Comments
with the following titles were published on 27
March 2002 in Volume 59, 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 establishment of the new name LIOCHELIDAE
Fet & Bechly, 2001 (Arachnida, Scorpiones)
as a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879
(Case 3120a;
see BZN
58: 280-281)
(1) Wilson R. Lourenço
Laboratoire de Zoologie, Museum National d'Histoire
Naturelle, 61 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France
I should
like to express my support for the establishment
by Fet & Bechly of the new scorpion family name
LIOCHELIDAE as a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon;
1879. This avoids any need for the undesirable emendment
of the very widely used damselfly name ISCHNURINAE
Fraser, 1957 (Odonata) to avoid homonymy.
(2) Frantisek Kovarik
P.O. Box 27, CZ-145 01 Praha 45, Czech Republic
I fully agree
with the revised proposal of Fet & Bechly, that
is the introdul the scorpion name LIOCHELIDAE, which
is based on the valid generic name Liocheles, as
a substitute for ISCHNURIDAE Simon, 1879.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name
of Hydroporus discretus Fairmaire & Brisout
in Fairmaire, 1859 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3147; see BZN
58: 105-107, 305)
G.N. Foster
The Balfour-Browne Club, 3 Eglinton Terrace,
Ayr KA7 1JJ, Scotland
I write in
support of Hans Fery’s proposal that the name Hydroporus
discretus Fairmaire & Brisout, 1859 be conserved
by the suppression of H. neuter Fairmaire & Laboulbène,
1854. Dr Fery is correct in stating that the name
discretus has been in continuous use for over a century,
and that neuter has not been used except
by Ádám (1996).
One purpose of the Code is to achieve stability, and I believe that coleopterists
have travelled a long way in the last decade in achieving an agreed and Code-compliant
European checklist. This is essential if we are to accomplish some ecological
and wildlife objectives without bewildering policy makers and would-be coleopterists
by introducing a plethora of name changes. Changes are, indeed, taking place
on the basis of improved knowledge of the evolution of the group, as revealed
by DNA markers. The danger is that these important changes, which are potentially
confusing in themselves, will be brought into disrepute by being associated
with some rather mischievous changes created by a worker not in touch with
the overriding needs for nomenclatural stability and systematic rigour.
Comments
on the proposed precedence of NYMPHULINAE Duponchel,
1845 over ACENTROPINAE Stephens, 1835 (Insecta,
Lepidoptera)
(Case
3048; see BZN 56: 31-33; 57:
46-48; 58: 305-306)
(1) David L. Wagner
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, U-Box 43, University
of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043,
U.S.A.
I am writing
in support of Dr Alma Solis’s application for
the conservation of the subfamily name NYMPHULINAE.
The subfamily is a well known group of microlepidoptera
and the name has universal meaning among New World
lepidopterists. I have not heard mention of the name
ACENTROPINAE in my 20 years as a professional lepidopterist.
The name NYMPHULINAE has been in universal use on the American continent,
and every collection in North America has been curated using it. Obviously
there is much literature, many databases and collection inventories that would
be affected by a change of name. Given the greater emphasis on stability in
the new Code (4th Edition) there is ample justification to conserve the junior
name.
(2) K. Maes
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, National Museums
of Kenya, Box 40658, Nairobi, Kenya
Although the
name ACENTROPINAE is older than NYMPHULINAE, the
latter has been widely in use. David Agassiz has
already stated (BZN 58: 306) that
the name NYMPHULINAE has been widely used in the
Americas, Asia and Australasia. At present I am finalizing
a checklist of the CRAMBIDAE of the Afrotropical
region. There is no publication dealing with the
Afrotropical fauna in which the name ACENTROPINAE
is used and I am sure that a change to this name
would cause confusion among non-taxonomists, an argument
that is correctly put forward by Prof D. Janzen (comment
(4) below).
As a taxonomist I feel that we should provide stability in nomenclature,
something that can easily be maintained in this case by a simple ruling. I
therefore support Dr Solis's application for the conservation of the family-group
name NYMPHULINAE by giving it precedence over ACENTROPINAE.
(3) John B. Heppner
Florida State Collection of Arthropods, Florida Department
of Agriculture and Consumer Services, P.O. Box
147100, Gainesville, Florida 32614, U.S.A. and
Department of Entomology and Nematology, University
of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.
