oa te
Vatete
$2325 Ttiss=s2te523-3-5- Joteteret- viedo Feb arete ses tiete
aiete
sicieesas totes Sietee +4
pesecerests
perrpr ries teers 333: : ttTITiht estes
popeeetrrrrrs seit itt ts poet Pees STesees rere sesesss ts -teee teeter tes
se sens
ran
at
iene
F 2 Whe. eee y mil Whe
@ ? ~ a
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
VOLUME 23
LONDON:
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1966
(All rights reserved)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Opinion 761. Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 re ermenns Added to the Official List of Generic Names.. :
Opinion 762. Suppression under the plenary powers of seven specific names of Holothurioidea HL! MS
Opinion 763. Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818 (Crustacea, Decapoda): Validated under the plenary powers with designation of Cancer seticornis Herbst, 1788, as type-species
Opinion 764. Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844 (Mollusca) and Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 (Pisces): Added to the Official List of Generic Names
Opinion 765. Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931 (Foraminifera): Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers <a yo
Opinion 766. Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1861 (Lamellibranchia): Suppressed under the plenary powers... sie 3 es
Opinion 767. Serpula Linnaeus, 1758 (Annelida, Polychaeta): 00 he tion of a type-species under the plenary powers et
Opinion 768. Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861 (Insecta, Hee tera): Designation of a neotype under the plenary powers ...
Opinion 769. Yoldia Moller, 1842, and Portlandia Mérch, 1857: Designation of type-species under the plenary powers
Opinion 770. Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 Sechiera Added to the Official List of Generic Names.. ,
Opinion 771. Thamnophis sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia): Rejection under the plenary powers of the neotype specimen designated for that species by Opinion 385
Opinion 772. Curimata Walbaum, 1792 (Pisces): eae as a generic name and placed on the Official Index :
Ill
Page
13
15
19
22
25
Pf |
29
31
33
35
38
41
IV
TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI (Lacordaire): Proposed emendation of family-group names under the plenary powers (Insecta, Coleoptera). By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agricul- ture, Washington, D.C.) and Elwood C. Zimmerman er Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii) a Eat ae Ses
Podalonia Spinola, 1853 (Hymenoptera, Sphecidae): Proposed suppression under plenary powers in favour of Podalonia Fernald, 1927, with Ammophila violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species. By A.S. Menke, R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California, U.S.A.) and J. van der Vecht and a van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Holland) .. _ a am Be =e a Bp:
Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803): Proposed preservation as the name for the Twaite Shad (Pisces). By A. N. Svetovidov Peek ie Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) :
Gobius lenkoranicus Kessler, 1877 (Pisces): Proposed suppression as a nomen dubium. By A. N. Svetovidov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad) .. = wa nee : zs ae
Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947 (Ammonoidea): Application to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with priority from 1876. By T. Matsumoto (Kyushu, Japan) and C. W. Wright (London)
Galerita Gouan, 1770 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official Index together with addition of Galerita Fabricius, 1801, to the Official Index. By Hans Reichardt (Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura, Sao Paulo, Brazil)... ™ i = ‘ioe gen
Application to suppress four Richardson fish names. By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) -
Alden H. Miller (1906-1965): President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature PO eae ee mie
Opinion 773. Tergipes Cuvier, 1805 EtSaeopoe Validated under the plenary powers . ;
Page
46
48
52
55
57
60
62
65
84
Opinion 774. Eubranchus Forbes, 1838 (Gastropoda): Added to the Official List with suppression under the plenary powers of several nomina dubia ; oe wt
Opinion 775. Facelina Alder & Hancock, 1855 Naik: oe Added to the Official List of Generic Names '
Opinion 776. Cratena Bergh, 1864 apmartasaee cy Added to the Official List of Generic Names ... . : isd
Opinion 777. Diaphoreolis Iredale & O’ Donoghue, 1923 (Gastropoda): Suppressed under the plenary powers with addition of Trinchesia Thering, 1879, to the Official List
Opinion 778. Godiva Macnae, 1954 Sea pee OF Placed on the Official List of Generic Names ... 4a
Opinion 779. Aeolidia Cuvier, 1797 Sig isn, Placed on the Official List of Generic Names.. Bo ae
Opinion 780. Lolidina Quatrefages, 1843 (Gastropoda): Suppressed under the plenary powers i 3 a3 i a} om
Opinion 781. Flabellina Voigt, 1834 patron); Placed on the Official List of Generic Names es 2 ite
Opinion 782. Embletonia Alder & Hancock, 1851 (Gastropoda): Validated under the plenary powers es Sof B bie
Opinion 783. Four Nudibranch pears genera: Placed on the Official List of Generic Names.. : : vie ao
Proposed extension of the neotype concept. By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Natural History), London) and M. Boeseman (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden) =
Page
87
at
93
7
98
100
102
104
106
108
110
VI
Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794, and Bythinus Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed addition to the Official List in their original sense. By Claude Besuchet (Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Genéve, Swit- zerland) i : 1 ee f
Megalichthys and Rhizodus (Pisces, Rhipidistia): Proposal for the stabilization of these generic names. By Keith Stewart Thomson (Department of Zoology, University College London)
Anthocoris nigrellus Zetterstedt, 1838, Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt, 1838, and Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallén, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed designation of neotypes under the plenary powers. By J. Pericart (J0 rue Habert, Montereau, 77, France) ...
Request for revision of the part of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature relating to the function of conservation of names. By Charles A. Long & Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum ee Natural History, ere of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) . ce ts : Be ee :
Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By L. A. Mound (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... +n se o%s
Cosmopterix Hiibner, 1825 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Ronald W. Hodges (Entomology Research Division, Agric. Res. Serv., U.S. Bes i of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) : a ¥
Chromis aureus Steindachner, 1864 (Pisces, Chichlidae): Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names. By E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... 2 a ns
Otolithus aureus Richardson, 1846 (Pisces, Sciaenidae): Proposed addition to the Official List of Specific Names. By E. Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... a Sex as
Page
114
117
121
124
126
155
La?
158
Macrochoeta Macquart, 1851 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By A. C. Pont (British Museum (Natural History), London) an ae = bay sek
Amphisbaena mildei Peters, 1878 (Reptilia): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Carl Gans (State University of New York, Buffalo, U.S.A.) ... a 43 bee ~~ +e ce me
STENOPODINAE in Insecta and STENOPODIDAE in Crustacea: Proposed use of the plenary powers to remove the homonymy. By W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London)... ,
Scoptes Hiibner, [1819] v. Capys Hewitson, 1864 (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae), a case of a forgotten name. By N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) oh Ane at ces
Cornufer unicolor Tschudi, 1838 (Amphibia, Salientia): Request for suppression under the plenary powers. By Richard G. Zweifel (The American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.)
Rana maculata Daudin, 1801 (Amphibia): Proposed suppression under plenary powers. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.), John D. Lynch (Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, U.S.A.) and Robert W. Reese (Department of Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.) bie ae ah oe
The generic name for the Giant Salamanders: Proposed suppression of Proteocordylus Eichwald, 1831, and Palaeotriton Fitzinger, 1837 (Amphibia, Caudata). By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
Phelsuma ornatum Gray, 1825 (Sauria): Proposed addition to the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Sencken- berg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) ea
Hippocampus erectus Perry (1810) (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Myvanwy M. Dick (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) ... Sa — site =
Vil
Page
160
162
164
165
167
169
174
176
178
vill
Tectarius (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Request for validation in its accus- tomed sense. By A. Myra Keen Picci eagghigal of cay pica University, California, U.S.A.) ..
Hippella Moerch (Mollusca, Pelecypoda): Request for suppression under the plenary powers. By A. Myra Keen Be ae of eae Stanford University, California, U.S.A.)
Planulina dumblei (Applin, 1925) (Foraminifera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Planulina taylorensis (Carsey, 1926). By J. D. McLean, Jr. (Alexandria, Virginia, U.S.A.)
Gracilaria Haworth, 1828 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu) and N. D. ae eh Museum (Natural History), London) : ooh
Neolycaena DeNicéville, 1890 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers. By C. F. Cowan (Berkhamsted, Herts., England)... : ne a ,
Anopheles errabundus (Swellengrebel, 1925) (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression as a specific name under the plenary powers. By J. A. Reid (c/o British Museum (Natural History), London) and J. Bonne- Wepster (Institute for Tropical Hygiene, Amsterdam) bas
Enithares Spinola, 1837 (Insecta, Hemiptera): Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By I. Lansbury (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford, England)...
Declaration 42. Abbreviations in compound names: Amendment of Article 26 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature...
Opinion 784. Cardinalis preeee 1838 ae Validated under the plenary powers.
Opinion 785. Pseudosquilla Dana, 1852 and Gonodactylus Berthold, 1827 (Crustacea, ee ae sien of clei rie: under the plenary powers.
Page
179
181
183
186
188
190
191
198
201
204
Opinion 786. Griselda radicana Heinrich, 1923 SO eee Validated under the plenary powers -
Opinion 787. Baetis [Leach, 1815] (Insecta, Ephemeroptera): Designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers together with suppression of Ephemera bioculata Linneaus, 1758 ...
Opinion 788. Megalopta Smith, 1853 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): gies tion of a type-species under the plenary powers ‘
Opinion 789. Rejection of the pamphlet by J. Hiibner, 1808, entitled Erste Zutrége zur Sammlung Exotischer Schmetterlinge :
Opinion 790. Axopora Milne Edwards & Haime, one) Crem: Validated under the plenary powers ;
Opinion 791. Paratylenchus elachistus Steiner, 1949 (Nematoda): Rejection of a neotype specimen 2 ee wae a
Opinion 792. Certhia chrysotis Latham, 1801 a eae under the plenary powers
Opinion 793. Nana Schumacher, 1817 Ns i ee sk ta under the plenary powers
Opinion 794. ST PEED Jan, 1865 ede Validated under the plenary powers :
Salpa Edwards, 1771 (Pisces): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Salpa Forskal, 1775, with designation of a type-species for Thalia Blumenbach, 1798 (Tunicata). By J. P. Waal (University of Cape Town, Rondebosch, South Africa) .. aac
Patanga Uvarov, 1923 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By V. M. Dirsh (Anti- Locust Research Centre, British Museum (Natural History), London)
IX
Page
207
209
211
132
221
223
225
227
229
Zaz
235
Proteinus Latreille, 1796 (Insecta, Coleoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By J. Jelinek (National Museum, Prague) and W. O. Steel (Imperial College, London)
Musca lateralis Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Diptera): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By A. C. Pont (British Museum (Natural History), London) and J. G. Chillcott (Entomology Research Institute, Research Branch, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa) oA ca ae
Application to place on the Official Index of Rejected Names in Zoology, the generic name Ratton and the specific names R. agreste, R. blancodebaxo, R. colibreve, R. espinoso and R. tucotuco, dated from Brants, 1827. By Alfredo Langguth (Dr. Senckenbergische Anatomie der Universitét Frankfurt a.M., Germany) ... ae bibs
Diplosoma Macdonald, 1859 (Ascideacea): Proposed validation under the plenary powers. was F. W. E. Rowe ae Museum er History), London) ke 4
Thrix Doherty, 1891 (Insecta, Lepidoptera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By Lt.Col. C. F. Cowan (Little Gaddesden House, Berkhamsted, Herts., England)
Attus obscurus Taczanowski, 1872 (Araneae): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Cyrene bulbosa (Cambridge, 1901). By Maria Elena Galiano (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadavia’’, Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Hypaeus Simon, 1900 (Araneae): Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By Maria Elena Galiano (Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales “Bernardino Rivadayia”, Buenos Aires, Argentina)
Translations of the Code
Report on the activity of the Commission regarding the clarification of Code Article 23b...
Opinion 795. Asthraeus Laporte & maak 1837 passe pik esa Validation of emendation to Astraeus..
Page
239
241
243
245
253
255
256
257
258
269
Opinion 796. Ambalodus Branson & Mehl, 1933 ao Added to the Official List of Generic Names.. ; “a5
Opinion 797. Chonetes mesolobus Norwood & Pratten, 1854 amg poda): Added to the Official List & = :
Opinion 798. Lygaeus quadratus Fabricius, 1798 oe Saupe Designation of a neotype under the plenary powers..
Opinion 799. Sardina pichardus (Walbaum, 1792) (Pisces): Added to the Official List as the name of the European Sardine :
Kerr, 1792, The Animal Kingdom (Mammalia): Proposal to place this work on the Official List of Works Approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature. By Hans-Jiirg Kuhn (Dr. Sencken- bergische Anatomie der Universitat Frankfurt a. M., Germany)
Opopsitta marshalli Iredale, 1946 (Aves): Proposed setting aside of holotype and designation of neotype. By Joseph M. Forshaw (Division a be gliee Research, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) .. ms ve oe aoe es eet “i
Application to place on the appropriate Official List the names given by G. Fischer, 1814, to the Cricetid Rodents described by Felix de Azara in the French translation of ‘“‘Essais sur l’histoire naturelle des Quadrupédes du Paraguay”, 1801. By Alfredo Langguth (Dr. Senckenbergische Anatomie der Universitét Frankfurt a. M.., Germany) ...
Index to Authors List of Decisions in this volume Index to Key Names ...
Names placed on Official Lists and Indexes in Decisions published in Volume 23 ae aN “se
XI
Page
271
273
215
v4
279
283
285
289
291
292
302
XII
Page
Corrigenda.... a: ae re “ a a Ba ee fe | | Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in which the
present volume was published ... oo Li ait oe 5 «Spal
Instructions to Binders nae Bee sey ae vr Se oe Pe
> NAT. H 2 9 DEC 1966 = PURCHASED »
O my < Og Y L\e
Volume 23, Part | 29th April, 1966 pp. 1-64
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
CONTENTS Page
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology:
Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications me in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature aa 1
Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on . Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 1
(continued inside back wrapper)
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1. 1966
Price Two Pounds Ten Shillings (All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963)
Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (31 May 1960)
Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cuina (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)
B. The Members of the Commission
(Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)
Professor Enrico ToRTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘“G. Doria’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954)
Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)
BS io (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
uly
Dr. Henning LeMcueE (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)
Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)
Professor Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958)
Dr. D. V. OpRuUCHEV (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958)
Professor Tohru Ucuia (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 19
)
here eT a ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) 31 May 1
Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary)
Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, a. (9 June 1961)
me W ea (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant
‘ecretary
Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962)
Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963)
Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
Pcl) SToLL (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
‘ouncillor
Dr. L. B. Hottruuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President)
Professor Ernst MAyR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor)
Dr. J. Forest (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) ete: Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
Dr. Otto Kraus (Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (28 August 1963)
Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963)
Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
Professor. George Gaylord Smmpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
4 > 4 =
Fd
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE oer
Volume 23, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 29th April, 1966
NOTICES
(a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly ‘as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin: (1) Validation of TRYPETESINAE Lacordaire, 1833, as the family-group name for Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1733.
(2) Validation of Podalonia Fernald, 1827, with designation of Ammophila violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1735.
(3) Suppression of Gobius lenkoranicus Kessler, 1877 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1737.
(4) Grant of priority from 1876 to Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947 (Ammonoidea). Z.N.(S.) 1738.
(5) Suppression of Clupea isingleena, Clupea nymphaea, Clupea caeruleo- vittata Richardson, 1846 and Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1844 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 1740.
c/o British Museum (Natural History) W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on
March 1966 Zoological Nomenclature
ey j
2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
COMMENTS ON TYPE-SPECIES OF SCIAENA LINNAEUS Z.N.(S.) 850 (See volume 20, pages 349-360)
By Dr. Carl L. Hubbs (Scripps Institute of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, U.S.A.)
As a working ichthyologist, currently engaged in taxonomic research on the Sciaenidae, I wish to record my complete concurrence in principle with the proposal of Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas regarding the generic names Sciaena, Umbrina and Argyroso- mus, and to commend her scholarly and detailed discussion. Troublesome compli- cations have long existed regarding the names of these important and very extensively treated genera, and it is high time that appropriate action be taken to fix the nomen- clature. Any revision of a prior Opinion should obviously be approached with caution, but in this case is clearly called for, for the solution of the problems involved, and because the original Opinion (93) introduced a taxonomic judgement, which was not only undesirable but, on the evidence presented by Dr. Trewavas, also erroneous.
My only doubt and query regarding the proposals pertain to the statement in item (2), “to Rule that the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, is to be accepted as Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as designated by Cuvier, 1814..... , and restricted by him in 1817, despite the fact that Cuvier misidentified that species in 1814.” This proposal would put the Commission in the position of rendering (or confirming) a taxonomic judgement, which I strongly feel it should avoid doing. There is also at least a doubt in my mind as to whether Cuvier in 1814 designated a type-species, according to the current provision of the Code. I suggest that paragraphs (2) and (3) of the proposal be restated (without any change in the outcome) to something like:
(2) to Rule that the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, is to be accepted as
Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as indicated by Cuvier, 1814 (Mem. Mus. Paris, 1 : 13), disregarding any assumed misidentification of the species in that treatise.
[Item 5(a) specifies that Sciaena umbra is to be interpreted “‘ as restricted by Cuvier, 1817; hence it seems redundant to add this idea to proposal (2); furthermore, it is a separate item and should, I would think, call for a separately numbered paragraph, if given here.]
(3) to confirm the addition to the Official List of Generic Names that of Sciaena
Linnaeus, 1758 (gender: feminine), type species Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as indicated by Cuvier, 1814, and as restricted by Cuvier, 1817 (so determined by Plenary Power, in Opinion 93) (Name No. 444).
These changes are suggested to avoid the questionable statement that Cuvier, 1814, designated a type-species, and to avoid the incorporation of a taxonomic decision into the Opinion.
By Dr. W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
On 26 March 1965, the Commission was invited to vote on Voting Paper (65)15 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 354 as amended by C. L. Hubbs (see comment above). This Voting Paper was later cancelled by the Assistant Secretary, since the proposals were severely criticised by Commissioners in returning their votes. Comments were as follows:
(1) Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands). ** Judging by the text of Cuvier, 1814, as cited by Dr. Trewavas in her application, that author definitely did not indicate a type-species for the genus Sciaena, the word type even is not at all used in this text. However, it seems rather unimportant where the first type designation for the genus was made, since the Commission in Opinion 93 has already indicated S. umbra L. to be the type of the genus Sciaena. If any doubt
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3
as to the validity of this indication exists, the Commission now should be asked, ‘ to use its plenary powers to set aside all previous type designations for the genus Sciaena and having done so to designate Sciaena umbra L., 1758 as the type of that genus ’, in this way confirming the previous action.
“As Sciaena umbra L. is a composite species, a lecto- or neotype should be selected for it, action, which, if I understand correctly, has so far not been undertaken. Cuvier’s (1817) so-called restrictive action is not of any legal importance and certainly not a lectotype selection. The lectotype that could be chosen is Artedi’s specimen, but if there is any doubt as to its identity (it probably is no longer extant) a neotype for S. umbra could be best indicated.
“For these reasons though I agree with the ultimate goal of Dr. Trewavas’ proposal, I object to the way in which she tries to obtain her end.”
(2) Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington D.C., U.S.A.). “ The proposal as it stands is unsatisfactory on several counts, though I do not disagree with the over-all intent. I believe that it would be better (1) to suppress all previous type designations for Sciaena [to dispose of that by Bleeker (1863)], (2) to reaffirm the designation of Sciaena umbra Linnaeus published in Opinion 93, and (3) to decide, under Article 70a, that umbra is to be interpreted in its strict sense and not in the sense of Cuvier, 1814. Such a solution would seem simpler and more direct, and would reaffirm the nomenclatural part of Opinion 93.
“ T agree with Hubbs that Cuvier (1814) did not designate a type species for Sciaena, and that the proposal needs rewording on that score. However, his proposed amend- ment is also unsatisfactory. Cuvier (1814) does not show type by indication; that method applies only to original designation (cf. Article 67b). Both Trewavas and Hubbs have applied the unrecognized method of type by elimination. Regardless of the taxonomic actions of Cuvier (1814 and 1817) all five species originally included in Sciaena Linnaeus were still eligible for selection as its type-species. From the evidence submitted, it appears that Bleeker (1863) produced the first legitimate type-designation.
‘ Opinion 93 was obviously brief and superficial in dealing with Sciaena (and with others ?), and incorrect as well. Jordan, in the data given in Opinion 93, p. 9, says that Cuvier (1815, ie. 1814 as now corrected) ‘ definitely chose agquila as the type of Sciaena’, but the part of Cuvier quoted by Trewavas certainly shows no such designa- tion. Furthermore, the nominal species aquila was not originally included in the genus and is ineligible for type designation. However, the Opinion did choose umbra as the type of Sciaena, and I see no need to repeal the very thing that is desired. The point that we should now decide concerns the misidentification of the type-species, and which course (umbra s. str. or the misidentified umbra) would now cause the least confusion or contribute most to stability.”
(3) Dr. W. D. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia).
“While I agree with the general requests contained in this application, and in particular with items (1) (2) (3) (4a) and (5) of Section 12 on page 354 (as modified by Dr. Hubbs), I request the Secretary to contact the author respecting the details of (4b) before the statement is published in the appropriate List. In particular:
“ (a) Is the date 1835 correct? On page 352, 3 lines from the bottom, it is referred to as 1836 although 1835 appears elsewhere.
