20. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE VOLUME 19 ""^is:**!.?*!! ,^v- LONDON: Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I 1962 {AU rights reserved) m TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Secretary's Note : Election of a New Commissioner 1 Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By W. E. China {Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... 3 Brisson, 1760 " Ornithologie " : Proposed restriction of vaUdation granted under the plenary powers to certain portions of that work. By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... 9 Family-group names in the Heteroptera proposed for the Official List and Official Index (Insecta, Hemiptera). By T. Jaczewski {Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) ... ... 15 Eight dubious species of birds : Proposed use of the plenary powers to place these names on the Official Index. By Ernst Mayr {Mtiseum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) ... ... 23 Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foraminifera) : Proposed designation of a t3rpe-species under the plenary powers. By W. A. Macfadyen {Hope's Grove, Tenterden, Kent, England) 27 Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822 : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers together with the validation of two nominal species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerb}^ 1827. By D. T. Donovan (jBmtoi) and C. W. Wright (Lomfoji) 35 Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphiu^ Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884 (MoUusca, Gastropoda) : Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By C. A. Wright {British Museum {Natural History), London) 39 Amyot, " Methode Mononj^mique " : Request for a direction that this work be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature. By Wolfgang Stichel {Berlin, Germany) 42 Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus 0. Pickard- Cambridge and Theonoe Simon (Arachnida, Araneae) : Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By Herbert W. Levi {Aluseum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) 43 IV Page Sigara atomaria Uliger, 1807 (Insects, Heteroptera) : Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers. By T. Jaczewski {Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) 48 Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)... 51 Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lamhrxis Leach, 1815 : Proposed valida- tion bj' the suppression of Parthenope Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijks- mnseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ... 58 Euryala Weber, 1795, and Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed action under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 61 Ceratiocaris M'Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By W. D. Ian Rolfe {Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) 63 Opinion 620 Papilio dardanus Brown, 1776 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) : Vahdated under the plenary powers 72 Opinion 621 phaenomerididae Ohaus, 1913, and phaenomerina Faust, 1898 (Insecta, Coleoptera) : Addition to the Official List ... 74 Opinion 622 Fenestella Lonsdale, 1839 (Bryozoa) : Vahdation under the plenary powers in accordance with accustomed usage ... ... 76 Opinion 623 Macronema Pictet, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera) : Validated under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... ... ... 80 Opinion 624 Crocodilus palustris Lesson, 1831 (Reptilia) : Validated under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... ... ... 82 Opinion 625 Strophalosia King, 1844 (Brachiopoda) : Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... 84 Opinion 626 Echinus minvius Buckman, 1846 (Echinoidea) : Validation under the plenary powers. Revision of Opinion 107 88 Pcige Opinion 627 Mallophagan names of De Geer, 1778 : Added to the Official List 91 Opinion 628 Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (Insecta, Mallophaga) : Added to the Official List 97 CarcharUnus Blainville, 1816 (Class Chondrichthyes, Order Selachii) : Proposed designation of Carcharias melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard as type-species under the plenary powers. By J. A. F. Garrick (Division of Fishes. U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 100 Penaeid Generic Names (Crustacea, Decapoda). By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)... 103 XENOPHORiDAE Deshayes, 1864 (Gastropoda) : Proposed preservation under the plenary powers. By K. V. W. Palmer {Paleontological Research Institute, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) 115 Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By F. C. J. Fischer (Rotterdam, Ic Lumeystraat, The Netherlands) 117 Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera) : Proposed vaUdation under the plenary powers and designation of a neotype for Serpula seminulum Linnaeus, 1758. By Alfred R. LoebUch (California Research Corporation, La Hahra, California) and Helen Tappan (University of California, Los Angeles, California) 118 Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ... 125 Opinion 629 Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763 : Designation of a neotype under the plenary powers 132 Opinion 630 Phasianella Lamarck, 1804 (Gastropoda) : Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers 140 Opinion 631 Aedipoda pellarini Le Guillou, 1841 (Insecta, Orthoptera) : Suppressed under the plenary powers 142 Amendment to the proposed vaUdation of Enhydrus Castelnau, 1834, under the plenary powers. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) 1 44 VI Page Opinion 632 Regina Baird & Girard, 1853 (Reptilia) : Designation of a t j-pe-species under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... 145 Opinion 633 NoreUa Bittner, 1890 (Brachiopoda) : Designation of a tjrpe-species under the plenary powers 148 Opinion 634 Myalina trigonalis Etheridge, 1876 (Pelecypoda) : Sup- pressed under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... ... 150 Opinion 635 Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820 (Amphibia) : Addition to the Oflficial List as the name to be used for the Eastern North- American Newt ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 152 Amendment to the proposal to vaUdate under the plenary powers the specific name Twmbidmm akamushi Brumpt, 1910. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Notnenclature) ... ... ... ... ... ... 155 Doto Oken, 1815 (Gastropoda) : Proposed vaUdation under the plenary powers. By Henning Lemche {Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 156 Cynips caricae Lirmaeus in Hasselquist, 1762 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed validation imder the plenary powers. By W. E. China {Assistant Secretary to the Internaiional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 160 Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (ReptUia) : Proposed vahdation under the plenary powers. By Joseph R. Bailey {Depaiiment of Zoology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, U.S.A.) ... ... ... 164 Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera) : Proposed designation of a neotj'pe under the plenary powers. By D. Keith McE. Kevan [Department of Entomology <£• Plant Pathology, McGill University, 3Iacdonald College, P.Q., Canada) ... ... ... 170 Dasiops alveofrons Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Dasiops alveo- frons McAlpine, 1961. By J. F. McAlpine (Entomology Research Institute, Canada Department of Agriculture, Ottatca, Ontario), H. R. Moffitt (University of California, Citrus Experimental Staiion, Riverside, California) and F. L. Yaruss (Department of Agriculture, San Diego, California) 173 Asterias nodosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Asteroidea) : Selection of a lectotype and addition to the Official List. By A. M. Clark (British Museum (Natural History), Ixmdon) 174 vn Pa^e Pisidia Leach, 1820 : Proposed designation of a type-species ; and Cancer istrianus Scopoli, 1763 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ... 177 Stereomastis Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed vahdation under the plenary powers. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) 182 Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers, and related matters. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands)... 184 Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia, Serpentes) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Robert Mertens {Natur-Mu^eum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Gerrrutny) 189 Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (Pisces) : Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names. By J. R. Gery {Strasbourg, France) and J. J. Hoedeman {Zoological Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) 191 Secretary's Note : Commission News ... ... ... ... ... 193 Endothyra bowmani P hilli p.^, [1846] v. Endothyra bowmani Brown, 1843 (Foraminifera). By L. G. Henbest {U.S. Geological Survey, Washi7igton, D.C., U.S.A.). An alternative Proposal. By S. E. Rosovskaya {Palaeontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow) 199 Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptiha) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers with addition of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768, to the Official List. By Hobart M. Smith {Department of Zoology. University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ... ... ... 206 Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera) : Proposed vahdation and interpretation under the plenary powers of the species so named. By P. F. Mattingly {British Museum {Natural History), London) ; Alan Stone {Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of AgricuUure, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; and Kenneth L. Knight (Naval Medical Field Research Laboratory, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, U.S.A.) ... ... ... ... 208 VIII Page Request for a Ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not designate type-species validly in either their work dated 1896-1900 or that of 1896. By W. E. China {Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... ... ... 220 Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenarj^ powers. By G. M. Bennison [The University of Birmingham, England) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 230 Forty-seven genera of the Decapoda (Crustacea) : Proposed addition to the Official List. By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) ... ... ... ... ... 232 Morch, 1852-53, Catalog us conchyliorum : Proposed use of the plenary powers to place on the Official List of Works, and to designate a type-species for Pseudamussiwm Morch, 1853 (Pelecypoda). By T. Soot-Ryen (OsZo) 254 Opinion 636 Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (Crinoidea) : Validation under the plenary powers in its accustomed sense ... ... ... ... 262 Opinion 637 Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864 (Reptilia) : Ruling on lecto- type 266 Opinion 638 Lepidogaster couchii Kent, 1883 (Pisces) : Suppression under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 268 Opinion 639 Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (Gastropoda) : Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers ... ... ... ... 270 Opinion 640 Euceraphis Walker, 1870 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers 272 Opinion 641 Addition of certain generic and specific names in the family phasmatidae (Insecta, Phasmatoidea) to the Official Lists and Indexes ... ... ... ... ... • . • • • • • • • 274 Opinion 642 Suppression under the plenary powers of eleven specific names of Reptilia and Amphibia with validation of thirteen specific names with theu* original author and date ... ... ... ... 280 ZoriUa I. Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Ictonyx Kaup, 1835. By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 284 IX Page Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824 (Amphibia) : Proposed designation of a neotj'pe under the plenary powers. By H. W. Parker (British Museum (Natural History), London) and W. D. L. Ride (Western Australian Mxiseum, Perth, Western Australia) ... ... ... 290 Thaumastocoris australicu^ Kirkaldy, 1908 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Request for this name, as defined by a neotype, to be placed on the Official List. By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut, U.S.A.) 293 PHASMiDAE VS. PHASMATiDAE : Secretary's Note 294 Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces) : Proposed rejection of both generic and specific names as nomina oblita. By Giles W. Mead (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) 295 PHYSAPiDA Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Neuroptera) : Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) ... ... ... ... ... 297 Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia) : Proposed vaUdation under the plenary powers. By Kenneth L. WilUams and Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urhana, U.S.A.) ... ... ... ... 298 TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera) : Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum. By D. E. Kimmins (British Museum (Natural History), London) 301 Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) : Designation of a type- species under the plenary powers. By P. C. Sylvester- Bradley (University of Leicester, England) ... ... ... ... ... 302 Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera) : Proposed vaUdation under the plenary powers. By E. S. Brown (Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) ... ... ... ... ... 304 Tetrastichus Walker, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By B. D. Burks (Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) 306 Page Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed designa- tion of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. J. Rowell (DepaHmevi of Geology, University of Nottingham) ... ... ... 308 Ligulops Hall, 1871 (Bracliiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed rejection as a nomen oblitum. By A. J. Rowell (Department of Geology, Urtiversity of Nottingham) ... ... ... ... ... ... 310 Orbiculoidea d'Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda, Inarticulata) : Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers. By A. J. 'Rov^eW {Department of Geology. University of Nottingham) ... ... 311 SPONDYLIASPINAE Schwarz, 1898 (Hemiptera, Psyllidae) : Proposed validation of the subfamily name. By K. L. Taylor (Division of Entomology, C.S.I. R.O., Canberra) 315 Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda) : Proposed suppression under the plenary powers. By Lt.-Col. R. J. Griffiths (Sea Acres Sanctuary . Port Macquarie. N.S.W.. Australia) 317 Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Walter C. Sweet (The Ohio State University. Columbu.9, Ohio, U.S.A.) 323 Application for the suppression under the plenary powers of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea. By Albert Breimer (Af deling Historische Geologic en Palaeontologie, Geologisch en Mineralogisch Institut der Rijksuniversiteit, Leiden, The Netherlands) 325 Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (LameUibranchia) : Request for a Ruling on the interpretation of the species. By M. J. Rogers (21 Canynge Square. Clifton, Bristol 8) .' 328 Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) : Proposed validation under the plenary powers. By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia. Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) 332 Secretary's Note : Proposals for discussion at Washington Congress . . . 337 Case 1, Request for a clarification of Article 40. By J. Chester Bradley (President. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 337 XI Page Case 2. The International Code provisions on family-group names and their effects on Trilobite taxonom3^ By J. T. Temple (Birkbeck College, London) ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 338 Case 3. Concerning the Statute of Limitation. 3/1. By J. Chester Bradley {President, International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature) ; 3/2 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and MtLseum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) ; 3/3 By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) ; 3/4 By M. W. R. de V. Graham [Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford) ... 345 Case 4. Amendments proposed to facilitate the adding of names of the family-group to the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. By J. Chester Bradley {President, International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature) ... ... ... ... ... 353 The Constitution of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : Secretary's Note ; Report of the By-Laws Com- mittee ; Comments on the Draft Constitution ... ... ... 355 i^URCHASeo Volume 19. Part 1. pp. 1-64, 3 pi. 2nd February, 1962 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Contents Personnel of the International Commission Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases Page 1 12 FEB ^962 {continued inside back torapper) LONDON: <:r\9frM(7s^^ «akj!»v>%> •-' .4.J «^LH»»55- Printed by Order of the International Trust lor Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I 1962 Price Three Pounds (All rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers o{ the Commission President: Professor James Chester Bradlky (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amabal (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Secretary : Jlr. N. D. Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary : Dr. W. E. Chtna (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.I) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Senlior Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. Chester Bradley (Corne/i University, Ithaca, N.T., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes ( University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLTHUis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commomvealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeleu, Calif omia, C^.6f.^.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Pbantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kuhnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale "G. Doria ", Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brinck (Lmnds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Poll (Miisie Royal de VAfrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (University de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences. Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) J nv' n J Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Instilut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herino (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin. Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obruchev (Palaeontological InstituU, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-l\, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Uchida (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales. Madrid. Spain) (31 May 1960) > r , Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Mitnroe, (Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa. Canada) (9 June, 1961) ' »». . / Dr. N. S. BoRCHSENius (Institute of Zoology. Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B 164. U.8.8.R.) (28 September 1961) ' -w / ^ t2FEBl9S2 imiETM OF ZOOlOGICAl XOMEXCIATIIRE Volume 19, Part 1 (pp. 1-64) 2nd February, 1962 Election of a New Commissioner The following new member has been elected to the Commission in accord- ance with the procedure laid down by the International Congress of Zoology, with effect from the date shown : Dr. N. S. BoRCHSENius, Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, University Embankment 1, Leningrad B 164, U.S.S.R. (28 September 1961)— Hemi- pterist. Nominated by the Zoological Institute, Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. j^ J) RILEY, Hon. Secretary NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on apphcations published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the pubhcation of each apphcation. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the apphcations in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in dupUcate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six -month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use of the Commission's plenary powers is involved in the following apphcations pubhshed in the present part of the Bulletin : — (1) VaUdation of Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera). Z.N.(S.) 81. (2) Suppression of eight dubious specific names of birds. Z.N.(S.) 1033. (3) Designation of a type-species for Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foramini- fera). Z.N.(S.) 1087. (4) Validation of two species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1203. (5) VaUdation of Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1392. (6) Preservation of Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus 0. Pickard- Cambridge, and Theonoe Simon (Araneae). Z.N.(S.) 1481. (7) Validation of Corixa affinis Leach, 1817 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1482. (8) Designation of a type-species for Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1488. (9) Validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1487. (10) VaUdation of Corystes LatreUle, [1802-1803] (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1486. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA CromweU Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 9 November, 1961. Zoological Nomenclature 2 BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PNOEPYGA HODGSON, 1844. Z.X.(S.) 1457 (see volume 18, pages 209-210) By S. Dillon Ripley {Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, U.S.A.) I should bring to the attention of Commissioners the following : Microura Gould, 1837, as accepted by the Law of Priority, appears in the primary literature in A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakisfa7i {together with those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and Ceylon), by S. Dillon Ripley, 703 pages, published bj- the Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay, as a special publication, in 1961. This volume is what is known as a " standard work ". By SaUm AU {Bombay, India) The range of these little WTen-babblers extends along the Himalayas into Burma and Formosa. The genus does not occur in Borneo nor the Philippines, and therefore the principal books which are going to cover its geographical range are the one by S. Dillon Ripley, just published, namely, A Synopsis of the Birds of India and Pakistan (including those of Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Ceylon) [Bombay Natural History Society, 1961] and 2 others by H. G. Deignan which are already in gallej' proof or in press. All of these have rejected Pnoepyga in favour of Microura following the ordinary laws of priority, and therefore, imder the circumstances and at this stage, it would be a great hardship to the layman and the normal user of bird books in this geographical area to have to revert back to a conserved name. As an ornithologist working in the area concerned, and as the author of several standard bird books including one {The Birds of Sikkim) now in the final stages of publication, wherein also the name Microura has been used, I woidd submit that a decision to revert to the conserved name, as proposed, would cause unnecessary confusion among workers in India and the Indo- chinese sub-region who, like myself, are not specialists in bird taxonomy but who have constantlj' suffered from the instabiUtj-, even waywardness, of scientific names. Since it is most unlikely that another checklist of the birds of the particular areas under reference will be published in the next 20 years or more, there seems little to be gained by conserving and reversion at this stage to a name lawfully rejected in the latest and most important relevant publication. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 3 SC0LYTU8 GEOFFROY, 1762 (INSECTA, COLEOPTERA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 81 By W. E. China {Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) History of the Case The present apphcation was first submitted to the Commission in 1914, during the Secretaryship of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, by James S. Hine of the Ohio Academy of Sciences. J. M. Swaine had, a few years earher, pubhshed his Catalogue of the described scolytidae of America, North of Mexico (Report of the New York State Entomologist for 1908, Neio York State Mus. Bull. 134, Educ. Depart. Bull. No. 455, 1909, Appendix B : 76-159). There he pointed out (: 77) that Geofiroy's name Scolytus could not be used (presumably because Geoflfroy's work was not binominal). He also stated that the species included by O. F. Miiller (1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 57), Scolytus punctatus Muller, 1776, which was the first species to be included in the genus thereby vahdating Scolytus, was not a Scolytid at all. This he said had been pointed out by C. L. Ganglbauer (1903, Munch. Koleopt. Zeit. : 311, footnote) and had been followed by Tredl, 1907, in his Catalogue of the European Bark Beetles. There- fore the name Scolytus should give place to Eccoptogaster Herbst, 1793. Why, wrote Hine to Stiles, should Eccoptogaster Herbst be given precedence over Scolytus Geo^oy , 1762? 2. Stiles wrote for information to Swaine who confirmed that he regarded GeofFroy's work as invaUd and said that, with the exception of Reitter, German authors had almost entirely discarded the name Scolytus in favour of Eccoptogaster. He stated that although he himself, in his Catalogue, used the family name ipidae uistead of scolytidae he thought that if Scolytus were to be used again the name scolytidae should certainly be retained. Stiles passed the problem to Dr. Karl Jordan m England and the correspondence developed into a discussion between Stiles, S. A. Rohwer, Jordan and A. D. Hopkins on the question of the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Geoffroyan names, a matter of principle based on the proper interpretation of the term binary. 3. In 1914, A. D. Hopkins of the Bureau of Entomology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gave a full account of the two names in his List of Generic Names and their Type-Species in the Coleopterous Superfamily Scoljdoidea (Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 115-186). He dealt with the problem again in 1915 in his PreUminary Classification of the Superfamily Scoljrtoidea {U.S. Dept. Agric, Techn. Series No. 17(11) : 219. 4. In 1945 the case was taken up by IVIr. Francis Hemming who -wTote to Dr. K. Jordan asking if any progress had been made with the Scolytus problem. Jordan repUed that the status of Geoffroy 1762 had to be decided on general principles, was subjudice, and could not be taken up until correspond- Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 4 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ence was possible again with all countries. Hemming, who at that time was engaged \\ith the problem of the conservation of another GeoflFroy name, Corixa, rephed that it was possible for the Commission to suppress or vahdate Geofiroy, 1762, in order to prevent confusion in nomenclature in certain groups irrespective of whether Geoifroy's work was or was not a binary work. 5. In 1950 the late Dr. K. W. Dammerman {Ent. Berichten 13(295) : 12) wrote : " If we could reject GeofFroy's name on accoimt of the author not usuig a binominal system, the next author making the genus a vaUd one was Goeze (1777, Entom. Beytr. 1 : 143), using also the generic name Scolytus and replacing the name ' scohte ' by Geojfroi (correctly geoffroyi). Later, Fourcroy (1785, Entom. Parisiensis : 139) estabhshed the name niger for GeofFroy's species. Before both last-named authors Fabricius (1775, Syst. Entom. : 59) latinized the specific name ' scohte ', placing the species scolytus in the genus Bostrichus. The generic name Scolytus was therefore vahdated long before the genus EccoptogaMer was created by Herbst, 1793. " The type oi Scolytus by consequence of tautonymy is Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. All older authors, however, have rejected tautonjons, like botanists still do to-day (Art. 68 of the Botanical Rules), and the name Scolytus geoffroyi has been in general use before the introduction of the Code. We should strongly insist on the International Commission suspending the rules not only in cases of generally accepted generic names but of specific epithets too, which were in universal use in the last hundred years. Scolytus GeoflFroy, 1762, with the tj'pe-species geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, should be placed therefore on the Official List." 6. In 1950, Dr. Karl E. Schedl {Ent. Berichten 13(300) : 96) in replying to Dammerman wrote as follows: " Considering the fact that opinion on tautonymy is still divided, as Mr. Dammerman remarks himself, and because the name of Scolytus scolytus Fabr. has been used consistently and nearly without exception in modern hterature on bark-beetle taxonomy as well as in the vast field of economic entomology, I do not see any advantage by changing this name once more and establishing a situation having been overcome a long time ago. Scolytus scolytus Fabr. is the name nearly exclusively used in our days and should stand for ever, if any oflficial estabUshment is aimed at at all. " I do agree on the other hand Avith the proposition of Mr. Dammerman concerning the generic name of Scolytus GeoflFroy in preference to Eccoptogaster Herbst, and this point of view was shared by Eggers and Blackman." 7. At the Paris Congress in 1948 it was agreed that in view of the solution of the binary-binominal controversy, GeofFroy's book was not available for nomenclatorial purposes. The decision was recorded in 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 366, and promulgated in 1954 as Opinion 288 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 211-220). While the Opinion ruled that all the names in GeoflFroy 's work were unavailable, it was agreed that names the rejection of which would lead to instabihty or confusion, should be vahdated under the plenary powers if submitted to the Commission in the proper manner. Mr. Hemming consequently informed Prof. Boschma in June 1950 that an apphcation to this eflFect on behalf of Scolytus GeoflFroy was required before Damraerman's case could be dealt with. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 6 8. Boschma replied that it was not necessary that the International Commission should vahdate the generic name Scolytus GeofFroy, 1762, but that the Commission should be asked to place the valid name Scolytus Goeze, 1777, on the Official List of Generic Names in order to retain this well-known name and the family name scolytidae. Boschma then repeated the case as set out by Dammerman in 1950 (Ent. Bzrichten 13(295) : 12) asking that Scolytus geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, should be designated as the type-species of Scolytus and not Bostricus scolytus Fabricius. 9. Nothing more was done until 1960, when Miss Margaret Spillane wrote to Prof. Boschma requesting information on certaux details connected with the case. No reply was received. Present Position 10. Dr. A. D. Hopldns in 1915 in his PreHminary Classification of the Superfamily Scolytoidea {U.S. Dept. Agric, Techn. Ser. 17(2) : 219-220) clearly set out the state of affaks in the case of Scolytus Geoffroy, and one cannot do better than repeat his findings here. No doubt the advent of World War I delayed the assimilation of Hopkin's paper by European workers :^ " It has seemed to the writer that there is not sufficient reason or authority for the suppression of the name Scolytus as proposed and clearly defined by Geoffroy (1762 : p. 309). The single ' species ' of the ' genus ' recognized by him was at the same time (p. 310) indicated by a number, the genus name {Scolytus), and a reference to a figure (Vol. 1, pi. 5, fig. 5), and the characters were more clearly defined in a description. " MuUer (1764, p. xiv) recognized the genus Scolytus Geofl". and referred to the original description and figures. " Schaeffer (1766, Tab. cxii, figs. 1, 2, 3, 4) redescribed the genus Scolytus and described and figured the species indicated by Geoffroy but did not name it. "Liimaeus (1767) failed to mention the genus or to refer to Geoffroy, Miiller or Schaeffer. " Fabricius (1775, p. 59) recognized the species described by Geoffroy and redescribed it under the name Bostrichus scolytus, with the citation ' Geoff. Ins, 1-310 [no.]l. Tab. 5, fig. 5, Mal.l' Thus Fabricius recognized the species indicated by Geoffroy on page 310, but did not refer it to the genus described on page 309 under the name Scolytus because he (Fabricius) evidently considered it sjmony- mous with Bostrichus. Consequently, the name proposed by Geoffroy for the genus should stand with Bostrichus scolytus (Fab.) as the t3rpe. " Sulzer (1776, Th. 1, p. 21 ; Th. II, Tab. II, f.l3k), under the name Dermestea scolytus, described and figured the species indicated by Schaeffer, 1766. " Miiller (1776, p. 157) pubhshed a description under the name Scolytus punctatus but referred it doubtfully to Geoffroy's figures. " Goeze (1777, p. 143), under the name ' Dermestes scolytus Geoffroi ', cited Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. (1775), Scolytus Geoff. (1762), and Scolytus punctatus Miill. (1776). Goeze evidently did not mention ' Geoffroi ' as a specific name but merely to indicate that Geoffroy was the author of or authority for the name Scolytus. 6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclahire " Linnaeus (1788-1793, p. 1602) recognized Bostrichus scolytm Fab. and cited Fabricius, 1787, Geoffroy, 1762, Sulzer, 1776, and Schaeffer, 1766. " Herbst (1793, p. 124) described the genus Eccoptogaster with Bostrichus scolytus Fabr. as the tj^e. " 0]iYiev (1795, No. 78, p. 5, PI. I, fig. 4 a, b, c) adopted the name Scolytm for the genus and cited GeofFroj', 1762, and Fabricius, 1775, but substituted for the species the name destructor in the place of scolytus Fabr., evidently concludmg as other contemporary ^v^iters did, that the generic and specific names could not be the same. In fact this opinion evidently influenced the action of Fabricius, Miiller, Herbst, and others. " Curtis (1824, p. 43) designated the type of the genus Scolytus as Bostrichus scolytus." 11. Hopkins, of course, beheved that Scolytus GeofFro}^. 1762, was a vahd name, but as pointed out in (7) above, in 1954 (Opinion 228) Geoffroy's 1762 work was invahdated, although most of GeoflFroy's species had been vaUdated in 1785 by Geoffroy in Fourcroy (Ent. paris. : 139). In this work Geoffroy described his '' scohte " mider the name 7iiger, which therefore became an objective s\-nomTn of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, based on the same description and figures. According to Hopkins, Dammerman (1950) was wrong in assuming that " Geoffroi " Goeze, 1777, was a vahd name for the vernacular "scolite" of Geoffroj^ 1762, and ui this we are inchned to agree •nith Hopkins. Goeze, 1777 {Ent. Beytr. 1 : 143) hsted as " Neue Dermestes- arten " two species : — " No. 11. Scolytus, das Kolbenkaferchen Sulzers Gesch. 5.21.t.2.f.l3.k. SchaeflF. 1 con.t.ll2. and No. 12. Scolytus Geoffroi (sic) Geoffrois Kolbenkaferchen Fabric. S.E. p.59. Bostrichus 4." Whether No. 12, as a homonym of No. 11, is unavailable or whether the specific name Geoffroi could be accepted for No. 12 is a debatable point. Goeze gave under No. 12 references (not quoted above) to Geoffroy's " le scohte " and to Miiller 's Scolytus punctatus. Obviously Goeze did not validate Scolytus Geoffroy as stated by Dammerman, since he placed Geoffroy's species in the genus Dermestes. 12. On the other hand Hopkins overlooked the fact that Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, had, in effect, validated Geoffroy's 1762 name Scolytus and had given the name Scolytus niger to his old species " le scolite ". However, as pointed out by Dammerman, Fabricius, 1775 {Syst. ent. : 59) had previously given a vahd name to Geoffroy's 1762 species by describing it under the name Bostrichus scolytus. This species under the Rules could be regarded as the type-species of Scolytus Geoffroy by tautonymy once Geoffroy's name is vahdated by the use of the plenary powers. Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, however, was designated as type-species oi Scolytus Geoffroy by Curtis, 1824 {Brit. Ent. 1 ; No. 43) and later by Hopkms, 1914 {Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 129). 13. It is clear that Scolytus punctatus Miiller, 1776, Dermestes scolytus Sulzer, 1776, Dermestes scolytus geoffroi Goeze, 1777, Scolytus niger Geoffroy in Fourcroy, 1785, and Scolytus destructor OUvier, 1795, are all objective Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7 synonyms of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, being names suggested for Geoflfroy's " le scolite " or to replace it to avoid tautonymy. Dammerman's request that Scolytus Geoffroy should be placed on the Ofl&cial List with geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, as type-species cannot be granted without upsetting current usage. It is true that Gemminger & Harold, 1872-1873 in their Cataloguus Coleopterorum 9 : 2695 used geoffroyi Goeze, 1777, instead of scolytus Fabricius, 1775, and in this were followed by Eichhoflf (1881, Europ. Borkenkdfer : 148), but since 1914, modern authors following Hopkins have used scolytus Fabricius. 14. Hopkins was wrong in stating (Para. 10 above) that Herbst (1793, Natursystem aller bekannten in -und auslandischen Insekten. Die Kafer, Th. V; 81, 103, 122 and 127-128) described the genus Eccoptogaster with Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius as the type. Herbst described the genus Ekkopto- gaster to hold two species, the above-mentioned B. scolytus Fabricius and B. pygmaeus Fabricius, 1792 (Ent. syst. 1(2), emend. : 367). Hopkins, however, designated the first of these two species as type-species of Eccoptogaster in 1914 [Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 48 : 121) and so far as can be traced this was the first vaUd ty^e designation for Herbst 's genus. The first emendation of Ekkoptogaster Herbst to Eccoptogaster appears to have been by Erichson in 1836 {Arch. Naturgesch. 2 : 58) since when the emended speUing has been used invariably. Since Eccoptogaster is isotypical with Scolytus they will become objective synonyms if the latter is validated by the Commission. 15. Apart from any argument as to whether Scolytus was vaUdated by Fabricius, 1775, Goeze, 1777, or by Geoffroy himself in Fourcroy, 1785, the fact remains that the opportunity offered in Opinion 228 to validate Scolytus Geoffroy, 1762, under the plenary powers should be taken now so that further argument and confusion may be settled in favour of current usage (Hopkins, Schedl, Duffy, Balachowsky, etc.) 16. The oldest family-group name for this family is scolytidae, first used by Westwood, 1838 {Introd. mod. Classif. Ins. 1 : 350). In the use of this name he was followed by Lacordaire, 1866 (Hist. nat. Ins. 7 : 349) and Gem- minger & Harold, 1872-1873 (Cat. Col. 9 : 2669). In 1879 Schlechtendal and Wiinsche (Insekten, Leipzig :173) used the group name tomiciden. In 1906 Reitter (Cat. Col. Europe : 707), apparently beheving that Scolytus Greoffroy was unavailable, used the next available name Eccoptogaster, emendation by Erichson, 1836, of Ekkoptogaster Herbst, 1793, in place of Scolytus andestaMished the famUy-group name eccoptogasterini. In 1907, Tredl (Ent. Bl. 3 : 5) followed suit and raised the tribe to subfamily rank eccoftogasterinae. Hagedom, 1910 (Junk's Coleopt. Cat. 60(4) : 79) following these workers, used the subfamily name eccoftogasterinae Reitter, 1906, but placed it in the family ipidae which he used instead of scolytidae. Swaine (1909) followed Hagedom in the use of the family-group name ipidae. Hopkins (1914) over- came the difficulty by using the higher group-name scolytoidea. As, with the exception of eccoftogasterinae, all these groups have different type- genera based on different type-species they cannot be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. They are only subjective synonyms. 8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked to take the following action : — (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the generic name Scolytus Geofifroy, 1762, under the provision made in para. (2) of the Ruhng of Opuiion 228 ; (b) to designate the nominal species Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Scolytus Geofifroy, 1762 (gender : masculine), tj^e-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name scolytus Fabricius, 1775, as pubhshed in the binomen Bostrichus scolytus (tj^e-species of Scolytus Geofifroy, 1762) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoolog}^ ; (4) to place the family name scolytidae Westwood, 1838 (tjqie-genus Scolytus Geofifroy, 1762) on the Ofificial List of FamUj^-Group Names m Zoology ; (5) to place the generic name Ehhoptogaster Herbst, 1793, and its emendation Eccoptogaster Erichson, 1836 (junior objective synonyms of Scolytus Geofifroy, 1762) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the following specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology, aU being junior objective s3monyms of Bostrichus scolytus Fabricius, 1775 : (a) punctatus MiiUer, 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr. : 57, as pubhshed in the binomen Scolytus punctatus ; (b) scolythus [sic] Sulzer, 1776, Gesch. Ins. 1 : 21 ; 2 : tab. 2, fig. 13k, as pubhshed in the binomen Dermestes scolythus ; (c) geojfroi [sic] Goeze, 1777, Ent. Beytr. 1 : 143, as published in the combination Dermestes scolytus geoffroi ; (d) niger Geofifroy, 1785, in Fourcroy, Ent. paris. : 139, as published in the binomen Scolytus niger ; (e) destructor OUvier, 1795, Entomologie 4(78) : 1-14, pis. 1-2, as pubhshed in the binomen Scolytus destructor ; (7) to place the follo\\ing names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology : — (a) ECCOPTOGASTERiNi Reitter, 1906 (type-genus Eccoptogaster Herbst, 1793) (a junior objective synonym of scolytidae) ; (h) ECCOPTOGASTERiNAE Tredl, 1907 (tjrpe-genus Eccoptogaster Herbst, 1793; (a junior objective synonym of scolytidae). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 BRISSON, 1760 " ORNITHOLOGIE " : PROPOSED RESTRICTION OF VALIDATION GRANTED UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TO CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THAT WORK. Z.N.(S.) 702 By Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. {formerly Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) The present suggestion that the validation already granted under the plenary powers to Brisson's Ornithologie of 1760 should be restricted to certain portions of that work arises out of correspondence which I had wdth my colleague the late Dr. James L. Peters in 1945 regarding the difficulties which had arisen in connection with the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the name Egretta Forster, 1817 {Syn. Cat. Brit. Birds : 59) (type- species, by monotj'py, Ardea garzetta Linnaeus, 1766 {Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(1) : 237) through the discovery that this name was a junior homonym of Egretta Brisson, 1760 [Ornith. 5 : 431). I had thought that Dr. Peters himself intended to submit proposals to the Commission on the lines of the present apphcation, but he never did so, and his sudden and premature death made it necessary to find other means for bringing this matter before the Commission. It is so brought forward now, because, as it seems to me, it is desirable that this should be done ^vithout further delay in view of the fact that in one of the cases which was submitted to the Commission by the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, the distm-bance in existing nomenclatorial usage for which redress was sought by the Standing Committee was due entirely to the discovery that a Brisson name (Coracia Brisson, 1760, Ornith. 2 : 3) was a senior objective synonym of a name which had been in use for over 100 years (Opinion 404), while in another application also submitted by the Standing Committee relating to the name Colymbus Linnaeus, 1758, (Opinion 401) the proposals submitted by the Committee for the recognition of the name Gavia Forster, 1788, were comphcated by the discovery of the existence of the older name Gavia Brisson, 1760 (ibid. 6 : 196). It had been my intention to raise the present issue in the Report which (as Secretary to the Commission) I had been asked to prepare on the availabiUty of names in the sUghtlj^ later work by Brisson on mammals, i.e. his Regnum Animate of 1763 (see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 313-314), if in the meantime Dr. Peters had not done so, for Brisson's outlook on nomenclature in the Ornithologie of 1760 would inevitably have thrown some hght on the attitude to this subject shown by that author in the Regnum Animale pubhshed three years later. For the reason explained above, I now think it necessary to bring this matter before the Commission in advance of the completion of the Report on the Regnum Animale. 2. The nature of the present issue and its importance in relation to the maintenance of stabiUty in ornithological nomenclature was, as I have explained, first brought to light when, on discovering that the entry on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology relating to the name Egretta Forster, 1817, made in the Commission's Opinion 67 (1916, Smithson. Publ. 2409 : 180) was invalid, BuU. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature that name being a junior homonym of Egretta Brisson, 1760, I sought the views of Dr. Peters on this subject. Dr. Peters's reply, dated 6th December 1945, reads as follows : — Egretta Dr. Stejneger once told me that it was his understanding in voting on the validity of Brisson's generic names that only such names as appeared in the " Tabula " in volume 1 were to be regarded as valid ; Egretta does not appear there. Pp. 391-503 of volume 5, the group of pages which comprise, on page 431, the name Egretta are devoted to Herons, the genus Ardea (ex Tabula p. 48, genus 81) is further characterized, then follows an array beginning with Ardea, followed by such additional species as Ardea mexicana purpurascens , Ardea Candida, Ardea hrasiliensis Candida Avith Egretta sandwiched in between. Other names with the same status as Egretta appearing only in volume 5 and not in the " Tabula " are : — (1) Botaurus p. 444 (but followed bj'' a lot of other names such as Botaurus freti Hudsonis, Botaurus minor, etc.) ; (2) Cancrofagus (p. 466) and followed by numerous species of Cancro- fagus ; (3) Nycticorax (p. 493) ; (4) Ardeola (p. 497) with one additional species. Of these so-called names Botaurus currently dates from Stephens, 1819, Nycticorax from Forster, 1817, and Ardeola from Boie, 1822 ; Cancrofagus does not figure in the literature at all. I therefore beUeve the Commission would be ill-advised to take up the Brissonian names that do not appear in the tables at the front of volume 1. 3. The particulars given by Dr. Peters (and many others that could be cited) show that in the Ornithologie of 1760 Brisson did not consistently apply the principles of binominal nomenclature, as under the clarification of Proviso (b) to Article 25 decided upon by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology (see 1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 64^66, 175) an author is required to do if new names published by him are to acquire rights of availability under the Regies ; Brisson was, in fact, what forty jj^ears ago Avas called a " binary author ", that is an author who recognised the proposition that the scientific name of an animal must consist of two parts, the first, consisting of a single noun in the nominative singular, denoting the next higher taxonomic grouping (the genus) to which the species belonged, the second, consisting of any number of words in any case or number, denoting the species itself and distinguishing it from any other member of the grouping (genus) concerned. In 1911 the Commission ruled in favour of the availability of the generic names published by Brisson in his Ornithologie in Opinion 37 (published in 1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 87-88), the wording of the decision then taken being : " Brisson's (1760) generic names of birds are available under the Code ". This Opinion, it will be noted, was published only twelve months after the publication of Opinion 20 Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 (1910, Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 48-50), in which the Commission had ruled in favour of the availability of generic names pubUshed by " binary ", though not " binominal " authors. In giving the foregoing ruling in relation to the availabiUty of new generic names in Brisson's Ornithologia, the Commission was therefore doing no more than apply in a particular case a general decision that had already been taken on the question of principle involved. 4. If no special action had been taken in Paris in 1948 it would have invalidated books such as Brisson's Ornithologia, the availabUity of which depended entirely upon the interpretation of Proviso (b) to Article 25 (namely, that the application by the author of a new name of the principles of binominal nomenclature was not a necessary condition to the acquisition by that name of availabihty under the Regies), which the Congress (by insisting upon the acceptance, by the author of a name, of the principles of binominal nomenclature) then ruled to be incorrect. In order to prevent such a result in the case of a book such as Brisson's Ornithologie wliich had formed the subject of a ruUng by the Commission and which was currently accepted by speciaUsts in the group concerned, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature recommended, and the Congress agreed to the insertion in the appropriate Schedule to the Regies of a sa^nng provision maintaining and validating the earher decision in favour of the availabiUty of the new generic names pubhshed in Brisson's Ornithologie (see 1950. Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65, Point (3)(a)(iv)). Thus, although the decisions taken in Paris provided a new and valid basis for the ruling previousl}^ given by the Commission in relation to the new generic names in Brisson's Ornithologie, those decisions did not alter in any respect the scope of ruhng which had been given in that Opinion. In 1955 these decisions were formally promulgated by the Commission in its Declaration 16 and the title of this work of Brisson's was placed on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature as Title No. 16 (1955, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. IC : 81-88). 5. The sole object of using the plenary powers to provide availabihty for the new generic names in Brisson's Ornithologie was to promote stabiUty in ornithological nomenclature by providing a legal basis for names in current use. It would have been entirely inappropriate dehberately to use those powers in such a way as to provide availabUity for names which, if so validated, would cause confusion and objectionable name-changing. Situated as it was in 1948, the Commission could oidy have abstained from vaUdating Brisson's Ornithologie (a course which would clearly have been wrong by reason of the confusion which it would have caused by leading to the rejection of Brissonian names in current use) or have used its plenary powers to maintain the position, as it was believed to exist at the time when Opinion 37 was first rendered. Faced with this choice, the Commission could not reasonably have adopted any course other than that which it did, that is, to reaffirm and to vaUdate the previously existing ruling in this matter. 6. The late Dr. Stejneger (as we have seen) claimed that the decision embodied in the Commission's Opinion 37 was intended to apply only to the generic names which appear in the tables at the beginning of volume 1 of the Ornithologie or at least that this was his understanding of the proposal when 12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature he voted in favour of it. The correspondence relating to the earher Opinions of the Commission (including the correspondence relating to Opuiion 37) was destroyed long before I became Secretary to the Commission and in consequence no hght on Dr. Stejneger's contention can be obtained from this source. All that is now available on this subject is the extremely meagre appUcation submitted to the Commission by the late Dr. Ernst Hartert who was himself opposed to the recognition of any of the new names in Brisson's Ornithologie and who voted agamst the adoption of Opinion 37 ; no views by any other ornithologist are given in that Opinion. There is therefore no evidence in Opinion 37 on the particular point later made to Dr. Peters by Dr. Stejneger in regard to the scope of the decision intended to be given in Opinion 37 ; all that we know on this subject is that of the two prominent ornithologists who were members of the Commission, one (Hartert) voted against that Opinion, while the other (Stejneger) stated at some later date — we do not know what passed at the time when this Opinion was mider consideration — that it was Ms imderstanding that this decision apphed only to the new names in the tables at the begimiing of Volume 1 of the Ornithologie. While we may perhaps surmise that the bulk at least of the members of the Commission voted in favour of Opinion 37 without any knowledge of the special problem later discussed by Dr. Stejneger with Dr. Peters and may accept Dr. Stejneger's later explanation as to the limitation subject to which he voted in favour of this Opinion, we are left nevertheless vriih. the fact that the wording of the decision given in the " Summary " is absolutely general in its terms and that there is not a word in the short text of this Opinion to suggest that any indication that a limitation should be imposed on the scope of this Opimon was ever made at the time either by Dr. Stejneger or by any other member of the Commission. 7. It must be accepted therefore that m its present form the ruling in favour of the availabihty of new generic names as pubhshed in 1760 in Brisson's Ornithologie is entirely unqualified and appUes to the new generic names scattered in later volumes of that work equally to those embodied in the tables at the beginning of volume 1. This does not mean however that the Commission is in any way stopped from refining that decision either by taking ad hoc remedial action under the plenary powers in individual cases or by adding some express quahfication Umiting the scope of that Opuiion. As shown by the experience aheady acquired in connection with cm-rent cases (that is, in connection with the case of Coracia Brisson in relation to Pyrrhocorax Tunstall, with the case of Gavia Brisson in relation to Gavia Forster, and with the case of Egretta Brisson in relation to Egretta Forster) the problem caimot be regarded as one of a strictly Hmited character ; on the contrary, the fact that, when \\Titing of a single group of birds as treated by Brisson, the late Dr. Peters \\as able at once to cite four other cases, including one case of a Brisson name which had hitherto been completely neglected (the name Cancro- fagus Brisson), the introduction of which could not fail to disturb some name now in common iise, strongly suggests that a careful and systematic examination of the Ornithologie would disclose the existence of a considerable number of cases where the unqualified grant of availabihty to all Brisson's generic names would lead to confusion and name -changing instead of promoting — as it was Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 hoped in 1948 that it would promote — the maintenance of stabUity in orni- thological nomenclature. 8. If no action of a general character were now to be taken, it would no doubt be possible to overcome these difficulties one by one, as they arose, by the use by the Commission of its plenary powers to suppress those of the Brisson generic names (such as Coracia Brisson and Gavia Brisson), the accept- ance of which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of imiformity and stabUity. But it is clearly not desirable to permit a situation to arise which is calculated to lead to numerous appUcations for the use of the plenary powers, if some method of a more general character can be devised for securing the same end. For the repeated use of the plenary powers for the purpose of securing a given result in identical circumstances is clearly not the most suitable method of deaUng ^^ith whatever the problem may be — more especially in view of the fact that it almost invariably happens that application for the use of the plenary powers is not made until at least some author has disturbed existing nomenclatorial practice and at least some support has been found for making the change in names required under a strict application of the ordinary provisions in the Regies. For these reasons, therefore, it is highly desirable that, if possible, a formula should be found which will secure the desired result automatically without the need for the individual reference of each case to the Commission. It is suggested that for this purpose consideration should be given to the suggestion made by the late Dr. James L. Peters, a suggestion which, as has been explained (paragraph 2 above) corresponds also to the late Dr. Stejneger's understanding of the intention of Opinion 37, though not, as has been shown (paragraph 6 above), to the ruling conveyed by that Opinion as actually drafted. Under this suggestion the only new names in Brisson's Ornithologie which would possess any availabUity would be those pubUshed (and defined) in the synoptic table of Orders and genera (entitled " Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines ") which occupies pages 24 to 61 of volume 1 of the Ornithologie, those generic names being, according to the views expressed by the foregoing specialists, the only new generic names pubhshed by Brisson which are currently in use and therefore the only such names which ought to be given rights of availability under the Regies. This Synoptic Table is, it should be noted, reproduced in two languages, the version on the left hand pages (pages bearing even numbers) being in Latin, while that on the right hand pages (pages bearing odd numbers) is in French. Pages 24 and 25 are concerned only Avith Brisson's scheme of Orders, and it is not until pages 26 (Latin) and 27 (French) that the keys to the Orders containing (in the Latin but not the French text) the Latin names for the genera recognised Avithin each Order commence. 9. In order to provide a basis for the discussion of the issues involved, I now bring forward the following proposal designed to give effect to the suggestion made to me in correspondence by my colleague, the late Dr. James L. Peters under which the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked to render an Opinion in the following terms : — (1) The decision taken in 1948 (1950, Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65-66) to grant availabiUty under the Regies to new generic names for birds intro- 14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature duced by Brisson (M. J.) in the work entitled (in French) " Ornithologie " and, lower down the title page, in Latm '" Ornithologia '" is hereb}- restricted to those generic names which appear in Latin in the Tabula synoptica Avium sectt7idum Ordines reproduced on the left-hand pages (bearing even numbers) in the series of pages numbered 26 to 61 in volume 1 of the foregoing work. For this purpose the decision taken in 1948 as set out in the portion of the Official Record cited above is to be read as though (a) the words " Volume 1, pages bearing even numbers in the series of pages numbered 26 to 61, contairung the Latiii text of the Tabula synoptica Aviutn secundum Ordines there given " were inserted after the word " Ordines " in line 5 of point (iv) at the foot of page 65 of volume 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, and (b) the words " in part of " were inserted between the phrase " generic names " and the phrase " which " in hne 6 ui the same item as that referred to in (1) above. (2) The entry relating to the foregomg work by Brisson made on the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature by the Ruling given in Direction 16 is hereb}^ amended by the insertion therein as follows of the hmitation specified in (1) above : " (the only names in this work available for zoological nomenclature being the generic names introduced in volume 1 on the pages bearing even numbers in the series of pages numbered 26-61 containing the Latin text of the Tabula synoptica Avium secundum Ordines) ". 10. I now mvite all ornithologists interested in this matter to communicate their views on this subject to the Secretary of the Commission at the British Museum (Natural Historj^), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7. If any name in current use, Avould be invaUdated by the presently proposed Ruling by the Commission, particulars should be submitted for decision as a special case. As far as I kiiow there are only two such names — Cacatua {Ornith. 4 : 204) and Lorius (ibid. 4 : 215). COMMENT OX THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR CORVUS BENGHALENSIS LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1465 (see volume 18, pages 217-219) By Krishna Kant Tiwari (Zoological Survey of hidia, Calcutta — 12) 1 endorse the application of Dr. B. Biswas proposing to designate a neotype for the northern Indian roller, Corvus bcnghalensis Linnaeus, 1758. Very strict application of the Rules has frequently resulted in unsettling many well-established names, and resurrecting obscure ones which had long remained in oblivion due to some reason or other, on grounds of priority. Such nomenclatorial disturbances are often confusing to new workers on a group, especially in countries where librarj- facilities are inadequate. As the present proposal is meant to avoid such a contingency, it has my whole-hearted support. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I5 FAJVULY-GROUP NAMES IN HETEROPTERA PROPOSED FOR THF OFFICIAL LIST AND OFFICIAL INDEX (CLASS INSECTA OR ^R HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 958 By T. Jaczewski {InsUtute oj Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) nJ^- ^T^'r"^ ''°"'^^' ^^''^""^ ""^"^^^ °^ Heteroptera were placed on the Oftcial List of Generic Names in Zoology during the period ending 1936, but at that tune the practice of deahng Arith family-group names at the same time as the type-genus had not yet been initiated. It is therefore proposed that these names should now be dealt mth according to present procedure Mv original apphcation to the Commission contained references to a number of nt^ro^o .n-^'^'.-^^'^n^ ^""'^ ^'^^* ^^*^ ^y *^^ Commission in files Z.N.(S.) 989 (Direction 40 : genders) ; Z.N.(S.) 1016 (Direction 64 • specific names) and Z.N.(S.) 1017 (Direction 63) (0,s. Decls. int. Comm. Zool. nZIm. 1, bection E, 19o/). Only the family-group name problems therefore remain to be dealt with here. Namestntoofo™;' ""^"' '^ '^ ^^'^^^ "^^ ^'^ ^^"^^ "^'^ '' Family-Group (i) CMciDAE, correction by Curtis, 1825 {British Ent. 2, No. 86) of mnciDES Latreille [1802-1803], Hist. n^U. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris 3 : 2T0 (tZ! genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) ^^™°5^«^^^f. correction by DaUas, 1852 (List Spec. Hemipt.Ins. Coll. Bnt. Mus. 2, London : 587) of anthocoeidea Fieber, 1837, Beitrage zur Kenntmss der Schnabelkerfe, Beitr. Nat. u. Heilmss., Prag 1 • 106 (type-genus : Anthocoris FaUen, 1814) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (lu) NABiDAE, correction by Dohrn, 1859 {Catahgus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 51) of NABiNi Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fra^mentum {Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano hue usque detectomm), Napoh : 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. litit. ZZm^^un'/T'' ?:.'''''■''' (^^re-genus : Nabis LatreiUe, [1802-1803]) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (IV) PROSTEmiATmAE, correction of pkostemj^iina Renter, 1890, Ad cogni- LaSe rfR^ir^n ""'t ^'^'^^•'^--' 9:289 (type-genus : P.o.J^ -Laporte, [1832]) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (V) NOTONECTIDAE, correction by Curtis, 1824 {British. Ent. 1 : No 10) of Z-^T."^^\^'''''^'' tl802-1803], Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. ll oSHemlpLa)'^''"'""" '''''""''" '^^"^"^' '''^^ ^^'^^^ I^-^^^' ^^'^ Tf'ITT' rT'T ^y ^'^P^^^^' 1^^^ (^ Systematical Catalogue of British Insects, London 2 : 350) of keduvini Latreille, 1807 Genera Cru^taceorumet hisectorum, Parisiis et Argentorati 3 : 126 (type-genus- Reduvxus Fabricius, 1775) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (vii) miATOMiNAE, correction by Usinger, 1939, Univ. Californi a Publ. Ent. Bvll. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7(3) : 33 of triatoaiini Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hemipteres, 3, Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Onentale, Paris : 176, 177 and 309 (tj-pe-genus : Triatoma Laporte, [1832] (Class Iiisecta, Order Hemiptera). 3. Family-group names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology : (i) crsncLDES LatreiUe, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. Paris 3 : 240 (tj-pe-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an invalid original spelling for CEvnciDAE LatreiUe, [1802-1803]). (ii) ciMiciDA Leach, 1815, Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9(1) : 112 (type- genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for CIMICrDAE). (iii) ciMicrNi Costa, 1847, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria, Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 7 : 160 (tj^e-genus : Cim€j; Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for ciivnciDAE). (iv) ciMicoiDEAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettanti alia classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena : 38-39 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. ItaL, Modena ; [Mem. Soc. Ital. Sci. Modena) 25, 1852 : 78-79 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for cnncrNTAE). (v) ciMiciDEA Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum Ptagae : 9 (Separatum) : also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissen^ch., Prag. (5) 7, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for cimicidae). (vi) ACANTHnDAE Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum [Conspectus Tnethodicus Cimicum in Regno Napolitano hue usq^ie detectorum), NapoU : 67 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 293 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (vii) ACAJfTHirNi Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartan fragmentum [Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano hue iisque detectorum) Napoli : 67 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 293 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904)! (viii) ACANTHiDAE Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 44 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). ' (ix) ACAXTHiADAE Ficbcr, [1860], Die europdischen Hemiptera, Wien : 24, 37, 135, and 402 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (x) ACANTKHDA Stal, 1865, Hemiptera Africana, 3, Holmiae : 24 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (xi) ACA>'THiDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hemipteres Heteropteres d'Europe, Paris : 33 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (xii) ACANTHmfA Renter, (1871) 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Acanthiider, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Forhaiidl., Stockholm, 28 : 407 (derived from the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 rejected and invalid type-generic name Acanthia Fabricius, 1775 ; Direction 63, Name No. 904). (xiii) ciMiciNA Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, Kongl. Svensk. Vet.- Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 103 (type-genus : Cimex Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for cimicinae). (xiv) ciMiciDi Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 358, 392 (type-genus : Cimex Liimaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for cimicidae). (xv) clinocoridae Kii-kaldy, 1906, List of the Genera of the Pagiopodous Hemiptera — Heteroptera w-ith their type-species, from 1758 to 1904 and also of the Aquatic and Semi-Aquatic Trochalopoda, Trans. Amer. Ent. Soc, Philadelphia, 32 : 147 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type- generic name Clinocoris Fallen, 1829 ; Direction 63, Name No. 910). (xvi) CLINOCORINA Renter, 1908, On the Nomenclature of some (British) Hemiptera — Heteroptera, Ent. mon. Mag., London 44 : 27 (derived from the rejected and invahd t3rpe-generic name Clinocoris Fallen, 1829 ; Dkection 63, Name No. 910). (xvii) anthocoridea Fieber, 1837, Beitrage ziir Keimtniss der Schnabelkerfe, Weitenweber's Beitr. z. gesammten Nat. u. Heilmss., Prag 1 : 106 (tjrpe- genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (invaUd original spelhng for anthocoridae Fieber, 1837). (xviii) anthocorideae Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d'Elbogen, Almanack de Carlsbad Prague, 13 : 55 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelhng for anthocoridae). (xix) ANTHOCORiNi Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum (Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tano hue usque detectorum), Napoli : 69 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 8, 1855 : 295 (tj^pe-genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for anthocorinae). (xx) ANTHOCORiDA Stal, 1865, Hemiptera Africana, 3, Holmiae : 23 (type- genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (an erroneus subsequent spelling for anthocoridae). (xxi) ANTHOCORiDES Snellen van VoUenhoven, 1868, De inlandsche Hemi- pteren, I, Tijdschr. v. Ent., 's Oravenhage 11 : 137 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for anthocoridae). (xxii) ANTHOCORIDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hemipteres Heteropteres d'Europe, Paris : 32 (type-genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for anthocorinae). (xxiii) anthocorina Renter, (1871) 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Acanthiider, Ofv. Kongl. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl, Stockholm 28 : 409 (type- genus : Anthocoris Fallen, 1814) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for anthocorinae). (xxiv) NABiNi Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum [Compectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Neapoli- tono hue usque detectorum), Napoh : 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Instit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat. Napoli, 8, 1855 : 292 (type-genus : NaJ)is Latreille, [1802-1803]) (invalid original spelhng of nabinae Costa, 1852. 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (xxv) NABIDES St&l, (1858) 1859, Nabides, en nj' grupp bland Reduvites, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl., Stockholm, 15 : 247-248 (tj-pe-genus : Nabi^ Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for nabinae). (xxvi) NABiDA Stal, 1862, Hemiptera mexicana, Stettin Ent. Zeitg. 23 : 458 (type-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for nabidae). (xxvii) NABiNA Stal, (1870) 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl, Stockholm, 27 : 674 (t^-pe-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for jtabidae). (xxviii) coRisciNA Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, K. Svenska Vet.- Akad. Handl, Stockholm., 11, No. 2 : 106, 110 (derived from the rejected and invalid type-generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 ; Opinion 244, Name No. 64). (xxix) NABisn Acloque, 1897, Faune de France 2 Paris, 393, 395, (tj^pe-genus : Nobis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for kabinae). (xxx) nabidinae Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2 London : 197 and 389 (type-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for nabinae). (xxxi) NABiDiNABiA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London : 397 (t\-pe-genus : Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]) (an erroneous subsequent spelluig for nabaria). (xxxii) coRisciDAE LTiler, 1904, List of Hemiptera-Heteroptera of Las Vegas Hot Springs, New Mexico, collected by Messrs. E. A. Schwarz and Herbert. S. Barber, Proc. U.S. National Miis., Washington, 27 : 363 (derived from the rejected and invaUd type-generic name Coriscus Schrank, 1796 ; Opinion 244, Name No. 64). (xxxiii) NABINA Stal, 1873, Enumeratio Hemipterorum 3, K. Svenska Vet.- Akad. Handl, Stockholm, 11, No. 2 : 106, 107 (an erroneous subsequent speUing for ifABrN'AE and based on Nabis Stal, 1873 [Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) nee Nabis Latreille, [1802-1803]). (xxxiv) PROSTEMAiTNA Reuter, 1890, Ad cognitionem Nabidarum, Rev. d'Ent. Caen, 9 : 289 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous original speUing for PROSTEarMATiNAE Reuter, 1890). (xxxv) PROSTEiDiAKiA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London, : 391 (tj^e-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subsequent speUing for pbostemmataria). (xxxvi) PBOSTEMMiNAE Oshanin, 1912, Katalog der paldaktischen Hemipteren, Berlin : 54 (type-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for prostemmatinae). (xxxvii) PROSTEM^HNi Handlirsch, 1925, m Schroder, Handbuch der Entomologie, Jena, 3 : 1055 (tj^pe-genus : Prostemma Laporte, [1832]) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for PROSTEMiLATiNi). (xxxviii) NOTONECTARiAE Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gin. partic. Crust. Ins., Paris, 3 : 253 (tj^je-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous original spelling for notonectidae Latreille, [1802-1803]). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 (xxxix) NOTONECTIDA Leach, 1815, Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopaedia, 9, part 1 : 124 (tjrpe-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subse- quent spelling for notonectidae). (xl) NOTONECTAEDES BUlberg, 1820, Enumeratio Insectorum, Holmiae : 66 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xli) NOTONECTici Burmeister, 1835, Handbuch der Entomologie, Berlin, 2 : 185 (tj'pe-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xlii) NOTONECTiNi Costa, 1838, Cimicum Regni Neopolitani centuria, Napoli : 2 (Separatum) ; also Atti. R. Istit. Incoragg. Sc. Nat., Napoli, 7, 1847 : 146 (type-species Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xliii) NOTONECTiNiDAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d'Elbogen, Almanack de Carlsbad, Prague 13 : 54 (type-species : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xliv) notonectides Agassiz, 1842-1846, Nomina sj^stematica generum Hemi- pterorum, Nomenclator Zoologicus, Soloduri : VII (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xlv) notonectidea Agassiz, 1842-1846, ibidem : 13 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xlvi) notonectoidea Agassiz, 1846, Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis, Soloduri : 251 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xlvii) NOTONECTiTAE Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi speUanti alia clause degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena : 27, 49 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena, 1852 : 67, 89 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xlviii) NOTONECTEAE Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum Pragae : 9 (Separa- tum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag, 1852 (5) 7 : 189 (type- genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (xlix) NOTONECTAE Fieber, 1851, ibidem : 24 (Sept.), 204 (type-genus : Notonecta Limiaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectinae). (1) NOTONECTiCA Flor, 1860, Die Rhynchoten Livlands, Dorpat, 1 : 751, 766 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (li) notonectina Stal (1870), 1871, H3miptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 707 (type-genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for notonectidae). (lii) NOTONECTiDi Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, Paris, 2 : 359, 397 (type- genus : Notonecta Linnaeus, 1758) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for NOTONECTIDAE) . (liii) REDuviNi LatreiUe, 1807, Genera Crustaceorum et Insectorum, Parisiis et Argentorati, 3 : 126 (type-genus: Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (invalid original spelling for BEDUvnoAE). 20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (liv) BEDUViADAE Kirby, 1837, m J. Richardson, Fauna Boreali-Americana, 4, London : 279 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for reduthdae). (Iv) BEDUVTNA Fieber, 1837, Beitrage zur Kenntniss der Schnabelkerfe, Weitenweber's Beitr. z. gesammten Nat. u. Heilwiss., Prog, 1 : 101 (type- geuus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for bedtjviidae). (Ivi) BEDUvrNiDAE Fieber, 1843, Faune du Cercle d'Elbogen, Almanack de Carlsbad, Prague, 13 : 54 (tj-pe-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BEDrrvnoAE). (Ivii) BEDUVIEAE Fieber, 1844, Entomologische Monographien, Prag : 25 (Separatum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag, (5) 3, 1845 : 303 (tj'pe-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for eeduvudae). (Iviii) beduvitae Spinola, 1850, Tavola sinottica dei generi spettante alia, classe degli Insetti Artroidignati, Modena : 27, 44 and 45 (Separatum) ; also Mem. Mat. Fis. Soc. Ital., Modena, 25, 1852 : 85, 86 (tj^pe-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for beduyhdae) (lix) BEDimoiDEAE Spiiiola, 1850, ibidem : 45, 85, 86 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for beduvunae). (Ix) kedtjvidea Fieber, 1851, Genera Hydrocoridum, Pragae : 9 (Separatum) ; also Abhandl. Bohm. Ges. Wissensch., Prag (5) 7, 1852 : 189 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for beduvi- ldae). (Ixi) beduvuni Costa, 1852, Cimicum Regni Neapolitani centuria tertia et quartae fragmentum {Conspectus methodicus Cimicum in Regno Napoli- tano hue usque detectorum), Napoli : 66 (Separatum) ; also Atti R. Istit. Incoragg. Sci. Nat., Napoli 8, 1855 : 292 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for beduvunae). (Ixii) eeduvites St&l, 1858, Bidrag till Rio Janeiro Traktens Hemipter- Faima, K. Svensk. Vet.-Akad. Handl., Stockholm, 2, No. 7 : 5, 6 and 68 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BEDTJVnDAE). (Ixiii) BEDuviDAE Dohrn, 1859, Catalogus Hemipterorum, Stettin : 48 (type- genus : Reduvius, Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for BEDUVnDAE). (Ixiv) BEDUVTNi Stal, 1859, Till kannedomen om Reduvini, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl., Stockholm 16 : 175 (an erroneous subsequent speUing for bedxtvudae and based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 ( = Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixv) BEDUViDES St&l, 1859, ibidem. 16 : 195 (an erroneous subsequent speUing for BEDUVHDAE and based on Reduvius St&l, 1859 ( = Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Lxvi) EEDUvnDA St&l, 1862, Hemiptera mexicana, Ent.Zeitg., Stettin, 23 : 441 and 446 (an erroneoiis subsequent spelling for bedttviidae and based on Reduvius St&l, 1859 ( = Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 2 1 (Ixvii) REDTJVINA MajT, 1866, Hemiptera, Reise der osterreichischen Fregatte Novara um die Erde, Wien : 135 (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDTJvnDAE and based on Reduvius St&l, 1859 ( = Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixviii) REDTjviDES Puton, 1869, Catalogue des Hemipteres Heteroptlres d' Europe, Paris : 35 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for redtjvunae). (Ixix) REDTJvnNA Stal, (1870) 1871, Hemiptera insularum Philippinarum, Ofv- K. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl., Stockholm, 27 : 675 (an erroneous subsequent spelUng for redttviidae and reduvhnae and based on Reduvius St&l, 1859 (^ Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixx) REDUVTiDAE Reuter, 1872, Skandinaviens och Finlands Rsduviider, Ofv. K. Vet.-Akad. Forhandl, Stockholm, 29, No. 6 : 59 (invalid since based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 { = Rhyyiocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxi) REDTJVIDES Puton, 1875, Catalogue des Hemipteres (Heteroptires, Cicadines et Psyllides) d' Europe et du Bassin de la Mediterranee, 2 ed., Paris : 49 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for reduvudae). (Ixxii) REDTJVIDAE Puton, 1875, ibidem : 50 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent speUing for redttvtinae). (Ixxiii) REDTjVBsri Puton, 1875, ibidem : 50 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous spelling for reduvuni). (Ixxiv) REDUVioiDEA Uhlcr, 1877, Report upon the Insects collected by P. R. Uhler during the Explorations of 1875, including Monographs of the Families Cydnidae and Saldidae, and the Hemiptera collected by A. S. Packard, jr., M.D., Bull. U.S. Geol. Survey, Washington, 3 : 429 (invaUd superfamily name based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 {=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxv) REDUvrrNAE Uhler, 1877, ibidem : 429 (an invalid sub-family name based on Reduvius Stal, 1859 { = Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxvi) REDUViDAE Uhler, 1866, Check-List of the Hemiptera Heteroptera of North America, Brooklyn : 23 (an erroneous subsequent speUing of REDUVXTDAE and based on Reduvius St&l, 1859 {=Rhynocoris Hahn, 1834) nee Reduvius Fabricius, 1775). (Ixxvii) REDUvrrNA Reuter, 1893, Monographia generis Holotrichius Burm., Acta Soc. Sci. Fenn., Helsingfors, 19, No. 3 : 3 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent speUing for reduvhnae). (Ixxviii) REDUvnDi Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 359, 393 (type- genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for REDUVnDAE). (Ixxix) REDTJvn Acloque, 1897, Faune de France, 2, Paris : 394 (type-genus : Reduvius Fabricius, 1775) (an erroneous subsequent spelling for reduvi- inae). (Ixxx) C0N0RHINIDE3 Amyot et ServiUe, 1843, Histoire Naturelle des Insectes Hemipteres, Paris : xlviii, 383 (invalid family-group name, being based on 22 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature the rejected and invalid type-generic name Conorhinus, Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). (Ixxxi) CONOKHINIDAE Walker, 1873, Catalogue of the Specimens of Hemiptera Heteroptera in the Collection of the British Museum, London 7 : 46, 50 (invalid family-group name, being based on the rejected and invalid type- generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). (Ixxxii) CONORHINAEIA Distant, 1904, Fauna of British India, Rhynchota, 2, London : 282 (invalid divisional name being based on the rejected and invahd type-generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). (Ixxxiii) CONORRHINARIA Jeannel, 1919, Insectes Hemipteres, 3, Voyage de Ch. Alluaud et R. Jeannel en Afrique Orientale, Paris : 176 (an erroneous subsequent spelUng for conoehinaria and invalid, being based on the rejected and invalid tj^pe-generic name Conorhinus Laporte, [1833] ; Direction 63, Name No. 915). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF AMPHI8BAENA DUBIA RATHKE, 1863. Z.N.(S.) 1466 (see volume 18, page 220) By Hobart M. Smith {Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The species involved are not common and have not been widely noted in the literature. Little confusion would result from strict application of the automatic provisions of the Code. However, this one name jeopardizes two names, each of which would have to be changed : one by a new name, and one by the hitherto neglected name dribia Rathke. Furthermore, considerable effort might be necessary to determine definitely which of two forms should bear the name dubia Rathke. When by one simple action the Commission can obviate the conspicuously greater loss of time and energy that would be required to handle a nomenclatural matter than is expended in the Commission's consideration of the same matter, in the interest of efficiency the Commission should act upon it. In this case approval of the request is justified in spite of the very limited significance of the names involved. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 EIGHT DUBIOUS SPECIES OF BIRDS : PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PLACE THESE NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX. Z.N.(S.) 1033 By Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) The literature on almost any group of animals contains the names of nominal species which were insufficiently described and without known type- specimens. In those groups of animals, such as birds, where the nomenclature has been essentially stabiUzed, such names continue " to be a threat to stabiUty and universaHty of nomenclature ". Article 26 of the Copenhagen Decisions specifies the conditions under which such names should be placed on the " Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology ". The Commission is herewith requested to exercise its plenary powers to place on the Official Index the names of 8 nominal species of birds not now or not ever used in the ornithological Uterature and conforming to the quaUfica- tions of dubious names stated in Article 26 of the Copenhagen Decisions. (1) Oriolus cothurnix Scopoh, 1786, Del. Flor. et Faun. Insuhr. : 87, sp. 33. Tetrao Novae Guineae GmeUn, [1789], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 746 (bis), no. 56. Perdix Novae Guineae Latham, 1790, Ind. Orn. II : 655, no. 39. All three names based on " La Caille de la Nouvelle Guinee " of Sonnerat (1766, Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinee : 170, PI. 105). These names are based on the specimen of a chick of a gallinaceous bird collected by Sonnerat 's Expedition either in the Phihppines or in the Western Papuan area. It is highly probable that it is the young of one of the species of Megapodius. An unequivocal identification of a megapode chick to the species or subspecies level is impossible. The locality data of Sonnerat's Expedition are unrehable and it is well known that many specimens, stated to have come from " New Guinea ", actually came from the Phihppines and vice versa. Sonnerat's New Guinea Quail has been considered by every ornithologist who has worked in the New Guinea area, such as Sharpe, Salvadori, Ogilvie-Grant, Hartert, and Mayr, and all have come to the conclusion that the name is unidentifiable. If it were to be decided arbitrarily at this late date that one of these names should be applied to the species universally called Megapodius freycinet Quoy and Gaimard, 1827, it would replace the latter name, having 41 years priority. It is therefore highly desu-able, for the sake of the stabihty of nomenclature, to place the above Usted names on the Index of Rejected Names. (2) Megapodius brazieri Sclater, 1869, Proc. Zool. Soc. London : 529— Vanua Lava, Banks Islands. This name has been universally rejected by ornithologists since it is merely based on some egg shells. If the assignment to the genus and the locality are correct, as is confirmed by Brazier (1881, Proc. Linn. Soc. New South Wales 6 : 150-154), this would be an older name for Megapodius layardi Tristram (1879, Ibis : 194), a name universally used for the megapodes of the New Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Hebrides and Banks Islands since 1879. It would be most unsettling for nomenclature if kiyardi, after 80 years of usage, were to be displaced by a name which is virtually a nomen nudum. The Commission is therefore requested to place the name 31. brazieri on the Index of Rejected Names. (3) Cuculus ntfidus Vieillot, 1817, Nouv. Diet. Hist. Nat. (nouv. ed.) 8 : 234) — NouveUe HoUande. This name was based on two specimens of young cuckoos beheved to be from Austraha and preserved m the cabmet of M. BaiUou. For its status we may quote Amadon (1942, Birds, Whitney South Sea Expedition, No. 50 : 15) : " The description seems to be that of the juvenal plumage of some species of Cacoynantis. Juvenals of the two species just mentioned \variolosus and ■pyrrhophanus] are quite similar. Most authors, including Mathews and Hartert, have rejected the name rufulus as indeterminable. The latter beUeved that the description agrees with the brush cuckoo [variolosus]. ^Ir. D. L. Serventy, on the other hand, has suggested (letter to E. Mayr) that rufulus be used for the fan-tailed cuckoo [pyrrhophanus]. After studpng Yieillot's description, with a series of juvenals of both species before me, I can find nothing to justify restriction of the name to either. " The upper parts of C. rufulus were described as ' varices de brun et de roussatre '. Tliis suggests the more variegated pattern of the brush cuckoo. Those who would use the name for the fantailed cuckoo mention Vieillot's statement that the remiges are ashy, the rectrices similar but darker and blackish. Some juvenals of the brush cuckoo, however, could be described thus, although in general they have the tail feathers dark brownish rather than blackish. The description of the belly, ' le ventre de deux gris, I'lm presque blanc et I'autre fonce . . . ', might applj^ to many individuals of either species. Other points mentioned by Vieillot are also the same in these two species (not to mention other possibihties, if the locahty should be wrong). To summarize, it seems impossible from Vieillot's description to identify his Cuculus rufulus. The name has been universally rejected ". Only if the types were still in existence might it be possible to identify this nominal species. To an inquiry, Prof. J. Berhoz, Director of the Depart- ment of Mammals and Birds at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle answered most kindly (1 February 1955) : " There is not the least trace in our Museum of Vieillot's tj-^jcs of Cuculus rufulus . . . Absolutely nothing is known here about rufulus ". Under the circumstances it would seem desirable to have this name placed on the Index of Rejected Names. (4) Sericomis tyrannulus De Vis, 1905, Ann. Queensl. Mus., No. VI : 42, CharleviUe, Central Queensland. This species has been considered unidentifiable for more than 50 years. The type, formerly in the Brisbane iMuseum in Queensland, has been lost. It is virtually certam that the bird camiot be a Sericornis because no species of this genus is found in such an arid locahty. Nor does the description fit any species oi Amnthiza, Gerygone, or other genus to which it might conceivably belong. In view of the fact that Australia is now very well known ornithologic- aUy and that in spite of much collecting no new species has been discovered Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 25 since 1911, the Commission is requested to place the name of this nominal species on the Index of Rejected Names. (5) Crateroscelis montana De Vis, 1897, Ihis : 387, South East New Guinea. This name is based on a nesthng bird in doAvny plumage and cannot be identified as to species. The type, formerly in the Brisbane Museum, is apparently lost and would presumably not permit correct identification even if available. There is the possibifity that the name refers to the species which is listed in current standard taxonomic treatises under the name Crateroscelis robusta De Vis, 1898. It is proposed to place the name C. montana on the Index of Rejected Names in order to avoid unsettling the existing nomenclature. (6) Muscicapa tessacourhe Scopoli, 1786, Del. Flor. et Faun. Insuhr., fasc. II : 95. Muscicapa luzoniensis Gmelin, [1789], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1(2) : 942. Both names are based on " Le Gobe-mouche noir de I'isle de Lucon " of Sonnerat (1776, Voyage a la Nouvelle Guinee : 59, pi. 27, fig. 2). The bird was said by Sonnerat to occvu- on Madagascar and the Phihppines. However, as stated by many authors and most recently by Delacour (1946, Auk 63 : 433), there is no species of bird either on Madagascar or the Philippines which agrees with Sonnerat's description and plate, in fact it has been quite impossible so far to identify this nominal species %\ith any knoAAai bird. In order to avoid a disturbance of nomenclature at some later date, the Commission is requested to place the names of these two unidentifiable nominal species on the Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. (7) Saxicola merula Lesson, 1828, Voy. Coquille, Zool., 1(2) : 622 — " New Ireland ". The description is based on a juvenile specimen of Pachycephala with uncertain localitj^ but probably belonging to the widespread species P. pectoralis. Owing to the early date of the description the name would have priority over most of the described races of Pachycephala pectoralis if the exact t\'pe locaUty were knoA^ai. Salvadori (1881, Orn. Pap. Mol. 2 : 219) suspected that the bird came from Amboina but according to the route of the Expedition, on which the specimen was collected, it could also have come from several other locahties including New Ireland, the originally designated t3Tpe locahty. The name has never been used in the primary Hterature. In order to permit stabiHzation of nomenclature in the genus Pachycephala it is herewith proposed to place the name Saxicola merula on the Index of Rejected Names. (8) Meliornis schistacea De Vis, 1897, Ibis : 381. — South East New Guinea. This nominal species has not been identified since its description in 1897. The tj^e is apparently lost. The type specimen was badly damaged, part of the bUl having been shot away, and had been preserved in spirit prior to its description, with the result that the original coloration had been destroj^ed. Consequently, the original description is not very meaningful. In view of the fact that the mountains of Southeast New Guinea, the area where the bird came from, are ornithologically extremely well kno'mi, it is virtually certain that the name refers to some species which is weU known under a different name. There is a possibifity that it is an older name for Ptiloprora meekiana 26 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature Rothschild and Hartert, 1907, but there are too many discrepancies in the description to permit sjaionymization of the two nominal species. For a discussion of the case see Mayr, 1941, List of New Guinea Birds : 207. It is evident that this nominal species is unidentifiable and the Commission is requested to place the name Meliornis schistacea on the Index of Rejected Names. The present Ust was seen in 1955 by D. Amadon, J. BerUoz, H. G. Deignan, H. Friedmami, G. C. A. Junge, R. E. Moreau, A. L. Rand, F. Salomonsen, E. Stresemann, and C. A. Vaurie, all of whom concur in the above made proposal. The Commission is here^\^th requested to suppress the names of the above listed nominal species for the piirposes of the Law of Priority by exercise of its plenary powers and to place these names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names. COMiMENTS ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF SALAMANDRA ERYTHRONOTA RAFINESQUE, 1818. Z.N.(S.) 1467 (see volume 18, pages 221-222) By James E. Huheey {Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, Mass., U.S.A.) I should like to express my support for the petition of Dr. Richard Highton for the conserva- tion oicinereus Green, 1820, and the suppression of erythronota Rafinesque, 1818. The following may be of some interest in this matter : " To Professor Green belongs the merit of having first observed and described the Salamandra now under consideration ; for although he believed it was onlj' a variety of an animal described by Rafinesque, yet he informed me that Rafinesque afterwards told him that the Salamandra erythronola was not the animal he (Rafinesque) had in view, and which, indeed, he had published, imder some other name." (Holbrook, N. Amer. Herp. (ed. 1) 3 : 115, 1838). Thus although erythronota Rafinesque and erythronota Green are probably sjTionyms despite Rafinesque's beliefs (as stated by Holbrook), the fact that Rafinesque supposedly described Green's animal " under some other name " raises the possibility that there may be found yet another name, perhaps antedating erythronota Rafinesque. It seems best therefore not to discard cinereus in favour of another name which may be only temporarily valid. By Hobart M. Smith {Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) This is a clear-cut case for preservation of a consistently-used name for a widely-noted species. Preservation of the status quo in this case is exactlj' the type of role for which tlie plenary powers of the Commission can most usefully be exercised. Approval of the proposal is strongly urged. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 27 AMM0DISCUSREU8S, 1862 (FORMIINIFERA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1087 By W. A. Macfadyen (Hope's Givve, Tenterden, Kent, England) The purpose of the present application is to stabiHse the interpretation of the nominal genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, in the sense of Reuss's original description in which it was generally used from 1880 to 1954. In EUis & Messina's Catalogue of the Foraminifera 102 species were recently counted, listed as having been referred to the genus, while another 31 species have been noted as having been transferred by various authors from other genera. Of this total of 133 species at least 86 are currently considered to belong to it ; and the genus forms the type of the family ammodiscidae Rhumbler, 1895 (Nachr. k. Ges. Wiss. Gottingen, Math-Phys. Kl. : 83) so that any change in the meaning of the name would clearly do considerable harm to the stabiUty of nomenclature. Yet in a recent paper (LoebUch & Tappan, 1954, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 44 : 306-310) the generic name Ls sunk* as a synonjon of Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841, and is interpreted in terms of a tjrpe-species Orbis infimus Strickland, 1846, which is now known as Spirillina infima (Strickland), which being both a calcareous and a fossU form is inconsistent ^vith the original diagnosis of the genus and with long -established usage of the name. At the same time the arenaceous species hitherto included in Ammodiscus were assigned to the genus Involutina, which was transferred out of the family to which it was formerly referred. The family ammodiscidae Rhumbler, 1895, and the subfamily ammodiscinae Reuss, 1862, were left mthout a valid nominate genus. These names were replaced by the family name tolypammtnidae Cushman, 1929, and subfamily name ikvolutininae Cushman, 1940. The facts of the case are set out below. 