I completely
agree with the proposal to conserve the family-group
name NYMPHULINAE. Comments by other supporters, noting
that only Drs Speidel and Mey have recently used
the name ACENTROPINAE, clearly point out that general
usage throughout the world and over many years is
with the name NYMPHULINAE. The new Code (1999) clearly
specifies that long-used family-group names should
not be overturned for older names that have not been
in prevailing use.
There is a fashion, particularly among specialists in Europe, to find
long unused names and to adopt them because they have ‘priority’.
The name NYMPHULINAE has been in use since before 1900 and all our recent literature
(except for papers by Speidel and Mey) uses this name. Thus, the Commission
should ratify usage and conserve the name NYMPHULINAE.
(4) Daniel H. Janzen
Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, U.S.A.
A decision
to abandon the name NYMPHULINAE in favor of ACENTROPINAE,
no matter how ‘correct’
in terms of date priority, would be tragic for the
user community, of which I am one. I am an ecologist,
conservationist and biodiversity biologist who works
primarily in Costa Rica. The nymphulines are common,
prominent and well known moths. I can name more than
75 biologists in Costa Rica who can identify the
group by sight and know them as nymphulines, people
who have called them that ever since I began to teach
them that name in the late 1970s. This was then reinforced
by the efforts made by Alma Solis and Jenny Phillips
in the 1990s to sort out the taxonomy of the group
in Costa Rica to species level and to produce an
inventory.
Entomologists and entomologically-related people in Brazil, Venezuela,
Panama, Guatemala and Mexico are also fully aware of the group. I feel sure
that, even if a name change were adopted, a whole generation of people involved
with the moths as living animals will go on calling them nymphulines, both
in conversation and in literature.
(5) Bernard Landry
Muséum d'histoire naturelle de Genève,
C.P. 6434, CH-1211 Genève 6, Switzerland
I support
the proposal to give precedence to the name NYMPHULINAE
over ACENTROPINAE. The reason of priority given by
Speidel and Mey in their comment (BZN 57:
46-48) opposing this application is valid. However,
in view of the strong discrepancy in numbers of genera
and species in the NYMPHULINAE before they were synonymized
with the ACENTROPINAE (by inclusion of the single
species Acentria ephemerella Denis & Schiffermüller,
1775), I believe that the name NYMPHULINAE should
take precedence.
Now that we are faced with a choice of names, that which is least damaging
with regard to the published works relating to this group, especially in fields
outside taxonomy, should prevail. By making the application Dr. Solis has taken
a legitimate step to enhance the stability and ease of use of the classification.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of the specific
names of Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski,
1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson,
1879 (Bryozoa)
(Case
3160; see BZN
58: 215-219)
(1) Nits SpJeldnaes
Department of Geology, University of Oslo,
P.O. Box 1047, Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway
I have discussed
at length with the authors the nomenclatural problems
involved in this submission about Diplotrypa Nicholson,
1879, but we do not agree; I therefore submit my
differing views on the subject.
1. The genus Diplotrypa was
established (as a subgenus of Monticulipora)
by Nicholson (1879). He gave a more detailed description
in (1881). He made Favosites petropolitana Pander
(1830) the type species; his description is not based
on topotype material, but on material from the Upper
Ordovician of Sweden, given to him by Professor G.
Lindstrom. As indicated by the name, the original
type material (which is now lost) of petropolitana came
from the St Petersburg area in Russia. Dybowski (1877)
redescribed petropolitana Pander based on
topotype material. His version of the species is
entirely different from that of Nicholson. In modern
terminology, they do not even belong in the same
suborder.
2. Nicholson in
his 1881 book refused to accept the validity of Dybowski's
redescription of Favosites petropolitana,
even though he knew about both Steinmann's criticism
(1881, p. 22) and the Rules (then of palaeontological
nomenclature).
3. Nicholson's
books (1879, 1881) had represented a great progress
in the methodology in describing Early Palaeozoic
bryozoans, and the result was that the dominating
American scientists in the field (Ulrich and Bassler)
accepted not only his methods but also his questionable
nomenclature.
