Comments
Comments
with the following titles were published on 19 December
2001 in Volume 58, Part 4 of the Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature
Copies
of these Comments can be obtained free of charge from
the Executive Secretary, The International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Comments on the proposed revocation of Article
74.7.3 of the Code (requirement for an express statement
of the taxonomic purpose of a lectotype designation)
(See BZN 58: 133-140)
(1) Alexandr P. Rasnitsyn
Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy
of Sciences, Profsoyuznaya Str. 123, 117868
Moscow, Russia
The comments on
Article 74.7.3 of the Code published in BZN 58:
133-140 present the opinions of 23 persons who propose
or support the revocation of the Article and of only seven
who favour its retention.
One of the latter is Dr P.K. Tubbs, the Executive
Secretary of the Commission (although he does make clear
that the views he has expressed are personal ones). I find
the argument in his penultimate paragraph especially surprising:
`The belief that lectotypes should be designated as a matter
of `routine' revisory work is surely mistaken. Many well
known species do not have any existing type material, and
yet their names are of undoubted application; in other
instances the taxon is better delineated by the original
author's type series than by a subsequent author's arbitrary,
if well meaning, restiction to a single specimen . . .'.
While literally correct when taken in isolation,
in the context of the present discussion this statement
implies that typification has only ad hoc function:
the type is necessary only when the application of the
name presents an explicit problem, and it is otherwise
redundant. A modest extension of this claim uncovers the
logic behind it, and would be: `The belief that types should
be designated as a matter of routine work is surely mistaken'.
To be consistent with this view and with Article 74.7.3
other Articles (those dealing with the designation of holotypes,
type species and type genera) would have to be modified,
to include demands that an author of any name must make
an `express statement of taxonomic purpose'. However, nobody
has proposed such modifications.
(2) P.K. Tubbs
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
S W7 SBD,London, U. K.
I continue to hold
the view which I mentioned previously about `routine' lectotype
designations which have no expressed statement of taxonomic
purpose, but I certainly do not subscribe to the `modest
extension' of logic which Prof Rasnitsyn describes and
which would hold that typification of taxa is usually redundant.
Nor do I believe that all type designations, including
those by the original authors of names, should be invalid
unless accompanied by statements of purpose.
In practice most authors rightly explain the taxonomic
purpose of establishing a new genus and why they are selecting
a particular type species for it; the same applies to family-group
taxa (in which the type genus determines the name itself).
Typification has been mandatory for genus-group taxa since
1930, but the current Code is the first to require (Article
16.4) the explicit fixation of name-bearing types for new
species. Typification of species has always been different
from that of genera or families because the name-bearing
type consists of one or more specimens, and is
not a necessarily single named entity (a nominal species
or genus). Because the author may consider that the new
species is best illustrated by a series of specimens (e.g.
more than one sex or life stage) a holotype is not mandatory
even now: syntypes suffice, or may be better. If the author
has based the species on a series of specimens rather than
a holotype, whether or not for a stated reason, then an
arbitrary `routine' restriction to a lectotype is a modification
of the original work which may serve no purpose other than
satisfying the entirely philosophical, and surely mistaken,
belief that a name-bearing type must invariably be a single
entity. If the syntypes are believed to be conspecific
no taxonomic purpose is served by a lectotype; if they
are not, or if there is doubt, then a lectotype is indeed
necessary but it is not difficult to state this and so
comply with Article 74.7.3. Later workers deserve to know
why the type series has been restricted. Many routine designations
of lectotypes have had the very unfortunate effect of changing
the application of the names concerned, and this should
become less common now that authors are obliged to state
their reason for designating a particular lectotype.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann,
1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud,
1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by the replacement
of the lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype;
proposed designation of Turbo ventrosus Montagu,
1803 as the type species of Ventrosia Radoman,
1977; and proposed emendation of HYDROBIINA Mulsant,
1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera) to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing
the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca)
(Case
3087; see BZN 55: 139-145; 56:
56-63, 143-148, 187-190, 268-270; 58:
56-58, 140-141)
(1) Thomas Wilke and George
M. Davis
Department of Microbiology & Tropical
Medicine, George Washington University, Ross
Hall, 2300 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC
20037, U.S.A.
