fone we titueg ' a tae Sue ' BN AT Bs ry Ane: i ales ee
| a i sles
y mt She
Veoratstebs tert pes renin Breer anes
Habesisey unghicae Rent
; arch 2 N 0007-5167
The
Bulletin
Be aigical —
at a on ey Nome =
- er n
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2006 is £140 or US$250 or €250, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £70 or US$125 or €125. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to: The Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers President Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa) Vice-President Vacant
Executive Secretary Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.)
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof A. Minelli (taly; Myriapoda)
Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Crustacea, Ichthyology) Prof D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera)
(South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof P. Stys Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Mr J. van Tol Dr V. Mahnert (The Netherlands; Odonata)
(Switzerland; Ichthyology) ~-
Secretariat
Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor) Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer)
Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Zoologist)
Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) Dr M. K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2006
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 63, part | (pp. 1-84) 31 March 2006
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited.
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 62, part 4, 16 December 2005) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3365: Atractus Wagler, 1828 and A tractus trilineatus Wagler, 1828 (Reptilia, Serpentes): proposed precedence over Brachyura Kuhl, 1820 and Brachyorrhos kuhli Boie in Schlegel, 1826. M.S. Hoogmoed & J.M. Savage.
CASE 3366: Cisseis Gory & Laporte, 1839 and Curis Gory & Laporte, 1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation. C.L. Bellamy.
CASE 3367: Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. M.G. Morris.
CASE 3368: Eatoniella Dall, 1876 and EATONIELLIDAE Ponder, 1965 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed conservation. D. Kadolsky.
No
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
CASE 3369: Bothynus Hope, 1837 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Scarabaeus ascanius as the type species. B.C. Ratcliffe & A.B.T. Smith.
CASE 3370: AKERIDAE, BITHYNIIDAE and HYDROBIIDAE (Mollusca, Gastropoda): proposed correction of authorship and date to Férussac, 1822, Gray in Turton, 1857, and Stimpson, 1865 respectively. D. Kadolsky.
CASE 3371: ARANEIDAE Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation. N.J. Kluge.
CASE 3372: Brachyplatystoma Bleeker, 1862 (Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): pro- posed precedence over Piratinga Bleeker, 1858 and Piramutana Bleeker, 1858. A. Akama & J.G. Lundberg.
CASE 3373: Ateles geoffroyi (Mammalia, Primates): proposed attribution of authorship to Kuhl, 1820. C. Groves, J.J.H. Hines & P.D. Jenkins.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
The aim of the Commission is to bring stability to the use of animal names (zoological nomenclature). The Commission does this by:
(a) producing, publishing and periodically revising the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), which deals with the formulation and use of animal names;
(b) considering and ruling on specific cases of nomenclatural uncertainty and dispute about animal names that are not automatically resolved under the provisions of the Code, via applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. :
The International Congress of Zoology founded the Commission in 1895. At present, the Commission consists of 19 zoologists from 16 countries whose interests cover most of the main divisions, including palaeontology, of the animal kingdom. The Commission is under the patronage of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS). Commission members are elected by the vote of zoologists attending General Assemblies of the IUBS or other appropriate congresses. Nomi- nations for membership may be sent to the Executive Secretary at any time. The Commission’s history is described in Towards Stability in the Names of Animals (1995) (see below under ‘Publications’ for details). Further discussion of the Commission’s activities can be found in BZN 48: 295-299 (December 1991) and BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003).
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 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 (President)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 3
Dr D.R. Calder, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen’s Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C6
Dr R.B. Halliday, CSIRO Division of Entomology, G.P.O. Box 1700, Canberra, A.C.T. 2601, Australia
Dr I.M. Kerzhner, Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, St Petersburg 199034, Russia (Councillor)
Prof Dr G. Lamas, Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14-0434, Lima-14, Peru
Dr E. Macpherson, Centro d’Estudios Avangats de Blanes (C.S.I.C.), Cami de Santa Barbara s/n, 17300 Blanes, Girona, Spain
Dr V. Mahnert, Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Geneve 6, Switzerland
Prof S.F. Mawatari, Zoological Institute, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060, Japan
Prof A. Minelli, Dipartimento di Biologia, Universita di Padova, Via Trieste 75, 35121 Padova, Italy
Dr P.K.L. Ng, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260
Dr L. Papp, Hungarian Museum of Natural History, Baross utca 13, H-1088 Budapest, Hungary
Prof D.J. Patterson, Bay Paul Center, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A.
Dr G. Rosenberg, Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA 19103-1195, U.S.A.
Prof D.X. Song, College of Life Sciences, Hebei University, Baoding, Hebei Province, 071002 China
Dr P. Stys, Department of Zoology, Charles University, Viniéna 7, 128 44 Praha 2, Czech Republic
Mr J. van Tol, Naturalis, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Darwinweg 3, 2333 CR Leiden, The Netherlands
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity, based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 26 members from 13 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003).
Members of the Trust The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman) (U.K.) Dr M.K. Howarth (Secretary and Managing Director) (U.K.) Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium) Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) Dr Keiji Baba (Japan) Prof D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Prof J.H. Callomon (U.K.)
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Prof W.T. Chang (China)
Dr J.A. Compton (U.K.)
Dr M. Dixon (U.K.)
Prof J. Forest (France)
Prof R.A. Fortey (U.K.)
Prof J.I. dos R. Furtado (Singapore) Dr. S. Knapp (U.K.)
Prof Dr O. Kraus (Germany) Dr Ch. Kropf (Switzerland)
Dr M. Luc (France)
Mr A. McCullough (U.K.)
Dr E. Macpherson (Spain)
Prof A. Minelli (Italy)
Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.)
Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.)
Dr E.P.F. Rose (U.K.)
Dr J. Taverne (U.K.)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.) Baroness Walmsley (U.K.)
The Commission’s Website
Abstracts of Applications, Comments and Opinions, and details of the names included in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology since 2000, are posted on the Commission’s website ‘www.iczn.org’.
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 English and French in 1999, and came into effect on 1 January 2000; this edition supersedes all previous editions. Official texts are available in Catalonian, Chinese, Czech, German, Japanese, Russian, Spanish and Ukrainian. 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 subspeciés 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 at the end of March, June and September and mid-December. The Bulletin includes Applications relating to animal names, Comments on Applications and Opinions giving the Commission’s eventual rulings based on the Commissioners’ votes. Each Opinion published in the Bulletin is an Official ruling of the Commission and comes into effect on the day of publication of the Bulletin. The Opinions are summarised in the Official Lists and Indexes of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 5
Names and Works in Zoology. The Bulletin also includes papers on general nomenclatural issues and proposed amendments to the Code. See below under ‘Publications’ for how to subscribe to the Bulletin and for details about the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology.
Publications
All publications listed below may be ordered from: ITZN, c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, 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), Dr E. Hoberg, U.S. National Parasite Collection, ARS/USDA, Bldg. 1180, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705-2350, U.S.A. (e-mail: ehoberg@anri.barc.usda.gov).
Prices listed below include surface postage. Please send payment with orders. Cheques should be made out to ‘ITZN’ (in sterling or dollars) or to “AAZN’ (in dollars only). Visa or MasterCard payments can be made to ITZN only; AAZN is not able to handle credit card payments. Please give cardholder’s name, address, card number and expiry date when ordering.
The Bulletin subscription for 2006 is £140 or US$250 or €250, including postage by accelerated surface post. Individual subscribers for personal use have a 50% discount making the subscription £70 or US$125 or €125.
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 or €65, including surface postage. Individual purchasers buying the Code for personal use are offered a 25% discount (£30 or US$48 or €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 £24, $39 or €39). 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
Czech — klapagenda@centrum.cz
German — books@insecta.de
Japanese — tomokuni@kahaku.go.jp
Russian — kim@ik3599.spb.edu
Spanish — cfuentes@mncn.csic.es
The Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology gives details of all the names and publications on which the Commission has ruled since it was set up in 1895. The first volume published in 1987 contains 9917 entries, and a Supplement (2001) lists an additional 2385 entries. The cost of the 1987 volume and of the Supplement is £60 or US$110 or €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 the Commission’s Centenary. This book (104 pages) contains 18 full-page illustrations, 14 being of eminent zoologists who played a crucial part in the development of animal nomenclature. The cost is £30 or US$50 or €50.
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Report on the ZooBank Symposium: ESA Annual Meeting, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 18 December 2005
Frank Krell, Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London and Andrew Polaszek, Executive Secretary, ICZN
A meeting to present and discuss the ZooBank registry and other aspects of animal nomenclature and taxonomy was held as a late breaking symposium during the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America. The meeting was arranged as a series of six presentations, preceded by an introduction from Frank Krell, organiser of the symposium, and followed by a panel discussion.
The title and content of the symposium were as follows:
‘Revolutionising taxonomy through an open-access web-register for animal names and descriptions’
13.30-13.35: Frank Krell (Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London, U.K.):
Welcome and Introduction
13.35—13.50: Andrew Polaszek (ICZN, London):
‘ZooBank: ICZN’s open-access web-based register of all new animal names and original descriptions’
13.50-14.00: Nigel Robinson (Thomson Zoological, York, U.K.):
‘ZooBank and Zoological Record: a partnership for success’
14.00-14.10: Per de Place Bjorn (GBIF, Copenhagen, Denmark):
‘ZooBank and GBIF’
14.10-14.25: Richard Pyle (Bishop Museum, Honolulu):
‘Implementing the Digital Taxonomic Revolution: Strategies for a Successful Web- Based Registry of Taxonomic Names’
14.25-14.35: Norman Johnson (Ohio State University, Columbus) & Donat Agosti (American Museum of Natural History, New York):
‘Copyright: the new taxonomic impediment’
14.35—14.45: James Woolley (Texas A&M University): ‘Name accessibility: one less impediment to taxonomy’
14.45—-15.30: Panel discussion
The presentations and discussion attracted a large and lively audience providing much discussion and debate. Detailed summaries of each presentation will be given in the next issue of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and the Powerpoint presentations can also be currently accessed via the ICZN website. Nigel Robinson’s presentation was given by a remote audio link, and Rich Pyle’s by both audio and video. We therefore express our gratitude to Grayson Brown and his team, particularly Kate Elliott for technical support, and the symposium’s organisers, Susan Weller and Kathleen Shields.
During the annual meeting of the Entomological Collections Network (ECN), held in conjunction with ESA on 14-15 December, Frank Krell also addressed the subject of ZooBank.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 7
We thank the following organisations for supporting our participation in the meeting and for their support of ZooBank: Global Biodiversity Information Facility; the Natural History Museum, London; Taylor and Francis Ltd, U.K.; Thomson
Zoological Ltd; the Royal Entomological Society of London; and Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford.
jand Publication
is! ; Thelprocess of entering a complete record in the ZooBank registry.
Publication IGZN:compliant published| works, as
ZooBank Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, 18 December 2005; clockwise from top left: Rich Pyle in a live video link from Honolulu describes the ZooBank Registry proposal; Jim Woolley (speaker), Luciana Musetti and Norm Johnson (speaker); the audience; discussion panel: Per de Place Bjorn (GBIF); Jim Woolley (Texas A&M University); Andrew Polaszek (ICZN); Norm Johnson (Ohio State University); Frank-Thorsten Krell (Natural History Museum, London). Photographs: Kate Elliott.
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Case 3315
Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype
Antonio C. Marques
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociéncias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, CP 11461, 05422-970, Sdo Paulo, SP, Brazil (e-mail: marques@ib.usp.br)
Willem Vervoort
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
(e-mail: vervoort@naturalis.nnm.nl)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 in its accustomed usage for a small, distinctive, and widely distributed marine hydroid (family EUDENDRIIDAE) from North America, Europe and Japan. This name has been widely used for this hydroid since 1899, but Allman’s (1877) type material of E. tenellum lacks both hydranths and gonophores, essential for specific identification within the genus Eudendrium, and is possibly conspecific with E. capillare Alder, 1856, while the species E. tenellum is unrecognizable from its original description. It is proposed that all previous type fixations for Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 are set aside and a neotype designated in accordance with Hirohito’s (1988) description of Eudendrium tenellum.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hydrozoa; EUDENDRIIDAE; Eudendrium; Eudendrium tenellum; Eudendrium capillare; hydroids.
1. Allman (1877, p. 8, pl. 4, figs. 3-4) established the name Eudendrium tenellum for a colonial hydroid collected at a depth of 862 m off Double-Headed Shot Key (Florida, U.S.A). The type material studied by Allman, lacking hydranths and gonophores, is deposited in the collection of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University (a jar labelled “MCZ 50235; colony without gonophores, U.S.A., off Florida, off Double-Head Shot Key, Gulf Stream Expedition, 23°57'30’N, 80°29'15”W, alcohol preserved, 10.11.1869, 862 m, leg. L.F. de Pourtalés, det. G.J. Allman, holotype, with no hydranths’). Allman (1877, p. 8) himself had doubts about the identity of this hydroid, remarking that ‘its reference to this genus is probably correct, but as neither hydranths nor gonophores were present in the specimen, it may possibly have its true place in some other’.
2. Although the description provided by Allman (1877) was entirely inadequate for recognition of E. tenellum, many authors subsequently used this name for a small and
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 9
distinctive species of hydroid (e.g. Bonnevie, 1899a, pp. 7-8, 1899b, pp. 49-50; Stechow, 1923, p. 80; Fraser, 1937, p. 43, pl. 8, fig. 33, 1944, pp. 74-75, pl. 12, fig. 50, 1948, pp. 183, 198; Kramp, 1943, pp. 16, 43; Yamada, 1954, p. 127, text-fig. 15, 1959, p. 26; Calder, 1972, p. 226, pl. 2, fig. 6; Hirohito, 1977, pp. 12-13, text-fig. 3, 1988, p. 88, fig. 31d-h). Eudendrium tenellum auct. is recognizable from the morphology of its hydranths and gonophores (Calder, 1972; Hirohito, 1977) and from its comp- lement of nematocysts or cnidome (Hirohito, 1988). The presence of these characters and their nature is now considered critical for the differentiation of species assigned to the family EUDENDRIIDAE (Marques et al., 2000a, 2000b; Marques, 2001).
3. At present two distinctive species are cited in the literature under the name Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877. Colonies of both Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 and E. tenellum auct. resemble those of Eudendrium capillare Alder, 1856. Naumov (1960, p. 244), and later Christiansen (1972, p. 290), regarded E. tenellum as a junior synonym of E. capillare. Contrary opinions were expressed by Calder (1972, p. 226) and Hirohito (1977, p. 13), who considered E. tenellum auct. distinct in having smaller and less-branched colonies, and in possessing gonophores on complete rather than atrophied hydranths (Calder, 1988, p. 43).
4. As part of studies on the genus Eudendrium, we recently examined the type material of E. tenellum described by Allman (1877). The cnidome, from an examination of scarce coenosare material, was found to comprise small microbasic euryteles as in E. capillare. On the other hand, the study of Hirohito’s (1988) material of E. tenellum auct. (the female colonies numbered 1078 (Japan, Samejima, Hayama, 11.vi.1934)) revealed the presence of macrobasic euryteles, 20-27 x 7-10 um. There- fore, while the identity of Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 remains in doubt, we consider it possibly conspecific with Eudendrium capillare Alder, 1856 and clearly different from Eudendrium tenellum auct., a well-known hydroid with widespread distribution.
Proposed neotype of Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877. A. One fascicled colony; B. Hydranth; C. Immature female gonophores; D. Mature female gonophores. (Scale bars: A=2mm; B,C,D= 200 microns).
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
5. In order to conserve the specific name Eudendrium tenellum in its accustomed use, we propose that all previous type fixations for E. tenellum Allman, 1877 are set aside and that a neotype consistent with common usage is designated; a suitable specimen as the neotype would be a colony from a jar labelled 1078 (Japan, Samejima, Hayama, 11.vi.1934, no depth, alcohol preserved, det. Hirohito; to be deposited in the collection of the United States National Museum, Washington D.C.) described by Hirohito (1988).
6. 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 Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 and to designate specimen 1078 described by Hirohito (1988) as the neotype;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tenellum
Allman, 1877, as published in the binomen Eudendrium tenellum and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.
References
Alder, J. 1856. A notice of some new genera and species of British hydroid zoophytes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, Series 2, 18(107): 353-362.
Allman, G.J. 1877. Report on the Hydroida collected during the exploration of the Gulf Stream by L.F. de Pourtalés, assistant United States Coast Survey. Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, 5(2): 1-66.
Bonnevie, K. 1899a. Neue norwegische Hydroiden. Bergens Museums Aarbog, 1898(5): 1-16.
Bonnevie, K. 1899b. Hydroida. In: Den Norske Nordhavs-Expedition 1876-1878, XXVI (Zoology): 1-104.
Calder, D.R. 1972. Some athecate hydroids from the shelf waters of northern Canada. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada, 29(3): 217-228.
Calder, D.R. 1988. Shallow-water hydroids of Bermuda. The Athecatae. Life Sciences Contributions, Royal Ontario Museum, 148: 1-107.
Christiansen, B.O. 1972. The hydroid fauna of the Oslo Fjord in Norway. Norwegian Journal of Zoology, 20: 279-310.
Fraser, C.M. 1937. Hydroids of the Pacific coast of Canada and the United States. 208 pp. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Fraser, C.M. 1944. Hydroids of the Atlantic coast of North America. 451 pp. University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Fraser, C.M. 1948. Hydroids of the Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions since March, 1938. Allan Hancock Pacific Expeditions, 4(5): 179-343.
Hirohito. 1977. Five hydroid species from the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea. Publications of the Biological Laboratory, Imperial Household, Tokyo, 1977(11): 1-26.
Hirohito. 1988. The hydroids of Sagami Bay. (Part 1. Athecata). Publications of the Biological Laboratory, Imperial Household, Tokyo, 1988: 1-179 (English text), 1-110 (Japanese text).
Kramp, P.L. 1943. Hydroida. In: The Zoology of East Greenland. Meddelelser om Grénland, 121(11): 1-52.
Marques, A.C. 2001. O género Eudendrium (Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae, Eudendriidae) no
Brasil. Papéis avulsos de Zoologia, 41(22): 329-405.
Marques, A.C., Mergner, H., Héinghaus, R., Santos, C.M.D. & Vervoort, W. 2000a. Morpho-
logical study and taxonomical notes on Eudendriideae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa:
Athecatae/Anthomedusae). Zoologische Mededelingen, Leiden, 74(5): 75-118.
Marques, A.C., Pena Cantero, A.L. & Vervoort, W. 2000b. Mediterranean species of
Eudendrium (Hydrozoa, Anthomedusae, Eudendriidae) with the description of a new
species. Journal of Zoology, 252(2): 197-213.
Naumov, D. 1960. Gidroidy i gidromeduzy morskikh, solonovatovodnykh i presnovodnykh basseinov SSSR. Opredeleteli po faune SSSR, Izdavaemye Zoologicheskim Institutom
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 11
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 70: 1-626. (Russian). English translation by Israel Program for scientific translations, cat. no. 5108, as “Hydroids and Hydromedusae of the USSR’, \-631 (1969).
Stechow, E. 1923. Zur Kenntis der Hydroidenfauna des Mittelmeeres, Amerikas und anderer Gebiete. II. Teil. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abteilung fiir Systematik, Okologie und Geo- graphie der Tiere, 47(1): 29-270.
Yamada, M. 1954. Species of the genus Eudendrium from Japan. Publications from the Akkeshi Marine Biological Station, 2: 1-19.
Yamada, M. 1959. Hydroid fauna of Japanese and its adjacent waters. Publications from the Akkeshi Marine Biological Station, 9: 1-101.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this publication was published in BZN 61: 78.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Case 3300
Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 and Halipegus eccentricus Thomas, 1939 (Digenea, HEMIURIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific names
Donald F. McAlpine
New Brunswick Museum, 277 Douglas Avenue, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada E2K 1E5 (e-mail: donald.mcalpine@nbm-mnb.ca)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 and Recommendation 23A of the Code, is to conserve the specific names of Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 and Halipegus eccentricus Thomas, 1939 for two species of hemiurid digeneans known to parasitize ranid frogs and various freshwater pulmonate snails. The names are threatened by two senior names, the homonym Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905 and the synonym Cercaria projecta Willey, 1930.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Digenea; HEMIURIDAE; Halipegus occidualis; Cercaria projecta; Halipegus eccentricus; Halipegus projecta; Gastropoda; Helisoma anceps; Amphibia; RANIDAE; Rana catesbeiana; Rana clamitans; parasitic worms; North America.
1. Stafford (1905, p. 687) described the hemiurid parasite Halipegus occidualis on the basis of 37 specimens collected from the ‘mouth’ of the bullfrog Rana catesheiana Shaw, 1802 from eastern Canada. Previously Stafford (1900, p. 409) had misidentified the species as Halipegus ovocaudatum (Vulpian, 1859), but in that paper he was more specific about the site of collection within the host, stating that his collections came ‘more frequently from the eustachian tubes, in a fold along the inner edge of the jaw bone, at the entrance of the posterior nares and round the entrance to the oesophagus. In one frog I lately found 11 specimens of this worm chiefly at the entrance and even deep in the eustachian tube and at the entrance of the oesophagus’. Stafford (1900) also states “I have not yet seen [D. ovocadatum] . . . under the tongue.” Clearly, Stafford was looking for Halipegus under the tongue and did not find it there. However inadequate Stafford’s (1905, p. 688) description was, he also noted that the egg filament lengths on which he based his description were ‘about’ 56 tm, a detail later to prove of signifi- cance. Stafford (1905) did not designate type material or figure the species, although a recently discovered specimen of Halipegus from the Stafford Collection now in the Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa (CMNP 1900-1629) was probably used in the course of preparing the description and should therefore be considered a syntype.
2. The specimen (CMNP 1900-1629) bears the remains of an original University of Toronto label identifying it as Distomum ovocaudatum and a replacement label states it was collected from Rana castebeiana. Stafford (1900) listed his address as the Biological Department, University of Toronto, whereas by 1905 Stafford was writing from McGill University, Montreal, supporting the supposition that this specimen is one of the 37 worms on which Stafford (1905) based his description of Halipegus
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 13
occidualis. The specimen is 3.4 mm in length and 0.92 mm at greatest width, within the range of measurements reported by Stafford (1905) in his description. Nine egg filament lengths I was able to measure are 47 um, 47 um, 48 um, 48 um, 48 um, 49 um, 50m, 52 um and 53 um. These measurements are clearly incomplete; as McAlpine and Burt (1998) noted, it is virtually impossible to get precise egg filament measurements from mounted Halipegus in utero. Nonetheless, it is obvious that the egg filaments in CMNP 1900-1629 are of the short filament type and cannot be confused with the egg filaments of 160-200 um reported by Krull (1935).
3. Krull (1935, p. 129), recognizing the inadequacies of Stafford’s (1905) descrip- tion, redescribed, figured and worked out the life cycle of worms he believed were Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905. Krull (1935, p. 135) collected the worms on which he worked from ‘under the tongue of a large green frog, Rana clamitans’ from Maryland and reported egg filaments of 160-200 um. However, due to the in- adequacy of Stafford’s (1905) description and the detail provided by Krull (1935), the latter description has provided the basis for usage of the name H. occidualis for a parasite possessing long-type egg filaments found under the tongue of frogs (Goater, Mulvey & Esch, 1990; Zelmer & Esch, 1999). Although, Krull’s (1935) material is no longer extant, material deposited in the United States National Parasite Collection by D.A. Zelmer (Zelmer & Esch, 1999) has been identified as H. occidualis on the basis of the description by Krull (1935). I therefore here designate one of these specimens (USNPC 087687.00) as the neotype of H. occidualis Krull, 1935.
