Comments on the proposed conservation of ARANEIDAE
Clerck, 1758, Araneus Clerck, 1758 and Tegenaria Latreille, 1804
(Arachnida, Araneae)
(Case 3371: see BZN 64: 15–18)
(1) Peter Jäger
Sektion Arachnologie, Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg,
Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt, Germany
(e-mail: Peter.Jaeger@Senckenberg.de)
I fully agree with the statements and proposals made in this application.
I
support the proposal, as the generic names Araneus and Tegenaria are
very widely used and any other ruling would cause terrible and
unnecessary confusion. Moreover, the solution proposed fully conforms
to the presumed intentions of the original authors.
(2) O. Kraus
Zoological Institute & Zoological Museum,
University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, D-20146 Hamburg,
Germany
(e-mail: Otto.Kraus@zoologie.uni-hamburg.de)
I strongly support N.J. Kluge’s application.
This is in conformity with current
usage. His proposals will prevent further useless digging in old
works.
(3) Herbert W. Levi
Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138–2902, U.S.A. (e-mail: levi@fas.harvard.edu)
Forty years ago I was unsuccessful finding
a designated type species for the genus Aranea and designated A.
diadema L. as type (Levi. 1971, p. 133). It was overlooked
by Kluge (Kluge, personal communication). I think this type designation
solves the hypothetical problem presented by Kluge (Case 3371).
There is no objection to having similar generic names Aranea and
Araneus, Aranea now a synonym of Araneus.
The type species of both genera are much alike. Problems of hypothetical
family names based on similar generic names have been solved in
the past.
Latreille’s type designation (and I have not checked
on this), forgotten for 200 years, could be annulled, but both
the Preamble of the Code and General Recommendations of the Code
stress stability of Nomenclature, not searching for obsolete names,
making the use of this old type designation unlikely. I do not
think that there is a nomenclatural problem.
Additional reference
Levi, H.W. 1971.
The diadematus group of the orb-weaver genus Araneus North of Mexico
(Araneae: Araneidae). Bulletin of the Museum
of Comparative Zoology,
141(4): 131–179.
(4) Nikita J. Kluge
Department of Entomology, St. Petersburg
State University, 195213 St. Petersburg, Russia (e-mail: kluge@FK13889.spb.edu)
The type designation made by Levi (1971)
is invalid, because it ignores the earlier type designation made
by Latreille (1810). Levi (1971) suggested that Aranea
diadema be designated
as the type species of Aranea Linnaeus, 1758 and Araneus
angulatus is confirmed as the type species of Araneus Clerk,
1758. If this approach was followed, Aranea would become
an older objective synonym of Epeira Walckenaer, 1805
and a junior subjective synonym of Araneus Clerk,
1758. The purpose of this action is unclear, as both species are
considered to belong to the same genus. If in the future the recently
accepted large genus Araneus is subdivided into smaller
genera in such a manner that the species presently identified as
Araneus angulatus and Araneus diadema will fall
into different genera, these genera will get the hardly distinguishable
names
Araneus and Aranea respectively, instead of the
distinct names
Araneus and Epeira. If these taxa are elevated
to the family-group rank, their names will become identical, and
a new ruling by Commission will be necessary. The suggestion made
by Levi (1971) does not clarify the situation with the recently
used family name ARANEIDAE Latreille, 1806. When the family-group
name ARANEIDAE was established, its type genus Aranea was
interpreted as being based on Aranea
domestica (which was subsequently designated as the type species
by Latreille (1810)). This interpretation of Aranea is
different from that based on the type species proposed by Levi
(1971).
Comment on the proposed conservation of
Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 (currently Microcerotermes
serratus)
and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (currently Microcerotermes
serrula)
(Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE)
(Case 3385; see BZN 64: 83–86, 185–187)
David T. Jones
Department of Entomology, Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road,
London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: dtj@nhm.ac.uk)
The specific name Microcerotermes
serratus (Froggatt, 1898) has been used since
its publication to refer to an Australian termite, while the
specific name M.
serrula (Desneux,
1904) has been used since its publication to refer to a species
from Southeast Asia. Because both names are invalid, Roisin & Pasteels
(2000, p. 165) recommended the strict application of the Code to
correct these names, which would necessitate the Southeast Asian
species being called M. serratus (Haviland, 1898), and
the Australian species being called M. parviceps Mjöberg,
1920. Roisin & Pasteels (BZN 64: 186) are
correct in their assumption that I overlooked this recommendation
(Roisin & Pasteels,
2000, p. 165), with the result that I continued to follow the prevailing
trend and used the junior names. In 2006, on reading their correction,
I applied for the conservation of both junior names (Case 3385;
BZN 64: 83–86), an application that Roisin & Pasteels
wish the Commission to reject (BZN 64: 185–187).
My application cannot be described as ‘nomenclatural anarchy’ (Roisin & Pasteels,
BZN 64: 187), as an application to the Commission asking for their
ruling on this matter is the official method for resolving such
disagreements over nomenclature.
I have found six additional publications
(Gay, 1952, p. 127; Gay, 1956, p. 211; Ferrar & Watson, 1970,
p. 101; Grassé, 1982, p. 614;
Grassé, 1984, p. 243; Watson & Gay, 1991, p. 346) using
the name M. serratus (Froggatt, 1898). This brings the number of
publications citing this name in the fifty years immediately preceding
Roisin & Pasteels’s
(2000) correction to 13. These 13 publications have more than five
different authors, and thus the criteria for conserving this name
(Article 79(c) of the 3rd edition of the Code, which was still
current when Roisin & Pasteels
submitted their correction for publication) would have been met.
I have also found five additional publications (Tho, 1982, p. 185;
Collins, 1984, p. 70; Chey, 1989, p. 101; Ahmad & Akhtar, 2002,
p. 58; Houseman, 2004, p. 237) using the name M.
serrula (Desneux,
1904), bringing the number of publications citing this name during
the same period to seven.
Roisin & Pasteels (BZN 64: 185–187) disagree with my
assertions that these two junior names are now ‘widely accepted
and extensively used’ and ‘well
known’ (BZN 64: 84–85). While I acknowledge that the
number of publications using these names is relatively low, I would
argue that my assertions are justified within the context of termite
research for the following reasons:
(1) These names have been accepted and used by
everyone who has published anything on these species, including
all the recognised termite experts (Silvestri, Mjöberg, Hill,
Gay, Watson, Miller, Grassé, Ahmad,
Tho and Thapa) who have published on the Australian or Southeast
Asian fauna. The only exceptions are Holmgren (1911), who subsequently
adopted the use of the junior name in 1913, and Roisin & Pasteels
(2000).
(2) The junior name M. serratus (Froggatt,
1898) has been used in every major publication on the termite fauna
of Australia: Termites (Isoptera) from the
Australian region (Hill,
1942), Termites of the Australian region (Gay & Calaby,
1970), The insects of Australia (Watson & Gay, 1991), Atlas
of Australia termites (Watson & Abbey, 1993) and the Zoological
catalogue of Australia (Watson et al., 1998). In regard to
the Southeast Asian fauna, there are only two major publications
available,
Termites of Peninsular Malaysia (Tho, 1992) and Termites
of Sabah (Thapa, 1981), and both of these use the junior name M.
serrula (Desneux, 1904).
