Satssprays saster
ras. ats
tebat ote te ret ciehe! whe tg te totere Setetr me sttener minbe apes T Pests oto kabeser Se:
popeet see fe :
iret)
a
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ -of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
VOLUME 19
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, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1
1962
(AU rights reserved)
ee, ee es
arose agylers ae noe
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Secretary’s Note : Election of a New Commissioner
Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
Brisson, 1760 “ Ornithologie”’: Proposed restriction of validation granted under the plenary powers to certain portions of that work. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) gs at
Family-group names in the Heteroptera proposed for the Official List and Official Index (Insecta, Hemiptera). By T. Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) iS
Eight dubious species of birds : Proposed use of the plenary powers to place these names on the Official Index. By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) ae
Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foraminifera): Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By W. A. Macfadyen (Hope’s Grove, Tenterden, Kent, England) ee rite ae
Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822: Proposed suppression under the plenary powers together with the validation of two nominal species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerby, 1827. By D. T. Donovan (Bristol) and C. W. Wright (London) te ae
Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By C. A. Wright (British Museum (Natural History), London) ies ne es ads
Amyot, “ Méthode Mononymique ”’ : Request for a direction that this work be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. By Wolfgang Stichel (Berlin, Germany)
Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge and Theonoe Simon (Arachnida, Araneae) : Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative a. Harvard ae Cambridge, Mass., OAA;) «0 ‘ es : oS ae ne
Ill
15
23
39
42
Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Heteroptera): Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By T. Jaczewski (Institute a Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) :
Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)...
Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815 : Proposed valida- tion by the suppression of Parthenope Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijks- museum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
Euryala Weber, 1795, and Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed action under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van goaac4s Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ee ‘ i ¥ ie oe :
Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By W. D. Ian Rolfe (Musewm of Comparative dine Harvard U peisiues saaiie Mass., USA) i ; 2
Opinion 620 Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) : Validated under the plenary powers ... ice af as te
Opinion 621 PHAENOMERIDIDAE Ohaus, 1913, and PHAENOMERINA Faust, 1898 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Addition to the Official List
Opinion 622 Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839 (Bryozoa) : Validation under the plenary powers in accordance with accustomed usage ae
Opinion 623 Macronema Pictet, 1836 aie poe tesa Validated under the plenary powers ait
Opinion 624 Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831 euros Validated under the plenary powers ae tie
Opinion 625 Strophalosia King, 1844 (Brachiopoda) : nee of a type-species under the plenary powers :
Opinion 626 Echinus minutus Buckman, 1845 (Echinoidea) : Validation under the plenary powers. Revision of Opinion 107
Page
48
51
58
61
63
72
74
76
80
82
88
Opinion 627 Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778: Added to the Official List a a aS Pe +
Opinion 628 Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 ae emerge Added to the Official List ve : ; ae
Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (Class Chondrichthyes, Order Selachii) : Proposed designation of Carcharias melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard as type-species under the plenary powers. By J. A. F. Garrick (Division of Fishes, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.,
Penaeid Generic Names (Crustacea, Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)...
XENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864 (Gastropoda): Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By K. V. W. Palmer tae ee - Research Institute, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) 4 t sith
Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By F. C. J. Fischer (Rotterdam, 7c Lumeystraat, The Netherlands) : sae a 3
Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers and designation of a neotype for Serpula seminulum Linnaeus, 1758. By Alfred R. Loeblich (California Research Corporation, La Habra, California) and Helen ee (University of California, Los Angeles, California) is
Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ...
Opinion 629 Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763 : agri of a ee under the plenary powers ;
Opinion 630 Phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (Gastropoda) : ean of a type-species under the plenary powers =
Opinion 631 Aedipoda pellarini Le Guillou, 1841 oo Nese Suppressed under the plenary powers
Amendment to the proposed validation of Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834, under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant asian to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)...
91
97
100
103
115
117
118
125
132
140
142
144
pal
Opinion 632 Regina Baird & Girard, 1853 (Reptilia) : Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ape re wad
Opinion 633 Norella Bittner, 1890 pec reeilae Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers dea ise nS
Opinion 634 Myalina trigonalis Etheridge, 1876 fees: caus Sup- pressed under the plenary powers ip
Opinion 635 Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820 (Amphibia): Addition to the Official List as the name to be used for the Eastern North- American Newt ...
Amendment to the proposal to validate under the plenary powers the specific name Trombidium akamushi Brumpt, 1910. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ;
Doto Oken, 1815 (Gastropoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... ; ue ws a ft
Cynips caricae Linnaeus in Hasselquist, 1762 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ae bat Pe eis ae ved ar
Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptilia) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Joseph R. Bailey (Department of iantaaa Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.) is
Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera): Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By D. Keith McE. Kevan (Department of Entomology & Plant Ser i McGill University, Macdonald College, P.Q., Canada) sal
Dasiops alveofrons Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Dasiops alveo- frons McAlpine, 1961. By J. F. McAlpine (Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, Ontario), H. R. Moffitt (University of California, Citrus Experimental Station, Riverside, California) and F. L. Yaruss Perscste ae a si San Diego, California)
Asterias nodosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Asteroidea) : Selection of a lectotype and addition to the Official List. By A. M. Clark (British Museum (Natural History), London) a ite sa ia bya
Page
145
148
150
152
155
156
160
164
170
173
174
Pisidia Leach, 1820: Proposed designation of a type-species ; and Cancer istrianus Scopoli, 1763 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The N etherlands) ..
Stereomastis Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) aes ;
Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers, and related matters. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)...
Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia, Serpentes) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Robert Mertens (Natur-Musewm und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)
Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (Pisces) : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By J. R. Gery (Strasbourg, France) and J. J. Hoedeman Eases Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) io,
Secretary’s Note : Commission News
Endothyra bowmani Phillips, [1846] v. Endothyra bowmani Brown, 1843 (Foraminifera). By L. G. Henbest (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.). An alternative Proposal. By 8. E. Rosovskaya eer ee Institute iy the ae eaehey oles Sciences of the USSR, Moscow) . : :
Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers with addition of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768, to the Official List. By Hobart M. Smith (Department of ae University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) : :
Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed validation and interpretation under the plenary powers of the species so named. By P. F. Mattingly (British Musewm (Natural History), London) ; Alan Stone (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; and Kenneth L. Knight (Naval Medical Field Research Labor ins Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, U.S.A.) aS
Vil
Page
Pri
182
184
189
191
193
199
205
VIII
Request for a Ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not designate type-species validly in either their work dated 1896-1900 or that of 1896. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ay me se
Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda): Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By G. M. Bennison (The University of Birmingham, England) .. : hs ats the sas ae
Forty-seven genera of the Decapoda (Crustacea) : Proposed addition to the Official List. By L. B. Holthuis ( oe ee van N pial Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 8 F
Morch, 1852-53, Catalogus conchyliorum : Proposed use of the plenary powers to place on the Official List of Works, and to designate a type-species for Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 siege tac By T. Soot-Ryen (Oslo) : de Sn
Opinion 636 Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (Crinoidea): Validation under the plenary powers in its accustomed sense ... x seh Re
Opinion 637 Anolis nannodes ne 1864 ere eds Bevis on lecto- type doc 5a é :
Opinion 638 Lepidogaster couchii Kent, 1883 ats Suppression under the plenary powers ae +e a
Opinion 639 Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (Gastropoda) : i he aaa of a type-species under the plenary powers ;
Opinion 640 Luceraphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers ee Ff?
Opinion 641 Addition of certain generic and specific names in the family PHASMATIDAE (Insecta, Phasmatoidea) to the Official Lists and Indexes
Opinion 642 Suppression under the plenary powers of eleven specific names of Reptilia and Amphibia with validation of thirteen specific names with their original author and date Js sed ae
Zorilla 1. Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Ictonyx Kaup, 1835. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
Page
220
230
232
254
262
266
268
270
274
280
284
Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 (Amphibia) : Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers. By H. W. Parker (British Museum (Natural History), London) and W. D. L. Ride ene? Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) i
Thaumastocoris australicus Kirkaldy, 1908 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Request for this name, as defined by a neotype, to be placed on the Official List. By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut,
PHASMIDAE vs. PHASMATIDAE : Secretary’s Note ...
Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces): Proposed rejection of both generic and specific names as nomina oblita. By Giles W. Mead (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) Fe oF oi 2. =i ey
PHYSAPIDA Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Neuroptera) : Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) ie a me bid
Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Kenneth L. Williams and Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural Paik: University of Illinois, Urbana, U.S.A.) a
TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera): Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) fe
Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) : Designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (University of Leicester, England) fae a ate fe
Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By E. 8. Brown (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London)
Tetrastichus Walker, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By B. D. Burks (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) re Bi a5
1D.¢
294
298
301
302
304
306
Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ee a
Ligulops Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ee tae ae BE a.
Orbiculoidea d’Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) ...
SPONDYLIASPINAE Schwarz, 1898 (Hemiptera, Psyllidae): Proposed validation of the subfamily name. By K. L. Taylor (Division of Entomology, C.S.I.R.O., Canberra) oe sh =H, a
Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Lt.-Col. R. J. Griffiths ies eect iit Port Macquarie, N.S.W., Australia) i
Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Walter C. Sweet (The Ohio State eee! Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.) = ae a wee
Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea. By Albert Breimer (Afdeling Historische Geologie en Palaeontologie, Geologisch en Mineralogisch Institut der Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, The Netherlands)
Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (Lamellibranchia) : Request for a Ruling on the interpretation of the species. By M. J. Rogers (21 Canynge Square, Clifton, Bristol 8) ie ape Ant oe ag
Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of epee ta Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) tas E = — Ke
Secretary's Note : Proposals for discussion at Washington Congress
Case 1. Request for a clarification of Article 40. By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ad : AL! ps
Page
308
310
dll
315
317
323
325
328
332
337
337
Case 2. The International Code provisions on family-group names and their effects on Trilobite rae es Com bs mee oe College, London) .. ae a3
Case 3. Concerning the Statute of Limitation. 3/1. By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) ; 3/2 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; 3/3 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ; 3/4 By M. W. R. de V. Graham (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford)
Case 4. Amendments proposed to facilitate the adding of names of the family-group to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By J. Chester Bradley ee International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature) : ae sad es
The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretary’s Note; Report of the By-Laws Com- mittee ; Comments on the Draft Constitution : é
XI
Page
338
345
353
355
q . ;
Volume 19. Part 1. 2nd February, 1962
pp. 1-64, 3 pl.
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE
The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
CoNTENTS
Personnel of the International Commission
Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology :
Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications eset in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature : ie
Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases
(continued inside back wrapper)
12 FEB 1962 mA IMCHASED earnieah 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, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1
1962 Price Three Pounds
(All rights reserved)
Page
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
President: Professor James Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953)
Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Secretary: Mr. N. D. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958)
Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Cutna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7)
B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarat (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. Chester Brapiey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Voxes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Stott (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953)
Dr. L. B. Houruuis (Rijksmuseum van Natwurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953)
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.7., Australia) (15 October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Mitier (Musewm of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954)
Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantn (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kinet (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954)
Professor Enrico TorronrsE (Museo di Storia Naturale “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954)
Dr. Per. Brrnox (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Pow (Musée Royal de V Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958)
Mr. Francis Hema (London, England) (23 July 1958)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritzy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewsxr (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958)
Professor Dr. Robert Murtens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herre (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958)
Dr. D. V. Osrvcuev (Palacontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958)
Professor Tohru Ucutpa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959)
Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960)
Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960)
a = G. or (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada)
une,
Dr. N. 8. Borcusentus (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B 164, U.S.S.R. (28 September 1961) cf ee!
Volume 19, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 2Qnd February, 1962
Election of a New Commissioner
The following new member has been elected to the Commission in accord- ance with the procedure laid down by the International Congress of Zoology, with effect from the date shown :
Dr. N. S. Borcusentvs, Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, University
Embankment 1, Leningrad B 164, U.S.S.R. (28 September 1961)—Hemi-
pterist. Nominated by the Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences
of the U.S.S.R. N. D. RILEY, Hon. Secretary 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 of the Commission’s plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin :— (1) Validation of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 81. (2) Suppression of eight dubious specific names of birds. Z.N.(S.) 1033. (3) Designation of a type-species for Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foramini- fera). Z.N.(S.) 1087.
(4) Validation of two species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1203.
(5) Validation of Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1392.
(6) Preservation of Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. Pickard- Cambridge, and J'heonoe Simon (Araneae). Z.N.(S.) 1481.
(7) Validation of Corixa affinis Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1482.
(8) Designation of a type-species for Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1488.
(9) Validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1487.
(10) Validation of Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] (Crustacea, Decapoda).
Z.N.(S.) 1486. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on
9 November, 1961. Zoological Nomenclature
2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PNOEPYGA HODGSON, 1844. Z.N.(S.) 1457
(see volume 18, pages 209-210)
By S. Dillon Ripley (Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.)
I should bring to the attention of Commissioners the following : Microura Gould, 1837, as accepted by the Law of Priority, appears in the primary literature in A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan (together with those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Ceylon), by 8. Dillon Ripley, 703 pages, published by the Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, as a special publication, in 1961. This volume is what is known as a “ standard work ”.
By Salim Ali (Bombay, India)
The range of these little wren-babblers extends along the Himalayas into Burma and Formosa. The genus does not occur in Borneo nor the Philippines, and therefore the principal books which are going to cover its geographical range are the one by S. Dillon Ripley, just published, namely, A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan (including those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ceylon) [Bombay Natural History Society, 1961] and 2 others by H. G. Deignan which are already in galley proof or in press. All of these have rejected Pnoepyga in favour of Microura following the ordinary laws of priority, and therefore, under the circumstances and at this stage, it would be a great hardship to the layman and the normal user of bird books in this geographical area to have to revert back to a conserved name.
As an ornithologist working in the area concerned, and as the author of several standard bird books including one (The Birds of Sikkim) now in the final stages of publication, wherein also the name Microura has been used, I would submit that a decision to revert to the conserved name, as proposed, would cause unnecessary confusion among workers in India and the Indo- chinese sub-region who, like myself, are not specialists in bird taxonomy but who have constantly suffered from the instability, even waywardness, of scientific names.
Since it is most unlikely that another checklist of the birds of the particular areas under reference will be published in the next 20 years or more, there seems little to be gained by conserving and reversion at this stage to a name lawfully rejected in the latest and most important relevant publication.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3
SCOLYTUS GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 81
By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
History of the Case
The present application was first submitted to the Commission in 1914, during the Secretaryship of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, by James S. Hine of the Ohio Academy of Sciences. J. M. Swaine had, a few years earlier, published his Catalogue of the described scoLyTIDAE of America, North of Mexico (Report of the New York State Entomologist for 1908, New York State Mus. Bull. 134, Educ. Depart. Bull. No. 455, 1909, Appendix B: 76-159). There he pointed out (: 77) that Geoffroy’s name Scolytus could not be used (presumably because Geoffroy’s work was not binominal). He also stated that the species included by O. F. Miller (1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 57), Scolytus punctatus Miller, 1776, which was the first species to be included in the genus thereby validating Scolytus, was not a Scolytid at all. This he said had been pointed out by C. L. Ganglbauer (1903, Munch. Koleopt. Zeit. : 311, footnote) and had been followed by Trédl, 1907, in his Catalogue of the European Bark Beetles. There- fore the name Scolytus should give place to Hccoptogaster Herbst, 1793. Why, wrote Hine to Stiles, should Hcecoptogaster Herbst be given precedence over Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762?
2. Stiles wrote for information to Swaine who confirmed that he regarded Geoffroy’s work as invalid and said that, with the exception of Reitter, German authors had almost entirely discarded the name Scolytus in favour of Eccoptogaster. He stated that although he himself, in his Catalogue, used the family name IPIDAE instead of scoLyTIDAE he thought that if Scolytus were to be used again the name scoLyTIDA=# should certainly be retained. Stiles passed the problem to Dr. Karl Jordan in England and the correspondence developed into a discussion between Stiles, S. A. Rohwer, Jordan and A. D. Hopkins on the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Geoffroyan names, a matter of principle based on the proper interpretation of the term binary.
3. In 1914, A. D. Hopkins of the Bureau of Entomology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave a full account of the two names in his List of Generic Names and their Type-Species in the Coleopterous Superfamily Scolytoidea (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 115-186). He dealt with the problem again in 1915 in his Preliminary Classification of the Superfamily Scolytoidea (U.S. Dept. Agric., Techn. Series No. 17(11) : 219.
4. In 1945 the case was taken up by Mr. Francis Hemming who wrote to Dr. K. Jordan asking if any progress had been made with the Scolytus problem. Jordan replied that the status of Geoffroy 1762 had to be decided on general principles, was sub judice, and could not be taken up until correspond-
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ence was possible again with all countries. Hemming, who at that time was engaged with the problem of the conservation of another Geoffroy name, Corixa, replied that it was possible for the Commission to suppress or validate Geoffroy, 1762, in order to prevent confusion in nomenclature in certain groups irrespective of whether Geoffroy’s work was or was not a binary work.
5. In 1950 the late Dr. K. W. Dammerman (Ent. Berichten 13(295) : 12) wrote : “ If we could reject Geoffroy’s name on account of the author not using a binominal system, the next author making the genus a valid one was Goeze (1777, Entom. Beytr. 1 : 143), using also the generic name Scolytus and replacing the name ‘scolite’ by Geoffroi (correctly geoffroyi). Later, Fourcroy (1785, Entom. Parisiensis : 139) established the name niger for Geoffroy’s species. Before both last-named authors Fabricius (1775, Syst. Entom. : 59) latinized the specific name ‘ scolite ’, placing the species scolytus in the genus Bostrichus. The generic name Scolytus was therefore validated long before the genus Eccoptogaster was created by Herbst, 1793.
“The type of Scolytus by consequence of tautonymy is Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. All older authors, however, have rejected tautonyms, like botanists still do to-day (Art. 68 of the Botanical Rules), and the name Scolytus geoffroyi has been in general use before the introduction of the Code. We should strongly insist on the International Commission suspending the rules not only in cases of generally accepted generic names but of specific epithets too, which were in universal use in the last hundred years. Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, with the type-species geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, should be placed therefore on the Official List.”
6. In 1950, Dr. Karl E. Schedl (nt. Berichten 13(300) : 96) in replying to Dammerman wrote as follows: “‘ Considering the fact that opinion on tautonymy is still divided, as Mr. Dammerman remarks himself, and because the name of Scolytus scolytus Fabr. has been used consistently and nearly without exception in modern literature on bark-beetle taxonomy as well as in the vast field of economic entomology, I do not see any advantage by changing this name once more and establishing a situation having been overcome a long time ago. Scolytus scolytus Fabr. is the name nearly exclusively used in our days and should stand for ever, if any official establishment is aimed at at all.
“T do agree on the other hand with the proposition of Mr. Dammerman concerning the generic name of Scolytus Geoffroy in preference to Hccoptogaster Herbst, and this point of view was shared by Eggers and Blackman.”
7. At the Paris Congress in 1948 it was agreed that in view of the solution of the binary-binominal controversy, Geoffroy’s book was not available for nomenclatorial purposes. The decision was recorded in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366, and promulgated in 1954 as Opinion 288 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 211-220). While the Opinion ruled that all the names in Geoffroy’s work were unavailable, it was agreed that names the rejection of which would lead to instability or confusion, should be validated under the plenary powers if submitted to the Commission in the proper manner. Mr. Hemming consequently informed Prof. Boschma in June 1950 that an application to this effect on behalf of Scolytus Geoffroy was required before Dammerman’s case could be dealt with.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5
8. Boschma replied that it was not necessary that the International Commission should validate the generic name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, but that the Commission should be asked to place the valid name Scolytus Goeze, 1777, on the Official List of Generic Names in order to retain this well-known name and the family name sconytipar. Boschma then repeated the case as set out by Dammerman in 1950 (Ent. Berichten 13(295) : 12) asking that Scolytus geoffroy: Goeze, 1777, should be designated as the type-species of Scolytus and not Bostricus scolytus Fabricius.
9. Nothing more was done until 1960, when Miss Margaret Spillane wrote to Prof. Boschma requesting information on certain details connected with the case. No reply was received.
Present Position
10. Dr. A. D. Hopkins in 1915 in his Preliminary Classification of the Superfamily Scolytoidea (U.S. Dept. Agric., Techn. Ser. 17(2) : 219-220) clearly set out the state of affairs in the case of Scolytus Geoffroy, and one cannot do better than repeat his findings here. No doubt the advent of World War I delayed the assimilation of Hopkin’s paper by European workers :—
“ It has seemed to the writer that there is not sufficient reason or authority for the suppression of the name Scolytus as proposed and clearly defined by Geoffroy (1762: p. 309). The single ‘ species’ of the ‘ genus ’ recognized by him was at the same time (p. 310) indicated by a number, the genus name (Scolytus), and a reference to a figure (Vol. 1, pl. 5, fig. 5), and the characters were more clearly defined in a description.
“ Miiller (1764, p. xiv) recognized the genus Scolytus Geoff. and referred to the original description and figures.
“ Schaeffer (1766, Tab. exii, figs. 1, 2, 3, 4) redescribed the genus Scolytus and described and figured the species indicated by Geoffroy but did not name it.
“Linnaeus (1767) failed to mention the genus or to refer to Geoffroy, Miiller or Schaeffer.
“ Fabricius (1775, p. 59) recognized the species described by Geoffroy and redescribed it under the name Bostrichus scolytus, with the citation ‘ Geoff. Ins. 1-310 [no.]1, Tab. 5, fig. 5, Mal.?’ Thus Fabricius recognized the species indicated by Geoffroy on page 310, but did not refer it to the genus described on page 309 under the name Scolytus because he (Fabricius) evidently considered it synony- mous with Bostrichus. Consequently, the name proposed by Geoffroy for the genus should stand with Bostrichus scolytus (Fab.) as the type.
