Comment on the proposed suppression of Eutermes Heer, 1849 to conserve the generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901, and on the proposed designation of Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 as type species of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (Insecta, Isoptera)
(Case 3292; see BZN 62: 8–13, 149–150)

Michael S. Engel
Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045–7523, U.S.A.

Kumar Krishna
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y. 10024–5192, U.S.A.

  Recently our colleague Yves Roisin (BZN 62: 149–150) has challenged our petition to conserve the universally applied generic names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 and Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 over the name Eutermes Heer, 1849. Proposed for a fossil taxon, Eutermes has priority over most genus-group names throughout the Isoptera owing to its early establishment (see our application). As such, regardless of its definition, this name threatens to upset any genus name within the Isoptera with the sole exclusion of Termes. However, despite its age, the name has not been employed in modern classifications of the Isoptera, and it is thereby poised to impose maximal disruption to the stability of termite nomenclature. The name poses a further problem in that the family-group name EUTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910b is also in a position to jeopardize universally employed family-group names within the Isoptera. We are preparing a monographic catalog of the Isoptera, and placing Eutermes in NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 would thereby render Nasutitermes and NASUTITERMITINAE junior objective synonyms, particularly destructive given that this is the most diverse and intensively studied lineage of termites. Our petition was designed to circumvent this difficulty, and we urge the Commission to approve the suppression of the name Eutermes in the interest of nomenclatural stability.
  As to the designation of a type species by the Commission for Nasutitermes: this issue is moot. In more closely examining Banks’s papers (1918, p. 665, 1920, p. 69) we find that Termes morio Latreille, 1805 was indeed an originally included species (overlooked in our original petition)—a species that Banks later (1920, p. 69) selected as the type species of Nasutitermes. Termes morio Latreille, 1805, however, is an unavailable name as it is a misidentification of the available name T. morio Fabricius, 1793. Thus, the issue is Banks’s concept of T. morio and whether or not Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 can be considered a replacement name of T. morio Latreille as erroneously suggested by Emerson (1925) (see our application). Indeed, past authors, Emerson included, despite erroneous reasoning accepted E. costalis as type species of Nasutitermes (as explained in our application). Rather than accept this perpetuated error we have asked the Commission to use its plenary powers to overrule the designation based on erroneous assumptions and instead validate E. costalis based on appropriate grounds (as already stated in the petition).

Comment on the proposed conservation of Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 and Trichiotinus Casey, 1915 (Insecta, Coleoptera, SCARABAEIDAE)
(Case 3314; see BZN 62: 75–78)

Frank-Thorsten Krell
Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: f.krell@nhm.ac.uk)

  I fully support the proposed conservation of the genus-group names Trichiotinus Casey, 1915 and Stegopterus Burmeister & Schaum, 1840 because their senior synonyms Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827 and Trichinus Kirby, 1827 have not or only once been used as valid names in more than 150 years. The last usage of Tetrophthalmus as a valid name, I am aware of, was that of MacLeay (1838, p. 15).
  Hoffmann (1935, p. 152), in a comprehensive revision of the genus Trichiotinus, explicitly decided not to use the older synonym Trichinus to avoid ‘considerable confusion’. He also listed 12 additional references using the name Trichiotinus covering the years 1920–1934. In none of his 85 references for the species T. piger, 11 for T. rufobrunneus (Casey) and 20 for T. texanus covering the years 1833–1934 had the genus name Trichinus been used. I found three additional recent references documenting the current use of Trichiotinus: Pascarella et al. (2001, p. 561), Sikes (2003, p. 12), and Cook (2004, p. 87).
  The name Trichius sutularis, type species of the subgenus Tetrophthalmus Kirby, 1827 should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology. Although it was introduced as a manuscript name and qualified as an ‘undescribed species’, this specific name is probably available by indication under Article 12.2.6, but the species has never been described and the name has never been used as valid.

