AFR N ey SR Gti Ry Sth OR SE Say. yay
FSAI SS
as
Keg RANE ese
are Ree State Senate Ta :
Pek re ee eee
Bien
yt Saas ow, ay RAT Bs SUM OF ER Phe AMR VERA EY HE Thatta 5 : Pakaeninhey in whey shan ves SF oda SMG TSG < een heres wey aot er uhers hat
ce
tg
Stay Eas esVeiSatig
y Peiekeele nibs ane nN see yay: wee ENT P At Gg
he Bvald - uN 183 BPE AP DES ys oh Sot Pee AM ape ys RS Soret ‘ EGER EO pM Sauer
whe Pek
alee VEN TR ade gedit tt eh: Peabo SOS FS RT NE rag hag ESTE THE:
i ee SST AD gy rons phen Schad ar oF grees
: ‘ Ne ROT at nopeney Seek seh oo ah eae Hebhe e993 Me SiGe dt Pash wlya terse ee CE EENE Hab ey UV STE Vane Heys 2 re
vats 3 eB 2 ig ee ya
Bont
etal TS VS hertes Siete es 4 yi ‘ . & DAE Toh abi sb Ae ate OS PPShEEay sind GF < SULTRY ET UNL baven : ite SAM orate i Oli S sah giteenaent BAY oie nee air eae eae eee AUS NEHER Sad att ach ean SRS Sune Weeds DEMIS i be Fgh Rar h at CTE Cee NS wg
: f Leal or ras $ i $ 52 St i i : NOT wikod E ; DEHN : a : : y é E cee wesep sys ¢ tbat Baa ? 4 f S raphe ayesha oe “ eee
PISA Tel see grey IRS NES beth aitadetss
SY AtEN Validate Sie, H : he Me. y ‘ Peas : ‘ OREN Cen ener n) ang eaes
. tht Jobs 4 ver shee ih , Dae ete Beha
age Mek taath Sob aagF
rasan wera Suit naes Si tan SS eG Segre he Ween aies
Pe bsthede yeaa be FS Paver as one ters
SEER ARLE
Sete ey
ENTE TYP NTS, deal
ened
tia; ee AE a ee
wn ete heated
Lgemsdatne
aA ke
Psi
obs
ry a
tects
bene
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity (no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2013 is £230 or US$380 or €310, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £115 or US$190 or €155. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road :
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers : President _Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands) Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U. S.A.) Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.) Members (Councillors indicated with *) Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) Dr A. Ballerio (Italy; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli Utaly; Myriapoda) Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Crustacea, Ichthyology) Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S. A.; Mollusca) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa) Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology) Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera)
Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster)
G. Austen-Price M.Sc. (Scientific Administrator and Development Officer)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Rhacophorus nigropalmatus Boulenger, 1895, known as Wallace’s flying frog was discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace in Sarawak, Borneo in 1865. The holotype (female) was collected by Charles Hose and is housed in the Natural History Museum, London. Wallace wrote in his book The Malay Archipelago (1869, pp. 59-61): ‘One of the most curious and interesting reptiles which I met with in Borneo was a large tree-frog, which was brought me by one of the Chinese workmen. He assured me that he had seen it come down in a slanting direction from a high tree, as if it flew. On examining it, I found the toes very long and fully webbed to their very extremity. .. . This is, I believe, the first instance known of a “flying frog,” and it is very interesting to Darwinians as showing that the variability of the toes which have been already modified for purposes of swimming and adhesive climbing, have been taken advantage of to enable an allied species to pass through the air like the flying lizard.’ This watercolour was painted by Wallace and was used as the basis for the woodcut illustration of this species in The Malay Archipelago (p. 60). This year marks the 100th anniversary of Wallace’s death. (© scan of the original drawing — A.R. Wallace Memorial Fund).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2013
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 1
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 70, part 1 (pp. 1-68) 31 March 2013
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines- case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments). ~ (3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 69, part 4, 20 December 2012) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the prevailing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3614: Raja batis Linnaeus, 1758 and Raia intermedia Parnell, 1837 (currently confused under the single name Dipturus batis; Chondrichthyes, BATOIDEA, RAJIDAE): proposed conservation by designation of neotypes for both species. S.P. Iglésias.
CASE 3615: Polybothris Dupont, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed conserva- tion as the correct original spelling. P. Bouchard, Y. Bousquet, V. Kuban & S. Bily.
Z Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
CASE 3616: Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930, NEOBISIIDAE Chamberlin, 1930 and NEOBISIOIDEA Chamberlin, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones, Chelonethi): pro- posed conservation by designation of Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817 as the type species of Obisium Leach, 1814. M.L.I. Judson.
CASE 3617: Habroleptoides confusa Sartori & Jacob, 1986 (Insecta, Ephemerop- tera, LEPTOPHLEBIIDAE): proposed precedence of the specific name over Habroleptoides carpatica Bogoescu & Crasnaru, 1930. E. Vancsa & M. Sartori.
CASE 3618: Kalophrynus Tschudi, 1838 (Anura, MICROHYLIDAE, KALOPHRYNINAE): proposed conservation by designation of a neotype for its type species Kalophrynus pleurostigma Tschudi, 1838. G.R. Zug & H. Kaiser.
CASE 3619: Thisbemys brevicrista Ostrander, 1986 (Rodentia, IsSCHYROMYIDAE): replacement of the holotype by the designation of a neotype. D.K. Anderson.
CASE 3620: Ticinella primula Luterbacher, 1963 (Foraminifera, Globigerinida, ROTALIPORACEA): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name. A. Ando.
The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature
The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity, based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 24 members from 12 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found in BZN 60: supplement, pp. 1-12 (March 2003).
Members of the Trust
Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) (Chairman and Dr C. Kropf (Switzerland) Director) Mr A. McCullough (U.K.)
Ms C. Laws (U.K.) (Managing Prof. A. Minelli (Italy) Commissioner Director and Treasurer) Dr T. Nishikawa (Japan)
Dr M.N. Arai (Canada) | Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.)
Mr H.S. Barlow (Malaysia) Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.)
Prof. D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Mr R. Pethiyagoda (Sri Lanka) Commissioner Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.)
The Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.) Mr N.J. Robinson (U.K.)
Prof. Dr U. Fritz (Germany) Dr H.-D. Sues (U.S.A.)
Prof. J.I. dos R. Furtado (Singapore) Dr S. Tiller (France)
Dr M.K. Howarth (U.K.) Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)
Dr S. Knapp (U.K.) Dr A. Whitten (U.K.)
Prof. Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 a
The history of science and nomenclature debates: Case 3463 and the Aldabra tortoise
Anna M. Roos
Faculty of History, University of Oxford, Old Boys’ High School, George Street, Oxford OXI 2RL U.K. (e-mail: anna.roos@history.ox.ac.uk)
[Note: this article was received too late for publication as a Comment on Case 3463 but was submitted to the Commissioners before the vote on that Case. It is published here for the record, although correspondence on the Case is now closed; given the general relevance of the observations and arguments to nomenclatural considera- tions, the Secretariat feels that this warrants consideration as a general article]
My involvement with the discussion about the name of the Aldabra tortoise began when I was asked to provide sources of detailed information about published works attributed to James Petiver, some of which were cited by J.E. Gray and Linnaeus. Later I also provided advice, from a historian’s point of view, about interpreting abbreviations and other details from 17th and 18th century publications that have been discussed in relation to the Aldabra tortoise (see Frazier & Matyot, 2010). While my experience with tortoises is limited, I am well aware of the critical role that scientific names play in the advance of science, and the central role that history plays in these considerations. I have, for example, analysed the development of pre- Linnaean taxonomic conventions in the late seventeenth century in my biography of the conchologist and arachnologist, Dr Martin Lister (1639-1712) (Roos 2011). With the help of colleagues, I also have made species identifications in the correspondence of Lister, particularly with the naturalist, John Ray, for a forthcoming edition (Roos, [2014-17] in prep.).
As a historian of science, my reasoning is based on close examination of the primary sources and a careful weighing of evidence. Suppositions are used only very sparingly, and then only when adequate primary evidence provides a foundation for making testable assumptions.
In that spirit, looking at several comments from March 2010 I note the following, which serve as examples of arguments that would be suspect to a historian of science:
1. Bour, Pritchard & Iverson (BZN 67: 73-77) state: “The Code must not be taken apart; it must be understood, accepted, and followed.’ This is a rhetorical technique called the ‘fallacy of the slippery slope’, or the assertion that some event must inevitably follow from another. It is sometimes called ‘the camel’s nose’: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this context, the statement by Bour, Pritchard & Iverson indicates that conservation of the name Testudo gigantea will mean the nomenclatural Code will be taken apart. So perhaps we will re-term this technique the ‘tortoise’s nose fallacy’.
2. The same authors state: ‘Finally, why should we reject the name Testudo dussumieri, which honours the memory of Jean-Jacques Dussumier, the first traveller who brought back an Aldabra tortoise with its precise locality and offered it to science? If one operates by the letter of the law (Code), as we have, and not by passion or emotion, it is clear that the first valid name for the Aldabra tortoise is Testudo dussumieri.’ This is an example of the appeal to emotion or pathos, which Aristotle
4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
mentions in his work on rhetoric, as it appeals to our respect for the memory of Dussumier. In the same issue of the Bulletin, Dubois, Ohler and Brygoo made the point about these sorts of arguments being irrelevant.
Nonetheless, Bour, Pritchard, and Iverson’s statements do bring us to some more substantive questions.
1. Did Dussumier ever visit Aldabra, or collect any specimens from there? Thus far, the sources cannot verify that he did. Cheke 67: 79-81 rightly noted that the historical evidence does not support Dussumier’s visiting Aldabra, and he presented some interesting and well-considered suppositions that Dussumier could have obtained an Aldabra tortoise via merchant networks. Nonetheless, there is a complete absence of historical evidence that shows this definitely and, interesting as they are, his suppositions are suppositions, not evidence.
2. Another area that historians examine is the validity of primary source documents, and two different examples can illustrate this. The speculations about the origin of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri seem particularly to centre upon the primary source evidence of Gray’s note and the old label on RMNH 3231. We also, in Cheke’s most recent (BZN 68: 294-297) communication, have reference to the work of Luis Ceriaco and his claim that taxidermy of the specimen regarded as the holotype of Testudo gigantea demonstrates that it was done in Portugal.
(a) Gray’s note: It seems that the most critical component of what Gray wrote about the new species description was ‘Schlegel MSS (v. Mus Leyd).’ I would interpret this as saying: ‘Schlegel manuscripts, (see Museum Leyden)’. Gray’s note could thus suggest a few things: First, it is quite probable Gray was referring to manuscripts by Schlegel. ‘v.’ indeed usually stands for ‘vide’, Latin in the imperative case ‘to see’. But, what ‘v. Mus Leyd’ means is very open to question. It could mean ‘see a particular specimen at the Museum’, it could mean ‘see a label on a specimen at the Museum’, or it could mean ‘see the Schlegel manuscripts at the Leyden museum’. We don’t know. In this respect, it worth noting that two former curators at the Leyden museum, Hoogmoed and Smeenk, gave slightly different interpreta- tions of this same passage.
(b) The Label: Now we come to the old label associated with RMNH 3231: The pencil annotations on the label are different from the secretary hand, which was clearly the original script on this particular label. Pencil annotations were added later. What seems nearly impossible to know is when the annotations were made, who made them, when the information was entered in the register and why the specimen was identified as a different species, Testudo nigrata replacing the earlier Testudo elephantina.
Nonetheless, in his comment Hoogmoed (BZN 68: 72-77) notes (p. 74) that ‘Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made the published, printed statement about name, collector, locality and specimen on the basis of documentation (in whichever form) they had received from Paris with the specimen concerned. Hubrecht (1881) did the same, basing himself on the register and data on the label fixed to the bottle in which RMNH 3231 was (and still is) kept. In the RMNH it always has been good practice to trust the data provided with material, until the contrary is proven. In this case there was no reason for any doubt, and Gray (1831b) was of the same opinion.’
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 :
The problem is that there is reason for doubt about this label, as well as Hoogmoed’s statement that ‘it always has been good practice to trust the data provided with material’. First, supposing that something has always been done in a particular manner is not the same thing as knowing that for a fact. Hoogmoed even admits: ‘The collection of the RMNH was established in 1820. About the early history of its management we know little and it even is not quite certain when the present numbering system for reptiles and amphibians jointly was started.’ His admission thus makes his following statement a bit puzzling:
‘As to the labels and other paper concerning RMNH 3231 there have been some unfortunate statements and mistakes in transcribing handwritten texts. Griinewald (2009, p. 139, upper figure) showed an old label on the outside of the jar in which RMNH 3231 is kept and gave as a legend ‘Het oorspronkelijke label van RMNH 3231, geschreven door John Edward Gray zelf [The original label of RMNH 3231, written by John Edward Gray himself]. This statement led Frazier & Matyot (2010) to several wrong conclusions, even after Griinewald explained to them that his text should have included ‘possibly’. There is no reason at all for such a statement, because the RMNH never let (foreign) visitors write labels that were attached to bottles etc.’
If the RMNH does not precisely know the early history of the management of its collection, how would it be possible for researchers to know who was writing the labels and what was allowable procedure? It seems that the earliest procedures for documenting and’ cataloguing specimens at Leiden were not precisely known, because, at least from what Hoogmoed has written regarding the herpetological collections, no one has yet done the systematic, detailed historical research to find this out (which would be a valuable project indeed). Holthuis (1995), for example, did a fine overview of the history of the Leiden Museum from 1820 to 1958, reconstructing its institutional structure and identifying key personnel. If there were examples of the handwriting of the different officials at the museum in the relevant time period to identify who was entering what information, doing a paleographic analysis of the work of these key personnel would be the place to start to reconstruct these procedures. Paleographic analysis to reconstruct working practice is a common technique; telltale scripts by scribes or clerks can date material, as can marginalia. For example, I analysed the monograms of copperplate engravers, signatures and sketchbooks to reconstruct how Lister’s Historiae Conchyliorum was created and published (Roos, 2012).
Another point to consider is that a secretary hand usually indicates the script of a clerk, who routinely just copied what was put in front of him, without much understanding. Usually, the nicer the handwriting, the more lowly the writer. (This conclusion is based on hundreds of hours studying archival material in the Royal Society, London). It is entirely possible that the label in question was a clerk’s copy of an earlier label, which might explain the absence of diacritical marks in the French phrase: “Testudo elephantina Jav. Test. indica Ile Aldabra, pres de Madagascar / Dussumieri’. From Gray’s note and the label evidence, it would be quite dangerous to assume that Gray saw the original French label with Dussumier’s name on it. From a historical point of view, the primary source evidence to make such an assumption is just not there. In this regard, after having asserted that the old label was the original that accompanied the specimen from Paris, Hoogmoed later
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
admitted “Thus, there is a good chance that the old label on the bottle of RMNH 3231 is not the ‘original’ label as stated by Hoogmoed et al. (2010), and that it possibly stems from after 1835 as suggested by Frazier & Matyot (2010).’ This example emphasises the importance of paying close attention to identifying true primary sources.
The second example of the importance of paying close attention to the primary source deals with a detail of taxidermy. Cheke mentions a communication from Luis Ceriaco, who, it turns out, has written articles on oral tradition and Portuguese geckos as an independent scholar. Dr. Ceriaco thought the taxidermy of the purported type specimen of Testudo gigantea (MNHN 9554) was specifically Portuguese. In this context it should be noted that the French naturalist Pierre Belon wrote the earliest known instructions for taxidermic procedures in 1555. While in the eighteenth century, there were certainly specific regional trade secrets in taxidermy (for instance Jean-Baptiste Bécoeur’s use of arsenical soap to stop insect infestation of bird skins), by the nineteenth century, many of these secrets had been disseminated quite widely in manuals where they became standardized (Rookmaaker et. al., 2006). Thus, from a historical point of view it would be helpful to know in some more detail what Dr Ceriaco’s basis is for detecting time-specific or distinctive regional variations in taxidermic practice.
[In the interim between my initial submission of these comments on 6 July 2012 and their publication, Dr. Ceriaco and Professor Bour published another paper with more details about the taxidermy of Testudo gigantea. (2012). Their abstract is as follows:]
‘The work Prodromus Monographiae Cheloniorum, published by Schweigger in 1812, has recently been the subject of several studies. One result of these studies—the rediscovery of the Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 holotype— triggered an intense debate in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, where, among other issues in dispute, the identity and nature of the specimen indicated as the holotype for the species is put in question. Using historical sources, mostly unpublished, and analysis and comparison of taxidermic characteristics of the specimen with other specimens of the same nature, we can clearly trace its origin to the extinct Royal Cabinet of Natural History of Ajuda in Lisbon, from the ‘Philosophical journey’ of Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira to the specimens trans- ported to Paris by Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire in 1808, thus helping dispel any doubts regarding the identity and nature of what is being identified as the Testudo gigantea holotype, along with other chelonian specimens. This information is of great importance in the current taxonomic debate as well as in recognizing the historic importance of the Royal Cabinet of Natural History of Ajuda and Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire’s 1808 mission to Lisbon.’
The authors also conclude:
“The doubts raised by Frazier (2006, 2009) and his supporters in comments on the Case 3463 (see Appendix) about the origin and nature of specimen 9554, the Testudo gigantea holotype as claimed by Bour (2006b), are definitely clarified with
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 7
the present historical and material data, and it is objectively proven that specimen 9554 originated from the Royal Cabinet of Natural History of Ajuda, as already inferred by Schweigger (1812).’
Let us examine these claims systematically. First, to my understanding, the status and veracity of the holotype is not central to the petition, the petition invoked Article 75.8 to set aside all previous type material. Thus, while I would agree that the authors’ archival research establishes the historic importance of the Royal Cabinet of Ajuda, particularly for the history of natural history, I would be far more cautious about the importance and relevance of their findings to Case 3463.
In their paper, Ceriaco and Bour claim that fibre analysis in the stuffing of specimens and the distinctive style of eyes in turtle specimens from the cabinet ‘prove’ that specimen 9554 originated from the Royal Cabinet of Natural History of Ajuda. The wooden eyes in the specimen are certainly distinctive empirically in Ajuda specimens. I may have been more convinced that the evidence was definitive by the application of relevant archaeological techniques to the type of paint utilised and the age of the wood; in studies of material culture in the history of science and conservation, archaeological analysis is employed as a matter of course in cases which need further clarification. Hesitation also extends to the fibre analysis. Fibre analysis extends far beyond the use of a binocular magnifier employed by Ceriaco and Bour. I would refer the authors to Appleyard & Wildman (1970), Bisbing (2002), Eyerin & Gaudette (2005) and Rowe (2010) for a discussion of the relevant techniques in forensic hair and fibre examinations.
It seems, looking at the written and material evidence regarding Case 3463 from a historical point of view, that there is inadequate evidence to do more than speculate on several critical points. Given that the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri has been proposed as the ‘name bearing type’ of the Aldabra tortoise, this seems to create a situation of unnecessary risk. Whilst I would not indulge in the ‘tortoise’s nose fallacy’ and claim that the use of Testudo dussumieri would cause the nomenclature of tortoises to fall apart, it seems its use will continue to promote a situation of unstable nomenclature and ongoing debate.
References
Appleyard, H.M. & Wildman, A.B. 1970. Fibres of archaeological interest: their examination and identification. Pp. 624-633 Jn Brothwell, D. & Higgs, E. (Eds.), Science in archaeology. a study of progress and research. Preager, New York, NY.
Bisbing, R.E. 2002. The forensic identification and association of human hair. Pp. 389-428 Jn Saferstein, R. (Ed.), Forensic science handbook, vol. 1. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ceriaco, L.M.P. & Bour, R. 2012. Schweigger’s (1812) chelonian types from the extinct eighteenth century Portuguese ‘Royal cabinet of natural history of Ajuda’: some contributions for their identification and nomenclatural implications. Zootaxa, 3395, 18-32.
Ceriaco, L.M.P., Marques, N.C., Madeira, C.M., Vila-Vicos, C.M.M. & Mendes, P. 2011. Folklore and traditional ecological knowledge of geckos in Southern Portugal: implica- tions for conservation and science. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 7: 26 .
Dorge, V. & F.C. Howlett. 1998. Painted wood: history and conservation: proceedings of a symposium organized by the Wooden Artifacts Groups of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works and the Foundation of the AIC, held at the
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Williamsburg, Virginia, 11-14 November 1994. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles.
Eyring, M.B. & Gaudette, B. 2005. An introduction to the forensic aspects of textile fiber examination. Pp. 231-295 In Saferstein, R. (Ed.), Forensic science handbook, vol. 2. . Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Frazier, J. & Matyot, P. 2010. On the identity of Monsieur Dussumier’s Dutch tortoise and the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. Zootaxa, 2665: 29-50.
Holthuis L.B. 1995. 1820-1958, Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. 172 pp. Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden.
Rookmaaker, L.C., Morris, P.A., Glenn, I.E. & Mundy, P.J. 2006. The ornithological cabinet of Jean-Baptiste Bécoeur and the secret of the arsenical soap. Archives of Natural History, 33: 146-158.
Roos, A.M. 2011. Web of nature: Martin Lister (1639-1712), the first arachnologist: 480 pp. Brill, Leiden.
Roos, A.M. 2012. The art of science: a ‘rediscovery’ of the Lister copperplates. Notes and Records of the Royal Society, 66: 19-40.
Roos, A.M. [2014-17]. The correspondence of Martin Lister (1639-1712). 3 vols. Brill, Leiden. [in preparation]
Rowe, W.F. 2010. Forensic hair and fiber examinations in archaeology: analysis of materials from gravesites at the home of Samuel Washington. Technical Briefs in Historical Archaeology, 5: 43-51.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 9
Case 3609
Bulimus cylindricus Menke, 1828 (Gastropoda, Stylommatophora, ENIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name
Igor Balashov
Schmalhausen Institute of Zoology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, B. Khmelnytsky str. 15, Kiev, 01601, Ukraine (e-mail: igor_balashov@ukr.net)
Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoological Institute of Géttingen University, Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Gottingen, Germany (e-mail: fwelter@gwdg.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name of the terrestrial snail Bulimus cylindricus Menke, 1828 (currently Brephulopsis cylindrica, ENIDAE), Originally published as a junior primary homonym of Bulimus cylindricus Gray, 1825 (currently classified in the genus Macroceramus, UROCOPTIDAE) by ruling under the plenary power to disregard their primary homonymy.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Gastropoda; Stylommatophora; ENIDAE; URO- COPTIDAE; Bulimus; Brephulopsis; Macroceramus; Bulimus cylindricus; Brephulopsis cylindrica; terrestrial snail; Caribbean; Europe.
1. Bulimus cylindricus Gray, 1825 (p. 414), established for a Caribbean gastropod species of UROCOPTIDAE and Bulimus cylindricus Menke, 1828 (p. 77) (currently Brephulopsis cylindrica; ENIDAE) established for a gastropod from Europe, are primary homonyms (Articles 53.3, 57.2 of the Code). The identity of Menke’s name is not disputed. The Caribbean Macroceramus species are poorly studied. Gourdon (1907, p. 131) used Gray’s name. In the last compilation of the genus, Richardson (1991) classified B. cylindricus Gray, 1825 with Macroceramus formosus (Wood, 1828, original combination Turbo formosus), and assumed incorrectly that Gray’s name was a nomen nudum. This could probably be corrected in a future taxonomic study which should also involve studying the type specimens of B. cylindricus deposited in 1825 in the British Museum (Gray, 1825). A study of this group is beyond the scope of this application, which is focused on maintaining the usage of Menke’s name for the European species.
2. Menke (1828, p. 77) established two names B. cylindricus and Bulimus fusiformis Menke, 1828. These taxa are currently regarded as conspecific. Retowski (1883, p. 13) and Clessin (1883, p. 48) both selected cylindricus acting as First Revisers. This means that if B. cylindricus Menke, 1828 cannot be used, B. fusiformis Menke, 1828 would be the next available name for the European species.
3. Brephulopsis cylindrica (Menke, 1828) is a well-established name and based on a brief survey by ourselves has been used by at least by 43 authors in 110 publications, mostly in the last 20 years (about half of them were listed by Sverlova et al., 2006). In Ukraine the biology of this species (variability, reproduction, dispersal, behaviour,
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
parasites, etc.) has been intensively studied in the last 20 years. The original range of the species was in the Crimea; recently it has been introduced to many other regions in Ukraine, to Moldova, Abkhazia, south-western Russia and Belarus (Sysoev & Schileyko, 2009; Rabchuk & Zemoglyadchuk, 2011). Many papers have been written on this one species and its name is often used in titles of works (Kramarenko, 1997; Vychalkovskaya & Kramarenko, 2006; Kramarenko, 2009; Rabchuk & Zemoglyadchuk, 2011).
4. The two species under consideration have not been considered as congeneric after 1899. Krynicki (1837) placed B. cylindricus Menke, 1828 in Chondrus Cuvier, 1816 and after that, this name was not listed in Bulimus. Since Herrmannsen (1847) B. cylindricus Gray, 1825 has only been placed in Macroceramus Guilding, 1828. These two species belong to remote pulmonate groups: Brephulopsis Lindholm, 1925 is Classified in the Palearctic family ENIDAE, while Macroceramus is classified in the Neotropical family UROCOPTIDAE. Macroceramus lives only in Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean. The native range of Brephulopsis is considered to be within the Crimean peninsula in Ukraine.
5. Nomenclatural stability in this case would be best achieved by disregarding the primary homonymy.
6. As an alternative solution, we could suggest suppression of Bulimus cylindricus Gray, 1825 as a rarely used name in accordance with Article 23.9.3 of the Code. Since we are not involved in the study of Caribbean urocoptid species we prefer not to take any action in this respect. We see ourselves guided by Article 23.9.5 to ask the Commission to maintain the usage for the Ukrainian name, but if possible we would prefer not to interfere in the Caribbean urocoptid nomenclature. This is why we would prefer not to ask to place B. cylindricus Gray, 1825 on the Official List. The name was used in 1907, but it has not been used recently and placing it on the Official List would have the potential to disrupt Caribbean urocoptid taxonomy, which would not be our intention.
