BZN Volume
58, Part 2, 29 June 2001
Comments
Comments
with the following titles were published on 29 June 2001
in Volume 58, Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
Copies
of these Comments can be obtained free of charge from the Executive
Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD,
U.K. (e-mail: iczn@nhm.ac.uk).
Comments on Article 74.7.3 of the Code (requirement for an express
statement of the taxonomic purpose of a lectotype designation),
including a proposal that it should be revoked
Article 74.7 of the Code
reads: `To be valid, a lectotype designation made after 1999
must ... [74.7.3] contain an express statement of the taxonomic
purpose of the designation'.
There was no requirement for such a statement in the previous (1985)
edition of the Code, which prescribed (as does the current edition) that `each
designation ... must have as its object the definition of the taxon'.
(1) W.J. Pulawski
California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco,
California 94118, U.S.A.
As a practicing taxonomist
I feel obliged to protest against the Article 74.7.3 that first
appeared in the new edition of the Code. In my view, this Article
is objectionable and unnecessary for two reasons:
1. It requires a justification of the obvious. It is true that there
are some rare cases of very unsatisfactory lectotype designations (e.g., specimens
unsuitable for identification purposes are designated when better specimens
are present; or a lectotype is selected from a mixed series, changing the established
species concept or resulting in some other negative nomenclatural impact).
Unfortunately we have no protection mechanism against unqualified work, and
the formal statement required by the new Code adds nothing to the quality of
lectotype designations. There is no need to justify in words the usual process
of typification, the importance of which is clearly stated in Article 61.1.
It is also inconsistent to require such a statement for lectotype designations
when no similar provision is made for holotype designations.
2. Since every designation of a lectotype has to be individual (Article
74.3), the provision requires multiple repetitions when more than one lectotype
is being designated in a paper. For example, I am preparing a large paper on
Tachysphex wasps in which some 40 lectotypes are designated. Article 74.7.3
forces me to repeat 40 times the formula `here designated in order to ensure
the name's proper and consistent application'. I find this to be ridiculous.
I would strongly recommend that this ill-conceived innovation
in the Code be deleted as soon as possible.
(2) Subsequently Dr Pulawski
informed the Co mmission Secretariat that he had circulated his
letter to more than 200 zoologists worldwide, and copies of it,
with small individual variations, have been received from C.
van Achterberg (Leiden, The Netherlands), H. Dollfuss
(Mank Austria), F. Gusenleitner and J. Gusenleitner
(Linz, Austria), J. Klimaszewski (Sainte-Foy, Quebec,
Canada), M. Kuhlmann (Munster, Germany), J. Leclercq
(Liege, Belgium), A.S. Menke (Bisbee, Arizona, U.S.A.),
M. Ohl (Berlin, Germany) and M. Schwarz (Ansfelden,
Austria). Support for Dr Pulawski's letter has also been
received from C.L. Bellamy (Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.),
P. Dessart (Bruxelles, Belgium), P.K.L. Ng (Singapore),
J.S. Noyes (London, U.K.) and F. Ronquist (Uppsala,
Sweden).
(3) D.A. Rider
North Dakota State University, Fargo, North Dakota 58105, USA.
I must respectfully disagree
with Dr Pulawski's letter reproduced above. I am currently working
on a catalog of the Pentatomidae (Heteroptera) of the world,
and I am trying to provide as much information as possible about
the type specimens of each species. Dr Pulawski is correct in
that the new Article 74.7 will not stop a curator from publishing
a paper on the specimens in a museum and designating lectotypes.
What it will stop, however, is inadvertent or careless designations.
In the past curators frequently labeled one of the original specimens
(syntypes) as `type' or even `holotype'; what then happened (very
commonly, I must add) is that subsequent authors referred to
that specimen as `the type', without checking its true status;
under the old Code this constituted a lectotype designation.
From what I have seen curatorial selection of `poor' specimens
is much more common than Dr Pulawski suggests. The new Code eliminates
such [future] inadvertent and inappropriate lectotype fixations.
I cannot see why Article 74.7.3 should cause objection. Is it really
a big problem to make a statement of the taxonomic purpose of a lectotype designation?
I have always done this (and I think many/most of us have done so too) and
I do not find it cumbersome at all. The new rule simply makes it mandatory.