“ Sulzer (1776, Th. 1, p. 21 ; Th. II, Tab. II, f.13k), under the name Dermestes scolytus, described and figured the species indicated by Schaeffer, 1766.
“‘ Miiller (1776, p. 157) published a description under the name Scolytus punctatus but referred it doubtfully to Geoffroy’s figures.
“ Goeze (1777, p. 143), under the name ‘ Dermestes scolytus Geoffroi ’, cited Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. (1775), Scolytus Geoff. (1762), and Scolytus punctatus Mill. (1776). Goeze evidently did not mention ‘ Geoffroi’ as a specific name but merely to indicate that Geoffroy was the author of or authority for the name Scolytus,
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
“Linnaeus (1788-1793, p. 1602) recognized Bostrichus scolytus Fab. and cited Fabricius, 1787, Geoffroy, 1762, Sulzer, 1776, and Schaeffer, 1766.
“ Herbst (1793, p. 124) described the genus Eccoptogaster with Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. as the type.
“ Olivier (1795, No. 78, p. 5, Pl. I, fig. 4 a, b, c) adopted the name Scolytus for the genus and cited Geoffroy, 1762, and Fabricius, 1775, but substituted for the species the name destructor in the place of scolytus Fabr., evidently concluding as other contemporary writers did, that the generic and specific names could not be the same. In fact this opinion evidently influenced the action of Fabricius, Miiller, Herbst, and others.
“ Curtis (1824, p. 43) designated the type of the genus Scolytus as Bostrichus scolytus.””
11. Hopkins, of course, believed that Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, was a valid name, but as pointed out in (7) above, in 1954 (Opinion 228) Geoffroy’s 1762 work was invalidated, although most of Geoffroy’s species had been validated in 1785 by Geoffroy in Fourcroy (E£nt. paris.: 139). In this work Geoffroy described his “ scolite”’ under the name niger, which therefore became an objective synonym of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, based on the same description and figures. According to Hopkins, Dammerman (1950) was wrong in assuming that “‘ Geoffroi ’’ Goeze, 1777, was a valid name for the vernacular “‘scolite” of Geoffroy, 1762, and in this we are inclined to agree with Hopkins. Goeze, 1777 (Ent. Beytr. 1 : 143) listed as ‘‘ Neue Dermestes- arten ”’ two species :—
“No. 11. Scolytus, das Kolbenkiferchen
Sulzers Gesch. 5.21.t.2.f.13.k.
Schaeff. 1 con.t.112.
and No. 12. Scolytus Geoffroi (sic) Geoffrois Kolbenkiaferchen
Fabric. S.E. p.59. Bostrichus 4.”
Whether No. 12, as a homonym of No. 11, is unavailable or whether the specific name Geoffroi could be accepted for No. 12 is a debatable point. Goeze gave under No. 12 references (not quoted above) to Geoffroy’s “le scolite ” and to Miiller’s Scolytus punctatus. Obviously Goeze did not validate Scolytus Geoffroy as stated by Dammerman, since he placed Geoffroy’s species in the genus Dermestes.
12. On the other hand Hopkins overlooked the fact that Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, had, in effect, validated Geoffroy’s 1762 name Scolytus and had given the name Scolytus niger to his old species “le scolite”’. However, as pointed out by Dammerman, Fabricius, 1775 (Syst. ent. : 59) had previously given a valid name to Geoffroy’s 1762 species by describing it under the name Bostrichus scolytus. This species under the Rules could be regarded as the type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy by tautonymy once Geoffroy’s name is validated by the use of the plenary powers. Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, however, was designated as type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy by Curtis, 1824 (Brit. Ent. 1 : No. 43) and later by Hopkins, 1914 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 129).
13. It is clear that Scolytus punctatus Miiller, 1776, Dermestes scolytus Sulzer, 1776, Dermestes scolytus geoffroi Goeze, 1777, Scolytus niger Geoffroy im Fourcroy, 1785, and Scolytus destructor Olivier, 1795, are all objective
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7
synonyms of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, being names suggested for Geoffroy’s “le scolite ” or to replace it to avoid tautonymy. Dammerman’s request that Scolytus Geoffroy should be placed on the Official List with geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, as type-species cannot be granted without upsetting current usage. It is true that Gemminger & Harold, 1872-1873 in their Cataloguus Coleopterorum 9 : 2695 used geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, instead of scolytus Fabricius, 1775, and in this were followed by Eichhoff (1881, Europ. Borkenkédfer : 148), but since 1914, modern authors following Hopkins have used scolytus Fabricius.
14. Hopkins was wrong in stating (Para. 10 above) that Herbst (1793, Natursystem aller bekannten in -und auslindischen Insekten. Die Kafer, Th. V; 81, 103, 122 and 127-128) described the genus Hccoptogaster with Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius as the type. Herbst described the genus Ekkopto- gaster to hold two species, the above-mentioned B. scolytus Fabricius and B. pygmaeus Fabricius, 1792 (Ent. syst. 1(2), emend. : 367). Hopkins, however, designated the first of these two species as type-species of Hcecoptogaster in 1914 (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 121) and so far as can be traced this was the first valid type designation for Herbst’s genus. The first emendation of Ekkoptogaster Herbst to Eccoptogaster appears to have been by Erichson in 1836 (Arch. Naturgesch. 2 : 58) since when the emended spelling has been used invariably. Since Hccoptogaster is isotypical with Scolytus they will become objective synonyms if the latter is validated by the Commission.
15. Apart from any argument as to whether Scolytus was validated by Fabricius, 1775, Goeze, 1777, or by Geoffroy himself in Fourcroy, 1785, the fact remains that the opportunity offered in Opinion 228 to validate Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, under the plenary powers should be taken now so that further argument and confusion may be settled in favour of current usage (Hopkins, Schedl, Duffy, Balachowsky, etc.)
16. The oldest family-group name for this family is scoLYTIDAkg, first used by Westwood, 1838 (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 1 : 350). In the use of this name he was followed by Lacordaire, 1866 (Hist. nat. Ins. T : 349) and Gem- minger & Harold, 1872-1873 (Cat. Col. 9 : 2669). In 1879 Schlechtendal and Wiinsche (Insekten, Leipzig :173) used the group name TOMICIDEN. In 1906 Reitter (Cat. Col. Europe : 707), apparently believing that Scolytus Geoffroy was unavailable, used the next available name Hccoptogaster, emendation by Erichson, 1836, of Ekkoptogaster Herbst, 1793, in place of Scolytus and established the family-group name ECCOPTOGASTERINI. In 1907, Trédl (Ent. Bl. 3 : 5) followed suit and raised the tribe to subfamily rank ECCOPTOGASTERINAE. Hagedorn, 1910 (Junk’s Coleopt. Cat. 60(4) : 79) following these workers, used the subfamily name ECCOPTOGASTERINAE Reitter, 1906, but placed it in the family repmpaE which he used instead of scoLyTmDAE. Swaine (1909) followed Hagedorn in the use of the family-group name rpipaE. Hopkins (1914) over- came the difficulty by using the higher group-name SCOLYTOIDEA. As, with the exception of ECCOPTOGASTERINAE, all these groups have different type- genera based on different type-species they cannot be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. They are only subjective synonyms.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
asked to take the following action :—
(1) to use its plenary powers :
(a) to validate the generic name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, under the provision made in para. (2) of the Ruling of Opinion 228 ;
(b) to designate the nominal species Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, to be the type-species of that genus ;
(2) to place the generic name Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;
(3) to place the specific name scolytus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Bostrichus scolytus (type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ;
(4) to place the family name scoLyTIDAE Westwood, 1838 (type-genus Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ;
(5) to place the generic name Ekkoptogaster Herbst, 1793, and its emendation Eccoptogaster Erichson, 1836 (junior objective synonyms of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;
(6) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology, all being junior objective synonyms of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775 :
(a) punctatus Miiller, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 57, as published in the binomen Scolytus punctatus ;
(b) scolythus [sic] Sulzer, 1776, Gesch. Ins. 1 : 21 ; 2: tab. 2, fig. 13k, as published in the binomen Dermestes scolythus ;
(c) geoffrot [sic] Goeze, 1777, Ent. Beytr. 1 : 148, as published in the combination Dermestes scolytus geoffrot ;
(d) niger Geoffroy, 1785, in Fourcroy, Ent. paris. : 139, as published in the binomen Scolytus niger ;
(e) destructor Olivier, 1795, Entomologie 4(78) : 1-14, pls. 1-2, as published in the binomen Scolytus destructor ;
(7) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :—
(a) ECCOPTOGASTERINI Reitter, 1906 (type-genus HLccoptogaster Herbst, 1793) (a junior objective synonym of SCOLYTIDAE) ;
(b) ECCOPTOGASTERINAE Trédl, 1907 (type-genus Hccoptogaster Herbst, 1793) (a yunior objective synonym of SCOLYTIDAE).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9
BRISSON, 1760 ‘‘ ORNITHOLOGIE”: PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF VALIDATION GRANTED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THAT WORK. Z.N.(S.) 702
By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
The present suggestion that the validation already granted under the plenary powers to Brisson’s Ornithologie of 1760 should be restricted to certain portions of that work arises out of correspondence which I had with my colleague the late Dr. James L. Peters in 1945 regarding the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the name Egretta Forster, 1817 (Syn. Cat. Brit. Birds : 59) (type- species, by monotypy, Ardea garzetta Linnaeus, 1766 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(1) : 237) through the discovery that this name was a junior homonym of Egretta Brisson, 1760 (Ornith. 5 : 431). Ihad thought that Dr. Peters himself intended to submit proposals to the Commission on the lines of the present application, but he never did so, and his sudden and premature death made it necessary to find other means for bringing this matter before the Commission. It is so brought forward now, because, as it seems to me, it is desirable that this should be done without further delay in view of the fact that in one of the cases which was submitted to the Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, the disturbance in existing nomenclatorial usage for which redress was sought by the Standing Committee was due entirely to the discovery that a Brisson name (Coracia Brisson, 1760, Ornith. 2 : 3) was a senior objective synonym of a name which had been in use for over 100 years (Opinion 404), while in another application also submitted by the Standing Committee relating to the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, (Opinion 401) the proposals submitted by the Committee for the recognition of the name Gavia Forster, 1788, were complicated by the discovery of the existence of the older name Gavia Brisson, 1760 (ibid. 6 : 196). It had been my intention to raise the present issue in the Report which (as Secretary to the Commission) I had been asked to prepare on the availability of names in the slightly later work by Brisson on mammals, i.e. his Regnum Animale of 1763 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 313-314), if in the meantime Dr. Peters had not done so, for Brisson’s outlook on nomenclature in the Ornithologie of 1760 would inevitably have thrown some light on the attitude to this subject shown by that author in the Regnum Animale published three years later. For the reason explained above, I now think it necessary to bring this matter before the Commission in advance of the completion of the Report on the Regnum Animale.
2. The nature of the present issue and its importance in relation to the maintenance of stability in ornithological nomenclature was, as I have explained, first brought to light when, on discovering that the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the name Hgretta Forster, 1817, made in the Commission’s Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 180) was invalid,
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
that name being a junior homonym of Hgretta Brisson, 1760, I sought the views of Dr. Peters on this subject. Dr. Peters’s reply, dated 6th December 1945, reads as follows :—
Egretta
Dr. Stejneger once told me that it was his understanding in voting on the validity of Brisson’s generic names that only such names as appeared in the ‘‘ Tabula’ in volume 1 were to be regarded as valid ; Egretta does not appear there. Pp. 391-503 of volume 5, the group of pages which comprise, on page 431, the name Lgretta are devoted to Herons, the genus Ardea (ex Tabula p. 48, genus 81) is further characterized, then follows an array beginning with Ardea, followed by such additional species as Ardea mexicana purpurascens, Ardea candida, Ardea brasiliensis candida with Hgretta sandwiched in between.
Other names with the same status as Hgretta appearing only in volume 5 and not in the “ Tabula ” are :—
(1) Botaurus p. 444 (but followed by a lot of other names such as
Botaurus freti Hudsonis, Botaurus minor, etc.) ;
(2) Cancrofagus (p. 466) and followed by numerous species of Cancro-
fagus ;
(3) Nycticorax (p. 493) ;
(4) Ardeola (p. 497) with one additional species.
Of these so-called names Botaurus currently dates from Stephens, 1819, Nycticorax from Forster, 1817, and Ardeola from Boie, 1822 ; Cancrofagus does not figure in the literature at all.
I therefore believe the Commission would be ill-advised to take up the Brissonian names that do not appear in the tables at the front of volume 1.
3. The particulars given by Dr. Peters (and many others that could be cited) show that in the Ornithologie of 1760 Brisson did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as under the clarification of Proviso (b) to Article 25 decided upon by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 64-66, 175) an author is required to do if new names published by him are to acquire rights of availability under the Régles ; Brisson was, in fact, what forty years ago was called a “ binary author”, that is an author who recognised the proposition that the scientific name of an animal must consist of two parts, the first, consisting of a single noun in the nominative singular, denoting the next higher taxonomic grouping (the genus) to which the species belonged, the second, consisting of any number of words in any case or number, denoting the species itself and distinguishing it from any other member of the grouping (genus) concerned. In 1911 the Commission ruled in favour of the availability of the generic names published by Brisson in his Ornithologie in Opinion 37 (published in 1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), the wording of the decision then taken being : ‘“‘ Brisson’s (1760) generic names of birds are available under the Code”. This Opinion, it will be noted, was published only twelve months after the publication of Opinion 20
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11
(1910, Smithson. Publ. 1988 : 48-50), in which the Commission had ruled in favour of the availability of generic names published by “ binary’, though not ‘“ binominal” authors. In giving the foregoing ruling in relation to the availability of new generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologia, the Commission was therefore doing no more than apply in a particular case a general decision that had already been taken on the question of principle involved.
4. If no special action had been taken in Paris in 1948 it would have invalidated books such as Brisson’s Ornithologia, the availability of which depended entirely upon the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (namely, that the application by the author of a new name of the principles of binominal nomenclature was not a necessary condition to the acquisition by that name of availability under the Régles), which the Congress (by insisting upon the acceptance, by the author of a name, of the principles of binominal nomenclature) then ruled to be incorrect. In order to prevent such a result in the case of a book such as Brisson’s Ornithologie which had formed the subject of a ruling by the Commission and which was currently accepted by specialists in the group concerned, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature recommended, and the Congress agreed to the insertion in the appropriate Schedule to the Régles of a saving provision maintaining and validating the earlier decision in favour of the availability of the new generic names published in Brisson’s Ornithologie (see 1950. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65, Point (3)(a)(iv)). Thus, although the decisions taken in Paris provided a new and valid basis for the ruling previously given by the Commission in relation to the new generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie, those decisions did not alter in any respect the scope of ruling which had been given in that Opinion. In 1955 these decisions were formally promulgated by the Commission in its Declaration 16 and the title of this work of Brisson’s was placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature as Title No. 16 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1€ : 81-88).
5. The sole object of using the plenary powers to provide availability for the new generic names in Brisson’s Ornithologie was to promote stability in ornithological nomenclature by providing a legal basis for names in current use. It would have been entirely inappropriate deliberately to use those powers in such a way as to provide availability for names which, if so validated, would cause confusion and objectionable name-changing. Situated as it was in 1948, the Commission could only have abstained from validating Brisson’s Ornithologie (a course which would clearly have been wrong by reason of the confusion which it would have caused by leading to the rejection of Brissonian names in current use) or have used its plenary powers to maintain the position, as it was believed to exist at the time when Opinion 37 was first rendered. Faced with this choice, the Commission could not reasonably have adopted any course other than that which it did, that is, to reaffirm and to validate the previously existing ruling in this matter.
6. The late Dr. Stejneger (as we have seen) claimed that the decision embodied in the Commission’s Opinion 37 was intended to apply only to the generic names which appear in the tables at the beginning of volume 1 of the Ornithologie or at least that this was his understanding of the proposal when
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
he voted in favour of it. The correspondence relating to the earlier Opinions of the Commission (including the correspondence relating to Opinion 37) was destroyed long before I became Secretary to the Commission and in consequence no light on Dr. Stejneger’s contention can be obtained from this source. All that is now available on this subject is the extremely meagre application submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. Ernst Hartert who was himself opposed to the recognition of any of the new names in Brisson’s Ornithologie and who voted against the adoption of Opinion 37 ; no views by any other ornithologist are given in that Opinion. There is therefore no evidence in Opinion 37 on the particular point later made to Dr. Peters by Dr. Stejneger in regard to the scope of the decision intended to be given in Opinion 37 ; all that we know on this subject is that of the two prominent ornithologists who were members of the Commission, one (Hartert) voted against that Opinion, while the other (Stejneger) stated at some later date—we do not know what passed at the time when this Opinion was under consideration— that it was his understanding that this decision applied only to the new names in the tables at the beginning of Volume 1 of the Ornithologie. While we may perhaps surmise that the bulk at least of the members of the Commission voted in favour of Opinion 37 without any knowledge of the special problem later discussed by Dr. Stejneger with Dr. Peters and may accept Dr. Stejneger’s later explanation as to the limitation subject to which he voted in favour of this Opinion, we are left nevertheless with the fact that the wording of the decision given in the “‘ Summary ” is absolutely general in its terms and that ~ there is not a word in the short text of this Opinion to suggest that any indication that a limitation should be imposed on the scope of this Opinion was ever made at the time either by Dr. Stejneger or by any other member of the Commission.
7. It must be accepted therefore that in its present form the ruling in favour of the availability of new generic names as published in 1760 in Brisson’s Ornithologie is entirely unqualified and applies to the new generic names scattered in later volumes of that work equally to those embodied in the tables at the beginning of volume 1. This does not mean however that the Commission is in any way stopped from refining that decision either by taking ad hoc remedial action under the plenary powers in individual cases or by adding some express qualification limiting the scope of that Opinion. As shown by the experience already acquired in connection with current cases (that is, in connection with the case of Coracia Brisson in relation to Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, with the case of Gavia Brisson in relation to Gavia Forster, and with the case of Egretta Brisson in relation to Egretta Forster) the problem cannot be regarded as one of a strictly limited character ; on the contrary, the fact that, when writing of a single group of birds as treated by Brisson, the late Dr. Peters was able at once to cite four other cases, including one case of a Brisson name which had hitherto been completely neglected (the name Cancro- fagus Brisson), the introduction of which could not fail to disturb some name now in common use, strongly suggests that a careful and systematic examination of the Ornithologie would disclose the existence of a considerable number of cases where the unqualified grant of availability to all Brisson’s generic names would lead to confusion and name-changing instead of promoting—as it was
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13
hoped in 1948 that it would promote—the maintenance of stability in orni- thological nomenclature.
8. If no action of a general character were now to be taken, it would no doubt be possible to overcome these difficulties one by one, as they arose, by the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to suppress those of the Brisson generic names (such as Coracia Brisson and Gavia Brisson), the accept- ance of which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of uniformity and stability. But it is clearly not desirable to permit a situation to arise which is calculated to lead to numerous applications for the use of the plenary powers, if some method of a more general character can be devised for securing the same end. For the repeated use of the plenary powers for the purpose of securing a given result in identical circumstances is clearly not the most suitable method of dealing with whatever the problem may be—more especially in view of the fact that it almost invariably happens that application for the use of the plenary powers is not made until at least some author has disturbed existing nomenclatorial practice and at least some support has been found for making the change in names required under a strict application of the ordinary provisions in the Régles. For these reasons, therefore, it is highly desirable that, if possible, a formula should be found which will secure the desired result automatically without the need for the individual reference of each case to the Commission. It is suggested that for this purpose consideration should be given to the suggestion made by the late Dr. James L. Peters, a suggestion which, as has been explained (paragraph 2 above) corresponds also to the late Dr. Stejneger’s understanding of the intention of Opinion 37, though not, as has been shown (paragraph 6 above), to the ruling conveyed by that Opinion as actually drafted. Under this suggestion the only new names in Brisson’s Ornithologie which would possess any availability would be those published (and defined) in the synoptic table of Orders and genera (entitled “ Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines ’’) which occupies pages 24 to 61 of volume 1 of the Ornithologie, those generic names being, according to the views expressed by the foregoing specialists, the only new generic names published by Brisson which are currently in use and therefore the only such names which ought to be given rights of availability under the Régles. This Synoptic Table is, it should be noted, reproduced in two languages, the version on the left hand pages (pages bearing even numbers) being in Latin, while that on the right hand pages (pages bearing odd numbers) is in French. Pages 24 and 25 are concerned only with Brisson’s scheme of Orders, and it is not until pages 26 (Latin) and 27 (French) that the keys to the Orders containing (in the Latin but not the French text) the Latin names for the genera recognised within each Order commence.
9. In order to provide a basis for the discussion of the issues involved, I now bring forward the following proposal designed to give effect to the suggestion made to me in correspondence by my colleague, the late Dr. James L. Peters under which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked to render an Opinion in the following terms :—
(1) The decision taken in 1948 (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65-66) to grant availability under the Régles to new generic names for birds intro-
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
duced by Brisson (M. J.) in the work entitled (in French) “ Ornithologie ”’
and, lower down the title page, in Latin ‘‘ Ornithologia ” is hereby restricted
to those generic names which appear in Latin in the Tabula synoptica
Avium secundum Ordines reproduced on the left-hand pages (bearing
even numbers) in the series of pages numbered 26 to 61 in volume 1 of the
foregoing work. For this purpose the decision taken in 1948 as set out in
the portion of the Official Record cited above is to be read as though (a)
the words ‘“‘ Volume 1, pages bearing even numbers in the series of pages
numbered 26 to 61, containing the Latin text of the Tabula synoptica
Avium secundum Ordines there given” were inserted after the word
“ Ordines ’’ in line 5 of point (iv) at the foot of page 65 of volume 4 of the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and (b) the words “in part of”? were
inserted between the phrase “‘ generic names” and the phrase ‘ which”
in line 6 in the same item as that referred to in (1) above.