7. Using the name Bulimus fusiformis Menke, 1828 for the Ukrainian species would be a possible solution, but since B. cylindricus Menke, 1828 has very frequently been used in the recent literature, we would prefer to conserve its usage.
8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the name cylindricus Menke, 1828, as published in the binomen Bulimus cylindricus, is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of cylindricus Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Bulimus cylindricus;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cylindricus Menke, 1828, as published in the binomen Bulimus cylindricus, with the endorse- ment that it shall not be invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of cylindricus Gray, 1825, as published in the binomen Bulimus cylindricus.
References
Clessin, S. 1883. Anhang zur Molluskenfauna der Krim. Malakozoologische Blitter (Neue Folge), 6: 37-52.
Cuvier, G. 1817. Le régne animal distribué d’aprés son organisation, pour servir de base a histoire naturelle des animaux et dintroduction a l’anatomie comparée. Avec figures, dessinées daprés nature. Tome II, contenant les reptiles, les poissons, les mollusques et les annélides. Pp. j-xviij [= 1-18], 1-532. Deterville.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 11
Gourdon, M. 1907. Liste des mollusques terrestres et fluviatiles offerts par M. Maurice Gourdon au Muséum de la ville de Nantes. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de l’ Ouest de la France, 6: 117-143.
Gray, J.E. 1825. A list and description of some species of shells not taken notice of by Lamarck. Annals of Philosophy, 25: 407-415.
Guilding, L. 1828. Observations on the zoology of the Caribaean Islands. Zoological Journal, 4: 164-175.
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1847. Indicis generum malacozoorum primordia. Nomina subgenerum, generum, familiarum, tribuum, ordinum, classium; adjectis auctoribus, temporibus, locis systematicis atque literariis, etymis, synonymis. Praetermittuntur Cirripedia, Tunicata et Rhizopoda, vol. Il. Pp. 1-352. Fischer, Cassellis.
Kramarenko, S.S. 1997. Vliyanie faktorov vneshnej sredy na geograficheskuyu izmenchivost konkhologicheskikh priznakov krymskikh mollyuskov Brephulopsis cylindrica (Menke, 1828) (Gastropoda; Pulmonata; Buliminidae) [Influence of environmental factors on the geographical variability of conchological characters of Crimean molluscs Brephulopsis cylindrica (Menke, 1828)]. Zhurnal Obshchei Biologii, 58(1): 94-101.
Kramarenko, S.S. 2009. Osobennosti vnutri- i mezhpopulyatsionnoj struktury konkhiometrich- eskoj izmenchivosti nazemnogo mollyuska Brephulopsis cylindrica (Gastropoda; Pulmo- nata; Buliminidae) [Peculiarities of the intra- and inter-population structure of the land snail’s Brephulopsis cylindrica conchiometry variability]. Vestnik Zoologii, 43(1): 51-58.
Krynicki, J. 1837. Conchylia tam terrestria, quam fluviatilia et e maribus adjacentibus Imperii Rossici indigena, quae pro mutua offeruntur historiae naturalis culturibus commutatione. Bulletin de la Société Impériale des Naturalistes de Moscou, 10(2): 50-64.
Lindholm, W.A. 1925. Beitrag zur Systematik und Nomenklatur der Familie Enidae (Bulimi- nidae). Archiv fiir Molluskenkunde, 57: 23-41.
Menke, C.T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum generum omnium et specierum earum, quae in museo Menkeano adservantur; cum synonymia critica et novarum specierum diagnosibus. Pp. I-XII [= 1-12], 1-91. Gelpke, Pyrmonti.
Rabchuk, V.P., Zemoglyadchuk, K.V. 2011. Pervaya dlya Belarusi nahodka nazemnogo vida mollyuskov Brephulopsis cylindrica (Gastropoda, Pulmonata, Enidae) [The first finding of land snail Brephulopsis cylindrica in the territory of Belarus]. Ruthenica, 21(2): 95-96.
Retowski, O. 1883. Die Molluskenfauna der Krim. Malakozoologische Blatter (Neue Folge), 6: 1-34.
Richardson, C.L. 1991. Urocoptidae: catalogue of species. Tryonia, 22: 1-245.
Sverlova, N.V., Khlus, L.N., Kramarenko, S.S., Son, M.O., Leonov, S.V., Korol, E.N., Vychalkovskaya, N.V., Zemoglyadchuk, K.V., Kyrpan, S.P., Kuzmovich, M.L., Stenko, R.P., Ferents, O.G., Shklaruk, A.N. & Gural, R.I. 2006. Fauna, ekologiya i vnutrividovaya izmenchivost nazemnyh mollyuskov v urbanizirovannoj srede |Fauna, ecology and intraspe- cific variability of the terrestrial molluscs in urban environment]. 225 pp. Lvov.
Sysoev, A. & Schileyko, A. 2009. Land snails and slugs of Russia and adjacent countries. 312 pp. Pensoft, Sofia.
Vychalkovskaya, N.V. & Kramarenko, S.S. 2006. Osobennosty migratsyonnoj aktyvnosty nazemnyh mollyuskov Brephulopsis cylindrica (Gastropoda; Pulmonata; Buliminidae) [The migratory activity peculiarities of the land snails Brephulopsis cylindrica (in Russian)]. Vestnik Zoologii, 40(2): 155-159.
Wood, W. 1828. Index testaceologicus; or a catalogue of shells, British and foreign, arranged according to the Linnean system; with the Latin and English names, references to authors, and places where found. Illustrated with 2300 figures. Ed. 2. Pp. i-xxui [= 1-22], [1], 1-212, (Supplement) iii-iv [= 3-4], [1], 1-59, [1], Pl. 1-38. Wood London.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 248. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
£2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Case 3610
Phelister Marseul, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera, HISTERIDAE): proposed conservation of usage
Michael S. Caterino & Alexey K. Tishechkin
Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, 2559 Puesta del Sol, Santa Barbara, CA 93105, U.S.A. (corresponding author email: mcaterino@sbnature2.org) -
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the generic name Phelister Marseul, 1853 for a well-established genus of histerid beetles. Modern authors cite either Phelister haemorrhous Marseul, 1853 (designated by Kryzhanovskiy & Reichardt, 1976) or Paromalus rouzeti Fairmaire 1850 (designated by Mazur, 1984) as the type species of Phelister. However, the correct, long-overlooked type species is Platysoma venustum LeConte, 1844, which is currently recognized as a valid species of Baconia Lewis, 1885. Acceptance of Platysoma venustum as the type species of Phelister would change the current concept of that genus to that of Baconia, and the species currently included in Phelister would require a new genus-group name as there are no junior synonyms from which to choose the next available name. To avoid the nomenclatural instability that would result from following the Principle of Priority, it is proposed that all type fixations for Phelister Marseul, 1853 preceding that of Phelister haemorrhous Marseul, 1853 by Kryzhanovskij & Reichardt (1976) be set aside.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; HISTERIDAE; Phelister; Baconia; Phelister haemorrhous; Paromalus rouzeti; Platysoma venustum, clown beetles; Neotropical region.
1. Marseul (1853, p. 462) proposed the generic name Phelister to contain 20 species, six of them previously described (Platysoma venustum LeConte, 1844; Hister vernus Say, 1825; Hister parvulus Erichson, 1834; Hister pusio Erichson, 1847; Hister subrotundus Say 1825, Paromalus rouzeti Fairmaire, 1850), and 14 of them newly described (Phelister violaceus, P. cumanensis, P. quadripunctulus, P. circulifrons, P. bovinus, P. acoposternus, P. haemorrhous, P. rubens, P. egenus, P. sanguinipennis, P. teapensis, P. globiformis, P. bipulvinatus and P. brevistrius.) No type species was designated.
2. Lewis (1885, p. 462) described the genus Baconia for two newly described species, B. loricata and B. patula. No type species was designated.
3. Lewis (1889, p. 46) inadvertently fixed the type species of Phelister as Platysoma venustum LeConte, 1844. In describing the species Phelister simoni he remarked ‘The Phelister simoni noticed here is a most remarkable species and one which I only place in the genus with doubt. As, however, I have given an outline of the sternal structure (which differs so much from the structure in Phelister venustus Leconte [sic], the type of the genus), those who study the family will be able to form an idea of its
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 13
peculiarities and to judge whether or not I have assigned it rightly to Phelister.’ This type designation, valid under Article 69.1.1, has been overlooked by all subsequent authors.
4. Bickhardt (1917, p. 163) explicitly fixed the type species of Baconia as Baconia loricata Lewis, 1885, one of the originally included species. Despite a general thoroughness of listing or designating type species in his Genera Insectorum fascicle on HISTERIDAE, Bickhardt (1917) did not mention a type species for the genus Phelister.
5. Kryzhanovski & Reichardt (1976, p. 296) listed the type species of Phelister as Phelister haemorrhous Marseul, 1853 (p. 476) evidently intending to designate a type where none had been previously. This type designation has been noted and cited as valid by some modern authors (e.g. Bousquet & Laplante, 1999, 2006).
6. Mazur (1984, p. 281) cited Jacquelin du Val (1858, p. 102) as having designated the type species of Phelister as Paromalus rouzeti Fairmaire, 1850. However, it is clear from the subtitle of Jacquelin du Val (1858), ‘et plus de treize cents types representant un ou plusieurs insectes de chaque genre’ (‘and more than thirteen hundred types representing one or more insects of every genus’) that strict designation of unique type species was not his intent.
7. Mazur (1984, p. 281) moved Phelister venusta [sic] (LeConte) into the genus Baconia.
8. Mazur (1997, p. 26), apparently recognizing his error in citing Jacquelin du Val’s designation of the type of Phelister as Paromalus rouzeti, then cited his own (1984) citation of P. rouzeti as having been the first valid type designation.
9. Phelister currently contains 100 described species (Mazur, 2011, p. 29). Baconia currently contains 27 described species. Specimens of both genera are commonly collected, well known, highly distinct from each other, and universally accepted as currently circumscribed. A list of 61 references that cite either Phelister or Baconia in the senses that we advocate has been sent to the Secretariat. Indeed, subsequent to Bickhardt’s designation of the type of Baconia, we know of no references inconsistent with this usage.
10. Accepting Platysoma venustum LeConte as the type of Phelister would require the synonymy of Baconia under Phelister, and because the species currently contained in Phelister are not closely related to Baconia, and because Phelister has no junior synonyms that might be recognized as valid, a new genus-group name would be required to contain the species currently in Phelister. The nearly 130 new combina- tions that would result would cause substantial instability and confusion. The references sent to the Secretariat attest to the wide use of these names in their currently accepted senses.
11. We are currently revising the genera Phelister and Baconia, describing many dozens of new species in both, and wish to solidify the generic nomenclature before publishing any new binominals under either name. Hence we propose that the type designation by Kryzhanovskij & Reichardt (1976) of Phelister haemorrhous Marseul, 1853 would be the best choice to stabilize the meaning of Phelister and prevent confusion.
12. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal
genus-group taxon Phelister Marseul, 1853 (gender: masculine) before that of
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Phelister haemorrhous Marseul, 1853 by Kryzhanovskij & Reichardt (1976);
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Phelister Marseul, 1853, type species Phelister haemorrhous Marseul, 1853 by subse- quent designation by Kryzhanovsky & Reichardt (1976), as ruled in (1) above;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name haemorrhous Marseul, 1853, as published in the binomen Phelister haemor- rhous (specific name of the type species of Phelister Marseul, 1853, as ruled in (1) above).
References
Bickhardt, H. 1917. Coleoptera. Fam. Histeridae. In P. Wytsman (Ed.), Genera Insectorum, Fasc. 166b. 302 pp. Junk, The Hague.
Bousquet, Y. & Laplante, S. 1999. Les coléoptéres histéridés du Québec. Fabreries, Supplement, 8: 1-190.
Bousquet, Y. & Laplante, S. 2006. The insects and arachnids of Canada, Part 24, Coleoptera: Histeridae. 485 pp. NRC Research Press, Ottawa.
Fairmaire, L. 1850. Description de quelques coléoptéres nouveaux d’Europe et de France. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (2)7: 419-427.
Jacquelin du Val, P.N.C. 1858. Genera des coléoptéres d’Europe comprenant leur classification et familles naturelles, la description de tous les genres, des tableaux synoptiques destinés a faciliter l'étude, le catalogue de toutes les espéces, de nombreux dessins au trait de caracteéres. II. 168pp. A. Deyrolle, Paris.
Kryzhanovkij, O.L. & Reichardt, A.N. 1976. Beetles of the superfamily Histeroidea (families Sphaeritidae, Histeridae, Synteliidae). Fauna of the USSR, vol. 4. 434 pp.
LeConte, J.E. 1844. A monograph of the North American Histeroides. Boston Journal of Natural History, 5: 32-86.
Lewis, G. 1885. New species of Histeridae, with synonymical notes. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (5)15: 456-473.
Lewis, G. 1889. Notes on the Histeridae taken in Venzuela by Mons. E. Simon. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (6)4: 45-47.
Marseul, S.A. 1853. Essai monographique sur la Famille des histérides, comprenant la description et la figure au trait des generes et des especes, leur distribution methodique, avec un resume de leurs moers et de leur anatomie. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)1: 131-160, 177-294, 447-553.
Mazur, S. 1984. A World Catalogue of Histeridae. Polskie Pismo Entomologiczne, 54(3-4): 1-376.
Mazur, S. 1997. A world catalogue of Histeridae. Genus, (Supplement): 1-373.
Mazur, S. 2011. A concise catalogue of the Histeridae (Coleoptera). 332 pp. Warsaw University of Life Sciences —- SGGW Press, Warsaw.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 248.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 15
Case 3612
Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name
Mario Cupello
Departamento de Entomologia, Museu Nacional, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ), Quinta da Boa Vista, Sdo Crist6vdo, CEP 20940- 040, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil (e-mail: mcupello@hotmail.com)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 23.9.3, 23.9.5 and 81.2.1 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855. Although Onitis aeruginosus Perty, 1830 and Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855 are primary homonyms, both names are in use today and have not been considered congeneric since 1859, when the senior homonym was transferred to the genus Gromphas Brullé, 1837. As the probability of these being considered congeneric in the future is very small, it is proposed that Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855 be conserved by ruling that it is not invalid by reason of being a primary junior homonym of Onitis aeruginosus Perty, 1830. A third homonym, Onitis aeruginosus Gistel, 1831, also has priority over Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855, but cannot be fixed to any species; therefore, it should be considered a nomen dubium and totally suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority and of the Principle of Homonymy.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Coleoptera; SCARABAEIDAE; Onitis; Gromphas; Onitis aeruginosus; Gromphas aeruginosa; dung beetles; Neotropical region; Afrotropical region.
1. Fabricius (1798, pp. 2, 25) established Onitis for eight species. Perty (1830, pp. 39, 40) studied the material collected by the naturalists Johann Baptist von Spix and Karl Friedrich Philipp von Martius in their long expedition through Brazil and described two new species for the genus: O. aeruginosus and O. chalcomelas, both from the current Brazilian states of SAo Paulo and Minas Gerais. Lacordaire (1856, p. 105, footnote) considered the two species distinct from other Onitis and suggested that both should be transferred to a new genus related to Gromphas Brullé, 1837. Harold (1859, pp. 198, 199) followed Lacordaire and removed these species from Onitis, but transferred each to a different New World genus: O. chalcomelas to Phanaeus MacLeay, 1819 and O. aeruginosus to Gromphas. After Harold’s action, no author has returned either of these two South American species to the genus Onitis. Gromphas aeruginosa (Perty, 1830) is a common species, but the type locality in southeastern Brazil cited by Perty is certainly incorrect since this species is exclusively found in the Amazon region. The lectotype of O. aeruginosus was designated by Scherer (1983, p. 298) and is deposited in Zoologische Staatssammlung Miinchen (ZSMC), Munich, Germany (Michael Balke, pers. comm.).
2. Gistel (1831, p. 306) described a new species named Onitis aeruginosus from Brazil. However, his description is too vague and, albeit consistent with Gromphas
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
aeruginosa (Perty), it also fits equally well several other South American species of SCARABAEINAE. Also, the whereabouts of the type specimen of O. aeruginosus Gistel is unknown. It is possible that portions of the Gistel collection are scattered throughout several other collections; some specimens were located in ZSMC and in the Hope Entomological Collections, University Museum, Oxford, U.K. (OXUM) (Evenhuis, 1997, p. 304). Nevertheless, the type specimen of O. aeruginosus Klug is certainly not housed in either of these collections (Darren Mann, OXUM, pers. comm.; Scherer, 1982, p. 59, 1992, p. 64) or in any other known location. For this reason, it is impossible to refer the name Onitis aeruginosus Gistel, 1831 to any species and the name is here considered a nomen dubium. It has not been cited by any author since 1831. (In the literature, both spellings “‘Gistel” and ‘“‘Gistl’’ appear. Here, the orthography ‘Gistel’ is adopted following Evenhuis (1997, p. 303)).
3. Klug (1855, p. 651) described four new African species of Onitis: O. lycophron, O. uncinatus, O. fulgidus and O. aeruginosus. Seven years later, Klug (1862, pp. 222-224) redescribed these species in more detail. Although a primary junior homonym of O. aeruginosus Perty, 1830, the name O. aeruginosus Klug, 1855 has always been regarded as valid, including in the revision of the Sub-Saharan species of Onitis by Ferreira (1978, p. 207). Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855 is found in the Afrotropical region, with records from Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Mozambique (Ferreira, 1978, p. 209). The type locality is Sena, Mozambique (Klug, 1855, p. 651; 1862, p. 224). The holotype is deposited in Museum fiir Naturkunde (ZMHB), Berlin, Germany (Joachim Willers, pers. communication).
4, Although originally described in the same genus, Onitis aeruginosus Perty and O. aeruginosus Klug were considered congeneric for only four years between 1855 and 1859. Today, their respective genera are classified into distinct tribes (Gromphas in PHANAEINI and Onitis in ONITINI) and occur in distinct biogeographic regions (Gromphas in the Neotropical region and Onitis in the Palaearctic, Afrotropical and Oriental regions). Also phylogenetic studies indicate a great distance between these two genera (Philips et al., 2004). Hence the possibility of their being regarded as congeneric again in the future is extremely small. Onitis aeruginosus Klug, the primary junior homonym, has no known available synonym and thus there is no pre-existing name to replace it. In order to maintain stability, under Article 23.9.5 of the Code, it is preferable to maintain both names as they are used today rather than to propose a replacement name for Onitis aeruginosus Klug.
5. Onitis aeruginosus Gistel, 1831 also has priority over Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855. Article 23.9.1 of the Code cannot be invoked in this case, because whereas the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 have been met (Onitis aeruginosus Gistel was not cited after 1831), those of Article 23.9.1.2 have not. A possible alternative would be to designate the lectotype of O. aeruginosus Perty as neotype of O. aeruginosus Gistel and thus make the latter name as junior objective synonym of the former. However, this action is not appropriate and should not be taken because O. aeruginosus Perty and O. aeruginosus Gistel are only distantly related and there is nothing besides the homonymy that connects them, and especially because Gromphas (the current genus of Perty’s species) already has many nomenclatural problems (some of which were first pointed out by Figueroa et al. (2012, p. 2) and are under my current scrutiny) and this synonymy would just add one more unnecessary problem. Thus, in order to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 17
maintain stability and avoid any confusion, the name O. aeruginosus Gistel, 1831 should be suppressed under Articles 23.9.3 and 81.2.1 of the Code.
6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that the name Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855 is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Onitis aeruginosus Perty, 1830;
(2) to use its plenary powers to suppress the name Onitis aeruginosus Gistel, 1831 for the purposes of both the Principle of Priority and the Principle of Homonymy;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) aeruginosus Klug, 1855, as published in the binomen Onitis aeruginosus,
with the endorsement that it is not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym of Onitis aeruginosus Perty, 1830; (b) aeruginosus Perty, 1830, as published in the binomen Onitis aeruginosus;
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name aeruginosus Gistel, 1831, as published in the binomen Onitis aeruginosus and as suppressed in (2) above.
Acknowledgments
I am sincerely grateful for the kind and careful review of the manuscript by W.D. Edmonds (Marfa, Texas, U.S.A.), Fernando Z. Vaz-de-Mello (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso, Brazil), Jiri Zidek (Prague, Czech Republic) and Juan Pablo Botero (Museu Nacional/UFRJ). I am also grateful to Joachim Willers (ZMHB), Michael Balke (ZSMC) and Darren Mann (OXUM) for the information about the type specimens. I am also indebted to Neal Evenhuis (Bishop Museum, Hawaii, U.S.A.) for sending me his work on the Diptera historical literature (Evenhuis, 1997) and to Renato Soares (UFRJ) for the great support with the English text.
References
Evenhuis. N.L. 1997. Literatura taxonomica Dipterorum (1758-1930), vol. 1, A-K. 1-426 pp. Backhuys, Leiden.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. iv, 572 pp. Proft et Storch, Hafniae.
Ferreira, M.C. 1978. The genus Onitis F. of Africa south of the Sahara (Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera). Memoirs van die Nasionale Museum, 10: 1-410.
Figueroa, L., Edmonds, W.D. & Meza-Velez, F. 2012. The genus Gromphas Brullé, 1837 in Peru (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae: Phanaeini). Insecta Mundi, 248: 1-8.
Gistel, J. [Gistl], J. 1831. Entomologische fragmente. Jsis, 3: 301-310 [for Gistel’s name orthography see Evenhuis, 1997, p. 303].
Harold, E. 1859. Beitrage zur Kenntniss einiger coprophagen Lamellicornien. Berliner Entomologische Zeitschrift, 3: 193-224.
Klug, J.C. 1855. Fortsetzung der Diagnosen der neuen (und bereits seit mehreren Monaten vollstandig gedruckten) Coleopteren, welche die Insectensendungen des Hrn. Dr. Peters von Mossambique enthalten hatten, von der Familie der Staphylini an bis zu den Lamellicornia, diese mit eingeschlossen. Berichten tiber die zur Bekanntmachung geeigneten Verhandlungen der Koniglich-Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 20: 643-660.
Klug, J.C. 1862. Coleoptera, Kafer. Pp. 145-267 In Peters, W.C.H. Naturwissenschaftliche raise nach Mossambique auf befehl Seiner Majestat des Kénigs Friedrich Wilhelm IV in den
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Jahren 1842 bis 1848 ausgeftihrt. Zoologie V. Insecten und Myriapoden. 564 pp., 34 pl. Druck und Verlag von Georg Reimer, Berlin.
Lacordaire, J.T. 1856. Histoire naturelle des insectes. Genera des coléoptéres, ou exposé méthodique et critique de tous les genres proposés jusqu’ici dans cet ordre dinsectes. Tome troisiéme. 594 pp. Librairie Encyclopédique de Roret, Paris.
Perty, J.A.M. 1830. De insectorum in America meridionali habitantiam vitae genere, moribus ac distributione geographica observationes nonnullae. Pp. 1-60 Jn: Perty, J.A.M. 1830-1833. Delectus animalium articulatorum quae in itinere per Brasilian annis MDCCCXVII-MDCCCXX jussu at auspicis Maximiliani Josephi I. Bavariae regis augus- tissime peracto collegerunt Dr. J. B. de Spix et Dr. C. F. Ph. de Martius. 44 pp., 224 pp., 40 pl. Impensis Editoris, Monachii (Munich).
Philips, T.K., Edmonds, W.D. & Scholtz, C.H. 2004. A phylogenetic analysis of the New World tribe Phanaeini (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae: Scarabaeinae): Hypotheses on relationship and origins. Insect Systematics and Evolution, 35: 43-63.
Scherer, G. 1982. Chronik der sektion Coleoptera der Zoologischen Staatssammlung Miinchen. Spixiana, Supplement, 7: 57-65.
Scherer, G. 1983. Die von J.B.v. Spix und C.F.Ph.v. Martius in Stiidamerika gesammelten Coleopteren. Spixiana, 9: 295-305.
Scherer, G. 1992. Die sektion Coleoptera der Zoologischen Staatssammlung Munchen. Spixiana, Supplement, 17: 61-71.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 248.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: 1iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 19
Case 3615
Polybothris Dupont, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE): proposed conservation as the correct original spelling
Patrice Bouchard & Yves Bousquet
Canadian National Collection of Insects, Arachnids and Nematodes, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C6, Canada (e-mail: patrice.bouchard@agr.gc.ca; yves. bousquet@agr.gc.ca)
Vitézslav Kuban Department of Entomology, National Museum, Goléova 1, CZ-148 00 Praha 4 — Kunratice, Czech Republic (e-mail: vitezslav_kuban@nm.cz)
Svatopluk Bily
Czech University of Life Sciences, Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Department of Forest Protection and Game Management, Kamycka 1176, CZ-165 21 Praha 6 — Suchdol, Czech Republic
(e-mail: svatopluk_bily@nm.cz)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 81 of the Code, is the conservation of the spelling of the buprestid genus name Polybothris. The name was originally published as Polybotris but the spelling Polybothris has been in prevailing usage since 1900. Reversal of precedence cannot be used to suppress Polybotris since the spelling has been used in a small number of publications after 1899.
Keywords. Nomenclature; Coleoptera; Polybothris; Polybotris; Polybothris croesus; BUPRESTIDAE; Africa.
1. Dejean (1833, p. 78) was the first to use the buprestid genus name Polybothris. He did not provide a description or definition of the taxon. He included three species-group names from Madagascar under it, P. guadrifoveolata, P. madagascar- iensis and P. stigmatipennis. These species-group names were not available at the time of Dejean’s publication because they had not been described and Dejean did not provide a description or definition in his publication. Therefore, Polybothris Dejean, 1833 is not available.
