BZN Volume 66, Part 2, 30 June 2009

Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 30 June 2009 in Volume 66, 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).

A list of open cases and instructions on submitting comments are available.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic name Myrmarachne MacLeay, 1839 (Araneae, SALTICIDAE)
(Case 3475; see BZN 66: 20–23)

G.B. Edwards
Florida State Collection of Arthropods, FDACS, Division of Plant Industry, P.O.Box 147100, 1911 SW 34th St., Gainesville, FL 32614–7100, U.S.A. (e-mail: edwardg@doacs.state.fl.us)
Suresh P. Benjamin Biodiversity Research and Education Trust, Colombo, Sri Lanka We are fully in support of this petition. Drs Dunlop and Penney have thoroughly provided reasons for suppressing the older synonym Entomocephalus Holl, 1829. We are in the process of submitting a redescription of the type species of Myrmarachne, M. melanocephala MacLeay, 1839, and would not like to see this longstanding generic name be supplanted. It also should be pointed out that the fossil (or subfossil) species of Holl cannot be determined to species level in its present state based on modern identification methods (i.e. the species name is meaningless in the sense that, at this time, there is no certain way to assign another specimen to it), and it cannot be sufficiently compared with any extant species or ascertained if it is indeed a recent species of Myrmarachne (as the ventral surface of the male palps, the de facto genital organs, cannot be seen). To have Entomocephalus formicoides Holl, 1829, as the type species for this genus would preclude any certain inclusion of the 200+ recent species of Myrmarachne, as comparison of vital morphological features of the type specimen (even if it was not lost) with other species would be impossible, and the nomenclature of the genus would be thrown into disarray.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of AULACOSCELINAE Chapuis, 1874 (Insecta, Coleoptera, ORSODACNIDAE or CHRYSOMELIDAE)
(Case 3398; see BZN 65: 97–105, 66: 72).

Andrzej Warchalowski
Department of Biodiversity and Evolutionary Taxonomy, University of Wrocław, Przybyszewskiego 63/77, 51–148 Wrocław, Poland (e-mail: awar@biol.uni.wroc.pl)
It seems to me that the AULACOSCELINAE / AULACOSCELIDINAE discussion is heading in the wrong direction. In zoological nomenclature it’s not a matter of staying faithful to the rules of grammar, but of the stability of nomenclature itself. This is why names can be corrected only when they are incorrect in terms of the Code. Looking through the ‘Règles Internationales’ (2000 German edition) I can’t find any reason why the name AULACOSCELINAE would be incorrect. Thus it is valid and there is no need to correct it, as such a correction will only lead to the creation of a useless synonym.

 

Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea) (Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34–50, 80–87)

