

I agree with the applicants that this is a case of a genus based on a misidentified type
species. Notwithstanding the fact that Bott (1970, pp. 176, 302, pl. 50, fig. 46) positively
declared that he had examined, measured and figured the lectotype of the species, he
actually did not have access to it. The solution proposed by Turkay & Natyanetr,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 47

namely to accept the nominal species Thelphusa larnaudii A. Milne Edwards, 1869 as
the type of Larnaudia, is altogether sensible and it is the simplest way out of the mess. I
gladly support their application on this point.

Ranguna Bott, 1966

Ranguna Bott, as shown by Turkay & Natyanetr, is likewise based on a misidentified
type specimen. Bott (1966, p. 481; 1970, pp. 163-164) made clear that he had not seen
the type material of Potamon rangoonense Rathbun, 1904, the species that he desig-
nated as the type of the genus. Now Turkay & Naiyanetr, after examination of the
holotype of Rathbun’s species, find that it is not a Ranguna in Bott’s sense, but a species
of Potamiscus. Ranguna thus falls as a junior synonym of Potamiscus, unless the
Commission under its plenary powers changes its type species. Ranguna (sensu Bott) is
not a well known genus and is not important in applied science, commerce or popular
science, so the loss of the name will not cause undesirable confusion. Furthermore, the
status of the many species assigned to Ranguna by Bott is uncertain. Recently, Ng
(1988), in a handbook on Malaysian freshwater crabs, removed two species placed in
Ranguna by Bott to the genus Stoliczia Bott, 1966. The area from which Bott reported
Ranguna (Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia) is very poorly known as far as the
freshwater fauna is concerned; only recently Turkay & Naiyanetr undertook a system-
atic survey of the freshwater crabs of Thailand, a job, judging by the many new species
still turning up, that is far from finished. Recent researches by Ng on the freshwater
crabs of the Malay Peninsula and the Greater Sunda Islands also show that the last
word on the taxonomy of the group has not been spoken, and that Bott’s classification,
although his book is very useful, certainly does not provide a definitive solution. This is
not surprising at all in the light of the fact that Bott’s masterly treatise was based on the
rather meagre material that at that time was available in most museums of the world.

The proposal to make Thelphusa longipes A. Milne Edwards, 1869 (from Pulau
Condore in the South China Sea) the type species of Ranguna carries with it the danger
that the genus Ranguna will not be found in the area of Rangoon, while also the almost
tautonymously named species P. rangoonense 1s not included in it. In my opinion it is
much more sensible to leave the genus Ranguna with Potamon rangoonense as the type
species, and let it lapse (for the time being?) as a subjective synonym of Potamiscus. The
proposal of a new and uncompromised generic name for Thelphusa longipes and related
species seems the most logical way out.

I would most strongly advise treating Ranguna in a similar way to that proposed for
Larnaudia: \et the nominal species selected by Bott be the type species for the genus.

Comments on the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type
species of Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera)
(Case 2677; see BZN 46: 114-118)

(1) Giovanni De Lotto
Via E. Fermi 13, 89048 Siderno (R.C.), Italy (formerly Plant Protection Research
Institute, Pretoria, South Africa)

After carefully reading the application made by Dr Y. Ben-Dov on the status of the
genus Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 and the confusion made by later authors on the

48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

identity of its type species, I fully agree with his views and conclusions. Therefore I
endorse his application to designate Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species
of Saissetia.

(2) Chris Hodgson
Department of Biochemistry and Biological Sciences, Wye College, University of
London, Wye, Ashford, Kent TN25 5AH, U.K.

In this application, Dr Y. Ben-Dov proposes that Lecanium coffeae Walker be
designated the type species for the genus Saissetia Déplanche, and asks that the name
Saissetia coffeae Déplanche be suppressed.

I would like to support his application. This genus is of world-wide economic
importance and so it is imperative that the status of these two species names should be
stabilised. I consider that his proposal does this with the least disturbance to modern
usage and to the current understanding of the genus Saissetia.

The evidence seems extremely strong that the Saissetia coffeae of Deplanche was a
mealybug. As there is no way of knowing which mealybug Déplanche was studying in
1859, there is no species to which the name Saissetia coffeae Déplanche can be applied.
It is therefore my belief that Saissetia coffeae Déplanche is best suppressed, and that the
stability within scale insect taxonomy is best served by making Lecanium coffeae
Walker the type species of Saissetia.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2716; see BZN 46: 179-180)

R.W. Crosskey
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

This is a clear-cut case where a familiar name should be given precedence over a
senior subjective synonym. It is advisable for the Commission to act now before the
senior synonym acquires further use. I support Dr Boorman’s application.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809
(Osteichthyes, Perciformes)
(Case 2688; see BZN 46: 255-258)

(1) Alwyne Wheeler
Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IG10 4AF, U.K.

1. There can be no objection to the conservation of the name Callionymus pusillus
Delaroche, 1809 as requested by Ronald Fricke, as this is a name which has received
frequent use by recent authors (see BZN 46: 256, para. 5 for details).

2. However, it is quite specious to claim that this name is threatened by Callionymus
dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758, and applying to the Commission for the suppression of
that name is unnecessary. Fricke’s request is based on the composite nature of the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 49

taxon Callionymus dracunculus, which was founded by Linnaeus on earlier descriptions
by Gronovius (1754) and Artedi (1738). Artedi’s posthumous work comprised five
parts of which the Genera Piscium and Synonymia Nominum Piscium were compi-
lations from the earlier literature. In both of these he cited the work of Rondelet (1554),
and the references derived from that work in Gesner (1620) and Willughby (1686), as
‘Dracunculus’. Fricke is convinced that Rondelet’s description and figure were based
on a specimen of the species later described as Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809.
No specimens of Rondelet’s exist today. However, the first reference cited by Linnaeus
(and thus his primary source) was Gronovius (1754). This description was long and
detailed and a specimen which can be related to his description exists in the Natural
History Museum, London (Wheeler, 1958). (It should be noted here that in his appli-
cation Fricke does not mention that Gronovius gave a detailed description of the
specimen, and infers that this description was in some way indebted to earlier authors.
Gesner and Willughby were indeed cited but only in the sense of synonyms). Much of
Gronovius’s material originated from the North Sea and there is no doubt that his
description refers to a specimen of C. dracunculus which can be referred to Callionymus
lyra Linnaeus, 1758.

3. Recent authors who have made a critical choice of the taxonomic options have
treated C. dracunculus as a junior subjective synonym of C. /yra. This synonymy was
discussed by Giinther (1861), who cited earlier workers as far back as Gmelin (1789).
Neill (1811, p. 531) appears to have been the first author to adopt the name /yra in
preference to dracunculus, so acting as first reviser (Article 24 of the Code).

4. Most recent authors have used the name C. pusillus for the species described
originally by Rondelet (1554) and named by Delaroche (1809).

5. In view of this it seems quite unnecessary to ask for a ruling which in effect
suggests that the name C. dracunculus was based in a significant manner on Rondelet’s
(1554) description which was sketchy but illustrated, rather than on the first cited
reference in Linnaeus (1758) to Gronovius (1754) for which a ‘type’ specimen exists
(Wheeler, 1958). The primary source for the basis of C. dracunculus was Gronovius
(1754), the secondary source was Artedi (1738) who referred to Rondelet. Because the
widespread opinion amongst ichthyologists in the 19th and 20th centuries is that
C. dracunculus is a junior subjective synonym of C. /yra it is unnecessary and undesir-
able to make a case for treating it for the first time as a senior synonym of C. pusillus.

6. While this case may seem relatively trivial it has wider consequences because work
on Linnaean fishes (Fernholm & Wheeler, 1983; Wheeler, 1985, and unpublished)
shows that there are many composite species when all sources are considered. If the
present case is admitted as deserving of a ruling then there is a potential for numerous
similar applications from zoologists determined to unearth hitherto ignored (but
known) partial synonyms. This case, like other potential cases, does nothing to stabilise
zoological nomenclature.

References

Fernholm, B. & Wheeler, A. 1983. Linnaean fish specimens in the Swedish Museum of Natural
History, Stockholm. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 78: 199-286.

Gmelin, J. F. 1789. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae. Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 3 (Amphibia & Pisces):
1033-1516.

50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Neill, P. 1811. A list of fishes found in the Frith of Forth, and rivers and lakes near Edinburgh,
with remarks. Memoirs. Wernerian Natural History Society, 1: 526-555.

Wheeler, A. 1985. The Linnaean Fish collection in the Linnean Society of London. Zoological
Journal of the Linnean Society, 84: \—76.

(2) Ronald Fricke
Staatliches Museum fur Naturkunde, Division of Ichthyology, Schloss Rosenstein,
D-7000 Stuttgart 1, Fed. Rep. Germany

1. In his comment above, Alwyne Wheeler doubts that the name Callionymus
pusillus Delaroche, 1809 is threatened by the older name Callionymus dracunculus
Linnaeus, 1758. Wheeler supposes that the name dracunculus is composite, being
based in part on old descriptions in works of Rondeletius (1554), Gesner (1620) and
Willughby (1686), and in part on a description of Gronovius (1754) which was cited
first by Linnaeus (1758).

2. Gronovius (1754) provided a description of a specimen of the species later named
Callionymus dracunculus by Linnaeus (1758). Wheeler (1958) studied a later manu-
script and unlabelled specimens assumed to originate in part from Gronovius, in part
from a later collector and author. In his comment, Wheeler writes that ‘much of
Gronovius’s material originated from the North Sea and there is no doubt that his
description refers to a specimen of C. dracunculus which can be referred to Callionymus
lyra Linnaeus, 1758’.

3. On the contrary, I have doubts about Gronovius’s description which is so vague
that no definite species can be identified, nor can we be sure about the collecting
locality. The fact that ‘most of Gronovius’s material originated from the North Sea’ is
not enough to ensure that this material originated from there; also, there are three
species living in the North Sea area (Fricke, 1986). The specimens accompanying the
manuscript of Gronovius (1766-1777), identified by Wheeler (1958) as “Callionymus
dracunculus’, were not labelled and were mounted on paper. Moreover, the original
description of Gronovius does not indicate an identity with the specimens of Wheeler
(1958). In fact, it is not even certain whether the specimens referred to by Wheeler
(1958) are all Gronovius’s material or that of a later Dutch ichthyologist who is known
to have made changes in the manuscript. Nor, even if Gronovius’s material, do we
know if it originated from before 1754 or from a later date.

4. As indicated above, the nature of Gronovius’s description and material is
uncertain (there is no illustration), there is no ‘type’ specimen of Gronovius’s (as
erroneously claimed by Wheeler in his comment), nor is there any definite specimen
attributable to him. On the other hand, we have a definite specific identity in the
description and illustration of Rondeletius (1554), and subsequent authors, who
described a species now known as Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809. We can there-
fore be sure that C. dracunculus Linnaeus, 1758 is to be identified with C. pusillus and
not with C. /yra Linnaeus, 1758. In my opinion, Giinther (1861) and other authors were
wrong to treat the name C. dracunculus as a synonym for the females and immature
males of C. lyra. It is therefore not only justified but necessary to ask for a ruling on the
names dracunculus and pusillus, stabilising the current usage of the specific names of
European species of Callionymus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 Sl

5. Ido not foresee a danger of numerous applications to the Commission concerning
composite species (cf. Wheeler’s comment above). C. dracunculus cannot be considered
a composite species since only its identity with C. pusillus can be demonstrated.

Comments on the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas primigenius (currently
Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, Proboscidea)
(Case 2726; see BZN 47: 38-44).

(1) H. D. Kahlke
Institut ftir Quartdrpaldontologie, Weimar, Deutsche Dem. Rep.

I visited the Institut fur Geologie und Palaontologie in Gottingen late in 1986 and
can confirm that the specimens designated by Osborn in 1942 as the lectotype and
paralectotype of Mammuthus primigenius are no longer available for study and are
regarded as having been destroyed during the last war. I support the proposal, which
Dr Garutt first suggested at the 1982 INQUA Congress in Moscow, to designate the
adult male skeleton from Taimir as the neotype.

(2) Andrei V. Sher
Severtsov Institute of Evolutionary Animal Morphology and Ecology, U.S.S.R.
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, U.S.S.R.

The absence of a type specimen for such an important species as the woolly
mammoth is a serious problem for palaeontologists. At present students from differ-
ent countries are trying to clarify some disputed points in mammoth taxonomy and
phylogeny. This is impossible without definitions, and it is necessary to know whether
the European or the Siberian remains are to be regarded as typical for the species.

I agree with Dr Garutt that a Siberian type is preferable. It is known that specimens
from Siberia were present in Blumenbach’s collection. As Vera Gromova correctly
noted, from the types mentioned by Dietrich and Osborn the last molar from Siberia
was more suitable for identification of the species than was the deciduous premolar
from Germany. Both these specimens are now lost and the designation of a neotype is
necessary. The Taimir mammoth skeleton completely fulfils the conditions for neotype
designation set out in the Code and I support the application.

(3) Alan Gentry
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.

Late Pleistocene occurrences of Mammuthus primigenius are likely to be much
studied. Designating a Siberian specimen as the neotype would be helpful and I support
the application.

52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

(4) A. P. Currant
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 SBD, U.K.

Garutt, Gentry & Lister have proposed an excellent solution to the nomenclatural
problems laid out in this paper. The woolly mammoth is a very widely known and
studied species with a considerable popular following. Stabilisation of its binomen,
Mammuthus primigenius, is highly desirable and the proposed designation of the
Taimir mammoth as the neotype is in full accord with the modern concept of this
species. I support the application.

i]
i

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 53

OPINION 1567

Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus faba Fichtel &
Moll, 1798 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the
nominal genus Nonion de Montfort, 1808 are hereby set aside and Nautilus faba Fichtel
& Moll, 1798 is designated as type species.

(2) The name Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus faba
(specific name of the type species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2225/1

An application for the designation of Nautilus faba Fichtel & Moll, 1798 as the type
species of Nonion de Montfort, 1808 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien,
Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of
Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica, and
after further correspondence was published in BZN 45: 104—105 (June 1988). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals. The proposed designation of Nautilus faba as
type species of Nonion has been supported by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 617), who
wrote ‘This action would maintain the genus and higher taxa based on it as these have
generally been understood since 1808’. The case was also supported by Dr F.T. Banner
(The Natural History Museum, London).

The treatise by Loeblich & Tappan refers to, and is consistent with, not only this but
also five other applications by Drs Hansen & Régl (see Opinions 1568-1572; Cases
2225/2 to 2225/5, 2225/7). All these cases resulted from the investigation by Rogl &
Hansen (1984) of the Fichtel and Moll collection.

Another related case (2225/6; see BZN 45: 116-117, 217-219) is discussed on p. 45.

References

Loeblich, A.R. Jr. & Tappan, H. 1988. Foraminiferal Genera and their Classification.
2 vols. 1182 pp., 847 pls. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Rogl, F. & Hansen, H.J. 1984. Foraminifera described by Fichtel & Moll in 1798. A
revision of Testacea Microscopica. Neue Denkschriften des Naturhistorischen Museums
in Wien, vol. 3. 143 pp. Berger, Wien.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 105. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,

54 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink
Negative votes — none.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
faba, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus
Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta, p. 103.
Nonion de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles.
Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 210.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 55

OPINION 1568
Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) Florilus de Montfort, 1808;

(b) Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826.

(2) The name Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (gender: feminine), type species by original
designation Hanzawaia nipponica Asano, 1944, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name nipponica Asano, 1944, as published in the binomen Hanzawaia
nipponica (specific name of the type species of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Florilus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2225/2

An application for the conservation of Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 was received
from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl
(Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was
delayed until the publication of R6gl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s
1798 Testacea Microscopica and after further correspondence published in BZN 45:
106—108 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

As mentioned in BZN 45: 106, para. 2, the nominal type species of Florilus is
F. stellatus de Montfort, 1808. In a letter supporting the application, Dr F.T. Banner
(The Natural History Museum, London) drew attention to the words of Parker & Jones
(1860; reference below): “Denys de Montfort ... selected from the Monograph of Fichtel
and Moll several of their so-called Nautili ... he produced modified figures of these, and
classified the whole according to his conchological system. ... His generic names are, for
the most part, useless; since the several species, varieties and figured individuals of a
genus have received a new binomial appellation at his hand’. Of F. stellatus, Parker
& Jones (p. 5) wrote: ‘A bad drawing after Fichtel & Moll’s figures of Nonionina
asterizans’. Dr Banner agreed with Parker & Jones (1860) (and with the application)
that F. stellatus was merely a new and unnecessary name for Nautilus asterizans Fichtel
& Moll, a view also shared by Loeblich & Tappan (1988, p. 720) in their recent treatise.

Voloshinova (1958; cf. para. 4 of the application) resurrected the name Florilus,
applying it to a group of species similar to Nonion, a genus only very distantly related
(at suborder level) to Nautilus asterizans. This wrong usage was temporarily followed
by some authors, including Loeblich & Tappan (1964); Dr Banner said that his own
designation (Banner & Culver, 1978; cf. para. 3 of the application) of a nonionid as a
neotype for F. stellatus should be rejected as invalid, since the specimen was of Atlantic
origin (whereas F. ste/latus was Mediterranean) and, more importantly, the types of

56 ' Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Nautilus asterizans still exist. The treatment of Nonionina as a synonym of Nonion by
various authors (para. 5 on p. 106) was also in error; the nonionid species which were
wrongly treated as Florilus or Nonionina are referable to Pseudononion (para. 8 on
p. 107).

Dr Banner said that para. 8 of the application would be clarified by reading
‘Continued recognition of Nautilus asterizans (the type species of Nonionina) as the
senior synonym of Florilus stellatus de Montfort, the type species of Florilus, makes
Nonionina and Florilus senior subjective synonyms of Hanzawaia, with consequent
disruption....’

Of Hanzawaia and Pseudononion (cf. paras. 7 and 8 of the application) Dr Banner
wrote: ‘I have not had time or opportunity to formulate numerically a case for the usage
of Hanzawaia and Pseudononion, but I can assure you that Hanzawaia, in particular,
has been very extensively (and correctly) used since its proposal by Asano in 1944.
Hanzawaia has been recorded from Oligocene to Recent marine sediments and it is
cosmopolitan, being known from low and mid latitudes, trans-world. Pseudononion
Asano, 1936, has been recorded less frequently but it is also known to have a cosmo-
politan occurrence in marine sediments from Danian age to Holocene. Both
Hanzawaia and Pseudononion are accepted by Loeblich & Tappan (1988); there can be
no doubt that their loss would cause a very great deal of unnecessary confusion. I
repeat, this application by Hansen and Rog] should be supported’.

The letter by Dr Banner was abstracted, as above, on the voting paper.

Reference
Parker, V.K. & Jones, T.R. 1860. On the nomenclature of the foraminifera. Annals
and Magazine of Natural History, (3)8(35): 1-11.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 107. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno,
Willink

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson.

Dupuis abstained. Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided
to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Florilus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles.

Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 134.

Hanzawaia Asano, 1944, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51(606): 97.
nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944, Journal of the Geological Society of Japan, 51(606): 98.
Nonionina @’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 293.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 57

OPINION 1569
Calcarina d@’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy.

(2) The name Calcarina d@’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species Nautilus
spengleri Gmelin, 1791 by subsequent designation by Parker & Jones (1859), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name speng/eri Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Nautilus spengleri
(specific name of the type species of Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2225/3

An application for the conservation of Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 was received
from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl
(Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was
delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s
1798 Testacea Microscopica and after further correspondence published in BZN 45:
109-111 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

This application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum,
London).

With reference to BZN 45: 110, para. 5, Tinoporus baculatus was based on material
before de Montfort and on that to which he referred in his references (see para. 4). The
specimen of Nautilus spengleri figured by Fichtel & Moll on their pl. 15, figs. i-k, and
mentioned by de Montfort, is thus a syntype of T. baculatus. The statement by Rogl &
Hansen (1984, p. 60) that this specimen is the ‘holotype’ is incorrect, but makes it
(under Article 74b) the lectotype. By this selection T. baculatus de Montfort, 1808
becomes a junior subjective synonym of N. spengleri Gmelin, 1791, and Tinoporus de
Montfort, 1808 is thereby made a senior subjective synonym of Calcarina d’Orbigny,
1826. The ruling suppresses Tinoporus in order to conserve Calcarina.

The words ‘specific’ and ‘baculatus’ should be deleted from para. 5, penultimate line.
There is no need for the suppression of the name baculatus de Montfort, 1808, as this is
only a junior subjective synonym of spengleri Gmelin, 1791. Proposals (1)(b) and (5) in
para. 6 on p. 110 were therefore withdrawn.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 110, amended as noted above. At the close of the
voting period on | December 1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,

58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide
whether use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Calcarina @’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 276.
spengleri, Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791, Systema naturae Linnei, Ed. 13, vol. 1(6), p. 3371.
Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des
coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 147.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 59

OPINION 1570
Dendritina @’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Pelorus de Montfort, 1808 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy.

(2) The name Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species
Dendritina arbuscula d’Orbigny, 1826 by subsequent designation by Cushman (1927),
is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name arbuscula dOrbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Dendritina
arbuscula (specific name of the type species of Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Pelorus de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2225/4

An application for the conservation of Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 was received
from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl
(Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was
delayed until the publication of R6gl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s
1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN
45: 112-113 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The
application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum, London).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 112. At the close of the voting period on | December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Mroczkowski and Thompson.

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Mroczkowski would have favoured
giving Dendritina precedence over Pelorus, but did not support suppression of the latter
name because the synonymy is subjective.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
arbuscula, Dendritina, d’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 285.
Dendritina @’ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, (1)7: 285.
Pelorus de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des coquilles.
Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 22.

60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

OPINION 1571

Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed:

(a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not

for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and

the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Planularia Defrance, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by
monotypy Peneroplis auris Defrance, 1824, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name auris Defrance, 1824, as published in the binomen Peneroplis auris
(specific name of the type species of Planularia Defrance, 1826 ), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Planularia Nilsson, 1826, as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2225/5

An application for the conservation of Planularia Defrance, 1826 was received
from Drs H.J. Hansen (University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl
(Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was
delayed until the publication of Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s
1798 Testacea Microscopica, and after further correspondence was published in BZN
45: 114-115 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The
application had the support of Dr F.T. Banner (The Natural History Museum,
London).

The lectotype of Nautilus cassis was designated by Rogl & Hansen (1984, p. 62; cf.
para. 2 of the application). Planularia Defrance was published in September 1826,
and over 100 species have been referred to it. The exact date of Planularia Nilsson, 1826
is unknown; under Article 21c it would be taken as [31 December 1826], and its
suppression was proposed as a precaution in case it should be found to be senior to
Planularia Defrance. Contrary to para. 4 of the application, P. elliptica Nilsson, 1826
was designated type species of the Nilsson genus by Loeblich & Tappan (1964, p.
C522); Planularia Nilsson has not been used as valid, and Loeblich & Tappan (1964;
1988, p. 409) treat it as an invalid (because a homonym) senior synonym of Palmula
Lea, 1833.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 115. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 61

Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski (in part), Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson.

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide
whether use of the plenary powers was justified. Mroczkowski voted for proposals
(1)(b), (2), (3) and (4)(b); he would have favoured giving Planularia Defrance pre-
cedence over Linthuris, but did not support suppression of the latter name because
the synonymy is subjective.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
auris, Peneroplis, Defrance, 1824, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 32, p. 178.
Linthuris de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des
coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 254.
Planularia Defrance, 1826, Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 41, p. 244.
Planularia Nilsson, 1826, Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapakademiens Handlingar, 1825(2): 342.

62 Builetin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

OPINION 1572

Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides repandus;
Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the neotype designation by Loeblich & Tappan (1962)
for Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 is hereby set aside.

(2) The name Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (gender: masculine), type species by
original designation Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798, as published in the binomen Nautilus
repandus and as defined by the holotype (Inv. no. MI-470, Naturhistorisches Museum,
Vienna) (specific name of the type species of Eponides de Montfort, 1808), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2225/7

An application for the setting aside of the neotype for Nautilus repandus Fichtel &
Moll, 1798 was received from Drs H.J. Hansen (Geological Institute, University of
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark) & F. Rogl (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien,
Wien, Austria) on 24 November 1978. The case was delayed until the publication of
Rogl & Hansen’s (1984) revision of Fichtel & Moll’s 1798 Testacea Microscopica and
after correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 118-119 (June 1988). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application was supported by Dr F.T.
Banner (The Natural History Museum, London) and by Loeblich & Tappan (1988,
p. 549). The holotype is redescribed on pp. 31—32 of Rogl & Hansen (1984).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 118-119. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Original references
The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in
the present Opinion:
Eponides de Montfort, 1808, Conchyliologie systématique et classification méthodique des
coquilles. Coquilles univalves, cloisonnées, vol. 1, p. 127.
repandus, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generibus
Argonauta et Nautilus ad naturam picta et descripta, p. 35.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 63

OPINION 1573

Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia
talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria,
Anthozoa): specific names conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the specific name /imax Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora
limax, and all other uses of that name prior to the publication of Madrepora
limax Esper, 1797, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle
of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(i) talpa Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa;

(il) trilinguis Boddaert, 1768, as published in the binomen Madrepora trilinguis.

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

Zoology:

(a) limax Esper, 1797, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax;

(b) talpina Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Fungia talpina.

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

Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) limax Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora limax and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) talpa Houttuyn, 1772, as published in the binomen Madrepora talpa and as
suppressed in (1)(b)(i) above;

History of Case 2609

An application for the conservation of the specific names of Madrepora limax Esper,
1797 and Fungia talpina Lamarck, 1801, two mushroom corals, was received from
Dr Bert Hoeksema (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, 2300 RA Leiden, The
Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45:
13-17 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received. The name /imax on line 3 of BZN 45: 14 should read talpa.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 15. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — |: Lehtinen.

64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

limax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797, Fortsetzungen der Pflanzenthiere, vol. 1, p. 77.

limax, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772, Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren,
Planten en Mineraalen, vol. 1, part 17, p. 119.

talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772, Natuurlyke Historie of Uitvoerige Beschryving der Dieren,
Planten en Mineraalen, vol. |, part 17, p. 116.

talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801, Systeme des animaux sans vertébres, p. 370.

trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768, Lyst der Plant-Dieren, p. 613, pl. 14.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 65

OPINION 1574

Sphaeroma hookeri Leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hookeri;
Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy: .

(a) conglobator Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Oniscus conglobator;

(b) globator Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator.

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

(a) Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Europosphaera (Lekanesphaera) excavatum Verhoeff, 1943 (a junior subjective
synonym of Sphaeroma monodi Arcangeli, 1934);

(b) Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation
by Latreille (1810) Oniscus serratus Fabricius, 1787.

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

Zoology:

(a) hookeri Leach, 1814, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma hookeri;

(b) monodi Arcangeli, 1934, as published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (senior
subjective synonym of Europosphaera (Lekanesphaera) excavatum Verhoeff,
1943, the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943);

(c) serratus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Oniscus serratus (specific
name of the type species of Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802).

(4) The name SPHAEROMATIDAE (correction by Dahl, 1916, p. 28 of SPHAEROMIDES)
Latreille, 1825 is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) conglobator Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Oniscus conglobator and as

suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) globator Pallas, 1772, as published in the binomen Oniscus globator and as
suppressed in (1)(b) above.

(6) The name Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943 is hereby placed on the Official Index

of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (unavailable because published
without fixation of the type species).

History of Case 2613

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Sphaeroma hookeri
Leach, 1814 was received from Mr B.J.M. Jacobs & Dr L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum
van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 45: 21—24 (March 1988). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriateyournals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting
paper that proposal (2)(b) on BZN 45: 23 should have read: monodi Arcangeli, 1934, as

66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

published in the binomen Sphaeroma monodi (senior subjective synonym of the name of
the type species of Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 23. At the close of the voting period on | December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Lehtinen and Thompson.

Thompson considered that the application provided insufficient evidence to decide
whether use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official

Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

conglobator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1766, Miscellanea zoologica, p. 194.

Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 169.

globator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1772, Spicilegia zoologica, (9): 70.

hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814, in Brewster, The Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 7, p. 433.

Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943, Zeitschrift fiir Morphologie und Okologie der Tiere, 39: 169.

monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934, Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia e di Anatomia Comparata
della R. Universita di Torino, 44(3)(48): 149.

serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, p. 242.

Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, contenant leur description et leurs
moeurs, 2: 182.

SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825, Familles naturelles du regne animal, exposées succinctement et
dans un ordre analytique, avec l’indication de leurs genres, p. 294.

eleiob Ooatney

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 67

OPINION 1575

Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) Carcinion Jarocki, 1825;

(b) Cenobites Berthold, 1827;

(d) javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica.

(2) The name Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name c/ypeatus Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Pagurus
clypeatus (specific name of the type species of Coenobita Latreille, 1829), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (correction by Ortmann (1892) of
CENOBITIDAE) (type genus Coenobita Latreille, 1829) is hereby placed on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Carcinion Jarocki, 1825, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Cenobites Berthold, 1827 as suppressed in (1)(b) above;

(d) Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Coenobita

Latreille, 1829).

(6) The name javanica Osbeck, 1765, as published in the binomen Eremita javanica
and as suppressed in (1)(d) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

(7) The name CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (an incorrect original spelling
of COENOBITIDAE).

History of Case 2610

An application for the conservation of Coenobita Latreille, 1829, the name of a
hermit crab genus, was received from Drs G.J. Morgan (Western Australian Museum,
Perth, Australia) & L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) on 17 June 1987 and published in BZN 45: 18-20 (March 1988). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 19—20. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows: ;

Affirmative votes — 28: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,

68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink
Negative votes — none.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official

Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Carcinion Jarocki, 1825, Zoologia czyli zwiérzetopismo Ogolne, podlug Naynowszego Systematu,
vol. 5, p. 108.

Cenobita H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, p. 238.

Cenobites Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s Nattrliche Familien des Thierreichs, p. 263.

CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5: 269.

clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa Insectorum, vol. 1, p. 328.

Coenobita Latreille, 1829, Les Crustacés, les Arachnides et les Insectes, distribués en familles
naturelles, ouvrage formant les tomes 4 et 5 celui de M. le baron Cuvier sur le regne animal,
Eda pie

COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 5:
269.

Eremita Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China, p. 356.

javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765, Reise nach Ostindien und China, p. 356.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 69

OPINION 1576

Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda):
specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the specific name a/bescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus
albescens, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but
not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the specific name /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as published in
the binomen Palaemon longirostris, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of
both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

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

Zoology:

(a) longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392), as published in the binomen
Palaemon longirostris;

(b) serratus Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Astacus serratus and as
defined by the lectotype designated in BZN 45: 121, para. 4, i.e. the specimen
figured by Pennant (1777, p. 16, fig. 28);

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

Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) albescens Pennant, 1812, as published in the binomen Astacus albescens, and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) edwardsii Heller, 1863, as published in the binomen Palaemon edwardsii(a junior
objective synonym of /ongirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 392));

(c) longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (p. 394), as published in the binomen
Palaemon longirostris, and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

History of Case 2612

An application for the conservation of Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards,
1837 (p. 392) was received from Dr L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke
Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 17 June 1987. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 45: 120—124 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 123. At the close of the voting period on | December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been provided to decide
whether use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812, British Zoology, Ed. 5, vol. 4, p. 25.

edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863, Die Crustaceen des stidlichen Europa, p. 265.

longirostris, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, p. 392.
[Official List]

longirostris, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 2, p. 394.
[Official Index]

serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777, British Zoology, Ed. 4, vol. 4, p. 19.

styliferus, Palaemon, H. Milne Edwards, 1840, Histoire Naturelle des Crustacés, vol. 3, p. 638.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 71

OPINION 1577

Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Dytiscus fuscipes
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817
(Insecta, Coleoptera): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Hydrobius Leach, 1815 are hereby set aside, and the designation by Hope (1838) of
Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species is conserved.

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

(a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Hope (1838) Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as conserved in (1)
above;

(b) Berosus Leach, 1817 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Dytiscus
luridus Linnaeus, 1761.

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

Zoology:

(a) fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Dytiscus fuscipes (specific
name of the type species of Hydrobius Leach, 1815);

(b) Juridus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Dytiscus luridus (specific
name of the type species of Berosus Leach, 1817).

History of Case 2607

An application for the conservation of Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of the water beetle genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815, so also conserving Berosus
Leach, 1817, was received from Dr M. Hansen (Zoologisk Museum, Kobenhavyn,
Denmark) on 11 May 1987 and published in BZN 45: 25—26 (March 1988). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

‘D. luridus Leach, 1761’ on the first line of para. 6 on p. 25 should be amended to read
‘D. luridus Linnaeus, 1761’.

It would have been possible to achieve the result sought by Dr Hansen (conservation
of the usage of Hydrobius and Berosus described in para. 6) by using the plenary powers
to suppress Hydrobius as of Leach, 1815 for both the Principles of Priority and
Homonymy and to take the name from Leach, 1817. Dr Hansen did not ask for this;
Hydrobius is always given the date 1815 (cf. para. 4), and Dr Hansen’s proposal to
accept this date has advantages. However, since Dytiscus fuscipes was not included in
1815, proposals (1) and (2) on p. 26 were amended on the voting papers to read:

‘(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815 and to conserve the designation of Dytiscus

| fuscipes Linnaeus, 1758 by Hope (1838);

(2) (a) Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Hope (1838), as conserved in (1) above, Dytiscus fuscipes Linnaeus,
1758.

72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 26, as amended above. At the close of the voting period
on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Savage and Thompson.

Dupuis and Lehtinen abstained. Savage commented that he would have favoured
dating Hydrobius from 1817. Thompson said that there was insufficient evidence in the
application to decide whether use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Berosus Leach, 1817, The zoological miscellany, vol. 3, p. 92.
fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 411.
Hydrobius Leach, 1815, in Brewster, Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, vol. 9, p. 96.
luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna Svecica, Ed. 2, p. 214.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 73

OPINION 1578

Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum;
Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as pub-
lished in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name triangulum Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Vespa
triangulum, 1s hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name ruspatrix Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Vespa ruspatrix
and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2608

An application for the conservation of the specific name of the ‘bee-wolf’ Vespa
triangulum Fabricius, 1775 was received from Dr W.J. Pulawski (California Academy
of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 2 June 1987. After correspondence
the case was published in BZN 45: 34—35 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. Comments in support from O. Lomholdt (Zoologisk Museum,
Kobenhavn, Denmark) and J. Hamon (4 rue de Coteau, Gaillard, France) were published
in BZN 46: 45 (March 1989).

A similar application was received on 12 November 1987 from Dr R.T. Simon
Thomas (Instituut voor Taxonomische Zoologie, Amsterdam, The Netherlands), as
noted on BZN 45: 35, who mentioned that (as well as being an apicultural pest)
Philanthus triangulum is an important laboratory insect in the field of toxinological
research (see, for example, Piek, T. et al. (1985), Philanthotoxins: a review of the
diversity of actions on synaptic transmission. Pesticide Science, 16: 488—494).

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 34—35. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — |: Lehtinen.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2, p. 951.
triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae, p. 373.

74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

OPINION 1579

Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea):
specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, as pub-
lished in the binomen Pentetagonaster dutemplei, is hereby suppressed for the purposes
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name magnificus Spencer, 1913, as published in the binomen Pycinaster
magnificus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name dutemplei d’Orbigny, 1850, as published in the binomen Pentetagon-
aster dutemplei and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2564

An application for the conservation of Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 was
received from M G. Breton (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Le Havre, France) on 18
March 1986. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 125-126 (June
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support
received from C.W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) was published in BZN 46: 46
(March 1989)

Decision of the Commission :

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 126. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno,
Willink

Negative votes — 3: Holthuis, Minelli and Thompson.

No vote was returned by Savage.

Holthuis commented that the name magnificus had only had limited use. Thompson
considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to decide whether use of the
plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, dOrbigny, 1850, Prodrome de paléontologie stratigraphique
universelle des animaux mollusques et rayonnes, vol. 2, p. 274.
magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
(B)204: 125.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 75

OPINION 1580

Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius;
Conodonta): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published
in the binomen Astacoderma spinosum, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name dubius Rhodes 1953, as published in the binomen Cordylodus dubius
(as Cordylodus? dubius), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

(3) The name spinosum Harley, 1861, as published in the binomen Astacoderma
spinosum and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2308

An application for the conservation of Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes, 1953 was
received from Drs L. Jeppsson (Lunds Universitet, Sweden) & R.J. Aldridge (University
of Nottingham, England, U.K.) on 14 June 1979. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 45: 127—129 (June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 128. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen,
Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 5: Dupuis, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen and Minelli.

Holthuis considered that as the nominal species Astacoderma spinosum had a holo-
type and as this name was almost 100 years older than Cordylodus? dubius there was no
good reason not to follow priority. However, as pointed out by the authors (BZN 45:
127, para. 1), the species is quite common and geographically widespread. The paucity
of references prior to Rhodes (1953) reflects the lack of appreciation until recent times
of the nature and stratigraphic significance of conodonts. Dupuis would have favoured
giving dubius precedence over spinosum, since the synonymy is subjective. Kabata did
not think the case for overturning priority was strong enough.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
dubius, Cordylodus?, Rhodes, 1953, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
(B)237: 299.
spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 17:
550.

76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

OPINION 1581

Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes):
Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) Itis hereby confirmed that the nominal species Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier,
1819 (non Valenciennes, 1849 nec Miller & Troschel, 1844) is the type species of the
nominal genus Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844.

(2) The name Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species
by monotypy and confirmed in (1) above, Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name scomberoides Cuvier, 1819, as published in the binomen Hydrocyon
scomberoides and as defined by the holotype A.8659-81.87.2.3 in the Muséum National
d’Histoire naturelle, Paris (specific name of the type species of Hydrolycus Miller &
Troschel, 1844), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2556

An application for the confirmation of Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 as the
type species of Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 was received from Drs J. Géry
(Argentonesse, Saint Cyprien, France) & V. Mahnert (Muséum d'Histoire naturelle,
Genéve, Switzerland) on 10 February 1986. After correspondence the case was pub-
lished in BZN 45: 38—40 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 39. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844, Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, Berlin, 10(1): 93.
scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819, Mémoires du Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 357.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 77

OPINION 1582

Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) the name Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of

the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) it is hereby ruled that the correct original spelling of the generic name Ictiorus

Rafinesque, 1820 is deemed to be Ictiobus.

(2) The name Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species
Catostomus bubalus Rafinesque, 1818 by subsequent designation by Agassiz (1854), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name bubalus Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Catostomus
bubalus (specific name of the type species of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820 (ruled in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original

spelling of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820).

History of Case 2598

An application for the conservation of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 was received from
Drs R.M. Bailey (University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) & W.N. Eschmeyer
(California Academy of Science, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 2 March 1987
and published in BZN 45: 36—37 (March 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropri-
ate journals. No comments were received. The following information, which did not
affect the essence of the application, was noted on the voting paper.

As stated in para. 1, Rafinesque (1819, p. 421) proposed Amblodon for two
species, one of which was the ‘brown buffalo-fish’, his Catostomus bubalus of 1818.
The next year (cf. para. 2) he transferred the name Amblodon to the unrelated
‘grunting perch’, previously (and validly) called Aplodinotus grunniens Rafinesque,
1819 (p. 418). On p. 24 of the Ichthyologia Ohiensis (and previously in January 1820
in The Western Review) Rafinesque explained this transfer: ‘The name [Amblodon|
means obtuse teeth ... Only one species is known yet ... The structure of these teeth
[of Aplodinotus grunniens] is very singular and peculiar ... [They] are common in
many museums, where they are erroneously called teeth of the Buffalo-fish ... I
was deceived so far by this mistake ... this error I now correct with pleasure’. Thus
Amblodon had been mistakenly applied to bubalus, and it was not used again for this
species.

The name /ctiorus has been printed only once, in June 1820 in The Western Review
(see para. 3). As stated in para. 4, the name appeared twice as /ctiobus in the volume
Ichthyologia Ohiensis later that year, and this spelling has been used ever since. Ictiorus
was probably a misprint: Jordan & Evermann (1896, p. 163) point out that Ictiobus
bubalus derives from the Greek for ‘Buffalo bull-fish’.

78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Ictiorus is on p. 299 of Rafinesque, C.S. 1820 (June). Natural History of the Fishes of
the Ohio River and its Tributary Streams. Fishes of the River Ohio. Western Review
and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington, 2 (5): 299-307.

Ictiobus, with exactly the same text, is on pp. 55 and 89 of Ichthyologia Ohiensis, 1820
(November or December). 90 pp. Hunt, Lexington.

Proposal (4) on BZN 45: 37 was amended to read ‘to place on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names:

(a) Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;

(b) Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820, ruled in (1)(b) above to be an incorrect original

spelling of Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820’.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 37, with proposal (4) amended. At the close of the
voting period on 1 December 1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No vote was returned by Bayer.

Thompson said that the application provided insufficient evidence to decide whether
use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d'Histoire Naturelle et des Arts,
Paris, 88: 421.

bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3(3):
355.

Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820, Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the
river Ohio and its tributary streams in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, vol.
2(5), p. 299 [301], June 1820 (here incorrectly spelled Ictiorus); spelled Ictiobus in November
or December 1820 in Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river
Ohio and its tributary streams, pp. 55, 89.

Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820, Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes inhabiting the river
Ohio and its tributary streams in The Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, vol. 2(5),
p. 299 [301], June 1820 (here an incorrect original spelling of Ictiobus); spelled Ictiobus in
November or December 1820 in Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or natural history of the fishes
inhabiting the river Ohio and its tributary streams, pp. 55, 89.

]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 719

OPINION 1583

Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres,
1854 to be taken as the author of the specific name

Ruling

(1) Itis hereby ruled that the specific name marmoratus Ayres, 1854, as published in
the binomen Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus, has priority over the name marmoratus
Girard, 1854, as published in the binomen Scorpaenichthys marmoratus.

(2) The name Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Scorpaenichthys marmoratus Girard, 1854 (a junior subjective synonym of
Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus Ayres, 1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name marmoratus Ayres, 1854 (8 September), as published in the binomen
Hemitripteras [sic] marmoratus (senior subjective synonym of Scorpaenichthys
marmoratus Girard, 1854 [6 October], the type species of Scorpaenichthys Girard,
1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2619

An application concerning the authorship and date of the specific name of the North
Pacific cabezon Scorpaenichthys marmoratus was received from Drs Robert N. Lea
(California Department of Fish and Game, Monterey, California, U.S.A.) & William N.
Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California, U.S.A.) on 14
July 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 132-134 (June
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

The specific name marmoratus for the species was published independently in 1854
by W.O. Ayres and by C.F. Girard. Ayres’ name was published on 8 September in The
Pacific, a San Francisco journal (in which the California Academy published its meet-
ing reports), and again on 22 September in the Proceedings of the California Academy
of Natural Sciences, 1: 3. Girard’s marmoratus appeared in the Proceedings of the
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 7: 132; the actual date of publication
is unknown but a copy was received by the American Philosophical Society
(Philadelphia) by 6 October, and under Article 21g of the Code this is taken as the
formal date of publication.

Because Girard published the generic name Scorpaenichthys, with his marmoratus as
type species of the new genus by monotypy, and because his work may have actually
been published before that of Ayres, Drs Lea & Eschmeyer asked that the name
marmoratus Ayres be suppressed. The application noted (BZN 45: 133, para. 5)

| that both Ayres and Girard have been cited in the literature as author of the name

_ marmoratus. In recent years Ayres has been given more often.

]
| Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the

proposals published in BZN 45: 133. At the close of the voting period on 1 December

1989 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 14: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,

| Kabata, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno

80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

Negative votes — 14: Cogger, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Savage, Schuster,
Willink.

Thompson commented that he voted for marmoratus being taken from Girard,
because of the ambiguous date and nature of Ayres’ publication. Library research
might show that Girard’s name had in fact been published first, especially since Ayres”
8 September 1854 report in The Pacific was not ‘for permanent scientific record’ [cf.
Article 8a(i) of the Code. This would not apply to the 22 September Proceedings paper,
and in September 1854 the California Academy directed that its proceedings be pub-
lished in The Pacific]. Voting against the application, Cogger said that suppression of
Ayres’ name was unwarranted and that attribution of marmoratus to him would not
cause difficulty. If that had been the case, a better solution would have been to rule that
Girard’s name had priority.

Since the voting period it has been discovered that in March 1855 Ayres himself
attributed marmoratus to Girard, but this appears to have been based not on publi-
cation but on Girard having presented his paper the earlier (see BZN 45: 132, paras. 3
and 4; Proceedings of the California Academy of Natural Sciences, 1: 12, 32).

Provisions of the Code (in the present case Articles 21 and 23) may only be set aside
by the Commission using its plenary powers, necessitating a two-thirds majority vote.
A simple majority is taken as a preliminary vote only, and a two-thirds majority is
required in a second vote. In the present case there was no majority in favour of the
proposals on BZN 45: 133, which are therefore rejected; Ayres should thus be taken as
the valid author of marmoratus.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
marmoratus, Hemitripteras, Ayres, 1854, The Pacific (San Francisco), 3(44): 174.
Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
TBI.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 81

OPINION 1584

Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silurus lividus
Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the
nominal genus Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 are hereby set aside and Silurus lividus
Rafinesque, 1820 is designated as type species.

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

(a) Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (gender: masculine), type species by designation
under the plenary powers in (1) above Si/urus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 (a junior
subjective synonym of Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819);

(b) Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819 (a junior subjective synonym of Silurus
olivaris Rafinesque, 1818).

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

Zoology:

(a) natalis Lesueur, 1819, as published in the binomen Pimelodus natalis (senior
subjective synonym of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820, the type species of
Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820);

(b) olivaris Rafinesque, 1818, as published in the binomen Silurus olivaris (senior
subjective synonym of Pylodictis limosus Rafinesque, 1819, the type species of
Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819).

History of Case 2631

An application for the designation of Silurus lividus Rafinesque, 1820 as the type
species of Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 was received from Drs R.M. Bailey (University of
Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.) & C.R. Robins (University of Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) on
17 November 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 135-137
(June 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

The ruling maintains the established use of the name Ameiurus (sometimes,
incorrectly, Amiurus) for the ‘bullheads’. As mentioned on BZN 45: 136, para. 4,
lines 1 and 2, since 1877 Pimelodus natalis Lesueur, 1819 has been regarded as the
valid name of the type species, but in the opinion of the applicants (para. 4 also)
authors were wrong in listing Rafinesque’s nominal species Si/urus cupreus as a
junior synonym of P. natalis. Another of Rafinesque’s originally included nominal
species, S. lividus, is now treated as the junior subjective synonym of P. natalis.
The desirability of conserving the name Ameiurus was first raised with the then
Secretary of the Commission (F. Hemming) in 1954 by Dr Carl L. Hubbs, but no
formal application was made. In 1955 Dr W.I. Follett noted that Silurus cupreus
Rafinesque, 1820, previously designated as type species of Ameiurus, is ‘at best a
complex’. Silurus cupreus is now considered a synonym of the type species of Pylo-
dictis Rafinesque, 1819, and the present ruling avoids Ameiurus falling as a junior
synonym of Pylodictis.

82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

The text of Rafinesque (1820b; the Ichthyologia Ohiensis) was serialised before its
publication (December 1820) as a book (see Wheeler, BZN 45: 8). Ameiurus (p. 359 in
the Western Review) dates from July 1820 (see reference below).

References

For Pylodictis: Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux
decouverts dans 1’interieur des Etats-Unis d’ Amérique, durant l’année 1818. Journal de
Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts, 88: 417—429.

For Ameiurus: Rafinesque, C.S. 1820 (July). Natural History of the Fishes of the
Ohio River and its Tributary Streams. Fishes of the River Ohio. Western Review and
Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington. 2 (6): 355—363. (Also on p. 65 of Ichthyologia
Ohiensis, 1820 (November or December). 90 pp. Hunt, Lexington).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 136-137. At the close of the voting period on 1
December 1989 the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

Thompson considered that insufficient evidence had been presented to decide
whether use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820, Western Review and Miscellaneous Magazine, Lexington, 2 (6): 359.

natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819, Mémoires du Muséum d Histoire naturelle, Paris, 5: 154.

olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818, American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, New York,
3(5): 355.

Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819, Journal de Physique, de Chimie et d’Histoire Naturelle, et des Arts,
88: 422.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990 83

OPINION 1585

Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas; Reptilia,
Squamata): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name borneensis Gray, 1845, as published
in the binomen Tarentola borneensis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name gigas Bocage, 1875, as published in the binomen Ascalabotes gigas, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name borneensis Gray, 1845, as published in the binomen Tarentola
borneensis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2621

An application for the conservation of Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875, the name
of a gecko from the Cape Verde Islands, was received from Dr H.H. Schleich (c/o
Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchen, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 30 July 1987. After
correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 41—42 (March 1988). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 41. At the close of the voting period on | December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was returned by Martins de Souza.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
borneensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845, Catalogue of the specimens of lizards in the collection of the
British Museum, p. 165.
gigas, Ascalabotes, Bocage, 1875, Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes, 5: 108.

84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(1) March 1990

OPINION 1586

Euryotis brantsui A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii;
Mammalia, Rodentia): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name vigi/ Thunberg, 1811, as published in
the binomen Arctomys vigil, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name brantsii A. Smith, 1834, as published in the binomen Euryotis brantsii,
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name vigil Thunberg, 1811, as published in the binomen Arctomys vigil and
as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2605

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Euryotis brantsii A.
Smith, 1834 was received from Drs L.C. Rookmaaker (Dokter Guepinlaan 23, NH
Ommeren, The Netherlands) & J. Meester (University of Natal, Durban, R.S.A.) on 27
April 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 43—44 (March
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment from Dr Dieter
Kock (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt, Fed. Rep. Germany) was published
in BZN 45: 223 (September 1988).

Comments in support from Dr Sarah B. George (Los Angeles County Museum of
Natural History, California, U.S.A.) and from Mr W.F.H. Ansell (St. Ives, Cornwall,
U.K.) were noted on BZN 45: 223.

The paper referred to in para. 2, p. 43 as ‘in press’ has now been published:

Rookmaaker, L.C. 1988. The taxonomic importance of C.P. Thunberg’s revision of
South African mammals (1811). South African Journal of Science, 84 (3): 159-161.

Decision of the Commission

On | September 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 43. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1989 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatoy,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Cogger.

Cogger commented that he would have voted for brantsii being given precedence
over vigil, but suppression of the latter was unwarranted because the synonymy was
uncertain (cf. BZN 45: 223).

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
brantsii, Euryotis, A. Smith, 1834, South African Quarterly Journal, 2: 150.
vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St.
Petersbourg, 3: 308.

Contents—continued

Rulings of the Commission
Opinion 1567. Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida): Nautilus ee Fichtel &

Moll, 1798 designated as the type species. . 53
Opinion 1568. Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Poraminitertds): Gonstived FRY ee NE SL: 55
Opinion 1569. Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved . . . . . 57
Opinion 1570. Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved . . . . . 59
Opinion 1571. Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida): conserved. . 60
Opinion 1572. Nautilus repandus Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (currently Eponides reparidus:

Foraminiferida): neotype replaced by rediscovered holotype . . . 62

Opinion 1573. Madrepora limax Esper, 1797 (currently Herpolitha limax) and Fungia
talpina Lamarck, 1801 (currently Polyphyllia talpina; both Cnidaria, Anthozoa):

specific names conserved. . . 63
Opinion 1574. Sphaeroma hookeri leach, 1814 (currently Lekanesphaera hee

Crustacea, Isopoda): specific name conserved. . ; 65

_ Opinion 1575. Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved . : 67

_ Opinion 1576. Palaemon longirostris H. Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda):

specific name conserved . . 69
Opinion 1577. Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Coleoptera): " Dytiscus fuscipes
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as type species, and Berosus Leach, 1817 (Insecta,

Coleoptera): conserved . . 71
Opinion 1578. Vespa triangulum Fabricius, 1775 (currently Philanthus triangulum:
Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name conserved. . 73
| Opinion 1579. Pycinaster magnificus Spencer, 1913 (Echinodermata, Asteroidea):
| specific name conserved . . 74
_ Opinion 1580. Cordylodus? dubius Rhodes 1953 (currently Distomodus dubius:
' Conodonta): specific name conserved . . TD
Opinion 1581. Hydrolycus Muller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes):
Hydrocyon scomberoides Cuvier, 1819 confirmed as the type species. . . : 76
Opinion 1582. Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): conserved ; 77
Opinion 1583.-Scorpaenichthys marmoratus (Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes): Ayres,
1854 to be taken as the author of the specificname . . 79
Opinion 1584. Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): Silunus Tividiss
Rafinesque, 1820 designated as the type species . . 81
Opinion 1585. Ascalabotes gigas Bocage, 1875 (currently Tarentola gigas: ‘Reptilia,
Squamata): specific name conserved .. 83
Opinion 1586. Euryotis brantsii A. Smith, 1834 (currently Parotomys brantsii:
Mammalia, Rodentia): specificnameconserved . . . . . . ...... 84

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commission; other
authors should comply with the relevant sections. Recent parts of the Bulletin should be
consulted as examples.

Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A
specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current name in parentheses.

| Author’s name. Full postal address should be given.

| Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.

Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details
of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals. Text references should give dates
and page numbers in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 39) described ...’.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be in full
and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a
‘colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of
| pages, the publisher and the place of publication.

| ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360K B (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB floppy
disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were
accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references.

CONTENTS

Notices .

Election of the Vice- President of ‘the International Commission on | Zoological
Nomenclature . ;

The International Commission on 1 Zoological ‘Nomenclature and its publications :

Addresses of members of the Commission . ;

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . . ;

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology-Supplement ;

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

Instructions to Authors .

Applications

Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Cnidaria, Anthozoa): proposed designation of Fungia
paumotensis Stutchbury, 1833 as the type species, with conservation of Lobactis
Verrill, 1864. B.W.Hoeksema. .

CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and CYMATIINAE Walton i in
Hutchinson, 1940 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposal to remove the homonymy.
A. Jansson& A.G.Beu. .

Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 et Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (actuellement Placostylus
fibratus et Natica hebraea; Mollusca, Gastropoda): conservation proposée pour les
noms spécifiques; et Placostylus Beck, 1837: Gee proposee de L. atid
comme espéce-type. P. Bouchet

Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): " proposed conservation. M. E.
Gordon . .

Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed confirmation of
Chelanops dentatus Banks, 1895 as the type species. M.S. Harvey .

Holostaspis subbadius var. robustulus Berlese, 1904 (currently Macrocheles robustulus,
Arachnida, Acarina): proposed conservation as the correct spelling of the a
name. R. B. Halliday .

Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea, ‘Isopoda): proposed precedence over
Palaega Woodward, 1870. J. W. Martin & H. G. Kuck .

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed designation of
Carcinochelis alutaceus Handlirsch, 1897 as the type species. R. C. Froeschner &
N. A. Kormilev. :

Steno attenuatus Gray, 1846 (currently Stenella attenuata: Mammalia, Cetacea):
proposed conservation of the specific name. W.F. Perrin . ;

Note and Comments

On Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) and the neotype of its type species.
P. K. Tubbs .

On the proposed fixation of type species for Larnaudia and Ranguna Bott, 1966
(Crustacea, Decapoda). P.K. L. Ng; L. B.Holthuis. .

On the proposed designation of Lecanium coffeae Walker, 1852 as the type species of
Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Insecta, Homoptera). G. De Lotto;C. Hodgson. . .

On the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). R. W. Crosskey .

On the proposed conservation of Callionymus pusillus Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes). A. Wheeler; R. Fricke . J

On the proposed designation of a neotype for Elephas Bree (currently
Mammuthus primigenius; Mammalia, a H. D. Kahlke; A. V. Sher; Alan
Gentry; A. P. Currant. : BRT Sg BEN) SE (oe SA ea

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

TE 12!

Volume 47, Part 2, 29 June 1990 pp. 85-172 | ISSN 0007-5167

Zoological

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers
President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany)
Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Members
Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (Jtaly; Myriapoda)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
(Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
(Norway, Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y. I. Starobogatov

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F.C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V.A. Trjapitzin

(Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Secretariat

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)

Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Miss R. A. Cooper, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

i
i

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 47, part 2 (pp. 85-172) 29 June 1990

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publication,
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 47, part | (published on 27 March 1990):

(1) Pliocercus Cope, 1860 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed conservation, and
P. elapoides Cope, 1860: proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case
2752). H.M. Smith, K.L. Williams, V. Wallach & D. Chiszar.

(2) Cycloceras McCoy, 1844 (Mollusca, Nautiloidea): proposed designation of
C. laevigatum McCoy, 1844 as the type species, and proposed designation
of a neotype for C. laevigatum. (Case 2753). K. Histon.

(3) Scoparipes Signoret, 1879 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed confirmation of
Cydnus latipes Westwood, 1837 as the type species. (Case 2754). J.A. Lis.

(4) Eurymela bicincta Erichson, 1842 (currently Eurymeloides bicincta; Insecta,
Homoptera): proposed conservation and designation of a neotype. (Case
2755). M.M. Stevens & M.J. Fletcher.

(5) Proagoderus Lansberge, 1883 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation.
(Case 2756). C. Palestrini.

(6) Rhinapion Beguin-Billecocq, 1905 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser-
vation. (Case 2757). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga & M. Wanat.

(7) Buprestis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed confirmation of
B. octoguttata Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species. (Case 2758). G.H. Nelson &
W.F. Barr.

(8) Goniosoma conspersum Perty, December 1833 (currently Mitobates conspersus;
Arachnida, Opiliones): proposed precedence over Mitobates triangulus
Sundevall, April 1833. (Case 2759). A.B. Kury.

86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

(9) Rhipidocystis Jaekel, 1900 (Echinodermata, Eocrinoidea): proposed desig-
nation of R. baltica Jaekel, 1900 as the type species. (Case 2760). S.V. Rozhnov.

(10) Chrysops atlanticus Pechuman, 1949 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed precedence
over C. canifrons Walker, 1848. (Case 2761). J.E. Chainey.

(11) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed conservation of G. longiceps
Portlock, 1843 as the type species. (Case 2762). G. Hahn.

(12) Coccinella undecimnotata Schneider, 1792 (currently Hippodamia ( Semiadalia )
umdecimnotata; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific
name. (Case 2763). R.D. Pope.

(13) Acrolocha Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case
2764). M.K. Thayer.

(14) Phyllodoce Lamarck, 1818 (Annelida, Polychaeta): proposed conservation.
(Case 2765). F. Pleijel.

(15) Conus fulmen Reeve, 1843 and C. berghausi Michelotti, 1847 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed precedence over C. modestus Sowerby, 1833 and
C. demissus Philippi, 1836 respectively. (Case 2766). A.J. Kohn.

(16) Drosophila hydei Sturtevant, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of
the specific name. (Case 2767). C.R. Vilela & G. Bachli.

(d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion, Declaration or Direction published in
the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the
day of publication of the Bulletin.

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

The following members of the Commission reach the end of their terms of service at
the close of the XXIV General Assembly of the International Union of Biological
Sciences to be held in Amsterdam in September 1991: Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia,
Herpetology); Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany, Arachnology); Dr M.
Mroczkowski (Poland, Coleoptera); Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia, Mammalia). A
further vacancy arises from the resignation of Dr G. C. Gruchy (Canada, Ichthyology).

The addresses and specialist fields of the present members of the Commission may be
found in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 47(1) (March 1990). Under Article 3b
of the Commission’s Constitution a member whose term of service has terminated is
not eligible for immediate re-election unless the Council of the Commission has decided
to the contrary.

The Commission now invites nominations, by any person or institution, of candi-
dates for membership. Article 26 of the Constitution prescribes that:

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

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

Nominations made since September 1987 will be reconsidered automatically and
need not be repeated. Additional nominations, giving the date of birth, nationality and

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 87

qualifications (by the criteria mentioned above) of each candidate should be sent by
1 June 1991 to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD,
U.K.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in
Zoology — Supplement

In the three years 1986-1988, 544 names and three works were added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these additional
entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This supplement
was circulated with Vol. 46, Part | of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Copies
can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses, from which the
Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage included).
Payment should accompany orders.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110

or
The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to
members of A.A.Z.N.).

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19
or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological
Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History,
Washington, D.C. 20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment
should accompany orders.

88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Bully for Brontosaurus

A minor victory snatched from the jaws of taxonomic triviality
by Stephen Jay Gould

This article by Dr Gould originally appeared in Natural History, February 1990, pp. 16-24,
published by the American Museum of Natural History, New York. It is reproduced here by
permission. Offprints can be obtained from the Commission Secretariat.

Question: What do Catherine the Great, Attila the Hun, and Bozo the Clown have in
common? Answer: They all have the same middle name.

Question: What do San Marino, Tannu Tuva, and Monaco have in common?
Answer: They all realized that they could print pretty pieces of perforated paper, call
them stamps, and sell them at remarkable prices to philatelists throughout the world
(did these items ever bear any relationship to postage or utility? Does anyone own a
canceled stamp from Tannu Tuva?). Some differences, however, must be admitted.
Although San Marino (a tiny principality within Italy) and Tannu Tuva (a former state
adjacent to Mongolia but now annexed to the Soviet Union) may rely on stamps for a
significant fraction of their GNP, Monaco, as we all know, has another considerable
source of outside income — the casino of Monte Carlo (nurtured by all the hype and
elegance of the Grimaldis — Prince Rainier, Grace Kelly, and all that).

So completely do we identify Monaco with Monte Carlo that we can scarcely
imagine any other activity, particularly something productive, taking place in this little
land of fantasy and fractured finances.

Nonetheless, people are born, work, and die in Monaco. And this tiny nation boasts,
among other amenities, a fine station for oceanographic research. This combination of
science and hostelry makes Monaco an excellent place for large professional meetings.
In 1913, Monaco hosted the International Zoological Congress, the largest of all
meetings within my clan. This 1913 gathering adopted the important Article 79, or
‘plenary powers decision’, stating that ‘when stability of nomenclature is threatened in
an individual case, the strict application of the Code may under specified conditions be
suspended by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature’.

Now] will not blame any reader for puzzlement over the last paragraph. The topic —
rules for giving scientific names to organisms — is easy enough to infer. But why should
we be concerned with such legalistic arcana? Bear with me. We shall detour around the
coils of Boa constrictor, meet the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
head-on, and finally arrive at a hot issue now generating much passion and acrimony at
the heart of our greatest contemporary fad. You may deny all concern for rules of
taxonomy, our last domain of active Latin (now that Catholtcism has embraced the
vernacular), but millions of Americans are now het up about the proper name of
Brontosaurus, the canonical dinosaur. And you can’t grasp the name of the beast
without engaging the beastly rules of naming.

Nonprofessionals often bridle at the complex Latin titles used by naturalists as
official designations for organisms. Latin is a historical legacy from the foundation
of modern taxonomy in the mid-eighteenth century—a precomputer age when

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 89

Romespeak was the only language shared by scientists throughout the world. The
names may seem cumbersome, now that most of us pass our youthful years before a
television set, rather than declaiming hic-haec-hoc and amo-amas-amat. But the
principle is sound. Effective communication demands that organisms have official
names, uniformly recognized in all countries, while a world of changing concepts and
increasing knowledge requires that rules of naming foster maximal stability and
minimal disruption.

New species are discovered every day; old names must often change as we correct
past errors and add new information. If every change of concept demanded a redesig-
nation of all names and a reordering of all categories, natural history would devolve
into chaos. Our communications would fail as species, the basic units of all our dis-
course, would have no recognized labels. All past literature would be a tangle of
changing designations, and we could not read without a concordance longer than the
twenty volumes of the Oxford English Dictionary.

The rules for naming animals are codified in the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature,* as adopted and continually revised by the International Union of
Biological Sciences (plant people have a different code based on similar principles). The
latest edition (1985) is bound in bright red and runs to 338 pages. I will not attempt to
summarize the contents, but only state the primary goal: to promote maximal stability
as new knowledge demands revision.

Consider the most prevalent problem demanding a solution in the service of stability:
when a single species has been given two or more names, how do we decide which to
validate and which to reject? This common situation can arise for several reasons: two
scientists, each unaware of the other’s work, may name the same animal; or a single
scientist, mistaking a variable species for two or more separate entities, may give more
than one name to members of the same species. A simple and commonsensical
approach might attempt to resolve all such disputes with a principle of priority — let
the oldest name prevail. In practice, such ‘obvious’ solutions rarely work. The history
of taxonomy since Linnaeus has featured three sequential approaches to this classical
problem.

1. Appropriateness. Modern nomenclature dates from the publication, in 1758, of
the tenth edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae. In principle, Linnaeus endorsed the
rule of priority. In practice, he and most of his immediate successors commonly
changed names for reasons, often idiosyncratic, of supposed ‘appropriateness’. If the
literal Latin of an original name ceased to be an accurate descriptor, new names were
often given. (For example, a species originally named floridensis to denote a restricted
geographic domain might be renamed americanus if it later spread throughout the
country.)

Some unscrupulous taxonomists used appropriateness as a thinly veiled tactic to
place their own stamp upon species by raiding rather than by scientific effort. A
profession supposedly dedicated to expanding knowledge about things began to
founder into a quagmire of arguments about names. In the light of such human foibles,
appropriateness could not work as a primary criterion for taxonomic names.

*Copies of the Code can be obtained from I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19 or US$35, or from The American
Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural
History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price US$35 (US$32 to members of A.A.Z.N.).

90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

2. Priority. The near anarchy of appropriateness provoked a chorus of demands for
reform and codification. The British Association for the Advancement of Science
finally appointed a committee to formulate a set of official rules for nomenclature. The
Strickland Committee, obedient to the age-old principle that periods of permissiveness
lead to stretches of law ’n order (before the cycle swings round again), reported in 1842
with a ‘strict construction’ that must have brought joy to all Robert Borks of the day.
Priority in publication shall be absolutely and uncompromisingly enforced. No ifs,
ands, buts, quibbles, or exceptions.

This decision may have ended the anarchy of capricious change, but it introduced
another impediment, perhaps even worse, based on the exaltation of incompetence.
When new species are introduced by respected scientists, in widely read publications
with clear descriptions and good illustrations, people take notice and the names pass
into general use. But when Ignatz Doofus publishes a new name with a crummy
drawing and a few lines of telegraphic and muddled description in the Proceedings of
the Philomathematical Society of Pfennighalbpfennig (circulation 533), it passes into
well-deserved oblivion. Unfortunately, under the Strickland Code of strict priority,
Herr Doofus’s name, if published first, becomes the official moniker of the species — so
long as Doofus didn’t break any rule in writing his report. The competence and useful-
ness of his work has no bearing on the decision. The resultant situation is perversely
curious. What other field defines its major activity by the work of the least skilled?
As Charles Michener, our greatest taxonomist of bees, once wrote: ‘In other sciences
the work of incompetents is merely ignored; in taxonomy, because of priority, it is
preserved.’

If the Sterling/Doofus ratio were high, priority might pose few problems in practice.
Unfortunately, those ‘Philomathematical Societies’ once formed a veritable army,
issuing cannonade after cannonade of publications filled with new names destined for
oblivion but technically constituted in correct form. Since every profession has its petty
legalists, its boosters of tidiness and procedure over content, natural history sank into a
mire of unproductive pedantry that, in Ernst Mayr’s words, ‘deflected taxonomists
from biological research into bibliographic archeology’. Legions of technocrats
delighted in searching obscure and forgotten publications for an earlier name that
could displace some long-accepted and stable usage. Acrimonious arguments prolifer-
ated, for Doofus’s inadequate descriptions rarely permitted an unambiguous identifi-
cation of his earlier name with any well-defined species. Thus, a rule introduced to
establish stability against capricious change for appropriateness sowed even greater
disruption by forcing the abandonment of accepted names for forgotten predecessors.

3. Plenary Powers. The abuses of Herr Doofus and his ilk induced a virtual rebellion
among natural historians. A poll of Scandinavian zoologists, taken in 1911, yielded 2 in
favor and 120 opposed to strict priority. All intelligent administrators know that the
key to a humane and successful bureaucracy lies in creative use of the word ordinarily.
Strict rules of procedure are ordinarily inviolable — unless a damned good reason for
disobedience arises, and then flexibility permits humane and rational exceptions. The
Plenary Powers Rule, adopted in Monaco in 1913 to stem the revolt against strict
priority, is a codification of the estimable principle of ordinarily. It provided, as quoted
early in this essay, that the first designation shall prevail, unless a later name has been so
widely accepted that its suppression in favor of a forgotten predecessor would sow
confusion and instability.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 91

Such exceptions to strict priority cannot be asserted by individuals but must be
officially granted by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
acting under its plenary powers. The procedure is somewhat cumbersome and demands
a certain investment of time and paper work, but the plenary powers rule has served
us well and has finally achieved stability by locating the fulcrum between strict
priority and proper exception. To suppress an earlier name under the plenary powers, a
taxonomist must submit a formal application and justification to the International
Commission (a body of some thirty professional zoologists). The Commission then
publishes the case, invites commentary from taxonomists throughout the world, con-
siders the initial appeal with all elicited support and rebuttal, and makes a decision by
majority vote.

The system has worked well, as two cases may illustrate. The protozoan species
Tetrahymena pyriforme has long been a staple for biological research, particularly on
the physiology of single-celled organisms. John Corliss counted more than 1,500
papers published over a twenty-seven-year span — all using this name. However, at
least ten technically valid names, entirely forgotten and unused, predate the first publi-
cation of Tetrahymena. No purpose would be served by resurrecting any of these earlier
designations and suppressing the universally accepted Tetrahymena. Corliss’s petition
to the Commission was accepted without protest, and Tetrahymena has been officially
accepted under the plenary powers.

One of my favorite names recently had a much closer brush with official extinction.
The generic names of many animals are the same as their common designation: the
gorilla is Gorilla; the rat, Rattus. But I know only one case of a vernacular name
identical with both generic and specific parts of the technical Latin. The boa constrictor
is (but almost wasn’t) Boa constrictor, and it would be a damned shame if we lost this
lovely consonance. Nevertheless, in 1976, Boa constrictor barely survived one of the
closest contests ever brought before the Commission, as thirteen members voted to
suppress this grand name in favor of Boa canina, while fifteen noble nays stood firm and
saved the day. The details are numerous and not relevant to this essay. Briefly, in the
founding document of 1758, Linnaeus placed nine species in his genus Boa, including
canina and constrictor. As later zoologists divided Linnaeus’s overly broad concept of
Boa into several genera, a key question inevitably arose: which of Linnaeus’s original
species should become the ‘type’ (or name bearer) of the restricted version of Boa,
and which should be assigned to other genera. Many professional herpetologists had
accepted canina as the best name bearer (and assigned constrictor to another genus);
but a world of both technical and common usage from text books to zoo labels to
horror films recognized Boa constrictor. The Commission narrowly opted, in a tight
squeeze (sorry, I couldn’t resist that one), for the name we all know and love. Ernst
Mayr, in casting his decisive vote, cited the virtue of stability in validating common
usage — the basis for the plenary powers decision in the first place:

I think here is clearly a case where stability is best served by following usage in the
general zoological literature. I have asked numerous zoologists ‘what species does
the genus Boa call to your mind?’ and they all said immediately ‘constrictor’....
Making constrictor the type of Boa will remove all ambiguity from the literature.