Additional references

Cook, S.P. 2004. Impact of stand management practices on beetle diversity. In Guldin, J.M. (Ed.). Ouachita and Ozark Mountains Symposium: Ecosystem management research. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, General Technical Report, SRS-74: 83–88.
Hoffmann, C.H. 1935. The biology and taxonomy of the genus Trichiotinus (Scarabaeidae-Coleoptera). Entomologica Americana, 15: 133–209.
MacLeay, W.S. 1838. Illustrations of the Annulosa of South Africa, collected during an expedition into the interior, under Andrew Smith. In Smith, A., Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa. Smith, Elder & Co., London.
Pascarella, J.B., Waddington, K.D. & Neal, P.R. 2001. Non-apoid flower-visiting fauna of Everglades National Park, Florida. Biodiversity and Conservation, 10: 551–566.
Sikes, D.S. 2003. The beetle fauna of the state of Rhode Island, U.S.A. (Coleoptera): 656 new state records. Zootaxa, 340: 1–38.

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, 257–260)

P. Gaubert
Departamento de Biología Aplicada, Estación Biológica de Doñana (CSIC), Avda. María Luisa s/n Pabellón del Perú, 41013 Sevilla, Spain

W.C. Wozencraft
Division of Natural Sciences, Bethel College, 1001 W. McKinley Ave., Mishawaka, IN 46545, U.S.A.

  1. We considered the comments of Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) (see BZN 61: 119–122, 257–260) on Case 3204 as fundamentally debating an issue of another nature rather than that concerning the original application. In order to clarify this situation, the purpose of Case 3204 is to conserve (under Article 23.9.5 of the Code) the specific name Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 (currently Genetta maculata), which is in use for a species of African Genet (a placental carnivore). This name is a junior primary homonym of Viverra maculata Kerr, 1792 (currently Dasyurus maculatus), which is used for a marsupial mammal; however, the names apply to taxa that have not been considered congeneric since 1899.
  2. Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) debated the validity of the neotype designation for G. maculata, an issue that was extensively detailed elsewhere by Gaubert et al. (2003). Indeed, the Commission Secretariat explicitly recommended that, in this case, the designation of a neotype does not require action by the Commission since it is a taxonomic issue relating to G. maculata. Thus, the application was received almost without question in the comments of Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004). These authors may have confused nomenclatural and taxonomic considerations.
  3. It appears as though Grubb (BZN 61: 119–122) wrongly referred to Case 3204 (p. 121) by stating ‘As an alternative to the proposals in BZN 60: 46, I propose . . . that the holotype of G. rubiginosa be set aside and the holotype of G. letabae . . . be designated as neotype’. This statement is actually not an alternative to the proposal made in Case 3204 and in fact would not interfere with the action of conserving the species name maculata Gray, 1830 as the valid name (not invalid by reason of being a junior primary homonym). Grubb (2004) did not directly address the issue raised in Case 3204. Surprisingly, the author mentioned (p. 120) that G. maculata (Gray, 1830) ‘is actually invalid as a junior primary homonym of V. maculata Kerr, 1792’, without arguments to support this point of view and without taking into account that the essence of Case 3204 is to refer to Article 23.9.5 of the Code in order to ask for conservation of the name maculata Gray, 1830. Nevertheless, Grubb (2004) asked the Commission ‘to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name maculata Gray, 1830’.
  4. Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (BZN 61: 257–260) only once raised a point directly related to Case 3204 by doubting that G. maculata is ‘in use’ for the Rusty-spotted genet (‘Viverra maculata Gray, 1830 has been used so far by only a minority of the authors concerned with the relevant taxa’). I strongly disagree with this assertion and it is noteworthy that Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) cited Grubb (2004) contrary to his view to justify their statement. Grubb (2004) instead provided a large list of references in which ‘G. maculata was commonly used as a senior synonym of G. pardina’ (p. 120), which was the case when authors included both G. pardina and the Rusty-spotted genet in a broader ‘large-spotted genet’ taxonomic concept. In addition to previous works, G. maculata has been used frequently as the name for the Rusty-spotted genet in recent years (as explicitly delimiting the Rusty-spotted genet: Bronner et al., 2003; Gaubert, 2003; Gaubert et al., 2002, 2004, 2005; and without specification of taxonomic boundaries: Stuart & Stuart, 2003; De Luca & Mpunga, 2005). Two of the most important new taxonomic references for the mammalogist community, which will be published in late 2005–2006 (Wozencraft, in press; Kingdon & Butinsky, in press) use the name G. maculata strictly for the Rusty-spotted genet. I thus consider that the name G. maculata is and has been commonly used for the Rusty-spotted genet, so Article 23.9.5 of the Code applies.
  5. Most of the comments made by Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) concern the validity of neotype designation for G. maculata. This issue is distinct from the purpose of Case 3204 and is therefore not addressed here. However, we would like to state that C.A. Fernandes recently co-authored two papers with the applicants of Case 3204 (P. Gaubert, G. Veron, P.J. Taylor) in which the name G. maculata was explicitly used for the Rusty-spotted genet (Gaubert et al., 2004, 2005). Under the usually explicit statement that all the authors of a publication should agree with its content, this raises serious ambiguities about the actual point of view of the author over the use of the name maculata Gray, 1830.
  6. Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004, p. 259) disagreed with Grubb’s proposal to designate the type specimen of G. letabae as the neotype of G. rubiginosa (‘There is a fundamental problem in assigning maculata or any other name to the Rusty-spotted genet at the moment’). Our recent taxonomic investigations based on morphology, DNA sequencing and karyotypes (Gaubert et al., 2004, 2005) showed that the type specimen of G. letabae Thomas & Schwann, 1906 was indeed needed, following the Principle of Priority, to define a new species of Rusty-spotted genet from southern Africa (in accordance with Crawford-Cabral & Fernandes, 2001).
  7. We consider that the comments of Grubb (2004) and Fernandes & Crawford-Cabral (2004) do not provide sensible arguments against the proposals in Case 3204 (i.e. to making available, as valid, the name maculata Gray, 1830 under Article 23.9.5 of the Code). The related debate over neotype designation is rather a part of the on-going discussion concerning the taxonomy (i.e. species boundaries) of the Large-spotted genets, and should not interfere with the proposals made in Case 3204.