(1) Roger Bour
Laboratoire des Reptiles et Amphibiens, Département Systématique et Évolution, Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, CP 30, 25 rue Cuvier, F-75005 Paris, France (e-mail: bour@mnhn.fr)
Peter Pritchard
Chelonian Research Institute, 402 South Central Avenue, Oviedo, FL 32765, U.S.A. (e-mail: chelonianri@aol.com)
Taxonomic questions often involve reference to antique documents, but taxonomy is not a religion. It is a blend of scientific observation and application of a consensual, evolving, and complex code of nomenclatural procedures. The present task – i.e. defining the taxon known as Testudo gigantea is an example of a purely taxonomic and nomenclatural problem which may secondarily serve as a case history for broader issues. In this case the issue was initiated by non-taxonomists apparently unschooled in the rules of zoological nomenclature and unwilling to abandon a name that they have become used to. They were supported by reviewers who did not follow the series of logical steps and preferred to appeal to fiat authority rather than accept informed scholarship. Disagreements do of course exist among scientists and scholars on many questions, some of which trivial some important. Full, honest, respectful and public discussion of these disagreements does not weaken science, indeed open debate contributes to its progress. But in the case of entrenched major disagreements, it is unacceptable that one group of individuals should claim to be the unique depository of an orthodoxy or ‘revealed truth’ and demand immunity from challenge. Such problems are not solved by lobbying or conducting a public vote. The ultimate decision should have nothing to do with the number of people sharing an opinion. The history of science is replete with examples where a single person turned out to be correct in the face of an overwhelming ‘majority’ of people who together disagreed with a lone voice of truth. One reviewer of our paper was correct in saying that, intellectually speaking, this subject is a minefield. Like literal minefields, it is complete with brave soldiers and cowardly ones. However, those responsible for clearing minefields should not seek to cover them over with opaque material, but rather to deal with the mines one by one so that they present no hazard to future generations. In conflicted situations in science it is not acceptable that important discussions proceed only behind closed doors, and in such cases ‘private discussions’ among authors, referees and editors are not a solution. These discussions should be aired publicly and every biology colleague who wishes to contribute to the discussion should be invited to comment on the case, provided that he/she respects the persons with whom he/she disagrees and does not resort to personal attacks or calumnies. Critics raised a very broad philosophical question: do scientists, in this case taxonomists, have a ‘right to commit error,’ change their minds, and admit past mistakes in taxonomic and nomenclatural analyses? And is it possible or acceptable for the perpetrators to correct these errors in the face of new evidence? Are we bound to follow these errors ad infinitum once they have been repeated by a few colleagues? If so, and pushing this situation to its extreme, do we still need a Code of Zoological Nomenclature? Why not just let ‘usage’, ‘consensus’ or ‘majority’ select the binominals and trinominals that should stand? If ‘usage’ proves to be based on a wrong interpretation of previous texts or type specimens, why not just discard these texts and specimens to protect ‘usage’. Then, we no longer need the inconvenient old texts, the old specimens, nor even the museums that conserve them. Such an extreme interpretation may certainly be much appreciated by those people within or outside our governments who think that museums and their staff are very costly and should be terminated. Type specimens would then only be useful when they correspond to current nomenclatural ‘usage’, but could be ‘suppressed’ when they do not (as was the case in several recent decisions of the ICZN). Of course, we fully agree that ‘usage’ should be protected when it is really universal (but this is far from being the case for Testudo gigantea), and above all when it concerns not only taxonomists and nomenclaturists, but also laymen, the mass media, general textbooks and so on; i.e., for names like Drosophila melanogaster, Tyrannosaurus rex or Homo erectus. It is clearly acceptable to request that the ICZN invalidate nomina oblita – overlooked, obscure or forgotten senior synonyms of later names that have been in customary use for a long period. However it is an entirely different matter when it is discovered that the holotype of a species is a different taxon from that which it has been presumed to be. It is especially disturbing when the objectors to correction of such situations have apparently not troubled to read the details of the original description, nor examined the actual holotype.
Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 In a key paper describing about two dozen new species of chelonians, Schweigger described a new tortoise, which he named Testudo gigantea, the Giant Tortoise (1812, pp. 327; 362). Schweigger (1812, p. 327) added: ‘Vidi animal e collectione regi Li[s]bonensi proventum in museo Parisiensi’ (‘I saw the animal from the King of Lisbon’s collection at the Paris Museum’). To summarise the circumstances, Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire had chosen 10 turtle specimens from the King of Portugal’s collections in Lisbon to bring to the Paris Museum, where they arrived in mid-November 1808. A tortoise ‘de plus de 0m 60’ (‘longer than 60 cm’) was present, as noted on a manuscript list by Lacepède (Daget & Saldanha, 1989, p. 139). It was the type and only specimen of the new species described by Schweigger (Bour, 2006b). One very important point, Schweigger stated precisely and unequivocally ‘Habitat in Brasilia’ (‘Inhabits Brazil’). Pritchard (1986), initially impressed by the stated origin of the Schweigger type specimen (‘Brasil’), was convinced that Testudo gigantea Schweigger was a synonym of Testudo denticulata Linnaeus, 1766 (today Chelonoidis denticulata), the (sometimes giant) yellow-footed tortoise of South America which can reach a straight length of 82 cm (Mittermeier in Pritchard & Trebbau, 1984, p. 225). This is a somewhat elongate, narrow-shelled species whose proportions are fully in accord with those indicated by Schweigger in his description. Bour located the type a few years ago, and when later he re-read Schweigger’s original text, it became obvious that it was the 170 very specimen described by this talented student of Constant Duméril. The description and the given measurements leave no doubt about its identity. It must be remembered that the specimen (registered as MNHN 9554) was also described and measured by Duméril & Bibron themselves (1835, p. 89), without any details about its origin, under the heading Testudo tabulata Walbaum, 1782, a junior and invalid subjective synonym of Testudo denticulata. Its presence in the MNHN collections was further confirmed in a hand-written catalogue dated ca. 1864, with ‘Brésil’ (‘Brazil’) as locality (registration number: 120). Pritchard’s hypothesis was supported.
Testudo gigantea as interpreted by Duméril & Bibron (1835)
In 1835, Duméril and Bibron associated Schweigger’s description with another unique specimen, which was obviously distinct. Duméril & Bibron actually described a new species, but mistakenly attributed it to Schweigger. Testudo gigantea sensu Duméril & Bibron (1835, p. 120) has the following features which did not fit with Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812: ‘carapace bombée; écailles du disque très convexes; une écaille nuchale; suscaudale double’ (‘shell bulged; scutes of the disc very convex; one nuchal [cervical] scute; supracaudal scute double [divided]’). Other details also distinguish this specimen from that described by Schweigger, including the mention of the broad and rough scales of the forelimbs, and the great size: according to Duméril & Bibron, their ‘new’ Testudo gigantea had a shell length (over the curve) of 130 cm and a depth of 49 cm, versus 75.6 cm and 24.3 cm, respectively for the ‘old’ or Schweigger’s specimen. The specimen is still preserved in the Paris Museum collections, with registration MNHN 9566, and it is an Aldabra tortoise.
Testudo elephantina Duméril & Bibron, 1835
