Comments
with the following titles were published
on 30 March 2001 in Volume 58, Part 1 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).
Comments on the proposed conservation
of Trichia Hartmann, 1840 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda), and the proposed emendation of
spelling of TRICHINAE Ložek, 1956 (Mollusca)
to TRICHIINAE, so removing the homonymy with
TRICHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 2926; see BZN 57:
17-23, 109-110, 166-167)
(1) D. Kadolsky
`The Limes', 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead,
South Croydon CR2 OBA, U.K.
I fully
support the comment by Prof L.B. Holthuis (BZN
57: 109-110) not to invoke the Commission's
plenary power to save the least deserving of
the names involved in this case, Trichia Hartmann,
1840 and TRICHIINAE Ložek, 1956, used in
Mollusca. In addition to the reasons given by
Holthuis, with all of which I agree, I object
particularly to the request to the Commission
`to rule that the name Trichia Hartmann
is not rendered invalid by the existence of Trichia von
Haller, 1768 in Myxomycetes'. This would set
a dangerous precedent, as the argument that confusion
with an animal name is unlikely could be applied
to many, and possibly the vast majority of, ambiregnal
names. If this homonymy is deemed acceptable,
the question may be asked why ambiregnal names
are included within the scope of zoological nomenclature.
Furthermore, acceptance of this argument could
lead in the future to its extension to cases
of homonymy between animal names if there is
a low probability that they may be quoted together
in the same context.
If the principle of homonymy is maintained
(as it certainly should be), Trichia Hartmann,
1840 and Trichia de Haan, 1839 become
invalid, as well as the family-group names based
on these genera. Consequently, use of the plenary
power need not be invoked to deal with any aspect
of the application. If the Commission followed
this route, Gittenberger's work would not have
been `in vain' (see BZN 57:
167) as it was necessary to submit this complex
and seemingly controversial case in order to
achieve nomenclatural stability, whichever way
the ruling may eventually go.
I admit that Trichia Hartmann
is an often used name for a group of common land
snails. However, its use has not been established
for very long, as Holthuis has correctly pointed
out. The synonymy of Trichia Hartmann, Trochulus Alten,
1812 and Erethismus Gistel, 1848 is
well known in the literature (see, for example,
Zilch, 1960). In my own records I have used all
three names, depending on changing assessments
of the nomenclatural situation. The preservation
of the principle of homonymy, in addition to
priority, should be more important than the convenience
of malacologists, who continuously experience
other name changes for taxonomic reasons.
The homonymy of the family-group names
TRICHIIDAE Fries, 1821 (published as Trichocisti;
type genus Trichia von Haller, 1768,
Myxomycetes) and TRICHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (type
genus Trichius Fabricius, 1775, Coleoptera)
should be addressed, as Gittenberger et al. (BZN
57: 166-167) have already noted. Both
names are in frequent use. I recommend that the
Commission rule that the stem of the coleopteran
family be TRICHIUS-, giving the family name 'TRICHIUSIDAE.
(2) F.-T. Krell
Department of Entomology, The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London S W7 SBD, U.
K.
I strongly
support the application by Gittenberger (published
in BZN 57: 17-23, March 2000),
and in particular the conservation of the scarab
beetle family name TRICHIIDAE Fleming, 1821 (usually
cited as the subfamily TRICHIINAE or tribe TRICHIINI
in the family SCARABAEIDAE) by disregarding the
slime mould names Trichia von Haller,
1768 and TRICHIIDAE Fries, 1821 for the purposes
of homonymy in zoological nomenclature.
Adam (1994, p. 10) attributed the scarab
family-group name TRICHIINAE to Gmelin (1790)
but, in fact, Fleming (1821) was the first author
to use a family-group name derived from the genus Trichius Fabricius,
1775. Gmelin (1790, p. 1583) and later Latreille
(1802, p. 154) used the plural form of Trichius,
`Trichii', to unite a subgroup of the genus Scarabaeus Linnaeus
and of the genus Cetonia Fabricius respectively.
Under Article 11.7.1.2 of the Code `Trichii'
is not an available family-group name.
The family-group names TRICHIIDAE Fleming,
1821 (Coleoptera) and 'Trichocisti' Fries, 1821
(Myxomycetes) have been recorded as published
in the same year (paras. 9 and 10 of the application).
However, Fries was not the original author of
the name. He cited Nees von Esenbeck who introduced
`Trichocisti' on p. 110 of his Ueberblick
des Systems der Pilze und der Schwdmme in
1816. If the names are treated as homonyms under
the zoological Code, TRICHIINAE Fleming, 1821
(Coleoptera) is junior to Trichiaceae (or TRICHIIDAE)
Nees von Esenbeck, 1816 (Myxomycetes).
The crucial point in Prof Holthuis's contribution
(BZN 57: 109) is that he would
bring slime mould names into homonymy with zoological
names. Holthuis, followed by Rosenberg (BZN
57: 225), called the Myxomycetes an
`ambiregnal group of organisms'. He adopted this
term from Corliss (BZN 52: 11-17).
Originally Patterson (1986, p. 87) created it
in combination with the word taxonomy as a descriptive
term for a practical procedure: `ambiregnal taxonomy'
treats `taxa that fall under the jurisdiction
of more than one code of nomenclature'. Then
Corliss declared the organisms themselves to
be ambiregnal (`the ambiregnal protists').
Current phylogenetical analyses of the
basal evolution of living organisms clearly show
that the slime moulds in the traditional sense
are probably polyphyletic and that the taxa formerly
subsumed under the slime moulds (see Bresinsky,
1983, pp. 630ff; Lim, 1998, p. 369) do not form
part of the Animalia, the Plantae or the Fungi
(see Schlegel, 1994; Sogin et al., 1996; Baldauf & Doolittle,
1997; Baldauf, 1999). This distinctness is widely
accepted in common text books (see Madigan et
al., 1997, p. 778; Lim, 1998, p. 312). However,
slime moulds are often still included in a paraphyletic
`regnum Protista' or a `kingdom Protozoa' (possibly
making it polyphyletic; see Baldauf, 1999) for
practical or traditional reasons or because the
authors are simply ignorant or agnostic (see
Cavalier-Smith, 1998) to the classificatory consequences
of phylogenetic evidence.
There is no clear scientific reason for
treating the slime moulds as either `animals'
or `plants'. To minimize nomenclatural confusion
and to maximize nomenclatural stability I strongly
suggest that research traditions are followed
in each case in deciding under which Code or
Codes the nomenclature of such a group should
fall.
The `slime moulds' are already explicitly
covered by the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) (see Greuter
et al., 2000, p. 2).
There is a long argument between zoological
and botanical textbook writers as to which domain
the slime moulds belong. As a result they are
generally included in both although there is
some bias for botanical publications. There are
zoology textbooks from which the slime moulds
are explicitly excluded (see, for example, Grasse
et al., 1970, p. 40: `Nous ne traiterons pas
des Mycetozoaires (ou Mycomycetes) qui, en depit
de leurs affinites animales, sont reserves aux
Botanistes'), but I have seen no botany textbook
from which this group is missing. As Rosenberg
has indicated (BZN 57: 225-226),
many myxomycete names are included in S.A. Neave's Nomenclator
Zoologicus and in Zoological Record.
In this particular case, primary research publications
must be consulted to decide how to minimize nomenclatural
confusion: has the slime mould genus Trichia von
Haller, 1768 and family-group name TRICHIIDAE
(or Trichiaceae) Nees von Esenbeck, 1816 been
claimed by both mycologists and (proto)zoologists
as Holthuis stated?
A search of the literature cited by BIOSIS
Previews (Biological Abstracts 1970
- present) gave the following results: 167 papers
using the name Trichia were found, 93
of them on the slime mould genus, 71 on the snail
genus and three on the crab genus. Of the 93
slime mould papers, 27 were published in botanical
journals, 31 in mycological journals, 33 in general
journals, one in a microbiological journal, and
only one paper has been published in a `protozoological'
journal (Demaree & Kowalski, 1975) although
even here the authors used botanical nomenclature
(Trichiaceae). None of these papers has been
published in a zoological journal. Addresses
of 65 of the authors of the 93 papers were given;
of these, 35 authors came from botanical departments,
one from a medical mycological department, one
from a microbiological department, and 28 from
general biological departments or from private
addresses. No paper emerged from a zoological
institution.
There is no doubt that the taxonomy and
systematics of the Trichiaceae and slime moulds
in general are traditionally studied by mycologists
(para. 10 of the application). Mycology has traditionally
been, and will be, studied in botany departments,
although the fungi no longer belong to the plants
(and the slime moulds no longer belong to the
fungi). In this particular case, to treat the
Trichiaceae under the jurisdiction of the zoological
Code would be a novel and confusing experience
for all taxonomists working on this group (Blackwell &
Powell, 1999, p. 409, for example, noted that
`slime molds ... traditionally viewed as Fungi
but now known to be Protozoa ... are still treated
nomenclaturally by the botanical Code'). I contend
that the nomenclatural changes because of `homonymy'
between myxomycete and zo¬ological names,
set out by Rosenberg (BZN 57:
226), were in response to a theoretical, rather
than an actual, problem and probably created
much greater difficulties.
Thus, the formal assignment of artificially
defined groups like `Protista' to any one of
the nomenclatural Codes (Cavalier-Smith, 1998,
p. 203) has no scientific basis and no justification
by common usage. If the slime moulds are treated
as being under the aegis of the zoological Code,
traditionally botanical names would interfere
with zoological ones causing much confusion and
instability, as already noted by Gittenberger
(BZN 57: 226). Trichia von
Haller, 1768 and the family-group name Trichiaceae
(or TRICHIIDAE) Nees von Esenbeck, 1816 are not
to be considered zoological names.
Additional
references
Adfim, L. 1994. A
check-list of the Hungarian Scarabaeoidea
with the description of ten new taxa
(Coleoptera). Folia Entomologica
Hungarica, 55:
5-17.
Baldauf, S.L. 1999.
A search for the origins of animals
and fungi: comparing and combining
molecular data. American Zoologist, 154:
S178-S188.
Baldauf, S.L. & Doolittle, W.F. 1997.
Origin and evolution of the slime molds (Mycetozoa). Proceedings
of the National Academy of Science U.S.A., 94:
12007-12012.
Blackwell, W.H. & Powell, M.J. 1999.
Reconciling Kingdoms with Codes of nomenclature: is
it necessary? Systematic Biology, 48:
406-412.
Bresinsky, A. 1983. [Niedere Pflanzen].
Pp. 531-757 in Denffer, D. von, Ziegler, H.,
Ehrendorfer, F. & Bresinsky, A., Lehrbuch der
Botanik fur Hochschulen, Ed. 32. Fischer, Stuttgart.
Cavalier-Smith, T. 1998. A revised
six-kingdom system of life. Biological Reviews
of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 73:
203-266.
Demaree, R.S. & Kowalski, D.T. 1975.
Fine structure of five species of Myxomycetes with
clustered spores. Journal of Protozoology, 22:
85-88.
Gmelin, J.F. 1790. Caroli a Linne
Systema Naturae, Ed. 13, vol. 1, part 4. Pp. 1517-2224.
Lipsiae.
Grasse, P: P., Poisson, R.A. & Tuzet, O. 1970. Precis
de zoologie, vol. 1 (Invertebres). 936 pp. Masson,
Paris.
Greuter, W., McNeill, J., Barrie, F.R., Burdet,
H.M., Demoulin, V., Filgueiras, T.S., Nicolson, D.H.,
Silva, P.C., Skog, J.E., Trehane, P., Turland, N.J. & Hawksworth,
D.L. (Eds.). 2000. International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature (Saint Louis Code) adopted by the Sixteenth
International Botanical Congress, St Louis, Missouri,
July-August 1999. Regnum Vegetabile, vol.
138. 474 pp.
Latreille, P.A. 1802. Histoire
naturelle, generale et particuliere des crustaces et
des insectes, vol. 3. xii, 467 pp. Dufart, Paris.
Lim, D. 1998. Microbiology,
Ed. 2. xxii, 720 pp. McGraw Hill, Boston.
Madigan, M.T., Martinko, J.M. & Parker,
J. 1997. Brock. Biology of microorganisms,
Ed. 8. xviii, 986 pp. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
Nees von Esenbeck, [C.G.] 1816. Ueberblick
des Systems der Pilze und Schwdmme. xxxvi, 234
pp., 1 pl. Stahelsche Buchhandlung, Wiirzburg.
Patterson, D.J. 1986. Some problems
of ambiregnal taxonomy and a possible solution. Pp.
87-91 in Bereczky, M.C. (Ed.), Advances
in protozoological research. (Symposia Biologica
Hungarica, 33). Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
Schlegel, M. 1994. Molecular phylogeny
of eukaryotes. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 9:
330-335.
Sogin, M.L., Silberman, J.D., Hinkle, G. & Morrison,
H.G. 1996. Problems with molecular diversity
in the Eukarya. Pp. 167-184 in Roberts, D.M., Sharp,
P., Alderson, G. & Collins, M.A. (Eds.), Evolution
of microbial life. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Comment on the proposed conservation
of Hydrobia Hartmann, 1821 (Mollusca,
Gastropoda) and Cyclostoma acutum Draparnaud,
1805 (currently Hydrobia acuta) by
the replacement of the lectotype of H.
acuta with a neotype; proposed designation
of Turbo ventrosus Montagu, 1803 as
the type species of Ventrosia Radoman,
1977; and proposed emendation of spelling of
HYDROBIINA Mulsant, 1844 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
to HYDROBIUSINA, so removing the homonymy with
HYDROBIIDAE Troschel, 1857 (Mollusca)
(Case 3087; see BZN 55:
139-145; 56: 56-63, 143-148,
187-190, 268-270)
Dietrich Kadolsky
`The Limes', 66 Heathhurst Road, Sanderstead,
South Croydon CR2 OBA, UK.
In addition
to my support and previous comments on this application,
which were published in BZN 56:
62-63 (March 1999), I should like to make the
following observations.
In their application, Giusti et al. (BZN
55: 139-145, September 1998) claimed
incorrectly that Turbo ventrosus Montagu,
1803 `was proposed in synonymy', as Boeters et
al. (BZN 56: 59) have subsequently
pointed out. However, neither these groups of
authors nor any other commentator has described
or commented on the circumstances surrounding
the introduction of the name.
Montagu (1803, pp. 317-318, pl. 12, fig.
13) described and figured the nominal taxon Turbo
ventrosus on the basis of his own material,
from which Bank, Butot & Gittenberger (1979)
selected a lectotype (para. 6 of the application).
However, Montagu included as a synonym the nominal
species Turbo eburneus Jacob in Adams & Kanmacher,
1798 (p. 637, pl. 14, fig. 15). In his comments,
Montagu made clear that he thought eburneus (=
ivory-like) was an inappropriate name: `This
shell retains the greater part of its black colour
when preserved with the animal in; but dead specimens
are opaque white, as Mr Walker describes it;
and it was probably the only state in which Mr
Jacobs had ever seen it, by giving it the name
of eburneus (as Mr Adams informs us)'.
Thus, T. ventrosus was introduced as
a replacement name for T. eburneus,
and consequently the name-bearing type of T.
ventrosus is the type of T. eburneus (Article
72.7 of the Code). As Montagu's syntypes in the
Natural History Museum, London, were not part
of the type material of T. eburneus,
Bank et al.'s (1979) lectotype designation for T.
ventrosus is invalid and confirmation of
the designation is required under the plenary
power.