4. In Europe Dybowski's
solution was partly accepted, and a species called petropolitana was
referred to Diplotrypa (following Nicholson)
and Dianulites (as suggested by Dybowski).
5. The issue is
complicated by the fact that Nicholson earlier (1876,
p. 86, pl. V, fig. 6) and in the second edition of
his Manual of Palaeontology (1879, vol.
1, p. 202, fig. 90) described and illustrated (from
thin sections) `Chaetetes petropolitanus Pander'.
In both cases the bryozoan is widely different from
his Swedish material (in Nicholson 1879 and 1881),
but evidently belonging to the genus Prasopora Nicholson
& Etheridge (1877). None of these descriptions
(and others where petropolitanus is mixed
up with whiteavesi Nicholson 1881), are
from topotype material.
6. The suggestion
(first put forward by Bassler in 1911; see para.
6 of the application) to accept two petropolitana species
- Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson, 1879
and Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski, 1877
- is, in my opinion not appropriate since it would
accept Nicholson's breach of the Rules, and would
follow not the first, but the second (or third) of
his versions of petropolitana.
7. Dybowski referred
his taxon to the genus Dianulites Eichwald.
The type species of this genus, D. fastigiatus,
has recently been redescribed by Taylor &
Wilson (1999). It is rather different from the widespread
group of hemispherical bryozoans with the same microstructure
as Dybowski's version of petropolitana,
which will lack a generic name if Nicholson's version
is accepted.
8. It should be
noted that Dybowski's methods were as advanced as
Nicholson's. They both used thin sections but Nicholson's
morphological terminology was later generally accepted.
Dybowski's opinion on petropolitana was
probably the accepted one in the Baltic Region.
9. Lonsdale (in
Murchison, 1845) described and figured Chaetetes
petropolitanus from the St Petersburg Region.
The figured thin section, preserved in The Natural
History Museum, London, belongs to the same group,
or perhaps even the same species, as that described
by Dybowski.
10. If Diplotrypa is
accepted with Nicholson's 1879 and 1881 definition,
based on the Swedish material, this will raise another
nomenclatural problem. I have studied Nicholson's
original thin sections, together with extensive material
of similar hemispherical bryozoans from the Balto-Scandic
Region, and the types definitively belong in the
family HALLOPORIDAE. Hall (1851) named a genus Calopora but,
because of homonymy, it was renamed Hallopora by
Bassler (1911). Diplotrypa, if defined according
to Nicholson (1879 and 1881), will have priority
over both Hallopora and a number of genera
of Ordovician halloporids. Since Nicholson's types
- like many hemispherical bryozoans - lack most of
the distinctive characters for determining both genus
and species, the correct placement will depend on
finding new and better preserved material. This may
easily lead to rejection of Hallopora, one
of the commonly used generic names of Ordovician
halloporids.
11. In my opinion,
the optimal solution will be to follow the Code strictly,
accepting Dybowski's (and Lonsdale's) interpretation
of petropolitana Pander, and reserving the
name Diplotrypa for this group. The material
falling under Nicholson's interpretation can easily
be accommodated in the genus Panderpora Bassler,
1953, with the type species dybowskii Bassler,
1911, which in my opinion is a subjective synonym
of Diplotrypa in the sense of Nicholson
(1879).
Additional
references
Hall, J. 1851. New Genera of Fossil Corals. American
Journal of Science and Arts, (2)11:
398-401.
Lonsdale, W. 1845. Description of some characteristic
Palaeozoic corals from Russia. In Murchison, Verneuil
& Keyserling, Geology of Russia in Europe and
the Ural Mountains, 1: 591-634.
Nicholson, H.A. 1876. Notes on the Palaeozoic
Corals of the State of Ohio. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (4)18: 85-95.
Nicholson, H.A. 1879. A manual of palaeontology,
Ed. 2. 511, 531 pp. Blackwood, Edinburgh and London.
Nicholson, H.A. & Etheridge, R. 1877. On Prasopora
grayae, a new genus and species of Silurian corals. Annals
and Magazine of Natural History, (4)20: 388-392.
Steinmann, G. 1882. Referat von: Nicholson, H.A.
1881. Neues Jahrbuch fur Geologic, Mineralogie und Palaeontologie, 1882:
314-319.