The description of Testudo elephantina by Duméril & Bibron (1835, p. 110) was based on about eight specimens, from ‘Anjouan, Aldebra [sic], les Comores’ and Bour (1984a, p. 291), following Rothschild (1915, p. 425), designated as lectotype a large stuffed male (MNHN 7874) on which the description was mostly based. The origin of the species was limited to Aldabra by Günther (1877, p. 18), and the type locality restricted to ‘Malabar, Aldabra’ by Bour (1984a, p. 291). As outlined by Duméril and Bibron themselves, Testudo gigantea was very close to their new species Testudo elephantina. This point of view was later shared, for instance, by Günther (1877, p. 22, note) and Boulenger (1889, p. 168). Finally, Rothschild (1897, p. 407), and then Siebenrock (1909, p. 529) combined both nominal species, Testudo elephantina being considered as a subspecies of Testudo gigantea, but of Testudo gigantea sensu Duméril & Bibron! Nevertheless, from the beginning of the 20th century, the valid name for the Aldabra tortoise seemed to have been definitely settled, or at least most often reduced to the nominal species Testudo gigantea, and later Geochelone gigantea, with Schweigger as author. Both have been widely used up to the present, although Testudo elephantina was also regularly used, either as specific or subspecific name, for those who recognised more than one taxon among Seychelles tortoises. Surely one thing we can all agree upon (assuming that we have all read Schweigger’s work) is that the type locality of Testudo gigantea is identified as Brazil by the original describer. There are no data to contest this. Whether or not one accepts that MNHN 9554 is indeed Schweigger’s type does not change this type locality; those who insist upon designating a neotype for the species would be bound to select a specimen of a Brazilian tortoise species, of which there are only two. One of them (Chelonoidis carbonaria) does not reach the size of Schweigger’s specimen. That leaves only Geochelone denticulata, of which MNHM 9554 is a conveniently available example.
A neotype for Testudo gigantea?
Frazier (2006) strongly emphasized the ‘general instability and chaos regarding the valid name of the Aldabra Tortoise’. He favoured an ‘established nomenclatural system’ (i.e. Testudo gigantea according to him; although ‘general instability and chaos’, and ‘established nomenclatural system’ are rather subjective), which is a commonly proposed argument – and the only one – against the use of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 or Testudo elephantina Duméril & Bibron, 1835, the types of which are clearly Aldabra tortoises. Frazier believed that a neotype designation could clarify this situation, and selected a specimen for this purpose, actually more for nomenclatural than taxonomic reasons. We wish to stress two points stated in the Code (1999) which were not taken into account by Frazier. Recommendation 75B, that ‘before designating a neotype, an author should be satisfied that the proposed designation does not arouse serious objection from other specialists in the group in question’, was not fulfilled. Furthermore, contrary to the wording of Article 75.3.5, Frazier’s neotype is not ‘consistent with what is known of the former name-bearing type from the original description’ (e.g. absence vs. presence of a cervical scute; limbs shielded by tough and very broad scales vs. only postcranial skeleton, and fragments of skin; from Brazil vs. from Aldabra). Fortunately, the rediscovery of the holotype removes any value from the neotype as the type specimen of the same taxon, so we set aside the neotype according to Article 75.8 of the Code; Frazier’s action thus becomes void. Although aware of the results published by Bour (2006b) regarding the identity of Testudo gigantea, Frazier recently (BZN 66: 34–50) decided to request the ICZN to conserve the usage of this name for the Aldabra tortoise under the plenary power. For the reasons given above, we do not support this application. True, some of the early writers in the field of chelonian systematics were frustrating in the vagueness of their descriptions of new taxa. But Schweigger was not one of these. He was a brilliant and meticulous man, and no arguments have been presented to suggest that his description of Testudo gigantea was faulty in any fundamental way. Schweigger wrote that his new species was based upon a large tortoise from Brazil in the King of Portugal’s collection in Lisbon, and since the monarch in question had spent the early years of the 19th century (1808–1820) in Rio de Janeiro, where he had received numerous biological specimens collected by Alexandre Rodrigues Ferreira and party (Wilcken, 2004), this is a fully plausible type locality. On the other hand, to assume that Dom João received an Aldabra tortoise (now completely lost) during his stay in Brazil, without a shred of evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, to back this up, is an argument that should be disposed of with a slash from Occam’s Razor.
Aldabrachelys and Dipsochelys
The remaining question is the choice of the generic name for the Aldabra tortoises and their relatives. Aldabrachelys, as a subgenus of Geochelone Fitzinger, 1835, was coined by Loveridge and Williams to include the Aldabra Tortoise and related species, with Testudo gigantea Schweigger as type species by original designation (Loveridge &Williams, 1957, p. 225). In fact the discordance between the intended and the actual type specimen of Testudo gigantea was not noticed until 1982, when Bour erected a new genus, Dipsochelys, with Testudo elephantina as type species by original designation, to include the Aldabra tortoise and related species. Bour (1984a, p. 281) was apparently the first to resurrect the nominal species T. dussumieri and to recognise its availability, adding ‘Perhaps provisionally, we will consider this name as a ‘nomen oblitum’.’ On the other hand, Gerlach & Canning (1995, p. 133) were certainly the first to coin and use the combination Dipsochelys dussumieri; the main justification given being to avoid ‘confusion with the phenotypically similar Galápagos complex of Chelonoidis elephantopus (Harlan, 1827)’, which has since been renamed Chelonoidis nigra (Quoy & Gaimard, 1824). Since then, as outlined by Frazier (2006; 2008), Gerlach regularly used Dipsochelys dussumieri for the Aldabra tortoise. Both Aldabrachelys and Dipsochelys could be considered as being valid candidate names for the Aldabra tortoise. The latter name is nowadays widely used (e.g. Grzimek, 2003; Bonin et al., 2006; Roberts, 2007; Cheke & Hume, 2008; Pedrono, 2008; Vetter, 2008; Wyneken et al., 2008), either as D. elephantina or as D. dussumieri, and we see no reason not to name the Aldabra tortoise Dipsochelys dussumieri. Aldabrachelys was rarely used until recently; a claim to use Aldabrachelys rather than Dipsochelys cannot be made on the grounds of stability. Therefore, the genus Aldabrachelys, with Testudo gigantea as type species, is a junior subjective synonym of Chelonoidis Fitzinger, 1835, which has Testudo boiei Wagler, 1833 (a junior subjective synonym of Testudo carbonaria Spix, 1824) as type species by subsequent designation of Fitzinger, 1843. Dipsochelys is the valid genus name for the Aldabra tortoise and its relatives.
Additional References
Anonymous. 2008. The life and herpetological contributions of August Friedrich Schweigger. SSAR, Villanova, Pennsylvania.
Bonin, F., Devaux, B. & Dupré, A. 2006. Turtles of the World. 416 pp. A & C Black, London.
Bour, R. 2006a. An unnamed tortoise from the Seychelles Islands. Emys, 13(3): 24–30.
Bour, R. 2006b. Identity of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812. Rediscovery of the type specimen. Emys, 13(4): 12–23.
Cheke, A.S. & Hume J.P. 2008. Lost land of the Dodo: an ecological history of Mauritius, Réunion and Rodrigues. 464 pp. A&C Black, London & Yale University Press. New Haven, Connecticut.
Daget, J. & Saldanha, L. 1989. Histoires naturelles Franco-Portugaises du XIXe siècle. INIP, Lisboa.
Grzimek, B. (Ed.) 2003. Grzimek’s animal life encyclopedia: lower metazoans and lesser deuterostomes. Gale, Farmington Hills, Michigan.
Pedrono, M. 2008. The tortoises and turtles of Madagascar. 147 pp. Natural History Publications, Borneo, Kota Kinabula.
Prichard, P.C.H. 1996. The Galápagos tortoises: nomenclatural and survival status. Chelonian Research Monographs, 1: 1–85.
Pritchard, P.C.H. & Trebbau, P. 1984. The turtles of Venezuela. SSAR, Athens, Ohio.
Roberts, C. 2007. The unnatural history of the sea. Island Press, Washington DC.
Schweigger, A.F. 1812. Prodromus Monographiae Cheloniorum. Königsberger Archiv für Naturwissenschaft und Mathematik, 1, 271–368, 406–468. [facsimile reprint in Anonymous 2008].
Siebenrock, F. 1909. Synopsis der rezenten Schildkröten mit Berücksichtigung der in historischer Zeit ausgestorbenen Arten. Zoologischer Jahrbuch, Supplement 10: 427–618.
Vetter, H. 2002. Terralog 1. Turtles of the world, Vol. 1, Europe, Africa and Western Asia/Schildkröten der Welt 1 Europa, Afrika und Westasien. 96 pp. Chimaira, Frankfurt am Main.
Wilcken, P. 2004. Empire Adrift. The Portuguese Court in Rio de Janeiro. 306 pp. Bloomsbury Publications, London. Wyneken, J., Godfrey, M.H. & Bels, V. 2008. Biology of turtles: from structures to strategies of life. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida.