4. Thomas (1939, p. 207) described, figured, and worked out the life cycle of Halipegus eccentricus, which he believed was distinct from H. occidualis Stafford, 1905, on the basis of worms collected from wild-caught R. catesbeiana and R. clamitans Latreille, 1801 from Michigan and laboratory-reared Rana pipiens Schreber, 1782. Thomas (1939, p. 208) reported that adult worms were collected from the eustachian tube of frogs and had an egg filament length of 56-58 um. Therefore, from the original description, Halipegus eccentricus seems to be essentially identical with the nominal species H. occidualis (see Stafford, 1900, 1905). The holotype designated by Thomas (1939, p. 208) is in the United States National Parasite Collection, Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Centre near Washington, D.C. (USNPC 9203). Adult worms of North American species of Halipegus are virtually indistinguishable although their cystophorus cercariae are unique. However, adults of H. occidualis (sensu Krull, 1935) and H. eccentricus Thomas, 1939 may be separated on the basis of molecular methods, site of infection and length of egg filaments (Goater, Browne & Esch, 1990; Goater, Mulvey & Esch, 1990). Not surprisingly, the matter has become confused in that workers have widely followed the description by Thomas (1939) and have applied the name H. eccentricus to worms with a short egg filament taken from the eustachian tubes of frogs (e.g. Ameel, Cort & Van Der Woude, 1949; Goater, Mulvey & Esch, 1990; Guilford, 1961; Wetzel & Esch, 1996a, 1996b, 1997; Zelmer & Esch, 1999).
5. Since these Halipegus species mature under the tongue or in the eustachian tubes of the definitive amphibian host, both worm and host can be examined in the field and released unharmed. For this reason, these digeneans have offered unique opportunities to link host behavioural ecology with parasite population dynamics. North American Halipegus species have been the focus of numerous recent research projects (Crews & Esch, 1986; Shostak & Esch, 1990a, 1990b; Fernandez & Esch,
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
1991la, 1991b; Wetzel & Esch, 1996a; Esch, Wetzel, Zelmer & Schotthoefer, 1997; Zelmer & Esch, 1998; Zelmer, Wetzel & Esch, 1999) and undoubtedly will be the subject of such studies in the future. The description of H. eschi Zelmer & Brooks 2000, from Costa Rica, and the recent discovery of this species in. Mexican frogs, further emphasizes the importance of resolving the current usage of the names of North American Halipegus.
6. McAlpine & Burt (1998) published the new combination Halipegus projecta (Willey, 1930) for the species Krull (1935) identified as H. occidualis. Krull (1935, p. 131) also suggested that his worms might well be the same species described and figured as Cercaria projecta in the cercarial stage by Willey (1930, p. 481) from the pulmonate snail Helisoma anceps (Menke, 1830); McAlpine & Burt (1998) agreed. No type material of C. projecta seems to exist and the name had been unused until it was resurrected by McAlpine & Burt (1998). Although I still believe, with Krull (1935), that C. projecta is likely to be a senior synonym for H. occidualis sensu Krull (1935), due to the absence of type material and inadequacies in the original description by Willey (1930), the nominal species Cercaria projecta cannot be identified without doubt. In the interests of avoiding further confusion within the genus Halipegus, the name should be suppressed as a nomen dubium.
7. McAlpine & Burt (1998), contrary to the then prevailing usage (e.g. Ameel, Cort & Van Der Woude, 1949; Crews & Esch, 1986; Fernandez & Esch, 1991a; Jones, 1956; Goater, Browne & Esch, 1990; Goater, Mulvey & Esch, 1990; Guilford, 1961; Shostak & Esch, 1990a; Wetzel & Esch 1997; Zelmer, Wetzel & Esch, 1999), followed the Principle of Priority for North American species of Halipegus. Zelmer & Esch (1999) objected, stating that such a proposal undermined nomenclatural stability within the genus. Nonetheless, Zelmer & Esch (1999, p. 159) further confused the matter by reporting that the name H. occidualis remained unstable for lack of a name-bearing type and suggested that Stafford’s original description was a composite of more than one species. They then attempted to stabilize the name by describing characters of the terminal genitalia of adult specimens selected in the cercarial stage on the basis of the description provided by Krull (1935).
8. The nomenclatural history of North American Halipegus species is confusing. Neither McAlpine & Burt (1998) nor Zelmer & Esch (1999), in spite of their efforts, have reduced this confusion. Conservation of the name Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 as a then new nominal species and suppression of the names H. occidualis Stafford, 1905 as a senior homonym of doubtful identity and Cercaria projecta Willey, 1930, as a nomen dubium, would allow application of the name H. occidualis Krull, 1935 to worms with long-type egg filaments parasitic under the tongue of frogs. The name Halipegus eccentricus Thomas, 1939 could then be applied to those worms with short-type egg filaments inhabiting the eustachian tubes of frogs, thereby conserving prevailing usage. The case is referred to the Commission under Article 23.9.3 and Recommendation 23A of the Code.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy the name occidualis Stafford, 1905, as published in
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 15
the binomen Halipegus occidualis, and all uses of the name prior to that by Krull (1935);
(b) to suppress for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy the name projecta Willey, 1930, as published in the binomen Cercaria projecta;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) occidualis, Krull, 1935, as published in the binomen Halipegus occidualis;
(b) eccentricus Thomas, 1939, as published in the binomen Halipegus eccentricus;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) occidualis Stafford, 1905, as published in the binomen Halipegus occidualis, and as suppressed as in (1) (a) above;
(b) projecta Willey, 1930, as published in the binomen Cercaria projecta, and as suppressed as in (1) (b) above.
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Ms Judith Price, Invertebrate Section, Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, for making specimens available to me and for her great patience as I very slowly worked over an early draft of this material. Dr Derek Zelmer was kind enough to comment on the manuscript.
References
Ameel, D.J., Cort, W.W. & Van Der Woude, A. 1949. Germinal development in the mother sporocyst and redia of Halipegus eccentricus Thomas, 1939. Journal of Parasitology, 35: 569-578.
Crews, A.E. & Esch, G.W. 1986. Seasonal dynamics of Halipegus occidualis (Trematoda: Hemiuridae) in Helisoma anceps and its impact on the fecundity of the snail host. Journal of Parasitology, 72: 646-651.
Esch, G.W., Wetzel, E.J., Zelmer, D.A. & Schotthoefer, A.M. 1997. Long-term changes in parasite population and community structure: a case history. American Midland Natural- ist, 137: 369-387.
Fernandez, J. & Esch, G.W. 1991a. Guild structure of larval trematodes in the snail, Helisoma anceps: patterns and processes at the individual host level. Journal of Parasitology, 77: 528-539.
Fernandez, J. & Esch, G.W. 1991b. The component community structure of larval trematodes in the pulmonate snail Helisoma anceps. Journal of Parasitology, 77: 540-550.
Goater, T.M., Browne, C.L. & Esch, G.W. 1990. On the life history and functional morphology of Halipegus occidualis (Trematoda: Hemiuridae), with emphasis on the cystophorous cercaria stage. International Journal of Parasitology, 20: 923-934.
Goater, T.M., Mulvey, M. & Esch, G.W. 1990. Electrophoretic differentiation of two Halipegus (Trematoda: Hemiuridae) congeners in an amphibian population. Journal of Parasitology, 76: 431-434.
Guilford, H.G. 1961. Gametogenesis, egg-capsule formation, and early miracidial development in the digenetic trematode Halipegus eccentricus Thomas. Journal of Parasitology, 47: 757-164.
Jones, A.W. 1956. The chromosomes of a species of Halipegus Loos, 1899 (Digenea: Hemiuridae). Journal of the Tennessee Academy of Science, 31: 186-187.
Krull, W.H. 1935. Studies on the life history of Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905. American Midland Naturalist, 16(2):; 129-143.
McAlpine, D.F. & Burt, M.D.B. 1998. Taxonomic status of Halipegus spp. (Digenea: Derogenidae) parasitic in the mouth and eustachian tubes of North American and
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Mexican amphibians. Journal of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 65: 10-15.
Shostak, A.W. & Esch, G.W. 1990a. Temperature effects on survival and excystment of cercariae of Halipegus occidualis (Trematoda). International Journal of Parasitology, 20: 95-99.
Shostak, A.W. & Esch, G.W. 1990b. Photocycle-dependent emergence by cercariae of Halipegus occidualis from Helisoma anceps, with special reference to cercarial emergence patterns as adaptations to transmission. Journal of Parasitology, 76: 790-795.
Stafford, J. 1900. Some undescribed trematodes. Zoologische Jahrbiicher, Abtheilung fiir Systematik, Geographie, und Biologie, 13: 399-414.
Stafford, J. 1905. Trematodes from Canadian vertebrates. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 28: 681-694.
Thomas, L.J. 1939. Life cycle of a fluke, Halipegus eccentricus n.sp. found in the ears of frogs. Journal of Parasitology, 25: 207-221.
Wetzel, E.J. & Esch, G.W. 1996a. Seasonal population dynamics of Halipegus occidualis and Halipegus eccentricus (Digenea: Hemiuridae) in their amphibian host, Rana clamitans. Journal of Parasitology, 82: 414-422.
Wetzel, E.J. & Esch, G.W. 1996b. Influence of odonate intermediate host ecology on the infection dynamics of Halipegus spp., Haematoloechus longiplexus, and Haematoloechus complexus (Trematoda: Digenea). Journal of the Helminthological Society of Washington, 63: 1-7.
Wetzel, E.J. & Esch, G.W. 1997. Infrapopulation dynamics of Halipegus occidualis and Halipegus eccentricus (Digenea: Hemiuridae): Temporal changes within individual hosts. Journal of Parasitology, 83: 1019-1024.
Willey, C.H. 1930. A cystophorous cercaria, C. projecta n.sp. from the snail, Helisoma antrosa, North America. Parasitology, 22: 481-489.
Zelmer, D.A. & Esch, G.W. 1998. Bridging the gap: the odonate naiad as a paratenic host for Halipegus occidualis. Journal of Parasitology, 84: 94-96.
Zelmer, D.A. & Esch, G.W. 1999. Reevaluation of the taxonomic status of Halipegus occidualis Stafford, 1905 (Digenea: Hemturidae). Journal of Parasitology, 85: 157-160.
Zelmer, D.A., Wetzel, E.J. & Esch, G.W. 1999. The role of habitat in structuring Halipegus occidualis metapopulations in the green frog. Journal of Parasitology, 85: 19-24.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 262.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 17
Case 3331
Cambalida- coriacea Simon, 1909 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the specific name by the suppression of Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896
Charles R. Haddad
Department of Zoology & Entomology, University of the Free State, P.O. Box 339, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa (e-mail: haddadcr.sci@mail.uovs.ac.za)
Abstract. The purpose of the application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 for a species of spider from Africa. The name is threatened by the discovery that the type specimen of Cambalida coriacea is the same species as that of Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896. The senior synonym has not been used for the taxon since it was established and its proposed suppression would maintain nomenclatural stability.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLUBIONIDAE; MICARIINAE; CORINNIDAE; Cambalida; Cambalida coriacea; Afrotropical Region; spiders. :
1. Simon (1909, p. 369) established the nominal genus Cambalida with the type species Cambalida insulana Simon, 1909 (p. 369) (CLUBIONIDAE, MICARIINAE) from Annobon Island, west of Gabon. Two additional species were described in the genus Cambalida in the same paper, C. fulvipes (p. 369) from Bolama, Portuguese Guinea (Guinée Bissau) and C. coriacea (p. 370) from Freetown, Sierra Leone. One species in particular, C. coriacea, is widespread throughout the Afrotropical Region and 1s associated with a wide diversity of habitats including forests, woodlands, savanna, grassland and fynbos, as well as agroecosystems.
2. The CoRINNIDAE remains one of the most poorly-studied families of spiders in the Afrotropical Region (Dippenaar-Schoeman & Jocqué, 1997; Haddad, 2004) and many species have been referred to only in their original descriptions (see Platnick, 2004). Cambalida is no exception to this paucity of taxonomic research, with only one reference to C. coriacea having been published since the original description (Bosselaers & Jocqué, 2000). The nominal genus Cambalida was included in the family LIOCRANIDAE following Lehtinen’s (1967, pp. 290-292) revision of the status of the clubionid subfamily LiocRANINAE to family rank. Brignoli (1983) then transferred Cambalida from the CLUBIONIDAE (p. 547) to the GNAPHOSIDAE (MICARIINAE incertae sedis), but under this family-group placement (p. 582) he added a note on Cambalida: ‘uncertain position according to Reiskind, 1969: 196’. Platnick (1989, p. 433; 1993, p. 600; 1997, p. 695) followed Lehtinen’s placement and listed Cambalida under the family LIOcRANIDAE. Recently, Dippenaar-Schoeman & Jocqué (1997, p. 128) listed Cambalida under the CoRINNIDAE (CASTIANEIRINAE) Without formally transferring the genus from the LIOCRANIDAE, an action which was undertaken soon afterwards by Bosselaers & Jocqué (2000, p. 315). This was supported by a cladistic analysis
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
undertaken by Bosselaers & Jocqué (2002, p. 264), who found Cambalida to be one of the most closely related genera to the castianeirine type genus Castianeira Keyserling, 1879.
3. During a revision of the genus in southern and central Africa it has been discovered that the holotype of Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 (p. 406), described from Pretoria, South Africa, agrees with that of Cambalida coriacea, rendering C. fulvipes a senior synonym. However, this species should in fact be placed in Cambalida and not Castianeira. All species in the genus Cambalida have exceptionally large eyes for castianeirines and all males appear to have diagnostic setae at the distal end of the cymbium, which are arranged in two or three columns of three setae each. Castianeira depygata Strand, 1916 (p. 91) and Castianeira mestrali Lessert, 1921 (p. 424) are also junior synonyms of this species. Synonymy of these nominal species would give the name Cambalida fulvipes (Simon, 1896) priority over Cambalida fulvipes Simon, 1909, which is in current use as the valid name for another taxon. Confusion would result from the use of C. fulvipes (Simon, 1896) for the taxon currently known as C. coriacea. The name C. fulvipes Simon, 1909 would therefore be invalid as a junior secondary homonym.
4. The conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 have been met in this case (that the senior synonym has not been used as a valid name since 1899). However, the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 (that the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years) have not been met. The latter is a consequence of the limited study of this family in the Afrotropical Region. It is proposed that the name Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896 be suppressed to prevent confusion. The name C. coriacea would thereby be conserved.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name fulvipes Simon, 1896, as published in the binomen Castianeira fulvipes, 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 coriacea Simon, 1909, as published in the binomen Cambalida coriacea;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name fu/vipes Simon, 1896, as published in the binomen Cas- tianeira fulvipes and as suppressed in (1) above.
References
Bosselaers, J. & Jocqué, R. 2000. Studies in Corinnidae: transfer of four genera and description of the female of Lessertina mutica Lawrence 1942. Tropical Zoology, 13: 305-325.
Bosselaers, J. & Jocqué, R. 2002. Studies in Corinnidae: cladistic analysis of 38 corinnid and liocranid genera, and transfer of Phrurolithinae. Zoologica Scripta, 31: 241-270.
Brignoli, P.M. 1983. 4 catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981. 755 pp. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Dippenaar-Schoeman, A.S. & Jocqué, R. 1997. African spiders: an identification manual. 392 pp. Plant Protection Research Institute Handbook No. 9, Agricultural Research Council, Pretoria.
Haddad, C.R. 2004. A revision of the African spider genus Graptartia Simon, 1896 (Araneae: Corinnidae). African Entomology, 12: 71-81.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 19
Lehtinen, P.T. 1967. Classification of the cribellate spiders and some allied families, with notes on the evolution of the suborder Araneomorpha. Annales Zoologici Fennici, 4: 199-468.
Lessert, R. de. 1921. Araignées du Kilimandjaro et du Merou (suite). 4. Clubionidae. Revue suisse de Zoologie, 28: 381-442.
Platnick, N.I. 1989. Advances in Spider Taxonomy 1981-1987: A Supplement to Brignoli’s ‘A Catalogue of the Araneae described between 1940 and 1981’. 673 pp. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Platnick, N.I. 1993. Advances in spider taxonomy 1988-1991, with synonymies and transfers 1940-1980. 846 pp. New York Entomological Society, New York.
Platnick, N.I. 1997. Advances in spider taxonomy 1992-1995 with redescriptions 1940-1980. 976 pp. New York Entomological Society, New York.
Platnick, N.I. 2004. The World Spider Catalog, version 5.0. American Museum of Natural History, online at http://research.amnh.org/entomology/spiders/catalog/index.html
Simon, E. 1896. Descriptions d’arachnides nouveaux de la famille des Clubionidae. Annales de la Société entomologique de Belgique, 40: 400-422.
Simon, E. 1909. Arachnides recueillis par L. Fea sur la cote occidentale d’Afrique. 2e¢me partie. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Genova, 44: 335-449.
Strand, E. 1916. Zentralafrikanische Clubioniden. Jn Wissenschaftliche Ergebnisse der Deutschen Zentral Afrika Expedition 1907-1908, unter Fiihrung Adolf Friedrichs, Herzogs zu Mecklenberg. Archiv fiir Naturgeschichte, 81(A11): 79-98.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 210.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Case 3332
Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877 (currently Orobothriurus bivittatus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): replacement of the holotype by the designation of a neotype
Luis E. Acosta
CONICET - Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Ay. Vélez Sarsfield 299, 5000 Cordoba, Argentina (e-mail: lacosta@com.uncor.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.5 of the Code, is to replace the holotype of the scorpion Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877 (currently Orobothriurus bivittatus) from Argentina by the designation of a neotype. The taxonomic identity of O. bivittatus was recently assessed through hemi- spermatophore morphology, a feature present only in adult males. The holotype of bivittatus is a damaged juvenile, lacking definitive characters essential for specific identification within the genus Orobothriurus. It is proposed that all previous type fixations for Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus are set aside and a neotype is designated.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Scorpiones; BOTHRIURIDAE; Orobothriurus; Orobothriurus bivittatus; scorpions; Argentina.
1. Thorell (1877, p. 183) described the scorpion Cercophonius brachycentrus var. B bivittatum [recte bivittatus| (currently Orobothriurus bivittatus) from San Juan Province in Argentina. The species was largely neglected in the literature (see Acosta, 2002, 2005 for a historical account). Although Maury (1977) suggested it to be a Junior synonym of Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 (currently Orothriurus alticola), until recently bivittatus was regarded as a subspecies of Urophonius brachycentrus (Thorell, 1877) (Lowe & Fet, 2000). Acosta (2002) accepted the synonymy of Orobothriurus bivittatus (Thorell, 1877) and Orobothriurus alticola (Pocock, 1899). Since the senior but little used name bivittatus took priority over the well known specific name alticola, Acosta (2002) also applied to the Commission to give alticola precedence over bivittatus, whenever these names are considered synonyms. The Commission approved this proposal (Opinion 2074, June 2004).
2. The holotype of Orobothriurus bivittatus, Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm, is a very small and poorly preserved juvenile, providing little information on the species identity. It is incomplete; only carapace, mesosoma and caudal segments I-IV remain together with the left pedipalp trochanter and femur, right I-II legs (I without telotarsus), and pectines; metasomal segment V and right pedipalp are loose; all remaining body parts or appendages are missing (Acosta, 2005).
3. The high altitude genus Orobothriurus is poorly known, with a presumed high degree of endemicity in the Andes and Andes-related ranges (Acosta & Ochoa, 2001; Ochoa, 2004). The possibility of the existence of further species of this genus
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 21
(including better preserved specimens of Orobothriurus bivittatus) was already suggested at the time when the conditional precedence of Orobothriurus alticola over O. bivittatus-was proposed (Acosta, 2002). The original details of the type locality of Orobothriurus bivittatus were imprecise (merely “San Juan’), but through a careful analysis of all data available, including the report of the trip of the presumable collector of the holotype (Echegaray, 1878), Acosta (2005) was able to determine that the holotype of Orobothriurus bivittatus was most likely collected along the so-called ‘camino del Tontal’ (‘Tontal road’, province of San Juan, Argentina), which crosses the isolated range Sierra del Tontal at about 3600 m. One adult male of Orobothriurus bivittatus was subsequently collected at this site and described, providing for the first time relevant taxonomic information, especially on hemispermatophore morphology (Acosta, 2005). Acosta (2005) showed that Orobothriurus bivittatus is indeed a valid species, though very close to O. alticola. While the external morphology does not give any conclusive diagnostic feature, the hemispermatophore shows distinct differences between the two species (Acosta, 2005).
4. The taxonomic identity of Orobothriurus bivittatus cannot be adequately determined from the holotype, which is a poorly preserved juvenile, i.e. the name bivittatus, if based on this specimen, may be considered as a nomen dubium, thereby threatening the stability of the taxonomy of the genus Orobothriurus. On the other hand, the male specimen collected at Sierra del Tontal (Parque Nacional El Leoncito, near “Portezuelo del Tontal’ (3450 m), 25-x1-2003, L. Acosta coll.), displays definitive characters essential for specific identification within the genus. This specimen is stored at Coleccion Aracnologica, Catedra de Diversidad Animal I, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales, Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina (CDA 000.364). Full details, especially conditions qualifying this material as neotype, are given in Acosta (2005).
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous fixations of the name-bearing type for bivittatus Thorell, 1877, as published in the trinomen Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus, and to designate as neotype male specimen CDA 000.364, in the Universidad Nacional de Cordoba, Argentina;
(2) to emend the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for bivittatus Thorell, 1877, as published in the trinomen Cercophonius brachy- centrus bivittatus, to record that it 1s defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.
References
Acosta, L.E. 2002. Case 3213. Bothriurus alticola Pocock, 1899 (Arachnida, Scorpiones): proposed precedence of the specific name over the subspecific name of Cercophonius brachycentrus bivittatus Thorell, 1877. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 59(3): 176-179.
Acosta, L.E. 2005. Rediscovery of Orobothriurus bivittatus (Thorell 1877) stat. n., comb. n. in the Sierra del Tontal, Argentina (Scorpiones, Bothriuridae). Zootaxa, 916: 1-15.
Acosta, L.E. & Ochoa, J.A. 2001. Two new species of Orobothriurus Maury, 1976 from Argentina and Peru, with comments on the systematics of the genus (Scorpiones: Bothriuridae). Pp. 203-214 in Fet, V. & Selden, P.A. (Eds.), Scorpions 2001. Memoriam Gary A. Polis. British Arachnological Society, Burnham Beeches, Bucks.
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Echegaray, S. 1878. Determinacion de plantas sanjuaninas. Boletin de la Academia Nacional de Ciencias, Cordoba, 2: 341-353.
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). New York Entomological Society, New York.
Maury, E.A. 1977. Comentario sobre dos especies de escorpiones del género Urophonius (Bothriuridae). Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales ‘Bernardino Rivadavia’, Entomologia, 5(7): 143-160.
Ochoa, J.A. 2004. Filogenia del género Orobothriurus y descripcion de un nuevo género de Bothriuridae (Scorpiones). Revista Ibérica de Aracnologia, 9: 43-73.
Pocock, R.I. 1899. Scorpions and spiders. Pp. 356-358 in FitzGerald, E.A. (Ed.), The Highest Andes. Methwen & Co., London.
Thorell, T. 1877. Etudes scorpiologiques. Atti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 19: 75-272.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 62: 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 Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 23
Case 3322
Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): proposed precedence over Baetis nexus Navas, 1918
Michel Sartori
Museum of Zoology, Palais de Rumine, Place de la Riponne 6, CH-1014 Lausanne, Switzerland (e-mail: michel.sartori@serac.vd.ch)
Tomas Soldan
Institute of Entomology, Academy of Sciences, Branisovska 31, CZ —37005 Ceské Budéjovice, Czech Republic (e-mail: soldan@entu.cas.cz)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 for a well-known European mayfly (family BAETIDAE). The name is threatened by the senior subjective synonym Baetis nexus Navas, 1918, which has been seldom used since its first publication. Therefore, precedence of the name Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 is proposed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Ephemeroptera; BAETIDAE; Baetis pentaphle- bodes; Baetis nexus; Hungary; Spain; mayflies.
