Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 17 December 2004 in Volume 61, 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 the proposed conservation of usage of Narella Gray, 1870 (Coelenterata, Octocorallia) by designation of a neotype for its type species Primnoa regularis Duchassaing & Michelotti, 1860
(Case 3276; see BZN 61: 7-10)

Manfred Grasshoff
Senckenberg-Museum, D - 60325 Frankfurt, Germany

  I worked on the octocoral family PRIMNOIDAE years ago, and I know the ‘Narella-problem’. I welcome the proposals by Cairns & Bayer and am pleased that they took the initiative to apply to the Commission for settling the problem by designating a neotype for the type species of the genus. After much instability in the past we may be glad that the name Narella is accepted and everybody working with octocorals knows what Narella is. It would be highly undesirable to upset the prevailing usage of this name, which has been used consistently for over half a century, as it would cause a reversion to old, largely unknown names. I fear as a consequence, mainly in field guides and textbooks, that some authors would follow and others would not and new confusions would begin. I approve of the aim of the application and ask the Commission to support the proposals.

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Thereva Latreille, 1797 (Insecta, Diptera) by designation of Musca plebeja Linnaeus, 1758 as the type species of Thereva
(Case 3251; see BZN 60: 198-202)

Verner Michelsen
Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 15, DK-2700 Copenhagen, Denmark

1. I wish to record my opposition to the proposals by Holston et al. for action under the plenary power relating to the names Thereva Latreille, 1797 and Thereva Fabricius, 1798. The Thereva problem treated by Holston et al. is only the tip of the iceberg. Fabricius, famous for his pioneering elaboration of a ‘Systema’ for the insects in a series of works from 1775 to his death in 1808, ‘borrowed’ numerous generic names established by contemporary colleagues and deliberately used them in an entirely different meaning from what was originally intended. The Commission Secretariat holds a complete overview of such incidences in Fabricius’s work covering only the Diptera.
2. Holston et al. (see para. 11 of the application) suggested that Fabricius’s usage of Thereva (for a group of tachinid flies) should be treated as a misapplied use of Latreille’s name, which was clearly intended for stiletto flies. They interpreted Thereva Fabricius as an unavailable name under Article 52.2 of the Code. A consequence of this is that Herting’s (1984) designation of Conops subcoleoptratus Linnaeus, 1797 as type species of Thereva Fabricius, 1798 threatens the long established usage of the name Thereva Latreille. Because of this unfortunate side effect of their interpretation, Holston et al. have asked the Commission to set aside all previous fixations of type species for Thereva Latreille, 1797 and to reject the name Thereva Fabricius, 1798 as a junior homonym. As an invalid name this request seems redundant. Perhaps this is an indication that the authors are not fully convinced about the status of Thereva Fabricius as an invalid name.
3. In an assessment of Fabricius’s usage of generic names it should be asked whether they satisfy the criteria of availability (Articles 10 to 20 of the Code). If they do not meet all necessary conditions, we must follow Holston et al. and disregard them as names without formal standing in nomenclature. If, on the contrary, they stand up to all necessary criteria of availability, there is no formal hindrance to treating them as proper nominal taxa with their own authorship and date. The Code does not reveal any provisions that prevent availability of such names as Bibio Fabricius, 1775 and Thereva Fabricius, 1798. However, this observation alone is far from conclusive evidence. In fact, the same goes for truly misidentified names (i.e. unintentional misidentification of existing names, a category of names that is conventionally not considered as available). Existing names unintentionally proposed for new taxa are, on the contrary, available with their own authorship and date. However, when recognized as junior homonyms such names are usually not used as valid (see Articles 10.6, 11.10 and 52).
4. In the light of the above examples, how should we treat Fabrician names in this category of existing names intentionally proposed for new taxa? As strange and confusing as those actions may appear today, we should keep in mind that Fabricius worked at a time without any constraints, in terms of Code regulations, such as the Principles of Priority and homonymy. Would it be in the spirit of the Code to set aside Fabricius’s clear intentions by dismissing his alternative usages of names? I do not think so, particularly with reference to one of its underlying principles, which is to refrain from ‘infringing upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made subject to regulation and restraint’ (Code, p. xix).
5. It is perfectly clear that Fabricius ‘borrowed ‘ such generic names as Bibio, Hirtea, and Thereva etc. from his colleagues and then openly and intentionally proposed new usages for them. Ignoring this fact by degrading Fabricius’s alternative usages into informal serial use is on one hand a clear violation of his intentions; on the other it leaves the impression that Fabricius often did not keep track of the results of his colleagues. Dismissal of Fabricius’s alternative generic usages may also, as an unfortunate side effect, tends to obscure significant aspects of the early post-Linnaean history of insect classification.
6. Finally, because of the Principle of Homonymy, the safest and simplest way to promote nomenclatural stability is clearly to identify Fabricius’s alternative usages of generic names and to treat them as nominal taxa in their own right.