“(b) Is the type-species of Argyrosomus A. procerus? From the statement con- tained in the application on pages 352-3, it appears that there are 3 species names mentioned in the original statement of the genus. One is a nomen nudum, another is an invalid emendation (and therefore a junior objective synonym) of the third name. The third name (i.e. Sciaena aquila Cuvier) must be the type-species.
“(c) If the statement of de la Pylaie regarding the new genus Argyrosomus contains no more than the part quoted on pages 352-3, then the type-species is by original indication not ‘ designation ’.
“ (d) Is it wise to include this synonymy here? First of all Cuvier (as reported on page 351 of this application) regarded S$. aquila Cuvier as a species of his own.
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
He makes no mention of it being equivalent to Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde and moreover, de la Pylaie specifies S. aquila Cuvier.
‘** Subsequent workers may regard this synonym as being a question of taxonomy and not nomenclature, and unless the author of the application is satisfied that the synonymy is objective, it had best be omitted.
*“* Finally is the synonymy objective between Perca regia Asso and Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde? If not, it had better be left for the same reason.
“‘ If there is a problem here which affects the stability of Argyrosomus through not relating it firmly to P. regia Asso, then a fresh application should be made to the Commission for the use of the Plenary Powers to set aside previous type designations for Argyrosomus and to designate P. regia Asso as the type species.”
Reply by Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas (British Museum (Natural History), London) “In answer to Dr. Ride’s comments on Sciaena (Z.N.(S.) 850) ** (a) 1835 is correct. “*(b) Dr. Ride is right according to Article 67e; so section 12(3b) of my amended application should read thus: Argyrosomus de la Pylaie, 1835 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Sciaena aquila of Cuvier (= Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde).
*(c) Rejection of de la Pylaie’s nomen nudum allows use of ‘ monotypy ’.
** (qd) It is true that in Le Régne Animal Cuvier did not attribute aguila to Lacépéde, but in 1830, in Cuvier & Valenciennes’ Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, vol. 5, p. 28, he has:
‘ (Sciaena aquila nob., Cheilodiptére aigle, Lac.) ’ Although Lacépéde did latinize his names, Cuvier always quoted his vernacular version, which Lacépéde placed at the head of the page. Cuvier used ‘ nob.’ more frequently than we should, especially for combinations first proposed by him.
““The synonymy of Perca regia Asso and Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde is subjective. On the assumption, which I have taken all reasonable steps to verify, that no type exists for either, it can be made objective by selecting a single neotype for both. Therefore, I hereby designate as neotype for both Perca regia Asso and Cheilodipterus aquila Lacépéde the following specimen in the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris:
MNHN 7511 La Rochelle coll. D’Orbigny
The following particulars of this specimen are supplied by Mr. P. J. P. Whitehead (measurements in mm.):
S.L. 420, depth 101, 1. of head 121. 2, of snout 35-3, diam. of eye 18-1, depth of preorbital 12-8, interorbital width 29-5, 1. of upper jaw 54-6, of lower jaw 59-9, 1. of P 80-3, of V 73-3, of longest anal ray 56:2. Géill-rakers on the first arch 5 + 1 + 8. DX +128. ATII7. A slit in the abdomen shows appendages of the swim-bladder of the kind described for ‘ le maigre ’ by Cuvier (1804, and in Cuvier & Valenciennes, 1830, pl. 139). From the introduction to Asso’s paper, S. Sebastian in the Bay of Biscay is a possible locality for Perca regia. Dieppe was the locality of C. aquila Lacépéde. The habits of the species make it probable that these localities are in the range of one population, so that the selection of a specimen from La Rochelle, between them, is not inappropriate for both names.”
In view of the comments by the above Commissioners, Dr. Trewavas has agreed to resubmit her application as follows:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested:
(1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the Ruling now requested, and having done so, to designate Sciaena umbra Linnaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that genus;
(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5
(a) Umbrina Cuvier, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Sciaena cirrosa Linnaeus, 1758;
(b) Argyrosomus de la Pylaie, 1835 (gender: masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Sciaena aquila Lacépéde, 1803 [= Perca regia Asso, 1801].
[N.B. The generic name Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758, has already been placed on
the Official List by virtue of Opinion 93.] (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology:
(a) umbra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sciaena umbra to be in- terpreted by the following neotype, here designated : A female of standard length 310 mm. with dorsal fin-formula XI 25, with dark soft rays in pelvic and anal fins and dark lower edge of caudal fin, without a mental barbel. Registered Nr. British Museum (Natural History): Fishes 1893.9.21.10. Locality: Zara, Dalmatia. Collector Spada-Novak. This specimen agrees with Artedi’s “‘ Gen. 39, syn. 65 ” whose descrip- tion (misquoted with “ integerrimis ” instead of “ nigerrimis ”) was used by Linnaeus as diagnosis of Sciaena umbra, (type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus, 1758);
(b) cirrosa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Sciaena cirrosa (type-species of Umbrina Cuvier, 1817);
(c) regia Asso, 1801, as published in the binomen Perca regia, as interpreted by the neotype designated above (an objective synonym of Sciaena aquila Lacépéde, 1803, type-species of Argyrosomus de la Pylaie, 1835).
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CACATUA. Z.N.A(S.) 1647 (see volume 20, pages 372-374; volume 21, pages 156-161)
By Allan R. Phillips (Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de México, México, D.F.)
Issues are clarified when viewed in perspective. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature was designed to achieve stability; the plenary powers are an emergency measure in case the Code alone fails to protect important (especially medicinal) names like Musca, Aedes, Gallus, Columba, Felis, or Canis from technical upsets. They are also useful where zoologists cannot agree on important old names and their types, like Colymbus, or to avoid confusion and constant name-changing brought about by long-overlooked old names. In this, as all know, they must express the will of zoologists in general, not of small but noisy cliques. Their use by such groups has already called forth protests and bids fair to return us to chaos, with each zoologist accepting such decisions as he feels to be well-founded and rejecting the remainder. Thus the main issue is continued respect for the Commission.
Surely the present case is a ““ tempest in a teapot ’’ in which zoologists at large are uninterested. No important danger threatens anything except certain ego’s. The Commission can best serve zoology, in such cases, by insisting on application of the long-approved Rules, the well-known earliest name having priority. This will increase universal respect for its decisions as being impartial and in the best interests of stability. It will also decrease the Commission’s work load by discouraging future applications for relief from the Rules without urgent basis.
It is also most desirable that the Commission, in cases which do seem to involve urgent issues, make long and thorough investigations through independant specialists to avoid any possibility of being influenced by untrue or misleading statements in the applications submitted to it. It cannot but lose respect by making decisions on the basis of what limited information may be, at the time, available to it, rather than on the basis of ail available data. Maintenance of the highest standards at all times is of utmost importance from everyone’s standpoint, unless there be those who would destroy the Commission’s reputation by using it as a cat’s-paw for their personal ends.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PITHECOPS HORSFIELD, 1828. Z.N.(S.) 1675 (see volume 22, pages 69-71, 209-210)
By L. E. Couchman (West Hobart, Tasmania, Australia)
I have received a separate concerning an application by the late F. Hemming suggesting a type-species fixation for Pithecops Horsfield, which would have the effect of upsetting the corrected use of the name Zizula hylax Fabricius as published in 1940 by A. S. Corbet.
I most strongly support Col. Cowan in his application, which would have the effect of continuing Corbet’s correction published twenty-five years ago (and subsequently widely accepted) and allow us in Australia to continue to use the correct name Zizula hylax attenuata Lucas.
Although I did not put this combination into print until 1962, in correspondence and discussion with the late Dr. G. A. Waterhouse and others, the corrected name has been used almost since the date of Corbet’s discovery in 1940, and following my suggestion, my friend I. F. B. Common has used the corrected combination (Zizula hylax attenuata Lucas) in his handbook to the Australian butterflies published by the Jacaranda Press in Brisbane last year.
Hemming’s application would have the effect of reverting back to the former, incorrect usage of hylax Fabricius for the Pithecops species, would revive the name
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7
gaika Trimen for the Zizula species, and upset a perfectly normal correction which has been accepted in Australia almost since the date of its publication by Corbet. Sucha reversal now would cause endless confusion and surely bring the International Com- mission into contempt for illogical name-changing.
I trust the Commission will act as suggested by Col. Cowan and thus continue the nomenclature corrected by Corbet and accepted by writers in Africa, Asia and Australia.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF AMBLEMA RAFINESQUE 1820, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1699 (see volume 22, pages 196-197 and 341)
By Fred R. Woodward (Museum and Art Gallery, Paisley, Scotland)
I agree completely with Dr. Clarke and Dr. Clench that the name Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names and that Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology.
The fact that Rafinesque first described the genus Amblema in 1819 with Amblema ovalis as sole species and subsequently redescribed the genus in the following year without even mentioning his previous descriptions or A. ovalis is not surprising in that Isaac Lea as far back as 1832 writes (on page 8 of the first edition of his ““ Synopsis of the Naiades ”?)—“‘ It will be observed that the works of M. Rafinesque are but little quoted. This has arisen from the utter impossibility of satisfying myself as to his species. The cause of which was, at an early period, the abandonment of pursuing the impracticable task of making them out. His own discrepancy in the names sent to Ferussac, and those which are attached to specimens here, together with the want of accordance in the tables made out by his friends, have induced me to regard his claims as being too slender to rely upon the decisions, so contradictory of the several parties, in the (page 9) absence of the individual specimens noted.”
The fact that Amblema costata Rafinesque, can be readily identified from Rafinesque’s original description coupled with the confirmation resulting from Vanatta’s examination of the Rafinesque—Poulson type (1915, “‘ Rafinesque’s Types of Unio., Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 67 : 556) leaves no doubt as to the validity of this species, and since this species was selected by Frierson in 1914 as the type-species of Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, whilst Amblema Rafinesque, 1819, was apparently unidentifiable then it would, in my opinion, be in the interests of nomenclatural stability to ignore Rafinesque’s 1819 usage of Amblema entirely.
It is highly desirable that this course of action should be taken since the alternative would be the erection of a further unfamiliar genus which would only help to increase unnecessarily the nomenclatural complexities of the North American Naiades.
Rafinesque gives the Ohio River and tributaries of the Kentucky as the type localities for Amblema costata Rafinesque.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR THE DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR STIZUS LATREILLE [1802-1803]. Z.N.(S.) 1710
By R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, U.S.A.)
Some new information has recently come to light that bears on our recent proposal concerning the type-species of Stizus Latreille (see Bohart and Menke, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 (4) : 255-256).
It appears that Blanchard [1846] (in the ‘‘ Disciples Edition ’’ of Cuvier’s ‘* Le Régne Animal, Les Insectes, Atlas,” part 2, plate 121, fig. 3) validly designated “* Stizus ruficornis ”’ (=Larra ruficornis of Fab. 1804, =Bembex ruficornis Fabricius, 1787, = Vespa ruficornis Forster, 1771) as type-species of Stizus. On the title page of the
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
atlas, the following statement is made, “‘ Edition accompagnée de planches gravées, representant les types de tous les genres, ...”
Pate (1937) in his catalog of Sphecid genera and their type-species did not mention Blanchard’s type designation, and other Sphecid workers appear to have overlooked it also.
As far as we can determine there is no reason for not accepting Blanchard’s designation as valid. Consequently our recent petition would appear unnecessary and should be withdrawn or cancelled inasmuch as Blanchard’s designation is in keeping with the current interpretation of Stizus. We note that Blanchard’s type designations have been accepted for certain Pompilid genera (Pate, 1946).
COMMENTS ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF TRYCHOSIS FOERSTER, 1868. Z.N.AS.) 1712 (see volume 22, pages 259-260)
By J. F. Perkins (British Museum (Natural History), London)
Since Schmiedeknecht 1890 (Ent. Nachr. 16 : 114) clearly states that the type- species of 7rychosis Foerster, 1868, is Cryptus titillator Gravenhorst (i.e. Cryptus titillator (Linnaeus); Gravenhorst), this case should be treated under Article 70 (b) of the Code and therefore does not require the plenary powers of the Commission.
Many of the earlier authors, on Ichneumonidae at least, made their intent of interpretation of species completely clear by stating the authority that they followed, when they suspected that the original type probably differed specifically from a later interpretation that they followed. These cases can be solved at once by the applica- tion of Article 70 (b) of the Code. In fact Perkins (1962, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) 11 ; No. 8) followed this criterion throughout in relation to the Foerster genera of Ichneumonidae for which there were no originally included species; advice was sought that this would be correct procedure and this was agreed.
In the present case the type-species should now be quoted as follows:
Trychosis Foerster, 1868. Type-species Cryptus titillator [Linnaeus]; Gravenhorst, by designation of Schmiedeknecht, 1890 = Trychosis mesocastanus (Tschek, 1870).
By G. van Rossem (Wageningen)
I do not think that Article 70b applies to this case, as Schmiedeknecht when he indicated Cryptus titillator Grav. as the type-species of Trychosis did not make “‘ deliberate use of a misidentification”’. The use of a wrong author’s name can not be “‘ a statement that he employs its specific name in accordance with the wrong usage of a previous author ”’.
I am nevertheless fully aware of the great number of cases which Dr. Perkins had to deal with when working on Foerster’s genera, making it necessary to find practical solutions.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9
OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PHASIA LATREILLE. Z.N.(S.) 1706 (see volume 22, pages 243-245)
By Curtis W. Sabrosky (Entomology Research Di vision, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
I wish to record my opposition to the proposal by Herting (1965, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 243-245) for action under the plenary powers to suppress the Latreille fixation of a type-species for Phasia and to designate instead Phasia rubra Girschner.
2. The fact that Phasia is the type-genus of a subfamily, Phasiinae, is actually not important in the present case. All genera and species involved in the problem are members of the same subfamily, and even of the tribe Phasiini in a restricted sense. Thus no upsetting change in family-group names can be cited in support of suspension of the Rules.
3. Herting remarks (paragraph 2) that Townsend’s proposal of Ectophasia for Phasia of authors is unimportant in America because there are no nearctic species of either Ectophasia or Phasia in Townsend’s sense. This is true, as far as known, but there are nearctic species of Phasia in the strict sense (type subcoleoptrata), and we are thus directly concerned with a decision on the proper use of Phasia.
4. Further points in the discussion will be emphasized by a chronological sequence of relevant publications (for brevity, references already cited by Herting are not repeated):
1767. Linnaeus described Conops subcoleoptrata, “‘ Upsaliae ”’.
1775. Fabricius: Syrphus subcoleoptratus (L.), “« Angliae ”’.
1794. Fabricius described the true Syrphus subcoleoptratus (L.), “ Habitat in
Suecia. Mus. Dom. Bosc.,” and proposed Syrphus hemipterus (now Alophora hemiptera) for the English specimens previously misidentified as subcoleoptratus.
1798. Fabricius: Thereva subcoleoptrata (F.), ‘‘ Habitat in Europa boreali Dom. Bosc.” (Citations are given to Linneaus, 1767, and Fabricius, 1794.)
1804. Latreille: Phasia, new genus for ‘‘ Les Théréves de M. Fab.”
1805. Latreille: Phasia subcoleoptrata, citing as source “ Thereva coleoptrata [sic] Fab.” (Fixation of type-species by subsequent monotypy. The spelling is either a lapsus or a typographical error; cf. Latreille, 1810.)
1805. Fabricius: Thereva subcoleoptrata (F.), ‘‘ Habitat in Europa boreali Mus. Dom. Bosc.”
1810. oe designated ‘‘ Thereva subcoleoptrata, Fab.” as type-species of Phasia.
1824. Meigen correctly identified Phasia subcoleoptrata, having Swedish examples from Fallén at Lund. Under P. crassipennis, Meigen mentioned a small variety, about which he stated, as Herting notes, ‘‘ Dies ist Ther. sub- coleoptrata in Fabricius Museum”.
5. Herting may be right (paragraphs 4-6) on the identity of the small variety of crassipennis that Meigen (1824) found labeled “ Ther. subcoleoptrata ”’ in the Fabrician Collection at Kiel, but I cannot agree with his further conclusion, based on the con- ception of a misidentified type-speicies, that ‘‘ rubra Girschner is the type-species of Phasia Latr.” The works of Fabricius and others between 1767 and 1794, and even later, show that subcoleoptrata was often misidentified, because it does not occur in Western Europe and the name was applied to various species. The existence of the name On a certain specimen in the Fabrician Collection does not automatically assure us of the entire usage of that name.
6. Most important, the Fabrician Collection is not the relevant and significant material in the Phasia problem. The truly relevant material is that published as Thereva subcoleoptrata by Fabricius (1798), to which Latreille (1804) must have referred in his citation under the genus Phasia. That material was in the Bosc Collec- tion, i.e., in Paris, and not in the Fabrician Collection in Kiel. One cannot say
Bull zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
positively that Latreille in Paris saw the Bosc specimens, but because of his close association with Bosc, it is virtually certain that he did.t_ In any event his published reference to “* Les Théréves de M. Fab.” inevitably refers us back to Fabricius (1798), and thence to Fabricius (1794), in both of which only material from the Bosc Collec- tion is cited for subcoleoptrata. Fabricius also referred only to the Bosc Collection in 1805 in the summation of his work on Diptera. Meigen (1824) cited these three Fabrician references in his identification of the true subcoleoptera from Sweden. I must therefore conclude, contrary to Herting’s view, that Phasia subcoleoptrata was not misidentified by Latreille, and that true subcoleoptrata Linnaeus is the type-species of Phasia Latreille, as fixed (1805) and later designated (1810) by Latreille himself.
7. Furthermore, the descriptions of subcoleoptrata by Fabricius (1794, 1798) and of Phasia by Latreille agree quite well, as pointed out by Dupuis (1949), and they agree with typical subcoleoptrata but not with rubra Girschner nor with the description of Meigen’s small variety of crassipennis. It should also be pointed out, as noted above, that Meigen himself (1824) recognized the above agreement and cited sub- coleoptrata of Fabricius (1794, 1798, 1805) and of Latreille under typical Phasia subcoleoptrata (Linnaeus), which Meigen redescribed from Swedish examples received from Fallén at Lund. I see no justification for ignoring the several major references to Thereva subcoleoptrata given by Meigen on page 190, while giving special emphasis and reliability to a mention of it in a sentence of discussion on page 186 under crassipennis.
8. The erroneous use of Phasia was recognized over a half century ago by Coquillett (1910) and Townsend (1912), and the latter proposed Ectophasia for crassipennis Fabricius, representing Phasia of authors, not of Latreille. Townsend maintained this usage throughout his life work on the family, which culminated in his monumental “* Manual of Myiology ” in 12 parts (1934-42). Brooks (1945), in reviewing the North American Phasia complex, followed Townsend’s conclusion. Dupuis in 1949, and again in 1963 in his thorough and definitive monograph of the Phasiinae, concurred and adopted Ectophasia. This same interpretation was also recognized as correct by Sabrosky and Arnaud (1965) when preparing the section *“* Tachinidae ” for the recently published *“‘ A Catalog of the Diptera of America North of Mexico ” (Ectophasia is not included, but Phasia is used in the sense required by the acceptance of Ectophasia for crassipennis). There are thus some major and important modern works that have adopted the correct conclusions of Coquillett and Townsend of a half century ago.
9. Although the correct name for the crassipennis group, Ectophasia, has been a clearcut conclusion for over a half century, the correct application of Phasia itself has unfortunately been confused. Both Coquillett and Townsend, under the name of coleoptrata Fabricius, or even coleoptrata Latreille, misinterpreted the type-species as being a synonym of Alophora hemiptera (Fabricius). Dupuis (1949, 1963) correctly pointed out that the type-species is subcoleoptrata and that Phasia applies to the re- stricted genus known as Phorantha Rondani. Sabrosky and Arnaud (1965) reviewed the arguments on both sides, agreed with Dupuis, and followed him in using Phasia for subcoleoptrata and allies.
10. The generic classification of this complex is still subject to difference of opinion, but that is a zoological matter and not subject to rules of nomenclature. Some authors recognize three genera, others only two. The crassipennis group (Ectophasia, Phasia of authors not Latreille) is one genus; the Aemiptera (Alophora) and subcoleoptrata (Phasia, Phorantha) groups may or may not be combined.
1 In volume | (1804) of the ‘* Histoire naturelle des Crustacés et des Insectes,”’ on page viii of the Preface, Latreille refers warmly to ‘‘ mes amis Olivier et Bosc,” “* avec lesquels je me suis formé dans l’art d’observer les Insectes ”’.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11
11. The zoologically and nomenclaturally correct conclusion is that the type- species of Phasia Latreille is typical subcoleoptrata Linnaeus. This has been adopted without difficulty in important recent works on the group. The proposal to use the plenary powers to designate rubra Girschner as type-species should be rejected as unfounded and unnecessary.
REFERENCES
Brooks, A. R. 1945. A revision of the North American species of the Phasia com- plex (Diptera, Tachinidae). Scientific Agric. 25 : 647-679
Fasricius, J.C. 1775. Systema entomologiae. 832 pp. (subcoleoptratus, 764)
— 1794. Entomologia systematica emendata et aucta. Vol. 4, 472 pp. (sub- coleoptratus, 283)
— 1805. Systema antliatorum. 372 pp. (subcoleoptrata, 217)
LATREILLE, P. A. 1810. Considérations générales sur ordre naturel des animaux... 444 pp. (Phasia, type designation, p. 444)
LINNAEUS, C. 1767. Systema naturae (ed. 12). Vol. 1 (part 2): 533-1327 (sub- coleoptrata, 1006)
SABROSKy, C. W. and ARNAuD, P. H., Jr. 1965. Tachinidae, in STONE et al., A catalog of the Diptera of America north of Mexico. 1696 pp. (Phasia, p. 969)
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PROSPALTELLA ASHMEAD, 1904. Z.N.(S.) 1713 (see volume 22, pages 261-262)
By B. D. Burks (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.)