References

Bronner, G.N., Hoffmann, M., Taylor, P.J., Chimimba, C.T., Best, P.B., Matthee, C.A. & Robinson, T.J. 2003. A revised systematic checklist of the extant mammals of the southern African subregion. Durban Museum Novitates, 28: 56–95.
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, Paris.
De Luca, D.W. & Mpunga, N.E. 2005. Small carnivores of the Udzungwa Mountains: presence, distributions and threats. Small Carnivore Conservation, 32: 1–7.
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: 85–108.
Gaubert, P., Aniskin, V.M., Dunham, A.E., Crémière, C. & Volobouev, V.T. 2004. Karyotype of the rare Johnston’s genet Genetta johnstoni (Viverridae) and a reassessment of chromosomal characterization among congeneric species. Acta Theriologica, 49: 457–464.
Gaubert, P., Fernandes, C.A., Bruford, M.W. & Veron, G. 2004. Genets (Carnivora, Viverridae) in Africa: an evolutionary synthesis based on cytochrome b sequences and morphological characters. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 81: 589–610.
Gaubert, P., Taylor, P.J., Fernandes, C.A., Bruford, M.W. & Veron, G. 2005. Patterns of cryptic hybridization revealed using an integrative approach: a case study on genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, Genetta spp.) from the southern African subregion. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 86: 11–33.
Gaubert, P., Taylor, P.J. & Veron, G. 2005. Integrative taxonomy and phylogenetic systematics of the genets (Carnivora, Viverridae, genus Genetta): a new classification of the most speciose carnivoran genus in Africa. Pp. 371–383 in Huber, B.A., Sinclair, B.J. & Lampe, K.-H. (Eds.), African Biodiversity: Molecules, Organisms, Ecosystems. Springer, New
York.
Gaubert, P., Tranier, M., Veron, G., Kock, D., Dunham, A.E., Taylor, P.J., Stuart, C., Stuart, T. & Wozencraft, W.C. 2003. Nomenclatural comments on the Rusty-spotted Genet (Carnivora, Viverridae) and designation of a neotype. Zootaxa, 160: 1–14.
Kingdon, J. & Butynski, T. (in press). The Mammals of Africa. Carnivora, Pinnipedia, Pholidota, Tubulidentata, Hyracoidea, Proboscidea, Sirenia, Perissodactyla, vol. 4. Academic Press, London.
Stuart, C. & Stuart, T. 2003. A short note on the analysis of the scats of Water Mongoose Atilax paludinosus and Rusty-Spotted Genet Genetta maculata from Kasanka National Park, north-east Zambia. Small Carnivore Conservation, 29: 15.
Wozencraft W.C. (in press). Order Carnivora. In Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal species of the world: a taxonomic and geographic reference, Ed. 3. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD.