Comments
Comments
with the following titles were
published on 18 December 2003
in Volume 60, 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).
Comment
on Zoological Record and
registration of new names in zoology
(General
Article; see BZN 60:
7-11)
David
J. Patterson
School of Biological Sciences, University
of Sydney, N.S.W. 2006, Australia
David
Remsen and Cathy Norton
Marine Biological Laboratory, Woods
Hole, Massachusetts 02543, U.S.A.
The
proposal presented in this article
to register all new zoological names
is a welcome addition to the initiatives
to bring taxonomic practices into
the informatics age (see Agosti & Johnston,
2002; Godfray, 2002; Patterson, 2003).
Implementation of this strategy would
bring the informatics base for animals
closer to the situation that prevails
for viruses, bacteria, plants, algae
and fungi, where similar developments
have allowed both taxonomists and
others who use names to take better
advantage of the informatics world.
‘Compilations of names’ are a key step in the realization
of other visions of greatly enhanced access to information about organisms
(Patterson, 2003). The value of names compilations has been recognized by a
variety of groups (Ruggiero et al., 2002) and agencies, such as GBIF, ITIS,
and Species2000. Most compilations currently being assembled serve to catalogue
our biodiversity or to provide reference materials for the community of taxonomists.
It is more rare to find initiatives that capitalize on the informatics value
of taxonomy.
A number of developments are needed to allow biodiversity bioinformatics
to make progress. Future strategies must not be conceived as databases but
in the context of Internet computing (Stein, 2002). We need openly accessible,
non-partisan repositories of names of plants, fungi and microorganisms, as
well as of animals. New structures will need to reconcile alternative (whether
formal or colloquial) names for the same entities, be respectful of nomenclatural
protocols, and accommodate divergent hierarchical classifications. Additional
benefits emerge if a distinction is made between names (where the strongest
informatics signal lies) and the more subjective elements of taxonomy such
as classification schemes (where most of the noise lies) (Pullan et al., 2000).
Structures with these features have been available – but they have not
been drawn together beyond the conceptual level. We are of the view that the
critical step in releasing the potential for biodiversity bioinformatics is
the development of name servers that meet the criteria listed above.
Name servers are devices that manage information about biological names
and classifications, of which the Taxonomic Name Server (TNS) of the Universal
Biological Indexer and Organizer (uBio) project is a good example. The uBio
project is based at the Marine Biological Laboratory and Woods Hole Oceanographic
Institution Library (MBL/WHOI Library) in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, U.S.A.,
where it is supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation (http://www.ubio.org).
The project emerged alongside initiatives to digitize resources within biological
literature. As any and all collections of biological information possess an
internal index of names, the project sought to call upon names to create pathways
to associated data. By including classificatory structures, we can enhance
the biological context of these pathways. The result was a name server using
names and classification as devices to access, index and organize biological
information.
uBio’s Taxonomic Name Server (TNS) embraces but transcends the
nomenclatural traditions of microbiology, botany and zoology. It fulfils the
normal thesaural expectations of name servers in mapping alternative names
for taxa against each other. It separates names from the classification systems
with which they are normally associated. Consequently, the name server is neither
limited to nor needs to endorse a single classification, but can operate with
many co-existing classifications. Without a dependency on classification structures,
the system can acquire names that are not placed within any classification
but still have informatics potential –
such as indexes to holdings in museums
or herbaria.
The TNS data model has three broad domains: one for objective nomenclatural
information (names, authorities, publications), the second for subjective elements
of taxonomy (the ranks assigned to names, synonymies, and hierarchical classifications),
and the third relates to management and maintenance of the content and contributions.
The last dimension reflects our dependency on the expertise of numerous taxonomists
for the content and organizational principles of TNS, and for moulding the
structure in which the data resources are placed. In addition to holding data
on names and classifications, TNS also documents and credits the origins of
data and opinions and provides a return to the taxonomic community by transforming
taxonomic knowledge into valuable organizational services.
TNS is currently being populated with the names of all genera and with
collective name indexes provided by a large number of individual and institutional
collaborators. Because of its potential value to bibliographic enterprises,
the uBio project is also committed to the incorporation of older and colloquial
names and to this end is co-operating in the conversion of Neave’s Nomenclator
Zoologicus to an electronic format.
From our point of view, the tradition of separating the nomenclature
of animals (and other organisms treated as animals) from the nomenclature of
plants is no longer desirable. This tradition has sociological and logistical
foundations. The defense of these traditions is likely to lead to new informatics
tools with the same aims, but which achieve these aims in different ways. Many
services that call upon biological information, such as collective indices
and authority lists already employed within libraries, information providers,
or in molecular databases, are blind to these boundaries. So too are many groups
responsible for the monitoring and management of our biodiversity and renewable
natural resources who need tools to access information on the appearance, occurrence,
and distribution of, and threats to, all types of organisms.
The integration of the concept proposed by Thorne with a name server
brings considerable advantages beyond those envisaged for zoology. The first
is the capacity for an immediate conversion of catalogues of names into tools
capable of drawing together information about organisms to serve the needs
of researchers, educators, and decision makers. Second, the placement of zoological
names within a universal names compendium allows progress within a global rather
than a parochial context. A comprehensive names compilation has nomenclatural
advantages, for example eliminating the excuse for all future homonyms, and
overcoming many of the problems associated with names of organisms that are
only arguable plants or animals and so fall into the ambiregnal category (Corliss,
1995; Patterson, 1986). Finally, these structures will serve the needs of taxonomists
by improving access to information and by providing evidence of the value of
taxonomy and of taxonomists.
Estimates that it may take 10 years to compile a list of all names seem
to based on the presumption that the initial steps for aggregating names require
expert quality control (Patterson, 2003). This limits the rate of names aggregation.
The uBio names acquisition strategy includes three key elements to allow more
rapid progress. The first is the separation of objective from subjective elements
of taxonomy. Second, we place the quality control step after the compilation
of names. This eliminates the rate-limiting step while retaining most of the
potential of names as indexing and organizing structures. Finally, our strategy
to collect generic names first, coupled with the development of software tools
capable of folding in specific names from other names lists, can achieve a
unified compilation of all names in current use within the foreseeable future.
The only impediment will be the willingness of key bodies to share their names
information.
In this regard, we are pleased to note that Zoological Record has
addressed concerns of access to names in committing continuing access to the
Index to Organism Names (http://www.biosis.org.uk/ion),
and more generally the enthusiasm to share their resources with other names
and biodiversity initiatives. We urge the Commission to support this offer,
and to promote its extension to all organisms
Additional
references
Agosti, D. & Johnson, N.F. 2002.
Taxonomists need better access to
published data. Nature, 417:
222
Corliss, J.O. 1995. The ambiregnal protists
and the Codes of nomenclature: a brief review of the
problem and of proposed solutions. Bulletin of Zoological
Nomenclature, 52: 11-17.
Godfray, C.H.J. 2002. Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417:
17–19
Patterson, D.J. 1986. Some problems of ambiregnal
taxonomy and a possible solution. Symposia Biologica Hungarica, 33:
87-93.
Patterson, D.J. 2003. Progressing towards
a biological names register. Nature, 422:
661.
Pullan, M.R., Watson, M.G.F., Kennedy, J.B., Raguenaud,
C. & Hyam, R. 2000. The Prometheus taxonomic model:
a practical approach to representing multiple classifications. Taxon, 49:
55-75.
Ruggiero, M., Bisby, F., Wilson, K. & Shimura,
J. 2002. Towards a ‘Catalogue of Life’.
Report of GBIF STAG meeting, Sydney, Australia, 15-16 March
2002.
