Comment
on the
proposed conservation of Gigantopecten Rovereto,
1899 and Lissochlamys Sacco,
1897 (Mollusca, Bivalvia, PECTINIDAE)
(Case
3343; see BZN
63: 155–162)
P. Bouchet
Muséum National d’Histoire
Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005
Paris, France
(e-mail: pbouchet@mnhn.fr)
The application
by Waller & Bongrain documents
the prevailing usage of Gigantopecten over Macrochlamis or Macrochlamys,
and the evenly balanced usage of Lissochlamys and Lissochlamis.
Although their application does not
specifically address the issue, it
must be pointed out to non-malacologists
that the suffix -chlamys (derived
from the generic name Chlamys Röding,
1798) is used in numerous pectinoid
genus-group names. It serves consistency
and mnemonics to treat Macrochlamys and Lissochlamys as
the correct spellings.
However, it needs to be noted
that Kasum-Zade (2003, pp. 47, 82)
established the family-group name
MACROCHLAMISINAE, based on Macrochlamis Sacco,
1897. If, as proposed in the application,
the name Macrochlamis were
suppressed and placed on the Official
Index, MACROCHLAMISINAE Kasum-Zade,
2003 would become invalid under Article
39 of the Code. Therefore, I propose
that, instead of the names Macrochlamis and Lissochlamis being
suppressed, as suggested in the application,
they should be declared incorrect
original spellings of Macrochlamys and Lissochlamys.
With this approach, MACROCHLAMISINAE
Kasum-Zade, 2003 remains a potentially
valid name, and nomenclature does
not infringe on taxonomy.
It needs to be added that:
(1) ‘Macrochlamys Benson,
1832’ is a nomen nudum. The
name was first made available by
Gray (1847, p. 169);
(2) Grandipecten Cossmann,
1914 (in Cossmann & Peyrot, 1914,
p. 273) is another replacement name
for ‘Macrochlamys Sacco,
1897, non Benson, 1832’. Cossmann
(1920, p. 175) noted that Gigantopecten Rovereto,
1899, was an earlier replacement
name, and Grandipecten Cossmann,
1914 could be placed on the Official
Index.
Therefore
I put forward the following alternative
proposals to the Commission:
(1) to use its plenary
power to rule that:
(a) Macrochlamis Sacco,
1897 is an incorrect original spelling
of Macrochlamys;
(b) Lissochlamis Sacco,
1897 is an incorrect original spelling
of Lissochlamys;
(2) to place on
the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology
the following names:
(a) Macrochlamis Sacco,
1897 (an incorrect original spelling
of Macrochlamys
as ruled in (1)(a) above);
(b) Lissochlamis Sacco,
1897 (an incorrect original spelling
of Lissochlamys as ruled
in (1)(b) above);
(c) Macrochlamys Sacco,
1897 (a junior homonym of Macrochlamys Gray,
1847);
(d) Grandipecten Cossmann,
1914 (an unnecessary replacement
name for Macrochlamys Sacco,
1897).
I thank Alexander
Guzhov (Moscow) for pointing out
to me the work by Kasum-Zade (2003).
Additional
references
Cossmann,
M. 1920, Rectifications
de nomenclature. Revue Critique
de Paléozoologie et Paléophytologie, 24(4):
174–175.
Cossmann, M. & Peyrot,
A. 1914 (in 1909–1914). Conchologie
néogénique de l’Aquitaine. Pélécypodes,
vol. 2. Pp. 205–410, pls.
11–22. Bordeaux.
Gray, J.E. 1847.
A list of genera of Recent Mollusca,
their synonyma and types. Proceedings
of the Zoological Society of London, 15:
129–182.
Kasum-Zade, A.A. 2003. Sostoyanie
izuchennosti mezozoiskikh dvustvorchatykh
mollyuskov Azerbaidzhana (Otryad
Pectinopida: reviziya i sistematika).
[Advance in research of Mesozoic
bivalve molluscs in Azerbaijan
(Order Pectinoida: revision and
systematics)]. 112 pp. El-ALliance,
Baku.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of Obovaria Rafinesque,
1819 (Mollusca, Bivalvia) by the
designation of Unio retusa Lamarck,
1819 as the type species
(Case
3353; see BZN
63: 226–230)
David Campbell
425 Scientific Collections
Building, Department of Biological
Sciences, Biodiversity and Systematics,
University of Alabama, Box 870345,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487–0345,
U.S.A. (e-mail: amblema@bama.ua.edu)
I am writing
in support of the conservation of
the current usage of Obovaria.
