Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 30 June 2004 in Volume 61, 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; 59: 125-128)

David S. Lindsay
Center for Molecular Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Department of Biomedical Sciences and Pathobiology, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, U.S.A.

  The issue of the designation of a type species for the genus Isospora Schneider, 1881 (Protista, Apicomplexa) was discussed at the 10th International Congress of Parasitology, in Vancouver, Canada, August 9, 2002. The discussion was part of the American Society of Parasitologists Coccidiosis Conference, Chaired by D.S. Lindsay and L. Choromanski. David Modry, who proposed (Case 3187; BZN 58: 272-274) that Isospora suis Biester, 1934 be the type species of the genus Isospora Schneider, 1881, presented his thoughts in the presentation ‘Proposed designation of a new type species of the genus Isospora - consequences for taxonomy of isosporan coccidians’. Steve J. Upton, who has opposed this designation (BZN 59: 125-128), presented his views in the presentation ‘Some historical perspectives on taxonomic problems associated with the genus Isospora’. Members of the American Society of Parasitologists Nomenclature and Terminology Committee were encouraged to attend and their input was solicited by Drs Modry and Upton. Productive discussions were held after the presentations.

The following consensus was achieved:
1. The mammal isosporans arose early from the EIMERIIDAE and belong in the SARCOCYSTIDAE, whereas the avian isosporans arose later out of the Eimeria lineage (Carreno & Barta, 1999; Morrison et al., 2004).
2. Because the avian isosporans were described first in a historical content, and represent the bulk of the isosporans, they should remain Isospora and the members in the SARCOCYSTIDAE should be termed Cystoisospora as proposed by Frenkel (1977).
3. Because there is presently not sufficent data on morphology in conjunction with molecular biology for any of the avian Isospora, no type species should be assigned at this time for avian Isospora.
4. Isospora suis Biester, 1934 has all the morphological and molecular features of mammalian Isosporiid coccidia studied to date (Box et al., 1980; Lindsay et al., 1983; Carreno et al., 1998; Carreno & Barta, 1999; Franzen et al., 2000; Barta et al., 2001; Modry et al., 2001) but does not form tissue cysts in paratenic hosts (Pinckney et al., 1993).
5. The feline coccidium Cystoisospora felis meets all morphological (Shah, 1970; McKenna & Charleston, 1982), biological (Dubey & Frenkel, 1972; Frenkel & Dubey, 1972) and molecular characteristics (Carreno & Barta, 1999; Morrison et al., 2004) of the mammalian isoporans.

  However, I am aware that not all fellow workers in this field are in agreement with the points raised above. I therefore suggest that this issue be left open for the time being and that further discussions and possibly further research be undertaken before the Commission is asked to make a final ruling.

Additional references
Dubey, J.P. & Frenkel, J.K. 1972. Extra-intestinal stages of Isospora felis and I. rivolta (Protozoa: Eimeriidae) in cats. Journal of Protozoology, 19: 89-92.
Carreno, R.A. & Barta, J.R. 1999. An eimeriid origin of isosporoid coccidia with Stieda bodies as shown by phylogenetic analysis of small subunit ribosomal RNA gene sequences. Journal of Parasitology, 85: 77-83.
Frenkel, J.K. & Dubey, J.P. 1972. Rodents as vectors for feline coccidia, Isospora felis and Isospora rivolta. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 125: 69-72.
Lindsay, D.S., Current, W.L. & Ernst., J.V. 1983. Excystation of Isospora suis Biester 1934. Zeitschrift für Parasitenkunde, 69: 27-34.
McKenna, P.B. & Charleston, W.A. 1982. Activation and excystation of Isospora felis and Isospora rivolta sporozoites. Journal of Parasitology, 68: 276-286.
Morrison, D.A., Bornstein, S., Thebo, P., Wernery, U., Kinne, J. & Mattsson, J.G. 2004. The current status of the small subunit rRNA phylogeny of the coccidia (Sporozoa). International Journal for Parasitology, 34: 501-514.
Shah, H.L. 1970. Sporogony of the oocysts of Isospora felis Wenyon, 1923 from the cat. Journal of Protozoology, 17: 609-614.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Ovula gisortiana Passy, 1859 over Cypraea coombii J. de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 3220; see BZN 59: 173-175; 60: 218-220; 61: 40-42)