1. The mayfly species Baetis nexus was described in 1918 (Navas, 1918, pp. 38-39) from the type locality San Joan de Erm, Catalonia, Spain, and since then, prior to Alba-Tercedor’s (2002) revision, the name had been mentioned only five times, by Miller-Liebenau (1969), Puthz (1978) (in both cases as nomina dubia), Alba- Tercedor (1981, 1984) and Alba-Tercedor & Peters (1985).
2. However, the same species is well known under the name Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966. Since its original description from Hungary (Ujhelyi, 1966, pp. 206-210), type locality Veresegyhaz, it has been mentioned in faunistic lists (Keffermiller, 1972; Soldan, 1978; Kazanci, 1984; Thomas et al., 1986; Adam, 1991; Bauernfeind & Weichselbaumer, 1991; Russev, 1993), Ephemeroptera check-lists (Puthz, 1978), autoecological studies (Camousseight & Fontaine, 1990), identification keys (Bauernfeind, 1994; Bauernfeind & Humpesch, 2001), morphological papers (egg description by Kopelke & Miller-Liebenau, 1981) and in the red lists of threatened species (Sowa, 1992).
3. Alba-Tercedor (2002, p. 78) proposed the synonymy of Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 and Baetis nexus Navas, 1918 and suggested that the latter name should be used as valid. This opinion was supported by Alba-Tercedor & Jaimez-Cueéllar (2003) and Jacob (2003), but not by Haybach & Malzacher (2003) or Kovacs & Bauernfeind (2003).
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
4. Since B. nexus has been used as a valid name by Alba-Tercedor (2002), Alba-Tercedor & Jaimez-Cuellar (2003) and Jacob (2003), the requirements of Article 23.9.1.1 (Reversal of Precedence) of the Code are not met. However, the name B. pentaphlebodes has been used as a valid name in at least 35 original scientific papers, monographs and reviews since 1969 by at least 20 authors. Hence the provisions of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code are met (see Miiller-Liebenau, 1969: Keffermiiller, 1972; Soldan, 1978; Landa & Soldan, 1985; Thomas et al., 1986; Grimm, 1988; Bauernfeind, 1990; Camousseight & Fontaine, 1990; Sowa, 1990; Weichselbaumer & Sowa, 1990; Adam, 1991; Bauernfeind & Weichselbaumer, 1991; Jazdzewska & Gorczynezki, 1991; Sowa, 1992; Russev, 1993; Bauernfeind, 1994; Glazaczow, 1994; Marten, 1994; Jazdzewska, 1995; Moog, 1995; Moog et al., 1995; Marten et al., 1996; Peissner et al., 1996; Thomas & Masselot, 1996; Marten, 1997; Moog et al., 1997; Schmidt-Kloiber, 1997; Marten et al., 1999; Bauernfeind & Humpesch, 2001; Horsak, 2001; Jazdzewska, 2001; Haybach & Malzacher, 2002).
5. Because the usage of the name B. nexus would cause confusion and instability in nomenclature and ecology, we propose that the specific name B. pentaphlebodes be given precedence over the name B. nexus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966, as published in the binomen Baetis pentaphlebodes, precedence over the name nexus Navas, 1918, as published in the binomen Baetis nexus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official,List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966, as published in the binomen Baetis penta-
phlebodes, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name nexus Navas, 1918, as published in the binomen Baetis nexus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) nexus Navas, 1918, as published in the binomen Baetis nexus, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966, as published in the binomen Baetis pentaphlebodes, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements We are grateful to Arne Haybach (Koblenz) for advice.
References
Adam, G. 1991. Baetis liebenauae Keffermiller und Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi in Nordost- bayern (Insecta, Ephemeroptera). Lauterbornia, 8: 77-80.
Alba-Tercedor, J. 1981. Recopilacion de citas de Efemeropteros en la Peninsula iberica e Islas Baleares. Trabajos y Monografias del Departamento de Zoologia, Universitad de Granada (Nueva Serie), 4: 41-81.
Alba-Tercedor, J. 1984. A revision of the European species of the genus Baetis Leach, 1815 described by Reverend Longinos Navas (Baetidae) in Landa, V., Soldan, T. & Tonner, M. (Eds.), Proceeding of the fourth international conference on Ephemeroptera, pp. 53-59. CSAV, Bechyné.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 25
Alba-Tercedor, J. 2002. A new synonymy in Baetis: Baetis nexus Navas, 1918 is the valid name of Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Aquatic Insects, 24: 77-19.
Alba-Tercedor, J. & Jaimez-Cuéllar, P. 2003. Checklist and historical evolution of the knowledge of Ephemeroptera in the Iberian Peninsula, Balearic and Canary Islands. Pp. 91-97 in Gaino, E. (Ed.), Research Update on Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera. University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy.
Alba-Tercedor, J. & Peters, W.L. 1985. Types and additional specimens of Ephemeroptera studied by Longinos Navas in the Museo de Zoologia del Ayuntamiento, Barcelona, Spain. Aquatic Insects, 7: 217-227.
Bauernfeind, E. 1990. The present state of mayfly-faunistics in Austria. Verhandlungen der Botanischen-Zoologischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 127: 61-82.
Bauernfeind, E. 1994. Bestimmungsschliissel fiir die Osterreichischen Eintagsfliegen (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Bundesanstalt fiir Wassergtite, Wien.
Bauernfeind, E. & Humpesch, U.H. 2001. Die Eintagsfliegen Zentraleuropas (Insecta: Ephemeroptera): Bestimmung und Okologie. Naturhistorisches Museum, Wien.
Bauernfeind, E. & Weichselbaumer, P. 1991. Mayflies records from Austria (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Verhandlungen der Botanischen-Zoologischen Gesellschaft, Wien, 128: 47-66.
Camousseight, A. & Fontaine, J. 1990. The biological cycle of Baetis pentaphlebodes, Ujhelyi 1966, in an old meander of the Rhone River, France (Ephemeroptera: Baetidae). Pp. 27-34 in Campbell, I.C. (Ed.), Mayfties and Stoneflies: Life story and Biology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Glazaczow, A. 1994. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) from the rivers Gwda and Drawa (in the Pomeranian Lake District of North West Poland) and from some waters of their river basins. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 63: 213-257.
Grimm, R. 1988. Zur Eintagsfliegenfauna der Donauzufliisse Rot und Rauglen (Baden- Wiirttemberg). Nachrichtenblatt der Bayerischen Entomologen, 37: 73-83.
Haybach, A. & Malzacher, P. 2002. Verzeichnis der Eintagsfliegen Deutschlands (Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Entomologische Zeitschrift, 112: 34-45.
Haybach, A. & Malzacher, P. 2003. Verzeichnis der Eintagsfliegen (Ephemeroptera) Deutsch- lands. Entomofauna Germanica, 6: 33-46.
Horsak, M. 2001. Contribution to the knowledge of macroinvertebrate fauna of the Dyje River downstream of the Nové Mlyny Reservoirs (Czech Republic). Scripta Facultatis scientiarum naturalium Universitatis Masarykianae brunensis, Biologia, Supplementum, 27: 41-62.
Jacob, U. 2003. Baetis Leach 1815, sensu stricto oder sensu lato. Ein Beitrag zum Gattung- skonzept auf der Grundlage von Artengruppen mit Bestimmungsschliisseln. Lauterbornia, 47: 59-129.
Jazdzewska, T. 1995. Comparison of the ephemeropteran fauna from the Swietokrzyskie Mountains and Roztocze Upland, Poland. Pp. 111-120 in Corkum, L.D. & Ciborowski, J.J.H. (Eds.), Current directions in research on Ephemeroptera. Canadian Scholars’ Press Inc., Toronto.
Jazdzewska, T. 2001. Distribution in Poland of species of the Baetis group (Ephemeroptera, Baetidae). Pp. 259-270 in Dominguez, E. (Ed.), Trends in Research in Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York.
Jazdzewska, T. & Gorezynezki, A. 1991. Les éphéméroptéres des riviéres qui franchissent la zone marginale du Roztocze Central. Pp. 263-270 in Alba-Tercedor, J. & Sanchez-Ortega, A. (Eds.), Overviews and strategies of the Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera. Sandhill Crane Press, Inc., Gainesville.
Kazanci, N. 1984. New Ephemeroptera (Insecta) from Turkey. Aquatic Insects, 6: 253-258.
Keffermiiller, M. 1972. Banadia nad fauna Jetek (Ephemeroptera) Wielkopolski V. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 43: 527-533.
Kopelke, J.-P. & Miiller-Liebenau, I. 1981. Eistrukturen bei Ephemeroptera und deren Bedeutung fiir die Aufstellung von Artengruppen am Beispiel der europaischen Arten der
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Gattung Baetis Leach, 1815. Teil II : rhodani-, vernus- und fuscatus— Gruppe (Insecta: Baetidae). Spixiana, 4: 39-54.
Kovacs, T. & Bauernfeind, E. 2003. Checklist of the Hungarian mayfly fauna (Ephemeroptera). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 64: 69-84.
Landa, V. & Soldan, T. 1985. Distributional patterns, chorology and origin of the Czechoslovak fauna of mayflies (Ephemeroptera). Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 82: 241-268.
Marten, M. 1994. Derzeitiger Kenntnisstand und historische Entwicklung der Makrozoob-
enthos der Donau unter besonderer Berticksichtigung der Montanregion. Pp. 157-189 in
Limnologische Berichte Donau (1994), vol. 2. EAWAG, Dibendorf.
Marten, M. 1997. Ephemeroptera and Plecoptera of the River Danube in Baden-Wurttemberg
(Germany). Pp. 167-174 in Landolt, P. & Sartori, M. (Eds.), Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera
Biology-Ecology-Systematics. Mauron-Tinguely & Lachat SA, Fribourg.
Marten, M., Hackbarth, W. & Otto, C.-J. 1999. Neue Ephemeroptera- und Plecoptera-
Nachweise aus Baden-Wiirttemberg und Stand der derzeitigen Erfassung im Rahmen der
biologischen Umweltbeobachtung an Fliessgewasser. Lauterbornia, 37: 63-86.
Marten, M., Malzacher, P., Reusch, H., Otto, C.-J., Brinkmann, R., Roos, P., Hackbarth, W. & Gorka, M. 1996. Ephemeroptera und Plecoptera in Baden-Wiirttemberg — Stand der faunistischen Erforschung. Lauterbornia, 27: 69-79.
Moog, O. 1995. Fauna aquatica austriaca — Katalog zur autodkologischen Einstufung aqua- tischer Organismen. Osterreichs Bundesministerium fiir Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Wien.
Moog, O., Bauernfeind, E. & Weichselbaumer, P. 1997. The use of Ephemeroptera as saprobic indicators in Austria. Pp. 254-260 in Landolt, P. & Sartori, M. (Eds.), Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera Biology-Ecology-Systematics. Mauron-Tinguely & Lachat SA, Fribourg.
Moog, O., Humpesch, U. & Konar, M. 1995. The distribution of benthic invertebrates along the Austrian stretch of the river Danube and its relevance as an indicator of zoogeographical and water quality patterns — part 1. Archiv fiir Hydrobiologie, 101: 121-213.
Miiller-Liebenau, I. 1969. Revision der europaischen Arten der Gattung Baetis Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Ephemeroptera). Gewdsser und Abwdasser, 48/49: 1-214.
Navas, L. 1918. Excursiones entopmologicas por el Norte de la provincia de Lérida (6-24 de Julio de 1917). Butlleti de la Institucio catalana d’ Historia Natural, (1918): 36-49.
Peissner, T., Kappus, B. & Malzacher, P. 1996. Bewertung der Eintagsfliegenfauna der Baden-Wirttembergischen Donau und ausgewahlter Nebengewasser. Lauterbornia, 27: 81-91.
Puthz, V. 1978. Ephemeroptera. Pp. 256-263 in Illies J. (Ed.), Limnofauna Europaea, vol. |. 2nd Edition, Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Russev, B.K. 1993. Review of literature and established mayfly species (Ephemeroptera, Insecta) from Bulgaria. Lauterbornia, 14: 71-77.
Schmidt-Kloiber, A. 1997. Ephemeroptera of an artificial Danube backwater irrigation system in Austria. Pp. 152-156 in Landolt, P. & Sartori, M. Ephemeroptera & Plecoptera Biology-Ecology-Systematics, Mauron-Tinguely & Lachat SA, Fribourg.
Soldan, T. 1978. Mayflies (Ephemeroptera) new to the fauna of Czechoslovakia found in 1972-1977. Acta Entomologica Bohemoslovaca, 75: 319-329.
Sowa, R. 1990. Ephemeroptera — Jetki. Pp. 33-38 in Razowski, J. (Ed.), A checklist of the animals of Poland. PWN, Warsawa, Wroklaw-Krakow.
Sowa, R. 1992. Jetki Ephemeroptera. Pp. 97-101 in Glowacinski, Z. (Ed.), A checklist of rare and endangered animals in Poland. Nature Protection research Centre, PAS, Krakow.
Thomas, A. & Masselot, G. 1996. Les Ephéméres de France: inventaire des espéces signalées et des espéces potentielles (Ephemeroptera). Bulletin de la Société entomologique de France, 101: 467-488.
Thomas, A.G.B., Prevot, R. & Vingon, G. 1986. Deux Ephéméroptéres nouveaux pour la faune de France: Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 (Baetidae) et Caenis beskidensis Sowa, 1973 (Caenidae). Bulletin de la Société d’ Histoire Naturelle de Toulouse, 122: 179.
Ujhelyi, S. 1966. The mayflies of Hungary, with the description of a new species, Baetis pentaphlebodes sp. n. (Ephemeroptera). Acta zoologica Academiae Scienciarum Hungariae, 12: 203- 210.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 27
Weichselbaumer, P. & Sowa, R. 1990. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der Eintagsfliegenfauna Osterreichs
(Insecta: Ephemeroptera). Berichte der naturwissenschaftlich-medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, 77: 113-122.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 134.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Case 3326
Lachniella tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina; Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): proposed precedence over Lachnus greeni Schouteden, 1905 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni)
Juan M. Nieto Nafria and Nicolas Pérez Hidalgo Departamento de Biologia Animal, Universidad de Leon, 24071 Leon, Spain (e-mails: dbajnn@unileon.es; dbanph@unileon.es)
Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga
Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biologia Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, 28006 Madrid, Spain
(e-mail: mcnaz39@muncn.csic.es)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3. of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the specific name Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina (Del Guercio, 1909) for a widespread and economically important species of aphid, by giving it precedence over the senior specific name Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni (Schouteden, 1905).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hemiptera; APHIDIDAE; LACHNINAE; Cinara; Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina; Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni; aphids.
1. The species Lachnus greeni was established by Schouteden (1905, p. 184). The specific name greeni was subsequently combined with the generic names Cinaropsis Borner, 1939 and Cinara Curtis, 1835, respectively by Borner & Heinze (1957, p. 55) and Eastop & Hille Ris Lambers (1976, p. 150). It was placed near Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina (Del Guercio, 1909) by Remaudiére & Remaudiere (1997, pp. 193, 277, 300) as a nomen dubium.
2. The species Lachniella tujafilina was established by Del Guercio (1909, p. 288) and it is currently (Remaudiere & Remaudiere, 1997, p. 199) placed in the genus Cinara Curtis, 1835 and subgenus Cupressobium Borner, 1940.
3. Pérez Hidalgo & Nieto Nafria (2004, p. 102) have demonstrated that Cinara greeni and Cinara tujafilina are subjective synonyms. Following the Principle of Priority greeni (1905) has priority over tujafilina (1909).
4. The automatic reversal of precedence under Article 23.9.1 is not possible since Lachnus greeni Schouteden was not established by Schouteden until after 1899. Following Article 23.9.3, this case requires referral to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power (Article 81). While the case is under consideration use of the Junior name is to be maintained (Article 82). Any return to the use of the specific name Cinara greeni instead of Cinara tujafilina would greatly affect stability and universality of nomenclature, causing unnecessary confusion. Cinara tujafilina is used with
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 29
regularity, while Cinara greeni was mentioned only in a few catalogues and papers listed in para. 1 above. A list of 33 references by 54 authors using Cinara tujafilina and covering the years 1948-2003 is held by the Commission Secretariat (e.g. Bodenheimer & Swirski, 1957; Patti, 1977; Watson et al., 1999; Gil et al., 2002; Wilson et al., 2003). Confusion resulting from use of the older name would affect current usage of Cinara (Cupressobium) tujafilina as a well known pest in forestry and gardening, affect- ing several species of Callitris, Chamaecyparis, Cupressus, Juniperus, Thuja and Widdringtonia (Cupressaceae) used as ornamental plants (Blackman & Eastop, 1994).
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909, as published in the binomen Lachniella tujafilina, precedence over the name greeni Schouteden, 1905, as published in the binomen Lachnus greeni, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909, as published in the binomen Lachniella
tujafilina, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name greeni Schouteden, 1905, as published in the binomen Lachnus greeni, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) greeni Schouteden, 1905, as published in the binomen Lachnus greeni, with the endorsement that it is to not to be given priority over the name tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909, as published in the binomen Lachniella tujafilina, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
References
Blackman, R. & Eastop, V.F. 1994. Aphids on the world’s trees. An Identification and information guide. 8, 987 pp., 16 pls. CAB International, Wallingford.
Bodenheimer, F.S. & Swirski, E. 1957. The Aphidoidea of the Middle East. 378 pp. Weizmann Science Press of Israel, Jerusalem.
Borner, C. & Heinze, K. 1957. Aphidina-Aphidoidea. Blattlause, plantlice (Aphids), pucerons (aphides) im Sorauer, P. (Ed.), Handbuch der Pflanzenkraenkheiten, 5, 4: 1-402.
Del Guercio, G. 1909. Contribuzione alla conoscenza dei Lacnidi Italiani. Morfologia, sistematica, biologia generale e loro importanza economica. Redia, [1908], 5: 173-359.
Eastop, V.F. & Hille Ris Lambers, D. 1976. Survey of the world’s aphids. 573 pp. Junk, The Hague.
Gil, R., Sabater-Munoz, B., Latorre, A., Silva, F.J. & Moya, A. 2002. Extreme genome reduction in Buchnera spp.: Toward the minimal genome needed for symbiotic life. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(7): 4454-4458.
Patti, I. 1977. La moria dei cipressi in relazione alle infestazioni dell’afide Cinara cupressi (Bckt.). Tecnica Agricola, 3: 5-15.
Pérez Hidalgo, N. & Nieto Nafria, J.M. 2004. Sobre la validez de Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni (Schouteden, 1905) (Hemiptera, Aphididae: Eulachnini). Boletin de la Asociacién espanola de Entomologia, 27(1-4): 99-103.
Remaudiére, G. & Remaudiére, M. 1997. Catalogue des Aphididae du monde | Catalogue of the world’s Aphididae. Homoptera Aphidoidea. 478 pp. INRA Editions. Versailles.
Schouteden, H. 1905. Notes on Ceylonese aphides. Spolia Zeylandica, 2: 181-188.
Watson, G.W., Voegtlin, D.J., Murphy, S.T. & Foottit, R.G. 1999. Biogeography of the Cinara cupressi complex (Hemiptera: Aphididae) on Cupressaceae, with description of a pest species introduced into Africa. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 89: 271-283.
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Wilson, A.C.C., Sunnucks, P. & Hales, D. 2003. Heritable genetic variation and potential for adaptive evolution in asexual aphids (Aphidoidea). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 79: 115-135.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 209. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 31
Case 3298
Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhynchus assimilis; Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name
D.V. Alford
BCPC, Orchard House, Oakington Road, Dry Drayton, Cambridge CB3 SDD, U.K. (e-mail: prog@bcpc.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Ceutorhynchus assimilis (Paykull, 1792) for the species commonly known as the ‘cabbage seed weevil’ (family CURCULIONIDAE), a major pest of oilseed rape. The name Ceutorhynchus assimilis is threatened by three senior primary homonyms Curculio assimilis Fabricius, 1775, C. assimilis Harrer, 1784 and C. assimilis Herbst, 1784.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CURCULIONIDAE; Ceutorhynchus assimilis; cabbage seed weevil; oilseed rape pests.
1. The name Curculio assimilis was established by Paykull, 1792 (p. 69) for a species of seed weevil and has been in continuous use for a major pest of oilseed rape (e.g. Reitter, 1916; Balachowsky, 1963; Edwards & Heath, 1964; Schmidt, 1970; Hill, 1987, 1994; Seymour, 1989; Alford, 1999, 2003; Lane & Gladders, 2000; Alford, Nilsson & Ulber, 2003; Williams, 2003). The name is preoccupied by three senior primary homonyms: C. assimilis Fabricius, 1775 (p. 134) (currently Lasiorrhynchus barbicornis (Fabricius, 1775)), C. assimilis Harrer, 1784 (p. 184) (currently Cionus thapsi (Fabricius, 1792)) and C. assimilis Herbst, 1784 (p. 77) (currently Magdalis violacea Linnaeus, 1758), all in the family CURCULIONIDAE (see WTaxa Electronic Catalogue of Weevil Names (Curculionoidea)). None of the senior homonyms has been used in the genus Ceutorhynchus since 1899.
2. The name Curculio obstrictus Marsham, 1802 (p. 255) was used only once since 1899 (as Ceutorhynchus obstrictus) by Colonnelli (1993), for the cabbage seed weevil, a species for which the name C. assimilis is in prevailing use (see Alford, 2003). Colonnelli (1993) applied the name C. assimilis to a species commonly known as the turnip gall weevil and for which the name Curculio pleurostigma Marsham, 1802 (p. 282) is in prevailing use (see Balachowsky, 1963; Alford, 2003). Usage of the name C. assimilis by Colonnelli (1993) was also invalid since it is a preoccupied name. Therefore, in the interest of stability and particularly because of the economic importance of the taxa involved, it is proposed that the Commission use its plenary power to rule that the specific name of Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhynchus assimilis) is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym.
3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name assimilis Paykull, 1792, as
published in the binomen Curculio assimilis, is not invalid by reason of being
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
a junior primary homonym of assimilis Fabricius, 1775, assimilis Harrer, 1784, and assimilis Herbst in Fuessli, 1784, as published in the binomen Curculio assimilis;
(2) to place the name assimilis Paykull, 1792, as published in the binomen Curculio assimilis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
References
Alford, D.V. 1999. A textbook of agricultural entomology. 314 pp. Blackwell, Oxford.
Alford, D.V. (Ed.). 2003. Biocontrol of oilseed rape pests. 355 pp. Blackwell, Oxford.
Alford, D.V., Nilsson, C. & Ulber, B. 2003. Insect pests of oilseed rape. Pp. 9-41 in Alford, D.V. (Ed.), Biocontrol of oilseed rape pests. 355 pp. Blackwell, Oxford.
Balachowsky, A.S. (Ed.). 1963. Entomologie appliquée a lagriculture. Tome I, Coléopteres, vol. 2, pp. 567-1391. Masson, Paris.
Colonnelli, E. 1993. The Ceutorhynchinae types of I.C. Fabricius and G. von Paykull (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Koleopterologische Rundschau, 63: 299-310.
Edwards, C.A. & Heath, G.W. 1964. The principles of agricultural entomology. 418 pp. Chapman & Hall, London.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologia, sistens Insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, &c. xxxil, 832 pp. Flensburgi & Lipsiae.
Harrer, G.A. 1784. Beschreibung derjenigen Insecten, welche Herr D. Jacob Christoph Schaffer in 280 ausgemahlten Kupfertafeln unter dem Titel Icones Insectorum circa Ratisbonam Indigenorum . . . Theil Hartschaalige Insecten. 32, 328 pp. Regensberg.