(2) The entry relating to the foregoing work by Brisson made on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature by the Ruling given in Direction 16 is hereby amended by the insertion therein as follows of the limitation specified in (1) above: “(the only names in this work available for zoological nomenclature being the generic names introduced in volume 1 on the pages bearing even numbers in the series of pages numbered 26-61 containing the Latin text of the Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines) ”’.
10. I now invite all ornithologists interested in this matter to communicate their views on this subject to the Secretary of the Commission at the British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 8.W.7. If any name in current use, would be invalidated by the presently proposed Ruling by the Commission, particulars should be submitted for decision as a special case. As far as I know there are only two such names—Cacatua (Ornith. 4 : 204) and Lorius (ibid. 4 : 215).
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR CORVUS BENGHALENSIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1465
(see volume 18, pages 217-219) By Krishna Kant Tiwari (Zoological Survey of India, Calcutta—12)
I endorse the application of Dr. B. Biswas proposing to designate a neotype for the northern Indian roller, Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758.
Very strict application of the Rules has frequently resulted in unsettling many well-established names, and resurrecting obscure ones which had long remained in oblivion due to some reason or other, on grounds of priority. Such nomenclatorial disturbances are often confusing to new workers on a group, especially in countries where library facilities are inadequate.
As the present proposal is meant to avoid such a contingency, it has my whole-hearted support.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 15
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN HETEROPTERA PROPOSED FOR THE OFFICIAL LIST AND OFFICIAL INDEX (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 958
By T. Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
A number of nominal generic names of Heteroptera were placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology during the period ending 1936, but at that time the practice of dealing with family-group names at the same time as the type-genus had not yet been initiated. It is therefore proposed that these names should now be dealt with according to present procedure. My original application to the Commission contained references to a number of points which have already been dealt with by the Commission in files Z.N.(S.) 989 (Direction 40 : genders) ; Z.N.(S.) 1016 (Direction 64: specific names) and Z.N.(S.) 1017 (Direction 63) (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. Zool. Nomencl. 1, Section E, 1957). Only the family-group name problems therefore remain to be dealt with here.
2. Family-group names to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology :
(i) CIMICIDAR, correction by Curtis, 1825 (British Ent. 2, No. 86) of crmtcrpEs Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. g&n. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris 3 : 240 (type- genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
(ii) ANTHOCORIDAE, correction by Dallas, 1852 (List Spec. Hemipt. Ins. Coll. Brit. Mus. 2, London : 587) of ANTHOCORIDEA Fieber, 1837, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Beitr. Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prag, 1: 106 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
(ili) NABIDAE, correction by Dohrn, 1859 (Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 51) of NABINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano huc usque detectorum), Napoli : 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Instit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 292 (type-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
(iv) PROSTEMMATINAE, correction of PROSTEMMINA Reuter, 1890, Ad cogni- tionem Nabidarum, Rev. d’Ent., Caen, 9 : 289 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
(v) NOTONECTIDAB, correction by Curtis, 1824 (British. Ent. 1 : No. 10) of NOTONECTARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris, 3 : 253 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
(vi) REDUVIIDAE, correction by Stephens, 1829 (4 Systematical Catalogue of British Insects, London 2 : 350) of REDUVINI Latreille, 1807, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, Parisiis et Argentorati 3 : 126 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera).
(vii) TRIATOMINAR, correction by Usinger, 1939, Univ. California Publ. Ent.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
7(3) : 33 of TRIAaTOMINI Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hémiptéres, 3, Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale, Paris : 176, 177 and 309 (type-genus : T'riatoma Laporte, [1832] (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera). 3. Family-group names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology :
(i) crmicipEs Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris 3 : 240 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid original spelling for cromciDAE Latreille, [1802—1803]).
(ii) cummcrpa Leach, 1815, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9(1) : 112 (type- genus: Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICIDAE).
(iii) crmicrnt Costa, 1847, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria, Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 7 : 160 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for cimMIcIDAE).
(iv) cIMicoIDEAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettanti alla classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena: 38-39 (Separatum); also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena; (Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Modena) 25, 1852 : 78-79 (type-genus: Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICINAE).
(v) crmicipEA Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum Pragae:9 (Separatum) : also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag. (5) 7, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICIDAE).
(vi) ACANTHIIDAE Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Napolitano huc usque detectorum), Napoli : 67 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 293 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(vii) ACANTHIINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano huc usque detectorum) Napoli: 67 (Separatum); also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 293 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(viii) ACANTHIDAE Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 44 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(ix) ACANTHIADAE Fieber, [1860], Die europdischen Hemiptera, Wien : 24, 37, 135, and 402 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(x) acanTHuDA Stal, 1865, Hemiptera Africana, 3, Holmiae : 24 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(xi) ACANTHIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hémiptéres Hétéroptéres d’ Europe, Paris : 33 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(xii) acanTHimNA Reuter, (1871) 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Acanthiider, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 28 : 407 (derived from the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17
rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904).
(xiii) crmicrna Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, Kongl. Svensk. Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 103 (type-genus : Cimez Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICINAE).
(xiv) crmicrp1 Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 358, 392 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICIDAE).
(xv) CLINOcoRIDAE Kirkaldy, 1906, List of the Genera of the Pagiopodous Hemiptera—Heteroptera with their type-species, from 1758 to 1904 and also of the Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Trochalopoda, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc., Philadelphia, 32 : 147 (derived from the rejected and invalid type- generic name Clinocoris Fallén, 1829 ; Direction 63, Name No. 910).
(xvi) cLINocoRINA Reuter, 1908, On the Nomenclature of some (British) Hemiptera—Heteroptera, Hnt. mon. Mag., London 44 : 27 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Clinocoris Fallén, 1829 ; Direction 63, Name No. 910).
(xvii) ANTHOCORIDEA Fieber, 1837, Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Weitenweber’s Beitr. z. gesammten Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prag 1 :106 (type- genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (invalid original spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE Fieber, 1837).
(Xvill) ANTHOCORIDEAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d’Elbogen, Almanach de Carlsbad Prague, 13 : 55 (type-genus: Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE).
(xix) ANTHOCORINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano huc usque detectorum), Napoli: 69 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 295 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORINAE).
(xx) aNTHOCoRIDA Stal, 1865, Hemiptera Africana, 3, Holmiae : 23 (type- genus: Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneus subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE).
(xxi) ANTHOCORIDES Snellen van Vollenhoven, 1868, De inlandsche Hemi- pteren, I, Tijdschr. v. Ent., ’s Gravenhage 11 : 137 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORIDAE).
(xxii) ANTHOCORIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hémiptéres Hétéroptéres d'Europe, Paris : 32 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORINAE).
(xxiii) ANTHOCORINA Reuter, (1871) 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Acanthiider, Ofv. Kongl. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm 28 : 409 (type- genus: Anthocoris Fallén, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ANTHOCORINAE).
(xxiv) NABINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tono huc usque detectorum), Napoli: 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Instit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat. Napoli, 8, 1855: 292 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (invalid original spelling of NABINAE Costa, 1852.
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(xxv) NABIDES Stal, (1858) 1859, Nabides, en ny grupp bland Reduvites, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 15 : 247-248 (type-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE).
(xxvi) NABIDA Stal, 1862, Hemiptera mexicana, Stettin Ent. Zeitg. 23 : 458 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABIDAE).
(xxvii) NaBINA Stal, (1870) 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 674 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABIDAE).
(xxviii) coriscrina Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, K. Svenska Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 106, 110 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796; Opinion 244, Name No. 64).
(xxix) NaBIsm Acloque, 1897, Faune de France 2 Paris, 393, 395, (type-genus : _ Nabis Latreille, [1802~-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE).
(xxx) NABIDINAE Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2 London : 197 and 389 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE).
(xxxi) NABIDINARIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London : 397 (type-genus: Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABARIA).
(xxxii) CoRISCIDAE Uhler, 1904, List of Hemiptera-Heteroptera of Las Vegas Hot Springs, New Mexico, collected by Messrs. E. A. Schwarz and Herbert S. Barber, Proc. U.S. National Mus., Washington, 27 : 363 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 ; Opinion 244, Name No. 64).
(xxxiii) NaBINA Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, K. Svenska Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 106, 107 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NABINAE and based on Nabis Stal, 1873 (Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) nec Nabis Latreille, [1802—1803)).
(xxxiv) PROSTEMMINA Reuter, 1890, Ad cognitionem Nabidarum, Rev. d’Ent. Caen, 9 : 289 (type-genus: Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous original spelling for PROSTEMMATINAE Reuter, 1890).
(xxxv) PROSTEMMARIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London, : 391 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for PROSTEMMATARIA).
(xxxvi) PROSTEMMINAE Oshanin, 1912, Katalog der paldaktischen Hemipteren, Berlin : 54 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for PROSTEMMATINAE).
(xxxvii) PROSTEMMINI Handlirsch, 1925, in Schréder, Handbuch der Entomologie, Jena, 3 : 1055 (type-genus: Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for PROSTEMMATINI).
(xxxviii) NOTONECTARIAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., Paris, 3 : 253 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous original spelling for NoroNEcTIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803)).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19
(xxxix) NoTONECTIDA Leach, 1815, Brewster’s Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 9, part 1 : 124 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xl) NoTonEcTAEDES Billberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum, Holmiae : 66 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xli) NoroneEctict Burmeister, 1835, Handbuch der Entomologie, Berlin, 2 : 185 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xlii) NOTONECTINI Costa, 1838, Cimicum Regni Neopolitani centuria, Napoli : 2 (Separatum) ; also Atti. R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 7, 1847 : 146 (type-species Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xliii) NOTONECTINIDAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d’Elbogen, Almanach de Carlsbad, Prague 18 : 54 (type-species : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xliv) NoToNnEcTIDES Agassiz, 1842-1846, Nomina systematica generum Hemi- pterorum, Nomenclator Zoologicus, Soloduri: VII (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xlv) NOTONECTIDEA Agassiz, 1842-1846, ibidem : 13 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xlvi) NoTONECTOIDEA Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, Soloduri: 251 (type-genus: Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xlvii) NoToNECTITAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei genert spettanti alla classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena : 27, 49 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena, 1852: 67, 89 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xlviii) NoToNEcTEAE Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum Pragae : 9 (Separa- tum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag, 1852 (5) 7 : 189 (type- genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(xlix) NoToNECTAE Fieber, 1851, ibidem : 24 (Sept.), 204 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTINAE).
(1) NoronEctica Flor, 1860, Die Rhynchoten Livlands, Dorpat, 1 : 751, 766 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(li) Noronzctina Stal (1870), 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 707 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(lii) NoronEctTipDI Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, Paris, 2 : 359, 397 (type- genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE).
(liii) REDUVINI Latreille, 1807, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, Parisiis et Argentorati, 3 : 126 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (invalid original spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(liv) REDUVIADAE Kirby, 1837, in J. Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Americana, 4, London: 279 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
(lv) REDUvINA Fieber, 1837, Beitrige zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Weitenweber’s Beitr. z. gesammten Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prag, 1 : 101 (type- genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIDAE).
(lvi) REDUVINIDAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d’Elbogen, Almanach de Carlsbad, Prague, 13 : 54 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIOIDAE).
(lvii) REDUVIEAE Feber, 1844, Entomologische Monographien, Prag : 25 (Separatum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag, (5) 8, 1845 : 303 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
(viii) REDUVITAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettante alla classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena: 27, 44 and 45 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena, 25, 1852 : 85, 86 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE)
(lix) REDUVIOIDEAE Spinola, 1850, ibidem : 45, 85, 86 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE).
(Ix) REDUVIDEA Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum, Pragae : 9 (Separatum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag (5) 7, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVI- IDAE).
(lxi) REDUVOINI Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Napoli- tano huc usque detectorum), Napoli: 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sci. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 292 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE).
(Lxii) REDUVITEs Stal, 1858, Bidrag till Rio Janeiro Traktens Hemipter- Fauna, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 2, No. 7 :5, 6 and 68 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
(Lxiii) REDUVIDAE Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 48 (type- genus : Reduvius, Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
(lxiv) REDUVINI Stal, 1859, Till kinnedomen om Reduvini, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm 16:175 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVUDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(xv) REDUVIDEs Stal, 1859, ibidem. 16 : 195 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixvi) REDUVIIDA Stal, 1862, Hemiptera mexicana, Ent.Zeitg., Stettin, 23 : 441 and 446 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21
(xvii) REDUvINA Mayr, 1866, Hemiptera, Reise der dsterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde, Wien: 135 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixviii) REDUVIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hémiptéres Héteroptéres d’ Europe, Paris : 35 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE).
(xix) REDUVIINA Stal, (1870) 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 675 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE and REDUVIINAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixx) REDUVUDAE Reuter, 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Reduviider, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Férhandl, Stockholm, 29, No. 6 : 59 (invalid since based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixxi) REDUVIDES Puton, 1875, Catalogue des Hémiptéres (Hétéropteres, Cicadines et Psyllides) d’Europe et du Bassin de la Méditerranée, 2 éd., Paris : 49 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
(Ixxii) REDUVIDAE Puton, 1875, ibidem : 50 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE).
(Ixxiii) REDUVINI Puton, 1875, ibidem: 50 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous spelling for REDUVIINI).
(Ixxiv) REDUVIOIDEA Uhler, 1877, Report upon the Insects collected by P. R. Uhler during the Explorations of 1875, including Monographs of the Families Cydnidae and Saldidae, and the Hemiptera collected by A. S. Packard, jr., M.D., Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey, Washington, 3 : 429 (invalid superfamily name based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixxv) REDUVUINAE Uhler, 1877, ibidem : 429 (an invalid sub-family name based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixxvi) REDUVIDAE Uhler, 1866, Check-List of the Hemiptera Heteroptera of North America, Brooklyn: 23 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of REDUVUDAE and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 (= Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nec Reduvius Fabricius, 1775).
(Ixxvii) REDUvVuONA Reuter, 1893, Monographia generis Holotrichius Burm., Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn., Helsingfors, 19, No. 3:3 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIINAE).
(xxviii) REDUVIIDI Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 359, 393 (type- genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVIIDAE).
(Ixxix) REDUvI Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 394 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVI- INAE).
(Ixxx) CONORHINIDES Amyot et Serville, 1843, Histoire Naturelle des Insectes Hémiptéres, Paris : xlviii, 383 (invalid family-group name, being based on
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus, Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915).
(Ixxxi) CONORHINIDAE Walker, 1873, Catalogue of the Specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the Collection of the British Musewm, London 7 : 46, 50 (invalid family-group name, being based on the rejected and invalid type- generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915).
(Ixxxii) CoNnoRHINARIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London : 282 (invalid divisional name being based on the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833]; Direction 63, Name No. 915).
(Ixxxiii) CONORRHINARIA Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hémiptéres, 3, Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale, Paris : 176 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CONORHINARIA and invalid, being based on the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915).
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF AMPHISBAENA DUBIA RATHKE, 1863. Z.N.(S.) 1466
(see volume 18, page 220) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)
The species involved are not common and have not been widely noted in the literature. Little confusion would result from strict application of the automatic provisions of the Code. However, this one name jeopardizes two names, each of which would have to be changed : one by a new name, and one by the hitherto neglected name dubia Rathke. Furthermore, considerable effort might be necessary to determine definitely which of two forms should bear the name dubia Rathke. When by one simple action the Commission can obviate the conspicuously greater loss of time and energy that would be required to handle a nomenclatural matter than is expended in the Commission’s consideration of the same matter, in the interest of efficiency the Commission should act upon it. In this case approval of the request is justified in spite of the very limited significance of the names involved.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23
EIGHT DUBIOUS SPECIES OF BIRDS: PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PLACE THESE NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX. Z.N.(S.) 1033
By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.)
The literature on almost any group of animals contains the names of nominal species which were insufficiently described and without known type- specimens. In those groups of animals, such as birds, where the nomenclature has been essentially stabilized, such names continue “ to be a threat to stability and universality of nomenclature ’’. Article 26 of the Copenhagen Decisions specifies the conditions under which such names should be placed on the “ Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology ”.
The Commission is herewith requested to exercise its plenary powers to place on the Official Index the names of 8 nominal species of birds not now or not ever used in the ornithological literature and conforming to the qualifica- tions of dubious names stated in Article 26 of the Copenhagen Decisions.
(1) Oriolus cothurnix Scopoli, 1786, Del. Flor. et Faun. Insubr. : 87, sp. 33.
Tetrao Novae Guineae Gmelin, [1789], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 746 (bis), no. 56. Perdix Novae Guineae Latham, 1790, Ind. Orn. II : 655, no. 39. All three names based on “ La Caille de la Nouvelle Guinee ” of Sonnerat (1766, Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinée : 170, Pl. 105).
These names are based on the specimen of a chick of a gallinaceous bird collected by Sonnerat’s Expedition either in the Philippines or in the Western Papuan area. It is highly probable that it is the young of one of the species of Megapodius. An unequivocal identification of a megapode chick to the species or subspecies level is impossible. The locality data of Sonnerat’s Expedition are unreliable and it is well known that many specimens, stated to have come from “ New Guinea”, actually came from the Philippines and vice versa. Sonnerat’s New Guinea Quail has been considered by every ornithologist who has worked in the New Guinea area, such as Sharpe, Salvadori, Ogilvie-Grant, Hartert, and Mayr, and all have come to the conclusion that the name is unidentifiable. If it were to be decided arbitrarily at this late date that one of these names should be applied to the species universally called Megapodius freycinet Quoy and Gaimard, 1827, it would replace the latter name, having 41 years priority. It is therefore highly desirable, for the sake of the stability of nomenclature, to place the above listed names on the Index of Rejected Names.
(2) Megapodius brazieri Sclater, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London : 529—Vanua
Lava, Banks Islands.
This name has been universally rejected by ornithologists since it is merely based on some egg shells. If the assignment to the genus and the locality are correct, as is confirmed by Brazier (1881, Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 6 : 150-154), this would be an older name for Megapodius layardi Tristram (1879, Ibis : 194), a name universally used for the megapodes of the New
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962,
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Hebrides and Banks Islands since 1879. It would be most unsettling for nomenclature if layardi, after 80 years of usage, were to be displaced by a name which is virtually a nomen nudum. The Commission is therefore requested to place the name MV. brazieri on the Index of Rejected Names.
(3) Cuculus rufulus Vieillot, 1817, Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat. (nouv. éd.) 8 : 234)
—Nouvelle Hollande.
This name was based on two specimens of young cuckoos believed to be from Australia and preserved in the cabinet of M. Baillou. For its status we may quote Amadon (1942, Birds, Whitney South Sea Expedition, No. 50: 15): “The description seems to be that of the juvenal plumage of some species of Cacomantis. Juvenals of the two species just mentioned [variolosus and pyrrhophanus] are quite similar. Most authors, including Mathews and Hartert, have rejected the name rufulus as indeterminable. The latter believed that the description agrees with the brush cuckoo [variolosus]. Mr. D. L. Serventy, on the other hand, has suggested (letter to E. Mayr) that rufulus be used for the fan-tailed cuckoo [pyrrhophanus]. After studying Vieillot’s description, with a series of juvenals of both species before me, I can find nothing to justify restriction of the name to either.
“The upper parts of C. rufulus were described as ‘ variées de brun et de roussatre’. This suggests the more variegated pattern of the brush cuckoo. Those who would use the name for the fantailed cuckoo mention Vieillot’s statement that the remiges are ashy, the rectrices similar but darker and blackish. Some juvenals of the brush cuckoo, however, could be described thus, although in general they have the tail feathers dark brownish rather than blackish. The description of the belly, ‘le ventre de deux gris, l'un presque blane et l’autre foncé . . .’, might apply to many individuals of either species. Other points mentioned by Vieillot are also the same in these two species (not to mention other possibilities, if the locality should be wrong). To summarize, it seems impossible from Vieillot’s description to identify his Cuculus rufulus. The name has been universally rejected ”’.
Only if the types were still in existence might it be possible to identify this nominal species. To an inquiry, Prof. J. Berlioz, Director of the Depart- ment of Mammals and Birds at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle answered most kindly (1 February 1955): ‘‘ There is not the least trace in our Museum of Vieillot’s types of Cuculus rufulus ... Absolutely nothing is known here about rufulus ”’.
Under the circumstances it would seem desirable to have this name placed on the Index of Rejected Names.
(4) Sericornis tyrannulus De Vis, 1905, Ann. Queensl. Mus., No. VI: 42,
Charleville, Central Queensland.
This species has been considered unidentifiable for more than 50 years. The type, formerly in the Brisbane Museum in Queensland, has been lost. It is virtually certain that the bird cannot be a Sericornis because no species of this genus is found in such an arid locality. Nor does the description fit any species of Acanthiza, Gerygone, or other genus to which it might conceivably belong. In view of the fact that Australia is now very well known ornithologic- ally and that in spite of much collecting no new species has been discovered
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25
since 1911, the Commission is requested to place the name of this nominal species on the Index of Rejected Names.
(5) Crateroscelis montana De Vis, 1897, Ibis : 387, South East New Guinea.
