BZN Volume
59, Part 2, 28 June 2002
Comments
Comments
with the following titles were published on 28 June 2002
in Volume 59, 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).
Comment
on the proposed designation of Isospora suis Biester,
1934 as the type species of Isospora Schneider,
1881 (Protista, Apicomplexa)
(Case 3187; see BZN
58: 272-274)
(1) Steve J. Upton
Division of Biology, Kansas State University, Manhattan,
Kansas 66506, U.S.A. (e-mail: coccidia@ksu.edu)
As a coccidial biologist
who has published over 150 species descriptions and redescriptions
during the last 20 years, I write in opposition to the proposal
to designate Isospora suis Biester, 1934 as the
type species of the genus Isospora Schneider, 1881.
In his application Modrý has proposed the designation of a new
type species for Isospora and to transfer the genus and some species
from the EIMERIIDAE Minchin, 1903 into the SARCOCYSTIDAE Poche, 1913. While
I concur that a new type species should be designated, and agree with the published
literature that the genus is polyphyletic and currently includes members of
two separate families, I disagree with the proposed approach since it would
involve needlessly giving a new generic name to virtually all species within
both families. Instead, it is desirable to retain the majority (80% of the
total number) of the more than 250 Isospora species in the EIMERIIDAE
and exclude approximately 50 species, including I. suis, most closely
allied with the SARCOCYSTIDAE. The excluded species would then receive a new
generic name, the first available being the commonly used Cystoisospora Frenkel,
1977 (see para. 4 below). The following points are presented for consideration.
1. The original description
by Schneider (1881) of the genus Isospora and illustration
of the oocysts strongly suggest that it represented an avian
pseudoparasite. Although reported to have been found associated
with ‘a little black slug’, the shape and characteristics
of the oocysts and sporocysts are identical to the general
isosporan morphology found in passeriform and related birds;
the parasite has never been rediscovered. The only originally
included species, I. rara Schneider, 1881, was reported
to produce two piriform spores. The line drawings and description
are both clear about the shape of the sporocysts and it is
quite obvious that each had what are now termed Stieda bodies
(sporocyst plugs) at the pointed ends, typical of avian isosporans.
By the end of the 19th century over 30 different avian species
and one lizard were known hosts for these morphologically
similar isosporans (see Candorelli Francaviglia & de
Fiore, 1892; Hagenmüller, 1898; Labbé, 1893,
1896, 1899; Laveran, 1898; Sjöbring, 1897). The only
isosporan known at this time to lack Stieda bodies on the
sporocysts was an anuran isosporan (currently I. lieberkuehni (Labbé,
1894)).
2. For Isospora,
Schneider (1881) was uncertain about the exact numbers of
sporozoites within each sporocyst and he simply referred
to the sporozoites as being
‘numerous’. This uncertainty led to a taxonomic
scheme at the generic level based solely on perception errors
about the numbers of sporozoites within the sporocysts (see
Labbé, 1893, 1894, 1896, 1899). Thus, the genus Isospora was
erroneously defined as being polyzoic (see Labbé,
1893). Subsequently new genera were introduced to accommodate
the differing numbers of sporozoites. The genus Diplospora Labbé,
1893 (p. 1301 in Comptes Rendus de l’Académie
des Sciences, (3)116 and not p. 407 in (3)117 as cited
by Modrý, 2001, BZN 58: 273) was defined as having
sporocysts each with four sporozoites, and two new species D.
lacazii and D. rivoltae were proposed for isosporans
from the goldfinch Carduelis carduelis Linnaeus
and the chaffinch Fringilla coelebs Linnaeus respectively.
Some authors accepted the name Isospora as valid
for these morphologically similar coccidia (see Laveran,
1898; Sjöbring, 1897), whereas others employed the multi-generic
scheme accepting the new genus Diplospora for the
avian isosporans (see Hagenmüller, 1898). Laveran & Mesnil
(1902) recognized the trivial nature of the errors and synonymized
the various genera with Isospora. The generic name Isospora has
been in continual use since 1902 for those homoxenous coccidia
within the EIMERIIDAE containing two sporocysts, each sporocyst
possessing four sporozoites. By far the majority of the isosporan
species were avian.