Herbst, J.F.W. 1784. Pp. 73-128 in Fuessli, J.C. Archiv der Insectengeschichte, vol. 5. Winterthur, Ziirich.
Hill, D.S. 1987. Agricultural insect pests of temperate regions and their control. 659 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hill, D.S. 1994. Agricultural entomology. 635 pp. Timber Press, Oregon.
Lane, A. & Gladders, P. 2000. Pests and diseases of oilseeds, brassica seed crops and field beans. Pp. 52-83 in Alford, D.V. (Ed.). Pests and disease management handbook. 615 pp. Blackwell, Oxford.
Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica, sistens Insecta Coleoptera Britanie indigena, &c., vol. 1. xxxi, 547 pp. Londini.
Paykull, G. 1792. Monographia Curculionum Svecie. vi, 151 pp. Upsaliae.
Reitter, E. 1916. Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches. V Band. 168 pp. Lutz’ Verlag, Stuttgart.
Schmidt, G. 1970. Die deutschen Namen wichtiger Arthropoden. Mitteilungen aus der Biologischen Bundesanstalt fiir Land-und forstwirtschaft Berlin-Dahlem, 137: 1-222. Seymour, P.R. 1989. Invertebrates of economic importance in Britain. Common and Scientific
names. 147 pp. H.M.S.O., London.
Williams, I.H. 2003. Parasitoids of cabbage seed weevil. Pp. 97-112 in Alford, D.V. (Ed.). Biocontrol of oilseed rape pests. 355 pp. Blackwell, Oxford.
WTaxa Electronic Catalogue of Weevil Names. 30 August 2005. Database version 9. http://wtaxa.csic.es/. WTaxa: World Electronic Catalogue of Curculionoidea
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 262.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 33
Case 3299
Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctulatus; Insecta, Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name
Volker Assing
Gabelsbergerstr. 2, D-30163 Hannover, Gemany (e-mail: vassing.hann@T-Online.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789. The name is a junior primary homonym of Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 (currently Othius punctulatus), but the specific names have not been considered as congeneric since 1830.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; STAPHYLINIDAE; Gyrohypnus punctulatus; rove beetles; Palaearctic.
1. The name Staphylinus punctulatus was established by Goeze, 1777 (p. 730) for a common species of western palaearctic rove beetle. It was last used in its original combination by Turton (1802, p. 518, misspelled as pustulatus) and was removed from the nominal genus Staphylinus by Fauvel (1886, p. 47).
2. Paykull, 1789 (p. 30) described another common species of rove beetle (from Sweden) under the name Staphylinus punctulatus. The species was placed in the genus Gyrohypnus Kirby, 1819 by Curtis (1829, p. 27) and last used in the genus Staphylinus by Sahlberg (1830, p. 333). Gyrohypnus punctulatus (Paykull) has been cited as a valid name in numerous publications. Herman (2001) listed 26 publications citing G. punctulatus (Paykull) as a valid name since 1950, e.g. Bordoni (1982, p. 214), Coiffait (1956, p. 54; 1972, p. 182), Lohse (1958, p. 120; 1964, p. 161), Palm (1963, p. 47), and Toth (1989, p. 17). Muona (1979, p. 16) replaced the name with G. ater (Stephens, 1833, p. 255) and Lohse (1988) replaced it with the junior synonym G. Jiebei (Scheerpeltz, 1926, p. 86). According to Herman (2001), since 1988 the species was listed under both G. punctulatus (Paykull) (six times) and G. liebei (Scheerpeltz) (four times). Examination of the holotype of G. liebei (Scheerpeltz) revealed that the name is ajunior synonym of G. angustatus Stephens, 1833 (p. 263) and not of G. punctulatus (Paykull) (Assing, 2003).
3. Herman (2001) listed no synonym of Gyrohypnus punctulatus (Paykull) or G. liebei (Scheerpeltz) that would be eligible as a replacement name for G. punctulatus (Paykull). The list of synonyms of G. fracticornis (Miller, 1776, p. 99), with which G. punctulatus (Paykull) had been confused until both species were separated by Lohse (1958), includes three names whose identity had not been reexamined since 1958. However, one of them, Othius ater Stephens, 1833 (p. 255), refers to O. laeviusculus Stephens, 1833 (p. 255) (Assing, 2003). The two remaining names, O. obscurus Stephens, 1833 (p. 256) and Xantholinus melanarius Fauvel, 1872 (p. 304), a
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
replacement name for X. morio Reitter, 1872 (p. 167), have not been used as valid names since 1858 and 1873 respectively (Herman, 2001) and their types are apparently lost (Assing, 2003).
4. The name Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctu- /atus) is in current use and it has not been considered to be congeneric with its senior primary homonym Staphylinus punctulatus Goeze, 1777 (currently Othius punctula- tus) since 1899. Under Article 23.9.5, a junior primary homonym must not be automatically replaced and the case should be referred to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power. Both nominal species have been treated in a great number of faunistic and ecological papers and conservation of the long established name Gyrohypnus punctulatus (Paykull) is proposed in the interest of stability.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the specific name punctulatus Paykull, 1789, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of punctulatus Goeze, 1777, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name punctulatus Paykull, 1789, as published in the binomen Staphylinus punctulatus (not invalid by the ruling in (1) above).
Acknowledgements
Iam most grateful to H. Schillhammer (Naturhistorisches Museum Wien), S. Shute (Natural History Museum, London), and G. Szél (Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest) for their efforts in trying to locate relevant type material of Othius obscurus and Xantholinus melanarius respectively. In addition, I would like to express my sincere thanks to L.H. Herman (American Museum of Natural History, New York), M. Schtilke (Berlin) and A. Smetana (Ottawa) for their helpful comments.
References
Assing, V. 2003. On the taxonomy of Gyrohypnus Leach, new synonymies, new species, and a key to the Western Palaearctic and Middle Asian representatives of the genus (Insecta, Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Entomologische Blatter, 99: 55-81.
Bordoni, A. 1982. Coleoptera. Staphylinidae. Generalita. Xantholininae in Fauna d'Italia, vol. 19. xii, 434 pp. Calderini, Bologna. -
Coiffait, H. 1956. Les Xantholinitae de France et des régions voisines (Col. Staphylinidae). Revue Francaise d' Entomologie, 23(1): 31-75.
Coiffait, H. 1972. Coléoptéres Staphylinidae de la région Paléarctique occidentale. I. Général- ités. Sous-familles: Xantholininae et Leptotyphlinae. Nouvelle Revue d' Entomologie. Supplément, 2(2): 1-651.
Curtis, J. 1829. A guide to an arrangement of British insects; being a catalogue of all the named species hitherto discovered in Great Britain and Ireland. 256 columns. Curtis, London.
Fauyel, A. 1872. In Marsuel, S. Repertoire des coléoptéres décrits isolément depuis 1864. L’Abeille. Memoires d’Entomologie, 8: 185-412.
Fauyel, A. 1886. Les Staphylinides du Nord de l'Afrique. Revue d’Entomologie, 5: 9-100.
Goeze, J.A.E. 1777. Entomologische Beytrdge zu des Ritter Linné zwélften Ausgabe des Natursystems. Thl. 1. xvi, 736 pp. Weidmanns Erben & Reich, Leipzig.
Herman, L.H. 2001. Catalog of the Staphylinidae (Insecta, Coleoptera). 1758 to the end of the second millennium. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 265: 14218.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 35
Lohse, G.A. 1958. Neuheiten der deutschen Kaferfauna V. Entomologische Blatter, 54: 118-126.
Lohse, G.A. 1964. Staphylinidae I (Micropeplinae bis Tachyporinae). Jn Freude, H., Harde, K. & Lohse G., Die Kafer Mitteleuropas, vol. 4. 264 pp. Goecke & Kevers, Krefeld.
Lohse, G.A. 1988. Staphylinidenstudien I]. Entomologische Blatter, 84: 41—S0.
Miller, O.F. 1776. Zoologiae Danicae prodromus, seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige- narum characteres, nomina, et synonyma imprimis popularium. xxxii, 282 pp. Hallager, Havniae.
Muona, J. 1979. Staphylinidae. Pp. 14-28 in Silfverberg, H., Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. v, 94 pp. Helsingfors Entomologiska Bytesforening, Helsingfors.
Palm, T. 1963. Svensk Insektfauna. 9. Skalbaggar. Coleoptera, Kortvingar: Fam. Staphylinidae. Unterfam. Paederinae, Staphylininae. Hafte 3. 168 pp. Entomologiska Foreningen i Stockholm. Almquist & Wiksells, Uppsala.
Paykull, G. von. 1789. Monographia Staphylinorum Sueciae. x, 81 pp. Johann Edman, Upsaliae.
Reitter, E. 1872. Neue Kaferarten von Oran, gesammelt von Hans Leder. Berliner Entomolo- gische Zeitschrift, 16: 167-186.
Sahlberg, C.R. 1830. (Ed.). Insecta Fennica, dissertationibus academicis. A. 1817-1834. Pars I, pp. 281-360. Frenckelliana, Helsingforsiae.
Scheerpeltz, O. 1926. Zwei neue Arten aus dem Subg. Gyrohypnus Mannerh. der Gattung Xantholinus Serv. (Col. Staphyl.). Mit emer Ubersicht der mir bekannten palaarktischen Arten. Coleopterologisches Centralblatt, 1: 81-93.
Stephens, J.F. 1833. //ustrations of British entomology; or, a synopsis of indigenous insects; containing their generic and specific distinctions; with an account of their metamorphoses, times of appearance, localities, food, and economy, as far as practicable. Mandibulata, vol. 5, pp. 241-304. Baldwin & Cradock, London.
Toth, L. 1989. Magyarorszdg Allatvilaga. VI. kétet, Coleoptera I, 10. fiizet. Holyvak VI. - Staphylinidae VI. 12 dabraval. Fauna Hungariae, no. 163. 41 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest.
Turton, W. 1802. A general system of nature, through the three grand kingdoms of Animals, Vegetables, and Minerals, systematically divided into their several classes, orders, genera, species, and varieties, with their habitations, manners, economy, structure, and peculiarities. Translated from Gmelin’s last edition of the celebrated Systema Naturae, by Sir Charles Linné, amended and enlarged by the improvements and discoveries of later naturalists and societies. 7 vols. 717 pp. Lackington, Allen & Co., London.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 262.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Case 3302
Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence of the specific name over those of Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and Chrysobothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838
T.C. MacRae
Monsanto Company, 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, Missouri 63017, U.S.A. (e-mail: ted.c.macrae@monsanto.com)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 for a species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) by giving it precedence over its unused senior synonyms Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and C. germari Gory & Laporte, 1838.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE; Buprestis sexsignata; Chrysobothris ignipes; Chrysobothris germari; buprestids; jewel beetles.
1. Say (1823, p. 161) established the name Buprestis sexguttata (originally spelled 6-guttata) for a species of jewel beetle (family BUPRESTIDAE) from Missouri and the Atlantic States, North America. Subsequently, Say (1839, p. 158) proposed the replacement name Buprestis sexsignata, noting that the name B. sexguttata was preoccupied by an ‘American’ species which he attributed to Herbst (now attributed to Brahm (1790, p. 141)), itself a junior subjective synonym of B. ater Linnaeus, 1767 (p. 663) (currently Agri/us ater) from Europe and a junior primary homonym of B. sexguttatus Thunberg, 1789 (p. 97) (currently Agrilus sexguttatus) from Africa. Although the paper containing Say’s replacement name was read in 1836, it was not actually published until 1839. All subsequent authors have referred to this species as Chrysobothris sexsignata (Say, 1839). The species is common throughout eastern North America, and notes about its distribution and biology. have been made by many authors including Knull (1920, p. 6; 1922, p. 82; 1930, p. 83; 1934, p. 208); Fisher (1942, p. 224); Hespenheide (1973, p. 185); Nelson & MacRae (1990, p. 352); MacRae (1991, p. 113) and MacRae & Nelson (2003, p. 65).
2. Gory & Laporte (1838, p. 50) established the nominal species Chrysobothris ignipes from “Boston, Massachusetts’ and Chrysobothris germari from “North America’. LeConte (1873, p. 332) considered C. ignipes to be a synonym of C. sexsignata and C. germari to be possibly a variety of C. solieri Gory & Laporte, 1838 (a Palearctic species that LeConte mistakenly considered to be from Mexico). Kerremans (1892, p. 214) followed LeConte’s synonymy for C. ignipes and also placed C. germari in synonymy with C. sexsignata. All authors subsequent to Kerremans (1892) have followed this synonymy including Chamberlin (1926, p. 171), Obenberger (1934, p. 651) and Fisher (1942, p. 224).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 37
3. Since Say’s replacement name was not published until 1839, it is a junior subjective synonym of both C. ignipes and C. germari. However, neither of these latter names has been used as valid after 1899 (C. ignipes since Gory & Laporte (1838) and C. germari since LeConte (1873)), qualifying them as nomina oblita under Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code. The name C. sexsignata (Say), on the other hand, has been fairly widely used for more than 150 years; however, its usage does not meet the requirements of Article 23.9.1.2 for declaration as a nomen protectum. This precludes an automatic reversal of precedence under the provisions of Article 23.9.2. Therefore this case is submitted to the Commission under Article 23.9.3.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the specific name sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsignata, precedence over the names ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris ignipes, and germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris germari, whenever sexsignata Say, 1839 and ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and/or germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsignata,
with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the names ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris ignipes, and germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris germari, whenever sexsignata Say, 1839 and ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, and / or germari Gory & Laporte, 1838 are considered to be synonyms;
(b) ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris ignipes, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsignata, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(c) germari Gory & Laporte, 1838, as published in the binomen Chrysobothris germari, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name sexsignata Say, 1839, as published in the binomen Buprestis sexsignata, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
References
Brahm, N.J. 1790. Insectenkalendar fiir Sammler und Oekonomen. Universitatsbuchhandlung, Teil 1, 248 pp. Mainz.
Chamberlin, W.J. 1926. Catalogue of the Buprestidae of North America north of Mexico. 289 pp. W.J. Chamberlin, Corvallis, Oregon.
Fisher, W.S. 1942. A revision of the North American species of buprestid beetles belonging to the tribe Chrysobothrini. United States Department of Agriculture, Miscellaneous Publications, No. 470: 1-274.
Gory, H.L. & Laporte, F.L.N. de C. 1838. Histoire naturelle et iconographie des insectes Coléoptéres. Monographie des buprestides, vol. 2 (genera paged separately). Cumérill, Paris.
Hespenheide, H.A. 1973. Notes on the ecology, distribution, and taxonomy of certain Buprestidae. The Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 27(4): 183-186.
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Kerremans, C. 1892. Catalogue synonymique des buprestides decrits de 1758 a 1890. Memoires de la Société Entomologique de Belgique, 1: 1-304.
Knull, J.N. 1920. Notes on Buprestidae with descriptions of new species (Coleop.). Entomo- logical News, 31: 4-12.
Knull, J.N. 1922. Annotated list of the Buprestidae of Pennsylvania (Coleoptera). The Canadian Entomologist, 54: 79-86.
Knull, J.N. 1930. Notes on Coleoptera, No. 2. Entomological News, 41: 82-86.
Knull, J.N. 1934. Notes on Coleoptera, No. 4. Entomological News, 45: 207-212.
LeConte, J.L. 1873. Synonomicai remarks upon North American Coleoptera. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 25: 321-337.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae. Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae.
MacRae, T.C. 1991. The Buprestidae (Coleoptera) of Missouri. Insecta Mundi, 5(2): 101-126.
MacRae, T.C. & Nelson, G.H. 2003. Distributional and biological notes on Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in North and Central America and the West Indies, with validation of one species. The Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 57(1): 57-70.
Nelson, G.H. & MacRae, T.C. 1990. Additional notes on the biology and distribution of Buprestidae (Coleoptera) in North America, part III. The Coleopterists’ Bulletin, 44(3): 349-354.
Obenberger, J. 1934. Buprestidae 4, in: Junk, W. & Schenkling, S. (Eds.), Coleopterorum Catalogus, 143: 782-934.
Say, T. 1823. Descriptions of coleopterous insects collected in the late expedition to the Rocky Mountains performed by order of Mr. Calhoun, Secretary of War, under command of Major Long. Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 3(1): 139-216.
Say, T. 1839. Description of new North American insects, and observations on some already described. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, (2) 6: 155-190.
Thunberg, C.P. 1789. Dissertatio Entomologica Novas Insectorum species sistens. No. 5, pp. 85-106. Upsaliae.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 60: 262.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 39
Case 3303
Hyloxalus panamensis Dunn, 1933: proposed emendation of spelling from Hyloxalus panamansis (currently Colostethus panamansis; Amphibia, Anura)
Taran Grant
Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A.; and Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 1200 Amsterdam Ave., New York, NY 10027, U.S.A. (e-mail: grant@amnh.org)
Darrel R. Frost
Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. (e-mail: frost@amnh.org)
Roberto Ibanez D.
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Apartado 2072, Balboa, Panama;
Circulo Herpetologico de Panama, Apartado 10762, Estafeta Universitaria,
Panama, Panama; and Departamento de Zoologia, Universidad de Panama, Panama, Panama
(e-mail: ibanezr@tivoli.si.edu)
Charles W. Myers
Division of Vertebrate Zoology, Herpetology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. (e-mail: myers@amnh.org)
Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy |@cox.net)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81 of the Code, is to conserve the subsequent spelling of the specific name Hyloxalus panamensis as a justified emendation of Hyloxalus panamansis Dunn, 1933 (currently Colostethus panamansis) for a Central American dendrobatid frog species which is the subject of important behavioural, environmental and biochemistry studies. While the original spelling panamansis is presently valid, both spellings have been in use since 1940. Although neither spelling has been established in prevailing usage, the emended spelling is becoming more widely used and is expected to prevail in the near future. It is proposed that the spelling panamensis be recognised as a justified emendation.
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphibia; Anura; DENDROBATIDAE; Colostethus; Hyloxalus panamansis; Hyloxalus panamensis; Central America; Panama; frog.
1. Dunn (1933) named the Panamanian species Hyloxalus panamansis. Although an etymology is not provided in the original publication, it is clear that the specific name isin reference to the Panamanian origin of the taxon and is an incorrect latinization. In his next paper dealing with this taxon, Dunn (1940) referred to it with the correct latinization, as Hyloxalus panamensis, although he did not propose this as an explicit emendment of the previous spelling. In all his unpublished notes, Dunn used only the emended spelling, and there is no direct evidence that he was ever aware of his lapsus.
2. The taxon was infrequently treated subsequently, and neither spelling has clearly come into prevailing usage. Duellman (1966) applied the original spelling as Prostherapis panamansis. Heatwole & Sexton (1966) followed the emended spelling when they treated the taxon as the subspecies Phyllobates inguinalis panamensis. Savage (1968) followed the emended spelling in placing Hy/oxalus panamensis in the synonymy of Colostethus inguinalis (Cope, 1868). Silverstone (1976) employed the original spelling, but also considered the taxon to be a synonym of Colostethus inguinalis, and Ibanez et al. (1999) listed Prostherapis panamansis and Hyloxalus panamansis as ‘familiar synonyms’ of Colostethus inguinalis. Frost's (1999-2002) widely cited electronic catalogue listed both spellings and explicitly considered panamensis to be a justified emendation. The taxon remained in synonymy with Colostethus inguinalis (Cope, 1868) from 1968 until 2004, when the synonymy was refuted by Grant (2004, p. 6).
3. There is no evidence in the original publication itself to allow panamansis to be treated as an inadvertent error. The specific name appears twice in the original publication (pp. 69, 70), and in both instances it is spelled panamansis. Therefore, the conditions of Article 32.5 (Incorrect original spellings) of the Code are not met, since incorrect latinization alone is not to be considered an inadvertent error. Although Dunn’s (1940) subsequent publication may be interpreted as evidence of an intended correction by the original author, that publication appeared seven years later and therefore does not satisfy Article 32.5.1.1 (Simultaneous correction).
4. The retention of Dunn’s (1933) original incorrect latinization as the correct spelling will undoubtedly cause confusion, as it has in the past (see above). Because the species was in synonymy for most of the last 35 years, during which time the vast majority of research on dendrobatid frogs has occurred, neither spelling has been established in prevailing usage. However, in resurrecting the species Grant (2004) suggested using the emended spelling. Hence the emended spelling of the name is likely to begin to appear in the modern literature. This Central American species was the subject of extremely influential papers in behavioural ecology, in all of which it was erroneously synonymized with Colostethus inguinalis (Cope, 1868). In addition, this species of frog is the only dendrobatid known to possess tetrodoxin (all other alkaloids of dendrobatids are lipophilic), and the species is cited in the natural products/biochemistry literature. It is very likely that in the near future workers in
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 41
these fields will refer to this species of frog using the combination Colostethus panamensis.
5. In order to avoid confusion and promote stability, as outlined in Article 81, we ask the Commission to exercise its plenary power to validate Hyloxalus panamensis as a justified emendation of the original spelling Hyloxalus panamansis Dunn, 1933.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that panamensis is a justified emendation of the original spelling panamansis Dunn, 1933, as published in the binomen Hyloxalus panamansis;
(2) to place the name panamensis Dunn, 1933, in the binomen Hyloxalus panamensis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the name panamansis Dunn, 1933, as published in the binomen Hyloxalus panamansis, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
References
Duellman, W.E. 1966. Aggressive behavior in dendrobatid frogs. Herpetologica, 22: 217-221.
Dunn, E.R. 1933. Amphibians and reptiles from El Valle de Anton, Panama. Occasional Papers of the Boston Society of Natural History, 8: 65-79.
Dunn, E.R. 1940. New and noteworthy herpetological material from Panama. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 92: 105-122.
Frost, D.R. 1999-2002. Amphibian Species of the World: An Online Reference. V2.21 (15 July 2002). Electronic database available at http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/amphibia/ index.html
Grant, T. 2004. On the identities of Colostethus inguinalis (Cope, 1868) and C. panamensis (Dunn, 1933), with comments on C. latinasus (Cope, 1863) (Anura: Dendrobatidae). American Museum Novitates, 3444: 1-24.
Heatwole, H. & Sexton, O.J. 1966. Herpetofaunal comparisons between two climatic zones in Panama. American Midland Naturalist, 75: 45—60.
Ibanez D., R., Rand, A.S. & Jaramillo, C.A. 1999. Los Anfibios del Monumento Natural Barro Colorado, Parque Nacional Soberania y Areas Adyacentes | The Amphibians of Barro Colorado Nature Monument, Soberania National Park and Adjacent Areas. 187 pp. Editorial Mizrachi & Pujol, Panama.
Savage, J.M. 1968. The dendrobatid frogs of Central America. Copeia, 1968: 745-776.
Silverstone, P.A. 1976. A revision of the poison-arrow frogs of the genus Phyllobates Bibron in Sagra (family Dendrobatidae). Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Science Bulletin, 27: 1-53.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 1.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Case 3330
Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Rippell, 1845 (Aves, Passeriformes): proposed conservation of the subspecific name
Frank D. Stemnheimer
Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin, clo Sylter Strasse 18, Niirnberg, 90425 Germany
(e-mail: frankstenheimer@yahoo.co.uk)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the subspecific name Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Ruppell, 1845 for the Ethiopian, SE-Sudanese and Eritrean population of the scarlet-chested sunbird, originally proposed as Nectarinia cruentata. The senior objective synonym Cinnyris proteus Ruppell, 1840 has not been used since its first publication except in synonymy. It is proposed that the name cruentata Ruppell, 1845 be conserved by suppression of proteus Ruppell, 1840.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; NECTARINIIDAE; Nectarinia; Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata; Cinnyris proteus; sunbirds; Ethiopia; Southeast Sudan: Eritrea.
