Comments
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Helix
papillaris Müller, 1774 (currently Papillifera
papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(
Case
3319; see BZN
62:
130–133)
(1) Francisco W. Welter-Schultes
Zoologisches Institut, Berliner Str. 28, D-37073
Goettingen, Germany
I do not support
the application by Giusti & Manganelli requesting
the conservation of the name Helix papillaris Müller,
1774 and suppression of Turbo bidens Linnaeus,
1758. I think that a simple species taxon possibly being
threatened by a senior synonym alone does not justify
an application to the Commission. Helix papillaris is
not the type species of an important genus so, apart
from this single species name, nothing more is threatened.
Species names have to be replaced by older synonyms,
this is something that happens from time to time and
malacologists are used to this. Although Papillifera
papillaris is a well-known name, I could also
live with this name being changed. Both names were
used in the recent past. Nordsieck (2002, p. 36)
used the name Papillifera bidens. Dhora &Welter-Schultes
(1996, p. 136) cited both names.
At first I agreed with most points raised by
Giusti &
Manganelli (2005). Gualtieri’s (1742) pl. 4 fig.
C seems to represent a specimen of Cochlodina laminata (Montagu,
1803) or another species with reddish shell and without
white dots along the suture. Buonanni’s (1684)
section 3, fig. 41 seems to represent a specimen of Helix
papillaris Müller, 1774, or a conchologically
similar species. It is possible that the Latin words
of Linnaeus’s diagnosis did not really match
the species with the dots on the suture. Fixing a neotype
for Helix papillaris Müller, 1774 seemed
to be justified because obviously (in contrast to Giusti & Manganelli’s
initial statement) Müller’s diagnosis was
not clear enough. However, there remains material to
be discussed. To me it seems that Linnaeus (1758) had
several different species in mind. Giusti & Manganelli
ignored the point that Linnaeus himself tried to specify
what he meant when, in the 12th edition (1767, p. 1240),
he added Buonanni’s figure to the list of references
(‘Bonan. recr. 3. t. 41. Aucta.’). This suggests
that this figure also obviously matched Linnaeus’s
idea of the species or the specimens he examined. However,
the text of the description alone does not convince
me that he could not have meant P. papillaris.
Schröter (1784, p. 55) referred to Linné,
1767 (not to Linnaeus, 1758) and suspected that the citation
by Gualtieri (1742, pl. 4, fig. C) was an error and had
to be replaced by figs. D and E. In my opinion this is
a possible and justified interpretation considering that
the confusion was initiated by Linnaeus himself. As the
first reviser, Schröter intended to specify which
species Linnaeus had meant among several possible ones.
He explicitly mentioned a specimen from Firenze in
his collection.
Citing Rossmässler’s (1835) Latin malacological
dictionary, Giusti & Manganelli claimed that the
name Helix papillaris cannot be derived from
the original Latin text. I am not convinced for three
reasons. First, Rossmässler’s publication
was issued nearly 80 years after Linnaeus’s description.
We have to consider that in the meantime it had become
necessary to define and fix Latin malacological expressions
because nobody spoke Latin except a few scientists,
the language developed faster than any other language
and many terms had been unclear. Second, there are
reasons to suspect that Linnaeus did not mention the
white dots for good reasons. In old and eroded shells
the white dots are expressed much more faintly than
in fresh shells. It is also possible that Linnaeus
saw some shells with dots and some without, and did
not mention the dots because he thought this feature
was not characteristic for what he thought was one
species. And third, a possible misinterpretation of
the Latin text, particularly the expression ‘sutura
subcrenata’, would also apply to Linnaeus himself
as demonstrated in the 1767 work. If the Latin description
was clear and the words were misinterpreted by Schröter
and Falkner et al., Linnaeus is also to be added to the
list of authors who misinterpreted his own text. However,
this does not make much sense. It remained unclear what
Linnaeus really meant and Schröter had to make
a decision.