2. The genus Ammodiscus was established by Reuss (1862, Sitzh. k. Akad. Wiss. Wien, math.-nat. CI., Jahrg. 1861, 44 : 365) without any included species but as a partial synonym of two existing genera. His description reads : " Mit sandig-kieseUger Schale vii. Ammodiscinea m. Mit der einzigen Gattung Ammodiscus m. {Comuspira WiU. z. Thl., Trochammina Park, et Jon. z. Thl.). Schale frei, tellerformig, gleichseitig, spiral gewimden, mit in einer Ebene dicht an etnander Uegenden Umgangen. Am Ende in der ganzen Weite ausmiindend. Lebend." It would thus be reasonable to suppose that, in designating a type-species, * Since the present paper was written Loeblich & Tappan (1961, Micropaleontology, 7 : 189- 192) have returned to the problem and now propose to revive the generic name Ammodiscus for arenaceous forms with type-species Involutina silicea Terquem, 1862 ; and to accept Bomemann's 1874 designation of Involutina jonesi Terquem & Piette, 1862, ae the type-species of the calcareous genus Involutina. Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature preference should be given to a recent arenaceous species which had been referred to Cornuspira or to Trochammina by one or other of the authors mentioned prior to the estabUshment of Ammodiscus ; yet the species designated by Loebhch & Tappan was a calcareous extinct Lower Lias species which had never been referred to either of those genera at that time. 3. The nominal genus Corntisjnra was not first estabhshed by WiUiamson, but by Schultze in 1854 {Polythal. : 40) with two originally included species, C. ■planorhis Schultze and C. perforata Schultze. The type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1927 {Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 3 : 188) is C. planorhis Schultze. The genus was referred to only once by WiUiamson before 1862, namely in " The Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain " [Ray Soc. 1858 : 91- 92), and on this occasion it was treated as a sjoionym oi Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841 (type-species, by monotypy, Spirillina vivipara Ehrenberg, 1841). Since Reuss expressly refers to this work of Williamson's in his own paper, later authors have assumed that he WTOte " Cornuspira Will. z. Thl." by mistake for ■' Spirillina Will. z. Thl." This view was taken by Brady (1884, Challenger Rep. 9 (Zoology) : 329), Rhumbler (1903, Arch.f. Protistenk. 3 : 280), Cushman (1910, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 71 : 73) and Hoglund (1947, Zool. Bidr. Uppsala 26 : 102) amongst others. On this assumption the species referred to Spirillina by Williamson in 1858 would call for consideration in any designation of the tj^e-species of Ammodiscus. These species, four in number, were Spirillina foliacea (PhiUppi, 1844) (cited as the vaUd name of Cornuspira planorhis Schultze, 1854), Spirillina perforata (Schultze, 1854) (cited as the vaHd name of Spirillina vivipara Ehrenberg, 1841), Spirillina arenacea sp. nov. (with Oper- culina incerta d'Orbigny, 1839, placed m queried sjmonymy), and Spirillina margaritifera sp. nov. Of these species, only Spirillina arenacea agrees with Reuss's original description of Ammodiscus, and Williamson describes it as follows. " Shell spiral ; compressed ; thui ; consisting of numerous narrow rounded convolutions of nearl}'^ uniform size. Septal aperture round. Texture arena- ceous ; hue yellow or pale bro'mi ; opaque. Diam. 1/50. " I have met with isolated examples of this object in nearly every British sand which I have examined, but have nowhere found it in abundance. M. D'Orbigny has figured a shell in his Foraminifera of Cuba, under the name of Operculina incerta (p. 49, tab. vi, fig. 16). He tliinks that it presents traces of two septa in each convolution, but is not certain ; and speaks with great hesitancy respecting its entire history, not being satisfied Avith his knowledge of the very few specimens which he obtained from Cuba and Martinique. I have httle doubt that his hesitation was just ; and that the object was an unsegmented Spirillina, possibly of the same species as the one under consideration." The diameter given as 1/50 inch is equal to about 0.5 mm., and the type- locaUty must be given as the seas around the British Isles, no more exact locality being stated or indicated on his sUde. 4. The above-mentioned isomorphous Foraminifera which WiUiamson grouped in the single genus Spirillina are now divided amongst three genera on the basis of the composition and structure of the shell-wall, Spirillina for Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 the hyaline, perforate forms, Cornuspira for the porcellanous, imperforate forms, and Ammodiscus for the agglutmated arenaceous forms. The well- estabhshed usage of these names in that taxonomic sense is disturbed by LoebUch & Tappan's designation of the type-species, and it is urged that this designation be suppressed and that Spirillina arenacea WUhamson, 1858 be designated as the tj^e-species of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 by the use of the plenary powers. 5. It is necessary first, however, to consider the species placed iaTrochammina by Parker & Jones prior to 1862, for that genus was also cited bj' Reuss in the sjTionymy of Ammodiscus. Trochammina Parker & Jones, 1859 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3) 4 : 347) was estabUshed ^\^th onty a single originally included species. Nautilus inflatus Montagu, 1808, so that it cannot have been to that source that Reuss referred when he spoke of " Trochammina Park, et Jon. z. Thl." The genus was mentioned on only one other occasion by those authors prior to 1862, in a paper by Jones & Parker (1860, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 16 : 292-307) and it must be presumed that it was to this paper that Reuss intended to refer. The species then placed in Trochammina Avere T. irregularis d'Orbigny, 1850 (a species of Webbina d'Orbigny, 1839) ; T. irregularis alternans subsp. nov. ; T. irregularis clavata subsp. nov. (type-species of Ammolagena Eimer & Fickert, 1899) ; T. squamata sp. nov. ; T. squamata incerta (d'Orbigny), with Spirillina arenacea in sjoionj-^my ; T. squamata charoides subsp. nov. (a species of Glomospira Rzehak, 1888) ; T. squamata gordialis subsp. nov. (type- species of Glomospira) ; and T. squamata var. inflata (Montagu), type-species of Trochammina Parker & Jones, 1859. It may be noted that the citation of species established by d'Orbigny in 1839 and by Montagu in 1808 as sub- species of T. squamata was invaUd. It \v\]l also be seen that Operculina incerta d'Orbigny, 1839, was treated as a doubtful synonym of Spirillina arenacea by Wilhamson in 1858, and as the valid name for the latter by Jones & Parker in 1860. 6. Two years later [in Carpenter, Parker & Jones, 1862 : Introduction to the study of the Foraminifera, Ray Soc. : 312) Parker & Jones again quoted Spirillina arenacea as a synonym of " Trochammina squamata P. & J. var. incerta d'Orb." and this was accepted by Brady (op. cit. 1884 : 330), and Cushman (op. cit. 1910 : 73) and in later works. The synonymy was, however, queried by Heron-Allen & Earland in 1932 (Discovery Rep. 4 : 343). Cushman (op. cit.) designated Operculina incerta as the tj^pe-species of Ammodiscus, and this can be understood because, although it was not one of the species origuially included in the genus (there were none cited by name), it was among those which had been cited prior to 1862 in one of the genera (Trochammina) mentioned by Reuss in his synonjony. There is considerable doubt, however, AA'hether the species intended by Cushman (or by Jones & Parker, 1860, whom he was following) was the true Operculina incerta. This question is discussed in the following paragraphs. 7. Operculina incerta was estabhshed by d'Orbigny in 1839 (in de la Sagra, Hist. phys. polit. nat. Cuba : 39, pi. vi, figs. 16, 17). The description reads : " Operculina, Testa orbiculato compressa, lateraliter concava, laevigata, flavescente, margine rotundata ; spira regulari, anfractibus octo, cylindricis, 30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature suturis excavatis. Dimensions. Diametre 1/10 de millim. " Coquille orbiculaire, tres coniprimee, lisse, concave de chaque cote, a dos arrondi. Spire tres reguliere, composee de huit tours cylindriques tres rapproches, tres etroits, separes par des sutures profondes. Loges. Nous avons cru remarquer qu'il y en avait deux par tour de spire, mais nous ne pouvons I'affirmer. Couleur jaunatre uniforme. " Tout en pla9ant cette espece dans le genre Operculina, nous ne le faisons pas avec la certitude qu'elle y soit bien a sa place, car elle diflfere de tout^s les autres par son grand nombre de tours de spire. Ses loges n'ont pas la meme forme, si nous avons bien vues ; la grand tenuite de I'individu, son peu de transparence nous laissent beaucoup a desirer pour sa connaissance complete. Nous ne decrivons done cette espece qu'en attendant de nouvelles observations. Nous I'avons rencontree dans les sables de Cuba et dans celui de la Martinique, ou elle est tres rare." In the explanation of the plate the figures are stated to be x 200. Since they measure 20 mm. across, thej^ confirm the extremely small size of the specimen figm-ed. 8. It must be borne in mind that those authors who synonymised Operculina incerta and SpiriUina arenacea held that both names applied to an arenaceous form with sihceous cement. It was doubtless this which led Herou-Allen & Earland {op. cit.) to question the correctness of this synonymy, as follows : " The Operculina incerta of d'Orbigny has always seemed to us to be open to suspicion as an arenaceous form. Neither the figure nor the text give us any suggestion of an agglutinate test, and either might equally well refer to a weather-stamed SpiriUina or Cormispira. We therefore turned to the Paris Type ui the hope of settUng the question of its nature, only to find ourselves confronted ^vith an apparent blank wall. The tube contains three specimens. It is labelled ' SpiriUina incerta {Operculina), Cuba '. None of the three specimens can be recognised as the original of d'Orbigny's figure, and all are unmistakably Cornuspira. One is C. involvens Reuss, the second probably the same but bearing striolations (these may be accidental), the third specimen is a narrow-tubed, square-edged form, suggesting C. angigyra Reuss ; they are all unmistakably fossils. The uncertainty is insoluble imtil d'Orbigny's original Cuba Type is perhaps identified among the tubes which have become separated from anj^ identif3'ing ' boards '." 9. Loebhch & Tappan (1954 : 308) state : " D'Orbigny's tj'pes {sic] of Operculina incerta were examined by the Avriters in Paris and found not to be an agglutinated form but a calcareous imperforate form and a typical Cornuspira Schultze, 1854. " Three syntj-pes of d'Orbigny's species are preserved in the collections of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle in Paris. That here figured (figs, la, lb) is hereby designated the lectotj'pe of Operculina incerta and the remaining two specimens become paratj^es. All are from the Recent of Cuba." In their amended diagnosis of the species they point out that the form studied by them has 12 coUs, and give the dimensions of the " lectotype " as greatest diameter 1.36 mm., least diameter 1.13 mm., thickness 0.25 mm. They do not mention Heron-Allen & Earland's work, but it seems probable Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 that the specimens they saw are the same. 10. There are strong grounds for rejecting the lectotype selection of Loebhch & Tappan as invahd. D'Orbigny described his form as having eight whorls and being 0.1 mm. in diameter ; it is imthinkable that, if he had had more mature specimens thirteen times as big he would not have mentioned them in his description had he considered them to belong to the same species, which is unlikely. It seems preferable to accept Heron-Allen & Earland's conclusion that d'Orbigny's original material has not yet been rediscovered, and to consider Operculina incerta as a nomen dubium pending the definite identification of that material. 11. LoebUch & Tappan proceeded strictly on the assumption that Ammodiscus was a genus estabhshed ^^ithout any originally included species cited by name, and that the type-species must either be that species, or be selected from amongst those species first subsequently referred to it. Their action was m the strictest conformity ^vith the Rules, but was taken without regard to the damage so done to stabihty of nomenclature and of taxonomic practice. On this basis they considered first Ammodiscus lindahli Carpenter & Jeffries [sic], 1871 (Proc. Roy. Soc. London 19 : 160) and showed that the generic name was then appUed to a species of Actinozoan. Ammodiscus Carpenter & Jeffreys was in fact proposed as a new generic name and is thus invahd as a junior homonym of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, so that the single species referred to the genus does not call for consideration in the present connection. They next examined the species recorded by L. G. Bornemaiui (1874, Z. deutsch. geol. Ges. 28 : 725, pi. xviii, figs. 4-7 ; pi. xix, fig. 8) as Ammodiscus infimus (Strickland), and they concluded that this, as the sole [sic] species referred to the genus bj^ Bornemann, was the first species to be placed in Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, and was therefore the type-species by mono- typy. Barnard, however (1954, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (12) 5 : 905-909) had already shovTi that Strickland's Orbis infimus (1846, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 2 : 30-31) is a calcareous hyaline form of the taxonomic genus Spirillina Ehrenberg, 1841. The form identified with that species by Bornemann, however, is an agglutinated, sUiceous form. Thus by mterpretmg Ammodiscus Reuss in terms of Orbis infimus Strickland as imderstood by Bornemann, they made Ammodiscus a genus based on a misidentified tj^e-species. The valid name of the species which Bornemann had before him is silicea Terquem, 1862, which Bornemann cited in the synonymy of Ammodiscus infimus. 12. Loebhch & Tappan, having thus accepted the misidentification of the species which they designated as the tj^e-species of Ammodiscus with a hyaline, perforate form, sank Ammodiscus as a synonym of Spirillina, and proposed to transfer the arenaceous forms hitherto included m Ammodiscus to Involutina Terquem, 1862, a genus treated by some authors as a synonym of Problematina Bornemann, 1874. The position and status of these two genera is, however, far from clear. Involutina was estabhshed by Terquem, 1862 {Mem. Acad. imp. Metz 42 : 450) with Involutina silicea Terquem from the IMiddle Lias. In a later section of the same paper (: 461), in which Foraminifera from the Lower Lias are described by Terquem & Piette, Involutina jonesi is added to the genus. The 32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature two passages concerned were published in the same work on the same day so that statements that /. silicea is the type-species by monotypy (e.g. Cushman 1928, " Foraminifera " : 51, 143 ; Macfadyen, 1941, Phil. Trans. Boy. Soc London (B) 231 : 17 ; Loebhch & Tappan, op. cit. : 309) are erroneous. I.jonesi was in fact vaUdly selected as the type-species by Bornemann {op. cit. 1874 711). The oldest available name for this species, however, as shown by Brady 1864 (Geol. Mag. 1 : 196) is Nummulites liassicus Jones, 1853 (in Brodie, Proc Cottesivold Nat. F.C. 1 : 243, and Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (2), 12 : 275), a calcareous species. It is thus easily seen that the taxonomic position of Invohitina is entirely dependent on which species is regarded as the tjrpe- species. If the first vaUd selection by Bornemann is followed, the genus is a calcareous one, aUied to Spirillina or Cornuspira ; if current usage in regarding /. silicea as the type-species is followed, then the genus is an arenaceous one, synonymous A\ith Ammodiscus. If the former choice is adopted, then Problematina Bornemami, 1874, type-species, by selection by Cushman, 1927 (Contr. Cushman Lab. Foram. Res. 3 : 188), Invohitina deslongschampsi Terquem, 1863 (Mem. Ac. Imp. Metz 44 : 432) falls as a subjective synonym, for the type-species is at least congeneric, and possibly even conspecific, with Nummulites liassicus Jones, 1853. The generic name Problematina is not extensively used, and it is recommended that Bornemann's type-selection for Involutina be accepted. The transfer thus involved of Involutina from an arenaceous to a calcareous group of species wUl cause less disturbance to taxonomy and nomenclature than will the rejection oi Ammodiscus as advocated by Loebhch & Tappan. 13. The family-group names involved in the present case are ammodiscidae Rhumbler, 1895, and ammodiscinae Reuss, 1862 (as ammodiscinea) ; these are in current use and should be added to the Ofiicial List. 14. In order to promote stabiUty in the use of the generic names discussed above, the International Commission is requested : — (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to set aside all type-designations for the nominal genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, made prior to the ruhng now asked for, and, having done so, to designate Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858, as the type-species of that genus : (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Spirillina arenacea WUhamson, 1858 ; (b) Involutina Terquem, 1862 (gender : feminine), tjrpe- species, by selection by Bornemann, 1874, Involutina jonesi Terquem & Piette, 1862; (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) arenacea Wilhamson, 1858, as published in the binomen Spirillina arenacea (type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, of Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 (b) liassicus Jones, 1853, as published in the binomen Nummulites liassicus (the oldest available name for the type-species of Involutina) ; (c) infimus Strickland, 1846, as pubUshed in the binomen Orbia infimus, and as defined by the lectotype selected for the species by Barnard, 1954 ; (4) to place the family-group name ammodiscinae Reuss, 1862 (correction of ammodiscinea), type-genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. (5) to place the follo\ving name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology : ammodiscinea Reuss, 1862, tjrpe-genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (an invahd original spelling of ammodiscinae). I have to acknowledge with gratitude the great help I have received in the setting out of this paper from Mr. R. V. Melville, lately Assistant Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Note on Spirillina arenacea Williamson, 1858, proposed as type-species of the genus Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862. By Tom Barnard {University College, London). Type reference : Wilhamson, W. C, On the Recent Foraminifera of Great Britain. Ray Society, London, England, 1858, p. 93, plate vii, fig. 203. Wilhamson's figured specimen of Spirillinia arenacea is missing from the shde preserved in the British Museum (Natural History) so it has been necessary to select another specimen as the lectotjrpe. This is described below and figured on the accompanying plate. Description : The test is planispiral, consisting of a globular proloculus followed by a simple non-septate coiled tube. In Wilhamson's tjrpe material there are generally about six fairly regular whorls, but ranging from 5 to 7 ; the whorls increase markedly m height from the earhest to the latest, and a later whorl may (or may not) embrace the previous whorl to about one-third of the height of the whorl. In cross section they are seen to be uniform m shape. Successive whorls appear to be added directly to the test, with no prepared floor. The test is open-e volute, with a simple very shallow umbihcus on both sides ; but in specimens where the whorls embrace more than usual a deeper umbihcus is found on one side of the test. The wall is thin, smoothly finished, arenaceous, composed largely of minute quartz fragments set in non- calcareous cement. Unfortunately, owing to breakage of part of the last whorl in each of Wilhamson's specimens, no aperture is preserved, but it appears to have been simply the open end of the tube. Each of the ten specimens is megalospheric, with an almost spherical proloculus which forms a shght protuberance at the centre of the test. From the proloculus emerges a thm tube pomting in the reverse direction to that of the later coihng. This tube turns abruptly through two right angles, and then initiates normal coihng, passing mth rapidly mcreasing size into the first normal coil. Thereafter the tube continues to coil with whorls of slowly 34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature increasing height, though there may be slight irregularity in the addition of successive whorls (see plate 2, figs. 1 & 2). No. of Diameter Whorls of Test (visible) in mm. 5 0.44 7 0.34 5 0.28 6 0.30 6 0.48 5 0.43 5 0.44 5 0.43 5 0.51 6 0.36 Material. 10 Specimens Locality. Seas around the British Isles Type Level. Recent Lectotype. Removed from Wilhamson's shde and remounted. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. Lectotype 1960.9.28.1 ex. 96.8.13.52. Paralectrotypes 1960.9.28.2 ex. 96.18.13.52 1960.9.28.3 ex.96.8.13.52. Depository. British Museum (Natural History), London. PLATE 1 Fig. 1. Ammadiscus arenaceus (WiUisiinaon). x70 Lectotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.). No. 1960.9.28.L Focused on inner whorls. Fig. 2. Ammodiscus arenacen-s (Williamson), x 70 Lectotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.1 Focused on outer whorls. Fig. 3. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson), x 70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.2 Focused on inner whorls. Fig. 4. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson), x 70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.2. Focused on outer whorls. Fig. 5. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson), x 70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.3. Focused on outer whorls. Fig. 6. Ammodiscus arenaceus (WiUiamson). X 70 Paralectrotype. B.M. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1960.9.28.3 Focused on inner whorls. PLATE 2 Fig. 1. Aminodiscus arenaceus (V^Whamson). 1960.9.28.3. X 150 Showing cross-section of the test. Fig. 2. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. x 150 A reconstruction of the above photograph. Fig. 3. Ammodiscus arenaceus (Williamson). 1960.9.28.3. X 1200 Diagram showing the proloculus, with the small tube emerging from it, turning through two right angles, and then circling the chamber to join the main chamber of the test. Fig. 4. Ammodiscus arenaceus (\Ni\i.\i).mBon). 1960.9.28.4. x 150 Photograph in oil to show the initial coil. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19 Plate 1 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19 Plate 2 ([PU^WO r ^ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 AMMONITES LAEVIGATA LAMARCK, 1822; PROPOSED SUPP- RESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS TOGETHER WITH THE VALIDATION OF TWO NOMINAL SPECIES NAMED AMMONITES LAEVIGATA BY J. DE C. SOWERBY, 1827. Z.N.(S.) 1203 By D. T. Donovan (Bristol) and C. W. Wright {London) The specific name Ammonites laevigata was published by Lamarck (1822 : 637). It was appUed to a fossil in his collection for which no locaUty or geological horizon was recorded. A brief description was given, in Latin and French, but no illustration was included. To the best of the writers' knowledge the name has not been employed by any later author of systematic descriptions or revisions of ammonites, and in their opinion it is impossible to determine, from Lamarck's description, to which of the many hundred ammonite species now recognised his name Ammonites laevigata should be appUed.^ Search for t3^e material has not been made for only confusion would be caused if this name were brought into use now. 2. James de C. Sowerby in 1827 (: 93, pi. 549, fig. 1) described and figured the species Ammonites laevigatus from the Gault (Cretaceous) of Crockerton, near Warminster, Wilts. In the same work, later in the same year (: 135, pi. 570, fig. 3) he described and figured a different ammonite species as Ammonites laevigatus, based on a specimen from the Lias (Jurassic) near Lyme Regis, Dorset. There is no evidence that either species was identified with Lamarck's species referred to in para. 1, and both species have always been attributed to Sowerby. 3. Sowerby was not in the habit of using the same specific name more than once in a particular genus, and his reason for doing so in this case was clearly that, shortly after the part of his monograph in which he described the Gault Ammonites laevigatus was pubhshed, he re-identified the figured specimen as Ammonites Selliguinus Brongniart (in Cuvier and Brongniart), for this name was substituted for Ammonites laevigatus (: 93) in the " Corrections and Observations " to the whole volume. Being bound by no Rules of Nomen- clature, Sowerby felt free to use the superseded name Ammonites laevigatus for another species, and did so on page 135 of his work. According to the present Rules, however, if it were not for Lamarck's Ammonites laevigatus, Sowerby's earher Ammonites laevigatus (from the Gault) would be a vaUd name, but the later Ammonites laevigatus to be pubhshed (the Liassic one) would fall as a junior homonym of the earher. 4. D'Orbigny (1850 : 225) proposed the new name Ammonites Davidsoni for Ammonites laevigatus Sowerby, 1827, pi. 570, fig. 3 (d'Orbigny cited fig. 6 in error). The name has never been correctly applied. It was rejected by Oppel, the author of the first general work on the European Lias (1856 : 81-82) 'Oppel (1856 : 82) stated that A7nmoniles laevigatus Lamarck was synonymous with Ammonites Lewesiensis Mantell, 1822, from the English Chalk, but he was not dealing systematically with either species. Sharps (1853-55) who monographed English Chalk cephalopods, does not mention Lamarck's species. Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 36 Btdletin of Zoological Nomenclature who conserved the name Ammonites laevigatus for the Liassic species.^ Dumortier, after accepting Ammonites laevigatus (1864 : 116), adopted d'Orbigny's name in a later part of the same work (1867 : 112, pi. 21, figs. 1-4) but the French specimen which he figured is not generally regarded as con- specific with Sowerby's Liassic Ammonites laevigatus and has often been referred to as "Ammonites Davidsoni Dumortier " (e.g. Quenstedt, 1883 : 106 5 Spath, 1926 : 170). The name Ammonites Davidsoni was not adopted in the second edition of Morris's " Catalogue of British Fossils " (1854), a reference work which appeared shortly after the name had been proposed, nor by Woodward (1893) in the fossil fists appended to the Geological Survey of Great Britaui's memoir on the Jurassic Rocks of Britain, nor by Spath when revising Ammonites laevigatus (1923a, 1926). In fact d'Orbigny's name has not been used by any British author, all having used Sowerby's name which did not in practice lead to any confusion. In our opinion only inconvenience and confusion would be caused by effecting the change now. 6. It happens that both Gault and Lias Ammonites from Britain have in recent j'^ears been revised by the same authority, L. F. Spath, who accepted both of Sowerby's species : the Gault one in the combination Buedanticeras (recte Beudanticeras) laevigatum (1923 : 55, family Desmoceratidae Zittel, 1895 ; subfamily Beudanticeratinae Breistrofi'er, 1953), and the Liassic one in the combination Cymhites laevigatus (1923a : 76-78 ; 1926 : 169-170, family Cymbitidae S. S. Buckman, 1919). Each name is in current use among workers on the Gault and the Lias respectively. In view of the recognition of the Gault species in Spath's monograph on Gault Ammonites, and the use of Cymhites laevigatus in Lang's definitive account of the Lias succession in Dorset (Lang, 1923 : 57-59 ; 1926 : 159-162) it is submitted that great confusion would be caused both to palaeontologists and to stratigraphers if either or both these names were now to be changed. 6. The genus Ammonites Bruguiere, to which Lamarck's species mentioned in para. 1 and Sowerby's two species enumerated in para. 2 were all originally referred, has recently been suppressed by the Commission (Opinion 305, 1954). The original homonymy of the three species is therefore a matter of technical but not of practical importance. Between the two which have been used since their original publication, there is no hkehhood of confusion on account of the widely separated geological formations in which they are found and the different famihes into which they are now placed. 7. In view of the considerations adduced above we ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the specific name laevigata Lamarck, 1822, as published in the bmomen Ammonites laevigata (specific name of a species dubium), for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; * Oppel and other authors considered Sowerby's species to be technically invalidated by a species they referred to as Ammonites laevigatus Reinecke, 1818. This species was first published in the combination Nautilus laevigatus Reinecke (1818 : 78) and so does not affect the present application. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 (b) to suspend the operation of the Law of Homonymy in the case of Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby (1827 : 135) in order that it be not invaUdated by Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby (1827 : 93) ; (2) to place the folio wdng specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : — (a) laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (: 93) as pubUshed in the binomen Ammonites laevigatus, from the Gault, and now referred to as Beudanticeras laevigatum, validated by the action recommended imder (l)(a) above ; (b) laevigatus J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (: 135) as published in the binomen Ammonites laevigatus, from the Lias, now referred to the genus Cymbites, vaUdated by the action recommended under (l)(a) and (b) above ; (3) to place the specific name laevigata Lamarck, 1822, as pubhshed in the binomen Ammonites laevigata (suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology. Note : Recommendations on the names of the genus Beudanticeras and its type- species, the subfamily beudanticekatinae and the family desmoceratidae will form part of the subject of an apphcation relating to the generic name Desmoceras which will shortly be submitted to the Commission by one of us (C.W.W.). Recommendations on the type-species of the genus Cymbites, at present Ammonites globosus (Schiibler MS.) Zieten, 1832 (a species dubium), and the family name cymbitidae, will form the subject of an apphcation which it is proposed by one of us (D.T.D.) to submit to the Commission when the decision on the present application is known. References Breistroffer, M., in Breistroffer, M. & 0. de Villoutreys, 1953. Les ammonites albiennes de PeOe (Alpes-Maritimes). Trav. Lab. geol. Orenoble 30 : 69-74 Buckman, S. S., 1919. Yorkshire Type Ammonites 2(18), xv, London d'Orbigny, A., 1850. Prodrome de Paleontologie ... 1. Paris Dumortier, E., 1864, 1867. Etudes paleontologiques sur les Depdts jurassiques du Bassin du Rhone, 1, 2. Paris Lamarck, J. B. P. M. de, 1822. Histoire naturelle des animaux sans vertkbres, 7. Paris Lang, W. D., 1923. Shales-with-' Beef ', a Sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 1, Stratigraphy. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 47-66 , 1926. The Black Marl of Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 1, Stratigraphy. Ibid. 82 : 144-165 Morris, J., 1854. A Catalogue of British Fossils, 2nd ed. London 38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Oppel, A., 1856. Die Juraformation . . . Stuttgart Quenstedt, F. A., 1883. Die Ammoniten des Schwdbischen Jura, 1. Der Schwarze Jura. Stuttgart Reinecke, I. C. M., 1818. Maris prologaei Nautilos et Argonautas volgo Cornua Ammonis . . . Coburg Sowerby, J. de C, 1827. The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 6, pars. London Spath, L. F., 1923. A Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Gault, part 1, London, Pal. Soc. , 1923a. Shales-with-' Beef ', a Sequence in the Lower Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 2, Palaeontology. Quart. Jour. Geol. Soc. Lond. 79 : 66-88 , 1926. The Black Marl of Black Ven and Stonebarrow, in the Lias of the Dorset Coast, Part 2, Palaeontology. Ibid. 82 : 165-178 Woodward, H. B., 1893. The Jurassic Rocks of Britain, 3, Lias (Yorkshire excepted). London : Mem. Geol. Surv. Zittel, K. A. von, 1895. Grundziige der Palaeontologie. Munich & Leipzig COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF MYELOPHILUS EICHHOFF UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 467 (see Volume 18, pages 69-72 and 319-321) By F. G. Browne ( West Africa Timber Borer Research Unit, Kumasi, Ghana) On reading Professor Wood's interesting and important comment, my first inclination was to recommend the suppression of Tomicus LatreiUe in favour of Blastophagus Eichhoff. The former name has a rather unfortimate histor}-, having for long been confused with Ips De Geer. Its use by Chamberlin (1939) in North America can hardly be taken as establishing current use, as it is unimportant when compared with the wide acceptance of Blastophagus in Europe and Asia. However, on reflection I support Professor Wood's proposals. There is already confusion, and confusion will inevitably continue for some time, whatever name may be established under the plenary powers. That being so, it seems advisable to establish the truly valid name, especially if it is one that will not be confused with similar generic names in other Orders. By J. T. Wiebes (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, Netherlands) Dr. Wood's statement indeed changes the whole aspect of the problem, and I fuUy agree with his conclusions concerning the name of the Coleoptera. It seems best to maintain the priority of Tomicus LatreiUe over the other generic names proposed to contain Dermestes piniperda Linnaeus. Concerning Dendroctonus Erichson, I agree with Dr. Wood that it is in favour of nomenclatural stability to validate Dendroctonus with it« type Bostrychus micans Kugebnann (in spite of Westwood's 1838 type designation), in order to avoid the necessity to create a new name for a genus of well-known and economically important beetles. I disagree with Dr. Wood's remark that there could be reasons for suggesting a possible validity of Blastophagus Gravenhorst. The original publication of this name does not contain any descriptive matter that could possibly serve aa an indication. Hence Blastophagus Gravenhorst must be regarded as a nomen nudum. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 PLANOBBINA HALDEMAN, 1842, TAPHIUS ADAMS & ADAMS, 1855 AND ABMIGEBUS CLESSIN, 1884 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) : PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1392 C. A. Wright {British Museum {Natural History), London) The medically important molluscan intermediate hosts of the human parasite Schistosoma mansoni have for some time been placed in the nominal genera BiompJialaria, Australorhis and Tropicorbis. It is known that these three should be united into a single taxonomic genus and recently B. Hubendick (1955, Trans. Zool. Soc. Lond. 28(6) : 453-542) has shown that on anatomical grounds the genus should include the nominal genera Taphius and Platytaphius. By appUcation of the Law of Priority Taphius should take precedence as the senior synonym and W. L. Paraense (1958, Bev. Bras. Biol. 18(1) : 65-80) has presented the case in favour of follo^ang this course. However, it is likely that many medical parasitologists and public health workers wiU not be prepared to adopt the name Taphius and further investigation has sho^vn that there is an older available name for the group, namely Planorbina Haldeman, 1842. The fuU details of the case have been discussed by Barbosa, Hubendick, Malek and Wright {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist, in press). In that account the authors mention the problem of Armigerus which has also been used as the generic name for the group. 2. In a group of such great economic importance it is obviously essential that the nomenclature should be stabUized and it is the purpose of this applica- tion to ask for the suppression under the plenary powers of the names PlanorbinM Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884. 3. Planorbina was named as a section of Planorbis by S. S. Haldeman (1842, A Monograph of the Freshwater Univalve Molluscs of the United States. E. G. Dorsey, Philadelphia, p. 14). No t3rpe-species was designated for this section nor were any species referred to it in that publication but W. H. Dall (1905, Land and Freshwater Molluscs, Harriman Alaska Expedition 13 : 1-158) designated Planorbis olivaceus Spix (1827, Testacea fluviatilia Brasiliensia p. 26) as type of Planorbina Haldeman and referred Planorbis glabrata Say (1818, J. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1(2) : 280) to the section. Both of these species belong in the nominal genus Australorbis. H. A. PUsbry (1934, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 86(1) : 29-66) argued that Dall had misinterpreted Haldeman's definition of Planorbina and, because P. olivaceous could not possibly be included in that definition, Pilsbry stated that " Planorbina of Haldeman, 1843, has nothing to do with Planorbina Dall, 1905 ". H. Watson (1954, Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 49 (3 & 4) : 209-220) has also suggested that Planorbina Haldeman and Planorbina Dall are not synonymous but that the former referred to Anisus Studer, 1820 {Naturw. Anz. Allg. Schweiz. Oesell. 3, p. 23). However, DaU designated a tjrpe-species for Haldeman's Planorbina and, since that name Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature was published with a definition it is an available name and takes priority from its original date of publication {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 160 ; 1950). Planorbina was used in conjimction \\ith the specific names guadalupensis, glabratus and olivaceus by L. Germain (1921, Rec. Indian Mus. 21) and with olivaceus by J. Thiele (1931, Handbuch der Syst. Weichtierkunde I, p. 480, Fischer, Jena) and more recently by J. B. Burch (1960, Ztschr. f. Tropenmed. u. Parasit. Stuttgart 11(4) : 449-452) with glabratus and sudanica. 4. Taphius was proposed as a sub-genus of Pktnorbis by H. & A. Adams (1855, The Genera of Recent Mollusca 2, p. 262, van Voorst, London) and Planorbis andecolus d'Orbigny (1835, Hag. Zool. 5(61 & 62) : 26) from Lake Titicaca was the tjrpe-species by original designation. Paraense (loc. cit.) quotes eighteen references between the years 1870 and 1957 to show that Taphius is a name in frequent use but most of the authors whom he quotes have merely mentioned the name Avith its original definition in hsts or have referred to it in sjmonymies. Apart from Paraense's own recent iise of Taphius it is a name almost unknowTi to medical biologists and only a Uttle more famfiiar to professional malacologists. 5. Armigerus was named as a section of Planorbis by Clessin (1884, Conch. Cab. Martini-Chemnitz (edn. 2) I, 17, p. 120) in the discussion of Planorbis albicans Pfeifi"er and it is this species which J. E. P. Morrison (1947, Nautilus 61(1) : 30-31) designated as type for Armigerus. P. albicans had formerly been placed in Tropicorbis. H. B. Baker (1947, Nautilus 61(2) : 71-72) suggested that Clessm had intended to indicate that P. albicans belonged in the section of P. armigerus Say and that the type of this section must, therefore, by absolute tautonymy, be P. arinigerus but this species is the type of Planorbula Haldeman, 1842, and Armigerus must fall as a synonym of Planorbula. "Whether this argument is correct or not is not certain but, either way, Armigerus has little more than nuisance value as it is a name largely unknoTvn to parasitologists and has only been used by one malacological speciahst. 6. Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (ser. 8) 6(35) : 535, PI. 7, figs. 26 & 26a) has as type-species, by monotypy, B. smithi Preston (loc. cit.), an unusual planorbid snail from Lake Edward. Anatomical studies, summarised by H. Watson (loc. cit.), have sho^Ti that all of the large planorbid snails of the ethiopian region belong to a single genus and they have all been placed in Biomphalaria. This name is probably the most widely known and is one of the more extensively used of the series. It is the name of the genus to which all of the African intermediate hosts of Schistosoma mansoni belong and a report of a World Health Organisation Study Group (TF. H. 0. Tech. Rep. Ser. 90, pp. 5 & 6, 1954) recommended that Biomphalaria should be the name used for aU intermediate hosts of S. mansoni and that Au^tralorhis and Tropic- orbis should be considered as its junior synonyms. 7. Tropicorbis was estabhshed as a section of Planorbis bj'' A. P. Brown and H. A. PUsbry, (1914, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 66(1) : 209-213). Planorbis liebmanni Dunker (1886, in Kiister, H. C, Syst. Conch.-Cab. p. 59) was designated as type-species and P. siliceus, an OUgocene fossil from Antigua was referred to the section. This is a weU-known name in Central and South Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 America and several neotropical intermediate hosts of S. mansoni have been referred to the genus. 8. Platytaphiua was proposed as a section of Planorbis by H. A. Pilsbry (1924, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 76(1) : 49-66) for P. heterophurus Pilsbry, 1924, from Lake Titicaca and this species is the type by monotypy. It is not a well-known name and has rarely been used. 9. Australorbis was described as a new genus by H. A. Pilsbry 1934 for •Planorbis guadalupensis Sower by (1821, Genera of Shells II). In discussing this new genus Pilsbry states that it should perhaps be treated as a sub -genus of Tropicorbis, a group which he then considered should have full generic status. Australorbis is a very well-knowTi name and is in frequent use. Some of its South American members are intermediate hosts for S. mansoni and A. glabratus has been the subject of many laboratory studies. 10. In order to eUminate the great confusion which exists at present in the generic nomenclature of the intermediate hosts of Schistosoma mansoni I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 ; (b) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 ; (c) Armigerus Clessin, 1884 ; (2) to place the following generic name on the OflEicial List of Generic Names : Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (gender, feminine), t5rpe-species by monotypy : Biomphalaria smithi Preston, 1910 ; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names : smithi Preston, 1910, as pubUshed in the binomen Biom- phalaria smithi (tj^e-species of Biomphalaria) ; (4) to place the following generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Planorbina Haldeman, 1842 ; (b) Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855 ; (c) Armigerus Clessin, 1884. 42 B%dletin of Zoological Nomenclature AMYOT, MfiTHODE MONONYMIQUE : REQUEST FOR A DIRECTION THAT THIS WORK BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID WORKS IN ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. Z.N.(S.) 1478 By Wolfgang Stichel (Berlin, Oermany) C. J. B. Amyot's Entomologie rran9aise, Rhynchotes, Methode Mononym- ique was published in serial form in the Annales Sociite ent. France (Series 2) 3 : 369-492, t. 8 and 9, 1845 ; (Series 2) 4 : 73-192, 359-452, t. 10, 1846 ; (Series 2) 5 : 453-524, t. 2 and 7, 1847. In 1848 a repaged edition of the whole work was pubhshed in Paris by J. B. BaiUiere and in London by H. BailUere. In the preface to his work, Amyot states : " Ce qui doit le plus frapper au premier abord, dans cet ouvrage, est le mode de nomenclature que nous y avons adopte, sous le titre de Methode mononjonique, et qui consiste dans I'apphcation d'un nom unique, donne a chaque espece, au lieu de deux, le nom generique et le nom specifique, comme cela se pratique dans la nomenclature en usage depuis Linne." In effect this was meant to be a new system of nomenclature. It is scarcely necessary to point out that this system is completely at variance with Article 25 (b) : " The author must have consistently appUed the principles of binominal nomenclature throughout the paper ui question ". 2. Hemipterists have mostly rejected Amyot's Methode Mononymique. Kirkaldy, 1909 in his Catalogue of the Hemiptera (Heteroptera) 1, Cimicidae : X, wrote : " The mononymics of Amyot (1845-47, A. S. E. France) are clearly inadmissible either for genera or species and have no place in a binominal system ". A few of the names have been validated as specific names by pubhcation by later authors. For example, Stactogala Amyot (1 : 413, No. 468) was used by Fieber, 1866, Verhandl. Zool.-Bot. Ges. Wien 16 : 505, t. 7, fig. 19, in his new genus Opsins and is validated from that date as Opsins stactogalv^ Fieber. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore requested to place the title of the following work on the Offical Index of Rejected and Invahd Works in Zoological Nomenclature : Amyot (C.J.B.), 1845-1847, Entomologie Frangaise, Rhjnichotes, Methode Mononymique. Butt. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 43 ARGYRODESSiWM, DIPOENURA SIMON, ROBERTUSO. PICKARD- CMIBRIDGE AND THEONOE SIMON (ARACHNIDA, ARANEAE) : PROPOSED PRESERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1481 By Herbert W. Levi (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge 38, Mass., U.S.A.) The principal purpose of the present appUcation is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to permit the accustomed usage of four genera of the spider family theridhdae : Argyrodes, Dipoenura, Robertus and Theonoe. A study of theridiid genera (in press) has revealed that usage of these names does not correspond with the strict appUcation of the Rules. 1. Argyrodes Simon (1864, Histoire Naturelle des Araignees, (ed. 1) : 253), with type-species by tautonymy Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer (1841, Histoire Naturelle des Araignees 2 : 282), from southern Europe and North Africa, is preoccupied by Argyrodes Guenee (1845, Ann. Soc. ent. France (2) 3 : 322) (Lepidoptera) with the type-species by monotypy A. vinetella Fabricius. Strand (1928, Arch. Naturgesch. 93 : 42) first noted the homonymy and proposed the name Argyrodina for Argyrodes Simon. In the 1940's Conopistha Karsch (1881, Berliner Ent. Zeitschr. 25 : 39) with the type-species by original designation C. bonadea, from Japan, was recognized as a subjective synonym of Argyrodes Simon. For the last twenty years Conopistha has been generally used as the name for the genus. A revision of the American spiders of the genus (Exline and Levi, 1961, in press) and a study of all theridiid genera (Levi, 1961, in press) place both Ariamnes Thorell (1869, Nova Acta Reg. Soc. Sci. Uppsala (3) 7 : 37, new name for Ariadne Doleschall, 1857, Nat. Tiidschr. Nederland Ind. 13 : 410, preoccupied by two older homonyms) with tjrpe-species by monotypy A. flagellum Doleschall, and Rhomphaea L. Koch (1872, Die Arach- niden Australiens (1) : 289) with the type-species by monotypy R. com^tes L. Koch, 1872, as additional subjective synonyms of Argyrodes, both antedating Conopistha Karsch, 1881. If we follow the Law of Priority, the genus should be called Ariamnes, a name previously used for a small group of rare tropical spiders. However, those who disagree with the synonymy may still consider Conopistha or Rhomphaea the generic name. Others, like Bonnet (1955, Bibliographia Araneorum 2(1) : 704) continue to consider Argyrodes the correct name. Besides being the oldest name of this assemblage of species, Argyrodes is the type-genus of a name in the family group. Simon (1892, Histoire Naturelle des Araignees 1 : 496) divided the THERIDHDAE into groups, one of which he called argyrodeae. Later authors (e.g. Petrunkevitch, 1928, Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci. 29 : 45) have inter- preted ARGYRODAE as a subfamily name, and have changed it to argyrodinae. The family name, however, is no longer in use and I therefore do not Bvll. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ask that it be placed on the Official List. Argyrodes contains about 70 American species, and probably 100-200 species in the tropics and subtropics of other parts of the world. According to Prof. W. T. M. Forbes and Dr. E. G. Munroe, Argyrodes Guenee (type-species vinetella Fabr.) is a junior objective synonym of Eucarphia Huebner (1825, Verzeichnis hekannter Schemetterlinge (23) : 364), which contains three species ^^ith vinetella Fabricius as the type. Argyrodes Guenee is thus an objective synonym of Eucarphia, so the name is not available for a lepi- dopteran genus as proposed by Guenee. The preservation o{ Argyrodes (spiders) through the suppression of Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) is thus advisable for 3 reasons : (1) The contmued ^\idespread usage of Argyrodes in the aranean Uteratm-e (e.g. Bonnet, 1955), owing to non-acceptance of the earher senior homonym. (2) The fact that the generic name is the basis of an available and currently used name of the family-group of names. (3) The uncertainty of what replacement name for Argyrodes (spiders) to adopt, o-ning to disagreement among specialists as to the generic relation of the various generic names in the Argyrodes group. All these difficulties would be removed at once if Argyrodes (Lepidoptera) were suppressed. 2. The problem of Dipoenura Simon (1908, Bull. Sci. France, Belgique 42 : 95) has been well stated by Bonnet (1956, Bibliographia Araneorum 2(2) : 1515) : Simon, en decrivant le genre Dipoenura (1908a, [Bull. sci. France, Belgique 42] p. 95) indique qu'il s'agit de son Dipoena Sect. B de 1894a, [Histoire Naturelle des Araignees, vol. 1] p. 568, qui comprenait les especes pyramidalis, cyclosoides, etc. . . . ; il indique d'autre part que pyramidalis est le type de ce nouveau genre. Or, en 1914, [Les Arachnides de France, vol. 6] p. 297, Simon, passe I'espece pyramidalis dans le genre Theridium, et lui donne le nom de conigerum, a cause du Theridium pyramidale de L. Koch (1867). — D'autre part, Petrunkevitch, 1928b, [Trans. Connecticut Acad. Sci., vol. 29] p. 117, n'ayant sans doute pas repere cette espece pyramidcdis (decrite sous le nom d'Euryopis) attribue comme type au genre Dipoenura la premiere espece nouvelle qui est decrite avec le genre, c'est-a-dire fimbriata. Je ne changerai pas cette designation maintenant qu'elle est ainsi faite par Petrunkevitch, mais il eut ete plus normal de prendre cyclosoides comme type, puisque cette espece est la deuxieme citee par Simon et qu'elle avait une plus grande anciennete. Enfin, le fait que ce genre Dipoenura voit son espece-type passer dans le genre Theridium devrait automatiquement entrainer la synonymic de ces deux genres ; cela n'est pas possible, les deux genres etant diflferents ; il faudrait alors creer un autre terme, mais il est preferable d'admettre que Simon s'etait trompe dans le premier choix de I'espece-type de Dipoenura. Dipoenura species are rare ; the name has been little used. Male and female specimens are known of D. fimbriata from Tonkin, Southeast Asia. Two other species are know^l to belong to the genus, D. cyclosoides (Simon), from Sierra- Leone, West Africa, known only from females, and D. quadrifida Simon also Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature 45 from Tonkin. No other generic names are avaUable for these species. Theridion pyramidale is knowai only from j uveiiile specimens. Their generic affimty is doubtful. It probably belongs to Achaearanea Strand, 1929. If we were to accept the early type designation, T. pyramidale, the large genus Achaearanea Strand, 1929 (containing about 100 species, many common) would become a junior subjective synonym. In addition, smce the type of T. pyramidale is only lmo^^^^ from juveniles, the synonymy would remain doubtful untU additional specimens of the type are found. Also D. cyclosoides Simon, D.fimhnata Simon and D. quadrifida ^^-ould need a ne^v generic name It IS therefore requested that the Commission set aside the early type designation and designate D. fimbriata Simon as type. 3. B. J. Kaston (1946, Amer. Mus. Novitates, no. 1306 : 1) pointed out that Simon (1884, Arachnides de France 5 : 195) incorrectly rejected Ctenium Menge (1871, Schrift. Naturf. Gesell. Danzig 2 : 292), type Erigone pinguis \\estring {^livida. Blackwall), because he thought it preoccupied by Ctenia Lepeletier (1825, Encychpedie Meihodiqne 10 : 650). Simon proposed the name Pedanostethus (1884, Arachnides de France 5 : 195) as replacement for Cteynum Menge. However, Rohertus O. Pickard- Cam bridge (1879 The Spiders of Dorset: 103), tji^e R. astutus 0. Pickard-Cambridge { = R. neglectus O. Pickard-Cambridge) was found to be a senior subjective synonym Between 1884 and 1911 Pedanostethus was generally used for the genus From 1907 to the present time Robertus has been in use in Europe, until Kaston s 1946 paper in North America. At present Robertns is used by European authors. A. Hohn, who has studied the genus, uses Robertus. Wiehle, a specialist in the theridhd^e So 5 f short discussion on names mdicatmg his preference for Robertus (I960, ZooL Jahrbucher Syst. 88 : 237). TuUgren (1949, Ent. Tidskr. 70 : 60) Z^^.T^n^^''*'''^'}^ t'lis name has been used by G. H. Locket and A. F MiUidge {1^53 British Spiders, Roy. Soc, vol. 2). In the U.S. Ctenium has been used m Kaston s revision (cited above) of North American species and m several regional hsts. ^ UniversaUty of use demands that one or the other name be used for the genus. Usage strongly favours Robertus. It is requested therefore that the Lommission use its plenary powers to suppress Ctenium 4. TWoe Simon, (1881, Les Arachnides de France 5 : 130), type-species designated by Simon, 1894 {Histoire Naturelle des Araignees 1 : 589) T^onoe ^lola Simon, 1881 (op^ cit., 5 : 131) includes several uncommon speci" Although preoccupied by Theonoe Phihppi, 1864 (Hemiptera) the name The^noe has always been used for the genus except in Le^^, 1955 (Amer Mus Novitates, no. 1718 .3) where the homonymy was pointed 'out Id the jum^r objective synonym Coressa Simon, 1894 A\-as used «n/ ^"**^%«^,"^q^y to Dr. W. E. Chma, a speciaUst on Hemiptera, was answered as follows : t' , ya-, '' T^^onoespiniger Philippi, 1865, Anahs de la Universidad de Chile. Tct 1 ^" >. ■'" too^'^'P^ (immature stage) of a species of the genus Lep^oglossus Guerin, 1830, and is probably Leptoglossus chilensis Sphiola, Urder Hemiptera, Suborder Heteroptera, Family Coreidae. 46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature " Neave was WTong iii his Nomenclator to attribute the name to the Coleoptera. The name Theonoe has never been used in either Coleoptera or Hemiptera so that no trouble will be caused by suppressing it in favour of Theonoe Simon, 1881, Arachnida. ■' It will be quite in order for you to make an application to the Commission through me, explairdng the position and requesting the suppression of Theonoe PhiHppi, 1865. Pluiippi himself states that it is probably a nymph and his name Theonoe, according to a footnote on p. 654, means a nymph. He likens his nevv^ species T. spiniger, which is type- species by monotypy of Theonoe Phihppi, to Anisoscelis chilensis Spinola, but the species actually belongs to the aUied genus Leptoglossus Guerin, 1830, not to Anisoscelis. The specific name spiniger Phihppi, 1865 (page 655) as pubhshed in the binomen Theonoe spiniger is, and should be declared, a junior synonym of Leptoglossus chilensis Spinola. " Until Theonoe Phihppi, 1865 is suppressed it should be regarded as a junior subjective synonym of Leptoglossus Guerin." The Commission is herewith requested by exercise of its plenary powers to place the name Theonoe Philippi, 1865 (Hemiptera) on the Index of Rejected Generic Names and to place the name Theonoe Simon, 1881 (Araneae) on the Official List of Generic Names. 5. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the generic names Argyrodes Guenee, 1845, and Theonoe Phihppi, 1865, for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (b) to suppress the generic name Ctenium Menge, 1871, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homo- nymy ; (c) to set aside all designations of type-species for the genus Dipoenura Simon, 1908, made prior to the Ruhng now requested and, having done so, to designate Dipoenura fimbriata Simon, 1908, to be the type of that genus. (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Greneric Names in Zoology : (a) Argyrodes Simon, 1864, type-species, by tautonymy, Linyphia argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841 ; (b) Dipoenura Simon, 1908, type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (l)(c) above, Dipoenura fimbriata Simon, 1908; (c) Robertim 0. Pickard- Cambridge, 1879, type-species, by monotypy, Robertus astutiis Pickard-Cambridge, 1879 ; (d) Theonoe Simon, 1881, type-species, by designation by Simon, 1894, Theonoe filiola Simon, 1881 ; (e) Eucarphia Hubner, [1825], tjrpe-species, by designation by Ragonot, 1855, Tinea vinetella Fabricius, 1787 (Lepidoptera). (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 47 (a) argyrodes Walckenaer, 1841, as published in the binomen Linyphia argyrodes (type-species of Argyrodes Simon, 1864) ; (h)fimbriata Simon, 1908, as published in the binomen Dipoenura fimhriata (type-species of Dipoenura Simon, 1908) ; (c) neglectus Pi ckard- Cambridge, 1871, as pubhshed in the binomen Neriene neglectus ; (d)filiola Simon, 1881, as published in the binomen Theonoe filiola- (type-species of Theonoe Simon, 1881) ; (e) vinetella Fabricius, 1787, as pubhshed in the binomen Tinea vinetella (type-species of Eucarphia Hiibner, [1825]) (Lepi- doptera). (4) to place the following generic names as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Argyrodes Guenee, 1845 ; (b) Gtenium Menge, 1871 ; (c) Theonoe Phihppi, 1865. APHIS LINNAEUS, 1758 ; ITS TYPE-SPECIES AND THE FAMILY-GROUP NAME DERIVED FROM IT. Z.N.(S.) 881 (see volume 18, pages 177-180) It is regretted that in the article published under the above title in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, quotations are given from a preliminary draft application to the Commission prepared by Mr. H. L. G. Stroyan, and largely based on notes supplied by Dr. Hille Ris Lambers, overlooking the fact that these authors had intended to submit a definitive joint application at a later date. N. D. RILEY COMMENT By Miriam A. Palmer {Colorado State University, Department of Enfotnologtj, Fort Collins, Colorado, U.S.A.) As to the proposals in items (1), (2) and (3) in paragraph 11 on page 180 concerning the type- species of the genus Aphis and placing the same on the OfiScial List I fully approve. Proposal in (4) : If usage is to be the major consideration and if Linnaeus' apparent error can be followed then obviously aphididae should stand. I think usage is a serious consideration where a radical change is involved which causes confusion and frustration. The change here discussed seems hardly that radical and aphidae is simpler and apparently just as accurately fulfils the linguistic requirements as does aphididae. With Grensted I prefer aphidae. I shall be glad to see this question settled whether it is decided my way or not. 48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature SIGARA ATOM ASIA ILLIGER, 1807 (INSECTA, HETEROPTERA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1482 By T. Jaczewski {Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) The purpose of the present appUcation is to suppress a specific name which has not been used for over 60 years and which has generally been placed as a junior sjTionym of another well-estabhshed name. The latter opinion being, however, apparently insufficiently justified, the name proposed for suppression forms a possible menace to that weU-estabhshed name. 2. In 1807, Ilhger {Fauna Etrusca 2, iterum edita : 354) published the specific name atomaria for a new species oi Sigara Fabricius, 1775 {^Corixa Geofiroy, 1762), in the foUowmg words : "In Algarvia species ilHs duabus [Corixa punctata (Ilhger, 1807) and Sigara striata (Linnaeus, 1758)] intermedia occurit, quam Atomariam nuncupavimus." This passage could be interpreted, from a formal point of \aew, as comprising a kind of rudimentary description of the species, the word " intermedia " referring in this case certainly to the body size. Thus, the specific name atomaria lUiger, 1807, could not be taken for an indisputable nomen nudum and could be held to be available under Art. 12 of the Code. It is of some interest to note in this comiection that in Sherborn, 1922-1932, Index Animxdium 2, the specific name atomaria Ilhger, 1807, has been omitted altogether. As to the taxonomic meanuig of the specific name atomaria, it is highly probable that its author apphed it to the species kno\ra at present under the name Corixa affinis Leach, 1817. 3. The specific name affinis was pubhshed by Leach m 1817 {Trans, linn. Soc. London 12(1) : 18) in the combination Corixa affinis, for a species from Plymouth, England, described by the author as new^. 4. The specific name atomaria was first pubhshed, accompanied by an unquestionable description, by Fieber, 1848 {Bidl. Soc. Nat., Moscou, 21(1/2) : 512, 515-516, 537), in the combmation Corisa atomaria, for a species occurring in Portugal, Italy, Sicily, Cyprus and Egypt. In tliis paper Fieber gave as the author of the specific name Germar, ^v'ithout quotation, however, of a corresponduig publication of Germar. It seems that Germar has never used this name in print, at least not prior to 1848. In 1851 Fieber {Species gen. Corisa: 11, 15-16, 47, 48, pi. 1, fig. 5; also Abh. Konigl. bohm. Ges. Wiss. (5)7, 1852 : 223, 227-228, 259, 260, pi. 1, fig. 5) pu>' ' — --^--ded descrip- tion of the species, adding drawings of the palae and agaun 4uoting Germar as the author of the specific name atomaria. Only in 1861 [1860] did Fieber {Europ. Hemipt. : 92, 399, 425) correctly indicate lUiger as the author of the specific name, this time also, however, without a quotation of the original pubHcation of 1807. 1. The date of publication of the paper of Leach in question is given usually as 1818, but the title-page of part 1 of vol. 12 of the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London bears the date 1817. Bull zool. Notnencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 5. Ill 1865, Douglas & Scott (The British Hemiptem : 595-596) established that the specific name atomaria (lUiger) Fieber, 1848, is a subjective synonym of the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, here again, correctly indicating Ilhger as the original author of the specific name atomaria but without mention of the original pubhcation of the name. 6. Followuig Fieber the specific name atomaria has been used in several important publications by Puton (1869, Cat. Hemipt.-Heteropt. Europe : 39 ; 1875, Cat. Hemipt. Europe (ed. 2) : 54 ; 1880, Syn. Hemipt.-Heteropt. France 3 : 221-222 ; 1886, Cat. Hemipt. faun, palearct. (ed. 3) : 65) and by Saunders (1892, Hemipt. Heteropt. Brit. Is. : 331, 333-334). Puton and Saimders in the above pubUcations both quoted lUiger as the author of the specific name atomaria, probably considering it, however, to be a manuscript name and assuming it to have been first pubUshed by Fieber in 1848 (cf. Kirkaldy, 1897, Entom. 30 : 259, 260). 7. In 1880 {op. cit. : 222) Puton also expressed the opinion that Corisa atomaria (Ilhger) and Corisa panzeri Fieber, 1848 {op. cit. : 515, 537) were conspecific. This opinion was subsequently accepted by other authors (e.g. Saunders, 1892, op. cit. : 333), and in 1897, Khkaldy {op. cit. : 259, 260) stated the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, to be the vahd name of the species thus conceived. This view also found expression in the well-known catalogues published in that period by Puton (1899, Cat. Hemipt. faun, palearct. (ed. 4) : 81) and by Oshanm (1906-1909, Verz. palaearkt. Hemipt. 1 : 979-980 ; 1912, Katal. paldarkt. Hemipt. : 91) as well as in the key published by Kuhlgatz (1909, Rhynchota in Die Siisswasserfauna Deutschlands 7 : 87, 91, fig. 78) much in use at that time. 8. In 1927, Jaczewski {Pol. Pismo Ent., Lwow, 5 : 121-126, 4 figs.) followuig Butler (1923, A Biology of the Brit. Hemipt. Heteropt. : 574r-577, 670-671) showed definitely that Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, and Corixa panzeri (Fieber, 1848) are two completely different species. This fomid general acceptance and since that time the former of the above two species is to be found in the hemipterological hterature under the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, in particular in such modern standard works as Stichel, 1925-1938 {Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der deutschen Wanzen : 312, 313, 331, 364-365, figs. 732-735), Jordan, 1935 {in Guide, Die Wanzen Mitteleuropas 12 : 97, 99, figs.), Macan, 1939 {A Key to the British Species of Corixidae, Freshwater Biol. Assoc, Sci. Publ. 1:8, 22), Chuia, 1943 {The Generic Names of British Insects (8): 282, 305), Stichel, 1955 {Illustrierte Bestimmungstabellen der Wanzen, II, Europa 1 : 52, 53, 98, figs. 60-63), Macan, 1956 {A Revised Key to the British Water Bugs, Ft. water Biol. Assoc, Sci. Publ. 16 : 41, 65), Poisson, 1957 {Hetero- pteres aquatiques, Faune de France 61 : 66, 70-71, fig. 42), South wood & Le.ston, 1959 {Land and Water Bxigs of the British Isles : 380, 382), etc. It should be recalled that Corixa affinis Leach is a species weU known in zoo- geography as a tj'pical Mediterranean species widely distributed over south and south-western Europe, north Africa and south-west Asia, ranging from the British Isles and the Canary Islands in the west to the Central Asiatic Repubhcs of the USSR, Kashmir, Pakistan and Arabia in the east. Resuscitation of the long disused specific name atomaria Ilhger, 1807, which has a merely formal 50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and, ill a sense, "' poor " availability, would, if allowed to supplant affinis Leach, cause only unnecessary confusion in nomenclature and would impair stability. 9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name atomaria, lUiger, 1807, as pubhshed in the binomen Sigara atomaria, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the specific name affinis Leach, 1817, as pubhshed in the binomen Corixa affinis Leach, 1817, on the Ofiicial List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name atomaria lUiger, 1807, as published in the binomen Sigara atomaria (as suppressed under the plenarj'^ powers in (1) above) on the Official Lidex of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology. The generic name Corixa GeofFroy, 1762, has already been placed on the Official List in Opinion 281 {Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 6, 1954 : 205-224). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF EIGHT SPECIFIC NAMES OF TURTLES. Z.N.(S.) 1459 (see volume 18, pages 211-213) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The proposal is in every specific respect in accord with the objective of nomenclatural stability embraced by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. It may be pointed out that every name that would otherwise be replaced is in wide use in zoology and not in taxonomy alone. Furthermore, failure of suppression of viridi -squamosa Lacepede, 1788, and miraorSuckow, 1798, would not only require a substitute for kempii Garman, 1880, but that substitute would become the specific name for the Ridley turtle, long known as olivacea Eschscholtz, 1829, if as is common practice all forms of Lepidochelys are regarded as belonging to a single species. COiMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PANOPEA M6NARD DE LA GROYE, 1807. .N.(S.) 1049 (see volume 18, pages 184-188) By R. K. Dell (Dominion Museum, Wellington, New Zealand) 1 support the application by Dr. H. E. Vokes and Dr. L. R. Cox for the use of the plenary powers to place Panopea Menard de la Groye, Cyrtodaria Reuss, Glycymeris Da Costa, Pectunculus Da Costa and Axinaea Poli on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology and for the conse- quent placing of specific, generic and family names on appropriate Official Lists. Both the name Panopea and Glycymeris are in common use by New Zealand workers in the sense used in the above application. Revival of the name Olycimeris Lamarck would cause untold confusion and should be avoided. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 51 DROMIA WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) . PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1488 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) When checking the nomenclatural status of the currently adopted names for Mediterranean Decapoda, it was found that in several instances these current names are unavailable nomenclaturaUy or should be used for taxa differing from those to which they are usually given. The first of these problems is dealt with here ; it concerns the generic name Dromia and the specific name of the only Dromiid crab which so far has been reported from the Mediterranean. 2. The generic name Dromia was introduced mto carcinological hterature by Weber (1795, Nomencl. entomol. : 92) who cited several species as belongmg to this genus, viz., " Dromia Rumphii (C. Dromia F.) ", D. " artificiosa S.", D. " australasiae (C. aegagropila F.) ", and D. " Caput mortuum L.? ". Of these four species D. artificiosa is a nomen nudum and D. caputmortuum is only doubtfully referred to the genus by Weber. Therefore the type of Dromia Weber must be chosen from the two species D. Rumphii or D. australasiae. Smce Weber cited the name Cancer Dromia F. as a synonym of D. Rmnphii, that species becomes the type of the genus by tautonymy. Cancer dromia Fabricms, 1781 {Spec. Ins. 1 : 501) is an erroneous speUing of Cancer Dormia Lmnaeus, 1763 (Amoen. Acad. 6 : 413). In 1775, Fabricius {Syst. ent. : 405) stm used the correct speUing dormia for the specific name, but changed it m 1781 to dromia and consistently used the incorrect spelhng afterwards. However this may be, there cannot be the least doubt that according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature Cancer dormia Luinaeus, 1763, is the type- species of the genus Dromia Weber, 1795. 3. As has been pointed out by Rathbun (1923, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 36 : 65-70) the species Cancer dormia is based by Lmnaeus on the figures of " Cancer Lanosus " of Rumphius (1705, Amboinsche Rariteitkamer : 19, pi. 11, fig. 1) and Seba (1761, Locuplet. Rerum Nat. Thesaur. 3 : 42, pi. 18, fig. 1). Rathbun furthermore made it clear that the specimens of Rumphius and Seba do not belong to the genus Dromia as this is at present generally understood, but to the genus Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900 (Proc. zool. Soc. Lo7id. 1900 : 572). Rathbun thereupon used the name Dromidiopsis dormia (L.) for Lmnaeus's species, obviously without reaUzing that this species, being the type of the genus Dromia Weber, cannot be removed from it. 4. A strict apphcation of the Code now necessitates (1) the transfer of the generic name Dromia to the genus Dromidiopsis so that Dromidiopsis faUs as a jumor synonym, (2) the introduction of a new name for the genus which so far has always been known as Dromia. The switching of a generic name Butt. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomeiiclature from one weil-known genus to another is something which should be avoided at all costs, and therefore the Commission is now asked to make use of its plenary powers to preserve the name Dromia in such a way that it can be used in the sense in wliich so far it has always been adopted. The simplest way to attain this end is to designate for it a proper type-species, which in this case is the Mediterranean Dromiid, which is best kno«Ti as Dromia vulgaris H. Milne Edwards, 1837. 5. The correct name of this Mediterranean species also provides some comphcations. It is usually mdicated as Dromia vulgaris H. IMUne Edwards (1837, Hist. nut. Crust. 2 : 173), but as Rathbun (1919, Proc. biol. Soc. Washing- ton 32 : 197) pomted out, the name Cancer caput mortuum Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1050) was given by Linnaeus to the same species and has priority. Rathbun consequently indicated the Mediterranean species with the name Dromia cap^it mortuum (L.). As a result of this another Dromiid name had to be changed. H. Mihie Edwards (1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178), for example, described a new species of Indo-West Pacific Dromiid under the name Dromia caput mortuum ; this species was later placed in the genus Dromidiopsis and was knowTi as Dromidiopsis caputmortuum (H. IVIilne Edwards). Rathbun (1919) replaced the preoccupied name caputmortmim H. MUne Edwards by a new name ; she gave the name Dromidiopsis edwardsi to the species. 6. In checking the early Linnean and post-Linnean hterature we found that Cancer caputmortuum is not the first name given to the Mediterranean Dromiid. Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628), for example, described his Cancer personatus as foUows : C[ancer]. brachyurus, thorace hirto inaequah utrinque quinquedentato, rostro quadridentato. Plane, conch. 36. t. 5./. 1. Habitat in M. Mediterraneo. Testa magnitudine pomi, rubra, uti totum corpus hirta. Rostrum bidentatum cum dente ad utrumque latus breviore. Seta utrinque ad basin caudae. Pedes duo postici quasi supra reliquos collocati. 7. The specimen described and figured hy Plancus (1739, De Conchis minus notis : 36, pi. 5, fig. 1) under the name " Cancer hirsvtvs personatvs maris Svperi, vvlgo Facchino Ariminensibvs dictvs " \\ithout any doubt is the species which at present is best known as Dorippe lanata (L., 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1044). Liiuiaeus's description of Cancer personatus, ho\\ever, in no way fits Dorippe lanata, as that species has the body rather flat (so that a comparison Avith an apple would be senseless), and Anth only two instead of five teeth on the lateral margin. The description, on the contrary leaves no doubt that it actually is based on a specimen of Dromia, as in the Mediterranean Dromia the body is highly arched and indeed could well be compared with an apple, the lateral margins of the carapace bear five teeth, while also the description of the rostrum, the hairyness of the body and the situation of the legs fit extremely well. In the 12th edition of his Systema Naturae (1767) Linnaeus evidently realized that two species were mixed up imder the name personatus and he erected the new Cancer lanatus to include Plancus's species, and omitted the reference to Plancus in his description of Cancer personatus, to which he Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 53 added a few more characters. For some reason or other the name personatus has been ignored by later authors. 8. As Linnaeus's Cancer personatus is a composite species, it would be best to select as its lectotype the specimen on which Linnaeus based his actual description. This specimen, however, is no longer extant. In the Linnean Collection in Burlmgton House, London, there are several dried and often broken specimens of Decapod Crustacea, which have no labels or other markings. During a vist to the collection in June 1956, Dr. Isabella Gordon and I found among these dried Decapoda two specimens of a Dromiid, which at first we thought might have possibly formed part of the tj^e material of Cancer personatus. However, Dr. Gordon informed me later (in a letter dated 4 October 1957) that " according to ]\Ii\ Savage (who was for many years paid secretary to the Luinean Society, and very knowledgeable about every- thing belonging to tlie Society) these broken Decapods mthout any labels of any kind, are not part of Linnaeus's material ". Also in the collection of the Zoological Institute in Uppsala, Sweden, no material of Cancer personatus is found in the Lumean Collections (cf. Holm, 1957, Acta Univ. Upsal. 1957 (6) : 1-68). Therefore it must be assumed that no type material of Cancer personatus L. is in existence anjinore. In order definitely to fix the identity of Linnaeus's Cancer personatus it seems necessary to select a neotype for that species. 9. As the neotype of Cancer personatus Linnaeus (1758) I now select a male specimen with a carapace length of 51 mm. and a carapace breadth of 63 mm., of which a photograph is given here on plate 3. The carapace is globose mth the regions clearly indicated and not too much obscured by the dense velvety pubescence which covers the entire body but for the extreme tips of the chelae and the walking legs. The front is tridentate with the median tooth on a much lower level [why it was overlooked by Linnaeus]. There is a small tooth on each orbital margin at the base of the front. The anterolateral teeth of the carapace are five in number (including the extra- orbital tooth) ; there is an angular lobe behind the third and a rounded lobe behind the fourth tooth. The endostomial ridges are not very distinct. The chelipeds bear each an epipodite. The pereiopods are smooth. The fourth and fifth legs are shorter than the other pereiopods and placed more dorsaUy ; they have a spine at the end of the propodus which forms a kind of subchela with the dactylus. The fifth leg is somewhat longer and more slender than the fourth. 10. The specimen selected here to be the neotjrpe of Cancer personatus L. was collected on 13 August 1950 in the Bay of Cadaques on the Mediterranean coast of N.E. Spain, by R. Zariquiey Alvarez and L. B. Holthuis. It now forms part of the collection of the Rijksmuseum van NatuurUjke Historie at Leiden, under the Registered Number Crustacea D 5425. It is labelled as the neotype of Cancer personatus L. and apart from this indication the parch- ment label bears the correct name Dromia personata (L.) and the information concerning locality, date, collectors and registered number mentioned above. 1 1 . The use of the name personatus for the Mediterranean Dromiid has the advantages that (1) it is the nomenclaturaUy correct name for the species, 54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) being described in the 10th edition of Linnaeus's Systema Naturae it can never be replaced by an older name, (3) it does away with the ambiguous name caputmortuum which has been emploj^ed for two different species of Dromiidae. The fact that two different names {vulgaris and caputmortuum) were currently used for the Mediterranean Dromiid makes it the more justifiable to switch to a third name. It seems best therefore to apply the Code here strictly. 12. As the generic name Dorippe Weber, 1795, has several times been referred to in the present proposal, it seems best to have this name placed on the Official List together with the name Dromia Weber. However, there exists a nomenclatural problem concerning this name. In 1763, for example, A. Vosmaer {Mem. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635-645, pi. 18) pubhshed a paper entitled " Memoire sur un nouveau genre de Crabes de mer (Notogastropus), qui a des pattes sur le dos & sous le ventre ". The name Notogastropus is only used in the title and nowhere in the text. Vosmaer brought two forms to this " genus ", the fii-st was named by him " la premiere sorte " the other " le second crabe ", no latin names being given. Vosmaer's first species is Dorippe frascone (Herbst), the second Dorippe lanata (L.). The name Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, if an available name, thus would have to be used for the genus which is universally kno^vn as Dorippe Weber, 1795. Evidently most authors considered Vosmaer's pubUcation of Notogastropus to be not consistent with binominal nomenclature and therefore ignored it ; I know of not a single carcinologist who actually did adopt the name Noto- gastropus for tliis or any other genus. On the other hand, however, the name is hsted in Neaves's (1940) Nomenclator Zoologicus (3 : 354). Article ll(c)(i) of the Code states that " Uninominal names published prior to 1931, in works that deal only with, names above the species-group, are accepted as consistent with the principles of binominal nomenclature, in the absence of evidence to the contrary ". Vosmaer not only dealt with a generic name, but he also mentioned specific names. The latter were not cited by him in binominal combinations, but were treated as uninominal names. Thus, in his text (:641) Vosmaer cited the Linnean species Cancer personatus and Cancer dorsipes as " le personatus " and " xm dorsipes " respectively, not using binomina here. In citing other authors he on several occasions used uninomina (" le facchino " : 639, 640, 645), binomina (" cancer hirsutus " : 641 ; " cancer spinosus de Rumphius " : 644) and polynomina (" Cancer hirsutus personatus maris superi, vulgo Facchino Ariminensibus dictum " : 639), but there is no indication that he accepted these names himself. As Vosmaer deals both with specific and generic names and since there is no indication whatever that he accepts the binominal system, his name Notogastropus according to Article 11 has to be rejected. This name should now be placed on the Official Index. In 1765 a Dutch translation of Vosmaer's paper was pubhshed {Uitgez. Verh. Werken Soc. Weetensch. Europ. 10 : 119-135, pi. 64, figs. 1, 2) ; here the name of the " genus " is written Noto-gastropus. Also this name should be placed on the Index. 13. The tjrpe-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793, is usually cited as Dorippe dorsipes (L.). This practice, however, cannot be tolerated. It was Miers (1884, Re;p. zool. Coll. Alert ; 257) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 who pointed out that the species described as Cancer dorsipes by Linnaeus (1764, Mus. Ludov. Ulr. : 452) is identical with Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793. Miers consequentl}'^ substituted Linnaeus's specific name for that of Fabricius and named the species Dorippe dorsipes (L.). In his 1764 book, however, Linnaeus did not describe a new species, but referred the material of which he gave a short account to his old species Cancer dorsipes L., 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630). Cancer dorsipes L., 1758, is based on a figure from Rumphius's Amboinsche Rariteitkamer (1705 : pi. 10, fig. 3) and on a copy of that figure pubUshed by Petiver (1713, Aquat. Anim. Amboinae : pi. 6, fig. 2). Rumphius's specimen thus is the holotype of Linnaeus's (1758) Cancer dorsipes (or, in case Linnaeus had additional material which he referred to that species, it is made here the lectotype). As is clearly shown by Rumphius's figure, this specimen belongs to the species of Raninid crabs, which at present is generally known as Notopus dorsipes (L., 1758). There can therefore be not the slightest doubt as to the fact that the specific name dorsipes L. cannot be used for the species of Dorippe : either Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1764, is not a new name and thus belongs to the species of Notopus, or it is a new name and then falls as a junior homonym of Cancer dorsipes Linnaeus, 1758. As Miers (1884, Rep. zool. Coll. Alert : 257) correctly pointed out, the name Cancer frascone Herbst (1785) is a subjective synonj^m of and has priority over Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793. The type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, 1795, thus should be kno^\Ti as Dorippe frascone (Herbst, 1785). 14. Dromia is the tjrpe-genus of the family DROivniDAE, while Dorippe is the tjjpe-genus of the family dorippidae. Both family names should now be entered in the Official List. The genus Notopus De Haan, 1841, which now also is proposed for insertion in the Official List, is currently regarded as belonging to the family raninid ae. 15. The concrete proposals now placed before the Commission are that they should : (1) use their plenary powers : (a) to set aside all tjrpe designations and selections for the genus Dromia Weber, 1795, made prior to the proposed ruling ; and having done so (b) to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, as defined by the neotype selection made in the present appUcation ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Dorippe (gender: feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 93 (type-species, by selection by Latreille, 1810 (Consid. gen. Crust. Arachn. Ins. : 96, 422) : Cancer quadridens Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 464 (a subjective junior synonym of the name Cancer frascone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Natxirgesch. Krabben Krebae 1(6) : 192) ; (h) Dromia (gender: feminine) Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 92 (type-species, designated under the plenary powers in (1 )(b) above : Cancer personatus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 628) ; 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) Dromidiopsis (gender: feminine) BorradaUe, 1900, Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 1900: 572 (type-species, by monotypy: Dromiaaustraliensis Haswell, 1882, Proc. linn. Soc. New S. Wales 6(4) : 755) ; (d) Notopus (gender: masculine) De Haan, 1841, Fauna Japon. Crust. (5): 137, 138, 139 (type-species, by monotypy : Cancer dorsipes Liimaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 630) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) australiensis Haswell, 1882, as pubUshed in the combination Dromia australiensis (name of the type-species of the genus Dromidiopsis Borradaile, 1900) ; (b) dormia Linnaeus, 1763, Amoenit. Acad. 6 : 413, as published in the combination Cancer dormia ; (c) dorsipes Limiaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Cancer dorsipes (name of the type-species of the genus Notopns De Haan, 1841) ; (d)frascone Herbst, 1785, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(6) : 192, as published in the combination Cancer frascone (oldest available name for the type-species of the genus Dorippe Weber, 1795) ; (e) lanatus Lmnaeus, 1767, Stjst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1044, as pubUshed in the combmation Cancer lanatus ; (f) personatus Linnaeus, 1758, as pubUshed m the combination Cancer personatus (the name of the tj^e-species of the genus Dromia Weber, 1795, as designated under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above) ; (4) place on the Official List of Family- Group Names in Zoology the following names : (a) DOKiPPiDAE (emendation by White, 1847 {List. Crust. Brit. Mus. : 53) of dorippidea) De Haan, 1841, Fauna Japon. Crust. (5) : 120 (type-genus : Dorippe Weber, 1795) ; (b) DKOMnDAE (emendation by Ortmann, 1892 (Zool. Jb. Syst. 6 : 543) of dromiacea) De Haan, 1833, Fauna Japon. Crust. (1) : ix (type-genus : Dromia Weber, 1795) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Generic Names in Zoology the foUoTving names : (a) Dorippe Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 322, 361 (a junior homonym and a junior objective synonym of Dorippe Weber, 1795) ; (b) Dromia Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 320, 359 (a junior homonym of Dromia Weber, 1795) ; (c) Notogastropus Vosmaer, 1763, Mem. Math. Phys. Acad. Sci. Paris 4 : 635 (a name pubUshed in a non-binominal work) ; (d) Noto-gastropusYosmaeT, 1765, Uitgez. Verh. WerkenSoc. Weetensch. Eur op. 10 : 119 (a name pubUshed in a non-binominal work) ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology the foUowing names : Bull. zool. XomencL, Vol. 19 Plate 3 ^;< ytf^ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57 (a) caputmortuum H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 178, as published in the combination Dramia caputmortuum (an invalid junior secondary homonym of caputmortuum Lumaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1050, as published in the combina- tion Cancer caputmortuum ; rejected on grounds of homonjony by Rathbun, 1919, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 32 : 197) ; {h)dromia Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 1 : 501, as published in the combination Cancer dromia (an erroneous spelling of the name dormia Linnaeus, 1763, Amoenit. Acad. 6 : 413, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer dormia) ; (7) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names : (a) DORiPPiDEA De Haan, 1841 (an incorrect original spelling of dorippidae) ; (b) DORiPPiENS H. IVIilne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 151 (a vernacular (French) name) ; (c) DROMiACEA De Haan, 1833 (an incorrect original speUing of dromi- idae) ; (d) DROinENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. ruit. Crust. 2 : 168 (a vernacular (French) name). Explanation of Plate 3 Cancer personatus Limiaeus, 1758 Neotype designated by Holthuis (L.B.) in the application submitted by him to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (: 51-57) in the present volume. Photograph H. F. Roman. 58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PARTHENOPE FABRICIUS, 1798, AND LAMBRUS LEACH, 1815; PROPOSED VALIDATION BY THE SUPPRESSION OF PARTHENOPE WEBER, 1795 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.(S.)1487 By L. B. Holthuis [Rijksmusexmi van Nat^iurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) Like several previous applications, the present one is concerned with a serious confusion in carcinological nomenclature caused by the rediscovery of F. Weber's (1795) booklet " Nomenclator entomologicus secundum Ento- mologiam systematicam iU. Fabricii adjectis speciebus recens detectis et varietatibus ", by M. J. Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 169- 172). In liis book Weber pubLshed several generic names which he took from the, at that time, unpublished manuscript of Fabricius's Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae, which did not appear till 1798. As these generic names in many instances were accompanied m W^eber's book by the names of described species, they gained availabihty through their pubhcation by Weber. As Weber often included in these genera species different from those which were later placed in them by Fabricius, several very intricate and confusing cases of homonymy and synonymy arose. The names proposed by Fabricius for example have been generally adopted by later authors, while the older names of Weber have been enthely ignored. AVeber's names, being either senior homo - nyms or senior synonyms of those of Fabricius, invahdated the latter in many instances (e.g., Alpheits, Ligia, Idotea, Euryala, Crangon). Also the name Partheiiope falls in this category. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to use their plenary powers to vahdate the more commonly used name. 2. The references to the generic names dealt with in the present proposal are : Lambrus Leach, 1815, Trans, linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 310. Gender: mascuHne. Type-species, by monotypy : Cancer longimanus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629.^ Parthenope Weber, 1795, Nomencl. entomol. : 92. Gender : feminine. Type- species, selected by Rathbun, 1904 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 170, 171) : Cancer hngimamis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629. Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 315, 352. Gender : feminine. Type-species, selected by H. IVIilne Edwards, 1837, Cuvier's Regm Animal (Discip. ed.) 18 : pi. 26, fig. 2 : Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 629. Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904, Proc. biol Soc. Washington 17: 171. Gender : feminine. Type-species, by monotypy: Cancer horridus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.lO) 1 : 629. 3. Before 1904 the name Parthenoj)e Fabricius was always employed for the genus containing the species Cancer horridus L., while the genus containing C. longimanus L. was indicated by the name Lambrus Leach. As at the time of its original pubhcation the genus Parthenope Weber, 1795, did not include BuU. zool. Nomencl., VoL 19, Part 1. February, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 the species Cancer horridus L., that species could not become its type and it could not be made a synonjan of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798. Rathbun's (1904) action in selectmg Ca7icer loiigimanus L. to be the type of Parthenope Weber therefore was perfectly justified. Now, however, Parthenope Weber, 1795, invahdated both Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815,' by becoming a senior homonym of the one and a senior synonym of the' other.' Rathbun (1904) proposed the new name Daldorfia as a replacement name for Parthenope Fabricius. 4. Practically all European authors ignored the changes proposed by Miss Rathbun and they continued to use the names Parthenope Fabricius and Lamhriis Leach in the old sense. These names are still used, and may be found in all monographic accounts deahng ^dth the Brachyura of European, African and Indo-West Pacific seas, Hke that by Bouvier (1940, Faune de France. 37 : 308-314) for the French coast, by Nobre (1936, Fauna marinha Portugal 4 : 84-86) for Portugal, by Zariquiey Alvarez (1946, Publ. Biol. Medit. Inst. Esp. Est. Medit. 2 : 166-168) for the Mediterranean coast of Spain, bv Monod (1956, Mem. Inst. Fran<:. ^p: Noire 45 : 571-597) for West Africa, by Barnard (1950, Ann. S.Afr. Mm. 38 : 63-66) for S. Africa, by Fhpse (1930, Siboga Exped. 39(c2) : 1-96) for the entire Indo-West Pacific area, by Stephensen (1945, Danish sci. Invest. Iran 4 : 111-113) for the Persian Gulf, by Sakai (1938, Studies Crabs Japan 3 : 328-341) for Japan, and Shen (1932 Zool Sinica (ser. A) 9(1) : 41^5) for N. China, wlijle also Balss (1957, Broim's Klass. Ordn. Tierr. (ed. 2) 5(1)(7)(12) : 1629-1631) used these names in his fundamental treatise on the Decapoda. These authors are followed by practic- ally all non- American authors who studied the crabs of the regions mentioned though there are exceptions (e.g., Sendler, 1923, Abh. Senckenb. natnrf. Ges'. 38 : 41 ; Urita, 1926, Checklist Brachyura Kagoshima : 29 ; Buitendijk 1939 Temminckia^ : 265,266). The names i)«7(io,;/ia Rathbun, 1904, and Parthenope Weber, 1795, are used by most American authors, notably by Rathbun (1925 Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 129 : 510-530) in her monograph on the Spider Ci-abs of America, and Garth (1958, Allan Hancock Pacif. Exped. 21(1) : 432^58) m his fundamental revision of the Brachyura Oxyrhyncha of the Pacific coast of America. Also the American authors dealing with the Indo-West Pacific fauna, like Rathbun and Edmondson in several pubhcations, used the ''American " nomenclature. 5. Though the "American " nomenclature has been adopted throughout in the hterature deahng ^^-ith the American fauna and is also used m publications on the Indo-West Pacific fauna by American and a few European authors there can be little doubt that the hterature using the " European " nomen- clature IS far more extensive, even if only the hteratiu-e pubUshed since 1904 IS taken into account. This is perhaps due to the fact that m European and Indo-"V\est Pacific seas the species of parthenopidae are more common and more easy to collect than m American waters. 6. Notwithstanding the fact that it does not seem right to let those carcino- lo^sts who kept strictly to the Rules pay the penalty for obe>Tng the law, I beUeve that it is in the interest of the stabihty and uniformity of carcino- logical nomenclature to ask the Commission to suppress under their plenary 00 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature powers the generic name Parthenope Weber, 1795, and so to make the " Euro- pean " nomenclature the legal one. 7. Both genera dealt with here are currently considered to belong to the family parthenopidae. It is suggested that this family name be placed on the appropriate Offiicial List. 8. The Commission is now asked to: — (1) use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and that of Homonymy the generic name Parthenope Weber, 1795; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Lambrus Leach, 1815 ; (b) Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) horridvrS Linnaeus, 1758, as pubUshed in the combination Cancer horridus (the name of the type-species of the genus Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) longimanus Limiaeus, 1758, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer longimanus (the name of the type-species of the genus Lambrus Leach, 1815) ; (4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the family name parthenopidae (correction by Bell (1844, Hist. Brit, stalk-eyed Crust. (1) : 45, 46) of parthenopina) Macleay, 1838, Smith's Illustr. Zool. S. Afr. (Invert) : 55. (Type-genus Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Generic Names in Zoology the following names : (a) Daldorfia Rathbun, 1904 (an objective junior synonym of Parthe- nope Fabricius, 1798) ; (b) Parthenope Weber, 1795 (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above). (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the name parthenopina Macleay, 1838 (type- genus : Parthenope Fabricius, 1798) an Invalid Original Spelling for parthenopidae). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 EURYALA WEBER, 1795, AND CORY ST E8 LATREILLE, [1802- 1803] (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) ; PROPOSED ACTION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS Z.N.{S.) 1486 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to use its plenary powers in order to save the well-known and widely used name Corystes Latreille for a European genus of crabs by suppressing its senior objective synonym Euryala Weber, an ignored name. The references to the two genera are : Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 3 : 27. Gender : masculine. Type-species, by monotypy : Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Sysf. 2 : 475 (an objective junior synonym of Cancer cassivelminus Pemiant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4)4 : 6). Euryala, Weber, 1795, Nomencl. Entomol. : 94. Gender : feminine. Type- species, by monotypy : Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 2 : 475 (an objective junior synonym of Cancer cassivelaunus Permant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 6). 