1. Ruppell described the same species of sunbird twice, in 1840 and in 1845. Ruppell (1840, p. 91 and a footnote on p. 91) proposed by indication a new specific name Cinnyris proteus for a sunbird illustrated by Le Vaillant (1808, pp. 165—167, pl. 295, fig. 2) under the name ‘Le Sucrier Protée’ (Le Vaillant’s names of birds were not latinized binomens; the name on the plate reads “Protté’). In his paper Ruppell (1840, p. 91) gave a reference to Le Vaillant’s name ‘Le Sucrier Protée’, which he latinized as Cinnyris proteus, thereby providing a valid scientific name (Indications — Articles 12.2.1 and 12.2.7). In addition, in the first footnote on p. 91 he described his own specimens of Cinnyris proteus on the assumption that they belonged to the same taxon as the bird described by Le °Vaillant. However, the bird described by Le Vaillant had previously been named by Linnaeus (1766, p. 186) as Certhia senega- lensis and is now considered to be a different subspecies to the one described by Ruppell (1840, p. 91).
2. Later, Ruppell (1845, pp. 26—27, pl. 9) established the name Nectarinia cruentata based on the same material (this time with no reference to Le Vaillant’s specimens) indicating that his species is apparently different from Nectarinia senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766) illustrated by Le Vaillant as “Le Sucrier Protée’.
3. Ruippell’s (1845) description of Nectarinia-cruentata contains citations from his description of Cinnyris proteus published in 1840, positively suggesting that it is indeed the same taxon. Bonaparte (1850, p. 406) was the first to recognize this fact and synonymized Cinnyris proteus with Nectarinia cruentata, not, however, acknowl- edging priority.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 43
4. Nectarinia cruentata Ruppell, 1845 is treated in modern taxonomy as a subspecies of Nectarinia senegalensis (Linnaeus, 1766), first published in this combi- nation by Neumann (1906, pp. 252, 254).
5. To the author’s knowledge nobody since its first publication has used the senior synonym Cinnyris proteus Ruppell, 1840, which precedes the name Nectarinia cruentata Rippell, 1845, except in synonymy. Therefore the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 (Reversal of Precedence) of the Code are met (see Rtippell, 1845, p. 26; Murs & Prévost, 1847, p. 87; Ferret & Galinier, 1850, p. 248; Bonaparte, 1850, p. 406; Brehm, 1863, p. 211; Heuglin, 1864, p. 262; Blanford, 1868, p. 284; Heuglin, 1869, p. 228; Finsch, 1870, p. 229; Blanford, 1870, p. 352; Salvadori, 1873, p. 450; Shelley, 1878, p. 259; Gadow, 1884, p. 93; Salvadori, 1884, p. 125; Hartert, 1891, p. 30; Shelley, 1900, p. 100; Reichenow, 1904-1905, p. 462; Neumann, 1906, p. 252; Hilgert, 1908, p. 146; Salvadori, 1916, p. 11; Moltoni, 1937, p. 250; Moltoni, 1939, p. 36; Steinbacher, 1949, p. 116; Cave & Macdonald, 1955, p. 353; Smith, 1957, p. 328; Toschi, 1959, p. 399; Mackworth-Praed & Grant, 1960, p. 795; Rand, 1967, p. 234; Wolters, 1979, p. 278; Nikolaus, 1987, p. 250; Lewis & Pomeroy, 1989, p. 495; Howard & Moore, 1991, p. 425; Clements, 2000, p. 547; Fry et al., 2000, p. 194; Cheke & Mann, 2001, p. 236; Dickinson, 2003, p. 707).
5. However, the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code are not met. Zoological Record from 1955 to 2004 does not list any publication which cited the particular subspecies of the scarlet-chested sunbird. Only general and local check-lists of the Ethiopian/North Kenyan avifauna and the monograph of Cheke & Mann (2001) offer such detail. The limited use of the name cruentata in the preceding 50 years does not allow its automatic conservation under the provisions of the Code.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the name proteus Ruppell, 1840, as published in the binomen Cinnyris proteus, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place the name cruentata Riippell, 1845, as published in the binomen Nectarinia cruentata, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology;
(3) to place the name proteus Ruppell, 1840, as published in the binomen Cinnyris proteus and as suppressed in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
Acknowledgements I am very grateful for the assistance and advice of Edward C. Dickinson. Clive Mann kindly suggested additional references.
References
Blanford, W.T. 1868. Notes on a journey in Northern Abyssinia. Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, 37: 276-287.
Blanford, W.T. 1870. Observations on the Geology and Zoology of Abyssinia, made during the progress of the British Expedition to that country in 1867-68. 12, 487 pp., 7 pls. Macmillan and Co., London.
Bonaparte, C.L. 1850. Conspectus Generum Avium, vol. 1. Pp. 105-543. E. J. Brill, Lugdunum, Batavorum.
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Brehm, A.E. 1863. Ergebnisse einer Reise nach Habesch im Gefolge seiner Hoheit des regierenden Herzogs von Sachsen-Koburg-Gotha Ernst II. 439 pp. Otto Meissner, Hamburg.
Cave, F.O. & Macdonald, J.D. 1955. Birds of the Sudan — their identification and distribution. 27, 444 pp., 12 pls. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, London.
Cheke, R.A. & Mann, C.F. 2001. Sunbirds —a guide to the sunbirds, flow erpeckers, spiderhunters and sugarbirds of the world. 384 pp., 48 pls. Christopher Helm / A. & C. Black Publishers, London.
Clements, J.F. 2000. Birds of the World—A Checklist, Sth edition. 867 pp. Pica Press, Robertsbridge, Sussex.
Dickinson, E.C. (Ed.). 2003. The Howard & Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world, 3rd edition. 1039 pp. Christopher Helm, London.
Ferret, P.V.A. & Galinier, J.G. 1850. Enumération des Oiseaux recueillis en Abyssinie. Pp. 173-256 in Ferret, P.V.A., Galinier, J.G., Guérin-Meneville, F.E., Reiche, L. & Raffeneau-Delile, A. (Eds.), Voyage en Abyssinie, dans les provinces du Tigré, du Samen et de l Amhara dédié AS. A.R. Monseigneur le Duc de Nemours, vol. 3. 536 pp. Paulin, Paris.
Finsch, O. 1870. On a collection of birds from North-Eastern Abyssinia and the Bogos Country—with notes by the collector, William Jesse, C.M.Z.S., Zoologist to the Abyssinian Expedition. Transactions of the Zoological Society of London, 7(4): 197-331.
Fry, C.H., Keith, S. & Urban, E.K. (Eds.). 2000. The Birds of Africa, vol. 6 [Picathartes to Oxpeckers]. 724 pp., 36 pls. Academic Press, London.
Gadow, H. 1884. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or Perching Birds, in the collection of the British Musewn—Cinnyrimorphae: containing the families Nectariniidae and Meliphagidae (Sun-Birds and Honey-Eaters), vol. 9. 12, 310 pp., 7 pls. British Museum, London.
Hartert, E. 1891. Katalog der Vogelsammlung im Museum der Senckenbergischen Naturfor- schenden Gesellschaft in Frankfurt am Main. 22, 259 pp. Gebriider Knauer, Frankfurt am Main.
Heuglin, M.Th. von. 1864. Ornithologische Miscellen aus Central-Africa. Journal fiir Orni- thologie, 12(4): 241-276.
Heuglin, M.Th. von. 1869. Ornithologie Nordost-Afrika’s, der Nilquellen- und Kiisten-Gebiete des Rothen Meeres und des nérdlichen Somal-Landes, vol. | (1/2). 108, 851 pp., 26 pls. Theodor Fischer, Kassel.
Hilgert, C. 1908. Katalog der Collection von Erlanger in Nieder-Ingelheim a. Rh. 7, 527 pp., 1 pl. Verlag von R. Friedlander & Sohn, Berlin.
Howard, R. & Moore, A. 1991. 4 Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, 2nd edition. 622 pp. Academic Press, London.
Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12. Vol. 1, part 1. 532 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lewis, A. & Pomeroy, D. 1989. A Bird Atlas of Kenya. 15, 620 pp., 18 pls., 1 map. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.
Mackworth-Praed, C.W. & Grant, C.H.B. 1960. Birds of Eastern and North Eastern Africa, 2nd edition, vol. 2. [4], 1113 pp., 46, 19 pls. Longmans, Green and Co. Ltd., London. i
Moltoni, E. 1937. Gli uccelli Eritrei esistenti nelle Collezioni del Museo Civico di Milano. Afti della Societa Italiana di Scienze Naturali, 76: 211-254.
Moltoni, E. 1939. Aves, vol. 2(1). Pp. 4-39, 1 pl. Missione Biologica nel paese die Borana Raccolte zoologiche, Roma.
Murs, O. des & Prévost, F. 1847. Partie Oiseaux. Pp. 41-174, Appendix 160-182, 184-185 in Murs, O. des, Prévost, F., Guichenot, A. & Guérin-Méneville, F.E. Notes de Zoologie, vol. 6, Lefebvre, Ch.Th. (Ed.). Voyage en Abyssinie exécuté pendant les Années 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842, 1843 par une Commission scientifique composée de MM. Théophile Lefebvre, Lieutenant de Vaisseau, Chevalier de la Légion dhonneur A. Petit et Quartin-Dillon, Docteurs-Meédecins, Naturalistes du Muséum Vignaud, Dessinateur Publié par ordre du Gouvernement sous les Auspices de M. le Ministre de la Marine. 398 pp. Arthus Bertrand, Paris.
Neumann, O. 1906. Vogel von Schoa und Siid Athiopien. Journal fiir Ornithologie, 54(2): 229-300.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 45
Nikolaus, G. 1987. Distribution Atlas of Sudan’s Birds with Notes on Habitat and Status. Bonner Zoologische Monographien, vol. 25. 322 pp. Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Bonn.
Rand, A.L. 1967. Family Nectariniidae, Sunbirds. Pp. 208-289 in Paynter, R.A. & Mayr, E. (Eds.). Check-List of Birds of the World, vol. 12. 495 pp. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass.
Reichenow, A. 1904-1905. Die Vogel Afrikas, vol. 3. 880 pp. J. Neumann, Neudamm.
Riippell, E. 1840. Neue Wirbelthiere zu der Fauna von Abyssinien gehdrig, entdeckt und beschrieben — Végel., 2. Pp. 81-116, 31—42 pls. Siegmund Schmerber, Frankfurt am Main.
Riippell, E. 1845. Systematische Uebersicht der Vogel Nord-Ost-Afrika's nebst Abbildungen und Beschreibungen von fiinfzig theils unbekannten, theils noch nicht bildlich dargestellten Arten. 8, 140 pp., 50 pls. Schmerber’sche Buchhandlung, Frankfurt am Main.
Salvadori, T. 1873. Viaggio dei Signori A. Antinori, O. Beccari ed A. Issel nel Mar Rosso, nel Territorio dei Bogos e Regioni Circostanti durante gli Anni 1870-71—Catalogo degli Uccelli. Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 4: 366-520.
Salvadori, T. 1884. Uccelli dello Scioa e della regione fra zeila e lo Scioa. Spedizione Italiana nell’ Africa Equatoriale—Risultati Zoologici. 268 pp. Istituto Sordo-Muti, Genova.
Salvadori, T. 1916. Notizie storiche interno alla collezione ornithologica del Museo Torino. Memorie della (Reale) Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, ser. 2, 65(5): 1—50.
Shelley, G.E. 1878. A Monograph of the Nectariniidae or Family of Sun-Birds. [1876-1880]. 383 pp., 121 pls. Captain G. E. Shelley, London.
Shelley, G.E. 1900. The Birds of Africa—comprising all the species which occur in the Ethiopian region, vol. 2. 7, 348 pp., 14 pls. R.H. Porter, London.
Smith, K.D. 1957. An annotated check list of the birds of Eritrea. The Ibis, 99(1): 1-26.
Steinbacher, J. 1949. Typen und Typoide des Natur-Museums Senckenberg. 3—Kritisches Verzeichnis von Eduard Ruppell’s und Ph. J. Cretzschmar’s Vogel-Typen. Senckenber- giana, 30(1/3): 99-120.
Toschi, A. 1959. Contributo alla Ornitofauna d’Etiopia—1. Uccelli raccolti ed osservati in Abissinia dal 1939 al 1942. Laboratorio di Zoologia Applicata alla Caccia Universita di Bologna—Suppl. alle Ricerche di Zoologie Applicata alla Caccia, 2(11): 301-412.
Vaillant, F. Le. 1808. Histoire naturelle des Oiseaux d'Afrique, vol. 6. 188 pp. Delachaussée, Paris.
Wolters, H.E. 1979. Die Vogelarten der Erde—Eine systematische Liste mit Verbreitungsanga- ben sowie deutschen und englischen Namen, Lief. 4. Pp. 241-320. Paul Parey, Hamburg, Berlin.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 61: 210.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Helix papillaris Miiller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda) (Case 3319; see BZN 62: 130-133)
(1) Francisco W. Welter-Schultes Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073 Goettingen, Germany
I do not support the application by Giusti & Manganelli requesting the conserva- tion of the name Helix papillaris Muller, 1774 and suppression of Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758. I think that a simple species taxon possibly being threatened by a senior synonym alone does not justify an application to the Commission. Helix papillaris is not the type species of an important genus so, apart from this single species name, nothing more is threatened. Species names have to be replaced by older synonyms, this is something that happens from time to time and malacologists are used to this. Although Papillifera papillaris is a well-known name, I could also live with this name being changed. Both names were used in the recent past. Nordsieck (2002, p. 36) used the name Papillifera bidens. Dhora & Welter-Schultes (1996, p. 136) cited both names.
At first | agreed with most points raised by Giusti & Manganelli (2005). Gualtieri’s (1742) pl. 4 fig. C seems to represent a specimen of Cochlodina laminata (Montagu, 1803) or another species with reddish shell and without white dots along the suture. Buonannt’s (1684) section 3, fig. 41 seems to represent a specimen of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774, or a conchologically similar species. It is possible that the Latin words of Linnaeus’s diagnosis did not really match the species with the dots on the suture. Fixing a neotype for Helix papillaris Muller, 1774 seemed to be justified because obviously (in contrast to Giusti & Manganelli’s initial statement) Miiller’s diagnosis was not clear enough. However, there remains material to be discussed. To me it seems that Linnaeus (1758) had several different species in mind. Giusti & Manganelli ignored the point that Linnaeus himself tried to specify what he meant when, in the 12th edition (1767, p. 1240), he added Buonanni’s figure to the list of references (Bonan. recr. 3. t. 41. Aucta.’). This suggests that this figure also obviously matched Linnaeus’s idea of the species or the specimens he examined. However, the text of the description alone does not convince me that he could not have meant P. papillaris. Schroter (1784, p. 55) referred to Limné, 1767 (not to Linnaeus, 1758) and suspected that the citation by Gualtieri (1742, pl. 4, fig. C) was an error and had to be replaced by figs. D and E. In my opinion this is a possible and justified interpretation considering that the confusion was initiated by Linnaeus himself. As the first reviser, Schréter intended to specify which species Linnaeus had meant among several possible ones. He explicitly mentioned a specimen from Firenze in his collection.
Citing Rossmassler’s (1835) Latin malacological dictionary, Giusti & Manganelli claimed that the name Helix papillaris cannot be derived from the original Latin text. I am not convinced for three reasons. First, Rossmassler’s publication was issued nearly 80 years after Linnaeus’s description. We have to consider that in the meantime it had become necessary to define and fix Latin malacological expressions because nobody spoke Latin except a few scientists, the language developed faster than any other language and many terms had been unclear. Second, there are reasons
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 47
to suspect that Linnaeus did not mention the white dots for good reasons. In old and eroded shells the white dots are expressed much more faintly than in fresh shells. It is also possible that Linnaeus saw some shells with dots and some without, and did not mention the dots because he thought this feature was not characteristic for what he thought was one species. And third, a possible misinterpretation of the Latin text, particularly the expression ‘sutura subcrenata’, would also apply to Linnaeus himself as demonstrated in the 1767 work. If the Latin description was clear and the words were misinterpreted by Schroter and Falkner et al., Linnaeus is also to be added to the list of authors who misinterpreted his own text. However, this does not make much sense. It remained unclear what Linnaeus really meant and Schroter had to make a decision.
I do not think that it is useful and necessary, at the current state of discussion, to ask the Commission to solve the problem. The malacologists can and should solve the problem internally. The neotype designation by Falkner et al. (2002) for Turbo bidens is not effective. It does not fit the condition that a neotype must be based on a specimen deposited in a research collection of a recognized scientific or educational institution, cited by name (Article 75.3.7). I would recommend designating the neotype of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 as the neotype of Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758. This action would also be in accord with Schr6ter’s revision because the neotype specimen is from Firenze. No decision by the Commission is necessary. I am also against placing a name on an Official List or Index. I am generally opposed to the idea of an Official List, for which I see no need. In my opinion the historical nomenclatural system is sufficient.
Additional references
Buonanni, F. 1684. Recreatio mentis, et oculi in observatione Animalium Testaceorum curiosis nature inspectoribus: Italico sermone primum proposita .. . nunc denuo ab eodem Latiné oblata, centum additis Testaceorum iconibus, circa que varia problemata proponuntur. xvi, 270 [10] pp., 139 pls. Romae.
Dhora, D. & Welter-Schultes, F.W. 1996. List of species and atlas of the non-marine molluscs of Albania. Schriften zur Malakozoologie, 9: 90-197.
(2) Michael HOlling Spanischer Weg 32, 44143 Dortmund, Germany
I would like to bring to your attention the fact that Falkner, Ripken & Falkner, (2002, pp. 112-113), in a checklist of French continental molluscs published in the context of the CLECOM-project, selected a neotype for Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758, thereby stabilizing the usage of the name, which is also used by one of the leading clausiliid specialists, Hartmut Nordsieck (see http://www.clausilia.de/). Therefore, I consider the proposition of Giusti & Manganelli unnecessary.
(3) E. Gittenberger
National Museum of Natural History Naturalis | Institute of Biology, Leiden University, P.O. 9517 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands
I would like to emphasize that I agree with the proposals in BZN 62: 132. In my view stability is served the best possible way by accepting the proposals.
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the name Bythinella Mogquin-Tandon, 1856 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Prosobranchia, RISSOOIDEA) by designation of Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species
(Case 3321; see BZN 62: 134-139)
E. Gittenberger
National Museum of Natural History Naturalis | Institute of Biology, Leiden University, P.O. 9517 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands
I agree with the proposals in BZN 62: 137. In my view stability is best served by accepting these proposals.
Comment on the proposed precedence of TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (Annelida, Clitellata) (Case 3305; see BZN 62: 226-231)
Tarmo Timm
Centre for Limnology, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 61101 Rannu, Tartumaa, Estonia
Zoological nomenclature as a tool of systematics has two, often controversial, main tasks: reflecting the phylogeny of the animals and enabling biologists to easily survey taxa for any other purpose. The phylogenetic (in principle, ideal) system 1s in eternal competition with the more or less artificial but stable and comprehensive system used in practical research and teaching. The first one is formally preferred; however, its orthodox application would be simply ignored by the majority of zoologists.
The Principle of Priority, a cornerstone of zoological nomenclature, can fall into similar controversy with the everyday needs of zoology. In this case a decision either for or against the proposals is likely to cause problems.
The NAIDIDAE (now NAIDINAE) proved to be a derived group descending from the much larger stem group TUBIFICIDAE sensu stricto. Thus, possible nomenclatural changes in the first group would affect considerably fewer taxa than those in the second. This is the pragmatic reason why I support the proposal made by Erséus, Gustavsson and Brinkhurst.
Comment on the proposed reinstatement of the specific name of Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803 (currently Tylosurus acus; Teleostei, BELONIDAE) (Case 3297; see BZN 62: 232-236)
Joseph S. Nelson
Department of Biological Sciences, University. of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada (address for correspondence)
Hector Espinosa-Perez Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, D.F., Mexico
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 49
Lloyd T. Findley CIAD-Unidad Guaymas, Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico
Carter R. Gilbert University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.
Robert N. Lea California Fish and Game, Monterey, California, U.S.A.
Nicholas E. Mandrak
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
James D. Williams United States Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.
We, members of the Committee on Names of Fishes, a joint committee of the American Fisheries Society and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, support the proposal by Collette & Parin that the Commission use its plenary power and reinstate the specific name of Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803. We believe that the petitioners make an excellent case for this action. In our various editions of Common and scientific names of fishes .. ., our committee used the specific name as Strongylura acus in 1960 and as Tylosurus acus in 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2004. During the preparation of the 2004 edition (Nelson et al., 2004), we were prepared to follow Opinion 900 and accept the suppression of the name Ty/losurus acus (Lacepéde, 1803) and use Tylosurus imperialis (Rafinesque, 1810). However, given analyses that almost all authors, both in systematic and non-systematic literature, continue to use the specific name acus, as earlier advocated by Collette & Berry, 1965 (p. 391) and with which we agree, we continued to use acus. Present usage is compatible with the fact that the type locality for the oldest available name, 7. acus, is the West Indies, while that for 7. imperialis is the Mediterranean Sea. Amending the ruling in Opinion 900 (1) and placing the name acus, as published in the binomen Sphyraena acus Lacepéde, 1803, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as proposed in BZN 62: 234 will have the greatest stabilizing effect.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?) (Case 3348: see BZN 62: 237-239)
Spencer G. Lucas
New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science, 1801 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104-1375, U.S.A.
I support Emma Rainforth’s (BZN 62: 237-239) application to conserve Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845 and suppress its senior objective synonym Sauroidi- chnites Hitchcock, 1837. I base my support of her application on the following
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
considerations: Sauroidichnites Hitchcock, 1837 is the senior objective synonym of Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845 but has not been used as a valid name after 1899, so it is anomen oblitum; Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845 has been used since 1899, though not in a sufficient number of works by enough authors during the last 50 years to satisfy the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2. Nevertheless, all of the usage since 1845 has been of the name Palamopus. Furthermore, most workers have considered Lull (1953) to be the standard work on Connecticut Valley tracks, and Lull used Palamopus. Haubold (1971), in another standard compendium, also used Palamopus.
Rainforth (2005, pp. 356-361) reviewed in detail the tortured ichnotaxonomic history of Palamopus and also reviewed (pp. 436-439) the even more tortured history of Sauroidichnites. These reviews demonstrate that Sauroidichnites is the more _ problematical name. Thus, for example, Ornithichnites palmatus is the type species of Sauroidichnites, but most authors have erroneously considered its type species to be S. barrattii, which is a nomen nudum. The name Sauroidichnites reflects Hitchcock’s early philosophy in naming the Connecticut Valley footprints he studied. He thought that these footprints represented three classes of vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles and birds) and coined an ichnogeneric name for each class: Batrachoidichnites, Sauroidichnites and Ornithoidichnites, respectively. Each broadly construed ichno- genus encompassed many ichnospecies. In 1845, Hitchcock abandoned that philosophy and coined new ichnogeneric names more similar to the kinds of ichnogeneric names coined since. Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845, with one ichnospecies, is such a name. Most significantly, in 1845 Hitchcock abandoned his own name Sauroidichnites and did not use it again.