Taylor, P.D. & Wilson, M.A. 1999. Dianulites Eichwald
1829: an unusual Ordovician bryozoan with a high-magnesium calcite
skeleton. Journal of Paleontology, 73:
38-48.
(2) Patrick N.
Wyse Jackson
Department of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin
2, Ireland
Caroline J. Buttler
Department of Geology, National Museums and
Galleries of Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff CFIO
3NP, Wales, U. K
Marcus M. Key, Jr.
Department of Geology, Dickinson College, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013-2896, U.S.A.
We welcome
this opportunity to comment on some of the points
(above) made by Prof Nils Spjeldnaes who we feel
has misunderstood the reason for our application
in the first place.
In our application we have simply asked the Commission to set aside the
authorship of the specific name petropolitana Pander, 1830, which
had been used subsequently as the specific name for two very different bryozoan
taxa in the genera Dianulites and Diplotrypa, and to conserve
the names and authorship of these specific concepts which are in line with
20th century conceptual usage. This is particularly important given that Diplotrypa
petropolitana, in the taxonomic sense of Nicholson type species of Diplotrypa.
As it is uncertain what species Pander (1830) originally described, our request
has been made in order to avoid potential future confusion over the issue.
Below we address some of the comments made by Spjeldnaes which we feel
require clarification:
In 1877 Dybowski in describing some hemispherical bryozoans from the
Baltic region used the name Dianulites petropolitana (Pander, 1830)
for one such taxon. He provided a good description based on internal and external
features and illustrated the major characteristics of the taxon. It is asserted
by Spjeldnaes that Dybowski had priority over the name petropolitana (Pander,
1830) by virtue of his revision and that Nicholson in 1879 when he erected
the genus Diplotrypa chose to ignore this. There is no evidence to
suggest that Nicholson knew of Dybowski's publication when he published his
book two years later. In any case, priority is not applicable in this case
as Pander's (1830) name was used by both authors for two quite distinct bryozoan
taxa. Neither had any idea of the true attribution of Pander's species as his
descriptions are of external colony morphology only and none of the characteristic
internal features were originally described or illustrated.
Subsequently Nicholson (1881) acknowledged Dybowski's work but still
regarded his 1879 concept of petropolitana to be valid. Although Nicholson
in earlier works (1874, 1875a, b, c, 1876) used the name petropolitana with Chaetetes he
later (1881) regarded this as belonging to his species Diplotrypa whiteavesii Nicholson,
1879. At that time there was a great deal of confusion regarding the correct
identity of many Lower Palaeozoic hemispherical bryozoans. It is the concept
of the name as applied by Nicholson in 1879 as the type of Diplotrypa that
is critical, not earlier misapplications of a specific name.
Spjeldnaes points out that many species presently in Dianulites do not
resemble the turbinate-shaped type species D. fastigiatus. This is
certainly true, but his assertion that they will lack a generic name if Nicholson's
concept of petropolitana is accepted is not correct, as two distinct
taxa are being confused. Nicholson's concept of petropolitana was
never allied to Dianulites. It is possible that all non-turbinate Dianulites species
may need to be accommodated in a new genus. Spjeldnaes's comments on methodologies
are not relevant to this case. Reference is made to Lonsdale's (in Murchison,
1845) description of Chaetetes petropolitanus. We have examined this
specimen in The Natural History Museum, London and it is referable to Dianulites.
It has no bearing on our application.
Spjeldnaes is concerned that nomenclatural problems will arise with regard
to the family HALLOPORIDAE Bassler, 1911, if Nicholson's definition of Diplotrypa is
accepted. We can only assume that he believes that Diplotrypa becomes
the type genus of the family by virtue of being the earliest described genus
contained within it. This is not the case. The genus Diplotrypa as
erected by Nicholson is certainly valid and conceptually sound. The type genus
of the family HALLOPORIDAE is Hallopora Bassler, 1911 (= Calopora),
and not the older genus Diplotrypa. Revision of the authorship of
the type species of Diplotrypa from Pander, 1830 to Nicholson, 1879
does not affect this issue at all.
In coming to his conclusions Spjeldnaes acknowledges that Dybowski's
and Nicholson's concepts of the species they described are entirely different.
