Comments
on the proposed conservation of Oncopus Thorell, 1876
and ONCOPODIDAE Thorell, 1876 (Arachnida, Opiliones)
(Case 3350;
BZN 63: 167–171)
(1) Gonzalo Giribet
Associate Professor of Biology and Associate Curator of Invertebrates,
Museum of Comparative Zoology Department of Organismic & Evolutionary
Biology, Harvard University, 16 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA
02138, U.S.A.
(e-mail: ggiribet@oeb.harvard.edu)
I found it strange that the names Oncopus and
ONCOPODIDAE are pre-occupied, but I concur with the authors’ view
about the inconvenience of using a new name for both taxa since
these two names are widely used in the arachnological literature.
In addition, I am one of three Editors of a book currently in press
with Harvard University Press (Harvestmen: The Biology of Opiliones)
where both Oncopus and ONCOPODIDAE are used, and it would
be bad if the names were replaced at the same time that the book
came out. It would certainly create unnecessary confusion in the
systematic community and would definitely not contribute to the
interests of nomenclatural stability.
(2) Similar letters of support for the conservation
of Oncopus and ONCOPODIDAE were received from Dr Peter
Jäger (Sektion Arachnologie, Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum
Senckenberg, Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt, Germany (e-mail:
Peter.Jaeger@Senckenberg.de)), Dr. Jürgen Gruber (Curator
of Arachnida (retired), Naturhistorisches Museum Wien, 3 Zoologische
Abteilung, Burgring 7, A-1010 Wien, Austria (e-mail: juergen.gruber@nhm-wien.ac.at))
and Pakawin Dankittipakul (TIGER Insect Museum, Queen Sirikit
Botanic Garden, P.O. Box 7, Mae Rim 50180, Chiang Mai, Thailand (e-mail:
pakawin@gmail.com)).
Comments
on the proposed fixation of the feminine gender of the genus Trachys Fabricius,
1801 (Insecta, Coleoptera) and the form of derivation of family-group
names based on Trachys (Case
3335; see BZN 63:
172–176, 273–274)
(1) Ted C. MacRae
Research Entomologist, Monsanto Company, 700 Chesterfield
Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017, U.S.A. (e-mail: ted.c.macrae@monsanto.com)
I do not support the proposed fixation
of the feminine gender of Trachys. Articles 30.1.2 through
30.1.3 of the Code give clear guidance on determining the gender
of genus-group names based on Greek words transliterated to Latin
or with a Latin or latinized suffix. The grammatically correct
treatment of the name Trachys is masculine. This fact
was first recognized many years ago, and even Bílý & Kubáň themselves
readily acknowledge such in their proposal. Additionally, neither
of the exceptions specified in Article 30.1.4 is applicable to Trachys – Fabricius
did use feminine endings for the included species but did not expressly
state that Trachys was neither formed from nor treated
as a Latin or Greek word, and, as Bílý & Kubáň have
noted, there is no clear indication that Trachys or its
stem are of common or variable gender. Thus, a masculine treatment
is clearly called for. However, instead of accepting this guidance,
Bílý & Kubáň invoke a nebulous argument
involving ‘non-standard names’ and the idiosyncrasies
of Fabricius’s nomenclatural practices in an attempt to justify
a feminine treatment. Bílý & Kubáň also
do not explain why a feminine treatment for Trachys is
preferred or why this is in the best interest of stability. They
cite a lack of uniformity in interpretation of the gender of Trachys in
the literature and the desirability to resolve the ‘problem’ ahead
of the completion of several current catalogue projects. However,
I interpret this ‘lack of uniformity’ not so much a
result of lingering disagreement over the grammatical correctness
of a masculine treatment for Trachys, but rather reflecting
the belated recognition of this fact. Most of the early literature
promulgates Fabricius’s original, albeit grammatically incorrect,
feminine treatment while a substantial volume of later literature
has adopted the more grammatically correct masculine usage.
I am unconvinced by these strained rationalizations for a
feminine treatment of Trachys. In contrast, the evidence
favoring a masculine treatment is clear (i.e. grammatical correctness
and conformity with the Code). In my opinion, stability would be
best served by maintaining a masculine treatment for Trachys. This
becomes even more evident when one considers the impact of this
question on other buprestid genus-group names ending in ‘-achys’ (e.g. Brachys, Neotrachys, Paratrachys).