(2) Anthony Cheke
139 Hurst Street, Oxford OX4 1HE, U.K.(e-mail: anthony.cheke@innerbookshop.com)
While stability in nomenclature is clearly generally desirable, this utopian expectation should not be allowed to override advances and (re-)discoveries in taxonomy, phylogeny and museum science. In the case under consideration here, Frazier (BZN 66: 34–50) seeks to set aside the established rules of types and priority to attach a particular name to the giant tortoise from Aldabra, a species which has had three well-used specific names over the years. I agree with Frazier that the name should be stabilised, but not with his choice. Bour (1982, 1984a, b) questioned whether the animal described as Testudo gigantea by Schweigger (1812) was an Aldabra tortoise, initially suggesting, on several plausible anatomical grounds, that it was ‘incontestably’ (Bour, 1982) or ‘most probably’ (Bour, 1984a) a Mascarene tortoise and a junior synonym of Testudo (currently Cylindraspis) indica Schneider, 1783, now known to have been endemic on Réunion island (Austin et al., 2002). Pritchard (1986), also recognising that Schweigger’s description did not fit animals from Aldabra, and noting the rather obvious clue that the type was said to come from Brazil, considered it fitted Testudo (now Chelonoidis) denticulata Linnaeus, 1766. At that time the type specimen was missing, but when rediscovered more recently (Bour, 2006; Bour & Pritchard, submitted), it proved to be exactly what Pritchard suspected, a Chelonoidis denticulata. Frazier doubts the identity of the rediscovered specimen basically on the grounds that Schweigger and Duméril & Bibron would not have made such a simple misidentification – but in fact tortoise taxonomists at the time regularly did exactly that, as Frazier’s own paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 8 amply demonstrate. Given the details that Bour & Pritchard (submitted) have added to Bour’s (2006) original paper on the rediscovery, I see no reason to doubt that specimen MHN 9554 is Schweigger’s holotype, and that Testudo gigantea is thus a junior synonym of T. denticulata; Frazier’s neotype is thus invalidated under Article 75.3.5 of the Code. Thus unless the rules of priority are set aside, gigantea cannot continue to be used for the Aldabra tortoise. So the issue is – should the rules be set aside in this particular instance? This should surely only be done if there is an absolutely cast-iron case to preserve a thoroughly established name, the loss of which would cause substantial confusion and upheaval amongst users. Is gigantea then so thoroughly established that it has an unassailable claim to preservation? If it had been the only name in general use for many decades, there might be a case for this, but clearly this is not the position, although there was a period of active publication on Aldabra during the 1960s and 1970s when gigantea was used almost exclusively (e.g. tortoise papers in Stoddart & Westoll, 1979, and references therein). Two other names, Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 and Testudo elephantina Duméril & Bibron, 1835, both explicitly based on specimens from Aldabra (dussumieri) or Seychelles generally (elephantina) were coined in the 1830s. The latter was frequently used in the 19th century (fide Bour & Pritchard, submitted) as a synonym or variety of ‘gigantea’, but this was gigantea sensu Duméril & Bibron, 1835, who redescribed ‘gigantea’ from a quite different specimen from that used by Schweigger – their specimen survives in Paris as MHN 9566. Gray’s type of dussumieri seen in Leiden likewise survives – ref. RMNH 3231 (Bour & Pritchard, submitted). In his definitive monograph, Günther (1877) used elephantina as one of the four species he believed occurred in the Seychelles and Aldabra, but did not use gigantea. Hence the earliest valid names available are dussumieri and elephantina. Once Bour (1982; 1984a, b) had queried the identity of gigantea with the Aldabra tortoise, and recommended the use of elephantina over dussumieri on the grounds that the latter was effectively a nomen oblitum, several authors started again using elephantina (see Frazier’s paragraphs 17 & 19, to which I should add myself (Cheke 1987)). In 1995 Gerlach & Canning (1995) revived dussumieri, and Gerlach and his associates have used it regularly ever since (e.g. Gerlach, 2004 and references therein), and its use has spread to other authors (Frazier’s paragraph 23) including myself (Cheke & Hume, 2008). Chambers (2004) provided a layman’s outline of the taxo-nomenclatural debates. It was perhaps unfortunate that dussumieri was revived, but its frequent use over the last 15 years or so means that it can no longer be realistically considered a nomen oblitum, and to suppress it now would be closing the stable door long after the horse (or tortoise?) had departed. I therefore propose that dussumieri should be confirmed by the Commission as the correct scientific epithet for the Aldabra tortoise, in accordance with the rules of the Code. It commemorates Jean-Jacques Dussumier, who was an assiduous French zoological explorer and collector in the early-mid 19th century (Laissus, 1973). One senses from his use of ‘Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea’ that Frazier would also like to preserve Geochelone as the generic name for the Aldabra tortoise, a view that is taxonomically untenable in the light of the evident, indeed rampant, polyphyly (e.g. Le et al., 2006; Fritz & Bininda-Emonds, 2007) of the many species until recently included under this name. Hence a new generic name is essential, and the rivals here are Aldabrachelys Loveridge & Williams, 1957 and Dipsochelys Bour, 1982. Bour established Dipsochelys on the grounds that, as Aldabrachelys was founded on Schweigger’s Testudo gigantea, it fell into synonymy with, as he then thought, Cylindraspis (Bour, 1982), or as we now know (see above), Chelonoidis. However, Loveridge & Williams (1957) explicitly based their subgenus (as was) on the Aldabra tortoise, and it was simply due to the then usage of gigantea for that species that the name now falls into synonymy with Chelonoidis. Hence, given their perfectly clear intent, I see no serious objection, should the Commission so decide, to preserving Aldabrachelys over Dipsochelys as the valid genus for the Aldabra tortoise and its two extinct congeners from Madagascar. So doing would also partly satisfy those in the ‘gigantea’ camp, as they also invariably prefer Aldabrachelys over Dipsochelys if unable to use Geochelone. However I would equally have no objection  if the Commission preserved Dipsochelys and suppressed Aldabrachelys. It is however desirable to fix the genus name one way or the other.
Additional references
Bour, R. & Pritchard, P. (submitted). The identity of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812: holotype or neotype. Zootaxa.
Chambers, P. 2004. A sheltered life – the unexpected history of the giant tortoise. 306 pp. Hodder-Headline (John Murray), London.
Cheke, A.S. 1987a. An ecological history of the Mascarene Islands, with particular reference to extinctions and introductions of land vertebrates. Pp. 5–89 in Diamond, A.W. 1987. (Ed.), Studies of Mascarene Island birds. 458 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (UK).
Laissus, Y. 1973. Notes sur les voyages de Jean-Jacques Dussumier (1792–1883). Annales de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Charente-Maritime, 5 (5–9): 387–406.
Le, M., Raxworthy, C.J., McCord, W.P. &Mertz, L. 2006. A molecular phylogeny of tortoises (Testudines: Testudinidae) based on mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, 40: 517–531.
Stoddart, D.R. & Westoll, T.S. (Eds.). 1979. The terrestrial ecology of Aldabra. The Royal Society, London (ex Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, 286: 1–263).