As pointed out in the application,
the current usage has held over the
past 150 years. One minor correction
is that Herrmannsen’s designation
of a type for Obovaria is
in volume 2 (1849), not volume 1
(1847).
Additionally, no replacement
name is available. Although two names
are treated as junior subjective
synonyms in the current literature,
neither actually applies. The type
species of Pseudoon Simpson,
1900 is Unio ellipsis Lea,
1828, a subjective synonym of Amblema
olivaria Rafinesque, 1820. Currently
this species is listed as Obovaria
olivaria. However, recent molecular
data suggest that O. olivaria is
closely related to, but not the sister
taxon of, the other species currently
assigned to Obovaria (see
Campbell et al., 2005). This requires
further sampling and analysis to
confirm, but it does suggest that
the differences noticed by Simpson
(1900) may be of greater significance
than currently realized. No molecular
data exist for the nearly extinct O.
retusa (Lamarck, 1819), the
proposed type of Obovaria.
However, Ortmann (1911) and Simpson
(1900, 1914) reported its anatomy
as matching other species assigned
to the genus (except O. olivaria)
for which molecular data are available.
Rotundaria Rafinesque,
1820, like Obovaria, has
led to confusion due to overlooked
type designations. Agassiz (1852)
selected Obliquaria tuberculata Rafinesque,
1820 (currently Cyclonaias tuberculata)
as the type of Rotundaria,
and this was followed by most workers
until Ortmann & Walker (1922)
pointed out that Herrmannsen (1849)
had designated Obliquaria subrotunda Rafinesque,
1820 (currently Obovaria subrotunda)
as the type species. They established
the new genus Cyclonaias for Obliquaria
tuberculata. It is surprising
that Ortmann & Walker (1922)
cite Herrmannsen’s type designation
for Rotundaria but not his
designation for Obovaria (pp.
407, 132 in the same volume). However,
in this case, Herrmannsen was not
the first to select a type. Valenciennes
(1827) reported Obliquaria tuberculata specimens
from Rafinesque, which he says were
identified as the type of a new genus, Rotundaria.
Thus, Rotundaria is a senior
objective synonym of Cyclonaias. Cyclonaias
tuberculata occurs phylogenetically
within Quadrula as currently
used (Campbell et al., 2005; the
result of Serb et al., 2003, reflects
a mixing of tissue clips with Potamilus
alatus) and so Rotundaria is
not available for species currently
placed in Obovaria.
Additional references
Campbell,
D.C., Serb, J.M., Buhay, J.E.,
Roe, K.J., Minton, R.L. & Lydeard,
C. 2005. Phylogeny of
North American amblemines (Bivalvia,
Unionoida): prodigious polyphyly
proves pervasive across genera. Invertebrate
Biology, 124(2):
131–164.
Herrmannsen, A.N. 1849. Indicis
Generum Malacozoorum Primorida,
vol. 2. Pp. xxix–xlii, 1–717.
Theodore Fischer, Cassells.
Ortmann, A.E. 1911.
A monograph of the najades of Pennsylvania,
parts I and II. Memoirs of
the Carnegie Museum, 4(6):
279–347.
Serb, J.M., Buhay, J.E. & Lydeard,
C. 2003. Molecular systematics
of the North American freshwater
bivalve genus Quadrula (Unionidae:
Ambleminae) based on mitochondrial
ND1 sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics
and Evolution, 28(1):
1–11.
Valenciennes, A. 1827. Coquilles
fluviatiles bivalves de nouveau-continent
recueilles pendant le voyage de
M.M. de Humboldt et Bonpland. Recueil
d’Observations de Zoologie
et d’Anatomie Comparée
. . . par Al. de Humboldt & A.
Bonpland, vol. 2. Pp. 225–237.
Smith & Gide, Paris.
Comments on
the proposed conservation of the
specific name of Hydroporus
discretus Fairmaire & Brisout
de Barneville, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3337; see BZN
64: 87–89)
(1) R. Angus
President of the Balfour-Browne
Club (water beetle society), Royal
Holloway, University of London,
Egham, Surrey, TW20 0EX, U.K. (e-mail:
r.angus@rhul.ac.uk)
The proposed
application to have Hydroporus
neuter placed on the Official
Index of Rejected Names in Zoology
has my fullest support. It is wrong
that the application to conserve H.
discretus was rejected, and
appears quite outside the norm in
recent cases. I gather that the application
was rejected because it attracted
insufficient favourable comment.