Jonathan A. Todd
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

  The concluding statement to my previous comment was excluded from the printed version (BZN 60: 218-220). It is given here as it summarises my primary objections to Pacaud & Dolin’s proposal: ‘in the future by using appropriate techniques it may be possible to demonstrate that G. gisortiana is a subjective synonym of G. coombii, and that the type species of Gisortia would then be correctly known under that name. However, given the lack of systematic or other detailed work on Gisortia over the past 70 years, rather than passing references to this strange looking cowry, I believe that were this to happen systematic stability would be essentially unaffected’.
  A major concern with Pacaud & Dolin’s application is that they have failed to demonstrate whether any of it is necessary. So are the two species synonymous? In the last systematic reappraisal of this group Schilder (1930) considered that they were not. Currently there is no new published morphological data nor has there been any published re-evaluation of old data. Therefore, the suggestion that the species are ‘probably conspecific’ (BZN 59: 173, para. 4) can be seen as nothing more than that. If Pacaud & Dolin are unsure then clearly their proposal is premature. I noted that Schilder’s work was the most complete on this group. Pacaud (BZN 61: 41, para. 3) has interpreted this to mean that I considered it to be ‘the best work’ and then goes on to criticise it at some length. I have no opinion on the usefulness of Schilder’s taxa. It is true that many are based on internal moulds lacking in discrete characters and I suspect that Pacaud & Dolin may be right in regarding many of these nominal taxa as presently being undiagnosable or, more harshly, to be based on ‘useless internal moulds’. Unfortunately much of the fossil record consists of specimens in this state of preservation. What do we do with it? Simply ignore it?
  Despite the unwieldy systematics, Schilder’s work is still the most complete treatment of the group. I certainly look forward to this group being thoroughly systematically re-evaluated. Without doubt it is required.
  But what characters should be used? Pacaud (BZN 59: 41, para. 4) stated that the features developed in the callus may be variable in gisortiana and ‘cannot be regarded as discriminant characters’. The obvious questions are: what characters, at what hierarchical levels and in which taxa? Pacaud makes no comment on this point, but curiously, in discussing a now non-existent specimen, he earlier (BZN 59: 41, para. 1) stated that ‘this specimen possessed a large callosity on the dorsal face that differed from the type of G. coombii. This feature makes G. coombii closer to G. gisortiana than G. tuberculosa’. It appears that callosities (large bumps developed in the callus) do have systematic value in some cases.
  Pacaud (BZN 59: 41, para. 5) responded to my suggestion that morphometric data might be the key to unravelling the systematics of this group, which, he admits, has strongly variable ‘qualitative characters’. Unfortunately he provided a height/diameter plot purporting to demonstrate that: 1) tuberculosa and gisortiana are distinct and 2) that the holotype of coombii is closest to gisortiana. History has repeatedly shown that overly simplistic biometric plots of skeletal variables such as height/width have cast more shadow than light in molluscan systematics. Too often they have been adduced in support of shaky systematic treatments. Briefly, there are significant problems with this plot: 1) The ‘species’ height and diameter variables barely overlap; on this basis one might interpret gisortiana as larger specimens of tuberculosa displaying allometric growth, particularly as we know nothing about the relative ontogenetic ages of the specimens. 2) Crucially, both height and diameter measurements include the variably developed ‘callosities’. This is perfectly illustrated by Pacaud & Dolin (BZN 59, p. 175, figs. 1, 2). 3) A recently discovered, undistorted, small specimen (l = 94 mm, d = 72 mm) of coombii from the type locality falls right within the main tuberculosa cluster, as one might expect from the regression line of the latter. Another specimen (BMNH 41604: l = ca 150mm d = ca 95 mm) would seem to plot indistinguishably from tuberculosa. 4) Other large specimens of coombii in The Natural History Museum, London (e.g. BMNH 4604) show a wide range of proportions. In light of the above objections, I have chosen not to redraft Pacaud’s plot with additional data points as I believe it to be systematically meaningless.
  In short, there is a place for detailed treatment and discussion of morphology and systematics - a systematic paper in a systematic journal. Pacaud’s reply fails to satisfy either demand.
  With respect to nomenclature let us consider that future work will have adequately demonstrated that the two nominal species are synonymous. If so, then will use of the older name upset stability? I contend that it will not. Of the 25 references provided in support of this proposal by Pacaud & Dolin many are simply listings in illustrated or unillustrated taxonomic compendia. Indeed, the three most recently published figures are in lavishly illustrated books dealing with Recent cowries and provided seemingly for their curiosity value. As Pacaud (BZN 61: 40-41, para. 2) has confirmed, specimens of this strange, morphologically and systematically poorly known cowry are rare both in France and England. This is important given the current very poor understanding of this genus and lack of recent work dealing with it. Therefore, priority should be maintained in this case. Indeed, it is likely that applications such as this, if upheld, will serve to diminish the Principle of Priority and might lead to petty arguments over the relative frequency of use of competing names in the literature. This is not what any of us, least of all the Commission, should usefully spend time evaluating.
  It follows, therefore, that to give precedence to the junior name would be premature and for that reason I recommend that the Commission should not approve the proposals in BZN 59: 174.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 (Mollusca, Gastropoda) by designation of a neotype for M. curvicostata
(Case 3232; see BZN 60: 109-112, 300-302)

Dietrich Kadolsky
66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 0BA, U.K.