(3) John Collie
Scottish Natural Heritage, 19 Wellington Square, Ayr, KA7 1EZ, U.K. (e-mail: john.collie@snh.gov.uk)
I support the application by Frazier to conserve the usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the giant land tortoise found on Aldabra Atoll in the western Indian Ocean. This name has been known locally and internationally for several generations and is utilised and established in numerous publications and articles. Having worked on Aldabra for over two years, and as a previous management authority for CITES in Seychelles, I can attest to the high level of recognition given to the specific name gigantea globally. There is a real need for the Commission to stabilise and establish the name for the Aldabra tortoise once and for all so that there is continuity in the scientific and conservation efforts which have taken place over the past hundred years.

(4) E.N. Arnold
Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: enarnoldnhm@hotmail.com)
As someone with a long involvement with Indian Ocean reptiles, I support the proposal of J. Frazier to conserve the species name of the Aldabra tortoise as gigantea and accept the designation of a neotype. The present instability, where three species names have recently been used for this species, has many deleterious effects. 1. Scientific nomenclature is brought into disrepute, to the extent that some people have simply abandoned it in the present case and use vernaculars instead. ‘Aldabra tortoise’ is presently more certain in its meaning and ad hoc status than the competing scientific names, and avoids conflicts and uncertainties about which of these to use. 2. Name instability is bad for conservation of the species concerned. Most, perhaps all, international and national protective legislation uses the species name gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise. Any uncertainty about its meaning risks depriving the species of some of its legal protection. 3. Protracted disputes over scientific names such as the present one take up significant amounts of time that would have been more usefully spent on studying and conserving the animals concerned (witness the numerous published papers, comments and petitions in the present case). While arguing at length about nomenclatorial problems has all the appearances of scholarship it does not advance our knowledge of the natural world. The name gigantea is by far the most commonly used and understood for the species, and the one which elicits nearly all the biological information about it when searching databases etc. Consequently, fixing the name gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise would help the very large audience of non-taxonomists, most of whom already use the name. It is the needs of these biologists, conservationists, legislators and hobbyists that should be addressed in the present case. What the much smaller number of taxonomists might prefer is far less important, especially as they are used to synonyms. Nomenclature should not merely be a playground for specialists but should address the needs of the majority of users. If the species name gigantea is not fixed for the Aldabra tortoise, instability is likely to persist, as some specialists are unlikely to accept the alternative interpretation, that Schweigger’s original description of Testudo gigantea really refers to a South American species. The scientific literature of the last twenty years or so shows that the description is open to radically different interpretations. While the case for the recent discovery of the actual type of T. gigantea may be credible, by no means everyone involved believes that it is certain. Fixing gigantea as the name of the Aldabra tortoise would also harmonise the case for using the generic name Aldabrachelys Loveridge and Williams, 1957 for it. The authors clearly intended Aldabrachelys to refer to the Aldabra tortoise and its relatives and clearly believed that the type species of the genus, named as Testudo gigantea, was this taxon. Alternative identifications of Schweigger’s T. gigantea resulted in the creation of the more recent alternative generic name Dipsochelys which is presently used alongside Aldabrachelys (and also Geochelone!) adding to the multiplicity of combinations used for the Aldabra tortoise and the subsequent nomenclatorial confusion.

(5) Peter A. Meylan
Collegium of Natural Sciences, Eckerd College, 4200 54th Ave S., St. Petersburg, FL 33711, U.S.A. (e-mail: meylanpa@eckerd.edu)
I am writing to ask you to stabilise the tortoise genus name Aldabrachelys as proposed by Jack Frazier. In 1987, Walter Auffenberg (leading authority on the family TESTUDINIDAE in his day, now deceased) and I published a paper in which we described an extinct Aldabrachelys from Tanzania. We did this a few years after Bour offered his alternative name for the giant tortoises of Aldabra. At that time we did not find this necessary and to this day I have continued to use the genus name Aldabrachelys for these tortoises. In 1987 we wrote: ‘Bour (1982) has recently stated that the specific name gigantea is not available for the giant tortoises of Aldabra. He also argues that because the subgeneric (or generic) name Aldabrachelys is associated with the name gigantea, it cannot be used either. He provides a new name, Dipsochelys, for the Seychelles tortoises. The crux of his argument is that Schweigger (1812) had a specimen of Cylindraspis indica (Schneider, 1783) in hand when he described Testudo (=Geochelone) gigantea. This is apparently debatable (Crumly, MS). Even if it could be shown with certainty that the name gigantea is based on a specimen of Cylindraspis, the name Aldabrachelys is not necessarily invalid. As stated in Article 70 of the Code of Zoological Nomenclature, when a type species is misidentified the case is to be referred to the Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for consideration. This has not been done. There is no doubt that Loveridge and Williams (1957) applied the name Aldabrachelys to those tortoises which today have their centre of abundance on Aldabra Island. Therefore we continue to use this well established and consistently used name.’ (Meylan & Auffenberg, 1987, p. 74). More than 20 years later, I think this argument is still valid. I for one have always thought of the name Dipsochelys as an unnecessary nuisance.
Additional references
Meylan, P.A. & Auffenberg, D.W. 1987. The chelonians from the Laetoli Beds. Pp. 62–78 in Leakey, M.D. & Harris, J.M. (Eds.), Laetoli: a Pliocene site in Northern. Tanzania. xxi, 561 pp. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

(6) R. Bruce Bury US
Geological Survey Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center, 3200 SW Jefferson Way, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A. (e-mail: buryb@usgs.gov)
I read Jack Frazier’s Case 3463 to the Commission, where he proposes to conserve the name Testudo gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise. I support his major points and arguments. The wide and frequent usage of the name T. gigantea needs to be continued. I see no need to confuse the scientific and environmental community with new name combinations. We need to focus our limited time and energies on the protection of this unique life form.

(7) C. Kenneth Dodd, Jr
University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. (e-mail: terrapene600@gmail.com)
I have read the petition submitted by Jack Frazier regarding the Aldabra Tortoise, Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea (BZN 66: 34–50). Frazier has presented an accurate and unbiased summary of the highly complex nomenclatural history of this species. I concur with his conclusion that the many name changes proposed for this species have resulted unnecessarily in immense confusion, particularly among non-tortoise specialists and researchers and administrators working in conservation biology. I absolutely concur with his position that: 1) USNM 269962 should be designated as the neotype of this taxon; 2) the name dussumieri should be suppressed; 3) the names Aldabrachelys and gigantea should be placed on the Official Lists of Generic and Specific Names in Zoology as specified in the petition; and 4) the name dussumieri should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names, as regards Testudo dussumieri. Only by this action will the Commission be able to stabilise giant tortoise taxonomy in a manner which accurately reflects what is known from original descriptions and type designations. Changes in tortoise nomenclature are counterproductive in advancing clarity, accuracy, and the conservation of this species. In that regard, Frazier is commended for taking the time to exhaustively document Aldabra tortoise nomenclature and for preparing this petition.

(8) Otto Kraus
Zoologisches Institut & Museum, Universität Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: Otto.Kraus@zoologie.uni-hamburg.de)
I am acquainted with the case as I provided advisory comments when the application was under preparation. In order to avoid disadvantageous confusion, the well-known and frequently used names gigantea Schweigger, 1812 and Aldabrachelys Loveridge & Williams, 1957 should be stabilised. In a supplement, the applicant convincingly documented the prevailing usage (between 2000 and 2008).

(9) Colin McCarthy
Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: C.McCarthy@nhm.ac.uk)
Please can I lend my support to Case 3463 which aims to stabilise the name of the Aldabra tortoise. I believe Jack Frazier has convincingly shown that this is the best resolution to a most confusing nomenclatural problem. It is simply unacceptable to have at least 8 different binomial combinations for this tortoise and the time is long overdue for the situation to be stabilised.

