RAN tlhe bet lisbe ahs SEAS HS
— —— i a s. enn oe Vai si a) ANN she pase fips se RN Aa MV as Ty!
i ay SEALE a Rev a MEN Me Ter athy baenty SEAR aie ee) Hie nas agent aha
s Hache : what Y Perea Peh ane oe FNS
oT PRG ap SPOEEAS LT Ay SU i ASE TASER OF ty Bt at SHIN, PALES Shiv hand esa Hal gE OORT thet ab ah SAAN Sexiy gs AVS Fatt aren USD RRM gate Mest NY ti Astle : haecha in “ nis SANE AVON tart tea Van
aesttaing wet adt we sy Qioe OY, PRT Ct Rist ast Meslay Pahaineray aa ya! Sone Frat arewi Ng?) 2 bs BA} + Allee: ASSnans Vb aTR tN att Seibel botiee “i She a ae ne VC Siete lV a hig fe MA NCU GE TROT TANT QUEM Hgth att aehatigsl hry HVS Pagwrmawed yy Shad thay “ ‘i ahaa whe tdait hl sine habe that ae Seta gph a edd RIVET BENT gD athe baleen we VERO Ost ON TEAR atTAL 0} OWS OT Sy . any ree Site oe Ses Sav st ENTS AAN CARY SBME IP beg d ON GR OA AS hs! ny Piha AN e dele, Bae SR SAPNA GANS ath Waryaharhach areal} WYN halts ORME TE IND Mane saben veoahs Suit slate ct
WAIST AUOE AEA Ove vee halt perce x peda ESTES he Spake Yap
Hans
Le TN ST a ah MPGAT PENNE ST enya ae het a at
SOR RIN St eo APS at Yd SEV A ety
ni
sthatatenniats
WE SNENS ies
SUR EOS ETT SE x hel Wa “a aise HSIN Sav asthe ah) re als
a at oat
AAP Ath e EE VM ted HS etay Si eagctaS
aie Ne 4S
Nae
‘ SN aren morn eae abe MAHL AA SRA TOU ES PATS SEIS STN) Sil SI Wai VARNES DALAL at eT GIES Fa SIGS) pag ee a
JR AWN ath PNT haa GTR RGANSIN Wathgeh bg POLL Sosstadeabienhahing Ate
sey see Shake bee
sth SATE STATS ie ANS Percents i WEIMER OR EN
VANE Saray
rity
eeragyos
Taney ONG RH Fue ihe Fatale
Pare discern
Vt WG Nd ey nae ee eats Hemrke Sey he NNN eda saya ONT 5 AWAY SNAP
ai Sate Vente a Oke hey anys Seta re anv hy ie SAH deli as Salinity =
a Ny TENG PRES RS tae
NOVELS OTR
Vass ected
Siibath NIN
TR VEINS art
MET Se A atte lpesetiogd a
(aan Sateen
ey ENTS Pop reienserrien
aes Sg :
SC A EES BENE IT A asad
POE Naas
EEG OT Sy at NEE Pa eiN EUS.
MING VIN Seseti athe ae
Se UTS he he Sate iS bein e SN Taras oa he BE
Tred SS,
Bele SA heey
Sori kate te
oh Ne A Oa ; PACA by be
Ta ae dag ©
SLRS Ma Pee ea
egetioitia. 8
Pah e LONG) Set ee eos) OMe «
SA RRS EH ENED
SON TEL MOTE aN Eg SY
See Baby
Mh ng er ele eye Shela Dd piT
Sat ie ay
wei NPs gt
ASUS en ae
er EiSwesY Ha
yy Tatlg te Lael nite
POV IIA Het Se
Fra
BEIM ES}
sh te Bane tes
HST at
Sie ey
f q
,
ny
io east
eae” Lih4 |, )
v i ne
esis}
uu}
Volume 68, Part 1, 31 March 2011, pp. 1-92 8 ISSN 0007-5167
The Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
of the International Commission - on Zoological Nomenclature -
THE BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
The Bulletin is published four times a year for the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, a registered charity (no. 211944) based in the U.K. The annual subscription for 2011 is £200 or US$340 or €280, postage included; individual subscribers for personal use are offered a subscription of £100 or US$170 or €140. All manuscripts, letters and orders should be sent to:
The Executive Secretary
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Natural History Museum
Cromwell Road
London, SW7 5BD, U.K. (Tel. +44 207 942 5653; e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Electronic communication is preferred. Manuscripts sent by post should include a digital
copy of the text and figures.
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Officers | President Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands) Vice-President Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S. A.) Executive Secretary Dr E. Michel (U.K.) Councillors indicated below with * Members Dr M. Alonso-Zarazaga* Prof. S. Lim (Malaysia; Parasitology) (Spain; Coleoptera) Prof. A. Minelli (U/taly; Myriapoda) Dr A. Ballerio (Italy; Coleoptera) Prof. P. K. L. Ng (Singapore; Dr N. G. Bogutskaya (Russia; Ichthyology) Crustacea, Ichthyology) Prof. P. Bouchet* (France; Mollusca) Dr T. Pape (Denmark; Diptera) Prof. D. J. Brothers Dr L. Papp (Hungary; Diptera) (South Africa; Hymenoptera) Prof. D. J. Patterson (U.S.A.; Protista) Prof. D. G. Fautin (U.S.A.; Cnidaria) Dr R. Pyle* (U.S.A.; Ichthyology) Dr M. J. Grygier (Japan; Crustacea) Dr G. Rosenberg* (U.S.A.; Mollusca) Dr R. B. Halliday (Australia; Acari) Prof. P. Stys (Czech Republic; Heteroptera) Dr M. S. Harvey (Australia; Arachnida) Dr J. van Tol (The Netherlands; Odonata) Prof. J. Kojima (Japan; Hymenoptera) Dr J. E. Winston (U.S.A.; Bryozoa) Dr M. Kottelat (Switzerland; Ichthyology) Dr D. Yanega (U.S.A.; Entomology) Dr F.-T. Krell (U.S.A.; Coleoptera) Dr Z.-Q. Zhang (New Zealand; Acari)
Dr S. O. Kullander (Sweden; Ichthyology) Prof. H. Zhou (China; Coleoptera) Prof. Dr G. Lamas (Peru; Lepidoptera) Secretariat
Dr E. Michel (Executive Secretary and Bulletin Editor-in-Chief) Dr S. Nikolaeva (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Editor)
S. Tracey (Bulletin Zoologist and Scientific Administrator)
N. Dale-Skey Papilloud M.Sc. (Bulletin Zoologist)
E. W. Baker (Webmaster and Development Officer )
Officers of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature Dr M. Dixon (Chairman) Ms M. J. Clifford-Turner (Treasurer and Managing Director)
Abstracts of Applications and Opinions, Comments in full and details of the names published in the Official Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology are posted on the Commission’s website (http://iczn.org)
Cover image: Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa (Linnaeus, 1758), the European mole cricket (Latin: gryllus — cricket, talpa — mole, from its fossorial limbs, fine hairs and subterranean habit). Widespread in the Western Palaearctic region and introduced into parts of the U.S.A. this insect can be an agricultural pest in significant numbers, although in the U.K. it is extremely rare and subject to a U.K. Biodiversity Action Plan (report sightings to g.beccaloni@ nhm.ac.uk). Detail from plate 456 of British Entomology: Original Drawings, vol. 10, by John Curtis (1862) (© Natural History Museum, London).
© International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature 2011
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
BULLETIN OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Volume 68, part 1 (pp. 1-92) 31 March 2011 Notices
(1) Applications and correspondence relating to applications to the Commission should be sent to the Executive Secretary at the address given on the inside of the front cover and on the Commission website. English is the official language of the Bulletin. Please take careful note of instructions to authors (present in a one or two page form in each volume and available online (at http://iczn.org/content/guidelines- case-preparation) as incorrectly formatted applications will be returned to authors for revision. The Commission’s Secretariat will answer general nomenclatural (as opposed to purely taxonomic) enquiries and assist with the formulation of applica- tions and, as far as it can, check the main nomenclatural references in applications. Correspondence should be sent by e-mail to ‘iczn@nhm.ac.uk’ where possible.
(2) The Commission votes on applications eight months after they have been published, although this period is normally extended to enable comments to be submitted. Comments for publication relating to applications (either in support or against, or offering alternative solutions) should be submitted as soon as possible. Comments may be edited (see instructions for submission of comments at http://Aiczn.org/content/instructions-comments).
(3) Requests for help and advice on the Code can be made direct to the Commission and other interested parties via the Internet. Membership of the Commission’s Discussion List is free of charge. You can subscribe and find out more about the list at http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list.
(4) The Commission also welcomes the submission of general-interest articles on nomenclatural themes or nomenclatural notes on particular issues. These may deal with taxonomy, but should be mainly nomenclatural in content. Articles and notes should be sent to the Executive Secretary.
New applications to the Commission
The following new applications have been received since the last issue of the Bulletin (volume 67, part 4, 20 December 2010) went to press. Under Article 82 of the Code, the existing usage of names in the applications is to be maintained until the Commission’s rulings on the applications (the Opinions) have been published.
CASE 3543: Stromateus niger Bloch, 1795 (currently Parastromateus niger; Osteichthyes, Perciformes, CARANGIDAE): proposed conservation of prevailing usage by the suppression of its senior synonym Coryphaena apus Briinnich. E.H. Williams Jr. & L. Bunkley-Williams.
CASE 3544: Apis armbrusteri Zeuner, 1931 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed conservation by designation of a neotype. M.S. Engel, U. Kotthoff & T. Wappler.
2 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
CASE 3545: Heterohelix (Foraminiferida, HETEROHELICIDAE): proposed suppres- sion. M.D. Georgescu.
CASE 3546: Radiolites fleuriausa d’Orbigny, 1842 (currently Praeradiolites fleuriausus; Bivalvia, RADIOLITIDAE): proposed replacement as type species of Prae- radiolites Douvillé, 1902 by Sphaerulites ponsiana @ Archiac, 1835. J.M. Pons & E. Vicens.
CASE 3547: Cryptotermes dudleyi Banks, 1918 (Insecta, Isoptera, KALOo- TERMITIDAE): proposed precedence over Calotermes havilandi parasita Wasmann, 1910. K. Krishna & M.S. Engel.
CASE 3548: A proposal for the treatment of Mémoires pour servir a histoire des insectes by De Geer (1752-1778) and the additional volume by Retzius (1783). F. Wieland and F. Welter-Schultes.
CASE 3549: Macropsalis fabulosa Phillipps & Grimmett, 1932 (Arachnida, Opiliones, PHALANGIOIDEA): proposed replacement of the neotype. C.K. Taylor & M.S. Harvey.
CASE 3550: Graeteriella Kiefer, 1937 (Copepoda, Cyclopoida, CYCLOPIDAE): proposed precedence over Graeteriella Brehm, 1926. F. Fiers.
CASE 3551: Orithyia Fabricius, 1798 (Crustacea, Decapoda, Brachyura): pro- posed precedence over Orithuja Weber, 1795. P.K.L. Ng, D. Guinot & P.J.F. Davie.
CASE 3552: Cerithiopsis tubercularis var. nana Jeffreys, 1867 (currently Cerithi- opsis nana; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by suppression of Cerithiopsis nana Mayer, 1864. A. Cecalupo & E. Robba.
CASE 3553: Helix atlantica Morelet & Drouét, 1857 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata): proposed conservation of current usage by designation of a neotype. A.M. de Frias Martins, L. Silva, K. Jordaens & T. Backeljau.
CASE 3554: Anaphes Haliday, 1833 (Insecta, Hymenoptera): proposed designation of A. fuscipennis Haliday, 1833 as the type species. J.T. Huber, J.S. Noyes, A. Polaszek & S. Triapitsyn.
Page charges — new policy
The costs of publishing the BZN now require us to request page charges of £30 per page for all Cases, General Articles and for Comments that are one full printed page or longer. We do not want to discourage contributions to the work of the Commission, thus a waiver is available for authors who are unable to pay. A waiver form is available on the ICZN website (http://iczn.org/content/page-charges) and should be signed by you and your head of department if you are in a professional position and include a brief explanation of why you are unable to help support publication costs. Examples of appropriate waiver considerations include authors in unwaged positions or in countries with currency exchange difficulties. If a waiver is not received and approved at the time of acceptance of your contribution for publication, you will be sent an invoice for your page costs. Payment can be accepted by PayPal, credit card or cheque.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 3
The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature
The International Trust For Zoological Nomenclature (the Trust) was founded in 1947 to manage the Commission’s financial matters. It is a registered charity, based in the U.K. (No. 211944). At present, the Trust consists of 27 members from 13 countries. Discussion of the Trust’s activities can be found on the ICZN website http://iczn.org/.
Members of the Trust
Dr M. Dixon (U.K.) (Chairman and Director) Dr H.M.F.P. André (Belgium)
Dr M.N. Arai (Canada)
Mr H.S. Barlow (Malaysia)
Prof. D.J. Brothers (South Africa) Commissioner Ms M.J. Clifford-Turner (U.K.) Treasurer & Managing Director Mr P. Cooke (U.K.)
The Earl of Cranbrook (U.K.)
Prof. R.A. Fortey (U.K.)
Dr U. Fritz (Germany)
Prof. J.I. dos R Furtado (Singapore)
Dr M.K. Howarth (U.K.)
Prof. T. Jones (U.K.)
Dr S. Knapp (U.K.)
Prof. Dr O. Kraus (Germany)
Dr C. Kropf (Switzerland)
Mr A. McCullough (U.K.)
Prof. A. Minelli (Italy) Commissioner
Dr T. Nishikawa (Japan)
Dr J.L. Norenburg (U.S.A.)
Dr M.J. Oates (U.K.)
Mr R. Pethiyagoda (Sri Lanka)
Dr A. Polaszek (U.K.)
Mr N.J. Robinson (U.K.)
Ms R. Sangster (U.K.)
Dr H.-D. Sues (U.S.A.)
ir. Tiller (France)
Dr A. Wakeham-Dawson (U.K.)
4. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
What’s in a name? Attenborough & Fortey on animals ICZN fundraising lecture
Sir David Attenborough and Prof. Richard Fortey presented a lecture celebrating the work of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) and the global need for stable zoological nomenclature on 16 December 2010. Nearly 700 people filled the beautiful Ondaatje Theatre of the Royal Geographical Society, London, to capacity. Despite cold and rainy London weather, the hall was abuzz with anticipation as people arrived to see these titans of natural history presentation and palaeo and earth sciences writing. A busy and highly efficient team of volunteers helped people get checked in, directed them to the stand selling books by the speakers, to the bar and to their seats. Members of the International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature (ITZN) welcomed specially invited VIPs. The excitement was palpable.
The lecture began with a warm welcome and insightful introduction from Dr Michael Dixon, Chairman of the Trust. Professor Fortey then followed with a lively explanation of why biological nomenclature is so critical and how the Commission works. He continued with examples from history and his own work on trilobites that revealed the rich background and meaning in taxonomic names. The audience laughed at names that say it all — about the organism, or about the taxonomist and what they were really expressing with a particular animal name. Sir David then took the stage, relating examples of scientific names that each told a story in themselves. His ability to imbue every description with images and emotion
Fue
Fig. 1. Sir David Attenborough and Prof. Richard Fortey bringing nomenclature to life on the stage of the Royal Geographical Society. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Interactive Media Film Unit).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 5
Fig. 2. Sir David Attenborough has been a long- Fig. 3. Sir David telling the audience that he
term proponent of the ICZN. He and Professor Richard Fortey are old friends and have recently filmed together in Morocco for the BBC special First Life. (Photo: R. Fortey).
thought Linnaeus was making a nomenclatural joke about early collectors with the name Para- disaea apoda, as even then no taxonomist would have seriously believed that the Great Bird of
Paradise had neither feet nor wings. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Interactive Media Film Unit).
Fig. 5. After the lecture both speakers enthusias- tically settling in to sign books and talk with their fans, who also got to know each other while having a drink in the historic RGS Map Room and waiting in the long queue. (Photo: S. Knapp)
Fig. 4. Professor Fortey lecturing in front of the ZooBank poster. (Image: E. Michel/NHM Inter- active Media Film Unit).
brought the audience to the edges of their seats. Sir David brought life to stories about nomenclature with the addition of adventure, farce, surprise, competition, irony, sycophancy and beauty. Both speakers spoke of the combination of honour and uncertain implications of having taxa named after them. Perhaps examining too closely why a giant flat trilobite, an extinct prickly thing, or the first vertebrate known to copulate has been given your name might lead to too many additional, unnecessary questions!
It was clear that, in the mght hands, the topic of nomenclature can be made stimulating and entertaining for a general audience. This event was one step in increasing public awareness of the importance of the work of the ICZN. The evening showed that there is public goodwill towards our work, especially when presented by paragons of science communication.
6 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
In addition to the pure enjoyment of the moment, the event yielded other successes. Sir David has agreed to become a patron of the ITZN fundraising campaign, joining Professor E.O. Wilson in giving high profile support for the work of the Commission. A modest profit was realised from the evening, several additional donations were received, connections were made with additional potential promoters and one audience member was moved to volunteer to run a marathon with charitable fundraising on behalf of the ICZN! A professional film was made of the lecture, which will be distributed to potential funders and to the wider taxonomic community in various ways. Follow-up work using this valuable outreach resource will help the ITZN develop a sustainable funding source for the future.
We thank the speakers for the energy they poured into making this a brilliant evening. Support through logistical help or financial contribution was provided by the NHM, the Royal Geographical Society, publishers Harper Collins Publishing, Random House Publishing, Neal’s Yard Dairy. Slides and images were courtesy of Ellinor Michel, Richard Pyle, George McGavin, Vince Smith, ARKive, NHM Picture Library, Warren Photographic, Bios/Dominique Halleux.
The NHM Interactive Media Film Unit coordinated a professional film crew from Creation Company and provided staging. Edited clips will be available online and a full version of the film will be available by for a minimum donation to the ICZN. Information will be available here: iczn.org/content/fundraising lecture.
ZooBank progress report
Richard L. Pyle (ZooBank Developer)
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii, U.S.A. (e-mail: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org)
Commissioner Richard Pyle attended a meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, in late November 2010 to discuss the data model for the Global Names Usage Bank (GNUB), which is planned to serve as the data backbone for ZooBank. Attendees included representatives of the three major partners of International Plant Names Index (IPNI) — including the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Harvard University, and the Australian Plant Names Index (APNI) — as well as representatives for Index Fungorum (IF) and the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA). The purpose of the meeting was to review, in detail, the data model that had emerged from previous discussions involving architects of ZooBank and Index Fungorum, and determine its suitability for use in the next generation implementation of IPNI. The meeting was intensive, and extremely productive. The consensus data model that emerged from the meeting is being implemented now, and will serve as the live data backbone for a revised ZooBank website, scheduled for release later this year. Meanwhile, ZooBank continues to grow with, as of this writing (15 February 2011), 73,633 registered nomenclatural acts, 29,522 registered published works, and 11,955 registered authors. This represents an average rate of nearly 100 new name registrations within nearly 33 published works per month during the past six months.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 7
BioCode — ICZN Introduction
To date, the three major Codes of type-based organismal nomenclature have been developed with almost an exclusive attention to the needs and history of names for their focal set of organisms (animals, plants, prokaryotes). The newly released draft of a BioCode, presented here, aims to provide a framework for the existing Codes to grow towards each other in the future and promote common rules to minimise confusion among names of any organism. It is a collaborative effort by representa- tives of each major organismal Code. It is, in this respect, a largely forward-looking document.
The draft BioCode has no effect on the provisions of the current zoological Code and should comply with the other type-based (or in draft BioCode terminology, ‘special’) Codes as well. The intention is that like the existing Codes the BioCode will form a voluntary code of practice, and that it will supplement, not replace, them. Authors of new animal names are reminded that this draft BioCode has no current official standing, and new nomenclatural acts must still conform to the ICZN. The implementation of the BioCode remains to be worked out in future drafts and through publication of the ‘Annexes’. The mechanism for adoption of the BioCode is similarly to be determined in the future. David Hawksworth suggests, in his introduction below, that BioCode ‘provisions can be adopted at the appropriate time for any particular group of organism,-at any rank or range of ranks. Such adoption is to be determined by the appropriately mandated international body if and when the necessary structures exist and are operational.’ We look forward to comments from the community of zoologists on how we can best implement zoological participation in the BioCode.
Your input in improving the draft will be welcomed. We draw your attention to the following areas of the draft BioCode:
e The principle of coordination to be extended to botanical and bacterial nomenclature, Draft BioCode Art. 3.3, in part requiring the introduction of additional ranks (profamily between family and subfamily, Art. 24.1 & Note 1, progenus between genus and subgenus, Art. 26.2 & Notes, prospecies between species and subspecies, Art. 28.3 & Notes).
Registration of new names and nomenclatural acts, Art. 5.2, 12 & 13. Required common languages for description, English or Latin, Art. 7. Prevention of inter-regnal homonymy for new names, Art. 18.2.
‘Adopted Lists’ or Lists of Available Names, Art. 20.
Flexibility in use of suprageneric terminations for ambiregnal organismal names, Art. 23 Note 2,.24 Note 2, 25 Note. 1.
We will make a platform for comments, formatted such that discussion on each Article is continuous, on the ICZN website at this address: http://iczn.org/biocode.
Ellinor Michel Executive Secretary, ICZN
8 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Introducing the Draft BioCode (2011)
David L Hawksworth
Chair, IUBSITUMS International Committee on Bionomenclature; Departamento de Biologia Vegetal II, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain; and Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD,U_K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk)
As information on the world’s biota becomes increasingly integrated across different groups of organisms, from bacteria and fungi to animals and plants, there is a concomitant rising need for a consistent and harmonised approach to the regulation of scientific names. The BioCode initiative represents a concerted effort, by biologists intimately involved in the operation of the current system of separate codes, to devise a unified approach to the future naming of organisms of all kinds. This need has become pressing in view of common issues that the separate organismal type-based codes now have to address, consequent on the rapid changes taking place in global informatics, database architecture, molecular systematics and ecology, and electronic publication.
The Draft BioCode (2011) is most appropriately viewed as a framework over- arching the practices of the current series of codes, but which also addresses ways in which some of the key issues of current concern in systematics could be handled by all codes, for example the registration of new names and electronic publication. In addition, it has been drawn up so that its provisions can be adopted at the appropriate time for any particular group of organisms, at any rank or range of ranks. Such adoption is to be determined by the appropriately mandated inter- national body if and when the necessary structures exist and are operational.
The advantages of moving towards a more harmonised system were realised at a Systematics Association-sponsored symposium held at the Third International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB IJ) in Brighton (U.K.) in 1985. IUBS then established a standing committee on biological nomenclature after debates at the 22nd IUBS General Assembly in Budapest (Hungary) later that year. In 1988, following discussions during the XIV International Botanical Congress in Berlin (Germany) in 1987, and with the support of IUBS and the International Association for Plant Taxonomy (IAPT), an ad hoc group including representatives of all five representatives of the committees in charge of the five current codes met in Kew (U.K.) to consider a common approach towards the protection of names then in use. Following from the report of that meeting, further meetings of the ad hoc group, and discussions and debates at the 23rd IUBS General Assembly in Canberra (Australia) in 1988 and ICSEB IV at College Park (Maryland, U.S.A) in 1989, led to a major conference on Improving the Stability of Names being convened in Kew in 1991 — with the support of IUBS, IAPT and the Systematics Association. Later in 1991, the 24th IUBS General Assembly, meeting in Amsterdam (Netherlands), passed a resolution to encourage harmonisation between the various codes. An exploratory meeting on harmonisation between the codes was then convened in Egham (U.K.) in 1994; this was held under the auspices of IUBS, [UMS (International Union of Microbiological Societies) and IAPT with support from
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 9
CAB International, the Linnean Society of London, and the Royal Society of London. It set an agenda for future action in biological nomenclature, including the establishment of what became the IUBS/IUMS International Committee on Bio- nomenclature (ICB) following the 25th IUBS General Assembly in Paris (France) later in 1994. The ICB addressed several issues of concern when it met in Egham the following year, but also generated a first draft of a prospective International code of bionomenclature. That document was developed and presented at ICSEB V in Budapest in 1996, as the Draft BioCode: the prospective international rules for the scientific naming of organisms. Having taken note of debates during that congress, the ICB met again at Egham in 1997 and then issued a revision, the Draft BioCode (1997).
The BioCode was, from the first, seen as something to deal with names proposed in the future, while the existing separate codes continued to deal with those of the past. It was envisaged as operating in parallel while agreed lists of names were developed by, for example, phylum, order or family. Whereas some minor changes have been effected in the existing codes towards improved harmonisation since that time, an agreed list of names and a mechanism for compulsory registration of new names continued to be available only in bacteriology. However, as the 21st century commenced, the rapid evolution of databases meant that the production of lists on a group basis became more practical, and a need for a timely and low-cost system of cataloguing newly proposed names emerged in botany, mycology and zoology. In addition, changing classifications as a result of molecular phylogenetic studies meant that the problems of groups potentially being treated under different codes, or meriting transfer from one to another, grew. Against this background, the ICB organised a meeting to consider the issues surrounding the mandatory registration of new scientific names in the rooms of the Linnean Society of London (U.K.) in 2007, and a workshop on Tailoring Biological Nomenclature to User Needs at the Natural History Museum in London in 2009. As a consequence of these discussions, the 30th IUBS General Assembly in Cape Town (South Africa) later that year decided that it was time to revisit the prospect of a BioCode. The ICB then convened a workshop at the Botanischer Garten und Botanischer Museum in Berlin in October 2010 to produce an update of the Draft BioCode (1997) to allow for subsequent developments in the different codes, and also the possibilities afforded by new technologies. That document, the Draft BioCode (2011), is presented here as a basis for further consideration during BioSystematics Berlin 2011 (which incorporates ICSEB VII).