  In addition to my earlier comment (BZN 60: 302), the contents of the original publications of Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 and of Melania densicostata Reeve, 1861 require a discussion.

  1. In their application in 2003 (BZN 60: 109-112) Thompson & Mihalcik state: ‘the original figures and descriptions of both nominal taxa are virtually identical’. Contrary to this statement, the original text contains eight differences between the two species. The original descriptions (complete, but not necessarily in original order) are quoted here:
  Melania curvicostata: shell ovately turreted, livid-olive, encircled towards the apex with a reddish line; whorls convex, longitudinally plicately ribbed, ribs curved, gradually fading towards the aperture; aperture ovate, slightly effused at the base interior tinged with purple.
  Melania densicostata: shell subulately turreted, burnt-olive; whorls eight to nine, rather flat, the last obtusely angled; longitudinally densely plicately ribbed; ribs stout and comparatively straight ending abruptly on an obtuse angle of the last whorl; aperture rather small, ovate, interior very faintly tinged with purple.
  The original figures show, very clearly, Melania curvicostata Reeve with curved ribs and convex whorls, and M. densicostata with more closely spaced straight ribs, flat whorls and a subangular periphery of the last whorl, just as the two syntypes figured by Thompson & Mihalcik. The applicants attribute these two syntypes to two different species, which supports Reeve’s original taxonomic judgement, contrary to long-held views in the subsequent literature.
  2. The original illustration of Melania curvicostata Reeve is not significantly different from the syntype figured by Thompson & Mihalcik (BZN 60: 112, fig. 1). It has one more apical whorl preserved, but when this is removed, the height and width are very similar to the figured syntype. Only the relative height of the last whorl is less in the original figure than in the photographed specimen. Making allowances for individual variation and / or perhaps minor inaccuracies in the drawing, there is no reason to suppose that Reeve figured a different species than that represented by the extant syntypes. In any event the figure does not represent the species to which Thompson & Mihalcik want to apply the name curvicostata Reeve. Consequently, there is no reason to suspect a ‘composite’ type series. An important part of the case presented by Thompson & Mihalcik, and of comments (1)-(5) in BZN 60: 300-302, is thus based on the incorrect assumption that the original figure of Melania curvicostata Reeve is a species different from the extant syntypes of this nominal species.
  3. Thompson & Mihalcik wish to apply the name Melania curvicostata Reeve to a species which is not conspecific with the extant syntypes of that species, nor does it agree with the original description and figure. To achieve this, the existing syntypes would have to be set aside and a neotype be designated under the plenary power. The plenary power would have to be invoked further to rule that the name Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 is not invalidated by its senior primary homonym Melania curvicostata Melleville, 1843. This course of possible action is arbitrary in every respect and should be avoided. Instead it is here suggested to apply the name Melania densicostata Reeve to the species which Thompson & Mihalcik wish to name Melania curvicostata. Although the specific identity of the syntypes of Melania densicostata cannot, according to the applicants, be determined unequivocally, their recognizable characters agree with those of ‘Melania curvicostata’ sensu Thompson & Mihalcik. Such a situation is not uncommon in the Gastropoda and is usually dealt with by a ‘consensual redefinition’ of the nominal species in question. If a more formal and definitive fixation of the taxonomic concept is required, the syntype series could be set aside and a neotype be selected. Workers familiar with the species may wish to decide on this question; if a neotype is deemed to be necessary, a complete animal may be preferable to a shell.
  4. Thompson & Mihalcik state that the syntypes of Melania curvicostata Reeve were sent to Cuming by John G. Anthony with manuscript labels stating their locality as ‘Florida, United States’. However, Reeve stated unequivocally that he sent Cuming’s material to Anthony: ‘this species,’ says Mr. Anthony to whom it was sent for examination ‘is, I think, entirely new, and a beautiful one it is, too; call it curvicostata’. It is not known from where Cuming received his material in the first place, but it is unlikely that Reeve would have sent it back again for examination, had Anthony sent it to Cuming. It follows that Anthony was probably not responsible for an erroneous locality attributed to this species.
  5. Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 is a junior primary homonym of Melania curvicostata Melleville, 1843 (p. 94, pl. 4, figs. 10-12). Melania curvicostata Melleville has been considered as a species in Faunus (Melanatria) by Cossmann (1909, p. 161), and Cossmann & Pissarro (1910, pl. 19, figs. 117-118); and as a species in Melanatria by Wenz (1929, p. 2620), Le Renard & Pacaud (1995, p. 102) and Pacaud & Le Renard (1996, p. 156). Deshayes (1862, p. 453, 1864, pl. 23, figs. 33-35) redescribed the species as Melania curvicostata without any reference to Melleville, 1843, and attributed authorship to himself. His taxonomic concept and stratum typicum are identical to those of Melleville, 1843. Subsequent workers have attributed the species to Melleville (1843) and correctly treated Deshayes’s publication as a redescription of Melleville’s species, rather than the introduction of a new nominal species.
  6. A modern taxonomic revision of Melania curvicostata Melleville, 1843 is still outstanding. The attribution to Melanatria Bowdich, 1822 is rather doubtful. Although the two homonymous species are far apart in geography and geological age, it is by no means certain that they cannot be congeneric. The shells are not strikingly different, and there are many examples of faunal relationships in non-marine mollusks in the Tertiary of Europe and North America. Thus application to the Commission for a ruling under the plenary power on the priority of primary homonyms not considered congeneric after 1899 (Article 23.9.5) appears premature in this case.
  7. The applicants and the commentators have expressed a preference to maintain the name Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862 instead of Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861. This can be achieved simply by rejecting Melania curvicostata Reeve, 1861 as a junior primary homonym of M. curvicostata Melleville. A consequence is that the species called Melania curvicostata Reeve by Thompson & Mihalcik has to be given another name, and it is here proposed to apply the name Melania densicostata Reeve, 1861 to that species. I therefore submit the following alternative proposals to the Commission in place of those submitted by Thompson & Mihalcik.
  8. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) curvicostata Melleville, 1843, as published in the binomen Melania curvicostata;
(b) densicostata Reeve, 1861, as published in the binomen Melania densicostata;
(c) paupercula Lea, 1862, as published in the binomen Goniobasis paupercula;
(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name curvicostata Reeve, 1861, as published in the binomen Melania curvicostata, (a junior primary homonym of Melania curvicostata Melleville, 1843, and a senior subjective synonym of Goniobasis paupercula Lea, 1862).