2. Dupont (1833, pl. 77) described the species croesus from Madagascar under the genus-group name Polybotris. Therefore Polybotris was made available for the first time in this publication and croesus is the type species by monotypy. This species is currently included in the nominotypical subgenus of Polybothris and is considered a junior synonym of Buprestis sumptuosa Klug, 1833 (Bellamy 2008, p. 888) - in all publications seen since 1837, including the recent catalogues of Bellamy (2006, p. 147; 2008, p. 888).
3. Dejean (1836, p. 88) listed 17 species-group names under the genus Polybothris, all from Madagascar. The following seven species were previously described by Klug (1833) and were available: Buprestis zivetta Klug, 1833, Buprestis cassidea Klug,
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
1833, Buprestis flesus Klug, 1833, Buprestis solea Klug, 1833, Buprestis platessa Klug, 1833, Buprestis chalcochrysea Klug, 1833 and Buprestis aeneomaculata Klug, 1833.
4. Spinola (1837, p. 115) described the genus Polybothris for the first time and listed 17 available species from Madagascar, including all seven available in Dejean (1836). The other available species in Spinola (1837) were: Buprestis sumptuosa Klug, 1833; Polybotris craesus Dupont, 1833; Buprestis carcharias Klug, 1833; Polybothris ancora Spinola, 1837; Buprestis colliciata Guérin-Meéneville, 1832; Polybothris sexfoveolata Spinola, 1837; Buprestis complanata Guérin-Méneville, 1832; Buprestis cassidoides Guérin-Méneville, 1832; Buprestis rhombus Klug, 1833; Buprestis rotundata Guérin- Méneville, 1832. 1
5. This genus is attributed to Spinola, 1837 under the spelling Polybothris in nearly all publications seen since 1900, including Kerremans (1903, p. 97; 1911, p. 314), Théry (1905, p. 176), Obenberger (1926, p. 181), Kurosawa (1993, p. 577), Bellamy (2003, p. 47; 2006, p. 87; 2008, p. 848) and Bouchard et al. (2011, p. 281). A search through the online version of the Zoological Record from 1864 to date yielded 34 hits for Polybothris and none for Polybotris. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the spelling Polybotris has been used a few times in non-taxonomic publications in the 20th Century. The genus includes 225 species from Madagascar and Comoro Islands with one species from South Africa (Bellamy, 2008).
6. Polybothris, as used by Spinola (1837), could be considered an incorrect subsequent spelling of Polybotris Dupont (1833) since the sole species included by Dupont in his genus Polybotris is also listed by Spinola (1837) in the genus Polybothris. The spelling Polybothris is in prevailing usage but not attributed to the author and date of the original spelling. Therefore Article 33.3.1 of the Code cannot be used to preserve the spelling Polybothris. Nevertheless we believe that the spelling Polybothris should be conserved to promote stability but with the name credited to Dupont (1833) since he made it available for the first time. A change in authorship would not affect the taxonomic concept of the genus because the type species currently recognized for Polybothris (Buprestis sumptuosa Klug) and the only species included by Dupont (Polybotris croesus) are synonyms.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that the correct original spelling of the generic name Polybotris Dupont, 1833 is Polybothris;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Polybothris Dupont, 1833 (gender feminine), type species by monotypy Polybothris croesus Dupont, 1833;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name croesus Dupont, 1833, as published in the binomen Polybotris croesus (specific name of the type species of Polybothris Dupont, 1833);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Polybotris Dupont, 1833 (ruled in (1) above to be an incorrect original spelling of Polybothris Dupont, 1833).
Acknowledgments
This project was financially supported by Ministry of Culture of the Czech Republic (DKRVO 2013/12, National Museum, 00023272) (VK)and Internal Grant
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 21
Agency (IGA n. 20124364) of the Faculty of Forestry and Wood Sciences, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague (SB).
References
Bellamy, C.L. 2003. An illustrated summary of the higher classification of the superfamily Buprestoidea (Coleoptera). Folia Heyrovskyana Supplementum, 10: 1-197.
Bellamy, C.L. 2006. Insecta Coleoptera Buprestidae de Madagascar et des iles voisines : catalogue annoté | Insecta Coleoptera Buprestidae of Madagascar and adjacent islands : an annotated catalogue. Faune de Madagascar, 92. 263 pp., 8 pls. Montpellier: IRD Editions, Cirad, Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Bellamy, C.L. 2008. A world catalogue and bibliography of the jewel beetles (Coleoptera : Buprestoidea). Volume 2. Chrysochroinae: Sphenopterini through Buprestinae: Stigmoder- ini. Pp. 631-1260. Pensoft, Sofia-Moscow.
Bouchard, P., Bousquet, Y., Davies, A.E., Alonso-Zarazaga, M.A., Lawrence, J.F., Lyal, C.H.C., Newton, A.F., Reid, C.A.M., Schmitt, M., Slipinski, S.A. & Smith, A.B.T. 2011. Family-group names in Coleoptera (Insecta). ZooKeys, 88: 1-972.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1833. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. |. Pp. 1-96. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Dejean, P.F.M.A. 1836. Catalogue des Coléoptéres de la collection de M. le Comte Dejean. Troisiéme édition, revue, corrigée et augmentée. 1-4. xiv, 384 pp. Méquignon-Marvis, Paris.
Dupont, H. 1833. [Description du Polybotris croesus Dupont]. Magasin de Zoologie 3: pl. 77 (+ 2 pages).
Guérin-Méneville, F.E. 1832a. [Description du Buprestis complanata Guérin]. Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 25 (+ 2 pages).
Guérin-Meéneville, F.E. 183265. [Description du Buprestis colliciata Guérin]. Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 27 (+ 2 pages).
Guérin-Meéneville, F.E. 1832c. [Description du Buprestis rotundata Guérin]. Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 28 (+ 1 page).
Guérin-Méneville, F.E. 1832d. [Description du Buprestis cassidoides Guérin]. Magasin de Zoologie, 2: pl. 29 (+ 2 pages).
Kerremans, C. 1903. Genera insectorum publiés par P. Wytsman. Coleoptera Serricornia. Fam. Buprestidae (deuxiéme partie). 12° Fascicule. Pp. 49-112. V. Verteneuil & L. Desmet, Bruxelles.
Kerremans, C. 1911. Pp. 289-320 in: Monographie des buprestides. Tome V Chalcophorini : Psilopterites. Bruxelles.
Klug, J.C.F. 1833. Bericht tiber eine auf Madagascar veranstaltete Sammlung von Insecten aus der Ordnung Coleoptera. 132 pp., 5 pls. K6niglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin.
Kurosawa, Y. 1993. Reorganization of the genus Psiloptera (Coleoptera, Buprestidae). Japanese Journal of Entomology, 61(3): 577-583.
Obenberger, J. 1926. Coleopterorum catalogus auspiciis et auxilio W. Junk editus a S. Schenkling. Pars 84: Buprestidae ILW. 212 pp. Junk, Berlin.
Spinola, M. 1837. Lettre adressée a la Société entomologique de France, sur un groupe de buprestides. Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, 6: 101—122.
Théry, A. 1905. Revision des buprestides de Madagascar. 187 pp., 7 pls. Les Fils d’Emile Deyrolle, Paris.
Thomson, J.L. 1878. Typi buprestidarum musaei Thomsoniani. 103 pp. Emile Deyrolle, Paris.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 248. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 S5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Case 3605
PHYCINAE Lyneborg, 1976 (Insecta, Diptera, THEREVIDAE): proposed emendation of spelling to PHYCUSINAE to remove homonymy with PHYCINAE Swainson, 1838 (Osteichthyes, Gadiformes, PHYCIDAE); and Phycis Walbaum, 1792 (Osteichthyes, Gadiformes, PHYCIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by designation of Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 as the type species
Stephen D. Gaimari & Martin Hauser
California Department of Food and Agriculture, Plant Pest Diagnostics Center, 3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA, 95832-1448, U.S.A. (emails: stephen.gaimari@cdfa.ca.gov & martin.hauser@cdfa.ca.gov)
Ronald Fricke
Staatliches Museum fiir Naturkunde Stuttgart, Ichthyology, Rosenstein 1, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany (e-mail: ronald.fricke@smns-bw.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 29 and 55.3 of the Code, is to remove homonymy between the family-group names PHYCINAE Swainson, 1838 (Osteichthyes, Gadiformes, PHYCIDAE) and PHYCINAE Lyneborg, 1976 (Insecta, Dip- tera, THEREVIDAE). It is proposed that the stem of the genus-group name Phycus Walker, 1850, on which the insect family-group name is based, be emended to change the family-group name to PHYCUSINAE, leaving the fish family-group name, based on Phycis Walbaum, 1792, unaltered. An issue regarding the type-species of Phycis Walbaum, 1792, came to light in this process, namely that the previously assumed type species, Tinca marina (attributed to Walbaum (1792) and considered a junior synonym of Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766), is a nomen nudum. So, an additional purpose of this application, under Articles 78.1 and 81.1 of the Code, is to maintain the prevailing usage of Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 as the de facto type species of Phycis Walbaum, 1792 by setting aside all previous type species designations and designating Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 as the type species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Insecta; Osteichthyes; Diptera; Gadiformes; Lepidoptera; PHYCIDAE; PYRALIDAE; THEREVIDAE; PHYCINAE; PHYCUSINAE; PHYCITINAE; Phycus; Phycis; Phycita; Blennius phycis; Xylophagus canescens; Phycus brunneus; stiletto flies; moths; hakes; terrestrial; marine; Atlantic.
1. Artedi (1738a, p. 84; 1738b, p. 111) was the first modern author to use the name Phycis. This pre-Linnaean work was published posthumously by Linnaeus (for the history of the publication see Pietsch, 2010). In his Synonymia, Artedi (1738b, p. 111) listed the sources of the name, including the ovkic of Aristoteles (1619, originally published in the 4th century B.C.), the Phycis of Rondelet (1554, p. 186; misspelled as Physis by Artedi, 1738b), the Phuca sive Phycis of Salviani (1558, p. 228), and the Tinca marina of Salviani (1558, p. 93, pl. opposite p. 230). These are unavailable
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 23
names, but Linnaeus (1766, p. 442) described his Blennius phycis based on the Blennius of Gotian in a manuscript prior to Goiian (1770, p. 123) (i.e. ‘B. naribus subcristatis, cirro labii inferioris, dorio bipenni. Gouan.’), and on the Phycis of Artedi (1738b). The current usage of that species as Phycis phycis (Linnaeus, 1766) is summarised by Eschmeyer (2013).
2. Walbaum (1792, p. 575) (sometimes referred to as ‘Walbaum [ex Artedi]’ or ‘Artedi in Walbaum_’) established the fish genus Phycis. The type species is not Tinca marina Salviani, 1558 as assumed by recent authors including Cohen (1971, p. 327), Svetovidov (1973, p. 314) and Eschmeyer (1990, p. 313; 1998, p. 2075; 2013). Walbaum’s heading is ‘PH YCIS Art. Syn. 111 seu Tinca marina’, meaning ‘Phycis of Artedi or Tinca marina of other authors’; the latter name is not an available name, but a nomen nudum which was cited as a reference to Artedi (1738b), who included the Phycis (ovKic) of Aristoteles (1619) and Rondelet (1554), and the Tinca marina of Salviani (1558) and later authors under his heading of Phycis. Before Cohen (1971), many ichthyological authors ignored Walbaum’s work (see Parenti, 2002: 309); therefore, the genus Phycis was incorrectly attributed to authors other than Walbaum, 1792, with various type species treatments. For example, Giinther (1862, p. 351) and Goode & Bean (1896, p. 356) dated Phycis to Bloch & Schneider (1801, p. 56), with the type species Phycis tinca Bloch & Schneider, 1801, p. 56 (which is currently treated as having been a new replacement name for Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766); Jordan (1917, p. 51) dated Phycis to Rése (1793, p. 111) with Phycis tinca Bloch & Schneider, 1801 as the type species (but as a synonym of Phycis blennoides Briinnich, 1768, p. 24); Fowler (1936, p. 473) dated Phycis to Rése (1793) and listed Gadus phycis “Linnaeus, 1758’ as the type species (there is no species Gadus phycis described in Linnaeus, 1758). By monotypy, the type species of Phycis Walbaum, 1792 is Gadus bifurcus Walbaum, 1792, p. 137, which is mentioned as the only species of the genus Phycis in the footnote of Walbaum (1792, p. 576); this footnote was missed by Cohen (1971), who had also attributed the first usage of Tinca marina to Aldrovandi (1638, p. 291) and not to Salviani (1558). Gadus bifurcus was described by Walbaum (1792) based on the Forked Hake of Pennant (1776, p. 193, pl. 31), and Tinca marina Cetti, 1777, p. 101, which appeared without description and is another nomen nudum. Pennant’s Forked Hake was based on Artedi’s Phycis and several other historical sources, which were referring to both Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 and Gadus blennoides Brimnich, 1768, p. 24. Giinther (1862, p. 352) acted as the First Reviser of this case, treating Gadus bifurcus Walbaum, 1792 as a junior subjective synonym of Phycis blennoides (Briinnich, 1768). This interpretation of the type species, however, threatens stability of nomenclature, as the previously and long assumed type species Tinca marina Walbaum, 1792 has been treated as a junior synonym of Phycis phycis (Linnaeus, 1766) by recent authors including Cohen (1971), Svetovidov (1973), Cohen et al. (1990, p. 68) and Eschmeyer (1998, p. 1022; 2013). It would be ill-advised to change the currently recognized type species of the genus, because in future the two species may be classified in separate genera; in that case, retaining Phycis blennoides (Briinnich, 1768) as the type species of Phycis Walbaum, 1792 would threaten stability of nomenclature by changing the generic affiliations of both Phycis phycis (Linnaeus, 1758) and Phycis chesteri Goode & Bean, 1878. As Tinca marina Walbaum, 1792 must be considered as a nomen nudum and Gadus bifurcus Walbaum, 1792 is considered a junior synonym of a different species,
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
a ruling of the Commission is needed to settle this confusion and maintain the prevailing usage of the genus-group name Phycis Walbaum, 1792 with its type species Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766.
3. Fabricius (1798, p. 420) established the moth genus Phycis. Curtis (1828, p. 233) established the new replacement name Phycita for this genus, due to the homonymy with the fish genus Phycis (i.e. ‘Phycis having been long employed to designate a group of fishes’). The type species is Tinea spissicella Fabricius, 1777, p. 295, by subsequent designation relative to Phycis, but original designation relative to Phycita, by Curtis (1828, p. 233), who used the incorrect subsequent spelling spicicella. Interestingly, both Lepindex (Beccaloni et al., 2003) and Fletcher & Nye (1984, p. 119) refer to the type species as having been described in Fabricius (1794, p. 289). For the former record, the physical Lepidoptera index card in the Natural History Museum (London) correctly indicates Fabricius (1777) for the species name, but the associated Lepindex database record indicates Fabricius (1794). Looking at both papers (Fabricius, 1777 and 1794), it is clear that the 1794 record for this species is subsequent usage, as the descriptive text is identical apart from the added line in 1794: ‘Statura oblonga T. sociellae’, seemingly adding a comparative characteristic between this species and Tinea sociella Linnaeus, 1758, p. 534. In any case, this species is considered a junior synonym of Tinea roborella Denis & Schiffermiller, 1775, p. 138, currently Phycita roborella.
4. Swainson (1838, p. 321) established the family-group name PHYCINAE, as a subfamily of GADIDAE, for fishes of the genus Phycis Walbaum, 1792. In the same work, Swainson (1838, p. 322) misspelled the genus name as Physis in one instance (also spelling it correctly several times on the same page). In Volume II of the same work, Swainson (1839) misspelled the genus as Physis on pages 188 and 301, in appendix pages 391 and 392, and in the index page 452; the subfamily name was misspelled as PHYSINAE on page 188, but spelled correctly on page 301. This family-group name has been used extensively in the fish literature (see Cohen et al., 1990; Nelson, 1994, 2006; Roa-Varoén & Orti, 2009; Eschmeyer 1990, 2013); it is currently used as valid for the family PHycIDAE in the order Gadiformes, following Cohen (1984, p. 265). This family includes two valid genera and 11 valid species (Eschmeyer, 2013; Eschmeyer & Fong, 2013); most species are of commercial importance for the fishing industry.
5. Zeller (1839, p. 175) established the family-group name PHYCIDAE (as PHYCIDEEN), based on the moth genus Phycis Fabricius, 1798, apparently not realizing or not accepting the new replacement name Phycita Curtis, 1828. Although many authors subsequent to Curtis (1828) used the name Phycita, others persisted in the use of Phycis, but the family-group name was only replaced by PHYCITINAE more than 50 years later by Ragonot (1885, p. 20), and has been the accepted name for a subfamily of PYRALIDAE (or as its own family) since that time, although even some later authors persisted in the use of Phycis and the family-group name derived from it (e.g. Bethune-Baker, 1894), and Lord Walsingham (1914, p. 357) even went so far as to explain his rejection of the replacement name of Curtis (1828). The homonymy of PHYCIDAE Zeller, 1839 and PHYCIDAE Swainson, 1838 has already been removed by the action of Ragonot (1885) replacing the name PHYCIDAE Zeller with PHYCITINAE, subsequent to Curtis (1828) replacing the name Phycis Fabricius with Phycita, and so does not affect the current application.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 25
6. Walker (1850, p. 2) established the fly genus Phycus. The type species is Xylophagus canescens Walker, 1848, p. 129, by monotypy. Lyneborg (1975, p. 91) synonymized this species under Xylophagus brunneus Wiedemann, 1824, p. 19, which Wulp (1896, p. 69) had previously placed in Phycus.
7. Lyneborg (1976, p. 197) established the family-group name PHYCINAE, as a subfamily of THEREVIDAE (Insecta, Diptera), for the fly genus Phycus Walker, 1850. Currently, this subfamily contains 12 valid, extant genera and 4 valid, fossil genera. Among the works using this family-group name are Lyneborg (1978, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1989a, 1989b), Irwin and Lyneborg (1981la, 1981b); Irwin (1983); Webb & Irwin (1989), Hauser & Webb (2007), Gaimari & Webb (2009).
8. PHYCINAE Lyneborg, 1976 is a junior homonym of PHYCINAE Swainson, 1838, although the two family-group names are based on non-homonymous type genera, Phycus Walker, 1850 and Phycis Walbaum, 1792. As such, under Article 55.3.1 of the Code, the homonymy between the two family-group names must be referred to the Commission. We propose that the entire generic name Phycus Walker, 1850 be adopted as the grammatical stem, so the family-group name of Lyneborg (1976) will become PHYCUSINAE and the homonymy will be removed.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to rule that for the purposes of Article 29 of the Code the stem of the generic name Phycus Walker, 1850, is Phycus-;
(b) to set aside all previous type species fixations for the generic name Phycis Walbaum, 1792 and designate Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 as the type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Phycus Walker, 1850 (gender: masculine), type species Xylophagus
canescens Walker, 1848, by monotypy (Insecta, Diptera);
(b) Phycis Walbaum, 1792, type species Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 (Osteichthyes, Gadiformes), as ruled in (1) above;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) canescens Walker, 1848, as published in the binomen Xylophagus canescens
(specific name of the type species of Phycus Walker, 1850) (Insecta, Diptera);
(b) phycis Linnaeus, 1766, as published in the binomen Blennius phycis (specific name of the type species of Phycis Walbaum, 1792) (Osteichthyes, Gadiformes), as ruled in (1) above;
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PHYCUSINAE Lyneborg, 1976, type genus Phycus Walker, 1850 (spelling emended by the ruling in (1) above) (Insecta, Diptera);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name PHYCINAE Lyneborg, 1976 (an incorrect original spelling of PHYCUSINAE, as ruled in (1) above) (Insecta, Diptera).
Acknowledgements
We thank William N. Eschmeyer (Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.), Alma Solis (USDA, ARS, Systematic Entomology Lab, Washington DC, U.S.A.), Neal L. Evenhuis
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
(Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A.) and Thomas Pape (Natural History Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen) for helpful discussion and advice. Also, thanks to Mark A. Metz (USDA, ARS, Systematic Entomology Lab, Washington DC, U.S.A.) for pointing out the family-group name homonymy at issue, Chris Thompson (Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington DC, U.S.A.) for some lively discussion, and two anonymous Commissioners for their helpful reviews.
References
Aldrovandi, U. 1638. De piscibus libri V, et de cetis liber unus. Bononiae.
Aristoteles. 1619. Historia de animalibus, Julio Cesare Scaligero interprete cum ejus commen- tariis. Tolosa [originally written in 4th century BCE].
Artedi, P. 1738a. Genera piscium. In quibus systema totum ichthyologie proponitus cum Classibus, ordinibus, generum characteribus, specierum differentiis, observationibus plurimis. Redactis speciebus 242 ad genera 52. Ichthyologie pars 3. 84, 1, 1 pp. Conradus Wishoff, Lugduni Batavorum [= Leiden].
Artedi, P. 1738b. Synonymia nominum piscium fere omnium; in qua recensio fit nominum piscium, omnium facile authorum, qui undam de piscibus scripsere: uti Graecorum, Romanorum, Barbarorum, nec non omnium insequentium ichthyologorum, una cum nomini- bus inquilinis variarum nationum. Ichthyologie pars 4. i, 118, xxi pp. Conradus Wishoff, Lugduni Batavorum [= Leiden].
Beccaloni, G., Scoble, M., Kitching, I., Simonsen, T., Robinson, G., Pitkin, B., Hine, A. & Lyal, C. (Eds.). 2003. The Global Lepidoptera Names Index (LepIndex ). Electronic publication, http://www.nhm.ac.uk/entomology/lepindex [accessed 14 January 2013]
Bethune-Baker, G.T. 1894. Descriptions of the Pyralidae, Crambidae and Phycidae collected by the late T. Vernon Woolaston in Madeira. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, 1894: 581-586.
Bloch, M.E., & Schneider, J.G. 1801. ME. Blochii, Systema Ichthyologiae Iconibus cx Tlustratum. Post obitum auctoris opus inchoatum absolvit, correxit, interpolavit Jo. Gottlob Schneider, Saxo. |x, 584 pp, Pls. 1-110. Sumtibus Auctoris Impressum et Bibliopolio Sanderiano Commissum, Berolini [= Berlin].
Briinnich, M.T. 1768. Ichthyologia Massiliensis, sistens piscium descriptiones eorumque apud incolas nomina. Accedunt Spolia Maris Adriatici. xvi, 110 pp. Roth, Hafniae [= Copenhagen] & Lipsiae [= Leipzig].
Cetti, F. 1777. Anfibi e pesci di Sardegna, vol. 3 of Storia naturale di Sardegna. i-viii (unnumbered), 208 pp, 5 pls. G. Piatoli, Sassari.
Cohen, D.M. 1971. Nomenclature of the gadid fish genus Phycis. Copeia, 1971(2): 327-328.
Cohen, D.M. 1984. Gadiformes: overview. Pp. 259-265 in Moser, H.G., Richards, W.J., Cohen, D.M., Fahay, M.P., Kendall Jr., A.W. & Richardson, S.L. (Eds.), Ontogeny and Systematics of Fishes. 760 pp. (American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Special Publication No. 1).
Cohen, D.M., Inada, T., Iwamoto, T. & Scialabba, N. 1990. FAO species catalogue. Vol. 10. Gadiform fishes of the world (order Gadiformes). An annotated and illustrated catalogue of cods, hakes, grenadiers and other gadiform fishes known to date. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) Fisheries Synopsis, No. 125, vol. 10: i-x, 1-442.
Curtis, J. 1828. British entomology; being illustrations and descriptions of the genera of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland: containing coloured figures from nature of the most rare and beautiful species, and in many instances of the plants upon which they are found, vol. 5, Part 58. Pp. 231-234. Printed for the author, London.
Denis, M. & Schiffermiiller, I. 1775. Systematisches Verzeichni$ der Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend herausgegeben von einigen Lehrern am k. k. Theresianum. 322 pp., i. Augustin Bernardi, Wien [= Vienna].
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 27
Eschmeyer, W.N. 1990. Catalog of the Genera of Recent Fishes. 697 pp.California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed.). 1998. Catalog of Fishes. 3 volumes. 3905 pp. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco.
Eschmeyer, W.N. (Ed.). 2013. Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Electronic publication, http://research.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/ Catalog/fishcatmain.asp [accessed 14 January 2013].
Eschmeyer, W.N. & Fong, J.D. 2013. Species by family/subfamily in the Catalog of Fishes. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco. Electronic publication, (http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/research/Ichthyology/catalog/SpeciesByFamily.asp) [accessed 14 January 2013].
Fabricius, J.C. 1777. Genera insectorvm eormgqve characteres natvrales secvndym nymeryvm, figvram, sitvm et proportionem omnivm partivm oris adiecta mantissa speciervm nvper detectarvm. xvi, 310 pp. Mich. Friedr. Bartschii, Chilonii [= Kiel].
Fabricius, J.C. 1794. Entomologia systematica, vol. 3, Part 2. 349 pp. C.G. Proft, Hafniae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum entomologiae systematicae. iv+572 pp. Proft et Storch, Hafniae.
Fletcher, D.S. & Nye, IL.W.B. 1984. Generic Names of Moths of the World. Volume 5. Pyraloidea. Trustees of the British Museum (Natural History), London. xv,185 pp. Fowler, H.W. 1936. The marine fishes of West Africa based on the collection of the American Museum Congo expedition, 1909-1915. Part 1. Bulletin of the American Museum of
Natural History, 70(1): 1-605.
Gaimari, S.D. & Webb, D.W. 2009. Therevidae (stiletto flies). Chapter 46. Pp. 643-647 in Brown, B.V., Borkent, A., Cumming, J.M., Wood, D.M., Woodley, N.E. & Zumbado, M. (Eds.), Manual of Central American Diptera, vol. 1. 714 pp. National Research Council Research Press, Ottawa, Canada.