I favor this action, because it will validate preponderant usage all over the world for a period of 60 years. There is now an enormous literature using the name Prospaltella in the sense of the type-species auranti (Howard), a cosmopolitan species. The comprehensive paper that Howard published in 1907 (U.S.D.A., Bureau of Entomology Tech. Ser. 12, pt. 4, ““ New genera and species of Aphelinidae with a revised table of genera”) in which the type-species was given as aurantii established usage throughout the world. The species murtfeldtae (Howard) that had been clearly designated type-species in 1894 is one that occurs only in North America, it is rather rare, and it is unknown to most workers. It would be a mistake to invoke priority at this late date and rename Prospaltella Howard of 1907. I have long known that this discrepancy between usage and priority existed for Prospaltella, but I rather thought the matter would never be brought up, the actual type-species being conveniently obscure. Now that the discrepancy has been made the subject of a proposal for action He the i oa under their plenary powers, I can only express myself as being in
avor of it.
COMMENTS ON THE REQUEST FOR A DECLARATION AGAINST THE SUPPRESSION OF NOMINA DUBIA. Z.N.(S.) 1715 (see volume 22, pages 265-266)
By W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Museum, Perth)
I agree with the disquiet expressed by Commissioner Sabrosky over a number of recent applications for the suppression of names for the reason that they are nomina dubia. But I am far from convinced that a formal Declaration is warranted or even desirable. The term nomen dubium has no formal status in nomenclature and the qualification of a name by this term requires no consequences through the Code; moreover, it is not one of the conditions under which the use of the plenary powers is authorized. It follows, therefore, that without fundamental modification of the Code the Secretary can inform applicants for the suppression of nomina dubia (on those
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
grounds alone) that, while the term nomen dubium indicates that a state of nomen- clatorial instability exists, the Commission, in being asked to use the plenary powers, will require to know that the application of the normal provisions of the Code to the particular case will disturb stability, or universality or cause confusion. This, in the case of a nomen dubium, as well as being shown that the name cannot be allocated with certainty, the Commission should be presented with a case which shows that:
either (a) a well-known name in common use for a stable taxon is made unstable
because of its possible synonymy with a more senior name which has been regarded as a nomen dubium
or (b) the description, or type, of a nomen dubium is being interpreted in more than one way and, accordingly, disrupting universality
or (c) the continued presence of a nomen dubium is otherwise causing confusion
and (d) that the situation cannot be stabilized by the normal application of the
Code through the fixation of the name by means of a neotype, or that such fixation would lead to further confusion.
It should also be made clear to applicants that, even where the plenary powers are fully justified, they need not be used in suppression. In certain cases, stability may be served better by employing them to fix a nomen dubium in its accustomed usage, rather than through suppressing it.
If the Commission issues a formal Declaration upon this matter, the Declaration must be referred to the next Congress for modification and consequent amendment of the Code (Art. 78). However, as Commissioner Sabrosky has pointed out (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 265) the London Congress held that the normal processes of taxonomy should apply to nomina dubia and the Code needs no special provision for treating such names. Since it would appear that the problem is not that the Code is at fault, but that applicants are not aware that the cases which they present for the use of the plenary powers are inadequate, it would follow that information from the Secretary to the applicant is capable of solving it.
While the Secretary cannot take action upon himself which would seem as if he was rejecting applications to the Commission, it must surely be within his normal duties of service, both to the applicant and to the Commission, to see that the applicant is aware that his application should contain the information which the Code demands as a basis for action by the Commission in respect of Articles 78 and 79.
By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal seems rather sound in principle, but he fails to recognize that nomina dubia may remain so and still become actual threats to important names. It happens that a beautiful example of exactly that kind is presented on p. 270—three pages after Dr. Sabrosky’s proposal. Xy/eborus Bowdich, 1825, threatens Xyleborus Eichhoff, 1864, but the former name remains as much as ever a nomen dubium.
So, I think it inappropriate to bind the Commission to a rigid principle. The Commission should be as free as ever possible to judge every single case on its own merits. But I do agree that it is worth while trying to avoid unnecessary suppressions of nomina dubia. So, my proposal is that Commissioners should silently agree in principle but that they should take no general action.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13
OPINION 761
EUKROHNIA RITTER-ZAHONY, 1909 (CHAETOGNATHA): ADDED TO THE OFFICAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES
RULING.—(1) The generic name Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909 (gender: feminine), type-species, by original designation, Sagitta hamata Mobius, 1875, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1697.
(2) The specific name hamata Mobius, 1875, as published in the binomen Sagitta hamata (type-species of Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2111.
(3) The generic name Krohnia Langerhans, 1880 (a junior homonym of Krohnia Quatrefages, 1835) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1776.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1586)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in December 1962 by Dr. R. Alvarado and Dr. I. Moreno as a request for the use of the plenary powers to place Krohnia Langerhans, 1880, on the Official List of Generic Names. The application was sent to the printer on 7 May 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 381-382. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin and to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 - 184). An objection by Mr. N. Tebble was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21:90. As a result of this objection Alvarado and Moreno withdrew their request for the use of the plenary powers and asked that Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony should be placed on the Official List (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 90).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 23 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)25 either for or against the Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl.21:90. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 23 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe, Lemche, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Ride, Sabrosky,* Forest, Binder, Evans, Brinck, Bonnet.
Negative votes—three (3): do Amaral, Kraus, Mertens.
Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
* An affirmative vote in part only. See note below. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Prof. A. do Amaral (18.x.65): “* The present proposal seems not sufficiently justified and rather illogical.”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): ““ The data are meagre, but perhaps there is no objection to placing a valid genus, Eukrohnia, on the Official List, along with its type-species. But I vote against proposition (3). Must the International Commission take its valuable time to place on the Official Index a name that is automatically and definitely invalid under the Code, a junior primary homonym? ”
Dr. Otto Kraus (22.x1.65): ““ I vote against the proposal for I cannot find any reason for the Commission to act in the present case. This is quite an everyday situation which is, without any difficulty, covered by the automatic provisions of the Code.”
Prof. R. Mertens (22.xi.65): “I agree with the comments made by Dr. Kraus.”
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references to names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909, Zool. Anz. 34 : 792 hamata, Sagitta, Mobius, 1875, Jber. Comm. wiss. Untersuch. dtsch. Meere, Jahrg. II-III: 158, tab. 3, figs. 13-16 Krohnia Langerhans, 1880, Z. wiss. Zool. 34 : 132-136
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)25 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 761.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
19 January 1965
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15
OPINION 762
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF SEVEN SPECIFIC NAMES OF HOLOTHURIOIDEA
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:
(a) guamensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-
thuria guamensis ;
(b) lucifuga Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria
lucifuga;
(c) albifasciata Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-
thuria albifasciata;
(d) Jutea Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria
lutea:
(e) pentagona Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo-
thuria pentagona;
(f) fusca Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Fistularia
fusca; (g) timama Lesson, 1830, as published in the binomen Holothuria timama. (2) The following specific names, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) guamensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo- thuria guamensis (Name No. 846);
(b) /ucifuga Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria lucifuga (Name No. 847);
(c) albifasciata Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria albifasciata (Name No. 848);
(d) Jutea Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holothuria lutea (Name No. 849);
(e) pentagona Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Holo- thuria pentagona (Name No. 850);
(f) fusca Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, as published in the binomen Fistularia fusca (Name No. 851);
(g) timama Lesson, 1830, as published in the binomen Holothuria timama (Name No. 852). (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) nobilis Selenka, 1867, as published in the binomen Muilleria nobilis (Name No. 2112);
(b) moebii Ludwig, 1883, as published in the binomen Holothuria moebii (Name No. 2113);
(c) coluber Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Holothuria coluber (Name No. 2114);
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(d) variegatus Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Stichopus varie- gatus (Name No. 2115);
(e) australis Ludwig, 1875, as published in the binomen Colochirus australis (Name No. 2116);
(f) rufescens Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Polycheira rufescens (Name No. 2117);
(g) aculeata Semper, 1868, as published in the binomen Holothuria aculeata (Name No. 2118);
(h) /eucospilota Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Stichopus leuco- spilota (Name No. 2119);
(i) buccalis Stimpson, 1856, as published in the binomen Thyone buccalis (Name No. 2120).
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1587)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in April 1963 by Miss Ailsa M. Clark. Miss Clark’s application was sent to the printer on 7 May 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 383-387. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184).
The application was supported by Prof. E. Tortonese and, in part, by Dr. E. Deichmann. Dr. Deichmann objected, however, to the suppression of Stichopus leucospilota Brandt and Thyone buccalis Stimpson (Nos. 7 & 8 on Miss Clark’s list). As a result of this objection Miss Clark wrote “... so as not to prejudice the rejection of numbers 1-6 and 9 (which would upset drastically the accustomed terminology and for which there is a good case), I am prepared to concede that numbers 7 and 8 do not have a good case for retention thanks to certain authors following H. L. Clark’s adoption of them.”
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 23 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)25 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 386-387 as amended in the note accompanying the Voting Paper. In the said note Commissioners were in- formed of Dr. Deichmann’s objection and Miss Clark’s reply and the proposals were amended as follows: ** Delete 1(h) and 1(i); 2(h) and 2(i). For 3(h) substitute: /eucospilota Brandt, 1835, as published in the binomen Stichopus leucospilota. For 3(i) substitute: buccalis Stimpson, 1856, as published in the binomen Thyone buccalis.” At the close of the prescribed voting period on 23 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes—twenty-four (24), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature iF
Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Forest, Kraus, Binder, Mertens, Ride,* Evans, Brinck, Bonnet.
Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.
Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): ‘‘ I oppose voting en bloc on lists of names that are mixtures of situations and that appear unequal in justification. In particular, I will not vote to suppress nomina dubia, and must vote against the whole list.”
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (23.xi.65): “ I vote for the proposal to suppress, by means of the plenary powers, the following names:
(1) Holothuria guamensis Quoy & Gaimard, 1833
(3) H. albifasciata Quoy & Gaimard, 1833
(4) H. lutea Quoy & Gaimard, 1833.
In each case there is instability caused by doubt as to how the name is to be applied, and no type specimens are known to exist. Stability is served better here by suppression than by neotype designation.
‘**T do not agree to the use of the plenary powers to suppress the following:
(2) H. lucifuga Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. This name can be positively identified through its type. It threatens to supplant another name in a taxon which is without stable classificatory boundaries (application p. 384, para. 6) and, moreover, one for which no case has been made for its conservation on the grounds which are set out in the Code for the use of the plenary powers (Arts. 23b(iii) and 79).
(5) H. pentagona Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. Again, there is no doubt as to the application of this name. It threatens to replace a name which has an unstable subjective synonymy. In fact, a shift of taxonomic philosophy once more could well require the valid specific name of this taxon to become doliolum Pallas, 1766 (as it was until 1942). No adequate case has been made out for conservation of the threatened name C. australis Ludwig, 1875. Accord- ing to the applicant, this name, soon after its description, was placed in synonymy by its describer and left there until 1932. Since 1932 it has been used by three authors.
(6) Fistularia fusca Quoy & Gaimard, 1833. This name can be identified without doubt. It threatens to replace a name (rufescens Brandt, 1835) for which the applicant makes no case for conservation beyond saying that it has been ‘ widely used for additional material’ by three authors in the taxonomic literature since 1881. The applicant makes no statement covering the in- variability of usage of rufescens for the taxon which contains fusca, nor of stability in its boundaries.
(9) H. timama Lesson, 1830. The identity of this name is not in doubt. The applicant asks for the conservation of the threatened name H. aculeata Semper, 1868, for which she records seven usages including its original descrip- tion. No further material has been recorded since its description and it has
* An affirmative vote in part only. See note below.
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
not been used since 1934. On the other hand, timama, which we are asked to suppress, has also seven usages (and one more, with doubt, in synonymy). The most recent of these was in 1951 in which it was declared to be the senior synonym of aculeata. 1 would regard the applicant’s statement as a clear indication that aculeata does not warrant conservation over timama.”
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on the Official List and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: aculeata, Holothuria, Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen 2 : 84-85 albifasciata, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe”, Zool. 4: 132 australis, Colochirus, Ludwig, 1875, Arb. zool.-zoot. Inst. Wiirzburg 2(2) : 12-13 buccalis, Thyone, Stimpson, 1856, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1854-1856 : 386 coluber, Holothuria, Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen : 2 : 90 fusca, Fistularia, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe ”’, Zool. 4 : 26 guamensis, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “Astrolabe ’’, Zool 4 : 137 leucospilota, Stichopus, Brandt, 1835, Prodr. Descr. Anim. Mertens. Orb. Terr. Circumnay. obsery. : 251 lucifuga, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe”, Zool. 4 : 134 lutea, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe”, Zool. 4 : 140 moebii, Holothuria, Ludwig, 1883, Ber. oberhess. Ges. Nat.-u. Heilk. : 246 nobilis, Mulleria, Selenka, 1867, Z. wiss. Zool. 17 : 313 pentagona, Holothuria, Quoy & Gaimard, 1833, Voy. “ Astrolabe’’, Zool. 4 2135 rufescens, Polycheira, Brandt, 1835, Prodr. Descr. Anim. Mertens. Orb. Terr. Circumnay. obsery. : 59 timama, Holothuria, Lesson, 1830, Centurie zoologique, ou choix d’animaux rares, nouveaux ou imparfaitement connus : 118 variegatus, Stichopus Semper, 1868, Reisen im Archipel de Philippinen 2 : 73
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)26 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 762.
G. OWEN EVANS WwW. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
20 January 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19
OPINION 763
STENORHYNCHUS LAMARCK, 1818 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): VALIDATED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH DESIGNATION OF CANCER SETICORNIS HERBST, 1788, AS TYPE-SPECIES
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:
(a) the generic name Pactolus Leach, 1815, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy;
(b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818, made prior to the present Ruling, are hereby set aside and the nominal species Cancer seticornis Herbst, 1788, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus;
(c) the emendation to Stenorhynchus of the generic name Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818, is hereby validated;
(d) it is hereby directed that the family-group name INACHINAE McLeay, 1838, is not to be rejected in favour of the name MACROPODIINAE Samouelle, 1819, by any zoologist who considers that the genera Macropodia [Leach, 1814] and Inachus Weber, 1795, belong to the same family-group taxon.
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Inachus Weber, 1795 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Cancer scorpio Fabricius, 1779 (Name No. 1698);
(b) Macropodia [Leach, 1814] (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- typy, Cancer longirostris Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 1699);
(c) Stenorhynchus (emend. under the plenary powers of Stenorynchus) Lamarck, 1818 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above, Cancer seticornis Herbst, 1788 (Name No. 1700).
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) debilis S. 1. Smith, 1871, as published in the binomen Leptopodia debilis (Name No. 2121);
(b) dorsettensis Pennant, 1777, as published in the binomen Cancer dorsettensis (Name No. 2122);
(c) longirostris Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer longi- rostris (type-species of Macropodia [Leach, 1814]) (Name No. 2123).
(d) phalangium Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Cancer phalangium (Name No. 2124);
(e) rostratus Linnaeus, 1761, as published in the binomen Cancer rostratus (Name No. 2125);
(f) seticornis Herbst, 1788, as published in the binomen Cancer seticornis (type-species of Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818) (Name No. 2126).
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Macropus Latreille, [1802-1803] (a junior homonym of Macropus Shaw, 1790) (Name No. 1777);
(b) Pactolus Leach, 1815 (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) (Name No. 1778);
(c) Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818 (Ruled under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above to be an incorrect original spelling for Stenorhynchus) (Name No. 1779).
(5) The family-group name INACHINAE McLeay, 1838 (type-genus Jnachus Weber, 1795) (under the plenary powers, a name to be given precedence over the name MACROPODIINAE Samouelle, 1819, by any zoologist who considers that Inachus Weber, 1795, and Macropodia [Leach, 1814], belong to the same family-group taxon) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 400.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 751)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. John S. Garth and Dr. L. B. Holthuis in February 1953. This application was revised in June 1963 and was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 424-428. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Con- stitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial. No comments were received.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 25 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)31 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 427-428. At the end of the prescribed voting period on 25 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-three (23), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Jaczewski, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Ride, Forest, Kraus, Binder, Mertens, Evans, Brinck, Bonnet.
Negative votes—none (0).
Voting Papers not returned—three (3): Hubbs, Vokes, Sabrosky.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: debilis, Leptopodia, S. 1. Smith, 1871, Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1869/1870 (app.): 87 dorsettensis, Cancer, Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4: 8 INACHINAE McLeay, 1838, J//ustr. Annul. S. Afr. : 56
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21
Inachus Weber, 1795, Nomencl. ent. Syst. Fabr. : 93
longirostris, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 408
Macropodia [Leach, 1814], Brewster’s Edinb. Ency. 7 : 431
Macropus Latreille, [1802-1803], in Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 27
Pactolus Leach, 1815, Zool. Miscell. 2 : 19
phalangium, Cancer, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 408
rostratus, Cancer, Linnaeus, 1761, Fauna svec. (ed. 2) : 493 ¥
seticornis, Cancer, Herbst, 1788, Vers, Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(7) : 229
Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 236
Stenorynchus Lamarck, 1818, an invalid original spelling for Stenorhynchus q.v.
The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Inachus Weber, 1795: H. Milne Edwards, 1837, in Cuvier’s Régn. Anim. (ed. 4) (Disciples’ ed.) 18 : pl. 34, fig. 2.
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)31 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 763.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
26 January 1966
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
OPINION 764
CHAETODERMA LOVEN, 1844 (MOLLUSCA), AND CHAETO DERMIS SWAINSON, 1839 (PISCES): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES
RULING.—(1) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) penicilligerus Cuvier, 1817, as published in the binomen Balistes penicilligerus (type-species of Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839) (Name No.
2127); (b) nitidulum Lovén, 1844, as published in the binomen Chaetoderma nitidulum (type-species of Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844) (Name No. 2128).
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Bleeker, 1866, Balistes penicilligerus Cuvier, 1817 (Name No. 1701);
(b) Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Chaetoderma nitidulum Lovén, 1844 (Name No. 1702).
(3) The family-group name CHAETODERMATIDAE (correction of CHAETO- DERMATA) von Jhering, 1876 (type-genus Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 401.
(4) The specific name pennicilligerus Cuvier, 1817, as published in the binomen Balistes pennicilligerus (an incorrect original spelling for penicilligerus Cuvier, 1817) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 853.
(5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Choetoderma Swainson, 1839 (an incorrect original spelling for Chaeto- dermis Swainson, 1839) (Name No. 1780);
(b) Chaetoderma Swainson, 1839 (an incorrect original spelling for Chaeto- dermis Swainson, 1839) (Name No. 1781);
(c) Chetoderma Kowalevsky & Marion, 1887 (an incorrect spelling for Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844) (Name No. 1782);
(d) Chaetoderma Moser, 1907 (a junior homonym of Chaetoderma Loven, 1844) (Name No. 1783);
(e) Crystallophrysson Graff, 1875 (an incorrect spelling for Crystallophrisson Mobius, 1875) (Name No. 1784);
(f) Chrystallophrysson Wirén, 1892 (an incorrect spelling for Crystallo- phrisson Mobius, 1875) (Name No. 1785);
(g) Chrystallophrisson Liitken, 1877 (an incorrect spelling for Crystallo- phrisson Mobius, 1875) (Name No. 1786).
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1250)
The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Henning Lemche in 1957. In February 1963 a new application on the same subject was independently submitted by Mr. David Heppell. Dr. Lemche supported the latter and agreed that it should replace his own. Consequently Mr. Heppell’s application was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 November 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 429-431. The application was supported by Dr. Myra Keen.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)32 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 430-431. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Tortonese, Sabrosky*, Alvarado, Boschma, Binder, Jaczewski, Evans.
Negative votes—None (0).
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
Prof. G. G. Simpson (14.x.65): ‘‘ On the showing of the proposal the recom- mended action is in accord both with strict application of the Code and with current usage. There appears to be no question either as to the result of applying the Code or as to usage, the only issue before the Commission being whether or not to place certain names on various Official Lists. Two matters of principle should, I think, be considered by the Commission, the Congress, or both:
“1. Whether the expenses of publication, circularization and commis- sioners’ time are justified when in fact there is no moot point.
“2. What, in fact, are the function and force of the Official Lists. The only bare hint in the Code itself is in 78(f), which strikes me as completely baffling.”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “* I vote in the affirmative except for para. (5), which is an unnecessary Ruling.”
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Chaetoderma Lovén, 1844, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 1 : 116 Chaetoderma Moser, 1907, Ann. Soc. ent. Belg. 51 : 319 Chaetoderma Swainson, 1839, an incorrect original spelling for Chaetodermis q.v.
* An affirmative vote in part only. See note below.
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
CHAETODERMATIDAE von Jhering, 1876, Jb. dtsch. malakol. Ges. Jahrg. 3 : 137
Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839, The Natural History of Fishes, Amphibians & Reptiles, or monocardian animals, 2 : 194, 327, 441
Chetoderma Kowalevsky & Marion, 1887, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Marseille 3, Mém. 1: 8
Choetoderma Swainson, 1839, an incorrect original spelling for Chaetodermis q.v.