These debates often strike non-professionals as a bit ridiculous — a sign, perhaps,
that taxonomy is more wordplay than science. After all, science studies the external

92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

world (through the dark glass of our prejudices and perceptions to be sure). Questions
of first publication versus common usage have nothing to do with the animals ‘out
there’, but only with human conventions for naming. But this is the point, not the
problem. These are debates about names, not things — and the arbitrary criteria of
human decision making, not boundaries imposed by the external world, apply to our
resolutions. The aim of these debates (although not always, alas, the outcome) is to cut
through the verbiage, reach a stable and practical decision, and move on to the world of
things.

Which leads, via a segue of some admitted roughness, back to philately. The
United States government, jumping on the greatest bandwagon since the hula hoop,
has just issued four striking stamps bearing pictures of dinosaurs —and labeled,
Tyrannosaurus, Stegosaurus, Pteranodon, and Brontosaurus.

Thrusting itself, with all the zeal of a convert, into the heart of commercial hype, the
U.S. Post Office seems committed to shedding its image for stodginess in one fell, crass
swoop. Its small brochure, announcing October as ‘national stamp collecting month’,
manages to sponsor a contest, establish a tie-in both with T-shirts and a videocassette
for The Land Before Time, and offer a dinosaur “discovery kit’ (a $9.95 value for just
$3.95; ‘valid while supplies last. Better hurry!’). You will, in this context, probably not
be surprised to learn that the stamps were officially launched on 1 October 1989, in
Orlando, Florida, at Disney World.

Amidst this maelstrom of marketing, the Post Office has also engendered quite a
brouhaha about the supposed subject of one stamp — a debate given such prominence
in the press that much of the public (at least judging from my voluminous mail) now
thinks that an issue of great scientific importance has been raised to the detriment and
shame of an institution otherwise making a worthy step to modernity. (We must leave
this question for another time, but I confess great uneasiness about such approbation.
I appreciate the argument that T-shirts and videos heighten awareness and expose
aspects of science to millions of kids otherwise unreached. I understand why many will
accept the forceful spigot of hype, accompanied by the watering-down of content — all
in the interest of extending contact. But the argument works only if, having made
contact, we can then woo these kids to a deeper intellectual interest and commitment.
Unfortunately, we are often all too ready to compromise. We hear the blandishments:
dumb it down; hype it up. But go too far and there is no turning back; you lose your
own soul by dripping degrees. The space for wooing disappears down the maw of
commercialism. Too many wise people, from Shakespeare to my grandmother, have
said that dignity is the only bit of our being that cannot be put up for sale.)

This growing controversy has even reached the august editorial pages of the New
York Times (11 October 1989), and their description serves as a fine epitome of the
supposed mess:

The Postal Service has taken heavy flak for mislabeling its new 25-cent dinosaur
stamp, a drawing of a pair of dinosaurs captioned ‘Brontosaurus’. Furious purists
point out that the ‘brontosaurus’ is now properly called ‘apatosaurus’. They accuse
the stamp’s authors of fostering scientific illiteracy, and want the stamps recalled.

Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus. Which is right? How important is this issue? How
does it rank amidst a host of other controversies surrounding this and other dinosaurs:
what head belongs on this dinosaur (whether it be called Brontosaurus or Apatosaurus);

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 93

were these large dinosaurs warmblooded; why did they become extinct? The press often
does a good job of reporting the basic facts of a dispute, but fails miserably in supplying
the context that would allow a judgment about importance. I have tried, in the first
part of this essay, to supply the necessary context for grasping Brontosaurus versus
Apatosaurus. I regret to report, and shall now document, that the issue could hardly be
more trivial — for the dispute is only about names, not about things. The empirical
question was settled to everyone’s satisfaction in 1903. To understand the argument
about names, we must know the rules of taxonomy and something about the history of
debate on the principle of priority. But the exposure of context for Brontosaurus versus
Apatosaurus does provide an interesting story in itself and does raise important issues
about the public presentation of science — and thus do I hope to snatch victory (or at
least interest) from the jaws of defeat (or triviality).

Brontosaurus versus Apatosaurus is a direct legacy of the most celebrated feud in the
history of vertebrate paleontology — Cope versus Marsh. As E.D. Cope and O.C.
Marsh vied for the glory of finding spectacular dinosaurs and mammals in the
American West, they fell into a pattern of rush and superficiality born of their intense
competition and mutual dislike. Both wanted to bag as many names as possible, so
they published too quickly, often with inadequate descriptions, careless study, and
poor illustrations. In this unseemly rush, they frequently gave names to fragmentary
material that could not be well characterized and sometimes described the same
creature twice by failing to make proper distinctions among the fragments. (For a good
history of this issue, see D.S. Berman and J.S. McIntosh, ‘Skull and Relationships of
the Upper Jurassic Sauropod Apatosaurus’, Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural
History, no. 8, 1978. These authors point out that both Cope and Marsh often
described and officially named a species when only a few bones had been excavated and
most of the skeleton remained in the ground.)

In 1877, in a typically rushed note, O.C. Marsh named and described Apatosaurus
ajax in two paragraphs without illustrations (“Notice of New Dinosaurian Reptiles
from the Jurassic Formation’, American Journal of Science, vol. 14, 1877, pp. 514-16).
Although he noted that this ‘gigantic dinosaur . . . is represented in the Yale Museum
by a nearly complete skeleton in excellent preservation’, Marsh described only the
vertebral column. In 1879, he published another page of information and presented the
first sketchy illustrations — of pelvis, shoulder blade, and a few vertebrae (‘Principal
Characters of American Jurassic Dinosaurs, Part II’, American Journal of Science, vol.
17, 1879, pp. 86-92). He also took this opportunity to pour some vitriol upon Mr
Cope, claiming that Cope had misnamed and misdescribed several forms in his haste.
‘Conclusions based on such work’, Marsh asserts, ‘will naturally be received with
distrust by anatomists.’

In another 1879 article, Marsh introduced the genus Brontosaurus, with two
paragraphs (even shorter than those initially devoted to Apatosaurus), no illustrations,
and just a few comments on the pelvis and vertebrae. He did estimate the length of his
new beast at seventy to eighty feet, in comparison with some fifty feet for Apatosaurus
(‘Notice of New Jurassic Reptiles’, American Journal of Science, vol. 18, 1879,
pp. 501-5).

Marsh considered Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus as distinct but closely related
genera within the larger family of sauropod dinosaurs. But Brontosaurus soon became
everyone’s typical sauropod — indeed the canonical herbivorous dinosaur of popular

94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

consciousness, from the Sinclair logo to Walt Disney’s Fantasia — for a simple and
obvious reason. Marsh’s Brontosaurus skeleton, from the most famous of all dinosaur
localities at Como Bluff quarry 10, Wyoming, remains to this day ‘one of the most
complete sauropod skeletons ever found’ (quoted from Berman and McIntosh, cited
previously). Marsh mounted the skeleton at Yale and often published his spectacular
reconstruction of the entire animal. (Apatosaurus, meanwhile, remained a pelvis and
some vertebrae.) In his great summary work, The Dinosaurs of North America, Marsh
wrote (1896): “The best-known genus of the Atlantosauridae is Brontosaurus, described
by the writer in 1879, the type specimen being a nearly entire skeleton, by far the most
complete of any of the Sauropoda yet discovered.’ Brontosaurus also became the source
of the old stereotype, now so strongly challenged, of slow, stupid, lumbering dinosaurs.
Marsh wrote in 1883, when presenting his full reconstruction of Brontosaurus for the
first time:

A careful estimate of the size of Brontosaurus, as here restored, shows that when
living the animal must have weighed more than twenty tons. The very small head and
brain, and slender neural cord, indicate a stupid, slow-moving reptile. The beast was
wholly without offensive or defensive weapons, or dermal armature. In habits,
Brontosaurus was more or less amphibious, and its food was probably aquatic plants
or other succulent vegetation.

In 1903, Elmer Riggs of the Field Museum in Chicago restudied Marsh’s sauropods.
Paleontologists had realized by then that Marsh had been overgenerous in his desig-
nation of species (a ‘splitter’ in our jargon), and that many of his names would have to
be consolidated. When Riggs restudied Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus, he recognized
them as two versions of the same creature, with Apatosaurus as a more juvenile
specimen. No big deal; it happens all the time. Riggs rolled the two genera into one in
a single paragraph:

The genus Brontosaurus was based chiefly upon the structure of the scapula and
the presence of five vertebrae in the sacrum. After examining the type specimens of
these genera, and making a careful study of the unusually well-preserved specimen
described in this paper, the writer is convinced that the Apatosaur specimen is merely
a young animal of the form represented in the adult by the Brontosaur specimen. .. .
In view of these facts the two genera may be regarded as synonymous. As the term
‘Apatosaurus’ has priority, ‘Brontosaurus’ will be regarded as a synonym.

In 1903, ten years before the plenary powers decision, strict priority ruled in zoologi-
cal nomenclature. Thus, Riggs had no choice but to sink the later name, Brontosaurus,
once he had decided that Marsh’s earlier name, Apatosaurus, represented the same
animal. But then I rather doubt that Riggs would have gone to bat for Brontosaurus
even if he could have submitted a case on its behalf. After all, Brontosaurus was not yet
an icon of pop culture in 1903 — no Sinclair logo, no Alley-Oop, no Fantasia, no Land
Before Time. Both names were generally unknown, and Riggs probably didn’t lament
the demise of Brontosaurus.

No one has ever seriously challenged Riggs’s conclusion, and professionals have
always accepted his synonymy. But Publication 82 of the ‘Geological Series of the Field
Columbian Museum’ for 1903 — the reference for Riggs’s article — never gained much
popular currency. The name Brontosaurus, still affixed to skeletons in museums

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 95

throughout the world, still perpetuated in countless popular and semi-technical books
about nature, never lost its luster, despite its technical limbo. Anyone could have
applied to the Commission for suppression of Apatosaurus under the plenary powers in
recognition of the widespread popularity and stability of Brontosaurus. I suspect that
such an application would have succeeded. But no one bothered, and a good name
remains in limbo. (I also wish that someone had fought for the suppression of the
unattractive and inappropriate name Hyracotherium in favor of the lovely but later
Eohippus, also coined by Marsh. But again, no one did.)

I’m afraid there’s not much more to this story — not nearly the issue hyped by your
newspapers as the great stamp flap. No argument of fact arises at all, just a question of
names, settled in 1903, but never transferred to a general culture that continues to learn
and favor the technically invalid name Brontosaurus. But the story does illustrate
something troubling about the presentation of science in popular media. The world of
USA Today is a place of instant fact and no analysis. Hundreds of bits come at us
in pieces never lasting more than a few seconds—for the dumbdowners tell us
that average Americans can’t assimilate anything more complex or pay attention to
anything longer.

This oddly ‘democratic’ procedure makes all bits equal — the cat who fell off a roof
in Topeka (and lived) gets the same space as the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Democracy is a magnificent system for human rights and morality in general, but it just
doesn’t apply to the evaluation of information. We are bombarded with too much in
our inordinately complex world; if we cannot sort the trivial from the profound, we
are lost in terminal overload. The criteria for sorting must involve context and
theory — the larger perspective that a good education provides.

In the current dinosaur craze without context, all bits are mined for their superficial
news value as items in themselves—a lamentable tendency abetted by the ‘trivial
pursuits’ one-upmanship that confers status on people who know (and flaunt) the most
bits. (If you play this dangerous game in real life, remember that ignorance of context is
the surest mark of a phony. If you approach me in wild lament, claiming that our postal
service has mocked the deepest truth of paleontology, I will know that you have only
skimmed the surface of my field.)

Consider the four items mentioned earlier in this essay. They are often presented in
USA Today style as equal factoids. But with a context to sort the trivial from the
profound, we may recognize some as statements about words, others as entries to
the most general questions we can ask about the history of life. Apatosaurus versus
Brontosaurus is a legalistic quibble about words and rules of naming. Leave the
Post Office alone. They take enough flak (much justified of course) as it is. The proper
head for Apatosaurus is an interesting empirical issue, but of little moment beyond
the sauropods. Marsh found no skull associated with either his Apatosaurus or his
Brontosaurus skeleton. He guessed wrong and mounted the head of another sauropod
genus called Camarosaurus. Apatosaurus actually bore a head much more like that of
the different genus Diplodocus. The head issue (Camarosaurus-like versus Diplodocus-
like) and the name issue (Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus) are entirely separate
questions, although they have been confused in the press.

The question of warmbloodedness (quite unresolved at the moment) is more
general still, as it affects our basic concepts of dinosaur physiology and efficiency. The
issue of extinction is the broadest of all — for basic patterns of life’s history are set by

96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

differential survival of groups through episodes of mass dying. We are here today,
arguing about empty issues like Apatosaurus versus Brontosaurus, because mammals
got through the great Cretaceous extinction, while dinosaurs did not.

[hate to bea shill for the Post Office, but I think that they made the right decision this
time. Responding to the great Apatosaurus flap, Postal Bulletin Number 21744 pro-
claimed: ‘Although now recognized by the scientific community as Apatosaurus, the
name Brontosaurus was used for the stamp because it is more familiar to the general
population. Similarly, the term dinosaur has been used generically to describe all the
animals, even though the Pteranodon was a flying reptile’. Touché and right on; no one
bitched about Pteranodon, and that’s a real error. Moreover, members of the American
Museum and readers of this magazine have no right to upbraid the Post Office. Page
twenty-nine of the November 1989 Natural History features an ad for dinosaur neckties
sold by the American Museum shop. The list includes Pteranodon, Dimetrodon (a
mammalian ancestor, not a dinosaur), and ‘Brontosaurus’ proudly so called.

The Post Office has been more right than the complainers, for Uncle Sam has worked
in the spirit of the plenary powers rule. Names fixed in popular usage may be validated
even if older designations have technical priority. But now... Oh Lord, why didn’t I see
it before! Now I suddenly grasp what this is all about! It’s a plot, a dastardly plot
sponsored by the apatophiles — that secret society long dedicated to gaining support
for Marsh’s original name against a potential appeal to the plenary powers. They never
had a prayer before. Whatever noise they made, whatever assassinations they
attempted, they could never get anyone to pay attention, never disturb the tranquillity
and general acceptance of Brontosaurus. But now that the Post Office officially
adopted Brontosaurus, they have found their opening. Now enough people know about
Apatosaurus for the first time. Now an appeal to the plenary powers would not lead to
the validation of Brontosaurus, for Apatosaurus has gained precious currency. They
have won; we brontophiles have been defeated.

Apatosaurus means ‘deceptive lizard’; Brontosaurus means ‘thunder lizard’ —a far,
far better name (but appropriateness, alas, as we have seen, counts for nothing). They
have deceived us; we brontophiles have been outmaneuvered. Oh well, graciousness in
defeat before all (every bit as important as dignity, if not an aspect thereof). I retreat,
not with a bang of thunder, but with a whimper of hope that rectification may someday
arise from the ashes of my stamp album.

Stephen Jay Gould teaches biology, geology, and the history of science at Harvard
University.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 97

Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea
for stability

Alwyne Wheeler

Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IG10 4AF,
U.K.

Although family names are essential to the elaboration of a hierarchical system of
classification such as is required by systematists, they serve other important functions.
Because family groupings provide a more readily understood unit of classification to
non-systematists than those above or below family level they are widely used, giving a
group name of manageable comprehension. In addition, retrieval systems, whether in
current awareness services or library indexes and in both manual and computerized
forms, and biological recording systems depend heavily on groupings at family
level. This level is the base line on which most of these systems operate. Their import-
ance cannot be overestimated, nor can the need to stabilize usage in acceptably clear
forms.

Family names have an important role in formal communication in that papers of a
scientific nature usually include within the title or abstract both family and ordinal
names (a practice on which abstracting services and retrieval systems depend). Both
informal writing and oral communication also rely heavily on family names and their
use provides a framework within which the reader or listener can relate the information
to known parameters. Biologists who are not primarily taxonomists, for example
fishery workers, environmental archaeologists, and ecologists, employ family names
in both formal and informal contexts. Because family names usually have a greater
stability once properly established they occupy an important role in communication
within the biological sciences. It is therefore desirable that they are stable in form and in
usage; as an example, this was recognized by the Commission 32 years ago when (in
Opinion 500) the name PIERIDAE was accepted for the ‘White’ butterflies, rather than
the grammatically correct PIERIDIDAE.

In fishes, after a long period of relative uniformity of usage, uncertainty about the
form of some family names has been created by Steyskal’s (1980) claim that several
widely used family names are not grammatically correct in form. As a result some
ichthyologists have adopted the form recommended by Steyskal, other have deliber-
ately ignored his recommendations. Some of the former, after many years of using the
‘incorrect’ form, are now advocating the ‘correct’ usage in non-taxonomic fields with
the zeal of the newly-converted, which causes confusion.

Two cases in which maintenance of a widely used family name of ‘incorrect’ form has
been defended by an authority in the group — COBITIDAE rather than COBITIDIDAE, and
LIPARIDAE rather than LIPARIDIDAE — have recently come before the Commission
(BZN 43: 360-362, 45: 178-179; and BZN 45: 130-131). Others will undoubtedly
follow in time.

Other examples involve groups of fishes which are frequently referred to in the
literature for various reasons. Thus, the anchovy family name ENGRAULIDAE (or
ENGRAULIDIDAE, as ‘corrected’ by Steyskal) for a group of very important commercial
fishes is frequently used in fisheries literature. The sleeper family ELEOTRIDAE (or

98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

ELEOTRIDIDAE) is extremely speciose in tropical shallow seas and freshwaters and
features frequently in literature on coastal ecology, as does the family of butterfishes,
PHOLIDAE (Or PHOLIDIDAE) in northern temperate and Arctic seas. Both the sting ray
and the eagle ray families, DASYATIDAE and MYLIOBATIDAE (Or DASYATIDIDAE and
MYLIOBATIDIDAE) have minimal importance in fisheries but feature in the medical
literature on account of the toxins associated with envenomed tail spines. Other fishes
feature in the literature on account of their interesting symbiotic behaviour or evol-
utionary interest, e.g. the shark sucker family ECHENEIDAE (or ECHENEIDIDAE) and the
pearl fishes CARAPIDAE (or CARAPODIDAE), while the Australian lung-fish, Neoceratodus
forsteri, is usually referred by authors to the family CERATODIDAE (but ‘should’ be
CERATODONTIDAE).

It will be apparent that many of the above examples of family names in their gram-
matically correct forms (in parentheses) are more complicated and thus more liable to
error in transcription, but, more importantly, become almost unpronounceable if
spoken either in formal usage or in adjectival form. This is a serious disadvantage when
these names are in widespread use by non-taxonomists.

Rather than adopting the grammatically correct forms of family names (vide
Skeyskal, 1980) without consideration of the consequences, it is preferable to analyse
past usage of these names. In another nomenclatural context Stearn (1985) refers to
usage resulting from ‘the consent of the learned’ which he defines as fairly consistent
usage by nineteenth-century botanists of standing. In the present case involving family
names which were rarely stabilized in the nineteenth century, I propose citing authors
of authoritative world surveys of recent fishes with the addition of the list of names
of North American fishes (Robins et al., 1980) which is a critical work compiled by
a committee of specialists. These authorities are Gunther (1860, 1861, 1868, 1870),
Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971)
and Nelson (1976). (Norman’s list is confined to marine fishes. The later edition of
Nelson (1984) followed Steyskal’s paper and is not quoted.) I have selected these
authors as forming ‘the consent of the learned’ because in listing recognized families
they have had to make a critical choice in spelling the name.

The ten family names cited above (including the two already referred to the
Commission) are listed below in alphabetical order with an indication of the form in
which they were employed by these authors. Where one of the authors is not cited he
made no reference to the family, or used another family name.

CARAPIDAE — Jordan (1923), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg
(1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). CARAPODIDAE — Steyskal (1980).
CERATODIDAE — Berg (1940), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976). CERATODONTIDAE —
Steyskal (1980), also used by Jordan (1923).

COBITIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971),
Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). CoBITIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980), used in the form
COBITIDINA by Giinther (1868). COBITIDAE was ruled to be the correct spelling in
Opinion 1500 (June 1988, BZN 45: 178-179).

DASYATIDAE — Jordan (1923), Norman (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins
et al. (1980). DASYATIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980).

ECHENEIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971),
Nelson (1976), Robins et al. G80): ECHENEIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980), also used by
Norman (1966).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 99

ELEOTRIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966),
Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). ELEOTRIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980).
ENGRAULIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Greenwood et al. (1966) in synonymy,
Norman (1966, as ENGRAULINAE), Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980).
Used in the form ENGRAULINA by Gunther (1868). ENGRAULIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980).
LIPARIDAE — Jordan (1923), Greenwood et al. (1966) in synonymy, Lindberg (1971).
Used in the form LIPARIDINA by Gunther (1861). LIPARIDIDAE — Steyskal (1980).
MYLIOBATIDAE — Gunther (1870), Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Norman (1966),
Lindberg (1971), Nelson (1976), Robins et al. (1980). MYLIOBATIDIDAE — Steyskal
(1980).

PHOLIDAE — Jordan (1923), Berg (1940), Robins et al. (1980). PHOLIDIDAE — Steyskal
(1980), as used by Norman (1966), Greenwood et al. (1966), Lindberg (1971), Nelson
(1976).

It can be seen from this that in most cases these authors have employed what are said
to be ‘incorrect’ names and as these are works of reference, widely cited when current,
the usage of all (except for PHOLIDAE) is heavily in favour of these names.

Steyskal’s proposals were critically reviewed by Robins et al. (1980) in their listing of
North American fishes and the majority were rejected in their list. In the introduction to
their check-list they ‘deplored’ the imposition of allegedly correct endings to some
family names overturning well established and familiar names. K ottelat (1984, p. 227),
Cocks (BZN 45: 179), Wheeler (BZN 45:292) and Mayr (BZN 46: 45) have opposed
changes in COBITIDAE and/or LIPARIDAE on the grounds of supposed correctness of
grammar. These comments reinforce the proposal relating to Article 29b(i) in the
Minutes of the Section of Zoological Nomenclature, [UBS Canberra (October 1988,
BZN 46: 16) that in the construction of family-group names in certain circumstances
the stem should be elided so that the name had the form -IDAE rather than -IDIDAE. This
note concluded that ichthyologists would favour such a change.

The confusion caused by Steyskal’s proposals could be resolved by application to the
Commission for rulings on each name, as has been done for COBITIDAE and LIPARIDAE.
However, this would be a time-consuming business and not cost-effective for either
ichthyologists or the staff of the Commission, and the lapse of time while cases were
prepared, amended and published and before a ruling could be given would cause a
great deal of uncertainty in use. The decision as to which, if any, of Steyskal’s proposed
amendments to 71 currently used family-group names could be adopted without
offending accepted usage (and particularly without producing infelicitous adjectival
nomenclature) cannot be undertaken piecemeal and calls for the urgent establishment
of an international committee of specialists to advise on fish nomenclature.

References

Berg, L.S. 1947. Classification of fishes both recent and fossil. 517 pp. Edwards, Ann Arbor.

Greenwood, P.H., Rosen, D.R., Weitzman, S.H. & Myers, G.S. 1966. Phyletic studies of
Teleostean fishes, with a provisional classification of living forms. Bulletin of the American
Museum of Natural History, 131(4): 339-456.

Giinther, A. 1860. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British
Museum. Vol. 2. 548 pp. British Museum, London.

Giinther, A. 1861. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygian Fishes in the Collection of the British
Museum. Vol. 3. 586 pp. British Museum, London.

100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Giinther, A. 1868. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 7.512 pp. British Museum,
London.

Giinther, A. 1870. Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum. Vol. 8. 549 pp. British Museum,
London.

Jordan, D.S. 1923 (1963). The genera of Fishes and Classification of Fishes. (Reprinted edition).
800 pp. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Kottelat, M. 1984. Revision of the Indonesian and Malaysian loaches of the subfamily
Noemacheilinae. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 31: 225-260.

Lindberg, G.U. 1971. Fishes of the World. A key to Families and a checklist. 545 pp. [Israel
Programme for Scientific Translations], New York.

Nelson, J.S. 1976. Fishes of the World. 417 pp. Wiley, New York.

Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. (Second edition). 523 pp. Wiley, New York.

Norman, J.R. 1966. Draft Synopsis of the Orders, Families and Genera of Recent Fishes and Fish-
like Vertebrates. 649 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B.
1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada.
Special Publication American Fisheries Society, No. 12. 174 pp.

Stearn, W.T. 1985. Hookerianus or hookeranus? Notes on the ending -erianus in plant names. The
Garden, 110(10): 463-465.

Steyskal, G.C. 1980. The grammar of family-group names as exemplified by those of fishes.
Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 93(1): 168-177.

[A comment on this Article appears in BZN 47: 138]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 101

Case 2630

Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola
barbata; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype
designation

Dietrich Kadolsky
Meadowcroft, 54 Ewell Downs Road, Ewell, Surrey KT17 3BN, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name barbata Férussac,
1832 in its accustomed usage for a S.E. European species of pulmonate gastropod. The
nomenclature of the nominal taxa Helix (Helicigona) lens Férussac, 1832 and H. (H.)
barbata Feérussac, 1832 has recently been reviewed by Gittenberger & Groh (1986), but
unfortunately their lectotype selection for barbata is not valid under the Code.

1. The names Helix (Helicigona) lens and H. (H.) barbata were both nomina nuda
when published by Férussac in 1821. Gittenberger & Groh (1986, p. 222), however,
consider barbata as available from 1821. As a completely different interpretation of
the names results from Férussac’s 1821 and 1832 publications, the subject of the
availability of H. (H.) barbata has to be addressed first.

2. The full text of Férussac 1821 (1821a, p. 37; 1821b, p. 41) reads:

‘NO. 152. BARBATA nobis.

a.) Minus depressa.

B) Brunnea.

Habit. Zante; Comm. le Cte MERCATI. Scio, Sestos, OLIVIER.
a) sur les rochers élevés prés la Sude, OLIVIER.

B) L’ile de Zante.

No. 153. LENS, nobis

Habit. L’ile de Ténérife, MAUGE.’

3. Gittenberger & Groh (1986) took the diagnoses of a and B as sufficient to validate
the nominal taxon Helix (Helicigona) barbata. However, when these diagnoses are
related to the list of localities, it is clear that only two of the three groups within the
species have been diagnosed. The most logical interpretation of the text is that the
undiagnosed group of specimens from ‘Zante’ and ‘Scio, Sestos’ is the typical group,
with a and B as variants. The usage of Greek lower case letters for infra-specific
categories (‘varieties’) was common in the period: the content of the diagnoses implies
a variation from the norm which is not specified; ‘a’ is less depressed than what? ‘p’
is coloured brown, but what is the colour of the others? Obviously the variants do
not define or describe the ‘typical’ form of the nominal species barbata; this name is
therefore not available from this work.

4. The species names /ens and barbata became available in 1832 with the publication
of figures on Plate 66* in the 23rd livraison of Férussac’s Histoire Naturelle .... (1832b),
for which an explanation was issued simultaneously (1832a). These bibliographic
details are according to Kennard (1942, p. 110). It should be noted here that the 1821

102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

and 1832 works were written by J.B.L. d’A. de Férussac and published posthumously
by his son, A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de Férussac. A study of the type series (dating from 1821)
of Helix lens and Helix barbatain the Laboratoire Biologique des Invertébrés Marins et
Malacologie, Paris, reveals that the meaning of the species names was interchanged
between Férussac 1821 and 1832. The type series are annotated below, as Gittenberger
& Groh’s description contains several errors regarding the status of the specimens. The
nomenclature used by Férussac in 1821 and 1832 and by Gittenberger & Groh in 1986
referring to the type specimens is tabulated for easy reference:

Notes Férussac, Férussac, 1832; Gittenberger & Groh, 1986

on the 1821; a, p. 37; a, p. 1); b, P1.66* (LT = lectotype designation)

type b, p. 41 [all

series nomina nuda]

1 barbata lens Fig.2 Lindholmiola lens LT Fig.2

Z barbataa — —

3 barbata B — Lindholmiola lens

4 - barbata var. a Lindholmiola barbata LT Fig.3
Fig.3

5 lens _ barbata Fig.4 Canariella fortunata

(Shuttleworth, 1852)

Notes on the type series

1. 5 specimens labelled ‘Helicigona Barbata nos. 1,2,3 du Cte. Mercaty Zante’; 4 speci-
mens labelled ‘Helix barbata Fér. de Sestos par M. Olivier 1819’. All are currently
known as Lindholmiola lens (Férussac, 1832), a species known to live in Greece.

2. No specimens could be identified amongst several lots of Lindholmiola lens, which
exist additionally to the type series mentioned under | above, in the Ferussac collection.
3. 4specimens labelled ‘Helicigona barbata var B) Brunnea. No. 4 Cte Mercaty. Zante’.
These are old shells of Lindholmiola lens stained by brown loam!

4. No material was found in the Férussac collection. This is obviously not the variety a
of 1821, which is said to be less depressed than the ‘typical’ form (cf. note 1), while
Fig. 3 shows a more depressed shell.

5. 2 specimens from Tenerife, labelled Helicigona lens, collected by Maugé. These are
Helix fortunata Shuttleworth, 1852 (p. 141; currently in Canariella), known to exist in
Tenerife.

5. The designation by Gittenberger & Groh of Pl. 66*, Fig. 2 as representing the
lectotype of Helix lens Férussac, 1832 is valid, but their designation of Fig. 3 for Helix
barbata is not, because it was referred to by Férussac (1832) as a variant (Article
72b(i) of the Code). Only the specimen on Fig. 4 would be available as a lectotype for
Helix barbata. Such a designation would have the unfortunate effect of rendering
Canariella fortunata (Shuttleworth, 1852) a junior objective synonym of H. barbata,
while a new name would have to be introduced for the species represented by Fig. 3
(E. Gittenberger pers. comm.).

6. Gittenberger & Groh’s lectotype designation for H. barbata would not be appro-
priate even under the assumption that the name is available from 1821. The material on
which H. (H.) barbata Férussac, 1821 was apparently based (Note 1 above) is referred

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 103

to lens by Férussac (1832) and by Gittenberger & Groh (1986). To choose a lectotype
for barbata from this material would give this name a meaning contrary to its estab-
lished use (Gittenberger & Groh, 1986), render H. (H.) /ens a junior objective synonym
and would again leave the species represented in Fig. 3 without its accustomed name
barbata, or indeed any name. Thus, in order to achieve nomenclatural stability in the
manner in which Gittenberger & Groh intended, it is necessary to use the plenary
powers to confirm their designation of the ‘var. a’ specimen on PI. 66%, fig. 3 as the
lectotype of H. (H.) barbata Férussac, 1832.

7. The principal purpose of this application is the confirmation of Gittenberger &
Groh’s lectotype designation for barbata, so removing any threat to the name /ens,
which has been accepted in the sense of Férussac’s Pl. 66*, fig. 2 since the publication
of this figure in 1832 (see Gittenberger & Groh, 1986). The nominal species Helix
(Helicigona) lens is the type species of the genus Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931 (p. 50) by

original designation. The proposals also have the effect of maintaining the names
_ Lindholmiola barbata and Canariella fortunata in their accustomed sense.

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

(1) to confirm that the name Helix (Helicigona) barbata is available from Férussac

(1832) and not from Feérussac (1821);

(2) to use its plenary powers to confirm the designation by Gittenberger & Groh
(1986) of the specimen figured by Férussac (1832, Pl. 66*, fig. 3) as the lectotype
of the nominal species Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832;

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lindholmiola
Hesse, 1931 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Helix
(Helicigona) lens Férussac, 1832;

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

(a) barbata Feérussac, 1832 as published in the combination Helix (Helicigona)
barbata and as interpreted by the lectotype confirmed in (2) above;

| (b) Jens Férussac, 1832 as published in the combination Helix (Helicigona) lens
| (specific name of the type species of Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931).

_ References

Férussac, J.B.L. d’A. de. 1821. Tableau systématique des animaux mollusques... suivis d’un

prodrome général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles. Tableau

systématique de la famille des limagons, Cochleae. Quarto edition (1821a): 111 pp.; Folio
edition (1821b): 114 pp. Bertrand, Paris.

Férussac, J.B.L. d’A. de. 1832. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres
et fluviatiles. 1832a: Explication des planches des livraisons 22-27, 4 pp. (issued jointly with
livraisons 22-27). 1832b: livraison 23. plates 8D, 9B, 27A, 64, 66*, 124A. Bertrand, Paris.

Gittenberger, E. & Groh, K. 1986. Zum Status der FERUSSAC’schen Taxa Helix lens und Helix
barbata (Pulmonata: Helicidae). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 116: 219-223.

Hesse, P. 1931. Zur Anatomie und Systematik palaearktischer Stylommatophoren. Zoologica,
31(81): 1-118.

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological
Society of London, 25: 12-17, 105-118.

Shuttleworth, R.J. 1852. Diagnosen einiger neuer Mollusken aus den Canarischen Inseln.

i Mittheilungen der naturforschenden Gesellschaft in Bern, 1852: 137-146.

| Zilch, A. 1959-1960. Gastropoda Euthyneura in Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der

Paldozoologie, vol. 6, part 2. xii, 835 pp. Berlin.

104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Case 2699

RISSOOIDEA (or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda):
proposed precedence over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA)
Gray, 1840

G. Rosenberg & G. M. Davis
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the family-group name
RISSOOIDEA Gray, 1847 for one of the largest superfamilies in the Mollusca. The name
is threatened by the senior family-group name TRUNCATELLOIDEA Gray, 1840, over
which it is proposed it be given precedence.

1. When Gray introduced the family-group names TRUNCATELLIDAE (1840, p. 117;
based on Truncatella Risso, 1826) and RISSOIDAE (1847, p. 152; as subfamily RISSOAINA,
based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), he did not consider the taxa to be closely related. He
allied the rissoids with the melaniids, whereas he grouped the truncatellids with the
pyramidellids and acteonids (1847, pp. 152, 159). Other authors of that period con-
nected the truncatellids with terrestrial operculates such as the helicinids and cyclo-
phorids (Binney, 1851, p. 351; H. & A. Adams, 1855, p. 273). Later, Bland & Binney
(1872), Tryon (1883, p. 277) and Vayssiére (1886) established the relationship of trun-
catellids with rissoids. Thiele (1929, p. 136) was the first to recognize RISSOACEA as a
superfamily, and he was followed by Wenz (1939, p. 554). Virtually all subsequent
authors have recognized the superfamily (Davis, 1979, p. 7). Thiele (p. 151) placed
Truncatella Risso, 1826 in the TRUNCATELLINAE in the HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857
(p. 106), whereas Wenz (p. 581) placed it directly in the TRUNCATELLIDAE. Baker (1956,
p. 29) was the first to suggest the use of a superfamilial name based on Truncatella; he
first used TRUNCATELLOIDEA in a classification in 1964 (p. 171).

2. Because TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 is on the Official List (1955, Opinion 344),
and because Baker (1956, 1960) pointed out that the name TRUNCATELLIDAE was older
than the names RISSOIDAE, HYDROBIIDAE and BITHYNIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (p. 101), the
priority of TRUNCATELLOIDEA Over RISSOOIDEA has been established. Despite this, mala-
cologists have continued to use RISSOOIDEA and RISSOACEA, and Davis (1979, p. 7) and
Ponder (1985, p. 15) explicitly favoured retention of RISSOACEA Over TRUNCATELLACEA.
Ponder (p. 15) stated that he intended to submit a petition to the ICZN to suppress
TRUNCATELLACEA in favour of RISSOACEA, and some authors have maintained use of
RISSOACEA for this reason (e.g. Bieler & Mikkelsen, 1988, p. 2).

3. We have given the Secretariat a representative list of 48 works published from
1959 to 1989 that place the TRUNCATELLIDAE or Truncatella in RISSOOIDEA OF RISSOACEA.
These works are by 55 authors in 19 countries. This list does not consider the hundreds
of authors who have used RISSOOIDEA or RISSOACEA in their classifications without
mention of Truncatella, TRUNCATELLIDAE Or TRUNCATELLOIDEA. The only authors we
have found who have given TRUNCATELLOIDEA priority over RISSOOIDEA are Baker

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 105

(1964), Burch and his co-workers (Burch, 1980, p. 136; 1982a, p. 3; 1982b, p. 219;
Upatham et al., 1983, pp. 114, 118; Burch & Chung, 1985, p. 34) and some in a volume
edited by Ponder in 1988 (Houbrick, p. 88; Ponder, p. 130; Ponder & Warén, p. 296;
but not Haszprunar, p. 7). In Burch (1980) and Burch & Chung (1985), RISSOOIDEA is
incorrectly attributed to H. & A. Adams (1854) rather than to Gray, 1847; it is not
attributed in Burch’s other works cited here. Ponder (1988, p. 130) stated *...[ regret the
necessity to abandon the almost universally used Rissooidea (Rissoacea) in favour of
Truncatelloidea because of the requirements of ICZN Art. 36. This is not, in my
opinion, a rule destined to maintain stability.” Ponder & Warén (1988, p. 296) stated
‘The continued use of Rissooidea (as Rissoacea) by the majority of malacologists,
including the authors, might argue in favour of having Truncatelloidea suppressed.’

4. Starobogatov (1970, pp. 26, 32) and Golikov & Starobogatov (1975, p. 210)
included TRUNCATELLIDAE and HYDROBIIDAE in the superfamily TRUNCATELLOIDEA,
and considered it equal in rank to RIssoomDeEA. In these classifications, the question of
priority of RISSOOIDEA and TRUNCATELLOIDEA does not arise.

5. Nordsieck (1972, p. 134; 1982, p. 63) used the superfamily HYDROBIOIDEA for
TRUNCATELLIDAE, HYDROBIIDAE and ASSIMINEIDAE H. & A. Adams, 1856 (p. 314), giving
it equal rank with the RIssoomeA. In this classification, TRUNCATELLOIDEA should be
given priority over HYDROBIOIDEA. We have found only one author, Koronéos (1979,
p. 6), who follows Nordsieck in placing TRUNCATELLIDAE 1n HYDROBIOIDEA. Nordsieck
misspelled RISSOOIDEA as ‘Rissoidea’ (1972, pp. 138, 153; 1982, pp. viii, 73). Radoman
independently introduced the superfamily HYDROBIOIDEA in 1973 (p. 4), but excluded
TRUNCATELLIDAE (Radoman, 1983, p. 23) without stating its systematic position.

6. The RISSOOIDEA is currently recognized as one of the largest superfamilies in
the Mollusca, containing 2000 to 4000 species. Changing the superfamily name to
TRUNCATELLOIDEA Would affect about ten percent of the subclass Prosobranchia. The

_ family TRUNCATELLIDAE contains fewer than 100 species (Clench & Turner, 1948).

7. The RISSOOIDEA includes medically important groups of snails, in particular the
POMATIOPSIDAE, Some members of which transmit schistosomes, which cause schisto-
somiasis, also called bilharziasis (reviewed by Davis, 1979, 1980).

8. When Truncatella Risso, 1826 was placed on the Official List by Opinion 344
(1955, pp. 315-316), its type species was cited as Truncatella laevigata Risso, 1826, by
designation by Woodward, 1854. However, Woodward did not treat Truncatella in
1854 but in 1851, as shown in the text of the Opinion (pp. 326, 340). Furthermore,

| Woodward (1851, p. 137) cited T. truncatula (Draparnaud, 1801, p. 115) as the type

species of Truncatella, and did not mention Truncatella laevigata or T. costulata Risso,
1826, the only two originally included species (Risso, p. 125). Woodward’s designation
is thus invalid. The next available designation is that by Lowe in 1855 (p. 217). Lowe
cited T. truncatula (Draparnaud) as the type species of Truncatella, but included T.
costulata and not T. laevigata in synonymy. This type designation is valid according to
Article 69a(v). This change in the type species does not affect the concept of the taxon
Truncatella, as T. costulata Risso, 1826, T. laevigata Risso, 1826, and Cyclostoma
truncatulum Draparnaud, 1801 are all regarded as junior subjective synonyms of Helix
subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767 (Opinion 344, pp. 326, 335).

9. The type genus of RISSOIDAE is Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 (p. 7). Fréminville is often

| cited as the author of Rissoa, and Coan (1964, p. 166) stated that Rissoa was introduced

by Fréminville in 1813 as a genus without included species. However, the only two uses

106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

of Rissoa in 1813 are by Risso, who lists the genus in combination with several of
Fréminville’s manuscript names (Risso, 1813a, p. 87; 1813b, p. 341). Risso did not
provide a description of the genus or any of the included species, so all are nomina
nuda. Desmarest (1814, p. 7) was the first to make Fréminville’s manuscript names
available and must be regarded as the author of Rissoa.

10. The type species of Rissoa was cited as ‘Helix labiosa’ by Gray (1847, p. 152) and
as ‘Turbo cimex L.’ by Herrmannsen (1848, p. 400), but neither of these is one of the
originally included species. The first valid designation is that by Bucquoy, Dautzenberg
& Dollfus (1884, p. 262) of Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest, 1814 (p. 8) (cf. Ponder, 1985,
p. 21).

11. The type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (1821a, p. 258) has been cited as
Turbo ulvae Pennant by many authors (Stimpson 1865, p. 6), but this is not one of
the originally included species. Hartmann (p. 258) included only Cyclostoma acutum
Draparnaud, Hydrobia thermara and Hydrobia diaphana. The last two are nomina
nuda, so Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (p. 40) is the type species of Hydrobia
by monotypy. Gray (1847, p. 151) was the first author to cite correctly the type species
of Hydrobia. Hartmann also treated Hydrobia in a second work in 1821 (1821b, pp. 47,
58). This work cites (p. 58) the 1821a reference and so presumably was published later.
In Hartmann (1821b), the species included in Hydrobia (acuta, vitrea and minuta) are
either nomina nuda or are unidentifiable because of lack of indication.

12. In Opinion 475 (1957), BITHYNIDAE Gray, 1857 (pp. 16, 24) was placed on the
Official List as having several months priority over BITHYNIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (pp. vi,
101). It was also stated (p. 315) that BITHYNUDAE was usually regarded as a subfamily of
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (pp. vi, 106). However, there is no evidence that Gray’s
work was published before 31 December 1857; it cannot have been published before
September, 1857 according to the date of the preface (p. xi), which indicates when the
preface was written, not when the work was published, contrary to the interpretation
in the Opinion (p. 315). Receipt of Troschel’s work prior to 30 October 1857 was
reported in Monatsberichte der KOoniglichen Preuss. Akademie der Wissenschaften zu
Berlin for 1857 (p. 467). Thus, Troschel, not Gray, should be considered the author
of BITHYNIIDAE. Currently HYDROBIIDAE and BITHYNIIDAE are not considered to be
confamilial, so questions of priority do not arise.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and other family-
group names based on Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 are to be given precedence
over TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 and other family-group names based on
Truncatella Risso, 1826 whenever their type genera are placed within the same
family-group taxon;

(2) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (type genus Rissoa Desmarest, 1814), with the endorse-
ment that it and other family-group names based on Rissoa are to be given
precedence over TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 (type genus Truncatella Risso,
1826) and other family-group names based on Truncatella whenever their type
genera are placed within the same family-group taxon;

(3) to add to the entry for TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology the endorsement that it and other family-

i
if

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 107

group names based on Truncatella Risso, 1826 are not to be given priority

Over RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 and other family-group names based on Rissoa

Desmarest, 1814, whenever their type genera are placed within the same

family-group taxon;

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (type genus Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821);

(5) to amend the entry for BITHYNIDAE Gray, 1857 on the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology to give Troschel (1857) as the author of the name;

(6) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Rissoa Desmarest, 1814, type species by subsequent designation by

Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus (1884), Rissoa ventricosa Desmarest,
1814 (the type genus of RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847);

(b) Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, type species by subsequent designation by
Gray (1847), Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (the type genus of
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857);

(7) to amend the entry for Truncatella Risso, 1826 on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology to state that the valid name of its type species is Helix
subcylindrica Linnaeus, 1767 (a senior subjective synonym of Truncatella
costulata Risso, 1826, designated by Lowe (1855));

(8) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) ventricosa Desmarest, 1814, as published in the binomen Rissoa ventricosa

(specific name of the type species of Rissoa Desmarest, 1814);

(b) acutum Draparnaud, 1805, as published in the binomen Cyclostoma acutum
(specific name of the type species of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821);

(9) to amend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for sub-
cylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 to state that it is the valid name (as a senior
subjective synonym of Truncatella costulata Risso, 1826, designated by Lowe
(1855)) of the type species of Truncatella Risso, 1826;

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

Zoology the following names:

(a) Rissoa ‘Fréminville’ Risso, 1813a (a nomen nudum);

(b) Rissoa ‘Freminville’ Risso, 1813b (a nomen nudum).

References

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1854-1858. The Genera of Recent Mollusca; arranged according to their
organization, vol. 2. 661 pp. Van Voorst, London. [Dates of issue of parts on p. 661].

Baker, H.B. 1956. Familial names for land operculates. Nautilus, 70: 28-31.

Baker, H.B. 1960. Hydrobiidae or Truncatellidae? Nautilus, 74: 34-35.

Baker, H.B. 1964. Type land snails in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Part III.
Limnophile and thalassophile Pulmonata. Part IV. Land and freshwater Prosobranchia.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 116: 149-193.

Bieler, R. & Mikkelsen, P. M. 1988. Anatomy and reproductive biology of two western Atlantic
species of Vitrinellidae, with a case of protandrous hermaphroditism in the Rissoacea.
Nautilus, 102: 1-29.

Binney, A. 1851. The terrestrial air-breathing mollusks of the United States, and the adjacent
territories of North America, vol. 2. viii, 362 pp. Little & Brown, Boston.

Bland, T. & Binney, W.G. 1872. On the lingual dentition of Blandiella, Geomelania and
Amphibulima. American Journal of Conchology, 7: 185-186, pl. 17.

108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G.-F. 1884. Les Mollusques marins du Roussillon. Vol. |
(Gastropodes), part 7, pp. 259-298, pls. 31-35. Balliere & Fils, Paris.

Burch, J.B. 1980. A guide to the freshwater snails of the Philippines. Malacological Review, 13:
121-143.

Burch, J.B. 1982a. Freshwater Snails (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of North America. vi, 294 pp. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.

Burch, J.B. 1982b. North American freshwater snails. Walkerana, {1}(4): 217-365.

Burch, J.B. & Chung, P.-R. 1985. An outline of classification of the freshwater and land snails of
Korea, with an annotated bibliography. Special Publication of the Mukaishima Marine
Biological Station, 1985: 33-44.

Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1948. A catalogue of the family Truncatellidae with notes and
descriptions of new species. Occasional Papers on Mollusks, 1(13): 157-212.

Coan, E. 1964. A proposed revision of the rissoacean families Rissoidae, Rissoinidae, and
Cingulopsidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Veliger, 6: 164-171.

Davis, G.M. 1979. The origin and evolution of the gastropod family Pomatiopsidae, with emphasis
on the Mekong River Triculinae. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph
20. vii, 120 pp.

Davis, G.M. 1980. Snail hosts of Asian Schistosoma infecting man: evolution and coevolution.
Pp. 195-238 in Bruce, J.I. & Sornmani, S. (Eds.), The Mekong Schistosome. Malacological
Review, Supplement 2. xiv, 282 pp.

Desmarest, A.G. 1814. Description des coquilles univalves du genre Rissoa de M. de Fréminville.
Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, (3)1: 7-9, pl. 1, figs. 1-7. [Author
as ‘Desmarets’]

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1801. Tableau des Mollusques terrestres et fiuviatiles de la France. 116 pp.
Renaud, Montpellier.

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire Naturelle des Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France.
[x] + viii, 164 pp. Plessan, Paris.

Golikov, A.N. & Starobogatov, Y.I. 1975. Systematics of prosobranch gastropods. Malacologia,
15: 185-232.

Gray, J. E. 1840. [The zoological collections]. Pp. 18-152 in: Synopsis of the Contents of the
British Museum. Ed. 42. 370, [vi] pp. Trustees, British Museum, London.

Gray, J. E. 1847. A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219.

Gray, J. E. 1857. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands. xvi, 335 pp., 12
pls. Longman, Brown, Green, Longmans & Roberts, London.

Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821a. System der Erd- und Flussschnecken der Schweiz. Neue Alpina, 1:
194-268.

Hartmann, J.D.W. 1821b. System der Erd- und Sisswasser Gasteropoden Europa’s. Jn Sturm, J.
(Ed.), Deutschlands Fauna, vol. 6, part 5. 60 pp., 3 pls., 1 foldout table. Nurnberg.

Haszprunar, G. 1988. A preliminary phylogenetic analysis of the streptoneurous gastropods. Pp.
7-16 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4.
vi, 346 pp.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847-1849. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2. Pp. 1-352
(1847), pp. 353-492 (1848), pp. 493-612 (1849). Fischeri, Cassellis.

Houbrick, R. S. 1988. Cerithioidean phylogeny. Pp. 88—128 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch
phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp.

Koronéos, J. 1979. Les Mollusques de la Gréce. viii, 36 pp., 48 pls. Athénes.

Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1(2). Pp. 533-1328 + [1-36]. Salvu, Holmiae.

Lowe, R.T. 1855. Catalogus molluscorum pneumonatorum insularum Maderensium. Proceed-
ings of the Zoological Society of London, 22: 161—218.

Nordsieck, F. 1972. Die europdischen Meeresschnecken (Opisthobranchia mit Pyramidellidae;
Rissoacea). xiii, 327 pp. Fischer, Stuttgart.

Nordsieck, F. 1982. Die europdischen Meeres-Gehduseschnecken ( Prosobranchia), Ed. 2. xii, 539
pp. Fischer, Stuttgart.

Ponder, W.F. 1985. A review of the genera of the Rissoidae (Mollusca: Mesogastropoda:
Rissoacea). Records of the Australian Museum, Supplement 4, 221 pp. ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 109

Ponder, W. F. 1988. The truncatelloidean (=rissoacean) radiation — a preliminary phylogeny.
Pp. 129-164 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.), Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review,
Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp.

Ponder, W. F. & Warén, A. 1988. Classification of the Caenogastropoda and Heterostropha —
a list of the family-group names and higher taxa. Pp. 288-326 in Ponder, W. F. (Ed.),
Prosobranch phylogeny. Malacological Review, Supplement 4. vi, 346 pp.

Radoman, P. 1973. New classification of fresh and brackish water Prosobranchia from the
Balkans and Asia Minor. Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Beograd, Editions hors série, 32:
1-30.

Radoman, P. 1983. Hydrobioidea — a superfamily of Prosobranchia (Gastropoda). Vol. 1
(Systematics). Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. Monographs, 547(57): 1-256.

Risso, A. 1813a. Observations geologiques sur la presqu’ile de Saint-Hospice aux environs de
Nice, département des Alpes maritimes. Journal des Mines, 34(200): 81-98.

Risso, A. 1813b. Observations géologiques sur la presqu’ile de St.-Hospice, département des
Alpes-Maritimes. Nouveau Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomatique de Paris, 3(71):
339-342.

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire Naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe Meridionale et particu-
liérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4. vii, 439 pp., 12 pls.
Levrault, Paris.

Starobogatov, Y.I. 1970. Fauna molliuskov i zoogeograficheskoe raionirovanie kontinentalnykh
vodoemov zemnogo shara. 372 pp. Akademiia nauk SSR. Zoologicheskii Institut, Leningrad.

Stimpson, W. 1865. Researches upon the Hydrobiinae and allied forms. Smithsonian Miscel-
laneous collections, 201: 1-59.

Thiele, J. 1929. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde. vol. 1(1) (Loricata./Gastropoda),
part I: Prosobranchia (Vorderkiemer). 376 pp. Fischer, Jena.

Troschel, F.H. 1857. Das Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer natiirlich Classification,
vol. 1(2), pp. 73-112, pls. 5-8. Nicolaische Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin.

Tryon, G.W. 1883. Structural and Systematic Conchology, vol. 2, 430 pp., pls. 23-91. Author,
Philadelphia.

Upatham, E.S., Sornmani, S., Kitikoon, V., Lohachit, C. & Burch, J.B. 1983. Identification key
for the fresh- and brackish-water snails of Thailand. Malacological Review, 16: 107-134.

Vayssiére, A. 1886. Etude sur l’organisation de la Truncatella truncatula (Draparnaud). Journal
de Conchyliologie, 33: 253-288, pls. 12-13.

Wenz, W. 1939. Gastropoda. Part 3: Prosobranchia. Pp. 481—720 in Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.),
Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6. viii, 720 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Woodward, S.P. 1851-1854. A Manual of the Moilusca. Part 1 (1851), pp. 1-158, pls. 1-12; part 2
(1854), pp. 159-330, pls. 13-24. Weale, London.

110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Case 1643

Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anodonta anatina; Mollusca,
Bivalvia): proposed designation of a neotype

Peter B. Mordan
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Fred. R. Woodward

Natural History Department, Art Gallery and Museum, Kelvingrove,
Glasgow G3 8AG, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Anodonta anatina
(Linnaeus, 1758) in its accustomed usage for acommon species of European freshwater
mussel by the designation of a neotype. This will also conserve the name Pseudanodonta
complanata (Rossmassler, 1835).

1. Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 706) was based on an unknown number of
specimens and three references. On the same page Linnaeus erected the nominal species
Mytilus cygneus, also for mussels from European freshwater habitats.

2. Mytilus cygneus is the type species by monotypy of Anodonta Lamarck, 1799
(p. 87) and the specific names cygnea and anatina have long been in usage in Anodonta.
Both specific names were placed on the Official List of Specific Names by Opinion
336 (March 1955), but that Opinion did not clarify the taxonomic meaning of either
name.

3. Ellis (1962, p. 18) commented that ‘The European species of Anodonta have been
much confused in the past, and the nomenclature is not yet stabilised... several writers...
have united all the European Anodonta sensu stricto into a single ‘fundamental species’.
The studies of Bloomer (1937, 1938) [and later workers, e.g. Baagoe, Hvilsom &
Pedersen (1986)] have clearly demonstrated the specific distinctness of Anodonta
cygnea and A. anatina’.

4. In general the shell of cygnea is roundly rectangular in outline with the straight
dorsal margin parallel to the ventral one; anterior margin broadly curved; height
approximately the same anterior and posterior to the umbones, which are traversed by
a well-marked series of concentric, sometimes bifurcating ridges (rugae), lying more-
or-less parallel to the growth lines; colour tending to yellow or yellowish green, rarely
rayed; valves relatively thin, generally of uniform thickness throughout, growth lines
normally visible from inside when viewed against the light. Animal normally a rich
orange-yellow colour. The shell of anatina tends to be roundly triangular in juveniles
since the dorsal margin is not parallel to the ventral one; anterior margin comparatively
narrow, sloping abruptly ventrally; height greatest posterior to umbones which are
traversed by well-marked, transverse wavy rugae, which are often discontinuous and
tend to cross the growth lines; colour green or olive green, tending to become darker

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 1

posteriorly, often rayed; valves tending to be thicker, normally thickened antero-
ventrally, growth lines not as apparent as in cygnea when viewed from inside against
the light, especially anteriorly. Animal normally a cream-white colour.

5. The collection of the Linnean Society of London contains a shell inscribed ‘218’
and ‘“cygneus’ in Linnaeus’s handwriting (see Bloomer, 1938, pp. 39-40). This specimen
was accepted as ‘the type’ (i.e. the lectotype) of A. cygnea by both Bloomer and Ellis
(1962, p. 19), and previously Kennard & Woodward (1920, p. 215) had written “... the
inscribed and numbered specimen... quite establishes... the identity [of A. cygnea]’. This
specimen has been described by Bloomer (1938, pp. 36, 39-40, pl. 2, fig. 2) and Ellis
(1962, p. 19), and is in accordance with modern usage of cygnea.

6. No equally satisfactory type for Anodonta anatina exists. In 1964 Dr H. Lemche
published (BZN 21: 432-434) an application for the designation of a neotype of Mytilus
anatinus Linnaeus. Lemche’s application and a comment on it by Prof P. Brinck (BZN
22: 213-214) pointed out that the Linnaean specimens of ‘anatinus’ in the collections of
the Linnean Society of London and the Zoological Museum in Uppsala are examples
of the species known as Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler, 1835, p. 112) and not
of Anodonta anatina auct. Hanley (1855, pp. 144-145) had previously noted this fact in
his examination of the Linnean Society collection, pointing out that ‘had the winged
variety of cygnea, ordinarily termed A. anatina, been designated by our author
[Linnaeus], he would scarcely have written in his own copy ‘similis 28 (Unio pictorum)
sed absque cardine’’. Hanley figured one of the Linnean Society ‘anatina’ (= compla-
nata) on pl. 2, fig. 1. Later workers have continued to ignore Hanley’s findings, using
A. anatina for the species under consideration. Brinck showed that Linnaeus’s concept
of ‘anatinus’ was undoubtedly composite and included both anatina and complanata
of later authors. Lemche proposed as a neotype a specimen from an artificial moat in
Copenhagen, while Brinck considered that a specimen from a natural lake would be
more appropriate. Designation of a neotype would avoid transferring the name anatina
to complanata auct. and hence from Anodonta to Pseudanodonta Bourguignat, 1877.
Other workers commented on the case (BZN 21: 435; 22: 214-215), including A.E. Ellis
who supported a neotype and who had been instrumental in having Mytilus anatinus
placed on the Official List of Specific Names. Neotype designation was also supported
by Bowden & Heppell (1968, p. 251) who said that transfer of the name anatina ‘would
be contrary to the interests of stability and would only add to the [taxonomic and
nomenclatural] confusion’.

7. In 1968-69 there was correspondence between the Secretary of the Commission,
Brinck and Lemche, in which Lemche withdrew his suggested Danish neotype and
Brinck said that the so-called ‘types’ of the supposedly synonymous species Anodonta

__ piscinalis Nilsson, 1823 (p. 116) were probably not original material; it was suggested

that a suitable Swedish lake specimen could be collected and be designated neotype of
both anatina and piscinalis. For various reasons the case lapsed at this point.

8. Subsequently six specimens were collected from Lake Dagstorp in Sweden, and
were examined by Ellis. In a letter to the then Commission Secretary, he tentatively
suggested that one of them might possibly be suitable as a neotype, the others being
juvenile or not characteristic of anatina auct., but no neotype designation was
published.

9. By 1989 workers were under one of two impressions, both incorrect. Some
thought that Lemche’s application had been ratified, i.e. that a neotype of A. anatina

112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

had been designated, whilst others believed that there existed some fundamental
obstacle to the use of the name anatina in the accustomed sense. In August 1989 Dr
G. Falkner (Munchen, Federal Republic of Germany) suggested at a Workshop
meeting, at the Tenth International Malacological Congress in Tiibingen, that anatina
should replace complanata in Pseudanodonta, in agreement with the existing Linnaean
specimens but contrary to Lemche’s application (see para. 6) and to general usage.
Falkner further suggested that Anodonta anatina auct., sometimes known as Anodonta
piscinalis Nilsson, 1823, should be called Anodonta radiata (Miller, 1774, p. 209),
the types of which still exist in the Copenhagen Museum. Some members of the Work-
shop provisionally supported these proposals, and in September 1989 Dr Falkner and
Dr T. von Proschwitz (G6éteborg, Sweden) asked the Executive Secretary of the
Commission whether there were any doubts or obstacles relating to this course of
action.

10. The Secretary sent summaries of the case’s history to Drs Falkner and von
Proschwitz and to various workers, pointing out that the proposal in para. 9 would
change both the used names Anodonta anatina and Pseudanodonta complanata and,
much more seriously, would transfer the name anatina to the Pseudanodonta species
(see para. 6). On the other hand, designation of a neotype for Anodonta anatina would
conserve both names (and would leave both radiata and piscinalis available should this
be taxonomically desirable).

11. Support for the designation of a neotype for Anodonta anatina was expressed by
all those who replied: Dr A.E.Bogan (The Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,
U.S.A.), Prof P. Brinck (University of Lund, Sweden), Mr D. Heppell (Royal Museum of
Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.), Dr T. von Proschwitz ( Naturhistoriska Museet, Géteborg,
Sweden) and Mrs H.C.G. Ross (Ulster Museum, Belfast, U.K.). These correspondents
included members of the Workshop mentioned in para. 9.

12. Mr A.E. Ellis had doubted whether any of the Lake Dagstorp specimens
(see para. 8) were adequately illustrative of the differences between the shells of
A. cygnea and A. anatina; Mr D. Heppell wrote to the Commission Secretary ‘the
two species are actually far more morphologically distinct in some parts of their
distribution (e.g. the British Isles) than in others... Thus whereas there would be no
difficulty in picking a neotype from a British locality which would unquestionably
represent anatina, a specimen from a Scandinavian locality... is much more
difficult’.

13. We have examined the Lake Dagstorp specimen referred to in para. 8, and share
the late Mr Ellis’s reservations concerning its suitability. We therefore designate as
neotype of Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 the shell from near Llangynidr, Brecon,
Wales, U.K. figured by Bloomer (1938, pl. 5, fig. 11, and mentioned on p. 43) and cited
by Ellis (1962, p. 22), which is preserved in The Natural History Museum, London
(registration number 1989164). This specimen clearly shows the shell characteristics of
M. anatinus as described in para. 4. Bloomer considered it to be typical (i.e. not a
variety) of anatina, as did Ellis (1962).

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type specimens for

the nominal species Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 and to confirm the neotype
designation in para. 13 above;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 113

(2) to make endorsements to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as
follows:

(a) to add to the entry for Mytilus cygneus Linnaeus, 1758 the words ‘as defined
by the lectotype fixed by Bloomer (1938)’;

(b) to add to the entry for Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 the words ‘as
defined by the neotype designated by Mordan & Woodward (1990) [present
reference]’.

References

Baagoe, P., Hvilsom, M.M. & Pedersen, B.V. 1986. The species rank of Anodonta anatina (L.)
and A. cygnea (L.) with remarks on Pseudanodonta complanata (Rossmassler). Bivalvia:
Unionidae. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjobenhavn.
146: 75-83.

Bloomer, H.H. 1937. On distinguishing the shell of Anodonta cygnea from A. anatina. Journal of
Conchology, 20: 321-327.

Bloomer, H.H. 1938. The British species of Anodonta Lamarck, and their varieties. Journal of
Conchology, 21: 33-48.

Bourguignat, J.R. 1877. Descriptions de deux nouveaux genres Algériens,... des familles et des
genres de Mollusques... Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles de
Toulouse, 3: 49-101.

Bowden, J. & Heppell, D. 1968. Revised list of British Mollusca. 2. Unionacea — Cardiacea.
Journal of Conchology, 26: 237-272.

Ellis, A.E. 1962. British freshwater bivalve molluscs. The Linnean Society of London Synopses of
the British Fauna, vol. 13. 92pp.

Hanley, S.C.T. 1855. Ipsa Linnaei Conchylia. The shells of Linnaeus, determined from his
manuscripts and collection. 556 pp. Williams & Norgate, London.

Kennard, A.S. & Woodward, B.B. 1920. On the Linnean species of non-marine Mollusca that are
represented in the British fauna, with notes on the specimens of these and other British
forms in the Linnean collections. Journal of the Linnean Society, Zoology, 34: 203-215.

Lamarck, J.B. de. 1799. Prodrome d’une nouvelle classification des coquilles ... Mémoires de la
Société d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 1: 63-91.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae Ed. 10, Vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Miller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium ..., vol. 2, 224 pp. Heineck & Faber,
Havniae & Lipsiae.

Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia molluscorum sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. 124
pp. Schuboth, Lund.

Réssmassler, E.A. 1835. Diagnoses Conchyliorum terrestrium et fluviatilium, vol. 1, 134 pp.
Arnold, Dresden & Leipzig.

114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Case 2762

Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita): proposed confirmation of
Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type species, so conserving
Bollandia Reed, 1943

Gerhard Hahn

Institut fiir Geologie und Paldontologie, Philipps-Universitat, Hans-Meerwein-
Strasse, D-3550 Marburg, Fed. Rep. Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the Carboniferous trilobite
name Griffithides Portlock, 1843 in its accustomed usage by setting aside an overlooked
type species designation. In 1846 Oldham designated Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836
as type of Griffithides, but the subsequent designation by Vogdes (1890) of G. longiceps
Portlock, 1843 is universally accepted. In 1943 Reed designated Asaphus globiceps as
the type of his new subgenus Bollandia. It is proposed that Oldham’s designation
of Asaphus globiceps as type of Griffithides be set aside to conserve Griffithides and
Bollandia in their accustomed usage.

1. Portlock (1843, p. 310) established the genus Griffithides with four included
species. These were, in page order:

p. 310 Griffithides longiceps sp. nov.

p. 311 Griffithides platyceps sp. nov.

p. 311 Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 (p. 240)

p. 312 Griffithides longispinus sp. nov.

Portlock did not designate a type species.

2. Oldham (1846, p. 188) designated Asaphus globiceps as the type species of
Griffithides, using the following words: ‘In 1843, Portlock... established... two new
genera, Griffithides and Phillipsia, of the former of which the Griffithides globiceps may
be considered the typical species’. All subsequent workers on Carboniferous trilobites
neglected Oldham’s designation, with one exception. Weber (1937, p. 66) gave Asaphus
globiceps as the type species of Griffithides, but gave no reason. He did not quote
Oldham’s work either on p. 66 or under ‘literature’.

3. Woodward (1883, pp. 27—28) in his fundamental work on British Carboniferous
trilobites did not give a type species for Griffithides. He repeated (pp. 30-32) Oldham’s
description of Asaphus globiceps but omitted the sentence in which Oldham designated
it as type species of Griffithides.

4. Vogdes (1890, p. 116), referring to Griffithides, wrote: “Type, Griffithides longiceps
Portlock’, but made no further comment. Vogdes listed Oldham’s 1846 work on p. 56
of his bibliography but did not notice, or did not accept, that Oldham had designated
Asaphus globiceps as the type species.

5. Weller (1936, p. 706) revised Griffithides. He accepted G. longiceps as its type
species with the following remark: “by subsequent designation (Vogdes, 1890)’.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 115

6. Reed (1943, p. 58) discussed the type species of Griffithides thus: ‘It is generally
acknowledged that Gr. longiceps, Portlock, should be regarded as the genotype, though
Weber (1937, p. 66) apparently chooses Asaphus globiceps Phillips (1836, p. 240, pl.
xxil, figs. 16-20), and puts Gr. Jongiceps as merely characterizing a group of the genus’.
Reed accepted G. longiceps as the type species of Griffithides and (p. 62) designated
Asaphus globiceps as the type species of his new subgenus Bollandia (p. 62) which he
placed within the genus Permoproetus Toumansky, 1935.

7. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Weller (1959, p. 399) gave
G. longiceps as the type species of Griffithides and Asaphus globiceps as the type
species of Bollandia. He diagnosed both genera as corresponding to those type species.

8. Since 1959, all authors have followed the type species designations for Griffithides
and Bollandia as given in the Treatise. For example, both Griffithides (with type species
G. longiceps) and Bollandia (with type species Asaphus globiceps) have been used by
Boucek & Pribyl (1960, p. 30), Osmolska (1970, pp. 33, 108), Morris (1988, pp. 35, 102)
and Tilsley (1988, pp. 163, 168). A representative list of nine more papers by five
authors using Griffithides or Bollandia with these type species designations is held by the
Commission Secretariat.

9. To accept Oldham’s designation of Asaphus globiceps as type species of
Griffithides would have the following consequences:

a). Bollandia becomes a junior objective synonym of Griffithides.

b). The name Griffithides must be transferred to the species currently attributed to

Bollandia, and the species currently attributed to Griffithides are without a name.

These consequences disturb the current usage of the nominal genera Griffithides
and Bollandia and, in order to conserve these nominal genera in their current usage,
I propose the setting aside of all designations of type species for Griffithides prior to
that by Vogdes (1890).

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type species for the
nominal genus Griffithides Portlock, 1843 prior to that by Vogdes (1890) of
Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Bollandia Reed, 1943 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation

Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836;

(b) Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Vogdes (1890) Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843, as ruled
in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) globiceps Phillips, 1836, as published in the binomen Asaphus globiceps

(specific name of the type species of Bollandia Reed, 1943);

(b) longiceps Portlock, 1843, as published in the binomen Griffithides longiceps

(specific name of the type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843).

References

Boucek, B. & Piibyl, A. 1960. Revise trilobiti slovenského svrchniho karbonu. Revision der
Trilobiten aus dem slowakischen Oberkarbon. Geologické Prace, 20: 5-49.

116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Morris, S.F. 1988. A review of British trilobites, including a synoptic revision of Salter’s
monograph. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1-316.

Oldham, J. 1846. On Griffithides globiceps, Portlock, and some other Carboniferous Limestone
fossils. Journal of the Geological Society of Dublin, 3(3): 188-194.

Osmdlska, H. 1970. Revision of non-cyrtosymbolinid trilobites from the Tournaisian-Namurian
of Eurasia. Palaeontologia Polonica, 23: 1-165.

Phillips, J. 1836. [//ustrations of the geology of Yorkshire; or, a description of the strata and organic

* remains: accompanied by a geological map, sections, and diagrams, and figures of the fossils.
Part 2. The Mountain Limestone District. xx, 253 pp. Murray, London.

Portlock, J.E. 1843. Report on the geology of the county of Londonderry, and of parts of Tyrone
and Fermanagh. xxxi, 784 pp. Milliken, Dublin.

Reed, F.R.C. 1943. The genera of British Carboniferous trilobites. Annals and Magazine of
Natural History, (11)10: 54-65.

Tilsley, J.W. 1988. New data on Carboniferous (Dinantian) trilobites from the Peak District,
Derbyshire, England. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society, 47: 163-176.

Vogdes, A.W. 1890. A bibliography of Paleozoic Crustacea from 1698 to 1889 including a list of
North American species and a systematic arrangement of genera. Bulletin of the United
States Geological Survey, 63: 1-177.

Weber, V.N. 1937. Trilobites of the Carboniferous and Permian system of U.S.S.R. 1.
Carboniferous trilobites. Paleontology of U.S.S.R. Monographs, 71: 1-160. [In Russian with
English summary.]

Weller, J.M. 1936. Carboniferous trilobite genera. Journal of Paleontology, 10: 704-714.

Weller, JM. 1959. PHILLIPSIIDAE. Pp. 399-403 in Moore, R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on Invertebrate
Paleontology, Part O, Arthropoda 1. Geological Society of America and University of
Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.

Woodward, H. 1883. A monograph of the British Carboniferous trilobites. Part 1.
Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), \-38.

EE a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 117

Case 2687

Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name

Lech Borowiec

Department of Zoology, Agricultural University, Cybulskiego 20, 50-205
Wroclaw, Poland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the conservation of the specific name of a
flea beetle, Longitarsus symphyti Heikertinger, 1912, which is threatened by an unused
senior synonym.

1. In 1893 Weise (p. 1010) described a ‘var. /uctator’ under Longitarsus aeruginosus .
The name /uctator has never been used by subsequent authors, but under Article 45g(ii)
the name is to be treated as subspecific.

2. Heikertinger (1912, p. 69) showed that the ‘variety’ described by Weise as /uctator
is the winged form of an independent species, which he named Longitarsus symphyti.
This name has been used by all subsequent authors. A representative list of six
important works on European CHRYSOMELIDAE in which symphyti is used is held by
the Secretariat. The species is widespread in west and central Europe, except the
Mediterranean subregion.