(10) Frauke Fleischer-Dogley, Lindsay Chong-Seng, Nancy Bunbury, Naomi Doak, Lars Kristoferson, Carl Gustaf Lundin, Patrick Lablache, Jeanette Larue, Jeanne Mortimer, Elvina Henriette-Payet, Pierre Pistorius & Rainer von Brandis
Seychelles Islands Foundation, La Ciotat Building, Mont Fleuri, PO Box 853, Victoria, Mahé, Republic of Seychelles (e-mail: sif@seycheles.sc)
Maurice Loustau-Lalanne
Seychelles Tourism Board and Seychelles Islands Foundation
Didier Dogley
Department of Environment, Seychelles and Seychelles Islands Foundation Board of Trustees
Stephen Blackmore
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 20a Inverleith Row, Edinburgh, EH3 5LR and Seychelles Islands Foundation Board of Trustees
David Rowat
Marine Conservation Society Seychelles and Seychelles Islands Foundation Science Committee
Adrian Skerrett
Island Conservation Society and Seychelles Islands Foundation Science Committee
We write on behalf of the Seychelles Islands Foundation (SIF) and the SIF Science Committee in support of the petition by Jack Frazier to the ICZN to stabilise the name of the Aldabra giant tortoise, using the established name Testudo gigantea (currently Geochelone [Aldabrachelys] gigantea) and to suppress usage of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 (currently Dipsochelys dussumieri) as published in the BZN 66(1) March, 2009. The Seychelles Islands Foundation is a Public Trust which was established in 1979 and is responsible for managing and protecting the two UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Seychelles: Aldabra Atoll and the Vallée de Mai on Praslin. SIF coordinates all research and monitoring conducted at these two sites, including all work on the Aldabra giant tortoise on the atoll. Within SIF, on Aldabra and in the Seychelles in general, T. gigantea (currently G. gigantea) is the recognised name used for the Aldabra tortoise. It is most widely used in the literature and appears in SIF official documents. This name has been in continuous use for over 100 years and has been recognised as the oldest name for the species for more than 50 years. Since 1982, when Bour argued that the name should be changed to Dipsochelys elephantina, which was followed by another proposal in 2006 to change the name to Dipsochelys dussumieri, there has been nomenclatural chaos. The current lack of clarity in the nomenclature has caused and continues to cause great confusion amongst researchers and organisations working with the Aldabra tortoise. In view of this confusion, it is becoming increasingly necessary to stabilise the nomenclature and fix the name of the Aldabra tortoise. The most straightforward way to achieve this would be to maintain the neotype for T. gigantea (USNM 269962) that was designated in 2006, and to suppress Dipsochelys dussumieri.

(11) Paolo Casale
WWF Italy (& Marine Turtle Specialist Group IUCN/SSC), Via Po 25c, 00198 Roma, Italy (e-mail: paolo.casale@tiscali.it)
I support the proposal by J. Frazier (BZN 66: 34–50, Case 3463) to conserve the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the Aldabra tortoise and to maintain the neotype for T. gigantea (USNM 269962) that was designated in 2006. As clearly explained by J. Frazier, T. gigantea has been in continuous use for over 100 years and has been recognised as the oldest name for the Aldabra tortoise. In my opinion, to resolve this nomenclatural issue and to put an end to the confusion observed since 1982 would be very important for any research and conservation initiatives on this species and should be done immediately.

(12) Eugene S. Gaffney
Department of Paleontology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West and 79th St., New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. (e-mail: genegaffney373@comcast.net)
I agree completely with the request by the authors of Case 3463 for the conservation of the Aldabra name as argued in that submission. This is hardly a unique example but it is a very obvious one in herpetology and is one of the reasons that the ICZN exists.

(13) Vikash Tatayah and Carl Jones, MBE
Mauritian Wildlife Foundation, Grannum Road, Vacoas, Mauritius (e-mail: vtatayah@mauritian-wildlife.org)
We have been following the debate over the nomenclature of the Aldabra Giant Tortoise very closely at the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation and, in line with common and accepted local usage in Mauritius and Rodrigues, would support the specific name gigantea over other suggestions. As for the genus, Geochelone is currently in widespread use locally. We believe that Aldabrachelys has good potential, and would adopt the final decision of the Commission. Please consider the above as the official view of the Mauritian Wildlife Foundation.

(14) Robert P. Reynolds
Biological Survey Unit, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013–7012, U.S.A. (e-mail: reynolds@si.edu)
I am writing in support of the arguments presented by J. Frazier in Case 3463 to conserve the usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 and to suppress Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. I and my coauthors reviewed this issue thoroughly when we published our ‘Catalog of Type Specimens of Recent Crocodilia and Testudines in the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution’ (Reynolds, R.P., Gotte, S.W. & Ernst, C.H. 2007. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, 626: 1–49). At that time we were highly skeptical of the supposed rediscovery of the holotype of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 by Bour (2006), and we remain unconvinced of the validity of MNHN 9554 as the holotype of T. gigantea Schweigger, 1812. With consideration to the original description of Testudo gigantea by Schweigger, the assertion by Bour (2006) of the rediscovery of the holotype is neither particularly convincing nor unequivocal. Because of the uncertainty of the supposed rediscovery of the holotype, and for the sake of nomenclatural stability based on more than a century of usage of T. gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise, I encourage the Commissioners to support the petition of Case 3463.

(15) Kim M. Howell
Department of Zoology and Wildlife Conservation, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35064, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania (e-mail: kmhowell@udsm.ac.tz)
I find the arguments put forward by Jack Frazier to be convincing. As he notes, gigantea is the accepted and most widely used name. My experience within the range of this species and, as a former member of the CITES Animals Committee (Co-representative for Africa), is that gigantea is generally in use and recognised. In the African region we often must deal with issues relating to the commercial trade in this species and to have another name in existence simply adds to the confusion and may well provide a loophole for the illegal export of this species under a different name or one not familiar to the authorities who control such matters on the continent. In my opinion, it is good science, good taxonomic practice, and would make for the best management and conservation of the species to accept Frazier’s arguments and conserve Testudo gigantea.

(16) Peter K.L. Ng
Dept of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543 (e-mail: dbsngkl@nus.edu.sg)
I agree with the application; the constant ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ with names, dealing with the fog of history and conjectures about original intent is not helpful. The uncertainties of the old literature and old missing, mislabelled or dubiously labelled specimens will not be easily solved and the debate is rather pointless. Even though I am not a herpetologist here are the facts as I see them: we know there is a species of Aldabra tortoise and we know it is endangered and it needs one unambiguous name. I agree that gigantea is the name normally associated with it, and I have seen this in almost all major conservation documents and other papers I have read. The logical thing is therefore to keep this name for the species, recognise the neotype as selected by Frazier, and suppress all other purported type material, even if later shown to be so. This will convey the stability necessary for the biologists to move ahead with the much needed conservation efforts in keeping the species alive. It matters not what Schweigger’s (1812) original intent or specimen was. Sentiments and history aside, the name used now and for practical purposes is what matters. The subgenus name is a less clear-cut case, although the name itself suggests its conservation will cause fewer problems – but that is another matter as I suspect genus concepts will change even more in the future.

(17) Ravi Chellam
Country Director, WCS-India Program, No. 269, 5th Main Road, Canara Bank Layout, Kodigehalli, Bengaluru – 560 097, India (e-mail: rChellam@wcs.org)
I write to strongly support the petition by Jack Frazier to conserve the usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 by the designation of a neotype. Further, I agree that Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 should be suppressed. The arguments of Frazier are logical and well-reasoned, and will result in the least amount of confusion. The most obvious advantage of adopting Frazier’s application is the stabilisation of a name which has been in wide and continuous use for more than a century. The need to stabilise the name for the Aldabra tortoise is becoming more and more serious due to the potential risk of extinction. The only extant natural population is on a remote and isolated island and is vulnerable. Climate change models predict sea level changes which represent a real threat to a low lying island such as Aldabra. The usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the Aldabra tortoise is appropriate and least disruptive, and should be conserved.