We quite agree and our application hinges on this.
Spjeldnaes has proposed the rejection of Nicholson's name (and concept)
of the species petropolitana and the adoption of Dybowski's name (and
therefore concept) of petropolitana as type species for Diplotrypa Nicholson,
1879. Such a course of action would be incorrect and invalid, as Dybowski's
concept of petropolitana is different from that of Nicholson, and
does not belong in Diplotrypa, but rather in Dianulites.
Indeed, this action would lead to the disappearance of Diplotrypa Nicholson,
1879, which (contrary to its description) would become a junior synonym of Dianulites Eichwald,
1829, and would (as documented in para. 6 of our application) be contrary to
the usage of names throughout the 20th century. In our original application
we have asked that Pander's authorship of the name be set aside, and that authorship
of the type species of Diplotrypa be attributed to Nicholson, 1879;
this preserves the usage of Diplotrypa and its type species.
Additional
references
Nicholson, H.A. 1874. Descriptions of some
species of Chaetetes from the Lower Silurian
rocks of North America. Quarterly Journal of
the Geological Society of London, 30:
499-515.
Nicholson, H.A. 1875a. Report upon the palaeontology
of the province of Ontario. Hunter, Rose
& Co., Toronto.
Nicholson, H.A. 1875b. On some massive forms
of Chaetetes, from the Lower Silurian. Geological
Magazine, (2)2: 175-177.
Nicholson, H.A. 1875c. Description of the corals
of the Silurian and Devonian systems. Palaeontology
of Ohio, vol. 2, part 2 (Palaeontology), pp. 181-242.
Nicholson, H.A. 1876. Notes on the Palaeozoic
corals of the state of Ohio. Annals and Magazine of Natural
History, (4)18: 85-95.
(3) Support for
the conservation of the names Dianulites petropolitana Dybowski,
1877 and Diplotrypa petropolitana Nicholson,
1879 has been received from Professor Roger J. Cuffey
(Department of Geoscience, 412 Deike Building,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
16802, U. S A. ).
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name
of Leptodactylus chaquensis Cei, 1950
(Amphibia, Anura)
(Case
3172; see BZN
58: 116-118)
W. Ronald Heyer
Amphibians and Reptiles, MRC 162, National
Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington, D.C. 20560-1062, U.S.A.
Ulisses Caramaschi
Departamento de Vertebrados, Museu Nacional
/ UFRJ, Quinta da Boa Vista, 20940-040 Rio de Janeiro,
RJ, Brazil
We are studying
the systematics of the complex of frogs associated
with the name Leptodactylus ocellatus, which
includes the species known as L. chaquensis Cei,
1950. One of us (W.R.H.) has assembled a bibliography
of Leptodactylus. This is sufficient to
support Cei's statement in his application that the
name L. chaquensis has been used very extensively
for the species (there are at least 156 citations
of the name), and the species is commonly used as
a laboratory animal (54 of the 156 references). In
contrast, the name typica (or typicus)
has never been used for the species since 1950.
We support the application.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of the specific name Euphryne
obesus Baird, 1859 over that of Sauromalus
ater Duméril, 1856. (Reptilia, Squamata)
(Case
3143; see BZN
58: 37-40, 229, 307-308)
Roy W. McDiarmid
(USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National
Museum of Natural History, Washington, D. C. 20560-0111,
U. S. A.), Kevin de Queiroz (National Museum
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C. 20560-0162), Kent Beaman (Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California
90007-4057), Brian Crother (Southeastern
Louisiana University, Hammond, Louisiana 70402-0736),
Richard Etheridge (San Diego State University,
San Diego, California 92182-4614), Oscar Flores-Villela
(Museo de Zoología, Facultad de Ciencias,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
México Distrito Federal 04510, Mexico),
Darrel Frost (American Museum of Natural History,
Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, N.Y.