In presenting the Draft BioCode (2011), I wish to thank the past and current members of the ICB, and also others that have participated in the various workshops, debates and symposia on this issue over the last 25 years. Their sustained and insightful comments are now crystallising into a vision for a pragmatic nomenclatural system, tailored to the electronic and molecular age, and in which biologists, as a whole, can have confidence.
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Draft BioCode (2011): Principles and Rules Regulating the Naming of Organisms
Prepared and edited by W. Greuter’, G. Garrity’, D.L. Hawksworth’, R. Jahn*, P. Kirk’, S. Knapp®, J. McNeill’, E. Michel®, D.J. Patterson’, R. Pyle’? & BJ. Tindall” on behalf of the IUBSITUMS International Committee for Bionomenclature (ICB).
‘Herbarium Mediterraneum, clo Orto Botanico, Via Lincoln 2/A,
I-90123 Palermo, Italy; and Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Free University of Berlin, Kénigin-Luise-Str. 6—8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany (e-mail: w.greuter@bgbm.org)
°6162 Biomedical & Physical Sciences Bldg., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-4320, U.S.A. (e-mail: garrity@msu.edu)
> Departamento de Biologia Vegetal I, Facultad de Farmacia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Plaza Ramon y Cajal, Madrid 28040, Spain and Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 SBD, U.K. (e-mail: d.hawksworth@nhm.ac.uk)
“Botanischer Garten & Botanisches Museum Berlin-Dahlem, Free University of Berlin, Konigin-Luise-Str. 6-8, D-14195 Berlin, Germany
(e-mail: r.jahn@bgbm.org)
°CAB International, Bakeham Lane, Egham, Surrey TW20 9TY, U.K. (e-mail: p.kirk@cabi.org)
°Department of Botany, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U_K. (e-mail: s.knapp@nhm.ac.uk)
’Royal Botanic Garden, 20A Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR, Scotland, U_K. (e-mail: j.mcneill@rbge.ac.uk)
SICZN Secretariat, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 SBD, U_K. (e-mail: iczn-em@nhm.ac.uk)
’ Biodiversity Informatics, Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods Hole, MA 02543, U.S.A. (e-mail: dpatterson@mbl.edu)
'° Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817, U.S.A. (e-mail: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org)
'' Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH, Mascheroder Weg 1b, D-38124 Braunschweig, Germany
(e-mail: bti@dsmz.de)
This work is also published in Bionomina 1 (2011) and Taxon 60 (2011) to ensure wide dissemination among systematists as a whole.
PREAMBLE
1. Biology requires a precise, coherent and simple system for the naming of organisms used internationally, dealing both with the nomenclatural terms and with the scientific names that are applied to the individual taxonomic groups of organisms (taxa, singular taxon).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 11
2. The provisions of this BioCode shall apply to names of all kinds of organisms, whether eukaryotic or prokaryotic, fossil or non-fossil, and of fossil traces of organism (ichnotaxa), that are established (i.e. validly published or made available) and shall govern the choice when names compete among themselves or with earlier names. They shall also, and without limitation of date, provide for the establishment of co-ordinate names within rank groups, for the protection of names, as well as for their correct form.
3. Established names of organisms that are not yet covered by Adopted Lists of Protected Names are in all other respects (including their subsequent typification) governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Bacteria (here: ‘bacteriological Code’), the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (‘botanical Code’) or the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (‘zoological Code’) hereafter jointly called the “Special Codes’, depending on the accepted taxonomic position of their type.
4. Separate rules for organismal nomenclature, contained in the PhyloCode, are being established by analogy to those in the Special Codes but are based on different principles. Any names that may be proposed under the PhyloCode have no standing under the BioCode.
5. Separate rules for virus nomenclature, contained in The International Code of Virus Classification and Nomenclature (virological Code) have been established in conformity with Principles I and V of this Code and with the thrust of many of its rules. Because names of virus species do not have the binominal form required under this Code, and names of virus taxa in other recognised ranks have mandatory terminations according to rank, provisions of the BioCode proscribing these terminations for non-virus taxa ensure that the names of viruses and other organisms cannot conflict.
6. The nomenclature of cultivated plants follows the provisions of this Code, in so far as these provisions are applicable, but the naming of distinguishable groups of plants whose origin or selection is primarily due to intentional human actions follows the supplementary provisions contained in the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (‘cultivated plant Code’).
7. The nomenclature of infraspecific taxa (pathovars) of plant pathogenic bacteria is regulated by a set of International Standards for Naming Pathovars of Phytopatho- genic Bacteria (‘plant pathogen Standards’).
DIVISION I. PRINCIPLES Principle I
The BioCode governs the formation and choice of scientific names of taxa but not the circumscription, position, or rank of the taxa themselves. Nothing in this Code may be construed to restrict the freedom of taxonomic action.
Principle II
Scientific nomenclature of organisms builds upon the Linnaean system of binary names (binomina) for species.
Principle III
The application of names of taxa is determined by means of name-bearing types (hereafter referred to as types), although this principle does not apply to certain names at supra-familial ranks (see Art. 23.1(b)).
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Principle IV
The nomenclature of a taxon is based upon priority (precedence by date) of publication, although application of this principle is not mandatory at all ranks (Art. Oy:
Principle V
Each taxon in the family group, genus group or species group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank has only one accepted name, except as may be specified in a Special Code.
Principle VI Scientific names of taxa are treated as Latin, regardless of their derivation.
Principle VII
The name as applied to a taxon is not to be changed without sufficient reason, based either on further taxonomic studies or on the necessity of giving up a name that is contrary to the Rules of nomenclature.
Principle VIII
In the absence of a relevant rule or where the consequences of rules are doubtful, established custom is followed (see also Div. HI.5.).
Principle IX
The rules of nomenclature are retroactive, subject to any specified limitations (see also Pre. 2-3).
DIVISION I. RULES CHAPTER I. TAXA AND RANKS
Article 1
1.1. Every individual organism is treated as belonging to an indefinite number of taxa of consecutively subordinate rank.
1.2. Taxa normally consist of whole organisms in all their life stages, irrespective of the nature of the corresponding name-bearing types. For practical reasons, in some categories of organisms taxa are recognised and can be named that correspond only to parts of organisms, or to definite stages of their life history, or result from their activity. Such taxa are termed parataxa. This Code provides, in Art. 31, for names of parataxa of specified categories.
Article 2 2.1. The primary ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, and species.
Article 3
3.1. Secondary ranks of taxa, when required, include in descending sequence: domain above kingdom, tribe between family and genus, section and series between genus and species, and variety and form below species.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 13
3.2. Should an even greater number of ranks of taxa be desired, the terms for these are made by adding the prefixes super-, pro-, or sub- (sub- being below pro-) to non-prefixed terms denoting principal or secondary ranks.
Ex. 1. Superfamilies, progenera or subspecies are permitted but not subprospecies or prosubspecies.
3.3. Throughout this BioCode, the following rank groups are recognised: ‘supra- familial ranks’ (all ranks above the family group); ‘family-group ranks’ (the ranks of family and profamily); ‘infrafamilial ranks’ (all ranks between family group and genus group); “genus-group ranks’ (the ranks of genus and progenus); ‘infrageneric ranks’ (all ranks between genus group and species group); ‘species-group ranks’ (the ranks of species and prospecies); and “infraspecific ranks’ (any rank below the species group).
Note J. Further ranks may be intercalated or added, but designations of taxa in such ranks are not governed by this BioCode.
Recommendation 3A 3A.1. The establishment of new names of infraspecific taxa is strongly discouraged, except in groups in which they are used traditionally.
CHAPTER IT. NAMES (GENERAL PROVISIONS) SECTION 1. STATUS |
Article 4
4.1. Established names are those that comply with the requirements of Art. 7-11 (see also Art. 33.2) or that, prior to the starting date defined in those Articles, were validly published or became available under the relevant Special Code.
4.2. In this Code, unless otherwise indicated, the word ‘name’ means an established name, whether it be acceptable or unacceptable (see Art. 19).
4.3. Acceptable names are established names that are in accordance with the rules, that is, are neither unacceptable under Art. 18 nor illegitimate under the relevant Special Code.
4.4. In the family group, genus group, or species group, the accepted name of a taxon with a particular circumscription, position, and rank is the acceptable name which must be adopted for it under the rules (see Art. 19).
Note 1. In ranks not belonging to the family group, genus group, or species group, any established name of a taxon adopted by a particular author is an accepted name (see Art. 19.7).
4.5. The name of a taxon consisting of the name of a genus combined with one epithet is a binomen, the name of a species combined with a second epithet is a trinomen; binomina or trinomina are combinations.
Recommendation 4A
4A.1 In order to denote a clear distinction between scientific names of organisms and designations in common language, scientific names of all ranks should appear in the same distinctive, and preferably italic, type.
14 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
SECTION 2. ESTABLISHMENT Article 5
5.1. In order to be established, a name must be (a) new, (b) have the form required by Art. 23-31, and (c) comply with the special provisions of Art. 7-11.
5.2. On or after the relevant future date to be determined (Div.III.4), case by case, for the various categories of organisms, names, and nomenclatural acts, any name of a new taxon, replacement name, or new combination, and any nomenclatural act (Art. 16.6, 17.4, 18.8 & 19.5), must be registered in order to be established (see Art. 12).
Note 1. Registration does not in itself grant establishment. Upon request or by oversight, names and nomenclatural acts may be registered even though they fail to fulfil all establishment requirements. In such cases, an apposite note will be added to the registration entry (see Art. 13.1).
Note 2. No previous formal publication is required for registration, nor does such publication affect the date or the form and attributes of a registered name.
Recommendation 5A
5A.1. Authors who submit names or nomenclatural acts for registration that have not previously been formally published should expedite formal publication as soon as possible after registration, and should endeavour to provide a reference to that prospective publication in their registration submission.
5A.2 Authors should register new names and nomenclatural acts on acceptance of the corresponding text for formal publication.
5A.3. In the subsequent formal publication of a new taxon of which the name has already been registered, or of new nomenclatural acts, the registration parameters (number, date) should be mentioned, and the spelling and relevant attributes (e.g. type, validating description) of the name should be given exactly as registered.
Article 6
6.1. The establishment of any family-group name is deemed to automatically establish co-ordinate names at the other ranks of the family-group. The co-ordinate names are formed from the same generic name and have the same authorship and date.
6.2. All subfamily names established under the zoological Code are, under the BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of profamilies (Art. 3.2; see also Art. 24 Note 1).
Note I. Names of subfamilies established under the botanical or bacteriological Code maintain the former subfamily termination -oideae (Art. 25.1) and are intermediate in rank between profamily and tribe (Art. 3.2).
6.3. The establishment of any genus-group name is deemed to automatically establish an identical co-ordinate name at the other rank of the genus group. The co-ordinate names have the same type, authorship and date.
6.4. All names of subgenera established under the zoological Code are, under the BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of progenera (Art. 3.2; see also Art. 26 Note 1).
Note 2. Names of subgenera (subgen.) have the same form as those of other infrageneric taxa, for instance, sections (Art. 27), and are intermediate in rank between progenus and section (Art. 3.2).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 15
6.5. The establishment of any species-group name is deemed to automatically establish a co-ordinate name at the other rank of the species group. The co-ordinate names have identical final epithets, the same type, authorship and date.
6.6. All names of subspecies established under the zoological Code are, under the BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of prospecies (Art. 3.2; see also Art. 28 Note 1).
Note 3. Names of subspecies (subsp.) have the same form as those of other infraspecific taxa, for instance, varieties (Art. 29), and are intermediate in rank between prospecies and variety (Art. 3.2).
Article 7
7.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. HI.4) a name of a new taxon, in order to be established, must be accompanied by a Latin or English description of the taxon, or by a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to a previously published Latin or English description that applies to the taxon at a rank belonging to the same rank group (Art. 3.3).
7.2. Art. 7.1 notwithstanding, a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to a previously published Latin or English description of an infrafamilial, infrageneric, or infraspecific taxon is sufficient, under the botanical Code, to establish a name of a new taxon in the rank of family-group, genus-group, or species-group, respectively, and vice versa (see also Art. 6).
Article 8
8.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a new combination or a replacement name for a previously established name, in order to be established, must be accompanied by a direct and unambiguous bibliographic reference to its basionym (name-bringing or epithet-bringing synonym) or replaced name, its author and place of original publication.
8.2. In order to be direct and unambiguous, a bibliographic reference must include the page or plate reference (where applicable) and year (in so far as known); for publications with a consecutive pagination, the page reference is a reference to the page or pages on which the basionym was published or on which the protologue is printed, but not to the pagination of the whole publication unless it is coextensive with that of the protologue.
Note J. When the basionym or replaced name is a name established by registration, citation of that name with its registration parameters (number, date) is a direct and unambiguous reference.
8.3. The basionym or replaced name may be of a different rank from the new combination or replacement name, but only within a single rank group (as defined in Art. 3.3).
&.4. Art. 8.3 notwithstanding, names of infrafamilial, infrageneric, or infraspecific taxa established under the botanical Code can serve as basionyms or replaced names for new combinations or replacement names in the ranks of family-group, genus- group, Or species-group, respectively, and vice versa (see also Art. 6).
Article 9 9.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a name of a new taxon of the rank of genus or below, in order to be established, must be accompanied by the
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
designation of its type (see Art. 14-17). Designation of the type must include one of the words ‘holotype’ (holotypus) or ‘type’ (typus), or the corresponding abbreviation, and, unless the type is a published illustration, a specification of the institution or collection in which it is conserved.
Article 10
10.1. On or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.4) a name of a new fossil botanical species or subordinate taxon, in order to be established, must be ac- companied by an illustration or figure showing diagnostic characters, in addition to the description or diagnosis, or by a bibliographic reference to a previously published illustration or figure. This requirement also applies to names of new non-fossil algal taxa at these ranks.
Recommendation 10A
10A.1 Provision of an illustration or figure showing diagnostic characters is recommended for all new taxa, especially for those of zoological fossils as well as ambiregnal and any microscopic organisms. [Ambiregnal organisms are those that are treated under more than one Special Code by different taxonomists].
Article 11 11.1. Only if the corresponding genus or species name is established can the name of a subordinate taxon be established (but see Art. 30.2).
SECTION 3. REGISTRATION
Article 12
12.1. Registration as mandated by Art. 5.2 is effected (a) by submitting a name, with all necessary details (Art. 7-11), or by specifying a nomenclatural act (Art. 16.6, 17.4, 18.8 or 19.5), authored by at least one named person, either in print or in an agreed digital format, to the appropriate Registering Centre (see Annex A and Div. IlI.8 [The Annexes and Div. III.8 will be prepared at later dates, and are not, therefore, included in this Draft BioCode]); and (b), complying with the technical requirements of the registering centre.
12.2. Registration will be granted to all submitted names that fulfil these conditions as well as the requirements of Art. 7-11. The procedures are specified in Annex A.
Note 1. Co-ordinate names within a rank group need not be submitted separately.
12.3. The registering centres are empowered to register non-submitted items placed in the public domain that meet the requirements of Art. 7-11 for establishment. They are entitled to do so when the following conditions obtain: (a) new names and nomenclatural acts are clearly identified as such; (b) the authors are named persons; and (c) there is nothing to indicate that new names and nomenclatural acts are not definitely accepted by their author, nor is there any disclaimer to the effect that they are not to be considered as published for nomenclatural purposes.
12.4. Under Art. 5.2, the date of establishment of a new name or of a nomen- clatural act is that of its registration, which is the moment in which the relevant information becomes generally available by being placed on a global electronic communication network by the competent registering centre, or published in the relevant official medium.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 b7
Article 13
13.1. Entries of registered names and nomenclatural acts cannot be deleted (but see Art. 13.2). However, factual omissions and errors, particularly those that result in non-establishment, will be mentioned in notes added to the registration entry. Subsequently added notes will be dated. Whenever possible, reference will be made to the actual (prior or subsequent) place and date of establishment.
Ex. 1. When the earlier establishment of a supposedly new combination has been overlooked, the entry is maintained but citation of the actual place of establishment is added.
Ex. 2. If the purported basionym of an intended new combination is not an established name, the entry is maintained with a note on failed establishment of the combination.
Ex. 3. When the earlier publication of a supposedly new type designation has been overlooked, the entry is maintained but a reference to the earlier designation is added, and the previously designated name-bearing type, when it differs, is specified.
SECTION 4. TYPIFICATION
Article 14
14.1. The application of names of taxa of the rank of superfamily or below, and of those names of taxa in the higher ranks that are ultimately based on generic names, is determined by means of types (name-bearing types). The unit formed by the name and its type is referred to as the nominal taxon.
14.2. A type is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether it be an accepted name or not.
14.3. A new name based on a previously published acceptable name, for instance, as a new combination or as a replacement for an older name (see Art. 8), is typified by the type of the older name.
Article 15 15.1. The nature of types of names of new taxa is as defined in the relevant Special Code.
Article 16
16.1. When the name of a species or subordinate taxon has no acceptable designated type, a type may be designated. Designation must comply with the rules in the relevant Special Code.
16.2. When no single type was designated for the name of a new taxon, a lectotype may be designated.
16.3. If a type specimen is lost or destroyed, or is unavailable for consultation for an indefinite period of time, a neotype may be designated to serve as type so long as the original type is unavailable or missing.
16.4. When a type specimen contains parts belonging to more than one taxon, a part of it may be designated as type so as to fix the application of the name.
16.5. When a type cannot be critically identified for purposes of the precise application of the name of a taxon, and it is desirable to fix that application, an epitype may be designated. Suitability of a designated epitype may be challenged (see Div. II.9).
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
16.6. In order to be established, on and after the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), type designations as provided for in Art. 16.1—5 must be registered (Art. 5.1; see also Art. 12).
Article 17
17.1. The type of a name of a supraspecific taxon of generic or lower rank is a nominal species.
17.2. The type of a name of a suprageneric taxon the name of which is derived from a generic name is the nominal genus from which it is derived.
17.3. When the name of a supraspecific taxon has no acceptable designated type, a type may be designated. Designation must comply with the rules in the relevant Special Code.
17.4. In order to be established, on and after the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), type designations as provided for in Art. 17.3 must be registered (Art. 5.1; see also Art. 12).
SECTION 5. HOMONYMY
Article 18
15.1. Homonyms are identically spelled names based on different types. Rank designators are disregarded for the assessment of homonymy, so that names in different ranks can nevertheless be homonyms.
18.2. A family-group, genus-group or species-group name established on or after a future date to be determined (Div. III.3), unless conserved (Art. 21) or otherwise protected, is unacceptable if it is a later homonym, that is, if it, or one of its co-ordinate names, is spelled exactly like a name based on a different type that was previously established for a taxon in the same rank (see also Art. 18.6).
18.3. Two different homonyms may both be acceptable if they were published under different Special Codes prior to the date determined in Art. 18.2. However, of different homonyms published under the same Special Code, all but the earliest one are unacceptable unless conserved or protected.
Note J. In the ranks of the species group, a binomen or trinomen that is already established cannot be displaced by transfer of the epithet [Here and elsewhere in this Code, the phrase ‘final epithet’ refers to the last epithet in sequence in any particular combination, in any rank lower than genus] of an earlier acceptable name whose final epithet would otherwise have to be adopted under Art. 19.4. In such cases, the resultant combination would be unacceptable as a later homonym (see also Rec. 18A).
18.4. A name of an infrageneric taxon is unacceptable, irrespective of its date, if it has the generic name as its epithet but is based on a different type (but see Rec. 18B.1).
18.5. A name of an infraspecific taxon is unacceptable, irrespective of its date, if it has the same final epithet as the species name but is based on a different type (but see Rec. 18B.2).
18.6. When two or more species-group names based on different types are so similar that they are likely to be confused (parahomonyms) they are treated as homonyms.
Note I. This provision does not apply to genus-group names, except as provided by Art. 18.7.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 19
18.7. When it is doubtful whether species-group or genus-group names are parahomonyms (see Div. III.9) they may be submitted to the appropriate commit- tee(s) (Div. III.9) to obtain a binding decision.
18.8. When two or more homonyms have the same date, precedence between them is established in conformity with the relevant Special Code. On or after the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), any new choice between homo- nyms of the same date must be registered (Art. 12) in order to take effect.
Recommendation 18A
18A.1. Later homonyms which, being acceptable under the relevant Special Code, are in current use should not be abandoned but proposed for conservation (Art. 21).
18A.2. Prior to the date determined in Art. 18.2, authors should refrain from establishing new names that are homonyms of acceptable names established under a different Special Code.
18A.3. In choosing between homonyms in ranks where the principle of priority is not mandatory, authors should nevertheless follow that principle, unless the result would be nomenclaturally disruptive and contrary to established tradition.
Recommendation 18B
18B.1. When establishing the name of a new progenus, authors should refrain from using the epithet of a name previously established for an infrageneric taxon of the same genus, based on a different type.
18B.2. When establishing the name of a new prospecies, authors should refrain from using the epithet of a name previously established for an infraspecific taxon of the same species, based on a different type.
SECTION 6. PRECEDENCE
Article 19
19.1. For purposes of priority the date of a name is either the date attributed to it in an Adopted List of Protected Names (Art. 20) or, for unlisted names established prior to the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), the date on which it was validly published or became available under the relevant Special Code, or the date on which it was established, on or after that same date, under the BioCode. Limitations of priority that under the Special Codes affect names in certain groups or of certain categories, even if not provided for in the BioCode, still apply.
19.2. Competing names are acceptable names with types that belong to the same taxon. At family-group, genus-group and species-group ranks, the choice between competing names of the same rank is governed by the principle of priority of establishment.
Note 1. Under the principle of co-ordinate status (Art. 6), co-ordinate names in the other rank of the same rank group are automatically established and accordingly take the same date in both ranks of the group.
19.3. For any taxon in one of the ranks of the family or genus group, the accepted name is the earliest acceptable one that competes at that rank, except in cases of limitation of precedence under Art. 20-24, or where Art. 31 applies.
19.4. For any species-group taxon, the accepted name is the combination of the final epithet of the earliest acceptable name that competes at that rank, with the
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
accepted name of the genus or species to which it is assigned, except (a) in cases of limitation of precedence under Art. 20-24, or (b) if the resulting combination cannot become established under Art. 28.2, or (c) would be unacceptable as a later homonym as defined in Art. 18, or (d) if Art. 31 rules that a different combination be used.
19.5. When, for any taxon of the family group, genus group or species group, a choice is possible between acceptable names of equal date, or between final epithets of acceptable names of equal date, the first such choice to be published before the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2) in conformity with the relevant Special Code, or if there is none, the first registered choice under the Bio Code (Art. 12) establishes the precedence of the chosen name, and of any acceptable combination with the same type and final epithet at that rank, over the other competing name(s). ~ 19.6. Names of organisms (animals and algae excepted) based on a non-fossil type take precedence over names of the same rank based on a fossil (or subfossil) type (see also Art. 31.2).
19.7. The principle of priority is not mandatory for names of taxa not belonging to the family group, genus group or species group.
Recommendation 19A
19A.1. Authors should follow the principle of priority also when it is not mandatory, unless the result would be nomenclaturally disruptive and contrary to established tradition. |
Article 20
20.1. In order to stabilise the nomenclatural status of names in current use, and to prevent their being displaced by names no longer in use, lists of names and their attributes may, after apposite public review, be submitted to the ICB for adoption (see Div. III.9).
Ex. 1. The Approved Lists of Bacterial Names (see Rule 24a of the bacteriological Code) are, for all events and purposes, equivalent to the Adopted Lists provided for in the BioCode.
Ex. 2. The Lists of Available Names in Zoology (see Art. 79 of the zoological Code) are, for all events and purposes, equivalent to the Adopted Lists provided for in the Bio Code.
Ex. 3. The list of Names in Current Use in the Trichocomaceae (fungi) to which special status has been granted by the 1993 International Botanical Congress (Regnum Veg. 128: 13-57. 1993; see the Tokyo edition of the botanical Code, p. x) is, for all events and purposes, equivalent to an Adopted List as provided for in the Bio Code.
20.2. Once a list has been adopted, all listed names and their co-ordinate names are protected. A protected name is treated as if conserved against earlier homonyms and unlisted competing names; it is treated as established in the place and on the date cited in the list; and its type, when listed, its spelling and, if specified, its gender are treated as if conserved.
20.3. Protection can, for individual lists, be restricted with respect to the options set out in Art. 20.2, and particular entries on a list can be exempted from protection. Such restrictions and exceptions are to be specified.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 21
20.4. Once a list has been adopted, entries can be added, modified or removed only by the mechanisms of conservation or suppression of names (Art. 21—23). Specified restrictions and exceptions can be waived or modified only upon recommendation of the appropriate committee.
20.5. An earlier homonym of a protected name does not lose its status of an established name, but the precedence of the two homonyms is inverted by protection.
20.6. When, for a taxon of the family or genus group, two or more protected names compete, Art. 19.3 governs the choice of name (see also Art. 20.9).
20.7. When, for a taxon of the species group, two or more protected names and/or two or more names with the same final epithet and type as a protected name compete, Art. 19.4 governs the choice of name.
20.8. The date of protection does not affect the date of a protected name, which is the date of its establishment (Art. 19.1).
20.9. A name which is neither protected nor has the same type and final epithet as a protected name in the same rank may not be applied to a taxon that includes the type of a protected name in that rank unless the final epithet of the latter cannot be used in the required combination (see Art. 19.4(b-c)).
20.10. Conservation and suppression (Art. 21) override protection.
Article 21
21.]. Conservation or suppression of names, nomenclatural acts or publications can suspend the application of the rules to names of taxa of the family group, genus group and species group. Conservation also permits the amendment of Adopted Protected List of names (Art. 20).
21.2. Provisions for the conservation and suppression of names, and mechanisms for implementing them, are detailed in the Special Codes (see Div. III.9).
Article 22
22.1. A name that has been widely and persistently used for a taxon or taxa not including its type is not to be used in a sense that conflicts with current usage unless and until a proposal to deal with it under Art. 21 has been submitted and rejected.