This name is based on a nestling bird in downy plumage and cannot be identified as to species. The type, formerly in the Brisbane Museum, is apparently lost and would presumably not permit correct identification even if available. There is the possibility that the name refers to the species which is listed in current standard taxonomic treatises under the name Crateroscelis robusta De Vis, 1898. It is proposed to place the name C. montana on the Index of Rejected Names in order to avoid unsettling the existing nomenclature.
(6) Muscicapa tessacourbe Scopoli, 1786, Del. Flor. et Faun. Insubr., fase. IL:
95. Muscicapa luzoniensis Gmelin, [1789], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 942.
Both names are based on “‘ Le Gobe-mouche noir de l’isle de Lucon ” of Sonnerat (1776, Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinée : 59, pl. 27, fig. 2). The bird was said by Sonnerat to occur on Madagascar and the Philippines. However, as stated by many authors and most recently by Delacour (1946, Auk 63 : 483), there is no species of bird either on Madagascar or the Philippines which agrees with Sonnerat’s description and plate, in fact it has been quite impossible so far to identify this nominal species with any known bird. In order to avoid a disturbance of nomenclature at some later date, the Commission is requested to place the names of these two unidentifiable nominal species on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Names.
(7) Saxicola merula Lesson, 1828, Voy. Coquille, Zool., 1(2) : 622—“ New
Treland ”’.
The description is based on a juvenile specimen of Pachycephala with uncertain locality but probably belonging to the widespread species P. pectoralis. Owing to the early date of the description the name would have priority over most of the described races of Pachycephala pectoralis if the exact type locality were known. Salvadori (1881, Orn. Pap. Mol. 2 : 219) suspected that the bird came from Amboina but according to the route of the Expedition, on which the specimen was collected, it could also have come from several other localities including New Ireland, the originally designated type locality. The name has never been used in the primary literature. In order to permit stabilization of nomenclature in the genus Pachycephala it is herewith proposed to place the name Saxicola merula on the Index of Rejected Names.
(8) Meliornis schistacea De Vis, 1897, Ibis : 381.—South East New Guinea.
This nominal species has not been identified since its description in 1897. The type is apparently lost. The type specimen was badly damaged, part of the bill having been shot away, and had been preserved in spirit prior to its description, with the result that the original coloration had been destroyed. Consequently, the original description is not very meaningful. In view of the fact that the mountains of Southeast New Guinea, the area where the bird came from, are ornithologically extremely well known, it is virtually certain that the name refers to some species which is well known under a different name. There is a possibility that it is an older name for Ptiloprora meekiana
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Rothschild and Hartert, 1907, but there are too many discrepancies in the description to permit synonymization of the two nominal species. For a discussion of the case see Mayr, 1941, List of New Guinea Birds: 207. It is evident that this nominal species is unidentifiable and the Commission is requested to place the name Meliornis schistacea on the Index of Rejected
Names.
The present list was seen in 1955 by D. Amadon, J. Berlioz, H. G. Deignan, H. Friedmann, G. C. A. Junge, R. E. Moreau, A. L. Rand, F. Salomonsen, E. Stresemann, and C. A. Vaurie, all of whom concur in the above made
proposal.
The Commission is herewith requested to suppress the names of the above listed nominal species for the purposes of the Law of Priority by exercise of its plenary powers and to place these names on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names.
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF SALAMANDRA ERYTHRONOTA RAFINESQUE, 1818. Z.N.(S.) 1467
(see volume 18, pages 221-222) By James E. Huheey (Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.)
IT should like to express my support for the petition of Dr. Richard Highton for the conserva- tion of cinereus Green, 1820, and the suppression of erythronota Rafinesque, 1818. The following may be of some interest in this matter :
“To Professor Green belongs the merit of having first observed and described the Salamandra now under consideration ; for although he believed it was only a variety of an animal described by Rafinesque, yet he informed me that Rafinesque afterwards told him that the Salamandra erythronota was not the animal he (Rafinesque) had in view, and which, indeed, he had published, under some other name.” (Holbrook, N. Amer. Herp. (ed. 1) 3 : 115, 1838).
Thus although erythronota Rafinesque and erythronota Green are probably synonyms despite Rafinesque’s beliefs (as stated by Holbrook), the fact that Rafinesque supposedly described Green’s animal “‘ under some other name ” raises the possibility that there may be found yet another name, perhaps antedating erythronota Rafinesque. It seems best therefore not to discard cinereus in favour of another name which may be only temporarily valid.
By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)
This is a clear-cut case for preservation of a consistently-used name for a widely-noted species. Preservation of the status quo in this case is exactly the type of role for which the plenary powers of the Commission can most usefully be exercised. Approval of the proposal is strongly urged.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27
AMMODISCUS REUSS, 1862 (FORAMINIFERA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1087
By W. A. Macfadyen (Hope’s Grove, Tenterden, Kent, England)
The purpose of the present application is to stabilise the interpretation of the nominal genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, in the sense of Reuss’s original description in which it was generally used from 1880 to 1954. In Ellis & Messina’s Catalogue of the Foraminifera 102 species were recently counted, listed as having been referred to the genus, while another 31 species have been noted as having been transferred by various authors from other genera. Of this total of 133 species at least 86 are currently considered to belong to it ; and the genus forms the type of the family ammMopiscipar Rhumbler, 1895 (Nachr. k. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, Math-Phys. Kl. : 83) so that any change in the meaning of the name would clearly do considerable harm to the stability of nomenclature. Yet in a recent paper (Loeblich & Tappan, 1954, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 44 : 306-310) the generic name is sunk* as a synonym of Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841, and is interpreted in terms of a type-species Orbis infimus Strickland, 1846, which is now known as Spirillina infima (Strickland), which being both a calcareous and a fossil form is inconsistent with the original diagnosis of the genus and with long-established usage of the name. At the same time the arenaceous species hitherto included in Ammodiscus were assigned to the genus Involutina, which was transferred out of the family to which it was formerly referred. The family ammopiscipaE Rhumbler, 1895, and the subfamily AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862, were left without a valid nominate genus. These names were replaced by the family name TOLYPAMMINIDAE Cushman, 1929, and subfamily name INVOLUTININAE Cushman, 1940.
The facts of the case are set out below.
2. The genus Ammodiscus was established by Reuss (1862, Sitzb. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. Cl., Jahrg. 1861, 44 : 365) without any included species but as a partial synonym of two existing genera. His description reads :
“ Mit sandig-kieseliger Schale vii. Ammodiscinea m.
Mit der einzigen Gattung Ammodiscus m. (Cornuspira Will. z. Thl.,
Trochammina Park. et Jon. z. Thl.).
Schale frei, tellerformig, gleichseitig, spiral gewunden, mit in einer Ebene dicht an einander liegenden Umgiingen. Am Ende in der ganzen Weite ausmiindend. Lebend.”
It would thus be reasonable to suppose that, in designating a type-species,
* Since the present paper was written Loeblich & Tappan (1961, Micropaleontology, 7 : 189- 192) have returned to the problem and now propose to revive the generic name Ammodiscus for arenaceous forms with type-species Involutina silicea Terquem, 1862; and to accept Bornemann’s 1874 designation of Involutina jonesi Terquem & Piette, 1862, as the type-species of the calcareous genus Involutina.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
preference should be given to a recent arenaceous species which had been referred to Cornuspira or to Trochammina by one or other of the authors mentioned prior to the establishment of Ammodiscus ; yet the species designated by Loeblich & Tappan was a calcareous extinct Lower Lias species which had never been referred to either of those genera at that time.
3. The nominal genus Cornuspira was not first established by Williamson, but by Schultze in 1854 (Polythal. : 40) with two originally included species, C. planorbis Schultze and C. perforata Schultze. The type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1927 (Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 3 : 188) is C. planorbis Schultze. The genus was referred to only once by Williamson before 1862, namely in “ The Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain ” (Ray Soc. 1858 : 91- 92), and on this occasion it was treated as a synonym of Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841 (type-species, by monotypy, Spirillina vivipara Ehrenberg, 1841). Since Reuss expressly refers to this work of Williamson’s in his own paper, later authors have assumed that he wrote “ Cornuspira Will. z. Thl.” by mistake for “ Spirillina Will. z. Thl.” This view was taken by Brady (1884, Challenger Rep. 9 (Zoology) : 329), Rhumbler (1903, Arch. f. Protistenk. 3 : 280), Cushman (1910, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 71 : 73) and Héglund (1947, Zool. Bidr. Uppsala 26 : 102) amongst others. On this assumption the species referred to Spirillina by Williamson in 1858 would call for consideration in any designation of the type-species of Ammodiscus. These species, four in number, were Spirillina foliacea (Philippi, 1844) (cited as the valid name of Cornuspira planorbis Schultze, 1854), Spirillina perforata (Schultze, 1854) (cited as the valid name of Spirillina vivipara Ehrenberg, 1841), Spirillina arenacea sp. nov. (with Oper- culina incerta d’Orbigny, 1839, placed in queried synonymy), and Spirillina margaritifera sp. nov. Of these species, only Spirillina arenacea agrees with Reuss’s original description of Ammodiscus, and Williamson describes it as follows.
“ Shell spiral ; compressed ; thin ; consisting of numerous narrow rounded convolutions of nearly uniform size. Septal aperture round. Texture arena- ceous ; hue yellow or pale brown; opaque. Diam. 1/50.
‘“‘T have met with isolated examples of this object in nearly every British sand which I have examined, but have nowhere found it in abundance. M. D’Orbigny has figured a shell in his Foraminifera of Cuba, under the name of Operculina incerta (p. 49, tab. vi, fig. 16). He thinks that it presents traces of two septa in each convolution, but is not certain ; and speaks with great hesitancy respecting its entire history, not being satisfied with his knowledge of the very few specimens which he obtained from Cuba and Martinique. I have little doubt that his hesitation was just ; and that the object was an unsegmented Spirillina, possibly of the same species as the one under consideration.”
The diameter given as 1/50 inch is equal to about 0.5 mm., and the type- locality must be given as the seas around the British Isles, no more exact locality being stated or indicated on his slide.
4. The above-mentioned isomorphous Foraminifera which Williamson grouped in the single genus Spirillina are now divided amongst three genera on the basis of the composition and structure of the shell-wall, Spirillina for
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29
the hyaline, perforate forms, Cornuspira for the porcellanous, imperforate forms, and Ammodiscus for the agglutinated arenaceous forms. The well- established usage of these names in that taxonomic sense is disturbed by Loeblich & Tappan’s designation of the type-species, and it is urged that this designation be suppressed and that Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858 be designated as the type-species of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 by the use of the plenary powers.
5. Itisnecessary first, however, to consider the species placed inT'rochammina by Parker & Jones prior to 1862, for that genus was also cited by Reuss in the synonymy of Ammodiscus. Trochammina Parker & Jones, 1859 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3) 4 : 347) was established with only a single originally included species, Nautilus inflatus Montagu, 1808, so that it cannot have been to that source that Reuss referred when he spoke of ‘‘ Trochammina Park. et Jon. z. Thl.” The genus was mentioned on only one other occasion by those authors prior to 1862, in a paper by Jones & Parker (1860, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 16 : 292-307) and it must be presumed that it was to this paper that Reuss intended to refer. The species then placed in Trochammina were T’. irregularis d’Orbigny, 1850 (a species of Webbina d’Orbigny, 1839) ; 7’. irregularis alternans subsp. nov. ; 7’. irregularis clavata subsp. nov. (type-species of Ammolagena Eimer & Fickert, 1899) ; 7’. squamata sp. nov. ; T. squamata incerta (d’Orbigny), with Spirillina arenacea in synonymy ; T'. syuamata charoides subsp. nov. (a species of Glomospira Rzehak, 1888) ; 7’. squamata gordialis subsp. nov. (type- species of Glomospira) ; and T. squamata var. inflata (Montagu), type-species of Trochammina Parker & Jones, 1859. It may be noted that the citation of species established by d’Orbigny in 1839 and by Montagu in 1808 as sub- species of 7’. sqguamata was invalid. It will also be seen that Operculina incerta d’Orbigny, 1839, was treated as a doubtful synonym of Spirillina arenacea by Williamson in 1858, and as the valid name for the latter by Jones & Parker in 1860.
6. Two years later (in Carpenter, Parker & Jones, 1862: Introduction to the study of the Foraminifera, Ray Soc.: 312) Parker & Jones again quoted Spirillina arenacea as a synonym of “ Trochammina squamata P. & J. var. incerta d’Orb.”’ and this was accepted by Brady (op. cit. 1884 : 330), and Cushman (op. cit. 1910 : 73) and in later works. The synonymy was, however, queried by Heron-Allen & Earland in 1932 (Discovery Rep. 4 : 343). Cushman (op. cit.) designated Operculina incerta as the type-species of Ammodiscus, and this can be understood because, although it was not one of the species originally included in the genus (there were none cited by name), it was among those which had been cited prior to 1862 in one of the genera (T'rochammina) mentioned by Reuss in his synonymy. There is considerable doubt, however, whether the species intended by Cushman (or by Jones & Parker, 1860, whom he was following) was the true Operculina incerta. This question is discussed in the following paragraphs.
7. Operculina incerta was established by d’Orbigny in 1839 (in de la Sagra, Hist. phys. polit. nat. Cuba : 39, pl. vi, figs. 16, 17). The description reads :
“ Operculina, Testa orbiculato compressa, lateraliter concava, laevigata, flavescente, margine rotundata ; spira regulari, anfractibus octo, cylindricis,
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
suturis excavatis. Dimensions. Diametre 1/10 de millim.
“ Coquille orbiculaire, trés comprimée, lisse, concave de chaque cété, a dos arrondi. Spire trés réguliére, composée de huit tours cylindriques trés rapprochés, trés étroits, séparés par des sutures profondes. Loges. Nous avons cru remarquer qu ‘il y en avait deux par tour de spire, mais nous ne pouvons l’affirmer. Couwlewr jaunatre uniforme.
“Tout en placant cette espéce dans le genre Operculina, nous ne le faisons pas avec la certitude qu'elle y soit bien a sa place, car elle différe de toutes les autres par son grand nombre de tours de spire. Ses loges n’ont pas la méme forme, si nous avons bien vues; la grand ténuité de Vindividu, son peu de transparence nous laissent beaucoup 4 desirer pour sa connaissance compléte. Nous ne décrivons done cette espéce qu’en attendant de nouvelles observations. Nous l’avons rencontrée dans les sables de Cuba et dans celui de la Martinique, ou elle est trés rare.”
In the explanation of the plate the figures are stated to be x 200. Since they measure 20 mm. across, they confirm the extremely small size of the specimen figured.
8. It must be borne in mind that those authors who synonymised Operculina incerta and Spirillina arenacea held that both names applied to an arenaceous form with siliceous cement. It was doubtless this which led Heron-Allen & Earland (op. cit.) to question the correctness of this synonymy, as follows :
“The Operculina incerta of d’Orbigny has always seemed to us to be open to suspicion as an arenaceous form. Neither the figure nor the text give us any suggestion of an agglutinate test, and either might equally well refer to a weather-stained Spirillina or Cornuspira. We therefore turned to the Paris Type in the hope of settling the question of its nature, only to find ourselves confronted with an apparent blank wall. The tube contains three specimens. It is labelled ‘ Spirillina incerta (Operculina), Cuba’. None of the three specimens can be recognised as the original of d’Orbigny’s figure, and all are unmistakably Cornuspira. One is C. involvens Reuss, the second probably the same but bearing striolations (these may be accidental), the third specimen is a narrow-tubed, square-edged form, suggesting C. angigyra Reuss ; they are all unmistakably fossils. The uncertainty is insoluble until d’Orbigny’s original Cuba Type is perhaps identified among the tubes which have become separated from any identifying ‘ boards ’.”
9. Loeblich & Tappan (1954 : 308) state :
“ D’Orbigny’s types [sic] of Operculina incerta were examined by the writers in Paris and found not to be an agglutinated form but a calcareous imperforate form and a typical Cornuspira Schultze, 1854.
“Three syntypes of d’Orbigny’s species are preserved in the collections of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris. That here figured (figs. la, Ib) is hereby designated the lectotype of Operculina incerta and the remaining two specimens become paratypes. All are from the Recent of Cuba.”
In their amended diagnosis of the species they point out that the form studied by them has 12 coils, and give the dimensions of the “ lectotype ” as greatest diameter 1.36 mm., least diameter 1.13 mm., thickness 0.25 mm. They do not mention Heron-Allen & Earland’s work, but it seems probable
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31
that the specimens they saw are the same.
10. There are strong grounds for rejecting the lectotype selection of Loeblich & Tappan as invalid. D’Orbigny described his form as having eight whorls and being 0.1 mm. in diameter ; it is unthinkable that, if he had had more mature specimens thirteen times as big he would not have mentioned them in his description had he considered them to belong to the same species, which is unlikely. It seems preferable to accept Heron-Allen & Earland’s conclusion that d’Orbigny’s original material has not yet been rediscovered, and to consider Operculina incerta as a nomen dubium pending the definite identification of that material.
11. Loeblich & Tappan proceeded strictly on the assumption that Ammodiscus was a genus established without any originally included species cited by name, and that the type-species must either be that species, or be selected from amongst those species first subsequently referred to it. Their action was in the strictest conformity with the Rules, but was taken without regard to the damage so done to stability of nomenclature and of taxonomic practice. On this basis they considered first Ammodiscus lindahli Carpenter & Jeffries [sic], 1871 (Proc. Roy. Soc. London 19 : 160) and showed that the generic name was then applied to a species of Actinozoan. Ammodiscus Carpenter & Jeffreys was in fact proposed as a new generic name and is thus invalid as a junior homonym of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, so that the single species referred to the genus does not call for consideration in the present connection. They next examined the species recorded by L. G. Bornemann (1874, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 28 : 725, pl. xviii, figs. 4-7; pl. xix, fig. 8) as Ammodiscus infimus (Strickland), and they concluded that this, as the sole [sic] species referred to the genus by Bornemann, was the first species to be placed in Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, and was therefore the type-species by mono- typy. Barnard, however (1954, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 5 : 905-909) had already shown that Strickland’s Orbis infimus (1846, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 2 : 30-31) is a calcareous hyaline form of the taxonomic genus Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841. The form identified with that species by Bornemann, however, is an agglutinated, siliceous form. Thus by interpreting Ammodiscus Reuss in terms of Orbis infimus Strickland as understood by Bornemann, they made Ammodiscus a genus based on a misidentified type-species. The valid name of the species which Bornemann had before him is silicea Terquem, 1862, which Bornemann cited in the synonymy of Ammodiscus infimus.
12. Loeblich & Tappan, having thus accepted the misidentification of the species which they designated as the type-species of Ammodiscus with a hyaline, perforate form, sank Ammodiscus as a synonym of Spirillina, and proposed to transfer the arenaceous forms hitherto included in Ammodiscus to Involutina Terquem, 1862, a genus treated by some authors as a synonym of Problematina Bornemann, 1874. The position and status of these two genera is, however, far from clear.
Involutina was established by Terquem, 1862 (Mém. Acad. imp. Metz 42 : 450) with Involutina silicea Terquem from the Middle Lias. In a later section of the same paper (: 461), in which Foraminifera from the Lower Lias are described by Terquem & Piette, Involutina jonesi is added to the genus. The
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
two passages concerned were published in the same work on the same day, so that statements that J. silicea is the type-species by monotypy (e.g. Cushman, 1928, “ Foraminifera’: 51, 143; Macfadyen, 1941, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London (B) 231 : 17 ; Loeblich & Tappan, op. cit. : 309) are erroneous. I. jonesi was in fact validly selected as the type-species by Bornemann (op. cit. 1874: 711). The oldest available name for this species, however, as shown by Brady, 1864 (Geol. Mag. 1 : 196) is Nummulites liassicus Jones, 1853 (in Brodie, Proc. Cotteswold Nat. F.C. 1: 248, and Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 12 : 275), a calcareous species. It is thus easily seen that the taxonomic position of Involutina is entirely dependent on which species is regarded as the type- species. If the first valid selection by Bornemann is followed, the genus is a calcareous one, allied to Spirillina or Cornuspira ; if current usage in regarding I. silicea as the type-species is followed, then the genus is an arenaceous one, synonymous with Ammodiscus. If the former choice is adopted, then Problematina Bornemann, 1874, type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1927 (Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 3:188), Involutina deslongschampsi Terquem, 1863 (Mém. Ac. Imp. Metz 44 : 432) falls as a subjective synonym, for the type-species is at least congeneric, and possibly even conspecific, with Nummulites liassicus Jones, 1853. The generic name Problematina is not extensively used, and it is recommended that Bornemann’s type-selection for Involutina be accepted. The transfer thus involved of Jnvolutina from an arenaceous to a calcareous group of species will cause less disturbance to taxonomy and nomenclature than will the rejection of Ammodiscus as advocated by Loeblich & Tappan.
13. The family-group names involved in the present case are AMMODISCIDAE Rhumbler, 1895, and AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862 (as AMMODISCINEA) ; these are in current use and should be added to the Official List.
14. In order to promote stability in the use of the generic names discussed above, the International Commission is requested :—
(1) to use its plenary powers :
(a) to set aside all type-designations for the nominal genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, made prior to the ruling now asked for, and, having done so, to designate Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858, as the type-species of that genus :
(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :
(a) Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (gender: masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858 ;
(b) Involutina Terquem, 1862 (gender: feminine), type-species, by selection by Bornemann, 1874, Involutina jonest Terquem & Piette, 1862 ;
(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :
(a) arenacea Williamson, 1858, as published in the binomen Spirillina arenacea (type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862) ;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33
(b) liassicus Jones, 1853, as published in the binomen Nummulites liassicus (the oldest available name for the type-species of Involutina) ;
(c) infimus Strickland, 1846, as published in the binomen Orbis infimus, and as defined by the lectotype selected for the species by Barnard, 1954 ;
(4) to place the family-group name AMMODISCINAE Reuss, 1862 (correction
of AMMODISCINEA), type-genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, on the
Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology.