(3) Those of us who work on the termites of Southeast Asia or Australia
are
familiar with these widespread species because they are well documented
in the literature as part of their respective regional fauna, and
in the case of M.
serrula (Desneux, 1904) because it is often abundant on the forest
floor and
easily recognized due to the relatively short, stout mandibles
of the soldiers.
Roisin & Pasteels’s desire to reject the application
and to revert to the valid names ignores a huge potential cause
of confusion. Everyone who studies either the Southeast Asian or
the Australian fauna relies on the major publications listed above,
all of which use the junior names. Also, any new researchers starting
in either region will immediately turn to those same obvious sources
for an authoritative view of the fauna. They might not consult
a paper from an adjoining region entitled ‘The
genus Microcerotermes (Isoptera:
Termitidae) in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands’,
and thus Roisin & Pasteels’s (2000) correction would
go unnoticed. Reverting to the correct names would render all those
major publications inaccurate. However, those publications will
continue to be consulted, with the likely result that the junior
names will continue to be used and published.
To reject the application and revert to the correct names
may satisfy the letter of the Code but it would: (1) require overturning
the prevailing usage of the junior names, (2) leave all the major
publications from both regions with a nomenclatural inaccuracy,
which is likely to be perpetuated in the future literature, and
(3) cause confusion over species distributions because of the switching
of the binomen Microcerotermes serratus from an Australian
species to a Southeast Asian species. A ruling to conserve the
junior names would cause no such problems but instead would legitimise
the use of the currently accepted names, protect the accuracy of
the major regional publications, and ensure nomenclatural stability.
Additional references
Ahmad, M. & Akhtar, M.S. 2002.
Catalogue of the termites (Isoptera) of the Oriental region. Pakistan
Journal of Zoology Supplement Series, 2: 1–86.
Chey, V.K. 1989. A survey of termites in Sabah
Forests. FSC Publication, 1/89: 1–144. Forest Research Centre,
Sandakan.
Collins, N.M. 1984. The termites (Isoptera) of
the Gunung Mulu National Park with a key to the genera known from
Sarawak. Sarawak Museum Journal, 30: 65–87.
Ferrar, P. & Watson, J.A.L. 1970. Termites
(Isoptera) associated with dung in Australia. Journal
of the Australian Entomological Society, 9: 100–102.
Gay, F.J. 1952. A rare termite intercaste. Australian
Journal of Science, 14: 127–128.
Gay, F.J. 1956. New species of termites from Australia.
Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New
South Wales, 80: 207–213.
Grassé, P.-P. 1982. Termitologia,
tome 1: anatomie, physiologie, reproduction. 676 pp. Masson, Paris.
Grassé, P.-P. 1984. Termitologia,
tome 2: foundation des sociétés,construction.
613 pp. Masson, Paris.
Houseman, R.M. 2004. First record of Microcerotermes
serrula (Desneux)
(Isoptera: Termitidae) in Thailand. Entomological
News, 115: 327–239.
Tho, Y.P. 1982. Gap formation by the termite Microcerotermes
dubius in lowland forests of Peninsular Malaysia. The
Malaysian Forester, 45: 184–192.
Watson, J.A.L. & Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera
(Termites). Pp. 330–347
in: The Insects of Australia, by Division of Entomology, CSIRO.
Melbourne University Press.
Comment on the proposed
conservation of the specific names Hemerobius
elegans Stephens,
1836 (currently Sympherobius elegans) and Hemerobius
elegans Guérin-Méneville,
1844 (currently Vieira elegans) (Insecta, Neuroptera)
(Case 3392; see BZN 64: 174–177)
Catherine A. Tauber
Department of Entomology, Comstock Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca,
New York 14853–2601, U.S.A. (e-mail: cat6@cornell.edu)
I strongly support John Oswald’s application
to conserve the specific names
Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836 and Hemerobius
elegans Guérin-Méneville,
1844 for two species of lacewings in separate, well-recognized
families. The duplication of names has not led to any confusion
for over 150 years, and there is not even a remote likelihood that
it would do so in the future. In contrast, suppression of the junior
homonym would require additional name changes in a small genus
that has already undergone several recent alterations. For stability
and simplicity, I urge the Commission to use its plenary power
to conserve the junior homonym and place both names on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology.
Comments on the proposed conservation of the ichnogenus
Coprinisphaera Sauer, 1955 (Ichnotaxa, Insecta, Coleoptera, COPRINISPHAERIDAE)
(Case 3360; see BZN
63: 243–246)
(1) Frank-Thorsten Krell
Department of Zoology, Denver Museum of Nature & Science, 2001
Colorado Boulevard, Denver, CO 80205–5798, U.S.A.
(e-mail: Frank.Krell@dmns.org)
Genise et al. (BZN 63:
243–246) proposed
the conservation of the ichnogeneric name Coprinisphaera Sauer,
1955 by suppressing the senior synonym Fontanai Roselli,
1939. I fully support that Coprinisphaera should be used
as the valid name for the fossil dung balls. It is not only a widely
used name in ichnotaxonomy but has entered the geological literature
also by naming the ‘Coprinisphaera ichnofacies’ as
already documented by Genise et al. (BZN 63: 243–246)
and complemented by the following references: Sauer (1965, pp.
271–272),
Martinez (1982, p. 48), Genise & Bown (1994, p. 109), Hasiotis
et al. (1994, fig. 149), Genise & Cladera
(1995, p. 78), Genise & Laza (1998, p. 220), González
et al. (1998), Genise (2000a, pp. 50, 53, 55; 2000b, p. 28; 2000c,
p. 115), Buatois et al. (2000), Verde (2000, pp. 112–113),
Genise et al. (2001), Hasiotis (2002, pp. 79–80, 132), Genise
(2003, p. 19), Bellosi et al. (2004, pp. 33, 35), Buatois & Mángano
(2004, pp. 312, 327), Dieni & Genise (2004a, p. 29; 2004b,
p. 31), Genise & Cladera (2004, pp. 632, 636), Genise
et al. (2004b), Genise & Bellosi (2004, p. 41), Hasiotis (2004,
pp. 184–185, 188,
190, 200, 236, 238, 239, 250), Hembree & Hasiotis (2004), Bellosi
et al. (2005), Radies et al. (2005, pp. 116–118), Sánchez
et al. (2005), Chure et al. (2006, p. 243), Hasiotis (2006, p.
401), Hasiotis & Bourke (2006, pp. 217–218), Sánchez
et al. (2006; 2007), Bromley et al. (2007, pp. 144, 146), Buatois & Mángano
(2007, pp. 286–289, 315);
Duringer et al. (2007, pp. 333, 350), Ekdale et al. (2007, p. 570),
Genise (2007), Hasiotis (2007, p. 265), Hasiotis et al. (2007,
pp. 174, 182, 192), Hunt & Lucas (2007, pp. 59–60,
63), Krause et al. (2007), Krell (2007, p. 3), MacEachern et al.
(2007a, pp. 54–58,
61; 2007b, p. 114), Melchor et al. (2007, p. 16), Verde & Genise
(2007), Verde et al. (2007, pp. 342–343); with the secondary
incorrect spelling Coprinsphaera: Halffter & Matthews
(1966, p. 154), Retallack (1991, pp. 182, 296), Duringer et al.