10024-5192), L. Lee Grismer (La Sierra University,
4700 Pierce Street, Riverside, California 92515-8247),
Bradford D. Hollingsworth (San Diego Natural
History Museum, P.O. Box 121390, San Diego, California
92112), Maureen Kearney (Field Museum of
Natural History, Chicago, Illinois 60605-2496),
Jimmy A. McGuire (Museum of Natural Science,
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, Louisiana
70803-3216), John Wright (Natural History
Museum of Los Angeles County, Los Angeles, California
90007-4057), George Zug (National Museum
of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington,
D.C. 20560-0162)
We write
to oppose the proposal by Montanucci et al. to give
precedence to the specific name of Euphryne obesus Baird,
1859 over Sauromalus ater Duméril,
1856. In our view this proposal runs counter to promoting
stability and universality in nomenclature.
The proposal is based on two issues: first, uncertainty regarding the
type locality of Sauromalus ater, and second, a greater number of
papers using the name obesus than the name ater.
The uncertain type locality of Sauromalus ater is irrelevant
to the precedence of the name ater relative to the name obesus, uncertainty
about a type locality is not usually considered sufficient reason for granting
precedence to a junior synonym, provided that the synonymy can be established
based on characters of the type specimen.
Sauromalus ater is the type species of the genus Sauromalus,
and ater has been in use as a valid name longer than any other specific name
in combination with Sauromalus. Moreover, following Bocourt's (1870)
and Coues's (1875) treatments of Euphryne obesus as a junior synonym
of Sauromalus ater, ater was the name used for all the populations
of chuckwalla lizards affected by the proposal of Montanucci et al. in several
important papers published prior to 1923 (Cope, 1875, 1900; Yarrow, 1882; Stejneger,
1891; Stejneger
& Barbour, 1917; Van Denburgh, 1922). The names Sauromalus
ater and S. obesus were applied to
different putative species by Schmidt (1922), and
both names were treated as valid in four successive
editions of the influential Check list of North
American amphibians and reptiles (Stejneger & Barbour,
1923, 1933, 1939, 1943), Shaw's (1945) review of
the genus, and several subsequently published works
not restricted to the fauna of the United States
(Smith
& Taylor, 1950; Etheridge, 1982; Flores-Villela,
1993; Liner, 1994; de Queiroz, 1995). In a more
recent review of the genus, Hollingsworth (1998)
treated the names Sauromalus ater and S.
obesus as synonyms and, following the Principle
of Priority, used S. ater as the valid
name of the taxon, as did Crother et al. (2000).
Thus, the senior name S. ater has been
in continuous use since it was first published in
1856 while, prior to the proposal by Hollingsworth
(1998), the junior name obesus had been
in continuous use only since 1922.
Papers using the name obesus are indeed more abundant than those
using the name ater (para. 6 of the application), but this discrepancy
reflects the large number of papers published on taxa occurring in the United
States. The source of data used by Montanucci et al. (para. 6) is an extensive
bibliography of 626 references on lizards of the genus Sauromalus (Beaman
et al., 1997). Montanucci et al. point out that over 100 papers dealing with
the distribution of chuckwallas used the name S. obesus. However,
97 of the 168 papers (58%) included in the Distribution category, the largest
of the many subject categories indexed in the bibliography, deal only with
populations occurring within the United States. These references, by the nature
of their geographic focus, would not be expected to use the name S. ater,
which from 1922 to 1998 was applied to populations occurring only in Mexico.
Moreover, as noted by Montanucci et al., 46 papers used the name S. ater,
and 46 is not an insignificant number.
Greater discrepancies are found for references indexed under the headings
Physiology (124 total references) and Thermoregulation (29), which report the
findings of studies that often require extensive instrumentation in laboratory
settings and consequently have relied on more accessible mainland populations
as the source of research. Populations that occur on uninhabited or sparsely
peopled islands, especially those lacking fresh water, are generally less accessible
and therefore less studied than comparable mainland populations. From 1945
to 1998 the name S. ater was applied to populations restricted to
islands in the southern part of the Gulf of California, Mexico. As independently
pointed out by the compilers of the bibliography (Beaman et al., 1997), studies
requiring large sample sizes and long-term observations, including many behavioral
and ecological studies (of which 117 were indexed in the bibliography), also
have almost exclusively focused on the more accessible populations of Sauromalus from
the U.S.A .that were then called S. obesus. None of these studies
is diminished by a change in the scientific name, nor would a name change have
any known harmful effect on the scientific community or the public.
The titles and author names in the bibliography indicate that the preponderance
of publications using the name Sauromalus obesus reflects a discrepancy
in the numbers of scientists working in the U.S.A. versus Mexico. In a cursory
examination, we recorded only 22 papers (3.5%) in the bibliography (Beaman
et al., 1997) written in Spanish by Mexican scientists. Moreover, between the
years 1922 and 1998, a time interval that accounts for 580 (93%) of the papers
in the bibliography, the name S. obesus was applied to the populations
of chuckwallas in the United States. It is not surprising, therefore, that
more has been written about chuckwallas called, until recently, S. obesus,
but this has little bearing on the appropriate scientific name for these populations.
Granting the name obesus precedence over ater on the
basis of frequency of use is questionable for several inter-related reasons.
First, it trivializes the Principle of Priority. Although any proposal to grant
a junior synonym precedence over a senior synonym sets aside priority, this
case differs from other such cases in that the senior synonym has been used
often and continuously as the valid name of a species since it was first published.
Therefore, the proposal to grant precedence to the junior synonym rests entirely
on a difference in the numbers of times the two names have been used..
Second, the proposal rests on a misapplication of the concept of stability,
by considering the names of only some of the relevant populations. Specifically,
it focuses on a change in the species name applied to some populations from obesus to ater,
while disregarding the change in the species name applied to other populations
from ater to obesus that would occur if the order of precedence of
these names were to be reversed. The reason that the precedence of these names
is at issue is a taxonomic proposal based on the conclusion that two species
formerly considered separate constitute a single species (Hollingsworth, 1998).
Such a taxonomic proposal will result in a change in the name applied to some
of the populations in question regardless of which name has precedence. This
situation contrasts sharply with those in which an older name is discovered
for what is considered a single species both before and after discovery of
that name, and in which nomenclatural stability for all populations in question
can be achieved by granting precedence to the junior synonym.
Third, and of considerable concern to us, are the consequences of using
the number of citations, rather than priority, to determine precedence in cases
involving taxonomic unification. Are we to anticipate that each time a study
proposes to unify species that occur on opposite sides of an international
border, practiced nomenclaturists in the larger and/or wealthier country will
move to set aside priority in an attempt to preserve ‘their’ name
if that name is junior but has been used in more published articles? Such actions
will constantly jeopardize nomenclatural stability, as is the case with more
than 145 years of use of the name Sauromalus ater. This practice is
not only contrary to the purpose of the Code but also gives a bad impression
to zoologists in the developing world by effectively, though unintentionally,
presenting a chauvinistic perspective that results in a form of nomenclatural
imperialism. Montanucci and his coauthors could be interpreted as arguing a
U.S.-centric view that rests on a discrepancy in the number of biologists in
the United States versus Mexico.
We are in a period of unprecedented availability of old literature. This
will allow a number of older names for well-known taxa to be found and, in
a some cases, suppressing such names or reversing their order of precedence
will be necessary. Although justification for these actions will often involve
the numbers of publications in which competing names have been used, it is
critical to distinguish between cases involving forgotten or long unused names
and those involving names that have all been in use, some more frequently than
others.
In summary, the proposal to give the specific name obesus Baird,
1859 precedence over its senior subjective synonym ater Duméril,
1856, is based on questionable reasoning and would not promote nomenclatural
stability or continuity. Accordingly, we ask that the Commission reject the
proposal.
Two of us (K. de Queiroz and R.W. McDiarmid) have formulated a proposal
that the holotype of Sauromalus ater should be set aside and that
a neotype be designated, fixing the type locality as Isla Espiritu Santo, Gulf
of California, Mexico. This was the locality to which Smith & Taylor (1950)
restricted the species (para. 2 of the application).
Additional
references
Crother, B.I., Boundy, J., Campbell, J.A., de Queiroz,
K., Frost, D.R., Highton, R., Iverson, J.B., Meylan,
P.A., Reeder, T.W., Seidel, M.E., Sites, J.W. Jr.,
Taggart, T.W., Tilley, S.G & Wake, D.B. 2000.
Scientific and standard English names of amphibians
and reptiles of North America north of Mexico, with
comments regarding confidence in our understanding. Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological
Circular, 29: 1-82.
de Queiroz, K. 1995. Checklist and key to the
extant species of Mexican iguanas (Reptilia: Iguania). Publicationes
Especiales del Museo de Zoología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma
de México, 9: 1-48.