3. As the name /uctator has not been used in entomological literature since its
proposal for a “variety” and the name symphyti has gained wide usage for this species
of flea beetle, it is desirable for the sake of stability that the older synonym be
suppressed.

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

(1) to suppress the specific name /uctator Weise, 1893, as published in the combi-
nation Longitarsus aeruginosus var. luctator, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name symphyti
Heikertinger, 1912, as published in the binomen Longitarsus symphyti;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name /uctator Weise, 1893, as published in the combination Longitarsus
aeruginosus var. luctator and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

| Heikertinger, F. 1912. Skizzen zur Systematik und Nomenklatur der palaarktischen Halticinen,

Entomologische Blétter, 8(3): 65-70.
Weise, J. 1893. Chrysomelidae in Erichson, W.F. (Ed.), Naturgeschichte der Insekten
Deutschlands, vol. 6, part 1, xiv, pp. 961-1161.

118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Case 2738

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes,
Cypriniformes): proposed conservation, and proposed designation of
Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type
species

Mary E. Burridge

Royal Ontario Museum, Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology,
100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Canada M5S 2C6

Darrell J. Siebert

Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

Carl Ferraris, Jr.

Department of Ichthyology and Herpetology, American Museum of Natural
History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to designate Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in
Temminck, 1824, a genus of small cobitid fishes from Southeast Asia, commonly
known as the coolie loaches, in accordance with accustomed interpretation and usage.
The generic name was first published (1823) as Acantophthalmus but this spelling has
not been used and its suppression is proposed.

1. In 1823 van Hasselt (p. 133) proposed the generic name Acantophthalmus for
some of the loaches with an erectile suborbital spine. The genus included Cobitis taenia
Linnaeus, 1758, but the three other species, including fasciatus, were nomina nuda, as
noted by Kottelat (1987, p. 371). C. taenia is thereby fixed as the type species of
Acantophthalmus by monotypy; its inclusion makes Acantophthalmus an available
name (Article 12b(5) of the Code).

2. The work by van Hasselt consists of parts of letters sent from Java to Temminck
at the Leiden museum, two of which contained several new fish names and which were
published by the latter in 1823 after van Hasselt’s death. A series of drawings sent by
van Hasselt to Temminck, which were subsequently seen by Valenciennes, have never
been published and are now presumed to have been lost (Kottelat, 1987, p. 368). A
subsequent (1824a, b) French translation of the letters from the original Dutch con-
tained many alterations in the text and ‘corrections’ in the spelling of several of the
names which were probably made by Valenciennes (see Alfred, 1962, p. 80). For
example, Acantophthalmus and Acantopsis, both genera of loaches, are two names
spelled differently in the 1823 and 1824 versions. An ‘h’ was added to the ‘Acant-’ prefix

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 119

in both names, to produce Acanthophthalmus and Acanthopsis (van Hasselt in
Temminck, 1824b, pp. 376-377). The spellings Acanthophthalmus and Acanthopsis are
unjustified emendations but, under Article 33b(i1), are available names. Cobitis taenia
remains the type species of the nominal genus Acanthophthalmus. The French version
of the second communication, in which the name Acanthophthalmus appeared, is
unsigned; however, van Hasselt’s name was published at the end of the first letter
(1824a, p. 92), and the name Acanthophthalmus (1824) is ascribed to him. The
spelling Acanthophthalmus was adopted by later authors. Valenciennes in Cuvier &
Valenciennes (1846, pp. 25—26) attributed authorship of the name Acanthophthalmus to
Kuhl and van Hasselt but clearly it should be ascribed to van Hasselt alone, and is
correctly cited as van Hasselt in Temminck (Recommendation 51B of the Code). (The
authorship and dates of publication of the various parts of Histoire Naturelle des
Poissons by Cuvier & Valenciennes are set out in Opinion 580, December 1959).

3. Inthe same 1823 Dutch work, van Hasselt (p. 133) also proposed the new generic
name Noemacheilus, with the single included species fasciatus. The binomen was
repeated in the 1824 French translation with the spelling unchanged but in both ver-
sions it is a nomen nudum. Valenciennes (1846) described the species fasciatus, which
lacks the suborbital spine, from a specimen and one of van Hasselt’s drawings sent to
him by Temminck. Valenciennes did not accept Noemacheilus as a taxonomically
distinct genus, and placed all the loaches in Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758.

4. Valenciennes (1846, p. 77) also provided a description for van Hasselt’s species
Acanthophthalmus fasciatus (see para. 1), and renamed it Cobitis kuhlii to avoid hom-
onymy within Cobitis. Bleeker (1858, p. 304) listed and described the genera of loaches
known to inhabit the ‘Archipelagi Indici’, including Acanthophthalmus (attributing the
name to van Hasselt). In 1863, Bleeker (p. 364) designated ‘Acanthophthalmus fasciatus
van Hasselt’ (which he listed (p. 367) as ‘= Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes’) as the type
species of Acanthophthalmus, although, as pointed out in para. 1, Cobitis taenia
Linnaeus, 1758 is the type species by monotypy. Bleeker excluded C. taenia from
Acanthophthalmus. Bleeker’s concept of the genus has been adopted by subsequent
authors and is still current today, although it is illegitimate under the modern Code
because of the exclusion of C. taenia.

5. Also in 1863, Bleeker (pp. 362, 364) designated Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as
the type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and recently the Commission validated this
designation (Opinion 1500, June 1988). Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck,
1823 thus became a junior objective synonym of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and it was
so placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
It follows that Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 is also a junior
objective synonym of Cobitis.

6. Blyth (1860, p. 169) described a new genus, Pangio, for Cobitis cinnamomea

| McClelland, 1839 (p. 304), which McClelland had unnecessarily proposed as a replace-
| ment name for C. pangio Hamilton, 1822. C. cinnamonea is currently included among

the coolie loaches. Following Bleeker (1863, pp. 363, 364), Pangio has consistently been
considered as a junior subjective synonym of Acanthophthalmus and has had no sub-
sequent use (see Systematic Index of the Pisces sections of Zoological Record, 1864 to
1989). It was adopted, however, by Kottelat in 1987 (p. 371), who drew attention to the
considerable confusion that the loss of the generic name Acanthophthalmus as a junior
objective synonym of Cobitis would cause. Acceptance of Pangio as the name for the

120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

coolie loaches would upset nearly 130 years of consistent usage of Acanthophthalmus
in both the technical and popular literature. Several species are now included in the
genus and the name Acanthophthalmus appears in catalogues and guides, including
Nelson (1985, p. 127), Roberts (1989), Smith (1965, pp. 287, 299-301) and Weber &
de Beaufort (1916, pp. 30-35), as well as taxonomic works. A representative list of
14 references, ranging from 1868 to 1989, which demonstrate use of the name is held by
the Commission Secretariat.

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the generic name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck,
1823 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;

(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 and to designate Cobitis
kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Acanthoph-
thalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by
designation in (1)(b) above Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes,
1846;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name kuhilii
Valenciennes in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846, as published in the binomen
Cobitis kuhlii (specific name of the type species of Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt
in Temminck, 1824);

(4) toamend the entry on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology for the name Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823, to
note its suppression as in (1)(a) above.

Acknowledgements

R.M. Bailey, W.I. Follett, V.G. Springer and R. Winterbottom read previous versions
of our manuscript, or discussed various issues contained in it. We gratefully acknowl-
edge their comments and advice. This is not to be taken as their agreement with, or
endorsement of, our solution to these problems.

References

Alfred, E. 1962. The Javanese Fishes described by Kuhl and van Hasselt. Bulletin of the National
Museum, State of Singapore, 30: 80-88.

Bleeker, P. 1858. Nieuwe geslachten van Cobitinen. Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-
Indié, 16(5): 302-304.

Bleeker, P. 1863. Sur les genres de la famille des Cobitioides. Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de
Dierkunde, 1: 361-368.

Blyth, E. 1860. Report on some fishes received chiefly from the Sitang River and its tributary
streams, Tenasserim Provinces. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 29: 138-174.

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1823. In Temminck, C.J. Uittreksel uit een’ brief van den Heer J.C. van
Hasselt, aan den Heer C.J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentie Bantam, den
29sten December 1822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter-Bode, voor het jaar 1823, 2(35): 130-133.

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1824a. In Temminck, C.J. Sur les poissons de Java. Extrait d’une premiére
lettre du Dr J.-P. van Hasselt a M C.J. Temminck. (Algem. Konst. en Letterbode, mai 1823).
Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Geologie, 2 (Zoologie): 89-92.

“ae

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 121

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1824b. Jn Temminck, C.J. Extrait d’une seconde lettre sur les poissons de Java,
écrite par M Van Hasselt a M C.J. Temminck, datée de Tjecande, résidence de Bantam, 29
décembre 1822. (Alg. Konst en Letter bode, 1823, aout, no. 35). Suite de la derniére, écrite en
octobre 1822. (Voyez l’extrait de la premiére, dans le Bulletin de mai, no. 73). Bulletin des
Sciences Naturelles et de Geologie, 2 (Zoologie): 374-377.

Kottelat, M. 1987. Nomenclatural status of the fish names created by C.J. van Hasselt (1823) and
of some cobitoid genera. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 33(4): 368-375.

McClelland, J. 1839. Indian Cyprinidae. Asiatic Researches; or Transactions of the Society
Instituted in Bengal, for Inquiring into the History, the Antiquities, the Arts and Sciences, and
Literature of Asia, 19(2): 217-471.

Nelson, J.S. 1984. Fishes of the World. Ed. 2, xv, 523 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York.

Roberts, T.R. 1989. The freshwater fishes of western Borneo (Kalimantan Barat, Indonesia).
Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences, 14: 1-210.

Smith, H.M. 1965. The freshwater fishes of Siam or Thailand. Ed. 2, 622 pp. Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. (Reprinted from U.S. National Museum Bulletin, No. 188,
1945).

Valenciennes, A. 1846. Cyprinoides. Pp. 1-90 in Cuvier, G. & Valenciennes, A., Histoire
Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 18. xix, 505 pp. Bertrand, Strasbourg.

Weber, M. & Beaufort, L.F. de. 1916. The fishes of the Indo-Australian Archipelago, vol. 3
(Ostariophysi: Cyprinoidea, Apodes, Synbranchi). 455 pp. Brill, Leiden.

Zoological Record. 1864-1989. Pisces in: The Zoological Record, vols. 1-124.

122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Case 2693

Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Robert G. Webb

Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Environmental Biology,
University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas 79968-0519, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Trionyx sinensis
Wiegmann, 1834 for a turtle by the suppression of the senior subjective synonym
Testudo rostrata Thunberg, 1787.

1. Thunberg described the turtle Testudo rostrata in 1787. As noted by Lonnberg
(1896, p. 33), Thunberg first mentioned the name Testudo rostrata with only brief
comments in Latin (1787a, p. 21). Later in the same year he repeated the comments and
gave a more elaborate description in Swedish (1787b, p. 179); this paper was published
in German the following year (1788, p. 173). The comments in the first paper (1787a)
are adequate to make the name available.

2. Webb (1985, p. 85) described and figured the holotype of Testudo rostrata from
the Linnaean Collection in the Zoological Museum of the University of Uppsala and
outlined the history of the name. He demonstrated that Testudo rostrata is a senior
synonym of Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann. Testudo rostrata has not been used as a valid
name since Lonnberg (1896, p. 34) considered it to be a synonym of Trionyx swinhonis
(correct original spelling swinhoei) Gray, 1873. Trionyx or Rafetus swinhoeiis regarded
as a distinct species (Meylan & Webb, 1988).

3. The name Trionyx ( Aspidonectes) sinensis was made available by Wiegmann in
the work Beitrdge zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde von Dr. F. J. F.
Meyen (p. 189). This work is usually dated as published in 1835. However, Dr. R. I.
Crombie, Division of Amphibians and Reptiles, National Museum of Natural History,
Washington, D.C., has made a detailed study of Wiegmann’s original publications and
the incidental literature surrounding Meyen’s Reise and_has established that it
appeared in 1834. Thus, the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann was made available in
1834.

4. In Opinion 660 (1963, BZN 20: 187-190), the name Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann
was conserved by suppression of the senior synonym Testudo semimembranacea
Hermann, 1804 and was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
It is now necessary to conserve it against its senior subjective synonym Testudo
rostrata.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name rostrata Thunberg, 1787, _

as published in the binomen Testudo rostrata, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

ii!

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 123

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name rostrata Thunberg, 1787, as published in the binomen Testudo rostrata,
and as suppressed in (1) above.

(3) toamend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name

sinensis Wiegmann, as published in the binomen Trionyx sinensis, to be taken
from 1834 and not 1835.

References

Lénnberg, E. 1896. Linnean type-specimens of birds, reptiles, batrachians and fishes in the
Zoological Museum of the R. University in Upsala. Bihang till Kongl.Svenska Vetenskaps-
Akademiens Handlingar, 22(4) (1): 1-45.

Meylan, P. A. & Webb, R. G. 1988. Rafetus swinhoei (Gray) 1873, a valid species of living soft-
shelled turtle (Family Trionychidae) from China. Journal of Herpetology, 22: 118-119.
Thunberg, C. P. 1787a. Pp. 19-32 in Museum Naturalium Academiae Upsaliensis, Part 2. Litteris

Director Johan Edman, Upsaliae.

Thunberg, C. P. 1787b. Beskrifning pa trenne skéld-paddor. Kongl. Vetenskaps Academiens nya
Handlingar, 8: 178-180.

Thunberg, C. P. 1788. Beschreibung dreyer Schildkréten. Kéniglich-Schwedischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, Neue Abhandlungen, 8: 171-180.

Webb, R. G. 1985. Taxonomic status of Testudo rostrata Thunberg, 1787 (Testudines,
Trionychidae). Herpetologica, 41: 84-88.

Wiegmann, A. F. A. 1834. Beitrage zur Zoologie, gesammelt auf einer Reise um die Erde, von Dr.
F. J. F. Meyen. Siebente Abhandlung. Amphibien. Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae
Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae, 17: 183-268.

124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Comment on the adoption of ‘Protected Works’ for purposes of zoological nomenclature
(See BZN 44: 79-85; 45: 45-47, 144, 145; 46: 9, 185-186)

Darrel Frost
Museum of Natural History, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2454,
U.S.A.

I do think that ‘Protected Works’ would be helpful in stabilizing nomenclature.
I realize that in my position as compiler of Amphibian Species of the World this
may sound self-serving, but I have been surprised at the number of times at pro-
fessional meetings that nomenclature users (e.g. zoo and medical personnel, ecolo-
gists, etc.) asked me why something along these lines was not done. Of course, they
would rather the names of species never changed, but then they do not understand
that we have a need to portray relationship, not just a simple naming convention.

Maybe the solution is to adopt works with the proviso that proposals for
excepting individual names be submitted to a special committee within the Com-
mission (or appointed by the Commission) within five years. Protected Works
would not obviate future petitions, but certainly would put an end to the endless
exhumations of forgotten (and reasonably so) names from ancient literature. The
status of family-group names is particularly knotty, as although these names are
comparatively rare compared to all nomenclature they require an astounding
amount of time to resolve (and even then inherent ambiguity in the Code makes
many decisions questionable).

Comments on the proposed conservation of the generic name Myriochele Malmgren,
1867 (Annelida, Polychaeta)
(Case 2554; see BZN 46: 229-232)

(1) R. Thomas Becker
Department of Geology, University of Southampton SO9 5NH, U.K.

One of the proposals in this application (BZN 46: 231, para. 14) is the suppression of
the almost unused polychaete generic name Clymenia Orsted, 1844. It is unnecessary to
do this, because this name is a junior homonym of Clymenia Minster, 1834 (p. 43),
which is in use for a genus of Upper Devonian ammonoids and is the basis of family-
group and order names.

Additional reference

Miinster, G. 1834. Mittheilungen an Professor Brown gerichtet. Neues Jahrbuch fiir Mineralogie,
Geognosie, Geologie und Petrefaktenkunde, 1834: 42-43.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 125

A similar comment has been received from Prof Dr G. Hahn (Fachbereich
Geowissenschaften, D-3550 Marburg (Lahn), Fed. Rep. Germany).

(2) Andrew Mackie
National Museum of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CF1 3NP, Wales, U.K.

Fredrik Pleijel
Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, S-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden

The aims of Nilsen & Holthe’s application are to retain two junior subjective
synonyms: Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 and oculata Zaks, 1923. While we believe this
desirable and agree with the suppressions proposed, we would like to draw attention to
an overlooked point.

Nilsen & Holthe (BZN 46: 231, para. 12) regard Galathowenia Kirkegaard, 1959
as a junior synonym of Myriochele. There is, however, no consensus on this matter.
Galathowenia and Myriochele are regarded as distinct valid genera in several recent
works (Kirkegaard, 1983; Blake, 1984; Imajima & Morita, 1987) not referred to in the
application. Myriochele oculata is regarded by several authors (Blake & Dean, 1973;
Kirkegaard, 1983) as a senior synonym of Galathowenia africana Kirkegaard, 1959, the
type species of Galathowenia.

Additional references

Blake, J.A. 1984. Polychaeta Oweniidae from Antarctic Seas collected by the United
States Antarctic Research Program. In Hutchings, P.A. (Ed.), Proceedings of the
First International Polychaete Conference. The Linnean Society of New South Wales,
Sydney.

Blake, J.A. & Dean, D. 1973. Polychaetous annelids collected by the R/V Hero from Baffin
Island, Davis Strait, and West Greenland in 1968. Bulletin of the Southern Californian
Academy of Sciences, 72(1): 31-39.

| Imajima, M. & Morita, Y. 1987. Oweniidae (Annelida, Polychaeta) from Japan. Bulletin of the

National Science Museum, Tokyo, Ser. A, 13(3): 85-102.

| Kirkegaard, J.B. 1983. Bathyal benthic polychaetes from the N.E. Atlantic Ocean, S.W. of

i
|
|

the British Isles. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 63(3):
593-608.

(3) Susan Chambers
National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street, Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K.

I would like to support the conservation of the names Myriochele Malmgren, 1867

_ and oculata Zaks, 1923 as proposed by Nilsen & Holthe (BZN 46: 229-232).

126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Comments on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida,
Araneae) over Rhechostica Simon, 1892
(Case 2662; see BZN 46: 165-166, 189-190)

(1) Robert J. Raven
Queensland Museum, P.O. Box 300, South Brisbane, 4101 Queensland, Australia

Levi & Kraus present a case for the precedence of Aphonopelma over the older
Rhechostica. The information given in their application is incomplete, however.
Nobody naming any material from central America or southern North America
ever considered the taxonomic status of Rhechostica until I did so (Raven, 1985). The
family THERAPHOSIDAE has not been revised, either in its entirety or in any region,
including North America. A group so long left without revision becomes, as did the
THERAPHOSIDAE, a nomenclatural and taxonomic nightmare.

Three generic names (Eurypelma, Aphonopelma and Rhechostica) have been applied
to one species, Eurypelma californicum Ausserer, 1871. Despite all activities of
taxonomists, U.S. experimentalists in fact persist in using the binomen Eurypelma
californicum for this common U.S. spider used in physiological and anatomical studies.
That species has been used only once in the combination Aphonopelma californicum.
Hence, the name Eurypelma Koch, 1850 still ranks higher in usage than any other.
Most of those uses refer to what some prefer to call Aphonopelma.

The name Rhechostica has not been forgotten by any cataloguer. The application by
Levi & Kraus (1989) omits mention of Simon (1903) and Petrunkevitch (1928). The
latest catalogue (Platnick, 1989) upholds the usage of Rhechostica. The most recent
papers cited in the application are dated 1986. However, Raven (1985) was published in
December of 1985 and since then a number of authors (e.g. Bevington, 1989; Harvey,
1989; Lowe, 1989; Schmidt, 1989; Smith, 1986, 1989) have cited Rhechostica as the
senior synonym of Aphonopelma.

Many in the scientific world and the pet trade who keep in touch with the literature
concerning names of animals have adopted Rhechostica since my careful study of the
type species of all mygalomorph genera where some representative, if not the types,
existed. My change was a change from total confusion to stability. The alternative is yet
another change simply for the sake of name-changing.

No contention exists about the greater usage of Aphonopelma over Rhechostica in the
past. However, Eurypelma is the most frequently used name for theraphosids in North
America. Use of either Aphonopelma or Eurypelma is the result of incomplete studies. I
consider that Rhechostica should be retained rather than Aphonopelma, so that the
stability so far gained remains.

Additional references

Bevington, M. 1989. Theraphosides— some feeding observations. Journal of the British
Tarantula Society, 4: 28-29.

Harvey, D.A.D. 1989. The classification of mygalomorph spiders. Part 2. Nemesiidae,
Theraphosidae and Paratropididae. Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 5: 21-26.

Lowe, B. 1989. Moulting yearly? Journal of the British Tarantula Society, 4: 29.

Petrunkevitch, A. 1928. Systema aranearum. Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts
and Sciences, 29: 1-270.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 127

Platnick, N.I. 1989. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1981-1987: A supplement to Brignoli’s A
catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. 680 pp. Manchester University
Press, Manchester.

Raven, R.J. 1985. The spider infraorder Mygalomorphae (Araneae): cladistics and systematics.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 182: 1-180.

Schmidt, G. 1989. Vogelspinnen: Vorkommen, Lebensweise, Haltung und Zucht, mit Bestimm-
ingsschlissel fiir alle Gattungen. 126 pp. Blichel & Philler, Minden.

Simon, E. 1903. Histoire Naturelle des Araignées. 2nd Ed., part 4. 381 pp. Roret, Paris.

Smith, A.M. 1986. Species file: Rhechostica seemanni (Cambridge, 1897). Journal of the British
Tarantula Society, 1: 22-26.

Smith, A.M. 1989. The tarantula: classification and identification guide. Fitzgerald, London.

(2) Support for the application by Levi & Kraus (BZN 46: 165-166) has been received
from the following (see also BZN 46: 189-190): J.C. Cockendolpher (Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, Texas 79409, U.S.A.), B.Y. Main (University of Western
Australia, Perth, Western Australia 6009), D. Ubick (California Academy of Sciences,
San Francisco, California 9411, U.S.A.) and T. Yaginuma (3-7-14 Harinakano,
Higashisumiyoshi-ku, Osaka 546, Japan).

Comments on the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as
the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to
suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. graminis Koch, 1857 (Insecta,
Homoptera)

(Case 2695; see BZN 46: 119-122)

(1) Evelyna M. Danzig
Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad 199034, U.S.S.R.

I support the proposal of Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero. The names Fonscolombia
and F. graminis date from the reference ‘Lichtenstein, 1877b’ given in the application.
This paper in the Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine appeared before 11 July 1877,
while the reference *1877a’ was published on 5 September (see Annales de la Société
Entomologique de France, (5)7, bulletin bibliographique, pp. 35, 43). In a third paper
published in 1877 (late August), which is not mentioned in the application, Lichtenstein
clearly stated (p. 491) that his graminis was distinct from Coccus radicumgraminis
Fonscolombe, and he synonymized it with Tychea graminis Koch.

Koch (1857, p. 296) established the genus Tychea with two new species, T. graminis
(p. 298) and T. amycli (p. 300); the first was designated as type species by Kirkaldy
(1906, p. 9). The original description of T. graminis was based on a mixture of an
unidentifiable scale insect from the family PSEUDOCOCCIDAE and an aphid, which
according to Schouteden’s (1906) interpretation is identical to Tetraneura ulmi
(Linnaeus, 1758, p. 452) (see Morrison & Morrison, 1966, p. 80; Eastop & Hille
Ris Lambers, 1976, p. 444). Neither the generic name Tychea nor the species name
T. graminis are in use (see BZN 46: 120, para. 6) and they are a source of potential
confusion.

128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Accordingly, in addition to the proposals on BZN 46: 120-121, I ask the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and graminis
Koch, 1857, as published in the binomen Tychea graminis, for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Tychea Koch, 1857, as suppressed in (1) above;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name graminis Koch, 1857, as published in the binomen Tychea graminis and
as suppressed in (1) above.

[These supplementary proposals are supported by Dr Y. Ben-Dov].

Additional references

Eastop, V.F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1976. Survey of the World’s aphids. 573 pp. Junk, The
Hague.

Kirkaldy, G.W. 1906. Catalogue of the genera of the hemipterous family Aphidae, with their
typical species, together with a list of the species described as new from 1885 to 1905. The
Canadian Entomologist, 38: 9-18.

Koch, C.L. 1857. Pp. 275—335 in Die Pflanzenlause, Aphiden (1854-1857). 335 pp. Lotzbeck,
Nurnberg.

Lichtenstein, J. 1877. Weitere Beitrage zur Geschichte der Wurzel-Lause. Homoptera antho-
genetica. Stettiner entomologische Zeitung, 38: 489-492.

Morrison, H. & Morrison, E.R. 1966. An annotated list of generic names of the scale insects. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Miscellaneous Publications, No. 1015, 206 pp.

Schouteden, H. 1906. Catalogue des Aphides de Belgique. Mémoires de la Société entomologique
de Belgique, 12: 189-246.

(2) P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

As first proposed, in the Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 14: 35 (see Dr Danzig’s
comment above), the specific name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 was formally an
unjustified emendation (replacement name) of radicumgraminis Fonscolombe, 1834
(see BZN 46: 119, para. 2).

For procedural propriety, proposal (1) in BZN 46: 120, para. 12 should be replaced
by:

‘(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name graminis Lichtenstein, 1877, as

published in the binomen Fonscolombia graminis, is to be treated as the specific
name of a then new nominal species, now defined by the type specimen
designated by Ben-Dov & Matile-Ferrero, 1989.’

Acceptance of this proposal would fix the type species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein,

1877 as F. graminis by monotypy (cf. proposal (2) on BZN 46: 121).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 129

Comments on the valid name for the butterfly known as ‘Colias alfacariensis Ribbe,
1905’ or ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 2617; see BZN 45: 29-32)

(1) L.B. Holthuis
Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

The authors are incorrect in their interpretation (BZN 45: 30, para. 5) of the expres-
sion ‘a number of individuals within a species’ in the Code definition of ‘aberration’: it
applies to a population as to any other set of individuals.

The names a/facariensis Ribbe, 1905 and australis Verity, 1911 are both unavailable,
and it is up to the authors to find the first available use of alfacariensis or australis.

(2) E.J. Reissinger
Kemnaterstrasse 31/1, D-8950 Kaufbeuren, Fed. Rep. Germany

S. Wagener
Hemdener Weg 19, D-4290 Bocholt, Fed. Rep. Germany

(1) Ribbe (1905, p. 137) described a new ‘Form’ [sic] of Colias hyale from Andalusia
but unfortunately the ‘ab.’ in the name Colias hyale ab. alfacariensis formally renders
the name unavailable under Article 45f(ii) of the Code, although ‘Form’ denotes a
subspecies (Article 45g(i1)).

(2) On the other hand, following German linguistic usage, it is quite clear that Ribbe
was not describing an aberrant or seasonal morph, but stated clearly that the taxon was
characteristic of a particular geographical! area. In the contemporary literature the use
of ‘var.’, ‘form’ and ‘ab.’ was not clearly differentiated. In 1906 (p. 134) and 1907 (p. 89)
Ribbe himself mentioned ‘Colias hyale v. alfacariensis’, but unfortunately he did not
refer to his 1905 description and thereby make the name available.

(3) Verity’s 1911 (p. 347; cf. BZN 45: 30, para. 6) description of the ‘race’ australis
from Andalusia appeared in January 1911; in October his Index Systématique (p.
XXXIV) explicitly showed that the word ‘race’ was to be interpreted as infrasubspecific
(see BZN 45: 30, para. 8). Entirely formally, australis could be held to be available
from January 1911. Whether available or not, it is now evident that alfacariensis and
australis are synonyms for a distinct species of butterfly (Berger, 1944, 1945), known in
English as Berger’s Clouded Yellow.

(4) Considered from their intentions, it is quite clear that Ribbe (1905) wanted to
describe a ‘Form’ or ‘Varietas’ (subspecies) whereas Verity (1911) was describing what
in his view was an infrasubspecific taxon.

(5) Verity (1916, p. 99) described and gave the name calida to the Colias hyale of the
summer generation (only) from Tuscany; from taxonomic considerations it is known
that he was dealing with Colias alfacariensis/australis. In 1923 Verity & Querci (1923,
p. 15) applied ‘Colias hyale, L., race calida, Vrty.’ to specimens of both generations, and

_ the name calida Verity, 1916 is available under Article 45 of the Code (see Cockayne,

1952, p. 166), or from Verity & Querci, 1923, under Article 10c. It would be
destabilizing to use this name for the entire species.

130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

(6) Bubacéek (1924, p. 23) differentiated ‘Colias hyale v. alfacariensis Ribbe’ of
Andalusia from the ‘Nominatform’. Under Article 45g(ii) this can make alfacariensis
Ribbe, 1905 available as from its original publication for a ‘Form’ even if the ‘content
of the work’ [the use of ‘ab.’, but not the meaning] had given it infrasubspecific rank.
Even if this were held not to be so, C. alfacariensis would be available under Article 10c
as from Bubacek, 1924, but to cite this authorship and date would be wholly artificial.

(7) We contend that Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, C. australis Verity, 1911
(January) and C. calida Verity, 1916 can be considered available under the Code.

(8) As noted in BZN 45: 30, para. 9, lectotypes of both C. alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905
and C. australis Verity, 1911 have been designated, although that of the latter has
disadvantages (the original specimens of Verity include C. hyale as wellas C. australis;
their origin is doubtful and they do not agree with Spanish specimens).

(9) To assure a consensus in the use of the name for this taxon, we therefore request
the Commission, using its plenary powers where necessary, to declare that:

(1) the name alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905, as published in the combination Colias hyale

ab. alfacariensis, is an available name;

(2) the name australis Verity, 1911, published as a race of Colias hyale hyale, is not

an available name;

(3) the name calida Verity, 1916, as published in the combination Colias hyale

calida, is an available name.

Additional references

Bubaéek, O. 1924. Uber eine Lepidopterenausbeute aus Andalusien. Verhandlungen der
Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien, 73: 22-24.

Cockayne, E.A. 1952. Colias calida Verity: the correct name for the butterfly lately added to the
British list. The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 64: 166-168.

Ribbe, C. 1906. Eine Sammelreise nach Stid-Spanien. Insekten-Borse, Leipzig, 23: 134.

Ribbe, C. 1907. Eine Sammelreise nach Stid-Spanien. Jnsekten-Borse, Leipzig, 24: 88-89.

Verity, R. 1916. The British races of butterflies: their relationships and nomenclature. The
Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 28: 98-99.

Verity, R. & Querci, O. 1923. Races and seasonal polymorphism of the Grypocera and of
the Rhopalocera of peninsular Italy. The Entomologist’s Record and Journal of Variation, 35
(supplement): 1—21.

(3) O. Kudrna
Karl-Strauss-Strasse 21, D-8740 Bad Neustadt-Salz, Fed. Rep. Germany

I cannot see any evidence in this application that I have not written about previously
(Kudrna, 1982). The name Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 is the oldest available name
for the species. I see no reason for bending the rules to attribute the authorship to the
(supposed) original discoverer — after all, it was Berger (or rather Berger & Fountaine)
who discovered the species.

Reference

Kudrna, O. 1982. On the nomenclature of Colias alfacariensis Berger, 1948 (Lepidoptera:
Pieridae). Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera, 20: 103-110.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 131

(4) W.G. Tremewan
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5 BD, U.K.

(1) I have studied the literature involved in this case. It is clear from Ribbe’s 1905
description of the nominal taxon a/facariensis that he was referring to a geographical
population and not to an aberration. Ribbe’s use of the terms ‘ab.’ and ‘var.’ were not
consistent, and it is therefore my opinion that the availability of any nominal taxon
described by him should be based on interpretation. The fact that he cited the name of
his ‘Form’ alfacariensis with the prefix ‘ab.’ is, in my opinion, a mere technicality which
should not render the name unavailable.

(2) As Balleto & Kudrna (1986) and I (Tremewan, 1988) have pointed out, the 2000
names proposed by Verity also cause many problems. It isan enormous and unjustified
waste of time and effort to search the literature for citations which may have ‘validated’
a name now used in the species-group. In the particular case of the burnet moth genus
Zygaena | suggested (p. 239) that the Commission might be asked to rule that the name
of any nominal taxon now used at specific or subspecific rank should be ruled to be
available from its original publication, even if it had been published as an addition toa
trinomen.

(3) The Preamble to the Code (p. 3) states ‘The object of the Code is to promote
| stability and universality in the scientific names of animals...’; therefore, it should be

interpreted in such a manner as will do just this. Unlike ‘nomenclaturists’, most scien-

tists use nomenclature as a tool to promote taxonomy and other sciences and do not
_ regard it as a ‘science’ in itself.
(4) I therefore fully support the application, and request that the International
_ Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should use its plenary powers to rule that
Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 is an available name.

Additional references

Balletto, E. & Kudrna, O. 1986. An annotated catalogue of the Burnets and Foresters
(Lepidoptera: Zygaenidae) named by Roger Verity. Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera,
24: 226-249.

Tremewan, W.G. 1988. The problem of infrasubspecific names in some groups of Lepidoptera.
Nota Lepidopterologica, 10: 236-240.

(5) P.K. Tubbs
| Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

For the last 40 years there has been confusion about the valid name for this butterfly.
With a few exceptions (see BZN 45: 29, para. 2 and the above comment by Dr O.
Kudrna) it has been referred to as either Colias alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or C. australis
Verity, 1911, with australis having been used perhaps slightly more often; Reissinger’s
| recent checklist (1989, pp. 164-166, 181) uses alfacariensis. There is no doubt that both
names refer to the taxon which was described as a full species by Berger (1945, p. 33),
who wrote that ‘Colias alfacariensis RIBBE connue jusqu’a présent sous le nom de Colias
| hyale L. race calida vty., nouvelle pour la science, est une bonne espéce... Le nom

| d’alfacariensis RIBBE étant plus ancien que celui de calida vty. doit désigner la nouvelle

132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

espece’. Under Article 10c the name alfacariensis Berger, 1945 (rather than 1948, as
proposed by Dr Kudrna) is available, but probably not valid for reasons of priority.
Five years later, having been advised (but on mistaken grounds; see BZN 45: 30, para.
7) by F. Hemming that alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 was unavailable, Berger adopted
australis Verity, 1911; unfortunately this name also suffers from the drawbacks
discussed in the application and the comments above, and the subsequent
confusion began.

It is high time that this situation, which is entirely a matter of nomenclatural niceties,
is resolved. For reasons of both early date and usage it seems extremely desirable that
either alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or australis Verity, 1911 should be adopted as the
nomenclaturally valid name; any other choice (for example, calida Verity, 1916 or
Verity & Querci, 1923; alfacariensis Bubacek, 1924 or Berger, 1945) would introduce
fresh argument and instability.

The original application (BZN 45: 29-32) did not explicitly ask the Commission to
set aside the Code’s provisions in this case. This is necessary to fix the status of either
alfacariensis Ribbe, 1905 or australis Verity, 1911, and I propose that the Commission
should use its plenary powers to rule that one or the other of these two names is to be
deemed available.

Additional reference

Reissinger, E.J. 1989. Checkliste Pieridae DUPONCHEL, 1835 (Lepidoptera) der West-
palaearktis (Europa, Nordwestafrika, Kaukasus, Kleinasien). Atalanta, 20: 149-185.

Comments on the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the
specific name of Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2719; see BZN 46: 252-254)

(1) F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.D.A., Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A.

I oppose this application by White & Seymour. The application contains a number of
errors: .

(a) The original spelling has been used by other authors in addition to Linnaeus (for
example, Miller, 1776, p. 173).

(b) Musca heraclei Fabricius, 1794 is not a subsequent use of Musca heraclii
Linnaeus but a new and independent proposal for another species of fruit fly,
now known as Tephritis postica (Loew, 1844).

(c) While ‘heracle?’ is the correct genitive of Heracleum, the plant genus, ‘heraclii’ is
also a correct genitive. Harper’s Latin Dictionary (1888 edition) includes two
alternative spellings of the same Latin words referring to either the city Heraclea
(Heraclea or Heraclia) or to the personage Hercules (Heracleus or Heraclius). As
there is no evidence of what Linnaeus based his name on, I would not question
Linnaeus’s Latin derivation.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 133

(d) If one does want to argue that Linnaeus incorrectly derived his name, then
Loew’s emendation (1844, p. 323) is valid.

(e) The first use of the spelling heraclei for Musca heraclii Linnaeus was by de Villers
(1789, p. 507; see also Gmelin, 1790, p. 2858).

The difference in spelling between heraclii and heraclei is minimal. Hence, the
standardization on the correct original spelling (heraciii) is unlikely to cause confusion.
For economically important species which have common names, such as this species
(celery fly), changes in scientific nomenclature cause virtually no confusion. For
example, the cabbage root maggot, an important pest, was known for many years as
Anthomyia brassicae Wiedemann (or Bouché). Pont (1981) showed that the proper
specific name for the species was radicum Linnaeus. This radical change caused no
confusion to at least the American community of economic entomologists as they
use the common name exclusively. When needing to cite the scientific name, these
entomologists merely use whatever is given in the most recent Common Names of
Insects and Related Organisms list that is maintained by the Entomological Society of
America. I believe the confusion caused by change in the spelling of heraclii will be even
less and, hence, the proposed change is unjustified.

Additional references

Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linné, Systema Naturae... Ed. 13, vol. 1: Regnum Animale, pt. 5
(Insecta, pp. 2225-3020). Lipsiae.

Loew, H. 1844. Kritische Untersuchung der europdischen Arten des genus Trypeta Meig.
Zeitschrift fiir Entomologie (Germar ), 5: 312-437.

Miller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu Animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige-
narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. xxxii + 274 pp. Havniae.

Pont, A. 1981. The Linnaean species of the families Fanniidae, Anthomyiidae and Muscidae
(Insecta, Diptera). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 15: 165-175.

| Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae suecicae descriptionibus..., vol. 3.

nai id es

ii + 657 pp., 4 pls. Lugduni.

(2) Ian M. White
CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K.

I should like to reply to Thompson’s above remarks.

(a) Seymour and I did miss the fact that the spelling heraclii had been used by a few
18th century authors; Thompson has been unable to find any 20th, or even 19th,
century authors who used any spelling other than heraclei, and the purpose of
this case is to reject that purely 18th century spelling of this pest of celery.
Fabricius (1794) does not make it clear that his Musca heraclei is a new species,
although he does not mention Linnaeus. Fabricius redescribed other Linnaean
species, and it is likely that he was doing so in this case and failed to mention
Linnaeus; there is no proof either way. This doubt over what Fabricius was
describing was noted in the application (BZN 46: 252, para. 2). The Fabricius
collection was not consulted as this appears to be a peripheral issue to the
established use of the non-Linnaean spelling. Thompson notes that the heraclei
of Fabricius is now interpreted as Tephritis postica (Loew), a species associated
with Onopordon (Asteraceae or Compositae). Fabricius named several tephritids

~—

134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

after plants which are known to be hosts of monophagous or oligophagous species.
Each of these tephritids has subsequently been interpreted as a species that attacks a
different plant family to the plant genus from which the Fabrician name clearly derives.
Fabricius described a Musca onopordinis, now interpreted as a synonym of Euleia
heraclei (Linnaeus), which attacks Heracleum and related genera; conversely, his
Musca heraclei is now interpreted as T. postica which attacks Onopordon. The descrip-
tion of M. onopordinis even refers to ‘Carduis’, presumably meaning a thistle such as
Onopordon sp. This apparent reversal of Fabrician names suggests that even when
specimens exist in the Fabricius collection it is likely that they have been placed against
the wrong names by some post-Fabricius worker (this is known to have happened to
the Linnaean collection). As there is no way of proving what Fabricius was describing,
the simplest course is to assume that Fabricius was re-describing the Linnaean heraclii
but with a modified spelling.

(c) There is evidence of the Latin derivation used by Linnaeus, as he clearly states
‘Habitat in foliis, Heraclii; subcutanea’, meaning below the leaf cuticle of
‘Heraclii’. Although it is possible for ‘Heraclii’ to refer to the city Herculea or to
the personage of Hercules, they are unlikely candidates for leaf mining!

(d) We have not argued that Linnaeus incorrectly derived his name, only that the
rule of original spelling being correct be set aside in the interest of stability.

(ec) Weaccept that some other 18th century workers used the spelling heraclei before
Fabricius (1794), in which case we need not worry about what Fabricius meant
by heraclei.

The difference between the spelling heraclii and heracleiis minimal and the issue need
not have been raised were it not for the confusion being caused by a recent catalogue
which introduced an erroneous spelling ‘heracleii’. Thompson refers to another econ-
omically important species in which a complete change of specific name occurred; we
suspect that such a complete change of name is more readily accepted by applied
entomologists than a small change in spelling.

We do not wish to change our application as a result of Thompson’s comments.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera) by the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852
(Case 2629; see BZN 45: 288-291; 46: 132-134)

(1) Gary Gibson & John Huber
Biosystematics Research Centre, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6,
Canada

We are writing to support the comment by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 132-134)
opposing the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 in favour of Physcus Howard,
1895, as requested by Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani (BZN 45: 288-291).

We can add little to the logical argument presented by LaSalle & Boutek for reten-
tion of Coccobius. We feel strongly that nomenclatural stability and universality are
achieved through the Principle of Priority based on sound taxonomic reasoning and
compliance with the rules established in the Code. Gahan & Fagan (1923) validly

:
a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 135

designated Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg as the type species of Coccobius, and the
designation of a neotype for C. annulicornis by LaSalle & Boucek definitively clarifies
the application of this name. Suppression of Coccobius in favour of Physcus would
disrupt stability in nomenclature that has been achieved since Hayat (1983). For these
reasons we do not support the application of Rosen, Rivnay & Viggiani to suppress
Coccobius.

(2) Gennaro Viggiani
Dipartimento di Entomologia e Zoologia Agraria, Universita degli Studi di Napoli, Via
Universita 100, 80055 Portici, Italy

Here are my reactions to the comment by LaSalle & Boucek (BZN 46: 132—134). The
above comment by Gibson & Huber adds nothing new to the case.

1. LaSalle & Boucek say that the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895
(BZN 45: 288-291) ‘would do more to disrupt stability than to promote it’. This is not
true. Hayat (1984) stated ‘The genus Coccobius Ratzeburg (till recently as Physcus; but
see Hayat, 1983) contains 58 species’. Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 was absolutely
ignored in taxonomy and in applied entomology until 1983. Boucek had himself used
Physcus and not Coccobius.

2. The Principle of Priority ‘is to be used to promote stability and is not intended to
be used to upset a long accepted name in its accustomed meaning through the introduc-
tion of an unused name that is its senior synonym’ (Article 23b of the Code). The
proposal by LaSalle & Boucek would cause just such an upset.

3. Allthe arguments by LaSalle & Boucek in favour of the resurrection of Coccobius
are based on ‘personal communications’ and on a specimen in the Natural History
Museum, London, from Novitzky’s collection said to have been compared long ago
with the type of Coccobius annulicornis. When Hayat (1983) studied this specimen it
‘was on a card with the antennae missing and the head partly eaten by psocids’. Now,
according to LaSalle & Boucek, the same specimen ‘fortunately’ is accompanied by one
of the antennae.

4. The subsequent action by LaSalle & Bouéek to sink in synonymy (just in their
comment) a well-known species, Physcus testaceus Masi, 1910, treated in a great
number of papers, demonstrates how they produce ‘stability’. They use the rather satis-
factory description of a well-known species to recognize in a specimen, or rather the
remains of a specimen, a senior synonym. They do not give a redescription, but simply

_ replace Physcus testaceus with a newly defined *Coccobius annulicornis Ratzeburg’. The

| purported designation by LaSalle & Boucek of a ‘neotype’ of Coccobius annulicornis is

completely contrary to Article 75b of the Code.

5. LaSalle & Boucek say (BZN 46: 133, para. 10) ‘As the name Coccobius is shown to
have both its usage and its identity established, and as Rosen et al. have not provided
sufficient evidence to support their proposal to suppress Coccobius in favour of

| Physcus...’. This gives a completely false impression. LaSalle & Boucek (para. 8) give

only five references for the use of Coccobius, three of which are by Hayat. On the other
hand, Physcus has been used by many aphelinid workers, including Annecke, Compere,
De Bach, De Santis, Ferriére, Flanders, Howard, Masi, Nikol’skaya, Silvestri and
Yasnosh. [The Commission Secretariat has a list of 85 references besides those cited in

_ the application.]

136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

6. I invite those interested in the APHELINIDAE and in biological control to give their
views to the Commission.

(3) David Rosen
Faculty of Agriculture, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76-100, P.O. Box
12, Israel

I should like to reply to the objection to the conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895,
as proposed by Rivnay, Viggiani and myself, which has been made by LaSalle &
Boucek (BZN 46: 132-134).

LaSalle & Boucek ‘contend that the suppression of the name Coccobius would
disrupt stability rather than promote it’. I am afraid that this statement is entirely
incomprehensible to me. All they tell us is that a damaged specimen has been found,
that one of its missing antennae has been located, and that ‘a reasonable assumption’
can be made as to its identity, and that this, in the absence of type material, should be
regarded as sufficient grounds for synonymizing the well-known generic name Physcus
under Coccobius. They conveniently ignore the fact, clearly demonstrated in our appli-
cation, that the name Coccobius was misinterpreted — and unused — for nearly a
century and a half, whereas the name Physcus was clearly interpreted and in constant
use for most of that period. Even if Coccobius is unequivocally recognized as a senior
synonym of Physcus, how on earth would its resurrection promote nomenclatural
stability?

LaSalle & Bouéek claim that the name Coccobius ‘has been used in systematic and
biological control literature’, but in support of this statement they cite only five publi-
cations, all of them subsequent to Hayat’s resurrection of Coccobius, and three of
them by Hayat himself. Where was this name from, say, 1895 to 1983? We, on the other
hand, have presented the Commission Secretariat with a partial list including scores
of publications — some biological, many systematic, several dealing with biological
control — that have all used the name Physcus, and this list can be easily doubled.

LaSalle & Bouéek go on to state that ‘Hayat’s (1983) work in which he re-established
the name Coccobius is the first modern treatment of the APHELINIDAE...’. With all due
respect, I have to disagree. Hayat’s is a fine paper, but one cannot simply dismiss
the earlier, excellent revisional work of De Santis, Nikol’skaya, Yasnosh, Compere,
Ferriere and others, all of whom have used the generic name Physcus!

LaSalle & Bouéek are, in effect, trying to take us back to a time when the Principle of
Priority reigned supreme and the favorite pastime of some taxonomists was to unearth
long-forgotten senior synonyms. The present Article 23b, emphasizing stability, was
adopted for precisely this type of situation!

Of course, when a case is so ambiguous, one can always resort to a gimmick: Take the
damaged specimen in question and designate it as neotype. This unnecessary proposal
is not justified by the evidence, does not solve any systematic or nomenclatural
problem, and does not serve any purpose but for winning an argument. For the sake
of nomenclatural stability, the CORES | is pee requested to reject it and let
Coccobius rest in peace.

Finally, a word about ‘sentimentality’. This is not the first time that I have been
accused of advocating ‘the maintenance of previously used names for sentimental
reasons’. Why should the conservation of a well-known name be considered more

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 137

‘sentimental’ than the resurrection of an old, forgotten name? Let us leave sentimen-
tality aside and concentrate on the rational, scientific aspects of the problem.

The Commission has acted in favor of stability in many similar cases. To cite just two
examples with which I have been personally familiar, the generic name Sceptrophorus
Foerster, 1856 was suppressed in favor of Microterys Thomson, [1876] (Opinion 1110)
and the specific name a/bidus Westwood, 1837 was suppressed in favor of mytilaspidis
Le Baron, 1870 (Opinion 1405), although in both cases the types of the senior
synonyms were available. I do hope that a similar decision will be made in this case.

In conclusion, I can only repeat what I wrote several years ago on a similar case
(1985, BZN 42: 215): ‘Systematists, myself included, would of course not find it
difficult to adapt [to the name change]... However, numerous field biologists all over the
world, who do not read taxonomic papers unless they are forced to do so, would be
confused... So, it is not out of sentimentality that I favor the junior synonym in this
case. It is only out of my concern for the users of systematic information, and for the
respect that they may or may not have for the science and practice of systematics, that I
recommend the suppression of [the senior synonym]... In my opinion the careless
replacement of well-established names by long-forgotten senior synonyms would only
serve to deepen the unfortunate rift between field biologists and some systematists.
For the sake of systematics, let us not alienate those who depend on us for a stable
nomenclature’.

(4) John LaSalle
CAB International Institute of Entomology, 56 Queen’s Gate, London SW7 5JR, U.K.

Our comment (BZN 46: 132-134) is not intended to alienate or cause undue con-
fusion with field biologists, biological control workers, or other non-systematists who
rely on systematics for the provision of stable names (nor do we wish to alienate the
authors of the proposal). However, systematics has rules which provide stability: these
rules should be used where applicable, and stability will best be served when priority is

_ overturned only in cases where the evidence presented is both overwhelming and timely

(by waiting several years after the recognition of Coccobius before approaching the
Commission, and thereby giving the name Coccobius time to become established in the
literature, the authors have removed whatever valid arguments they might once have
had).

This case is nothing more than a question of usage versus priority. The Code allows
for the suppression of an unused senior synonym only in cases where the use of that

| name rather than a well accepted junior synonym would disturb stability or cause

undue confusion. Even if one assumes that Coccobius is an unused name, which it no
longer is, this case does not rest on impassioned pleas or lists of works using the name

_ Physcus in the past, but simply on the assumption that use of Coccobius would disturb
| stability and cause confusion. Such an assumption is contradicted by facts: since

Coccobius was recognized in 1983, far more references have used the name Coccobius
than Physcus.

I have deposited with the Commission Secretariat a list of 24 references published

since 1983 and using the name Coccobius in its currently recognized sense. This list

contains works by over 30 authors from nine countries, and includes catalogues, keys,
studies on biological control, biology, systematics, a data base of natural enemies, and

138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

a list of preferred names of economic insects. It appears to me that there is no question
here; at the present time both priority and usage favor Coccobius.

Comment on the need for stability in fish family-group names
(See BZN 47: 97-100)

Nigel Merrett
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

I fully endorse Mr Wheeler’s view that changes to family-group names for purely
grammatical reasons, such as those proposed by Steyskal (1980), may have unfortunate
and wide-ranging implications for stability. I support his call for the establishment of a
specialist committee on fish nomenclature to give guidance on the most pragmatic
solution to such proposals.

Comments on the proposed confirmation of Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 as the type
species of Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Anguilliformes), so conserving
Anguilla

(Case 1173; see BZN 46: 259-261)

(1) Alwyne Wheeler
Epping Forest Conservation Centre, High Beach, Loughton, Essex IG10 4AF, U.K.

The generic name Anguilla dates not from Shaw (1803, p. 15) as stated, but from
Schrank (1798, pp. 304, 307). This fact has been cited by authors including Blache et al.
(1973, pp. 220-222). The type species by monotypy is Muraena anguilla Linnaeus, 1758.

The use of the specific name vulgaris by Shaw was clearly (not ‘possibly’ as in the
application) to avoid tautonymy following the Linnaean precepts of taxonomy which
were later encoded in the Strickland Code of Nomenclature in Zoology (Strickland,
1842). Although the avoidance of tautonymy was not encoded until that date it was
shunned by adherents of the Linnaean system of nomenclature in accordance with the
aphorisms set out in Linnaeus’s Critica Botanica (see Hort, 1938). For discussion of the
nomenclature of fishes with the specific name vulgaris see Wheeler (1988).

References

Blache, J., Bauchot, M.-L. & Saldanha, L. 1973. In Hureau, J.C. & Monod, T. (Eds.), Check-list
of the fishes of the north-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean, vol. 1, xxii, 683 pp.
UNESCO, Paris. -

Hort, A. 1938. The ‘Critica Botanica’ of Linnaeus. 239 pp. The Ray Society, London.

Schrank, F. von P. 1798. Fauna Boica, vol. 1, part 2. x11, 720 pp. Nurnberg.

Strickland, H.E. 1842. Report of a Committee appointed ‘to consider of the Rules by which the
Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’. Report of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 1842: 105-121.

Wheeler, A. 1988. The nomenclature of the sole, Solea solea (Linnaeus, 1758). Journal of Fish
Biology, 33: 489-490.

;
|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 139

(2) F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA, Washington, D:C., U.S.A.

No action by the Commission is required to conserve the name Muraena Linnaeus in
its accustomed usage as in 1827 Bory de Saint-Vincent (p. 305) designated Muraena
helena Linnaeus as type species. This designation is much earlier than Bleeker’s.

Reference

Bory de Saint-Vincent, J.B.G.M. 1827. In Audouin, [J.V.] et al. (Eds.), Dictionnaire classique
d'Histoire Naturelle, vol. 11. 615 pp. Rey & Gravier, Paris.

(3) Ruth A. Cooper
Secretariat, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K.

This case is thus resolved without need for action by the Commission. In the light of
the above comments, the following information is given on the genera and species
involved.

Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (p. 304), type species by monotypy Muraena anguilla
Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 245).

Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 244), type species by subsequent designation by Bory de
Saint-Vincent (1827, p. 305) Muraena helena Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 244).

Further comment on the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by
R.W. Wells and C.R. Wellington

_ (Case 2531; see BZN 44: 116-121, 257-261; 45: 52-54, 145-153, 216)

P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. Goujet, J.P. Hugot, J. Pierre & S. Tillier
Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 75005 Paris, France

The recently published Contributions to the History of Herpetology (Adler, 1989)

contains an Index of Authors in Taxonomic Herpetology compiled by John S.

Applegarth. We quote the following paragraph from the introduction to this Index:
‘Note. — It is the personal opinion of the compiler that the methods and recent
writings of Richard W. Wells and C. Ross Wellington are inconsistent with
acceptable practices of taxonomy, and that such writings should be rejected
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Therefore
Mr Wells and Mr Wellington are not included in this compilation. For
further opinions on this matter see Herpetological Review, 16: 4-7 and 69, and
Australian Entomological Society News Bulletin, 21: 66-69.’

We are outraged by this attitude, which is best compared with the Stalinist falsifi-

cation of history. Such statements demonstrate that the ‘anti- Wells & Wellington’
| group of persons will not be satisfied with a rejection by the Commission of their works:
| their names should also disappear from the History of Herpetology. In the next step

140 : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

will we be told that Wells and Wellington have simply never existed? Or perhaps they
should be physically eliminated using an ice-pick?

We therefore urge the Commission to reject the application to suppress the works by
Wells & Wellington for the very reasons that some of us have expressed earlier (BZN
45: 146-149; The Australian Herpetologist, 528: \—5).

Reference

Adler, K. 1989. Contributions to the History of Herpetology. Contributions to Herpetology, 5:
1-202.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 141

OPINION 1587

Orbitolina d@’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava
Lamarck, 1816 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus
Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 prior to that of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 by Davies
(1939) are hereby set aside.

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

(a) Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (gender: feminine), type species by designation by
Davies (1939) Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as confirmed under the plenary
powers in (1) above;

(b) Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Madreporites lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805.

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

Zoology:

(a) concava Lamarck, 1816, as published in the binomen Orbulites concava (specific
name of the type species of Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850);

(b) lenticularis Blumenbach, 1805, as published in the binomen Madreporites
lenticularis (specific name of the type species of Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963).

‘History of Case 2663
An application for the confirmation of Orbulites concava Lamarck, 1816 as the type
species of Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 was received from Prof R. Schroeder (Universitét
Frankfurt, Frankfurt a. M., Fed. Rep. Germany) & Mr M. Simmons (BP Research
Centre, Sunbury-on-Thames, U.K.) on 4 May 1988. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 45: 254-257 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appro-
priate journals. No comments were received. With reference to para. 3 (p. 254) of the
application, it might be clearer to say that the expressions ‘specific type’ and ‘type’ of
‘Parker & Jones (1860, p. 35) mean simply ‘species’, rather than ‘typical form of a
species’; as stated in the application Parker & Jones did not designate a type species for
Orbitolina.

|
Decision of the Commission
| On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 256. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

| Affirmative votes — 26: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

| No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov.

142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

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

concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816, Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, vol. 2, p. 197.

lenticularis, Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1805, Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstande,
Heft 8, no. 80.

Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850, Prodrome de Paléontologie stratigraphique universelle des animaux
mollusques & rayonnés faisant suite au cours élémentaire de Paléontologie et de Géologie
stratigraphiques, vol. 2, p. 143.

Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963, Neues Jahrbuch fir Geologie und Paldontologie Abhandlungen,
117: 348.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 143

OPINION 1588

Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea):
holotype replaced by a lectotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the holotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman,
1987 is hereby set aside.

(2) The specimen illustrated in Fig. 1 of Goodman (1987) is hereby designated as the
lectotype of Hapalorhynchus beadlei, with the type locality ‘near Kampala, Uganda’
and the host ‘Pelusios sp.’.

(3) The name beadlei Goodman, 1987, as published in the binomen Hapalorhynchus
beadlei and as defined by the lectotype designated in (2) above, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2653

An application for the replacement of the holotype by a lectotype of Hapalorhynchus
beadlei Goodman, 1987 was received from Dr T.R. Platt (Saint Mary’s College, Notre
Dame, Indiana, U.S.A.) on 6 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 45: 258-259 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received. It was noted on the voting papers that the
application had the support of Dr J.D. Goodman, the author of H. beadlei.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 258-259. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1990 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson,
UVéno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Kraus and Mahnert.

No votes were received from Starobogatov and Trjapitzin.

Kraus considered that the taxonomic status of Hapalorhynchus beadlei was at
present too confused to warrant action by the Commission. Two members of the
Commission suggested that the proposed type specimen could be a neotype but not a
lectotype, since a holotype had been designated previously. This is not the case, how-
ever, since the Commission has, using its plenary powers, set aside the previous
holotype (which differed from the published description and figure of H. beadlei).

Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:
beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987, Transactions of the American Microscopical Society,
106: 80.

144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1589

Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888 (currently also
Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as
published in the binomen Phyllodoce breviremis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes
of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888, as published in the combination
Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

(3) The name breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865, as published in the binomen
Phyllodoce breviremis and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2633

An application for the conservation of Phyllodoce (Carobia) breviremis de
Quatrefages, 1865 (a marine paddle worm) was received from Dr F. Pleijel (University
of Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden) on 30 December 1987. After correspondence the
case was published in BZN 45: 260—261 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 260. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Thompson, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 9: Bayer, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson,
‘Mroczkowski and Tryapitzin.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Bayer, Hahn, Mroczkowski and Nye would have preferred giving rubiginosa Saint-
Joseph, 1888 precedence over breviremis de Quatrefages, 1865 to the suppression of the
latter name. Heppell considered insufficient evidence had been presented (or probably
existed) to depart from priority. Dupuis drew attention to the existence of a type
specimen for breviremis but not for rubiginosa.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
breviremis, Phyllodoce, de Quatrefages, 1865, Histoire Naturelle des Annelés Marins et d'Eau
Douce, vol. 2, p. 132.
rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia), Saint-Joseph, 1888, Annales des Sciences Naturelles
(Zoologie ), (7)5: 282.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 145

OPINION 1590

Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea,
Copepoda): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) itis hereby ruled that the specific name princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the
binomen Pleuromma princeps, is not invalid by reason of its having been rejected
before 1961 as a former secondary homonym of Metridia princeps Giesbrecht,
1889;

(b) the specific name melanotica Wolfenden, 1905, as published in the binomen
Gaussia melanotica, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(c) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Gaussia Wolfenden,
1905 are hereby set aside and Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 is designated as
type species.

(2) The name Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (gender: feminine), type species designated
in (1)(c) above Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the binomen Pleuromma princeps
(specific name of the type species of Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) melanotica Wolfenden, 1905, as published in the binomen Gaussia melanotica

and as suppressed in (1)(b) above;

(b) scotti Giesbrecht, 1897, as published in the binomen Metridia scotti, a junior
objective synonym of princeps Scott, 1894, as published in the binomen
Pleuromma princeps, by effect of the ruling in (1)(a) above.

History of Case 2622

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Pleuromma princeps
Scott, 1894 was received from Dr K. Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland,
Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on | September 1987. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 45: 188-190 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 189, with an additional proposal on the voting paper to
set aside all previous fixations of type species for Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 and to
designate Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1897 as the type. It was emphasised that this
involved no change in the effect of the proposals as published, but would achieve a more

clearly worded ruling. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990 the votes were
as follows:

146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson (in part), Trjapitzin,
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Cogger, Dupuis and Holthuis.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Holthuis did not see that use of the name scotti Giesbrecht, 1897 for Scott’s species
would cause any confusion. Thompson supported the conservation of the name
princeps Scott, 1894, but said that the suppression of melanotica Wolfenden, 1905 was
not needed.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905, Plankton Studies, part 1, p. 5.
melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905, Plankton Studies, part 1, p. 5.
princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, Zoological
Series, 6: 42.
scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 20: 254.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 147

OPINION 1591

Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda):
Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) It is hereby confirmed that the type species of the nominal genus Fizesereneia
Takeda & Tamura, 1980 is Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956.

(2) The name Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (gender: feminine), type species
as confirmed in (1) above Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956, is hereby placed on
the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956, as published in the binomen Troglocarcinus
heimi (specific name of the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2636

An application for the confirmation of Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Seréne, 1956
as the type species of Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 was received from Dr
R.K. Kropp (Ocean Sciences-Ventura Operations, Ventura, California, U.S.A.) on
12 January 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 262-263
(December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received. It was noted on the voting paper that the species heimi Fize & Seréne is
described on p. 378.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 262. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980, Bulletin of the National Science Museum, Tokyo, (A)6:
137.
heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Seréne, 1956, Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 80(5,6):
378.

148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1592
Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved

Ruling

_(1) Under the plenary powers the name Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy.

(2) The name Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Bodotria arenosa Goodsir, 1843, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology.

(3) The name arenosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Bodotria arenosa
(specific name of the type species of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901 (type genus Bodotria Goodsir, 1843) is
hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above;

(b) Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (included in a work rejected for nomenclatural

purposes).

History of Case 2645

An application for the conservation of Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 was received from
Drs M. Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Bucuresti,
Romania) & L:B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) on 22 February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 264-266 (December
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.
Dr Holthuis (in litt. to the Commission Secretariat, 17 April 1988) stated that the last
use of the name Cuma for any species of Bodotria was in 1903, and that for the first four
species (of the 32 known) which are listed in the Bodotria section of Crustaceorum
Catalogus (1988) there are 23 authors with 37 papers within the last 50 years.

Additional reference

Bacescu, M. 1988. Genus Bodotria. Pp. 34-49 in Gruner, H.E. & Holthuis, L.B.
(Eds.), Crustaceorum Catalogus. Part 7. Cumacea 1 (Families Archaeocumatidae,
Lampropidae, Bodotriidae, Leuconidae). 173 pp. SPB Academic Publishing, The
Hague.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 265. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 23: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Uéno, Willink

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 149

Negative votes — 4: Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Savage and Tryjapitzin.
No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 128.
Bodotria Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 128.

BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901, Annual Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland, 19: 273.
Cuma Humphrey, 1797, Museum Calonnianum, p. 35.

Cuma H. Milne Edwards, 1828, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, Paris (1)13: 287.

150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1593

Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815;
(b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854;
(c) any use of the name Iphinoe prior to Iphinoe Bate, 1856.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology:
(a) Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Cuma trispinosa
Goodsir, 1843;
(b) Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Uroctea
quinquemaculata Dufour, 1820.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology:
(a) quinquemaculata Dufour, 1820, as published in the binomen Uroctea quinque-
maculata (specific name of the type species of Uroctea Dufour, 1820);
(b) trispinosa Goodsir, 1843, as published in the binomen Cuma trispinosa (specific
name of the type species of Iphinoe Bate, 1856).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, as suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1845, as suppressed in (1)(b) above;
(c) Halia Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Halia Risso, 1826);
(d) Venilia Bate, 1856 (a junior homonym of Venilia Duponchel, 1829).

History of Case 2643

An application for the conservation of Iphinoe Bate, 1856 was received from Drs M.
Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Bucuresti, Romania) &
L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on 22
February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 267-269 (December 1988). Notice of the case
was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support from two mollusc specialists,
Anders Warén (Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, Sweden) and Richard S.
Houbrick (National Museum of Natural History, Washington, U.S.A.), were published
in BZN 46: 190-191 (September 1989). Dr Warén pointed out that the replacement
name Neoiphinoe Habe, 1978 is available for Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854 (even
though proposed because of a mistaken priority assumption; cf. para. 6 of the
application).

Norman’s (1869) first reviser action (para. 3 of the application) gave Bate’s Iphinoe
precedence over Cyrianassa Bate, 1856; the former name is thus Homer valid
as its senior homonyms have been suppressed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 151

Decision of the Commission
On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the

proposals published in BZN 45: 268-269. At the close of the voting period on | March
1990 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Mroczkowski.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Lehtinen and Mroczkowski did not consider the suppression of the name Jphinoe
H. & A. Adams to be justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Halia Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 458.
Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature, p. 107.
Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1854, The genera of recent Mollusca arranged according to their
organization, vol. 1, p. 280.
Iphinoe Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)18: 187.

quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820, Annales générales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles,
5: 200.

trispinosa, Cuma, Goodsir, 1843, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 34: 126.
Uroctea Dufour, 1820, Annales générales des Sciences Physiques, Bruxelles, 5: 198.
Venilia Bate, 1856, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (2)17: 460.

152 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1594

Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, and any use of
that name prior to Leucon Kroyer, 1846, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both
the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Sars (1879) Cuma nasica Kre@yer, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name nasica Kre@yer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma nasica
(specific name of the type species of Leucon Kreyer, 1846), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (type genus Leucon Kroyer, 1846) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The name Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2644

An application for the conservation of Leucon Kroyer, 1846 was received from Drs
M. Bacescu (Muzeul National de Istorie Naturala ‘Grigore Antipa’, Bucuresti, Romania)
& L.B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) on
22 February 1988 and published in BZN 45: 270-271 (December 1988). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received. It was noted on
the voting paper that Leucon Schoenherr is wrongly described in the Abstract of
the application as a ‘synonym’ of Leucon Kroyer; this should have read ‘homonym’.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 271. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Leucon Kroyer, 1846, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, n. ser., 2: 208.
Leucon Schoenherr, 1834, Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia hujus familiae, vol. 2,
part 1, p. 285.
LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878, Archiv for Mathematik og Naturvidenskab, 3: 466.
nasica, Cuma, Kreyer, 1841, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, (1)3: 524.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 153

OPINION 1595

Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewiti
Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 are hereby set aside and Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894 is
designated as type species.

(2) The name Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (gender: feminine), type species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name Joewii Klapalak, 1894, as published in the binomen Aleuropteryx
loewii(mandatory correction of Léwii; specific name of the type species of Aleuropteryx
Low, 1885), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905, type genus Aleuropteryx Low,
1885, is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2651

An application for the designation of Aleuropteryx loewii Klapalak, 1894 as the
type species of Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 was received from Drs J.D. Oswald (Cornell
University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) & M. Meinander (Helsingfors Universitet,
Helsingfors, Finland) on 14 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 45: 272-274 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 273. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson,
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Kabata, Starobogatov and Trjapitzin.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905, Zoologischer Anzeiger, 29: 225.
Aleuropteryx Low, 1885, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien.
Mathematische-Naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse (Abt. 1), 91: 79.
loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalak, 1894, Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 30: 122.

154 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1596

Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phryganea phalaenoides
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis
Latreille, 1802 (Insecta, Megaloptera)

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type species for the nominal genus
Semblis Fabricius, 1775 prior to that of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 by Van
der Weele (1910) are hereby set aside.

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

Zoology:

(a) Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Van der Weele (1910) Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758, as
conserved in (1) above;

(b) Sialis Latreille, 1802 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Hemerobius
lutarius Linnaeus, 1758.

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

Zoology:

(a) phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Phryganea
phalaenoides (specific name of the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775);

(b) Jutarius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Hemerobius lutarius
(specific name of the type species of Sialis Latreille, 1802).

History of Case 2655

An application for the conservation of Phryganea phalaenoides Linnaeus, 1758 as
the type species of Semblis Fabricius, 1775, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802,
was received from Dr J.D. Oswald (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) on
19 April 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 275-277
(December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members ‘of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 276. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Bayer and Starobogatov.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 550.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 155

phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 547.

Semblis Fabricius, 1775, Systema Entomologiae..., p. 305.

Sialis Latreille, 1802, Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes,
vol. 3, p. 290.

The following is the reference for the designation of Phryganea phalaenoides as the type species

of Semblis:

Van der Weele, H.W. 1910. Megaloptera. Collection Zoologiques du Baron Edm. de Selys
Longchamps. Catalogue Systématique et Descriptif, fasc. 5, p. 55.

156 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1597

Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic
and specific names conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the names Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 and robynsii
Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus robynsii, are hereby sup-
pressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The name Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy
Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

(3) The name angusticolle Stephens, 1834, as published in the binomen Coryphium
angusticolle (specific name of the type species of Coryphium Stephens, 1834), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, as suppressed in (1) above;

(b) Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834, an incorrect spelling of Harpognatus Wesmael,

1833.

(5) The name robynsii Wesmael, 1833, as published in the binomen Harpognatus
robynsii and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2627

An application for the conservation of both the generic and specific names
Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 was received from Dr L. Zerche (Unstitut fir
Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmachnow der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissen-
schaften der DDR, Eberswalde-Finow, DDR) on 2 October 1987 and published in BZN
45: 197-198 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A
comment in support from Dr M.K. Thayer (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago,
U.S.A:) was published in BZN 46: 44 (March 1989).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 197-198. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1990 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, payee Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin,
Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Martins de Souza abstained because of a reference indicating that Coryphium
Stephens might have been published in 1832, which would have made the application
redundant. The date 1834 is however correct.

enous

.
{

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 157

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834, Illustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 5,
p. 344.
Coryphium Stephens, 1834, [//ustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 5, p. 344.
Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834, L’Institut (Journal général des Sociétés et Travaux scientifiques de
la France et de l’Etranger ), 2(42): 76.
Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833, Recueil Encyclopédique Belge, p. 121.
robynsii, Harpognatus, Wesmael, 1833, Recueil Encyclopédique Belge, p. 121.

158 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1598

Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828
designated as the respective type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Ophonus Dejean,
1821 are hereby set aside and Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 is designated as
type species;

(b) all previous designations of type species for the nominal genus Tachys Dejean,
1821 are hereby set aside and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 is designated as
type species.

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

Zoology:

(a) Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under
the plenary powers in (1)(a) above Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796;

(b) Tachys Dejean, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by designation under the
plenary powers in (1)(b) above Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828.

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

Zoology:

(a) sabulicola Panzer, 1796, as published in the binomen Carabus sabulicola (specific
name of the type species of Ophonus Dejean, 1821);

(b) scutellaris Stephens, 1828, as published in the binomen Tachys scutellaris
(specific name of the type species of Tachys Dejean, 1821).