My own view is that it appeared such
an overwhelmingly compelling case
that comment was superfluous. I very
much hope that this second attempt
succeeds. It would be wrong to lose
such a well-known and well-established
name as Hydroporus discretus,
which must be conserved.
(2) E.J. van Nieukerken
National Museum of Natural
History, Darwinweg 2, 2333 CR Leiden,
The Netherlands (e-mail: nieukerken@naturalis.nl)
I have now
studied the case in detail; it had
only briefly passed me before. I
think that the authors have had very
bad luck, the case is almost enough
for the new nomen oblitum (Article
23.9.2 of the Code), apart from this
list by Ádám. I think
that the case was not presented strongly
enough and that not enough people
have sent positive comments.
I strongly agree that the ruling
should be reversed and that Hydroporus
discretus must be conserved
as a valid name for a species we
have always known as discretus – I
had never really considered the name neuter before.
(3) G. Foster
Scottish Agricultural College,
Research and Development Division,
Auchincruive,
Ayr, KA6 5HW, U.K.
I agree with
the need to conserve the name Hydroporus
discretus by the
Commission revising their views and
setting aside the name Hydroporus neuter.
Otherwise the Commission will bring
itself into disrepute for failing
in its primary duty to stabilise
nomenclature.
(4) C.H.S. Watts
South Australian Museum, Science
Centre, North Terrace, Adelaide,
5000 South Australia, Australia (e-mail:
Watts.Chris@saugov.sa.gov.au)
I totally
agree that the name Hydroporus
discretus Fairmaire & Brisout
de
Barneville should be conserved to
avoid ‘sinking’ a century
of work accessed through that name.
(5) F. Marnell
National Parks and Wildlife
Service, 7 Ely Place, Dublin 2,
Ireland
The proposed
change of name appears to contradict
all zoological and nomenclatural
sense and I wholeheartedly support
your endeavours to have the name Hydroporus
discretus conserved.
(6) H.V. Shaverdo
Naturhistorisches Museum, Burgring
7, A-1010 Wien, Austria (e-mail:
shaverdo@mail.ru)
Systematics
of the genus Hydroporus has
been the main focus of my research
for more than ten years. In numerous
papers on taxonomy, faunistics, ecology,
phenology and larval morphology Hydroporus
discretus was always treated
by me under this name. A very important
reason to conserve the name H.
discretus is that recently it
has been published as a valid name
in two very important catalogues
(Nilsson, 2001, 2003). If H.
neuter is used as a valid name,
it would cause considerable nomenclatural
confusion.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of
the generic names Gnorimus Le
Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville,
1828 and Osmoderma Le
Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville,
1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3349; see BZN
63: 177–183)
Maxwell V.L. Barclay
Curator of Coleoptera, Natural
History Museum, London SW7 5BD,
U.K. (e-mail: m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk)
I would like
to register my support for the proposal
by Krell et al. to conserve the generally
used names Gnorimus and Osmoderma for
two related genera of scarab beetles
of conservation importance. These
names are well used outside taxonomic
circles because of the large size,
beauty and rarity of the beetles
concerned. Instability in scientific
names that are frequently used by
the non-scientific public breeds
disrespect for scientific nomenclature
in general, and leads to increased
reliance on a secondary system of
vernacular nomenclature. These beetles
already suffer from an assortment
of vernacular names, such as ‘Noble
Chafer’, ‘Variable Chafer’, ‘Hermit
Beetle’, ‘Flower Hermit
Beetle’, ‘Russian Leather
Beetle’ and ‘Odor-of-Leather
Beetle’. It would be unfortunate
if these loosely applied, artificial
constructs were to prove more stable
than the scientific nomenclature.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of
the specific name of Curculio
contractus Marsham, 1802 (currently Ceutorhynchus
contractus; Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3367; see BZN
63: 251–254)
Maxwell V.L. Barclay
Curator of Coleoptera, Natural
History Museum, London SW7 5BD,
U.K. (e-mail: m.barclay@nhm.ac.uk)
I would
like to go on record as supporting
the proposal by Morris to conserve
the name Curculio contractus Marsham
(currently Ceutorhynchus contractus)
for a widespread cabbage-feeding
weevil. The synonymy of Ceutorhynchus
contractus (Marsham) and Ceutorhynchus
pallipes Crotch is rather questionable,
and may be overturned at any time
by ongoing molecular and morphological
studies. At present the former name
is connected to a widespread pest
of cabbages, and the latter to an
obscure island taxon of conservation
significance. To confuse this clear
separation by making Ceutorhynchus
pallipes the valid name for
the widespread taxon almost universally
known as Ceutorhynchus contractus (Marsham)
would serve no useful purpose, and
the already-confused situation would
have to be revisited if the tenuous
synonymy between Ceutorhynchus
contractus and Ceutorhynchus
pallipes was overturned.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of the
generic name Ataenius Harold,
1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky,
1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3377; see BZN
64: 39–42)
Zdzisława T.