CHAPTER III. RANK GROUPS AND THEIR NAMES SECTION 1. TAXA ABOVE THE RANK OF FAMILY
Article 23
23.1. Names of taxa above the rank of family are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with a capital initial letter. They may be either (a) typified names (see Art. 14.1) that are formed by adding a termination denoting their rank to the genitive singular stem of a generic name, or exceptionally to the whole name; or (b) typeless (‘descriptive’) names that are formed differently, apply to taxa defined by circum- scription, and may be used unchanged at different ranks.
23.2. For typified names, the name of a subphylum that includes the type of the accepted name of a phylum, the name of a subclass that includes the type of the accepted name of a class, or the name of a suborder that includes the type of the accepted name of an order, are to be based on the same type.
23.3. The typified name of a phylum or subphylum is formed from the same generic name as an acceptable name of an included class. The phylum name termination is
p25) Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
-mycota for fungi, -phyta for other botanical taxa, and -zoa for animals. The subphylum name termination is -mycotina for fungi, -phytina for other botanical taxa, and -zoina for animals.
23.4. The typified name of a class or subclass is formed from the same generic name as an acceptable name of an included order. The class name termination is -mycetes for fungi, -phyceae for algae, and -opsida for other botanical taxa and all animals. The subclass name termination is -mycetidae for fungi, -phycidae for algae, -idae for other botanical taxa, and -zoidae for animals.
23.5. The typified name of an order, suborder, or superfamily is formed from the same generic name as an acceptable name of an included family. For all groups, the order name termination is -a/es, the suborder name termination -ineae, and the superfamily name termination -oidea.
23.6. The name of a taxon above the rank of family may not have the termination -virinae, -virales, or -viridae, because these terminations are reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4).
Note I. Names of taxa above the rank of family that do not conform to the standards set out in Art. 23.3-23.6 are acceptable as descriptive names (Art. 23.1(b)).
23.7. When a typified suprafamilial name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name retains its authorship and date.
Note 2. For suprafamilial names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the alternative use of the terminations -mycota or -phyta and -zoa (for phyla), -mycotina or -phytina and -zoina (for subphyla), -mycetes or -phyceae and -opsida (for classes), -mycetidae or -phycidae and -zoidae (for subclasses) is authorised, irrespective of the Special Code otherwise used by a given author.
Recommendation 23A 23A.1. The terminations provided in Art. 23.3-23.5 should not be used in typeless, descriptive names of any rank above family.
SECTION 2. FAMILY-GROUP TAXA AND INFRAFAMILIAL TAXA
Article 24
24.1. Family-group names are treated as nouns in the plural and are written with a capital initial letter. They are formed by adding a termination denoting rank to the genitive singular stem of a generic name, or to the whole name if necessary to avoid homonymy.
The family name termination is -aceae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -idae for zoological taxa.
The profamily name termination is -idieae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -inae for zoological taxa.
Note I. Names of subfamilies established under the zoological Code are, under the Bio Code, treated as simultaneously established names of profamilies (Art. 6.2). For practical purposes, subfamily and profamily are, for these names, treated as one and the same rank. However, names of subfamilies established under the botanical or bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of profamilies and remain outside the family-group ranks.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 ae
24.2. The name of a family may not have the termination -viridae, and the name of a profamily may not have the termination -virinae, because these terminations are reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4).
24.3. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name retains its authorship and date.
Note 2. For family-group names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the alternative use of the terminations -aceae and -idae (for families), -idieae and -inae (for profamilies) is authorised. irrespective of the Special Code otherwise used by a given author.
Article 25
25.1 The name of an infrafamilial taxon is a noun in the plural and is written with a capital initial letter. It is formed in the same way as a name of a family-group taxon, but by adding a different termination to denote rank:
The subfamily name termination is -oideae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -inae for zoological taxa.
The tribe name termination is -eae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -ini for zoological taxa.
The subtribe name termination is -inae for all botanical and bacteriological taxa, -ina for zoological taxa.
25.2. The name of an infrafamilial taxon that includes the type of the accepted name of the family is to be based on the same type as the family name.
25.3. The name of a subtribe may not have the termination -virinae, which is reserved for the names of viral taxa (see Pre. 4).
25.4. When a name is published with a Latin termination not agreeing with the provisions of this Article, the termination is changed to accord with it, but the name retains its authorship and date.
Note J. For infrafamilial names of ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote), the alternative use of the terminations -oideae and -inae (for subfamilies), -eae and -ini (for tribes), -inae and -ina (for subtribes) is authorised, irrespective of the Special Code otherwise used by a given author.
SECTION 3. GENUS-GROUP TAXA AND INFRAGENERIC TAXA
Article 26
26.1. The name of a genus is a noun in the singular, or a single word treated as such, and is written with a capital initial letter. It may not have the termination -virus, which is reserved for the names of viral genera (see Pre. 4).
26.2. The name of an progenus has the same form as a generic name and stands on its own. However, it may not be used as the first term in a binomen or trinomen. It may be interpolated in parentheses between the terms of a binomen, optionally preceded by the rank designator ‘progenus’ (progen.), but is not for nomenclatural purposes a part of that binomen.
Note 1. Names of subgenera established under the zoological Code are, under the BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of progenera (Art. 6.4). For practical purposes, subgenus and progenus are, for these names, treated as one and
24 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
the same rank. However, names of subgenera established under the botanical or bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of progenera and remain outside the genus-group ranks.
Note 2. Under Art. 1.1 every progenus is considered to belong to a given genus, but this affiliation is not reflected in its name. Transfer of a progenus from one genus to another does not therefore require a nomenclatural act.
Article 27
27.1. The name of an infrageneric taxon (subgenus, section, subsection, series or subseries) is a combination of a generic name and an epithet, the two being connected by the term denoting the rank. The epithet is either of the same form as a generic name, or a plural adjective. It is written with a capital initial letter. For practical purposes the generic name may be omitted in citation.
27.2. Adjectival epithets agree in gender with the generic name. Errors in inflection are to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date.
27.3. The name of an infrageneric taxon that includes the type of the accepted name of the genus 1s to repeat the generic name unchanged as its epithet. Such names are termed autonyms.
27.4. The epithet in the name of an infrageneric taxon may not repeat unchanged the accepted name of the genus to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names have the same type.
SECTION 4. SPECIES-GROUP TAXA AND INFRASPECIFIC TAXA
Article 28
28.1. The name of a species consists of a generic name followed by a single word as specific epithet. The epithet may have the form of an adjective, a noun in the genitive, or a word in apposition; it is written with a lower-case initial letter.
28.2. In a name of a botanical taxon, ambiregnal taxa (Rec. 10A, footnote) excepted, the specific epithet may not exactly repeat the generic name.
28.3. A name of a prospecies consists of the name of the species followed by a final epithet having the same form as a specific epithet.
Note 1. Names of subspecies established under the zoological Code are, under the BioCode, treated as simultaneously established names of prospecies (Art. 6.6). For practical purposes, subspecies and prospecies are, for these names, treated as one and the same rank. However, names of subspecies established under the botanical or bacteriological Code are not equivalent to names of prospecies and remain outside the species-group ranks.
Note 2. Insertion of the rank-denoting term ‘prospecies’ (prosp.) between the binomen and the final epithet 1s unnecessary.
28.4. In a species-group name, the final epithet, when adjectival in form and not used as a noun, agrees grammatically with the generic name. Errors in inflection are to be corrected, but the name retains its authorship and date.
Article 29
29.1. The name of an infraspecific taxon is a combination of the name of a species and a final epithet, both being connected by a rank-denoting term. The epithet has the same form as a species-group epithet. Art. 28.4 applies by analogy.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 25
29.2. The name of an infraspecific taxon that includes the type of the accepted name of the species is to repeat the specific epithet unchanged as its epithet. Such names are termed autonyms.
29.3. The final epithet in the name of an infraspecific taxon may not repeat unchanged the epithet of the accepted name of the species to which the taxon is assigned unless the two names have the same type.
CHAPTER IV. PROVISIONS FOR SPECIAL GROUPS
Article 30
30.1. Names for hybrids between different taxa of specific or lower rank, including their progeny, are provided for in the botanical Code. Except for some special rules, the nomenclature of these hybrids follows the same principles as that of non-hybrid taxa.
Note 1. The zoological and bacteriological Codes do not provide for the naming of hybrids.
30.2. Designations of hybrid taxa in supraspecific ranks that equivalent to condensed formulae, or have condensed formulae as their epithets, and are deter- mined by a statement of parentage under the botanical Code (Art. H7 & H9), are not established names under the BioCode. However, Art. 11 notwithstanding, names of species placed under such designations retain their status of established names under the BioCode. .
Note 2. Distinguishable groups of cultivated plants and fungi, whose origin or selection is primarily due to the intentional actions of mankind (e.g., cultivars and cultivar-groups), are not covered by this Code, but are denominated under the provisions of the International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants.
Article 31
31.1. Names based on any part of an organism or portion of its life history are treated as applicable to the whole organism and compete for precedence as provided for in Art. 19-24, unless the relevant Special Code provides otherwise.
31.2. Fossil non-algal botanical taxa are parataxa, which for nomenclatural purposes comprise only those parts, life-history stages, or preservation states of organisms that are represented by the corresponding name-bearing types.
Note 1. When a name, under the relevant Special Code, applies only to that part of an organism or portion of its life history represented by its type, it is considered as the name of a parataxon.
Note 2. The botanical Code currently provides for parataxa of certain groups of fungi with a pleomorphic life-cycle and of plant fossils. The zoological Code provides for taxa for the fossilised work of organisms (ichnotaxa).
CHAPTER V. ORTHOGRAPHY AND GENDER OF NAMES
Article 32
32.1. For the purpose of the BioCode, orthographical variants are defined as the various spelling, compounding, and inflectional forms of a name or its epithet (including typographical errors), only one type being involved. Confusingly similar names based on the same type are also treated as orthographical variants.
26 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Note I. For confusingly similar names based on different types, see Art. 18.6 and Sst
32.2. Every established name is deemed to have a single correct orthography. Its variants are treated as correctable errors. The correctability of orthographical variants of names established prior to a future date to be determined (Div.III.3) is specified in the relevant Special Codes. The corresponding provisions remain applicable under the BioCode, complemented by those of Art. 33 (see also Art. 20.2 and 21.2).
32.3. Correctable orthographical variants of a name are to be corrected to the established form of that name. Whenever such a variant appears in print, it is to be treated as if it were printed in its corrected form.
Article 33
33.1. The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors, the standardisation of termi- nations required by Art. 23.7, 24.3, 25.4, 27.2, 28.4, and 29.1 (see also Art. 32), and the corrections provided for by the relevant Special Code.
Note I. For names established on or after the relevant starting date for mandatory registration (Art. 5.2), the words ‘original spelling’ in this Article mean the spelling employed when the name is submitted for registration. Any corrections and standardisations required under Art. 33.1 are made during the registration process.
Article 34
34.1. A generic name is treated as a noun with either masculine or feminine or neuter gender. Gender is established on the basis of classical Latin and Greek grammar, when applicable, and by subsequent biological usage (see also Annex B). In case of doubt, the gender assigned by the author of the name or, failing this, by the first subsequent author to assign a gender to the name, is accepted (see also Art. 20.2, 21.2, and Annex B).
34.2. Compound generic names take the gender of the last word in the nominative case in the compound. The most usual words used in compounding generic names, together with their gender, are listed in Annex B.
34.3. The gender of generic names often depends on their termination. For those terminations for which a particular gender is defined in the Special Codes, that gender must be accepted. The most usual terminations used in forming generic names, together with their gender, are listed in Annex B (see also Art. 20.2 and Hi, [iy
34.4. When a new generic name is submitted for registration without indication of gender, or with an indication of gender that is contrary to the Codes, the gender is assigned or corrected during registration.
CHAPTER VI. AUTHORSHIP OF NAMES
Article 35
35.1. In publications dealing with the taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, it may be desirable to cite the name of the author(s) who established the name concerned and the year of its establishment. For author citation, the rules of the relevant special Code apply, in addition to the provisions in the present Article.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 a
35.2. When a name of a taxon is jointly authored by two persons, both author names are cited, linked with an ampersand (&) or the word ‘et’. When a name of a taxon has three or more authors, in subsequent citations only the first needs to be cited, followed by the phrase ‘& al.’ (or et al.).
35.3. When a taxon of rank lower than progenus is altered in rank, or when its epithet is transferred to another genus or species, the names of the authors of the basionym (name- or epithet-bringing acceptable name), and optionally its year, are placed in parentheses. After the parenthesis, the authorship and year of the alteration or transfer may be added.
Recommendation 35A
35A.1. Inclusion of the name of persons other than the actual author or authors, linked to the latter by the particle ‘ex’, is provided for in the Special Codes. As the prescribed order of names differs between the Codes, so that confusion may result, this practice is discouraged under the BioCode.
35A.2. Author citations should be used sparingly in publications dealing with the taxonomy and nomenclature of organisms, and should be omitted in other publica- tions unless they are necessary to avoid confusion.
DIVISION III. AUTHORITY
1. The BioCode is established under the joint authority of the International Union of Biological Sciences (IUBS) and of the International Union of Microbiological Societies (IUMS), to be exercised through an inter-union International Committee on Bionomenclature (ICB). |
2. The ICB is a non-governmental organisation (NGO) consisting of up to 20 members, with a balanced representation of the main groups of organisms covered by the Special Codes. It operates in close contact with the General Committee on Botanical Nomenclature (GCBN), the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), the International Committee on Systematic Bacteriology (ICSB), the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), and the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (ICTV).
3. The BioCode takes effect upon being approved by an International Congress of Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (ICSEB), or any Congress that may in the future take its place, subject to ratification at the subsequent IUBS General Assembly or appropriate IUMS Divisional Congress.
4. The dates on which individual provisions of the BioCode (Art. 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1, 10.1, 16.6, 17.4, 18.2, 18.8, 32.2) take effect, for any particular purpose or group of organisms, are determined by the ICB, which will ensure that notice of such dates and of any relevant procedures be disseminated world-wide at least one year in advance. The ICB has also power to suspend the effect of any such provision, should this become necessary, and to designate Registration Centres for defined groups of organisms (Art. 12.1; see Div. III.8).
5. The ICB has power to resolve present and future ambiguity concerning the provisions of the BioCode. In case of those organisms that have been or still are treated under different Special Codes by different workers, it will consult and seek to establish consensus among the specialists in the groups concerned. Based on these consultations, it shall — for nomenclatural purposes only — assign each controversial group of organisms to the jurisdiction of one of the Special Codes.
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
6. The first and future editions of the BioCode are published under the auspices of the International Organisation for Systematic and Evolutionary Biology (IOSEB), or any future successor organisation.
7. The ICB has powers to edit future editions of the BioCode, and to amend its provisions where necessary. Any proposed change of substance must, however, be subject to public discussion before being approved by an ICSEB, or any Congress that may in the future take its place, and ratified by the subsequent IUBS General Assembly or appropriate IUMS Divisional Congress.
7.1. The ICB will act on the proposals in the light of these opinions, a 60 % majority of voting members being required for the approval of a change, when a quorum of 50 % of members will apply.
7.2. Any adopted change that is not of a retroactive nature will take effect from a date determined by the ICB.
8. The ICB will operate in close contact with the Registering Centres (Annex A), when they exist, and will assist in setting up those that are wanting for a complete coverage of all groups of organisms. It will ensure that the technical requirements defined by each registering centre are compatible with user requirements and the letter and spirit of the BioCode.
9. The ICB will not interfere with the activities of the nomenclature committees operating under the authority of the Special Codes, and will refrain from setting up similar structures under its own authority unless and until such a committee should cease to function. It will transmit to the pertinent nomenclature committee any request for the conservation or suppression of individual names, publications or nomenclatural acts (Art. 21), and seek its opinion and advice before adopting any list (Art. 20) or acting on any challenge of an epitype designation (Art. 16.5).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 29
The early endeavours by Hugh Edwin Strickland to establish a code for zoological nomenclature in 1842-1843
L.C. Rookmaaker
University Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge (e-mail: lcr26@cam.ac.uk)
Abstract. Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811-1853) in 1837 published a preliminary set of 22 rules relating to established nomenclature and providing guidance in the formulation of names. Hoping to make such rules mandatory, he opted to gain the support of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. In September 1841, he drafted a first code to be circulated among scientists at home and abroad to garner support and finalise the terminology. On 11 February 1842, the Council of the British Association appointed a committee to discuss zoological nomen- clature. This committee of 16 people met a few times in April 1842 to discuss the text of the rules, resulting in a second draft printed in May 1842. This document was discussed at the annual meeting of the British Association in Manchester on 28 June 1842, without a clear result on the suitability of the rules. Strickland argued to members of Council that his report should be printed in the main section of the annual proceedings, where in fact they appeared in 1843. This was the first general printing of the rules of nomenclature, which later became known as the Strickland Code.
Introduction
In 1842, at the annual conference of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in Manchester, a report was read advocating guidelines to stabilise zoological nomenclature. It was presented by Hugh Strickland on behalf of a small committee and constituted the first steps towards a set of rules, which later became generally known as the Strickland Code for Zoological Nomenclature. This paper traces the genesis, development and outcome of Strickland’s endeavours to change the ways in which naturalists dealt with the increasing number of species in the animal kingdom. It is an expansion and revision of the historical information published in Rookmaaker (2010), largely based on a study of primary documents available in the Museum of Zoology, University of Cambridge (UMZC).
Hugh Edwin Strickland (1811-1853) had wide-ranging interests encompassing all branches of natural history including geology, palaeontology and zoology, with emphasis on ornithology. During his relatively short life, cut short by a freak railway accident, Strickland studied in Oxford, toured Asia Minor, helped to start the Ray Society, wrote a book on the extinct dodo, actively participated in the conferences of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) and published about 264 papers. In 1845 he married Catherine Dorcas Maule (1825-1888), the second daughter of the famous naturalist and author, Sir William Jardine (1800-1874). They lived at Apperley Court near Deerhurst, Gloucestershire, when Strickland started his career as Deputy Reader in Geology at the University in Oxford in 1850. Strickland
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
was an active collector especially of birds, both British and foreign. After his sudden death, his life and writings were set out by Jardine (1858).
Strickland’s scientific legacy passed to the University of Cambridge in several stages. His collection of birds (about 6006 skins of 3117 species) was donated by his wife Catherine in 1867, his scientific library of over 400 volumes was added in 1875, while his extensive scientific correspondence was presented in 1892. The latter collection, known as the ‘Strickland Archive’ and preserved in UMZC, contains 3246 items traditionally divided into five sections (Rookmaaker, 2010). References made to these documents below are given in the format ‘N-000’, with ‘N’ indicating the section on nomenclature, which has 182 items ranging in date from 1841-1883.
First thoughts on nomenclature
Ornithology ranked high among Strickland’s interests. He amassed an impressive collection of local and foreign birds, outstanding in quantity as well as quality. He felt it was imperative that all birds were accurately named and that the specimens were arranged in a logical or natural order. He studied the available literature from around the globe to find the information needed to assist his ongoing task. Like any zoologist studying a particular group of organisms in his time, he found that authors liberally bestowed and altered scientific names, resulting in a bewildering duplication of names and an expanding synonymy. When he read a short note by the unidentified S.D.W. (1834) advocating a change of the name of the ‘bullfinch’ in favour of ‘coalhood’, supposedly more descriptive or appropriate, he quickly drafted a reply for the Magazine of Natural History. Strickland (1835) emphatically argued against such so-called arbitrary and unlicensed alteration of established names. He wanted names to be unique and unalterable, rather than appropriate, and suggested that ‘priority seems to be the universal law for the adoption of specific names’ (p. 40). He knew that his personal opinion would remain unheeded unless ‘an authorised body could be constituted, to frame a code of laws for naturalists, instead of the present anarchical state of things, in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes’ (p. 37). He expanded these views during the next few years in a series of short papers (Strickland, 1837a, b, 1838a, b), partly in response to critical remarks by William Ogilby (1838), as recently reviewed by McOuat (1996, 2001la) and Dayrat (2010). Strickland (1837b) provided a general set of 22 rules, first relating to established nomenclature stating the right of the discoverer of a species to name it, secondly providing guidance on how to formulate names properly. He then needed to find an established scientific body to formalise these regulations and make them binding for future scientists.
The Proposed Plan of 1841
His first choice was the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS), during that period the most prestigious, influential and national forum for scientists from all disciplines. He was an active participant of their annual meetings from 1837 onwards and served on Council in 1840 and 1841 (BAAS 1842, pp. vii, x). First he needed to discover how much support or opposition he could encounter. Hence he sought advice from William Jardine in July 1841, probably shortly before the BAAS meeting scheduled to take place in Plymouth at the end of the month: ‘I have some
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 31
thoughts of moving in the Zoological Section at Plymouth for the appointment of a Committee to prepare a set of regulations with the view of establishing a permanent system of zoological nomenclature. I should be glad to have your opinion on the subject. The plan which I propose will not interfere with zoological classification, in which everyone must in the present state of the science be left to please himself” (letter reproduced in Jardine, 1858, p. clxxv; the original is not in the Archive).
Jardine’s response, now lost, must have been favourable. Strickland went to the conference in Plymouth well prepared to launch his appeal and to defend his set of rules. It is not clear if the need to streamline nomenclature was actually discussed during any of the scheduled plenary or sectional meetings in Plymouth. There is no trace of any resolution or grant relating to Strickland’s project either in the official Report published in 1842 or in the more current and comprehensive reviews in the Athenaeum, the main contemporary news magazine for literary and scientific news. However, Jardine (1858, p. clxxv) recalled that in Plymouth ‘its general necessity [was] acknowledged, and after some opposition it was moved that a Committee be appointed.’ The same course of events might be inferred from a draft in Jardine’s hand (N-088) of a motion carried at the 1841 meeting to appoint a committee. Obviously Jardine and Strickland lobbied among the delegates at the time of the meeting, but from all available evidence it appears unlikely that there was in fact any formal progress in Plymouth. Jardine could have known that his memory was faulty when he wrote his memoir of Strickland’s life in 1858, because the draft of a motion put his name forward to chair the committee (other members proposed were Jenyns, Westwood, Henslow, Ball, Taylor and Strickland). In fact, Jardine never participated in any committee on zoological nomenclature in the 1840s, probably due to his residence being too distant from London.
Apparently undeterred by the lack of a resolution during the BAAS meeting of 1841, Strickland (with the silent encouragement of Jardine) went ahead and drafted a set of rules to govern zoological nomenclature. Dated September 1841, this was printed as a small pamphlet of 15 pages (by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London), entitled Proposed plan for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent (N-089; fig. 1). Here Strickland explained that ‘it is proposed at a future period to submit the following scheme to the consideration of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Previously, however, to doing so, it seems desirable to mature the plan as much as possible, by obtaining the opinions of eminent zoologists in various countries ...’
According to Sclater (1878, pp. 25—27), following a list prepared by Mrs Catherine Strickland, this first draft of the rules was circulated among 213 naturalists and societies, both local and foreign. The Strickland Archive includes a number of lists of those receiving drafts of the rules of nomenclature, respectively with 43 names (N-090 — for first draft, dated September 1841), 186 names (N-154, undated), 38 names (N-155, undated) and 32 names (N-120 — for second draft, May 1842), but their chronology and scope are unknown. Despite these efforts, only eight written replies concerning the contents of this first draft of September 1841 are present in the Strickland Archive, from John O. Westwood (12 October 1841, 22 February 1842), Edward H. Bunbury (1842), William E. Shuckard (1842), John S. Henslow (1 March 1842), Charles Darwin (17 February 1842, cf. Burckhardt & Smith 1985, p. 311), John Richardson (1 March 1842), Leonard Jenyns (16 March 1842), William J.
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Broderip (25 April 1842) and Charles Lucien Bonaparte (20 January 1842, cf. Jardine 1858, p. clxxvi).
The Council of the BAAS
With most responses supportive and agreeable to the wording of the text, Strickland decided to move ahead and prepare for the next annual BAAS meeting. On 22 December 1841 Strickland enquired from the General Secretaries of the BAAS (Roderick Murchison and Edward Sabine) if the Council had the power to appoint a committee, which could then prepare a report to be discussed at the general meeting, thereby gaining a year in the proceedings (N-093). Sabine replied on 24 December that Council would not object as long as Strickland could provide a list of people willing to be part of this new committee (N-095). During the next few months therefore, Strickland circulated his Proposed Plan of September 1841 and asked a number of scientists if they would be willing to participate. References to the formation of the committee were found in letters from Henslow, Westwood, Richardson, Broderip and Jenyns written in the first months of 1842.
When the Council met again in London on 11 February 1842, Strickland was prepared and obtained permission to continue his work. Sabine reported in the minutes of this meeting that “With a view of securing early attention to an important subject, the Council requested the following Gentlemen, who were represented as willing to set together for the purpose to consider if the rules by which the nomenclature of Zoology might be established on a uniform and permanent basis, and to report thereon to Section D, at the meeting at Manchester: — Mr. Darwin, Prof. Henslow, Rev. N. Jenyns, Mr. Ogilby, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. Strickland reporter, Mr. Westwood’ (Minutes read to the BAAS meeting in Manchester on 22 June as reported in the Athenaeum of 25 June 1842; cf. also BAAS 1843, pp. 105-106).
This committee first met on 28 April 1842 in the rooms of the Zoological Society, 57 Pall Mall (N-112). It was decided to co-opt another five members to the committee, to make a total of 13, adding Bell, Broderip, Smith, Waterhouse and Yarrell. The last named acted as chairman, while Strickland remained the reporter. In the second meeting of the committee, held a week later on 5 May 1842 at Yarrell’s house in London, the text of the first draft was discussed and revised. Only five committee members could be present at the time (Yarrell, Ogilby, Waterhouse, Westwood, Strickland, see N-113), and another three members were invited to join: Owen, Shuckard and Whewell, making a total of 16 (Table 1).
