Comments
with the following titles were published on 30 June
2006 in Volume 63, 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 conservation of usage of Oceania Péron & Lesueur,
1810 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) by the designation of Oceania
armata Kölliker, 1853 as the type species
(Case 3304;
see BZN 62:
221–225)
M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga
Departamento de Biodiversidad y Biología Evolutiva,
Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC), José Gutiérrez
Abascal, 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: zarazaga@mncn.csic.es)
The authors of this
case incorrectly spelled the name of the family based on Oceania Péron & Lesueur
throughout the text. The stem of the generic name to which
the ending –IDAE must be attached is to be determined
according to Article 29.3.1. For the genus Oceania,
it is Oceani-, by elimination of the Latin first
declension nominative ending –a. Thus, the correct
family name obtained is OCEANIIDAE, and not ‘Oceanidae’ as
used, even if the latter was the original spelling used
by Eschscholtz (1829). I propose that the application is
amplified as follows:
(4) to place on the Official
List of Family-Group Names in Zoology the name OCEANIIDAE
Eschscholtz, 1829 (type genus: Oceania Péron & Lesueur,
1810) (a valid emendation of the incorrect original spelling
OCEANIDAE);
(5) to place on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology
the name OCEANIDAE Eschscholtz, 1829 (an incorrect original
spelling of OCEANIIDAE).
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Helix
papillaris Müller, 1774 (currently Papillifera
papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case
3319; see BZN
62: 130–133; 63: 46–47)
Dietrich Kadolsky
66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead, Surrey CR2 0BA,
U.K.
1. I support the
reasoning and the resulting proposals made by Giusti & Manganelli.
They serve the stability of nomenclature as well as honour
the content of the original publications of Turbo bidens Linnaeus,
1758 and Helix papillaris Müller, 1774. If
the content of the original publication of the name Turbo
bidens Linnaeus, 1758 is taken on its own merits,
the conclusion that this nominal species is not the same
as Helix papillaris Müller, 1774 is straightforward.
The identification of Turbo bidens Linnaeus with
the latter is only based on the subsequent statements by
Linnaeus (1767) and Schröter (1784), which still have
an effect more than 220 years later. Up to the present
day both names have been treated as the valid name for
the same species; a literature survey suggests that the
name papillaris has been treated as valid more
often than bidens in the last 50 years (list held by the
Commission Secretariat). Only if the experts could agree
that the name Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 is unidentifiable
and should remain so, then an application on this subject
would have been unnecessary.
2. In his comments to
support the acceptance of the name Turbo bidens Linnaeus,
1758 for the species in question, Welter-Schultes (BZN
63: 46–47) makes a number of assumptions which are
either poorly supported by facts, or are purely speculative:
(a) Müller’s diagnosis (in contrast to Giusti & Manganelli’s
initial statement) was not clear enough – Müller’s
description and the figures cited by him leave no doubt
as to the species intended; the use of the name papillaris in
subsequent literature is unequivocal. The purpose of Giusti & Manganelli’s
proposal of a neotype is not to remove doubt as to the
identification of Helix papillaris Müller,
but to fix that name to a particular strain in the species
complex.
(b) Rossmässler’s (1835) dictionary of Latin
descriptive terms cannot be applied to the earlier text
of Linnaeus, 1758 – Possibly true, but this does
not support the assertion that Linnaeus, 1758 described
the same species as Müller. The latter clearly described
in Latin the conspicuous colour pattern which is missing
in Linnaeus’s diagnosis.
(c) Linnaeus may have had ‘good reasons’ not
to mention this colour pattern – It is inconceivable
that the founder of systematics of the entire Plant and
Animal Kingdoms would have suppressed mentioning a conspicuous
character in his diagnoses, which is alluded to by later
authors in both the genus and species name of the taxon
here discussed.
(d) Linnaeus may have had only dead shells at his disposal – Unproven
speculation. His words: ‘testa . . . pellucida’ (shell
transparent) is unlikely to apply to dead (and hence bleached
and opaque) shells. I would speculate that a scientist
of Linnaeus’s experience would have refrained from
basing a new species on weathered shells.
(e) Linnaeus may have had several species in the family
CLAUSILIIDAE in mind, of which only one (viz. Papillifera
papillaris) showed the aforementioned colour pattern,
which was therefore not considered diagnostic for the composite
nominal taxon Turbo bidens – It is quite
possible that Linnaeus united several species under that
name, but this cannot be proven. I would expect that Linnaeus
would not have regarded a clausiliid with a conspicuous
colour pattern as conspecific with other clausiliids which
lacked this feature.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of Palamopus E.
Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?)
(Case 3348;
see BZN 62:
237–239; 63: 49–50)
Markus Moser
Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart
Museum am Lowentor Rosenstein 1, Stuttgart, D-70191 Germany (e-mail:
moser.smns@natur kundemuseum-bw.de)
1. The term ‘Sauroidichnites’ was
coined by Edward Hitchcock in 1837 as a subdivision of
the general term ‘Ichnites’, and immediately
afterwards used as a suborder of the order ‘Dipodichnites’ in
the class ‘Ichnolithes’ (Hitchcock, 1841, 1844),
thus in the first place ‘Sauroidichnites’ must
be regarded as a suprafamilial taxon. Haubold (1971, 1974)
pointed out that only in 1845 did Hitchcock begin to use
generic names (i.e. different from higher level terms).