Additional references
Evenhuis, N.L. 1991. World catalog of genus-group names of bee flies (Diptera: Bombyliidae). Bishop Museum Bulletins in Entomology, 5: 1-105.

Comment on the proposed precedence of NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, November 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera) over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882, and the proposed conservation of usage of Cimberis Gozis, 1881
(Case 3093; see BZN 60: 275-280; 61: 171)

Alexander Riedel
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Karlsruhe, Erbprinzenstr. 13, D-76133 Karlsruhe, Germany

  As an entomologist working on the taxonomy and systematics of certain groups of weevils (CURCULIONOIDEA) I noticed with great interest the study on the nomenclature of NEMONYCHIDAE. I was surprised by the complex problems outlined in the paper threatening the present nomenclature of the group. Lyal & Alonso-Zarazaga have thoroughly described the nomenclatural problems.
  I support the proposals, especially the conservation of the family name NEMONYCHIDAE over CIMBERIDIDAE. The NEMONYCHIDAE are the most plesiomorphic branch of the weevils, so this family has been treated extensively in the literature and should be conserved.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthys, OSPHRONEMIDAE)
(Case 3255; see BZN 60: 206-207; 61: 114-116)

Ingo Schindler
Warthestr. 53 A, D-12051 Berlin, Germany

Wolfgang Staeck
Auf dem Grat 41 A, D-14195 Berlin, Germany

  The comment by Kottelat et al. (see BZN 61: 114-116) to reject the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 contains errors and mistakes disqualifying the authors’ argument. Although the black paradise fish, Macropodus concolor, was originally described by Schreitmüller in a popular aquarium magazine (1936a, b), the first description satisfying the standards of fish taxonomy was published by Ahl (1937) in a well known and widely distributed zoological journal.
  The argument by Kottelat et al. (BZN 61: 114-115) that M. concolor Ahl, 1937 is a junior homonym of M. concolor Schreitmüller, 1936 is not acceptable, because Schreitmüller (1936b) explicitly disclaims any intention to create a nomen novum (see Article 8.3 of the Code). According to the decisions taken at the Budapest Congress in 1929, after 1931 all works with nomenclatural acts have to be published with the intention and for the purpose of permanent scientific record (Articles 8, 11 and 13).
  Even if the view of Kottelat et al. is accepted, M. concolor Ahl, 1937 is not automatically an invalid homonym of M. concolor Schreitrnüller, 1936 because the latter is also a nomen oblitum. According to Article 23.9 of the Code it does not make any difference if a junior synonym or a junior homonym is threatened by an unused older name, prevailing usage must be maintained.
  The first revision of the taxon M. concolor Ahl, 1937 was by Paepke (1991, 1994), not Freyhof & Herder (2002). Paepke (1994) treated M. spechti Schreitmüller, 1936 as a nomen oblitum (see Paepke, 2003). He rediscovered Schreitmüller’s note (1936b) only in 2002 and brought it to our attention in 2003.
  The distinction by Kottelat et al. between significant and insignificant cases and between economically important species and fish species kept in aquaria is completely beside the point, highly subjective and against the spirit of the Code (see Article 23.9 and Recommendation 23A). In spite of its moderate size, the black paradise fish, M. concolor, is regarded as an edible fish well known to the people in the vicinity of Hue, the old capital of Vietnam.
  The paper by Herder & Freyhof (2002), which was published in an aquarium magazine, is by no means inappropriately listed in our bibliography. Why did they send this paper to press before the publication of their revision? Our list of titles using the name Macropodus concolor includes only publications widely distributed or relevant to the nomenclature of M. concolor Ahl, 1937, but there are dozens of additional titles in which only the name M. concolor is used.
  If the examples of Freyhof & Herder (2002) and Kullander & Britz (2002) who used forgotten fish names from obscure sources become an accepted thing, the continuity of scientific nomenclature will be threatened. There are many examples of obscure publications using names which would be a threat to well-known fish taxa, particularly in German aquarium magazines published in the first half of the last century.
  The aim of our request, which is supported by many specialists who have been concerned with the black paradise fish, is to promote the principle of nomenclatural stability. In contrast, Kottelat et al. (2004) adhered to the Principle of Priority at all costs. We, therefore, would like to strongly defend our proposal to protect the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata; Mammalia, Carnivora)
(Case 3204; see BZN 60: 45-47, 61: 119-122)

C. A. Fernandes
Biodiversity and Ecological Processes Group, Cardiff School of Biosciences, Cardiff University, Main Building, Park Place, PO Box 915, Cardiff CF10 3TL Wales, U.K.