(4) M.D. Webb
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London S W7 SBD, U. K.
The intention of Article
74.7.3 is evidently to prevent lectotype designations from being
made as a matter of curatorial tidying-up. My own view is that
in order to follow the `spirit' of the new Code we should not
just repeat a favourite statement after designating lectotypes.
Rather, we should ask the question: is the identity of this taxon
in doubt if we don't designate a lectotype? If it is not, then
don't make a designation. In most cases taking the original syntype
series as the name-bearing type causes no problem. When there
is an over-riding taxonomic reason for designating a lectotype
(e.g. the type series is composite) then we should do so, and
state that reason. In other words, lectotype designations should
be made in response to an existing (rather than hypothetical)
problem.
(5) A. Hamilton
Biosystematics Research Institute, Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Kl A OC6, Canada
I am not worried about
changes in the new Code when they are not retroactive, and Article
74.7.3 is not. In general I applaud any attempts to make taxonomic
decisions and the reasons for them more `transparent' (for example,
synonymies are anathema if made without explanation and/or without
mentioning whether type material was examined).
Reasons for designating a lectotype include:-
(a) One (or more), but not all,
of the syntypes corresponds to the prevailing usage of the name
and there is a real possibility that the type series may consist
of more than one taxon. This covers the great majority of cases.
(b) The choice of a form (e.g.
a sex or life stage) which is considered identifiable, when the
type series includes other specimens which may not distinguish
the taxon from related ones.
(c) Selection of a specimen
which, unlike some other syntypes, comes from a locality where
sibling species are absent.
(d) The supposed type series
includes specimens of doubtful authenticity.
(e) Only one specimen actually
corresponds to details in the original description.
(f) Original specimens exist
(or may exist) in more than one collection, but some are not
readily accessible.
(g) An original specimen is
clearly labeled (e.g. with details of locality and date) but
others are not.
(h) One (or a minority) of the
syntypes are anomalous (e.g. if the type series consists of many
females but only one male, possibly not conspecific, then a female
lectotype would be appropriate).
There are probably other situations where lectotype designation is desirable,
but these are ones which come readily to mind.
Reasons for not designating a lectotype include situations where the
only known syntypes do not permit clear identification of the taxon, or they
are not in accord with the current concept of the taxon (i.e. the prevailing
usage of its name); in such instances a neotype may be appropriate despite
the existence of original specimens (see Articles 75.5 and 75.6).
(6) Following the original letter
from Dr Pulawski (see comments (1) and (2) above), he and Dr
LM. Kerzhner (Zoological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences,
St Petersburg 199034, Russia) sent to the Commission Secretariat
on 25 February 2001 a formal request for the revocation of Article
74.7.3, i.e. its retrospective deletion from the Code. They also
copied this request to other zoologists.
In addition to repeating the points in Dr Pulawski's original letter,
they noted that the wording of Article 74.7.3 does not disqualify statements
such as `designated to increase stability of nomenclature'. Based on an electronic
search of Zoological Record, they found an increasing number of lectotype
designations in recent years and that the great majority of these did not include
individual statements of taxonomic purpose. By extrapolation they estimated
that in the year 2000 there were probably some 1600 designations in 600 publications
which were not in accord with Article 74.7.3.
Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner said that `a statement of the taxonomic purpose
of lectotype designations was never required or recommended in previous editions
of the Code, a need for it was never widely discussed, and it seldom occurred
in pre-2000 publications. It is not surprising that most authors, reviewers
and editors overlooked the new requirement. A contributing factor is that many
academic centers, let alone countries, do not have a copy of the current Code'.
Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner concluded: `Article 74.7.3 does not contain
anything positive for nomenclature and is destabilizing. In our opinion, the
current situation must be urgently corrected, and elimination of the Article
is the only reasonable solution (this change would affect no other part of
the Code, including the Recommendations). If the Commission agrees that the
deletion is not a major change, under Article 78.3.2 it could issue a Declaration
as a provisional amendment to the Code. This would eliminate the current chaos
and save zoologists and the Commission unnecessary work'. They proposed that
the Commission should issue such a Declaration.
(7) Support for the proposal
from Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner has been received from G.C.D.