For Brachys in particular, a genus that includes several
commonly encountered North American species (e.g. B. aerosus, B.
ovatus, B. tessellatus), there has been a preponderance
of masculine usage for more than 60 years. Would fixation of the
feminine gender for Trachys provide a precedent for reversing
gender in Brachys as well? Or would such precedence apply
only to genus-group names expressly derived from Trachys?
Or will the gender of any genus-group name ending in ‘-achys’ need
to be addressed individually by petition? Or are their genders
assumed to be masculine, per the Code, unless petitioned otherwise?
Such questions, should this ‘against-the-rules’ application
to treat Trachys as feminine be accepted, are sure to
arise repeatedly and would serve only to undermine uniform interpretation
of gender for these other genus-group names. Greater stability
will result if rules for transliteration from Greek to Latin are
applied properly and consistently, regardless of the extent of
any past improper application.
(2) Jacques Rifkind (Research Associate (Entomology),
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County) 5105 Morella
Avenue, Valley Village, CA 91607, U.S.A. (e-mail: Clerid@aol.com)
I am writing to recommend that the proposed
fixation of the name Trachys to the feminine gender be
rejected. Trachys is obviously a masculine name, regardless
of how it has been treated, and maintaining and standardizing it
as masculine creates no nomenclatural disruption. The modification
of suffixes to form agreement with the names of genera happens
every time a species is transferred to a genus with a different
gender. Why should this minor inconvenience force a ruling in one
case? I think it is best here to maintain a conservative approach
by adhering to the rules and allowing the linguistic facts to determine
how we treat a taxon name, rather than following arbitrary post-facto
impulses to ‘tidy things up’.
(3) Richard L. Westcott
Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, Salem,
Oregon, U.S.A.
(e-mail: rwestcot@oda.state.or.us)
I wish to comment on the proposal by Bíly & Kubáň to
fix the gender of Trachys Fabricius, 1801 as feminine.
I find their argument without merit. There is no question that Trachys is
masculine, as those authors themselves pointed out in para. 6 of
their application. Furthermore, the authors of this case point
out that ‘. . . it seems clear that there is no indication
that Trachys, or its stem, is of common or variable gender’.
Therefore, Article 30.1.4.2 of the Code has no bearing on this
case.
Rather than purporting to know what Fabricius intended 206
years ago, or
to promote ‘non-standard’ or ‘grammatically incorrect’ transliterations,
is it not more parsimonious to infer that Fabricius simply brought
across the feminine endings for his genus (Trachys) from
the feminine genus Buprestis, wherein earlier names were
included (e.g. Buprestis pygmaea L.), and made his specific
names to conform?
In the absence of being able to ascertain just what Fabricius
was thinking (not that I believe it matters in this case), let
us not promote instability by changing gender for what should be
an unambiguous Greek word. If the proposal is accepted, then what
befalls the genera Brachys (another clearly masculine
derivation), Neotrachys, Paratrachys (all BUPRESTIDAE),
and any other ‘-achys’ epithets that may exist
in zoological nomenclature?
It is a primary stated purpose of the Code to promote stability
in zoological
nomenclature. To change gender for a genus derived from a word
where the gender is not in question, is not variable and where
similarly derived genera either would not be in accordance or would
need separate proposals to overturn their genders, does just the
opposite: it promotes instability.
I strongly recommend that the Commission reject Case 3335.
(4) Petr Zabransky
Mautner Markhof-Gasse 13-15/6/23, A-1110 Wien, Austria
I support the proposal by Bílý & Kubáň to
rule that the gender of Trachys Fabricius, 1801 is feminine
and that family-group names derived from that name should be formed
by adding the appropriate ending to the name of the genus in the
nominative case.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the generic names Gnorimus Le
Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 and Osmoderma Le
Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 3349;
see BZN 63:
177–183, 274)
Brett C. Ratcliffe
Curator & Professor, Systematics Research Collections,
W436 Nebraska Hall, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68588–0514,
U.S.A.
(e-mail: bratcliffe1@unl.edu)
I wish to indicate my full support for the
arguments put forward by Krell, Ballerio, Smith and Audisio for
conserving the generic names Gnorimus and Osmoderma.