Chrystallophrisson Liitken, 1877, Zool. Record 12 (for 1875) Vermes : 543
Chrystallophrysson Wirén, 1892, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 23(12)
Crystallophrysson Graff, 1875, Z. wiss. Zool. 26 : 188
nitidulum, Chaetoderma, Lovén, 1844, Ofvers. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Férhandl. 1 : 116
penicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817, Le Régne Animal 4 : 185, pl. 9, fig. 3
pennicilligerus, Balistes, Cuvier, 1817, an incorrect original spelling for peni- cilligerus q.v. The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species
for a genus concerned in the present Ruling:
For Chaetodermis Swainson, 1839 : Bleeker, 1866, Ned. Tijdschr. Dierk. 3 : 12, 26
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)32 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 764.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
27 January 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25
OPINION 765
CHAPMANINA SILVESTRI, 1931 (FORAMINIFERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Chapmania gassinensis Silvestri, 1905, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus.
(2) The generic name Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Chapmania Sassinensis Silvestri, 1905, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1703.
(3) The specific name gassinensis Silvestri, 1905, as published in the binomen Chapmania gassinensis (type-species of Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2129.
(4) The generic name Chapmania Silvestri & Prever, 1904 (a junior homonym of Chapmania Monticelli, 1893) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1787.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1402)
The present application was presented to the office of the Commission in March 1959 by Dr. Don L. Frizzell. Dr. Frizzell’s application was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 432-434. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials. The application was supported by Dr. Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr., and Dr. Helen Tappan.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)33 either for or against the Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 433. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Jaczewski, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Tortonese, Sabrosky, Alvarado, Boschma, Binder, Evans.
Negative votes—none (0).
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
The following comment was made by Mr. C. W. Sabrosky in returning his vote: “* However, I would prefer that part (1) note that the genus was monobasic but the monotype was misidentified, as aegyptiensis Chapman, and that the Commission now rules that the type is the species actually before the authors Silvestri & Prever, i.e., gassinensis Silvestri. ”
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Chapmania Silvestri & Prever, 1904, in Silvestri, Riv. ital. Sci. nat., Boll. Nat. 24(12) : 117-119, text-figs. 1-3 Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931, Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. 50 : 63-73, pl. 1 gassinensis, Chapmania, Silvestri, 1905, Boll. Soc. geol. Ital. 23, 1904(1905) : 481-482, 485 footnote 2
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)33 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 765.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
28 January 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27
OPINION 766
NAIADITES ELONGATUS DAWSON, 1861 (LAMELLIBRANCHIA): SUPPRESSED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the specific name elongatus Dawson, 1860, as published in the binomen Naiadites elongatus, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
(2) The specific name elongatus Dawson, 1860, as published in the binomen Naiadites elongatus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 854.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1604)
The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Mrs. M. J. Rogers in June 1963. Mrs. Rogers’ application was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 440-442. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two palaeontological serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. John Weir.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)35 either for or against the Proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 442. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—eighteen (18), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Jaczewski, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma, Binder, Evans.
Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Ride, Sabrosky.
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (8.xi.65): “‘ It seems more sensible to me to select the specimen No. 2,1167 of the Redpath Museum, which is labelled as ‘ co-type ° of Naiadites elongatus to become its lectotype. The name elongatus Dawson, 1860, then would become a junior synonym of phillipsii Williamson, 1836. In this way the object of eliminating the name would be reached without inter- ference by the Commission.”
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (1.xii.65): “The applicant presents no evidence that stability or universality are threatened by the continued availability of the name Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1860. She states that N. elongatus is a
ee Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
nomen dubium; but she also demonstrates that the application of the normal provisions of the Code will cause her to allocate it to the taxon Anthraconauta Phillipsii (Williamson, 1836) of which it will become a junior subjective synonym. Accordingly, I do not agree that the use of the plenary powers is warranted here.
‘** In the absence of a statement to the contrary, N. elongatus Dawson, 1860, was described from more than one specimen since two localities were included in the original statement. At least one of the syntypes was later transferred by the author to another species (A. mytiloides Dawson, 1894). No evidence is presented that the various specimens (mentioned in the application) which later formed the basis of figures by Dawson and others (and which would now be attributed to various other taxa), are syntypical, except for Redpath Museum Specimen No. 2,1167. This specimen is stated by Dawson’s assistant to be from the type locality, and a ‘co-type’ of Anthracomya elongata (Dawson). On this authority it is the only undoubted syntype available for lectotype selec- tion.
** Such action would cause the applicant to place N. elongatus Dawson, 1860, within A. phillipsii (Williamson, 1836).”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “‘ 1 am opposed in principle to Commission action on nomina dubia.”
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following is the original reference for the name placed on the Official Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: elongatus, Naiadites, Dawson, 1860, Supplement to “‘ Acadian Geology” : 44
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)35 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 766.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
28 January 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29
OPINION 767
SERPULA LINNAEUS, 1758 (ANNELIDA, POLYCHAETA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:
(a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Serpu/a Linnaeus, 1758, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Serpula vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby desig- nated to be the type-species of that genus;
(b) the specific name tubusvermicularis Bergius, 1765, as published in the binomen Teredo tubusvermicularis, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy.
(2) The family-group name SERPULIDAE (correction of SERPULEES) Lamarck, 1818 (type-genus Serpula Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 402.
(3) The generic name Serpula Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Serpula vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1704.
(4) The specific name vermicularis Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Serpula vermicularis (type-species of Serpula Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2130.
(5) The specific name tubusvermicularis Bergius, 1765, as published in the binomen Teredo tubusyermicularis (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 855.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1606)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. David Heppell in June 1963. Mr. Heppell’s application was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 443-446. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184). The application was supported by Dr. Myra Keen, Dr. Gesa Hartmann-Schréder and Dr. Barbara Drew.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)36 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 445-446. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Jaczewski, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma, Binder, Evans
Negative votes—none (0).
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Index by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Serpula Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 786-788 SERPULIDAE Lamarck, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. sans Vertébr. 5 : 357 tubusvermicularis, Teredo, Bergius, 1765, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Hand.
26 : 229
vermicularis, Serpula, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1267
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)36 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 767.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
1 February 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31
OPINION 768
COENONYMPHA OCHRACEA EDWARDS, 1861 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers all type-material for the nominal species Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861, is hereby set aside and the specimen described by F. M. Brown, 1963, is hereby designated to be the neotype of that species.
(2) The specific name ochracea Edwards, 1861, as published in the binomen Coenonympha ochracea, as interpreted under the plenary powers by the neotype designated by F. M. Brown, 1963, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2131.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1607)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Mr. F. Martin Brown in July 1963. Mr. Brown’s paper was sent to the printer on 17 July 1963 and was published on 6 December 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 447-448. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to eight entomological serials. The proposals were supported by Mr. Cyril F. dos Passos (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 351) and Dr. J. W. Tilden.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)37 either for or against the proposals published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 448. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty (20), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchey, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Tortonese, Alvarado, Jaczewski, Boschma, Binder, Evans.
Negative votes—one (1): Sabrosky.
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
Dr. H. Lemche (11.x.65): “1 vote for the proposals and for the proposal (dos Passos) of setting aside any lectotype-selection of the extant Winnipeg specimen in the past or in the future. (A necessary step before any neotype selection can be validated.) ”’
Prof. Ernst Mayr (18.x.65): “‘ The application contains the misleading state- ment that inornata has line priority over ochracea. This is not correct, since line precedence does not give priority.”
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (1.xii.65): “ I agree that it would be desirable to add * to use the plenary powers to set aside all type material of C. ochracea Edwards, 1861.’.”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “‘ No evidence is given that the name is of sufficient importance to justify plenary action. Indeed, three recent works are cited (Chermock and Chermock, 1938, 1963, and Burdick, 1956) in which active lepidopterists had no difficulty in changing the application of the name ochracea.
“If there is extant a recognizable syntype, and this has been duly selected as lectotype (Chermock & Chermock, 1963, according to dos Passos’ com- ment), that selection should be recognized.”
ORIGINAL REFERENCE
The following is the original reference for the specific name placed on the Official List by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: ochracea, Coenonympha, Edwards, 1861, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 13 : 163
The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for the species concerned in the present Ruling: For Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861 : F. M. Brown, 1963, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 20 : 448.
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)37 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 768.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
1 February 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33
OPINION 769
YOLDIA MOLLER, 1842, AND PORTLANDIA MORCH, 1857: DESIGNATION OF TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers:
(a) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Portlandia Mérch, 1857, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Nucula arctica Gray, 1824, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus;
(b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Yo/dia Méller, 1842, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Yoldia hyperborea Torell, 1859, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus.
(2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) Portlandia Morch, 1857 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above, Nucula arctica Gray, 1824 (Name No. 1705);
(b) Yoldia MGller, 1842 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above, Yoldia hyperborea Torell, 1859 (Name No. 1706).
(3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) arctica Gray, 1824, as published in the binomen Nucula arctica (type- species of Portlandia Mérch, 1857) (Name No. 2132);
(b) hyperborea Torell, 1859, as published in the binomen Yoldia hyperborea (type-species of Yoldia Moller, 1842) (Name No. 2133).
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1522)
The present application was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. T. Soot-Ryen in November 1963, after some preliminary correspondence on the case. Dr. Soot-Ryen’s application was sent to the printer on 17 Decem- ber 1963 and was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 21: 127-129. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two specialist serials. The proposals were supported by Dr. A. H. Clark, Jr. (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 326), Mr. David Heppell and Dr. Irene Lubinsky (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 22 : 15-16).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)38 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 128-129. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Vokes, Mayr, do Amaral, Obruchev, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Forest, Brinck, Bonnet, Ride, Sabrosky, Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma, Binder, Jaczewski, Evans.
Negative votes—none (0).
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
The following comment was made by Commissioner Dr. L. B. Holthuis in returning his vote: “I vote in the affirmative except for para. 8 (4). It is clear that arctica Mdller, 1842, is not a new name, but a citation of arctica Gray, 1824, even though it is incorrectly applied to Yoldia hyperborea. The non- existent name arctica MOller, 1842, therefore cannot be placed on the Official Index.”
The Secretary is in agreement with Dr. Holthuis that Nucula arctica Moller has no separate status from Nucula arctica Gray, and the former name has therefore not been placed on the Official Index.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: arctica, Nucula, J. E. Gray, 1824, Suppl. App. Parry’s Voy. N.W. Passage : 241 hyperborea, Yoldia, Torell, 1859, Bidrag till Spitsbergens molluskfauna : 145-152 Portlandia Mérch, 1857, in Rink, Grénl. geogr. statistisk beskrevet 2(4) : 93 Yoldia MOller, 1842, Index Moll. Groenl. : 18
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)38 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 769.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
1 February 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35
OPINION 770
STENOSCISMA CONRAD, 1839 (BRACHIOPODA): ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES
RULING.—(1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839 (gender : neuter), type-species, by monotypy, Terebratula schlotheimii von Buch, [1834] (Name No. 1707); (b) Machaeraria Cooper, 1955 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Rhynchonella formosa Hall, 1857 (Name No. 1708).
(2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) schlotheimii von Buch, [1834], as published in the binomen Terebratula schlotheimii (type-species of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 2134); (b) formosa Hall, 1857, as published in the binomen Rhychonella formosa (type-species of Machaeraria Cooper, 1955) (Name No. 2135).
(3) The family-group name sTENOSCISMATINAE (correction of STENOSCHIS- MATINAE) Oehlert, 1887 (type-genus Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Number 403.
(4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Stenocisma Hall, 1847 (an incorrect spelling for Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 1788);
(b) Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887 (an unjustified emendation of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 1789);
(c) Stenochisma Schuchert, 1897 (an incorrect spelling for Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 1790);
(d) Camerophoria King, 1846 (a junior objective synonym of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 1791);
(e) Camarophoria Herrmannsen, 1846 (an incorrect spelling for Camero- Phoria King, 1846) (Name No. 1792).
(5) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883 (type-genus Camerophoria King, 1846) (rejected before 1961 because the name of the type-genus is a junior objective synonym of Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (Name No. 420);
(b) STENOSCHISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887 (type-genus Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) (an incorrect original spelling for STENOSCISMATINAE) (Name No. 421).
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1539)
The present case was first brought to the attention of the office of the Commission by Mr. Alan Logan, who expressed the intention of submitting proposals to the Commission. Before Mr. Logan’s application was completed, an application on the same subject was received from Dr. Herta Schmidt. Dr. Schmidt’s application was sent to the printer on 17 December 1963, and was published on 23 April 1964 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 130-132. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publica- tions (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184).
A note of support by Dr. Richard E. Grant was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 419 and an objection by Dr. Paul Sartenaer (ibid. 22 : 13).
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 3 October 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote on Voting Paper (65)39 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 131-132. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 January 1966 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—fifteen (15), received in the following order: China, Lemche, Simpson, Mayr, Stoll, Uchida, Holthuis, Forest, Bonnet, Ride,* Sabrosky,* Tortonese, Alvarado, Boschma, Evans.
Negative votes—five (5): do Amaral, Obruchey, Brinck, Binder, Jaczewski.
Voting Papers not returned—four (4): Hubbs, Kraus, Mertens, Munroe.
Commissioner Prof. H. E. Vokes declined to vote, making the following comment: “I must agree with P. Sartenaer that no action by the Commission is required to maintain present nomenclatorial practice and to ‘ conserve the generic name Stenoscisma Conrad in its present usage’. Hence I do not wish to vote on this application.”
In returning their votes, other Commissioners commented as follows:
Prof. G. G. Simpson (14.x.65): “‘ The argument that it is not necessary to place names on the Official List is not impelling. Any name can come under attack, and this is the best available safeguard.”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (6.xii.65): “‘ | have great sympathy with the objections of Sartenaer. The Official Indexes can become bulging rag bags from un- necessary Rulings.”
ORIGINAL REFERENCES The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: Camarophoria Herrmannsen, 1846, Indicis Gen. Malacoz. : 161 Camerophoria King, 1846, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 18 : 89-91 CAMEROPHORIINAE Waagen, 1883, Palaeont. Indica (13) 1 (1-5) : 435 formosa, Rhynchonella, Hall, 1857, Tenth ann. Rept. New York State Cab. nat. Hist. : 76 Machaeraria Cooper, 1955, J. Paleont. 29 (1) : 55
* Affirmative votes in favour of proposals (1)-(3) only.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37
schlotheimii, Terebratula, von Buch, [1834], Abh. K.-preuss. Akad. Wiss., Berlin 1833 : 59
Stenochisma Schuchert, 1897, Bull. U.S. geol. Surv. 87 : 413
Stenocisma Hall, 1847, Nat. Hist. New York, Paleont. 1 : 142
Stenoschisma Oehlert, 1887, in Fischer, Manuel Conchyl. : 1309
STENOSCHISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887, an incorrect original spelling for STENOSCIS- MATINAE q.v.
Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839, Second ann. Rept. New York geol. Sury. : 59
STENOSCISMATINAE Oehlert, 1887, in Fischer, Manuel Conchyl. : 1304
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)39 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 770.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London
2 February 1966
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
OPINION 771
THAMNOPHIS SIRTALIS LINNAEUS, 1758 (REPTILIA): REJECTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE NEOTYPE SPECIMEN DESIGNATED FOR THAT SPECIES BY OPINION 385
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers that part of the amendment to Opinion 385 designating an erroneous type-locality (Quebec, Quebec County, Province of Quebec, Canada) and the neotype selected from that locality (Chicago Natural History Museum No. 73660) as the basis for the interpretation of Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby set aside.
(2) Under the plenary powers it is hereby Ruled that Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758, is to be interpreted from the description and type-locality given for Coluber sirtalis by Richard Harlan, 1827, in Genera of North American Reptilia and a Synopsis of the Species. J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 5 : 352.
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1600)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. Francis R. Cook in April 1963. Dr. Cook’s application was sent to the printer on 7 May 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 397-400. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to two herpetological serials.
The proposal was supported by Dr. A. B. Grobman and opposed by Prof. Hobart M. Smith and Prof. Ernst Mayr (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 189). As a result of objections, and after lengthy correspondence with Dr. Carl L. Hubbs and Dr. L. M. Klauber, Dr. Cook submitted a revised proposal published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 327-328. This proposal was supported by Prof. J. S. Bleakney and Dr. Douglas A. Rossman whose comments were circulated to the Commission with the Voting Paper.
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 23 August 1965 the members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)30 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 328. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 23 November 1965 the state of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-one (21), received in the following order: China, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Munroe, Lemche, ‘do Amaral, Tortonese, Stoll, Uchida, Mayr, Boschma, Sabrosky, Jaczewski, Forest, Kraus, Mertens, Brinck, Bonnet.
Negative votes—three (3): Holthuis, Ride, Binder.
Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
Prof. G. G. Simpson (20.ix.65): “ It seems that the revised proposal by Cook is most likely to stabilize nomenclature, and it is voted for on that basis. Refer-
See es se ee ee ee eee Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39
ence to type-locality is objectionable, but it follows by redundancy from reference to Harlan’s use of the name and is therefore not basis for rejecting the proposal.
“In Opinion 385 the Commission made fools of themselves by solemnly and official designating as type-locality a place where the intended species does not in fact occur. The Commission is empowered to deal with nomenclature only, and any tendency to pontificate on other zoological matters should be resisted by the Commission and rejected by other zoologists. Designation of a type-locality may come into question as it bears on nomenclature, but it is not itself a nomenclatural matter or within the duties or competence of the Com- mission. Recommendation (not Article) 72E (whether wise or not) does not bring designation of type-localities into the scope of the Commission any more than, for example 72B, makes the Commission a supervising and administrative corps for museum labels.”
Dr. Henning Lemche (11.x.65): “‘ I vote in the affirmative with the exception that | am against the establishment of any type-locality whatsoever.
‘““ The case has demonstrated clearly that type alone must define species. As stated by the Zoological Congress (and not just the Commission as such) in the Recommendation 72E of the Code (1962) ‘ If a type-locality was erroneously designated it should be corrected.’ (Nothing indicates that such correction is the duty of the Commission).”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): ‘“‘ May I note that Dr. Cook has twice misquoted the Code (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 399, para. 13; and 21 : 328, para. 6). Recommendation 72E, being only a recommendation and not a rule, reads * should be corrected ’, not ‘ shall be ’.”’
Dr. W. D. L. Ride (19.xi.65): “‘ In this case the Commission has ruled that the name Coluber sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758, be interpreted by reference to a neotype No. 73660 in the Chicago Natural History Museum. The specimen was collected at Quebec [City] and this is its type-locality.
“A type-locality is a property of a type—the two are not separate issues which can be decided by rule. Thus, the Code makes provision for the restric- tion of types (through lectotype selection, Art. 74) or for the selection of new types (through neotype selection, Art. 75) but it makes no separate provision for the restriction of type-localities beyond those which are inherent in the restriction and selection of types. The statement contained in Recommendation 72E makes it clear that the final arbiter as to whether any previous restriction holds true, is whether or not the type specimen was collected at that locality.
“* It therefore follows that arguments as to whether the original type-specimen of C. sirtalis Linnaeus was collected at Quebec, or not, are completely immaterial to the case. There is no argument that the neotype was collected there and it is difficult to understand why a valid neotype designation should be set aside because, in 1959, Bleakney took the unusual step of calling the nominate subspecies of sirtalis by another subspecific name (i.e. pa/lidula Allan, 1899).
“Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 190) makes the statement that the names of this species have not been especially stable during the last 20 years, and I am unable to vote for this proposal to set aside a neotype appointed and listed by the Commission because I believe that the purposes for which the Commission
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
is empowered to use the plenary powers would be ill-served by it. Unless we have stability in the Code, in the availability of Listed names, and in the types through which they are to be interpreted, we cannot hope to achieve stability in nomenclature.”
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)30 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 771.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
10 February 1966
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41
OPINION 772
CURIMATA WALBAUM, 1792 (PISCES): REJECTED AS A GENERIC NAME AND PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX
RULING.—(1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy:
(a) curimata Walbaum, 1792, as published in the binomen Salmo curimata;
(b) immaculatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Salmo immacu-
latus. (2) Under the plenary powers, insofar as is necessary, all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Curimata Bosc, 1817, are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (3) It is hereby Ruled that the name Curimata, used by Walbaum, 1792, in the binomen Salmo (Curimata) Marggravii, is a specific name and the word Marggravii (= marcgravi) does not form part of a combination of scientific names. (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Curimata Bosc, 1817 (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (2) above, Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794 (Name No. 1709);
(b) Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designa- tion by Eigenmann, 1910, Prochilodus argenteus Agassiz, 1829 (Name No. 1710). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) edentulus Bloch, 1794, as published in the binomen Salmo edentulus (type-species of Curimata Bosc, 1817) (Name No. 2136);
(b) argenteus Agassiz, 1829, as published in the binomen Prochilodus argenteus (type-species of Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829) (Name No. ZL): (5) The name Curimata Walbaum, 1792 (published in the binomen Salmo (Curimata) Marggravii as a specific name, but mistakenly considered by some authors to be a generic name) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1793. (6) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) curimata Walbaum, 1792, as published in the binomen Salmo Curimata (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) (Name No. 856);
(b) immaculatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Salmo immacu- latus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) (Name No. 857);
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(c) Marggravii (= marcgravi) [Walbaum, 1792], as published in the combi- nation Salmo (Curimata) Marggravii (a cheironym) (Name No. 858).