In summary, the confused ichnotaxonomic name Sauroidichnites was based on an antiquated and long abandoned philosophy of ichnotaxonomy. The original author of Sauroidichnites abandoned it in 1845 and it has not been used since. Palamopus is a less confused ichnotaxonomic name and all 20th century usage has been of Palamopus. Therefore, it makes sense to suppress Sauroidichnites and conserve the name Palamopus.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 51
OPINION 2133 (Case 3211)
CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): emended to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca, Pteropoda)
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that homonymy between the family names CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca) and CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera) is removed by changing the spelling of the junior homonym, and that the entire generic name Cliona Grant, 1826 (Porifera) is used to form the name CLIONAIDAE, leaving the stem of the senior homonym (based on the name Clione Pallas, 1774, Mollusca) unchanged.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CLIIDAE; CLIONAIDAE; CLIONIDAE; Clio; Cliona; Clione; Clio pyramidata; Cliona celata; Clione borealis; pteropods; boring sponges.
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 Cliona Grant, 1826 is Cliona-;
(b) the type genus of the family. CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 is Clione Pallas, 1774 and not Clione Rafinesque, 1815.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(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).
The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Clio pyramidata (specific name of the type species of Clio Linnaeus, 1767) (Mollusca);
(b) imacina Phipps, 1774, as published in the binomen Clio limacina (senior synonym of Clione borealis Pallas, 1774, specific name of the type species of Clione Pallas, 1774) (Mollusca);
(c) celata Grant, 1826, as published in the binomen Cliona celata (specific name of the type species of Cliona Grant, 1826) (Porifera).
(4) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology:
(a) CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, type genus Clione Pallas, 1774 (Mollusca); (b) CLIONAIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851, type genus Cliona Grant, 1826 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Porifera);
— i) —
(3
ma
52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
(c) CLUDAE Jeffreys, 1869, type genus Clio Linnaeus, 1767 (nomen protectum Bouchet & Rocroi, 2005. Malacologia, 47: 51) (Mollusca).
(5) The name Clione Rafinesque, 1815 (a junior homonym of Clione Pallas, 1774, placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in (2)(b) above) ruled in (1)(b) above not to be the type genus of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
(6) The name cLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (an incorrect original spelling of CLIONAIDAE, as ruled in (1)(a) above) (Porifera) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3211
An application to remove homonymy between the family names CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca) and CLIonIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera) by changing the spelling of the junior homonym was received from Philippe Bouchet (Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, France) and Klaus Rutzler (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, U.S.A.) on 2 July 2001. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 99-102 (June 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment requesting that additional names be taken into consideration was published in BZN 61: 167-169 to which one of the authors replied in BZN 62: 84-86.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 100-101 as emended on the voting paper. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Negative votes — none.
Comments by Alonso-Zarazaga, Calder, Kerzhner and van Tol, agreed by Bouchet, are taken into consideration by corrections given in this Opinion.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes
by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
celata, Cliona, Grant, 1826, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1826: 78.
Clio Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1094.
CLUDAE Jeffreys, 1869, British conchology, vol. 5, p. 118.
Cliona Grant, 1826, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1826: 78.
CLIONAIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851, Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphiques, vol. 2, p. 209.
Clione Pallas, 1774, Spicilegia Zoologica, vol. 1, fasc. 10, p. 28.
CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851, Cours élémentaire de paléontologie et de géologie stratigraphiques, vol. 2, p. 209.
CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse de la Nature ou tableau de l’univers et des corps organisés, p. 141.
limacina, Clio, Phipps, 1774, A voyage towards the North Pole undertaken by His Majesty's command 1773, p. 195.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 53 pyramidata, Clio, Linnaeus, 1767, Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, p. 1094.
The following is the reference for the designation of Clio pyramidata Linnaeus, 1767 as the
type species of the nominal genus C/io Linnaeus, 1767 (type genus of the family CLIIDAE Jeffreys, 1869):
Gray, J.E. 1847. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 15: 203.
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2134 (Case 3316)
Hindia Duncan, 1879 (Porifera): conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the name Hindia Duncan, 1879 is conserved for a fossil demosponge genus ranging from the Ordovician to the Devonian by the suppression of two senior synonyms, the little used Sphaerolites Hinde, 1875 and Microspongia Miller & Dyer, 1878 of doubtful identity.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Porifera; HINDIIDAE; Hindia; Sphaerolites; Microspongia; fossil sponges; Ordovician; Silurian; Devonian.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the following generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy:
(a) Microspongia Miller & Dyer, 1878; (b) Sphaerolites Hinde, 1875.
(2) The name Hindia Duncan, 1879 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Hindia sphaeroidalis Duncan, 1879 is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name sphaeroidalis Duncan, 1879, as published in the binomen Hindia sphaeroidalis (specific name of the type species of Hindia Duncan, 1879), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name HINDIIDAE Rauff, 1894, type genus Hindia Duncan, 1879, is hereby
placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Microspongia Miller & Dyer, 1878 (as suppressed in (1)(a) above);
(b) Sphaerolites Hinde, 1875 (as suppressed in (1)(b) above).
The name MICROSPONGIIDAE Howell, 1940 is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology (invalid because the name of the type genus is suppressed in (1)(a) above).
History of Case 3316
An application to conserve the name Hindia Duncan, 1879 for a fossil demosponge genus by the suppression of two senior synonyms, Sphaerolites Hinde, 1875 and Microspongia Miller & Dyer, 1878, was received from J. Keith Rigby (Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, U.S.A.) on 27 February 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 80-82 (June 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.
— oA) —
(6
mam
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 81. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 55
Affirmative votes — 16: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg and Song.
Negative votes — 4: Bouchet, Patterson, Stys and van Tol.
No vote was received from Ng.
Voting against, Bouchet commented: ‘the name Hindia was treated as a junior synonym of Microspongia in no less than the Treatise (de Laubenfels, 1955), and it is hard to understand why the nomenclatural consequence of this taxonomic synonymy is not accepted by the applicant. After the Treatise (de Laubenfels, 1955), the senior synonym was used as the valid name by one author (Zhuravleva, 1962) and the junior synonym was used as the valid name by two authors (Bayer, 1967 and the applicant: Rigby & Chatterton, 1989, 1999 and Rigby & Webby, 1988). Such limited usage does not warrant the use of the plenary power’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling
given in the present Opinion:
Hindia Duncan, 1879, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)4: 91.
HINDIDAE Rauff, 1894, Sitzungsberichte der Niederrheinischen Gesellschaft fiir Natur und Heilkunde, vol. 43, p. 327.
Microspongia Miller & Dyer, 1878, Cincinnati Society of Natural History Journal, 1: 37.
MICROSPONGIIDAE Howell, 1940, Bulletin of the Wagner Free Institute of Sciences, 15: 45.
sphaeroidalis, Hindia, Duncan, 1879, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)4: 91.
Sphaerolites Hinde, 1875, Abstracts of the Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 305: 8.
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2135 (Case 3261)
THEBINI Wenz, 1923, MONACHAINAE/MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930 (1904), and SPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960 (1910) (Mollusca, Gastropoda): conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the family-group names THEBINI Wenz, 1923, MONACHAINAE / MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930 (1904) and sPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960 (1910) are conserved for several West Palaearctic helicoid land snails. Problems arising as a consequence of rulings given in Opinion 431 (1956) are resolved by placing the names THEBINI Wenz, 1923, MONACHAINAE / MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930 (1904) and sPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960 on the Official List.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Pulmonata; THEBINI; © MONACHAINAE; MONACHAINI; SPHINCTEROCHILIDAE; Leucochroa; Monacha; Sphincterochila; land snails; Palaearctic.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled:
(a) that the name THEBINI Wenz, 1923 is not invalid by reason of its type genus being misidentified and that fixation of the type species had been over- looked;
(b) that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Monacha Fitzinger, 1833 is Monacha-;
(c) that the generic name Leucochroa Beck, 1837, type species by subsequent designation by Herrmannsen (1847) Helix albella Linnaeus, 1758, is suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(d) that the family-group name LEUCOCHROIDAE Westerlund, 1886, type genus Leucochroa Beck, 1837 (type species Helix candidissima Draparnaud, 1801), is suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy, by reason of being based on a misidentified type genus, as suppressed in (1)(c) above, itself based on a misidentified type species.
(2) The name Sphincterochila Ancey, 1887 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Pilsbry (1895) Helix boissieri Charpentier, 1847, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the name Monacha Fitzinger, 1833 is hereby emended to record that Helix cartusiana O.F. Miller, 1774 is the type species by subsequent designation by Her- rmannsen (1847) and that the stem of Monacha is Monacha-, as ruled in (1)(b) above.
(4) the following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology:
(5
ma
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 57
(a) THEBINI Wenz, 1923, type genus Theba Risso, 1826 (type species by subsequent designation by Gray (1847) Helix pisana O.F: Miller, 1774), with the endorsement that it is not to take the priority of CARTHUSIANINI Kobelt, 1904, not invalid by the ruling in (1)(a) above;
(b) MONACHAINAE / MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930, type genus Monacha Fitzinger, 1833 (type species by subsequent designation by Herrmannsen (1847) Helix cartusiana O.F. Miller, 1774), with the endorsement that it is to take the priority of CARTHUSIANINI Kobelt, 1904, and is to be cited MONACHAINAE/ MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930 (1904);
(Cc) SPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960, type genus Sphincterochila Ancey, 1887 (type species by subsequent designation by Pilsbry (1895) Helix boissieri Charpentier, 1847), with the endorsement that it is to take the priority of LEUCOCHROIDAE Westerlund, 1886.
The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Generic Names
in Zoology:
(a) Teba Turton, 1831 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Theba Risso, 1826);
(b) Teba Beck, 1847 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Theba Risso, 1826);
(c) Leucochroa Beck, 1837 (an objective synonym of Theba Risso, 1826 and suppressed in (1)(c) above);
(d) Carthusiana Kobelt, 1871 (an objective synonym of Monacha Fitzinger, 1833).
(6) The following names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Family-Group
Names in Zoology:
(a) XEROPHILIDAE Morch, 1864 (based on a generic name placed on the Official Index in Opinion 431);
(b) LEUCOCHROIDAE Westerlund, 1886 (based on a misidentified type genus suppressed in (1)(c) above);
(c) CARTHUSIANINI Kobelt, 1904 (replaced by MONACHAINAE / MONACHAINI under Article 40.2 and based on a genus placed on the Official Index in (5)(d) above);
(d) CALCARINIDAE Pallary, 1909 (based on a generic name which is a junior homonym);
(e€) MONACHINAE Wenz, 1930 (an incorrect original spelling of MONACHAINAE);
(f) EUPARYPHINAE Perrot, 1939 (based on a generic name placed on the Official Index in Opinion 431).
History of Case 3261
An application to conserve the family-group names THEBINI Wenz, 1923, MONACH-
AINAE Wenz, 1930 (1904) and sPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960 (1910) for several West Palaearctic helicoid land snails was received from Philippe Bouchet and Jean-Pierre
Rocroi (Muséum national d Histoire naturelle, Paris, France) on 12 August 2002. Issues raised in the application had been partly resolved in Opinion 431 (1956) by
placing the names Helicella, Monacha and Theba on the Official List, and the names Euparypha, Jacosta, and Xerophila on the Official Index. However, the consequences
of these rulings on family-group names had not been addressed. After correspon- dence the case was published in BZN 61: 154-161 (September 2004). The title,
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
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 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 158-159. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Negative votes — none.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
CALCARINIDAE Pallary, 1909, Mémoires présentés a l'Institut Egyptien, 6(1): 12.
Carthusiana Kobelt, 1871, Catalog der im Europdischen Faunengebiet lebenden Binnenconchyl- ien » mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung der in Rossmdssler’s Sammlung enthaltenen Arten, p. 24.
CARTHUSIANINI Kobelt, 1904, Iconographie der Land- und Stisswasser-Mollusken mit vorziigli- cher Berticksichtigung der Europdischen noch nicht abgebildeten Arten, Neue Folge, Bd. 11, p. 162.
EUPARYPHINAE Perrot, 1939, Compte-Rendu des Séances de la Société de Physique et d'Histoire naturelle de Geneve, 56(1) [in: Supplément aux Archives des Sciences physiques et naturelles, (5)21]: 35.
Leucochroa Beck, 1837, Index ‘Molluscorum praesentis aevis Musei Principis Augustissimi Christiani Frederici, p. 16.
LEUCOCHROIDAE Westerlund, 1886, Fauna der in der paladrctischen Region lebenden Binnencon- chylien. I. Fam. Testacellidae, Glaudinidae, Vitrinidae und Leucochroidae, p. 82.
MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930 (1904), Fossilium Catalogus, I; Animalia, pars 46(11), p. 3027.
MONACHINAE Wenz, 1930, Fossilium Catalogus, I: Animalia, pars 46(11), p. 3027.
Sphincterochila Ancey, 1887, The Conchologists’ Exchange, 2(2): 23.
SPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960, Handbuch der Paldozoologie, Band 6, Lief. 4, Gastropoda, p. 663.
Teba Turton, 1831, A manual of the land and fresh-water shells of the British Islands, p. 36.
Teba Beck, 1847, Amtlicher Bericht tiber die Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Artze in Kiel im September 1846, 24(2): 122.
THEBINI Wenz, 1923, Fossilium Catalogus, I: Animalia, pars 18(2) [1923], p. 381.
XEROPHILIDAE Morch, 1864, Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den Naturhistorisk Forening i Kjobenhavyn, 17—22(1863): 281.
The following is the reference for the designation of Helix boissieri Charpentier, 1847 as the type species for Sphincterochila Ancey, 1887:
Pilsbry, H.A. 1895. Manual of Conchology, (2)9(33a, 36), p. 234.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 59
OPINION 2136 (Case 3311)
Bathyporeia elegans Watkin, 1938 (Crustacea, Amphipoda): specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name of Bathyporeia elegans Watkin, 1938, for a common species of amphipod, is conserved by the suppression of the senior homonym Bathyporeia elegans Crawford, 1937.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Crustacea; Amphipoda; PONTOPOREIIDAE; Bathyporeia elegans.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name e/egans Crawford, 1937, as published in the binomen Bathyporeia elegans, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name e/egans Watkin, 1938, as published in the binomen Bathyporeia elegans and as defined by the lectotype (Zoologisk Museum i Oslo, ZMO F2656) designated by d’Udekem d’Acoz (2004), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name elegans Crawford, 1937, as published in the binomen Bathyporeia elegans and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3311
An application to conserve the specific name of Bathyporeia elegans Watkin, 1938, threatened by the senior homonym Bathyporeia elegans Crawford, 1937, was received from Cédric d’Udekem d’Acoz and Wim Vader (Tromso Museum, University of Tromso, Tromso, Norway) on 3 February 2004. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 162-164 (September 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 163. At the close of the voting period on | December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 21: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Negative votes — none.
Voting for, Ng commented that it is ‘not an ideal situation all round, but a yes vote will move things forward at least’. Also voting for, Stys commented that he is still in doubt that the name Bathyporeia elegans Crawford, 1937 exists and is available. It is simply a lapsus calami concerning Sars’s (1891) name, and has, in his opinion, no status in nomenclature.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: ; elegans, Bathyporeia, Watkin, 1938, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 23: 222. elegans, Bathyporeia, Crawford, 1937, Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 21: 639.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Bathyporeia elegans Watkin, 1938:
Udekem d’Acoz, C. d’. 2004. Zoologische Verhandelingen, 348: 33.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 61 OPINION 2137 (Case 3285)
Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 (Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the generic name Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 is conserved for a group of aphids of economic importance by suppression of the senior subjective synonym Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hemiptera; APHIDIDAE; Pemphigus; Rhizobius.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835 is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 is hereby emended to record that it is conserved by suppression of Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835.
(3) The name Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835, as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3285
An application to conserve the generic name Pemphigus Hartig, 1839 for a group of aphids of economic importance, by suppression of the senior subjective synonym Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835, was received from Juan M. Nieto Nafria and Nicolas Pérez Hidalgo (Universidad de Leon, Spain) and Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez Abascal 2, Madrid, Spain) on 8 May 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 100-102 (June 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis- sion’s website. A comment in support of the proposals was printed on the voting paper.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 101. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 20: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Negative votes — none.
Alonso-Zarazaga abstained.
Original references
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Rhizobius Burmeister, 1835, Handbuch der Entomologie, vol. 2, p. 87.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2138 (Case 3097)
Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera): not conserved; priority maintained for Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June)
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority should be maintained for the generic name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 for a group of scarab beetles (family GEOTRUPIDAE). The junior name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 is not given precedence over the older name whenever they are considered to be synonyms. In the interest of stability all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 are set aside and Scarabaeus quadridens Fabricius, 1781 is designated as the type species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; GEOTRUPIDAE; Bolboceras; Odonteus; Scarabaeus quadridens; scarab beetle.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 are hereby set aside and Scarabaeus quadridens Fabricius, 1781 is designated as the type species.
(2) Itis hereby ruled that the name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 retains priority over the name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. i
(3) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic names
in Zoology:
(a) Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775;
(b) Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (gender: neuter), type species by designation in (1) above Scarabaeus quadridens Fabricius, 1781.
The name quadridens Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus
quadridens and as defined by the lectotype designated in BZN 60: 306 (specific
name of the type species of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819), is hereby placed on the
Official List of Specific Names.in Zoology.
(4
~—
History of Case 3097
An application to conserve the generic name Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 for a group of scarab beetles (family GEOTRUPIDAE) by giving it conditional precedence over the older name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 was received from M.L. Jameson (University of Nebraska State Museum, Lincoln, Nebraska, U.S.A.) and H.F. Howden (Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa, Canada) on 26 August 1998. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 59: 246-248 (December 2002). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Three comments in support of the application, providing additional information relevant to the case, were published in BZN 59: 280-281; 61: 43 and 113-114. A lengthy comment opposing the proposals was published in BZN 60: 303-311 in which alternative
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 63
proposals were published (p. 307), to which the author’s reply (BZN 61: 43-45) was answered in BZN 61: 110-113. Another comment in oppesition was published in BZN 61: 171-173. Two comments correcting the gender of the name Bolboceras to neuter were published (BZN 61: 113-114; 62: 28-29) and were reflected in the proposals printed on the voting paper.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 59: 247, restated on the voting paper with corrections, and alternative proposals (BZN 60: 307) also reprinted on the voting paper. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes:
original proposals BZN 59: 247 para. 6 (1)-(3) — 3: Bock, Papp and Song;
original proposals BZN 59: 247 para. 6 (3)(a)-(b) — 1: Patterson;
original proposals BZN 59: 247 para. 6 (3)(b) — 3: Alonso-Zarazaga, Lamas and Mahnert.
Negative vote (opposing all proposals) — 1: Kerzhner.
Negative votes (opposing original proposals para. 6 (1)-(3)), approving the alternative proposals BZN 60: 307 para. 9 (1)-(3) — 17: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol.
Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented: ‘this is a particular case of split prevailing usage among geographically separated zoologists, as Krell, Ballerio & Ziani (2004, p. 111) show. For those of us that believe in the Principle of Priority as the main rule governing nomenclature, there is no problem in doing a selection: Odonteus is one month older than Bolboceras. Stys & Kral (2005, pp. 28-29) show us the way to follow the true spirit of the Code as our arbiter. It is regrettable that ‘convenience’ defence is still producing loss of time and efforts in nomenclatural affairs, while there is so much to be done for stability and universality in other areas. It is my opinion that the present Code should be emended in the next edition to reinforce priority versus ‘convenience’; this is a blot in nomenclature since the Régles times. The Code of Botany allows ‘reversal of priority’ only under most strict circumstances, while our Code is too flexible and liable to be invoked for unimpor- tant cases. If these lines of mine may merit a lecture, I would ask my zoologist colleagues to resort to ‘priority reversal’ only in cases where taxa of importance (e.g. medical, veterinary, conservation, etc.) are involved. Otherwise priority should be applied’. Similarly, Kerzhner also voted against ‘both the original and alternative proposals’ and commented: ‘I do not consider that the plenary power should be used to give Bolboceras precedence over Odonteus. Both names are currently widely used and priority should apply. I do not consider that the plenary power should be used to set aside the valid type species designation by Curtis and to designate Scarabaeus quadridens as the type species, thus shifting the name Bo/boceras to a further concept for which a generic name (/ndobolbus) was established long ago and used in some important works (a Google search gives 16 references). If priority had been applied, Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775 (junior synonym of Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli, 1772) would be the type species of Odonteus by monotypy and of Bolboceras by subsequent designation (Curtis, 1829) making Bolboceras a junior objective
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
synonym of Odonteus. This fact does not prevent further use of family-group names based on Bolboceras (see Code, Article 40.1)’. Voting against, Ng commented: ‘this is a complex case and I vote to maintain the synonymy established by Krell (1990) even though this has clearly upset the general understanding and will still cause some ‘pain’ now. But the fact is, both names share the same type species and are synonyms. Also, it is now 15 years since Krell’s paper was published and taxonomists would have learnt to adapt to a changing world. I also note that the genus (whatever name being used) contains only less than a dozen species and thus cannot create too many problems. As such, since the change has been made, and Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 is a senior synonym of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819, I prefer to let it stand and request that taxonomists adapt to this change’. Also voting against, van Tol commented: ‘to avoid future discussion, I prefer to have a ruling for the type species of Bolboceras Kirby (as in (3) of the alternative proposal)’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Bolboceras Kirby, 1819, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 12(2): 459. Odonteus Samouelle, 1819, The entomologist’s useful compendium; or an introduction to the knowledge of British insects .. ., p. 189. quadridens, Scarabaeus, Fabricius, 1781, Systema -entomologiae, sistens insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, adiectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus, p. 11.
The following is the reference for the designation of the lectotype of Scarabaeus quadridens Fabricius, 1781:
Krell, F-T., Ziani, S. & Ballerio; A. 2003. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 60: 306.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 65
OPINION 2139 (Case 3264)
STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera): ten specific names conserved
Abstract.
The Commission has ruled that ten specific names threatened by six senior
primary homonyms, three senior secondary homonyms, and one senior synonym are conserved for rove beetles (family STAPHYLINIDAE).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; STAPHYLINIDAE; rove beetles.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that:
(a)
(b)
the following names are not invalid by reason of being junior homonyms: (i) badium Cameron, 1924, as published in the binomen Lathrobium
badium;
(ii) bicolor Erichson, 1840, as published in the binomen Lathrobium bicolor;
(iii) dimidiatus Wollaston, 1864, as published in the binomen Swunius dimidiatus;
(iv) filum Aubé, 1850, as published in the binomen Sunius filum; (v) fulvipes Adachi, 1955, as published in the binomen Lathrobium
fulvipes;
(vi) pallipes Sharp, 1889, as published in the binomen Lathrobium pallipes;
(vil) rutilipennis Reitter, 1909, as published in the binomen Astenus rutilipennis;
(vill) tenuis Fagel, 1963, as published in the binomen Pinophilus tenuis;
(ix) unicolor Mulsant & Rey, 1878, as published in the binomen Sunius unicolor; the name /imnophilus Erichson, 1840, as published in the binomen Paederus limnophilus, is given precedence over the specific name of Paederus limophilus Heer, 1839, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
(2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology:
(a) badium Cameron, 1924, as published in the binomen Lobrathium badium;
(b) badium Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Lathrobium badium;
(c) bicolor Erichson, 1840, as published in the binomen Lathrobium bicolor;
(d) bicolor Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Lathrobium bicolor;
(e) dimidiatus Stephens, 1833, as published in the binomen Sunius dimidiatus;
(f) dimidiatus Wollaston, 1864, as published in the binomen Sunius dimidia-
tus;
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
(g) filum Aubé, 1850, as published in the binomen Sunius filum;
(h) filum Waltl, 1838, as published in the binomen Paederus filum;
(i) fulvipes Adachi, 1955, as published in the binomen Lathrobium fulvipes;
GQ) fulvipes Blanchard, 1842, as published in the binomen Lathrobium fulvipes;
(k) limnophilus Erichson, 1840 as published in the binomen Paederus lim- nophilus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over limophilus Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Paederus limophilus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms, as ruled in (1)(b) above;
(1) limophilus Heer, 1839, as published in the binomen Paederus limophilus with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over limnophilus Erichson, 1840 as published in the binomen Paederus limnophilus, when- ever the two are considered to be synonyms, as ruled in (1)(b) above;
(m) pallipes Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Lathrobium pallipes;
(n) pallipes Sharp, 1889, as published in the binomen Lathrobium pallipes;
(0) rutilipennis Chevrolat, 1860, as published in the binomen Astenus rutili- pennis;
(p) rutilipennis Reitter, 1909, as published in the binomen Astenus rutilipennis;
(q) tenuis Fagel, 1963, as published in the binomen Pinophilus tenuis;
(rt) tenuis Sharp, 1876, as published in the binomen Pinophilus tenuis;
(s) unicolor Mulsant & Rey, 1878, as published in the binomen Sunius unicolor (nomen protectum under Article 23.9.2).