Stein, L. 2002. Creating a bioinformatics
nation. Nature, 417: 119-120.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of and designation
of a neotype for Spongia ventilabra Linnaeus, 1767
(currently Phakellia ventilabra; Porifera)
(Case
3216; see BZN
60: 16-19)
Belinda
Alvarez and Richard C. Willan
Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory,
GPO Box 4646, Darwin, NT 0801, Australia
As
the result of a misunderstanding
at the proof stage of this application,
the Commission Secretariat introduced
an error. Although Linnaeus (1767)
originally spelt the specific name ventilabra,
Johnson (1842) changed it to ventilabrum.
Subsequently Johnson’s spelling
has prevailed (see Article 33.3.1
of the Code; the Secretariat holds
a list of 28 references that show
prevailing usage). Accordingly, we
make the following corrections to
para. 11 of our application:
(2) . . . type species by original
designation Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus,
1767;
(3) to place on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology the
name ventilabrum, as published
in the binomen Spongia ventilabrum Linnaeus,
1767 . . .
Comments
on the proposed conservation of Melania curvicostata Reeve,
1861 and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) by the designation of a neotype for Melania
curvicostata (Reeve, 1861)
(Case
3232; see BZN
60: 109-112)
(1)
Wallace E. Holznagel
Department of Biological Sciences,
College of Arts and Sciences, University
of Alabama, 425 Scientific Collections
Building, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487-0345,
U.S.A.
I
fully support the application to
set aside all previous type fixations
and designate the specimen Florida
Museum of Natural History 292208
as the neotype of Melania curvicostata Reeve,
1861 and to place on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology
the specific names of M. curvicostata and Goniobasis
paupercula Lea, 1862. At present
there is considerable interest and
research in the molluscan fauna of
the southeastern United States, which
is considered to be a hot spot of
freshwater biological diversity.
To understand adequately the biodiversity
of this region or any region and
make informed conservation recommendations,
researchers need representative samples
that truly reflect the original species
description.
The
following four correspondents (2)-(5)
have all pointed out the same Code-compliant
resolution to this case.
(2)
L.B. Holthuis
National Museum of Natural
History, Naturalis, P.O. Box 9517,
2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
It
is stated in the application that
the specimen figured as Melania
curvicostata by Reeve, 1861
is different from all the existing
syntypes and probably is the only
one of the type series to belong
to the species currently known as Elimia
curvicostata. The Commission
has been asked to use the plenary
power to designate a neotype for
this species. Would it not be more
logical for the authors to select
the figured specimen (Reeve, 1861,
pl. 58, species 462) as the lectotype
to fix the identity of the species
in the way wanted by the authors
without action by the Commission?
There is nothing in the Code that
requires that a lectotype has to
be an extant specimen.
(3)
Arthur E. Bogan
North Carolina State Museum of Natural
Sciences, Research Laboratory, 4301
Reedy Creek Road, Raleigh, NC 27607,
U.S.A.
There
is no confusion between the two taxa E.
curvicostata from Georgia and
Florida and E. paupercula from
creeks in northern Alabama (e.g.
Tryon, 1873, pp. 192, 292; Burch & Tottenham,
1980, pp. 136, 137, 140, 141; Thompson,
1984, pp. 25-27). Thompson and Mihalcik
presented no evidence of any previous
assumption of holotype or designation
of a lectotype for Melania curvicostata
Reeve, 1861. The designation of the
figured syntype of M. curvicostata as
the lectotype would fix the identity
of the species clearly illustrated
by Reeve (see Articles 72.5.6; 74.4
of the Code).
Additional
reference
Tryon, G.W. Jr. 1873.
Land and fresh-water shells of
North America. Part 4. Strepomatidae
(American melanians). Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 16:
1-435.
(4)
Daniel L. Graf
The Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103,
U.S.A.
According
to Chambers (1990, p. 239), the types
associated with some of Reeve’s
names, including Melania curvicostata and M.
densicostata,
‘could not be located’ in
the BMNH. I would like to know more
about these specimens and the evidence
for their validity as type material.
Specimens in J.G. Anthony’s
personal collection, now deposited
in the MCZ (Turner, 1846) have been
recognized as figured specimens of
nominal species described by Reeve
(see Graf, 2001). Throughout their
application the authors seem to have
a genuine expectation that there
should be a specimen that looks just
like that figure. If Reeve’s
figure of M. curvicostata was based
on a single (now missing) shell that
may possibly be found (and the figure
of that shell is adequate to recognize
the species), would it not be more
appropriate to simply designate the
figured specimen as the lectotype
under Article 74.4 of the Code?
Article 74.4 allows that the ‘designation of an illustration or
description of a syntype as a lectotype is to be treated as designation of
the specimen illustrated or described; the fact that the specimen no longer
exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation’ (see
Article 72.5.6).
Additional
reference
Turner, R.D. 1946.
John Gould Anthony, with a bibliography
and catalogue of his species. Occasional
Papers on Mollusks, Museum of Comparative
Zoology, Harvard University, 1(8):
81–108.
(5)
Russell L. Minton
University of Louisiana at Monroe,
Monroe, LA 71209, U.S.A.
The
BMNH syntypes would become paralectotypes
in need of re-identification if the
authors believe that these specimens
are in fact Elimia paupercula (Lea,
1862). No other action need be taken
concerning M. densicostata (simple
synonymy) or G. paupercula.
The Commission may still want to
place the names on the Official List.
(6)
Dietrich Kadolsky
66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead,
Surrey CR2 0BA, U.K.
1. Melania
curvicostata Reeve, 1861 (currently Elimia
curvicostata) is a junior
primary homonym of Melania
curvicostata Melleville, 1843
(p. 94, pl. 4, figs. 10-12) (currently Melanatria
curvicostata). The latter
name has been treated since its
introduction as the valid name
for a fossil from the Early Eocene
(Sparnacien) of the Paris Basin,
for which no other synonym is available
(see Wenz, 1929, pp. 2620-2621).
North American species have long
been removed from the genus Melania Lamarck,
1799 (= Thiara Röding,
1798), which has historically served
as a hold-all for many freshwater
CERITHIOIDEA (now classified in
the families THIARIDAE, PACHYCHILIDAE
and PLEUROCERIDAE). It is probable
that neither name has been classified
in the genus Melania since
1899. However, this primary homonymy
should be referred to the Commission
under Article 23.9.5 of the Code.
2. The fact that Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 is invalid
as a junior primary homonym removes a potential threat to the name Goniobasis
paupercula Lea, 1862, which Thompson and Mihalcik want to protect.
3. I would prefer that the Code be strictly applied in this case. However,
if a neotype is to be designated as proposed in the application, I wonder why
an empty shell has been proposed considering the importance of anatomy and
molecular genetics in molluscan taxonomy. Perhaps the applicants or others
familiar with these taxa may wish to elaborate on this point.
Additional
references
Melleville, M. 1843. Mémoire
sur les sables tertiaires inférieures
du bassin de Paris, avec la description
de 78 espèces de coquilles
fossiles inédites de ce terrain. Annales
des Sciences géologiques ou
Archives de Géologie .
. ., 2: 1-29, 77-120.
Wenz, W. 1929. Gastropoda extramarina
tertiaria, pt. 40. Pp. 2503-2886 in: Fossilium
Catalogus, I. Animalia. Junk, Berlin.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of prevailing usage of TERMOPSIDAE
Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer, 1849 and Miotermes Rosen,
1913 (Insecta, Isoptera)
(Case 3244;
see BZN 60:
119-123)
M.A.
Alonso-Zarazaga
Depto. de Biodiversidad y Biología
Evolutiva, Museo Nacional de Ciencias
Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez
Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain
The
genus Termopsis Heer, 1849
is compounded by the stem term-
(of genus Termes, a Latin
third declension masculine substantive)
and ending –opsis,
taken from the Greek word ópsis,
meaning ‘aspect’
or ‘appearance’, which
is feminine. According to Article
30.1.2 of the Code, the genus Termopsis is
feminine in gender (this name is
actually given as an example in the
Code). All zoological genera ending
in -opsis, irrespective
of the original genus given by their
authors, are feminine. Original specific
names that are not in accordance
with the current genus gender must
be emended (see Article 34.2).
