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.