Stebnicka
Institute of Systematics and
Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy
of Sciences,
31–016, Krakow, Poland (e-mail:
Stebnicka@isez.pan.krakow.pl)
I am in full
support of the application to give
precedence to the generic name Ataenius Harold,
1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky,
1862. I write as a specialist of
these beetles on a world basis, who
has used the name Ataenius for
many years in several papers and
books.
Based on a recently updated
list of references concerning Ataenius,
in the years 1870–2000 over
50 authors in the world have used
the name Ataenius in over
150 papers, monographs and catalogues.
The name Aphodinus Motschulsky
was used only three times nearly
100 years ago in relation to the
genus Aphodius Illiger,
falling into oblivion even as a subgeneric
name of Aphodius (these
two names differ from each other
only by one letter).
The three type specimens of Aphodinus are
preserved in Motschulsky’s
collection in Moscow, while over
300 species with thousands of specimens
of Ataenius are deposited
in a large number of museum collections
around the world. Changing all the
specimen records in these collections
would seem to be a pointless task.
The taxonomy of Ataenius is
very complicated (see Stebnicka & Lago,
2005) and an additional nomenclatural
burden would make difficulties for
students researching Ataenius and
related genera. Adoption of the name Aphodinus would
be seriously confusing not only to
systematics and museum collections,
but also to progressing molecular
studies.
In accord with current usage
and the maintenance of nomenclatural
stability, and to avoid name change
and unnecessary confusion, I strongly
support the application by Howden & Smetana.
Additional
note
The genus Ataenius was
described by Harold (1867, p. 82)
as follows: ‘Ataenius (n.g.
Eupariis et Rhyssemis intermedium)
scutellaris: Affinis A. strigato
Say . . . ’. Therefore, Harold
originally indicated Ataenius scutellaris
as type-species of the genus. In
the same year, Harold, (1867, p.
100) added a complete definition
of the genus as follows: ‘Ataenius
(Nov. Gen.). Caput gibbosum, vertice
mutico . . . ’.
Additional
references
Harold,
E. 1867a. Diagnosen neuer
Coprophagen. Coleopterologische
Hefte, 1:
76–84.
Harold, E. 1867b.
Diagnosen neuer Coprophagen. Coleopterologische
Hefte, 2:
94–100.
Stebnicka, Z.T. & Lago,
P.K. 2005. The New World
species of Ataenius Harold,
1867. V. Revision of the A.
strigatus group (Scarabaeidae:
Aphodiinae: Eupariini). Insecta
Mundi, 19:
55–83.
Comments on
the proposed conservation of usage
of the name Dactylozodes Chevrolat,
1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3393; see BZN
64: 43–44)
(1) C.L. Bellamy
Plant Pest Diagnostics Branch,
California Department of Food & Agriculture,
3294 Meadowview Road, Sacramento,
California 95832, U.S.A.
(e-mail: cbellamy@cdfa.ca.gov)
I write to
ask for an amendment to the application
to conserve the usage of the name Dactylozodes Chevrolat,
1838 proposed by myself and T. Moore
Rodriguez.
In para. 9(2) we recorded Dactylozodes as
feminine. In point of fact it should
be treated as masculine in accordance
with Article 30.1.4.4 of the Code,
which records that ‘a compound
genus-group name ending in -odes
is to be treated as masculine unless
its author, when establishing the
name, stated that it had another
gender or treated it as such by combining
it with an adjectival species-group
name in another gender form’.