Article 68.1 explicitly states the precedence of the different kinds
of type species fixation. Type species fixation by original designation has
precedence over type species fixation by monotypy. Consequently, I request
that para. 11 of Case 3244 be emended as follows:
(2)
to place on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) Termopsis Heer,
1849 (gender: feminine), type species
by designation in (1) above Termopsis
bremii Heer, 1849;
(b) Miotermes Rosen,
1913 (gender: masculine), type species
by original designation Termopsis
procera Heer, 1849 . . .
Comment
on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby,
1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 (June)
(Case
3097; see BZN
59: 246-248, 280-281)
Frank-Thorsten
Krell
Department of Entomology, The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, U.K.
Stefano
Ziani
Via S. Giovanni, 41/a, I-47014
Meldola (Forli), Italy
Alberto
Ballerio
c/o Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali ‘E.
Caffi’, Piazza Cittadella 10,
I-24129 Bergamo, Italy
1.
We oppose Jameson and Howden’s
application to give Bolboceras Kirby,
1819 (July) precedence over Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 (June) because the latter name
is not only the older synonym but
is also more frequently used in the
current literature than Bolboceras.
We also oppose including names currently
considered to be junior synonyms
in the Official Lists of Generic
and Specific Names in Zoology. Since
opinions differ about whether Kirby
designated a type species for Bolboceras,
we ask the Commission to designate
as the type species of this genus,
the species that Kirby chose.
The
usage problem
2. The main concern we have about Jameson & Howden’s application
is that they neglect the established and frequent use of Odonteus Samouelle
in Europe in taxonomic, faunistic and conservation literature. Krikken (1978)
rediscovered Samouelle’s first introduction of this name into the literature
and stated that the forgotten original spelling was Odonteus. Later,
he considered Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 to be a junior synonym of Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 (Krikken, 1979, p. 37; 1984, p. 23). Nikolaev (1980), Shirt (1986) and
Jessop (1986) had already accepted this synonymy before Krell (1990) presented
further evidence for the temporal precedence of Samouelle’s name. Before
Krikken (1978), the spelling Odonteus had also been used occasionally
(Hildt, 1892, p. 216, 1896, p. 215; Kinelski & Szujecki, 1959, p. 234).
The claims of Jameson & Howden (BZN 59, p. 247) that Krell
(1990) was the only one to use Odonteus Samouelle in recent times,
and of Jameson (2002, p. 25) that this name ‘has not been used in the
primary literature for over 70 years’, are not correct. Harpootlian in
his comment (BZN 59, pp. 280-281) mentioned two more references,
but even he underestimated enormously the extent of usage of this name. The
name Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (with or without mentioning the author)
has been used as a valid name in its original spelling by Koch (1991, p. 350),
Krell (1991; 1993, p. 23; 1994, p. 13; 1995, p. 52; 1996, p. 19; 2001, p. 247),
Hyman & Parsons (1992, pp. 23, 33, 334), Krell & Fery (1992, p. 202),
Silfverberg (1992, p. 37), Duff (1993, p. 126), Ball (1995), Carpaneto & Piattella
(1995, p. 3), Gürlich et al. (1995, p. 71), Ádám (1996,
p. 304), Alexandrovitch et al. (1996, p. 29), Hansen (1996, p. 125), Kahlen & Hellrigl
(1996, p. 473), Kalisiak (1996, p. 1), Klausnitzer & Krell (1996, pp. 31f),
López-Colón et al. (1996, p. 4), Nikritskii et al. (1996, 51),
Rössner (1996, p. 49), Melloni & Landi (1997, p. 25), Telnov et al.
(1997, p. 55), Carpaneto et al. (1998, p. 18; 2001, p. 313), Köhler
& Klausnitzer (1998, p. 128),
Nádai & Merkl (1999,
p. 216), Martín-Piera & López-Colón
(2000, pp. 182, 498), Rheinheimer
(2000, p. 102), Geiser (2001, p.
405), Jaszay (2001, p. 106), Lo
Cascio (2001, p. 176), Ballerio
(2002, p. 60), Frank & Konzelmann
(2002, p. 129) and Schaefer (2002,
p. 400). The correct spelling with
erroneous authorship was used by
Král (1993; Odonteus Dejean,
1821) and Ádám (1994,
p. 12; Odonteus Leach,
1819). The subsequent incorrect
spelling ‘Odontaeus Samouelle’ was
used by Paulian & Baraud (1982,
p. 57), Zunino (1984, p. 18), Baraud
(1992, p. 46) and Bunalski (1999,
p. 8), and the spelling Odontaeus without
author or with incorrect authorship
by, e.g., Shirt (1987, p. 22), Schulze
(1992, p. 182), Bordat (1997, p.
15), Mittal (1998, 2000), Mitter
(2000, p. 63) (see next paragraph
for older references).
3. Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 is in fact a subsequent incorrect
spelling of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 and not a separate genus group
name because it was used at the same time for the same species. This cannot
be explained by mere coincidence. After Samouelle’s indication in 1819, Odonteus became
the established name for Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775 (then
synonymized with Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli, 1772) and related species,
although before Krikken’s rediscovery of the correct authorship and spelling,
the name has often been attributed to other authors and the incorrect spelling Odontaeus has
been used (Klug, 1845, p. 37; Horn, 1870, p. 50; Bertolini, 1891, p. 165; Reitter,
1893, p. 5; Boucomont, 1902, 1911; Arens, 1922; Wallis, 1928; Luigioni, 1929,
p. 389; Endrodi, 1956, p. 29; Landin, 1957, p. 54; Janssens, 1960, p. 111;
Machatschke, 1969, p. 274; Allenspach, 1970, p. 42 etc.). Before Cartwright
(1953) rediscovered Curtis’s (1829) type species designation for Bolboceras Kirby,
the American species of this genus were in Odontaeus whereas Bolboceras had
been used for more than 100 species of other genera (Horn, 1870, pp. 49-50;
Boucomont, 1902, 1911; Wallis, 1928). Because of Curtis’s (1829) type
species designation for Bolboceras, Cartwright transferred the Odontaeus species
to Bolboceras and the American Bolboceras species to Bradycinetulus Cockerell, Bolbocerastes Cartwright
and Bolborhombus Cartwright. In the Old World, this shift of the name Bolboceras to
what was formerly Odontaeus has only been followed by a few authors
(Paulian, 1959, p. 44; Benasso, 1971, p. 133; Bangsholt et al., 1979, p. 31;
Lundberg, 1986, p. 65; Nikolaev, 1987, p. 27; Barbero & Cavallo, 1999,
p. 70), whereas from the 1980s the usage of the correct spelling and authorship
of Odonteus has become widely accepted and stable (see references
above).
4. Hence, Jameson & Howden's application cannot be followed because
Article 23.9.3 expressly states that the junior synonym can prevail only if ‘the
use of the older synonym would threaten stability or universality or cause
confusion’. We have demonstrated above that in this case there is not
any ‘stability or universality’ in the use of Bolboceras,
while there has been relatively stable use of Odonteus. The only
‘stability’ we can find
in the use of Bolboceras is
geographically restricted to the
North American entomological community.
This usage is relatively recent.
In the older North American literature
we can still find cases of use of Odontaeus (e.g.
Wallis, 1928; Sim, 1930). In the
European entomological and conservation
community, it is Odonteus that
is stable since this name has been
used predominantly for over a century
and a half (hence there would be
a lot of confusion in the European
entomological and conservation community
if the name Bolboceras were
to be ruled as the name to follow).