(7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List
of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified:
(a) CURIMATINAE Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889 (type-genus Curimata Bosc, 1817) (Name No. 404);
(b) PROCHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910 (type-genus Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829) (Name No. 405).
HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1590)
The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. J. Gery in January 1963. Dr. Gery’s application was sent to the printer on 31 January 1963 and was published on 21 October 1963 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 390-394. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to one specialist serial. A comment giving additional information and, in part, expressing an objection was received from Dr. W. R. Taylor and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 260.
In answer to Dr. Taylor’s criticism, Dr. Gery wrote as follows:
“(a) 1am glad that you do not object a priori to the rejection of Walbaum: this is the most important question. The basic discussion is indeed not in (1) of my application, but in (2). The question is: apart from purely nomenclatural problems, shall we adopt Curimata sens. Marcgrave (Walbaum) or Curimata sens. Cuvier. Curimata Walbaum is what we now call Prochilodus, and what we put into a separate sub-family. Indeed, in the 18th century, the group would have comprised also what we now call Curimatins, as is still the case among the Indians. Then came Cuvier who restricted Curimata to the edentulous forms making an error in identification (this is a rough schema on my part). Eigenmann & Eigenmann (1889) and Eigenmann (1910) ratified it, and correctly designated what Cuvier believed to be his Curimata.
“In the meantime Prochilodus had been already established, again on Curimata Walbaum (and, as you already know, a third genus could also be involved, Hemiodus, even as early as in Bloch’s time).
“This is why, to prevent such a mix-up, I believe that every good reason to invalidate Walbaum must come into action. If this is not done, see what could happen by reference, for example, to Fowler’s Peixes do Brazil (written eventually with a cross-card-index): Prochilodus Agass. has its type marggravi Walbaum, and Curimata Walbaum has edentulus Bloch as type!
“*(b) I do not agree with you concerning the danger of jeopardizing group- names in using Curimatus Oken ex Cuvier: there is no danger at all provided that its type was designated. This was done by Eigenmann & Eigenmann 1889 and it is a definitive act, following the rule of the first reviewer. Certainly, one may argue that E. & E. did not cite Oken, but ‘ Les Curimates ’ Cuvier. Anyhow, in 1910, Eigenmann clearly cited Curimatus Oken with type-designa- tion, and without error in identification of the type-species (I use ‘ error ’ in the Rule’s sense: in fact, nobody knows if edentulus is really cyprinoides, but this is
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43
another story, a non-nomenclatural one, involving the study of the complicated Artenkreis cyprinoides-schomburgki).
““(c) I believe I have sufficiently demonstrated that primo: Curimata sens. Walbaum is untenable; secundo: Curimata sens. Cuvier does not break the continuity of the nomenclature.
“ Thus, I agree with you that Curimata Bosc ex Cuvier can be chosen instead of Curimatus Oken ex Cuvier, if (1) it can be demonstrated that it has indeed priority over Oken; (2) The Commission revalorize this nomen oblitum; (3) it is based on the same species as that of Cuvier (Oken), as designated by Eigenmann 1910—this is very probable, on clear indication.
** (d) Finally all subsequent names, of Cloquet and others, are not consistent with the case, if an earlier genus is available, that is with correct type-designation. As it was the case, I did not mention them.”
DECISION OF THE COMMISSION
On 23 August 1965 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (65)28 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 20 : 393-394, as amended in the accompanying Secretary’s Note. The Note which accompanied Voting Paper (65)28 first set out Dr. Gery’s letter in answer to Dr. Taylor (see above) and then continued as follows:
“In summary, Curimatus Oken cannot be placed on the Official List, as requested, because it is a nomen nudum. It seems best, therefore, to replace this by Curimata Bosc. This genus appears never to have been credited to Bosc, or had species referred to it, and it is doubtful whether it has a legal type- species. As a safeguard, however, it is suggested that the Commission should use the plenary powers, insofar as is necessary, to fix Salmo edentulus as type of Curimata Bosc. The proposals should, then, be amended as follows:
** Add (1) (c) to use the plenary powers, insofar as is necessary, to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Curimata Bosc, 1817, and, having done so, to designate Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794, to be the type-species of that genus.
** Replace (3) (a) as follows:
Curimata Bosc, 1817 (Nouv. Dict. d’Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 9 : 9) (gender: feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers, Salmo edentulus Bloch, 1794.
** Replace in (4) (a) ‘ Curimatus Oken’ by ‘ Curimata Bosc. ’.””
At the close of the prescribed voting period on 23 November 1965 the state
of the voting was as follows:
Affirmative votes—twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Holthuis, Vokes, Riley, Obruchev, Alvarado, Simpson, Munroe, Lemche, do Amaral, Stoll, Mayr, Boschma, Ride, Sabrosky,* Jaczewski, Forest, Kraus, Binder, Mertens, Evans, Bonnet.
Negative votes—three (3): Tortonese, Uchida, Brinck.
Voting Papers not returned—one (1): Hubbs.
* An affirmative vote in part only (see comment below)
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
The following comments were made by Commissioners in returning their votes:
Dr. L. B. Holthuis (31.viii.65): “ In my opinion curimata Walbaum is clearly a specific name and not a subgeneric one.
‘ The suppression asked for in par. (1) (b) of immaculatus Linnaeus, 1766, is evidently an error for immaculatus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 312), published in the combination Salmo immaculatus.
‘* At first I was worried about the name Marcgravii Donndorff, 1798; if that is an available name, it would preoccupy argenteus Agassiz, 1829. But my colleague Boeseman showed me that Donndorff copied Walbaum and that his Marcgravii is not a specific name either.”
Mr. C. W. Sabrosky (18.xi.65): “‘ I have critically studied Walbaum (1792) and agree with the conclusion of Gery that Curimata is a specific name.
“I do not approve (1) (b) of the application because I strongly object in principle to Commission action on nomina dubia. More important, I wish to call attention to the fact that Salmo immaculatus Linné of the 12th edition, for which suppression is required, is not new there but is merely a later use of Salmo immaculatus Linné of 1758, 10th edition, p. 312.
‘A minor note: The ‘ emendation’ Marcgravii appeared first in the same work by Walbaum, on page 660. Perhaps Marggravii on p. 80 was only a typographical error.”
Dr. Gery’s error in attributing the specific name Salmo immaculatus to Linnaeus, 1766, instead of to Linnaeus, 1758, has been corrected in the present Ruling.
ORIGINAL REFERENCES
The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion: argenteus, Prochilodus, J. L. R. Agassiz, 1829, Sel. Gen. Spec. Pisc. Brasil.: 63, pl. 38 Curimata Bosc, 1817, Nouv. Dict. d’ Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 9 : 9 Curimata Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Genera Piscium, Ichth. (ed. 2) 3 : 80 curimata, Salmo, Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Genera Piscium, Ichth. (ed. 2) 3 : 80 CURIMATINAE Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1889, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 4: 409 edentulus, Salmo, Bloch, 1794, Naturgesch. Ausl. Fische 8 : pl. 380 immaculatus, Salmo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 312 marggravii, Salmo (Curimata), Walbaum, 1792, Artedi Genera Piscium, Ichth. (ed. 2) 3: 80 PROCHILODINAE Eigenmann, 1910, Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patag. 3 (4) : 424 Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829, Sel. Gen. Spec. Pisc. Brasil.: 62
The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling: For Prochilodus Agassiz, 1829 : Eigenmann, 1910, Rep. Princeton Univ. Exped. Patag. 3 (4) : 424
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45
CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (65)28 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. Ti.
G. OWEN EVANS W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
London
14 February 1966
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
TRYPETESINAE AND TRYPETESINI (LACORDAIRE): PROPOSED EMENDATION OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1733
By Curtis W. Sabrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.) and Elwood C. Zimmerman (Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii)
Confusion exists when two family-group names are identical, although the respective type-genera differ in spelling. In the present case, TRYPETINAE and TRYPETINI in the coleopterous family CURCULIONIDAE conflict with identical but older names in the dipterous family TEPHRITIDAE (TRYPETIDAE).
2. In 1866 (Génera des Coléoptéres, in Histoire Naturelle des Insectes 7: 177), Lacordaire erected the coleopterous “ Tribu” Trypétides, based on the genus Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836. The names in Diptera, based on Trypeta Meigen, 1803, date from the use of TRYPETIDAE by Loew (1861, Ueber die Dipteren-Fauna des Bernsteins, Bericht 35. Vers. deutsch. Naturf. 1860 (1861) : 89). Some dipterists use TRYPETIDAE and TRYPETINAE, and others use the older family name TEPHRITIDAE with TRYPETINAE still as a valid subfamily, but this difference in usage is irrelevant to the present simple problem in the Coleoptera.
3. The suprageneric names in Lacordaire (1866) are in French vernacular (Dérélomides, Hypérides, Gymnétrides, Lémosacides, Trypétides, Ulocérides, etc.). However, the name with which we are concerned, and others in Lacordaire’s work, can be maintained as available from that date and author- ship under the provisions of Article Ile (ili) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961).
4. Because TRYPETINAE (Lacordaire) is a homonym of TRYPETINAE Loew, it must be changed. To avoid further confusion and at the same time to preserve the well-established coleopterous generic name Trypetes Schoenherr in supra- generic categories, we believe that the spellings TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI would be useful and distinctive. The procedure of using the complete name as the stem in forming the group name has precedent in the case of Merops- MEROPIDAE versus Merope-MEROPIDAE, in which the Commission approved the family name MEROPEIDAE for the latter (Opinion 140, 1943).
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to use its plenary powers, where necessary:
(1) to direct that the stem of Trypetes Schoenherr consist of the entire generic
name, Trypetes-, in forming names of the family-group;
(2) to place the subfamily and tribal names TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI (Lacordaire, 1866, as Trypétides) on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology:
(3) to place the generic name Trypetes Schoenherr, 1836, Genera et species Curculionidum . . . 3 (2) : 595 (gender : masculine) (type-species, Try- petes rhinoides Gyllenhal, by original designation) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology; and
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47
(4) to place the specific name rhinoides Gyllenhal, in Schoenherr, 1836 : 596, as published in the binomen Trypetes rhinoides Gyllenhal (type- species of 7rypetes Schoenherr) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
PODALONIA SPINOLA, 1853 (HYMENOPTERA, SPHECIDAE): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF PODALONIA FERNALD, 1927, WITH AMMOPHILA VIOLACEIPENNIS LEPELETIER, 1845, AS TYPE SPECIES.! Z.N.(S.) 1735
By A. S. Menke, R. M. Bohart (University of California, Davis, California, U.S.A.) and J. van der Vecht (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Holland)
1. The aim of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to ensure that continued usage of the well established generic name Podalonia Spinola, 1853, sensu Fernald (1927) will not be endangered. Continued use of the name is threatened because it appears certain that the type species, Ammophila bocandei Spinola, 1853, has been mistakenly interpreted as being congeneric with the species usually placed under the genus Podalonia by modern workers.
History of the name Podalonia
2. Ina paper primarily devoted to describing new species of wasps from Para, Brazil, Spinola (1853, pp. 52-53) presented a short discourse on the merits of basing new genera on peculiarities of wing venation, a practice of which he plainly disapproved. To demonstrate how easily (and unwisely) a person could establish a new genus for a species with aberrant wing venation, he described a new wasp species from “* Guinée ”’, Africa, which had a petiolate second marginal cell. Spinola interpreted this species, bocandei, as a member of the genus Ammophila Kirby, 1798, a taxon in which the second submarginal cell is normally four sided. After the description of Ammophila bocandei, Spinola returned to his discourse on the describing of new genera for species that had peculiar wing venation by stating that he could just as easily propose the generic name Podalonia for bocandei.
3. It is obvious that Spinola did not intend the name Podalonia to be accepted as a valid generic name since he was only using it as an example to demonstrate the undesirability of naming genera solely for species with different wing venation. Nevertheless, under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Spinola’s name is valid even though conditionally proposed (Art. 17(8)). The problem then is to determine the identity of the type species, bocandei.
4. F. F. Kohl (1890, pp. 101-102), the greatest authority on the subfamily Sphecinae, was the first person to deal with Spinola’s genus, but he did not attempt to identify it. He merely listed Podalonia as belonging to the sub- family Sphecinae and related it to Ammophila Kirby, 1798, sensu lato, without mentioning bocandei. Later in his monumental work on the genera of the Sphecidae, Kohl (1896, pp. 242, 308) listed Podalonia as a synonym of Ammophila in the broad sense without any discussion of his reasons for doing so. It should be pointed out that Kohl’s interpretation of Ammophila was very con-
ee ee es ee ee ee a ee eee ee ee 1 Research supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation GB-3074.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49
servative, and today up to six genera are recognized for the species Kohl lumped under the name Ammophila.
5. In his revision of the Palearctic Ammophila s. 1. Kohl (1906, pp. 240-241) divided Ammophila into two “ Hauptartengruppe”’, Ammophila Kirby, 1798, and Psammophila Dahlbom, 1842. He tentatively identified bocandei Spinola as a Psammophila with aberrant wing venation but stated that the species was unknown to him.
6. The only other author to deal with Podalonia during this period was Dalla Torre. In his Catalogus Hymenopterorum, vol. 8, 1897, which deals with the Sphecidae, Dalla Torre listed (p. 396) bocandei as a species of Ammophila in the broad sense of Kohl. The only noteworthy item in connection with this citation is that the species was erroneously listed as occurring in ‘‘ Am.: Brasilia” instead of the type locality given by Spinola: ‘‘ Guinée ’’, Africa. It is probable that this error caused all subsequent European taxonomists to ignore bocandei completely. Note for example, that bocandei is not listed in Leclercq’s (1955) catalog of the Sphecinae of Africa.
7. In 1927 H. T. Fernald published a revision of the North American species of a genus of wasps which up to that time had been placed under the generic name Psammophila Dahlbom, 1842, a taxon which it will be remembered was considered as a “ Hauptartengruppe” of Ammophila by Kohl. Fernald was the first author to note that Psammophila Dahlbom was a junior homonym of Psammophila Brown, 1827, a genus of Mollusca. The only available replace- ment name for Dahlbom’s preoccupied name was Podalonia Spinola, which Fernald used with some misgivings, pointing out the conditional nature of Spinola’s name. Fernald’s reason for accepting Podalonia as congeneric with Psammophila was based on Spinola’s statement that the abdominal petiole of bocandei was similar to that of “‘ Ammoph. arenaria Latr.” [=hirsuta Scopoli], a species commonly recognized as a Psammophila.
8. Fernald did not pursue the identity of bocandei further, and until recently (Bohart and Menke, 1963, p. 163) no one has questioned his interpretation of Podalonia. The name Podalonia has gained world wide popular acceptance as the proper name for the genus formerly known under the name Psammophila Dahlbom. Several regional revisions and considerable biological work have been published under the name Podalonia.
The identity of Ammophila bocandei
9. Searches by Menke in the museums in Paris and Turin for the holotype of bocandei proved fruitless, and probably it is no longer in existence. There- fore, the identity of bocandei rests solely on an interpretation of the original description. Spinola’s description consists mainly of color, but even so it is sufficient to cast strong doubts on the correctness of interpreting Podalonia as congeneric with Psammophila Dahlbom. Several color features mentioned by Spinola are of particular importance in this regard: head reddish yellow, abdomen shiny blue black, wings cloudy and shiny blue. It is significant that none of the Old World species currently assigned to Podalonia, sensu Fernald, display any of these color characters, and although a few New World species do have dark wings and abdomens, none have a reddish head, eliminating the
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
possibility that the locality data for bocandei were incorrect. Of further im- portance are the reddish legs mentioned by Spinola. Red legs are found in very few species of Podalonia, sensu Fernald, and when the legs are red, the wings are invariably clear and the abdomen is largely red. None of the species of Podalonia, sensu Fernald, have a petiolate second submarginal cell, except perhaps an occasional aberrant individual and the authors have never seen such a specimen.
10. At present it appears likely from the description of bocandei that it is a species in the genus Chalybion Dahlbom, or perhaps less likely, either the genus Parapsammophila Taschenberg or Chilorion Latreille.* All three genera possess African species with color patterns which come close to matching that of bocandei. However, Chalybion seems most likely to be the genus to which bocandei belongs, because there are species in this genus which have the second submarginal cell petiolate.
11. The conclusion one draws from these facts is that bocandei cannot possibly be congeneric with Podalonia, sensu Fernald, and that therefore, Podalonia Spinola cannot be considered as an available name for the pre- occupied name Psammophila Dahlbom. Since no other name is available for Psammophila Dahlbom, it is now necessary to propose a new name for this taxon. However, this course of action would serve no useful purpose because Podalonia, sensu Fernald, has enjoyed popular world wide usage for nearly forty years and is a name around which a considerable literature has accumu- lated. To offer a new generic name now would only cause more confusion than uniformity and therefore we propose that Podalonia be conserved in the sense of Fernald.
12. Several alternative methods for conserving the name Podalonia exist:
A. Throw out bocandei as the type of Podalonia Spinola and select a well known African species of Podalonia, sensu Fernald, to be designated under the plenary powers as the type species of Spinola’s genus. An argument against such a move is that Spinola never intended Podalonia to be accepted as a genus. The name was at best a conditional one.
B. Under the plenary powers arbitrarily synonymize bocandei with some well known African Podalonia species (sensu Fernald). This sort of action would be absolutely contrary to the published description of bocandei as we have pointed out in paragraphs 9 and 10 above.
C. Suppress Podalonia Spinola under the plenary powers for purposes of synonymy and homonymy, and credit Fernald, 1927, as having authored and described the genus Podalonia; and at the same time designate the oldest and best known species treated in Fernald’s revision as the type of Podalonia Fernald. We favor this last method since it in no way affects the validly described species bocandei and the name Podalonia is insured of continued usage. The Commission is therefore requested to:
* specifically, Chalybion fiuscipenne (Smith), Parapsammophila cyanipennis (Lepeletier), and Chlorion ciliatum (Fabricius) [=xanthocerum Illiger].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51
(1) use its plenary powers:
(a) to suppress the generic name Podalonia Spinola, 1853, and all other uses of that name before that by Fernald, 1927, for the purposes of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy;
(b) to accord H. T. Fernald authorship of the generic name Podalonia as characterized by him in 1927, and to designate Ammophila violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species of the genus.
(2) place the generic name Podalonia Spinola, 1853, (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) (a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;
(3) place Podalonia Fernald, 1927 (as validated under the plenary powers in (1) (b) above) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology;
(4) place the specific name violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as published in the binomen Ammophila violaceipennis (type-species of Podalonia Fernald, 1927) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
LITERATURE CITED
BouarT, R. M., and MENKE, A. S. 1963. A reclassification of the Sphecinae with a revision of the Nearctic species of the tribes Sceliphionini and Sphecini. Univ. Calif. Pub. Entomol. 30 (2) : 91-182
FERNALD, H. T. 1927. The digger wasps of North America of the genus Podalonia (=Psammophila). Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 71 : 1-42
Kou, F. F. 1890. Die Hymenopterengruppe der Sphecinen, I: Monographie der naturlichen Gattung Sphex Linné (sens. lat.). Ann. k.k. Naturhist. Hofmus. Wien 5 : 77-194, 317-461
— 1896. Die Gattungen der Spheciden. Ann. k.k. Naturhist. Hofmus. Wien 11 : 233-516
—— 1906. Die Hymenopterengruppe der Sphecinen, III: Monographie der Gattung Ammophila W. Kirby (sens. lat. = Ammophilinae Ashmead), Abt. A, die Ammophilinen der palaarktischen Region. Ann. k.k. Naturhist. Hofmus. Wien 22 : 228-382
LecLeRCQ, J. 1955. Hymenoptera Sphecoidea, Sphecidae I: Subfamily Sphecinae. Explor. Parc. Nat. l’ Upemba, fasc. 34, 137 pp.
SPINOLA, M. 1853. Compte Rendu des Hyménoptéres inédits provenants du voyage entomologique de M. Ghiliani dans le Para en 1846. Mem. Reale Accad. Sci. Torino (2) 13 : 18-94
52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ALOSA FALLAX (LACEPEDE, 1803): PROPOSED PRESERVATION AS THE NAME FOR THE TWAITE SHAD (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1736
By A. N. Svetovidov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad)
Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803) has been the name accepted for the twaite shad by the overwhelming majority of recent ichthyologists. A few workers have also used the name Alosa finta (Cuvier, 1829). However, an earlier alleged binominal name Alosa ficta... Duhamel, 1772, has been recently revived by Spillman, Ch. J. (1961, Poissons d’eau douce, Faune de France 65 : 30 [303 pp.], [Paris]). The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to reject for nomenclatorial purpose the work of Duhamel du Monceau, 1769- 1782, entitled Traité général des Péches, et Histoire des Poissons qu’elles fournissent, tant pour la subsistance des Hommes, que pour plusieurs autres usages qui ont rapport aux Arts et Commerce, [Paris]. The intention of this action is to secure the availability of the specific name fallax Lacépéde, B.G.E., 1803 (Histoire naturelle des poissons 5 : 424 of the edition in 5 volumes or 10 : 188 of the edition in 11 volumes, [Paris]) as used by him in the combination Clupea fallax. The purposes of the application to reject the work of Duhamel (1769- 1782) is to seek an official ruling that any names in this work are not binominal in accordance with Article 11 (c). A brief statement of facts follows.