(2000, p. 264). It would be confusing if the Coprinisphaera ichnofacies
was defined by an ichnogenus with a different name.
The senior subjective synonym Fontanai Roselli is
still in use (Buatois & Mángano 2007, 288; MacEachern
et al. 2007, 58), but these authors did not consider its synonymy
with Coprinisphaera proposed by González et al.
(1998) and Laza (2006). Both names were mentioned as valid ichnogenera.
Fontanai has never been used as a valid senior synonym
of Coprinisphaera.
Dealing with non-organic entities without tokogenetic or
phylogenetic relationships and poor in characters, ichnotaxonomy
is notoriously difficult and subjective. It is current understanding
by many ichnologists that ‘producer-based
criteria, as such [...] may not be considered relevant for ichnotaxonomy,
because the assignment generally is too ambiguous’ (Bertling
et al., 2006). Ichnotaxonomy is at a stage of structural typology.
With increasing ichnotaxonomical knowledge and new finds the assignment
of traces to trace-makers might become more reliable and eventually
an accepted ichnotaxonomical criterion. Currently I consider it
rash to suppress a subjective senior synonym in ichnology because
it might represent a distinct ichnotaxon in a future refined ichnotaxonomy.
Therefore I suggest the modification of the application by Genise
et al. (BZN 63: 244) and ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature:
(1) to use its plenary power to
give the name Coprinisphaera Sauer,
1955 precedence over the name Fontanai Roselli, 1939,
whenever the two are considered to be synonyms;
(2) to place on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology the name Coprinisphaera Sauer,
1955 (gender: feminine), with the endorsement that it is to be
given precedence over the name Fontanai Roselli,
1939 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms, type ichnospecies
by monotypy Coprinisphaera ecuadoriensis Sauer,
1955;
(3) to place on the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology the name ecuadoriensis Sauer,
1955, as published in the binomen Coprinisphaera
ecuadoriensis (specific
name of the type ichnospecies of Coprinisphaera Sauer,
1955).
I do not ask for Fontanai Roselli
to be placed on the Official List because it should currently not
be used as a valid genus-group name. Names that should not be used
as valid should not be on the Official List. Putting Fontanaichnus Roselli,
1976 (junior objective synonym of Fontanai Roselli, 1939)
on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in
Zoology as asked for by Genise et al. in (4)(b) (BZN 63:
244) is appropriate but unnecessary because it is a junior objective
synonym anyway.
Additional references
Bellosi, E.S., Genise, J.F.,
Laza, J.H. & Sánchez,
M.V. 2005. Terrestrial trace fossils and ichnostratigraphy
of the Sarmiento Formation: implications for the oldest grassdominated
ecosystem. Actas del XVI Congreso Geológico
Argentino, La Plata 306.
Bellosi, E.S., González, M.G. & Genise, J.F. 2004.
Origen y desmantelamiento de lateritas paleógenas del sudoeste
de Uruguay (Formación Asencio).
Revista del Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales,
n.s., 6: 25–40.
Bertling, M., Braddy, S.J., Bromley, R.G.,
Demathieu, G.R., Genise, J., Mikuláš, R., Nielsen,
J.K., Nielsen, K.S.S., Rindsberg, A.K., Schlirf, M. & Uchman,
A. 2006. Names for trace fossils: a uniform approach.
Lethaia, 39: 256–286.
Bromley, R.G., Buatois, L.A., Genise, J.F.,
Labandeira, C.G., Mángano,
M.G., Melchor, R.N., Schlirf, M. & Uchman, A. 2007.
Comments on the paper ‘‘Reconnaissance
of Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain
Region, USA: Paleoenvironmental, stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic
significance of terrestrian and freshwater ichnocoenoses’’ by
Stephen T. Hasiotis. Sedimentary Geology, 200:
141–150.
Buatois, L.A. & Mángano, M.G. 2004.
Animal-substrate interactions in freshwater environments: applications
of ichnology in facies and sequence stratigraphic analysis of fluviolacustrine
successions. Pp. 311–333 in D. McIlroy (Ed.), The
Application of Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Stratigraphic
Analysis.
Geological Society, London.
Buatois, L.A. & Mángano, M.G. 2007.
Invertebrate ichnology of continental freshwater environments.
Pp. 285–323 in Miller, W. (Ed.), Trace
Fossils. Concepts, Problems, Prospects. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Buatois, L.A., Mánagno, M.G. & Genise, J.F. 2000.
Ichnofacies models in continental environments. Abstracts
of the 31st International Geological Congress, Río de Janeiro,
Brazil, August 2000 [CD-ROM].
Chure, D.J., Litwin, R., Hasiotis, S.T.,
Evanoff, E. & Carpenter,
K. 2006. The fauna and flora of the Morrison Formation:
2006. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin,
36: 233–249.
Dieni, I. & Genise, J. 2004a. Il primo ritrovamento
[europeo] di Coprinisphaera Sauer, 1955 (nidi fossili
di Scarabei stercorari) nell’Eocene dell’Italia
NE. Giornate di Paleontologia 2004,
Bolzano, 21–23
Maggio, Riassunti e Elenco Partecipanti.
Dieni, I. & Genise, J. 2004b. The first European
record of Coprinisphaera Sauer, 1955. Ichnia
2004, First International Congress on Ichnology, April 19–23,
2004. Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio, Trelew, Patagonia
Argentina. Abstract Book: 31.
Duringer, P., Brunet, M., Cambefort, Y.,
Beauvilain, A., Mackaye, H.T., Viginaud, P. & Schuster, M. 2000.
Des boules de bousiers fossiles et leurs terriers dans les sites à Australopithèques
du Pliocène tchadien. Bulletin
de la Société géologique de France, 171:
259–269.
Duringer, P., Schuster, M., Genise, J.F.,
Mackaye, H.T., Vignaud, P. & Brunet, M. 2007. New
termite trace fossils: Galleries, nests and fungus combs from the
Chad basin of Africa (Upper Miocene–Lower Pliocene). Palaeogeography,
Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 251: 323–353.
Ekdale, A.A., Bromley, R.G. & Loope, D.B. 2007.
Ichnofacies of an ancient erg: a climatically influenced trace
fossil association in the Jurassic Navajo Sandstone, Southern Utah,
USA. Pp. 562–576 in Miller, W. (Ed.), Trace
Fossils. Concepts, Problems, Prospects. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Genise, J.F. 2000a. Nidos fósiles de insectos
en paleosuelos. Pp. 46–60 in Buatois, L.A., Genise, J., Mángano,
M.G., Muñoz, N., Netto, R.G. & Poiré,
D.G. (Eds.), II Congreso Latinoamericano
de Sedimentología,
VIII Reunión Argentina
de Sedimentología, Curso de
Actualización. Icnología: aplicaciones en la geología
sedimentaria y la industria petrolera. Mar del Plata, Argentina.
Genise, J.F. 2000b. Insect paleoichnology in South
America: past and present. Abstracts, I Simpósio Brasileiro
de Paleoartropodología, I Simpósio
Sudamericano de Paleoartropodología, I International Meeting
on Paleoarthropodology, Ribeirão
Preto – SP, Brazil 3–8.9.2000. Pages 28–29.