In the absence of ‘stability
or universality’ in the use
of the junior synonym (Bolboceras),
Article 23.9.3 cannot be applied
in this case, and the only sensible
approach is to strictly follow the
Principle of Priority and rule that
the name to use is Odonteus.
The
type species problem
5. Contrary to Jameson & Howden (BZN 59, p. 247)
the type species of Odonteus Samouelle is Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius,
1775 (p. 11), not S. mobilicornis Marsham, 1802 (according to Article
67.7). Although Samouelle wrote
‘, Marsh.’, Marsham is
not the author of this species but
simply used Fabricius’s species
name (Marsham, 1802, p. 8). Since S.
mobilicornis Fabricius is an
established junior synonym of Scarabaeus
armiger Scopoli, 1772 (Boucomont,
1911, p. 15; Baraud, 1992, p. 46;
Martín-Piera & López-Colón,
2000, p. 498), it should not be placed
on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology. Instead, its senior
valid synonym (Scarabaeus armiger Scopoli,
1772) might be placed on the list.
6. We wonder whether Curtis’s (1829) type species designation is
valid. First Westwood (1855, p. 12) and then Boucomont (1911, p. 334) considered
Kirby’s remark in the original description ‘My details of Bolboceras were
taken from B. quadridens’ to be a type species designation (Westwood: ‘The
species, moreover, which it will be advisable to regard as the type of Bolboceras,
will be Sc. quadridens, Linn., as that was the species dissected by
Mr. Kirby.’; Boucomont: ‘L’auteur de ce genre, Kirby, a pris
comme espèce typique B. quadridens L. (F.)’. Kirby attributed B.
quadridens erroneously to Linnaeus; this name was cited only in the last
edition of Systema Naturae, edited by Gmelin (Gmelin, 1788, p. 1530)
who referred explicitly to Fabricius’s Indian species (Fabricius, 1781,
p. 11), not to Panzer’s (1793) Scarabaeus quadridens, which
is a junior synonym of the European species Bolbelasmus unicornis (Schrank,
1789) (original spelling: unicornu) according to Klug (1845, p. 39).
7. Kirby’s remark is certainly the reason why Odonteus and Bolboceras had
been considered to be distinct genera for a long time (Klug, 1845, pp. 36-37;
Horn, 1870, p. 50; Reitter, 1893, pp. 4-5). In our opinion, Kirby declared
explicitly that he used exclusively B. quadridens to describe the
genus. Therefore, the other species were included after the description was
compiled. Hence, B. quadridens is neither only an example (sensu Article
67.5.1.) nor ambiguous under Article 67.5.3. It is, however, not explicitly
designated as the type species either, but in fact it is the type species that
Kirby chose. Jameson and Howden are right that the first unequivocal type species
designation is that by Curtis (1829): Scarabaeus mobilicornis. Therefore,
we ask the Commission to set aside Curtis’s type species designation
and to designate Scarabaeus quadridens as the type species of Bolboceras Kirby,
1819, following Kirby’s intention and taking into account the current
usage in Asia (see below). However, this act creates a new junior synonym:
In 1979, Nikolajev described the monotypic genus Indobolbus for Bolboceras
quadridens. According to Zoological Record, Indobolbus has only been used
after its description by Krikken (1984) who included 10 other former Bolboceras species
in this genus. However, in Asia both the type species of Indobolbus, Bolboceras
quadridens, and Indobolbus transversalis are still assumed to
belong to Bolboceras by Asian authors (Mittal, 1981; Yadav et al.,
1990; Chandra, 1996). Moreover, Bolboceras is not only still in use
for Indobolbus species, but used in the old broad sense of Boucomont
(1902), which simply shows that the works of modern authors have not been considered
in Asia so far (but also shows that the use of Bolboceras is not stable
and universal). If the Commission decides to follow our proposal to designate B.
quadridens as the type species of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819, Indobolbus Nikolajev,
1979, which has the same type species, will be a junior synonym. This would
mean the shift of the name Bolboceras Kirby from a genus of ten American
species to a genus of 11 species from the Afrotropical and Oriental regions
(where the name is still in use). However, since Bolboceras is not
the valid name for the American species anyway, this shift would not cause
any more confusion than the necessary revived utilisation of the valid name Odonteus in
North America, and only North America will be affected.
8. To fix the identity of Bolboceras quadridens Fabricius, 1781
beyond doubt, the first author of this comment (F.-T. Krell) herewith designates
the lectotype. The species has been described from material of the Banks collection,
which is housed in The Natural History Museum, London. Although, two further
specimens of B. quadridens are in Fabricius’s collection in
Kiel (Zimsen, 1964, p. 24) they do not have to be considered because two further
specimens exist in the Banks collection. The first author chose the smaller
specimen without label to be designated as the lectotype because it belongs
to the species currently considered to be B. quadridens (as diagnosed
by the generic and specific characters given by Nikolajev (1979, p. 190) and
Krikken (1984, pp. 27, 34) for Indobolbus Nikolajev, and Fabricius
(1781, p. 11) and Chandra (1996) for B. quadridens). A second specimen
with the handwritten label ‘Scarab. quadridens / Fabr. Sp. Ins. no 37’ belongs
to Bolboceras nigricans Westwood, 1848, and does not correspond with
the original description (‘capitis clypeo bidentato’), because
in B. nigricans the clypeus is pointed.
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set
aside all previous fixations of type
species for the nominal genus Bolboceras Kirby,
1819 and to designate Scarabaeus
quadridens Fabricius, 1781 as
type species;
(2) to place on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology the following
names:
(a) Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 (gender: masculine), type species
by monotypy: Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius,
1775;
(b) Bolboceras Kirby, 1819
(gender: masculine), type species
by designation in (1) above Scarabaeus
quadridens Fabricius, 1781;
(3) to place on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology the
name quadridens Fabricius,
1781, as published in the binomen Scarabaeus
quadridens and as defined by
the lectotype designated in para.
8 above (specific name of the type
species of Bolboceras Kirby,
1819).
Additional
references
Ádám, L. 1994. A check-list of the Hungarian Scarbaeoidea
with the description of ten new taxa (Coleoptera). Folia Entomologica Hungarica, 55:
5-17.
Ádám, L. 1996. Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera)
of the Bükk National Park. Pp. 299–308 in Mahunka, S.
(Ed.), The Fauna of the Bükk National Park II. Hungarian Natural
History Museum, Budapest.
Alexandrovitch, O.R., Lopatin, I.K., Pisanenko, A.D.,
Tsinkevitch, V.A. & Snitko, S.M. 1996. A Catalogue
of Coleoptera (Insecta) of Belarus. 104 pp. Fund of Fundamental
Investigations of the Republic of Belarus, Minsk.
Allenspach, V. 1970. Coleoptera Scarabaeidae,
Lucanidae. Insecta Helvetica Catalogus, 2: 1-186.
Arens, L.E. 1922. K biologii Odontaeus
armiger Scop. (Coleoptera). Izvestya Petrogrogradskogo
Nauchnogo Instituta Imeni P. F. Lesgafta, 5:
241-246.
Ball, S.G. 1995. 'Recorder' software package,
Version 3.21b. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Ballerio, A. 2002. La legge Regionale 56/2000
della Regione Toscana ed il futuro dell'attività entomologica in Italia.
Pp. 58-66 in Cerfolli, F., Petrassi, F. &
Petretti, F. (Ed.), Libro Rosso
degli Animali d'Italia - Invertebrati.
83 pp. WWF Italia, Roma.
Bangsholt, F., Biström, O., Lundberg, S.,
Muona, J., Silfverberg, H. & Strand, A. 1979. Enumeratio
Coleopterorum Fennoscandiae et Daniae, vol. 5. 79
pp. Helsingin Hyönteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.
Baraud, J. 1992. Coléoptères
Scarabaeoidea d'Europe. Faune de France, France et régions
limitrophes, 78: ix, 1-858 pp.