2. The work of Duhamel (1769-1782) consists mainly of descriptions of gear, ships, fisheries, means of preservation etc. of commercial fishes of North Europe. Nevertheless, there are also detailed general systematical and anatomical descriptions of the fishes, accompanied by many plates of figures. However, Duhamel used no Latin binomina, but referred to fishes by the French vernacular names and non-binominal, prelinnean ones. His attitude towards Linnean names, for example of gadoid fishes, may be seen in the following “ sij’emploie le terme d’ Asellus, c’est parce que je l’ai vu adopté par plusieurs Auteurs, & sans prétendre faire aucune comparison entre les Morues & les Anons: le terme de Gadus, que plusieurs ont adopté est tout aussi bon ”’. (II Partie, Section I : 37). Linnean specific names and “ Systema naturae ” are not mentioned in the work and only non-binominal ones and prelinnean authors are cited by Duhamel. For example, on the same page under the heading ‘“‘ De la Morue franche”’ the synonymy of the species is given as follows, “‘ Asellus major vulgaris, Belg. Cabillaud, Willughby. Gadus dorso tripterygio, ore cirrato, caudé aequali feré, cum radio primo spinoso; Artedi. Murhua yulgaris, (maxima Asellorum species); Bellon. Molua vel Morhua altera minor; Rondel. Gesn. Aldrov.” Similar references to the same authors and similar names are given for all other species. In respect of Alosa ficta on page 320 (II Partie, III Section, 1772) under the heading “ De la Feinte ”’ Duhamel wrote: ‘‘ Ce Poisson est appelé en latin Alosa ficta aut falsa, d’ou est probablement dérivé le nom Francois Feinte. Quelques-uns l’ont nommé Clupea maculis nigris notata’’. The author of neither of these names is men- tioned; however the first name is considered to be that given by Duhamel.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53
3. The proposal that this work should be rejected for nomenclatural purposes on the grounds that Duhamel did not employ the principles of bi- nominal nomenclature in the body of the work, is supported by the statement of Sherborn, C. D. (1902, Index Animalium : XXI) that it was non-binominal. The authors who cited Duhamel’s name for the twaite shad rejected it as non- binominal (e.g. Giinther, A., 1868, Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, 7 : 435; Moreau, E., 1881, Histoire naturelle des poissons de la France, 3 : 456; Smitt, F. A., 1895, 4 History of Scandinavian Fishes, 2 : 984).
4. The specific name fallax was established by Lacépéde (1803) in the binomen Clupea fallax with a diagnosis nearly coinciding with that of Clupea alosa L. which the author gave on the previous page. The main distinction of the former species from the latter consists of “ sept taches brunes de chaque coté du corps ”’ and that is one of the distinguishing characters between the two species (e.g. Spillmann, 1961 : 25, 26, 36, figs. 4, 5). Cuvier, M. (1829, Le Régne Animal, 2 : 320), however, described this species under the name Clupea Jinta (from the vernacular French name, Finte). Cuvier’s species was regarded as conspecific with Clupea fallax by Giinther (1868), and by subsequent authors. Cuvier’s diagnosis of this Species is more strict, as follows, “‘ est plus alongée que l’alose, et des dentes trés marquées au deux machoires, et cing ou six taches noires le long du flanc”. The specific name finta Cuvier was employed as a senior synonym only by earlier authors (e.g. Giinther, loc. cit.; Moreau, loc. cit.; Smitt, loc. cit.) and by fishery biologists (e.g. Ehrenbaum, E., 1936, Handbuch der Seefischerei Nordeuropas, 2 : 27; Andersson, K. A., 1942, Fiskar och Fiske i Norden, 1 : 254) but later it was rejected and the name Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803) has been widely used in the recent European ichthyological literature (e.g. Roule, L., 1925. Les poissons des eaux douces de la France : 78; de Buen, F., 1935, Inst. Espanol. Oceanogr. Notas y Résumenes (2) 88 : 44; Poll, M., 1947, Poissons marins, Faune de Belgique : 141; Bruun, A. Fr., and Pfaff, J. R., 1950, Fishes in List of Danish Vertebrates : 26: Dollfus, R. Ph., 1955, Tr. Inst. sci. Chérifien (Zool.), 6 : 28: Berg, L. S., 1962, Freshwater Fishes of the U.S.S.R. and adjacent countries, 1 : 1949, translated from the Russian edition 1948; Svetovidov, A. N., 1963, Clupeidae, Fauna of the U.S.S.R., Fishes, 2, 1: 34 6, translated from the Russian edition 1952).
5. Besides Duhamel’s specific name ficta some others by the same author are mentioned by Spillmann (loc. cit.); for example Clupea major, Trutta marina and T. fluviatilis. Fortunately these happen to be junior synonyms of Alosa alosa (L.), and of Salmo trutta L. respectively.
6. Accordingly, I request the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action:
(1) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific name ficta Duhamel, 1772, as published in the combination Alosa ficta (rejected as published in a non-binominal work);
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, fallax Lacépéde, 1803, as published in the combination C. lupea fallax ;
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature, the publication of Duhamel du Monceau, 1769-1782, Traité général des Péches, et Histoire des poissons qu’elles fournissent, tant pour la subsistance des Hommes, que pour plusiers autres usages qui ont rapport aux Arts et Commerce, (Paris) (a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55
GOBIUS LENKORANICUS KESSLER, 1877 (PISCES): PROPOSED SUPPRESSION AS A NOMEN DUBIUM. Z.N(S.) 1737
By A. N. Svetovidov (Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad)
1. Kessler, K. (1877, Ribi vodiastshiesia i vstrechaiustshiesia v Aralo- Caspiysko-Ponticheskoi ichthyologicheskoi oblasti, Tr. Aralo-Casp. Exp., 4 : 34 in Russian) described under the name Gobius lenkoranicus one poorly preserved specimen of a gobiid fish from a littoral swamp near Lenkoran, the Caspian Sea. He regarded it as allied to G. leopardinus Nordmann, 1840 (=Pomato- schistus microps leopardinus of recent authors).
2. The original description of G. lenkoranicus was detailed but only meristic counts, and head and body proportions were given. The sensory canals, pores and pit-lines, the main characters used in the modern classification of gobiids, were not studied.
3. Ijin, B. S. (1938, The Gulfs of the Caspian Sea Komsomolets (Mertvyi Kultuk) and Kaidak, Complex Studies of the Caspian Sea, 2 : 123, in Russian, with an English summary), who was the leading authority on gobiid fishes of the U.S.S.R., suspected that G. /enkoranicus was conspecific with Pomatoschistus caucasicus (Kawrajsky, 1899) of Berg, 1916, and studied Kessler’s specimen. The specimen happened to be in such a bad state that Iljin was unable to identify it. He came to the conclusion that the possibility of determining the identity of G. lenkoranicus and P. caucasicus was hopelessly lost. However, the specific name /enkoranicus as a senior synonym of P. caucasicus has been recently revived by Georgiev, Zh. (1964, Bull. Inst. Piscicult. et Pécher.-Varna, 4 : 189, in Bulgarian, with an English summary). His statement was based only on Kessler’s description.
4. G. caucasicus Kawrajsky (1899, in Radde, Mus. caucas., 1: 309) is a nomen nudum. It was named by Kawrajsky without description, definition or indication, and only the localities of the specimens were mentioned (a littoral swamp near Batum, the Black Sea, and Temirgoe, south of the Sulak River mouth, the Caspian Sea). One of Kawrajsky’s specimens (from Batum) and a specimen from the Inkit Lake near Pitzunda, the Black Sea, were described under the name Pomatoschistus caucasicus by Berg, L. S. (1916, Les poissons des eaux douces de la Russie : 409, in Russian). The specific name caucasicus has been widely used in all recent ichthyological works.
5. The specific name /enkoranicus has been used only in a few earlier works (e.g. Gratzianov, V. I., 1905, Versuch einer Ubersicht der Fische der Russischen Reiches: 371, in Russian) and being an uncertain one it has not been employed since that time. It was only mentioned in the list of species referred to Pomatoschistus by Berg (1916). G. lenkoranicus, with a note of interrogation to indicate it as a possible synonym of P. caucasicus, was used later by Berg, L. S. (1949, Les poissons des eaux douces de PU.R.S.S., 3 : 1065, in Russian) and Svetovidov, A. N. (1964, The fishes of the Black Sea : 419, in Russian).
6. Since the specific name /enkoranicus has remained unused as a senior synonym in the recent literature, and since it is not certainly applicable to any
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
gobiid species and constitutes a threat to the specific name P. caucasicus, the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following actions:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name /enkoranicus Kessler, 1877, as published in the binomen Gobius lenkoranicus, for the pur- poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Lawof Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, caucasicus Berg, 1916, as published in the combination Pomatoschistus caucasicus ;
(3) to place the specific name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57
COLLIGNONICERAS BREISTROFFER, 1947 (MOLLUSCA, AMMONOIDEA): APPLICATION TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY WITH PRIORITY FROM 1876.
Z.N.(S.) 1738
By T. Matsumoto (Kyushu, Japan) and C. W. Wright (London)
1. In 1876 Meek ( : 453) established a genus Prionotropis (type-species by original designation Ammonites woollgari Mantell, 1822) for a group of ammonites widespread in the Turonian stage of the Upper Cretaceous in Europe, North America and Asia and of great stratigraphical importance. A family was subsequently based by Zittel (1895 : 430) on this generic name and came into general use. However Breistroffer (1947) recognized that the name was a homonym of Prionotropis Fieber, 1853 (: 127) and proposed the sub- stitute name Collignoniceras. At the same time he illegitimately replaced the family name Prionotropidae Zittel by the name Prionocyclidae, based on Prionocyclus Meek, 1876, a close relative of Prionotropis Meek non Fieber, which had been provisionally Proposed by Haas in 1946 (: 218). Wright and Wright (1951 : 30) corrected this by substituting the name Collignoniceratidae based on the new name of the type-genus.
2. In 1940, however, Warren and Stelck (: 151) had established a new genus Selwynoceras, type-species by original designation Prionotropis (2) borealis Warren, 1930, regarded by them as closely allied to but distinct from Prionotropis Meek non Fieber. In the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Wright (1957 : L 426) treated Selwynoceras as only subgenerically distinct from Collignoniceras Breistroffer (=Prionotropis Meek non Fieber), but maintained Collignoniceras as the name for the combined genus, although it was proposed in 1947, on the assumption that as a replacement name for Prionotropis Meek, 1876, it took priority over Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940; this assumption was incorrect at the time.
3. Whatever may have been the effect of the Rules in 1957, Article 39 (a) (i) of the 1961 edition of the Rules laid down that the new name of the type-genus of a family, that is found to be a junior homonym, should take the date of the name replaced. It could therefore have been argued between 1961, when this clause was adopted, and 1964, when it was dropped, that Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947, should be assigned for purposes of priority the date 1876 and that it should not therefore be replaced by Selwynoceras when that genus was regarded as subjectively synonymous with it, at generic or subgeneric level.
4. On the other hand Powell (1963 : 1223) held that Selwynoceras and Collignoniceras were not even subgenerically distinct. He argued that Selwynoceras was available as a substitute name for Prionotropis Meek non Fieber and should have been adopted in 1947. He maintained Collignoni- ceratidae as the correct name for the family, under Article 40, but ignored the provision in Article 39 (a) (i), in force at the time and treated Collignoniceras as a junior synonym of Selwynoceras.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
5. In the 1964 edition of the Rules, in accordance with the decision of Congress, the provision under Article 39 for backdating replacement generic and family names no longer appears.
6. Since its establishment in 1947 the name Collignoniceras has come into general use and has appeared in a large number of stratigraphical and palaeon- tological works, for example Biirgl, 1957: Cobban, 1951: Cobban & Reeside, 1952: Cobban, Rohrer & Erdmann, 1956: Matsumoto, 1959 a, 1959 b & 1965: Matsumoto & Miller, 1958: Miiller, 1960: Wright, 1957 & 1963: Wright & Wright, 1951. To the best of our knowledge no author has yet followed Powell in substituting Se/wynoceras for Collignoniceras.
7. Authors may in future hold Se/wynoceras to be generically distinct from or subgenerically distinct from or absolutely synonymous with Collignoni- ceras Breistroffer. In the interest of stability of nomenclature of this wide- spread and stratigraphically important group of ammonites it is highly desirable to avoid changes of name resulting from subjective changes of opinion about the relative taxonomic status of Selwynoceras and Collignoniceras. To achieve this end it seems best that the Commission should under its plenary powers assign the original date, 1876, of Prionotropis Meek non Fieber to its replace- ment name Collignoniceras.
8. We therefore invite the Commission to:
(1) use its plenary powers to grant priority from 1876 to the generic name Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947;
(2) place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology:
(a) Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947, with priority for the purposes of synonymy from 1876, being the replacement name of Priono- tropis Meek, 1876 non Fieber, 1853 (gender : neuter) (type- species, by original designation Ammonites woollgari Mantell, 1822);
(b) Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940 (gender : neuter) (type- species, by original designation, Prionotropis borealis Warren, 1930);
(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Prionotropis Meek, 1876 (a junior homonym of Prionotropis Fieber, 1853);
(4) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) woollgari Mantell, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites woollgari (type-species of Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947 (1876));
(b) borealis Warren, 1930, as published in the binomen Prionotropis (?) borealis (type-species of Selwynoceras Warren & Stelck, 1940).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59
REFERENCES
BREISTROFFER, M. 1947. Notes de nomenclature paléozoologiques. Proc. verb. mens. Soc. Sci. Dauphiné, 26th year, no. 195 : 5 p. unnumbered
BuUrGL,H. 1957. Biostratigrafia de la Sabana de Bogota y Alrededores. Bol. Geol., 5 : 113-185, pl. 1-19
CosBAN, W. A. 1951. Colorado Shale of Central and Northwestern Montana and equivalent rocks of Black Hills.. Bull. Amer. Assoc. Petr. Geol., 35 : 2170- 2198, 2 figs.
CoBBAN, W. A., and REESIDE, J.B. 1952. Correlation of the Cretaceous Formations of the Western Interior of the United States. Bull. Geol. Soc. Amer., 63 : 1011-1044, 2 figs., 1 pl.
CoBBAN, W. A., ROHRER, W. L., and ERDMANN, C. E. 1956. Discovery of the Carlile (Turonian) ammonite Collignoniceras woollgari in northwestern Montana. Jour. Paleont., 30 : 1269-1272
FiepeR, F. X. 1853. Synopsis der europdischen Orthopteren mit besonderes Riicksicht der BOhmischen Arten. Lotos, 3 : 90-104, 115-129, 138-154, 168-176, 184-188, 201-207, 232-238, 252-261
Haas, O. 1946. Intraspecific variation in, and ontogeny of, Prionotropis woollgari and Prionocyclus wyomingensis. Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 86, 4 : 141-224, fig. 1-108, pl. 11-24
MANTELL, G. 1822. Fossils of the South Downs
Matsumoto, T. 1959a. Upper Cretaceous Ammonites of California. Part II. Mem. Fac. Sci. Kyushu Univ., D. Geol., Special vol. I : 172 p., 41 pl., 80 figs.
— 1959b. Zonation of the Upper Cretaceous in Japan. ibid., 9 : 55-93, pl. 6-11
— 1965. A Monograph of the Collignoniceratidae from Hokkaido. Part I. ibid., 16 : 1-80, pl. 1-18, fig. 140
Matsumoto, T., and MiLLerR, H. W. 1958. Cretaceous Ammonites from the spill- way excavation of the Cedar Bluff dam, Trego County, Kansas. Jour. Paleont., 32 : 351-356, pl. 44-45
MEEK, F. B. 1876. A Report on the Invertebrate Cretaceous and Tertiary fossils of the Upper Missouri country. Rep. U.S. Geol. Surv. Territories, (Hayden, 9) : 629 p., 45 pl.
MULier, A.H. 1960. Lehrbuch der Paléozoologie. Band II, Invertebraten, Teil 2. Mollusca 2, Arthropoda 1
PoweLL, J. D. 1963. Turonian (Cretaceous) Ammonites from Northeastern Chihuahua, Mexico. Jour. Paleont., 37 : 1217-1232, pl. 166-171, 6 figs.
WarRREN, P. S. 1930. Three new ammonites from the Cretaceous of Alberta. Trans. Roy. Soc. Canada, 24; sec. 4 : 25, pl. 3., fig. 1-4, pl. 4, fig. 1
WarREN, P. S., and STELCK, C. R. 1940. Cenomanian and Turonian faunas in the Pouce Coupe district, Alberta and British Columbia. ibid. 34, sec. 4 : 143- 152, pl. 14
WRIGHT, C. W. 1957. in: Arkell et al., Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, Part L, Mollusca 4, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea
— 1963. Cretaceous ammonites from Bathurst Island, Northern Australia. Palaeontology, 6 : 597-614, pl. 81-89
WRIGHT, C. W., and WricuT, E. V. 1951. A Survey of the Fossil Cephalopoda of the Chalk of Great Britain. Palaeontogr. Soc.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
GALERITA GOUAN, 1770 (PISCES): PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX TOGETHER WITH ADDITION OF GALERITA FABRICIUS, 1801, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1739
By Hans Reichardt (Departamento de Zoologia, Secretaria da Agricultura Sao Paulo, Brazil)
The object of the present application is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to reject the generic name Galerita Gouan, 1770, senior homonym of Galerita Fabricius, 1801.
2. The generic name Galerita was first published by Rondelet in 1554 (Libri de piscibus marinis ... Lugduni, apud Mathiam Bonhomme : 204), but was, first used after the introduction of the Binomial System by Gouan in 1770 (Historia Piscium : 123), as a junior synonym of Blennius Linnaeus, 1758 (Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1 : 256). Even though a nomen nudum in Gouan’s Historica Piscium, and not adopted by either Gouan or a single subsequent author, the name Galerita Gouan was listed in several nomenclators (Schulze, Neave, etc.) as if it were an available name. As a result, it was incorrectly treated as a senior homonym by several subsequent authors (see 5, 6, below).
3. In 1801 Fabricius described the homonymic genus Galerita for Coleop- tera, Insecta (Systema Eleutheratorum 1 : 214).
4. Galerita Fabricius has been made the type-genus of a taxon in the family-group by Lacordaire (1854, Généra des Coléoptéres 1 : 79), the Galéritides.
5. In 1936 the name Galeritu/a Strand was proposed (Folia Zool. Hydrobiol. 9 : 168) to replace Galerita Fabricius, nec Gouan.
6. In 1949, overlooking the existence of Galeritula Strand, 1936, Jeannel (Faune de l’Empire Frangais 11 : 1057) proposed the name Galeritina to replace Galerita Fabricius, nec Gouan.
7. Inthe same paper Jeannel proposed the family-group name Galeritinini (type-genus Galeritini Jeannel, 1949) to replace Galeritini (type-genus Galerita Fabricius, 1801).
8. Jedlicka in 1963 (Entom. Abhandl. Museum Dresden. 28 : 474) proposed the family-group name Galeritulini (type-genus Galeritula Strand, 1936) to replace Galeritini (type-genus Galerita Fabricius, 1801).
9. A forthcoming revision of the American species of the tribe which includes the genus Galerita Fabricius, revealed that the genus Diabena Fair- maire, 1901 (Bull. Soc. ent. France : 94) with two species in Madagascar, is a subjective synonym of Galerita Fabricius. Diabena having 35 years of priority over Galeritula Strand, would have to be used for the complex of 51 Neotropical, 7 Oriental and 17 Ethiopian species of the genus.
10. Even though two replacement names have been proposed and are available for Galerita Fabricius (see 5, 6, above), the latter is still widely used by specialists as well as non-specialists. As stated above (9), if Galerita Gouan were accepted, nomenclatural procedure would require the application of Diabena Fairmaire to the genus. Diabena Fairmaire, which was until now restricted to two Malagasy species, is almost completely unknown outside the
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61
Ethiopian Region. Galerita Gouan, the senior homonym of Galerita Fabricius has never been used in the Binomial System as a senior synonym after 1758, as stated above (2).
11. It seems to the writer that a strict application of the Law of Homonymy in the case of Galerita Gouan, 1770 and Galerita Fabricius, 1801, is illogical, because of the fact that the senior homonym is not used in the literature as a valid generic name, while the junior homonym is a well known name in the entomological literature.
12. It is therefore requested that Galerita Gouan, 1770, be rejected as a nomen nudum and that Galerita Fabricius, 1801, be placed on the Official List.
13. For the reasons above it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:
(1) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names
in Zoology the family-group names:
(a) Galeritinini Jeannel, 1949 (type-genus, Galeritina Jeannel, 1949) (a junior objective synonym of Galeritini Lacordaire, 1854);
(b) Galeritulini Jedlicka, 1963 (type-genus, Galeritula Strand, 1936) (a junior objective synonym of Galeritini Lacordaire, 1854);
(2) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family- group name Galeritini Lacordaire, 1854 (type-genus, Galerita Fabricius 1801);
(3) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Galerita Gouan, 1770 (a nomen nudum);
(4) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the generic name Galerita Fabricius, 1801 (gender : feminine) (type-species, by designa- tion by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 426), Carabus americanus Linnaeus, 1758);
(5) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name Carabus americanus Linnaeus, 1758 (Systema Naturae, (ed. 10) : 415), as pub- lished in the binomen Carabus americanus (type-species of Galerita Fabricius, 1801).
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
APPLICATION TO SUPPRESS FOUR RICHARDSON FISH NAMES Z.N.(S.) 1740
By P. J. P. Whitehead (British Museum (Nat. Hist.))