2. The monotypic genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803], which inhabits the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts of Europe south of the Kattegat, should under a strict apphcation of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature be known as Euryalu Weber, 1795. The two genera have the same type-species and thus are objectively s^oionymous. The first author who pointed out that Euryala is the correct name for the genus was Rathbun (1904, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 17 : 171) who in her well-known paper " Some changes in Crustacean Nomenclature " reintroduced several of Weber's Crustacean generic names which imtil then had been overlooked, and which upon this rediscovery became the cause of much nomenclatural instability. 3. Though there coiild be no doubt about the fact that Euryala is the valid name for the genus, the European carcinologists refused to accept it and until this day continue to indicate the genus with the name Corystes. Thus, Bouvier (1940, Faune de France 37 : 217) in his important treatise on the French Decapoda Reptantia mentioned Euryala as a synonym of Corystes, but used the latter name. Baiss (1957, Bronn's Klass. Ordn. Tierr. (ed. 2) 5(1)(7)(12) : 1634) in his fundamental account of the Decapoda stated under Corystes : " der von Rathbun, 1930 ausgegrabene Name Euryala Weber, 1795 A%ird besser nicht verwendet ". These two examples illustrate very well the feeling about this name among European carcinologists ; I do not knoAv of any European handbook in which the name Euryala is used. 4. As the genus does not occur in American waters, and as the followers of Rathbun as a rule were mostly found among American carcinologists, the name Euryala has hardly ever been used in carcinological Uterature. The Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 62 Bidletin of Zoological Nomenclature family name based on tliis genus, euryalidae, is found more often as this family does occur in America. So in her important monograph of the Cancroid Crabs of America, Rathbun (1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 152 : 10) did use the name euryalidae, being followed in this by American authors. In European Uterature, however, the name corystidae is practically mianimously accepted. 5. There can be no doubt that usage is overwhelmingly in favour of the name Corystes, this name having been used now practically consistently for more than 150 years, while Euryala has hardly ever been employed at all, notAvithstanding it is now about 50 years since its vaUdity was demonstrated. Therefore it is clearly in the interest of nomenclatorial stability to have the name Corystes vaUdated under the plenary powers of the Commission, even though the species has no economic value and is not important for applied biology. The suppression of the name Euryala will not cause any compUcations. 6. In the original description of Hippa dentata, the type-species of both Corystes and Euryala, Fabricius (1793) gave a rather vague description and a reference to Pennant's Cancer cassivelaunus . As the identity of the material that Fabricius had before him cannot be positively determined (if it actually does originate from the Indo-West Pacific area as may be impUed from the original account, it may be no Corystes at all), I now select as lectotype of Hippa dentata Fabricius, 1793, the male specimen figured by Pennant (1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) : pi. 7 lower figure) under the name Cancer cassivelaunus. This same specimen is now also selected to be the lectotype of Cancer cassive- launus Pennant, 1777. By these actions Hippa dentata Fabr., 1793, and Cancer cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, become objectively s5Tionymous. 7. Summarizing, the Commission is now asked : (1) to use their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, the generic name Euryala Weber, 1795 ; (2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] ; (3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name cassivelaunus Peimant, 1777, as published in the combination Cancer cassivelaunus (name of the type-species of the genus Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803]) ; (4) to place on the Official List of Family Group Names in Zoology the name corystidae Samouelle, 1819, Entomol. usef. Compend. : 82 (type- genus : Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803]) ; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Euryala Weber, 1795, as suppressed in (1) above ; (6) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name dentata Fabricius, 1793, as pubUshed in the com- bination Hippa dentata (an objective junior synonym of cassivelaunus Pennant, 1777, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer cassivelaunus) ; (7) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family Group Names in Zoology the name euryalidae Rathbun, 1910, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 38 : 576. Type-genus Euryala Weber, 1795 (a genus placed on the Official Index in (5) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 CERATI0CARI8 M'COY. 1849 (CRUSTACEA, ARCHAEOSTRACA) • PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NA3IEs' Z.N.(S.) 1489 By W. D. Ian Rolfe (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to request that the nominal genus Ceratiocaris (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) be placed on the Official List of Generic Names m Zoology, and to insure the suppression of the nominal genus Leptocheles in accordance with the Principle of the Fhst Reviser. 2. The nominal genus Ceratiocaris was estabhshed by M'Coy in 1849 (: 412) for the carapace of two nominal species : C. solenoides and C. ellipticus. 3. Earher in the same paper (: 3-4) M'Coy estabhshed a nommal subgenus Leptocheles of the genus Pterygotus Agassiz for what he considered to be the didactyle pmcers " of a separate crustacean. 4. Barrande (1853 : 341-342) demonstrated that these '^ pincers " were only the trifid tailpiece of Ceratiocaris and that it was therefore legitimate " den Namen Leptocheles als iiberfliissig ansehen ". 5. In accordance with Article 28 and mth the Principle of the Fhst Reviser (1953, Copenhagen Decisions zool. Nomencl. : 66-67, Decisions 123-124), there- fore It IS clear that Ceratio^ris as selected by Barrande stands in preference to Leptocheles which has page precedence. 6. With the few exceptions hsted by Van Straelen and Schmitz (1934 • 244) Barrande s selection has led to universal acceptance of the genus Ceratiocaris and It IS proposed that this name be placed on the Official List. 7 The family name ceratiocaridae based on Ceratiocaris M'Coy 1849 was formed incorrectly by Salter (1860 : 162) and should be corrected to CERATIOCARIDIDAE. 8. In view of the above facts, I recommend that the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) place the generic name Ceratiocaris M'Coy, 1849 (gender: femkiine) type by subsequent designation by Miller, 1889 (: 537), Ceratiocaris ■solenoides M'Coy, 1849 (to be given precedence over Leptocheles M Coy, 1849, by the action of Barrande, 1853, as First Reviser) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (2) place the specific name solenoides M'Coy, 1849, as pubhshed m the iSo^^u ^^'■*'*'^^«''*'* solenoides (type-species of Ceratiocaris M'Coy, 1849) (holotype in Sedgwick Museum, Cambridge =b/41) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (3) place the family name ceratiocarididae (correction of ceratiocaridae) Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratiocaris M'Coy, 1849) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (4) place the family name ceratiocaridae Salter, 1860 (type-genus Ceratio. cans M'Coy, 1849) (an invahd original spelling for ceratiocarididae) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology. BuU. zool. Normnd., Vol. 19, Part 1. February, 1962. 64 Biilletin of Zoological Nomenclature References Barrande, J., 1853, Wiederholung der Silur-Fauna Bohmens in Wisconsin und New York nach D. D. Owen und J. Hall ; iiber Dithyocaris m.l. Hlzschn. N. Jahrb. Min. Geol. Paldont., Jahrg. 1853 : 335-347. M'Coy, F., 1849. On the classification of some British Fossil Crustacea, with Notices of new Forms in the University Collection at Cambridge. Ann. Mag. tmt. Hist. (2)4 : 161-179, 392-414. Miller, S. A., 1889. North American Geology and Palaeontology for the use of amateurs, students and scientists. Cincinnati. Salter, J. W., 1860. On new Fossil Crustacea from the Silurian Rocks. Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 5 : 153-162. Van Straelen, V., and Schmitz, G., 1934. Crustacea PhyUocarida (=Archae- ostraca). Fossilium Catalogus, 1 : Animalia, pars. 64 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF CI C A BELLA LATREILLE, 1817. Z.N.(S.) 457 (see volume 18, pages 163-167) By VV. J. Le Quesiie {Chesham, Bucks., England). The case of Cicadclla is complex. A number of taxonomic works have appeared using it in different senses over the past 20 years — here are some examples :— Ckadelln = Teltigella : Ribaut, 1952. Cicadella = Eupteryx: Evans, 1947 ; Oman, 1949 (Beirne, 1956) ; Ossiannilsson, 1946; Kloet & Hincks, 1945 ; China, 1950 ; Esaki & Ito, 1954 ; Lindberg, 1947 ; Medler, 1942 ; Dlabola, 1954. This selection of general works and check lists which came to hand suggests that Wagner's publication in Bombus (1950) has been followed by Ribaut, while three other authors in the last decade have kept the name Tettigella (or the derived subfamily name). After reading all the facts of this very confused case and some consideration, I feel that the imfortunate lapse of 11 j'ears between Wagner's original application and the present have strengthened the case for retaining Cicadella Dumeril, 1806, with picta Fabricius, 1794 {=atropunctata Goeze, 1778) as the type-species. This course, I think, will cause the less confusion. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF ANILIUS OKEN, 1815. Z.N.(S.) 1046 (see volume 18, pages 181-183) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The survey of herpetozoan names in Oken, 1816, is a valuable contribution to taxonomy. Since Anilius has been used almost without exception since Stejneger, 1907, for the snake known previously as llysin, and since the literature using llysia is not of such magnitude or varietj' as to be confusing, it is clearly in the interest of nomenclatural stability to preserve the name AniUiis as applied for the past half century. fe ^ -12 FEE INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director : Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Scientific Controller : W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. StoU Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. P. de Witte CONTENTS {continued from front wrapper) New applications Scolytus GeofiFroy, 1762 (Insecta, Coleoptera) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (W. E. China) ... ... ... 3 Brisson, 1760 " Ornithologie " ; Proposed restriction of validation granted under the plenary powers to certain portions of that work (Francis Hemming) ... ... ... ... ... 9 FamUy-group names in Heteroptera proposed for the Official List and Official Index (Insecta, Hemiptera) (T. Jaczewski) ... 15 Eight dubious nominal species of birds ; Proposed use of the plenary powers to place these names on the Official Index (Ernst Mayr) 23 Ammodiscus Reuss, 1862 (Foraminifera) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (W. A. Macfadyen and T.Barnard) 27 Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers together with the vaUdation of two nominal species named Ammonites laevigata by J. de C. Sowerby, 1827 (D. T. Donovan and C. W. Wright) 35 Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, Taphius Adams & Adams, 1855, and Armigerus Clessin, 1884 ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (C. A. Wright) 39 Amyot, Methode Mononymique ; Request for a Direction that this work be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature (Wolfgang Stichel) 42 Page CONTENTS {contintied from inside back torapper) Page Argyrodes Simon, Dipoenura Simon, Robertus 0. Pickard-Cambridge, and Theonoe Simon (Arachnida, Araneae) ; Proposed preserva- tion under the plenary powers (Herbert W. Levi) ... ... 43 Sigara atomaria Illiger, 1807 (Insecta, Heteroptera) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (T. Jaczewski) ... ... 48 Dromia Weber, 1795 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) ... 51 Proposed vaUdation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798, and Lambrus Leach, 1815, by suppression of Parthenope Weber, 1795, under the plenary powers (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) ... 58 Proposed suppression of Euryala Weber, 1795, and validation of Corystes Latreille, [1802-1803] under the plenary powers (Crustacea, Decapoda) (L. B. Holthuis) 61 Geratiocaris M'Coy, 1849 (Crustacea, Archaeostraca) ; Proposed addition to the Official List of Generic Names (W. D. Ian Rolfe) 63 Comments Comments on the proposed validation of Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844 (S. Dillon Ripley, Salim All) 2 Comment on the proposed designation of a neotype for Corvus 6e7?^AaZe7i«is Linnaeus, 1758 (Kjishna Kant Tiwari) 14 Comment on the proposed suppression of Amphisbaena dubia Rathke, 1863 (Hobart M. Smith) 22 Comments on the proposed suppression of Salamandra erythronota Rafinesque, 1818 (James E. Huheey, Hobart M. Smith) ... 26 Comments on the proposed vaUdation of Myelophilus Eichhofif under the plenary powers (F. G. Browne, J. T. Wiebes) ... 38 Aphis Linnaeus, 1758 ; Its type-species and the family-group name derived from it (Editorial Note ; Miriam A. Palmer) 47 Comment on the proposed suppression of eight specific names of Turtles (Hobart M. Smith) 50 Comment on the proposed validation of Panopea M6nard de la Groye (R. K. Dell) 50 Comment on the proposed validation of Cicadella Latreille, 1817 (W. J. Le Quesne) 64 Comment on the proposed validation of Anilius Oken, 1815 (Hobart M. Smith) 64 ® 1962. The International Trust for 2Soolooical Nomenclature Printed in England by MsTCALfE & CoopBK Limited, 10-24 Scrutton St.. London E C 2 Volume 19. Part 2. '23ih March, 1962 pp. 65-128, 1 pi. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Contents Notices prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology : Date of commencement of voting by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... ... ... ... 65 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 65 {continued inside back wrapper) 10 APR 1962 LONDON: pM-uASHD Printed by Order of the Intematioiial Trust for Zoological Nomenelatore and Sold on behaU of the International Commission on Zoological ■omenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I 1962 Price Three Pounds {AU righU reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Bradley {Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August, 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral {Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Secretary : Mr. N. D. Rn-EY (British Museum {Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Assistant Secretary : Dr. W. E. China {British Museum {Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.I) B. The Members of the Commission {Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amabal {S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) {Vice-President) Professor J. Chester Bhadley (Gorweii University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes ( University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLTHUis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie. Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commontvealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, ''U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) {30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Willielm Kuknelt (Zoohgisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale "G. Doria ", Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brinck (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Poll (Musie Royal de I'Afrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemche ( Universiteteis Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet (Universite de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaobewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Nalur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hebino (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obruchev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow J5-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Uchida (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. MuNBOE (Canadian Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology , Otlaum., Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. Bobchsenitts {Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad £-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) BUllETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Volume 19, Part 2 (pp. 65-128) 23th March, 1962 NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications pubUshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the publication of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send liis contribution, in dupUcate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following applications published in the present part of the Bulletin :— (1) Designation of a type-species for Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (Pisces). Z.N.(S.) 920. (2) Suppression of W. G. Tilesius von Tilenau, 1814-1818, " Ueber das nachtUche Leuchten des Meerwassers " ; validation of several emendations ; designation of a type-species for Metapenaeus Wood- Mason, 1891 ; suppression of Mangalura Miers, 1878 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 962. (3) VaUdationofxENOPHORiDAEDeshayes, 1864 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1483. (4) Designation of a type-species for Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (Insecta, Trichoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1491. (5) Vahdation oi Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826 (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 1494. (6) Designation of a type-species for Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1495. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on 10 January 1962. Zoological Nomenclature 10 APR 1962 PURCHASED 66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COADIENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO STABILIZE THE GENERIC NAMES CARCHARHINUS BLAIN^^LLE, 1816, CARCHARODON SMITH, 1838, AND ODONTASPIS AGASSIZ, 1838. Z.N.(S.) 920 (see volume 18, pages 273-280) By E. Tortonese {Museo Civico di Storia Naturale, Genova, Italy) (1) It does not seem necessary to suppress the name Carcharia-s Rafinesque, 1809, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, repealing the ruling given in Opinion 47. Carcliarias Raf. is clearly a synonym of the later Odontaspis L. Agassiz, 1838, and has been largely used in the modern literature." It is found in Bigelow-Schroeder's book on Selachians (Fishes W.N. Atlantic), which surely is, and mil be for a long time, of basic importance. As everybody knows, the name Carcharias has been the subject of many discussions, until it was agreed that it must be applied to the " sand shark " and its allies. It would be now rather surprising to have it suppressed and to see once more changed the name of such well-known sharks. The preservation of the name CARCHARiiDAE is involved of course. (2) I fully agree that the name Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, must be preserved and have a definite type. Carcharias milberti Miiller-Henle, 1839, is a good choice, but it must be pointed out that this name is a sjmonym of Squalvs plumbeus Nardo, 1827 (see : E. Tortonese, Boll, Pesca, etc. Rome, XXVI, V, 1, 1950, p.ll— E. Tortonese, Doriana, Genoa, I, 20, 1951, p.3). In the first of these papers, I made the proposal that plumbeus would become the tj-pe-species of Carcharhinus. It is regrettable that no tj'pe-specimen of Squalus plumbeiis is in existence, as far as I know. Perhaps it would be preferable to have as type of the genus a valid species, instead of a sjmonjnn as milberti is. No objections, in my opinion, are to be made concerning the name Carcharodon, Prionace, etc. as dealt with in the paper quoted above. By E. I. White and N. B. Marshall Professor Tortonese seems to us to have missed the main point in the matter of the replace- ment of Carcharias Rafinesque by Odontaspis Agassiz. Until Opinion 47 was published in 1912 Odontaspis was, so far aa we know, universally used for over 70 years for the sand-sharks, and Carcharias for the carcharinids, and no confusion between the two groups was possible. After this ruling Odontaspis was replaced by Carcharias by the few Recent zoologists, who have had to deal with only two accepted species, 0. ferox and 0. taurus, and four rare or doubtful species; but with negligible exceptions Odontaspis has always been used by palaeontologists for the 50 or more fossil species which are repeatedly referred to in the geological literature, both palaeontological and stratigraphical, Carcharias or Carcharinus being generally used for the 40 extinct species of carcharinids. As it is, readers must know the date of the identification (i.e., before or after 1912), when the name Carcharias is mentioned, before they know to which group of sharks reference is being made. This may not be unduly difficult for Recent zoologists with so few species of living sand-sharks involved ; but for palaeontologists dealing with over 50 species constantly quoted in geological literature, the situation would be intolerable. Such a ruling would doubtless be ignored as it has been in the past. That Bigelow and Schroeder (1948, p.98) have used Carcharias instead of Odontaspis for one species, C. taurus, cannot be accepted as a factor of importance. Further, we would point out that Opinion 47 is partly based on an error, since it clearly states that Carcharias taurus is the type of Odontaspis Agassiz, which it is not— C. ferox is ; Bigelow and Schroeder (idem.) make the opposite mistake in regard to Triglochis Miiller and Henle, of which the type is C. taurus. , ^ i Opinion 47 was one of the most deplorable rulings of the Commission from the palaeontolo- gists' point of view, and if followed would cause endless confusion. It was regretted even by its authors. r , r •, «o t. --j >> Finally, Professor Tortonese remarks that the preservation of the family name Larcharudae is involved. The removal of this equivocal name from the Official List of Family Names, used for about a century for carcharinids and since 1912 by some zoologists for odontaspids, is urgent. By Wolfgang Schmidt (Geologisches Landesamt Nordrhein-Westfalen) In a proposal by White, Tucker and Marshall there is a demand to re-establish Odontaspia Agassiz, 1838, as a name for the sand-shark, and to do away with the ambiguity that the use of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809, produces. I feel that this proposal is very useful. In the geological literature Odontaspis has been umver- eally used almost without exception even to the present day. Therefore I support this proposal. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 67 By H. A. Toombs {British 3Iuseum (Natural History), London) The stabilization of the generic name Odontaspis Agassiz is very desirable, not only for the palaeontologist and curator, but also for the stratigrapher. The teeth of sharks of this genus are the commonest vertebrate fossils brought to the Museum for identification and the name has appeared in almost every faunal list of marine Caenozoic fossils published in the past hundred years. The suppression of the generic name Carcharias Rafinesque would not cause comparable inconvenience to zoologists since there are so very few recent species. So little seems to be known about the relationships of the Atlantic forms of Carcharinus to those of the Australian region that it might be as well to ignore Pterolamiops (and Eulamia) at present and be content with defining Carcharinus and its type-species. By Wilhelm Weiler (WormsjRh., Germany) In this case the rigorous application of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature ia not to be recommended. The consequences would be disadvantageous because in the geological and palaeontological literature Odontaspis has been universally used even to the present day instead of Carcharias Rafinesque, 1809. Therefore I recommend energetically the proposal of Messrs. White, Tucker, and Marshall, to avoid complications and confusions in the future. By E. M. Casier {Institut Royal des Sciences Naiurelles de Belgique, Bruxelles 4) Ayant pris connaissance de la reeente note de MM. E. I. White, D. W. Tucker et N. B. Marshall, je me permets de vous faire savoir que je souscris pleinement aux arguments exposes par ces auteurs en faveur de choix du terme generique Odontaspis de preference a Carcharias qui a beaucoup eontribue a jeter la confusion. Le premier terme est adopte par la quasi-totalite des paleoichthyologistes et c'est celui que j'ai toujours utilise dans mes publications ou il m'a ete donne de traiter de la dentition de " sand-sharks ", notamment dans mon memoire, en cours de publication (Mem. British Museum, Nat. Hist.) sur la Faune ichthyologique du London Clay. By J. P. Lehman, (Institute Paleontologie, M%iseum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France) Comme le Docteur White le propose je souhaite voir reemploye le nom A' Odontaspis de mani^re k supprimer toute ambiguite en ce qui concerne le nom de Carcharias. By E. Kuhn-Schnyder (Paldontologischen Institutes und Museums der Universitdt Zurich, Switzerland) I agree with the proposal made by Dr. Errol I. White to re-establish Odontaspis as a name for the sand-shark, and to do away with the ambiguity that the use of Carcharias produces. In our paleontological literature Odontaspis is generally used, because the application of the International Rules would be very harmful in this case. By B. Schaeffer (The American Museum of Natural History, Netv York) I wish to support the proposals listed in Vol. 18, pp. 277-279. The need for re-establishing the name Odontaspis has been clearly set forth in this paper, as well as the reasons for suppressing the name Carcharias. 68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PNOEP YGA HODGSON, 1844 (AVES). Z.N.(S.) 1457 (see volume 18, pages 209-210) By Kenneth C. Parkes {Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) I have long been opposed to the notion that the plenary powers of the Commission ought to be invoked ever}' time a change of names is proposed when so required by the Law of Priority. I belong to no dogmatic school of thought at either extreme with respect to absolute adherence to priority versus automatic conservation of all currently used names. I number myself among those who believe that the plenary powers should be invoked when, and only when, a clear case can be made for the proposition that a change in names will seriously inconvenience workers, particularly those other than students of taxonomy and nomenclature. The specialists have managed to take in their stride for many years the changes necessitated by adherence to the code in which we all profess to believe, and I do not doubt that most can continue to do so. The case presented by Professor MajT (Bull. zool. Nomencl. Vol. 18, part 3, June 1961 (received here 10 July 1961) , Z.N.(S.) (1457) appears at first glance to be relatively simple ; the generic name Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844, has been consistently used for the ^v^en- babblers in the past although according to the revised rules it is a junior synonjTn of the earlier Microura Gould, 1837. Dr. MajT states " It is unlikely that there is a single ornithologist, except a few biblio- graphers and specialists in nomenclature, who would know to what bird the name Microura refers ". This may well have been true as of the date of Dr. Mayr's proposal to the Commission, to the best of his knowledge. However, facts apparently not then known to Dr. MajT, highly pertinent to this question, lead me to believe that the action by the Commission requested by Dr. Mayr would not be in the best interests of present and future workers. The geographic range of the wren-babblers extends from the Himalayas into the Indo-Chinese countries and to Formosa. Of the works cited by Dr. Mayr as having used the name Pnoepyga, only Vaurie on Palearctic birds is a modern standard check-list, and the birds in question are only peripherally Palearctic. A recent reference work on birds of Burma (Smythies, 1953) and a recent check-list of Malaysian birds (Gibson-Hill, 1949) do, indeed, continue to use Pnoepyga. However, there are three standard reference works of major importance, which among them virtually blanket the range of the birds in question, and in which the earlier name Microura has been used, in conformity with the requirements of the Law of Priority ; Dr. Mayr was apparently unaware of this point. These works are the check-list of birds of the Indian sub-continent (Ripley, 1961), and check-lists for Thailand (Deignan, in press) and Formosa (Deignan, in preparation). These check-lists will serve as a standard of nomenclature for the vastmajorityof workers actuallj' living within the range of the wren-babblers. These are the workers from whom we can anticipate any non-taxonomic information on these birds. It is, to a great extent, in their interests that we seek to promote nomenclatorial stability. I do not see that it would promote any sort of stability if the Commission were now to rule that the generic name, employed for the wren-babblers in the check-lists in daily use in the areas inhabited by the birds, shall be suppressed. Perhaps the most authoritative check-list of all is that begun by the late J. L. Peters, now being continued by a committee under Dr. Mayr's direction. The volume covering the family Timaliidae, including the wren -babblers, has not yet appeared. If this check-list of birds of the world were to conform with the regional check-lists of Ripley and Deignan in using Microura for the wren- babblers, I can foresee a completely painless transition from the use of Pnoepyga to the use of Microura by those few workers who have any occasion to refer to these little birds in print. I therefore strongly urge that Dr. Mayr's proposition to invoke the plenary powers to conserve the name Pnoepyga be rejected, pointing out that this in no way reflects adversely on Dr. Mayr, as he did not know at the time of his application of the use of the name Microura in the three major check-lists cited. By B. Biswas {Zoological Survey of India, Indian Museum, Calcutta) Prof. Mayr's application for the suppression of the long-forgotten name Microura Gould and validation of Pnoepyga Hodgson which has besn in use for more than 100 years, appears to me only to ratify an existing legal status of these names as per rules adopted in Copenhagen and confirmed at London. As one of the systematists directly involved and as a believer in the principles expressed in the Preamble to the Rules, I whole-heartedly support Prof. Mayr's application. By B. P. Hall {British Museum (Natural History), London) I should like to say that I fully agree that this is an occasion on which the plenary powers of the Commission should be used to suppress the earlier name Microura Gould, 1837, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, and to place Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844, on the OfiBcial List. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 FURTHER NOTES ON THE TYPE-SPECIES OF THE GENUS PTEROPHORVS SCHAFFER (LEPIDOPTERA, PTEROPHORIDAE). Z.N.(S.) 1463 By P. E. S. ^\Tialley {British Museum {Xaiural History), London) In a recent comment, Prof. Dr. E. M. Hering (Vol. 18 : 333) disagrees with my selection (AVhalley, Vol. 18 : 159) of pentadactylus L. as type of Pteropkorus Schaffer, 1766. Hering proposes inonodactylus L. as the type of this genus and disagrees with my selection on three points : (1) monodactylus L. is the first name in the list given by Fabricius (1775). This list gives the first species actually included in Pterophorus since Schaffer's use of the genus in 1766. Although Schaffer's description renders the name Pterophorus available he did not place any bpecies in it ; (2) monodactylus L. has been used frequently over the last eighty years with " Pterophorus Geoffroy "; (3) using pentadactylus L. will cause confusion in the nomenclature of the plume moths. The reason for my request to retain Pterophorus was to avoid loss of the well-known name, and more particularly, its availability as a basis for the family name Pterophoridae. I agree with Hering that monodactylus L. is the first name included by Fabricius, but I disagree with his other two points. Since 1880, monodactylus L. and pentadactylus L. have both been cited as tj^De of "Pterophorus Geoff." (Frey 1880 and Meyrick 1910 cited the former ; Tutt 1906 and Fletcher 1929 cited the latter). In 1840 Duponchel wTote, referring to pentadactylus L. — " Cette espfece pent etre consideree comme le t3^pe du genre Pterophore. C'est en efFet la plus grande, la plus generalement connue, et en meme temps la mieux caracterisee du genre ". Formerl}-, Ahicita L. and " Pterophor^cs Geoff ." were considered synonjTns, and the first citation of a tj^pe for this complex seems to be by Cuvier (1798), when he cited Pterophorus as a synonym of Alucita and put pentadactyla L. in this group. In 1801, Lamarck put pentadactylus L. into Pterophorus. In [1802-3] Latreille cited didactylws F. a,s the t\'pe of Pterophorus. This has never subsequently been used and didactylus has been cited as type of Geina Tutt bj' Adamczewski (1951). Phalaena peniadactyhis L. is cited as type of Pterophorus by Leach (1815) and Curtis (1827). Zeller (1841) gives a classification of the plumes in which pentadactylus is placed in Aciptilia Hubner. The only citation I can find oi monodactylus L. as type of " Pterophorus Geoff ." (before 1880) is by Wallengren (1860) who put it in Pterophorus but gave it as a STOonym of pterodactyla L. it can be seen that both species have a confusing generic history, but I think that pentadactylus L. has more often been quoted as type of " Pterophoius Geoff ." than monodactylus L. I do not agree that using pentadactylus as type would confuse the nomenclature further. The name of this species has remained unchanged and with apparently only one synonym since it was originally described in 1758. The species is common in Europe, easily recognised externally, and is one of the few European species of plume moth whose species identity has never been in doubt. The name monodactylus L. has had a more complicated history, and is not such an easily recognised species. Meyrick (1910) gives four sjTionjnns of it and in Beirne (1952) the name " monodactylus " has three different interpretations. In applying for the name pentadactylus L. to be fixed as the type-species of Pterophorus Schaffer, I believe that this is the best knowTi, most easilj' recognised, and least confused European species available. The adoption of this species will not unduly affect the classification and the species monodactylus should be left as the type-species of Ge/na Tutt. References Adamczewski, A., 1951, Bull. Brit. Mus, Entom. 1 : 303-387 Beirne, B. P., 1952, British Pyralid and Plume Moths, 5-207, London. Curtis, J., 1827, Brit. Ent. 4 : folio 181 Cuvier, G. L. C. F. D., 1798, Tabl. Elementaire, 603 Duponchel, P. A. J., 1840, Hist. nat. Lep. Pap. Fr. 8 : 676 Fabricius, J. C, 1775, Syst. Ent : 671 Fletcher, T. B., 1929, Mem. Dep. Agric. India, Ent. 11 : 1-244 Frey, H., 1880, Die Lepid. Schweiz, 1^30 Hering, E. M., 1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 333 Lamarck, J. B. P. A. de M. de, 1801, Syst. Anim. sans Vertibr., 288 LatreiUe, P. A., [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 418 70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Leach, W. E., 1815, Edinbzugh Encyclopaedia, 9 : 135 Mevrick, E., 1910, Gen. Insect. Lep. Het. (Pvrales) Fam. Pterophoridae, 15 ScliafFer, J. C, 1766, Elementa Entomologicd Tab. 104, f. 2, 3 Tutt, J. W., 1906, Nat. Hist. Brit. Lep. 5 : 1-554. Wallengren, H. D. J., 1860, A', svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 3 : 1-25 Whallev, P. E. S., 1961, Bidl. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 159-160 ZeUer, P. C, 1841, Isis : 875-888 CO]\nHEXTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE ACCUSTOMED USAGE OF THE GENERIC NAMES A EG Y BODES SIMON, DIPOENURA SIMON, ROBERTUS O.P.-CAMBRIDGE, AND THEONOE SIMON. Z.N.(S.) 1481 (see Volume 19, pages 43-47) Dr. R. Braun {Zoologisches Institut der Universifdt, Mainz, Germany), Dr. H. Homann (Gottingen, Germanij), Dr. 0. Kraus (jSatur-Mtiseum und Forschungs- Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany), and Prof. Dr. C. Fr. Roewer ( Z> j/citor des Uberseemuseums i.R., Bremen, Germany) (1) The generic name Argyrodes Simon, 1864 (pre-occupied by Argyrodes Guenee, 1845) was in common use for more than sixty j'ears. In 1928 the homonjTn}' was discovered by Strand. For the last twenty j-ears Conopistha Karsch, 1881 , has been used consequently and in accordance with the Code by most authors as the oldest available name for the genus, i.e., by ExUne, 1945, and by Roewer in his great " Katalog der Araneae ". Additionally, there are family name problems in connection with the generic name Argyrodes : the subfamily-name Arg5Todinae Simon, 1892 [nom. transl. ex ArgjTodae Simon, 1892]. In accordance with the provisions of the Rules then in force Exline in 1945 changed the name to Conopisthinae. This name has been used in the main literature subsequently. Considering the present situation, we conclude that, in principle it is now too late to revive the old name Argyrodes by means of the plenary powers. After careful consideration we find it more useful to let matters stand as they now are, i.e., to accept the changes made necessary many years ago by strict application of the Code. It seems better to maintain only tliis one and now well-knoAvn resolution than to threaten continuity of nomenclature bj' changing it again by the re-introduction of a former usage. Therefore, we propose to place the generic name Conopistha as well as the family-name Conopisthinae on the appropriate Official Lists. In the proposal the generic names Ariamnes Thorell, 1869, and Rhomphaea L. Koch, 1872, are mentioned only as potential and earlier subjective sj-nonyms of Conopistha Karsch (or as junior potential subjective sj-nonyms of Argyrodes Simon). We find these particulars a matter of personal taxonomic opinion, and therefore they cannot be an argument for decisions by the Commission. (2) In principle we support the proposals made by Levi in connection with the generic name Dipoenura Simon, 1908. The interpretation of the t3^e-species of the genus, as originally desig- nated by Simon, is to be regarded as doubtful even on the basis of the type-material. By strict application of the Rules this unimportant generic name Dipoenura permanently threatens the name for a large taxonomic genus, which Levi in his recent papers and in the proposal has called Achaearanea Strand, 1929. It is clear that stability of nomenclature is served best by use of the plenary powers of the Commission in order to set aside the original tj'pe-designation in favour of D.fimhriata Simon as the t^'pe in accordance with modern usage. But since Levi's proposals are incomplete, there are other difficulties in this case. Levi wishes to protect " the large genus Achaearanea Strand, 1929 ", which therefore " would become a junior subjective synonym ". Levi does not mention that, under the Rules, Achaearanea is not the earliest name available for the said genus. There is an imdoubted senior subjective sjTionj'm : Steatoda Sundevall, 1833, type-species Araneus lunatus Clerck, 1757, designation by O.P.- Cambridge, 1902 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist., (7) 11 : 11). In this case Levi, 1957, in his publication on the /S^ea/orfa-species of North and Central America {Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool., 117(3) : states : " If we were to follow Cambridge, Achaea Keyserling [sic; author of the preoccupied name Achaea is O.P.-Cambridge, 1882] {= Achaearanea Strand) would be a subjective sjTionym of Steatoda. However, it seems best to continue the usage of the last fifty years and assume Aranea bi punctata to b« the type ". Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 71 »./-fT*rf ^ '**"'^ ""'^^'" *^^ ^"'^«' ^<^^anuals) as for example. Cicadella versus iLupteryx For these and other reasons it is more reasonable to avoid, in future everv prior generic replacement, if possible. luuuie, every atrlmL^^l Goe^Jt?^ ^^*''''"'' ^^^^' ^°' ''"^'' ^^ ^'^^' ^""^ ^"^'^'"^^ Curtis, 1831, for atdTs'liTport^:^ Chi^aVp^r*^^^^^^^^ *° "^'^^ --"^^ ^ ^'^ ^^^P' ^^'^ --P^^^le 84 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 625 STROPHALOSIA KING, 1844 (BRACHIOPODA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers : (a) the folio whig names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (i) the generic name Leptaenalosia de Verneuil, 1845 ; (ii) the specific name spiniferus Howse, 1848, as pubMshed in the binomen Productus spiniferus ; (iii) the specific name morrisianus Howse, 1848, as pubhshed m the binomen Productus morrisianus ; (b) all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Strophalosia King, 1844, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Strophalosia gerardi Kuig, 1846, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus ; (c) the emendation to morrisiana of the specific name morrisiania King, 1848, as pubUshed in the binomen Strophalosia morrisiania, is hereby vahdated. (2) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Strophalosia King, 1844 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above, Strophalosia gerardi King, 1846 (Name No. 1463) ; (b) Productella Hall, 1867 (gender : femuune), type-species, by designation by Oehlert, 1887, Productus subaculeatus Murchison, 1840 (Name No. 1464) ; (c) Krotovia Fredericks, 1928 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Productus spinulosus J. Sowerby, 1814 (Name No. 1465) ; (d) Orthothrix Geuiitz, 1847 (gender : feminine), t3^e-species, by designation by Dall, 1877, Orthis excavata Geuiitz, 1842 (Name No. 1466). (3) The foUowuig specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology A^ith the Name Numbers specified : (a) gerardi Kuig, 1846, as pubhshed in the bmomen Strophalosia gerardi (type-species oi Strophalosia Kmg, 1844) (Name No. 1789) ; (b) subaculeatus Murchison, 1840, as pubhshed in the binomen Productus subaculeatus (type-species of Prodiictella Hall, 1867) (Name No. 1790) ; (c) spinulosus J. Sowerby, 1814, as published in the binomen Productus spinulosus (type-species of Krotovia Fredericks. 1928) (Name No. 1791); (d) excavata Geinitz, 1842, as pubhshed in the binomen Orthis excavata (type-species of Orthothrix Geinitz, 1847) (Name No. 1792) ; (e) morrisiana (emend, of morrisiania) King, 1848, as pubhshed in the binomen Strophalsia morrisiana (Name No. 1793) ; BvU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 86 (f) lewisianus de Koninck, 1847, as published in the binomen Productus lewisianus (Name No. 1794) ; (g) goldfussi Miinster, 1839, as pubUshed in the binomen Spondylus goldfussi (Name No. 1795). (4) The generic name Leptaenalosia de Verneuil, 1845, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(i) above, is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology \\ith the Name No. 1538. (5) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) spiniferus Murchison & de Verneuil, 1845, as pubUshed in the binomen Productus spiniferus (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 682) ; (b) morrisianus Murcliison & de Verneuil, 1845, as pubUshed in the binomen Productus morrisianus (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 683) ; (c) spiniferus Howse, 1848, as pubUshed in the binomen Productus spiniferus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(u) above) (Name No. 684) ; (d) morrisiamis Howse, 1848, as pubUshed in the binomen Productus morrisianus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(iii) above) (Name No. 685) ; (e) mxyrrisiania King, 1848, as pubUshed in the binomen Strophalosia morrisiania (ruled under the plenary powers in (l)(c) above to be an invaUd original speUing for morrisiana) (Name No. 686). (6) The family-group name productelllnae Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 (type-genus Producfella Hall, 1867) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 317. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 784) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission in September 1953 by Dr. W. G. H. Maxwell. The information given by Dr. MaxweU was, however, defective and the application was later completed by Dr. Helen M. Muir-Wood, with Dr. MaxweU's approval. The appUcation was sent to the printer on 4 March 1960 and was published on 16 September 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 316-318. PubUc Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial pubUcations {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to three palaeontological serials. An objection was received from Dr. E. Raymond Hall. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 May 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)14 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 320-321. At the close of the Voting Period on 1 August 1961 the state of the voting was as foUows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22), received in the foUowing order : Dymond, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, Stoll, Boschma, Riley, Obruchev, 86 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Bonnet, Alvarado, Brinck, Miller, Jaczewski, Vokes, do Amaral, Key, Uchida, Prantl, Lemche, Mertens, Ktihnelt. Negative Votes — one (1) : Tortonese. On Leave of Absence — one (1) : Bradley. Voting papers not returned — one (1) : Evans. Commissioner Poll returned a late affirmative vote. Original References The follow-ing are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : excavata, Orthis, Geinitz, 1842, N. Jahrb. Min. Geol. Pal. Abh. 1842 : 578, pi. 10, figs. 12, 13 gerardi, Strophalosia, King, 1846, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 18 : 93 goldfussi, Spondylus, Miinster, 1839, Beitr. zur Petrefacten-Kiinde 1 : 2, pi. 4, figs.3a, b Krotovia Fredericks, 1928, Bull. Com. gdol. Leningrad 46(7) (1919) : 779, 790 Leptaenalosia de Verneuil, 1845, in Murchison, de Verneuil, Keyserling, Geologie de la Russie d'Europe 2(3), Paleont. : 281 lewisianus, Productus, de Koninck, 1847, Mem. Soc. ray. Liege 4 : 262 morrisiana, Strophalosis, King, 1848, Catalogue of Organic Remains of the Permian Rocks of Northumberland and Durham : 9 morrisiania, Strophalosia, King, 1848, an invalid original spelling for morrisiana q.v. morrisianus, Productus, Howse, 1848, Trans. Tyneside Nat. Field Clvb 1(3) : 257 morrisianus, Productus, Murchison & de Verneuil, 1845, Giologie de la Russie d'Etirope 1 : 223 Orthothrix Geinitz, 1847, Bull. Soc. imp. Nat. Moscou 20(2) : 84 Productella HaU, 1867, 2Qth Rept. N.Y. State Cabinet, Appendix 1 : 153, 250 PRODUCTELLiNAE Schuchert & LeVene, 1929, Fossilium Catalogus 1(42), Brach. : 17 spiniferus, Productus, Howse, 1848, Trans. Tyneside Nat. Field Club 1(3) : 257 spiniferus, Productus, Murchison & de Verneuil, 1845, Oeologie de la Russie d'Europe 1 : 223 spinulosus, Productus, J. Sowerby, 1814, Min. Conch. 1 : 155 Strophalosia King, 1844, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 313 subaculeatus, Productus, Murchison, 1840, Bull. Soc. geol. France 11 : 255 The following are the original references for the designation of type-species for two genera concerned in the present RuUng : For Productella HaU, 1867 : Oehlert, 1887, Appendice Brachiopodes in P. Fischer, Manuel de Conchyliologie . . .fasc. 11 : 1279 For Orthothrix Geinitz, 1847 : Call, 1877, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 8 : 53 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)14 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 87 under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 625. ^ S" ^- »II^E^^ W. E. CHINA ^^'^^^i^^ry Assistant Secretary IntermUional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Londoji 23 October 1961 COMJIENTS ON THE PROPOSED PRESERVATION OF THE NAME CERASTES FOR THE SAND VIPERS. Z.N.(S.) 724 (see volume 18, pages 170-171 and 315) By Hobart M. Smith (Professor of Zoology, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) The generic name Aspis has been used occasionally in recent years by specialists aware of Its claim to acceptance in lieu of Cerastes for the sand vipers. However, a review of the entries m the Zoological Record smce 1936, when Stejneger proposed replacement of Cerastes by Aspis, reveals that at least three-quarters of the references to this genus continued to fall under the name Cerastes. This fact coupled with the abundance of pre-1936 literature under the sole neading ot Cera^ Y r^u "^ vf'^''/c«''"'o*o' '''^^' ^'^"""P''' ^^P""^'«'« ■■ 105) cannot be used. Stejnege; hvilntfJ,"'\ '■'''^\^^'- ^V "^^^ ^?''" ^" suggesting that the type-species of ^.^i^ is, nL."wH "*Tf°y' ^m^ cleopatrae Laurenti, 1768. The reference to the pre-Linnean Code r Art ^fit^ru .r""' ''^ t'^^«y"ony«iy ofcleopatrae does not satisfy the provisions of the Thu. Vhp H« *^^;-^' ! '' "°* "^^"*'*-^ ^"* s'lnilarity with the newly established genus name. Pror Avl, F«!/ J°° f /.^'P.^.'P^T' °f ^*'P''* intestinalis Laurenti, 1768, by Barbour (1914. this des^S"'? • ^^t f •■ ^-'' '' *° ^" '^^^'^^^ «« t^« fi'-^* ^^lid tjT)e-designation By name Srorrl^'M«,TH,^?'".%^ !f'^'°'^ subjective sjTionj-m of the well-kSo^vn generic Sv EknTdL 0^n^V^*'i""f • '/''^•/'"'^2 : plate 86), for the Indian coral-snakes of the wo^ H h; % *• ^•.^*' °*^^'' ^*°^' *'^^ ^^'■''''^* °*™^ available for the genus of sand vipers would be Gonyechts Fitzinger (1843, Systema Reptilium : 28). ^ ofthenImPnc^f"nr!ft'^^°^r ^^'''^' ^7 ^t"^* application of the Code, would be the result fore iSifiin r.1. ""f ''°'^' '"^"t'oned above, would lead to the greatest confusion. There- Com^rsl^n to l^t!""? '°'°' "^^"^^ ^y ^^'- ^- ^^^""^ ^^ «t^°^gly recommend the International 1768^ hiir-^ plenary powers m order to suppress the generic name Aspis Laurenti. Barbo,r iQU^^.Vt!'':""''" Laurent.. 1768, aa type-species, by subsequent designation by nmTv?rH h!^\ i V^'P"'^.' T^ *^^ ^^ °f P"«"ty ''"t °ot of the L^w of Homonymy, as proposed by Schmidt, Pope and Loveridge in their first application. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. ~~ 88 BvJletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 626 ECHINUS MINUTUS BUCOIAN, 1845 (ECHINOIDEA) ; VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. REVISION OF OPINION 107 RULING. — (1) Under the plenary poAAers the specific name minutus Gniehn, 1790, and all uses of the specific name minutus, pubhshed in the binomen Echinus minutus, prior to J. Buckman, 1845, are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy. (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology vdth. the Name Numbers specified : (a) minutus Gmelin, 1790, as pubhshed in the binomen Echinus minutus (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 687) ; (b) minutus, all uses of in the binomen Echinus minutus prior to J. Buckman 1845 (as suppressed xmder the plenary powers in (1) above) (Name No. 688) ; (c) minutus Pallas, 1774, as alleged to have been pubhshed in the binomen Echinus mimitus (a cheironym) (Name No. 689) ; (d) minuta J. Buckman, 1845, as pubhshed in the binomen Cidaris minuta (a nomen nudum) (Name No. 690). (3) The generic name Eodiadema Duncan, 1889 (gender : neuter), type- species, by monotj'py, Eodiadema granulahim Wilson, 1889, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1467. (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoologj'^ vciih. the Name Numbers specified : (a) minutus J. Buckman, 1845, as published in the binomen Echinus minutus (Name No. 1796) ; (b) granulatum Wilson, 1889, as pubhshed in the binomen Eodiadema granulatum (type-species of Eodiadema Duncan, 1889) (Name No. 1797). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1288) The present case was first submitted to the office of the Commission by Rlr. R. V. Melville in December 1957. An appHcation was prepared and was sent to the printer on 7 October 1959. It was published on 16th September 1960 m Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 323-325. Pubhc Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the Bame part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial pubhcations {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). An objection was received from Dr. E. Raymond HaU. DECISION OF THE COIVEVIISSION On 1 May 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Votuig Paper (61)15 either for or against the proposals BuU. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 89 set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 325. At the close of the voting period on 1 August 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-one (21), received in the following order : Dymond, Mayr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, StoU, Boschma, Riley, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Bomiet, Alvarado, Miller, Brinck, Vokcs, do Amaral, Prantl, Lemche, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt. Negative Votes — two (2) : Key, Uchida. Leave of Absence — one (1) : Bradley Voting Papers not returned — one (1) : Evans. Commissioner Poll returned a late affirmative vote. The foUoA^dng comments were made by Commissioners in returning their Voting Papers : Dr. L. B. Holthuis (8.V.61) — " It seems advisable to add to (1) of para. 9 of the proposal (: 325) : ' and all uses of the specific name minutus in combination with the generic name Echinus pubhshed before the pubhcation of the name Echinus tninutus J. Buckman, 1845' ; to be inserted in the second line of this paragraph between the words ' minutus ', and ' for '." Dr. K. H. L. Key (23.vi.61) — " I am voting agauist the proposal submitted to the Commission in V. P. (61)15, because it seems, on the evidence presented, that the appUcant has misinterpreted in significant respects the actions ascribed to J. Buckman, the aiithor of ' Echinus minutus '. " The appHcant treats Buckman's ' Cidaris minuta ' and ' Echinus minutu^s ' as separate names, the first a nomen nudum, the second an available name. However, assuming that pages 81 and 95 of Murchison's book were pubUshed on the same date, the ' back reference ' associated with the description of Echinus minutus can surely only have the meaning : ' This is the description of the species cited in the Ust as Cidaris minuta '. There was, in fact, only one species, which, however, was given two different generic assignments in the same work. The situation is thus analogous to that of a name pubhshed with two different original spelhngs. The back reference amounts in a sense to a correction of one of these assigiunents — unfortunately it is not clear which. "It is not evident, from the information supplied, just how the species minutus came to be given two generic assignments, nor who was responsible for what was apparently a late change. However, smce a Ust can hardly be compiled until the things hsted have come into existence, it seems likely that the combination with Cidaris was made after the combination with Echinus (although it appears on an earUer page) — and it may have been made by Murchison, as the general author of the work, rather than by Buckman ; the back reference could then have been inserted by either Murchison or Buckman. " There are several uncertainties here, but the important point is that there is no more reason to regard minutus as having been published in combina- tion with Echinus than A^ath Cidaris. Yet if it had been pubUshed m the latter combination it could not faU as a homonym of GmeUn's name. The Code does not legislate for a situation such as this. If it did, it might well invoke again the First Reviser principle. However, it is open to the Commission to rule under the plenary powers that Cidaris minuta is to be deemed the combina- 90 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature tion intended by the author, and it would then not be necessary to suppress Echinus minutus Gmelin. It would, however, be necessary to consider whether the author of the species can be accepted as Buckman, or whether it is Murchison and Buckman, and a ruling may have to be given on this point. '■ The eflfect of this course of action and of the one proposed in the application are essentially the same. The reason for opposing the application as it stands is that it rests upon a patently untenable assumption — namely that two different names were pubhshed by Buckman." On 17 May 1961 the Secretary circulated to the Commission a note repeating Dr. Holthuis's comment and adding : " In view of the long period between GmeUn 1790 and Buckman 1845, Dr. Holthuis's proposal seems to be a good one and it is proposed to add a Ruhng to this effect in the Opinion. This addition will in no way effect the end sought by the apphcant, Mr. Melville, but A\-ill be a more efficient and certain way of achieving that end. Any Commissioner who objects to this proposal is asked to submit the objection to me before the end of the Voting Period on 1 August 1961." No objection was received. Original References The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Eodiadema Dimcan, 1889, Geol. Mag. (3) 6 : 339 granulatum, Eodiadema, Wilson, 1889, Oeol. Mag. (3) 6 : 339 minuta, Cidaris, J. Buckman, 1845, in Murchison, Geology of Cheltenham (ed. 2) : 81 minutus, Echinus, J. Buckman, 1845, in Miu-chison, Geology of Cheltenham (ed. 2) : 81 minutus, Echinus, Gmelin, 1790, in Linnaeus, Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 : 3194 minutus, Echinus, Pallas, 1774, [Spic. Zool. (10) : 34] CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)15 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is trulv recorded in the present Opinion No. 626. N. D. BILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 October 1961 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 91 OPINION 627 MALLOPHAGAN NAMES OF DE GEER, 1778 ; ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING. — (1) It is hereby Ruled that, without prejudging the question \vhether De Geer's Hem. Hist. Ins. is or is not an available work, the generic name Ricinus and the specific names fringillae, cornicis, mergiserrati, gallinae and canis, all published by him in volume 7 of that work, are to be regarded as available names, in the sense of the Rules of Availabihty, as from their publication by De Geer, 1778. (2) Under the plenary powers the famUj'^-group name ivnRivnDES [Leach, 1815] is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (3) The follo^^-ing generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Greneric Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Ricinus De Geer, 1778 (gender : masculine), tj'pe-species, by designation by Neumann, 1906, Ricinus fringillae De Geer, 1778 (Name No. 1468) ; (b) Degeeriella Neumami, 1906 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion by Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Nirmus discocephalus Burmeister, 1838 (Name No. 1469) ; (c) Anaticola Clay, 1936 (gender : femimne), type-species by original designation, Pediculus crassicornis Scopoli, 1763 (Name No. 1470) ; (d) Myrsidea Waterston, 1915 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Myrsidea victrix Waterston, 1915 (Name No. 1471) ; (e) Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designation by Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Ricinus gallinae De G«er, 1778 (Name No. 1472) ; (f) Trichodectes Nitzsch, 1818 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion by Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Ricinus canis De Geer, 1778 (Name No. 1473). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (Si) fringillae De Geer, 1778, as pubhshed in the binomen Ricinus fringillae and as defined by the neotj^e designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954 (type-species of Ricinus De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 1798) ; (b) cornicis De Geer, 1778, as published in the binomen Ricinus cornicis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954 (Name No. 1799) ; (c) mergiserrati De Geer, 1778, as published in the binomen Ricinus mergi- serrati and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954 (Name No. 1800) ■ (d) gallinae De Geer, 1778, as published in the binomen Ricinus gallinae and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954 (type-species of Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838) (Name No. 1801) ; Bull. tool. Xomencl., Vol. 19. Part 2. March 1962. 92 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) canis De Geer, 1778, as published in the binomen Ricinus canis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954 (type- species of Trichodectes Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 1802) ; (f) discocephalus Burmeister, 1838, as pubUshed in the binomen Nirmus discocephaliis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay, 1958 (type-species of Degeeriella Neumann, 1906) (Name No. 1803); (g) crassicornis Scopoli, 1763, as published in the binomen Pediculus crassicornis and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1951 (type-species of Anaticola Clay, 1936) (Name No. 1804) ; (h) citrinellae Schrank, 1776, as published in the binomen Pediculus citrinellae and as defiined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins, 1954 (Name No. 1805) ; (i) qnerquedulae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Pediculus q^ierquedulae and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay & Hopkins 1950 (Name No. 1806) ; (j) victrix Waterston, 1915, as pubhshed in the binomen Myrsidea victrix (type-species of Myrsidea Waterston, 1915) (Name No. 1807). (5) The follo\\ing family-group names are hereby placed on the Oflficial List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : — (a) EiciNiDAE Neumann, 1890 (type-genus Ricinus De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 318) ; (b) TRiCHODECTiDAE Kellogg, 1896 (type-genus Trichodectes Nitzsch, 1818) (Name No. 319) ; (c) GONiocoTiNi Eichler, 1937 (t3rpe-genus Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838) (Name No. 320) ; (d) DEGEERiELLiNi Eichler, 1937 (type-genus Degeeriella Neumann, 1906) (for use by those zoologists who consider that Degeeriella Neumann, 1906, and Philopterus Nitzsch, 1818, belong to different taxa of the family-group) (Name No. 321). (6) The follo^^ing generic names are hereby placed on the Oflficial Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names m Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Nirmus Hermann, 1804 (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 1539) ; (b) Nirmus Nitzsch, 1818 (a junior homonjntn of Nirmus Hermann, 1804) (Name No. 1540) ; (c) Physostomum Nitzsch, 1818 (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 1541). (7) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Oflficial Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified: (a) nitidissimum Nitzsch, 1818, as pubhshed in the binomen Liotheum nitidissimum (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus fringillae De Greer, 1778) (Name No. 691) ; (b) mesoleu<:um Nitzsch, 1818, as published in the binomen Liotheum Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 93 mesoleucum (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus cornicis De Greer, 1778) (Name No. 692) ; (c) mergi J. C. Fabricius, 1781, as published in the binomen Pediculus mergi (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus mergiserrati De Greer, 1778) (Name No. 693) ; (d) temporalis Nitzsch, 1818, as published in the binomen Philopterus temporalis (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus mergiserrati De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 694) ; (e) hologaster Nitzsch, 1818, as pubUshed in the binomen Philopterus hologaster (a junior objective synonym of Ricinus gallinae De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 695) ; (f) latus Nitzsch, 1818, as pubUshed in the binomen Trichodectes latus (a junior objective s3Ti.onym of Ricinus canis De Geer, 1778) (Name No. 696). (8) The family-group name nirmides [Leach, 1815] (type-genus Nirmus Hermann, 1804) (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (2) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 353. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1400) The present case was first submitted in November 1958 by Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins and Dr. Theresa Clay. After some emendation the appUcation was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was published on 16 September 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 326-333. Public Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications {Bull, zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. Support for the proposals was expressed by Dr. K. E. Emerson and Dr. Per Brinck {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 213). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 1 May 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)16 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 330-333. At the close of the voting period on 1 August 1961 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Dymond, Majrr, Holthuis, Hering, Hemming, StoU, Boschma, RUey, Obruchev, Jaczewski, Bonnet, Alvarado, Brinck, Miller, Vokes, do Amaral, Key, Uchida, Prantl, Lemche, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt. Negative Votes — none (0). On Leave of Absence — one (1) : Bradley. Voting papers not returned — One (1) : Evans. Commissioner Poll returned a late affirmative vote. Commissioner Key made the following comment in returning his Voting Paper (29.vi.61) : " The appUcants sought originally to dispose of the names Ricinus lari De Geer and Pediculus canis 0. Fabricius by designating for them 94 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature neotypes which would make them subjective synonyms of earlier names (their paras. 11 and 16). With regard to P. canis, they admit that this procedure would not be in accord with the provisions of the new Code on neotjrpe designa- tion, and the same admission is impUed in the case of R. lari. Both of these names are apparently nomina dubia and the straightforward way of dealing with them would seem to be to suppress them imder the plenary powers. Perhaps a supplementarj^ application to this effect might be suggested to the apphcants. " The third matter concerns the name Myrsidea victrix Waterston, cited as type-species of Myrsidea in para. 18(3)(d), but not listed under 18(4) and not referred to elsewhere in the appUcation. This would seem to be an over- sight on the apphcants' part. If so, a request for victrix to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names might be included in any supplementary application." In reply to Dr. Key's letter, Dr. Clay said that whilst it was true that Ricinus lari De Geer is a nomen dubium, Pediculv^ canis Fabricius is not, and the applicants are not inclined to take further action on these names. On the other hand the omission of Myrsidea victrix from the hst of names to be added to the Official List of Specific Names was an oversight on the part of the apphcants, and should be remedied as soon as possible. On 20 September 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the One-Month Rule on Voting Paper (O.M.)(61)2 either for or against " the addition of the specific name victrix Waterston, 1915, as pubUshed in the binomen Myrsidea victrix (type-species of Myrsidea Waterston, 1915) to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ". At the close of the voting period on 20 October 1961 the state of the voting was as foUows : Affirmative Votes — ^twenty-one (21) received in the following order : Riley, Evans, Brinck, Lemche, Holthuis, Vokes, Kiihnelt, Hering, Key, Bonnet, Obruchev, Tortonese, Poll, Prantl, Miller, Hemming, Mayr, StoU, Jaczewski, Mertens, Uchida. Negative Votes — none (0). Leave of Absence — one (1) : Bradley. Voting Papers not returned — one (1) : Boschma. Commissioners Alvarado and do Amaral returned late affirmative votes. Obiginal References The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion : Anaticola Clay, 1936, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1936 : 617 canis, Ricinus, De Greer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 81 citrinellae, Pediculiis, Sclu-ank, 1776, Beytr. z. Naturg. : 116, pi. 5, fig. 7 cornicis, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 76 crassicornis, Pediculus, ScopoU, 1763, Ent. cam. : 383 Degeeriella Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 60 DEGEERIELLINI Eichler, 1937, in Niethammer, Handh. dtsch. Vogelkunde 1 : 360 discocephalus, Nirmus, Burmeister, 1838, Handh. Ent. 2(2) : 430 fringiUae, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 71 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 95 gallinae, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Inst. 7 : 79 Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 431 GONiocoTiNi Eichler, 1937, S.B. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1937 : 108 hologaster, Philopterus, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 294 latus, Trichodectes, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296 mergi, Pediculus, J. C. Fabricius, 1781, Spec. Ins. 2 : 480 mergiserrati, Ricinus, De Geer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 78 mesoleucum, Liotheum, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 300 Myrsidea Waterston, 1915, Ent. man. Mag. 51 : 12 NiRMiDES [Leach, 1815], in Brewster, Edinb. Ency. (ed. 1)9 : 78 Nirmus Hermarm, 1804, Mem. apterologique : 12 Nirmus Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 291 nitidissimum, Liotheum, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 302 Physostomum Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 302 querquedulae, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 612 RiciNiDAE Neumami, 1890, Bull. Sac. Hist. nat. Toulouse 24 : 55 Ricinus De Geer, 1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 69 temporalis, Philopterus, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 292 Trichodectes Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 294 TRiCHODECTiDAE Kellogg, 1896, Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. (2) 6 : 63 victrix, Myrsidea, Waterston, 1915, Ent. mon. Mag. 51 : 13 The following are the original references for designations of type-species for genera concerning in the present Ruling : For Degreeneite Neumann, 1906 : Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc.N.S.W.Z^ :326 For Goniocotes Burmeister, 1838 : Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 :326 For Ricinus De Geer, 1778 : Neumann, 1906, Bull. Soc. zool. Fr. 20 : 56 For Trichodectes Nitzsch, 1818 : Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W.Z^ :326 The following are the original references for designations of neotype specimens for nominal species concerned in the present Ruling : For Ricinus canis De Geer, 1778 : Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Hist.) Ent. 3 : 244 For Pediculus citrinellae Schrank, Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mtis. (nat. 1776 : Hist.) Ent. 3 : 229 For Ricinus cornicis De Geer, Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. {nat. 1778 : Hist.) Ent. 3 : 239 For Pediculus crassicomis Clay & Hopkins, 1951, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. ScopoU 1763 : Hist.) Ent. 2 : 19 For Nirmus discocephalus Clay, 1958, Bull. Brit. Mu^. (nat. Hist.) Ent. Burmeister, 1838 : 7 : 168 For Ricinus fringillae De Geer, Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. 1778 : Hist.) Ent. 3 : 237 For Ricinus gallinae De Geer, Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. 1778 : Hist.) Ent. 3 : 242 96 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature For Ricinus mergiserrati De Geer, Clay & Hopkins, 1954, Bull. Brit. Mus. {nM. 1778 : Hist.) Ent. 3 : 241 For Pediculus querquedulae Clay & Hopkins, 1950, Bull. Brit. Mus. (nat. Linnaeus, 1758 : Hist.) Ent. 1 : 244 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (61)16 and (O.M.)(61)2 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in those Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 627. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 23 October 1961 COMMENT ON THE PETITION REGARDING THE NOMINAL GENUS LYGUS HAHN, 1833 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.N.(S.) 1062 (see volume 18, pages 281-284) By Dennis Leston ( Green End, Renhold, Bedford, England) I am in favour of the request made to the International Commission under the above reference. The case is much stronger, now, than at the time when the petition was drafted : almost all specialists, in the past five or six j^ears, have acted as though the Commission had already approved of it (e.g., in Britain, Leston, 1957, Entomologist 90 : 128-135 ; Southwood and Leston, 1959, Land and trater bugs of the British Isles, London) and their lead has been followed by general and applied entomologists. Further, no change will be necessary in the names of the species now attributed to Neolygus Knight ; contrarj- to Kelton's belief (1955, Canad. Ent. 87 : 277-301) it can be shown that the Neolygus- Apolygus complex is dubiously congeneric with Lygocoris Reuter. Changes in the names of the Ethiopian species currently assigned to Taylorilygus Leston are, of course, inevitable : study of African mirids has scarcely begun and it is considered unwise to name further new entities in the Taylorilygus-Gutrida complex until a major revision has been undertaken — Leston and Carthy (1957, Anti. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 10 : 194^198), confronted by a member of this group in the fauna of the Azores, preferred to designate it as " species A " rather than introduce a new specific name of doubtful generic assignment. The request has my unqualified support. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 97 OPINION 628 MENOPON NITZSCH, 1818 (INSECTA, MALLOPHAGA) ; ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the generic name Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (gender : neuter), type- species, by designation by Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1474. (3) The specific name gallinae Limiaeus, 1758, as pubUshed in the binomen Pediculus gallinae, and as defined by the neotype designated by Clay and Hopkins, 1950 (type-species of Menopon Nitzsch, 1818) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1808. (4) The family-group name menoponidae Mjoberg, 1910 (type-genus Menopon Nitzsch, 1818) (to be used in preference to trikotonidae Eichler, 1941, by those zoologists who consider that Menopon Nitzsch, 1818, Trinoton Nitzsch, 1818, and Eurem Nitzsch, 1818, all belong to the same family-group taxon) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names m Zoology with the Name No. 322. (5) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above (Name No. 1542) ; (b) Menopum Neumann, 1906, an incorrect spelling for Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (Name No. 1543) ; (c) Maenopon Packard, 1873, an alleged but non-existent name (Name No. 1544) ; (d) Maenopon Harrison, 1916, an incorrect spelling for Menopon Nitzsch, 1818 (Name No. 1545). (6) The family-group name liotheidae Burmeister, 1838 (type-genus Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818) (invalid because the name of its tj^DC-genus is suppressed under the plenary powers) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name No. 354. (7) The specific name pallidum Nitzsch, 1818, as pubUshed in the binomen Liotheum, pallidum (a junior objective synonym of Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus, 1758) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 697. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1399) A preliminary statement on the present case was sent by Mr. G. H. E. Hopkins and Dr. Clay to the Office of the Commission in February 1959. A BuU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. 98 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature final application was received on 26 February 1960 and was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960. It was pubhshed on 16 September 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 334r-336. PubUc Notice of the possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial pubUcations {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. Comments in support of the proposals were received from Dr. Per Brinck (Lunds Universitets Zoologiska Institution, Sweden) and Dr. K. C. Emerson (ArUngton, Virginia, U.S.A.). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 3 July 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)18 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 335-336. At the close of the prescribed voting period on 3 October 1961 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-tliree (23), received in the following order : Boschma, Holthuis, Lemche, Munroe, MajT, Vokes, Brinck, Obruchev, do Amaral, Key, Hering, Prantl, Hemming, RUey, Jaczewski, TJchida, Mertens, Tortonese, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Bradley, Alvarado, Poll. Negative Votes — none (0). On Leave of Absence — ^three (3) : Evans, MiUer, StoU. Commissioner J. Chester Bradley in a note on his Voting Paper wrote (3.x. 61) : " I Tsish to disassociate myself from the argument in paragraphs 2 and 3 on page 334 ". Obiginal References The foUoAving are the original references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion : gallinae, Pediculus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 613 LiOTHEiDAE Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) : 436 Liotheum Nitzsch, 1818, 3Iag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 296 Maenopon Harrison, 1916, Parasitology 9 : 22 Maenopon Packard, 1873 [Rept. U.S. geol. Surv. 6 : 731] an alleged but non- existent name Menopon Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 299 MENOPONiDAE Mjoberg, 1910, Ark. Zool. 6(13) : 26 Menopum Neumann, 1906, Bull. zool. Soc. Fr. 20 : 59 pallidum, Liotheum, Nitzsch, 1818, Mag. Ent. (Germar) 3 : 299 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruhng : For Jlfe7M)_pon Nitzsch, 1818 : Johnston & Harrison, 1911, Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 36 : 327 The following is the original reference for the designation of a neotype for a nominal species concerned in the present Ruhng : For Pediculus gallinae Linnaeus 1758 : Clay & Hopkins, 1950, Bull. Brit. Mm. (nat. Hist.) Ent. 1 : 262, fig. 56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 99 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)18 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been diily adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 628. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 24 October 1961 COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR CLATHU BELLA CARPENTER, 1857. Z.N.(S.) 518 (see volume 18, pages 270-272) By Myra Keen (Stanford University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.) I wish to support the {)etition by Dr. Joshua L. Baily, Jr. for the designation of the type- species of CJathurella Carpenter, 1857, as Clavatula rava Hinds, 1843. This seems to me to be in the interests of stability and in harmonj' with current usage. However, the last two entries in the roster of names for which action is asked seem to me to be out of place ; namely, paragraphs (4)(b) and (4)(c) under paragraph 10 of the petition. As Dr. Baily has assured me that it was not his intention when submitting the petition to include these matters, I would protest against them on two grounds : first, in the matter of Pelagia, it is not appropriate to include matters not directly within the scope of the petition itself ; these homo- nyms occur in other phyla than the one under discussion and, besides, the law of homonjTny already disposes of them without the machinery of official action needing to be invoked. Second, in the matter of Philhertia, the type-species of which is not discussed in the petition, an actual error of fact is involved in stating that it is a junior objective sjTionym ; as a junior subjective synonym, it may later prove to be of use and should not summarily be suppressed. Therefore, I would qualify my support of the petition only as tothe points covered in parts (1) through (3) and (4)(a) in Bull. zool. Nomencl. vol. 18, pt. 4, pp. 270-272. 100 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CARCHARHINUS BLAINVILLE, 1816 (CLASS CHONDRICHTHYES, ORDER SELACHII) ; PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF C ARCH ARIAS MELANOPTERUS QUOY & GAIMARD AS TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 920 By J. A. F. Garrick [Division of Fishes, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The object of the present appUcation is to ask the International Commission to use its plenary powers to conserve the generic name Carclmrhinus BlainviUe, 1816. This application therefore supports, in part, the object of the recent proposal by White, Tucker & Marshall (1961, Bull. zool. Nom., 18(4) : 273-280) but oflFers a counter proposal in selecting a type-species for Carcharhinu^ . The genus so named, as currently interpreted, is the largest of all shark genera, and the name Carcharhinus is used for it by the great majority of modern workers. The species generally accepted as type-species of Carcharhinus is not available as type-species under the Rules. Apphcation of the Rules would result in (a) Carcharhinus becoming a senior objective synonym of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, or if this is set aside, (b) Carcharhinus becoming a junior subjective synonym of Alopias Rafinesque, 1810, and (c) use of one or the other of the poorly founded names Glyphis Agassiz, 1843, or Galeolamna Owen, 1853, for the sharks presently considered under Carcharhinus. The relevant facts of this case are set out below, and have recently been discussed in the Uterature by Boeseman (1960, Zool. Meded. Leiden, 37(6) : 81-100), White, Tucker & Marshall {op. cit.) and Garrick (in press). 2. BlainviUe in 1816 [Bull. Soc. philom. Paris, p. 121 ; J. Phys. Chem. Hist. Nat., 83 : 264) introduced Carcharhinus, presented a diagnosis, and hsted, by name only, fourteen species within the genus. Seven of these species are now placed in other genera, six others still appear to be nomina nuda, whereas the remainuag one, C. commersonii, also a nomen nudum when listed, was later stated by BlainvUle (1825, in Vieillot, Faune Franq., p. 90) to be based on an illustration of a shark in Lacepede (1798, Hist. Nat. Poiss., 1 : 169, pi. 8, fig. 1). 3. Bosc (1816, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. 5 : 277) selected Squalus carcharias (presumably of Lirmaeus, 1758) as type-species of Carcluirhinus BlainviUe, 1816, even though the specific name carcharias was not on BlainviUe's list ; this selection is interpreted as vaUd by White, Tucker & Marshall [op. cit.) on the grounds that C. lamia (presumably of Rafinesque, 1810), which was on BlainviUe's Ust, is a junior objective synonj'^m of S. carcharias. Bosc's designation would thus make Carcharhinus BlainviUe, 1816, a senior objective synonym of Carcharodon A. Smith, 1838, and would be disastrous to the nomenclature of both genera if followed. 4. Jordan and GUbert in 1883 {Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 16 : 22) were the first authors to designate a tj^e-species for Carcharhinus BlainviUe, 1816, from the fom^en specific names Usted by BlainviUe under his original diagnosis of the genus. They selected C. commersonii BlainvUle, the first species on BlainviUe's Ust, as type-species. BvU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 101 5. Because C. commersonii Blainville, 1816, was a nomen nudum when listed under Blainville's original diagnosis of Carcharhinus, it is not available as type-species, even though, as mentioned above, it was subsequently validated by Blainville in 1825. 6. Fowler in 1908 {Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philad. 60 : 62) recognised that C. commersonii Blainville, 1816, was a nomen nudum, and designated Squalus vulpes Gmehn, 1789, the last species on Blainville's 1816 hst, as type-species of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816. This designation makes Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, a junior subjective synonym oi Alopias Rafinesque, 1810. If followed, it provides a serious threat to the stabihty of nomenclature because it means that the name Carcharhinus, as extensively used, must be replaced by one or other of the poorly founded generic names discussed below. 7. The first available name for the genus currently but incorrectly recog- nised as Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, is Glyphis Agassiz, 1843 (Poiss. Foss. 3 : 243, pi. 36, fig. 10-13), ^\ath type-species G. hasialis Agassiz, 1843 {op. cit.). This genus and species were based only on two fossil teeth which resemble the lower teeth of a Carcharhinus species. Because we know nothing more about Glyphis, use of the name Glyphis Agassiz to replace Carcharhinus Blainville would be unfortunate. Glyphis Agassiz has never been used for any living species currently recognised as belonging to Carcharhinus Blainville. 8. If Glyphis Agassiz, 1843, is rejected as a substitute for Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, the next available name is Galeolamna Owen, 1853 {Cat. Osteol. Roy. Coll. Surg. Lond. 1 : 96, No. 427) with type-species G. greyi Owen, 1853 (op. cit.). This genus and species were based only on a pair of jaws from an Australian specimen in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons, London. The account of the type-material is inadequate, and the type- material is now lost as a result of bombing damage during World War II. The name Galeolamna Owen has never been accorded general usage as a substitute for Carcharhinus BlainWUe, though it has been widely appUed in Australian literature. However, even in Australia some three or four different species have been referred to G. greyi, and there is no unanimity as to its identity. 9. Accustomed usage in the last fifty years has strongly favoured the generic name Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, for what is now regarded as the largest distinguishable group of shark species, even though the genus when first presented was heterogeneous. Likewise, acceptance of the name Carcharhinus Blainville has predominantly been accompanied by acceptance of Carcharhinus commersonii Blainville as type-species of the genus, despite the facts that according to the Rules C. commersonii is not available, and that there has been no general agreement as to its identity. With regard to the latter situation, it seems unhkely that C. commersonii will ever be absolutely identified. However, as shown by Garrick (in press), there is considerable justification for stabilizing the identification of C. commersonii as a junior synonym of Carcharias melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 (Voy. VUranie et Physicienne, Zool., p. 194), a widely distributed, shallow water, Indo-Pacific species cmrently accepted as belonging to Carcharhinus BlainviUe. 10. Following from the above it seems that stabihty of nomenclature 102 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature would most easily be achieved by designating Carcharias tnelanopterv^ Quoy & Gaimard, 1824, as type-species of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816. This action would not upset current nomenclature of Carcharhinus species, and would have several advantages over the proposal of White, Tucker & Marshall {op. cit.) that Carcharias milberti IMiiUer & Henle, 1841, be type-species. In particular the designation of C. melanopterus would not be out of harmony with accus- tomed usage if there is acceptance of C. melanopterus as a senior subjective synonym of C. commersonii. The same cannot be said for C. milberti which is generally accepted as type-species of the controversial genus Eulamia Gill, 1862 ; actually the status of C. milberti is itself not yet clear-cut, and there is a possibiUty that it is a junior synonym of Squalus plumbeus Nardo, 1827, of the Mediterranean (see Bigelow & Schroeder, 1948, Fishes of the western North Atlantic, Mem. Sears Found. Mar. Res. 1(1) : 368, footnote 82 ; Tortonese, 1950, Boll. Pesca Piscic. Idrobiol. Roma, n.s., 5 : 5-21). A second reason for favouring C. melanopterus as type-species is that it is an Indo-Pacific species as was C. commersonii, while C. milberti has been reported only from the Atlantic and Mediterranean. Lastly, from the point of view of suitabiUty, there is at least as much reason for selecting C. melanopterus as representative of the genus Carcharhinus as there is for C. milberti — in this respect it is perhaps presumptious to regard any Carcharhinus species as more representative than another of the fairly -wide range of morphological variabihty in the genus as a whole. 11. In view of the facts set out in the preceding paragraphs, I now request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to set aside all selections of type-species for the genus Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) having done so, to designate Carcharias melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824, to be the type-species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 (gender : masculine), type- species by designation under the plenary powers under (1) (b) above : Carcharias melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824 ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : melanopterus Quoy & Gaimard, 1824, as published in the combination Carcharias melanopterus (specific name of the type- species of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : carcharhinidae Garman, 1913 (type-genus : Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816) ; (5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Carcharinus Cloquet, 1817 (an erroneous subsequent spelling of Carcharhinus Blainville, 1816 ; (b) Carcharorhinus Agassiz, 1846 (an invalid emendation of Car- charhintis Blainville, 1816). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 103 PENAEID GENERIC NMIES (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA). Z.N.(S.) 962 By L. B. Holthuis (Eijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) The Penaeidea (Decapoda) are shrimps of medium to very large size, and many species of this group form the subject of economically extremely important fisheries and fishery industries. In recent years new fishing methods and the exploitation of areas which so far had not been used as shrimpmg grounds tremendously increased the Penaeid fishery everjr^vhere in tropical and sub- tropical regions. Many species which previously were not fished for com- mercially now prove to be of high economic value. The fisheries fiterature on shrimps in the last decades consequently has considerably increased and technical papers on Penaeidea are published all over the world. It is there- fore highly desirable that the names of the various Penaeid genera be stabilized, especially so as there is a diverse practice in the spelling of these names. In the present application the names of 27 genera of Penaeidea are submitted for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. To the best of my knowledge, all but one of these names are the vahd names for the genera concerned. In one case the vaUdity of the name has to be estabUshed under the plenary powers of the Commission (see para. 2(4) below). 2. A few problems connected with these names call for some special comments, which are given here in a separate paragraph before the actual list of the names. These problems are set out below : — (1 ) As can be expected, many generic names are in some way or other derived from the oldest generic name in the group, viz., Penaeus Fabricius, 1798. Unfortunately the name Penaeus has sometimes been incorrectly spelled Peneus, and a few of the generic names derived from this name have accorduigly been misspelled in the original publication {Atypopeneus Alcock, 1905 ; Para- peneopsis Alcock, 1901; Trachypeneopsis Burkenroad, 1934; Trachypeneus Alcock, 1901 ; Xiphopeneus Smith, 1869), while aU others are spelled with ae (Amalopenaeus Smith, 1882 ; Archipenaeopsis Bouvier, 1905 ; Carpopenaeus Glaessner, 1946; Ceratopenaeus Kishinouye, 1929; Erythropenaeus Kishinouye, 1929 ; Hemipenaeopsis Bouvier, 1905 ; Hemipenaeus Bate, 1881 ; Heteropenaeus De Man, 1896 ; Hymenopenaeus Smith, 1882 ; Leptopenaeus Kishinouye, 1929 ; Metapenaeopsis'Rou\\eY, 1905 ; i¥eta2^ereae«s Wood-Mason, 1891 ; Neopenaeopsis Bouvier, 1905 ; Parapenaeus Smith, 1885 ; Pelagopenaeus Burkenroad, 1934 ; Penaeopsis Bate, 1881 ; Penaeus Fabricius, 1798 ; Plesiopenaeus Bate, 1881). All of the 5 names of the first group are currently used by zoologists ; of the 18 names of the second group 10 are currently used, whUe the other 8 are considered by most carcinologists to be junior synonjmis of some other names. As to the spelling that should be adopted for these names, there are three different opinions. The first group of authors wants to preserve the original spelling of each name whether with e or ae, as this practice is in harmony with the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature. This viewpoint is Bull. zool. Nomfncl., Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. 104 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature defended by Gunter (1957, Syst. Zool. 6 : 98-100). The two other groups of carcmologists favour uniform spelUng of the name Penaeus and its derivations in all Penaeid generic names. The adherents of these two groups consider it highly inconvenient, especially for the many non-taxonomists who at present occupy themselves with the study of Penaeidea, to have to remember in which names the word Penaeus or its derivations are written with an a before the second e, and in which such an a should be omitted. They are of the opinion that it would be of great advantage to all workers concerned if the spelling was uniform for all genera. The difference between the second and third group is that the second group prefers to let all names be derived from the word Peneus in the spelling -wdth the single e, while the third group favours the spelling Penaeus with ae. The arguments of the second group are, if I am not mistaken, that the spelling Peneus is simpler, while it is moreover linguistic- ally more correct. Dr. L. W. Grensted, the classical adviser to the Commission made the follo\\ing comment on the name Peneus (in a letter dated 31 May 1955 to Mr. F. Hemming) : " Peneus. This occurs several times in the Latin poets and in Cicero as the name of a river in Thessaly and of the river-god personifying the stream. It is not found in Greek classical writers at all, but the curious pronunciation (attested by its use in Latin poetry), Peneus, presupposes (as the Latin Dictionaries assert) a Greek word with a long second syllable. This is taken to be Uyveios, but I see no reason why it should not have been Uyvrjo?. In any case the Latin form Peneus must determine its use in forming generic names and should be preserved whenever the Rules permit. The faulty spelUng Penaeus is doubtless due to a desire to preserve the correct pronunciation, but is quite barbarous. It has nothing to do ■nlth Peneius, which is an adjective from Peneus, found twice in Ovid." The main advocate of the second group is the well-laiown Penaeid speciaUst, Dr. M. D. Burkenroad. The arguments of the third category (among whom I may place myself) for the preservation of the spelUng Penaeus are the foUo-^ving : The spelling Penaeus is nomenclaturally the correct spelluig, which is adopted by the majority of authors, while furthermore the generic name Penaeus Fabricius is already placed on the Official List in that spelling. The majority of the generic names derived from the word Pen(a)eus is written Avith ae. As shown above, of the currently adopted names derived from Pen{a)eus 10 are written -nith ae and 5 -with e. Furthermore there are 8 such generic names, which are currently considered to be junior synonyms of other names, but which are potentially valid names ; all these names are derived from Penaeus with ae. The argument that the spellmg Peneus is linguistically more correct is a rather weak one, since Fabricius gave no derivation of the name, so that it even might be considered an arbitrary combination of letters. The nomenclaturally correct spelling of the name is Penaeus, and it seems unwise to change this spelling, which at present is accepted by an overwhelming majority of carcinologists both in pure and apphed science, while furthermore the name Penaeus has figured on the Official List in this spelhng since 1928. My proposal to the Commission therefore is that they should correct the spelling of the five names listed earlier in this paragraph (p. 103, lines 27-29) to Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 106 respectively Atypopenaeus, Parapenaeopsis, Trachypenaeopsis, Trachypenaev^ and Xiphopenaeus. (2) A similar, though less important question is posed by the generic names Aristeus and Aristaeomorpha. According to Dr. Grensted : "Aristaeus, is also found as a mythological name, in the same Latin authors [as Peneus], and is invariably so spelled. There is no case at all, on the linguistic side, for altering it to Aristeus — which would be misleaduag in its pronunciation, and so far as the classics are concerned, again a barbarism. The Greek form 'Apt.