History of Case 2585

An application for the designation of Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys
scutellaris Stephens, 1828 as the respective type species of Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and
Tachys Dejean, 1821 was received from Dr H. Silfverberg (Universitetets Zoologiska
Museum, Helsingfors, Finland) on 7 November 1986. After correspondence the case
was published in BZN 45: 278-279 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 278-279. At the close of the voting period on 1 March
1990 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen (in part), Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins
de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Halvorsen and Starobogatov.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 159

Lehtinen commented that the application did not give any reason for the retention of
Tachys Dejean, 1821, and accordingly he voted against the proposals relating to that
nominal genus [however, reference was made in the application to a relevant paper by
Erwin (1974)].

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Ophonus Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 13.
sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796, Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia, part 30, p. 4.
scutellaris, Tachys, Stephens, 1828, I/lustrations of British Entomology, Mandibulata, vol. 2, p. 5.
Tachys Dejean, 1821, Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. le Baron Dejean, p. 16.

160 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1599

Papilio carthami Hibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major
Staudinger, 1879 (currently both in Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the
specific names carthami and major conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published
in the trinomen Papilio malvae maior, and all uses of the name maior Fabricius, 1793,
are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the
Principle of Homonymy.

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

(a) carthami Hubner, [1813], as published in the binomen Papilio carthami;

(b) major Staudinger, 1879, as published in the trinomen Syrichthus serratulae

major.

(3) The name maior Fabricius, 1787, as published in the trinomen Papilio malvae
maior and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2623

An application for the conservation of the specific names of the Skipper butterflies
Papilio carthami Hubner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major Staudinger, 1879
was received from Dr R. de Jong (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) on 7 September 1987. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 45: 280-282 (December 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 281. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No votes were received from Kabata and Starobogatov.

Dupuis abstained.

Thompson considered insufficient evidence had been provided to justify the
suppression of the name maior Fabricius, 1787.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
carthami, Papilio, Hubner, [1813], Sammlung europdischer Schmetterlinge, vol. 1, pl. 143.
maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787, Mantissa insectorum, vol. 2, p. 91.
major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 14:
292. :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 161

OPINION 1600

Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Peribaea orbata; Insecta,
Diptera): neotype designation confirmed

Ruling

(1) It is hereby ruled that the specific name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published
in the binomen Tachina orbata, is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen
designated as neotype by Crosskey (1967).

(2) The name orbata Wiedemann, 1830, as published in the binomen Tachina orbata
and as defined by the neotype designated by Crosskey (1967), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2632

An application for the confirmation of the designation of a neotype for Tachina
orbata Wiedemann, 1830 was received from Drs R.W. Crosskey (The Natural History
Museum, London, U.K.) & H. Shima (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) on 23
December 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 199-201
(September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments
were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 201. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Macpherson.

No votes were received from Starobogatov or Trjapitzin.

Savage abstained, as he did not consider any action necessary because the neotype
designation had not been formally challenged.

Original reference

The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:
orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830, Aussereuropdische zweifligelige Insekten, 2: 336.

162 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1601

Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826):
suppressed for nomenclatural purposes

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following work is hereby suppressed for
nomenclatural purposes:

Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville,
Rapporteur), Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, Paris, 1826.

(2) The above work, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature.

History of Case 2654

An application for the suppression of the Rapport... was received from Dr C.W.
Sabrosky (USDA, c/o U.S. National Museum, Washington, DC, U.S.A.) on 11 April
1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 283-287 (December
1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received,
but the application was supported by a number of entomologists (see BZN 45: 287,
para. 10).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 287. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Dupuis commented that he had in 1963 published doubt concerning the valid
publication of the Rapport.

Original reference
The following is the original reference to the work placed on an Official Index by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, 1826, Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur
Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, Rapporteur), 24 pp., Paris.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 163

OPINION 1602

Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as
published in the binomen Tenthredo bicinctaflava, is hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name zonula Klug, 1817, as published in the binomen Tenthredo zonula, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name bicinctaflava Christ, 1791, as published in the binomen Tenthredo
bicinctaflava and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2628

An application for the conservation of the specific name Tenthredo zonula Klug,
1817, was received from Dr A. Taeger (nstitut fiir Pflanzenschutzforschung Kleinmach-
now der Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der DDR, Eberswalde-Finow,
DDR) on 2 October 1987. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45:
202-203 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No
comments were received. With reference to paras. | and 2 of the application it should be
noted that both bicinctafiava Christ, 1791 and zonula Klug, 1817 are based in part on
‘La mouche-a-scie 4 deux bandes jaunes’ of Geoffroy (p. 275 in Histoire abregée des
Insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris, vol.2, 690 pp., pls. 11-22. Durand, Paris.).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 203. At the close of the voting period on | March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Thompson, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Starobogatov or Trjapitzin.

Original reference
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791, Naturgeschichte, Klassification und Nomenclatur der
Insekten vom Bienen, Wespen und Ameisengeschlecht, p. 442.
zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817, Der Gesellschaft naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin Magazin fiir
die neuesten Entdeckungen in der gesammten Naturkunde, Berlin, 8(1814): 137.

164 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1603

Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes):
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 is
deemed to be the name of a then new nominal genus, and not a replacement name for
Stylephorus Shaw, 1791.

(2) Under the plenary powers all previous type fixations for Saccopharynx Mitchill,
1824 are hereby set aside and Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 is hereby designated
as the type species.

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

(a) Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in
(2) above Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 (a junior subjective synonym of
Ophiognathus ampullaceus Harwood, 1827);

(b) Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy
Stylephorus chordatus Shaw, 1791.

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

(a) ampullaceus Harwood, 1827, as published in the binomen Ophiognathus
ampullaceus (senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Saccopharynx
flagellum Cuvier, 1829, the type species of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824);

(b) chordatus Shaw, 1791, as published in the binomen Stylephorus chordatus
(specific name of the type species of Stylephorus Shaw, 1791).

(5) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:

(a) SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (type genus Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824);

(b) STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Stylephorus Shaw, 1791).

History of Case 2625

An application for the conservation of Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 was received
from Drs W.N. Eschmeyer (California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, California,
U.S.A.) & C.R. Robins (University of Miami, Miami, Florida, U.S.A.) on 14 September
1987 and published in BZN 45: 204-206 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent
to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 was, strictly speaking, originally a replacement name
for Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (cf. para. 2 of the application), although treated by all
subsequent workers as a new nominal genus. The name chordatus cannot be used for
Mitchill’s Saccopharynx species under Article 49 of the Code and it never has been so
used. Cuvier (1829, p. 355; para. 4 of the application) described the genus jointly under
the two names Saccopharynx Mitchill and Ophiognathus Harwood. He referred to “Le
Saccopharynx flagellum de Mitchill’ (sic), without mentioning chordatus for which (in
its Saccopharynx sense) flagellum was evidently a replacement name. Of the species
Ophiognathus ampullaceus Harwood, 1827 Cuvier wrote that while it might not be
identical to flagellum it ‘manifestement’ belonged to the same genus. It is clear

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 165

that Saccopharynx flagellum Cuvier, 1829 is the appropriate nominal type species.
Subsequent workers have synonymised flagellum and ampullaceus and the latter name
is treated as valid. As first submitted the application by Drs Eschmeyer & Robins did
not include the suppression of ampullaceus, and proposals (1) and (6) on BZN 45: 205
were withdrawn. Proposal (2) was also amended, and the proposals were given in their
amended form on the voting papers. The amended proposals achieve the stabilisation
of existing usage and the purpose of the published application.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 205, amended as noted above. At the close of the
voting period on | March 1990 the votes were as foilows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno,
Willink

Negative votes — 1: Lehtinen.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Martins de Souza abstained.

Lehtinen considered that the name Ophiognathus Harwood, 1827 should be used
instead of Saccopharynx, since the latter was published as a replacement name for
Stylephorus Shaw, 1791.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

ampullaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, 1827: 51.

chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,
1: 90.

SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859, Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo Neerlandicae, 6: xxxiii.

Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824, Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 1(1): 86.

STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839, On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and
reptiles or monocardian animals, vol. 2, p. 47.

Stylephorus Shaw, 1791, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1: 90.

166 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1604
ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the name Epicrium Wagler, 1828 is hereby suppressed
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy.

(2) The name Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Caecilia
glutinosa (specific name of the type species of Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (type genus Jchthyophis Fitzinger, 1826)
is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.

(5) The name Epicrium Wagler, 1828, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on
the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(6) The name EPICRIDAE (published as ‘Epicria’) Fitzinger, 1843 (type genus
Epicrium Wagler, 1828) (invalid because the name of the type genus is suppressed in (1)
above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group
Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2616

An application for the conservation of ICHTHYOPHUDAE Taylor, 1968 was received
from Drs M. Wilkinson & R.A. Nussbaum (University of Michigan, Michigan, U.S.A.)
on 6 July 1987 and published in BZN 45: 207-209 (September 1988). Notice of the
case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr H.M. Smith
(University of Colorado at Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) was published in BZN 46: 134
(June 1989). It should be noted that Caecilia glutinosa Linnaeus, 1758 appears on p. 229
of Systema Naturae (Ed. 10, vol. 1), not p. 299 as stated in para. 1 of the application.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 208. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Lehtinen and Schuster commented that the suppression of Epicrium Wagler, 1828
would avoid familial homonymy between caecilians and mesostigmatid mites. In the
latter group EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 is a well established family, based on Epicrius
Canestrini & Fanzago, 1877. Thompson considered that there was no reason given to

:
e
*
)
>
\

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 167

suppress Epicrium, and that it would have been possible to give ICHTHYOPHIIDAE
precedence over EPICRIIDAE.

[Note by P.K. Tubbs. The status of family-group names derived from suppressed
names of type genera requires further consideration by the Commission. In the present
case Epicrium Wagler, 1828 has been suppressed ‘but not for the purposes of the
Principle of Homonymy’, and its derived family name EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 can
no longer threaten junior synonyms such as ICHTHYOPHIDAE Taylor, 1968. In order to
protect the junior homonym EPICRIIDAE Berlese, 1885 mentioned by Drs Lehtinen and
Schuster it is necessary that EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger be not just nomenclaturally invalid
but that it be unavailable, i.e. that it ceases to have any status in nomenclature. Auto-
matic suppression of family name availability would be desirable in this case, and
probably should apply to most if not all cases where the name of a type genus is, or has
been, suppressed by the Commission using its plenary powers. Pending consideration
of this, EPICRIDAE Berlese, 1885 is conserved under Article 80 of the Code (maintenance
of existing usage)].

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official

Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

EPICRIIDAE Fitzinger, 1843, Systema Reptilium... fasciculus primus: Amblyglossae (Conspectus
geographicus ), p. 34.

Epicrium Wagler, 1828, Isis, von Oken, 21(7): col. 742.

glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 229.

ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968, The caecilians of the world: a taxonomic review, p. 46.

Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826, Neue Classification der Reptilien nach ihren natiirlichen verwandt-
schaften nebst einer Verwandtschaftstafel und einem Verzeichnisse der Reptiliensammlung des
KK. zoologischen Museums zu Wien, p. 36.

. 168 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

OPINION 1605

Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name pennatribus Cope, 1869 (May), as
published in the binomen Thorius pennatribus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of
the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name Thorius Cope, 1869 (May) (gender: masculine), type species by
monotypy Thorius pennatribus Cope, 1869 (May) (= pennatulus Cope, 1869 (June)), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name pennatulus Cope, 1869 (June), as published in the binomen Thorius
pennatulus (specific name of the type species of Thorius Cope, 1869 by virtue of the
ruling in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name pennatribus Cope, 1869, as published in the binomen Thorius
pennatribus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2650

An application for the conservation of Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 was received
from Drs H.M. Smith, J. Hanken & D. Chiszar (University of Colorado at Boulder,
Colorado, U.S.A.) on 14 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published
in BZN 45: 210-211 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 211. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Nye would have preferred to treat pennatribus as an incorrect original spelling.
Thompson considered insufficient evidence had been provided to determine whether
use of the plenary powers was justified.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (May), American Naturalist, 3(4): 222.
pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (June), Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of
Philadelphia, 21: 111.
Thorius Cope, 1869 (May), American Naturalist, 3(4): 222.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 169

OPINION 1606

Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADISAEIDAE): conserved as the
correct spelling of the generic and specific names

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the spelling of both the generic and specific names
Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 are hereby ruled to be correct, despite their publication
in the spelling Semeioptera Wallacei.

(2) The name Semioptera Gray, 1859 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859, spelling conserved in (1) above, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name wallacii Gray, 1859, as published in the combination Paradisaea
(Semeioptera) Wallacei (specific name of the type species of Semioptera Gray, 1859,
spelling conserved in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology.

(4) The name Semeioptera Gray, 1859 is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect
original spelling of Semioptera Gray, 1859).

(5) The name wallacei Gray, 1859, as published in the combination Paradisaea
(Semeioptera) Wallacei, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of
wallacii Gray, 1859).

History of Case 2441

An application for the conservation of the spelling of Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859
(Wallace’s Standard Wing Bird of Paradise) was received from Ms M. LeCroy
(American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.) on 3 May 1983 and pub-
lished in BZN 45: 212—213 (September 1988). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. An opposing comment from Jifi Mlikovsky (Czechoslovak Academy of
Sciences, Praha), together with a reply by the author of the application and Walter J.
Bock (Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.), was published in BZN 46: 49-50
(March 1989).

The original report in The Literary Gazette (March 1859) has been examined (cf.
para. 2 of the application). The spelling Semeioptera Wallacei appeared (p. 406) in
a Zoological Society meeting report which stated ‘... Mr G.R. Gray proposed the
subgeneric name Semeioptera, and he further added the provisional specific name
of Wallacei, in commemoration of the indefatigable energy [of] Mr Wallace...’.
The report included a description of the bird, used by Gray in proposing the names.
Authorship of these names is thus to be attributed to Gray.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 212-213. At the close of the voting period on | March
1990 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,

170 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

Minelli, Mroczkowski (in part), Nielsen, Nye (in part), Ride, Savage, Schuster (in
part), Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Lehtinen.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Lehtinen, Mroczkowski, Nye and Schuster accepted the spelling Semioptera, but
considered that wallacei should be retained as being correct for reasons of both priority
and derivation. Holthuis commented that the names Semeioptera and wallacei could
have been suppressed. Ride said the Commission should have been asked to choose
between suppression and the course put forward on the voting papers, namely to rule
that the Literary Gazette names were incorrect original spellings. Thompson said that
the Commission could have ruled that The Literary Gazette was not a publication in the
sense of the Code.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official

Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Semeioptera Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (an incorrect original spelling of
Semioptera).

Semioptera Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (incorrectly spelled as
Semeioptera).

wallacei, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (an
incorrect original spelling of wallacii).

wallacii, Paradisaea (Semioptera), Gray, 1859, Literary Gazette (new series), 39: 406 (incorrectly
spelled as wallacei).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990 171

OPINION 1607

Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia,
Rodentia): specific name conserved

Ruling

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

(a) all uses of the specific name domesticus, published in combination with Mus
Linnaeus, 1758, prior to its use by Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, are hereby sup-
pressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of
Homonymy;

(b) the specific name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the
trinomen Mus musculus domesticus, is to be given precedence over all names,
with the exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758, that are considered to be
synonyms of it.

(2) The name domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, as published in the trinomen
Mus musculus domesticus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over all names, with the
exception of musculus Linnaeus, 1758, that are considered to be synonyms of it.

(3) The name domesticus Rutty, 1772, as published in the binomen Mus domesticus,
is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology (a nomen nudum).

History of Case 2640

An application for the conservation of Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz &
Schwarz, 1943 (the western European house mouse) was received from Dr G.B. Corbet
(The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, U.K.) on 26 January 1988.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 45: 214-215 (September 1988).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On | December 1989 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 45: 215. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen,
Ride, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Lehtinen, Nye and Savage.

No vote was received from Starobogatov.

Dupuis and Mroczkowski abstained.

Voting against, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Nye considered that the name domesticus
Rutty, 1772 should have been ruled to be available; voting for, Thompson was of the
same view. Heppell said that the Commission could have ruled that Mus domesticus
Rutty, 1772 was to be interpreted in the sense of Schwarz & Schwarz (1943). Dupuis
and Mroczkowski abstained because they considered the case needed more infor-
mation and discussion. Supporting the application, Ride drew attention to the import-
ance of there being designated a lectotype (or neotype) of the nominal species Mus

172 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(2) June 1990

domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, preferably a specimen of known karyotype.
Savage would have supported the application if such a type had been designated.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772, An essay towards a natural history of the county of Dublin..., vol. 1,
p. 281.
domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943, Journal of Mammalogy, 24: 65.

—— tL ee

Contents—continued

Rulings of the Commission

Opinion 1587. Orbitolina dOrbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida): Orbulites concava
lamarck; 18'16.confirmed as the type species ce

Opinion 1588. Hapalorhynchus beadlei Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda, Digenea):
holotype replaced by a lectotype :

Opinion 1589. Phyllodoce (Carobia) rubiginosa Saint- Joseph, 1888 ‘(currently also
Nereiphylla rubiginosa; Annelida, Polychaeta): specific name conserved

Opinion 1590. Pleuromma princeps Scott, 1894 (currently Gaussia princeps; Crustacea,
Copepoda): specificnameconserved. . . . .

Opinion 1591. Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda):
Troglocarcinus heimi Fize & Serene, 1956 confirmed as the type species. mee

Opinion 1592. Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved .

Opinion 1593. Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved

Opinion 1594. Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Crustacea, Cumacea): conserved Saat

Opinion 1595. Aleuropieryx Low, 1885 (Insecta, Neuroptera): Aleuropteryx loewii ii
Klapalak, 1894 designated as the type species...

Opinion 1596. Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Phiyganeaphalaenoides
Linnaeus, 1758 conserved as the type species, thus conserving Sialis Latreille, 1802
(Insecta, Megaloptera)

Opinion 1597. Coryphium angusticolle Stephens, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera): generic
and specific names conserved . .

Opinion 1598. Ophonus Dejean, 1821 and Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera):
Carabus sabulicola Panzer, 1796 and Tachys scutellaris Stephens, 1828 designated as
the respective type species :

Opinion 1599. Papilio carthami Hiibner, [1813] and Syrichthus serratulae major
Staudinger, 1879 (currently bothin Pyrgus; Insecta, Lepidoptera): the specific names
carthami and major conserved . .

Opinion 1600. Tachina orbata Wiedemann, 1830 (currently Per ibaca orbata: Insecta,
Diptera): neotype designation confirmed . .

Opinion 1601. Rapport sur les Myodaires du Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (1826):
suppressed for nomenclatural purposes...

Opinion 1602. Tenthredo zonula Klug, 1817 (Insecta, “Hymenoptera): specific name
conserved.

Opinion 1603. Saccopharynx ‘Mitchill, 1824. (Osteichthyes, Saccopharyngiformes):
conserved

Opinion 1604. ICHTHYOPHIIDAE : Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia, Gymnophiona): conserved .

Opinion 1605. Thorius pennatulus Cope, 1869 (Amphibia, Caudata): specific name
conserved .

Opinion 1606. Semioptera wallacii Gray, 1859 (Aves, PARADISAEIDAL): conserved as the
correct spelling of the generic and specific names .

Opinion 1607. Mus musculus domesticus Schwarz & Schwarz 1943 (Mammalia;
Rodentia): specific name conserved

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

141

143

Authors preparing papers for publication in the Bulletin should follow the instructions printed

on the inside back cover of previous parts of the Bulletin.

CONTENTS

Notices .

Call for nominations fort new v members of the International Commission on n Zoological
Nomenclature . . :

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works i in 1 Zoology- Supplement :

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

General Articles

Bully for Brontosaurus. Stephen Jay Gould F

Family-group names in fishes: grammatical nicety or pragmatism? A plea for stability.
Alwyne Wheeler eye SSO Cte oes oe

Applications

Helix (Helicigona) barbata Férussac, 1832 (currently Lindholmiola barbata; Mollusca,
Gastropoda): proposed confirmation of lectotype designation. D. Kadolsky .

RISSOOIDEA (Or RISSOACEA) Gray, 1847 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed precedence
Over TRUNCATELLOIDEA (Or TRUNCATELLACEA) Gray, 1840. G. Rosenberg & G. M.
Davis .

Mytilus anatinus Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Anoioite anatina: Mollusca, Bivalvia):
proposed designation of a neotype. P. B. Mordan & F. R. Woodward .

of the specific name. L. Borowiec .

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): pro-
posed conservation, and proposed designation of Cobitis kuhlii Valenciennes in
Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 as the type species. M. E. Burridge, D. J. Siebert &
C. Ferraris

Trionyx sinensis Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed conservation of the
specificname. R.G. Webb . PPE Ce See Oy

Comments

On the adoption of ‘Protected Works’ for purposes of zoological nomenclature.
D. Frost .

On the proposed conservation of the generic name " Myriochele Malmgren, 1867
(Annelida, Polychaeta). R. T. Becker; A. Mackie & F. Pleijel; S. Chambers

On the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, oe over
Rhechostica Simon, 1892. R. J. Raven

On the proposed designation of Fonscolombia graminis Lichtenstein, 1877 as s the type
species of Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877, with an additional proposal to suppress
the names Tychea Koch, 1857 and T. see Koch, 1857 (Insecta, ame
E.M.Danzig;P.K.Tubbs. . .

On the valid name for the butterfly one as ‘Colias pearroe ss Ribbe, 1905"
or ‘Colias australis Verity, 1911’ (Insecta, Lepidoptera). L. B. Holthuis; E. J.
Reissinger & S. Wagener; O. Kudrna; W. G. Tremewan; P.K. Tubbs . :

On the proposed conservation of heraclei as the correct spelling for the specific name of
Musca heraclii Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera). F. C. Thompson; I. M. White.

On the proposed conservation of Physcus Howard, 1895 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) by
the suppression of Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852. G. Gibson & J. Huber; G. bees
D. Rosen; J. LaSalle . ar _

On the need for stability in fish family- -group n names. 'N. Merrett. i

On the proposed suppression for nomenclature of three works by R. Ww. Wells & C. R.
Wellington. P. Bouchet, R. Bour, A. Dubois, D. ee JSP: Bee J. Pierre &
S-Aullicr = i aoe sa obnes ae? E ‘

Continued on Inside Bac:

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

Bulletin

Bealocical
Nomenclature

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or
$125, postage included; the rates for 1991 will be £70 or $135. All manuscripts, letters
and orders should be sent to:

The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,

Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers
President Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany)
Vice-President Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)
Secretary-General Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)
Executive Secretary Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)
Members
Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia) Dr V. Mahnert
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.; Brachiopoda) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) (Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
(Fed. Rep. Germany; Trilobita) Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
(Norway; Parasitology) Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)

Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca) Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Dr L. B. Holthuis Dr Y. I. Starobogatov

(The Netherlands; Crustacea) (U.S.S.R.; Mollusca)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda) Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Prof Dr O. Kraus Dr V. A. Trjapitzin

(Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology) (U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology) Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Secretariat

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)
Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman)
Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

173

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 47, part 3 (pp. 173-240) 28 September 1990

Notices

Articles or notes of a more general nature are-actively welcomed provided that they
raise nomenclatural issues, although they may well deal with taxonomic matters for
illustrative purposes. It should be the aim of such contributions to interest an audience
wider than some small group of specialists.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 47, part 2 (published on 29 June 1990):

(1) Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed
confirmation of L. hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Marion, 1885 as the type
species. (Case 2768). D. Heppell.

(2) Laiocochlis Dunker & Metzger, 1874 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation as the correct original spelling. (Case 2769). D. Heppell.

(3) Homo lar Linnaeus, 1771 (currently Hylobates lar; Mammalia, Primates) and
Hylobates entelloides Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1842: proposed conservation of
the specific names. (Case 2770). P.D. Jenkins & C.P. Groves.

(4) Amphiuma tridactylum Cuvier, 1827 (Amphibia, Caudata): proposed conser-
vation of the specific name. (Case 2771). H.A. Dundee.

(5) Dicerca Eschscholtz, 1829 and Chrysobothris Eschscholtz, 1829 (Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the correct original spellings. (Case
2772). G.H. Nelson.

(6) Schizopus LeConte, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case
2773). G.H. Nelson.

(7) Scatophaga Meigen, 1803 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation as the
correct original spelling. (Case 2774). G.A. Parker.

(8) Meladema Laporte, 1835 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. (Case
2776). A.N. Nilsson.

(9) Dytiscus biguttatus Olivier, 1795 (currently Agabus biguttatus; Insecta,
Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2777). A.N.
Nilsson.

174 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

(10) Asaphus eichwaldi Fischer de Waldheim in Eichwald, 1825 (currently Paladin
eichwaldi; Trilobita): proposed conservation of neotype designation. (Case
2778). G. Hahn.

(11) Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera):
proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2779). B. Aukema & M.L.
Luff.

(12) Ichthyosaurus trigonus Owen, 1840 (currently Macropterygius trigonus;
Reptilia, Ichthyopterygia): proposed replacement of neotype by rediscoverd
holotype. (Case 2779). E.E. Spamer & H.S. Torrens.

(13) Platyscelis Latreille, 1818 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed designation of
Tenebrio hypolithus Pallas, 1781 as the type species. (Case 2780). L.V. Egorov.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature is introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to receive
offprints of all cases in particular disciplines. For an annual payment of £15 or $25
subscribers will receive copies of all Applications, Comments and Opinions relating to
either the Crustacea or Mollusca as soon as they are published in the Bulletin of
Zoological Nomenclature. This service will start with the present volume, but offprints
are available back to 1980.

Orders for offprints relating to either the Crustacea or the Mollusca should be sent to
I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD,
U.K., with payment at the rate of £15 or $25 for each year requested.

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £19
or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomen-
clature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.
20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany
orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in
Zoology — Supplement

In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and three works have been added to the
Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 175

additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This
supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla-
ture. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses,
from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage
included).

Payment should accompany orders.

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Price £60 or $110

or
The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to
members of A.A.Z.N.).

176 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Case 2734

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed
designation of Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species

Mark S. Harvey

Western Australian Museum, Francis Street, Perth, Western Australia 6000,
Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is the designation of the nominal species
Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species of the pseudoscorpion genus Thalasso-
chernes Beier, 1940. In his definition of Thalassochernes, Beier had misidentified the
species he was studying as Chelifer pallipes White, 1849.

1. The first pseudoscorpion to be described from New Zealand, Chelifer pallipes
White, 1849 (p. 6), was only briefly characterised by White, based upon an unstated
number of specimens from an unnamed locality. C.J. With (1905, p. 111) gave an
amplified description, along with the first illustrations, of a specimen he regarded as
the holotype in the British Museum (Natural History) collections, registration number
BM 1845.93. s

2. Ellingsen (1910, p. 376) attributed three females from New Zealand (two from
Stephen’s Island and one without precise locality) to Chelifer pallipes White, 1849.
Apparently basing his redescription on Ellingsen’s material, Beier (1932, p. 111)
transferred C. pallipes to Haplochernes Beier, 1932 (p. 108).

3. Beier (1940, p. 182) designated Chelifer pallipes as type species of his new genus
Thalassochernes (p. 182) and attributed to this nominal species a further New Zealand
specimen from Pitt Island. He subsequently identified further specimens from various
localities in New Zealand as Thalassochernes pallipes (1948, p. 537; 1966, p. 369; 1967,
p. 293).

4. In 1931, Chamberlin (p. 291) established the genus Philomaoria, with type species
Philomaoria novazealandica (p. 291), based on a number of specimens from New
Brighton, New Zealand.

5. In 1976, Beier (p. 241) transferred Chelifer pallipes (sensu With, 1905) to
Philomaoria, declaring it to be a senior synonym of the type species Philomaoria
novazealandica.

6. In 1976, Beier (p. 215) attributed the specimens that had been identified as pallipes
by Ellingsen (1910) and by himself (Beier, 1932, 1940, 1948, 1966, 1967) to Thalasso-
chernes taierensis, originally published as Chelifer taierensis by With (1907, p. 55). Beier
wrote: ‘Ellingsen was responsible for the misinterpretation of Chelifer pallipes White,
1849, a species now placed in Philomaoria. Since 1932 I have consistently used the name
pallipes for the present species’, i.e. Thalassochernes taierensis (With).

7. It is clear that Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 was based upon a misidentified type
species and the case is referred to the Commission under Article 70b to select a type
species for Thalassochernes. The two options available have different ramifications:

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 Ley

(1) to select the nominal species Chelifer pallipes, rendering Thalassochernes a junior
subjective synonym of Philomaoria and leave Chelifer taierensis without a valid generic
name; and (2) to select the species actually in front of Beier (1940) (1.e. Chelifer
taierensis), leaving Thalassochernes as a valid genus within the CHERNETIDAE. The
second option would accord with current usage (e.g. Beier, 1976) and be in the interests
of stability.

8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to useits plenary powers to set aside all previous type species designations for the
nominal genus Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 and to designate Chelifer taierensis
With, 1907 as type species of the genus;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Thalasso-
chernes Beier, 1940 (gender: masculine), type species as designated in (1) above
Chelifer taierensis With, 1907;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name faierensis
With, 1907, as published in the binomen Chelifer taierensis (specific name of the
type species of Thalassochernes Beier, 1940).

References

Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea II. Subord. Cheliferinea. Tierreich, 58: 1-294.

Beier, M. 1940. Die Pseudoscorpionidenfauna der landfernen Inseln. Zoologische Jahrbiicher,
Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und Geographie der Tiere, 74: 161-192.

Beier, M. 1948. Uber Pseudoscorpione der Australischen Region. Eos, 24: 525-562.

Beier, M. 1966. Zur Kenntnis der Pseudoscorpioniden-Fauna Neu-—Seelands. Pacific Insects, 8:
363-379.

Beier, M. 1967. Contributions to the knowledge of the Pseudoscorpionidea from New Zealand.
Records of the Dominion Museum, 5: 277-303.

Beier, M. 1976. The pseudoscorpions of New Zealand, Norfolk, and Lord Howe. New Zealand
Journal of Zoology, 3: 199-246.

Chamberlin, J.C. 1931. A synoptic revision of the generic classification of the chelonethid family
Cheliferidae Simon. (Arachnida). Canadian Entomologist, 63: 289-294.

Ellingsen, E. 1910. Die Pseudoskorpione des Berliner Museums. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoolog-
ischen Museum in Berlin, 4: 357-423.

White, A. 1849. Descriptions of apparently new species of Aptera from New Zealand. Proceed-
ings of the Zoological Society of London, 17: 3-6.

With, C.J. 1905. On Chelonethi, chiefly from the Australian region, in the collection of the
British Museum, with observations on the ‘coxal sac’ and on some cases of abnormal
segmentation. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)15: 94-143, 328.

With, C.J. 1907. On some new species of the Cheliferidae, Hans., and Garypidae, Hans., in the
British Museum. Journal of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 30: 49-85.

178 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Case 2728

Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Denton Belk

Biology Department, Our Lady of the Lake University of San Antonio, Texas
78285, U.S.A.

Sarane T. Bowen

Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway
Avenue, San Francisco, California 94132, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of a broadly
distributed North American species of brine shrimp, Artemia franciscana Kellogg,
1906. The name is threatened by four senior subjective synonyms.

1. Thompson (1834, p. 107) described the new genus and species Artemis guildingi
on the basis of a single female specimen sent to him by the Reverend L. Guilding. The
name Artemis is a junior homonym of Artemis Kirby & Spence, 1828 (Lepidoptera),
and was presumably an unjustified emendation of Artemia Leach, 1819, since Thompson
refers to ‘Artemis salinus [sic], or Brine Shrimp’ (cf. BZN 37: 224). Thompson’s descrip-
tion consists of the comments ‘one female probable of this Genus’ and ‘biarticulate
oviferous sac’ along with two drawings, and he gave the locality as the West Indies. The
current location of this specimen is unknown. Thompson’s proposed name is included
in published listings of the species of Artemia but has not otherwise been used. Daday
(1910, p. 117) placed it in the synonymy of Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 634, from
‘Anglia’). The inadequacy of Thompson’s description makes it impossible to identify
his specimen even as to genus. This name is clearly a nomen dubium.

2. Verrill (1869a, p. 248) described Artemia gracilis on the basis of specimens col-
lected from large wooden tubs on a railroad bridge across an extensive salt marsh near
New Haven, Connecticut. The water, which was much concentrated by evaporation,
came from pools in the marsh. A search of the pools from which the water had been
collected failed to produce any Artemia (Verrill, 1869a, p. 234). Verrill’s type material is
in the Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, Connecticut (YPM No.
396, 397). Packard (1883, p. 330) discussed four nominal species from the United States
(Artemia gracilis Verrill, 1869a; A. monica Verrill, 1869a; A. fertilis Verrill, 1869b; and
A. utahensis Lockington, 1876) and the European A. salina (Linnaeus, 1758), and
enumerated what he considered species-specific morphological differences between the
American species and the European Artemia salina. Regarding Verrill’s species he
stated ‘... Ido not regard the difference he [ Verrill] points out as more than individual’,
and placed Verrill’s three species (together with utahensis with no explanation — one
can only guess that he was influenced by the fact that both fertilis and utahensis were

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 179

names for Artemia from the same lake; cf. para. 7) under the first cited available name,
gracilis. Daday (1910, p. 117), influenced by work demonstrating that the morphology
of Eurasian Artemia undergoes what at that time were considered taxonomically
important changes when cultured at different salinities, synonymized the four nominal
species from the United States under Artemia salina. Jensen (1918) and Relyea (1937),
apparently unaware of Daday’s synonymy since they did not cite his work, followed
Packard in referring Artemia from Great Salt Lake, Utah, to A. gracilis. Bond (1933)
found no relationship between salinity and morphology for Artemia from Monterey
Bay, California, and thus chose not to follow Daday’s synonymy.

3. Kellogg (1906, p. 596), stating there were three species of Artemia recognized in
America (gracilis, fertilis and monica), described a new species, Artemia franciscana,
from a salt works at Redwood City on the west shore of San Francisco Bay, California.
Noting the closeness of the habitats, Bond (1933) tentatively referred the Monterey Bay
Artemia to A. franciscana but did not refer to gracilis at all. The Monterey Bay popu-
lation had previously been referred to A. franciscana by Martin & Wilber (1921) and to
A. salina by Heath (1924). Keunen (1939) demonstrated reproductive isolation
between Artemia from salt works near Cagliari, Sardinia, Italy, and at Monterey Bay.
On the basis of these findings and others he reviewed, Keunen concluded that the
American Artemia was specifically distinct from the European Artemia. He reviewed
the nomenclatural history of the genus Artemia and on the basis of priority used
A. gracilis Verrill, 1869 for the American species. He considered the clearly separate
European species to be Artemia salina (Linnaeus, 1758). However, most other authors
were unaware of or ignored Keunen’s work and in general followed Daday (1910) in
using the name 4. salina for all populations of the genus Artemia. Undoubtedly the
widely used keys of Pennak (1952, 1978) and Dexter (1959) were largely responsible for
the continued use in North America of the binomen Artemia salina. Belk (1975),
unaware of Keunen’s work, followed the pattern set by Pennak and Dexter in publishing
a key to the Anostraca of North America.

4. During the 1960’s and 70’s, Artemia came to be recognized as a complex of sibling
species. Bowen et al. (1978), in a paper that cites the key works in the development of
the concept of Artemia as such a complex, classified two identifiable North American
sibling species as A. monica Verrill, 1869 and A. franciscana Kellogg, 1906. The Great
Salt Lake population, and also populations in the West Indies (cf. para. 1), were
included in franciscana. Artemia monica is a clearly defined taxon endemic to only one
unique salt lake and represents no nomenclatural problem. Since the publication of
Bowen et al. (1978), A. franciscana has been generally and widely accepted as the name
of the broadly distributed North American species of Artemia as illustrated in these ten
papers, many of which are major reviews: Abreu-Grobois (1987), Bowen & Sterling
(1978), Bowen et al. (1980), Browne & Bowen (in press), Eng et al. (1990), Hedgecock
et al. (1982), Lenz (1987), Mura et al. (1989), Spotte & Anderson (1988) and Vanhaecke
et al. (1987). A list of 17 other references demonstrating this general acceptance of
franciscana is held in the office of the Secretariat. Correspondence in the Artemia
Newsletter also evidences acceptance (Abreu-Grobois, 1989; Yaneng, 1989). Artemia
workers find, as did Packard (1883, p. 330), that there are no morphological characters
useful in separating Verrill’s eastern United States gracilis from the western sibling
species. The only examples of gracilis available for study are museum specimens.
Natural habitats of gracilis are unknown. The Connecticut wooden tub type locality

180 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

ceased to exist long ago, and there are no reports during this century of Artemia from
states east of the Mississippi River. In the only early records, Verrill (1869b, p. 430)
notes an observation of Artemia by Agassiz in salines on Cape Cod and another by
G.H. Perkins in tubs on a railroad bridge near Boston, Massachusetts. Without live
material, gracilis cannot be studied using the methods that lead to recognition of
franciscana and monica, nor can it be compared with them. Thus the relationship of
gracilis to the other sibling species remains unknown, and is at this time unresolvable.
This lack of access to living gracilis left Bowen et al. (1978) with only one name that
could be clearly and unequivocally assigned to the populations they studied — Artemia
franciscana Kellogg, 1906.

5. When Bowen et al. (1978) chose to apply the binomen A. franciscana Kellogg,
1906 not only to Californian material but also to the Great Salt Lake population of
Artemia, the then current 1964 edition of the Code indicated in Article 23b that the
name fertilis Verrill, 1869, unused since 1883, could be rejected as a nomen oblitum; the
authors were unaware that this Article had been revoked from January 1973.

6. Amat Domenech (1980) demonstrated morphological differences between
Artemia from Europe and California. He identified the European species as Artemia
salina (Linnaeus, 1758). He referred the American species to A. gracilis Verrill, 1869.
However, his use of gracilis has not been followed by subsequent authors for reasons
discussed in para. 4.

7. Packard (1883, p. 330) included in his synonymy under A. gracilis the name
A. utahensis Lockington, 1876. The Lockington reference Packard cites is a report of a
paper that Lockington read before the San Francisco Microscopical Society. The
report (p. 137) was most likely written by Henry Lawson, editor of the journal the
report appears in. It is probable that Lockington, after giving his paper, learned that
Verrill (1869b) had already named the Great Salt Lake Artemia as fertilis, and so never
published in full the description discussed at the San Francisco meeting.

8. Although we are advocates of the Principle of Priority, it is our opinion that
stability will best be served in this instance by suppression of the names guildingi, fertilis
and utahensis which have not been used as senior synonyms since their original publi-
cation. The first of these, guildingi, is based on an inadequate description of a single
female, now lost. The other two, fertilis and utahensis, were both described from the
Great Salt Lake population which has been extensively studied and shown to be con-
specific with A. franciscana on the basis of cross-fertility and similarity of isozyme
patterns (Bowen, 1964; Clark & Bowen, 1967; Bowen & Sterling, 1978). Both names
have remained unused since Packard (1883, p. 330) listed them as junior synonyms of
A. gracilis. No author has even considered them enough to list them formally as
synonyms of franciscana. There is currently a rapidly growing literature dealing with
A. franciscana (cf. para. 4). The relationship of gracilis to franciscana is doubtful, as
explained in para. 4. If at some future time this situation should change and the two
names should be considered synonyms, assigning priority to gracilis would cause serious
confusion because of the very extensive use of A. franciscana in a wide range of studies
(see para. 4).

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

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress the following names for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

|
|

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 181

(i) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis
guildingi;

(ii) _fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis;

(iii) utahensis Lockington, 1876, as published in the binomen Artemia
utahensis;

(b) to give precedence to the specific name franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as pub-
lished in the binomen Artemia franciscana, over gracilis Verrill, 1869, as
published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names are
considered to be synonyms;

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

(a) franciscana Kellogg, 1906, as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over gracilis Verrill,
1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, whenever the two names
are considered to be synonyms;

(b) gracilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia gracilis, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over franciscana Kellogg, 1906
as published in the binomen Artemia franciscana, whenever the two names
are considered to be synonyms;

(3) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid

Specific Names in Zoology:

(a) guildingi Thompson, 1834, as published in the binomen Artemis guildingi and
as suppressed in (1)(a)(i) above;

(b) fertilis Verrill, 1869, as published in the binomen Artemia fertilis and as
suppressed in (1)(a)(il) above;

Acknowledgement
Our sincere thanks to Ruth A. Cooper for help and advice.

References

Abreu-Grobois, F.A. 1987. A review of the genetics of Artemia. Pp. 61-99 In Sorgeloos, P.,
Bengtson, D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia: Research and its applications,
vol. 1. 359 pp. Universa Press, Belgium.

Abreu-Grobois, F.A. 1989. Observations and questions with regard to Artemiataxonomy. Artemia
Newsletter, 12(April): 5-8.

Amat Domenech, F. 1980. Differentiationin Artemiastrains from Spain. Pp. 19-39 in Persoone, G.,
Sorgeloos, P., Roels, O. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), The brine shrimp Artemia, vol. 1. Morphology,
genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. 318 pp. Universa Press, Belgium.

Baird, W. 1852. Monograph of the family Branchiopodidae, a family of crustaceans belonging to
the division Entomostraca, with a description of a new genus and species of the family, and
two new species belonging to the family Limnadidae. Proceedings of the Zoological Society
of London, 1852: 18-37.

Belk, D. 1975. Key to the Anostraca (Fairy Shrimps) of North America. The Southwestern
Naturalist, 20: 91-103.

Bond, R.M. 1933. Observations on Artemia ‘franciscana’ Kellogg, especially on the relation of
environment to morphology. /nternationale Revue der gesamten Hydrobiologie, 28: 117-125.

Bowen, S.T. 1964. The genetics of Artemia salina. Part 4. Hybridization of wild populations with
mutant stocks. Biological Bulletin, 126: 333-344.

182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Bowen, S.T., Durkin, J.P., Sterling, G. & Clark, L.S. 1978. Artemia hemoglobins: Genetic
variation in parthenogenetic and zygogenetic populations. Biological Bulletin, 155: 273-287.

Bowen, S.T. & Sterling, G. 1978. Esterase and malate dehydrogenase isoenzyme polymorphisms
in 15 Artemia populations. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 61B: 593-595.

Bowen, S.T., Davis, M.L., Fenster, S.R. & Lindwall, G.A. 1980. Sibling species of Artemia. Pp.
155-167 In Persoone, G., Sorgeloos, P., Roels, O. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), The brine shrimp
Artemia, vol. 1. Morphology, genetics, radiobiology, toxicology. 318 pp. Universa Press,
Belgium.

Browne, R.A. & Bowen, S.T. In press. Taxonomy and population genetics of Artemia. In Biology
of Artemia. CRC Press.

Clark, L. & Bowen, S.T. 1976. The genetics of Artemia salina. Part 7 (reproductive isolation).
Journal of Heredity, 67: 385-388.

Daday, E. 1910. Monographie systematique des Phyllopodes Anostracés. Annales des Sciences
Naturelles, Zoologie, (9)11: 111-489.

Dexter, R.W. 1959. Anostraca. Pp. 558-571 In Edmondson, W.T. (Ed.) Fresh-water biology, Ed.
2. 1248 pp. Wiley & Sons, New York.

Eng, L.L., Belk, D. & Eriksen, C.H. 1990. California Anostraca: distribution, habitat, and status.
Journal of Crustacean Biology, 10(2): 247-277.

Heath, H. 1924. The external development of certain phyllopods. Journal of Morphology, 38:
453-463.

Hedgecock, D., Tracey, M.L. & Nelson, K. 1982. Genetics. Pp. 283-403 Jn Bliss, D.E. (Ed.-in-
chief). The Biology of Crustacea, vol. 2, Abele, L.G. (Ed.), Embryology, morphology and
genetics. 440 pp. Academic Press, New York.

Jensen, A.C. 1918. Some observations on Artemia gracilis, the brine shrimp of Great Salt Lake.
Biological Bulletin, 34: 18-33.

Kellogg, V.L. 1906. A new Artemia and its life conditions. Science, (n.s.)24: 594-596.

Kuenen, D.J. 1939. Systematical and physiological notes on the brine shrimp Artemia. Archives
Neerlandaises de Zoologie, 3: 365-449.

Lenz, P.H. 1987. Ecological studies on Artemia: a review. Pp. 5-17 Jn Sorgeloos, P., Bengtson,
D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E. (Eds.), Artemia: Research and its applications, vol. 3. 535 pp.
Universa Press, Belgium.

Lockington, W. 1876. [A new Phyllopodous Crustacean], in [Lawson, H.] (Ed.), The Monthly
Microscopical Journal: Transactions of the Royal Microscopical Society, and Record of
Histological Research at Home and Abroad, 15: 137.

Martin, E.G. & Wilbur, B.C. 1921. Salt antagonism in Artemia. American Journal of Physiology,
55: 290-291.

Mura, G., Del Caldo, L. & Fanfani, A. 1989. Sibling species of Artemia: a light and electron
microscopic survey of the morphology of the frontal knobs. Part 1. Journal of Crustacean
Biology, 9: 414-419.

Packard, A.S. Jr. 1883. A monograph of the phyllopod Crustacea of North America with
remarks on the order Phyllocarida. Twelfth Annual Report of the U.S. Geological and
Geographical Survey of the Territories: A Report of Progress of the Exploration in Wyoming
and Idaho for the Year 1878. (F.V. Haydn, U.S. geologist). Part 1, section 2, pp. 295-592,
39 pls.

Pennak, R.W. 1952. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Wiley & Sons, New York.

Pennak, R.W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States. Ed. 2. 803 pp. Wiley & Sons,
New York.

Relyea, G.M. 1937. The brine shrimp of Great Salt Lake. The American Naturalist, 71: 612-616.

Spotte, S. & Anderson, G. 1988. Chemical decapsulation of resting cysts of the anostracans
Artemia franciscana and Streptocephalus seali as revealed by scanning electron microscopy.
Journal of Crustacean Biology, 8: 22\—231.

Thompson, J.V. 1834. Development of Artemis salinus, or Brine Shrimp; demonstrative of its
relationship to Branchipus and other Crustaceous Phyllopoda, and to those enigmatic
Fossils, the apparently eyeless Trilobites... with a new species of Artemis and of -Apus.
Zoological Researches and Illustrations 1828-1834, Vol. 1, part 1, memoir 6. Pp. 103-112, 6
pls.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 183

Vanhaecke, P., Tackaert, W. & Sorgeloos, P. 1987. The biogeography of Artemia: an updated
review. /nSorgeloos, P., Bengtson, D.A., Decleir, W. & Jaspers, E.(Eds.), Artemia: Research
and its applications, vol. 1. 359 pp. Universa Press, Belgium.

Verrill, A.E. 1869a. Descriptions of some new American Phyllopod Crustacea. American Journal
of Science and Arts, (2)48: 244-254.

Verrill, A.E. 1869b. New localities of Artemia. American Journal of Science and Arts, (2)48: 430.

Yaneng, C. 1989. New Arfemia sibling species from PR China. Artemia Newsletter, 11(January):
40-41.

184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Case 2720

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation

Stephen R. Steinhauser, Lee D. Miller & Jacqueline Y. Miller

Allyn Museum of Entomology, The Florida Museum of Natural History,
3621 Bay Shore Road, Sarasota, Florida 34234, U.S.A.

Charles A. Bridges
502 West Main Street, Apt. 308, Urbana, Illinois 61801, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Dalla Mabille, 1904
for a hesperiid (skipper) butterfly genus by suppression of the seldom used senior
subjective synonym Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867].

1. In 1867, Felder & Felder established a new genus Eumesia (p. 504) with a single
nominal species semiargentea (p. 505) which is, therefore, the type species by mono-
typy. The species was based on a hesperiid specimen from Colombia with the attached
head of a satyrid butterfly. The specimen, which they failed to recognize as an artefact,
is now in the British Museum (Natural History) collections, registered as Rothschild
Bequest, BM 1939-1, type no. H-1098. Felder & Felder ((1867], p. 504) also proposed a
new family EUMESIIDAE as an intermediate familial group between HESPERIDAE and
SATYRIDAE, an action resulting only from their failure to recognize the composite nature
of the holotype.

2. In 1904, Mabille (p. 107) established a new genus Dalla in which he placed 47
species (eight of which he had not seen and two of which he listed as of uncertain status)
plus five additional names as synonyms. He (p. 108) recognized Eumesia as a valid
genus with semiargentea as the sole species, but did not make clear what he considered
to be the significant difference between Eumesia and Dalla. Mabille & Boullet (1908,
1912, 1919) never finished their revision of the HESPERIIDAE, and their treatment of
Eumesia and Dalla was not stated. Lindsey (1921, p. 58) designated Cyclopides eryonas
Hewitson, 1877 (p. 325) as the type species of Dalla.

3. Evans (1955, p. 19) was the first worker to recognize the synonymy of Eumesia
and Dalla. His action is described by Hemming (1967, p. 177) in the following terms:

‘Evans treated this generic name [Eumesia] in a strange and entirely incorrect
manner. He accepted the nominal species Eumesia semiargentea as representing a
taxonomically distinct species. In spite of this he rejected the generic name Eumesia
on the ground that the holotype of its type species (Eumesia semiargentea) now in
the British Museum was a specimen which had lost its head and on which in place
of the missing head the head of some Satyrid species had been gummed. Evans’s
ground for rejecting this generic name was that the substitution of this false head
on the holotype vitiated the generic diagnosis given by the authors of this name.
This action was misconceived, there being nothing in the Code to authorize the

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 185

rejection of a generic name on such grounds. Moreover, Evans’s contention was
incorrect in fact, for only part of the original diagnosis. was concerned with the
- characters of the head. Quite apart from this consideration, Evans forgot that
prior to 1931 it was not necessary for an author to provide any diagnosis for a new
genus, provided that he included in the genus one or more duly established
nominal species. This condition was duly complied with by the authors of this
generic name. The name Eumesia is therefore an available name, and accordingly
Evans’s action in rejecting it was invalid’.
Hemming (1967) did not himself comment on the possible subjective synonymy of
Eumesia and Dalla. He treated both Eumesia (p. 177) and Dalla (p. 138) as valid generic
names, although he did not consider the taxonomy.

4. Bridges (1983 (II), pp. 13, 14; 1988b (ID), p. 22) accepted Hemming’s treatment of
Eumesia as an available name. He recognized Eumesia as a senior synonym of Dalla
and placed in Eumesia all the species that Evans (1955, pp. 18-44) had included in
Dalla, including its type species eryonas. However, he did list under Dalla (1983 (II),
p. 11; 1988b (II), p. 18) four names published since Evans’ work, but this inconsistent
action was a simple ‘lapsus’, understandable in such a massive undertaking. Bridges
(1988c (5), pp. 1-6), having seen the proposals to the Commission in a draft of this
application, has emended his earlier treatment and placed all relevant taxa (including
semiargentea) in Dalla, eliminating Eumesia completely. He has asked to be included as
a co-author of this application.

5. Since its publication in 1867, the name Eumesia has been used exclusively in
conjunction with its type species semiargentea with two exceptions: Erschoff (1876, pp.
140-149, pl. 3, fig. 6) who described Eumesia jelskyi, and Bridges (1983, 1988b) as set
out in para. 4 above. Dalla, on the other hand, has been used since 1904 in the descrip-
tion of new species by at least eight authors in ten separate publications (e.g. Dalla
seirocastnia Draudt, [1923], p. 923; Dalla frontinia Evans, 1955, pp. 25—26; Dalla pota
Bell, 1959, p. 1) as well as in a number of catalogue-type compilations.

6. The family-group name EUMESIIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] has not been used
since its description in any of the relevant taxonomic literature or in any catalogue-
type compilations. It is a senior subjective synonym of HETEROPTERINAE Aurivillius,
1925 (pp. 506, 546) which is based on the well known Palearctic genus Heteropterus
Dumeril, 1806 (p. 271). HETEROPTERINAE has been used by a number of authors includ-
ing Aurivillius (see above); Higgins, 1975, p. 51; Miller & Brown, 1981, p. 26; Bridges,
1988a (ID), p. 1.

7. To reintroduce usage of the generic name Eumesia and the family-group name
EUMESIIDAE would not be in the interests of nomenclatural stability. This family-group
name would cease to be available on suppression of the name of the type genus,
Eumesia.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Eumesia Felder & Felder,
[1867] for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Dalla
Mabille, 1904 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by
Lindsey (1921) Cyclopides eryonas Hewitson, 1877;

186° Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name eryonas
Hewitson, 1877, as published in the binomen Cyclopides eryonas (specific name
of the type species of Dalla Mabille, 1904);

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867], as suppressed in (1) above;

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name EUMESIIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] (type genus Eumesia
Felder & Felder, [1867]) (name of the type genus suppressed in (1) above).

References

Aurivillius, P.O.C. 1925. Family Hesperidae in Seitz, A., (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera of the
World. Vol. 13. 613 pp. Kernan, Stuttgart.

Bell, E.L. 1959. Descriptions of some new species of Neotropical Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera:
Rhopalocera). American Museum Novitates, No. 1962: 1-16.

Bridges, C.A. 1983. Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae, Notes on species-group names. (1): 1-129; (II): 2-41:
(IID): 1-62; (IV): 1-30; (V): 1-13. Privately published, Urbana.

Bridges, C.A. 1988a. Catalogue of family-group and genus-group names (Lepidoptera:
Rhopalocera). (1): 1-8; (II): 1-3; (IID): 1-4; (IV): 1-130; (V): 1-33; (VI): 1-67; (VII): 1-18:
(VIII): 1-59; (LX): 1-20; (X): 1-8. Privately published, Urbana.

Bridges, C.A. 1988b. Catalogue of Hesperiidae ( Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). (1): 1-205; (11): 1-67;
(IIT): 1-78; (IV): 1-54; (V): 1-20; (VI): 1-7; (App. I): 1; (App. II): 1-8. Privately published,
Urbana.

Bridges, C.A. 1988c. Annotations on the Catalogue of Hesperiidae. (1): 1; (2): 1; (3): 1-4; (4): 1-2:
(5): 1-6. Privately published, Urbana.

Draudt, M. [1923]. Family Hesperidae in Seitz, A. (Ed.), The Macrolepidoptera of the World, 5:
836-1011, 1046-1055. Kernan, Stuttgart.

Dumeril, A.M.C. 1806. Zoologie Analytique, ou Méthode naturelle de Classification des Animaux.
344 pp. Allais, Paris.

Erschoff, N.G. 1876. [Descriptions of new species of exotic Lepidoptera]. Trudy Russkago
Entomologicheskago Obshchestva, 8: 140-149. [In Russian.]

Evans, W.H. 1955. A Catalogue of the American Hesperiidae in the British Museum ( Natural
History). Part 4: Hesperiinae and Megathyminae. 499 pp. British Museum, London.

Felder, C. & Felder, R. 1865-1867. Rhopalocera, in Reise der Osterreichischen Fregatte ‘Novara’
um die Erde. 549 pp. Der Kaiserlich-K 6niglichen Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, Wien.

Hemming, F. 1967. The generic names of the butterflies and their type species (Lepidoptera:
Rhopalocera). Bulletin of the British Museum ( Natural History). Entomology, Supplement
9: 1-509.

Hewitson, W.C. 1877. Descriptions of twenty three new species of Hesperidae from his own
collection. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 319-328.

Higgins, L.G. 1975. The Classification of European Butterflies. 320 pp. Collins, London.

Lindsey, A.W. 1921. The Hesperioidea of America North of Mexico. University of Iowa Studies in
Natural History, 9(4): 1-114.

Mabille, P. 1904. Lepidoptera Rhopalocera. Fam. Hesperidae. Genera Insectorum, 17: 1-210.

Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1908. Essai de révision de la famille des Hespérides. Annales des Sciences
Naturelles Zoologie, (9)7: 167-207.

Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1912. Essai de révision de la famille des Hespérides. 2. Subfamily
Hesperiinae. Annales des Sciences Naturelles Zoologie, (9)16: 1-159.

Mabille, P. & Boullet, E. 1919. Essai de révision de la famille des Hesperides. Annales des Sciences
Naturelles Zoologie, (10)2: 199-258.

Miller, L.D. & Brown, F.M. 1981. A catalogue/checklist of the butterflies of America north of
Mexico. 280 pp. The Lepidopterists’ Society, Memoir No. 2, Sarasota, Florida.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 187

Case 2712

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Knut Rognes

Stavanger Lerhogskole, Postboks 2521 Ullandhaug, N-4004 Stavanger,
Norway

Robert E. Blackith

University of Dublin, Trinity College, Department of Zoology, Dublin-2,
Ireland

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Ca/liphora
vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, a cosmopolitan bluebottle fly now widely known
under this name. The name is threatened by Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1794, a senior
synonym, but unused since its proposal. The fly is often referred to as Calliphora
erythrocephala (Meigen, 1826), but this specific name is a junior primary homonym.

1. The blowfly Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (p. 435) is very common
and widely distributed throughout the Holarctic Region, and has followed man into
South America, the Afrotropical region (Mauritius and South Africa), northern India,
Australia and New Zealand. It is a widely known and easily bred laboratory insect of
great medical, veterinary and forensic importance (Zumpt, 1965; Greenberg, 1971,
1973, 1985; Smith, 1986). Itis one of the few insects to have whole monographs devoted
to it (references in Smith, 1986, p. 105) and some 900 scientific publications have been
based on this species, mostly in the field of insect physiology and genetics.

2. Until 1948 the fly was known under the specific name erythrocephala Meigen,
1826 (p. 62). However, Hall (1948, pp. 307-308) pointed out that Musca erythrocephala
Meigen was a junior primary homonym of M. erythrocephala De Geer, 1776 (p. 146)
and M. erythrocephala Fabricius, 1787 (p. 351) and therefore an invalid name. There
is also a species given the replacement name Musca erythrocephala by Villers (1789,
p. 137). Meigen’s name is therefore preoccupied several times over. The identity of
De Geer’s, Fabricius’s and Villers’s species is not known with certainty, but they are
definitely species other than Calliphora vicina. Hall (1948), acting as first reviser,
selected the name vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, one of several next oldest available
synonyms by Robineau-Desvoidy that were listed by Bezzi & Stein (1907). At present
the species is universally known in the taxonomic literature (as opposed to the applied
literature, see para. 3) under the name vicina (Hall, 1965; James, 1970, 1977; Pont, 1980;
Hardy, 1981; Schumann, 1986; Rognes, 1990). Dear (1986, p. 26) recovered and
labelled the holotype of Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy in Bigot’s Diptera
Exotica collection in Oxford.

3. Since 1940 some 680 publications based on this insect and listed by Biological
Abstracts have used the specific name erythrocephala. The name vicina first appeared in

188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

the Zoological Record in 1948 and in Biological Abstracts in 1956. In the first decade
after 1956 three publications used vicina whereas 79 used erythrocephala, and since then
78 have used vicina whereas 586 used erythrocephala. In very recent years the two names
have been used about equally. For four decades this insect has therefore been known,
de facto, by two specific names. Research papers using one name have appeared with
those using the other in the same journals, often in the same volume of a journal,
suggesting that some people (including editors) believe that two species are involved.
Patently, the editors of non-taxonomic journals have been unable to give appropriate
guidance (a fact thrown into relief by the use of garbled versions of these names such as
‘erythroencephala’, ‘vincina’ and ‘vicinia’ reported as such in Biological Abstracts for
1979 and 1987).

4. Musca carnivora Fabricius, 1794 (p. 313) was listed by Bezzi & Stein (1907, p. 546)
and Schumann (1986, p. 18) as a synonym of Calliphora vomitoria (Linnaeus, 1758).
The holotype of carnivora is present in the Fabrician collection (Kiel collection) in the
Universitetets Zoologiske Museum in Copenhagen. It has recently been examined
(Rognes, 1990) and found to be a specimen of Calliphora vicina. The name carnivora
has never been used since its proposal.

5. According to the Principle of Priority the specific name carnivora Fabricius
should replace vicina Robineau-Desvoidy. However, this replacement is likely to
produce even further confusion and instability as regards the nomenclature of this
fly species than did the replacement of erythrocephala. Considering the very slow
acceptance of the name vicina since 1948 (see para. 3), the introduction of a third name
for this species is likely to be even less successful. The chances are microscopic or nil
that carnivora would be universally adopted in the foreseeable future. There are even
ample reasons to believe that, outside the field of taxonomy, a third name may lead toa
mistaken belief in the existence of yet another species, in the same manner as some
editors today apparently believe that erythrocephala and vicina are two different
species. Utter chaos and confusion would almost certainly be the outcome of the
introduction of carnivora.

6. There also seems to be no good reason today to reinstate the name erythrocephala
for this species by suppressing its senior homonyms, in view of the universal acceptance
of vicinain the taxonomic literature and the growing adherence to the name vicina in the
applied literature.

7. The name vicina will possibly be threatened also in the future by other older
(pre-1830) names. However, we are convinced that the best course to follow to remedy
the confused present state of affairs in the applied literature and to lay the foundations
for a stable nomenclature in the future is to conserve the name vicina.

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

(1) touseits plenary powers to suppress the specific name carnivora Fabricius, 1794,

“as published in the binomen Musca carnivora, for the purposes of the Principle of

Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name vicina
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Calliphora vicina;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:
(a) carnivora Fabricius, 1794, as published in the binomen Musca carnivora and

as suppressed in (1) above; :

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 189

(b) erythrocephala Meigen, 1826, as published in the binomen Musca erythro-
cephala (a junior primary homonym of Musca erythrocephala De Geer,
1776).

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank T. Pape, A.C. Pont, C.W. Sabrosky, G.E. Shewell and
J.R. Vockeroth for having read and commented upon previous drafts of the paper, and
A.C. Pont for information concerning species originally described in the genus Musca
and for support.

References

Bezzi, M. & Stein, P. 1907. Cyclorrapha Aschiza. Cyclorrapha Schizophora: Schizometopa. In
Becker, Th., Bezzi, M., Kertész, K. & Stein, P. (Eds.), Katalog der paldarktischen Dipteren,
vol. 3. 828 pp. Budapest.

De Geer, C. 1776. Memoires pour servir a l'histoire des Insectes, vol. 6. vill, 523 pp. Hesselberg,
Stockholm.

Dear, J.P. 1986. Calliphoridae (Insecta: Diptera). Fauna of New Zealand, vol. 8. 86 pp.

Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum..., vol. 2. 382 pp. Hafniae.

Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta ..., vol. 4. 472 pp. Hafniae.

Greenberg, B. 1971. Flies and disease, vol. 1 (Ecology, classification and biotic associations).
856 pp. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Greenberg, B. 1973. Flies and disease, vol. 2 (Biology and disease transmission). 447 pp.
Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Greenberg, B. 1985. Forensic entomology: case studies. Bulletin of the Entomological Society of
America, 31: 25-28.

Hall, D.G. 1948. The blowflies of North America. 483 pp. Thomas Say Foundation. Lafayette,
Indiana.

Hall, D.G. 1965. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 922—932 in Stone, A., Sabrosky, C.W., Wirth, W.W..,
Foote, R.H., & Coulson, J.R. (Eds.), A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico.
Agriculture Handbook No. 276. iv, 1696 pp. Washington, D.C.

Hardy, D.E. 1981. Diptera: Cyclorrhapha 4, Series Schizophora Section Calyptratae. Insects of
Hawaii, vol. 14. vi, 491 pp. University Press of Hawai, Honolulu.

James, M.T. 1970. Family Calliphoridae. Jn Papavero, N. (Ed.), A catalogue of the Diptera of the
Americas south of the United States, vol. 102. 28 pp. Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de
Sao Paulo.

James, M.T. 1977. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 526-556 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.),
A catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region, vol. 3. (Suborder Cyclorrhapha (excluding
division Aschiza.) x, 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Meigen, J.W. 1826. Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen zweifligeligen
Insekten, vol. 5. xii, 412 pp. Schultz, Hamm.

Pont, A.C. 1980. 90. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 779-800 in Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue
of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History),
London.

Robineau-Desvoidy, A.J.B. 1830. Essai sur les Myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savants
al’Académie des Sciences de l'Institut de France, (2) 2: 1-813.

Rognes, K. 1990. Blowflies (Diptera, Calliphoridae) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna
entomologica scandinavica, vol. 24. E.J. Brill, Leiden. [In press. ]

Schumann, H. 1986. Family Calliphoridae. Pp. 11—58 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of
Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 12. (Calliphoridae — Sarcophagidae). 265 pp. Akadémiai Kiado,
Budapest.

190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Smith, K.G.V. 1986. A manual of forensic entomology. 205 pp. British Museum (Natural

History), London.
Villers, C.J. de. 1789. Caroli Linnaei entomologia, faunae suecicae descriptionibus aucta... Tomi

III (Nomenclator entomologus). 213 pp. Lugduni.
Zumpt, F. 1965. Myiasis in man and animals in the Old World. A textbook for physicians,

veterinarians and zoologists. iv, 267 pp. Butterworths, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 191]

Case 2722

Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes):
proposed conservation of the specific name

Kenneth J. Lazara

Department of Mathematics and Science, U.S. Merchant Marine Academy,
Kings Point, New York 11024, U.S.A.

Michael L. Smith

American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street,
New York, N.Y. 10024, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Rivulus
marmoratus Poey, 1880 for a self-fertilising hermaphroditic killifish. The name is
threatened by the senior subjective synonym ocellatus Hensel, 1868. Through mis-
identification the latter name has been used for a second species, which is correctly
named caudomarginatus Seegers, 1984.

1. In 1880 Poey (p. 248) described Rivulus marmoratus on the basis of specimens
from Cuba or the U.S.A. (he was uncertain of their origin). Rivas (1945) identified
two specimens labeled Rivulus cylindraceus in the collection of the United States
National Museum as R. marmoratus; using circumstantial evidence he stated that
these specimens were Poey’s original type specimens, and of these specimens designated
as lectotype specimen USNM 37429. We do not accept Rivas’s assertion that this
specimen is a syntype and believe the types have been lost. This does not affect the case.

2. The species is distributed in marginal marine and semi-terrestrial habitats from
southern Florida, U.S.A., through the Caribbean basin to the southern coast of Brazil.
It is widely used in experimental studies because it is easily manipulated in the labora-
tory and because it is the only fish that is a self-fertilising hermaphrodite. This has
led to the development of clones which, being genetically uniform, provide a control
for genetic variation in numerous studies involving carcinogenicity, mutagenesis,
teratogenesis and other areas of environmental research.

3. The species has been listed consistently as R. marmoratus in the American
Fisheries Society’s list of names (Robins et al., 1980, p. 33, and the earlier editions
of 1960 and 1970) and marmoratus is the only name applied to the species in the
experimental and genetic literature prior to Seegers, 1984 (see para. 4 below). Reports
which have used the name, in a variety of disciplines, include Rivas, 1945 (species
characteristics); Parenti, 1981, pp. 482-483 (systematics); Harrington & Rivas, 1958
(distribution and ecology); Koenig et al., 1982 (value as an experimental subject);
Mittwoch, 1973 (genetics); Harrington, 1975 (sex determination); Massaro et al., 1975
(isozymes); Snelson, 1978 (conservation status); Davis, 1986 (use as a pollution
indicator); Park & Kim, 1984 (response to diethylnitrosamine), Abel et al., 1988
(response to hydrogen sulfide); Park & Lee, 1988 (scale growth); Lindsey, 1988

192 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

(meristic variation); Ali et al., 1988 (microanatomy of photoreceptors). The name is
used by conservationists monitoring endangered populations and the general public
interested in the species’ unique life history. It is therefore familiar to many non-
systematists working with Recent fishes. A list of a further 100 references is held by the
Commission Secretariat.

4. The name Rivulus ocellatus was proposed by Hensel in 1868 (p. 365) for a fish
from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The holotype, cat. no. ZMB 7448, is in the Zoologisches
Museum der Humboldt-Universitat, Berlin (Seegers, 1984, p. 302). The species was
known only from the single specimen for 116 years and has rarely been mentioned other
than by misidentification (see para. 6 below), although it occurs in the following few
faunal lists and lists of synonymies: Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1891, p. 64), Garman
(1895, p. 137), Eigenmann (1910, p. 454), Regan (1912, p. 497), Myers (1927, p. 125),
von Ihering (1931, p. 261), Fowler (1954, p. 222), and Hoedeman (1956, p. 199; 1959,
pp. 49, 52; 1961, p. 65). In 1984 Seegers identified and studied an aquarium stock from
Rio de Janeiro and concluded that ocellatus and marmoratus are conspecific. He
adopted the prior name ocel/atus in accord with the Principle of Priority but contrary to
the general acceptance of marmoratus as the long-established name for the taxon.

5. A few authors (Thyagarajah & Grizzle, 1986; Grizzle & Thyagarajah, 1987; Park
& Yi, 1989) have used the trinomen R. ocellatus marmoratus, citing Seegers (1984) as
the source. Seegers (p. 304) actually stated that the trinomen could be used only if
subspecies were found in the future. No one has suggested that differences exist to
justify use of subspecific names.

6. In 1906 Kohler (p. 407, fig. on p. 406) reported the import of a fish that he
identified as R. ocellatus Hensel, 1868 and which has since become known under that
name. Seegers (1984, p. 302) found that this fish did not agree with the description of
ocellatus and proposed a new specific name, caudomarginatus. Of the few known papers
that use the name ocellatus, most use it as a misidentification sensu Kohler; these are
Bogershausen (1910, p. 317), Regan (1912, p. 497, in part), Dreiser (1922, p. 222),
von Thering (1931, p. 261, in part), Innes (1932, p. 247), Stoye (1935, p. 107 and pl. 47),
Arnold & Ahl (1936, p. 342), Rachow (undated, no. 641), Fowler (1954, p. 222, in part),
Hoedeman (1956, p. 119; 1959, p. 44; 1961, p. 70), Terceira (1974, p. 115), Seegers
(1980, p. 141) and Sterba (1983, p. 500). Thus, through the misidentifications cited
above, the name ocellatus is associated with a fish other than marmoratus.

7. We believe that to upset 109 years of extensive usage of the name Rivulus
marmoratus would be a disservice to users of the biological literature. Article 23(b) of
the Code states that the Principle of Priority is to be used to promote stability and
should not be used to overturn a long accepted name in its accustomed meaning.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as
published in the binomen Rivulus ocellatus, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name
marmoratus Poey, 1880, as published in the binomen Rivulus marmoratus;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the specific name ocellatus Hensel, 1868, as published in the binomen Rivulus
ocellatus and as suppressed in (1) above. j

—

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 193

References

Abel, D.C., Koenig, C.C. & Davis, W.P. 1987. Emersion in the mangrove forest fish Rivulus
marmoratus: a unique response to hydrogen sulfide. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 18(1):
67-72.

Ali, M.A., Klyne, M.A., Park, E.H. & Lee, S.H. 1988. Pineal and retinal photoreceptors in
embryonic Rivulus marmoratus Poey. Anatomischer Anzeiger, 167(5): 359-369.

Arnold, J.P. & Ahl, E. 1936. Fremdldndische Stisswasserfische. 592 pp. Wenzel & Sohn,
Braunschweig.

Boégershausen, W. 1910. Etwas vom Rivulus ocellatus. Wochenschrift fiir Aquarien- und
Terrarienkunde, 7(23): 317-318.

Davis, W.P. 1986. The role of Rivulus marmoratus in research on aquatic pollutants. Journal of
the American Killifish Association, 19(1): 70-80.