Gittenberger (BZN
58: 140) states that there are clear affirmative
answers to his three questions on the status of the lectotype
for Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805). We argue
to the contrary. We conclude the following for Boeters's
(1984) lectotype designation:
(a) The lectotype is taxonomically
inadequate as it cannot be identified with certainty and
it is most probably (see Wilke, Davis & Rosenberg, BZN
56: 187-190) a specimen of Ventrosia ventrosa (Montagu,
1803), and (b) stability and universality are threatened
because Boeters's lectotype is not in accord with the prevailing
usage of the name.
(a) Taxonomic
inadequacy of the lectotype
The geographic origin of Draparnaud's (1805) syntypes
is unknown. Neither the original description nor any data
accompanying the original material, collector's notes,
itineraries or personal communications indicate where the
material came from. Hydrobia acuta is known from
the western Mediterranean (as H. a. acuta) and from the
northeast¬ern Atlantic (as H. a. neglecta) (see Wilke
et al., 2000) and the notion that Draparnaud's material
came from the 1Jtang du Prevost (to which H. acuta was
restricted by Radoman, 1977) near Montpellier, where Draparnaud
lived, is not justified.
The origin of Draparnaud's material is important
because locality data are crucial for the determination
of hydrobiid taxa. As we stressed in our previous comment
(BZN 56: 187-190), the identification
of species of Hydrobia and related groups based
on shell characters alone is very difficult and highly
speculative as, although genetically controlled, the characters
are strongly modulated by environmental factors like substratum,
salinity, competition and parasitism (the last affects
shell size and the roundness of the whorls). There are
tendencies in shell differences (for example, the whorls
in H. acuta are often flatter than in V. ventrosa)
and these characters are sometimes used for a preliminary
determination. Where we assumed that the two taxa H.
acuta and V. ventrosa were present in a population,
identification based on shell characters could be confirmed
with detailed anatomical and molecular methods in an average
of about 80% of cases (BZN 56: 187-190).
Although this indicates that shell characters are not randomly
distributed, the average success of determination is far
from being adequate for purposes of typification.
Boeters's approach of correlating the shell morphology
of Draparnaud's (1805) preserved material with the morphology
and anatomy of living material from the (supposed) same
place is correct in principle (though a statistically sound
analysis would have been more appropriate than an empirical
estimate of whorl roundness). However, this approach works
only if specimens are compared from the same site, if the
environmental conditions at that locality have not changed
significantly between collections, if no parasitism occurs,
and if the species composition is still the same. None
of these factors can be assumed in Boeters's (1984) study
that led to his designation of a lectotype for H. acuta.
In fact, the species combination H. acuta and V.
ventrosa found in the bang du Prevost is not typical.
In the western Mediterra¬nean at least six taxa have
similar shell shapes: Hydrobia acuta, Hydrobia spp.
A and B (see Wilke et al., 2000), Ventrosia ventrosa, V.
pontieuxini and Semisalsa cf. stagnorum.
These taxa occur in various combinations with up to three
taxa sympatric in some of the 23 sites we studied. The
combination H. acuta l V. ventrosa was
found at only four sites. We also studied two populations
from the Etang du Prevost, one received in 1997 and the
other in 1999; based on the male reproductive system and
molecular studies, the former population contained only H.
acuta whereas the latter contained H. acuta and V.
ventrosa. As Draparnaud's material is almost 200 years
old and not well preserved (for example, aperture eroded,
color faded, soft body missing or degraded), further anatomical
or molecular studies are most improbable.
The suggestion by Wilke et al. (BZN 56:
187-190) that Boeters's concept of `Hydrobia acuta',
based on anatomical criteria, is actually Ventrosia
ventrosa has been verified (see Wilke & Davis,
2000).