Etheridge, R.E. 1982. Checklist of iguanine and
Malagasy iguanid lizards. Pp. 7-37 in Burghardt, G.M. & Rand,
A.S. (Eds.), Iguanas of the world. Their behavior, ecology,
and conservation. Noyes Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
Flores-Villela, O. 1993. Herpetofauna Mexicana. Carnegie
Museum of Natural History Special Publication, 17:
1-73.
Liner, E.A. 1994. Scientific and common names
for the amphibians and reptiles of Mexico in English and Spanish. Society
for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Herpetological Circular, 23:
1-113.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of usage of 15 mammal
specific names based on wild species which are
antedated by or contemporary with those based on
domestic animals
(Case
3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125,
192-200, 286-288; 54: 119-129, 189; 55:
43-46, 119-120; 56: 72-73, 280-282; 58:
231-234)
Anthea Gentry
Littlewood, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfield, Haywards
Heath, West Sussex RH17 5EB, U.K.
Juliet Clutton-Brock
Working Group on Nomenclature, International
Council of Archaeozoology, c/o Department of Zoology,
The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London
SW7 5BD, U.K.
Colin P. Groves
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology,
The Australian National University, Canberra, A.C.T.
0200, Australia
Our application
has received many comments since it was published
and is now due for a ruling by the Commission. Before
it is submitted for voting we should like to make
clear the current situation in the usage of the names
for wild species with domestic derivatives, how this
might be seen to differ from a strict interpretation
of the Code, and the consequences which would result
from approval of our proposals.
Many wild species and their domestic derivatives share the same name.
However, in a few, well known cases, the two are named separately: the wild
species and their domestic derivatives are recognisable as distinct entities
and it is usually necessary to separate them. Among these are 15 mammals in
which the name for the wild ancestor postdates or is contemporary with that
of the domestic form.
The treatment of wild and domestic forms as recognizable
and distinct biological species, as conceived by
the majority of workers, usually presents no problems
in nomenclature. However, confusion arises when,
in a minority of cases, the two forms are treated
as conspecific and the senior name (based on the
domestic form) is adopted, or when the forms are
treated as separate and the name for the domestic
form is then transferred to the wild taxon. Our application
seeks to stabilise the current majority usage of
the 15 names for wild mammal species, which are the
first available names in use based on wild populations.
Our intentions regarding the names for wild and domestic forms, both
when they are treated as separate species (two names) and when they are included
in one species (one name), have been set out by ourselves (see BZN
54: 128) and in comments by others (see, for example, Corbet in BZN
53: 193, Kitchener in BZN 53: 194, and Uerpmann in BZN
58: 233). The nomenclatural situation is no different from any other
in taxonomy but, in accord with majority usage for several years, we do not
follow priority in our use of names when the two forms are unrecognisable and
are treated as one species. In BZN 58: 234 we noted: ‘Approval
of our proposals by the Commission will merely ratify the current nomenclatural
situation: names based on wild populations will continue to be used for wild
species and will include those for domestic forms if these are considered conspecific’.
As noted above, our proposals apply to a very limited number of taxa.
Most commentors on our application have approved our proposals and there
has been considerable support from workers in zoology, archaeozoology, palaeontology,
conservation, ecology, ethology and endangered species management. There have
been a few commentors who are not in favour but this seems to be because they
have misunderstood the intention of the application: they have assumed that
we were either proposing the suppression of senior names based on domestic
forms or that two alternative names should be adopted as valid for the wild
species. As noted in BZN 54: 127-129 and above, neither assumption
is correct.
In this application we have confined our attention to the names for 15
wild ancestral species and have made no proposals for the naming of domestic
animals. Names based on domestic animals in Linnaeus (1758, 1766) and other
authors are available (Article 1.2.1 of the Code) but have not been universally
adopted; having been misapplied to the wild species by some authors they are
inevitably compromised. A number of systems, some of which are notational,
for naming domestic forms are currently in use (see para. 3 of the application).
Approval of the current application will settle part of the problem and will
allow the use of names for domestic animals to be formalised by subsequent
agreement between all those interested.