Additional references
Cossmann, M. 1909. Essais de paléoconchologie comparée, 8. 248 pp., 4 pl. Cossmann, Paris.
Cossmann, M. & Pissarro, G. 1910. Iconographie complète des coquilles fossiles de l’Éocène des environs de Paris, 2. Pls. 10-25. Paris.
Deshayes, G.P. 1862. Description des animaux sans vertèbres découverts dans le bassin de Paris ..., 2. Pp. 433-640; 1864, Atlas with 64 pls. Paris.
Le Renard, J. & Pacaud, J.-M. 1995. Révision des mollusques Paléogènes du bassin de Paris II - Liste des références primaires des espèces. Cossmanniana, 3(3): 65-132.
Pacaud, J.-M. & Le Renard, J. 1996. Révision des mollusques Paléogènes du bassin de Paris IV - Liste systématique actualisée. Cossmanniana, 3(4): 151-187.

 

Comments on the proposed precedence of Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 (Malacostraca, Phyllocarida, Archaeostraca) over Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903
(Case 3281; see BZN 60: 269-271)

  The following persons (1–6) have sent comments in support of the proposed precedence of Nahecaris Jaekel, 1921 over Dilophaspis Traquair in Walther, 1903. Nahecaris is based on one of the best known species of middle Palaeozoic crustaceans and it has been widely used since 1921. They all agree that the name is so well-known that confusion would ensue if the arguments of Hahn (1990) and Brauckmann et al. (2002) are followed. Briggs & Bartels provide a clear case for conservation of the name Nahecaris.

(1) Jan Bergström
Swedish Museum of Natural History, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden

(2) David L. Bruton
University of Oslo, Norway

(3) Herbert Lutz
Natural History Museum, Mainz / State Collection of Natural History of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany

(4) David J. Siveter
Department of Geology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K.

(5) Derek J. Siveter
Oxford University Museum of Natural History, Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PW, U.K.

(6) Jean Vannier
UMR 5125 - PEPS, Université Claude Bernard LYON 1, 2 rue Raphaël Dubois, 69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France

(7) Aldridge, R.J.
Department of Geology, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester LE1 7RH, U.K.

  Given that Nahecaris has been widely used since 1921, and that the nature of the partial original specimen of Dilophaspis as an arthropod, rather than a fish, was not confirmed until 1990, I consider that there are strong reasons for retaining the well-known name Nahecaris.