3. Recent findings have
shown the nominal genus Isospora to be polyphyletic;
it may soon need to be split into two or more genera. Limited
molecular analyses by Carreno et al. (1998), Carreno & Barta
(1999), Franzen et al. (2000), Barta et al. (2001) and Modrý et
al. (2001) have shown that at least one primate isosporan
(I. belli Wenyon, 1923 from humans), two carnivore
isosporans (I. felis Wenyon, 1923 from felids and I.
ohioensis Dubey, 1975 from canids), as well as I.
suis Biester, 1934 from piglets and I. lieberkuehni (Labbé,
1894) from frogs, are all more closely related to the cyst-forming
coccidia (i.e. Toxoplasma and Sarcocystis)
than to two of the avian (passeriform) isosporans (I.
robini McQuistion & Holmes, 1988 from Turdus
migratorius Linnaeus and I. gryphoni Olsen,
Gissing, Barta & Middleton, 1998 from Carduelis tristis Linnaeus).
All valid primate and carnivore isosporans lack Stieda bodies,
as do the morphologically similar I. suis from swine
and I. lieberkuehni from frogs, whereas avian isosporans
all have distinct Stieda bodies.
4. The genus Cystoisospora
Frenkel, 1977 (type species Isospora felis Wenyon,
1923) was established for those isosporans of carnivores
that form dormant unizoite stages in multiple organs of facultative
intermediate hosts (see Frenkel, 1977). None of the species
possessed Stieda bodies on the sporocysts. Dormant unizoite
cysts have been reported for I. belli in humans
(see Michiels et al., 1994; Lindsay et al., 1997; Restrepo
et al., 1987; Velasquez et al., 2001), but not for I.
suis from swine (see Pinckney et al., 1993). Since 1977
most of the commonly studied isosporans of carnivores and
primates have already been transferred into Cystoisospora (family
SARCOCYSTIDAE).
5. If Isospora suis were
designated the type species of Isospora, and if
the genus is split into two genera as commonly suggested,
it would result in the ‘historically wrong’ lineage
being assigned to the SARCOCYSTIDAE and name changes for
virtually all existing species. I propose the retention of Isospora within
the EIMERIIDAE thereby conserving the published names of
approximately 80% of the species. The type species should
be an avian isosporan with early historical significance,
and Diplospora lacazii Labbé, 1893 (para.
2 above) is a suitable choice since its taxonomic status
has been extensively reviewed (see Levine, 1982).
6. The International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to set aside the proposals in BZN 58:
273 (Case 3187);
(2) to use the plenary power to set aside all previous fixations
of type species for the nominal genus Isospora Schneider,
1881 and to designate Diplospora lacazii Labbé,
1893 as the type species;
(3) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
the name Isospora Schneider, 1881 (gender: feminine),
type species Diplospora lacazii Labbé, 1893
as designated in (2) above;
(4) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the name lacazii Labbé, 1893, as published
in the binomen Diplospora lacazii (specific
name of the type species of Isospora Schneider,
1881);
(5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology the name Diplospora Labbé,
1893 (a junior objective synonym of Isospora Schneider,
1881).
Additional references
Barta, J.R., Martin,
D.S., Carreno, R.A., Siddall, M.E., Profous-Juchelka, H.,
Hozza, M., Powles, M.A. & Sundermann, C. 2001.
Molecular phylogeny of the other tissue coccidia: Lankesterella
and Caryospora. Journal of Parasitology, 87:
121-127.
Candorelli Francaviglia, M. & de
Fiore, C. 1892. Un caso di psorospermosi
intestinale nel Coccotrhaustes vulgaris. Bollettino
della Società Romana per gli Studi
Zoologici, 1: 68-74.
Franzen, C., Muller, A., Bialek, R., Diehl, V., Salzberger,
B. & Fätkenheuer, G. 2000. Taxonomic position
of the human intestinal protozoan parasite Isospora belli as
based on ribosomal RNA sequences. Parasitology Research, 86:
669-676.
Frenkel, J.K. 1977. Besnoitia wallacei of
cats and rodents: with a reclassification of other cyst-forming
isosporoid coccidia. Journal of Parasitology, 63:
611-628.
Hagenmüller, M.P. 1898. Sur une nouvelle
coccidie, parasite du Gongylus ocellatus. Comptes
Rendus des séances de la Société de Biologie,
5: 73-75.