A second draft of the rules was printed in May 1842, again by Taylor in London, entitled Proposed Report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the use of the members of the Committee (16 pages, N-119; fig. 2). This second printed pamphlet was distributed to at least 32 people (N-120). Comments were received from 12 persons, 1.e. William E. Shuckard (24 June 1842), Charles Darwin (31 May 1842, cf. Burckhardt & Smith 1985, p. 320), Leonard Jenyns (26 May 1842), William J. Broderip (5 May 1842, 17 August 1842), Robert Ball (2 May 1842), William Buckland (30 May 1842), Alexander Keyserling (June 1842), William Thompson (6 June 1842), John Phillips (9 June 1842), George R. Waterhouse (12 June 1842), Louis Agassiz (18 June 1842, cf. Jardine 1858, pp. clxxix—clxxxvi) and James Sowerby (29 June 1842).
33
x 9C8I-P8LI “WRIT “Tole x 998I-P6L] “WRIT “TTomMoyM
x x €68I-SO8I “YeIpeqo uYyor *poomyso A X S88 I-OI8I ‘Moqoy ow 1oey ‘asnoysajeE A x SS8I-I8LI “preyory “1ojée y,
x x x ESSI-LI81 “UIMpy YsIy ‘puepyong x CL8I-LOLI ‘MOIpPUY “YIIUUS 898I-ZO8I “PlemMpy Weyl ‘preyonys x x CO8I-L8LI “UYor ‘uospleyory pL81-0081 “Uyor ‘sdiftyg 768I-PO8I “Preyory “UsMO EL81-8081 “Wei “AqiisO x ¥ ¥ €68I-O08I ‘preuoeyT ‘suAuor PL8 1-008] “WeI[IM ‘oulprer 198I-96LI “SUsAs}g UYOr ‘Mo[sUdH x 7881-6081 “Meqoy sejieyD ‘uIMied 6S8I-68L1 “UYyor wei ‘diuoporg
O88I-Zé6LI ‘sewoYL ‘Tog
x LS8I-ZO8I “Meqoy ‘Ted
x KK RK
*
Kx KK RK ~ Kx KK KK KK RK ad ~*~ ~< »*
*<
*< ad a
x KKK x KK RK
SollOJeUsIs JIOdayY SVVq SUN 90} } IU, 90}}IUUUO7) SVVqg [lounog yep posodolig
Eps ounf Zr ¢ Ae 78 87 Idv Trl qe 781 A[ne [pst ee ES eS es SS 2 eee 2 ee oe 8 ee - 2 Se ee ee Ce
CP8I-Ip8l ‘(lepsio [eoneqeydye) oinjepousWiou [eoIZoTOOZ JO $9o}}IWILUOD OY] YIM pojeloosse suOsIog *[ Iquy.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
The Manchester BAAS meeting in 1842
The next major step was to present the findings of the Committee to the scientists assembled at the BAAS meeting in Manchester in June 1842. The meetings of the BAAS were usually attended by close to a thousand scientists. This required a rigid structure of the proceedings, where reports and papers were read either to the general assembly or to smaller groups called sections. Section D was set aside for botany and zoology. The course of the proceedings of the conference, which lasted from 22 June to 29 June 1842, is best followed, as was usual for those unable to attend, in the accounts supplied by a reporter of the Athenaeum (1842). During the general assembly on the 22nd, Sabine as secretary read the minutes of Council, which included the appointment of the committee on zoological nomenclature earlier in the year.
In the meeting of Section D on Tuesday 28 June, Strickland had a chance to read the committee’s report, which ‘was followed by a discussion on the propriety of printing it in the next volume of the 7ransactions of the Association, as it contained so much that was only matter of opinion, and as time had not been afforded for collecting generally the opinions of zoologists on the subject. The question was eventually referred to the committee [of the Section], as a matter of business’ (Athenaeum, 1842, p. 690). Jardine (1858, p. cxcili) provided a more personal view of the discussions: ‘after being read and explained, as far as time and circumstances would allow, it encountered an opposition that was scarcely expected, couched in a spirit of prejudice, and almost jealous animosity, which was discreditable to the discontents, no matter what their opinions might be. But in all this, the opposition never assumed a definite form; and it is remarkable that among all the correspon- dence, and in all the discussions, we have scarcely a dissentient voice on the general question, and that the objections and criticisms lay almost entirely in the impropriety of making such radical changes as those proposed appeared to be, and in the difficulty of getting the ‘plan’ worked out and adopted. Some modern inventors of names felt sorely the criticism of their views and compositions, which many of the clauses exposed; and although no reference was made individually, or possibly could have been allowed in a report of the kind, and sanctioned by such authority, yet oversensitive minds took many of the clauses as aimed at themselves, hence the almost acrimony of some of the observations in the Manchester discussion. But these very circumstances caused their fall, and prevented any distinct motion being made for either censure or delay; and the report, after being well thrashed, was left in the hands of the Committee.’ It appears that John Edward Gray (1800-1875) of the British Museum was one of the more prominent people opposed to the introduction of the rules (McOuat, 2001b).
The issue had already taken up too much time of the conference to be given a further hearing. The four members of the committee present in Manchester had in fact prepared a final version of their report ready for final consideration, but they did not get a further chance to present this (N-134: Strickland to Waterhouse, 11 July 1842). On the final day, Wednesday 29 June 1842, the committee of Section D resolved (a motion moved by Richardson and seconded by Owen), ‘that the Committee of the Section of Zoology and Botany have too little time during the Meeting of the Association to discuss a Report on Nomenclature, and therefore remit to the special Committee appointed to draw up the Report, to present it on
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 35
their own responsibility’ (Strickland, 1843a, p. 106). At the same time, a grant was provided in order ‘that Mr. H.E. Strickland, Mr. C. Darwin, Professor Henslow, Rev. L. Jenyns, Mr. J. Phillips, Dr. Richardson, Mr. J.O. Westwood, Professor Owen, Mr. Broderip, be a Committee for printing and circulating their Report on Zoological Nomenclature, with the sum of 10 £ at their disposal for the purpose’ (BAAS 1843, pp. xx, XxXiii).
The first printing of the Rules
The reception of the propositions on zoological nomenclature at the Manchester meeting was rather less enthusiastic and supportive than Strickland would have wished. The reporter of the Athenaeum even mentioned that it was a ‘personal opinion’, which was exactly the impression that Strickland so emphatically tried to avoid. He could publish his views in any of the natural history journals at the time, but the rules needed the backing of a scientific organisation to have any chance of succeeding in stabilising nomenclature. He had persuaded the Council of the BAAS to appoint a committee of eminent scientists, who revised and lend credence to the text of the propositions. He was not now about to lose the momentum, knowing that otherwise the proposals would not receive a second hearing.
After the BAAS Council had met again in early August 1842, Strickland heard through John Phillips that it was the intention to print the ‘rules’ in the proceedings of section D, rather than in those of the plenary meetings. All Reports of the BAAS meetings were divided into two parts, the first with the general contents presented by the Council, followed by the second with papers presented to the sections and submitted under the auspices of the sectional officers. The distinction is trivial in hindsight, but Strickland knew that it would substantially increase the status of the ‘rules’ if readers would have the impression that it had the backing of the BAAS as an institution. As during the 1842 conference the reading of the ‘rules’ had been referred to a session of section D, Strickland could be reasonably sure of publication, but not necessarily in the main section. Hence, he wrote to Sabine (N-138) and Lankester (N-141) in early August to clarify the issue. Sabine, as the executive of the BAAS Council, explained in a letter of 17 August (N-139) that Section D failed to pass a special resolution to recommend the printing of the ‘rules’ in the proceedings, hence the Council’s dilemma. Lankester, in his reply of 20 August (N-142), stated that Section D had meant to allow printing of the ‘rules’ as long as it was done under the sole responsibility of the authors.
Strickland then wrote back to Sabine (20 August 1842, N-146) that he had never heard of a distinct resolution by one of the sections to print a report. Besides, a grant of £10 had been approved to ensure circulation of extra copies of the ‘rules’ after it had been printed in the proceedings. Sabine, who knew the rules of the BAAS obviously better than anybody else, further elucidated (23 August, N-147) that a special resolution was necessary because the ‘rules’ were not the result of an action by the Section, rather were presented by a committee appointed by Council. However, if there would be a preface to state that the responsibility of the contents of the ‘rules’ rested with the authors rather than the Association, and if the matter would be addressed by Council, he would not object to its insertion. Fortunately, Strickland was personally known to most of the council members and his opinions were highly regarded.
2
ip
(LI-N
‘OATYOIY PUBLILNS ‘OZWN) 2agguuuoy ayy fO Sdaquiaul
ayy fo asn ay]
AO ‘adANJDIIUGUO N 1091801007
UO aajJIWWUOD ayj fo j4oday pasodoig poyjque ‘uopuo’'T
ul JoyAey, Aq
Tr8t Ae Ur poyutid So[N1, 94} JO esp puoses 94} Jo osed “OPLL “GYSu) °Z “Sy
1 Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
1Ca
'(680-N
‘SATYOIY PURLLS ‘ZINA ()) Juaunuiad pup usofiun 4801002 {0 aanjojauauou
ay) SUuLAapuad
1of unjd pasodoig peu “wopuo’y ‘JOO1S Joo ‘Wnod UOTT poy ‘1ojAR LA uyor pue preyory Aq poyulid pue [pg] Joquiajdag polep ‘aInj}epPOUsWIOU IOJ sa[ni Jo yelp poyutid \sIY oy} Jo osed -OPLL “GID “1 “Sta
in of Zoolog
Bullet
36
37
‘(QESI-N ‘OATgOIY
PUrPYLNS “OZNN) SISpg Juaupuisad pun
wUsofiun D uo paYysygqvisa aq Apu A8o0j007 fo JANJDIIUBUON IY) YOIYM Aq sajna ay) fo sapisuod 0], pajuioddn aajjimuoy p fo j4oday poyynue yoryduwied ve se .sopni, 94} Jo yulider oy} Jo osed
ISIE “QUSL) *p “SI
1 Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
1Ca
(eps)
SOI ‘d ‘Z] “Joa ‘aoualog fo Juaumaoupapy ay]
LOf UOIDIIOSSP YSI1AG ays fo suljaayy ays
fo j4oday oy} ul poyutid se siseq juoueULIod pue Wa4ojlun & UO poys[qeiso oq Ae ASO[OOZ Jo d1nj}e[OUSWOU oY} YOIyM Aq so[ny oy} JO Japisuos 0} pojutodde 9071107) B JO Wodeay, sy} Jo ased sil “(J°]) “€ “Sy
in of Zoolog
Bullet
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Although the documents give no further insight in the decision-making process, Strickland’s manoeuvring was obviously successful, as the ‘rules’ were printed in the main section of the Report of the 1842 Manchester meeting, which appeared in 1843 (BAAS 1843, pp. 105-121; fig. 3). The text is prefaced by the relevant resolutions and the work of the committee is emphasised. The authority under which it was issued is left unnoticed, thereby obviously leaving an impression that the contents were in fact approved by the BAAS. The report was dated ‘June 27, 1842’ (the date of final composition, not that of the reading) and signed by Strickland, Phillips, Richardson, Owen, Jenyns, Broderip, Shuckard, Waterhouse, Yarrell, Darwin and Westwood. The actual date of distribution of the Report of the Manchester meeting of the BAAS is unknown, but it is likely that it was available in March 1843 at the latest, because it was reprinted in Jardine’s Annals of Natural History for April 1843 (Strickland 1843c) and in Taylor’s London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science for August 1843 (Strickland 1843d). In these two periodicals, the ‘rules’ were credited to a committee ‘appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science,’ exactly how Strickland intended it to be written.
The ‘rules’ were also reprinted (probably in 1843) as a small pamphlet entitled Report of a Committee appointed ‘to consider of the rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’ (Strickland, 1843b; N-153b, fig. 4). It has 17 pages, like the version printed in the BAAS Report, but the type-setting and breaks in pages are not identical. In the pamphlet, the following text is printed above the title: ‘Presented by the British Association for the Advancement of Science, to [blank]’. There exists a separate title-page, detached from the pamphlet (N-153b), where Strickland is given as the author and the publisher is provided: ‘London: Printed by Richard and John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street. 1844.’ The pamphlet was printed and circulated according to the directions issued at the Manchester meeting using the grant of £10. Soon there were translations into French, a reprint in an American journal, and discussions among Italian scientists (Daryat, 2010; Minelli, 2008).
The reception of the Rules
The real battle still had to be fought. Strickland had done all he could to draft the rules and recommendations, to select interested and eminent scientists to constitute a committee, to receive the backing of an eminent society like the British Association for the Advancement of Science and to get his work in print and circulated both at home and abroad. He provided a platform for discussion and revision, he had sown the seeds. Now it was up to working scientists to follow his lead and put the directives into practice. Change could only come slowly. Charles Darwin, for instance, although one of the signatories of the ‘rules’, confessed to find ‘the rules very useful; it is quite a comfort to have something to rest on in the turbulent ocean of nomenclature, (& am accordingly grateful to you) though I find it very difficult to obey always’ (Darwin to Strickland, 29 January 1849; N-168). Jardine (1866, p. 267) gave a fair summary of the acceptance of the ‘rules’ during the first twenty years in saying that ‘zoological nomenclature has not improved. Whether it is from the rules and recommendations not being sufficiently well known, or from an idea that no one has any right to interfere with or make rules for others, many gentlemen appear to
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 39
cast them away, and do not recognise them at all, while others accept or reject just what pleases themselves’.
Strickland’s ‘rules’ were restructured and reprinted in the 1860’s, again under the auspices of the BAAS (Jardine 1866).
New rules of course take time to be disseminated and to become accepted. It is in the interest of all taxonomists to base their work on a nomenclature which is up-to-date and stable. Perhaps British naturalists in the nineteenth century could have embraced Strickland’s Code with more fervour and unanimity. Many of them, and their colleagues in other parts of the world, did take heed of the important propositions suggested by Strickland. This paved the way to the foundation of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in 1895 (Melville, 1995) and the publication of the new editions of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
Acknowledgements
Professor Michael Akam provided much support and guidance as Director of the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge, throughout the duration of the archival projects. I like to thank my colleagues at the museum for assistance, especially Ray Symonds, Ann Charlton, Russell Stebbings, Stuart Turner and Matt Lowe.
References
Athenaeum. 1843. Twelfth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Athenaeum, no. 765 (25 June): 567-568; no. 766 (2 July): 587-598; no. 767 (9 July): 613-621; no. 768 (16 July): 637-643; no. 769 (23 July): 660-669; no. 770 (30 July): 686-693.
BAAS (British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1842. Report of the eleventh meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Plymouth in July 1841. Xxxv, 356, vii, 115 pp. John Murray, London.
BAAS (British Association for the Advancement of Science). 1843. Report of the twelfth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Manchester in June 1842. Xxxvl, 213, viii, 126 pp. John Murray, London.
Burckhardt, F. & Smith, S. 1985. The correspondence of Charles Darwin, vol. 2: 1837-1843. Xxxill, 609 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dayrat, B. 2010. Celebrating 250 dynamic years of nomenclatural debates. Pp. 185-239 in Polaszek, Andrew (Ed.), Systema Naturae 250: The Linnean ark. xvi, 276 pp. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
Jardine, W. 1858. Memoirs of Hugh Edwin Strickland, M.A., Fellow of the Royal, Linnean, Geological and Royal Geographical Societies, etc. Deputy Reader of Geology in Oxford. cclxv, xvi, 441 pp. John van Voorst, London.
Jardine, W. 1866. Report of a Committee “appointed to report on the changes they make consider desirable to make, if any, in the Rules of Zoological Nomenclature drawn up by Mr. H.E. Strickland, at the instance of the British Association at their meeting in Manchester in 1842. Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 35 (Birmingham, 1865): 25-42.
McOuat, G.R. 1996. Species, rules and meaning: the politics of language and the ends of definitions in 19th century natural history. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 27(4): 473-519.
McOuat, G.R. 2001a. From cutting nature at its joints to measuring it: new kinds and new kinds of people in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 32(4): 613-645.
McOuat, G.R. 2001b. Cataloguing power: delineating ‘competent naturalists’ and the meaning of species in the British Museum, British Journal for the History of Science, 34(1): 1-28.
Melville, R.V. 1995. Towards stability in the names of animals: a history of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1895-1995. viii, 92 pp. ICZN, London.
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Minelli, A. 2008. Zoological vs. botanical nomenclature: a forgotten “Biocode’ experiment from the times of the Strickland Code. Zootaxa, 1950: 21-38.
Ogilby, W. 1838. Observations on ‘rules for nomenclature’ Magazine of Natural History, (n.s.) 2: 150-157.
Rookmaaker, L.C. 2010. Calendar of the scientific correspondence of Hugh Edwin Strickland in the University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge. 379 pp. University Museum of Zoology, Cambridge.
S.D.W. 1834. Species of birds of which individuals in plumage anomalous to that of the species, and permanent, have been known. Magazine of Natural History, 7: 593-594.
Sclater, P.L. 1878. Rules for zoological nomenclature drawn up by the late H.E. Strickland, M.A., F.R.S. (assisted by many zoologists, British and Foreign), at the instance of the British Association. 27 pp. John Murray, London.
Strickland, H.E. 1835. On the arbitratry alteration of established terms in natural history. Magazine of Natural History, 8: 36-40.
Strickland, H.E. 1837a. On the inexpediency of altering established terms in natural history. Magazine of Natural History, (2)1: 127-131.
Strickland, H.E. 1837b. Rules for zoological nomenclature. Magazine of Natural History, (2)1: 173-176.
Strickland, H.E. 1838a. Reply to Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Observations on rules for nomenclature’. Magazine of Natural History, (2)2: 198-204.
Strickland, H.E. 1838b. Remarks on Mr. Ogilby’s ‘Further observations on rules for nomenclature.’ Magazine of Natural History, (2)2: 326-331.
Strickland, H.E. 1841. Proposed plan for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent. (Draft, September 1841.) 15 pp. Printed by Richard & John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London. [Strickland Archive, N-089].
Strickland, H.E. 1842. Proposed report of the Committee on Zoological Nomenclature. For the use of the members of the Committee. (Second draft, May 1842.) 16 pp. Printed by Richard & John E. Taylor, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street, London. [Strickland Archive, N-119].
Strickland, H.E. 1843a. Report of a Committee appointed to consider of the Rules by which the nomenclature of zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis. Report of the Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, 12 (Manchester 1842): 105-120. [Reprinted in Jardine 1858, p. 375 and Minelli 2008].
Strickland, H.E. [1843b]. Report of a Committee appointed “‘to consider of the rules by which the Nomenclature of Zoology may be established on a uniform and permanent basis’. 17 pp. No publisher, no place. [Strickland Archive N-153a; reproduced on http://www.darwin- online.org.uk].
Strickland, H.E. 1843c. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent, being the report of a Committee for the consideration of the subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Annals of Natural History, 11(70): 259-275.
Strickland, H.E. 1843d. Series of propositions for rendering the nomenclature of zoology uniform and permanent, being the report of a Committee for the consideration of the subject, appointed by the British Association for the Advancement of Science. London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, (3)23(150): 108-124.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 4]
Case 3532
Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 (currently Cerithiopsis tubercularis; Mollusca, Gastropoda, CERITHIOPSIDAE): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by designation of a neotype
Alberto Cecalupo Via Grancino 6y, 20090 Buccinasco, Italy
Elio Robba
Dipartimento di Scienze Geologiche e Geotecnologie, Universita degli Studi di Milano Bicocca, Piazza della Scienza 4, 20126 Milano, Italy (e-mail: elio.robba@unimib.1it)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 75.6 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the name Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) for a species of cerithiopsine gastropod from the southern coast of Great Britain. The lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) is not in taxonomic accord with the current usage of this name and the confusing description ignoring the part bearing the most obvious diagnostic characters led to considerable confusion. It is proposed that the previous type fixations for the species Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) be set aside and a neotype consistent with the current usage be designated.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; CERITHIOPSIDAE; Cerithiopsis; Cerithiopsis tuber- cularis; cerithiopsine gastropod; Recent; Atlantic; Mediterranean.
1. Murex tubercularis was established by Montagu (1803, p. 270) on the basis of Recent British specimens found at ‘the mouth of the Ann in Devonshire’ and ‘on the coast of Sandwich’. In Montagu’s text there is no information about the number of specimens dealt with. The brief original description ‘M. with nine or ten, slender, taper, tuberculated volutions, separated only by a slight depression: colour chestnut- brown: apex pointed; aperture small, oval, ending in a canal, somewhat enclosed by the columella turning inward. Length a quarter of an inch’, and the absence of any illustration failed to clarify the distinguishing characters of the species. Forbes & Hanley (1851), introducing the new genus Cerithiopsis for Montagu’s species (p. 364), were the first to delineate (p. 365) the main characters of Cerithiopsis tubercularis, which was reported to have a uniform dark or chocolate-brown colour, three to four smooth and semitransparent apical whorls, 3 spiral rows of beads on the spire whorls, and 2-3 basal spirals. The interpretation of most subsequent workers has followed the species concept outlined by Forbes & Hanley (1851). Only some sculptural details of the protoconch, i.e. subsutural and suprasutural granular micro- protuberances, were discovered more recently with the advent of scanning electron microscopy.
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
2. While there is general agreement about the teleoconch characters of C. tubercularis, remarkable discrepancies exist concerning the sculpture of the larval shell of the species (cf. Jeffreys, 1885; Glibert, 1973; Richter & Thorson, 1975; Grecchi, 1984; Giribet & Pefias, 1997; Giannuzzi-Savelli et al., 1999; Landau et al., 2006; Chirli, 2009; Prki¢é & Mariottini, 2009). Marshall (1978), aiming to correctly interpret Cerithiopsis tubercularis, examined a syntype from the Montagu Collection in the City Museum, Exeter (EXEMS) and designated it as lectotype of C. tubercularis. Marshall (p. 83) provided a detailed description of the protoconch of the lectotype ‘Protoconch of planktotrophic larval type, clearly demarcated from teleoconch whorls. Last half-whorl with a sharp peripheral carina and evenly spaced brephic riblets on shoulder. First 11 (embryonic) whorls minutely granulate throughout. Subsequent whorls traversed over abapical two-thirds by fine, crisp, evenly spaced prosocline riblets; each riblet with about 5 evenly spaced triangles extending in the direction of coiling for about width of rib from apertural side. Sinusigera sinus deep, opisthocyrt- opisthocline.’ Marshall (1978, fig. 13C) figured the entire shell of the lectotype of C. tubercularis without any SEM image of its protoconch.
3. Montagu’s original material in EXEMS consists of one box with two specimens glued to a small piece of paper attached to the original manuscript label; these specimens are collectively numbered 4235. The first syntype (Fig. 1A) lacks the protoconch. Its teleoconch of about 10 whorls conforms to the concept of Cerithi- opsis tubercularis followed for nearly two centuries by most authors and is not in disagreement with the short description published by Montagu; there are no upper basal spirals and the color is reddish-brown. The second syntype retains only the last protoconch whorl (Fig. 1C) sculptured with sparse granules and unevenly spaced, broken prosocline riblets on the abapical three-quarters, with remnants of minute granules occurring subsuturally. The teleoconch (Fig. 1B) of about 8 whorls is closely similar to that of the first syntype; the color is whitish. This specimen was designated as the lectotype of C. tubercularis by Marshall (1978) as indicated by a label of National Museum, Wellington, N.Z., now in EXEMS (Fig. 1D). The illustration of the lectotype published by Marshall (1978, fig. 13C) shows a shell with a complete protoconch; thus, it must be inferred that the protoconch was broken after Marshall’s examination of the specimen. The sculpture observed on the preserved whorl (the last) of the protoconch scarcely agrees with the description of the larval shell of the lectotype provided by Marshall, whereas it matches that reported by Marshall (1978, p. 84) for his new species Cerithiopsis powelli (Fig. 1G). The description of the larval shell of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis published by Marshall (1978) agrees with that of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867 (Fig. 11) in the Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Washington (USNM), selected from lot USNM 62164 by Cecalupo & Robba (2010). This suggests that the type series of C. tubercularis is probably mixed and that the lectotype designated by Marshall could in fact be C. barleei. However, the sculpture on the last protoconch whorl (the preserved one) of the lectotype of C. tubercularis in EXEMS is more similar to that of New Zealand Cerithiopsis powelli as described and figured by Marshall (1978) than to that of the Atlantic and Mediterranean C. barleei. Because of this discrepancy, it is unclear which specimen Marshall actually examined, and the taxonomic identity of C. tubercularis cannot be reliably identified from the lectotype (the whitish syntype).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 43
Fig. 1. A-C. Syntypes of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803, Montagu collection, EXEMS 4235 (2 specimens), mouth of the Ann in Devonshire and coast of Sandwich, Recent: A. Reddish-brown syntype (protoconch missing) conforming to the current concept of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803); B. Whitish syntype designated lectotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) by Marshall (1978); C. Same, detail of last protoconch whorl. D. EXEMS labels. The upper label reads ‘National Museum, Wellington, N.Z. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu). White specimen designated lectotype by B.A. Marshall’. The lower label reads “Tuberculated Horn-Shell. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu). Britain. H. D’Orville. 4235. (Montagu Collection)’. E, F, H. Possible syntype of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803, Montagu’s types, BMNH 20090384, British coast, Recent, proposed herein as neotype of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803: E. Apertural view; F. Preserved apical whorls; H. detail of F showing remnants of subsutural and suprasutural granular microprotuberances. G. Protoconch of Cerithiopsis powelli Marshall, 1978 (reproduced from Fig. 13B of Marshall) diameter 0.4 mm. I. Protoconch of the lectotype of Cerithiopsis barleei Jeffreys, 1867. J. Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu, 1803) of prevailing usage, Tasucu, Turkey, 7 m depth; detail of the protoconch showing remnants of granular microprotu- berances (illustrated for comparison).