(8) Bruce S. Lieberman
Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1475 Jayhawk Blvd., 120 Lindley Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045, U.S.A.

  I support Briggs & Bartels’s application and their arguments and hope that the Commission will approve their proposals. In particular, I believe that the use of Dilophaspis over Nahecaris would cause considerable taxonomic confusion. Nahecaris is probably the best and most completely known fossil phyllocarid. I have worked with fossil phyllocarid crustaceans and in the course of this work I have dealt with the definition of the genus Nahecaris (Rode & Lieberman, 2002). Based on Briggs & Bartels’s suggestions I think it would make perfect sense to give Nahecaris precedence over Dilophaspis. This would considerably aid and facilitate my taxonomic work with this group, and also likely that of my colleagues.

Additional reference
Rode, A. & Lieberman, B.S. 2002. Phylogenetic and biogeographic analysis of Devonian phyllocarid crustaceans. Journal of Paleontology, 76: 271-286.

Comment on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June)
(Case 3097; see BZN 59: 246-248, 280-281, 60: 303-311, 61: 43-45)

Frank-Thorsten Krell
Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.

Alberto Ballerio
c/o Museo Civico di Scienze Naturali "E. Caffi", Piazza Cittadella 10, I-24129 Bergamo, Italy

Stefano Ziani
Via S. Giovanni 41/a, I-47014 Meldola (Forli), Italy

  The reply from Jameson & Howden (BZN 61: 43-45) to our comment on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June) contains several crucial errors which we would like to rectify.
  Jameson & Howden claimed that Bolboceras Kirby is the name in prevailing usage. This is only true for North America. In Europe, as we have shown (BZN 60: 303-311), Odonteus is in prevailing use. In fact, we have two geographically limited prevailing usages, a case not dealt with in Articles 80 and 82.1 of the Code. Contrary to Jameson & Howden’s claim, all references for Odonteus Samouelle provided by us (BZN 60: 304) have to be considered for determining the prevailing usage, because the present case falls under Article 23.9.3 and not under Article 23.9.1. According to Article 23.9.6, the stated categories of publications which are irrelevant for determining the prevailing usage relate only to Article 23.9.1.
  The publications listed by us (BZN 60: 303-311), as references for the prevailing usage of Odonteus Samouelle, do not fall within the categories mentioned by Article 23.9.6 anyway, none of them is either an abstracting publication, a nomenclator, an index or a list of names. All are genuine scientific publications providing specific information about the distribution or conservation status of Odonteus armiger (Scopoli). Jameson & Howden were probably misled by the category ‘list of names’, which means a list of scientific names without further information beyond the names (like a nomenclator or an index), and not ‘Red Lists’ or annotated checklists. If we want to determine the overall prevailing usage by sheer numbers of authors and publications, Odonteus Samouelle is unequivocally the prevailing usage (and the senior synonym) which has to be maintained until the ruling of the Commission is published (Article 82.1). Following this course of action, Jameson (2002, pp. 23-25) was in breach of Article 82.1 by using Bolboceras. As Ratcliffe correctly stated (BZN 61: 43) the monograph in which Jameson’s (2002) paper was included will serve as reference for nomenclature and classification of North American beetles, but, as mentioned previously (BZN 60: 304), so do the European standard works (that use Odonteus) for nomenclature and classification of European beetles (e.g. Krell & Fery, 1992; Silfverberg, 1992; Carpaneto & Piattella, 1995; Alexandrovitch et al., 1996; Hansen, 1996; Telnov et al., 1997; Köhler & Klausnitzer, 1998; Martín-Piera & Lopez-Colón, 2000). Since, in Europe at least, Odonteus is the prevailing usage, the references published after the announcement of the present case in December 1998 documenting the usage of Odonteus should also be considered. We here add two further papers of world-wide scope in which the authors followed (the latter explicitly) our argument in BZN 60: 303-311 (Grebennikov et al., 2004; Verdú et al., 2004).
  Jameson & Howden (BZN 61: 43-45) are right that Bolboceras has been in continuous use since its description. However, Bolboceras was rarely considered to be the valid name for Odonteus before Cartwright (1953) transferred the name Bolboceras to the genus formerly known as Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 (an incorrect subsequent spelling of Odonteus) (see BZN 60: 304-305). The names Bolboceras and Odontaeus have mostly been used for different genera (Klug, 1845, p. 37; Horn, 1870, pp. 49-50; Reitter, 1893, pp. 4-5; Schaeffer, 1906, p. 250; Boucomont, 1912, p. 7 [Bolboceras], p. 15 [Odontaeus]; Paulian, 1988, pp. 157, 541, 544 [Odontaeus], 490, 582 [Bolboceras]) sometimes explicitly with reference to Bolboceras quadridens Fabricius, 1781 as the type species of Bolboceras (Westwood, 1855; Boucomont, 1911). We proposed (BZN 60: 307) to conserve the name Bolboceras in this sense.
  We consider Odontaeus Dejean,1821 to be an incorrect subsequent spelling of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 because in the early 1800s, before any nomenclatural rules were established, authors were not generally attributed to names according to the Principle of Priority, but according to other criteria such as reputation of an author, importance of a monograph, usage, tradition, personal preferences and relationships. Many names had circulated widely in litteris amongst the authors of the time before they were published occasionally at some point by someone or, as happened here, by several authors. Odonteus and Odontaeus refer to the same species. As we said before, giving the same name to a genus containing the same species is unlikely to be sheer coincidence. Samouelle (1819) did not include as many species as were in Dejean’s (1821) catalogue because the geographical scope of the former is restricted to Britain where only one species (Odonteus armiger) occurs. Hence, we have no indication that the taxonomic concept behind Odonteus Samouelle differs from that of Odontaeus Dejean. Jameson & Howden’s belief that ‘if these names were the same, then the authors would have attributed the name to the same individual’ does not take into consideration how nomenclature and authorship were handled at that time and is wrong.
  The replacement of Odonteus Agassiz, 1838 by Odonteobolca Krell, 1991, has been accepted in the relevant literature (Bellwood & Sorbini, 1996, p. 161; Bellwood, 1999, p. 211) and, contrary to Jameson & Howden’s belief, no confusion has emerged from this replacement.
  If the Commission designates Scarabaeus quadridens as the type species of Bolboceras, we will be able to refer to Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 as the type genus of BOLBOCERATINI and BOLBOCERATINAE. This outcome is also favoured by Ratcliffe in his comment on the present case (BZN 61: 43). If we were to accept Curtis’s type species designation (Bolboceras mobilicornis Marsham, 1802 = armiger Scopoli, 1772), then either Bolboceras disappears as a valid name, as a junior objective synonym of Odonteus Samouelle, or the name Bolboceras would take precedence of over Odonteus Samouelle disregarding the prevailing usage in Europe. If the Commission considers the latter solution, we would like to ask for an explanation as to why the prevailing usage in Europe (which is in accordance with the Code) should be disregarded in preference for the prevailing usage in North America (which does not follow the Principle of Priority).