History of Case 3264
An application to conserve ten specific names of rove beetles in the family STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Coleoptera) was received from Lee H. Herman (American Museum of Natural History, New York, NY, U.S.A.) on 14 January 2003.
After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 83-89 (June 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members-of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 84. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Mineili, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Kerzhner voted for (2)(a), Table 1 names 4-9.
Negative vote — 1: Alonso-Zarazaga.
Kerzhner voted against (1)(a) Table 1 names 1—3 and (1)(b), (2)(b)-(d).
Patterson abstained.
No vote was received from Ng.
Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that each problem should be con- sidered separately. In voting against some of the proposals, Kerzhner commented
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 67
that for the name Paederus limnophilus Erichson he was voting against conservation not of the name, but of the authorship and date. He further suggested that a balance should be fouind between use of the Code provisions and of the plenary power; the latter should be used only in the most important cases.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
(a) badium, Lathrobium, Cameron, 1924, Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1924: 193.
(b) badium, Lathrobium, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia, p. 53.
(c) bicolor, Lathrobium, Erichson, 1840, Genera et species Staphylinorum insectorum coleop- terorum familiae, pt. 2, p. 593.
(d) bicolor, Lathrobium, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia, p. 179.
(e) dimidiatus, Sunius, Stephens, 1833, I/lustrations of British entomology ... Mandibulata, vol. 3) 1s 2H
(f) dimidiatus, Sunius, Wollaston, 1864. Catalogue of the coleopterous insects of the Canaries in the collection of the British Museum, p. 591.
(g) filum, Sunius, Aubé, 1850. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)8: 317.
(h) filum, Paederus, Waltl, 1838, Isis, encyclopddische Zeitschrift, vorztiglich fiir Naturges- chichte, vergleichende Anatomie und Physiologie, column 267.
(1) fulvipes, Lathrobium, Adachi, 1955. Journal of the Tokyo University, 7: 30.
Q) fulvipes, Lathrobium, Blanchard, 1842. Voyage dans I Amérique méridionale . . . par Alcide d’ Orbigny . . . Insectes Coléoptéres, vol. 6, pt. 2, p. 85.
(k) limnophilus, Paederus, Erichson, 1840, Genera et species Staphylinorum insectorum coleop- terorum familiae, pt. 2, p. 653.
(1) limophilus, Paederus, Heer, 1839, Fauna Coleopterorum Helvetica, vol. 1, pt. 2, p. 235.
(m) pallipes, Lathrobium, Gravenhorst, 1802, Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia, p. 179.
(n) pallipes, Lathrobium, Sharp, 1889, Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)3: 257.
(0) rutilipennis, Astenus, Chevrolat, 1860, Revue et Magazin de Zoologie, (2)12: 410.
(p) rutilipennis, Astenus, Reitter, 1909, Fauna Germanica. Die Kafer des Deutschen Reiches. Nach der analytischen Methode bearbeitet, vol. 2, p.151.
(q) tenuis, Pinophilus, Fagel, 1963, Exploration du Parc National de la Garamba. Mission H. de Saeger, 37: 216.
(r) tenuis, Pinophilus, Sharp, 1876, Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1876: 323.
(s) unicolor, Sunius, Mulsant & Rey, 1878, Annales de la Société Linnéenne de Lyon, (n. ser.)24(1877): 276.
The following names are listed with reference to their status:
unicolor Curtis, 1840, Annals of Natural History, 5: 277, as published in the binomen Sunius unicolor (nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.2).
unicolor Stephens, 1839, A manual of British Coleoptera, or beetles, p. 407, as published in the binomen Sunius unicolor (nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.2).
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2140 (Case 3275)
Metromenus Sharp, 1884 (Insecta, Coleoptera): usage conserved by designation of Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877 as the type species
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the usage of the name Metromenus Sharp, 1884 is conserved for a group of ground beetles (CARABIDAE) by validating Lorenz’s (1998) designation of Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877 (currently Blackburnia palmae) as the type species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; CARABIDAE; Blackburnia; Metromenus; Anchomenus mysticus; Metromenus palmae; Hawaii; ground beetles.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Metromenus Sharp, 1884 before the designation of Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877 by Lorenz (1998) are hereby set aside.
(2) The name Metromenus Sharp, 1884 (gender: masculine), type species by subsequent designation by Lorenz (1998) Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877, as ruled in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name palmae Blackburn, 1877, as published in the binomen Dyscolus palmae (specific name of the type species of Metromenus Sharp, 1884), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3275
An application to conserve the usage of the name Metromenus Sharp, 1884 for a group of ground beetles (CARABIDAE) by validating Lorenz’s (1998) designation of Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877 (currently Blackburnia palmae) as the type species was received from James K. Liebherr (Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, U.S.A.), Gordon M. Nishida (Hawaii Biological Survey, B.P. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI, U.S.A.), Elwood C. Zimmerman (Tura Beach, N.S.W., Australia) and Yves Bousquet (Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) on 10 March 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 90-91 (June 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On 1| September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 91. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 17: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song and van Tol.
Negative votes — 3: Alonso-Zarazaga, Lamas and Stys.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 69
No vote was received from Ng.
Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented that ‘this application fails to propose what to do with Anchomenus mysticus Blackburn, 1877 and Mysticomenus Sharp, 1903, two names involved in the resolution of this case, which should have been requested to be placed on the Lists’. Also voting against, Stys commented that ‘the pertinent facts provided by the authors of the application call for employment of the Principle of Priority. The authors do not provide any evidence that the names involved are of general importance and are widely used’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Metromenus Sharp, 1884, Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 20: 217. palmae, Dyscolus, Blackburn, 1877, Entomologist’s Monthly Magazine, 14: 147.
The following is the reference for the designation of Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877 as the type species of the nominal genus Metromenus Sharp, 1884:
Lorenz, W. 1998. Nomina Carabidarum, a directory of the scientific names of ground beetles, p. 116.
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2141 (Case 3293)
Nicrophorus olidus Matthews, 1888 (Insecta, Coleoptera): given precedence over Nicrophorus quadricollis Gistel, 1848
Abstract. The Commission has given precedence to the widely used name Nicrophorus olidus Matthews, 1888 for a species of burying beetle (family stLPHIDAE) over the little used name Nicrophorus quadricollis Gistel, 1848 whenever the two names are considered to be synonyms.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; SILPHIDAE; NICROPHORINAE; Nicrophorus olidus; Nicrophorus quadricollis; burying beetles; Nearctic.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the name olidus Matthews,
1888, as published in the binomen Nicrophorus olidus, is given precedence over
the name. quadricollis Gistel, 1848, as published in the binomen Nicrophorus
quadricollis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms. (2) The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) olidus Matthews, 1888, as published in the binomen Nicrophorus olidus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name quadricollis Gistel, 1848, as published in the binomen WNicrophorus quadricollis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) quadricollis Gistel, 1848, as published in the binomen WNicrophorus quadricollis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name olidus Matthews, 1888, as published in the binomen Nicrophorus olidus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
History of Case 3293
An application to give precedence to the widely used name Nicrophorus olidus Matthews, 1888 for a species of burying beetle (family sILPHIDAE) over the little used name Nicrophorus quadricollis Gistel, 1848 was received from D.S. Sikes (Department of Biological Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada) and S.T. Trumbo (Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut, U.S.A.) on 20 May 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 95-97 (June 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 96. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 71
Affirmative votes — 19: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Negative vote — 1: Bouchet.
No vote was received from Neg.
Voting for, Stys commented that ‘the generally low quality of Gistel’s work is not an argument for rejection of his nominal taxa summarily. The authors (para. 3) clearly state that the description of Nicrophorus quadricollis Gistel, 1848 “‘matches the diagnostic characteristics of .. . Nicrophorus olidus Matthews ...”. Why not establish a neotype for N. quadricollis and follow priority? I fail to see any “destabilization” of nomenclature’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: quadricollis, Nicrophorus, Gistel, 1848, Naturgeschichte des Thierreichs ftir héhere Schulen, p. 190. olidus, Nicrophorus, Matthews, 1888, Biologia Centrali-Americana. Insecta. Coleoptera, vol. 2, pt. 1. Fam. Silphidae, p. 92.
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2142 (Case 3251)
Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): usage conserved by the designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Thereva
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that usage of the names Thereva Latreille, 1797 for a cosmopolitan genus of stiletto flies (family THEREVIDAE) and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (PHASIINAE) for a group of tachinid flies (family TACHINIDAE), some of which are economically important as parasites of plant bugs (Heteroptera), are conserved by the designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the genus Thereva.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; THEREVIDAE; TACHINIDAE; Thereva; Phasia; Thereva plebeja; stiletto flies; tachinids.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Thereva Latreille, 1797 are set aside and Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 is designated as the type species.
(2) The name Thereva Latreille, 1797 (gender: feminine), type species by designa- tion in (1) above Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name plebeja Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Musca plebeja (specific name of the type species of Thereva Latreille, 1797), is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name Thereva Fabricius, 1798 (a junior homonym of Thereva Latreille, 1797) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3251 :
An application to conserve the usage of the names Thereva Latreille, 1797 for a cosmopolitan genus of stiletto flies (family THEREVIDAE) and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (PHASIINAE) for a group of tachinid flies (family TACHINIDAE) by the designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of the genus Thereva was received from Kevin C. Holston (Department of Entomology, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, U.S.A.), Michael E. Irwin (Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, U.S.A.) and F. Christian Thompson (Systematic Entomology Laboratory, PSI, BARC, ARS, USDA, clo Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) on 23 July 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 198-202 (September 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. A comment opposing the application was published in BZN 61: 254255.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 73
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 201. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 18: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys and van Tol.
Negative votes — 3: Mawatari, Nielsen and Song.
Voting for, Alonso-Zarazaga commented: ‘I consider that there is no need for the Commission to use its plenary power for the designation of a type species for Thereva Latreille, 1797, since there is already a subsequent designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 by Latreille (1810, p. 421) as stated in para. 5 of the original application. The plenary power should be used only when there is a real need of it, otherwise we impair its significance. On the other hand, I consider that the problem of Fabrician altered usages of generic names proposed by other authors under the principle of his authority (the ‘Prince of Entomology’) should be addressed by the Commission once and for all. Considering them available junior homonyms could be the best procedure, in my opinion’.
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:
plebeja, Musca, Linnaeus, 1758, Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1, p. 589.
Thereva Latreille, 1797, Précis des caractéres génériques des insectes, deposés dans un ordre naturel par le Citoyen Latreille, p. 168.
Thereva Fabricius, 1798, Supplementum entomologiae systematicae, p. 549.
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 OPINION 2143 (Case 3306)
Drosophila elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972 (Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name Drosophila elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972 is conserved for a species of fruit fly by suppression of its unused senior homonym Drosophila elegans Statz, 1940.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; Drosophila; Drosophila elegans; Drosophila statzi; fruit flies; phylogenetic studies.
Ruling (1) Under the plenary power it is hereby ruled that the specific name e/egans Statz, 1940, as published in the binomen Drosophila elegans, is suppressed for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy. The following names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972, as published in the binomen Drosophila elegans; (b) statzi Ashburner & Bachli, 2004, as published in the binomen Drosophila statzi (replacement name for Drosophila elegans Statz, 1940). (3) The name e/egans Statz, 1940, as published in the binomen Drosophila elegans and suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
(2
—
History of Case 3306
An application to conserve the specific name Drosophila elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972, for a species of fruit fly important in phylogenetic studies, by suppression of an unused senior homonym Drosophila elegans Statz, 1940 and establishment of the substitute name Drosophila statzi, was received from Michael Ashburner (Genetics Department, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, U.K.) and Gerhard Bachli (Zoolo- gisches Museum, Universitat Ziirich-Izchel, Ziirich, Switzerland) on 29 October 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 165-166 (September 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments on this case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 166. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 18: Alonso-Zarazaga, Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg, Song and Stys.
Negative votes — 3: Lamas, Patterson and van Tol.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 fs)
Voting against, Lamas commented: ‘I believe that stability of nomenclature would be better served by partially suppressing the name Drosophila elegans Statz, 1940 for the purposes of the Principle of Homonymy, but not for those of the Principle of Priority, and thus conserving the name Drosophila elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972. In other words, by stating that Drosophila elegans Statz, 1940 and Drosophila elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972 are not to be regarded as primary homonyms, there is no need to propose a replacement name either for D. elegans Statz, 1940 or D. elegans Bock & Wheeler, 1972. Furthermore, I find it disturbing that the replacement name Drosophila statzi, proposed by Ashburner & Bachli in their application, was allowed to appear in print before the Commission voted in this case’. Also voting against, van Tol commented: “A new name for the recently described D. elegans Bock & Wheeler will not cause confusion’.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: elegans, Drosophila, Bock & Wheeler, 1972, The Drosophila melanogaster species group, p. 28. elegans, Drosophila, Statz, 1940, Palaeontographica, 91A: 152. statzi, Drosophila, Ashburner & Bachli, 2004, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 61: 166.
716 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2144 (Case 3282)
Thecla azia Hewitson, 1873 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): specific name conserved
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the specific name Thecla azia Hewitson, 1873 (currently Ministrymon azia) 1s conserved for a common and widespread New World species of lycaenid butterfly by suppression of the senior synonym Thecla guacanagari Wallengren, 1860.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Lepidoptera; LYCAENIDAE; THECLINAE; Minis- trymon azia; legume feeder; hairstreak butterfly.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that the name guacanagari Wallengren, 1860, as published in the binomen Thecla guacanagari, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name azia Hewitson, 1873, as published in the binomen Thecla azia, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(3) The name guacanagari Wallengren, 1860, as published in the binomen Thecla guacanagari and as suppressed in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3282
An application to conserve the specific name Thecla azia Hewitson, 1873 (currently Ministrymon azia) for a common and widespread New World species of lycaenid butterfly was received from Robert K. Robbins (Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC, U.S.A.) and Gerardo Lamas (Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Lima, Peru) on 22 April 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 61: 98-99 (June 2004). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commis- sion’s website. No comments on this Case were received.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 61: 98-99. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 18: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Calder, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Negative vote — 1: Alonso-Zarazaga.
Lamas abstained.
No vote was received from Ng.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 Han
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on an Official List and an Official Index by the ruling given in the present Opinion: azia, Thecla, Hewitson, 1873, Illustrations of diurnal Lepidoptera. Part I. Lycaenidae, vol. 5,
p. 144. guacanagari, Thecla, Wallengren, 1860, Wiener Entomologische Monatschrift, 4(2): 37.
78 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2145 (Case 3255)
Macropodus spechti Schreitmiller, 1936 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): priority maintained
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that priority is maintained for Macropodus spechti Schreitmiller, 1936, the specific name of the Black Paradise Fish (family OSPHRONEMIDAE). A proposal to conserve the specific name of its junior objective synonym Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 was not approved.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; OSPHRONEMIDAE; Macropodus concolor; Macropodus spechti; Black Paradise Fish; Southeast Asia.
Ruling (1) It is hereby ruled that priority is maintained for Macropodus spechti Schreitmiiller, 1936. (2) The name spechti Schreitmiiller, 1936, as published in the binomen Macro- podus spechti, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3255
An application to conserve the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937, for the Black Paradise Fish (family OSPHRONEMIDAE), by suppression of the senior objective synonym Macropodus spechti Schreitmiller, 1936, was received from Ingo Schindler (Warthestr. 53a, Berlin, Germany) and Wolfgang Staeck (Auf dem Grat 41a, Berlin, Germany) on 26 September 2002. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 206-207 (September 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments in support of the applica- tion were published in BZN 60: 220-221 and BZN 61: 173. Comments opposing the application were published in BZN 61: 114-116, to which the authors reply was published in BZN 61: 256-257. Additional comments opposing the application were published in BZN 61: 173-174 and BZN 62: 87-89.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 207. At the close of the voting period on | December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 6: Bock, Bouchet, Fortey, Mahnert, Nielsen and Papp.
Negative votes — 15: Alonso-Zarazaga, Brothers, Calder, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mawatari, Minelli, Ng, Patterson, Rosenberg, Song, Stys and van Tol.
Voting against, Ng commented: ‘J must argue that while the proponents have a sort of case, the fact is that the older name, spechti, is now being used by a fair number of practising ichthyologists and even aquarists after the fact that it was a senior synonym was published. As such, to reverse now and support its suppression
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 79
makes very little sense, especially considering how unstable the taxonomy of this genus and its allies are. I know this fish, and as far as I am concerned, the need to change its name is not a problem. That is what the Code was designed to do. The fact that the fish has minimal if no economic, medical or otherwise major scientific significance also makes me vote against keeping a Junior name like concolor’.
Original references
The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
spechti, Macropodus, Schreitmuller, 1936, Das Aquarium, 10: 181.
80 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
OPINION 2146 (Case 3266)
Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 (Aves, Galliformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype
Abstract. The Commission has ruled that the current usage of the name Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 is conserved for a species of fossil quail from the Miocene (family PHASIANIDAE) by the designation of a neotype.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Aves; Galliformes; PHASIANIDAE; Palaeortyx phasianoides; quails; Miocene; Europe.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power it is ruled that all previous type fixations for the nominal species Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 are hereby set aside and the scapula from Saint-Gérand-le-Puy, France (specimen no. MNHN Av 2895 in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris) is designated as the neotype. The name phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869, as published in the binomen Palaeortyx phasianoides and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
—~ N ay
History of Case 3266
An application to conserve the current usage of the name Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards, 1869 for a species of fossil quail from the Miocene (family PHASIANIDAE) by the designation of a neotype was received from U.B. Gohlich (Department fiir Umwelt- und Geowissenschaften, Sektion Paldontologie, Munich, Germany) and C. Mourer-Chauviré (Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Centre des Sciences de la Terre, Villeurbanne Cedex, France) on 1 February 2003. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 60: 211—214 (September 2003). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments in support of the application were published in BZN 61: 117, 176. One comment opposing the application was published in BZN 61: 117-119, to which the authors’ reply was published in BZN 61: 174-176.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2005 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 60: 213. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2005 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 15: Bock, Bouchet, Brothers, Fortey, Halliday, Kerzhner, Lamas, Macpherson, Mahnert, Mawatari, Minelli, Nielsen, Papp, Rosenberg and Song.
Negative votes — 4: Alonso-Zarazaga, Patterson, Stys and van Tol.
Calder abstained.
No vote was received from Ng.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 81
Voting against, Alonso-Zarazaga commented: ‘if the authors of the application are so sure of their identification of the problematic lectotype, why do they not apply priority and ask instead for a neotype designation whose only visible result is the conservation of the very recent name Ameripodius alexis Mourer-Chauviré, 2000? I therefore consider that the lectotype designation must stand, with all its conse- quences. The zoological group is important only for a few palaeontologists who can assume easily the nomenclatural changes’.
Original references The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
phasianoides, Palaeortyx, Milne-Edwards, 1869, Recherches anatomiques et paléontologiques pour servir a histoire des oiseaux fossiles de la France, vol. 2, p. 237.
82 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
Proposed conservation of usage of Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 and D. (Parazodes) Cobos, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by designation of Stigmoderma conjuncta Chevrolat, 1838 as the type species of Dactylozodes: case closed
(Case 3308; see BZN 61: 2)
C.L. Bellamy (Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch, California Department of Food & Agriculture, Sacramento, CA 95832, U.S.A.) and T. Moore Rodriguez (E/ Vergel 2245, Depto. 28-D, Santiago, Chile) submitted a proposal to conserve usage of the names Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 and D. (Parazodes) Cobos, 1959 for two groups of jewel beetles (BUPRESTIDAE) by designation of Stigmoderma conjuncta Chevrolat, 1838 as the type species of Dactylozodes. Issues presented in the case are under revision and the authors have withdrawn the application. The case is now closed.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 83
Proposed conservation of the specific name by retention of the neotype of Glossophaga morenoi Martinez & Villa, 1938 (Mammalia, Chiroptera): case closed (Case 3318; sée BZN 61: 134)
Sergio Ticul Alvarez-Castafieda and Alejandro M. Maeda-Martinez (Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas del Noroeste, La Paz, Baja California Sur 23090, México) submitted a proposal to conserve the specific name of Glossophaga morenoi Martinez & Villa, 1938 for the murciélago siricotero (Moreno’s Nectar Bat) (family PHYLLOSTOMIDAE) by retention of the neotype. The neotype retains its status in the absence of original type material under Article 75.8 of the Code. The case is now closed.
84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006
INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS
The following notes are primarily for those preparing applications to the Com- mission; other authors should comply with the relevant sections. Applications should be prepared in the format of recent parts of the Bulletin; manuscripts not prepared in accordance with these guidelines may be returned.
General. Applications are requests to the Commission to set aside or modify the Code’s provisions as they relate to a particular name or group of names when this appears to be in the interest of stability of nomenclature. Authors submitting cases should regard themselves as acting on behalf of the zoological community and the Commission will treat all applications on this basis. Applicants should discuss their cases with other workers in the same field before submitting applications, so that they are aware of any wider implications and the likely reactions of other zoologists.
Text. Typed in double spacing, this should consist of numbered paragraphs setting out the details of the case and leading to a final paragraph of formal proposals to the Commission. Text references should give dates and pages in parentheses, e.g. ‘Daudin (1800, p. 49) described ...’. The Abstract will be prepared by the Commission’s Secretariat.
References. These should be given for all authors cited. Where possible, ten or more reasonably recent references should be given illustrating the usage of names which are to be conserved or given precedence over older names. The title of periodicals should be in full and in italics; numbers of volumes, parts, etc. should be in arabic figures, separated by a colon from page numbers. Book titles should be in italics and followed by the number of pages and plates, the publisher and place of publication. More detailed instructions on the preparation of references are given in BZN 59: 159-160.
Submission of Application. One copy should be sent to: Executive Secretary, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, 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 the name Bythinella Moquin-Tandon, 1856 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Prosobranchia, RISSOOIDEA) by designation of Bulimus viridis Poiret, 1801 as the type species. E. Gittenberger ete tras eek fies
On the proposed precedence of TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovsky, 1876 over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (Annelida, Clitellata). T. Timm . :
On the proposed reinstatement of the specific name of Satan aena acus Lacs, 1803 (currently Tylosurus acus; Teleostei, BELONIDAE). J.S. Nelson, H. Espinosa- Perez, L.T. Findley, C.R. Gilbert, R.N. Lea, N.E. Mandrak & J.D. Williams.
On the proposed conservation of Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?). S.G. Lucas .
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2133 (Case 3211). CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida): emended to CLIONAIDAE to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca, Pteropoda) . ; Tyas phate
OPINION 2134 (Case 3316). istiatia Dee 1879 (Ronee ieonsenved ;
OPINION 2135 (Case 3261). THEBINI Wenz, 1923, MONACHAINAE / MONACHAINI Wenz, 1930 (1904), and SPHINCTEROCHILIDAE Zilch, 1960 (1910) gee Gastropoda): conserved
OPINION 2136 (Case 3311). arhycoren eleeans Werlsin, 1938 (Gusenen, Nine phipoda): specific name conserved :
OPINION 2137 (Case 3285). Pemphigus elects, 1839 ((asesin, Heminroran APHIDI- DAE): conserved. OPINION 2138 (Case 3097). Rolboceras Kirby, 1819 (Iuly) (ase, Coleoptera not conserved; priority maintained for Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June) . aay, OPINION 2139 (Case 3264). STAPHYLINIDAE Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Sere ten specific names conserved . :
OPINION 2140 (Case 3275). Metromenus ; Sham, 1884 Ginesaiex, @aleapters): usage conserved by designation of Dyscolus palmae Blackburn, 1877 as the type species.
OPINION 2141 (Case 3293). Nicrophorus olidus Matthews, 1888 (Insecta, Coleop- tera): given precedence over Nicrophorus quadricollis Gistel, 1848
OPINION 2142 (Case 3251). Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Phasia Latreille, 1804 (Insecta, Diptera): usage conserved by the designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Thereva .
OPINION 2143 (Case 3306). Drosophila elrons Bock & Wheeler, 1972 (Insecta, Diptera): specific name conserved.
OPINION 2144 (Case 3282). Thecla azia ETewitsont 1873 ued, Denidomtery specific name conserved
OPINION 2145 (Case 3255). Maer anodes: gradi Genreieoullen 1936 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes): priority maintained .
OPINION 2146 (Case 3266). Palaeortyx salhewarpatils Mines Eevaedes 1869 (ess Galliformes): usage of the specific name conserved by the designation of a neotype.
Closed Cases
Proposed conservation of usage of Dactylozodes Chevrolat, 1838 and D. (Parazodes) Cobos, 1959 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by designation of Stigmoderma conjuncta Chevrolat, 1838 as the type species of Dactylozodes: case closed . see
Proposed conservation of the specific name by retention of the neotype of Glos- sophaga morenoi Martinez & Villa, 1938 (Mammalia, Chiroptera): case closed
Information and Instructions for Authors
78
80
83
84
INSTITUTION LIBRARIES
“orm wii Nn
ee Notices . : 1 New appleatians to the Commesion - 1 The International Commission on Zoological emeccenes 2 Members of the Commission : 2 The International Trust for Zoological \Nemendlatine . 3 Members of the Trust . 3 The Commission’s Website . : 4 The International Code of Zoological homecare ‘ 4 The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. 4 Publications . 5 Report on the Zoabank Suaasositnan: ESA Averell Meeting ori iLandedele, Florida, 18 December 2005 . Ee CTSA" = ; Te Si ee 6 Applications Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the pee of .a oe A.C. Marques & W. Vervoort. .. . 8 Halipegus occidualis Krull, 1935 and iaiineas eccentricus Thomas, 1939 (micenen HEMIURIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific names. D.F. McAlpine. . . 12
Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 (Arachnida, Araneae): proposed conservation of the specific name by the Pee of Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896. C.R. Haddad... . . 17 Cercophonius Brac yoann us Daren Taal 1877 (cameniy Onobasmrurs Baie tus; Arachnida, Scorpiones): replacement of the holotype by the designation of a
neotype. L.E. Acosta .. . 20 Baetis pentaphlebodes Ujhelyi, 1966 (ineceen Ediemarasion: ‘aiooaned preeedenee over Baetis nexus Navas, 1918. M. Sartori& T. Soldan . . . 23
Lachniella tujafilina Del Guercio, 1909 (currently Cinara (Conressobinen tnAleee Insecta, Hemiptera, APHIDIDAE): proposed precedence over Lachnus greeni Schout- eden, 1905 (currently Cinara (Cupressobium) greeni). Juan M. Nieto Nafria,
Nicolas Pérez Hidalgo & M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga. . .. . 28 Curculio assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhynchus metas ineeces oleae tera): proposed conservation of the specific name. D.V. Alford . ... . Bill
Staphylinus punctulatus Paykull, 1789 (currently Gyrohypnus punctulatus; iipeceres Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name. V. Assing. . . 33 Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 (inssata, Cs laaniee): pore! pisesdonee of the specific name over those of Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and Chrysobothris germari Gory & Laporte, f838.T.C. MacRae . . . 36 Hyloxalus panamensis Dunn, 1933: proposed emendation of spelling or Bosses panamansis (currently Colostethus panamansis; Amphibia, Anura). T. Grant, D.R.
Frost, Roberto Ibanez D., C.W. Myers & J.M. Savage .. . 39 Nectarinia senegalensis cruentata Rippell, 1845 (Aves, Passeriformes) proposed
conservation of the subspecific name. F.D. Stemheimer . . . 42 Comments
On the proposed conservation of the specific name of Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Pee F.W. Welter-Schultes; M. Holling; E. Gittenberger. . . . . : 3 Sess 46
Continued on Inside Back Cover
Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DT1 1HD
CT ee
Bulletin
Zoological Nomenclature
=o) ‘LUST FCB on Zoological Nomenclature
a ome a Sw Or *
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a charity (no. 211944) registered in England. The annual subscription for 2006 is £140 or US$250 or €250, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £70 or US$125 or €125. All manuscripts, letters and orders
should be sent to: The Executive Secretary,
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. 020 7942 5653) (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk) (http://www.iczn.org)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Vice-President Executive Secretary
Members
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof W. J. Bock (U.S.A.; Ornithology) Prof P. Bouchet (France; Mollusca) Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Dr D. R. Calder (Canada; Cnidaria) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof I. M. Kerzhner (Russia; Heteroptera) Prof Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Dr E. Macpherson (Spain; Crustacea) Dr V. Mahnert (Switzerland; Ichthyology)
Vacant
Secretariat
Prof D. J. Brothers (South Africa)
Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.)
Prof S. F. Mawatari (Japan; Bryozoa) Prof A. Minelli (Italy; Myriapoda) Dr P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Crustacea, Ichthyology) Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) Prof D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Dr G. Rosenberg (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Prof D. X. Song (China; Hirudinea) Prof P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Mr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Dr A. Polaszek (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor)
Dr S. Coppard (Development Officer) Mrs S. Morris (Zoologist) Dr S. Nikolaeva (Zoologist)
Mr J. D. D. Smith (Scientific Administrator)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
The Earl of Cranbrook (Chairman)
Dr P. L. Forey (Secretary and Managing Director)
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2006
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) len
MW 7, BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. TA E
Volume 63, part 2 (pp. 85-152) 30 ann 2006
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomencla- tural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applications. As far as it can, the Secretariat will check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited.
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 63, part 1, 31 March 2006) 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 3374: Onthophagus sycophanta Fairmaire, 1887 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of the specific name. F.-T. Krell.
CASE 3375: Fidia Baly, 1863 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conservation of usage. S.M. Strother, V.M. Bayless & C.L. Staines.
CASE 3376: Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1856 (currently Phyllonorycter oxy- acanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera): proposed precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846. P. Triberti.
CASE 3377: Ataenius Harold, 1867 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862. H.F. Howden & A. Smetana.
86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
CASE 3378: Phyllomorpha Laporte, 1833 (Insecta, Heteroptera): proposed conservation of spelling and existing usage. I.M. Kerzhner.
CASE 3379: TUBULANIDAE Burger, 1905 (1874) (Nemertea, Anopla): proposed correction of the original publication date from 1905 to 1904. H. Kajihara.
CASE 3380: Streptopelia roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857 (Aves, COLUMBIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name. T.M. Donegan.
CASE 3381: Neobrachiella Kabata, 1979 (Copepoda, Siphonostomatoida): proposed conservation. Z. Kabata.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006 87
The Code, Copyright and ZooBank — briefing the Science Press: an informal workshop hosted by the Zoological Society of London, Regent’s Park, London, Ist March 2006
Andrew Polaszek, Executive Secretary, ICZN
A workshop to discuss the definition of publication under the present Code, and how it might be amended to accommodate publication that is solely web-based, was held at the Zoological Society of London. The workshop also included presentations and discussions of copyright issues for taxonomic descriptions, particularly with reference to the ZooBank initiative.
The agenda for the meeting was as follows:
10.00 Welcome: Georgina Mace, Zoological Society of London
10.05 Introduction: Earl of Cranbrook, Chairman, International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
10.10 The Code, Copyright and ZooBank: Andrew Polaszek, Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
10.30 ZooBank and the Taxonomic Renaissance: Quentin D. Wheeler, Keeper, Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, London
10.40 Taxonomy and the Web — integrating the pieces: Chris Lyal, Natural History Museum, London & Anna Weitzman, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
10.50 ZooBank and Zoological Record — a partnership for success: Nigel J. Robinson, Thomson Zoological Ltd, York, U.K.
11.00 ZooBank and EDIT: Yde de Jong, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands & Dave Roberts, Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, London
11.10 Web publication: a publisher’s perspective: Richard Steele, Taylor & Francis Journals Informa Academic Division, U.K.
11.20 Open-access publishing and copyright: Catriona MacCallum, Public Library of Science, Cambridge, U.K.
11.30 ZooTaxa — the first five years: Jeyaraney Kathirithamby, Department of Zoology, Oxford University, U.K.
11.40 Copyright, Biopiracy and the Taxonomic Impediment: Donat Agosti, American Museum of Natural History, New York
11.50 Lunch discussion
We thank all those who attended, especially the invited speakers, and we are most grateful to Georgina Mace and Linda DaVolls for hosting the meeting and organising the venue.
88 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
Summary presentations from the ZooBank Symposium: ESA Annual Meeting, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 18 December 2005
Andrew Polaszek, Executive Secretary, ICZN
As announced in BZN 63(1): 6-7, a meeting to present and discuss the ZooBank registry and other aspects of animal nomenclature and taxonomy was held as a late-breaking symposium during the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Entomological Society of America. The meeting was arranged as a series of six presentations, preceded by an introduction from Frank Krell, organiser of the symposium, and followed by a panel discussion.
PowerPoint presentations are available on the ICZN website at: www.iczn.org/ Fort_Lauderdale_ZB_Symposium and summaries of the presentations are given below.
ZooBank: ICZN’s open-access web-based register of all new animal names and original descriptions
Andrew Polaszek (Executive Secretary, ICZN, London, U.K.)
Why do we need ZooBank?
Descriptions of new animal species and associated nomenclatural acts are currently ‘hidden’ in thousands of specialised journals and other publications such as monographs and CDs. This process greatly reduces the ‘visibility’ of animal names and nomenclatural acts. Establishing ZooBank as a mandatory register of these names will largely alleviate this problem. Not only will animal taxonomic data be freely available, but also an alerting-service targeting taxa of interest to particular user groups will be provided. Completeness of the animal species register will be achieved by having registration of new names as an ICZN requirement for availability, along with retrospective registration of existing names.
With Code-compliance built into the registration process, an opportunity to introduce unprecedented stability into zoological nomenclature is being provided. The ZooBank interface will provide automatic checking for Code-compliance, and thus prevent new homonymy, stabilise spellings, fix genders and stems, and provide stability in gender agreement. As well as increased stability, the ZooBank register will provide an opportunity for increased quality control in animal nomenclature. Current issues such as the presence or absence of type specimens, accepted categories of type depositories, the use of offensive names, auctioning of names and other ethical issues, can be dealt with by amendments to the present Code. ZooBank will enable the tracking of names and hence facilitate the correction of many problems prior to publication and name availability.
As animal taxonomy moves away from its traditional journal or monograph base towards the internet, the role of a mandatory register increases in importance. Without such a register, web taxonomy would rapidly become unmanageable, and thus ZooBank will facilitate ‘true’ web taxonomy — i.e. taxonomy that exists only on the internet. If web taxonomy is to become a reality, however, an effective and fair peer-review system still needs to be developed.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006 89
A possible additional benefit of ZooBank would be universal availability of descriptions. Making the inclusion of original descriptions mandatory would be very difficult to achieve, partly for reasons of current copyright laws. However, ZooBank will provide a voluntary field for original descriptions (e.g. in pdf format), with no limit on numbers of illustrations. The advantages to both authors and publishers of having these descriptions freely available, with links to the original papers, will rapidly become apparent. Several prominent life sciences publishers have already agreed to make such information available to ZooBank. The nature of ZooBank as an (eventually) mandatory name register clearly separates it from other databasing initiatives such as Species 2000, ITIS, uBIO, Zoological Record / ION and ECAT.
How will ZooBank work?
Authors or third parties will be provided with the ZooBank online registration form for the submission of registration information. The usual taxonomic fields will be included, with additional fields for Code-compliance, type depositories, gender, stem, type locality details (optional) and, as discussed above, the description and figures (optional). Registration can be both pre- and post-publication, and either primary (by the author(s)) or third-party. Registration will be based on the GUID/DOI (Globally Unique Identifier/Digital Object Identifier) system. Development of GUIDs for ZooBank will be undertaken in close cooperation with GBIF (the Global Biodiversity Information Facility) and TDWG (the Taxonomic Databases Working Group). Assigning GUIDs to animal names and taxonomic acts will have several parallels with the assignment of accession numbers to gene sequences in GenBank. Also, as with GenBank, journal editors and publishers will require authors to register new taxa and nomenclatural acts with ZooBank. As discussed above, publishers will be encouraged to allow the inclusion in ZooBank of descriptive/nomenclatural sections of published work.
During the pre-publication phase there will be a holding period during which as yet unavailable names are not openly accessible. Code-compliance checks are built into the registration process, and registration will remain free to all users. ZooBank will be kick-started by making Zoological Records Index of Organism Names data available via a ZooBank portal in mid-2006. Following this, an initial prototype/ proof of concept will be made available as a voluntary system for a period of nine months to monitor its uptake.
Will ZooBank be accepted?
A registration system for plants was introduced into the Botanical Code at the time of the Tokyo Botanical Congress (1993) but was not ratified at the following St Louis Congress (1999), although a voluntary registration system ran for several years. Several reasons have been put forward to explain why plant and fungal taxonomists failed to adopt mandatory registration. Firstly, botanists have far fewer names to deal with, about one tenth, compared with zoologists. Secondly, there is already a very effective universal checklist of plant names in the form of the International Plant Name Index (IPNI). Finally, a section of the botanical community was unhappy about the way in which the registration clause had been introduced into the Tokyo Code. For bacteria, a mandatory registration system has been in place since 1980. Bacterial names are considered to be validly published only if published in the
90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology (formerly Inter- national Journal of Systematic Bacteriology). Mycologists have recently introduced MycoBank, a voluntary registration system.
In order to gauge acceptance by the zoological community, a dedicated discussion list for ZooBank has been established at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/ zoobank-list. It has been suggested that mandatory registration of organismal names is authoritarian, and/or imperialistic, as well as requiring extra work for taxonomists. For this reason, the development and implementation of ZooBank need to be done in as user-friendly a manner as possible, and registration needs to be made straightforward. We need to be able to demonstrate that the benefits of ZooBank far outweigh any additional effort and resources required to create it. With the cooperation of Zoological Record staff, at least in the initial stages of development, and provision for third party registration, much of the burden is potentially lifted from authors. However, extra resources for the development of ZooBank are clearly necessary, and a business plan is therefore being developed which will be available in mid-2006. Funding will be sought from a variety of sources, including charitable trusts, foundations, and national and international donors.
To a certain extent, the establishment and acceptance of ZooBank will depend upon the adherence of zoologists to the ICZN Code rather than adoption of any other proposed nomenclatural systems such as the Phylocode or Biocode. The experience of the last few years suggests such adoption of alternative codes extremely unlikely.
The advent of web-based taxonomy seems inevitable, and thus many of the aspects of ZooBank and the ICZN Code that are affected by traditional journal or monograph-based publication will cease to be relevant. A scenario whereby the act of registration would effectively constitute publication is clearly a strong possibility in the near future. Before that can happen, a rigorous and democratic peer-review system needs to be in place to enable solely web-based taxonomy.
Finally, the year 2008 represents 250 years — a quarter of a millennium — of Linnaean zoological nomenclature. It would be extremely timely if the ZooBank register were to be complete for retrospective registration, and up to date for new animal names, by that date.
ZooBank and Zoological Record: a partnership for success
Nigel J. Robinson (Director, Operations & Development, Thomson Zoological Ltd, York, U.K.)
Having served the zoological research community for almost 150 years, Zoological Record (ZR) is now the oldest continuing index to the life science literature and contains the most complete and up to date record of animal taxonomy in the World. Initiated by a group of scientists associated with the British Museum in 1864, ZR was supported by the Zoological Society of London until 1980 when BIOSIS undertook production operations as joint publisher. In 2004, BIOSIS was acquired by the Thomson Corporation. Now backed by a global organization, and despite the many changes, highs and lows, over the years, ZR still continues where many others have failed, and still has its original mission to provide a service to the scientific community, with particular reference to biodiversity and taxonomy.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006 91
Today, ZR is produced by a team of 32 staff based in York, U.K. Taxonomic indexing is carried out by graduate zoologists using highly sophisticated systems and data capture procedures developed in-house specifically for ZR. These systems produce accurate output quickly, with articles generally being processed within 2-11 days of receipt; they use form-based validation and data entry with over 100 integrated checks to ensure data quality, and have allowed ZR to build publisher relations so that comprehensive coverage can be obtained in a timely fashion. ZR has never been more accurate, complete or up to date.
While ZooBank should clearly be driven and organised by ICZN, as a partner ZR can help by contributing data and back-end processing to enable the project to become reality much earlier, with greater ongoing efficiency, and with more complete data than would otherwise be possible. Many of the requirements of ZooBank are already in place in ZR data capture and processing, or are contained within the newly enhanced and freely accessible Index to Organism Names service (www.organismnames.com). These features include alerts to new names, ability for authors to submit names and publications for inclusion, original description refer- ences, links to recent articles containing the name, links to ZR and on to full text publications, links to web resources for the name, etc. So, ZR is in an ideal position to support the ZooBank names registry project.
Given the existing coverage of ZR, and the processing already in place, it is proposed that new names published in the scientific literature are captured and indexed by ZR, validated for Code-compliance, and registered in ZooBank as part of the routine ZR processing. Working with ICZN, it would be relatively easy to check Code-compliance based on ZR data capture. Much of the information required to perform these checks is already gathered as part of normal indexing operations. Any published articles submitted by authors and publishers could be routed the same way ensuring registration and inclusion of associated biology and nomenclatural acts in ZR with minimal costs and overheads for authors, publishers and ICZN. In addition, as all years of ZR will be made available electronically during 2006, the ZR data can be used to assist in retrospective registration of existing names linking to the most comprehensive set of animal names data in the world.
As a sign of commitment to the project, Thomson plans to continue working with such organizations as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) and Species 2000 (the Species 2000 webservers are hosted and maintained by Thomson), and will provide support to ICZN, assisting in the development of a prototype ZooBank over the coming months. The involvement of a commercial company as a partner brings the advantage of advanced, ready built technology, and stability/ longevity going forward. With links to the published literature, much as full text articles, ZR is an ideal partner to accelerate, assist and participate in the ZooBank project and we look forward to a fruitful partnership.
ZooBank and GBIF Per de Place Bjorn (GBIF, Copenhagen, Denmark)
The Global Biodiversity Information Facility is a megascience facility aimed at making the world’s biodiversity data freely and universally available via the internet,
92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006
and sharing primary scientific biodiversity data to benefit society, science and a sustainable future. GBIF participants currently comprise 47 country members and 31 international organisations (including ICZN). There are currently 149 GBIF data providers, serving data from 517 collections. To date, these have contributed more than 73 million specimen and observation records, and more than 500,000 species records (more than a million names), most of these from the Species 2000/ITIS Catalogue of Life project. The data include, however, a large number of unregulated names from labels and field observations, and GBIF plans to develop tools to directly serve taxonomic data to GBIF from providers.
How can GBIF collaborate with ZooBank and thereby enhance taxonomy? GBIF and TDWG are setting out to form a community around GUIDs for biodiversity data. A workshop 1s scheduled for early February 2006 to explore infrastructure, with the possible adoption of Life Science IDentifiers (LSIDs) or Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs). LSID’s take the following format: urn:lsid:<domainName>:<namespace>: <objectId>[:<revisionId>]; so an LSID referring to a specimen record in the GBIF network (with identifiers assigned centrally) could take the form: urn:Isid:gbif-net: Specimen:2706712 while a record from IPNI might be in the form: urn:lsid:ipni.org: TaxonName:82090-3:1.1. Clearly the ZooBank project needs will be incorpor- ated in this process. A GBIF-hosted discussion list on GUIDs 1s available at: http://wiki.gbif.org/guidwiki/.
Other multi-disciplinary fields where GBIF is planning to have a role — and where ZooBank data will be pivotal — are the development of standards for web-wide integration of taxonomical working methods (Web-enabled taxonomy) as well as standards for web-representation of broad biological information — Species Pages.
The availability of ZooBank data will also be heightened by dissemination through the GBIF portal as GBIF will form a link between taxonomically related databases and databases about animal distribution and ecology, including data related to conservation and genomics. Naturally, new entries can be immediately available through the GBIF portal and network.
For instance, the linkage between specimens and observations and the unique ZooBank entries will largely reduce ambiguity in biodiversity science.
The integration of existing, well-curated and reviewed Global Species Databases as available through the Catalogue of Life Partnership may form a future structure to enable retrospective capture and registration of animal names.
Implementing the digital taxonomic revolution: alternative strategies for a web-based registry of taxonomic names
Richard Pyle (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.)
Registration, publication, and availability can be defined for our present purposes as follows: Registration is the process of entering a complete record in the ZooBank registry. Publication refers to Code-compliant published works, as defined in Chapter 3 (Articles 7-9) of the 4th Edition of the ICZN Code. An available name is a scientific name applied to an animal taxon that conforms to the provisions of the Code. Below I will present the following three scenarios relating to registration and publication, and how they affect, and are affected by, the current Code: 1. (Publication +
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63(2) June 2006 93
(Publication + Registration) = Availability
Procedure (Pre-Publication)
Journal/Book | Taxon author(s) l ICZN/ZooBank |
Submits online / hard copy ) form to ICZN with details of 7 nomenclatural act
Assigns LSID & returns form & LSID to Author(s) with statement of Code compliance
Submits | gine ne for | gine ne with LSID and copy of ICZN returned form
Publishes name/act with LSID in full accordance with ICZN Chapter 3 (Arts. 7-9) t Sends copy of (relevant
portion of) published name/act [ & reference to ICZN, with
Verifies sacs makes LSID public with registration details
original form and LSID
Name is available, using date of |_-
publication for priority purposes
Figure 1
Registration) = Availability (Polaszek et al., 2005; ZooBank Technical Article, pp. 3-5); 2. Registration = Availability (Polaszek et al., 2005; Zoo Bank Technical Article, pp. 5-9); 3. Registration = Publication = Availability (Doug Yanega post to Zoo Bank List, 22 Sep 2005).
1. Publication + Registration = Availability. To be available, names and acts must be published in accordance with existing Code rules, and be registered. Registration can take place either before publication, or after publication. If before or within two years after publication, the date of availability is the publication date (figs. 1 & 2). If more than two years after publication, the date of availability is the registration date (fig. 3). The advantages of this scenario include relatively small changes to existing taxonomic practice, rapid implementation via an amendment to the 4th edition of the Code, the maintenance of implicit quality control via traditional publication venues, and consequently, perhaps, broader acceptance by the taxonomic community. Possible disadvantages include a somewhat complex procedure involving asynchro- nous publication and registration events, arbitrary time periods affecting dates of availability, and petitions to the Commission in certain special circumstances. However, given the existing complexities of the ICZN Code these procedures can hardly be considered as particularly complex. Another possible perceived disadvan- tage would be an ambiguous ‘grey zone’ between publication and registration when names and acts are ‘assumed’ to be available, even though technically not available until registered. Again, the probability is that most authors will register new names prior to publication, eliminating this problem entirely. While this scenario still suffers from