(jTxi-os is found in Hcsiod and once or t^\'ice elsewhere, but fully confirms the Latin Aristaeus, which in any case governs the modern taxonomic usage ". Here too the original spelling of the name is incorrect linguistically ; however, the spelling Aristeiis cannot be changed for Unguistic reasons, and as it has been used by the majority of authors, it seems best to place this name in its nomen- claturally correct spelling on the Official List. The original spelling of the name Aristaeomorpha is with ae, which therefore is both linguistically and nomenclaturally the correct spelling. Both spellings Aristeomorpha and Aristaeomorpha are used by later authors, the former spelling being somewhat more common, being about 1.5 times as often employed as the latter spelling. Both spellings have been used by prominent carcinologists {Aristeomorpha by Balss, Barnard, Bouvier, Brian, De Man, Senna, Zariquiey, and others ; Aristaeomorpha by Alcock, Burkenroad, Kemp, Kubo, Parisi, Stebbing, Stephensen, and others). Both Aristeus and Aristaeomorpha are of economic importance, and it might therefore be useful to make their spelling uniform by having the latter name emended to Aristeomorpha under the plenary powers of the Commission. (3) In 1818, W. G. Tilesius von Tilenau pubhshed the second part of his paper " Ueber das nachtliche Leuchten des Meerwassers " in Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 1-10, pis. 20a, b, 21a, b. In this paper a great number of planktonic Crustacea are described and figured. Most of the descriptions and figures are too poor to permit of a specific identification, but in some cases the identity of the genus can be ascertained. Thus Tilesius 's Phasmatocarcinus glaucus and P. discophthalmus doubtless are species of Lucifer Thompson, 1830, while his Prionorhynchotus apus and Symphysopus hirtus might be species of Sergestes H. Milne Edwards, 1830. Tilesius declared on p. 5 of his paper : " Da ich sie [namely the various animals dealt with by him] aber unzahhgemal als leuchtende Punkte erhascht habe ; so musste ich sie unter irgend einem Namen anfiihren. Diese Namen haben also hier, wie gesagt, keinen andern Zweck, als die angefiihrten Seeleuchten zu unterscheiden, sie sind kein Produkt der herrschenden Sucht, neue Namen fiir alte Dinge zu Schmieden, sie sind auch nicht bestimmt, um in's System aufgenommen zu werden, es soil mich vielmehr freuen, wenn sie von erfahrnen Entomologen verbessert und berichtigt werden konnen . . . ". It is obvious that Tilesius did not introduce these names for purposes of zoological nomenclature and for this reason they might well be suppressed by the Commission. The generic names in question are found in Neave's, 1940, Nomenclator Zoologicus (3 : 700, 893 ; 4 : 363). The first part of Tilesius 's paper was published in 1814 in Ann. Wetterau. 106 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Ges. Naturk. 3 : 360-372. It does not contain any information on Crustacea, but in it a number of Protozoa, Coelenterates, Tunicates, and animals of uncertain taxonomic status are dealt mth. Several of the generic and specific names used there are new. A number of them are nomina nuda, which became available in 1818 when in the second part of Tilesius's paper the plates figuring these taxa were published. Dr. C. G. Adams of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) wrote that he could " find no record of the specific names [of Tilesius's Protozoa] being used by anyone since Tilesius". As to the Coelenterates mentioned by Tilesius, Dr. W. J. Rees of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) stated (in litt.) : '■ The pubhcation seems to have been ignored by coelenterate experts and the species are not recognizable from the figures. It \^ould be a good thing to have the names suppressed ". Dr. Ailsa Clark of the British Museum (Nat. Hist.), who was consulted about Tilesius's Tunicate names ^\Tote : "As far as I can tell, this pubhcation, together with the new species otSalpa included in it, is unknown among workers on pelagic Tunicates. It was not mentioned in Herdman's ' Challenger ' report, Ilde's paper of 1911 {Zool. Anz.) on the nomenclature of salps or Hopkinson's Bibhography of Tunicates (1912) ". It seems logical to consider Tilesius's above cited statement of 1818 that the names given by him are not intended for use in zoological nomenclature as not only referring to the names in the second (1818) part of his paper, but also to those pubUshed in the first (1814) part. Therefore the suppression of the first part under the plenary powers of the Commission is now requested. (4) The generic name Metapenaeus, which is weU-known and widely used proves to be nomenclaturally invaUd for the genus for which it is currently employed. This name was introduced by Wood-Mason (1891) for a genus of which he designated Pendens affinis H. IMilne Edwards, 1837, as the type and in which he placed three species : Metapenaeus philippinensis andamanensis Wood-Mason, Metapenaeus coniger AVood-Mason, and (with some doubt) Metapenaeus rectacutus (Bate). At present the name Metapenaeus is used by carcinologists for the genus containing Penaeus monoceros Fabricius, 1798, and several other species. There are two reasons why this current practice to employ the name Metapenaeus for the genus in question is incorrect : Firstly the name Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891, is younger than the name Mangalura Miers, 1878. The latter name was introduced by Miers, 1878 {Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 1878 : 303) for the species Penaeus dobsoni Miers, 1878, which is its type by monotypy. Penaeus dobsoni is currently considered to be congeneric with Penaeus monoceros Fabricius, 1798, and Mangalura thereby is the oldest available name for the genus containing these two species. Secondly the name Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891, proves to be not available at aU for the genus containing Penaeus monoceros. As has recently been shown by Hall (1961, Bull. Raffles Mus. 26 : 93, 94) the type-specimen of Penaeus affinis H. Milne Edwards does not belong to what authors hke Alcock (1906, Catal. Indian Decap. Crust. Ind. Mus. 3(1) : 20), De Man (1911, SibogaExped. 39(a) : 57) and Kubo(l 949, Jo?tr». Tokyo Coll. Fisher. 36(1) : 340) indicated -with the name Metapenaeus (or Penaeopsis) affinis (H. Milne Edwards), but actually is a specimen of the species best known as Parapenaeopsis sculptilis Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 107 (Heller, 1862). As Penaeus affinis H. Milne Edwards, 1837, is the type of the genus Metapenaeus Wood-Mason by original designation, the name Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891, cannot be used for the genus containing Penaeus monoceros Fabricius, 1798, but is only available for the genus containing Penaeus sculptilis Heller, 1862, which latter genus at present is currently indicated by the name Parapenaeopsis Alcock, 1901. If therefore the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature is strictly applied here, the correct name of the genus " Metapenaeus " auctorum becomes Mangalura Miers, 1878 (type-species : Penaeus dohsoni Miers, 1878), while the genus now known as Parapenaeopsis Alcock, 1901 (tjrpe-species : Penaeus stylijerus H. Milne Edwards, 1837) would have to bear the name Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891 (type-species : Penaeus affinis H. Milne Edwards, 1837). It is clear that the switching of the name Metapenaeus from one weU-known genus to another will cause a large amount of undesirable confusion which should be avoided at all costs. There are two ways, both under the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to prevent this confusion. The first solution is the total suppression of the name Metapenaeus, which would make both the names Mangalura and Parapenaeopsis the valid names for their respective genera ; the disadvantage of this solution is that the well-known name Metapenaeus, which is very often used also in fisheries literature, Avill entirely disappear and be replaced by the totally unfamiUar name Mangalura. The second solution is to suppress the name Mangalura and to select for the genus Metapenaeus a type-species in harmony with current usage. The draw-back of this second solution is that it needs two different actions under the suspension of the Rules, while as the type of the genus Metapenaeus a species has to be chosen which was not included in the genus at the time of its original publication. Of the four species placed by Wood-Mason, 1891 in Metapenaeus, one {Penaeus affinis H. MUne Edwards) is a Parapenaeopsis, two (ilf. philippinensis andamanensis and M. coniger) are at present placed in Metapenaeopsis, whUe the fourth {Penaeus rectacutus Bate) is currently assigned to the genus Penaeopsis. Until about 1934 the genus Metapenaeus was not too well defined, some authors considered it a synonym of Penaeopsis, while others included species in it which actually belong to different genera. It is mainly due to the work of Burkenroad (1934, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 4(7) : 29-40) that the dehmi- tations of the genus have finally become clearly established so that in the modern Uterature the name Metapenaeus stands for a well-defined taxonomic entity. The name is used in Burkenroad's sense in all modern papers deahng with the taxonomy of Penaeidea and likewise in those concerning the fisheries aspects of the group. The double use of the plenary powers to preserve this name in its present meaning are therefore fully justified. 3. The following list contains the required particulars regarding twenty-six of the generic names which it is now recommended should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : — Acetes (masculine) H. Milne Edwards, 1830, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (1) 19 : 350 (type-species, by monotypy : Acetes indicus H. Milne Edwards, 1830, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (1) 19 : 351) ; 108 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Aristaeomorpha (feminine) Wood-Mason, 1891, in Wood-Mason & Alcock, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)8 : 286 (type-species, by original designation : Aristeus rostridentatus Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5)8 : 189) ; Aristeus (masculine) Duvernoy, 1840, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 11 : 217 (type- species, by original designation : Penaeus antennatus Risso, 1816, Hist. nat. CruM. env. Nice : 96) ; Artemesia (feminine) Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : xii, Ixxvi, 219, 227, 228, 277, 280, 281 (type-species, by monotypy : Artemesia longi- naris Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 281) ; Atypopeneus (masculine) Alcock, 1905, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 16 : 524 (tjrpe -species, by original designation : Penaeus compressipes Henderson, 1893, Trans. Linn. Soc. Loud. Zool. (2) 5 : 450) ; Benthesicyrnus (masculine) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 171, 190 (type-species, by selection by Bate, 1888 {Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 320) : Benthesicyrnus crenatus Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5)8 : 190); Benthonectes (mascuUne) Smith, 1885, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 7 : 509 (type- species, by monotypy : Benthonectes filipes Smith, 1885, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 7 : 509) ; Funchalia (feminine) Johnson, 1868, Proc. zool. Soc. Loud. 1867 : 895 (type- species, by monotjrpy : Funchalia woodwardi Johnson, 1868, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond., 1867 : 895) ; Gennadas (masculine) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 171, 191 (type- species, by monotypy : Oennadas parvus Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 192) ; Haliporu^ (masculine) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 185 (type- species, by selection by Fowler, 1912 {Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 542) : Haliporus curvirostris Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5)8 : 185); Hemipenaeus (mascuUne) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 171, 186 (type-species, by selection by Faxon, 1895 {Mem. Miis. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 200) : Hemipenaeus spinidorsalis Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 186) ; Hepomadus (mascuhne) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 171, 189 (type-species, by selection by Fowler, 1912 {Ann. Rep. New Jersey State Mus. 1911 : 544) : Hepomadus glacialis Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 190) ; Heteropenaeus (mascuUne) De Man, 1896, Zool. Anz. 19 : 111 (tjrpe -species, by monotypy : Heteropenaetis longimanusDeMan, 1896, ZooZ. Anz. 19 : 111) ; Hymenopenaeus (masculine) Smith, 1882, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 10 : 91 (type-species, by monotypy : Hymenopenaeus debilis Smith, 1882, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 10 : 91) ; Lucifer (masculine) Thompson, 1830, Zool. Res. (3) : 37 (type-species, by subsequent indication, by H. Milne Edwards, 1837 {Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 469) : Leucifer typus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 469) ; Macropetasma (neuter) Stebbing, 1914, Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 15 : 22 (type- species, by monotypy : Parapenaeus africanus Balss, 1913, Denkschr. med. naturwiss. Ges. Jena 17 : 105) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 109 Metapenaeopsis (feminine) Bouvier, 1905, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 140 : 981 (type-species, by original designation : Metapenaeopsis pubescens Bouvier, 1905, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris 140 : 981 (rejected as a junior secondary homonym of Penaeus pubescens Stimpson, 1871, Ann. Lye. nat. Hist. New York 10 : 133, by Holthuis, 1952 {Res. sci. Exped. oceanogr. Beige Atlant. Sud 3(2) : 80) and replaced by the name Penaeopsis miersi Holthuis, 1952, Res. sci. Exped. oceanogr. Beige Atlant. Sud. 3(2) : 80)) ; Parapeneopsis (feminine) Alcock, 1901, Descr. Catal. Indian Deep Sea Crust. : 14 (type-species, by original designation : Penaeus styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 418) ; Penaeopsis (feminine) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 171, 182 (type- species, by selection by Bouvier, 1905 (C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 140 : 981) : Penaeopsis serratus Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 183) ; Petalidium (neuter) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 172, 194 (type- species, by monotypy : Petalidium foliaceum Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 194) ; Plesiopenaeus (mascuhne) Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 188 (type- species, by selection by Faxon, 1895 {Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 196) : Aristeus armatus Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 188) ; Sergestes (masculine) H. Milne Edwards, 1830, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (1) 19 : 348 (type-species, by monotypy : Sergestes atlanticus H. Milne Edwards, 1830, Ann. Sci. nat. Paris (1) 19 : 349) ; Sicyonella (feminine) Borradaile, 1910, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. (2) 13 : 259 (type-species, by monotypy : Sicyonella maldivensis Borradaile, 1910, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. (2) 13 : 259) ; Trachypeneopsis (feminine) Burkenroad, 1934, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 4(7) : 40 (type-species, by original designation : Metapenaeus mobilispinis Rathbun, 1915, Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 28 : 117) ; Trachypeneus (mascuhne) Alcock, 1901, Descr. Catal. Indian Deep Sea Crust. : 15 (type-species, by original designation: Penaeus anchoralis Bate, 1881, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 8 : 181) ; Xiphopeneus (masculine) Smith, 1869, Trans. Connect. Acad. Arts Sci. 2 : 27 (type-species, bj'- monotypy : Xiphopeneus harttii Smith, 1869, Trans. Connect. Acad. Arts Sci. 2 : 28 [Note (not for inclusion in the Official List) : This name is a subjective synonym of Penaeus kroyeri Heller, 1862, S.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien 45(1) : 425]) ; 4. It is recommended that the specific names of the type-species of the genera specified in paragraph 3 above should be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, as far as these names are vahd and at the same time are the oldest available names for the species concerned. The following list gives in the first column the specific names which fulfil the conditions mentioned above. In the second column is given the original combination in which these names have been used. In column (3) is given the name of the genus of which the species cited in column (1) is the type-species. 110 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Specific name (1) africanus Balss, 1913 anchoralis Bate, 1881 antennatus Risso, 1816 armatus Bate, 1881 atlanticus H. IVIilne Edwards, 1830 compressives Henderson, 1893 crenatus Bate, 1881 curvirostris Bate, 1881 rfefeiZis Smith. 1882 ^Zi^e^ Smith, 1885 foliaceum Bate, 1881 glacialis Bate, 1881 indicus H. Milne Edwards, 1830 longimamLS De Man, 1896 hnginaris Bate, 1888 maldivensis Borradaile, 1910 miersi Holthuis, 1952 mobilispinis Rathbun, 1915 parvus Bate, 1881 rostrideiitatus Bate, 1881 serratus Bate, 1881 spinidorsalis Bate, 1881 styliferus H. Milne Edwards, 1837 typus H. Mihie Edwards, 1837 woodwardi Johnson, 1868 Original combination in lohich name cited in Col. (1) uns published (2) Parapenaeus africanus Penaeus anchoralis Penaeus antennatus Aristev^ armatus Sergestes atlanticus Peruieus compressipes Benthesicymus crenattis Haliporus curvirostris Hymenopena^us debilis Benthonectes filipes Petalidium foliaceum Hepomadus glacialis Acetes indicics Heteropenaeus longimanus Artemesia longinaris Sicyonella maldivensis Penaeopsis miersi Metapenaeus mobilispinis Gennadas parvus Aristeus rostridentatus Penaeopsis serratus Hemipenaeus spinidorsalis Penaeus styliferus Leucifer typus Funchalia woodwardi Genus of which species cited in Col. (1) is the type-species (3) Macropetasma Stebbing, 1914 Trachy peruieus Alcock, 1901 Aristeus Duvernoy, 1840 Plesiopenaeus Bate, 1881 Sergestes H. Milne Edwards, 1830 Atypopenaeus Alcock, 1905 Benthesicymus Bate, 1881 Haliporus Bate, 1881 Hymenopenaeus Smith, 1882 Benthontctes Smith, 1885 Petalidium Bate, 1881 Hepomadus Bate, 1881 Aceies H. Milne Edwards, 1830 Heteropenaetis De Man, 1896 Artemesia Bate, 1888 Sicyonella Borradaile, 1910 Metapenaeopsis Bouvier, 1905 Trachy penaeopsis Burkenroad, 1934 Gennadas Bate, 1881 Aristeomorpha Wood- Mason, 1891 Penaeopsis Bate, 1881 Hemipenaeus 'B&te, 1881 Parapenaeopsis Alcock, 1901 Lucifer Thompson, 1830 JP^nc^Ka Johnson, 1868 BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 111 5. The concrete proposals which I now submit for consideration are that the Commission should : — (1) make use of its plenary powers : — (a) to vahdate the following emendations : — (i) Aristeomorpha for the generic name originally pubhshed as Aristaeomorpha Wood-Mason in 1891 ; (ii) Atypopenaeus for the generic name originally pubhshed as Atypopeneus Alcock in 1905 ; (iii) Parapenaeopsis for the generic name originally pubhshed as Parapeneopsis Alcock in 1901 ; (iv) Trachypenaeopsis for the generic name originally pubhshed as Trachypeneopsis Burkenroad in 1934 ; (v) Trachypenaeus for the generic name originally published as Trachypeneus Alcock in 1901 ; (vi) Xiphopenaeus for the generic name originally published as Xiphopeneus Smith in 1869 ; (b) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Mangalura Miers, 1878, Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 1878 : 303 (type-species, by monotypy : Penaeus dobsoni Miers, 1878, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1878 : 302) ; (c) to set aside all type designations or selections for the genus Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891, made prior to the proposed ruhng ; and having done so (d) to designate as the type-species of that genus the species Penaeus monoceros Fabricius, 1798 ; (e) to suppress both parts of the pubhcation by W. G. Tilesius von Tilenau entitled "Ueber das nachthche Leuchten des Meerwassers' ' pubhshed in 1814 in Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 3 : 360-372 and 1818 ibid. 4 : 1-10, pis. 20a, b, 21a, b ; (2) place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : — (a) the twenty-six names enumerated in paragraph 3 of the present apphcation with the particulars there specified ; (b) the name Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891, in Wood-Mason and Alcock, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 8 : 271 (type-species, designated imder the plenary powers in (1) (d) above : Penaeus monoceros Fabricius, 1798) ; (3) place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : — (a) the twenty-five specific names specified in paragraph 4 of the present apphcation ; (b) the name kroyeri HeUer, 1862, S.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien 45(1) : 425, as pubhshed in the combination Penaeus kroyeri (the oldest available name of the type-species of the genus Xiphopenaetis Smith, 1869) ; 112 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) the name monoceros Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. Syst. : 409, as published in the combination Penaeus monoceros (name of the species designated mider the plenary powers in (l)(d) above as the t3rpe-species of the genus Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891) ; (4) place the following names on the Oflficial List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : — (a) AEiSTEiNAE (correction by De Man, 1911, Siboga Exped. 39(a) : 5, 13 of akistaeina) Wood-Mason, 1891, in Wood-Mason & Alcock, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6) 8 : 278 (type-genus : Aristeus Duvernoy, 1840) ; (b) BENTHESiCYMiNAE (correction by Ortmann, 1898, Bronn's Klass. Ordn. Tierr. 5(2) (49) : 1120, of benthesicymina) Wood-Mason, 1891, iw Wood-Mason & Alcock, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist (6)8 : 286 (tjrpe -genus : Benthesicymus Bate, 1881) ; (c) luciferidae Dana, 1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13(1) : 636, 639 (type -genus : Lucifer Thompson, 1830) ; (d) SERGESTiDAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 18 (tj^e-genus : Sergestes H. MUne Edwards, 1830) ; (5) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology : — (a) Aristaeomorpha Wood-Mason, 1891, in Wood-Mason & Alcock, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)8 : 286 (an Invahd Original Spelling of Aristeomorpha Wood-Mason, 1891, as emended under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(i) above) ; (b) Aristaeus Wood-Mason, 1891, in Wood-Mason & Alcock, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (6)8 : 278 (an erroneous spelling of Aristeus Duvernoy, 1840) ; (c) Atypopeneus Alcock, 1905, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7) 16 : 524 (an Invalid Original SpeUing of Atypop^naeus Alcock, 1905, as emended under the plenary powers in (1) (a) (ii) above : (d) Hemipeneus Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 24 : 215 (an erroneous spelhng of Hemipenaeus Bate, 1881) ; (e) Heteropeneus Alcock, 1906, Catal. Indian Decap. Crust. Ind. Mus. 3(1) : 5 (an erroneous spelhng of Heteropenaeus De Man, 1896) ; (f) Hymenopeneus Faxon, 1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 191 (an erroneous spelhng of Hymenopenaeus Smith, 1882) ; (g) Leucifer H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 467 (an erroneous spelling oi Lucifer Thompson, 1830) ; (h) Mangalura Miers, 1878 (type-species : Penaeus dobsoni Miers, 1878) as suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above ; (i) Metapeneus Alcock, 1901, Descr. Catal. Indian Deep Sea Cru^t. : 14 (an erroneous spelhng of Metapenaeus Wood-Mason, 1891) ; (j) Parapeneopsis Alcock, 1901, Descr. Catal. Indian Deep Sea Cru^t. : 14 (an Invahd Original Spelhng of Parapenaeopsis Alcock, 1901, as emended under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(iii) above) ; BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 113 (k) Peneopsis Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mu^. camp. Zool. Harvard 2A : 212 (an erroneous spelling of Penaeopsis Bate, 1881) ; (1) Phasmatocarcinus Tilesius von Tilenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 6 (a name published in a work suppressed for piu-- poses of zoological nomenclature) ; (m) Plesiopeneus Faxon, 1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 196, 199 (an erroneous spelling of Plesiopenaeus Bate, 1881) ; (n) Prionorliynchotus Tilesius von Tilenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 6 (a name published in a work suppressed for purposes of zoological nomenclature) ; (o) Symphysopus Tilesius von TUenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 9 (a name pubUshed in a work suppressed for purposes of zoological nomenclature) ; (p) Trachypeneopsis Burkenroad, 1934, Bull. Bingham oceanogr. Coll. 4(7) : 40 (an InvaUd Original SpeUing of Tr achy penaeopsis Burkenroad, 1934, as emended under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(iv) above) ; (q) Trachypeneus Alcock, 1901, Descr. Catal. Indian Deep Sea Crust. : 15 (an InvaUd Original Spelhng of Trachypenaeus Alcock, 1901, as emended under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(v) above) ; (r) Xiphopeneus Smith, 1869, Trans. Connect. Acad. Arts Sci. 2 : 27 (an Invahd Origmal SpeUing of Xiphopenaeus Smith, 1869, as emended under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(vi) above) ; (6) place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology : — (a) apv^ Tilesius von Tilenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 6, as published in the combination Prionorhynchotus apus (a name pubUshed in a work suppressed for purposes of zoological nomenclature) ; (b) discophthalmus Tilesius von Tilenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 7, as pubUshed in the combination Phasmatocarcinus discophthalmus (a name pubUshed in a work suppressed for purposes of zoological nomenclature) ; (c) glaucus Tilesius von TUenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 6, as pubUshed in the combination Phasmatocarcinus glaticvs (a name pubUshed in a work suppressed for purposes of zoological nomenclature) ; (d) hirtus TUesius von TUenau, 1818, Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 9 as pubUshed in the combination Symphysopus hirtus (a name pubUshed in a work suppressed for purposes of zoological nomenclature) ; (7) place the foUowing names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd FamUy-Group Names in Zoology : — (a) ABiSTAEiNA Wood-Mason, 1891 (an InvaUd Original SpelUng of abisteinae) ; 114 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (b) BENTHESICYMINA Wood-Mason, 1891 (an Invalid Original Spelling of benthesicyminae) ; (c) LEUCiFERiNAE Ortmann, 1898, Bronn's Klass. Ordn. Tierr. 5(2)(50) : 1121 (an erroneous spelling of luciferidae Dana, 1852) ; (d) LEUCiF^RiENS H. Milne Edwards, 1837, Hist. nat. Crust. 2 : 467 (a vernacular (French) name). (8) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature both parts of the pubUcation by W. G. TUesius von Tilenau entitled " Ueber das nachthche Leuchten des Meerwassers ", part 1 being pubhshed in 1814 in Ann. Wetterau. Oes. Naturk. 3 : 360- 372, and part 2 being published in 1818 in Ann. Wetterau. Ges. Naturk. 4 : 1-10, pis. 20a, b, 21a, b. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF TYLENCHUS GULOSUS KUHN, 1890. Z.N.(S.) 1432 (see volume 18, pages 206-207) By A. L. Taylor and A. Morgan Golden (United States Department of Agriculture, Bdtsville, Maryland, U.S.A.) We are in agreement with Dr. Loof's statements and views on this subject. Further, we fully support his request that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (1) " use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name gulosus Kiilin, 1890, as published in the binomen Tylenchus gulosus, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the specific name penetrans Cobb, 1917, as published in the binomen Tylenchus penetrans, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ". BvJMin of Zoological Nomenclature 116 XENOPHORIDAE DESHAYES, 1864 (GASTROPODA) ; PROPOSED PRESERVATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1483 By K. V. W. Palmer (Paleontological Research Institute, Ithaca, New York, U.S.A.) The family-group name xenophoridae Deshayes, 1864 {Descr. Anim. sana Vertibr. Bassin Paris 2 : 958) has been used commonly smce the late 1800s to the present by writers of standard nomenclatural treatises : Weinkauff, 1867, Conchyl. Mittelmeeres : 341 ; P. Fischer, 1885, Manuel Conchyl. (8) : 759 ; Tryon, 1886, Man. Conch. 8 : 156 ; Dall, 1892, Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci., Philadelphia, 3(2) : 360 ; Pilsbry in Zittel, Textb. Paleont. (ed. 2) : 543 ; Sutur, 1913, Man. New Zealand Moll. : 277 ; Cossmann, 1916, Essais Paleoconch. comp., Livr. 10 : 186 ; Theile, 1931, Handb. Syst. Weichtierk. 1 : 249 ; Wenz, 1940, Handb. Paldozool., Gastropoda 6(4) : 905 ; Clench and Aguayo, 1943, Johnsonia, Xenophoridae : 1 ; Habe, 1953, Illustr. Cat. Japanese Shells (23) : 173 ; Cotton, 1959, South Australian Mollusca : 366. The family-group name xenophoridae was formed from the stem of the name of the type-genus Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim (1807, Museum- Demidoff 3 : 213). Although the generic name Xenophora Fischer von Wald- heim, 1807, has been used since about the 1860s and is now recognised as the prior name for the " carrier shells ", the generic name Phorus Montfort, 1810 (Conch, syst. Class, meth. Coquilles 2 : 158-160) was the name with which the molluscan workers were famUiar and the name was more popular in the years 1843-1887 (Reeve, Catlow, D'Orbigny, Woodward, White, Gabb, Guppy) as was also Onustv^ Humphrey, 1797 {Museum Calonnianum, not accepted Op. 51, ICZN). In 1840, Gray {Synopsis of the Contents of the British Museum (ed. 42) : 119) pubhshed the family-group name phoridae from the stem of the generic name Phorus Montfort, 1810. Although this name for the family- group had priority, it was not employed so frequently as onustidae the name formed by H. & A. Adams, 1854 {Oen. rec. Moll.i : 361). A compilation of the use of the family-group taxa phoridae and onustidae, employed by the principal authors who included the family-group classification in their works, consists mainly of: for phoridae Gray, 1840, 1847 ; Agassiz, 1848; Sacco, 1896 — for onustidae H. & A. Adams, 1854 ; Chenu, 1859 ; Stohcizka, 1868 ; Paetel, 1875 ; Tryon, 1882. 3. Xenophora and its related genera are trochoid forms wliich have the outstanding character of attaching foreign objects to the upper exterior of the shell. It is the only family of the volummous number of gastropods which maintains this feature. Exceptions are about five isolated cases of nontrochoid and non-related genera. Consequently the xenophorids occupy a unique niche among gastropod families and the use of the family-group name XENOPHORIDAE dominates current moUuscan Uterature. 4. According to the Copenhagen Decisions Section 45(1) (p. 33) the name of the taxon of the family-group is governed by priority even though the nominate Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. 116 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature genus is changed in status to junior sjoionym, objective or subjective. In the case cited the familj^-group name phokidae Gray, 1840, has priority in naming over XENOPHORIDAE Deshayes, 1864. The nominate generic name Phorus Mont fort, 1810, is a jimior synonym of Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807. To revert to the family-group name phoeidae would have httle significance and would be confusmg to current molluscan workers. Included in the Decision (Section 45(1) (p. 33) Copenhagen Decisions) is the provision that if priority of a family-group name " is in conflict with current usage, current usage is to be maintained " provided certain conditions of apphcation for relief are carried out. 5. The genus Xenophora was based on 4 nominal species without designation of any one as type-species. The recent species Trochus conchyliophorus Born has been commonly cited as tjrpe-species on the ground that this was designated as such by Gray (1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London : 158). Actually, this species was designated (invahdly) as tj^e-species of Phorus Montfort, 1810, of which Gray cited Xenophora Fischer as a synonym. The first vahd designation of a type-species for Xenophora is that by Harris (1897, Cat. Tertiary Moll. B.M. {N.H.), Part I, The Australasian Tertiary Mollusca : 253) who so designated "Xenophora laevigata G. Fischer {Trochxts conchyliophorus Gmehn)". Both these specific names are junior subjective synonyms of Trochus trochiformis Born, 1778 (Index Mus. Goes. Vind. : 355). 6. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to declare mider its plenary powers that the family-group name xeno- PHOKiDAE Deshayes, 1864, shall be preferred to the prior names phoeidae Gray, 1840, and onustidae H. & A. Adams, 1854, so long as these names are considered to be appUcable to the same taxon. The maintenance of the family name which has been used for over 90 years and in universal usage for over 60 years is in the interest of greater stabUity of nomenclature ; (2) to place the generic name Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Harris, 1897, Xenophora laevigata Fischer von Waldheim, 1807, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) to place the specific name trochiformis Born, 1778, as pubUshed in the binomen Turbo trochiformis, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family-group name xenophoridae Deshayes, 1864 (type- genus Xenophora Fischer von Waldheim, 1807) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Editor's Note : The family-group name phoridae Curtis, 1833, is in current use in the Insecta, Order Diptera, and is based on the nominal genus Phora Latreille, 1796 [Precis Caract. Ins. : 169) and antedates phoeidae Gray, 1840. The virtual suppression of phoridae Gray, 1840, is therefore welcome to Dipterists. — W. E. China. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 117 C YEN US STEPHENS, 1836 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA) ; PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1491 By F. C. J. Fischer {Rotterdam, Ic Lumeystraat) Stephens (1836, III. Brit. Ent., Mand. 6 : 174) estabhshed the genus Cyrnus for four species from which the type-species has to be chosen. In the second edition of his Guide Arrang. Brit. Ins. (1837, col. 169) Curtis recorded the same four species and placed Cyrnus unipunctatus Stephens, 1836, first, stating in the preface that the species immediately following the generic name is always " atypical species ". 2. Westwood (Introd. mod. Classif. Ins., Gen. Syn. : 49, 1839) selected Hydropsyche urhana Pictet, 1834, as type-species of Cyrnus. It is one of Stephens's four included species, but although Pictet's urhana is a species of Tinodes, it has been established that the insect described by Stephens as Cyrnus urbanus is the same as his Anticyra phaeopa (1836, loc. cit. : 159). Since the pubUcation of MacLachlan's Rev. Syn. Trich. Eur. (1874-1880) it has been cited as a synonym of the latter species, now named Lype phaeopa (Stephens). 3. According to Opinion 488, Curtis is considered not to have selected type-species for the genera enumerated in his Guide Arrang. Brit. Ins. On the other hand, according to Opinion 17, in Westwood's Sjmopsis mentioned in paragraph 2, the species specified against the names of the genera are to be treated as having there been selected to be the type-species of those genera. 4. A strict appUcation of the two Opinions mentioned above would necessitate a change of generic names involving 21 species, many of which are well known and widely spread. The name Cyrnus has been in uninterrupted use for more than a century and Lype for more than 80 years. An alteration would create great confusion. 5. I therefore ask the International Commission : (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside aU designations of type-species for the genus Cyrnus Stephens, 1836, made prior to the decision now requested and, ha\'ing done so, to designate the species Cyrnus unipunctatus Stephens, 1836, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Cyrnus Stephens, 1836 (gender : masculine), tjrpe-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Cyrnus unipunctatus Stephens, 1836, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name trirrmculatus Curtis, 1834, as pubhshed in the binomen Phihpotamus trinmculatus (Lond. Edinb. phil. Mag. (3)4(21) : 213) (the oldest available name for the tj^e-species of Cyrnus Stephens, 1836) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. 118 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature QUINQUELOCULINA D'ORBIGNY, 1826 (FORAMINIFERA) ; PRO- POSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS AND DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE FOR 8ERPULA 8EMINULUM LINNAEUS, 1758. Z.N.(S.) 1494 By Alfred R. Loeblich, Jr. {California Research Corporation, La Habra, California) and Helen Tappan {University of California, Los Angeles, California). The purpose of this proposal is to maintain the current usage of the generic name Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826, against the priority of the senior objective synonym Frumentarium Fichtel and Moll, 1798, and the possible senior sjTionym Pollontes Montfort, 1808, thereby tending to promote greater stabihty and universaUty of nomenclature. The name Quinqueloculina has been "\\idely appUed for 135 years to a genus of porcellanous foraminifera in the family miliolidae. This geologically long-ranging and geographically widespread form is T^ddely noted in zoological, paleontological and geological pubUcations concerned mth foraminifera. The senior synonym Frumentarium has not been used in any publication since its original proposal, nor does it appear in the bibhographic compilations of genera and species of foraminifera, nor in Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus. Both genera have as their type-species Serpula semimdum Linnaeus, 1758. Reasons are set forth in favour of the vaUdation of Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826, and the suppression of Frumen- tarium Fichtel and Moll, 1798, and Pollontes Montfort, 1808. Elhs and Messina (1940, Catalogue of Foraminifera) recorded the occurrence of Frumentarium in the hteratmre, and gave the original description. A strict adherence to the rules of nomenclature would require that the prior name be recognized. In view of the 135 years of usage of Quinqueloculina, it is felt that this would result in greater confusion than stabihty of nomenclature. Furthermore, as generally understood, the species upon which both generic names are based does not agree with the poor figures pubhshed up to the time of the two generic definitions. The loss of the original types of Serpula seminulum, makes necessary the proposal of a neotype specimen so as to put the genus on a firm basis. 2. The type of Frumentarium was fixed by original designation and mono- typy by Fichtel and Moll, Testacea microscopica aliaque minuta ex generihus Argonauta et Nautilus {Microscopische und andere kleine Schalthiere aus den Geschlechtern Argonaute undSchiffer), 1798 (1803 reprint), p. 16. The description follows : " Praefatia genera [Nautilus, Hammonium, Lituus, Orthoceras Fichtel and Moll], quae libera sunt, quo non solum cum Serpula seminulo Linn, (quae vero nobis proprium genus Frumentarii nomine constituit), sed et hoc convenixmt, quod dicta Serp. seminulum quoque multilocularis sit. " Erwahnte Geschlechter [Nautilus, Hammonium, Lituus, Orthoceras Fichtel and MoU] sind frey, worin sie nicht nur mit der Serpula seminulum Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 119 Linn, (die aber bey uns ein eigenes Geschlecht unter dem Nahmen Frumentarium ausmacht), sondern auch darin iibereinkommen, dass gedachte Serpula semin. auch mehrfacherig ist." Frumentarium Fichtel and Moll, 1798, was not recorded in Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus and has not been recognized as a valid genus or as a synonym in any subsequent monographic treatment of the foraminifera until it was recorded with the original description by Elhs and Messina {Catalogue of Foraminifera, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., 1940). No statement is made as to the vahdity of the generic name therein. 3. Quinqueloculina was described by d'Orbigny, 1826, as follows : " Genre V. — Quinqueloculine, Quinqueloculina, Nob., peut-etre Pollonte ? Montf. Loges opposees sur cinq cotes ; cinq loges apparentes." A hst of 48 species referred to Quinqueloculina was given by d'Orbigny, some of which have since been split off into other genera, for example Quinqueloculina saxorum (=Miliolites saxorum Lamarck) is the type of Miliola, Q. subrotunda (=Vermiculum suhrotundum) is the t3^e of Miliolinella and Q. secans d'Orbigny is the type of Massilina. Although d'Orbigny had a more inclusive concept of this genus (as is true of most early genera) than do present authors, there has been general agreement that the species included in Quinqueloculina, whether regarded as a genus or subgenus have (as stated by Cushman, 1948, Foraminifera Their Classification and Economic Use, p. 177) a '■ test with the coiling in five planes, the chambers a half coil in length, and added successively in planes 144° apart, five chambers completing a cycle of two turns around the axis in section, but two and a half coils lengthwise, each chamber 72° from its next adjacent one, but 144° from its immediate predecessor ; wall with an interior chitinous layer outside of which is a calcareous imperforate layer, in some species with an outer layer of sand grains ; aperture at the end of the chamber, roimded, typically with a simple tooth." Quinqueloculina is also the type-genus of the subfamily qxjinqueloculininae Cushman, 1917 (Monograph of the Foraminifera of the North Pacific Ocean. Pt. 6. MUiolidae : U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 71(6) : 41). 4. Parker and Jones, 1859 (Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist., (3) 3 : 480) in discussing the species of foraminifera enumerated by Linnaeus state : "Serpula Seminulum (1264, 791) is the Quinqueloculina Seminulum — a good type for the vastly numerous group of quinqueloculine Miliolae, which occur in every sea." This has been regarded as the subsequent designation of type-species for Quinqueloculina. In their discussion (On the Nomenclature of the Foraminifera, Pt. III. The Species Enumerated by Von Fichtel and Von Moll, Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (3)5 : 98-116, 1860), Parker and Jones noted that Fichtel and Moll had only partially completed their study, describing and figuring only the nautiloid forms, intending to complete the Mediterranean fauna in later publications, had the first paid its expenses. In spite of their careful bibHo- graphic work, Parker and Jones apparently overlooked Frumentarium Fichtel and Moll, as no mention was made of it. 120 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Quinqueloculina was regarded as of subgeneric status by the earlier English workers. Thus it was placed as a subgenus of Miliola by Parker and Jones, and as a subgenus of Miliolina by F. Chapman, 1902, The Foraminifera, an Introduction to the Study of the Protoza. Chapman stated (1902, p. 92) concerning : " M. (Quinqueloculina) seminulum, Linne sp. {Serpula seminulum) . . . This is one of the Miliolinae which shows portions of five chambers on the svirface of the shell (hence Quinqiieloculina). It is generally looked upon as a central type of the group, and it is one of the most widely distributed of the family ..." 6. Quinqueloculina was recognised as a distinct genus and Serpula seminulum Linnaeus cited as its type by : Cushman, in numerous monographs and in the various editions of Foraminifera Their Classification and Economic Use (1928, 1933, 1940, 1948), Galloway, Manual of Foramiiiifera, 1933, p. 119, A. Morley Davies, Tertiary Faunas, 1, 1935, p. 11, 13, Glaessner, Principles of Micro- paleontology, 1947, p. 117, Pokorny, Zdklady Zoologicke Mikropaleontologie, 1954, p. 169, Pokorny, Grundziige der Zoologischen Mikropaldontohgie, 1, 1958, p. 256, Bogdanovich and Voloshinova in Rauzer-Chernousova and Fursenko, Osnovy Paleontologii, pt. 1, 1959, p. 239. Quinqueloculina has also been recognised and figured although no type-species was cited in many zoological texts on Protozoa and micropaleontological treatises: Calkins, Biology of the Protozoa, 1926, p. 355; Colom, Introduccion al estudio de los microforaminiferos fosiles, 1946, p. 123; Sigal in Piveteau, Traite de Paleontologie, 1952, p. 194, 196, 198, 199; J. Le Calvez in Grasse, Traite de Zoologie, tome 1, fasc, 2, 1953, p. 228, 229; Matthes, Einfiihrung in die Mikropaldontohgie, 1956, p. 7, 51, 55 and by Jepps, The Protozoa, Sarcodina, 1956, p. 92. Quinqueloculina has thus been recognised exclusively as the vaUd name for this form in all treatises and texts for at least the past 60 years, in the cited pubhcations from the United States, England, France, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Germany, Austraha and Russia and in many others throughout the world. 7. In Sherbom, An Index to the Genera and Species of the Foraminifera, Smithsonian Misc. Coll 37, 1896 (covering hterature to 1889), and Thalmann, An Index to the Genera and Species of the Foraminifera, 1890-1950, George Vanderbilt Foundation, 1960 (actually mailed from the printer in Copenhagen, Denmark, January 23, 1961), there are no species referred to Frumentarium, nor is the generic name mentioned. Reference is made by Sherborn to Frumentaria Soldani, 1795, however. Galloway, 1933, Manual of Foraminifera : 456, states : " Frumentaria Soldani, Testaceographia, vol. 1, pt. 3, 1795, p. 228, etc. Non-Linnean ; equals various mUioUds." Neither Frumentaria Soldani, 1795, nor Frumentarium Fichtel and Moll are cited in Neave's Nomenclator Zoologicus. In contrast Sherborn lists 282 specific and subspecific names referred to Quinqueloculina up through 1889, and Thalmann lists an additional 158 species and subspecies proposed between 1890 and 1950. 8. In the original definition of Quinqueloculina, d'Orbigny, 1826, mentioned as a questionable synonym Pollontes Montfort, 1808 [Conchyliologie Systematique BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 121 et Classification Methodique des Coquilles, 1 : 246). The original description given for Pollontes is as follows : " LXIP genre. Pollonte ; en latin, Pollontes. Le Pollonte. Caracteres gindriques. Coquille libre, univalve, cloisonnee, en retour sur elle-meme, mais en disque ; elliptique ; mamelonnee sur ses deux centres ; dos arrondi ; bouche ouverte, ronde, degagee, portee sur un col, et terminant une chambre faite en forme de cosse ou de sac ; cloisons unies, en calotte ; siphon inconnu. Espece servant de type au genre. Le Pollonte vesiculaire. Pollontes vesicularis." In a discussion of Montfort's publication Parker and Jones, 1860 {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (3) 6 : 344) stated : " Vol. i, p. 246. 62^ genre Pollontes vesicularis. A well-grown, finely striated form of Quinqueloculina from the Indian Ocean. It is well figured by Soldani (Testaceographia ; pi. 154, figs, bb, cc, dd, ee,ff, gg) in its different stages of growth. De Montfort refers his specimen, with doiibt, to fig. cc. It is the Triloculina Brongniartii, D'Orb., Ann. Sc. Nat. vii. p. 300, No. 23 ; T. Brongniartiana, D'Orb., Foram. Cuba, pi. 10, figs. 6-8 ; and the Quinqueloculina Dutemplei, D'Orb. For. Foss. Vien. p. 294, pi. 19, figs. 10-12. " This Miliola, which is but gently modified from M. Seminulum, is very widely distributed ; in some localities, however, as in the shallower water off the mouth of the river Hermus, Levant, it is a dominant form, there representing the common M. seminulum of other shores. In like manner, the more coarsely ribbed or paucicostate form (Q. pulchella, D'Orb., Q. Schreibersii D'Orb.) is dominant at other places, as, for instance, at 40 fathoms in Suda Bay, Crete." C. D. Sherborn, 1896, Index to the genera and species of the foraminifera : 317, states : "POLLONTES vesicularis, Montfort. Conch, syst. 1, 1808, 247, 62 d genre. [=3Iiliol. seminulum.] " Brady, 1884, Eept. Voy. Challenger, Zool., 9 : 156 cited Pollonites [sic] Montfort, 1808, in the synonymy of Miliolina Wilhamson, 1858. This genus therefore has been suggested as a possible subjective synonym oi Quinqueloculina, but also as possibly equivalent to Triloculi^ia or Miliolina. Gallowaj', 1933, A Manual of Foraminifera : 123 placed Pollontes in the synonymy of Triloculina d'Orbigny, 1826, stating : " Pollontes Montfort ... is Triloculina, Quinqueloculina or Retorta, but it is impossible to teU which, so the name is a nomen dubium." Pollontes is not mentioned by Cushman in the various editions of his Foraminifera Their Classification and Economic Use, 1928, 1933, 1940, 1948, nor in the monographs of the Recent Foraminifera of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans {U.S. Nat. Mu^., Bulls. 71 and 104). Pollontes has not been recognised as a vaUd genus smce the original pubUcation, and the type-species is unrecognisable, but because of the prior date of pubhcation, it leaves in doubt the possible vaUdity of both Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826, and Triloculina d'Orbigny, 1826, and might also represent Miliolinella Wiesner, 1931, Scutuloris Loebhch and Tappan, 1953, or another genus of the miliolidae. It is therefore suggested that the name Pollontes Montfort, 1808, be placed on the Official 122 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Index of Rejected and Invalid Names. 9. There is conflict between the current understanding of Quinqueloculina seminulum (Linnaeus) and the early illustrations of Vermiculum seminulum leading to doubt as to the status of the genus. Quinqueloculina was defined by d'Orbigny as having five chambers visible externally, hence quinqueloculine. The original description of the species by Linnaeus, Systema Naturae (ed. 10) 1758 : 786 states : " S. testa regulari ovali hbera glabra. Testa recedit a congeneribus quod hbera sit nee adhaereat ahis corporibus, quamvis anfractus inter se uniti, et quod apertura in mea non conspicua. Minuta." In the syiionjTDiy of the species Linnaeus referred to the figures given by Plancus, 1739, Jani Planci Ariminensis de Conchis minus notis Liber, cui accessit specimen Aestus reciproci Maris Superi ad littus portumqtie Arimini, pi. 2, fig. 1, and by Gualtieri, 1742, Index Testarum Conchyliorum quae adser- vantur in Museo Nic. Gualtieri, et methodice distributae exhibentur, pi. 10, fig. S. The figures given by Plancus and Gualtieri do not show five chambers visible from the exterior, in fact that of Plancus shows only two clearly visible chambers, and that of Gualtieri shows three. These are probably due to the poor quaUty of the early illustrations, for many examples referred to Quinqueloculina seminulum in the hterature show a very small amount of the fourth and fifth chambers visible at the centre of the opposite sides of the test. Later illustra- tions of Quinqueloculina seminulum have been from many different locahties and geologic ages, and include many different species, by present-day standards. Brady, 1884, Rept. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 9 : 158, stated : " The name Miliolina or Quinqueloculina seminulum is one that has been almost universally adopted by EngUsh authors for the typical smooth- sheUed Miliola with five visible segments." On p, 160, Brady stated that : " Miliolina [=Quinqueloculina] seminulum is common to every latitude, from the furthest points of the Arctic Seas yet explored to the equator, and from the equator to the Antarctic ice-barrier ; and to every depth from the shallowest shore-pool down to 3,000 fathoms." He recorded it as occurring geologically " in marine deposits of almost every age ", from the Eocene of the Paris Basin to the present. Cushman, U.S. Nat. Mus., Bull. 71 : 45, 1917, in recording it from the western Pacific stated that : " The sjTionymy of this species is very large and very difficult to unravel, as the name has been used to include almost all sorts of smooth quinquelo- cuhne forms." and in U.S. Nat. 3Ius., Bull. 104(6) : 24, 1929, stated : " This is a very common species according to the pubHshed records but many of the figures given do not fit the earher ones of this species. The typical form at least seems to be most frequent in cool waters. It is very abundant in fairly shallow waters of the northeastern coast of America and of the coast of Europe . . . The types are from the shore sands at Rimini . . ." 10. In order to restudy the type-species of many genera of foraminifera, the writers visited Europe in 1953-1954 to examine and reillustrate the types Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 123 of many early species. During a four-month stay in London an attempt was made to locate Linnaeus' types of foraminifera, but neither Serpula seminulum, nor the foraminifera originally recorded as Nautilus were found to be preserved in the collections of the Linnaean Society in London ; hence they are presumed to be lost. Because of the unsatisfactory original figures and description, the loss of the type-specimens, and the obvious wide variety of forms that have been referred to it, this species has lost much of its value for ecologic or strati- graphic studies. In order that the species be placed on a firm basis, so that other records can be definitely verified, or reallocated specifically, it is proposed that a neotype be designated. The well known pubUcations of Wilhamson, 1850 ; Parker and Jones, 1866-97 ; Brady, 1884 ; Cushman, 1917, 1929 and others have all illustrated specimens from other than the tjrpe area or geologic age, hence they are not regarded as available for selection as neotype. In the section on smaller foraminifera in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology the wTiters have attempted to illustrate the original types or topotypes of all genera of foraminifera, as far as possible, and have selected lectotypes and refigured them for many species. To illustrate Quinqueloculina a specimen was obtained from the shore sands of Rimini, which shows the characteristics of the early figures and descriptions as nearly as possible. It is a true Quinqueloculina, with the central chamber on each side (4th and 5th from the last formed) largely overlapped by later chambers, a condition suggested by the original figures to be present in the original specimens. The test is regularly oval and the wall smooth, as indicated in Linnaeus' description. It is almost exactly 1.0 mm. in length, thus by Linnaeus' standards being regarded as " minuta " — but nevertheless easily visible to the naked eye, as Plancus and Gualtieri both attempted to illustrate the species at natural size as well as enlarged. The specimen from the type-locality at Rimini, Italy, illustrated in the Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology, and deposited in the U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C., museum registration number, U.S. National Museum No. 6,939,333, is herewith designated as neotype of Serpula seminulum Tu,mnsieus=Quinqueloculina seminulum (Linnaeus). 11. In order to maintain current usage at the generic level and make possible greater accuracy at the specific level, thereby promoting greater stabiUty and universahty in the nomenclature of the foraminifera, the Inter- national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested : — (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the under-mentioned generic names for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonym}' : — Frumentarium Fichtel and MoU, 1798 ; Pollontes Montfort, 1808 ; (2) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : — Quinqueloculina d'Orbignj^ 1826 (gender : feminine) (type-species, by subsequent designation by Parker (W. K.) and Jones (T.R.), 1859, Serpula seminulum Jjmn&ens, 1758— Quinquelo- culina seminulum (Linnaeus) d'Orbigny, 1826) ; (3) to place the under-mentioned specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : — seminulum Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Serpula seminulum, as defined by the neotjpe 124 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature designated in the present application (specific name of type-species of Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826) ; (4) to place the under-mentioned generic names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : — Frumentarium Fichtel and Moll, 1798, and Pollontes Montfort, 1808, as suppressed under the plenary powers under (1) above ; (5) to place the family-group name quinqueloculininae Cushman, 1917 (type-genus Quinqueloculina d'Orbigny, 1826) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 125 LE PI DO PA STIMPSON, 1858 (CLASS CRUSTACEA, ORDER DECAPODA) : PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1495 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) The name Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, is universally used at present for a genus of Anomuran Decapod Crustacea, but under the strict application of the Code, it falls as a junior synonym of the name Thia Leach, 1815, for a genus of Decapoda Brachyura. The use of the plenary powers is now requested to vahdate current usage. 2. The genus Lepidopa was erected by Stimpson, 1858 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 230), who designated as its type-species "Albunaea scutellata, Fabr., M.-Edw.". The identity of this species, which was originally described as Hippa scutellata by Fabricius, 1793 {Ent. syst. 2 : 474), has been the subject of many different interpretations, which have recently been summarised by the present author (Holthuis, 1961, Proc. Kon. Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. (C) 64(1) : 27, 28). As shown there, the original description of Hippa scutellata does not fit any of the species of Hippidea to which the name scutellata has been apphed by various authors, but checks so extremely well with the Brachyiiran species known best under the name Thia polita Leach, 1815, that there can hardly be any doubt as to its identity with that species. 3. The consequences of the final discovery of the identity of Hippa scutellata, under a strict apphcation of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, are that (1) the generic name Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, falls as a junior synonym of Thia Leach, 1815, so that a new name has to be introduced for the Anomuran genus, and (2) the correct name of the species Thia polita Leach, 1815, becomes Thia scutellata (Fabricius, 1793). 4. Judging by the definition which Stimpson (1858) gave of his genus Lepidopa, and by the fact that he placed the genus in the family albuneidae, there cannot be the least doubt that he intended the name Lepidopa for the Anomuran and not for the Brachyuran genus, and it is evident that the type- species was incorrectly identified by him. His " Lepidopa scutellata " in aU probability is the species at present known as Lepidopa richmondi Benedict, 1903, or a related form. As Stimpson and all later authors have consistently apphed the name Lepidopa to the Anomuran genus, for which no other name is available, it is evident that an action by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to preserve the name in its accustomed sense is fully justified. The simplest solution would be that the Commission under their plenary powers designate as the type-species for the genus Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, the species Lepidopa venusta Stimpson, 1859. This species was included (be it as a nomen nudum) by Stimpson in the original description of the genus Lepidopa, and it is currently still considered to belong to that genus. Bull. zool. Namencl, Vol. 19, Part 2. March 1962. 126 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. As to the second problem, namely that concerning the specific name of the species Thia polita Leach, 1815, in my opinion it seems best to apply the Code here rigidly. Though this species is best known by the specific name polita Leach, 1815, it has been pomted out by several authors that the specific name residuum of Cancer residuus Herbst (1799, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 3(1) : 53) is older and has priority. Leach when describing Thia polita had already given the name Cancer residuus as a probable synonym, whUe Stebbmg (1893, Hist. Crust. : 75) actually substituted the name residuus for polita, using the name Thia residuus (Herbst) for the species. The specific name residua has been used also by some modern authors, notably by Monod (1956, Mem. Inst. Franc. Afr. Noire 45 : 153). Since Thia polita is a rather rare species without any economic value and not of importance in appHed biology, a change of its name camiot do much harm, especially so since two different names are currently appUed to it. Therefore it seems best to me to adopt the principle of priority here and to accept the name scutellata as the correct specific name for the species. 6. The tj^e-specunens of Hippa scutellata, which according to Fabricius formed part of the collection of the British Museum, are no longer extant as Dr. Isabella Gordon kindly informed me (in litt.). In view of the fact that the identity of the species has been interpreted in so many different ways, it seems advisable to select a neotype for it so that no more dispute can arise about its identity. 7. As the neotype of Hippa scuiellata Fabricius, 1793, I now select a male specimen Ts-ith carapace length of 20 mm. and carapace breadth of 22 mm. The specimen was collected in 1876 in the Bay of Naples by Dr. J. G. de Man and is now preserved in the collection of the Rijksmuseum van NatuurHjke Historic at Leiden under the Registered Number Crustacea D 351. 8. The carapace of the neotype is smooth, shining and somewhat iridescent. It is strongly arched from side to side, but hardly at aU from before backwards. Its outline is roughly heart-shaped, being much broader anteriorly than posteriorly. The front is curved and somewhat sinuous. The lateral margins bear three indistinct notches. A fringe of long hairs is implanted just below the lateral margin. The oral field is quadrangular. The orbits are complete. The first antennae fold obhquely. The first pair of pereiopods are chelate and smooth. The folio wng pairs all bear styhform dactyli. The legs bear fringes of hair ; the dorsal fringes of merus and carpus being especially conspicuous. The first, second, sixth, and seventh somites of the abdomen are free ; the third to fifth are fused. A photograph of the neotj'pe is shown on plate 4 The specimen is preserved in spirit and is provided with a parchment label which bears its correct name, Thia scutellata (Fabr.), and furthermore indicates that the specimen is the neotj^e of Hippa scutellata Fabr. ; also the locahty, date of collecting, collector and registered number are given. The type- locahty is now restricted to the GuLf of Naples. 9. The genus Thia is the type of the family tkhdae Dana, 1852, the name of which is now proposed for insertion on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 10. The name of the genus Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, was changed by Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 127 Stimpson, 1860, in a later paper to Lepidops. As Stimpson gave no reasons for this change, the spelling Lepidops Stimpson, 1860, must be considered an erroneous spelling wthout nomenclatural standing. In 1878, however, Miers also used the spelling Lepidops for the genus, but explained that he used it because it is grammatically more correct than the original Lepidopa. This makes Lepidops Miers, 1878, an emendation (be it an invalid one) and thus an available name. Lepidops IVIiers, 1878, now invahdates the name Lepidops Zimmer, 1927, for a genus of Mysidacea which Zimmer had proposed as a replacement name for Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924, which in its turn was preoccupied by the name Lepidophthalmus Holmes, 1904, for a genus of CaUian- assid Decapod Crustacea. Holmes's generic name Lepidophthalmus at present is usually synonymized A\'ith the generic name Callianassa Leach, 1814. The replacement name Lepidomysis for Lepidops Zimmer, 1927, was recently proposed by Dr. Wm. D. Clarke (1961, Crustaceana 2(3) : 251, 252). It would be well to place the invaUd generic names Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924, Lepidops Stimpson, 1860, Lepidops Miers, 1878, and Lepidops Zimmer, 1927 on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology, while the family names based on the first and last of these names also should be placed on the appropriate index. The names Lepidomysis Clarke and lepidomysidae Clarke should at the same time be placed on the appropriate Official Lists. 11. The Commission is now asked to : — (1) make use of its plenary powers : — (a) to set aside aU type designations and selections so far made for the genus Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858, and having done so (b) to designate as the type of that genus Lepidopa venusta Stimpson, 1859 {Ann. Lye. nat. Hist. New York 7 : 79) ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names : — (a) Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 {Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1858 : 230). (render : feminine. Type-species, designated under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above : Lepidopa venusta Stimpson, 1859 ; (b) Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961 {Crustaceana 2(3) : 251, 252). Gender : feminine. Type-species, by monotypy : Lepidophthalmus servatus Fage, 1924 (C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 178 : 2128) ; (c) Thia Leach, 1815 {Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(2) : 312). Gender : feminine. Type-species, by monotypy : Thia polita Leach. 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(2) : 312 (a subjective junior synonym of Hippa scutellata Fabricius, 1793, Ent. Syst. 2 : 474) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names : — (a) scutellata Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Hippa scutellata and as defined by the neotype selection made in para. 7 above (the oldest available name of the type-species of the genus Thia Leach, 1815) ; (b) servatus Fage, 1924, as published in the combination Lepidophthal- mus servatus (the name of the type-species of the genus Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961) ; 128 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) venu^ta Stimpson, 1859, as published in. the combination Lepidopa venusta (the name of the species designated under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above as the tj^e-species of the genus Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858) ; (4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names : (a) LEPIDOMYSIDAE Clarke, 1961, Crustaceana 2(3) : 252 (type-genus : Lepidomysis Clarke, 1961) ; (b) THnDAE Dana, 1852, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 6 : 86 (type- genus : Thia Leach, 1815) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : — (a) LepidopUhalmus Fage, 1924 (C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 178 : 2128). Gender : mascuhne. Tjrpe-species, by monotypy : Lepidoph- thalmus servatus Fage, 1924, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 178 : 2128. A junior homonym of Lepidophthalmiis Holmes, 1904 {Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 3(3) : 311). (b) Lepidops Stimpson, 1860, Ann. Lye. nat. Hist. New York 7 : 113. An erroneous spelhng of Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858 ; (c) Lepidops Miers, 1878 {Journ. Linn. Soc. Lond. Zool. 14 : 331). An invahd emendation of Lepidopa Stimpson, 1858. Gender : mascuhne ; (d) Lepidops Zimmer, 1927, in Kiikenthal & Krumbach, Handb. Zool. 3(1) : 644. Gender : masculine. A replacement name for Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924. Invalid because a junior homo- nym of Lepidops Miers, 1878 ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Family-Group Names in Zoology the following family names : — (a) LEPiDOPHTHALMiDAE Fage, 1924, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 178 : 2129. Type-genus : Lepidophthalmus Fage, 1924. A family name based on a junior homonym ; (b) LEPiDOPiDAE Stammer, 1936, Zool. Jb. Syst. 68 : 54. Type- genus : Lepidops Zimmer, 1927. A family name based on a junior homonym. Explanation of Plate 4 Hippa scutellata Fabricius, 1793. X 2 Neotype designated by Holthuis (L. B.) in the application submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (: 125-128) in the present volume. (■ 10 APR 1962 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19 Plate 4 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director : Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A. Scientific Controller : W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS (continued from front wrapper) Opinions Page Opinion 620 (Pa^JtZio (iarSr kurzes sj^stematisches Verzeichnis der vornehmsten Stiicke der Linckischen NaturaUensammlung zu Leipzig, 3 vols (vol 1 1783 ; vol. 2, 1786 ; vol. 3, 1787) ; (b) Statius MiiUer, P. L., 1766. DeUciae Naturae selectae ; oder auserlesenes NaturaUen-Cabinet, welches aus den drey Reichen der Natur zeiget, was von curiosen Liebhabern aufbehalten und gesammelt zu werden verdient. Ehemals herausgegeben von Georg Wolfgang Knorr ; fortgesetzt von dessen Erben. 3 vols. (ed. 1 in 1766 ; ed. 2 in 1778 ; a Dutch translation in 1771). 182 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature STERE0MASTI8 BATE, 1888 (CRUSTACEA DECAPODA), PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1497 By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is invited to make use of its plenary powers to save the name Stereomastis Bate, 1888, for a genus of deep-sea lobsters belonging to the family polychelidae. This name is threatened by its older subjective synonym Eryoneicus Bate, 1882, which so far, however, has only been used to indicate the larval stages of this genus and the related genus Polycheles Heller, 1862. 2. The family polychelidae contains three recent genera : Polycheles Heller, 1862, Willemoesia Grote, 1873, and Stereomastis Bate, 1888. The first two of these genera have been placed on the Official List in Opinion 519 (1958, Ops. Deals, int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 19(6) : 137, 138). It is now requested to have also the third name, Stereomastis, placed on the List, but to this end recourse to the plenary powers is necessary. 3. The larval stages of the family polychelidae diff"er so strongly from the adults that at first they were considered to represent a distinct genus, which received the name Eryoneicus from Bate (1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 456). Sund (1915, Nature, Lond. 95 : 372) was the first who came with strong arguments to show that Eryoneicus is not a distinct genus, and that its " species " are larval stages of the genera Polycheles and Stereomastis. The publication of Balss's account (1925, Wiss. Ergebn. Tiefsee-Exped. Valdivia 20(4) : 189-203) of the polychelidae collected by the German " Valdivia " Expedition removed the last doubts as to the larval nature of Eryoneicus. At that time many " species " of Eryoneicus had been described and in many instances it was impossible to know which adult and larval species belonged together. For convenience's sake therefore the generic name Eryoneicus was continued to be employed for the larvae and even as recently as 1953 Bernard {Dana Rep. 37 : 1-93) gave a revision of the " genus " Eryoneicus of which he described 14 new species. 4. The nomenclature of the larvae and that of the adults thus are still quite independent of one another and even the larvae of which the adults are known are often still indicated with the larval name, as Eryoneicus coccus Bate for the larvae oi Stereomastis sculpta (Smith). Though the generic name Eryoneicus is employed for the larvae of both of the genera Polycheles and Stereomastis, nomenclaturally it is a senior subjective synonym of Stereomastis since the type-species of Eryoneicus, E. coecus Bate, proves to be the larva of Stereomastis sculpta (Smith). 5. A strict application of the Code necessitates the replacement of the name Stereomastis Bate, 1888, by Eryoneicus Bate, 1882. This would certainly lead to a great confusion since the name Eryoneicus, which has never been used for any adult PolycheUd, to every carcinologist denotes the PolycheUd Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 3. May 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 183 larval stages. It would therefore be most awkward if the generic name Stereomastis had to be replaced by Eryoneicus. 6. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is now asked to suppress under its plenary powers the generic name Eryoneicus, with the understanding that this name may still be used as a term to indicate larval stages, but apart from that has no standing under the Law of Priority. 7. Faxon (1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 24 : 197, 198) used the spelling Eryonicus for Eryoneicus. As he gave no reasons for so doing this spelUng must be considered an erroneous spelling and should be placed on the OflBcial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Some years later, however, Faxon (1895, Mem. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 18 : 108) made it clear that his change of Eryoneicus to Eryonicus was intentional. Eryonicus Faxon (1895) therefore is an (invalid) emendation and as such is an available name. As this name is a junior sjTionjin of Stereomastis Bate, 1888, there is no need to ask for its suppression. 8. Neither Stereomastis nor Eryoneicus have ever been made the t3^e of a taxon of the family group. 9. The concrete proposals which I now submit to the International Com- mission are that they should : — (1) make use of their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the generic name Eryoneicus Bate, 1882 ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Stereo- mastis Bate, 1888, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 24 : 154 (type-species, by present selection : Pentacheles suhmi Bate, 1878, Ann. Mag. nai. Hist. (5) 2 : 278) (gender : feminine). (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the follo^\ing names : (a) sculptus Smith, 1880, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 2 : 346, as pubhshed in the combination Polycheles sculptus ; (b) suhmi Bate, 1878, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 2 : 278, as published in the combination Pentacheles suhmi (the name of the tjrpe- species of the genus Stereomastis Bate, 1888) ; (4) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names : — (a) Eryoneicus Bate, 1882, A7in. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 456 (type- species, by monotypy : Eryoneicus coecus Bate, 1882, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (5) 10 : 457) (gender : mascuhne) (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) Eryonicus Faxon, 1893, Bull. Mus. comp. Zool. Harvard Coll. 24 : 197, 198 (an erroneous spelling oi Eryoneicus Bate, 1882). 184 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ARCTOPSIS LAMARCK, 1801 (CRUSTACEA, DECAPODA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS, AND RELATED aiATTERS. Z.N.(S.) 1498 By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) In 1801, Lamarck {Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155) erected a new genus Arctopsis, his total account of which runs as foUows : "Akctopsis. Arctopsis. Six antennes droites, tres-longues, simples, garnies de poUs verticiUes. Corps ovale -conique, pointu anterieurement. Dix pattes onguiculees : les deux anterieures terminees en pinces. *Arctopsis lanata. n. Ex Miisaeo nostra." This description is practically useless : no crab has six antennae, so that the the first sentence must be erroneous, while the next two lines are so general as to fit the majority of oxjThynchs and a few other crabs as weU. 2. Desmarest (1823, Z)ic<.iS^ct.«cr/. 28 : 260) placed ^?-c/oj)5is in the synonjony of Pisa Leach, 1814, while LatreHle (1825, Encycl. method. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 139) identified Lamarck's species with Pisa armata (Latreille, [1802-1803]). Latreille explained the first faulty sentence of Lamarck's description as follows : " Quelquefois aussi des corps etrangers s'attachent au museau, et c'est sur im individu de la Pise armee etant dans cet etat, que M. de Lamarck avoit etabh le genre Arctopsis". H. 'Milne Edwards (1834, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 308) was of the same opinion, though he did not express himself so positively as LatreUle. The possibUity that LatreiUe actualh' did examine Lamarck's specimen is not imaginary. As far as is kno\^^l to me, the only author actually adopting the Lamarckian names in question was A. White (1847, List Crust. Brit. Mus. : 5 ; 1850, List Spec. Brit. Anim. Brit. Mus. 4 : 5, 6 ; 1857, Pop. Hist. Brit. Crust. : 13, 20, 21), who substituted Arctopsis for Pisa ; however, most other authors, including even Lamarck himself (1818, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 5) totally disregarded both names. ]\Iiers (1886, Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 17 : x, xvii, xviii, xxxviii, xliv, 53-55) also doubtfully identified Arctopsis with Pisa. He stated : "Arctopsis lanata of Lamarck has been referred to this form [=Pisa tribnlus] by A. White, and Lamarck's generic name has priority over the almost universally used Pisa of Leach, but Lamarck's description is so brief, vague, and obviousl}^ incorrect, that I do not think myself justified in using his name in preference to one about which there is no uncertainty, and which has been generally adopted " (: 55). Miers then proposed to use Arctopsis as a possible subgeneric designation. Stebbing (1893, Hist. Crust. : 116) stated that " Pisa Leach, 1813, is open to the suspicion of being a synonym of Arctopsis, Lamarck, 1801 ", but continued to use the name Pisa. Since then Pisa has been practically tmanimously used for the genus. 3. Miers's (1886) above-cited observation excellently characterizes the BvU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 3. May 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 185 situation as it still is at present. Arctopsis might well be considered a forgotten name. It is clear therefore that the suppression of this forgotten name for a genus which is insufficienth^ described but which may be identical \nth the well-kno%vn genus currently and uniformly indicated \\-ith the name Pisa Leach, 1814, can only be in the interest of the stabihty and uniformity of nomenclature. 4. Another name which has been suggested as having priority over Pisa Leach, 1814, is the name Blastus Leach, 1814 (Brewster's Edinh. Encycl. 7 : 431 ; type-species by monotj^y : Cancer tetraodon Pennant, 1777, Brit. Zool. (ed. 4) 4 : 7). Blastus and Pisa were published by Leach on the same page of his 1814 paper, Blastus being mentioned before Pisa. In 1815 Leach {Trans. Linn. Sac. Land. 11 : 327) sjTionjTnised Blastus and Pisa, adopting the name Pisa for the genus. Leach's 1815 choice, being that of the first reviser has to be respected, and Pisa thus has priority over Blastus. However, Stebbing (1904, 3Iar. Invest. S. Afr. 2 : 2), evidently basing himself on the principle of line priority remarked : " Since Pisa, Leach, is a sjTionym of the same author's Blastus, Pisinae, if upheld, would become Blastinae, or as a family, Blastidae." So far as I know the name Blastus (or actually the name BLASTIDAE, as the generic name Blastus is not mentioned in his paper) is adopted by only one other author, viz., Barnard (1950, Atm. S. Afr. Mus. 38 : 10, 48). All other modem authors use the names Pisa and pisinae. No action by the Commission is thus necessary here. The name Blastus, being a subjective sjTionjTn of Pisa is still available for those authors, who may consider Cancer biaculeatus Montagu and Cancer tetraodon Peimant as belonging to two different genera or subgenera. Since Blastus is not currently distinguished from Pisa, there is no need to have it placed on the Official List.^ 5. To find the vaUd name for the type-species of the genus Pisa pro\ades another complicated problem. Until 1913 this t;vTe-species and a related form have been continuously confused with one another and it has been the great merit of Pesta (1913, 8.B. Akad. Wiss. Wien (mathem.-naturimss. Kl.) 122(1) : 1213-1223) to have solved this problem in his paper " Kritik adriatischer Pisa -Art en aus dem Formenkreis armata-gibbsi-nodipes ". The names that have been used for the two species (which for reasons of convenience are indicated here as Species A and Species B, as has also been done by Pesta) are the following : Cancer tribulus Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1045 Arctopsis lanata Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155 Maja armata Latreille, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 98 Cancer biaculeatus Montagu, 1813, Trans. Linn. Soc. Land. 11(1) : 2 Pisa Gibbsii Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(2) : 327 Pisa nodipes Leach, 1815, Zool. Miscell. 2 : 50 Inachus musivus Otto, 1828, Nova Acta. Leop. Carol. 14(1) : 334 6. Carcinologists at present are unanimous in assigning the names Cancer biaculeatus and Pisa gibbsii to Species A, and the names Pisa nodipes and Inachus musivus to Species B. Pisa gibbsii even is objectively sjTionymous with Cancer biaculeatus, being a substitute name for the latter. 7. As far as Cancer tribulus L. is concerned, Jkliers (1886) was, as far as is 186 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature kno\vii to me, the first author to identify that species with a species of Pisa. Luinaeus's description, however, is such that there exists a grave doubt as to the correctness of JVIiers's identification. Neither the arrangement of the spines on the carapace described by Limiaeus, nor the character of the long filiform legs agree Avith any Pisa. Personally, I beUeve it far more probable that Cancer tribuhis L. is a species of the genus Inachus Weber, 1795. However this may be, the name tribuhis has been ignored by subsequent authors and in modern carcinological hterature is used neither for a species of Pisa nor for one of Inachus. As it seems unlikely that the species Cancer trihulus L. wdll ever be satisfactorily identified and as it, as a nomen dubium, will form a continuous threat to the stabiUty of junior names, it is now requested that the name be suppressed under the plenary powers of the Commission. 8. The same holds true for the specific name Arctopsis lanata Lamarck. As has been shown above, this name is a nomen dubium like the generic name Arctopsis and its suppression is likewise requested here. 9. The specific name armata was introduced by Latreille [1802-1803] who gave a short diagnosis of his Maja armata and referred under it to " Herbst, Cane. tab. 15, fig. 92. — Plane, tab. 4, B." From LatreiUe's description it is clear that a species of Pisa is meant, and Herbst's and Plancus's figures fully confirm this. Both figures represent species A ; especially Plancus's figure being excellent. In order to settle the question of the identity of Maja armata Latreille ([1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 98) once and for all I now select as its lectotype the specimen figured by Plancus (1760, De Conchis minvs notis : app. pi. 4 fig. B) under the name (: 107) " Cancer Cordatvs, sev Sagittatvs totvs hirsvtvs ". The correct name for Species A is thus Pisa armata (Latreille, [1802-1803]) and for Species B Pisa nodipes Leach, 1815. Pesta in his excellent 1913 revision came to this same conclusion. After the publication of Pesta's paper the name nodipes has been adopted by the majority of authors for Species B and this name is found in most of the modern publica- tions dealing with the Mediterranean fauna. Its nomenclature therefore forms no problem. Strangely enough, several authors did not follow Pesta in the use of the name Pisa armata for Species A, notably Bouvier (1940, Faune de France, 37 : 331) and Monod (1956, i/em. Inst. Fraru^. Afr. Noire 45 : 486), who both adopted for that species the name Pisa gibbsii Leach, 1815. Bouvier (1940) justified this action by saying : " rien ne prouve que le Maia armata Latreille 1805, 98, appartienne a cette espece [=Pisa gibbsii] plutot qu'a la precedente [=P. nodipes] " (: 331), and "Au surplus . . . il y a tout avantage a supprimer le nom d' armata qui prete aux confusions, attendu que la plupart des auteurs ne I'appliquaient point a Gibbsi " (: 328). I cannot agree at all with Bouvier. Firstly there is not the sUghtest doubt that Maja armata Latreille was based on Species A ; it is possible that Latreille assigned a mixture of species to his Maja armata, but though we can prove that his new species included Species A, we cannot prove that Latreille placed also other species in it. The lectotype selection for 3Iaja armata made in the present paper removes the last doubt as to its identity with Species A. 10. Also Bouvier's conclusion, that the name gibbsii is to be preferred to armata because the latter name has often been used for species diflferent from Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 187 Species A, is misleading. The early authors Uke Latreille and Risso did not distinguish between Species A and B and used the name armata for both. Roux (1830, Cru^t. Medit. (4-9) : pis. 33, 34) it is true, gave the name P. gibbsii to Species A and that of P. armata to Species B. H. Milne Edwards (1834, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 307, 308) on the other hand used the name P. gibbsii for Species B and P. armata for Species A, as may be seen from his descriptions ; unfortunately he cited Inachus musivus Otto in the sjoionymy of P. armata. Heller (1863, Crust, siidl. Europas : 41-43) used the same nomenclature as did H. Milne Edwards. The main character that these two authors used to distinguish between Species A and B is that in Species A the intestinal spine of the carapace is sharply pointed, while in Species B it is a blunt tubercle. This character is still considered to be of great importance ; the only dis- advantage of it is that it can only be seen in the denuded carapace. The velvety hair cover of the carapace, namely, obscures the outline of the spine and therefore the pubescence may give the impression that also in Species A the spine is blunt ; as soon as the hairs are removed the feature shows very clearly. Any species described in the Uterature as being either species A or B and having the intestinal spine sharp is without any doubt Species A. But if the intestinal spine is said to be blunt, the species may be either A or B. We may be confident therefore that H. Milne Edwards's and Heller's Pisa armata, which was described as having the intestinal spine sharp is Species A, while their P. gibbsii may have been a mixture. The pubhcations of H. Milne Edwards and Heller were fundamental and formed the base for practically all later research, so that their interpretation of Pisa armata and P. gibbsii has been adopted by the majority of later workers. Bouvier's (1940) argument for using the name gibbsii for Species A and rejecting armata because the latter had been often used for Species B, does not hold good at all, since the name gibbsii in this respect is far worse compromised than armata is. Furthermore the name gibbsii is invalid as it is an objective junior synonym of the available name biaculeatus Montagu. 11. After 1913, the year that saw the pubUcation of Pesta's revision, both the names armata and gibbsii have been used for Species A. In very few instances (e.g., Nobre, 1931, Crust. Decap. Stomatop. Portugal : 154, 155 ; 1936, Fauna marinha Portugal 4 : 95, 96) the name armata was used for Species A and the name gibbsii for Species B. 12. Considering all sides of the question I do not see any justification for not adhering strictly to the Law of Priority, and I suggest therefore that the name armata be adopted as the valid name for Species A. There would be little sense in validating the name gibbsii, as to achieve that end not only the name armata, but also the name biaculeata should have to be suppressed under the plenary powers of the Commission. 13. The genus Pisa is currently considered to be the type of the subfamily PisiNAE, and it is now requested that that name be entered in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. 14. The concrete proposals that I lay before the Commission are that they should : — (1) make use of their plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the 188 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy the following names, all three of which are nomina dubia : — (a) the generic name Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 ; (b) the following specific names : — (i) lanata Lamarck, 1801, as pubUshed in the combination Arctopsis lanata ; (ii) tribulus Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Cancer tribulus ; (2) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the name Pisa [Leach, 1814], Brewster's Edinh. Encycl. 7 : 431 (tjrpe-species, by monot5rpy : Cancer biaculeatus Montagu, 1813, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11(1) : 2 (a junior subjective synonym of Jfaja armato Latreille, [1802-1803]) (gender : feminine) ; (3) place on the Official List of Specific Names m Zoology the following names : (a) armata Latreille ([1802-1803], Hist. nat. Crust. Ins. 6 : 98) as pubhshed in the combination Maja armata (the oldest available name for the type-species of the genus Pisa [Leach, 1814]) ; (b) nodipes Leach (1815, Zool. Miscell. 2 : 50) as pubhshed in the combination Pisa nodipes ; (4) place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name pisiNAE Dana (1852, U.S. Explor. Exped. 13(1) : 79) (type-genus : Pisa [Leach, 1814]) ; (5) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the name Arctopsis Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155) (type-species, by monotypy : Arctopsis lanata Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155) (gender : feminine), as suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a) above ; (6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the following names : (a) lanata Lamarck (1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 155) as published in the combination Arctopsis lanata (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(b)(i) above) ; (b) tribulus Linnaeus (1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1045) as pubhshed in the combination Cancer tribulus (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(b)(ii) above). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 189 DENDRASPIS FITZINGER, 1843 (REPTILIA, SERPENTES) ; PRO- POSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1500 By Robert Mertens {Natur- Museum und Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) The object of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Syst. Rept. : 28), which according to the Law of Priority would be the correct generic name for the Indian King Cobra, Ophiophagus hannah (Cantor, 1836). 2. The generic name for the four species of " Mambas ", weU-known venomous snakes of Africa, has been cited in the earUer Uterature as Dendraspis, attributed to Schlegel, 1848 (Schlegel, Over Elaps jamesonii Traill etc., Natura Artis Magistra 1848 : 5) and with Elaps jamesonii Traill, 1843 {Edinb. New Phil. J. 34(66) : 54) as type-species (designation by monotypy). In 1936 Brongersma {Zool. Mededeel. 19 : 136) pointed out that the generic name introduced by Schlegel was not Dendraspis but Dendroaspis, Dendraspis being no more than an invalid subsequent spelling first introduced by Dumeril, 1856 {Rev. Mag. Zool. (2) 8 : 558). Since that time the correct use of this spelling is to be found more frequently in scientific publications. 3. The binomen Naja hannah Cantor, 1836 {Asiat. Research 19(1) : 187) has frequently been used as the scientific name for the Indian Kong-Cobra, the well-knoASTi largest species of poisonous snakes. In recent hterature however we find the opinion that this species represents a separate monotypical genus, for which Ophiophagus Giinther, 1864 {Rept. hrit. Ind. : 340), with Hamadryas elaps Giinther, 1858 {—hannah Cantor, 1836) as type-species was consistently regarded as the vahd name. In the synonymy of Hamadryas elaps, Giinther (1858) quotes Naja elaps Schlegel, 1837, having misidentified the latter, which is m fact a sjnonym of Micropechis ikaheka (Lesson, 1830). It had been overlooked that Fitzinger, 1843 {Syst. Rept. : 28) designated Naja hungarus Schlegel, 1837 {=hannah Cantor, 1836) as type-species of the genus Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, so that according to the Law of Priority the correct name for the King-Cobra must be Dendraspis hannah (Cantor, 1836). 4. In contrast to the opinion of Brongersma, 1936, who states that the name Dendroaspis is to be rejected as the generic name for the ethiopian Mambas {Zool. Mededeel. 19 : 136) we conclude following the Code that Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, and Dendroaspis Schlegel, 1848, are not homonyms. But it seems inadvisable to replace the name Ophiophagus, a name often used in the meantime for the genus, by Dendraspis Fitzinger ; the result would be permanent confusion ^v-ith Dendroaspis (or its invahd emendation Dendraspis DumerU, 1856, in the old sense) not only in zoological but also in appUed medical Uterature. Both the genera concerned even belong to the same family of elapids. There- fore it is proposed to suppress the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, BuU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 3. May 1962. 190 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by use of the Commission's plenary powers in order to validate Ophiopha^us Giinther, 1864. 5. I therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clatm-e : (1) to use its plenary poAvers to suppress the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the following generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Dendroaspis Schlegel, 1848 (gender : feminine), t3^e-species, by monotypy, Elaps jamesonii TraUl, 1843. (The date of pubhcation (c/. Brongersma I.e.) is herewith fixed as 1848) ; (b) Ophiophagus Giinther, 1864 (gender : masculine), type-species by monotj^y, Hamadryas elaps Giinther, 1858. (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) jamesonii TraiU, 1843, as pubhshed in the binomen Elaps jamesonii (type-species of Dendroapsis Schlegel, 1848) ; (b) hannah Cantor, 1836, as pubhshed in the binomen Naja Jiannah. (4) to place the generic name Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, suppressed imder the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Lidex of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomendature 191 CHILODUS MULLER & TROSCHEL, 1844, AND CAENOTROPUS GllNTHER, 1864 (PISCES) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NMIES. Z.N.(S.) 1502 By J. R. Gery (Strasbourg, France) and J. J. Hoedeman {Zoological Museum, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) The object of the present application is to ask the Commission to give a Ruhng confirming the validity of type-designations for the genera Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Glinther, 1864. 1. The genus Chilodus was established in 1844 by Miiller & Troschel (Synopsis generum et specierum familiae Characinorum. Arch. Naturgesch. 10(1) : 85) for a South-American fish of the family chakacidae s. lat. (Cjrpriniformes = Ostariophysi auct.). The only species included at the time of the original publication was Chilodus punctatus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 {loc. cit. : 85-86). 2. The generic name Microdus was apphed by Kner, 1859 (Zur FamiUe der Characinen. III. Folge der Ichthyologischen Beitrage. Erste Abtheilung. Denkschr. Akad. Wiss. Wien (Math.-natur. Kl.) 17 : 149) for a new genus of South -American fishes of the same family, to include the single species Microdus labyrinthicus Kner, 1859 (loc. cit. : 149-151). 3. According to the Rules, the action of Miiller & Troschel is correct, and the generic name Chilodus is valid, taking as type-species by monotj^py the species Chilodus punctatus, whereas Kner's generic name Microdus was pre- occupied by Microdus Emmons, 1857, an Elasmobranchiomorph genus. 4. Giinther 1864 (Catalogue of the Fishes in the British Museum, Volume 5, Catalogue of the Physostomi : 297) estabhshed the generic name Caenotropus for a specimen from the River Capin, Amazon, identified by him as the species labyrinthicus of Kner, 1859. He also stated (in footnote) that both the genera (generic names) Chilodus and Microdus are preoccupied, thus ranging both in the s3Tion3rmy of Caenotropus. Since Chilodus is mentioned first in the synonymy, and whereas Chilodus is a perfectly valid generic name, this would either (a) render Caenotropus a synonym of Chilodus ; or, preferably (b) require that the replacement oi Microdus (which was indeed preoccupied) by Caenotropus be given proper status. In the latter case Caenotropus would take automatically the t5^e-species of Microdus Kner (Microdus labyrinthicus) as its tjrpe-species. 5. The action of Giinther (1864) remained mthout comments (to our knowledge) until Eigenmann, 1910 (Reports of the Princeton University Expeditions to Patagonia, 1896-1899, 3(4), Catalogue of the Fresh- water Fishes of Tropical and South Temperate America : 424) recognised Caenotropus Giinther with type-species Microdus labyrinthicus Kner, and Chilodus Miiller & Troschel with type-species Chilodus punctatus Miiller & Troschel. 6. Finally the action of Travassos, 1951 (Catalogo dos generos e Subgeneros da subordem Characoidei (Actinopterygii-Cypriniformes), Dusenia 2(4), 31 de julho : 279-280 (separate : 27-28)) to make Chilodus punctatus MiiUer & Troschel 1844, type-species of Caenotropus seems to be incorrect. Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part. 3 May 1962. 192 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature 7. The International Commission is therefore asked : (1) to place the foUo^\-ing generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844 (gender : masculine), type- species, by monot3^y, Chilodus punctatus MiiUer & Troschel, 1844; (b) Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotjTpy, through Microdu^ Kner, 1859, Microdus laby- rinthicus Kner, 1859 ; (2) to place the follo^ving specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) punctatus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, as pubhshed in the binomen Chilodus punctatus (type-species of Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844) ; (b) labyrinthicus Kner, 1859, as pubhshed in the binomen Microdus labyrinthicus (type-species of Caenotropus Giinther, 1864) ; (3) to place the generic name Microdus Kner, 1859 (a junior homonjon of Microdus Emmons, 1857) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. PURCHASED INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director : Francis J. GrifELn, F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller : W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. Stoll Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS {continued from front wrapper) Decisions of the Commission Page Opinion 629 {Pediculus dentatus Scopoli, 1763) . 