I do not think that it is useful and necessary,
at the current state of discussion, to ask the Commission
to solve the problem. The malacologists can and should
solve the problem internally. The neotype designation
by Falkner et al. (2002) for Turbo bidens is
not effective. It does not fit the condition that a neotype
must be based on a specimen deposited in a research collection
of a recognized scientific or educational institution,
cited by name (Article 75.3.7). I would recommend designating
the neotype of Helix papillaris Müller,
1774 as the neotype of Turbo bidens Linnaeus,
1758. This action would also be in accord with Schröter’s
revision because the neotype specimen is from Firenze.
No decision by the Commission is necessary. I am also
against placing a name on an Official List or Index.
I am generally opposed to the idea of an Official List,
for which I see no need. In my opinion the historical
nomenclatural system is sufficient.
Additional
references
Buonanni, F. 1684. Recreatio mentis, et
oculi in observatione Animalium Testaceorum curiosis
naturæ inspectoribus: Italico sermone primum proposita
. . . nunc denuo ab eodem Latinè
oblata, centum additis Testaceorum iconibus, circa
quæ varia problemata proponuntur. xvi, 270
[10] pp., 139 pls. Romae.
Dhora, D. & Welter-Schultes, F.W. 1996.
List of species and atlas of the non-marine molluscs of Albania. Schriften
zur Malakozoologie, 9: 90–197.
(2) Michael Hölling
Spanischer Weg 32, 44143 Dortmund, Germany
I would like to bring
to your attention the fact that Falkner, Ripken & Falkner,
(2002, pp. 112–113), in a checklist of French continental
molluscs published in the context of the CLECOM-project,
selected a neotype for Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758, thereby
stabilizing the usage of the name, which is also used
by one of the leading clausiliid specialists, Hartmut
Nordsieck (see http://www.clausilia.de/). Therefore,
I consider the proposition of Giusti & Manganelli
unnecessary.
(3) E. Gittenberger
National Museum of Natural History Naturalis / Institute
of Biology, Leiden University, P.O. 9517 RA, Leiden,
The Netherlands I would like to emphasize that I agree
with the proposals in BZN 62: 132. In my
view stability is served the best possible way by accepting
the proposals.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of usage of the name Bythinella Moquin-Tandon,
1856 (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Prosobranchia, RISSOOIDEA)
by designation of Bulimus viridis Poiret,
1801 as the type species
(Case
3321; see BZN 62:
134–139)
E. Gittenberger
National Museum of Natural History Naturalis /
Institute of Biology, Leiden University, P.O. 9517
RA, Leiden, The Netherlands
I agree
with the proposals in BZN 62: 137. In my view
stability is best served by accepting these proposals.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of TUBIFICIDAE Vejdovský,
1876 over NAIDIDAE Ehrenberg, 1828 (Annelida,
Clitellata)
(Case
3305; see BZN 62:
226–231)
Tarmo Timm
Centre for Limnology, Estonian University of Life
Sciences, 61101 Rannu, Tartumaa, Estonia
Zoological nomenclature
as a tool of systematics has two, often controversial,
main tasks: reflecting the phylogeny of the animals
and enabling biologists to easily survey taxa for any
other purpose. The phylogenetic (in principle, ideal)
system is in eternal competition with the more or less
artificial but stable and comprehensive system used
in practical research and teaching. The first one is
formally preferred; however, its orthodox application
would be simply ignored by the majority of zoologists.
The Principle of Priority, a cornerstone of zoological
nomenclature, can fall into similar controversy with
the everyday needs of zoology. In this case a decision
either for or against the proposals is likely to cause
problems.
The NAIDIDAE (now NAIDINAE) proved to be a derived
group descending from the much larger stem group TUBIFICIDAE sensu
stricto. Thus, possible nomenclatural changes
in the first group would affect considerably fewer
taxa than those in the second. This is the pragmatic
reason why I support the proposal made by Erséus,
Gustavsson and Brinkhurst.
Comment
on the proposed reinstatement of the specific name
of Sphyraena acus Lacepède, 1803
(currently Tylosurus
acus; Teleostei, BELONIDAE)
(Case
3297; see BZN 62:
232–236)
Joseph S. Nelson
Department of Biological Sciences, University of
Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada (address
for correspondence)
Hector Espinosa-Perez
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City,
D.F., Mexico
Lloyd T. Findley
CIAD-Unidad Guaymas, Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico
Carter R. Gilbert
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A.
