BZN Volume 60, Part 2, 30 June 2003

General Articles & Nomenclatural Notes

---

General Articles and Nomenclatural Notes with the following titles were published on 30 June 2003 in Volume 60, Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Copies of these General Articles and Nomenclatural Notes 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).

Nomenclatural Note (see Comments BZN 60:3, 61:1)

Draft proposal to emend the Code with respect to trace fossils: request for comments

Markus Bertling 1*, Simon Braddy 2, Richard G. Bromley 3, Georges D. Demathieu 4, Radek Mikuláš 5, Jan K. Nielsen 6, Andrew K. Rindsberg 7, Michael Schlirf 8 and Alfred Uchman 9

  The Code covers not only names for biological taxa but also those for the ‘fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa)’ as well (Article 1.2.1). In ichnology, an ichnotaxon is considered to be the name attached to a trace fossil (e.g. Bromley, 1990; Magwood, 1992; Pickerill, 1994) - a term that is used ambiguously in the Code’s Glossary only for ‘fossilized trails, tracks or burrows’. In fact, many other biogenic structures are trace fossils as well and the obsolete term ‘work of an animal’ is not used in modern ichnologic literature. This contribution aims at a future clarification of the meaning of the term ‘ichnotaxa’ and the meaning of the terms used for related taxa that are frequently confused with ichnotaxa.
  A trace fossil may generally be defined as a morphologically recurrent structure resulting from the life activity of an individual organism (or a monospecific group of organisms) that modifies the substrate (e.g. Bromley, 1996). This means that ‘fossilized work of organisms’ in which a substrate is not modified qualifies neither as a trace fossil nor as an ichnotaxon. Fossil eggs and plant galls are the work of animals, but are not trace fossils. Secretions produced by organisms are not trace fossils. It follows that such ‘work of animals’, e.g. spider webs, cocoons, pupal cases, pearls and calculi, likewise, are not trace fossils. As representatives of most of these groups have received names governed by the Code, they are currently classified in a parataxonomic scheme. Trace fossils, on the other hand, are not objects of parataxonomy; they do not compete in priority with names for their producers (Article 23.7.3). Some other structures that are occasionally listed as trace fossils, e.g. stromatolites, pathologic structures and soils as well as signs of human technology, are neither ichnotaxa nor the ‘fossilized work of an organism’ and should not be covered by the Code.
  This discussion underlines the discrepancy in the terminology of the Code as opposed to the one generally used in the relevant scientific subdiscipline. This discrepancy may result in misunderstandings and contradictory claims about the legal standing of names established for biogenic structures that are not trace fossils. For this reason we propose refinement of the wording of the Code and the use of less ambiguous terms to distinguish between various animal products and true trace fossils. We propose that the Glossary definition of ‘work of an animal’ be emended to read: ‘trace fossils (including burrows, borings and etchings, tracks and trackways, coprolites, gastroliths, regurgitaliths, nests, leaf mines, bite and gnaw structures), as well as secretions such as eggs, cocoons, pupal cases, spider webs, embedment structures and plant galls’. With this definition, it will not be necessary to replace the term ‘work of an animal’ in Articles 1.21, 10.5, 12.2.8 and 72.5.1 by ‘trace fossils’.
  An additional point independent of the above proposal relates to the nomenclatural treatment of ichnofamilies. It is illogical to demand criteria for their establishment that differ from those for other ichnotaxa. Also, with ichnotaxa being treated in very much the same way as biological taxa, we recommend that the principle of typification be extended to the naming of ichnofamilies. This would be consistent with the current provisions for the typification of ichnogenera and ichnospecies (Articles 13.3.3, 42.2.1 and 42.3.2).
  In addition, we propose the deletion of an unnecessary sentence dealing with ichnotaxa based on recent traces (Article 1.3.6). This article allows usage of ichnotaxa erected on recent traces prior to 1931, but there seem to be no grounds for this provision. We are not aware of any case where names based on recent traces are actually used. If they had been validly established they would no longer be available due to their status of nomina oblita, anyway.
  Finally, numerous new ichnotaxa have been established in the last decades by their authors using the abbreviations ‘igen.’ for ichnogenus and ‘isp.’ for ichnospecies. We advocate that ‘igen.’ and ‘isp.’ be approved as the legitimate abbreviations for ichnogenus and ichnospecies, respectively, for use in open nomenclature and for the designation of new ichnotaxa. In relation to this, Recommendation 16A of the Code should be emended to include reference to ‘igen. n.’, ‘isp. n.’, etc. for ichnotaxa.

References

Bromley, R.G. 1990. Trace fossils: biology and taphonomy. 280 pp. Unwin Hyman, London.
Bromley, R.G. 1996. Trace fossils: biology, taphonomy and applications. 361 pp. Chapman & Hall, London.
Magwood, J.P.A. 1992. Ichnotaxonomy: a burrow by any other name? Pp. 15-33 in Maples, C.G. & West, R.R. (Eds.), Trace Fossils. Palaeontological Society Short Courses in Palaeontology, 5.
Pickerill, R.K. 1994. Nomenclature and taxonomy of invertebrate trace fossils. Pp. 3-42 in Donovan, S.K. (Ed.), The palaeobiology of trace fossils. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

(1) Geological and Palaeontological Institute, University of Münster, Corrensstr. 24, D-48149 Münster, Germany (* corresponding author).
(2) Department of Earth Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1RJ, U.K.
(3) Geological Institute, Øster Voldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
(4) Earth Sciences Centre, University of Burgundy, 6 boulevard Gabriel, F-21 100 Dijon, France.
(5) Institute of Geology, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Rozvojová 135, CZ-16500 Praha 6, Czech Republic.
(6) Geological Museum, Øster Voldgade 5-7, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark.
(7) Geological Survey of Alabama, P.O. Box 869999, Tuscaloosa, AL 35486-6999, U.S.A.
(8) Institute for Palaeontology, Pleicherwall 1, D-97070 Würzburg, Germany.
(9) Institute of Geological Sciences, Jagiellonian University, ul. Oleandry 2a, PL-30 063 Kraków, Poland.

 

Nomenclatural Note

The authorship and dates of Pieter Cramer’s De Uitlandsche Kapellen: a request for comments from lepidopterists

J.E. Chainey
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

  In 1958 (Opinion 516), the Commission approved a set of dates and authorship for De Uitlandsche Kapellen by Pieter Cramer (this work was completed by Caspar Stoll after Cramer’s death). However, several facts have come to light that might have influenced the Commission’s ruling had they been noted at the time. In addition, authors are not always following the Opinion, particularly with regard to the authorship of this work.
  (1) The main purpose of Opinion 516 was to assign relative precedence to five publications issued in 1775. Cramer’s work was deemed to have been published on December 31st and come last in precedence because there was no evidence of when it had been published, other than the year 1775. However, a letter (held in The Natural History Museum, London) from the entomologist Dru Drury (1725-1803) to the publisher Sepp dated 27 November 1775 states that ‘Cramer’s work is badly coloured’, indicating that at least the first part was then available. This date would give Cramer (1775) precedence over Denis & Schiffermüller (1775), which Opinion 516 stated as having been published on 8 December.
  (2) The publication dates given in Opinion 516 are partly based on the assertion that Cramer died in 1780. In particular, the publication date of volume 3, part 22, was set at 1780 (instead of 1779 as given on the original wrappers of a copy held in the library of The Natural History Museum, London), because a footnote by Stoll on p. 107 refers to the death of Cramer. However, Cramer died in September 1776, as noted by Stoll (1780) and Smit, Sanders & van der Veer (1986).
  Dos Passos (1958) states that the dates and spellings of the specific names in De Uitlandsche Kapellen should be taken from the indexes, since these are the only part of the work that is consistently binominal. Subsequent authors have ignored the dates suggested by Dos Passos and, in any case, the dates he cites for the publication of the indexes do not agree with the above-mentioned copy with its original wrappers. Based on these wrappers, the correct dates for the indexes for each volume are 1776 (vol. 1), 1777 (vol. 2), 1780 (vol. 3) and 1782 (vol. 4). However, some authors have accepted the spellings of names as given in the indexes for the reason cited by Dos Passos.
  Acceptance of the indexes as the valid source of the names in De Uitlandsche Kapellen would also affect authorship. The whole of volume 4 would be attributable to Stoll, and almost certainly also volume 3. In an announcement of his forthcoming work on Cicadas, Stoll (1780) discusses progress with De Uitlandsche Kapellen and states: ‘mais le nombre des Planches étant porté à présent à 360, don’t 264 [i.e. up to volume 3, part 22] ont déjà vu le jour’. Since the published arrangement and sequence of the figures differ from the original plates, it seems unlikely that Cramer’s plans would have been sufficiently advanced for him to have prepared the index to volume 3.
  Although there are continuing inconsistencies in the citation of this work, it is considered that the stability of dates and authorship are best served by application of Opinion 516, and this is here recommended as the best course of action. It is also recommended that the spellings of Cramer’s names follow the indexes, since these are conformed to by current usage (and in most cases the there is no difference between spellings in the indexes and the main text). However, comments are invited from lepidopterists on whether or not a case should be made to take account of any of the above points. Acceptance of any of the first three points could affect the priority of some names, though point 2 applies to relatively few taxa. Points 3 & 4 should be taken together, and acceptance would rule out either points 1 or 2.

References

Cramer, P. 1775-80. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America. [Papillons exotique des trois parties de Monde l'Asie, l'Afrique et l'Amerique.] 1. Pp.1-132, pls. I-XCVI, 2: Pp. 1-152, pls. XCVII-CXCII, 3. Pp. 1-176, pls. CXCIII-CCLXXXVIII, 4. Pp. 1-28, pls. CCLXXXIX-CCCIV. S.J. Baalde, Amsterdam; B. Wild, Utrecht.
Denis, J.N.C.M. & Schiffermüller, I. 1775. Ankündung [sic] eines systematisches Werken von den Schmetterlinge der Wienergegend. 322 pp. Wien.
Dos Passos, C.F. 1958. The dates and authorships of some names proposed by Cramer and Stoll in De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America, and by Stoll alone in Aanhangel van het werk, de Uitlandsche Kapellen, voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America, door den heere Pieter Cramer [1775]-1791. Lepidopterist’s News, 12: 195-198.
Smit, P., Sanders, A.P.M. & van der Veer, J.P.F. 1986. Hendrik Engel’s alphabetical list of Dutch zoological cabinets and menageries. Nieuwe Nederlandse budragen tot de Geschiedenis der Geneeskunde en der Natuurwetenschappen, 19: 1-340.
Stoll, C. 1780-82. De Uitlandsche Kapellen voorkomende in de drie Waereld-deelen Asia, Africa en America.[Papillons exotique des trois parties de Monde l'Asie, l'Afrique et l'Amerique]. Vol. 4: 1-252, pls. CCCV-CCCC. S.J. Baalde, Amsterdam; B. Wild, Utrecht.
Stoll, C. 1780. Natuurlyke en naar’t leeven naauwkeurig gekleurde afbeeldingen en beschryvingen der Cicaden en Wantzen, in alle vier waerelds deelen Europe, Asia, Africa en America. [Représentation exactement colorée d’après nature des Cigales et des Punaises, qui se trouvant dans les quatre parties du monde, l’Europe, l’Asie, l’Afrique et l’Amerique.] 12 pp. Jan Christian Sepp, Amsterdam.