Genise, J.F. 2000c. Insect fossil nests. Abstracts,
I Simpósio
Brasileiro de Paleoartroposología, I Simpósio Sudamericano
de Paleoartropodología, I
International Meeting on Paleoarthropodology, Ribeirão Preto – SP,
Brazil 3–8.9.2000. Pages
114–115.
Genise, J.F. 2003. The palaeontological significance
of insect trace fossils in palaeosols. FossilsX3.
Programme and Abstracts, 3rd International Congress of Palaeoentomology
with 2nd International Meeting on Palaeoarthropodology and 2nd
World Congress on Amber and its Inclusions, 7th to 11th February
2003, Pretoria, South Africa. Pages 18–19.
Genise, J.F. 2007. Icnoentomología: el
estudio integrado de trazas actuales y fósiles de insectos.
Resúmenes
de la Quinta Reunión Argentina de Icnología
y Tercera Reunión de Icnología del Mercosur. Ushuaia,
Tierra del Fuergo, Argentina: 12.
Genise, J.F. & Bellosi, E.S. 2004. Continental
trace fossils of the Laguna Palacios Formation (Upper Cretaceous)
from the San Bernardo Range (Chubut Province). Pp. 33–43
in Bellosi, E.S. & Melchor, R.N. (Eds.), Ichnia
2004, First International Congress on Ichnology, Fieldtrip Guidebook.
Museo Paleontológico
Egidio Feruglio, Trelew, Argentina.
Genise, J.F. & Bown, T.M. 1994. New Miocene
scarabeid and hymenopterous nests and Early Miocene (Santacrucian)
paleoenvironments, Patagonian Argentina. Ichnos, 3:
107–117.
Genise, J.F. & Cladera, G. 1995. Application
of computerized tomography to study insect traces. Ichnos, 4:
77–81.
Genise, J.F. & Cladera, G. 2004. Chubutolithes
gaimanensis and other wasp trace fossils: breaking
through the taphonomic barrier. Journal of
the Kansas Entomological Society, 77: 626–638.
Genise, J.F. & Laza, J.H. 1998. Monesichnus
ameghinoi Roselli:
a complex insect trace fossil produced by two distinct trace makers.
Ichnos, 5: 213–223.
Genise, J.F., Cladera, G. & Tancroff, S. 2001.
La presencia de Eatonichnus claronensis en el Paleoceno
del Chubut (Argentina).
IV Reunión Argentina de
Icnología y Segunda Reunión de Icnología del
Mercosur, Septembre de 2001, Tucuman, Argentina:
45.
Genise, J.F., Mángano, M.G. & Buatois, L.A. 2004b.
Ichnology moving out of the water: a model for terrestrial ichnofacies.
Abstract Book, First International Congress
on Ichnology, April 2004, Trelew, Argentina: 38.
González, M., Tófalo, O.R. & Pazos, P. 1998.
Icnología y paleosuelos del miembro Del Palacio de la formación
Asencio (Cretácico Superior-Terciario
Inferior) del Uruguay. Actas, II Congreso Uruguayo de Geologia,
Punta del Este. 38–42.
Halffter, G. & Matthews, E.G. 1966. The natural
history of dung beetles of the subfamily Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera,
Scarabaeidae). Folia Entomologica Mexicana, 12–14: 1–312.
Hasiotis, S.T. 2002. Continental Trace Fossils.
SEPM (Society for Sedimentary Geology) Short Course Notes, 51:
ii, 132 pp.
Hasiotis, S.T. 2004. Reconnaissance of Upper Jurassic
Morrison Formation ichnofossils, Rocky Mountain Region, USA: paleoenvironmental,
stratigraphic, and paleoclimatic significance of terrestrial and
freshwater ichnocoenoses. Sedimentary Geology, 167: 177–268.
Hasiotis, S.T. 2006. [Book review of:] The Application
of Ichnology to Palaeoenvironmental and Sratigraphic Analysis,
D. McIlroy, ed., 2004, The Geological Society of London Special
Publication 228, 490 pp. [...]. Palaios, 21: 401–402.
Hasiotis, S.T. 2007. Continental ichnology: fundamental
processes and controls on trace fossil distribution. Pp. 262–278
in Miller, W. (Ed.), Trace Fossils.
Concepts, Problems, Prospects.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Hasiotis, S.T. & Bourke, M.C. 2006. Continental
trace fossils and museum exhibits: displaying organism behaviour
frozen in time. The Geological Curator, 8: 211–226.
Hasiotis, S.T., Bown [‘Brown’ on cover], T.M. & Abston,
C. 1994. Photoglossary of marine and continental ichnofossils.
US. Geological Survey Digital Data Series, 23. [CD-ROM]
Hasiotis, S.T., Kraus, M.J. & Demko, T.M. 2007.
Climatic controls on continental trace fossils. Pp. 172–195
in Miller, W. (Ed.), Trace Fossils. Concepts, Problems, Prospects.
Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Hembree, D.L. & Hasiotis, S.T. 2004. Using
paleosols and ichnofossils to interpret the changing paleoecology,
paleoenvironments, and paleoclimate of the Eocene-Oligocene White
River Formation, northeastern Colorado. Geological
Society of America Abstracts with Programme, 36(5): 63.
Hunt, A.P. & Lucas, S.G. 2007. Tetrapod ichnofacies: A new
paradigm. Ichnos, 14: 59–68.
Krause, J.M., Bellosi, E.S. & Genise, J.F. 2007.
Evolucion de la icnofauna terrestre de la Patagonia Central II.
El grupo Rio Chico: desde el E-T hasta la explosión del
Eoceno medio. Resúmenes de la Quinta Reunión Argentina
de Icnología y Tercera Reunión de Icnología
del Mercosur. Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuergo, Argentina: 38.
Krell, F.-T. 2007. Catalogue of fossil Scarabaeoidea
(Coleoptera: Polyphaga) of the Mesozoic and Tertiary – Version
2007 –. Denver Museum of Nature
and Science Technical Report, 2007–8: 68.
MacEachern, J.A., Pemberton, S.G., Gingras,
M.K. & Bann, K.L. 2007a. The ichnofacies
paradigm: a fifty-year retrospective. Pp. 52–77 in Miller,
W. (Ed.), Trace Fossils. Concepts, Problems,
Prospects. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
MacEachern, J.A., Pemberton, S.G., Gingras,
M.K., Bann, K.L. & Dafoe,
L.T. 2007b. Uses of trace fossils in genetic stratigraphy.
Pp. 110–134 in Miller,
W. (Ed.), Trace Fossils. Concepts, Problems,
Prospects. Elsevier,
Amsterdam.
Martinez, S. 1982. Catalogo sistematico de los insectos fósiles
de América del Sur. Revista de la
Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias, Serie Ciencias de la Tierra, 1: 29–83.
Melchor, R.N., Genise, J.F. & Miquel, S.E. 2002.
Ichnology, sedimentology and paleontology of Eocene calcareous
paleosols from a palustrine sequence, Argentina. Palaios, 17:
16–35.
Radies, D., Hasiotis, S.T., Preusser, F.,
Neubert, E. & Matter,
A. 2005. Paleoclimatic significance of Early Holocene
faunal assemblages in wet interdune deposits of the Wahiba Sand
Sea, Sultanate of Oman. Journal of Arid Environments, 62: 109–125.