(b) Prevailing usage of the name
Over the past five years we have received
more than 80 populations of various species of Hydrobia from
malacologists and field biologists from 12 European countries.
In about 30% of the samples, one or more taxa were misidentified.
However, when these workers identified H. acuta,
it never had an awl-like penis (sensu Boeters) except
for one population we received from Greece. This shows
that the overwhelming majority of biologists do not apply
the Hydrobia-concept of Boeters (1984), but
the concept used by Giusti et al. (BZN 55:
139-145).
Boeters's (1984) lectotype designation for Hydrobia
acuta is taxonomically mis¬identified and not
in accord with the prevailing usage of the name and we
strongly support the proposed neotype designation, for
which the specimen is from a known locality, by Giusti
et al. (BZN 55: 139-145).
Additional references
Wilke, T. & Davis, G.M. 2000. Infraspecific mitochondrial
sequence diversity in Hydrobia ulvae and Hydrobia ventrosa (Hydrobiidae:
Rissooidea: Gastropoda): Do their different life histories affect biogeographic
patterns and gene flow? Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 70(1):
89-105.
Wilke, T., Rolan, E. & Davis, G. M. 2000. The mudsnail
genus Hydrobia s.s. in the northern Atlantic and western Mediterranean:
a phylogenetic hypothesis. Marine Biology, 137:
827-833.
(2) Folco Giusti, Giuseppe
Manganelli and Marco Bodon
Dipartimento di Biologia Evolutiva, Universita
di Siena, Via Mattioli 4, I-53100 Siena,
Italy
The Glossary entry in the Code
for a neotype states: `The single specimen
designated as the name-bearing type of a
nominal species or subspecies when there
is a need to define the nominal taxon objectively
. . . If stability and universality are threatened,
because an existing name-bearing type is
either taxonomically inadequate or not in
accord with the prevailing use of a name,
the Commission may use its plenary power
to set aside that type and designate a neotype'.
Our application entirely conforms with this definition,
namely to set aside the lectotype designation by Boeters
(1984) for Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud, 1805) and
to designate a neotype in agreement with the understanding
of the species since Mars (1966) and Radoman (1977) and
followed by virtually all subsequent authors. Recognition
of Boeters's lectotype would alter the concept of H.
aeuta (see our previous comment on BZN 56:
145-147) with serious consequences for the stability of
the names of a number of species and genera: the specific
name of Ventrosia ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) would
replace H. acuta and a new name would be required
for H. acuta as usually understood, the name Hydrobia Hartmann,
1821 would be transferred to the genus currently called Ventrosia Radoman,
1977, and the group generally known as Hydrobia would
require a new name. That these changes would be unacceptable
to the majority of hydrobiid workers has been demonstrated
by the number of supportive comments on this case.
It seems to us that in his new comment, published
in BZN 58: 140-141, Gittenberger has not
offered any additional information or new insights into
the problem of the typification of Hydrobia acuta.
He states `I am in favour of accepting the existing lectotype'
but gives nothing new to explain his choice. His view that
`a neotype (suggesting that all the syntypes cannot be
identified) would not bring the current confusion to an
end. Only good taxonomic research will do this' is illogical
and is not supported by most of those who have commented
on our application and who consider that the current confusion
will end only when, following designation of a neotype,
taxonomy and nomenclature are brought into accord. Further,
Gittenberger makes the point that our case `relates to
systematics, not nomenclature', but it is evident to us
that the two are linked and that frequently nomenclatural
problems are solved with the resolution of taxonomic/systematic
problems.
Gittenberger's statement shows that he has ignored
a11 that has been written on this case by Giusti et al.
(BZN 56: 144-148), by Wilke et al. (BZN
56: 187-190), and by several other supportive
authors. We commend these comments to him.