Labbé, A. 1893. Sur les coccidies des
oiseaux. Comptes Rendus de l’Academie des Sciences,
(3)116: 1300-1303.
Labbé, A. 1894. Recherches zoologiques
et biologiques sur les parasites endoglobulaires du sang vertèbrès. Archives
de Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale,
(3)2: 55-258.
Labbé, A. 1896. Recherches zoologiques,
cytologiques et biologiques sur les coccidies. Archives de
Zoologie Expérimentale et Générale,
(3)4: 517-654.
Labbé, A. 1899. Sporozoa. In Bütschli,
O. (Ed.), Eine Zusammenstellung und Kennzeichnung der rezenten
Tierformen. Das Tierreich, 5: 1-180.
Laveran, A. 1898. Sur les modes des reproduction
d'Isospora lacazei. Comptes Rendus des séances
de la Société de Biologie, 5:
1139-1142.
Laveran, A. & Mesnil, F. 1902. Sur la coccidie
trouvée dans le rein de la Rana esculenta et sur l'infection
générale qu'elle produit. Comptes rendus de
l'Académie des Sciences (Paris), 135:
82-87.
Levine, N.D. 1982. Isospora passeris n.
sp. from the house sparrow Passer domesticus, I. lacazii, and
related Apicomplexan protozoa. Transactions of the American
Microscopical Society, 101: 66-74.
Lindsay, D.S., Dubey, J.P., Toivio-Kinnucan, M.A., Michiels,
J.F. & Blagburn, B.L. 1997. Examination of extraintestinal
tissue cysts of Isospora belli. Journal of Parasitology, 83:
620-625.
Michiels, J.F., Hofman, P., Bernard, E., Saint Paul,
M.C., Boissy, C., Mondain, V., LeFichoux, Y. & Loubiere,
R. 1994. Intestinal and extraintestinal Isospora
belli infection in an AIDS patient. A second case report. Pathology
Research, 190: 1089-1093.
Modrý, D., Šlapeta, J.R., Jirku, M., Oborník,
M., Lukeš, J. & Koudela, B. 2001. Phylogenetic
position of a renal coccidium of the European green frogs, ‘Isospora’
lieberkuehni Labbé, 1894 (Apicomplexa: Sarcocystidae)
and its taxonomic implications. International Journal
of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, 51:
767-772.
Pinckney, R.D., Lindsay, D.S.,
Toivio-Kinnucan, M.A. &
Blagburn, B.L. 1993. Ultrastructure
of Isospora suis during excystation
and attempts to demonstrate extraintestinal
stages in mice. Veterinary Parasitology, 47:
225-233.
Restrepo, C., Macer, A.M. & Radany, E.H. 1987.
Disseminated extraintestinal isosporiasis in a patient with
acquired immune deficiency syndrome. American Journal of
Clinical Pathology, 87: 536-542.
Sjöbring, N. 1897. Beiträge zur Kenntnis
einiger Protozoen. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie, Parasitenkunde,
Infektionskrankheiten und Hygiene. I. Abteilung Originale, 22:
675-684.
Velasquez, J.N., Carnevale, S., Mariano, M., Kuo, L.H.,
Caballero, A., Chertcoff, A., Ibanez, C. & Bozzini, J.P. 2001.
Isosporosis and unizoite tissue cysts in patients with acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome. Human Pathology, 32:
500-505.
(2) Andrew Wakeham-Dawson
(Executive Secretary)
I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural
History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail:
iczn@nhm.ac.uk)
Two different approaches
for resolving nomenclatural difficulties relating to Isospora Schneider,
1881 have been proposed to the Commission. The first approach
was published as Case 3187 in BZN 58: 272-274
(December 2001) and the second in the comment above. Without
expert advice it will be difficult for the Commission to
provide a ruling that will best serve the medical and veterinary
professions as well as protistologists and parasitologists.
It has been drawn to the attention of the Secretariat by
Dr Upton that discussions on the taxonomy of Isospora are
planned for the 10th International Congress of Parasitology,
which will be held in British Columbia, Canada, in August
2002. Numerous coccidian biologists will be present, and
one session will attempt to reach a consensus on how to split
the genus Isospora, name the resulting genera and
resolve the type species issue. The Commission Secretariat
hopes to publish a summary of the discussion on Isospora in
the Bulletin in due course. This will allow the
Commission to take into consideration the recommendations
of the Congress when ruling in relation to Case 3187.