Additional references
Bellwood, D.R. 1999. Fossil pharyngognath fishes from Monte Bolca, Italy, with a description of a new pomacentrid genus and species. Studi e Ricerche sui Giacimenti Terziari di Bolca, 8: 207-217.
Bellwood, D.R. & Sorbini, L. 1996. A review of the fossil record of the Pomacentridae (Teleostei: Labroidei) with a description of a new genus and species from the Eocene of Monte Bolca, Italy. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London, 117: 159-174.
Boucomont, A. 1912. Scarabaeidae: Taurocerastinae, Geotrupinae. Coleopterorum Catalogus, 46, vol. 19. 47 pp. Berlin.
Grebennikov, V.V., Ballerio, A., Ocampo, F.C. & Scholtz, C.H. 2004 (in press). Larvae of Ceratocanthidae and Hybosoridae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea): study of morphology, phylogenetic analysis and evidence of paraphyly of Hybosoridae. Systematic Entomology, 29.
Paulian, R. 1988. Biologie des Coléoptères. xi, 719 pp. Lechevalier, Paris.
Verdú, J.R, Galante, E., Lumaret, J.-P. & Cabrero-Sañudo, F.J. 2004 (in press). Phylogenetic analysis of Geotrupidae (Coleoptera, Scarabaeoidea) based on larvae. Systematic Entomology, 29.

(2) Andrew B.T. Smith
W436 Nebraska Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588-0514, U.S.A.

  I support the application to give Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (July) precedence over Odonteus Samouelle, 1819 (June). This action is necessary to preserve the prevailing usage of the former generic name for the North American species Bolboceras alabamensis (Wallis, 1929), B. cornigerus Melsheimer, 1846, B. darlingtoni (Wallis, 1928), B. falli (Wallis, 1928), B. filicornis (Say, 1823), B. floridensis (Wallis, 1928), B. liebecki (Wallis, 1928), B. obesus (LeConte, 1859), B. simi (Wallis, 1928), and B. thoracicornis (Wallis, 1928). These species have been universally placed in the genus Bolboceras for over 50 years. B. armiger (Scopoli, 1772), the one remaining species in the genus, has been placed in Bolboceras, Odonteus, and Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 by various authors during the same time period. I assert that the generic placement of B. armiger has been so contradictory that no prevailing usage can be discerned for any of these generic names with regards to this species. The Code promotes the stability and prevailing usage of names (for example, see Articles 23.2, 81.1, and Appendix B-1 of the Code). B. armiger is already a nomenclatural mess; the same problems should not be inflicted on the other ten species in the genus by invalidating a generic name with a 50-year tradition of use.
  The following discrepancies regarding this case have caused confusion and inconsistencies in the use of generic names within the group. Explicit clarification of each of the following points should be made by the Commission in their ruling on this case to stabilize the use of names in this group:

1 Jameson & Howden (BZN 59: 247) stated that the gender of Bolboceras is masculine; however, Article 30.1.2 (and especially the example following this Article) clearly indicates that the gender should be neuter. The name ends in a Greek word transliterated into Latin without other changes (-ceras = keras). An explicit statement from the Commission regarding the gender of Bolboceras is required in their ruling on this case and possibly emendations of some of the species names is desirable to clear up this discrepancy.

2. Krell et al. (BZN 60: 304) discuss the use of Odonteus and Odontaeus and state that these names are ‘in fact’ the same and one is an incorrect subsequent spelling of the other. However, Odonteus Samouelle was originally attributed to Köppe (perhaps by Leach through letters or personal communication) and Odontaeus Dejean was originally attributed to Megerle. Samouelle and Dejean apparently established the names independently of one another with different spellings and each attributed the names to different sources. There is no evidence that Dejean was using the name earlier established by Samouelle but with an incorrect subsequent spelling. In the absence of any internal evidence, I think that Jameson & Howden (BZN 59: 246) are correct in exercising caution and considering Odonteus and Odontaeus as separate generic names. Clarification from the Commission on the nomenclatural status of Odontaeus Dejean is desirable.
  Krell et al. (BZN 60: 305) also discuss the type species of Bolboceras. I disagree with their interpretation of Kirby’s statement ‘my details of Bolboceras were taken from B. quadridens’ as an explicit type species designation. This statement is vague and I suspect it just refers to the use of B. quadridens for the illustrations of the genus. It certainly fails to fulfil the requirements of Articles 67.5 and 68.2 for type species designations. Curtis’s explicit type species designation of Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius for Bolboceras should stand. However, this should be clarified by the Commission in its ruling on the case.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes, OSPHRONEMIDAE)
(Case 3255; see BZN 60: 206-207

Maurice Kottelat
Case postale 57, 2952 Cornol, Switzerland (address for correspondence); Honorary Research Associate, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260

Sven O. Kullander and Fang Fang
Ichthyology, Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, POB 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden

Ralf Britz
Division of Fishes, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560, U.S.A.

Carl Ferraris
2944 NE Couch St., Portland, OR, U.S.A.