The name Turbo eburneus was published
in the posthumous second edition of G. Adams's
Essays on the microscope in Chapter 11, which
was inserted by the editor, F. Kanmacher. The
descriptions of mollusk, foraminifera and ostracod
shells in this chapter, as well as their illustrations
on pl. 14, were copied from a booklet by Boys
& Walker (1784). Binominal names were not
used in the latter and in Opinion 558 (1959)
the work was placed on the Official Index. The
binominal names were added to the publication
of G. Adams & Kanmacher by E. Jacob in 1798
(p. 633, footnote) and their authorship should
be attributed to Jacob.
The type material of Turbo eburneus is
that originally studied by Boys & Walker
(1784) and by Jacob. Jacob was acquainted with
Boys & Walker (1784, Introduction, pp. i,
ii) and he may have seen their material and/or
exchanged specimens. Some specimens studied by
Boys & Walker were donated to the Dowager
Duchess of Portland but the present location
of any of these collections is not known.
The name Turbo eburneus has been almost
completely ignored by subsequent workers. Of
the significant 19th century revisions of the
British mollusk faunas by Forbes & Hanley
(1850-1853) and Jeffreys (1862), only the former
mentioned in a supplement (1853, p. 266) the
synonymy given by Montagu (1803) as `probable'.
The name eburneus has not been used
during the last century and the application of
Article 23.9.1 is appropriate (i.e. T. ventrosus should
take precedence).
In their application, Giusti et al. (BZN
55: 139-145) requested the Commission
to use its plenary power `to set aside all previous
type fixations for the nominal genus Ventrosia Radoman,
1977 and to designate Turbo ventrosus Montagu,
1803 as the type species'. Under the 4th edition
of the Code, which came into force after the
application was published, a revising author
can resolve the problem of a misidentified type
species without recourse to the the Commission
(Article 70.3). It is my belief that Radoman
(1977) actually intended to designate T.
ventrosus as the type species of Ventrosia and
only erroneously used what he considered to be
the senior name, Helix stagnorum Gmelin,
1791. His choice of the older name was an attempt
to define this nominal taxon which up to then
was poorly understood. He did not fix a type
specimen for H. stagnorum, however,
and his species concept was legitimately overturned
by the actions of Bank et al. (1979) in designating
a neotype in such a way that the name became
applicable to a species which up to then had
not been recognized as existing in north-west
Europe. At the time of Radoman's (1977) paper, H.
stagnorum was generally considered to be
a senior synonym of T. ventrosus, based
on the statements of Dollfus (1912) who examined
shells from the type locality of H. stagnorum but
did not recognize the presence of both species
there. Consequently, it is clear from Radoman's
(1977) own synonymy and description, and the
discussion given by Bank et al. (1979) on the
effects of their neotype designation, that Radoman
misidentified H. stagnorum.
In addition to the provisions in the application,
I propose that the International Commission be
asked:
to use its plenary
power to set aside all previous fixations of
type specimen for the nominal species ventrosus Montagu,
1803, as published in the binomen Turbo ventrosus,
prior to the lectotype designation by Bank, Butot & Gittenberger
(1979).
Additional
references
Adams, G. & Kanmacher, F. 1798. Essays
on the microscope; containing a practical description
of the most improved microscopes; a general history
of insects, their transformations, peculiar habits,
and oeconomy; an account of the various species,
and singular properties, of the Hydrae and Vorticellae;
a description of three hundred and seventy nine
animalcula Second edition, with considerable
additions and improvements by Frederick Kanmacher. xvii,
[vi], 724 pp., 33 pls. London.
Boys, W. & Walker, G. 1784. Testacea
minuta rariora, nuperrime detecta in
arena littoris Sandvicensis a Gul. Boys
... Multa didit, et omnium figuras ope
microscopii ampliatas accurate delineavit
Geo. Walker. A collection of the minute
and rare shells lately discovered in
the sand of the sea shore near Sandwich
by William Boys ... Considerably augmented,
and all their figures accurately drawn
as magnified with the microscope, by
Geo. Walker. v, 25 pp., 3 pls. London.