(18) Eric P. Palkovacs
School of Biology & Ecology, University of Maine, 5751 Murray Hall, Orono, ME 04473, U.S.A. (e-mail: eric.palkovacs@maine.edu)
I support the conservation of the name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 in reference to the Aldabra tortoise, as proposed by J. Frazier in Case 3463. As described by Frazier, uncertainty and confusion have bred nomenclatural instability, with non-trivial scientific and conservation implications. This petition simplifies the situation in the most valid and logical possible way. The resulting nomenclatural stability will aid in efforts to communicate about and, ultimately, to conserve this unique surviving lineage.

(19) Justin Gerlach
Nature Protection Trust of Seychelles, PO Box 207, Victoria, Mahé, Seychelles (e-mail: jstgerlach@aol.com)
Frazier’s petition to fix the name of the Aldabra tortoise as Aldabrachelys gigantea (incorrectly petitioned as Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea) rests on three points: questions over the status of the type specimen of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812, arguments of nomenclatural stability and the wider impacts of nomenclature. The arguments put forward by Frazier are flawed on all three points.
Status of the type specimen of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812
The contentious and complicated history of the nomenclature of the Aldabra giant tortoise derives from the misplacing of the type specimen described by Schweigger (1812). Schweigger described a large (but not gigantic) tortoise from Brazil originating from the King of Lisbon’s collection. On historical grounds this is unlikely to have been a tortoise from the Indian Ocean, which had been dominated by the French and Dutch since the mid 17th century. Much of the material originally held in Lisbon is South American in origin, reflecting Lisbon’s role as a colonial power in South America. Accordingly the origin ‘Brasilia’ is highly plausible. Furthermore the description given by Schweigger notes three distinctive features: the lack of projecting marginal scutes, the lack of a cervical or nuchal scute and the presence of notably large, thickened scales on the limbs. In contrast the Aldabra tortoise has flared marginals, usually (but not always) has a nuchal scute and has no distinctively enlarged scales on the limbs. However all of these features are highly distinctive in South American tortoises, particularly Chelonoidis denticulata. Although the type was misplaced in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris probably in the 1800s, Bour (2006) describes a specimen which corresponds extremely closely to the type. His account of this specimen leaves no reasonable doubt that it is indeed the type of Testudo gigantea. This specimen is also easily identifiable as a South American red-footed tortoise Chelonoidis denticulata. On this basis the original description and the holotype of Testudo gigantea are identifiable as Chelonoidis denticulata and cannot be applied to the Aldabra tortoise without a fundamental changing of taxonomic history. A very strong case would be needed for such a change to be acceptable.
Nomenclatural stability
As noted by Frazier Testudo gigantea was applied to the tortoises on Aldabra from the late 19th century. Frazier cites Hubrecht (1881) as being the first person to associate T. gigantea with Aldabra. However, in reality Hubrecht referred the type of T. dussumieri (from Aldabra) to T. gigantea. This is at best a very tenuous association and the first clear statement that T. gigantea could be applied to the tortoises specifically from Aldabra is that of Rothschild (1915). Other names were explicitly associated with Aldabra from an earlier date: T. dussumieri (1831), T. elephantina (from 1835) and T. daudinii (1896). T. dussumieri was overlooked for the next 150 years, and T. daudinii was only associated with Aldabra tortoises four times, last in 1967 (Bolau 1896; Rothschild 1915; Wermuth & Mertens 1961; Honegger 1967). T. elephantina was applied to the Aldabra population regularly until 1954, followed by a 30 year gap until its reappearance in 1983. Thus T. gigantea has only been associated with Aldabra for 94 years, compared to 178 years for T. dussumieri and 174 years for T. elephantina. Testudo gigantea has no claim to priority or to uniquely regular use. The extent of the current confusion and lack of stability is shown by Frazier’s own listing of five generic names (Aldabrachelys, Dipsochelys, Geochelone, Megalochelys and Testudo) with 7 combinations used in the past decade and a total of 9 names in the past two decades. Frazier gives a list of 31 citations in support of the continued use of gigantea since 1986, but only 11 of these have any connection to taxonomy, the others mentioning Aldabra tortoises only in passing. The same is true of the statements relating to non taxonomic aspects of biology; the majority of citations concern other species and the name used in their passing reference to Aldabra tortoises is essentially irrelevant. Frazier’s list is also misleading in that it does not consider the number of citations of other names. A wider comparison shows that over the past 10 years, peer-reviewed publications including discussion of the taxonomy of Aldabra tortoises have used gigantea 4 times and dussumieri 9 times. In the same time period non-taxonomic papers (ecology and behaviour) including Aldabra tortoises have used gigantea 9 times and dussumieri 7 times. This means that in the total scientific literature of the past decade no name has had significantly greater currency or stability, with gigantea being used 13 times and dussumieri 16 times. Frazier (2006) himself noted the ‘general instability and chaos regarding the valid name of the Aldabra Tortoise’ and this is borne out by the present analysis. There is no stability to protect.
Wider impacts of nomenclature
Although Frazier is correct in noting that international bodies and conventions use Geochelone gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise this has little practical relevance; the tortoises referred to are explicitly the Aldabra tortoises, for which there is no significant identification issue whatever name is applied. Of the three citations given for the use of G. gigantea in Seychelles government documents, one is primary legislation specifically concerning tortoises, the other two have no relevance to tortoises and only refer to tortoises as examples of the biodiversity of the islands. Other examples can be cited where different names have been used, for example the Seychelles Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Republic of Seychelles 1997) uses Dipsochelys (without a species name) and the reports of the Seychelles Islands Foundation which manages Aldabra have variously used Geochelone gigantea, Testudo gigantea and Dipsochelys dussumieri (e.g. Betts, 2000). A further implication of this nomenclatural issue is the unintended consequence of potentially validating a misleading name. In 1957 Loveridge & Williams created Aldabrachelys as a subgenus of Geochelone, designating Testudo gigantea as the type species. This name was rejected by Bour (1982) on the basis of the misidentification of T. gigantea. Rejection of gigantea required the rejection of Aldabrachelys and the creation of a new generic name, Dipsochelys. Since then Aldabrachelys has been very rarely used (only twice in the past decade in relevant systematic literature) and Dipsochelys remains the most widely applied distinct generic name for the Madagascar-Seychelles-Aldabra tortoises. Validation of gigantea, as proposed by Frazier, would also validate Aldabrachelys as the generic name based on gigantea. This is highly undesirable as it would require the adoption of a currently rarely used name, and would apply to all giant tortoises (living and extinct) from Madagascar, Seychelles and Aldabra, not only to the Aldabran population. The name Aldabrachelys is very unfortunate in that it clearly ties the genus to Aldabra; whilst Aldabra supports the largest wild population of giant tortoises in the world it has only been occupied by giant tortoises for the past 115,000 years, compared to some 10 million years for Madagascar. There is little doubt that the genus originated on Madagascar and has only a recent history on Aldabra. To promote Aldabrachelys over Dipsochelys would have a confusing effect on interpretations of a substantial part of the evolutionary history of the genus. Whilst this is not a taxonomic point, it would be very unfortunate for public education and comprehension of nomenclature. In conclusion, the original description and holotype of Testudo gigantea demonstrate that this name applies to the South American Chelonoidis denticulata. Setting aside the existing holotype specimen in favour of the neotype proposed by Frazier would be a significant nomenclatural act and should only be undertaken with a strong justification and unequivocal support. The claim that Testudo gigantea is a stable name cannot be justified as even Frazier notes that there has not been any stability in the nomenclature of the Aldabra tortoise for the past 27 years. Although Frazier states that his neotype designation was undertaken after ‘after extended consultation with numerous specialists in chelonian systematics’ he did not include any of the specialists who have worked specifically on the nomenclature of the Aldabran tortoises in the past 25 years, all of whom would have been expected to urge against proposal of a neotype and this petition. Accordingly I recommend that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature reject the petition of Case 3463 and allow the Code to operate, validating Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 (now Dipsochelys dussumieri) as the valid name for the Aldabra giant tortoise and retaining Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 as a junior synonym of Chelonoidis denticulata (Linnaeus, 1766).
Additional references
Betts, M. 2000. Research Officer’s Annual Report. June 1999 – July 2000. Seychelles Islands Foundation, [unpublished report].
Bolau, H. 1896 Glandula thyroidea und Glandula thymus. Zoologischer Jahrbuch, Abteilung Anatomie, 12: 658–709.
Honegger, R.E. 1967. Beobachtungen an den Riesenshildkroten (Testudo gigantea Schweigger)
der Inseln im Indishen Ozean. Salamandra, 3: 101–121.
Republic of Seychelles. 1997. Seychelles biodiversity strategy and action plan. Republic of Seychelles, UNEP & IUCN.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Cetiosaurus Owen, 1841 by designation of Cetiosaurus oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 as the type species
(Case 3472; see BZN 66: 51–55)

