Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Curculio
assimilis Paykull, 1792 (currently Ceutorhynchus
assimilis; Insecta, Coleoptera) (Case
3298; see BZN 63:
31–32)
Ingrid H. Williams
Rothamsted Research, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5
2JQ, U.K.
(e-mail: ingrid.williams@bbsrc.ac.uk)
As a researcher
and co-ordinator of a major European
project focusing on this major
pest of oilseed rape, I support
this application to conserve the
specific name of Curculio assimilis Paykull,
1792 (currently Ceutorhynchus assimilis).
The cabbage seed weevil,
for which the name Ceutorhynchus
assimilis is in
prevailing use, is a major economic pest of oilseed rape
and other cruciferous crops in Europe, Australasia and
North America. It has been the subject of strategic and
applied research since the beginning of the last century
and a considerable literature using Ceutorhynchus assimilis as
its specific name has accumulated. A change in name for
this insect to Ceutorhynchus obstrictus, as used
incorrectly by Colonnelli (1993) for the reasons given
by Alford (2006), would lead to considerable confusion
among
readers of this literature.
As a researcher, I have studied
the pests of oilseed rape continuously
since 1972, and to date have published
76 papers which include work on
the cabbage seed weevil, referring
to it by the specific name Ceutorhynchus
assimilis (a list of these publications is held by
the Commission Secretariat).
As an ‘expert’ on the
pests of oilseed rape, I was asked
earlier this year to revise the
database for the cabbage seed weevil
(as Ceutorhynchus assimilis)
for the Crop Protection Compendium, published by CAB International.
My revision collated information from 116 publications
on the cabbage seed weevil, all as Ceutorhynchus assimilis (a
list of these publications is held by the Commission Secretariat).
A major recent landmark in the study of oilseed rape
pests has been the publication of the book ‘Biocontrol
of Oilseed Rape Pests’ (Alford, 2003). This is a
multi-author volume with contributions from 15 currently
active European researchers. It has several chapters specifically
on biocontrol of cabbage seed weevil. Authors agreed that,
for this monograph, ‘the
name Ceutorhynchus assimilis is
maintained for the cabbage seed weevil . . . as there would
appear no good reason to adopt obstrictus’ and ‘the
confusion generated by so doing would be enormous’ (Alford,
2003, p. 15).
The practice of maintaining
the name Ceutorhynchus
assimilis for the cabbage
seed weevil was continued by
agreement of partners for the
EU-funded project MASTER ‘MAnagement
STrategies for European Rape pests’ QLK5-CT-2001–01447
(2001–2006), of which I was
Scientific Coordinator (Williams
et al., 2005). This project had
partners from six EU countries,
namely Estonia, Finland, Germany,
Poland, Sweden and the UK. The
main objective of the project was
to construct, develop, evaluate
and promote an Integrated Pest
Management System for the European
winter oilseed rape crop that integrates
and maximises biological control
of six target pests by their key
natural enemies, while minimising
pesticide use. MASTER targeted
six major pests of winter oilseed
rape in Europe, including the cabbage
seed weevil. A total of 166 scientific
papers have been published or are
in press from the project to date,
with more to come. Many of these
focus on or refer
to the cabbage seed weevil, using the specific name Ceutorhynchus
assimilis. The publications are listed on the project
website (http://www.rothamsted. bbsrc.ac.uk/pie/master/master.htm).
Results from the project
MASTER have been widely disseminated
at major
international and national meetings
during the course of the project
and at the International Symposium ‘Integrated
Pest Management in Oilseed Rape’ held at Göttingen,
Germany, during 3–5 April
2006. The symposium was attended
by 90 delegates from 15 European
countries as well as from Canada,
China and Israel. Many of the papers
focussed on the cabbage seed weevil.
Editorial policy was to use Ceutorhynchus assimilis as its specific
name.
Additional reference
Williams, I.H., Büchs, W.,
Hokkanen, H., Menzler-Hokkanen, I., Johnen, A., Klukowski,
Z., Luik, A., Nilsson, C. & Ulber, B. 2005.
MASTER—Integrating biological control within IPM
for winter oilseed rape across Europe. Pp. 301–308
in: Proceedings of the BCPC International Congress,
Crop Science & Technology, Glasgow, 31 October—2
November 2005.
Comment
on the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the
genus Trachys Fabricius, 1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
and the form of derivation of family-group names based
on Trachys (Case
3335; see BZN 63:
172–176)
Charles L. Bellamy, Senior Insect
Biosystematist (Supervisor) Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch,
California Department of Food & Agriculture, 3294
Meadowview Road, Sacramento, CA 95832–1448, U.S.A
(e-mail: Cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)
The request
to fix the gender of Trachys Fabricius,
1801 goes beyond simply according the assumed opinion of
the original author permanance. In addition to Trachys,
the following genus-group names in BUPRESTIDAE have the
same ending: Brachys Dejean, 1833, Enbrachys Fisher,
1935, Neotrachys Obenberger, 1923, Taphrocerus (Parabrachys)
Cobos, 1979 and Paratrachys Saunders, 1873. Additionally,
the family-group name BRACHYINA Cobos, 1979 would have
to be altered to be consistent if TRACHYINI was altered
to TRACHYDINI.