132 Opinion 630 (Phasianella Lamarck, 1804) 140 Opinion 631 (Aedipoda pellarini Le Gnillou, 1841) . . 142 Opinion 632 {Regina Baird & Girard, 1853) . . . 145 Opinion 633 {Norella Bittner, 1890) 148 Opinion 634 (Myalina trigonalis Etheridge, 1876) . . 150 Opinion 635 {Notophthalmus Rafinesque, 1820) . 152 New Applications Doto Oken, 1815 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Henning Lemche) . . . . . . . . 156 Cynips caricae Linnaeus in Hasselquist, 1762 (Insecta, Hymenop- tera ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (W. E. China) 160 Lystrophis Cope, 1885 (Reptiha) ; Proposed vahdation under the plenary powers (Joseph R. Bailey) . . . . . . . . 164 Gryllus campestris Linnaeus, 1778 (Insecta, Orthoptera) ; Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers (D. K. McE. Kevan) 170 Dasiops alveofrons Moffitt & Yaruss, 1961 (Insecta, Diptera) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Dasiops alveofrons McAlpine, 1961 (J. F. McAlpine, H. R. Moffitt and F. L. Yaruss) 173 CONTENTS {continiied from inside hack wrapper) Page Asteria^ nodosa Linnaeus, 1758 (Asteroidea) ; Selection of a lecto- type and addition to the Official List (A. M. Clark) . . . . 174 Pisidia Leach, 1820 ; Proposed designation of a type-species ; and Cancer istrianus Scopoli, 1763 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) . . . . 177 Stereomastis Bate, 1888 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (L. B. Holthuis) . . . . . . 182 Arctopsis Lamarck, 1801 (Crustacea, Decapoda) ; Proposed sup- pression under the plenary powers and related matters (L. B. Holthuis) 184 Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843 (Reptilia) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (Robert Mertens) . . . . . . . . 189 Chilodus Miiller & Troschel, 1844, and Caenotropus Giinther, 1864 (Pisces) ; Proposed addition to the Official List of Greneric Names (J. R. Gery and J. J. Hoedemann) 191 Comments Statement regarding the argument of W. I. Follett and Daniel M. Cohen concerning the type-species of the genus Bathylagus (G.S.Myers) 130 Comment on the proposed vaUdation of Pnoepyga Hodgson, 1844 (A. L. Rand) 131 Comment on the proposed vaUdation of Odontaspis Agassiz, 1838 (L. S. Gliickmann and D. V. Obruchev) 139 Comment on the proposed addition of Pterophorus SchafFer, 1766, to the Official List (L. Bigot) 141 Amendment to the proposed validation of Enhydrm Castelnau, 1834, under the plenary powers (W. E. China) . . . . 144 Comments on the proposed designation of a type-species for Xenostegium Walcott, 1924 (Alan B. Shaw ; H. B. Whittington ; J. T. Temple) 147 Amendment to the proposal to validate under the plenary powers the specific name Trombidium akamusJii Brumpt, 1910 (W. E. China) 155 Comment on the proposed suppression of four Gastropod family- group names (L. R. Cox) . . . . • • • • • • 159 Comment on the proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers for Blissus Burmeister, 1835 (E. Wagner) . . 172 © 1962. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Printed in England by Metcalfe & Cooper Limited, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2 Volume 19. Part 4. pp. 193-256, 1 plate, 5 text-figures. im July, 1962 THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Contents Notices prescribed by the IrUermUioruil Congress of Zoology : Commission News ^^^Zoo^o^Tm"''""' w ^y ^i'^ International Commission on S^^he^i^^'^f^'^l"'" f /°**"g ^'^ applications published "^ ii^e Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ... ^°*'7nn^! -^^1 P^^^^ble use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases {continued inside back lorapper) -^ JUL 1962 PUfiCHASEO Page 193 194 194 LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Conunisslon on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its PubUcations Office. 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I 1962 Price Three Pounds (AU righta reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Bradley {Cornell University, Ithaca, N.T., U.S.A. (12 August, 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amabal {Sao Pavlo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Acting Secretary : Dr. W. E. China (British Museum {Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.I) B. The Members of the Commission {Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Senior Dr. Afranio do Amaeal {S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) {Vice-President) Professor J. Chester Bradley (ComeM University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Yokes ( University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLTHuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand PEAimc {Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kuhnklt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayb (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico Toetonbsb (Museo diStoria Naturah "O. Doria ", Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Beinck (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Poll {Music Royal de VAfrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1968) Professor Pierre Bonnet ( University de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) (Secretary) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaozewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mebtens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-InstitiU Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Herino (Zoologisches Museum der HumboMt-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obeuchev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow 5-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Uchida (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Alvaeado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. Munroe (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. Borchsenius (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad £-164, U.S.S.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) Prof. E. Binder (Museum d^ Historic Naiurelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) mUCHPS£B OF ZOOlOGICAl NOMNCIATURE Volume 19, Part 4, pp. 193-256, 1 plate, 5 text-figures. 16th July, 1962 Commission News New Commissioners. The following have been elected bj^ the Executive Committee : — 1 . From candidates nominated by the Swiss Academy of Natural Sciences, Professor E. Binder, malacologist at the Natural History Museum in Geneva, Switzerland. 21 May 1962. 2. As Commissioner at large, Dr. W. E. China, C.B.E., Assistant Secretary to the Commission, formerly Keeper of Entomology in the British Museum (Natural History), London. 21 May 1962. Resignation of Secretary and appointment of Acting Secretary. I have found it necessary to tender my resignation of the Secretarj^ship, which has been accepted by the other members of the Executive Committee, as from 30 June 1962. I am happy to be able to report, however, that Dr. China, a commissioner since 21 May 1962, has accepted the Executive Committee's invitation to be Acting Secretary to the Commission until the Congress meets in Washington in 1963. The Code The following translations of the Code are now available : — German — published 28 May 1962 by the Senckenbergische Natm'forschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt am Main. Translated by Otto Kraus, and approved by the German-speaking Commissioners E. M. Hering (BerUn), W. Kiihnelt (Wien) and R. Mertens (Frankfurt am Main). Spanish — published by the Real Sociedad Espaiiola de Historia Natural, Instituto " Jose de Acosta " de Zoologia, Madrid. Translated by the Spanish Commissioner, Rafael Alvarado. XVIth International Congress of Zoology, Washington, 1963 Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with. Article 77(1) of the Code, amendments to the Code can only be considered by the Congress if they have been received by the Commission not later than 22 August, 1962, provided only that under the above Article the Commission may relax this rule m favour of proposed amendments received at a later date. 194 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the pubhcation of each application. Any zoologist who M-ishes to comment on any of the apphcations in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in dupUcate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the plenary potvers. — The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the foUo^^ing applications pubUshed in the present part of the Bulletin : — (1) Vahdation and interpretation of the generic name Endothyra Phillips, [1846] (Foraminifera). Z.N.(S.) 768. (2) Designation of a tj^e-species for Boa Limiaeus, 1758 (Reptiha). Z.N.(S.)1188. (3) Vahdation and interpretation of the specific name Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera). Z.N.(S.) 1216. (4) Suppression of the specific name Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda). Z.N.(S.) 1470. (5) Vahdation of the emendations Dorhynchus (of Donjnchus Thomson, 1873), and stirhynchus (of stirynchus (Axixis) Leach, 1815) ; designa- tion of a tj^e- species for Callinectes Stimpson, 1860 ; vahdation of the family name potajionidae Ortmann, 1896 ; validation of the specific names Callinectes sapidus Rathbim, 1896, and Goneplax sexdentatus Eisso, 1827 (Crustacea, Decapoda). Z.N.(S.) 1499. (6) Vahdation of Morch, 1853-1858, Catalogus Conchyliorum and designa- tion of a type-species for Pseudamussium Morch, 1853. Z.N.(S.) 1501. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on April 1962. Zoological Nomenclature Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 195 DISCUSSION OF THE CASE "APHIS LIXXAEUS, 1758, ITS TYPE-SPECIES AXD THE FAIULY-GROUP XAME DERIVED FROM IT (IXSECTA, HEMIPTERA). Z.X.(S.) 881." (see volume 18, pages 177-180) By Louise M. Russell {U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I recommend that the Commission approve the first three items of the request listed on page 180 of the Bulletin because the nomenclature of the aphids will be stabilized bj' such action. I recommend that aphidae be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Xames, and that APHiDiDAE be rejected as the family name for the aphids. Reasons for these recommendations are given below. (a) Approval of aphtdidae disregards or conflicts with previous rulings of the Commission. Opinion 143, rendered in 1943, states that the family name for the tingids, based on the generic name Tingis, is ttngidae instead of tingitidae or tutghdae. Aphis and aphidae are similar to Tingis and tingidae. Opinion 450, rendered in 1957, approves the family name pykalidae rather than the emended spelling pykalididae, based on the generic name Pyralis. The name PYKALIDAE was adopted for reasons similar to those that resulted in the spelling pieridae, rather than the emended pierididae, based on the generic name Pier is (Hemming, 1952, Bull, zool. Nomencl. 7 : 68-69). The latter two cases are comparable to Aphis, and aphidae versus APHIDIDAE, in that the simpler spellings were approved. The simple spellings are applicable to the spelling of the family name of the aphids, and previous Commissions have shown by their decisions that aphidae is preferable to aphididae. Uniformity in the spelling of family names is desirable, especially within an order ; hence in the Hemiptera, aphidae, in conformity with tisgidae, is more logical than aphididae. Moreover, other well-known hemipterous family names based on generic names ending in -is are speUed the simpler way — for example, Cercopis and cercopidae, Membracis and membracidae, Miris and miridae, and Nobis and nabidae. Uniformity in the spelling of family names is a mnemonic aid. It is helpful if the familj^ name fits the common name, and thus aphidae for the aphids is more acceptable than aphididae. If the latter were used, aphidids would be the logical common name for the insects, and aphididae and aphidids are less articulate and less euphonious than aphidae and aphids. In a 1950 Recommendation concerning the removal of ambiguities from Article 4 of the Rules in the formation of family names, the Commission {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4(7-9) : 246) stated that the choice should be made in favour of whichever method shows most clearly " the relationship between the generic name on the one hand and the name of the family on the other and provides the simpler and more euphonious form compatible with that relationship ". The speUing aphidae complies with this Recommendation more satisfactorily- than does aphididae. (b) Approval of aphididae conflicts with Professor Grensted's 1947 {Ent. mon. Mag. 83 : 137- 141) statements and conclusions on the formation of family names. Professor Grensted treated the case of Tingis and ttngidae adequately and classically and stated (p. 127) "... I am going to argue that the decision given in Opinionl43, establishing the famity name Tingidae as correct, has implications which are far-reaching and which, if accepted, will greatly simplify one of the more awkward problems as to the formation of such [family] names." Professor Grensted also stated (p. 141) "... an opinion should decide between Aphidae and Aphididae, either of which is equally tenable. Personally I prefer Aphidae." His suggestions (pp. 140- 141) indicate that aphidae is more acceptable linguistically than aphididae, even though both are " tenable " classicaUj'. (c) Approval of aphididae would indicate the abandonment by the present Commission of the principles of family name formation and spelling incorporated in Opinions 143 and 450 by former Commissions. This would result in confusion and lack of uniformity in the formation of family names. If workers cannot be guided by Opinions and Recommendations in the formation of family names because of inconsistencies and disparities in the actions of the Commission, they will be unlikely to follow the Commission in other nomenclatural matters. As Professor Grensted (p. 137) stated, "... the procedure of the Commission should be such as to inspire confidence in its learning and scientific integrity ..." The spelling aphididae apparently without a precedent would destroy confidence, but the spelling aphidae, with tingidae, pieridae, and PYRALIDAE as precedents, would inspire confidence in the decisions of the Commission. (d) APHIDAE is the oldest correctly formed name dating from Leach, 1815. There apparently is no greater linguistic reason for changing the speUing aphidh of Latreille 1802-1803, to APHIDIDAE than to aphidae. 196 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (e) The approval of aphididae would condemn workers who, since the rendition of Opinion 143, have consistentlj' used aphidae in compliance with the Commission's decision on a very similar family name. It would support workers who have ignored Opinion 143 and have used APHIDIDAE. Disregard of Opinion 143 is the reason why the spelling of aphididae has been used a greater number of times than aphidae. There is onlj* one reason, its greater number of uses, for the approval of aphididae, and there are several reasons for its rejection. There is only one reason, its lesser number of uses, for the rejection of aphidae, and there are several reasons for its acceptance. I therefore recommend that aphidae be approved as the family name of the apluds. By Clyde F. Smith (North Carolina State College, School of Agriculture, Raleigh, North Carolina, U.S.A.) Miss Russell presents some very strong arguments for the use of the name aphidae and I wish to go on record as recommending that aphidae be placed on the Official List of Family- Group Names and that aphididae be rejected as the family name for the aphids. In addition to the reasons given by Miss Russell, I should like to add the following : (1)1 question whether or not aphididae has been used a greater nimiber of times than APHIDAE. Certainly the papers listed represent only a very small portion of the papers which have used the famih' name spelled aphidae or aphididae. (b) The subfamily aphidiinae (Hymenoptera : Braconidae) may be raised to family status at a future date. If this is done, aphidhdae would be the logical spelling for the familv name. [This has already been done by Mackauer, 1961, Zeitschrift f. Pasasiten- kunde 30 : 576. Editor.] In view of the above and the reasons submitted bj' Miss Russell, I wish to recommend that aphidae be approved as the family-name of the aphids. By Mortimer D. Leonard [Washington, B.C., U.S.A.) I have been able to see Miss Louise M. Russell's memorandum to you in support of the adoption of the family name aphidae instead of the proposed name aphididae. As a long-time student of aphids I have always used aphidae and I propose to do so again in a comprehensive " List of the Aphids of New York " which I am now ready to send off for pubUcation. I believe Miss Russell has presented a strong!}' adequate case for the use of the name aphidae and I am in entire agreement with her arguments in tliis matter. I trust that the Commission will act favourably in the retention of the family name aphidae. By George F. Knowlton {Utah State University, Logan, Utah, U.S.A.) This letter is my plea and opinion that we should spell the aphid family name aphidae and not aphididae. This would be in line with Tingis, tingidae ; Pyralis, pyeaijdae ; Cercopis, cercopidae ; Nobis, Nabidae ; and Miris, mieidae. Aphis, APHIDAE more clearly shows the relationship between the type-genus and the family than does Aphis and aphididae. I recommend that aphidae be approved as the family name for the aphids. By George A. Schaefer (Cornell University, Geneva, New York, U.S.A.) I recommend that aphidae be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names, and that aphididae be rejected as the family name for aphids. This recommendation is based on the justifications previously forwarded by Miss Louise M. Russell. The linguistic appeal of aphidae in contrast to aphididae caimot be overemphasized. APHIDAE is more generally used than aphididae by workers in this area. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature I97 By Frej Ossiannilsson (In^litutionen for Vdxtsjukdomsldra, Uppsala, Sweden) take the libe^rty^of making the fSSfTor^rn" "^ """^ '' <'"^^^*^' Hemiptera) ". I is not complete as it is, cmicioAE and pTe^^^^^^^ aphididae, however, this uniformity uniformity'^would be stn^more LcomD ete ff n^! ""^ exceptions. And the existing relative (from the linguistic poin Tview) xtus he c^rre"cr/' '""7 "?* "■'i'^'"""-^ ^"""g'^ f^'-'^^d is doubtless Iabididae, not TrBmAE WiLT °? of a family name based on Xabis the problem of uniformity luklpresentUself^J^.^ '""" of aphididae for a moment, family group name on a glneric name hein^.T ^^^."y,^T« * =^^1°^'^* ^'^^'^ to base a new This will alu'ays result in tKTmSofTmit^r^"^^ f ^"^^^ '^''"^ ^**'" declension. Xow. if the Commission eon M °that K-^e oF T'^f °^'^' '°"^"'' ^'^^^ ^''''' aphididae. the best course would be to chanje Art cle 4 f^the CoS' CT) """"'t '"^""l^ ^^ """''^'^d' Appendices of that Code contains many examnie. of f^rn I 'u ^"^'rary, Table 2 of the of imparisyllaba of the third dedenTn^ W this Tab7e Lf^'' ''"'"^ ^"'"^f °° ^'^^ ^««'« for zoologists in the forming of familv7rm,n nf^ /j^ ' ^^^"^ constructed as a guidance would already be inclined to pro^os^ fhe Fntroduction f' °°* '"'"f ^'^'^^ *'^^* *'^« Commission use of these imparisyllaba ^ introduction of a special paragraph for the modified ApMsi':i^t:l^:7r,:ftTofl'^^^^^ ^*f- of thegenen-c name the plural form Aphide.^ this should be reSpH that since Lmnaeus himself did use relation of their new splis to anhis shonlH ^ . T? °T 'P^^^'^^ "^"^^^ ""^ «ome biological «i>A.>;i//,«, resultinjif a mT. °u-e?f spemnls ^'L7""' ^"' ^"'''l'^'^' "^^""^)' "P^'''^'-'^ and is placed on the Official List I hLKt Z subS^^^^ Further, if the spelling aphidae (e.g PH^-LLAPrnDiNAE) shou'ld be changed aTcorc^S? '° ^'°''' '°*""^ ^°-«^*** confrn^reUth^^S:c\:'^'(fn:ti^^^^^^^^^^^ r' ^^1^^?^ -""''^ ^^ ^'^^ ^°^^-» as the only familv belonging to t^ suSrfamnv .Ir J ' '" true only if aphididae is regarded you are By A. N. Tissot {Agricultural Experimental Station, University of Florida Gainsville, Florida, U.S.A.) I have been interested in tL nomenekturrof In Jh« f ^^^^ Commission. For many years name for the group has been ofTome on™ f^ ^ ^^^ uncertainty of the correct family language proffssor? who have notTeen in fuH ^ '"'■ ?'' °''"f^°°' ^ ^^^^ discussed this with name for the generic name 1^^)° It certS '*P'"*^'''^^"* regarding the formation of the family finally to end the incZisfencv nf L ^ '^ '' ^-^f *° ^°'^ ^^^^ ^^S"*' '^''tion will be taken group\f insects "^''°°^'^*«°'=y °f ^^^^^S two widely used family names for this important f^r^iyn:ZT:lKfr;ZV'SL"nZtn^ *^* ^* ^^^y "^ ^PP--d as the official in favour of the name aphid^e She h'^T'enS-'' T^^fi"''' ^ T^^^ "^ ^^' recommendation ment that I see no point in my tn-iL to n™ k"^* ^°' f°^ completely adequate state- However, I do wish^o endoSe S siondv^nn^^H m "p°'^*^1,f ''^^'"'^ recommendation, name aphidae be approved. strongly support Miss RusseU's recommendation that the By Miriam A. Palmer (Colorado State University, Fort Collin,, Colorado, US 4) 198 Bnlletin of Zoological Nomenclature Russell's comment and wish to register my approval and support of all the points which she mentions and presents. This spelling aphidae is in conformitj', as I understand it, with Opinion 143 rendered in 1943 and the recommendations set forth in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 1950, vol. 4, parts 7-9, p. 246. By M. E. MacGillivray {Canada Department of Agriculture Research Station, Fredericton, N.B., Canada) I recommend that careful consideration be given to the recommendations presented by Jliss Louise M. Russell on the subject of the name Aphis. With her I concur that : (1) The Commission approve the first three items of the request listed on page 180 of the Bulletin. (2) That APHIDAE be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names and that APHIDIDAE be rejected as the family name for the aphids. If the classical adviser to the Commission, Canon L. W. Grensted, believes that the two forms are equally acceptable, and if there is proof that Stroyan's suggestion regarding the stem of the word is correct, then the only reason for continuing the usage of aphididae is because it has been used more often. Since either stem of the word is acceptable, then the practice most commonly followed in the formation of family names should be employed here. Miss Russell has cited the examples pieribae, pyraliidae, membracidae, cercopidae, miridae, nabidae. There seems then only two questions to answer : (a) Is the Commission going to follow the accepted practice for the formation of family names and be consistent and designate aphidae ; or (b) Is the Commission going to use the name most commonly used because the writers have not accepted the practices of the Commission and designate aphididae. For the sake of conformity throughout Zoological Literature and at a sacrifice of the con- formity mainly in European literature dealing with this family I would propose that the commonly accepted practice for the formation of family names be followed and that the Commission designate aphidae as the family name for the aphids. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 199 ENDOTHYRA BOW MAN I PHILLIPS, [1846] v. ENDOTHYRA BOWMANI BROAVN, 1843 (FORMIINIFERA). Z.N.(S.) 768 By L. G. Henbest {U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, B.C., U.S.A.) The object of the present application is to preserve in its accustomed sense the name Endothyra howmani Phillips [1846]. This name is -vvidely used in palaeontological and geological literature and was accepted for over 80 years as representing skew-coiled endothyrids. 2. In 1846, Phillips (: 277, fig. 1) introduced the na,me Endothyra boimnani as a new genus and species of the protozoan order Foraminifera. The species was collected from rocks of Mssissippian age in Yorkshire and was described as follows : "... commencing vdth the Mountain limestone ... I distinguish a beautiful concamerated shell, most probably a foraminifer, \rith a large opening in each septum, on the interior edge. Formerly I saw in the possession of Mr. John E. Bowman a specimen of this kind, visible to the naked eye, and named it Endothyra Boiomanni. The volutions are swollen externally between the septa ". 3. The species was named after IVIr. J. E. Bowman. Through some error the name was spelled "BoKmianni " by Phillips. Brady (1876 : 92) discussed and corrected the spelling to read " boivmani ". The corrected spelling has pi-e vailed and would appear to be valid under the Code. 4. The description, sketch, and generalised stratigrapliic source presented by PhilUps indicate that an actual specimen was figured and that it was a Mississippian endothyrid. The sketch and description strongly suggest but are insufficient to verify that (a) the shell growth is intermediate between the extremes of skew to nearly planispiral coiling that may be seen in endothyrids such as Endothyra baileyi (Hall), which resembles E. boivmani Phillips, [1846], em. Brady, 1876, and (b) Phillips's type-specimen is similar in evolutionary progress to E. boiomani as interpreted by Brady 1876. Inasmuch as the type- specimen is lost and as a great variation of growth form is common in the endothyrids, such conclusions as the above can be no better that educated judgments and are not subject to proof. 5. In 1876, Brady (: 92-94, PI. 5, figs. 1-4) redescribed and refigured E. boivmani PhUhps with new collections. He expUcitly attempted to estabUsh what he regarded as the form that Phillips originally described. This con- stituted a formal revision and was apparently the first one. In the centm-y that followed PhUUps's publication, the definition of Endothyra that Brady established as representing the skew-coiled endothyrid genus which has a wandering or revolving axis of coiling has prevailed. In Brady's sense the name Endothyra has become one of the most A\'idel3^ used names of Foraminifera in specialized palaeontologic and stratigraphic Uterature and in textbooks of geology and palaeontology. 6. In 1939, MikhaUov (: 51, pi. 4) proposed that Endothyra bowmani Brady (1876, pi. 5, figs. 1-2) is a new species and not E. boiomani Phillips, [1846]. He named Brady's species E. bradyi. Though MikhaUov's conclusion may be Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. 200 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature true, it can not be proved one way or another (see para. 4). Furthermore, this action ignored Brady as first reviser and it has inadvertently complicated current efforts to stabilise the nomenclature. 7. Li 1950, however, Zeller (: 2—4) challenged both the validity of Phillips's authorship and the concept of the character of Endothyra boivmani that was established by Brady. Zeller pointed out that Brown in 1843 (: 17) had pubhshed the name '"' Endotliyra boivmani PhUlips " and described the species — thus BroAMi, not Phillips, is the author of the name. Brown's description is ambiguous as to family significance, but PhUlips's has generic meaning. There is, however, little resemblance between Phillips's and BroAMi's figures. Brown's dra-n-ing represents a planispiral form, but as the figure is diagrammatic or conceptual, it cannot be proved whether Bro^nl figured a millerelhd or an endothATid. In spite of this, Zeller transferred the generic name Endothyra to the planispiral form and gave the new generic name Plectocjyra to the skew- coUed endothjTid genus of Brady and other authors with Plectogyra plectogyra n.sp. as the type-species. 8. The taxonomic nomenclature of Endothyra is threatened mth an additional kind of complication. Several lines of evidence indicate that the skew-coUed and the planispiral modes of growth in endothyrids represent alternation of generations instead of separate generic stocks. So far the problem of dimorphism in Endothyra has not been fully examined and the evidence must be regarded as inconclusive. Nevertheless the probabOity is sufficient to add a material factor in the issue of conserving the generic name Endothyra Philhps. 9. I therefore object to the strict application of the Law of Priority in the present case for the following reasons : (a) The exact generic identity of the specimen or specimens figured by Brown and Phillips is not determinable. Either they figured different specimens or one of them took far more interpreta- tive Uberties than the other. The two figures have little in common. The point here is that the rigid application of the Law of Priority adds little or nothing to solving the basic cUlemma as to what the tj^e-specimen or specimens of Endothyra boiomani actually were ; (b) Brady in his revision dealt ^^ith Endothyra boivmani Phillips and gave no indication that he was aware of what we now regard as Browii's technical priority. Bradj^'s treatment of Endothyra leaves no question of its representmg the kind of endothjTid that has a wandering or rotating axis of coiling ; (c) The term Endothyra Philhps, [1846], em. Brady, 1876, is one of the most widely used names of Foraminifera. Its use is so extensive in specialist and textbook literature that a change at this date will create confusion and wUl gain nothing in taxonomic precision ; (d) It is possible that the planispiral endoth^Tid is but the megalospheric generation oi Endothyra. If this should prove to be true, another major name shift would be mandatory because most of the species of Endothyra are involved in the name shift that is required hy a rigid application of the Law of Priority. On the contrary, if the name E. boivmani PhUHps is conserved, future proof or disproof of dimorphism will not aflfect the stability of the species of Endothyra and the literature thereon before 1950. 10. Brady, 1884 (: 66) published the family-group name endothykinae Bxdlttin of Zoological Nomenclature 201 for a subfamily. This was raised to family level in 1895 bv Rh.imhJ.r / oo^ Li»t of Flt.G™p Names """' """" *""" "^ ^'^"^^ °" "- O^*^ onZ^olScJNo^eriTt,,';:':! ''°--^' ' »* "- I-'^-'--' Commi.i„„ (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to suppress the generic name Endothyra Bro^.-n, 1843 for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of HomonLy (b) to suppress the specific name borcmcmi Brown, 1843, as puSei m the bmomen Endothyra ho^omani, for the purposed of bo h the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonyiiy ri84m is tot T""ir"" ^'^"^'^^'-^ *«--'"^- Philhps, UH46] IS to be mterpreted according to the description Lk figures published by Brady 1876 • aescription and (2) to place the generic name Endothyra Phillips, [1846] (gender • feminine) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology • ^ ' ^ ^^' *« Pj^^^/^he^Pecific name 6o^.-;n«»^■ (emend. hox^uLu) Pliillips [18461 ^IJ^; 'i ^r '^' ^"^"""^ ^"^^^^^'- 6o.^..„«,^/(t,Te-spe es of f^otgr ''' ^''''^^ " *'' ''''^^^^ ^'' °^ ^p^'^« ^^-- ^ (4) to place the generic name Endothyra Bro^^•n, 1843 (as suppressed under and In^r^ ^""" %^^^^'^ ^'^^^^^ ^^^ *'- ^fficill Ind'rof Reje^d and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology • -tvejectea (5) to place the folloA^ing specific names on the Official TtiHpv »f t? • . ^ and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology _ ""^ ^'^"'^'^ (a) ho^ani Bro.ai, 1843, as pubhshed in the binomen Endothyra h^an^ (as suppressed under the plenary powers in (ll^) (b) hovnr^anni Phillips, [1846], as published in the binomen Endothyra ho^na^rn^ (an nicorrect original spelhng for bor..nani, PM?p" 6o^m««u (an incorrect original spelling for howmani Brown, ■p , rr Tj References - , ISS4, thattenger Reports (Zool.) 9 Brmvn T., 1843 The elements of fossil concMo„ tb^^^n^k^^ T^rr^ -^^'^ «-"««. I^-^Sradsioe „p.avle,.e. 202 Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature ENDOTHYRA BOWMANI PHILLIPS, [1846] v. ENDOTHYRA BOW MAN I BRO^VN, 1843 (FORAMINIFERA) ; AN ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL. Bj' S. E. Rosovskaya (Palaeontological Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Moscow) 1 . The aim of this application is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to secure a legal basis for the further use of the generic name Endothyra PhUlips, [1846], sensu Brady, 1876. This well-kno^vn genus of Foramuiifera has a great stratigraphic importance (especially for oil-geology) because of its wdde distribution in the Carboniferous (Europe, America). The name Endothyra has been in use for nearly 120 years. This genus has given name to the family endothyridae Brady, 1884, and to the order Endothjrrida (Fursenko, 1959). The retention of the nominal genus Endothyra ^\\\\ promote the stability of nomenclature. 2. The genus Endothyra, as well as its type-species Endothyra boivmani (by monotypy), was first described by BrowTi (1843). Nevertheless, Brown regarded Philhps as the author of the genus and species, because Phillips was the first who found and named tliis foraminiferan, although he did not describe it until two years later (Phillips, 1845). Both Browii and Phillips figured cross-sections only. Brown (pi. VT, fig. 2) has figured a cross-section of a symmetrically coiled test ^\'ith a great number of coils and chambers. Phillips (pi. VII, fig. 1) figured under the same name a cross-section also of a S3rmmetric- ally coiled test, but of another specimen, incomplete and apparently belonging to another species ; it differs from Brown's specimen by its more loosely coUed spiral, and by the smaller number of chambers and coils. Such figures are not adequate for the determination of the generic and specific characters of a test, and later authors found them useless. 3. Brady (1876) was the first to give a full and adequate description and figures of a longitudinal- and a cross-section, as well as a figure of the external aspect of a foraminiferan, which he also named Endothyra boivmani Phillips. This author was the only one who gave all the characteristic traits and during 84 years the genus Endothyra and the species E. hoivmani were understood in the sense given to them by Brady. 4. Subsequent authors did not attach any great significance to the fact that the specimen described by Brady is characterised by irregular coiling with considerable axial divergence, contrary to the specimens figured by Brown and Phillips. It was A. V. Mikhailov (1939) who first drew attention to the disparity between Endothyra boiomani sensu Brady and Endothyra boivmani sensu Brown, and proposed to regard the first as a new species — Endothyra bradyi Mikhailov. 5. Zeller (1950), estabUshing the genus Plectogyra with PI. plectogyra Zeller as type-species and comparing it with the genus Endothyra Philhps, showed that the distinctive features of these genera consist of the different Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 203 ways in which the spiral is coiled : Plectogyra is characterised by three-measured coiling while to the genus EndoOujra Philhps, forms ^\'ith regularly coiled spirals must be referred if one judges by BrowTi's figure. It follows that the specimen figured by Brady under the name of Endothyra boumiani, characterised by an asymmetrical coilmg, that is by its axis changing its direction several times, belongs to a species of the genus Plectogyra. 6. However, the features of Endothyra bowmani PliilHps cannot be drawn from the diagnosis given by Browni and PhilUps, because these authors have not described the wall-structure and have figured cross-sections only. In accordance with recent systematics it is possible to suppose mth equal probabihty that the foraminiferan described by Brown and PhilUps, characterised bj'^ a planispiral regularly coiled test with a rather large number of coils, could belong either to the family fusulinidae {Psetidoendothyra Mikhailov, 1939, or Eostajfella Rauser, 1948), or to the family endothyridae {Quasiendothyra Rauser, 1948, or Loeblichia Cummings, 1955 or other genera of this family characterised by a planispiral test and differing in cross-section but sUghtly from some fusuUnids). Thus, the absence of data concerning the wall-structure and the absence of other than cross-sections deprives us of the possibihty of determining which of the later diagnosed genera is a synonjrm of Endothyra Phillips in Brown, 1843. 7. Attempts to study the original specimens or the topotj'pes were not successful. It has been impossible to establish the type-locality because Brown and Phillips did not exactly designate it (Mountain Limestone in Westmorland). On the other hand the original specimens were also maccessible for further study as can be seen from the following obligingly wTitten communication by Cummings : " . . . both the Brown Collection and the Phillips Collection have been lost and despite intensive search over the last few years, no trace of the missing specimens can be found. Furthermore neither of these two workers gave clear and precise information as to the locaUties from which the material was collected. Hence it is not possible to collect other type-specimens." (Letter of 10 February 1960.) 8. All that has been stated above gives us the right to regard Endothyra bowmani Philhps as a nomen dubium because for more than a centitry no author has figured or described specimens which could be compared with those figured by Brown and Philhps and so the systematic position of their specimens is still obscure. Identical cross-sections can be found among the members of many different genera. 9. As the nominal genus Endothyra in the sense given to it by Brady (1876) has been widely known during the past 84 years, it is necessary for the stabihzation of nomenclature to preserve the nominal genus Endothyra Phillips in Brown with Endothyra bradyi Mikhailov, 1939 (= Endothyra boivmani Brady, 1876) as its type-species. 10. In this case a strict apphcation of the rules of zoological nomenclature is impossible. Many American palaeontologists have apphed the name " Endothyra " to members of the genus Eostaffella Rauser, 1948 (Order Fusulinida). Russian micropaleontologists take the genus Endothyra in Brady's sense, distinguishing only some of the species under the name of 204 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Plectogyra Zeller, 1950 (Order EndotlijTida). Renaming of the family, super- family and Order based on the nominal genus Endothyra A^ill bring great confusion into the systematics of Foraminifera. And though the problem is disputable, there is no possibihty of regulating it by the strict apphcation of the rules of zoological nomenclature, as the characteristic features of the figured cross-sections given both by BroAMi and Philhps can be attributed to many genera of the order Fusuhnida as well as to several forms of the Order Endothj^rida. 1 1 . The existing confusion in sj-stematics has results reflected in the difficulty of deciphermg the lists of Foraminifera and reduces their correlative and stratigraphical importance. 12. AVith the aim of stabihsing the usage of the concerned names it is necessary for the Commission to take the foUowmg action : (1) (a) to use its plenary powers to suppress all former designations of type- species for the genus Endothyra ; (b) to designate Endothyra bradyi INlikhailov, 1939 (= Endothyra hommani Brady, 1876 (non Philhps)) as the type-species of the genus Endothyra ; (2) to place the generic name Endothyra PhiUips in BroAvai, 1843 (gender : feminine), tj^e-species, by designation luider plenary powers in (1) above, Endothyra bradyi IVlikhailov, 1939, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.; (3) to place the specific name bradyi IVlikhailov, 1939, as pubhshed in the binomen Endothyra bradyi (type-species of Endothyra PhUUps in Bro^m, 1843) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. References Brady, H. B. A monograph of Carboniferous and Permian Foraminifera. Paleontol. Soc, London, 1876. Report on the Foraminifera dredged hy H.M.S. Challenger, diu-ing the years 1873-1879. Rep. Challenger Exped., Zool., 9, Atlas, 1884 Browai, T. The elements of fossil conchology, London, 1843. Cummings, R. New genera of Foraminifera from the British Lower Carboni- ferous. Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci. 45, No. 1, 1955 Fursenko, A. V. Fundamentals of Palaeontology, vol. I. Foraminifera, Moscow, 1959 Mikhailov, A. V. On the characteristics of the genera of the Lower Carboni- ferous Foraminifera of USSR, sbornik Glavnogo Geolupravleniya SSSR, N 3, 1939 PhiUips, J. On the remains of microscopic animals in the rocks of Yorkshire. Proc. Geol. Polytechn. Soc. W. Riding Yorkshire, No. 2, 1845 ZeUer, E. J. Stratigraphic significance of IVIississipian Endothyroid Fora- minifera. Univ. Kansas Paleont. Contributions Protozoa, Art. 4, 1950 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 205 BOA LINNAEUS, 1758 (REPTILIA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS WITH ADDITION OF CONSTRICTOR LAURENTI, 1768, TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1188 By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology/, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) In 1758 Linnaeus established, a genus Boa including nine species, as follows : scytale, canina, hipnale, constrictor, murina, cenchria, orophias, enydris and hortulana. These species are now placed in four genera {canina, hipnale, orophias, enydris and hortulana in Boa ; scytale and murina in Eunectes ; constrictor in Constrictor ; and cenchria in Epicrates). The t3rpes of Eunectes and Epicrates are not now open to question. Unfortunately the others have never been agreed upon. AU four genera are now, and long have been, placed in the family boidae, subfamily boinae. 2. Works pubUshed before 1900 generally accepted constrictor as the type of Boa, based dii-ectly or indirectly upon Fitzinger's (1843 : 24) exphcit designation (the earUest known except for the possible designation by Laurenti discussed subsequently), and as a result the common as well as scientific name of " boa constrictor " became well estabhshed for the large and common Central and South American constrictor snake. The species canina was referred to Corallus Daudin, type Corallus obtusirostris Daudin = Boa enydris Linnaeus. 3. However, in 1901 Stejneger argued that Laurenti (1768) fixed canina as the type of Boa, and constrictor as the type of Laurenti's new genus Constrictor. With no significant exception this arrangement was accepted untU 1951 when Forcart disputed Stejneger's reasoning and reinstated the pre-1900 terminology. Most authors since then have maintained the Stejnegerian arrangement, ■with a few notable exceptions. Since the animals involved are important zoo animals, and are frequently referred to in the literature, an authoritative fixation of names is highly desirable. Although in my opinion the spirit of the Code requires maintenance of the Stejnegerian interpretation, there is no completely unequivocal basis for this view, and the pre-1900 arrangement could thus be justified on other grounds. An authoritative fixation requires a decision by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, whose consideration of the case is here requested. 4. A factor of major significance in the present context is the fact that, some years after pubhsliing his 1901 analysis, Stejneger submitted a hypo- thetical case, using no scientific names but referring to Linnaeus, Laurenti and Fitzinger by proper name and date, to the International Commission for its consideration. Unfortunately, the case was so ingenuously presented, omitting some facts and distorting others, that the Commission had in reahty httle choice. In Opinion 6 (1910) the Commission concurred with Stejneger's conclusion of 1901. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. 206 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 5. Stejneger reaflfirmed his stand in reviewing Laurenti's genera in 1936, repeating his assertion that the type of Boa Linnaeus is canina Linnaeus by virtue of monotj'py, ^^ith the secui'ity of approval of Opinion 6 regarding the particular context of Laiu-enti's work as providing monotj'py. 6. In 1953 the Commission finally rejected the theory of its action in 1910 in Opinion 6, as expressed in the Copenhagen Decisions (1953 : 72) : " The Colloquium recommends that . . . Opinion 6 ... be revoked . . . but ... at the same time . . . that protection should be accorded in any case where, on the faith of Opinion 6, the species currently accepted as the tj'pe-species of any given nominal genus has been determined in the foregoing maimer and where, A\ithout such protection, it wovdd be necessarj^ to change the type-species of the genus concerned." 7. No more appropriate apphcation of this recommendation could possibly be made than to the present case, smce directly from it Stejneger constructed his h^'pothetical case for wliich Opuiion 6 was rendered. Since, however, (1) the Stejneger interpretation had been long accepted, (2) to reject it does require a change of commonly-used names, and (3) the change would not be in the interest of stabihty and would therefore be contrary to the sphit of the Code, the Commission is requested to designate canina as the type of Boa, placing both names on the Official Lists. So far as known, canina has not served as the type of any other generic names. Boa is, however, the type- genus of the famUj^ boidae. 8. This request is made in spite of the facts that the general pohcy advocated by Opinion 6 is unwarranted, and even if it were, that monotj'py itself could not possibly be a real factor in the present case. It is true that the three nommal species, all new, placed by Lamenti in the genus Boa (thalassina, aurantiaca, exigua) are sjTionjTns of Boa canina Linnaeus (being based upon the same tA-pes), but none of them was mentioned by Litmaeus, and their conspecificitj' does not render canina the type of Boa by monotj^y, especially since Boa is not Lam-enti's name. Had Laurenti originated the name Boa the type would indeed be canina, but since he did not, and none of his specific names mider Boa was used by Limiaeus or designated as type of Boa Litmaeus, no objective gromids for regarding the type as fixed bj^ Laurenti are evident. 9. The generic name Constrictor was proposed by Laurenti with, five specific names, all new and none selected as t\"pe. However, formosissimus is based upon the same type (pi. 17, fig. 3, in Linnaeus's Amoen. Acad. 1 : 497) as Boa constrictor Limiaeus, and was therefore clearly a substitute for that name ; Laurenti seemingly did not accept any of Luuiaeus's specific names, consistently substituting lus own. The prmciple of " hidden tautomTny ", as expressed at the London meetings (1958) of the Section on Nomenclature of the International Congress of Zoology, would have provided an original designation of tj^e, but this principle was rejected by the Commission (Inter- national Code of Zoological Nomenclature, 1961 : xiii). The only subsequent designation of which I am aware is that of Forcart (1951 : 198), who selected Constrictor formosissimus Laurenti (^=Boa constrictor Limiaeus) as type of Constrictor Laurenti. This selection is consistent Mith usage and should be upheld by addition of the name Constrictor to the Official List. So far as Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 207 known, neither formosissimus nor constrictor has served as type for any other generic name, and Constrictor has never served as type for a family. 10. In summary, it is here requested that the Commission : (1) use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of tj'pe-species for the nominal genus Boa Linnaeus, 1758, and having done so, designate Boa canina Limiaeus, 1758, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) place the following generic names on the OflBcial List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (1) above, Boa canina Linnaeus, 1758; (b) Constrictor Laurenti, 1768 (gender : mascuUne), type-species, by designation by Forcart, 1951, Boa constrictor Linnaeus, 1758 ; (3) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) canina Linnaeus, 1758, as pubHshed in the binomen Boa canina, holotype in the Royal Museum, Stockholm {fide Andersson, 1899 : 27) (type-species of Boa Limiaeus, 1758) ; (b) constrictor Linnaeus, 1758, as pubUshed in the binomen Boa constrictor, two syntypes in the Royal Museum, Stockholm {fide Andersson, 1899 : 27-28) (type-species of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768) ; (4) place the family name boidae Gray, 1825 (: 209) (type-genus Boa Linnaeus, 1758) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Literature cited Andersson, Lars G., 1899. Catalogue of Limiean type-specimens of snakes in the Royal Museum of Stockholm. K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 24(4-6) : 1-35 Fitzmger, Leopoldo, 1843. Sy sterna reptilium. p. 106 Forcart, Lothar, 1951. Nomenclature remarks on some generic names of the snake family Boidae. Herpetologica 7 : 197-199 Gray, J. E., 1825. A synopsis of the genera of reptiles and amphibia with a description of some new species. Ann. Philos. (n.s.) 10 : 193-217 Hemming, Francis (Ed.), 1953. Copenhagen decisions in zoological nomenclature. Intern. Trust Zool. Nomencl., London, xxix, pp. 135 International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910. Opinions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. Opinions 1-25, Smithsonian Inst. Puhl. 1938 : 1-61 Stejneger, Leonhard, 1901. An annotated Ust of batrachians and reptiles collected in the vicinity of La Guaira, Venezuela, with description of two new species of snakes. Proc. U.S. nat. Mies. 24 : 179-192 , 1936. Tjrpes of the amphibian and reptihan genera proposed by Laurenti in 1768. Copeia 1936(2) : 133-141 208 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CULEX AEGYPTI LINNAEUS, 1762 (INSECTA, DIPTERA) ; PRO- POSED VALIDATION AND INTERPRETATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE SPECIES SO NAMED. Z.N.(S.) 1216 By P. F. Mattingly {British Museum {Natural History), London) ; Alan Stone {Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) ; and Kenneth L. lOiight {Naval Medical Field Research Laboratory, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to such extent as may be necessary to provide a valid basis for the continued use of the name Culex aegypti Limiaeus, 1762, for the Yellow Fever Mosquito. Two problems are involved, for the foregoing name was published in a work which has been rejected by the International Commission for the purposes of zoological nomenclature and, as there seems no reasonable doubt, was applied by Linnaeus to an entirely different species. These questions are discussed separately in the following paragraphs. 2. The name Culex aegypti Limiaeus was published in 1762 in the work by Hasselquist entitled Reise nach Paldstina, a German translation of a work by Hasselquist which had been published in 1757 under the title Iter Palaestinum. In the Iter Palaestinum Hasselquist employed in a number of cases Latin binominal names supplied to him by Limiaeus, but, as these names were published before the starting point of zoological nomenclature they are not available for use in zoological nomenclature as from the above work. The same names appeared in the German translation published in 1762 and owing to their binominal form and the fact that they were published after the starting point of zoological nomenclature some of these names, including the name with which we are here concerned, later came into use. 3. The Reise nach Paldstina was no more than a direct translation of the pre-1758 Iter Palaestinum and mitil the early years of the present century it was a matter of doubt whether names published after 1757 in such a translation acquired the status of availability by reason of being so republished. This matter was set at rest in 1910 {Smithson. Publ. 1938 : 6) by the Ruling given by the International Commission in its Opinion 5 that a name published in a translation of the kind discussed above did not acquire availability unless " reinforced by adoption or acceptance by the author publishing the reprint ". The question whether the names in the German (1762) translation of Hassel- quist's book satisfied the test laid down in Opinion 5 formed the subject of a Ruling given by the Commission in Opinion 57, which was published in 1914 {Smithson. Publ. 2256 : 131-134). In that Opinion the Commission ruled that the author who published the German translation of Hasselquist's book (i.e. T. H. Gadebusch) had not himself reinforced by adoption or acceptance the names published in the original edition of 1757, having done no more than pubhsh without comment a translation of that book. The Commission accordingly ruled that the German translation of 1762, like the original of Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. ~~ Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 1757, was unavailable for nomenclatorial purposes. Recently, under a General Directive given to it by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953, when establishing the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological Nomenclature the International Commission carried out a review of the Opinions rendered prior to the above Congress and placed on the above Official Index the titles of all works that had so far been rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. In the Direction embodying the decisions so taken, Direction 32 (published in 1956, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 1 (C) : 307-308) the titles of the Iter Palaestinum of 1757 and of the Reise nach Paldstina of 1762 were placed on the Ofl&cial Index of Rejected and Invalid Works A\ith the title numbers 35 and 36 respectively. 4. From the particulars given above it will be seen that the first step needed to give effect to the application now submitted ^vill be for the Commission to use its plenary powers to validate the specific name aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the combination Culex aegypti on page 470 of the German translation of Hasselquist's Iter Palaestinum published by Gadebusch under the title Reise nach Paldstina. Such action would be in complete harmony %vith the expressed wish of the International Congresses of Zoology that the Commission should use its plenary powers for the purpose of validating well- known names published in works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 65), on the basis of which the Commission has, for example in its Opinions 441 and 442, recently validated certain important generic names in the Order Diptera (e.g. Stom.oxys, Stratiomys, etc.) as published in 1762 in GeofFroy's Histoire abregee, a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes as one in which the author had not applied the principles of binominal nomenclature, by the Ruling given in Opinion 228. 5. We must now turn to the second part of our application, namely the need for securing an authoritative interpretation of the nominal species Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, in a sense consistent with current usage. For many years this name was lost in the hterature and the Yellow Fever Mosquito was known by the name Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805 (Syst. Antliat. : 36). The first author to employ the specific name aegypti Linnaeus in its current connotation was Dyar (H. G.) (1920, Insecutor Inscit. menst. 8 : 204). Dyar's identification of this species was not immediately accepted without challenge, but for many years now it has been in general use ha\'ing appeared ia hmidreds of papers in applied entomology and in medical literature. Its abandonment at this date would cause the greatest confusion and would give rise to strong opposition, especially in medical quarters. 6. One of the present appHcants (Mattingly, 1957, Ann. trop. Med. Parasit. 51 : 392) has recently re-examined in detail the description given by Linnaeus (in Hasselquist) for Culex aegypti and has come to the conclusion that the name does not apply to the Yellow Fever Mosquito, bemg clearly applicable to Culex caspius Pallas, 1771 {Reise Prov. Russl. 1 : 475), a species now placed in the subgenus Ochlerotatus Lynch Arribalzaga, 1891. The other appHcants (Stone and Knight) are in full agreement with the conclusions reached by Mattingly in this matter. The foregoing identification of Culex aegypti Linnaeus was first made by Gough (1914, Bull. ent. Res. 5 : 133) who had personal experience 210 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature of the small mimber of mosquitoes occurring in Egypt. It was strongly- argued by Patton (1933, Ann. trap. Med. Parasit. : 182) on the basis of a comparison of the description given by Linnaeus (of which he had obtained a translation from the Professor of Latin at Liverpool University) -nath actual specimens of Culex caspius Pallas. The repetition of this comparison recently carried out by Mattingly both confirms the arguments advanced by Patton and in addition has disclosed further features in Lionaeus' description which strongly reuiforce Patton's conclusions. A comparison of that description with specimens of Culex caspixis Pallas either Tvdth the naked eye or with a lens of low magnification shows that the correspondence between the two is not only good but actually verj'^ striking. So much so that no trained taxonomist with a working knowledge of Latin could hold in his hand a specimen of the pale Egj'ptian form of PaUas's species and doubt for a moment that it was the species on which Linnaeus based his description of Culex aegypti. 7. We have already explained (paragraph 5) that the substitution for aegypti Linnaeus of some other specific name would cause such serious and ■widespread confusion that it could not possibly be contemplated and that what is required is some action by the Commission which Avill securely link the specific name aegypti Linnaeus to the Yellow Fever Mosquito. We have considered what form that action might most conveniently take and are of the opinion that the best course would be to follow the precedent established in the case of the name Coluber sirtalis Limiaeus in which the Commission used its plenary powers to approve a neotype consisting of a species difi"erent from that to which Linnaeus had applied the name sirtalis (1956, Opinion 385, Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 12 : 193). The two cases are almost exactly similar and we feel that the justification for such use of the plenary powers is even greater in the present instance OAving to the medical importance of the species concerned and the very widespread use of the name aegypti in the general literature. We propose and have chosen as neotype a female, Anth associated larval and pupal exuvia, which is described and figured in Annexe I to the present application. 8. In choosing a specimen to serve as the neotype of Culex aegypti we have not felt compelled to restrict ourselves to Egyptian material. It is true that the YeUow Fever Mosquito has been known to occm* in Egypt but this is a marginal part of its range and it is improbable that it has ever been abundant there. It is now believed to have been totally eradicated from Egypt so that, were an Egyptian neotj^pe to be chosen, fresh topo typical material would no longer be available. Nor are suitable specimens available either in the British Museum or in the U.S. National Museum. In view of the large amount of genetical work currently being carried out on this species it has been felt desirable to choose a specimen representing approximately the mean of the range of variation. The present specimen has the additional advantage that it is accompanied by more than 150 other offspring from the same mother, with associated exuvia. 9. The name " Stegomyia " was first published by Howard in his book "Mosquitoes" (New York, June, 1901). It is first employed in the legend to a figure, by Howard, of the adult female of the Yellow Fever Mosquito, BvUetin of Zoohgical Nomenclature 211 l^lJ^yi^f^ciata " (a junior subjective synonym of Cuhx a^ypti Linnaeus ruenTl 134' H^f H^' "!?" 'r'"" ' ^''^^^^- ^^^g" 31, 7' 27) Subse- quently (PP^134 155) Howard makes it clear that the name Steqomma was tTl I .?'11^ ""^ ^" P- ''* ^^ «^^^ " I^ -ill be notic T ' tha mosqmto which has m our previous writings been named Cuhx fasciatui m^LXZ ^^"f .^fy^r/"^^ nameShrough corresp:ilfr with t7e puMcSn of Mr ih ^."S^^-^^^^ should this use of the name antedate not ours '' Th f^" ^^',^^^if^ monograph, smce the genus should be his T.Z •;■ ^^r/«"«^« (P- 235) a generic synopsis including characters for the recogmtion of 8tegomy^a devised by Coquillett. Theobald himself pubhshed the n^rae 8tegomyu^ for the first time m July 1901 [J. trap. Med. Hyg Tlsl) nam t^ Tteoba,r't ^'T^^*, ^ ^"^^^^"^^^ ^^^^^ ^-^ credft;d the ^^:^;^^-coS,-t^^^ ^n « ?' .t ' ^ ""'^"^"^ 'Sf^./^^cmto, together ^.ith a number of other specfes ma further discussion of Stegomyia, pubhshed in September 1901 E' xne umcial List of Generic Names in Zoologv at the samp t,TT,« fKof +1; -^ name «.,„« Linnaeus, 1762, as publishef in tt r^bilr^^S rvS and vahdated under the plenary powers as recommended ii\ pIracZh 4 above .s placed on the Official List of Specific Names in ZooC SeMrv so to be made should be endor^d also to show that by a directfon given ,^der the plenary powers the nominal species so named is to be intewted Ttle the present case, also be entered on the above Official List * con rn^,^j;^=,yTce^-;:3;:^^^^^^^ - ^ -- onzLSLfNomrrre""' ^'°™' "' "^^ '^^ '■"«-»*-' Commission (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the specific name aegypti Limiaeus, 1762, as pubhshed m the combmation Cttfea: oe^t/^^i • puousnea '"afrf '^^' '^f^^^^^^ Culex aegypti Limiaeus, 1762, vahdated as recommended m (a) above, be interpreted by reference to ^'^"^s^ptrtrL^roTo^^^^ '''-''' ^^-- -^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^- ^f 212 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (a) aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as published in the combination Culex aegypti and as validated under the plenary powers in (l)(a) above, the entry so to be made to bear an endorsement that the nominal species so named is to be interpreted m the manner directed under the plenary powers in {l)(b) above ; (b) caspius Pallas, 1771, as pubhshed in the combination Culex caspius ; (3) to place the under-mentioned generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Stegomyia Theobald, 1901 (gender : feminine) (type-species by selection by Neveu-Lemaire, 1902 ; Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805 [Note not for inclusion in the Official List : The name Culex fasciatus Fabricius, 1805, is a junior subjective synonym of Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762, as validated and interpreted under the plenary powers in (1) above]. ANNEXE I Description of Neotype of "Aedes aegypti " Linnaeus, 1762, the Yellow Fever Mosquito. Description : An adult female with wing length 3 mm. Proboscis entirely dark, about equal in length to fore femur. Palps a little more than one-fifth as long as proboscis, with the apical segment white-scaled above. Tori with patches of silvery white scales on inner and outer surfaces. Clj^eus with lateral patches of similar scales. Eyes well separated behind. Occiput with median longitudinal stripe of broad, flat, white scales continued forward between eyes. Eye margins with narrow line of very small silvery white scales. To either side of median white occipital stripe an area of pale brownish scales. Outside this an area of blackish scales and outside this again a line of silvery white scales followed by an area of blackish scales and, finally, towards the under surface a patch of whitish scales. All decumbent scales of vertex and occiput broad and flat except for the small, narrow scales round the eye margins. Upright forked scales pale bro\Mi, restricted to nape. Pronotal lobes widely separated with broad silvery white scales. Scutum mth narrow dark brown scales over most of the surface. Anterior border with a line of narrow white scales interrupted in the mid line by a distinct apical spot of similar scales, elongated in the anteroposterior direction. On the anterior half of the scutum, just inside the lateral borders, a pair of narrow, crescentic patches of broad silvery white scales. These crescentic patches continued backwards to the posterior border as two narrow, submedian, longitudinal lines of white scales. Inside these, on each side, a longitudinal line of very narrow yellow scales continuing backwards on either side of the mid-line from just behind the median anterior white spot to a short distance in front of the pre-scutellar bare space. The latter bordered at the sides by a few narrow whitish scales Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 213 and with a small patch of similar scales at its anterior edge. Small patches of narrow whitish scales present above wing roots. Scutellum with all scales broad, flat and silvery white except for some broad, dark scales at apex of mid-lobe. Postnotum bare. Posterior pronotum with flat, white scales below and some narrow, dark brown scales above. White scales present on para- tergite, hjrpostigmal areas, upper and lower sternopleuron and sternopleural knob and upper and lower mesepimeron. Postspiracular area bare. All coxae with conspicuous patches of white scales. Fore femur with anterior surface extensively pale on basal half, pale below nearly to tip. Mid femur with anterior surface wholly pale for a short distance at base and with a narrow but conspicuous white line nearly to tip. Anterior surface of hind femur entirely pale on about the basal two -thirds, pale above nearly to tip. Fore femur with posterior surface much like anterior. Mid femur with posterior surface mainly pale, dark above towards tip. Hind femur pale behind on about the basal two- thirds. Tibiae dark. First two fore and mid tarsals narrowly pale at base. Remainder dark. First three hind tarsals narrowly pale at base, fourth pale except narrowly at tip, fifth entirely pale. Fore and mid claws toothed. Hind claws simple. Wings dark except for a small white spot at base of costa. Wing scales narrow. Anterior fork cell a little less than tmce as long as its stem. Squama with relatively short hairs or hairlike scales. Alula with mixed narrow and moderately broad scales confined to border, without decumbent scales. First abdominal tergite with an extensive median patch of pale scales. Tergites II- VII with, narrow basal white bands and a single row of small white scales along posterior border. Paired silvery white lateral patches present on these tergites but clearly visible from above only on tergite VII. Anterior sternites largely pale, the more posterior ones with an increasing number of dark scales. VI with a median, apical pale patch separated from the basal pale area by a dark band curving inwards from the apicolateral corners. VII almost entirely dark except for the extreme posterior edge and two small sublateral pale spots a little anterior to this. The fourth stage larval and pupal exuviae of the neotype are figured in detail in Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5, pp. 215-219. 2. Locality of Neotype : Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Malaya, September 1957, W. W. Macdonald. The neotype was reared in the laboratory of the Institute for Medical Research in Kuala Lumpur from eggs laid by a wild-caught mother. The mother laid three successive egg batches and she and 170 brothers and sisters of the neotype are available as paratype material. 107 of the brothers and sisters have individually associated larval and pupal skins. Part of the remaining skins have been preserved in bulk. The mother was not mated in the laboratory. On the evidence at present available it would not, however, be prudent to rule out the possibility of multiple fertilization and, therefore, of a mixed paternal ancestry, 3. Reference number allotted to Neotype : The neotjrpe bears the reference number 0325B/14, which was allotted to it in the laboratory in Kuala Lumpur. The number 0325 is that of the mother. The letter B implies that the neotype was reared from the second egg batch. The number 14 is that of the individual specimen. The whole of the type material is at present in the British Museum 214 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature (Natural History). Paratypes A\ill be presented to the U.S. National Museum. Other museums will receive paratypes on request. 4. Figures of Neotype : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 : Plate 5, Figs. 1,2, 3,4, 5. FlGTTRES Culex aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 Neotype designated by P. F. Mattingly, Alan Stone and Kenneth L. Rnight in the Aimexe to Apphcation Z.N.(S.) 1216. Reared in laboratory of Institute for Medical Research, Kuala Lumpur. Adult female. Wing length 3 mm. With associated larval and pupal exuviae. Plate I. Adult, a, head and thorax in dorsal view ; b, abdomen in dorsal view. Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19 Plate 5 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 215 AS Fig. 1 . Adult. «'.«",«'", fore, mid and hind femur, respectively, in anterior view ■,b,b,b , the same in posterior view ; c, d, e, fore, mid and mnd tibiae and tarsi in anterior view. 216 Bnlletin of Zoological Nomenclature Arthur Smith Jil. Fig. 2. Pupa, a, b, cephalothorax from exterior ; c, abdomen in dorsal view on right and ventral view on left. Setae numbered according to the system of Belkin (1953, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 55 : 318). Bulletin oj Zoological Nomenclature 217 Anhut Smith del. Fig. 3. Larva Head and thorax iii dorsal view on right and ventral view onlett. Setae numbered as in Fig. 3. m, mentum. 218 Bulletin of Zoological NormncUiture 13 :^io 7/1 ^ 1!^ 9 ////7 Fig. 4. Larva. Abdomen in dorsal view on right and ventral view on left. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 219 Kg. 5. Larva. Terminal segments. 220 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature REQUEST FOR A RULING THAT JORDAN AND EVERMANN DID NOT DESIGNATE TYPE-SPECIES VALIDLY IN EITHER THEIR WORK DATED 1896-1900 OR THAT OF 1896 (PISCES). Z.N.(S.) 1279 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) HISTORY OF THE CASE On 6 June 1958, Dr. W. I. FoUett and Dr. D. M. Cohen, pubUshed in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 16 (part 2) : 73-78 an appUcation to the Commission for a ruhng as to the species to be accepted as the type-species of the nominal genus " Bathylagus " Giinther (A.C.L.G.), 1878 (Class Pisces). In paragraph 19 (p. 77) they requested that Bathylagus antarcticus Giinther, 1878, should be ruled as type-species of Bathylagus by selection by Jordan, 1919 [Genera of Fishes (3) : 395). 2. On 8 September 1958, Mr. Mehdlle received a comment from ]\Ir. Cyril F. dos Passos, Mendham, New Jersey, U.S.A., supporting FoUett's and Cohen's apphcation. He wrote : " This request has been examined carefully and I find mj^self in complete agreement with the conchasions expressed in paragraphs 10, 13, 16, 17 and 19 thereof. While the search for a first reviser is often an elusive one, there is Uttle chance that one occurred between 1878 when the names Bathylagus antarcticus and B. atlanticus were proposed, and 1919, when Jordan selected a logotype for that genus without such a selection having been dis- covered by the appUcants or some other speciahst." 3. On 15 September 1958, Eugenie Clark of the Cape Haze Marine Laboratory, Placida, Florida, U.S.A., A\Tote to the Commission supporting the apphcation as follows : — " I would like to support the request for a ruUng that the type-species of the nommal genus Bathylagus is the nommal species B. antarcticus as well as the other four proposals made by Drs. FoUett and Cohen." 4. On 20 March 1959 FoUett in reply to a letter from Mr. MelviUe (25.ii.59) passing on certain criticisms from Dr. Lemche, wliich subsequently proved to be irrelevant, wrote, after consulting Cohen, as follows : — " Our primary purpose in submitting this request for a ruling by the International Commission was, and is, as foUows : — " (l)Todetermine whether or not Jordan and Evermann (1896a, Bull. U.S. not. Mus. 47(1 ) : 528) adequately selected the tj^pe-species despite the questionable matters noted in paragraphs 3 through 9 of our request (1958, B.Z.N. 16(2) : 73-75). " (2) In case the Commission's answer to that question should be in the negative, then to determine whether or not Jordan & Evermann (1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21 : 295) adequately selected the type-species despite the questionable matters noted in paragraphs 11 through 13 of our request (1958, B.Z.N. , 16(2) : 75). " You wUl note that in the case of Bathylagus, Jordan and Evermami's Bull. zool. Normncl., Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 221 reference to ' the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus ' is demonstrably erroneous, since the original describer (Giinther) gave no indication whatever of ' taking ' either one of the species as type. " When Dr. Cohen first consulted me with regard to this problem, I told him that the question appeared to be a close one, but that if Rule (g) in Article 30 (' The meamng of the expression " select the type ", is to be rigidly construed ') were to be interpreted as having any effect, I thought that both of the foregoing actions of Jordan and Evermami would have to be regarded as insufficient to constitute a selection of the type. Dr. Cohen then told me that if Jordan and Evermann's two purported ' selections ' were to be rejected, Jordan's (1919, Genera of Fishes (3) : 394-395) selection of Bathylagus antarcticus would apparently prevail (as noted in paragraphs 14 through 16 of our request). Dr. Cohen pointed out that there would be certain advantages m such a result because Bathylagus antarcticus is a better-known species than Bathylagus atlanticus. " However, had Dr. Cohen and I not been convinced that the circumstances described in our request demonstrated the inadequacy of Jordan and Evermann's purported ' selections ', we should not have requested a ruling that Bathylagus antarcticus be deemed the type-species. "As I explained in my letter of 21 October 1957 to Mr. Francis Hemming : ' The problem is of more than ordinary interest, since it involves the question whether type-species were selected by Jordan and Evermann in their monu- mental work entitled " Fishes of North and ]VIiddle America ", pubhshed in four volumes as Bulletin 47 of the United States National Museum, 1896- 1900 '. Dr. Cohen and I would not have requested a ruling that Jordan and Evermann (1896a) did not select the type, if we had not been convinced that the Rules required such an interpretation. " In your letter of 25 February 1959, you state that Bathylagus atlanticus ' is clearly the vahd tj'pe-species of the genus '. If this is so, you have answered our querj^ in part. However, you have not explained whether you reached this conclusion (1) on the basis that Jordan and Evermann (1896a, Bull. U.S. nat. Mils. 47(1) : 528) adequately selected the type despite the questionable matters that Dr. Cohen and I pointed out, or (2) on the basis that Jordan and Evermami (1896a) inadequately selected the type, but that Jordan and Evermann (1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish.) adequately selected the type. Dr. Cohen and I are greatly interested in learning on which basis the Commission reaches its decision, and Ave beheve that every ichthyologist who is concerned with the fish fauna of North America will be equally interested, even if he is not concerned with the immediate problem of Bathylagus. We therefore urge that the Commission's decision leave no room for doubt as to its basis. " In your letter of 25 February 1959, you suggest also that Dr. Cohen and I request some specialist to examine the type-material and to pubUsh a paper putting the status of the species beyond reasonable doubt. We beheve that this has already been done by Giinther (1887, Deep-sea Fish. ' Challenger ', 22 : 219-221) and by Norman (1930, Discovery Reports 2 : 274-277). Both of those eminent ichthyologists referred the species atlanticus and the species 222 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature antarcticus to the genus Bathylagus. We know of no one who has done other\^-ise. "At the expense of repetition, I wash to make it clear that Dr. Cohen and I do not contend that the species antarcticus should be the type-species for any reason other than our behef that the Rules require it." Mehille, 23 March 1959, rephed to Follett's letter as follows : — " On reading your original apphcation more carefully in the hght of your letter I see that I had misunderstood it as a definite request to set aside a vahd designation of atlanticns as type-species of Bathylagus in favom- of antarcticus. I thuik this also must have been the impression that Dr. Lemche got when he sent in his comment. I see now that there is no vahd reason for accepting either Jordan and Everman, 1896, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47 : 528 or Jordan & Evermami, 1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21 : 295 as having designated atlanticus as type-species, rigidly construed." 5. Melville sent a copy of Follett's letter to Lemche and wTote to him : " I should hke to say that I thought there was some ground for your criticism, but that it now appears that I at least misunderstood the apphcation. It seems that FoUett and Cohen genuinely beheve Jordan's 1919 selection of antarcticus to be the first valid selection, but there is sufficient doubt about this to make an apphcation to the Commission necessary. " You will see from Dr. Follett's letter that he and Dr. Cohen do not consider either of the references by Jordan and Evermann 1896 (in two separate papers) as valid tj'pe designations ' rigidly construed ', the first because it rests on whether the original describer took a particular species as the type of the genus (which Giinther did not, in the case of Bathylagus) and the other because it consists merelj'^ of the citation of one specific name in combination with the generic name, without any indication of a piu:3)ose to designate the type-species. You will also see that their contention in favour of antarcticus is based on their reading of the Rules as apphed to this case, not on the question of suitabihty. I want to frame this letter in such a way that your reply will be the last step in the case before the issue of the voting paper. I think that the best way to achieve this will be to ask you to explain what is in your view the first vahd designation of a type-species for Bathylagus. If you conclude that under the Rules atlanticus is the type-species, in terms of a cited reference, then I should propose to submit a call for Alternative A {antarcticus) or for Alternative B (atlanticus), with a summary of the correspondence. If you conciu* with FoUett and Cohen m thinking antarcticus to be the vahd tjrpe-species, then I should call for a vote for or agarast antarcticus with a brief summary of the correspondence intended to meet the same objection should it arise in the minds of any other members of the Commission." 6. Lemche's reply was received by Melville on 17 June 1959. He wrote : — " It now turns out that what the Commission is going to decide is not the isolated case of Bathylagus and its type, but the more general question of whether Jordan and Evermaim in their important paper of 1896-1900, ' The Fishes of North and Middle America ', 1-4, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47, did estabhsh tj'pes by citing single specific names after the genera mentioned. Follett and Cohen state that Jordan and Evermami did not so select types and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 223 they cite some examples to show that Jordan and Evermann were so irregular in their actions that they cannot be regarded as having selected types as ' rigidly construed ' in a nomenclatorial sense." Lemche went on to state that he had now studied the original paper by Jordan and Evermami and had come to exactly the opposite conclusion to that of FoUett and Cohen. He considered that the invariable citation of a single specific name after new generic and subgeneric names constituted a type- selection. He quoted a number of examples which he said showed that Jordan and Evermann really intended to fix types even if they had not done so vahdly. He concluded : " To me there is no doubt that Jordan and Evermann had the idea that m their paper all genera had been cited with types. They start in the first fine of their synonymies with giving the original content of the genus, then folloAving the history of it through restrictions — clearly so desig- nated — until only one species is left to fimction as type*. In all cases, it is in some way or other clearly stated what species is a type. Whether or not they have put the word ' type ' in close connection to the specific name in question camiot be a decisive factor. I am, therefore, of the opinion that Jordan and Evermarm (1896) did select types when they added a single specific name behind the citation of a generic one in cases where no type-selection had already been undertaken. I maintain that the said authors executed their right to estabhsh a tjrpe in the case of Bathylagus, atlanticus being the type under the Rules, by subsequent selection by Jordan and Evermami 1896. Consequently, I find no need for any special decision of the Commission in the case of Bathylagus, but it may be appropriate to bring an end to all doubts by requesting the Commission to adopt the following Decision : " ' The authors D. S. Jordan and B. W. Evermann, in their work " The Fishes of North and Middle America 1-4 ", Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47 : 1896- 1900, are accepted as having executed their rights of type-selection " as rigidly construed " under the Rules by following their habit of placiag single specific names in parentheses after their first citation of several generic ones ' ". 7. Melville (18 June 1959) wrote to Follett enclosing a copy of Lemche 's statement. He pointed out that there were only two alternative methods of setthng FoUett's appUcation, either of which would involve some delay. They were : — (1) "If Jordan and Evermann did not fix atlanticus as the tjrpe-species of Bathylagus in their first 1896 paper, then the case must proceed on the line indicated in Follett's and Cohen's appUcation. If they did, then atlanticus is the type-species through their action and it only remains to justify the point of view. This cannot be done without adducing the argument that they designated tjrpe-species for all the genera mentioned in their work other than those for which a valid designation or indication already existed. However true this may be on purely nomenclatural grounds, it would be impossible to put a responsible proposal before the Commission to vaUdate those selections as a whole without a thorough examination of all the names involved, preferably * Fixation by restriction ! ! — W.E.C. 224 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature by an ichthyologist. To sum up, this alternative really amounts to a request for a ruhng that Jordan and Evermaim did in fact make tji^je-designations of the kind mentioned, and the fact that atlanticus was thereby the type-species of Bathylagns would be only an incidental feature in a broader picture. No exercise of the plenary powers would be involved, but the amount of work required to estabhsh the position might be formidable. (2) " Without taldng into consideration the general question of whether Jordan and Evermann in general designated tjrpe-species in their first 1896 paper or not, it Avould be possible to use the plenary powers to set aside all previous designations so as to fix antarcticus as the tj'pe-species of Bathylagus. This would require supporting evidence that the action proposed was in the interests of stabihty and uniformity of nomenclature, or words to that effect ; in other words it would requue at least a ' reasoned prejudice ' in your own minds in favour of one species. " The first alternative would require a detailed examination of Jordan and Evermami's work in the hght of current taxonomic usage and of relevant earUer hterature before it could be decided to what extent, if any, their alleged general type -designations are vahd. The second alternative, which requires the use of the plenary powers, would necessitate a new start, with a paper in the Bulletin and an advertisement of the possible use of the plenary powers." 8. Melville at the same time also wrote to Lemche disagreeing with him that the Commission is, in effect, being asked to rule on the question whether Jordan and Evermann designated tj^es for all the genera cited in their first 1896 paper. FoUett and Cohen, he AATote, only asked for the acceptance of antarcticus as the type-species of Bathylagus because they thought that that was the type-species under the Rules. "A decision ", MTote Melville, " that Jordan and Evermann effectively designated types for all the genera in their paper, except where a type had been previously designated or indicated, could not be taken A\dthout a great deal more advice from speciaUsts than we at present have, since such a ruling might have the most serious taxonomic imphcations. As far as the mdividual case of Bathylagus is concerned, however, it would be difficult for the Com- mission to rule that they had designated atlanticus as the type-species in their first 1896 paper without explaining they had done so as part of a wholesale series of such designations. FoUett and Cohen clearly beUeve that Jordan and Evermann did not designate a type for Bathylagus (and would presumably also be of the view that they did not designate tj^es as a general rule in that paper). It is also clear that they consider antarcticus as the type-species under the Rules because it was the first species to be so designated ' as rigidly construed '. My own view is that, if there are not too many taxonomic difficulties, the Commission would probably accept your view as to the status of designations in Jordan and Evermann's first 1896 paper, except where previous vahd designations or indications exist. A proposal to the Commission on those Unes would, however, demand considerable research by one or more specialists and it would be desirable to obtain a widespread expression of the views of other ichthyologists on the results of that research. The alternative would be to redraft the present case on the following lines : Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 225 ' Without prejudice to the general question, it is proposed that the plenary- powers be used to designate antarcticus as the type-species of Bathylagus after using the same powers to set aside aU previous designations.' '■ This would mvolve pubUcation of a new appUcation in the Bulletin and the issue of Pubhc Notices, since the existing application {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 (part 2) : 73-78, 1958) does not entail use of the plenary powers." 9. Lemche in his reply (23 June 1959) agreed with Melville's view that a decision to accept Jordan and Evermaim's tj'pes in a wholesale maimer was dangerous unless ichthyologists are consulted on a broad base. But he msisted that it was equally dangerous to state that they did not so select types. He advised that the general principle involved should be decided by the Commission at the same time as the Bathylagus case, whimsically ignormg the vast amount of work that would need to be done by the very small Secretariat before it was possible to place the required evidence before the Commission. 10. Follett (18 July 1959) replying to Melville's letter wTote : — " We beUeve that the Commission should not make its ruling mthout a direct reference to the requu-ement of Ai-ticle 30g that ' The meaning of the expression, select the type, is to be rigidly construed '. Whichever way the ruling may go, it is possible that undesirable results may ensue when that ruling is appUed to other genera cited by Jordan and Evermami. Then and then only should resort be had to the plenary powers. We note Dr. Lemche 's comment that the decision will involve the more general question of whether Jordan and Evermami (1896a) selected type-species for all the genera that they cited. We beUeve that this consideration cannot properly be allowed to influence the decision in the present case. A decision so influenced would amount to a surreptitious use of the plenary powers." 11. MelviUe repUed, stating that he agreed mth Lemche that, " the Commission could not dehver a ruhng about Bathylagus in Jordan and Ever- mann's first 1896 work without at the same time ruhng on all the other generic names in that work. A ruling that those authors had fixed the type-species of Bathylagus in that work would imply that they had also done so for all the other genera where the question of the fixation of the type -species was still open ; a ruhng that they had not fixed the type-species of Bathylagus would imply that they had not fixed the type-species of any genus." " My own view ", wTote Melville, " is that purely on the basis of internal evidence, and without considering the relationship of Jordan and Evermann. 1896a to Jordan and Gilbert 1883, type-species were not fixed in that work in the sense of Article 30 Rule g. ' rigidly construed '. It seems clear, how^ever, that they did effectively fix types in their 1896b Check List, for the following reason. On page 210, they say : ' The name in parenthesis following the reference to the generic name is that of the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus '. The Paris Congress {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 182) added a provision to Rule g in Article 30 (New Code Art. 69(a)ui) that an author had vahdly designated a tj^e-species even if he states or imphes, either correctly or otherwise, that that nominal species had been selected by some previous author to be the type-species of that nominal genus . . . provided that the author concerned makes it clear that he himself accepts, for whatever reason, the 226 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature species in question as the type-species of the genus concerned *. In the light of this rxxle (which still stands), it seems to me that Jordan and Evermann 1896b, definitely designated tj-pe-species, and those designations should stand, in so far as they are vaUd in all other respects. But here too, a ruling in this sense relating to Bothylagus would apply equally to all the other generic names in the work to which the question can apply. Thus, whichever of the two 1896 works is accepted as the one in which the t}'pe-species was fixed for Bathylagus, the same problem of the taxonomic imphcations of accepting the wholesale deal has to be tackled. As there are something over 1,000 generic names mvolved, the problem could be a formidable one." 12. A cop3' of Melville's letter was sent to Lemche. He repUed (28 December 1959) : '■ Dr. Cohen and 'Mi. Follett argue that the authors did not use the formal way of tj^e selecting as prescribed half a century later. I quite agree. But why should we ask for such formaUties : there must be a Umit to retroactive actions. My view is that we must be realistic and accept as a selection any statement rumiing like ' the t}^e is ', and reject any ' the author N.N. regarded as the type ' or ' this species is a typical one '. But to ask almost for a formal ' I herewith select as the type ', in papers published long before rulings to that end had ever even been thought of, that is to go too far. "So, I still hold that Jordan and Evermann did select types in 1896 and I propose that we put this general question before the Commission m advance to any special case such as Bathylagus. But, before voting, please let us know the consequence if these type-selections are rejected. They might be grave." 13. On 20 December Follett replied to Melville's letter of 22 July 1959 as follows : — " We beheve that the conflicting considerations -ndth regard to Jordan and Evermann 1896a have been adequately presented by our apphcation on the one hand and by Dr. Lemche's comments on the other. I «Tote to you further not with the thought of persuading the International Commission to decide this problem in the mamier that we have suggested, but rather to explam our reasons for beheving that the solution of the problem leans more toward the direction that we have pointed out than toward the opposite direction . . . Dr. Cohen and I contend that, Jordan and Evermami, did not make it clear that they themselves accepted, for whatever reason, the species in question as the type-species of the genus concerned. Those authors, it seems to us, merely reported, without acceptance or rejection, ' the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus '. In other words, the present situation impresses us as similar to that involved in Opinion 275, where as you will recall, the International Commission ruled as follows : " ' The statement by Grote (1865) that Hiibner, when establishing the nommal genus Amplyterus Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), had evidently regarded A.gayiascus (StoU) " as the typical species of his genus " does not constitute the selection by Grote, under Rule (g) Article 30, of that species as the type-species of the foregoing genus, for Grote gave no indication that he himself accepted the above species as the t\T)e-species of this genus '. * But this Jordan & Evermann did not do ! — W.E.C. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 227 " We believe that the requirement of Rule (g) in Article 30 (' the meaning of the expression " select the type " is to be rigidly construed ') appUes quite as well to the situation covered by B.Z.N. 4 : 182, as to any other situation involving the subsequent selection of a type-species. We therefore believe that the words ' made it clear ' (which I have emphasized above) must themselves be rigidly construed." PRESENT POSITION 14. Nothing more was done with the case which seemed to have reached a deadlock, when Mr. Mehnlle left the service of the Commission on 1 November 1959 to return to his former work on the Geological Survey. On 14 June 1961, Dr. Cohen, while working in the Fish Section of the Zoological Department of the British Museum (Natural History), paid a visit to the Secretariat of the Commission and inquired about the Bathylagus case. It was agreed that the case should be revived. It seems to the \\Titer that Dr. Lemche was hardly justified in interrupting the progress of FoUett and Cohen's case through the process of submission for a vote. Reading the evidence it is clear that there is a strong doubt as to whether, rigidly construed, Jordan and Evermann validly designated types in their 1896a work. The new Code (Art. 67c) follows the old Rules (Art. 30g) in stating that the term designation in relation to the fixation of a t3^e-species must be rigidly construed ; a designation made in an ambiguous or qualified manner is invalid. It m ill be seen that Melville himself in (13) above stated : " tjrpe-species were not fixed in that work in the sense of Article 30 Rule g ' rigidly construed '." FoUett and Cohen clearly demonstrated the fact. Lemche in his final comment, (14) above, also agreed that Jordan and Ever- mann did not use the formal way of type selecting as prescribed half a century later. But he still persisted that the general question should be submitted to the Commission although he admitted the consequences might be grave. The impracticabiUty of checking the consequences of the vaUdation or invahdation of the type -citations for all the 1,000 fish genera hsted in Jordan and Evermann's work seems not to have been considered by Dr. Lemche. Such wholesale assignments cannot be carried out effectively by the Secretariat of the Commission and must be done by the speciaUsts themselves. The Meigen case, Z.N.(S.) 191, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 (part 1) : 9-64, is an example of what happens when such cases are considered by the Secretariat in respect of all their impUcations. There is also a legal precedent for the Bathylagus case in Opinion 275 quoted by FoUett. There appears to be no reason at all why under the proper interpretation of the Code, Jordan and Evermann's 1896 {Bxdl. U.S. nat. Mus. 47(1)) so-called type-designations should be regarded as vaUd. The omission of the word type, which w as given in Jordan and Evermann's Sjaiopsis of the Fishes of North America 1883 in front of the cited specific name, in effect made the cited specific names in the 1896 revision, merely examples and not type-species. 228 Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature There is, however, some doubt as to whether Jordan and Evermann did or did not fix types in then- second 1896 work Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21. As stated by FoUett and Cohen, paragraph 12, in thek preface to this later work Jordan and Evermaim wTote as follows : " The name in parenthesis follo-ning the reference to the generic name is that of the species taken by the describer as the type of the genus." Now, in respect of the case under con- sideration at least, this statement was quite wrong because Giinther did not select either of his two originally included species as the type of the genus Bathylagus. Nonetheless, Article 69{a)(iii) of the new Code (subsequent designation) states " an author is considered to have designated one of the originally included species as type-species, if he states that it is the type (or type-species), for whatever reason, right or wrong, and if it is clear that he Mmself accepted it as the type-species." Melville (13) above on the basis of this ruling, stated that " it seems clear, however, that they did effectively fix types m their 1896b Check List." But did Jordan and Evermann by the statement in the preface to the second work really make it clear that they accepted the nominal species in parentheses as the type-species of the genera hsted ? Follett and Cohen do not think so and if Jordan had really meant to designate the type of Bathylagus as atlanticus in his 1896 works, he would not have designated antarcticus m his 1919 work. This seems to the writer conclusive evidence that Jordan and Evermann were not themselves actually citing types in their 1896 works. Melville, himself, stated (6) above " I see now that there is no vaHd reason for accepting either Jordan and Evermann 1896, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 47 : 528 or Jordan and Evermann 1896, Rept. U.S. Comm. Fish and Fish. 21 : 295 as havuig designated atlanticus as type- species, rigidly construed ". The wTiter is of the opinion that by a strict interpretation of the Rules Jordan and Evermann did not make it clear that they accepted the species cited as the type-species of the genera mvolved and no action is required by the Commission in either case on this score. 15. Nevertheless in order to clear up this Case and to complete the appHcation of Follett and Cohen Z.N.(S.) 1279, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 16 (Part 2) : 73-78, the International Commission is requested to take the following action : — (1) to give a ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not validly designate type-species (as prescribed by the Code) either in their work Fishes of North and Middle America (Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47, 1896-1900) or in then- Check List of the Fishes and Fish-like Verte- brates of North & Mddle America [Rept. Commissioner of Fish cfe Fish, for 1895, Appendix 5 : 207-584, 1896). Any cases of hardship due to this ruling to be submitted to the Commission for decision by use of the plenary powers if necessary. (2) to place the undermentioned generic names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Bathylagus Giinther, 1878 (gender : masculine) (type-species by selection by Jordan 1919, Genera of Fishes (3) : 395, Bathylagus antarcticus Giinther, 1878) ; (b) Argentina Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : feminine) (type-species by monotypy : Argentina sphyraena Linnaeus, 1758); Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 229 (3) to place the undermentioned specific names on the Official List of Specific Names m Zoology : (a) antarcticm Giinther, 1878, as published in the binomen Bathylagus antarcticus (type-species of Bathylagus Giinther, 1878) ; (b) sphyraena Linnaeus, 1758, as publihed in the binomen Argentina sphyraena (t}^e-species oi Argentina Linnaeus, 1758); (4) to place the undermentioned family-group names on the Official List of Familj^-Group Names in Zoology : (a) BATHYLACxiDAE Gill, 1884 (tj^je-genus : Bathylagus Giinther, 1878) ; (b) AEGENTmiNAE (correction of argentinini) Bonaparte, 1846 (type- genus : Argentina Linnaeus, 1758); (5) to place the undermentioned family-group name on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Family-Group Names in Zoology : ABGENTiNiNi Bonaparte, 1846 (type-genus Argentina Linnaeus, 1758) (an InvaUd Original Spelluig for argentesonae but available as the name for a taxon within the family-group belonging to a category for which there is no prescribed termination). COJDIENT OX THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PANOPEA MENARD DE LA GROYE, 1807 (BIVALVIA). Z.X.(S.) 1049 (see volume 18, pages 184-188) By Robert Robertson {Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S.A.) I recently have noticed that Vokes and Cox have applied to the Commission to place the family name glycymeridae Stewart, 1930, on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. Although the six month protest period has lapsed, I have decided that I should draw your attention to a pubhcation by H. B. Stenzel, E. L. Krause and J. T. Twining (Univ. Texas ptibl. 5704, 1957) in which it is sho^vn (pp. 59-60) that this family name should be spelled GLYCYMERIDIDAE, not GLYCYMERIDAE. One further matter : Vokes and Cox claim (p. 185) that the spelling Panopea is " much more widely used " than Panope. This is not so. I have tallied usage for the last 30 years from the Zoological Record (1929-1958). Panopea has been used 14 times Panope has been used 12 times Panopaea has been used 1 1 times During the last twelve years abstracted by the Zoological Record (1947-1958), the spelling Pa»k>pe has been used seven times, and Panopea only three times. Since the time of Dall, American workers have almost consistently used the speUing Panope. So have workers in some other countries. 230 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature PACHYODON NUCLEUS BROWN, 1843 (PELECYPODA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1470 'Ry G. M. Bemiison ( The University of Birmingham, England) In 1843 T. Bro\\Ta {Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (1)12 : 394, pi. 16*, fig. 1) described and figured a new species of fossil pelecypod from the " Coal Shale " (Carboni- ferous Sandstone Series, Lower Carboniferous) of Woodhall, on the north side of the Pentland Hills, Scotland under the name Pachyodon nucleus. His brief description and single inadequate figure are insufficient to enable rehable identification of the species. Further, the original of the figure (assuming that it is based on one specimen and is not a composite interpretation) is lost or destroyed and, since the given locaUty is too imprecise to enable the horizon to be determined, the possibihty of selecting a neotype is ruled out. 2. In 1873 R. Etheridge, Junr. (Quart. J. Oeol. Soc. 34, pi. 2, fig. 20) figured a specimen from the Cementstones near Craiglockhart Hill, Edinburgh, referring it to Pachyodon (Unio) nucleus, but he gave no description. A specimen of '\Anthracosia nucleus Bro\^ai among Etheridge's material in the Royal Scottish Museum (Reg. No. 1882.58.46) from that locality is probably the specimen figured. The shell, which is incomplete and not specifically identifiable, is referable to Schizodus. 3. W. Hind in 1894 (Carbonicola, Anthracomya and Naiadites, Mon. Palaeont. Soc. : 80) suggested the possible sjmonymy of Pachyodon nucleus and Carhonicola antiqua Hind (non Bro%\Ti). If he was correct, and if the horizon of Brown's nucleus coidd have been found and a neotjrpe selected, C. antiqua Hind would stand as a subjective synonym of P. nucleus. Hind, however, in proposing the name C. antiqua figured three specimens from the Calciferous Sandstone Series of Kilminning, Fife. The first of these (op. cit., PI. 11, fig. 28 ; Br. Mus. reg. no. L.46889) has been selected as lectotype and refigured by the writer (Bennison, Palaeontology 3, PI. 25, fig. 1), together with one paratype (Hind, PI. 11, fig. 29 ; Br. Mus. reg. no. L.46890). 4. Trueman and Weir, in dealing with a Westphalian form which they referred to Carbonicola antiqua (Brown) (Mon. Palaeont. Soc, 1947 : 28), appear to have overlooked a case of secondary homonymy. The species originally named Pachoydon antiquum (Brown, 1843, loc. cit. : 394, pi. 16*, fig. 4) was subsequently referred to the genus Unio by this author (Illustrations of the Fossil Conchology of Gt. Britain and Ireland, Lond. 1849 : 178) but, since the name Unio antiquum was already occupied by a Wealden species of J. Sowerby (Mineral Conchology of Gt. Britain, 1829, 6 : 190, pi. 594, figs. 3-5), Brown renamed his species Unio senex. In such a case of secondary homonymy it is incorrect to revert to the name antiqua (Code Art. 59c) : BrowTi's West- phalian species remains as Carhonicola senex (Brown) and the name Carbonicola antiqua is therefore vaUd for Hind's species of the Calciferous Sandstone Series. Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 231 on LZ^^ZZ^r.. ''''-' ' ""''' ^^' '^' '^-''^'^^^ ^--^-^on (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name nucleus Brown, 1843, as pubhshed m the binomen Pachyodon nucleus, for the purposes (-) to place the specific name n«cZe«. Bro^™, 1843, as published in the bmomen P«c%o^on nucleus, as suppressed under the plenary powers N^I^LtTo'oC^ '^'^^ '^'^-^ ^^ ^'^''''' ^''' Wh/lpecific (b) .ene:. Bro.™, 1849, as pubhshed in the binomen Unio senex. (see this volume, pages 115-116) By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) the \:^y%roTn^, 5™;^!^^^^^^^^^^ "?r- K- V. W. Palmer to preserve for the maintenLce of stability a^ LivISlft^Tf m^t^ :'.fj^"^l'!!fi^„^5! ^^ — ^ for the maintenlncrof XaMlZrd livo^^r^^^^^^ II °"' •^f"^?-^ "'^'''^ ^^^ ^^ ----^ the older name, Trochus co7ichvlolhoiZ iL .' Although in 1780 Born referred to figure on which 'the Mtel na^Sbid and perhL^ i: ,TT '°' '^'^'''^ trockiformis. The Lamarck, 1799 (subgenus rroc/»:ta Schumacher IS 7^' J l^ '. ^' " * fP^"'^' "^ f^a?Z/p/^«ea ( 1954, American Seashells : 173 ; %tTl^ad%kt^ri'pl v!/' ; T" P-r"/"*"'* °"^ ^^''^^ ^^ ^^1^°" Accordingly, I propose that DrP.^mprt'5;^^"'^''/^''''^ .l/o«o,9r. 11 : 46). ^Ao,-«. Born^ i780^(thnypelecies ST«oS;'i'^^ ^" T"?^!'^ ^".*'^at both TrocLs conchylio. ^raea) be considered for a^ditioTtTth: oSlgt^f'sp^ct £SSol™y/"^ ^^ '''''■ 232 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature FORTY-SEVEN GENERA OF DECAPODA (CRUSTACEA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1499 By L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) I submit herewith to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature a list of the names of 47 genera of Crustacea Decapoda for addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. Each of these names is an available name in the sense that it is not a homonym of any generic name previously published for a genus in the Animal Kmgdom. All these names are ciurently used in carcinological literature and have been proposed between 70 and 170 years ago. In a number of cases some special problems are connected with these names, and these problems will be discussed in separate paragraphs placed before the paragraph containing the actual enumeration of the genera. 2. The names proposed here for insertion in the Official List are those of genera reported from the Mediterranean. Their submission to the Commission is one of the results of a project undertaken by five carcinologists (Isabella Gordon, London ; R. Zariquiey Alvarez, Barcelona ; Th. Monod, Dakar ; J. Forest, Paris, and the present author) to compile a check-Ust of the Decapoda of the Mediterranean. The nomenclatural and taxonomic status of the genera and species involved have been checked as carefully as possible so that the above named zoologists are now satisfied that the names Usted here are nomen- claturally correct. It seems useful also, to give more authority to the check- hst, to have these names placed on the Official List. 3. The foUowmg 12 cases need some special comment : — (1) Achaeopsis and Dorhynchus. According to some authors, notably Rathbim (1925, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 129 : 27) the generic names Achaeopsis Stimpson, 1857, and Dorhynchus Thomson, 1873, are subjective synonyms, while other zoologists (among which are the above-mentioned group of five) beUeve that the two genera are distinct. It seems preferable therefore to place both names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, so as not to give Dorhynchus undue advantages over Achaeopsis. The original spelling of the generic name Dorhynchus is without an h after the r : Dorynchus. This speUing is consistently used in the two English, and the French, editions of Wyville Thomson's book. As no derivation of the name is given, Dorynchus must be considered the valid original spelhng of the name. Later authors like Miers, 1886 {Rep. Voy. Challenger, Zool. 17 : x), Pesta, 1918 (Decapodenfauna Adria: 331) and several others, changed the speUing to Dorhynchus, which seems to be more correct grammatically. I avail myself of the present opportunity to ask the Commission to use its plenary powers to place the name Dorhynchus in this corrected spelling on the Official List. (2) Brachynotus. The specific name of the type-species of the genus Brachynotus De Haan, 1833, Goneplax sexdentatus Risso, possibly is not the Bull. tool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 4, July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 233 oldest name for the species in question. In 1790 Herbst {Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(8) : 267, pi. 21, fig. 125) described and figured a species from an unknown locality which he called Cancer tridens. Both the description and the figure are rather poor, but might well represent the species which at present is known as Brachynotus sexdentatus (Risso, 1827). Rathbun, 1906 {Nouv. Arch. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris (4) 8 : 73) listed the species in her " Liste des nomina nuda, des especes indeterminables et des especes rapportees par erreur aux Potamonides ". Under " Cancer tridens" she gave references both to Cancer tridens Herbst, 1790, and to Cancer tridens Fabricius, 1798 {Suppl. Ent. syst. : 340). Fabricius's species is different from that of Herbst and has been assigned to the potamonidae by De Haan {Fauna Japonica Crust. (1, 1833) : 23 ; (2, 1835) : 53). Neither C. tridens Herbst nor C. tridens Fabricius have ever been identified by later authors and both names have always been and still are considered nomina dubia. The type of C. tridens Herbst is no longer in existence as Dr. H.-E. Gruner of the Zoologisches Museum of Berlin was so kind as to inform me. Therefore it is impossible to ascertain the identity of the species. Since the name Cancer tridens Herbst is not employed at present by carcinologists, it seems best, in order to ehminate it as a potential danger to later names in carcinology, to suppress it under the plenary powers of the Commission. It should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority only, so as not to make the nomen dubium Cancer tridens Fabricius, 1798, a potentially valid name. (3) Callinectes. Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825, the type-species of the genus Callinectes Stimpson, 1860, is a composite species for which so far no lectotype has ever been selected ; therefore its identity has never been definitely fixed. Latreille's (1825, Encycl. method. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 190) account is based upon a mixture of species belonging to the genera Portunus and Callinectes, the specific identity of most of Avliich cannot be ascertained ; only his " deux individus envoyes de Philadelphie " according to the description are without any doubt Callinectes sapidus Rathbun (1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 18 : 352, pi. 12, pi. 24, fig. 1, pi. 25, fig. 1, pi. 26, fig. 1, pi. 27, fig. 1). Among the references to previous descriptions which Latreille gave under Portunus diacantha, two, namely those to Portunus pelasgicus Bosc (1801-1802, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 219, pi. 5, fig. 3) and to Lupa pelagica Say (1817, Journ. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1 : 97) both concern Portunus sayi (Gibbes, 1850) ; the reference to Cancer pelagicus De Geer (1778, Mem. Hist. Ins. 7 : 427, pi. 26, fig. 8-11) is in all probability based on Callinectes bocourti A. Milne Edwards, 1879 (cf. Holthuis, Zool. Verhand. Leiden 44 : 201, 204), while that to Crri Apoa Marcgraf (1648, Hist. Rer. nat. Bras. : 183, fig.) might concern Callinectes danae Smith, 1869 (cf. Rathbun, 1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 152 : 118). Though it is probable that Latreille confused at least four species under the name Portunus diacantha, of only two is the identity fully certain, viz. Lupa sayi Gibbes (1850, Proc. Amer. Ass. Adv. Sci. 3 : 178) and Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896. The .selection of either Bosc's or Say's specimen as the lectotj^e of Portunus diacantha Latreille would cause an enormous confusion as in that way the type-species of the genus Callinectes would be a species of Portunus and the name Callhiectes Stimpson, 1860, would disappear in the 234 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature synonymy of Portunus Weber, 1795. The only other possibiUtj^ is to make one of Latreille's specimens from Philadelphia the lectotype of Portunus diacantha ; this selection would make Callinectes the correct name for the genus for which it is now generally employed. Therefore I now select as the lectotype of Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825 [Encycl. method. Hist. nat. Entomol. 10 : 190) the largest of the two specimens from Philadelphia mentioned by Latreille in liis description. Tins selection is in accordance with Rathbun's (1930, Bull. U.S. Nat. 3Ius. 152 : 98) views, as she indicated in her monograph of the American Cancroid Crabs under the generic name Callinectes Stimpson : " tj-pe, C. diacanthus (Latreille) =C. sapidus Rathbun". Though this action fixes the identity of the genus Callinectes in the usually adopted sense, an unpleasant consequence of it is that the name Callinectes sapidus Rathbun, 1896, now falls as a subjective jmiior synonym of Portunus diacantha Latreille, 1825. This is most regrettable since the species, after Rathbun (1896, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. 18 : 349-375, pis. 12-28) straightened out the comphcated taxonomy of the genus, has always been known as C. sapidus Rathbun. Callinectes sapidus is of extremely great economic importance as it forms the subject of an intensive fishery along the east and south coast of the U.S.A., while a verj'' considerable Uterature on the species, both scientific and economic, has been built up in the last decades. A change in the name of the species would therefore cause a considerable confusion especially in the field of apphed biology. In order to prevent such a confusion it seems perfectly justified in my opinion to take recourse to the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress the specific name diacantha for purposes of sjaionjrmy and to have Callinectes sapidus Rathbun made the type of the genus Callinectes. This, I beUeve, is the only way to avoid a major upset in the nomenclature of the group. (4) Charybdis. The type-species of the genus Charybdis De Haan, 1833, Cancer sexdentatus Herbst, 1783 {Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(2-5) : 153, pi. 7, fig. 52, pi. 8, fig. 53) is a composite species. Herbst's main description and his pi. 7, fig. 52 concern a species, wliich Leene (1938, Siboga Exped. 39(c3) : 53) doubtfully identified with Charybdis amboinensis Leene, 1938. Apart from the specimen figured on his pi. 7, fig. 52, Herbst also mentioned and figured (pi. 8, fig. 53) a specimen, which in his text he brought ^^■ith some doubt to Cancer sexdentatus (" Hiezu muss ich noch eine Art rechnen, von welcher ich nicht genau bestimmen kann, ob sie wirkhch dieselbe, oder eine andre Art ist "). Furthermore Herbst in his description of Cancer sexdentatus referred to pi. 6, fig. P of Rumphius's (1705) Amboinsche Rariteitkamer. Herbst's second specimen (the one figured as fig. 53) as well as that figured by Rumphius both belong to Cancer feriatiis L., 1758, a species which is better known as Charybdis cruciata (Herbst) or Charybdis crucifera (Fabricius). As (1) the identity of Herbst's first specimen (figured by him as fig. 52) cannot be ascertained from either Herbst's description or figure, while the specimen itself is no longer extant (cf. Leene, 1938, Siboga Exped. 39(c3) : 53), and (2) Herbst's second specimen cannot be made the lectotype of Cancer sexdentatus since he only placed it conditionally in that species, I now select as the lectotype of Cancer sexdentatus Herbst the specimen figured as fig. P on pi. 6 of Rumphius's BvMetin of Zoological Nomendature 235 (ims) AvOoin^che RarittUkam^r. This same specimen is now also selected Z ZIT"^ of C«^er/eA,^ Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 627) w;sj:::d\'Lt/di^r-a^\7-,^^^^^^ twn'^^^ °'^'?'^''^ description of Cancer feriatus Linnaeus (1758) consists of a short two-hne diagnosis, a reference to nl fi fiTe-genus: Trichodactylus LatreiUe, 1828Ma tamily-group name to be rejected in favour cf\ht ^ POTAMONiDAE Ortmann 1 e, .SO., .S^*p,!Lt'r'o^-S °f List in (2) aboveT- " *''""' °" *'"' O'^"''" (a name suppresLd under fl. °" ""'"'" ^""■'"" *'™'«*» 252 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature combination Cancer globosus (a jvinior objective s3^aonym of the name globus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination Cancer globus, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (c) globulosa Bosc, 1801-1802, Hist. nat. Crust. 1 : 238, as pubhshed in the combination Leucosia globulosa (a junior objective sjTionym of the name globus Fabricius, 1775, as pubhshed in the combmation Cancer globus, a name placed on the Official List m (3) (a) above) ; (d) heterochelos Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vert. : 150, as pubhshed ui the combination Ocypoda heterochelos (a junior objective sjnTonym of the name major Herbst, 1782, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer vocans major, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (e) sexdentatus Herbst, 1783, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(2-5) : 153, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer sexdentatus (a junior objective synon>Tn of the name feriatus Linnaei;s, 1758, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer feriatus, a name placed on the Official List in (3) (a) above) ; (f) stirynchus Leach, 1815, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 11 : 343, as pubhshed in the combination Axius stirynchus (an Invahd Original Spelling of the name stirhynchus) ; (g) tridens Herbst, 1790, Vers. Naturgesch. Krabben Krebse 1(8) : 267, as pubhshed m the combination Cancer tridens (a name suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(c)(ii) above) ; (h) tridens Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 340, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer tridens (a junior homonym of tridens Herbst, 1790, as pubhshed in the combination Cancer tridens) ; (i) una Leach, 1814, Brewster's Edinb. Encycl. 7(2) : 430, as pubhshed m the combmation TJca una (a junior objective s5Tion5Tn of the name major Herbst, 1782, as published in the combination Cancer vocans major, a name placed on the Official List in (3)(a) above) ; (7) place the under-mentioned names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) CALAPPiDEA De Haan, 1833 (type-genus : Calappa Weber, 1795) (an Invalid Original SpeUmg for calappidae) ; (b) CYMOPOLnDAE Faxon, 1895, J/em. 3Ius. comp. Zool. Harvard 18 : 38 (type-genus : Cymopolia P. Roux, 1830) (a family name based on an homonymous generic name, which is inserted in the Official Index under (5)(h) above) ; (c) LATREiLLiDEA Stimpson, 1858 (type-genus : Latreillia P. Roux, 1830) (an Invahd Original Spelling for LATREiLLnDAE) ; (d) LETJCOSiADAE Samouelle, 1819 (type-genus : Leucosia Weber, 1795) (an Invalid Original Spelling for leucoshdae) ; (e) OCYPODIA Rafinesque, 1815 (tj^e-genus : Ocypode Weber, 1795) (an InvaUd Original Spelling for ocypodidae) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 253 (f) PLAGTTSiNAE Dana, 1851 (type-genus : Plagusia Latreille, 1804) (an Invalid Original Spelling for plagusiinae). COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF BIOMPHALARIA PRESTON, 1910. Z.N.(S.) 1392 (see this volume, pages 39-41) By P.-H. Fischer [Paris) Cette proposition requiert une s^rieuse attention, surtout si elle a pour implication la suppression du nom Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855, dont Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, est simplement un synonyme d'apres les recherches remarquables de W. Lobato Paraense et Newton Deslandes dont les conclusions n'ont pas ete contestees a ma connaissance. Le nom Taphiiis est parfaitement valide, plus ancien, et constamment employe ainsi que I'attestent tous les traites classiques et une quantite de pubhcations. Le nom Biomphalaria n'a ete employe que pour un petit nombre d'especes de Planorbes d'Afrique, parce que Ton a cru que ces espfeces constituaient un groupe a part. Or, leur etude anatomique a demontr6 que ces espfeces devaient etre groupees dans le meme genre que les Planorbes americaines connues comme Taphius. Dans ces conditions, le nom Biomphalaria n'a plus de raison d'etre ; sa definition morpho- logique elle meme devient erronee et son usage dangereux. Les noms sjTionymes comme Atistralorbis, Tropicorbis, etc. doivent evidemment etre rejetes pour les memes raisons que Biomphalaria. Mais supprimer le nom Taphiiis, que tous les malacologistes connaissent, et que est d'un usage constant depuis plus d'un sifecle, serait extrfemement regrettable. Si I'ont veut, sans tenir compte de la priorite, choisir un nom suppose plus connu que Taphius, pourquoi n'a-t-on pas propose Australorhis bien plutot que Biomphalaria ? Les auteurs qui s'occupent de I'Afrique ont souvent employe Biomphalaria pour un petit nombre d'especes africaines, mais ceux qui s'occupent de I'Amerique ont souvent employe Australorhis poxu- un nombre assez important d'especes americaines, et ceci est bien a considerer. Ces deux noms ont ete souvent employes I'un et I'autre, mais d^s lors que leur double emploi avec Taphius est demontre, il n'y a aucune raison de faire entre Atistralorbis et Biomphalaria un choix difficile et arbitraire. Le choix de Biomphalaria serait d'autant plus etrange que la majorite des Planorbes de ce groupe n'a jamais ete designee sous ce nom, ce qui interdit d'invoquer en faveur de Biomphalaria le benefice de I'usage. La solution la plus satisfaisante consiste a renoncer aussi bien a Biomphalaria qu'a Austral- orbis, au profit du nom le plus ancien, Taphius. C'est ce que je propose. Je propose : (1) L'invalidation de Planorbina Haldeman, 1842, defini per Haldeman comme ayant de nombreux tours de spire presqu'egaux, et par consequent synonyme de An,isiis Studer, 1820, comme I'a montre A. Zilch en 1959. Le nom Planorbina est devenu inutilisable lorsque Dall, 1905, lui a donne comme genotype P. olivaceus Spix, espece dont les caractferes s'opposent a la definition de Planorbina par Haldeman lui-meme. (2) Le maintien de la validity de Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855, correctement defini, constam- ment utilise sans aucune contestation et considere comme valide dans tous les Traites classiques de Malacologie, y compris, en dernier lieu, dans les Traites de J. Thiele et de A. Zilch (respective- ment 1931 et 1959). (3) L'invalidation des noms tels que Biomphalaria Preston, 1910, etc., qui d'apres les etudes anatomiques de W. L. Paraense et N. Deslandes, sont devenus synonymes de Taphius H. & A. Adams, 1855. 254 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature MORCH, 1852-53, CATALOGUS CONCHYLIORUM; PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO PLACE ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF WORKS, AND TO DESIGNATE A TYPE-SPECIES FOR P8EUDA- MUSSIUM MORCH, 1853 (PELECYPODA). Z.N.(S.) 1501 By T. Soot-Ryen {Oslo) The purpose of this application is to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers to place 0. A. L. Morch : Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphmiso D'Aguirra ds Gadea Comes de Yoldi, pts. I and II, Hafniae, 1852, 1853, on the OflScial List of Works approved as available for Zoological Nomenclature, and to decide that the tjrpe- species of Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 (pt. 2, p. 59) should be Pecten septem- radiatus MiiUer, 1776 = Pecten pseudamusium, Chemnitz, 1784, according to the view of Stewart, 1930 (p. 122). 2. The name Pseudamussium was first listed by Herrmannsen, 1847 (p. 340), with reference to Pseud- Amusium Klein, but without any species or other indication. This name is a nomen nudum. In 1853 Morch (p. 59) used Pseudamussium Klein in a generic sense and listed two species : glaber Linnaeus, with variation Solaris Born, and septemradiatus MiiUer with P. danicus Chemnitz, P. pseudamussium Chemnitz and P. adspersus Lamarck as synonjrms. One of the two species, glaber Lmnaeus or septemradiatus MiiUer must be the type of this nomenclatural unit. Kobelt, 1881 (p. 373) designated P. glaber Linnaeus as type-species, Avhile Stewart, 1930 (p. 122) claims that P. septemradiatus MiiUer must be the t3q)e-species by absolute tautonymy as Morch placed pseudamussium Chemnitz as a synonym. Chemnitz, 1784 (p. 298) used Klein's (1753) name Pseud- Amusium but actuaUy described septemradiatus MiiUer. 3. H. & A. Adams, 1858 (p. 553) used Pseudamussium Klein, listing no less than 21 specjes under this heading, amongst them glaber Linnaeus, septemradiatus MiiUer, and hybridus Gmelin. Stoliczka, 1871 (p. 426) designated P. exoticus Chemnitz as type-species since it apparently is identical with Ostrea hybrida Gmelin, 1791. 4. North, 1951 (pp. 231-233) has discussed the nomenclatural problem of Pseudamussium, Klein. He is of the opinion that Morch's catalogue is not avaUable for nomenclatural purposes, on the grounds that it is merely a sale catalogue and was probably not widely distributed. He discusses the type- designation by Kobelt and Stewart's view of absolute tautonymy. North dates Pseudamussium. from H. & A. Adams but rejects the designation made by Stohczka of exoticus Chemnitz as type, on the grounds that the specific name exoticus carniot date from Chemnitz. The designation by Dall, 1898 (p. 751) of hybridus Gmelin, 1791, is accepted by North as valid. Grau, 1959 (pp. 57-63) discussed the problemmainly in accordance with the view of North. 5. As will be understood from the foregoing paragraph the supraspecific name Pseudamussium has been used for two quite different groups of pectinids by various authors depending on the dating of the name from Morch, 1853, Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 4. July 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 255 or H. & A. Adams, 1858. The essential question is therefore : is Morch's Yoldi Catalogue available for nomenclatural purposes or not ? 6. The question of the validity of Morch's catalogue is very important as many of his supraspecific names are and have been in common use for a century. A brief examination of the two volumes shows that he named 20 gastropod groups and used 5 of Klein's genera, further that he named 10 pelecjrpod groups and used 5 of Klein's genera. This gives together 40 supraspecific names, which are famihar to malacologists and in use today, beside those names which have fallen into sjmonymy. In the interests of stabihty of nomenclature I highly recommend that Morch's catalogue may be made available for nomen- clatural use by the exercise of the plenary powers. 7. When Morch used the name Pseudumussium Klein, who in 1753 named a shell Pseud-amusium, a name later used by Chemnitz, 1784 (p. 298), he certainly knew that Chemnitz had used the name in another sense. The description and figures of Chemnitz represent the species described as Pecten septemradiatus by Miiller, 1776, and Chemnitz's references to Lister, 1685, and Klein, 1753, were erroneous. Chemnitz himself corrected his error in 1795, when he described the shell mentioned by Lister and Klein as Pecten exoticus. Therefore there seems to be no doubt about the fact that the real species pseudamusium of Chemnitz, 1784, is septemradiatus Miiller. Stewart's view that this species is the type by absolute tautonymy, however, is wTong because Chemnitz is not considered to be a binominal author and his specific names are therefore not available (Opinion 184). 8. Referring to what is stated above I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to validate the work of Morch, 1853-1858, Catalogus Conchyliorum quae reliquit D. Alphonso D'Aguirra cfe Gadea Comes de Yoldi, Pts. I and II, Hafniae, 1852, 1853, in spite of the fact that this work was not pubhshed for the purposes of zoological nomen- clature ; (b) to set aside all designations of type-species for the generic name Pseudumussium Morch, 1853, made prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate Pecten septem- radiatus Miiller, 1776, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above, Pecten septemradiatus Miiller, 1776, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name septemradiatus MiiUer, 1776 (p. 248), as published in the binomen Pecten septemradiatus (type-species of Pseudamussium Morch, 1853) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. References Adams, Henry, & Arthur Adams, 1858. The Genera of Recent Mollusca, arranged according to their Organisation, vol. II 266 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Chemnitz, J. H., 1784. Anmerkungen zum Geschlechte der Kammuscheln. In Martini-Chemnitz : Neues systematisches Conchylien-cabinet, vol. 7 Chemnitz, J. H., 1795. Einleitmig zum Geschlechte Kammuscheln, ibid., vol. 11 Dall, W. H., 1898. Contributions to the Tertiary Fauna of Florida. Trans. Wagner Free Inst. Sci. 3 GmeUn, J. F., 1791. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae. Ed. XIII, vol. 1 Grau, Gilbert, 1959. Pectinidae of the Eastern Pacific. Alkin Hancock Pacific Exp., 23 Herrmannsen, A. N., 1847-49. Indicis Generum Malacozoorum Primordia Klem, J. T., 1753. Tentamen methodi Ostracologica sive Disposito Naturalis Kobelt, Willielm, 1881. Illustriertes Conchylienbuch, vol. 2 Lister, Martm, 1685. Historiae sive Synopsis Methodicae Conchyliorum Miiller, O. F., 1776. Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus North, F. K., 1951. On the Type of Pseudamussium and other Notes on Pectinid Nomenclature. Journ. Paleont., 25 Stewart, R. B., 1930. Gabb's Cahfornia Cretaceous and Tertiary Type LameUibranchs. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad., Spec. Publ. 3 Stohczka, Ferdinand, 1871. Cretaceous Fauna of Southern India, vol. 3. Geol. Surv. Palaeontologica Indica : JUL 1962 INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director : Francis J. Griflfin, F.C.C.S., A.L.A. Scientific Controller : W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret SpiUane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R, Sparck Dr. N. R. StoU Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS {continued from front wrapper) New Applications Page Endothyra howmani Phillips, [1846] v. Endothyra howmani Brown, 1843 (Foraminifera) (L. G. Henbest and S. E. Rosovskaya) ... 199 Boa Linnaeus, 1758 (Reptilia) ; Proposed designation of a type- species under the plenary powers with addition of Constrictor Laurenti, 1768, to the Official List (Hobart M. Smith) 205 Cvlez aegypti Linnaeus, 1762 (Insecta, Diptera) ; Proposed vaUda- tion and interpretation under the plenary powers of the species so named (P. F. Mattingly, Alan Stone and Kenneth L. Knight) 208 Request for a Ruling that Jordan and Evermann did not designate type-species validly in either their work dated 1896-1900 or that of 1896 (W. E. China) 220 Pachyodon nucleus Brown, 1843 (Pelecypoda) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (G. M. Bennison) ... ... ... 230 Forty-seven genera of Decapoda (Crustacea) ; Proposed addition to the Official List (L. B . Holthuis) 232 Morch, 1852-53, Catalogus Conchyliorum ; Proposed use of the plenary powers to place on the Official IJst of Works and to designate a type-species for Pseudamussium Morch, 1853 (Pelecypoda) (T. Soot-Ryen) 254 CONTENTS {continued from inside hack wrapper) Comments Discussion of the case "Aphis Linnaeus, 1758, its type-species and the family-group name derived from it " (Louise M. Russell ; Clyde F. Smith ; Mortimer D. Leonard ; George F. Knowlton ; George F. Schaefer ; Frej Ossiannilsson ; A. N. Tissot ; Miriam A. Palmer ; M. E. MacGilhvray) 195 Comment on the proposed vaUdation of Panopea Menard de la Groye, 1807 (Bival via) (Robert Robertson) 229 Comment on the proposal to preserve the family-group name XENOPHORiDAE Deshaycs, 1864 (Robert Robertson) 231 Comment on the proposed validation of Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (P.-H. Fischer) 253 © 1962. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclaturb Printed in England by Metcalfe & Cooper Limttbd, 10-24 Scruttoa St., London E C 2 Volume 19. Part 5. i» /MlBn ^ lOth September, 1962 pp. 257-336. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE Contents Page Date of commencement by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of voting on applications published iii the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 257 Notice of the possible use by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of its plenary powers in certain cases 257 (continued inside back wrapper) 14 SEP 1962 PURCHASED LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its PubUcations Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.1 1962 Price Three Pounds (AU rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Beadley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.T., U.S.A. (12 August, 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amarai, (Sao PavJo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Acting Secretary : Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.I) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amakal (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. Chester Bradley (ComfiZi University, Ithaca, N.T., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.T., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLTHxris (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Peantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kuhnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst Mayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonese (Museo di Storia Naturale "0. Doria ", Genova, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brinck (Lunds Universitets, Zoologiska Institution, Liind, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr, Max Poll (Musee Royal de VAfrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 Jxily 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemche ( Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet ( Universite de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaozewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs- Institut Senckenberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin BLerino (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt- Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obrpchev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow B-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Uchtda (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. MuNROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottauxi, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. BoRCHSENius (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.8.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. China (British Museum. (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting Secretary) Prof. E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) BUllETIN OF ZOOlOGICAl NOMENCLATURE Volume 19, Part 5 (pp. 257-336) 10th September, 1962 NOTICES (a) Date of Commencement of Voting. — In normal circumstances the Commission starts to vote on applications published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature six months after the pubUcation of each application. Any zoologist who wishes to comment on any of the applications in the present part is invited to send his contribution, in duplicate, to the Secretariat of the Commission as quickly as possible, and in any case in time to reach the Secretariat before the close of the six-month period. (b) Possible use of the Plenary Powers. — The possible use by the Commission of its plenary powers is involved in the following appUcations published in the present part of the Bulletin : — (1) Validation of I ctonyx Kaup, 1835, and striatus {Brady-pus) Perry, 1810 (MammaUa). Z.N.(S.) 758. (2) Designation of a neotype for Ranafasciata Burchell, 1824 (Amphibia). Z.N.(S.) 1253. (3) Validation of elegans {Arizona) Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia). Z.N.(S.) 1454. (4) Designation of a tjrpe-species for Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda). Z.N.(S.) 1462. (5) VaUdation of rostrata {Aelia) Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera). Z.N.(S.) 1490. (6) VaUdation of Tetrastichus HaUday, 1844 (Insecta, Hymenoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1503. (7) Designation of a type-species for Dicellomus Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1504. (8) Validation of Ligulops HaU, 1872 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1505. (9) Designation of a type-species for Orbiculoidea d'Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1506. (10) Suppression of piperita {Cypraea) Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1510. (11) Validation of Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda). Z.N.(S.) 1511. (12) Suppression of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea. Z.N.(S.) 1513. (13) Validation of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1524. (14) VaUdation of phasmidae (Insecta, Orthoptera). Z.N.(S.) 1167. c/o British Museum (Natural History), W. E. CHINA, Cromwell Road, Assistant Secretary, London, S.W.7, England. International Commission on June 1962 Zoological Nomenclature. 268 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO SUPPRESS THE GENERIC NAME PUPA RODING, 1798. Z.N.(S.) 581 By Robert Robertson {Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia) Henning Lemche's application (1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 372-373) for suppression of the generic name Pupa Roding, 1798, discusses an excellent example of the havoc created in malacological nomenclatvu-e by Opinion 96 of the Inter- national Commission, published in 1926. This Opinion, ruling that Roding's nanaes in the Museum Boltenianum (1798) are nomenclatorially available, has done more to disrupt stability and universality of the scientific names of molluscs than any other action of the Commission. Those malacologists who have abided by this unfortunate ruling have been obliged to adopt a large nimaber of Roding's generic and specific names. Over the last 35 years many of these names have come to replace other names widely used in the nineteenth century. Lemche's application raises a matter of principle — whether, at this late date, attempts should be made to return to nineteenth century nomenclature one generic name at a time. Lemche has claimed " that the name Pupa has already been established for [a] genus of opisthobranchs in about one-third of the — fortunately restricted — literature on the group ..." No distinction was made between the recent and the old literature (i.e., published before 1926). I have made a survey of the recently published literature on marine molluscs of the Indo-Pacific. The following malacologists have, disregarding or overlooking the ruling of the Commission in Opinion 96, used the name Solidula Fischer v. Waldheim, 1807, since 1926 : Faustino (1928, Philippines) Grant & Gale (1931, U.S.A.) Thiele (1931, Germany) Dautzenberg & Bouge (1933, France) Hirase (1936, Japan) Adam & Leloup (1938, Belgium) Thorson (1940, Denmark) Allan (1950, 1959, Australia) The following malacologists have abided by the ruling of the Commission in Opinion 96, and since 1926 have used the name Pupa Roding, 1798 : Kuroda (1928, 1941, etc., Japan) Cotton & Godfrey (1932, Australia) Iredale (1936, Australia) Powell (1937, 1946, 1957, New Zealand) Hatai (1941, Japan) Winckworth (1945, Great Britain) Kira (1945, 1955, Japan) Edmondson (1946, Hawaii) Habe (1950, 1958, etc., Japan) Solem (1953, U.S.A.) Dodge (1955, U.S.A.) Itoigawa (1958, Japan) Tinker (1958, Hawaii) Zilch (1959, Germany) Thus, only one malacologist (Allan) appears to have used the name Solidula since 1940, while twelve have used Pupa. All this new literature cannot fairly be claimed to be of " restricted " distribution. Since 1926, eight malacologists have used Solidula and fourteen have used Pupa. Dautzenberg & Bouge, Hirase, and Adam & Leloup, who used Solidula, may have uncritically followed Thiele (1931, Handb. syst. Weicht. 1 : 379 ; ibid., 1935, 2 : 1151) who overlooked Opinion 51 of the Commission ruling that the Museum Calonnianum (1797) is nomenclatorially unavailable. The name Pupa appears in this invalid Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 259 work, and Thiele therefore considered Pupa Roding a junior homonym, and used Solidula instead. Zilch (1959, Handb. Paldozool., Euthyneura, p. 9) was aware of Thiele 's oversight and adopted the name Pupa Roding. Zilch's handbook no doubt will be widely followed. Further search in the literature published since 1926 undoubtedly would reveal even more usage for Pupa, and but very little more for Solidula, especially after 1940. The name Solidula was widely used in the nineteenth century and before 1926. However, the following used the name Pupa for the opisthobranch genus before 1926: Suter (1913, New Zealand) PUsbury (1917, 1918, U.S.A.) Mant (1923, U.S.A.) As Lemche has shown, the name Pupa has been applied to two unrelated genera of pulmonate gastropods, as well as recently to the opisthobranch genus {Pupa Roding). Lemche alludes to the land snails known luider the name Pupa Drapamaud, 1801. As long ago as 1918, Pilsbry {Man. Conch. Ser. 2, 24 : 262, 267 ; ibid., 1920, 25 : 370) considered Pupa Drapamaud a jimior homonym of Pupa Roding, and a synonym of Abida " Leach " [Turton], 1831. Drapamaud's genus originally included, in addition to Abida, species of Pupilla, Clausilia, and Balea. The European land snails known under the name Pupa in the nineteenth century are now grouped in Abida (Family " chondrinidae " [ = Subfamily gastkocoptinae]) and Pupilla Fleming, 1828 (Family pupillidae. Subfamily puphxinae). (See Zilch, 1959, Handb. Paldozool., Euthyneura, pp. 156, 165.) Pupa Lamarck, 1801, has been invalidated by the Commission in Direction 72, and a senior synonym, Cerion Roding, 1798, has been validated in Opinion 119 (as well as in Opinion 96). The latter name pertains to a genus of West Indian land snails. Lemche proposes suppression of Pupa Roding for the pm*poses of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. Lemche also proposes suppression of the Family name pupidae Winckworth, 1945. If the name Pupa Roding is suppressed, a student or non-taxonomist confronted with the names Pupa and pupidae will face even more complications than he would at present. The names would no longer be correctly applied to gastropods of any kind. Recently published literature in which the name Pupa pertains to an opisthobranch genus would be as confusing as the old literatiu?e in which Pupa pertains to one of various genera of pulmonates. There seems little likelihood of confusion resulting from use of the name Pupa for a genus of Indo-Pacific marine opisthobranchs, even if the name has, in the past, been used for various land snails (primarily of Europe and the West Indies). Following Zilch (1959, Handb. Paldozool., Euthyneura, pp. 5-9), Pujxi Roding is classified in the Family acteoni- DAE, Subfamily acteoninae. Thus the Family name pxjpidae Winckworth, 1945, need not be used. In my opinion, suppression of the name Pupa Roding at this late date would only add to the confusion already existing. Further, I believe that the plenary powers should be used to suppress obscure but otherwise valid names before they become widely used, not after. Roding's names should never have been allowed to replace other names widely used in the nineteenth century but it is too late now to interfere. (Lemche, 1961, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 303, has expressed an identical opinion on a parallel case.) Accordingly, I would urge that the Commission take no action on the petition to suppress Pupa Roding. Stability and universality of nomenclature would seem better served by application of Opinion 96 and of Article 23, the Law of Priority. By C. A. Fleming {New Zealand Geological Survey, Lower Hutt) I wish to comment on Dr. H. Lemche's proposal that the generic name Pupa Roding be suppressed under the plenary powers. The name Pupa has been in regular use by New Zealand workers on Mollusea for 50 years and it would cause Just as much confusion to suppress it as to validate it. I am therefore opposed to the proposal. 260 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature By D. F. McMichael {The Australian Museum, Sydney, Australia) I wish to record my opposition to the proposal for the suppression of the generic name Pupa Roding, 1798, and of the family name pupidae for the opisthobranch group which includes Pupa Roding. The names in the Museum Boltenianum have now been known to be acceptable nomenclatorially since the year 1926, when Opinion 96 was published. During the intervening 36 years these names have, for the most part, gained wide acceptance among active malacologists and have appeared in numerous reference works, taxo- nomic studies and check-lists. Pupa Roding is clearly established as the name for an opisthobranch genus in the minds of the majority of recent workers and stability of nomenclature would not be aided by its suppression in favour of the abandoned name Solidula. A more reasonable approach towards achieving stability would be for workers generally to adopt those Roding names which are valid (as they have been clearly analysed by Winckworth) and to refrain from using the junior synonyms of Lamarck and later workers, a course of action which has been widely adopted in Australia. The case of the family name pupidae is a little different, for the name has been used until recent years by a few workers for the land snail family, though not widely amongst workers on terrestrial molluscs. In fact, the name pupidae is not listed by Baker* as apertaining to the pupillidae in the restricted sense, but as a synonym of cebionidae. However, it caruiot be denied that the vernacular term pupoid is still used by some workers for the small pupillid snails, and so some purpose might be served by not using pupidae for the marine opisthobranch group. However, as an alternative name for the land snails, pupillidae, and the vernacular " pupillid " have gained general acceptance among terrestrial malaco- logists, and since pupidae has appeared in a niunber of publications referring to the Opisthobranch family, it would seem that matters might be resolved in the simplest manner by confirming the names pupillidae for the land snails, pupidae for the opisthobranchs and letting the old, invalid usages disappear with the passage of time. By Myra Keen (Stanford University, California, U.S.A.) The proposal that Pupa Roding, 1798, be suppressed seems to me not to be in the interests of stability. It is true that the name has been used in two or more widely different senses, but suppression will not erase this fact. No problem is involved other than the matter of inconvenience generated by the Commission's acceptance of the Roding work in Opinion 96, published in 1926. Since that date, workers have more and more consistently adopted the Roding generic names. To suppress them piece-meal at this time only adds to confusion. I therefore would urge that this proposal be rejected. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF BIOMPHALARIA PRESTON, 1910. Z.N.(S.) 1392 (see this volume, pages 39-41) By R. Hubendick {Naturhistoriska Museet, Ootenborg, Sweden) Referring to Dr. C. A. Wright's application to the Commission to place Biomphalaria on the Official List of Generic Names and to suppress certain synonyms I wish to give the following conoment. I have for many years been working with Planorbidae both as a taxonomist and as an expert on problems concerning Bilharzia control. In both connections I have felt the urgent need of getting rid of the nomenclatural confusion of the * 1956, Nautilus, 69, pp. 128-139. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 261 the best solution would be the one suggested by Dr. Wright. workers, etc.. By B. G. Peters (Imperial College of Science and Technology, Field Station Ascot, Berks.) ' DaDer'^''t Jn Z^^Z^ *^t ^""^ requests, (1) to (4) listed on page 41 of Dr. Wright's ^ By E. Binder {Museum d'Histoire NaturelU, Geneva, Switzerland) J approuve entierement la proposition de Dr. C. A. Wrieht d'adontPr nffinJoii provrireTent, 1 no^ XL^ft^^ r^trCe ""f ' l--r,-ployer encore, u„ ?enne Spk"r<,„'.rtSr,r:d«%rs,L"S^-7aL'.^ '-^'^-^ '''^"'"°^" By H. J. O'D, Burke-Oaffney (Bureau of Hygiem and Tropical Disease.. London) Mr. W^^M^'^p^En.^^^'^ ''^*°^ °' ^^^^^*^« pubhcations I therefore support By V^ de V. Clark (Research Laboratory, Causeway, Salisbury, Rhodesia & Nyamland) nale: pZ^ £' ^Ta^Zf^^Hfr'^ '° the Conunission to suppress the generic Preston, 1910. He is STone m uTT'"^ "" -^- '^^ ^^""' Biomphalaria Dr WriVhTbuf wf it/''P'"'"!f 7'^^ *^^ ^°"*h American forms referred to by SowTedle espLran;^^^;^^^^^^^^^ T^ 'Tl.°".-^f ^^^^^P^^^ Malek (Ann. Mag. nit. Hil(13) 4 : Svl-S^S roef) '^' ^"^^^^^^^ ^"^ Abdel- in ^l"^X^l^oifSZ'£"o:5 ^'"^ *y ^'^^ standardisation of nomenclature difficult^ due to nanS, ^ ^"^""^ taxonomic features without additional 262 Bvlktin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 636 ENCRINUS LMIARCK, 1801 (CRINOIDEA) ; VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN ITS ACCUSTOMED SENSE RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers : (a) the foUo\\dng generic names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy : (i) Encrinus Andreae, 1763 ; (ii) Encrinus Andreae, 1776 ; (iii) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779 ; (iv) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788 ; (v) aU other uses of the generic name Encrinus prior to that by Lamarck, 1801 ; (b) all designations of tjrpe-species for the genus Encrinus Lamarck, 1801, made prior to the present RuUng are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801 is hereby designated to be type of that genus. (2) The follo^ving generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Greneric Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Encrinus Lamarck, 1801 (gender : masculine), type-species, by designa- tion under the plenary powers in (l)(b) above, Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801 (Class Crinoidea) (Name No. 1483) ; (b) Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864 (gender : masculine), type-species, by monotypy, Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767 (Class Crinoidea) (Name No. 1484) ; (c) Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801 (gender : feminine), tjrpe-species, by monotypy, Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Anthozoa) (Name No. 1485) ; (d) Boltenia S&yignj, 1816 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Huntsman, 1912, Vorticella oviferalAwaeievis, 1767 (Class Ascidiacea) (Name No. 1486). (3) The foUo^sdng specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) liliiformis Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Encrinus lilii- formis (type-species oi Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 1820) ; (b) asteria Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the binomen Isis asteria (type- species of Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864) (Name No. 1821) ; (c) encrinus Linnaeus, 1758, as pubUshed in the binomen Isis encrinus (type- species of Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 1822) ; (d) ovifera Linnaeus, 1767, as pubhshed in the binomen Vorticella ovifera (type-species of Boltenia Savigny, 1816) (Name No. 1823). (4) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Encrinus Schultze, 1760 (unavailable because published in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes) (Name No. 1562) ; (b) Encrimis Andreae, 1763 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(i) above) (Name No. 1563) ; Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 263 (c) Encrinus Andreae, 1776 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(ii) above) (Name No. 1564) ; (d) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(iii) above) (Name No. 1565) ; (e) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(iv) above) (Name No. 1566) ; (f) Encrinus, all other uses of, prior to Lamarck, 1801 (suppressed under the plenary powers in (l)(a)(v) above) (Name No. 1567). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) groenlandica Lamarck, 1801, as published in the binomen Umbellularia groenlandica (a junior objective synonym of Isis encrinus Linnaeus, 1758) (Name No. 701) ; (b) caputmedusae Lamarck, 1801, as pubUshed in the combination Encrinus caputmedusae (a junior objective synonym of Isis asteria Linnaeus, 1767) (Name No. 702) ; (c) fusiformis Savigny, 1816, as pubhshed in the binomen Boltenia fusiformis (a jimior objective synonym of Vorticella bolteni Linnaeus, 1771) (Name No. 703). (6) The following work is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Works in Zoological Nomenclature with the Title Number 64 : Schultze (C. F.), 1760, Betrachtung der Versteinerten Seesterne und Ikrer Theile (a work in which the author did not apply the principles of binominal nomenclature). (7) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) UMBELLTJLARnDAE (correction of xtmbellulae) Lindahl, 1874 (type- genus Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 327) ; (b) ENCRiNiDAE (correction of encriniens) Dujardin & Hupe, 1862 (type- genus Encrinus Lamarck, 1801) (Name No. 328). (8) The following family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) umbellulae Lindahl, 1874 (an incorrect original spelling for itmbellu- LARHDAE) (Name No. 356) ; (b) UMBELLULEAE Kolhker, 1875 (an incorrect spelling for UMBELLULAnnDAE) (Name No. 357) ; (c) ENCRINIENS Dujardin & Hupe, 1862 (an incorrect original speUing for ENCRINIDAE) (Name No. 358). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 434) The present case was brought to the attention of the Office of the Commission by the late Dr. Th. Mortensen in 1932, when he made an apphcation for the vahdation of Encrinus Schultze, 1760, with designation of Encrinus liliiformis Lamarck, 1801, as type-species. Dr. Mortensen's proposals had the support 264 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature of a large number of specialists in Crinoidea. Since Dr. Mortensen was not himself a specialist in Crinoids the Secretary of the Commission undertook to find a speciahst in the group who would submit the case to the Commission. In spite, however, of a published request for information {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 7 : 216-217) no such speciahst was found. PubUc Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was pubhshed several times without ehciting any objection. A report on the status of Encrinus was finally prepared in the Commission's Office by Miss Margaret Spillane, and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 65-68. Pubhc Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial pubhcations {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961, the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)26 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 67-68. At the close of the Voting Period on 2 January 1962, the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, RUey, Jaczewski, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — one (1) : Key. Voting Papers not returned — two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner StoU returned a late affirmative vote. On 1 December 1961 the following note was sent to Commissioners together with a Voting Paper (O.M.)(61)3 : " The Report on the generic name Encrinus was pubhshed in Bulletin 18 : 65-68, and on 2 October Commissioners were asked to vote on the proposals there presented on Voting Paper (61)26. In returning their votes both Dr. Holthuis and Dr. Key have suggested that it would be wise to suppress ' all uses of the generic name Encrinus prior to that by Lamarck, 1801 '. The Secretary agrees that this would be an additional safeguard to the continued use of Encrinus in its accustomed sense. Commissioners are now asked to express their opinion on this course on the accompanying One-Month Voting Paper." At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 1 January 1962 the state of the Voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — seventeen (17), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hering, RUey, Uchida, Tortonese, Mayr, Vokes, Jaczewski, Obruchev, Brinck, Alvarado, Mertens, Miller, Bonnet, Kxihnelt, Poll. Negative Votes — none (0). Voting Papers not returned — three (3) : Boschma, Hemming, Prantl. Commissioners Lemche, Munroe, Stoll, Key and do Amaral returned late affirmative votes. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 265 Original References The followiBg are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion : asteria, Isis, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1288 BoUenia Savigny, 1816, M4in. Anim. s. Vertihr. (2) : 87 caputmeditsae, Encrinus, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Verier. : 379 Cenocrinus Thomson, 1864, Tfte Intellectual Observer 6 : 2 ENCRiNiDAE Dujardin & Hupe, 1862, Hist. nat. Zoophytes, Echinodermes : 161 ENCRINIENS Dujardin & Hupe, 1862, an incorrect original spelling for ENCRINIDAE q.V. Encrinus Andreae, 1763, Briefe aus der Schweiz (Hannoverisches Magazin) Encrinus Andreae, 1776, ibid, (separate) Encrinus Blumenbach, 1779, Handb. Naturgesch. (ed. 1) : 435 Encrinus Blumenbach, 1788, Handb. Naturgesch. (ed. 3) : 503 Encrinus Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Verier. : 379 Encrinus Schultze, 1760, Betrachtung der Versteinerten Seesterne und Ihrer Theile : 21 encrinus, Isis, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 800 fusiformis, Boltenia, Savigny, 1816, Mem. Anim. s. Vertebr. (2) : 87 groenlandica, Umbellularia, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertebr. : 380 liliiform,is, Encrinus, Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertibr. : 379 ovifera, Vorticella, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 : 1319 UMBEijiTTiAE Lindahl, 1874, an incorrect original spelling for umbellpTjARIIDAe q.V. Umbellularia Lamarck, 1801, Syst. Anim. s. Vertkbr. : 380 UMBELLULARnDAE Lindahl, 1874, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4)13 : 258 umbelluleae Kolliker, 1875, Fetschr. Phys.-Med. Ges. Wiirzburg : 10 The following is the original reference for the designation of a type-species for a genus concerned in the present Ruling : For Boltenia Savigny, 1816 : Huntsman, 1912, Trans, canad. Inst. 9 : 133 CERTIFICATE We ceriiify that the votes cast on Voting Papers (61)26 and (O.M.)(61)3 were cast as set out above, that the proposals set out in those Voting Papers have been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 636. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1962 266 BuUetin of Zoological Nomendature OPINION 637 ANOLIS NANNODES COPE, 1864 (REPTILIA) ; RULING ON LECTOTYPE RULING. — The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) nannodes Cope, 1864, as pubUshed in the binomen Anolis nannodes, as defined by the lectotype designated by Smith & Follett, 1960, Brit. Mus. nat. Hist. No. 1946.8.5.66 (Name No. 1824) ; (b) interynedius Peters, 1863, as published in the binomen Anolis intermediua (Name No. 1825) ; (c) laeviventris Wiegmann, 1834, as published in the binomen Anolis laeviventris (Name No. 1826). HISTORY OF THE CASE (ZN(S.) 1189) A request for a Ruling on whether a lectotype had been validly selected for the nominal species Anolis nannodes Cope was submitted to the Office of the Commission by Professor Hobart M. Smith and Dr. W. I. Follett in December 1956. A revised manuscript was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was pubHshed on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 75-78. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)28 either for or against the proposals set out ia Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 78. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty -three (23), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — none (0). Voting Papers not returned — ^two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. Original References The foUoiraig are the original references for the names placed on the Official list by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : irUermedius, Anolis, Peters, 1863, Monatsb. Akad. Wiss. Berlin : 143 laeviventris, Anolis, Wiegmann, 1834, Herpetologia Mexicana : 47 nannodes, Anolis, Cope, 1864, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 16 : 173 The following is the original reference for the designation of a lectotype for a species concerned in the present Ruling : For Anolis nannodes Cope, 1864 : Hobart M. Smith & W. I. Follett, 1960, BuU. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 78 Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 267 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)28 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Com- mission, is truly recorded m the present Opinion No. 637. K. D. EILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 25 January 1962 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF AMMONITES LAEVI- 6ATUS J. DE C. SOWERBY, 1827, IN TWO DISTINCT SENSES. Z.N.(S.) 1203 (see present volume, pages 35-38) By R. V. Melville (British Embassy, Paris) I write in support of the application by Dr. D. T. Donovan and Mr. C. W. Wright. No possible service could be done to the stability of nomenclatiu-e or to the convenience of palaeontologists by reviving the binomen Ammonites laevigata Lamarck, 1822, or by attempting to give this name an objective meaning. On the other hand, both the species designated as Ammonites laevigatus by J. de C. Sowerby are well known, and in each case the specific name laevigatus has been used far more commonly than any other name. Apart from the fact that both species have smooth shells, there is no close resemblance between them, for the Gault Bevdanticeras is more compressed and attains a much larger size than the Liassic Cymbites. In spite of the work of many revisers, there probably exist niunerous similar instances of primary homonymy between specific names in Ammonites, especially if Quenstedt's trinominal names are taken into account. The present case is typical of many of these in that the strict application of the Law of Homonymy would upset stability and result in unnecessary name-changing. By R. Casey {Geological Survey and Museum, London) I write in support of the proposals of Dr. D. T. Donovan and Mr. C. W. Wright, which are in the best interests of a stable nomenclature. This case is discussed in my Monograph of the Ammonoidea of the Lower Greensand, Part III (1961), pp. 157-160, published by the Palaeontographical Society. 268 BriUetin of Zoological NomenckUure OPINION 638 LEPIDOGASTER COUCHII KENT, 1883 (PISCES); SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the specific name couchii Kent, 1883, as published in the binomen Lepidogaster [sic] couchii, is hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. (2) The generic name Apletodon Briggs, 1955 (gender : masculine), type- species, by monotypy, Lepadogaster microcephalus Brook, 1889, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1487. (3) The specific name microcephalus Brook, 1889, as published in the binomen Lepadogaster microcephaly^ (type-species of Apletodon Briggs, 1955) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1827. (4) The generic name Lepidogaster Kent, 1883 (an incorrect spelling for Lepadogaster Gouan, 1770) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1568. (5) The specific name couchii Kent, 1883, as published in the binomen Lepidogaster [sic] couchii (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 704, HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1330) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission in March 1958. It was sent to the printer on 27 June 1960 and was pubHshed on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nom^ncl. 18 : 79-80. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as weU as to the other prescribed serial publications {Bull, zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56). No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)29 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 80. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty (20), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, RUey, Uchida, Brinck, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — three (3) : Lemche, Bradley, Miller. Voting Papers not returned — two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner StoU returned a late affirmative vote. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 6. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 269 votr^-^ foUo^^g comments were made by Commissioners in returning their Dr. H Lemche (6.xi.61) : The species in question does not appear to have any reaUy weU estabhshed name. The reasons given by the appUcant for rejecting couchn " are merely inadequacies in the description— which have never been considered decisive in nomenclature. Prof. J. Chester Bradley (10.xi.61) : I see no warrant here for use of the plenary powers. No confusion exists. No-one questions the identity of cou,:hn ; Kent made an honest attempt to diflFerentiate it ; his description was no worse than many that are accepted ; Brook thought that in microcephalus he was creatmg a synonym. A neotype for couchii is aU that is needed to give it firm foundation. ^ Original References T • 7^^ 5°J^°r^^ f ^ *^^ """^^^^ references for the names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion • Apletodon Briggs, 1955, Stanford Ichth. Bull. 6 ; 22 25 cotwhii Lepidogaster, Kent, 1883, Handb. Marine Freshw. Fishes Brit Is ■ o5-5o Lepidogaster Kent, 1883, Handb. Marine Freshw. Fishes Brit Is ■ 65-56 ""'loTfet^^i' T^figfTT'' ^'''°^' ^^^^' ^™'- ''^- ^^^'- '^^^ ^^^^'9^ CERTIFICATE r..f^^^ ""1""^.!^* *^^ ^°*'' '^'* °^ ^°*^g P^P«^ (61)29 were cast as set Z^t.r' , P'^'P"'^^ '^* °"* ^ *^^* ^^*^g P^P«^ 1^^ been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 638. N. D. RILEY Secretary ^- .= • c=J^^ Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 26 January 1962 270 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 639 WOEHRMANNIA BOEHM, 1895 (GASTROPODA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type -species for the nominal genus Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895, made prior to the present Ruling are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Woehrmannia boehmi Kittl, 1899, is hereby designated to be the type of that genus. (2) The generic name Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Woehr- mannia boehmi Kittl, 1899, i» hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1488. (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) boehmi Kittl, 1899, as pubhshed in the binomen Woehrmannia boehmi (type-species of Woehrmannia Boehm, 1895) (Name No. 1828) ; (b) cirridioidesKittl, 1894, a,STpuh\ishedmthehin.omen Etumiphaliiscirridioides (Name No. 1829). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1346) The present case was submitted to the Office of the Commission in April 1958 by Dr. L. R. Cox. This application was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 81-82 on 5 December 1960. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial pubhcations {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to three palaeontological serials. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote imder the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)30 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 81-82. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, MajT, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Jaczewski, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Tortonese, Mertens, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — one (1) : Miller. Voting Papers not returned — two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner StoU returned a late affirmative vote. Obiginal References The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : boehmi, Woehrmannia, Kittl, 1899, Ann. naturhist. Hofmus. Wien 14 : 19 B-uU. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 271 cirruiioides, En^phalus, Kittl. 1894, Jb. geol. Beichsanst. 44 : 117 pi 1 fi. 22 Woehrrmnma Boehm, 1895, Palaeontographica 42 : 227 ^" CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Votine Pan^r rfiUQn ^^ out above, that the proposal set out intZt^tZZJSb^ZTj:.^', mrfer the plenary powers, and that the decision fo tTen betog thelS „f K » trEV '^''^'°"' *= '™'y -«»">«* to the p,.'sent Optaon nT^9 Secretary ^- .^- china Assistant Secretary International Commission m Zoological Nomenclature London 29 January 1962 272 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 640 EUCERAPHIS WALKER, 1870 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; DESIGNA- TION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Euceraphis Walker, 1870, made prior to the present Ruhng are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Aphis punctipennia Zetterstedt, 1828, is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Euceraphis Walker, 1870 (gender : feminine), type- species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Aphis punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, is hereby placed on the Official List of Greneric Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1489. (3) The specific name punctipennis Zetterstedt, 1828, as published in the binomen Aphis punctipennis (type-species of Euceraphis Walker, 1870) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name No. 1830. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1363) A preliminary draft of the present case was jointly presented by Dr. D. Hille Ris Lambers and Mr. H. L. G. Stroyan in May 1955. Having been shghtly amended the application was sent to the printer on 28 March 1960 and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 83-84. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to seven entomological serials. Letters of support for the proposal were received from Dr. F. Ossiannilsson and Dr. Clyde F. Smith (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 194). DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)31 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 84. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — ^twenty -three (23), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — none (0). Voting Papers not returned — ^two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. Original Refebences The following are the original references for names placed on the Official Lists by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Euceraphis Walker, 1870, Zoologist (2) 5 : 2001 punctipennis, Aphis, Zetterstedt, 1828, Ins. Lapp. (1) : 559 BvU. zool. Notnend., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 273 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)31 were cast as set out above, that the proposal set out in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 640. N. D. RILEY yv. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 29 January 1962 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSAL CONCERNING THE FAMILY NAME BASED ON APHIS. Z.N.(S.) 881 (see vol. 18, pages 177-180 and vol. 19, pages 195-198) By D. Hille Ris Lambers (Bennekom, The Netherlands) It appears that competent authorities agree that the word " aphis " is not known in classical Greek or Latin and that there is disagreement whether the genitive " aphios " in late mediaeval dictionaries is an error or not. Linnaeus, the first author to use the generic name Aphis, used "Aphides " repeatedly as a plural. From the point of nomenclature any combination of letters can, with some exceptions that are not relevant, be used as a generic name. I move that the generic name Aphis L., 1758, be considered an arbitrary combination of letters, and that the stem "Aphid-", introduced by Linnaeus, the inventor of the generic name Aphis, be accepted. This automatically leads to the family name aphididae. I further recommend that, whenever there is a difference of opinion on the choice of stem for the formation of family names, the International Commission should let itself by guided primarily by such indication of a stem as the author who introduced the relevant generic name gave, even if this should be in conflict with classical Latin and Greek. Only in those cases where no indication of a stem by the author of the relevant generic name is available should other argiunents be taken into consideration. By James B. Kring (The Connecticut Agricultural Experimental Station, New Haven, Connecticut) While I realize the due date for comment on this case is past, I should still like to conmient in favour of the family name Aphidae for this group of insects. It is the only logical application of the rules, where Aphis is used as the base of the family name. I recommend that name aphidae be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names and that the name aphididae be rejected. By Esmat A. Elkady (Ain Shains University, Cairo, Egypt) I would like to inform you that I agree and support Dr. Russell's views supporting the opinion of replacing the family name of Aphids, aphididae by aphidae. 274 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 641 ADDITION OF CERTAIN GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES IN THE FAMILY PHASMATIDAE* (INSECTA, PHASMATODEA) TO THE OFFICIAL LISTS AND INDEXES RULING. — (1) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) Podacanthus Gray, 1833 (gender : masculine), type-species, by mono- typy, Podacanthus typhon Gray, 1833 (Name No. 1490) ; (b) Didymuria Krrby, 1904 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Phasma violescens Leach, 1814 (Name No. 1491) ; (c) Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Kirby, 1904, Ctenomorpha marginipennis Gray, 1833 (Name No. 1492) ; (d) Acrophylla Gray, 1835 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation by Karny, 1923, Phasma titan Macleay, 1826 (Name No. 1493) ; (e) Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original designation, Phasma (Diura) briareus Gray, 1834 (Name No. 1494) ; (f) Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 (gender : neuter), type-species, by designa- tion by Kirby, 1904, Phasma empusa Lichtenstein, 1796 (Name No. 1495). (2) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) typhon Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Podacanthus typhon, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Key, 1960 (tjrpe-species of Podacanthus Gray, 1833) (Name No. 1831) ; (h) wilkinsoni Macleay (W. J.), 1881, as published in the binomen Podacanthus wilkinsoni, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Key, 1960 (Name No. 1832) ; (c) violescens Leach, 1814, as pubHshed in the binomen Phasma violescens (type-species of Didymuria Kirby, 1904) (Name No. 1833) ; (d) chronus Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Diura chronus, and as defined by the lectotype designated by Key, 1960 (Name No. 1834) ; (e) titan Macleay (W. S.), 1826, as pubUshed in the binomen Phasma titan (type-species of Acrophylla Gray, 1835) (Name No. 1835) ; (f) hriareus Gray, 1834, as published in the binomen Phasma {Diura) briareus (type-species of Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923) (Name No. 1836) ; (g) tessulata Gray, 1835, as pubhshed in the binomen Ctenomorpha tessulata (Name No. 1837) ; (h) empusa Lichtenstein, 1796, as published in the binomen Phasmxi empusa (type-species of Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796) (Name No. 1838). (3) The following generic names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : Bull. zool. NowencL, Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. ♦See page 294 of this volume. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 275 (a) Podomnthus Macleay, 1881 (an incorrect spelling for Podacanthus Gray 1833) (Name No. 1569); (b) Diura Gray, 1833 (a junior homonym of Diura BiUberg, 1820) (Name (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specined : (a) violascens, Gray, 1833, as published in the binomen Diura violascens (and later usages in combination mth Acrophylla Gray, Cyphocrania i3urmeister, Didymuria Kirby, etc.) (an incorrect spelfing for Phasnux violescens Leach, 1814) (Name No. 705) • ih) tessellata Westwood, 1859, as pubUshed i'n the bmomen Acrophylla tessellata (and later uses in combmation with Acrophylla Gray and Ctenomorpha Gr^y) (an mcorrect spelling for Ctenomorpha tessulata Gray, 1835) (Name No. 706). P i^^ ^^'v family.group name podacanthinae Giinther, 1953 (type-genus Podacanthus Gray, 1833) is hereby placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names m Zoology ^vith the Name No. 329. ^ Tn^fJ The follo^ving family-group names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : "^ (a) DiURAE Redtenbacher, 1908 (tyi^e-genus Diura Gray, 1833) (invalid because the name of its type-genus is a junior homonym) (Name (b) ACROPHYLLmi Redtenbacher, 1908 (type-genus Acrophylla Gray, 1835) jKuled^to be mvalid because its type-genus was misidentified) (Name HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1167) The present case was first submitted by Dr. K. H. L. Key in September Februarri'9'5r"''/''''''\*,^l'?'^"^^"P* ""^ ^^"* *« '^^ P^^*«^ on 27 f? 2SMn n t7^' P"^^''^'^ ""'' ^ ^P'-^ I960 m Bull. zool. Nomencl. T)r T P n, , ?^^ proposals were supported by Dr. H. F. Lower Dr. L. P. Clark and Dr. D. R. Ragge (Bull. zool. Nomencl 18 : 78) and by S^lction t^T? ^^T.7 ^r---^ -f N.S.W., Sydney, Australia). Z the Officia I St «f the^fa-Jy;group name phasmatidae, proposed for orresSence ;rr ""Tit ^''™ ^'°^- ^™^' ^"^- ^ ^^^^ ^''^^^^ «f the correspondence relatmg to this matter is given m the following Report to the Commission which was distributed ^«th Votmg Paper (61)3'> - missionerVlVM ^''''*!'^ °^ *^' Commission received a letter from Com- rroposals ^^' '"^*""^"^g '^' ^""-^g «o^^ent on one of Dr. Key's RramLaSf tn."' "PP^""*^°^ ^-^-(8) 1167 Dr. Key proposes to replace the ErtMae T 7 ^?T ^""' Phasmidae by the correct speUmg ComZ! 1 7«^der whether m this case it would not be better if thf WrcrtW^t tr^'T ' gT"^t-^"y i— ctly formed family name A search through the zoological literatm-e made by me shows that the name 276 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Phasmidae is almost universally used. Dr. Key mentions that the alternate spelling is also used but I have not been able to find it in any zoological text consulted by me. I seem to recall that the Commission has sanctioned similarly incorrect family names once or twice in the past for the sake of stability. It would seem to me that it is desirable if the Latin Phasmidae would correspond to the EngUsh Phasmids. This is a word that is of interest to far more zoologists than to merely a small group of specialists.' " On being informed of Prof. Mayr's objection Dr. Key \^Tote to the Secretary on 21.vii.60 as follows : ' Professor Mayr states that he is unable to find the spelling " Phasmatidae " in any zoological text that he has consulted. ' It is true that " Phasmidae " is the form used in the great majority of both general zoological and entomological reference works, and that it pre- ponderates even in the usage of specialists in the group. Among more than a dozen reference works that I have consulted since learning of this develop- ment, I have found " Phasmatidae " used in only two, namely Tillyard's " Insects of Australia and New Zealand " (1926) and Brues, Mellander and Carpenter's " Classification of Insects " (1954). Both of these are, of course, very well known entomological texts. ' In the specialist literature, " Phasmidae " is used in the only modern reclassification of the order, namely that of Giinther (" Uber die taxonomische Ghederung und die geographische Verbreitung der Insektenordnung der Phasmatodea ", Beitr. Ent. 3 : 541-63 (1953)), in spite of his adoption of " Phasmatodea " for the order. On the other hand, " Phasmatidae " is used by Rehn (e.g. Trans. Amer. ent. Soc. 79 : 1-11 (1953) ; Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 99 : 1-19 (1947)), who, interestmgly, keeps to the form " phasmid " for the vernacular term. More recently, it has been used by Key {Aust. J. Zool. 5 : 247-84 (1957)) in a paper dealing with some of the Australian species discussed in my application, and by other Australian authors in a few later contributions on the biology and ecology of these species. As pointed out in my application, it was used as early as 1881 by Macleay. ' The important thing in this case is to get a definite decision, and I do not want to press for " Phasmatidae " if it appears that the usage of " Phasmidae " has been not only preponderant in the general literature, but also so extensive that it would be confusing to endorse the spelling that is correct under the Code. However, I think it only fair to point out that what is now regarded as the order Phasmatodea (or Phasmida, or Phasmatoptera) is not one on which a great deal of literature exists. It contains very few species of economic importance, although it has long attracted attention because of the size and extraordinary procryptic adaptations of most of its members. A large part of the Uterature on the order has been devoted to the single species Carausius (or Dixippus) morosus Brunn. and Redt., which is a popular laboratory animal. The name of the family or order is mentioned in comparatively few of these papers, the insects being generally referred to as " stick-insects " or " walking sticks ". Actually, the inevitable changes consequent upon the elevation of the original family Phasmatidae (or Phasmidae) to ordinal rank, with several different versions of the ordinal name and with restriction of the family to a Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 277 part only of its original coverage, are potentially far more confusing than the difference in spelling of the family name. ' The questions that the Commission has to decide are (1) whether standard- isation on " Phasmatidae " mil lead to misunderstanding or confusion among zoologists accustomed to the spelling " Phasmidae " ; (2) whether this confusion will be sigmficant in quantitative terms ; and (3) whether it calls for suspension of the provisions of the Code, which should not be undertaken too light- heartedly.' " On 20.ix.60 the Secretary received the folio wmg further comment from Prof. MajT : ' The more I think about the alternative (Phasmidae vs. Phasmatidae) the stronger I feel that this is far too important a matter to be treated as an aside m an application which basicaUy deals ^v^th a different matter. I have looked at some family names of birds and found that if we apply the changed old Article 4 retroactively, we may have to change several weU-knowTi bird names or rather, well-known names of bird families. This is a case which, in my opimon, is clearly in conflict with the Preamble. Dr. Key wrote me in a recent letter that the general zoologists would surely protest against Phasmatidae if they found the name objectionable. This I very much doubt because froii the way Dr. Key's appUcation was advertised, they will never know that this is involved. I wonder how many additional family names of insects A\ill have to be changed once this rule is consistently apphed. I would like to have your advice m what manner this troublesome problem can best be placed before the Commission. Perhaps one method would be to separate the Phasmidae problem from the rest of Dr. Key's appUcation, and treat it as a separate apphcation to be advertised separately. Another more far-reaching way would be to propose a Declaration to be voted on by the Commission stating that Article 29a not be applied retroactively if the stem adopted by the original author IS not that " found by deleting the case ending of the appropriate gemtive smgular ". Frankly I do not kno^v whether this is advisable. Pre- sumably It would be better not to touch the substance of the code, and deal with the exceptional cases by Plenary decisions. Still I feel that the Com- mission should deal with these cases because it would seem a pity to change well-estabhshed names for pedantic grammatical reasons. As it is, the code IS quite mconsistent, since it ignores grammatical errors in the various ruhngs on emendations. Why should it be so particular mth grammatical errors made a long time ago in the formation of the names of weU-known famihes ? ' Since Prof. Mayr's proposed conservation of phasmidae as the correct speUmg for the family-group name Mill need the use of the plenary powers it IS suggested that Members of the Commission should indicate on Voting Paper (61)32 whether or not they wish this particular item to be withdrawn and submitted to a fresh vote under the plenary powers or not. If a majority of Commissioners includes proposal (6)(b) on page 240 in an affirmative vote then PHASMATIDAE ^vill be placed on the Official List. If, on the other hand a majority of Commissioners excludes this particular item then the case for the family-group name will be resubmitted after the pubhcation of plenary powers notices concerning the possible vaHdation of phasmidae " 278 Bulhtin of Zoological Nomenclature DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)32 either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 238-240, includmg or excepting proposals (6)(b) and (7)(c). At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, Riley, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, *Key, Jaczewski, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — none (0). Voting Papers not returned — three (3) : Boschma, Prantl, Uchida. Commissioner Stoll returned a late affirmative vote. The following fifteen (15) Commissioners excluded proposals (6)(b) and (7)(c) from their affirmative votes : Evans, Munroe, Vokes, Majrr, Riley, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, Tortonese, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Poll, Stoll. The following six (6) Commissioners voted in favour of proposals (6)(b) and (7)(c) : Holthuis, Hemming, Hering, Obruchev, do Amaral, Jaczewski. The follo'ndng comment was made by Commissioner Francis Hemming in returning his vote (9.x. 61) : I vote in favour of the correction of phasmidae to PHASMATIDAE not Only because this is the correct form of the name but also because I do not believe that the adoption of the corrected form is likely to cause more than a passing inconvenience. Many such corrections have been made in the past and the corrected form has come into general use without causing any serious trouble. In the Lepidoptera, for example, the family- group name based on Hesperia Fabricius, 1793, was for many decades almost always written in the incorrect form hesperidae in monographs, textbooks, papers, etc. Its correction to the form hesperhdae by such authors as Watson (1893), Comstock (1895) and Grote (1897) was quickly followed by others and caused no trouble or confusion. It seems to me that the fact that every family-group name is derived from the name of the tjrpe-genus removes the objection which might otherwise be felt to the correction of the spelling of such names, for whichever way a family-group name is spelled, there can be no risk of confusion as to the interpretation of the family-group name concerned, it being obvious that it is the name given to the family-group taxon of which the genus, on the name of which it is based, either correctly or incorrectly, is the tjrpe-genus. Original References The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : Acrophylla Gray, 1835, Syn. Phasm. : 39 ACROPHYLLiNi Redtenbacher, 1908, in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektenfam. Phasm. : 436 briareus, Phasmxi (Diura), Gray, 1834, Trans, ent. Soc. London 1 : 45 ♦ Dr. Key requested that his rote be counted with the majority. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 279 chronus, Diura, Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 20, 26, pi. 5, fig. 2 Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 16, 27 Ctenomorphodes Karny, 1923, Treubia 3 : 240 Didymuria Kirby, 1904, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 1 : 381 Diura Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 26 DiURAE Redtenbacher, 1908, in Brunner & Redtenbacher, Insektfam. Phasm. : 379 empusa, Phasnm, Lichtenstein, 1796, Cat. Mus. Zool. Hamb. 3 : 77 Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796, Cat. Mus. Zool. Hamb. 3 : 77 PODACANTHiNAE Giinther, 1953, Beitr. Ent. 3 : 548, 553 Podacanthus Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 17 Podocanthus Macleay (W. J.), 1881, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 538 tessellata, Acrophylla, Westwood, 1859, Cat. Phasm. : 115 tessulata, Ctenomorpha, Gray, 1835, Syn. Phasm. : 44 titan, Phasma, Macleay (W. S.), 1826, in King, Surv. Coasts Au^t. 2 : 454 typhon, Podacanthus, Gray, 1833, Ent. Au^t. 1 : 17, pi. 2, fig. 1 violascens, Diura, Gray, 1833, Ent. Aust. 1 : 21, 27, pi. 6, fig. 1 violescens, Phasma, Leach, 1814, Zool. Miscell. 1 : 26, pi. 9 wilkinsoni, Podacanthus, Macleay (W. J.), 1881, Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 6 : 538 The following are the original references for designations of type-species for genera concerned in the present Ruling : For Acrophylla Gray, 1835 : Karny, 1923, Treubia 3 : 240 For Ctenomorpha Gray, 1833 : Kirby, 1904, Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 1 : 388 For Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796 : Kirby, 1904, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (7)13 : 439 The following are the original references for designations of lectotype for species concerned in the present Ruling : For Diura chronus Gray, 1833 : K. H. L. Key, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 236 For Podacanthus typhon Gray, 1833 : K. H. L. Key, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 235 For Podacanthus wilkinsoni Macleay, 1881 : K. H. L. Key, 1960, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 235 CERTIFICATE We certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (61)32 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted with the exception of paragraphs (6)(b) and (7)(c) which were postponed for further consideration, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 641. N. D. RILEY W. E. CHINA Secretary Assistant Secretary InterruUional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 5 February 1962 280 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 642 SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF ELEVEN SPECIFIC NAMES OF REPTILIA AND AMPHIBIA WITH VALIDATION OF THIRTEEN SPECIFIC NAMES WITH THEIR ORIGINAL AUTHOR AND DATE RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : {a,) funebris Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Salamandra funebris ; (b) bosci Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Rana bosci ; (c) besseri Andrzejowski, 1832, as published in the binomen Anguis besseri ; (d) punctato-striata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-striata ; (e) punctato-fasciata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-fasciata ; (f) michahellesii Fitzinger, 1864, as published in the binomen Podarcis michahellesii ; (g) melanepis Rafinesque, 1814, as published in the binomen Coluber melanepis ; (h.) nigricollis D^vigubskij, 1832, as published in the binomen Coluber nigricollis ; (i) quater-radiatus Gmelin, 1799, as published in the binomen Coluber quater-radiatus ; (k) elaphis Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber elaphis ; (1) foetidus Giildenstedt, 1801, as published in the binomen Coluber foetidus. (2) Under the plenary powers the following specific names are hereby validated with, their original authors and dates : (a) lantzi WolterstorfF, 1914, as pubUshed in the combination Triton vulgaris subsp. typica forma lantzi ; (b) issaltschikovi Terentjev, 1927, as published in the combination Rana arvalis altaica natio issaltschikovi ; (c) erhardii erhardi [emend, of] Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combina- tion Lacerta muralis fusca var. erhardii ; (d) naxensis Werner, 1889, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. naxensis ; (e) digenea Wettstein, 1926, as published in the combination Lacerta fiumana lissana var. digenea ; (f) fiumana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiumana ; (g) lissana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. lissana ; (h) milensis Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. milensis ; Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 281 (i) insulanica Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. insulanica ; (k) maculiventris Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis var. fusca maculiventris ; (1) gallensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens gallensis ; {m) monaconensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens monaconensis ; (h) pelagosae Bedriaga, 1886, as pubUshed in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. pelagosae ; (3) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid^ Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) funebris Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Salamandra funebris (Name No. 707) ; (b) bosci Bory, 1828, as published in the binomen Rwna bosci (Name No. 708); (c) besseri Andrzejowski, 1832, as published in the binomen Anguis besseri (Name No. 709) ; (d) punctato-striata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-striata (Name No. 710) ; (e) punctato-fasciata Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis punctato-fasciata (Name No. 711) ; (f) michahellesii Fitzinger, 1864, as published in the binomen Podarcis michahellesii (Name No. 712) ; (g) melanepis Rafinesque, 1814, as pubhshed in the binomen Coluber melanepis (Name No. 713) ; (h) nigricollis Dwigubskij, 1832, as published in the binomen Coluber nigricollis (Name No. 714) ; (i) quater-radiatus Gmelin, 1799, as published in the binomen Coluber quxiter-radiatus (Name No. 715) ; (k) elaphis Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber elaphis (Name No. 716) ; (1) foetidus Giildenstedt, 1801, as published in the binomen Coluber foetidus (Name No. 717). (4) The following specific names are hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Numbers specified : (a) lantzi Wolterstorff, 1914, as published in the combination Triton vulgaris subsp. typica forma lantzi (Class Amphibia) (Name No. 1839) ; (b) issaltschikovi Terentjev, 1927, as published in the combination Rana arvalis altaica natio issaltschikovi (Class Amphibia) (Name No. 1840) ; (c) erhardii Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fvsca var. erhardii (Class ReptUia) (Name No. 1841) ; (d) naxensis Werner, 1889, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. naxensis (Class Reptfiia) (Name No. 1842) ; (e) digenea Wettstein, 1926, as pubUshed in the combination Lacerta fiumana lissana var. digenea (Class Reptiha) (Name No. 1843) ; 282 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (f) fiumana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. fiumana (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1844) ; (g) lissana Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. lissana (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1845) ; (h) milensis Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis fusca var. milensis (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1846) ; (i) insulanica Bedriaga, 1882, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. insulanica (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1847) ; (k) maculiventris Werner, 1891, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis var. fusca maculiventris (Class ReptUia) (Name No. 1848) ; (1) gallensis Eimer, 1881, as pubhshed in the combination Lacerta m,uralis coerulescens gallensis (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1849) ; (m) monaconensis Eimer, 1881, as published in the combination Lacerta muralis coerulescens monaconensis (Class ReptUia) (Name No. 1850) ; (n) pelagosae Bedriaga, 1886, as pubhshed in the combination Lacerta muralis neapolitana var. pelagosae (Class Reptilia) (Name No. 1851). HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1449) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Professor Robert Mertens and Dr. Heinz Wermuth in February 1960. It was sent to the printer on 27 June 1960 and was published on 5 December 1960 in Bull, zool. Nomencl. 18 : 3-7. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 51-56) and to two herpetological serials. No objection was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 2 October 1961 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (61)25, either for or against the proposals set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 18 : 5-7. At the close of the prescribed Voting Period on 2 January 1962 the state of the voting was as follows : Affirmative Votes — twenty-three (23), received in the following order : Evans, Holthuis, Hemming, Munroe, Vokes, Mayr, Hering, Obruchev, RUey, Uchida, Lemche, Brinck, Bradley, Alvarado, do Amaral, Key, Tortonese, Jaczewski, Mertens, Miller, Kiihnelt, Bonnet, Poll. Negative Votes — none (0). Voting Papers not returned — two (2) : Boschma, Prantl. Commissioner StoU returned a late affirmative vote. Original References The following are the original references for names placed on Official Lists and Indexes by the Ruling given in the present Opinion : besseri, Anguis, Andrzejowski, 1832, Nouv. Mem. Soc. Natural. Moscou (2) 2 : 338, tab. 22, fig. 7, tab. 24 bosci, Rana, Bory, 1828, Res. Erpetol. Hist. nat. Rept. : 266 digenea, Lacerta fiumana lissana var., Wettstein, 1926, in Kammerer, Arten- wandel auf Ins. : 279, tab. 4, fig. 28-29 elapkis, Coluber, Shaw, 1802, Gen. Zool. 3 : 450 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 283 ^rhardii La^rta muralis fusca var., Bedriaga, 1882, Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou oo(3) : 99 fiumana, Lacerta muralis neapolitana var., Werner, 1891, Verh zool -hot Ges Wien 41 : 753 foetidus, Coluber Gmen^tedt, 1801, in Georgi, Oeogr..phys. naturh. Beschreib. russ. Reich. 3(7) : 1884 funebris, Salamandra, Bory, 1828, Res. Erpetol. Hist. nat. Rept ■ 236 gallensis, Lacerta muralis coerulescens, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) • 395 tnsu^nica, Lacerta muralis neapolitana var., Bedriaga, 1882. Bull. Soc. Natural Moscou 56(3) : 101 issaltschikovi, Rana arvalis altaico natio, Terentjev, 1927, Proc. 2nd Conor Zool Anat. Histol. USSR, 1925 : 71 y >'• lantzi Triton vulgaris subsp. typica forma, WolterstorfiF, 1914, Abh Ber 3Ius Magdeburg 2(4) : 375 ' lissana, Lacerta muralis fusca var., Werner, 1891, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges Wien 41 : 752 nuiculiventris, Lacerta muralis var. fusca, Werner, 1891, Verh. zool-bot. Ges Wien 41 : 752 melanepis. Coluber, Rafinesque, 1814. Precis Decouv. Trav. somiol. ■ 15 michahellesn, Podarcis, Fitzinger, 1864, in Erber, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 14 : 703 "^'^56(3) ^'^^ ^^'•^^^■^M^ var., Bedriaga. 1882, Bull. Soc. Natural. Moscou ^^onensis Lacerta muralis coerulescens, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 393, tab. 15, fig. 23 naxensis^Lacerta muralis fusca var., Werner, 1899, Wiss. Mitt. Bosn. Hercegov. nigricollis. Coluber, Dwigubskij, 1832, Opyt estestv. Istorii 3 : 26 pelagosae lacerta muralis neapolitana var., Bedriaga, 1886, Abh. senckenb. p«nctoto-/a5cmto, Lacerta muralis, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) : 368, punctato-striata, Lacerta muralis, Eimer, 1881, Arch. Naturgesch. 47(1) • 340 tab. Id, ngs. 4—5 ' quat^^radiatus, Coluber, Gmelin, 1799, Der Naturforscher, Halle 28 : 169, tab. 3, CERTIFICATE abow^w^K *^^* *^' r*'' '^'* ^^ ^^'^g P^P^^ (61)25 were cast as set out unZ'fh^ 1 ^™^ ''* .^"* ^" *^^* ^°^"^g P^P^^ h^« been duly adopted under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken, being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 642 N. D. RILEY Secretary ^- .^- ^^^^^^ Assistant Secretary Intematioml Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 8 February 1962 284 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ZORILLA I. GEOFFROY, 1826 (jVIAAIMALIA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS IN FAVOUR OF ICTONYX KAUP, 1835. Z.N.(S.) 758 By W. E. China (Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) History of the Case This case stems from the inclusion of I ctonyx Kaup, 1835, in a list of genera, from species of which parasites common to Man have been reported, prepared by Dr. C. W. Stiles in the nineteen-thirties and recommended to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoolog}' because of their possible public health importance. All the names concerned were ultimately placed on the Official List in Opinion 384 (1956) with the exception of certain names in respect of which certain difficulties had been brought to light. Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, was one of these reserved for further consideration (p. 110, par. 25) and allotted the registered number Z.N.(S.) 758. On page 166 of Opinion 384, paragraph 33, Hemming stated that Viverra zorilld Erxleben, 1777, was the tj^e-species of both Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, and Zorilla Oken, 1816, and for that reason a decision in Opinion 384 on Ictonyx Kaup should be deferred for the present. As pointed out by Dr. Morrison- Scott, in correspondence with the Commission, Hemming was in error since Ictonyx Kaup, 1835 {Das Thierr. 1 : 352) was based on a single species Ictonyx capensis Kaup. Howell, 1906 (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 19 : 46) stated that Kaup's species was identical with Mephitis capensis A. Smith, 1826 (Descript. Cat. S. Afr. Mammals : 20). HolUster, 1915 {Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 28 : 184) was of the opinion that Ictonyx capensis Kaup equals Biadypus striatus Perry, 1810, the name used by EUerman, Morrison-Scott and Hayman, 1953 {S. Afr. Mammals : 111-112). Allen, 1939 {Checklist of African Mammals : 178) considered that Ictonyx capensis Kaup was the same as Viverra zorilla Erxleben, 1777, and perhaps Hemming was swaj^ed by Allen's synonymy. 2. Zorilla Oken, [1815-1816], {Lehrb. Naturgeschichte 3 (Zool.) : p. xi, index p. 1000 (ZoriUe)), was made unavailable under the Code by the rejection of Oken's Lehrbuch in Opinion 417 (1956), but Zorilla Isidor Greoffroy Saint,Hilaire, 1826 {Diet. Class. Hist. Nat. 10 : 215) estabhshed for " Le Zorille Buffon T. xii, pi. 41 : Mustela zorilla et Viverra zorilla des auteurs systematiques ", was still available being described as a subgenus of Mustela. Investigation of the status of the generic names Ictonyx and Zorilla by Hemming revealed that a sharp difference of opinion existed between specialists as to the exact identity of these genera and it was this more than anything else which delayed the placing of Ictonyx on the Official List. 3. In 1949, Hershkovitz {Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 62 : 13) maintained that the African polecats currently knoTvn as Ictonyx Kaup should be called Zorilla I. Geoffroy, 1826, and that the Cape Stinkmuishond, currently knowTi as Ictonyx striatus (Perry), should be called Zorilla mapurito (sic) Miiller, 1776. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 286 Hershkovitz's claim rested (a) on his belief that " le Zorille " of Buffon (1765) could not possibly represent any American mustelid, but clearly represented the Cape Stinkmuishond, and (b) that Zorilla I. Geoffroy and Viverra mapurita MuUer, 1776 were both based on '" the ZoriUe " of BufiFon, 1765 (Hist nat 13 : 289, 302-303, pi. 41). 4. In a paper entitled " The technical name of the African Muishond (Genus Ictonyx) ", EUemian and Morrison-Scott, 1953 {Journ. Mammalogy 34 : 114r-116) completely disagreed with Hershkovitz's diagnosis of BufiFon's " Zorille ", which to them clearly represented a member of the American genus Spihgale Gray. They reproduced BufiFon's plate 41 alongside photographs of skins of the American Spihgale putorius and the African Ictonyx striatum. Both Buifon's plate of " le ZoriUe ", and his very detailed descriptions, they said, quite clearly refer to a Spihgale. " The generic name Zorilla I. GeoflFroy, 1826 and the specific name Viverra mapurita Miiller, 1776 ", they said, " there- fore both belong to the spotted skunks of America. Zorilla I. Geoflfroy, 1826 antedates Spihgale Gray, 1865 and it is realised that this may cause^ incon- venience. But it is submitted that the right course for those most concerned with the latter genus is not to attempt to export the inconvenience to a place where it does not belong, but to apply to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to have ZoriUa I. GeoflFroy placed on the OflBcial Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ". 5. In August 1953, Hershkovitz replied in a paper entitled, ''Zorilla I. GeoflFroy and Spihgale Gray, generic names for African and American pole- cats, respectively " {Journ. Mammalogy 34 : 378-382). He wote : "Apart from an equivocal bibliographic reference in the designation of the [type- species], nothing in the description oi Zorille refers to anything else but African polecats. The name Zorilla camaot be used for American polecats, genus Spihgale. Zorilla. I. GeoflFroy is monot>-pic in the original description and its type is designated ' Le ZorUIe, BuflFon., T. xiii, pi. 41 ; iMustela Zorilla et Viverra zorilla des auteurs systematiques '. This designation is composed of three elements : — The first is a bibUographic reference to the figure of BuflFon's zorille. The depicted animal was regarded by I. Geoflfroy as an African polecat. This opmion has been challenged [by Ellerman and Morrison-Scott in (4) above]. In any case, whatever the true or fancied identity of BuflFon's zorille, the ammals actually described by I. GeoflFroy were, and remain, African polecats then subgenus, now genus Zorilla. The second element of the [type-species] designation is Mustela zorilla, the specific name actually used by I. GeoflFroy for polecats of his subgenus Zorilla, genus Musteh. Viverra zorilla, [Lmnaeus], the third element, appears in the [type-species] designation as an equivalent of Mustela zorilh [E. GeoflFroy]. The name Mustela zorilla is traceable to E. Geofi^oy who defined it in 1803 (Cat Mam Mus Nat. Hist. Nat. p. 102) ". Hershkovitz went on to emphasize the character oi the white edged ears of BuflFon's figure which would identify it with the African Mmshond. He stated that Cuvier, 1801 (m Azara, Essais Hist. nat. Q;imd. Paraguay 1 : 239, footnote a), was the first reviser to remove BuflFon's 286 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature " le Zorille " from the faunal list of S. America and to refer it to S. Africa. Hershkovitz admitted that Lichtenstein, 1838 {Abh. K. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, 1836 : 281) identified Buffon's " le Zorille " as an American spotted skunk. He wrote : " The controversy has now become sterile. It is the writer's opinion that the only remaining solution is to regard Buifon's Zorille as not certainly indentifiable ". 6. In 1954 EUerman & Morrison-Scott {Journ. Mammalogy 35(1) : 130-131) repUed to Hershkovitz 's paper and pointed out that since the only biblio- graphical reference in the description of Zorilla I. GeoflFroy is to Buffon, the identity of the genus must clearly be that of Buffon's plate. They also gave evidence to show that Mustela zorilla E. GeoflFroy, 1803, which Hershkovitz 1953 (p. 380) now preferred to regard as the tjrpe-species oi Zorilla I. GeoflFroy, had never been published. The name of the African Stinkmuishond therefore remained Ictonyx striatum (Perry), 1810. They wrote : " We propose to ask the Commission to safeguard the established names Ictonyx Kaup, 1835, and Ictonyx striatus (Perry), 1810, by placing them on the respective Official Lists, and also to relegate the names Zorilla, Mustela zorilla and Viverra zorilla, now hopelessly confused, to the respective Official Indices. At the same time we propose to apply for Spilogale to be placed on the Official List in the sense in which it is currently used in America ", 7. In December 1955 Hershkovitz (Proc. biol. Soc. Washington 68 : 185-192) repUed to EUerman and Morrison-Scott in a paper entitled " Status of the Generic Name Zorilla (Mammalia) : Nomenclature by Rule or by Caprice ." In this paper Hershkovitz emphasized the fact that EUerman and Morrison- Scott had ignored I. GeoflFroy's description of Zorilla. He pointed out that Mustela zorilla I. GeoflFroy, 1826, was the type oi Zorilla I. GeoflFroy by absolute tautonymy and that the name Mustela zorilla had already been used for the S. African polecats by Cuvier in 1798 {Tabl. Elem. Hist. Nat. : 116). Hershkovitz also gave evidence to show that E. GeoflFroy's 1803, Catalogue des Mammiferes Mus. Nat. Hist, was actually published although disavowed by the author and his son Isidor. He also declared that EUerman and Morrison-Scott had accepted some of E. GeoflFroy's, 1803, names in their Checklist of Palaearctic and Indian Mammals (1951 : 581). 8. In reply to Hershkovitz, EUerman and Morrison-Scott, April 1956, sent a paper to the Editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, who, however, felt constrained to refuse publication on the grounds that the discussion of the name Zorilla had gone on long enough and that space in his journal could be used to greater advantage than in continuing this discussion. Dr. Morrison-Scott therefore asked Mr. Hemming if the rejected paper could be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. To complete the argument it is therefore published as follows : — 9. Status of the generic name Zorilla /. Geoffroy, 1826 (Mammalia). By J. R. EUerman and T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, British Museum (Natural History). We find ourselves unable to accept the grounds on which Hershkovitz (1955) attempts to rebut our (1953, 1954) contention that Zorilla I. GeoflFroy, 1826, does not apply to an African species. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 287 First Hershkovitz holds that because GeoflFroy said that the animal which he described as Zon/Za came from Africa, then it must necessarily have come from Africa, and that the name camiot be applied to an alien animal. But the provenance of old cabinet specimens is notoriously imrehable What for instance, does Hershkovitz say to such ascriptions as " Habitat in India '' tor Ehinoceros bicomis L., or to Mustela africana Desmarest, 1818 " d'Afrioue " ^ttnceT '^""^ *° ''" ^ ^"""^^ American species ? There are many such Secondly, Geoffroy indicated that Plate 41 of Buffon, 1765, Histoire Naturelle volume 13, was his Zorilla (we reproduced this plate in Journal o f Marr^malogy irnS 3^:115). Hershkovitz (1949) thought that t^ plate representedtheSouthAfricanStinkmuishond,whereasit quite plainlyrepresents the American genus currently known as Spilogale. On the basis of tL mis Identification Hershkovitz held that Zorilla referred to the African animal We pomted out the error, but Hershkovitz (1955), while avoiding this point at the same time changes his ground and says, in effect, that Buffon's plate is irrelevant to the identification of Zorilla Geoffroy. We caimot a^ee ^ ot C^eotfroy 1803 was never pubhshed (Hershkovitz, 1953, having made Hershkovitz (1955) asks what we mean by " pubhcation ". We mean the word as understood by the International Commission on ZoologLal Nomen of Zoologtcal Nomenclature, 1950, 4 : 215. We do not mean a " work that has been printed distributed and consistently cited" (Hershkovitz), uiJess the distribution has been general. The distribution of the printed proof of the Catalogue was to various colleagues. ^ ihS/^' '""^^^ Geoffroy 's son had to say on the subject of his father's Catalogue s': thrtTs f^th '""' -understanding. Hershkovitz (1955) makes the so" say that his father renounced " the pubhcation of the book. But the words the son used were renonca a ", which is quite a different thing. The Engl sh renounced suggests that the pubhcation had actually taken place, but the ?he trrrr "^^r *^"' ^- ^^^^^^^ abandoned the idea of pubhshing override whafth ^^^^^^/^^^^ ^e held to be a critical judgement and to override what the son said when discussing the Catalogue specifically seen rcopTof the r^r^ "^"\*^ '^"'^ '"^^''''' ^ ^^^ - ^-^ ever TrZ-^ u^^ .u CatoZo^we, on the rather curious ground that we do not specifically say that we have. It did not occur to u.f that this would be so remarkable as to call for mention, but we can assure Dr. HershkoX that we ^::^^:^^^:i '--' ''- "•^- -^^ ^- — -terestin^nor b; difficIltrabouVfdt'Vf ""'"^'^ '^'' ?^" ^^'^^^ "PP^^^-*^3^ have been any We tookit Z/f^^^^^^^ r ""documented reference to Sherborn '' understood In tbt' ^tl.^r"^'^"^' '^' ^ibhography thereof, would be understood. In this work Sherborn says that the Cafa%«e was a mere "MS " 288 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature It does appear that there may be some confusion between the term " M.S." as used in this country and in America, since Hershkovitz makes a point of the fact that the Catalogue was printed. But Sherborn used the term " M.S.", as we do, to include holograph manuscript, tjrped manuscript, printed manu- script, in fact all stages up to publication. Anjrvvay, Sherborn, a bibliographer with a reputation second to none, held the same view as we do, namely that E. Geofiroy's Catalogue des Mammiferes was never published, though part of the M.S. reached the printed stage, and was subsequently distributed to colleagues. May we digress for a moment to say that in our Palaearctic and Indian Mammals (p. 581) we quoted 31 us alexandrinus as of Geoflfroy 1803, instead of Desmarest 1819, Nouv. Diet. Hist. Nat. 29 : 47. We regret this slip, which we had corrected in the case ofMus cahirinus, but omitted to do for alexandrinus. We have gone into the question of the publication of " E. GreofFroy, 1803 " at some length, partly because Hershkovitz has brought it into the argument about Zorilla, but also because the remarks which he makes on the subject (1955) may well mislead mammalogists about the book in general. But in so far as the question of Zorilla is concerned, the matter of Geofifroy's Catalogue is perhaps now irrelevant since Hershkovitz (1955) has changed his mind once more about the type species of Zorilla. Hershkovitz has given us three rulings on the type-species of Zorilla. Originally (1949) it was Viverra mapurito Miiller, 1776. This having been shown to be a Spilogale he then (1953) switched to Mustela zorilla " E. Geoff. 1803 ". Now (1955) he has it as Mustela zorilla G. Cuvier, 1798, Tabl. Elem. Hist. Nat. 116, which he says is the " original description " of " le zorille, ou putois du Cap " and represents the polecats of the Cape of Good Hope. But the entry in Cuvier, 1798, is not the original description of zorilla. Cuvier himself quotes " Viverra zorilla Linn.". Presumably Hershkovitz ■was unable to trace this reference. It should have been given as " Gmehn, 1788, in the 13th edition of Linnaeus, 8y sterna Naturae, p. 88 ", where Viverra zorilla is the name given to the species (" habitat in America australi ") which is depicted by Schreber in his Sdu^thiere, volume 3, PI. 123, and by BufFon in his Hist. Nat., volume 13, PI. 41. So we are back again to the species currently known as Spilogale. We are much obliged to Dr. Hershkovitz for going to all this trouble to confirm our opmion that Zorilla I. Geofiroy, 1826, refers to the genus currently knowni as Spilogale. We also confirm that we stand for nomenclature by rule — though we must add that we mean the rule of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, to whom we have already forwarded our proposals referred to in the Journal of Mammalogy, 1954, 35 : 131, for the preservation of nomen- clatural stability, and current usage, by rule. Present Position In view of the fact that Spilogale Gray, 1865, has been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology m Opinion 384, p. 130 (1956) the name Zorilla I. Geofifroy, 1826, can no longer be applied validly to this American BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 289 L'accepled "^Nor T" f^.T^'l .'"'^"^"^ ^^ ^"^^'"^^ ^^^ Morrison-Scott £iol7t /., , / ^?t!'''^ ^^' '^^ ^- ^"^^^ Stinkmuishond currently SSl Gent?" f^,/^^^^^ '''^' ^' Hershkovitz contends, since! St 23b fZ ''. W r"^ ' '^"'"'^ °^^*"^- ^^^«^^g *« *1^« New Code Article 23b, a name that has remained unused for more than 50 years is to be Comm'ssif T f. ' rf ^'' fo discovers such a name is to refer it to the bonimission It is not clear whether this rule is retroactive or not The wordmg "after 1960 " suggests that a zoologist such as Herslio^tz could use such a name before 1960. Certainly the name ZorilJn had notTeen used S^rs^h^rtfr^^ '^"^^ ^'^^^ '' '-- ^^^- '' -- reintroduce/ by midfrlhf Inirl''' ""^^^"^ '' ^ ^"^'^ "^^^'"°^ *^^^ '' ^"«^ be suppressed iTt betted Sr.r' "\ 1"^"' *" '''°^"' *^^ ^°^g ^^g^^^^* «^«^ the name. It IS believed that this solution would be satisfactory to both parties since :rr.;tr1fettea'^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^^^ -^^^^^ - to tike^h: fl?4l^1ion°r '^^^^^ °^ "^^^^^^^^ Nomenclature is requested (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the foUo^ving names for the HZon:^y • '''" '^ "^"'''"^ '"* "°' ^'^ '^''' "^ *^^ ^"" ^f (a) the generic name Zorilla I. Geofixoy 1826 ■ (b) the specific names zorilla Gmehn,' HSs', as pubhshed in the bmomen Vwerra zorilla ■ zorilla Cuvier, 1798, as published in the bmomen Mustela zorilla ; (2) to place the generic name Ictonyx Kaup, 1835 (gender: mascuUne) s^3Tf / 7^°'yPy: ^^^«-^- <^P'^^i^ Kaup, 1835 (a subjective ^^^*\Somen^V^;''^' ''^'"' ''''''''^ ^'''^^ ^^^^' ^' Pubhshed in the Z^o'^gy ; ^ ^^"^ '"'""' ^^ *^' ^^^^^^ ^^«* «f Specific Names in ^'^ *%tnart^nr'"' ^^7 ^""^'^^ ^^ ^^ff^^^' ^^^e (suppressed under the (a) ^onZfa Gmelin, 1788, as published in the binomen Viverra zorilla (suppressed under the plenary powers m (1) above) ; ^fi^ * , (^"PP^^««ed under the plenary powers in (1 ) above) • 290 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature RAN A F ASCI AT A BURCHELL, 1824 (AMPHIBIA); PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A NEOTYPE UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1253 By H. W. Parker (British Museum (Natural History) London) and W. D. L. Ride ( Western Australian Museum, Perth, Western Australia) The object of the present application is to avoid the transfer of a specific name from one species of frog to another which would not only cause unneces- sary confusion in the group concerned, but would also make it necessary to propose a new name for one of the two species involved. The case involves Ranafasciata Burchell, 1824, and Rana grayi Smith, 1849. Unless the plenary powers are exercised the species now known as Rana grayi will become known as Rana fasciata, while the species now referred to as Ranafasciata will require a new name. Both names have been in use for the species to which they are at present appUed for more than a hundred years. 2. W. J. Burchell, 1824 (Travels Interior South Africa 2 : 32) described a new species of frog observed on 2 March 1812 at " Grass Station " on the Brak River (at approximately 23° 28' E., 30° 5' S.) as follows : — "Rana fasciata, B. Viridis. Parum vociferans. Dorsum fascia longitudinale flava pictum. Femora transverse fusco-fasciata. Corpus parvum breve. Pedes vlx palmiti. — Ranae (nee Hylae, nee Bufonis, nee Pipae) est vere species, forma pedum non obstant." "... but observed a very pretty and new species of frog of a green colour, and marked by a longitudinal yellow stripe on its back, and by transverse stripes of brown on its hind legs. It was further distinguished by its silence, or at least by croaking very seldom ". No type-specimen can be discovered to exist, and there is no sketch or figure among Burchell's extant sketch-books, pamtings or manuscripts in the libraries of the Hope Department of Zoology, Oxford and the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa. 3. The next occurrence of the name in the literature appears to be in 1832 when H. Boie (" Brief e von Heinrich Boie geschrieben aus Ostindien und auf der Reise dahin." Neues Staatsbiirgerliches Magazin, 1, 1832 : 126-218) in giving an account of an excursion he made from Cape Town to Muysenberg states (p. 186) " Dann erhielt ich noch Testudo angulata lebendig und Bufo pantherinu^, die im Leben \\Tinderschon roth gefleckt ist, so wie Rana fasciata Burch. in mehreren Exemplaren ". Boie also used the name in his unpubhshed writings and on the labels of specimens in the Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden ; in the Ms. diary of his expedition with H. C. Macklot he A^Tote, while in South Africa in 1826, " Noch gefangen u(nd) nach Leijden geschickt Rana fasciata Burch. ..." 4. Tschudi seems to have been unaware of Burchell's work for, in 1838 (Preprint of Me7n. Soc. Sci. nat. Neuchdtel 1 : 38, 78) he proposed a new generic name Strongylopu^, with Rana fasciata as type-species, giving " Boie, Mus. Lugd." as the author of the specific name. Presumably he had encountered it either in a letter from Boie and or on specimens in Leiden so labelled by Boie. 5. In 1841 Dumeril & Bibron (Erpet. gen. 8 : 389) state that they are describing the species called Strongylopus fasciatus by Tschudi and Rana Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 291 fasciata by Boie. They describe, and designate by letters, four varieties. Con- cerning the species they say " Nous lui conservons le nom par lequel feu Boie avait designe dans le musee de Leyde des sujets appartenant sans doute a notre quatrieme variete [i.e. their var. D] nom sous lequel I'espece ete citee par M. Tschudi comme type d'un genre particulier, qu'U a appele Strongylopus." In pi. 86, fig. 2 of the Atlas to this work (1854) they figure the open mouth of " Strongylope a bandes ". 6. In 1849 Andrew Smith, believing that Dumeril & Bibron had more than one species among their four varieties, proposed the name Eana grayi for one of them {Illustr. Zool. S. Africa 2 : pi. 78, figs. 2, 2a-2c) and also described and figured "Rana fasciata Boie " (pi. 78, figs. 1, la-lc). His figure 2b of the open mouth of Rana grayi accords well with Dumeril & Bibron's figm-e of the mouth of " Strongylope a bandes " and his fig. 1. of "R. fasciata Boie " accords with Dumeril & Bibron's description of the colour pattern of their var. D. The name Rana fasciata has been consistently used since 1849 for the species figured by Andrew Smith with that name. 7. Examination of material in the Museum d'Histoire naturelle in Paris shows that Smith was right in beUeving that Dumeril & Bibron's four varieties represented two species and also that their " Var. D " corresponds ^\ith Smith's figure of Rana fasciata. DumerU & Bibron were quite sure that this variety included the specimens in the Leiden Museum labeUed R. fasciata by Boie, and Boie, as stated m paragraph 3 above, believed these specimens to belong to the species described by BurcheU. It would therefore appear to be correct to use the name Rana fasciata BurcheU for the species which has been known for over a century as Rana fasciata Boie. 8. Unfortunately, however, Boie's surviving material at Leiden comprises the same two species as are represented in Dumeril & Bibron's material. Dr. Brongersma has very kindly examined the Leiden collection and reports as follows on the specimens that might have been examined by Tschudi : Register Number 2004. Tavo frogs coUected by Boie & Macklot. Both appear to belong to Rana grayi Smith. Register Number 2005. Nine specimens collected by von Horstock between about 1826 and 1833. Eight of these are referable to R. gray Smith, but the ninth agrees with Smith's concept of R. fasciata. Register Number 2030. One specimen coUected by Delalande, agreeing with Smith's figure and description of R. fasciata. Thus the material actually collected by Boie, and recorded in his diary as Rana fasciata Bmchell, is not the species figured by Smith as Rana fasciata, but the one which this reviser named R. grayi. 9. Thus, if it were assumed that Boie correctly applied BurcheU's name the species currently caUed R. grayi Smith would have to be knoA.-n as R. fasciata iJurcheU, and the species knoAvn for over a century as R. fasciata would require a new name. Additional support for this view can be adduced from BurcheU's original descnption of R. fasciata as green, seldom croaking and with a smaU short body. Mr. W. Rose of Cape Town, who is famUiar u-ith the Uving ammals teUs us that, on the contrary, Smith's /o^cmto is never green (though this IS the prevalent colour of R. grayi) that it has the more powerful caU of the 292 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature two species and a markedly long and slender body. Further, Burchell's fasciata has a single median longitudinal yeUow stripe (a common mutation among Amphibia Salientia), whereas Smith's fasciata has not only this median stripe, but two light stripes parallel to it on each side. Thus the strict applica- tion of the Rules m this case would require a change of names that must result in greater confusion than uniformity. 10. We therefore hold that stabihty in nomenclature will only be served if the usage of the names R. fasciata and R. grayi which has been almost universal for over a century is stabihsed. In our view this can best be done by selecting a neotype for Rana fasciata Burchell, and we designate a specimen presented to the British Museum (Natural History) by Andrew Smith as representing his concept of " Rana fasciata Boie " and agreeing with his description and figures. Since on the evidence available this specimen does not belong to the species first described as Rana fasciata by Burchell in 1824, we ask that the plenary powers be used to direct that the nominal species be interpreted by reference to this neotype. 11. The specimen designated as neotype is a female, No. 58.11.25.127 in the British Museum (Natural History), London, collected by Sir Andrew Smith, with no more precise locality than "Africa ". This specimen may well have been the one used in the preparation of Smith's figure of " Rana fasciata Boie " pi. 78, fig. 1. It has been separated in a bottle bearing the label : "Rana fasciata Burchell. 58.11.25.127. Pres. Sir Andrew Smith ". 12. We further ask the Commission to rule that the nominal species Rana grayi Smith, 1849 be interpreted by reference to the lectotype selected for it by us, viz. Specimen No. 58.11.25.138 in the British Museum (Natural History), London, a female collected and presented by Sir Andrew Smith with no other date than " Cape " [of Good Hope]. This specimen accords with Smith's figure, pi. 78, fig. 2. 13. The generic name Strongylopus Tschudi, 1838, is not currently used, but is regarded as a subjective synonym of Rana Linnaeus, 1758. It may, however, one day be found useful as a subgeneric name, and we therefore make no recommendations to the Commission concerning it. 14. We therefore ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : — (1) to use its plenary powers to direct that the nominal species Rana fasciata Burchell, 1824, is to be interpreted by reference to the neotype designated in paragraph 11 of this application. (2) to rule that the nominal species Rana grayi Smith, 1849, is to be inter- pretated by reference to the lectotype selected by us in paragraph 12 of this appUcation. (3) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) fasciata Burchell, 1824, as published in the binomen Rana fasciata, interpreted as defined under the plenary powers in (1) above ; (b) grayi Smith, 1849, as pubUshed in the binomen Rana grayi, interpreted by reference to the lectotype specified in (2) above. BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 293 THAUMA8T0C0RI8 AUSTRALICUS KIRKALDY, 1908 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) ; REQUEST FOR THIS NMIE, AS DEFINED BY A NEOTYPE, TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST. Z.N.(S.) 1262 By James A. Slater (University of Connecticut, U.S.A.) In 1908, Kirkaldy (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 1907 : 777-778, pi. 43, figs. 1-3) established a new subfamily thaumastotherhnae for a new genus and species from Queensland, Thaumastotherium australicum. In a corrigenda slip and on pi. 43 he emended the names to thaumastocoridae and Thaumastocoris avstralictLS. The names Thaumastocoris and THAUMASTOCOKrNAE were next mentioned by Bergroth {Deutsche ent. Z. 1909 : 331-333) who thus acted as first reviser. In a revision of the family thaumastocoridae Drake & Slater (1957, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 50 : 366), stated that the type-specimen of Kirkaldy 's species which was a unique male collected by Koebele at Bundaberg, Queens- land, had been lost during the illustrating and has not been seen since that time. It is not now in the Kirkaldy collection at the Snow Entomological Museum, Kansas, nor in the collection of the Hawaiian Sugar Planters Association, Honolulu, and thus was almost certainly destroyed. It seemed highly desirable in this case to establish a neotype for the species in accordance with the pro- visions of the Code (Art. 75). Therefore, Drake & Slater in their paper designated, as neotype of Thaumastocoris atistralicus Kirkaldy, 1908, a male specimen from Queensland. The neotype was redescribed, properly labelled, and deposited in the United States National Museum. 2. According to the New Code it is no longer necessary for specialists designating neotjrpes to notify the Commission so that the designation may be published in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and be subject to challenge. Consequently, in the interests of nomenclatural stabiHty, it is merely requested that the specific name in question, defined by the designated neotype, be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology, and the name of its genus and family on the appropriate Official Lists. 3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to place the specific name australicum Kirkaldy, 1908, as pubUshed in the binomen Thaumastocoris australicus, and as defined by the neotype designated by Drake & Slater, 1957 {Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 50 : 366) (type-species of Thaumastocoris Kirkaldy, 1908) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (2) to place the generic name Thaumastocoris Kirkaldy, 1908 (gender : mascuhne) type-species, by monotypy, Thaumastocoris australicum Kirkaldy, 1908 (given precedence over Thaumastotherium Kirkaldy, 1908, by the action of Bergroth, 1909, as first reviser) on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the family-group name thaumastocoridae Kirkaldy, 1908 Bull. zool. Notnend., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 294 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (tjrpe-genus Thaumastocoris Kirkaldy, 1908) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Thaumastotherium Kirkaldy, 1908 (rejected in favom" of Thaumastocoris by the action of Bergroth, 1909, as first reviser) on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name THAtJMASTOTHEBmsrAE Kirkaldy, 1908 (type-genus Thaumastotherium Kirkaldy, 1908) (rejected in favour of THAUMASTOCOKiDAE Kirkaldy by the action of Bergroth, 1909, as first reviser) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family- Group Names in Zoology. PHASMIDAE vs. PHASMATIDAE : SECRETARY'S NOTE. Z.N.(S.) 1167 In an application published in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 235-240, Dr. K. H. L. Key asked that phasmatidae, the correct form of the family name based on Phasma Lichtenstein, 1796, be placed on the Official List. This proposal was objected to by Professor Ernst Mayr on the groimds that the form phasmidae had been commonly used. A full discussion of the case will be found in Opinion 641 published on pages 274-279 of the present part of the Bulletin. The object of the present note is to give notice of the possible use of the plenary powers to place phasmidae on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology and to invite the comments of zoologists. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 295 LYCHNOCULUS MIRABILIS MURRAY, 1877 (PISCES) : PROPOSED REJECTION OF BOTH GENERIC AND SPECIFIC NAMES AS NOMINA OBLITA. Z.N.(S.) 1393 By Giles W. Mead (Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass., U.S.A.) The applicant here requests the International Commission to reject both the generic and the specific names, each a nomen oblitum, which form the binomen Lychnoculus mirabilis, proposed by Sir John Murray (" Manchester Lectures " — Science Lectures Dehvered in (the Hulme Town Hall) Manchester, series 9, 1877 : 132) for the same series of benthonic fishes collected by the ' Challenger ' which was subsequently given the generic and specific names Ipnops murrayi by Dr. Albert Carl Ludwig Gotthilf Giinther {Annals and Magazine of Natural History, ser. 5, no. 8, 1878 : 187). 2. Of the deep-sea fishes taken by the 'Challenger ', few attracted such immediate and general interest as a series of small fishes which bore unique structures on the head, structures presumed by some to be eyes, but by others, luminous organs. Consequently, these fishes, or more particularly the cephahc organs, received considerable attention prior to Giinther's preliminary diagnoses of certain 'Challenger ' species in 1878. Most of the workers who discussed this species before Giinther's description of Ipnops murrayi prudently avoided the use of a binomial Latin name, and Giinther's name, Ipnops murrayi, has been used exclusively for this species since its proposal eighty years ago. 3. In 1877, Sir John Murray, during the course of a popular science lecture given in the Hulme Town Hall, Manchester, discussed this " wonderful lamp eye " fish, providing it, possibly inadvertently, with the new generic and specific names Lychnoculus mirabilis. This lecture, and the new name pro- posed there, were published but soon forgotten. It was not knowTti to Giinther in 1878, although he must have known of Sir John's interest in this fish, for he named it in Murray's honour. According to the Catalogue of the Library of the British Museum (Natural History) (3, 1910 : 1383 ; 4, 1913 : 1881), the first edition of these " Manchester Science Lectures " is wanting in that library, although the 1883 edition (not seen) is on deposit there. Hence, it seems likely that the publication of Lychnoculus mirabilis was unknown to Giinther, and save for a footnote reference to the Manchester paper in Murray and Hjort's " Depths of the Ocean " (1912, footnote, p. 687), neither Murray's name nor the paper in which it was published appears to have been referred to since. 4. Lychnoculus mirabilis is thus an objective senior synonym of Ipnops murrayi, the latter a binomen widely used in both popular and technical pub- lications, a name which represents one of the world's most remarkable vertebrate animals and part of which forms the stem of the universally used family name Ipnopidae. The applicant therefore requests the Commission : — Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 296 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (1) to reject, as a nomen oblitum, each of the following names, for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) the generic name Lychnoculus Murray (Sir John), 1877 ; (b) the associated specific name mirabilis Murray, 1877 ; the two pub- lished in the combination Lychnoculus mirabilis : (2) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Lychnoculus Murray, 1877, rejected under (l)(a), above ; (3) to place the following specific name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology : mirabilis Murray, 1877, as published in the combination Lychnoculus mirabilis ; rejected under (l)(b), above ; (4) to place the following generic name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Ipnops Giinther (A. C. L. G.), 1878 (gender : mascuhne), type-species, by monotypy, Ipnops murrayi Giinther, 1878; (5) to place the following specific name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : murrayi Giinther, 1878, as pubhshed in the com- bination Ipnops murrayi (t3rpe-species of Ipnops Giinther, 1878); (6) to place the family-group name ipnopidae Jordan (1923, Stanford Univ. Publ. Biol. Sci. 3 : 155) (type-genus Ipnops Giinther, 1878) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology. BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 297 PHYSAPIDA LEACH, 1815 (INSECTA, NEUROPTERA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1453 By D. E. Kimmins {British MiLseum {Natural History), London) The family-group name physapida Leach, 1815, in Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopedia 9(1) : 137, type-genus Physapus Leach, 1815 (a junior objective synonym of Nemoptera Latreille, 1802) is nomenclatorially vaUd and if the Law of Priority be strictly enforced, an amended family-group name based upon Physapus Leach should replace the family-group name nemoptebidae Burmeister, 1839 (published as nematopteridae). 2. Leach's family-group name, however, has not been adopted and to introduce it now merely on the grounds of priority would cause unnecessary confusion. It is therefore desirable that the family-group name physapida Leach, 1815, type-genus Physapus Leach, should be placed upon the Official Index of Invalid and Rejected Family-Group Names in Zoology. 3. The Commission is therefore asked : (1) to declare that the family-group name physapida Leach, 1815, type- genus Physapus Leach, 1815, is a nomen obUtum ; and (2) to place the famUy-group name physapida Leach, 1815, as defined in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family- Group Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 298 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature ARIZONA ELEGANS KENNICOTT, 1859 (REPTILIA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1454 By Kenneth L. Williams and Hobart M. Smith {Dept. of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois) The object of the present appUcation is to request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to use its plenary powers for the purpose of validating the specific name elegans Kennicott, 1859 (in Baird, Report on the United States and Mexican boundary survey 2, Rept. : 18-19, pi. 13), as pubUshed in the combination Arizona elegans, a name which was rejected in 1894 as an invalid junior secondary homonjon, m the genus Coluber Linnaeus, 1758, of the specific name elegans Shaw, 1802 (Gen. Zool. 3 : 536). The relevant history of this case follows : 1. In 1802 Shaw (loc. cit.) described an African species of snake, Coluber elegans, based upon three syntjrpes in the British Museum. The generic name is of Luuiaeus 1758. 2. The nominal genus Arizona and the nominal species elegans were described in 1859 by Kennicott (he. cit.) ; elegans was the type-species of Arizona by monotypy. The S3mtypes of elegans are two specimens, U.S. Nat. Mus. 1722 and 4266. 3. In 1896 Boulenger (Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus. 3 : 167) placed Coluber elegans Shaw in the genus Psammophis, following the precedent of Boie, 1827 (Isis : 533) and aU subsequent authors. The name is still recognized in this genus, as Psammophis elegans (Shaw). 4. In the same work but an earher volume, Boulenger, 1894 (Cat. Snakes Brit. Mus. 2 : 66), regarded Arizona as congeneric with Coluber, and utihzed a new name Coluber arizonae for Kennicott's species, listing in its synonymy Arizona elegans Kennicott, Pityophis elegans Cope, and Rhinechis elegans Cope. He cited two specimens, from Duval County, Texas, and Warner's Ranch, San Diego County, California. He did not designate them as types, nor did he in any manner make clear whether this was a substitute name or a new species. However, in other accounts in the same work which are known to be descriptions of new species he gave no indication of status either by use of the expressions mihi, sp. nov. or nom. nov., or by explicit designation of types. 5. Subsequent to Boulenger (1894) the name Coluber arizonae has never been used as a substitute for elegans Kennicott. It has, however, been cited in synonymy under Arizona elegans and Rhinechis elegans. Since 1907 (the last use of Rhinechis) the only name used has been Arizona elegans. 6. In a monographic revision of the genus Arizona, Klauber (1946, Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 10(17) : 321-322), acknowledged awareness of the problem. Apparently being misinformed on the forthcoming emendations to the rules he states, " we now know the transfer to Coluber was incorrect, and in accordance with a decision of the International Commission on Zoological Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 299 Nomenclature which is expected to be in print shortly, secondary homonyms BO created are not to be regarded as permanent homonyms ". Klauber then designated Boulenger's Duval County specimen as the lectotype of Coluber arizonae and placed the name in the synonymy of Arizona elegans elegans. 7. Dixon, 1959 {Southwestern Naturalist 4 : 20-29, figs, la-lb, map) followed Klauber's {loc. cit.) ideas on retention of elegans, but on the basis of larger series of specimens from the area of the tjrpe-locality of arizonae (as of Klauber) he was able to show the existence of distinctive differences justifying recognition of two sub-species among the populations referred by Klauber to A. e. elegans. Dixon thus utilized the name arizonae as the earliest available for the eastern subspecies, and the name elegans for the western subspecies. 8. Dixon in 1960 {Southwestern Naturalist 5 : 226) proposed the new name arenicola for the eastern subspecies he had identified in 1959 as Arizona elegans arizonae. The type is, by inference, the specimen in the British Museum (Natural History) from Duval County that Klauber designated as lectotype of Coluber arizonae Boulenger. Unfortunately his phraseology is such that arenicola might effectively be construed as a substitute for the name arizonae, instead of a substitute name for the taxon to which the name arizonae was erroneously fixed by Klauber. 9. The case requires consideration of three questions : (a) was the suppression by Boulenger of Arizona elegans Kennicott as a secondary homonym of Coluber elegans Shaw a permanent suppression ; (b) is Boulenger's name Coluber arizonae to be considered a substitute name (in which case its type is that of Arizona elegans Kennicott) or as a new species (in which case its cited specimens are among the types) ; and (c) is arenicola to be associated with the taxon to which Dixon intended to refer it, or to Boulenger's arizonae (=e. elegans) ? 10. The answer to the first question is clearly implicit, although unfor- tunately not explicit, in the 1961 International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Art. 59c, wherein it is stated that secondary homonyms rejected after 1960 may be revived when the state of homonymy is removed ; by impUcation, secondary homonyms rejected before 1961 are permanently suppressed. Therefore, sanctioned use at the present time of Arizona elegans Kennicott would require exercise of the plenary powers of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The nomen oblitum rule cannot be invoked to eliminate Coluber arizonae since that specific name was used by Dixon in 1959. 11. The question of status of Coluber arizonae Boulenger as a substitute name is open to varied analysis. Inclusion in Boulenger's synonymy solely of Arizona elegans Kennicott and subsequent nominal variants of that name makes it seem evident that the new name Coluber arizonae Boulenger is to be considered simply as a substitute for the name Arizona elegans Kennicott, thereby retaining exactly the same identity through retention of exactly the same types. That Boulenger so considered it is indicated in the Amphibia- ReptUia Section of the Zoological Record for 1894, wherein the recorder (Boulenger) cites the name " Coluber arizonae n. n. for Arizona elegans " whereas other new entries were cited with the abbreviation " n. sp.". As circumstances developed, contrary to Klauber's anticipation {op. cit. : 322), the interpretation by both Klauber 1946 and Dixon 1959 of Coluber arizonae 300 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature as a new species, which thus could have the same type as, or a diflFerent one from, the synonymized name Arizona elegans Kennicott, is not tenable. Klauber's selection of a diflFerent type, and Dixon's acceptance of his precedent, are not valid. 12. It is quite clear from context that Dixon's intent in 1960 was to substitute arenicola for A. e. arizonae : Dixon 1959, not for Coluber arizonae Boulenger, 1894, although the phraseology is not explicit. To remove all question we request the Commission to place the name on the Oflficial List with the type clearly intended by Dixon. 13. Since there are nine recognized subspecies of the single species of Arizona, since the name elegans has regularly been used in hundreds of references to this species, and since monographic reviews of relatively recent years are included among these references, we regard it significantly contrary to the interests of stability of nomenclature to substitute another name for elegans through appUcation of the automatic provisions of the code, which would render elegans unavailable through permanence of suppression of secondary homonyms, and arizonae the vahd name of the species as the earhest available synonym. 14. We therefore request the International Commission to take the following actions which, we are convinced, would be the least disturbing and the most eflfective m maintenance of nomenclatural stabUity : (a) to use its plenary powers to validate the specific name elegans Kennicott, 1859, as published in the binomen Arizona elegans, lectotype U.S. Nat. Mus. No. 1722, designated by Blanchard, 1924 (Occ. Papers Mus. Zool. U. Mich. 150 : 4), and to place it on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (b) to place the generic name Arizona Kennicott, 1859 (gender : feminine), type-species, by monotypy, Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859, on the Ofiicial List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (c) to invalidate the recognition by Klauber (1946 : 322) et al. of Coluber arizonae Boulenger as a new species name ; (d) to invaUdate the designation by Klauber (1946 : 322) of the lectotype of Coluber arizonae Boulenger ; (e) to place the specific name elegans Shaw, 1802, as published in the binomen Coluber elegans, lectotjrpe by present designation Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. 1946.1.8.8 on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (f) to place the subspecific name arenicola Dixon, 1960, as published in the combination Arizona elegans arenicola, lectotype Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) No. 90.7.30.40 by present designation to preserve the intent of Dixon 1960, through Dixon 1959, via Klauber 1946, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 301 TRICHOSTOMIDES RAMBUR, 1842 (INSECTA, TRICHOPTERA) ; PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE OFFICIAL INDEX AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1456 By D. E. Kimmms {British Museum (Natural History), London) The earliest family-group name for the taxon cm-rently known as either GOERIDAE or GOERINAE Ulmer, 1903 {Abh. Naturw. Ver. Hamburg 18 : 81) is TRiCHOSTOMiDAE Rambur, 1842 {Hist. nat. Ins. Nevr. : 489) pubhshed as subfamily trichostomides, and based upon the generic name Trichostoma Pictet, 1834 {Recherches Phrygan. : 172), type-species Trichostoma picicorne Pictet, 1834 (by present designation) = Silopallipes (Fabricius, 1781). Rambur's family name was used by Ne\sTnan, 1853 {Zoologist ll(App.) : cciv) as tricho- stomidae and Acloque, 1897 {Faune de France 2 : 42) used the name as the subfamily TRiCHOSTOMn. Since then the name appears to have been dropped and the names goerinae or goeridae Ulmer have been used for this taxon. A change to a family-group name based upon the generic name Trichostoma Pictet, 1834, would cause unnecessary confusion and instabiUty in nomen- clature and the logical course would be to treat the family-group name TRiCHOSTOinDAE Rambur, 1842, as a nomen obhtum. 2. The Commission is therefore asked : (1) to declare that the family-group name trichostomides Rambur, 1842 type -genus Trichostoma Pictet, 1834, is a nomen obhtum ; and (2) to place the family-group name trichostomides Rambur, 1842 (as dejfined in (1) above) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology. Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 302 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature EUCYPBIS VAVRA, 1891 (CRUSTACEA, OSTRACODA) ; DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1462 By P. C. Sylvester-Bradley {University of Leicester, England) The present proposal is for the use of the plenary powers to designate a type-species for the nominal genus Eucypris which will allow that name to continue m the sense that has been universally adopted during the last sixty years to denote one of the most abundant and widespread genera of fresh- water ostracods known. The proposal has been prepared at the suggestion of Dr. Erich Triebel of the Senckenbergische Naturforschende Gesellschaft, Frankfurt-am-Main, Germany. 2. In 1891 Vavra (S.B. bohm. Ges. Wiss. : 159-168) divided the genus Cypris 0. F. Miiller, 1776, into two subgenera. The first of these, with three species, was referred to Erpetocypris, a name which had been introduced by Brady and Norman in 1889 as that of a distinct genus. The second subgenus was referred to by the new name Eucypris, and this included eight species, the first of which was Cypris pubera 0. F. Miiller, 1776, and the seventh of which was Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820 {Histoire des Monocles, Geneve). No sub- genus with the name Cypris was recognised. 3. The genus Cypris had been set up by O. F. Miiller in 1776 {Zoologiae Danicae Prodromus, Havniae) for ten species, the first of which was Cypris pubera. This species was designated type-species of the genus by Baird in 1846 {Ann. Mag. Nat. Hist. (1) 17 : 414). 4. As Vavra included Cypris pubera within his subgenus Eucypris, it seems clear that he regarded it as the typical subgenus of Cypris, and only introduced the new name to avoid tautonymy. In this case the type of the subgenus must be Cypris pubera, and the name Eucypris Vavra, 1891, must fall as junior objective synonym of Cypris Miiller, 1776. 5. However, Daday (1900, A Magyarorszdgi Kagylosrdkok Magdnrajza ; Ostracoda Hungariae ; Budapest) and many subsequent authors, used the name Eucypris Vavra for a genus distmct from Cypris Miiller. 6. In 1924 Sars {Ann. S. Afr. Mus. 20 : 107) designated Monoculus virens Jurine as type-species of the genus Eucypris Vavra. 7. In 1925 Sars {An Account of the Crustacea of Norway, Vol. 9, Ostracoda, Pts. 7 and 8, p. 110) based a new supra-generic "group " of the subfamily " Cjrprinae " [recte Cypriduiae] on the genus Eucypris, which he called the Eucyprides. This group inchided eight genera, among which were both Cypris and Eucypris. Bronstein (1947 ; Inst. Zool. Acad. Sci. U.B.S.S., N.S. No. 31) used the name Eucyprini for a tribe within the subfamily " Cyprinae " in the same sense as Sars' group (i.e. containing both Cypris andEucypris), and Schneider (1960, Ochobm ManeoHTonorHH, p. 356) used the name " Eucyprinae " as a subfamily of the family" Cypridae " yet again in the same sense. It is clear that none of these suprageneric names has vahdity, as the name of any division of the family Cyprididae that contains BuU. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 303 the genus Cypris must be based on the name Cypris. This has already been noted by Pokorny , (1958 : Grundziige zool. Mikropaldont., Bd. 2 : 234). 8. So far as I kiaow, almost all authors subsequent to Vavra have used the name Eucypris as that of a genus distinct from Cypris, and since 1924 this genus has universally been regarded as tjrpified by the species Monoculus virens Jurine. The genus in this sense is abundant, and many species of freshwater ostracod have been referred to it. 9. As noted above (para. 3) by strict application of the Rules the name Eucypris should be suppressed as an objective synonym of Cypris, and a new name would have to be found for the genus typified by Monoculus virens Jurine, and for any suprageneric taxon based on it. 10. I believe that such a course would cause great confusion, and in the interests of stability would propose that the plenary powers be invoked to validate the designation of Monoculus virens Jurine as type-species of the genus. 11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is therefore asked : (1) to use its plenary powers to set aside all designations of type-species for the nominal genus Eucypris Vavra, 1891, prior to the Ruling now requested and, having done so, to designate the nominal species Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820, to be the type-species of that genus ; (2) to place the generic name Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (gender : feminine), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Monoculus virens Jurine, 1820, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name virens Jurine, 1820 as published in the binomen Monoculus virens (type-species of Eucypris Vavra, 1891), on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. 304 BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature AELIA ROSTRATA BOHEMAN, 1852 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA) : PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1490 By E. S. Brown {Commonwealth Institute of Entomology, London) In 1912 Kirkaldy (Catalogue of Hemiptera, I, Cimicidae : 78) showed that the currently used Aelia rostrata Boheman, (1852, Ofv. K. svensk. Vetensk.- Akad. Fdrhandl. 9 : 50) was a junior secondary homonym of Aelia rostrata (De Geer) originally described in the genus Cimex (1773, Mem. Hist. Ins. 3 : 271). De Geer's species Cimex rostratus is a synonym of Cimex acuminatum Linnaeus, (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 446) which also belongs to the genus Aelia Fabricius, (1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 188). Kirkaldy overlooked the fact that Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852, is also a primary homonym of Aelia rostrata Fabricius, (1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 188), an Oriental species now placed in the genus Megarrhamphus Bergroth, (1891, Rev. d'Ent. 10 : 214) a replacement name erroneously given by Bergroth to Megarhynchus Laporte, 1833, in the behef that it was a jimior homonym oi Megarynchus Thunberg, (1924, De. gen. Megarynchus — Aves). The one letter difference, however, is sufficient to vahdate Laporte's generic name so that Megarrhamphus Bergroth, 1890, becomes a synonym of Megarhynchus Laporte, (1833, Essai Hemipt. Mag. Zool. 2 : 65). Kirkaldy also used hastatus Fabricius [Lygaeus), 1803, loc. cit. : 239 in place of rostratus Fabricius for this species since Aelia rostrata Fabricius, 1803, was a homonjrm of Aelia rostrata (De Geer, 1773). 2. Since Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852, Avas a homonym of Aelia rostrata (De Geer, 1773) Kirkaldy, in his Catalogue, used the next available name which was Aelia rostrata Boheman var. glebana Ferrari, (1874, Ann. Mus. civ. di Storia Nat. Genova 6 : 126). He raised var. glebana Ferrari to specific rank with two varieties, glebana Ferrari and confusa Kirkaldy a new name for the variety including Aelia rostrata Boheman. The correct name for typical Aelia rostrata Boheman therefore became Aelia glebana Ferrari, var. confusa Kirkaldy, but this name was never used. The species continued to be called Aelia rostrata Boheman not only in taxonomic works but also, being of some considerable economic importance as a pest of cereals, the name has in recent years become well estabhshed in economic Uterature and agricultural reports. 3. China and Lodos, (1959, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (13) 2 : 588) have recently followed Kirkaldy in the use of Aelia glebana Ferrari instead of Aelia rostrata Boheman for this well-known pest. In view of the confusion which would result from this change of name, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclatiu-e is requested to take the following action : — ( 1 ) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy the specific names : (a) rostratus De Geer, 1773, as published in the binomen Cimex rostratus ; (b) rostrata Fabricius, 1803, as published in the binomen Aelia rostrata ; Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 305 (2) to place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) rostrata Boheman, 1852, as published in the binomen Aelia rostrata ; (b) hastatus Fabricius, 1803, as pubUshed in the binomen Lygaev^s hastatus ; (4) to place the specific names suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. 306 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature TETRASTICHUS WALKER, 1842 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA, CHALCIDOIDEA) ; PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1503 By B. D. Burks [Entomology Research Division, Agricultural Research Station, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) The generic name Tetrastichus Haliday, [January] 1844 [Trans, ent. Soc. Londmi 3 : 297) with, type-species Cirrosjpilus attalv^ Walker, 1839 [Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 2 : 353), has been very widely used in taxonomic, economic, and biological hterature for over a century. However, when 0. Peck and the late A. B. Gahan were preparing the Chalcidoidea section of a catalogue of the Hymenoptera of America north of Mexico (U.S. dept. Agr. Monogr. 2, 1951), they discovered that Walker had employed the name Tetrastichus in describing some new species m 1842 [Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 10 : 116). Since this usage antedated Hahday's publication of the name, and satisfied the reqxiirements of the Code for vahdation. Peck and Gahan concluded that the proper designation of the genus was Tetrastichus Walker, 1842. As Tetrastichus Walker had no t3rpe, they designated the species lycidas Walker from among those included. They chose lycidas without seeing specimens of it. 2. It should be noted that the compilers of this catalogue, although using the name TetrasticMis Walker, actually employed it in the sense of Tetrastichus HaUday, on the assumption that the species they selected as type of Tetrastichus Walker was congeneric with the type of Tetrastichus Hahday. Unfortunately, Lindroth and Graham [Opusc. Ent. 25 : 94, 1960) subsequently showed that lycidas Walker is not a Tetrastichus in the sense of Hahday, but is a member of the closely related genus Aprostocetus Westwood, 1833. Since Aprostocetus has priority, Tetrastichus of Walker must logically fall as a synonym oi Aprostocetus , and the species formerly placed in Tetrastichus would logically take the next available name, Trichoceras Ratzeburg, [c. March] 1844. Thus, through the inadvertence of cataloguers, the well-known name Tetrastichus is to be discarded. 3. Such discarding of a much-used name is logical, but certainly is not reasonable. The name Tetrastichus has been more widely used than any other single generic name in the entire superfamUy Chalcidoidea. The U.S. Depart- ment of Agriculture maintains a card-file of all known taxonomic and biological references to genera and species of Chalcidoidea that have been pubhshed since Dalla Torre's Catalogus Hymenopterorum, vol. 5, 1898. The file at present contains approximately 2,900 cards for the genus Tetrastichus, more cards than there are for any other chalcidoid genus. There are fewer cards for such ubiquitous genera as Eurytoma, Coccophagus, Chalcis [Brachymeria), or Trichogramma. The named collection of Tetrastichus in the U.S. National Museum occupies 28 museum drawers, again greater than the number of specimen drawers for any other single chalcidoid genus. 4. The genus Tetrastichus, in the sense of Hahday, has been revised or synopses of species have been drawn up for many of the faunal regions of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 307 world. These include studies of the species of the Ethiopian Region, Austraha, the Palearctic Region, the Seychelles Islands, the Soviet Union, and North America north of Mexico. It is the type-genus of the subfamily tetrastichinae of the family euxophidae. The first known reference to a family-group name is to the family tetbastichoidae by Foerster, 1856 {Hymenopterologische Studien (2) : 19). 5. Therefore in the interest of stabihty of nomenclature, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is requested to : — (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Tetrastichus Walker, 1842, for the piirposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy ; (2) to place the generic name Tetrastichus HaUday, 1844 (gender: masculine) tjrpe-species, by monotypy, Cirrospilus attalus Walker, 1839, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name attalus Walker, 1839, as pubUshed in the binomen Cirrospilus attalus (type-species of Tetrastichus HaUday, 1844) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the generic name Tetrastichus Walker, 1842, suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the family-group name tetrastichinae Foerster, 1856 (type- genus Tetrastichus Haliday, 1844) on the Official List of Fanuly- Group Names in Zoology ; (6) to place the family-group name tetbastichoidae Foerster, 1856 (an incorrect original spelling for tetrastichinae) on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Family-Group Names in Zoology. 308 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature DICELL0MU8 HALL, 1871 (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICULATA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1504 By A. J. RoweU {Department of Oeology, University of Nottingham) The purpose of the present appHcation is to ask the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature to exercise its plenary powers and remove a threat to the stability of the name of a Cambrian inarticulate brachiopod, Dicellomus HaU, 1871. This phosphatic shelled genus is an important element of the upper Cambrian brachiopod fauna of North America and has some stratigraphic importance (Bell, 1944, p. 158). Under the Rules the name would be lost as a jimior subjective synonym of Obolella Bilhngs, a lower Cambrian, calcareous shelled genus that belongs to an entirely different superfamily. 2. The genus Dicellomus was erected by Hall (1871) in the following terms : "The species placed by me, with doubt, under the genus Obolella of Billings in the Sixteenth Report on the State Cabinet was thus referred rather in deference to Mr. BiUings's expressed opinion, than with its correspondence to the generic description and figure of the author. The grooving or emargina- tion of the apex of both valves and the thickening of the edges of the shell on each side below the apex ; the form and character of the muscular impressions woidd likewise separate this species from Obolella as described and figured by Mr. Billings. I shall therefore indicate this form as a distinct genus mider the name of Dicellomus. The species described by me as Orbicula (?) crossa in vol. I, Pal. N.Y., has a similar form of muscular impression and will fall under the same genus." 3. This description was shghtly reworded a year later (Hall, 1872, p. 246) and the lapsiis which occurred in the original account corrected to read Orbicula (?) crassa. 4. In the Sixteenth Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History the only species doubtfully placed in Obolella by HaU, (1863, p. 133) was Obolella (?) polita (=Lingula (?) polita Hall, 1861). From the original account of the genus Dicellomus it could be argued that Hall intended to make Lingula polita the type-species. All subsequent workers who have mentioned the type-species have taken this point of view and cited it as the type (e.g. Walcott, 1912 ; Schuchert and LeVene, 1929 ; Bell, 1941 ; Cooper, 1944). 5. However, in the original account of Dicellomus the only species mentioned by name (New Code Art.. 69(a)(i)) was Orbicula (?) crassa and under the Rules this must be the type-species by monotypy, contrary to Hall's intention and all subsequent usage. 6. Orbicula (?) crassa Hall, is correctly referred to the genus Obolella Billings, 1861. This was reaUsed by Hall and Clarke (1892, p. 72) and has been confirmed by aU subsequent workers who have dealt with the species (e.g. Walcott, 1912, p. 592 ; Cooper, 1944, p. 287 ; Rowell in press). Thus Bull. zool. Notnencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 309 under the Rules Dicellomus Hall, 1871 is a junior subjective synonym of Obolella Billings. 7. In view of the facts set out in the preceeding paragraphs, I now request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to use its plenary powers : (a) to set aside all type-selections for the genus Dicellomus Hall, 1871, made prior to the Ruling now asked for and (b) having done so, to designate Lingula polita Hall, 1861, as type- species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Greneric Names in Zoology : Dicellomus HaU, 1871 (gender : mascuUne) (type-species by designation under the plenary powers under 1(b) above : Lingula polita Hall, 1861) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : polita Hall, 1861, as pubhshed in the combination Lingula polita (type-species of Dicellom,us Hall, 1871). References BeU, W. C, 1941. " Cambrian Brachiopoda from Montana ", Journ. Paleont. 15 pp. 193-255, pis. 28-37 , 1944. " Early Upper Cambrian Brachiopods ", in Lochman (C) and Duncan (D.). " Early Upper Cambrian Faunas of Central Montana ", Geol. Soc. America, Sp. Paper 54, pp. 144r-171, pis. 18, 19 Cooper, G. A., 1944. " Phylum Brachiopoda ". in Shimer (H. W.) and Schrock (R. R.). Index Fossils of North America, pp. 277-365, pis. 105-143 Hall, J., 1861. " Descriptions of new species of fossils ", Rept. of the Super- intendent of the Geol. Survey of Wisconsin, pp. 11-52 , 1863. " PreUminary Notice on the fauna of the Potsdam Sandstone ", Sixteenth Ann. Report of the Regents of the University of the State of N.Y. on the condition of the Cabinet of Natural History, pp. 119-184 , 1871. " Notes on some new or imperfectly known forms among the Brachiopoda ", Prehminary Notice : Twenty-third Ann. Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History (Abstract), pp. 1-5 , 1872. " Notes on some new or imperfectly known forms among the Brachiopoda ", Twenty-third Ann. Report of the Regents of the University of the State of N.Y. on the condition of the State Cabinet of Natural History, pp. 244^-247, pi. XIII Hall, J., and Clarke, J. M., 1892. "An introduction to the study of the Grenera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda ", Palaeontology of New York, vol. 8, pt. 1, pp. i-xvi, 1-367, pis. 1-20 RoweU, A. J., 1962. " The Genera of the Brachiopod Superfamihes Obolellacea and Siphonotretacea ", Journ. Paleont. 36 (in press) Schuchert, C, and LeVene, C. M., 1929. Brachiopoda (Generum et Geno- typorum Index et Bibliographia). Fossihum Catalogus, 1, Animaha, 42, pp. 1-140 Walcott, C. D., 1912. " Cambrian Brachiopoda ", U.S. Geol. Survey, Mono- graph 51, pp. 1-872, atlas, pp. 363, 104 pis. 310 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature LIGULOPS HALL, 1871 (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICULATA) ; PRO- POSED REJECTION AS A NOMEN OBLITUM. Z.N.(S.) 1505 By A. J. Rowell {Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) The purpose of the present application is to remove a threat to the well estabhshed name of an Ordovician inarticulate brachiopod, Lingulops Hall, 1872. Under the Rules this is a junior objective synonym of Ligulops Hall, 1871. The latter name does not appear to have been used since 1871 and its author in 1872 indicated that he considered it a lapsus for Lingulops. 2. In the Abstracts : PreUminary Notice ; Twenty-third Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History, preparatory for the Palaeontology of New York, 1871, p. 2, Hall described a genus which he proposed to call Ligulops. There were no included species. 3. In the Twenty-third Report on the State Cabinet of Natural History, pubhshed a year later, Hall (1872, p. 245) repeats the generic description given in the Preliminary Notice, but the generic name is WTitten Lingulops. There are no included species in the text, but Lingulops tvhitfieldi Hall is figured on Plate 13, figs. 1 and 2. In the explanation of this plate there is a footnote which reads " Printed Ligulops by mistake in some copies of the paper ". 4. Under the Rules, Lingulops Hall, 1872, is an invahd emendation of Ligulops Hall, 1871, since there is no indication of an inadvertent error in the original account of the genus. The etjonology was not given and it could equally well be derived from lingua, a tongue, the diminutives lingula, hgua, or named after the brachiopod Lingula. 5. The name Lingulops has always been used for the genus since 1872 and Ligulops appears to have been either overlooked or considered as a lapsus for Lingulops. 6. In view of foregoing paragraphs and with the intention of preserving the well estabhshed name Lingulops, I now request the International Com- mission on Zoological Nomenclature : (1) to reject the generic name Ligulops Hall, 1871, as a nomen obhtum ; (2) to place the foUo^ving name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, Lingulops Hall, 1872 (gender : feminine) (type-species Lingulops whitfieldi Hall, 1872 by monotjrpy) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : whitfieldi Hall, 1872, as pubhshed in the combination Lingulops whitfieldi (specific name of the type-species of Lingulops HaU, 1872) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Generic Names in Zoology : Ligulops Hall, 1871 as rejected in (1) above. BvU. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. BuUetin of Zoohgiccd Nomenclature 311 ORBICULOIDEA D'ORBIGNY, 1847 (BRACHIOPODA, INARTICU- LATA) ; PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1506 By A. J. Rowell {Department of Geology, University of Nottingham) Although there has been considerable dispute over the type -species of Orbiculoidea D'Orbigny, 1847, the generic name has always been used for a large group of phosphatic shelled discinaceid species, mainly of Palaeozoic age, which are included in the subfamily orbiculoideinae Schuchert and LeVene, 1929 (p. 13). Recent revisionary work on the genus has shown that the nominal type-species under the Rules has the characters of a craniaceid. The purpose of the present appUcation is to avoid the confusion which would be caused by strict appUcation of the Rules in transferring the generic name from one group of species to another. 2. Orbiculoidea was erected by D'Orbigny in 1847 (p. 269), but there were no origmally included species. The first species to be included in the genus were Orbicula forbesii Davidson, 1848 ; Orbicula morissii Davidson, 1848 and Orbicuh, davidsonii D'Orbigny, 1850, in the above order (D'Orbigny, 1850, p. 44). No type-species was designated. 0. morissii Davidson is an erroneous subsequent spelling of 0. morrisii Davidson, 1848. Orbicula davidsonii D'Orbigny was proposed as what would now be called a substitute name for " Orbicula Koninckii, Davidson, 1848. BuU. de la soc. geol. de France (non Geinitz 1848) Angl. Dudley " (D'Orbigny, 1850, p. 44). Davidson, however, did not use the name 0. Koninckii in his 1848 paper, his three species in that work were 0. morrisii, 0. forbesii and 0. verneuilii. 3. Three species have at various times been designated as the type of Orbiculoidea. (i) Davidson (1853, p. 129) considered Schizotreta Kutorga, 1848, a junior synonym of Orbiculoidea and cited Orbicula elliptica Kutorga, the tj^pe-species oi Schizotreta, as the tj^e of Orbiculoidea. This species was accepted as the type- species of the genus by Dall (1871, p. 74) and MiUer (1889, p. 356). Since 0. elliptica was not amongst the first included species this designation is invalid. (ii) Dall (1877) erroneously considered that 0. morrisii was the first species listed by D'Orbigny in the genus and noted " It would appear as if O. Morrisii must be considered the type " (1877, p. 51). It is usually considered that by this statement Dall selected the type-species. However, if the doubt in his statement precludes the subsequent designation of the type-species being attributed to him, then it was fixed by either Fischer and Oehlert (1887) or Hall and Clarke (1892). Fischer and Oehlert (1887, p. 1268) cited 0. morrisii as the type-species, but incorrectly attributed the species to D'Orbigny. HaU and Clarke also cited this species as the type, but correctly refer the authorship to Davidson. There is no doubt that imder the Rules (New Code Art. 69(a)(ii)(3)) 0. morrisii is the type-species of the genus. BnU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 312 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature (iii) Girty (1909) regarded Orbiculaforbesii as the type-species of Orbiculoidea for he considered that when the author of a genus did not designate a tjrpe- species then the first included species was the type-species. In 1928 he again cited 0. forbesii as the type and gave additional reasons for so regarding it. He beheved that Dall (1877) when designating a type-species for a genus which lacked one, customarily selected the first species referred to the genus. In the case of Orbiculoidea, Girty beheved that Dall intended to write forbesii, but inadvertently in error wrote morrisii. Whatever the merits of Girty's argument his action in regarding 0. forbesii as the type-species is not legally vahd, although he has been followed by several workers. (iv) There has been no uniformity in the acceptance of the type-species of Orbiculoidea during this century. 0. morrisii has been regarded as the type- species by Prosser (1912), Schuchert and LeVene (1929), Wilson (1946) and Goryansky (1960). 0. forbesii has been cited as the type-species by Girty (1909), (1928), Dunbar and Condra (1932) and Cooper (1944). 4. During the course of work on the British Lower Palaeozoic discinaceids, Davidson's material of 0. morrisii has been studied. The species has always been rather poorly understood and only the dorsal valve known from the type-locaUty. The original specimen figured by Davidson (1848, pi. Ill, fig. 46) cannot be definitely located ; it is probably amongst the three specimens figured by him in 1866 (pi. VII, figs. 10-12). Only one of these specimens can be definitely located, the original of fig. 12. Two other specimens in the Davidson Collection at the British Museum (Nat. Hist.) are probably the specimens on which figs. 10-11 were based. This material reveals that 0. morrisii, as under- stood by Davidson in 1866, is a craniaceid, having the typical calcareous, punctate shell of the superfamily. It is intended in the future to stabUise the concept of 0. morrisii by designating one of the above three specimens as neotype. 5. By a strict appUcation of the Rules, the genus Orbiculoidea, type-species 0. morrisii, would be a rather poorly understood craniaceid, possibly a senior synonym of Petrocrania Raymond. 6. The generic name Orbiculoidea could be conserved with its accustomed meaning if 0. forbesii was the legal type-species. As was observed by Girty (1928), this species is not congeneric with Orbicula elliptica, the type-species of Schizotreta. 7. In view of facts set out in the proceeding paragraphs, I request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : — (1) to use its plenary powers (a) to set aside all type-selections for the genus Orbiculoidea D'Orbigny, 1847, made prior to the Ruhng now asked for and (b) having done so, to designate Orbicula forbesii Davidson, 1848, as type-species of the foregoing genus ; (2) to place the following name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Orbiculoidea D'Orbigny, 1847 (gender : masculine) (type- species by designation under the plenary powers imder (b) above : Orbiculaforbesii Davidson, 1848) ; (3) to place the following name on the Official List of Specific Names in Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 313 Zoology : forbesi [emend, of forbesii] Davidson, 1848, as published in the combination Orbicula forbesii (type-species of Orbiculoidea D'Orbigny, 1847) ; (4) to place the following name on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology : obbiculoideinae Schuchert & LeVene, 1929 (type-genus Orbiculoidea d'Orbigny, 1847). References Cooper, G. A., 1944. " Phylum Brachiopoda ", in Shimer (H. W.) and Schrock (R. R.). Index Fossils of North America, pp. 277-365, pis 105-143 Dall, W. H., 1871. " Supplement to the ' Revision of the Terebratuhdae ' with additions, corrections and a revision of the Craniidae and Discinidae ", Amer. Journ. Conch. 7 : 39-84, pis. 10, 11 1877. " Index to the Names which have been appUed to the sub- divisions of the Class Brachiopoda ", U.S. Nat. Mus. Bull. 8 : 7-88 Davidson, T., 1848. " Memoire sur les Brachiopodes du systeme silurien superieur d'Angleterre ", Bull. Soc. geol. France (2) 8 : 309-338, pi. Ill , 1853. British Fossil Brachiopoda, vol. 1. Introduction, pp. 41-136, pis. 6-9. Palaeont. Soc. , 1866. British Fossil Brachiopoda, vol. 3, pp. 1-88, pis. i-xii. Palaeont Soc. Dunbar, C. 0., and Condra, G. E., 1932. " Brachiopoda of the Pennsylvanian System in Nebraska ", Nebraska Geol. Surv. Bull. (2) 5 : 1-377, pis. 1-44 Fischer, P., and Oehlert, D. P., 1887. Manuel de Conchyliologie, pp. v-xxiv 1-1369, pis. 1-16, figs. 1-1138 Girty, G. H., 1909. " The fauna of the Caney Shale of Oklahoma ", U.S. Geol. Survey. Bull. 377, pp. 5-106, pis. i-xiii , 1928. " The Generic name Orbiculoidea d'Orbigny and its application ", Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., 18 : 128-142 Goryansky, V., 1960. " Class Inarticulata " in Sarycheva (T. G.) (ed.). Osnovy Paleontologii, Mshanki, brakhiopody, pp. 172-182, pis. I-IV+figs. 76-84 Hall, J. and Clarke, J. M., 1892. "An Introduction to the Study of the Genera of Palaeozoic Brachiopoda ", Palaeontology of New York, vol. 8, pt. 1, pp. i-xvi, 1-367, pis. 1-20 Miller, S. A., 1889. " North American Geology and Palaeontology ", pp. 3-793, figs. 5-1458 D'Orbigny, A., 1847. "Sur les Brachiopodes ou Palliobranchs ", Campt. Rend. Acad. Sci., Paris 25 : 26&-269 , 1850. Prodrome de Paleontologie Stratigraphique, vol. 1, pp. ix-lx 1-394 ^^ Prosser, C. S., 1912. " The Devonian and Mississippian formations of north- eastern Ohio ", Ohio Geol. Surv. Bull. (4) 15 : 544 Schuchert, C. and LeVene, C. M., 1929. Brachiopoda (Generum et Geno- typorum Index et Bibliographia) Fossilium Catalogus, 1, Animalia, 42 pp. 1-140 314 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Wilson, A. E., 1946. " Brachiopoda of the Ottawa Formation of the Ottawa- St. Lawrence Lowland ", Geol. Surv. Canada Bull. 8, pp. iv-v, 1-149, pis. i-xi COMMENTS OX THE PROPOSED VALIDATION OF PARTHENOPE FABRICIUS, 1798. Z.N.{S.) 1487 (see this volume, pages 58-60) By Fenner A. Chace, Jr. (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C.) As Dr. Holthuis has so impartially indicated in his apphcation, there is no question about the legally correct position in this matter. There is little need, therefore, for comment by carcinological specialists, except to emphasize that the more than a dozen American species of the two genera involved have rarely, if ever, been referred to by any other than the valid names Parthenope Weber and Daldorfia Rathbun during more than half a century. The fact is of far less importance, however, than is the basic principle involved in this application. It is possible that Dr. Holthuis, whose judgment I respect greatly, chose to support the side of the argimcient that had the best chance of success from a practicable standpoint. He may have been influenced by the probably justifiable belief that those who have disregarded the decisions of the Commission in the past will continue to do so whenever those decisions differ from their own opinions. On the other hand, those who have followed the Code previously will be inclined to abide by the Commission rulings, even when they are objectionable. Frequent use of the plenary powers, based on such opportunistic reasoning, can lead only to eventual loss of confidence in the Commission by aU taxonomists, especially by those who have been most loyal in the past. Temporary' and restricted nomenclatural stabiUty may thereby be gained without due regard to more dangerous and widespread instability in the future. Article 79 of the current Code implies that the plenarj- powers of the Commission are available when needed to suspend apphcation of the provisions of the Code that would distiu-b stability or universality or cause confusion. In my opinion, they should not be employed to change valid names, such as Parthenope and Daldorfia, that have been used in monographic studies of a significant number of species for more than 35 years. By D. S. Johnson {Department of Zoology, University of Malaya, Singapore) I wish to protest most strongly against the proposals made in Z.N.(S.) 1487. It will be noted that Holthuis only cites one authority (Balss, 1957) later than 1950 as using the incorrect nomenclatiu-e he wishes to retain. This, one can maintain, is offset by the fact that Garth (1958) uses the correct nomenclature. Holthuis himself admits that all American writers on the Indo-West Pacific use the correct names and he quotes three papers by non-American authors following the same usage. I have not had time to conduct a thorough check of the literature. A quick survey has revealed three recent works by non-American workers on the Indo-Australian region in which the correct names are used (Tweedie, 1960, Bull. Raffles Mus. 22 ; Buitendijk, 1950, Bull. Raffles Mus. 21 ; S. H. Chuang, 1961, On Malayan Shores), and none in which the nomenclature Holthuis recommends is followed. It is of importance that On Malayan Shores is a non-specialist work so that the correct nomenclature will inevitably gain considerable cmrency amongst non- specialist zoologists. Consideration should also be given to the fact that reference collections in museums and universities in Malaya follow the correct nomenclature. Parthenope Weber is a genus much used in teaching in Malaya and for the past ten years at least the correct nomenclature has been used. In my opinion the adoption of Holthuis's proposal will provoke widespread nomenclatural confusion and instability in the Indo-Australian area, the very area where the genus concerned is of most importance. This is clearly a case where suspension of the Law of Priority will benefit no one with the exception of a few European workers. The Commission should certainly not endorse the proposal. Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature 315 SPONDYLIASPINAE SCHWARZ, 1898 (HEMIPTERA, PSYLLIDAE) : PROPOSED VALIDATION OF THE SUBFAMILY NAME. Z.N.(S). 1507 By K. L. Ta5'lor (Division of Entomology, C.S.I. R.O., Canberra, Australia) The subfamily spondyuaspinae was established, by Schwarz (1898) with type-genus Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879, for which at that time no type-species had been designated. Schwarz proposed a redefinition of this genus on the basis of material before him which he referred to it, and in estabhshing the sub- family it was clear that he was interpreting its type-genus in this sense. Exami- nation of Signoret's type-material by Taylor (1960) has sho-mi that his three species of Spondyliaspis must be referred to two different genera, neither of which corresponds to Schwarz's interpretation. Taylor selected S. hancrofti Signoret, 1879, as tjrpe-species of Spondyliaspis and erected the new genus Glycaspis Taylor, 1960, to accommodate the species that Schwarz had referred to Spondyliaspis and others since described. Thus the nominal subfamily SPONDYi,iASPiNAE was based on a misidentified type-genus, and under the Code the case must be referred to the International Commission for decision. 2. It should be noted that the genus Spondyliaspis, as now defined by the type-designation of Taylor, is currently regarded as belonging to the same taxonomic subfamily as Glycaspis Taylor. Moreover, Spondyliaspis occupies a more central position in the subfamily than Glycaspis, which is one of its most highly divergent genera. The name spondyliaspinae is well established in the literature, so that there would seem to be no grounds for replacing it by a new name based on the name of an atypical genus. The principal purpose of this apphcation is to seek from the Commission, under its plenary powers, a ruling that Schwarz (1898) is to be deemed to have correctly identified the genus Spondyliaspis in establishing the subfamily spondyliaspinae, and the placing of both names on the appropriate Official Lists. Details of the case are as follows : — 3. In 1879 Signoret {Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. (5) 9, Bull.: Ixxxvi) erected the genus Spondyliaspis for three species of psyxi.idae, which he described from the nymphal covering (or " lerp ") and, in one, from the nymph itself. He wrongly placed the genus in the Ai,EtrRODiDAE. 4. In 1896 Maskell [Trans. N.Z. Inst. 38 : 411) having some of Signoret's specimens, stated that Spondyliaspis was congeneric ^\^th some of the psyUids described by Dobson (1851, Pap. Roy. Soc. Tasm. 1 : 235-241). 5. Schwarz (1898, Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4 : 66-73) described a species which he misidentified as Psylla eucalypti Dobson, 1851 {loc. cit.) (see Taylor, 1960, p. 385) and placed in Spondyliaspis Signoret. This species formed the basis of his redefinition of Spondyliaspis and essentially, therefore, of his subfamily SPONDYLIASPINAE. Until 1960 all authors followed Schwarz's interpretation of the genus. Taylor (1960, p.385) places both eucalypti Dobson and Schwarz's (still unnamed) species in his new genus Glycaspis, of which the type-species is Aphalara flavilabris Froggatt, 1903, (Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W. 28 : 318. 6. Heslop-Harrison (1949, A7in. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 2 : 647) stated that the subfamily spondyliaspinae had not been formally defined by Schwarz, and Bvll. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 316 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature concluded, quite incorrectly, that therefore it '"cannot be considered as existing". In 1954 (Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (12) 7 : 522) he himself defined the subfamily, retaining the name spondyliaspinae, but there is no question of this name dating as from Heslop-Harrison. 7. Taylor's action (1960, Aust. J. Zool. 8 : 384) in selecting S. bancrofti Signoret as the type-species of Spondyliaspis was taken in the hght of the fact that selection of either of the other two originally included species would have invaUdated the well kno^\^l genus Cardiaspina Crawford, 1911 {Pomona Coll. J. Ent. 3 : 632), for these species are congeneric with its tjrpe-species Cardiaspis artifex Schwarz, 1898 (Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 4 : 72). However, the selection of bancrofti involved the invahdation of the more recent genus Scenitopsylla Tuthill and Taylor, 1955 [Aust. J. Zool. 3 : 241), for this species is congeneric with its type-species Cardiaspis plicatuloides Froggatt, 1900 (Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. 25 :284). 8. The action that the International Commission is requested to take is therefore : — (1) To rule that Schwarz (1898) is to be deemed to have correctly identified the genus Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879, in estabUshing his subfamily SPONDYLIASPIKAE ; (2) to place the name spondyliaspinae Schwarz, 1898 (type-genus Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the following names on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : — (a) Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection by Taylor (1960): Spondyliaspis bancrofti Signoret, 1879; (b) Glycaspis Taylor, 1960 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation : Aphalara flavilabris Froggatt, 1903 ; (c) Cardisaspina Crawford, 1911 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation, Cardiaspis artifex Schwarz, 1898 ; (4) to place the following names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : — (a) bancrofti Signoret, 1879, as pubUshed in the binomen Spondyliaspis bancrofti (type-species, by selection by Taylor (1960), of Spondyliaspis Signoret, 1879) ; (b) flavilabris Froggatt, 1903, as published in the binomen Aphalara flavilabris (type-species, by original designation, of Glycaspis Taylor, 1960) ; (c) artifex Schwarz, 1898, as pubhshed in the binomen Cardiaspis artifex (type-species, by original designation, of Cardiaspina Cra^\-ford, 1911) ; (d) plicatuloides Froggatt, 1900, as published in the binomen Cardiaspis plicatuloides (type-species, by original designation, of Scenitopsylla Tuthill and Taylor, 1955) ; (e) eucalypti Dobson, 1851, as published in the binomen Psylla eucalypti. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 317 CYPBAEA PIPEBITA GRAY, 1825 (GASTROPODA); PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1510 By Lt.-Col. R. J. Griffiths {Sea Acres Sanctuary, Port MacqvMrie, N.S.W., Australia) The two most recent reviews of the subgenus Notocypraea of the Molluscan family Cypraeidae are those by Schilder and Schilder (1938) and Griffiths (1961). Both include three species referred to under the specific names Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825, Cypraea comptonii Gray, 1847, and Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791. The nomenclature of these species is now in question. This submission gives the history of the names, and concludes with recommendations which have the object of stabilising the nomenclature and avoiding further confusion. Cypraea piperita and Cypraea comptonii 2. Research by F. A. Schilder has shown that the species called C. comptonii in the two reviews mentioned above should, according to strict interpretation of the International Rules of Zoological Nomenclature, be known as C. piperita, and that called C. piperita should be known as Cypraea bicolor Gaskoin, 1849. The reasons are given below. In an endeavour to simplify the explanation, names used in the sense intended by the authors wall be followed by "(original sense)", and those used as in the reviews will be followed by "(modern usage)". 3. C. piperita was named by Gray in 1825 (: 498). No illustration was given. The name did not originate with Gray, but was apparently adopted from Solander's manuscripts. No holotype was designated, but five specimens from Gray's collection, named in his handwriting " Cypraea piperita Solander " are in the British Museum (Natural History). All five specimens are considered by both F. A. Schilder and Griffiths to belong to the species C. comptonii (modern usage). In 1847, Gray named Cypraea comptonii (: 356) ; both the figure and specimens from Gray's collection in the British Museum show this to be a slightly different form of the species C. piperita (original sense), but not specifically diflFerent from it. According to the rules, C. comptonii should be considered a synonym of C. piperita (original sense), and should no longer be used. 4. The error in the use of the name piperita appears to be due to Sowerby. In 1832 he repeated Gray's description, but illustrated the species by a dorsal view of a specimen of C. piperita (modern usage), as well as a base view of what may be a specimen of C. pulicaria Reeve, 1846. The first figure has led later writers to accept the incorrect identification. Appendix A gives the names used by various writers. 5. The first reviewer of the species C. piperita (modern usage) was Gaskoin in 1849. He described a different form of the somewhat variable species as Cypraea bicolor (: 92). In accordance with the rules C. bicolor should be the correct name for the species. So the position is : Modern usage Correct Name C. piperita Gray, 1825 C. bicolor Gaskoin, 1849 C. comptonii Gray, 1847 C. piperita Gray, 1825 Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 318 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature The second change in particular would cause great confusion. The " modern usage " has been current for over a century, and the majority of collections, both public and private, are arranged accordingly. For the sake of stabihty, some ruling such as that contained in the recommendations below is desirable. 6. At first sight it may be difficult to see why the confusion between these two species has arisen, and why the fairly full description given by Gray in 1825 was not sufficient to identify the species piperita for later writers. The subgenus Notocypraea is, however, exceptional in the Cj^raeidae in that the difference between the species is very small, and is often masked by unusually large variation within species. Identification of specimens with the aid only of a written description is therefore extremely difficult, and sometimes impossible. 7. The confusion between piperita and comptonii is by no means unique in Notocypraea. Even now the specific division of the genus is far from completely known. Misunderstandings in the early days are therefore no surprise; it would be rather surprising if they had not occurred. 8. A further compUcation is that the tjrpe-locahty given by Gray for C. comptonii (Port Essington, northern Australia) is one in which the species is not found. It is evidently an error on the part either of the original collector or of Gray. But the specimens from Gray's collection in the British Museum clearly belong to C. comptonii (modern usage), and the name is not therefore invahd on this account. 9. Trenberth (1961) renamed the species Notocypraea trenberthae on the grounds that comptonii referred to a northern Australian species. The speci- mens in the British Museum, which Trenberth has not seen, disprove this. 10. The Commission is therefore requested to use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name piperita Gray, in order to avoid a confusing transfer of this name to another species. A shell from Adelaide presented to the British Museum (Natural History) by J. S. Gaskoin is here selected as lectotype of Cypraea hicolor Gaskoin, 1849 (B.M.N.H. Reg. No. 54.1.28.11). A shell from the J. E. Gray collection, now in the British Museum (Natural History) is here selected as lectotype of Cypraea comptonii Gray, 1847 (B.M.N.H. Reg. No. 1951.3.29.1). It is requested that the two last-mentioned specific names be placed on the Official List. Cypraea angustata 11. The case against the name C. angustata GmeUn, 1791, rests on different grounds. GmeUn's description was brief, no type-locality was designated, and the figure referred to (Gualterium, 1742, t. 13, fig. QQ) is an engraving giving only a poor illustration of the shell. Many names proposed in the same period, and "svith similarly small description, are now, however, accepted without question. 