Dreiser, J.E. 1922. Meine Erfahrungen bei der Zucht von Rivulus ocellatus, tenuis, und strigatus.
Wochenschrift fiir Aquarien- und Terrarienkunde, 19: 222-223.

Eigenmann, C.H. 1910. Catalogue of the fresh-water fishes of tropical and south temporate
America. In Scott, W.B. (Ed.), Reports of the Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia,
1896-1899, vol. 3 (Zoology), part 4, pp. 375-511. Pierpont Morgan Publication Fund,
Princeton.

Eigenmann, C.H. & Eigenmann, R.S. 1891. A catalog of the fresh-water fishes of South America.
Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 14 (842): 1-81.

Fowler, H.W. 1954. Os peixes de agua doce do Brasil. Arquivos de Zoologia do Estado de
Sao Paulo, 9 (4a): 1-400.

Garmam, S. 1895. The cyprinodonts. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of
Harvard University, 19(1): 1-179.

Grizzle, J.M. & Thyagarajah, A. 1987. Skin histology of Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus: apparent
adaptation for aerial respiration. Copeia, 1987(1): 237-240.

Harrington, R.W., Jr. 1975. Sex determination and differentiation among uniparental homo-
zygotes of the hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Cyprinodontidae: Atheriniformes).
Pp. 249-262 in Reinboth, R. (Ed.), Intersexuality in the Animal Kingdom. xv, 449 pp.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York.

Harrington, R.W., Jr. & Rivas, L.R. 1958. The discovery in Florida of the cyprinodont fish
Rivulus marmoratus, with a redescription and ecological notes. Copeia, 1958(2): 125-130.

Hensel, R. 1868. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Wirbelthiere Stdbrasiliens. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte
Wiegman, 34(1): 323-375.

Hoedeman, J.J. 1956. Die bisher beschreibenen Formen und Arten der Gattung Rivulus Poey.
Aquarien Terrarien, 3: 199-202.

Hoedeman, J.J. 1959. Rivulid fishes of Surinam and other Guyanas, with a preliminary review of
the genus Rivulus. Studies on the Fauna of Surinam and other Guyanas, 3(7): 44-98.

Hoedeman, J.J. 1961. Studies on cyprinodontiform fishes. 8. Preliminary key to the species and
subspecies of the genus Rivulus. Bulletin of Aquatic Biology, 2(18): 65—74.

Thering, R., von. 1931. Cyprindontes brasileiros (Peixes ‘Guarus’) Systematica e informacgoes
biologicas. Archivos do Instituto Biologico de Sao Paulo, 4: 243-279.

Innes, W.T. 1932. Goldfish varieties and tropical aquarium fishes. Ed. 15, 317 pp. Innes & Sons,
Philadelphia.

Koenig, C.C., Abel, D.C., Klingensmith, C.W. & Maddock, M.B. 1982. Usefulness of the self-
fertilizing cyrinodontid fish, Rivulus marmoratus, as an experimental animal in studies
involving carcinogenesis, teratogenesis, and mutagenesis. 129 pp. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, Florida.

Kohler, W. 1906. Neimportierte bezw. erstmalig nachgeztichtete Zahnkarpfen (Poeciliidae), 2. A.
Eigebarende Zahnkarpfen (Poeciliidae oviparae). 3. Neu importierte Rivulus-Arten. In
Wichand, B. & Kohler, W. (Eds.), Diesjahrige Neuheiten in Wort und Bild. Blatter fiir
Aquarien- und Terrarien- Kunde, 17(41): 404408.

Lindsey, C.C. 1988. Factors controlling meristic variation. Pp. 197-274 in Hoar, W.S. &
Randall, D.J. (Eds.), Fish physiology, vol. 11 (The physiology of developing fish), part B
(Viviparity and posthatching juveniles). 436 pp. Academic Press, San Diego.

194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Massaro, E.J., Massaro, J.C. & Harrington, R.W., Jr. 1975. Biochemical comparison of
genetically-different homozygous clones (isogenic, uniparental lines) of the self-fertilizing
fish Rivulus marmoratus. Pp. 439-453 in Markert, C.L. (Ed.), Isozymes 3. xxi, 965 pp.
Academic Press, New York.

Mittwoch, U. 1975. Chromosomes and sex differentiation. Pp. 438-446 in Reinboth, R. (Ed.),
Intersexuality in the Animal Kingdom. xv, 449 pp. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg,
New York.

Myers, G.S. 1927. An analysis of the genera of neotropical killifishes allied to Rivulus. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, (9)19(109): 115-129.

Parenti, L.R. 1981. A phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of cyprinodontiform fishes
(Teleostei, Atherinomorpha). Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 168(4):
335-557.

Park, E.H. & Kim, D.S. 1984. Hepatocarcinogenicity of diethylnitrosamine to the self-fertilizing
hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Teleostomi: Cyprinidontidae). Journal of the
National Cancer Institute, 73(4): 871-876.

Park, E.H. & Lee, S.H. 1988. Scale growth and squamation chronology for the laboratory-
reared hermaphroditic fish Rivulus marmoratus (Cyprinodontidae). Japanese Journal of
Ichthyology, 34(4): 476-482.

Park, E.H. & Yi, A.K. 1989. Photoreactivation rescue and dark repair demonstrated in
UV-irradiated embryos of the self-fertilizing fish Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus Teleostei
Aplocheilidae. Mutation Research, 217(1): 19-24.

Poey, F. 1880. Revisio piscium cubensium. Anales de la Sociedad Espanola de Historia Natural,
9(2): 243-261.

Rachow, A. [undated]. Rivulus ocellatus. No. 641 in Holly, M., Meinken, H. & Rachow, A.C.,
(Eds.), Die Aquarienfische in Wort und Bild. Looseleaf pages, unnumbered. Alfred Kernan
Verlag, Stuttgart.

Regan, C.T. 1912. A revision of the poeciliid fishes of the genera Rivulus, Pterolebias, and
Cynolebias. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (8)10(59): 494—S08.

Rivas, L.R. 1945. The discovery and redescription of the types of Rivulus marmoratus Poey, a
cyprinodont fish from Cuba. Journal of the Washington Academy of Science, 35(3): 95-97.

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B.
1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada.
Ed. 4. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, No. 12: 1-174.

Seegers, L. 1980. Killifische, eierlegende Zahnkarpfen im Aquarium. 174 pp. Verlag Eugen Ulmer,
Stuttgart.

Seegers, L. 1984. Zur Revision der Rivulus-Arten Suidost-Brasiliens mit einer Neubeschreibung
von Rivulus luelingi n. sp. und Rivulus caudomarginatus n. sp. (Pisces: Cyprinodontidae:
Rivulinae). Zoologische Beitrage N.F., 28(2): 271-320.

Snelson, F.F., Jr. 1978. Threatened Rivulus. In Pritchard, P.C.H. (series Ed.), Rare and
Endangered Biota of Florida. Pp. 18-19 in Gilbert, C.R. (Ed.), vol. 4, Fishes. xviii, 58 pp.
University Presses of Florida, Gainesville.

Sterba, G. 1983. The Aquarium Encyclopedia. 609 pp. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Stoye, F.H. 1935. Tropical fishes for the home. 2nd Ed., 284 pp., 175 pls. Carl Mertens, New York.

Terceira, A.C. 1974. Killifish, their care and breeding. 143 pp. Pisces Publishing Corporation,
Norwalk, Connecticut.

Thyagarajah, A. & Grizzle, J.M: 1986. Nuclear glycogen and lipid in hepatocytes of a fish,
Rivulus ocellatus marmoratus. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 64(12): 2868-2870.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 195

Case 2727

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed
conservation of the specific name

Edwin O. Willis & Y. Oniki

Departamento de Zoologia, Universidade Estadual Paulista, C.P. 178 Rio
Claro 13500, Sao Paulo, Brazil

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the specific name of Coccyzus
euleri Cabanis, 1873, long established in general use for the South American pearly-
breasted cuckoo. The name is made invalid by the senior subjective synonym C. julieni
Lawrence, [1864].

1. The name Coccyzus julieni was established by Lawrence, probably in 1864, fora
single specimen of a cuckoo found on Sombrero Island, in the north Leeward Islands of
the West Indies. In a full description the bird was characterised by small size, white
under the wings and absence of rufous colour in the primary wing feathers. The speci-
men is now in the American Museum of Natural History (cat. no. AMNH 44495); itis a
young bird of unknown sex and lacks its original label.

2. The serial volume in which Lawrence’s paper (which included the new specific
name julieni) was published is dated 1867. However, the foot of the first page (p. 42, ref.
a) of the paper bears the date 1864 in small type and the paper is listed in The Royal
Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1879, p. 176) with two dates: ‘[1864]’ for the
paper itself and ‘1867’ when citing the serial volume. Lawrence’s paper is listed (p. 56) in
the first volume (for 1864) of The Record of Zoological Literature, published in 1865.
Peters (1940, p. 42) adopted the date 1864, as have other authors.

3. Coccyzus julieni was considered by Hellmayr (1929, p. 432) as a possible junior
synonym of C. americanus (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 111), the yellow-billed cuckoo, which
has the type locality of South Carolina, U.S.A. C. julieni was also listed as a synonym of
americanus by Laubmann (1939, p. 189), Peters (1940, p. 42), Griscom & Greenway
(1941, p. 150), and Steinbacher (1962, p. 55). It was thought to be a subspecies of
americanus by Cory (1919, p. 335), Gyldenstolpe (1945, p. 90) and Steullet & Deautier
(1945, p. 779). .

4. Banks (1988, p. 87), however, thought that the identification of julieni as
americanus was incorrect and that, following a direct comparison with a series of
specimens of the North American C. americanus and the South American species
C. euleri Cabanis, 1873, the single specimen of julieni was unquestionably to be
identified as the South American species. C. eu/eri (originally published with the spell-
ing error Coccygus) is the pearly-breasted, or southern yellow-billed, cuckoo, a bird
described (p. 72) from Cantagalo, Rio de Janeiro State, southeastern Brazil. Type
material is in the collections of the zoological museum in Berlin. Ridgway (1916, p. 20),
Pinto (1964, p. 169) and Greenway (1978, p. 112) had previously indicated that julieni
was to be identified with the species euw/eri. Banks (1988) suggested that the type

196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

specimen of julieni was almost certainly a vagrant individual of euleri. This species
migrates north to Surinam (Haverschmidt, 1968, p. 150), Guyana (Chubb, 1916, p.
438), Venezuela (Cherrie, 1916, p. 311) and Colombia (Hilty & Brown, 1986, p. 217).
The bird collected was found hiding in a crevice on a rocky islet (Lawrence, p. 98, ref.
b), an inappropriate situation for a species that normally inhabits forest or scrub
canopy and edge.

5. The specific name julieni Lawrence, [1864] is a senior subjective synonym of euleri
Cabanis, 1873. Ridgway (1916, p. 20), Pinto (1964, p. 169) and Banks (1988, p. 90)
adopted julieni on the grounds of priority, although Greenway (1978, p. 112) wrote
‘julieni, now euler’. Pinto later (1978, p. 155) used only the name euleri without
comment, even though including the type locality of julieni. The name Coccyzus euleri
Cabanis, 1873 has been used consistently for the South American pearly-breasted
cuckoo. Authors of major check-lists who have used the name include Peters (1940,
p. 42), Meyer de Schauensee (1970, p. 112, pl. 24, and the later edition of 1982) and
Walters (1980, p. 83). A representative list of more than 30 references, principally
covering the last 50 years, is held by the Commission Secretariat. This includes a
number of guides and catalogues to the birds of South American countries. Acceptance
of the name julieni Lawrence, [1864] in place of euleri Cabanis, 1873 would upset
stability of usage in the extensive literature, especially in South America.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name julieni Lawrence, [1864],
as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni, for the purposes of the Principle of
Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) toplace on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name euleri Cabanis,
1873, as published in the binomen Coccygus (= Coccyzus) euleri;

(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name julieni Lawrence, [1864], as published in the binomen Coccyzus julieni,
and as suppressed in (1) above.

References

Banks, R.C. 1988. An old record of the pearly-breasted cuckoo in North America and a
nomenclatural critique. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 108(2): 87-91.

Cabanis, J. 1873. Coccygus euleri n. sp. aus Brasilien. Pp. 72-73 in Protokoll der 48. Monats-
Sitzung. Verhandelt Berlin, den 4 November 1872. Journal ftir Ornithologie, (4)1(1) (year
21): 71-73.

Cherrie, G.K. 1916. A contribution to the ornithology of the Orinoco region. Science Bulletin.
The Museum of the Brooklyn Institute of Arts and Sciences, 2(6): 133a—374.

Chubb, C. 1916. The Birds of British Guiana, based on a collection of F.V. McConnell, vol. 1. liii,
528 pp. Quaritch, London.

Cory, C.B. 1919. Catalogue of birds of the Americas. Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological
Series, 13 (2, 2): 313-607. (Publication 203).

Greenway, J.C. 1978. Type specimens of birds in the American Museum of Natural History.
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 161(1): 1-305.

Griscom, L. & Greenway, J.C. 1941. Birds of Lower Amazonia. Bulletin of the Museum of
Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 88(3): 81-344.

Giinther, A.C.L.G. (Ed). 1865. The Record of the Zoological Literature, vol. | (for 1864). vii, 634
pp. Van Voorst, London.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 197

Gyldenstolpe, N. 1945. A contribution to the ornithology of northern Bolivia. Kungliga Svenska
Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, (3)23(1): 1-300.

Haverschmidt, F. 1968. Birds of Surinam. xxx, 445 pp., 40 pls. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh &
London.

Hellmayr, C.E. 1929. A contribution to the ornithology of northeastern Brazil. Field Museum of
Natural History, Zoological Series, 12(18): 233-501. (Publication 255).

Hilty, S.L. & Brown, W.L. 1986. 4 Guide to the Birds of Colombia. xii, 836 pp., 69 pls. Princeton
University Press, Princeton.

Laubmann, A. 1939. Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Gran Chaco-Expedition. Vol. 5,
Die Vogel von Paraguay. Vol. 1, xv, 246 pp. Strecker & Schroder, Stuttgart.

Lawrence, G.N. [1864a]. Descriptions of new species of birds of the families Tanagridae,
Cuculidae, and Trochilidae, with a note on Panterpe insignis. Annals of the Lyceum of
Natural History of New York, 8: 41-46 (for 1867).

Lawrence, G.N. [1864b]. Catalogue of birds collected at the Island of Sombrero, W.I., with
observations by A.A. Julien. Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York, 8: 92-106
(for 1867).

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Meyer de Schauensee, R. 1970. A Guide to the Birds of South America. xiv, 470 pp., 50 pls.
Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.

Peters, J.L. 1940. Check List of the Birds of the World, vol. 4. xu, 291 pp. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Pinto, O.M. de O. 1964. Ornitologia Brasiliense, vol. 1, xiv, 182 pp., 25 pls. Departamento de
Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brasil.

Pinto, O.M. de O. 1978. Novo Catalogo das Aves de Brasil, primeira parte. Empr. Grafica da
Revista das Tribunais, Sao Paulo.

Ridgway, R. 1916. The birds of North and Middle America. Part 7. Bulletin of the United States
National Museum, 50(7): 1-543, pls. 1-24.

Royal Society of London. 1879. Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1864-1873, vol. 8
(IBA-ZWI]). 1310 pp. Royal Society of London, London.

Steinbacher, J. 1962. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Vogel von Paraguay. Naturforschenden
Gesellschaft, 502: 1-106.

Steullet, A.B. & Deautier, E.A. 1945. Catalogo sistematico de las Aves de la Republica Argentina.
Obra del Cincuentenario del Museo de la Plata, 1(4): 733-932.

Walters, M. 1980. The Complete Birds of the World. xii, 340 pp. David & Charles, London.

198 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Case 2723

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed conservation

Luis M. Chiappe & Miguel F. Soria

Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Av. Angel Gallardo 470, 1405 Buenos
Aires, Argentina

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Phororhacos
Ameghino, 1889, which has been widely used for a genus of fossil giant flightless birds
from South America. The name was first published as Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887,
based on a single bone then thought to be mammalian, but although this spelling did
not appear again for 75 years and was rejected in 1968 as a nomen oblitum it has had
extensive recent usage.

1. In 1887 Ameghino (p. 24) proposed a new genus and species, Phorusrhacos
longissimus, based on a fragmentary mandible found in Miocene deposits in southern
Patagonia, Argentina (although Ameghino interpreted them as Eocene). He assumed
the bone to be mammalian (Edentata, or anteaters, armadillos and sloths).

2. In 1889 Ameghino (p. 659) emended the generic name to Phororhacos, and pro-
posed a family PHORORHACOSIDAE. The family name was corrected to PHORORHACIDAE
by Lydekker (1893, p. 43) and this spelling was accepted by Ameghino and all
subsequent workers.

3. Ameghino (1891a, p. 255) realized that P. Jongissimus was a giant flightless bird.
Based on a series of finds he described further species of Phororhacos (1891a, 1891b,
1895, 1897, 1898, 1900-1903, 1904, 1910). Ona single occasion (1898, p. 235) the genus
appeared as Phororhacus, but elsewhere in that paper it was spelled Phororhacos and we
assume that Phororhacus was simply a misprint.

4. Phororhacos has been used as a valid fossil bird genus by numerous workers (e.g.
Lydekker, 1893; Mercerat, 1897; Andrews, 1896, 1899; Glangeaud, 1898; Rovereto,
1914; L. Kraglievich, 1920, 1929-32, 193la, 1931b, 1932, 1940; Saez, 1927a, 1927b,
1936; Sinclair & Farr, 1932; Cabrera, 1939; Patterson, 1941; J.L. Kraglievich, 1946;
Piveteau, 1950, 1955; Patterson & J.L. Kraglievich, 1960; Romer, 1966; Rusconi, 1967;
Cracraft, 1968, 1969; Marshall, 1978).

5. Sclater (in a footnote (p.41) in Lydekker’s 1893 paper), Loomis (1914) and
Mathew & Granger (1917) used the incorrect spellings Phororhacis, Phororhacus and
Phororhachos respectively.

6. Except for Brodkorb (1963, 1967; see para. 7 below) no workers had used the
name Phorusrhacos since Ameghino’s first paper of 1887 when Cracraft (1968, p.33,
footnote), citing Article 23b of the Code then in force, formally rejected it as a nomen
oblitum (i.e. a name not used as valid for more than 50 years and with a junior synonyn
in general use). That Article said that ‘a nomen oblitum is not to be used unless the
Commission so directs’, and added ‘...a zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer
it to the Commission...’. Cracraft was correct in his rejection, although he did not refer

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 199

the case to the Commission. Article 79c(iii) of the present Code says ‘A name must
not be used without the approval of the Commission [our italics] if it was rejected... [as a
nomen oblitum in 1968]...To remove uncertainty, the case should be referred to the
Commission asking for the suppression of the rejected name’. This shows that
Cracraft’s omission to refer the case in 1968 did not invalidate his rejection of
Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, and we are applying for its suppression.

7. Brodkorb (1963, p. 111, footnote) considered Phorusrhacos valid, and he also
proposed the replacement family name PHORUSRHACIDAE. He repeated this point of
view in his 1967 Catalogue of fossil birds (pp. 157, 162-165). Brodkorb’s resurrection
of a name which had been used only once (75 years earlier and based on a single
fragmentary bone not then recognized as avian) was completely unjustified.

8. Despite this, most recent authors have followed Brodkorb and used Phorusrhacos
(Feduccia, 1980; Tonni, 1980; Mourer-Chauviré, 1981, 1983; Alvarenga, 1982;
Cracraft, 1982; Olson, 1985a, 1985b; Tonni & Tambussi, 1986, 1988; Vuilleumier,
1987; Caroll, 1988; Peters, 1989). In total, however, far more workers (see para. 4, and
also others) have used Phororhacos.

9. Under Article 40a of the Code the family name PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889
(the correct spelling of PHORORHACOSIDAE: see para. 2) which has been widely used (e.g.
by authors listed in para. 4), is valid and is not to be replaced by PHORUSRHACIDAE
Brodkorb, 1963. It would be highly confusing to have different valid spellings
(Phorusrhacos, PHORORHACIDAE) for the genus and the family. Since two spellings of
both names have been used we request a definitive resolution from the Commission.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Phorusrhacos Ameghino,

1887 (rejected as a nomen oblitum by Cracraft, 1968) for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phororhacos
Ameghino, 1889 (gender: masculine), type species by indication under Article
67h of the Code Phorusrhacos longissimus Ameghino, 1887;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name /ongissimus
Ameghino, 1887, as published in the binomen Phorusrhacos longissimus (specific
name of the type species of Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889);

(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (type genus Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology

the name Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887, as suppressed in (1) above;

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in

Zoology the following names;

(a) PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (an incorrect original spelling of
PHORORHACIDAE);

(b) PHORUSRHACIDAE Brodkorb, 1963 (name of the type genus suppressed in (1)
above).

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Drs A. Bachman and J.F. Bonaparte (Museo Argentino de Ciencias
Naturales) and the Commission Secretariat for their useful comments, and also Dr
A. Walton (Southern Methodist University) who reviewed the English manuscript.

200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

References

Alvarenga, H.M.F. 1982. Uma gigantesca ave fosil do Cenozoico Brasileiro: Physornis
brasiliensis sp. n. Anais da Academia Brasileira de Ciencias, 54(4): 697-812.

Ameghino, F. 1887. Enumeracion sistematica de las especies de mamiferos fosiles coleccionados
por Carlos Ameghino en los terrenos Eocenos de la Patagonia austral y depositados en el
Museo de La Plata. Boletin del Museo de La Plata, 1887: \—26.

Ameghino, F. 1889. Contribucion al conocimiento de los mamiferos fosiles de la Republica
Argentina. Actas de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Cordoba, 6: 1\-1028.

Ameghino, F. 189la. Mamiferos y aves fosiles argentinos: especies nuevas: adiciones y
correcciones. Revista Argentina de Historia Natural, 1: 240-259.

Ameghino, F. 1891b. Enumeracion de las aves fosiles de la Republica Argentina. Revista
Argentina de Historia Natural, 1: 441—453.

Ameghino, F. 1895. Sur les oiseaux fossiles de la Patagonie. Boletin del Instituto Geografico
Argentino, 15: 501—602.

Ameghino, F. 1897. South America as the source of the Tertiary Mammalia. Natural Science,
11(68): 256-264.

Ameghino, F. 1898. Sinopsis geologica-paleontologica de la Argentina. Segundo Censo de la
Republica Argentina, vol. 1, pp. 112-255.

Ameghino, F. 1900-03. L’age des formations sédimentaires de Patagonie. Anales de la Sociedad
Cientifica Argentina, 50: 109-130, 145-165, 209-229; 51: 20-39, 65-91; 52: 189-197,
244-250; 54: 161-180, 220-249, 283-342.

Ameghino, F. 1904. Paleontologia Argentina: relaciones filogenéticas y geograficas. Anales del
Instituto de Ensenanza General, 1: 11-84.

Ameghino, F. 1910. Geologia, Paleontologia y Antropologia de la Republica Argentina. La
Nacion, numero extraordinario del 25 de Mayo de 1910.

Andrews, C.W. 1896. Remarks on the Stereornithes, a group of extinct birds of Patagonia. The
Ibis, (7)2: 1-12.

Andrews, C.W. 1899. On the extinct birds of Patagonia. 1. The skull and skeleton of Phororhacos
inflatus Ameghino. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 15(3)1: 55-85.

Brodkorb, P. 1963. A giant flightless bird from the Pleistocene of Florida. The Auk, 80: 111-115.

Brodkorb, P. 1967. Catalogue of fossil birds, part 3 (Ralliformes, Ichthyornithiformes,
Charadriiformes). Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, Biological Series, 2(3): 106-218.

Cabrera, A. 1939. Sobre vertebrados fosiles del Plioceno de Adolfo Alsina. Revista del Museo de
La Plata, Paleontologia, 2: 3-35.

Carroll, R. 1988. Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution. 698 pp. Freeman, New York.

Cracraft, J. 1968. A review of the Bathornithidae (Aves, Gruiformes), with remarks on the
relationships of the Suborder Cariamae. American Museum Novitates, 2326: 1-46.

Cracraft, J. 1969. Systematics and evolution of the Gruiformes (Class, Aves). 1. The Eocene
family Geranoididae and the early history of the Gruiformes. American Museum Novitates,
2388: 1-41.

Cracraft, J. 1982. Phylogenetic relationships and transantarctic biogeography of some gruiform
birds. Geobios, Mémoire Spécial 6: 393-402.

Feduccia, A.J. 1980. The age of birds. 196 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.

Glangeaud, Ph. 1898. Les oiseaux géants de la Patagonie. Le Naturaliste, (2)260: 53-56.

Kraglievich, J.L. 1946. Noticia preliminar acerca de un nuevo y gigantesco Estereornito de la
fauna Chapadmalense. Anales de la Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 142: 104-121.

Kraglievich, L. 1920. Sobre aves fosiles de la Republica Argentina. E/ Hornero, 2(1): 1-8.

Kraglievich, L. 1929-32. Una gigantesca ave fosil del Uruguay, Devicenzia gallinali n. gen. et sp.
tipo de una nueva familia Devicenziidae del orden Stereornithes. Anales del Museo de
Historia Natural de Montevideo, (2)3: 323-353.

Kraglievich, L. 1931a. El despertar de los estudios paleontologicos en la Republica del Uruguay.
Archivos de la Sociedad de Biologia de Montevideo, 2(1): 32-39.

Kraglievich, L. 1931b. Contribucion al conocimiento de las aves fosiles de la época arauco—
entrerriana. Physis, 10: 304-315.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 201

Kraglievich, L. 1932. La antiguedad pliocena de las faunas de Monte Hermoso y Chapadmalal
deducidas de su comparacion con las que le precedieron y sucedieron, pp. 19-136. El Siglo
Ilustrado, Montevideo.

Kraglievich, L. 1940. Descripcion de la gran ave pliocena Mesembriornis milnedwardsi. Obras de
Geologia y Paleontologia, vol. 3, pp. 639-666. Taller de impresiones Oficiales, La Plata.

Loomis, F.B. 1914. The Deseado Formation of Patagonia. 232 pp. Rumford Press, Amherst,
Massachusetts.

Lydekker, R. 1893. On the extinct giant birds of Argentina. The Ibis, 5: 40-47.

Marshall, L.G. 1978. The terror bird. Bulletin of Field Museum of Natural History, 49(9): 6-15.

Mathew, W.D. & Granger, W. 1917. The skeleton of Diatryma, a gigantic bird from the Lower
Eocene of Wyoming. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 37: 307-326.

Mercerat, A. 1897. Note sur les oiseaux fossiles de la République Argentine. Anales de la
Sociedad Cientifica Argentina, 43: 222-258.

Mourer-Chauviré, C. 1981. Premiere indication de la presence de Phorusrhacides, famille
d’oiseaux géants d’Amerique du Sud, dans le Tertiaire européen: Ameghinornis nov. gen.
(Aves, Ralliformes) des Phosphorites du Quercy, France. Géobios, 14(5): 637-647.

Mourer-Chauviré, C. 1983: Les Gruiformes (Aves) des Phosphorites du Quercy (France). 1.
Sous-ordre Cariamae (Cariamidae et Phorusrhacidae), systematique et biostratigraphie.
Palaeovertebrata, 13(4): 83-143.

Olson, S.L. 1985a. Faunal turnover in South American fossil avifaunas: the insufficiencies of the
fossil record. Evolution, 39(5): 1174-1177.

Olson, S.L. 1985b. The fossil record of birds. Pp. 79-252 in Farner, D., King, J. & Parkes,
K. (Eds.), Avian Biology, vol. 8. Academic Press, New York.

Patterson, B. 1941. A new phororhacoid bird from the Deseado Formation of Patagonia. Field
Museum of Natural History, Geological Series, 8(8): 49-54.

Patterson, B. & Kraglievich, J.L. 1960. Sistematica y nomenclatura de las Aves fororracoideas
del Plioceno Argentino. Publicaciones del Museo Municipal de Ciencias Naturales y
Tradicionales de Mar del Plata, 1(1): 3—-S1.

Peters, D.S. 1987. Ein ‘Phorusrhacide’ aus dem Mittel-Eozan von Messel (Aves: Gruiformes:
Cariamae). Pp. 71-87 in Mourer-Chauvire, C. (Ed.), L’evolution des oiseaux d’aprés le
témoignage des fossiles. Documentes des Laboratoires de Géologie, Lyon (no. 99).

Piveteau, J. 1950. Origine et évolution des oiseaux. Pp. 792-835 in Grasse, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de
Zoologie, vol. 15. 1164 pp. Masson et Cie, Paris.

Piveteau, J. 1955. Oiseaux. Aves Linné. Pp. 994-1091 in Piveteau, J. (Ed.), Traité de
Paléontologie, vol. 5. 1113 pp. Masson et Cie, Paris.

Romer, A.S. 1966. Vertebrate Paleontology, Ed. 3. 468pp. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Rovereto, C. 1914. Los estratos araucanos y sus fosiles. Anales del Museo Nacional de Historia
Natural de Buenos Aires, 25: 1-250.

Rusconi, C. 1967. Animales extinguidos de Mendoza y de la Argentina, pp. 5-489. Edicion Oficial,
Mendoza, Argentina.

Saez, M.D. de. 1927a. Las aves corredoras fosiles del Santacrucense. Anales de la Sociedad
Cientifica Argentina, 103: 304-315.

Saez, M.D. de. 1927b. Liornis minor, una especie nueva de ave fosil. Physis, 8: 584.

Saez, M.D. de. 1936. Estado actual y problemas de la Paleornitologia Argentina. Obras del
Cincuentenario del Museo de La Plata, 2: 23-32.

Sinclair, W.J. & Farr, M.S. 1932. Aves of the Santa Cruz Beds. Pp. 157-191 in Scott, W.B. (Ed.),
Reports of The Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia (1896-1899), vol. 7, part 2.
Princeton, New Jersey.

Tonni, E. 1980. The present state of knowledge of the Cenozoic birds of Argentina. Contributions
in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 330: 105-114.

Tonni, E. & Tambussi, C. 1986. Las Aves del Cenozoico de la Republica Argentina. 4 Congreso
Argentino de Paleontologia y Bioestratigrafia, 2: 131-142.

Tonni, E. & Tambussi, C. 1988. Un nuevo Psilopterinae (Aves: Ralliformes) del mioceno tardio
de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, Republica Argentina. Ameghiniana, 25(2): 155-160.

Vuilleumier, F. 1987. Suggestions pour des Recherches sur les avifaunes cenozoiques d’ Amerique
du Sud. Pp. 239-248 in Mourer-Chauviré, C. (Ed.), L’evolution des oiseaux d’aprés le
témoignage des fossiles. Documentes des Laboratoires de Géologie, Lyon (no. 99).

202 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Comments on the proposed conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 and
Nerita hebraea Martyn, 1786 (currently Placostylus fibratus and Natica hebraea;
Mollusca, Gastropoda)

(Case 2641; see BZN 47: 12-18)

(1) R. Tucker Abbott
American Malacologists Inc., P.O. Box 2255, Melbourne, Florida 32902-2255, U.S.A.

I object to the conservation of Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784. Martyn’s names were
ruled to be unavailable in Opinion 456 (March 1957), and the next available name is
Bulimus bovinus Bruguiére, 1792. This has been used as B. bovinus by Bosc (1802,
p. 111), as Auricula bovina by Lamarck (1822, p. 134) and Deshayes (1838, p. 328), as
Placostylus fibratus var. bovinus by Pilsbry (1904), and as P. bovinus by Zilch (1960,
p. 497, where it is cited as the type species of the genus Placostylus Beck, 1837) and
Abbott (1989, p. 102).

I object to the Commission gradually chiseling away at valid names by the piecemeal
conservation of unavailable Martyn and Chemnitz names. Martyn’s work was entirely
hand-painted and was not published until Chenu’s 1845 reprint.

Additional references

Abbott, R.T. 1989. Compendium of landshells. A color guide to more than 2,000 of the world’s
terrestrial shells. 240 pp. American Malacologists Inc., Melbourne, Florida.

Bosc, L.A.G. 1802. Histoire naturelle des coquilles, vol. 4, 280 pp., 36 pls. Crapelet, Paris. Jn
Buffon, G.L.L. de, Histoire naturelle de Buffon, classée... d'aprés le systéme de Linné... par
R.R. Castel... nouvelle édition.

Chenu, J.C. 1845. Le Conchyliologiste Universel ou figures des coquilles... par T. Martyn. Ouvrage
revue. In Chenu, J.C., Bibliotheque Conchyliologique, ser. 1, vol. 2. vi, 32 pp., 56 pls. Franck,
Paris.

(2) Philippe Bouchet
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, Paris, France

Dr Abbott’s objection (above) to the use of the name Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784
does not introduce facts that I have not already stated in my application.

I have given the reasons why I do not consider the name Bulimus bovinus Bruguiere,
1792 to be applicable to a New Caledonian species of Placostylus Beck, 1837 (see
BZN 47: 13, paras. 5, 6). These are that Bruguiere gives New Holland (= Australia)
for the origin of his species, and that he refers to a figure published by Lister in 1770
(and copied by Favanne in 1780), which was four years before the discovery of New
Caledonia by Cook.

Dr Abbott states that the name bovinus has been used and lists six references. I did
not say that the name had not been used and my application refers to 13 uses of bovinus.
I did not cite Abbott (1989) simply because Dr Abbott’s book was still in press when I
submitted my application. Dr Abbott’s list does not add anything to the facts as I have
already explained them (para. 5 of my application).

Dr Abbott does not address the continuous confusion that has surrounded the name
bovinus, used at times during the 19th century for a New Zealand species of Placostylus
but never, except once by Abbott himself, as the name for a New Caledonian species.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 203

If Limax fibratus Martyn, 1784 is rejected the next available name is Voluta elongata
Lightfoot, 1786 (an objective synonym; see para. 4 of my application) and not Bulimus
bovinus Bruguiére, 1792 (a questionable subjective synonym; see para. 6).

I have carefully given evidence of the continuous usage, in the older and more
recent literature, of the name fibratus Martyn, 1784 for a New Caledonian species of
Placostylus (para. 9). My application remains unaffected by Dr Abbott’s superficial
comments.

(3) Anthea Gentry
Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

Dall (1907, p. 191) and Iredale (1921, p. 131) noted that copies of Martyn’s Universal
Conchologist show variations in both the text and plates. For example, the name Nerita
hebraea, which is also involved in Dr Bouchet’s application, appears as Nerita litteris
Hebraicis notatus in the table (vol. 3, pl. 109) in some copies of the work, including that
in the Natural History Museum, London. This is due to the specific name and descrip-
tive phrase having been exchanged in two columns of text. The plates were engraved
and then hand coloured; in his introduction to the work, Martyn (1784, vol. 1, p. 8)
wrote ‘The engraving will consist merely of a delicate outline, as a certain guide for the
relative proportions of the parts: to this the utmost skill and labour of the painter will be
added...’. The variability between copies of the work was noted in Opinion 456 (March
1957) but the work was taken as published according to the then existing Rules of
Nomenclature. In the background material to the Opinion it was noted that ‘There is
nothing in any one copy... that contradicts or is inconsistent with anything in any other
copy’. The work was rejected by the Commission for nomenclatural purposes because
the author did not apply the ‘principles of binominal nomenclature’. As mentioned in
Dr Bouchet’s application, nine names for New Zealand mollusc species have pre-
viously been made available from Martyn’s work and Opinion 456 invited specialists to
apply for the ‘validation’ of further names. The present application seeks to make two
additional names available by use of the Commission’s plenary powers.

The engravings in Chenu’s 1845 work, referred to in Dr Abbott’s comment, are black
and white. Dall (1907, p. 185) referred to the work as a ‘so-called reprint... which turns
out to, be entirely unreliable’, and (p. 191) ‘the discrepancies between the tables [in
Martyn] and Chenu’s list are so great that it does not seem reasonable to refer them
merely to carelessness’. Dall concluded that ‘it was from one of the altered copies [of
Martyn] that Chenu’s badly printed list was taken, adding a number of errors of his
own’. Iredale (1921, p. 131) also noted that there were discrepancies between the two
works.

Additional reference

Iredale, T. 1921. Unpublished plates of T. Martyn, conchologist. Proceedings of the
Malacological Society of London, 14(4): 131-134.

(4) Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
Societa Italiana di Malacologia, c/o Acquario Civico, Viale Gadio 2, 20121 Milan,
Italy

204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

I strongly support Dr Bouchet’s application for the conservation of Natica hebraea
Martyn, 1786. This is a clear-cut case where a familiar well-known name of a species of
wide economic importance should be stabilised and preserved.

Comment on the proposed precedence of POLYGyRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 over MESODONTIDAE
Tryon, 1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2642; see BZN 46: 94-96)

G. Rosenberg & K.C. Emberton
Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,
U.S.A.

The application did not mention that both the generic name Mesodon and the
specific name /eucodon were first published by Férussac (1821, p. 37 folio, p. 33 quarto)
in the synonymy of Helix thyroidus (Say, 1817). This had been noted by Kennard
(1942, p. 117). Férussac attributed Mesodon leucodon to Rafinesque. The generic
name Mesodon is available under Article 1le of the Code, with authorship ascribed to
Férussac (1821) (Article 50g). Under Article 671 its type species is ‘that nominal species
first directly associated with it under an available species-group name’ (i.e. Helix
thyroidus). The specific name leucodon seems not to have been used as valid since its
original (1821) publication and was not mentioned by Rafinesque himself in 1831. It
was not listed by Sherborn (1927). Therefore, it would not be available through usage
as the type species of Mesodon. Herrmannsen (1847, p. 40) designated Helix thyroidus
Say, 1817 as the type species, which was reported by Kennard (1942, p. 117).

The genus Mesodon was described by Rafinesque in 1831 (p. 3), with the single
included species maculatum (a nomen dubium), thereby making the name available
from the time of its first appearance in synonymy (Ferussac, 1821).

Rafinesque (1831) and subsequent authors (Scudder, 1882, p. 208; Tryon, 1887, pp.
113, 150) cited the name Mesodon from ‘Rafinesque, 1819’. The name appears as
Mesodon leucodon (Rafinesque in McMurtrie, 1819, p. 66) but both the generic and
specific names are nomina nuda.

The family-group name MESODONTINAE was introduced by Tryon in the American
Journal of Conchology (1866, p. 306), as stated in the application, and was discussed by
him (1867, pp. 4, 38) in the continuation of his work. Tryon reprinted this work as a
book, in which MESODONTINAE appeared or was discussed on pp. 55, 71 and 75. The
book was published in parts which were available by subscription. We have not found
any evidence to indicate that publication of parts of the book preceded publication of
the corresponding parts of the journal.

The application requested that the family name POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 be given
precedence over MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866. It would have been better to ask for
‘family-group names based on Polygyra Say, 1818’ to be given precedence as there is the
same problem at subfamily and superfamily levels.

Additional references

Férussac, J.B.L. de’A. de. 1821. Tableau systématique des animaux mollusques... suivis d'un
prodrome général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles, part 2

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 205

(Tableaux particuliérs des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, classe des gasteropodes:
Tableau de la famille des Limacons), pp. 1—94 folio, pp. 1-90 quarto.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847-1849. Indicus generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 2. xl, 717 pp.
Fischer, Cassellis.

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological
Society of London, 25: 105-118.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Conchology. Pp. 65-66 in McMurtrie, H., Sketches of Louisville and its
environs. Vili, 255 pp. Louisville, Kentucky.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1831. Enumeration and account of some remarkable natural objects in the cabinet
of Prof. Rafinesque, in Philadelphia; being animals, shells, plants, and fossils, collected by him
in North America, between 1816 and 1831.8 pp. Philadelphia.

Scudder, M. 1882. Nomenclator Zoologicus. xix, 340 pp. Government Printing Office,
Washington.

Sherborn, C.D. 1927. Index Animalium, 1801—1850, section 2. Part 14, pp. 3393-3746

Tryon, G.W. 1866-1868. A monograph of the terrestrial Mollusca inhabiting the United States.
159, xliv pp., 18 pls. Published by the author, Philadelphia.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri
(Morton, 1834) (Mollusca, Bivalvia)
(Case 2683; see BZN 46: 226-228)

R.W. Scott

Amoco Production Company, 4502 East 41st Street, Post Office Box 3385, Tulsa,
Oklahoma 74102, U.S.A.

I would like to support the proposed conservation of the name Gryphaea pitcheri
Morton, 1834. Although in 1970 I used the name corrugata for specimens that now
would be called pitcheri, | agree that corrugata was inadequately described and its type
locality cannot be determined so that topotypes cannot be collected. Fay also made
this case in 1975. I believe that modern standards are more rigorous and that future
taxonomic studies will be served better by ruling in favor of this case. This species is one
of the most abundant and age-diagnostic species in this part of the Cretaceous section.
It also has paleoecological significance. Stabilization of this name will permit future

studies of phylogeny and paleobiogeography of this group of oysters to proceed
without being sidetracked.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Mollusca,
Bivalvia)

(Case 2558; see BZN 47: 19-21)

(1) Arthur H. Clarke
Ecosearch Inc., 325 East Bayview, Portland, Texas 78374, U.S.A.

I wish to express my wholehearted support for the conservation of Proptera
Rafinesque, 1819. Although the recently exhumed senior objective synonym Potamilus
Rafinesque, 1818 has been used by some recent authors in faunal lists and other local
studies, Proptera has been the overwhelming choice of authors of monographs and
other taxonomically critical works.

206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

The use of both Proptera and Potamilus for the same genus has led to confusion
among non-specialists and will continue to do so. For example, one species of Proptera
(capax Green, 1833) is included on our federal List of Endangered and Threatened
Species, and disagreements among specialists about its correct name have weakened
the perceived credibility of malacologists in contested cases involving the conservation
of that species. Other examples could also have been cited but the point is that stable
nomenclature is more than an academic convenience. The lack of stability hinders our
ability to get on with much more serious biological issues, issues such as ensuring the
very survival of species.

(2) Arthur E. Bogan
Academy of Natural Sciences, 19th and the Parkway, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,
U.S.A.

James D. Williams
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Fishery Research Laboratory, 7920 NW 71st
Street, Gainesville, Florida 32606, U.S.A.

Samuel L.H. Fuller
Florida State Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida
32611, U.S.A.

We consider that simple priority should govern the choice of generic names in this
case, and recommend against the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, 1819
by the suppression of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818.

The generic concept for the species variously grouped with Unio alatus Say, 1817 has
changed continuously over the last 170 years. This is a problem in unionid systematics.
It is only in the past 20 years that some sort of stability in North American unionid
nomenclature has arisen. This stability is based on re-examination of the types and
taking the earliest available name regardless of what names may have been used for the
last 30 years. Gordon (BZN 47: 20, para. 6) remarked that Morrison’s 1969 action
was ‘solely to reintroduce an unused Rafinesque name’. What would replacing one
Rafinesque name with another accomplish? Morrison was working to bring about
stability in the nomenclature by trying to recognize the earliest available names,
especially those overlooked or ignored but validly proposed and with priority.

A survey of the use of Potamilus in the recent unionid literature was made. The
molluscan section of the Zoological Record from 1969 to 1989 was examined for articles
using Potamilus. Only one citation was found. This paucity of citations is not truly
indicative of the use of Potamilus in the published literature. A sample of the extensive
use of Potamilus in this period has been given to the Commission Secretariat, consisting
of 104 citations by 84 authors from the United States, Canada and Great Britain. These
consist of (i) state and federal agency surveys and reports (23 references); (11) workshops
and published symposia (6 papers); (ili) reports listing state or federal endangered or
threatened species in Potamilus (22 references); (iv) reports of unionids in archaeologi-
cal contexts (11 references); (v) journal papers using Potamilus (31 references); (vi)
unionid surveys of river basins or states (4 books); (vii) checklists, dissertations, etc.
(7 references).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 207

Potamilus has been used in the United States Fish and Wildlife Endangered Species
Program since 1974. Not only is it used for two species of Potamilus on the federal
endangered species list but is used in a number of state endangered species lists as well.
Since Potamilus is listed on the United States federal list of endangered species it has
been picked up by the IUCN Red Data Book on endangered invertebrate species
(IUCN, 1986).
The American Malacological Union and the Council of Systematic Malacologists
working with the American Fisheries Society produced a checklist of the molluscan
fauna of North America north of Mexico based on all available published literature.
Several preliminary lists were widely circulated and a draft version published
(American Malacological Union, 1985). All submitted comments were carefully con-
sidered. The first edition of this checklist was published as a special publication of the
American Fisheries Society (Turgeon et al., 1988). This checklist uses Potamilus.
This survey illustrates that the use of Potamilus in the published literature is in fact
widespread. This is in direct contrast to the impression given by Gordon (BZN 47: 20,
para. 8).
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) not to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Potamilus
Rafinesque, 1818 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by
Morrison (1969) Unio alatus Say, 1817;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name alatus Say,
1817, as published in the binomen Unio alatus (specific name of the type species
of Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818).

Additional References

American Malacological Union. 1985. Suggested draft list of common names for mollusks
occurring from America north of Mexico. Shells and Sealife, 17(2): 45-85.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 1986. 1986 IUCN Red
List of Threatened Animals. 105 pp. International Union for Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.

Turgeon, D.D., Bogan, A.E., Coan, E.V., Emerson, W.K., Lyons, W.G., Pratt, W.L., Roper,
C.F.E., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.G. & Williams, J.D. 1988. Common and scientific names
of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Mollusks. American Fisheries
Society Special Publication no. 16. vii, 277 pp., 12 pls. Bethesda.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata
Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780
(currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta)

(Case 2452; see BZN 46: 22-24)

(1) Mary E. Petersen

Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100
Copenhagen 0, Denmark

Chambers & Heppell have pointed out that the specific name imbricata is threatened
by the senior subjective synonym Aphrodita lepidota Pallas, 1766, and that A. minuta

208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Fabricius, 1780 is preoccupied by the senior primary homonym Aphrodita minuta
Pennant, 1777.

I see no reason not to support conservation of the specific name imbricata as long as
lepidota is believed to represent the same taxon. However, I suggest that a conditional
suppression of lepidota would be preferable as this would leave the name J/epidota
available should it become desirable to recognize specific differences between some of
the forms currently being referred to imbricata. As indicated below, this is not unlikely.

Harmothoe imbricata is generally considered to be well known and widely distributed.
Critical examination of other such species (e.g. Capitella capitata by Grassle & Grassle,
1976; Terebellides stroemii by Williams, 1984; Chaetopterus variopedatus by Petersen,
1984 and in preparation) has revealed the ‘well known’ name in each case to be used for
several species and has resulted in recognition of additional taxa, often those previously
considered junior synonyms. That characters may be found at all levels, from behavioral
to ultrastructural, has been elegantly shown by Westheide & Rieger (1987) for three
very similar species of the Microphthalmus listensis complex, previously believed to bea
single species.

Most authors have remarked on the great biological and morphological variation
shown by specimens identified as H. imbricata, which is claimed to be cosmopolitan,
but no one has yet undertaken a critical revision of the species on a worldwide or even
northern European basis. We therefore still do not know how many distinct taxa are
being referred to this name. The species undoubtedly varies greatly in color pattern
and ornamentation of the scales, but it has also been reported to show variation in
spawning season and reproductive biology.

In European waters, Rasmussen (1956; the Isefjord, Denmark) and Daly (1972;
Cullercoats, England) found H. imbricata to have large eggs brooded under the elytra,
whereas Cazaux (1968; Arcachon, France) found small eggs freely spawned. This
suggests that two or more taxa are present here; reports of the taxon from other areas
(e.g. Izuka, 1912, Japan; Blake, 1975, northern California) may represent something
else again.

Linnaeus’ original description of imbricata (type locality Iceland) does not mention
any specific color pattern, only that the color pattern is variable. Variations similar to
those described for H. imbricata as presently defined also occur in other scaleworms,
e.g. H. elisabethae (McIntosh, 1900) (M.E. Petersen, unpublished observations).

The type locality of /epidota is between England and Belgium, in the southern
North Sea, and Arcachon is on the Bay of Biscay (coast of France). If some of the
free-spawning ‘imbricata’ from Arcachon fit the description of /epidota and can be
distinguished from Icelandic imbricata that brood their eggs, imbricata could be
restricted to a brooding form (which seems to be the type of breeding biology most
often reported for this species) and /epidota to a free-spawning form. Any redescription
of lepidota should, of course, be based on material from as close to the type locality as
possible, and not from Arcachon. Until a critical comparison of these forms has been
made, I do not feel it is desirable to suppress /epidota unconditionally. It is possible
that more than one taxon will be distinguished and I cannot see how conditional
suppression could endanger nomenclatural stability.

Chambers & Heppell point out that the name Pholoe minuta (Fabricius, 1780) is
threatened by the senior homonym Aphrodita minuta Pennant, 1777, erected for a
species from off Anglesey, Wales (the Irish Sea). Revisions in progress (Chambers,

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 209

see BZN 46: 23; M.E. Petersen, in preparation) have shown that P. minuta has
been misinterpreted by most later workers and thus is not as widespread as believed
(Petersen, 1983, pp. 64-65). Although there are still some points that need clarification
and require examination of newly collected material from the type locality (an attempt
to obtain such is currently being made), the species is described in some detail, and it
is desirable that the name minuta be retained for Fabricius’ species.

It is really not clear whether Pennant merely created what he considered a more
appropriate name for /epidota or whether he thought he had a new species. His descrip-
tion of minuta states only that the species is an ‘APH. with small scales; slender; not an
inch long.’ (Pennant, 1777, p. 45, pl. 24, fig. 29; 1812, p. 87, pl. 26, fig. 4) and, together
with the figure, could either be interpreted as a Pholoe or a polynoid, although the latter
is the more likely. If a polynoid, the species could belong to-any of a number of genera,
and is either indeterminable or at best a junior synonym of /epidota. I fully agree with
Chambers and Heppell that recognition of minuta Pennant serves no useful purpose,
and I support their request for its suppression.

Acknowledgements

Susan Chambers (Edinburgh), Anthea Gentry (ICZN Secretariat), and the Department
of Mollusks, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., provided help with the early
literature. The manuscript was read by Dr Claus Nielsen and Danny Eibye-Jacobsen,
Copenhagen, whose comments and suggestions are gratefully acknowledged.

Additional references

Blake, J.A. 1975. The larval development of Polychaeta from the northern California Coast. HI.
Eighteen species of Errantia. Ophelia, 14: 23-84.

Cazaux, C. 1968. Etude morphologique de développement larvaire d’annélides Polychetes.
(Bassin d’Arcachon). I. Aphroditidae, Chrysopetalidae. Archives de Zoologie Expérimentale
et Générale, 109: 477-543.

Daly, J.M. 1972. The maturation and breeding biology of Harmothoe imbricata (Polychaeta:
Polynoidae). Marine Biology, 12(1): 53-66.

Grassle, J.P. & Grassle, J.F. 1976. Sibling species in the marine pollution indicator Capitella
(Polychaeta). Science, 192: 567-569.

Izuka, A. 1912. The errantiate Polychaeta of Japan. Journal of the College of Science, Imperial
University of Tokyo, 30(2): 1-262.

Pennant, T. 1812. British Zoology. A new (fifth) edition, vol. 4, 380 pp., 95 pls. London.

Petersen, M.E. 1983. Pholoe minuta: a cosmopolitan species or a victim of the ‘Characteristic
Species Disease’? Pp. 64-65 in: Programme of Polychaete Conference, Australian Museum,
July 1983. (Unpublished programme abstract.)

Petersen, M.E. 1984. Chaetopterus variopedatus (Annelida: Polychaeta): Another victim of the
‘characteristic species’ disease. American Zoologist, 24(3): 62A.

Rasmussen, E. 1956. Faunistic and biological notes on marine invertebrates III. The repro-
duction and larval development of some polychaetes from the Isefjord, with some faunistic
notes. Biologiske Meddelelser af Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab, 23(1): 1-84.

Westheide, W. & Rieger, R.M. 1987. Systematics of the amphiatlantic Microphthalmus-listensis-
species-group (Polychaeta: Hesionidae): Facts and concepts for reconstruction of phylogeny
and speciation. Zeitschrift fiir Zoologische Systematik und Evolutionsforschung, 25(1): 12-39.

Williams, S.J. 1984. The status of Terebellides stroemi (Polychaeta; Trichobranchidae) as a
cosmopolitan species, based on a worldwide morphological survey, including description of
new species. Pp. 118-142 in P.A. Hutchings (Ed.), Proceedings of the First International
Polychaete Conference, Sydney. The Linnean Society of New South Wales.

210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

(2) Susan Chambers & David Heppell
Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Chambers Street,
Edinburgh EH1 1JF, U.K.

We were interested to see Dr Petersen’s comments (above) on the proposed conser-
vation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus, 1767 and A. minuta
Fabricius, 1780, and were pleased to have her support and additional information
regarding A. minuta. We also carefully considered her alternative proposals for
conditional suppression of the specific name /epidota, but are unable to agree with that
for the reasons given below.

We agree that there are probably several taxa included under H. imbricata, and that
H. lepidotais probably a colour form of the same taxon, given our current knowledge of
the species. If the name /epidota were to be suppressed only conditionally, however, it
would not be available for use for a segregate species unless it could be shown that the
morphological, developmental or behavioural differences which characterized the new
species were present in individuals of the ‘/epidota’ colour form, but not in those of
typical ‘imbricata’. As the ‘lepidota’ form is well known from populations studied
throughout the distribution range of imbricata, we doubt that any such correlation
between the distinctive colour pattern and other observable differences would have
been overlooked by all previous workers.

There seem, therefore, to be only two alternative actions: to acknowledge the priority
of /epidota and use the name in place of imbricata; or to suppress /epidota and accept
imbricata as the valid name. Perhaps it would have been better if Malgren, or some
other worker last century, had accepted /epidota as the name to use, but they were
working before an agreed code of nomenclature had been accepted. They regarded the
name imbricata as representing the typical form of the species, and /epidota as the name
of the variety of it. The relative priority of the names was subordinate to their interpret-
ation. We believe sufficient usage of the names in that sense warrants conservation of
the name of the typical form as the name of the species, and this can only effectively be
done by total suppression of the name of the variety.

Even if some of the ‘free-spawning’ individuals of ‘imbricata’ were of the ‘lepidota’
form, we do not think that would justify retention of the name. For such individuals to
be recognized as a distinct species other, primarily morphological, characters would
need to be associated, and we believe it would be impossible, in the absence of original
type material, to show that these were found in the specimens described by Pallas. It
would be preferable to introduce a new name, with a full new description. As Cazaux’s
observations have not been repeated elsewhere the possibility remains that the develop-
mental anomalies observed by him were an artefact of the handling techniques
involved. As H. imbricata in laboratory conditions will readily shed scales, it seems not
unlikely that they would also shed eggs normally brooded under the scales. Cazaux was
unable to find any other point of distinction from normal H. imbricata. He did not
give a description of the parent animals and, as noted by Daly (1972), did not describe
those stages between the egg and the trochophore which correspond to the protected
stage.

After reconsidering our original proposals and responding to the comments, we
believe that our request for the suppression of the name /epidota for the purposes of the
Principle of Priority should stand.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 211

Reply to a comment on the proposed precedence of Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901
(Arachnida, Araneae) over Rhechostica Simon, 1892
(Case 2662; see BZN 46: 165-166, 189-190; 47: 126-127)

Herbert W. Levi
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
02138, U.S.A.

Otto Kraus

Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Universitat Hamburg, Martin-
Luther-King-Platz 3, D-2000 Hamburg 13, Fed. Rep. Germany

In his comment on this case Raven (BZN 47: 126-127) refers to the listing of
Rhechostica in catalogues. However, the mentioning of names in catalogues, lists and
nomenclators does not constitute usage for the purposes of the Principle of Priority (see
Article 79c(2,i) of the Code).

Raven’s discussion of the usage of Eurypelma Koch, 1850 is not relevant to the
proposed precedence of Aphonopelma over Rhechostica. As we pointed out before
(BZN 46: 165, para. 4), Rhechostica had remained unused for 93 years until resurrected
by Raven (1985). One of us (H.W.L.) has found that amongst North American
arachnologists who have talked or written about this case all except one (R.C. West; see
BZN 46: 190) support the rejection of Rhechostica.

Comment on the proposed conservation of /xodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and
I. woodi Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by replacement of the holotype of

I, angustus

(Case 2696; see BZN 46: 167-169)

G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology)
c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 SHU, U.K.

Non-systematists become habituated to the name used for any species of applied
importance. The knowledge of such species becomes embodied in textbooks and
reports using the familiar name, so that any taxonomic reinterpretation of the species
takes a while to become widely understood and accepted. Name changes for familiar
species are therefore unpopular, but may be taxonomically necessary for biological
reasons. Changes in usage of important species names are unjustifiable simply to fulfil
the Principle of Priority and other rules of the Code.

In the field of medical and veterinary entomology there are conspicuous precedents
for replacement of type specimens in order to conserve the accepted meaning of a
species name. For example, the case of the mosquito Aedes aegypti (Linnaeus, 1762)
involving designation of a neotype as proposed by Mattingly et al. (BZN 19: 208-219)
was settled by Opinion 711 (1964). The case of Culex pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 involved
designation of a neotype by Harbach et al. (1985) without recourse to the Commission.
Both cases involved keeping the familiar name for a medically important species,
despite conflicting evidence concerning the biological identity of original type
specimens.

212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

The proposed conservation of the names Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and
I. woodi Bishopp, 1911, involving replacement of the holotype of J. angustus by the
neotype proposed by Robbins & Keirans in keeping with accustomed usage, should be
supported as the most expedient solution to the taxonomic problem raised by their
observation that the holotypes of these nominally different species appear to be
conspecific, whereas these two names have always been used unambiguously for two
biologically distinct tick species of some medico-veterinary importance.

Additional reference

Harbach, R.E., Dahl, C. & White, G.B. 1985. Culex (Culex) pipiens Linnaeus (Diptera:
Culicidae): concepts, type designations, and description. Proceedings of the Entomological
Society of Washington, 87: 1-24.

Comments on the conservation of the spelling of the specific name of Macrocheles
robustulus (Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina)
(Case 2725; see BZN 47: 24-26)

The proposed ruling that the accepted spelling of the specific name of the mite
Macrocheles robustulus (Berlese, 1904) be deemed correct although it was first pub-
lished as ‘rubustulus’ has been supported in letters received from 31 persons: Richard
C. Axtell (North Carolina, U.S.A.); Gerald T. Baker (Misssissippi, U.S.A.); A.K. Datta
(Assam, India); R.M. Emberson (Canterbury, New Zealand); G.P. Hall (Western
Australia); Robert D. Hall (Missouri, U.S.A.); W. Hirschmann (Nurnberg, Fed. Rep.
Germany); T.M. Ho (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia); E. Holm (New South Wales,
Australia); Robert W. Husband (Michigan, U.S.A.); K.H. Hyatt (Wales, U.K.); H.
Koehler (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany); G.W. Krantz (Oregon, U.S.A.); E.E. Lindquist
(Ontario, Canada); M. Luxton (Liverpool, England); W. Niedbala (Poznan, Poland); Roy
A. Norton (New York, U.S.A.); James H. Oliver, Jr. (Georgia, U.S.A.); J.C. Otto
(Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany); F. Pegazzano (Firenze, Italy); G.W. Ramsay (Auckland,
New Zealand); M.K.P. Smith Meyer (Pretoria, South Africa); R.V. Southcott (South
Australia); M. Spear (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.); Victor F. Stanis (Pennsylvania, U.S.A.);
G. Takaku (Sapporo, Japan); P.D. Theron (Potchefstroom, South Africa); M.B. Usher
(York, England); M.M.H. Wallace (Canberra, Australia); D.E. Walker (Florida,
U.S.A.); F.E. Wendt (Bremen, Fed. Rep. Germany).

Comment on the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879
(Crustacea, Isopoda)
(Case 2721; see BZN 47: 27-29)

Jacques Forest
Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75231 Paris, France

Je me permets d’apporter un appui total a la proposition présentée par Martin &
Kuck, visant a conserver le nom de Bathynomus, établi pour un genre d’Isopode par
A. Milne Edwards en 1879 et menacé par une mise en synonymie récente avec le genre
fossile Palaega Woodward, 1870.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 213

Je suis tout a fait d’accord avec argumentation des deux auteurs de la requete,
retenant deux points principaux:
1. La synonymie des deux genres est douteuse.
2. Le nom de Bathynomus a été applique de fagon continue a un nombre croissant
d’especes et son emploi est habituel dans la littérature carcinologique.
Dans l’intérét de la stabilite de la nomenclature, je souhaite vivement que la
Commission preserve l’usage de Bathynomus.

Comments on the proposed designation of Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the type
species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda)
(Case 2711; see BZN 46: 236-238)

(1) Richard C. Brusca
Natural History Museum, P.O. Box 1390, San Diego, California 92112, U.S.A.

I would like to state briefly my support for the proposition of Lowry & Stoddart
favoring the designation of the nominal species Lysianax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as the
type species of Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936. I believe Lowry & Stoddart are correct in
their assessment of the situation, and that other amphipod workers would welcome this
official clarification of a long-standing problem.

(2) Michael H. Thurston

Institute of Oceanographic Sciences, Deacon Laboratory, Godalming, Surrey GU8 SUB,
U.K.

I support the case made for the designation of L. cubensis as the type species of
Shoemakerella.

It is clear that Pirlot (1936) based his concept of Shoemakerella on his own material
and on the specimens received from Shoemaker. The separation of L. nasuta and
L. cubensis is valid. While the illustrations provided by Dana lack much of the detail
required by modern taxonomists, such detail as is given can be relied upon. The
structure of uropod 3 provides an unequivocal separation of the two species.

(3) Support for the proposals on BZN 46: 237 was also received from Prof Krzysztof
Jazdzewski, Uniwersytet Lodzki, Lodz, Poland.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis
Fabricius, 1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2678; see BZN 46: 241-243)

(1) M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga

Seccion de Entomologia, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, J. Gutierrez Abascal 2,
28006 Madrid, Spain

I cannot support the application to conserve Fabricius’s specific name viridicollis.
We (entomologists and biologists in general) should be prepared to handle synonymies,

214 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

even of common species. Moreover, a lectotype of Curculio cloropus Linnaeus, 1758
has been designated, thereby fixing the identity of this species. I do not want to be
an accomplice of Fabricius (and other authors) who made a large number of errors
simply because of scientific procedure. If an error is found, it should be corrected in a
publication, and be checked (and the correction accepted) by other workers interested
in the same subject.

I would like to call attention to the fact that the name Phyllobius cloropus has been
used recently (Tempére & Péricart, 1989, pp. 47, 475) as the valid name for the species.
These French authors took the logical attitude which I defend.

Additional reference

Tempere, G. & Péricart, J. 1989. Coleoptéres Curculionidae, quatrieme partie. Faune de France,
74: 1-534.

(2) Editorial note
Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The paper by Thompson & Alonso-Zarazaga (1988), in which they demonstrated the
synonymy between C. cloropus and C. viridicollis (and in which Thompson wrote (p. 84)
that he proposed to apply to the Commission to be able to use the junior synonym
viridicollis as the name for the species), is cited in the recently published update of
Coléoptéres Curculionidae (1989). Dr J. Péricart (J0 rue Habert, F-77130 Montereau,
France) has noted (in litt.) that he had accepted changes in the nomenclature resulting
from strict compliance with the Principle of Priority, but only if they had been adopted
in previous publications. In other cases, where the name in use was the younger
synonym, he had kept that name although indicating that priority would dictate the
senior synonym (unless there had been a Commission ruling to the contrary).

According to this procedure he (Péricart) would have used the name viridicollis for
the species but, by mistake, did not do so. Many changes had been needed during the
printing of the publication and this particular one had been overlooked. He, himself,
strongly favoured using the name viridicollis.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903) over
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2716; see BZN 46: 179-180, 47: 48)

G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology)
c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 5HU, U.K.

I support Dr Boorman’s application to uphold Culicoides puncticollis (Becker, 1903)
for two reasons:

First, to maintain consistency in usage (Article 23b) of puncticollis as the specific
name of a well known biting midge that ‘is readily identified and not involved in any
taxonomic problem’ (BZN 46: 179, para. 4).

Secondly, the application wisely allows for the possibility that C. algecirensis
(Strobl, 1900) may, in the light of future studies, prove to be not synonymous with

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 215

C. puncticollis. Biosystematics of haematophagous Diptera is increasingly complicated
by the unveiling of sibling species complexes (see Service, 1988). In such cases, available
synonyms may be ascribed appropriately to each newly recognised biological species
comprising a complex. Until the specific integrity of C. puncticollis (sensu lato) is
researched throughout its range in the Mediterranean, it will be advisable to give
precedence to the name puncticollis but also to retain algecirensis.

Additional reference

Service, M.W. 1989. Biosystematics of haematophagous insects. The Systematics Association
special volume No. 37. xi, 363 pp.

Comments on the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve
C. stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2702; see BZN 46: 247-249)

(1) G.B. White (Editor, Medical & Veterinary Entomology)
c/o The Royal Entomological Society, London SW7 5HU, U.K.

It is a sad coincidence that the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904
comes soon after the death in 1986 of Fritz Peus, doyen of German culicidologists. This
American mosquito’s name is merely a homonym, not an eponym, of the man’s and
there was no connection between them.

A convincing argument is advanced by Eldridge & Harbach for upholding the name
C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 and suppressing its senior synonym C. peus which had been
misapplied to the more widespread and medically important species C. stigmatosoma
Dyar, 1907 in most publications during the years 1958-1988.

The alternative of designating the holotype of C. stigmatosoma as neotype of C. peus
would involve setting aside the latter’s holotype, an action likely to provoke some
criticism, in order to sustain recent usage of the name C. peus. However, the standard
textbook of North American mosquitoes by Carpenter & LaCasse (1955) had applied
the name C. stigmatosoma as now proposed and some workers have continued with this
usage throughout. We are told in the proposal that editors have quickly readopted the
name C. stigmatosoma since it was reported by Strickman (1988) that C. peus is a senior
synonym of C. thriambus and not of C. stigmatosoma.

In view of the extensive literature pertaining to the species C. stigmatosoma, much
of it published under the name C. pews, much confusion would arise if C. peus is now
given precedence over C. thriambus. Therefore, I support the proposal to suppress C.
peus.

Additional reference

Carpenter, S.J. & LaCasse, W.J. 1955. Mosquitoes of North America (north of Mexico).
vi, 360 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley.

216 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

(2) Daniel Strickman
Armed Forces Research Institute of Medical Sciences, APO San Francisco, California
96346-5000, U.S.A.

The authors of the application were kind enough to allow me to review their
manuscript before it was published. I completely agree with their action. Their
arguments are well-reasoned and pertinent. If the application is accepted, it will result
in a useful stabilization of nomenclature for two important mosquito species of the
northern hemisphere.

Comments on the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the
type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita)
(Case 2762; see BZN 47: 114-116)

(1) Sir James Stubblefield
35 Kent Avenue, Ealing, London W13 8BE, U.K.

I strongly support the proposal to accept Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the
type species of Griffithides Portlock, 1843, and Asaphus globiceps Phillips, 1836 as the
type species of Bollandia Reed, 1943.

(2) H.B. Whittington
Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge
CB2 3EQ, U.K.

I write in strong support of Case 2762, the application to conserve the meaning of
the Carboniferous trilobite name Griffithides Portlock, 1843 by setting aside an over-
looked type species designation. I believe it will be in the best interests of stability in
nomenclature to take this action.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 217

OPINION 1608

Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): Membranipora
densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all previous designations of type species for the
nominal genus Marssonopora Lang, 1914 are hereby set aside and Membranipora
densispina Levinsen, 1925 is designated as type species.

(2) The name Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (gender: feminine), type species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Membranipora densispina Levinsen,
1925, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name densispina Levinsen, 1925, as published in the binomen Membranipora
densispina (specific name of the type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2657

An application for the designation of Membranipora densispina Levinsen, 1925 as the
type species of Marssonopora Lang, 1914 was received from Dr P.D. Taylor (The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) & Prof E. Voigt (Universitat Hamburg,
Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 8 April 1988. After correspondence the case was
published in BZN 46: 88—90 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 89-90. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925, Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter,
Naturvidenskabelig og mathematisk Afdeling, 8, 7: 316.
Marssonopora Lang, 1914, Geological Magazine, NS, decade 6, 1: 438.

218 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1609

Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca,
Ammonoidea): conserved

Ruling

(1) Itis hereby ruled that A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts.
by Benett (1831) is an available work.

(2) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed:

(a) the generic name Drepanites Benett, 1831, and all other uses of that name prior to
Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority
and the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) the specific name striatus Benett, 1831, as published in the binomen Drepanites
striatus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the
Principle of Homonymy.

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

Zoology:

(a) Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Diener (1915) Arpadites (Drepanites) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893;

(b) Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig-
nation Ammonites falcatus Mantell, 1822.

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

Zoology:

(a) hyatti Mojsisovics, 1893, as published in the binomen Arpadites (Drepanites)
hyatti (specific name of the type species of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893);

(b) falcatus Mantell, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites falcatus (specific
name of the type species of Hyphoplites Spath, 1922).

(5) The work A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. by E. Benett
(1831), as ruled in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Works Approved as
Available for Zoological Nomenclature.

(6) The name Drepanites Benett, 1831, as suppressed in (2)(a) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(7) The name striatus Benett, 1831, as published in the binomen Drepanites striatus
and as suppressed in (2)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2668

An application for the conservation of Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and
Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 was received from Drs E.E. Spamer & A.E. Bogan (Academy
of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, U.S.A.) on 9 June 1988 and published in BZN 46:
19-21 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

An opposing comment by Mr C.W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) was pub-
lished in BZN 46: 187-188 (September 1989), together with a reply by the Executive
Secretary of the Commission. :

A comment was received from Prof D.T. Donovan (Department of Geological
Sciences, University College London, London, U.K.), who noted that Miss Benett

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 219

presented a copy of her 1831 Catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. to
the British Museum, Bloomsbury, inscribed ‘British Museum, from the Author’,
indicating her wish for the work to be publicly available.

A recent publication (reference below) by the authors of the application and one
other has given in detail the background to Benett’s work and the extensive way in
which it was distributed and taken note of by her contemporaries. The paper docu-
ments the large number of taxa established by Benett, and cites the present localities of
her collection which includes type material for species proposed by her and subsequent
authors; Drepanites striatus Benett is discussed on p. 144 et seq.

Spamer, E.E., Bogan, A.E. & Torrens, H.S. 1989. Recovery of the Eltheldred Benett
collection of fossils mostly from Jurassic-Cretaceous strata of Wiltshire, England,
analysis of the taxonomic nomenclature of Benett (1831), and notes and figures of
type specimens contained in the collection. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, 141: 115—180.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 20. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza (in part), Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 2: Kabata and Martins de Souza (in part).

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Martins de Souza said there did not appear sufficient reason to suppress the name
Drepanites Benett, 1831 to conserve Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names and work placed on Official Lists and

Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

Drepanites Benett, 1831, A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts., p. 3, pl. 16.

Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893, Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Koniglichen Geologischen
Reichsanstalt, 6(2): 495.

falcatus, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822, The fossils of the South Downs; or illustrations of the geology
of Sussex, p. 117, pl. 21, figs. 6, 12.

hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites), Mojsisovics, 1893, Abhandlungen der Kaiserlich-K6niglichen
Geologischen Reichsanstalt, 6(2): 495.

Hyphoplites Spath, 1922, Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 53(6): 110.

striatus, Drepanites, Benett, 1831, A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts., p. 3,
pl. 16.

Benett, E. 1831. 4 catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. iv,9 pp., 18 pls. Vardy,
Warminster.

The following is the reference for the designation of Drepanites hyatti as the type species of
Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893:
Diener, C. 1915. Cephalopoda triadica. In Frech, F. (Ed.), Fossilium catalogus. 1. Animalia. (8),
p. 129.

220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1610

Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship
of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841
confirmed as the type species

Ruling

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

(a) the specific name nucleus Phillips, 1829, as published in the binomen Ammonites
nucleus, and all other uses of that name prior to Ammonites nucleus Roemer,
1841, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and
the Principle of Homonymy;

(b) all designations of type species for the nominal genus Valanginites Sayn in
Kilian, 1910 before that of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by Roman (1938)
are hereby set aside.

(2) The name Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (gender: masculine), type species
Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 by the ruling in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name nucleus Roemer, 1841, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus
(specific name of the type species of Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910), is hereby placed
on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name nucleus Phillips, 1829, as published in the binomen Ammonites nucleus
and as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2403

An application for the confirmation of Sayn in Kilian (1910) as the author of the
nominal genus Valanginites, and of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as its type
species, was received from Drs P.F. Rawson (University College London, London, U.K.)
and E. Kemper (Bundesanstalt fiir Geowissenschaften und Rohstoffe, Hannover, Fed.
Rep. Germany) on 18 January 1982. After correspondence, and a delay arising from a
move by the senior author, the case was published in BZN 46: 91-93 (June 1989).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support were
received from Mr C.W. Wright (Beaminster, Dorset, U.K.) and Dr M.K. Howarth (The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 92. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Tryjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Macpherson.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

ip ste

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 221

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
nucleus, Ammonites, Phillips, 1829, I/lustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire, p. 174.

nucleus, Ammonites, Roemer, 1841, Die Versteinerungen des Norddeutschen Kreidegebirges, part
2, p. 87.

Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910, Lethaea geognostica, Teil 2 (Das Mesozoicum), Band 3
(Kreide), Liefrung 2, p. 194.

The following is the reference for the designation of Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 as the
type species of Valanginites:

Roman, F. 1938. Les ammonites jurassiques et crétacées. Essai de genera, p. 386.

222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1611

Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name
conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as
published in the binomen Heliophanus albosignatus, is hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name kochii Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Heliophanus kochii, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, as published in the binomen Heliophanus
albosignatus and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2647

An application for the conservation of the specific name of one of the jumping
spiders, Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868, but with the spelling kochi, was received from
Dr J. Proszynski (Zaklad Zoologii WSPR, Siedlce, Poland) on 4 March 1988. The
application sought the suppression of the senior subjective synonym albosignatus
L. Koch, 1867. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 108-109 (June
1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

The application was supported by Mr F.R. Wanless (Department of Zoology, The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.).

It was noted on the voting papers that a recent major monograph by Wesolowska
(1986) on the genus Heliophanus C.L. Koch, 1835 uses the spelling kochi; see also BZN
46:108—109, para. 5.

The proposals of para. 6 on BZN 46: 109, (1)(a) for the suppression of the specific
name albosignatus L. Koch, 1867, and (1)(b) that kochi should be deemed to be the
correct spelling of the specific name first published as kochii by Simon (1868), were
presented separately for voting.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 109, amended as above. At the close of the voting
period on | June 1990 the votes were as follows:

Proposal (1)(a). Affirmative votes — 19: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye,
Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 7: Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli
and Ueno.

Proposal (1)(b). Affirmative votes — 13: Bock, Corliss, Halvorsen, Kraus, Lehtinen,
Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 13: Bayer, Cocks, Cogger, Hahn, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata,
Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Mroczkowski, Savage and Uéno.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 223

Proposal (1)(a) was thus carried, but since there was no majority for proposal (1)(b)
the name kochii Simon, 1868 is conserved with its original spelling.

Dupuis abstained from both votes, commenting ‘Je crains que les habitudes de
Simon, en matiere de nomenclature, aient comporte beaucoup de précipitation et
diverses négligences. Je ne peux donc pas me prononcer sur la confiance aveugle qu’on
parait lui accorder en matiére de taxonomie’. Heppell commented that ‘the Commis-
sion should not be asked to rule on the correct spelling of individual specific names
which differ only in an —/ or —ii termination. It is already difficult enough in many cases
to discover which variant is the correct original spelling, and to require zoologists to
consult also the Official Lists for such a trivial matter seems quite wrong. Many zool-
ogists (and zoological editors) routinely employ a single —/ termination because of their
incorrect interpretation of the rules. Others believe that the —i and —ii terminations can
simply be regarded as permissible alternatives. It would be far better to have such a
simple remedy to this vexed and continuing problem than to have individual cases
determined piecemeal on the basis of perceived usage’.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
albosignatus, Heliophanus, L. Koch, 1867, Verhandlungen der Zoologisch—Botanischen
Gesellschaft in Wien, 17: 871.

kochii, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)8: 699.

224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1612

Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus;
Arachnida, Araneae): specific name conserved

Ruling
(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed
for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of
Homonymy:
(a) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen A/tus illibatus;
(b) inequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Aftus inequalipes;
(c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen A ttus guttatus.
(2) The name penicillatus Simon, 1875, as published in the binomen Aftus
penicillatus, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) illibatus Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Afttus illibatus and as
suppressed in (1)(a) above;
(b) imequalipes Simon, 1868, as published in the binomen Attus inequalipes and as
suppressed in (1)(b) above;
(c) guttatus Thorell, 1875, as published in the binomen Attus guttatus and as
suppressed in (1)(c) above.

History of Case 2648

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Attus penicillatus Simon,
1875 was received from Dr J. Proszynski (Zaklad Zoologii WSPR, Siedlce, Poland) on
4 March 1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 110-111 (June
1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals.

The application was supported by Mr F.R. Wanless (Department of Zoology, The
Natural History Museum, London, U.K.).

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 111. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 18: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Kabata, Kraus, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Starobogatov,
Thompson, Trjapitzin, Willink

Negative votes — 8: Cogger, Holthuis, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Mroczkowski, Savage and Uéno.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Dupuis abstained: Simon’s nomenclatural acts had caused very many problems (see
comment on BZN 47: 223). Uéno noted that the types of all the nominal species were
preserved in major museums, and commented that future specialists might conclude
that the taxa concerned were distinct. Cogger and Mroczkowski agreed, adding that
the applicant’s aim could be met by giving precedence to the name penicillatus.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

in)
NM
nN

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
guttatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875, Horae Societatis Entomologicae Rossicae, 11: 119.
illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)8: 541.
inequalipes, Attus, Simon, 1868, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (4)8: 614.
penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875, Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)5: xcii.

Bulletin des Seances (Seance du 28 Avril 1875).

226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1613

Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and
Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both
Crustacea, Copepoda)

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the following names are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:

(a) the generic name Jsochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889;

(b) the specific name /ongisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen
Tsochaeta longisetosus.

(2) The name Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (gender:
feminine), type species by indication (Article 67h) Leuckartia flavicornis Claus, 1863, is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

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

(a) flavicornis Claus, 1863, as published in the binomen Leuckartia flavicornis
(specific name of the type species of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht &
Schmeil, 1898);

(b) longiremis Sars, 1907, as published in the binomen Pseudaugaptilus longiremis.

(4) The name LUCICUTIIDAE Sars, 1902 (type genus Lucicutia Giesbrecht in
Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology.

(5) The name /sochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889, as suppressed in (1)(a) above, is hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

(6) The name Jongisetosus Thompson, 1903, as published in the binomen Isochaeta
longisetosus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2666 3

An application for the conservation of Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht &
Schmeil, 1898 and Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907 was received from Dr
K. Hulsemann (Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, Hamburg, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 25
May 1988 and published in BZN 46: 97—100 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to
appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 98-99. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Halvorsen, Heppell,
Kabata, Kraus, Macpherson, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye,
Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 5: Cogger, Hahn, Holthuis, Lehtinen and Mahnert.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 227

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official
Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863, Die Frei Lebenden Copepoden mit Besonderer
Berticksichtigung der Fauna Deutschlands, der Nordsee und des Mittelmeeres, p. 183.
Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889, Atti della Reale Accademia dei Lincei, (4)5(11), semestre 1: 812.
longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907, Bulletin de l'Institut Océanographique, 101: 24.
longisetosus, Isochaeta, Thompson, 1903, The Annals and Magazine of Natural History,
(7)12(67): 26.
Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898, Das Tierreich, 6: 110.

LUCICUTIDAE Sars, 1902, An account of the Crustacea of Norway, vol. 4 (Copepoda, Calanoida),
parts 7 and 8 (Centropagidae and Diaptomidae), p. 73.

228 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1614

Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Trapecia Berthold, 1827 is hereby
suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle
of Homonymy.

(2) The name Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (gender: feminine), type species by sub-
sequent designation by H. Milne Edwards (1842) Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828 (a
junior subjective synonym of Cancer cymodoce Herbst, 1801), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name cymodoce Herbst, 1801, as published in the binomen Cancer cymodoce
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Trapezia dentifrons Latreille, 1828,
the type species of Trapezia Latreille, 1828), is hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name Trapecia Berthold, 1827, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2542/2

An application for the conservation of Trapezia Latreille, 1828 was submitted by
Miss R.A. Cooper (formerly of the Secretariat, I.C.Z.N.) following the discovery that
Case 2542 (see BZN 44: 95-96), which proposed to eliminate the homonymy between
TRAPEZIIDAE in decapods and bivalves, could not otherwise be completed. The case was
published in BZN 46: 104-105 (June 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate
journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 105. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

See also Opinion 1615, BZN 47: 229-230 for the family-group name TRAPEZIIDAE
Miers, 1886.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

cymodoce, Cancer, Herbst, 1801, Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der Krabben und Krebse, vol. 3,
part 2, p. 22.

Trapecia Berthold, 1827, Latreille’s natiirliche Familien des Thierreichs aus dem Franzésischen
mit Anmerkungen und Zusdatzen, p. 255.

Trapezia Latreille, 1828, Encyclopédie méthodique d'Histoire naturelle (Insectes ), vol. 10, p. 695.

__ a

id
No
\o

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1615

TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and TRAPEZIIDAE
Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers it is hereby ruled that the stem of the generic name
Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 for the purposes of Article 29 is Trapez-.

(2) The name Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811 (gender: neuter), type species
by subsequent designation by Stewart (1930) Trapezium perfectum Megerle von
Miuhlfeld, 1811 (a junior subjective synonym of Chama oblonga Linnaeus, 1758), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name oblonga Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Chama oblonga
(senior subjective synonym of the specific name of Trapezium perfectum Mergerle von
Muhlfield, 1811, the type species of Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfield, 1811), is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

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

(a) TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886, type genus Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea);

(b) TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, type genus Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811

(Mollusca), spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above.

History of Case 2542

An application to remove the homonymy between TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886
(Crustacea) and TRAPEZIIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca) was received from Dr
G.J. Morgan (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia) on 9 December 1985.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 44: 95—96 (June 1987). Notice of
the case was sent to appropriate journals. A supportive comment was received from Dr
L.B. Holthuis, who suggested that a molluscan family name of TRAPEZIUMIDAE would
avoid possible future homonymy with a family name which might be derived from the
hemipteran genus Trapezus Distant, 1882. However, Trapezus was synonymised with
Cryphula Stal, 1874 by Barber in 1918 (see Slater, J.A., 1964, Lygaeidae of the World,
vol. 2, p. 814).

Decision of the Commission

On 1 September 1988 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 44: 95—96. At the close of the voting period on 1 December
1988 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 17: Bayer, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata,
Kraus, Lehtinen, Melville, Mroczkowski, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov,
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

No votes were received from Dupuis, Gruchy and Trjapitzin.

Cogger, Holthuis and Thompson were on leave of absence.

The vote was thus unanimous, but problems with both the type species and the date
of the crustacean genus Trapezia were found after voting. Consequently no Opinion

230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

was published, and a second case was published to resolve these problems (see BZN 46:
104-105). The Opinion 1614 relating to the second case is now published (see BZN 47:
228), and the Opinion resulting from the 1988 vote is now completed.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

oblonga, Chama, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 692.

TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920, Journal de Conchyliologie, 64(4): 265 (as TRAPEZIIDAE).

TRAPEZIDAE Miers, 1886, Report of the Scientific Results of the Voyage of HMS Challenger,
(Zoology, Part 49), vol. 17, p. 163.

Trapezium Megerle von Muhlfeld, 1811, Magazin fiir die neuesten Entdecklungen in der
gesammten Naturkunde von Der Gesellschaft Naturforschaft Freunde zu Berlin, 5: 68.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 931

OPINION 1616

Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Ptochus porcellus
Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 prior to the designation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in
Schonherr, 1834 by Marshall (1916) are hereby set aside.

(2) The name Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 (gender: masculine), type species by
subsequent designation by Marshall (1916) Prochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr,
1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name porcellus Boheman in Schonherr, 1834, as published in the binomen
Ptochus porcellus (specific name of the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826), is
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2646

An application for the confirmation of Ptochus porcellus Boheman in Schonherr,
1834 as the type species of Ptochus Schonherr, 1826 was received from Mr
R.T. Thompson (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) on 24 February 1988.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 28—29 (March 1989). Notice
of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support was received from
Dr Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid,
Spain) who noted that conservation of the accepted meaning of Ptochus Schonherr,
1826 would help to stabilise the generic nomenclature of weevils, which is confused at
present.

It was noted on the voting paper that the genus Prochus has been treated in a number
of major publications and that it is the type genus of the large tribe PTOCHINI Reitter,
1912, which includes some 20 genera and 400 species.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 29. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Thompson

Schuster was on leave of absence.

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

porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman in Schénherr, 1834, Genera et species Curculionidum cum synonymia
hujus familiae, vol. 2, part 1, p. 483.

232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Ptochus Schonherr, 1826, Curculionidum dispositio methodica cum generum characteribus,
descriptionibus atque observationibus variis, p. 188.

The following is the reference for the designation of Ptochus porcellus as the type species of
Ptochus:
Marshall, G.A.K. 1916. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma. Coleoptera.
Rhynchophora: Curculionidae (part 1), p. 259.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 233

OPINION 1617

Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over
Zelica Hiibner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hiibner, [1825]

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Rosema Walker, 1855 is hereby given
precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] whenever it is
considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names.

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

Zoology:

(a) Rosema Walker, 1855 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-
nation by Kirby (1892) Rosema dorsalis Walker, 1855, with the endorsement that
it is to be given precedence over Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner,
[1825] whenever it is considered to be a synonym of either of the latter names;

(b) Zelica Hitbner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena
zelica Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
Rosema Walker, 1855, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(c) Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Phalaena
epigena Stoll, [1790], with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over
Rosema Walker, 1855, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

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

Zoology:

(a) dorsalis Walker, 1855, as published in the binomen Rosema dorsalis (specific
name of the type species of Rosema Walker, 1855);

(b) zelica Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena zelica (specific name of
the type species of Zelica Hubner, [1825]);

(c) epigena Stoll, [1790], as published in the binomen Phalaena epigena (specific
name of the type species of Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]).

History of Case 2665

An application for Rosema Walker, 1855 to be given precedence over two senior
subjective synonyms was received from Dr P. Thiaucourt (Muséum National d Histoire
Naturelle, Paris, France) on 16 May 1988 and published in BZN 46: 123-125 (June
1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 124. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990
the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 27: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell (in part), Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson,
Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride (in part),
Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

Negative votes — none.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Ride and Heppell would have preferred outright suppression of Zelica and Rhogalia.
Heppell commented: ‘No reason is given why Rosema should not be conserved simply
by the suppression of Zelica and Rhogalia. Indeed, from the evidence presented this
would seem by far the best solution. There are no complications at either family or
species level, and there has been no usage of the senior generic names this century. Let
us leave the always complicating procedure of conditional precedence only for those
few cases where there is real doubt about the consequences of suppressing a senior
subjective synonym’.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling

given in the present Opinion:

dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of
the British Museum, part 4, p. 1168.

epigena, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790], Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende
in de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den Heere Pieter Cramer, p. 72.

Rhogalia Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 396.

Rosema Walker, 1855, List of the specimens of lepidopterous insects in the collection of the British
Museum, part 4, p. 1159.

zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790], Aanhangsel van het Werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende in
de drie Waereld-Deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den Heere Pieter Cramer, p. 73.

Zelica Hubner, [1825], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetterlinge, p. 396.

The following is the reference for the designation of Rosema dorsalis as the type species of
Rosema:
Kirby, W.F. 1892. A synonymic catalogue of Lepidoptera Heterocera (Moths), vol. | (Sphinges
and Bombyces), p. 581.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 235

OPINION 1618

Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species
Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a
replacement lectotype

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of lectotype for Musca azurea Fallén,
1817 prior to that by Sabrosky (1956) are hereby set aside.

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

(a) Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig-
nation Musca azurea Fallén, 1817;

(b) Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy
Phormia terraenovae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830.

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

Zoology:

(a) azurea Fallen, 1817, as published in the binomen Musca azurea (specific name of
the type species of Protocalliphora Hough, 1899) and as defined by the lectotype
designated by Sabrosky (1956);

(b) terraenovae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Phormia
terraenovae (specific name of the type species of Protophormia Townsend, 1908).

History of Case 2658

An application for the conservation of usage of Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 and its
type species Musca azurea Fallén, 1817 by the designation of a replacement lectotype
was received from Dr C.W. Sabrosky (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 26 April 1988. After corre-
spondence the case was published in BZN 46: 126-129 (June 1989). Notice of the case
was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 129. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990
the votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Original references

The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
azurea, Musca, Fallen, 1817, Kongliga Vetenskaps Akademiens Handlingar, 1816: 245.

236 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Protocalliphora Hough, 1899, Entomological News, 10: 65.

Protophormia Townsend, 1908, Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, no. 1803, 51(2): 123.

terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Mémoires présentés par divers savans a
l’ Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France, 2: 467.

The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Musca azurea Fallen,
1817:

Sabrosky, C.W. 1956. Proceedings of the Royal Entomological Society of London, (B)25(9-10):
178.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 237

OPINION 1619

Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta,

Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering,
1933

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name jaceana Hering, 1935, as published
in the binomen Euribia jaceana, is hereby given precedence over the specific name
conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms.

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

Zoology:

(a) jaceana Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, with the
endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the specific name conyzae
Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) conyzae Hering, 1933, as published in the binomen Euribia conyzae, with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the specific name jaceana
Hering, 1935, as published in the binomen Euribia jaceana, whenever the two
names are considered to be synonyms.

History of Case 2680

An application to give precedence to Euribia jaceana Hering, 1935 over E. conyzae
Hering, 1933 was received from Drs I.M. White (CAB Institute of Entomology, London,
U.K.) & P. Harris (Agricultural Research Station, Regina, Canada) on 6 September
1988. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 46: 30-32 (March 1989).
Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 31. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, —
Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 3: Kabata, Macpherson and Mahnert.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933, Amateur de Papillons, 6: 309.
Jjaceana, Euribia, Hering, 1935, Markische Tierwelt, 1: 169.

238 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

OPINION 1620

Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by
citation of Lapworth (1876) as author

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the subspecific name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as
published in the combination Graptolites lobiferus Var. f exiguus, and all other uses of
that name before its publication by Lapworth (1876), are hereby suppressed for the
purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.

(2) The name exiguus Lapworth, 1876, as published in the binomen Monograptus
exiguus and as interpreted by the lectotype designated in BZN 46: 33, para. 6, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(3) The name exiguus Nicholson, 1868, as published in the combination Graptolites
lobiferus Var. B exiguus, and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2674

An application for the conservation of the accepted usage of Monograptus exiguus
by the citation of Lapworth (1876) as author was received from Mr D.K. Loydell
(University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Wales, U.K.) on 27 July 1988. After corre-
spondence the case was published in BZN 46: 33—34 (March 1989). Notice of the case
was sent to appropriate journals. A comment in support from Dr Margaret Sudbury
(Rickmansworth, U.K.) was published in BZN 46: 191-192.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 34. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 1990 the
votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 26: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Halvorsen, Heppell, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de
Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno, Willink

Negative votes — 1: Holthuis

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Holthuis would have preferred a neotype selection for the nominal species
Graptolites exiguus Nicholson, 1868, and continued attribution of exiguus to
Nicholson.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official
Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus Var. B, Nicholson, 1868, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society
of London, 24: 533.
exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876, Geological Magazine, (2)3: 503.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990 239

OPINION 1621

Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes):
Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated as the type species

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers:

(a) all first reviser actions regarding the specific names vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as
published in the binomen Osteoglossum vandellii, and bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829,
as published in combination with the manuscript generic name [schnosoma, are
hereby set aside, and it is ruled that bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is to be deemed a
senior objective synonym of vandellii Cuvier, 1829;

(b) Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 is hereby designated as the type species
of the nominal genus Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829.

(2) The name Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (gender: neuter), type species by desig-
nation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier,
1829, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

(3) The name bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen ‘Jschnosoma’
bicirrhosum (specific name of the type species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829) is hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

(4) The name vandellii Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen Osteoglossum
vandellii, and as ruled in (1)(a) above to be a junior objective synonym of bicirrhosum
Cuvier, 1829, as published in the binomen ‘/schnosoma’ bicirrhosum, is hereby placed
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2659

An application for the fixation of Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 as the type
species of Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 was received from Dr M. Kottelat (Zoologische
Staatssammlung, Miinchen, Fed. Rep. Germany) on 28 April 1988. After correspon-
dence the case was published in BZN 46: 130-131 (June 1989). Notice of the case was
sent to appropriate journals. No comments were received.

With regard to Proposal (1)(a) of BZN 46: 130, para. 4: a simpler course in this case
would have been to suppress the unused specific name vandellii Cuvier, 1829 (except for
the purposes of homonymy). The author of the application would not accept this
suggestion. Both specific names vandellii and bicirrhosum are available as from Cuvier,
1829 (the latter under Article lle of the Code), and are thus objective synonyms (i.e.
two names for the same taxon). The first reviser action of Agassiz (1831; see para. 2)
gave precedence to vandellii, but this was never followed and the application sought to
follow universal usage by setting aside the action of Agassiz.

Decision of the Commission

On | March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals published in BZN 46: 130-131. At the close of the voting period on | June
1990 the votes were as follows:

Affirmative votes — 21: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen,
Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli, Mroczkowski,
Nielsen, Nye, Starobogatov, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Uéno, Willink

240 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(3) September 1990

Negative votes — 4: Holthuis, Kabata, Ride and Savage.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Dupuis abstained because, although he supported the aims of the proposals, he
considered that the authorship of the name bicirrhosum should be ‘Spix in Cuvier, 1829”
and not simply ‘Cuvier, 1829’ [however, Article 50g of the Code specifies the latter
citation]. Heppell, Holthuis, Ride and Savage said (in agreement with a comment by
the Executive Secretary on the voting papers) that the name vandellii should have been
suppressed for purposes of priority. Partly for this reason, and partly because since
Cuvier (1829) had published two binomina the Commission could not ‘confirm
O. bicirrhosum as the type species of Osteoglossum by monotypy’ (proposal (1)(b) on
BZN 46: 130), Heppell abstained and Holthuis, Ride and Savage voted against. From
an entirely formal point of view two new nominal species were established in Cuvier’s
paper, even though both specific names referred to the same taxon (i.e. they are objec-
tive synonyms). The Commission’s vote adopted O. bicirrhosum as the type species of
Osteoglossum and the Ruling records this decision.

Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official

Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:

bicirrhosum, Ischnosoma, Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribuée d’apres son organisation pour
servir de base al’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie compareée, Ed. 2,
vol. 2, p. 328.

Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829, Le regne animal distribué d’apreés son organisation pour servir de base
al’histoire naturelle des animaux et d introduction a l’anatomie comparée, Ed. 2, vol. 2, p. 328.

vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829, Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation pour
servir de base al’histoire naturelle des animaux et d’introduction a l’anatomie compareée, Ed. 2,
vol. 2, p. 328.

Contents—continued

Rulings of the Commission
Opinion 1608. Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa, Cheilostomata): ae

densispina Levinsen, 1925 designated as the type species... ote ne 217
Opinion 1609. Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 and Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Mollusca,
Ammonoidea): conserved . . 218

Opinion 1610. Valanginites Saynin Kilian, 1910 (Mollusca, Ammonoidea): authorship
of the genus confirmed, and Ammonites nucleus Roemer, 1841 confirmed as the He

SPeCles. 220
Opinion 1611. Heliophanus kochii Simon, 1868 (Arachnida, Araneae): specific name

Consenved! sor... 222
Opinion 1612. Attus penicillatus Simon, 1875 (currently Sitticus penicillatus: Arachnida,

Araneae): specific nameconserved . . 224

Opinion 1613. Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898: conserved, and
Pseudaugaptilus longiremis Sars, 1907: specific name conserved (both Crustacea,

Copepoda): . « . epee 226
Opinion 1614. Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda): conserved ee 228
Opinion 1615. TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) and TRAPEZIIDAE

Lamy, 1920 (Mollusca, Bivalvia): homonymy removed. . 229
Opinion 1616. Prtochus Schonherr, 1826 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ‘Ptochus porcelis

Boheman in Schonherr, 1834 confirmed as the type species. . . . 231
Opinion 1617. Rosema Walker, 1855 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): given precedence over

Zelica Hubner, [1825] and Rhogalia Hubner, [1825]. . . . 233

Opinion 1618. Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Insecta, Diptera) and its type species
Musca azurea Fallen, 1817: usage conserved by the designation of a replacement

lectotype i. . 235
Opinion 1619. Furibia jaceana Hering, 1935 (currently Urophora jaceana; Insecta,

Diptera): specific name given precedence over Euribia conyzae Hering, 1933. . . 237
Opinion 1620. Monograptus exiguus (Graptolithina): accepted usage conserved by

citation.of Lapworth(1876)asauthor ..-: i 6 Die. ee a. 238
Opinion 1621. Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes, Osteoglossiformes):

Osteoglossum bicirrhosum Cuvier, 1829 designated asthe typespecies . . . . . 239

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A
specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current name in parentheses.

Author’s name. Full postal address should be given.
Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be in full
and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a
colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and followed by the number of
pages, the publisher and the place of publication.

Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process
the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with
copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360K B (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB
floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were
accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references.

CONTENTS

Notices . .

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints .
The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature E :
Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- -Supplement :

Applications

Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpionida): proposed designation of
Chelifer taierensis With, 1907 as the type species. M.S. Harvey . :

Artemia franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda): proposed conservation
of the specific name. D. Belk & S. T. Bowen

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation. ‘Ss. R. Steinhauser,
L. D. Miller, J. Y. Miller & C. A. Bridges ;

Calliphora vicina Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation
of the specific name. K. Rognes & R. E. Blackith .

Rivulus marmoratus Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes): proposed c conser-
vation of the specific name. K. J. Lazara & M. L. Smith.

Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of ‘the
specific name. E. O. Willis & Y. Oniki

Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves, Gruiformes): proposed ‘conservation. L. M.
Chiappe & M. F. Soria 3 (aig ate Sh aaah Ie iaoe rae

Comments

On the proposed precedence of POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 over MESODONTIDAE Tryon,
1866 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). G. Rosenberg & K. C. Emberton . .

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Texigryphaea pitcheri (Morton,
1834) (Mollusca, Bivalvia). R. W. Scott. :

On the proposed conservation of Proptera Rafinesque, ‘1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia).
A. H. Clarke; A. E. Bogan, J. D. Williams & S. L. H. Fuller .

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Aphrodita imbricata Linnaeus,
1767 (currently Harmothoe imbricata) and Aphrodita minuta Fabricius, 1780
(currently Pholoe minuta) (Annelida, Polychaeta). M. E. Petersen; S. Chambers &
D. Heppell :

On the proposed precedence of Apianonelius Pocock, 1901 (Arachnida, Araneae) 0 over
Rhechostica Simon, 1892. H. W. Levi & O. Kraus. :

On the proposed conservation of Ixodes angustus Neumann, 1899 and i: “ woodi
Bishopp, 1911 (Arachnida, Acari) by peerage of the holotype of J. angustus.
G. B. White . :

On the conservation of the spelling of the specific name . of Macrocheles robustulus
(Berlese, 1904) (Arachnida, Acarina). R.C. Axtelletal. .

On the proposed conservation of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea,
Isopoda). J. Forest. :

On the proposed designation of Lysionax cubensis Stebbing, 1897 as : the type species of
Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Crustacea, Amphipoda). R. C. Brusca; M. H. Thurston

On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio viridicollis Fabricius,
1792 (currently Phyllobius viridicollis; Insecta, Coleoptera). M. A. Mecangcs
P.K. Tubbs .

On the proposed precedence ‘of Culicoides. puneticollis (Becker, 1903) over
C. algecirensis (Strobl, 1900) (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White .

On the proposed suppression of Culex peus Speiser, 1904 to conserve C. stigmatosoma
Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). G. B. White; D.
Strickman RSS

On the proposed confirmation of Griffithides longiceps Portlock, 1843 as the type
species of ey Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita). Sir J. Stubblefield; H. B.
Whittington . : fe ree ee ok

Continued on Inside Back

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

"1 > Leer a b

Volume 47, Part 4, 20 December 1990 pp. 241-311 ISSN 004

The

Bulletin

sical
Nomenclature

THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a
charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 1990 is £65 or
$125, postage included; the rates for 1991 will be £70 or $135. All manuscripts, letters

and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary,

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,

c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road,

London, SW7 SBD, U.K. (Tel. 071-938 9387)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Officers

President
Vice-President
Secretary-General
Executive Secretary

Members

Dr F. M. Bayer (U.S.A.; Corallia)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology)
Dr L. R. M. Cocks (U.K.,; Brachiopoda)
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology)
Prof J. O. Corliss (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera)
Prof Dr G. Hahn
(Fed. Rep. Germany, Trilobita)
Prof Dr O. Halvorsen
(Norway; Parasitology)
Mr D. Heppell (U.K.; Mollusca)
Dr L. B. Holthuis
(The Netherlands; Crustacea)
Dr Z. Kabata (Canada; Copepoda)
Prof Dr O. Kraus
(Fed. Rep. Germany; Arachnology)
Dr P. T. Lehtinen (Finland; Arachnology)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea)

Secretariat

Prof Dr O. Kraus (Fed. Rep. Germany)
Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia)

Dr I. W. B. Nye (United Kingdom)

Dr P. K. Tubbs (United Kingdom)

Dr V. Mahnert
(Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Prof U. R. Martins de Souza
(Brazil; Coleoptera)
Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda)
Dr M. Mroczkowski (Poland; Coleoptera)
Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa)
Dr I. W. B. Nye (U.K.; Lepidoptera)
Dr W. D. L. Ride (Australia; Mammalia)
Prof J. M. Savage (U.S.A.; Herpetology)
Prof Dr R. Schuster (Austria; Acari)
Dr Y. I. Starobogatov
(U.S.S.R.; Mollusca)
Dr F. C. Thompson (U.S.A.; Diptera)
Dr V. A. Trjapitzin
(U.S.S.R.; Hymenoptera)
Dr Shun-Ichi Uéno (Japan; Entomology)
Prof A. Willink
(Argentina; Hymenoptera)

Dr P. K. Tubbs (Executive Secretary and Editor)
Mr J. D. D. Smith, B.Sc., B.A. (Scientific Administrator)

Mrs A. Gentry, B.Sc. (Zoologist)
Miss D. Allan, B.Sc. (Zoologist)

Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Prof H. B. Whittington, F.R.S. (Chairman)

Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)

;

i
| cane
i 21 MEP 109
fl $1 DEC 1898

BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Volume 47, part 4 (pp. 241-311) 20 December 1990

Notices

(a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications
published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication,
but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any
zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his
contribution to the Executive Secretary of the Commission as quickly as possible.

(c) Receipt of new applications. The following new applications have been received
since going to press for volume 47, part 3 (published on 28 September 1990). Under
Article 80 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the
Commission is published.

(1) Carabus mollis Marsham, 1802 (currently Calathus mollis; Insecta, Coleoptera):

proposed conservation of the specific name. (Case 2782). B. Aukema & M.L.
Luff.

(2) Cryptophagus Herbst, 1792, Dorcatoma Herbst, 1792, Rhizophagus Herbst, 1793
and Colon Herbst, 1797 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation as the
correct spellings, and proposed conservation of Lyctus bipustulatus Fabricius,
1792 as the type species of Rhizophagus. (Case 2783). H. Silfverberg.

(3) Procellaria gigantea Gmelin, 1789 (currently Macronectes giganteus; Aves,
Procellariiformes): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by
designation of a neotype. (Case 2784). J.-F. Voison & 16 others.

(4) Palaeopropithecus ingens Grandidier, 1899 (Mammalia, Primates): proposed
conservation of both generic and specific names. (Case 2785). I. Tattersall & E.L.
Simons.

(5) TACHINIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and TACHINIDAE
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed removal of homonymy,
and TACHYPORIDAE MacLeay, 1825: proposed precedence over TACHINIDAE
Fleming, 1821. (Case 2786). A.F. Newton Jr., M.K. Thayer & C.W. Sabrosky.

(6) Styloptcuma Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 (Crustacea, Cumacea): proposed con-
servation with designation of S. antipai Bacescu & Muradian, 1974 as the type
species. (Case 2787). L.B. Holthuis.

AL HISTORY)

242 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

(7) Mopsea Lamouroux, 1816 (Cnidaria, Octocorallia): proposed designation of
Isis encrinula Lamarck, 1815 as the type species. (Case 2788). P. Alderslade.

(8) Amicytheridea Bate, 1975 (Crustacea, Ostracoda): proposed designation of
A. triangulata Bate, 1975 as the type species. (Case 2789). S.C. Khosla, S.R.
Jakhar & M.H. Mohammed.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature — Crustacea and Mollusca
Offprints

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

The Third Edition (published 1985) supersedes all earlier versions and incorporates
many changes.

Copies may be ordered from The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. Price £19
or $35 (postage included) or from the American Association for Zoological Nomen-
clature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.
20560 U.S.A. Price $35 ($32 to members of A.A.Z.N.). Payment should accompany
orders.

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in
Zoology — Supplement

In the three years 1986-88, 544 names and three works have been added to the
Official Lists and Official Indexes. A supplement has been prepared giving these
additional entries, together with some amendments to entries in the 1987 volume. This
supplement was circulated with Vol. 46, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomencla-
ture. Copies can be obtained without charge from either of the following addresses,
from which the Official Lists and Indexes can be ordered at the price shown (postage
included).

Payment should accompany orders.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 243

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Price £60 or $110

or
The American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o NHB Stop 163, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Price $110 ($100 to
members of A.A.Z.N.).

244 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature

Financial Report for 1989

The Trust made a small operating loss of £353 during the year 1989, whichis 0.6% of
the total income of £60,930 received during that year. It demonstrates the extent to
which the Trust relies on the continuation of its generous grants and donations.

Approximately half the Trust’s income came from sales of publications. Foremost
amongst these were the four parts of the 1989 volume of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, which yielded an income of £20,400. Sales of the Official Lists and
Indexes amounted to £5,907 in 1989, bringing the total sales since publication in June
1987 to £24,031 by the end of 1989; the profit on that publication is now £8,084, after
the printing costs have been deducted. Sales of the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature recovered to £2,614 in 1989, after the abnormally low figure of less than
half that amount in 1988, and this reflects the steps taken by the Trust to sell the Code
direct rather than through an agent.

The remaining half of the Trust’s income was from grants, donations and interest.
Grants of £1,000 from the Royal Society and £2,000 each from the U.K. Agricultural
and Food Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Natural Environment
Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council were received
with thanks. The Trust also wishes to express its thanks to the donors listed at the end of
this report who supported its work during the year. Income from deeds of covenant
amounted to £213, and bank and investment interest came to £10,213. Finally royalties
from sales of the Code translated into other languages yielded £694. All the sources of
income showed an increase over the amounts received in 1988, except for the Official
Lists and Indexes, which decreased from the high level of sales during the first 18
months after publication.

The expenses of the Trust in 1989 amounted to £61,238. The largest amount was for
the salaries and national insurance (£48,981) and office expenses (£2,780) of the Secre-
tariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Printing and
distribution of the Bulletin amounted to £8,982. Minor expenses of £290 for
depreciation of office equipment and £250 for the audit fee brought the total expenses
up to £61,283. The Commission was again housed in the Natural History Museum and
we thank the Trustees and Director for their continuing support.

M.K. HOWARTH
Secretary and Managing Director
5 June 1990

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Donations received included the following:
Academia Sinica, Taiwan, £118
Academy of Science, U.S.S.R., £507

American Association for Zoological Nomenclature, £5,825

Australian Museums, £142
British Ecological Society, £500
Dr D.G. Broadley, Zimbabwe, £100
Freshwater Biological Association, £5
Dr K. Hulsemann, £30
Instituto de Ciencias del Mar, Barcelona, £500
Prof Dr O. Kraus, £20
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences, £101
Swiss Academy of Science, £1,990
Unione Zoologica Italiana, £212

Total £10,050

245

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED

31 DECEMBER 1989

Income
SALE OF PUBLICATIONS
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
Official Lists and Indexes

GRANTS

DONATIONS AND COVENANTS
ROYALTIES

BANK AND INVESTMENT INTEREST

Expenditure
SALARIES AND FEES
OFFICE EXPENSES
AUDIT FEE
PRINTING AND DISTRIBUTION OF
PUBLICATIONS
DEPRECIATION OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Deficit for the year

21,396
2,641
5,907

9,000
11,079
694
10,213

48,981
2,780
250

8,982
290

29,944

30,986

60,930

61,283

£353

246 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
General Session of the Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990

Present: Prof Dr O. Kraus (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Bock, Cogger,
Corliss, Heppell, Lehtinen, Minelli, Ride, Savage, Schuster and Thompson. Dr Tubbs
(Executive Secretary), Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith from the Secretariat also present. The
President welcomed Dr Bock and Prof Minelli as new members of the Commission
attending their first meeting.

1. Apologies for absence were received from Commissioners Bayer, Cocks, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Starobogatov, Trjapitzin, Uéno and Willink.

2. The minutes of the previous General Session of the Commission (Canberra,
October 1988) as published in BZN 46: 7-12 were accepted and signed. The report of
the Section of Zoological Nomenclature (Canberra, October 1988) as published in
BZN 46: 14-18 was discussed.

3. Specialist Nomenclature Committees

A number of Specialist Nomenclature Committees established by relevant
Congresses now existed and were available to assist the Commission by advising on
applications submitted to the Commission and the impact of such applications on
taxonomy. However, there were some areas where there was a fear that the existence of
such a committee would impinge on the freedom of taxonomists. It was stressed that
Nomenclature Committees would need to be recognized as being committees of the
Commission. If their role was to be widened to areas such as compiling and considering
registers of names, it was important to spell out clearly the role of the committees. In
this context, Prof Bock agreed to draw up draft Terms of Reference for Nomenclature
Committees based on his experience of the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature (SCON) of the International Ornithological Congress. The importance
of proceeding with the establishment of Specialist Nomenclature Committees in
appropriate areas that did not yet have them was agreed.

4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Dr Tubbs reported that in 1989 there were 327 subscribers to the Bulletin from 45
countries. As an experiment to assess the demand, the International Trust for Zoologi-
cal Nomenclature was introducing a subscription for individual zoologists wishing to
receive offprints of all cases in particular areas. Initially this would cover the Crustacea
and the Mollusca.

5. Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology

In the three years since publication 481 copies of this book had been sold and a
further 51 copies had been distributed free to Commissioners, reviewers, etc. A supple-
ment listing all the additional entries in the five years since compilation of the book
would be issued early in 1991. It was suggested that there would be advantage in
providing the updated book for sale on disk in addition to book form. It was agreed

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 247

that production on disk would be explored with Biosis for report to the next meeting at
Amsterdam.

6. Financial Position

Dr Tubbs said that the Trust’s expenditure in 1990 would be about matched by
income. Expenditure would be lower than anticipated due to a temporary saving in
salary arising from the resignation of a member of the Secretariat and to economies in
printing costs by providing copy on disk. Income was higher than expected mainly due
to an increased contribution from the American Association for Zoological Nomencla-
ture and donations from a number of countries that had not recently provided support,
particularly Australia, Germany, South Africa, Spain and Japan. The Commission
expressed warm appreciation to those institutions and individuals that had made con-
tributions enabling the Commission’s work to continue and progress, and also to those
whose efforts had led to such contributions being made.

It had recently been suggested that a European Association for Zoological
Nomenclature should be established with the objective of furthering the interests of the
Commission’s work and of co-ordinating financial support for the Trust. Fifteen
European countries had Commissioners or Trustees who would be well placed to co-
ordinate activities within their own countries. Dr Macpherson had offered to provide
overall co-ordination from Spain. Commissioners welcomed the proposition and
RESOLVED to work towards the establishment of such an Association. It was
suggested that a first step forward would be for Dr Macpherson to write to representa-
tives in each European country requesting a list of institutions and individuals who
might be approached for support.

It was known that some countries were unable to contribute research council or
other government support to an organisation based abroad, such as the Trust. How-
ever, it might be possible for such countries to make additional contibutions to I.U.B:S.
earmarked for the Trust. Such contributions from government sources would be
additional to funds generated by the European Association for Zoological Nomencla-
ture, or otherwise given. Dr Ride undertook to place this proposition before the next
1.U.B.S. Officers Meeting.

7. Commission Procedures

Commissioners were aware that there was a widespread belief that the procedures
followed by the Commission were too slow and cumbersome and that there was a large
backlog of cases awaiting publication or decision. It was important to correct this
conception and to ensure that cases could be dealt with expeditiously. The Secretary
was asked to provide details so that Commissioners could respond to criticisms made
to them. It was furthermore RESOLVED that the Secretariat would prepare an article
explaining procedures and how these were implemented in practice. This article could
be published in the Bulletin and also perhaps in Systematic Zoology.

8. Election of Commissioners at the next I.U.B.S. Assembiy

There would be five vacancies on the Commission to be filled at the meeting of
I.U.B.S. to be held at Amsterdam in September 1991; one of these vacancies already
existed, but it was agreed not to fill it by the casual vacancy procedure. Calls for

248 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

nominations had been widely published and nominations had been received from
several countries.

9. Proposed Suppression for Nomenclatural Purposes of three Herpetological Works

An application for the suppression of three herpetological works by R.W. Wells and
C.R. Wellington had been published in the Bulletin (June 1987) and a number of
comments had been received and published. Commissioners agreed that, while the
taxonomic content of works lay outside its area of involvement, the Commission did
have a responsibility to prevent loss of universality in the use of names and it was on this
issue that action might be appropriate. Before a vote was taken on the application it
would be desirable to receive from the Nomenclature Committee of the International
Herpetological Congress a statement, quantified as far as possible, on the loss of
universality in the use of names arising from these publications. It was agreed that the
Committee should be asked to supply such a statement.

It was pointed out that this case highlighted the difficulties that could arise from the
publication of large numbers of destabilising names or nomenclatural acts, and that
this problem had been exacerbated by modern publishing techniques. A long-term
solution was desirable, and it was suggested that one way would be to compile a list of
sources, both journals and book publishers, in which names would have to be
published or be registered in order to be accepted as available.

10. Register of Names

(a) Generic Names

Dr Ride and Dr Tubbs reported on continuing discussions between I.U.B.S., the
Commission Secretariat and Biosis on possible liaison in preparing registers of names.
Commissioners recognized the value of such lists and welcomed the proposed collabor-
ation with Biosis. A register of generic names could be based on Neave’s Nomenclator
Zoologicus and Zoological Record. It would be necessary to provide for breakdown
into systematic groups, enabling specialists to identify errors. After appropriate
periods for consultation and amendments it could be ruled that only the names on the
lists should be accepted as available, with authors and dates as given therein. Other
names published before the compilation date of the register would be deemed unavail-
able. It was important that the data bases should be prepared so that they could be
searched in a variety of ways, using fields such as name, author, date, place of publi-
cation and systematic group, and that matters such as nomina nuda, junior homonyms,
type species and actions by the Commission (such as placement on the Official Lists)
could be taken into account. A committee (the President, Commissioners Cogger, Ride
and Thompson and the Executive Secretary) was set up to give guidance on such lists,
and to respond to difficulties that would doubtless arise. It was RESOLVED to enter
into negotiations with Biosis with a view to developing a data base of generic names asa
list of available names. A paper would be prepared for discussion by the Commission
and the Section of Zoological Nomenclature at Amsterdam putting forward a formal
proposition along these lines.

(b) Family-Group Names

Dr Bock described the list of about 1250 available family-group names of living birds
prepared under his Chairmanship by the Standing Committee on Ornithological
Nomenclature. After a number of remaining problems had been resolved it might be

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 249

possible for the Commission to adopt such a list as a base-line so that other previously
existing names were deemed not to exist as available names. Workers in other areas
could be encouraged to prepare lists of family-group names in their own areas. With

this in mind Dr Bock agreed to prepare a note setting out the procedures he had
developed for drawing up such a list.

Although taxa higher than family-group were outside the remit of the Commission it
was thought desirable to try to introduce some degree of conformity in the use of such
higher taxa. It was suggested that a list, perhaps based on Synopsis and Classification of
Living Organisms (McGraw-Hill, 1982) which covered extant taxa, should be drawn up
for circulation to Commissioners for comment. Commissioners Heppell, Savage and
the Executive Secretary would compile this for consideration at the next Commission
meeting.

(d) Specific Names

It was suggested that the Commission could receive lists of available species-group
names in discrete groups of animals, and that, after appropriate consideration by
specialists in the groups concerned, such names could be ruled to be the only ones
available. It was agreed that this would be discussed by the Commission and the
Section of Zoological Nomenclature in Amsterdam.

11. New Edition of the Code

At the last Commission meeting at Canberra an Editorial Committee (Chairman:
Commissioner Thompson) had been set up to work towards a new edition of the Code.
Dr Thompson made a report and explained that there would be an open meeting of the
Commission on 5th July to consider possible amendments to the Code. Additionally,
an ICSEB Round Table Discussion on 6th July would have a more general discussion
on issues of biological nomenclature involving the Botanical, Zoological and other
Codes.

There was general agreement that a new edition should not follow the numbering of
Articles in the 3rd Edition since a number of closely related issues were dispersed
throughout the Code and needed to be brought together.

A small group of Commissioners met after the formal conclusion of the Commission

meeting to identify issues for further consideration at the Commission’s Open Meeting
on Sth July.

12. Conclusion

In closing the meeting, the President expressed the view that the meeting had made
significant progress and that it was important to emphasise to the zoological
community the positive approach adopted by the Commission. He reminded Commis-
sioners that the centenary of the Commission’s establishment would occur in 1995 and

that recognition of this, perhaps in the form of a Centenary History, would be
appropriate.

250 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Open Meeting of the Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990

Present: Prof Dr O. Kraus (President) in the Chair: Commissioners Bock, Cogger,
Corliss, Heppell, Lehtinen, Ride, Savage, Schuster and Thompson. Commission Secre-
tariat: Dr Tubbs (Executive Secretary), Mrs Gentry and Mr Smith. Dr R. Bieler, Dr D.
Goujet, Miss C. Hine, Dr J.H. Kirkbride, Dr M. Kraus, Miss J. McIntosh, Dr P.
Mikkelsen, Dr J. Reveal, Dr G. Rosenberg, Professor J.R.P. Ross and Dr C.W.
Sabrosky.

1. The President opened the meeting by welcoming all present. He explained that the
aim of the meeting was to explain the Commission’s policy and the way in which it
operated, and to seek the views of zoologists present. The Commission was now work-
ing towards a fourth edition of the Code. A draft would be prepared for consideration
by the Section of Zoological Nomenclature and for comment by zoologists, and an
input from the user community at this stage would be of great value.

2. The President summarised the deliberations of the Commission in session on 4
July, referring particularly to (a) the intention to develop a register of names in use,
starting with generic names, (b) discussions that had taken place on the value of a list of
names of taxa at ranks higher than family-group, and (c) the continued use of publi-
cation as a primary criterion of availability. These issues are spelled out in the Minutes
of the General Session of the Commission. The President believed that the Commission
had achieved a measure of stability in zoological nomenclature, but he stressed that
additional funding was essential to enable new activities to be implemented.

3. Dr Reveal, speaking as Co-President of ICSEB IV, welcomed the Commission’s
acceptance of ICSEB as a forum for meetings with the zoological community, since it
was more representative of working taxonomists than meetings of the General
Assembly of IUBS. He recognised that, for constitutional reasons, the Commission
operated through IUBS.

4. Dr Tubbs outlined the role of the Commission’s Secretariat based at the Natural
History Museum, London. He described the procedure whereby applications received
from zoologists were prepared for publication in the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, voted upon by the Commission and the outcome published in an
Opinion. Additionally, the Secretariat fulfilled an important advisory function.

5. The remainder of the meeting was devoted to a discussion on major policy issues
at present under consideration for the next edition of the Code. At the President’s
invitation, Dr Ride (former President of the Commission and Chairman of the
Editorial Committee for the 3rd Edition of the Code) guided the meeting. He explained
that comments received on the present edition, and proposals that had been made for
emendations, fell into six main areas requiring decisions on policy. These areas were
Availability, Priority, Language, Homonymy, Orthography and Types. Each area was
then considered in turn.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 251

6. Availability

(a) Publication ( Article 8) Modern publishing techniques had exacerbated the diffi-
culties that could arise when publication per se resulted in destabilising names or
nomenclatural acts automatically entering zoological nomenclature. The scale of such
work could now be so great that a review of policy was warranted. One possible
solution would be to develop a system whereby names made available under the exist-
ing criteria would then need to be registered in a single journal, as in bacterial
nomenclature. Another solution could be to restrict publication of new names to a
designated list of journals and book publishers with approved standards of refereeing
and peer review; such works would have to be registered for nomenclatural purposes.
There was overwhelming support for the need to extend the present criteria for avail-
ability by some form of registration. The Commission was asked to explore options. A
majority favoured registration of works in preference to a register of new names. The
meeting also considered whether it would be desirable to require, henceforth, all formal
descriptions purporting to define nominal taxa to be in one of the languages of the
Code, such languages to be decided. The proposal was supported.

(b) Designation of Types and Descriptions ( Article 13) There was strong support for
a requirement that the establishment of a species-group name must in future require the
explicit designation of type specimen(s). Such holotypes or syntypes should be labelled
and deposited in a publicly accessible collection, as is now the case for neotypes, unless
there were circumstances when this requirement could not be met, e.g. for specimens
that for physical or legal reasons could not be preserved. A majority also favoured
retention of the requirement that a new family-group name should be accompanied by
a description of the taxon to which it applied rather than be made available merely by
being a new name based upon the name of an included genus.

7. Priority (Article 23b)

(a) Species-Group Names This Article placed on a worker wishing to secure current
general usage of a junior name the onus to apply to the Commission for its conservation
despite the fact that the introduction of forgotten and destabilizing names is contrary to
the Principle of Priority as stated in the Code. It would be advantageous to require a
worker wishing to introduce a forgotten senior synonym replacing a junior synonym in
current use to justify that action. The meeting accepted unanimously that the require-
ment to apply to the Commission for the conservation of a junior synonym in use
should be removed from Article 23 and that the different components relevant to the
conservation of such names currently in Articles 23, 79 and 80 be brought together in
the Code.

(b) Family-Group Names The application of the Principle of Priority to family-
group names was proving to be destabilizing and laborious. It raised problems that
could best be dealt with by the development of registers of family-group names that
would be conserved against earlier names. It was agreed that the Commission should
develop this option.

8. Language (Article 11)

(a) Family-Group Names The Code’s insistence on classical grammar created
problems in the formation of the stem of family-group names. The meeting agreed
unanimously that, while the stem of family-group names should be based on classical

252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

grammar, the Code should permit departure when established usage would be upset by
emendation. There was no support for disturbing current usage either by reverting to
original orthography or by applying strict rules of classical grammar. It was agreed that
the Code should contain its own rules of orthography that would make grammatical
arguments redundant.

(b) Agreement of Gender The meeting explored the concept of abandoning the
requirements of Latin grammar in the agreement of an adjectival specific name with the
gender of the genus with which it was combined. This could be achieved by considering
either that all genera were of one gender, or that the original spelling of the specific
name would be preserved on recombination. The meeting was evenly divided between
those favouring and those against abandoning agreement in gender. If gender agree-
ment was abandoned, a decision would have to be made whether adjectival specific
names would be spelled (a) as in most common current usage, (b) as originally
published, or (c) as converted to a single gender form. The meeting did not have a
consensus view on the alternatives.

9. Homonymy (Article55) In many instances homonymy in family-group names
is caused by the similarity (but not identity) of the names of their type genera. It had
been suggested that such homonymy could be permitted when confusion was unlikely
to be caused. However, the view of the meeting was strongly that increased use of data
bases made it more important than hitherto to avoid homonymy in family-group
names, even when occurring in widely different animal groups.

10. Orthography

(a) Use of the Termination -i or -ii (and Gender Equivalents) in Specific Names
(Article 31a) The Code requires use of the original termination of specific names
formed as nouns in the genitive case from personal names unless the name was other-
wise incorrectly formed; this requirement to maintain original orthography was widely
held to be unnecessarily pedantic. There was no support in the meeting for maintaining
the requirement as it stood; a few members would prefer to require the use of a single *-”
termination for all names formed from those of male persons (e.g. smithi, salvadorii),
but a considerable majority favoured treating -i and -ii as being permissible alternatives
with users having freedom of choice between them.

(b) Spellings Selected by the First Reviser (Article 24) The Principle of the First
Reviser sometimes generated problems, as, for example, when a first reviser action had
been overlooked. One possibility would be to apply page or line priority to the use of
simultaneously published names, but such an option received no support from mem-
bers who preferred to maintain the Code as it stood. It was suggested that it might be
advantageous for this Article to be amplified so that, when an author of simultaneously
published names later considered synonyms subsequently used only one of those
names, that author would be accepted as first reviser, unless another author had
already made a choice between them and had thereby become the first reviser.

11. Types

(a) Type Specimens The meeting reiterated the view (para. 6b above) that type
specimens must be designated and, as the property of science, be publicly accessible.

(b) Invalidity of Type Genera ( Articles 39, 40) At present when the name of a type
genus is found to be invalid as a junior homonym the family-group name must be

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 253

replaced by the next oldest synonym. There was unanimous agreement that the taxo-
nomic usage should be maintained by requiring it to be replaced by the name based on
the valid name of the type genus. It was also agreed unanimously that continuity of a
family-group name in general usage should be maintained as in the current Code, even
if based on a type genus itself rejected as a junior synonym.

(c) Misidentification of Type Genera and Species ( Articles 41,65, 70) Articles 41 and
65 of the Code required that, if stability and continuity in the meaning of a family-
group name were threatened by the discovery that its type genus was based on a
misidentified type species, or by the discovery of an overlooked type fixation, the case
was to be referred to the Commission for a ruling. Similarly, Article 70 requires that
cases of misidentified type species of genera must be referred to the Commission. The
need to involve the Commission in all such cases was questioned. If the current
provision was to be replaced by an automatic provision, options would be to accept
the nominal type genus or species as cited, even though considered to be misidentified,
or to adopt as type the nominal taxon considered to have been actually involved. No
consensus was reached and the Commission was asked to give the matter further
consideration.

(d) Action by the Commission to Set Aside Type Specimens to Clarify Nomina Dubia
(Recommendation 75E) The present position was that the Commission was required to
use its plenary powers to suppress the type status of an existing type specimen and to
designate a neotype when this was needed to clarify a nomen dubium. It was agreed that
there could be advantage if the Commission’s involvement in such cases did not need
recourse to the plenary powers.

12. Restructuring the Code

The 3rd Edition of the Code had maintained the arrangement of earlier editions. It
was agreed that, in the next edition of the Code, there was a need to bring together
subjects that in the present edition were widely separated, for example in the case of
protecting names in use against unused senior synonyms Articles 23b, 79c and 80c
could be unified (see 7a above).

13. Thanks to Participants

In closing the meeting the President expressed his thanks to Dr Ride who had guided
the discussion on major policy issues relating to the next edition of the Code and to all
those present who had helped in the development of these policies. He said that the
views of the meeting were of great help to the Commission and would be considered
further in the process of developing a 4th Edition of the Code.

254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Case 2768

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres):
proposed designation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowaleysky in
Fischer, 1885 as the type species

David Heppell

Department of Natural History, National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh
BHI 1JF, UK.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to establish the correct authorship and
dates for the solenogaster names Lepidomenia and L. hystrix, and to designate
L. hystrix as the type species of the genus in accordance with universal understanding
and usage.

1. Both the generic and specific names of the binomen Lepidomenia hystrix were
proposed in ways which have continued to cause confusion as to the correct attribution
of date and authorship. Pilsbry (1898, p. 310) commented on ‘the decidedly confused
literature’ and summarized the problem as follows: ‘The name Lepidomenia was first
used by Kowalevski in 1881 [sic] or 1883 in connection with Neomenia coralliophila and
a Marseilles form supposed to be specifically the same as coralliophila, but apparently
identical with what was subsequently described as L. hystrix. Simroth has chosen to
restrict Lepidomenia to the later described species, although the record would incline
one to choose WN. coralliophila as the type.’ No doubt because Kowalevsky’s introduc-
tion of Lepidomenia was made in a literature-recording journal (1883) and not in the
primary zoological literature, Pilsbry attributed the name to Kowalevsky & Marion,
1887. This attribution is still sometimes found in modern works (e.g. Jones & Baxter,
1987, p. 28). The spelling “‘Kowalevsky’ is adopted here, as that is the transliteration
used by the author himself in non-Russian works, but he is also commonly cited as
Kovalevsky, Kowalevski or Kowalewsky.

2. In 1872 Kowalevsky discovered two new species of Solenogastres associated with
corals at La Calle, Algeria, which he assigned to the genus Neomenia Tullberg, 1875.
The first of these, N. gorgonophila, appeared in an abstract (Kowalevsky in Brandt,
1880, p. 190), which was followed by a full description in vol. 37 of Izvéstiva
Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya... (Kowalevsky, 1881a). The
single specimen of the second species was described as N. corallophila (Kowalevsky,
1881b). The description of this species was intended for publication in an appendix to
vol. 37 (1881) of Izvéstiya, and this was announced in vol. 41 (part 1, back cover, also
published in 1881). The paper was, however, never published in that form and it is
omitted from the index to Izvéstiya publications, 1863 to 1894 (Ivanovskii, 1894).
Kowalevsky’s work was, nevertheless, included in literature-recording publications
(Zoologischer Anzeiger (1882, p. 422), Zoologischer Jahresbericht (1883, pp. 19, 28-29)
and Zoological Record (1883, vol. 19, Mollusca, p. 8)) which noted it among the
publications for 1882 as being published in 1881 in volume 43 of the Izvéstiya (or a

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 255

vernacular equivalent of the title of that periodical). Soulsby and Townsend’s
Catalogue of the books... in the British Museum (Natural History) (Supplement) (1933,
p. 585) recorded that only ‘author’s copies’ of the work were in existence. It was listed
without comment as a separate publication by Kowalevsky & Marion (1887, p. 7,
footnote) and in a bibliography of Kowalevsky’s papers appended to his biography

-(Dogel’, 1945, p. 150). A copy of Kowalevsky’s work in the library of the Natural

History Museum, London, shows no evidence that it is merely an unpublished proof;
according to the plates it is a preprint of a paper intended for vol. 43 of the /zvéstiya.
Kowalevsky’s paper was presumably withdrawn from publication in the /zvéstiya at
the last minute, and the completed text and plates issued as separates only (the entry in
the Zoologischer Jahresbericht (1883, p. 19, no. 67) acknowledges ‘Referat nach gutiger
briefl. Mittheilung des Herrn Verfassers’). In the Museum copy the specific name of the
solenogaster is spelled corallophila throughout, and it is odd, therefore, that all three
literature-recording journals cite the name as ‘coralliophila’.

3. In 1882 Kowalevsky and Marion collected what they believed was a second
specimen of Neomenia corallophila, also associated with a coral, from the north coast of
the island of Ratonneau, near Marseilles. An abstract of Kowalevsky’s 1881(b) paper,
published by Brock (1883), incorporated details of this second specimen, evidently
supplied by Kowalevsky. The second specimen was in better condition than the first
and its features resulted in the species being placed in a new genus, Lepidomenia
(p. 29), the name referring to the characteristic scaly integument. This is the first valid
introduction of the generic name and it is formally attributed to ‘Kowalevsky in Brock’
(Recommendation 51B of the Code). The single nominal species originally included
was Neomenia corallophila (incorrectly spelled coralliophila; see para. 2 above) which,
in this 1883 usage, was a composite of the Algerian and French specimens.

4. As early as January 1883 Kowalevsky and Marion realised that the Marseilles
specimen of Neomenia represented a species distinct from the Algerian corallophila.
Marion (1883, p. 69) listed the Marseilles specimen as Lepidomenia hystrix. The specific
name was a nomen nudum here, but Marion indicated that a full description would be
given in the ‘Recueil’ of the museum. This must have been a provisional title for the new
periodical, as the description was eventually published in the Annales (Kowalevsky &
Marion, 1887, pp. 7-25), although a shortened version of the paper appeared the
previous year (Marion & Kowalevsky, 1886, pp. 757-759) from which the name would
be available. However, the specific name validly dates from a year earlier: Fischer
(1885, pp. 884-889) incorporated an article by Marion on the Aplacophora; this
included a description of the genus Lepidomenia and a figure of part of the scaly,
spinous integument of Lepidomenia hystrix. This illustration (drawn by Marion) is an
indication sufficient to make the name hystrix available from 1885 (Article 12b(7) of the
Code), and the attribution of the name to Marion and Kowalevsky (p. 889) established
the joint authorship. Authorship of the name would be formally cited as “Marion &
Kowalevsky in Fischer’ (Recommendation 51B of the Code). The attribution of
Lepidomenia to ‘Marion, 1884 on the same page is presumably to a manuscript usage.

5. Simroth (1893a) proposed the new generic names Nematomenia (p. 324; type
species Dondersia flavens Pruvot, 1890) and Echinomenia (p. 325; type species
Neomenia corallophila Kowalevsky, 1881). He retained hystrix as the sole species in
Lepidomenia (see also Simroth, 1893b, pp. 138, 233) and this has been interpreted
(wrongly; see Article 69b of the Code) as fixing L. hystrix as the type species of the

256 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

genus. Thiele (1913a, p. 38) synonymized Echinomenia with Nematomenia (see also
Thiele, 1913b, p. 14). Since then, corallophila and hystrix have been placed consistently
in Nematomenia and Lepidomenia respectively.

6. Both species appear to be rare. Neomenia (currently Nematomenia) corallophila is
known only from the type specimen. Lepidomenia hystrix is possibly known only from
the type locality (Salvini-Plawen, 1969), although Salvini-Plawen (1986, p. 191) gives
Llansa (Spain) as a doubtful additional locality. Specimens from north of the island of
Riou, near Marseilles, described as L. hystrix by Swedmark (1956, p. 93) were subse-
quently identified as a new species, L. swedmarki, by Salvini-Plawen (1985, p. 103).
There is also some doubt about the identity of specimens recorded as L. hystrix from
Strangford Loch, Northern Ireland, by Boaden (1966, p. 127) and from off the north
coast of Brittany by Swedmark & Teissier (1967, p. 70).

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

(1) to confirm the authorship of the generic name Lepidomenia as Kowalevsky in

Brock (1883);

(2) to confirm the authorship of the specific name hystrix (as published in the bino-
men Lepidomenia hystrix) as Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer (1885);

(3) to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the
nominal genus Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883, and to designate
Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as the type species;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lepidomenia
Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (3)
above Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885;

(5) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hystrix
Marion & Kowalevsky in Fischer, 1885, as published in the binomen
Lepidomenia hystrix (specific name of the type species of Lepidomenia
Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883).

References

Boaden, P.J.S. 1966. Interstitial fauna from Northern Ireland. Verdffentlichungen des Instituts
fiir Meeresforschung in Bremerhaven, Sonderband 2: 125-130.

Brandt, A. 1880. Verhandlungen der zoologischen Section der VI. Versammlung russischer
Naturforscher und Arzte. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 3: 186-191.

Brock, J. 1883. Mollusca. A. Anatomie und Entwicklungsgeschichte. Zoologischer
Jahresbericht, 1882(3): 16-47.

Dogel’, V.A. 1945. A.O. Kovalevskii, 1840-1901. 153 pp., 1 pl. Akademii Nauk SSR, Moscow. [In
Russian.]

Fischer, P. 1885. Manuel de conchyliologie et de paléontologie conchyliologique ou histoire natur-
elle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 9, pp. 785-896. Savy, Paris.

Ivanovskii, A.A. 1894. Publications of the Society from 15 October 1863 to 1 August 1894.
Bibliographical index. Izvéstiya Imperatorskago Obshchestva Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya,
Antropologii i Etnografii pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universiteté, 89: 1-30
(60 columns). [In Russian.]

Jones, A.M. & Baxter, J.M. 1987. Molluscs: Caudofoveata, Solenogastres, Polyplacophora and
Scaphopoda. Synopses of the British Fauna (N.S.), 37: 1-123.

Kowalevsky, A.O. 188la. Neomenia gorgonophila. Izvéstiya Imperatorskago Obshchestva
Lyubitelei Estestvoznaniya, Antropologii i Etnografii pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom
Universiteté, 37(1): 181-186. [In Russian. ]

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 257

Kowalevsky, A.O. 1881b. On Neomenia corallophila and Coeleplana metschnikowii. 5 pp., 2 pls.
Moscow. [In Russian. ]

Kowalevsky, A.O. & Marion, A.F. 1887. Contributions a l’histoire des Solenogastres ou
Aplacophores. Lepidomenia hystrix: nouveau genre de la famille des Neoméniées. Annales
du Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, 3(1): 7-25.

Marion, A.F. 1883. Esquisse d’une topographie zoologique du golfe de Marseille. Annales du
Musée d'Histoire Naturelle de Marseille, 1(1): 1-108.

Marion, A.F. & Kowalevsky, A.O. 1886. Organisation du Lepidomenia hystrix, nouveau type de
Solénogastre. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’'Académie des Sciences.
Paris, 103(17): 757-759.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1898. Order Aplacophora von Ihering. Manual of Conchology, vol. 17, part 68, pp.
281-310. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.

Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1969. Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & Kowalevsky, 1886. Schede
Malacologiche del Mediterraneo, No. 98 Ab 01.

Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1985. New interstitial Solenogastres (Mollusca). Stygologia, 1(1): 101-
108.

Salvini-Plawen, L. von. 1986. Caudofoveata e Solenogastres del Mediterraneo. Bolletino
Malacologico, 22(9—12): 189-196.

Simroth, H. 1893a. Kritische Bemerkungen tiber die Systematik der Neomeniidae. Zeitschrift fiir
Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 56(2): 310-327.

Simroth, H. 1893b. Aplacophora. Pp. 133-233 in: H.G. Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-
Reichs, vol. 3, part 1. Winter, Leipzig.

Soulsby, B.H. & Townsend, A.C. 1933. Catalogue of the books, manuscripts, maps and drawings in
the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 7, Supplement (J-O). 967 pp. British Museum,
London.

Swedmark, B. 1956. Etude de la microfaune des sables marins de la région de Marseille. Archives
de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale, 93 (Notes et Revue No. 2): 70-95.

Swedmark, B. & Teissier, G. 1967. Structure et adaptation d’ Halammohydra adherens. Cahiers de
Biologie Marine, 8: 63-74.

Thiele, J. 1913a. Antarktische Solenogastren. Deutsche Stidpolar-Expedition 1901-1903,
14(Zoologie, 6): 35-65.

Thiele, J. 1913b. Mollusca. Solenogastres. Das Tierreich, 38: 1-57.

258 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Case 2739

Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed
conservation, and proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Ferussac,
1821 as the type species

Brian J. Smith
5 Talinga Crescent, Shepparton, Victoria 3630, Australia

Ron C. Kershaw
45 West Tamar Road, Launceston, Tasmania 7250, Australia

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve the name Helicarion Férussac,
1821 for an Australian genus of semislugs (terrestrial pulmonates). The name first
appeared (about three months earlier) as Helixarion but this spelling was altered by the
author. It is proposed to rule that Helicarion is the correct original spelling, and to
designate Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species, in accordance with
accustomed understanding and usage.

1. The Tableaux systématiques des animaux mollusques suivis d’un Prodrome
général... (often referred to as the Prodrome) was a companion work to the Histoire
naturelle, général et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles. The Prodrome
was issued in instalments (livraisons) of a few pages with livraisons 9-16 of the
Histoire naturelle... over the years 1821—1822. Both works were begun by J.B.L. d’A.
de Férussac and subsequently edited and published by his son (A.E.J.P.J.F. d’A. de
Férussac) following his death. The Prodrome was published in two versions, large and
small, termed ‘folio’ and ‘quarto’ by Kennard (1942, p. 12), the folio being on superior
paper. Connolly (1912, p. 53) thought that the two editions appeared at different
times but they were apparently published simultaneously (Kennard, 1942, p. 106).
The Prodrome contained two parts: Part 1, Tableaux systématiques géenéraux de
l’embranchement des mollusques, divisés en familles naturelles, and Part 2, Tableaux
particuliérs des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles, classe des gastéropodes: Tableau
de la famille des Limaces (pp. 1-27), Limagons (pp. 1-94 folio, pp. 1-90 quarto,
which included ‘Corrections et Additions’ on pp. 71—76 folio, pp. 67—72 quarto), and
Auricules (pp. 95-114 folio, pp. 91-110 quarto). The text on each page of the folio and
quarto editions is the same. However, the folio contains a four-page ‘Avertissement’ at
the beginning of the Tableau de la famille des limagons which causes the subsequent
pagination to differ in the two versions. The contents of each livraison and the dates of
publication have been set out by Sherborn & Woodward (1901, pp. 74-76; text only)
and Kennard (1942, pp. 12-17, 105—118; text and plates). The livraison contents given
by Bourguignat (1925, pp. 15-18) are accurate but the publication dates are misleading
(Kennard, 1942, p. 13). Part 2 of the Prodrome (1821) appeared before Part 1 (1822).

2. The generic name Helixarion first appeared in the Prodrome, Tableau de la famille
des limagons (p. 23 folio, p. 19 quarto), published in livraison 9 on 6 April 1821
(Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 75; Kennard, 1942, p. 109). Bourguignat (1925, p. 16)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 259

gave the date 1820 for livraison 9 but this is thought to be incorrect (Kennard, 1942,
p. 106). The name Helixarion also appears in the ‘Explanation des planches’ (p. vi) in
the Histoire naturelle..., also published in livraison 9. The generic name appears seven
times in livraison 9 with the spelling Helixarion (Kennard, 1942, p. 116).