44 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
4. The lectotype does not conform to the prevailing usage of C. tubercularis (Sowerby, 1855, 1859; Jeffreys, 1867, 1869; Bucquoy, Dautzenberg & Dollfus, 1884; Watson, 1886; Locard, 1892; 1903; Kobelt, 1908; Lebour, 1933; Thiriot-Quiévreux, 1969; Fretter & Pilkington, 1970; Parenzan, 1970; Hubendick & Warén, 1972; Thiriot-Quiévreux & Rodriguez Babio, 1975; Nordsiek, 1976; Fretter & Graham, 1982; van Aartsen et al., 1984; Graham, 1988; Cachia et al., 1996; Palazzi & Villari, 2001; Coppini, 2008; Cecalupo & Robba, 2010). In fact, the protoconch of C. tubercularis, as described and/or illustrated by the cited authors, differs markedly in having convex whorls throughout, being devoid of axial sculpture and bearing only suprasutural and subsutural granular microprotuberances.
5. Amelia MacLellan found a possible syntype (BMNH 20090384) of Cerithiopsis tubercularis in the Natural History Museum, London. She (pers. comm., 2009) informed us that ‘it is considered so as the labelling on the specimen is the same as other material thought to be Montagu’s types’. The locality of this possible syntype is ‘British Coast’. The specimen is nicely preserved and retains the last 2 whorls of the larval shell. The protoconch whorls are convex, showing remnants of subsutural and suprasutural granular microprotuberances; there is no trace of either axial sculpture or carination of the last half-whorl (Fig. 1F, H). These characters fully agree with the SEM images and the descriptions of the protoconch of C. tubercularis published by some recent workers (Thiriot-Quiévreux & Rodriguez Babio, 1975; Nordsiek, 1976; Fretter & Graham, 1982). The teleoconch (Fig. 1E) conforms in shape and sculpture to the current concept of C. tubercularis; the colour is slightly pale reddish-brown.
6. From the above, it appears that (1) the two types of Cerithiopsis tubercularis in EXEMS belong to two different species, (2) the identity of the lectotype is doubtful, and (3) the lectotype is not in taxonomic accord with the prevailing usage of the name. We conclude that the existing name-bearing type of C. tubercularis should be set aside and a neotype designated in order to maintain stability (Article 75.6 of the Code). The reddish-brown syntype in EXEMS is most probably C. tubercularis, but it is not suitable for a neotype as it lacks the protoconch (Recommendation 75A of the Code). We think it wiser to select the better preserved possible syntype (BMNH 20090384) as neotype of Cerithiopsis tubercularis.
7. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the species Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 and to designate as neotype the possible syntype BMNH 20090384 at the Natural History Museum, London;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the name tubercularis Montagu, 1803, as published in the binomen Murex tubercularis and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above.
References
Bucquoy, E., Dautzenberg, P. & Dollfus, G. 1882-1886. Les Mollusques Marins du Roussillon. Tome I. Gastropodes. Pp. 1-84 (1882); pp. 85-196 (1883); pp. 197-342 (1884); pp. 343-418 (1885); pp. 419-570 (1886) J.-B. Bailli¢re & Fils, Paris.
Cachia, C., Mifsud, C. & Sammut, P.M. 1996. The marine Mollusca of the Maltese Islands (Part Two: Neotaenioglossa). 228 pp. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 45
Cecalupo, A. & Robba, E. 2010. The identity of Murex tubercularis Montagu, 1803 and description of one new genus and two new species of the Cerithiopsidae (Gastropoda: Triphoroidea). Bollettino Malacologico, 46: 45-64.
Chirli, C. 2009. Malacofauna pliocenica Toscana, vol. 7. 98 pp. Published by the author, Tavarnelle.
Coppini, M. 2008. La famiglia Cerithiopsidae H. & A. Adams, 1853. 26 pp. (unnumbered) Documenti del Gruppo Malacologico Livornese, online report.
Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1848-1853. A history of British Mollusca and their shells. Vol. 1, pp. 1-477 (1848); vol. 2, pp. 1-480 (1849); vol. 3, pp. 1-320 (1850), pp. 321-616 (1851); vol. 4, pp. 1-301 (1852-1853) John Van Voorst, London.
Fretter, V. & Graham, A. 1982. The Prosobranch Molluscs of Britain and Denmark. Part 7 — ‘Heterogastropoda’ (Cerithiopsacea, Triforacea, Epitoniacea, Eulimacea). The Journal of Molluscan Studies, Supplement, 11: 363-434.
Fretter, V. & Pilkington, C. 1970. Prosobranchia veliger larvae of Taenioglossa and Stenoglossa. Conseil International pour l’Exploration de la Mer. Zooplankton, sheets 129-132 (pp. 1-26).
Giannuzzi-Savelli, R., Pusateri, F., Palmeri, A. & Ebreo, C. 1999. Atlante delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo. Vol. 3 (Caenogastropoda parte 2: Ptenoglossa). 127 pp. Edizioni Evolver s.r.l., Roma.
Giribet, X. & Pefias, Y. 1997. Malacological marine fauna from Garraf coast (NE Iberian Peninsula). Jberus, 15: 41-93.
Glibert, M. 1973. Révision des Gastropoda du Danien et du Montien de la Belgique. I. Les Gastropoda du Calcaire de Mons. Mémoires de l'Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, 173: 1-116.
Grecchi, G. 1984. Molluschi planctonici e bentonici in sedimenti sapropelitici del Quaternario della Dorsale Mediterranea. Bollettino Malacologico, 20: 1-34.
Hubendick, B. & Waren, A. 1972. Smasnackor fran Svenska vastkusten. 4. Slaktena Laeoco- chlis, Triphora, Cerithiella, Aclis, Trophon m.fl. Géteborgs Naturhistoriska Museum, 1972: 45-50.
Jeffreys, J.G. 1867. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. IV. 486 pp. John Van Voorst, London.
Jeffreys, J.G. 1869. British Conchology, or an account of the Mollusca which now inhabit the British Isles and the surrounding seas, vol. 5. 258 pp. John Van Voorst, London.
Jeffreys, J.G. 1885. On the Mollusca procured during the ‘Lightning’ and ‘Porcupine’ Expeditions, 1868-70. Part 9. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 1885: 27-63.
Kobelt, W. 1908. Iconographie der schalentragenden europdischen Meeresconchylien. Vierter Band. 172 pp. C.W. Kreidel’s Verlag, Wiesbaden.
Landau, B., La Perna, R. & Marquet, R. 2006. The Early Pliocene Gastropoda (Mollusca) of Estepona, Southern Spain. Part 6: Triphoroidea, Epitonioidea, Eulimoidea. Palaeontos, 10: 1-96.
Lebour, M.V. 1933. The life-histories of Cerithiopsis tubercularis (Montagu), C. barleei Jeffreys and Triphora perversa (L.). Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. (N.S. ), 18: 491498.
Locard, A. 1892. Les coquilles marines des cétes de France. 384 pp. J.-B. Bailliére & Fils, Paris.
Locard, A. 1903. Les Cerithium et les Cerithiidae des mers d’Europe. Annales de la Societé d Agriculture, Sciences et Industrie de Lyon, 10 (1902): 95-128.
Marshall, B.A. 1978. Cerithiopsidae (Mollusca: Gastropoda) of New Zealand, and provisional classification of the family. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 5: 47-120.
Montagu, G. 1803. Testacea Britannica or Natural History of British Shells, Marine, Land, and Fresh-Water. xxxvii, 606 pp. J.S. Hollis, London.
Nordsiek, F. 1976. Il Genere Cerithiopsis Forbes & Hanley, 1849 nei mari d’Europa. La Conchiglia, 85-86: 6-7 & 18.
Palazzi, S. & Villari, A. 2001. Molluschi e brachiopodi delle grotte sottomarine del Taorminese. La Conchiglia, Suppl., 297: 1-56.
46 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Parenzan, P. 1970. Carta d’identita delle conchiglie del Mediterraneo. Vol. 1 Gasteropodi. 283 pp. Ed. Bios Taras, Taranto.
Prki¢é, J. & Mariottini, P. 2009. Description of two new Cerithiopsis from the Croatian coast, with comments on the Cerithiopsis tubercularis complex (Gastropoda: Ceritiopsidae). Aldrovandia, 5: 3-27.
Richter, G. & Thorson, G. 1975. Pelagische Prosobranchienlarven des Golfes von Neapel. Ophelia, 13: 109-185.
Sowerby, G.B. 1855. Monographs of genera of shells. Vol. IT. 460 pp. G.B. Sowerby, London.
Sowerby, G.B. 1859. I/lustrated index of British shells containing figures of all the Recent species. I-XV pp. Simpkin, Marshall & Co., London.
Thiriot-Quiévreux, C. 1969. Caractéristiques morphologiques des véligéres planctoniques de gastéropodes de la région de Banyuls-sur-Mer. Vie et Milieu, Série B: Océanographie, 20: 333-366.
Thiriot-Quiévreux, C. & Rodriguez Babio, C. 1975. Etude des protoconques de quelques prosobranches de la région de Roscoff. Cahiers de Biologie Marine, 16: 135-148.
Watson, R.B. 1886. On the Cerithiopsides from the Eastern Side of the North Atlantic, with three new Species from Madeira. The Journal of the Linnean Society. Zoology, 19: 89-95.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 47
Case 3533
Neobisitum Chamberlin, 1930 (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones): proposed precedence over Blothrus Schiddte, 1847
Mark S. Harvey
Department of Terrestrial Zoology, Western Australian Museum, Locked Bag 49, Welshpool DC, Western Australia 6986, Australia (e-mail: mark.harvey@museum.wa.gov.au)
Volker Mahnert
Muséum dhistoire naturelle, Case postale 6434, CH-1211 Genéve 6, Switzerland (e-mail volker.mahnert@wanadoo.fr)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used pseudoscorpion generic name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 by giving it precedence over the genus-group name Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, which is currently used as a subgenus or synonym of Neobisium. The name Neobisium is in widespread use for a group of pseudoscorpions found in the western Palaearctic region.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Arachnida; Pseudoscorpiones; NEOBISIIDAE; Neobisium; Blothrus; pseudoscorpions; Palaearctic.
1. The genus-group name Blothrus was proposed by Schiddte (1847, p. 80) for a large cave-dwelling pseudoscorpion from Slovenia, B. spelaeus Schiddte, 1847, which is the type species by monotypy. Although the original descriptions of both the genus and species were fairly brief and undiagnostic, Schiddte (1851la, p. 23) subsequently provided a longer description as well as five illustrations. Schiddte’s second paper was translated into English (Schiddte, 1851b, p. 148), although the taxonomic descriptions were only partly included and only a small subset of the illustrations, which were redrafted, were included. Schiddte’s (1847) specimens were apparently taken from Luegger Grotte and Adelsberger Grotte (Schiddte stated ‘Luegger- og Adelsberger-Hulen’ in Danish), which are nowadays situated in Slovenia. Adelsberger Grotte is the German term for an extensive cave system which is nowadays referred to by its Slovenian name, Postojnska Jama. The cave is located on the outskirts of Postojna village. Luegger Grotte is also known as Lueger Hohle, and is situated near Predjama (Kempe et al., 2006), which is situated 8 km WNW of Postojnska Jama. The total number of specimens examined by Schiddte (1847) was not stated but we are aware of type specimens of B. spelaeus that are lodged in two institutions. The Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark has seven large specimens, which are probably adults, and a nymph labelled ‘Adelsberger hulen’ stored in ethanol (N. Scharff, in litt.) (ZMUC accession number 8/45) of which Chamberlin (1930, p. 11) apparently examined a single female. The Natural History Museum, London, U.K. has a single specimen from Adelsberger Grotte with
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
the registration number BMNH 1907.3.18.63 (Judson, 1997). A modern description of this species was provided by Curvié (1988, p. 52) based on new material from Croatia.
2. The genus Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (p. 11) was proposed for a group of species that were previously placed within Obisium Illiger, 1798 with the type species Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817 (p. 78), by original designation. Chamberlin sug- gested that the name was a ‘nom. nov.’ for Obisium but in the modern sense this is not the case. Obisium had been used as a valid genus-group name during much of the 19th and early 20th centuries but had been found by Westwood (1836, p. 10) and Kew (1911, p. 52) to be synonymous with Chelifer Geoffroy, 1762, since both claim Acarus cancroides Linnaeus, 1758 as their type species. Usage of the name Obisium effectively ceased in 1930 with the adoption of the name Neobisium.
3. Chamberlin (1930) considered Blothrus and Neobisium to be separate genera, but Beier (1932) and most subsequent authors have treated Blothrus as a subgenus of Neobisium (e.g. Rafalski, 1937, 1967; Beier, 1939, 1953, 1955a, 1956, 1963; Hadzi, 1940; Vachon, 1947, 1966, 1976; Verner, 1958, 1971; Vachon and Gabbutt, 1964; Heurtault-Rossi, 1966; Heurtault, 1968, 1971, 1994; Curtié, 1972; Mahnert, 1972, 1988; Gulicka, 1977; Leclerc, 1982, 1989; Krumpal, 1983; Harvey, 1991; Duchaé, 1996; Gardini, 2000; Steup, 2006; Zaragoza, 2007), even though Blothrus antedates Neobisium by more than 80 years.
4. The genus Neobisium is currently the largest known genus of pseudoscorpions and contains 227 Recent species and 37 Recent subspecies (Harvey, 2009b), as well as two species described from Eocene Baltic amber deposits (Beier, 1955b; Judson, 2003). It has been divided into six subgenera, N. (Neobisium), N. (Blothrus), N. (Ommatoblothrus) Beier, 1956, N. (Heoblothrus) Beier, 1963, N. (Neoccitanobisium ) Callaini, 1981 and N. (Pennobisium) Curéié, 1988 (e.g. Beier, 1963; Curéié, 1988; Judson, 1992). Curéié (1984) abandoned the use of subgenera within Neobisium, arguing that the characters used to define the subgenera were ambiguous and subjective, based mostly on perceived levels of troglomorphy. He has been followed by other authors (e.g. Schawaller, 1985a, 1989; Schawaller and Dashdamirov, 1988; Judson, 2003; Dimitrijevic, 2004, 2009). The abandonment of a subgeneric classifi- cation, however, does not affect the present case, as Blothrus remains a senior synonym of Neobisium whenever the type species of each genus-group name are deemed to be congeneric.
5. Species of the genus Neobisium are widespread over the western Palaearctic region (Harvey, 2009b) including much of continental Europe, various off-shore islands such as the Azores and Iceland (e.g. Beier, 1961; Agnarsson, 1998) and north-western Africa (e.g. Beier, 1930; Callaini, 1988; Leclerc, 1989; Heurtault, 1990). They occur as far east as Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan (Redikorzev, 1949; Schawaller, 1989) and the Russian provinces of Krasnoyarskiy Kray and Respublika Altay (Schawaller, 1985b), and there is also an introduced population of N. carcinoides Hermann, 1804 (p. 118) in Kenya (Mahnert, 1981).
6. Neobisium has been used as a valid generic name instead of Blothrus by many different authors in numerous publications. We have found 135 publications with 39 senior authors that use the name Neobisium in the title of the publication. These papers include taxonomic, ecological and morphological studies; this list is held by the Secretariat. Of the more comprehensive reviews of European pseudoscorpions,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 49
Neobisium has been used for the faunas of Europe (Beier, 1963), Austria (Mahnert, 2004), Belgium (Henderickx, 1999), Croatia (Ozimec, 2004), Czech Republic and Slovakia (Verner, 1960, 1971), Estonia (Talvi, 2010), mainland France (Delfosse, 2003), Hungary (Karpathegyi, 2007), Iceland (Agnarsson, 1998), Ireland (Jones, 1980; Legg & Jones, 1988), Italy (Gardini, 2000), Macedonia (Curéié et al., 2004), Montenegro (Curéié et al., 2004), The Netherlands (Tooren, 2005), Poland (Rafalski, 1967), Serbia (Curéié et al., 2004), Spain and Portugal (Zaragoza, 2007), Sweden (Lohmander, 1939), Turkey (Kunt et al., 2008) and the United Kingdom (Jones, 1980; Legg & Jones, 1988), and in general publications dealing with subterranean fauna (e.g. Curéi¢, 1988; Heurtault, 1994). Neobisium is also used as a valid name on various websites including Pseudoscorpions of the World (Harvey, 2009b), Fauna Europaea (Harvey, 2010) and the Species 2000 Catalogue of Life Checklist (Harvey, 2009a).
7. In addition to being a widely used generic name, Neobisium is the type genus of NEOBISIIDAE Chamberlin, 1930 and of the superfamily NEOBISIOIDEA Chamberlin, 1930. As in the situation with Neobisium, Chamberlin (1930) proposed NEOBISIIDAE as a replacement name for OBISIDAE Sundevall, 1833, although oBIsIIDAE is a synonym of CHELIFERIDAE, due to the synonymy of Obisium with Chelifer.
8. Article 23.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature clearly states that the valid name resulting from the synonymy of two or more genus-group names is the oldest valid name among those of its components. Harvey (1985) attempted to rectify the situation and proposed that Blothrus be given priority over Neobisium, as specified by the Code. This suggestion was met with resounding opposition from other pseudoscorpion specialists and Harvey later reverted to the traditional usage of Neobisium in his world catalogues of pseudoscorpions (Harvey, 1991, 2009b). Article 23.9 has provisions for the reversal of precedence without approaching the Commis- sion, but in this case Article 23.9.1 does not apply as the senior synonym has been used as a valid name since 1899, either at the generic (Chamberlin, 1930, 1931; Caporiacco, 1948; Lapschoff, 1940) or subgeneric level (e.g. Beier, 1932, 1963; Roewer, 1937; Harvey, 1991; Heurtault, 1994; Gardini, 2000; Zaragoza, 2007). We believe that the strict application of the Principle of Priority would cause undue confusion, with over 200 species requiring transfer from Neobisium to Blothrus. An alternative scenario, to suppress the name Blothrus, would require the transfer of 90 species into a new subgenus, thus causing considerable nomenclatural instability. Therefore, as required by Article 23.9.3, we refer the matter to the Commission to give precedence to the younger synonym.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the name Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 precedence over the name Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 whenever the two are considered to be congeneric;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (gender: neuter), type species Obisium mus-
corum Leach, 1817 (a junior subjective synonym of Chelifer carcinoides Hermann, 1804) by original designation, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, whenever the two are considered to be congeneric;
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
(b) Blothrus Schiddte, 1847 (gender: masculine), type species Blothrus spelaeus Schiddte, 1847 by monotypy, with the endorsement that it is not to be given precedence over Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930, whenever the two are considered to be congeneric;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) spelaeus Schiddte, 1847, as published in the binomen Blothrus spelaeus (specific name of the type species of Blothrus Schiddte, 1847);
(b) carcinoides Hermann, 1804, as published in the binomen Chelifer carcinoides, the valid specific name of the type species of Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (a senior subjective synonym of Obisium muscorum Leach, 1817).
Acknowledgments
We thank Dr Nikolaj Scharff for providing information on the syntypes of Blothrus spelaeus lodged in the Zoological Museum of the University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
References
Agnarsson, I. 1998. Islenskar langfaetlur og drekar. Fyélrit Natturufraedistofnunar, 35: 1-34.
Beier, M. 1930. Pseudoscorpione aus Marocco nebst einer Art von der Insel Senafir. Bulletin de la Société des Sciences Naturelles du Maroc, 10: 70-77.
Beier, M. 1932. Pseudoscorpionidea I. Subord. Chthoniinea et Neobisiinea. Tierreich, 57: i-xx, 1-258.
Beier, M. 1939. Die H6hlenpseudoscorpione der Balkanhalbinsel. Studien aus dem Gebiete der Allgemeinen Karstforschung, der Wissenschaftlichen Héhlenkunde, der Eiszeitforschung und den Nachbargebieten, 4(10): 1-83.
Beier, M. 1953. Neobisium (Blothrus) patrizii, ein neuer Hoehlen-Pseudoscorpion aus Mittelitalien. Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, 83: 139-140.
Beier, M. 1955a. Neobisium (Blothrus) cerrutii, ein weiterer neuer HOhlen-Pseudoscorpion aus Lazio. Fragmenta Entomologica, 2: 25-28.
Beier, M. 1955b. Pseudoscorpione im baltischen Bernstein aus dem Geologischen Staatsinsti- tut in Hamburg. Mitteilungen aus dem Mineralogisch-Geologischen Staatsinstitut in Hamburg, 24: 48-54.
Beier, M. 1956. Ein neuer Blothrus (Pseudoscorp.) aus Sardinien, und ueber zwei Pseudo- scorpione des westmediterranen Litorals. Fragmenta Entomologica, 2: 55-63.
Beier, M. 1961. Pseudoscorpione von den Azoren und Madeira. Boletim do Museu Municipal do Funchal, 14: 67-74.
Beier, M. 1963. Ordnung Pseudoscorpionidea (Afterskorpione). In: Bestimmungsbticher zur Bodenfauna Europas, vol. 1. vi, 313 pp. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
Callaini, G. 1988. Gli Pseudoscorpioni del Marocco. (Notulae Chernetologicae, X XVII). Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Genova, 87: 31-66.
Caporiacco, L. di. 1948. Troglohyphantes zorzii nuova specie cavernicola veronese e notizie su altri ragni cavernicoli veronesi. Memorie del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 1: 237-239.
Chamberlin, J.C. 1930. A synoptic classification of the false scorpions or chela-spinners, with a report on a cosmopolitan collection of the same. Part Hl. The Diplosphyronida (Arachnida-Chelonethida). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, (10)5: 1-48, 585-620.
Chamberlin, J.C. 1931. The arachnid order Chelonethida. Stanford University Publications,
_ Biological Sciences, 7(1): 1-284.
Curéi¢, B.P.M. 1972. Neobisium (Blothrus) stankovici, nouvelle espéce de pseudoscorpions cavernicoles de la Serbie orientale. Fragmenta Balcanica, 9: 85—96.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 51
Curéié, B.P.M. 1984. The genus Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones, Arachnida): on new species from the USSR and the taxonomy of its subgenera. Glasnik Muzeja Srpske Zemlje, Beograd (B), 39: 124-153.
Curtié, B.P.M. 1988. Cave-dwelling pseudoscorpions of the Dinaric karst. 192 pp. Slovenska Akademija Znanosti in Umetnosti, Ljubljana.
Curéié, B.P.M., Dimitrijevicé, R.N. & Legakis, A. 2004. The pseudoscorpions of Serbia, Montenegro, and the Republic of Macedonia. 400 pp. Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, Belgrade & Athens.
Delfosse, E. 2003. Catalogue préliminaire des Pseudoscorpions de France métropolitaine (Arachnida Pseudoscorpiones). Bulletin de Phyllie, 17: 24-48.
Dimitrijevi¢é, R.N. 2004. Postembryonic development and polymorphism in some pseudo- scorpions from the families Chthoniidae and Neobisiidae (Pseudoscorpiones, Arachnida). Monographs, Institute of Zoology, Faculty of Biology, University of Belgrade, 10: 1-146.
Dimitrijevi¢é, R.N. 2009. Neobisium bozidarcurcici (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones), a new endemic cave pseudoscorpion from Montenegro. Archives of Biological Sciences, Belgrade, 61: 323-328.
Duchaé, V. 1996. Uber Neobisium (Blothrus) slovacum (Pseudoscorpiones: Neobisiidae) aus der Brzotin — Hohle in der Slowakischen Republik. Klapalekiana, 32: 153-157.
Gardini, G. 2000. Catalogo degli Pseudoscorpioni d’Italia (Arachnida). Fragmenta Entomo- logica, 32, Supplemento: 1-181.
Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abrégée des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris; dans laquelle ces animaux sont rangés suivant un ordre méthodique, vol. 2. Durand, Paris. Gulitka, J. 1977. Neobisium (Blothrus) slovacum sp. n., eine neue Art des blinden Hohlenafterskorpions aus der Slowakei (Pseudoscorpionida). Annotationes Zoologicae et
Botanicae, 117: 1-9. ;
Hadzi, J. 1940. Eine neue Art von Hohlen-Pseudoskorpioniden aus Siidserbien. Neobisium (Blothrus) ohridanum sp. n. Glasnik Skopskog Naucnog Drustva, 22: 129-135.
Harvey, M.S. 1985. The priority of Blothrus Schiddte, 1847, over Neobisium Chamberlin, 1930 (Neobistidae: Pseudoscorpionida). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 6: 367-368.
Harvey, M.S. 1991. Catalogue of the Pseudoscorpionida. vi, 726 pp. Manchester University Press, Manchester.
Harvey, M.S. 2009a. Order Pseudoscorpiones in Bisby, F.A., Roskov, Y.R., Orrell, T.M. et al. (Eds.), Species 2000 & ITIS Catalogue of Life: 2009 Annual Checklist, Reading, U.K. (Accessed on 13 August 2010).
Harvey, M.S. 2009b. Pseudoscorpions of the World, version 1.2. Western Australian Museum, Perth. http://www.museum.wa.gov.au/arachnids/pseudoscorpions/. Accessed on 13 August 2010.
Harvey, M.S. 2010. Fauna Europaea: order Pseudoscorpiones. Fauna Europaea version 2.2. http://www.faunaeur.org. Accessed on 13 August 2010.
Hermann, J.F. 1804. Mémoire aptérologique. 144 pp. F.G. Levrault, Strasbourg.
Henderickx, H. 1999. Naamlijst van de Belgische pseudoschorpioenen (Arachnida Pseudo- scorpionida). Bulletin de la Societe Royale Belge d’Entomologie, 135: 66-71.
Heurtault-Rossi, J. 1966. Description d’une nouvelle espéce: Neobisium (N.) caporiaccoi (Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae) de la Province de Belluno, en Italie. Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)38: 606-628.
