pkey eras en eae Wass Baath arate et tt fi nO ae : sia Pe ba i meee TO Aas Ha The Bulletin FAG ical ee ce ne. UA The Official Periodical of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Volume 60, 2003 Published on behalf of the Commission by The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature clo The Natural History Museum Cromwell Road London, SW7 5BD, U.K. ISSN 0007-5167 © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature ee a echoes hoe : ae a : s ainiialiinad aria wo} seu | Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Notices . : The International Connmission ¢ on Prolene Nomensatngs amd 45 anbiflectiions Addresses of members of the Commission International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ’ The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ; General Article Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. J. Thorne . Applications Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): REP conservation. F. Debrenne, A.Yu Zhuravlev & P.D. Kruse oy Bee Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 (quan Phakellia rattle “Rotiand: proposed conservation of the specific name and designation of a Boe B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan. : Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Tigao eater Moline, Bivalvia): pro- posed precedence of the specific name over Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791. J.R. Cordeiro 6 (heh SATE GAMMA Re SO Rea abe ARIA le le eer RHOPALURUSINAE Bucher 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): proposed conservation as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida). V. Fet, M.E. Petersen & G.S. Slyusarev . . Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): PROPOR precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August). M.S. Harvey . Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. VI. Guemor Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. C.L. Bellamy & M.G. Volkovitsh Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons. A. Shinohara, M. Viitasaari & V. Vikberg . ea Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and jLncorna: pollbnaee Moines 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the names by designation of a neotype for Lacerta Be aia Molina, 1782. R. Etheridge & J.M. Savage . Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (coment Bapion itn nanus; Mennuaeilin, Crinenica): proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Happold : Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Chanter: proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Gaubert et al. . Comments On the neotypification of Protists, ree Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). J.O. Corliss; W. Song . On the proposed conservation Bi the generic names Por ites itinte 1807, Galanen Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and siiberee Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia). M.J. Grygier On the proposed conservation of the sieeie | name oi Aenitina Janii pe Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda). R.A. Bank, G. Falkner & E. Gittenberger; F. Giusti & G. Manganelli . oe $10: 34 48 49 51 II Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 On the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and Tridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. R. Westcott On the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera). J.M. Cumming & J.R. Vockeroth. =e On the proposed conservation of the sascihe name of INeworors als Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera). E.J. van Nieukerken; Z. LaStuvka . 3 On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gimeuonst 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. R.E. Espinoza . oar Cees Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2016 (Case 2888). Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): not conserved 3s. (fi once pe cages! 02) a MU Al ee ee are, aa a OPINION 2017 (Case 2983). Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 and ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved OPINION 2018 (Case 3192). BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (vicliucen Gastropoda: spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE, so removing the homonymy with BULIMINIDAE Jones, 1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera); and ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (Gastropoda): given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880. Souih OPINION 2019 (Case 2899). Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): conser- vation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum not approved OPINION 2020 (Case 3078). Die lis Say, Asie @rvetcens eaten: ‘Cuina rath Kroyer, 1841 designated as type species : OPINION 2021 (Case 3048). NYMPHULINAE Deponchen 1845 (insect, Tepidopeey, not given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. . OPINION 2022 (Case 3197). Glassia Davidson, 1881 SS ao Gaee G lixageie: Davidson, 1881 designated as the type species . OPINION 2023 (Case 3195). Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptotithinay P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 designated as the type species . : pasha OPINION 2024 (Case 3140). Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia, Sauria): rediscovered syntypes replaced by a neotype . : Pepaman 2 OPINION 2025 (Case 3191). Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922 (ment Scutosaurus karpinskii, Reptilia, Pareiasauria): specific name conserved . BS OPINION 2026 (Case 3044). Generic and specific names of birds (Aves) con- ventionally accepted as published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the Zoological Society of London and monographic works by John Gould and other contemporary zoologists: suppression of prior usages not approved OPINION 2027 (Case 3010). Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved . we : OPINION 2028 (Case 3073). Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 anal Vy pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): neotypes designated . ime So, ee ee OPINION 2029 (Case 3020). Megalotragus van Eoenent 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalotragus kattwinkeli): specific name conserved . p OPINION 2030 (Case Gey eae agus Sundevall, 1845 (@Mecmncitia, Artiodactyla conserved . CRAP T RD, AVERY SUP ALOT ABKS ) AN Aad Sone ee Information and Instructions for Authors 33) 53 54 58 59 61 79 $1 85 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 Notices . ae New pplicanions to ‘the Commiesion : The International Commission of Zoological Nemenelatire The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Commission’s website Publications . Funding appeal. Applications CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): proposed emendment of spelling to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE Ss 1815 (Mollusca, Pteropoda). Philippe Bouchet & Klaus Ritzler . a Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. iRussell it. Minton & Arthur E. Bogan . Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and Keonobans ponceran(a ilteas 1862 umn, Elimia curvicostata and E. paupercula; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conser- vation by designation of a neotype for M. curvicostata. Fred G. Thompson & Elizabeth L. Mihalcik . AE er See hk wlll ccve epee Mee ag pbtee TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage by the designation of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of melons Michael S. Engel, Kumar Krishna & Christopher Boyko : SF cathy oti tit AME ee Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothri iurus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name. Luis E. Acosta & Camilo I. Mattoni Rhagodes Pocock, 1397 (Coneimides Sonfueae): proposed conservation. Mark S. Harvey . Acmaeodera oaxacae Gricnon 1949 And Rolceta Heseriieola Dae. 1974 (nscet Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific names over those of Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis PREDDeheel 1924 cESBECT ively. C. L. Bellamy & R. L. Westcott Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Soronesed! conservation of the specific name. Frank-Thorsten Krell, Darren J. Mann, Robert B. Angus & Jason F. Maté Bh TP ey feet = VET tee Nee ce mC te a ee Lius Deyrolle, 1865 ((tiwecte, Keolcanterays proposed conservation. C. L. Bellamy Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): proposed designation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species, with designation of a neotype. Raoul J. Mutter Lacepéde, B. G. E. de la V., 1788, Risiaite Naturelle 5 Quadrupedes Ovpares proposed rejection as a non-binominal work. Jay M. Savage . z Comments Draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils: ae for comments. Markus Bertling et al. ul -€3 LL On the neotypification of Protists, agaacallly Giliates (@rwiozen, Giiophory! Jean Dragesco; Khaled A. S. AL-Rasheid tl Py On the proposed conservation of Cyphosoma Memngrnetin, 1837 ae aroposed precedence of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Vladimir Sakalian; Roman B. Holynski : On the proposed precedence of Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, @oleopterayio over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828. M. A. Alonso-Zarazaga & C. H. C. Lyal Ill 93 93 94 95 95 95 96 96 97 99 109 118 143 144 IV Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 Nomenclatural note The authorship and dates of Pieter Cramer’s De Uitlandsche Kapellen: a request for comments from lepidopterists. J. E. Chainey yi ReaD Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2031 (Case 2710). CLAvIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, : ae proposal to remove the homonymy not approved OPINION 2032 (Case 3148). CLARIIDAE Kenioves IMenkevich & Siidonay, 1990 (Rotifera): spelling emended to CLARIAIDAE so removing homonymy with CLARIIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) . ; OPINION 2033 (Case 3156). Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860 Cuca, Tepidvahiiene lepida; Mollusca, Polyplacophora): specific name conserved. OPINION 2034 (Case 3087). Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821: conserved by aplecemien: of the lectotype of Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta; Mollusca, Gastropoda) with a neotype; Ventrosia Radoman, 1977: Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 designated as the type species; and HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Coleoptera): spelling emended to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with HyDROBUDAE Troschel, 1857 (Gastropoda). : OPINION 2035 (Case 3146). Valvata minuta Draparnaud, 1805 (Guameniily Helowasfeani Neohoratia or Islamia minuta; Mollusca, OE ke conserved by Seas Ma of the lectotype by a neotype aia 2 OPINION 2036 (Case 3153). HIPPOPODIIDAE Con, 1969 (Mollusca, Bia: -gpalline emended to HIPPOPODIUMIDAE, so removing the SSH ke with HIPPOPODIIDAE KO6lliker, 1853 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) : OPINION 2037 (Cases 3120 and 3120a). LIOCHELIDAE eed & Bechiy? 2001 (1879) (Scorpiones): adopted as a valid substitute name for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879 in order to remove homonymy with ISCHNURINAE Fraser, 1857 (Insecta, Odonata) . OPINION 2038 (Case 3155). MACROTERMITINAE Kemner, 1934 (Insecta, Isoptera): given precedence over ACNTHOTERMITINAE Sj6stedt, 1926 . : OPINION 2039 (Case 3159). Staphylinus maculosus and S. violaceus Grnennonn 1802 (currently Platydracus maculosus and P. violaceus; Insecta, Coleoptera): usage of the specific names conserved . é OPINION 2040 (Case 3190). Chlorops meigenii Teen 1866 (ieesin. Diptera specific name conserved OPINION 2041 (Case 3081). Wincia ‘othr bane hy Dens & Schiffeemillers 1775 (currently Gillmeria or Platyptilia ochrodactyla; Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype for Phalaena tetradactyla Linnaeus, 1758 cp EERE Ea CRE Ve” ee OPINION 2042 (Case 3160). ipmanuiies petropolitana Dybowski, 1877 mad Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879 (Bryozoa): conserved : OPINION 2043 (Case 3113). Betta Bleeker, 1850 (Osteichthyes, peretomnes): sessile names conserved by the suppression of Micracanthus marchei Sauvage, 1879 . OPINION 2044 (Case 3172). Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950 (Amphibia, Anura): specific name conserved Sh OPINION 2045 (Case 3165). Pantesmalios isilop ydekker, 1885 (Reptilia, Archosauria): lectotype replaced by a neotype sh (eae & Information and Instructions for Authors Notices . F : New ANanifeations to ‘the Commission 6 The International Commission on Zoological Nomenelninne The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature . 145 147 149 151 155 157 159 162 164 166 167 169 171 173 174 176 177 177 179 179 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature . The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The Commission’s website Publications . Funding appeal. Applications Hastigerinella Cushman, 1927 and Clavigerinella Bolli, Loeblich & Tappan, 1957 (Rhizopoda, Foraminiferida): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Hastigerina digitata Rhumbler, 1911 as the type species of Hastigerinella. H. Coxall . Titanodamon johnstonii Bocce 1894 (Gummi Darien “polit Avadnmidl, Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Weygoldt Leptusa Kraatz, 1856 and Cyllopisalia Pace, 1982 (Insecta, peices proposed conservation. V. I. Gusarov & L. H. Herman . Curculio picipes Marsham, 1802 (currently Procas picipes; Taso, ‘Csleanien): proposed conservation of the specific name. R. T. Thompson . Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diana Dropored conservation of usage by designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Thereva. K. C. Holston, M. E. Irwin & F. C. Thompson Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Parar. Iesmoltatiny #2) Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of usage of the subgeneric names by designation of Empis sulcata Meigen, 1804 as the type ARSE of Rhamphomyia. M. Bartak & B. J. Sinclair j Macropodus concolor Ahl\, 1937 (Osteichthyes, Rensiitommes) anamosedl conservation of the specific name. I. Schindler & W. Staeck ; Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Trastudines) moped srecedenee oF the specific name over that of Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911. W. P. McCord & P. C. H. Pritchard p Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne- Bdwenee 1869 (Axes. IGalittonmes): proposed conser- vation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. U. B. Gohlich & C. Mourer-Chauvire . aut : Comments On the draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils. P. K. Tubbs. On the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa, Sees M. A. Sleigh; I. Domingos da Silva Neto; J. Sikora. oy AAA On the proposed conservation of usage of Acmaeodera Recheehiolizs 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. V. Sakalian;: E. C. MacRae; S. Bily; A. Sundholm . On the proposed precedence of Ovula a tiana Paws, 1859 0 over Cyr 'ypraea “eon J. de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850. J. A. Todd . : On the proposed conservation of the usage of the names Biyiacrory us Gaawentnons, 1838 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by eoenaen ofa eee for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. H. M. Smith. : On the proposed conservation of the erecific name oF Matnonodies aaa Ab. 1937 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). H.-J. Paepke; A. Zarske . Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2046 (Case 3185). Criconema Hofmanner & Menzel, 1914 (Nematoda): Eubostrichus guernei Certes, 1899 designated as the type species . 24 Hae VI Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 OPINION 2047 (Case 2652). CHORISTIDAE Verrill, 1882 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): spelling emended to CHORISTEIDAE, so removing the homonymy with CHORISTIDAE Esben-Petersen, 1915 (Insecta, Mecoptera) . : upton plykeeae OPINION 2048 (Case 3212). Thalassema taenioides eedte, 1904 (currently [keda taenioides; Echiura): specific name conserved OPINION 2049 (Case 3174). Pardosa C. L. Koch, 1847 and Maweease Sao, 1885 (Arachnida, Araneae): usage conserved by the peuenenee of Lycosa alacris C. L. Koch, 1833 as the type species of Pardosa . OPINION 2050 (Case 3189). Ammotrecha Banks, 1900 atl rroneenale Rocwer 1934 (Arachnida, Solifugae): usage conserved by the designation of Galeodes linbata Lucas, 1835 as the type species of Ammotrecha; and Eremobates Banks, 1900 and Eremorhax Roewer, 1934: usage conserved by the designation of Galeodes pallipes Say, 1823 as the type species of Eremobates . : OPINION 2051 (Case 3179). Halacarus Gosse, 1855, H. ctenopus Gosse, 1855 anal Thalassarachna Packard, 1871 (Arachnida, Acari): usage of the names conserved by the designation of a neotype for H. ctenopus . : OPINION 2052 (Case 3183). Pagurus clypeatus Fabricius, 1787 (cumenily Counobite clypeatus; Crustacea, Decapoda): usage conserved by designation of a neotype . OPINION 2053 (Case 3207). STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): 65 specific names conserved . aye OPINION 2054 (Case 3201). Scarabaeus punctatus avatlers 1789 (Caren Baader bidens punctatus; Insecta, Coleoptera): specific name conserved i OPINION 2055 (Case 3176). Ptinus tectus Boieldieu, 1856 (Insecta, Callens: usage of the specific name conserved OPINION 2056 (Case 3186). Squalus edwar a (quent) Haplolesharas Chia Aly Chondrichthyes, Carcharhiniformes): attributed to Schinz, 1822 and edwardsii conserved as the correct original spelling of the specific name . OPINION 2057 (Case 3028). ere Nardo, 1827 Se ae Coiinodioa- tiformes): conserved . OPINION 2058 (Case 2661). MACROPODINAE ielocdenian 1948 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): spelling emended to MACROPODUSINAE so removing the homonymy with MACROPODINAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia, Marsupialia) . OPINION 2059 (Case 275). Camelus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Nailed) Camelus bactrianus Linnaeus, 1758 designated as the type species 1. ae Book Review . Hooper, J. N. A. and van Soest, R. W. M. 2002. Systema Porifera. A guide to the classification of Sponges. 2 vols. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, Boston, Dordrecht, London, Moscow. ISBN 0-306-47260-0. D. J. Patterson . Information and Instructions for Authors Notices . : New Meplcanonent to the @onmicion The International Commission on Zoological Nomenakime aad its 5 pulbliieaiozs Declaration 44 — Amendment of Article 74.7.3 . Financial Report for 2002 Applications Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida): proposed conserva- tion. I.V. Dovgal . ete Sous Gate ae eae aos age ete ie rete emma Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Malacostraca, Phyllocarida, Archaeostraca): proposed precedence over Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903. D.E.G. Briggs & C. Bartels . ete sag? cine ens Ped ene ae eee 266 269 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 Libellula aenea Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Cordulia aenea) and L. flavomaculata Vander Linden, 1825 (currently Somatochlora flavomaculata; Insecta, Odonata): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by the replacement of the lectotype of L. aenea with a newly designated lectotype. R. Jédicke & J. van Tol NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, Nowerilnar 1882 iincectal @nleanicra): pronoccd Precedence over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882, and Cimberis Gozis, 1881: gj uekoes conservation. C.H.C. Lyal & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation oP usage by designation of Staphylinus ochripennis Ménétries, 1832 as the type species. A. Smetana . 2 TSIREE she ae aNy oh MS Ge Hydroporus foveolatus fear 1839 (asec, Colonie): proposed precedence of the specific name over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839. H.V. Shaverdo & M.A. Jach . Thinobius crinifer Smetana, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Schiilke. eA Ai RA OL ec Ra ae Mosby ya) Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepido- ptera): proposed precedence over Tinea aldrovandella Villers, 1789. M.V. Kozlov & E.J. van Nieukerken . B ne sho aga lee MLA 6 ERS ane Oey Mir eae ie an ISOMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): proposed emendation of spelling to ISOMETRAINAE to remove homonymy with ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida, Scorpiones). V. Fet & C. Messing Comments On Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. D.J. Patterson, D. Remsen & C. Norton . On the proposed conservation of the saadite: name > of and desiioneition of a neo- type for Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus, 1767 oy Phakellia ventilabrum; Porifera). B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan. On the proposed conservation of Melania curvicostata Rese. “1861 and Cortabasts paupercula Lea, 1862 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) by the designation of a neotype for Melania curvicostata (Reeve, 1861). W.E. Holznagel; L.B. Holthuis; A.E. Bogan; D.L. Graf; R.L. Minton; D. Kadolsky. On the proposed conservation of prevailing usage oF TERMOPSIDAE Slelanenan, 1911, Termapsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga . : On the proposed precedence of Pollavaanon Kroy 1819 (July) (isesia, Goleapters) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). F.-T. Krell, S. Ziani & A. Ballerio . On the proposed conservation of the specific name Papilio eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). A. Wakeham-Dawson; N.L. Evenhuis . On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gvonlnonsi, 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by Se of a neotype for Lacerta ee A. Veloso, H. Nunez & J.M. Cei : On the proposed conservation of the spastic name oot Veron nol nanus 5 Baers, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera). V. Van Cakenberghe Indexes, etc. Authors in volume 60 (2003) Names placed on the Official Lists anal Tindlancs | in stings oF the Commission published in volume 60 (2003) . : : Key names in Applications and Comments mublichedh: in agin 60 (2003) . Information and Instructions for Authors Publication dates and pagination of volume 60 (2003). Instructions to binder . Table of Contents of volume 60 (2003) Vil 272 297 300 gue ieee Esse) Ga nerve ak Meare ATRIA ton = resi ) i 7 ae : eee a ae vee me ke e eres | paul : ‘ a ree mE dd ‘Athoe ee ine te Tl) janndian dt 0 : t? =5i by i maheoted i A> bare aa rg ce vijieer cee auc: eR OCs yhoo Pa t E Dy vet \e soriig erent, . ; nied i gs steal & on see ; j 1 eo be ¢ ‘ cat v: ¥ $ sy Sebi a Le) ; eee Lath. Gy ee, By SBC. wailed saga o ; i | ot . ' c = ae cet ation BuO ‘iat i eA : i f Sn nk eayhantl 2g} i FE % ite cd om , a ~) ath ty seadie a MoSbal- baw i a . Tas ; : CAINS) On vrais oped iS, Mew lalla ; af a 7 ‘ ‘PUN: FAR ere «0! The Bulletin Fdgical Nomenclature aa ie rea * 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 2003 is £123 or $220, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £61 or $110. 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 S5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.) Vice-President Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.) Executive Secretary Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) (Spain; Coleoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr V. Mahnert Prof Dr W. Bohme (Switzerland; Ichthyology) (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof D. J. Brothers Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Dr H. G. Cogger (Australia; Herpetology) Crustacea, Ichthyology) Prof C. Dupuis (France; Heteroptera) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) (U.S.A4.; Ichthyology) ~ Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.; Diptera) - Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof P. Stys Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Prof Dr O. Kraus Mr J. van Tol (Germany, Arachnology) (The Netherlands; Odonata) Secretariat Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Editor) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2002 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 1 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE ales ley, MAY 45. Volume 60, part | (pp. 1-92) 31 March 2003 Notices (a) Invitation to comment. The Commission is authorised to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after their publi- cation but this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications is invited to send his or her contribution to the Commission’s Executive Secretary as quickly as possible. (b) Invitation to contribute general articles. The Bulletin comprises mainly applications concerning names of particular animals or groups of animals, resulting comments and the Commission’s eventual rulings (Opinions). Proposed emendments to the Code are also published for discussion. In addition, papers or notes of a more general nature are actively welcomed. These should 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 59, part 4 (19 December 2002). Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage is to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published. Case 3246. Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name. L.E. Acosta & C.J. Mattoni. Case 3254. Aphodius niger Illiger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. F.-T. Krell, D.J. Mann, R.B. Angus & J.F. Mate. Case 3258. Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. C.L. Bellamy & M.G. Volkovitsh. Case 3259. Eristalis Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed confirmation that the gender is feminine; Musca nemorum Linnaeus, 1758, M. arbustorum Linnaeus, 1758 and M. horticola De Geer, 1776 (currently Eristalis nemorum, E. arbustorum and E. horticola): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by designation of neotypes. P. Chandler, A. Wakeham-Dawson & A. McCullough. Case 3260. Titanodamon johnstonii Pocock, 1894 (currently Damon johnstonii; Arachnida, Amblypygi): proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Weygoldt. Case 3262. Nautilus spengleri Gmelin, 1791 (Foraminiferida): proposed conser- vation of the usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype. W. Renema & J. Hohenegger. iT) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3263. Octopus hummelincki Adam, 1936 (Mollusca, Cephalopoda): Proposed conservation of the specific name. I.G. Gleadall. (d) Rulings of the Commission. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin constitutes an official ruling of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by virtue of the votes recorded, and comes into force on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and its publications The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was established in 1895 by the third International Congress of Zoology, and at present consists of 25 zoologists from 20 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 members are elected by secret ballot of zoologists attending General Assemblies of IUBS or Congresses of its associated bodies or other appropriate Congresses. Casual vacan- cies 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 animals according to taxonomic judgements’. The Fourth Edition of the Code was published in 1999 by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, acting on behalf of the Commission; its provisions came into effect on 1 January 2000 and supersede those of the previous (1985) edition. Official texts are available in English, Chinese (traditional), French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian, and other texts are in preparation. Details of how to obtain the Code are given on page 6. Observance of the rules in the Code enables a zoologist to arrive at the valid name for any animal taxon between and including the ranks of subspecies and superfamily. Its provisions can be waived or modified in their-application to a particular case when strict adherence would cause confusion; however, this must never be done by an individual but only by the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists. The Commission takes such action in response to proposals submitted to it; applications should follow the instructions in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and assistance will be given by the Secretariat. The Bulletin is published four times each year. The subscription for volume 60 for 2003 is £123 or $220; individual subscribers requiring the Bulletin for their personal use are offered a reduced price of £61 or $110. The Bulletin contains applications for Commission action, as described above; their publication is an invitation for any person to contribute comments or counter-suggestions, which may be published. Abstracts of applications are also placed on the Commission’s website (www.iczn.org). 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 and their titles and abstracts are given on the Commission website. The Bulletin also contains articles and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 3 notes relevant to zoological nomenclature; such contributions are invited and should be sent tc the Executive Secretary. 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 Supplement updating the period to 2000 was published in March 2001. In addition to dealing with applications and other formal matters, the Com- mission’s Secretariat is willing to help with advice on any question which may have nomenclatural (as distinct from purely taxonomic) implications. However, as from July 2002 requests for help and advice on nomenclatural issues can be made direct to Commissioners via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234). The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature is a charity and a not-for- profit company registered in the U.K. The Secretariat of the Commission is based in London, and the Trust is established there to handle the financial and management affairs of the Commission. Income from the sale of publications covers less than half the costs of the service given to zoology by the Commission. Financial support is given by academies, research councils, institutions and societies from a number of countries, and also by individuals; despite this assistance the level of income remains a severe restraint. Donations to the Trust are gratefully received and attention is drawn to the possible tax advantage of legacies. For a more detailed discussion of the Commission and its activities and pub- lications see BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991). A Centenary History of the Commission — Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — describes the development of zoological nomenclature and the role of the Commission; it was published in 1995. The books listed above may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) or AAZN, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu). Addresses of members of the Commission Dr M. ALONSO-ZARAZAGA Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain Prof W.J. BOCK Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027-7004, U.S.A. Prof Dr W. BOHME Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn 1, Germany Prof P. BOUCHET Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (Councillor) Prof D.J. BROTHERS Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Natal Pietermaritzburg, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, 3209 South Africa (Councillor) Dr D.R. CALDER Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Dr W.N. ESCHMEYER Department of Ichthyology, California Academy of Sciences, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, California 94118-4599, U.S.A. (Vice-President) Dr N.L. EVENHUIS Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. (President) Prof R:A. FORTEY The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. Dr R.B. HALLIDAY CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia DrI.M. KERZHNER Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia (Councillor) Prof Dr G. LAMAS Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru Dr E. MACPHERSON Centro d’Estudios Avancats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain Dr V. MAHNERT Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland Prof U.R. MARTINS DE SOUZA Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 42694, 04299-970 Sao Paulo, Brazil Prof S.F. MAWATARI Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan Prof A. MINELLI Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy i Dr P.K.L. NG Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260 Dr C. NIELSEN Zoologisk Museum, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Kébenhayn, Denmark Dr L. PAPP Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary Prof D.J. PATTERSON School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, N.S. W. 2006, Australia Dr G. ROSENBERG Academy of, Natural Sciences, 1900. Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A. Prof D.X. SONG College of Life Sciences, Hebei.University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071002 China Prof P. STYS Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniénd 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic Mr J. VAN TOL Naturalis, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Darwinweg 3, 2333 CR Leiden, The Netherlands International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Members The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) (Management Committee) Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) (Management Committee) ‘ Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Dr N.J. Aebischer (U.K.) Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) Prof Per Brinck (Sweden) Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.) (Management Committee) Sir Neil Chalmers (U.K.) Prof W.T. Chang (China) Dr J.A. Compton (U.K.) Mr M.N. Dadd (U.K.) Prof C.S.F. Easmon (U.K) (Management Committee) Dr N.L. Evenhuis (U.S.A.) (Management Committee) Prof J. Forest (France) Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.) (Management Committee) Dr B.F. Kensley (U.S.A.) Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland) Dr M. Luc (France) Mr A. McCullough (U.K.) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain) Prof A. Minelli (Italy) Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.) Dr I.W.B. Nye (U.K.) Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.) Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.) (Management Committee) Prof F.R. Schram (The Netherlands) Dr P.K. Tubbs (U.K.) (Management Committee) The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Subscriptions for volume 60 (for 2003) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature are now due. The subscription price is £ 123 or US$ 220; individual zoologists wishing to subscribe to the Bulletin for their own personal use are offered a 50% discount, reducing the subscription to £ 61 or US$ 110. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ and sent to: I.T.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. Four issues of the Bulletin are published each year at the end of March, June and September and the third week of December. They are sent to subscribers by Accelerated Surface Post which should reach all subscribers in less than three weeks of publication. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The extensively revised 4th Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ISBN 0 85301 006 4) was published (in a bilingual volume in English and French) in August 1999. It came into effect on 1 January 2000 and entirely supersedes the 3rd (1985) edition. The price of the English and French volume of the 4th Edition is £40 or $65; the following discounts are offered: Individual members of a scientific society are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the society should be given. Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price £24 or $39). Postgraduate or undergraduate students are offered a discount of 25% (price £30 or $48); the name and address of the student’s supervisor should be given. Institutions or agents buying 5 or more copies are offered a 25% discount (price £30 or $48 for each copy). Prices include surface postage; for Airmail please add £2 or $3 per copy. Copies may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk), or AAZN, Attn. D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu). Payment should accompany orders. Cheques should be made out to “ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to ‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Payment to ITZN (but not to AAZN) can also be made by Visa or MasterCard giving the cardholder’s number, name and address and the expiry date. Individual purchasers of the Code are offered a 50% discount on the following publication for personal use: Towards Stability in the Names of Animals—a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1S95—1995 (1995) — reduced from £30 to £15 and from $50 to $25; Official texts of the Code in several languages have been authorized by the Commission, and all (including English and French) are equal in authority. Chinese (traditional), German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish texts have now been published and others are planned. Details of price and how to buy the published texts can be obtained from the followimg e-mail addresses: Chinese — wenhua@oceantaiwan.com German — books@insecta.de Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu Spanish — menaz39@munen.csic.es Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 7 Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology Joan Thorne (Editor, Zoological Record) BIOSIS UK, 54 Micklegate, York, North Yorkshire YOI 6WF, U.K. (e-mail: jthorne@york.biosis.org) Abstract. BIOSIS is offering, through Zoological Record (ZR), to provide a database register of new names in zoology. Inclusion of a name in this register would not indicate or imply its validity or other nomenclatural status. The register would provide the raw material needed by those seeking to establish which new zoological species, genera or families have recently been described and named. The register would also include those names that appear to be unavailable under the Code (where possible they would be indicated as such), but would not arbitrate in matters relating to the availability or validity of the names. Expert taxonomists, calling on the assistance of the Commission where necessary, would determine which names were available and valid for use in a particular group of animals. ZR’s coverage of new names is well over 90% complete and takes place within two weeks of receipt of new publications by ZR or within three to six weeks of receipt of new publications by source libraries. Double-checking ensures that far less than one percent of 20,000 new animal names registered each year is likely to be recorded incorrectly. There is no existing registration source that is more up-to-date or complete. The register would be available on line free of charge to anyone who wished to check on the existence of a name and would provide a sound basis for a full nomenclatural repository. However, the register could only be as comprehensive as the community chooses to make it. A comprehensive register could be achieved if zoologists ensured that ZR was aware of all new works containing new names. The 10% of new names not currently registered by ZR because of the obscurity of the publications in which they appear (or other reasons) could be eliminated if the Code required all new names to be registered. Therefore, it is proposed that Recommendation 8A of the Code (which recommends that authors should send a copy of a work containing a new name or names to ZR) be revised to become a mandatory Article. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; register of new names; BIOSIS; Zoological Record. Introduction This article was written following the extensive discussions leading up to the publication in 1999 of the Fourth Edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and more recently with the Commission’s Executive Secretary on a possible role for Zoological Record (ZR) in ‘registering’ new names in zoology. During the preparation of the paper, the concept of a centralized archive/database for taxonomists was also raised in the journal Nature (Nature, 2002). This stimulated extensive exchanges on the TAXACOM e-mail discussion list. I hope that the views on names registration expressed in the current paper will be a valuable addition to the discussion. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 In the current proposal, BIOSIS is offering the means to collect all new animal names and, acting as a neutral host, make them available free of charge to all who need to use them. In BIOSIS’s view, this would be a means of registering new names and would provide a firm foundation for Nature’s more extensive concept of a centralized repository of nomenclature. If I have understood the latter correctly, this would involve extending the basic names database to include additional data, such as description, type locality, holotype location, links to the bibliographic citation, abstract or the full text of the publication. Developing such systems is one of BIOSIS’s core activities and, although BIOSIS does not have the funds to offer to implement this more extensive concept on its own, it would be willing to participate in any suitable cooperative arrangements that might be developed in the zoological community. It is important to note that the word ‘registration’, as used in the current paper, is simply a label to describe a proposal for providing a comprehensive database of new names in zoology. Inclusion of a name in this register would not indicate its validity or other nomenclatural status. The register would provide the raw material needed by those seeking to find out what species, genera or families had been described and named. The expert taxonomists, calling on the assistance of the Commission where necessary, would determine which names were valid for use in a particular group of animals. The current situation The value of a central renlesicdl names resource is generally accepted but, unfortunately, the means of providing it is not. Recognizing this situation, Nature (Nature, 2002) has recently taken ‘a small step towards a database for taxonomists’. A new policy, started in August 2002, requires authors of papers which are accepted for publication in Nature and which contain ‘the formal nomenclature and descrip- tion of species’ to send a preprint or an electronic copy to the Linnean Society of London. With this action, Nature has made the first move towards a central repository for taxonomic data, although the Linnean Society does not currently have an established mechanism to act as a repository of this nature. We applaud this initiative. However, as the ZR is already in existence as just such a repository, BIOSIS would like to explore possible options which could develop the idea further without duplicating already existing efforts. New names in Zoological Record (ZR) In 1995, the discussion draft of the current (fourth) edition of the Code included an Article that proposed a process of ‘international notification’ of new names. This was to be achieved by recording them in ZR. As part of this proposal, BIOSIS developed the Index to Organism Names (ION; http://www.biosis.org.uk/ free_resources/ion.html), a free name search tool that enables any user to check whether a name has been used. All zoological names indexed in ZR since 1978 were added to this database, together with names from other associated organism groups to enhance its value to the wider scientific community. ION 1s still freely available and is currently being enhanced with improved search mechanisms and additional content. However, the ‘notification’ proposal was at the time unacceptable to the zoological community for a number of reasons, and therefore was finally included in the current Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 9 Code as a recommendation (Recommendation 8A) rather than as a mandatory Article. The main concerns of the community related to coverage, availability and accessibility, to which ZR responded (Howcroft & Thorne, 1999) as follows: (1) Coverage. ZR’s names coverage is estimated to be well over 90% complete (Bouchet, 1999). The remaining 10% or so of names are mainly those published in sources to which ZR does not have access. We estimate that names we seek from source libraries are usually indexed in ZR within six weeks of receipt at the source library and a great majority are indexed within three weeks. Material sent directly to ZR from publishers is normally indexed within two weeks of receipt. As each new name indexed is double checked for spelling, only a small fraction of one percent of new names is likely to be recorded incorrectly. We know of no more current or complete names resource. (2) Availability. Names are recorded at face value and reflect the literature. Names that have been published improperly under the Code and are therefore formally unavailable are still recorded. This may include names that are not accompanied by an adequate description, names that are published electronic- ally or associated with invalid typification. Names are checked against selected criteria of availability and if they appear to be unavailable under the Code, this is stated in the index entry. Other than this ZR is an unbiased index to the literature and makes no judgements on the status or validity of names. This is the province of taxonomists not indexers. ZR has adopted this neutral position throughout its existence. However, it would not be difficult to mark in the register those newly published names that do not fulfil selected criteria. (3) Access. There was an incorrect assumption that access to new names could only be achieved through ZR and that this access would have to be paid for. This was never the case and the ION service, then as now, is free to anyone who wishes to check on the existence of a name. Other zoologists questioned the viability of ZR and expressed concern about long-term access to the register. BIOSIS has long recognized the importance of archival issues, and can use its experience to ensure enduring access to a names register. The ZR was founded in 1864. It has survived through two world wars and the technological revolutions of the late 20th century, and the community can be reassured that it is securely positioned for the future. ZR and registration Each year ZR selects some 70,000 items from the life science literature, and extracts some 20,000 new animal names. These names, along with existing names indexed from the literature, are made available to users through ION in the free resources part of the BIOSIS web site. We suggest that this existing effort could readily be exploited as a basis for registration purposes. New animal names published in serials monitored for ZR (this list is available on the BIOSIS web site: www.biosis.org) would be indexed as now. For those new names published in serials not monitored for ZR (i.e. serials not available to us), authors would need to provide a reprint of the relevant articles for indexing as is already recommended in the existing Code. A similar mechanism could be established for names published in non-serial publications. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 After indexing, all new names would be transferred to a suitably titled register/database of new animal names mounted by BIOSIS on the web. The new names, marked as such, would simultaneously be added to ION. This would enable such names to be searched alongside existing names. The database would be available free of charge to anyone (including non-subscribers to ZR) who wished to check on the existence of a name. Such a database would provide a sound basis for a full nomenclatural repository. However, it is important to note that in the current proposal and in any other proposal that might be put forward, a new names register/database will only be as comprehensive as the community chooses to make it. It should be noted that registration of a name can only be accomplished once the original publication in which the name is published as new has been indexed in ZR. BIOSIS and the community BIOSIS, established in 1926, is a not-for-profit organization based in Philadelphia, U.S.A., which provides a variety of services for those seeking access to life science information. BIOSIS UK, established in 1980, is a subsidiary of BIOSIS, based in York, England. It compiles Zoological Record and provides an international presence for the organization. BIOSIS is self-sustaining — there are no shareholders; any surplus is reinvested in the company, and in the development of new services for the life science community. True to its mission, BIOSIS has long standing associations with several organiz- ations, and is an active participant of the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA), the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), Species 2000, and the Taxonomic Databases Working Group (TDWG). It also has close ties with the Commission, and currently hosts the web sites of the Commission and of Species 2000. In addition to its participation in the activities of these organizations, BIOSIS has recently created a new web-portal site entitled “BiologyBrowser’ (www. biologybrowser.org) offering a range of free services to the research and education community. This incorporates an indexed web directory of links to relevant Internet sites, an animal classification guide for,students and teachers, a biological conference calendar, and, in collaboration with other organizations, ION. Working with the zoological community is also a means of ensuring that significant duplication of effort is avoided. Sharing resources, or using existing resources for new applications, benefits the entire community, and the concept of registration is no exception. Registration would support, not compete with, GBIF, Species 2000, and the many other names and biodiversity initiatives. Moreover, using the ZR, registration could be accomplished with little extra effort by anyone else in the publication chain. BIOSIS and ZR For almost a century the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) subsidized the publication of ZR. In 1980, aware that it could not continue to provide this subsidy and wishing to ensure the continuity of ZR, the ZSL entered into a joint publishing agreement with BIOSIS. In the agreement, all production, management and financial liability for ZR was transferred to BIOSIS, and BIOSIS UK was created. Since 1980, BIOSIS has eliminated a significant publication backlog in ZR, introduced new Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 11 production systems, and issued ZR in electronic formats. Following these achieve- ments, the BIOSIS Board (which includes several eminent members of the life science community) has given overwhelming support for the ongoing development of ZR and its community activities. Conclusion Given the critical role of names in all life science research, it is essential that the zoological community agrees on a mechanism to bring them together in a central resource. BIOSIS is well positioned, and willing, to provide this. With the help of the community, and by using existing ZR procedures, a fully comprehensive new animal names database (and perhaps, in the future, other organism names) could readily be established. Taking this further, to provide a repository of the full description, links to abstracts etc., would be a logical step that BIOSIS would be interested in discussing with others. To make the registration of names that BIOSIS proposes a reality, the current recommendation in the Code that authors should send a copy of their work to ZR would have to be emended by the Commission to become a mandatory requirement in the form of an Article of the Code. Acknowledgements I thank The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature), Dr John Marsden (Executive Secretary, Linnean Society of London), Dr Andrew Smith (The Natural History Museum, London), Dr Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary of the Commission) and the BIOSIS Board for helpful discussion about the registration of names. References Bouchet, P. 1999. Recording and registration of new scientific names: a simulation of the mechanism proposed (but not adopted) for the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 56(1): 6-15. Howcroft, J. & Thorne, J. 1999. Centralized access to newly published zoological names. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 56(2): 108-112. Nature. 2002. Genomics and taxonomy for all. Nature, 417(6889): 573. Comments on this article are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3229 Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): proposed conservation Francoise Debrenne Laboratoire de Paléontologie, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 8 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: debrenne@mail.club-internet.fr) Andrey Yu. Zhuravlev Ministry of Natural Resources, ul. Bol’shaya Gruzinskaya 41/6, Moscow 123995, Russia Peter D. Kruse Northern Territory Geological Survey, P.O. Box 3000, Darwin, NT 0801, Australia (e-mail: Pierre. Kruse@nt.gov.au). Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, the generic name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955, which is in widespread use for a group of Cambrian fossil sponge-like archaeocyaths (family ERBOCYATHIDAE). This name was proposed to replace the pre-occupied name Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928, but is threatened by the single usage in 1955 of an older replacement name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Archaeocyatha; ERBOCYATHIDAE; Erbocyathus; Polycyathus heterovallum; Early Cambrian; fossil. 1. Vologdin (1928, p. 32) erected.a new Archaeocyatha genus and named it Polycyathus (type species P. heterovallum Vologdin, 1928 (p. 36) by subsequent designation by Simon (1939, p. 34)) for an unusual, modular two-walled septate archaeocyath that has an attached microporous sheath on its outer wall, several rows of simple pores per intersept on its inner wall, and aporose to sparsely porous septa (Debrenne et al., 1990, p. 141). Vologdin (1928, p. 35) also erected the family POLYCYATHIDAE based on his new genus. The class Archaeocyatha Bornemann, 1884 includes fossil marine organisms almost exclusively from the Early Cambrian epoch. The group is now generally assigned to the sponges (Porifera). 2. However, Simon (1939, p. 34) noted that Vologdin’s generic name Polycyathus had already been used by Duncan in 1876 for a genus of cnidarian. In response, replacement names for Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 were subsequently and independently proposed by both V.J. Okulitch and I.T. Zhuravleva. 3. Okulitch (July 1950, p. 503) proposed the replacement name Pluralicyathus in order to stabilise nomenclature for the then forthcoming edition of the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Okulitch, 1955, pp. E1-E20), in which he used the name on p. E10. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 13 4. Zhuravleva (1949, p. 10; February 1950a, p. 11) mentioned a replacement name, Erbocyathus, for the same genus in two avtoreferats. In the former U.S.S.R., and subsequently, avtoreferats were and are short thesis summaries that are issued in small numbers in connection with the examination of a submitted thesis. Zhuravleva’s first (1949) defence of her kandidat thesis in biological sciences was not successful, whereas her second (1950) was. Her 1949 avtoreferat was reprinted with modifications in February 1950. She used the name Erbocyathus only once in each of the avtoreferats when writing about the Obruchev horizon: ‘Apart from the characteristic species Erbocyathus (Polycyathus) heterovallum (Vologdin), several species of Ethmophyllum, Retecyathus operosus and others are found there [1949, p. 10; 1950a, p. 11; current authors’ translation)’. 5. Only 150 copies for each of Zhuravleva’s avtoreferats were printed and distribution was very limited. As a result, we do not accept that the name Erbocyathus is available from either of these avtoreferats (see Article 8.1 of the Code). In addition, neither of the two avtoreferats contains a clear statement that Erbocyathus is intended to be a replacement name for Polycyathus. 6. The first undisputed publication of the generic name Erbocyathus is by Zhuravleva (1950b, October), where she writes regarding development of modularity in the cup (p. 857): ‘In representatives of the “genus” Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus) from the former “family” POLYCYATHIDAE, cups were observed only up to the stage of a continuous inner wall. Revision of Erbocyathus specimens in the Palaeontological Institute A.N. S.S.S.R.,.. . together with familiarity with all known literature on colonial archaeocyaths, leads me to the conviction that in those cases in which examples with a colonial skeleton are found, species should never be distinguished as independent genera and families only on this feature alone, for all cases of colonial cups just as for solitary individuals. Thus we can abolish the following colonial “genera” of archaeocyaths: Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus), Sajanocyathus Vologdin and Densocyathus Vologdin [current authors’ translation]’. However, this publication of the replacement name Erbocyathus by Zhuravleva (1950b) does not satisfy the requirements of Article 13 (specifically Article 13.1.3), as the provisions of Article 11 are not also satisfied (Article 13.1). This is because the whole thrust of Zhuravleva’s commentary (quoted above) is not to validate the genus as required by Article 11.5, but to abolish it. 7. The name Erbocyathus was next used by Zhuravleva (1955), within an existing family, though again without diagnosis or any elaboration. She mentions the genus once (p. 44): ‘Thus it is concluded that the genera numbered in the family Ethmophyllidae are few —four in all: Ethmophyllum Meek, Ethmocyathus R. & W. Bedford, Tegerocyathus Krasnopeeva and Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus) Zhuravleva’. This usage appears to satisfy Article 11.5 and therefore Article 13, provided that the construction ‘Erbocyathus (=Polycyathus) Zhuravleva’ constitutes an express pro- posal of a new replacement name for the purposes of Article 13.1.3. We have accepted that this is the case and that the name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva became available in 1955. 8. Vologdin (1956, p. 879) later proposed the family ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin & Zhuravleva. Although no diagnosis was provided, this name is available under Article 13.2.1, as we have accepted (para. 7 above) that the replacement name Erbocyathus was successfully made available by Zhuravleva in 1955 (p. 44) (Article 13.2). 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 9. Zhuravleva (1960, p. 189), in her influential book on Siberian Platform archaeocyaths, used ‘Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1950°, invalidly citing her 1950a avtoreferat as having made this name available. She provided diagnosis, description and illustration of the genus and also accepted the family name ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956 and (p. 187) elevated this to a superfamily with the name ERBOCYATHACEA. Both names are in use today. Polycyathus heterovallum Vologdin, 1928 is the type species of Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (see para. 1 above and Article 67.8). 10. From 1950 to the present, Erbocyathus Zhuravleva (generally attributed to the 1950a publication) has been widely viewed as the valid replacement name for Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928. To our knowledge, no author has challenged the use of the name Erbocyathus, other than Okulitch (1955) who used the senior replacement name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950. To date the genus Erbocyathus has been treated taxonomically in numerous publications including seminal works by Hill (1965, 1972), Rozanov (1973) and Debrenne et al. (1990) and includes five species from the Siberia-Mongolia-Central Asia region (Debrenne et al., 1990). With the exception of Okulitch (1955), the name Pluralicyathus has only been cited as a synonym of Erbocyathus, and no species other than the type species has ever been assigned to the genus Pluralicyathus. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (gender: masculine), type species Polycyathus heterovallum Vologdin, 1928 by subsequent designation by Simon (1939) of the replaced nominal genus Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928: (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name hetero- vallum Vologdin, 1928, as published in the binomen Polycyathus heterovallum (specific name of the type species of Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955); (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name ERBOCYATHIDAE Vologdin & Zhuravleva, 1956, type genus Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955; to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the names: (a) Pluralicyathus Okulitch, 1950, as suppressed in (1) above: (b) Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 (a junior homonym of Polycyathus Duncan, 1876). — Nn wm References Debrenne, F., Rozanoy, A. & Zhuravley, A. 1990. Regular Archaeocyaths. Morphology. Systematics. Biostratigraphy. Palaeoecology. Biological affinities. 218 pp., 32 pls. Cahiers de Paléontologie, Editions du C.N.R:S. Duncan, P.M. 1876. Notices of some deep-sea and littoral corals from the Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean, Indian, New Zealand, Persian Gulf and Japanese . . . seas. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1876: 428-442. : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 15 Hill, D. 1965. Archaeocyatha from Antarctica and a review of the phylum. Transantarctic Expedition, Scientific Reports, 10 Geology, 3: 1-151. Hill, D. 1972. Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part E, 1. Archaeocyatha. xxx, 158 pp. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Boulder and Lawrence. Okulitch, V.J. 1950. Pluralicyathus, new name for Polycyathus Vologdin, 1928 not Duncan, 1876. Journal of Paleontology, 24: 503. Okulitch, V.J. 1955. Pp. El—20 in: Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology. Part E. Archaeo- cyatha and Porifera. Geological Society of America and University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Rozanoy, A.Yu. 1973. Zakonomernosti morfologicheskoy evolyutsii arkheotsiat i voprosy yarusnogo rashchleneniya nizhnego kembriya. 164 pp., 22 pls. Nauka, Moscow. Simon, W. 1939. Archaeocyathacea. I. Kritische Sichtung der Superfamilie. II. Die Fauna im Kambrium der Sierra Morena (Spanien). Abhandlungen der Senckenbergischen Naturforschende Gesellschaft, 448: 1-87. Vologdin, A.G. 1928. O novykh svoeobraznykh formakh arkheotsiat iz kembriya Sibiri. Ezhegodnik Russkogo Paleontologicheskogo Obshchestva, 7: 25-46. Vologdin, A.G. 1956. K klassifikatsii tipa Archaeocyatha. Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., 111: 877-880. Zhuravleva, I.T. 1949. Arkheotsiaty kembriya vostochnogo sklona Kuznetskogo Ala-Tau (der. Potekhino). 12 pp. Avtoreferat. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchonoy stepeni kandidata biologicheskikh nauk, Moscow. Zhuravleva, I.T. 1950a. Arkheotsiaty kembriyva vostochnogo sklona Kuznetskogo Ala-Tau. 13 pp. Avtoreferat. Dissertatsiya na soiskanie uchonoy stepeni kandidata biologicheskikh nauk, Moscow. Zhuravleva, I.T. 1950b. O nakhodke v kembriyskikh otlozheniyakh Tuvy arkheotsiata s kolonial’nym skeletom. Doklady Akademii Nauk S.S.S.R., 75: 855-858. Zhurayleya, I.T. 1955. Arkheotsiaty kembriya vostochnogo sklona Kuznetskogo Ala-Tau. Trudy, Paleontologicheskiy Institut, Akademiya Nauk S.S.S.R., 56: 5—56. Zhuravleva, I.T. 1960. Arkheotsiaty Sibirskoy platformy. 344 pp., 33 pls. Akademiya Nauk S.S.S.R., Moscow. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3216 Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Phakellia ventilabra; Porifera): proposed conservation of the specific name and designation of a neotype Belinda Alvarez and Richard C. Willan Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, GPO Box 4646, Darwin, NT 0801, Australia (e-mail: Belinda.Glasby@nt.gov.au) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of the type species of the axinellid sponge genus Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862. The name in prevailing usage is Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767. This name is threatened by the use in 1912 of a senior objective synonym, Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766. A neotype is designated for Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Porifera; AXINELLIDAE; Phakellia; Phakellia ventilabra; sponges. 1. In 1766, Professor Peter Pallas introduced the name Spongia strigosa for a new species of fan-shaped sponge (family AXINELLIDAE) from ‘Mare Americanum’ (Pallas, 1766, p. 397). Pallas’s description referred to a sponge described as ‘planta marina foliacea & spongiosa, singulari modo ramosa’ (p. 184), and illustrated (pl. 95, fig. 8) as such in the Thesaurus of Albertus Seba (1758). This work corresponds to the third of Seba’s four volumes, which was published about twenty years posthumously under the editorship of Pallas amongst others (see Engel, 1961). 2. Linnaeus (1767, p. 1296) described Spongia ventilabra from “M. Norvegico’ collected by Bishop Gunnerus at Drontheim (now Trondheim). This description also mentioned the illustration given by Seba and the description of Spongia strigosa given by Pallas. Pallas’s and Linnaeus’s names were based on the same source, that is Seba’s figure, which was given to Seba by Gunnerus (see Esper, 1794, p. 211). The names Spongia strigosa and Spongia ventilabra are therefore objective synonyms. 3. In his encyclopaedia of nature, Esper (1794, pp. 209-211) included Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus and indicated that it could be the same species described by Pallas as Spongia strigosa, but he made no formal synonymy. As if to indicate his own uncertainty, Esper included both specific names in the legend to his own illustration (Spong. tab XII). 4. Fleming (1828, p. 523) used Linnaeus’s specific name in the new combination Halichondria ventilabra without mentioning Spongia strigosa. Later, Johnston (1842) referred to the species as Halichondria ventilabrum (sic) without explanation and since then the specific name has been spelt incorrectly as H. ventilabrum. 5. Under the modern Code, Johnston’s emendation of the spelling H. ventilabra to H. yentilabrum was an incorrect subsequent spelling because the specific name H. ventilabra was introduced as a noun in apposition, and as such its suffix is not Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 17 changed to match the gender of the generic name with which it is in combination (Article 34.2.1); in any case both Halichondria and Spongia are feminine. However, in defence of Johnston, we note that ‘ventilabrum’ is the correct Latin noun meaning an implement for winnowing grain (Lewis & Short, 1980) and it was also the spelling used by Gunnerus (Acta. Nidrof. vol. 4, fig. 4, fide Linnaeus, 1767). 6. Bowerbank (1862, p. 1109) designated Halichondria ventilabrum (sic) as the type species of his new genus Phakellia. Phakellia is now a large genus of axinellid sponges with 34 described and many unnamed species worldwide (B. Alvarez, unpublished data). Vosmaer (1912), following Esper (1794), identified the synonymy between the names Spongia strigosa and Spongia ventilabra and stated that the valid name for the type species of Phakellia was P. strigosa (Pallas). However, no author except Bergquist (1970), who merely listed the name P. strigosa, has followed Vosmaer in the past ninety years. 7. Vosmaer (1912) claimed that he had found a dried sponge in the collection of the Museum of Leiden which, in his opinion, strongly resembled the figure of Seba (see para. | above) and he suggested that this specimen was the type specimen of Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus. However, we believe Vosmaer’s conclusion is unjustified for several reasons. First, it is likely that Seba’s figure was based solely on the drawing by Gunnerus. Even if Seba’s illustration were based on an actual specimen, it is unlikely still to be extant because most of the specimens illustrated in his Thesaurus were ruined by mould and insects, or were sold to meet the expenses of printing the final two volumes of the Thesaurus (Engel, 1961). Anyway, Vosmaer’s specimen (M.L.B. 3) cannot now be located in the Leiden sponge collection (pers. comm. to B. Alvarez by J.C. den Hartog, 22 May 1996). There are no records attributable to Spongia ventilabra in the Linnaean collections housed at the Linnean Society of London or at the Museum of Uppsala in Sweden (pers. comm. to B. Alvarez by Kathie Way, Curator of Zoological Collections at the Natural History Museum, London). 8. Given that there is good evidence that the original specimen of this sponge is no longer extant we believe that a neotype designation is strongly needed. Neither the original description of Spongia ventilabra by Linnaeus (1767), nor the illustration of Seba cited within, provides an adequate basis for differentiation of this species from others in the large genus as it is presently understood (Alvarez & Hooper, 2002). For example, skeletal characters such as type and length of spicules, which are diagnostic at the species level within the genus Phakellia, were not mentioned in the original descriptions. 9. Several of the dry specimens upon which Bowerbank based the genus Phakellia are deposited at the Natural History Museum (London) and were examined by one of us (B. Alvarez) and they all agree with the present concept of P. ventilabra (Linnaeus). One of these specimens (registered as BMNH 10.1.1.2687) is here designated as the neotype for Spongia ventilabra. The specimen comes from the same locality (Norway) as the original Gunnerus specimen of Spongia ventilabra (see para. 2 above) and externally matches the description of Linnaeus (1767). The specimen is flabellate, approximately 23 cm high by 20 cm wide, with a short peduncle approximately 1 cm in diameter. Its surface is hispid and marked by a reticulum of spicule tracts, some of the ascending ones are thickened (5—7 mm) like veins. There is no specialised ectosomal skeleton. The choanosomal skeleton is reticulated with 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 primary tracts of sinuous strongyles (300-600 wm thick) and these are plumo- echinated by styles or connected by secondary unispicular or paucispicular tracts of styles or strongyles (60-200 um thick). The spicules are sinuous strongyles (length 630-1060 xm, width 13-18 pm) and styles are straight, flexuous, or bent near the head (length 360-710 um, width 10-15 um). The external and skeletal features of Phakellia ventilabrum are illustrated (under that name) in Alvarez & Hooper (2002, p. 739). 10. The single adoption of the senior synonym Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1776 rather than S. ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 by Vosmaer in 1912 (see para. 6. above) prevents the ‘automatic’ conservation of the later name under Article 23.9.1, and we submit this application in accordance with Article 23.9.3. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name strigosa Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa, 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 Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Spongia ventilabra and as defined by the neotype (specimen BMNH 10.1.1.2687) designated in para. 9 above (specific name of the type species of Phakellia Bowerbank, 1862); (4) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name strigosa, as published in the binomen Spongia strigosa Pallas, 1766 and suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements We thank the following for their support and comments on an earlier draft of this paper: Dr Rob W.M. Van Soest, University of Amsterdam; Dr John N.A. Hooper, Queensland Museum; Dr Alice E. Wells, Australian Biological Resource Studies, Environment Australia; and Mr Robert Burn, Geelong. Ms Andrea McKey, Museum and Art Gallery of Northern Territory and Dr Gert Worheide, Queensland Museum, helped us with the translation of references written in archaic German. References Alvarez, B. & Hooper, J.N.A. 2002. Family Axinellidae. Pp. 724-747 in Hooper, J.N.A. & van Soest, R.R.M. (Eds.), Systema Porifera. A Guide to the Supraspecific Classification of the Phylum Porifera. Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers, New York. Bergquist, P.R. 1970. The marine fauna of New Zealand: Porifera, Demospongiae, part 2. (Axinellida and Halichondrida). New Zealand Oceanographic Institute Memoir, 51: 1-85. Bowerbank, J.S. 1862. On the anatomy and physiology of the Spongiadae. Part II: On the generic characters, the specific characters and on the method of examination. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 152: 1087-1135. Engel, H. 1961. The sale-catalogue of the cabinets of natural history of Albertus Seba (1752). A curious document from the period of naturae curiosi. Bulletin of the Research Council of Israel (Section B), 10: 119-131. Esper, E.J.C. 1794. Die pflanzenthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur: mit jarben erleuchtet nebt Beschreibungen, vol. 2. 303 pp., 49 pls. Kaspeschen Buchhandlung, Nirnberg. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 19 Fleming, J. 1828. A history of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and systematical arrangement of the genera and species of Quadrupeds, Birds, Reptiles, Fishes, Mollusca, and Radiata of the United Kingdom, & c. xxiv, 567 pp. Bell & Bradfute, Edinburgh and James Duncan, London. Johnston, G. 1842. History of British Sponges and Lithophytes. 264 pp., 25 pls. Lizars, Edinburgh, London, Dublin. Lewis, C.T. & Short, C. 1980. 4 Latin Dictionary founded on Andrew’s edition of Freud's Latin Dictionary. 2019 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvii, Holmiae. Pallas, P.S. 1766. Elenchus Zoophytorum sistens Generum Adumbrationes Generaliores et Specierum Cognitarum succinctas Descriptiones cum Selectis Auctorum Synonymis. 451 pp. van Cleef, Hagae Comitum. Seba, A. 1758. Locupletissimi Rerum Naturalium Thesauri Accurata Descriptio, vol. 3. 212 pp., 116 pls. Janssonio-Waesbergios, Amstelaedami. Vosmaer, G.C.J. 1912. On the distinction between the genera Axinella, Phakellia, Acanthella, a.o. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Jena, Supplement 15, 1: 307-322. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 249. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). ~ Reproduction from Seba (1758, pl. 95, fig. 8) of ‘planta marina foliacea & spongiosa, singulari modo ramosa . 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3223 Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligumia ochracea; Mollusca, Bivalvia): proposed precedence of the specific name over Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791 James R. Cordeiro Science Division, Nature Serve, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02111, U.S.A. (e-mail: jay_cordeiro@natureserve.org) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used specific name of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently Ligwmia ochracea) for the American freshwater mussel (tidewater mucket) (family UNIONIDAE) by giving it precedence over the little used senior subjective synonym Mytilus fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; UNIONIDAE; Ligumia ochracea; Mytilus fluviatilis; tidewater mucket; fresh water mussel; clam; America. 1. Lister (1685, pl. 157, fig. 12) described a freshwater clam (family UNIONIDAE) that is today commonly called the tidewater mucket or American freshwater mussel (see Turgeon et al., 1998, p. 35). Lister depicted the external left valve and named the clam ‘Pectunculis fluviatilibus’. He gave the locality as ‘Vir’ [Virginia] and described the clam as “pectunculus tenuis, subruber ex interna parte, rostro recuruo’. The last known repository of Lister’s material was Oxford University Museum, although it now appears to have been lost (Wilkins, 1953; Dance, 1966, p. 292; J.B. Davies, Oxford University Museum, personal communication). 2. Gmelin (1791, p. 3359) was the first to give a name to the tidewater mucket after 1 January 1758. He named it Mytilus fluviatilis, mistakenly placing the species in the marine genus Mytilus Linnaeus, 1758 even though he listed its habitat as ‘habitat in Europae aquis delcibus’ [European freshwater]. Neither figures nor plates were provided with the description. Gmelin (1791, p. 3359) equated Mytilus fluviatilis with “‘Pectunculis fluviatilibus’ as illustrated by Lister (1685, pl. 157, fig. 12). 3. Despite the seniority of the name Mytilus fluviatilis, the majority of works over the past two centuries have used the name Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 (pl. 2, fig. 8) for the tidewater mucket (see Morrison, 1974, pp. 38-39). The nominal species has been placed in the genera Lampsilis and Leptodea and most recently in the genus Ligumia (see Smith, 2000). Over fifty-six works published after 1817 cite Ligumia ochracea as the valid name (e.g. Gould, 1870, pp. 173-174; Johnson, 1947, pp. 150-156, pl. 20: Johnson & Baker, 1973, pp. 163-164; Turgeon et al., 1998, p. 35). The additional list of references has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat. This meets the requirements of Article 23.9.1.2 for automatic conservation of the name L. ochracea. However the senior synonym, L. fluviatilis, has been used for the fresh water mucket before 1899 (e.g. Dillwyn, 1823, p. 13); and (with reference to Article 23.9.2) since 1899 (e.g. Morrison, 1974, pp. 38-39). Johnson (1947, p. 150) recognized the seniority Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 21 of Gmelin’s name fluviatilis but rejected it on the assumption that Gmelin (1791, p. 1359) only referred to Lister’s (1685, pl. 855, fig. 12) figure as one that ‘approximated the European’ shell Gmelin was describing. Repeated usage of the name fluviatilis by subsequent authors (e.g. Gould, 1841, pp. 112-113, fig. 80; Linsley, 1845, p. 277; Simpson, 1914, pp. 386-387; Ortmann, 1919, p. 160; Frierson, 1927, p. 16 and Haas, 1969, pl. 367) can all be attributed to Isaac Lea’s (1838, p. 51, pl. 15, fig. 46) erroneous synonymizing of Mytilus fluviatilis with another eastern American freshwater mussel, Pyganodon cataracta (Say, 1817). Usage of the senior synonym, Ligumia fluviatilis, prevents automatic conservation of the junior synonym, L. ochracea, under Article 23.9.2. Therefore, in the interests of nomenclatural stability, this application is brought to the Commission under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code. Commission approval will mean that if the two names are considered to be synonyms, L. ochracea becomes the valid name for the taxon. 4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Mytilus fluviatilis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name ochraceus Say, 1817, as published in the binomen Unio ochraceus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. References Dance, S.P. 1966. Shell collecting. An illustrated history. 344 pp. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Dillwyn, L.W. 1823. An index to the Historie Conchyliorum of Lister, with the name of the species to which each figure belongs, and occasional remarks. 48 pp. E typographeo Clarendoniano, Oxonii. Gmelin, J.F. 1791. Caroli a Linné Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae: Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Tom I, Pars VI. 4120 pp. Lipsiae. Gould, A.A. 1841. Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts, comprising the Mollusca, Crustacea, Annelida, and Radiata. 373 pp., 213 figs. Folson, Wells & Thurston, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Gould, A.A. 1870. Report on the Invertebrata of Massachusetts. 2nd Edition comprising the Mollusca. v, 524 pp., 755 figs., 27 pls. Wright & Potter, Boston, Massachusetts. Haas, F. 1969. Superfamily Unionacea. Das Tierreich Eine Zusammenstellung und Kennzeichnung der rezenten Tierformen Lieferung, 88: 1-663. Johnson, R.I. 1947. Lampsilis cariosa Say and Lampsilis ochracea Say. Occasional Papers on Molluscs, 1(12): 145-156. Johnson, R.I. & Baker, H.B. 1973. The types of Unionacea (Mollusca: Bivalvia) in the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 125: 145-186. 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Lea, I. 1838. Description of new freshwater and land shells. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 6: 1-154. Linsley, J.H. 1845. Catalogue of the shells of Connecticut. American Journal of Science, 48(2): 271-286. Lister, M. 1685. Historie sive Synopsis Methodice Conchyliorum quorum Omnium Picture, ad vivum delineate, exhibetur Liber Primus, qui est de Cochleis Terrestribus. 490 pp., 1062 pls. Aere incisus, Sumptibus authoris, Londini. Morrison, J.P.E. 1974. Maryland and Virginia mussels of Lister. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 1974: 36-39. Ortmann, A.E. 1919. A monograph of the naiades of Pennsylvania. Part III. Systematic account of the genera and species. Memoirs of the Carnegie Museum, 8(1): 1-384. Say, T. 1817. Article on Conchology. In: Nicholson's Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts & Sciences illustrated by upwards of 180 elegant drawings, Ed. 1, vol. 4. 17 pp. (unnumbered). Mitchell, Ames & White, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Simpson, C.T. 1914. A descriptive catalogue of the Naiades or pearly fresh-water mussels. Part I. Unionidae. Truncilla - Margaritana. 1540 pp. Bryant Walker, Detroit, Michigan. Smith, D.G. 2000. On the taxonomic placement of Unio ochraceus Say, 1817 in the genus Ligumia (Bivalvia: Unionidae). Nautilus, 114(4): 155-160. Turgeon, D.D., Quinn, J.F. Jr., Bogan, E.A., Coan, E.V., Hochberg, F.G., Lyons, W.G., Mikkelsen, P.M., Neves, R.J., Roper, C.F.E., Rosenberg, G., Roth, B., Scheltema, A., Thompson, F.G., Vecchione, M. & Williams, J.D. 1998. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: molluscs. Ed. 2. 526 pp. American Fisheries Society Special Publication. Wilkins, G.L. 1953. A catalogue and historical account of the Sloane shell collection. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Historical Series, 1(1): 3-47. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). ~ Sectio 3, Fluviatilibus . “ yoo > SE 3 Zo cy “ a & ne Ze Pectunculis fluviatilibus (Lister, 1685, pl. 157, fig. 12). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 23 Case 3151 RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971 (Arachnida, Scorpiones, BUTHIDAE): proposed conservation as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida) Victor Fet Department of Biological Sciences, Marshall University, Huntingdon, West Virginia 25755, U.S.A. (e-mail: fet@marshall.edu) Mary E. Petersen Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2100 Copenhagen 0, Denmark George S. Slyusarev Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Division of Biology & Soil Science, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 719, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3.1 of the Code, is to remove homonymy between the family-group names RHOPALURINAE Bicherl, 1971 (family BUTHIDAE, Scorpiones) and RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (phylum Orthonectida) by changing the spelling of the junior homonym. To date both names have had little use, but the name RHOPALURINAE is likely to be used in future taxonomic revisions of the BUTHIDAE. Before this junior homonym becomes adopted in the literature, it is proposed that the whole of the generic name of the type genus (Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876) of RHOPALURINAE should be used to form the emended name RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971, leaving the orthonectid senior homonym (RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937) unchanged. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Orthonectida; Arachnida; Scorpiones; RHOPALURIDAE; RHOPALURUSINAE; Rhopalura; Rhopalurus; Rhopalura ophiocomae; Rhopalurus laticauda. 1. The family name RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (p. 6) (phylum Orthonectida) 1s based on the name of its type genus, Rhopalura Giard, 1877 (p. 813) (type species Rhopalura ophiocomae Giard, 1877, by monotypy). Giard (1877, pp. 812-813) described the animal in question and just after the description wrote “Je donne a cet animal étrange le nom de Rhopalura Ophiocome’ (p. 813). The name RHOPALURIDAE was introduced by Stunkard (1937, p. 6) as a replacement name for the family called “ORTHONECTIDAE’ by Hartmann (1925). Hartmann’s family name was not available because it was not based on any included genus, but merely derived from the phylum name Orthonectida Giard, 1877. The name RHOPALURIDAE was later also proposed by Caullery (1961, p. 703), but Stunkard (1937) has priority as its author. How- ever, family-group names are rarely used in the latest treatments of the phylum Orthonectida (e.g. Kozloff, 1992; Slyusarev & Miller, 1998). 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 2. The subfamily name RHOPALURINAE Bicherl, 1971 (p. 325) (Scorpiones, family BUTHIDAE) was based on the type genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (p. 9) (type species R. laticauda Thorell, 1876 (p. 9) by original designation). Rhopalurus is a well-known and diverse genus of large, medically important scorpions from South America and the Caribbean (Kraepelin, 1899; Mello-Leitao, 1945; Biicherl, 1971; Lourengo, 1982, 1986; Sissom, 1990; Fet & Lowe, 2000). The name RHOPALURINAE is an available name under the Code and has no synonyms, but it has not been used in the literature since its introduction, mainly because the subfamilial structure of BUTHIDAE is generally unresolved. Recent treatments of this family have avoided using the subfamily category altogether (Francke, 1985; Sissom, 1990; Fet & Lowe, 2000). However, the name RHOPALURINAE is likely to be used in further taxonomic revisions of the BUTHIDAE. 3. According to Article 29.3, Rhopalura Giard, 1877 and Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 have the same stem (Rhopalur-). Therefore, according to Article 55.3, RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 and RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 are homonyms in the family-group category and the case must be brought to the Commission for a ruling to remove homonymy. 4. The most straightforward way to remove the homonymy between these two names would be to use the whole of the generic name Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 as the stem for the scorpion family-group name, thereby emending the name RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 to RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971. The latter form is preferred by the Code as a means of avoidance of homonymy in family-group names (see Recommendation 29.6A). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 is Rhopalurus-; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876, type species by original designation Rhopalurus laticauda Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida); (b) Rhopalura Giard, 1877, type species by monotypy Rhopalura ophiocomae Giard, 1877 (Orthonectida); to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) laticauda Thorell, 1876, as published in the binomen Rhopalurus laticauda (specific name of the type species of Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876) (Arachnida); (b) ophiocomae Giard, 1877, as published in the binomen Rhopalura ophio- comae (specific name of the type species of Rhopalura Giard, 1877) (Orthonectida); to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937, type genus Rhopalura Giard, 1877 (Ortho- nectida); (b) RHOPALURUSINAE Biicherl, 1971, type genus Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Arachnida); to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name RHOPALURINAE Biicherl, 1971 (an incorrect original spelling of RHOPALURUSINAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Arachnida). (3 wm = (5 ~— Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 25 Acknowledgements We are grateful to Claus Nielsen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen) and Philip Tubbs (The Natural History Museum, London) for helpful discussions and for reading through earlier drafts of the manuscript. References Biicherl, W. 1971. Classification, biology and venom extraction of scorpions. Pp. 317-348 in Biicherl, W. & Buckley, E.E. (Eds.), Venomous animals and their venoms, 3. Academic Press, New York. Caullery, M. 1961. Classe des Orthonectides. Pp. 695-706 in Grassé, P.P. (Ed.), Traité de Zoologie, 4. Masson et Cie, Paris. Fet, V. & Lowe, G. 2000. Family Buthidae. Pp. 54-286 in Fet, V., Sissom, W.D., Lowe, G. & Braunwalder, M.E., Catalog of the scorpions of the world (1758-1998). New York Entomological Society, New York. Francke, O.F. 1985. Conspectus genericus scorpionorum 1758-1982 (Arachnida: Scorpiones). Occasional Papers of the Museum/Texas Tech University, 98: 1-32. Giard, A. 1877. Sur les Orthonectida, classe nouvelle d’animaux parasites des échinodermes et des turbellariés. Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de | Académie des Sciences, Paris, 85: 812-814. Hartmann, M. 1925. Mesozoa. Pp. 996-1014 in Kukenthal, W. & Krumbach, T. (Eds.), Handbuch der Zoologie, vol. 1. Gruyter, Berlin. Kozloff, E.N. 1992. The genera of the phylum Orthonectida. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 33: 377-406. Kraepelin, K. 1899. Scorpiones und Pedipalpi. Jn Dahl, F. (Ed.), Das Tierreich, vol. 8. Arachnoidea. 265 pp. Friedlander, Berlin. Lourengo, W.R. 1982. Révision du genre Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (Scorpiones, Buthidae). Revue Arachnologique, 4: 107-141. Lourengo, W.R. 1986. Biogéographie et phylogénie des Scorpions du genre Rhopalurus Thorell, 1876 (Scorpiones, Buthidae). Mémoires de la Société Royale Belge d’Entomologie, 33: 129-137. Mello-Leitao, C. de. 1945. Escorpides sul-americanos. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 40: 7-468. Sissom, W.D. 1990. Chapter 3. Systematics, biogeography and paleontology. Pp. 64-160 in Polis, G.A. (Ed.), Biology of scorpions. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. Slyusarev, G.S. & Miller, D.M. 1998. Fine structure of the mature plasmodium of Jntoshia variabili (Phylum Orthonectida), a parasite of the platyhelminth Macrorhynchus crocea. Acta Zoologica (Stockholm), 79(4): 319-327. Stunkard, H.W. 1937. The physiology, life-cycles and phylogeny of the parasitic flatworms. American Museum Novitates, 908: 1—27. Thorell, T. 1876. On the classification of scorpions. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)17: 1-15. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 57: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3236 Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August) Mark S. Harvey Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum, Francis St., Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia (e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 for a group of sun spiders (family soLPUGIDAE) by giving it precedence over the unused older name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; SOLPUGIDAE; Zeriassa; Canentis; Zeriassa bicolor; Zeriassa ruspolii; sun spiders; Africa. 1. In September 1897, Pocock (1897b, p. 252) proposed the generic name Zeriassa for a species of sun spider Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897a (p. 392) (family soLPUGIDAE) that had been collected from an unspecified locality in Somalia. The type species of Zeriassa is Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897a by original designation (Pocock, 1897b, p. 255). 2. At virtually the same time, Pavesi (12 August 1897, p. 158) named the genus Canentis for the new nominal species C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897 (p. 159) from Somalia. The holotype (a female specimen) is lodged in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova and was examined by Simonetta & Della Cave, who (1968) redescribed the species based upon the holotype and several other specimens from Somalia and Ethiopia. C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897 is the type species of Canentis by original designation and monotypy. 3. Both Pocock (1897b) and Pavesi (1897) noted the distinctive setal morphology of the eye tubercle that is diagnostic of these species of sun spiders. This feature enabled Kraepelin (1901, p. 81) to recognize the two generic names as synonyms, and he used the name Zeriassa as the valid name. 4. Despite Kraepelin’s (1901) use of Zeriassa, it is clear that Canentis has strict priority over Zeriassa, as it was published a month prior to Zeriassa. However, Canentis has not been used as a valid name since Pavesi first established it over a hundred years ago, whereas Zeriassa is currently in use for 17 species (including Z. ruspolii) found in southern and eastern Africa (e.g. Roewer, 1933; Simonetta & Della Cave, 1968; Wharton, 1981). The use of the name Canentis in place of Zeriassa would entail considerable confusion and would be contrary to the spirit of the Code (see Article 23.9.3). Although the name Canentis has not been used for over a hundred years (see Article 23.9.1.1), the name Zeriassa does not meet the criteria of Article 23.9.1.2 for ‘automatic’ conservation because so few authors have studied this group of animals. I propose that Zeriassa is given precedence (see Article 81.2.3) over Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 27 Canentis whenever these names are considered to be synonyms. However if, in the light of future research, Zeriassa is found not to be congeneric with Canentis both names are still available to denote the two taxa. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to give the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897, whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species by original desig- nation Zeria bicolor Pocock, 1897, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Canentis Pavesi, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (gender: masculine), type species by original desig- nation and monotypy C. ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) bicolor Pocock, 1897, as published in the binomen Zeria bicolor (specific name of the type species of Zeriassa Pocock, 1897); (b) ruspolii Pavesi, 1897, as published in the binomen Canentis ruspolii (specific name of the type species of Canentis Pavesi, 1897). References Kraepelin, K. 1901. Palpigradi und Solifugae. Das Tierreich, 12: 1-xi, 1-159. Pavesi, P. 1897. Studi sugli aracnidi africani. IX. Aracnidi di Somali e Galla. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 38: 151-188. Pocock, R.I. 1897a. On the genera and species of tropical African Arachnida of the order Solifugae, with notes upon the taxonomy and habits of the group. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)20: 249-272. Pocock, R.I. 1897b. Solifugae, Scorpiones, Chilopoda and Diplopoda. Pp. 392-407 in Smith, A.D., Through unknown African countries. Arnold, London. Roewer, C.F. 1933. Solifugae, Palpigradi. Pp. 161-480 in Bronns, H.G. (Ed.), Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. 5: Arthropoda. IV: Arachnoidea. Akademische Verlagsgesell- schaft M.B.H., Leipzig. Simonetta, A.M. & Della Cave, L. 1968. A tentative revision of the ceromids and solpugids (Arachnida, Solifugae) from Ethiopia and Somalia in the Italian Museums. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, n.s., Supplemento, 2: 151-180. Wharton, R.A. 1981. Namibian Solifugae (Arachnida). Cimbebasia Memoir, 5: \-87. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3239 Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation V.I. Gusarov Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045—7523, U.S.A. and Department of Entomology, St. Petersburg State University, Universitetskaya nab. 7/9, St. Petersburg 199034, Russia (e-mail: viad@ku.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application is to conserve, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, the prevailing usage of the generic name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 for a widespread and well-known genus of Holarctic and Oriental rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE, Subfamily ALEOCHARINAE). The name is threatened by very limited use since 1952 of the senior objective synonym, Evanystes Gistel, 1856. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; STAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE; Geostiba; Geostiba circellaris; rove beetles; Holarctic; Oriental. 1. Gistel (1856, p. 387) established a genus of rove beetles (now placed in family STAPHYLINIDAE, subfamily ALEOCHARINAE) and named it Evanystes. He included eight nominal species in the genus, among them Evanystes circellaris (Gravenhorst, 1806). This name was originally published in the binomen Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 155). Gistel did not designate a type species for the genus Evanystes. Blackwelder (1952, p. 163) subsequently designated Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806 as the type species of Evanystes and listed Evanystes as the senior synonym of Geostiba Thomson, 1858. 2. Thomson (1858, p. 33) established a rove beetle genus and named it Geostiba. He included only one nominal species, Homalota circellaris, in the genus. Although he did not cite the author of this name, Thomson clearly had in mind Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, which has been accepted by subsequent authors as the type species by monotypy of Geostiba (see Article 67.7). 3. Although the name Evanystes is a senior objective synonym of Geostiba, it is the name Geostiba that has had prevailing usage. To the best of my knowledge, the name Evanystes was not used after its original publication until Blackwelder (1952) designated the type species of Evanystes. Since Blackwelder (1952) the name Evanystes has had some limited use in Eastern Europe, mostly by L. Adam and his colleagues (e.g. Adam, 1996). 4. On the other hand, the name Geostiba has been used by more than 10 authors in more than 25 works (e.g. Pace, 1977; Seevers, 1978; Lohse & Smetana, 1988: Zerche, 1988; Assing & Wunderle, 1996; Assing, 1999; other records of use have been submitted to the Commission Secretariat). A search of the Zoological Record database for the years 1978-2001 produced 39 papers by 16 authors who used the name Geostiba as a valid name. 5. The Code seeks to preserve the stability of established names by ensuring that a younger name in prevailing usage is not displaced by an older but little used name Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 29 (see Article 23.2). However Article 23.9.1 cannot be automatically applied in the present case as the senior synonym, Evanystes, has been used as the valid name for this group of rove beetles by Blackwelder (1952) and a few others. 6. The genus Geostiba currently includes about 350 species and subspecies, which are distributed in the Holarctic and Oriental regions. In this situation, strict application of the Principle of Priority and use of the senior synonym Evanystes over the junior name Geostiba would greatly destabilize staphylinid nomenclature. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Evanystes Gistel, 1856 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 Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806, as published in the binomen Aleochara circellaris (specific name of the type species of Geostiba Thomson, 1858); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Evanystes Gistel, 1856, as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements I thank Lee H. Herman (American Museum of Natural History, New York) and Izyaslav M. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, St. Petersburg) for their comments. This work was supported by National Science Foundation P.E.E.T. grants DEB-9521755 and DEB-9978110 to Steve Ashe, and by the Russian research program “Universities of Russia (project 07.01.056)’. References Adam, L. 1996. The species of Staphylinidae from Orség (Coleoptera). Savaria, 23(2): 43-67. Assing, V. 1999. A revision of the species of Geostiba Thomson 1858 from Greece and Cyprus (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Linzer biologische Beitrdge, 31(2): 845-928. Assing, V. & Wunderle, P. 1996. A revision of the Madeiran species of the genus Geostiba Thomson 1858 (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Revue suisse de Zoologie, 103(1): 119-150. Blackwelder, R.E. 1952. The generic names of the beetle family Staphylinidae, with an essay on genotypy. United States National Museum Bulletin, 200: 1-483. Gistel, J. 1856. Die Mysterien der Europdischen Insectenwelt. 530 pp. Tobias Dannheimer, Kempten. Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. xvi, 248 pp. Dieterich, GOttingen. Lohse, G.A. & Smetana, A. 1988. Four new species of Geostiba Thomson from the Appalachian mountains of North Carolina, with a key to North American species and synonymic notes (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae: Aleocharinae). The Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 42(3): 269-278. Pace, R. 1977. Studio sul genere Geostiba Thomson, con descrizione di nuove specie italiane (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Fragmenta Entomologica, 13(1): 183-229. Seevers, C.H. 1978. A generic and tribal revision of the North American Aleocharinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Fieldiana: Zoology, 71: \—275. Thomson, C.G. 1858. Fors6k till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, 15: 27-40. 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Zerche, L. 1988. Zur Taxonomie der Gattung Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 38(1): 155-168. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 3] Case 3258 Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera C.L. Bellamy Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov) M.G. Volkovitsh Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, RU-199034 St. Petersburg, Russia (e-mail: polycest@zin.ru) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the widely used buprestid (jewel beetle) generic names Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (family BUPRESTIDAE) by accepting the designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. The type species of Acmaeodera is at present formally Buprestis taeniata Fabricius, 1787 (a junior subjective synonym of B. flavofasciata Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783). However, this designation (made in 1841) has been overlooked, and in modern usage B. cylindrica has universally been accepted as the type species of Acmaeodera. Adoption of B. taeniata as type species of Acmaeodera would cause great nomenclatural instability as nearly 500 species would be affected by transfer and changes in generic and subgeneric names. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera; Acmaeoderella; Carininota,; Acmaeodera cylindrica; Acmaeoderella flavofasciata; jewel beetles. 1. Eschscholtz (1829, p. 9) introduced the generic name Acmaeodera for five nominal species of buprestid beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE): Buprestis gibbosa Olivier, 1790, B. taeniata Fabricius, 1787 (p. 180), B. adspersula (as adspersa) Illiger, 1803, B. ornata Olivier, 1790, and B. cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 (p. 220). None was designated as the type species. Acmaeodera now includes 495 species found in all parts of the world except Australasia. 2. Duponchel (1841, p. 88) subsequently designated B. taeniata Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Acmaeodera. Desmarest (1860, p. 41) indicated that he con- sidered B. taeniata to be the type species of Acmaeodera. Starting from the work of Harold (1869, p. 117), B. taeniata has been listed as a junior subjective synonym of B. flavofasciata Piller & Mitterpacher, 1783 (p. 84) (currently Acmaeoderella flavofasciata). 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 3. Cobos (1955, p. 5) introduced the generic name Acmaeoderella and designated Buprestis discoidea Fabricius, 1787 (p. 184) as the type species. Later, Cobos (1958) revised the Acmaeoderini of Morocco and transferred 21 nominal species of Acmaeodera (including A. flavofasciata) to Acmaeoderella. Acmaeoderella currently includes 120 species, all restricted to the Palaearctic region. 4. Volkovitsh (1979, p. 339; see also the 1980 English translation, p. 82) invalidly designated B. cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera, unaware of the much earlier designation of B. taeniata by Duponchel (see para. 2 above). In this work Volkovitsh published a classification for the Palaearctic species of both Acmaeodera and Acmaeoderella, erecting new subgenera and species groups. Buprestis flavofasciata ( = B. taeniata; see para. 2 above) was designated as the type species of the subgenus Carininota Volkovitsh, 1979 (p. 352) in Acmaeoderella. Carininota and Buprestis flavofasciata were placed on Official Lists in Opinion 2008 (BZN 59: 211-216, September 2002). After Cobos (1955, 1958) and Volkovitsh (1979), the names Acmaeoderella and Acmaeodera have been used in accord with the type designations (valid and invalid respectively) made by these authors and their meanings have been universally accepted (see Bily, 1977, 1983; Muhle, 1980; Bellamy, 1985: Cobos, 1986; Holynski, 1993; Curletti, 1994; Kolibaé, 2001; Volkovitsh, 2001). 5. Nomenclatural chaos would be caused if Duponchel’s type species designation were to be accepted and B. taeniata taken to be the type species of Acmaeodera. The name Acmaeodera would be applied to the 120 exclusively Palaearctic species currently placed in Acmaeoderella and its six subgenera, and the taxonomic subgenus now called Carininota would become the nominotypical subgenus Acmaeodera (Acmaeodera) (see para. 4 above and Article 44). The taxon now called Acmaeoderella (Acmaeoderella), with the type species B. discoidea, would become one of the subgenera of Acmaeodera with a new subgeneric name. The 495 species (in some 12 subgenera) currently in Acmaeodera would be placed in a genus with a name depending on taxonomic view, and the subgenus containing B. cylindrica Fabricius would need a new name. 6. To avoid the confusion that would result from over-turning the traditional stability of the genera Acmaeodera and Acmaeoderella, the type species designation of Duponchel (1841; see para. 2 above) should be set aside and the designation of Volkovitsh (1979; see para. 4 above) should be conserved. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all fixations of type species for the nominal genus Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 before that of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by Volkovitsh (1979); (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 (gender: feminine), type species Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 by the fixation of Volkovitsh (1979) as ruled in (1) above; (b) Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation Buprestis discoidea Fabricius, 1787; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) cylindrica Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Buprestis cylindrica (specific name of the type species of Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 33 (b) discoidea Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Buprestis discoidea (specific name of the type species of Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955). References Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Navorsinge van die nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472. Bily, S. 1977. Klié k uréovani Ceskoslovenskych krascu. Buprestidae, Coleoptera. 51 pp. Academia, Praha. Bily, S. 1983. Results of the Czechoslovak-Iranian Entomological Expedition to Iran. Coleoptera, Buprestidae. Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, 41: 29-89. Cobos, A. 1955. Estudio sobre los Ptosimites de Ch. Kerremans (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 31(13): 1-24. Cobos, A. 1958. Revision de los Acmaeoderini de Marruecos (Col. Buprestidae). EOS, Revista Espanola de Entomologia, 34: 221-268. Cobos, A. 1986. Fauna iberica de coleopteros Buprestidae. 364 pp. Aguirre, Madrid. Curletti, G. 1994. I Buprestidi d’Italia. Catalogo tassonomico, sinonimico, biologico, geonemico. Natura Bresciana, Brescia, Monografie, no. 19: 1-318. Desmarest, E. 1860. Coléoptéres. In: Chenu, J.C. (Ed.), Encyclopédie d'histoire naturelle ou traité complet de cette science, vol. 3. 360 pp. Maresq, Paris. Duponchel, P.A.J. 1841. Acmaeodera. P. 88 in Orbigny, C.D. d’ (Ed.), Dictionnaire universel histoire naturelle, vol. 1. Renard & Martinet, Paris. Eschscholtz, J.F. 1829. Zoologischer Atlas. 17 pp. Reimer, Berlin. Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae . . . 32, 832 pp. Flensbergi et Lipsiae, Kortii. Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum . . ., vol. 2. 2, 382 pp. Crist. Gottl. Proft, Hafniae. Harold, E. von. 1869. Berichtigungen und Zusatze zum Catalogus Coleopterorum synonymicus et systematicus. Coleopterologische Hefte, 5: 112-119, 122-125. Holynski, R. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae Leach (Coleoptera). Crystal, Series Zoologica, 1: 1-42. Kolibaé, J. 2001. Classification and phylogeny of the Buprestoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera). Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Biologicae (Brno), 85: 113-184. Miihle, H. 1980. Ergebnisse der Albanien-Expedition des Deutschen Entomologischen Institutes. 96. Beitrag, Coleoptera: Buprestidae. Beitrdge zur Entomologie, Berlin, 30(2): 369-383. Piller, M. & Mitterpacher, L. 1783. Iter per Poseganum .. . 147 pp. Budae. Volkovitsh, M.G. 1979. A review of Palaearctic groups of the tribe Acmaeoderini (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 58(2): 333-354. [In Russian] [English translation: Entomological Review, 58(2)(1980): 78-99]. Volkovitsh, M.G. 2001. The comparative morphology of antennal structures in Buprestidae (Coleoptera): evolutionary trends, taxonomic and phylogenetic implications. Part 1. Acta Musei Moraviae, Scientiae Biologicae (Brno), 86: 43-169. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3243 Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahibom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons Akihiko Shinohara Department of Zoology, National Science Museum, 3—23—1 Hyakunin-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 169-0073 Japan (e-mail: shinohar@kahaku.go.jp) Matti Viitasaari Department of Applied Biology, P.O. Box 27, University of Helsinki, FIN-00014 Helsinki, Finland (e-mail: matti.viitasaari@helsinki.fi) Veli Vikberg Liinalammintie 11 as. 6, FIN-14200 Turenki, Finland (e-mail: veli.vikberg@mail.htk.fi) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the existing usage of the names Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and Lyda gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali) for two species of Palaearctic sawfly (family PAMPHILIIDAE) by designation of a neotype for Lyda latifrons. The holotype of L. latifrons is a specimen of L. gyllenhali, but acceptance of this would lead to the transfer of the name L. J/atifrons to the taxon always known as L. gyllenhali. It is proposed that current usage of these specific names is conserved by designating the lectotype of L. maculosa Zaddach, 1866 as the neotype of Lyda latifrons. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; PAMPHILIDAE; Pamphilius latifrons; Pamphilius gyllenhali; Palaearctic; sawflies. 1. Fallén (1808, p. 226) described a species of sawfly (sub-order Symphyta, family PAMPHILIIDAE) On the basis of only male specimens from Sweden and named it Lyda latifrons. The holotype was not traced in the Fallén, Dahlbom, or Thomson collections in Sweden and is probably lost (Benes, 1976, p. 162). Since its original publication, Fallén’s name, in its original combination or in the current combination of Pamphilius latifrons, has been constantly applied to a seldom collected but characteristic sawfly species. This species is distributed in Europe and eastern Siberia. Its larvae feed on poplar (Populus spp.) and probably also on willow (Salix spp.). 2. However, Vikberg (2002, p. 456) has shown that Fallén’s original description of Lyda latifrons does not fit the male of the species currently known as Lyda Jatifrons. Fallén was actually describing a species that is currently known as Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835). The name of this taxon was originally published as Lyda Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 35 gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (p. 40, fig. 1). As a result, the name Pamphilius gyllenhali is formally a junior synonym of the name Pamphilius latifrons, but it has not been used in this sense. The species currently known as Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén, 1808) is in fact conspecific with another type of sawfly that is known as Pamphilius maculosus (Zaddach, 1866) and originally named with the binomen Lyda maculosa Zaddach, 1866 (p. 166). Benes (1976, p. 162) designated a female lectotype for L. maculosa, which he took to be conspecific with P. latifrons as normally understood. Blank et al. (1998, p. 26) agreed with this. 3. As explained in para. 2 above, the species that Fallén actually described and named Lyda latifrons has since been known as Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835). It is an uncommon but well known European species which, like P. latifrons auct. (= P. maculosus), is associated with willow (Salix spp.). It is under the name of P. gyllenhali that the taxon has been referred to in all literature concerning sawfly systematics, faunistics and biology. No synonyms have been recognized for this taxon. Klima (1937, p. 54) cited 21 references and Shinohara (1995, p. 49) gave an additional 48 references that use the name Pamphilius gyllenhali, including Zaddach (1866), Thomson (1871), André (1879-1882), Dalla Torre (1894), Konow (1897), Enslin (1917), Gussakovskij (1935), Berland (1947), Benson (1951), Chambers (1952), Moczar & Zombori (1973), Benes (1974), Viitasaari (1982), Achterberg & Aartsen (1986), Midtgaard et al. (1987), Pesarini & Pesarini (1988), Zhelochovtsev (1988), Magis (1994), Liston (1995) and Taeger et al. (1998). 4. The meaning of the name Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835) is well established in the entomological literature and it would not serve nomenclatural stability to allow this name to be replaced as a junior subjective synonym of the name Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén, 1808), especially as the name Pamphilius latifrons has been used until now for a different, but closely related species, also known as P. maculosus (Zaddach, 1866), that has a similar distributional range and possibly similar host-plants. In order to avoid any confusion in the future, we propose that the Commission conserves the names P. Jatifrons (Fallén, 1808) and P. gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835) in their current usage by designating a neotype for Lydia latifrons Fallén, 1808 that is conspecific with “P. Jatifrons’ in the current sense and with P. maculosus (Zaddach, 1866). The most suitable specimen would be the female lectotype of Lydia maculosa Zaddach, 1866 designated by Benes (1976, p. 162). The specimen is labelled ‘Type’ [red label], ‘steckte mit maculosa’, ‘maculosa’, “Zool. Mus. Berlin’; ‘Lectotype’ [red label]. The underside of this label reads: ‘maculosa Zd. Benes, 1971’, ‘Pamphilius latifrons Fall. 2 det. Benes 71, “Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén) Det. A. Shinohara, 1995’. The specimen is kept in the Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Jatifrons Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda Jatifrons, and to designate the female specimen that is held in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin, and referred to in para. 4 above as the neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) latifrons Fallén, 1808, as published in the binomen Lyda Jatifrons and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835, as published in the binomen Lyda gyllenhali. 36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 References Achterberg, C. van & Aartsen, B. van. 1986. The European Pamphiliidae (Hymenoptera: Symphyta), with special reference to the Netherlands. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 234: 1-98. André, E. 1879-1882. Species des Hyménoptéres d'Europe et d’ Algerie, vol. 1. 196, 563, 70 pp.. 24 pls. Beaune. Bene’, K. 1974. The Siberian species of Pamphilius Latr. related to P. histrio Latr. (Hymeno- ptera, Pamphiliidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 71: 298-314. Benes, K. 1976. The Siberian species of the genus Pamphilius related to P. vafer (L.) (Hymenoptera, Pamphiliidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 73: 159-173. Benson, R.B. 1951. Hymenoptera 2. Symphyta. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, Royal Entomological Society of London, 6(2)(a): 1-49. Berland, L. 1947. Hyménoptéres Tenthredoides. Faune de France, 47: 1-496. Blank, S.M., Shinohara, A. & Taeger, A. 1998. Revisionary notes on Pamphiliid sawflies (Hymenoptera, Symphyta: Pamphiliidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 45: 17-31. Chambers, V.H. 1952. The natural history of some Pamphilius species (Hym., Pamphiliidae). Transactions of the Society for British Entomology, 11: 125-141. Dahlbom, G. 1835. Clavis novi hymenopterorum systematis .. . 5, 40 pp., 1 pl. Berling, Lundae. Dalla Torre, C.G. 1894. Catalogus Hymenopterorum, Tenthredinidae incl. Uroceridae (Phyllophaga & Xylophaga), vol. 1. 459 pp. Engelmann, Lipsiae. Enslin, E. 1917. Die Tenthredinoidea Mitteleuropas VI. Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift. 1917: 539-662. Fallén, C.F. 1808. Férs6k till uppstallning och bekrifning 4 de i Sverige fundne Arter af Insect-Slagtet Tenthredo Linn. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 29: 37-64, 98-124, 219-227. Gussakoyskij, V.V. 1935. Chalastogastra (pt. 1). Faune de l'URSS (n.s. 1), Insectes Hyménop- teres, vol. 2, part 1. xviii, 453 pp. Edition de l’Académie des Sciences de l' URSS, Moscou, Leningrad. [In Russian with German summary]. Klima, A. 1937. Pamphiliidae in Hedicke, H. (Ed.), Hymenopterorum Catalogus, vol. 3. 84 pp. Junk, Gravenhage. Konow, F.W. 1897. Systematische und kritische Bearbeitung der Blattwespen-Tribus Lydini. I, II. Annalen des K. K. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums, Wien, 12: 1-32, 231-255. Liston, A.D. 1995. Compendium of European sawflies. 190 pp. Chalastos Forestry, Gottfrieding. Magis, N. 1994. Répertoire des Mouches 4 scie reconnues en Belgique et au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg (Hymenoptera: Symphyta). Notes fauniques de Gembloux, 28: 3-52. Midtgaard, F., Lomholt, O. & Koch, F. 1987. The Danish Xyelidae and Pamphiliidae (Hymenoptera). Entomologiske Meddelelser, 55: 31-38. Moezar, L. & Zombori, L. 1973. Levéldarazs-Alkatuak I.—Tenthredinoidea I. Fauna hungariae, 111: 1-128. Pesarini, C. & Pesarini, F. 1988. Nuovi reperti interessanti di Imenotteri Sinfiti italiani (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Bollettino della Societa entomologica Italiana, 119: 163-172. Shinohara, A. 1995. Pamphilius histrio (Hymenoptera, Pamphiliidae) and its close relatives. Bulletin of the National Science Museum, (A)21: 37-70. Taeger, A., Altenhofer, E., Blank, S.M., Jansen, E., Kraus, M., Pschorn-Walcher, H. & Ritzau, C. 1998. Kommentare zur Biologie, Verbreitung und Gefahrdung der Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Pp. 49-135 in Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. (Eds.), Pflanzenwespen Deutschlands (Hymenoptera, Symphyta), Kommentierte Bestandsauf- nahme. Goecke & Evers, Keltern. Thomson, C.G. 1871. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae, 1. 342 pp. Ohlsson, Lundae. Viitasaari, M. 1982. Sahapistidiset 2, Xyeloidea ja Megalodontoidea. Department of Agricultural and Forest Zoology, University of Helsinki, Reports, 5: \-72. Vikberg, V. 2002. Rearing experiments on Finnish species of Pamphiltidae (Hymenoptera), with special emphasis on the egg laying behaviour. Pp. 439-459 in Viitasaari, M. (Ed.), Sawflies 1 (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Tremex Press, Helsinki. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 37 Zaddach, G. 1866. Beobachtungen tiber die Arten der Blatt- und Holtzwespen von C.G.A. Brischke, Hauptlehrer an der altstadtischen evangelischen Knabenschule in Danzig, und Dr. Gustav Zaddach, Professor in K6nigsberg, mitgetheilt von Zaddach (Dritte Abhandlung). Lydidae. Schriften der kéniglichen physikalisch-6konomischen Gesellschaft zu Koénigsberg, 6(2): 104-202. Zhelochoytsey, A.N. 1988. Podotryad Symphyta (Chalastogastra) — Sidyachebryukhie. Pp. 7-234 in Zhelochovtsev, A.N., Tobias, V.I. & Kozlov, M.A. (Eds.), Opredeliteli po faune USSR, II, Pereponchatokrylye, Shestaya chast. Nauka, Leningrad. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Left — Pamphilius latifrons (Fallén, 1808), female specimen from Britain, length c. 12 mm. Right — Pamphilius gyllenhali (Dahlbom, 1835), female specimen from Finland, length c. 10 mm. 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3225 Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the names by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 Richard Etheridge and Jay M. Savage Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California, 92182-4614 U.S.A. (e-mail: rether@sunstroke.sdsu.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the widespread existing usage of the generic name Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and the specific name P. palluma (Molina, 1782) for a genus and a species of lizard (family LIOLAEMIDAE) from South America by designating the holotype of Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 as the neotype of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. Phymaturus and P. palluma have been used in this sense since the name L. palluma was first misapplied by Gravenhorst in 1837. In this application it is accepted that the valid name for Molina’s lizard species will be Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; LIOLAEMIDAE; TEUDAE; Callopistes; Phymaturus; Callopistes maculatus; Phymaturus palluma; lizard; South America. 1. Molina (1782, p. 217) described a species of lizard (family TEIDAE) from Chile and named it Lucerta palluma after an Araucanian Indian name; palma is a noun in apposition. In the same work (1782, p. 345) and in its second edition (Molina, 1810, p. 189), Molina then used a different spelling for the generic name, referring to the taxon as Lacerta palluma. In so doing he acted as the First Reviser and selected Lacerta palluma as the valid spelling: (see Article 24 of the Code). 2. Gravenhorst (1837, p. 749, pl. 55, fig. 2) placed what he thought was the nominal species Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 in a new genus which he named (p. 749) Phymaturus. Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 is thus the name of the type species by monotypy of Phymaturus. He illustrated a dorsal view of the lizard’s head, but had misidentified Molina’s taxon. Gravenhorst’s lizard belongs to the family LIOLAEMIDAE, Whereas Molina’s lizard belongs to the family Tempar. Molina’s specific name palluma has been mistakenly applied to Gravenhorst’s taxon for over 100 years. 3. Bell (1843, p. 25, pl. 14, fig. 2) described a new genus and species of lizard with the name Centrura flagellifer (family LIOLAEMIDAE). His illustration of the holotype (which is held in The Natural History Museum, London, with accession number BMNH 1946.8.29.84 and examined by R.E. in 1968) is clearly that of the species referred to as Phymaturus palluma by Gravenhorst (1837). Boulenger (1885, p. 184) synonymized Centrura flagellifer with Phymaturus palluma sensu Gravenhorst, 1837. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 39 4. Cei & Lescure (1985, p. 452) showed that the species named Lacerta palluma by Molina (1782) is the lizard named Callopistes maculatus by Gravenhorst, 1837 (p. 744; family TEUDAE). C. maculatus is, by monotypy, the type species of Callopistes Gravenhorst, 1837 (p. 743). 5. In an attempt to rectify the situation caused by Gravenhorst’s misidentification of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782, Cei & Lescure (1985, p. 456) used the next available generic name, Centrura Bell, 1843 (p. 25) whose type species by monotypy is Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 as the substitute name for Phymaturus. 6. Later, Lescure & Cei (1991, p. 174) decided on a new approach to resolving the confusion created by Gravenhorst’s misidentification of Lacerta palluma Molina. They suggested that the Commission might use its plenary power to designate Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 as the type species of Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837, citing Article 70b of the second (1964) edition of the Code as the justification for this action. However, this proposal was never brought to the Commission. 7. Veloso et al. (2000, p. 258), following Cei & Lescure (1985), stated that the species described by Molina (1782) as Lacerta palluma is a senior synonym of the te1id lizard Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837. They designated a neotype (which is held in the National Museum of Natural History, Chile, with the accession number 2909) for Lacerta palluma in order to give ‘taxonomic stability to the name Callopistes palluma (Molina, 1782) and also the name [sic] Phymaturus flagellifer (Bell, 1843) = Phymaturus palluma [of authors other than Molina, 1782)’. 8. In our opinion, none of the actions by Cei & Lescure (1985), Lescure & Cei (1991) or Veloso et al. (2000, p. 258) best serves nomenclatural stability. The lizard taxon mistakenly called Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) by Gravenhorst in 1837 is of great scientific interest because of its herbivorous diet, viviparous reproduction, saxicolous habits, possession of sex chromosomes and occurrence at high elevations. As a result, it has appeared in numerous publications but under the incorrect name of P. palluma (Molina, 1782). Recent examples of usage of this name are de Queiroz, 1982; Arnold, 1984; Bee de Speroni, Cabrera & Manca, 1984; Lamborot & Navarro-Suarez, 1984; Shine, 1985; Etheridge & de Queiroz, 1988; Hallermann, 1994; Etheridge, 1995; Grimalt et al., 1995; McGuire, 1996; Reeder & Wiens, 1996; Schulte et al., 1998; Schulte et al., 1999 and Etheridge & Espinoza, 2000. 9. We propose that the Commission designate the holotype of Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 (see para. 3 above) as the neotype of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 to conserve the existing and widespread usage of the generic name Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and the specific name of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. Following this, Centrura and C. flagellifer Bell, 1844 will be junior objective synonyms of Phymaturus and P. palluma respectively, and the valid name for the lizard described by Molina will be Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837 (see para. 4 above). 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 and to designate the specimen BMNH 1946.8.29.84, referred to in para. 3 above, as the neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782; 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 (b) Callopistes Gravenhorst, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1838; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the folowing names: (a) palluma Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Lucerta (sic) palluma and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above (specific name of the type species of Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837); (b) maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837, as published in the binomen Callopistes maculatus (specific name of the type species of Callopistes Gravenhorst, 1837). References Arnold, E.N. 1984. Variation in the cloacal and hemipenial muscles in lizards and its bearing on their relationships. Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 52: 47-85. Bee de Speroni, N.T., Cabrera, M.R. & Manca, L. 1984. Consideraciones sobre la osteologia craneal, hioides, esterndn y lengua de Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) (Sauria, Iguanidae). Historia Natural (Corrientes, Argentina), 3(24): 197-212. Bell, T. 1843. Reptiles. Jn Darwin, C. (Ed.), Zoology of the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle under the Command of Capt. Fitzroy R.N., during the years 1832 to 1836, vol. 5. 51 pp. Smith, Elder and Co., London. Boulenger, G.A. 1885. Catalogue of the lizards in the British Museum (Natural History), Ed. 2, vol. 2. xii, 497 pp. London. Cei, J.M. & Lescure, J. 1985. Identité de Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782, et revalidation de Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843 (Reptilia, Sauria). Bulletin Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle (Paris), Series 7(4), section A, 2: 451-459. de Queiroz, K. 1982. The scleral ossicles of sceloporine iguanids: a re-examination with comments on their phylogenetic significance. Herpetologica, 38(2): 302-311. Etheridge, R. 1995. Redescription of Ctenoblepharys adspersa Tschudi, 1845, and the tax- onomy of Liolaeminae (Reptilia: Squamata: Tropiduridae). American Museum Novitates, 3142: 1-34. Etheridge, R. & de Queiroz, K. 1988. A phylogeny of Iguanidae. Pp. 283-367 in Estes, R. & Pregill, G. (Eds.), Phylogenetic relationships of the lizard families: essays commemorating Charles L. Camp. Stanford University Press, California. Etheridge, R. & Espinoza, R.E. 2000. Taxonomy of the Liolaeminae (Squamata: Iguania: Tropiduridae) and a semi-annotated bibliography. Smithsonian Herpetological Informa- tion Service, 126: 1—65. Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1837. Beitrage zur genauern Kenntniss einiger Eidechsgattungen. Nova Acta Academiae Caesarea Leopoldino-Carolinae Germaninicae Naturae Curiosorum, 18(2): 712-784 Grimalt, P.E., Castro, L.P., Mayorga, L.S. & Bertini, F. 1995. Epididymal acid hydrolases in the annual reproductive cycle of two lizards. Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, 112A(2): 321-325. Hallermann, J. 1994. Zur Morphologie der Ethmoidalregion der Iguania (Squamata) — eine vergleichend-anatomische Untersuchung. Bonner Zoologische Monographien, 35: 1-33. Lamborot, M. & Navarro-Suarez, M. 1984. Karyotypes and sex determination in Phymaturus palluma Molina (Iguanidae). Herpetologica, 40(3): 58-264. Lescure, J. & Cei, C.M. 1991. L’espéce-type du genre Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1838 (Reptilia, Sauria). Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, 9(1): 173-175. McGuire, J.A. 1996. Phylogenetic systematics of crotaphytid lizards (Reptilia: Iguania: Crotaphytidae). Bulletin of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, 32: 1-143. Molina, G.I. 1782. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili. 375 pp. Stamperia di S. Tommaso d’Aquino, Bologna. Molina, G.I. 1810. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili, Ed. 2. 308 pp. Fratelli Masie Comp, Bologna. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 41 Reeder, T.W. & Wiens, J. 1996. Evolution of the lizard family Phrynosomatidae as inferred from diverse types of data. Herpetological Monographs, 10: 43-84. Schulte, J.A., Macey, J.R., Espinoza, R.E. & Larson, A. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships in the iguanid lizard genus Liolaemus: multiple origins of viviparous reproduction and evidence for recurring Andean vicariance and dispersal. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 69: 75-102. Schulte, J.A., Macey, J.R., Larson, A. & Papenfuss, J. 1998. Molecular tests of phylogenetic taxonomies: a general procedure and example using four subfamilies of the lizard family Iguanidae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 10(3): 367-376. Shine, R. 1985. The evolution of viviparity in reptiles: an ecological analysis. Pp. 605-694 in Gans, C. & Billet, F. (Eds.), Biology of the Reptilia, vol. 15, Development. John Wiley, New York. Veloso, A., Nunez, H. & Cei, J.M. 2000. Fixation and description of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina 1782 (currently) — (Squamata: Tetidae). Bollettino del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, 17(1): 257-268. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Benen Tay Pes Sites > tiene aera as — Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) from Sierra de Uspallata, Mendoza Province, Argentina. 42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Case 3240 Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Meredith Happold School of Botany and Zoology, Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T. 0200, Australia (e-mail: David. Happold@anu.edu.au) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used name Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus nanus) for the African Banana bat (family vESPERTILIONIDAE). The name is threatened by limited use of a senior subjective synonym P. africanus (Riippell, 1842). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Chiroptera; VESPERTILIONIDAE; Pipistrellus nanus; Banana bat; Africa. 1. Two bat (family VESPERTILIONIDAE) specimens collected from Shoa Province, Ethiopia, and lodged in the Museum of Frankfurt am Main (= S.M.F.), were catalogued with the registration numbers II.N.9*.a,b and were formally named as Vespertilio pipistrellus varietas africanus by Ruppell (1842, p. 156). Subsequently, Mertens (1925, p. 22) designated II.N.9*.a (now catalogued as S.M.F. 4306) as the lectotype of V. pipistrellus africanus (skin with skull not extracted) and classified it in a new synonymy as Pipistrellus kuhlii africanus. See Kock (2001) for an account of Riippell’s (1842) other specimen (II.N.9*.b). 2. Koopman (1975, pp. 399-400) examined the lectotype of P. africanus (by then its skull had been extracted), and stated that it represented a specimen of Pipistrellus nanus (Peters, 1852), and that the name P. africanus (Ruppell, 1842) was a senior synonym of P. nanus (Peters, 1852). The specific name of P. nanus was originally published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (p. 63, pl. 16, fig. 2). 3. Kock (2001) examined and measured the lectotype and concluded that its characters and dimensions left no doubt that V. pipistrellus africanus represented the same taxon that is currently known as P. nanus. 4. Kock (2001) listed nine publications in which the senior name, Pipistrellus africanus, was adopted in place of Pipistrellus nanus (e.g. Ansell & Dowsett (1988, p. 41); Dowsett et al. (1991, p. 258) and Dumont et al. (1999, p. 160)). However, even though Koopman (1975, p. 399; see para. 2 above) identified the seniority of the name P. africanus, the name Pipistrellus nanus has continued to be widely used, occurring in at least 12 books on the mammals of Africa (e.g. Ansell (1978, p. 24); Delany & Happold (1979, pp. 91, 114, 134); Taylor (2000, pp. 105—107)). The name P. nanus was also used in Corbet & Hill (1986, p. 78); Koopman (1993, p. 222) and Nowak (1999, p. 427). These are three widely consulted books on the mammals of the world. It was also used in Hutson et al. (2001, pp. 30, 78), which is the I.U.C.N. Global Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan for Microchiropteran bats. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 43 5. In addition, the name P. nanus has been used in at least 13 papers published after 1975 on the taxonomy and/or distributions of Chiroptera in various African countries or regions (e.g. Crawford-Cabral (1986, p. 17); Happold et al. (1987, p. 372) and Van Cakenberghe et al. (1999, pp. 305-306); this list is far from complete). The number of papers focused on reproduction, echolocation, diet and other non-taxonomic and non-distributional subjects, and referring to P. nanus, has not been assessed, but these papers are numerous. 6. Furthermore, there have been at least eight publications after 1975 focused on the biology or systematics of this species, with Pipistrellus nanus in their titles (e.g. Laval & Laval, 1977; Von Schliemann & Schlosser, 1978; Happold & Happold, 1990, 1996 and Bernard et al., 1997). Few (if any) other African microbats have received as much attention to their general biology as this species and, because they are frequently encountered in the furled leaves of banana plants, few species are so well known in Africa. 7. 1am aware of at least four publications in which it has been suggested or implied that the name P. nanus should be conserved in the interests of nomenclatural stability. These are Largen et al. (1974, pp. 243-244); Ansell (1978, p. 24); Meester et al. (1986, pp. 53-54) and Grubb et al. (1998, p. 85). 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name africanus Riippell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name nanus Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio nanus; (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name africanus Ruppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus africanus and as suppressed in (1) above. References Ansell, W.F.H. 1978. The mammals of Zambia. 126 pp. National Parks and Wildlife Service, Chilanga, Zambia. Ansell, W.F.H. & Dowsett, R.J. 1988. Mammals of Malawi: an annotated checklist and atlas. 170 pp. Trendrine Press, Cornwall. Bernard, R.T.F., Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1997. Sperm storage in the banana bat (Pipistrellus nanus) from tropical latitudes in Malawi. Journal of Zoology, London, 241: 161-174. Corbet, G.B. & Hill, J.E. 1986. A world list of mammalian species, Ed. 2. 254 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Crawford-Cabral, J. 1986. A list of Angolan Chiroptera with notes on their distribution. Garcia de Orta, Sér. Zool., Lisboa, 13: 7-48. Delany, M.J. & Happold, D.C.D. 1979. Ecology of African mammals. 434 pp. Longman, London. Dowsett, R.J., Harrison, D.L. & Granjon, L. 1991. Bats (Chiroptera) from the Mayombe and lower Kouilou (with a checklist for Congo). Tauraco Research Report, 4: 251-263. Dumont, E.R., Etzel, K. & Hempel, D. 1999. Bat salivary proteins segregate according to diet. Mammalia, 63(2): 159-166. Grubb, P., Jones, T.S., Davies, A.G., Edberg, E., Starin, E.D. & Hill, J.-E. 1998. Mammals of Ghana, Sierra Leone and The Gambia. 265 pp. Trendrine Press, Cornwall. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1990. The domiciles, reproduction, social organisation and sex ratios of the Banana Bat, Pipistrellus nanus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in Malawi, Central Africa. Zeitschrift fiir Sdugetierkunde, 55: 145-160. Happold, D.C.D. & Happold, M. 1996. The social organisation and population dynamics of leaf-roosting banana bats, Pipistrellus nanus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae), in Malawi, east-central Africa. Mammalia, 60: 517-544. Happold, D.C.D., Happold, M. & Hill, J.E. 1987. The bats of Malawi. Mammalia, 51: 337-414. Hutson, A.M., Mickleburgh, S.P. & Racey, P.A. 2001. Microchiropteran bats: global status survey and conservation action plan. 258 pp. 1.U.C.N./S.S.C. Chiroptera Specialist Group, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge. Kock, D. 2001. Identity of the African Vespertilio hesperida Temminck 1840 (Mammalia, Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Senckenbergiana biologica, 81: 277-283. Koopman, K.F. 1975. Bats of the Sudan. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 154: 353-444. Koopman, K.F. 1993. Order Chiroptera. Pp. 137—241 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal Species of the World, Ed. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Largen, M.J., Kock, D. & Yalden, D.W. 1974. Catalogue of the mammals of Ethiopia. 1. Chiroptera. Monitore Zoologico Italiano, 16: 221-298. Laval, R.K. & Laval, M.L. 1977. Reproduction and behaviour of the African Banana Bat, Pipistrellus nanus. Journal of Mammalogy, 58: 403-410. Meester, J.A.J., Rautenbach, I.L., Dippenaar, N.J..& Baker, C.M. 1986. Classification of southern African mammals. 359 pp. Transvaal Museum Monograph No. 5. Mertens, R. 1925. Verzeichnis der Saugetier-Typen des Senckenbergischen Museums. Sencken- bergiana, 7(1/2): 18-37. Nowak, R.M. 1999. Walker’s Mammals of the World, Ed. 6, vol. 1. 836 pp. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Peters, W. 1852. Naturwissenschaftliche Reise nach Mozambique auf Befehl seiner Majestdt des Konigs Friedrich Wilhelm IV. in den Jahren 1842 bis 1848 ausgefiihrt. Zoologie, 1. Sdugethiere. Reiner, Berlin. Riippell, E. 1842. Verzeichnis der in dem Museum der Senckenbergischen naturforschenden Gesellschaft aufgestellten Sammlungen. Erste Abtheilung: Saugethiere und deren Skelette. Museum Senckenbergianum, 3: 145-196. Taylor, P.J. 2000. Bats of southern Africa. 206 pp. University of Natal Press. Van Cakenberghe, V., De Vree, F. & Leirs, H. 1999. On a collection of bats (Chiroptera) from Kikwit, Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mammalia, 63(3): 291-322. Von Schliemann, H. & Schlosser, E. 1978. Zur Frage der Festheftung von Pipistrellus nanus in den Blattiiten von Banananpflanzen. Zeitschrift fiir Sdugetierkunde, 43: 243-244. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 45 Case 3204 Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora): proposed conservation of the specific name P. Gaubert!, M. Tranier!, G. Veron’, D. Kock’, A.E. Dunham’, P.J. Taylor*, C. Stuart®, T. Stuart” and W.C. Wozencraft® (Addresses on p. 47) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; family VIVERRIDAE) for a species of African genet (a placental carnivore). The name is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (currently Dasyurus maculatus), which is used for a marsupial mammal commonly known as the Tiger quoll (family DasyuRIDAE). However, the names apply to taxa that have not been considered congeneric since the early 19th century. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Carnivora; VIVERRIDAE; Genetta maculata; Dasyurus maculatus; Rusty-spotted genet; Africa. 1. Gray (1830, p. 9) described a new nominal species of African genet, which he named Viverra maculata (now Genetta maculata; family vIVERRIDAE). This species is commonly called the Rusty-spotted genet (see Crawford-Cabral, 1981). 2. Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (p. 170), a name used for a marsupial (the Tiger quoll) that is now known scientifically as Dasyurus maculatus (family DAsYURIDAE). This has led some authors to regard the junior name as invalid (see Crawford-Cabral, 1970, 1973, 1981; Rosevear, 1974; Coetzee, 1977; Ansell, 1978; Grubb et al., 1998). This was indeed the case until 2000, but the current edition of the Code (Article 23.9.5) prescribes that the case should be referred to the Commission to conserve the name Genetta maculata (Gray, 1830). 3. Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (marsupial mammal) and Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (placental mammal) apply to taxa that have not been considered congeneric since the early 19th century. Indeed, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803, 1804) considered Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (the name of the marsupial mammal) to be a senior synonym of his own name Dasyurus macrourus Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803. From that time onwards, the marsupial species was included in the genera Dasyurops or Dasyurus (see Haltenorth, 1958; Mahoney & Ride, 1988; Groves, 1993) rather than in the genus Viverra. Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (the name of the placental mammal) was considered by Gray (1843) to be a junior synonym of Genetta senegalensis (Fischer, 1829), although it was incorrect. Since Gray (1843), the nominal species Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 has been placed in Genetta, and not in Viverra (see Matschie, 1902; Schwartz, 1930; Schlawe, 1981). 4. There has been long debate about which specific name should be attributed to the species that is known in the vernacular as the Rusty-spotted genet. The name 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Genetta rubiginosa Pucheran, 1855, which was commonly in use, can no longer be used since the type specimen associated with this name has been found to belong to another species that is currently known as Genetta thierryi Matschie, 1902 (see Schlawe, 1981; Crawford-Cabral, 1981; Crawford-Cabral & Fernandes, 1999; Gaubert et al., 2001). The only available name that has also been used to denote this species, either by including other species (see Schlawe, 1981; Fuller et al., 1990: Wozencraft, 1993; Angelici et al., 1999; Angelici, 2000) or exclusively (see Gaubert et al., 2002; Gaubert, in press), is G. maculata (Gray, 1830). 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name maculata Gray, 1830, as published in the binomen Viverra maculata (family VIVERRIDAE), 1S not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of the specific name maculata Kerr, 1792, as published in the binomen Viverra maculata (family DASYURIDAE); (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name maculata Gray, 1830, as originally published in the binomen Viverra maculata (family VIVERRIDAE), ruled in (1) above to be not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of the name Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (family DASYURIDAE). References Angelici, F.M. 2000. Food habits and resource partitioning of Carnivores (Herpestidae, Viverridae) in the rainforests of South-eastern Nigeria: preliminary results. Revue d'Ecologie (Terre Vie), 55: 67-76. Angelici, F.M., Grimod, I. & Politano, E. 1999. Mammals of the Eastern Niger Delta (Rivers and Bayelsa States, Nigeria): an environment affected by gas-pipeline. Folia Zoologica, 48(4): 249-264. Ansell, W.F.H. 1978. The mammals of Zambia. 126 pp. The National Parks and Wildlife Service, Chilanga, Zambia. Coetzee, C.G. 1977. Order Carnivora. Part 8 in Meester, J. & Setzer, H.W. (Eds.), The mammals of Africa: an identification manual. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. Crawford-Cabral, J. 1970. As genetas da Africa Central. Separata do Bolletim do Instituto de Investigagao Cientifica de Angola, 6(1): 3-33. Crawford-Cabral, J. 1973. As genetas da Guiné Portuguesa e de Mogambique. ‘Livro de Homenagem’ ao Professor Fernando Frade Viegas da Costa 70.° aniversario, Separata: 133-155. Crawford-Cabral, J. 1981. The classification of the genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, genus Genetta). Bolletim da Sociedade portuguesa de Ciéncias Naturais, 20: 97-114. Crawford-Cabral, J. & Fernandes, C. 1999. A comment on the nomenclature of the Rusty-spotted Genet. Small Carnivore Conservation, 21: 12. Fuller, T.K., Biknevicius, A.R. & Kat, P.W. 1990. Movements and behavior of large spotted genets (Genetta maculata Gray 1830) near Elmenteita, Kenya (Mammalia, Viverridae). Tropical Zoology, 3: 13-19. Gaubert, P. In press. Description of a new species of genet (Carnivora; Viverridae; genus Genetta) and taxonomic revision of forest forms related to the Large-spotted Genet complex. Mammalia. Gaubert, P., Veron, G. & Tranier, M. 2001. An investigation of morpho-anatomical characters within the genus Genetta (Carnivora, Viverridae), with a remark on Osbornictis, the aquatic Genet. Pp. 81-89 in Denys, C., Granjon, L. & Poulet, A. (Eds.), African small mammals. Paris. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 47 Gaubert, P., Veron, G. & Tranier, M. 2002. Genets and ‘Genet-like’ taxa (Carnivora, Viverrinae): Phylogenetic analysis, systematics and biogeographic implications. Zoologi- cal Journal of the Linnean Society, 134: 317-334. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1803. Note sur les espéces du genre Dasyure. Bulletin de la Société Philomatique de Paris, 3(81): 258-259. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, E. 1804. Mémoire sur les espéces du genre Dasyure. Annales du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle de Paris, 3: 353-363. Gray, J. 1830. Spicilegia Zoologica. 12 pp. Tretittel, Wirtz, London. Gray, J. 1843. List of the specimens of Mammalia of the British Museum. 216 pp. British Museum, London. Groves, C.P. 1993. Order Dasyuromorphia. Pp. 29-42 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal species of the world. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London. Grubb, P., Jones, T.S., Davies, A.G., Edberg, E., Starin, E.D. & Hill, J.E. 1998. Mammals of Ghana, Sierra Leone and the Gambia. 256 pp. Trendrine Press, Cornwall. Haltenorth, T. 1958. Klassifikation der Saugetiere, | (1. Ordnung Kloakentiere, Monotremata Bonaparte, 1838. 2. Ordnung Beuteltiere, Marsupialia Mliger, 1811 [= Didelphia Blainville, 1816]). Handbuch der Zoologie, 8(16): 1-40. Kerr, R. 1792. The Animal Kingdom, or zoological system, of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus; Class 1. Mammalia. . ., vol. 1. 400 pp. Murray & Faulder, London. Mahoney, J.A. & Ride, W.D.L. 1988. Dasyuridae. Pp. 14-33 in Walton, D.W. (Ed.), Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 5. Mammalia. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Matschie, P. 1902. Ueber die individuellen und geographischen Abanderungen der Ginsterkatzen. Verhandlungen des V internationalen Zoologen-Congresses zu Berlin, 1901: 1128-1144. Rosevear, D. 1974. The Carnivores of West Africa. 548 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London. Schlawe, L. 1981. Material, Fundorte, Text- und Bildquellen als Grundlagen fir eine Artenliste zur Revision der Gattung Genetta G. CUVIER, 1816. Zoologische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum fiir Tierkunde in Dresden, 37(4): 85-182. Schwartz, E. 1930. Die Sammlung afrikanischer Saugetiere im Congo-Museum. Ginsterkatzen (Gattung Genetta Oken). Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique Africaine, 19(2): 275-286. Wozencraft, W.C. 1993. Order Carnivora. Pp. 279-348 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal species of the world, Ed. 2. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington & London. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 161. ‘Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire Zoologie: Mammiferes & Oiseaux, 55 rue Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France ?Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Senckenberg-Anlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany 3 Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY 11794, U.S.A. 4Durban Natural Science Museum, PO Box 4085, Durban 4000, Republic of South Africa >African-Arabian Wildlife Research Centre, PO Box 6, Loxton 6985, Republic of South Africa Division of Natural Sciences, Bethel College, 1001 W. McKinley Ave., Mishawaka, IN 46545, U.S.A. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Comments on the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) (see BZN 59: 165-169) (1) J.O. Corliss P.O. Box 2729, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, U.S.A. I am in agreement with my colleague Foissner that it is often impossible, when attempting to establish needed neotypification of species of ubiquitous or cosmo- politan microscopic protists (e.g. the ciliates; Finlay, 2002), to determine the exact or original type locality or, even if this is known and accessible, to guarantee the presence there of the same species at some particular later date. It follows that carefully studied material (considered by an expert to be identical) should be acceptable. New neotype material—when preserved on glass slides after proper fixation and staining —is to be favored over drawings or illustrations, often made long ago when only a few characteristics might have been known or thought important, even though the latter are acceptable under the Code as representing types for many organisms. Proper neotype material, made available to workers around the world, will allow detailed three-dimensional re-examination of the specimens on the slide. Although today the modern techniques of electron microscopy and molecular studies are very helpful for analyses of taxonomic and evolutionary interrelationships among groups of protists, the morphological and anatomical details made visible —under light (including phase) microscopes of high magnification and high resolution — are still sufficient to differentiate morphospecies of the great majority of protists, certainly the ciliates (Lee & Soldo, 1992). Further misidentifications and misnamings, still great problems in taxonomic protistology and thus biodiversity studies (Corliss, 2002) of these minute organisms, can be prevented by avoiding an over-rigid application of Article 75.3.6 of the Code, which requires that a neotype designation should provide “evidence that the neotype came as nearly as practicable from the.original type locality’. The words ‘as nearly as practicable’ provide the required degree of flexibility. Additional references Corliss, J.O. 2002. Biodiversity and biocomplexity of the protists and an overview of their significant roles in maintenance of our biosphere. Acta Protozoologica, 41: 199-219. Finlay, B.J. 2002. Global dispersal of free-living eukaryote species. Science, 296: 1061-1063. Lee, J.J. & Soldo, A.T. (Eds.). 1992. Protocols in Protozoology. 588 pp. Society of Proto- zoologists, Lawrence, Kansas. (2) Professor Dr Weibo Song Laboratory of Protozoology, Ocean University of China, Oingdao 266003, Peoples Republic of China As an alpha-taxonomist working with protozoa, I fully agree with Foissner’s opinion. Almost all protozoa, especially the ciliates, have been subjected to a billion years of distribution and migration and must now be considered to be fully Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 49 cosmopolitan. The concept of a ‘local species or taxon’ is meaningless with regard to these animals. For example, Paramecium caudatum is morphologically and genetically similar throughout the world, even between continents such as Asia and Australia that have been separated for hundreds of millions of years. I agree also that the lack of proper type material is causing great problems for colleagues working in a number of fields that relate to protozoan animals. Most described taxa do not have type material preserved. In some cases no material was retained and in other cases where material is available it is often poorly preserved and useless for identification. In my opinion, Article 75.3.6 should be interpreted flexibly for protozoans and especially for free-living ciliates. This article should not become a barrier to the preparation where necessary of ciliate neotypes that will provide stability to the taxonomy and nomenclature of this important group of animals. Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic names Porites Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia) (Case 2900; see BZN 52: 142-147, 328-329) Mark J. Grygier Lake Biwa Museum, Oroshimo 1091, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan I sympathize with the intent of Prof Potts’s application. The DENDROPHYLLIIDAE are the dominant coral reef-dwelling hosts of the PETRARCIDAE, parasitic crustaceans that belong to my major group of interest, the Ascothoracida. Nonetheless, the Commission cannot properly act upon these proposals without a clear demonstration that the consequences of following the Code are intolerable. Examination of relevant literature kindly made available to me by Dr S.D. Cairns (Smithsonian Institution) shows that some parts of the application are unnecessary. In particular, the following points were not addressed by Prof Potts: 1. If Porites Link, 1807 is rejected as a junior homonym, what is the next available synonym to replace it (see Article 23.3.5 of the Code)? Has the next available synonym ever been widely used and how widely is it known now? According to the synonymy provided by Wells (1956, p. F393), Stylaraea Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 is the next junior synonym of Porites Link, 1807, although only questionably. In fact, this genus, with a single living species, is generally regarded as separate from Porites within the porITIDAE (see Veron, 1986, p. 234). If synonymy with Stylaraea is rejected, then Cosmoporites Duchaissing & Michelotti, 1860 and Neoporites Duchaissing & Michelotti, 1860 (published simul- taneously) are the next and apparently only other junior synonyms available. Neither of these names has ever enjoyed the widespread usage hitherto accorded to Porites Link, and it would probably be undesirable to replace Porites with one of them. 2. If Porites Link, 1807 is rejected as a junior homonym of Porites Cuvier, 1798, the family name poritIDAE Gray, 1842 must be replaced by the next available junior synonym or, lacking any, a name based on the replacement generic name (see Article 39). If there is an available junior synonym, what is it, has it ever been widely used, and how widely is it known now? 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 I have been unable to determine whether any family-group names based on other genera included in the poriTIDAE (or on their synonyms) have ever been proposed. 3. When were the names Ga/axea and Mussa first published by an author later than Oken (1815)? If there are no intervening synonyms, these names could be retained and re-attributed to their proper authors and dates under the Code. The first use of Galaxea following Oken (1815) was that of Milne-Edwards & Haime (1851, p. 70), who provided a diagnosis as well as a reference to Oken’s work. According to Wells (1956, p. F412), Galaxea has no junior synonyms; therefore authorship of this genus could be attributed to Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 with no further repercussions. It is unnecessary to conserve Oken (1815) as author of this genus. Milne-Edwards & Haime (1851, pp. 70-71) included 13 nominal species in Galaxea without naming a type species. As Galaxea fascicularis was listed among them, Vaughan’s (1918) designation of this species as the type species of Galaxea remains valid but the generic name remains threatened by Porites Cuvier, 1798, as described in Prof Potts’s application. According to Matthai (1928, p. 202), the first use of Mussa following Oken (1815) was by Dana (1848) [sic] (actually 1846, S.D. Cairns, pers. comm.). According to Wells (1956, p. F418), there is an intervening junior synonym Lithodendron Schweigger, 1819 which would thus replace Mussa if Oken’s authority is not approved. Prof Potts stated that Mussa has perhaps only two valid species, so replacement of Mussa by Lithodendron, while undesirable, might not be intolerable. Lithodendron and Mussa share the same type species Madrepora angulosa Pallas, 1766 therefore the priority threat posed by Porites Cuvier also exists for Lithodendron. 4. Family-group names would not be endangered whether Porites Cuvier replaced Galaxea, Mussa or Dendrophyllia as a senior synonym. All three family-group names based on these genera (GALAXEINAE Vaughan & Wells, 1943, MussIDAE Ortmann, 1890 and DENDROPHYLLIDAE Gray, 1847) would remain unchanged because Porites Cuvier is not the basis of any available family-group name and because the replacement would have taken place after 1961 (see Article 40.2). It is unnecessary for them to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as Prof Potts has proposed. ¥ 5. What criteria should be used for choosing a type species for Porites Cuvier if it is not suppressed, and thus to determine whether Porites would replace Galaxea, Mussa or Dendrophyllia? Dendrophyllia is by far the most speciose genus threatened. It serves as the basis of higher level taxa up to the suborder and has no problems of authorship so it should be retained under any circumstance. As shown above, Galaxea also has no problems of authorship or synonyms even if Oken (1815) remains disallowed. The generic name Mussa would be replaced anyway if not made available from Oken (1815) therefore its replacement by Porites Cuvier would probably be least disruptive of the three choices. Perhaps the application by Prof Potts could have been be made simpler by including a designation of Madrepora angulosa as type species of Porites Cuvier, thus making Mussa its objective junior synonym. Then all that would be needed is conservation and inclusion in the Official List of Mussa (or Lithodendron, if the Commission votes against the availability of Mussa from Oken (1815)). Dendrophyllia and Galaxea would no longer require special attention in this regard. n Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Additional references Dana, J.D. 1846. United States Exploring Expedition during the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1541, 1842 under the command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 7. Zoophytes. vu, 740 pp. Philadelphia. Duchaissing, P. & Michelotti, J. 1860. Mémoire sur les coralliares des Antilles. Memorie della Reale Accademie della Scienze de Torino, (2)19: 279-365. Matthai, G. 1928. A monograph of the Recent meandroid Astraeidae. Catalogue of the madreporarian corals in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 7. v, 288 pp. London. Milne-Edwards, H. & Haime, J. 1851. Monographie des polypiers fossiles des terrains paleozoiques, précédée d’un tableau général de la classification des polypes. Archives du Muséum d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 5: 1-502. Schweigger, A.F. 1819. Beobachtungen auf naturhistorischen Reisen ... Anatomisch- physiologische Untersuchungen tiber Corallen: nebst ein Anhange, Bemerkungen tiber die Bernstein enthaltend. xii, 127 pp. Berlin. Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 3233; see BZN 59: 77-81) (1) Ruud A. Bank Graan voor Visch 15318, NL-2132 EL Hoofddorp, The Netherlands Gerhard Falkner Bayerische Staatssammlung ftir Paldontologie und historische Geologie, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 10/11, D-80333 Miinchen, Germany Edmund Gittenberger Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands We ask the Commission, for the sake of universality in the scientific names of animals, not to make use of its plenary power to suppress the name Cecilioides veneta in favour of C. janii. The reason for this is that we do not agree with Giusti & Manganelli (BZN 59: 79) that C. veneta (Strobel, 1855) is a ‘virtually unused name’. In the last hundred years, C. veneta has been used in two well-known monographs dealing with the malacofauna of the Stidtirol (Riezler, 1929, p. 161) and the Dolomites (Thorson, 1930, p. 229). In addition, we do not agree with Giusti & Manganelli (BZN 59: 77) that, after the publication of De Betta’s work (1864), the specific name of C. janii (De Betta & Martinati, 1855) was used ‘by virtually all subsequent authors’. In fact, the name C. aciculoides (De Cristofori & Jan, 1832) was used for the snail species under consideration by Ehrmann (1933, p. 78), Eder (1914, p. 85), Mermod (1930, p. 371) and Jaeckel (1962, p. 147). Only after Giusti’s 1976 work was C. janii used for this Cecilioides species. Recently the name C. veneta has been used in two important monographs: the Checklist of the European Continental Mollusca (CLECOM checklist) (Falkner, Bank & von Proschwitz, 2001, p. 45) and the checklist of French continental molluscs (Falkner, Ripken & Falkner, 2002, pp. 42, 116). The primary goal of the CLECOM initiative is to produce a stable nomenclature for European non-marine molluscs by carrying out nomenclatural revisions based on the provisions of the Code. The CLECOM initiative is widely accepted. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Additional references Eder, L. 1914. Zur Fauna der Gehdusetragenden Landschnecken des Kantons Tessin. 150 pp. Werner-Riehm, Basel. Ehrmann, P. 1933. Mollusca. In Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G., Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 2, pt. 1. 264 pp., 13 pls. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig. Falkner, G., Ripken, Th.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de référence annotée et bibliographie. Patrimoines naturels, 52: 1-350. Jaeckel, S.G.A. 1962. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zum rezenten und quartaren Vorkom- men der mitteleuropaischen Mollusken. Jn Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G., Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 2, pt. 1. 264 pp., 13 pls. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig. Mermod, G. 1930. Catalogue des invertébrés de la Suisse. Fascicule 18. Gastéropodes. Georg, Geneve. (2) Folco Giusti and Giuseppe Manganelli Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Universita di Siena, Via Mattioli 4, 1-53100 Siena, Italy In their comment above, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger have not produced a single argument to falsify the important points in our application (see paras. 6 and 7 in BZN 59: 79). For example, they note that the name Cecilioides veneta (Strobel, 1855) has been used in ‘two well-known monographs’ dealing with the malacofauna of the Stidtirol (Riezler, 1929 and Thorson, 1930). However, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger (2000, p. 100) recorded that they discovered the name C. veneta by ‘digging in the old literature’. If the name was so well known, why was ‘digging’ required to discover it? The use of C. veneta by Riezler and Thorson was noted in our application. Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger also disagree that De Betta’s (1864) adoption of the name Achatina janii was followed by ‘virtually all subsequent authors’. We have shown this to be the case in our application. In para. 5 of our application, we recorded that there were at least 27 publications by 33 different authors between 1971 and 1999 (a period of 29 years) in which the name had been used. This considerable amount of usage contrasts with the two monographs and four references produced by Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger for the use of C. veneta during the last hundred years. These publications are demonstrably not all subsequent to the paper by Giusti (1976). Some time ago (see Giusti, 1976, p: 234) it became clear to us that the continued use of the name C. aciculoides sensu De Betta (1852) by some authors (mainly German zoologists) occurred because De Betta’s papers (and those of other Italian authors who adopted the replacement name C. janii) remained unknown because of language difficulties. Finally, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger note that the aim of the CLECOM initiative is the production of a stable nomenclature for European non-marine molluscs based on the provisions of the Code. Obviously, this aim is not unique to the CLECOM group; all malacologists are concerned with this task. The CLECOM initiative may be ‘widely accepted’, but some of its proposals have been questioned by some malacologists. Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger themselves (2000) noted that ‘the name Cecilioides veneta (Strobel, 1855) has to be used for a species which has in the past been referred to as C. aciculoides or C. janii’. Replacement of the well-known name C. janii is contrary to the Code and its provisions for maintaining stability in nomenclature (see Article 23.9.3). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 53 Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema (Case 3193; see BZN 59: 185-187, 281) Richard Westcott Entomology Museum, Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol, N.E. Salem, Oregon, U.S.A. I support this proposal wholeheartedly, as it will conserve the existing usage of the generic names for two large, well known and widely studied groups of beetles. Comment on the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera) (Case 3130; see BZN 59: 196-197) Jeffrey M. Cumming and J. Richard Vockeroth Systematic Entomology Section, ECORC, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6 Canada We support the application of Brooks, Wheeler & Evenhuis (made under Article 23.9.3 of the Code) for conservation of the generic name Pe/astoneurus Loew, 1861 by suppression of the generic name Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Although it is a junior synonym, the name Pelastoneurus has been used by almost all authors for this diverse and widespread genus of flies. Suppression of the generic name Paracleius has been previously recommended by Robinson (1970) and Dyte (1975). Furthermore, use of the senior synonym Paracleius would continue to cause confusion with the generic name Paraclius Loew, 1864, which is used for a separate nominal genus with a nearly cosmopolitan distribution. The genus Paraclius was established by Loew (1864, p. 97) in the same publication in which he (pp. 99-100) considered Paracleius to be a senior subjective synonym of Pelastoneurus. In proposing the name Paraclius, Loew (1864) indicated that he was creating a new genus that was not congeneric with Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Loew stated (1864, pp. 99-100) that he saw ‘no inconvenience in retaining the newly coined name . . . Paraclius, for the new genus I intend to establish and to define here’. However, Kertész (1909, p. 230) emended the spelling of Paracleius Bigot, 1859 to Paraclius and listed Paraclius Kertész as a senior synonym of Pelastoneurus Loew. Apparently Kertész was not aware that his emended name was preoccupied by Paraclius Loew, 1864. This confusion has continued with several regional catalogues (namely Foote et al., 1965; Robinson, 1970; Dyte, 1975 and Negrobov, 1991, but not Dyte & Smith, 1980) incorrectly treating Paraclius Loew, 1864 as an emendation of Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Despite this confusion Robinson (1970) correctly listed Paracleius as a senior synonym of Pelastoneurus, although this synonymy was not listed in the other regional catalogues mentioned, including the one by Dyte & Smith (1980). Additional references Kertész, C. 1909. Catalogus Dipterorum Hucusque Descriptorum, vol. 6. 362 pp. Budapest. 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Loew, H. 1864. Monographs of the Diptera of North America. Part II. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 6(2 [= pub. 171]): 1-360. Negroboy, O.P. 1991. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 11-139 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 7. Dolichopodidae—Platypezidae. 291 pp. Akadémiai Kiad6, Budapest. Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case 3188; see BZN 59: 30-33) (1) Erik J. van Nieukerken National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands 1. I am not in agreement with the proposal put forward in this application. Kozlov’s proposal to suppress the name Tinea cupriacella Hubner, 1819 in order to conserve the name of Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (which he considers to be a junior synonym of T. cupriacella) centres around three problems. These are: (i) the status of Hiibner’s name, (ii) the parthenogenetic nature of the species currently known as Nemophora cupriacella (Htbner, 1819), and (ii) the supposed ‘confusion’ around the name 7. cupriacella. 2. I agree with any action that will conserve the name Nemophora violella, but strongly disagree with the proposal to suppress the well-known name Nemophora cupriacella for the moth species that feeds on several Dipsacaceae species. The suppression of a name in use for 180 years as a result of re-examination of a very old plate does not follow the spirit of the Code. Thus, I would like to support the alternative proposal, indicated by Kozlov (BZN 59: 32), which involves the designation of a neotype for Tinea cupriacella. My argument in support of this approach follows the three points listed above. The status of Hiibner’s name 3. Tinea cupriacella was made available only by an illustration of the moth. Type material is not known to exist and Hubner provided no description of the species. The moth shown on the colour plate is clearly an adelid moth, and resembles species of the genus Nemophora. The long antennae indicate that it is a male, and its identification by Kozlov as the species currently called Nemophora violella could be correct. However, the figure could also represent one of a number of related species, including the (unknown) male of N. cupriacella of present authors. All later authors based the identity of N. cupriacella on the works of Herrich-Schaeffer (1854, p. 96) and Zeller (1853, p. 57), who described and distinguished both N. cupriacella and N. violella (see below). The parthenogenetic nature of the species currently known as Nemophora cupriacella (Hiibner, 1819) 4. The parthenogenetic nature of N. cupriacella was not recognized before 1978 (Suomalainen, 1978). However, many earlier authors mentioned that they only knew Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 55 females of this species (e.g. Zeller, 1853 (p. 57); Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854 (p. 97); Frey, 1856 (p. 83); Stainton, 1859 (p. 301); Wocke 1874 (p. 47); Sorhagen, 1886 (p. 155); Disque, 1901 (p. 201) and Razowski, 1978 (p. 83)). 5. Parthenogenesis is a relatively rare phenomenon in the Lepidoptera and best known in the family psycHIDAE (see Vandel, 1931; Robinson, 1971; Suomalainen, Lokki & Saura, 1979). At the moment there is no doubt that N. cupriacella is parthenogenetic in north and northwest Europe (see Suomalainen, 1978; K. Bland (pers. comm.); van Nieukerken, 1993). However, no recent data are available for southern parts of Europe. 6. In many cases Lepidopteran parthenogenesis is not a universal condition (see Vandel, 1931; Robinson, 1971); bisexual populations may occur in parts of the distribution area. Even in fully parthenogenetic populations, males occur now and then as the result of a ‘genetic defect’. Such males have been reported in the otherwise parthenogenetic nepticulid Ectoedemia argyropeza (Zeller, 1839) (see Bond & van Nieukerken, 1987) and Stigmella microtheriella (Stainton, 1854) (see LasStuvka & Lastuvka, 1997 (p. 39); L. Aarvik, pers. comm.) and in the psychid Luffia ferchaultella (Stephens, 1828) (see Henderickx, 1982). Therefore, it is possible that male specimens of N. cupriacella do occur from time to time. 7. So even if N. cupriacella is a parthenogenetic species, it is still possible that Hubner had a male specimen either from an as yet unknown bisexual population or an incidental male from a parthenogenetic population. The supposed ‘confusion’ around the name 7. cupriacella 8. Kozlov’s case is built on the alleged confusion around the name T. cupriacella. Actually, the usage of both the name N. cupriacella and the name N. violella has been relatively consistent since 1853. 9. Many authors could not understand why they were unable to find male N. cupriacella (e.g. Zeller, 1853 (p. 57); Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854 (p. 97)). It is striking that both these authors got their males from southern Europe. This could be an indication that bisexual populations existed there. On the other hand, they may have mis- identified their specimens. Later authors (e.g. Heath & Pelham-Clinton, 1976; Kuppers, 1980) mismatched several taxa in search for males of N. cupriacella and provided incorrect and confusing descriptions and illustrations of male specimens and their genitalia. However, this was not the case for the females. 10. According to Kozlov, the only feature that has been used consistently to distinguish between N. cupriacella and N. violella is their respective larval foodplants. However, there are two other characters that immediately separate the females of both species. These are the colour of the hairs on the labial palps and the length of the palps themselves. N. cupriacella has predominantly yellow hairs on longer palps (Figure 1). N. violella has completely black hairs on shorter palps (Figure 2). More interesting is that both Zeller (1853, pp. 58, 62) and Herrich-Schaeffer (1854, p. 97) use these characters in their descriptions, as do some of the later authors (e.g. Heinemann, 1870 (pp. 83-84); Snellen, 1882 (p. 498), Lycklama a Nijeholt, 1929 (p. 49)). To cite the last author (translated from Dutch): ‘Snellen [in a paper in 1889] ... considered both to be one species, but he did mention the clear difference in size and hairs of the palps given by Zeller’. Most other authors overlooked this character, 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 although Kiippers (1980, p. 330) mentioned it for N. cupriacella, but not for N. violella. 11. Kozlov’s remark that all authors relied on earlier sources for information relating to the larval foodplants of these species is overstated. Several authors did rear the species and could separate them successfully (e.g. Disqué, 1901 (p. 206); Stange in Disqué, 1901 (p. 206); Lycklama a Nijeholt, 1929 (p. 49); Lycklama a Nijeholt, 1932 (p. x)). The records of Sedum as hostplant for N. cupriacella go back to the record by Schmid (cited in Réssler, 1867) who found overwintering larvae on Sedum. However, Sedum is not the primary hostplant of N. cupriacella; its early stages are confined to flowers of Dipsacaceae. The early stages of N. violella are confined to flowers of Gentiana and Gentianella. In later larval instars they live on the soil, feeding on the basal leaves of their host plants and probably also on the leaves of other plants. Most current fieldworkers can easily recognise both species by their associated hostplants. 12. In conclusion, the identity of the figure labelled as Tinea cupriacella by Hiibner cannot be unambiguously identified, but two taxonomic species known as N. cupriacella and N. violella have been recognised during the last 150 years (at least in female specimens) on the basis of Herrich-Schaeffer’s and Zeller’s descriptions. Many authors have misidentified their material, particularly male specimens, because the species are similar and males probably absent in Nemophora cupriacella. However, nomenclatural changes should not be used to cover up misidentifications and poor taxonomy. The names N. cupriacella and N. violella are well known amongst northern European lepidopterists and have in recent years also been used in nature conservancy reports (van Nieukerken, 1993). Change of one of these names into a completely new one as proposed by Kozlov should not be endorsed as it will upset nomenclatural stability. 13. I therefore propose that the existing usage of the names N. cupriacella and N. violella be maintained by designating a neotype for T. cupriacella. The most suitable specimen for the neotype is deposited in The Natural History Museum, London. The specimen has the following data labels: 2, POLAND: Glogow; “Scab. succisa Torfwiesen | Glogau | Zeller 1/ [18]53’; ‘Stainton Coll. |Brit. Mus.|1893—134. 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Tinea cupriacella Hubner, 1819 and to designate the specimen proposed in para. 13 above as neotype; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) cupriacella Hiibner, 1819, as published in the binomen Tinea cupriacella and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) violellus Herrich-Schaffer in Stainton, 1851, as published in the binomen Nemotois violellus. Acknowledgements A draft of this paper has been circulated for comments amongst a number of European lepidopterists. I am grateful for advice or comments from Jaroslaw Buszko, Ole Karsholt, Mikhail Kozlov, Zdenek LaStuvka, Niels Peder Kristensen, Gaden Robinson, Klaus Sattler, Jan van Tol and Kevin Tuck. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 ; 57 Additional references Bond, K.G.M. & Nieukerken, E.J. yan. 1987. Discovery of male Ectoedemia argyropeza (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) in south-west Ireland. Entomologist’s Gazette, 38: 191-195. Heinemann, H. von. 1870. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Abtheilung 2 (Kleinschmetterlinge) Band 2. (Die Motten und Federmotten). Heft 1. 388 pp. Braunschweig [year cited incorrectly as 1877 in BZN 59: 32]. Henderickx, H. 1982. Découverte d’une chrysalide male de Luffia au sein d’une population de Vespéce parthénogénetique Luffia ferchaultella Stephens (Lep., Psychidae). A/exanor, 12: 195-198. LaStuvka, A. & LaStuvka, Z. 1997. Nepticulidae Mitteleuropas. Ein illustrierter Begleiter (Lepidoptera). 229 pp. Brno. Lycklama a Nijeholt, H.J. 1929. Aantekeningen omtrent Nederlandsche Microlepidoptera [Notes on Dutch Microlepidoptera]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 72: 42-58. [In Dutch]. Lycklama a Nijeholt, H.J. 1932. [no title]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 75: ix-xii. [In Dutch]. Nieukerken, E.J. yan. 1993. De langsprietmotjes van blauwe knoop en klokjesgentiaan [Fairy moths from Devil’s bit scabious and Marsh gentian.]. Pp. 88-96, in Swaay, C.A.M. van & Halder, I. van (Eds.), Jaarboek Natuur, PGO — flora en fauna. Wageningen. [In Dutch]. Razowski, J. 1978. Motyle (Lepidoptera) Polski. Czesc 3. Heteroneura, Adeloidea [Lepidoptera of Poland, part 3]. Monografie Fauny Polski, 8: \-137. [In Polish]. Robinson, R. 1971. Lepidoptera genetics. 687 pp. Oxford. Rossler, A. 1867. Verzeichnis der Schmetterlinge des Herzogthums Nassau, mit besonderer Berticksichtigung der biologischen Verhaltnisse und der Entwicklungsgeschichte. Jahrbuch des Nassauischen Vereins ftir Naturkunde, 19, 20: 99-442 (reprint paginated 1-342). Stainton, H.T. 1859. Manual of British butterflies and moths. xi, 480 pp. London. Suomalainen, E., Lokki, J. & Saura, A. 1979. Evolution in parthenogenetic populations. Aquilo Ser. Zoologica, 20: 83-91. Vandel, A. 1931. La Parthénogenése. xix, 412 pp. Paris Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 1. Nemophora cupriacella (Hiibner), female palps seen from lateral view: many yellow hairs and some black ones, relatively long palps (compared with eye width). Netherlands, Denekamp, 20.vii.1992., netted around Succisa pratensis, E.J. van Nieukerken. Figure 2. Nemophora violella (Herrich-Schaeffer), female palps seen from lateral view: only some black hairs, shorter palps (compared with eye width). Netherlands, Staverden, 20.vii.1992, netted on wet heathland near Gentiana pneumonanthe, E.J. van Nieukerken. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 (2) Zdenek Lastuvka Department of Zoology and Agriculture, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry, Brno, Czech Republic I am not in agreement with the proposal presented in Case 3188. Instead, I favour conservation of the name N. cupriacella (Hubner, 1819) for the species that feeds on Scabiosa and Succissa by designation of a neotype as suggested by Kozlev (BZN 59: 32) and outlined in detail by van Nieukerken in comment (1) above. The spirit of the current Code does not support the suppression of a well understood name just because it may now be applied to a taxon other than that to which it was originally applied. Suppression of the name N. cupriacella would not be in the best interests of nomenclatural stability. Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (Case 3225; see BZN 60: 38-41) Robert E. Espinoza Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, California 91330-8303, U.S.A. : Asa physical ecologist who studies Phymaturus lizards, I give my full support to this application. The unique biology of the lizards belonging to the genus Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and, in particular, the species currently known as Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) is of great interest to physiologists, ecologists and behaviorists for a number of reasons. First, this species is herbivorous. As such, it occupies a trophic niche that 1s rarely exploited by modern reptiles and is virtually unknown among the smaller species (i.e. those with a body mass less than 40 g) such as Phymaturus. Second, the species currently known as Phymaturus palluma 1s vivi- parous (gives birth to live young) with an extraordinarily large offspring clutch mass relative to the body mass of the female. Third, females of this species appear to form close and lasting post-birth associations with their offspring (i.e. parental care), which is also quite rare among squamate reptiles. Finally, Phymaturus palluma lives in an extreme biotope at high elevations (to 4000 m) and under very dry conditions (less than 200 mm precipitation per year). This species has already been a focal point of numerous ecophysiological studies and will be the subject of many other research projects, allowing the investigation of phenomena not previously studied in squamate reptiles. For these reasons it is imperative that the current usage of these names is conserved and stability established. The confusion of names in the literature caused by the actions by Cei, Lescure and Veloso et al. in various papers has already caused problems in communication and information retrieval. I urge the Commission to rule in favour of conserving the current usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 59 OPINION 2016 (Case 2888) Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (Nemertea): not conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the nemertean generic name Akrostomum Grube, 1840. A proposal had been made to conserve the junior objective synonym Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wiynhoff, 1923. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Nemertea; CRATENEMERTIDAE; Akrostomum; Valdivianemertes; Akrostomum stannii. Ruling (1) Proposals put forward for the conservation of the generic name Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 were not approved. (2) The name Akrostomum Grube, 1840 (gender: neuter), type species by monotypy Akrostomum stannii Grube, 1840, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name stannii Grube, 1840, as published in the binomen Akrostomum stannii (specific name of the type species of Akrostomum Grube, 1840), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 (a junior objective synonym of Akrostomum Grube, 1840); (b) Acrostomum Orsted, 1843 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Akrostomum Grube, 1840). (4 wa History of Case 2888 An application for the conservation of the generic name Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923, which was threatened by the senior objective synonym Akrostomum Grube, 1840, was received from Frank B. Crandall (Turkey Run Research Institute, McLean, Virginia, U.S.A.) on 21 April 1993. After corres- pondence the case was published in BZN 51: 298-301 (December 1994). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments on this case were received. The application was sent to the Commission for voting on 1 December 1995. The case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds majority (17 votes in favour and 9 against). Voting against the application on 1 December 1995 Bouchet commented: ‘the application cites five authors who have used Valdivianemertes since 1923; the present voting paper adds two. This points to a very limited usage of that name. Priority should apply’. As a result, the application was submitted for a second vote on 1 September 2002 under Bylaw 35. No other comments were received in relation to this case before the second vote, even though the Commission Secretariat invited the author to provide additional support for the application. 60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 299. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 14 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 10 Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from BO6hme, Dupuis and Martins de Souza, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against Brothers commented: “The fact that no further comments have been received reinforces the impression that strict adherence to priority would not cause major confusion 1n this case’. 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: Acrostomum Orsted, 1843, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift (Udgivet af H. Kroyer) Rek. 1, 1837-1843, Bd. 4, p. 95. : Akrostomum Grube, 1840, Actinien, Echinodermen und Wiirmer des Adriatischen- und Mittelmeers, p. 57. stannii, Akrostomum, Grube, 1840, Actinien, Echinodermen und Wiirmer des Adriatischen- und Mittelmeers, p. 57. Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923, Quarterly Journal of Microscopical Science, 67: 643. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 61 OPINION 2017 (Case 2983) Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 and ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 for a terrestrial snail from Oahu (one of the Hawaiian islands) and the family-group name ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 are conserved. These names were threatened by the unused senior subjective synonyms Helicteres Beck, 1837 and HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870, which have been suppressed except for homonymy. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; ACHATINELLIDAE; Achatinella; Achatinellastrum; tree snails; Hawaii. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power the following names are suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy: (a) Helicteres Beck, 1837; (b) Helicter Pease, 1862. (2) The name Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 (gender: neuter), type species by subsequent designation by Pilsbry & Cooke (1914) Achatinella producta Reeve, 1850, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name producta Reeve, 1850, as published in the binomen Achatinella producta (specific name of the type species of Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 (type genus Achatinella Swainson, 1828) 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) Helicteres Beck, 1837, as suppressed in (1)(a) above; (b) Helicter Pease, 1862, as suppressed in (1)(b) above. The name HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (invalid because the name of the type genus has been suppressed). (6 ma History of Case An application for the conservation the generic name Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854 together with the family name ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 was received from Robert H. Cowie (Center for Conservation Research and Training, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) and Neal L. Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) on 3 May 1995. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 188-192 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. 62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 190-191. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 22 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 2 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Evenhuis abstained, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that ‘to achieve the goals intended by the proposal, there is no need to fully suppress these names as they could be needed when the phylogeny of these taxa is better known. I would be in agreement with a conditional suppression when these taxa are considered to be synonyms’. Likewise, Cogger commented: ‘In those groups whose taxonomy remains relatively fluid, experience indicates that subjective synonymy of two taxa is often removed with improved methods of taxonomic resolution. For this reason I oppose this specific case and generally oppose the suppression of senior subjective synonyms when precedence achieves the desired nomenclatural outcome of stability and universality while leaving the senior names available’. 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: Achatinellastrum Pfeiffer, 1854, Malakozoologische Blatter, 1: 133. ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1873: 89. Helicter Pease, 1862, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1862: 6. Helicteres Beck, 1837, Index Molluscorum .. ., part 1, p. 51. HELICTERINAE Pease, 1870, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1869: 645. producta, Achatinella, Reeve, 1850, Achatinella. Monograph of the genus. Conchologia Iconica, vol. 6, pl. 2, sp. 13. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 63 OPINION 2018 (Case 3192) BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE, SO removing the homonymy with BULIMINIDAE Jones, 1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera); and ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (Gastropoda): given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between BULIMINIDAE Jones, 1875 (Foraminifera) and BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Gastropoda) is eliminated by emending the spelling of Kobelt’s name to BULIMINUSIDAE. Both Jones’s and Kobelt’s names BULIMINIDAE are in use and refer, respectively, to a cosmopolitan foraminiferan family from the Cretaceous to Recent and to a group of terrestrial snails with Palaearctic and Oriental taxa. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminifera; Gastropoda; Bulimina; Buliminus; Ena; BULIMINIDAE; BULIMINUSIDAE; ENIDAE. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that: (a) for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Buliminus Beck, 1837 (Gastropoda) 1s BULIMINUS-; (b) the family-group name ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) and other family- group names based on Ena Turton, 1831 are to be given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 and other family-group names based on Buliminus Beck, 1837 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon (Gastropoda). (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Cushman (1911) Bulimina marginata dOrbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera); (b) Buliminus Beck, 1837 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy of the replaced nominal genus Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831, Bulimus labrosus Olivier, 1804 (Gastropoda). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) marginata dOrbigny, 1826, as published in the binomen Bulimina marginata (specific name of the type species of Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826) (Foraminifera); (b) Jabrosus Olivier, 1804, as published in the binomen Bulimus labrosus (specific name of the type species of Buliminus Beck, 1837) (Gastropoda). The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875, type genus Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera); (3 m as © 64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 (b) ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (type genus Ena Turton, 1831) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Ena are to be given precedence Over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (type genus Buliminus Beck, 1837) and other family-group names based on Buliminus whenever .their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon (Gastropoda); BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1)(a) above) (type genus Buliminus Beck, 1837) with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Buliminus are not to be given priority over ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (type genus Ena Turton, 1831) and other family-group names based on Ena whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon (Gastropoda). (5) The name Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831: (a junior homonym of Bulimina d’Orbigny, 1826) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Gastropoda). (6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) BULIMINIDAE Pfeiffer, 1879 (based on the junior generic homonym Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831 and a junior homonym of BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875) (Gastropoda); (b) BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE in (1)(a) above) (Gastropoda); (C) BULIMINUINAE Schileyko, 1998 (an unjustified emendation and junior objective synonym of BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880) (Gastropoda). a (c History of Case 3192 An application to remove the homonymy of the family-group name BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) with BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera) by emending the spelling of BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 to BULIMINUSIDAE and for the family-group name ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (Gastropoda) to be given precedence over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 was received from Bernhard Hausdorf (Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum der Universitit Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany) on 5 February 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 182-187 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment from Kadolsky concerning the stem of BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 was included on the voting paper. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 184-185. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from B6hme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists ane Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 65 Bulimina @ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 269. Bulimina Ehrenberg, 1831, Symbolae physicae seu icones et descriptiones animalium evertebratorum sepositis insectis, quae ex itineribus per Africam, Borealem et Asiam Occidentalem . . ., 1. Pars zoologica. Animalia Evertebrata. Animalia Mollusca, p. [84]. BULIMINIDAE Jones in Griffith & Henfrey, 1875, The micrographic dictionary, Ed. 3, vol. 1, p. 320. BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880, /lustriertes Conchylienbuch, vol. 2, p. 272. BULIMINUINAE Schileyko, 1998, Treatise on Recent terrestrial pulmonate molluscs. Part 2. Ruthenica, supplement 2: 183. Buliminus Beck, 1837, Index Molluscorum praesentis aevi musei principis augustissimi Christiani Frederici, p. 68. BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880, I/lustriertes Conchylienbuch, vol. 2, p. 272. ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880), Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 5(5): 310. labrosus, Bulimus, Olivier, 1804, Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, I’Egypte et la Perse, fait par ordre du Gouvernement, pendant les six premiéres années de la République, vol. 4, livraison 2, p. 30. marginata, Bulimina, @ Orbigny, 1826, Annales des Sciences Naturelles, 7: 269. 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2019 (Case 2899) Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): conservation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum not approved Abstract. The Commission has ruled not to approve proposals for the conservation of usage of the names of two cirratulid polychaetes, Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879, by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum. No names have been placed on Official Lists or Indexes. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Polychaeta; cirratulid polychaetes; Dodecaceria; Dodecaceria concharum; Heterocirrus fimbriatus. Ruling (1) Proposals put forward for the conservation of the usage of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum were not approved. History of Case 2899 An application for the conservation of the specific names of Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Heterocirrus fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum was received from P.H. Gibson (nstitute of Cell, Animal and Population Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, U.K.) and David Heppell (National Museums of Scotland, Edinburgh, U.K.) on 22 June 1993. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 52: 27-33 (March 1995). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. A comment opposing the application from F. Pleijel (Swedish Museum of Natural History, Stockholm, Sweden and Tjdrné Marine Biological Laboratory, Strémstad, Sweden) and A.S.Y. Mackie (National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, Wales, U.K.) was published in BZN 52: 261-262. Heppell & Gibson replied (BZN 52: 329-331) in defence of their proposals. A further comment opposing the application was received from T. Miura (Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, Japan) and A.J. Muir (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) representing the Nomenclatural Sub-Committee of the International Polychaete Association and was published in BZN 53: 46. A long and detailed submission was received on 15 December 1995 from M.E. Petersen (Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen O, Denmark), J.D. George (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.), J.A. Blake (ENSR Consulting and Engineering Inc., Woods Hole, MA, U.S.A.), K. Fauchald (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) and K.W. Ockelmann (Marine Biological Laboratory, University of Copenhagen, Helsingor, Denmark). This was primarily a taxonomic paper, but it opposed Gibson & Heppell’s requests (1), (3) and (4) to the Commission and made counter-proposals Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 67 for the designation of neotypes. Dr Petersen et al. were encouraged to publish the taxonomic content of this submission elsewhere before bringing the nomenclatural aspects to the Commission. However, the paper was not published and their counter-proposals were not put to the Commission for a vote. No further comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 52: 31-32. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 1 Commissioner voted FOR the proposals, 23 Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from B6hme, Dupuis and Martins de Souza, Ng was on leave of absence. No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new proposals to the Commission. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2020 (Case 3078) Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea): Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 designated as type species Abstract. The Commission has designated Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 as the type species of the cumacean genus Diastylis Say, 1818, replacing D. arenarius Say, 1818, the original type species. The original material of D. arenarius is lost and the taxon is not identifiable from its description. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Cumacea; DIASTYLIDAE; Diastylis; Diastylis rathkii. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Diastylis Say, 1818 are hereby set aside and Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Diastylis Say, 1818 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name rathkii Kroyer, 1841, as published in the binomen Cuma rathkii (specific name of the type species of Diastylis Say, 1818) and defined by the lectotype in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen ZMUC-CRU-7936, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3078 An application to designate Cwma rathkii Kroyer, 1841 as the type species of the genus Diastylis Say, 1818 was received from Sarah Gerken (Darling Marine Center, University of Maine, Walpole, Maine, U.S.A.) on 20 January 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 174-176 (September 1999). A comment in support of the application from L.B. Holthuis (Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands) (BZN 57: 45-46) pointed out that the doubtful identity of the type species of Diastylis “has been known for a long time’ and that ‘the most suitable type species would be Cuma rathkii Kroyer, 1841’. Holthuis also pointed out that, although para. 1 of the application stated that D. arenarius is the type species by monotypy, Say (1818, pp. 315-316) indicated that three nominal species were included in the genus. The first fixation of a type species was by Fowler (1912, p. 534) who cited D. arenarius in the belief that the genus was originally monotypic. As the type material consists of several specimens from the two localities (mentioned in para. 5) Holthuis considered that it would be advisable to select a lectotype for C. rathkii in case the existing syntypes are found to represent more than one taxon. A lectotype for the nominal species C. rathkii Kroyer, 1841 (specimen ZMUC-CRU-7936 in Copenhagen) was designated by Gerken in BZN 58: 305 in reply to the comment by L.B. Holthuis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 69 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 175. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Diastylis Say, 1818, Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1(11): 313. rathkii, Cuma, Kroyer, 1841, Naturhistorisk Tidsskrift, 3(6): 513. 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2021 (Case 3048) NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): not given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the crambid moth subfamily name ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. A proposal had been made to give precedence to the subjective synonym NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; ACENTROPINAE; NYMPHULINAE; Acentropus; Nymphula; Acentropus garnonsit; Phalaena stagnata; aquatic caterpillars. Ruling (1) The family-group name NyMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 and other family- wa ma group names based on Nymphula Schrank, 1802 are not to be given priority Over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 and other family-group names based on Acentropus Curtis, 1834 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. The Principle of Priority is to be upheld and ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 has priority over NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 whenever they are considered to be synonyms. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology: (a) ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835, with the endorsement that it has priority over NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 (in accordance with the Principle of Priority) whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms; (b) NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845, with the endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms. The name Acentropus Curtis, 1834 (gender: masculine) type species by original designation Acentropus garnonsii Curtis, 1834 (generic name of the type genus of ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835) is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The name garnonsii Curtis, 1834, as published in the binomen Acentropus garnonsii (specific name of the type species of Acentropus Curtis, 1834), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name Nymphula Schrank, 1802 already appears on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (see Opinion 1406), but the entry is herewith emended to record that Nymphula Schrank, 1802 is the generic name of the type genus of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845. The name stagnata Donovan, 1806, as published in the binomen Phalaena stagnata (specific name of the type species of Nymphula Schrank, 1802), already appears on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (see Opinion 1406) and no emendment to the List is necessary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 71 History of Case 3048 An application for conservation of the usage of the name NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 by giving it precedence over the name ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 whenever the two names are regarded as synonyms was received from M. Alma Solis (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, Agriculture Research Service, USDA, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 9 June 1997. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 56: 31-33 (March 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments opposing the application were published in BZN 57: 46-48 (March 2000) and BZN 59: 131—132. Comments in support of the application were published in BZN 58: 305-306, BZN 59: 38-40 and BZN 59: 132. The application was sent to the Commission for voting on | March 2001. The case received a majority of the votes cast but failed to reach the required two-thirds majority (11 votes FOR and 9 AGAINST; one Commissioner abstained). On 1| September 2002 the application was submitted for a second vote under Bylaw 35. An additional comment received from Ernst Arenberger (Bérnergasse, Wien, Austria) was added to the voting paper: “The name ACENTROPINAE has been selected by Speidel (1981, 1984) as the oldest name for a complex of genera. Meanwhile, the name was used in 1994 by Arenberger. This name should be maintained for the sake of stability’. Additional reference Arenberger, A. 1994. Zusammenfassende Darstellung der Mikrolepidopterenfauna Zyperns. Annales Musei Goulandris, 9: 253-336. Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to revote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 32. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 15 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 9 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Martins de Souza abstained, no votes were received from B6hme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting against, Brothers commented: “This proposal does not concern rejection of the attempted resurrection of a forgotten name, but is an attempt to subvert a major principle of the Code as applied in a relatively recent case of synonymy. To approve it would damage the foundations of the Code’. Original references The following are the original references to names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835, J/lustrations of British entomology, Mandibulata, p. 148. NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845, Catalogue méthodique des Lépidoptéres d'Europe, p. 201. Acentropus Curtis, 1834, British Entomology, 11: folio 497. garnonsti, Acentropus, Curtis, 1834, British Entomology, 11: folio 497. 72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2022 (Case 3197) Glassia Davidson, 1881 (Brachiopoda): G. elongata Davidson, 1881 designated as the type species Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of Glassia Davidson, 1881 and Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 for two important genera of smooth-shelled Silurian brachiopods with radically different internal structure is conserved. Davidson designated Atrypa obovata Sowerby, 1839 as the type species of Glassia, but this species is now known from its internal structure to be a species of the genus Lissatrypa (type species L. atheroidea Twenhofel, 1914). To avoid synonymy between Glassia and Lissatrypa, the species Glassia elongata Davidson, 1881 has been designated as type species of Glassia. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Brachiopoda; GLASSIIDAE; LISSATRYPIDAE; Glassia; Lissatrypa; Glassia elongata; Lissatrypa atheroidea; Silurian. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power.all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Glassia Davidson, 1881 are hereby set aside and Glassia elongata Davidson, 1881 is designated as the type species. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology: (a) Glassia Davidson, 1881 (gender: feminine), type species by designation in (1) above Glassia elongata Davidson, 1881; (b) Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 (gender: feminine), type species by original designation and monotypy Lissatrypa atheroidea Twenhofel, 1914. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: : (a) elongata Davidson, 1881, as published in the binomen Glassia elongata (specific name of the type species of Glassia Davidson, 1881); (b) atheroidea Twenhofel, 1914, as published in the binomen Lissatrypa atheroidea (specific name of the type species of Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914). (2 wa —~ ies) ~— History of Case 3197 An application to conserve the current usage of the generic names Glassia Davidson, 1881 and Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914 for two important genera of smooth-shelled Silurian brachiopods by the designation of Glassia elongata Davidson, 1881 as type species of Glassia was received from Paul Copper (Laurentian University, Sudbury, Canada) on 22 February 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 288-290 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 73 Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 289. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, | Commissioner voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: atheroidea, Lissatrypa, Twenhofel, 1914, Museum Bulletin, Canadian Geological Survey, 3: 33. elongata, Glassia, Davidson, 1881, Geological Magazine, (2)8(4): 148. Glassia Davidson, 1881, Geological Magazine, (2)8(1): 11. Lissatrypa Twenhofel, 1914, Museum Bulletin, Canadian Geological Survey, 3: 31. 74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2023 (Case 3195) Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptolithina): P. podoliensis Pribyl, 1983 designated as the type species Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the generic name Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 for an Upper Ludlow monograptid is conserved by the designation of P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 as the type species of Polonograptus, instead of P. butovicensis (Boucek, 1936). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Graptolithina; Polonograptus; Polonograptus podoliensis; Silurian. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 are hereby set aside and Polonograptus podoliensis Pribyl, 1983 is designated as the type species. (2) The name Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Polonograptus podoliensis Piibyl, 1983, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name podoliensis Pribyl, 1983, as published in the binomen Polonograptus podoliensis (specific name of the type species of Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (4) The name Alexandrograptus Piibyl, 1981 (unavailable because disclaimed by its author in the original publication) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. History of Case 3195 An application to conserve the current usage of the generic name Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 for an Upper Ludlow monograptid by designating P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 as the type species was received on 10 February 2001 from J.F.V. Riva (Quebec Geoscience Centre, University of Quebec, Ste-Foy, Canada), T.N. Koren’ (VSEGEI, Srednij Prospect 74, St Petersburg, Russia) and R.B. Rickards (Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.). After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 291-293 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 293. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Béhme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 75 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: Alexandrograptus Piibyl, 1981, Véstnik Ustredniho tistavu geologického, 56(6): 373. podoliensis, Polonograptus, Piibyl, 1983, Casopis pro mineralogiia geologii, 28(2): 158. Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976, Paleontologiya i stratigrafiya verchnego Dokembriya i nyzhnego Paleozoya jugo-zapada vostocno-evropeyskoj platformy, pp. 124-125. 76 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2024 (Case 3140) Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (Reptilia, Sauria): rediscovered syntypes replaced by a neotype Abstract. The Commission has designated a neotype for the Pacific blue-bellied lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (family PHRYNOSOMATIDAE) from the west coast ranges of North America. The neotype, originally designated in 1954, is a well preserved adult specimen of known provenance and replaces two missing syntypes which have recently been rediscovered but which are immature specimens and do not distinguish S. occidentalis from closely related taxa. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Sauria; PHRYNOSOMATIDAE; Sceloporus occidentalis; Pacific blue-bellied lizards; western North America. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous type fixations for the nominal species Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 are set aside and the specimen no. MVZ 59874 in the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, is designated as the neotype. (2) The name occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852, as published in the binomen Sceloporus occidentalis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. History of Case 3140 An application to replace the two rediscovered syntypes of the Pacific blue-bellied lizard Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard, 1852 (family PHRYNOSOMATIDAE) from the west coast ranges of North America by a neotype was received from Edwin L. Bell (Albright College, Reading, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.), and Hobart M. Smith and David Chiszar (University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, U.S.A.) on 2 September 1999. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 224-226 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 226. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Kerzhner abstained, no votes were received from BOhme and Dupuis, Ng 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: occidentalis, Sceloporus, Baird & Girard, 1852, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 6: 175. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 77 OPINION 2025 (Case 3191) Paretasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922 (currently Scutosaurus Karpinski; Reptilia, Pareiasauria): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name and typification of Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922, an abundant fossil pareiasaurian reptile from the Russian Permian, are conserved. The specific name was threatened by a different spelling that had inadvertently been published five years earlier when the full description was delayed by war and by Amalitzky’s death. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Pareiasauria; PAREIASAURIDAE; Scutosaurus; Scutosaurus karpinskii; Permian; Russia. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power the specific name karpinskyi Watson, 1917, as published in the binomen Pariasaurus [sic] karpinskyi, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. (2) The name Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name karpinskiti Amalitzky, 1922, as published in the binomen Pareiosaurus [sic] karpinskti, an mcorrect spelling of Pareiasaurus karpinskii, (specific name of the type species of Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930) and defined by the holotype in the Palaeontological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow PIN 2005/1532, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name karpinskyi Watson, 1917, as published in the binomen Pariasaurus [sic] kKarpinskyi and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. s History of Case 3191 An application for the conservation of the specific name and typification of the taxon currently known as Scutosaurus karpinskii (Amalitzky, 1922) was received from Michael S.Y. Lee (The South Australian Museum, Adelaide, Australia) on 2 February 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 220-223 (September 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on the case were received. Decision of the Commission On 1 September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 221. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Béhme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. 78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 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: karpinskii, Pareiasaurus, Amalitzky, 1922, Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk, (6)16: 334-335. karpinskyi, Pariasaurus [sic], Watson, 1917, Journal of Anatomy, 52 (3rd series, vol. 13): 10. Scutosaurus Hartmann-Weinberg, 1930, Paldontologische Zeitschrift, 12(1): 59. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 79 OPINION 2026 (Case 3044) Generic and specific names of birds (Aves) conventionally accepted as published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the Zoological Society of London and monographic works by John Gould and other contemporary zoologists: suppression of prior usages not approved Abstract. The Commission has ruled not to approve proposals for the conservation of a large number of generic and specific names of birds in their conventionally accepted places of publication. The problem arose from the 19th century practice of publishing meeting reports of the Zoological Society of London in certain London periodicals, making some names available from those periodicals rather than from subsequent formal publications of the Zoological Society. A proposal had been made to suppress the earlier usages of names in periodicals in order to maintain stability of the formal source references. No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; J. Gould; G.R. Gray; R. Owen; Proceedings and Transactions of the Zoological Society of London. Ruling (1) Proposals put forward for the conservation of a number of generic and specific names of birds in their conventionally accepted places of publication by the suppression of prior usages in certain London periodicals were not approved. History of Case 3044 An application for the conservation of a large number of generic and specific names of birds in their conventionally accepted places of publication was submitted on 19 February 1997 by Richard Schodde (Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO, Lyneham, Australia) and Walter J. Bock (Department of Biological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, U.S.A.) on behalf of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON). The names refer to new taxa presented at meetings of the Zoological Society of London and traditionally accepted as available from descriptions published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the Zoological Society. However, it is now known that some of the names, or variants of them, had first appeared in a number of periodicals (including The Athenaeum, The Literary Gazette and The Analyst), which carried reports of the meetings of the Zoological Society. The objective of the application was to maintain availability of the names in question from their conventionally accepted places of publication by suppression of the earlier, but hitherto unknown, usages of those names. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 54: 172-182 (September 1997). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. An opposing comment from Dr Storrs L. Olson was published in BZN 55: 176-181 (September 1998). A reply from the authors of the application was published at the same time (BZN 55: 181-185), incorporating some emendations to the original 80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 proposals. A further opposing comment from Drs Murray D. Bruce and Ian A.W. McAllan was published in BZN 56: 274-279 (December 1999), together with a reply from the originating authors (BZN 56: 279-280). An additional comment from Bruce & McAllan was published in BZN 57: 113 (June 2000). The emendments (BZN 55: 184-185; September 1998) made by Schodde and Bock to their original application were incorporated in the proposals for voting. Further emendments derived from these comments or inherent in the case were listed in the voting paper. Decision of the Commission On | March 2001 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 54: 175-181 with the emendments set out in BZN 55: 184-185 and the additional proposals listed in the voting paper. At the close of the voting period on | June 2001 the votes were as follows: 9 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 11 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Alonso-Zarazaga abstained, no votes were received from Dupuis and Song. Some of the Commissioners who voted against the Application commented that case-by-case consideration of individual names would have been preferable, and the suggestion was made that the Commission should not concern itself with original source references where the stability of the actual name was not endangered. No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes so as to allow for any future proposals relating to names where there are nomenclatural problems that need to be resolved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 81 OPINION 2027 (Case 3010) Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of 17 specific names based on wild species, which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic forms. The majority of wild progenitors and their domestic derivatives share the same name, but in the 17 cases considered (1 Lepidoptera, 1 Osteichthyes and 15 Mammalia) the wild and domestic forms have been separately named and this has created confusion. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Perissodactyla; Artiodactyla; Rodentia; Carnivora; Lepidoptera; Osteichthyes; names for wild species with domestic derivatives; Equus africanus; Equus ferus; Camelus ferus; Lama guanicoe; Vicugna vicugna; Bos primigenius; Bos gaurus; Bubalus arnee; Bos mutus; Capra aegagrus; Ovis orientalis; Cavia aperea; Canis lupus; Mustela putorius; Felis silvestris; Carassius gibelio; Bombyx mandarina; ass; tarpan; Bactrian camel; guanaco; vicuna; aurochs; gaur; water buffalo; yak; bezoar; Asian mouflon; guinea pig; wolf; polecat; wildcat; Prussian carp; gibel carp; mulberry silk moth. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power: (a) it is hereby ruled that the name for each of the wild species listed in (2) and (3) below is not invalid by virtue of being pre-dated by a name based on a domestic form; (b) the name feruws Falk, 1786, as published in the trinomen Camelus dromedarius ferus, and all uses of the name Camelus ferus prior to the publication of Camelus ferus Przewalski, 1878, 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) africanus Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866, as published in the binomen Equus africanus (North African wild ass) (Mammalia); (b) ferus Boddaert, 1785, as published in the binomen Equus ferus (Russian wild horse, tarpan) (Mammalia); (c) ferus Przewalski, 1878, as published in the trinomen Camelus bactrianus ferus (wild Bactrian camel, now restricted to the western Gobi desert) (Mammalia); (d) guanicoe Miller, 1776, as published in the binomen Camelus guanicoe (South American guanaco) (Mammalia); (e) vicugna Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Camelus vicugna (South American vicuna) (Mammalia); 82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 (f) primigenius Bojanus, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos primigenius (aurochs of Europe, Asia and North Africa, extinct since 1627) (Mammalia); (g) arnee Kerr, 1792, as published in the binomen Bos arnee (Indian water -_ buffalo, arni) (Mammalia); (h) mutus Przewalski, 1883, as published in the binomen Poephagus mutus (Asian yak) (Mammalia); (i) aegagrus Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Capra aegagrus (bezoar of the Middle East) (Mammalia); (j) orientalis Gmelin, 1774, as published in the binomen Ovis orientalis (mouflon of Western Asia) (Mammalia); (k) aperea Erxleben, 1777, as published in the binomen Cavia aperea (South American cavy) (Mammalia); (1) /upus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Canis lupus (wolf of the Palaearctic, India and North America) (Mammalia); (m)gibelio Bloch, 1782, as published in the binomen Cyprinus gibelio (Prussian or gibel carp of Central Europe to East Asia) (Osteichthyes); (n) mandarina Moore, 1872, as published in the binomen Theophila mandarina (mulberry silk moth of China, Korea and Japan) (Lepidoptera). To the entries for the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology is hereby added an endorsement to record the ruling in (1)(a) above: ‘ (a) gaurus H. Smith, 1827, as published in the binomen Bos gaurus (gaur of India, Burma and Malaya) (Mammalia); (b) putorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Mustela putorius (polecat of Europe, Middle East and Morocco) (Mammalia); (c) silvestris Schreber, 1777, as published in the trinomen Felis catus silvestris (wildcat of Western Europe to Western China and Central India, much of Africa) (Mammalia). The name ferus Falk, 1786, as published in the trinomen Camelus dromedarius ferus (Mammalia) and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. (3 ey = History of Case 3010 An application for the conservation of usage of the first available specific name based on a wild population for 15 wild species of mammals with domestic derivatives was received from Mrs Anthea Gentry (Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, U.K.), Dr Juliet Clutton-Brock (Working Group on Nomenclature, International Council of Archaeozoology, clo The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Prof Colin P. Groves (The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) on 14 December 1995. The case was published in BZN 53: 28-37 (March 1996). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments in support of the application were published in the following issues of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature: BZN 53: 125 (June 1996). BZN 53: 192-200 (September 1996). 18 comments, with a note of support from a further five authors. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 83 BZN 53: 286-288 (December 1996). Four comments. BZN 54: 119-123 (June 1997). Four comments. BZN 54: 189 (September 1997). BZN 55: 43-46 (March 1998). BZN 55: 119-120 (June 1998). BZN 56: 72-73 (March 1999). Two comments. BZN 58: 231-233 (September 2001). Four comments opposing the application were published in BZN 54: 123-127 (June 1997). A reply by the authors of the application was published at the same time. Further replies were included in comments by Dr I. Lehr Brisbin (The University of Georgia, Aiken, South Carolina, U.S.A.; BZN 55: 43-46, March 1998), Dr Christian R. Altaba Unstitut Mediterrani d’Estudis Avancats, Palma de Mallorca, Illes Balears, Spain; BZN 55: 119-120, June 1998) and Prof Hans-Peter Uerpmann (/nstitut fiir Ur- und Friihgeschichte und Archdologie des Mittelalters, Tiibingen, Germany; BZN 58: 231-233, September 2001). An opposing comment was also published in BZN 56: 280-282 (December 1999). Replies to this comment were published by Prof Uerpmann and by the authors of the application in BZN 58: 231—234 (September 2001). A statement of the intention and scope of the application was published by the authors of the case in BZN 59: 48-50 (March 2002). In his supportive comment, published in BZN 53: 194 (September 1996), Dr Achilles Gautier (Universiteit Gent, Gent, Belgium) recommended that for consistency Cyprinus (currently Carassius) gibelio Bloch, 1782 and Theophila (currently Bombyx) mandarina Moore, 1872 should be placed on the Official List as the specific names for the wild species of Prussian or gibel carp and the mulberry silk moth respectively (para. 10 of the application). On the voting paper it was proposed that these names be added to the list of those in para. 11(2) of the application and they have been included in the current ruling. Dr A.V. Abramov (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia), also commenting in support of the application (BZN 53: 287, December 1996), noted that the name Camelus ferus (published as C. bactrianus ferus) dates from Przewalski (1878), and not Przewalski (1883) as given in the application. He proposed that the earlier homonym C. dromedarius ferus Falk, 1786 be suppressed to conserve Przewalski’s (1878) name. The date for C. ferus Przewalski was emended in para. 11(2)(c) of the application, and the additional proposals published in BZN 53: 287 were submitted for voting. Suppression of the name C. dromedarius ferus Falk, 1786 has been incorporated in the current ruling. The specific names of Felis silvestris Schreber, 1777 and Bos gaurus H. Smith, 1827 were placed on the Official List in Opinions 465 (May 1957) and 1348 (September 1985) respectively. The specific name of Mustela putorius Linnaeus, 1758 (type species of Putorius Cuvier, 1816, placed on the Official List in Opinion 91, October 1926) was placed on the Official List in Direction 22 (November 1955). The names listed in the ruling above, which are the first available names in use based on wild populations, apply to wild species and include those for their domestic derivatives if these are not distinguishable. 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 53: 33 (with the emendment of the date of Camelus bactrianus ferus Przewalski to 1878), the proposals published in BZN 53: 287, and the addition of the specific names of Cyprinus gibelio Bloch, 1782 and Theophila mandarina Moore, 1872. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 19 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 5 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bouchet abstained, no votes were received from B6hme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List, on an Official Index, and the names on an Official List for which the entries are endorsed, by the ruling given in the present Opinion: aegagrus, Capra, Erxleben, 1777, Systema regni animalis . . . Classis | (Mammalia), p. 260. africanus, Equus, Heuglin & Fitzinger, 1866, Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Classe, 54: 588. aperea, Cavia, Erxleben, 1777, Systema regni animalis . .. Classis 1 (Mammalia), p. 348. arnee, Bos, Kerr, 1792, The animal kingdom or zoological system of the celebrated Sir Charles Linnaeus, vol. 1, part 1 (Mammalia), p. 336. ferus, Camelus bactrianus, Przewalski, 1878, From Kul’dzha through Tyan’-Shan’ to Lob-Nor, pp. 20, 43. [In Russian]. ferus, Camelus dromedarius, Falk, 1786, Beitrdge zur topographischen Kenntnis des Russischen Reiches, vol. 3, p. 292. ferus, Equus, Boddaert, 1785, Elenchus Animalium, vol, 1 (Sistens Quadrupedia), p. 159. gaurus, Bos, H. Smith, 1827, The Ruminantia. Vol. 4 in Griffith, E., Smith, C.H. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organisation, by the Baron Cuvier, with additional descriptions of all the species hitherto named, and of many not before noticed, p. 399. gibelio, Cyprinus, Bloch, 1782, Oeconomische Naturgeschichte der Fische Deutschlands, vol. 1, js Hl, guanicoe, Camelus, Miller, 1776, Des Ritters Carl von Linné . . . voustandigen Natursystems. Supplements und Register, p. 50. lupus, Canis, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 39. mandarina, Theophila, Moore, 1872, Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1872: 576. mutus, Poephagus, Przewalski, 1883, Third journey in Central Asia. From Zaisan through Khami into Tibet and to the sources of the Yellow River, p. 191. [In Russian]. orientalis, Ovis, Gmelin, 1774, Reise durch Russland zur Untersuchung der drey Natur-Reiche, vol. 3, pp. 432, 486. primigenius, Bos, Bojanus, 1827, Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino Carolinae, 13(2): 477. putorius, Mustela, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 46. silvestris, Felis catus, Schreber, 1777, Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur, mit Beschreibungen, vol. 3, p. 39. vicugna, Camelus, Molina, 1782, Saggio sulle storia naturale del Chile, p. 313. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 85 OPINION 2028 (Case 3073) Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): neotypes designated Abstract. The Commission has designated neotypes for two broadly sympatric species of pipistrelle bats, which until recently have been considered to be a single taxon under the name Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774). The existence of two separate species was first detected from differences in the ultrasonic echolocation calls of the two species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; = Chiroptera; bats; VESPERTILIONIDAE; Pipistrellus; Pipistrellus pipistrellus; Pipistrellus pygmaeus. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power all previous fixations of type specimens for the following nominal species are hereby set aside: (a) Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and the adult male specimen no. BMNH 1997.81 from Beauvais Cathedral, Normandy, France, collected in October 1996, is designated as the neotype; (b) Vespertilio pygmaeus Leach, 1825 and the adult female specimen no. BMNH 1999.43 from Chew Valley Lake, Bath and North East Somerset, U.K., collected in October 1998, is designated as the neotype. (2) The name Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) pipistrellus Schreber, 1774, as published in the binomen Vespertilio pipistrellus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above (specific name of the type species of Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829); (b) pygmaeus Leach, 1825, as published in the binomen Vespertilio pygmaeus and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(b) above. (3 ma History of Case 3073 An application for the designation of neotypes for Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 was received from Prof Gareth Jones (University of Bristol, Bristol, U.K.) and Dr Elizabeth M. Barratt (Institute of Zoology, Zoological Society of London, London, U.K.) on 21 October 1997. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 56: 182-186 (September 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. The application sought to establish names for two reproductively isolated cryptic species of pipistrelle bats which until 1993 were considered to be a single taxon under the name Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber, 1774). The species are distinguished by 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 the frequency of their ultrasonic echolocation calls and other features (para. 4 of the application). It was proposed that the much used name P. pipistrellus be retained for the species with the lower frequency call (45 kHz) and that the oldest available synonym, P. pygmaeus (Leach, 1825), be adopted for the species with the higher frequency. call (55 kHz). The intention of the application was to stabilise both P. pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus by the designation of neotypes that are in accord with the current usage of the names (i.e. for taxa distinguished by their phonic calls), and the application was submitted to the Commission for a ruling under Article 75.6 of the Code. Some of those who commented on the case welcomed the use of the name P. pipistrellus for the 45 kHz phonic type but favoured the adoption of P. mediterraneus Cabrera, 1904, rather than P. pygmaeus, for the 55 kHz phonic type. As noted in a number of comments, P. mediterraneus was not the earliest available name after P. pygmaeus; it is, in fact, 91 years junior to pygmaeus and one of the most recent names. There are 15 available synonyms between P. pygmaeus and P. mediterraneus and it is not known to which phonic type or types any of the names applies. If adopted, P. mediterraneus could potentially have been displaced by one of the intermediate synonyms. ; Five comments in support of the application were published in BZN 57: 49-50 (March 2000), together with a comment opposing the use of the name P. pygmaeus for the 55 kHz phonic type. A comment by Drs Otto von Helversen and Frieder Meyer (Universitat Erlangen, Erlangen, Germany) and Dr Dieter Kock (Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), published in BZN 57: 113-115 (June 2000), supported the use of P. pipistrellus and the designation of a neotype for the 45 kHz calling species, but proposed the adoption of P. mediterraneus rather than P. pygmaeus for the second species. A comment in support of the application, and another from one of the authors of the application, Prof Gareth Jones, were published at the same time. A reply to Helversen et al. by Prof Gareth Jones was published in BZN 58: 60-61 (March 2001). A comment from Dr Victor Van Cakenberghe (Universiteit Antwerpen, Antwerp, Belgium), published in BZN 58: 230-331 (September 2001), supported the desig- nation of a neotype for P. pipistrellus but favoured the use of P. mediterraneus rather than P. pygmaeus. A reply to this comment by Prof Gareth Jones was published in BZN 58: 309 (December 2001). Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 185. At the close of the voting period on | December 2002 the votes were as follows: 24 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, 1 Commissioner voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Voting for, Cogger commented: “While some proponents for and against the selection of Pipistrellus pygmaeus as the name for the second cryptic species have exaggerated the strength of their cases and/or the weakness of the opposing arguments, there is clearly an.element of personal preference for a name rather than for the most stable nomenclatural outcome. I agree with the applicants that their Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 87 proposed solution is likely to result in the greatest stability and least confusion’. Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented: ‘I am fully in favour of adopting the name P. mediterraneus for the 55 kHz phonic type and, if necessary, setting aside any possible prior synonyms. The adoption of P. pygmaeus for this taxon seems unjustified to me’. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Pipistrellus Kaup, 1829, Skizzirte Entwickelungs-Geschichte und Natiirliches System der Europdischen Thierwelt ... Erster Thiel (welcher die Vogelsdugethiere und Vogel, nebst Andeutung der Enstehung der letzteren aus Amphibien enthdlt), pp. 98, 188. pipistrellus, Vespertilio, Schreber, 1774, Die Sdugthiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen, vol. 1, p. 167. pygmaeus, Vespertilio, Leach, 1825, Zoological Journal, 1(4): 559. 88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2029 (Case 3020) Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalotragus kattwinkeli): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 and the specific name M. kattwinkeli (Schwartz, 1932) are conserved. The generic name has been used consistently for a genus of very large African fossil antelopes (family BovIDAE), dating from the Pliocene-late Pleistocene. The specific name M. kattwinkeli refers to an East African species of the genus. The names were threatened by Rhynotragus Reck, 1925, which had been used only once in 1997, and R. semiticus Reck, 1925, which had remained unused, and these have been suppressed except for homonymy. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Artiodactyla; BOvIDAE; ALCELA- PHINI; antelopes; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Africa; Megalotragus; Megalotragus priscus; Megalotragus kattwinkeli. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power 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 Rhynotragus Reck, 1925; (b) the specific name semiticus Reck, 1925, as published in the binomen Rhynotragus semiticus. (2) The name Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Megalotragus eucornutus Van Hoepen, 1932 (a junior subjective synonym of Bubalis priscus Broom, 1909), 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) kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932, as published in the binomen A/celaphus kattwinkeli and as defined by the holotype, specimen no. VI-1099 in the Bayerischen Staatssammlung fiir Palaontologie und historische Geologie in Munich; (b) priscus Broom, 1909, as published in the binomen Bubalis priscus (senior subjective synonym of Megalotragus eucornutus Van Hoepen, 1932, the type species of Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932). The name Rhynotragus Reck, 1925 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, as suppressed in (1)(a) above. The name semiticus Reck, 1925, as published in the binomen Rhynotragus semiticus and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. = — Nn — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 89 History of Case 3020 An application for the conservation of the name Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932 and of the specific name of Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 was received from Dr A.W. Gentry (The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Mrs Anthea Gentry (Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex, U.K.) on 15 May 1996. The case was published in BZN 56: 42-47 (March 1999). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. It was noted on the voting paper that there was a prima facie case for the conservation of the names Megalotragus and A. kattwinkeli under Article 23.9.3 of the Code (para. 5 of the application). The application was supported by Vrba (1997; para. 5 of the application) and by Dr John M. Harris (Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.) who noted (in litt. to A.W. Gentry, May 1995): ‘I have seen a copy of the manuscript on the rediscovery of some Olduvai bovid types [published by Gentry, Gentry & Mayr, December 1995]. I heartedly endorse your decision to have Rhynotragus set aside’. The name Rhyno- tragus has not been used in place of Megalotragus before or since a single use in 1997. Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 56: 45. At the close of the voting period on | December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion: kattwinkeli, Alcelaphus, Schwarz, 1932, Zentralblatt fiir Mineralogie, Geologie und Paldontologie, (B)1932(1): 4. Megalotragus Van Hoepen, 1932, Paleontologiese Navorsing van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 2(5): 63. priscus, Bubalis, Broom, 1909, Annals of the South African Museum, 7: 279. Rhynotragus Reck, 1925, Ilustrirte Zeitung, Leipzig, 164: 451. semiticus, Rhynotragus, Reck, 1925, Illustrirte Zeitung, Leipzig, 164: 451. 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 OPINION 2030 (Case 3178) Hippotragus Sundevyall, 1845 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 for the African roan, sable and blaauwbok antelopes and a number of Pliocene and Pleistocene African and southern Asian fossil species is conserved. This ruling, which stabilises the nomenclature of hippotragine antelopes at the family-group, generic and specific levels, rescinds rulings made by the Commission in 1929 and 1955 in which Hippotragus was accepted as available from Sundevall’s later publication (1846). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mammalia; Artiodactyla; HIPPOTRAGINAE; Hippotragus; Hippotragus equinus; Hippotragus niger; Hippotragus leucophaeus; antelopes; roan; sable; blaauwbok; Recent; Pliocene; Pleistocene; Asia; Africa. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power: (a) the suppression of the generic name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 in Direction 23 is hereby rescinded; (b) the entry for Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 is hereby deleted from the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and the name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Antilope equina E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803, is placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (c) the entry for Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846 is hereby deleted from the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; (d) the entries for the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology are hereby emended: (i) — equina, as published in the binomen Antilope equina, to record the authorship and date as E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) and to add an endorsement that it is the specific name of the type species of Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845; (ii) niger Harris, 1838, as published in the binomen Aigocerus niger, to record the date and place of publication as 27 January 1838, The Athenaeum, 535: 71; (e) the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for /eucophaea Pallas, 1766, as published in the binomen Antilope leucophaea, is hereby emended to record deletion of the statement that it is the type species of Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, and addition of an endorsement that it is defined by the lectotype designated by Husson & Holthuis (1969). (2) The name HIpPpOTRAGINAE Sundevall, 1845 (type genus Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 91 History of Case 3178 An application to conserve the name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845, and thereby to stabilise the nomenclature of hippotragine antelopes at the species, genus and family-group levels, was received from Dr Peter Grubb (London, U.K.) on 10 October 2000. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 58: 126-132 (June 2001). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. No comments on this case were received. The name Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, with the type species designated as Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766, was placed on the Official List in Opinion 109 (June 1929). However, the earlier publication of Hippotragus by Sundevall (1845) and the type species by monotypy Antilope equina E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803 were then overlooked. Opinion 109 was endorsed by the suppression of Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845 in Direction 23 (November 1955) and A. /eucophaea was placed on the Official List in Direction 22 (November 1955). The current ruling rescinds Direction 23 and emends Direction 22 under Article 80.9 of the Code. The Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle by Etienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) was confirmed by the Commission as available for nomenclatural purposes and placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 2005 (June 2002). The authorship and date of the specific name of Antilope equina, which was established in the work, were therefore correctly attributed to E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire (1803) (paras. 9, 11(1)(b) and 11(1)(d)@) of the application). Decision of the Commission On | September 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 129-130. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2002 the votes were as follows: 25 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, no votes were received from Bohme and Dupuis, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists, and to the names on Official Lists for which the entries are emended, by the ruling given in the present Opinion: equina, Antilope, E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1803, Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, p. 259. Hippotragus Sundevall, 1845, Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, Andra Argangen, 1845(2, 3): 31. Hippotragus Sundevall, 1846, Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 1846: 196. HIPPOTRAGINAE Sundevall, 1845, Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Férhandlingar, Andra Argangen, 1845(2, 3): 31. leucophaea, Antilope, Pallas, 1766, Miscellanea Zoologica, p. 4. niger, Aigocerus, Harris, 1838 (27 January), The Athenaeum, 535: 71. The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Antilope leucophaea Pallas, 1766: Husson, A.M. & Holthuis, L.B. 1969. Zoologische Mededelingen, 49: 153. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(1) March 2003 INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Commis- sion; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned. General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists. Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat. References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160. Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. It would help to reduce the time it takes to process the large number of applications received if the typescript could be accompanied by a disk with copy in IBM PC compatible format, or the script sent via e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ within the message or as an attachment (disks and attachments to be in Word, rtf or ASCII text). It would also be helpful if applications were accompanied by photocopies of relevant pages of the main references where this is possible. The Commission’s Secretariat is very willing to advise on all aspects of the formulation of an application. Contents — continued On the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and ‘Tridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema. R. Westcott . On the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera). J.M. Cumming & J.R. Vockeroth. : On the proposed conservation of the soeeite. name or Nemeras “walling Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera). E.J. van Nieukerken; Z. LaSttvka . F On the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Grmentorsn 1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. R.E. Espinoza . as ete Rulings of the Commission OPINION 2016 (Case 2888). Valdivianemertes Stiasny-Wijnhoff, 1923 ey, not conserved 4 OPINION 2017 (Case 2983). Mchaninellastrim Pfeiffer, 1854 andl ACHATINELLIDAE Gulick, 1873 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved OPINION 2018 (Case 3192). BULIMINIDAE Kobelt, 1880 (Micitineey iGustropaday spelling emended to BULIMINUSIDAE, so removing the homonymy with BULIMINIDAE Jones, 1875 (Rhizopoda, Foraminifera); and ENIDAE Woodward, 1903 (1880) (Gastropoda): given precedence Over BULIMINUSIDAE Kobelt, 1880 . OPINION 2019 (Case 2899). Dodecaceria concharum Orsted, 1843 and Hererocirr us fimbriatus Verrill, 1879 (currently D. fimbriata) (Annelida, Polychaeta): conser- vation of usage of the names by the designation of a neotype for D. concharum not approved siege Ry LR OPINION 2020 (Case 3078). Daerah Say, 1818 (Crustacea, (eummcen): tonne rathkii Kroyer, 1841 designated as type species : OPINION 2021 (Case 3048). NYMPHULINAE uponchel 1945 (insects: Depidenters): not given precedence over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835. OPINION 2022 (Case 3197). Glassia Davidson, 1881 (Brachiopoda} G Blonnata Davidson, 1881 designated as the type species . OPINION 2023 (Case 3195). Polonograptus Tsegelnjuk, 1976 (Graptolithing): P. podoliensis Piibyl, 1983 designated as the type species . OPINION 2024 (Case 3140). Sceloporus occidentalis Baird & Girard! 1952 (Restilial Sauria): rediscovered syntypes replaced by a neotype . : OPINION 2025 (Case 3191). Pareiasaurus karpinskii Amalitzky, 1922 (curently Scutosaurus karpinskii; Reptilia, Pareiasauria): specific name conserved . 3 OPINION 2026 (Case 3044). Generic and specific names of birds (Aves) con- ventionally accepted as published in the Proceedings or Transactions of the Zoological Society of London and monographic works by John Gould and other contemporary zoologists: suppression of prior usages not approved OPINION 2027 (Case 3010). Usage of 17 specific names based on wild species which are pre-dated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Lepidoptera, Osteichthyes, Mammalia): conserved . OPINION 2028 (Case 3073). Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 aad V pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera): neotypes designated . Rar means, BUA ie OPINION 2029 (Case 3020). Meraionaeus Van Eoenen 1932 (Mammalia, Artiodactyla): conserved, and Alcelaphus kattwinkeli Schwarz, 1932 (currently Megalotragus kattwinkeli): specific name conserved . OPINION 2030 (Case ae Hpo tans S Sundevall, 1845 (Mammalia 2, Artiodactyla) conserved . Information and Instructions for Authors 53 53 54 58 59 61 63 66 68 70 2 74 76 77 79 81 85 88 90 92 CONTENTS Notices . The International Covaeeert: on ‘Zoological Nomenclature and) its publications Addresses of members of the Commission International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : The International Code of Zoological Nomenclanire . General Article Zoological Record and registration of new names in zoology. J. Thorne . Applications Erbocyathus Zhuravleva, 1955 (Archaeocyatha): Pree conservation. F. Debrenne, A.Yu Zhuravlev & P.D. Kruse Jae Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767 (eumently Phakellia vonnlahea: *Porifert proposed conservation of the specific name and ae of a peels B. Alvarez & R.C. Willan. be ochraceus Say, 1817 (currently joie coe Svfolluses Bivalvia): pros posed precedence of the ee name over es fluviatilis Gmelin, 1791. -J.R. Cordeiro ne RHOPALURUSINAE uehen 1971 hUcinide Soamnloacs BUTHIDAE): prouoeed conservation as the correct spelling to remove homonymy with RHOPALURIDAE Stunkard, 1937 (Orthonectida). V. Fet, M.E. Petersen & G.S. Slyusarev . ; Zeriassa Pocock, 1897 (September) (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed precedence over Canentis Pavesi, 1897 (August). M.S. Harvey . Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed eaneeredont VI Gussrey Acmaeodera Eschscholtz, 1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius, 1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera. C.L. Bellamy & M.G. Volkovitsh Lyda latifrons Fallén, 1808 and L. gyllenhali Dahlbom, 1835 (currently Pamphilius latifrons and P. gyllenhali; Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation of usage of the specific names by designation of a neotype for ne latifrons. A. Shinohara, M. Viitasaari & V. Vikberg . Rater ea lt Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and Tucerie vice “Moline: 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria): proposed conservation of usage of the names by designation of a neotype for Lacerta eae Molina, 1782. R. Etheridge & J.M. Savage . : Vespertilio nanus Peters, 1852 (arreaily Piptsirelius nanus; sven Ommaneray proposed conservation of the specific name. M. Happold : Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora proposed conservation of the specific name. P. Gaubert et al. . Comments On the neotypification of Protists, a Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora). J.O. Corliss; W. Song . On the proposed conservation s the ponent names Porites ‘ink, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and mE Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia). M.J. Grygier On the proposed conservation of the sone name of UthdGnd Janii i De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda). R.A. Bank, G. Falkner & E. Gittenberger; F. Giusti & G. Manganelli . ; sate 16 20 23 26 28 31 34 38 42 45 48 49 51 Continued on Inside Back Cover Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT! 1HD in - a Bulletin Coe Pdogical ae ot om 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 2003 is £123 or $220, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £61 or $110. 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. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Officers President Vice-President Executive Secretary Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof Dr W. Bohme (Germany; Amphibia, Reptilia) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.; Diptera) Prof R. A. Fortey (U.K.; Trilobita) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Dr I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Secretariat Dr N. L. Evenhuis (U.S. A.) Dr W. N. Eschmeyer (U.S. A.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Prof U. R. Martins de Souza (Brazil; Coleoptera) Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr C. Nielsen (Denmark; Bryozoa) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (Australia; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A4.; Mollusca) -Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) _ Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator) Dr P. K. Tubbs (Nomenclatural Consultant) Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) © International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2003 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 93 BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 60, part 2 (pp. 93-176) 30 June 2003 Notices (1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume), as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to iczn@nhm.ac.uk where possible. (2) The Commission votes on applications six to eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited. (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission via the Internet. To register free of charge with the Commission’s Discussion List send an e-mail to ‘join-iczn-list@lyris.bishopmuseum.org’, leaving the subject line and body of the message blank (for further details see BZN 59: 234). (4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary. New applications to the Commission The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 60, part 1, 31 March 2003) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published. CASE 3264: sTAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of ten specific names. Author: L.H. Herman (U.S.A.). CASE 3265: Lathrobium geminum Kraatz, 1857 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. Author: L.H. Herman (U.S.A.). 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 CASE 3266: Palacortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 (Aves, Galliformes): proposed conservation of the usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype. Authors: U.B. Gohlich & C. Mourer-Chauviré (Germany & France). CASE 3267: Cherax tenuimanus Smith, 1912 and C. cainii Austin, 2002 (Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation of usage of C. tenuimanus by designation of neotypes for both C. tenuimanus and C. cainii. Authors: B.W. Molony, B. Jones, C.S. Lawrence & V.A. Gouteff (Australia). CASE 3268: Conidophrys Chatton & Lwoff, 1934 (Ciliophora, Pilisuctorida): proposed conservation. Author: I.V. Dovgal (Ukraine). CASE 3269: Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia) Meigen, 1822 and Rhamphomyia (Pararhamphomyia) Frey, 1922 (Insecta, Diptera): proposed conservation of the usage of the subgeneric names by designation of a type species for Rhamphomyia (Rhamphomyia). Authors: M. Bartak & B.J. Sinclair (Czech Republic & Germany). CASE 3270: IsoMETRINAE Clark, 1917 (Echinodermata, Crinoidea): proposed emendation of spelling to ISOMETRAINAE to remove the homonymy with ISOMETRINAE Kraepelin, 1891 (Arachnida, Scorpiones). Authors: V. Fet & C. Messing (U.S.A.). CASE 3271: Nematois australis Heydenreich, 1851 (currently Adela australis; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. Authors: M.V. Kozlov & E.J. van Nieukerken (Finland & The Netherlands). CASE 3272: Microsaurus Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conser- vation of the usage by designation of Staphylinus ochripennis Menétriés, 1832 as the type species. Author: A. Smetana (Canada). CASE 3273: Genetta rubiginosa Pucheran, 1855 (Mammalia, Carnivora): proposed conservation of the usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype. Author: P. Grubb (U.K.). CASE 3274: Hydroporus foveolatus Heer, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific name over Hydroporus nivalis Heer, 1839. Authors: H.V. Shaverdo & M.A. Jach (Canada & Austria). CASE 3275: Metromenus Sharp, 1884 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conse.- vation of the usage by designation of a type species. Authors: J.K. Liebherr, G.M. Nishida & E.C. Zimmerman (U.S.A. & Australia). CASE 3276: Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860 (currently Narella regularis; Coelenterata, Octocorallia): proposed conservation of the usage by designation of a neotype. Author: S. Cairns & F.M. Bayer (U.S.A.). CASE 3277: Chitra chitra Nutaphand, 1986 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed precedence of the specific name over that of Chitra selenkae Jaekel, 1911. Authors: W. McCord & P. Pritchard (U.S.A.). The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names (zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by: (a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of animal names; n Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 9 (b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the provisions of the Code, via applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At present, the Commission consists of 25 zoologists from 20 countries whose interests cover most of the main divisions, including fossil animals (palaeontology), of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the auspices of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate con- gresses. Nominations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of Animals (1995). See below under ‘Publications’ for details. Further discussion of the Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991) and BZN 60: supplement pp. 1-12 (March 2003). The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded to manage the Commission’s financial matters in 1947. It is a registered charity, based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 30 members from 14 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement pp. 1-12 (March 2003). The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature The aim of the Code is to provide the greatest universality and continuity in the scientific names of animals without restricting the taxonomy or classification of the animals for which the names are used. The current (fourth edition) of the Code was published by the Trust in 1999, and came into effect on 1 January 2000. This edition supersedes all previous editions and official texts are available in English, Chinese (traditional), French, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian. C ther translations (including Czech and Catalan) are in preparation. See below under ‘Publications’ for sales details. The Articles of the Code enable the user to decide the valid name for any animal taxon between and including subspecies and superfamily. The provisions of the Code can be waived or modified in particular cases where strict adherence would cause confusion. However, only the Commission, acting on behalf of all zoologists, can do this in response to formal applications that are published in the Bulletin. The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The Bulletin is published four times each year. The Bulletin includes applications relating to animal names, comments on applications and the Commission’s eventual rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes (these are referred to as Opinions). Each Opinion published in the Bulletin is an official ruling of the Commission and comes 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also includes discussion papers on proposed emendations to the Code. See below under ‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. The Commission’s website Abstracts of applications and Opinions, and a record of the names included in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology, are posted on the Commission’s website (www.iczn.org). It is planned for this website to be extensively revised in the near future. Publications All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). With the exception of the Bulletin (which can only be ordered from ITZN), these publications can also be ordered from the American Association for Zoological Nomenclature (AAZN), Attn, D.G. Smith, MRC-159, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C. 20560-0159, U.S.A. (e-mail: smith.davidg@nmnh.si.edu). Prices listed below include surface postage. Please add £2 or $3 if you require postage by Airmail. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to “‘AAZN’ (in dollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments can be made to ITZN (but not AAZN). Please give cardholder’s name, address, card number and card expiry date when ordering. The Bulletin subscription for 2003 is £123 or US$220, including postage by accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount making the subscription £61 or US$110. You are now able to complete your collection of Bulletins at bargain prices since there are large discounts on both single volumes and complete sets of the BZN. This applies also to the Opinions and Declarations (1943-1959), which were published concurrently with volumes 1-16 of the BZN. A price list is available on application. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (4th Edition, 1999; ISBN 0 85301 006 4; English and French in one volume) is available at £40 or US$65, including surface postage. Individual purchasers who are buying the Code for personal use are offered a 25% discount (£30 or US$48), as are institutions or agents buying five or more copies. Individual members of the American or European Associations for Zoological Nomenclature are offered a discount of 40% (price $39 or £24). Information about the prices and availability of the authorised translations of the Code can be obtained from the following e-mail addresses: Chinese (traditional) — wenhua@oceantaiwan.com German — books@insecta.de Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu Spanish — menaz39@mncn.csic.es Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 97 The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement (2001) lists an additional 2385 entries. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or US$110 each, with reductions for both volumes ordered together and for individual buyers for personal use. Details available on request. Towards Stability in the Names of Animals — a History of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995 was published in 1995 in recognition of ICZN’s Centenary. This book (104 pages) contains 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the development of animal nomenclature. The cost is £30 or US$50. Funding appeal The Convention on Biological Diversity was adopted in Rio (1992) and its objectives were reinforced in Johannesburg (2002). As a result, international, regional, and local governments now recognise the need to underpin their sustain- ability policies with inventories of current biological diversity. About 2 million of the earth’s living-organisms have been formally named since the time of Linnaeus. By the best estimates, over 13 million others remain to be described and named. This massive task will rely on expanded IT capabilities, and the development of new IT-based systems and procedures. The Commission will be a key player in these initiatives. With the new urgency to identify and catalogue life on earth, the Commission’s continuing task will be to provide the secure animal naming system that underpins zoological taxonomy, biodiversity science, and all other applications of zoological taxonomy. The Com- mission must now invest in skilled staff and the necessary computer equipment to fulfil its unique responsibilities and keep pace with emerging IT-based identification and naming practices. The Trust seeks to establish an endowment fund to provide lasting financial security for the Commission’s vital work. The appeal was formally launched at the 20th Pacific Science Congress in Bangkok, 17-21 March 2003. The appeal is now being extended worldwide. Accompanying the March 2003 issue of the Bulletin was a supplement (BZN 60: supplement pp. 1-12; March 2003) and a leaflet outlining the background to and aims of the appeal. Further copies of both documents are available from the Executive Secretary. The Trust urges all those with the necessary resources to assist in the establishment of an endowment fund that will ensure the continuation and development of the Commission’s essential work. All levels of support are greatly appreciated and make an impact. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 The 1) International _ Commission on Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature) discusses the work of the Commission with two delegates at the 20th Pacific Science Congress in Bangkok, March 2003. (Picture by Neal Evenhuis) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 99 Case 3211 CLIONIDAE @’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): proposed emendment of spelling to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca, Pteropoda) Philippe Bouchet Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, 55 rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: pbouchet@cimrs!.mnhn.fr) Klaus Rutzler National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560, U.S.A. (e-mail: ruetzler.klaus@nmnh.si.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3.1 of the Code, is to remove homonymy between the family names CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca) and cLionipAe d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera) by changing the spelling of the junior homonym. It is proposed that the entire name C/iona Grant, 1826 (Porifera) be used to form CLIONAIDAE, leaving the stem of the senior homonym (based on the name Clione Pallas, 1774; Mollusca) unchanged. Clione Pallas, 1774 and Clio Linnaeus, 1767 are respectively the type genera of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca) and cLiomar Jeffreys, 1869 (Mollusca). Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLIOIDAE; CLIONAIDAE; CLIONIDAE; Clio; Cliona; Clione; Clio pyramidata; Cliona celata; Clione borealis; pteropods; boring sponges. 1. Rafinesque (1815, p. 141) established a subfamily for a group of gymnosome pteropods (Mollusca) and named it “Chonidia’. Under Article 29.2 of the Code, this name has an incorrect suffix for a subfamily. The suffix should be —INAE, giving CLIONINAE. The type genus was given by Rafinesque as “Clione R. Clio Brown’ [sic], and the context indicates that Clione Pallas, 1774 was meant. The type species of Clione by monotypy is Clione borealis Pallas, 1774 (p. 28, pl.1, figs. 18-19). C. borealis is a junior synonym of Clio limacina Phipps, 1774 (p. 195). The respective months of publication of the works by Pallas (1774) and Phipps (1774) are being investigated and will be made available to the Commission before it votes on this application. 2. The genus Clio was described and named by Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 1094), based on a pre-Linnaean work, The civil and natural history of Jamaica, by Patrick Browne (1756). Linnaeus (1767) included three nominal species: C. caudata, C. pyramidata and C. retusa. He referred to descriptions of these made by Browne (1756). Phipps (1774, p. 195) then added two additional nominal species C. helicina and C. limacina (see above), referring to the rare English translation of Martens’s (1675) pre- Linnaean work Spitzbergische oder Groenlandische Reise Beschreibung. 3. The type species of Clio is Clio pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767 by subsequent designation by Gray (1847, p. 203). Clio Linnaeus, 1767 is the type genus of the family CLIOIDAE Jeffreys, 1869 (p. 118). The similarity of the names C/io Linnaeus, 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 1767 and Clione Pallas, 1774 has meant that usage of these names has been confused. It was not until after the 1840s that Clio was generally used for a group of thecosome molluscs and Clione became generally used as the name for a group of gymnosome molluscs (e.g. Gray, 1847). 4. The standard modern reference on the Gymnosomata is by van der Spoel (1976, pp. 97-103), who incorrectly gives Gray (1840) as the author of the family name CLIONIDAE and Pruvot-Fol (1926) as the author of the subfamily name CLIONINAE. Under Articles 11.7.1.3, 34.1 and 36.1 of the Code, both the names CLIONINAE and CLIONIDAE used in relation to gymnosome pteropods retain Rafinesque, 1815 as correct authorship and date. 5. D’Orbigny (1851, p. 209) established the family name CLIONIDAE for a group of boring sponges (hadromeridan Porifera) designating Cliona Grant, 1826 (p. 78) as the type genus. The type species of Cliona by monotypy is Cliona celata Grant, 1826 (p. 78). In the last 100 years, numerous publications have used the family name CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851. Examples include Annandale (1915, p. 1), de Laubenfels (1936, p. 154), Volz (1939), Old (1941), Hartman (1958), and more recently Pang (1973), Rutzler (1986), Vicente et al. (1991), Bavastrello et al. (1996), Hooper & Wiedenmayer (1994) and Rosell & Uriz (1997). All modern textbooks and reviews of systematics, ecology, and biology of sponges (Porifera) use the name CLIONIDAE, although (if it is given) authorship is always incorrectly attributed to Gray, 1867 (e.g. Brien et al. (1973), Bergquist (1978) and Hartman (1982)). 6. CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 185t is a junior homonym of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, and has no synonym that could be used as a replacement name. We propose to remove this homonymy by using the entire genus name Cliona as the stem for the formation of the sponge (poriferan) family name. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Cliona Grant, 1826 is Cliona-; to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Clio Linnaeus, 1767, type species by subsequent designation by Gray (1847) Clio pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767 (Mollusca); (b) Clione Pallas, 1774, type species by monotypy Clione borealis Pallas, 1774 (Mollusca); (c) Cliona Grant, 1826, type species by monotypy Cliona celata Grant, 1826 (Porifera); to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Clio pyramidata (the specific name of the type species of Clio Linnaeus, 1767) (Mollusca); (b) limacina Phipps, 1774, as published in the binomen Clio limacina (senior synonym of Clione borealis Pallas, 1774, the specific name of the type species of Clione Pallas, 1774) (Mollusca); (c) celata Grant, 1826, as published in the binomen Cliona celata (the specific name of the type species of Cliona Grant, 1826) (Porifera); to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, type genus Clione Pallas, 1774 (Mollusca); (2 — _~ Ww SS (4 — Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 101 (b) CLIONAIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851, type genus Cliona Grant, 1826 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Porifera); (c) cLiomDAE Jeffreys, 1869, type genus Clio Linnaeus, 1767 (Mollusca); (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (an incorrect original spelling of CLIONAIDAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Porifera). Acknowledgements We thank Jean-Paul Rocroi, Anders Warén and John Taylor for helping us in preparing this application. References Annandale, N. 1915. Indian boring sponges. Records of the Indian Museum, 11: 1—24. Bayastrello, G., Calcinai, B., Cerrano, C., Pansini, M. & Sara, M. 1996. The taxonomic status of some Mediterranean clionids (Porifera: Demospongiae) according to morphological and genetic characters. Bulletin de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Biologie, 66(supplement): 185-195. Bergquist, P.R. 1978. Sponges. 268 pp. Hutchinson, London. Brien, P., Lévi, C., Sara, M., Tuzet, O. & Vacelet, J. 1973. Spongiaires. Jn Grasse, P.-P. (Ed.), Traité de zoologie: anatomie, systématique, biologie, vol. 3(1). 716 pp. Masson, Paris. Grant, R.E. 1826. Notice of a new zoophyte (Cliona celata Gr.) from the Firth of Forth. The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1826: 78-81. Gray, J.E. 1847. A list of genera of Recent Mollusca, their synonyma and types. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 129-182. Gray, J.E. 1867. Notes on the arrangement of Sponges, with descriptions of some new genera. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1867: 492-558. Hartman, W.D. 1958. Natural history of the marine sponges of southern New England. Porifera. Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University Bulletin, 20: 1-94. Hartman, W.D. 1982. Porifera. Pp. 640-660 in Parker, S.P. (Ed.), Synopsis and classification of living organisms, vol. 1. McGraw Hill, New York. Hooper, J.N.A. & Wiedenmayer, F. 1994. Porifera. In Wells, A. (Ed.), Zoological catalogue of Australia, vol. 12. 624 pp. CSIRO Australia, Melbourne. Jeffreys, J.G. 1869. British conchology, vol. 5. 258 pp., 102 pls. Van Voorst, London. Laubenfels, M.W. de. 1936. A discussion of the sponge fauna of the Dry Tortugas in particular, and the West Indies in general, with material for a revision of the families and orders of the Porifera. Papers of the Tortugas Laboratory, 30: 1-225. Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1. 1327 pp. Salvi, Holmiae. Martens, F. 1675. Spitzbergische oder Groenlandische Reise Beschreibung, gethan im Jahre 1671. 135 pp., 16 pls. Hamburg. Old, M.C. 1941. The taxonomy and distribution of the boring sponges (Clionidae) along the Atlantic coast of North America. Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (Solomons Island, Maryland, U.S.A.), 44: 1-30. d@’Orbigny, A. 1851. Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphiques, vol. 2. 847 pp. Masson, Paris. Pallas, P.S. 1774. Spicilegia Zoologica, vol. 1, fasc. 10. 42 pp., pls 1-4, 10 unnumbered pp., index to fasc. 1-10. Berlin. Pang, R.K. 1973. The systematics of some Jamaican excavating sponges (Porifera). Postilla, 161: 1-75. Phipps, C.J. 1774. A voyage towards the North Pole undertaken by His Majesty's command 1773. 253 pp., 14 pls. London. Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la Nature ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organisés. 223 pp. Palerme. 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Rosell, D. & Uriz, M.J. 1997. Phylogenetic relationships within the excavating Hadromerida (Porifera), with a systematic revision. Cladistics, 13: 349-366. Riitzler, K. 1986. Phylum Porifera. Pp. 111-127 in Sterrer, W. (Ed.), Marine fauna and flora of Bermuda, a systematic guide to the identification of marine organisms. John Wiley, New York. Spoel, S. van der. 1976. Pseudothecosomata, Gymnosomata and Heteropoda ( Gastropoda). 484 pp. Bohn, Scheltema & Holkema, Utrecht. Vicente, V.P., Riitzler, K. & Carballeira, N. 1991. Comparative morphology, ecology, and fatty acid composition of West Indian Spheciospongia (Demospongea). Marine Ecology, 12: 211-226. Volz, P. 1939. Die Bohrschwamme der Adria. Thalassia, 3(2): 1-64. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 162. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 103 Case 3249 Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation Russell L. Minton Department of Zoology, Field Museum of Natural History, 1400 S. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60605, U.S.A. (e-mail: rminton@fmnh.org) Arthur E. Bogan North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, 4301 Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607, U.S.A. (e-mail: arthur.bogan@ncmail.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 for a genus of freshwater prosobranch gastropods (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the eastern United States. This name is already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and has been in continuous use for over 140 years. However, it is threatened by a senior subjective synonym Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818. The name Ellipstoma has had little usage, and then mainly in lists. The names of its included species have never been adopted and suppression of the name E//ipstoma is proposed. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; PLEUROCERIDAE; freshwater prosobranch gastropods; Lithasia; Lithasia geniculata; eastern United States. Application to the Commission 1. Rafinesque (1818b, p. 42) briefly described a new genus Ellipstoma and included three new nominal species: E. gibbosa, E. rugosa and E. zonalisa. Hannibal (1912, p. 168) subsequently designated E. gibbosa as the type species of Ellipstoma. Morrison (1954, p. 363) claimed that Hannibal had misidentified the type species. In addition, Burch (1979, p. 98) stated that ‘the identity of Ellipstoma gibbosa Rafinesque, 1818 is too doubtful to give nomenclatural validity to Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818’. The name Ellipstoma has had little usage, and then mainly in lists. The names of its included species have never been adopted and Ellipstoma does not appear in the online version of Zoological Record (1978-2001) or GeoRef (1758-2001). 2. Agassiz (1846a, p. 33) misspelled the name as Ellipsostoma and attributed it to Rafinesque, 1819 and later (Agassiz, 1846b, p. 136) listed this misspelling. Millard (1997, p. 86; 2001, p. 422) misspelled the genus as Ellipsoma. 3. Haldeman (1840, p. 1) described the genus Lithasia, and included one new species, L. geniculata, the type species of the genus by monotypy. The name Lithasia is already on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (see Opinion 1195; BZN 38: 259-265, November 1991). In addition, it has been used extensively in studies of the North American gastropod fauna (e.g. Walker, 1918; Morrison, 1940; Goodrich, 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 1941; Clench, 1965; Burch, 1979; Ahlstedt, 1980; Bogan & Parmalee, 1983; Clarke, 1983; Bogan et al., 1995; Holznagel & Lydeard, 2000; Minton, 2002). The Commission Secretariat holds an additional 33 usage references. 4. Morrison (1954, p. 363) considered Ellipstoma gibbosa (the type species of Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818) to be a senior subjective synonym of both Melania armigera Say, 1821 (currently Lithasia armigera) and L. geniculata (the type species of Lithasia Haldeman, 1840). This synonymy means that Ellipstoma is a senior subjective synonym of Lithasia. 5. In order to avoid undesirable changes in nomenclature and to preserve the stability of generic names in the family PLEUROCERIDAE, we propose that the widely used name Lithasia Haldeman, 1840 be conserved under Article 23.9.3 by the suppression of its senior subjective synonym Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818. Lithasia has had considerable usage (see para. 3 above), but Ellipstoma has had limited usage in the last 100 years (see para. 1 above) preventing automatic conservation of Lithasia under Article 23.9.1.1. Lithasia and its type species L. geniculata are already on the Official Lists (Opinion 1195; see para. 3 above). 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Ellipstoma 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 Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818, as suppressed in (1) above; (b) Ellipsostoma Agassiz, 1846 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818); (c) Ellipsoma Millard, 1997 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of E/lipstoma Rafinesque, 1818). Supporting information 1. In 1818, Rafinesque indicated that E//ipstoma included four species, but did not list them (Rafinesque, 1818c, p. 107). The following year (1819, p. 424) he listed E. gibbosa, emended E. zonalisa to E. Zonalis, and added two more nominal species to Ellipstoma: E. marginula and E. vittata (these are nomina nuda). 2. Haldeman (1841, p. 1) described the genus Angitrema, with Melania armigera Say, 1821 as the type species by monotypy. Herrmannsen (1852, p. 74) listed Lithasia and included only L. geniculata. Tryon (1863, 1865b) used Lithasia as a subgenus of Angitrema, but subsequently elevated Lithasia to full generic status (Tryon, 1865c). Pilsbry & Rhoads (1896, p. 496) considered Angitrema to be a subgenus of Lithasia, a decision that was further supported by Goodrich (1921). 3. Errors regarding the date of publication for Ellipstoma are common. Herrmannsen (1846, p. 418) & Scudder (1882, p. 120) both listed Ellipstoma (correct spelling), but cited 1819 as the date for the name. They also noted the variant spelling, Ellipsostoma (see para. 2 of the Application above). Later Scudder listed only the correct spelling, but again cited the date as 1819 (Scudder, 1884, p. 110). Sherborn (1926, p. 2117) and Neave (1939, p. 214) correctly listed the date of publication for Ellipstoma as 1818, and also noted the 1819 reference. Sherborn (1926, p. 2117) also noted Agassiz’s misspelling. Stein (1976, p. 38) following Morrison (1954, p. 363) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 105 used Pleurocera (Ellipstoma) gibbosa, but cited the date of publication of the specific name as 1820. 4. Recognition and usage of specific names included in Ellipstoma have been inconsistent. Binney (1860, pp. 8-9) listed E. gibbosa and E. zonalis, but E. marginula was listed as E. marginata, and all were placed in the genus Melania; E. rugosa was overlooked. H. & A. Adams (1854, p. 301) used Me/ania and included the misspelling Ellistoma as a synonym. Later, Binney (1863, p. 325) listed E. gibbosa, E. zonalis and E. rugosa, but overlooked E. marginula. Tryon (1873, p. xxi) reviewed all the preceding work on the family stREPOMATIDAE. Under the genus Leptoxis he com- mented on Rafinesque’s 1819 paper and decided not to accept the genus Ellipstoma or any of its included species. He later concluded that Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1819 was a senior synonym of Anculosa Say, 1821 (Tryon, 1873, p. xxxiv). Both Pilsbry (1917, pp. 110-111) and Goodrich (1929, p. 2) listed Ellipstoma and the included species as indeterminate. Fischer (1885, p. 706), Thiele (1929, p. 194) and Wenz (1938, p. 701) listed Ellipstoma Rafinesque, 1818 with a question mark under the genus Anculosa. Vaught (1989, p. 29) and Millard (1997, p. 86; 2001, p. 422) tentatively (and in the latter case as a misspelling, see para. 2 of the Application above) included it under Anculosa. Morrison (1954, p. 363) recognized Ellipstoma containing a single species as a subgenus of Pleurocera, using Pleurocera verrucosa Rafinesque as the type species of Plewrocera. Stansbery (1971, p. 11) listed Ellipstoma gibbosa Rafinesque, 1818 as rare and endangered with no further comments. Graf's (2001) lexicon not only overlooked all four species included by Rafinesque in Ellipstoma but incorrectly credited Binney as author of the taxa. Consistent usage of the name Ellipstoma was limited to works by Morrison (1954) and Stein (1976). 5. Rafinesque (1818a, p. 355) described a new genus Plewrocera and included six nominal species without descriptions, rendering them nomina nuda. The following year he again described the genus but without including any species (Rafinesque, 1819, p. 423). He later described P. verrucosa, the first species with an available name to be included in the genus (Rafinesque, 1820, p. 11). The incorrect subsequent spelling Plewrocerus was published in combination with the new specific name P. acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824 (p. 236) and subsequently corrected to Pleurocera acuta (Rafinesque, 1831, p. 3). Tryon (1864, p. 24) applied the name Pleurocera to the group including P. acuta. Hannibal (1912, p. 169) subsequently designated P. verrucosa as the type species of Pleurocera based on a rough sketch in Rafinesque’s unpublished ‘Conchologia Ohioensis’ that to him clearly represented Melania nupera Say, 1829, a junior subjective synonym of P. verrucosa. Walker (1917, p. 2) stated that reference to Rafinesque’s unpublished ‘Conchologia Ohioensis’ was ‘entirely inadmissible . . . under any construction of the International Code’. He further argued (p. 7) that ‘Hannibal’s designation of verrucosa as the type of Pleurocera, in 1912, [was] entirely immaterial, as it was either invalid or unnecessary ... and then (p. 9) formally designated Pleurocera acuta ‘as the type of the genus Pleurocera Raf.’. 6. The problem concerning the type species of Plewrocera was resolved by Opinion 1195 (BZN 38: 259-265) fixing it under the plenary power as Pleurocerus acutus Rafinesque in Blainville, 1824. The Commission’s ruling on the type species of Pleurocera allowed P. verrucosa to remain in the genus Lithasia as it had been considered a species of either Lithasia or Angitrema (=Lithasia). 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 References Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1854. The genera of Recent Mollusca, vol. |. xl, 484 pp. London. Agassiz, L. 1846a. Nomina systemica generum molluscorum (recognoverunt J.E. Gray, C. Th. Menke, et H.E. Strickland). Pp. xiv, 98 [separately paginated] in Agassiz, L. [1842-1846], Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum Animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri. Agassiz, L. 1846b. Nomeclatoris zoologici; index universalis. Pp. vii, 393 [separately pagi- nated] in: Nomenclator zoologicus, continens nomina systematica generum Animalium, tam viventium quam fossilium. Jent & Gassmann, Soloduri. Ahlstedt, S.A. 1980. The molluscan fauna of the Duck River between Normandy and Columbia Dams in central Tennessee. Bulletin of the American Malacological Union, 1980: 60-62. Binney, W.G. 1860. Checklist of the shells of North America. Fluviatile Gastropoda. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 2(6): 7-13. Binney, W.G. 1863. Bibliography of North American conchology previous to the year 1860. Part I. American Authors. vii, 650 pp. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1824. Mollusques, Mollusca (Malacoz.). Pp. 1-392 in: Dictionnaire des Sciences Naturelles, vol. 32. 567 pp. Levrault, Paris. Bogan, A.E. & Parmalee, P.W. 1983. The Mollusks. Tennessee's Rare Wildlife, vol. 2. 123 pp. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville. Bogan, A.E., Pierson, J.M. & Hartfield, P. 1995. Decline in the freshwater gastropod fauna in the Mobile Basin. Pp. 249-252 in LaRoe, E.T., Farris, G.S., Puckett, C.E., Doran, P.D. & Mac, M.J. (Eds.), Our living resources: a report to the Nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington D.C. Burch, J.B. 1979. Genera and subgenera of Recent freshwater gastropods of North America (North of Mexico). Malacological Review, 12: 97-100. Clarke, A.H. 1983. The distribution and relative abundance of Lithasia pinguis (Lea), Pleurobema plenum (Lea), Villosa trabalis (Conrad), and Epioblasma sampsoni (Lea). American Malacological Bulletin, 1: 27-30. Clench, W.J. 1965. A new species of Lithasia from Mississippi. Nautilus, 79(1): 30-33. Fischer, P. 1885. Part 8, pp. 689-784 in Fischer, P., Manuel de conchyliologique et de Paléontologie conchyliologique ou Histoire naturelle des Mollusques vivants et fossiles suivi d'un appendice sur les branchiopodes. 1369 pp. Savy, Paris. Goodrich, C. 1921. Something about Angitrema. Nautilus, 35(2): 58—S9. Goodrich, C. 1929. The pleurocerid fauna 6f the falls of the Ohio. Nautilus, 43(1): 1-17. Goodrich C. 1941. Studies of the gastropod family Pleuroceridae VII. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 447: 1-13. Graf, D.L. 2001. The cleansing of the Augean stables, or a lexicon of the nominal species of the Pleuroceridae (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) of recent North America, north of Mexico. Walkerana, 12: 1-124. Haldeman, S.S. 1840. A monograph of the Limniades, or freshwater univalve shells of North America, containing descriptions of apparently new animals in different classes, and the names and characters of the subgenera in Paludina and Anculosa. Supplement to Number One. 3 pp. [Philadelphia]. Haldeman, S.S. 1841. A monograph of the Limnaides and other freshwater univalve shells of North America. No. 3, [Limnea]. 16 pp. Dobson, Philadelphia. Hannibal, H. 1912. A synopsis of the Recent and Tertiary freshwater Mollusca of the California Province, based upon ontogenetic classification. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of London, 10: 112-211. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1846. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia, vol. 1. 637 pp. Fischeri, Cassellis. Herrmannsen, A.N. 1852. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum. Supplementa et CBSA 140 pp. Fischeri, Cassellis. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 107 Holznagel, W.E. & Lydeard, C. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of North American Pleuroceri- dae (Gastropoda: Cerithioidea) based on mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequences. Journal of Molluscan Studies, 66: 233-257. Millard, V. 1997. Classification of Mollusca. A classification of world wide Mollusca. 544 pp. Victor Millard, South Africa. Millard, V. 2001. Classification of Mollusca. A classification of world wide Mollusca, Ed. 2. 1447 pp. Victor Millard, South Africa. Minton, R.L. 2002. A cladistic analysis of the genus Lithasia (Caenogastropoda: Pleuroceridae) using morphological characters. Nautilis, 116(2): 39-49. Morrison, J.P.E. 1940. Haldeman’s 1840 supplement. Nautilus, 54(2): 64-66. Morrison, J.P.E. 1954. The relationships of Old and New World Melanians. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 103(3225): 357-394. Neave, S.A. 1939. Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of genera and subgenera in zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the end of 1935, vol. 2, D-L. 1025 pp. Zoological Society of London, London. Pilsbry, H.A. 1917. Rafinesque’s genera of fresh-water snails. Nautilus, 30(10): 109-114. Pilsbry, H.A. & Rhoads, S.N. 1896. Contributions to the zoology of Tennessee, No. 4. Mollusks. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 48: 487-506. Rafinesque, C.S. 1818a. Discoveries in natural history, made during a journey through the western region of the United States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq. addressed to Samuel L. Mitchell, president and other members of the Lyceum of Natural History, in a letter dated at Louisville, falls of Ohio, 20 July, 1818. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 3: 354-355. Rafinesque, C.S. 1818b. Further accounts of discoveries in natural history, in the western States, by Constantine Samuel Rafinesque, Esq., communicated in a letter from that gentleman to the editor. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 42. Rafinesque, C.S. 1818c. General account of the discoveries made in the zoology of the Western States, by C.F. [sic] Rafinesque, in 1818. American Monthly Magazine and Critical Review, 4: 106-107. Rafinesque, C.S. 1819. Prodome de 70 nouveaux genres d’animaux découverts dans lintérieur des Etats-Unis d’Américque, durant l'année 1818. Journal de Physique, de Chimie, d Histoire Naturelle, 88: 423-428. Rafinesque, C.S. 1820. Annals of nature, or annual synopsis of new genera and species of animals, plants, etc., discovered in North America. First annual number. 16 pp. Lexington. Rafinesque, C.S. 1831. Enumeration and account of some remarkable natural objects of 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. Say, T. 1821. Description of univalve shells of the United States. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 2: 149-179. Say, T. 1829. Descriptions of some new terrestrial and fluviatile shells of North America. New Harmony Disseminator of useful knowledge, 2(17): 259-261. Scudder, S.H. 1882. Part I. Supplemental list. Jn Scudder, S.H., Nomenclator Zoologicus. An alphabetical list of all generic names that have been employed by naturalists for recent and fossil animals from the earliest times to the close of the year 1879. Bulletin of the United States Museum, 19(1): 1-376. Scudder, S.H. 1884. Part II. Universal index to genera in zoology. Complete list of generic names employed in zoology and paleontology to the close of the year 1879, and contained in the nomenclators of Agassiz, Marschall, and Scudder, and in the Zoological Record. In Scudder, $.H., Nomenclator Zoologicus. An alphabetical list of all generic names that have been employed by naturalists for Recent and fossil animals from the earliest times to the close of the year 1879. Bulletin of the United State National Museum, 19(2): 1-340. Sherborn, C.D. 1926. Part 9 [Index Dorsalis—Eurystomus] (1801-1850). Pp. 2009-2248 in: Index animalium sive Index nominum quae ab A.D. MDCCLVIII generibus et speciebus animalium imposita sunt. British Museum, London. Stansbery, D.H. 1971. Rare and endangered freshwater mollusks in Eastern United States. Pp. 5—18f in Jorgenson, S.E. & Sharp, R.E. (Eds.), Proceedings of a symposium on rare and 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 endangered mollusks (naiads) of the U.S. 79 pp. Fish and Wildlife Service, United States Department of the Interior, Washington D.C. Stein, C.B. 1976. Gastropods. Pp. 21-41 in Boschung, H. (Ed.), Endangered and threatened species of Alabama. Bulletin of the University of Alabama Museum of Natural History. No. 2. Tuscaloosa. Thiele, J. 1929. Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, vol. 1. 778 pp. Fischer, Jena. Tryon, G.W. 1863, 1864, 1865a. Synonymy of the species of Strepomatidae, a family of fluviatile Mollusca, inhabiting North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, [1863] 15: 306-321; [1864] 16: 24-48: [1865a] 17: 19-36. Tryon, G.W. 1865b. Observations on the family Strepomatidae. American Journal of Conchology, 1(2): 97-135. Tryon, G.W. 1865c. Monograph of the family Strepomatidae. American Journal of Conchology, 1: 299-321. Tryon, G.W. 1873. Land and freshwater shells of North America. Part 4. Strepomatidae. No. 253. [Separately paginated] lv, 435 pp. in: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 16 [1880]. Vaught, K.C. 1989. A classification of the living Mollusca. 195 pp. American Malacologists, Melbourne, Florida. Walker, B. 1917. The type of Pleurocera Rafinesque. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 38: 1-10. Walker, B. 1918. A synopsis of the classification of the freshwater Mollusca of North America, North of Mexico, and a catalogue of the more recently described species, with notes. Miscellaneous Publications, Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 6: 1-213. Wenz, W. 1938-1944. Gastropoda. Teil I: Allgemeiner Teil; und Prosobranchia. Handbuch der Paldozoologie, vol. 6. 948 pp. Berlin. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 109 Case 3232 Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (currently Elimia curvicostata and E. paupercula; Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation by designation of a neotype for M. curvicostata Fred G. Thompson Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 23611, U.S.A. (e-mail: fgt@fimnh.ufl.edu) Elizabeth L. Mihalcik Bainbridge College, Bainbridge, Georgia 31717, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 75.5 and 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve, by designation of a neotype for Melania curvicostata, the specific names of two well-known freshwater snail species: Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 (currently Elimia curvicostata) and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (currently E. paupercula) (family PLEUROCERIDAE) from the southeastern U.S.A. The nomenclatural stability of these names is threatened because none of the remaining syntypes of E. curvicostata is the one that was figured in the original description of E. curvicostata. This syntype is believed to be lost and the remaining syntypes have recently been recognized as specimens of E. paupercula. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Mollusca; Gastropoda; PLEUROCERIDAE; Elimia curvicostata; Elimia paupercula; freshwater snails; southeastern United States. 1. The names Melania curvicostata and M. densicostata were established by Reeve (1861, pl. 58, species 462 and 465 respectively) for what he thought were two species of freshwater snails (currently Elimia, family PLEUROCERIDAE) from Florida in the southeastern U.S.A. The genus Elimia H. & A. Adams, 1854 (p. 300) consists of approximately 135 recognized species of freshwater snails. In the adults of most species the juvenile whorls, which have characters important for species discrimi- nation and phylogenetic interpretation, are lost above the apical plug (Thompson, 2000). This causes convergence in adult shell appearance among different species within the genus. The original figures and descriptions of both nominal taxa are virtually identical and since Tryon (1864, p. 34) the two names have been treated as synonyms. The name E. curvicostata (Reeve, 1861) has priority by action of the First Reviser (see Tryon, 1864, p. 34; Clench & Turner, 1956; Chambers, 1990, p. 262; Article 24.2) over E. densicostata (Reeve, 1861). The syntypes of both E. curvicostata (BMNH 1994056) and E. densicostata (BMNH 1994057) are from the Hugh Cuming Collection in The Natural History Museum, London. The syntypes were sent to Cuming by John G. Anthony with manuscript labels stating their locality as ‘Florida, United States’. This is the type locality published by Reeve (1861). As Anthony is 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 known to have sometimes confused locality data (see Goodrich, 1931), we have little assurance that these specimens actually came from Florida. The shells figured in the original descriptions of both these species are no longer present in either of the respective syntype series. 2. In the case of Elimia curvicostata, the original illustration shows a more elongate and slender specimen than any currently present in the syntype series. Recent examination of the extant syntypes of E. curvicostata has revealed that the specimens are in fact Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (p. 268), currently Elimia paupercula (see Lea, 1863, p. 324, pl. 38, fig. 176 for illustrations), a well-known species from tributaries of the Tennessee River in northern Alabama (see Goodrich, 1940, p. 15; Burch & Tottenham, 1980, p. 140). The lectotype of E. paupercula (USNM 118923; Graf, 2001, p. 79) is accurately depicted by Lea’s illustration and there is no question that it is the same species as extant populations in northern Alabama. Figure 1 illustrates a syntype of E. curvicostata and Figures 2 & 3 illustrate specimens for comparison of E. paupercula from a known locality. If the extant syntypes of E. curvicostata are considered to represent the original concept to which this name was applied then the name E. curvicostata is a senior subjective synonym of E. paupercula. However, as stated in para. | above, this appears to have been a composite type series and only the figured specimen (now believed lost) actually belonged to the nominal taxon known as E. curvicostata. 3. The extant syntypes of Elimia densicostata exhibit some of the adult shell characters of E. curvicostata .Reeve, 1861. One of the syntypes is illustrated in Figure 4. However, the heavy ribs, lack of spiral striations and single peripheral spiral cord on the uppermost juvenile whorl are features that are common to several species. 4. In order to conserve prevailing usage and maintain stability of the names Elimia curvicostata and E. paupercula, a specimen (Florida Museum of Natural History 292208) is proposed as the neotype of E. curvicostata. The specimen is labeled: ‘United States, Florida, Jackson Co., Florida Caverns State Park, Blue Hole Spring, 5-6 miles (9:3 km) north of Marianna (30°44.2’ N, 85°14.6’ W); collected 20 January, 2002 by Fred G. Thompson’. It is illustrated in Figures 5 & 6. The shell is conical, with a straight-sided spire diverging at an angle of 30°; its periostracum is brown with a narrow light-tan zone just below the suture and light-tan ribs. The sculpture is of bold, slightly arched, synchronized ribs that are about as wide as their interspaces. The ribs continue onto the last whorl where they end at the periphery. The juvenile portion of the shell has distinct axial ribs that extend from the suture to the peripheral carina that is weakly scalloped where it intercepts the ribs. Succeeding whorls are nearly flat-sided. There are 4:8 whorls below the apical plug and 3:2 dead whorls remaining above. Weak incremental striations are present on and between ribs; incised spiral striations are absent. There are 15 ribs on the penultimate whorl. The aperture is broadly elliptical, nearly quadrangular, in shape. The outer lip of the peristome is moderately receded at the periphery. 5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and to designate as neotype the specimen (Florida Museum of Natural History 292208) described in para. 4 above; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 111 (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) curvicostata Reeve, 1861, as published in the binomen Melania curvicostata and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above; (b) paupercula Lea, 1862, as published in the binomen Goniobasis paupercula. References Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1854. The genera of Recent Mollusca, vol. |. xl, 484 pp. London. Burch, J.B. & Tottenham, J.L. 1980. North American freshwater snails: species list, ranges and illustrations. Walkerana, 1: 81-215. Chambers, S.M. 1990. The genus Elimia (= Goniobasis) in Florida (Prosobranchia, Pleuro- ceridae). Walkerana, 4(12): 237-270. Clench, W.J. & Turner, R.D. 1956. Freshwater mollusks of Alabama, Georgia and Florida from the Escambia to the Suwannee River. Bulletin of the Florida State Museum, 1(3): 97-239. Goodrich, C. 1931. Some conchological beginnings. Nautilus, 45: 41-51. Goodrich, C. 1940. The Pleuroceridae of the Ohio River drainage system. Occasional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, No. 417. 21 pp. Ann Arbor. Graf, D. 2001. The cleansing of the Augean Stables, or a lexicon of the nominal species of the Pleuroceridae (Gastropoda: Prosobranchia) of Recent North America, north of Mexico. Walkerana, 12: 1-124. Lea, I. 1862. Description of a new genus (Goniobasis) of the family Melaniidae and eighty-two new species. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 14: 262-272. Lea, I. 1863. New Melaniidae of the United States. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, 5: 217-356. Reeve, L. 1861. Monograph of the genus Melania. Conchologica Iconica, vol. 12. 65 pp., 59 pls. Reeve, London. Thompson, F.G. 2000. Freshwater snails of the genus Elimia from the Coosa River system, Alabama. Walkerana, 11(25): 1—54. Tryon, G.W., Jr. 1864. Synonymy of the species of sTREPOMATIDAE, a family of fluviatile Mollusca inhabiting North America. Part 2. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1864: 24-48. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Fig. 1. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861, syntype BMNH 1994056/1, “Florida, United States’. Figs. 2 & 3. Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862, FMNH 75455, Spring branch affluent of Four-mile Creek, Killen, Lauderdale Co., Alabama. Fig. 4. Melania densicostata Reeve, 1861, syntype BMNH 1994057/1, ‘Florida, United States’. Figs. 5 & 6. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861, neotype FMNH 292208, Blue Hole Spring, 5-6 miles (9-3 km) north of Marianna, Florida Caverns State Park, Jackson Co., Florida, United States (30°44.2’ N, 85° 14.6’ W). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 113 Case 3246 Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis; Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed suppression of the specific name Luis E. Acosta and Camilo I. Matton CONICET - Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Av. Vélez Sarsfield 299, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina (e-mail: lacosta@com.uncor.edu) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.1 of the Code, is to ensure nomenclatural stability by suppression of the name Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 (currently Bothriurus chilensis). It is impossible to determine the actual scorpion species to which the name Scorpio chilensis was originally applied, and Molina’s concept probably included more than one taxon. Subsequent authors have applied the name to various different taxa that occur in Chile and other South American countries. Any attempt to fix the name Scorpio chilensis to any one taxon would threaten the usage of the names of the well established Chilean species Bothriurus vittatus (Guérin Méneville, 1838), B. coriaceus Pocock, 1893 and B. keyserlingii Pocock, 1893, resulting in nomenclatural instability. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; BOTHRIURIDAE; Bothriurus; Bothriurus coriaceus; Bothriurus keyserlingii; Bothriurus vittatus; Chile; South America; Scorpiones. 1. The specific name Scorpio chilensis (currently included in family BOTHRIURIDAE) was introduced by Abbot Juan Ignacio Molina (1782, p. 347) in a book devoted to the ‘geographic, natural and civic history of the Chilean reign’. The original description of the scorpion to which the name was applied was extremely short and without illus- trations. It was presented as a footnote (p. 215) and repeated in the systematic account on p. 347 (‘Scorpio pectinibus 16-dentatis, manibus subangulatis’). Therefore, this is not a case of a nomen nudum, as claimed by Mello-Leitao (1934). No type material is known to exist. It is very clear from the text that Scorpio chilensis sensu Molina actually included not less than two species: ‘their ordinary colour is dark brown, but under stones of Rio Coquimbo yellow scorpions are found as well’. Cekalovic (1983) and Lowe & Fet (2000) mistakenly assumed the type locality to be Coquimbo. 2. The present difficulties arise not only from Molina’s work, but also because there has been no subsequent agreement on which scorpion species was to be denoted by that name. Were it the case that all or most authors shared the same concept for Scorpio chilensis (regardless of the specimens that Molina had to hand), it would be easy to ‘rescue’ or fix the name. However, the history of the usage of this name is too complicated to allow this to be the case (see Lowe & Fet, 2000). Below we provide a summary of the confused history of the usage of the name S. chilensis to support our application for its suppression. 3. Karsch (1879, p. 136) first assumed the nominal species S. chilensis to be included in the genus Cercophonius Peters, 1861, but at least part of the material he 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 studied actually belongs to the species Bothriurus vittatus (Guérin Méneville, 1838) and Phoniocercus pictus Pocock, 1893. Pocock (1893) described Bothriurus coriaceus (p. 95) and B. keyserlingii (p. 96), two common central-Chilean species. Although these species have themselves at times been confused (see Lowe & Fet, 2000, who still list B. keyserlingii as junior synonym of B. coriaceus), their taxonomic identities are now well established (Mattoni & Acosta, unpublished). The same applies to B. yittatus which has recently been revised by Mattoni (2002). 4. Kraepelin (1894, p. 232) transferred S. chilensis to the genus Bothriurus Peters, 1861, and this generic allocation has hitherto been maintained. No fewer than three Bothriurus species are included in Kraepelin’s concept of B. chilensis. In addition, Kraepelin (1894) has synonymised the Brazilian scorpion B. signatus Pocock, 1893 with B. chilensis. This gives a very wide range for Kraepelin’s nominal taxon B. chilensis; it includes Chile, Peru, Argentina and Brazil. Pocock (1900, p. 478) noted the inadequacy of Molina’s description and of Kraepelin’s interpretation. We agree with his statement that ‘the name Scorpio chilensis of Molina may have been founded upon a species of Hadruroides, or Caraboctonus, or Bothriurus, or, indeed, upon almost any of the species of Bothriuridae or Vaejovidae that occur in Chile. The fact that Karsch identified a particular species as. probably referable to the Scorpio chilensis of Molina has little or no value in settling what chilensis really is’. 5. Several subsequent authors dealt with S. chilensis, with almost no agreement on the taxonomic concept involved. Borelli (1899, 1900, 1901) maintained Kraepelin’s confusion. In 1899 (p. 6) he mentioned a female B. chilensis from Buenos Aires, most probably belonging to B. bonariensis (C.L. Koch, 1836). In 1900 (p. 3), he mentioned specimens from Valparaiso (which actually comprised B. keyserlingii and B. coriaceus), as well as material from Temuco. A specimen from Temuco was used by Mello-Leitao (1934) as the type specimen of his species Bothriurus borellianus Mello-Leitao, 1934. Finally, Borelli (1901, p. 11) reported specimens of B. chilensis from Uruguay (La Sierra) and Argentina (San Luis, Villa Holga, Cacheuta, Misioneras and Rio Santa Cruz), the last three belonging to the ‘Bothriurus patagonicus species-group’, according to Maury (unpublished). Penther (1913, p. 252) further recorded B. chilensis from Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul, Blumenau), Ecuador, Argentina (Mendoza, Potrerillos, San Juan de Perico) and Chile (Juncal). 6. Mello-Leitao (1933, p. 20) referred to B. chilensis material from Cuchilloco, province of La Pampa (Argentina) and described specimens from Laferrére and ‘Sierras Bajas’. On p. 34 he gives the species range as Chile, Argentina, Peru, Ecuador, Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina. In 1934 (p. 85), Mello-Leitao discussed the descriptions of Karsch, Borelli and Guérin Méneville (as B. vittatus), mistakenly suggesting that S. chilensis should be rejected as a nomen nudum. He then assigned to the nominal taxa B. karschii Mello-Leitao, 1934, B. borellianus and B. vittatus the material examined by Karsch (1879), Borelli (1900) and Guérin Meéneville (1838) respectively. Mello-Leitao (1934) also described as B. prospicuus Mello-Leitao, 1934 those specimens previously identified by him in 1933 as B. chilensis. In his 1945 monograph, Mello-Leitao again changed his mind and redescribed B. chilensis from material collected in Santiago, remarking that the specimens had ‘dilated hand, fingers forming with hand an obtuse inferior angle’ and that ‘this feature was well emphasized by Molina in his very brief diagnosis: . . . manibus subangulatis’. We have examined these specimens and they belong to the nominal species B. coriaceus. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 115 7. Werner (1934, p. 291) studied Chilean materials from Victoria (Malleco) and Coronel (Concepcion), both actually B. vittatus (examined by us). Biicherl (1959, p. 31) re-examined specimens identified by Mello-Leitao as B. chilensis, concluding that B. keyserlingii is a junior synonym of the former. Bucherl stated in 1963 (p. 197) that ‘B. coriaceus, B. keyserlingti and B. chilensis are today three unidentifiable species’. He referred to material held in the Museu Nacional (Rio de Janeiro) that had been determined as B. chilensis and corrected the identification to B. coriaceus. 8. In his catalogue of the genus Bothriurus, Maury (1981) listed B. chilensis, summarizing the long controversy around the species but without suggesting any action. The most recent catalogues (Cekalovic, 1983, p. 46; Lowe & Fet, 2000, p. 29) still list B. chilensis as the valid name of a supposed widespread taxon from Argentina, Chile and Ecuador (and possibly Brazil). 9. As paras. 3-8 above show, there is no agreement as to which taxon the name Scorpio chilensis Molina, 1782 represented at the time of its first description. Authors have assigned the name to at least seven different species that occur in Chile (B. vittatus, B. keyserlingii, B. coriaceus, Phoniocercus pictus), Argentina (B. bonariensis, B. prospicuus) and Brazil (B. signatus). Assuming that the name S. chilensis 1s really to be referred to the genus Bothiurus, we should seek among central Chilean species to determine what Molina described. The main candidates are B. vittatus, B. coriaceus and B. keyserlingii. Not only are the original descriptions of these well established species much better than that for S. chilensis, but all three still have existing type specimens, preserved in the The Natural History Museum, London (B. coriaceus, B. keyserlingii) and in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris (B. vittatus). It should be noted that Buthus vittatus (currently Bothriurus vittatus) was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and declared not to be invalid despite its being a junior primary homonym of Buthus vittatus Say, 1821 (Opinion 1680, BZN 49: 163). The few diagnostic characters given by Molina (1782) proved to be useless. For example, the pectinal teeth count of Scorpio chilensis fits equally in the known range of all three mentioned Bothriurus (B. vittatus 12-20, B. coriaceus 12-22, B. keyserlingii 12-20; all with mean values around 16; Mattoni, in press; Mattoni & Acosta, unpublished). Any attempt to fix the identity of Scorpio chilensis will result in an arbitrary decision, and will threaten the nomenclatural stability of this group of scorpions. 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name chilensis, Molina, 1782, as published in the binomen Scorpio chilensis and as suppressed in (1) above. Acknowledgements Prof Maria Elena Galiano kindly made available to us unpublished notes of the late Dr E.A. Maury, which provided valuable information. We also thank Drs Victor Fet and W. David Sissom for their comments on a draft of our proposal. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 References Borelli, A. 1899. Viaggo del Dott. A. Borelli nella Republica Argentina e nel Paraguay. XXIII. Scorpioni. Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia comparata della Reale Universita di Torino, 14(336): 1-6. Borelli, A. 1900. Di alcuni Scorpioni del Chile. Revista Chilena de Historia Natural, 4(5): 61—66. Borelli, A. 1901. Scorpioni raccolti dal Dott. Filippo Silvestri nella Repubblica Argentina e regioni vicine. Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia comparata della Reale Universita di Torino, 16(403); 1-12. Biicherl, W. 1959. Escorpides e escorpionismo no Brasil. VIII. Revisao das espécies do género Bothriurus descritas da Argentina. Memorias do Instituto Butantan, 28: 19-44. Biicherl, W. 1963. Escorpides e escorpionismo no Brasil. XI. Revisao dos Bothriurideos da coleg¢ao escorpionica do Museu Nacional do Rio de Janeiro. Memorias do Instituto Butantan, 30: 187-206. Cekalovic, K.T. 1983. Catalogo de los escorpiones de Chile (Chelicerata, Scorpiones). Boletin de la Sociedad de Biologia de Concepcion, 54: 43-70. Guérin Meneville, F.E. 1838. Arachnides. Pp. 47—S0 in Lesson, R.P., Voyage autour du monde, exécuté par ordre du Roi, sur la corvette de sa Majesté, La Coquille, pendant les années 1822, 1823, 1824 et 1825, par L.I. Duperrey, Zoologie, vol. 2, pt. 1. Karsch, F. 1879. Skorpionologische Beitrage. Part Il. Mitteilungen des Miinchener Entomolo- gischen Verein, 3: 97-136. Kraepelin, K. 1894. Revision der Scorpione. II. Scorpionidae und Bothriuridae. Jahrbuch der Hamburgischen Wissenschaftlichen Anstalten, 11(1): 1-248. Lowe, G. & Fet, V. 2000. Family Bothriuridae Simon, 1880. Pp. 17-53 in Fet, V., Sissom, W.D., Lowe, G. & Braunwalder, M.E., Catalog of the scorpions of the world (1758-1998 ). v, 690 pp. New York Entomological Society. Mattoni, C.1. 2002. La verdadera identidad de Bothriurus vittatus (Guérin Meneville, [1838]) (Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). Revie Arachnologique, 14(5): 59-72. Maury, E.A. 1981. Estudio sobre el género Bothriurus (Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). I. Catalogo y comentarios sobre el material tipico. Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino. Rivadavia'’, 4(4); 95-111. Mello-Leitao, C. 1933. Notas sobre escorpides sul-americanos. Archivos do Museu Nacional, 34: 9-46. Mello-Leitao, C. 1934. Estudo monografico dos escorpides da Republica Argentina. Octava Reunion de la Sociedad Argentina de Patologia Regional del Norte (1933). 97 pp. Mello-Leitao, C. 1945. Escorpides sul-americanos. Arquivos do Museu Nacional, 40: 1468. Molina, G.J.I. 1782. Saggio sulla storia naturale del Chili. 375 pp. Stamperia di S. Tommaso d Aquino, Bologna. = Penther, A. 1913. Beitrage zur Kenntnis amerikanischer Skorpione. Annalen des Kaiserlich- Koniglichen Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums in Wien, 27(3): 239-252. Pocock, R.I. 1893. A contribution to the study of Neotropical scorpions. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)12(68): 77-103. Pocock, R.I. 1900. Some new or little-known neotropical Scorpions in the British Museum. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (7)7(5): 469-478. Werner, F. 1934. Scorpiones und Pedipalpi. Pp 1-136 im Bronns, H.G., Arachnoidea, Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs. Leipzig. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 117 Case 3238 Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (Arachnida, Solifugae): proposed conservation Mark S. Harvey Department of Terrestrial Invertebrates, Western Australian Museum, Francis St., Perth, Western Australia 6000, Australia (e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81.2.2 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 for a group of solifuges or sun spiders (family RHAGODIDAE) by proposed suppression of the older name Rhax Hermann, 1804. Rhagodes was an unnecessary replacement for Rhax, but has been used by almost all authors since 1897. Acceptance of the priority of the name Rhax would not serve nomenclatural stability, as it would require all 27 nominal species currently included in Rhagodes to be transferred to the nominal genus Rhax. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; RHAGODIDAE; Rhagodes; Rhagodes melanus; solifuges; sun spiders; Asia; Africa. 1. In 1804 (p. 13), Hermann used the name Rhax for a genus of solifuges or sun spiders (now in family RHAGODIDAE). His brief description of the genus did not include any nominal species, but was supplemented by observations on some historical texts in which sun spiders were mentioned (see footnote on p. 13). 2. C.L. Koch (1839) was unable to recognise the taxon as described by Hermann, but attributed two species to the genus: “Rh. melas’ and ‘Rh. phalangioides’, which refer to Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807 (p. 308) and G. phalangium Olivier, 1807 (p. 308), respectively. Under Article 67.2.2 of the Code, both species are eligible for designation as the type species of Rhax. However, Galeodes phalangium Olivier, 1807 was originally designated as the type species of another nominal genus Rhagoditta Roewer, 1933 (p. 277). To my knowledge, a type species has not been explicitly designated for Rhax. 3. The generic name Rhax was used by some later authors (e.g. Simon, 1879; Kraepelin, 1899, 1901), although these usages attribute the name to C.L. Koch (1839) and not to Hermann (1804). 4. Pocock (1897, p. 252) was of the opinion, wrongly under the current Code, that Hermann’s name R/ax was invalid and so he established the replacement name Rhagodes. Pocock took this view because he believed that Hermann (1804) had intended Rhax to be a synonym of Galeodes Olivier, 1791. Although he did not nominate a type species for the genus, Pocock later (1900, p. 148) designated Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807 as the type species of Rhagodes, which under Article 67.8 also becomes the type species of Rhax. Pocock (1897, p. 252) erected the subfamily RHAGODINAE for Rhagodes, which was elevated to family status by Roewer (1933). Rhagodes currently contains 27 desert-dwelling species, ranging from central Asia through to north-eastern Africa. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 5. Despite the views of Pocock (1897), the name Rhax Hermann, 1804 is available under the Code and Pocock’s decision to establish a replacement name did no more than create a junior objective synonym. However, the senior synonym Rhax has not been used as a valid name since Kraepelin (1901) and has been fully supplanted by the junior synonym Rhagodes. Reversion to the senior name Rhax would be a destabilising action that would require all 27 nominal species currently included in Rhagodes to be transferred to the nominal genus Rhax. Article 23.9.2 cannot be invoked because Kraepelin used Rhax in 1901. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Rhax Hermann, 1804 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 Rhagodes Pocock, 1897 (gender: feminine), type species Galeodes melanus Olivier, 1807 by subsequent designation by Pocock (1900); (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name melanus Olivier, 1807, as published in the binomen Galeodes melanus (specific name of the type species of Rhagodes Pocock, 1897); (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Rhax Hermann, 1804, as suppressed in (1) above. References Hermann, J.F. 1804. Mémoire aptérologique. Levrault, Strasbourg. Koch, C.L. 1839. Ubersicht des Arachnidensystems, vol. 2. Nirnberg. Kraepelin, K. 1899. Zur Systematik der Solifugen. Mitteilungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum in Hamburg, 16: 195-258. Kraepelin, K. 1901. Palpigradi und Solifugae. Das Tierreich, 12: i-xi, 1-159. Olivier, A.G. 1807. Voyage dans l’Empire Othoman, l'Egypte et la Perse, fait par ordre du gouvernement, pendant les six premieres années de la République, vol. 3. Agasse, Paris. Pocock, R.I. 1897. On the genera and species of tropical African Arachnida of the order Solifugae, with notes upon the taxonomy and habits of the group. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)20: 249-272. Pocock, R.I. 1900. The fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma, vol. 6. Arachnida. 279 pp. Taylor & Francis, London. : Roewer, C.F. 1933. Solifugae, Palpigradi. Pp. 161-480 in Bronn, H.G. (Ed.), Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 5: Arthropoda. IV: Arachnoidea. Akademische Verlags- gesellschaft, Leipzig. Simon, E. 1879. Essai d’une classification des Galéodes, remarques synonymiques et descrip- tion d’espéces nouvelles ou mal connues. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (5)9: 93-154. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 70. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 119 Case 3244 TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta, Isoptera): proposed conservation of prevailing usage by the designation of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis Michael S. Engel Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A. Kumar Krishna and Christopher Boyko Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A. Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the generic names Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 and the family name TERMopSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 for well known groups of termites. Both nominal genera have the same type species, Termopsis procerus Heer, 1849, and it is proposed that this problem of synonymy be resolved by designation of Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Isoptera; TERMOPSIDAE; Termopsis; Miotermes; Termopsis bremii; Termopsis procerus; termites. 1. Heer (1849, p. 23) named the termite genus Termopsis (at that time as a subgenus of Termes Linnaeus, 1758) and included five new fossil species, two of which were Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 (p. 31) and T. procerus Heer, 1849 (p. 23), in Middle Eocene Baltic amber. Heer did not select any of the five species as the type species of Termopsis. Holmgren (1911, p. 35) established the family-group name TERMOPSINAE based on Termopsis. 2. Handlirsch (1907, p. 698) designated Termopsis procerus Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis and was the first author to explicitly designate a type species from one of Heer’s originally included five species. Cockerell (1916, p. 138) also claimed to have designated T. procerus as the type of Termopsis. 3. Banks (in Banks & Snyder, 1920, p. 9) selected Termopsis insignis Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis but, although he correctly chose one of Heer’s original species, his action was not valid since Handlirsch (1907, p. 698) had already designated T. procerus as the type species. 4. Hagen (1854, p. 222) included only Termopsis bremii Heer in Termopsis, transferring four of Heer’s original five species to the genus Hodotermes Hagen, 1853. Later, Hagen (in Pictet-Baraban & Hagen, 1856, p. 51; 1858a, p. 32 and 1858b, p. 12) again included only T. bremii of Heer’s original five species in Termopsis. Although 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Hagen never specifically mentioned 7. bremii as the type species of Termopsis, his elimination of all species except T. bremii was interpreted later by Emerson (1933, p. 165) as the fixation of a type species. Article 69.4 states that ‘elimination of all but one of the originally included nominal species from a nominal genus or subgenus does not in itself constitute type fixation’. Had Handlirsch (1907) not already designated T. procerus Heer, 1849 as the type species of Termopsis (and had Banks (1920) not chosen T. insignis), Emerson’s (1933, p. 165) subsequent acceptance of T. bremii as the type species of Termopsis would have been valid under Article 69.1.1. This Article states that ‘in the absence of a prior type fixation for a nominal genus or subgenus, an author is deemed to have designated one of the originally included nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type species’. 5. Girard (1879, p. 270) selected T. angusticollis Hagen, 1858a as the type species of Termopsis. Similarly, Wasmann (1897, p. 149) selected Termes occidentis Walker, 1853 as the type species of Termopsis. Since neither T. angusticollis nor T. occidentis was originally included in Termopsis by Heer (1849), these designations are invalid under Article 67.2. 6. Rosen (1913, p. 325) described a new termite genus Miotermes, with T. procerus Heer, 1849 as the type species by original designation and monotypy and transferred the species to the family MASTOTERMITIDAE, a family proposed by Desneux (1904) for the primitive Australian termite Mastotermes darwiniensis Froggatt, 1897 (see Opinion 1808, 1995, BZN 52: 206). 7. However, Snyder (1949, p. 360), in a catalog of the termite species of the world, followed Emerson’s (1933) conclusion concerning Hagen’s various actions (1854, 1856, 1858a, 1858b) and listed 7. bremii as the type species of Termopsis. 8. All authors since Snyder (1949) have followed the invalid interpretation of Emerson (1933) and have considered Termopsis to apply to T. bremii and related species. They have employed the family-group name TERMoPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (p. 35) for Termopsis (sensu current usage) and its relatives in an extensive systematic (e.g., Wilson, 1971; Thorne & Carpenter, 1992; Nel & Paicheler, 1993; Weitschat & Wichard, 1998, 2002; Krishna & Grimaldi, 2000; Thorne, Grimaldi, & Krishna, 2000), biological (Weidner, 1955; Stuart, 1963, 1969; Krishna, 1969; Howse, 1970; Roonwal, 1970; Watson & Gay, 1991; Thorne et al., 1993; Kambhampati & Eggleton, 2000), and agricultural (Harris, 1971; Lee & Wood, 1971; Scheffrahn & Su, 1992: Su & Scheffrahn, 2000) literature. 9. As T. procerus is the valid type species of both the genus Termopsis Heer, 1849 and the genus Miotermes Rosen, 1913, the name Termopsis (family TERMOPSIDAE) 1S formally a senior objective synonym of Miotermes (family MASTOTERMITIDAE). 10. Acceptance of this situation would be detrimental to the stability of termite nomenclature as all the species presently included in Miotermes would have to be transferred into the genus Termopsis and a new name would be needed for the genus that would include the species that had been included in Termopsis. The next available name is Yestotermopsis Rosen, 1913, a name that is currently considered to be a junior synonym of Termopsis. There would also be confusing complications associated with the family names TERMOPSIDAE and MASTOTERMITIDAE, as Termopsis 1s the type genus of TERMOPSIDAE. The name TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 would become a junior synonym of MASTOTERMITIDAE Desneux, 1904 and a substitute name Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 121 would be needed for the family currently known as TERMOPSIDAE. The name STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1911 (p. 45) (currently used for a subfamily of TERMOPSIDAE) would be available, but its introduction at family rank would be confusing. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1s accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Termopsis Heer, 1849 and to designate Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 as type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Termopsis Heer, 1849 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849; (b) Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (gender: masculine), type species by original designation and monotypy Termopsis procerus Heer, 1849; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) bremii Heer, 1849, as published in the binomen Termopsis bremii (specific name of the type species of Termopsis Heer, 1849): (b) procerus Heer, 1849, as published in the binomen Termopsis procerus (specific name of the type species of Miotermes Rosen, 1913): (4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (type genus Termopsis Heer, 1849). Acknowledgements We are grateful to V. Krishna and C.D. Michener for carefully reading earlier drafts of this petition and providing valuable commentary. This work was sup- ported by a grant from the National Science Foundation, U.S.A. (DEB-9870097 to K. Krishna and D.A. Grimaldi). References Banks, N. & Snyder, T.E. 1920. A revision of the Nearctic termites, with notes on biology and geographic distribution. Bulletin of the United States National Museum, 108: 1-228. Cockerell, T.D.A. 1916. Insects in Burmese amber. American Journal of Science, 42: 135-138. Emerson, A.E. 1933. A revision of the genera of fossil and recent Termopsinae (Isoptera). University of California Publications in Entomology, 6: 165-195. Girard, M. 1879. Les Insectes. Traité élementaire d’entomologie . . ., vol. 2. 1028 pp. Bailliére, Paris. Hagen, H. 1854. Ueber die Neuropteren der Bernsteinfauna. Verhandlungen des Zoologisch- botanischen Vereins in Wien, 4: 221-232. Hagen, H. 1858a. Monographie der Termiten. Linnaea Entomologica, 12: 1-342. Hagen, H. 1858b. Catalogue of the specimens of Neuropterous insects in the collection of the British Museum, Part I. Termitina. 34 pp. British Museum, London. Handlirsch, A. 1907. Die Fossilen Insekten und die Phylogenie der Rezenten Formen: Ein Handbuch fiir Paldontologen und Zoologen. Pp. 641-1120. Engelmann, Leipzig. Harris, W.V. 1971. Termites: their recognition and control. xiii, 186 pp. Longmans, London. Heer, O. 1849. Die Insektenfauna der Tertidrgebilde von Oeningen und von Radoboj in Croatien. Zweiter Theil: Heuschrecken, Florfliegen, Aderfliigler, Schmetterlinge und Fliegen. 264 pp., 17 pls. Engelmann, Leipzig. Holmgren, N. 1911. Termitenstudien: 2. Systematik der Termiten. Die Familien Mastoter- mitidae, Protermitidae und Mesotermitidae. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskaps-Akademiens Handlingar, 46(6): 1-88. 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Howse, P.E. 1970. Termites: a study in social behaviour. 150 pp. Hutchinson University Library, London. Kambhampati, S. & Eggleton, P. 2000. Taxonomy and phylogeny of termites. Pp. 1-23 in Abe, T., Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M. (Eds.), Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses, ecology. Xxil, 466 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Krishna, K, 1969. Introduction. Pp. 1-17 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of termites, vol. 1. xill, 598 pp. Academic Press, New York. Krishna, K. & Grimaldi, D. 2000. A new subfamily, genus, and species of termite (Isoptera) from New Jersey Cretaceous amber. Pp. 133-140 in Grimaldi, D. (Ed.), Studies on Fossils in Amber, with Particular Reference to the Cretaceous of New Jersey. viii, 498 pp. Backhuys, Leiden. Lee, K.E. & Wood, T.G. 1971. Termites and soils. x, 251 pp. Academic Press, London. Nel, A. & Paicheler, J.-C. 1993. Les Isoptera fossiles. Etat actuel connaissances, implications paléoécologiques et paléoclimatologiques [Insecta, Dictyoptera]. Pp. 103-179 in Nel, A., Martinez-Délclos, X. & Paicheler, J.-C., Essai de Révision des Aeschinioidea [ Insecta, Odonata, Anisoptera] | Les Isoptera Fossiles [Insecta, Dictyoptera]. 179 pp. CNRS Editions [Cahiers de Paléontologie], Paris. Pictet-Baraban, F.J. & Hagen, H. 1856. Die im Bernstein befindlichen Neuropteran der Vorwelt. Pp. 41-126 in Berendt, G.C. (Ed.), Die im Bernstein befindlichen organischen Reste der Vorwelt, vol. 2. [2], 126 pp., 8 pls. Nicolaischen Buchhandlung, Berlin. Roonwal, M.L. 1970. Termites of the Oriental region. Pp. 315-391 im Krishna, K. & Weesner, FM. (Eds.), Biology of Termites, vol. 2. xiv, [1], 643 pp. Academic Press, London. Rosen, K. von. 1913. Die fossilen Termiten: eine kurze Zusammenfassung der bis jetzt bekannten Funde. Transactions of the Second International Congress of Entomology, Oxford 1912, 2: 318-335. Scheffrahn, R.H. & Su, N.-Y. 1992. Comparative toxicity of methyl bromide against ten Nearctic termite species (Isoptera: Termopsidae, Kalotermitidae, Rhinotermitidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 85: 845-847. Snyder, T.E. 1949. Catalog of the termites (Isoptera) of the world. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 112: 1-490. Stuart, A.M. 1963. Studies on the communication of alarm in the termite Zoofermopsis nevadensis (Hagen), Isoptera. Physiological Zoology, 36: 85—96. Stuart, A.M. 1969. Social behavior and communication. Pp. 193-232 in Krishna, K. & Weesner, F.M. (Eds.), Biology of Termites, vol. 1. xiii, 598 pp. Academic Press, New York. Su, N.-Y. & Scheffrahn, R-H. 2000. Termites as pests of buildings. Pp. 437-453 in Abe, T.., Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M. (Eds.), Termites: Evolution, Sociality, Symbioses, Ecology. xxil, 466 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Thorne, B.L. & Carpenter, J.M. 1992. Phylogeny of the Dictyoptera. Systematic Entomology, 17: 253-268. ; Thorne, B.L., Grimaldi, D.A. & Krishna, K. 2000. Early fossil history of the termites. Pp. 77-93 in Abe, T., Bignell, D.E. & Higashi, M. (Eds.), Termites: evolution, sociality, symbioses, ecology. xxii, 466 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Thorne, B.L., Haverty, M.I., Page, M. & Nutting, W.L. 1993. Distribution and biogeography of the North American termite genus Zootermopsis (Isoptera: Termopsidae). Annals of the Entomological Society of America, 86: 532-544. Wasmann, E. 1897. Termiten von Madagaskar und Ostafrika. Abhandlungen der Senckenberg- ischen Naturforschenden Gesellschaft, 21: 137-182. Watson, J.A.L. & Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera (termites). Pp. 330-347 in Naumann, I.D. (Ed.), The insects of Australia: a textbook for students and research workers [vol. 1]. xvi, [1], 542 pp. Cornell University Press, Ithaca. Weidner, H. 1955. Korperbau, Systematik und Verbreitung der Termiten. Pp. 5—81 in Schmidt, H. (Ed.), Die Termiten: Ihre Erkennungsmerkmale und wirtschaftliche Bedeutung. 309 pp. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Geest und Portig, Leipzig. Weitschat, W. & Wichard, W. 1998. Atlas der Pflanzen und Tiere im Baltischen Bernstein. 256 pp. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 123 Weitschat, W. & Wichard, W. 2002. Atlas of plants and animals in Baltic Amber. 256 pp. Friedrich Pfeil, Munich. Wilson, E.O. 1971. The insect societies. x, [1], 548 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, U.S.A. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 161. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849 in Baltic Amber. 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Case 3257 Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta deserticola Barr, 1974 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific names over those of Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis Obenberger, 1924 respectively C.L. Bellamy Plant Pest Diagnostics Lab., California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov) R.L. Westcott Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem, Oregon 97310, U.S.A. (e-mail: rwestcot@oda.state.or.us) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific names Acmaeodera oaxacae Fisher, 1949 and Polycesta deserticola Barr, 1974 for two species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) by giving them precedence over their respective little-used and poorly defined senior synonyms: Acmaeodera philippinensis Obenberger, 1924 and Polycesta aruensis Obenberger, 1924. The subjective synonymy of A. philippinensis and A. oaxacae is published here for the first time. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Acmaeodera oaxacae;: Polycesta deserticola; Acmaeodera philippinensis; Polycesta aruensis; jewel beetles. 1. Obenberger (1924) described two species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) from specimens in Prague and named them Acmaeodera philippinensis (p. 94) from ‘Philippines’ (an evidently wrong locality) and Polycesta aruensis (p. 100) from ‘Ins. Aru (Aru Island, Indonesia; also a wrong locality). Each species was represented by a single specimen. Later, both of these nominal species were listed in the Buprestidae I fascicle of the Coleopterorum Catalogus compiled by Obenberger (1926, pp. 42, 84). 2. Fisher (1949, p. 340) described Acmaeodera oaxacae from “Tehuantepec, Oaxaca, Mexico’, basing his name on a series of ten specimens. Additional notes and comments on the distribution and biology of this species have been made by Westcott et al. (1979, p. 176; 1990, p. 222) and Hespenheide (1996, p. 235). The species is common and is now known to be distributed in Mexico from Oaxaca to Sonora. 3. Barr (1974, p. 6) described Polycesta deserticola from a long series of specimens from a wide range in southern California and Arizona. The species was long known (since LeConte, 1860) in the U.S.A. as P. velasco auctorum and Barr’s description of P. deserticola restricted P. velasco Gory & Laporte, 1838, which is in fact an unrelated species, to Mexico. Notes about distribution and biology of P. deserticola Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 125 have been made by Nelson (1980, p. 94), Cobos (1981, p. 63), Bellamy (1982, p. 360), Westcott (1991, p. 78) and Nelson et al. (1996, p. 190). P. deserticola is also known to occur in Mexican localities throughout Baja California and in Sonora. 4. Volkovitsh (1984, p. 559) published a discussion about A. philippinensis and concluded that the unique type specimen was mislabeled and belongs to the 4. bivulnera Horn, 1894 species group (of which A. oaxacae is a member) that is only known from North America, in particular the southwestern United States and Mexico. 5. Bily & Bellamy (1996, p. 182) synonymized P. deserticola under P. aruensis after noting that the handwritten label on the type specimen of P. aruensis had apparently been misread by Obenberger (1924, p. 100) who wrongly assumed its type locality to be Aru Island (see para. | above). Bily & Bellamy (1996) interpreted ‘Ariz’ to mean Arizona rather than Aru Island. 6. One of us (C.L.B.) has compared the type specimens of A. philippinensis and A. oaxacae and finds them to be conspecific. This synonymy is published here for the first time. 7. As neither of the older names in these two synonymies is based on a specimen with correct locality data, and since neither of these specific names reflects the real distribution of these species or has had appreciable usage, we believe that the respective younger taxon names should be given precedence over the misleading senior names whenever the pairs of names are considered to be synonyms. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to give the specific name oaxacae Fisher, 1949, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera oaxacae, precedence over the name philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera philippinensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) to give the specific name deserticola Barr, 1974, as published in the binomen Polycesta deserticola, precedence over the name aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) oaxacae Fisher, 1949, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera oaxacae, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera philippinensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (b) deserticola Barr, 1974, as published in the binomen Polycesta deserticola, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; (c) philippinensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera Philippinensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name oaxacae Fisher, 1949, as published in the binomen Acmaeodera oaxacae, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms; 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 (d) aruensis Obenberger, 1924, as published in the binomen Polycesta aruensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name deserticola Barr, 1974, as published in the binomen Polycesta deserticola, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. References Barr, W.F. 1974. New genera and species of North American Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Occasional Papers, Biological Society of Nevada, 39: \—13. Bellamy, C.L. 1982. Observations on the biology and distribution of several species of Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 36(2): 358-361. Bily, S. & Bellamy, C.L. 1996. New synonymy in North American Polycesta Solier. Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 50(2): 182. Cobos, A. 1981. Ensayo sobre los géneros de la subfamilia Polycestinae (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) (Parte II). EOS, Revista Espanola de Entomologia, 55—56(1979-1980): 23-94. Fisher, W.S. 1949. New buprestid beetles from Mexico, Central and South America and the West Indies. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, No. 3240, 99: 327-351. Hespenheide, H.A. 1996. Chrysomelidae of the subfamily Clytrinae as models for mimicry complexes. Pp. 227-239 in Jolivet, P.H.A. & Cox, M.L. (Eds.), Chrysomelidae Biology, vol. 2. S.P.B. Academic Publishing, Amsterdam.. LeConte, J.L. 1860. Revision of the Buprestidae of the United States. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, (2)11(.1859): 187-258. Nelson, G.H. 1980. Nomenclatural changes in the family Buprestidae with descriptions of previously unknown sexes (Coleoptera). Pan-Pacific Entomologist, 56(2): 81-97. Nelson, G.H., Westcott, R.L. & MacRae, T.C. 1996. Miscellaneous notes on Buprestidae and Schizopodidae occurring in the United States and Canada, including descriptions of previously unknown sexes of six Agrilus Curtis species. Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 50(2): 183-191. Obenberger, J. 1924. De Buprestidarum speciebus novis (Diagnoses praeliminares). Nove druhy éeledi krascu. Acta Entomologica Musaei Nationalis Pragae, 2: 93-115. Obenberger, J. 1926. Buprestidae 1. Pp. 1-212 im Junk, W. & Schlenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, 84. Junk, Berlin. Volkovitsh, M.G. 1984. Novyi rod zlatok triby Acmaeoderini (Coleoptera, Buprestidae) iz Yugo-Vostochnoi Azii 1 taksonomicheskoye polozheniye Acmaeodera_ philippinensis Obenberger. Entomologicheskoe Obozrenie, 63(3): 556-560. Westcott, R.L. 1991. Distributional, biological, and taxonomic notes on North American Buprestidae. Insecta Mundi, 4(1-4)(1990): 73-89. Westcott, R.L., Atkinson, T., Hespenheide, H.A. & Nelson, G.H. 1990. New country and state records, and other notes for Mexican Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Insecta Mundi, 3(3)(1989): 217-232. Westcott, R.L., Barr, W.F., Nelson, G.H. & Verity, D.S. 1979. Distributional and biological notes on North and Central American species of Acmaeodera (Coleoptera: Buprestidae). Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 33(2): 169-181. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 234. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 127 Case 3254 Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name Frank-Thorsten Krell Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: F.Krell@nhm.ac.uk) Darren J. Mann Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford OXI 3PW, U.K. (e-mail: darren.mann@oum.oxford.ac.uk) Robert B. Angus School of Biological Sciences, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX, U.K. (e-mail: R.Angus@rhul.ac.uk) Jason F. Maté Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: jfmate@hotmail.com) Abstract. The purpose of this application, in relation to Articles 57.3.1 and 59.1 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Aphodius niger Uliger, 1798 for a widely distributed and endangered species of European dung beetle. At present, this nominal species is invalidly referred to as Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 (currently Aphodius niger (Panzer, 1797), a senior secondary homonym of Aphodius niger Illiger, 1798). It is proposed that Aphodius niger Iliger, 1798 be conserved by suppression of the name Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797. Panzer’s actual species is considered to be conspecific with Aphodius granarius (Linnaeus, 1767) or Aphodius varians Duftschmid, 1805, but not with Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798. A lectotype for Aphodius niger Iliger, 1798 is designated. Keywords. Nomenclature; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Aphodius; Aphodius niger; dung beetle; endangered species; British Red Data Book; U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan; Europe. 1. Panzer (1797, p. 1) described and named Scarabaeus niger, a species of scarab beetle (family scARABAEIDAE). As far as we know there is no extant type material (Eisinger, 1919; Horn et al., 1990, p. 295). At present, this name (which is currently used in the combination Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797)) is incorrectly applied (see para. 2 below) to a widespread species of European beetle that is localized within its distribution range. This invalid name (see para. 4 below) is used in all current works on European APHODIINAE (APHODIIDAE) (e.g. Paulian, 1959, p. 171; 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Dellacasa, 1983, p. 281; Jessop, 1986, p. 24; Krell & Fery, 1992, p. 234; Baraud, 1992. p. 195; Bunalski, 1999, p. 103) and in the world catalogue of APHoDIIDAE by Dellacasa (1986, p. 232). It is listed as ‘endangered’ (RDB 1) in the British Red Data Book (Shirt, 1987, p. 176) and is the subject of a Biodiversity Action Plan (Anonymous, 1995, p. 123). 2. Adam (1994, p. 6) thought that the name S. niger Panzer, 1797 was being misapplied as the species currently referred to as Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797) did not match the description of the species named Scarabaeus niger by Panzer in 1797. Adam suggested the species originally named S. niger by Panzer (1797) was in fact conspecific with Aphodius varians Duftschmid, 1805. In our, opinion, Adam’s interpretation of S. niger Panzer is probably incorrect. However, Creutzer (1799, p. 20) correctly synonymized S. niger Panzer with S. granarius Linnaeus, 1767 (currently Aphodius granarius (Linnaeus, 1767)). This synonymy has been overlooked by all subsequent authors (e.g. Dellacasa, 1986, p. 382), because Creutzer’s comments on Panzer’s species were erroneously cited as the description of a new species ‘Aphodius niger Creutzer, 1799’ by Schénherr, 1806 (p. 77), Dellacasa, 1986 (p. 168) and others. 3. Adam (1994, p. 6) also noted that the name Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 was in fact a junior primary homonym of Scarabaeus niger Giorna, 1791 (a nomen oblitum for an unidentified species of the subfamily CETONIINAE). As a result, it could not be used as the valid name for Aphodius varians. To avoid the homonymy, he redescribed the species that had been named Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 and named it Aphodius muscorum. This replacement name has not gained wide recog- nition in the current literature (not even in the Hungarian literature, see Sar, 1998, p. 205; Nadai & Merkl, 1999, p. 218). Only Adam himself (1996, p. 305; 1998, p. 263) and Bordat (1999, p. 81) have used this new name (in the combination Liothorax muscorum). 4. Illiger (1798, p. 24) described a scarab beetle from Sweden and various parts of Germany and named it Aphodius niger, erroneously referring to Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797. Evidently, Illiger thought he was redescribing S. niger Panzer and not a new species. However, Illiger’s beetle species is clearly not that described by Panzer, and is easily recognizable as a member of the subgenus Liothorax Motschulsky, 1859, and as the endangered species currently and invalidly known as Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797). According to Horn et al. (1990, p. 183), Illiger’s type material has been deposited partly in the Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin, and partly in the Staatliches Naturhistorisches Museum Braunschweig. In Braunschweig, no material of A. niger with labels matching Illiger’s handwriting was found (J. Hevers, curator, pers. comm., 27 June 2001). 5. We have inspected the specimens labelled Aphodius niger from the historic collection in Berlin and they are all the species currently known as Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797). There are seven specimens in the series, which has the reference number 25810. This is a printed label attached to the first specimen, but duplicated by the Museum on all the other specimens. The series name-label is pinned to the first specimen (a female), and its data are written in three rows, in dark brown ink. The first row reads ‘niger’, the second “Pz Gyl’, later altered in black ink, with the “Pz’ crossed out and ‘Ill’ added, and an asterisk (*) added after “Gyl.”. The third row reads ‘Sc. Terrestris Pz’. These data match those used by IIliger in his published Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 129 description of Aphodius niger. The labelled female specimen lacks locality data, as do three of the other specimens. One specimen has a handwritten label ‘Austria’ (not given as a locality in Illiger’s description of A. niger), and there are two males with handwritten labels ‘Suec’. These Swedish specimens are the only ones whose locality is mentioned in Illiger’s description, and therefore the only specimens that can be unambiguously identified as syntypes. To ensure that the type material matches the type locality of Illiger’s description and thus to avoid any future nomenclatural or taxonomic confusion, we herewith designate one of the Swedish specimens from this series as the lectotype, and have labelled it as such. The other specimen from Sweden has been labelled as the paralectotype. 6. Since Illiger (1798) published the specific name niger in combination with Aphodius rather than Scarabaeus, his name is not a junior primary homonym of S. niger Panzer, 1797 (or of the nomen oblitum S. niger Giorna, 1791). However, it is a junior secondary homonym of Aphodius (Liothorax) niger (Panzer, 1797); see Articles 57.3.1 and 59.1. To ensure permanent clarification of the confusion this could cause, we propose suppression of the name Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797. The species to which Panzer actually applied this name already has the senior synonym Aphodius granarius (Linnaeus, 1767). In addition, suppression of Scarabaeus niger Panzer, 1797 will also provide protection for later names if these are considered to be synonyms of Panzer’s name as has occurred for Aphodius varians Duftschmid, 1805. 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus niger, for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name niger Illiger, 1798, as published in the binomen Apodius niger and as defined by the lectotype designated in para. 5 above: (3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name niger Panzer, 1797, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus niger and as suppressed in (1) above. References Adam, L. 1994. A check-list of the Hungarian Scarabaeoidea with the description of ten new _ taxa. Folia entomologica Hungarica, 55: 5—17. Adam, L. 1996. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) of the Bukk National Park. Pp. 299-308 in Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The Fauna of the Biikk National Park I. Hungarian Natural History _ Museum, Budapest. Adam, L. 1998. Bogarak Kerecsendr6él (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Scarabaeoidea). Folia Historico Naturalia Musei Matraensis, 22: 257-264. Anonymous. 1995. Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report. 2: Action Plans. 324 pp. H.M.S.O., London. Baraud, J. 1992. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea d’Europe. Faune de France, 78: 1-856. Bordat, P. 1999. Les Aphodiens rares de la faune de France. Le Coléoptériste, 36: 23-29. Bunalski, M. 1999. Die Blatthornkdfer Mitteleuropas. Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea, Bestimmung — Verbreitung — Okologie. 80 pp. Slamka, Bratislava. Creutzer, C. 1799. Entomologische Versuche. 152 pp., 1 pl. Schaumburg, Wien. Dellacasa, G. 1983. Sistematica e nomenclatura degli Aphodiini italiani (Coleoptera Scarabaeidae: Aphodiinae). Monografie Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino, 1: 1-465. 130 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Dellacasa, M. 1986. Contribution to a world-wide catalogue of Aegialiidae, Aphodiidae, Aulonocnemidae, Termitotrogidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea). Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 66: 1-456. Duftschmid, C. 1805. Fauna Austriae, oder Beschreibung der Gsterreichischen Insecten fiir angehende Freunde der Entomologie, vol. 1. 311 pp. Linz & Leipzig. Eisinger, F. 1919. Georg Wolfgang Panzer 1755-1829. Internationale Entomologische Zeitschrift, 13: 89-92. Giorna, M.E. 1791. Calendario entomologico ossia osservazioni sulla stagioni proprie agl insetti nel clima piemontese, e particolarmente ne’contorni di Torino. 146 pp. Stamperia Reale, Torino. Horn, W., Kahle, I., Friese, G. & Gaedike, R. 1990. Collectiones entomologicae. Ein Kompen- dium tiber den Verbleib entomologischer Sammlungen der Welt bis 1960, 2 volumes. 573 pp. Akademie der Landwirtschaftswissenschaften der Deutschen Demokratischen Republik, Berlin. Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. Entworfen von Johann Gottlieb Kugelann Apotheker in Osterode. 510 pp. Gebauer, Halle. Jessop, L. 1986. Dung beetles and chafers. Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea. Handbooks for the identification of British insects, 5(11): 1-53. Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H. 1992. Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 201—252 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 13 (2. Supplementband mit Katalog- teil). Goecke & Evers, Krefeld. . Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae per Regna tria Naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. (Ed. 12). 1327 pp. Holmiae. Nadai, L. & Merkl, O. 1999. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) from the Aggtelek National Park. Pp. 215-220 in Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The fauna of the Aggtelek National Park I. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest. Panzer, G.W.F. 1797. Fauna Insectorum Germaniae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. 37. Norimbergiae. Paulian, R. 1959. Coléoptéres Scarabeides. Faune de France, 63: 1-298. Sar, J. 1998. Vizsgalatok a Drava mente lemeszescsapu bogar (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia) faunajan I. Dunantuli Dolgozatok (A) Természettudomanyi Sorozat, 9: 203-207. Schonherr, C.J. 1806. Synonymia insectorum .. ., vol. 1, pt. 2. xx, 294 pp., 2 pls. Nordstrém, Stockholm. Shirt, D.B. (Ed.). 1987. British Red Data Books. 2. Insects. 402 pp. Nature Conservancy Council, Peterborough. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 1. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 131 Aphodius niger Mliger, 1798 Hortobagy [Hungary] NP. Ujszentmargita margital erdo fuhalozva 1974.v.28 leg. Vasarhelyi [labelled ‘Aphodius muscorum Adam/Det. Adam, 19847] Actual length: 5 mm. Drawing by Jason F. Mate. 132 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Case 3194 Lius Deyrolle, 1865 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation C.L. Bellamy Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, California 95832, U.S.A. (e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the generic name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 for a group of jewel beetles (family BUPRESTIDAE) by suppressing its unused senior primary homonym Lius Chevrolat, 1838. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Lius; Lius ignitus: buprestids; jewel beetles. 1. Dejean (1833, p. 83) used the beetle generic name Lius, which he attributed to ‘Eschscholtz’ without a date. He gave no description of the genus, but included seven specific names. However, these are all nomina nuda, and so the name Lius Dejean is not available from this work. Dejean (1833) also introduced the beetle generic name Brachys (p. 83) without description but included Trachys tessellata Fabricius, 1801 and four nomina nuda. Thus Brachys is an available name under Article 12.2.5 of the Code and T. tessellata is the type species by monotypy. In the same year, Solier (1833, p. 312) provided a description for Brachys and listed Trachys tessellata as the only included species. 2. In 1838 (p. 104), Chevrolat used the generic name Lius for a new nominal species, Lius deplanatus (a jewel beetle; family BUPRESTIDAE). Saunders (1871, p. 135) transferred L. deplanatus Chevrolat, 1838 to Pachyschelus Solier, 1833 (the type species by monotypy is Pachyschelus scutellatus Soler, 1833), thus treating Lius Chevrolat, 1838 as a junior subjective synonym of Pachyschelus. 3. Deyrolle (1865, p. 219) used the name Lius in a key and attributed three nominal buprestid species to it in a footnote as ‘types du genre: Br. ignitus, aculeatus, exiguus, etc. Gory’. 4. Cobos (1979, p. 425) subsequently designated Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840 (p. 6) as the type species of. Lius Deyrolle, 1865. 5. All authors subsequent to Deyrolle’s (1865) diagnosis of Lius have attributed authorship of this name to Deyrolle including Waterhouse (1889, p. 135); Kerremans (1892, p. 294; 1893, p. 122; 1903, p. 321); Obenberger (1937, p. 1345); Blackwelder (1944, p. 338); Bellamy (1985, p. 428) and Holynski (1993, p. 15). 6. Although the name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 is a junior homonym of Lius as used by Chevrolat (1838), the name has not been used in its earlier sense because Lius Chevrolat, 1838 is a junior synonym of Pachyschelus Solier, 1833. As Lius Chevrolat, 1838 has not been used since 1899, it qualifies as a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.1.1. The name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 has been in considerable use for Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840 and related species (see para. 5 above). Despite this, the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 133 name has not had sufficient usage to allow its ‘automatic’ conservation under Article 23.9.2. So this case is brought to the Commission under the provision of Article W393). 7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to suppress the generic name Lius Chevrolat, 1838 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Lius Deyrolle, 1865 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Cobos (1979) Brachys ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840: (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name ignitus Gory & Laporte, 1840, as published in the binomen Brachys ignitus (specific name of the type species of Lius Deyrolle, 1865): (4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Lius Chevrolat, 1838, as suppressed in (1) above. References Bellamy, C.L. 1985. A catalogue of the higher taxa of the family Buprestidae (Coleoptera). Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum, Bloemfontein, 4(15): 405-472. Blackwelder, R.E. 1944. Checklist of the coleopterous insects of Mexico, Central America, the West Indies, and South America, pt. 2. United States National Museum, Bulletin, 185: iv. 189-341. Chevrolat, L.A.A. 1838. Centurie de Buprestides. Revue Entomologique, 5: 41-110. Cobos, A. 1979. Revision de la subfamilia Trachyinae a niveles supraespecificos (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 76: 414-430. Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue de la collection de Coléoptéres de M. Le Comte Dejean, livraison 1. 96 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris. Deyrolle, H. 1865. Description des Buprestides de la Malaisie recueillés par M. Wallace. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 8: 1-312. Gory, H.L. & Laporte, F.L.N. de C. 1840. Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes Coléoptéres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 2 (genera paged separately). Dumeril, Paris. Holyfski, R. 1993. A reassessment of the internal classification of the Buprestidae Leach (Coleoptera). Crystal, series Zoologica, 1: 142. Kerremans, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des Buprestides decrits de 1758 a 1890. Mémoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304. Kerremans, C. 1893. Essai de groupement des Buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 37: 94-122. Kerremans, C. 1903. Coleoptera, Fam. Buprestidae. Pp. 49-338 in Wytsman, P. (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, Fasc. 12b; 12c; 12d. Verteneuil & Desmet, Bruxelles. Obenberger, J. 1937. Buprestidae 6 in Junk. W & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, 157: 1247-1714. Saunders, E. 1871. Catalogus Buprestidarum Synonymicus et Systematicus. 171 pp. Janson, London. Solier, A.J.J. 1833. Essai sur les Buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 2: 261-316. Waterhouse, C.O. 1889. Insecta, Coleoptera, Buprestidae. Pp. 49-193 in: Biologia Centrali Americana, vol. 3, pt. 1. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 58: 78. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 134 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Fig. 2. Pachyschelus signatus Waterhouse, 1889. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 135 Case 3230 Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (Osteichthyes, Perleidiformes): proposed designation of C. bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species, with designation of a neotype Raoul J. Mutter Department of Biological Sciences and Laboratory for Vertebrate Paleontology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2E9 Canada (e-mail: rmutter@ualberta.ca) Abstract. The purpose of this application, which relates to Chapter 15 of the Code, is to set aside all previous type fixations for the fossil fish genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 and to designate Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species. The nominal species Colobodus bassanii is the best representative of the characteristics of the genus Colobodus. A neotype is designated for Colobodus bassanii under Article 75.3 of the Code. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Osteichthyes; Perleidiformes; fossil fish; Co/o- bodus; Colobodus bassanii; Middle Triassic; Besano Formation; Italy; Switzerland. 1. Agassiz (1833-1844, p. 237; for the exact year of publication (1844) see Woodward & Sherborn, 1890, pp. xxv-xxix) described a new genus and new species of fossil fish in the name Colobodus hogardi. C. hogardi is therefore the type species of Colobodus by monotypy (p. 237). The description was made from a single crushing-teeth battery of an unidentified bone, but the bone was not figured. The tooth plate’s outline is diamond-shaped; its teeth are striated and topped by a central wart. The specimen originates from the Upper Muschelkalk of Lunéville (France; Middle Triassic). 2. The name C. hogardi has been quoted, listed or mentioned, but rarely applied (e.g. Giebel, 1847, vol. 1, p. 181; 1853, vol. 2, p. 325 and Woodward, 1895, p. 69). Only Dames (1888, vol. 4, pp. 159-160) has applied the name, but without giving explicit reference to similar specimens in any collection. It appears that in 1967 the C. hogardi holotype was destroyed by a fire on the third floor of the Department of Palaeontology and Geology (EOST) at the Louis Pasteur University of Strasbourg (J.-C. Gall, Strasbourg, pers. comm., 2000). 3. In 1910, de Alessandri described well-preserved fish remains from the Besano Formation (Lombardy, Italian/Swiss border; Middle Triassic; Grenzbitumenzone) of the Monte San Giorgio/Besano basin, and thereby established the new species Colobodus bassanii. From de Alessandri’s (1910, p. 76) description, the crushing teeth are morphologically identical with C. hogardi Agassiz. De Alessandri introduced the new species Colobodus bassanii based on several specimens, four of them figured, displaying characters of head, fins, dentition and scales. These details greatly widened our knowledge of the genus Colobodus (see de Alessandri, 1910, pp. 74-81; table 2, fig. 4; table 3, figs. 1-3). 136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 4. In all representative works (e.g. Andersson, 1916; Beltan, 1972: Nybelin, 1977; Orvig, 1978: Biirgin, 1996 and Cartanya, 1999), C. bassanii has subsequently been regarded as the most completely preserved and best known nominal species of the genus Colobodus. | am currently revising the family CoLoBODONTIDAE Andersson, 1916. 5. The type material of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 was probably destroyed during the second World War (1943) in the Museo Civico di Storia Naturale in Milano (A. Tintori, Milano, pers. comm., 1998). However, large-scale excavations in the last century (see Kuhn-Schnyder, 1974) have yielded well- preserved and relatively complete specimens of C. bassanii. Most of these are now stored at The Natural History Museum, London (in the “Carl Bender’ collection) and at the Palaontologisches Institut und Museum der Universitat Zurich. 6. As the original type material of Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 has been destroyed, I herewith designate a neotype for this nominal species in accord with Article 75.3.4. According to Article 75.3.6, the neotype should, if possible, come from the same geological horizon as the original name-bearing type. The Middle Triassic Besano Formation site where de Alessandri found his holotype specimen of C. bassanii (see para. 3) has provided other specimens of this species from the same stratigraphical context. I designate the comparatively fully preserved specimen T 4843 from this locality (and now held in the collection of the Palaontologisches Institut und Museum der Universitat Ziirich) as the neotype for Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910. 7. The type material for the nominal species Colobodus hogardi Agassiz, 1844 has been destroyed, no additional well-preserved material has been found and the name has not been widely used. In addition, the characteristics of the genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, as currently understood, are better represented by the nominal species Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 than by the nominal species Colobodus hogardi Agassiz, 1844. As a result I propose that, in the interests of maintaining the current understanding of the name Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 should be designated as its type species in place of Colobodus hogardi Agassiz, 1844. 8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: ; (1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal genus Colobodus Agassiz, 1844, and to designate Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910 as the type species; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Colobodus Agassiz, 1844 (gender: masculine), type species by designation in (1) above and as defined by the neotype designated in para. 6 above Colobodus bassanii de Alessandri, 1910; to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name bassanii de Alessandri, 1910, as published in the binomen Colobodus bassanii (specific name of the type species of Colobodus Agassiz, 1844). (3 ma Acknowledgements I thank Peter Forey (The Natural History Museum, London), Andrew Wakeham- Dawson (ICZN) and Mark Wilson (University of Alberta, Edmonton) for their help Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 i 137 and comments on this case. Research and publication were supported by a NSERC grant to MVH Wilson and SNF grant 81ZH-68466 to RJ Mutter. References Agassiz, J.L.R. 1833-1844. Recherches sur les poissons fossiles, vol. 2, pt. 2, L'histoire de l' Ordre des Ganoides. xii, 338 pp. Neuchatel & Soleure, Switzerland. Alessandri, G.D. de. 1910. Studi sui pesci triasici della Lombardia. Memorie della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali e del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 7(1): 1-147. Andersson, E. (= E. A:son Stensi6). 1916. Uber einige Trias-Fische aus der Cava Trefontane, Tessin. Bulletin of the Geological Institutions of the University of Uppsala, 15: 13-33. Beltan, L. 1972. La faune ichthyologique du Muschelkalk de la Catalogne. Memorias de la Real Academia de Ciencias y Artes de Barcelona, 41(10): 281-325. Biirgin, T. 1996. Diversity in the feeding apparatus of perleidid fishes (Actinopterygii) from the Middle Triassic of Monte San Giorgio. Pp. 555-565 in Arratia, G. & Viohl, G. (Eds.), Mesozoic fishes — systematics and paleoecology. 575 pp. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen. Cartanya, J. 1999. An overview of the Middle Triassic actinopterygians from Alcover, Mont-ral and El Pinetell (Catalonia, Spain). Pp. 535—S51 in Arratia, G. & Schultze, H.-P. (Eds.), Mesozoic fishes 2 — systematics and fossil record. 604 pp. Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Miinchen. Dames, W. 1888. Die Ganoiden des deutschen Muschelkalks. Palaeontologische Abhandlungen, 4(2): 133-180. Giebel, C.G. 1847. Fauna der Vorwelt. 467 pp. Brockhaus, Leipzig. Giebel, C.G. 1853. Uber die Synonymie seines Colobodus varius. Zeitschrift ftir die Gesammten Naturwissenschaften, 2(11): 325-327. Kuhn-Schnyder, E. 1974. Die Triasfauna der Tessiner Kalkalpen. Newjahrsblatt der Naturfor- schenden Gesellschaft in Ziirich, 176: 1-119. Nybelin, O. 1977. Studies on Triassic Fishes from East Greenland HI. On Helmolepis gracilis Stensid. Meddelelser om Gronland, 2001(2): 1-13. Orvig, T. 1978. Microstructure and growth of the dermal skeleton in fossil Actinopterygian fishes: Nephrotus and Colobodus, with remarks on the dentition in other forms. Zoologica Scripta, 7: 33-56. Woodward, A.S. 1895. Catalogue of the fossil fishes in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 3. 544 pp. London. Woodward, A.S. & Sherborn, C.D. 1890. 4 catalogue of British fossil Vertebrata. xxxv, 396 pp. Dulau, London. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 69. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). 138 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Case 3226 Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V., 1788, Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares: proposed rejection as a non-binominal work Jay M. Savage Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, California 92182-4614, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy 1@cox.net) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 11.4 of the Code, is to ensure nomenclatural stability by suppression of Lacepéde’s (1788) work Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares (and all subsequent editions of this work) as an unavail- able, non-binominal work. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lacepéde; Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens. 1. In 1788-89, Count Bernard Germain Etienne de la Ville Lacepéde published a two volume work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens. These two volumes were the last two in Buffon’s (1749-67; 1774-89) monumental and best-selling Histoire Naturelle Générale et Particuliére. Lacepede’s first volume (1788a) deals with the egg-laying quadrupeds (Quadrupédes Ovipares) and the second volume (1789) deals with the serpents (Serpens). A later, smaller format edition of Lacepede’s work appeared as the final volumes (1788b, 1790) of another edition of Buffon’s Histoire Naturelle. 2. Buffon and his associates, including Lacepede, did not accept or use the Linnaean binominal system (see Stresemann, 1975, pp. 56, 94; Roger, 1997, pp. 311-312), although some of Lacepéde’s Latinized French vernacular names were employed by later authors. In particular, Bonnaterre (1789-90) gave most of Lacepeéde’s taxa binominal names if an older binominal was not already available. In fact, Bonnaterre scooped Buffon and hk associates by being the first in France to use binominal (Linnaean) names for many groups of animals. 3. Brongersma (1972; BZN 29: 44-61) in an application to the Commission demonstrated that Lacepéde’s Histoire Naturelle des Serpens was not consistently binominal and proposed that it be ruled an unavailable work. Subsequently in 1987 (Opinion 1463; BZN 44: 265-267), the Commission suppressed this work and its later editions, while conserving the long-established name Crotalus piscivorous Lacepede, 1789 (currently Agkistrodon piscivorous) notwithstanding that it was published in an unavailable work. However, the status of Lacepeéde’s first volume (Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares) was not addressed. 4. The situation with the Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares is exactly parallel to that in the Histoire Naturelle des Serpens. All the names used in the text are in the vernacular, although binominal names of other authors (principally Linnaeus) are listed in the bibliographic footnote accompanying many species descriptions. Latin names are also used in the foldout table, labeled Synopsis Meéthodica Quadrupedum Oviparum (between pages 618 and 619 near the end of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 139 volume). These names correspond to those presented in the foldout Table Méthodique Quadrupédes des Ovipares located just before page | in the text. In the Table, the vernacular French or names in other languages used in the text are listed. In the Synopsis, the French vernacular names are translated into Latin (e.g., T.[ortue] Chagrinee becomes T.[estudo] punctata) but those derived from the common names of other languages are retained (e.g. ‘Le Mabouya’ becomes Mabouya). 5. Verification of these facts and those in the next paragraph is based on examination of four copies of Lacepéde (1788a, 1789), two at the L.M. Klauber Library (San Diego Natural History Museum), one at the Allan Hancock Founda- tion Library (University of Southern California) and my personal copy. These copies differ slightly in the placement of the Table Méthodique and Synopsis. The page numbers given above are from my copy. I also know of one copy at the University of Michigan that lacks the Synopsis. This was apparently removed a considerable time after publication. I have also examined a copy of Lacepéde (1788b, 1790) in the L.M. Klauber library whose contents do not differ from that of the quarto edition. 6. Although five columns in the Synopsis are headed by the term ‘Genus’, the names ‘Testudo’, ‘Lacertus’, ‘Rana’, ‘Hyla’ and ‘Buffo’ stand as translations of French vernacular names. Two additional columns lack genus headings and contain one species name each, “B. Canaliculatus’ and ‘Sheltopusik’. In the columns, uninominal, binominal and trinominal names are listed depending upon the language of the vernacular used in the body of this work. Those derived from the French are preceded by an abbreviation T., B., R., H. or B.; those from other languages are uninominal. In the genus ‘Testudo’, there are 19 binominal, 4 uninominal and one trinominal species names. For the genus ‘Lacertus’, there are 29 binominal names, 25 uninominals and one trinominal. For ‘Rana’, there are 11 binominals and one uninominal: for ‘Hyla’ six binominals and a trinominal; for “Buffo’ 12 binominals and four uninominals. It is clear from these data that, as in the Serpens volume, Lacepéde did not consistently use a binominal nomenclatural system in his Quadrupédes Ovipares. Mayer & Lazell (2000) have recently reached the same conclusion. Thus, Lacepéde (1788a) should join Lacepéde (1789) as works rejected for nomenclatural purposes. 7. Buffon’s original Histoire Naturelle series was enormously popular and many editions (the ‘Suites 4 Buffon’), often duplicated in quarto, octavo or smaller format sets, and translated into other European languages (e.g. Bechstein, 1800-1802; Lacepéde, 1802) appeared every decade until at least 1885. I have found reference to at least 15 different editions containing Lacepéde’s names. I have not seen copies of all these and there are probably several more. The later versions do not pose any nomenclatural threat to other species names because of Bonnaterre’s (1789-1790) actions. Nevertheless, rejection of Lacepéde’s 1788a work, and all later editions of this work, promotes universality and stability since it would prevent attempts to preoccupy such generic names as Lacertus and Buffo in zoological nomenclature. 8. Just as in the case of the Histoire Naturelle des Serpens, a number of Lacepede’s Latinized vernacular names from Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares have been adopted as valid from as far back as Gray (1831). Fortunately, suppression of the Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares does not affect these names as all were given proper binominals based on Lacepéde’s names in Bonnaterre’s (1789-1790) binominal work. 140 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 9. The names in question in para. 8 are (in the order they appear in Lacepede’s work): Testudo terrapen Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 30 (currently Trachemys terrapen) Testudo subrubra Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 27 (currently Kinosternon subrubra) Testudo punctata Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 30 (currently Lissemys punctata) Testudo subrufa Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 28 (currently Pelomedusa subrufa) Testudo subnigra Lacepéde in Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 30 (currently Pelusios subniger; see Opinion 1534; BZN 46: 81-82; 1989) Lacerta mabouya Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 51 (currently Mabuya mabouya) Lacerta roquet Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 54 (currently Anolis or Dactyloa roquet) Salamandra terdigitata Bonnaterre, 1789, p. 64 (currently Salamandrina terdigitata). 10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power to rule that the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788), and any subsequent editions of this work, are not available for nomenclatural purposes, and that no name acquires the status of availability by reason of having been published in any of them; (2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the work entitled Histoire Naturelle des Quadrupédes Ovipares by Lacepéde (1788) and all subsequent editions of this work, as ruled in (1) above. References Bechstein, J.M. 1800-1802. Herrn De la Cepede’s Naturgeschichte . . ., 5 vols. 2027 pp., 167 pls. Industrie-Comptoir, Weimar. Bonnaterre, P.-J.A. 1789. Erpétologie. xxviii, 71 pp. Panckoucke Lib., Paris. Bonnaterre, P.-J.A. 1790. Ophiologie. In Tableau Encyclopédique et Méthodique des Trois Régnes de la Nature . . . xliv, 76 pp. Panckoucke Lib., Paris. Gray, J.E. 1831. A synopsis of the species of the class Reptilia. Jn Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The Animal Kingdom, vol. 9. The Class Reptilia, Appendix. 110 pp. Whittaker, Teacher, London. Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1788a. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens, vol. 1. 17, 651 pp. Imp. Roi, Hotel de Thou., Paris (quarto). Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1788b. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens, pt. 1. 60, 359 pp.; pt. 2. iv, 461 pp. Acad. Roy., Hotel de Thou., Paris (duodecimo). Lacepede, B.G.E. de la V. 1789. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens, vol. 2. 9, 20, 144, 527 pp. Acad. Roy., Hotel de Thou., Paris (quarto). Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1790. Histoire Naturelle de Quadrupédes Ovipares et des Serpens, pt. 3. 24, 432 pp.; pt 4. 8, 408 pp. Acad. Roy., Hotel de Thou., Paris (duodecimo). Lacepéde, B.G.E. de la V. 1802. The Natural History of Oviparous Quadrupeds and Serpents. Arranged and translated by R. Kerr. pt. 1, 420 pp.; pt. 2, 345 pp.; pt. 3, 383 pp.: pt. 4, 382 pp. Cadel & Davis, London. Mayer, G.C. & Lazell, J. 2000. A new species of Mabuya (Sauria: Scincidae) from the British Virgin Islands. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 113(4): 871-886. Roger, J. 1997. Buffon. 492 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Stresemann, E. 1975. Ornithology from Aristotle to the present. 432 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 59: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 141 Draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils: request for comments Markus Bertling'*, Simon Braddy~, Richard G. Bromley’, Georges D. Demathieu", Radek Mikulas°, Jan K. Nielsen®, Andrew K. Rindsberg’, Michael Schlirf® and Alfred Uchman? (Addresses on p. 142) The Code covers not only names for biological taxa but those for the ‘fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa)’ as well (Article 1.2.1). In ichnology, an ichnotaxon is considered to be the name attached to a trace fossil (e.g. Bromley, 1990; Magwood, 1992; Pickerill, 1994)—a term that is used ambiguously in the Code’s Glossary only for ‘fossilized trails, tracks or burrows’. In fact, many other biogenic structures are trace fossils as well and the obsolete term ‘work of an animal’ is not used in modern ichnologic literature. This contribution aims at a future clarification of the meaning of the term ‘ichnotaxa’ and the meaning of the terms used for related taxa that are frequently confused with ichnotaxa. A trace fossil may generally be defined as a morphologically recurrent structure resulting from the life activity of an individual organism (or a monospecific group of organisms) that modifies the substrate (e.g. Bromley, 1996). This means that ‘fossilized work of organisms’ in which a substrate is not modified qualifies neither as a trace fossil nor as an ichnotaxon. Fossil eggs and plant galls are the work of animals, but are not trace fossils. Secretions produced by organisms are not trace fossils. It follows that such ‘work of animals’, e.g. spider webs, cocoons, pupal cases, pearls and calculi, likewise, are not trace fossils. As representatives of most of these groups have received names governed by the Code, they are currently classified in a parataxonomic scheme. Trace fossils, on the other hand, are not objects of parataxonomy; ichnotaxa do not compete in priority with names for their producers (Article 23.7.3). Some other structures that are occasionally listed as trace fossils, e.g. stromatolites, pathologic structures and soils as well as signs of human technology, are neither ichnotaxa nor the ‘fossilized work of an organism’ and should not be covered by the Code. This discussion underlines the discrepancy in the terminology of the Code as opposed to the one generally used in the relevant scientific subdiscipline. This discrepancy may result in misunderstandings and contradictory claims about the legal standing of names established for biogenic structures that are not trace fossils. For this reason we propose refinement of the wording of the Code and the use of less ambiguous terms to distinguish between various animal products and true trace fossils. We propose that the Glossary definition of ‘work of an animal’ be emended to read: ‘trace fossils (including burrows, borings and etchings, tracks and trackways, coprolites, gastroliths, regurgitaliths, nests, leaf mines, bite and gnaw structures), as well as secretions such as eggs, cocoons, pupal cases, spider webs, embedment structures and plant galls’. With this definition, it will not be necessary to replace the term ‘work of an animal in Articles 1.2.1, 10.5, 12.2.8 and 72.5.1 by ‘trace fossils’. An additional point independent of the above proposal relates to the nomencla- tural treatment of ichnofamilies. It is illogical to demand criteria for their establish- ment that differ from those for other ichnotaxa. Also, with ichnotaxa being treated in very much the same way as biological taxa, we recommend that the principle of typification be extended to the naming of ichnofamilies. This would be consistent 142 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 with the current provisions for the typification of ichnogenera and ichnospecies (Articles 13.3.3, 42.2.1 and 42.3.2). In addition, we propose the deletion of an unnecessary sentence dealing with ichnotaxa based on recent traces (Article 1.3.6). This article allows usage of ichnotaxa erected on recent traces prior to 1931, but there seem to be no grounds for this provision. We are not aware of any case where names based on recent traces are actually used. If they had been validly established they would no longer be available due to their status of nomina oblita, anyway. Finally, numerous new ichnotaxa have been established in the last decades by their authors using the abbreviations ‘igen.’ for ichnogenus and ‘isp.’ for ichnospecies. We advocate that ‘igen.’ and ‘isp.’ be approved as the legitimate abbreviations for ichnogenus and ichnospecies, respectively, for use in open nomenclature and for the designation of new ichnotaxa. In relation to this, Recommendation 16A of the Code should be emended to include reference to ‘igen. n.’, ‘isp. n.’, etc. for ichnotaxa. Comments on this draft proposal are invited and should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). References Bromley, R.G. 1990. Trace fossils: biology and taphonomy. 280 pp. Unwin Hyman, London. Bromley, R.G. 1996. Trace fossils. biology, taphonomy and applications. 361 pp. Chapman & Hall, London. 3 Magwood, J.P.A. 1992. Ichnotaxonomy: a burrow by any other name? Pp. 15—33 in Maples, C.G. & West, R.R. (Eds.), Trace Fossils. Palaeontological Society Short Courses in Palaeontology, 5. Pickerill, R.K. 1994. Nomenclature and taxonomy of invertebrate trace fossils. Pp. 3-42 in Donovan, S.K. (Ed.), The palaeobiology of trace fossils. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. (1) Geological and Palaeontological Institute, University of Miinster, Corrensstr. 24, D-48149 Miinster, Germany (*corresponding author). (2) Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BSS IRJ, U.K. (3) Geological Institute, Oster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark. (4) Earth Sciences Centre, University of Burgundy, 6 boulevard Gabriel, F-21 100 Dijon, France. (5) Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Rozvojova 135, CZ-16500 Praha 6, Czech Republic. (6) Geological Museum, Oster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark. (7) Geological Survey of Alabama, P.O. Box 869999, Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-6999, U.S.A. (8) Institute for Palaeontology, Pleicherwall 1, D-97070 Wiirzburg, Germany. (9) Institute of Geological Sciences, Jagiellonian University, ul. Oleandry 2a, PL-30 063 Krakow, Poland. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 143 Comments on the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora) (General Article; see BZN 59: 165-169; 60: 48-49) (1) Jean Dragesco 394 Boulevard du Grand Devois, F-34980 Saint-Clement-de- Riviere, France I fully support Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal that the neotypes of protists, especially Ciliates, should be freed from the type locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the Code, provided that neotypification is based on a thorough redescription of the organisms and usable neotype material has been deposited in an acknowledged repository. (2) Khaled A.S. AL-Rasheid Zoology Department, College of Science, King Saud University, P.O. Box 2455, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia I support Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal that the neotypes of protists, especially Ciliates, should be freed from the type locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the Code, as it is not applicable to protists. Comments on the proposed conservation of Cyphosoma Mannerheim, 1837 and proposed precedence of Halecia Laporte & Gory, 1837 over Pristiptera Dejean, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case 3205; see BZN 59: 249-252) (1) Vladimir Sakalian Institute of Zoology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, 1 Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd, 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria I support this application, as it will ensure nomenclatural stability. (2) Roman B. Holynski PL-05822 Milanowek, ul. Graniczna 35, skr. poczt. 65, Poland I do not support this application. I do not approve of junior names being given precedence over senior names. In the cases of Cyphonota and Pristiptera there is no justification for setting aside the Principle of Priority and for conserving errors by giving precedence to junior synonyms. Consequently, I ask the Commission to reject the application. 144 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Comment on the proposed precedence of Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828 (Case 3214; see BZN 59: 253-255) M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales-CSIC, José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain C.H.C. Lyal Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. We fully support the application presented by our colleagues M. Elgueta and G. Kuschel to give precedence to Aegorhinus Erichson, 1834 over Psuchocephalus Latreille, 1828, being subjective synonyms. When we published our Catalogue (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 1999), we knew the existence of Article 23.9.1 of the then forthcoming 4th Edition of the Code, but at that time we could not find the number of records required to meet the requirements of Article 23.9.1.2, so we opted for Priority. We have already stated our agreement with Kuschel & Elgueta (Alonso-Zarazaga & Lyal, 2002, p. 22) and endorse the exact terms of this application. Additional reference Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A. & Lyal, C.H.C. 2002. Addenda and corrigenda to 4 World Catalogue of Families and Genera of Curculionoidea (Insecta: Coleoptera). Zootaxa, 63: 1-37. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 145 Nomenclatural note The authorship and dates of Pieter Cramer’s De Uitlandsche Kapellen: a request for comments from lepidopterists J.E. Chainey Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. In 1958 (Opinion 516), the Commission approved a set of dates and authorship for De Uitlandsche Kapellen by Pieter Cramer (this work was completed by Caspar Stoll after Cramer’s death). However, several facts have come to light that might have influenced the Commission’s ruling had they been noted at the time. In addition, authors are not always following the Opinion, particularly with regard to the authorship of this work. (1) The main purpose of Opinion 516 was to assign relative precedence to five publications issued in 1775. Cramer’s work was deemed to have been published on December 31st and come last in precedence because there was no evidence of when it had been published, other than the year 1775. However, a letter (held in The Natural History Museum, London) from the entomologist Dru Drury (1725-1803) to the publisher Sepp dated 27 November 1775 states that “Cramer’s work is badly coloured’, indicating that at least the first part was then available. This date would give Cramer (1775) precedence over Denis & Schiffermiiller (1775), which Opinion 516 stated as having been published on 8 December. (2) The publication dates given in Opinion 516 are partly based on the assertion that Cramer died in 1780. In particular, the publication date of volume 3, part 22, was set at 1780 (instead of 1779 as given on the original wrappers of a copy held in the library of The Natural History Museum, London), because a footnote by Stoll on p. 107 refers to the death of Cramer. However, Cramer died in September 1776, as noted by Stoll (1780) and Smit, Sanders & van der Veer (1986). (3) Dos Passos (1958) states that the dates and spellings of the specific names in De Uitlandsche Kapellen should be taken from the indexes, since these are the only part of the work that is consistently binominal. Subsequent authors have ignored the dates suggested by Dos Passos and, in any case, the dates he cites for the publication of the indexes do not agree with the above-mentioned copy with its original wrappers. Based on these wrappers, the correct dates for the indexes for each volume are 1776 (vol. 1), 1777 (vol. 2), 1780 (vol. 3) and 1782 (vol. 4). However, some authors have accepted the spellings of names as given in the indexes for the reason cited by Dos Passos. (4) Acceptance of the indexes as the valid source of the names in De Uitlandsche Kapellen would also affect authorship. The whole of volume 4 would be attributable to Stoll, and almost certainly also volume 3. In an announcement of his forthcoming work on Cicadas, Stoll (1780) discusses progress with De Uitlandsche Kapellen and states: ‘mais le nombre des Planches étant porté a présent a 360, don’t 264 [1.e. up to volume 3, part 22] ont déja vu le jour’. Since the published arrangement and sequence of the figures differ from the original plates, it seems unlikely that Cramer’s plans would have been sufficiently advanced for him to have prepared the index to volume 3. 146 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Although there are continuing inconsistencies in the citation of this work, it is considered that the stability of dates and authorship are best served by application of Opinion 516, and this is here recommended as the best course of action. It is also recommended that the spellings of Cramer’s names follow the indexes, since these are conformed to by current usage (and in most cases there is no difference between spellings in the indexes and the main text). However, comments are invited from lepidopterists on whether or not a case should be made to take account of any of the above points. Acceptance of any of the first three points could affect the priority of some names, though point 2 applies to relatively few taxa. Points 3 and 4 should be taken together, and acceptance would rule out either points | or 2. References Cramer, P. 1775-80. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. [Papillons exotique des trois parties de Monde I'Asie, l'Afrique et l’ Amerique. ] 1. Pp. 1-132, pls. I-XCVI, 2: Pp. 1-152, pls. XCVII-CXCII, 3. Pp. 1-176, pls. CXCHI-CCLXXXVIII, 4. Pp. 1-28, pls. CCLXXXIX-CCCIV. S.J. Baalde, Amsterdam; B. Wild, Utrecht. Denis, J.N.C.M. & Schiffermiiller, I. 1775. Anktindung [sic] eines systematisches Werken von den Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend. 322 pp. Wien. Dos Passos, C.F. 1958. The dates and authorships of some names proposed by Cramer and Stoll in De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America, and by Stoll alone in Aanhangel van het werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den heere Pieter Cramer [1775 ]-1791. Lepidopterist’s News, 12: 195-198. Smit, P., Sanders, A.P.M. & van der Veer, J.P.F. 1986. Hendrik Engel’s alphabetical list of Dutch zoological cabinets and menageries. Niewwe Nederlandse budragen tot de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde en der Natuurwetenschappen, 19: \—340. Stoll, C. 1780-82. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. [ Papillons exotique des trois parties de Monde I’ Asie, l'Afrique et I Amerique ]. Vol. 4: 1-252, pls. CCCV-CCCC. S.J. Baalde, Amsterdam; B. Wild, Utrecht. Stoll, C. 1780. Natuurlyke en naar’t leeven naauwkeurig gekleurde afbeeldingen en beschryvingen der Cicaden en Wantzen, in alle vier waerelds deelen Europe, Asia, Africa en America. [Représentation exactement colorée d’aprés nature des Cigales et des Punaises, qui se trouvant dans les quatre parties du monde, I’ Europe, I Asie, | Afrique et l Amerique. ] \2 pp. Jan Christian Sepp, Amsterdam. F Comments on this note are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 3 147 OPINION 2031 (Case 2710) CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposal to remove the homonymy not approved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between CLAVIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) should not be removed. It had been proposed that the gastropod name should be emended to CLAvuSINAE by changing the stem of the type genus Clavus de Montfort, 1810 from cLAv- to cLAvus-. However, the Commission rejected this proposal because DRILLIINAE Olsson, 1964, the next available synonym for the gastropod name, provided a satisfactory alternative that was already being widely used instead of CLAvINAE for this group of gastropods. No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLAVIDAE; CLAVINAE; Clava; Clavus; Hydrozoa; Gastropoda. Ruling (1) Proposals put forward to remove the homonymy between CLAvIDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and CLAVINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) by the emendation of the stem of the molluscan type genus Clavus de Montfort, 1810 from cLAv- to CLAVUS- were not approved. History of Case 2710 An application to remove the homonymy between cLAviDAE McCrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) and cLAvINAE Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) was received from Walter O. Cernohorsky (Farm Cove, Pakuranga, Auckland, New Zealand), Paul F.S. Cornelius (Department of Zoology, The Natural History Museum, London, U.K.) and Alexander V. Sysoev (Laboratory of Helminthology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia) on 7 February 1989. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 48: 192-195 (September 1991). Notice of the case was sent to appropriate journals. Comments opposing the application were published in BZN 49: 144-145 and 49: 222-223. Comments in support of the application were published in BZN 49: 223 and 50: 52. Confirmation of the date of the relevant pages of John McCrady’s hydrozoan paper Gymnopthalmata of Charleston Harbor was published in BZN 49: 287-289. Those who opposed the alteration of the molluscan name to CLAVUSINAE Casey, 1904 did so in the confidence that DRILLIINAE Olsson, 1964 is a synonym of CLAVINAE Casey. If further research proves these taxa to be ‘biologically and taxonomically distinct’ (a possibility mentioned in para. 6 of the original application), there would be a reason for establishing a replacement name for CLAVINAE Casey, because it is a junior homonym of cLAviDAE McCrady. 148 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 Conservation of CLAVUSINAE Casey, 1904 would make it a senior synonym of DRILLIINAE and this would cause confusion because DRILLIINAE 1s already in common usage for this group of gastropods (e.g. Taylor, Kantor & Sysoev, 1993, Bulletin of the Natural History Museum, London (Zoology), 59(2): 163). Decision of the Commission On 1 December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 48: 193-194. At the close of the voting period on 1 March 2003 the votes were as follows: 3 Commissioners (Alonso-Zarazaga, Fortey and Macpherson) voted FOR the proposals, 19 Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bohme and Kerzhner abstained, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence. No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes and the issue is left open for subsequent workers to follow the precepts of the Code or to make new proposals to the Commission. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 149 OPINION 2032 (Case 3148) CLARIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera): spelling emended to CLARIAIDAE SO removing homonymy with CLARIIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes) Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the homonymy between the family-group names CLARIIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonoy, 1990 (Rotifera) and CLARIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes) is removed by emending the spelling of the rotifer family-group name by adopting the full genus name as the stem, giving the corresponding family-group name CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990. The fish name CLARIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 remains unchanged. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Rotifera; Osteichthyes; CLARIAIDAE; CLARIIDAE; Claria; Clarias; rotifers; air breathing (labyrinth) catfishes. Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that for the purposes of Article 29.1 of the Code the stem of the generic name Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 is CLARIA-. (2) The name Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Claria segmentata Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonoyv, 1990 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology (Rotifera). (3) The name segmentata Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, as published in the binomen Claria segmentata (specific name of the type species of Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Rotifera). (4) The name CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, type genus Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology (Rotifera). (5) The name cLarmpAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (spelling emended to CLARIAIDAE by the ruling in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (Rotifera). History of Case 3148 An application to remove the homonymy between the family-group names CLARHDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990 (Rotifera) and CLARIIDAE Bonaparte, 1846 (Osteichthyes) by emending the spelling of the rotifer family-group name by adopting the full genus name as the stem, giving the corresponding family-group name CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, was received from L.A. Kutikova (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia) on 19 October 1999. After correspondence the case was 150 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 published in BZN 58: 275-276 (December 2001). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received. Decision of the Commission On | December 2002 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 58: 276. At the close of the voting period on | March 2003 the votes were as follows: 23 Commissioners voted FOR the proposals, no Commissioners voted AGAINST, Bohme abstained, no vote was received from Mahnert, Ng was on leave of absence. Original references The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Claria Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 118. CLARIAIDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 118. CLARHDAE Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonov, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 118. segmentata, Claria, Kutikova, Markevich & Spiridonoy, 1990, Rotifera. Proceedings of the third All-Union Rotifer symposium, p. 120. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 60(2) June 2003 151 OPINION 2033 (Case 3156) Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860 (currently Lepidochitona lepida; Mollusca, Polyplacophora): specific name conserved Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860, for a chiton (currently Lepidochitona lepida, family 1sCcHNOCHITONIDAE, sub- family LEPIDOCHITONINAE) from the Middle Miocene of Europe, is conserved. The specific name was threatened by a senior primary homonym Chiton lepidus Gould, 1859 (family ISCHNOCHITONIDAE, subfamily ISCHNOCHITONINAE), the name used for a Recent species from the Indo-Pacific. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidochitona lepida: 1SCHNOCHITONIDAE; ISCHNOCHITONINAE;