3. Ferussac regarded the original spelling of the generic name as incorrect and
amended it in his section ‘Corrections et Additions’ of the Prodrome, Tableau de la
famille des limagons (p. 71 folio, p. 67 quarto): ‘p. 23 [folio, p. 19 quarto] Tableau
synoptique, premier genre: Helixarion; lisez Helicarion’. The ‘Corrections et Additions’
were published in livraison 11 on 13 July 1821 (Sherborn & Woodward, 1901, p. 75;
Kennard, 1942, p. 109). Ferussac always subsequently used the spelling Helicarion. It
appears, for example, in his ‘Recapitulation des espéces mentionnées dans le Tableau
de la famille des limagons’ (p. 75 folio, p. 71 quarto), also published in livraison 11,
and the Prodrome, Part 1 (Tableaux systématiques généraux de l’embranchement des
mollusques..., p. XXxi), published in livraison 15 on 13 April 1822 (Kennard, 1942,
p. 110). Subsequent usage has been overwhelmingly in favour of Helicarion even
when, before the dating of Ferussac’s work had been investigated, it was believed that
the spelling Helixarion dated from 1819. Férussac’s correction of the spelling was
mentioned by Watson (1920, p. 110, footnote), Iredale (1937, p.7), Baker (1941, p. 265)
and Burch (1976, p. 145), all of whom adopted Helicarion. Iredale noted that Helicarion
had been ‘spelt Helixarion, but corrected in Errata’. Watson wrote: ‘On pp. 19 and 20
(or 23 and 24) of Feérussac’s Tabl.... Fam. des limagons, 1821 the word is misspelt
Helixarion; but on p. 67 (or 71) of the same work Feérussac himself corrected this
blunder, and it would seem a pity to ignore his correction’. Baker also noted: ‘Although
Helixarionis certainly the prior spelling, Ferussac himself corrected it to Helicarion and
the original form may have been a misprint, even if it does occur in two papers, both of
which probably appeared with livraison 9’. Kennard (1942, p. 116) also mentioned the
emendation but considered it invalid. Other authors who have used Helicarion include
Quoy & Gaimard (1824, p. 465), Gray (1847, p. 169), Fischer (1883, p. 459), Adams &
Adams (1855, p. 226), Tryon (1885, p. 168), Thiele (1931, p. 638), Rensch (1932, pp. 30,
31), Solem (1966, p. 24), Franc in Grassé (1968, p. 581), Van Mol (1973), and Kershaw
(1979, 1981). Authors who have used Helixarion are Thon (1829, p. 149), Bourguignat
(1883, p. 9), Neuville & Anthony (1909, p. 324) and Zilch (1959, p. 309).

4. Férussac established the genus Helixarion (= Helicarion), and the two included
species, cuvieri and freycineti (1821, Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des limagons,
pp. 23, 24 folio, pp. 19, 20 quarto), but did not select a type species. Quoy & Gaimard
(1824, p. 465) further described the species freycineti and commented that it had
‘served for the establishment of the genus’. Under Article 69a(iv) of the Code this is a
subsequent designation of freycineti as the type species. Thon (1829, p. 149) followed
this designation and stated that freycineti was the type species because it was the larger
of the two included species. He mentioned cuvieri as a second, smaller species. Gray
(1847, p. 169) selected cuvieri as the type species, apparently unaware of the earlier
designation. Gray’s selection was logical in that cuvieri was the first species to be
mentioned, it was adequately described and illustrated from a shell which Férussac had
in his possession, and would be acceptable to most workers on that basis. Gray stated
(p. 130) that where it was not clear which species an author had intended for the type of
a genus, he had ‘chosen either the best known species, or, if the author has given figures,
the species which he has figured’. H. cuvieri was illustrated, but not named, on pl. 9,

260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

fig. 8 of the Histoire naturelle... (livraison 4, 18 September 1819; see Kennard, 1942,
p. 109), the legend for which appeared in Histoire naturelle... ‘Explanation des planches’
(p. vi) (livraison 9, 6 April 1821). H. freycineti was figured later on a supplementary
plate (Histoire naturelle..., pl. 9A, figs. 3 and 4, together with H. cuvieri, figs. 1 and 2) in
livraison 13 (10 November 1821; see Kennard, 1942, p. 110), with the explanation
(Histoire naturelle... ‘Explanation des planches supplémentaires’, pp. i, ii) in livraison
17 (2 November 1822; see Kennard, 1942, p. 106). (The generic name here appears as
Helicarion). Kennard (1942, p. 116) was aware of Thon’s (1829) citation of freycineti as
the type species and commented that the earlier designation meant that Gray’s (1847)
designation of cuvieri was invalid.

5. The subfamily HELICARIONINAE in Australia is divisible into two discrete groups,
which can be characterised by features of the ovotestis, epiphallic gland-flagellum,
penial structure and the oviduct (Kershaw, unpublished). The distribution of these
groups may suggest separate migrations from the north. Helicarion cuvieri and
H. freycineti are classified in different genera which cannot be included in the same
group. H. cuvieri is considered to have relatively primitive features and a number of
related species occur scattered within eastern Australia. H. freycineti, on the other
hand, is clearly related to a range of mostly north eastern species placed in several
genera. H. cuvieri has long been recognised as the type species of the genus Helicarion
(see, for example, Zilch, 1959, p. 309 (who used Helixarion) and Burch, 1976, p. 134). In
a revision of the genus, one of us (Kershaw, 1979, 1981), unaware of Kennard’s (1942)
paper, accepted the authority of Zilch with regard to the type species. The generic name
Helicarion is established and well known for south eastern snails. The implications of
the recognition of H. freycineti as its type species would be complex and difficult to
predict but at the least would require the introduction of a new generic name for the
clearly morphologically related group of south eastern species, the exclusion of a
number of well known species from the genus, and a reappraisal of other established
genera. It may be noted that Feérussac (1821, Prodrome, Tableau de la famille des
limagons, p. 24 folio, p. 20 quarto) wrote that he was not at all acquainted with the shell
of H. freycineti. Kershaw (1979, pp. 150, 155, figs. 1, 16) designated a neotype for
cuvieri and a lectotype for freycineti, and provided detailed descriptions of this type
material; both specimens are in the Muséum National d’Histoire naturelle, Paris.

6. Both spellings of the family name, HELICARIONIDAE and HELIXARIONIDAE, are
in use, the former being that most frequently seen. Authorship of the former name
(published as the sub-family HELICARIONINAE) is usually ascribed to Godwin-Austen
(1883 (October), p. 146), while Bourguignat (1883 (April), p. 9) is cited as author of the
latter name. Recent authors who have adopted the spelling HELIXARIONIDAE are Kira
(1955, p. 176) and Vaught (1989, p. 96). Recent authors using HELICARIONIDAE include
Thiele (1931, p. 637), Baker (1941, p. 208), Zilch (1959, p. 295, even though he used
Helixarionas the generic name), Solem (1966, p. 22; 1978, p. 92), Franc in Grassé (1968,
p. 578), Boss in Parker (1982, p. 1076), and Tillier (1984, p. 174). It would be confusing
to spell the generic and family-group names in different ways.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to rule that the correct original spelling of the generic name Helixarion
Férussac, 1821 (April) is deemed to be Helicarion;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 261

(b) to set aside all designations of type species for the nominal genus Helicarion
Férussac, 1821 prior to that by Gray (1847) of Helicarion cuvieri Férussac,
1821;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Helicarion

Férussac, 1821 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by

Gray (1847) Helicarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821, as ruled in (1)(b) above, spelling

confirmed in (1)(a) above;

to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cuvieri

Férussac, 1821, as published in the binomen Helixarion cuvieri (specific name

of the type species of Helicarion Férussac, 1821);

to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name

HELICARIONIDAE (correction of HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat,1883 (April)) (type

genus Helicarion Férussac, 1821);

(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the name Helixarion Férussac, 1821, ruled in (1)(a) above to be an incorrect
original spelling of Helicarion;

(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883, an incorrect original
spelling of HELICARIONIDAE.

—

Acknowledgement

Our thanks are due to Mr David Heppell of the National Museums of Scotland for his
extensive assistance with this submission.

References

Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1855. The Genera of Recent Mollusca; arranged according to their
organization, vol. 2, part 23, pp. 221-252. Van Voorst, London.

Baker, H.B. 1941. Zonitid snails from Pacific Islands, part 3. Genera other than Microcystinae.
Bulletin of the Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 166: 205-346.

Boss, K.J. 1982. Mollusca. Pp. 945-1166 in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and Classification of
Living Organisms, vol. 1. xvu, 1166 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Bourguignat, J.R. 1883. Histoire malacologique de l’Abyssinie. Annales des Sciences Naturelles
(Zoologie), (6)15: art. 2, 9-162.

Bourguignat, J.R. 1925. Dates des livraisons de lHistoire des Mollusques de Feérussac et
Deshayes. Journal de Conchyliologie, 69(1): 15-18.

Burch, J.B. 1976. Outline of classification of Australian terrestrial molluscs (native and
introduced). Journal of the Malacological Society of Australia, 3(3—4): 127-156.

Connolly, M. 1912. Note on the existence of two editions of Ferussac’s Tableaux Systématiques.
Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 10(2): 53.

Férussac, J.B.L. de’A. de. 1821-1822. Tableaux systématique des animaux mollusques... suivis
d'un prodrome général pour tous les mollusques terrestres ou fluviatiles vivants ou fossiles.
Pp. xlviil, 1-27, 1-110 folio edition; pp. xlviii, 1-27, 1-114 quarto edition. Bertrand, Paris.

Férussac, J.B.L. de’A. de. 1819-{1832]. Histoire naturelle générale et particuliére des mollusques
terrestres et fluviatiles. Oeuvre posthume de M" le Baron J.B.L. d’Audebard de Férussac...
continue, mis en ordre, et publié par MT le Baron d’Audebard son fils... xvi, 128, 96a-z,
96a-A pp., 163 pls. Bertrand, Paris.

Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie Conchyliologique ou histoire
naturelle des mollusques vivants et fossiles, part 5, pp. 417-512. Savy, Paris.

Franc, A. 1968. Sous-class des Pulmonés. Pp. 325-607 in Grassé, P.-P. (Ed.), Mollusques

gastéropodes et scaphopodes. Traité de Zoologie. Anatomie, Systématique, Biologie, vol. 5,
part 3. Masson et Cie, Paris.

262 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Godwin-Austen, H.H. 1883. Land and freshwater Mollusca of India..., part 4, pp. 95-163. Taylor
& Francis, London.

Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of
the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219.

Iredale, T. 1937. A basic list of the land Mollusca of Australia, part 2. The Australian Zoologist,
9(1): 1-39.

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological
Society of London, 25: 12-17, 105-118.

Kershaw, R.C. 1979. Redescription of Helicarion cuvieri from southern Tasmania and
Helicarion freycineti from New South Wales (Pulmonata: Helicarionidae). Journal of the
Malacological Society of Australia, 4(3): 145-156.

Kershaw, R.C. 1981. Redescription of the genus Helicarion and of Helicarion niger (Quoy &
Gaimard, 1832) from Victoria (Pulmonata: Helicarionidae). Journal of the Malacological
Society of Australia, 5(1—2): 17-32.

Kira, T. 1955. Coloured illustrations of the shells of Japan. 204 pp. Hoikusha, Osaka.

Neuville, H. & Anthony, R. 1909. Recherches sur les mollusques d’Abyssinie (materiaux de la
collection Maurice de Rothschild). Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Zoologie), (9) 8:
241-341.

Quoy, J.R.C & Gaimard, J.P. 1824. Voyage autour du monde... exécuté sur les corvettes de
S.M. l'Uranie et la Physicienne, pendant les années 1817, 1818, 1819 et 1820, vol. 3
(Zoologie). 712 pp. Pillet Aine, Paris.

Rensch, I. 1932. Neue Landmollusken aus dem Bismarck-Archipel, 3. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 98:
27-36.

Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. On the dates of publication of the Histoire naturelle
générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles and the Tableau systématique
des animaux mollusques, by the Barons Férussac and G.P. Deshayes. Annals and Magazine
of Natural History, (7)8(43): 74-76.

Solem, A. 1966. Some non-marine mollusks from Thailand, with notes on classification of the
Helicarionidae. Spolia Zoologica Musei Hauniensis, 24: 1-110.

Solem, A. 1978. Classification of the land Mollusca. Pp. 49-97 in Fretter, V. & Peake, J. (Eds.),
Pulmonates, vol. 2A (systematics, evolution and ecology). 540 pp. Academic Press, London.

Thiele, J. 1931. Handbuch der Systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1, part 2 (Gastropoda. 2.
Opisthobranchia (Hinterkeimer). 3. Pulmonata (Lungenschnecken), pp. 377-778. Fischer,
Jena.

Thon, D. 1829. Helixarion, Férussac (Mollusca). Pp. 149-150 in Ersche, J.S. & Gruber, J.G.
(Eds.), Allgemeine Encyklopdadie der Wissenschaften und Kiinste, section 2 (H-N), part 5
(Heinrich (Minnesanger) — Hequaesi). xii, 412 pp. Gleditsch, Leipzig.

Tillier, S. 1984. Patterns of digestive tract morphology in the limacisation of helicarionid,
succineid and athoracophorid snails and slugs (Mollusca: Pulmonata). Malacologia, 25(1):
173-192.

Tryon, G.W. 1885. Manual of Conchology; structural and systematic, series 2, vol. 1, pp. 1-364,
60 pls. (Testacellidae, Oleacinidae, Streptaxidae, Helicoidea, Vitrinidae, Limacidae,
Arionidae). Published by the author, Philadelphia.

Van Mol, J.J. 1973. Notes anatomiques sur les Helicarionidae (mollusques, gasteropodes,
pulmonés). 2. Etudes des genres Pseudaustenia, Dyakia, Helicarion et comprenent la
description de Papuarion, genre nouveau. Discussion sur la classification des Helicarionidae
et affinités des Urocyclidae. Annales de la Société Royale Zoologique de Belgique, 103:
209-237.

Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. xii, 189 pp. American Malacologists,
Inc., Melbourne, Florida.

Watson, H. 1920. The anatomy of two species of Helicarion from tropical Africa. Proceedings of
the Malacological Society of London, 14(2,3): 91-113.

Zilch, A. 1959. Part 2 (Euthyneura), no. 2, pp. 201-400 in Wenz, W. (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of
Schindewolf, O.H. (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. Borntraeger, Berlin.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 263

Case 2588

Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation

Riccardo Giannuzzi-Savelli
Via Mater Dolorosa 54, 90146 Palermo, Italy

Anthea Gentry

Secretariat, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. An application to confirm the spelling of a marine gastropod genus as
Haminoea was published in 1987; the spellings Haminaea and Haminea are also in use.
Subsequent investigation has shown that the name derives from Haminaea, which
appeared in a paper by Leach which was formally unpublished but nevertheless widely
circulated. The purpose of the present application is to rule that Haminaea Leach,
[1820] is nomenclaturally available.

1. An earlier application (BZN 44: 166-167) sought to stabilise the spelling of the
generic name Haminoea. Amended proposals were sent to the Commission for voting
in March 1989 but further investigations and comments received during the voting
period showed the need for more information and an Opinion has not been published.

2. Earlier authors (Herrmannsen, 1852, p. 60; Jeffreys, 1867, p. 437; Iredale, 1914,
p. 172) commented that there were three alternative spellings for the generic name and,
as noted previously (BZN 44: 166, para. 4), these spellings (Haminaea, Haminoea and
Haminea) are currently in use. This is due to the presence of an ‘ae’ diphthong in the
original spelling of the name (Haminaea), and its complex history of publication.

3. The generic name Haminaea appeared in two works by Leach, Classification of
British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820]. Accord-
ing to Robert Burn (Geelong, Australia; 1990, in litt.) the name is an alternative spelling
of the classical Aminaea, a district in Picenum on the Adriatic, famous for its wines. In
his introduction to the Synopsis (p. xii) Leach wrote ‘I have invariably named the
genera, as far as possible, from their essential characters’. Where this was not possible
Leach chose classical or biblical names which ‘would not carry with them any descrip-
tive significance’ (see Knight, 1900, pp. 272, 275). Leach died before either of the works
could be formally published and this was only undertaken many years later by Gray
(1847 (October) and 1852 respectively) for his ‘excellent friend and first teacher in
zoology’. Nevertheless, both works were available to conchological workers in Britain
and Europe from 1820 onwards through page proofs and hand-written copies of the
page proofs. In his introduction to Leach’s Classification (1847, p. 267) Gray wrote that
‘several British conchologists had even taken the trouble to copy the proof sheets of his
work’ and that ‘several copies of Dr Leach’s list were in several cabinets at the time he
was at work on the subject’ (see also para. 8 below). In his preface to Leach’s Synopsis,

264 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Gray (1852, p. vii) noted that “this work was in the course of printing when the Author
was prevented from completing it by ill health, in 1820. The first 116 pages were actually
printed and the plates engraved, and more than one copy of the Proofs were in circu-
lation at the time of its interruption’. Gray (1847, p. 268) also noted that ‘Risso, Capt.
Brown and others have published several of them [Leach’s names] in their works’.
Indeed, in reviewing Risso’s 1826 work on molluscs from the south of France,
Bourguignat (1861, pp. 17-22) commented at length on the large number of names for
genera that had been derived from Leach’s manuscript (cited as 1820); he noted that
Leach had spent a period in Nice during his illness when he had met Risso. Brown
(1827, preface) wrote that he ‘found it necessary to introduce some of Dr Leach’s
Genera’, and many of the names in his work were attributed to ‘Leach MSS’. In his
1844 work, Brown (preface) noted ‘In recording the names of those to whom the
Author is indebted for aid... he must particularly notice those of his late lamented
friend Dr Leach,... [who] with that noble liberality for which he was prominently
distinguished — although engaged with a similar work at the time the Author was
preparing his First Edition — threw open his treasures for his use, and otherwise aided
him as far as possible in his investigations’. Again, a number of names in this work were
credited to ‘Leach MSS’ and ‘Leach, Moll.’, with references to the page proofs of
Leach’s Synopsis. Brown (p. 134) further cited Leach’s work: ‘Synopsis of British
Mollusca, 1820 (Unpublished)’. In the introduction to his revision of Turton’s Manual
of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, Gray (1840, p. 1) noted that other
authors had ‘all, in a great measure, worked from the collection now under my charge,
which contains the materials used by Dr Leach in preparing his as yet unedited work on
British Mollusca’, and (p. 58) that copies of Leach’s work (‘London, 1820. 8vo; not yet
published’) were in the possession of other workers. Herrmannsen (1846, 1847-1849,
1852) also cited Leach’s manuscript (‘1820. Brit. Moll.’) and credited several names to
it; furthermore, he recognised that a number of names in Risso (1826) and Turton
(1831) originated in Leach’s unpublished work (see, for example, 1846, pp. 80, 580,
582). In 1846 (p. 1, footnote) Herrmannsen noted “Leachii Synopsis Molluscorum
Britanniae, liber rarissimus, typis quidem jam anno 1820 excusus, sed hucusque pub-
lici juris non factus... omni auctoritate destituitur’. In 1852, Herrmannsen (p. 60)
recorded the name Haminaea credited to ‘Leach mscr., t[este] Gray, 1847, Ann. Mag.
N.H., XX’. Knight (1900, p. 271) referred to part of Leach’s Synopsis having been in
type and circulated from 1820. The name Haminaea would thus have been known to
many from Leach’s two manuscripts. There is a bound copy of the page proofs
of Leach’s Synopsis [1820] in the mollusc library of the Natural History Museum,
London (see Woodward’s Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (Natural
History), 1910, p. 1072); Haminaea appears on p. 57. The proofs are marked, possibly
in C.D. Sherborn’s handwriting, ‘1820, or more likely 1819’. Gray (1847 (November),
p. 161) gave their date as 1819, although earlier (1840, p. 58) as 1820. They were
certainly in circulation by 1820 and have been cited with the latter date by subsequent
authors.

4. The name appeared, but with the spelling Haminoea, in the Conchology section of
Part 2 (The natural history of the district... by Turton & Kingston) of The Teignmouth,
Dawlish and Torquay guide (1830), by ‘N.T. Carrington and others’. The Catalogue of
the library of the BM(NH) (1915, p. 2155), following Jeffreys (1867, pp. 108, 231),
mentioned that the portion on conchology ‘seems to have been issued separately in

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 265

1829’. Copies of this ‘separate’ publication, entitled Conchology. An enumeration of
such marine shells as have been found on the adjacent coasts, were included in editions of
A guide to the watering places on the coast between the Exe and the Dart. It appears that
there were editions for 1817, 1818 (McMillan, 1961, p. 37), and 1821, and Burns (1990,
in litt.) refers to an 1823 edition. The Enumeration was anonymous and unpaginated (it
has 20 pp.) and does not include the name Haminoea. The introduction (p. viii) to the
guide notes the anonymity of the contributors: ‘Delicacy forbids the publisher from
revealing the names of those who have assisted him; the articles of conchology, and
botany, will speak for themselves: for the rest, he craves the indulgence of a liberal
public’. By about 1828 the guide became The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide,
and in 1830 this included a second part (The natural history of the district...) by Turton
& Kingston, with a revised version of the Enumeration, entitled Conchology and, for the
first time, a supplementary portion called Conchology, arranged on the amended system.
The latter included the first appearance of the generic name Haminoea (genus no. 63).
Part 2 of The Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay guide was issued bound in with the
Teignmouth guide and as a separate publication, in both cases without pagination (but
c. 200 pp.); the 1829 date for publication given by Jeffreys probably referred to a proof
copy and 1830 is the correct date (Iredale, 1914, pp. 171-172). There was at least one
subsequent edition of The Teignmouth guide, in 1832.

5. Kingston was a botanist who collaborated with Turton on the natural history
part of the guide, and the conchology section, revised from the Enumeration, was
probably by Turton alone. Jeffreys (1867, p. 231) mentioned the ‘Enumeration of
marine shells... a copy of which was presented to me by Dr Turton ‘from the author”
and (p. 433) ‘Turton in his little treatise entitled Conchology, arranged on the amended
system’. Winckworth (1932, p. 231), McMillan (1961, p. 37), Thompson (1976, pp. 18,
98, 117; 1988, p. 40) and Thompson & Brown (1976, p. 24) have all attributed
Haminoea (as ‘Haminea in Thompson and Thompson & Brown) to Turton alone,
and the name would be formally attributed to ‘[Turton] in Turton & Kingston in
Carrington’ (Recommendation 51B of the Code). Turton’s conchological publications
show many references to Leach’s Synopsis (see, for example, Turton (1831) in which
several names are cited with references to Leach’s page proofs) and it seems that the
spelling Haminoea arose in transcription either between Leach’s proofs and Turton’s
manuscript for his Conchology, arranged on the amended system, or between the latter
and the printed page. After carefully studying how Turton wrote ‘a’ and ‘o’ in a letter
written in 1828, Burn (1990, in litt.) suspects that the spelling Haminoea was a printer’s
error.

6. Gray formally published Leach’s Classification [1818] in October 1847, and
Leach’s Synopsis [1820] in 1852 (see para. 3 above). Leach’s name Haminaea appeared
in these publications on pp. 268 and 40 respectively.

7. The spelling Haminea first appeared in Gray’s (1847 (November), p. 161) publi-
cation A list of the genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types, the name being
based on ‘Leach MSS 1819”. In fact, Leach’s [1820] work used the spelling Haminaea
(para. 3 above). It is noteworthy that Gray’s own bound copy of his November 1847
publication in the Natural History Museum, London, which is interleaved with notes
by the author (see Catalogue of the library of the BM( NB), 1904, p. 713), includes many
alterations and insertions to the text made by Gray in his own hand; one is an emenda-
tion of the printed ‘Haminea’ to ‘Haminaea’, together with an addition ‘1818. l.c. xx 268

266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Brit. Moll.’ (referring to the name in Leach’s [1818] manuscript and its 1847 publication
(Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20: 268)) after ‘Leach MSS 1819’.

8. It is thus evident that the spellings Haminoea and Haminea arose from the name
Haminaea in Leach’s widely circulated [1818] and [1820] manuscripts, where the name
was spelt with an ‘ae’ diphthong. As mentioned in para. 2 above, all three spellings of
the name are in use. The original application sought to conserve the spelling Haminoea;
however, stability in the nomenclature would be better served by conserving Haminaea,
Leach’s original spelling and the source of the other two, through a Commission ruling
that the name Haminaea be deemed available from Leach, [1820]. In 1847 Gray, in his
introduction to Leach’s Classification (p. 267), wrote ‘I am much inclined, as these
names were for years exhibited in the Museum collection and in the cabinets of Mr
Stephens, the late Mr James Sowerby, my own and others, to regard them as published
and having priority from 1818’. However, Gray’s 1847 published text of Leach’s [1818]
paper indicates that the name Haminaea was probably a nomen nudum in 1818 (there is
no copy of this manuscript in the Natural History Museum, London). In the [1820]
page proofs of Leach’s Synopsis the genus and species are described on p. 57 (see also
p. 40 of the work as published by Gray in 1852) and the name would be available. It
is proposed that only the name Haminaea should be made available from Leach’s
[1820] manuscript; no other names in current usage are attributed to Leach’s [1818] or
[1820] works and disturbance in mollusc nomenclature would be caused in making the
whole of these manuscripts available. To avoid any confusion in the future about the
availability of other names, we propose that Leach’s Classification of the British
Mollusca [1818] and Synopsis of Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] be suppressed for
nomenclatural purposes.

9. Leach’s [1820] MS included three species in Haminaea: H. cuvieri, H. dilatata and
H. elegans, H. cuvieri being a replacement name for Bulla hydatis auctt. B. hydatis
Linnaeus, 1758 was excluded from Haminaea as Leach believed this “belonged to a very
different genus’, but [Turton] in Turton & Kingston (1830, genus no. 63) noted that
Haminoea (sic) included B. hydatis, and Gray (1847 (November), p. 161) designated
B. hydatis as the type species of Haminea (recte Haminaea; see para. 7) ‘Leach MSS
1819’; neither Turton nor Gray cited an author for hydatis. Brown (1844, p. 57) and
Jeffreys (1867, p. 439) considered hydatis auctt. (= cuvieri Leach) to be included in
hydatis Linnaeus, while Forbes & Hanley (1853, p. 531) thought that it was ‘probably’
included. Herrmannsen (1852, p. 60) gave hydatis Linnaeus as the type species of
Haminaea. Pilsbry (1895, p. 352), Winckworth (1932, p. 231), Zilch (1959, p. 41 (citing
the generic name as ‘Haminaea Turton & Kingston, 1830’)) and Cernohorsky (1985,
p. 63 (citing the name as ‘Haminea Leach in Gray, 1847’)) accepted Bulla hydatis
Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species.

10. As mentioned in the original application (BZN 44: 166, para. 5), the family-
group name HAMINEINAE (= HAMINEIDAE) Pilsbry, 1895 (p. 351) was based on the
spelling Haminea. However, Pilsbry’s list of authors who had previously used the
generic name (p. 352) included ‘Haminea Leach MS. Gray, P.Z.S., 1847 p. 161’ and
‘Haminaea Leach, Moll. Gt. Brit., p. 40, 1852’. The name Haminea was an incorrect
subsequent spelling or unjustified emendation of Leach’s Haminaea (para. 7 above)
and it is proposed that the spelling HAMINAEIDAE be formally adopted.

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

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 267

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to suppress for nomenclatural purposes the works The classification of the
British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820]
by W.E. Leach;

(b) to rule that the generic name Haminaea Leach is deemed to be available in A
synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain [1820], despite suppression of the
work in (1)(a) above;

(c) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Haminaea Leach, [1820] and to designate Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758 as the
type species;

(2) to rule that the correct original spelling of the family-group name
HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 is deemed to be HAMINAEIDAE;

(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Haminaea
Leach, [1820] (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)(c) above
Bulla hydatis Linnaeus, 1758;

(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hydatis
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Bulla hydatis (specific name of the
type species of Haminaea Leach, [1820]);

(5) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name
HAMINAEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (spelling emended in (2) above) (type genus Haminaea
Leach, [1820]);

(6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology:

(a) Haminoea [Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830, an incorrect
subsequent spelling of Haminaea Leach, [1820];

(b) Haminea Gray, 1847, an incorrect subsequent spelling of Haminaea Leach,
[1820];

(7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the name HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (spelling emended to HAMINAEIDAE
in (2) above).

(8) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoology the
papers The classification of the British Mollusca [1818] and A synopsis of the
Mollusca of Great Britain [1820] by W.E. Leach, as suppressed in (1)(a) above.

Acknowledgement
We thank Dr Robert Burn for his interesting and helpful letter on Haminaea which
included a number of additional references.

References

Bourguignat, J.R. 1861. Etude synonymique sur les mollusques des Alpes Maritimes publiés par A.
Risso en 1826. 84 pp., | pl. Bailliére, Paris.

Brown, T., Captain. 1827. [/lustrations of the conchology of Great Britain and Ireland. v pp., 52 pls.
Lizars, Edinburgh.

Brown, T., Captain. 1844. [/lustrations of the recent conchology of Great Britain and Ireland... xiii,
145 pp., 59 pls. Smith, Elder & Co., London.

Cernohorsky, W.O. 1985. The taxonomy of some Indo-Pacific Mollusca Part 12. With remarks

on two American gastropod species. Records of the Auckland Institute and Museum, 22:
47-67.

268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1853. A History of British Mollusca and their shells, vol. 3. 616 pp. Van
Voorst, London.

Gray, J.E. 1840. Manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, with figures of
each of the kinds, by William Turton, M.D. A new edition, thoroughly revised and much
enlarged. 1x, 324 pp., 12 pls. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, London.

Gray, J.E. 1847 (November). A list of the genera of recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types.
Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-219.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846-1849. Indicus generum Malacozoorum primordia, vol. 1, xxvii, 636 pp.
(1846); vol. 2, xlii, 717 pp. (1847-1849). Fischer, Cassellis.

Herrmannsen, A.N. 1852. Indicus generum Malacozoorum. Supplementa et corrigenda, v, 140 pp.
Fischer, Cassellis.

Iredale, T. 1914. On some invalid generic names. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of
London, 11(3): 170-178.

Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the
British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 4. 486 pp., 8 pls. Van Voorst, London.

Knight, G.A.F. 1900. The etymology of the names Azeca and Assiminea. Journal of Conchology,
9(9): 271-276.

Leach, W.E. [1818]. The classification of the British Mollusca. (Page proofs, unpublished, not
seen).

Leach, W.E. [1820]. A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 1-160, 179-192 pp., 2, 6-10 pls.
(Page proofs, unpublished, in the Natural History Museum, London, and perhaps else-
where).

Leach, W.E. 1847 (October). Jn Gray, J.E. (Ed.). The classification of the British Mollusca.
Annals and Magazine of Natural History, 20(133): 267-273.

Leach, W.E. 1852. Jn Gray, J.E. (Ed.), A synopsis of the Mollusca of Great Britain. 376 pp.. pls.
2-13. Van Voorst, London.

McMillan, N.F. 1961. Book notes, especially relating to Turton’s works. Journal of Conchology,
25(1): 36-38.

Pilsbry, H.A. 1895. Tryon’s manual of Conchology; structural and systematic, vol. 15. 436 pp.
Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia.

Risso, A. 1826. Histoire naturelle des principales productions de l'Europe méridionale et particu-
liérement de celles des environs de Nice et des Alpes Maritimes, vol. 4 (Apergu sur histoire
naturelle des mollusques... et des coquilles; Observations sur différents annelides...). 439 pp.,
12 pls. Levrault, Paris.

Thompson, T.E. 1976. Biology of opisthobranch molluscs, vol. 1. 207 pp., 21 pls. Ray Society,
London.

Thompson, T.E. 1988. Molluscs: benthic opisthobranchs (Mollusca: Gastropoda). Keys and notes
for the identification of the species. 356 pp., 146 pls. (Synopses of the British fauna, new
series, No. 8, Ed. 2). Brill, Leiden.

Thompson, T.E. & Brown, G.H. 1976. British opisthobranch molluscs (Mollusca; Gastropoda):
keys and notes for the identification of the species. 203 pp., 1 pl., 105 figs. (Synopses of the
British fauna, new series, No. 8). Academic Press, London.

(Turton, W.] [1817]. Conchology. An enumeration of such marine shells as have been found on the
adjacent coasts (20 pp., unpaginated) in Anon, A guide to the watering places on the coast
between the Exe and the Dart; including Teignmouth, Dawlish and Torquay...with a short
description of the neighbourhood. Introduction, pp. v—vii; part 1 (Teignmouth), 1-98 pp.;
part 2 (Dawlish and its vicinity), 1-84 pp.; part 3 (Torquay and its vicinity), 5-72 pp.
Teignmouth.

Turton, W. 1831.4 manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands... viii, 152 pp., 10
pls. Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown & Green, London.

Turton, W. & Kingston, J.F. 1830. Part 2, The natural history of the district; or, lists of the different
species of animals, vegetables and minerals, and their respective localities, scientifically arran-
ged...(c. 200 pp., unpaginated) in Carrington, N.T. et al., The Teignmouth, Dawlish and
Torquay guide... (Part 1 has 230 pp., paginated). Teignmouth.

Winckworth, R. 1932. The British marine Mollusca. Journal of Conchology, 19(7): 211-252.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 269

Woodward, B.B. 1904, 1910, 1915. Catalogue of the library of the British Museum (Natural
History), vol. 2 (E-K), pp. 501-1038 (1904); vol. 3 (L-O), pp. 1039-1494 (1910); vol. 5
(SO-Z), pp. 1957-2403 (1915). British Museum (Natural History), London.

Zilch, A. 1959. Part 2 (Euthyneura) in Wenz, W. (Ed.), vol. 6 (Gastropoda) of Schindewolf, O.H.
von (Ed.), Handbuch der Paldozoologie. xu, 834 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin.

270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Case 2670

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation
of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species

Thierry Backeljau

Koninklijk Belgisch Instituut voor Natuurwetenschappen, Vautierstraat 29,
B-1040 Brussel, Belgium

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to confirm the nominal species Arion
hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species of the terrestrial slug subgenus Kobeltia
Seibert, 1873, in accordance with existing usage. The original description was of a
misidentified species.

1. Seibert (1873, p. 81) considered a slug which he supposed was Arion hortensis
Férussac, 1819 to be generically distinct from other species of Arion Férussac, 1819 and
proposed the new name Kobeltia. This name was neglected by subsequent authors for
more than half a century until Hesse (1926, p. 66) adopted it as a ‘section’ within the
genus Arion, with A. hortensis Férussac as the first included species. Most authors since
have followed Hesse’s system of classification, replacing ‘section’ by ‘subgenus’.

2. Férussac’s nominal species A. hortensis (1819, pp. 65—66) is represented by pl. 2
(not pl. 12 as cited on p. 65), figs. 4-5. He also described A. hortensis var. a (1819,
pp. 65-66, pl. 2, fig. 6), which may well be the species later described by Mabille (1868,
p. 137) as A. distinctus (Davies, 1979, p. 123; see para. 6 below); this variant is excluded
from the type series of A. hortensis by Article 72b of the Code. The dates of publication
of Férussac’s work were investigated by Sherborn & Woodward (1901, pp. 74-76; text
only) and Kennard (1942, pp. 12-17, 105—118; text and plates).

3. Seibert’s interpretation of Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819 when he proposed
Kobeltia was based on the work of Lehmann (1873, pp. 21—24, pl. 2, figs. 4a, pl. 7, fig. 4).
Lehmann’s description and figures, however, are not of A. hortensis but a species
currently referred to as Arion (Carinarion) fasciatus. This latter species was originally
described as Limax fasciatus by Nilsson in 1823 (pp. 3—5) and it has been studied in
detail by a number of authors, including Likharev & Wiktor (1980, pp. 407-409).
Lehmann’s misidentification of A. hortensis was noted by Simroth (1885, pp. 277-278,
288), who assigned Lehmann’s species to A. bourguignati Mabille, 1868 (p. 138).

4. Cockerell (1891, p. 20) considered A. bourguignati to be a junior subjective
synonym of A. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 (p. 76), which Hesse (1926, p. 65) selected
as the type species of his ‘section’ (now subgenus) Carinarion. Lohmander (1937)
suggested that three very closely related species had been confused under the name
‘circumscriptus’: A. circumscriptus Johnston, 1828 s.s., A. silvaticus Lohmander, 1937
and Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823. Whether these are indeed distinct biological species
is still a much debated issue (Backeljau et al., 1987).

5. Acceptance of Seibert’s designation of A. hortensis sensu Lehmann (1873), now
recognised (Backeljau & De Bruyn, 1990, in press) to be Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823,
as the type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 would undoubtedly give rise to much

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 271

confusion in the nomenclature of what is already a taxonomically complex group. In
addition, if fasciatus and circumscriptus are considered to be synonyms, or to belong in
the same subgenus, Carinarion Hesse, 1926 would become a junior subjective synonym
of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873. Following Hesse’s (1926) monograph the identity of the
type species of Kobel/tia has been understood as ‘Arion hortensis’ (see para. 6 below) and
not Limax fasciatus Nilsson, 1823. A list of more than 40 references is held by the
Commission Secretariat demonstrating usage of the name Kobeltia in which Hesse’s
interpretation of the genus group has been adopted, and I have not found a single paper
in which fasciatus is even included in the subgenus.
6. Recently, Davies (1977, p. 173; 1979, p. 123) has shown that three distinct taxon-
omic species have been known under the name ‘A. hortensis’. The first of these species is
A. hortensis s.s. (Férussac, 1819, p. 65, pl. 2, figs. 4-5). The species is known from the
British Isles, parts of France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
Two original specimens, labelled ‘montagnes env. de Clermont (Oise)’, are in the
Museum National d’Histoire naturelle in Paris, one of which has been dissected and
was designated as the lectotype by De Winter (1984, p. 3, fig. 3). The second species,
A. distinctus Mabille, 1868 (p. 137), is probably the species represented by Férussac’s
A. hortensis var. a (1819, pl. 2, fig. 6). Itis found in much of Europe and North America
and has a type locality at Sevres, near Paris. No original material survives but a neotype
(no. alcohol 9120 in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, collected from
Sévres in 1983) was designated by De Winter (1984, p. 3, figs. 2 and 4). The third
species, A. owenii Davies, 1979 (p. 126), may possibly be the same as Limax subfuscus
Draparnaud, 1805, cited by Taylor (1905, p. 217) as A. hortensis Ferussac var. subfusca.
A. owenii has a holotype, BM(NH) 197910, from East Donegal in Ireland. The species
is known from the north of Ireland and locally in southern Scotland, Wales and
Cornwall. The three species differ in their genitalia, spermatophores, mating behaviour
and, to a lesser extent, in their external morphology (Davies, 1977, 1979; Backeljau,
1981; De Wilde, 1983; and Backeljau & Marquet, 1985), and have been shown to be
biochemically distinct (Backeljau, 1985a and b). All three are included in the subgenus
Kobeltia.
7. A number of 20th century authors have described Kobeltia (see, for example,
Hesse, 1926, p. 66; Germain, 1930, p. 77; Wiktor, 1973, p. 43; Likharev & Wiktor, 1980,
p. 409; and Grossu, 1983, pp. 55—58). Backeljau & De Winter (1987, p. 177) discussed the
problem of three closely related species having hitherto been confused as ‘A. hortensis’.
To avoid further confusion, and to rectify Seibert’s earlier mistake in the identity of
hortensis with Limax fasciatus, now propose to confirm A. hortensis Ferussac, 1819, as
defined by the lectotype designated by De Winter (1984), as the type species of Kobeltia.
It may be noted that most, if not all, of the older records of ‘A. hortensis’ from
Germany, Seibert’s native country, are actually of A. distinctus, and only one record of
A. hortensis s.s. is known (Backeljau & De Winter, 1987).
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) toconfirm that Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819, is the type species of the nominal
genus Kobeltia Seibert, 1873;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Kobeltia
Seibert, 1873 (gender: feminine), type species Arion hortensis Férussac, 1819, as
confirmed in (1) above;

272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hortensis
Férussac, 1819, as published in the binomen Arion hortensis (specific name of the
type species of Kobeltia Seibert, 1873), and as defined by the lectotype designated
by De Winter (1984).

References

Backeljau, T. 1981. Biometrie, ecologie, ethologie en systematiek van het Arion hortensis complex
in Belgié. Unpublished Lic. thesis, Universitaire Instelling Antwerpen. 78 pp.

Backeljau, T. 1985a. A preliminary account of species specific protein patterns in albumen gland
extracts of Arion hortensis s.1. (Pulmonata, Arionidae). Basteria, 49(1—3): 11-17.

Backeljau, T. 1985b. Estimation of genic similarity within and between Arion hortensis s.1. and
A. intermedius by means of isoelectric focused esterase patterns in hepatopancreas
homogenates (Mollusca, Pulmonata: Arionidae). Zeitschrift fiir zoologische Systematik und
Evolutionsforschung, 23(1): 38-49.

Backeljau, T., Ahmadyar, S.Z., Selens, M., Van Rompaey, J. & Verheyen, W. 1987. Comparative
electrophoretic analyses of three European Carinarion species (Mollusca, Pulmonata:
Arionidae). Zoologica Scripta, 16: 209-222.

Backeljau, T. & De Bruyn, L. 1990. On the infrageneric systematics of the genus Arion Férussac,
1819 (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique,
60: 35-67.

Backeljau, T. & De Winter, A.J. 1987. An electrophoretic characterisation of three paratypes of
Arion fagophilus De Winter, 1986, with notes on the subgeneric division of the genus Arion
Férussac, 1819 (Mollusca, Pulmonata). Zeitschrift fiir zoologische Systematik und
Evolutionsforschung, 25(3): 169-180.

Backeljau, T. & Marquet, R. 1985. An advantageous use of multivariate statistics in a biometrical
study on the Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae) in Belgium. Malacological
Review, 18(1—2): 57-72.

Cockerell. T.D.A. 1891. Arion circumscriptus, Johnston= Bourguignati, Mab. The British
Naturalist, 1891(1): 20.

Davies, S.M. 1977. The Arion hortensis complex with notes on A. intermedius Normand
(Pulmonata: Arionidae). Journal of Conchology, 29(4): 173-187.

Davies, S.M. 1979. Segregates of the Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae), with the
description of a new species, Arion owenii. Journal of Conchology, 30(2): 123-127.

De Winter, A.J. 1984. The Arion hortensis complex (Pulmonata: Arionidae): designation of
types, descriptions, and distributional patterns, with special reference to the Netherlands.
Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 59(1): 1-17.

Draparnaud, J.P.R. 1805. Histoire naturelle des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles de la France.
164 pp., 13 pls. Colas, Paris.

Férussac, J.B.L. d’A. de. 1819-[1832]. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliere des mollusques
terrestres et fluviatiles. Oeuvre posthume de Mr le Baron J.B.L. d’Audebard de Férussac ,..
continué, mis en ordre, et publié par Mr le Baron d’Audebard son fils... xvi, 128, 96a—z, 960-—A
pp., 163 pls. Bertrand, Paris.

Germain, L. 1930. Mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles (premiére partie). Faune de France, 21:
1-477.

Grossu, A.V. 1983. Gastropoda Romaniae. Ordo Stylommatophora. 4. Suprafam.: Arionacea,
Zonitacea, Ariophantacea si Helicacea. 563 pp. Editura Litera, Bucuresti.

Hesse, P. 1926. Die Nacktschnecken der palaearktischen Region. Abhandlungen des Archiv fiir
Molluskenkunde, 2(1): 1-152.

Johnston, G. 1828. A few remarks on the class Mollusca, in Dr. Flemming’s work on British
animals; with descriptions of some new species. Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 5:
74-81.

Kennard, A.S. 1942. The Histoire and Prodrome of Férussac. Proceedings of the Malacological
Society of London, 25(1): 12-17, 25(3): 105-118.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 273

Lehmann, R. 1873. Die lebenden Schnecken und Muscheln der Umgegend Stettins und in Pommern
mit besonderer Berticksichtigung ihres anatomischen Baues. 328 pp., 22 pls. Fischer, Cassel.

Likharev, ILM. & Wiktor, A. 1980. The fauna of the slugs of the USSR and adjacent countries
(Gastropoda terrestria nuda). Fauna SSSR Mollyuski, (122)3(5): 1-437. [In Russian.]

Lohmander, H. 1937. Uber die nordischen Formen von Arion circumscriptus Johnston. Acta
Societatis pro Fauna et Flora fennica, 60: 90-112.

Mabille, J. 1868. Des limaciens européens. Revue et Magasin de Zoologie, (2)20: 129-146.

Nilsson, S. 1823. Historia molluscorum sveciae terrestrium et fluviatilium breviter delineata. xx,
124 pp. Lundae.

Seibert, H. 1873. Die colorirten Tafeln des Lehmann’schen werkes. Nachrichtsblatt der deutschen
Malakozoologischen Gesellschaft, 6: 79-82.

Sherborn, C.D. & Woodward, B.B. 1901. On the dates of publication of the Histoire naturelle
générale et particuliére des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles and the Tableaux systématiques
des animaux mollusques, by the Barons Férussac and G.P. Deshayes. Annals and Magazine
of Natural History, (7)8(43): 74-76.

Simroth, H. 1885. Versuch einer Naturgeschichte der deutschen Nacktschnecken und ihrer
europaischen Verwandten. Zeitschrift fiir Wissenschaftliche Zoologie, 42(2): 203-366.
Taylor, J.W. 1905. Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles.

Testacellidae, Limacidae, Arionidae, part 2. Pp. 161-224. 21 pls. Taylor Brothers, Leeds.

Wiktor, A. 1973. Die Nacktschnecken Polens, Arionidae, Milacidae, Limacidae (Gastropoda,

Stylommatophora). Monografie Fauny Polski, 1: 1-182.

274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Case 2747

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of
Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species

L.R.M. Cocks

Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U.K.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to stabilise the name of the important
Ordovician brachiopod genus Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 by designating
Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 as its type species in place of the poorly known species
Strophomena rugosa de Blainville, 1825.

1. The brachiopod genus Strophomena has given its name not only to the family
STROPHOMENIDAE King, 1846 and the superfamily STROPHOMENACEA, but also to the
suborder Strophomenidina and the order Strophomenida; this last is the most
numerous order of articulate brachiopods with more than a thousand genera and
includes the productids and chonetids. This classification has been accepted for a
long time and forms an integral part of the brachiopod volume of the Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology (Williams, 1965).

2. However, the nominal genus Strophomena is not well founded and this appli-
cation proposes action to stabilise the name. The problem has been well known for over
a hundred years, being discussed at length by, among others, Davidson (1853, pp. 105—
108), Hall & Clarke (1892, pp. 246-250), Nickles (1903, pp. 214-217) and Pope (1976,
p. 154), but never resolved.

3. Rafinesque & Clifford (1820, p. 232) referred to ‘plusieurs nouveaux genres, tels
que gonotrema, diclisma, pleurinia, stropheria, strophomenes, clipsilis etc., outre les vrais
genres terebratula et productus’ when describing a new fauna from the Ordovician of
Kentucky; however, there was no further description of ‘strophomenes’ apart from
making clear that they were shells. Defrance (1824, p. 5) used the phrase ‘de coquilles
bivalves du genre Strophoméne’ when describing a block from the Silurian of Dudley,
England; in a table (p. 110) he stated that ‘Strophoméne’ had three species but he did
not name them. De Blainville (1825, p. 513) was the first to give a proper description of
the genus and also the first to use the spelling Strophomena, thereby establishing the
name. Under Article 50a of the Code, authorship must be attributed to de Blainville
even though he attributed authorship to Rafinesque.

4. De Blainville mentioned only one species by name, ‘“Strophomena rugosa Rafin.’,
which is therefore the type species by monotypy with de Blainville as the author. He
figured (pl. 53, fig. 2) the dorsal and ventral valves of one specimen of Strophomena
rugosa, although the plate was probably not published until September 1827 (note in
the copy in the Natural History Museum, London). The two figures show a generalised
shield-shaped brachiopod which might represent a strophomenid, but could be a
rafinesquinid or even a form within an entirely different superfamily such as an orthid.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 275

De Blainville omitted to mention any locality or geological horizon for Strophomena or
S. rugosa.

5. King (1846, p. 28) named the family STROPHOMENIDAE to include Strophomena
and related genera and it is this work which forms the basis of the key position that
Strophomena and the strophomenids occupy today. This position was reinforced by the
substantial monograph of Davidson (1853, 1871) who attributed many species to the
genus. However, several nineteenth century authors agonised about the true identity of
the genus and in particular the species rugosa.

6. Hall & Clarke (1892, p. 246), referring to Strophomena rugosa, wrote ‘there seems
to be sufficient reason to believe that it is the same species which was subsequently
described as Leptaena planumbona’. This species, named by Hall (1847, p. 112), is
a well-founded and properly described brachiopod from the Ordovician Trenton
Limestone of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky.

7. Subsequent authors have tended to follow Hall & Clarke in using planumbona to
define their concept of Strophomena. Nickles (1903, p. 215) did not accept that de
Blainville’s description or figures justified Hall & Clarke’s synonymy with Leptaena
planumbona. Nevertheless, he accepted Hall & Ciarke’s solution to the problem, writing
that ‘the wisest solution of the difficulties and the one that observes the real intent, if not
the exact letter of the law of priority is to recognize ... the genus Strophomena ... with the
Strophomena planumbona (Hall) asits type’. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology,
Williams (1965, p. H384) gave the type species of Strophomenaas‘S. rugosa (conspecific
with Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847)’. Pope (1976, p. 154) wrote that ‘authors sub-
sequent to Nickles ... also based Strophomena upon S. planumbona (Hall) and ‘the type
should be fixed as Strophomena planumbona (Hall) by appeal to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature so that no uncertainty continues’.

8. Recent systematic papers (e.g. Cocks, 1978, p. 107; Rice, 1987, p. 157) correctly
cite the nominal species Strophomena rugosa as the type species of Strophomena, it
being the only originally included species. However, the name Strophomena rugosa has
not been used in anything other than a formal sense since de Blainville (1825) and its
true identity is uncertain. Since Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847 is currently used as a
valid name for the type species of Strophomena, stability would be achieved by
designation of L. planumbona as the type species of Strophomena.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers:

(a) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus
Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 and to designate Leptaena planumbona Hall,
1847 as the type species;

(b) to suppress the specific name rugosa de Blainville, 1825, as published in the
binomen Strophomena rugosa, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority
but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Strophomena
de Blainville, 1825 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1)(a) above
Leptaena planumbona Hall, 1847;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name planumbona
Hall, 1847, as published in the binomen Leptaena planumbona (specific name of
the type species of Strophomena de Blainville, 1825);

276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology
the name rugosa de Blainville, 1825, as published in the binomen Strophomena
rugosa, and as suppressed in (1)(b) above.

References

Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1825. Manuel de Malacologie et de Conchyliologie. 664 pp. Levrault, Paris.
Cocks, L.R.M. 1978. A review of British Lower Palaeozoic brachiopods, including a synoptic
revision of Davidson’s Monograph. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), \—256.
Davidson, T. 1853. British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 1
(Introduction): 1-136.

Davidson, T. 1871. British Fossil Brachiopoda. Palaeontographical Society (Monograph), 3(7):
249-397.

Defrance, J.L.M. 1824. Tableau des Corps Organisés Fossiles. xvi, 136 pp. Levrault, Paris.

Hall, J. 1847. Palaeontology of New York. Volume 1, containing descriptions of the organic
remains of the lower division of the New York System. Natural History of New York, 1-338.

Hall, J. & Clarke, J.M. 1892. An introduction to the study of the genera of Palaeozoic
Brachiopoda, vol. 8, part 1. 367 pp. Geological Survey of the State of New York, Albany,
INSYe

King, W. 1846. Remarks on certain genera belonging to the class Palliobranchiata. Annals and
Magazine of Natural History, 18: 26—42, 83-94.

Nickles, J.M. 1903. The Richmond group in Ohio and Indiana and its subdivisions, with a note
on the genus Strophomena and its type. American Geologist, 32: 202-218.

Pope, J.K. 1976. Comparative morphology and shell histology of the Ordovician
Strophomenacea (Brachiopoda). Palaeontographica Americana, 8(49): 129-213.

Rafinesque, C.S. & Clifford, J.D. 1820. Prodrome d’une monographie des Turbinolies fossiles du
Kentucky. Annales Générales des Sciences Physiques, Brussels, 5: 231—235.

Rice, W.F. 1987. The systematics and biostratigraphy of the Brachiopoda of the Decorah Shale
at St. Paul, Minnesota. Report of Investigations, Minnesota Geological Survey, No. 35: 136—
166.

Williams, A. 1965. Strophomenidina. Pp. H362-412 in Moore R.C. (Ed.), Treatise on
Invertebrate Paleontology, part H (Brachiopoda). Geological Society of America and
University of Kansas Press, Lawrence, Kansas.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 277

Case 2703

HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes):
proposed precedence over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839

Harro Hieronimus
P.O. Box 170243, D-5650 Solingen 1, Fed. Rep. Germany

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to give precedence to the commonly used
family-group name for the flat loaches HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 over the unused
senior synonym BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839.

1. In a study of Indian and Indochinese loaches of the genus Balitora Gray, 1830
Kottelat (1988) reported that although interrelationships among members of the
family HOMALOPTERIDAE have been variously interpreted, its type genus Homaloptera
van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 has always been considered closely related to Balitora
Gray, 1830 and placed in the same family, subfamily and tribe. Thus his rediscovery of
the hitherto overlooked family-group name BALITORINAE Swainson, 1839 (p. 190)
means the family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (p. xxviii) is a junior
subjective synonym of BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. In accordance with Article 23 of
the Code, I am referring this case to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature together with a proposal to preserve nomenclatural stability.

2. The family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 has been widely accepted
by zoologists. All recent publications use this name (e.g. Hora, 1920; Hora, 1931; Hora,
1932; Hora, 1941; Silas, 1953; Jayaram, 1981). The family-group name BALITORIDAE
has not been used for any of the homalopterid fishes since Swainson established it
(1839) until Kottelat (1988) nearly 150 years later.

3. Kottelat (1988, p. 489) himself admits that the replacement of HOMALOPTERIDAE
by BALITORIDAE creates additional confusion in the suborder Cobitoidei. I cannot
follow Kottelat in his opinion that an immediate introduction of the family-group
name BALITORIDAE, which had been overlooked for about 150 years, would help to
create a stable nomenclature (Kottelat, 1988, p. 489).

4. Kottelat (1988, p. 489) expects changes in systematics and nomenclature in the
suborder Cobitoidei. Under these circumstances all possible attempts have to be made
to stabilize nomenclature.

5. In 1986 Kottelat (BZN 43: 360-362) proposed the designation of Cobitis taenia
Linnaeus, 1758 as type species of the genus Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758. He referred (p. 361)
to the fact that otherwise the family HOMALOPTERIDAE would become a subfamily of
COBITIDAE. In Opinion 1500 (June, 1988) the Commission used its plenary powers to
designate Cobitis taenia as type species of Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 and thus stabilized the
family-group name HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859. However, the name remains
threatened by the discovery of the unused senior synonym BALITORIDAE.

6. The type genus of HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 is Homaloptera van Hasselt in
Temminck, 1823 (p. 133), the type species of which is H. ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833

278 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

by subsequent monotypy. Homaloptera is available by description but the two species
originally included in it (H. fasciata van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 and H. javanica
van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823) are both nomina nuda. On p. 132 of van Hasselt’s
work, Homaloptera is spelt Homalophra. Kottelat (1987) acted as first reviser and
selected the commonly used spelling Homaloptera. The specific name ocellata van der
Hoeven, 1833 is a nomen nudum in the book Handboek der Dierkunde ... (1833a), the
description given on p. 211 referring to the genus only. However, in the accompanying
atlas (1833b) Verzameling der Platen ..., (to which no mention is made in the Handboek,
although it is referred to in the translation from the 2nd Dutch edition, 1856-1858), p. 8
(Verklaring der platen) states that pl. 13 fig. 12 is ‘Homaloptera ocellata v. Hass; eene
nieuwe, vroeger nog niet afgebeelde, soort uit Java. Fig. 12b. Kop van dezen visch, van
boven gezien. (11. bl. 211)’. Plate 13, figure 12 depicts a whole fish, fig. 12b the head of a
fish, so the name is available. The type genus of BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 is Balitora
Gray, 1830 (pl. 88). The type species of this genus is Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 (pl. 88)
by subsequent designation by Jordan (1919, p. 178).

7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly

asked:

(1) to use its plenary powers to give precedence to the family-group name
HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 over the family-group name BALITORIDAE
Swainson, 1839;

(2) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Balitora Gray, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent desig-

nation by Jordan (1919) Balitora brucei Gray, 1830 (type genus of
BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839);

(b) Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (gender: feminine), type species
by subsequent monotypy Homaloptera ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833 (type
genus of HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859);

(3) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) brucei Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Balitora brucei (specific name

of the type species of Balitora Gray, 1830);

(b) ocellata van der Hoeven, 1833, as published in the binomen Homaloptera
ocellata (specific name of the type species of Homaloptera van Hasselt in
Temminck, 1823);

(4) to place the following names on the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology:

(a) HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in
Temminck, 1823) with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over
BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830);

(b) BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (type genus Balitora Gray, 1830) with the
endorsement that it is not to be given priority over HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker,
1859 (type genus Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823).

References

Bleeker, P. 1859. Enumeratio specierum piscium hucusque in Archipelago indico observatarum,
adjectis habitationibus citationibusque ubi descriptiones earum recentiores reperiuntur, nec
con speciebus Musei Bleekeriani Bengalensibus, Japonicis, Capensibus Tasmanicisque.
Acta Societatis Scientiarum Indo-Neerlandicae, 6: xxxvi, 1-276.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 279

Gray, J.E. 1830-1835. Tlustrations of Indian zoology, chiefly selected from the collection of
General Hardwicke. 2 vols., 200 pls. (part fishes on pp. 1-255). Longman, Brown, Green &
Longman, London.

Hasselt, J.C. van. 1823. In Temminck, C.J. Uittreksel uit een’ brief van den. Heer J.C. van
Hasselt, aan den Heer C.J. Temminck, geschreven uit Tjecande, Residentie Bantam, den
29sten December 1822. Algemeene Konst- en Letter- Bode, 2(35): 130-133.

Hoeven, J. van der. 1833a. Handboek der Dierkunde of grondbeginsels der natuurlijke geschiedenis
van het dierenrijk, vol. 2. x, v, 698 pp. Sulpke, Amsterdam.

Hoeven, J. van der. 1833b. Verzameling der Platen, behoorende tot het Handboek der Dierkunde.
12 pp, 20 pls. Sulpke, Amsterdam.

Hora, S.L. 1920. Revision of the Indian Homalopteridae and of the genus Psilorhynchus
(Cyprinidae). Records of the Indian Museum, 22(2): 195—215.

Hora, S.L. 1931. Classification of the homalopterid fishes. Records of the Indian Museum, 33(1):
67-69.

Hora, S.L. 1932. Classification, bionomics and evolution of homalopterid fishes. Memoirs of
the Indian Museum, 12(2): 263-330.

Hora, S.L. 1941. Homalopterid fishes from peninsular India. Records of the Indian Museum,
43(2): 221-232.

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1988. Opinion 1500. Cobitis Linnaeus,
1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type
species, and the original spelling of the family-group name COBITIDAE Swainson, 1839
confirmed. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 45(2): 178-179.

Jayaram, K.C. 1981. The freshwater fishes of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Burma and Sri Lanka —
a handbook. xx + 475 pp. Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta.

Jordan, D.S. 1919. The Genera of Fishes. Part 2. From Agassiz to Bleeker, 1833-1858, twenty-six
years, with the accepted type of each. Pp. 11x, 163—284, i-xiii. Stanford University.

Kottelat, M. 1987. Nomenclatural Status of the Fish Names Created by J.C. van Hasselt (1823)
and of some Cobitoid Genera. Japanese Journal of Ichthyology, 33(4): 368-375.

Kottelat, M. 1986. Cobitis Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): Proposed desig-
nation of Cobitis taenia Linnaeus, 1758 as type species and request for a ruling on the stem of
the family-group name COBITIDIDAE Swainson, 1839. $.2566. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 43(4): 360-362.

Kottelat, M. 1988. Indian and Indochinese species of Balitora (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes)
with descriptions of two new species and comments on the family-group names BALITORIDAE
and HOMALOPTERIDAE. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 95(2): 487-504.

Silas, E.G. 1953. Classification, zoogeography and evolution of the fishes of the cyprinoid
families HOMALOPTERIDAE and GASTROMYZONIDAE. Records of the Indian Museum, 50(2):
173-264.

Swainson, W. 1839. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians and reptiles.
In Lardner, D. (Ed.), The Cabinet Cyclopedia, vol. 2. 448 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown,
Greene & Longmans, and Taylor, London.

280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Case 2715

Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed
fixation of masculine gender for the name

David A. Etnier

Department of Zoology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
37996-0810, U.S.A.

Melvin L. Warren Jr.

Department af Zoology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois
62901-6501, U.S.A.

Abstract. The purpose of this application is to fix as masculine the gender of Lepomis
Rafinesque, 1819, for a genus of fish, including important food, game and laboratory
research species. This is in accordance with Rafinesque’s original intention and almost
universal usage until 1988 when the gender was amended to feminine on etymological
grounds with which the authors disagree.

1. In 1819 Rafinesque (p. 420) established the generic name Lepomis and designated
Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 283) as the type species; he established two new
species which he called Lepomis cyanellus and L. macrochirus. Although he did not
state that the gender of Lepomis was masculine, it is clear from the ending of the three
specific names that this was his intention.

2. Rafinesque did not specify the derivation of Lepomis, but this can be inferred
from his two subgenera, Pomotis and Apomotis. He characterized Pomotis as having
‘opercule auriculé’ (an ear on the opercle) and Apomotis as ‘opercule sans auricle’. Since
Pomotis and Apomotis both use the Greek poma (n., a lid or cover) to mean the
operculum or gill cover, we conclude that the ending of Lepomis stems from the same
Greek root. That this interpretation is correct is confirmed in that Rafinesque charac-
terized Lepomis as having ‘téte et opercules écailleux’ (head and opercles scaled).
Furthermore, in a paper the following year, Rafinesque (1820, p. 30) stated that ‘the
name means scaly gills’. Jordan & Gilbert (1877, p. 102) also considered Lepomis to be
derived from /epis plus poma.

3. Lepomis has almost universally been treated as masculine as in Rafinesque’s 1819
paper. A notable early exception was Rafinesque himself who, in his 1820 paper,
treated Lepomis as feminine as indicated by his use of the specific names pallida,
trifasciata, salmonea and notata. More recently, Bailey & Robins (1988, p. 100) pointed
out that Brown (1954, pp. 332, 683) considered the name to be derived from the Greek
lepis (f., scale) and omis (f., a fish); in this Brown was not consistent since he gave as an
example Lepomis auritus with a masculine ending. Bailey & Robins accepted Brown’s
derivation and treated Lepomis as feminine, ‘correcting’ a number of specific names to
Lepomis aurita, L. cyanella, L. gibbosa, etc. They added that all these names were

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 281

incorrectly assigned masculine endings in the 1980 and earlier editions of the American
Fisheries Society’s List of Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United
States and Canada (Robins et al., 1980).

4. We do not accept Bailey & Robins’ argument that Lepomis should be treated as
feminine on account of the etymology suggested by Brown (1954) and have sought the
views of Professor H.D. Cameron (Professor of Greek and Latin, Adjunct Curator in
the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan). In a letter (29 January 1990) to the
Executive Secretary of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
Professor Cameron wrote:

‘It is perfectly clear that Lepomis is not a properly formed Greek compound, no

matter what Rafinesque thought he was doing. The rules of Greek noun formation

would not permit such an invention. Rafinesque, by his inattention to philo-
logical nicety, created a problem which cannot be solved by appeal to etymology or
grammar. I am convinced that they [the authors of this application] have rightly
construed what Rafinesque thought he was doing, but still his result is grammatically
unacceptable. It is for this reason that... I have come round to the opinion that the
name must be legally considered an arbitrary combination of letters, and the gender
determined by the original author’.
Professor Cameron added that, since Lepomis ended with the feminine suffix -omis,
it could be argued under Article 30b of the Code that the name should be treated
as feminine irrespective of Rafinesque’s original intentions on etymology and
gender.

5. Weconsider that, irrespective of the derivation of the name Lepomis and since it is
‘almost universally regarded as masculine’ (Bailey & Robins, 1988, p. 100) in accord-
ance with Rafinesque’s original intention, it would bein the interests of stability for it to
be ruled by the Commission as masculine.

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

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the gender of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 is

masculine;

(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lepomis
Rafinesque, 1819 (gender: masculine, as ruled in (1) above), type species by
original designation Labrus auritus Linnaeus, 1758;

(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name auritus
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Labrus auritus (specific name of the
type species of Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819).

Acknowledgements

We thank Reeve M. Bailey and Howard D. Cameron, University of Michigan;
Brooks M. Burr, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale; C. Richard Robins,
University of Miami; and James E. Shelton, University of Tennessee for their views on
the derivation and gender of Lepomis and comments on an earlier draft of this petition.
William E. Eschmeyer, California Academy of Sciences; Larry M. Page, Illinois
Natural History Survey; and Reeve M. Bailey provided copies of papers unavailable
to us. Thanks also to the many North American ichthyologists who expressed interest
in the timely resolution of this matter by indicating their feelings on the gender of
Lepomis.

282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

References

Bailey, R.M. & Robins, C.R. 1988. Changes in North American fish names, especially as related
to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1985. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 45: 92-103.

Brown, R.W. 1954. Composition of Scientific Words. 882 pp. Privately published, Baltimore.

Jordan, D.S. & Gilbert, C.H. 1877. On the genera of North American fresh-water fishes.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 1877, 83-104.

Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodrome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans l’intérieur
des Etats-Unis d’ Amérique, durant l’année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d'Histoire
Naturelle et des Arts, Paris, 88: 417-429.

Rafinesque, C.S. 1820. Ichthyologia Ohiensis, or Natural History of the Fishes Inhabiting the
River Ohio and its Tributary Streams. 90 pp. Lexington, Kentucky.

Robins, C.R., Bailey, R.M., Bond, C.E., Brooker, J.R., Lachner, E.A., Lea, R.N. & Scott, W.B.
1980. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada,
Ed. 4. American Fisheries Society, Special Publication 12. 174 pp.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 283

Case 2141

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed
precedence over Rana utricularius Harlan, 1826

Lauren E. Brown

Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois
61761-6901, U.S.A.

Hobart M. Smith
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.

Richard S. Funk

College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee
37901-1071, U.S.A.

Abstract. Conservation of the name Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 for a common
American leopard frog by suppression of R. utricularius Harlan, 1826 was proposed
in 1977. The latter name was essentially unused because it was considered a synonym of
R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, but it was revived in 1974 as a supposed senior synonym of
R. sphenocephala. Objections on taxonomic grounds to the proposed suppression of R.
utricularius prevented completion of this case; it is now proposed that R. sphenocephala
be given precedence over R. utricularius.

1. In 1977 we published an application (BZN 33: 195-203) for the conservation of
the species-group name sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (p. 517). As was stated in that
application, Cope’s name (usually cited as from Cope, 1889) has been extensively used
for acentury, either as Rana sphenocephala or as R. pipiens sphenocephala, for a leopard
frog from the south-eastern United States; it was first published (as R. halecina spheno-
cephala) to replace R. oxyrhynchus Hallowell, [1856] (p. 142), which is a junior primary
homonym of the name of an African frog, R. oxyrhynchus Smith, 1849.

2. R. oxyrhynchus Hallowell, [1856] was published for a leopard frog from Florida.
A more northerly distributed taxon is R. pipiens Schreber, 1782, of which R. halecina
Daudin, 1802 is a junior subjective synonym. As discussed in the original application,
and in the references cited there and below, pipiens and sphenocephala are taxonomi-
cally distinct within the ‘R. pipiens complex’. Frogs of this group are very widely studied
for a variety of purposes.

3. In 1826 Harlan (p. 60) described R. utricularius from Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, but, as we discussed previously, this did not become the accepted name for any
taxon because of the seniority of pipiens or halecina, and it had been unused for very
many years before being resurrected by Pace (1974). Pace used the spelling ‘utricularia’,
but utricularius is a noun meaning ‘bagpiper’. In adopting the name, Pace considered
that Harlan had differentiated his wtricularius from halecina (= pipiens) in ways which

284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

showed that utricularius was a senior synonym of sphenocephala, but we have given
reasons (BZN 33: 197-198) for disputing this synonymy and for considering that
utricularius corresponded to pipiens. Pace (1974) went further, and proposed two sub-
species, R. utricularia utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala (the latter considered to be
restricted to peninsular Florida), but her basis for this was mistaken (BZN 33: 199—
200). She designated a specimen from Philadelphia and one from Volusia County,
Florida as neotypes of u. utricularia and u. sphenocephala respectively.

4. In our original application we proposed the suppression of the name R. virescens,
in addition to that of R. utricularius. As mentioned in paras. 2 and 10 of that appli-
cation, virescens was not made available until Cope, 1889 (p. 397), although Cope
assumed that it was available from earlier authors. Since virescens is junior to spheno-
cephalaand utricularius, has been used only once in the last 50 years and Cope’s concept
of the species was composite (including pipiens, sphenocephala and perhaps other frogs;
BZN 33: 200), we do not now propose any formal action concerning it.

5. Our proposal to conserve sphenocephala by suppressing utricularius received sup-
port from 18 zoologists (BZN 34: 199-200). However eight authors (BZN 39: 80-84)
objected to the suppression of utricularius, on the grounds that this name had acquired
some usage since Pace (1974) and that the extent of speciation within the ‘R. pipiens
complex’ was not fully worked out. With a reply (BZN 39: 84-90), we noted that the
Commission Secretariat had been given a list of 103 references using sphenocephala
from the 50 years before Pace’s action. We also provided 46 similar references from the
following seven years, during which time utricularius had been little used. While agree-
ing that the taxonomy of the leopard frogs needed further studies we reiterated (BZN
39: 89) that the replacement of sphenocephala by utricularius had been in error, and was
destabilizing and contrary to the Code.

6. Because the Commission cannot form taxonomic judgements and objection had
been made to the suppression of utricularius this case has remained unresolved, with
consequent risk to stability. In correspondence the Executive Secretary has suggested
that sphenocephala Cope, 1886 could be given precedence over utricularius Harlan,
1826 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. We believe that this
course will maintain stability.

7. Wehave given the Commission Secretariat a (non-exhaustive) list of 11 works since
1982 which have used sphenocephala. These include: Frost (1985), Amphibian Species of
the World; the major work by Duellman & Trueb (1986), Biology of Amphibians; and
Ashton & Ashton’s 1988 handbook on the amphibians of Florida. Many journal papers
have also used sphenocephala. In contrast very few papers have used utricularius: three
which do, none of them taxonomic or with an implication that there is more than one
southern leopard frog, are Mushinsky (1985), Alford (1986) and Wilbur & Semlitsch
(1990). The recent check list of Collins (1990) has unfortunately followed Pace (1974) in
giving (on p. 13) both R. utricularia utricularia and R. u. sphenocephala.