Forbes, E. & Hanley, S. 1853. A
history of British Mollusca and their shells,
vol. 4. 301 pp., 133 pls. London.
Comment on the proposed designation
of Bupvestis nitida Rossi, 1792 (currently Anthaxia
fulgurans (Schrank, 1789)) as the type
species of Anthaxia Fschscholtz, 1829
(Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 3118; see BZN 57:
97-99, 227)
Hans Miihle
Hofangerstr. 22a, D-817535 Munchen, Germany
I strongly
support Svatopluk Bily's application to designate Buprestis
nitida Rossi, 1792 as the type species of Anthaxia Eschscholtz,
1829: acceptance of any other of the originally
included species as the type would lead to great
problems in the taxonomy and nomenclature of Anthaxia.
Comments on the proposed conservation
of the name Crotophytus vestigium Smith & Tanner,
1972 (Reptilia, Squamata)
(Case 3136; see BZN 57:
158-161)
(1) Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California 92182-4614,
U.S.A.
I write
to oppose the conservation of the name Crotophytus
vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972, a junior
subjective synonym of C. fasciolatus Mocquard,
1903. The names involved do not apply to a species
important in medicine, physiology or other biological
disciplines. The species is not rare, endangered
or threatened, so the name C. vestigium is
not entrenched in law.
Under these circumstances to conserve C.
vestigium rewards failure by its describers
to check a major publication on herpetology of
Baja California (Mocquard, 1899) and the synynomy
and comments of Schmidt (1922) and Burt (1928).
The best solution to this case is to retain the
name fasciolatus as valid while recognizing vestigium as
potentially valid should the two taxa be regarded
as distinct.
I therefore ask the Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature:
(1) to vote against the proposals in this case;
(2) to place on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology the name fasciolatus Mocquard,
1903, as published in the binomen Crotophytus
fasciolatus;
(3) to place on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology the name fasciatus Mocquard,
1899 (a junior primary homonym of Crotophytus
fasciatus Hallowell, 1853).
(2) J.A. McGuire
Division of Natural Sciences, 119 Foster
Hall, Louisiana State Unuiversity, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana 70803, U. S A.
I write
in reply to Jay Savage, who (above) has opposed
my application for the conservation of the name Crotaphytus
vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972, a junior
subjective synonym of C. fasciolatus Mocquard,
1903.
The name Crotaphytus vestigium was
used in the second edition of the Peterson Field
guide to western reptiles and amphibians (Stebbins,
1985) and in my own monographic revision of the
CROTOPHYTIDAE (McGuire, 1996), as well as in
at least 17 additional publications. The names C.
fasciatus Mocquard, 1899 and (the replacement) C.
fasciolatus, on the other hand, have been
considered as junior synonyms of Gambelia
wizlizenii (Baird & Girard, 1852) by
virtually all authors for nearly 100 years, and
they have never been used for their intended
species subsequent to their original publications.
Article 81 of the Code states that the
Commission may use its plenary power to suppress
a name if failure to do so would in its judgement
`disturb stability or universality or cause confusion'.
Although it is true that C. vestigium has
no current medicinal importance and is not a
model system in physiological studies (as noted
by Savage), it is no less true that the name
has been in use for nearly 30 years by the scientific
community and has been before thousands of amateur
and professional naturalists since the publication
of the field guide (mentioned above) in 1985.
Adoption of the name fasciolatus would
reduce taxonomic stability because the name is
completely unfamiliar to the herpetological community,
and because the name vestigium will continue
to be associated with its use in the (1985) Peterson
field guide and in the (1966) primary monographic
work on the CROTOPHYTIDAE.
The intention of the Code is to maximize
stability and promote the utility of our taxonomies
(and not to reward or punish our colleagues,
as suggested by Savage), and conservation of
the name vestigium is appropriate. Therefore
I request that the Commission suppress the name
fasciolatus in favor of vestigium, as sought
in my application.
(3) Richard
Etheridge
Department of Biology, San Diego State
University, San Diego, California 92182-4616,
U. S A.
I wish
to support the conservation of the name Crotaphytus
vestigium Smith & Tanner, 1972, a junior
subjective synonym of C. fasciolatus Mocquard,
1903, as proposed by J.A. McGuire. The species
is well known to naturalists in southern California
and throughout most of the Mexican peninsula
of Baja California. The name has been used in
numerous publications, including R.C. Stebbins'
(1985) Field guide to western reptiles and
amphibians, which has been in the hands
of students, teachers and amateur naturalists
for the past 15 years. It has also been used
in the 1995 reprint of H.M. Smith's (1946) Handbook
of lizards.
It is the function of the Code to maximize
nomenclatural stability and to minimize the effort
required for information retrieval, and the conservation
of the name Crotaphytus vestigium is
therefore appropriate. I request that the Commission
use its plenary power to approve Dr McGuire's
proposal.
Comments on the proposed designation
of neotypes for the nominal species Vespertilio
pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V.
pygmaeus Leach, 1825 (currently Pipistrellus
pipistrellus and P. pygmaeus;
Mammalia, Chiroptera)
(Case 3073; see BZN 56:
182-186; 57: 49-50, 113-116)
Gareth Jones
School of Biological Sciences, University
of Bristol, Woodland Road, Bristol, BS8 1 UG,
U.K.
Otto von
Halversen and his co-workers are pressing for
the adoption of the name Pipistrellus mediterraneus Cabrera,
1904, described from Valencia, Spain, for the
55 kHz phonic type of pipistrelle bat (BZN
57: 113-115), even though P. pygmaeus (Leach,
1825) is now being widely used.
I should like to bring to the attention
of workers the following issues.
1. There is still no definite morphological
criterion available that will unambiguously separate
the two cryptic species. The phalanx ratio cited
as being `distinctive' by Helversen et al. (BZN
57: 114, para. 3(b)) actually shows
overlap between the two species (G. Jones, unpublished).
2. Both species are found in Spain (albeit
the 55 kHz phonic type is more abundant), so
it not absolutely certain that Cabrera's (1904)
description of P. mediterraneus referred
to a 55 kHz bat (although it probably did).
3. In relation to Pipistrellus pipistrellus,
Helversen et al. (BZN 57: 114,
para. 2) noted that `Schreber's description was
based on the observations of Daubenton (1759)
who lived in Montbart in France, a region where
the 45 kHZ phonic type is much more common than
the 55 kHz one'. In fact, Schreber (1774, pp.
167-168) referred to the previous publications
of Buffon (1760) and Pennant (1771), as well
as Daubenton (1759) (para. 1 of the application),
and recorded the occurrence of the species in
Germany: (in translation) `In Germany it appears
to be scarce and it is native in local areas
and regions'.
4. The name P. pygmaeus is used
in recent and ongoing publications. These include
Haussler et al. (1999) Myotis, 37:
27-40; Braun & Haussler (1999) Carolinea, 57:
111-120; Russo &
Jones (2000) Mammalia, 64:
187-197; Parsons
& Jones (2000) Journal of Experimental
Biology, 203: 2641-2656.
The name is also being used in the new Dutch
translation of Schober & Grimmberger's A
guide to the bats of Britain and Europe (translated
by P. Lina), in the New handbook of British
mammals (edited by S. Harris), and is listed
in the Annex of Accepted Names for the European
Bat Agreement. The name P. pygmaeus has
also been used in many popular articles and
in conference abstracts.
Adoption of the name Pipistrellus mediterraneus at
this stage for the 55 kHz phonic type of pipistrelle would
create considerable confusion.