Griffiths (Edmonton, Canada), U. Kallweit (Dresden,
Germany), A.L. Ozerov (Moscow, Russia), A.C. Pont
(Goring-on-Thames, UK) and K. Rognes (Stavanger,
Norway).
(8) O. Kraus
Zoologisches Institut und Museum, Universitdt Hamburg,
Martin-Luther-King Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
Stability of nomenclature
is one of the basic aims of the Code, and this is of necessity
linked to stability of the Code itself. The present edition should
remain the basis for many years. Its provisions, specifically
including Article 74.7.3, are the result of years of open discussions.
Perhaps that Article is not truly fundamental, or it could be
improved in its wording, but I am very strongly against its deletion.
Amendments to the Code, if any, should be limited to real essentials,
and changes which are said to be `minor' should await the development
of some future edition.
(9) A.P. Rasnitsyn
Paleontological Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences,
117868 Moscow, Russia
I wish to join the protest
against Article 74.7.3. I have designated tens of lectotypes
in a single publication, and it would be absurd if I had to explain
the self-evident necessity to designate lectotypes of old and
often confused species-group names under each individual type
or species. In designating lectotypes a worker clears the field
of taxonomy for future generations of colleagues in a comparatively
safe way. I firmly believe that lectotype designations should
be considered an important part of a taxonomist's professional
activity, and particularly so for the everyday curatorial responsibility
for the animal groups of which he or she has intimate knowledge.
In my opinion Article 74.7.3 weakens the value of the type principle.
It suggests that lectotype designation is appropriate only in
cases of direct necessity (i.e. in cases of doubtful application
of the name). This might be taken as a reason to consider all
type designations as redundant unless there is a definite ambiguity
in name application.
(10) F.C. Thompson
Systematic Entomology Laboratory, USDA,
c/o U. S. National Museum, Washington, D.
C. 20560, U. S. A.
Contrary to Drs Pulawski
and Kerzhner (see (5) above), what became Article 74.7.3 was
widely publicized during the development of the Code. For example,
Article 74a of the Discussion Draft of which more than 1000 copies
were issued in May 1995 stated `a lectotype designation made
after 19.. must give the author's reasons for believing that
the designation is necessary', and this was flagged as a significant
new proposal on p. 3 of the accompanying Explanatory Notes, in
the Bulletin (BZN 52: 123, June 1995), and elsewhere. In the
ensuing discussions (which involved more than 500 zoologists
at meetings and in written and electronic correspondence) there
was very little expressed opposition to this, although Dr Kerzhner
was one who did object. The remark by Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner
that `many academic centers, let alone countries, do not have
a copy of the current Code' could be used as an argument against
all new provisions. For example, they overlook Article 16, which
requires that the intent to establish new nominal taxa and their
typification must both be explicitly stated.
The few extra words required to satisfy Article 74.7.3 may be a `statement
of the obvious' but are no great hardship on any good worker.
(11) W.D.L. Ride
Department of Geology, The Australian
National University, P.O. Box 4, Canberra,
ACT 2600, Australia
The proposal by Pulawski
and Kerzhner to delete Article 74.7.3 should be rejected. It
would, if acceded to, result in the Commission taking an action
that would both be destabilizing to nomenclature and be a cause
of confusion as to the intentions of the Code to act in the interests
of taxonomy. Its removal would be a major change to the Code
which was adopted and approved by the Commission and the International
Union of Biological Sciences following extensive discussion by
the wider zoological community.
The importance of the role of lectotypification in classification cannot
be over-emphasized. When they become necessary, lectotype selection and designation
must be taxonomically meaningful, careful and explicit. Moreover the action
is taken following a period of use of a name often established long before.
The designator must take that usage into account when selecting a lectotype,
and must then be satisfied that an important taxonomic purpose and nomenclatural
stability are served by reducing the objective basis of the name (its name-bearing
type) to the taxonomi¬cally most meaningful specimen. Careless or taxonomically
unneeded lectotypi¬fication may prevent subsequent clarification should
that become necessary, and so may be destructive of stability and universality.