(2) Svatopluk Bílý
Department of Entomology, National
Museum, Kunratice 1, 148 00 Praha
4,
Czech Republic (e-mail:
svatopluk_bily@nm.cz)
I support
the application by Bellamy & Moore
to conserve the prevailing usage
of the generic name i Chevrolat,
1838. I agree with the authors’ proposed
suppression of Lasionota Mannerheim,
1837 in favour of Dactylozodes Chevrolat,
1838 (BUPRESTIDAE). Mannerheim’s
name has hardly been used for more
than 100 years, and can be treated
as a nomen oblitum.
However, Dactylozodes should
be treated as masculine rather than
feminine for the following reasons:
(1) According to
Article 30.1.4.4 of the Code all
genus-group names ending with -odes should
be treated as masculine;
(2) Chevrolat (1838)
described Dactylozodes as
a masculine name, including two nominal
species: D. alternans and D.
tetrazonus).
Comments on
the proposed conservation of the
subfamilial name ORTHOCLADIINAE
Kieffer, 1911 and on the proposed
type-species fixation for Orthocladius van
der Wulp, 1874 (Diptera, CHIRONOMIDAE)
(Case
3355; see BZN
64: 45–53)
(1) M. Spies
c/o Zoologische Staatssammlung
München, Münchhausenstr.
21, 81247 München, Germany (e-mail:
spies@zi.biologie.uni-muenchen.de)
N.L. Evenhuis
J. Linsley Gressitt Center
for Research in Entomology, Bishop
Museum, 1525 Bernice Street, Honolulu,
Hawaii 96817, U.S.A. (e-mail:
neale@bishopmuseum.org)
Subsequent
to publication of the application
in this case, the present junior
author (NLE) has discovered that
publication priority between chironomid
names published in the two works
the application cites as van der
Wulp (1874a) and van der Wulp (1874b)
respectively is clear after all,
rather than open to first-reviser
action as proposed in the application.
According to Barendrecht & Kruseman
(1957; cited in the application),
the earliest confirmed publication
date for issue 4 of volume 17 of
the Tijdschrift voor Entomologie is
29 August 1874, whereas for issue
5 of the same volume that date is
31 July 1875. Copies of volume 17
at the NHM and Australian Museum
libraries seen by NLE still include
the issue wrappers. The latter show:
(1) that the work by van der Wulp
(1874–1875; cited as ‘1874b’ in
the application) spans both those
issues 4 (pages 109–112 of
van der Wulp’s paper) and 5
(pp. 113–148), (2) that the
chironomid genus-group names in that
work appeared in issue 5 (on pp.
128 onwards), and (3) that, hence,
these names were not published effectively
simultaneouslym with the corresponding
set of names in van der Wulp (1874
= ‘1874a’ in the application).
Therefore, the genus name Orthocladius is
available from van der Wulp (1874),
and the same applies to all other
chironomid genus-group names first
proposed in that work.
In addition, all the bibliographic
references to van der Wulp’s
respective works in Case 3355 must
be corrected from ‘1874a’ to
1874, and from ‘1874b’ to
1874–1875. Moreover, all references
to purportedly simultaneous publication
of the two sets of chironomid genus-group
names in those works must be corrected
accordingly. Specifically: (1) the
decision of publication priority
by first-reviser action proposed
in para. 9 of the application is
null and void, and the entire paragraph
to be ignored in further considerations;
(2) there is no nominal species originally
included in Orthocladius van
der Wulp, 1874; the ten species assigned
to the genus in van der Wulp (1874–1875)
must be treated as subsequently included.
All the corrections in this
comment paper notwithstanding, the
main arguments and aims of the application
remain unaffected. As concerns the
detailed course of Commission action
sought, only one minor change is
necessary: In para. 21(2)(a), the
reference ‘1874(b)’ must
be changed to 1874; the corrected
sub-paragraph reads:
(a) Orthocladius van
der Wulp, 1874 (gender: masculine),
type species Chironomus oblidens Walker,
1856, as ruled in (1)(b) above;
On a final
note, the work cited in the application
as Evenhuis (1989) was written, not
edited, by the said author.
References
Wulp, F.M.
van der. 1874. [... over
het geslacht Chironomus Meig.
...]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 16:
lxix–lxxi.
Wulp, F.M. van der. 1874–1875.
Dipterologische aanteekeningen.
Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 17:
109–148.