Goode, G.B., & Bean, T.H. 1896. Oceanic ichthyology, a treatise on the deep-sea and pelagic fishes of the world, based chiefly upon the collections made by the steamers “Blake,” “Albatross,” and Fishhawk in the northwestern Atlantic, with an atlas containing 417 figures. Special Bulletin U.S. National Museum, 2: xxxv, 26, 553 pp., Atlas: xxiii, 26, 123 pls.
Goiian, A. 1770. Historia piscium, sistens ipsorum anatomen externam, internam, atque genera in classes et ordines redacta. Also: Histoire des poissons, contenant la déscription anatomique de leurs parties externes et internes, & le caractére des divers genres rangés par classes & par ordres. xviii, 252 pp., 4 pls. Amand K6nig, Argentorati [= Strasbourg].
Ginther, A.C.L.G. 1862. Catalogue of the Acanthopterygii, Pharyngognathi and Anacanthini in the collection of the British Museum. Catalogue of the fishes in the British Museum, vol. 4. xxi, 534 pp. British Museum, London.
Hauser, M. & Webb, D.W. 2007. A revision of the New World stiletto fly genus Ataenogera Krober (Diptera: Therevidae: Phycinae) with the description of two new species. Zootaxa, 1530: 41-67.
Irwin, M.E. 1983. The boharti species group of the genus Pherocera (Diptera: Therevidae: Phycinae). Pan Pacific Entomologist, 59(1-4): 113-139.
Irwin, M.E. & Lyneborg, L. 1981a. The genera of Nearctic Therevidae. Bulletin of the Illinois Natural History Survey, (1980)32: 193-277.
Irwin, M.E & Lyneborg, L. 1981b. Therevidae. Chapter 37. Pp. 513-523 in McAlpine, J.F., Peterson, B.V., Shewell, G.E., Teskey, H.J., Vockeroth, J.R. & Wood, D.M. (Coords.), Manual of Nearctic Diptera, vol. 1. 674 pp. Research Branch, Agriculture Canada.
Jordan, D.S. 1917. The genera of fishes, from Linnaeus to Cuvier, 1758-1833, seventy-five years, with the accepted type of each. A contribution to the stability of scientific nomenclature. (Assisted by B.W. Evermann.). Leland Stanford Jr. University Publications, University Series, 27: 1-161.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 1. Pp. 1-532. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lord Walsingham. 1914. Insecta. Lepidoptera-Heterocera. Volume IV. Pp. 281-392 in: Biologia Centrali Americana, vol. 42, Part CCXII.
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Lyneborg, L. 1975. Family Therevidae. Pp. 91-93 in Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A Catalog of Diptera of the Oriental Region. Volume II. Suborder Brachycera through Division Aschiza, Suborder Cyclorrhapha. 459 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Lyneborg, L. 1976. A revision of the Therevine stiletto-flies (Diptera: Therevidae) of the Ethiopian region. Bulletin of the British Museum, Entomology, 33(3): 189-346.
Lyneborg, L. 1978. The Afrotropical species of Phycus Walker (Diptera: Therevidae). Entomologica Scandinavica, 9: 212-233.
Lyneborg, L. 1983. A review of the Palaearctic genera of Phycinae (Insecta, Diptera, Therevidae). Steenstrupia, 9(8): 181-205.
Lyneborg, L. 1987. Notes on the Phycini of southern Africa with a description of a new genus and two new species (Diptera: Therevidae: Phycinae). Annals of the Natal Museum, 28(2): 467-474.
Lyneborg, L. 1988. Revision of Orthactia Krober, 1912, with description of six new species (Diptera: Therevidae: Phycinae). Annals of the Natal Museum, 29(2): 537-555.
Lyneborg, L. 1989a. Family Therevidae. Pp. 11-35 in Sods, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 6. 435 pp. Akadémiai Kiado, Budapest.
Lyneborg, L. 1989b. The first record of Phycini fom Madagascar (Diptera: Therevidae: Phycinae). Annals of the Natal Museum, 30: 159-163.
Nelson, J.S. 1994. Fishes of the World. 3rd Ed. 600 pp. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Nelson, J.S. 2006. Fishes of the World. 4th Ed. 604 pp. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Parenti, P. 2002. On the species of the genus Balistes described by Johann Julius Walbaum (1792). Cybium, 26: 309-316.
Pennant, T. 1776. British zoology. Class III. Reptiles. IV. Fish. 4th Ed. Vol. 3. iv, 425,1 pp. B. White, London.
Pietsch, T.W. 2010. The curious death of Peter Artedi. A mystery in the history of science. x, 222 pp. Scott & Nix, New York.
Ragonot, E.L. 1885. Revision of the British species of Phycitidae and Geleddas, Entomolo- gist’s Monthly Magazine, 22: 17-32, 52-58.
Roa-Varoén, A. & Orti, G. 2009. Phylogenetic relationships among families of Gadiformes (Teleostei, Paracanthopterygii) based on nuclear and mitochondrial data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 52: 688-704.
Rondelet, G. 1554. Libri de piscibus marinis, in quibus vere piscium effigies express@ sunt. xiv, 583, xxiii pp. M. Bonhomme, Lugduni [= Lyon].
Rose, A.F. 1793. Petri Artedi Angermannia Sueci synonymia nominum piscium fere omnium; in gua recensio fit nominum piscium,omnium facile authorum, qui umquam de _ piscibus scripsere: uti Graecorum, Romanorum, Barbarorum, nec non omnium insequentium ichthyl- ologorum, una cum nominibus inquilines variarum nationum. Ichthyologiae pars IV. Editio IT. 11,140 pp. Ant. Ferdin Rose, Grypeswaldiae [= Greifswald] [a reprint of Artedi (1738b), with no substantive changes].
Salviani, I. 1558. Aguatilium animalium historiae liber primus. I. viii, 256 pp, 81 pls. Salviani, Roma [= Rome].
Svetovidov, A.N. 1973. Gadidae. Pp. 303-320 in Hureau, J.-C. & Monod, T. (Eds.), Check-list of the Fishes of the North-eastern Atlantic and of the Mediterranean. [=>CLOFNAM], vol. 1. xxi, 683 pp. UNESCO, Paris.
Swainson, W. 1838. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians, & reptiles, or monocardian animals. vol. 1. vi, 368 pp. A. Spottiswoode, London,
Swainson, W. 1839. On the natural history and classification of fishes, amphibians, and reptiles, volume 2. 452 pp. Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longmans, and John Taylor, London.
Walbaum, J.J. 1792. Petri Artedi sueci Genera Piscium in quibus systema totum Ichthyologiae proponitur cum classibus, ordinibus, generum characteribus, specierum differentiis, observa- tionibus plurimis: redactis Speciebus 242 ad Genera 52. Ichthyologiae pars 3. viii, 723 pp., 3 pl. Ant. Ferdin. Rése, Grypeswaldiae [= Greifswald].
Walker, F. 1848. List of the specimens of dipterous insects in the collection of the British Museum. vol. 1. 229 pp. British Museum, London.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 29
Walker, F. 1850. Diptera, volume 1. Pp. 1-76 in Saunders, W.W. (Ed.), Insecta Saundersiana: or characters of undescribed insects in the collection of William Wilson Saunders. 474 pp. John Van Voorst, London.
Webb, D.W. & Irwin, M.E. 1989. The genera Ataenogera and Phycus in the New World. Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington, (1988)91(1): 35-50.
Wiedemann, C.R.W. 1824. Manus Rectoris in Academia Christiana Albertina aditurus Analecta entomologica ex Museo Regio Havniensi maxime congesta profert iconibusque illustrat. 60 pp. E regio typographeo scholarum, Kiliae [= Kiel].
Wulp, F.M. van der. 1896. Catalogue of the described Diptera from South Asia. iii, 219 pp. The Dutch Entomological Society, Hague.
Zeller, P.C. 1839. Versuch einer naturgem4Ben Eintheilung der Schaben. Isis von Oken, 32: 167-220.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 160.
Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Case 3613
Nyctimystes cheesmani Tyler 1964 (Amphibia, Anura, HYLIDAE): request for setting aside the name in favour of Nyctimystes cheesmanae Tyler 1964
M.J. Tyler
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 5005 (e-mail: michael.tyler@adelaide.edu.au)
J.I. Menzies
University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia 5005 (e-mail: james.menzies@adelaide.edu.au)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 33.2.3 of the Code, is to correct the spelling cheesmani to cheesmanae for a tree frog named after Evelyn Cheesman. Following the finding that Hy/a montana Peters & Doria, 1878 was in reality a member of the genus Nyctimystes Stejneger, N. montana Parker, 1936 became a secondary homonym. The replacement name, N. cheesmani Tyler, 1964, was given a masculine suffix, in error. Following the emendation to the feminine cheesmanae by Menzies (1976), there has been argument about whether the emen- dation was justified or not. To resolve the matter the Commission is here asked to rule that the emendation was justified and to place N. cheesmanae on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Amphibia; Anura; HYLIDAE; Hyla; Nyctimystes; Nyctimystes montana; Nyctimystes cheesmanae; New Guinea; tree frog.
1. Peters & Doria (1878, p. 103) described Hyla montana, a tree frog from the Arfak Mountains of western (Indonesian) New Guinea. Parker (1936, p. 80) described Nyctimystes montana, a new species of tree frog from Mondo in eastern New Guinea. Tyler (1964, 266) demonstrated that Hyla montana Peters & Doria, 1878 exhibits features of the genus Nyctimystes Stejneger, 1916 and transferred it to that genus. As a consequence, Nyctimystes montana Parker, 1936 became a secondary homonym of Nyctimystes montana Peters & Doria, 1878. In 1963 M.J. Tyler approached H.W. Parker (in accordance with Recommendation 3 in Appendix A of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1961, First Edition, then in effect) seeking that he (Parker) propose a replacement name. Parker responded that he was unfamiliar with the current literature and accordingly suggested that Tyler coin and publish a replacement name. Because the holotype of Nyctimystes montana Parker lacked any distinctive features, the specific epithet cheesmani (genitive masculine) was proposed in recognition of the collector Evelyn Cheesman (Tyler, 1964, p. 268) although this derivation was not specifically stated in Tyler’s paper. Tyler and Parker both knew that Evelyn Cheesman was a woman and Parker had
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 31
already named several frog and lizard species in her honour, e.g. Lipinia cheesmanae, Platymantis cheesmanae, Barygenys cheesmanae and Cophixalus cheesmanae. Tyler admits that he made a mistake and that the species name should have been Nyctimystes cheesmanae. Tyler has never acknowledged the mistake directly in print, but his acceptance of the mistake was implicit in that he used the emended name cheesmanae in his paper (Tyler & Davies, 1979, p. 79). This is further made clear in the footnote on page 160 of Menzies’s (2006) “Frogs of New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.’ Menzies wrote *...the author (Tyler) tells me that the masculine termin- ation was a genuine error...’.
2. Menzies (1976, p. 45) emended the name to Nyctimystes cheesmanae because he considered that such an emendation was justified under Article 32.5 of the Code. Tyler’s error was certainly inadvertent as both he and Parker knew that Evelyn Cheesman was a woman.
3. Zweifel (1980, p. 400) expressed the opinion that Menzies’ (1976) emendation was unjustified and used the masculine form, but usage has varied among authors since 1976. For instance, Tyler & Davies (1979, p. 765) and Zweifel & Tyler (1982, pp. 764, 781) used cheesmanae; Zweifel (1983, p. 15), Frost (1985) and Richards (2003) used cheesmani; Tyler (1999, p. 561), Richards (2007, pp. 108, 115), Frost (2006, p. 362) and Menzies (2006, p. 160) all used cheesmanae; Rosauer et al. (2009), Wiens et al. (2010) and Kraus (2012) used cheesmani. This is an unsatisfactory situation causing confusion. We therefore request a Commission’s ruling under Article 33.2.3.1 of the Code.
4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to rule that cheesmanae Tyler, 1964, as published in the binomen Nyctimystes cheesmani Tyler, 1964 and emended by Menzies (1976), is a justified emendation;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cheesmanae Tyler, 1964, as published in the binomen Nyctimystes cheesmani Tyler, 1964 and as emended by Menzies (1976);
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name cheesmani Tyler, 1964 as published in the binomen Nyctimystes cheesmani.
References
Frost, D.R. 1985. Amphibian species of the world. A taxonomic and geographical reference. i—vi, 1-732. Allen Press Inc. & Association of Systematics Collections, Lawrence, Kansas.
Frost, D.R., Grant, T., Faivovich, J. et al. 2006. The amphibian tree of life. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 297: 1-370.
Kraus, F. 2012. Identity of Nyctimystes cheesmani (Anura: Hylidae), with description of two new related species. Zootaxa, 3493: 1-26.
Menzies, J.I. 1976. Handbook of common New Guinea frogs. 75 pp. Wau Ecology Institute, Papua New Guinea.
Menzies, J.I. 2006. Frogs of New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. 146 pp. Pensoft, Sofia.
Parker, H.W. 1936. A collection of reptiles and amphibians from the mountains of British New Guinea. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10) 17: 66-93.
Peters, W. & Doria, G. 1878. Catalogo dei rettili e dei batraci raccolto E. Beccari, L.M. d’Albertis e A.A. Bruijn nella sotto-regione Austro-Malese, Annali dei Museo Civico di Storia naturale, Genova, 13: 325-450.
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Richards, S.J. (Ed.). 2003. Global amphibian assessment. Review Workshop, species data summaries. (unpaginated). Honolulu.
Richards, S.J. 2007. A new species of Nyctimystes (Anura: Hylidae) from Papua New Guinea and comments on poorly known members of the genus. Phyllomedusa, 6: 105-118. Rosauer, D., Lafffan, S.W., Crisp, M.D., Donnellan, S.C. & Cook, L.G. 2009. Phylogenetic endemism: a new approach for identifying geographical concentrations of evolutionary
history. Molecular Ecology, 18: 4061-4072.
Stejneger, L. 1916. New generic name for a tree-toad from New Guinea. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 29: 85.
Tyler, M.J. 1962. Notes on the Papuan hylid frog Nyctimystes gularis Parker. Copeia, 1962(2): 435-436.
Tyler, M.J. 1964. An investigation of the systematic position and synonymy of Hyla montana Peters and Doria (Anura, Hylidae). Zoologische Abhandlungen aus dem Staatliches Museum fur Tierkunde in Dresden, 27: 265-270.
Tyler, M.J. 1999. Distribution patterns of amphibians in the Australo-Papuan region. Pp. 541-563 in W.E. Duellman (Ed.), Patterns of distribution of amphibians. A global perspective. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
Tyler, M.J. & Davies, M. 1979. Redefinition and evolutionary origin of the Australopapuan hylid frog genus Nyctimystes Steyneger. Australian Journal of Zoology, 27: 755-772. Wiens, J.J., Kuczyinski, C., Xia, H. & Moen, D. 2010. An expanded phylogeny of treefrogs (Hylidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution, 55: 871-882.
Zweifel, R.G. 1980. Results of the Archbold Expeditions. No. 103. Frogs and lizards from the Huon Peninsula, Papua New Guinea. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 165: 387-434.
Zweifel, R.G. 1983. Two new hylid frogs from Papua New Guinea and a discussion of the Nyctimystes papua species group. American Museum Novitates, 2759: 1-21.
Zweifel, R.G. & Tyler, M.J. 1982. Amphibia of New Guinea. Pp. 759-801 in Gressitt, J.L. (Ed.), Monographiae biologicae, vol. 42. Dr. W. Junk, The Hague.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 160. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 33
Case 3587
Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848 (Reptilia, Testudines): proposed precedence over Emys cayennensis Schweigger, 1812
R.C. Vogt
Coordinagdo de Pesquisas em Biologia Aquatica, Instituto Nacional de Pesquisas da Amazonia, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil 69083—000
(e-mail: vogt@inpa.gov.br)
S.A. Thomson
Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia (e-mail: scott.thomson321@gmail.com)
A.G.J. Rhodin Chelonian Research Foundation, 168 Goodrich St., Lunenburg, MA 01462 U.S.A. (e-mail: rhodincrf@aol.com)
P.F...Pritchard
Chelonian Research Institute, 402 South Central Ave., Oviedo, FL 32765 U.S.A. (e-mail: chelonianri@gmail.com)
R.A. Mittermeier Conservation International, 2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22202 U.S.A. (e-mail: r.mittermeier@conservation.org)
N. Baggi Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the specific name Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848, for a widely distributed species of Amazonian turtle (family PODOCNEMIDIDAE) of both economic and conser- vation importance, by giving it precedence over its infrequently used senior synonym Podocnemis cayennensis (Schweigger, 1812). This species, the Yellow-spotted River Turtle, has long been referred to as P. unifilis by the IUCN Red List and CITES, as well as in at least 200 scientific publications over more than a century, whereas the name P. cayennensis has only been applied to this species in very few recent publications. Prior to 1974, the name cayennensis had usually been used incorrectly for another species, the Red-headed River Turtle, Podocnemis erythrocephala (Spix, 1824), as noted and corrected by Mittermeier & Wilson (1974) and Pritchard & Trebbau (1984). The conservation of the binomen P. unifilis will stabilize the use of a name that has been in general use for this species in the vast majority of the scientific publications, government documents, endangered species lists, and the general literature for over 100 years. Giving precedence to the older name (cayenn- ensis) would be counter to usage, and would create much confusion in the literature.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Testudines; PODOCNEMIDIDAE; Podoc- nemis, Podocnemis unifilis; Podocnemis cayennensis; Yellow-spotted River Turtle; Amazon; South America.
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
1. For over a 100 years (e.g. Williams, 1954), the name Emys cayennensis Schweigger, 1812 (p. 298)(currently Podocnemis cayennensis) was applied incorrectly to what is now known as Podocnemis erythrocephala (Spix, 1824, p. 9). Mittermeier & Wilson (1974) suspected, as was later demonstrated by Pritchard & Trebbau (1984) and David (1994), that Emys cayennensis actually refers to the species known by most authors as Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848 (p. 647). Although Podocnemis cayennensis has not been in common use (but see David, 1994; Bonin et al., 1996, 2006; Bour, 2006) and its species identification has at times been confused (reviewed by Pritchard & Trebbau, 1984, and Bour, 2006), it must be recognized that the oldest valid name for this taxon is Emys cayennensis Schweigger, 1812, as confirmed by the lectotype designated by Bour (2006).
2. The synonymy for Podocnemis unifilis presented below is based on van Dijk et al. (2012), Schneider et al. (2012), Rhodin et al. (2010), and Fritz & Havas (2007), but with some more recent updates:
Emys cayennensis Schweigger, 1812, p. 298. Type locality: ‘Cayenna’ [= Cayenne, French Guiana]. Holotype: not designated, but three syntypes are mentioned. Lecto- type designated by Bour (2006): MNHN 8359 (Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris; see Pritchard & Trebbau, 1984, and Bour, 2006, for justification); a juvenile dry specimen with head and shell separated; photographed in colour by Bour (2006); collected by L.C.M. Richard between 1781 and 1789 (not examined by authors);
Testudo Terekay Humboldt, 1819, p. 243. Type locality: “‘Haut-Orénoque, ... l’Apure, l’Uritucu, la Guarico et . . . les Llanos de Caracas’ (= Upper Orinoco, Apure, Uritucu, Guarico, and Ilanos of Caracas [Venezuela]). No type specimens known;
Chelys (Hydraspis) Cayennensis (Schweigger); Gray, 1830, p. 17;
Chelys (Hydraspis) Lata Bell in Gray, 1830, p. 17. Type locality ’Demerara’, Guyana;
Hydraspis Cayennensis (Schweigger); Gray 1831, p. 42;
Emys terekay (Humboldt); Schinz, 1833, p. 41;
Podocnemis dumeriliana (Schweigger); Duméril & Bibron, 1835, p. 387 (in error);
Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848, p. 647. Type locality, ‘Rupununi und Takutu’, Guyana. Syntypes: Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin (ZMB) 142 (two specimens in alcohol, collected by R. Schomburgk in 1840-44 and photographed and measured by the ZMB for this paper (not physically examined by authors, but existence has been confirmed by Fritz et al., 1994);
Podocnemis tracaya Coutinho, 1868, p. 149. Type locality, ‘Amazone’;
Chelonemys dumeriliana (Schweigger); Gray, 1870, p. 83 (in error);
Podocnemis cayennensis (Schweigger, 1812): Siebenrock, 1902, p. 162.
3. The name Testudo terekay Humboldt, 1819 is a forgotten name, with no known type specimens, never used in modern literature since Gray (1831) and Schinz (1833). It meets the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code, while its junior synonym Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848, meets the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code (see para. 7 below). We therefore declare the name Testudo terekay Humboldt, 1819 a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.2 of the Code whenever it is considered conspecific with Podocnemis unifilis.
4. The name Chelys (Hydraspis) lata Bell in Gray, 1830, is a forgotten name never used in modern literature, as noted by Rhodin et al. (2008), who declared it informally a nomen oblitum. It meets the criteria of Article 23.9.1.1, and its junior synonym, Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848, meets the criteria of Article 23.9.1.2 of
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 35
the Code (as shown in para. 7 below), and we therefore declare Chelys (Hydraspis) fata a nomen oblitum under Article 23.9.2 whenever it is considered conspecific with Podocnemis unifilis.
5. The name Emys dumeriliana Schweigger, 1812 was of uncertain usage for a while during the 19th century, being used erroneously at times for the Yellow-headed River Turtle, Podocnemis unifilis (e.g. Dumeéril & Bibron, 1835; Gray, 1870, 1871), but has for all of the 20th century been correctly used for the Big-headed Sideneck Turtle (either as Podocnemis dumeriliana or Peltocephalus dumerilianus), which was also correctly described by Schweigger (1812), and a neotype (MNHN 8364) for that species was designated by Bour (2006).
6. During the same period of time the name Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848, has been applied in its currently accepted and frequently-used form. The name is based on two specimens (ZMB 142, 49415) collected by R. Schomburgk that were described by Troschel (1848). The latter specimen was renumbered from ZMB 142 for the purposes of this paper, and we hereby designate ZMB 142 (Figs. 1, 2) as the lectotype for Podocnemis unifilis, a juvenile specimen (carapace length 46 mm) in the Museum fir Naturkunde, Berlin (ZMB).
7. The name Podocnemis unifilis has been used for more than 100 years in over 200 publications by numerous authors, and as such, fulfils the requirements of Article 23.9.1.2 of the Code. These include the following 40 examples from ecology and conservation (Fiasson, 1945; Vanzolini, 1977; Foote, 1979; Pritchard & Trebbau, 1984; Almeida & Garcia, 1986; Obst, 1986; Ernst & Barbour, 1989; Souza & Vogt, 1994; Vogt, 2001; Ferreira-Junior & Castro, 2006; Fachin-Teran & Vogt, 2007; Rueda-Almonacid et al., 2007), systematics and morphology (Siebenrock, 1909; Williams, 1954; Wermuth & Mertens, 1961; Medem, 1964; Pritchard, 1967; Mitter- meier & Wilson, 1974; Albrecht, 1976; Wermuth & Mertens, 1977; Pritchard, 1979; King & Burke, 1989; Iverson, 1992; Fritz & Havas, 2007; Abdala et al., 2008; Rhodin et al., 2008, 2010; van Dijk et al., 2012; Schneider et al., 2012 [with an extensive bibliography for the species]), genetics (Ayres et al., 1969; Frair et al., 1978; Rhodin et al., 1978; Bock et al., 1998; Fantin et al., 2007) and management (Honegger et al., 1985; Bayley et al., 1992; Baillie & Groombridge, 1996; Hernandez & Espin, 2003; CITES;:2012;1AUCM 2012)
8. The name Podocnemis cayennensis, originally Emys cayennensis and based on the lectotype MNHN 8359, as designated by Bour (2006), over a similar period was for the most part mistakenly applied to the species now known as the Red-headed Amazon River Turtle, Podocnemis erythrocephala (as first noted by Mittermeier & Wilson, 1974). Since this time, the name cayennensis has recently been used for the Yellow-headed River Turtle in three systematics papers (Fretey, 1977; David, 1994; Bour 2006), the first of which is an unpublished thesis, and four more popular works (Bonin et al., 1996, 2006; Artner, 2005, 2008).
9. It is the view of the authors that the resurrection and use of the name P. cayennensis would be disruptive and confusing within the current literature. The name was erroneously applied for much of its use to P. erythrocephala; its junior synonym and preferred name P. unifilis has been used in the majority of the literature.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name wnifilis Troschel, 1848, as published
in the binomen Podocnemis unifilis, precedence over the name cayennensis
36 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
of the paralectotype ZMB 49415. C. Ventral view of the lectotype ZMB 142. D. Ventral view of the paralectotype ZMB 49415. Also showing the original museum label for the type series.
Figure 2. Lateral views of the heads of the types of P. unifilis. A. Lectotype ZMB 142. B. Paralectotype ZMB 49415.
Schweigger, 1812, as published in the binomen Emys cayennensis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 37
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) unifilis Troschel, 1848, as published in the binomen Podocnemis unifilis, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over cayennensis Schweigger, 1812, as published in the binomen Emys cayennensis, when-
ever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) cayennensis Schweigger, 1812, as published in the binomen Emys cayenn- ensis, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name unifilis Troschel, 1848, as published in the binomen Podocnemis unifilis, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Acknowledgements
We thank Mark-Oliver Rédel (Museum fiir Naturkunde, Berlin) for providing access to measuring and photographing the types housed under his care, Roger Bour for providing the original Humboldt reference, and several Commissioners and reviewers who made helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.
References
Abdala, V., Manzano, A.S. & Herrel, A. 2008. The distal forelimb musculature in aquatic and terrestrial turtles: phylogeny or environmental constraints? Journal of Anatomy, 213: 159-172.