Further comments on all aspects of this case are invited.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of Hydrobia Hartmann,
1821 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud,
1805 (currently Hydrobia 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) to HYDROBIUSINA, 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,
140-141, 301-303)
Andrzej Falniowski and Magdalena
Szarowska
Department of Malacology, Institute of
Zoology, Jagiellonian University, Ingardena
6, 30-060 Kraków, Poland
We fully support the
application.
The phylogeny and taxonomy of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821, based
on shell morphology, ultrastructure and soft part anatomy, have been studied
in our Department of Malacology for about 30 years (see Falniowski, Dyduch & Smagowiez,
1977; Falniowski, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990; Falniowski & Szarowska, 1995;
Falniowski, Szarowska
& Mazan, 1996). Thus, we feel well qualified to present
our views on the current application.
1. The restriction that
Radoman (1977) made in the locality where Cyclostoma
acutum Draparnaud, 1805 was collected is little justified.
As previously noted in a comment on this case (BZN
58: 301), Draparnaud (1805) might have collected
his specimens at any locality in France. Where Hydrobia taxa
are concerned, the occurrence of a species at a locality
is certainly not so constant that we can be sure that the
species currently found is the same as that collected 200
years ago. In fact, the occurrence of a species of Hydrobia is
the result of several factors (see, for example, Fenchel,
1975a, 1975b; Hylleberg, 1975, 1976; Lappalainen, 1978) and
different species can be found in nearly the same habitats.
It must also be stressed that the brackish water habitats
of Hydrobia are very unstable. Therefore, the present
occurrence of Hydrobia acuta species at the restricted
type locality does not prove its presence at the time Draparnaud
was collecting.
2. In his selection of the
lectotype of Hydrobia acuta, Boeters (1984) followed
the letter of the Code without regard to its spirit. The
main principle of the Code is to support and ensure the stability
of nomenclature but this, unfortunately, is not what Boeters
achieved. Possessing the two syntypes of H. acuta,
Boeters had to choose one of them as the lectotype. The shells
seemingly belonged to two species, one of them (putatively) Ventrosia
ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) while the character states
of the other corresponded to H. acuta as understood
from the abundant literature. In fixing a type for H.
acuta, Boeters thus had two alternatives: (1) to designate
the acuta-like shell as the lectotype and to recognise
the other specimen as a distinct species, probably V.
ventrosa; or (2) to designate the ventrosa-like
shell as the lectotype and to leave the other shell as an
indeterminate 'Hydrobia sp.'. If he had chosen alternative
(1), stability of the names Hydrobia acuta, Hydrobia, Ventrosia and
HYDROBIIDAE would all have been secured. His choice of alternative
(2) has caused many problems, well documented by Wilke et
al. and Giusti et al. (BZN 58: 301-303).
3. We cannot agree with
the arguments of Boeters et al. (BZN 56:
56-63) that stability of nomenclature would be achieved by
transferring the taxonomic understanding of the name Hydrobia
acuta to Ventrosia ventrosa. It does not make
much sense to give examples of how Ventrosia Radoman,
1977 was understood as Hydrobia many years before
the name Ventrosia was introduced. It must also
be said that there are many species of Hydrobia and
they are the subjects of important and extensive research
by marine biologists, ecologists, parasitologists and others.
Therefore, the undesirable consequences following acceptance
of the unfortunate designation of the H. acuta lectotype
by Boeters (1984) would be profound and not limited to the
field of malacology.
4. We agree with Naggs
et al. (BZN 56: 143-148) that type specimens
in the Mollusca are mostly empty shells and their identity
may well not be in doubt. Some species of Hydrobia may
be determined by their shells if numerous specimens from
one locality are carefully examined. However, Hydrobia
acuta is a special case because we do not know (1) where
the original material was collected, nor (2) how many and
which species are part of the sample. We have examined several
thousand specimens of H. acuta, Ventrosia ventrosa and Peringia
ulvae, some hundreds of them anatomically, and must
state that it is not possible to determine these species
without a knowledge of their soft part anatomy and pigmentation
(see Muus, 1967; Falniowski, 1986, 1987, figs. 1; 2 and 4;
Falniowski & Szarowska, unpublished data).
Considering all the above, it is our view that replacement of the lectotype
for Hydrobia acuta by a neotype is very necessary.
Additional references
Falniowski, A. 1986.
Pigmentation in Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant, 1777) and H.
ventrosa (Montagu, 1803) (Hydrobiidae, Prosobranchia)
from the Polish Baltic. Acta Hydrobiologica, 28:
443-449.
Falniowski, A. 1988. Female
reproductive organs of Hydrobia ulvae and H.
ventrosa (Hydrobioidea, Prosobranchia)
from Puck Bay (Southern Baltic Sea). Malakologische
Abhandlungen, Staatliche Museum für
Tierkunde Dresden, 13:
27-31.
Falniowski, A. 1990. Anatomical characters and
SEM structure of radula and shell in the species-level taxonomy
of freshwater prosobranchs (Mollusca: Gastropoda: Prosobranchia):
a comparative usefulness study. Folia Malacologica, 4:
53-142.
Falniowski, A., Dyduch, A. & Smagowicz, K. 1977.
The molluscs collected in 1973 in the Puck Bay. Acta Zoologica
Cracoviensia, 22: 507-531.
Falniowski, A. & Szarowska, M. 1995. Can
poorly understood new characters support a poorly understood
phylogeny? Shell-structure data in Hydrobiid systematics (Mollusca:
Gastropoda: Prosobranchia: Hydrobiidae). Journal of Zoological
Systematics and Evolutionary Research, 33:
133-144.
Falniowski, A., Szarowska, M. & Mazan, K. 1996.
Shell SEM outer and inner structure and rissoacean phylogeny.
VII. Hydrobia ulvae (Pennant, 1777) (Prosobranchia:
Rissoacea: Hydrobiidae). Malakologische Abhandlungen, Staatliches
Museum für Tierkunde Dresden, 18:
25-33.
Fenchel, T. 1975a. Factors determining the distribution
patterns of mud snails (Hydrobiidae). Oecologia (Berlin), 20:
1-19.
Fenchel, T. 1975b. Character displacement and
coexistence in mud snails (Hydrobiidae). Oecologia (Berlin), 20:
19-32.
Hylleberg, J. 1975. The effect of salinity and
temperature on egestion in mud snails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae).
A study on niche overlap. Oecologia (Berlin), 21:
279-289.
Hylleberg, J. 1976. Resource partitioning on
basis of hydrolytic enzymes in deposit-feeding mud snails (Hydrobiidae).
II. Studies on niche overlap. Oecologia (Berlin), 23:
115-125.
Lappalainen, A. 1978. Seasonal recruitment and
population structure of coexisting mud snails (Hydrobiidae) in
the Baltic Sea. In: Cyclical phenomena in marine plants and
animals. Pergamon Press, Oxford.
Muus, B.J. 1967. The fauna of Danish estuaries
and lagoons. Meddelingen fra Danmarks Fiskerei Hav.,
(N.S.)5: 1-316.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Thalassema
taenioides Ikeda, 1904 (currently Ikeda taenioides;
Echiura)
(Case 3212; see BZN
58: 277-279)
Edward B. Cutler
Utica College of Syracuse University;
currently Department of Invertebrate Zoology,
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138, U.S.A.
I write in full support
of Dr T. Nishikawa's application to conserve the specific
name of Ikeda taenioides (Ikeda, 1904) for the echiuran
from the coasts of Japan. It is my view that he has uncovered
all of the relevant literature. He has personal familiarity
with the organism under consideration and I urge the Commission
to concur with this request.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of Remipes pacificus Dana,
1852 over Remipes marmoratus Hombron & Jacquinot,
1846 (Crustacea, Anomura)
(Case 3106; see BZN
59: 12-16)
L.B. Holthuis
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Naturalis, P.O.
Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
I do not see the necessity
to use the plenary power to give precedence to the specific
name of Remipes pacificus Dana, 1852 over R.
marmoratus Hombron & Jacquinot, 1846.
Both names have always been used for the same species and thus there
is no question of confusion. Remipes marmoratus is not a forgotten
name; its identity has been discussed by various authors, as mentioned in the
application, and the existence of type material makes it possible to identify
the species. The name Hippa pacifica (Dana, 1852) is not a widely
used name as shown by the applicants, who found only 17 uses reported in Zoological
Record between 1864 and 1998. The species is not of medical importance
nor is it used in applied science. I do not see any harm in a change from pacificus to marmoratus and
certainly not enough reason to suspend the Code.
The author of the name R. marmoratus is cited in the application
as Jacquinot, 1846. However, the first mention of the name was on pl. 8 in
livraison 17 of ‘Atlas d’Histoire naturelle Zoologie par
MM. Hombron et Jacquinot’ published in 1846. There is no indication in
this livraison that Jacquinot is the sole author. This claim was made much
later, namely in the text volume (1853, p. 4) where it is said that Jacquinot
was responsible for the new species (with the named exception of a few). This
later claim is, of course, invalid.
Comments
on the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel, 1845
over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case
3048; see BZN 56: 31-33; 57:
46-48; 58: 305-306; 59: 38-40)
(1) Wolfgang Speidel and
Wolfram Mey
Zoologisches Forschungsinstitut und Museum
A. Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn,
Germany
In her application,
Alma Solis has put forward understandable reasons for giving
precedence to the family-group name NYMPHULINAE over ACENTROPINAE.
In a comment (BZN 57: 46-48), we stated
that these reasons, at least in our view, may not be sufficient.
A comment has subsequently been published by Agassiz (BZN
58: 305-306). We generally agree with all the statements
made by the latter except for two, newly introduced into
the discussion:
(1) We did not say in our
comment that we were the only authors to have used the family-group
name ACENTROPINAE as valid, neither in Europe nor in Asia
(cf. Agassiz's comment on BZN 59: 306).
(2) We agree that there
are some species of major economic importance in the group,
and their names should be conserved. The synonymy of the
available family-group names, however, has no influence on
the use of generic and specific names for these species.
The majority of species in the group have no economic importance
and 'considerable disruption' in the literature by synonymising
the family-group names need not be feared. Generally, we
see problems with including 'economic importance' as an argument
in the discussion on the application of family-group names.
We did not intend to provoke a long discussion on the application of
a family-group name in the Microlepidoptera. In such a scarcely-studied group,
comparatively short time since the synonymy of the names NYMPHULINAE and ACENTROPINAE
was made and even shorter time since this synonymy was generally accepted,
we think it is difficult to apply the criterion of 'general usage'.
(2) Jay C. Shaffer
Department of Biology, George Mason University,
Fairfax, Virginia 22030, U.S.A.
I wish to add my support
to the application by Dr Alma Solis to conserve the subfamily
name NYMPHULINAE. I have worked with pyralid moths since
the 1960s and have been familiar with the name NYMPHULINAE
since my undergraduate days (even farther back in time).
I had not heard of the name ACENTROPINAE until recently and
am unaware of any use prior to Speidel (1981). The name apparently
has not been used for well over 100 years.
The central purpose of the Code is to promote stability of names. The
use of the name ACENTROPINAE in place of the familiar NYMPHULINAE runs counter
to that purpose.
Comment
on the proposed emendation of spelling of MACROPODINAE
Hoedeman, 1948 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes) to MACROPODUSINAE,
so removing the homonymy with MACROPODIDAE Gray, 1821 (Mammalia,
Marsupialia)
(Case 2661;
see BZN 58:
297-299)
Richard van der Laan
Hogeschool van Utrecht, Institute of Life Sciences and
Chemistry, Chemical Research and Development, Postbus
13272, 3507 LG Utrecht, The Netherlands
I have found that
in an aquarist publication Hoedeman introduced the name MACROPODINAE
for a group of ANABANTIDAE in 1948, which is considerably
earlier than the date cited (Liem, 1963) in the application
. The group was diagnosed in a key (p. 2) to the subfamilies
of the ANABANTIDAE (A. II. 1. Dorsal and anal fins both with
more than 12 spines). The emended family-group name MACROPODUSINAE
should therefore be attributed to Hoedeman (1948).
There is also an English version of Hoedeman's work, entitled Encyclopedia
of water life, loose leaf 1948-195?, which I have not seen.