According to H. Don Cameron,
Department of Classical Studies,
University of Michigan, Trachys is a
masculine stem adjective. The genitive case is Trachyos.
The Code (Article 29) specifies
that family names are formed by
adding ‘idae’ to the stem of the type genus.
Article 29.3.1 specifies that ‘the stem is found
by deleting the case ending of the appropriate genitive
singular’. The genitive singular
is Trachyos,
the case ending is -os, so the stem is Trachy-
and the correct family name is TRACHYIDAE.
Thus TRACHYINI and TRACHYINA are the correct spellings
for tribe and subtribe, respectively. The past uses of
TRACHINI and TRACHYDINI are incorrect.
I believe that if Trachys is fixed as feminine
in gender and the spellings of the family-group names are
altered in alignment with such a decision, we risk confusing
current and future workers in BUPRESTIDAE or leave the
fate of the other family- and genus-group names in limbo.
If these six genus-group names are technically masculine,
fixation of that gender in the larger sense will assure
consistency and clarity.
Thus, while I can appreciate
the sentiments behind Case 3335,
I feel that the consistency of
a uniform, strictly technical,
masculine definition for the entire
group of generic names and the
two derived family-group names
is the best way to go.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le
Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le
Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) (Case
3349; see BZN 63:
177–183)
(1) Robert E. Woodruff
Emeritus Taxonomist, Florida State Collection of
Arthropods, P.O. Box 147100,
Gainesville, Florida 32605, U.S.A (e-mail: BobsGems@aol.com)
I would like to go on record as
supporting the proposal by Krell, Ballerio & Smith
to conserve the names Gnorimus and Osmoderma (Coleoptera,
SCARABAEIDAE). Resurrecting long forgotten or unused names
is a great disservice to nomenclatural stability.
(2) Patrick Arnaud
22 Sentier des Chèvres, 91250 Saintry / Seine, France (e-mail:
PatricNeotrop@aol.com)
I agree
with the proposed conservation
of Gnorimus and Osmoderma rather than
the revalidation of long-unused names.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Celaenorrhinus
ratna Fruhstorfer, 1908 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) (Case
3339; see BZN 63:
114–117, 201–202)
Alexey L. Devyatkin
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Biology,
Moscow State University, 119992 Moscow, Russia (e-mail:
ald@3.entomol.bio.msu.ru)
I can well
understand my colleagues dealing
with the Oriental HESPERIIDAE who
are not happy to use the never
used and forgotten specific name Celaenorrhinus
kawakamii (Matsumura, 1907) instead of the well-established
name C. ratna Fruhstorfer, 1908. The species in
question seems to be widespread in the Oriental Region
and, although described from Taiwan, forms a number of
subspecies, described within the species ratna,
on the continent. One of them, C. ratna tytleri Evans,
1926, was supposed (Devyatkin, 2000, p. 210) to be illustrated
and listed in Osada et al. (1999, pl. 134, p. 221) from
North Laos under the name C. maculosus (C. & R.
Felder, [1867]) ssp. The species
is therefore very likely to be
found in Vietnam. While dealing
with the HESPERIIDAE fauna of the
latter country, I would never hesitate
to identify it as C. ratna, being practically unaware
of the applicability of the little-known Matsumura name
to this species.
It seems clear that the conservation
of the name kawakamii would
lead to
unnecessary confusion in the nomenclature of the genus.
Furthermore, Matsumura himself used the name ratna in
his publications (see the references in the Application).
Therefore, I support the
proposed conservation of the specific
name ratna
Fruhstorfer, 1908 by suppression of the name kawakamii Matsumura,
1907 as an action supporting the preferred solution to
this nomenclatural problem.
In conclusion, I can add
at least one paper (Huang, 2003,
p. 68), on Chinese butterflies
using the name ratna to
the list cited in the original application.
Additional references
Devyatkin, A.L. 2000.
Hesperiidae of Vietnam 8. Three new species of the genus Celaenorrhinus Hübner,
1819, with notes on the C. maculosa (C. & R.
Felder, [1867]) – oscula Evans, 1949 group
(Lepidoptera, Hesperiidae). Atalanta, 31(1/2):
205–211.
Huang, H. 2003. A list of butterflies
collected from Nujiang (Lou Tse Kiang) and Dulongjiang,
China with descriptions of new species, new subspecies,
and revisional notes. Neue Entomologische Nachrichten, 51:
55–114.
Osada, S., Uémura, Y. & Uehara, J. 1999. An
illustrated checklist of the butterflies of Laos P.D.R. 240
pp. Mokuyo-sha, Tokyo.