Albrecht, P.W. 1976. The cranial arteries of turtles and their evolutionary significance. Journal of Morphology, 149: 159-182.
Almeida, S.S., Sa, P.G.S. & Garcia, A. 1986. Vegetais consumidos como alimento por Podocnemis (Chelonia) na regiao do baixo rio Xingu (PA). Boletim do Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi, Botanica, 2(2): 199-211.
Artner, H. 2005. Keeping and breeding the yellow-spotted river turtle, Podocnemis cayennensis (Schweigger, 1812) over the years. Emys, 12(6): 4-22.
Artner, H. 2008. The world’s extant turtle species, part 1. Emys, 15(3): 4-32.
Ayres, M., Sampaio, M.M., Barros, R.M., Dias, L.B. & Cunha, O.R. 1969. A karyological study of turtles from Brazilian Amazon region. Cytogenetics, 8(6): 401-409.
Baillie, J. & Groombridge, B. 1996. IUCN red list of threatened animals. YUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Bayley, P.B., Vazquez, F., Ghersi, P., Soini, P., & Pinedo, M. 1992. Environmental review of the Pacaya-Samiria National Reserve in Peru and assessment of project (527-0341): Report prepared for the Nature Conservancy, Iquitos.
Bock, B.C., Paez, V.P., & Perez, N.F. 1998. Estudio preliminar con radiotelemetria sobre los desplazamientos de hembras de la tortuga Podocnemis unifilis en el Rio Caqueta, Amazonas, Colombia. Actualidades Bioldgicas, 20(68): 29-36.
Bonin, F., Devaux, B. & Dupré, A. 1996. Toutes les tortues du monde. 254 pp. Delachaux et Niest] Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bonin, F., Devaux, B. & Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the World. 416 pp. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Bour, R. 2006. Types of Podocnemidae in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Emys, 13: 27-40.
CITES. 2012. Appendices I, II, and HI. www.cites.org/eng/app/appendices. php.
Coutinho, JM. Da S. 1868 Sur les tortues de l’Amazone. Bulletin de la Société Impériale Zoologique d’Acclimation, (2)5: 147-166.
David, P. 1994. List des reptiles actuels du monde. I. Chelonil. Dumerilia, 1: 7-727.
Duméril, A.M.C. & Bibron, G. 1835. Erpétologie générale ou histoire naturelle des reptiles. Tome second. 630 pp. Roret, Paris.
Ernst, C.H. & Barbour, R.W. 1989. Turtles of the World. 313 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC.
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Fachin-Teran, A. & Vogt, R.C. 2004. Estrutura populacional, tamanho e razao sexual de Podocnemis unifilis (Testudines, Podocnemididae) no rio Guaporé (RO), norte do Brasil. Phyllomedusa, 3(1): 29-42.
Fantin, C., Carvalho, C.F., Hrbek, T., Sites, J.W. Jr., Monjel6, L.A.d.S., Astolfi-Filho, S. & Farias, I.P. 2007. Microsatellite DNA markers for Podocnemis unifilis, the endangered yellow-spotted Amazon River turtle. Molecular Ecology Notes, 7: 1235-1238.
Ferreira-Junior, P.D. & Castro, P.T.A. 2006. Thermal environment characteristics of Podoc- nemis expansa and Podocnemis unifilis nesting areas on the Javaes River, Tocantins, Brazil. Chelonian Conservation and Biology, 5: 102-107.
Fiasson, R. 1945. Cing chéloniens et deux sauriens du Haut-Apure (Venezuela). Cahiers de l’Institute Francais d’ Amerique Latine (Mexico, D.F.), 3: 33-45.
Foote, R.W. 1979. Nesting of Podocnemis unifilis (Testudines: Pelomedusidae) in the Colom- bian Amazon. Herpetologica, 34: 333-339.
Frair, W., Mittermeier, R.A. & Rhodin, A.G.J. 1978. Blood biochemistry and relations among turtles (Pleurodira, Pelomedusidae). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology, B: Com- parative Biochemistry, 61(1): 139-143.
Fretey, J. 1977. Les Cheloniens de Guyane Francaise. 1. Etude preliminaire. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Paris.
Fritz, U. & Havas, P. 2007. Checklist of Chelonians of the World. Vertebrate Zoology, 57(2): 149-368.
Fritz, U., Obst, F.-J., & Gimther, R. 1994. Kritischer Typen-Katalog der Schildkréten- sammlung (Reptilia: Testudines) des Zoologischen Museums Berlin. Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museums in Berlin, 70(1): 157-175.
Gray, J.E. 1830. A synopsis of the species of the Class Reptilia. Pp. 1-110 [page numbers duplicated], in Griffith, E. & Pidgeon, E. (Eds.), The animal kingdom arranged in conformity with its organization, by the Baron Cuvier. Vol. 9: The class Reptilia arranged by the Baron Cuvier, with specific descriptions. Whittaker, Treacher, & Co., London. [published December 1830, see Rhodin et al. (2010)].
Gray, J.E. 1831. Synopsis Reptilium; or short descriptions of the species of reptiles. Pt. I. Cataphracta, tortoises, crocodiles, and enaliosaurians. viii, 85 pp., 10 leaves of plates. Treuttel, Wurtz & Co., London.
Gray, J.E. 1870. Supplement to the Catalogue of Shield Reptiles in the Collection of the British Museum. Part I. Testudinata (Tortoises). Taylor & Francis, London.
Gray, J.E. 1871. Notes on Podocnemis unifilis. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (4)8: 68-70.
Hernandez, O. & Espin, R. 2003. Consumo ilegal de tortugas por comunidades locales en el Rio Orinoco Medio, Venezuela. Acta Biologica Venezuelica, 23(2—-3): 17-26.
Honegger, R.E., Mittermeier, R.A. & Rhodin, A.G.J. 1985. Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848. Code A-301.009.005.004. Pp.1—2 Jn Dollinger, P. (Ed.), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora identification manual, vol. 3: Reptilia, Amphibia, Pisces. Secretariat for the CITES Convention, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Humboldt, A. de [von]. 1819. Voyage aux Régions Equinoxiales du Nouveau Continent, fait en 1799, 1800, 1801, 1802, 1803 et 1804, par Al. de Humboldt et A. Bonpland. Tome Second. 381 pp. N. Maze, Paris.
IUCN. 2012. Red List of Threatened Species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/.
Iverson, J.B. 1992. A Revised Checklist with Distribution Maps of the Turtles of the World. 363 pp. Privately printed, Richmond, IN.
King, F.W. & Burke, R.L. 1989. Crocodilian, Tuatara, and Turtle Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 216 pp. Association of Systematics Collections, Washington, DC.
Medem, F. 1964. Morphologie, Okologie und Verbreitung der Schildkrote Podocnemis unifilis in Kolumbien. Senckenbergiana Biologica, 45(3/5): 353-368.
Obst, F.J. 1986. Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins. 231 pp. Edition Leipzig, Leipzig.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1967. Living Turtles of the World. 288 pp. TFH Publ., Jersey City.
Pritchard, P.C.H. 1979. Encyclopedia of Turtles. 895 pp. TFH Publications, Neptune, NJ.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 39
Pritchard, P.C.H. & Trebbau, P. 1984. The Turtles of Venezuela. SSAR Contributions to Herpetology, 2: 1-403.
Rhodin, A.G.J., Mittermeier, R.A., Gardner, A.L., & Medem, F. 1978. Karyotypic analysis of the Podocnemis turtles. Copeia, 1978(4): 723-728.
Rhodin, A.G.J., van Dijk, P.P., & Parham, J.F. 2008. Turtles of the world: annotated checklist of taxonomy and synonymy. Chelonian Research Monographs, 5(1): 000.1-38.
Rhodin, A.G.J., van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B. & Shaffer, H.B. 2010. Turtles of the world, 2010 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. Chelonian Research Monographs, 5(3): 000.85—164.
Rueda-Almonacid, J.V., Carr, J.L., Mittermeier, R.A., Rodriguez-Mahecha, J.V., Mast, R.B., Vogt, R.C., Rhodin, A.G.J., De La Ossa-Velasquez, J., Rueda, J.N., & Mittermeier, C.G. 2007. Las Tortugas y los Cocodrilianos de los Paises Andinos del Tropico. 538 pp. Editorial Panamericana, Formas e Impresos, Serie de Guias Tropicales de Campo No. 6, Conservacion Internacional, Bogota, Colombia.
Schinz, H.R. 1833. Naturgeschichte und Abbildungen der Reptilien. Weidmann’sche Buchhand- lung, 120 pp. Leipzig.
Schneider, L., Iverson, J.B. & Vogt, R.C. 2012. Podocnemis unifilis. Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles, 890: 1-33.
Schweigger, A.F. 1812. Prodromus monographiae Cheloniorum. Konigsberger Archiv Natur- wissenschaft und Mathematik, 1: 271-368, 406-468.
Siebenrock, F. 1902. Zur Systematik der Schildkr6étengattung Podocnemis Wagler. Anzeiger der Osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, 1: 104-106.
Siebenrock, F. 1909. Synopsis der rezenten Schildkréten, mit Beriicksichtigung der in historischer Zeit ausgestorbenen Arten. Zoologische Jahrbticher Supplement, 10(3): 427-618.
Souza, R.R. de & Vogt, R.C. 1994. Incubation temperature influences sex and hatchling size in the Neotropical turtle Podocnemis unifilis. Journal of Herpetology, 28(4): 453-464.
Spix, J.B. 1824. Animalia nova sive species novae Testudinum et Ranarum. 53 pp. Monachii.
Troschel, H. 1848. Amphibien. Pp. 645-661 in Schomburgk, R. (Ed.), Reisen in Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844. Dritter Theil. Versuch einer Fauna und Flora von Britisch-Guiana. Verlagsbuchhandlung J.J. Weber, Leipzig.
van Dijk, P.P., Iverson, J.B., Shaffer, H.B., Bour, R. & Rhodin, A.G.J. 2012. Turtles of the world, 2012 update: annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution, and conservation status. Chelonian Research Monographs, 5(5):000.243—328.
Vanzolini, P.E. 1977. A brief biometrical note on the reproductive biology of some South American Podocnemis (Testudines, Pelomedusidae). Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (Sao Paulo ), 31:79-102.
Vogt, R.C. 2001. Turtles of the Rio Negro. Pp. 245-262 in Chao, L.N., Petry, P., Prang, G., Sonneschien, L. & Tleusty, M. (Eds.), Conservation and management of ornamental fish resources of the Rio Negro Basin, Amazonia, Brazil (Project Piaba). Univ. Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonia, Brazil.
Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. 1961. Schildkréten. Krokodile. Briickenechsen. 422 pp. Gustav Fischer Verlag, Jena.
Wermuth, H. & Mertens, R. 1977. Liste der rezenten Amphibien und Reptilien: Testudines, Crocodylia, Rhynchocephalia. Tierreich, 100:1—174.
Williams, E.E. 1954. A key and description of the living species of the genus Podocnemis (sensu Boulenger) (Testudines, Pelomedusidae). Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, 111(8): 279-295.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 69: 84. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Comment on Lychnorhiza lucerna Haeckel, 1880 (Cnidaria, Scyphozoa, Rhizostomeae): proposed conservation of generic and specific names (Case 3485; see BZN 66: 242-246)
Mark J. Grygier
Lake Biwa Museum, 1091 Oroshimo, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan
(e-mail: grygier@lbm.go.jp)
The jellyfish involved in Case 3485 do not appear to be of very high profile in such areas as research for fisheries, and the number of cited works concerning them is not very large. I therefore suggest that the author withdraw his proposals and instead designate the extant holotype of Lychnorhiza lucerna Haeckel, 1880 as the neotype of Rhizostoma cruciatum (sic; see below) Lesson, 1830 and assign all the involved nominal species to this genus in accordance with the Code, with no involvement of the Commission. This will result in the permanent replacement of the name Lychnorhiza lucerna by Rhacopilus cruciatus. Although this is contrary to the author’s intent, he has provided little documentation of the use of Lychnorhiza for nominal species other than L. Jucerna, only mentioning two such species in paragraph 9. Although currently a nomen dubium, cruciatum (-us, -a) is far from being a nomen oblitum, so it might as well be conserved; its definition and assignment to genus will be fixed by the suggested neotypification.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked, in the event Case 3485 fails to gain a two-thirds-majority favourable vote from the Commission, to use its specific powers under Articles 78.2.3 and 83 of the Code to
(1) designate the extant holotype of Lychnorhiza lucerna Haeckel, 1880 (ZBM CN1 1170) as the neotype of Rhizostoma cruciatum Lesson, 1830; and
(2) place cruciatum Lesson, 1830, originally proposed as Rhizostoma cruciata (an adjective, also rendered in French by Lesson as croisee, corrected for gender herein) and defined by the neotype designated in (1) above, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
As for other concerns, a clear statement should have been included to the effect that Mayer’s (1910) synonymisation of Haeckel’s (1880) L. lucerna and Cramborhiza flagellata constituted a First Reviser action assigning priority to the former; also, line 4 of paragraph 11 would have been much clearer with “Goy’s record’ in place of “the record’.
Finally, the corrigendum (BZN 66: 379) changing ‘nomen nudum’ to ‘nomen oblitum’, is partly erroneous; the indicated change must be made to the last sentence of paragraph 3, not that of paragraph 14 as stated.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 4]
Comment on Cornu Born, 1778 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata, HELICIDAE): request for a ruling on the availability of the generic name (Case 3518; see BZN 68: 97-104, 282-292; 69: 124-127, 219-221)
Francisco Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Strasse 28, 37073 Géttingen, Germany (e-mail: fwelter@gwdg.de)
Cristian R. Altaba
Department of Philosophy and Social Work, University of the Balearic Islands, 07122 Palma, Balearic Islands, Spain (e-mail: cristianr.altaba@uib.cat)
Cédric Audibert
Muséum, Centre de Conservation et d’Etude des Collections, 13A rue Bancel, 69007 Lyon, France (e-mail: cedric.audibert@cernuelle.com)
We are thankful to our colleague Ruud Bank for having communicated the manuscript of his comment in the Cornu case, enabling us to respond directly, as this will save time. Whenever we spoke of ‘correct names’ in this journal, we always did this in the sense of nomenclaturally correct names, never in the sense of taxonomi- cally correct names. We do not believe the term ‘correct’ is appropriate in a taxonomic context. Taxonomy depends on personal judgements and there is no eternal truth dictating a certain classification. We are experts specialising in European pulmonates ourselves, and two of us (F. W.-S. and C. Aud.) classify aspersa in the genus Helix, as was done in a recently published identification guide on 2150 species of European molluscs (Welter-Schultes, 2012, p. 610). Those who do this can have various reasons for such a classification and take advantage of the freedom of science. Those who classify aspersa in a separate genus (e.g. C. Alt.) also have various reasons and also take advantage of the freedom of science.
R. Bank’s statement ‘it is now clear that aspersa is not a Helix’ is not in line with the usual form of scientific arguments that are brought forward (ordinarily one would say ‘the results suggest that aspersa is not a Helix’). The term ‘a Helix’ ignores the fact that the concept of a genus and the number of species included is never mandatorily fixed, and the definite use of ‘aspersa’ in this statement leads us to highlight another important detail that has been ignored in the previous discussion: the precise identities of some of the taxa involved. One problem is that the type of Cornu Born, 1778 is not aspersa, but copiae. And we see no evidence that Helix aspersa Miiller, 1774 is based on a name-bearing type. Probably it is not.
Another problem is that the taxonomy of what we currently call aspersa is not fully understood and still remains to be studied in detail. We only partly agree with Cowie’s (2011) statement that there are no doubts about copiae and aspersa being synonyms. This is only the current state of research, and not based on results of appropriately designed studies. Recently Italian researchers have speculated that the Italian aspersa populations may consist of a variety of different taxa, possibly several different species (F. Liberto, pers. comm., 2012). This must be seen in the light of recent results in Sicily, published by Colomba et al. (2011) who suggested the
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
presence of three separate local species of the Helix mazzullii complex. Again this is a lecture of scientific progress.
These forms have long been classified as varieties of Helix aspersa, more recently as a very closely related but separate species H. mazzullii and finally, with more detailed knowledge, Colomba et al. (2011) suggested classifying them in a separate genus Erctella Monterosato, 1894. Nobody can currently exclude that something similar may not happen to the aspersa/copiae complex in the future, if Italian and non-Italian aspersa populations are studied more closely.
The name-bearing type of Cornu copiae Born, 1778 seems to have come from Spain (BZN 68: 287); the type locality of aspersa could be anywhere in Italy (Miller, 1774, p. 59). The two cannot be made objective synonyms.
Just declaring aspersa on the Official List as the valid name for copiae, as proposed in Cowie’s (BZN 68: 97) third request, without knowing the exact identity of Miiller’s name aspersa, is not an ideal procedure. It is not well equipped for the future because such an entry could become meaningless with new insights, and the disputes could start again.
It would be desirable to have a stable genus-group name for aspersa, robust against changes in classification due to scientific progress, a genus-group name that is immune to nomenclatural or taxonomic disputes. The type species of Cryptomphalus Charpentier, 1837 is Helix aspersa (as already said by Cowie, BZN 68: 100), so this would be a stable name for aspersa. The three co-authors of this comment have different taxonomic views, but we would see Cryptomphalus as the better choice. If any future study came to the conclusion that C. copiae did not belong to H. aspersa, but perhaps to a surprisingly distantly related form, the genus Cornu could once again come into dispute. Setting Cornu on the Official Index would exclude such an undesirable situation.
We consider it a good idea of Cowie (BZN 68: 97) to ask the Commission for help in this disputed case. We would appreciate a definite decision — either by setting Cornu on the Official List or on the Official Index, but not an unclear or intermediate solution.
Additional references
Colomba, M.S., Gregorini, A., Liberto, F., Reitano, A., Giglio, S. & Sparacio, I. 2011. Monographic revision of the endemic Helix mazzullii De Cristofori & Jan, 1832 complex from Sicily and re-introduction of the genus Erctella Monterosato, 1894 (Pulmonata, Stylomatophora, Helicidae). Zootaxa, 3134: 1-42.
Welter-Schultes, F.W. 2012. European non-marine molluscs, a guide for species identification. Pp. Al-A3, 1-679, Q1-Q78. Planet Poster Editions, Gottingen.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 43
Comment on Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 (Gastropoda, CLAUSILIDAE): request for setting aside the neotype (Case 3581; see BZN 69: 85-87, 213-218, 280)
Hartmut Nordsieck
Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main, Germany (e-mail: hnords@t-online.de)
Forcart (1965, p. 122) was of the opinion that Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 was only based on the cited illustration of Gualtieri (pl. 4, fig. C). Because this figure allegedly was one of Cochlodina laminata (Montagu, 1803), he thought that the name was not available for T. bidens; therefore the species should be named Helix papillaris O.F. Miiller, 1774. However, T. bidens was not only based on that illustration, but was also accompanied by a diagnosis.
Falkner et al. (2002, p. 113) emphasized that Linnaeus’ diagnosis (‘sutura subcrenata’) did not correspond with the illustration of Gualtieri, pl. 4, fig. C, but with the illustrations pl. 4, figs. D and E (which had already been noticed by Schroter, who revised Linnaeus’s work). So they called the species Papillifera bidens (Linnaeus) and designated the specimen figured by Gualtieri (pl. 4, fig. E) as its neotype. This was a mistake, because a specimen designated as the neotype should be accessible for the study of the species characters (Article 75 of the Code, Recommendation B).
The Commission (2007, p. 195) decided that the name Helix papillaris O.F. Miller, 1774 was not to be maintained and put the name Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology instead. However, they neither gave a comment on the problems with the use of the species name nor on the neotype designation of Falkner et al. This gave Kadolsky (2009) an opportunity, following previous statements of Giusti & Manganelli, to designate a neotype for Turbo bidens, which was said to correspond with Linnaeus’ diagnosis as well as with Gualtieri’s illustration pl. 4, fig. C, which is a specimen of Cochlodina incisa (Kister, 1876). For that he gave the reason that it was C. incisa which had been characterized by Linnaeus as having a ‘sutura subcrenata’ because it exhibited, in contrast to C. laminata, a ‘faint crenellation of the suture’.
All clausiliid species which have ever been named crenata or subcrenata have sutural papillae and belong to the tribe DELIMINI; no author has ever had the idea of diagnosing Cochlodina species like C. laminata and C. incisa, in which at best growth lines are visible at the suture, as ‘sutura subcrenata’. Besides, the shells of the two Cochlodina species mentioned are so similar that, for example, Giusti (1971, pp. 497-507) was unable to distinguish the two species in Italy. As is shown by a comparative illustration of the lower whorls of both species (Figs. 3-4), there are no differences in the development of the suture. The morphological statements, on which Kadolsky’s neotype designation is based, are therefore incorrect and for this reason the designation is unacceptable and arguably invalid.
Kadolsky did not discuss the most probable possibility that Linnaeus made a mistake when he cited the illustration of Gualtieri. Both the name of the species (‘bidens’) and the diagnosis with ‘sutura subcrenata’ and ‘apertura . . . bidendata’ are inconsistent with Gualtieri’s pl. 4, fig. C, which shows neither a weakly notched suture, nor an aperture with two ‘teeth’, but instead correspond with Gualtieri’s pl.
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Figures 1-4. SMF (Senckenberg Museum Frankfurt am Main); H shell height (mm). 1. Opalia crenata, Canary Islands, ex SMF, H 15.9; 2. Papillifera bidens, Italy, Tuscany, Firenze (outside of town), ex SMF 232184, H 14.2; 3. Cochlodina incisa, Italy, Abruzzi, Vado di Sole between Castel del Monte and Farindola (1640 m), ex SMF 334472, H 18.0. 4. Cochlodina laminata, same locality, ex SMF 334471, H 18.0.
4, fig. D in which both characters are clearly visible. What Linnaeus referred to as crenata and consequently as sub-crenata, can be seen on the shell of Turbo crenatus = Opalia crenata (Linnaeus, 1758) (Prosobranchia, EPITONIIDAE), diagnosed by Linnaeus as ‘anfractibus ... supra crenatis’. This species has prominent notches at the suture (Fig. 1). Thus ‘sutura subcrenata’ means weaker notches at the suture, which is exactly what sutural papillae are, like those of Papillifera bidens (Fig. 2). The weak ‘crenulations’ at the suture of Cochlodina incisa which can be seen in Kadolsky’s figures as well as in Fig. 3 (and Fig. 4) of this comment are the ends of striae not much stronger than growth-lines at the suture which are present in several Cochlodina species. In shell descriptions those species are therefore described as ‘smooth’ (not considered in species names). They are much different from the small white knobs at the suture named sutural papillae which are present e.g. in DELIMINI species like Papillifera bidens. In shell descriptions DELIMINI species are therefore
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 45
described as provided with ‘papillae’ (considered in species names like crenata, crenulata, subcrenata, but also papillaris, albopustulata, alboguttulata, and in the genus name Papillifera). Besides, in the second edition of his Systema Naturae, Linnaeus (1767, p. 1240) added to his description of Turbo bidens an illustration of Buonanni (fig. 41) and thus made clear his opinion of that species. So the authors following Linnaeus, Schréter and Gmelin, were right in referring Linnaeus’s T. bidens to the species named Clausilia bidens by L. Pfeiffer (i.e. Papillifera papillaris) and later authors, and there is no doubt that the application of the name P. bidens to this species is correct.
Additional references
Falkner, G., Ripken, Th.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de Référence annotée et Bibliographie. Patrimoines naturels, 52: 350 pp.
Forcart, L. 1965. Rezente Land- und Siisswassermollusken der stiditalienischen Landschaften Apulien, Basilicata und Calabrien. Verhandlungen der Naturforschenden Gesellschaft Basel, 78(1): 59-184.
Giusti, F. 1971. Notulae Malacologicae XVI. I molluschi terrestri e di acqua dolce viventi sul massiccio dei Monti Reatini (Appennino Centrale). Lavori della Societa Italiana di Biogeografia, (NS) 2: 422-576, 7 pls.
ICZN (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 2007. Opinion 2176 (Case 3319). Helix papillaris Miller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Gas- tropoda): specific name not conserved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 64(3): 195.
Kadolsky, D. 2009. Turbo bidens Linnaeus 1758 (Gastropoda: Clausiliidae) misidentified for 250 years. Journal of Conchology, 40(1): 19-30 (here also the complete literature on the nomenclature of the species).
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12. Tom. I, Pars II. Pp. 533-1327. Holmiae.
Comment on a proposal to reinstate as available the species-group names proposed for Devonian ammonoids (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) by Sobolew (1914a, 1914b) (Case 3600; see BZN 69: 170-177)
Dieter Weyer
Museum of Natural History (Leibniz Institute) at Humboldt University, Invalidenstrasse 43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: dieter.weyer@t-online.de)
The Case of the two Ammonoidea publications of Sobolew (1914a, b) — in 1956 placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomen- clature (Direction 32, following Opinion 132) — was a priori a serious and inexcusable mistake by the ICZN. According to the application the decision of 1936 dealing only with the generic names of Sobolew did not cover his specific names; therefore these were seen to be valid by all subsequent ammonoid workers up to present times.
A comparable incorrect decision in Opinion 946 (1971) ruled that the Rugosa/Tabulata (Anthozoa) publication of Ludwig (1865-1866) was suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority and was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. This invalidation followed the application of Scrutton (1969). Just as in the case of Sobolew (1914), the majority
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
of Ludwig’s generic names were interpreted as formulae, but there was no reason to also reject the specific names which were partially classified into traditional genera (Amplexus, Hallia, Hadrophyllum, Aulacophyllum, Zaphrentis, Cyathaxonia). A com- ment by Birenheide (1969) to retain one already revised species Cyathophyllum (Peripaedium) planum (Ludwig, 1866) remained unmentioned; in spite of that Birenheide (1978) regarded the Ludwig species as valid.
Case 3600 for making available all the Sobolew (1914) species-group names of Ammonoidea is fully supported.
Additional references
Birenheide, R. 1969. The case for the retention of the specific name Astroblastodiscus planus in R. Ludwig’s Ludwig’s ”Corallen aus palaolithischen Formationen” (Palaeontographica, 14: 228; 1866). Z.N.(S.) 495. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 25: 220-221.
Birenheide, R. 1978. Rugose Korallen des Devon. Jn Krémmelbein, K. (Ed.), Leitfossilien begriindet von Georg Giirich, 2. vOllig neu bearbeitete Auflage, 2: vi, 265 pp. Borntraeger, Berlin-Stuttgart.
Ludwig, R. 1865-1866. Corallen aus paldolithischen Formationen. Palaeontographica, 14: 133-244, 249-252, pls. 31-72.
Scrutton, C.T. 1969. The case for the suppression of R. Ludwig’s ’’Corallen aus palaolithischen Formationen”’ (Palaeontographica, 14: 133-244, 1865-66) for the purposes of zoological nomenclature. Z.N.(S.) 495. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 25: 156-161.
Comments on Scarabaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Dynastes MacLeay, 1819, CARABAEINAE Latreille, 1802, and DyNASTINAE MacLeay, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEOIDEA): proposed conservation of usage
(Case 3590; see BZN 69: 182-190, 293-295)
(1) Neal L. Evenhuis
Department of Natural Sciences, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, 1515 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. (e-mail: NealE@bishopmuseum.org)
I wish to register my strong support for conservation of the current usage of Scarabaeus and Dynastes and their associated higher taxa as proposed in Case 3590, but also wish to help clarify the matter of authorship of type designations in Jolyclerc (1807a, 1807b). Having obtained a copy of the original 1807 two-volume set, I have been researching this work and compiling a list of type designations in it and unfortunately misled the authors of this application when I advised them that the preface (page iii) had the information as to the authorship of Lamarck for the insect entries.
Hans Fery (BZN 69: 294) recently published a comment to this application pointing out that the authorship of the type designation for Scarabaeus might really be Jolyclerc himself. The title page of the second edition of this work cited by Fery (i.e. Jolyclerc, 1822), differs from the original 1807 title page and the wording that is there is immaterial to the current application; however, the preface and, as far as I can see, the remainder of the text of the 1822 work, are exactly the same as the 1807 version. Because the wording in the preface is equivocal as to any explicit authorship of the material by the specialists listed on p. iti of the preface, I conclude that the authorship of any zoological nomenclatural acts in the Dictionnaire should be Jolyclerc’s alone.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 47
(2) Yves Cambefort
Laboratoire d’Entomologie, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 45, rue de Buffon 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: yves.cambefort@sfr. fr)
Concerning the genus-name Scarabaeus Linnaeus, 1758, it may be interesting to ask the question: are there Linnaean principles to support a decision about which species (hercules or sacer) is more legitimate as a type-species for this genus? The answer is yes, and we shall see that the more appropriate type, for Linnaeus, might have been Scarabaeus sacer.
In the Linnaean corpus, the largest collection of principles dealing with systematics is found in his Philosophia Botanica (Linnaeus, 1751). In spite of its title, the work does not deal only with plants but takes some of its arguments from the animal kingdom, for example in ‘§ 153. Dispositio Vegetabilium (Arrangement of Vegeta- bles): (. . .) ‘Naturalis instinctus docet nosse primum proxima & ultimo minutissima, e. gr. Homines, Quadrupedia, Aves, Pisces, Insecta, Acaros...’ (Natural instinct teaches to know first the closest and last the most minute, e.g. Men, Quadrupeds, Birds, Fishes, Insects, Mites. . .”). Therefore, it is likely that the principles developed in Philosophia Botanica can be applied to animals as well. When we read in this work, ‘§ 246: Si Genus receptum, secundum jus naturae & artis, in plura dirimi debet, tum nomen antea commune manebit vulgatissimae et officinali plantae’ (If a received genus, according to the right of nature and art, must be divided into several [genera], then the name formerly common will remain to the most vulgar and officinal plant), we feel free to use this principle for animals, in general, and for insects in particular. Consequently, in respect of the question asked, we have to make a proposal as to which one, of the two Scarabaeus (in the Linnaean sense), hercules or sacer, must be considered as the most vulgar and officinal.
The ‘most vulgar’ species, i.e. the most common of the two, the most well-known, is surely Scarabaeus sacer, a species which has been known in Europe and the Mediterranean countries since the Egyptians and Romans: the Romans used to bring Egyptian obeliscs to Rome, and Linnaeus takes care to acknowledge it in his diagnosis of this species (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 347): ‘Hic in columnis antiquis Rome exsculptus ab A-gyptiis’ (‘This [species was] engraved by Egyptians on ancient columns in Rome’). For this species, and contrary to most other ones, Linnaeus did not provide bibliographical data: he probably thought the species was well known enough (‘vulgatissima’) and did not need additional references. On the other hand, ‘Scarabaeus Hercules’, although large and remarkable, is an American species which was not known by European scholars before the seventeenth century; the first reference given by Linnaeus is Georg Marcgraf’s Historia Naturalis Brasiliae of 1648 (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 345). Even in the eighteenth century, the species was a rare curio, to be found only in princely cabinets; nothing ‘vulgar’ in it!
As for ‘officinal’, in his Historia Naturalis, Pliny explained that Egyptian scarabs have a number of medicinal virtues. But the ‘officinal’ of Linnaeus is to be looked for more appropriately in the seventeenth and eighteenth century books referred to as ‘materia medica’ or ‘pharmacopeeia’. Johann Schréder’s Pharmacopoeia Medico- Chymica of 1641 stated that the ‘Scarabaeus pilaris’, or ‘pilularius’ (= Scarabaeus in the current sense) had various uses in the cures of troubles of ear or eye and also of anus (hemorrhoids), appropriately for a dung beetle (Schroder, 1644, p. 324).
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
‘Scarabaeus Hercules’, on the other hand, was too precious and expensive to be prescribed by physicians and apothecaries; it is not mentioned in Schréder’s book nor in the more modern pharmacopoeia of James (1747).
As a conclusion, if we divide the former genus Scarabaeus in two genera according to Linnaeus’s own principles, then Scarabaeus (s.s.) should still include the species sacer, which is more vulgar and officinal. The species hercules should be placed in the other genus.
Additional references
James, R. 1747. Pharmacopeia universalis. 852 pp. J. Hodges & J. Wood, London.
Linnaeus, C. 1751. Philosophia botanica, in qua explicantur fundamenta botanica, cum defini- tionibus partium, exemplis terminorum, observationibus rariorum. 686 pp. Godofr. Kiesewetter, Stockholmiz.
Schréder, J. 1644. Pharmacopeia medico-chymica, sive thesaurus pharmacologicus, quo com- posita queque celebriora... 596 pp. Ed. 2. Johannes Gerlinus, Ulme (original edition: 1641).
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the specific name Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Aphodius fimetarius; Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE) by designation of a neotype
(Case 3579; see BZN 69: 29-36, 128-140, 221-229, 284-293)
Hans Fery Rduschstrasse 73, Berlin, Germany (e-mail: hanfry@aol.com)
Since the publication of Case 3579 in December 2011, fifteen comments on the Case have been published. One might believe that all has been said; however, the recent comment by Krell & Angus (BZN 69: 285-290) contains a number of inaccuracies, some of which should certainly be challenged.
Krell & Angus devote about one quarter of their comment to show that Aphodius fimetarius (Linnaeus, 1758) as understood by almost all authors was a composite species, however, this is only half of the truth: the “other species’ was already described as distinct in 1892 (Aphodius cardinalis Reitter), after a short period disregarded as a species, but until recently often treated as an aberratio or morph or even an ‘eventual geographical race’ (e.g. Baraud 1977, 1985). It is not unusual that a species split into two species had been treated before that split as a composite species. It is, however, unusual and confusing that the two taxa should have names which were treated as synonyms for almost 250 years and for both of which the existing type material (paralectotypes of Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758, and lecto- and paralectotypes of Scarabaeus pedellus De Geer, 1774) undoubtedly belongs to one and the same species. The confusion would be complete if the senior name (fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758) were attributed to the species that was described as distinct 130 years later (cardinalis Reitter, 1892), and the junior synonym (pedellus De Geer, 1774) were attributed to the species which was described as the first one (fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758).
Krell & Angus give as an example that ‘Fery himself labelled his proposed neotype of Aphodius cardinalis Reitter originally as A. fimetarius L.’ But which other name
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 49
should I have selected in 1984 when nobody believed in the existence of two species under that name? Additionally, it must be stated that in Fery (BZN 69: 128-136) a neotype for A. cardinalis Reitter was not ‘proposed’ but designated. Krell & Angus remark that ‘a hasty neotype designation is inappropriate’. My designation of the neotype of A. cardinalis was by no means hasty since all institutions which come into consideration as depositories of Reitter’s type material (Horn et al., 1990) had been contacted—except one which, unfortunately, had been overlooked: the Slezske Zemské Muzeum in Opava, Czech Republic. In January 2013, however, I was informed that no such type material is kept in the collections of that museum (pers. communication by curator J. Rohacéek). There is no evidence that any other institutions have material which can be undoubtedly attributed to Reitter.
Krell & Angus cite Barclay (BZN 69: 139-140) that ‘authors are likely to think of the typical A. fimetarius as the species usual in their geographical areas’ and give as an example that Bunalski (1999) illustrated the parameres from typical Central European specimens (with red elytra) while Paulian (1959) did so from French specimens (i.e. those with yellowish-red elytra). Krell & Angus must be granted that one can easily fall victim to an optical illusion if such figures are not properly oriented. However, a careful comparison with R6Bner’s (unpublished) results shows that Paulian’s illustrations also belong to the species with the more gently down- turned apices (i.e. the one with red elytra). Krell & Angus cite also Costesséque (2005) who is supposed to have figured ‘the aedeagus of A. fimetarius as abruptly downturned, rather typical for the light coloured species’. Costesséque gives the colour of the elytra as red (adding some darker variants) and reproduces the figure of the parameres from Baraud (1977) (reproduced also in Paulian & Baraud, 1982). A careful comparison with R6Bner’s results shows again that Baraud’s/Costesséque’s figure (although rather schematic) also represents the species with the more gently downturned apices (i.e. the one with red elytra).
In addition to these works, there are several others which have influenced and formed the principal understanding of A. fimetarius sensu ROBner (2012) and Fery (BZN 69(2)): Baguena Corella (1967), Baraud (1977, 1985, 1992), G. Dellacasa (1983), G. Dellacasa et al. (2001), G. Dellacasa & M. Dellacasa (2006), M. Dellacasa (1988, 2004), Janssens (1951), Machatschke (1969), Paulian & Baraud (1982), and Reitter (1909). All these authors give the colour of the elytra as red, reddish-brown or dark red; only Janssens (1951) and Paulian (1959) add yellowish-red as a second or third possibility. Yellowish red elytra are given in Paulian & Baraud (1982) for the ‘ab. subluteus Muls.’ which is, however, specified as immature. G. Dellacasa & M. Dellacasa (2006) is the only work in which the parameres of the yellowish-red species are illustrated; the figures in all other works agree with R6Bner’s results for the species with red elytra. A. cardinalis is the only taxon which is mentioned explicitly in all works of the more ‘southern’ authors except G. Dellacasa et al. (2001); it is either called ‘aberratio’ or ‘morph’ and considered also as an eventual geographical race by Baraud, and differentiated by the shape of the elytral intervals from the ‘normal form’ with red elytra. These differences between ‘normal’ fimetarius and the ‘morph’ cardinalis are even figured in G. Dellacasa (1983, figs. 304, 305).
All these works are widely read and not only known to students of any particular nationality. Hollande & Thérond (1999) are the only authors known to me who describe the elytral colour only as yellowish-red and that for specimens from
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Northern Africa. However, they illustrate habitus and parameres typical for the species with red elytra. Machatschke (1969, p. 320) who in ‘Die Kafer Mitteleuropas’ (a work well-known in large parts of Europe) described A. fimetarius as a species with red or reddish-brown elytra and called lighter specimens immature. He also illustrated the parameres of A. fimetarius with more gently downturned apices and these are typical of the species with red elytra. Krell (1992, p. 228) in a supplement to Machatschke, did not correct this understanding of A. fimetarius, but added a character (matt elytral apices) attributed today to A. cardinalis, the species with yellowish-red elytra (see also ROBner, 2012).
Krell & Angus (BZN 69: 287) try to discredit Reitter’s style of working and his species concept and therefore the value of his cardinalis. Reitter’s Fauna Germanica (1908-1916) was a standard work in coleopteran entomology for more than half a century in large parts of Europe; also Sprague (1875, p. 373 ff.) devoted two pages to the quality of Randall’s working style and the value of his species, including ‘Randall’s descriptions, when viewed with our present knowledge, are short, and not to the point; quite often color, and those parts that have no specific value, being all we have to depend upon. The beetles known as Randall’s species, have long been a thorn in the side of the thorough and systematic entomological student.’
The remarks on Reitter’s working style and business as insect merchant are irrelevant. Randall’s, Mulsant’s and Reitter’s names are available—this is all we need to know. All are possible names for the yellowish-red species, because the descrip- tions include terms like “bright reddish’, ‘jaune-rouge’ or ‘heller gelbroth’. The type localities of all taxa are known (U.S.A.; France (at least in part); Syria, Algiers, Andalusia). Except for elytral coloration, nothing more is known about Aphodius nodifrons Randall and Aphodius subluteus Mulsant to help distinguish them from the darker species. Randall states only that ‘this insect is the counterpart of the A. fimetarius of Europe’ (Randall, 1838, p. 20). Reitter, on the other hand, gives three further characters besides elytral coloration to separate both species (length and shape in cross-section of the intervals at the tip of the elytra, shape of the cheeks (the latter character was already discussed by Fery (BZN 69(4)), and thus provides a comparatively complete description. Krell & Angus cite Miiller (1902, p. 446) who recorded a strong variability in the length of the intervals and thus considered both species identical. Miiller’s entire text on both species reveals, however, that he only studied this sole character and he gives not a single hint as to whether he had in fact studied both species or only one. According to R6Bner (2012) both elytral characters can be used to separate the two species in most cases.
These considerations show that Reitter’s taxon is the only one we can be sure is identical with the yellowish-red species (or the ‘lighter species’, A. fimetarius sensu Krell & Angus), and the designation of a neotype for A. cardinalis, together with the proposed suppression of Randall’s and Mulsant’s names, as well as the selection of a neotype for S. fimetarius by the Commission from the remaining paralectotypes is the best way to stop nomenclatural confusion.
Krell & Angus (BZN 69: 287) give four new references in which the species under consideration are named in their sense. In the time span since Case 3579 was submitted several papers have been published in which the name A. fimetarius is treated as it was before Wilson (2001) and at least two others in which this name 1s used in my sense: Cila & Kral (2012) and R6Bner (2012); the latter author also uses
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 51
the name A. cardinalis for the yellowish-red species (a list of all the references will be sent to the Secretariat). Contrary to the assertion of Krell & Angus, the respective distributions given by M. Dellacasa & G. Dellacasa (2006) show that their intrepre- tation of Wilson’s (2001) results is not in fact correct.
Krell & Angus argue again that parts of northern Germany belonged to Sweden at Linnaeus’s time. However, it is extremely unlikely that Linnaeus studied material of the yellowish-red species from there because this species-except on one single occasion—has never been recorded in that region (ROBner 2012).
Krell & Angus express their surprise that ‘the assignment of the names 4A. fimetarius and A. pedellus to the two species in question has not been criticised for a decade’ and that only ‘now that [they] initiated correction of the type selection for A. fimetarius ... suddenly protests emerge’. The answer is simple: it took some time until a few dung-beetle specialists became aware of Wilson’s work; then it was far from clear what consequences Wilson’s type designations might have because in her work neither the elytral colour nor a clear distribution pattern of each species is recognisable; and then when a few specialists understood what had happened, they did not see a possibility of changing anything because the lectotypes had already been designated.
Finally, I want to refer to the last section of my comment in BZN 69(4), the content of which I still consider the only satisfying solution for this nomenclatural problem.
Additional references
Baguena Corella, C. 1967. Scarabaeoidea de la fauna ibero-balear y pirenaica. 576 pp. Instituto Espanol de Entomologia, Madrid.
Baraud, J. 1977. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea. IV. Faune de l’Europe Occidentale: Belgique - France — Grande Bretagne — Italie — Péninsule Ibérique. Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (supplément), 7(1): 1-352.
Baraud, J. 1985. Coléoptéres Scarabaeoidea. Faune du Nord de I Afrique du Maroc au Sinai.
_ Encyclopédie Entomologique 46. 652 pp. Lechevalier, Paris.
Cila, P. & Kral, D. 2012. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) in the vicinity of Téptin village (central Bohemia). Klapalekiana, 48: 23-28.
Dellacasa, G., Bordat, P. & Dellacasa, M. 2001. A revisional essay of world genus-group taxa of Aphodiinae. Memorie della Societa Entomologica Italiana, Genova, 79 (2000): 1-482.
Dellacasa, M. 2004. Scarabaeoidea ‘Laparosticta’ di Corsica. Atti della Societa Toscana di Scienze Naturali. Memorie Serie B (Supplemento), 110 (2003): 1-361.
Hollande, A. & Thérond, J. 1999. Aphodiidae du nord de l’Afrique (Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea) (au soin de Dellacasa, G.). Monografie del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, 21 (1998): 1-280.
Janssens, A. 1951. Revision des Aegialiinae et Aphodiinae (Coeleoptera Scarabaeidae) de la Belgique. Mémoires de I’Institut Royal des Science Naturelles de Belgique, 115: 1-136.
Krell, F.-T. 1992. Aphodiinae. Pp. 211-242 In Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H., Familienreihe Lamellicornia. Pp. 200-252. In Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mit- teleuropas, vol. 13. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.
Paulian, R. & Baraud, J. 1982. Lucanoidea et Scarabaeoidea. Faune des coléoptéres de France, II. 473 pp. Lechevalier, Paris.
52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Comments on the proposed precedence of Maculinea Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris Doherty, 1891 (Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE) (Case 3508; see BZN 67: 129-132, 245, 315-319; 68: 292-293)
| (1) J. Paclt Martin Benka 24, 81107 Bratislava, Slovakia
This comment is in support of Case 3508 to conserve the junior synonym Maculinea Eecke, 1915 for the Large Blue butterfly. The historical use of the two synonyms, Maculinea Eecke, 1915 and Phengaris Doherty, 1891 is summarized by Paclt (2012), with Maculinea shown to be very widely used and Phengaris very little used, almost solely by, or following, the authors of the comment opposing the case. Article 23.2 of the Code (the Principle of Priority) is to be used to promote stability, and not to upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed usage by introducing a little-used senior synonym as was done by Fric et al. (2007). The genus Phengaris was introduced in 1891, and since then has been the subject of very few publications, while Maculinea was used in all catalogues, field guides and educational posters and has been the subject of numerous behavioural, ecological and conservation studies. The Commis- sion is formally asked for a ruling in support of Case 3508 and for conservation of the junior synonym Maculinea, which is a classical case of common usage Vs priority, as described in Article 23.9.3 of the Code.
Additional reference
Paclt, J. 2012. In defence of the accustomed generic name Maculinea Eecke (Lepidoptera, Lycaenidae), Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, 59(2): 317-320.
(2) J.W. Phillips
‘Maytime’, St. Peters Road, Northney, Hayling Island, Hants. POLI ORT, U.K. (e-mail: s.jw.phillips@btinternet.com)
I support the recent application by Balleto et al. (BZN 67: 129-132), reinforced by the response of Morris et al. (BZN 68: 292-293) which under Article 23.9.3 of the Code seeks to conserve the widely used generic name Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 in its accustomed usage while being threatened by its senior synonym Phengaris Doherty, 1891; the proposal being that Maculinea be given precedence over Phengaris whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Whilst accepting that Phengaris should take precedence one could argue that this is far from being a normal case and that other considerations should be allowed to apply.
Previous submissions mentioned above have adequately covered the taxonomic aspect of the argument, however, speaking as an amateur lepidopterist, the genus Maculinea and in particular M. arion, the Large Blue, represents to many people an iconic and flagship group of species which has, thanks to the pioneering efforts of many dedicated environmental specialists, spearheaded the invertebrate conservation movement, and is identified and recognised as such in the eyes of the general public as well as all invertebrate zoologists.
To erase Maculinea from current literature would, I suggest, not only be confusing but also counter-productive.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 53
(3) D.J. Simcox
Large blue Re-introduction Project, Chydyok Farm, Chaldon Herring, Dorchester, Dorset DT2 8DW, U.K. (e-mail: david.simcox@btinternet.com)
I support the application by Balletto et al. (2010) to give precedence to Maculinea van Eecke, 1915 over Phengaris Doherty, 1891.
I have worked on Maculinea butterflies in the United Kingdom and across Europe for 30 years. My work has encompassed both academic research and, as the Project Manager of the U.K. re-introduction programme since 1999, delivering evidence- based conservation which involves advising, training and liaising with a wide range of conservation professionals, statutory authorities, NGOs, expert amateurs, volun- teers and the general public. Successful delivery of the project depends on being able to communicate a complex ecological story in an accessible manner not helped in any way by the MaculinealGlaucopsychelPhengaris debate.
In practice virtually everyone, and all essential organisations, involved in the project have historically used, and continue to use, the generic name Maculinea.
(4) P.R. Eeles
6 Cholsey Road, Thatcham, Berkshire, RG19 4GH, U.K. (e-mail: pete@ukbutterflies.co.uk)
I support the application by Balletto et al. (BZN 67: 129-132) to give precedence to Maculinea van Eecke, 1915, over Phengaris Doherty, 1891.
My position on this matter has arisen through working with many Butterfly Conservation staff over the years, as well as running the U.K. Butterflies website (www.ukbutterflies.co.uk) for over a decade. It is a simple fact that the ‘lingua franca’ when referring to the genus of the ‘Large Blue’ group is Maculinea. This name has been in practical use for as long as I can remember and is commonly used by the U.K. Butterflies membership (2253 members as of Ist March 2013).
My position, however, has not arisen out of a personal desire to see the commonly-used name stand, but in view of the upset that using any name other than Maculinea would cause in relation to real conservation issues. Aside from confusing the general public, I feel that a change in name would also cause confusion among those undertaking site surveys (and corresponding research) when planning applica- tions are put forward. In essence, gathering pertinent information in relation to Maculinea will become unnecessarily convoluted. In this case I believe that the welfare of such a threatened group of butterflies should outweigh the naming precedence.
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
OPINION 2314 (Case 3546)
Praeradiolites Douville, 1903 (Bivalvia, RADIOLITIDAE): designation of Sphaerulites ponsiana d’ Archiac, 1837 as the type species
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the usage of the generic name Praeradio- lites Douvillé, 1903 by designation of Sphaerulites ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837 as the type species.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Bivalvia; RADIOLITIDAE; Praeradiolites; Eora- diolites; Sphaerulites; fleuriausus; ponsiana; Cretaceous; Tethys.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power the Commission has set aside all previous type fixations for the genus Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 and designated Sphaeru- lites ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837 as the type species.
(2) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the name Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 (gender: masculine), has been emended to record that its type species is Sphaerulites ponsiana @ Archiac, 1837, and not Radiolites fleuriausus @Orbigny, 1842, as ruled in (1) above.
(3) The name ponsiana d’Archiac, 1837, as published in the binomen Sphaerulites ponsiana (the type species of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903, as ruled in (1) above) has been placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology for the name Praeradiolites Douvillé has been emended to record that its correct publication date is 1903 and not 1902.
(5) The entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for the name fleuriausus dOrbigny, 1842, as published in the binomen Radiolites fleuriausa has been emended to record that it is not the type species of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903, as ruled in (1) above, and that its correct original spelling is fleuriausus and not fleuriausi.
History of Case 3546
An application to conserve the usage of the generic name Praeradiolites Douville, 1903 by designation of Sphaerulites ponsiana d Archiac, 1837 as the type species, was received from J. Jose Maria Pons and Enric Vicens (Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain) on 17 December 2010. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 68: 105-108 (2011). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. No comments were received on this Case.
Decision of the Commission
On | September 2012 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 68: 107. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2012 the votes were as follows:
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 5§
Affirmative votes — 21: Alonso-Zarazaga, Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Harvey, Krell, Kottelat, Kullander, Minelli, Ng, Patter- son, Rosenberg, Stys, Winston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 4: Kojima, Lamas, Pape, and van Tol.
Pyle was on leave of absence. No vote was received from Lim.
Voting FOR, Alonso-Zarazaga said that he considered it was correct to use Sphaerulites as feminine and Radiolites as masculine, since the only species epithet attached originally to it, angeiodes (from Greek adjective ayyeimdec, hollow like a vessel), became invariable when latinized. All names ending in -ites must follow Article 30.1.4.4, so it was necessary to check the original descriptions one by one. He added that ponsiana was a toponymic adjective and must agree in gender with the genus with which it is combined.
Also voting FOR, Grygier commented that the argument for the type-species change was clear, assuming that rudist workers continued to regard both nominal genera involved as valid. However, the background information given seemed to indicate that Eoradiolites was paraphyletic with respect to Praeradiolites. If so, in any cladistic classification the two genera would be merged as Praeradiolites, and no change in type species would be needed. Grygier said he was not entirely comfortable with changing the type species when the need for this might disappear with a change in taxonomic practice, but the Commission could not dictate that practice. In any case, the proposed Official Corrections to the Official Lists were necessary and must be instituted whatever the outcome of the vote. Also voting FOR, Ng said he saw this as the best option rather than to create new names.