(2) Torbjørn
Ekrem
Museum of Natural History and
Archaeology, Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, NO-7491
Trondheim, Norway (e-mail:
Torbjorn.Ekrem@vm.ntnu.no)
I support
the action proposed by Martin Spies.
Both the genus name Orthocladius and
the subfamily name ORTHOCLADIINAE
are now very well-founded in chironomid
taxonomy and nomenclature, and a
subsequent change in these names
would cause much confusion among
both taxonomists and freshwater ecologists.
I therefore urge the Commission to
fix the type species of Orthocladius to Chironomus
oblidens Walker, 1856 and to
give the subfamily name ORTHOCLADIINAE
Kieffer, 1911 precedence over both
ERETMOPTERINAE Kellogg, 1900 and
CLUNIONINAE Kieffer, 1906.
Comments on
the proposed conservation of the
specific name of Lithocolletis
oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter
oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera)
by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis
pomonella Zeller, 1846
(Case
3376; see BZN
64: 96–99)
(1) Giorgio Baldizzone
via Manzoni 24, 14100 Asti,
Italy (e-mail: giorgiobaldizzone@tin.it)
I read Paolo
Triberti’s application (Case
3376) about the synonymy of Phyllonorycter
oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855) and Phyllonorycter
pomonella (Zeller, 1846). In
my opinion it is correct and in accordance
with the Code’s recommendations.
(2) Jurate De Prins
Royal Museum for Central-Africa,
Section of Entomology, Leuvensesteenweg
13, B-3080 Tervuren, Belgium (e-mail:
jurate.de.prins@africamuseum.be)
Willy De Prins
Universiteit van Amsterdam,
Zoölogisch Museum, Plantage-Middenlaan
64,
NL-1018 DH Amsterdam, The Netherlands
While acting
as referees to the paper ‘The Phyllonorycter species
from the
Palaearctic Region feeding on ROSACEAE
(Lepidoptera, Gracillariidae)’ by
Paolo Triberti we have pointed to
the problem of the misidentification
and confusion of three species: Phyllonorycter
oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855), P.
pomonella (Zeller, 1846) and
a manuscript name P. hostis Triberti, 2007 (in
press). During our own GRACILLARIIDAE
studies, we have encountered the
same problem as Triberti, namely
the continuous confusion caused in
many publications by the name Lithocolletis
pomonella Zeller, 1846. That
name has been applied to various
species, e.g. Phyllonorycter
cydoniella ([Denis & Schiffermüller]),
1775, P. spinicolella (Zeller,
1846), and P. sorbi (Frey,
1855). P. oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855)
is a widely spread European species
feeding on Crataegus spp. and Pyrus spp.
(32 and 5 citations respectively
from the ‘Global Taxonomic
Database of Gracillariidae (Lepidoptera)’ (De
Prins & De Prins, 2006), and
this name has been used at least
in 136 faunistic publications (see Global
Gracillariidae Database at the Royal
Museum for Central Africa, and
De Prins & De Prins, 2005). The
name pomonella Zeller, 1846
was used in at least 79 agricultural
publications mainly to indicate a
pest species on Malus without
any taxonomic background. Therefore,
we would like to support the proposition
of Paolo Triberti and ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
to use its plenary power to overrule
the Principle of Priority in this
particular case and to give the name oxyacanthae Frey,
1855, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis
oxyacanthae, precedence over
the name pomonella Zeller,
1846, as published in the binomen Lithocolletis
pomonella Zeller, 1846.
Additional references
Denis, M. & Schiffermüller,
I. 1775. Ankündung
eines systematischen Werkes von
den Schmetterlingen der Wienergegend
herausgegeben von einigen Lehrern
am k. k. Theresianum. 323
pp., 2 pls. Augustin Bernardi,
Wien.
De Prins, W. & De Prins,
J. 2005. Family Gracillariidae.
In Landry, B. (Ed.), World
Catalogue of Insects, vol.
6. 502 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup.
De Prins, J. & De Prins,
W. 2006. Global Taxonomic
Database of Gracillariidae. (Lepidoptera).
World Wide Web electronic publication
(http://gc.bebif.be) (Accessed
March, 2007).
(3) Bernard Landry
Muséum d’histoire
naturelle, C.P. 6434, 1211 Genève
6, Switzerland (e-mail: bernard.landry@ville-ge.ch)
I am writing
to support the application of Dr
Paolo Triberti of the Muso civico
di Storia Naturale in Verona (Case
3376) on the proposed conservation
of the specific name Lithocolletis
oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently
Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta,
Lepidoptera) by giving it precedence
over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller,
1846.