(1) Paul M. Barrett
Department of Palaeontology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: p.barrett@nhm.ac.uk)
I write in support of Upchurch et al.’s proposal to establish Cetiosaurus oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 as the type species of Cetiosaurus Owen, 1841 and to set aside all previous fixations of type species for this genus. Cetiosaurus was the first sauropod dinosaur to be scientifically described (Owen, 1841) and one of the earliest dinosaurs to be recognised: the taxon is clearly of historical importance and stabilising its taxonomy would represent an important contribution to dinosaur studies. The name has been dogged by nomenclatural instability since its inception due to the proliferation of species names associated with this genus and the large amount of undiagnostic material allocated to it throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Upchurch & Martin, 2003). As noted elsewhere, many of the early species names are nomina nuda, nomina dubia, junior objective synonyms of other species or referable to taxa (such as Pelorosaurus brevis and ‘Cetiosaurus’ glymptonensis) that are only distantly related to the specimens that are widely acknowledged as belonging to Cetiosaurus (Upchurch & Martin, 2003). Upchurch et al. note that Cetiosaurus medius Owen, 1842b is the type species of Cetiosaurus under Article 69.1.1 of the Code and that this species had been recognised as the type species by various authors, including Owen (1842b) and Steel (1970). They go on to demonstrate, however, that most published discussions on Cetiosaurus tend to ignore the C. medius type series, which is fragmentary and of limited utility (the species is currently regarded as a nomen dubium: Upchurch & Martin, 2003), and concentrate instead on the more complete and diagnostic specimens referred to C. oxoniensis Phillips, 1871. Consequently, Upchurch et al. argue that fixation of the name C. medius as the type species creates confusion and instability, even though it is the correct type species under the Code. As the name Cetiosaurus is i) well-established and deeply embedded in the literature, ii) intimately associated with the material comprising the type and referred specimens of the species oxoniensis and iii) not generally associated with the material assigned to the species medius, it would be desirable to set aside the previous, infrequently cited, type species fixation for this genus and to replace it with one based on a familiar and taxonomically determinate set of material. Conversely, if Cetiosaurus medius were retained as the type species of Cetiosaurus, the genus would be rendered invalid and a new generic name would be required for C. oxoniensis. This would lead to increased confusion and taxonomic instability. Such a situation should be avoided as Cetiosaurus is not only a historically important taxon, but also one that has been used to specify other groups within Dinosauria, including Cetiosauridae. In addition, Ornithischia, one of the major dinosaur sub-groups, has been defined as all dinosaurs that are more closely related to Iguanodon than they are to Cetiosaurus (Norman et al., 2004).
Additional references
Norman, D.B., Witmer, L.M. & Weishampel, D.B. 2004. Basal Ornithischia. Pp. 325–334 in Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, P. & Osmólska, H. (Eds.), The Dinosauria, Second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

(2) Peter M. Galton
College of Naturopathic Medicine, University of Bridgeport, CT 06604, U.S.A.; mailing address: 315 Southern Hills Drive, Rio Vista, CA 94571, U.S.A. (e-mail: pgalton@bridgeport.edu)
I strongly support the proposal by Upchurch et al. (BZN 66(1): 51–55) for the conservation of usage by designating Cetiosaurus oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 as the type species of Cetiosaurus Owen, 1841. As extensively referenced in the proposal, the name Cetiosaurus has invariably been associated with the species C. oxoniensis, and specifically the Bletchington Station material, for almost 125 years. In particular, it should be noted that the ‘Monograph of the genus Cetiosaurus’ by Owen (1875) is based almost entirely on the Bletchington Station material of C. oxoniensis (Owen even used Phillips’ figures!). Also, as noted by Galton & Knoll (2006), the family CETIOSAURIDAE Lydekker, 1888 is based on C. oxoniensis Phillips, 1871 because Lydekker (1888, p. 137) indicated it as being the type species of Cetiosaurus Owen, with C. medius Owen and C. longus Owen (in part) as (?) synonyms. This proposal would make Lydekker’s indication official, an action that is long overdue. Although much less complicated, this proposal is similar to that involving the designation of a new type species for another classic genus of Dinosauria, viz., Iguanodon (Case 3037; see BZN 55: 99–104, Opinion 1947, BZN 57: 61–62).

 

Comment on the proposed precedence of Procynosuchus Broom, 1937 (Therapsida, Cynodontia) over Cyrbasiodon Broom, 1931 and Parathrinaxodon Parrington, 1936
(Case 3431; see BZN 66: 64–69)

Christian A. Sidor
Department of Biology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195–1800, U.S.A. (e-mail: casidor@u.washington.edu)
I am writing to strongly endorse the application to give precedence to Procynosuchus over Cyrbasiodon and Parathrinaxodon. As Kammerer and Abdala note, the name Procynosuchus is widely used and a very important name to conserve because of its significance in evolutionary studies and museum exhibits. The authors have amply documented the preponderance of its usage and strong support within the specialist community.  

 

  

.