Retallack, G. 1991. Miocene
Paleosols and Ape Habitats of Pakistan and Kenya. viii, 346
pp. Oxford University Press, Claredon Press, New York and Oxford.
Sánchez, M.V., Bellosi, E.S., Laza, J.H. & Genise,
J.F. 2007. Evolución de la icnofauna
terrestre de la Patagonia central V. Formacion Sarmiento, la explosión
del Eoceno medio. Resúmenes de la Quinta Reunión
Argentina de Icnología
y Tercera Reunión de Icnología del Mercosur. Ushuaia,
Tierra del Fuergo, Argentina: 41.
Sánchez, M.V., Laza, J.H., Bellosi, E.S. & Genise,
J.F. 2005. Comparación preliminar
del registro fósil e icnofósil de Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera:
Scarabaeidae). Libro de Resúmenes, VI Congreso Argentino
de Entomología, San Miguel de Tucumán,
12 al 15 de Septiembre de 2005. Page 120.
Sánchez, M.V., Laza, J.H., Bellosi, E.S. & Genise,
J.F. 2006. The integration of ichnofossil
and body fossil records in Scarabaeinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae).
Resumenes de la VII Reunión Latinoamericana de Scarabaeoidología,
13–16
Noviembre de 2006, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia. 20.
Sauer, W. 1965. Geología del Ecuador. 385
pp., annex. Ministerio de Educación, Quito.
Verde, M. 2000.
Trazas fósiles de artrópodos en el
Uruguay. Abstracts, I Simpósio Brasileiro de Paleoartropoología,
I Simpósio Sudamericano de
Paleoartropodología, I International Meeting on Paleoarthropodology,
Ribeirão Preto – SP,
Brazil 3–8.9.2000. Pages 112–113.
Verde, M. & Genise, J.F. 2007. Evolución
de la icnofauna terrestre de la Patagonia Central IV. Formación
Asencio del Terciario temprano de Uruguay: ¿El
antecedente de la explosión del Eoceno medio en la Patagonia?
Resúmenes de la Quinta
Reunión Argentina de Icnología y Tercera Reunión
de Icnología del Mercosur. Ushuaia,
Tierra del Fuergo, Argentina. 40 pp.
Verde, M., Ubilla, M., Jiménez, J.J. & Genise,
J.F. 2007. A new earthworm trace fossil from
paleosols: aestivation chambers from the Late Pleistocene Sopas
Formation of Uruguay. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology,
Palaeoecology, 243: 339–347.
(2) J.F. Genise
Conicet, Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio, Av. Fontana
140, 9100 Trelew, Chubut, Argentina (e-mail: jgenise@mef.org.ar)
J.H. Laza
Conicet, Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales, Av. Angel Gallardo
470, 1405 Buenos Aires, Argentina (e-mail: pepela@macn.gov.ar)
A.K. Rindsberg
Department of Biological & Environmental
Sciences, Station 7, University of West Alabama, Livingston, Alabama
35470, U.S.A.
(e-mail: arindsberg@uwa.edu)
We support the reversal of precedence of Coprinisphaera Sauer
1955 over Fontanai Roselli 1939 as proposed by Krell,
instead of the conservation of the ichnogeneric name Coprinisphaera Sauer,
1955 by suppressing the senior synonym Fontanai Roselli,
1939 as proposed by Genise et al. (BZN 63: 243–246),
thus avoiding the suppression of a name that might represent a
distinct ichnotaxon in a future refined ichnotaxonomy.
Comments on the proposed conservation of
the usage of the generic name of Drosophila Fallén, 1823
(Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 3407;
see BZN 64: 238–242)
Corrigendum
Please note that the correct date for Falle´n’s
establishment of the name Drosophila is 1823, rather than
1832, as stated in the title and the abstract of the application
published in BZN 64: 238–242.
(1) Andrew Polaszek
Department of Entomology, Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e.mail: a.polaszek@nhm.ac.uk)
The case to conserve the usage of the name Drosophila Fallén,
1832 over Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939, for Drosophila
melanogaster,
is probably the most important ever to have been submitted for
a ruling by the Commission in its 113-year history. Drosophila
melanogaster, commonly referred to (especially by nontaxonomists)
as simply ‘Drosophila’, is the most widely
studied animal, apart, possibly, from Homo sapiens, in human history.
At the time of writing, ‘Google searches result in the following
numbers of ‘hits’:
Drosophila: 6,700,000; Drosophila melanogaster: 3,640,000;
Sophophora: 19,000. Thus the number of hits for Drosophila exceeds
that for Sophophora by more than 350 times. This comparison
illustrates, very simply, the current global comparative usage
of the two names.
It seems likely that were the Commission not to vote in support
of the conservation of Drosophila, such action would lead
not only to unprecedented nomenclatural instability, but also to
a widespread lack of confidence in both the actions and the purpose
of the Commission itself. While being far from perfect, the present
code continues to provide stability, and is adhered to by almost
the entire community of zoological taxonomists, while providing
opportunities for dealing effectively with exceptional cases. Drosophila is
just such an exception, and possibly the greatest test of the Commission’s
role and effectiveness since its formation in 1895.
(2) Amir Yassin
Département Systématique et Evolution, Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN), 18 rue Buffon, 75005
Paris, France
(e-mail: yassin@legs.cnrs-gif.fr)
The authors showed the invalidity of the
early type designation of Drosophila: Musca
cellaris Linnaeus,
1758 (p. 597) by Curtis, 1833 (p. 473) of which the systematic
status has never been clarified (and thus invalid); and Musca
funebris Fabricius, 1787 (p. 345) by Macquart,
1835 (p. 549) at the same time placed in synonymy with M.
cellaris Linnaeus, 1758 (thus equally invalid).
However, Zetterstedt’s (1847, p. 2542) designation of M.
funebris Fabricius, 1787 has been accepted by most subsequent
taxonomists according to the Principle of the First Reviser (Article
24.2 of the Code – Determination by
the First Reviser). Furthermore, M. funebris Fabricius,
1787 was transferred to Drosophila by the author of the
genus Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (p. 5), whereas
Drosophila melanogaster Meigen, 1830 (p. 85) was described later.
This can be taken as an additional taxonomic argument in favor
of the preservation of Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787
as the type of the genus Drosophila Fallén than
for D.
melanogaster Meigen, 1830 (Article 23.1 of the
Code—Statement of the Principle of Priority).
Drosophila is
the nominotypical genus of the family DROSOPHILIDAE, and any change
of the type designation of the genus would inevitably entail dramatic
nomenclatural changes in the whole family (Article 36.2 of the
Code – Type
Genus). Although authors have attempted to make such changes on
the basis of molecular phylogenetic studies, it is hard to think
that a single application can resolve all nomenclatural problems
in a group as large as the genus Drosophila (~1,500 spp.)
of which molecular phylogenies are scarcely congruent (Ashburner
et al., 2005). If the authors’ propositions of the new generic
names formed after the splitting of the current paraphyletic genus
Drosophila were accepted, three out of the twelve model
species with complete genome sequence of Drosophila would
no longer carry the generic name Drosophila: namely, D.
virilis Sturtevant, 1916 (p. 330), D. mojavensis
Patterson in Patterson & Crow, 1940 (p. 251), and D.
grimshawi (Oldenberg, 1914, p. 23). Regarding
the popularity of Drosophila as a model to biology grant
agencies, biologists working on these species and on other related
taxa (including D. funebris) would feel considerable injustice
in comparison to biologists working on Drosophila melanogaster-related
taxa. Although I totally agree with the authors that the current
paraphyletic status of the genus Drosophila violates modern
systematic practice, I urge that if a taxonomic change has to be
made, it has to follow conventional taxonomic rules with an upgrading
of the monophyletic subgenus Sophophora, of which Drosophila
melanogaster is the type by original designation (Sturtevant, 1939,
p. 140) to the rank of genus.