For 40 years, since 1961, Article 74 of the Code has contained the provision
that each lectotype designation `must be made specifically for an individual
species [or subspecies] and must have as its object the definition of that
species'. The intention of the provision (and of the taxonomists who sought
its inclusion in the Code) could not be more plain. The introduction of Article
74.7.3 in the current edition of the Code, requiring designators to provide
`an express statement of the taxonomic purpose of the designation', followed
wide and prolonged consultations and is one expression of a progressive change
throughout the rules eliminating the need for revisers to interpret subjectively
the intentions of their predecessors. By requiring a designator to expressly
state the taxonomic purpose of the designation it removes from the revisor
the requirement to ascertain by inference alone that the purpose of the designation
had `as its object the definition of the taxon'. The definition of `taxonomic'
in the Glossary restricts the purpose to the better classification of organisms
and eliminates routine curatorial `housekeeping' or general nomenclatural `tidiness'
as acceptable reasons for lectotype designations.
The solution to the difficulties expressed by Pulawski and Kerzhner is
already in the Code, and there is certainly no case that the matter is so urgent
that the Commission should act in any other way than to consult widely with
the international community as is required by Article 78.3.1 of the Code and
Article 16 of its Constitution. The suggested deletion of Article 74.7.3 does
not `merely clarify a provision of the Code' (see Article 78.3.2) and the Commission
does not have the power to amend the Code without consultation, even if its
members were minded to do so.
A lectotype designation published after 1999 without a statement of the
taxonomic purpose is invalid, but a subsequent author should nevertheless act
consistently with that action: Recommendation 74A should be followed, and a
different specimen should not be designated unless, in the author's opinion,
the invalid `designation' is contrary to stability and is a cause of confusion.
If a lectotype is judged to be taxonomically necessary then the invalidly designated
specimen should be selected. Conclusion and summary
Contrary to the view expressed above by Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner that
`Article 74.7.3 does not contain anything positive for nomenclature and is
destabilizing', the Article is integral and it is important to the way in which
nomenclature serves taxonomy. Article 74 does not only provide, by a nomenclatural
rule, a convenient means of reducing a suite of objects (syntypes) from many
to one (a lectotype) in the interests of objectivity. Lectotype selection is
also a process whereby an original author's intention to base a name on a suite
rather than on a single specimen (a holotype) may be amended; this must be
done only to serve developing knowledge and not for any other purpose.
The present Article is a reflection of the long-held and clearly expressed
wish of taxonomists that the Code should include provisions which promote good
practice, that which takes proper account of taxonomic and nomenclatural actions.
The Commission has responded to this wish between 1961 and 1999 by a sequence
of improved wordings of Articles 74.3 and 74.7.3, the Glossary definition of
`taxo¬nomic', and Recommendation 74A. I have no doubt that it is possible
to further improve the words of Articles and Recommendations to express better
the spirit of their purpose, but whatever words are adopted it will still be
possible to circumvent their intention (for example by writing such scientifically
meaningless formulae as `designated to increase stability').
To remove Article 74.7.3 from the Code would send a signal to
international biology that, rather than progressively making
the practice of nomenclature more integral with taxonomy and
more meaningful, the Commission is prepared to encourage practices
which are less than careful (or, as has happened on a few occasions,
actively irrespon¬sible). I hope that Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner
will not wish to pursue their proposal, because uncertainty as
to the eventual outcome would inevitably continue for a long
time and this would do nothing for stability or confidence in
the Code.
(12) P.K. Tubbs
c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell
Road, London S W7 SBD, U.K.
This comment is a personal
one - it is not made as the Commission's Executive Secretary
or as a member of the former Editorial Committee of the fourth
edition of the Code.
It is not surprising that, as Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner have said (see
(6) above), many lectotype designations are being made without an express statement
of their purpose and are therefore in breach of Article 74.7.3. While many
designations are made in response to a consciously perceived need to solve
an actual problem, such as described by Dr Hamilton in comment (5), there is
also an assumption, evidently widely held, that lectotype designations should
be a routine part of a revision of a taxonomic field even if no nomenclatural
problems are immediately evident or foreseen (see Prof Rasnitsyn's comment
(9)). Naturally such designations usually do have the definition of the taxon
as their underlying intent, but they do not necessarily have a reason which
could be summarised in a brief and meaningful `express statement of taxonomic
purpose'. Occasionally routine or curatorial designations have been made even
though the designator was aware that the action would disturb prevailing nomenclature,
and a subsequent author has had to make an application to the Commission to
set aside the action (for example `routine' but deliberate lectotype designations
threatened to completely upset the names of the four most common bumble bees
of Europe, and this was rectified in 1996 by Opinion 1828).