Heurtault, J. 1968. Une nouvelle espéce de pseudoscorpion du Gard: Neobisium (N.) vachoni (Neobisiidae). Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)40: 315-319.
Heurtault, J. 1971. Une nouvelle espéce cavernicole de Suisse Neobisium (N.) helveticum (Arachnide, Pseudoscorpion, Neobisiidae). Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 78: 903-907.
Heurtault, J. 1990. Les Pseudoscorpions d’Algérie de la collection Biospeologica. Mémoires de Biospéologie, 17: 197-202.
Heurtault, J. 1994. Pseudoscorpions. In Juberthie, C. & Decu, V. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia biospeologica, vol. 1. Pp. 185-196. Société de Biospeologie, Moulis & Bucarest.
Illiger, J.K.W. 1798. Verzeichniss der Kafer Preussens. J.J. Bauer, Halle.
Sy Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Jones, P.E. 1980. Provisional atlas of the Arachnida of the British Isles. Part 1. Pseudoscorpi- ones. 27 pp. Institute of Terrestrial Ecology, Monks Wood.
Judson, M.L.I. 1992. Roncocreagris murphyorum n. sp. and Occitanobisium nanum (Beier) n. comb. (Neobisiidae) from Iberia, with notes on the sternal glands of pseudoscorpions (Chelonethi). Bulletin of the British Arachnological Society, 9: 26-30.
Judson, M.L.I. 1997. Catalogue of the pseudoscorpion types (Arachnida: Chelonethi) in the Natural History Museum, London. Occasional Papers on Systematic Entomology, 11: 1—S4.
Judson, M.L.I. 2003. Baltic amber pseudoscorpions (Arachnida, Chelonethi): a new species of Neobisium (Neobisiidae) and the status of Obisium rathkii Koch & Berendt. Geodiversitas, 25: 445-450.
Karpathegyi, P. 2007. Check list of the Hungarian Pseudoscorpiones. Folia Historico Naturalia Musei Matraensis, 31: 91-97.
Kempe, St., Hubrich, H.-P. & Suckstorff, K. 2006. The history of Postojnska Jama: The 1748 Joseph Nagel inscription in Jama near Predjama and Postojnska Jama. Acta Carsologica, 35: 155-162.
Kew, H.W. 1911. A synopsis of the false scorpions of Britain and Ireland. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy (B), 29: 38-64.
Krumpal, M. 1983. Neobisium (N.) vilcekii sp. n., ein neuer Pseudoscorpion aus der USSR (Neobisiidae, Pseudoscorpiones). Uber Pseudoscorpioniden-Fauna der UdSSR IV. Biologia, 38: 607-612.
Kunt, K.B., Bayram, A., YaSmur, E.A. & Danisman, T. 2008. Checklist of the pseudoscorpions of Turkey (Pseudoscorpionida; Arachnida). Turkish Journal of Arachnology, 1: 70-84.
Lapschoff, II. 1940. Biospelogica Sovietica. V. [Die Hohlen-Pseudoscorpiones Transkau- kasiens]. Byulleten’ Moskovskogo Obshchestva Ispytatelei Prirody, Biologii, n.s., 49: 61-74.
Leach, W.E. 1817. The zoological miscellany; being descriptions of new or interesting animals, vol. 3. Nodder, London.
Leclerc, P. 1982. Une nouvelle espéce de Pseudoscorpion cavernicole de la Dréme: Neobisium (Blothrus) auberti (Pseudoscorpions, Arachnides). Revue Arachnologique, 4: 39-45. Leclerc, P. 1989. Neobisium (N.) atlasense nouvelle espéce de Neobisiidae cavernicole du
Maroc (Pseudoscorpions, Arachnides). Revue Arachnologique, 8: 45-51.
Legg, G. & Jones, R.E. 1988. Synopses of the British fauna (new series). 40. Pseudoscorpions (Arthropoda; Arachnida). 159 pp. Brill/Backhuys, Leiden.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lohmander, H. 1939. Zur Kenntnis der Pseudoskorpionfauna Schwedens. Entomologisk Tidskrift, 60: 279-323.
Mahnert, V. 1972. Neobisium (Blothrus) kwartirnikovi nov. spec. (Pseudoscorpionidea) aus Bulgarien. Archives des Sciences, Genéve, 24: 383-389.
Mahnert, V. 1981. Die Pseudoskorpione (Arachnida) Kenyas. I. Neobisiidae und Ideoronci- dae. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 88: 535-559.
Mahnert, V. 1988. Neobisium carcinoides (Hermann, 1804) (Pseudoscorpionida, Neobisiidae) — une espece polymorphe? Comptes Rendus X°”"’ Colloque Europeen Arachnologie. Bulletin de la Société de Sciences de Bretagne, 59: 161-174.
Mahnert, V. 2004. Die Pseudoskorpione Osterreichs (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones). Denisia, 12: 459-471.
Ozimec, R. 2004. List of Croatian pseudoscorpion fauna (Arachnida, Pseudoscorpiones). Natura Croatica, 13: 381-394.
Rafalski, J. 1937. Neobisium (Neobisium) polonicum nov. spec. Nowy gatunek zaleszczotka (Pseudoscorpionidea). Prace Komisji Matematyczano-Pryzyrodniczej, Poznanskie Towarzystwo Przyjaciol Nauk B, 8: 159-172.
Rafalski, J. 1967. Zaleszczotki. Pseudoscorpionidea. In Katalog Fauny Polski, vol. 32 (1). Pp. 1-34. Polska Akademia Nauk, Warszawa.
Redikorzey, V. 1949. [Pseudoscorpionidea of Central Asia]. Travaux de I’Institute de Zoologique de I’ Académie Sciences de !U.R.S.S., 8: 638-668.
Roewer, C.F. 1937. Chelonethi oder Pseudoskorpione in Bronns, H.G. (Ed.), Bronn’s Klassen und Ordnungen des Tierreichs, vol. 51V)(6)(1). Pp. 161-320. Akademische Verlagsgesells- chaft M.B.H., Leipzig.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 53
Schawaller, W. 1985a. Liste griechischer Neobisiidae mit neuen Hohlenfunden in Epirus, auf Samos und Kreta (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 386: 1-8.
Schawaller, W. 1985b. Pseudoskorpione aus der Sowjetunion (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 385: 1-12.
Schawaller, W. 1989. Pseudoskorpione aus der Sowjetunion, Teil 3 (Arachnida: Pseudo- scorpiones). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 440: 1-30.
Schawaller, W. & Dashdamirov, S. 1988. Pseudoskorpione aus dem Kaukasus, Teil 2 (Arachnida). Stuttgarter Beitrdge zur Naturkunde (A), 415: 1-51.
Schiddte, J.C. 1847. Underségelser over den underjordiske Fauna i Hulerne1 Krain og Istrien. Oversigt over det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskabs Forhandlingar, 6: 75-81.
Schiéddte, J.C. 185la. Bidrag til den underjordiske Fauna. Kongeligt Dansk Videnskabernes Selskabs Skrifter, Kjabenhavn, (5)2: 1-39.
Schiédte, J.C. 1851b. Specimen faunae subterraneae; being a contribution towards the subterranean fauna. Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, New Series, 1: 134-157.
Steup, B. 2006. Zur Morphologie von WNeobisium carcinoides (Hermann, 1804) aus Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (Arachnida: Cuelpngtay Archiv der Freunde der Naturges- chichte in Mecklenburg, 45: 93-111.
Sundevall, C.J. 1833. Conspectus arachnidum. 39 pp. C.F. Berling, Londini Gothorum.
Talvi, T. 2010. Puhtu ebaskorpionilised (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Estonia Maritima, 8: 127-132.
Tooren, D. van den. 2005. Naamlijst en determinatiesleutel tot de Pseudoschorpioenen van Neder- land (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Nederlandse Faunistische Mededelingen, 23: 91-102. Vachon, M. 1947. A propos de quelques Pseudoscorpions (Arachnides) des cavernes de France, avec description d’une espéce nouvelle: Neobisium (Blothrus) tuzeti. Bulletin du Muséum
National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)19: 318-321.
Vachon, M. 1966. Quelques remarques sur le genre Neobisium J.C. Chamberlin (Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae) 4 propos d’une espéce nouvelle Neobisium (N.) gineti, habitant les cavernes de l’est de la France. Bulletin du Muséum National d Histoire Naturelle, Paris, (2)37: 645-658.
Vachon, M. 1976. Quelques remarques sur les Pseudoscorpions (Arachnides) cavernicoles de la Suisse a propos de la description de deux espéces nouvelles: Neobisium (N.) aelleni et Neobisium (N.) strausaki. Revue Suisse de Zoologie, 83: 243-253.
Vachon, M. & Gabbutt, P.D. 1964. Sur l’utilisation des soies flagellaires chélicériennes dans la distinction des genres Neobisium J.C. Chamberlin et Roncus L. Koch (Arachnides, Pseudoscorpions, Neobisiidae). Importance d’une connaissance précise de la genése d’un caractére pour en déceler la valeur taxonomique. Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France, 89: 174-188.
Verner, P.H. 1958. Neobisium (Neobisium) crassifemoratum (Beier), ein neuer Pseudoskorpion fiir die Fauna der Tschechoslowakei. Acta Faunistica Entomologica Musei Nationalis Pragae, 3: 109-110.
Verner, P.H. 1960. Piispévek k poznani stirkii Ceskoslovenska. Vestnik Ceskoslovenské Zoologické Spolecnosti v Praze, 24: 167-169.
Verner, P.H. 1971. Stirci — Pseudoscorpionidea, Pp.19—-31 in Daniel, M. & Cerny, V. (Eds.), Klié Zvireny CSSR, vol. 4. Ceskoslovenka Akademie Véd, Praha.
Westwood, J.O. 1836. Cheliferidae in Partington, C.F. (Ed.), British cyclopaedia of natural history, vol. 2. P. 10. Orr & Smith, London.
Zaragoza, J.A. 2007. Catalogo de los Pseudoescorpiones de la Peninsula Ibérica e Islas Baleares (Arachnida: Pseudoscorpiones). Revista Ibérica de Aracnologia, 13: 3-91.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 198. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Case 3537
ATHETINI Casey, 1910 and GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978 (Insecta, Coleoptera, STAPHYLINIDAE, ALEOCHARINAE): proposed conservation
Vladimir I. Gusarov
National Center for Insect Biodiversity and National Center for Biosystematics, Natural History Museum, University of Oslo, PO Box 1172 Blindern, NO-031&8 Oslo, Norway (e-mail: vladimir.gusarov@nhm.uio.no)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the family-group names ATHETINI Casey, 1910 and GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978 for a group of rove beetles. The names are threatened by a little used senior synonym CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. The name ATHETINI Casey, 1910 has become widely accepted and is in prevailing usage. The names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 (Insecta, Diptera) are homonyms resulting from similarity of the names of their type genera, Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 and Callicera Panzer, 1809, respectively. This homonymy should be removed as required by Article 55.3.1 of the Code. It is proposed that the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 be suppressed.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Coleoptera; sTAPHYLINIDAE; ALEOCHARINAE; CALLICERINI; CALLICERINA; ATHETINI; ATHETINA; GEOSTIBINA; Callicerus; Atheta; Geo- stiba;, Callicerus obscurus; Atheta graminicola; Geostiba circellaris; Diptera; SYRPHIDAE; Callicera; Callicera aenea; rove beetles; Palaeacrtic.
1. Panzer (1809, p. 17) established the genus Callicera for a species of fly. The type species is Bibio aenea Fabricius, 1777 (p. 305), by monotypy.
2. Rondani (1845, p. 451) established the family-group name CALLICERINI (spelled as Calicerellae) at the rank of ‘linea’ for a group of syrphids, without listing any genera. Considering the stem of the name Calicerellae and Rondani’s subsequent publications (e.g. 1856, p. 55) it is clear that he based his family-group name on the genus Callicera Panzer, 1809.
3. The name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 is currently in use as a valid name for a tribe of syrphids (e.g. Sabrosky, 1999, p. 72; Rotheray & Gilbert, 1999, p. 4; Cheng et al., 2000, p. 147; Stahls et al., 2003, p. 436; Bartsch, 2009, p. 42).
4. Gravenhorst (1802, p. 65) established the genus Callicerus for a species of staphylinid beetle. The type species is Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802 (p. 66), by monotypy.
5. In a key to subfamilies and tribes of rove beetles, Jakobson (1908, p. 448) established the tribe CALLICERINI (spelled as Callicerina) without listing any genera included in that tribe. The 1908 publication is part 6 of a work published in eleven parts. In the next part of that work (part 7) Jakobson (1909, p. 537) used the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (spelled as Callicerina) as the valid name for the tribe MYRMEDONIINI Thomson, 1867 (p. 209), without explaining why he considered the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 55
senior name to be invalid. The name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 was overlooked by subsequent staphylinid researchers and was not used again until 1967.
6. Thomson (1858, p. 36) established the genus Atheta for a group of staphylinid beetles. The type species is Aleochara graminicola Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 176), by monotypy, as fixed by a ruling in Opinion 600 (BZN 18: 241-243, August 1961). The name Atheta Thomson, 1858 was placed on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology by a ruling in Opinion 600 (BZN 18: 241-243, August 1961).
7. Casey (1910, p. 2) established the tribe ATHETINI (spelled as Athetae) for the genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 and related genera of aleocharine staphylinids.
8. Thomson (1858, p. 33) established the rove beetle genus Geostiba. The type species by monotypy is Aleochara circellaris Gravenhorst, 1806 (p. 155), fixed by a ruling in Opinion 2098 (BZN 62: 43-44, March 2005). The name Geostiba Thomson, 1858 was placed on the Official List of Generic names in Zoology by a ruling in Opinion 2098 (BZN 62: 43-44, March 2005).
8. Seevers (1978, p. 126) established the subtribe GEosTIBINA for Geostiba Thomson, 1858 and six additional genera of aleocharine staphylinids.
9. The name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 is a junior homonym of the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, as a result of similarity between the names of their type genera, Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 and Callicera Panzer, 1809, respectively. The senior name is a valid name currently in use, and therefore Article 55.3.1.1 does not apply. According to Article 55.3.1 the case must be referred to the Commission for a ruling to remove the homonymy. Considering that the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 is the senior homonym and valid name currently in use, an emendation of spelling of the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 would not promote the stability of nomenclature and should be avoided. Whatever course of action is taken, it should focus on the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. In order to propose a solution promoting the stability of the rove beetle nomenclature, the recent use of the family-group names ATHETINI, CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 and GEOSTIBINA must be examined, because the names ATHETINI and CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 are usually treated as synonyms at the rank of tribe (but not subtribe), while CALLICERINA Jakobson, 1908 and GEosTIBINA have been treated as synonyms at the rank of subtribe (see 14 and 15).
10. Horion (1967, pp. iii, 220) used the tribe name CALLICERINI (cited ‘sensu Lohse 1. 1. 1966’) without referring to Jakobson’s earlier use of that name (Jakobson, 1908, 1909), but without explicitly introducing the name as new either. Horion was aware of Jakobson’s works (1908, 1909) and listed them in references. As interpreted by Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) Horion introduced a new name CALLICERINI Horion, 1967. An alternative interpretation could be that Horion used the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908. According to the list of references in Horion’s work, ‘Lohse i. 1. 1966’ is the manuscript of the work which was scheduled to be published in 1969, and was in fact published in 1974 (Lohse, 1974; Benick & Lohse, 1974).
11. Lohse (1969, pp. 173, 174, 175) used the name CALLICERINI for a tribe accommodating most of the Central European genera formerly placed in MYRMEDO- NIINI Thomson, 1867. He argued that CALLICERINI and not ATHETINI should be used as the valid name for the tribe, because Callicerus is the oldest genus name in that tribe. This line of argument is not justified by the Code. Lohse (1969) did not refer to Jakobson’s (1908, 1909) or Horion’s (1967) earlier use of the name CALLICERINI, nor
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
did he explicitly introduce the name CALLICERINI as new. As interpreted by Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) Lohse introduced a new name CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969. An alternative interpretation could be that Lohse used the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 or CALLICERINI Horion, 1967.
12. In a part of the work referred to by Horion (1967) as ‘Lohse 1966 i. 1.’, Benick & Lohse (1974, p. 72) used the tribe name CALLICERINI as valid and ATHETINI (spelled as Athetae) as its invalid synonym, without providing any explanation for this decision. The work by Benick & Lohse (1974) is widely used, as it contains the most complete and up-to-date keys to Central European genera and species of the tribe. Immediately after the publication of that work, the tribe name CALLICERINI began to be frequently used as valid. This practice continued until 1990-1991, when most taxonomists switched to using ATHETINI as the valid name for the tribe (see 14).
13. Newton & Thayer (1992) drew attention to homonymy of the names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (Coleoptera) and CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845 (Diptera), pointing out that the case must be referred to the Commission and suggesting that the Commission could either suppress the junior name or change the stem of one homonym. Newton & Thayer (1992) further demonstrated that suppression or non-suppression of the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 might affect the validity of the much more widely used family-group name ATHETINI Casey, 1910, and argued that for rove beetles the relative merit of the two alternative solutions to the problem posed by the homonymy depends on the taxonomic situation within the group. They left it to the specialists in aleocharine rove beetles to submit an appropriate application to the Commission.
14. At the rank of tribe the names CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 and ATHETINI have always been treated as synonyms, whether explicitly (e.g. by listing both names as synonyms) or implicitly (e.g. by listing the type genus of one of the two tribes as a member of the other). After the use of the rove beetle name CALLICERINI had been resumed by Horion (1967), Lohse (1969) and Benick & Lohse (1974), it was used as a valid tribe name in at least 37 papers by at least 10 authors during the period between 1975 and 2010 (e.g. Kistner, 1976, p. 83; Yosii & Sawada, 1976, p. 12; Muona, 1979, p. 23; Pace, 1982, p. 75; 1991, p..136;' Kofler & Benick; (1983, p: 146; Haghebaert, 1990, p. 91; Stourac & Krasensky, 2002, p. 263; a full list has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat). In three additional papers (Lohse, 1989, p. 199; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87) it was used as a valid subtribe but not tribe name. During the same period of time, the name ATHETINI was used as valid tribe name in at least 93 papers by at least 22 authors (in fact, many more) (e.g. Pace, 1983a, p. 185; 1993, p. 72; 2009, p. 26; Lohse & Smetana, 1985, p. 281; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Ahn & Ashe, 1992, p. 347; Assing, 2001, p. 252; Gusarov, 2004, p. 14; a full list has been submitted to the Commission Secretariat). Further, after 1991 the name CALLICERINI was used as valid only in 2 papers by 3 authors, while the name ATHETINI was used as the valid tribe name in at least 89 papers by 21 authors, including the widely used Palaearctic catalogue (Smetana, 2004, p. 362). This means that the stability of nomenclature will be better served by suppressing the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908, than by simply emending it to remove the homonymy with the name CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845. If the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 were emended, it would become the oldest available
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 57
name for the tribe, and the much more widely used name ATHETINI would become invalid.
15. In the very few cases (6 papers by 11 authors) where the name CALLICERINA Jakobson, 1908 was used at the rank of subtribe, whether as valid (Muona, 1979, p. 23; Pace, 1985b, p. 170 (spelled as Callicerinae); Lohse, 1989, p. 199; Lohse et al., 1990, p. 123; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87), or invalid (Newton & Thayer, 1992, p. 47), it was always treated as a subtribe separate from ATHETINA. Therefore, a name for the subtribe that includes the genus Callicerus but not Atheta is still needed. As pointed out by Newton & Thayer (1992, p. 47) another available name exists for this subtribe, GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978. Several papers suggest (e.g. Yosii & Sawada, 1976; Muona, 1979) that the genera Callicerus and Geostiba are related, and it is highly unlikely that they will ever be placed in different subtribes. That means that the family-group name that includes Callicerus, but not Geostiba, will not be needed. At the rank of subtribe, the name GEOSTIBINA has been used as valid name in 9 papers by 11 authors (Seevers, 1978, p. 126; Pace 1983b, p. 97; 1984a, p. 316; 1984b, p. 215; 1985a, p. 98; Newton & Thayer, 1992, p. 47; Newton et al., 2000, p. 370; Gouix & Klimaszewski, 2007, p. 97; Elven et al., 2010, p. 87). Considering the history of usage of CALLICERINA and GEOSTIBINA, the stability of nomenclature will be better served if the name CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 is suppressed altogether, rather than emended to remove homonymy with CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, even with the endorsement that CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 is not to be given priority over the family-group name ATHETINI Casey, 1910.
16. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to suppress for the purposes of both the Principle of
Priority and the Principle of Homonymy the following names:
(a) CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908;
(b) CALLICERINI Horion, 1967;
(Cc) CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) Callicera Panzer, 1809 (gender: feminine), type species by monotypy Bibio aenea Fabricius, 1777;
(b) Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) aenea Fabricius, 1777, as published in the binomen Bibio aenea Fabricius, 1777 (specific name of the type species of Callicera Panzer, 1809);
(b) obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802, as published in the binomen Callicerus obscurus Gravenhorst, 1802 (specific name of the type species of Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845, type genus Callicera Panzer, 1809 (Insecta, Diptera);
(b) ATHETINI Casey, 1910, type genus Atheta Thomson, 1858 (Insecta, Cole- optera);
58 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
(Cc) GEOSTIBINA Seevers, 1978, type genus Geostiba Thomson, 1858 (Insecta,
Coleoptera); (5) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) CALLICERINI Jakobson, 1908 (junior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845), as suppressed in (1) (a) above;
(b) CALLICERINI Horion, 1967 (junior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845), as suppressed in (1) (b) above;
(c) CALLICERINI Lohse, 1969 Gunior homonym of CALLICERINI Rondani, 1845), as suppressed in (1) (c) above.
Acknowledgements
I am greatly indebted to Al Newton, Volker Assing, Chris Thompson and Thomas Pape for comments on a draft of this petition, and to Alexey Solodovnikov for his help in obtaining some references. I am grateful to an anonymous Commissioner for reviewing the manuscript.
References
Ahn, K-J. & Ashe J.S. 1992. Revision of the intertidal aleocharine genus Pontomalota Casey (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) with a discussion of its phylogenetic relationships. Entomologica Scandinavica, 23: 347-359.
Assing, V. 2001. A revision of Callicerus Gravenhorst, 1802, Pseuwdosemiris Machulka, 1935, and Saphocallus Sharp, 1888 (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae, Athetini). Beitrdge zur Entomologie, 51(2): 247-334.
Bartsch, H. 2009. Tvdvingar: Blomflugor. Diptera: Syrphidae: Eristalinae & Microdontinae. Nationalnyckeln till Sveriges flora och fauna. 478 pp. Artdatabanken, Uppsala.
Benick, G. & Lohse, G.A. 1974. 14. Tribus: Callicerini (Athetae). Pp. 72-220 in Freude, H.., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT (Hypocyphtinae und Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld.
Casey, T.L. 1910. New species of the staphylinid tribe Myrmedoniini. Memoirs on the Coleoptera I. Pp.1-183. The New Era Printing Company, Lancaster.
Cheng, X., Lii, J, Huang, C., Zhou, H., Dai, Z & Zhang, G. 2000. Determination of phylogenetic position of Pipizini (Diptera: Syrphidae): based on molecular biological and morphological data. Science in China (Series C), 43(2): 146-156.
Elven, H., Bachmann, L. & Gusarov, V.I. 2010. Phylogeny of the tribe Athetini (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) inferred from mitochondrial and nuclear sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 37: 84-100.
Fabricius, J.C. 1777. Genera insectorum: eorumque characteres naturales secundam numerum, figuram, situm et proportionem, omnium partium oris adiecta mantissa specierum nuper detectarum. (xvi), 310 pp. Litteris Mich. Friedr. Bartschii, Chilonii [= Kiel].
Gouix, N. & Klimaszewski, J. 2007. Catalogue of aleocharine rove beetles of Canada and Alaska (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). 165 pp. Pensoft, Sofia & Moscow.
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1802. Coleoptera Microptera Brunsvicensia nec non Exoticorum quotquot exstant in collectionibus Entomologorum Brunsvicensium. \xvi, 207 pp. C. Reichard, Brunswick.
Gravenhorst, J.L.C. 1806. Monographia Coleopterorum Micropterorum. xvi, 248 pp. Henrich Dieterich, Gottingen.
Gusaroy, V.I. 2004. A revision of the genus Lypoglossa Fenyes, 1918 (Coleoptera: Staphylini- dae: Aleocharinae). Zootaxa, 747: 1-36.
Haghebaert, G. 1990. Plataraea verbekei sp. n., a new Callicerini from Romania (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae, Aleocharinae). Bulletin et Annales de la Société Royale Belge d Entomologie, 126: 91-93.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 oo
Horion, A. 1967. Faunistik der Mitteleuropdischen Kafer. Band XI: Staphylinidae. 3. Teil: Habrocerinae bis Aleocharinae (ohne Subtribus Athetae). xxiv, 419 pp. Uberlingen- Bodensee.
Jakobson, G.G. 1908. Zhuki Rossii i Zapadnoi Yevropy. Rukovodstvo k opredeleniyu zhukoyv. Vypusk 6. Pp. 401-480, pls. 29, 34, 43, 47-51. A.F. Devrien, Sankt-Peterburg.
Jakobson, G.G. 1909. Zhuki Rossii i Zapadnoi Yevropy. Rukovodstvo k opredeleniyu zhukov. Vypusk 7. Pp. 481-560, pls. 52, 54-58, 60, 61. A.F. Devrien, Sankt-Peterburg.
Kistner, D.H. 1976. Revision and reclassification of the genus Goniusa Casey with a larval description and ant host records (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Sociobiology, 2(1): 83-95.
Kofler, A. & Benick G. 1983. Sechster Beitrag zur Kaferfauna des Lechtales (Tirol, Osterreich) (Insecta: Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Berichte des Naturwissenschaftlich-Medizinischen Vereins in Innsbruck, 70: 145-154.