In conclusion, I hope that the Commission will maintain Drosophila
funebris (Fabricius, 1787) as the type of the nominotypical
genus Drosophila Fallén, 1823 following both the
Principles of Priority and of First Reviser.
References
Ashburner, M., Golic, K.G. & Hawley,
R.S. 2005. Drosophila. A
laboratory handbook. Second edition. 1409 pp. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Press.
Curtis, J. 1833. Pp. 434–481 in: British
entomology, being illustrations and descriptions of the genera
of insects found in Great Britain and Ireland, vol. 10.
London.
Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum
sistens species nuper detectas adiectis synonymis, observationibus,
descriptionibus, emendationibus, vol. 2. 381 pp.
Hafniae.
Fallén, C.F. 1823. Diptera
sveciae. Geomyzides. 8 pp. Berlin.
Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema
Naturae, Ed. 10, vol. 1. 824 pp. Salvii,
Holmiae.
Macquart, J.R. 1835. Histoire
naturelle des insects, Diptères,
vol. ii. 703 pp. de Roret, Paris.
Meigen, J.W. 1830. Systematische Beschreibung
der bekannten europaischen zweiflugeligen Insekten. 6 Theil. 401
pp. Schulze Buchhandlung, Hamm.
Oldenberg, L. 1914. Beitrag zur Kenntnis der europaischen
Drosophiliden (Dipt.). Archiv für Naturgeschichte, 80(A)2:
1–42.
Patterson, J.T. & Crow, J.F. 1940. Hybridisation
in the mulleri group of Drosophila. University of Texas Publications,
4032: 251–256.
Sturtevant, A.H. 1916. Notes on North American
Drosophilidae with descriptions of twenty-three new species. Annals
of the Entomological Society of America, 9: 323–343.
Sturtevant, A.H. 1939. On the subdivision of the
genus Drosophila.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science
of USA, 25: 137–141.
Zetterstedt, J.W. 1847. Diptera
scandinaviae disposita et descripta,
vol. 6. 417 pp. Lundberg, Lund.
(3) V. Sidorenko
Laboratory of Entomology, Institute of Biology
and Soil Sciences, Vladivostok, 690022 Russia (e-mail: stegana@mail.ru)
In my opinion, if the Commission decides
to support this application that would be against the rules of
the Code and would create bad precedent.
Comment on the proposed suppression of
Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770 (Osteichthyes, Teleostei, GOBIIDAE)
(Case 3383;
see BZN 64: 103–107)
Maurice Kottelat
Route de la Baroche 12, Cornol, CH-2952, Switzerland (address
for correspondence); and Raffles Museum of Biodiversity Research,
Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore,
6 Science Drive 2, 03–01, Singapore 117546 (e-mail:
mkottelat@dplanet.ch)
Helen K. Larson
Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory, PO Box 4646,
Darwin, NT 0801, Australia (e-mail: helen.larson@nt.gov.au)
Ron E. Watson
3658 NW 41st Lane, Gainesville, Florida 32605–1468,
U.S.A.
(e-mail: gobyresearch@cox.net)
Philippe Keith
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Laboratoire
d’ichtyologie, CP 26, 57 rue Cuvier, 75231 Paris cedex 05,
France (e-mail: keith@mnhn.fr)
We are writing to register our objection
to the proposed suppression of the specific name Gobius
lagocephalus.
As will be pointed out, the proposal by Smith & Sparks (2007)
omits facts that make the application pointless; the described
problem does not exist and has been solved elsewhere; suppressing
the name G. lagocephalus would negatively affect the name
of a well known and widely distributed species without creating
any benefit (the effect would be the reverse) to the nomenclature
of this group of fishes.
In their proposal Smith & Sparks (2007) present as Option
2: ‘designating
a neotype that is most consistent with current usage (as a species
of Sicyopterus)’—this has already been done
(Kottelat 2007). The preservation of the status quo with regard
to the name Gobius lagocephalus, presently known widely
as Sicyopterus
lagocephalus, is desired for stability of nomenclature.
In their application, Smith & Sparks (2007) mention as
holotype the specimen on which Pallas (1770) based his description
and figure. They mention that this specimen is lost and refer to ‘Kottelat,
in press’ as a source
for this information. This information was included in a manuscript
not yet accepted for publication, and was used by Smith & Sparks
without the author’s knowledge.
Smith & Sparks do not mention that this now published article
(Kottelat, 2007; available online since June 2006) includes information
and nomenclatural acts that show their application unnecessary
and disagreeing with the facts.
Contrary to Smith & Sparks’ (2007) comment, there
is no holotype for G. lagocephalus but there are two syntypes.
Besides the specimen in his possession, Pallas explicitly identified
in his description of G. lagocephalus a specimen described
and figured by Koelreuter (1764). This specimen is thus part of
the type series. These two syntypes are now lost (Kottelat, 2007).
The two specimens (based on data in the descriptions and
on the figures) are not conspecific (differences described by Kottelat,
2007 and Smith & Sparks,
2007). The only specimen that can be partly identified is that
of Pallas, as his Figure 7 (Plate II) shows the single central
lip cleft characteristic of the genus Sicydium (unless
the artist overlooked the two lateral clefts of Sicyopterus,
however, given the accuracy of the illustrations of the other fish
on the plates, this is unlikely). The drawings of Koelreuter’s
specimen (Koelreuter, 1764: plate 9, figs 3–4)
have not been done by such
a skilled artist as was available for Pallas’s fish (Pallas
1770: plate 2, figs 6–7) and cannot be identified to genus
with any certainty, but it is clearly a sicydiine. The pectoral
fin ray counts given by Koelreuter (15 rays) and Pallas (17 rays)
are close to the lower end of the range of 17–21 pectoral
fin rays for Sicyopterus and 17–22 for Sicydium (Watson,
2000; Watson et al., 2000; Larson, unpubl. data) and it is possible
that both Koelreuter and Pallas missed seeing a fin ray or two
(adult sicydiines have fleshy pectoral fins and even today with
better equipment these rays are often overlooked).
Pallas’s specimen was stated to be from ‘America’ and
the origin of Koelreuter’s specimen is unknown (Pallas wrote: ‘ignorant
of its native land’ (our rough translation)). The original
type locality therefore cannot be ‘America’ as
this is the locality of only one of the two syntypes. Where Koelreuter
obtained his fish from remains unknown.
There have already been two neotype designations for Gobius
lagocephalus (Fricke, 1999; Watson et al., 2000),
both invalid because the authors did not satisfy the conditions
of Article 75.3 of the Code, especially clause 75.3.4, which requires
information on the lost type material and efforts made to locate
it. This is discussed by Kottelat (2007) and Smith & Sparks
(2007). Both Fricke’s
and Watson et al.’s neotype designations were based on specimens
from Réunion
Island, linking the name to the species known under that name since
1842, thus attempting to preserve stability of nomenclature.