Also voting FOR, Stys said the generic classification would undoubtedly be changed by those following cladistic principles, but a future taxonomic change did not have any bearing on the present nomenclatural problem.
Voting AGAINST, Kojima said he thought that the proposal did not explicitly state the reason(s) why Eoradiolites Douville, 1909 should not be regarded as a synonym of Praeradiolites Douville, 1903. Eoradiolites was said to be a group consisting of primitive species in Eoradiolites + Praeradiolites, thus Eoradiolites could be a paraphyletic group in terms of Praeradiolites in the sense of currently prevailing usage. If Radiolites fleuriausus @Orbigny, 1842, the type species of Praeradiolites, possessed the characters of Eoradiolites in the current usage, then Eoradiolites could be synonymized under Praeradiolites.
Also voting AGAINST, Lamas said that paraphrasing Sabrosky’s comment on Opinion 856 (see BZN 25: 87), he too would like to say that he found no indication in the application (i.e. Case 3546) ... that the Principle of Priority should be suspended in order to accommodate the taxonomic hypotheses favoured by the authors of the application. Also voting AGAINST, Pape explained that Praeradio- lites of current usage had been based on insufficient studies of its type species Radiolites fleuriausus d’Orbigny, 1842. Bringing the usage of Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903 in agreement with its type species would result in a junior subjective synonymy (Eoradiolites under Praeradiolites) and the proposal of a new generic name for the species currently ascribed to Praeradiolites. This was not an uncommon situation in zoology, and the application did not quantify how a strict adherence to the Code would ‘seriously undermine stability’, except for mentioning the changes resulting
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
directly from the new insight gained on the type species (i.e. the subjective synonymy, the new generic name and the number of species affected).
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Praeradiolites Douvillé, 1903, Bulletin de la Société Géologique de France, (4)2: 469. ponsiana, Sphaerulites, V Archiac, 1837, Mémoires de la Société Géologique de France, 2(7): 182. fleuriausus, Radiolites, dOrbigny, 1842, Annales de Sciences Naturelles, (2)17: 181.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 57
OPINION 2315 (Case 3351)
Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines): precedence not granted over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841
Abstract. The Commission did not support an application to give precedence to the name Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa) for the northern long-necked turtle from northern Australia over Chelodina oblonga when- ever the two are considered to be synonyms, nor to set aside all previous designations of a type specimen for Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 and to designate as its neotype the lectotype of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Reptilia; Testudines; CHELIDAE; Macrochelo- dina; Chelodina; Chelodina oblonga; Chelodina rugosa; Chelodina colliei; Australia; side-necked turtles; northern long-necked turtle.
Ruling
(1) A proposal to give the name rugosa Ogilby, 1890, as published in the binomen Chelodina rugosa, precedence over the name oblonga Gray, 1841, as published in the binomen Chelodina oblonga, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms, was not approved.
(2) A proposal to set aside all previous designations of a type specimen for Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 and to designate as its neotype BMNH 1947.3.5.91, the lectotype of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856, was not approved.
(3) No names are placed on Official Lists or Indexes.
History of Case 3351
An application to give precedence to the name Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa) for the northern long-necked turtle from northern Australia over Chelodina oblonga whenever the two are considered to be synonyms, was received from S.A. Thomson (then University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia) on 11 May 2005. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 63: 187-193 (September 2006). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. An adverse comment, with an alternative set of proposals, was published in BZN 64: 68; an additional comment by the author of the application was published in BZN 64: 127-128; supportive comments were published in BZN 65: 62; 66: 79-80; 66: 273.
Decision of the Commission
The Case was originally sent for vote on | June 2008. A majority of Commissioners voted FOR the Case (9 For, 8 Against), but it failed to meet the two-thirds majority required for approval by Article 12 of the Constitution. In accordance with bylaws 24-27, the case was sent for a revote on | December 2008, with the alternative set of
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
proposals set out by J. Savage in BZN 65: 68. However, the revote was cancelled on 16 March 2009 under bylaws 24, 25 and 26, as a new Comment was received with information that could affect consideration of the Case. In 2010 the author of the Case published a paper including a taxonomic review of the taxa covered in the Case (Georges, A. & Thomson, S. 2010. Zootaxa 2496: 1-37).
On 1 March 2011 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the original set of proposals published in BZN 63: 189-190 and the alternative set of proposals in BZN 64: 68. At the close of the voting period on 1 June 2011 the votes were as follows:
Original proposals:
Affirmative votes — 5: Brothers, Fautin, Pape, Winston and Yanega.
Negative votes — 18: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Grygier, Halliday, Kojima, Kottelat, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Papp, Patterson, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Zhang and Zhou.
Harvey split his vote, voting AGAINST proposal (1); FOR proposal (2) and did not support all of proposal (3). Krell ABSTAINED.
Alternative proposals:
Affirmative votes — 5: Bouchet, Krell, Papp, Patterson and Zhou.
Negative votes — 20: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Harvey, Kojima, Kottelat, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Rosenberg, Stys, van Tol, Winston, Yanega and Zhang.
Alonso-Zarazaga, Lim and Pyle were on leave of absence.
Voting AGAINST both the original and alternative proposals, Grygier observed that part of the problem with this Case, as was evident in the comments from earlier rounds, was whether the type locality of C. oblonga was Western Australia or Port Essington, as contradictorily stated or implied in different parts of the application. On Grygier’s advice, the Secretariat verified the label data for the type specimen of C. oblonga, housed in the Natural History Museum, London as stating ‘loc. W. Australia, Coll. J. Gould, Chelodina oblonga (type) and having two numbers because the specimen was re-registered after the war as ‘40.12.9.81’ (in which 40 indicates 1840) and ‘1947.3.5.89’. However, the Accession Register for the Life Sciences Department gave only ‘Australasia’ as the origin of this specimen. Ng, also voting AGAINST both the original and alternative proposals, said that his feeling about this case was simple. He agreed with the applicants that the books and papers by Wells & Wellington had done a great disservice to taxonomy. They had created huge problems, and Ng explicitly echoed Bouchet’s view that this matter should have been dealt with years earlier. That said, however, he felt there would probably be more name changes in the near future as more work was done on the turtles in question. The authors had made it clear that taxonomic work on this group was growing and changing. In this landscape, Ng saw no good reason to make the requested rulings. He said the types were extant, and whatever they were, the names would then fall into line, and science would move on. He still felt this was the cleanest way to proceed in the present circumstances. Stys, voting AGAINST both the original and alternative proposals, commented that he felt, at least for the time being, that the Principle of Priority should be followed for names of taxa and identity of the name-bearing type species and mandatory type specimens. In his view the taxonomy was still too fluid
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 59
to benefit from any nomenclatural intervention. Also voting AGAINST both the original and alternative proposals, van Tol too noted that the taxonomic status of the nominal taxa was still unresolved. Under these circumstances any nomenclatural action was premature. Similarly, voting AGAINST both the original and alternative proposals, Zhang said he felt the issues were unresolved and it was best that the Commission did not take plenary action.
Bouchet, voting AGAINST the original proposals and FOR the alternative proposals, said that long-serving Commissioners will recall Case 2531, published in 1987, which sought to suppress three works by Wells and Wellington because their acceptance ‘would cause massive and long-lasting instability and confusion in the nomenclature of the Australian herpetofauna’. This generated a heated debate in- and outside the Commission, and the Case was left without a vote. Bouchet said it was clear from his paper in Zootaxa that the applicant was resurrecting this battle. In doing so, Bouchet felt the applicant was misinterpreting the role of the Commission, which was to regulate the availability and validity of zoological names, and not to regulate how taxonomy was or should be done, or should be evaluated, or who was entitled to carry out taxonomic research.
Krell, who ABSTAINED from the original proposals and voted FOR the alternative proposals, explained that he felt that transferring an established name from one species to another was probably the most disruptive nomenclatural practice. He suggested that this should be avoided in any Case. Here, Chelodina oblonga had always been associated with Western Australian populations, even erroneously, by the original author. Without studying the type, nobody would have had a chance to interpret Chelodina oblonga correctly, 1.e. in the sense of the type. Now this had been studied, and it had turned out not to be from the place that the original author had thought, and was of a different species from the one that occurred at the locus typicus. In such a situation only two solutions should be considered, either suppression of the confused name (as in the original proposal), or re-definition by a neotype designation (as in the alternative proposal). The original proposal would have re-established an unused name. Krell saw no disadvantage in the alternative proposal, in fact, he considered it an elegant solution. Considering the information available, he did not see the taxonomy of these focal taxa in a worse state than in most other groups, nor did he think the Case in any way premature.
Harvey, voting SPLIT for the original proposals and AGAINST the alternative proposals, explained his split vote AGAINST proposal (1) (but FOR proposal (2)) of the original set of proposals saying there was compelling evidence that the systematic status of the northern Australian species was unresolved and that taxonomic changes would be required when their status was resolved. Nomenclatural solutions should be put into effect only after as many taxonomic issues as possible were settled. The application of the Principle of Priority was the simplest avenue right now, albeit with some inconvenience, as some relatively well-known Australian freshwater turtles would have name changes.
Additional comments made in the first rounds of voting when different or additional to the above are provided here. Alonso-Zarazaga explained that in his opinion, application of the Principle of Priority led to easier solutions and was further consolidated by Thomson’s comment (2006; BZN 63: 188-189, para. 12) that the taxonomic status of the northern species of Chelodina (or Macrochelodina) was still
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
doubtful. In this Case, he considered that the Commission should only confirm the identity of the extant types, not by allowing any modification of their status but just by confirming that the type species of Macrochelodina was Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890. He felt that this was another premature request to apply nomenclature before a sound taxonomic basis had been attained, missing the goal of nomenclature, 1.e. naming animals after a taxonomic hypothesis had been clarified. Alonso-Zarazaga said he could not see this in either set of proposals.
In the second round of voting Halliday commented that there were three available names for turtles from northern Australia and Papua New Guinea — oblonga, rugosa and siebenrocki. The taxonomic relationships among these populations were clearly unresolved, and it seemed likely that the interpretations of these names would be revised as new taxonomic information became available. It was quite possible that all three of these names would be required in the future. It would be prudent for the Commission to take no nomenclatural action at all for the moment, until taxonomic research had run its course and determined how many taxa were present. Halliday supported Grygier’s observation that the Case was damaged by the internal discrepancy over the type locality of oblonga (Western Australia or Port Essington). Halliday also voted AGAINST the alternative proposal of Savage (BZN 64: 68). The name colliei Gray 1856 was the valid name of the species from southwestern Australia, and was supported by a lectotype, despite the misidentifications beginning with Burbidge (1967). He felt that to designate this specimen as the neotype of oblonga as suggested by Savage would add to the confusion, not help to resolve it.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 61
OPINION 2316 (Case 3463)
Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines): usage of the specific name conserved by maintenance of a designated neotype, and suppression of Testudo dussumiert Gray, 1831 (currently Dipsochelys dussumiert)
Abstract. The Commission has conserved the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (family TESTUDINIDAE) in its customary usage for the giant land tortoise found on Aldabra Atoll in the western Indian Ocean, by affirmation of the neotype designation of 2006 and suppression of 7. dussumieri Gray, 1831.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Testudines; TESTUDINIDAE; Aldabrachelys; Tes- tudo; Geochelone; Chelonoidis; Dipsochelys; Testudo carbonaria; Testudo elephantina; Testudo denticulata; Testudo dussumieri; Testudo gigantea; land tortoises; Aldabra Atoll.
Ruling
(1) Under the plenary power, the Commission has ruled that:
(a) all previous type fixations for the nominal species Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 are hereby set aside and neotype USNM 269962 in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, is hereby retained as designated and described by Frazier (2006), as name-bearing type;
(b) the name dussumieri Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Testudo dussumieri, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy.
(2) The name Aldabrachelys Loveridge & Williams, 1957, type species by original designation Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
(3) The name gigantea, Schweigger, 1812, as published in the binomen Testudo gigantea and as defined by the neotype designated in (1)(a) above, the specific name of the type species of Aldabrachelys Loveridge & Williams, 1957, is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.
(4) The name dussumieri Gray, 1831, as published in the binomen Testudo dussumieri and as suppressed in (1)(b) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
History of Case 3463
An application to conserve the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (family TESTUDINIDAE) in its customary usage for the giant land tortoise found on Aldabra Atoll in the western Indian Ocean, by affirmation of the neotype designation of 2006 and suppression of T. dussumieri Gray, 1831, was received from J. Frazier
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
(Conservation and Research Center, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institu- tion, Front Royal, VA, U.S.A.) on 17 April 2008. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 66: 34-50 (2009). The title, abstract and keywords of the case were published on the Commission’s website. Comments were published in BZN 66: 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90, 170-178, 246-254, 319-331; 68: 72-77, 140-143, 294-300. With 83 published comments, this represents the most extensive correspondence received by the Commission on a Case to date.
Decision of the Commission
On 1 September 2012 the members of the Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 66: 43-44. At the close of the voting period on 1 December 2012 the votes were as follows:
Affirmative votes — 19: Ballerio, Bogutskaya, Bouchet, Brothers, Fautin, Grygier, Halliday, Krell, Kottelat, Kullander, Lamas, Minelli, Ng, Pape, Rosenberg, Win- ston, Yanega, Zhang and Zhou.
Negative votes — 4: Alonso-Zarazaga, Kojima, Stys and van Tol.
Harvey split his vote - FOR proposals 1(a), 2, 3; and AGAINST proposals 1(b), 4.
Patterson abstained. Pyle was on leave of absence. No vote was received from Lim.
Voting FOR, Bouchet observed that he voted in favour of the conservation of the name Testudo gigantea because it was a well-known name for an iconic animal. However, (1) he regretted and rejected the negative personal comments on the work of Roger Bour, which had been aired at various times in the discussion of this Case. If Bouchet did not follow Bour’s proposals, this was not because he was sceptical about the historical and nomenclatural facts as presented by him, but because he believed stability was best met by conserving the name gigantea; (2) he regretted that the occasion was lost to robustly link nomenclature and 21* century systematics by selecting a neotype that had associated molecular markers. The Commission was not to be blamed for it, but he regretted that the biological and conservation communities had shown that they could spend four years vehemently discussing the Case without ever referring to the modern functions of a name-bearing type. Also voting FOR, Brothers said that the very extensive correspondence on this Case made it clear that a decision by the Commission was essential and it was also obvious that whatever decision was made would not please everyone. He said he was convinced that approving the application was the most effective way to stabilise the situation; a vote against would merely perpetuate the current confusion. All of the arguments about the validity/identity/status of holotype/lectotype/provenance merely reinforced the scope of disagreement and the need for a decision that would fix the application of the names unambiguously. Only a vote in favour would accomplish this. Brothers said it was to be hoped that the opponents of the application would honour the Code (which they defended so vigorously), which provides for the use of the plenary power by the Commission, should the application be approved by the required majority of votes. Also voting FOR, Grygier commented that Bour should be commended on his efforts to demonstrate the true story and address its nomenclatural implications. However, particularly with regard to legislation in force pertaining to the conserva- tion of the Aldabra tortoise, the need for stability in nomenclature seemed to outweigh the desirability of maintaining strict priority. Grygier felt that Frazier’s was
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 63
not the most elegant possible solution, but it was the simplest and would leave no room for further controversy. Inasmuch as some specialists seemed sceptical about the validity of certain of Bour’s actions, a negative vote on Frazier’s proposals would continue to leave more than one option open for the valid names of the genus and species. Such an outcome would also be awkward in light of Article 81.2.4 of the Code, which instructs the Commission to specify the name(s) to be used if use of the plenary power is refused. To ensure stability in such a case, a fully thought-out alternative plan should have been formally proposed. The briefly outlined alternative proposals made by Cheke (BZN 66: 175, BZN 68: 296) and Dubois et al. (BZN 67: 88) would have been inadequate to settle the matter even if they had been submitted to the Commission for a vote. One possible route might have been to use the plenary power to suppress all previous type designations for 7. gigantea and designate the purported holotype in Paris as its neotype. In combination with Frazier’s proposal to suppress dussumieri, this would leave Dipsochelys elephantina as the only potentially valid name for the Aldabra tortoise (Aldabrachelys having become a synonym of Chelonoidis as a result of the neotype designation). As another possibility, in an e-mail to the Commission, Commissioner Alonso-Zarazaga suggested conserving gigantea under Duméril & Bibron’s (1835) authorship with their specimen as neotype and giving it precedence over supposed synonyms. Either of these two alternatives could have served as the basis for further proposals if Frazier’s plan had failed to gain a 2/3 majority of the vote. Kottelat explained that he voted FOR only for two reasons: (1) to bring the debate to a close; and (2) because of the conservational/bureaucratic argument. For the rest, he felt that the tone of many comments was unpleasant and he was disappointed that what he saw as very negative and personal perspectives were included in comments; he felt they added nothing to the Case. He said that fluctuations in taxonomic interpretation might be a problem for non-specialists, but it was not ‘chaos’; it reflected the evolution of taxonomic research. Also voting FOR, Krell explained that he always found it painful from a scholarly perspective to disregard historical facts and intentions of authors. He thought that Bour was diligent and historically correct, and he hated to annul good work, but in this case, with the species in question being of high conservation and even political interest, he felt there was more at stake. Here we had a user group larger than usual, and the comments suggested that the user group would much prefer to go along with the solution presented in the original Case. Although he found the suggestion from Alonso-Zarazaga (above) the most elegant solution, a neotype had already been proposed. Going along with this was probably the most parsimonious solution, so he voted for the Case. Also voting FOR, Kullander said he agreed that gigantea was the best option for a name. Yet, he did not feel that the documentation reflected complete objectivity, and it was obvious that the prep- aration of the Case should have pointed to other options, as suggested by other Commissioners. Nevertheless, he felt it was better to have a decision than to let this issue be debated forever. Voting FOR, Ng said he felt the issue here remained as divided and messy as when it started, despite its long time in discussion. He said that, much as some of his colleagues argued for changes to the application or more time to deliberate, he was of the opinion that this divisive issue must be resolved — and this must be done via a vote. To be caught up in a ‘historical log-jam’ just for a name was not productive. For science to move ahead and for the species to be saved, which
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
remained his priority, he felt we needed to move beyond the name, whatever it was to be. The views of the proponents of this case were known and, to a great degree, he supported their views. However, he felt that the views of the opponents were also salient as they argued from their considerable collective experience and wisdom. He felt he was not able to say definitively who was right and who wrong in this situation. He said that the historical evidence and data were not completely convincing for either side; there were only high probabilities of likelihood in the submissions of both proponents and opponents. In such a conundrum, he took counsel from the comments by historian A.M. Roos (submitted to the Commission with voting papers, published herein) — there remained just too many ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’. Ng felt that the Commissioners’ job, when faced with such a dilemma, was to make a clinical decision, and forge ahead regardless. The decision fixed the name for an animal that needed conservation, regardless of what its originators may have wished or intended, regardless of “historical authenticity’, regardless of sentiment which remained rife. He felt that the best way to do this was to fix a neotype that was unambiguous and clear-cut, and move on. Voting FOR, Rosenberg said he would have preferred that the name Testudo gigantea be attributed to Duméril & Bibron (1835) by setting aside Article 49 (regarding misidentification) and outlined other nomenclatural steps that might have accompanied that approach. Voting FOR, Yanega commented that, as in other recent cases, this reduced to the essential question as to whether familiarity and stability of a name were worth maintaining when scholarship and the Code opposed it; this was precisely why the Commission had the plenary power, and this was the kind of case where that power could best be put to use. There might be alternatives, but Yanega said that Frazier’s was the alternative put before the Commission, and it served the intended purpose.
Voting AGAINST, Stys said he found the arguments provided by Frazier (2009; BZN 66: 44-50) nomenclaturally unsupportable. Stys felt this also applied to most comments favouring Frazier’s proposal: some of them showed lack of knowledge of the provisions of the Code and lack of understanding of its spirit, ignored the relevant historical literature, and the very process of scientific study. He said it was counterproductive for emotions to replace scientific discussion, and that some zoologists had explicitly or implicitly expressed disbelief to scientists of MNHN in Paris while not having examined the historical (type) specimens involved. Since the Case evoked great interest among the general public he believed that it was the duty of the Commission to suggest its own alternative solutions and vote upon them, though he acknowledged that probably nobody would be fully satisfied with the outcome.
Splitting his vote, Harvey observed that this interesting but heated debate had no simple solution that would satisfy all parties. After much deliberation, his vote FOR the majority of the proposals was based on the urgent need to stabilise the specific name of the Aldabra tortoise. The rediscovery of a specimen thought to be the holotype of Testudo gigantea seemed to be incontrovertible, but straight application of the Code would result in the resurrection of a name that had been much less applied to the Aldabra tortoise than the specific name gigantea. Voting AGAINST the request to suppress the name 7: dussumieri, he noted that there seemed little doubt that this name was simply a junior synonym of T. gigantea, as applied in 1(a), and no further action was necessary. Harvey noted that the stabilisation of the name
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 65
T. gigantea also conveniently stabilised the name A/dabrachelys, which had been frequently used for the Aldabra tortoise and its allies.
Original references
The following are the original references to the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the ruling given in the present Opinion:
Aldabrachelys Loveridge & Williams, 1957, Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard, 115(6): 225.
dussumieri, Testudo, Gray, 1831, Synopsis Reptilium; or short descriptions of the species of reptiles. Pt. I. Cataphracta, tortoises, crocodiles, and enaliosaurians. viii, Treuttel, Wurtz & Co., London, p. 3.
gigantea, Testudo, Schweigger, 1812, Kénigsberger Archiv Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik, boS27, B62:
The following is the reference for the description of the neotype:
Frazier, J. 2006. Herpetological Review, 37(3): 275-280.
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013
Official Correction: Canis cinereoargenteus Schreber, 1775 (currently Urocyon cinereoargenteus; Mammalia, Carnivora): the publication date amended
A letter was received from Anthea Gentry at ‘Littlewood’, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH17 5EB, U.K. in October 2012 requesting an amendment to the entry on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology for Canis cinereoargenteus Schreber, 1775 to record that the correct publication date is 1775 and not 1776 as stated on the Official List and in Opinion 384 (Opinions and Declarations: 12: 71-190, April 1956).
Anthea Gentry provided the following information:
1. The publication of Schreber’s work Die Sdugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibungen was complicated with portions of text and plates appearing at different times. The publication dates were worked out and published by Sherborn (1891).
2. The text in which the grey fox from Central and North America and the northern part of South America was described, and the name Canis argenteus published, was on page 361 of Schreber’s work. Sherborn gives the date for this as 1776. The fox was illustrated on plate 92 and the name C. cinerereoargenteus was used. Sherborn gives the date for this plate as 1775. The name cinereoargenteus is available from the plate by indication (Article 12 of the Code). Schreber himself ascribes the name cinereoargenteus on the plate to Brisson but Brisson’s (1762) Regnum Animale is incompletely binominal and was rejected for nomenclatural purposes in Opinion 1894 (BZN 55: 64-71, March 1998) except for the conservation of 11 mammal generic names in use (one generic name, Odobenus Brisson, 1762 had already been conserved in Opinion 467, Opinions and Declarations: 16: 73-88, May 1957).
3. Another illustration of a fox, titled Canis virginianus, was published on plate 92B by Schreber. Sherborn gives the date for this as 1776. The name was also used on p. 361 but appeared there as a vernacular name only. Elliot (1901) designated C. virginianus as the type species of the genus Urocyon Baird, 1857 (pp. 121, 138). Canis cinereoargenteus and C. virginianus have long been synonymised (see Opinion 384).
4. The composition of the relevant parts of Schreber’s work, as set out by Sherborn (1891), are:
(a) Theil 2, Heft 13, pages 223-230, plates 81-92; 1775
(b) Theil 3, Heft 21, pages 353-376, plates 92B, 139-145; 1776.
5. The name Canis cinereoargenteus Schreber was placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as the valid name for the type species of Urocyon Baird, 1857 in Opinion 384 (April 1956). It was incorrectly given the date 1776.
6. The specific name of Canis cinereoargenteus has been used in the literature with the correct authorship and date of Schreber (1775). Publications include Clutton- Brock, Corbet & Hills (1976, p. 159), Fritzell & Haroldson (1982, p. 1) and Wozencraft (2005, p. 582).
In accordance with Article 80.4 of the Code, which states that the Commission can publish an Official Correction of an error or omission in an Opinion without further vote when the correction does not negate the Opinion or its consequences, notice is hereby given that entry of the name cinereoargenteus, Canis, Schreber on the Official
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(1) March 2013 67
List of Specific Names in Zoology is corrected to read: cinereoargenteus, Canis, Schreber, [1775], Die Saugthiere, 3: 360, pl. 92 (valid name at the date of Opinion 384 of the type species of Urocyon Baird, 1857) (Mammalia). Op. 384. Official Correction BZN 70, March 2013, and the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology is amended to read: Urocyon Baird, 1857, Mamm. N. Amer.: 121, 138 (gender: masculine) (type species, by designation by Elliot, [March] 1901 (Field. Mus. Publ. (Zool.), 2: 307): Canis virginianus Schreber, [1776], Die Sdugthiere, 3: 361, pl. 92B, valid name: Canis cinereoargenteus Schreber, [1775]) (Mammalia). Op. 384. Official Correction BZN 70, March 2013.
References
Baird, S.F. 1857. Mammals. Jn: Reports of Explorations and Surveys for a railroad route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. Washington, DC, 8: 1-757.
Clutton-Brock, J., Corbet, G.B. & Hills, M. 1976. A review of the family Canidae, with a classification by numerical methods. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Zoology, 29(3): 117-199.
Elliot, D.G. 1901. A synopsis of the mammals of North America and the adjacent seas. Field Columbian Museum, Zoological Series, 2(45): 1-471.
Fritzell, E.K. & Haroldson, K.J. 1982. Urocyon cinereoargenteus. Mammalian Species, 189: 1-8.