1. Richardson’s “‘ Report on the ichthyology of the seas of China and Japan” (1846), lists 665 species, of which 142 were new species or varieties. For various reasons, certain of Richardson’s names have lapsed into obscurity.
(a) The descriptions are often brief, or poor, or both.
(b) Reference to the size, locality, collector, donor and repository of the specimens is sometimes inadequate for types to be recognized with certainty.
(c) Some 22 of Richardson’s new species were based on Chinese specimens collected by the Rev. G. Vachell and deposited in Cambridge. The types of 19 of these species were subsequently lost (Whitehead & Joysey, in press, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.)).
(d) Some 83 of Richardson’s new species were based solely on the unpub- lished collections of paintings of Chinese fishes compiled by John Reeves in about 1830, of which three copies are in the British Museum (Natural History) and the fourth cannot be traced (see Whitehead, 1966, Bull. Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. (Zool.), 14 (2) : 15-53).
It is unfortunate, therefore, that Richardson’s “‘ Report”’ pre-dates in part some important ichthyological works of the mid-nineteenth century, e.g. most of Bleeker’s papers on fishes (1844-1880), and also the later volumes of both the Histoire Naturelle des Poissons (1828-1850) of Cuvier & Valenciennes, and the Fauna Japonica, Pisces (1842-1850) of Temminck & Schlegel. As a result of two recent studies (Whitehead, Joc. cit. and Whitehead & Joysey, Joc. cit.), the following Richardson names have been found to be senior synonyms of well-known or commercially important species whose hitherto accepted names have been commonly used for over acentury. In the interests of nomenclatural stability, it is proposed here that the Richardson names be rejected. Future work on Richardson’s species will undoubtedly produce more such names.
2. The following names date from Richardson’s “‘ Report”. The identifi- cation of the species has been fully discussed by Whitehead (Joc. cit.).
(a) Clupea isingleena Richardson, 1846. Type: a fish of 108-5 mm. standard length in the British Museum (BMNH. 1963.6.17.1), hitherto labelled erroneously as type of Clupea nymphaea (see below), but now recognized as the holotype of C. isingleena. The specimen is identified as Sardinella fimbriata (Valenciennes, 1847), a common Indo-Pacific species frequently cited in the literature. I have been unable to find reference to the name isingleena as a senior synonym for a clupeoid fish since its first proposal in 1846.
(b) Clupea nymphaea Richardson, 1846. Type: Reeves specimen in the British Museum from Canton, now lost; former type of C. nymphaea, now recognized as the lost type of C. isingleena. On Richardson’s description and the Reeves illustration (No. A 25), this species has
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Part 1. April 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63
been identified as Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847, the most widespread and commercially important of all Sardinella species. The name nymphaea is not a nomen oblitum, having been in constant (mis)use for well over 50 years as a result of the type specimen errone- ously associated with it.
(c) Clupea caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846. No Type, the species based solely on a Reeves illustration (No. 59). The identification of this species is uncertain, but all known Chinese clupeoids can be eliminated except Sardinella leiogaster Valenciennes, 1847, Sardinella aurita Valenciennes, 1847 and Sardinella clupeoides (Bleeker, 1849). The first of these has been considered the most probable. The name caeruleovittata pre-dates the above names, all of which have been widely accepted in the literature; it has not been used as a senior synonym for a clupeoid fish for over 50 years and can be considered a putative nomen oblitum.
3. The following name dates from Richardson’s “ Zoology of the Voyage of the Sulphur, 1 — Ichthyology ’’, published in three fasciculi between April 1844 and October 1845 (see “ Report”, p. 316 for clue to dating). The identification of this species is discussed fully in Whitehead & Joysey (loc. cit.).
(a) Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1844. type: a fish 228 mm. standard length in the Museum of Zoology, Cambridge (No. F.2002), the jar labelled “* Anguilla vulgaris China Rev. G. Vachell”’. The specimen is now identified as Anguilla Japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1846, the common Japanese freshwater eel. The name Japonica has been widely used in the literature for over a century; the name clathrata, on the other hand, has been used as a senior synonym only once in the last fifty years, and then only in an index of species without description (Chu, 1931, Index Piscium Sinensium, Biol. Bull. St. John’s Univ., No. 1 : 290 pp.). I have been unable to find a reference to the name clathrata in the fifty years prior to 1931.
4. In order to bring stability to the nomenclature and to prevent the intro- duction of little used Richardson names for common Indo-Pacific fishes, it is proposed that the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature should:
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress the following senior synonyms for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy,
Clupea isingleena Richardson, 1846 Clupea nymphaea Richardson, 1846 Clupea caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846 Anguilla clathrata Richardson, 1844
(2) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology:
(a) isingleena Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea isingleena;
(b) nymphaea Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea nymphaea;
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(c) caeruleovittata Richardson, 1846, as published in the binomen Clupea caeruleovittata; (d) clathrata Richardson, 1844, as published in the binomen Anguilla
clathrata; (3) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology; (a) fimbriata Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Spratella fimbriata; (b) aurita Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Sardinella aurita;
(c) leiogaster Valenciennes, 1847, as published in the binomen Sardi- nella leiogaster ;
(d) japonica Temminck & Schlegel, 1846, as published in the binomen Anguilla japonica.
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Members of the Trust The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. (Chairman)
Francis J. Griffin, O.B.E., F.C.C.S., A.L.A. (Secretary and Managing Director)
Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck
Dr. N. R. Stoll
Mr. C. W. Wright
Dr. G. F. de Witte
B. The Officers of the Trust
W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. (Scientific Controller) Margaret Doyle, B.Sc. (Scientific Assistant)
CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper)
Opinions Opinion 761 (Eukrohnia Ritter-Zahony, 1909) Opinion 762 (Seven Holothurioidea names) Opinion 763 (Stenorhynchus Lamarck, 1818) Opinion 764 (Chaetoderma Lovén and Chaetodermis Swainson) _ Opinion 765 (Chapmanina Silvestri, 1931) j Opinion 766 (Naiadites elongatus Dawson, 1861) .. Opinion 767 (Serpula Linnaeus, 1758) ee Opinion 768 (Coenonympha ochracea Edwards, 1861) Opinion 769 ( Yoldia Moller and Portlandia Mérch) Opinion 770 (Stenoscisma Conrad, 1839) ... ; Opinion 771 (Thamnophis sirtalis Linnaeus, 1758) Opinion 772 (Curimata Walbaum, 1792)
New Cases
TRYPETESINAE and TRYPETESINI (Lacordaire): Proposed emendation of family-group names under the plenary powers (Insecta, Coleoptera) (Curtis W. Sabrosky and Elwood C. Zimmerman)
Podalonia Spinola, 1853 (Hymenoptera): Proposed suppression under plenary powers in favour of Podalonia Fernald, 1927, with Ammophila violaceipennis Lepeletier, 1845, as type-species (A. S. rena R. M. Bohart and J. van der Vecht)
Alosa fallax (Lacépéde, 1803): Proposed preservation a as s the 1 name for the Twaite Shad (Pisces) (A. N. Svetovidov) . F
Gobius lenkoranicus Kessler, 1877 (Pisces): Proposed suppression as a nomen dubium. (A. N. Svetovidov)
Collignoniceras Breistroffer, 1947 (Ammonoidea): ‘Application to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with priority from 1876 (T. Matsumoto and C. W. Wright) va
Galerita Gouan, 1770 (Pisces): Proposed addition to the Official Index, together with addition of Galerita Fabricius, 1801, to the Official List (Hans Reichardt) ;
Application to suppress four Richardson Fish names es (P. J. P. Whitehead)
46
CONTENTS ~ (continued from inside back wrapper)
Comments
Comments on the type-species of Sciaena Linnaeus (C. L. Hubbs, W. E. China) : a3
Comment on the proposed validation of Cacatua (A. R. ‘Phillips)
Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species for Pithecops Horsfield, 1828 (L. E. Couchman) my
Comment on the proposed addition of Amblema Rafinesque, 1820, to the Official List (F. R. Woodward) ..
Withdrawal of application for the designation ofa | type-species for Stizus Latreille, [1802-1803] (R. M. Bohart) .
Comments on the type-species of Trychosis Foerster, 1868 . F: “Perkins: G. van Rossem)
Opposition to the proposed. designation of a type-species for Phasia Latreille. (C. W. Sabrosky)
Comment on the proposed designation of a a ‘type- species ‘for Prospaltlla Ashmead, 1904 (B. D. Burks)
Comments on the request for a Declaration against the suppression of nomina dubia (W. D. L. Ride, H. Lemche)
© 1966. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by Staples Printers Limited at their Kettering, Northants, establishment
11
11
Volume 23, Double Part 2/3 29th July, 1966 pp. 65-128
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENGEATURE Cs eC Sia
ks fo NAT. HIST, ¥
{ 1966 ) \ PURCHASED » Way @&
vf Oey? Wee
The omadiocn, of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
CONTENTS Page Alden H. Miller ts Sou wks ie ae #5 be} 65 Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology: Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature BAe a nee 66
Notices of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 66
(continued inside back wrapper)
LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office 14, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1.
1966
Price Five Pounds (All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
Acting President: Dr. L. B. Hottuuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963)
Secretary: Dr. G. Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (31 May 1960)
Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7) (21 May 1962)
B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election)
Professor Enrico TORTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturale “‘G. Doria’’, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Professor Per BRINCK (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Protect — (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) y Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre BONNET (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Professor Tadeusz JaczEwskI (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert MERTENS (Natur-museum wu. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, ’ Frankfurt a.m., Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. OprucuHEv (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, U.S.S.R.) (5 November 1958) eT Tohru Ucuma (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March Prot ne eS ee ALVARADO (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) ay Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum(Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) (Secretary) Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, C ) (9 June 1961) Ai W. ull CHINA (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Assistant ecretary Professor E. BINDER (Muséum d’ Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) Professor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Instituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil) (28 August 1963) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisana, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) MG ries a STOLL (Rockefeller Institute, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) ouncillor Dr. L. B. Hottnuts (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (28 August 1963) (Acting President) Professor Ernst MAYR (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) (Councillor) ae J. rb a (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) (28 August 1963) ‘ouncillor Dr. Carl L. Husss (Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, La Jolla California, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Pos he ogy Se aan dr Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) ugust Dr. W. D. L. Rie (Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) (28 August 1963) Mr. C. W. Sasrosky (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Entomology Research Division, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) (28 August 1963) Professor George Gaylord Simpson (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (28 August 1963)
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 23, Double Part 2/3 (pp. 65-128) 29th July, 1966
ALDEN H. MILLER (1906-1965) President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
With Professor Alden H. Miller’s death, the Commission lost a distinguished and effective President. Born February 4, 1906 at Los Angeles, son of the well-known ornithologist and naturalist Loye Miller, he was connected with the University of California from his student days to his death. Miller became Director of the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology at Berkeley, California in 1940 and Professor of Zoology in 1945.
Miller was a distinguished zoologist. With his outstanding revision of the avian genus Junco in 1941 he established himself as one of the leaders of the new systematics, a position which he solidified through his subsequent work and that of his students. Equally fundamental and pioneering were his experimental studies on photoperiodism and the control of breeding seasons in temperate zone and tropical birds.
He was an indefatigable worker. In spite of his active teaching schedule, the supervison of many graduate students, and very numerous administrative duties, he was able to carry out a highly productive research program. Among his over 200 publications are a whole series of eminent monographs. During his more than 25 years of editorship, the ornithological journal Condor achieved an enviable standard of excellence.
Many honors came to him in recognition of his scientific achievements, such as the Brewster Gold Medal, membership in the National Academy of Sciences (1957), and the presidency of the American Ornithologists’ Union. Many of the 31 students who took their Ph.D. with him now occupy prominent positions in American science.
Being known for his integrity, efficiency and fairmindedness, administrative duties were continuously thrust upon him. 1961-62 and again 1963-64 he served as Vice-Chancellor (Academic Affairs) of the University of California; at other times he served as dean, as acting chairman of the Department of Paleontology (1959-61), and on innumerable committees. It was his reputation of impartiality and efficiency that recommended him for election to the Presi- dency of the Commission and it is a tragedy that he did not have the oppor- tunity to exercise his talents presiding over a meeting of the Commission.
Miller loved field research, and his field note books record observations and collected specimens from 51 field trips in 36 years. Much of this was subse- quently used in his publications. Asa person he was courteous and generous, but somewhat reserved, perhaps even shy in his younger years. When con- sulted either by a colleague or student, he was always most helpful, never shirking a duty. His family life was exemplary and in spite of his arduous duties he always found time for recreational outdoor activities with his wife and children. With them he built a cabin and boat house at his summer camp of Clear Lake
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(California), and it was there that a heart attack took him away on October 9, 1965, at the age of 59 years.
Miller had the respect, indeed the admiration, of all those who were acquainted with him. Those who knew him best feel a keen sense of loss over the passing of a particularly fine human being. The Commission will miss his wise counsel and experienced leadership.
[A more detailed memorial and full bibliography will be published by the National Academy of Sciences.] Ernst Mayr.
NOTICES
(a) Date of Commencement of Voting—In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period.
(b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers.—The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin:
(1) Suppression of Bryaxis schneideri Kugelann, 1794; Designation of a type-species for Bryaxis Kugelann, 1794 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.NAS.) 1642.
(2) Designation of a neotype for Megalichthys hibberti Agassiz, 1835; Validation of Rhizodus hibberti Owen, 1840; Suppression of Holopty- chius Egerton, 1837, and Holoptychus Buckland, 1837 (Pisces). Z.N. (S.) 1690.
(3) Designation of neotypes for Anthocoris nigrellus Zetterstedt, 1838, Anthocoris nigricornis Zetterstedt, 1838, Lygaeus pygmaeus Fallen, 1807 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1732.
(4) Designation of a type-species for Phlaeothrips Haliday, 1836 (Insecta, Thysanoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1741.
c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on
June 1966. Zoological Nomenclature
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL FOR CONSERVATION OF PAN OKEN, 1816, AND PANTHERA OKEN, 1816 (see volume 22, pages 230-232)
By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois)
Morrison-Scott (B.Z.N. 22 : 230, 1965) requests conservation of the ‘ generic ” names Panthera and Pan from Oken’s Lehrbuch der Naturgeschichte, published 1816. In 1956, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature rejected, in Opinion 417, the Lehrbuch for Purposes of zoological nomenclature. I have shown elsewhere (1949, Journ. Mammal., 30 : 289-301) that there is no need to revert to this non-binomial work for any zoological name. Nearly all generic names for mammals ostensibly cited from Oken’s Lehrbuch are available in well known and nomenclaturally valid publications. Two or three “ Oken ” names still current but with availability from binomial works clouded by questions of homonymy or priority may give concern to some zoologists. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature can, by use of its plenary powers, validate such names from any nomenclaturally recognized source. Nevertheless, action should not be taken in cases where non-Oken names are available under the Code and in use without entailing confusion in concepts or upheav- als in nomenclature.
Zoologists who publish taxonomic revisions, check lists, or catalogs of animals, assume full responsibility for each bibliographic reference they cite and for the taxo- nomic status and availability of each name they recognize. Authors such as G. M. Allen (1939, A check list of African mammals), G. G. Simpson (1945, The principles of classification and a classification of mammals), and J. R. Ellerman and T. C. S. Morrison-Scott (1951, Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian mammals, 1758 to 1946) who gleaned names from Palmer (1904, Index generum mammalium) but cited them as if copied directly from Oken, 1816, are representing bad names for good and imprecise or non-existent bibliographic references for original and valid sources. It is ironical that Zoologists who scorned the rules of nomenclature now apply to the International Commission on Nomenclature for conservation of counterfeit names they favored and rejection of the appropriate and currently used bonafide names they disfavor.
“ Panthera Oken, 1816 ”
In his proposal, Morrison-Scott states that conservation of Panthera for great cats requires validation of the name from Oken, 1816. He adds that inasmuch as Felis colocolo, the ascribed type of ‘‘ Panthera Oken ” is not a great cat, it is necessary to designate another type, namely Felis pardus Linnaeus.
Oken’s Lehrbuch contains no generic name Panthera as used and understood by modern authors. Felis pardus, as employed by Oken, has nothing to do with his “ Panthera ” and is not unequivocably the Linnaean Felis pardus. Morrison-Scott gives no bibliographic reference to his fancied ‘“* Panthera Oken, 1816 ” and he cannot because there is none. In short, Morrison-Scott requests validation of a name froma work rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature, cited from an author who never proposed the name in the form or sense currently used or recognized by Morrison- Scott, and with the type species pulled out of a hat.
Procedure, technicalities, legalities and proprieties to one side, the claim that there is need for conserving Panthera as of Oken, Morrison-Scott, or anyone else, does not bear scrutiny.
The most widely used name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus. This is the generic name applied to all North American cats, except lynxes, by Hall and Kelson (1959) in “‘ The mammals of North America.” These authors treat “‘ Panthera ” of Frisch and Oken as “ unavailable’. Cabrera (1958 : 298) in his authoritative “ Catalogo de los mamiiferos de America del Sur ”, employs Leo Brehm 1829 (Oken’s Isis, p. 637) as the generic name for great cats. In his posthumous monograph of Argentine cats
Bull. zool. Nomencl. , Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Cabrera (1962 : 162) categorically denies recognition to names proposed in works officially rejected for purposes of zoological nomenclature irrespective of the facade of legality they may subsequently receive. In my manuscript catalog of South American mammals, Felis is the generic name used for most species of cats including the jaguar. There is no intention or thought of recognizing “‘ Panthera ’ under any guise.
Wide usage of Panthera for great cats stems from Pocock (1916, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (8), 18 : 314). This authority believed that “‘ since the tendency of modern systematic mammalogy has found in the present instance expression in the admission of many [!] species of leopard, lion, jaguar and tiger, it is possible, perhaps probable, that the logical outcome of that process—namely, the ascription of generic rank to each of these animals—will be followed in the future. If that be so, nominal symbols are available for them.”’ With these remarks, Pocock (/oc. cit.) listed the following generic names for great cats.
Panthera Oken, ex Allen, 1902 (Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 16 : 377), for the
leopard.
Tigris Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 UIndex generum mammalium, N.A.F., 23 : 509), for the tiger.
Leo Oken, ex Palmer, 1904 (op. cit., p. 368), for the lion.
Uncia Gray, 1854 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 14 : 394), for the ounce.
Jaguarius Severtzow, 1858 (Rev. Mag. Zool. (2), 10 : 386), for the jaguar.
Recognition of five genera of great cats persuaded Pocock to raise the group to subfamily rank, the Pantherinae, primarily on the basis of a character of the hyoid apparatus which now proves to be even more tenuous than has been generally supposed. Other characters adduced for generic separation of great cats from small as typified by Felis catus Linnaeus, have not withstood critical review. Validation of Panthera as the obligate generic name for great cats is neither indicated nor in the best interest of tax- onomy or nomenclature.
It is urged that Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of ‘‘ Panthera Oken, 1816’, be rejected. The reasons are summarized as follows.
1. ‘‘ Panthera Oken, 1816 ”’ is an undigestible artifice. Current usage of the name
stems from Allen, 1902 (supra cit.) and Palmer, 1904 (supra cit.).
2. The most commonly used generic name for great cats is Felis Linnaeus.
3. There is no strong evidence that great cats typified by the leopard, Felis pardus Linnaeus, are generically distinct from small cats typified by Felis catus Linnaeus. Generic or subgeneric distinction between the two groups is, however, recognized by some authorities (not merely authors or compilers). Generic names, other than “ Panthera ”’, for separating them are available and in use.
4. The earliest available generic (or subgeneric) name for great cats is Leo Brehm, 1829 (supra cit.), type Felis leo Linnaeus. Current and spreading usage of this valid and uncontroversial name promotes stability, meets with no serious objections and results in no confusion.
5. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should not validate a rejected name for which there is no need from a non-binomial work which most zoologists cannot or will not in clear conscience accept on zoological or nomenclatural grounds.
In conclusion, it is requested that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature
(1) place the name “ Panthera Oken”’, cited by authors, on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology;
(2) place the generic name Leo Brehm, 1829 (Oken’s Isis, p. 637), on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
** Pan Oken, 1816” Scientific names of primates are used by a very small number of zoologists. Few anthropologists, primatologists, zookeepers, behaviorists, biomedical and biochemical investigators and others using non-human primates in research or for display, are
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69
zoologists. Hardly any of them are taxonomists. Scientific names of animals mean little to them. The rules of nomenclature mean even less. There is an urgent need to convince non-zoologists and non-taxonomists of the importance of taxonomic dis- criminations and the use of correct scientific names for experimental and display animals. This task becomes particularly difficult and complicated if workers are asked to use technical names which are not valid according to our Code and which have been declared unavailable by special ruling of our Commission.
The name ‘“‘ Pan Oken, 1816 ”, for the chimpanzee, has not been universally adopted. It is or would be rejected by the vast majority of zoologists familiar with the rules of nomenclature and the history of Oken’s Lehrbuch. As noted, most of those who work with chimpanzees are not accustomed to use scientific names for animals. They may be more familiar with the pipes of Pan than with the Pan of Oken. This makes it all the more urgent to arouse the nomenclatural consciousness of those who use chimpanzees in research with the valid and convincing generic name, Chimpansee Voigt.