Lohse, G.A. 1969. Vorschlage zur Anderung der Aleocharinensystematik (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Pp. 169-175 in Bericht tiber die 10. Wanderversammlung deutscher Entomologen, 15. bis 19. September 1965 in Dresden. Deutsche Akademie der Landwirt- schaftswissenschaften zu Berlin, Berlin.
Lohse, G.A. 1974. 22. U.F.: Aleocharinae. Pp. 11-304 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A. (Eds.), Die Kafer Mitteleuropas. Band 5, Staphylinidae IT (Hypocyphtinae und Aleocharinae). Pselaphidae. Goecke & Evers Verlag, Krefeld.
Lohse, G.A. 1989. Erganzungen und Berichtigungen zu Freude-Harde-Lohse ‘Die Kafer Mitteleuropas’ Band 5 (1974). Pp. 185-243 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W.H. Die Kéfer Mitteleuropas. 1. Supplementband mit Katalogteil. Goecke & Evers, Krefeld.
Lohse, G.A., Klimaszewski, J. & Smetana, A. 1990. Revision of Arctic Aleocharinae of North America (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 44(2): 121-202.
Lohse, G.A. & Smetana, A. 1985. Revision of the types of species of Oxypodini and Athetini (sensu Seevers) described by Mannerheim and Maklin from North America (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). The Coleopterists Bulletin, 39(3): 281-300.
Muona, J. 1979. Staphylinidae. Pp. 14-28 in Silfverberg, H. Enumeratio Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae. Helsingin Hy6nteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.
Newton. A.F. & Thayer, M.K. 1992. Current classification and family-group names in Staphyliniformia (Coleoptera). Fieldiana: Zoology, New Series, 67: i-iv, 1-92 pp.
Newton, A.F., Thayer, M.K., Ashe, J.S. & Chandler, D.S. 2000. Staphylinidae Latreille, 1802. Pp. 272-418 in Arnett, R.H. & Thomas, M.C. (Eds.), American beetles. Vol. 1. Archostemata, Myxophaga, Adephaga, Polyphaga: Staphyliniformia. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.
Pace, R. 1982. Studio su alcune specie iberische e magrebine di Atheta del sottogenere Microdota Muls. & Rey (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Giornale Italiano di Entomologia, 1: 73-83.
Pace, R. 1983a. Il genere Tropimenelytron Scheerpeltz (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Nowvelle Revue d’Entomologie, 13(2): 185-190.
Pace, R. 1983b. Aleocharinae orofile del Venezuela raccolte dal prof. Franz. I. Bolitocharinae & Callicerini Geostibae (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Bollettino della Societa Entomologica Italiana, Genova, 115(4—7): 91-102.
Pace, R. 1984a. Aleocharinae dell’Himalaya. LI. Contributo alla conoscenza delle Aleochari- nae (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Annales de la Société Entomologique de France (N.S. ), 20(3): 309-339.
Pace, R. 1984b. Nuove Aleocharinae microftalme mediterranee e dell’Iran, del Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle di Ginevra (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Archives des Sciences (Genéve), 37(2): 211-219.
Pace, R. 1985a. Aleocharinae riportate dall’Himalaya dal Prof. Franz. Parte I. (Coleoptera Staphylinidae). Nouvelle Revue d’Entomologie (N. S.), 2(1): 91-105.
Pace, R. 1985b. Aleocharinae dell’Himalaya raccolte da Guillaume de Rougemont (Coleop- tera Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 12: 165-191.
Pace, R. 1991. Aleocharinae dello Yemen (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 15: 125—150.
60 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Pace, R. 1993. Aleocharinae della Cina (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, 17 [1990]: 69-126.
Pace, R. 2009. Aleocharinae del Cile raccolte dal Dr P.M. Giachino (Coleoptera, Staphylini- dae). Lavori — Societa Veneziana di Scienze Naturali, 34: 25-32.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1809. Faunae insectorum Germanicae initiae oder Deutschlands Insecten. Heft 104. 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Nurnberg.
Rondani, C. 1845. Ordinamento sistematico dei generi italiani degli insetti ditter1. Nuovi Annali delle Scienze Naturali, Bologna, (2)2 [1844]: 443-459.
Rondani, C. 1856. Dipterologiae Italicae prodromus, vol. 1. 228 pp. A. Stoschi, Parma.
Rotheray, G. & Gilbert, F. 1999. Phylogeny of Palaearctic Syrphidae (Diptera): evidence from larval stages. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127: 1-112.
Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names in Diptera. Myia, 10: 2-360.
Seevers, C.H. 1978. A generic and tribal revision of the North American Aleocharinae (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae). Fieldiana: Zoology, 71: i—vi, 1-275.
Smetana, A. 2004. Subfamily Aleocharinae Fleming, 1821. Pp. 353-494 in Lobl, I. & Smetana, A. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Coleoptera, vol. 2. Hydrophyloidea—Histeroidea— Staphylinoidea. Apollo Books, Stenstrup.
Stourac, P. & Krasensky, P. 2002. Faunistic records from the Czech Republic — 156. Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Omaliinae: Omaliini, Oxytelinae: Oxytelini, Staphylininae: Staphylinini, Tachyporinae: Tachyporini, Aleocharinae: Homalotini, Aleocharinae: Bolitocharini, Aleocharinae: Callicerini. Klapalekiana, 38(3—4): 263-265.
Stahls, G., Hippa, H., Rotherau, G., Muona, J & Gilbert, F. 2003. Phylogeny of Syrphidae (Diptera) inferred from combined analysis of molecular and morphological characters. Systematic Entomology, 28: 433-450.
Thomson, C.G. 1858. Férsdk till uppstallning af Sveriges Staphyliner. Ofversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Forhandlingar, 15: 27-40.
Thomson, C.G. 1867. Skandinaviens Coleoptera, synoptiskt bearbetade, vol. 9. 408 pp. Lundbergska Boktryckeriet, Lund.
Yosii, R. & Sawada, K. 1976. Studies on the genus Atheta Thomson and its allies (Coleoptera, Staphylinidae). II: Diagnostic characters of genera and subgenera with description of representative species. Contributions from the Biological Laboratory, Kyoto University, 25(1): 11-140.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 61
Case 3539
Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Senometopia Macquart, 1834 and Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (Insecta, Diptera, TACHINIDAE): proposed conservation of usage
James E. O’Hara
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 960 Carling Avenue, K.W. Neatby Building, Ottawa, Ontario, K]1A 0C6, Canada (e-mail: james.ohara@agr.gc.ca)
Neal L. Evenhuis
J. Linsley Gressitt Center for Entomological Research, Bishop Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704, U.S.A. (e-mail: NealE@bishopmuseum.org)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 70.2 of the Code, is to conserve the current usage of the names Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Senometopia Macquart, 1834 and Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 for three well- established genera of tachinid flies. The type species of Sturmia has long been assumed to be Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and the type species of Senometopia Macquart, 1834 has long been assumed to be Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. However, the correct type species for both Sturmia and Senometopia is Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, which is currently recognised as a valid species of Drino. Acceptance of S. atropivora as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia would change the current concept of those genera to that of Drino, and the names of the current genera Sturmia and Senometopia would change to those of the next available genus-group names. To avoid the nomenclatural instability that would result from following the Principle of Priority, it is proposed that all type fixations for Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 prior to that of Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863) be set aside, along with all type fixations for Senometopia Macquart, 1834 prior to that of Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Townsend (1916).
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; TACHINIDAE; Sturmia; Senometopia; Drino; Sturmia vanessae; Carcelia aurifrons; Sturmia atropivora; tachinid flies; cosmopolitan.
1. Robineau-Desvoidy (1830, p. 171) proposed the genus Sturmia for four new species: S. atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, S. floricola Robineau-Desvoidy, S. concolor Robineau-Desvoidy and S. vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy. A type species was not designated.
2. Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848, p. 77) designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Sturmia. This designation was overlooked by subsequent authors until relatively recently.
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
3. Robineau-Desvoidy (1863, p. 888) designated Sturmia vanessae Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Sturmia. The universally-accepted concept of Sturmia is based on this type species designation. Sturmia vanessae is currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Tachina bella Meigen, 1824; the accepted valid name of this taxon is Sturmia bella.
4. Macquart (1834, p. 296) proposed the genus Senometopia for 17 previously described species, including S. atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. A type species was not designated.
5. Stephens in Richardson (1838, p. 478) designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau- Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Senometopia. As with Sturmia, this designation was overlooked by subsequent authors until relatively recently.
6. Townsend (1916, p. 8) designated Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 as the type species of Senometopia. The universally accepted concept of Senometopia is based on this type species designation. Carcelia aurifrons is currently treated as a junior subjective synonym of Tachina excisa Fallén, 1820; the accepted valid name of this taxon is Senometopia excisa.
7. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 238) discovered the overlooked type species designation for Sturmia by Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848). They suggested that ‘Application to I.C.Z.N. for suppression of Desmarest’s designation may be neces- sary to maintain stability of taxonomy and usage’ (p. 238). More recently, O’Hara et al. (2009, p. 118) and Evenhuis et al. (2010, p. 154) called attention to Desmarest’s designation and noted that an application to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature was in preparation to suppress any type designations for Sturmia prior to the one by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863, p. 888). This present application is the one alluded to by O’Hara et al. (2009) and Evenhuis et al. (2010).
8. Evenhuis & Thompson (1990, p. 237) discovered an overlooked type species designation for Senometopia of Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848) and suggested that the designation be suppressed in favor of Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830. An earlier type species designation for Senometopia than the one by Desmarest has since been discovered (Evenhuis 2010): that of Stephens in Richardson (1838, p. 478) who similarly designated Sturmia atropivora Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830.
9. Nomenclatural instability would result from the adoption of Sturmia atropivora as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia, as designated by Desmarest in d’Orbigny (1848) and Stephens in Richardson (1838), respectively. Sturmia atropivora is currently treated as a valid species of Drino Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 (e.g. Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993; O’Hara et al., 2009). Acceptance of S. atropivora as the type species of Sturmia and Senometopia would result in the names Sturmia, Senometopia and Drino becoming subjective synonyms, with Sturmia having priority over the other two. The genus currently known as Drino would take the name Sturmia (with Drino in subjective synonymy). The genus currently known as Sturmia would take the name Oodigaster Macquart, 1854 (the next available genus-group name for an included species; the type species of Oodigaster was recently fixed as Tachina bella Meigen, 1824 by O’Hara et al. (2009) under Article 70.3.2 of the Code). The genus currently known as Senometopia would take the name Stenometopia Agassiz, 1846 (an unjustified emendation of Senometopia and the next available genus-group name).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 63
10. Regional catalogues of Diptera record Drino (ExORISTINAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1963, ERYCIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 [relative precedence of family-group names protected by Article 35.5 of the Code]; including subgenera Zygobothria Mik, 1891 and Palexorista Townsend, 1921, both commonly treated as separate genera prior to the 1990s) as a cosmopolitan genus with about 125 species; Sturmia (EXORISTINAE, GONIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830; prior to the 1990s commonly classified in the STURMIINI Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863) is recorded as a widely distributed genus in the Old World with 11 species; and Senometopia (EXORISTINAE, ERYCIINI; prior to the 1990s commonly placed as a subgenus of Carcelia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) is also recorded as a widely distributed genus in the Old World with about 60 species (e.g. Crosskey, 1977, 1980; Cantrell & Crosskey, 1989; Herting & Dely-Draskovits, 1993; O’Hara & Wood, 2004; O’Hara et al., 2009; [Guimaraes (1971) recorded Sturmia from the Neotropical Region in error]). Switching the name of the genus Drino to Sturmia would cause substantial confusion in the tachinid literature. Furthermore, the concept of the former sTURMIINI would be changed. The name sTURMIINI is currently regarded as a subjective synonym of GoNIINI, but acceptance of Desmarest’s type species designation for Sturmia would place it in subjective synonymy with ERYCIINI (the latter name having priority; Sabrosky, 1999, pp. 130, 293).
11. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal genus Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 before that of Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Robineau-Desvoidy (1863);
(2) to use its plenary power to set aside all type species fixations for the nominal genus Senometopia Macquart, 1834 before that of Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 by Townsend (1916);
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type species
Sturmia vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as ruled in (1) above; (b) Senometopia Macquart, 1834 (gender: feminine), type species Carcelia aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as ruled in (2) above; (4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) vanessae Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Sturmia vanessae (specific name of the type species of Sturmia Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830);
(b) aurifrons Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, as published in the binomen Carcelia aurifrons (specific name of the type species of Senometopia Macquart, 1834).
References
Agassiz, L. 1846. Nomenclatoris zoologici index universalis, continens nomina systematica classium, ordinum, familiarum et generum animalium omnium, tam viventium quam fossilium, secundum ordinem alphabeticum unicum disposita, adjectis homonymiis plantarum, nec non variis adnotationibus et emendationibus. [= Fasc. XII]. viii, 393 pp. Jent & Gassman, Soloduri [= Solothurn, Switzerland].
Cantrell, B.K. & Crosskey, R.W. 1989. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 733-784. In Evenhuis, N.L. (Ed.), Catalog of the Diptera of the Australasian and Oceanian Regions. Bishop Museum Special Publication 86. 1155 pp. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu & E.J. Brill, Leiden.
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Crosskey, R.W. 1977. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 586-697. In Delfinado, M.D. & Hardy, D.E. (Eds.), A Catalog of the Diptera of the Oriental Region. Volume III. Suborder Cyclor- rphapha (excluding Division Aschiza). 854 pp. University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.
Crosskey, R.W. 1980. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 822-882. In Crosskey, R.W. (Ed.), Catalogue of the Diptera of the Afrotropical Region. 1437 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.
Evenhuis, N.L. 2010. Type designations of Diptera (Insecta) in the Encyclopaedia Metro- politana. Zootaxa, 2653: 37-50.
Evenhuis, N.L., O’Hara, J.E., Pape, T. & Pont, A.C. 2010. Nomenclatural studies toward a world list of Diptera genus-group names. Part I: André-Jean-Baptiste Robineau- Desvoidy. Zootaxa, 2373: 1-265.
Evenhuis, N.L. & Thompson, F.C. 1990. Type designations of genus-group names of Diptera given in d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle. Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 30: 226-258.
Guimaraes, J.H. 1971. Family Tachinidae (Larvaevoridae). A catalogue of the Diptera of the Americas south of the United States, 104: 1-333.
Herting, B. & Dely-Draskovits, A. 1993. Family Tachinidae. Pp. 118-458 in Soés, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera. Volume 13. Anthomyiidae — Tachinidae. 624 pp. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest.
Macquart, J. 1834. Insectes diptéres du nord de la France. Tome V. Athéricéres: créophiles, oestrides, myopaires, conopsaires, scénopiniens, céphalopsides. 232 pp., 6 pls. L. Danel, Lille.
Macquart, J. 1854. Nouvelles observations sur les diptéres d’Europe de la tribu des tachinaires. (Suite.) Annales de la Société Entomologique de France, (3)2: 373-446, pls. 13-15.
Mik, J. 1891. Dipterologische Miscellen. XIX. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 10: 189-194.
O’Hara, J.E., Shima, H. & Zhang, C.-t. 2009. Annotated catalogue of the Tachinidae (Insecta: Diptera) of China. Zootaxa, 2190: 1-236.
O’Hara, J.E. & Wood, D.M. 2004. Catalogue of the Tachinidae (Diptera) of America north of Mexico. Memoirs on Entomology, International, 18: iv, 410 pp.
Orbigny, C.V.D. d’. (Ed.). 1848. [Livraison 134], pp. 65-128. Dictionnaire universel @histoire naturelle résumant et complétant.... Tome douziéme. 816 pp. C. Renard, Paris.
Richardson, C. 1838. [Lexicon] in Smedley, E., Rose, H[ugh].J. & Rose, H[enry].J., (Eds.), Encyclopaedia metropolitana; or, universal dictionary of knowledge, on an original plan: comprising the twofold advantage of a philosophical and an alphabetical arrangement, with appropriate engravings. Volume XXIV. [Miscellaneous & lexicographical, Vol. 11]. 864 pp. B. Fellowes, F. & J. Rivington, Duncan & Malcolm, Suttaby & Co., E. Hodgson, J. Dowding, G. Lawford, J.M. Richardson, J. Bohn, T. Allman, J. Bain, S. Hodgson, F.C. Westley, L.A. Lewis, T. Hodges, H. Washbourne, London; J.H. Parker, T. Laycock, Oxford; J. & J.J. Deighton, Cambridge.
Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B. 1830. Essai sur les myodaires. Mémoires présentés par divers savants a l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l'Institut de France. Sciences Mathématiques et Physiques, (2)2: 1-813.
Robineau-Desvoidy, J.B. 1863. Histoire naturelle des diptéres des environs de Paris. Tome premier. xvi, 1143 pp. V. Masson et fils, Paris, F. Wagner, Leipzig, and Williams & Norgate, London.
Sabrosky, C.W. 1999. Family-group names in Diptera. An annotated catalog. Myia, 10: 1-360.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1916. Designations of muscoid genotypes, with new genera and species. Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 4: 4-12.
Townsend, C.H.T. 1921. Some new muscoid genera ancient and recent. Insecutor Inscitiae Menstruus, 9: 132-134.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 65
Case 3542
Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (Hymenoptera, CEPHIDAE): proposed precedence over Astatus Panzer, [1801]
Stephan M. Blank and Andreas Taeger
Senckenberg Deutsches Entomologisches Institut, Eberswalder Str. 90, 15374 Mtincheberg, Germany (e-mail: Stephan.Blank@senckenberg.de; Andreas. Taeger@senckenberg.de)
Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conserve the widely used genus name TJrachelus Jurine, 1807 in its accustomed usage. The name Trachelus is threatened by its senior synonym Astatus Panzer, [1801]. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would also involve the recombination with a new genus name for the ‘black grain stem sawfly’, Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775), which is a pest of cereals in the southern West Palaearctic and in North America. It is proposed that Trachelus should be given precedence over Astatus whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Hymenoptera; CEPHIDAE; Astatus; Trachelus; sawfly; West Palaearctic; Nearctic.
1. Panzer ({1801a], Heft 83, p. 12) proposed the generic name Astatus, type species by monotypy Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 (pp. 258-259). We follow Sherborn (1923, p. 567) in dating Hefte 80-83 of Panzer, including the original description of Astatus, to the year 1801. Evenhuis (1997, p. 600) gave the possible period of publication as after June 1800 and before 17 June 1801. Rohwer (19lla, p. 74) designated Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 as the type species of Astatus, providing proper reference to Panzer’s ([1801a]) description but erroneously quoting Jurine as the author of Astatus. The citation of the wrong author was corrected by Rohwer (1911b, p. 218). Rohwer’s (1911a) subsequent designation of a type species is not valid, because Panzer ({1801a]) in Heft 83 (p. 12) included A. troglodyta as the only Astatus species, which is therefore type species by monotypy (Taeger & Blank, 2006, p. 327). Additional species were later associated with Astatus by Panzer ({1801b]) in Heft 85 published on 26 December 1801 (Evenhuis, 1997, p. 600).
2. Latreille (1797, pp. 114-115) proposed the generic name Astatus for a wasp with no species originally included. In the preface of his book, Latreille (1797, p. xiii) corrected the spelling of Astatus Latreille, 1797 to Astata, which represents the correction of an incorrect original spelling under the provisions of Article 32.5.1.1 and thus a justified emendation under the provisions of Article 33.2.2 of the Code. Latreille (1803, pp. 336-337) included as the first species Tiphia abdominalis Panzer, [1798] (Heft 53, p. 5), which became type species by subsequent designation (Opinion 139, p. 42, 20 December 1942). The name Astata is currently applied to a genus of SPHECIDAE (Pulawski, 2010). Several authors, for example Abe & Smith (1991), erroneously claimed Astatus Panzer, [1801] (CEPHIDAE) to be a junior homonym of
66 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Astatus Latreille, 1797 (SPHECIDAE). Konow (1908) stated that such a homonymy does not exist due to the emendation included in Latreille’s (1797, p. xiii) preface. The incorrect original spelling Astatus Latreille, 1797 accordingly has no influence on the present case.
3. [Jurine] in Panzer (1801c, p. 163) proposed the generic name Astatus and included ‘Sirex pygmaeus. Banchus spinipes Panzer (Banchus viridator Fabric. inedit.)’. Astatus [Jurine], 1801 is unavailable, because it was included in the work commonly known as the ‘Erlangen List’, which has been suppressed under the plenary power for the purpose of nomenclature (Opinion 135, 13 June 1939; Direction 4, 12 June 1954).
4. Jurine (1807, pp. 70-72, plate 2, fig. 9) replaced the generic name Astatus [Jurine] in Panzer, 1801 by Trachelus. Of the six species included originally in Trachelus, Rohwer (1911la, p. 91) designated Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326) as the type species of Trachelus. It is evident from Jurine’s (1807, p. 72) list of species that the genus was intended to include species associated with Astatus by Panzer ([1801a], [1801b]) and some of the species associated with Astatus by Klug (1803, pp. 47-56): ‘Troglodita. Fabr. Cephus’, a misspelling of the species-group name troglodyta, originally described as Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787 (pp. 258-259), currently treated as a valid species of the genus Jrachelus Jurine, 1807; “Compressus.* Fabr. Cephus’, originally described as Sirex compressus Fabricius, 1793 (p. 131), currently treated as a valid species of the genus Janus Stephens, 1829; ‘Pygmaeus. Fabr. Cephus’, a misspelling of the species-group name pygmeus, originally described as Sirex pygmeus Linnaeus, 1767 (pp. 929-930), currently treated as a valid species of the genus Cephus Latreille, 1803; ‘Tabidus. Fabr. Cephus’, originally described as Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326), currently treated as a valid species of the genus Trachelus Jurine, 1807; ‘Satyrus. Panzer. Astatus’, originally described as Astatus satyrus Panzer, [1801b] (p. 12), currently treated as a valid species of the genus Hartigia Schiodte, 1839; ‘Haemorroidalis. Gravé’, originally described as Tenthredo haemorrhoidalis Fabricius, 1781 (p. 417), currently treated as a valid species of the genus Hartigia Schiodte, 1839.
5. Billberg (1820, p. 98) described Cepha, type species by monotypy Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775 (p. 326). Owing to its similarity to the well-known genus-group name Cephus Latreille, 1803, Morice & Durrant (1915, p. 384) proposed the replacement name Trachelastatus. Cepha Billberg, 1820 and Trachelastatus Morice & Durrant, 1915 are junior objective synonyms of Trachelus Jurine, 1807 by virtue of having the same type species.
6. Erroneously supposing Astatus to have been described twice, by Latreille (1797) and Panzer ([1801]), Schulz (1906, p. 211) proposed the replacement name Eumetabolus for Astatus Panzer, [1801].
7. Benson (1935) subdivided the group within CEPHIDAE, which today is represented by the same genus Trachelus, into Ateuchopus Konow, 1896, Microcephus Benson, 1935, Neateuchopus Benson, 1935 and Trachelus Jurine, 1807, and listed ‘Astatus Jurine auct., 1801, nec Latreille, 1796’ as a synonym of Trachelus. In a subsequent work, Benson (1946) followed a wider concept of Trachelus, in which he grouped ‘together into one genus [i.e. into Trachelus] the species previously included in Trachelus and Eumetabolus, largely on the similarity in the form of their female saw- sheaths and their male sternites’ (p. 104). He listed as junior synonyms Ateuchopus,
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 67
Microcephus, Neateuchopus, and in addition Eumetabolus Schulz, 1906 and Trache- lastatus Morice & Durrant, 1915. The name Astatus Panzer, [1801] was not considered by Benson (1946), but its synonymy with Trachelus has been implied by the synonymy of its replacement name Eumetabolus. Subsequent works have usually followed Benson’s (1946) concept. Trachelus now comprises eight species native to the Palaearctic (Blank et al., 2009, Taeger et al., 2010). None of these works has discussed the priority of Astatus Panzer, [1801] over Trachelus Jurine, 1807 until Taeger & Blank (2006, p. 327) and Taeger et al. (2010, p. 53). Although without comment, Dusmet (1949) used the name Astatus in combination with ‘niger Harr.’, which possibly corresponds with Trachelus troglodyta following Konow’s misinter- pretation of this name. Also without providing an explanation, Weiffenbach (1982) treated as valid genus names both Astatus for A. flavicornis (Lucas, 1849) (Lucas [1848]-1849, pp. 342-345, pl. 19) and Trachelus for T. tabidus and T. ‘troglodytes’, a misspelling of troglodyta.
8. Trachelus tabidus (Fabricius, 1775), known as the ‘black grain stem sawfly’, is native to the southern part of the West Palaearctic region and it was inadvertently introduced into the Nearctic. Larvae of Trachelus, particularly of T. tabidus, and of Cephus pygmeus (Linnaeus, 1767) are common pests of cultivated grain crops such as durum and bread wheat, barley, and oats. They feed internally in the stalks causing reduced grain weight and losses at harvest due to stalk break. About 85 years ago [. tabidus and C. pygmeus achieved pest status in the United States (Gahan, 1920; Houser, 1935; Udine, 1941; Wallace & McNeal, 1966). In the West Palaearctic, Trachelus species have been the subject of various pest management publications (e.g. Gol’berg, 1986; Banita et al., 1992; Miller et al., 1993). Between 1917 and 2004 at least 25 works were published in applied entomology including information on T. tabidus and related species of Trachelus. Among 203 works published in various fields of entomology between 1900 and 2010, which refer to tabidus, 192 treated this species in Trachelus and seven in the subgenus Trachelus. Taxonomic catalogues and major identification works published during the past 60 years have consistently used the name Trachelus as valid but not Astatus (e.g. Benson, 1951, 1968; Middlekauff, 1969; Verzhutskii, 1973; Smith, 1979; Muche, 1981; Abe & Smith, 1991: Goulet, 1992; Zhelochovtsev & Zinovjev, 1993; Stange, 1997; Taeger et al., 2010). Only the outdated North American Catalog of Ross (1951) still treated tabidus under Cephus (Trachelus). A list of 255 works published after 1946, which demonstrates the widely accustomed use of Trachelus for the genus and T. tabidus for the pest organism, has been forwarded to the Commission Secretariat. A Google search for the string ‘Trachelus tabidus’ provided a total of 1,600 hits of various origins, while ‘Astatus tabidus’ was found only 70 times, mostly referring to digitalised historical publications.
9. Strict application of the Principle of Priority would result in considerable nomenclatural confusion, because a pest organism, Trachelus tabidus, would receive a new generic name. Since the senior synonym Astatus Panzer, [1801] has been used several times after 1899 as a valid genus-group name until Benson’s (1946) revision and rarely also later, the priority of the junior synonym Trachelus Jurine, 1807 cannot be reversed in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.9.1.1 of the Code. We propose that, to ensure nomenclatural stability, the Commission rule to give priority to Trachelus Jurine, 1807 over Astatus Panzer, [1801] in its accustomed usage
68 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
whenever the two generic names are considered to be synonyms. The case has to be referred to the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Article 23.9.3 of the Code.
10. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give the generic name Trachelus Jurine, 1807 precedence over the name Astatus Panzer, [1801], whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology the following names: (a) Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (genus: masculine), type species by subsequent
designation by Rohwer (191la) Sirex tabidus Fabricius, 1775, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the name Astatus Panzer, [1801], whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) Astatus Panzer, [1801] (genus: masculine), type species by monotypy Sirex troglodyta Fabricius, 1787, with the endorsement that it is not to be given priority over the name Trachelus Jurine, 1807, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names: (a) tabidus Fabricius, 1775, as published in the binomen Sirex tabidus (specific
name of the type species of Trachelus Jurine, 1807);
(b) troglodyta Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Sirex troglodyta
(specific name of the type species of Astatus Panzer, [1801]).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to A.D. Liston (Miincheberg), A. Shinohara (Tokyo), W.J. Pulawski (San Francisco, CA), D.R. Smith (Washington, DC), M. Wei (Changsha) for critically reading earlier versions of the manuscript and supporting this application.
References
Abe, M. & Smith, D.R. 1991. The genus-group names of Symphyta (Hymenoptera) and their type species. Esakia, 31: 1-115.
Banita, E., Popov, C., Luca, E., Cojocaru, D., Paunescu, G. & Vilau, F. 1992. Elemente de combatere integrata a viespilor griului (Cephus pygmaeus Latr. si Trachelus tabidus L.). Probleme de Protectia Plantelor, 20(3-4): 169-185.
Benson, R.B. 1935. On the genera of Cephidae, and the erection of a new family Syntexidae (Hymenoptera, Symphyta). Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany, and Geology, 10th series, 16: 535-553.
Benson, R.B. 1946. Classification of the Cephidae (Hymenoptera Symphyta). Transactions of the Royal Entomological Society of London, 96(6): 89-108.
Benson, R.B. 1951. Hymenoptera, Symphyta. Handbooks for the Identification of British Insects, 6(2a): 1-49.
Benson, R.B. 1968. Hymenoptera from Turkey, Symphyta. Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History), Entomology series, 22(4): 111-207.
Blank, S.M., Taeger, A., Liston, A.D., Smith, D.R., Rasnitsyn, A.P., Shinohara, A., Heidemaa, M. & Viitasaari, M. 2009. Studies toward a World Catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). Zootaxa, 2254: 1-96.
Billberg, G.J. 1820. Enumeratio Insectorum in Museo Gust. Joh. Billberg. 138 pp. Gadelianis, Stockholm.
Dusmet, J.M. 1949. Revision de los Tenthredinidos de Espafia. Publicaciones de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales (Centenario), 1(10): 441-484.
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 69
Evenhuis, N.L. 1997. Litteratura taxonomica dipterorum (1758-1930). Volumes 1-2: vii, 871 pp. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden.
Fabricius, J.C. 1775. Systema Entomologiae sistens Insectorum classes, ordines, genera, species, adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, observationibus. [30], 832 pp. Korte, Flensburgi & Lipsiae.
Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species Insectorum exhibentes eorum differentias specificas, synonyma auctorum, loca natalia, metamorphosin adiectis observationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. C.E. Bohnii, Hamburgi & Kilonii.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa Insectorum, sistens corum species nuper detectas : adjectis characteribus genericis, differentiis specificis, emendationibus, observationibus, vol. 1. xx, 348 pp. Christ. Gottl. Proft., Hafnie.
Fabricius, J.C. 1793. Entomologia Systematica, vol. 2. Pp. 478-487. Hafniae.
Gahan, A.B. 1920. Black grain-stem sawfly of Europe in the United States. United States Deptartment of Agriculture, Bulletin, 834: 1-18.
Gol’berg, A.M. 1986. Biology of the stem sawflies Trachelus tabidus and Cephus pygmaeus in the Negev of southern Israel. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 40(2): 117-121.
Goulet, H. 1992. The genera and subgenera of the sawflies of Canada and Alaska: Hymen- optera: Symphyta. Jn The insects and arachnids of Canada (Part 20). Agriculture Canada Publication, 1876: 1-235.
Houser, J.S. 1935. The black grain-stem sawfly, Trachelus tabidus (Fab.), in Ohio. Journal of Economic Entomology, 28: 457-458.
Jurine, L. 1807. Nouvelle méthode de classer les Hyménopteéres et les Diptéres, vol. 4(I1). 319 pp., 7 pls., Genéve & Paris.
Klug, F. 1803. Monographia Siricum Germaniae atque generum illis adnumeratorum. xii + 64, [7] pp. F. Schtppel, Berolini.
Konow, F.W. 1908. Litteratur. (Hym.). Zetschrif fiir systematische Hymenopterologie und Dipterologie, 8(1): 47-48.
Latreille, P.A. 1797. Précis des caractéres génériques des Insectes, disposés dans un ordre naturel par le Citoyen Latreille. An V. xiv, 201, [7] pp. Prévot, Paris & F. Bordeaux, Brive. Latreille, P.A. 1803. Histoire naturelle, générale et particuliére des Crustacés et des Insectes,
vol. 3[1802—1803](1-12). 467 pp. Dufart, Paris.
Linnaeus, C. 1767. Systema Naturae, Ed. 12, vol. 1, part 2. Pp. 533-1327. Salvii, Holmiae.
Lucas, P.H. [1848]-1849. Exploration scientifique de Il’ Algérie pendant les Années 1840, 1841, 1842, publiée par Ordre du Gouvernement et avec le Concours d’une Commission Académique. Sciences physiques. Zoologie. III. Histoire naturelle des Animaux articulés. Troisiéme partie. Insectes, vol. 3. Pp. 3, 3-527. Imprimerie Nationale, Paris.
Middlekauff, W.W. 1969. The Cephid stem borers of California (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Bulletin of the California Insect Survey, 11: 1-18.
Miller, R.H., El Masri, S. & Al Jundi, K. 1993. Plant density and wheat stem sawfly (Hymenoptera: Cephidae) resistance in Syrian wheats. Bulletin of Entomological Research, 83: 95-102.
Morice, F.D. & Durrant, J.H. 1915. The authorship and first publication of the Jurinean genera of Hymenoptera: Being a reprint of a long-lost work by Panzer, with a translation into English, an introduction, and bibliographical and critical notes. Transactions of the Entomological Society of London, {1914](3-4): 339-436.
Muche, W.H. 1981. Die Cephidae der Erde (Hym., Cephidae). Deutsche Entomologische Zeitschrift, Neue Folge, 28(4—5): 239-295.
Panzer, G.W.F. [1798]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. Vol. 5[1798](53): 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Panzer, G.W.F. [180la]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. Vol. 7[1799-1801](83). 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Panzer, G.W.F. [1801b]. Faunae Insectorum Germanicae initia oder Deutschlands Insecten. Vol. 8[1801—1804](85). 24 pp., 24 pls. Felssecker, Niirnberg.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1801c. Nachricht von einem neuen entomolischen Werke, des Hrn. Prof. Jurine in Geneve. Intelligenzblatt der Litteratur-Zeitung, 1: 160-165 [reprinted by Morice & Durrant, 1915, pp. 357-365].
70 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Pulawski, W.J. 2010. Astata. 38 pp. In Pulawski, W.J., Catalog of Sphecidae sensu lato (= Apoidea excluding Apidae). http://research.calacademy.org/files/Departments/ent/ sphecidae/Genera_and_species_pdf/Astata.pdf, accessed on 18.10.2010.
Rohwer, S.A. 191 1a. Technical papers on miscellaneous forest insects. II. The genotypes of the sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Entomology, Technical series, 20: 69-109.
Rohwer, S.A. 1911b. Additions and corrections to ‘The genotypes of the sawflies and woodwasps, or the superfamily Tenthredinoidea’ (Hymen.). Entomological News and Proceedings of the Entomological Section of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 22: 218-219.
Ross, H.H. 1951. Suborder Symphyta (= Chalastogastra) [except the Siricoidea, the Pamphilii- dae, and the genus Periclista]. Pp. 4-89 in Muesebeck, C.F.W., Krombein, K.V. & Townes, H.K. (Eds.), Hymenoptera of America North of Mexico. Synoptic Catalog, vol. 2. 1420 pp. United States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Monograph, Washington DC.
Schulz, W.A. 1906. Strandgut. Spolia Hymenopterologica, [1906]: 76-269.
Sherborn, C.D. 1923. On the dates of G. W. F. Panzer’s ‘Fauna Insect. German.’, 1792-1844. Annals and Magazine of Natural History, including Zoology, Botany, and Geology, 9th series, 11(64): 566-567.
Smith, D.R. 1979. Suborder Symphyta. Pp. 3-137 in Krombein, K.V., Hurd, P.D., Jr., Smith, D.R. & Burks, B.D. (Eds.), Catalog of Hymenoptera in America North of Mexico. Volume 1, Symphyta and Apocrita (Parasitica). xvi, 1198 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DC.
Stange, L.A. 1997. The stem sawflies of Florida (Hymenoptera: Cephidae). Entomology Circular, 382: 1+.
Taeger, A. & Blank, S.M. 2006. Bibliographic notes. Pp. 319-330 in Blank, S.M., Schmidt, S. & Taeger, A. (Eds.), Recent Sawfly Research: Synthesis and Prospects. Goecke & Evers, Keltern.
Taeger, A., Blank, S.M. & Liston, A.D. 2010. World catalog of Symphyta (Hymenoptera). Zootaxa, 2580: 1-1064.
Udine, E.J. 1941. The black grain stem sawfly and the European wheat stem sawfly in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Circular, 607: 1-9.
Verzhutskii, B.N. 1973. Opredelitel’ lichinok rogokhvostov i pilil’shchikov Sibirii i Dal’nego Vostoka. 140 pp. Nauka, Moskva.
Wallace, L.E. & McNeal, F.H. 1966. Stem sawflies of economic importance in grain crops in the United States. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin, 1350: 1-50.
Weiffenbach, H. 1982. Uber die von W. Schacht, Miinchen, in den Jahren 1975-1980 in Stidspanien gesammelten Blattwespen (Hymenoptera, Tenthredinoidea). Nachrichtenblatt der Bayerischen Entomologen, 31(6): 107-112.
Zhelochovtsev, A.N. & Zinovjev, A.G. 1993. Hymenoptera Part VI Symphyta. Jn Medvedev, G.S. (Ed.), Keys to the Insects of the European Part of the USSR, vol. 3(6). 387 pp. Amerind Publ. Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi.
Acknowledgement of receipt of this application was published in BZN 67: 270 Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin; they
should be sent to the Executive Secretary, I.C.Z.N., c/o Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 wi
Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Callidea lateralis Guérin-Meéneville, 1838 (currently Lamprocornis lateralis; Insecta, Heteroptera) (Case 3523; see BZN 67: 213-217, 314)
Petr Kment
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ-148 00 Praha, Czech Republic (e-mail: sigara@post.cz)
Petr Banar
Department of Entomology, Moravian Museum, Hviezdoslavova 29a, CZ-627 00 Brno — Slatina, Czech Republic (e-mail: petrbanar@seznam.cz)
We studied carefully the detailed argumentation of Tsai & Rédei (2010; Zootaxa, 2572: 25-47) concerning Lamprocoris obtusus (Westwood, 1837), a senior objective synonym of Lamprocoris lateralis (Guérin-Méneville, 1838). There is no doubt about the following facts emphasised by Rédei & Tsai (BZN 67: 213-217):
1) The senior name L. obtusus was greatly overlooked by subsequent authors and has never been positively treated as different from L. Jateralis;
ii) There is extensive and substantial literature on this biological species under the junior name L. Jateralis; ;
iii) This species is of economic importance, and is rather common in several parts of Southeast Asia, so it appears also in the agricultural literature and popular books on insects;
iv) Changing the name of this species simply because of adherence to the Principle of Priority is undesirable and would threaten stability of scUTELLERIDAE nomen- clature.
For these reasons, we strongly support the solution suggested by Rédei & Tsai (BZN 67: 213), i.e. to use the Commission’s plenary power to suppress the specific name Callidea obtusa Westwood, 1837 for the purposes of the Principle of Priority but not for those of the Principle of Homonymy, as is summarised in paragraph 9 of Case 3523.
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Allosaurus Marsh, 1877 (Dinosauria, Theropoda) by designation of a neotype for its type species Allosaurus fragilis Marsh, 1877
(Case 3506; see BZN 67: 53-56; 178, 255-256, 332)
V. Demirjian lI Canyon Terrace, Newport Coast, CA 92657 U.S.A. (e-mail: vahedemirjian@cox.net)
The taxonomy of the species referred to Allosaurus has been a contentious issue, as summarised by Paul (1988, 2010) and Chure (2000). Bakker (2000) and Paul (2010) claimed that Allosaurus fragilis (based on USNM 4734) is distinct from other specimens (DINO 2560, AMNH 666, etc.) by the proportions of its skull. However, Chure (2000) demonstrated that the supposed shortness of the skull of USNM 4734 was based on an erroneous reconstruction of the skull by Gilmore (1920).
72 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
Additional references
Bakker, R.T. 2000. Brontosaur killers: Late Jurassic allosaurids as sabre-tooth cat analogues. Gaia, 15: 145-158. Paul, G. 2010. The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs. 320 pp. Princeton University Press.
Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34-50, 80-87, 169-186, 274-290, 352-357; 67: 71-90, 170-178, 246-254, 319-331)
Marinus S. Hoogmoed
Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi!CZO, Caixa Postal 399, 66017—970 Belém, Parad, Brazil (e-mail: hoogmoed_apires@terra.com.br)
Since Case 3463 was submitted to ICZN comments on the name of the Aldabra tortoise have been many and varied. The most recent paper on the issue is by Frazier & Matyot (2010), who extensively comment on the identity of the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 (RMNH 3231). As former curator of the herpeto- logical collection of the Natural History museum in Leiden, the Netherlands (RMNH), I was rather amazed to see this article, knowing that neither one of the authors ever has seen the specimen discussed, neither during my tenure in the RMNH (1966-2004) nor between 2004 and the publication of their mentioned article. It therefore seems necessary to add some more comments to the already (too) extensive literature of this case.
Identification
Frazier & Matyot (2010) present arguments against the credibility of the data that accompany the lectotype of T. dussumieri. They make statements that contradict all we know about the specimen and its history, and even reach the conclusion that ‘it is possible that the last survivors of an endemic species of tortoise were on Mahé at the time of Dussumier’s visits to Seychelles possibly starting as early as 1823, and therefore that his specimen that is now in Leiden [RMNH 3231] is not an Aldabra tortoise but rather a Seychelles tortoise’ (Frazier & Matyot, 2010, p. 41). Note that this conclusion was based on assumptions only and that the authors never studied the specimen. Frazier & Matyot (2010) did not use the photographs of the specimen (RMNH 3231) available in the literature (Gerlach, 2004a; Bour, 2006; Griinewald, 2009) to provide evidence for their remarkable statement about the identity of RMNH 3231, although they were well aware of the existence of these photos (Frazier, 2006b; Frazier & Matyot, 2010). Up until now, RMNH 3231 has been studied probably by six professional herpetologists only: Hermann Schlegel, J.E. Gray, A.A.W. Hubrecht, Roger Bour, Peter C.H. Pritchard, and myself, and more recently by F. Griinewald (2009; BZN 67: 177), a Dutch tortoise hobbyist. Only the last four of these persons are alive and have participated in the debate on Case 3463. These seven persons independently reached the conclusion that RMNH 3231, based on external morphological characters, was an Aldabra tortoise, Dipsochelys dus- sumieri. Austin et al. (2003) used mtDNA of old type specimens of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys (including the lectotype of Testudo dussumieri) to determine their
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 73
identity. A piece of alcohol-preserved tissue from the groin was taken by me from RMNH 3231 in 2000 and provided to E.N. Arnold for analysis. This tissue provided a 336 base pair (bp) partial sequence (Austin et al., 2003). There was minimal variation among the sequences studied, although RMNH 3231 (haplotype B) diverged by two nucleotide substitutions (a negligible 0.46% divergence) from the most common haplotype A. Austin et al. (2003) concluded “The individuals within the studied sample that differ from the common haplotype by 1-4 bp (0.23-0.9% divergence), including the type of A. dussumieri, would also be referable to the same single species, for even closely related tortoise species that are widely accepted show much greater differentiation (see above)’, and ‘On the basis of its uniformity compared with other tortoises, the mtDNA of non-Madagascan Aldabrachelys studied here suggests that only a single species may be involved’. Thus an indepen- dent method reached the same conclusion as the seven persons mentioned before. This conclusion of Austin et al. (2003) was wholeheartedly subscribed to by Frazier (2006b, 370) in his book review of Gerlach (2004). However, Frazier & Matyot (2010) now cite and interpret the Austin et al. (2003) data differently from Frazier (2006b) in order to ‘support’ their aberrant opinion on the identity of RMNH 3231 (see below).
The statement by Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 42) °... considering the very limited information that has been published about RMNH 3231, it has simply been assumed that the specimen is an Aldabra tortoise ...’ is an assumption on the part of these authors that is only based on their prejudiced supposition that RMNH 3231 cannot be an Aldabra tortoise. But without studying the specimen themselves they cannot provide any hard evidence against the independent identifications of RMNH 3231 made so far by competent herpetologists.
It may be noted here that Matyot (BZN 66: 352) was mixing up two specimens when he said that the specimen described by Duméril & Bibron (1835) was the same one as that given to Leiden. First, the Leiden specimen (RMNH 3231) was already in Leiden when Dumeéril & Bibron (1835) published that description (Gray, 1831b). Secondly, the fact that the specimen described by Dumeéril & Bibron (1835) is still in Paris under number NMNH 1942 (Frazier & Matyot, 2010), invalidates Matyot’s (BZN 66: 352) observations on this subject.
Name and locality
Hoogmoed et al. (2010) published an account of the type specimens of turtles, tortoises and crocodiles in the Leiden Museum. They provided data on the origin and the locality of RMNH 3231, which are contested by Frazier & Matyot (2010). Gray (183la, p. 3) mentioned Test. Dussumieri, Schegel [sic]. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) have pointed out that although Gray (1831 a, b) attributed the name Testudo Dussumieri to Schlegel, this was not correct. The specimen was received from Paris with that name ‘attached’ to it. This was repeated by Frazier & Matyot (2010), who gave an extensive overview of the early history of this name. Gray (1831b) visited European museums somewhere before 1831, because the preface to his Synopsis Reptilium is dated January 1831. In his preface Gray (1831b) explains the rules under which he was allowed to see material: ‘In each of these museums all the specimens were intrusted to me, to describe, draw, or examine them, as might best suit my purpose, without any restraint, except that, at Leyden, Herr Temminck requested I
74 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011
would indicate in what Museum I had seen it, and the name under which it was there described, a rule which I hope I have most faithfully kept.’
A young specimen of Testudo dussumieri was present in Leiden during Gray’s visit there, as we can see from the text on p. 9 (Gray, 1831b), where in the synonymy of Testudo indica he gives a short description of Testudo dussumieri: ‘Junior. Testa nigra margine laterali angulato, areolis magnis. Test. Dussumieri, Schlegel MSS. (v. Mus. Leyd.) — Pet.Gaz. t. 76, f. 4.” and also mentions the distribution (and collectors) of the species as ‘Habitat in India Orientali, Gefi. Hardwicke, Insula Mauritiana, Insula Aldebra, M. Dussumiere, Galapagos, D. Harlan, Seychelles, (v. v. Hort. Zool., et t. Mus. Brit., Col. Chir., Par., et D. Bell.)’. Gray (1831b) made his reference to Schlegel [“MSS (v. Mus. Leyde)’] at the request of Temminck (see above). MSS is not further explained, but probably stands for manuscript or manuscripts, but we can not be certain of that, it may also have meant a name on a label, on a bottle, on a shelf, or even an oral communication (most likely by H. Schlegel). The ‘v’ in front of Mus. Leyde undoubtedly stands for ‘vide’(= seen [by Gray]). Thus, on one page, we have all essential information (apart from the fact that it belonged to the Leiden collection) about Testudo dussumieri together: name, collector and locality. However, unfortu- nately Gray (1831b) presents his data in such a way that the three can not unambiguously be connected, although circumstantial evidence is strong. It seems important here to highlight another part of Gray’s (1831b) preface in which he states: oH the Royal Museum of Leyden and the Museum of the Senckenbergers Society of Francfort having been formed within these few years, the greater part of the specimens are quite fresh and in the most perfect condition, and their history is generally known and accurately marked upon them.’ From this text it is clear that Gray (1831b) had full confidence in the data that accompanied the specimens he saw in Leiden.
Fortunately, concerning Testudo dussumieri there is a solid, printed statement that ties specimen, collector and locality together. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) mentioned that Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made a clear statement about the provenance of RMNH 3231: it was received from the Paris museum under the name Test. Dussumieri and was brought from the island of Aldebra by Dussumier. This statement in French is cited in full and translated by Bour (2006) and copied again by Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 33). However, after having copied the clear statement, which does not leave any room for speculation, Frazier & Matyot (2010) start questioning its validity on the basis of confused arguments. Hubrecht (1881) also discussed RMNH 3231 and stated that “The locality from whence the specimen was brought is sharply fixed. Dussumier himself on his travels in the tropics collected it in the island of Aldabra (N.W. of Madagascar) ...’. This citation in Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 36) again is followed by the comment that Hubrecht did not explain how he determined the locality of his specimen was ‘sharply fixed’.
The answer to all queries of Frazier & Matyot (2010) is very simple and unambiguous: Temminck & Schlegel (1834) made the published, printed statement about name, collector, locality and specimen on the basis of documentation (in whichever form) they had received from Paris with the specimen concerned. Hubrecht (1881) did the same, basing himself on the register and data on the label fixed to the bottle in which RMNH 3231 was (and still is) kept. In the RMNH it always has been good practice to trust the data provided with material, until the
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 68(1) March 2011 75
contrary is proven. In this case there was no reason for any doubt, and Gray (1831b) was of the same opinion. Apparently Frazier & Matyot (2010) are unable, or rather unwilling, to accept obvious facts and lose themselves in a maze of suppositions and speculations about a locality that never has been doubted.
Frazier & Matyot (2010) cited Austin et al. (2003) to discredit the locality from whence RMNH 3231 came. They erroneously attributed all statements about T. dussumieri in this paper to Bour, who was one of the three co-authors and should not be singled out as being responsible for those data; statements in the paper are the shared responsibility of all three co-authors. Frazier & Matyot (2010) did not cite the reference correctly. They cite Austin et al. (2003) incompletely, and checking that paper carefully gives a completely different picture from the one Frazier & Matyot (2010) try to give. Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 40) suggest that Austin et al. (2003) doubted the type locality of 7. dussumieri, because in Table 2 the type locality is indicated with a question-mark. However, in Table 1 and on p. 1419 Austin et al. (2003) list the locality correctly as resp. “Insula Aldebra’ and ‘Aldabra’. The question- mark in Table 2 under locality for T. dussumieri probably was a mistaken repeat of the one on the line above concerning 7. daudini. This most likely was due to carelessness in reading the proofs of this article which has several typos that could and should easily have been avoided, e.g. in Table 1 RMNH 3231 is referred to as RMNH 32311, in Figure 2 RMNH 3231 is listed as NMNH 3231, the legend of Table 2 refers to ““enBank”’ instead of GenBank, etc. Thus, there is no reason to accept Frazier & Matyot’s (2010) reasoning about Austin et al. (2003) supposedly doubting RMNH 3231’s locality.
Frazier & Matyot (2010, p. 38) incorrectly conclude that Hoogmoed et al. (2010) contradict themselves when talking about the type locality of RMNH 3231. What Hoogmoed et al. (2010) in effect were saying, is somewhat different from what Frazier & Matyot (2010) suggest. Hoogmoed et al. (2010) stated clearly that the type locality of RMNH 3231 is Aldabra and nowhere do they doubt this; they only cite two papers that say that even had Dussumier not visited Aldabra he could easily have obtained material from there (Bour et al., 2010; Cheke, BZN 67: 79). Hoogmoed et al. (2010) do not make any statements about whether Dussumier picked the specimen up himself on Aldabra or not, they just show that there is no reason to doubt the locality, because that has been associated with RMNH 3231 from the beginning. And stating (Frazier & Matyot, 2010) that Hoogmoed et al. (2010) had ‘. . . accepted Matyot’s conclusion that Dussumier did not collect on Aldabra’ is stretching the truth a bit too far, to put it mildly. The statements by Frazier & Matyot (2010) on p. 40 ‘... but it does not remove the uncertainty about the origin of the specimen [RMNH 3231], on p. 41 that ‘If — as all evidence [which evidence do they mean?] indicates — the place of origin of RMNH 3231 is Mahé, or even some other island in the granitic Seychelles, and not Aldabra Atoll ...’ and on p. 42 (referring to MNHN 1942