The statement of purpose required by Article 74.7.3 has been denounced
as a `statement of the obvious'. But, as mentioned above, often the reason
for a lectotype designation is not obvious at all. When there is a perceived
reason, then it is surely very easy to state it. Lectotype designations must
be made individually for each species, not collectively. However, if a number
of such individual designations were accompanied by an opening statement along
the lines of `Because in each of the following species the type series is composite
we designate below lectotypes which are in accord with the established usage
of the names', or `Because the female syntypes do not distinguish between the
following species we designate below male lectotypes in each case', then I
would regard that as satisfying Article 74.7.3. In other words, I do not believe
that the `Because' or purpose statement (as distinct from the specimen selection
and designation) has to be ritually repeated time after time -to require such
multiple incantations would be unreasonable, and the Code proceeds on the (unstated)
principle that reasonableness prevails!
As mentioned above by Dr Thompson in comment (10), the proposed Article
74.7.3 was widely publicised and considered in the years leading up to the
current Code and very few adverse remarks were made; following the Code's publication
in English and French in 1999, and subsequently in other languages, no objection
was raised until Dr Pulawski's circular of November 2000. However, the proposal
by Drs Pulawski and Kerzhner that the provision should be revoked needs to
be considered on its merits.
I do not support the proposition. It is of course regrettable that many
(perhaps even a majority) of recent designations fail, presumably through understandable
oversight, to meet the requirement of Article 74.7.3 and are therefore invalid.
However, under the Code these purported designations place a responsibility
on subsequent authors who do see a positive need for a lectotype. Recommendation
74A, mentioned above by Prof Ride, states that `In designating a lectotype,
in order to preserve stability of nomenclature authors should act consistently
with, and in any event give great weight to, previously accepted taxonomic
restrictions of the application of the name'. It follows that invalid designations
are not necessarily `wasted': they have enduring influence, and there is no
need for them to be repeated in valid form or to be the subject of Commission
rulings. A future worker is able to override them by a different but valid
designation, but must do so only if there is very good reason for setting aside
the earlier restriction.
The belief that lectotypes should be designated as a matter of `routine'
revisory work is surely mistaken. Many well known species do not have any existing
type material, and yet their names are of undoubted application; in other instances
the taxon is better delineated by the original author's type series than by
a subsequent worker's arbitrary, if well meaning, restriction to a single specimen
(and, for it to have any effect, other zoologists have to be aware of that
restriction).
I appreciate and share the disquiet about the fact that Article 74.7.3
is, up to the present, as frequently contravened as it is followed. However,
the correspondence started by Dr Pulawski may serve the very useful purpose
of bringing the new provision, which I believe has much merit, to wider attention
and one may hope that the requirement will be increasingly complied with. Present
ignorance of the Article is not an adequate reason to delete it; if this were
so many other provisions would be at risk, and stability of the Code is of
great importance.
Comment on the proposed
conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud, 1805
(currently Hydvobia acuta) by the replacement of the
lectotype of H. acuta with a neotype; proposed designation
of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as the type species
of Ventrosia Radoman, 1977; and proposed emendation
of spelling of HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
t0 HYDROBIU5INA, so removing the homonymy with HYDROBIIDAE
Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca)
(Case 3087; see BZN 55: 139-145; 56:
56-63, 143-148, 187-190, 268-270; 58: 56-58)
Edmund Gittenberger
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, P.O. Box 9517, 2300
RA Leiden, The Netherlands
Much of what has been written in the Bulletin on this
case relates to systematics, not nomenclature. The question at
issue is a simple one: should a valid lectotype designation be
accepted if there is disagreement on the outcome among systematists
for a variety of reasons? In other words, should Boeter's (1984)
lectotype designation for Hydrobia acuta (Draparnaud,
1805) be allowed to stand, or should it be replaced by a neotype
as proposed by Giusti et al. in their application?
In my view the Code serves as the tool to solve nomenclatural problems
such as this. In this case the alternatives are not stability versus instability,
but they divide systematists into two camps. Systematical considerations, forthcoming
publications (demonstrating clearly that the concepts of various taxa have
to be changed anyway) and the psychology of authors have no place here.
In essence the case relates to three questions:
(a) Is the existing lectotype a former syntype?
(b) Has the lectotype been validly designated?
(c) Can the lectotype be identified without reasonable doubt?
There are clear affirmative answers to all three questions, agreed
by both camps of systematists. I am in favour of accepting the
existing lectotype. A neotype (suggesting that all the syntypes
cannot be identified) would not bring the current confusion to
an end. Only good taxonomic research will do this.
There is no reason to consider the type locality of Hydrobia acuta as
an additional problem. Wilke et al. (BZN 56: 188) state somewhat
inconsistently that they have studied topotypic material, while referring (p.
190) to `missing locality information' and note that `the type locality of H.
acuta may be the Etang du Prevost near Palavas-les-Flots ... but it could
be elsewhere in France'. Even this could be incorrect; Draparnaud described Cylindrus
obtusus in the same (1805) work but it is certainly endemic to Austria.
This comment is fully supported by Dr H.D. Boeters and Dr G. Falkner.
Comments on the proposed conservation of Trichia Hartmann,
1840 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and proposed emendation of spelling
of TRICHIINAE Ložek, 1956 (Mollusca) to TRICHIAINAE, so
removing the homonymy with TRICHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta,
Coleoptera)
(Case 2926; see BZN 57: 17-23, 109-110,
166-167, 223-227; 58: 53-56)
(1) Philippe Bouchet and Gerhard
Falkner
Museum national d'Histoire naturelle,
SS rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
Gittenberger has proposed
that the name Trichia Hartmann, 1840 be conserved by
suppressing the names Trochulus von Alten, 1812 (Mollusca)
and Trichia de Haan, 1839 (Crustacea), and by ruling
that it is not rendered invalid by the existence of Trichia von
Haller, 1768 in Myxomycetes.
Rosenberg (BZN 57: 225-227) has researched cases of
homonymy between genus-group names of animals and those of Myxomycetes and
advocated that for consistency Trichia Hartmann, 1840 be treated as
a junior homonym of Trichia Hoffman, 1790 (the first author to make
the name available under the zoological Code). We sympathize with this view
because nomenclature becomes impenetrable when Hemitrichia Mollendorff,
1888 is regarded as invalid because of homonymy in the Myxomycetes, and Trichia Hartmann,
1840 is not. Further, we want to point out that Trochulus should be
dated from Schroter (1788).
The name Trochulus was established by Chemnitz (1786) in a work placed
on the Official Index by Direction 1. Trochulus Chemnitz, 1786 is
thus not available. The application has stated (para. 5) that the name is available
under Article 11.6.1 of the Code from von Alten (1812), who cited Trochulus
hispidus in the synonymy of Helix hispida Linnaeus, 1758 and
referred to Chemnitz. Although the work by Chemnitz has been rejected as non-binominal,
we regard the name Trochulus as first available from Schroter (1788,
p. 107), who published the binomen Trochulus hispidus in an index
to Chemnitz's work. The index was published independently from Chemnitz's Systematisches
Conchylien-Cabinet, and it satisfies the conditions of Article 11.4.3.
A number of names in current use are currently dated to Schroter (1788) (for
example, Venus foliaceolamellosa, now Circomphalus foliaceol-
amellosus). Trochulus Schroter, 1788 is available under Article
12.2.2 with the type species, by monotypy, Helix hispida Linnaeus
1758.
Additional reference
Sehroter, J. S. 1788. Vollstkndiges
alphabetisches Namen-Register uber alle
zehn Bknde des von dem seel. Herrn D. Martini
in Berlin angefangenen, und vom Herrn Pastor
Chemnitz in Kopenhagen fortgesetzten und
vollendeten systematischen Conchylien-Cabinets. 124
pp. Raspe, Niirnberg.
(2) F.-T. Krell
Department of Entomology, The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London S W7
SBD, U. K.