  When reading the application by Schindler & Staeck we cannot but wonder as to its true aim. In our opinion the application is flawed and partially incorrect. We therefore see no reason for supporting it, rather than simply respecting the Principle of Priority.
  It appears to have escaped the petitioners’ attention that Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 is a permanently invalid name. It is a junior primary homonym of M. concolor Schreitmüller, 1936b (a work mentioned by the petitioners).
  Schreitmüller’s (1936b) text makes it clear that although Ahl had coined the name, Ahl was not otherwise responsible for the conditions making it available. Schreitmüller alone is responsible for satisfying the criteria of availability (Article 50.1.1 of the Code). The name is clearly an unneeded replacement name for M. spechti Schreitmüller, 1936 to which there is an explicit bibliographic reference (Article 13.1.3); both actions are explicitly by Schreitmüller. There is not the slightest descriptive data or any indication that Ahl had any responsibility for Schreitmüller’s text. The figure (reproduced from Schreitmüller, 1936a) is by Schreitmüller, as indicated by his signature and in the heading of the paper. Macropodus opercularis spechti Schreitmüller, 1936a was published in October 1936, M. o. concolor Schreitmüller, 1936b was published on 12 November 1936, M. o. concolor Ahl, 1937 was submitted on 8 October 1936 and published in February 1937.
  The use of M. concolor as a replacement name by Schreitmüller (1936b) makes it available with Schreitmüller as author (= responsible for the conditions making the name available; Article 50.1). This makes M. concolor Ahl, 1937 (described with its own series of syntypes) a primary junior homonym of M. concolor Schreitmüller, 1936b (thus permanently invalid; Article 57.2) and a junior objective synonym of M. spechti (the lectotype of M. concolor Ahl is also the lectotype of M. spechti). In conclusion, the petitioners ask for the conservation of a name that anyway would remain invalid because of the homonymy, and we consider that, ipso facto, the request is null and void.
  Just as Macropodus spechti, M. concolor Ahl, 1937 was based on aquarium material stated to have been collected in Dutch East Indies, apparently erroneous information as the genus has never been found there. This has stimulated a number of speculations and theories as to its origin, which certain authors have considered to be a hybrid or domesticated variety. These speculations have neither an empirical nor a scientific basis. It is only very recently that the species was ‘rediscovered’ in the wild.
  The description by Freyhof & Herder (2002) is the first and only description of the species satisfying modern standards in fish taxonomy, addressing the nomenclatural issues and accompanied by accurate locality data, information on morphology and coloration based on wild specimens, habitat data, and colour photographs of the live fish and its habitat. In addition, Freyhof & Herder (2002) discussed the other species of the genus and described two new species also overlooked by previous authors.
  Given this, in addition to respecting priority, the use of Macropodus spechti has the great advantage of drawing a line between the speculations associated with the name M. concolor and the reliable data which we now have under the name M. spechti.
  The petitioners err when they state (p. 207, line 6) that ‘the senior name was effectively forgotten’. The senior name may not have been used as valid, but it was not forgotten. It is cited in some of the 28 works on the list submitted to the Secretariat by the petitioners themselves, either as an historical matter or as a synonym. The fact that these authors did not use the senior name may simply mean that they were unaware of some of the details of the Code.
  The petitioners comment further that Schreitmüller (1936b) himself proposed giving priority to Macropodus concolor Ahl. As discussed above, it is only relevant to demonstrate that Schreitmüller’s action was deliberate. No provision of the Code allowed Schreitmüller (1936b) to ‘give priority’ to a name that did not exist before and, technically, his action simply is the creation of an unneeded replacement name (Article 13.1.3). Schreitmüller was apparently careless about using unpublished data of others, but this is irrelevant as far as nomenclature is concerned.
  Some of the claims of the petitioners are unsupported. The names of fish species commonly kept in aquaria appear in hundreds of publications, scientific as well as popular. By contrast, publications using the name Macropodus concolor are very few (28 listed by the petitioners is an insignificant number), indicating that the species is of marginal concern to the aquarium hobby. It is unavailable commercially, is kept only by a few individuals dedicated to a small group of species, and was virtually unknown to science until the appearance of Freyhof & Herder (2002). This is further evidenced by the list of 28 publications which includes seven papers published in aquarium magazines (some in obscure closed society journals almost impossible to find through normal library channels; e.g. Der Makropode) and 10 books on aquarium fishes reporting on any species once kept in aquarium (these would use any name, albeit only for adding entries; for most, the authors only repeated earlier compilations). Out of the 11 remaining titles listed by the petitioners, four are lists, type catalogues and biographies (among them, citation of Eschmeyer, 1998, is misleading as both M. concolor and M. spechti are listed, and M. spechti is not listed as a synonym; furthermore, the current on-line version records M. spechti as a valid name and M. concolor as its synonym: http://www.calacademy .org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatsearch.html, as does FishBase www.fishbase.org) and seven can be termed scientific literature (or close to). The petitioners’ list includes a paper by Herder & Freyhof in an aquarium magazine, which appears to be an inappropriate listing. Responsibly, Herder & Freyhof considered that their nomenclatural conclusions had first to be published in the scientific literature. We have checked only part of the 28 listed works, but the two patent cases mentioned above suggest that the list be taken with due reservation.
  Macropodus spechti is not a well-known species for which the replacement of a junior synonym by the senior name would create a problem for anybody. Nomenclatural changes are reported quickly in the aquarium literature, and within a few months journals and web sites have adjusted. How is it possible that the change of a name of an inappropriately described fish, known only in a restricted circle, could affect the users of zoological nomenclature, while the change of both the generic and specific names of the rainbow trout from Salmo gairdneri to Oncorhynchus mykiss created no problem? Oncorhynchus mykiss is cited each year in thousands of scientific, technical, commercial and popular publications, is mentioned in national and international legal instruments, and is the object of a trade worth billions of dollars annually. How does this compare to the M. spechti case ?
  While there are many nomenclatural problems involving complex cases, well-known names, etc. waiting for rulings by the Commission, we find it the utmost shame to abuse the time of Commissioners with such an insignificant case. If the Commission has to be invoked for every case of synonymy involving pets, we have potentially hundreds of similar cases, enough to keep us busy for years writing applications and the Commission for years voting on the dullest possible cases, obstructing the way to much more significant cases. Nomenclature has purposes and impacts which certainly are beyond taxonomy and academic science. But nomenclature certainly does not have among its purposes the serving of vested interests. A good code is a code allowing the fewest possible exceptions.
  For all the above reasons, we recommend the Commission to reject the application.