Indeed, Hitchcock (1848, p. 130) stated that he had introduced
the term ‘Sauroidichnites’ intending, by the
term, merely to convey an intimation that they might prove
to be reptilian. It is therefore argued that ‘Sauroidichnites’ (and
likewise ‘Ornithichnites’ and ‘Tetrapodichnites’)
was not used as a generic name in the sense of binominal
nomenclature, but as a general term denoting an object
class, in which case ‘Sauroidichnites’ is unavailable
as a generic name and does not need to be suppressed.
2. However, as Hitchcock
(1837) subdivided the ‘Ornithichnites’ into ‘Pachydactili’ and ‘Leptodactyli’ and
used ‘Ornithichnites’ to include several inchnospecies,
it could be argued that Sauroidichnites, Ornithichnites and Tetrapodichnites were
used as generic appellations and general terms at the same
time and could be acceptable as available generic names,
possibly in the sense of a ‘collective group’.
3. The question of the
type species can be summarized as follows: Hitchcock (1837)
used Sauroidichnites to include five species-group
names. The type ichnospecies of the ichnogenus Sauroidichnites Hitchcock,
1837 – if considered available – is Sauroidichnites
palmatus (Hitchcock, 1836) by original monotypy, as
the four other species names coined by Hitchcock in 1837
without description are unavailable. However, although
it is the older name and an objective synonym, Palamopus
palmatus is not the type species of Palamopus,
as implied by Rainforth (para. 2). The type species (by
monotypy) is Palamopus anomalus Hitchcock, 1845,
as correctly stated by Hay (1902). If Sauroidichnites and Ornithichnites are
considered unavailable generic names, that does not affect
the availability of ‘Ornithichnites’ palmatus,
the valid specific name of the type species of Palamopus (Article
11.9.3.1 of the Code). Should the name palmatus prove
to be nomenclaturally unavailable, P. anomalus may
be reinstated as the valid name of the type species.
4. Rainforth stated that Palamopus has
been used as the name for an ichnotaxon in four published
works (Kuhn, 1963; Haubold, 1971, 1984; Olsen & Radian,
1986). Kuhn (1963) accepted only Palamopus Hitchcock,
1845 with P. palmatus (Hitchcock, 1841, note date,
with Sauroidichnites palmatus in synonymy) as
the valid name of the type species (‘Genotypus’),
thus apparently ignoring the older references. However,
Kuhn (1963) cited the works of Hitchcock older than 1841,
and there is no doubt that Kuhn had actually seen them,
as the first series of volumes of the American Journal
of Science and Arts is available, with early 19th century
possession stamps, in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek in
Munich, which was Kuhn’s main literature source (Kuhn,
1963, p. 3). It is therefore concluded that Kuhn, possibly
following Hay (1902) and others, consistently did not accept
species names in these older works as available, and generic
names only beginning with Hitchcock, 1845. Haubold (1971
and follow-up publications of 1974 and 1984 in the second,
enlarged edition) explicitly considered Sauroidichnites as
not available as a generic name, following Kuhn (1963,
and the references cited therein); hence, he used Palamopus (Haubold,
1971), with Sauroidichnites in synonymy. Finally,
Olsen & Padian (1986, p. 261) listed Palamopus only
in the synonymy of Batrachopus, and more specifically three
species of Palamopus, including ‘P.
palmatus Hitchcock, 1841’, in tentative subjective
synonymy with Batrchopus deweyi (Hitchcock, 1843)
(Olsen & Padian, 1986, p. 262), so this reference cannot
be counted as usage of Palamopus as the valid
name of a taxon.
5. To summarize: Of the
limited record of only four works cited by Rainforth to
support a universal usage of the younger name Palamopus,
instead of the older Sauroidichnites during the
past 50 years, one work did not use Palamopus as
a valid name, two used Palamopus with Sauroidichnites in
explicit synonymy, and three did not consider Sauroidichnites an
available generic name in zoological nomenclature. An accurate
record by Lockley & Meyer (2004, p. 174) for Palamopus as
a (presumably) valid taxon name was published probably
too late to be employed by Rainforth. However, four references,
at the most, cannot be considered as establishing prevailing
usage. The nomenclature would hardly be upset, if the older
name Sauroidichnites was be used and strict priority
would be reinstated. It is my
contention, therefore, that the proposed suppression of Sauroidichnites is
not supported by the reasoning of Rainforth. However, I
strongly recommend following previous authors in considering Sauroidichnites Hitchcock,
1837 as not available as a generic name for reasons stated
in para. 1 above.
6. Therefore, amending
the application by Rainforth, the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:
(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
the name Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (gender:
masculine), type species by monotypy Palamopus anomalus E.
Hitchcock, 1845;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology the name palmatus E. Hitchcock, 1836,
as published in the binomen Ornithichnites palmatus (senior
objective synonym of the type ichnospecies of Palamopus E.
Hitchcock, 1845);
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology the name Palamopus E.
Hitchcock, 1848 (a junior synonym of Palamopus E.
Hitchcock, 1845);
(4) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Specific Names in Zoology the name anomalus E.
Hitchcock, 1845, as published in the binomen
Palmopus anomalus (junior
objective synonym of Ornithichnites
palmatus E.
Hichcock, 1836).
Additional references
Haubold, H. 1974.
Die fossilen Saurierfährten. 168 pp. Ziemsen Verlag,
Wittenberg Lutherstadt.
Lockley, M.C. & Meyer,
C. 2004. Crocodylomorph trackways
from the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous
of North America and Europe: implications
for ichnotaxonomy. Ichnos, 11(1–2):
167–178.