J. Crawford-Cabral
Rua dos Arneiros, 94, 4º esq.º, 1500-060, Lisboa, Portugal

1. We agree that an application to conserve a junior primary homonym may be submitted to the Commission under Article 23.9.5 of the Code. Since Article 23.9.5 applies only to names in use, we need to ponder what exactly ‘in use’ means and consider the fact that Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 has been used so far by only a minority of the authors concerned with the relevant taxa. Indeed, after Coetzee's (1967) reference to the homonymy of V. maculata and its status as an invalid senior synonym of Genetta pardina I. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1832 (the pardine genet), the usage of V. maculata Gray, 1830 for any genet species has not been prevalent (see Grubb, BZN 61: 119-122). We think that instead of using the specific name in question to identify a particular genet species, the authors of the application (BZN 60: 46) should have waited for the Commission’s ruling and maintained prevailing usage as stated in Article 82.

2. It appears that the main objective of the proposal to validate the name Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 is to use it for a genet species (the rusty-spotted genet) whose valid name is currently controversial. However, a list of arguments both in favour and against attributing maculata Gray, 1830 to the rusty-spotted genet is essentially absent. We regard this matter as critical, both for consideration of maculata as a valid name and for its assignment to the rusty-spotted genet. When stating our objections to Case 3204 and suggesting different alternative proposals for providing a valid name to the rusty-spotted genet, we will refer to Gaubert et al. (2003), where the present issue is discussed in more detail and the ‘neotype’ of V. maculata Gray, 1830 was designated.

3. The former usage of Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 for the rusty-spotted genet was mostly related to the acceptance of its conspecificity with the pardine genet and to the fact that maculata was regarded as the valid senior synonym of the latter (Schlawe, 1981). This view was followed by some ecologists (Fuller et al., 1990; Angelici et al., 1999; Angelici, 2000) and taxonomists (Wozencraft, 1993) who were not experts in the systematics of the genus Genetta or fully acquainted with the imbroglio under discussion here. Only recently has maculata Gray, 1830 been used to denote the rusty-spotted genet alone and, even then, only by the applicants of the Case (Gaubert et al., 2002; Gaubert, 2003). Previous usage of the name maculata for the rusty-spotted genet should not be invoked if we now know that such usage had been essentially mistaken. Moreover, the previous usage of maculata as a valid name for the pardine genet is a good argument for opposing its transfer to another species since it would be a source of confusion and justification for requesting its suppression.

4. We accept as pertinent the arguments presented by Gaubert et al. (2003) that the type locality and species identification traditionally assigned to the original illustration of V. maculata are uncertain, although a West Africa locality and identity with the species G. pardina has always been indicated in the literature. However, an important problem with the proposals is that although the original figured specimen may not represent a pardine genet from Senegal, it is possible that the specimen may indeed represent that species after all. Below we describe why Gray’s drawing may represent equally well any of two or three species regarded as separate today and, in consequence, why maculata is a nomen dubium in the context of Genetta taxonomy, and hence subjectively invalid. In order to state that the original figured specimen maculata represents a rusty-spotted genet, the proposal relies only on the observation and interpretation of the illustration. This is because the type locality and type specimen are both unknown and the descriptions attached to the image do not provide for an accurate determination of the species. The ‘diagnostic’ character invoked by Gaubert et al. (2003) to ascribe the drawing by Gray to a rusty-spotted genet is far from clear. Crawford-Cabral (1981) figured a specimen of G. pardina from Guinea-Bissau kept at the Zoology Centre of the Scientific Institute of Tropical Research (CZ-IICT) in Lisbon, Portugal (collection number 1945-340) that matches Gray’s illustration for maculata perfectly well. In another pardine genet specimen from the same collection (number 1945-68) this situation is even clearer. The light colour of the limbs is usually accepted as the character state that distinguishes G. pardina from the rusty-spotted genet (Gaubert, 2003). However, considering the example given above, this difference does not seem to be universal and hence is not diagnostic but more just a question of degree or frequency. The original figure of G. maculata (Gray, 1830) may not represent a rusty-spotted genet but instead a pardine genet, as stated by Schwarz (1930), or even G. genettoides Temminck, 1853, a form of dubious taxonomic status but closely related to both pardine and rusty-spotted genets.