In addition to my comment
published in BZN 58: 54-56 (March 2001), I should
like to illustrate the widespread and overwhelming usage of the
family-group name TRICHIINAE Fleming, 1821 in Coleoptera (based
on Trichius Fabricius, 1775). My current comment is
in response to Dr D. Kadolsky, who has recommended (BZN
58: 53) the alteration of this name to TRICHIUSIDAE
to overcome the homonymy with TRICHIIDAE Fries, 1821 in Myxomycetes
(based on Trichia von Haller, 1768). Without doubt,
this new spelling would cause confusion since the name TRICHIINAE
Fleming (or TRICHIIDAE or TRICHIINI) is well-known and used frequently
all over the world. A search of the literature cited in Zoological
Record on CD-ROM 1978-2000 gave 52 references for TRICHIINAE
(TRICHIINI or TRICHIIDAE), 46 of them referring to the beetle
group, one to Mollusca, two to Crustacea and three to slime moulds.
None of the three slime mould publications used the spelling
TRICHIIDAE, but instead used Trichiaceae (i.e. they followed
botanical nomenclature). As far as I know, the spelling TRICHIIDAE
has been used as a slime mould name only by Zoological Record and
by Olive (1975, p. 112) during the last 30 years.
I have given the Commission Secretariat a list of 54 works, independent
of the evidence provided by Zoological Record, published within the
past 50 years which use the beetle name TRICHIINAE. These include comprehensive
works on Coleoptera, standard monographic works on regional or supraregional
faunas from all over the world, catalogues, morphological and phylogenetical
studies, handbooks for identification and semi-popular guides.
It is evident that TRICHIINAE is in very wide usage in Coleoptera, and
to change it because the name Trichiaceae is in use for slime moulds would
be destabilizing and totally inappropriate.
Additional reference
Olive, L.S. 1975. The Mycetozoans. x, 293 pp.
Academic Press, New York.
Comment on the proposed conservation of Turbinella
nassatula Lamarck, 1822 as the type species of Peristernia Morch,
1852 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 3133; see BZN 57: 81-83)
William G. Lyons
4227 Porpoise Drive SE, St. Petersburg,
Florida 33705-4328, U.S.A.
Richard E. Petit
P. O. Box 30, North Myrtle Beach, South
Carolina 29582, U. S. A.
We agree with Snyder that
replacing Clivipollia with Peristernia in BUCCINIDAE
and replacing Peristernia with another name in FASCIOLARIIDAE
would create difficulty and confusion and should be avoided.
To the problems that Snyder mentioned, we add that PERISTERNIINAE
Tryon, 1881, the much-used name of one of the three principal
subfamilies of FASCIOLARIIDAE, would also have to be replaced.
The first two species listed in Peristernia by Morch (1852)
were `crenulata Reeve' (with synonym `T. craticulata Wag.')
and `nassatula Lamarck'. These species and the synonym have each been
designated as the type species of Peristernia. We discuss here two
such designations by Stimpson (1865) and by von Martens (1868) prior to the
earliest designation (by Cossmann, 1889) mentioned by Snyder in his application.
Stimpson (1865, p. 60) designated a type species for Peristernia as
follows: `Type Turbinella craticulata Schubert & Wagner; Kiener
pl. ix, f. 2'. Morch (1852), when erecting Peristernia, had mentioned
`T. craticulata Wag.' so that species was eligible. However, Stimpson
cited as its figure that of Turbinella crenulata Kiener, a species
not included in Peristernia by Morch. Kiener (1841) had described Turbinella
crenulata and cited for it his pl. 9, fig. 2. The legend for fig. 2 on
plate 9 is `Turbinella craticulata Schubert', but Kiener (1841, p.
50) changed that name to crenulata in his errata, and the latter name appeared
in his figure legend. The species that Kiener figured as `craticulata Schubert'
and corrected to `crenulata Kiener' is not the species that Reeve
figured as `crenulata Kiener' and Morch called `crenulata Reeve',
as Snyder (para. 3 of his application) has pointed out. The species called crenulata by
Reeve is the `Turbinella craticulata Lamarck [b] var.' of Schubert
& Wagner (1829), later named Turbinella wagneri by
Anton (1838, p. 71). The true identity of Kiener's crenulata is
uncertain.