Kottelat (2007) discussed the situation, discussed his attempts
to locate the syntypes and their absence and designated a neotype
satisfying the criteria of Article 75.3 of the Code. To minimize
the risk of future confusion, he designated as neotype the specimen
(SMF 28571) previously invalidly designated by Watson et al. (2000).
With this neotype designation the name G.
lagocephalus is definitively
linked with the species recognised under this name since 1842 and
the type locality is now Ravine St. Gilles on Réunion Island.
Smith & Sparks’ argument seems to center around
the type locality of G. lagocephalus, which they consider
as ‘America’ alone,
and they perceive that a neotype would have been from ‘America’,
thus threatening the generic name Sicydium presently used
for for at least 17 North and South American species. To ‘rescue’ the
stability of the nomenclature of the American genus name Sicydium (and
of the Mascarene endemic Cotylopus), they choose the alternative
to destabilize the nomenclature in use in the Indo-West Pacific.
On the other hand, this potential problem was pointed out by Kottelat
(2007) and his approach was to designate a neotype that consolidates
the present use of the species and at the same time preserves the
use of Sicydium and Cotylopus.
The name G. lagocephalus (now Sicyopterus
lagocephalus) has been
continuously used since 1842 for a fish species distributed along
the coasts and islands of the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific
Ocean, from Madagascar to southern Japan and New Guinea (Watson
et al., 2000). Some authors do not recognise the different populations
throughout this area as conspecific and consider S.
lagocephalus to be restricted to Madagascar,
the Mascarene Islands and the east coast of Africa. But all have
used the name as valid for a species within this area. Further,
the species called S. lagocephalus has a commercial value,
as the fish is a local delicacy on Réunion Island. We have
decided not to count usages of the name S.
lagocephalus, we need
only to mention that it is cited in all the classical as well as
recent faunal works of that area; some examples: Boulenger (1916),
Smith (1959), Teugels et al. (1985), Daget et al. (1986), Bauchot
et al. (1988), Balon & Bruton (1994), Keith
et al. (1999), Watson et al. (2000), Allen et al. (2002), Nakabo
(2002), Senou et al. (2004), Keith et al. (2005) and Hoese & Larson
(2006). It also seems sufficient to state that the only authors
we are aware of who have not considered S. lagocephalus as valid
(and nolens volens disturbed stability of nomenclature) were Sparks & Nelson
(2004) and now Smith & Sparks (2007).
In order to preserve the stability of nomenclature we recommend
that the
Commission rejects this unnecessary application. The Commission
is further asked:
(1) to place on the Official List of Available
Names in Zoology the name lagocephalus Pallas, 1770, as
published in the binomen Gobius lagocephalus;
(2) to confirm the designation of specimen SMF
28571 as the neotype of Gobius lagocephalus Pallas, 1770,
as designated in Kottelat (2007).
Kottelat’s (2007) paper is held by the Secretariat
and forms an integral part of this comment.
Additional references
Allen, G.R., Midgley, S.H. & Allen,
M. 2002.
Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. xiv, 394 pp.
Western Australian Museum, Perth.
Balon, E.K. & Bruton, M.N. 1994. Fishes
of the Tatinga River, Comoros, with comments on freshwater amphidromy
in the goby Sicyopterus lagocephalus. Ichthyological
Exploration of Freshwaters, 5 (1): 25–40.
Bauchot, M.-L., Desoutter, M., Hoese, D.F. & Larson,
H.K. 1991.
Catalogue critique des types des poissons du Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle.
(Suite) Sous-ordre des Gobioidei. Bulletin
du Muséum National
d’Histoire Naturelle,
4e Série, 13 (1–2): 1–82.
Boulenger, G.A. 1916. Catalogue
of the fresh-water fishes of Africa in the British Museum (Natural
History). Vol.
4. Longmans, Green and Co., London.
Daget, J., Gosse, J.-P. & Thys van den Audenaerde,
D.F.E. (Eds.).
1986. Checklist of the freshwater fishes
of Africa. CLOFFA. Vol.
2, xiv, 520 pp. ISNB, Brussels, MRAC, Tervuren, and ORSTOM, Paris.
Hoese, D.F. & Larson, H.K. 2006. Gobiidae.
Gobies. Pp. 1612–1697
in Hoese, D.F., Bray, D.J., Paxton, J.R. & Allen,
G.R. Fishes. In: Beesley, P.L. & Wells,
A. (Eds.). Zoological catalogue of Australia. Volume 35. Parts
1–3.
ABRS and CSIRO Publishing, Canberra.
Keith, P., Vigneux, E. & Bosc, P. 1999. Atlas
des poissons et des crustacés d’eau douce de la Réunion.
Patrimoines naturels, vol. 39, 138 pp. Muséum
National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris.
Kottelat, M. 2007. Nomenclatural status and identity
of Gobius
lagocephalus (Teleostei: Gobidae). Molecular
Phyogenetics and Evolution, 43: 693–695.
Nakabo, T. (Ed.). 2002. Fishes
of Japan with pictorial keys to the species, English edition. Vol.
2, vii, 867 pp. Tokai University Press, Kanagawa.
Pallas, P.S. 1770. Spicilegia Zoologica quibus
novae imprimis et obscurae animalium species iconibus, descriptionibus
atque commentariis illustrantur. Fasciculus
octavus. 54 pp., 4 pls. Lange, Berlin.
Senou, H., Suzuki, T., Shibukawa, K. & Yano, K. 2004.
A photographic guide to the gobioid fishes
of Japan. 536 pp. Heibonsha,
Tokyo.
Smith, J.L.B. 1959. Gobioid fishes of the families
Gobiidae, Periophthalmidae, Trypauchenidae, Taenioididae and Kraemeriidae
of the western Indian Ocean. Ichthyological
Bulletin, Smith Institute, Rhodes University, 13: 185–225.
Smith, W.L. & Sparks, J.S. 2007. Gobius
lagocephalus: the world’s
most widespread nomen dubium. Molecular Phyogenetics
and Evolution,
43: 696–698.
Teugels, G.G., Janssens, L.J.M., Bogaert,
J. & Dumalin, M. 1985. Sur une collection de poissons
de rivière des Comores. Cybium, 9(1): 41–56.
Watson, R.E. 2000. Sicydium from the
Dominican Republic with description of a new species (Teleostei:
Gobiidae). Stuttgarter Beiträge zur Naturkunde,
Serie A (Biologie), 608: 1–31.
Comments on the proposed
conservation of Buettneria Case, 1922 (Amphibia) (Case
3420; see BZN 64: 252–254)
(1) Gilles Cuny
The Natural History Museum of Denmark, Øster Voldgade
5–7,
1350 Copenhagen, Denmark (e-mail: Gilles@snm.ku.dk)
I am writing to support the application
of Lucas et al. (2007) (Case 3420) to conserve the long- and widely-used
name of the Triassic amphibian Buettneria Case, 1922.