5. We cannot accept the neotype designation, which accompanies the intent to use G. maculata (Gray, 1830) as the species name of the rusty-spotted genet. We believe that some of the qualifying conditions in Article 75.3 are not met. In view of the points given in para. 4 above, the neotype designation does not clarify the taxonomic status of the nominal taxon (required in Article 75.3.1) since the characters in Gray’s drawing which are supposed to differentiate the nominal taxon from other taxa are not diagnostic (as required in Article 75.3.2). Furthermore, when addressing Article 75.3.6, Gaubert et al. (2003) followed a series of apparently sensible criteria in suggesting a type locality, but do not address one important issue (see para. 6 below). The taxonomic status of the rusty-spotted genets described from the region of the proposed type locality (Genetta matschiei Neumann, 1902, G. schraderi Matschie, 1902 and G. deorum Funaiolo & Simonetta, 1960) should have been assessed prior to designation of a neotype. If one or more of the nominal species in question are not conspecific with the neotype, then that neotype does not represent the whole of what we colloquially call rusty-spotted genets. If the authors of the Case had followed Recommendation 75B of the Code they would have been aware of the serious objection from other Genetta specialists to the neotype designation.

6. There is a problem in assigning maculata or any other name to the rusty-spotted genet at the moment. It fails to acknowledge the potential occurrence of more than one species within an assemblage which is clearly polytypic, reflected in the 17 names given to forms of the rusty-spotted genet (listed in Crawford-Cabral, 1981), most regarded as subspecies and distributed across a vast range of heterogeneous habitats. For instance, Crawford-Cabral & Fernandes (2001) have found evidence supporting the existence of three morphological species of rusty-spotted genets in Southern Africa alone. It is indeed possible that the rusty-spotted genets constitute a superspecies and then, since superspecies are not to be given formal nomenclatural recognition (Mayr, 1969), the search for a single valid name for this group of forms is a false quest. The conspecificity of some or all of the described forms of rusty-spotted genet, and consequently the synonymy of the corresponding names, has not been established. The uncertainty about speciation within the rusty-spotted genets, together with the absence of information other than morphological data for this species, suggests that it would be more advisable to wait for additional data before deciding upon such a difficult nomenclatural issue. At the moment we are undertaking DNA-based research on the population structure, phylogeography, and putative speciation within the rusty-spotted genets. The results, when put together with the extensive available morphological data, will allow a much more comprehensive and sound decision on the systematics of the species.

7. Schlawe (1980) discovered that the type specimen of Genetta rubiginosa Pucheran, 1855, the name traditionally given to the rusty-spotted genets, following Roberts (1951) and Crawford-Cabral (1966), is an individual of a completely different species, G. thierryi Matschie, 1902. This led Crawford-Cabral & Fernandes (1999) to recommend a search for a new scientific name for the rusty-spotted genets, eventually following Article 23.3.5, but they warned that a thorough investigation was necessary, as outlined in para. 6 above, before making a decision. We follow the same line of reasoning here and furthermore state that we will have, in the very near future, results from our current research that we believe will be central to the rusty-spotted genet’s taxonomy. This approach is the soundest in terms of taxonomy as well as for nomenclatural stability in this variable group of genets.

8. We strongly recommend that the Commission reject the proposals published in BZN 60: 46. We also agree with Grubb (BZN 61: 120) that the neotype designation by Gaubert et al. (2003) is invalid under Article 75.3 of the Code.

Acknowledgements
  We are grateful to Philippe Gaubert for his manuscripts and publications on genets and to Thomas Pape, Izya Kerzhner and Peter Grubb for their kind comments and suggestions on the manuscript that have greatly improved the quality of earlier versions.

Additional references
Coetzee, C. 1967. Carnivora (excluding the family Felidae). Part 7, pp. 1-70 in Meester, J. (Ed.), Preliminary identification manual for African mammals. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
Crawford-Cabral, J. 1966. Note on the taxonomy of Genetta. Zoologica Africana, 2(1): 25-26.
Crawford-Cabral, J. & Fernandes, C. 2001. The rusty-spotted genets as a group with three species in Southern Africa (Carnivora: Viverridae). Pp. 65-80 in Denys, C., Granjon, L. & Poulet, A. (Eds.), African Small Mammals. IRD Editions, Paris.
Gaubert, P. 2003. Description of a new species of genet (Carnivora; Viverridae; genus Genetta) and taxonomic revision of forest forms related to the Large-spotted Genet complex. Mammalia, 67(1): 85-108.
Gaubert, P., Tranier, M., Veron, G., Koch, D., Dunham, A.E., Taylor, P.J., Stuart, C., Stuart, T. & Wozencraft, C.W. 2003. Nomenclatural comments on the Rusty-spotted Genet (Carnivora, Viverridae) and designation of a neotype. Zootaxa, 160: 1-14.
Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Roberts, A. 1951. The mammals of South Africa. Trustees of ‘The mammals of South Africa’ book fund, Johannesburg.
Schlawe, L. 1980. Zur geographischen Verbreitung der Ginsterkatzen, Gattung Genetta G. Cuvier, 1816 (Mammalia, Carnivora, Viverridae). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden, 7(15): 147-161.