Morrison-Scott’s belief that the change from Pan to Chimpansee after earlier usage of Pan, Simia and Anthropopithecus “ hardly contributes to stability ’’, is not supported by history.
Nomenclatural changes have consistently moved toward stability by rejection of the invalid for the valid. The history of such names as Callithrix Erxleben, 1777, versus Hapale Mlliger, 1811, and Saguinus Hoffmannsegg, 1807, versus Leontocebus Wagener, 1840, Marikina Lesson, 1840, Tamarin Gray, 1870 and others, prove the point. The many “ Oken names ” widely used during a 20-30 year span have all but disappeared from recent literature. The attempt to salvage Pan (and Panthera) seems to be a bela- ted and gratuitous rearguard action.
The contention that confusion would ensue should gorillas and chimpanzees be combined generically is baseless. I doubt the premise but here are the alternatives.
Pan gorilla
Pan troglodytes
versus
Chimpansee gorilla
Chimpansee troglodytes
I submit that the true identity of either chimpanzee or gorilla is less likely to be confused under the generic name Chimpansee than under that of Pan.
“ Pan” gained currency through Elliott’s despairingly erratic, “‘ A review of the Primates (1913, p. 227)”. “Elliott’s source for the name was, of course, Palmer (1904, Index generum mammalium, p. 508). Very little survives of Elliott’s contributions to primatology and there is no good reason for clinging to his usage of ‘‘ Pan Oken ”.
In conclusion, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to
(1) reject Morrison-Scott’s application for conservation of “ Pan Oken ”.
(2) place the name “ Pan Oken *”’, cited by authors, and the sales catalog name Theranthropus Brookes, 1828 (A catalogue of the anatomical and zoological museum of Joshua Brookes, Esq., F.R.S., F.L.S., etc., p. 48), on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) place the generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831 (Cuvier’s Das Thierreich, 1 : 76), type, Simia troglodytes Blumenbach, by monotypy, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
By Fernando Dias de Avila-Pires (Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil)
I would like to comment on the proposed validation of the generic names Pan Oken, 1816, and Panthera Oken, 1816.
I do not think that considering one work non-nomenclatorial but validating a number of names published in it would contribute at all to make nomenclature stable. Theoretically we could have one book in the “ index” as non-valid, but with the majority or the totality of its names validated.
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
In the present case I very much regret to disagree with T. C. Morrisson-Scott, on the following grounds.
1. Pan undoubtedly is a “ well stabilized ’’ name for the chimpanzees. In case we accept the correct generic name Chimpansee Voigt, 1831, it certainly will be confusing for non-taxonomists to call a gorilla, Chimpansee, once they are accepted as co-generic. But it would also be confusing to call scientifically a gorilla, Pan, once it is a “ well stabilized’? name for the chimpanzees... In fact what is confusing and strange—to non-primatologists—is not the nomenclatorial problem, but the discovery that gorillas and chimpanzees are so closely related. Jf the name Gorilla was older than Pan or Chimpansee, it would also be confusing to call a chimpanzee, Gorilla.
2. With the names Panthera Oken, 1816, and Leo Brehm, 1829 the same problem arises. Lions, jaguars, tigers and leopards (or panthers), all belong to the same genus. But when you use a new combination for the first time, then you realize how closely related these animals are considered to be. To calla panther Leo is no more confusing than to call a lion, Panthera.
Altogether, there is some argument about the type-species of Panthera Oken, which Hershkovitz holds to be the South American Felis colocolo, once Allen selected Panthera vulgaris Oken as the type-species.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPLICATION FOR THE VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF TINODES PUSILLUS McLACHLAN, 1862 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1592 (see volume 20, pages 395-396)
By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The proposal contained in this application was submitted to Commissioners for a vote on Voting Paper (65)29, issued on 23 August 1965. Although a two-thirds majority vote for Mr. Kimmins’ proposals was obtained, Commissioners Holthuis, Lemche, Ride and Sabrosky returned comments with their Voting Papers pointing out that both Tinodes pusillus Curtis, 1834, and Tinodes pusillus McLachlan, 1862, have no nomenclatural status, being merely re-uses of Phryganea pusilla Fabricius, 1781. Although in 1834 Curtis queried the synonymy of his pusilla with P. pusilla Fabricius, 1781, in 1837 (Guide to the arrangement of British Insects (ed. 2) : 171) he dropped the question mark. Neither 7. pusillus Curtis, 1834, nor T. pusillus McLachlan, 1862, therefore, poses a threat to Tinodes assimilis McLachlan, 1865.
Mr. Kimmins’ aim, to conserve the name Tinodes assimilis McLachlan, is, conse- quently, fulfilled without action by the Commission and he has decided to withdraw his application.
The taxon previously known under the names pusillus Curtis, 1834, pusillus McLach- lan, 1862, and aureolus auct. nec Zetterstedt, is now without a name. Mr. Kimmins will provide one in the near future in some entomological journal.
Application Z.N.(S.) 1592 is consequently withdrawn.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR BELEMNITES MUCRONATUS LINK, 1807. Z.N.(S.) 1160 (see volume 21, pages 268-296; volume 22, pages 138-139, 343-345)
By R. V. Melville and C. J. Wood (Geological Survey and Museum, London, England)
1. We wish to support the main arguments of Dr. Jeletzky’s application for the designation under the plenary powers of a neotype for the species generally known by the name Belemnitella mucronata. One of us (R.V.M.) has already done so in general
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71
terms (p. 138 above) and both of us ardently wish to see this name stabilized in its accepted sense. However, we wish also to associate ourselves with Peake and Hancock (pages 343-345 above) in their criticisms of Dr. Jeletzky’s choice of a specimen to serve as neotype. In particular, we urge our German colleagues to lose no time in submitting a suitable specimen from one of the localities suggested by Peake and Hancock, so that the Commission may have all the relevant facts and arguments in its hands without delay.
2. We wish also to add two further comments on points of detail, as follows.
3. The authorship of the specific name.—Link (1807, p. 9) can only be claimed as the author of the binomen Belemnites mucronatus on the basis of the following passage:
“* B. vulgatus gemeiner Belemnit. Die Verschiedenheiten scheinen nur Ab- anderungen zu sein, doch macht die fein gespitzte (B. mucronatus) vielleicht eine eigene Art aus. Haiifig in Mecklenburg. Sie selbst verstehen aus Kalkstein, liegen aber in dichtem Kalkstein, Kreide oder Feuerstein.” It will be seen that he is not unequivocally naming a taxon considered as distinct from Belemnites vulgatus. The words “doch... . vielleicht ” in our view suffice to show this, and we ask the Commission to rule that the name is not available. The specific name mucronatus has been attributed by a large majority of authors to Schlotheim, 1813, and there is no reason to change this established practice. There is no evidence that Schlotheim knew of Link’s work, but if the ruling we ask for is given, then the question no longer arises. 4. Furthermore, it is not possible to have any idea of the starting-point from which a neotype is to be designated for the alleged nominal species Belemnites mucronatus Link, 1807—even apart from the fact that the combination has not been used—since Link gives no illustration and cites no specimens. His “ locality ” (Mecklenburg) is a wide area almost completely covered by Glacial deposits incorporating boulders from a wide range of geological Systems as well as large “‘ Schollen ” of Chalk of various ages. Mesozoic (i.e. potential belemnitiferous) strata recorded (either as boulders or in situ) from Mecklenburg include Lias, miscellaneous Jurassic formations, Gault, and Cenomanian, Turonian and Senonian Chalk. Of these, the Lias and the Cenomanian and Senonian Chalk have all yielded belemnites. Link’s specimens may thus have included some of Jurassic provenance, though the presence of large Chalk “ Schollen ” near Rostock and his mention of Chalk and flint point rather to derivation from the Chalk. However, even if it could be shown that the original specimens certainly came from the Chalk, the description “ fein gespitzte ” is insufficient to separate any one among the majority of species of Chalk belemnites.
5. The authorship of the nominotypical subspecific name.—Dr. Jeletzky (pp. 279, 285, 286, 289, text-fig. 1, Expl. pl. 1) wrongly supposes that the subspecies Belemnitella mucronata mucronata can be attributed to Naidin, 1956. The author of the name of the nominotypical subspecies is, of course, the same as that of the specific name, namely Link, 1807, or Schlotheim, 1813, whichever the Commission decides.
6. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:
(1) To rule that the specific name mucronatus Link, 1807, as published in the
binomen Belemnites mucronatus, is not available because it was proposed in a conditional manner. (2) To read “‘ Schlotheim, 1813” in place of “ Link, 1807”, in Dr. Jeletzky’s proposals (vol. 21, pp. 278-9).
(3) To place the specific name mucronatus Link, 1807 (as published in the binomen Belemnites mucronatus) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
LITERATURE CITED Link, H. F., 1807. Beschreibung der Naturaliensammlung der Universitat zu Rostock. Teil IV: Fossile Uberbleibsel organischer Korper, sogennante Versteinerungen. Rostock.
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CONSERVATION OF ANCISTRODON (REPTILIA—SERPENTES) Z.N.(S.) 671 (see volume 22, pages 300-302)
By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)
Taxonomists have long been warned that it is the much larger group of “ non- taxonomists *” which threatens, through exasperation with name-changing of taxon- omists, the authority of nomenclatural decisions, by withdrawal of the respect and faith that are so essential to stability. But even taxonomists are tried at times by occasional lapses of their own system for achievement of stability. Ancistrodon vs. Agkistrodon is a case in point. Herpetologists, particularly American, have endured a half-century of alteration between acceptance of Agkistrodon on authoritative assurance and acceptance of Ancistrodon on equally authoritative grounds. No less than four exchanges of one name for the other have occurred, each followed by a period of relative uniformity of opinion.
In exasperation with this vacillation, I heartily urge the Commission to fix the orthography of the name with finality and the weight of its explicit authority. The only question is: which orthography is to be conserved ?
As a personal preference I would strongly endorse perpetuation of Agkistrodon, since this is the name to which I have been accustomed. Certainly a large proportion of active herpetologists have the same preference, for the case made for it by Klauber (1956) was both persuasive and widely-noted. I am not aware of any defended stand taken for Ancistrodon since that time, until Dr. Parker presented his brief.
Nevertheless a large number of herpetologists, Parker among them, has continued to use Ancistrodon despite Klauber’s arguments and any public refutation of them. A worldwide census taken to reveal relative popularity, in the sense of accustomed use, of these two orthographies among living zoologists would probably reveal at most no more than a 40-60 per cent disparity. A complete census would be difficult even to approach, since the generic name is very widely used in popular works, zoos and experimental studies. Certainly most usages are not based upon critical reappraisal of nomenclatural merit; they certainly stem largely from the influence of some work accepted as a guide, whether old or new, popular or technical. A reasonable number of works that might wield such influence use each orthography, Agkistrodon and Ancistrodon.
A choice between the two names by the Commission can seemingly not be made on grounds of popularity. The principles likewise provide little solace, for conservation of either name violates some prescription of procedural policy. Conservation of Agkistrodon would in this case suspend application of Art. 32 of the 1961 Code, and conservation of Ancistrodon would require suspension of the “‘ automatic ” provision of Art. 86. The long history of official recognition of Ancistrodon implicit (and unfortunately not explicit) in earlier Codes certainly lends weight to acceptance of that version. Nevertheless no clear-cut case can be made incontrovertibly supporting one choice over the other.
The circumstances of the present case fall into the classic pattern leading to growth of an “issue” on which hinges personal pride and determination to maintain the “ status quo ”, whatever it may be for any given person, since no strongly persuasive case is evident for the opposite view. An alternative proposal might be submitted to the Commission to rule just the opposite of Dr. Parker’s request—namely to conserve Agkistrodon and reject Ancistrodon. Then the matter will have “ arrived ” at a full- blown issue comparable in ultimate significance to some famous historical parallels such as the number of angels that can stand on the head of a pin, or which end of the egg must be broken first.
Since the choice is of so little intrinsic significance, and has no specific bearing upon the principles of the Code or their interpretation (and the Commission is urged to
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 73
avoid all involvements of this nature, as indeed is implied by Parker), I strongly recommend that zoologists defer in good grace to the intent of the initial proposal, which in a sense holds a priority that should be the determining factor in a case, such as this, wherein professional courtesy is more at stake than principle or popularity in establishing stability.
Accordingly I strongly urge approval of Parker’s request for conservation of Ancistrodon Beauvois, 1799.
By Laurence M. Klauber (San Diego, California, U.S.A.)
I wish to express my opposition to the proposal made by Dr. H. W. Parker that the Commission use its plenary power to validate the generic name Ancistrodon as an emendation of Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799, placing Ancistrodon on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and, at the same time, placing Agkistrodon on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names.
I take this position because of the belief that Dr. Parker’s recommendation is con- trary to the achievement of stability in nomenclature. Dr. Parker’s recommendation is based on the premise that Beauvois made an error in transliteration in devising the name Agkistrodon, which, therefore, should be changed to Ancistrodon.
It seems to me that if continuity and stability are to be maintained in nomenclature the original describer’s spelling of a name should be retained. Ifa treatment similar to that which Dr. Parker has suggested in this instance were adopted there is no infor- mation presently available as to how many other names might be subject to similar emendation. Taxonomists should not be subject to uncertainties of this kind, but should be afforded a feeling of confidence if they follow the simple and obvious pro- cedure of adopting the original spelling of a name.
Of the usages in two American herpetological journals, showing the number of articles employing the names in question, the following comparative figures are of interest: COPEIA, 1913 to 1965, Agkistrodon, 146, Ancistrodon, 31; HERPETOLOGICA, 1936 to 1965, Agkistrodon, 82, Ancistrodon, 28. The frequency of references appearing in these journals is high because of the importance of this genus in the North American fauna. It is clear that Dr. Parker’s Suggestion would involve a more extensive revision in taxonomic procedure than a retention of Agkistrodon.
I am of the opinion that, if any action upon the part of the Commission is deemed necessary, stability should dictate that the generic name Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799, be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and that the name Ancistrodon seals be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
oology.
By Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
I regret that I cannot agree with the application by Dr. H. W. Parker to place the emendation Ancistrodon (with same author and date) of the generic name Agkistrodon Beauvois, 1799, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
Iam of the opinion that in such cases stability and uniformity are served best by strict recognition of the relevant original spellings. As it is even possible to use arbitrary combinations of letters, if capable of being pronounced, for scientific names, I feel there is no justification for the emendation of names for philological reasons, even if these might be correct.
In the case of the emendation Ancistrodon (by Wagler, 1830) of Agkistrodon, Parker States quite correctly that the spelling Ancistrodon almost was in general use at the turn of the century. But when considering the present situation modern usage, beginning approximately with the year 1907, seems more important than former literature. There is no difficulty in proving that there is an overwhelming majority of important herpetologists in the most recent period who correctly use the spelling Agkistrodon.
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL ON ZORILLA BY DR. VAN GELDER AND THE COUNTER PROPOSAL BY DR. CHINA Z.N.(S.) 758 (see volume 22, pages 278-280)
By Philip Hershkovitz (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.)
Dr. Richard Van Gelder’s proposal for conservation of the name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, for the African stinkmuishond, is gratifying. It shows need, however, for clarification of some technicalities.
1. The type species of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, is Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798 (= Mustela zorilla E. Geoffroy, 1803), by absolute tautonomy. This name is not a synonym or a homonym of Viverra zorilla Gmelin (Schreber) as imputed by Holthuis (1963 : 242) and, it seems, tacitly accepted by Van Gelder. Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier is explicitly the “‘ putois du Cap ’’, and nothing else.
2. ‘* Viverra zorilla des auteurs systématiques ” cited by I. Geoffroy in the original description of Zorilla, is not the North American spotted skunk described under that name by the Germanic authors Schreber, Erxleben, and Gmelin. It is a homonym or misnomer for the African species as understood and described by I. Geoffroy and his compatriots, G. Cuvier (1798 : 116), E. Geoffroy (1803 : 102), Desmarest (1818 : 379) and F. Cuvier (1823 : 254, pl. 34, fig. 1; 1829 : 449).
3. Viverra zorilla Schreber, Erxleben and Gmelin, based primarily on the North American zorille of Buffon, is not and cannot be type of Zorilla I. Geoffroy. Viverra zorilla Schreber is an objective junior synonym of Viverra mapurito Miiller, 1776 (p. 32), based solely on “ Le zorille, Buff., T. XIII, pl. 41’. This then is the type. There is no need for a neotype. The type locality, however, may be restricted to Greensboro, Hale County, Alabama, as proposed by Van Gelder. Specimen no. 5423/4286, American Museum of Natural History, selected by Van Gelder as neotype, serves the same purpose by being a topotype.
4. Bradypus striatus Perry, 1810, is a subjective synonym of Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier. It was not included in the original description of Zorilla 1. Geoffroy and cannot be designated type-species.
5. The alternative to Dr. China’s proposal for suppression of Zorilla I. Geoffroy is my counter proposal of 1963 published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (p. 243), as follows:
“1. To place the generic name Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, with type species Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798 [by absolute tautonomy] on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology (Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, is an available [objective] junior synonym).
“2. To place the specific name Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798, with type, the putois du Cap of authors, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology (Ictonyx capensis Kaup, 1835, is an available junior synonym).”
It is incomprehensible that Dr. Van Gelder should not have taken into account my previously published comments (see literature cited below) on the subject of Zorilla, and that my prior application to the Commission for conservation of the name Zorilla should have been passed over by Dr. China.*
As described in 1826, and shown repeatedly by nearly all mammalogists since then, Zorilla 1. Geoffroy applies only to the African stinkmuishond. Present confusion regarding the status of Zorilla I. Geoffroy was largely created by authors who prefer its junior synonym, Ictonyx Kaup. As a consequence of attempts to present Zorilla as anything but the valid name for the African mustelid, Dr. China was successively obliged to (a) drop his demand for Official rejection of the classic work, E. Geoffroy, 1803, ‘‘ Catalogue des mammifeéres . . .”’, (b) retract his request for designation of a neotype for Viverra zorilla Gmelin, (c) acknowledge the priority of Viverra zorilla Schreber, and finally, as the result of Van Gelder’s proposal, (d) acknowledge the validity of Zorilla I. Geoffroy, as the oldest name for the African stinkmuishond.
* [Hershkovitz’s prior application was not passed over. It was set out in China’s history of the case in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 19 : 284, paragraph 3. Editor.]
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 23, Double Part 2/3. July 1966.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 75
LITERATURE CITED
CuinaA, W.E. 1962. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 19 : 284-289; 1963, Ibid., 20 : 243; 1965, Ibid., 22 : 17-18; 1966, Ibid., 22 : 279-280
Cuvigr, F. 1823. Dict. Sci. Nat., 29 : 245-256
Cuvier, G. 1798. Tabl. Elément.
DesMAREST, A. G. 1818. Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., 19 : 364-387
GEOFFROY, E. 1803. Catalogue des mammiféres du Muséum National d’ Histoire
Naturelle, Paris
GeEoFFROY, I. 1826. Dict. Class. Hist. Nat., 10 : 207-216
HERSHKOVITZ, P. 1949. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 62 : 3-16; 1953, J. Mammal., 34 : 378-382; 1955, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington, 68 : 185-192; 1963, Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 20 : 243-244
Ho.tuuts, L. B. 1963. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 20 : 242-243
MULLER, P. L.S. 1776. Linn. Syst. Nat., Suppl.
VAN GELDER, R.G. 1966. Bull. Zool. Nomencl., 22 : 275-279
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE GENDER OF NAMES ENDING IN -OPS. Z.N.(S.) 1572 (see volume 21, pages 212-221)
By Robert G. Wolk (Adelphi University, Garden City, New York, U.S.A.) and Eugene Eisenmann (American Museum of Natural History, New York, U.S.A.)
In view of the forthcoming Declaration of change in the Code (Article 30(a)i) on the matter of the gender of generic names ending in -ops, we should like to call to the Commission’s attention a single case (and there are certainly others) where the proposed all-encompassing rule making all genera with this ending of masculine gender would unnecessarily affect long-standing and correct usage. We refer to the avian genus Rynchops Linnaeus 1758 treated as feminine by Linnaeus and everyone else.
Rynchops, although ending in -ops, is not derived from the Greek root wt, dps, eye, face, or of dps, face, voice. The -ops in Rynchops is derived from the Greek xortew, panto, to cut. The first syllable is from the Greek p‘vyyoc, rhynchos (or rhygchos), a bill.
The genus Rynchops includes Rynchops nigra Linnaeus 1758 as the type species of the genus. The species of Rynchops (now usually called skimmers in English) habit- ually forage for small fish by flying over water with the bill wide open and the mandible, longer than the maxilla by approximately one-third its length, cutting the water surface. Because of this food-catching technique, unique among birds, Rynchops nigra had been called Cut Water by Catesby in 1731 and Rynchopsalia (or Rygchopsalia) by Barrere in 1745—the only names cited by Linnaeus in 1758. Barrere’s name was derived from rhynchos, a bill, and Yadtc, psalis, to shear or cut with scissors.
Pennant (1781) states that Rynchops as used by Linnaeus derives from koptein, to cut, although it is not clear whether Linnaeus intended the name as “ rhynchos + koptein ’’, i.e., cutting bill, or as a shortened version of “‘ rhynchos + psalis ”’, i.e., shearing bill. In any event, Linnaeus called the species Rynchops nigra from and after the 10th Edition of the Systema Naturae, and later authors have never deviated from the feminine gender.
We favour the adoption of a general rule making genera ending in -ops masculine,