Schreber, J.C.D. [1774]1777] Die Sdugethiere in Abbildungen nach der Natur mit Beschreibun- gen. Walther, Erlangen.
Sherborn, C.D. 1891. On the dates of the parts, plates, and text of Schreber’s “‘Saugethiere”’. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1891: 587-592.
Wozencraft, W.C. 2005. Carnivora. Pp. 532-628 in Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal Species of the World, Ed. 3, vol. 1, pp. 1-743. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.
EELS ON THE MOVE
Mysterious Creatures over Millions of Year
Edited by Mari Kuroki & Katsumi Tsukamoto 257mm X 182mm 292pp price : 5,880 yen
Eels are surprising creatures. Did you know, for example, that they travel thousands of miles across open seas to reach our lakes and rivers? With their slender, snake-like bodies and barely noticeable scales and gills, it's easy to forget that they are, in fact, fish. In recent years, global populations of eels have been in sharp decline, with some species facing the threat of extinction. We urgently need to develop effective conservation measures to protect them. In this book, we attempt to explain everything there is know about eels by introducing the eel- related human culture, history, beliefs, fisheries and distribution, as well as the astonishing finds made in recent biological studies using breutiful pictures. The aim of the book is therefore, to encourage a more comprehensive and detailed understanding of . oe eels from the perspectives of natural science, social science and pe See cultural science. By so doing, we hope to ensure the survival on earth of these mysterious yet loveable creatures.
Fishes of Japan with pictorial keys to the species, English edition
Edited by Tetsuji Nakabo 257mm X 182mm 1800pp price : 37,800 yen
All the marine and freshwater fishes in Japanese waters, 353 families and 3863 species, are covered here with full illustrations introduced by pictorial keys. There has never been a comprehensive book to show all the species of the Japanese fishes like "Fishes of Japan with pictorial keys to the species”. Each spacies is given the latest scientific name, Japanese common name, size, meristic characters, habitas, and gegraphic distribution. Additional comments, taxonomic problems related to synonymy and references of the species are included. Characteristics of this book 1 Ulustrated morphological characters and lines lead you to the correct species for your unidentified specimen. This method for identification of fishes is the first of this kind in the world. 2 You can see clearly the differences between related or similar species, because they are shown on the same page. 3 You can easily compare the morphological and ecological characteristics of related species, because they are shown on the same page. 4 Most of the fish species from Japan occur in other areas of the Indo-Pacific, therefore you can identify many species of the region with this book.
3-10-35, Minamiyana, Hadano-shi, Kanagawa, 257-0003 JAPAN
Tokai University P ress Fax:+81-463-69-5087 Email:tupsalesdpt@press.ac.jp
Contents — continued
OPINION 2315 (Case 3351). Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelo- dina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines): precedence not granted over Chelodina oblonga Ce) eee Ce ei ae) ee oe ee ee eee Cre i ee ee
OPINION 2316 (Case 3463). Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geoch- elone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines): usage of the specific name conserved by maintenance of a designated neotype, and suppression of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 (currently Dipsochelys dussumieri) yo Sai
Official Correction: Canis cinereoargenteus Schreber, 1775 (currently Urocyon cinereoargenteus; Mammalia, Carnivora): the publication date amended
Advertisement .
57
61
66
68
WM
01706 1 _ CONTENTS —
Noice. _ The International Trust for Zoolosical Nomenclature”
The history of science and oe debates: Case 3463 and the Aldabra :
tortoise. A.M. Roos
Applications _.
Bulimus cylindricus cei 1828 pee Gisloumctodian: oe proposed :
conservation of the specific name (Case 3609). I. Balashov & F. Welter-Schultes .
Phelister Marseul, 1853 (Insecta, Coleoptera, HISTERIDAE): proposed conservation o - Onitis aeruginosus Klug, 1855 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE): proposed con- —
usage (Case 3610). MSS. Caterino & A.K. Tishechkin .
servation of the specific name (Case 3612). M. Cupello_ .
: Polybothris Dupont, 1833 (Insecta, Coleoptera; BUPRESTIDAE): oped ion - as the correct en spelling oe ae P. Pou a Bousquet, XN. ae
— & §. Bily .
PHYCINAE Lyneborg, 1976 Gre Doo a proposed srendaton a _ spelling to PHYCUSINAE to remove homonymy with PHYCINAE Swainson, 1838
_ (Osteichthyes, Gadiformes, PHYCIDAE); and Phycis Walbaum, 1792 (Osteichthyes,
Gadiformes, PHYCIDAE): proposed conservation of usage by designation of 3 Blennius phycis Linnaeus, 1766 as the type species oF S.D. Gaimari, —
M. Hauser & R. Fricke .
Nyctimystes cheesmani Tyler 1964 a phe oe HYLIDAE: ee for ine aside the name in favour of Nyctimystes Clrecsmannae oe 1964 (Case — M.J. Tyler & J.I. Menzies
Podocnemis unifilis Troschel, 1848 (Reptilia. oie. npn pre cdence over Emys cayennensis Schweigger, 1812 (Case 3587). R.C. Vogt, S.A. Thomson, A.G.J. Rhodin, P.C.H. Pritchard, R. Mittermeier & N. pees
Comments _ : On Lychnorhiza hiceina Haeckel, 1880 (eudane: Seyphoco.. Pl oomcic): a posed conservation of generic and specific names (Case 3485). M.J. Grygier . On Cornu Born, 1778 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata, HELICIDAE): request for a ruling on the availability of the generic name (Case ae E, Welter-Schultes, C.R. Altaba & C. Audibert .
On Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 (itonods, Cu. request for ae cP the neotype (Case 3581). H. Nordsieck Co
On a proposal to reinstate as available the species- Soup names cslapesail for Devonian ammonoids (Mollusca, Cephalopoda) by Sobolew es a (Case 3600) D. Weyer
On Scarabaeus Linnaeus, 1758, Byes Wack aay. 1819, : SCARABAEINAE ee 1802, and DYNASTINAE MacLeay, 1819 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEOIDEA): proposed conservation of usage (Case 3590). N.L. Evenhuis; Y. Cambefort
On the proposed conservation of usage of the specific name Scarabaeus fimetarius Linnaeus, 1758 (currently Aphodius fimetarius; Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE) by designation of a neotype (Case 3579) H. Fery
On the proposed precedence of Maculinea Eecke, 1915 over Pioheore Doneny, 1391
(Lepidoptera, me ae ee a J Paclt: J. W. ee D.J. Simcox, PR, Peles _
Rulings of the Commission
OPINION 2314 (Case 3546). Prosradiolives Dowville, 1903 (Beals RADIOLITIDAR): designation of Sphaerulites ponsiana dV Archiac, 1837 as the type species .
7 Page
i
2
30.
Ae
40)
4]
43 45 46 | 48 ' |
53
54
Continued on Inside Back Cover —
Printed in the United Kingdom by Henry Ling Limited, at the Dorset Press, Dorchester, DI1 1HD
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity (no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2014 is £240 or US$390 or €310, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £120 or US$195 or €155. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers
President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands)
Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.)
Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.)
Members (Councillors indicated with *)
Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera)
(Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology)
Dr A. Ballerio (/taly; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (/taly; Myriapoda)
Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore;
Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Crustacea, Ichthyology)
Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) | (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista)
Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology)
Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S.A.; Mollusca)
Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera)
Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata)
Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa)
Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology)
Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera)
Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief)
Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster)
G. Austen-Price M.Sc. (Scientific Administrator and Development Officer)
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) C. Laws (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Rhacophorus nigropalmatus Boulenger, 1895, known as Wallace’s flying frog was discovered by Alfred Russel Wallace in Sarawak, Borneo in 1865. The holotype (female) was collected by Charles Hose and is housed in the Natural History Museum, London. Wallace wrote in his book The Malay Archipelago (1869, pp. 59-61): ‘One of the most curious and interesting reptiles which I met with in Borneo was a large tree-frog, which was brought me by one of the Chinese workmen. He assured me that he had seen it come down in a slanting direction from a high tree, as if it flew. On examining it, I found the toes very long and fully webbed to their very extremity. .. . This is, I believe, the first instance known of a “flying frog,” and it is very interesting to Darwinians as showing that the variability of the toes which have been already modified for purposes of swimming and adhesive climbing, have been taken advantage of to enable an allied species to pass through the air like the flying lizard.’ This watercolour was painted by Wallace and was used as the basis for the woodcut illustration of this species in The Malay Archipelago (p. 60). This year marks the 100th anniversary of Wallace’s death. (© scan of the original drawing — A.R. Wallace Memorial Fund).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2013
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013 69
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 70, part 2 (pp. 69-150) 30 June 2013
Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines- case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at http://iczn.org/content/instructions-comments).
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 70, part 1, 31 March 2013) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the prevailing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3621: Proposed use of the plenary power to designate the type species of Dhosaites Spath, 1924 in accordance with the author’s original intentions (Mollusca, Cephalopoda, Ammonoidea, MACROCEPHALITIDAE). M.K. Howarth.
CASE 3622: Proposal to reverse the ruling of the ICZN (Case 2899) on the names Dodecaceria fimbriata and D. concharum (Annelida, Polychaeta, CIRRATULIDAE) on the basis of new evidence. P.H. Gibson.
CASE 3623: Grallaria fenwickorum Barrera et al. 2010 (Aves, FORMICARIIDAE): proposed replacement of an indeterminate holotype and nomen dubium by a neotype. A.T. Peterson.
JUL 11 2013
LipparitS
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013
CASE 3624: A proposal for the rejection of 48 names in ANTHICIDAE (Insecta, Coleoptera). M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga.
CASE 3625: Request for suppression of Kinosternon chimalhuaca Rogner, 1996 (Reptilia, Testudines). M. Rogner, J.B. Iverson, J.F. Berry, M.E. Seidel & A.G.J. Rhodin.
CASE 3626: Phoronis Wright, 1856 (Phoronida): proposed precedence over Actinotrocha Miller, 1846; and Phoronis muelleri Selys Longchamps, 1903: proposed precedence over Actinotrocha branchiata Miller, 1846. C. Nielsen.
CASE 3627: Request for a ruling on the validity of lectotype designations for fish taxa by C.H. Eigenmann between 1908 and 1927. J.L.O. Birindelli, A.L. Netto- Ferreira & M.H. Sabaj-Pérez.
CASE 3628: Terrapene putnami Hay, 1906 (Testudines, EMyDIDAE): replacement of the holotype by the designation of a neotype. D.J. Ehret, J.R. Bourque & R.C. Hulbert, Jr.
CASE 3629: Vipera latasti Bosca 1878 (Reptilia, Serpentes, vIPERIDAE): request for setting aside the name in favour of Vipera latastei Bosca 1878. A. Salvador, S.D. Busack, R. McDiarmid, I. Ineich & J.C. Brito.
CASE 3630: CORCORACIDAE Mathews, 1927 (Aves): proposed conservation of usage by conditional suppression of the senior synonym STRUTHIDEIDAE Mathews, 1924. R. Schodde, W. Boles, L. Christidis, P. Horton, R. Johnstone, L. Joseph & W. Longmore.
CASE 3631: Phalacrocorax atra Lesson, 1831 (Aves, PHALACROCORACIDAE): pro- posed conservation of of usage. J.J.F.J. Jansen.
CASE 3632: Anathyris monstrum Khalfin, 1933 (currently Mncthpnddia monstrum; Brachiopoda, Athyridida): proposed conservation of the specific name. F. Alvarez & T.L. Modzalevskaya.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013 71
Case 3620
Ticinella primula Luterbacher, 1963 (Foraminifera, Globigerinida, ROTALIPOROIDEA, ROTALIPORIDAE): proposed conservation of the specific name
Atsushi Ando
Department of Paleobiology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, MRC 121, Washington, D.C., U.S.A. (e-mail: AndoA@si.edu)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the name Ticinella primula Luterbacher, 1963, which is in prevailing use for a species of Early Cretaceous (Albian) planktonic foraminifera of the superfamily ROTALIPOROIDEA Sigal, 1958 (nom. correct. ex ROTALIPORACEA). Since the middle 1960s this specific name has been extensively used as a zonal marker of the standard planktonic foraminiferal biochronology, in academic micropalaeontology and econ- omic palaeontology, as well as various disciplines in Cretaceous palaeoenvironmental study. It is threatened by its senior subjective synonym Hedbergella yezoana Takayanagi & Iwamoto, 1962. For nomenclatural stability, the junior name primula should be conserved by suppressing the senior name yezoana.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Foraminifera; Globigerinida; ROTALIPOROIDEA; ROTALIPORIDAE; Ticinella; Ticinella primula; Hedbergella yezoana; planktonic fo- raminifera; Albian; Early Cretaceous.
1. Takayanagi & Iwamoto (1962, pp. 191, 192) described a fossil subspecies of planktonic foraminifera Hedbergella trocoidea yezoana from the Lower Cretaceous (Albian) marine strata in Hokkaido, Japan. As a microfossil taxon first discovered with limited preservation from the surface outcrop and illustrated before the era of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), its fine-scale taxonomic characters were not adequately addressed in the original description and hand-drawing. As can be understood by its placement under the genus Hedbergella, the subspecies yezoana was considered to be one of the globular-chambered, unornamented hedbergellid taxa that are often difficult to classify because of their morphological simplicity. None- theless, this local taxon has received continued if not significant attention, probably because of its many-chambered morphology (7-8 chambers in the final whorl) that is not common in the coeval simple hedbergellids. Since the work of Miles & Orr (1980), this name has been raised to the species rank as Hedbergella yezoana.
2. Luterbacher (1963, in Renz et al., pp. 1085, 1086) described the Albian planktonic foraminiferal species Ticinella primula from the Le Maley well, Switzerland. It was clearly recognized that the well-preserved holotype, with seven chambers in the final whorl, possesses supplementary apertures and a porticus (one kind of apertural modification), which are relatively small but diagnostic characters at the genus and species levels, respectively. Shortly after its erection, this taxon was chosen as the
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013
middle Albian index species in the then emerging biozonation schemes of Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera in the Mediterranean realm (Moullade, 1966; Sigal, 1977). As new information accumulated, in particular through scientific deep-sea drilling, it had become clear by the 1980s that 7. primula is a cosmopolitan species occurring across ail ocean basins in the low to middle latitudes (for summary, see Caron, 1985, figs. 5, 6). The T. primula Interval Zone has since been adopted in all major publications of the standard Cretaceous planktonic foraminiferal biochronology (e.g. Caron, 1985; Bralower et al., 1995; Hardenbol et al., 1998; Ogg & Hinnov, 2012). The name is therefore an important term of common interest not only for academic micropalae- ontologists but also for ‘users’ in economic palaeontology (natural resource explora- tion) and in the broad Cretaceous palaeoenvironmental disciplines such as evolution- ary palaeoecology, palaeoceanography, and palaeoclimatology. It is noteworthy that T. primula has long tracked an exceptionally stable taxonomic history with no marked emendation.
3. Ando (2012) was the first to pursue the taxonomic identity of Hd. yezoana by means of SEM study (uncoated) of the primary types and new type-locality material. Taking account of supportive information from the topotypes/type-locality assem- blage, it was concluded that the holotype was synonymous with T. primula, possessing uneven wall surface (diagenetically-affected macroperforate, reticulate wall of Ticinella) and a porticus-like structure, and presenting other consistent morphological features. Nonetheless, the holotype of yezoana was confirmed to be poorly preserved, with its supplementary apertures and wall perforation being obscured.
4. From aforementioned new information, a nomenclatural question emerges as to whether the subjective senior name Ticinella yezoana (Takayanagi & Iwamoto, 1962) should be used over Ticinella primula Luterbacher, 1963 based on one year of priority. It may be held that the designation of a neotype for yezoana based on a well-preserved topotype, if located, would help establish the senior status of T. yezoana under Article 75.5 of the Code, yet this is also an unsettling taxonomic approach considering the highly prevailing usage of TJ. primula. It should be emphasized that Ando (2012) confirmed, after processing large quantities of un- weathered type-locality samples, that preservational limitation would not allow for collection of much better preserved topotypes for T: yezoana. Unarguably, conser- vation of the junior name T. primula is most desirable, and the current priority problem should be best addressed under Article 23.9.3 (Reversal of Precedence), in which provisions are made to moderate the Principle of Priority.
5. The junior synonym T. primula easily meets the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2. Ando (2012, p. 282) provided a list of total 20 citations by 15 authors/author groups who properly identified and illustrated T. primula and used this name as valid in the last 50 years. The following are additional such works that more recently came to my attention: Magniez-Jannin (1975, p. 262-265, pl. 20, figs. 1-15, pl. 21, figs. 1-4 [Aube, France]); Price (1976, pp. 637, 640, pl. 2, figs.5-7 [Bemerode, NW Germany]); Robaszynski et al. (1980, pl. 12, figs. 5, 6 [Boulonnais, France]); Blau et al. (1992, p. 199, figs. 5.3, 6.8 [Neiva subbasin, Colombia]); and Nishi et al. (2003, fig. 10.1 (Hokkaido, Japan]). By including Ando (2012, p. 282, figs. 4.1-4.3 [Hokkaido, Japan], 7.2, 7.3 [IODP Site U1349, Shatsky Rise, NW Pacific], 7.4, 7.5 [DSDP Site 392 off Florida]), a total of 26 publications by 20 authors can be listed as the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013 fs
taxonomic/biostratigraphic works that properly identified and illustrated T. primula, and they constitute the uninterrupted citation record from the middle 1960s until today. Several other taxonomic works included illustrations of specimens identified as T. primula that are difficult to evaluate because of poor preservation, inappropriate illustration, or misidentification. Furthermore, works that simply cited the taxon name primula, both by specialists and non-specialists, have been extensively dissemi- nated over the Cretaceous academic/industrial fields. Their large number makes it impractical to count them.
6. In the case of the senior name, 7. yezoana does not strictly comply with the conditions of Article 23.9.1.1. To the best of my knowledge, specimens identified as T. yezoana, apart from the original description, were so far illustrated five times after 1899 by four authors/author groups (G.A. Miles; D.W. Haig; M.D. Georgescu; B.T. Huber) (see Ando, 2012, p. 281). Oddly, as pointed out by Ando (2012), those figured specimens were all fewer chambered forms (5'2-6'4 in the final whorl) that do not possess the key many-chambered character of T. yezoana (= T. primula), so as to contrast strongly with the original yezoana description. Works that simply mention the taxon name yezoana do exist, but they are limited to specialized taxonomic studies. Nonetheless, the name yezoana has actually been mentioned, and so it cannot be considered a truly forgotten name (nomen oblitum as per Article 23.9.2). Therefore, it is necessary to request a ruling under the plenary power, as specified in Recommendation 23A and Article 23.9.3.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress the specific name yezoana Takayanagi & Iwamoto, 1962, as published in the trinomen Hedbergella trocoidea yezoana, for the purposes of the Principle of Priority, but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the specific name primula Luterbacher, 1963, as published in the binomen Ticinella primula;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the specific name yezoana Takayanagi & Iwamoto, 1962, as published in the trinomen Hedbergella trocoidea yezoana and as suppressed in (1) above.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Paul L. Brenckle (editor of the Journal of Foraminiferal Research) for advising on an earlier paper (Ando, 2012) upon which this case is based.
References
Ando, A. 2012. Taxonomic reexamination and type-locality assemblage characterization of the late Albian planktonic foraminifera Hedbergella yezoana Takayanagi and Iwamoto, 1962, from Japan. Journal of Foraminiferal Research, 42: 271-285.
Blau, J., Vergara, L. & Stock, H.W. 1992. First planktonic foraminifera from the Early Cretaceous (Albian) of the Upper Magdalena Valley, Colombia. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 6: 191—206.
Bralower, T.J., Leckie, R.M., Sliter, W.V. & Thierstein, H.R. 1995. An integrated Cretaceous microfossil biostratigraphy. Pp. 65-79 in Berggren, W.A., Kent, D.V., Aubry, M.-P. & Hardenbol, J. (Eds.), Geochronology, Time Scales and Global Stratigraphic Correlation, SEPM Special Publication No. 54.
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013
Caron, M. 1985. Cretaceous planktic foraminifera. Pp. 17-86 in Bolli, H., Saunders, J.B. & Perch-Nielsen, K.P. (Eds.), Plankton Stratigraphy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hardenbol, J., Thierry, J., Farley, M.B., Jacquin, T. de, Graciansky, P.-C. & Vail, P. 1998. Mesozoic and Cenozoic sequence chronostratigraphic framework of European basins. Pp. 3-13 in de Graciansky, P.-C., Hardenbol, J., Jacquin, T. & Vail, P. (Eds.), Mesozoic and Cenozoic Sequence Stratigraphy of European Basins, SEPM Special Publication No. 60.
Magniez-Jannin, F. 1975. Les Foraminiféres de I’ Albien de l’ Aube: paléontologie, stratigraphie, écologie. Cahiers de Paléontologie. 360 pp. Editions du C.N.R.S., Paris.
Miles, G.A. & Orr, W.N. 1980. Planktonic foraminifers from the Bermuda Rise, Deep Sea Drilling Project Legs 51, 52, and 53. Pp. 791-813 in Donnelly, T., Francheteau, J., Bryan, W., Robinson, P., Flower, M., Salisbury, M., et al., Initial Reports of the Deep Sea Drilling Project, vol. 51-53. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Moullade, M. 1966. Etude stratigraphique et micropaléontologique du Crétacé inférieur de la ““fosse vocontienne.”’ Documents des Laboratoires de Géologie de la Faculté des Sciences de Lyon, 15: 1-369.
Nishi, H., Takashima, R., Hatsugai, T., Saito, T., Moriya, K., Ennyu, A. & Sakai, T. 2003. Planktonic foraminiferal zonation in the Cretaceous Yezo Group, Central Hokkaido, Japan. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 21: 867-886.
Ogg, J.G. & Hinnov, L.A. 2012. Chapter 27. Cretaceous. Pp. 793-853 in Gradstein, F.M., Ogg, J.G., Schmitz, M.D. & Ogg, G.M. (Eds.), The geologic time scale 2012. Elsevier B.V., Amsterdam.
Price, R.J. 1976. Palaeoenvironmental interpretations in the Albian of western and southern Europe, as shown by distribution of selected foraminifera. Pp. 625-648 in Shafer, C.T. & Pelletier, B.R. (Eds.), First International Symposium on Benthonic Foraminifera of Continental Margins, Part B: paleoecology and biostratigraphy, Maritime Sediments Special Publication No. 1.
Renz, O., Luterbacher, H.P. & Schneider, A. 1963. Stratigraphisch-palaeontologische Unter- suchungen im Albien und Cénomanien der Neuenburger Jura. Eclogae Geologicae Helvetiae, 56: 1073-1116.
Robaszynski, F., Amédro, F., Foucher, J.-C., Gaspard, D., Magniez-Jannin, F., Manivit, H. & Sornay, J. 1980. Synthése biostratigraphique de l’Aptien au Santonien du Boulonnais a partir de sept groupes paléontologiques: Foraminiféres, nannoplancton, Dinoflagellés et macrofaunes—Zonations micropaléontologiques intégrées dans le cadre du Crétace boréal nord-européen. Revue de Micropaléontologie, 22: 195-321.
Sigal, J. 1958. La classification actuelle des familles de Foraminiféres planctoniques du Crétacé. Compte Rendu Sommaire des Séances de la Société Géologique de France, 11-12: 262-265.
Sigal, J. 1977. Essai de zonation du Crétacé méditerranéen a l’aide des foraminiferes planctoniques. Géologie Méditerranéenne, IV: 99-107.
Takayanagi, Y. & Iwamoto, H. 1962. Cretaceous planktonic foraminifera from the middle Yezo Group of the Ikushumbetsu, Miruto, and Hatonosu areas, Hokkaido. Transactions and Proceedings of Palaeontological Society of Japan, New Series, 45: 183-196.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 70: 2. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 70(2) June 2013 75
Case 3616
Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930, NEOBIsIOmDEA Chamberlin, 1930, NEOBISHDAE Chamberlin, 1930 and NEOBISINAE Chamberlin, 1930, (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones, Chelonethi): proposed conservation by designation of Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817 as the type species of Obisium Leach, 1814
Mark L.I. Judson
Muséum national d’ Histoire naturelle, Département Systématique et Evolution, CNRS UMR 7205, 57 rue Cuvier, C.P. 53, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail judson@mnhn.fr)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Articles 65.2.1 and 65.2.2 of the Code, is to conserve the usage of the widely used generic name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 and of the family-group names NEOBISIINAE Chamberlin, 1930, NEOBISIIDAE Chamberlin, 1930 and NEOBISIOIDEA Chamberlin, 1930. These names are threatened by an overlooked fixation (by monotypy) of Chelifer trombidioides Latreille, 1804 as the type species of Obisium Leach, 1814 (a junior homonym of Obisium Illiger in Kugelann and Illiger, 1798) and hence of its replacement, Neobisium. Chelifer trombidioides is a senior objective synonym of Obisium orthodac- tylum Leach, 1817, the type species of Chthonius C.L. Koch, 1843 by subsequent designation of Simon (1879), which makes Neobisium a junior objective synonym of Chthonius. Consequently, family-group names based on Neobisium (currently in use up to superfamilial level) would become junior objective synonyms of those based on Chthonius. In order to maintain current usage of the names concerned, it is proposed that Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817 be designated as the type species of Obisium Leach, 1814.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Chelonethi; NEOBISIOIDEA; NEOBISII- DAE; NEOBISIINAE; Obisium; Neobisium; Chelifer trombidioides; Chthonius ischnocheles; Neobisium carcinoides; Obisium muscorum; pseudoscorpions.
1. The generic name Obisium was first proposed by Illiger (in Kugelann & Illiger, 1798, p. 501) for the pseudoscorpion species Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 (as Scorpio cancroides) and Scorpio cimicoides Fabricius, 1793 (as ‘S. cimicoides Fabr.’). Under Article