The name MACROPODINAE also appeared in Hoedeman (1954, pp. 472 and 476).
Additional references
Hoedeman, J.J. 1948.
In Hoedeman, J.J. & de Jong, J.C.M. (Eds.), Encyclopaedie
voor den aquariumhouder, 1947-1962. Loose leaf edition, 56
parts. De Regenboog, Amsterdam.
Hoedeman, J.J. 1954. Aquariumvissen-encyclopaedie.
527 pp. de Bezige Bij, Amsterdam.
Comments
on the proposed placement of the name Aphanius Nardo,
1827 (Osteichthyes, Cyprinodontiformes) on the Official
List
(Case 3028;
see BZN 58:
110-115)
(1) W. Villwock
Zoologisches Institut und Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King-Platz
3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany
I support the application
by Prof Dr M. Kottelat and Mr A. Wheeler.
I protest strongly against the invalid introduction of the generic name Lebias Goldfuss,
1820 by Dr K.J. Lazara in 1995 in place of the well known and long used name Aphanius Nardo,
1827. I shall continue to use Aphanius because the adoption of Lebias would
lead to considerable confusion in the literature concerned.
(2) Juraj Holèík
Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dúbravská
cesta 9, 842 06 Bratislava, Slovakia
I support the conclusions
of the application by Kottelat & Wheeler to place Aphanius on
the Official List. I agree with them that, as most species
of Aphanius are threatened and listed as endangered in most
of the Mediterranean region, the nomenclatural change to
Lebias proposed by Lazara (1995) is very unfortunate. I urge
the Commission to approve the application and retain the
name Aphanius.
(3) R.H. Wildekamp
Aug. de Witstraat 5, 5421RK Gemert, The Netherlands
I write to support the application that has been submitted to the Commission
by Kottelat & Wheeler to place the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 on
the Official List. My use of the name was explained in Wildekamp, Küçük, Ünlüsayin & van
Neer (1999).
Additional reference
Wildekamp, R.H.,
Küçük, F., Ünlüsayin, M. & van
Neer, W. 1999. Species and subspecies of the genus Aphanius Nardo,
1827 (Pisces, Cyprinodontidae) in Turkey. Turkish Journal
of Zoology, 23: 23-44.
(4) Ignacio Doadrio
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales, José Gutiérrez
Abascal 2, Madrid 28006, Spain
I support the application
to place the name Aphanius Nardo, 1827 on the Official
List.
I include the following list of recent references in which I have adopted
the name: Doadrio, Perdices & Machordom (1996), Perdices, Carmona & Doadrio
(2001) and Doadrio, Carmona & Fernández-Delgado (2002).
Additional references
Doadrio, I., Carmona,
J.A.
& Fernández-Delgado, C. 2002. Morphometric
study of the Iberian Aphanius (Actinopterigii,
Cyprinodontiformes) with descriptions of two new species. Folia
Zoologica.
Doadrio, I., Perdices, A. & Machordom,
A. 1996. Allozymic variation of
the endangered killifish Aphanius iberus (Val.,
1846) and its application to conservation. Environmental
Biology of Fishes, 45:
259-271.
Perdices, A., Carmona, J.A. & Doadrio, I. 2001.
Nuclear and mitochondrial data reveal high genetic divergence
among Atlantic and Mediterranean populations of the Iberian killifish Aphanius
iberus (Teleostei, Cyprinodontidae). Heredity, 87:
314-324.
(5) Support for the application
has been received from Dr Philippe Keith (Muséum
National d'Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire d'Ichtyologie,
43 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris, cedex 05, France), Dr Jörg
Freyhof (Leibniz-Institut für Gewässerökologie
und Binnenfischerei, Müggelseedamm 310, D-12561 Berlin,
Germany), Prof Ioannis Leonardos (Biological Applications
and Technology Department, University of Ioannina, 45110
Ioannina, Greece), Dr Roberta Barbieri (National
Centre of Marine Research, Institute of Inland Waters, Ag.
Kosmas, GR-166 04 Hellenikon, Athens) and Prof P.S.
Economidis (Aristotle University, School of Biology,
Zoology Department, Box 134, GR-540 06, Thessaloniki, Greece).