12. Gray in 1825 redescribed C. angustata, adding the locality " New Holland ". Wood (1828) under the same specific name gave a clearly recog- nisable figure of C. angustata. In 1832 Sowerby published a further description and figure. He added the locaUty " South Africa ", but this does not seem to have been based on any definite evidence. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 319 13. Until 1924, there was no dispute on the species, but then Iredale rejected the name for any AustraHan species on the grounds that no South Australian shell could have reached Europe by 1742, the date of publication of Gualterius's figure. He also quoted Sowerby's doubtful locality of South Africa. Cotton and Godfrey (1932) accepted this argument, and renamed the Australian species Notocypraea verconis (: 41). Allen (1956) in a popular work on cowries used the name verconis, and, following Steadman and Cotton (1946), gave the name angustata to a South African species generally known as C . Juscodentata Gray, 1885. 14. Against Iredale's argument can be set the voyages of the Dutch, who visited the area inhabited by the Australian species on a number of occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It is therefore evident that shells of the species could have found their way to Gualterius by 1742. Further- more, Gmelin's description uses the words " macuhs ad latus rufescentibus ". This makes it clear that the sides of the shell are spotted. Since those of C. Juscodentata are always without spots, the assumption that this species is the basis for the name angustata cannot be correct. 15. Appendix B lists the writers who have used the names angustata or verconis for the Australian species. For the sake of brevity only the more important and relevant papers are included. The majority of authors have accepted the older name. Most public and private collections also use it. 16. Contrary to the opinion of some authors, the name Cypraea subcarnea Beddome, 1896, is not acceptable as an alternative to C. angustata. Examina- tion of what is probably the holotype in the British Museum shows it to be more likely a member of the species known as C. molleri (Iredale) 1931, but this cannot be finally established until specimens similar to the holotype are found, and the radula is examined. 17. In order to preserve the name Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791, and to place its interpretation on a secure basis, the holotype of C. verconis (Cotton and Godfrey) is here selected as neotype of C. angustata Gmelin. The shell is in the South AustraUan Museum, Adelaide, South Australia. 18. In order to preserve the stability of nomenclature, and to have one name only in current use for each species, it is necessary to obtain a definite ruling on which names are to be used. Until this is given, investigation of the especially interesting subgenus Notocypraea will be greatly hampered, and progress will be delayed. It is therefore recommended that the International Commission : (1) use its plenary powers to suppress the specific name piperita Gray, 1825, as pubHshed in the binomen Cypraea piperita, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; (2) place the following specific names on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (a) comptonii Gray, 1847, as published in the binomen Cypraea comptonii, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected in para. 10 above ; (b) bicolor Gaskom, 1849, as published in the binomen Cypraea bicolor, and as interpreted by the lectotype selected in para. 10 above ; 320 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (c) angustata Gmelin, 1791, as published in the binomen Cypra^a angustata, and as interpreted by the neotype designated in para. 17 above ; (3) place the follo^ving specific names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Specific Names in Zoology : (a) piperita Gray, 1825, as pubUshed in the binomen Cypraea piperita (suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above) ; (b) verconis Cotton & Godfrey, 1932, as published in the binomen Notocypraea verconis (a junior objective synonym of Cypraea angustata Gmelin, 1791). An alternative to the suppression of C. piperita would be to retain the name in its modern usage, and to rule bicolor Gaskoin a synonym. This would mean even less change in modern usage, but would entaU using piperita for a species for which it was clearly not intended. This is perhaps undesirable. APPENDIX A Usage by various authors of the names piperita and comptonii Author Accepts 1 modern Modem usage species illustrated as uage of piperita comptonii piperita comptonii Sowerby, 1832i yes — one piperita one puUcaria ( ?) Reeve, 1846 yes — one piperita Angas, 1867 yee — Sowerby, 1870'' yes yes four piperita one comptonii{^) four comptonii Brazier, 1882» yes yes Roberts/Tryon, 1885 yes yes one piperita one comptonii{1) two comptonii Beddome, 1898 yes yes all piperita all comptonii Pritchard & GatlifiF, 1900* yes yes Hidalgo, 1907' yes yes Hedley, 1916« yes — Verco, 1918' yes yes Iredale, 1924 yes yes Cotton & Godfrey, 1932* yes yes Iredale, 1935» no clear opinion Schilder & Schilder, 1938 yes yes & , 1952 yes yes Allen, 1956" yes no all piperita Trenberth, 1961" no Griffiths, 1961 yes yes all piperita all comptonii Notes. — ^Repeats Gray's 1825 description. 'Described as " var. angustata ". ^Considers comptonii runs into angustata. Accepts bicolor as a species. *As " var. angustata ". ^Repeats both of Gray's descriptions, and refers to Sowerby's figures. 'Repeats Gray's descriptions. 'As " var. angustata ". 'Also gives bicolor as a species. 'Does not think comptonii distinct. '"Also accepts bicolor. Rejects comptonii on grounds of incorrect locality. '^Rejects comptonii on grounds of incorrect locality, and proposes trenberthae in its place. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 321 APPE Usage by various authors of NDIX B the name angustata and verconis Name used Remarks angustata angustata Figures angustata angustata Figures 3 angustata, one comptoni angustata All figures angustata angustata angxistata Figures angustata angustata Figures angustata angustata angustata angustata angustata — Rejects angustata verconis verconis angustata verconis angustata Uses angustata for C. fuscodentata verconis angustata Figures angustata Author Gray, 1825 Wood, 1828 Kiener, 1843 Sowerby, 1870 Brazier^ 1882 Roberts/Tryon, 1885 Beddome, 1898 Pritchard & Gatliff, 1900 Hidalgo, 1907 Hedley & May, 1908 Verco, 1918 Iredale, 1924 Cotton & Godfrey, 1932 Iredale, 1935 Schilder & Sehilder, 1938 Steadman & Cotton, 1946 Schilder & Schilder, 1952 Allen, 1956 Griffiths, 1961 X\( E FT<^ R.P ^O TT Q AUen, J 1956. Cowry SheUs of World Seas (Melbourne) Angas, a P., 1867. Maruae MoUusca of Port Jackson. Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. loO Beddome C E 1898. Notes on Cypra^a of Tasmania. Proc. linn. Soc. Jy .o.vV , 22 Brazier J. 1882. Cypraeidae on the Victorian Coast. Proc. linn. Soc. iV.o. IV. 7 Cotton B C, & Godfrey, F. K., 1932. South AustraUan SheUs, Pari; III 6. Austr. Nat. 13 Gaskoin J S 1849. Two new species of Cypraea. Proc. zool. Soc. Lmd. Id (18d) Gmehn J. P., 1791, in Linnaeus. Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1 Gray J. E., 1825. Monograph on Cypraea. Zool. Joum. 1 —-,1847^ Juke's Voyage of H. M.S. Fly II, Appendix Uriaths, R. J., 1961. Notocypraea ; the SheUs. Coivry 1 (2) ^ualtenus, N., 1742. Index testarium conchyUorum (Florence) ^ ^^i V/^^^- ^^""'"^ «^ W. Austraha. J. roy. Soc. W. Austr. 1 ' *: ^^\7^- ^•' ^^^^- MoUusca from Cape PiUar, Tasmania. Rec Austr. Mm. 7 (2) SStif T ■ ?q:,!^^^x, ^^''^^■^^^Cypram. Mem. real. Acad. Cien. Madrid 2b iredale T, 1924. Roy BeU's MoUuscan CoU. Proc. linn. Soc. N.S.W. \9 , iyj5 AustraUan Cowries, Pari; 1. Aust. Zool. 9 (3) Wr, L.-C, 1843. Spec, des CoquiUes (Paris) Pntchard, G. B and GatUfiF, J. H., 1900. Marine SheUs of Victoria. Proc roy. Soc. Victoria 12 pTi ^l ^^^^' ^^^'^^ologia Iconica (London) IH KoDerts^S. R., m Tryon, G. W., 1885. Manual of Conchology (PhUadelphia) 322 Bulletin of Zoological NomencMure Schilder, F. A., & M., 1938. Prodrome of a Monograph on Cypraeidae. Proc. malac. Soc. Lond. 23 , . , & , 1952. Dautzenberg's Collection of Cypraeidae. Inst, sci nat. Belg. (2) 45 . ,t ^ n Sowerby, G. B., 1832. Conchological Illustrations (London) 1870. Thesaurus Conchyliorum (London) IV SteaAman W. R., & Cotton, B. C, 1946. Classification of Cowries. Rec. TrenbeftrW^t'/mi. A New Species of S. Austr. Cowry. Roy. Soc. S. Verco/rc;,''m8:'l'Austra^^^ marine MoUusca. Trans, roy. Soc. S. Austr. 42 ,T J \ Wood, W., 1828. Index Testaceologicus (London) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 323 JOVELLANIA BAYLE, 1879 (CEPHALOPODA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1511 By Walter C. Sweet {The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A.) The purpose of the present application is to ask the International Commission to use its plenary powers to suppress the never-used, but otherwise vaUd generic name Trigonodema Laporte, 1843, so as to remove this name as a probable senior objective synonym of the well-known and widely-used generic na,ine J ovellania Bayle, 1879. 2. Laporte, 1843 (Essai sur le systeme silurien de VAmerique septen- trionale : 27) introduced the name Trigonodema in the following statement : " On en a separe {Cyrthoceras Goldf.) des especes [of Orthoceras], a forme arquee, et on pourrait en faire autant de quelques autres que sont triangulares (trigonodema, mihi) ". No type-species was designated by Laporte, no specimen bearing this name or of triangular cross-section was illustrated, nor was the derivation of the name indicated. Trigonodema was not mentioned elsewhere in Laporte's monograph, nor, insofar as we are aware, has the name ever been used subsequently in the literature, either by itself or in connection with a valid nominate species. 3. Because Trigonodema Laporte, 1843, was proposed without a type- species, and no type-species has ever been designated for it, it became available in 1843 for all straight nautiloids with a triangular cross-section and, presumably, the first such species named becomes, ipso facto, its type-species. Insofar as we can determine, the first straight nautiloid cephalopod of triangular cross- section described is Orthoceratites Buchi deVerneuil, 1850 {Bull. Soc. geol. France (2) 7 : 778), and this species, then, had it been placed in Trigonodema would have become automatically the type-species of that genus. However, it has never been so designated and the purpose of this application is not to do so. 4. Orthoceratites buchi deVerneuil, 1850, is the tj^e-species, by original designation, oi J ovellania Bayle, 1879 {Explic. Carte geol. France 4 Atlas (1) : pi. 35) which, then, may become a junior objective synonym of Trigonodema. Jovellania Bayle, 1879, was made type of the cephalopod family jovellanhdae by Foord, in 1888 {Cat.foss. Cephal. B.M. (1) : 328), and this famiUal name has gained currency in the paleontological literature. 5. In view of these facts, and particularly because revival of Trigonodema Laporte, 1843, and suppression of Jovellania Bayle, 1879, would result in the required use of an unfamiliar name for a familiar genus and retention of a common famihal name (jovellanhdae Foord, 1888) for which no nominate type-genus would exist, the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature is asked : — (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the generic name Trigonodema Laporte, 1843, for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy ; Bull. zool. Ncmencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. 324 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (2) to place the generic name Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (gender : feminine), type-species, by original designation Orthoceratites buchi deVerneuil, 1850, on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology ; (3) to place the specific name buchi deVerneuil, 1850, as pubUshed in the binomen Orthoceratites buchi (type-species oi Jovellania Bayle, 1879) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the family name jovellanhdae Foord, 1888 (tjrpe-genus Jovellania Bayle, 1879) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology ; (5) to place the generic name Trigonodema Laporte, 1843, as suppressed under the plenary powers in (1) above, on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 325 APPLICATION FOR SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THREE SPECIFIC NAMES OF SPANISH PALAEOZOIC CRINOIDEA. Z.N.(S.) 1513 By Albert Breimer {Af deling Historische Geologic en Palaeontologie, Geologisch en Mineralogisch Instituut der Bijksuniversiteit, Leiden, The Netherlands.) The rich Palaeozoic faunas of northwestern Spain (provinces of Palencia, Leon, and Asturias) have recently been the object of a comprehensive study by the applicant. This study was the consequence of extensive collecting work in this region dxu"ing the last five years and investigation of important older museum-coUections of Spanish crinoids never before described. The aim of the work has been to prepare a monograph on all the Crinoidea now known from Spam, mcluding necessary revisions and complementary descriptions. In the course of this study several specific names were discovered that do not permit of the identification of the taxonomic species represented by them, because the descriptions of the species are wholly inadequate, while the type-specimens on which they are based are either lost or in bad condition. These names are consequently regarded by the applicant as nomina dubia. The discussions concerning these species are given in Leidse Geologische Mededelingen, vol. 27, pt. 1, 1962. 2. In 1932, W. E. Schmidt (Palaeontographica 76 : 29) pubHshedthe specific name planus in the binomen Orthocrinus planus for an imperfect and crushed part of a crinoid dorsal cup from the Devonian of Asturias, this being the first record of Orthocrinus from Spain. This tj^e-specimen was lost during the second World War. The characters mentioned in Schmidt's description and those shown by his illustrations of the fragment are far too few to provide rehable e^adence for the identification of the taxonomic species represented by this specific name. Nevertheless, in 1949, Rodriguez Mellado {Bol. Beal Soc. Esp. Hist. Nat. 47 : 657) assigned a well-preserved specimen from Leon to the nominal species Orthocrinus planus, mainly because planus was the only species of Orthocrinus kno^vn at that time from Spain. Her specimen, however, has characters contradictory to those mentioned in Schmidt's description of the species and shown in his illustrations. It is very unhkely, therefore, that Rodriguez's specimen should be conspecific with the type of Schmidt's species. The type- locahty of Orthocrinus planus was examined by the applicant and proved to be very poor in fossils, it did not produce any reliable specimen to serve as a neotype, and the chance that it ever will produce such a specimen is infinitesimally small. The specific name planus must, therefore, be considered a nomen dubium, and, unless either suppressed or fixed by a neotype, will continue to form a threat to the stability of the nomenclature of Palaeozoic Crinoidea. As the name has hardly ever been used, and as the identity of the species cannot even be guessed from the original account, there seems to be httle sense in selecting a neotype for it. To facilitate the definite classification of newly discovered Orthocrinus material from Spain, the Commission is requested now to Bwll, wqI, Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part §, September, 196§, 326 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature suppress the specific name planus W. E. Schmidt, 1932. 3. In 1896, Oehlert (Bull Sac. Geol. Fr. (3) 24 : 821) described the new species Storthingocrinus haugi. His type material consisted of three isolated dorsal cups from Leon, composed of basals and radials only. By attributing his specimens to Storthingocrinus he clearly classified them in the inadunate family Sjaibathocrinidae. Although Oehlert beheved that the very wide radial facets of his specimens showed their generic position, in fact, his frag- ments do not show enough characters to make even sure that they are inadunate sjTibathocrinids : they could as well belong to the camerate super-family Platycriniticae. Moreover, representatives of this latter super-family are knoA^Ti to occur in Spanish Devonian strata, whereas true synbathocrinids are still unknoMTi from Spain. In 1932, W. E. Schmidt (Palaeontographica 76 : 25, 26) described two isolated crinoid dorsal cups from Asturias. These cups are composed of basals and radials only. Schmidt attributed his specimens to Storthingocrinus, which genus was ranked by him under the Platycrinitidae, contrary to common usage. He compared one of his specimens (: 25) to Storthingocrinus haugi. This specimen differs from Oehlert's specimens by having narrow radial facets, leaving space for interradial plates, as are usually to be found among the platycrinitids. Hence, it can be miderstood why Schmidt made the mistake of classifying his specimens as Storthingocrinus in the Platycrinitidae. For his second specimen, which got lost during the second World War, Schmidt intro- duced the new specific name lahiatus. All the above specimens described by Oehlert and W. E. Schmidt, some of which are lost, are so imperfect that the available evidence is insufficient to warrant their classification in either of the families mentioned above. It is absolutely impossible to identify the taxonomic species represented by the nominal species Storthingocrinus haugi and S. lahiatus. This is once more expressed by the study of recently discovered Spanish Devonian platycrinitids and hapalocrinids, complete specimens of which were not known from Spain in the days of Oehlert and Schmidt. The classification of these crinoids with essentially stabilized dorsal cups composed of radials and basals only, rests necessarily on the composition of the tegmen, the structure and position of ambulacral ducts, combined A\ith the mode of arm branching in the arm bases. Specimens, as those discussed above, without these thecal elements are certainly not classifiable. Nominal species described on such imperfect specimens do not permit of recognition of any taxonomic species and are a handicap for further classification. Hence, the nominal species haugi Oehlert, 1896, and lahiatus W. E. Schmidt, 1932, which are undoubtedly to be regarded as nomina duhia, are proposed for suppression under the plenary powers of the Commission. 4. In view of the facts set out above and in the interest of stabihty and continuity of nomenclature I ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature : — (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy : (a) the specific name planus W. E. Schmidt, 1932, as published in the binomen Orthocrinus planus (a nomen dubium) ; Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 327 (b) the specific name haugi Oehlert, 1896, as published in the binomen Storthingocrinus haugi (a nomen dubium) ; (c) the specific name labiatus W. E. Schmidt, 1932, as pubhshed in the binomen Storthingocrinus labiatus (a nomen dubium). (2) to place the 3 specific names proposed to be suppressed in (l)(a)— (l)(c) above on the Official Index of Rejected and Invahd Specific Names in Zoology. 328 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature NAIADITES OVALIS DAWSON, 1860 (CLASS LAMELLIBEANCHIA) ; REQUEST FOR A RULING ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE SPECIES. Z.N.(S.) 1514 By M. J. Rogers (21, Canynge Square, Clifton, Bristol, 8) The purpose of the present application is to stabilise the interpretation of the nominal species Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (now referred to the genus Curvirimula (?) AVeir). The case is one in which the original type-material is indeterminate, and it is proposed that a specimen figured subsequently by the original author as belonging to this species should be designated as the type. This species, which is morphologically distinct, occurs in the Riversdale and, perhaps, Cumberland Groups of the Upper Carboniferous on the mainland of Nova Scotia. The rocks of both these groups are non-marine and, in the restricted faunas of these deposits, species of bivalves may prove to be of strati- graphic importance. It is therefore desirable to stabilise the interpretation of Naiadites ovalis Dawson. The facts of the case are stated below. 2. J. W. Dawson (1860, Supplement to Acadian Geology : 45) first described N. ovalis as follows : " Similar in general form to No. 4 [N. arenaceus], but much broader in proportion. See paper above cited [Dawson, 1854, Quart. J. Geoh Soc. London, 10 : 39], fig. 24 [a left valve]. It occurs in bituminous Umestone, vdih. c\-prids, in the lower part of the Joggins coal-measiu-es." The only record of N. ovalis made by Dawson in his interpretation of Logan's Joggins section refers to an occurrence in Logan's Division 6, in the lower bituminous limestone associated with Coal 7. This horizon is in the Riversdale Group according to Bell. (See Dawson, 1868, Acadian Geology : 177 and Bell, 1944, Geol. Surv. Canada, Mem. 238 : 15.) 3. Most of Dawson's lamellibranch collection is now in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, but some specimens from it were sent to Wheelton Hind, who figured them (1894, Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 50 : PI. XX) ; some of these are still in the British Museum (Natural History). There is no official record of these transactions, although Hind, in the " Explanation of Plate XX ", indicated that the only fossil he figured as Anthracomya ovalis (Dawson) (fig. 13) belonged to the Geological Survey of Canada. It can now be recognised as specimen No. 10,004 in the Redpath Museum. 4. The following are the only specimens of Naiadites ovalis Dawson known in museum collections : — i. Redpath Museum. Number Horizon Locality Not« on reverse of mounting Collection Valve 10,004 " Carboniferous " Riversdale Heautype {sic). Type specimen. J.G.^ PI. XX, fig. 13. Dawson Left 2, 1170 " Parrsboro, Nova Scotia Heautvpe [sic). C.R.S.2, p. 129, fig. 11 " " 10,006 — Mabou Coal Mines, 1881 — " 2,1164b " Middle Carboni- Mabou, Cape Q.J.i 1894, PI. XX, G.S.C ferous " Breton fig. 11. 3129 — Joggins — — Right 1 Quart. J. Geol. Soc. London 50. » Canadian Record of Science, 1894, * Geological Survey of Canada. Bvll. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962, BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 329 All the above specimens are labelled Anthracomya ovalis. It should be recognised that the notes on the reverse of the mountings are not in the hand- writing of Dawson or of his assistant, Ardley. It is assumed that they have been added since Dawson's time, and the absence of such a note is not evidence that the fossU has not been figured. n. British Museum (Natural History). Number L.38779 L.44457 Name Naiadites Anthracomya ovalis (Dawson) Horizon Locality Upper Carbon- Joggins iferous Coal Measures. Nova Scotia South Joggins, Nova Scotia. Collection Additional information G. Hinde. Handwritten label on Presented sample : Naiadites 1918. Wheelton Hind Colin., 1921. (Anthracopiera) ovalis Dawson. Coal Measures. Joggins, N.S. Dark blue arrow points to fossil. Redpath Museum-type labels on sample read : A. ovalis Dn. 13[?] S. Jogging. 269. Valve Right Right 5. It is seen in (4) that there are three specimens of Naiadites ovalis Dawson from Joggins, none of which is a left valve. Two of the right valves from Joggins may have been seen by Dawson, since Redpath Museum No. 3129 is in Dawson's collection and British Museum (Nat. Hist.) No. L.44457 bears labels like those found on Redpath Museum specimens in addition to the British Museum label. The matrix of the former is an ostracod-rich bituminous limestone ; of the latter a coarse, micaceous sUtstone. Thus (see 2) it is possible that Redpath Museum No. 3129 came from the type horizon. It is an imperfectly exposed, generically indeterminate specimen of similar size to Dawson's figure. Dawson's 1854 figures are notoriously inaccurate, but the lateral aspect of both Dawson's fig. 24 of this date and Redpath Museum No. 3129 has a Height /Length ratio of about 60 per cent. It is therefore suggested that this fossil may have been reconstructed and reversed to give the figiu-e (which is of a left valve) referred to in Dawson's original description of Naiadites ovalis. The third right valve from Joggins, British Museum (Nat. Hist.) No. 38779, was in the collection of G. Hinde, presented in 1918 and it is improbable that Dawson ever saw it. It is imhkely to be the holotype or a syntype of Naiadites ovalis Dawson. 6. Of the remaining fossils listed in (4), Redpath Museum No. 10,006, a generically indeterminate specimen, and Redpath Museum No. 2,1164b are both of the wrong size and shape to be represented by Dawson's 1854 figure. Redpath Museum Nos. 10,004 and 2,1170 are approximately of the same length as Dawson's figm-e, but both have a higher obUquity and shallower anterior lobe. It is thus unlikely that Dawson figured any of these fossils in 1854, giving an inaccurate locality. 7. From (2) to (6) it follows that the type material of Naiadites ovalis Dawson is either the indeterminate specimen Redpath Museum No. 3129, which cannot now be used as a type, or is lost or destroyed, 330 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 8. In 1894 (Canadian Record of Science : 129) Dawson redescribed the species under the generic name Anthracomya : " This species has the general form of the smaller specimens of A . elongata, but is broader behind and more tumid in front, so as to be at once distinguishable by the eye. It occurs sparingly in beds from the miUstone grit and lower Carboniferous to the middle Coal-formation . . . Our specimens are from the South Joggins, Riversdale and Parrsboro." The accompanying figure 11 is of a left valve from " Lower Carboniferous, Parrsboro." Rocks of Canso and Riversdale age are exposed in the Parrsboro area. 9. Redpath Museum specimen No. 2,1170 from Parrsboro can be recognised as the specimen figured with Dawson's 1894 description, although the figm:e is inacciu-ate ; this identification was also made by an earher work (see (4)). The fossil is whitened, like others figured by Dawson. Although the identity of this specimen as the original of Dawson's 1894 figure is certain, it cannot be asserted that it represents the original material. 10. Redpath Museum specimen No. 10,004 from Riversdale is also whitened, but Dawson did not publish a figure of it, although Riversdale was added to the Ust of locaUties in 1894. Hind, presumably following Dawson's identifica- tion, figured it as Anthracomya ovalis (Dawson) in 1894 (see (3)). There is no evidence that it is a syntype. Thus, there seems to be no reason why this specimen, which was not figured by Dawson, should be placed in a higher type category than the specimen figured by Dawson (see (9)), as is suggested by the note " Type specimen " (see (4)). 11. The lamelHbranch fauna of the Canso Group at Parrsboro is represented by variants of Carbonicola (?) angulata (Dawson), whereas the fauna of the Riversdale Group consists of species of Curvirimula and Naiadites. Dawson considered that all the Carboniferous rocks at Parrsboro were in his Lower Carboniferous. 12. From 4, 8, 9, and 11 it is clear that Dawson was satisfied that specimen No. 2,1170 in the Redpath Museum belonged to his species Naiadites ovalis, and that it came from the Riversdale Goup at Parrsboro on the mainland of Nova Scotia. The horizon therefore lies within the stratigraphic group from which it is inferred that the tj'pe-material came. 13. I am at present engaged in a systematic revision of the North American Upper Carboniferous non-marine LameUibranchia in order that they may be used in future taxonomic and stratigraphic studies and for comparison and contrast wth the homotaxial British forms which have been intensively studied. I wish therefore to stabilise the interpretation of the species Naiadites ovalis Dawson, and ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen- clature : (1) to give a ruling that the nominal species Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 is to be interpreted by reference to the specimen figured by Dawson in 1894 as Anthracomya ovalis (No. 2,1170 in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, Canada) ; (2) to place the specific name ovalis Dawson (as published in the binomen Naiadites ovalis) (now referred to the genus Curvirimula (?) Weir, 1960) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. Br/Uetin of Zoological Nomenclature 331 SUPPORT FOR THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING NAIADITES OVALIS DAWSON By J. Weir ( The University, Olaagow) Systematic work on non-marine Lamellibranchia of the Carboniferous has been much complicated and impeded by the poor documentation and figuring of J. W. Dawson's Acadian species of various genera. In order to study the variation and distribution of these fossils and to revise their taxonomy, Mrs. M. J. Rogers has made extensive collections from the type localities in Nova Scotia and from localities in the United States during two summer field seasons. She has also studied relevant material in museums in the United States and Canada, and especially the Dawson Collection in the Redpath Museum, Montreal. The case is simply as follows : that the type material of Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860, illustrated with reference to Dawson's figure of earlier date (1854), cannot be recognised, and Mrs. Rogers now proposes to base the interpretation of this nominal species on the specimen 2,1170 in the Redpath Museum, Montreal, which was later figured by Dawson himself (1894) as representing his species N. ovalis. I am satisfied that Mrs. Rogers has correctly identified the original of Dawson's 1894 figure and I strongly support her request, as the only possible basis for the interpretation and stabiUsation of Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860. 332 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature VANIKOEO QUOY & GAIMARD, 1832 (MOLLUSCA, GASTROPODA) ; PROPOSED VALIDATION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS. Z.N.(S.) 1524 By Robert Robertson (Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.) For more than a century, the name Vanikoro has been wddely used for a genus of tropical and subtropical marine gastropods. It still is in almost universal use, although the name is not valid under two provisions of the new Code. A case for preserving the name is presented below. The status of the name requires clarification in connection wdth the forthcoming Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology (Part J). 2. The name " Vanikoro " first was published by Quoy & Gaimard in 1832 ( Voy. Astrolabe, Zool. 2 : 239). Discussing Sigaretm cancellatus Lamarck, 1822, which Quoy & Gaimard obtained at Vanikoro (one of the Santa Cruz Islands, Melanesia) and which they referred to the genus Velutina [Fleming, 1820], they stated " Quoiqu'il y ait quelques differences entre ce MoUusque et celui dont M. de Blainville a fait son genre Velutine, ses rapporte generaux sont suffisants pur ne pas Ten separer et former un genre nouveau, comme nous I'avions fait sous le nom de Vanikoro ". The name " Vanikoro " was not appUed to a gastropod elsewhere in Quoy & Gaimard's work. 3. For two reasons this is not a vaUd introduction of a generic name : (1) It was proposed in synonjrmy [Article lid]. (2) It was not itaUcized and may be construed as a vernacular name (note comparison ^\'ith " Velutine ") [Article 16b(i)]. 4. Subsequent to 1832 and before 1840, Vanikoro appears to have been mentioned only once in the literature. In 1838, Deshayes & Milne Edwards (Lamarck, Hist. Nat. Anim. s. Vert. (ed. 2) 8 : 559) referred to " le genre nomme Vanikoro par M. Quoy ". Again, the name appears to have been used as a vernacular. The name was adopted by Gray in 1840, 1841, and 1842 as a validly proposed generic name, but was mis-spelled by him Vanicoro (see paragraph 6 below). H. & A. Adams (March 1854, Gen. rec. Moll. 3, pi. 41), A. Adams (15 December 1854, Proc. zool. Soc. London 21 : 174-175, pi. 20), and later others, adopted Gray's mis-spelling. H. & A. Adams (April 1854, Gen. rec. Moll. 1 : 374-375) were the first to adopt the name as originally spelled {Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard). H. & A. Adams (1854) and A. Adams (1854) were the first to assign a gender to the name : feminine (see footnote, p. 335). 5. The claim has been made that the gastropod identified by Quoy & Gaimard as Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck [Velutina cancellata (Lamarck)] is not Lamarck's species. Recluz (1843, Proc. zool. Soc. London 11 : 137) renamed, without explanation, Quoy & Gaimard's species Narica quoyi. Later, Recluz (1846 [" 1845 "], Ma^. Zool. (2) 7(9) : 24) claimed that Quoy & Gaimard had Narica petitiana Recluz, 1843 (ibid., pp. 138-139), which in 1843 he had considered distinct from iV. quoyi. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 19, Part 5. September, 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 333 E. A. Smith (1908, Proc. Malacological Soc. London 8 : 106) has synonymized N. petitiana and iV. quoyi Recluz with Va^iikoro cancellata (Lamarck). Such action appears to have been correct, because Quoy & Gaimard's figures (pi. 66 bis, figs. 20-22) even more closely resemble the shell identified by authors as Sigaretus cancellatus than do Chemnitz's illustrations (1788, Syst. Conch.-Cab. 10 : pi. 165, figs. 1596-1597), the figures on which Lamarck's species is based. The particularly large aperture characteristic of the species is not well shown in Chemnitz's fig. 1597, but it is evident from Lamarck's placement of the species (in the genus "Sigaretus" [=Sinuni]) and from his description and discussion, that his name does pertain to the only known large Vanikoro ^\'ith a particularly large aperture. 6. The name Vanikoro has been mis-spelled and emended (latinized) in various ways. Mis-spellings : Vanicoro Gray, 1840, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 42), [issue 2], p. 152 ; 1841, ibid. (ed. 43), p. 126 ; 1842, ibid. (ed. 44), p. 90. Name not attributed to Quoy & Gaimard. Mis-spelling Vanicoro first attributed to Quoy by Agassiz (1845, Nom. Zool, Moll. : 95). Vanicora Paetel, 1887, Cat. Conch., (ed. 4), 1 : 511. Vanikora Whitfield, 1891, Bull. American Mus. nat. Hist. 3 : 387-388. Emendations : Vanikoroia Martin, 1914, Samml. Geol. Reichs-Mus. Leiden, n.f. 2(4) : 170. Vanikoroa Cossmami, 1924, Essais Paleoconch. Comp. 13 : 163. 7. Four objective synonyms of " Vanikoro " Quoy & Gaimard, 1832, apparently were proposed in the following order : Merria Gray, 1839(?), in Beechey, Zool. Blossom : 137. Type-species (monotypy) : Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. Leucotis Swainson, 1840, Treat. Malacol. : 346. Type-species (monotypy) : Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. Narica Orbigny {ex Recluz MS.), 1842(?), in Sagra, Cuba, Moll. (French ed.) 2 : 39. Type-species (original designation) : Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. Nioma Gray, 1842, Syn. Brit. Mus. (ed. 44) p. 60 [Niomia p. 90, name only] (no included species ; nomen dubium) ; Nioma Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. London 15 : 156 (name in synonjony). Type-species (designated) : " Nerita cancellata, Chem." [non-binomial] =Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck. [Niomia Gray, 1840, Syn. Brit Mus. (ed. 42) [issue 1], p. 147 (namen nudum, fide Neave) ; ibid., [issue 2] p. 151 [nomen nudum)]. According to Recluz (1843, Proc. zool. Soc. London 11 : 137) Orbigny's text was issued before Gray's name Merria was published. If this is so, Narica or Leucotis may have priority over Merria. The dates above are those given by Neave. The publication dates of Orbigny's work on the molluscs of Cuba have yet to be rigorously determined, and the date 1839 on the title page of Beechey's Zoology of the Blossom requu-es confirmation. 8. Three of the four objective synonyms of " Vanikoro " listed in paragraph 7 have been mis-spelled : Leucotus Sowerby, 1842, Conch. Man. (ed. 2) : 172 (error for Leucotis Swainson). Niomia (see paragraph 7). 334 Bulktin of Zoological Nomenclature Merrya Recluz, 1846 [" 1845 "], Mag. Zool. (2) 7(9) : 7-8 (error for Merria Gray). Niona Paetel, 1887, Cat. Conch, (ed. 4), 1 : 511 (error for Nioma Gray). 9. The oldest family-group name based on any of the above generic names is VANicoROiDAE Gray (1840, Syn. Brit. M-m. (ed. 42) [issue 2] pp. 121, 152). H. & A. Adams (1854, Gen. Rec. Moll. 1 : 374) corrected the spelling to vani- KORiDAE. Subsequently, the name has also been spelled vanikoroidae. Article 29(b) of the new Code, relating to the formation of family-group names based on generic names not of classical origin, does not explain whether, in the present case, Gray or H. & A. Adams is to be considered the zoologist who first published a family-group name based on Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard. This determines whether the name should be spelled vanikoridae or VANIKOROIDAE. <^> Two other family-group names, both based on generic names listed in paragraph 7, have been proposed : NARiciDAE Recluz, 1846 [" 1845 "], Mag. Zool. (2) 7(9) : 6, 16. MERRHDAE Hedley, 1917, Journ. Proc. Roy. Soc. Neiv South Wales 51 : Suppl., p. M62. 10. The name Vanikoro has been very widely used as a valid generic name, both in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The name even appears among the examples in the New International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961, p. 33). E. A. Smith used the name in the most recently published taxonomic study of the genus (1908, On the known Recent species of the genus Vanikoro, Quoy & Gaimard. Proc. Malacological Soc. London 8 : 104-117). Vanikoro has been used by malacologists since 1900 in the following countries : Great Britain (G. B. Sowerby, 1901 ; E. A. Smith, 1908 ; W. H. Turton, 1932) France (Couturier, 1907 ; Dautzenberg & Bouge, 1932 ; Delpey, 1942) Netherlands (Schepman, 1909 ; Oostingh, 1931) Germany (Thiele, 1929 ; Wenz, 1940) Sweden (Hagg, 1929) U.S.A. (Bartsch, 1915 ; Hertlem & Strong, 1951 ; Solem, 1953 ; Abbott, 1954, 1958 ; Kaicher, 1956 ; Keen, 1958) Cuba (Aguayo & Jaume, 1950) South Africa (Barnard ; Macnae & Kalk, 1958) Japan (Iwakawa, 1909, 1919 ; Hirase, 1910) Phihppines (Faustino, 1928) Australia (Iredale, 1912 ; Hedley, 1912) Only one malacologist, Nagao (1934, Japan), has adopted either of the emenda- tions of Vanikoro (Vanikoroa Cossmann). Merria Gray, 1839(?), the generic name seemingly valid under strict application of the Law of Priority and the new Code (see paragraphs 3 and 7), was first adopted by Hedley (1917, Journ. Proc. Roy. Soc. Neiv South Wales, <') I favour the spelling vanikoridae, even though vanikoroidae maj' be preferable etymologically. H. & A. Adams were the first to spell the family-group name correctly (vanikoridae). Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 335 51 : SuppL, p. M62). Iredale (1918, Proc. Malacological Soc. London 13 : 31) agreed with Hedley that the name Vanikoro was invaUd, but did not at that time adopt Merria. Subsequently, other Austrahan malacologists have used Merria (Macpherson & Chappie, 1951 ; Cotton, 1959 ; J. Allan, 1959). The genus is rarely mentioned in Australian malacological literature. Merria has been used more often in the Japanese literature, first by Kuroda (1928, Cat. Shell-bearing Mollusca Amami-Oshima, p. 42 ; also 1941, etc.), subsequently by Hirase (1938), Hatai (1941), Oyama (1943), Kira (1945), and by Habe (1961). Despite careful search, I have found no use of Merria in malacological litera- ture published in countries other than Australia and Japan, where it has been used pi'imarily in the last two decades. Leucotis Swainson, 1840, has never been adopted. Narica Orbigny, 1842(?), was used fairly often in the nineteenth century, notably by French workers such as Fischer (1885, Man. Conchyl., p. 761). During the twentieth century, Narica appears to have been used only by Pelseneer (1906, Belgium), Risbec (1931, 1932, France), and by P.-H. Fischer (1950, France). 11. In view of the very wide use, both old and new, of the invalid name Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, and in view of the uncertainty of the publication dates and priority of the available names Merria Gray, Leucotis Swainson, and Narica Orbigny, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is asked to take the following action : — (1) to use its plenary powers to validate as a generic name Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, and (2) to place the name on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (gender : feminine*), tjrpe-species, by monotypy, Sigaretus cancellatus Lamarck, 1822 ; (3) to place the specific name cancellatus Lamarck, 1822, as published in the binomen Sigaretus cancellatus (type-species of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology ; (4) to place the name vanikoridae {nom. correct. H. & A. Adams, 1854, pro VANicoROiDAE Gray, 1840) on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology) ; (5) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Merria Gray, 1839 (a junior objective synonym of Vanikoro) ; (b) Leucotis Swainson, 1840 (a junior objective synonym of Vanikoro) ; (c) Narica Orbigny, 1842 (a junior objective synonym of Vanikoro) ; (d) Nioma, Niomia Gray, 1842, 1847 ; (e) Vanicoro Gray, 1840-42 (mis-spelling of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) ; * Not masculine, as stated in International Code of Zoological Nomenclature [1961, p. 33, among examples to Article 30 b (ii)]. Although Quoy & Gaimard did not express or imply that the name Vanikoro was to be considered feminine in gender, every malacologist but Poirier (1954, Up-to-date syst. list 3200 seashells Greenland to Texas, p. 50 [mimeographed]) appears subsequently to have considered it feminine (see paragraph 4 above). 336 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (f ) Vanikoroia Martin, 1914 (emendation of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) ; (g) Vanikoroa Cossmann, 1924 (emendation of Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) ; (6) to place the following names on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Family-Group Names in Zoology : (a) VANicoROiDAE Gray, 1840 (type-genus Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832) (an invalid original spelling for vanikoridae) ; (b) NARiciDAE Recluz, 1846 (type-genus Narica Orbigny, 1842) (a junior objective synonym of vai^ikoridae) ; (c) MERRUDAE Hedley, 1917 (type-genus Merria Gray, 1839) (a junior objective synonjrm of vanikoridae). \ 4 SEP 1962 PURCHASELD INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Trust Chairman : The Rt. Hon. The Lord Hurcomb, G.C.B., K.B.E. Managing Director : Francis J. Griffin, F.C.C.S., A.L.A, Scientific Controller : W. E. China, C.B.E., Sc.D. Scientific Assistant : Margaret Spillane, B.Sc. B. The Members of the Trust Mr. N. D. Riley, C.B.E. Prof. Dr. R. Sparck Dr. N. R. StoU Mr. C. W. Wright Dr. G. F. de Witte CONTENTS {continued from front lorapper) Opinions Page Opinion 636 (^?icrmM^ Lamarck, 1801) 262 Opimon QZl (Anolis nannodes Coipe, ISM) 266 Oi)imon 63S {Lepidogaster couchii Kent, 1883) 268 Opinion 639 (PfoeArTnanwia Boehm, 1895) 270 Opinion 640 (j&«cera2?;ws Walker, 1870) 272 Opinion 641 (Generic and specific names in Phasmatidae) ... ... 274 Opinion 642 (Reptilia and Amphibia specific names) ... ... 280 New Applications Zorilla GeoiTroy, 1826 (Mammalia) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers in favour of Ictonyx Kaup, 1835 (W. E. Cliina) 284 Rarui fasciata Burchell, 1824 (Reptilia) ; Proposed designation of a neotype under the plenary powers (H. W. Parker and W. D. L. Ride) .^ 290 Thaumastocoris australicus Kirkaldy, 1908 (Insecta, Hemiptera) ; Request for this name, as defined by a neotype, to be placed on the Official List (James A. Slater) 293 Lychnoculus mirabilis Murray, 1877 (Pisces) ; Proposed rejection of both generic and specific names as nomina oblita (Giles W. Mead) 295 PHYSAPiDA Leach, 1815 (Insecta, Neuroptera) ; Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum (D. E. Kimmins) ... 297 Arizona elegans Kennicott, 1859 (Reptilia) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Kenneth L. Wilhams and Hobart M.Smith) 298 CONTENTS {continued from inside back wrapper) New Applications Page TRICHOSTOMIDES Rambur, 1842 (Insecta, Trichoptera) ; Proposed addition to the Official Index as a nomen oblitum (D. E. Kimmins) 301 Eucypris Vavra, 1891 (Crustacea, Ostracoda) ; Designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (P. C. Sylvester- Bradley) 302 Aelia rostrata Boheman, 1852 (Insecta, Hemiptera) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (E. S. Brown) ... ... 304 Tetrastichus Walker, 1842 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) ; Proposed suppression under the plenary powers (B. D. Burks) ... ... 306 Dicellomtis Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (A. J. RoweU) ... ... 308 Ligidops Hall, 1871 (Brachiopoda) ; Proposed rejection as a nomen obUtum ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 310 Orbictdoidea d'Orbigny, 1847 (Brachiopoda) ; Proposed designation of a type-species under the plenary powers (A. J. RoweU) ... 311 SPONDYLiASPiNAE Schwarz, 1898 (Hemiptera, PsyUidae) ; Proposed validation of the subfamily name (K. L. Taylor) ... ... 315 Cypraea piperita Gray, 1825 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed suppression imder the plenary powers (R. J. Griffiths) ... ... ... 317 Jovellania Bayle, 1879 (Cephalopoda) ; Proposed vaUdation under the plenary powers (Walter C. Sweet) ... ... ... ... 323 Application for suppression under the plenary powers of three specific names of Spanish Palaeozoic Crinoidea (Albert Breimer) 325 Naiadites ovalis Dawson, 1860 (LameUibranchia) ; Request for a Ruling on the interpretation of the species (M. J. Rogers) ... 328 Vanikoro Quoy & Gaimard, 1832 (Gastropoda) ; Proposed validation under the plenary powers (Robert Robertson) ... ... ... 332 Comments Comments on the proposed use of the plenary powers to suppress the generic name PujHi Roding, 1798 (Robert Robertson ; C. A. Fleming ; D. F. MclVIichael ; Myra Keen) 258 Comments on the proposed validation of Biomphalaria Preston, 1910 (R. Hubendick ; B. G. Peters ; E. Binder ; H. J. O'D. Burke-Gaffney ; V. de V. Clark) 260 Comments on the proposed vaUdation of Ammonites laevigatus J. de C. Sower by, 1827, in two distinct senses (R. V. MelviUe ; R. Casey) 267 Comments on the proposal concerning the farmly name based on Aphis (D. HiUe Ris Lambers, James B. Kring ; Esmat A. Elkady) 273 PHA.SMIDAE VS. FHASMATIDAE : Secretary's Note 294 Comments on the proposed validation of Parthenope Fabricius, 1798 (Fenner A. Chace, Jr. ; D. S. Johnson) 314 Support for the proposals concerning Naiadites ovalis Dawson (J. Weir) 331 ® 1962. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Pruned in England by Metcalfb & Cooper LnoTEO ,10-24 Scrutton SU London EC 2 I ^ Volume 19. Part 6. 28th December, 1962 ! - pp. 337-402 T.P.-XI, 1 pi. THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE The Official Organ of THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE /^*': , 11 JAN 1963 PURCHASED Contents Page Secretary's Note 337 {continued inside back wrapper) LONDON : Printed by Order of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature and Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office, 19, Belgrave Square, London, S.W.I 1962 Price Three Pounds (AU rights reserved) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE A. The Officers of the Commission President: Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12 August, 1953) Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amakai, (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) Acting Secretary : Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.I) B. The Members of the Commission (Arranged in order of election or of most recent re-election) Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaeal (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12 August 1953) (Vice-President) Professor J. Chester Bradley (dorreeW University, Ithaca, N.T., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) (President) Professor Harold E. Vokes (University of Tulane, Department of Geology, New Orleans, Louisiana, U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York, N.T., U.S.A.) (12 August 1953) Dr. L. B. HoLTHUis (Rijksm'useum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (12 August 1953) Dr. K. H. L. Key (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Canberra, A.C.T., Australia) (15 October 1954) Dr. Alden H. Miller (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.) (29 October 1954) Doc. Dr. Ferdinand Prantl (Ndrodni Museum v Praze, Prague, Czechoslovakia) (30 October 1954) Professor Dr. Wilhelm Kuhnelt (Zoologisches Institut der Universitdt, Vienna, Austria) (6 November 1954) Professor Ernst ILayr (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.) (4 December 1954) Professor Enrico Tortonbse (Museo diStoria Naturale "0. Doria ", Geneva, Italy) (16 December 1954) Dr. Per. Brinck (Lunds Universilets, Zoologiska Institution, Lund, Sweden) (19 May 1958) Dr. Max Poll (Music Royal de VAfrique Centrale, Tervuren, Belgium) (12 July 1958) Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) (23 July 1958) Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (23 July 1958) Dr. Henning Lemche (Universiteiets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) (23 July 1958) Professor Pierre Bonnet ( Universite de Toulouse, France) (23 July 1958) Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Tadeusz Jaczewski (Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckeriberg, Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (23 July 1958) Professor Dr. Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdt zu Berlin, Germany) (23 July 1958) Dr. D. V. Obruchev (Palaeontological Institute, Academy of Sciences, Moscow 5-71, USSR) (5 November 1958) Professor Tohru Uchida (Department of Zoology, Hokkaido University, Japan) (24 March 1959) Professor Dr. Rafael Alvarado (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, Madrid, Spain) (31 May 1960) Dr. Gwilym Owen Evans (British Museum (Natural History), London) (31 May 1960) Dr. E. G. M0NROE (Canada Department of Agriculture, Division of Entomology, Ottawa, Canada) (9 June 1961) Dr. N. S. BoRCHSENiTJS (Institute of Zoology, Academy of Sciences, Leningrad B-164, U.S.8.R.) (28 September 1961) Dr. W. E. China (British Museum (Natural History), London) (21 May 1962) (Acting Secretary) Prof. E. Binder (Museum d'Histoire Naturelle, Geneva, Switzerland) (21 May 1962) BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMMCLATURE Volume 19, Part 6 (pp. 337-402, T.P.-XI) 28th December, 1962 Secretary's Note The following articles constitute some of the recommendations for the amendment of the Code received from zoologists for discussion at the XVI International Congress of Zoolog}^ Washington, 1963. As in volume 15 of the Bulletin, concerned with proposals for the XV Congress, 1958, articles have been arranged by Case and Document Numbers so that all comments relative to the same problem may be easily identifiable. They are printed here wdth a view to bringing them to the notice of all zoologists who are invited to put forward their views. W. E. CHINA Acting Secretary International Commissioyi on Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 1 REQUEST FOR A CLARIFICATION OF ARTICLE 40 (Z.N.{S.) 1508) (By J. Chester Bradley {President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Article 40 deals with, the conservation of a family-group name based on a type-genus which, after 1960, is discovered to be a junior synonym. It gives however no directive in the case of a family-group name based on a type-genus which was discovered to be a junior sjaionym before 1960. In tliis case it has been general practice to change the family-group name to one based on the vaUd name of the type-genus, so that there are sometimes two or more family- group names competing in present use for the same taxon. It is suggested that the present Article 40 should become Article 40a and that a new paragraph (b) be added as follows : If two family-group names based on type-genera that are objective synonyms or are regarded as subjective synonyms are competing in use for the same taxon, the family-group name based on the senior synonym shall prevail, regardless of whether it itself has priority. Bull. zool. NoimncL, Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. 338 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature CASE No. 2 THE INTERNATIONAL CODE PROVISIONS ON FAMILY-GROUP NAMES AND THEIR EFFECTS ON TRILOBITE TAXONOMY (Z.N.(S.) 1538) Bj- J. T. Temple (Birkbeck College, London) The Regies intemationales de la Nomenclature zoologique (1905) as di-awn up by the Berhn Congress of 1901 and emended by several later Congresses (notably Budapest 1927) did not legislate for family-group names beyond prescribing the endings of family and subfamily names and the dependence of these names on that of the type-genus (Arts. 4 & 5). In particular, the Law of Priority (Art. 25) which determined the availability as well as the priority of names applied only to generic and specific names. The Paris Congress of 1948 approved a recommendation that the wording of Arts. 4 & 5 should be expanded to clarify the ideas of selection and designation of a tj^e-genus for a family, but did not legislate further, and referred the whole problem of family-group names to the Secretary of the Commission for him to make a thorough study (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 138). The results of this study were presented to the XIV Congress in Copenhagen, 1953, which recommended the insertion of several provisions relating to family- group names into the Regies. The most important of these for the present purpose is para. 52 [Copenhagen Decisions 1953 : 35) : — " The Colloquium recommends that a provision should be inserted in the Regies prescribing that a name given to a taxon of the Family-Group is to be treated as having been published with an indication through the incorporation into it of a basic portion of the name of its type genus. The Colloquium proposes, however, that a Recommandation should be inserted urging authors when publishing a name for a new taxon belonging to a category in the Family-Group to give a diagnosis of the characters relied upon for distinguisliing that taxon from aUied taxa previously named." There are two pomts of interest in tliis paragraph. Firstly, the provision concerning publication of a family-group name \^ath an mdication referred presumably to Art. 25(a) of the Regies where an indication was (together with the application of binomial nomenclature) a sufficient criterion for the avail- abihty of names published before 1 January 1931 ; but Art. 25 refers only to generic and specific names, and although the Copenhagen Congress discussed this Article (Copenhagen Decisions 1953 : 60-66) it did not expand its province to cover family-group names. The provision in the first part of para. 52 could not, therefore, be put mto effect. Secondly, the latter part of the paragraph urging authors to publish a diagnosis of a new family-group taxon was not a mandatory provision, but a Recommandation, and even with this limited force it could only operate from the date of publication of the Copenhagen Decisions (31 December 1953). Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 339 In practice, therefore, after the pubUcation of the Copenhagen Decisions there was stiU no legislation on the criteria of avaUabihty of famUy-group names except for the prescribed endings and the necessity of incorporating the stem of the name of the type-genus ; and this state of affairs continued until the recent (6 November 1961) publication of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature adopted by the XV Congress in London, 1958. The most important change in the new Code as it affects famihes is the widemng of the old Law of Priority to cover all names, mcluding family-group names. The provisions are now embodied in Arts. 12, 13 & 16 as follows :— "Article 12. Names pubUshed before 1931.— In addition to satisfying the provisions of Article 11, a name pubUshed before 1931 must have ^^ been accompanied by a description, definition, or indication." "Article 16(a).— The word " indication " as used in this Chapter appUes onlj^ to the following : (iv) the formation of a new family-group name from the stem of the name of a genus, which thus becomes the type-genus ; "Article 13. Names published after 1930.— (a) Names in general.— In addition to satisfj-ing the provisions of Article 11, a name published after 1930 must be either (i) accompanied by a statement that purports to give characters differentiating the taxon ; or (ii) accompanied by a definite bibliographic reference to such a statement ; or (iii) proposed expressly as a replacement for a pre-existing available name." In brief, therefore, a diagnosis has been made mandatorv for any family- group name pubhshed after 1930, and the effect is to inv^hdate any name proposed smce then T^ithout a diagnosis. The difference from the Copenhmjen Decisions is extreme : Copenhagen suggested a Recommandation for future guidance of authors ; the new Code imposes mandatory provisions which are made retrospective by thirty years. Such retrospective legislation may be contrasted ^^-lth the action of the Budapest Congi-ess in 1927 which first made diagnoses mandatory at specific and generic level but post-dated this provision by three years until the end of 1930. Retrospective legislation is as unfortunate in zoological nomenclature as in any other context, and it seems likely that the new provisions ^-ill upset a number of generaUy accepted family-group names. Among the trilobites the famUies that ^^ill be affected are listed below together ^«th those where there is uncertainty over the interpretation of the new provisions. The Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology Part O Arthropoda 1 (Uo9) has been taken as a convenient (if not in all ca.ses entirely representative) InrnrAo^Axl"?^^' ^"^ ^^"^'^^ ''^"^^^ ^'^^Pt^d therein are printed in .. ^f f"^^S, the names of their authors or of authors who have subse- quently (though usually inadvertently) made available previously miavaUable rT^T^J^"^^ '? ^°^^ '°^" ''^^^' ^^'^^y ^^^^^^« printed in ROIHAN UAi-llALfe are those avaUable but not in current use ; family names printed 340 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature in Roman lower case are those which are neither available nor in current use. The letters d or nd foUowmg a page reference indicate that an author has or has not given a diagnosis of the family in question. The original spelling of family names is given, the corrected form following in square brackets. ACANTHOPYGINAE Pfibyl & Erben, 1952 : 141 nd. Listed as nov. subfam. Pfibyl 1953 : 19 nd (as replacement for Euarginae Giirich, 1901). In Treatise (: 503) Acanthopyge is referred to Ceratargmae Tripp, 1957 : 117 d. Note — ^Acanthopyginae is accepted here to have been proposed as a replacement name, although it was not explicitly stated to be such by Pribjd 1953 : 19, 25. ALOKISTOCARIDAE Resser, 1939: 51 nd. Available from Hup61953: 190 d. AMECEPHALINAE Kobayashi, 1936 : 170 nd (apparently used inadvertently in place of Pterocephalmae K., 1935). Available from Hup6 1953 : 192 d (introduced as new). Amecephalus is considered in Treatise (: 238) a junior subjective sjnionym of Alokistocare, which is referred to Alokistocaridae Resser, 1939 (q.v.) Bathycheilmae Pribyl, 1953 : 19 nd (monotypic). Treatise (: 453) refers Bathycheilus to Calymeninae Burmeister, 1843. BATHYURISCIDAE Richter, 1932 : 855 nd. Introduced again by Poletaeva 1936: 31 nd (Bathyuriscinae, as new). Available from Hup6 1953: 183 d (Bathyuriscinae, as new). A S5monym of Dolichometopidae Walcott, 1916, in Treatise (: 220). BAVARILLINAE Sdzuy, 1957: 276 d ? (monotypic). Diagnosis in Sdzuy 1959 (Treatise : 455 d). Bigotinopsidae Hupe, 1960 : 77 nd. BREVIDISCINAE Kobayashi, 1944b : 58 nd (monotypic). Available from Hup6 1953 : 169 d. A synonym of Eodiscidae Raymond, 1913, in Treatise (: 187). Note — Brevidiscinae was first used in Kobayashi 1943 : 39 nd but its tj^e-genus was not validly established until 1944b : 59. BURNETIDAE [BURNETIELLIDAE, corr. herein] Resser, 1942:79 nd. Available from Hup6 1953 : 197 d. Burnetia Walcott, 1924, is a junior homonym and was replaced by Burnetiella Lochman, 1958 : 247, which is referred to Dokimocephalidae Kobayashi, 1935, in Treatise (: 281). CYBELIDAE HoUiday, 1942 : 475 nd (mistakenly proposed as a replacement for Encriniu-idae Angelin, 1854). Available from Hup6 1955 : 251 d. Currently considered a subfamily of Encrinuridae (Treatise : 448). DAWSONIDAE [DAWSONIIDAE, corr. Kobayashi, 1943] Resser, 1937 : 9 nd (apparently mistakenly proposed as a replacement for Eodiscidae Raymond, 1913). Available from Lermontova 1940 : 122 d. A synonym of Eodiscidae Raymond, 1913, in Treatise (: 187). DINDYMENINAE Pribyl, 1953 : 20 nd. Available from Henningsmoen 1959 (Treatise : 448 d, introduced as new.) DINESIDAE Lermontova, 1940 : 144 nd. Available from Lermontova 1951 : 108 d, but if the generic grouping of Treatise (: 230) is followed, a junior subjective synonym of Tollaspidae [ToUaspididae, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Kobaya.shi, 1944a : 315 d. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 341 DOLEROLENIDAE Kobayashi, 1951 : 103 nd (monotypic) (as replacement for Olenopsidae K., 1935, itself still not available in 1951). Available from Hup6 1953 : 179 d. Enetagnostidae Harrington, 1938 : 149, 157 nd (monotypic). Enetagnostus is considered a junior subjective synonjmi of Diplagnostus (Treatise : 175). HARPIDINAE Raw, 1949 : 514 nd. Introduced again by \¥liittington 1950a : 303 nd (Harpididae, as new). Available from Hup6 1953 : 240 d. A full family in Treatise (: 418). KINGSTONINAE [KINGSTONIINAE, corr. Shaw, 1952] Kobayashi, 1933: 142 nd ? Available from Kobayashi 1935 : 201 d. A full family in Treatise (: 285). Kootenidae [Kooteniidae, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Resser, 1939: 46 nd. In Treatise (: 217) considered a subjective synonym of Dor5^ygidae Kobayashi, 1935. LANCASTRIDAE [LANCASTRIIDAE, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Kobayashi, 1935 : 129 d ? (monotypic). Diagnosis in Hupe 1953 : 176 d. In Treatise (: 220) Lancastria is referred to Oryctocephalidae Beecher, 1897. LEJOPYGINAE Harrington, 1938 : 149 nd. Available from Kobayashi 1939 : 128 d (introduced as new). In Treatise (: 178) Lejopyge is referred to Hastagnostidae Howell, 1937. MARJUMIDAE [MARJUMIIDAE, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Kobayashi, 1935 : 284 nd. Available from Hup6 1953 : 204 d, but if the generic grouping of Treatise (: 305) is followed, a junior subjective synonjrm of Punctulariidae Raymond, 1937 : 1123 d. Lochman (Treatise : 305) recog- nises a superfamily Marjumiacea. Olenopsidae Kobayashi, 1935 : 129 nd (monotypic) see Dolerolenidae. PERONOPSIDAE Westerg&rd, 1936:28 nd (? monotypic). Available from Harrington 1938 : 149, 150 d (introduced as new). A synonym of Spinagno- stidae Howell, 1935, in Treatise (: 184). PHILLIPSINELLIDAE Whittington, 1950b : 559, 561 d ? (monot.\T)ic). Diagno- sis in Hupe 1953 : 224 d. Ptarmiganidae [Ptarmiganiidae, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Resser, 1939 : 31 nd. A synonym of Dolichometopidae Walcott, 1916, in Treatise (: 220). PTEROCEPHALINAE [PTEROCEPHALIIDAE, corr. Lochman, 1956] Kobayashi, 1935 : 230 nd. Available from Lochman 1959 (Treatise : 256 d, a fuU family), but if the generic grouping therein is followed, a junior subjective synonym of Camaraspididae Lochman, 1953 : 889 d. STAUROCEPHALINAE Prantl & Pfibyl, 1948 : 12 nd ? (monotypic). Available from Hup6 1953 : 238 d (introduced as new). Note — The date of publication of Prantl & Pfibyl's article is usually given incorrectly as 1947. TAIHUNGSHANIDAE [TAIHUNGSHANIIDAE, corr. Henningsmoen, 1951] Sun, 1931 : 7 nd (monotypic). Available from Hup6 1953 : 221 d. TONKINELLIDAE Reed," 1934 : 9 nd (monotypic). Available from Hup6 1953 : 186 d. Tonkinella is referred to Oryctocephalidae Beecher, 1897, in Treatise (: 220). Trilobagnostinae Harrington, 1938 : 148 nd. Trilobagnostus is referred to Hastagnostidae Howell, 1937, in Treatise (: 179). 342 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Trinucleoidinae Pfibyl, 1953 : 15 nd (monotypic). Trinucleoides is referred to Dionididae Gxirich, 1908, in Treatise (: 425). XYSTRIDUMNAE Whitehouse, 1939: 196 d? (monotypic). Diagnosis in Hupe 1953 : 181 d. YINITIDAE Hupe, 1953 : 177 (footnote) nd. Available from Harrington 1959 (Treatise : 205 d). YOKUSENINAE [YOKUSENIIDAE, corr. Hupe, 1953] Kobayashi, 1935 : 236, 247 nd. Available from Hup6 1953 : 189 d. Yokusenia is considered in Treatise (: 288) a junior subjective synonym oi Lioparia, which is referred to Anomocaridae Poulsen, 1927 ; Kobayashi has replaced Yokuseninae by Liopariinae (1960 : 391 nd). In several of the above families there is difficulty in interpreting the provisions of the new Code, and this is particularly so in the case of monotypic families. It is clear that repetition of the characters of the type -genus as the diagnosis of a monotj^ic family would be a valid procedure, and there is no doubt that the use of some such formula as ' ' the characters of this family are those of its only known genus " is also valid when the generic characters are themselves given (e.g. Platagnostidae Howell, 1935 : 228 — not listed above). There are, however, two cases (Brevidiscinae and Taihungshaniinae) in which a generic diagnosis was given without such a hnking formula, while for another family (Staurocephalinae) a formula was used but the generic diagnosis was not quoted. These three famOies cannot be considered to satisfy the require- ments of Art. 13a(i) or (ii) and must faU, as must those where neither a generic diagnosis nor a linking formula was given (Bathycheilinae, Peronopsidae, Tonkinellidae, Trinucleoidinae), even though, as with. Staurocephalinae, suitable generic diagnoses were extant in the literature at the time. There remain four families (Bavarillinae, Lancastriidae, Phillipsinellidae, Xj^stri- durinae) in which an analysis was given of the generic characters which pre- cluded reference to existing famiUes, although it was not presented as a formal diagnosis of the new family ; this procedure seems to satisfy at least the spirit (if not the letter) of Art. 13a(i) and the famihes are therefore accepted as available from the date of publication (on the other hand, the analyses accompanying Enetagnostidae, Olenopsidae and Staurocephalinae are here considered not to be adequate diagnoses). It is clear, though, that there is a considerable subjective element in the above interpretation of the Code as it affects monotjrpic families, and an alter- native procedure (suggested by IMr. R. P. Tripp on reading the draft of this article) would be to accept as available all clearly monotypic families for which an adequate generic diagnosis was extant at the time of erection. This practice would be objective and convenient and would probably correspond to the intentions of the original authors of the families, but it would in most cases infringe the requirements of Art. 13 (on a strict legalistic interpretation of which all the monotypic families listed above would be unavailable). It also suffers from the difficulty of determining whether certain families are monotypic or not : for instance, the only genus hsted under Peronopsidae Westerg&rd, 1936 : 28 was Peronopsis itself and so the family was de facto monotypic, although it was apparently intended to replace TuUberg's Section Fallaces and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 343 probably therefore to include other genera ; Canotagnostidaei Rusconi, 1951 : 13 nd IS here considered monotypic even though the genera Homagnostm and Tomagnostus follow Canotagnostus with no intervening family heading. While it cannot be claimed on the basis of the above discussion that the new provisions ^v^ll involve very widespread changes in the nomenclature of tnlobite families, nevertheless an appreciable number of family names will be affected and the application of the provisions to monotypic families causes considerable uncertainty. If changes on a comparable scale to those in tri- lobites are caused in other groups the cumulative effect would justify raising at Washington the question of the retrospective nature of the new family provisions. References Harrington, H. J. 1938. Rev. Mus. la Plata Buenos Aires (ns) 1 fPalaeont 1 • 109-289 V / L -J. Henningsmoen, G. 1951. Norsk geol. Tidsskr. 29 : 174-217 HoLLiDAY, S. 1942. J. Paleont. 16 : 471-478 Howell, B. F. 1935. J. Paleont. 9 : 222-238 HupE, P. 1953. Traite de Paleontologie [ed. J. Piveteau] 3 : 44-246 1955. Ann. Paleont. 41 : 91-325 1960. Rep. XXI int. geol. Congr. 8 : 75-85 KoBAYASHi, T. 1933. Japan. J. Geol. Geogr. 11 : 55-155 1935. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 4 : 49-344 1936. Japan. J. Geol. Geogr. 13 : 163-184 1939. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 5 : 62-194 1943. Proc. Imp. Acad. Tokyo 19 : 37-42 1944a. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 6 : 271-334 1944b. J. Fac. Sci. Tohjo Univ. [2] 7 : 1-74 (with Kato, F.) 1951. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 8 : 99-143 1960. J. Fac. Sci. Tokyo Univ. [2] 12 : 329-420 Lermontova, E. V. 1940. Atlas of the leading forms of the Fossil Faunas of the U.S. S.R.I 1112-157 ~ 1951 . Lower Cambrian trilobites and brachiopods from Eastern Siberia LocHMAN, C. 1953. /. Paleont. 27 : 889-896 1956. J. Paleont. 30 : 445^62 1958. J. Paleont. 32 : 247 Poletaeva, O. K. 1936. Rec. Geol. W.-Siberian Region 35 : 25-53 Prantl, F., & Pi^iBYL, A. 1948. Shorn. Ndrod. Mus. Praze [B] 3 : 1^4 P^iBYL, A. 1953. Knihovna tJst. ust. geol. 25 : 1-80 & Erben, H. K. 1952. PaUont. Z. 26 : 141-174 Raw, F. 1949. J. Paleont. 23 : 510-514 Raymond, P. E. 1937. Bull. geol. Soc. Amer. 48 : 1079-1146 Reed, F. R. C. 1934. Palaeontologia Indica (ns) 21(2) : 1-38 Resser, C. E. 1937. Smithson. misc. Coll. 95(22) : 1-29 1939. Smithson. misc. Coll. 98(24) : 1-72 1942. Smithson. misc. Coll. 103(5) : 1-136 from'SliSTiilLTvf Huaquinchaidae Rusconi, 19.55 : 39 nd (also monotypic) have been omitted trom the list since they are both ba-sed on genera which do not themselves appear to be available. 344 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature RiCHTEE, R. 1932. Handioorterhuch der Natwuissenschaften 2 : 840-863 RuscoNi, C. 1951. Rev. 3Ius. Hist. nat. Mendoza 5 : 3-30 1955. Rev. Mus. Hist. nat. Mendoza 8 : 3-64 Sdzuy, K. 1957. Senckenbergiana leth. 38 : 275-290 Shaw, A. B. 1952. J. Paleont. 26 : 458-483 Stjn, Y. C. 1931. Palaeontologia Sinica [B] 7(1) : 1-47 Tripp, R. P. 1957. Geol. Mag. 94 : 104-122 WestergAkd, a. H. 1936. Sverig. geol. Unders. [C] 394 : 1-66 WmTEHOUSE, F. W. 1939. Mem. Qd. Mus. Brisbane 11 : 179-282 Whtttington, H. B. 1950a. Geol. Foren. Stockh. Fork. 72 : 301-306 1950b. J. Paleont. 24 : 531-565 COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR LE PI DO PA STBIPSON, 1858 (see volume 19, pages 125-128) By Feriner A. Chace, Jr. {Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) This is one of the few apphcations requesting the use of the plenary powers of the International Commission that I can support wholeheartedly. There is little doubt that Stimpson misidentified the animal selected as the type-species of Lepidopa, and strict application of the Code would not only complicate the nomenclature of an important crustacean genus but it would alter the intent of the author of that genus. I also concur fully with the decision to accept the principle of priority as far as the name Thia scutellata is concerned. Such respect for this basic principle is to be highly conunended, especially when it is displaj^ed by one of those who have sometimes sought to suppress its effect on the validity of famUiar names. By Janet Haig [Allan Hancock Foundation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif., U.S.A.) I wish to register my support of this proposal. I feel that it would be better in this particular case for the Commission to use their plenary powers, rather than to apply the Code strictly and thereby go against the obvious intent of Stimpson to attach the name Lepidopa to the anomuran genus for which it is universally used. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED SUPPRESSION OF DENDRASPIS FITZINGER, 1843. Z.N.(S.) 1500 (see volume 19, pages 189-190) By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) There is no question that great confusion in nomenclature would result if Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, were to be accepted on the groimds of priority, with the tj'pe-species originally designated, thus making it the valid name for the genus containing the king cobra. Dendroaspis is well fixed at present as the name for the mambas, and Ophiophagus for the king cobras ; only perpetuation of these universally- understood names can result from approval of the proposal. Failure to suppress Dendraspis Fitzinger, 1843, would in no way contribute to stability of nomen- clature ; on the contrary it would result in nomenclatural chaos. Approval of the proposal is strongly recommended. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 345 CASE No. 3 CONCERNING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION (Z.N.(S.) 1543) Document 3/1 The Fifty-year Limitation By J. Chester Bradley (President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) Perhaps Article 23(b) has aroiised more controversy than anj'^ other single item of the new code. May I direct attention to some points in its wording that may cause confusion ? (1) "A name that has remained unused as a senior synonym." Thousands of names in constant use have never been used as senior synonyms, because they have no junior synonyms. I assume for example, that the genus Homo has no junior synonyms, hence has never been used as a senior synonym, is a nomen oblitum and may not be used unless the Commission so directs. Of course, that is a reductio ad absurdum — but why not have this section worded to mean what it says ? (2) " Primary zoological literature " is nowhere defined. Does it mean all literature except such recording pubhcations as the Zoological Record ? (3) What does "' remained unused " mean ? Does it mean used but not accepted as the presumptively correct or at least generally adopted name for the taxon ? But if an author, in 1960, adopting B-us x as the correct name of a taxon, mentions and rejects B-us y as a synonjTn, or if he merely mentions that Lamarck, in 1803 had applied the name y to what is probably this species, has he " used " the name y ? (4) Does " fifty years " count back from 6 November 1961, when the new Code was published, or does it count back from whatever future date a decision is to be made ? (5) " Has remained unused . . for more than fifty years " does not, Uterally, mean counting from any particular time, it could mean that there must be no period of fifty years after it was established in which it had remained unused for fifty years. This would involve an impracticable search of literature and senseless rejection of names in use, or innumerable cases coming up before the Commission to conserve names. (6) No differentiation has been made between objective and subjective sjTionymy, but there can arise a difference in result. If there are two nominal genera A-us and B-us, each of which has been in use for fifty years, not as synonyms, but now an author on taxonomic grounds unites them, he must not be forbidden to use the older name A-us because it had not been used as a synonym of B-us for fifty years or indeed ever ! Bull. zool. Nomend., Vol. 19, Part 6. December 1962. 346 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (7) The principle, if obligatory, can be applied without too great difficulty to groups in which there has been constant literature, at least if that literature has been continually indexed, so that it does not become a formidable problem to make svu-e that a given name has not been used for fifty years. But it is a very different matter if there has been no revisionary literature of the family group taxon involved, and at most only casual references to some species. I happen to be re\asing the Ethiopian and Neotropical members of a family of wasps which have never been revised since a world monograph in 1864. The majority of species have not been even mentioned in print within the last half century. Must I discard all the senior synonyms among them and adopt the junior synonyms or invent new names ? There is a compromise that could be made, without such absurd situations arising. The prime intent of the provision would be saved, if I correctly interpret that intent. I think that it was, in case an author discovers a long overlooked and unused senior synonym of a name that is in common use, to provide a procedure that would relieve him of shifting to the old forgotten name. That can be done by making the action concerning nomina oblita permissive instead of obligatory, requiring, however, that an author choose the course that Avill the least disturb current practice. There is another course, and that is to repeal Article 23(b) on the grounds that the objective sought, if the case is considered of sufficient importance, can be attained by use of the plenary powers of the Commission. I append a proposed substitute for Article 23(b). Proposed substitute for Article 23(b) If a name has not been adopted as the presumably correct or currently used name of a taxon (or of some other taxon) for a period of fifty years immediately prior to the date at which a taxonomist wishes to decide whether to adopt it as the correct name for that taxon ; and if it is a senior objective synonym or regarded as a subjective synonym of some other available name for that taxon, then the taxonomist shall : (a) adopt the senior synonym if no contrary usage has been established, (b) adopt whichever synonym, regardless of priority, will least disturb current usage, if any usage can be regarded as having been established. (c) notify the Commission, who shall place the name on the appropriate official list, if, after six months' public notice, no challenge has been received. Document 3/2 Request for Reconsideration of Article 23 on nomina oblita By Hobart M. Smith (Department of Zoology and Museum of Natural History, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A.) Article 23b relative to Twmina oblita, even if accepted, leaves two glaringly unanswered questions: (1) what is "primary zoological literature", and Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 347 (2) to what level is a nomen oblitum " forgotten " ? It is true that a definition of " primary zoological literature " is proposed in volume 15 (1958) of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature (p. 1061), but there is no pubUshed evidence that this definition was officially accepted ; even if it were, it should clearly be included in the glossary. Even as names are officially rejected for different purposes — for the Law of Priority alone, or the Law of Homonymy alone, or for both Laws — so also may nomina oblita, presumably, be " forgotten " to these different degrees. A clear statement whether ' forgotten " means for the pm^oses of the Law of Priority, or the Law of Homon\Tny, or for both laws, is of vital importance in nomenclatural procedure. Aside from these two deficiencies in the Ai-ticle, even if its basic tenets were accepted, I am strongly of the opinion that the basic tenets are far more disturbing to nomenclature than they are helpful, although I am in accord with the Principle of Conservation. It is Ukely that most taxonomists desire a stable nomenclature, and that they would regard the present " nomen oblitum ■' article a clear-cut danger to stabilitj'. It represents a danger at least because its wording suggests (1) that any nominal species which has not appeared in the literature for fifty years — even though it may be the incontest- ably vaUd name for a species — will require Commission sanction before it can be used again, or may be replaced by a new name at the nomenclator's discretion; (2) that no junior sjmonjTus of greater age than fifty years may be utUized for taxa that require names through revisionary «ork upon species previously unstudied in detail, even though they would otherwise be appropriate, acceptable and would create no possible confusion ; (3) that the patently impossible task be regularly undertaken to determine whether homon3Tny or occupancy exists or not when either of two names under consideration Ls of greater age than fifty years (generic indices, for example, would not reveal whether a name had become " forgotten " and thus perhaps " unoccupied " since its original and valid proposal) ; and (4) that every nomen oblitum discovered be acted upon by the Commission. An alternative means of safe arrival at the desired end without risking the overwhelmingly undesirable side effects of the present rule is the relatively minor rewording as follows : "A junior synonym used in the primary zoological literature (defined as in Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 1958, 15 : 1061) for at least fifty years at the expense of the senior name takes precedence over the latter, which automatically is to be considered a yiomen oblitum and thus suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority, but not for the Law of Homonymy "'. There is no need — in fact there is a considerable risk — in suppressing such overlooked senior sjmonyms for purposes of both the Law of Homonymy and Law of Priority. Such a wording as here suggested would preserve the desirable features of the Principle of Conservation for the immediate given case at hand Avith a minimum effect upon associated names ; it would demand much less of the Commission's time and effort than the present wording wliich could well result in straimng the already crowded docket beyond endurance by causing imiumerable requests for consideration of trivial matters to come before the Commission. 348 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature In lieu of such a compromise, the proposal submitted by Melville (1958, Bull. Zool. Nomencl. 15 : 1247-1250) for individual consideration of each case violating the Principle of Conservation to a degree that merits consideration by the Commission is to be preferred strongly to the present article. Document 3/3 By L. B. Holthuis {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Netherlands) As one of the proposers of the Statute of Limitation I feel particularly unhappy aboiit its text as that stands at present and I consider this paragraph to be the major flaw in the new Code. In fact, I believe it such a threat to stability that it cannot possibly remain in the Code in this wording ; a strict application of this Statute would result in endless name changing and would attain exactly the opposite of the purpose for which it was proposed. The wording of the Statute which was adopted in London was the result of a last- minute compromise, and as such shows several defects, which perhaps would have been straightened out if there had been more time for discussion of this highly controversial subject. My objections against the Statute as it reads now are the foUoA^ing : 1. The expression "A name that has remained unused as a senior synonjin . . . for more than fifty years " is obscure. It was intended to mean that both the senior and the junior synonym have to be proposed at least fifty years ago. Many of my colleagues, whose mother tongue is Enghsh, read in the wording that only the senior synonym has to be fifty years old and that this is not necessarily so for the junior synonym. One can make the remark that they should read more carefulh', but on the other hand if this wording causes difficulties to British and American zoologists, how great will these difficulties be for zoologists whose language is not English ? An editorial change is certainly necessary here. 2. A radical change in the definition of " nomen oblitum " is needed in order to avoid nomenclatural chaos. As it stands now any currently employed name of long standing which somewhere in its existence has been overlooked for fifty years, while a junior sjTXonym was used in that period, is a nomen oblitum and caimot be used until the Commission has taken action on it. This may be illustrated by an example : In 1814, Leach described in an obscure pubUcation a new genus Upogebia. The next year, in a fundamental work, he used the new name Gebia for the genus, entirely ignoring the previous name. AU authors followed Leach in the use of Gebia, which was commonly accepted, till in 1893 Stebbing discovered Leach's 1814 pubhcation and reintroduced Upogebia. Since that time Upogebia has been accepted by all carcinologists and has become firmly entrenched in the literature ; currently the name Gebia is no longer used and is practically forgotten. According to the present definition Upogebia is a nomen oblitum, since it has remained unused as a senior .synonym in primary zoological literature for more than fifty years (namely Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 349 from 1815 to 1895). In order to be able to use this available, valid, and generally accepted name one actually should, under the Code, have to make an application to the Commission (which is overcrowded wth work anyhow) and, still worse, in the meantime have to revert, back to the now truly forgotten name Gebia. There are a great number of similar cases since at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century many nomenclatural changes were made which now are cui'rently adopted. It seems imperative therefore that in the definition of nomen oblitum not a period of fifty years is used as a criterion, but the last fifty years, or, which in my opinion is still more convenient, the period after 1900. 3. In some animal groups wliich so far have received but very little attention from zoologists it is often the rule rather than an exception that species are not mentioned in the primary zoological literature for periods of fifty years or more. For such groups the present wording of the Statute of Limitation may defijie several names as nomina oblita, which in fact are not forgotten at all, being only not mentioned in the last half century. The important point A\dth a nomen oblitum is that the senior synonym during fifty years is not, and the junior synonym is, regularly used. I believe that in working this idea into the definition of a nomen oblitum, the Statute of Limitation would be acceptable to a greater number of zoologists. 4. In the Statute it is not made clear what action the Commission should take. Presumably it is the normal procedure required for suppression of names mider the plenary powers. This, however, should be more clearly stated in the Statute. 5. Par. (ii) of the Statute should be deleted. The purpose for which this paragraph was introduced is entirely taken care of by Art. 80 of the Code ; the wording of Ai't. 80 even is far superior. 6. Par. (iii) of the Statute should be held more general : an application to the Commission for the preservation of a name can be made for anj' name the vaUdation of which will prevent confusion : not only for names important in appUed zoology. Taking all these points into account I would suggest the following wording for the Statute of Limitation : " (b) Limitation. — The senior of two sjTionyms, both of which have been validly proposed before 1900 is to be considered a forgotten name {nameyi oblitum) if it has remained unused in the primary zoological literature pubhshed since 1900, while the junior syiionym durmg that period was in cm-rent and frequent use. (i) A zoologist who discovers such a name is to refer it to the Commission either to be placed under the plenary powers of the Commission on the appropriate Ofificial Index of Rejected Names, or, if such action better serves the stability and universality of nomenclature, to be placed on the appropriate Ofificial List. (ii) This provision does not preclude application to the Commission for the suppression of names, other than nomina oblita, which endanger the stabihty of nomenclature."' 350 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature Document 3/4 A plea for the clarification of Article 23(b) of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (Limitation of the Law of Priority) By M. W. R. de V. Graham (Hope Department of Entomology, University Museum, Oxford) Section (b) of Article 23 of the International Code presents the taxonomist with some critical problems. Its iinderhdng principle is fully appreciated by the \rater who, as a member of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomenclature at the XV International Congress of Zoologj^ in 1958, took part in the discussions which preceded the formulation of this Section (the Clause of Limitation). Clearly the intention was to prevent the supplanting, on grounds of strict priority, of well-knowii names by others which had remained unused since their publication. The desirability of some check of this kind is obvious to those familiar ^vith the confusing name-changes of species widely known in the Uterature on general zoology, economic entomology, and the like. The question now arises : does Section (b) of Article 23 concern only such special cases ; or does it apply to every case, i.e., is it to be rigidlj^ construed ? After discussion with taxonomists in Britain and elsewhere, the writer finds that many regard Section (b) as ambiguous. If the Clause of Limitation is intended to apply only to cases of special hardship, few would disagree A\'ith such a rulmg. If, however, it must be rigidly construed (as seems to be implied by Section (b), paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the Code), then taxonomists in the field of entomology are faced Avith problems which will force them to devote most of their time to solving questions of nomenclature, to the detriment of the main object of their researches. Such problems are especially acute in Hymenoptera Parasitica ; in Chalci- doidea and Proctotrupoidea the taxonomic situation is still chaotic ; in Ichneumonoidea it is backward in comparison with other orders of Insecta. Until recently only a minute fraction of the number of the older described species had been objectively defined by tjrpe-designation, hence the mterpreta- tion of many names has been largely a matter of personal opinion. Since the war a concerted effort by several taxonomists, basing their work on the examination of types, has placed the taxonomy of some groups upon a firm basis. However, a great deal remains to be done. The chief problems concern fundamental taxonomic works (completed before the end of the nineteenth century) by four authors, i.e.. Walker, Forster, Ratzeburg, and Thomson. Those of Walker concern Chalcidoidea and Proctotrupoidea, those of the other authors cover all the groups of Hymenoptera Parasitica. For a number of years the writer has studied the taxonomy of Chalcidoidea. Here the major works, by Walker (1832-1872), Forster (1841-1878), Ratzeburg (1844-1852), and Thomson (1876-8), include descriptions of many hundreds of species. Inevitably there is a great deal of s3Tionymy, because these authors did not see each other's tj'pes. In many cases Walker's names have priority. On the continent of Europe more than in Britain workers have used Forster's, Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 351 Ratzeburg's and Thomson's names rather than Walker's since the latter provided no keys for identification. The same drawback applies to the monographs bj' Forster and Ratzeburg, and even Thomson's work (which does contaui kej's of a sort) is not easy to use so that many identifications made from it have been erroneous. Most of Ratzeburg's types are destroyed, so that his species cannot be objectively defined. Moreover, especially Anthin the last twenty jears, many new names have been pubHshed which prove to be synonyms of the foregoing. Since manj- of the names proposed by the four authors mentioned have not apparently been used since their pubHcation, they could be supplanted by these later names if the Clause of Limitation were strictly applied. The wTiter has aheady (1959) vahdated the usage of Walker names in Eulophidae and (1956-7) in some PteromaUdae ; he wishes to maintain continuity of treatment for the rest of the latter family and finds that this com-se meets with, much support from other workers. Before the use of any name can be validated, the relevant s3^lonymy must be ascertained as completely as possible. Then comes the practical difficulty. If (as often happens) there are several synonjons for a given species, the taxonomist would be saddled ^^ith the impossible bm-den of finding out whether or not these names had been used in the primary zoological Uterature of the past fifty years. Even supposing that this obstacle could be surmounted, there would follo^^■ many separate appUcations to the Commission, with unavoidable delay and the stultifying of taxonomic research pending a decision. It is hard at this stage to estimate the number of separate appUcations likely to be required A\ithin Chalcidoidea alone, but it might be several hmidreds. If Ichneumonoidea and Proctotrupoidea were also taken into consideration, the number A\ould be very much greater. This is a burden which should not be inflicted on the Commission any more than on the taxonomist. Clearh' the phrasing of Section (b) of Article 23 needs alteration. Is it intended to apph' only to cases involving special hardship, or must it be rigidly construed ? If the latter, then its application to the H}Tnenoptera Parasitica would be quite impracticable and some moderation of the rule would be an urgent necessity. Is there anj^ means whereby the Commission could waive the rule (at least for a period of some years) in the case of the Hjrmenoptera Parasitica, on the grounds that development of taxonomy has been very .slow in this group and that citations of names in the primary zoo- logical Uterature during the past Mtj j^ears are both few and unreUable ? References (Principal works only are listed ; there are many other short papers by Walker.) Forster, A. 1841. Beitrage zur Monographie der Pteromalinen Xees, pp. 46, 1 pi. Aachen 1850. Monographie der Gattung Pezomachus Grv.. Arch. Naturg. 16 : 49-232 ; 1851, ibid. 17 : 26-66 1861. Bin Tag in der Hoch-Alpen, Progr. Reahch. Aachen. 1860-61 : 1^4 362 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 1868. Monographie der Gattmig Campoplex Grv., Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 25 : 761-876, pi. 10 1876. Synoptische t)bersicht der Gattungen und Arteii in der Familie der Stilpnoiden, Verh. naturh. Ver. Bonn (4) 3 : 17-196 1878. KJeiiie Mouographien parasitischer Hymenopteren, Verh. naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl. (4) 5 : 42-82 Graham, M. W. R. de V. 1956. A revision of the Walker types of Ptero- maUdae (Hym., Chalcidoidea). Part 1 (including descriptions of new genera and species), Ent. mon. Mag. 92 : 76-98, figs. 1-37 ; 1956, Part 2, ibid. 92 : 246-263, figs. 1-5 ; 1957, Part 3 (including descriptions of new species), ibid. 93 : 217-236, figs. 1-18 1959. Keys to the British Genera and Species of Elachertinae, Eulo- phinae, Entedonttnae, and Euderinae (Hym., Chalcidoidea), Trans. Soc. Brit. Ent. 13(10) : 169-204 Ratzeburg, J. T. C. 1844-1852. Die Ichneumonen der Forstinsecten, 1-3. Berhn Thomson, C. G. 1857. Skandinaviens Proctotruper [after part 3 " Sveriges Proctotruper "], Ofvers. K. Vetensk. Akad. Forhandl. 14:411-422; 1858, ibid. 15 : 155-180, 287-305, 359-380, 417-431 ; 1859, ibid. 16 : 69-87 ; 1861, ibid. 18 : 169-181, 451-453 1869-1897. Opuscula entomologica, fasc. 1-22 : 1-2452. Lund and TreUeborg 1876-8. Hymenoptera Scandinaviae 4i : 1-259 ; 5 : 1-307, pi. Walker, F. 1832-1838. Monographia Chalciditum, Ent. Mag. 1 : 12-29, 115-142, 367-384, 455-466 ; 2 : 13-39, 148-179, 286-309, 340-369, 476-502 ; 3 : 94-97, 182-206, 465-496 ; 4 : 9-26, 349-364, 439-461 ; 5 : 35-55, 102-118, 418-431 1835. On the Species of Platygaster, etc., Ent. Mag. 3 : 217-274, pi. 12 1836. On the Species of Teleas, etc., Ent. Mag. 3 : 341-370, pi. 13 1838-1840. Descriptions of British Chalcidites, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 1 : 307-312, 381-387, 449-454 ; 2 : 198-205, 350-355 ; 3 : 177-182, 415-419 ; 4 : 29-32, 232-236 1839. Monographia Chalciditum 1 : 1-333 ; 2 : 1-100. London 1842. Descriptions of Chalcidites discovered by C. DarAvin, Esq., near Valparaiso, Aim. Mag. nat. Hist. 10 : 113-117 1844. Descriptions of some Chalcidites of North America, collected by George Barnston, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 14-18 1844. On the species of Chalcidites inhabiting the Arctic region, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. 14 : 331-342, 407^10 1846. List of the Hymenopteroxis Insects in the collection of the British Museum. Part \.— Chalcidites : 1-100 ; 1848, Part 2.— Chalcidites. Additional Species : 101-237. London 1871-1872. Notes on Chalcidiae, parts 1-7. London BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 353 CASE No. 4 AMENDMENTS PROPOSED TO FACILITATE THE ADDING OF NAMES OF THE FAMILY-GROUP TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY. Z.N.(S.) 1547 By J. Chester Bradley {President, International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) New Article. Article 38. General conservation of family-group names.— The Commission is authorized to add all names of the family-group that are believed to be in undisputed use, and the names of their type-genera, to the appropriate Official Lists, after having advertised their intent for a period of six months. Priority may be disregarded in such cases, and if it is not known which one is the tj^e-species of the type-genus, the latter may be entered on the Official List with the qualification " in the sense as though (a certain specified species) were the tj^e-species " . If the family-group name is disputed, the Commission is empowered to decide which name is to be emploj^ed wdthout having recovirse to its plenary powers. It shall decide upon basis of priority or such other consideration as it deems ^\t11 best serve continuity and universality of usage. Zoologists are to continue to use such names in their customary sense pending decision of the Commission. They are invited to bring names that they regard as undisputed to the attention of the Commission as rapidly as possible. Zoologists are also requested to present disputed names of the family-group to the Commission mth as full dat