Robert N. Lea
California Fish and Game, Monterey, California,
U.S.A.
Nicholas E. Mandrak
Great Lakes Laboratory for Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
James D. Williams
United States Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida,
U.S.A.
We, members of
the Committee on Names of Fishes, a joint committee
of the American Fisheries Society and the American
Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, support
the proposal by Collette & Parin that the Commission
use its plenary power and reinstate the specific name
of Sphyraena
acus Lacepède, 1803. We believe that
the petitioners make an excellent case for this action.
In our various
editions of Common and scientific names of fishes .
. . , our committee used the specific name as Strongylura
acus in 1960 and as Tylosurus acus in 1970,
1980, 1991 and 2004. During the preparation of the 2004
edition (Nelson et al., 2004), we were prepared to follow
Opinion 900 and accept the suppression of the name Tylosurus
acus (Lacepède, 1803) and use Tylosurus
imperialis (Rafinesque, 1810). However, given
analyses that almost all authors, both in systematic
and non-systematic literature, continue to use
the specific name acus, as earlier advocated by
Collette & Berry, 1965 (p. 391)
and with which we agree, we continued to use acus.
Present usage is compatible with the fact that
the type locality for the oldest available name, T. acus, is the
West Indies, while that for T. imperialis is
the Mediterranean Sea. Amending the ruling in Opinion
900 (1) and placing the name acus, as published
in the binomen Sphyraena acus Lacepède,
1803, on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
as proposed in BZN 62: 234 will have
the greatest stabilizing effect.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of Palamopus E.
Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?)
(Case
3348; see BZN 62:
237–239)
Spencer G. Lucas
New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science,
1801 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104–1375,
U.S.A.
I support Emma
Rainforth’s (BZN 62: 237–239)
application to conserve Palamopus Hitchcock,
1845 and suppress its senior objective synonym Sauroidichnites Hitchcock,
1837. I base my support of her application on the following
considerations: Sauroidichnites Hitchcock, 1837
is the senior objective synonym of Palamopus Hitchcock,
1845 but has not been used as a valid name after 1899,
so it is a nomen oblitum; Palamopus Hitchcock,
1845 has been used since 1899, though not in a sufficient
number of works by enough authors during the last 50
years to satisfy the conditions of Article 23.9.1.2.
Nevertheless, all of the usage since 1845 has been of
the name Palamopus. Furthermore, most workers
have considered Lull (1953) to be the standard work on
Connecticut Valley tracks, and Lull used Palamopus.
Haubold (1971), in another standard compendium, also
used Palamopus.
Rainforth (2005, pp. 356–361) reviewed
in detail the tortured ichnotaxonomic history of Palamopus and
also reviewed (pp. 436–439) the even more tortured
history of Sauroidichnites. These reviews demonstrate
that Sauroidichnites is the more problematical
name. Thus, for example, Ornithichnites palmatus is
the type species of Sauroidichnites, but most
authors have erroneously considered its type species
to be S. barrattii, which is a nomen nudum.
The name Sauroidichnites reflects Hitchcock’s
early philosophy in naming the Connecticut Valley footprints
he studied. He thought that these footprints represented
three classes of vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles
and birds) and coined an ichnogeneric name for each
class: Batrachoidichnites, Sauroidichnites and Ornithoidichnites,
respectively. Each broadly construed ichnogenus encompassed
many ichnospecies. In 1845, Hitchcock abandoned that
philosophy and coined new ichnogeneric names more similar
to the kinds of ichnogeneric names coined since. Palamopus
Hitchcock, 1845, with one ichnospecies, is such a name.
Most significantly, in 1845 Hitchcock abandoned his own
name Sauroidichnites and did not use it again.
In summary, the confused ichnotaxonomic name Sauroidichnites was
based on an antiquated and long abandoned philosophy
of ichnotaxonomy. The original author of Sauroidichnites abandoned
it in 1845 and it has not been used since. Palamopus is
a less confused ichnotaxonomic name and all 20th century
usage has been of Palamopus. Therefore, it makes
sense to suppress Sauroidichnites and conserve
the
name Palamopus.