Comment on the proposed conservation
of LORISIDAE Gray, 1821 and GALAGIDAE Gray,
1825 (Mammalia, Primates) as the correct original
spellings
(Case 3004; see BZN 55:
165-168; 56: 73; 57: 51, 121-123,
228-231)
Eric Delson
Department of Anthropology, Lehman College
and the Graduate School,
City University of New York; New York Consortium
in Evolutionary Primatology; Department of
Vertebrate Paleontology, American Museum
of Natural History, New York, NY 10024, U.
S. A.
I write
in support of the proposal by Schwartz et al.
(BZN 55: 165-168, September
1998) to conserve the family-group names LORISIDAE
and GALAGIDAE as the correct original spellings,
although J.E. Gray (1821, 1825) established them
in the forms LORIDAE and GALAGONINA respectively.
The matter at issue is the stems for the genera Loris and Galago:
whether the widespread `Loris-' and `Galag-'
or Gray's `Lor-' and `Galagon-'.
Before Jenkins (1987) considered that the
stems `Lor-' and `Galagon-' and resultant family-group
spellings should be reinstated under the provisions
of the 3rd edition of the Code, almost all authors
had used the modified forms first published by
Flower & Lydekker (1891) and later popularized
by Gregory (1915). Schwartz et al.'s proposal
was supported by Yalden (BZN 56:
73) but rejected by Groves & Jenkins (BZN
57: 51), whose argument was in turn
opposed by Schwartz et al. (BZN 57:
121-122). In the latest comment on this case,
Mowbray et al. (BZN 57: 228-231)
have further responded to Groves & Jenkins
and formally raised the issue of thespellings
INDRIDAE VS. INDRIIDAE (based on the genus Indri
E. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1796), to which Groves
& Jenkins's comment briefly alluded.
Article 29.3.3 (previously 29b(ii)) of
the Code states that a generic name which is
not Greek or Latin takes the stem adopted by
the author of a new family-group name based on
that genus. However, in the 4th edition of the
Code a new provision bears strongly on this case:
Article 29.5 notes that `If a spelling of a family-group
name was not formed in accordance with Article
29.3 but is in prevailing usage, that spelling
is to be maintained, whether or not it is the
original spelling and whether or not its derivation
from the name of the type genus is in accordance
with the grammatical procedures in Articles 29.3.1
and 29.3.2'.
It is clear that had this new provision
been in effect in 1987, Jenkins would not have
made the proposal to reinstate Gray's original
spellings. Even now, as shown by Schwartz et
al. in their comment, recent authoritative works
have continued to employ the widespread emended
spellings LORISIDAE and GALAGIDAE, which are
`in prevailing usage' in the sense of Article
29.5 and the Code Glossary.
Groves & Jenkins (BZN 57:
51), standing against the Schwartz et al. proposals,
noted that the name INDRIIDAE Burnett, 1828 also
requires alteration to INDRIDAE, as originally
published. Mowbray et al. (BZN 57:
228-230) have reviewed the history of this name
in greater detail and argued for the retention
of the prevailing spelling INDRIIDAE. In fact,
Article 29.5 would apply here as well.
At least one additional primate family-group
name falls under the same provisions. Gray (1825)
named the family-group taxon Tarsina, based upon Tarsius Storr,
1780. Burnett (1828) modified this to TARSIDAE,
and it was only Gill (1872) who proposed the
spelling TARSIIDAE, which is in prevailing usage
today. Yet Jenkins (1987) employed the latter
spelling in the same volume in which she altered
LORISIDAE to LORIDAE, GALAGIDAE to GALAGONIDAE,
and INDRIIDAE to INDRIDAE. To return the question
put by Groves & Jenkins to Schwartz et al.,
why did Groves & Jenkins not question the
spelling of TARSIIDAE in addition to the other
three family-group names? Fortunately they did
not do so.
The Commission is requested to rule in
favor of the proposals put forward by Schwartz
et al. and by Mowbray et al.
Additional
reference
Gill, T. 1872. Arrangement of the families
of mammals with analytical tables. Smithsonian
Miscellaneous Collections, 11(1):
1-98.