8. For the reasons set out above and those previously published in the Bulletin, we
now withdraw our previous proposals (BZN 33: 201) and instead ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:

(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as
published in the trinomen Rana halecina sphenocephala, is to be given precedence
over the name uwtricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana
utricularius, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 285

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

(a) sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina
sphenocephala, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over
the name wtricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana
utricularius, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms;

(b) utricularius Harlan, 1826, as published in the binomen Rana utricularius,
with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name
sphenocephala Cope, 1886, as published in the trinomen Rana halecina
sphenocephala, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.

References
(See also BZN 33: 195-203; 34: 199-200; 39: 80-90; and references therein).

Alford, R.A. 1986. Habitat use and positional behavior of anuran larvae in a northern Florida
temporary pond. Copeia, 1986(2): 408-423.

Ashton, R.E. & Ashton, P.S. 1988. Handbook of Reptiles and Amphibians of Florida, part 3 (The
Amphibians). 191 pp. Windward Publishing, Miami.

Collins, J.T. 1990. Standard common and current scientific names for North American amphibians
and reptiles, Ed. 3. Herpetological Circular no. 19, Society for the Study of Amphibians and
Reptiles. iv, 41 pp. Oxford, Ohio.

Cope, E.D. 1886. Synonymic list of the North American species of Bufo and Rana, with de-
scriptions of some new species of Batrachia, from specimens in the National Museum.
Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 23: 514-526.

Cope, E.D. 1889. The Batrachia of North America. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum, 34:
1-525.

Duellman, W.E. & Trueb, T. 1986. Biology of Amphibians. 670 pp. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Frost, D.R. 1985. Amphibian Species of the World. 732 pp. Allen Press and the Association of
Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.

Hallowell, E. 1856. [No title]. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 8:
141-143.

Harlan, R. 1826. Descriptions of several new species of batracian reptiles, with observations on
the larvae of frogs. American Journal of Science and Arts, (1)10: 53-64.

Mushinsky, H.R. 1985. Fire and the Florida sandhill herpetofaunal community: with special
attention to responses of Cnemidophorus sexlineatus. Herpetologia, 41: 333-342.

Pace, A.E. 1974. Systematic and biological studies of the leopard frogs (Rana pipiens complex) of
the United States. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan,
no. 148. 140 pp.

Wilbur, H.M. & Semlitsch, R.D. 1990. Ecological consequences of tail injury in Rana tadpoles.
Copeia, 1990(1): 18-24.

[A comment on this application appears in BZN 47: 298-299].

286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Comment on the proposed placement of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) on the Official List of Family-Group Names
(Case 2699; see BZN 47: 104-109)

Alfred F. Newton, Jr. & Margaret K. Thayer
Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605,
U.S.A.

One of the proposals in this application (BZN 47: 107, para. 13 (4)) is to place the
family-group name HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (type genus Hydrobia Hartmann,
1821) on the Official List of Family-Group Names. However, this name is a junior
homonym of HYDROBIIDAE Mulsant, 1844 (type genus Hydrobius Leach, 1815), a name
in current use for a subfamily or tribe of HYDROPHILIDAE (Insecta: Coleoptera).

The name in Coleoptera was first proposed in French form as a ‘branche’
HYDROBIAIRES (Mulsant, 1844, p. 116), which was further divided into two ‘rameaux’,
including HYDROBIATES (Mulsant, 1844, p. 117). Thename was used againin French form
as the tribe HYDROBIIDES by Lacordaire (1854, p. 454). It was apparently first latinized as
HYDROBII by Fairmaire & Laboulbéne (1855, p. 227). Since then, the name has come into
general use for a large group of HYDROPHILIDAE, treated as either a tribe HYDROBIINI of
the subfamily HYDROPHILINAE or a separate subfamily HYDROBIINAE; in both cases,
subgroups are often recognized that include a subtribe HYDROBIINA or tribe HYDROBIINI,
respectively. The family-group name has generally (but not universally) been attributed
to Mulsant (1844), hence is available from that date (Article 1 1f(iii) of the Code).

Some representative monographs or general works showing usage of HYDROBIINAE,
HYDROBIINI and/or HYDROBIINA as valid groups include LeConte (1861), Horn (1873),
Bedel (1881), Kuwert (1890), Ganglbauer (1904), Reitter (1909), Knisch (1924),
Orchymont (1942), Blackwelder (1944), Brues et al. (1954), Crowson (1955), Arnett
(1963, 1985) and Hansen (1987). At the highest recently-used rank, HYDROBIINAE in-
cludes about 30 genera and over 700 described species, or about a third of the family
HYDROPHILIDAE (Hansen, 1987). At this level, several alternative (but junior) family-
group names based on included genera are available. At the lowest rank, however, the
nominotypical subgroup (tribe or subtribe) has no available alternative family-group
names (Hansen, 1990).

The Code (Article 55b) requires that cases of homonymy in family-group names
resulting from type genera with similar (but not identical) names must be referred to the
Commission for a ruling to either: (a) observe priority and replace the junior homonym
(in this case, the gastropod HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857), or (b) amend the stem of one
of the generic names involved to remove the homonymy. Since we are not familiar
with available junior synonyms or other potential solutions concerning the use of
HYDROBIIDAE in Mollusca we refrain from making any specific proposal here, and refer
this problem to malacologists for further action.

Until a specific proposal dealing with this homonymy is submitted to the Commis-
sion and a ruling made, we feel that HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 should not be placed
on the Official List as proposed on BZN 47: 107.

The status of HYDROBIIDAE Troschel is not directly relevant to resolving the main
problems addressed in Case 2699. The present comment illustrates a difficulty that may
arise in applications designed to address other problems.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 287

Additional References

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1963. The beetles of the United States. A manual for identification. x1, 1112 pp.
Catholic University Press, Washington.

Arnett, R.H., Jr. 1985. American insects. A handbook of the insects of America north of Mexico.
xiv, 850 pp. Flora and Fauna Publications, Gainesville.

Bedel, L. 1881. Faune des Coléopteres du bassin de la Seine. Annales de la Société Entomologique
de France, Volume hors série: 359 pp., 1 pl.

Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the Coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the
West Indies, and South America. Part I. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, No.
185, xu, 188 pp.

Brues, C.T., Melander, A.L. & Carpenter, F.M. 1954. Classification of insects. Bulletin of the
Museum of Comparative Zoology, no. 108. v, 917 pp.

Crowson, R.A. 1955. The natural classification of the families of Coleoptera. 187 pp. Nathaniel
Lloyd, London.

Fairmaire, L. & Laboulbéne, J.J.A. 1855. Faune entomologique frangaise ou description des
insectes qui se trouvent en France: Coléopteéres, Vol. 1, Part 2 (pp. 181-370). Deyrolle, Paris.

Ganglbauer, L. 1904. Die Kafer von Mitteleuropa. Die Kafer der Osterreichisch-ungarischen
Monarchie, Deutschlands, der Schweiz, sowie des franzdsischen und italienischen Alpenge-
bietes. Vol. 4, Part 1. Dermestidae,... Georyssidae, Drvopidae, Heteroceridae, Hydrophilidae.
286 pp. Karl Gerolds Sohn, Vienna.

Hansen, M. 1987. The Hydrophiloidea (Coleoptera) of Fennoscandia and Denmark. Fauna
Entomologica Scandinavica, 18: 1-254.

Hansen, M. 1990. Revision of the genera of Hydrophiloidea, with a revised suprageneric Classifi-
cation. 400 pp., 247 figs. Ph.D. thesis, Zoological Museum, Copenhagen.

Horn, G.H. 1873. Revision of the genera and species of the tribe Hydrobiini. Proceedings of the
American Philosophical Society, 13: 118-137.

Knisch, A. 1924. Hydrophilidae. In Schenkling, S. (Ed.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, Pars 79. 306
pp. W. Junk, Berlin.

Kuwert, A. 1890 (1889). Bestimmungs-Tabelle der Hydrophiliden Europas, Westasiens und
Nordafrikas. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines in Briinn, 28: 3-121.

Lacordaire, J.T. 1854. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres. Vol. 2. 548 pp.
Roret, Paris.

Leach, W.E. 1815. Entomology. Pp. 57-172 in Brewster, D. (Ed.), Edinburgh Encyclopedia, vol.
9(1). Edinburgh.

LeConte, J.L. 1861. Classification of the Coleoptera of North America. Part 1. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 3. xxv, 208 pp.

Mulsant, E. 1844. Histoire naturelle des Coléoptéres de France. Palpicornes. vii, 196 pp. Maison,
Paris.

Orchymont, A. d’. 1942. Contribution a l’étude de la tribu Hydrobiini Bedel spécialement de sa
sous-tribu Hydrobiae (Palpicornia-Hydrophilidae). Mémoires du Musée Royal d Histoire
Naturelle de Belgique, (2) 24: 1-68.

Reitter, E. 1909. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches. Vol. 2. 392 pp. Lutz,
Stuttgart.

288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Comments on the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh,
1869 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 2682; see BZN 46: 161-164)

(1) L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Gray (1853) did not use pustulosa as a new scientific name when establishing Fryeria
(cf. BZN 46: 162, para. 4), but just referred it to Riippell. There is therefore no new
species Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853; Article 49 of the Code applies in this case, and
Bergh’s (1869) proposal of the new name rippelii for Phyllidia pustulosa sensu Rippell
non Cuvier is entirely in order. The Commission cannot suppress the non-existing
name Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853, but it can designate F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869 as type
species of Fryeria.

(2) Robert Burn
3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria, Australia 3220

While agreeing wholeheartedly with the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray,
1853, the following comment is necessary regarding the name of the type species.
Brunckhorst et al. are correct in stating that the type species is, by deliberate use of
misidentification (Article 11i), Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. They are incorrect how-
ever to claim that this name is an unused senior synonym of Fryeria riippelii Bergh,
1869, a taxon of somewhat dubious nomenclatural validity and unstable subsequent
spelling. Usages of F. pustulosa Gray, 1853 include:

1. Martens’ (1870, p. 56) summary of Bergh’s monograph: ‘Fryeria rippellii =
Phyllidia pustulosa of Ruppell, but not of Cuvier = Fr. pustulosa (Gray), Red Sea’.
Martens indicated the authors of valid names by bracket enclosure.

2. Risbec (1929, pp. 45-49, figs. 1-9) identified and figured a specimen from
Madagascar as ‘Fryeria pustulosa Gray. Synonymes: Phyllidia pustulosa Ruppell.
Fryeria Ruppellii Bergh’. It is also worth noting that Vayssiere (1912, p. 87) described
two specimens from the Gulf of Aden which he identified as ‘Fryeria pustulosa,
Ruppell, 1828. Syn.: Fryeria ruppelli Bergh’, a nearly but not quite correct nomencla-
tural solution of the species name. Fischer (1883, p. 530) and Tryon (1883, p. 392) both
listed the species as ‘Fryeria pustulosa, Ruppell’ without further synonymy.

3. Risbec (1953, pp. 13-15, fig. 1) identified and figured a specimen from New
Caledonia as ‘Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853. (Syn.: Fryeria ruppelli Bergh)’.

In view of the nomenclatural confusion attending the species name rippelii Bergh,
1869, my opinion is that (1) priority should apply, and (ii) use of pustulosa Gray,
1853 in the binomen Fryeria pustulosa will not cause any instability in opisthobranch
gastropod literature, despite there being another species in the PHYLLIDIDAE with
the same specific name, i.e. Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier, 1804. It is therefore advo-
cated that the application be amended to have Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853 con-
firmed as the type species, by monotypy, of Fryeria Gray, 1853, to have both Fryeria
Gray, 1853 and F. pustulosa Gray, 1853 placed on the respective Official Lists, and
to have riippelii Bergh, 1869 and any subsequent incorrect spellings placed on the
Official Index.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 289

Additional references

Fischer, P. 1883. Manuel de Conchyliologie et de Paléontologie, fasc. 6: 513-608.

Martens, E. von. 1870. Mollusca. Record of Zoological Literature, 6: 505—593.

Risbec, J. 1929. Note zoologiques et anatomiques sur quelques opisthobranches de Madagascar.
Faune des Colonies Francaises, 3: 45-62.

Risbec, J. 1953. Mollusques nudibranches de la Nouvelle-Calédonie. Faune de l'Union Francaise,
15: 1-189.

Tryon, G.W. 1883. Structural and Systematic Conchology: an introduction to the study of the
Mollusca, vol. 2. 430 pp., 69 pls.

Vayssiere, A. 1912. Recherches zoologiques et anatomiques sur les Opisthobranches de la Mer
Rouge et du Golfe d’Aden, Part 2. Annales de la Faculté des Sciences de Marseille, 20
(Suppl.): 5-157, pls. 1-11.

(3) D.J. Brunckhorst
Zoology Department, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4067, Australia

W.B. Rudman
Australian Museum, Sydney South, N.S.W. 2000, Australia

In response to the above comments of Holthuis and Burn we would like to summar-
ise our case briefly. In this summary all spellings of Bergh’s name have been corrected to
‘rueppeli’ to avoid confusion (see para. 9 of our application).

Our case involves two distinct species of PHYLLIDIDAE. One species was named
Phyllidia pustulosa by Cuvier (1804). The second species was misidentified as Phyllidia
pustulosa Cuvier by Riippell & Leuckart (1830 or 1831). Gray (1853) considered this
second species to belong to a distinct genus, which he named Fryeria. He mentioned
P. pustulosa Cuvier and was doubtful of the synonymy of this and the ‘P. pustulosa
Ruppell’ on which he based Fryeria. Clearly under Article 11i (Deliberate use of a
misidentification) and the appended Example the name of this second species is Fryeria
pustulosa Gray, 1853, available because it is the type of a new nominal genus.

Bergh (1869) considered that having two related, though not congeneric, species with
the same specific name would lead to continuing confusion. He proposed the new name
Fryeria rueppelii to obviate the confusion. Although this name is unnecessary under the
Code it has been used by most subsequent nudibranch taxonomists. Our submission
asked the Commission to use its plenary powers to legalise this usage, since the recent
proposal by Yonow (1986) of the generic name Reyfria clearly shows that confusion
still surrounds the use of pustulosa for the two related species.

Risbec (1953) was correct in using Fryeria pustulosa Gray for Riippell & Leuckart’s
species but it is noteworthy that he later changed his usage to Fryeria rueppelii Bergh
when (Risbec, 1956) reporting both that species and Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier from
Vietnam.

The Commission Secretariat has a list of 43 works which have dealt with Ruppell &
Leuckart’s taxonomic species. Very few have used Fryeria pustulosa while the great
majority have employed Bergh’s replacement name Fryeria rueppelii (in various spell-
ings), because it removes the confusion of using pustulosa for the two species. Burn,
who now wishes to resurrect the name Fryeria pustulosa, has himself used the name
Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, rather than the correct Fryeria pustulosa Gray, when reporting
that species and Phyllidia pustulosa Cuvier from Australia (Burn, 1975).

290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Burn gives two reasons for being opposed to our submission. First, he states there is
‘nomenclatural confusion attending the species name rueppelli’. In our opinion there is
no confusion in the use of the name Fryeria rueppelii Bergh, other than in spelling.
Secondly, he states that use of ‘pustulosa Gray will not cause instability’. As most
authors have deliberately avoided this usage to prevent confusion, Burn’s prediction is
not well-founded. Paragraph 8 of our original submission (BZN 46: 162) shows that
confusion has been caused by the misapplication of the names P. pustulosa Cuvier and
F. pustulosa Gray.

Despite the above comments by Holthuis and Burn we still feel that our interpret-
ation of the Code and of the situation is correct. Our aim is to have Fryeria rueppelii
Bergh, 1869 (new name for Phyllidia pustulosa sensu Riippell & Leuckart non Cuvier,
i.e. Fryeria pustulosa Gray, 1853) designated as the type species of Fryeria. We would be
happy for the Commission to reach this decision by any appropriate procedure.

Additional references

Burn, R. 1975. A list of dorid nudibranchs of Australia (Gastropoda, Opisthobranchia).
In Thompson, T.E. Dorid nudibranchs from eastern Australia (Gastropoda,
Opisthobranchia). Journal of Zoology, London, 176: 477-517.

Risbec, J. 1956. Nudibranches du Vietnam. Archives du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
Paris, 7(4): 1-34.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879
(Crustacea, Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870
(Case 2721; see BZN 47: 27-29, 212-213)

(1) Rodney M. Feldmann
Department of Geology, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio 44242, U.S.A.

Palaega Woodward, 1870 was established as a genus of isopods nine years prior to
the establishment of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879. The name Palaega has been
used repetitively throughout the period from 1870 to the present and for this reason
must be considered a valid name. The group is well known in paleontological literature
and, for that reason alone, there is no substantive basis for sustaining the proposed
exercise of the plenary powers of the Commission to have Bathynomus considered the
name of precedence.

Description of Palaega goedertorum Wieder & Feldmann, 1989 has established the
synonymy of Palaega and Bathynomus with much greater certainty than had been
possible previously, based upon preservation of the entire dorsal carapace. The
morphological similarity of specimens referred to Palaega goedertorum, P. carteri
Woodward (type species of the genus) and Bathynomus giganteus A. Milne Edwards
(type species of Bathynomus) permits clear demonstration of the generic synonymy.
Although Martin & Kuck (BZN 47: 27-29) point out that many isopod genera cannot
be identified unequivocally by examination of the dorsal carapace their argument is not
valid in this case. In point of fact, Palaega (= Bathynomus) can be clearly distinguished
from other isopod genera by the anatomy of the dorsal surface.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 291

Martin & Kuck (their para. 2) correctly observe that some fossil forms have been
wrongly assigned to Palaega. This was previously noted by Wieder & Feldmann (1989),
who suggested removal of certain species from the genus. Nevertheless, improper
assignment to a properly proposed and defined genus does not, and cannot, warrant
even conditional suppression of its name.

Martin & Kuck (para. 3) suggest that the synonymy of Palaega and Bathynomus is
‘unlikely to be followed by other workers’. Although some workers may exercise the
subjective judgement that Paleaga and Bathynomus are not synonymous, those that
do accept the synonymy have no recourse but to adopt the senior name. Wieder &
Feldmann (1989) did not accept the priority of Palaega on any basis other than clear
demonstration of subjective synonymy and application of the rules of priority. To do
otherwise would clearly not be in the best interest of stability of nomenclature.

The suggestion by Martin & Kuck (their para. 4) that giving Bathynomus precedence
over Palaega would serve the interests of stability and would avoid confusion is false.
Palaegais as well known in paleontological literature as Bathynomus is in neontological
literature. No criteria are defined in the Code for the conditional suppression of a senior
subjective synonym other than the maintenance of a stable and universally acceptable
nomenclature (Article 79). The only argument that would seem to apply in this case
would be that names proposed for living organisms should be given precedence over
those originally based on fossils. I argue that that concept must be rejected.

Therefore, no substantive basis for exercise of the plenary powers to reject Palaega
Woodward, 1870 in favor of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 has been
established, and I suggest that the proposals on BZN 47: 28 be denied.

Editorial Note. The comments below are from members of the Nomenclature
Committee of The Crustacean Society (Secretary: R.B. Manning, National Museum of
Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.)

(2) Gary C.B. Poore
Division of Natural History, Museum of Victoria, 71 Victoria Crescent, Abbotsford,
Victoria 3076, Australia

Keiji Baba
Kumamoto University Faculty of Education, Kurokami 2-40-1, Kumamoto, 860 Japan

Martin & Kuck have presented a well argued case for precedence of Bathynomus over
Palaega. Doubt about the states of many characters of fossils will always remain no
matter how well preserved they are and it follows that the synonymy of fossil taxa with
modern forms can only be questionable. Authors who suggest otherwise express only a
subjective opinion which is unlikely to receive support from the majority. We certainly
do not support such a view and one of us (G.C.B.P.), in a work in progress with N.L.
Bruce, will not accept the precedence of Palaega. This attitude is supported when one
looks at the most recent diagnosis of Bathynomus (Bruce, 1986). Most of the characters
diagnosing the genus are not discernible in many fossils.

The proposal before the Commission should be unnecessary but we support it
nevertheless.

292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

(3) J.Y. Liu
Chinese Crustacean Society, Institute of Oceanology, Academia Sinica, 7 Nan-Hai
Road, Quingdao, People’s Republic of China

Considering that (1) Bathynomus is a well known and clearly defined genus, whereas
Palaega is a vague taxon based on incomplete fossils, and (ii) Bathynomus is a widely
recognized name in deep-sea biology and is often included in popular accounts of
Crustacea and of deep-sea life, and is the only name that has been used for these isopods
since 1879, I agree with Martin & Kuck’s proposal to give precedence to Bathynomus
over Palaega.

(4) L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

Comparing the description of the type species of Palaega, P. carteri, with
Bathynomus giganteus it seems most unlikely that the two belong to the same genus. In
the course of time many other fossil species have been added to Palaega; these species,
usually known only from fragments, probably belong to various genera but some may
indeed be Bathynomus. However, unless and until it is proved that Palaega carteriis a
Bathynomus, the latter generic name has nothing to fear.

Giving the name Bathynomus precedence over Palaega would do no harm and may
set aside fears that eventually, if the two are synonymized, Bathynomus will disappear.
Therefore, I am willing to support the application.

(5) Thomas E. Bowman
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

I do not see the need for the Commission to act on this application. Wieder &
Feldmann’s Palaega goedertorum seems to be a Bathynomus because of the large size
and coarsely toothed posterior margin of the pleotelson, but that does not make
Palaega carteri, the type species of Palaega, also a Bathynomus. The pleotelson of
P. carteri resembles those of species of Aega Leach, 1815 (especially A. dentata and
A. gracilipes) rather than those of Bathynomus spp., and if Palaega and Bathynomus
are kept separate for the time being there should be no cause for confusion nor need
for the Commission to act. Wieder & Feldmann did not give persuasive arguments
for combining these genera, and might better have simply placed their new species in
Bathynomus.

(6) Austin B. Williams
National Marine Fisheries Service, Systematic Laboratory, National Museum of
Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

I disagree with Martin & Kuck (BZN 47: 27, para. 2) that ‘Palaega is of doubtful
validity’. Palaega may be a ‘form’ genus, but it has a type species, P. carteri.
Nevertheless, I agree with the applicants’ stand that Bathynomus and Palaega are
distinct entities. The question is, does the Commission need to use plenary powers to
give precedence to Bathynomus over Palaega?

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 293

This seems an ordinary case of synonymy. The Wieder & Feldmann material
(P. goedertorum) can well be considered as a species of Bathynomus closely related to
the extant B. giganteus. Palaega carteri and its allies can continue to be regarded
as members of a ‘form genus’, admittedly somewhat nebulous because of their
incompleteness.

Comments on the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia
Reed, 1943 (Trilobita)
(Case 2762; see BZN 47: 114-116, 216)

(1) Brian A. Engel
The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, N.S.W. 2308, Australia

I wish to record my strong endorsement for the conservation of the names Griffithides
Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943. Both trilobite names are entrenched in the
relevant literature and, as outlined by Professor Hahn, adoption of a long neglected
type designation for Griffithides would cause extensive and unacceptable confusion.

(2) Carsten Brauckmann
Wuppertal Fuhlrott-Museum, Auer Schulstrasse 20, 5600 Wuppertal 2, Fed. Rep.
Germany

I completely agree with this application and trust that Griffithides and Bollandia will
be conserved in their accustomed sense.

(3) S.F. Morris
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Acceptance of Asaphus globiceps as the type species of Griffithides would be disas-
trous. I have doubts as to whether Oldham made a valid type designation (see BZN 47:
114, para. 2), but if he did then I support Hahn’s application to conserve Griffithides
longiceps as the type species.

Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma
Dyar, 1907 and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 2702; see BZN 46: 247-249; 47: 215-216)

(1) William K. Reisen
Arbovirus Field Station, University of California, Bakersfield, California 93312, U.S.A.

The resurrection of Culex stigmatosoma and the rejection of C. peus as the scientific
name for the ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ has been accepted by most culicidologists,

294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

who can readily understand that both names refer to the same species. However,
transferring C. peus to replace C. thriambus would create endless problems for years
to come, since the biology and arbovirus affinities of these two species differ markedly.
In doing literature searches, one could never be sure which species the author was
addressing, since name changes are often adopted only slowly.

I urge the Commission to approve this application as rapidly as possible.
As a mosquito ecologist, I need to know which name to use in my research papers,
and as an Editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology I need direction in dealing with
submitted manuscripts. Any delay will only enhance the chances of confusion in the
literature.

(2) Richard Garcia
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1050 San Pablo Avenue, Albany, California 94706,
U.S.A.

I strongly support this application to suppress the name Culex peus Speiser, 1904 in
order to avoid massive confusion in the literature.

(3) Lewis T. Nielsen
American Mosquito Control Association Inc., 707 East Prien Lake Road, Lake Charles,
Louisiana 70606-5416, U.S.A.

As Editor of The American Mosquito Control Association’s journal Mosquito
Systematics, the only journal exclusively devoted to mosquito taxonomy and related
disciplines, I am fully in support of the proposal that the names of the American species
Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907 and Culex thriambus Dyar, 1921 be stabilized and that
the name Culex peus Speiser, 1904 be suppressed.

The unfortunate misidentification of the type specimen of C. peus and the failure to
recognize that it was conspecific with C. thriambus and not C. stigmatosoma has
resulted in much confusion. There was a great reluctance among mosquito systematists
to accept Stone’s 1958 act of synonymizing C. stigmatosoma under C. peus (see BZN 46:
248, para. 7(2)), especially since C. stigmatosoma had been accepted as a valid species
for 51 years (1907-1958) and is the subject of a considerable body of literature.

Culex thriambus in turn has been accepted as a species of the southwestern United
States, Mexico and Central America for 67 years (1921-1988). Correspondence with
subscribers and authors of articles in Mosquito Systematics and other mosquito
taxonomists indicates unanimous support of the recommendations of Eldridge
& Harbach.

(4) Bruce A. Harrison
12215 Parkton Court, Ft. Washington, Maryland 20744, U.S.A.

As a mosquito taxonomist I firmly believe in the use of names based on priority.
However, on rare occasions priority impedes progress and should be overruled. This is
certainly true in regard to this case. If C. peus is not suppressed, the literature regarding

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 295

C. peus, C. stigmatosoma and C. thriambus will be confused for many years. Accord-
ingly, I strongly urge the Commission to approve the proposals of Eldridge
& Harbach.

(5) R.A. Ward
Department of Entomology, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Washington, D.C.
20307-5100, U.S.A.

The ‘banded foul-water mosquito’ is of great economic and potential medical signifi-
cance in the far western U.S.A., i.e. the states of California, Oregon and Washington,
where it can be a serious biting pest of humans and a potential vector for arboviral
diseases. With increasing urbanization, it is assuming greater importance.

The American Mosquito Control Association is now using the name Culex
stigmatosoma Dyar for the species as a matter of editorial policy in their Journal. Three
papers have been printed since 1989 using the name C. stigmatosoma. Readers of the
Journal, who are primarily concerned with research and control of mosquitoes, have
readily accepted the name change. If a decision was made to reject this case there would
be considerable confusion amongst applied entomologists.

Comments on the stability of fish family names
(See BZN 47: 97-100, 138)

(1) Maurice Kottelat
Zoologische Staatssammlung, Miinchhausenstrasse 21, D-S000 Miinchen 60, Fed. Rep.
Germany

I endorse Wheeler’s view that changes to spelling of family-group names for purely
grammatical reasons have unfortunate and far-ranging implications for stability. I also
support his call for a specialist committee on fish nomenclature.

Perhaps for euphonic reasons (as is obvious to those whose mother tongue is a
Romance language) authors of the last century preferred family names to end in -IDAE
rather than -IDIDAE.

(2) John E. Randall
Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.

Iam in full agreement with Wheeler. The ‘corrections’ by Steyskal (1980) on grounds
of grammar have done a real disservice to ichthyology. As Wheeler has pointed out,
some ichthyologists have followed these and others have not. I am with the latter
group. In a book on 1100 species of fish of the Great Barrier Reef and the Coral Sea I
am not using the emended names. I recommend that these all be rejected, rather than
the Commission deal with them one by one, and that the names so long in consistent use
be maintained.

296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

(3) Storrs L. Olson
Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

In attempting to counter arguments (Steyskal, 1980) for using family-group names
that are grammatically correct, Wheeler joins the ranks of those who perceive the threat
of ‘confusion’ lurking behind every letter in a scientific name. Wheeler also maintains
that the changes Steyskal proposed will render many names ‘almost unpronouncable’.
Yet most of the cases he discusses involve no more than the insertion of the syllable ‘id’,
so that the resulting name would still be easily recognized by any intelligent person
familiar with the previous spelling in the first place. Perhaps the ‘fishery workers,
environmental archaeologists, and ecologists’, whose interests Wheeler seeks to
protect, should be concerned by his implied condescension that even those of their
number perceptive enough to notice such minor changes would not have the mental
capability to avoid being confused by them. As far as pronunciation is concerned,
although it can be argued that ‘idid’ is exactly twice as difficult to pronounce as ‘id’,
such iteration should not present an insurmountable obstacle to anyone not already in
need of a speech therapist.

Those who create nomenclature and are responsible for its proper use ought to have
some knowledge of the basic Latin and Greek roots of scientific words and care about
their preservation. With such knowledge one understands that grammatical precision
actually prevents confusion, whereas grammatical lapses may create it. An excellent
case in point is one of the instances mentioned by Wheeler, the incorrect name
“CERATODIDAE’ versus the correct CERATODONTIDAE. The grammatically correct form is
immediately recognizable as being derived from the Greek roots cerato- (horn) and
-odous (tooth) whereas the incorrect form might be taken to be derived from the
Latin cera (wax) and todus (a small bird). Distinguishing between these two possible
etymologies, one of which is completely nonsensical, is not, in my opinion, a matter of
‘grammatical nicety’.

Furthermore, there are among fishes, especially fossils, a host of genera ending in
-odus that are the basis of family-group names that have been correctly formed with the
ending -ODONTIDAE, e.g. Synodus, Pimelodus, Hemiodus, Helodus, Pristodus, Copodus,
Cochliodus, Ptychodus, Onychodus, Psammodus, Chirodus, Pycnodus, etc. If Wheeler
were heeded there would then be two sets of names based on the same root, one that is
correctly formed and another (e.g. ‘CERATODIDAE’) that is not. The god Stability is
unlikely to find a reliable servant in the demon Inconsistency. The advantages of clarity
of meaning and consistency of usage that are conferred by precise grammar far out-
weigh the unsubstantiated fear that legions of fisheries biologists will be overcome by
confusion as a result of adherence to grammatical standards.

Comments on the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861
(Osteichthyes, Scorpaeniformes)
(Case 2440; see BZN 45: 130-131, 292; 46: 45—46; 47:97—100, 138)

(1) H.D. Cameron
Department of Classical Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109,
U.S.A.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 297

The argument by Steyskal (1980) that the name LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 is grammati-
cally incorrect and should be replaced by LIPARIDIDAE is not well founded. It assumes
that the stem of the generic name Liparis Scopoli, 1777 would be Liparid-, but that is
incorrect.

The word ‘Liparis’ first appears in the Greek geographical writer of the 3rd century
B.C. Antigonus of Carystus, who states [my translation] ‘Polycritus has written that the
river Liparis in Soli was not falsely named, but that it so oils you that you have no need
of further unguent’. Evidently it was considered that the name of the river was derived
from /iparos, ‘shiny, oily, greasy’ (cf. BZN 45: 130, para. 4). Antigonus used the word in
the accusative case ‘Liparim’, which shows that the word was a Greek i-stem noun and
not a consonant-stem one.

A fish name Liparis was an invention of the Renaissance editors of Pliny the Elder,
who derived it from the river name. It was from a list of fishes in Pliny that Rondelet
(1554) took the name. He explains as follows [my translation]:

‘Tam unwilling, dear reader, to conceal from you so rare a fish, and so very worthy of

notice. When I tried to preserve it, it dissolved into oil completely. This occurrence

prompted me to name it a /iparis [in the accusative /iparim], which Pliny mentions, as
if from J/iparos, that is, oily’.

Antigonus of Carystus and Rondelet conclusively show that the stem of Liparis is
Lipar- and not Liparid-. Unfortunately the Latin dictionary of Lewis & Short (1879)
gave the genitive of Pliny’s name as ‘Liparidis’. There was no evidence whatsoever for
this: it was nothing more than a lexicographer’s guess, and an incorrect one. It is
regrettable that it has misled people.

LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 is grammatically correct.

(2) P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

According to Professor Cameron’s comment above, the original spelling of the fish
family name LIPARIDAE is correct. This is the form which has been in general use and
which ichthyologists wish to retain. If this view is accepted there is no formal need for
Commission action concerning it, but since there has been controversy over the spelling
of the name it could be argued that the placing of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 on the Official
List of Family-Group Names would be in the interest of stabilizing ichthyological
nomenclature.

As noted in Dr Vogt’s original application (BZN 45: 130-131), and in comments
which have been received from Drs B.A. Korotyaev and E.P. Nartshuk (Zoological
Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R., Leningrad) and Dr H. Silfverberg
(Zoological Museum, Helsinki, Finland), at least three homonymous family-group
names occur in the entomological literature. These are: (i) in Lepidoptera, LIPARINI
Boisduval, 1834 (p. 134; also spelled LIPARIDINI), ‘invalid’ (cf. Article 39 of the Code)
because the name of the type genus Liparis Ochsenheimer, 1810 is a junior homonym;
(ii) in Coleoptera, LIPARIDAE Pierce, 1919 (p. 23; also an unavailable ‘liparides’
mentioned by Latreille, 1829), based on Liparus Olivier, 1807 and occasionally used at
tribe rank; (iii) in Diptera, LIPARINI Nartshuk, 1987 (p. 224), based on Lipara Meigen,
1830. The first two of these raise complications of a purely nomenclatural kind. The
name LIPARINI Boisduval, 1843 is not in use, but it might be held that it disqualifies

298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 by reason of homonymy within the family-group. It would seem
undesirable that.a family-group name which was little used and which can never be
used again should be regarded as threatening a generally accepted but junior homonym
[for a comment on homonymous family names when one is based on a suppressed
generic name see BZN 47: 167]. In Coleoptera, there is a junior objective synonym
(unnecessary replacement name) of Liparus, i.e. Molytes Schoenherr, 1823, on which
was based ‘MOLyTiIDEs’ Schoenherr, 1823 (col. 1143). Although Molytes itself has not
been used, MOLYTINAE Schoenherr, 1823 has had limited recent use at subfamily or tribe
rank (Kuschel, 1987; Zherichin, 1987); this was because Liparus is classified within the
well-known HYLOBIINAE W. Kirby, 1837, the name of which is junior to MOLYTINAE.
There is no doubt a case for conserving HYLOBIINAE.

Drs Korotyaev and Nartshuk (see above) have suggested that the dipteran family-
group name LIPARINI Nartshuk, 1987 could be emended to LIPARAINI if this were
necessary to avoid homonymy.

Dr Vogt’s application (BZN 45: 130-131) was concerned solely to protect the spell-
ing of the fish family name LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861. According to Professor Cameron this
original form is the correct spelling: since it is in wide use and since no confusion is likely
between it and the insect family-group names there is little reason to alter its spelling.
Because there has been controversy over the spelling during the past decade it is
appropriate to ask the Commission to place LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 on the Official List of
Generic Names, as Dr Vogt has done. There is clearly a need to consider the (junior)
family-group names based on Liparus and Lipara (and the availability of LIPARINI
Boisduval), but I suggest that this can be done in due course without adding delay to Dr
Vogt’s case.

Additional references

Boisduval, J.B.A. 1834. Icones historiques des Lépidopteres..., vol. 2. 192 pp., 37 pls. Roret, Paris.

Kuschel, G. 1987. The subfamily Molytinae (Coleoptera, Curculionidae): general notes and
description of new taxa from New Zealand and Chile. New Zealand Entomologist, 9: 11-29.

Pierce, W.D. 1919. Contributions to our knowledge of the weevils of the superfamily
Curculionoidea. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, 21: 21-36.

Schoenherr, C.J. 1823. Tabula synoptica familiae Curculionidum. Vorbericht uber die
Monographie derselben. /sis (von Oken), Jena, 1823: col. 1132-1146.

Zherichin, V.V. 1987. Curculionidae from Nepal Himalayas. Part 1. Molytinae (Insecta:
Coleoptera). Stuttgarter Beitrage zur Naturkunde, (A), 1987: 411-454.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia,
Anura) over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826
(Case 2141; see BZN 47: 283-285)

David M. Hillis
Department of Zoology, The University of Texas, Austin, Texas 78712-1064, U.S.A.

I wholeheartedly support the suggested course of action, and I hope this matter can
be resolved quickly. The name Rana sphenocephala should be given precedence over

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 299

Rana utricularius in the interest of stability; sphenocephala has been used consistently
for the last century whereas utricularius was totally obscure. I agree that not suppress-
ing utricularius 1s a good idea, in case future work shows support for the division within
sphenocephala suggested by Pace. However, no such division is currently recognized. It
is important to preserve the name Rana sphenocephala for the southern leopard frog,
one of the most common frogs of the southeastern United States. I hope action by the
Commission will be rapid so as to prevent further confusion.

300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

OPINION 1622

Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis;
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved

Ruling

(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name ovalis Steindachner, 1900, as pub-
lished in the binomen Heliastes ovalis, is hereby ruled not to be invalid by reason of
having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym of Chromis ovalis
Steindachner, 1866.

(2) The name ovalis Steindachner, 1900, as published in the binomen Heliastes ovalis
(not invalid despite having been rejected before 1961 as a junior secondary homonym),
is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

History of Case 2681

An application for the conservation of the specific name of Chromis ovalis
(Steindachner, 1900) was received from Drs W.I. Follett (California Academy of
Sciences, San Francisco, U.S.A.) & John E. Randall (Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum,
Honolulu, U.S.A.) on 29 August 1988. After correspondence the case was published in
BZN 46: 35—37 (March 1989). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No
comments were received.

The serial volume in which Steindachner’s paper was published, which included the
name Heliastes ovalis (p. 502), is dated 1901. However, the paper appeared earlier, in
1900, as a separate entity (“Besonders Abgedruckt’); it was there paginated both as a
separate item and as for inclusion in the serial. H. ovalis appears on p.‘20 [502].

The inclusion of pp. ‘316-318’ in the Steindachner (1901) reference cited on p. 37 of
the application should be omitted.

Decision of the Commission

On 1 March 1990 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the
proposals publishedin BZN 46: 36. At the close of the voting period on | June 1990 the
votes were as follows:

Negative votes — none.

Schuster was on leave of absence.

Original reference
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given
in the present Opinion:
ovalis, Heliastes, F. Steindachner, 1900, Denkschriften der Mathematisch-naturwissenschaft-
lichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Wien, 70 (for 1901), p. 502 (p. 20
in the separate issued in 1900).

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Abbott, R.T. .. ;

Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A.

Axtell, R.C.

Baba, K.
Backeljau, T.
Becker, R.T.
Belk, D. .

Beu, A.G. .
Blackith, R.E.
Bogan, A.E.
Borowiec, L.
Bouchet, P.
Bour,R. .
Bowen, S.T.
Bowman, T.E.
Brauckmann, C.
Bridges, C.A.
Brown, L.E. 3
Brunckhorst, D.J.
Brusca, R.C.
Burn, R. . ;
Burridge, M.E. .

Cameron, H.D. .
Chambers, S.
Chiappe, L.M.
Clarke, A.H. i
Cocks, L.R.M. .
Cooper, R.A. .
Crosskey, R.W. .
Currant, A.P.

Danzig, E.M.
Davis, G.M.
Dubois, A.

Emberton, K.C.
Engel, B.A.
Etnier, D.A.

Feldmann, R.M.
Ferraris, C.
Forest, J.

Fricke, R. . 3
Froeschner, R.C.
Frost, D. .
Fuller, S.L.H.
Funk, R.S.

Garcia, R. .
Garutt, W.E.

AUTHORS IN VOLUME 47 (1990)

Page
: | 202
wi 213
pe We

sl
240

12, 139,

125,2

124
178

Gentry, Alan

Gentry, Anthea .
Giannuzzi-Savelh, R. .
Gibson, G.

Gordon, M.E.
Goyjet, D..

Gould, S.J.

Hahn,G. .
Halliday, R.B.
Harrison, B.A. .
Harvey, M-S.
Heppell, D.
Hieronimus, H. .
Hillis, D.M.
Hodgson, C.
Hoeksema, B.W.
Holthuis, L.B.
Huber, J.

Hugot, J.P.

Jansson, A.

Kadolsky, D.
Kahlke, H.D.
Kershaw, R.C. .
Kormilev, N.A. .
Kottelat, M.
Kuck, H.G.
Kudrna, O.

LaSalle, J. .
Lazara, K.J.
Levi, H.W.
Lister, A.M.
ae IeYin:
Lotto, G. De

Mackie, A.
Martin, J.W.
Merrett, N.
Miller, J.Y.
Miller, L.D.
Mordan, P.B.
Morris, S.F.

Newton, A.F.
Ng, P.K.L.
Nielsen, L.T.

Olson, S.L.
Oniki, Y.

38, 203,

46, 129, 288.

301

292
134
139

302

Perrin, W.F.
Petersen, M.E.
Pierre, J.
Pleijel, F.
Poore, G.C.B.

Randall, J.E.
Raven, R.J.
Reisen, W.K. .
Reissinger, E.J. .
Rognes, K.
Rosen, D. . :
Rosenberg, G. .
Rudman, W.B. .

Scott, R.W.
Sher, A.V. .
Siebert, D.J.
Smith, B.J.
Smith, H.M.
Smith, M.L. ;
Soria, M.F. ;
Steinhauser, S.R.

- Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Strickman, D.

Stubblefield, Sir J.

Thayer,M.K. .
Thompson, F.C.
Thier Sv :
Tremewan, W.G.
Tubbs, P.K.

Viggiani, G.

Wagener, S.
Ward, R.A.
Warren, M.L.
Webb, R.G.
Wheeler, A.
White, G.B.
White, I.M.

Whittington, HB.

Williams, A.B.
Williams, J.D.
Willis, E.O. i
Woodward, F.R.

. 216
., 240

. 286

1325

45, 128, 131, 214,

211, 214,

139
139
131
297

135

215
133

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 303

NAMES AND WORKS PLACED ON OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES IN
RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION PUBLISHED IN VOLUME 47 (1990)

Names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes in Volume 47 are listed below under
three headings: Family-Group Names, Generic Names and Specific Names. Entries on
the Official Lists are in bold type and those on the Official Indexes 1n non-bold type and
italicised. Titles are given of one work placed on the Official List and one work placed
on the Official Index of Works. The Opinion number is given for each entry.

Family-Group Names

ALEUROPTERYGINAE Enderlein, 1905 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595
BODOTRIIDAE Scott, 1901 (Cumacea) Op. 1592
CENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
COENOBITIDAE Dana, 1851 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
EPICRIDAE Fitzinger, 1843 (Amphibia) Op. 1604
ICHTHYOPHIIDAE Taylor, 1968 (Amphibia) Op. 1604
LEUCONIDAE Sars, 1878 (Cumacea) Op. 1594

LUCICUTHDAE Sars, 1902 (Copepoda) Op. 1613
SACCOPHARYNGIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603
SPHAEROMATIDAE Latreille, 1825 (Isopoda) Op. 1574
STYLEPHORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603
TRAPEZIDAE Lamy, 1920 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615

TRAPEZIIDAE Miers, 1886 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1615

Generic Names

Aleuropteryx Low, 1885 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595
Amblodon Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582
Ameiurus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584
Berosus Leach, 1817 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577

Bodotria Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1592

Calcarina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569
Carcinion Jarocki, 1825 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
Cenobita Milne Edwards (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
Cenobites Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
Coenobita Latreille, 1829 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
Coryphium Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597

Cuma Humphrey, 1797 (Cumacea) Op. 1592

Cuma Milne Edwards, 1828 (Cumacea) Op. 1592
Dendritina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570
Drepanites Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609
Drepanites Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609
Epicrium Wagler, 1828 (Amphibia) Op. 1604

Eponides de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1572
Eremita Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
Europosphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Isopoda) Op. 1574
Fizesereneia Takeda & Tamura, 1980 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1591
Florilus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568
Gaussia Wolfenden, 1905 (Copepoda) Op. 1590

Halia Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593

Hanzawaia Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568
Harpognathus Wesmael, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597
Harpognatus Wesmael, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597
Hydrobius Leach, 1815 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577
Hydrolycus Miller & Troschel, 1844 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1581

304 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

Hyphoplites Spath, 1922 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609
Ichthyophis Fitzinger, 1826 (Amphibia) Op. 1604
Ictiobus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582
Ictiorus Rafinesque, 1820 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582
Iphinoe Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593

Iphinoe H. & A. Adams, 1845 (Gastropoda) Op. 1593
Iphinoe Rafinesque, 1815 (Araneae) Op. 1593

Isochaeta Giesbrecht, 1889 (Copepoda) Op. 1613
Lekanesphaera Verhoeff, 1943 (Isopoda) Op. 1574
Leucon Kroyer, 1846 (Cumacea) Op. 1594

Leucon Schoenherr, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1594
Linthuris de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571
Lucicutia Giesbrecht in Giesbrecht & Schmeil, 1898 (Copepoda) Op. 1613
Marssonopora Lang, 1914 (Bryozoa) Op. 1608

Nonion de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1567
Nonionina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568
Ophonus Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598

Orbitolina d’Orbigny, 1850 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587
Osteoglossum Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621
Palorbitolina Schroeder, 1963 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587
Pelorus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570
Planularia Defrance, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571
Planularia Nilsson, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571
Protocalliphora Hough, 1899 (Diptera) Op. 1618
Protophormia Townsend, 1908 (Diptera) Op. 1618
Ptochus Schoenherr, 1826 (Coleoptera) Op. 1616
Pylodictis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584
Rhogalia Hubner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617
Rosema Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617
Saccopharynx Mitchill, 1824 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603
Scorpaenichthys Girard, 1854 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1583
Semblis Fabricius, 1775 (Trichoptera) Op. 1596
Semeioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606

Semioptera Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606

Sialis Latreille, 1802 (Megaloptera) Op. 1596

Sphaeroma Bosc, 1802 (Isopoda) Op. 1574

Stylephorus Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603

Tachys Dejean, 1821 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598

Thorius Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605

Tinoporus de Montfort, 1808 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569
Trapecia Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614
Trapezia Latreille, 1828 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614
Trapezium Megerle von Miuhlfeld, 1811 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615
Uroctea Dufour, 1820 (Cumacea) Op. 1593

Valanginites Sayn in Kilian, 1910 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610
Venilia Bate, 1856 (Cumacea) Op. 1593

Zelica Hubner, [1825] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617

Specific Names

albescens, Astacus, Pennant, 1812 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576
albosignatus, Heliophanus, Koch, 1867 (Araneae) Op. 1611
ampullaceus, Ophiognathus, Harwood, 1827 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603
angusticolle, Coryphium, Stephens, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597
arbuscula, Dendritina, d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1570
arenosa, Bodotria, Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1592

auris, Peneroplis, Defrance, 1824 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1571

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 305

azurea, Musca, Fallen, 1817 (Diptera) Op. 1618

beadlei, Hapalorhynchus, Goodman, 1987 (Trematoda) Op. 1588
bicinctaflava, Tenthredo, Christ, 1791 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1602
bicirrhosum, ‘Ischnosoma’, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621
borneensis, Tarentola, Gray, 1845 (Reptilia) Op. 1585

brantsii, Euryotis, Smith, 1834 (Mammalia) Op. 1586

breviremis, Phyllodoce, de Quatrefages, 1865 (Polychaeta) Op. 1589
bubalus, Catostomus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1582

carthami, Papilio, Hubner, [1813] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599

chordatus, Stylephorus, Shaw, 1791 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1603

clypeatus, Pagurus, Fabricius, 1787 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575
concava, Orbulites, Lamarck, 1816 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587
conglobator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1766 (Isopoda) Op. 1574

conyzae, Euribia, Hering, 1933 (Diptera) Op. 1619

cymodoce, Cancer, Herbst, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1614
densispina, Membranipora, Levinsen, 1925 (Bryozoa) Op. 1608
domesticus, Mus musculus, Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 (Mammalia) Op. 1607
domesticus, Mus, Rutty, 1772 (Mammalia) Op. 1607

dorsalis, Rosema, Walker, 1855 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617

dubius, Cordylodus, Rhodes, 1953 (Conodonta) Op. 1580

dutemplei, Pentetagonaster, d’Orbigny, 1850 (Asteroidea) Op. 1579
edwardsii, Palaemon, Heller, 1863 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576
epigena, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617

exiguus, Graptolites lobiferus B, Nicholson, 1868 (Graptolithina) Op. 1620
exiguus, Monograptus, Lapworth, 1876 (Graptolithina) Op. 1620

faba, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1567

falcatus, Ammonites, Mantell, 1822 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609

flavicornis, Leuckartia, Claus, 1863 (Copepoda) Op. 1613

fuscipes, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577

gigas, Ascalobotes, Bocage, 1875 (Reptilia) Op. 1585

globator, Oniscus, Pallas, 1772 (Isopoda) Op. 1574

glutinosa, Caecilia, Linnaeus, 1758 (Amphibia) Op. 1604

guttatus, Attus, Thorell, 1875 (Araneae) Op. 1612

heimi, Troglocarcinus, Fize & Serene, 1956 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1591
hookeri, Sphaeroma, Leach, 1814 (Isopoda) Op. 1574

hyatti, Arpadites (Drepanites), Mojsisovics, 1893 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609
illibatus, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1612

inequalipes, Attus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1612

jaceana, Euribia, Hering, 1935 (Diptera) Op. 1619

javanica, Eremita, Osbeck, 1765 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1575

kochii, Heliophanus, Simon, 1868 (Araneae) Op. 1611

lenticularis, Madreporites, Blumenbach, 1805 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1587
limax, Madrepora, Esper, 1797 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573

limax, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573

loewii, Aleuropteryx, Klapalak, 1894 (Neuroptera) Op. 1595

longiremis, Pseudaugaptilus, Sars, 1907 (Copepoda) Op. 1613

longirostris, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576
longirostris, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1837 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576
longisetosus, Isochaeta, Thompson, 1903 (Copepoda) Op. 1613

luridus, Dytiscus, Linnaeus, 1761 (Coleoptera) Op. 1577

lutarius, Hemerobius, Linnaeus, 1758 (Megaloptera) Op. 1596

magnificus, Pycinaster, Spencer, 1913 (Asteroidea) Op. 1579

maior, Papilio malvae, Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599

major, Syrichthus serratulae, Staudinger, 1879 (Lepidoptera) Op. 1599
marmoratus, Hemitripteras, Ayres, 1854 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1583

306 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

melanotica, Gaussia, Wolfenden, 1905 (Copepoda) Op. 1590
monodi, Sphaeroma, Arcangeli, 1934 (Isopoda) Op. 1574

nasica, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841 (Cumacea) Op. 1594

natalis, Pimelodus, Lesueur, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584
nipponica, Hanzawaia, Asano, 1944 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1568
nucleus, Ammonites, Phillips, 1829 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610
nucleus, Ammonites, Roemer, 1841 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1610
oblonga, Chama, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) Op. 1615

olivaris, Silurus, Rafinesque, 1818 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1584

orbata, Tachina, Wiedemann, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1600

ovalis, Heliastes, Steindachner, 1900 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1622
penicillatus, Attus, Simon, 1875 (Araneae) Op. 1612

pennatribus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605

pennatulus, Thorius, Cope, 1869 (Amphibia) Op. 1605
phalaenoides, Phryganea, Linnaeus, 1758 (Trichoptera) Op. 1596
porcellus, Ptochus, Boheman in Schoenherr, 1834 (Coleoptera) Op. 1616
princeps, Pleuromma, Scott, 1894 (Copepoda) Op. 1590
quinquemaculata, Uroctea, Dufour, 1820 (Cumacea) Op. 1593
repandus, Nautilus, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1572
robynsii, Harpognatus, Wesmael, 1833 (Coleoptera) Op. 1597
rubiginosa, Phyllodoce (Carobia), Saint-Joseph, 1888 (Polychaeta) Op. 1589
ruspatrix, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1767 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1578
sabulicola, Carabus, Panzer, 1796 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598
scomberoides, Hydrocyon, Cuvier, 1819 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1581
scotti, Metridia, Giesbrecht, 1897 (Copepoda) Op. 1590

scutellaris, Tachys, Stephens, 1828 (Coleoptera) Op. 1598

serratus, Astacus, Pennant, 1777 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576
serratus, Oniscus, Fabricius, 1787 (Isopoda) Op. 1574

spengleri, Nautilus, Gmelin, 1791 (Foraminiferida) Op. 1569
spinosum, Astacoderma, Harley, 1861 (Conodonta) Op. 1580
striatus, Drepanites, Benett, 1831 (Ammonoidea) Op. 1609
styliferus, Palaemon, Milne Edwards, 1840 (Crustacea, Decapoda) Op. 1576
talpa, Madrepora, Houttuyn, 1772 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573

talpina, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573

terraenovae, Phormia, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera) Op. 1618
triangulum, Vespa, Fabricius, 1775 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1578
trilinguis, Madrepora, Boddaert, 1768 (Anthozoa) Op. 1573
trispinosa, Cuma, Goodsir, 1843 (Cumacea) Op. 1593

vandellii, Osteoglossum, Cuvier, 1829 (Osteichthyes) Op. 1621

vigil, Arctomys, Thunberg, 1811 (Mammalia) Op. 1586

wallacei, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606
wallacii, Paradisaea (Semeioptera), Gray, 1859 (Aves) Op. 1606
zelica, Phalaena, Stoll, [1790] (Lepidoptera) Op. 1617

zonula, Tenthredo, Klug, 1817 (Hymenoptera) Op. 1602

Work placed on the Official List of Available Works
Benett, E. 1831. A catalogue of the organic remains of the County of Wilts. Op. 1609

Work placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works
Académie Royale des Sciences de I’ Institut de France. 1826. Rapport sur les Myodaires du
Docteur Robineau Desvoidy (H.M.D. de Blainville, Rapporteur) Op. 1601

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

KEY NAMES IN APPLICATIONS AND COMMENTS
(for names in Rulings of the Commission see pages 303-306)

Acanthophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1824 (Osteichthyes)
Acantophthalmus van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (Osteichthyes)
acutum, Cyclostoma, Draparnaud, 1805 CO aan :

alatus, Unio, Say, 1817 (Bivalvia). .

alfacariensis, Colias, Ribbe, 1905 (Lepidoptera) .

algecirensis, Culicoides, Strobl, 1900 (Diptera) ‘
alutaceus, Carcinochelis, Handlirsch, 1897 (Heteroptera) i
anatinus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia) :
Anguilla Schrank, 1798 (Osteichthyes) .

angustus, Ixodes, Neumann, 1899 (Acari)

Aphonopelma Pocock, 1901 (Araneae)

Archidiskodon Pohlig, 1888 (Proboscidea) .

attenuatus, Steno, Gray, 1846 (Cetacea) .

aurismalchi, Helix, Miller, 1774 (Gastropoda)

auritus, Labrus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes)

australis, Colias, Verity, 1911 (Lepidoptera)

Balitora Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes) ;

BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839 (Osteichthyes) . .
barbata, Helix (Helicigona), Ferussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) .
Bathynomus Milne Edwards, 1879 (Isopoda) . rik:
BITHYNIIDAE Gray, 1857 (Gastropoda) .

Bollandia Reed, 1943 (Trilobita) . .

Borelis de Montfort, 1808 (Eorantaiterida)

bovinus, Bulimus, Bruguiére, 1792 (Gastropoda) .
brevimanus, Delphinus, Wagner, 1846 (Cetacea)

brucei, Balitora, Gray, 1830 (Osteichthyes)

Carcinochelis Fieber, 1861 (Heteroptera)

Carinarion Hesse, 1926 (Gastropoda)

carnivora, Musca, Fabricius, 1794 (Diptera)

carteri, Palaega, Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda) .
cloropus, Curculio, Linnaeus, 1758 (Coleoptera) .
Coccobius Ratzeburg, 1852 (Hymenoptera)

coffeae, Lecanium, Walker, 1852 (Homoptera)
coleoptrata, Sigara, Fabricius, 1777 (Heteroptera)
complanata, Anodonta, Rossmassler, 1835 (Bivalvia)
cubensis, Lysianax, Stebbing, 1897 (Amphipoda)
cuvieri, Helixarion, Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda)
cygneus, Mytilus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Bivalvia)

Cymatia Flor, 1860 (Heteroptera).

CYMATIAINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Heteroptera)
CYMATIINAE Iredale, 1913 (1854) (Gastropoda)
CYMATIINAE Walton in Hutchinson, 1940 (Heteroptera)
Cymatium [Roding], 1798 (Gastropoda)

Dalla Mabille, 1904 (Lepidoptera) :
dentatus, Chelanops, Banks, 1895 (Pseudoscorpionida) . :
dracunculus, Callionymus, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) .

elongata, Voluta, Lightfoot, 1786 (Gastropoda) .
eryonas, Cyclopides, Hewitson, 1877 (Lepidoptera) .

307

‘DDN: 290
. . 104
114, 216, 293

308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

erythrocephala, Musca, Meigen, 1826 (Diptera)
euleri, Coccyzus, Cabanis, 1873 (Aves) .

Eumesia Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera)
EUMESIDAE Felder & Felder, [1867] (Lepidoptera)

femorale, Murex, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) .
fertilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda)
fibratus, Limax, Martyn, 1784 (Gastropoda) .
Fonscolombia Lichtenstein, 1877(Homoptera) . .
franciscana, Artemia, Kellogg, 1906 (Branchiopoda)
freycineti, Helixarion, Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) .
Fryeria Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) .

giganteus, Bathynomus, Milne Edwards, 1879 meal
globiceps, Asaphus, Phillips, 1836 (Trilobita) .

gracilis, Artemia, Verrill, 1869 (Branchiopoda) :
graminis, Fonscolombia, Lichtenstein, 1877 (Homoptera) .
graminis, Tychea, Koch, 1857 (Homoptera)

Griffithides Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) . . .

guildingi, Artemis, Thompson, 1834 (Branchiopoda)

Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Gastropoda) .

HAMINAEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda)

Haminea Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda)

HAMINEIDAE Pilsbry, 1895 (Gastropoda) ‘
Haminoea [Turton] in Turton & Kingston in Carrington, 1830 (Gastropoda)
hebraea, Nerita, Martyn, 1786 (Gastropoda) . sie 4 Sea fie
helena, Muraena, Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes) .

Helicarion Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) .

HELICARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda)

Helixarion Férussac, 1821 (Gastropoda) :

HELIXARIONIDAE Bourguignat, 1883 (Gastropoda)

heraclei, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) .

heraclii, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758 (Diptera) .

HETEROPTERINAE Aurivillius, 1925 (Lepidoptera). .

Homaloptera van Hasselt in Temminck, 1823 (Osteichthyes) .
HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes) :

hortensis, Arion, Férussac, 1819 (Gastropoda)

hydatis, Bulla, Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda) .

Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Gastropoda)

HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda) .

hystrix, Lepidomenia, WRIST es LEONEAN ESS) in Fischer, 1885 (Solenogastres)

imbricata, Aphrodita, Linnaeus, 1767 (Polychaeta)
julieni, Coccyzus, Lawrence, [1864] (Aves) .

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Gastropoda). .
kuhlii, Cobitis, Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1846 (Osteichthyes)

Larnaudia Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda). .

lens, Helix (Helicigona), Férussac, 1832 (Gastropoda) .
Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Solenogastres) .
lepidota, Aphrodita, Pallas, 1766 (Polychaeta) . Be
Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes)

Lindholmiola Hesse, 1931 (Gastropoda)

eM
114, 216,

114, 216,

"104,

101

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes) .

LIPARIDAE Pierce, 1919 (Coleoptera) .

LIPARINI Boisduval, 1834 (Lepidoptera) .

LIPARINI Nartshuk, 1987 (Diptera).

Liparis Scopoli, 1777 (Osteichthyes) .

Lobactis Verrill, 1864(Anthozoa) .

longiceps, Griffithides, Portlock, 1843 (Trilobita) .
longissimus, Phorusrhacos, Ameghino, 1887 (Aves) .
luctator, Longitarsus aeruginosus, Weise, 1893 (Coleoptera)

Mammuthus Brookes, 1828 (Proboscidea) . i
marmoratus, Rivulus, Poey, 1880 (Osteichthyes) .
melo, Borelis, Fichtel & Moll, 1798 (Foraminiferida)
meridionalis, Elephas, Nesti, 1825 (Proboscidea) .
MESODONTIDAE Tryon, 1866 (Gastropoda) . . .
minuta, Aphrodita, Fabricius, 1780 (Polychaeta) .
Mirochernes Beier, 1930 (Pseudoscorpionida) .
Muraena Linnaeus, 1758 (Osteichthyes)

Myriochele Malmgren, 1867 (Polychaeta) .

ocellata, Homaloptera, van der Hoeven, 1833 (Osteichthyes) .

ocellatus, Rivulus, Hensel, 1868 (Osteichthyes)

Palaega Woodward, 1870 (Isopoda). . .
pallipes, Chelifer, White, 1849 (Pseudoscorpionida) .
paumotensis, Fungia, Stutchbury, 1833 (Anthozoa) .
peus, Culex, Speiser, 1904 (Diptera) . oe,
PHORORHACIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves)
Phororhacos Ameghino, 1889 (Aves)
PHORORHACOSIDAE Ameghino, 1889 (Aves)
PHORUSRHACIDAE Brodkorb, 1963 (Aves)
Phorusrhacos Ameghino, 1887 (Aves)

Physcus Howard, 1895 (Hymenoptera) .

pitcheri, Texigryphaea, Morton, 1834 (Bivalvia) .
Placostylus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) . .
planumbona, Leptaena, Hall, 1847 (Brachiopoda)
Pleuractis Verrill, 1864 (Anthozoa) :
POLYGYRIDAE Pilsbry, 1894 (Gastropoda) .
Potamilus Rafinesque, 1818 (Bivalvia) . . .
primigenius, Elephas, Blumenbach, 1799 (Proboscidea) .
Proptera Rafinesque, 1819 (Bivalvia) — . f
pseudodelphis, Delphinus, Schlegel, 1841 (Cetacea)
puncticollis, Culicoides, Becker, 1903 (Diptera)
pusillus, Callionymus, Delaroche, 1809 (Osteichthyes)
pustulosa, Fryeria, Gray, 1853 (Gastropoda) .
pustulosa, Phyllidia, Cuvier, 1804 (Gastropoda) .

Ranguna Bott, 1966 (Crustacea, Decapoda)

Rhechostica Simon, 1892 (Araneae) . .

Rissoa ‘Fréminville’ Risso, 1813 (Gastropoda)

Rissoa Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda)

RISSOIDAE Gray, 1847 (Gastropoda) .

robustulus, Holostaspis subbadius, Berlese, 1904 (Acarina) .
robustulus, Macrocheles, Berlese, 1904 (Acarina) . :
rostrata, Testudo, Thunberg, 1787 (Reptilia, Testudines)
rubustulus, Holostaspis subbadius, Berlese, 1904 (Acarina) .

114,

216, 293

310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990

rueppelii, Fryeria, Bergh, 1869 (Gastropoda) . .
rugosa, Strophomena, de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda)

Saissetia Déplanche, 1859 (Homoptera)

scutaria, Fungia, Lamarck, 1801 (Anthozoa) .
Shoemakerella Pirlot, 1936 (Amphipoda) 2

sinensis, Trionyx, Wiegmann, 1834 (Reptilia, Testudines) .
sphenocephala, Rana halecina, Cope, 1886 eee porn
Stenella Gray, 1866 (Cetacea) . . ;

stigmatosoma, Culex, Dyar, 1907 (Diptera)

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda)

subcylindrica, Helix, Linnaeus, 1767 (Gastropoda) .
symphiti, Longitarsus, Heikertinger, 1912 (Coleoptera) .

taierensis, Chelifer, With, 1907 (Pseudoscorpionida)
Thalassochernes Beier, 1940 (Pseudoscorpionida)
thriambus, Culex, Dyar, 1921 (Diptera) .
Truncatella Risso, 1826 (Gastropoda)
TRUNCATELLIDAE Gray, 1840 (Gastropoda)

Tychea Koch, 1857 (Homoptera) .

utahensis, Artemia, Lockington, 1876 (Branchiopoda) .
utricularius, Rana, Harlan, 1826 (Amphibia, Anura)

velox, Delphinus, Cuvier, 1829 (Cetacea)

ventricosa, Rissoa, Desmarest, 1814 (Gastropoda) ‘
vicina, Calliphora, Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Diptera)
viridicollis, Curculio, Fabricius, 1792 (Coleoptera)

woodi, Ixodes, Bishopp, 1911 (Acari)

176

178

"283, 298

32
104
187
213

211

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47(4) December 1990 341

CORRIGENDA
Vol. 47, part 2
page 144, line 15 For ‘Phyllodoce (Carobia) breviremis de

Quatrefages, 1865’ read‘ Phyllodoce (Carobia)
rubiginosa Saint-Joseph, 1888’

PUBLICATION DATES AND PAGINATION OF THE PRESENT

VOLUME
Part No. Pages in Part Date of publication
l 1-84 27 March 1990
2) 85-172 29 June 1990
3 173-240 28 September 1990
4 241-311 -20 December 1990
INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER

The present volume should be bound up as follows:
Title page, Table of Contents (I-V]), 1-311
Note: the covers of the four parts should be bound with the volume

ee ihe . bd Arwen

aoe Moe Si i
a AG

HeepON = ae
hihabache vine
ave 440 wx

"al,

2
ae)

ee j ee ‘ x < sl

ine 1D uh 1¥ oe

iv re

se ey

Contents—continued

Indexes, etc.

Authors in volume 47 (1990) . . .. 301
Names and Works placed on Official Lists and Indexes i in ‘rulings of the Commission

published i in volume 47(1990). . . .. Sages Sons 303
Key names in Applications and Comments published i in 1 volume 47 (1990) eat Rech 307
Corrigenda. . . Seg hee, Ai chy Ae ae 311
Publication dates and pagination of volume 47 (1990) . Be eet EO tee, Back Ge 311
Instructionsto binder . . ohh eee ae NG ee eee tS Se! SPs 311
Table of Contents of volume 47 (1990) . ah et re Ee ee re Leet, Sober abs rata 2 I

INSTRUCTIONS TO AUTHORS

Title. This should be written in lower case letters and include the names to be conserved. A
specific name should be cited in the original binomen, with the current name in parentheses.

Author’s name. Full postal address should be given.
Abstract. This will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.

References. These should be given for all authors cited. The title of periodicals should be in full
and be underlined; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a
colon from page numbers. Book titles should be underlined and foliowed by the number of
pages, the publisher and the place of publication.

Submission of application. Two copies should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time that it takes to process
the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with
copy in ASCII text on IBM PC format 5.25 inch 360KB (preferable) or 1.2MB, or 3.5 inch 1.4MB
floppy disk. Disks will be returned after copying. It would also be helpful if applications were
accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references.

CONTENTS

Notices .

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature- Crustacea and Mollusca Offprints .

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . A

Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology- Supplement :

Financial Report for 1989 . . .

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—General ‘Session of ‘the
Commission, University of Maryland, 4 July 1990

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature—Open Meeting of ‘the
Commission, University of Maryland, 5 July 1990

Applications

Lepidomenia Kowalevsky in Brock, 1883 (Mollusca, Solenogastres): proposed desig-
nation of Lepidomenia hystrix Marion & evan in Fischer, 1885 as the type
species.D.Heppell . .

Helicarion Feérussac, 1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation, and
proposed designation of Helixarion cuvieri Férussac, 1821 as the type species. B. J.
Smith & R.C. Kershaw . .

Haminaea Leach, [1820] (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed “conservation. 'R.
Giannuzzi-Savelli & Anthea Gentry .

Kobeltia Seibert, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed confirmation ‘of Arion
hortensis Férussac, 1819 as the type species. T. Backeljau . Z

Strophomena de Blainville, 1825 (Brachiopoda): proposed designation of ‘Leptaena
planumbona Hall, 1847 as the type species. L. R. M. Cocks.

HOMALOPTERIDAE Bleeker, 1859 (Osteichthyes, Cypriniformes): proposed precedence
Over BALITORIDAE Swainson, 1839. H. Hieronimus .

Lepomis Rafinesque, 1819 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): proposed fixation of masculine
gender for the name. D. A. Etnier & M.L. Warren .

Rana sphenocephala Cope, 1886 (Amphibia, Anura): proposed precedence o over r Rana
utricularius Harlan, 1826. L. E. Brown, H. M. Smith & R.S. Funk . é

Comments

On the proposed placement of HYDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) on
the Official List of Family-Group Names. A. F. Newton& M.K.Thayer. . .

On the proposed conservation of Fryeria Gray, 1853 and F. rueppelii Bergh, 1869
(Mollusca, Gastropoda). L. B. Holthuis; R. Burn; D. J. Brunckhorst & W. B.
Rudman. . .

On the proposed precedence of Bathynomus A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (Crustacea,
Isopoda) over Palaega Woodward, 1870. R. M. Feldmann; G. C. B. Poore & K.
Baba; J. Y. Liu; L. B. Holthuis;T. E. Bowman; A.B. Williams . .

On the proposed conservation of Griffithides Portlock, 1843 and Bollandia Reed, 1943
(Trilobita). B. A. Engel; C. Brauckmann; S. F. Morris . :

On the proposed conservation of the specific names of Culex stigmatosoma Dyar, 1907
and C. thriambus Dyar, 1921 (Insecta, Diptera). W. K. Reisen; R. Garcia; L. T.
Nielsen; B. A. Harrison;R.A.Ward. . . es

On the stability of fish family names. M. Kottelat; J: E. ‘Randall: -S. 1. Olson. :

On the proposed confirmation of the spelling of LIPARIDAE Gill, 1861 (Osteichthyes,
Scorpaeniformes). H.D.Cameron;P.K.Tubbs . .

On the proposed precedence of Rana sphenocephala Cope 1886 6 (Amphibia, Anura)
over R. utricularius Harlan, 1826. D. M. Hillis. ‘

Ruling of the Commission
Opinion 1622. Heliastes ovalis Steindachner, 1900 (currently Chromis ovalis;
Osteichthyes, Perciformes): specific name conserved .

Continued on Inside Back Cover

Printed in Great Britain by Henry Ling Ltd., at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, Dorset

254

258
263
270
274
277
280
283

286

288

290
293
293
295
296

298

300

|
|

Grnoneah :

Lees

if
A
Rat

| Riley Dunn &
aN ISERVATORS & BOOKBINDER:
INSERVATORS & BOOKBIN

ae
Se nent,

Liege SSP

ee
See ee : -
Sas : ee
Ee eee ene

Report
Bene See
See

ae eae te

pi Oe eee EER : ee cee st = aes
ere ee BS eee =
a ae eee

fetes ee =

Sora

: aa = Set ean en os EEE RE ares

Racor

= te
Sees
Senn
aes
a oe
z r crate
z repeat

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Bulletin of zoological nomenclature"

See other formats