Barbero, E. & Cavallo, O. 1999. I coleotteri
scarabaeoidea degradatori (Trogidae, Geotrupidae, Scarabaeidae,
Aphodiidae) del Museo civico ‘F. Eusebio’. Alba
Pompeia, n.s., 20: 65-81.
Benasso, G. 1971. Contributo alla conoscenza
dell’entomofauna del Carso triestino: Scarabaeoidea. Atti
del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Trieste, 27:
129-166.
Bertolini, S. 1891. Contribuzione alla fauna
trentina dei Coleotteri. Bollettino della Società Entomologica
Italiana, 23: 169-217.
Bordat, P. 1997. Première partie :
Lucanoidea, Scarabaeoidea Laparosticti. Catalogue des Coléoptères
de l’Ile de France, 6: 8-37.
Boucomont, A. 1902. Coleoptera Lamellicornia
Fam. Geotrupidae. Genera Insectorum, 7:
1-20.
Boucomont, A. 1911. Contribution à la
classification des Geotrypidae (Col.). Annales de la Société
Entomologique de France, 79:
333-350.
Bunalski, M. 1999. Die Blatthornkäfer
Mitteleuropas. Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea. Bestimmung – Verbreitung
– Ökologie. 80 pp. Slamka, Bratislava.
Carpaneto, G.M., Maltzeff, P., Piattella, E. & Francchinelli,
L. 2001. Nuovi reperti di coleotteri lamellicorni
della tenuta presidenziale di Castelporziano e delle aree
limitrofe (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). Bollettino dell’Associazione
Romana di Entomologia, 56: 311-329.
Carpaneto, G.M., Maltzeff, P., Piattella, E. & Pontuale,
G. 1998. I coleotteri lamellicorni della tenuta presidenziale
di Castelporziano e delle aree limitrofe (Coleoptera, Lamellicornia). Bollettino
dell’Associazione Romana di Entomologia, 52:
9-54.
Carpaneto, G.M. & Piattella, E. 1995.
Coleoptera Polyphaga V (Lucanoidea, Scarabaeoidea). Checklist
delle Specie della Fauna Italiana, 50:
1-18.
Chandra, K. 1996. Bolboceras quadridens (Fabricius),
a beetle new to the Andaman Islands, India. Malayan Nature
Journal, 50: 107-108.
Duff, A. 1993. Beetles of Somerset, their
status and distribution. 269 pp. Somerset Archaeological & Natural
History Society, Taunton.
Endrodi, S. 1956. Lemezecsápú bogarak
Lamellicornia. Fauna Hungariae, 12: 1-188.
Fabricius, I.C. 1781. Species Insectorum .
. ., vol. 1. viii, 494 pp. Bohnii, Hamburgi et Kilonii.
Frank, J. & Konzelmann, E. 2002. Die
Käfer Baden-Württembergs 1950-2000. 290 pp.
Landesanstalt für Umweltschutz Baden Württemberg,
Karlsruhe.
Geiser, E. 2001. Die Käfer des Landes
Salzburg. Monographs on Coleoptera, 2:
1-706.
Gmelin, J.F. 1788. Caroli a Linné .
. . systema naturae per regna tria naturae . . ., vol. 1 Beer,
Lipsiae.
Gürlich, S., Suikat, R. & Ziegler, W. 1995.
Katalog der Käfer Schleswig-Holsteins und des Niederelbegebietes. Verhandlungen
des Vereins für Naturwissenschaftliche Heimatforschung
zu Hamburg, 41: 1-111.
Hansen, M. 1996. Katalog over Danmarks biller
[second part]. Entomologiske Meddelelser, 64:
113-231.
Hildt, L.F. 1892. Przyczynek do fauny chrzaszczów
podolskich. Pamietnik Fizyograficzn, 12(3):
209-235.
Hildt, L.F. 1896. Zuki czyli Gnojowce Krajove. Pamietnik
Fizyograficzny, 14(3): 153-228.
Horn, G.H. 1870. Notes on some Genera of Coprophagous
Scarabaeidae of the United States. Transactions of the
American Entomological Society, 3: 42-51.
Hyman, P.S. & Parsons, M.S. 1992. UK Nature
Conservation No. 3. A review of the scarce and threatened
Coleoptera of Great Britain, Part 1. ii, 484 pp. UK Joint
Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough.
Jameson, M.L. 2002. Geotrupidae Latreille
1802. Pp. 23-27 in: Arnett, R.H., Thomas, M.C., Skelley, P.E. & Frank,
J.H. (Eds.), American beetles, vol. 2. Polyphaga: Scarabaeoidea
through Curculionoidea. CRC, Boca Raton.
Janssens, A. 1960. Insectes Coléoptères
Lamellicornes. Faune de Belgique. 411 pp. Institut
Royal des Sciences Naturelles de Belgique, Bruxelles.
Jaszay, T. 2001. Chrobáky (Coleoptera)
Národného Parku Poloniny. 234 pp. Štátna
ochrana prírody SR Banska Bystrica Správa Národného
parku Poloniny, Snina.
Kahlen, M. & Hellrigl, K. 1996. Coleoptera
– Käfer (Deck- oder Hartflügler).
Pp. 393-511 in Hellrigl, K., Die
Tierwelt Südtirols. Kommentiertes
systematisch-faunistisches Verzeichnis
der auf dem Gebiet der Provinz Bozen – Südtirol
(Italien) bekannten Tierarten.
Naturmuseum Südtirol, Bozen.
Kalisiak, J. 1996. Bawolec, Odonteus
armiger (Scopoli, 1772) w Lesie Lagiewnickim (Coleoptera:
Geotrupidae: Bolbocerini: Odonteus Samouelle,
1919). Biuletyn Entomologiczny Lódz, 3(15):
1-2.
Kinelski, S. & Szujecki, A. 1959. Materialy
do poznania chrzaszczy (Coleoptera) fauny krajowej. Polskie
Pismo Entomologiczne, 29: 215-250.
Klausnitzer, B. & Krell, F.-T. 1996. 6. Überfamilie:
Scarabaeoidea. Pp. 11-89 in: Klausnitzer, B., Die Larven
der Käfer Mitteleuropas. 3. Band. Polyphaga Teil 2.
Fischer, Jena.
Klug, F. 1845. Die Coleopteren-Gattungen: Athyreus und Bolboceras,
dargestellt nach den in der Sammlung hiesiger Königl.
Universität davon vorhandenen Arten. Abhandlungen
der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, 1843:
21-57.
Koch, K. 1991. Die Käfer Mitteleuropas.
Ökologie,vol. 2. 382 pp. Goecke &
Evers, Krefeld.
Köhler, F. & Klausnitzer, B. (Eds.)
1998. Verzeichnis der Käfer Deutschlands. Entomologische
Nachrichten und Berichte, Beiheft, 4:
1-185.
Král, D. 1993. Geotrupidae. P. 67 in
Jelínek, J. (Ed.): Check-list of Czechoslovak Insects 4 (Coleoptera). Seznam
ceskoslovenskych brouku (Folia Heyrovskyana, Supplementum
1). Praha.
Krell, F.-T. 1991. Odonteobolca nom.
nov. for Odonteus Agassiz, [1838] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). Bulletin
du Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, section C,
(4)12: 351-352.
Krell, F.-T. 1993. Die Lamellicornia (Coleoptera)
der Käfersammlung Paul Dolderer im Museum Schloss Hellenstein,
Heidenheim an der Brenz, Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Mitteilungen,
Entomologischer Verein Stuttgart, 28:
22-42.
Krell, F.-T. 1994. Chorologische und taxonomische
Notizen über südeuropäische und nordafrikanische
Lamellicornia (Coleoptera). Mitteilungen des Internationalen
Entomologischen Vereins, 19: 5-19.