Given the widespread use of
the name Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae (Frey)
since the description of the species
and its consistant use with regard
to host plant association, and given
the continuous confusion regarding
the meaning of the name Lithocolletis
pomonella Zeller over time,
I believe that this application is
warranted and that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should use its plenary power to overrule
the Principle of Priority in this
case to give the name Lithocolletis
oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 precedence
over the name Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller,
1846.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of Chelodina
rugosa Ogilby, 1890 (currently Macrochelodina
rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines)
over Chelodina oblonga Gray,
1841
(Case
3351; see BZN
63: 187–193, 64: 68)
S.A. Thomson
Institute of Applied Ecology,
University of Canberra, Canberra,
ACT 2601, Australia (e-mail:
thomson@home.netspeed.com.au)
One of the
reasons for the Principle of Priority
is to protect good taxonomic work
presented to science from being overwritten
by future errors. This is relevant
to current problems in Australian
turtle names.
The case in question is one
where a name, Chelodina oblonga,
was correctly applied for 136 years.
It has a valid type specimen that
is extant in the collection of the
Natural History Museum, London, as
figured in Thomson (2000). Furthermore,
the type is diagnosable using discrete
characters. This name was incorrectly
applied in an unpublished thesis
in 1967, now 40 years ago. That same
year a popular press book made the
same error, and this has been perpetuated
until Thomson (2000) demonstrated
the error.
Savage
(2007)
believes that using the lectotype
of Chelodina colliei Gray,
1856 (BMNH 1947.3.5.91) as the neotype
for Chelodina oblonga Gray,
1841, would be a justifiable means
of salvaging an error in the name
of conservation of current usage. Chelodina
colliei is an available name
with a lectotype and a complete type
series.
Gray’s descriptions
actually contain a valid diagnosis
which, when viewed in the light of
the discoveries in Thomson (2000),
are actually differential diagnoses
of discrete characters that make
sense when one looks at these species,
not to mention that the type specimen
is figured in the description. Creating
a neotype for Chelodina oblonga would
mean that the name-bearing type and
the diagnosis in the description
would be at odds with each other.
In gauging the amount of disruption
caused by what I have proposed it
is
important to note that half the species
of turtles in Australia have been
described since 1980, and all but
one of these since 1994. All publications
older than 10 years are so out of
date nomenclaturally that it is important
to have all recent descriptions to
hand to sort out which species is
being discussed. It is important
to note that by reversing the precedence
of Macrochelodina rugosa and Macrochelodina
oblonga only one name would
be changed. Chelodina colliei would
become valid for the Western Australian
species, and all Gray’s original
intentions and descriptions would
remain valid. Further, there is an
available name for the differentially
diagnosable western population of Macrochelodina
rugosa should it be required
in the future.
A further complication is
the effect on the name Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington,
1985. The original type species of
this genus was Chelodina oblonga.
Their intention, as discussed in
Iverson et al. (2001), was to describe
the Chelodina B group of
species (which includes Macrochelodina
rugosa). Iverson et al. (2001)
proposed Macrochelodina rugosa as
the type species, justifying this
on the grounds that the types represented
the same species and it would avoid
confusion. It could be argued that
Iverson et al. could not do this
and that the proposal of the lectotype
of Chelodina colliei as
the neotype of Chelodina oblonga would
erect a monotypic genus for the Western
Australian species that would be
valid, leaving the Chelodina B
group in a paraphyletic arrangement.
Setting the neotype removes the only
real justification Iverson et al.
had for proposing the change of type
species in the first place. The setting
of a neotype, although outwardly
attractive, would actually create
more work in itself – work
that would not need to be done if
the names were just put back theway
they were supposed to be and the
way they were for 136 years until
40 years ago.
In summary, I think it is
important to appreciate that the
conservation of the current usage
of a name is not always the best
option. It is important to look at
all the consequences and weigh up
the outcomes, which is what I did
in the original proposal to the Commission.
It is important to allow the Code
to work the way it is intended, as
authors who have presented to science
in good faith have the right to have
their work, when proven valid, recognized.
My original proposal was intended
as a balance between conservation,
the recognition of valid taxonomic
works of historical significance,
and the prevention of unintended
arrangements occurring. Hence, I
stand by my original proposal in
Case 3351.