Comment
on a proposed emendation of the family-group name VACHONIANINAE
Maury, 1973 (Arachnida, Scorpiones) to avoid homonymy:
this is the correct original spelling and the case is
resolved by application of the Code
(Case 3119; see BZN 57: 24-25,
167-168)
P.K. Tubbs
Executive Secretary, International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
In their application
Drs Fet and Braunwalder noted that the family-group names
VACHONIIDAE Chamberlin, 1947 (pseudoscorpions) and VACHONIANINAE
Maury, 1973 (scorpions) would be homonyms if the the latter
name were spelled VACHONIINAE, as would be normal practice
because the grammatical stem of the name of the type genus Vachonia is Vachoni-
and not Vachonian-. To avoid the homonymy they
proposed that the scorpion name should be spelled VACHONIAINAE,
taking the entire generic name as the stem.
However, Article 29.3.3 of the current Code permits
a new family-group name to be formed from `the entire generic
name with one or more appropriate linking letters incorporated
to form a more euphonious name'. Under this provision (which
was not in previous editions of the Code) VACHONIANINAE
is a correct original spelling; although not in accord
with the then-current Code it was introduced by Maury (1973)
to avoid homonymy with VACHONIIDAE Chamberlin.
The spelling VACHONIANINAE is not only correct but
is that which has been used by subsequent authors, and
Drs Fet and Braunwalder have agreed to withdraw their proposal
and close the case.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of Cryphops Richter & Richter,
1926 (Trilobita)
(Case
3171; see BZN
58: 97-99)
An application
by Dr D.J. Holloway and Prof K.S.W. Campbell to conserve
the name Cryphops Richter & Richter, 1926
for a genus of late Devonian trilobites (family PHACOPIDAE)
was published in the Bulletin in June 2001. It
was also placed on the website run by Dr S.M. Gon III (http://www.aloha.net/smgon/ICZN3171.htm).
Four supportive comments have also been placed on the website.
It is planned to send the application to the Commission
for voting on 1 March 2002. Any person wishing to comment
is asked to send their comment direct to Dr Gon by e-mail
(smgon@aloha.net)
as soon as possible, and by 15 February 2002 at the latest.
Comment on the proposed designation of Cuma
rathkii Kreyer, 1841 as the type species of Diastylis Say,
1818, and designation of a lectotype (Crustacea, Cumacea)
(Case 3078; see BZN 56: 174-176;
57: 45-46)
Sarah Gerken
James Madison University, Biology Department, MSC
7801, Harrisonburg, Virginia 22807, U. S A.
In his description
of Cuma rathkii, Kreyer (1841) observed that he
had specimens from both South Greenland and the Kattegat
but did not indicate a holotype. In my application (para.
5) I recorded that there was syntype material in the Zoological
Museum of the University of Copenhagen, catalog no. CRU-7936.
In endorsing myproposals, Prof L.B. Holthuis noted (BZN
57: 45-46) that it would be advisable to select
a lectotype for C. rathkii.
I have recently received on loan the Diastylis
rathkii material from ZMUC. It is a single specimen,
an ovigerous female from the Kattegat with the accession
no. ZMUC-CRU-7936. The loan paperwork states the specimen
to be the `holotype' and it is apparently the only one
now remaining of the original type series.
Bacescu (1992) referred to the two type localities
for D. rathkii and wrote of the Copenhagen material
as `syntypes', but had not seen or examined the type material
(L.B. Holthuis, in litt., September 2001). It is not possible
to ascertain at what point during the 160 intervening years
the rest of Kreyer's (1841) material was lost.
I confirm that the Copenhagen syntype is a specimen
of Diastylis rathkii as currently understood.
Since it is possible that the original material, from two
widely separated localities, may have belonged to more
than one taxon, to secure the identity of the nominal species D.
rathkii I now designate specimen ZMUC-CRU-7936 as
the lectotype.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Hydroporus
discretus Fairmaire & Brisout in Fairmaire,
1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3147; see BZN
58: 105-107)
Philippe Bouchet
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 55 Rue de Buffon,
F-75005 Paris, France
The application
seeks to conserve the name Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout,
1859 by suppressing the name H. neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbene,
1854. The senior synonym has been used as valid once after
1899, which excludes the case from the reversal of precedence
covered by Article 23.9 of the Code. The application (para.
8) gives four references to works published in the last
50 years that have used the name discretus and
states that a further 16 references have been given to
the Commission Secretariat. My examination of this list
of additional references shows that only three have been
published in the last 50 years. In my view the applicant
has not demonstrated that a name so infrequently used as Hydroporus
discretus Fairmaire & Brisout, 1859 needs conservation,
and priority should apply.
Comment on the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE
Duponchel, 1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta,
Lepidoptera)
(Case 3048; see BZN 56: 31-33;
57: 46-118)
David Agassiz
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London S W7 SBD, U. K.
I very much support
Dr Solis's application for the conservation of the family-group
name NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845 by giving it precedence
over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835.
I believe Speidel (1981, 1984) was correct in synonymising
the subfamilies NYMPHULINAE arid ACENTROPINAE, and ACENTROPINAE
is the older name. However, my understanding, even before
the greater emphasis given to usage in the latest (4th)
edition of the Code, is that it is important to preserve
a name that is in general use.
Before synonymy with the NYMPHULINAE, the subfamily
ACENTROPINAE included only the single genus Acentria Stephens,
1829 (the senior synonym of Acentropus Curtis,
1834). Acentria includes only one species, A.
ephemerella (Denis & Schiffermuller, 1775) (p.
142), which is European and thought to have been introduced
into North America. This distinctive species has hitherto
been a problem to systematists: Spuler (1910) and Kloet & Hincks
(1972) placed it in the subfamily SCHOENOBIINAE, whilst
Meyrick (1928) placed it in the PYRAUSTINAE. In their revisions
of the NYMPHULINAE in America, Lange (1956) and Munroe
(1972) did not include Acentria. Only in recent
years has its inclusion in the subfamily NYMPHULINAE been
generally accepted.
In the Americas, Asia and Australasia, NYMPHULINAE
is the only subfamily name to have been used, and in Europe
it is really only Speidel and his colleague Mey who have
used ACENTROPINAE (see their comment in BZN 57:
46-48). In the checklists of Australia (Nielsen et al.,
1996) and the Neotropical Region (Heppner, 1992), and in
works on the family in Japan and Thailand (Yoshiyasu, 1985,
1987), there is no mention of Acentria (let alone
of the invalid and long disused Acentropus). Acceptance
of ACENTROPINAE as the valid name would mean a change of
subfamily name for all the included species, of which there
are about 500 worldwide and several of economic importance,
and would be a cause of considerable disruption. I strongly
support the application.
Additional references
Denis, J.N.C.M. & Schiffermiiller,
I. 1775. Ankundurag eines
systenaatischen Werkes von den Schmetterlingen
der Wienergegend. Vienna.
Klcet, G.S. & Hincks, W.D. 1972. A
check list of British insects. viii,
153 pp. London.
Lange, W.H. 1956. A generic revision of the
aquatic moths of North America (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae, Nymphulinae). Wasmann
Journal of Biology, 14: 59-144.
Meyrick, E. 1928. Revised handbook of
British Lepidoptera. vi, 914 pp. London.
Munroe, E.G. 1972. Pyraloides: Pyralidae (part). The
moths of America north of Mexico, vol. 13, part IA. 134
pp. Classey, London.
Nielsen, E.S., Edwards, E.D. & Rangsi, T.V. (Eds.).
1996. Monographs on Australian Lepidoptera, 4. Checklist
of the Lepidoptera of Australia. xiv, 529 pp. Collingwood.
Spuler, A. 1910. Die Schmetterlinge Europas,
vol. 2. xvii, 523 pp. Stuttgart.
Yoshiyasu, Y. 1985. A systematic study of
the Nymphulinae and the Musotiminae of Japan (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae). Scientific Reports of the Kyoto Prefectural
University (Agriculture), 37: 1-162.
Yoshiyasu, Y. 1987. The Nymphulinae (Lepidoptera:
Pyralidae) from Thailand, with descriptions of a new genus
and six new species. Microlepidoptera of Thailand, 1:
133-184.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Cynodon
Spix in Spix & Agassiz, 1829 and Raphiodnn Agassiz
in Spix & Agassiz, 1829, and proposed designation
of C. gibbus and R. vulpinus Spix & Agassiz,
1829 as the respective type species of Cynodon and Raphiodnn (Osteichthyes,
Characiformes)
(Case 3041; see BZN 57: 151-157)
Maurice Kottelat
Route de la Baroche 12, Case postale 57, CH-2952
Cornol, Switzerland
I have read Toledo-Piza &
Lazara's application concerning the conservation of the
generic names Cynodon and Raphiodon,
and the designation of type species for these genera,
and I support their conclusions and proposals.
Comments
on the proposed precedence of the specific name of Euphryne
obesus Baird, 1858 over that of Sauromalus ater Dumeril,
1856 (Reptilia, Squamata)
(Case
3143; see BZN
58: 37-40, 229)
(1) Lauren E. Brown
Department of Biological Sciences, Illinois
State University, Campus Box 4120, Normal,
Illinois 61790-4120, U.S.A.
I unconditionally
support the application of Montanucci et al. to give precedence
to the commonly used specific name of the iguanid lizard Sauromalus
obesus (Baird, 1858) over the seldom-used name S.
ater Dumeril, 1856. The preponderance of use of the
name S. obesus in the scientific and popular literature
(ca. 550 titles for S. obesus, versus 46 titles
for S. ater of which only 12 are post-1950) gives
overwhelming and convincing justification for conservation
of S. obesus. Failure to do so would result in
widespread instability and confusion.
I would like to comment further on another use of
the name S. obesus not covered by the applicants,
namely its use in teaching. The species is widely known
for its unusual escape behavior. When disturbed or frightened,
an individual retreats into the nearest crevice and wedges
itself in place by gulping air and inflating its body.
Thus, the animal becomes quite difficult to extract. It
shares this remarkable behavioral trait with the pancake
tortoise Malacochersus tornieri (which has a flexible
shell) of East Africa. I have described this unusual behavior
(always using the name S. obesus) in my courses
for 34 years. Thus, thousands of students have learned
the name. I suspect that students elsewhere have likewise
frequently used the name S. obesus in conjunction
with its unusual escape behavior.
(2) Bayard H. Brattstrom
Department of Biology, California State
University, Fullerton, California 92834,
U. S. A. (Current address: Horned Lizard
Ranch, P. O. Box 166, Wikieup, Arizona 85360-0166,
U. S. A. )
I support the arguments
of Montanucci et al. to conserve the long used and well
known specific name of Sauromalus obesus (Baird,
1858) for the famous chuckwalla of the deserts of the United
States and Mexico.
I have used the name Sauromalus obesus in
over a dozen papers on thermo-regulation, paleontology,
archaeology, social behavior, conservation and indeed folklore.
This name is associated with the chuckwalla in many different
fields. In addition, the name has been used in such popular
magazines as Arizona Highways and National Geographic.
Many books and leaflets sold in national parks, museums
and zoos in the southwestern United States have photographs
or stories about the chuckwalla and use the name S.
obesus.
Since the name is so well established in the scientific
and lay literature it is my view that Sauromalus obesus should
be conserved by giving it precedence over S. ater Dumeril,
1856.
(3) Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State University,
San Diego, California 92182-1614, U. S. A.
I write to oppose
the proposal of Montanucci et al. to give precedence to
the name Euphryne obesus Baird, 1858 over its
senior synonym Sauromalus ater Dumeril, 1856.
Most biologists, including systematists, dislike the substitution
of a familiar name by a senior synonym. Article 23.9 of
the Code gives relief when the senior synonym has not been
used as a valid name after 1899.
In the present case the species in question was universally
called Sauromalus ater from Dumeril's original
1856 description until 1922. At that time Van Denburgh
(1922) decided that two species were involved, and S.
obesus and S. ater were universally regarded
as distinct species for a period of 76 years. No one questioned
the validity of the two species until Hollingsworth (1998)
demonstrated that the two forms were conspecific and properly
applied the name of the senior synonym S. ater to
the single taxon.
During the past 76 years the name of the junior synonym, S.
obesus, has appeared many more times in the literature
than the senior synonym simply because the northern populations
(called S. obesus) occur in the United States
while the southern populations (called S. ater)
were thought to be a Mexican species. This imbalance in
citations reflects the difference in the number of active
herpetologists in the two countries, and in turn seriously
biases any survey of the literature, such as the one carried
out by the authors of this application (para. 6). I question
whether the precedence of names should be based on such
a factor.
(4) Hobart M. Smith
Department of Environmental, Population
and Organismic Biology, University of Colorado,
Boulder, Colorado 80309-0334, U.S.A.
Richard R. Montanucci
Department of Biological Sciences, Clemson University,
Clemson, South Carolina 29634-1903, US.A.
In the present case,
for over 75 years the specific names of Sauromalus
ater Dumeril, 1856 and S. obesus (Baird,
1858) were consistently applied to what were thought to
be different species, and during that time hundreds of
usages of S. obesus appeared in the literature
(and continue to do so), whereas there were few usages
of S. ater.
Hollingsworth (1998) demonstrated that in reality
the two populations are conspecific. Application of priority
would require utilization of the name S. ater for
the single species. However, inasmuch as retention of the
far more widely used S. obesus would not in any
way conflict with Hollingsworth's findings, the Code's
primary objectives of stability and universality would
be served by retention of the name S. obesus for
the species.
If taxonomists were the only ones using these names,
stability might be of less concern. But this species is
cited in innumerable non-taxonomic works and for the sake
of these many users stability is important.
We therefore reiterate our support for the application
as it stands.
Comment on the proposed designation of neotypes
for Vespertilio pipistrellus Schreber, 1774
and V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus
pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus; Mammalia,
Chiroptera)
(Case 3073; see BZN 56: 182-186; 57:
49-50, 113-116; 58: 60-61, 230-231)
Gareth Jones
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bristol,
Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1 UG, U. K.
In response to
the comment by Victor Van Cakenberghe (published in BZN
58: 230-231) I make the following observations:
1. There is still no unambiguous morphological criterion
by which bats from the 45 kHz and 55 kHz phonic types can
be distinguished. The phalanx ratios described by Cabrera
(1904) are not statistically different. Hence the lectotype
and many of the `other specimens' of Pipistrellus p.
mediterraneus referred to by Van Cakenberghe are of
doubtful identity, and this can only be resolved at present
by the use of molecular markers. Although I accept that
the lectotype of P. p. mediterraneus is likely
to be a 55 kHz bat, at present its identity has not been
confirmed and the use of this name may not, in any case,
provide for a stable nomenclature over time. I am also
concerned about the validity of many of the other specimens
identified as P. p mediterraneus in collections
throughout the world.
2. The case of Scotophilus highlighted by
Van Cakenberghe is a good example of the confusion caused
through instability created by changes in nomenclature.
Statements such as `Thus prior to 1978 S. nigrita referred
to the largest African form and subsequent references (probably)
refer to the middle-sized form' show how confusion can
be created, and, in that case, the confusion continues
today.
3. Recent uses of the name P. pygmaeus include
Wong, J.G. & Waters, D.A. (2001) Journal of Experimental
Biology, 204: 575-583; Jones, G.,
Vaughan, N.
& Parsons, S. (2000) Acta Chiropterologica, 2:
155-170; and many abstracts and popular science articles.
To use the much younger P. mediterraneus now
would create immense confusion.