Krell, F.-T. 1995. Die Lamellicornia (Coleoptera)
der Käfersammlung Dr. Theodor Hüeber in den Naturkundlichen
Sammlungen der Stadt Ulm, Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Mitteilungen
des Vereins für Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik Ulm/Donau, 36/37:
49-87.
Krell, F.-T. 1996. Die Käfer-Fauna (Coleoptera)
des oberen Wiesaz-Tales sowie des ehemaligen Militärgeländes
Listhof und der alten Erddeponie bei Reutlingen. Ergebnisse
der Exkursionen 1990 der Arbeitsgemeinschaft südwestdeutscher
Koleopterologen und weiterer Aufsammlungen. Mitteilungen,
Entomologischer Verein Stuttgart, 31:
3-56.
Krell, F.-T. 2001. Der erste Farbatlas mitteleuropäischer
Scarabaeoidea. Entomologische Nachrichten und Berichte, 45:
246-248.
Krell, F.-T. & Fery, H. 1992. Familienreihe
Lamellicornia. Pp. 250-252 in Lohse, G.A. & Lucht, W., Die
Käfer Mitteleuropas, vol. 13. Goecke
& Evers, Krefeld.
Krikken, J. 1978. The Afro-Asian Bolboceroides
validus group (Coleoptera : Geotrupidae). Zoologische
Mededelingen, 52: 301-311.
Krikken, J. 1979. The genus Bolbocerosoma Schaeffer
in Asia (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae). Zoologische Mededelingen, 54:
35-51.
Krikken, J. 1984. A generic reclassification
of the afrotropical Bolboceratini (Coleoptera: Geotrupidae). Zoologische
Mededelingen, 58: 23-45.
Landin, B.-O. 1957. Skalbaggar. Coleoptera.
Bladhorningar. Lamellicornia. Svensk Insektfauna, 9:
1-155.
Lo Cascio, P. 2001. Trogidae, Geotrupidae,
Aphodiidae, Melolonthidae, Dynastidae, Cetoniidae. Pp. 173-189
in Sforzi, A.
& Bartolozzi, L. (Ed.), Libro
Rosso degli Insetti della Toscana.
375 pp. Arsia, Firenze.
López-Colón, J.I. & Bahillo
de la Puebla, P. 1997. Registros en el País
Vasco de Odonteus armiger (Scopoli, 1772). Boletín
de la Sociedad Entomologica Aragonesa, 19:
55.
López-Colón, J.I., González Peña,
C.F. & Beltrán Valen, J.R. 1996. Familias:
Geotrupidae, Ochodaeidae, Hybosoridae, Glaresidae y Trogidae. Catalogue
de la Entomofauna Aragonesa, 12: 3-14.
Luigioni, P. 1929. I Coleotteri d’Italia.
Memorie della Pont. Accademia delle Scienze Nuovi Lincei,
(2)13.
Lundberg, S. 1986. Catalogus Coleopterorum
Sueciae. 155 pp. Entomologiska Föreningen i Stockholm
och Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet, Stockholm.
Machatschke, J.W. 1969. Familienreihe Lamellicornia.
Pp. 265-371 in Freude, H., Harde, K.W. & Lohse, G.A., Die
Käfer Mitteleuropas, 8. Goecke &
Evers, Krefeld.
Marsham, T. 1802. Coleoptera Britannica,
sistens Insecta Coleoptera Britanniae Indigena .
. . xxxi, 547 pp. White, Londini.
Martín-Piera, F. & López-Colón,
J.I. 2000. Coleoptera Scarabaeoidea. Fauna Iberica, 14:
1-526 pp.
Melloni, L. & Landi, E. 1997. Nuovi dati
corologici sui Coleotteri Lucanoidea e Scarabaeoidea saprocoprophagi
della Romagna (Insecta, Coleoptera). Quaderno di Studi
e Notizie di Storia Naturale della Romagna, 7:
23-37.
Mittal, I.C. 1981. Scarabaeids of Harayana
and surrounding areas. Bulletin of Entomology, 22:
35-40.
Mittal, I.C. 1998. New record of genus Odontaeus Klug
(Coleoptera : Scarabaeidae: Geotrupinae) with a new species
from Oriental region. Journal of Entomological Research, 22:
385-386.
Mittal, I.C. 2000. Survey of scarabaeid (Coleoptera)
fauna of Himachal Pradesh (India). Journal of Entomological
Research, 24: 259-269.
Mitter, H. 2000. Die Käferfauna Oberösterreichs
(Coleoptera: Heteromera und Lamellicornia). Beiträge
zur Naturkunde Oberösterreichs, 8:
1-192.
Nádai, L. & Merkl, O. 1999. Scarabaeoidea
(Coleoptera) from the Aggtelek National Park. Pp. 215-220 in
Mahunka, S. (Ed.), The Fauna of the Aggtelek National Park
I. Hungarian Natural History Museum, Budapest.
Nikolajev, G.V. 1979. Neue Gattungen und Untergattungen
der Blatthornkäfer (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Reichenbachia, 17:
189-191.
Nikolaev, G.V. 1980. Novye svedeniya o faune,
sinonimii i rasprostranenii plastinchatousikh Kazakhstana. Trudy
Instituta Zoologii Akademiya Nauk Kazakhskoi SSR, 39:
64-66.
Nikolaev, G.V. 1987. Plastinchatousye
Zhuki (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) Kazakhstana i Srednei Azii.
232 pp. Nauka, Alma-Ata.
Nikritskii, N.B., Osipov, I.N., Chemeris, M.V., Semenov,
V.B. & Gusakov, A.A. 1996. Zhestkokrylye-ksilobionty,
mitsetobionty i plastinchatousye Prikosgo-Terrasnogo biosfernogo
zapovednika (s obzorom fauny etich grupp Moskovskoi oblasti).
111 pp. Moskovskogo Universiteta, Moskva.
Panzer, G.W.F. 1793. Fauna Insectorum
Germanicae . . ., vol. 12. Nürnberg.
Paulian, R. 1959. Coléoptères
Scarabéides (Deuxième édition, revue et
augmentée). Faune de France, 63:
1-298.
Paulian, R. & Baraud, J. 1982. Faune des
Coléoptères de France. II. Lucanoidea et Scarabaeoidea. Encyclopédie
Entomologique, 43: 1-478.
Reitter, E. 1893. Bestimmungs-Tabelle der
Lucaniden und coprophagen Lamellicornen des palaearctischen
Faunengebietes. Verhandlungen des Naturforschenden Vereines
in Brünn, 21: 3-109.
Rheinheimer, J. 2000. Die Käferfauna
des Landkreises Karlsruhe und einiger angrenzender Gebiete. Mitteilungen,
Entomologischer Verein Stuttgart, 35:
2-141, 143.
Rössner, E. 1996. Checklist der Blatthornkäfer
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) Thüringens. Check-Listen
Thüringer Insekten, 4: 47-53.
Schaefer, M. 2002. Brohmer Fauna von Deutschland.
Ein Bestimmungsbuch unserer heimischen Tierwelt. 21 Ed.
xiv, 791 pp. Quelle & Meyer, Wiebelsheim.
Schulze, J. 1992. Blatthornkäfer (Scarabaeidae)
und Hirschkäfer (Lucanidae). Pp. 181-183 in Landesumweltamt
(Bearb.), Gefährdete Tiere im Land Brandenburg. Rote
Liste. Ministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Raumordnung
des Landes Brandenburg, Potsdam.
Shirt, D.B. 1986. Scarabaeoidea recording
scheme. Stag beetles, dung beetles and chafers. 8pp. Biological
Records Centre, Huntingdon.
Shirt, D.B. 1987. British Red Data Books,
vol. 2, Insects. Nature Conservancy Council.
Silfverberg, H. 1992. Enumeratio Coleopterorum
Fennoscandiae, Daniae et Baltiae. V, 94 pp. Helsingin
Hyönteisvaihtoyhdistys, Helsinki.
Sim, R.J. 1930. Scarabaeidae, Coleoptera;
Observations on species unrecorded or little-known in New Jersey. Journal
of the New York Entomological Society, 38:
139-147.
Telnov, D., Barsevskis, A., Savich, F., Kovalevsky,
F., Berdnikov, S., Voronin, M., Cibulskis, R. & Ratniece,
D. 1997. Check-List of Latvian Beetles (Insecta: Coleoptera). Mitteilungen
des Internationalen Entomologischen Vereins, Supplement, 5:
1-140.
Westwood, J.O. 1855. On the Australian Species
of the Coleopterous Genus Bolboceras, Kirby. Transactions
of the Linnean Society of London, 21:
11-18.
Yadav, J.S., Pillai, R.K. & Yadav, A.S. 1990.
Karyotypic study of some scarab beetles with comments on phylogeny
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea). Elytron, 4:
41-51.
Zimsen, E. 1964. The
type material of I. C. Fabricius.
656 pp. Munksgaard, Copenhagen.
Zunino, M. 1984. Sistematica generica
dei Geotrupinae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea: Geotrupidae),
filogenesi della sottofamiglia e considerazioni biogeografiche. Bollettino
del Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali Torino, 2:
9-162.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of the specific name Papilio
eurymedon Lucas, 1852 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case
3222; see BZN
59: 114-116; 204)
(1)
Andrew Wakeham-Dawson (Executive
Secretary)
I.C.Z.N. , c/o The Natural History Museum, London
SW7 5BD, U.K.
Even though this application involves a situation in which reversal of
precedence does not require Commission action (see Article 23.9.2), the case
was brought to the Commission for suppression of the senior name in response
to Recommendation 23A of the Code. Before the Commission can vote on the issue
of suppression, the authors must show evidence that the conditions of Article
23.9.1.2 have been met. The junior name, Papilio eurymedon Lucas,
1852, must have been used in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors
in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than
10 years.
This evidence was presented in the original application, but incorrectly
edited from the published version. In addition to references published with
the application, the evidence that the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 are met
in this case is as follows: Dos Passos (1964, p. 36), Emmel & Emmel (1973,
p. 15), Lewis (1973, p. 12), Howe (1975, p. 400), Tyler (1975, p. 81), Orsak
(1977, p. 66), Dornfield (1980, p. 42), Ferris & Brown (1980, p. 188),
Miller
& Brown (1981, p. 67), Hodges
et al. (1983, p. 50), Beutelspacher
(1984, p. 62), Collins & Morris
(1985, p. 84), Emmel (1991, p. 69),
Brown et al. (1992, p. 54), Emmel
et al. (1992, p. 47), Feltwell (1992,
p. 28), Miller (1992, p. 40), Feltwell
(1993, p. 58), Stanford & Opler
(1993, p. 109), Toliver et al. (1994,
p. 121), Tyler et al. (1994, pl.
94), Bird et al. (1995, p. 107),
Llorente et al. (1997, p. 52), Layberry
et al. (1998, p. 89), plus numerous
other scientific papers and popular
field guides to western American
butterflies of the past fifty years.
In the light of this evidence, the name Papilio eurymedon Lucas,
1852 is a nomen protectum under the conditions of Article 23.9.2 of the Code
and the name Papilio antinous Donovan, 1805, which has never been
used, is a nomen oblitum.
Additional
references
Beutelspacher-R., C. 1984. Mariposas
de Mexico. 128 pp., 20 pls.
La Prensa Medica Mexicana, Mexico
City.
Bird, C.D., Hilchie, G.J., Kondla, N.G., Pike,
E.M. &
Sperling, F.A.H. 1995. Alberta butterflies.
347 pp. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton.
Brown, J.W., Real, H.G. & Faulkner, D.K. 1992. Butterflies
of Baja California: faunal survey, natural history, conservation
biology. 129 pp., 8 pls. Lepidoptera Research Foundation,
Beverley Hills.
Collins, N.M. & Morris, M.G. 1985. Threatened
swallowtail butterflies of the world: the IUCN Red Data Book.
401 pp., 8 pl. IUCN, Gland.
Dornfeld, E.J. 1980. The butterflies of
Oregon. 276 pp., 48 pls. Timber Press, Portland.
Dos Passos, C.F. 1964. A synonymic list of
the Nearctic Rhopalocera. Lepidopterists' Society Memoirs, 1:
1-145.
Emmel, T.C. 1991. Butterflies. 144
pp. Mallard Press, New York.
Emmel, T.C. & Emmel, J.F. 1973. The butterflies
of Southern California. The Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County Science Series, 26: 1-148.
Emmel, T.C., Minno, M.C. & Drummond, B.A. 1992. Florissant
butterflies: a guide to the fossil and present-day species
of Central Colorado. 118 pp., 9 pls. Stanford University
Press, Stanford.
Feltwell, J. 1992. Butterflies of North
America. 192 pp. Smithmark, New York.
Feltwell, J. 1993. The encyclopedia of
butterflies. 288 pp. Quarto Publishing, London.
Ferris, C.D. & Brown, F.M. 1980. Butterflies
of the Rocky Mountain States. 442 pp., 4 pls. University
of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Hodges, R.W., Dominick, T., Davis, D.R., Ferguson,
D.C., Franclemont, J.G., Munroe, E.G. & Powell, J.A. (Eds.).
1983. Check list of the Lepidoptera of America north of
Mexico, including Greenland. 284 pp. E.W. Classey & Wedge
Entomological Research Foundation, London.
Howe, W.H. 1975. The butterflies of North
America. 633 pp., 97 pls. Doubleday, Garden City.
Layberry, R.A., Hall, P.W. & Lafontaine, J.D. 1998. The
butterflies of Canada. 354 pp, 32 pls. University of Toronto
Press, Toronto.
Lewis, H.L. 1973. Butterflies of the world.
328 pp., 208 pls. Harrap, London.
Llorente-B., J.E., Oñate-O., L., Luis-M., A. &
Vargas-F., I. 1997. Papilionidae y Pieridae
de México: distribución geográfica e
ilustración. 229 pp. Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, Mexico City.
Miller, J. 1992. The common names of
North American butterflies. 177 pp. Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington.
Miller, L.D. & Brown, F.M. 1981. A catalogue/checklist
of the butterflies of America north of Mexico. Lepidopterists'
Society Memoirs, 2: 1-280.
Orsak, L.J. 1977. The butterflies of Orange
County, California. Museum of Systematic Biology, University
of California Research Series, 4: 1-349.
Stanford, R.E. & Opler, P.A. 1993. Atlas
of Western U.S.A. butterflies, including adjacent parts of
Canada and Mexico. 275 pp. Denver.
Toliver, M.E., Holland, R. & Cary, S.J. 1994. Distribution
of butterflies in New Mexico (Lepidoptera: Hesperioidea and
Papilionoidea). 329 pp. Albuquerque.
Tyler, H.A. 1975. The Swallowtail Butterflies
of North America. 192 pp., 16 pls. Naturegraph Publishers,
Healdsburg.
Tyler, H.A., Brown, K.S. Jr. & Wilson, K.A. 1994. Swallowtail
butterflies of the Americas. 376 pp., 157 pls. Scientific
Publishers, Gainesville.
(2)
Neal L. Evenhuis
Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii 96817-2704,
U.S.A.
This
case presents an application to suppress
the name Papilio antinous Donovan,
1805, in favour of the younger name, Papilio
eurymedon Lucas, 1852. The authors
make a well-presented case for reversal
of precedence (Article 23.9), which
does not have to be brought before
the Commission since it meets the
conditions of Articles 23.9.1.1 and
23.9.1.2 (see the comment above).