Nomenclatural stability would best be maintained by conserving
these names and would reflect the current, worldwide usage of these
names. The names recently ‘discovered’ and noted in
the literature as senior synonyms (Aleurostictus Kirby,
1827 and Gymnodus Kirby, 1827) have long been forgotten
and have not been used. They should not be resurrected.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of Cisseis Gory & Laporte
de Castelnau, 1839 and Curis Gory & Laporte de Castelnau,
1838 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 3366;
see BZN 63:
247–250)
Allen Sundholm
(e-mail: Allen.Sundholm@lands.nsw.gov.au)
I wish to add my support to Chuck Bellamy’s
proposal in Case 3366 that the names Cisseis and Curis be
conserved, on the same grounds which he has raised. I confirm that
neither of the prior names is in use.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of Curculio contractus Marsham,
1802 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 3367;
see BZN 63:
251–254)
Geoff Hancock
Curator of Entomology, Hunterian Museum (Zoology),Graham
Kerr Building,
University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, U.K.
(e-mail: g.hancock@museum.gla.ac.uk)
I would like to support the retention of
the name Curculio contractus Marsham, 1802 for the common
and widespread species that mines in the leaves of cruciferous
plants. In addition to its broad distribution it has connections
with agricultural/horticultural practices. This is the result of
feeding on the leaves of domesticated Brassica spp. and
name changes would have an additional impact on economic entomological
literature.
Any alternative names based on one of the few small and isolated
island
populations are not helpful. These are almost certainly not distinctive
species, varying only in colour and reduced wing size (see Hancock & Dyer,
2005; other data in preparation). These names include Ceutorhynchus
pallipes Crotch, 1866, C. insularis Dieckmann, 1971
and [ab.] testaceipes Dieckmann, 1971 for populations
on Lundy, St Kilda and Surtsey. In the last case particularly the
beetles’ appearance on a recently erupted volcanic island
and their likely recruitment from any neighbouring population throws
doubt on speciation processes requiring geographical isolation.
Additional reference
Hancock, E.G. & Dyer, H. 2005.
Finding Ceutorhynchus weevils (Coleoptera, Curculionidae)
again on St Kilda. The Coleopterist, 14: 39–42.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of usage of Rana ocellata Linnaeus,
1758 (Amphibia, Anura)
(Case 3323;
see BZN 63: 184–193)
Jay M. Savage
Rana Dorada Enterprises, S.A., 3401 Adams Avenue, Suite A,
San Diego,
CA 92116–2490, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net)
I write to register my support for the proposed
conservation of usage of Rana ocellata Linnaeus, 1758.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby,
1890 (currently Macrochelodina rugosa; Reptilia, Testudines)
over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841
(Case 3351;
see BZN 63: 187–193)
Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA
92182–4614, U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net)
I write in opposition to Thomson’s
proposals regarding the names of several Australian turtles. I
support the argument that action should be taken to conserve the
name Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 for a species from southwestern
Australia, a course rejected by Thomson in paragraph 12 of his
application. Conservation of the name C. oblonga, used
for the southwestern species since 1967 by most workers, could
easily be accomplished by having the Commission set aside all previous
type designations for that name and designating the lectotype (BMNH
1947.3.5.91) of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 as the neotype
of C. oblonga. This would leave Chelodina rugosa Ogilby,
1890 as the valid name for the northern Australian species known
by that name since it was removed from the synonymy of C. oblonga by
Burbridge (1974). This action would contribute to the stability
in the use of Australian turtle names as an extensive literature,
documented in the Thomson proposal, has applied the names C.
oblonga and C. rugosa to the southwestern and northern
species, respectively.
The status of the nominal genus Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington,
1985 (type: C. rugosa by action of Iverson et al., 2001)
is unaffected by the proposed action.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is
accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous designations
of type specimen for Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 and
to designate as its neotype BMNH 1947.3.5.91, the lectotype of Chelodina
colliei Gray, 1856;
(2) to approve item (2) in the Thomson proposal;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
the following names:
(a) oblonga Gray, 1841, as published in the binomen Chelodina
oblonga and as defined by the neotype as designated in (1)
above);
(b) rugosa Ogilby, 1890, as published in the binomen Chelodina
rugosa and as defined by the holotype (catalogue no. R6256
in the Australian Museum, Sydney) (type species of Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington,
1985).