Thus Stimpson's reference to `Turbinella craticulata Schubert
and Wagner' may be construed as a designation made in an ambiguous manner (Article
67.5.3 of the Code), because Stimpson did not cite the `variety b' notation
or a figure by Schubert & Wagner (1829). A strict reading might conclude
that Stimpson referred to `Turbinella craticulata Lamarck' of Schubert & Wagner
[now Latirus craticulatus (Gmelin, 1791), FASCIOLARIIDAE], not to
their variety b [now Clivipollia wagneri (Anton, 1838), BUCCINIDAE].
Stimpson's designation was also incorrect because the figure he cited was that
of Kiener [i.e. `Turbinella craticulata Schubert', sensu Kiener (1840,
pl. 9, fig. 2), = crenulata Kiener, 1841], whereas Morch's citation
of crenulata was to Reeve's name and, presumably, to his figure, which
was of the species now called Clivipollia wagneri.
Ambiguity about relationships among the names `T. craticulata Schubert
and Wagner', T. crenulata Kiener, and T. crenulata Reeve
has led to other confusion. For example, Thiele (1931, p. 741) mistakenly reported
that Cossmann (1889) had designated Turbinella crenulata Kiener as
the type species of Peristernia. Melvill (1891) treated crenulata Kiener
as a synonym of Peristernia striata (Gray, 1839); crenulata Reeve
as a synonym of Peristernia iniuensis Melvill, 1891; craticulata `Wagner'
as a synonym of Peristernia wagneri (Anton, 1838); and craticulata `Schubert'
as a synonym of Peristernia chlorostoma (Sowerby, 1825). The last
two `synonyms' are identical; each traces to the unacknowledged Turbinella
craticulata Lamarck `variety b' of Schubert & Wagner (1825).
In contrast to crenulata, there is no confusion associated with
the name nassatula Lamarck, 1822. In contesting the identity of a
radula assigned to Peristernia sp., von Martens (1868, p. 530) referred
to `Peristernia nassatula, the type of the genus'. This unambiguous
designation of a type species for Peristernia was acknowledged by
Iredale & McMichael (1962, p. 68), and we believe that its fixation as
the type designation, as proposed (but citing Cossmann, 1889) in Snyder's application,
will contribute greatly to nomenclatural stability.
Since Troschel (1868) demonstrated that the radular morphology of Peristernia
nassatula is in general agreement with those of Fasciolaria, Latirus and Leucozonia,
most classification actions involving species of Peristernia have
aimed toward distinguishing the group as a genus of FASCIOLARIIDAE. The genus
now consists of a core group of well-understood species, characterized by Peristernia
nassatula and united by similar radular morphologies, shell morphologies,
and habitat requirements. A few additional species are still included in Peristernia because
enough is not yet known about them to retain them or move them elsewhere. Nevertheless,
the direction of progress has always between toward refining the group as a
genus of FASCIOLARIIDAE, and the literature is rich in references to that group,
both in taxonomical and ecological contexts. To designate any candidate other
than Turbinella nassatula Lamarck, 1822 as the type species of Peristernia would
change that direction and bring much confusion to the scientific literature.
We therefore request that the type designation of Peristernia be
fixed as that by von Martens (1868) of Turbinella nassatula Lamarck,
1822, and that all prior designations be set aside. This can be accomplished
simply by replacing `by Melvill (1891)' with `by von Martens (1868)' in parts
(1) and (2) of Snyder's proposal.
Additional references
Iredale, T. & McMichael, D.F. 1962. A reference
list of the marine Mollusca of New South Wales. Memoirs of
the Australian Museum, 11: 1-109.
Martens, E. von. 1868. Mollusca. Zoological
Record, 4[1867]: 485-602.
Schubert, G.H. & Wagner, J.A. 1829. Neues
systematisches conchylien-Cabinet, vol. 12. Niirnberg.
Stimpson, W. 1865. On certain genera and families
of zoophagous gasteropods. American Journal of Conchology, 1:
55-64.
Thiele, J. 1931. Pp. 377-788 in: Handbuch
der systematischen Weichtierkunde, Teil 2: Gastropoda: Opisthobranchia
and Pulmonata; Additions; Index for Teil. 1, 2. Fischer, Jena.
Troschel, F.H. 1868. Pp. 49-96 in: Das
Gebiss der Schnecken zur Begriindung einer naturlichen Classification,
vol. 2, part 2. Berlin.