(5) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology: AMMODISCINEA Reuss,
1862, type-genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (an invalid original
spelling of AMMODISCINAE).
I have to acknowledge with gratitude the great help I have received in the setting out of this paper from Mr. R. V. Melville, lately Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.
Note on Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858, proposed as type-species of the genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862. By Tom Barnard (University College, London).
Type reference : Williamson, W. C., On the Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain. Ray Society, London, England, 1858, p. 93, plate vii, fig. 203.
Williamson’s figured specimen of Spirillinia arenacea is missing from the slide preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) so it has been necessary to select another specimen as the lectotype. This is described below and figured on the accompanying plate.
Description :
The test is planispiral, consisting of a globular proloculus followed by a simple non-septate coiled tube. In Williamson’s type material there are generally about six fairly regular whorls, but ranging from 5 to 7 ; the whorls increase markedly in height from the earliest to the latest, and a later whorl may (or may not) embrace the previous whorl to about one-third of the height of the whorl. In cross section they are seen to be uniform in shape. Successive whorls appear to be added directly to the test, with no prepared floor.
The test is open-evolute, with a simple very shallow umbilicus on both sides ; but in specimens where the whorls embrace more than usual a deeper umbilicus is found on one side of the test.
The wall is thin, smoothly finished, arenaceous, composed largely of minute quartz fragments set in non-caleareous cement. Unfortunately, owing to breakage of part of the last whorl in each of Williamson’s specimens, no aperture is preserved, but it appears to have been simply the open end of the tube.
Each of the ten specimens is megalospheric, with an almost spherical proloculus which forms a slight protuberance at the centre of the test. From the proloculus emerges a thin tube pointing in the reverse direction to that of the later coiling. This tube turns abruptly through two right angles, and then initiates normal coiling, passing with rapidly increasing size into the first normal coil. Thereafter the tube continues to coil with whorls of slowly
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
increasing height, though there may be slight irregularity in the addition of successive whorls (see plate 2, figs. 1 & 2).
No. of Diameter Whorls of Test (visible) mmm. 5 0.44 7 0.34 5 0.28 6 0.30 6 0.48 5 0.43 5 0.44 5 0.43 5 0.51 6 0.36 Material. 10 Specimens Locality. Seas around the British Isles
Type Level. Recent Lectotype. Removed from Williamson’s slide and remounted. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. Lectotype 1960.9.28.1 ex. 96.8.13.52. Paralectrotypes 1960.9.28.2 ex. 96.18.13.52
1960.9.28.3 ex.96.8.13.52. Depository. British Museum (Natural History), London.
PLATE 1
Fig. 1. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Lectotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.). No. 1960.9.28.1. Focused on inner whorls.
Fig. 2. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 70 Lectotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.1 Focused on outer whorls.
Fig. 3. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.2 Focused on inner whorls.
Fig. 4. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No.1960.9.28.2. Focused on outer whorls.
Fig. 5. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.3. Focused on outer whorls.
Fig. 6. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). x70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.3 Focused on inner whorls.
PLATE 2 Fig. 1. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. 150 Showing cross-section of the test.
Fig. 2. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. 150 A reconstruction of the above photograph. Fig. 3. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. 1200
Diagram showing the proloculus, with the small tube emerging from it, turning through two right angles, and then circling the chamber to join the main chamber of the test.
Fig. 4. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.4. 150 Photograph in oil to show the initial coil.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19 Plate 1
Plate 2 Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19
bo
ie
\
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35
AMMONITES LAEVIGATA LAMARCK, 1822; PROPOSED SUPP-
RESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TOGETHER WITH THE
VALIDATION OF TWO NOMINAL SPECIES NAMED AMMONITES LAEVIGATA BY J. DE C. SOWERBY, 1827. Z.N.(S.) 1203
By D. T. Donovan (Bristol) and C. W. Wright (London)
The specific name Ammonites laevigata was published by Lamarck (1822 : 637). It was applied to a fossil in his collection for which no locality or geological horizon was recorded. A brief description was given, in Latin and French, but no illustration was included. To the best of the writers’ knowledge the name has not been employed by any later author of systematic descriptions or revisions of ammonites, and in their opinion it is impossible to determine, from Lamarck’s description, to which of the many hundred ammonite species now recognised his name Ammonites laevigata should be applied. Search for type material has not been made for only confusion would be caused if this name were brought into use now.
2. James de C. Sowerby in 1827 (: 93, pl. 549, fig. 1) described and figured the species Ammonites laevigatus from the Gault (Cretaceous) of Crockerton, near Warminster, Wilts. In the same work, later in the same year (: 135, pl. 570, fig. 3) he described and figured a different ammonite species as Ammonites laevigatus, based on a specimen from the Lias (Jurassic) near Lyme Regis, Dorset. There is no evidence that either species was identified with Lamarck’s species referred to in para. 1, and both species have always been attributed to Sowerby.
3. Sowerby was not in the habit of using the same specific name more than once in a particular genus, and his reason for doing so in this case was clearly that, shortly after the part of his monograph in which he described the Gault Ammonites laevigatus was published, he re-identified the figured specimen as Ammonites Selliguinus Brongniart (in Cuvier and Brongniart), for this name was substituted for Ammonites laevigatus (:93) in the “Corrections and Observations” to the whole volume. Being bound by no Rules of Nomen- clature, Sowerby felt free to use the superseded name Ammonites laevigatus for another species, and did so on page 135 of his work. According to the present Rules, however, if it were not for Lamarck’s Ammonites laevigatus, Sowerby’s earlier Ammonites laevigatus (from the Gault) would be a valid name, but the later Ammonites laevigatus to be published (the Liassic one) would fall as a junior homonym of the earlier.
4, D’Orbigny (1850 : 225) proposed the new name Ammonites Davidsoni for Ammonites laevigatus Sowerby, 1827, pl. 570, fig. 3 (d’Orbigny cited fig. 6 in error). The name has never been correctly applied. It was rejected by Oppel, the author of the first general work on the European Lias (1856 : 81-82)
1Oppel (1856 : 82) stated that Ammonites laevigatus Lamarck was synonymous with Ammonites Lewesiensis Mantell, 1822, from the English Chalk, but he was not dealing systematically with either species. Sharpe (1853-55) who monographed English Chalk cephalopods, does not mention Lamarck’s species.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
who conserved the name Ammonites laevigatus for the Liassic species. Dumortier, after accepting Ammonites laevigatus (1864:116), adopted d’Orbigny’s name in a later part of the same work (1867 : 112, pl. 21, figs. 1-4) but the French specimen which he figured is not generally regarded as con- specific with Sowerby’s Liassic Ammonites laevigatus and has often been referred to as “Ammonites Davidsoni Dumortier ”’ (e.g. Quenstedt, 1883 : 106 ; Spath, 1926: 170). The name Ammonites Davidsoni was not adopted in the second edition of Morris’s “‘ Catalogue of British Fossils’ (1854), a reference work which appeared shortly after the name had been proposed, nor by Woodward (1893) in the fossil lists appended to the Geological Survey of Great Britain’s memoir on the Jurassic Rocks of Britain, nor by Spath when revising Ammonites laevigatus (1923a, 1926). In fact d’Orbigny’s name has not been used by any British author, all having used Sowerby’s name which did not in practice lead to any confusion. In our opinion only inconvenience and confusion would be caused by effecting the change now.
5. It happens that both Gault and Lias Ammonites from Britain have in recent years been revised by the same authority, L. F. Spath, who accepted both of Sowerby’s species: the Gault one in the combination Buwedanticeras (recte Beudanticeras) laevigatum (1923: 55, family Desmoceratidae Zittel, 1895; subfamily Beudanticeratinae Breistroffer, 1953), and the Liassic one in the combination Cymbites laevigatus (1923a : 76-78 ; 1926: 169-170, family Cymbitidae 8. 8. Buckman, 1919). Each name is in current use among workers on the Gault and the Lias respectively. In view of the recognition of the Gault species in Spath’s monograph on Gault Ammonites, and the use of Cymbites laevigatus in Lang’s definitive account of the Lias succession in Dorset (Lang, 1923 : 57-59 ; 1926 : 159-162) it is submitted that great confusion would be caused both to palaeontologists and to stratigraphers if either or both these names were now to be changed.
6. The genus Ammonites Bruguiére, to which Lamarck’s species mentioned in para. 1 and Sowerby’s two species enumerated in para. 2 were all originally referred, has recently been suppressed by the Commission (Opinion 305, 1954). The original homonymy of the three species is therefore a matter of technical but not of practical importance. Between the two which have been used since their original publication, there is no likelihood of confusion on account of the widely separated geological formations in which they are found and the different families into which they are now placed.
7. In view of the considerations adduced above we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :
(1) to use its plenary powers :
(a) to suppress the specific name laevigata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigata (specific name of a species dubium), for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ;
1 Oppel and other authors considered Sowerby’s species to be technically invalidated by a species they referred to as Ammonites laevigatus Reinecke, 1818. This species was first published in the combination Nautilus laevigatus Reinecke (1818: 78) and so does not affect the present application.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37
(b) to suspend the operation of the Law of Homonymy in the case of Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby (1827: 135) in order that it be not invalidated by Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby (1827 : 93) ;
(2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—
(a) laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (: 93) as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigatus, from the Gault, and now referred to as Beudanticeras laevigatum, validated by the action recommended under (1)(a) above ;
(b) laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (: 135) as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigatus, from the Lias, now referred to the genus Cymbites, validated by the action recommended under (1)(a) and (b) above ;
(3) to place the specific name laevigata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigata (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
Nove:
Recommendations on the names of the genus Beudanticeras and its type- species, the subfamily BEUDANTICERATINAE and the family DESMOCERATIDAE will form part of the subject of an application relating to the generic name Desmoceras which will shortly be submitted to the Commission by one of us (C.W.W.). Recommendations on the type-species of the genus Cymbites, at present Ammonites globosus (Schiibler MS.) Zieten, 1832 (a species dubium), and the family name cymsBitTrpa#, will form the subject of an application which it is proposed by one of us (D.T.D.) to submit to the Commission when the decision on the present application is known.
REFERENCES
Breistroffer, M., in Breistroffer, M. & O. de Villoutreys, 1953. Les ammonites albiennes de Peille (Alpes-Maritimes). Trav. Lab. géol. Grenoble 30: 69-74
Buckman, S. S., 1919. Yorkshire Type Ammonites 2(18), xv, London
d’Orbigny, A., 1850. Prodrome de Paléontologie...1. Paris
Dumortier, E., 1864, 1867. Etudes paléontologiques sur les Dépéts jwrassiques du Bassin du Rhéne, 1,2. Paris
Lamarck, J. B. P. M. de, 1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertébres, 7. Paris
Lang, W. D., 1923. Shales-with-‘ Beef’, a Sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 1, Stratigraphy. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 47-66
—, 1926. The Black Marl of Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 1, Stratigraphy. Ibid. 82 : 144-165
Morris, J., 1854, A Catalogue of British Fossils, 2nd ed. London
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Oppel, A., 1856. Die Juraformation... Stuttgart
Quenstedt, F. A., 1883. Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, 1. Der Schwarze Jura. Stuttgart
Reinecke, I. C. M., 1818. Maris prologaei Nautilos et Argonautas volgo Cornus
Ammonis... Coburg Sowerby, J. de C., 1827. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 6, pars. London
Spath, L. F., 1923. A Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault, part 1, London, Pal. Soc.
—, 1923a. Shales-with-‘ Beef’, a Sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 2, Palaeontology. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 66-88
——, 1926. The Black Marl. of Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 2, Palaeontology. Ibid. 82 : 165-178
Woodward, H. B., 1893. The Jurassic Rocks of Britain, 3, Lias (Yorkshire excepted). London: Mem. Geol. Surv.
Zittel, K. A. von, 1895. Grundziige der Palaeontologie. Munich & Leipzig
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF MYELOPHILUS EICHHOFF UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 467
(see Volume 18, pages 69-72 and 319-321) By F. G. Browne (West Africa Timber Borer Research Unit, Kumasi, Ghana)
On reading Professer Wood’s interesting and important comment, my first inclination was to recommend the suppression of Yomicus Latreille in favour of Blastophagus Eichhoff. The former name has a rather unfortunate history, having for long been confused with Ips De Geer. Its use by Chamberlin (1939) in North America can hardly be taken as establishing current use, as it is unimportant when compared with the wide acceptance of Blastophagus in Europe and Asia.
However, on reflection I support Professor Wood’s proposals. There is already confusion, and confusion will inevitably continue for some time, whatever name may be established under the plenary powers. That being so, it seems advisable to establish the truly valid name, especially if it is one that will not be confused with similar generic names in other Orders.
By J. T. Wiebes (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, Netherlands)
Dr. Wood’s statement indeed changes the whole aspect of the problem, and I fully agree with his conclusions concerning the name of the Coleoptera. It seems best to maintain the priority of Tomicus Latreille over the other generic names proposed to contain Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus. Concerning Dendroctonus Erichson, I agree with Dr. Wood that it is in favour of nomenclatural stability to validate Dendroctonus with its type Bostrychus micans Kugelmann (in spite of Westwood’s 1838 type designation), in order to avoid the necessity to create a new name for a genus of well-known and economically important beetles.
I disagree with Dr. Wood’s remark that there could be reasons for suggesting a possible validity of Blastophagus Gravenhorst. The original publication of this name does not contain any descriptive matter that could possibly serve as an indication. Hence Blastophagus Gravenhorst must be regarded as a nomen nudum.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39
PLANORBINA HALDEMAN, 1842, TAPHIUS ADAMS & ADAMS,
1855 AND ARMIGERUS CLESSIN, 1884 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) :
PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1392
C. A. Wright (British Museum (Natural History), London)
The medically important molluscan intermediate hosts of the human parasite Schistosoma mansoni have for some time been placed in the nominal genera Biomphalaria, Australorbis and Tropicorbis. It is known that these three should be united into a single taxonomic genus and recently B. Hubendick (1955, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 28(6) : 453-542) has shown that on anatomical grounds the genus should include the nominal genera Taphius and Platytaphius. By application of the Law of Priority Taphius should take precedence as the senior synonym and W. L. Paraense (1958, Rev. Bras. Biol. 18(1) : 65-80) has presented the case in favour of following this course. However, it is likely that many medical parasitologists and public health workers will not be prepared to adopt the name J'aphius and further investigation has shown that there is an older available name for the group, namely Planorbina Haldeman, 1842. The full details of the case have been discussed by Barbosa, Hubendick, Malek and Wright (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. in press). In that account the authors mention the problem of Armigerus which has also been used as the generic name for the group.
2. In a group of such great economic importance it is obviously essential that the nomenclature should be stabilized and it is the purpose of this applica- tion to ask for the suppression under the plenary powers of the names Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884.
3. Planorbina was named as a section of Planorbis by 8. S. Haldeman (1842, A Monograph of the Freshwater Univalve Molluscs of the United States. E. G. Dorsey, Philadelphia, p. 14). No type-species was designated for this section nor were any species referred to it in that publication but W. H. Dall (1905, Land and Freshwater Molluscs, Harriman Alaska Expedition 18 : 1-158) designated Planorbis olivaceus Spix (1827, Testacea fluviatilia Brasiliensia p- 26) as type of Planorbina Haldeman and referred Planorbis glabrata Say (1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1(2) : 280) to the section. Both of these species belong in the nominal genus Australorbis. H. A. Pilsbry (1934, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 86(1) : 29-66) argued that Dall had misinterpreted Haldeman’s definition of Planorbina and, because P. olivaceous could not possibly be included in that definition, Pilsbry stated that “ Planorbina of Haldeman, 1843, has nothing to do with Planorbina Dall, 1905”. H. Watson (1954, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 49 (3 & 4) : 209-220) has also suggested that Planorbina Haldeman and Planorbina Dall are not synonymous but that the former referred to Anisus Studer, 1820 (Naturw. Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Gesell. 3, p. 23). However, Dall designated a type-species for Haldeman’s Planorbina and, since that name
Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
was published with a definition it is an available name and takes priority from its original date of publication (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 160 ; 1950). Planorbina was used in conjunction with the specific names guadalupensis, glabratus and olivaceus by L. Germain (1921, Rec. Indian Mus. 21) and with olivaceus by J. Thiele (1931, Handbuch der Syst. Weichtierkunde I, p. 480, Fischer, Jena) and more recently by J. B. Burch (1960, Ztschr. f. Tropenmed. u. Parasit. Stuttgart 11(4) : 449-452) with glabratus and sudanica.
4. Taphius was proposed as a sub-genus of Planorbis by H. & A. Adams: (1855, The Genera of Recent Mollusca 2, p. 262, van Voorst, London) and Planorbis andecolus d’Orbigny (1835, Mag. Zool. 5(61 & 62) : 26) from Lake Titicaca was the type-species by original designation. Paraense (loc. cit.) quotes eighteen references between the years 1870 and 1957 to show that Taphius is a name in frequent use but most of the authors whom he quotes have merely mentioned the name with its original definition in lists or have referred to it insynonymies. Apart from Paraense’s own recent use of Taphius it is a name almost unknown to medical biologists and only a little more familiar to professional malacologists.
5. Armigerus was named as a section of Planorbis by Clessin (1884, Conch. Cab. Martini-Chemnitz (edn. 2) I, 17, p. 120) in the discussion of Planorbis albicans Pfeiffer and it is this species which J. E. P. Morrison (1947, Nautilus 61(1) : 30-31) designated as type for Armigerus. P. albicans had formerly been placed in Tropicorbis. H. B. Baker (1947, Nautilus 61(2) : 71-72) suggested that Clessin had intended to indicate that P. albicans belonged in the section of P. armigerus Say and that the type of this section must, therefore, by absolute tautonymy, be P. armigerus but this species is the type of Planorbula Haldeman, 1842, and Armigerus must fall as a synonym of Planorbula. Whether this argument is correct or not is not certain but, either way, Armigerus has little more than nuisance value as it is a name largely unknown to parasitologists and has only been used by one malacological specialist.
6. Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 8) 6(35) : 535, Pl. 7, figs. 26 & 26a) has as type-species, by monotypy, B. smithi Preston (loc. cit.), an unusual planorbid snail from Lake Edward. Anatomical studies, summarised by H. Watson (loc. cit.), have shown that all of the large planorbid snails of the ethiopian region belong to a single genus and they have all been placed in Biomphalaria. This name is probably the most widely known and is one of the more extensively used of the series. It is the name of the genus to which all of the African intermediate hosts of Schistosoma mansoni belong and a report of a World Health Organisation Study Group (W. H. O. Tech. Rep. Ser. 90, pp. 5 & 6, 1954) recommended that Biomphalaria should be the name used for all intermediate hosts of S. mansoni and that Australorbis and Tropic- orbis should be considered as its junior synonyms.
7. Tropicorbis was established as a section of Planorbis by A. P. Brown and H. A. Pilsbry, (1914, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 66(1) : 209-213). Planorbis liebmanni Dunker (1886, in Kiister, H. C., Syst. Conch.-Cab. p. 59) was designated as type-species and P. siliceus, an Oligocene fossil from Antigua was referred to the section. This is a well-known name in Central and South
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41
America and several neotropical intermediate hosts of S. mansoni have been referred to the genus.
8. Platytaphius was proposed as a section of Planorbis by H. A. Pilsbry (1924, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 76(1) : 49-66) for P. heteropleurus Pilsbry, 1924, from Lake Titicaca and this species is the type by monotypy. It is not a well-known name and has rarely been used.
9. Australorbis was described as a new genus by H. A. Pilsbry 1934 for ~Planorbis guadalupensis Sowerby (1821, Genera of Shells II). In discussing this new genus Pilsbry states that it should perhaps be treated as a sub-genus of Tropicorbis, a group which he then considered should have full generic status. Australorbis is a very well-known name and is in frequent use. Some of its South American members are intermediate hosts for S. mansoni and A. glabratus has been the subject of many laboratory studies.
10. In order to eliminate the great confusion which exists at present in the generic nomenclature of the intermediate hosts of Schistosoma mansoni I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature :
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy :
(a) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 ; (b) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 ; (c) Armigerus Clessin, 1884 ;
(2) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names :
Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (gender, feminine), type-species by monotypy : Biomphalaria smithi Preston, 1910 ;
(3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names: smithi Preston, 1910, as published in the binomen Biom- phalaria smithi (type-species of Biomphalaria) ;
(4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :
(a) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 ; (b) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 ; (c) Armigerus Clessin, 1884.
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
AMYOT, METHODE MONONYMIQUE : REQUEST FOR A DIRECTION
THAT THIS WORK BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF
REJECTED AND INVALID WORKS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.) 1478
By Wolfgang Stichel (Berlin, Germany)
C. J. B. Amyot’s Entomologie Frangaise, Rhynchotes, Méthode Mononym- ique was published in serial form in the Annales Société ent. France (Series 2) 3 : 369-492, t. 8 and 9, 1845; (Series 2) 4 : 73-192, 359-452, t. 10, 1846; (Series 2) 5 : 453-524, t. 2 and 7, 1847. In 1848 a repaged edition of the whole work was published in Paris by J. B. Bailliére and in London by H. Bailliére. In the preface to his work, Amyot states: “Ce qui doit le plus frapper au premier abord, dans cet ouvrage, est le mode de nomenclature que nous y avons adopteé, sous le titre de Méthode mononymique, et qui consiste dans l’application d’un nom unique, donné 4 chaque espéce, au lieu de deux, le nom générique et le nom spécifique, comme cela se pratique dans la nomenclature en usage depuis Linné.”” In effect this was meant to be a new system of nomenclature. It is scarcely necessary to point out that this system is completely at variance with Article 25 (b) : ‘‘ The author must have consistently applied the principles of binominal nomenclature throughout the paper in question ”’.
2. Hemipterists have mostly rejected Amyot’s Méthode Mononymique. Kirkaldy, 1909 in his Catalogue of the Hemiptera (Heteroptera) 1, Cimicidae : x, wrote : “ The mononymics of Amyot (1845-47, A. 8. E. France) are clearly inadmissible either for genera or species and have no place in a binominal system”. A few of the names have been validated as specific names by publication by later authors. For example, Stactogala Amyot (1 : 413, No. 468) was used by Fieber, 1866, Verhandl. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 16 : 5085, t. 7, fig. 19, in his new genus Opsius and is validated from that date as Opsius stactogalus Fieber.
3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to place the title of the following work on the Offical Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature :
Amyot (C.J.B.), 1845-1847, Entomologie Frangaise, Rhynchotes, Méthode Mononymique.
UTE EEE SEIS EES
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43
ARGYRODES SIMON, DIPOENURA SIMON, ROBERTUS O. PICKARD-
CAMBRIDGE AND THEONOE SIMON (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE) :
PROPOSED PRESERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1481
By Herbert W. Levi (Musewm of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.)
The principal purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to permit the accustomed usage of four genera of the spider family THERIDIIDAE : Argyrodes, Dipoenura, Robertus and Theonoe. A study of theridiid genera (in press) has revealed that usage of these names does not correspond with the strict application of the Rules.
1. Argyrodes Simon (1864, Histoire Naturelle des Araignées, (ed. 1) : 253), with type-species by tautonymy Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer (1841, Histoire Naturelle des Araignées 2 : 282), from southern Europe and North Africa, is preoccupied by Argyrodes Guenée (1845, Ann. Soc. ent. France (2) 3 : 322) (Lepidoptera) with the type-species by monotypy A. vinetella Fabricius.
Strand (1928, Arch. Naturgesch. 93 : 42) first noted the homonymy and proposed the name Argyrodina for Argyrodes Simon. In the 1940’s Conopistha Karsch (1881, Berliner Ent. Zeitschr. 25 : 39) with the type-species by original designation C. bonadea, from Japan, was recognized as a subjective synonym of Argyrodes Simon. For the last twenty years Conopistha has been generally used as the name for the genus. A revision of the American spiders of the genus (Exline and Levi, 1961, in press) and a study of all theridiid genera (Levi, 1961, in press) place both Ariamnes Thorell (1869, Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Uppsala (3) 7:37, new name for Ariadne Doleschall, 1857, Nat. Tiidschr. Nederland Ind. 13 : 410, preoccupied by two older homonyms) with type-species by monotypy A. flagellum Doleschall, and Rhomphaea L. Koch (1872, Die Arach- niden Australiens (1): 289) with the type-species by monotypy R. cometes L. Koch, 1872, as additional subjective synonyms of Argyrodes, both antedating Conopistha Karsch, 1881.
If we follow the Law of Priority, the genus should be called Ariamnes, a name previously used for a small group of rare tropical spiders. However, those who disagree with the synonymy may still consider Conopistha or Rhomphaea the generic name.
Others, like Bonnet (1955, Bibliographia Araneorum 2(1) : 704) continue to consider Argyrodes the correct name. Besides being the oldest name of this assemblage of species, Argyrodes is the type-genus of a name in the family group. Simon (1892, Histoire Naturelle des Araignées 1 : 496) divided the THERIDIIDAE into groups, one of which he called AaRGYRODEAE. Later authors (e.g. Petrunkevitch, 1928, Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci. 29 : 45) have inter- preted ARGYRODAE as a subfamily name, and have changed it to ARGYRODINAE. The family name, however, is no longer in use and I therefore do not
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
ask that it be placed on the Official List. Argyrodes contains about 70 American species, and probably 100-200 species in the tropics and subtropics of other parts of the world.
According to Prof. W. T. M. Forbes and Dr. E. G. Munroe, Argyrodes Guenée (type-species vinetella Fabr.) is a junior objective synonym of Eucarphia Huebner (1825, Verzeichnis bekannter Schemetterlinge (23) : 364), which contains three species with vinetella Fabricius as the type. Argyrodes Guenée is thus an objective synonym of Hucarphia, so the name is not available for a lepi- dopteran genus as proposed by Guenée.
The preservation of Argyrodes (spiders) through the suppression of Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) is thus advisable for 3 reasons :
(1) The continued widespread usage of Argyrodes in the aranean literature (e.g. Bonnet, 1955), owing to non-acceptance of the earlier senior homonym.
(2) The fact that the generic name is the basis of an available and currently used name of the family-group of names.
(3) The uncertainty of what replacement name for Argyrodes (spiders) to adopt, owing to disagreement among specialists as to the generic relation of the various generic names in the Argyrodes group.
All these difficulties would be removed at once if Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) were suppressed.
2. The problem of Dipoenura Simon (1908, Bull. Sci. France, Belgique 42:95) has been well stated by Bonnet (1956, Bibliographia Araneorum 2(2) : 1515):
Simon, en décrivant le genre Dipoenura (1908a, [Bull. sci. France, Belgique 42] p. 95) indique qu’il s’agit de son Dipoena Sect. B de 1894a, [Histoire Naturelle des Araignées, vol. 1] p. 568, qui comprenait les espéces pyramidalis, cyclosoides, etc. . . .; il indique d’autre part que pyramidalis est le type de ce nouveau genre. Or, en 1914, [Les Arachnides de France, vol. 6] p. 297, Simon, passe l’espéce pyramidalis dans le genre Theridium, et lui donne le nom de conigerum, a cause du Theridium pyramidale de L. Koch (1867).—D’autre part, Petrunkevitch, 1928b, [Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci., vol. 29] p. 117, n’ayant sans doute pas repéré cette espéce pyramidalis (décrite sous le nom d’Huryopis) attribue comme type au genre Dipoenura la premiére espéce nouvelle qui est décrite avec le genre, c’est-a-dire fimbriata. Je ne changerai pas cette désignation maintenant qu’elle est ainsi faite par Petrunkevitch, mais il eut été plus normal de prendre cyclosoides comme type, puisque cette espéce est la deuxiéme citée par Simon et qu’elle avait une plus grande ancienneté. Enfin, le fait que ce genre Dipoenura voit son espéce-type passer dans le genre Theridium devrait automatiquement entrainer la synonymie de ces deux genres ; cela n’est pas possible, les deux genres étant différents ; il faudrait alors créer un autre terme, mais il est preferable d’admettre que Simon s’était trompé dans le premier choix de l’espéce-type de Dipoenura. Dipoenura species are rare ; the name has been little used. Male and female
specimens are known of D. fimbriata from Tonkin, Southeast Asia. Two other species are known to belong to the genus, D. cyclosoides (Simon), from Sierra- Leone, West Africa, known only from females, and D. quadrifida Simon also
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 45
from Tonkin. No other generic names are available for these species.
Theridion pyramidale is known only from juvenile specimens. Their generic affinity is doubtful. It probably belongs to Achaearanea Strand, 1929.
If we were to accept the early type designation, 7’. pyramidale, the large genus Achaearanea Strand, 1929 (containing about 100 species, many common), would become a junior subjective synonym. In addition, since the type of T. pyramidale is only known from juveniles, the synonymy would remain doubtful until additional specimens of the type are found. Also D. cyclosoides Simon, D. fimbriata Simon and D. quadrifida would need a new generic name.
It is therefore requested that the Commission set aside the early type designation and designate D. fimbriata Simon as type.
3. B. J. Kaston (1946, Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1306 : 1) pointed out that Simon (1884, Avrachnides de France 5: 195) incorrectly rejected Ctenium Menge (1871, Schrift. Naturf. Gesell. Danzig 2 : 292), type Erigone pinguis Westring (=livida Blackwall), because he thought it preoccupied by Ctenia Lepeletier (1825, Encyclopedie M éthodique 10 : 650). Simon proposed the name Pedanostethus (1884, Arachnides de France 5 : 195) as replacement for Ctentum Menge. However, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge (1879, The Spiders of Dorset : 103), type R. astutus O. Pickard-Cambridge (= R. neglectus O. Pickard-Cambridge) was found to be a senior subjective synonym.
Between 1884 and 1911 Pedanostethus was generally used for the genus. From 1907 to the present time Robertus has been in use in Europe, until Kaston’s 1946 paper in North America.
At present Robertus is used by European authors. A. Holm, who has studied the genus, uses Robertus. Wiehle, a specialist in the THERIDIDAE published a short discussion on names indicating his preference for Robertus (1960, Zool. Jahrbiicher Syst. 88 : 237). Tullgren (1949, Ent. Tidskr. 70 : 60) has used Robertus and this name has been used by G. H. Locket and A. F. Millidge (1953, British Spiders, Roy. Soc., vol. 2). In the U.S. Ctenium has been used in Kaston’s revision (cited above) of North American species and in several regional lists.
Universality of use demands that one or the other name be used for the genus. Usage strongly favours Robertus. It is requested therefore that the Commission use its plenary powers to suppress Ctenium.
4. Theonoe Simon, (1881, Les Arachnides de France 5 : 130), type-species designated by Simon, 1894 (Histoire Naturelle des Araignées 1 : 589), Theonoe filiola Simon, 1881 (op. cit., 5: 131) includes several uncommon species. Although preoccupied by Theonoe Philippi, 1864 (Hemiptera) the name Theonoe has always been used for the genus except in Levi, 1955 (Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1718 : 3) where the homonymy was pointed out and the junior objective synonym Coressa Simon, 1894 was used.
A letter of inquiry to Dr. W. E. China, a specialist on Hemiptera, was answered as follows :
“ Theonoe spiniger Philippi, 1865, Analis de la Universidad de Chile,
Vol. 26, p. 654-5 is a nymph (immature stage) of a species of the genus
Leptoglossus Guérin, 1830, and is probably Leptoglossus chilensis Spinola,
Order Hemiptera, Suborder Heteroptera, Family Coreidae.
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
“Neave was wrong in his Nomenclator to attribute the name to the Coleoptera. The name T’heonoe has never been used in either Coleoptera or Hemiptera so that no trouble will be caused by suppressing it in favour of Theonoe Simon, 1881, Arachnida.
“It will be quite in order for you to make an application to the Commission through me, explaining the position and requesting the suppression of T’heonoe Philippi, 1865. Philippi himself states that it is probably a nymph and his name Theonoe, according to a footnote on p. 654, means a nymph. He likens his new species 7’. spiniger, which is type- species by monotypy of Z'heonoe Philippi, to Anisoscelis chilensis Spinola, but the species actually belongs to the allied genus Leptoglossus Guérin, 1830, not to Anisoscelis.. The specific name spiniger Philippi, 1865 (page 655) as published in the binomen T'heonoe spiniger is, and should be declared, a junior synonym of Leptoglossus chilensis Spinola.
“Until Theonoe Philippi, 1865 is suppressed it should be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Leptoglossus Guérin.”’
The Commission is herewith requested by exercise of its plenary powers to place the name Theonoe Philippi, 1865 (Hemiptera) on the Index of Rejected Generic Names and to place the name 7’heonoe Simon, 1881 (Araneae) on the Official List of Generic Names.
5. The International Commission is therefore asked :
(1) to use its plenary powers :
(a) to suppress the generic names Argyrodes Guenée, 1845, and Theonoe Philippi, 1865, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ;
(b) to suppress the generic name Cteniwm Menge, 1871, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy ;
(c) to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Dipoenura Simon, 1908, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Dipoenura fimbriata Simon, 1908, to be the type of that genus.
(2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology :
(a) Argyrodes Simon, 1864, type-species, by tautonymy, Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841 ;
(b) Dipoenura Simon, 1908, type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1)(c) above, Dipoenura fimbriata Simon, 1908 ;
(c) Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, 1879, type-species, by monotypy, Robertus astutus Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 ;
(d) Theonoe Simon, 1881, type-species, by designation by Simon, 1894, Theonoe filiola Simon, 1881 ;
(e) Hucarphia Hiibner, [1825], type-species, by designation by Ragonot, 1855, Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera).
(3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology :
——— et 5 a) ,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47
(a) argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, as published in the binomen Linyphia argyrodes (type-species of Argyrodes Simon, 1864) ;
(b) fimbriata Simon, 1908, as published in the binomen Dipoenura fimbriata (type-species of Dipoenura Simon, 1908) ;
(c) neglectus Pickard-Cambridge, 1871, as published in the binomen Neriene neglectus ;
(d) filiola Simon, 1881, as published in the binomen Theonoe filiola (type-species of T’heonoe Simon, 1881) ;
(e) vinetella Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Timea vinetella (type-species of Hucarphia Hiibner, [1825]) (Lepi- doptera).
(4) to place the following generic names as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :
(a) Argyrodes Guenée, 1845 ; (b) Ctentwm Menge, 1871 ;
(c) Theonoe Philippi, 1865.
APHIS LINNAEUS, 1758; ITS TYPE-SPECIES AND THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME DERIVED FROM IT. Z.N.(S.) 881
(see volume 18, pages 177-180)
It is regretted that in the article published under the above title in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, quotations are given from a preliminary draft application to the Commission prepared by Mr. H. L. G. Stroyan, and largely based on notes supplied by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers, overlooking the fact that these authors had intended to submit a definitive joint application at a later date. N. D. RILEY
COMMENT
By Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado State University, Department of Entomology, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.)
As to the proposals in items (1), (2) and (3) in paragraph 11 on page 180 concerning the type- species of the genus Aphis and placing the same on the Official List I fully approve.
Proposal in (4) : If usage is to be the major consideration and if Linnaeus’ apparent error can be followed then obviously APHIDIDAE should stand. I think usage is a serious consideration where a radical change is involved which causes confusion and frustration. The change here discussed seems hardly that radical and aPHIDAE is simpler and apparently just as accurately fulfils the linguistic requirements as does APHIDIDAE. With Grensted I prefer aPHIDAE.
I shall be glad to see this question settled whether it is decided my way or not.
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
SIGARA ATOMARIA ILLIGER, 1807 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1482
By T. Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland)
The purpose of the present application is to suppress a specific name which has not been used for over 60 years and which has generally been placed as a junior synonym of another well-established name. The latter opinion being, however, apparently insufficiently justified, the name proposed for suppression forms a possible menace to that well-established name.
2. In 1807, Illiger (Fauna Etrusca 2, iterum edita : 354) published the specific name atomaria for a new species of Sigara Fabricius, 1775 (=Coriza Geoffroy, 1762), in the following words: “In Algarvia species illis duabus [Coriza punctata (Illiger, 1807) and Sigara striata (Linnaeus, 1758)] intermedia occurit, quam Atomariam nuncupavimus.” This passage could be interpreted, from a formal point of view, as comprising a kind of rudimentary description of the species, the word “ intermedia ” referring in this case certainly to the body size. Thus, the specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, could not be taken for an indisputable nomen nudum and could be held to be available under Art. 12 of the Code. It is of some interest to note in this connection that in Sherborn, 1922-1932, Index Animalium 2, the specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, has been omitted altogether. As to the taxonomic meaning of the specific name atomaria, it is highly probable that its author applied it to the species known at present under the name Corixa affinis Leach, 1817.
3. The specific name affinis was published by Leach in 1817 (T'rans. linn. Soc. London 12(1) : 18) in the combination Corixa affinis, for a species from Plymouth, England, described by the author as new!.
4. The specific name atomaria was first published, accompanied by an unquestionable description, by Fieber, 1848 (Bull. Soc. Nat., Moscou, 21(1/2) : 512, 515-516, 537), in the combination Corisa atomaria, for a species occurring in Portugal, Italy, Sicily, Cyprus and Egypt. In this paper Fieber gave as the author of the specific name Germar, without quotation, however, of a corresponding publication of Germar. It seems that Germar has never used this name in print, at least not prior to 1848. In 1851 Fieber (Species gen. Corisa: 11, 15-16, 47, 48, pl. 1, fig. 5; also Abh. Konigl. bohm. Ges. Wiss. (5)7, 1852 : 223, 227-228, 259, 260, pl. 1, fig. 5) put” 1 o~ ortended descrip- tion of the species, adding drawings of the palae and agai. yuvung Germar as the author of the specific name atomaria. Only in 1861 [1860] did Fieber (Europ. Hemipt. : 92, 399, 425) correctly indicate Illiger as the author of the specific name, this time also, however, without a quotation of the original publication of 1807.
1. The date of publication of the paper of Leach in question is given usually as 1818, but the title-page of part 1 of vol. 12 of the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London bears the date 1817.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49
5. In 1865, Douglas & Scott (The British Hemiptera : 595-596) established that the specific name atomaria (Illiger) Fieber, 1848, is a subjective synonym of the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, here again, correctly indicating Illiger as the original author of the specific name atomaria but without mention of the original publication of the name.
6. Following Fieber the specific name atomaria has been used in several important publications by Puton (1869, Cat. Hémipt.-Hétéropt. Europe : 39 ; 1875, Cat. Hémipt. Europe (ed. 2): 54; 1880, Syn. Hémipt.-Hétéropt. France 3 : 221-222 ; 1886, Cat. Hémipt. faun. paléarct. (ed. 3) : 65) and by Saunders (1892, Hemipt. Heteropt. Brit. Is. : 331, 333-334). Puton and Saunders in the above publications both quoted Illiger as the author of the specific name atomaria, probably considering it, however, to be a manuscript name and assuming it to have been first published by Fieber in 1848 (cf. Kirkaldy, 1897, Entom. 30 : 259, 260).
7. In 1880 (op. cit. : 222) Puton also expressed the opinion that Corisa atomaria (Illiger) and Corisa panzeri Fieber, 1848 (op. cit.: 515, 537) were conspecific. This opinion was subsequently accepted by other authors (e.g. Saunders, 1892, op. cit.: 333), and in 1897, Kirkaldy (op. cit.: 259, 260) stated the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, to be the valid name of the species thus conceived. This view also found expression in the well-known catalogues published in that period by Puton (1899, Cat. Hémipt. faun. paléarct. (ed. 4) : 81) and by Oshanin (1906-1909, Verz. palaearkt. Hemipt. 1 : 979-980; 1912, Katal. paléarkt. Hemipt.:91) as well as in the key published by Kuhlgatz (1909, Rhynchota in Die Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands 7 : 87, 91, fig. 78) much in use at that time.
8. In 1927, Jaczewski (Pol. Pismo Ent., Lwow, 5 : 121-126, 4 figs.) following Butler (1923, A Biology of the Brit. Hemipt. Heteropt. : 574-577, 670-671) showed definitely that Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, and Corixa panzeri (Fieber, 1848) are two completely different species. This found general acceptance and since that time the former of the above two species is to be found in the hemipterological literature under the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, in particular in such modern standard works as Stichel, 1925-1938 (Jllustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der deutschen Wanzen:312, 313, 331, 364-365, figs. 732-735), Jordan, 1935 (in Gulde, Die Wanzen Mitteleuropas 12 : 97, 99, figs.), Macan, 1939 (A Key to the British Species of Corixidae, Freshwater Biol. Assoc., Sci. Publ. 1: 8, 22), China, 1943 (The Generic Names of British Insects (8): 282, 305), Stichel, 1955 (Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, II, Europa 1 : 52, 53, 98, figs. 60-63), Macan, 1956 (A Revised Key to the British Water Bugs, Fr. water Biol. Assoc., Sci. Publ. 16: 41, 65), Poisson, 1957 (Hétéro- pteres aquatiques, Faune de France 61 : 66, 70-71, fig. 42), Southwood & Leston, 1959 (Land and Water Bugs of the British Isles : 380, 382), etc. It should be recalled that Coriza affinis Leach is a species well known in zoo- geography as a typical Mediterranean species widely distributed over south and south-western Europe, north Africa and south-west Asia, ranging from the British Isles and the Canary Islands in the west to the Central Asiatic Republics of the USSR, Kashmir, Pakistan and Arabia in the east. Resuscitation of the long disused specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, which has a merely formal
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
and, in a sense, “ poor” availability, would, if allowed to supplant affinis Leach, cause only unnecessary confusion in nomenclature and would impair stability.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore
asked :
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name atomaria, Illhger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ;
(2) to place the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, as published in the binomen Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ;
(3) to place the specific name atomaria Illiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
The generic name Corixa Geoffroy, 1762, has already been placed on the
Official List in Opinion 281 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6, 1954 : 205-224).
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF EIGHT SPECIFIC NAMES OF TURTLES. Z.N.(S.) 1459
(see volume 18, pages 211-213) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)
The proposal is in every specific respect in accord with the objective of nomenclatural stability embraced by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It may be pointed out that every name that would otherwise be replaced is in wide use in zoology and not in taxonomy alone. Furthermore, failure of suppression of viridi-squamosa Lacépede, 1788, and minor Suckow, 1798, would not only require a substitute for kempii Garman, 1880, but that substitute would become the specific name for the Ridley turtle, long known as olivacea Eschscholtz, 1829, if as is common practice all forms of Lepidochelys are regarded as belonging to a single species.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807. .N.(S.) 1049
(see volume 18, pages 184-188) By R. K. Dell (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand)
I support the application by Dr. H. E. Vokes and Dr. L. R. Cox for the use of the plenary powers to place Panopea Ménard de la Groye, Cyrtodaria Reuss, Glycymeris Da Costa, Pectunculus Da Costa and Azinaea Poli on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and for the conse- quent placing of specific, generic and family names on appropriate Official Lists.
Both the name Panopea and Glycymeris are in common use by New Zealand workers in the sense used in the above application. Revival of the name Glycimeris Lamarck would cause untold confusion and should be avoided.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51
DROMIA WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA): PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1488
By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Ni atuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
When checking the nomenclatural status of the currently adopted names for Mediterranean Decapoda, it was found that in several instances these current names are unavailable nomenclaturally or should be used for taxa differing from those to which they are usually given. The first of these problems is dealt with here ; it concerns the generic name Dromia and the specific name of the only Dromiid crab which so far has been reported from the Mediterranean.
2. The generic name Dromia was introduced into carcinological literature by Weber (1795, Nomencl. entomol. : 92) who cited several species as belonging to this genus, viz., ‘“‘ Dromia Rumphii (C. Dromia F.) ”, D. “ artificiosa 8.”, D. “ australasiae (C. aegagropila F.)”, and D. “ Caput mortuum L.?”. Of these four species D. artificiosa is a nomen nudum and D. caputmortuum is only doubtfully referred to the genus by Weber. Therefore the type of Dromia Weber must be chosen from the two species D. Rumphii or D. australasiae. Since Weber cited the name Cancer Dromia F. as a synonym of D. Rumphii, that species becomes the type of the genus by tautonymy. Cancer dromia Fabricius, 1781 (Spec. Ins. 1 : 501) is an erroneous spelling of Cancer Dormia Linnaeus, 1763 (Amoen. Acad. 6 > 413). In 1775, Fabricius (Syst. ent. : 405) still used the correct spelling dormia for the specific name, but changed it in 1781 to dromia and consistently used the incorrect spelling afterwards. However this may be, there cannot be the least doubt that according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Cancer dormia Linnaeus, 1763, is the type- species of the genus Dromia Weber, 1795.
3. As has been pointed out by Rathbun (1923, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 36 : 65-70) the species Cancer dormia is based by Linnaeus on the figures of “Cancer Lanosus” of Rumphius (1705, Amboinsche Rariteitkamer - 19, pl. 11, fig. 1) and Seba (1761, Locuplet. Rerum Nat. Thesaur.3 : 42, pl. 18, fig. 1). Rathbun furthermore made it clear that the specimens of Rumphius and Seba do not belong to the genus Dromia as this is at present generally understood, but to the genus Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900 : 572). Rathbun thereupon used the name Dromidiopsis dormia (L.) for Linnaeus’s species, obviously without realizing that this species, being the type of the genus Dromia Weber, cannot be removed from it.
4. A strict application of the Code now necessitates (1) the transfer of the generic name Dromia to the genus Dromidiopsis so that Dromidiopsis falls as a junior synonym, (2) the introduction of a new name for the genus which so far has always been known as Dromia. The switching of a generic name
aN Se a SS Ee Bull. zool. Nomencel., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
from one well-known genus to another is something which should be avoided at all costs, and therefore the Commission is now asked to make use of its plenary powers to preserve the name Dromia in such a way that it can be used in the sense in which so far it has always been adopted. The simplest way to attain this end is to designate for it a proper type-species, which in this case is the Mediterranean Dromiid, which is best known as Dromia vulgaris H. Milne Edwards, 1837.
5. The correct name of this Mediterranean species also provides some complications. It is usually indicated as Dromia vulgaris H. Milne Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 173), but-as Rathbun (1919, Proc. biol. Soc. Washing- ton 32 : 197) pointed out, the name Cancer caput mortuum Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1050) was given by Linnaeus to the same species and has priority. Rathbun consequently indicated the Mediterranean species with the name Dromia caput mortuum (L.). As a result of this another Dromiid name had to be changed. H. Milne Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178), for example, described a new species of Indo-West Pacific Dromiid under the name Dromia caput mortuum ; this species was later placed in the genus Dromidiopsis and was known as Dromidiopsis caputmortuum (H. Milne Edwards). Rathbun (1919) replaced the preoccupied name caputmortuum H. Milne Edwards by a new name ; she gave the name Dromidiopsis edwardsi to the species.
6. In checking the early Linnean and post-Linnean literature we found that Cancer caputmortuum is not the first name given to the Mediterranean Dromiid. Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628), for example, described his Cancer personatus as follows :
C[ancer]. brachyurus, thorace hirto inaequali utrinque quinquedentato, rostro quadridentato. Planc. conch. 36. t. 5. f. 1. Habitat in M. Mediterraneo.
Testa magnitudine pomi, rubra, uti totum corpus hirta. Rostrum bidentatum cum dente ad utrumque latus breviore. Seta utrinque ad basin caudae. Pedes duo postici quasi supra reliquos collocati.
7. The specimen described and figured by Plancus (1739, De Conchis minus notis : 36, pl. 5, fig. 1) under the name “ Cancer hirsvtvs personatvs maris Svperi, vvlgo Facchino Ariminensibvs dictvs ” without any doubt is the species which at present is best known as Dorippe lanata (L., 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 1044). Linnaeus’s description of Cancer personatus, however, in no way fits Dorippe lanata, as that species has the body rather flat (so that a comparison with an apple would be senseless), and with only two instead of five teeth on the lateral margin. The description, on the contrary leaves no doubt that it actually is based on a specimen of Dromia, as in the Mediterranean Dromia the body is highly arched and indeed could well be compared with an apple, the lateral margins of the carapace bear five teeth, while also the description of the rostrum, the hairyness of the body and the situation of the legs fit extremely well. In the 12th edition of his Systema Naturae (1767) Linnaeus evidently realized that two species were mixed up under the name personatus and he erected the new Cancer lanatus to include Plancus’s species, and omitted the reference to Plancus in his description of Cancer personatus, to which he
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53
added a few more characters. For some reason or other the name personatus has been ignored by later authors.
8. As Linnaeus’s Cancer personatus is a composite species, it would be best to select as its lectotype the specimen on which Linnaeus based his actual description. This specimen, however, is no longer extant. In the Linnean Collection in Burlington House, London, there are several dried. and often broken specimens of Decapod Crustacea, which have no labels or other markings. During a vist to the collection in June 1956, Dr. Isabella Gordon and I found among these dried Decapoda two specimens of a Dromiid, which at first we thought might have possibly formed part of the type material of Cancer personatus. However, Dr. Gordon informed me later (in a letter dated 4 October 1957) that ‘“‘ according to Mr. Savage (who was for many years paid secretary to the Linnean Society, and very knowledgeable about every- thing belonging to the Society) these broken Decapods without any labels of any kind, are not part of Linnaeus’s material’’. Also in the collection of the Zoological Institute in Uppsala, Sweden, no material of Cancer personatus is found in the Linnean Collections (cf. Holm, 1957, Acta Univ. Upsal. 1957 (6) : 1-68). Therefore it must be assumed that no type material of Cancer personatus L. is in existence anymore. In order definitely to fix the identity of Linnaeus’s Cancer personatus it seems necessary to select a neotype for that species.
9. As the neotype of Cancer personatus Linnaeus (1758) I now select a male specimen with a carapace length of 51 mm. and a carapace breadth of 63 mm., of which a photograph is given here on plate 3. The carapace is globose with the regions clearly indicated and not too much obscured by the dense velvety pubescence which covers the entire body but for the extreme tips of the chelae and the walking legs. The front is tridentate with the median tooth on a much lower level [why it was overlooked by Linnaeus]. There is a small tooth on each orbital margin at the base of the front. The anterolateral teeth of the carapace are five in number (including the extra- orbital tooth) ; there is an angular lobe behind the third and a rounded lobe behind the fourth tooth. The endostomial ridges are not very distinct. The chelipeds bear each an epipodite. The pereiopods are smooth. The fourth and fifth legs are shorter than the other pereiopods and placed more dorsally ; they have a spine at the end of the propodus which forms a kind of subchela with the dactylus. The fifth leg is somewhat longer and more slender than the fourth.
10. The specimen selected here to be the neotype of Cancer personatus L. was collected on 13 August 1950 in the Bay of Cadaqués on the Mediterranean coast of N.E. Spain, by R. Zariquiey Alvarez and L. B. Holthuis. It now forms part of the collection of the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie at Leiden, under the Registered Number Crustacea D 5425. It is labelled as the neotype of Cancer personatus L. and apart from this indication the parch- ment label bears the correct name Dromia personata (L.) and the information concerning locality, date, collectors and registered number mentioned above.
11. The use of the name personatus for the Mediterranean Dromiid has the advantages that (1) it is the nomenclaturally correct name for the species,
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(2) being described in the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae it can never be replaced by an older name, (3) it does away with the ambiguous name caputmortuum which has been employed for two different species of Dromiidae. The fact that two different names (vulgaris and caputmortuwm) were currently used for the Mediterranean Dromiid makes it the more justifiable to switch to a third name. It seems best therefore to apply the Code here strictly.
12. As the generic name Dorippe Weber, 1795, has several times been referred to in the present proposal, it seems best to have this name placed on the Official List together with the name Dromia Weber. However, there exists a nomenclatural problem concerning this name. In 1763, for example, A. Vosmaer (Mém. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635-645, pl. 18) published a paper entitled “Mémoire sur un nouveau genre de Crabes de mer (Notogastropus), qui a des pattes sur le dos & sous le ventre’”’. The name Notogastropus is only used in the title and nowhere in the text. Vosmaer brought two forms to this “ genus ’’, the first was named by him “la premiére sorte ” the other “Je second crabe”’, no latin names being given. Vosmaer’s first species is Dorippe frascone (Herbst), the second Dorippe lanata (L.). The name Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, if an available name, thus would have to be used for the genus which is universally known as Dorippe Weber, 1795. Evidently most authors considered Vosmaer’s publication of Notogastropus to be not consistent with binominal nomenclature and therefore ignored it ; I know of not a single carcinologist who actually did adopt the name Noto- gastropus for this or any other genus. On the other hand, however, the name is listed in Neaves’s (1940) Nomenclator Zoologicus (8 : 354). Article 11(c)(i) of the Code states that ‘‘ Uninominal names published prior to 1931, in works that deal only with names above the species-group, are accepted as consistent with the principles of binominal nomenclature, in the absence of evidence to the contrary”’. Vosmaer not only dealt with a generic name, but he also mentioned specific names. The latter were not cited by him in binominal combinations, but were treated as uninominal names. Thus, in his text (:641) Vosmaer cited the Linnean species Cancer personatus and Cancer dorsipes as “le personatus”’ and “un dorsipes”’ respectively, not using binomina here. In citing other authors he on several occasions used uninomina (“le facchino ”’ : 639, 640, 645), binomina (“cancer hirsutus”’: 641; “cancer spinosus de Rumphius ” : 644) and polynomina (‘‘ Cancer hirsutus personatus maris superi, vulgo Facchino Ariminensibus dictus”’ : 639), but there is no indication that he accepted these names himself. As Vosmaer deals both with specific and generic names and since there is no indication whatever that he accepts the binominal system, his name Notogastropus according to Article 11 has to be rejected. This name should now be placed on the Official Index. In 1765 a Dutch translation of Vosmaer’s paper was published (Uitgez. Verh. Werken Soc. Weetensch. Europ. 10 : 119-135, pl. 64, figs. 1, 2) ; here the name of the “genus” is written Noto-gastropus. Also this name should be placed on the Index.
13. The type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793, is usually cited as Dorippe dorsipes (L.). This practice, however, cannot be tolerated, It was Miers (1884, Rep. zool. Coll. Alert : 257)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55
who pointed out that the species described as Cancer dorsipes by Linnaeus (1764, Mus. Ludov. Ulr. : 452) is identical with Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793. Miers consequently substituted Linnaeus’s specific name for that of Fabricius and named the species Dorippe dorsipes (L.). In his 1764 book, however, Linnaeus did not describe a new species, but referred the material of which he gave a short account to his old species Cancer dorsipes L., 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630). Cancer dorsipes L., 1758, is based on a figure from Rumphius’s Amboinsche Rariteitkamer (1705 : pl. 10, fig. 3) and on a copy of that figure published by Petiver (1713, Aquat. Anim. Amboinae : pl. 6, fig. 2). Rumphius’s specimen thus is the holotype of Linnaeus’s (1758) Cancer dorsipes (or, in case Linnaeus had additional material which he referred to that species, it is made here the lectotype). As is clearly shown by Rumphius’s figure, this specimen belongs to the species of Raninid crabs, which at present is generally known as Notopus dorsipes (L., 1758). There can therefore be not the slightest doubt as to the fact that the specific name dorsipes L. cannot be used for the species of Dorippe : either Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1764, is not a new name and thus belongs to the species of Notopus, or it is a new name and then falls as a junior homonym of Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758. As Miers (1884, Rep. zool. Coll. Alert: 257) correctly pointed out, the name Cancer frascone Herbst (1785) is a subjective synonym of and has priority over Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793. The type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, 1795, thus should be known as Dorippe frascone (Herbst, 1785).
14. Dromia is the type-genus of the family DRommDAE, while Dorippe is the type-genus of the family DoRrPPIDAE. Both family names should now be entered in the Official List. The genus Notopus De Haan, 1841, which now also is proposed for insertion in the Official List, is currently regarded as belonging to the family RANINIDAE.
15. The concrete proposals now placed before the Commission are that they should :
(1) use their plenary powers :
(a) to set aside all type designations and selections for the genus Dromia Weber, 1795, made prior to the proposed ruling ; and having done so
(b) to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype selection made in the present application ;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following
names :
(a) Dorippe (gender: feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 93 (type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gén. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 96, 422): Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 464 (a subjective junior synonym of the name Cancer frascone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 192) ; :
(b) Dromia (gender: feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 92 (type-species, designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above: Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628) ;
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
(c) Dromidiopsis (gender: feminine) Borradaile, 1900, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1900: 572 (type-species, by monotypy: Dromiaaustraliensis Haswell, 1882, Proc. linn. Soc. New S. Wales 6(4) : 755) ;
(d) Notopus (gender: masculine) De Haan, 1841, Fauna Japon. Crust. (5): 137, 138, 139 (type-species, by monotypy : Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630) ;
(3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names :
(a) australiensis Haswell, 1882, as published in the combination Dromia australiensis (name of the type-species of the genus Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900) ;
(b) dormia Linnaeus, 1763, Amoenit. Acad. 6 : 413, as published in the combination Cancer dormia ;
(c) dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer dorsipes (name of the type-species of the genus Notopus De Haan, 1841) ;
(d) frascone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 192, as published in the combination Cancer frascone (oldest available name for the type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, 1795) ;
(ec) lanatus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1044, as published in the combination Cancer lanatus ;
(f) personatus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer personatus (the name of the type-species of the genus Dromia Weber, 1795, as designated under the plenary powers in (1)(b) above) ;
(4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names :
(a) DORIPPIDAE (emendation by White, 1847 (List. Crust. Brit. Mus. : 53) of portpPrpEA) De Haan, 1841, Fawna Japon. Crust. (5) : 120 (type-genus : Dorippe Weber, 1795) ;
(b) DROMIIDAE (emendation by Ortmann, 1892 (Zool. Jb. Syst. 6 : 543) of prom1acEA) De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1) : ix (type-genus : Dromia Weber, 1795) ;
(5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology the following names :
(a) Dorippe Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.:322, 361 (a junior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Dorippe Weber, 1795) ;
(b) Dromia Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: 320, 359 (a junior homonym of Dromia Weber, 1795) ;
(c) Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, Mém. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635 (a name published in a non-binominal work) ;
(da) Noto-gastropus Vosmaer, 1765, Uitgez. Verh. Werken Soc. Weetensch. Europ. 10 : 119 (a name published in a non-binominal work) ;
(6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in
Zoology the following names :
Bull. zool. Nomenel., Vol. 19 Plate 3
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57
(a) caputmortuum H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178, as published in the combination Dromia caputmortuum (an invalid junior secondary homonym of caputmortuum Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1050, as published in the combina- tion Cancer caputmortuum ; rejected on grounds of homonymy by Rathbun, 1919, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 32 : 197) ;
(b) dromia Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 501, as published in the combination Cancer dromia (an erroneous spelling of the name dormia Linnaeus, 1763, Amoenit. Acad. 6 : 413, as published in the combination Cancer dormia) ;
(7) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names :
(a) DORIPPIDEA De Haan, 1841 (an incorrect original spelling of DORIPPIDAE) ;
(b) DortpPrENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 151 (a vernacular (French) name) ;
(c) DROMIACEA De Haan, 1833 (an incorrect original spelling of DRoMI- IDAE) ;
(d) pRomiENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 168 (a vernacular (French) name).
Explanation of Plate 3 Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758
Neotype designated by Holthuis (L.B.) in the application submitted by him to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (: 51-57) in the present volume. Photograph H. F. Roman.
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
PARTHENOPE FABRICIUS, 1798, AND LAMBRUS LEACH, 1815;
PROPOSED VALIDATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF PARTHENOPE
WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1487
By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
Like several previous applications, the present one is concerned with a serious confusion in carcinological nomenclature caused by the rediscovery of F. Weber’s (1795) booklet ‘‘ Nomenclator entomologicus secundum Ento- mologiam systematicam ill. Fabricii adjectis speciebus recens detectis et varietatibus ”, by M. J. Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 169- 172). In his book Weber published several generic names which he took from the, at that time, unpublished manuscript of Fabricius’s Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae, which did not appear till 1798. As these generic names in many instances were accompanied in Weber’s book by the names of described species, they gained availability through their publication by Weber. As Weber often included in these genera species different from those which were later placed in them by Fabricius, several very intricate and confusing cases of homonymy and synonymy arose. The names proposed by Fabricius for example have been generally adopted by later authors, while the older names of Weber have been entirely ignored. Weber’s names, being either senior homo- nyms or senior synonyms of those of Fabricius, invalidated the latter in many instances (e.g., Alpheus, Ligia, Idotea, Euryala, Crangon). Also the name Parthenope falls in this category. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to use their plenary powers to validate the more commonly used name.
2. The references to the generic names dealt with in the present proposal are : Lambrus Leach, 1815, Trans. linn. Soc. Lond.11 : 310. Gender: masculine. Type-species, by monotypy: Cancer longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629.
Parthenope Weber, 1795, Nomencel. entomol. : 92. Gender : feminine. Type- species, selected by Rathbun, 1904 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 170, 171) : Cancer longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629.
Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 315, 352. Gender : feminine. Type-species, selected by H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Cuvier’s Régne Animal (Discip. ed.) 18 : pl. 26, fig. 2: Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629.
Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904, Proc. biol Soc. Washington 17: 171. Gender : feminine. Type-species, by monotypy: Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.10) 1 : 629.
3. Before 1904 the name Parthenope Fabricius was always employed for the genus containing the species Cancer horridus L., while the genus containing C. longimanus L. was indicated by the name Lambrus Leach. As at the time of its original publication the genus Parthenope Weber, 1795, did not include
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 59
the species Cancer horridus L., that species could not become its type and it could not be made a synonym of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798. Rathbun’s (1904) action in selecting Cancer longimanus L. to be the type of Parthenope Weber therefore was perfectly justified. Now, however, Parthenope Weber, 1795, invalidated both Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815, by becoming a senior homonym of the one and a senior synonym of the other. Rathbun (1904) proposed the new name Daldorfia as a replacement name for Parthenope Fabricius.
4. Practically all European authors ignored the changes proposed by Miss Rathbun and they continued to use the names Parthenope Fabricius and Lambrus Leach in the old sense. These names are still used, and may be found in all monographic accounts dealing with the Brachyura of European, African and Indo-West Pacific seas, like that by Bouvier (1940, Faune de France 37 : 308-314) for the French coast, by Nobre (1936, Fauna marinha Portugal 4 : 84-86) for Portugal, by Zariquiey Alvarez (1946, Publ. Biol. Medit. Inst. Esp. Est. Medit. 2 : 166-168) for the Mediterranean coast of Spain, by Monod (1956, Mem. Inst. Franc. Afr. Noire 45 : 57 1-597) for West Africa, by Barnard (1950, Ann. S.Afr. Mus. 38 : 63-66) for S. Africa, by Flipse (1930, Siboga Exped. 39(c2) : 1-96) for the entire Indo-West Pacific area, by Stephensen (1945, Danish sci. Invest. Iran 4: 111-113) for the Persian Gulf, by Sakai (1938, Studies Crabs Japan 3 : 328-341) for Japan, and Shen (1932, Zool. Sinica (ser. A) 9(1) : 41-45) for N. China, while also Balss (1957, Bronn’s Klass. Ordn. Tierr. (ed. 2) 5(1)(7)(12) : 1629-1631) used these names in his fundamental treatise on the Decapoda. These authors are followed by practic- ally all non-American authors who studied the crabs of the regions mentioned, though there are exceptions (e.g., Sendler, 1923, Abh. Senckenb. naturf. Ges. 38 : 41; Urita, 1926, Checklist Brachyura Kagoshima : 29 : Buitendijk, 1939, Temminckia 4 : 265,266). The names Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904, and Parthenope Weber, 1795, are used by most American authors, notably by Rathbun (1925, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 129 : 510-530) in her monograph on the Spider Crabs of America, and Garth (1958, Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped. 21(1) : 432-458) in his fundamental revision of the Brachyura Oxyrhyncha of the Pacific coast of America. Also the American authors dealing with the Indo-West Pacific fauna, like Rathbun and Edmondson in several publications, used the “American ” nomenclature.
5. Though the “American” nomenclature has been adopted throughout in the literature dealing with the American fauna and is also used in publications on the Indo-West Pacific fauna by American and a few European authors, there can be little doubt that the literature using the “ European ’’ nomen- clature is far more extensive, even if only the literature published since 1904 is taken into account. This is perhaps due to the fact that in European and Indo-West Pacific seas the species of PARTHENOPIDAE are more common and more easy to collect than in American waters.
6. Notwithstanding the fact that it does not seem right to let those carcino- logists who kept strictly to the Rules pay the penalty for obeying the law, I believe that it is in the interest of the stability and uniformity of carcino- logical nomenclature to ask the Commission to suppress under their plenary
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
powers the generic name Parthenope Weber, 1795, and so to make the “ Euro- pean ’’ nomenclature the legal one.
7. Both genera dealt with here are currently considered to belong to the family PARTHENOPIDAE. It is suggested that this family name be placed on the appropriate Official List.
8. The Commission is now asked to:—
(1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Law of
Priority and that of Homonymy the generic name Parthenope Weber, 1795;
(2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following
names : (a) Lambrus Leach, 1815 ; (b) Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 ;
(3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names :
(a) horridus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer horridus (the name of the type-species of the genus Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) ;
(b) longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer longimanus (the name of the type-species of the genus Lambrus Leach, 1815) ;
(4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family name PARTHENOPIDAE (correction by Bell (1844, Hist. Brit. stalk-eyed Crust. (1) : 45, 46) of PARTHENOPINA) Macleay, 1838, Smith’s Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert) : 55. (Type-genus Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) ;
(5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names :
(a) Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 (an objective junior synonym of Parthe- nope Fabricius, 1798) ;
(b) Parthenope Weber, 1795 (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above).
(6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PARTHENOPINA Macleay, 1838 (type- genus: Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) an Invalid Original Spelling for PARTHENOPIDAE).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61
EURYALA WEBER, 1795, AND CORYSTES LATREILLE, [1802- 1803] (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA); PROPOSED ACTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.) 1486
By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to use its plenary powers in order to save the well-known and widely used name Corystes Latreille for a European genus of crabs by suppressing its senior objective synonym Euryala Weber, an ignored name. The references to the two genera are :
Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3:27. Gender : masculine. Type-species, by monotypy: Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 2: 475 (an objective junior synonym of Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4)4 : 6).
Euryala Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol.:94. Gender: feminine. Type- species, by monotypy : Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 2 : 475 (an objective junior synonym of Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 6).
2. The monotypic genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], which inhabits the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts of Europe south of the Kattegat, should under a strict application of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature be known as Huryala Weber, 1795. The two genera have the same type-species and thus are objectively synonymous. The first author who pointed out that Huryala is the correct name for the genus was Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17: 171) who in her well-known paper “Some changes in Crustacean Nomenclature ”’ reintroduced several of Weber’s Crustacean generic names which until then had been overlooked, and which upon this rediscovery became the cause of much nomenclatural instability.
3. Though there could be no doubt about the fact that Huryala is the valid name for the genus, the European carcinologists refused to accept it and until this day continue to indicate the genus with the name Corystes. Thus, Bouvier (1940, Faune de France 37 : 217) in his important treatise on the French Decapoda Reptantia mentioned Luryala as a synonym of Corystes, but used the latter name. Balss (1957, Bronn’s Klass. Ordn. Tierr. (ed. 2) 5(1)(7)(12) : 1634) in his fundamental account of the Decapoda stated under Corystes : “ der von Rathbun, 1930 ausgegrabene Name Huryala Weber, 1795 wird besser nicht verwendet ’’. These two examples illustrate very well the feeling about this name among European carcinologists ; I do not know of any European handbook in which the name Luryala is used.
4. As the genus does not occur in American waters, and as the followers of Rathbun as a rule were mostly found among American carcinologists, the name Huryala has hardly ever been used in carcinological literature. The
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
family name based on this genus, EURYALIDAE, is found more often as this family does occur in America. So in her important monograph of the Cancroid Crabs of America, Rathbun (1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 152 : 10) did use the name EURYALIDAE, being followed in this by American authors. In European literature, however, the name CorysTIDAE is practically unanimously accepted. 5. There can be no doubt that usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the name Corystes, this name having been used now practically consistently for more than 150 years, while Huryala has hardly ever been employed at all, notwithstanding it is now about 50 years since its validity was demonstrated. Therefore it is clearly in the interest of nomenclatorial stability to have the name Corystes validated under the plenary powers of the Commission, even though the species has no economic value and is not important for applied biology. The suppression of the name Huryala will not cause any complications.
6. In the original description of Hippa dentata, the type-species of both
Corystes and Euryala, Fabricius (1793) gave a rather vague description and a reference to Pennant’s Cancer cassivelaunus. As the identity of the material that Fabricius had before him cannot be positively determined (if it actually does originate from the Indo-West Pacific area as may be implied from the original account, it may be no Corystes at all), I now select as lectotype of Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, the male specimen figured by Pennant (1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) : pl. 7 lower figure) under the name Cancer cassivelaunus. This same specimen is now also selected to be the lectotype of Cancer cassive- launus Pennant, 1777. By these actions Hippa dentata Fabr., 1793, and Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, become objectively synonymous.
7. Summarizing, the Commission is now asked :
(1) to use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic name Huryala Weber, 1795 ;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] ;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Cancer cassivelaunus (name of the type-species of the genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803}) ;
(4) to place on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology the name CORYSTIDAE Samouelle, 1819, Entomol. usef. Compend.: 82 (type- genus: Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803]) ;
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Euryala Weber, 1795, as suppressed in (1) above ;
(6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name dentata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the com- bination Hippa dentata (an objective junior synonym of cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, as published in the combination Cancer cassivelaunus) ;
(7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology the name EURYALIDAE Rathbun, 1910, Proc. US. Nat. Mus. 38 :576. Type-genus Euryala Weber, 1795 (a genus placed on the Official Index in (5) above).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63
CERATIOCARIS M’COY, 1849 (CRUSTACEA, ARCHAEOSTRACA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES. Z.N.(S.) 1489
By W. D. Ian Rolfe (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U JS.A.)
The object of the present application is to request that the nominal genus Ceratiocaris (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and to insure the suppression of the nominal genus Leptocheles in accordance with the Principle of the First Reviser.
2. The nominal genus Ceratiocaris was established by M’Coy in 1849 (: 412) for the carapace of two nominal species : C. solenoides and C. ellipticus.
3. Earlier in the same paper (: 344) M’Coy established a nominal subgenus Leptocheles of the genus Pterygotus Agassiz for what he considered to be the “didactyle pincers ” of a separate crustacean.
4. Barrande (1853: 341-342) demonstrated that these “ pincers ’’ were only the trifid tailpiece of Ceratiocaris and that it was therefore legitimate “den Namen Leptocheles als liberfliissig ansehen ”’.
5. In accordance with Article 28 and with the Principle of the First Reviser (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67, Decisions 123-124), there- fore, it is clear that Ceratioggris as selected by Barrande stands in preference to Leptocheles which has page precedence.
6. With the few exceptions listed by Van Straelen and Schmitz (1934 : 244), Barrande’s selection has led to universal acceptance of the genus Ceratiocaris, and it is proposed that this name be placed on the Official List.
7. The family name cERATIOCcARIDAE based on Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849, was formed incorrectly by Salter (1860 : 162) and should be corrected to CERATIOCARIDIDAE.
8. In view of the above facts, I recommend that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature :
(1) place the generic name Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (gender : feminine), type by subsequent designation by Miller, 1889 (: 537), Ceratiocaris solenoides M’Coy, 1849 (to be given precedence over Leptocheles M’Coy, 1849, by the action of Barrande, 1853, as First Reviser) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ;
(2) place the specific name solenoides M’Coy, 1849, as published in the binomen Ceratiocaris solenoides (type-species of Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) (holotype in Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge=b/41) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :
(3) place the family name CERATIOCARIDIDAE (correction of CERATIOCARIDAE) Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ;
(4) place the family name CERATIOCARIDAE Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratio- carts M’Coy, 1849) (an invalid original spelling for CERATIOCARIDIDAE) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology.
Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962.
~
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
REFERENCES
Barrande, J., 1853, Wiederholung der Silur-Fauna Béhmens in Wisconsin und New York nach D. D. Owen und J. Hall ; iber Dithyocaris m.1. Hlzschn. N. Jahrb. Min. Geol. Paldont., Jahrg. 1853 : 335-347.
M’Coy, F., 1849. On the classification of some British Fossil Crustacea, with Notices of new Forms in the University Collection at Cambridge. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2)4 : 161-179, 392-414.
Miller, S. A., 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students and scientists. Cincinnati.
Salter, J. W., 1860. On new Fossil Crustacea from the Silurian Rocks. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 5 : 153-162.
Van Straelen, V., and Schmitz, G., 1934. Crustacea Phyllocarida (= Archae- ostraca). Fossiliwum Catalogus, 1: Animalia, pars. 64
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CICADELLA LATREILLE, 1817. Z.N.(S.) 457
(see volume 18, pages 163-167) By W. J. Le Quesne (Chesham, Bucks., England).
The case of Cicadella is complex. A number of taxonomic works have appeared using it in different senses over the past 20 years—here are some examples :— Cicadella = Tettigella: Ribaut, 1952. Cicadella = EBupteryx: Evans, 1947 ; Oman, 1949 (Beirne, 1956) ; Ossiannilsson, 1946 ; Kloet & Hincks, 1945 ; China, 1950; Esaki & Ito, 1954 ; Lindberg, 1947 ; Medler, 1942 ; Dlabola, 1954. This selection of general works and check lists which came to hand suggests that Wagner’s publication in Bombus (1950) has been followed by Ribaut, while three other authors in the last decade have kept the name Teftigella (or the derived subfamily name). After reading all the facts of this very confused case and some consideration, I feel that the unfortunate lapse of 11 years between Wagner’s original application and the present have strengthened the case for retaining Cicadella Duméril, 1806, with picta Fabricius, 1794 (=atropunctata Goeze, 1778) as the type-species. This course, I think, will cause the less confusion.
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF ANJLIUS OKEN, 1815. Z.N.(S.) 1046
(see volume 18, pages 181-183) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of IUinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.)
The survey of herpetozoan names in Oken, 1816, is a valuable contribution to taxonomy. Since Anilius has been used almost without exception since Stejneger, 1907, for the snake known previously as Jlysia, and since the literature using J/ysia is not of such magnitude or variety as to be confusing, it is clearly in the interest of nomenclatural stability to preserve the name Anilius as applied for the past half century.
. 2 FEB 1962 a hy wy
~ he, EY of td Y y ; ca xy; SOM ate > ins —.
INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman: The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director: Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Scientific Controller: W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc.
B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte
CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper)
New applications
Page Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ; ern validation under the plenary powers (W. E. China) ? 3 : Brisson, 1760 ‘‘ Ornithologie ” ; Proposed restriction of validation 4 granted under the plenary eval to certain pal of that ; work (Francis Hemming) 9
Family-group names in Heteroptera East for the Official List and Official Index (Insecta, Hemiptera) (T. Jaczewski) we 15
Eight dubious nominal species of birds; Proposed use of the plenary powers to place these names on the Official Index (Ernst Mayr) ave oa 2 “ 23
Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 Risamiuieneyt aaa deat of a type-species under the Beary penis ee A. ae Aen and. T. Barnard) 27
Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers together with the validation of two nominal species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. siphiaia te 1827 (D. T. Donovan and C. W. Wright) thes 35
Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884 ; Proposed gir cae under the plenary powers (C. A. Wright) bie 39
Amyot, Méthode Mononymique ; Request for a Direction that this work be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (Wolfgang Stichel)... ae 42
CONTENTS (continued from inside back wrapper)
Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus O. Pickard-Cambridge, and T’heonoe Simon (Arachnida, Araneae) ; Proposed eee tion under the plenary powers (Herbert W. Levi) eet
Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Heteroptera) ; iierin suppression under the plenary powers (T. Jaczewski) ..
Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) ...
Proposed validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815, by suppression of Parthenope Weber, 1795, under the plenary powers (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) ..
Proposed suppression of Huryala Weber, 1795, and validation of Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] under the aaaeete — (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) ..
Ceratiocaris M’Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, Rea ence : geen addition to the Official List of Generic Names ae ae D. Ian Rolfe) Bie
Comments
Comments on the proposed validation of Pei ae 1844 (S. Dillon Ripley, Salim Ali)...
Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Corvus benghalensis Linnaeus, 1758 (Krishna Kant Tiwari)
Comment on the proposed suppression of Dera at ens dubia Rathke, 1863 (Hobart M. Smith) EN
Comments on the proposed suppression of Salamandra RE Rafinesque, 1818 (James E. Huheey, Hobart M. Smith)
Comments on the proposed validation of Myelophilus Hichhoff under the plenary powers (F. G. Browne, J. T. Wiebes) aS
Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 ; Its type-species and the Sole name derived from it (Editorial Note ; Miriam A. Palmer) .
Comment on the proposed suppression of mane spe names of Turtles (Hobart M. Smith) +t
Comment on the proposed validation of Poms, Ménard de la Groye (R. K. Dell) a
Comment on the proposed validation of Cicadella “Latell 1817 (W. J. Le Quesne) : oe
Comment on the proposed validation of Anilius Oken, 1815 (Hobart M. Smith) - ;
© 1962. THe INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Printed in England by MeTCALFeE & Cooper LimiTeD, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC2
58
61
63
a eee a ee a ae ee
os. —
Volume 19. Part 2. 23th March, 1962 pp. 65-128, 1 pl.
“le 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 of voting by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature on applications ra in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature a 65
. Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on we Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 65
(continued inside back wrapper) 10 APR 1962
LONDON : PURCHASED
Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature
i and
We Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
* Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
‘ 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1
Re 1962
hi Price Three Pounds
tet (All rights reserved)
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
A. The Officers of the Commission
President: Professor James Chester Brapitey (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August, 1953) }
Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMarat (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953)
Secretary: Mr. N. D. Ritey (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958)
Assistant Secretary: Dr. W. E. Curna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7)
B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)
Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amara (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President)
Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 -August 1953) (President)
Professor Harold E. Voxxs (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953)
Dr. Norman R. Sroxu (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953)
go 7% Hotruvis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August
Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954)
Dr. Alden H. Minter (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California,
U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) er na Ferdinand Pranti (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) {30 October 54)
Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kiiuneur (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954)
Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954)
Professor Enrico TorTONESE (Museo di Storia Naturaie “G. Doria”, Genova, Italy) (16 December
~ 1954) 5
Dr. Per. Brrncx (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958)
Dr. Max Pott (Musée Royal del’ Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958)
Professor H. Boscuma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958)
Mr. Francis Hemmune (London, England) (23 July 1958)
Dr. Henning Lemcue (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958)
Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958)
Mr. Norman Denbigh Ritzy (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary)
Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaozewsxi (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958)
Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museuwm u. Forschwngs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958)
Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herre (Zoologisches Musewm der Humboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958)
Dr. D. V. Osrvcuev (Palacontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow. B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958)
Professor Tohru Ucurpa (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959)
Professor Dr. Rafael Atvarapo (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960)
Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960)
ae G. ea Canadian Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada)
une 1
De N.S. Donets (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.S.R.)
(28 September 1961)
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 19, Part 2 (pp. 65-128) 23th March, 1962
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) Designation of a type-species for Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (Pisces).
Z.N.(S.) 920. (2) Suppression of W. G. Tilesius von Tilenau, 1814-1818, ‘‘ Ueber das nachtliche Leuchten des Meerwassers”’; validation of several
emendations ; designation of a type-species for Metapenaeus Wood- Mason, 1891; suppression of Mangalura Miers, 1878 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 962.
(3) Validation of xENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1483.
(4) Designation of a type-species for Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1491.
(5) Validation of Quinqueloculina d’Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 1494,
(6) Designation of a type-species for Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1495.
c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, 8.W.7, England. International Commission on 10 January 1962. Zoological Nomenclature
{% . r ",
> 7 een0S) «10 APR 1962
NI? «af SUR ie) es SAL Ao
PURCHASED
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILIZE THE GENERIC NAMES CARCHARHINUS BLAINVILLE, 1816, CARCHARODON SMITH, 1838, AND ODONTASPIS AGASSIZ, 1838. Z.N.(S.) 920
(see volume 18, pages 273-280) By E. Tortonese (Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy)
(1) It does not seem necessary to suppress the name Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, repealing the ruling given in Opinion 47. Carcharias Raf. is clearly a synonym of the later Odontaspis L. Agassiz, 1838, and has been largely used in the modern literature. It is found in Bigelow-Schroeder’s book on Selachians (Fishes W.N. Atlantic), which surely is, and will be for a long time, of basic importance. As everybody knows, the name Carcharias has been the subject of many discussions, until it was agreed that it must be applied to the “‘ sand shark ” and its allies. It would be now rather surprising to have it suppressed and to see once more changed the name of such well-known sharks. The preservation of the name CARCHARIIDAE is involved of course.
(2) I fully agree that the name Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, must be preserved and have a definite type. Carcharias milberti Miiller-Henle, 1839, is a good choice, but it must be pointed out that this name is a synonym of Squalus plumbeus Nardo, 1827 (see: E. Tortonese, Boll, Pesca, etc. Rome, X XVI, V, 1, 1950, p.11—E. Tortonese, Doriana, Genoa, I, 20, 1951, p.3). In the first of these papers, I made the proposal that plumbeus would become the type-species of Carcharhinus. It is regrettable that no type-specimen of Squalus plumbeus is in existence, as far as I know. Perhaps it would be preferable to have as type of the genus a valid species, instead of a synonym as milberti is.
No objections, in my opinion, are to be made concerning the name Carcharodon, Prionace, etc. as dealt with in the paper quoted above.
By E. I. White and N. B. Marshall
Professor Tortonese seems to us to have missed the main point in the matter of the replace- ment of Carcharias Rafinesque by Odontaspis Agassiz.
Until Opinion 47 was published in 1912 Odontaspis was, so far as we know, universally used for over 70 years for the sand-sharks, and Carcharias for the carcharinids, and no confusion between the two groups was possible. After this ruling Odontaspis was replaced by Carcharias by the few Recent zoologists, who have had to deal with only two accepted species, O. ferox and O. taurus, and four rare or doubtful species; but with negligible exceptions Odontaspis has always been used by palaeontologists for the 50 or more fossil species which are repeatedly referred to in the geological literature, both palaeontological and stratigraphical, Carcharias or Carcharinus being generally used for the 40 extinct species of carcharinids.
As it is, readers must know the date of the identification (i.e., before or after 1912), when the name Carcharias is mentioned, before they know to which group of sharks reference is being made. This may not be unduly difficult for Recent zoologists with so few species of living sand-sharks involved ; but for palaeontologists dealing with over 50 species constantly quoted in geological literature, the situation would be intolerable. Such a ruling would doubtless be ignored as it has been in the past. That Bigelow and Schroeder (1948, p.98) have used Carcharias instead of Odontaspis for one species, C. tawrus, cannot be accepted as a factor of importance.
Further, we would point out that Opinion 47 is partly based on an error, since it clearly states that Carcharias taurus is the type of Odontaspis Agassiz, which it is not—C. ferox is ; Bigelow and Schroeder (idem.) make the opposite mistake in regard to Trriglochis Miller and Henle, of which the type is C. taurus.
Opinion 47 was one of the most deplorable rulings of the Commission from the palaeontolo- gists’ point of view, and if followed would cause endless confusion. It was regretted even by its authors.
Finally, Professor Tortonese remarks that the preservation of the family name “‘Carchariidae” isinvolved. The removal of this equivocal name from the Official List of Family Names, used for about a century for carcharinids and since 1912 by some zoologists for odontaspids, is urgent.
By Wolfgang Schmidt (G@eologisches Landesamt Nordrhein- Westfalen)
In a proposal by White, Tucker and Marshall there is a demand to re-establish Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838, as a name for the sand-shark, and to do away with the ambiguity that the use of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, produces.
I feel that this proposal is very useful. In the geological literature Odontaspis has been univer- sally used almost without exception even to the present day. Therefore I support this proposal.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67
By H. A. Toombs (British Museum (Natural History), London)
The stabilization of the generic name Odontaspis Agassiz is very desirable, not only for the palaeontologist and curator, but also for the stratigrapher. The teeth of sharks of this genus are the commonest vertebrate fossils brought to the Museum for identification and the name has appeared in almost every faunal list of marine Caenozoic fossils published in the past hundred years. The suppression of the generic name Carcharias Rafinesque would not cause comparable inconvenience to zoologists since there are so very few recent species.
So little seems to be known about the relationships of the Atlantic forms of Carcharinus to those of the Australian region that it might be as well to ignore Pterolamiops (and Lulamia) at present and be content with defining Carcharinus and its type-species.
By Wilhelm Weiler (Worms/Rh., Germany)
In this case the rigorous application of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is not to be recommended. The consequences would be disadvantageous because in the geological and palaeontological literature Odontaspis has been universally used even to the present day instead of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809. Therefore I recommend energetically the proposal of Messrs. White, Tucker, and Marshall, to avoid complications and confusions in the future.
By E. M. Casier (Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles 4)
Ayant pris connaissance de la récente note de MM. E. I. White, D. W. Tucker et N. B. Marshall, je me permets de vous faire savoir que je souscris pleinement aux arguments exposés par ces auteurs en faveur de choix du terme générique Odontaspis de préférence & Carcharias qui a beaucoup contribué a jeter la confusion. Le premier terme est adopté par la q