However, in bringing a case for suppression
to the Commission (as per Recommendation
23A) they unfortunately do not give
any justification for such action
of the name antinous. Without
knowing why the name must be suppressed
rather than just using reversal of
precedence, I cannot support this
application.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst,
1837 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus
palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype
for Lacerta palluma
(Case
3225; see BZN
60: 38-41, 58)
Alberto Veloso
Department of Ecology, Faculty
of Science, University of Chile,
Santiago, Chile
Herman
Nuñez
National Museum of Natural History,
Santiago, Chile
José M.
Cei
Faculty of Agricultural Science,
National University of Cuyo, Mendoza,
Argentina
We
do not support this application to
the Commission. The action proposed
attempts to confirm a mistake made
by many authors since 1837, who have
given to a liolaemine iguanid lizard
the specific name that Molina (1782)
clearly proposed for a teiid lizard.
We agree with the arguments in paras. 1 and 3-6 of the application, but
we strongly reject those in the remaining paragraphs. In para. 2, the nomenclatural
vicissitudes of Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 have been summarized
in shortened and unsatisfactory terms. Molina´s taxon was not misidentified
by Gravenhorst (1837) but by Daudin (1802) who introduced a spiny verticillate
tail not mentioned by Molina; this character was later used by Gravenhorst
when establishing Phymaturus.
As Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 is a senior synonym of the teiid
lizard Callopistes maculatus Gravenhorst, 1837, Veloso, Nuñez & Cei
(2000) designated a neotype (accession number 2909, National Museum of Natural
History, Santiago, Chile) in order to give taxonomic stability to the name Callopistes
palluma (Molina, 1782), under Article 75(d) of the third edition of the
Code (in force when we wrote the paper). In the light of Article 86.1.2 of
the current (fourth edition) of the Code, we stress the fact that our 2000
paper was actually submitted for publication prior to the 1 January 2000, even
though it was publsihed after this date. The other taxon, Phymaturus flagellifer (Bell,
1843), also referred to in the application, was indirectly stabilized by the
fixation of the above mentioned neotype.
We cannot agree with the suggested designation (para. 8) of the specimen
BMNH-1946.829.84, the holotype of Centrura flagellifer Bell, 1843,
as a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782. This action seems to
us to be based on a very subjective choice of how to achieve ‘nomenclatural
stability’.
The recent examples (since 1982) of the usage of Phymaturus palluma (Molina,
1782) reported in the application can be easily balanced with an equivalent
number of citations of Phymaturus flagellifer and Callopistes
palluma. The Commission holds a list of 17 examples, including Cei (1986),
Veloso &
Navarro (1988), Castro et al. (1991),
Habit & Ortiz, (1994), Inzunza
et al. (1998), Morando et al. (2001)
and Cei & Videla (2003).
We think that the request to conserve the existing usage of the generic
name Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1837 and the specific name Lacerta
palluma Molina, 1782 is both unfit and unnecessary. In our opinion, no
action is required by the Commission other than to reject the proposals made
in this application.
Additional
references
Castro, S.A., Jimenez,
J.E. & Jaksic, F.M. 1991.
Diet of the racerunner Callopistes
palluma in north-central Chile. Journal
of Herpetology, 25:
127-129.
Cei, J.M. 1986. Reptiles del Centro,
Centro-Oeste y Sur de Argentina. Monograph 4.
527 pp. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino.
Cei, J.M. & Videla, F. 2003. A new Phymaturus species
from Volcanic Cordilleran Mountains of the South-Western Mendoza
province, Argentina (Liolaemidae, Iguania, Reptilia). Bollettino
Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali, Torino, 20(2).
Daudin, F.M. 1802. Histoire naturelle
des Reptiles, vol. 3. 452 pp. Paris.
Habit, E.M. & Ortiz, J.C. 1994. Home range
of Phymaturus flagellifer (Reptilia, Tropiduridae). Boletin
de la Sociedad de Biologia de Concepción, Chile, 65:
191-195.
Inzunza, O., Barros, Z. & Bravo, H. 1998
Organización topográfica y áreas especializadas
en la retina de Callopistes palluma: capa
de células ganglionares. Revista Chilena de Anatomia, 16:
109-115.
Morando, M., Guerreiro, A.C. & Avila, L.J. 2001. Estudios
citogenéticos en lagartos del género Phymaturus
(Iguanidae, Tropidurinae): cariotipo e mecanismos de determinación
sexual en poblaciones del noroeste patagónico.
Salta 67, [Proceedings of IV Congress of Argentinian Herpetology].
Veloso, A. & Navarro, J. 1988. Lista sistemática
y distribución geográfica de anfibios y reptiles
de Chile. Bollettino Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali,
Torino, 6(2): 481-539.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of
the specific name of Vespertilio
nanus Peters, 1852 (currently Pipistrellus
nanus; Mammalia, Chiroptera)
(Case
3240; see BZN
60: 42-44)
Victor
Van Cakenberghe
Department of Biology, Universiteit
Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1,
8-2610 Antwerpen (Wilrijk), Belgium
I
work on African bats (e.g. Van Cakenberghe & De
Vree, 1999) and am uncertain that
the specific names of Pipistrellus
africanus (Ruppell, 1842) and Pipistrellus
nanus (Peters, 1852) are in
fact synonyms. For this reason, I
oppose the proposal to suppress the
specific name of P. africanus and
suggest that both names be conserved.
Although I agree with Meredith Happold
that P. nanus should be
given precedence over P. africanus when
the two names are considered to be
synonyms. The name P. nanus has
been more widely used than P.
africanus (281 publications
v. 24 during the period 1840-2003;
the Commission Secretariat holds
these references).
However, there is taxonomic evidence that these two names actually refer
to two different taxa. For example, if the dimensions of the P. africanus lectotype
are compared with those of P. nanus specimens from north-eastern Africa
we see that P. africanus fits within the ranges for most of the dimensions.
Nonetheless, it is marginally larger than the maximum values found for P.
nanus for the length of the maxillary toothrow, the width across the upper
molars, the length of the mandibula, and the length of the tibia.
A number of authors (e.g. Cotterill, 1996; Kearney & Taylor, 1997)
point out that the systematics of this group of African bats are still not
entirely clear, and they indicate that a revision of the genus is required,
especially as north-eastern Africa is a region with a large degree of endemicity.
To prevent the potentially valid name P. africanus being suppressed,
I suggest an alternative proposal to the Commission. ature is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to give
the name nanus Peters, 1852,
as published in the binomen Vespertilio
nanus, precedence over the name africanus Ruppell,
1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio
pipistrellus africanus, whenever
the two names are considered to be
synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List
of Specific
The International Commission on Zoological NomenclNames in Zoology the
following names: (a) nanus Peters, 1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio
nanus, with the endorsement that it is to be given precedence over the
name africanus Ruppell, 1842, as published in the trinomen Vespertilio
pipistrellus africanus, whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(b) africanus Ruppell, 1842, as published
in the trinomen Vespertilio pipistrellus
africanus, with the endorsement
that it is not to be given priority
over the name nanus Peters,
1852, as published in the binomen Vespertilio
nanus, whenever the two are
considered to be synonyms.
Additional
references
Cotterill, F.P.D. 1996.
New distributional records of insectivorous
bats of the families Nycteridae,
Rhinolophidae and Vespertilionidae
(Microchiroptera: Mammalia) in
Zimbabwe. Arnoldia Zimbabwe, 10(8):
71-89.
Kearney, T. & Taylor, P.J. 1997.
New distribution records of bats in KwaZulu-Natal. Durban
Museum Novitates, 22: 53-56.
Van Cakenberghe, V. & De Vree, F. 1999.
Systematics of African Nycteris (Mammalia: Chiroptera),
part 3: the Nycteris thebaica group. Bonner zoologische
Beitrage, 48(2): 123-166.