This name is a homonym of a little-used name of an insect (Buettneria Karsch,
1888), and abandoning it would destabilise the nomenclature of
this amphibian group. To serve the stability and universality of
zoological nomenclature, the name Buettneria Karsch, 1888
should be suppressed, and the name Buettneria Case, 1922
should be conserved.
(2) Robert M. Sullivan
Section of Paleontology and Geology, The
State Museum of Pennsylvania, 300 North Street, Harrisburg, PA
17120, U.S.A. (e-mail: rsullivan@state.pa.us)
I support the application of Lucas et al.
(2007) to conserve the long- and widely-used name of the Late Triassic
metoposaurid amphibian Buettneria Case,
1922. Buettneria is one of the few Mesozoic vertebrates
known from Pennsylvania that is represented by cranial and postcranial
remains. As such, this metoposaurid has been the subject of much
interest on the national, international and local levels (Kochanov & Sullivan,
1994; Lucas & Sullivan, 1996; Sullivan
et al., 1995). It is also a name that is widely used in many museum
exhibits where material of this metoposaurid is on display. Abandoning
this well known, and widely used, name because it is the homonym
of a little-used, and arguably obscure, name of an insect (Buettneria Karsch,
1888), only serves to destabilize zoological nomenclature. Thus,
the name Buettneria Karsch, 1888 should be suppressed,
and the name Buettneria Case, 1922 should be conserved.
References
Kochanov, W.E. & Sullivan, R.M. 1994.
Finding phytosaurs in Pennsylvania: the story of Stahle, Sinclair,
and Zions View. Pennsylvania Geology, 25(1): 3–8.
Lucas, S.G. & Sullivan, R.M. 1996. Fossils
provide a Pennsylvania standard for part of Late Triassic time.
Pennsylvania Geology, 27(4): 8–13.
Sullivan, R.M., Lucas, S.G. & Randal, K.A. 1995.
Late Triassic vertebrate fauna from the Zions View locality (Little
Conewago Creek), York County, Pennsylvania. Journal
of Vertebrate Paleontology, 15, Supplement to no. 3, 55A. (abstract).
(3) Claudia A. Marsicano
Departamento de Cs. Geologicas, Universidad
de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina (e-mail: claumar@gl.fcen.uba.ar)
I support the application of Lucas et al. (2007) to conserve the
long- and
widely-used name of the Triassic amphibian Buettneria Case,
1922. Abandoning this name in favour of a little-used name of an
insect (Buettneria Karsch, 1888) would lead to a considerable
confusion in the nomenclature. To maintain the stability and universality
of zoological nomenclature, the name Buettneria Karsch,
1888 should be suppressed, and the name Buettneria Case,
1922 should be conserved.
(4) Bernhard Hausdorf
Zoological Museum of the University of Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz
3, 20146 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: Hausdorf@zoologie.uni-hamburg.de)
When proposing to conserve the name of the
Triassic amphibian genus
Buettneria Case, 1922 by suppressing the senior homonym
Buettneria Karsch, 1889 (Insecta, Orthoptera), Lucas et
al. (2007) failed to notice that there is another senior homonym,
Buettneria Simroth, 1888 (Mollusca, Gastropoda). Simroth
(1910) replaced the supposedly preoccupied name Buettneria Simroth,
1888 by Buettnerella Simroth, 1910. However, as already
noted by van Goethem (1977), the description of Karsch was published
only at the beginning of February 1889, whereas the paper of Simroth
(1888) had been published on 20th February 1888. Buettneria Simroth,
1888 is in current use for African land snails. The junior homonym
Buettneria Karsch, 1889 has to be replaced by its junior
subjective synonym Stenacropteryx Karsch, 1896. I do not
think that the use of the plenary power to suppress the generic
names Buettneria Simroth, 1888 and Buettneria Karsch,
1889 would be justified to conserve the junior homonym Buettneria Case,
1922. Rather, Buettneria Case, 1922 can be replaced by
Koskinonodon Branson and Mehl, 1929 as proposed by Mueller (2007)
without threatening the stability or universality of nomenclature.
Additional references
Simroth, H. 1888. Über die
azorisch-portugiesische Nacktschneckenfauna und ihre Beziehungen
(Vorläufige
Mittheilung). Zoologischer Anzeiger, 11: 86–90.
Simroth, H. 1910. Lissopode Nacktschnecken von
Madagaskar, den Comoren und Mauritius. Unter Berücksichtigung
verwandter Arten. Pp. 576–622,
pl. 25–26 in Voeltzkow, A. (Ed.), Reise
in Ostafrika in den Jahren 1903–1905. Wissenschaftliche
Ergebnisse, vol. 2. Schweizerbart, Stuttgart.
Van Goethem, L. 1977. Révision systématique
des Urocyclinae (Mollusca, Pulmonata, Urocyclidae). Musee
Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Tervuren,
Belgique, Annales, Sciences Zoologiques, 218:
I-XI, 1–355.
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, 64: 68, 127–128)
Uwe Fritz
Museum of Zoology, Natural History State Collections Dresden, A.
B. Meyer Building, D-01109 Dresden, Germany
(e-mail: uwe.fritz@snsd.smwk.sachsen.de)
I write in support of the proposed precedence
of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 over Chelodina
oblonga Gray, 1841
for the reasons specified in Case 3351 and Thomson’s (2007)
Comment (BZN 64: 127–128). Further,
I support usage of the name Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856
for the species known under the misapplied name Chelodina
oblonga Gray, 1841 for the past 40 years (see
Case 3351). When it is considered that the same species was correctly
named Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 for 136 years, perpetuating
the misapplication seems to be a bad choice, although Savage (2007,
BZN 64: 68) suggested this by his application
to the Commission 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. However, Savage (2007) overlooked
the long correct usage of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856
(see Thomson’s reply in BZN 64: 127–128).
In conclusion, the suggestions and considerations in Thomson’s
Case 3351 and Comment in BZN 64: 127–128
seem reasonable and the best solution to a nomenclatural problem.
Therefore, the name Chelodina colliei was already accepted
in the recently published ‘Checklist of Chelonians of the
World’ (Fritz & Havaš 2007, Vertebrate Zoology 57:
149–368), serving as standard reference
for CITES.
Though, the matter became somewhat more complicated in the
meantime. In a hobbyist journal, McCord & Joseph-Ouni (2007,
Reptilia 52: 56–64) ‘rejected’ the
holotype of Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 and designated
the lectotype of Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 as neotype
of Chelodina
oblonga Gray, 1841, thereby repeating the arguments of Savage
(2007) without mentioning Savage’s Comment
in the BZN. It is obvious from Article 75.6 of the Code that for
such action the plenary power of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature is needed. Therefore, the lectotype designation
by McCord & Joseph-Ouni (2007) is invalid
and unwelcome, contributing only to further confusion.
Comment on the proposed conservation of
Atractus Wagler, 1828 and Atractus
trilineatus Wagler, 1828 (Reptilia,
Serpentes)
(Case 3365;
see BZN 64: 60–63)
Charles W. Myers
Department of Herpetology, American Museum
of Natural History, New York, NY, U.S.A. (e-mail: myers@amnh.org)
Walter E. Schargel
Department of Biology, The University of
Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX 76019, U.S.A. (e-mail: wschargel@yahoo.com)
As concerned taxonomists who separately
and collaboratively continue to publish on Atractus we
strongly support conservation of this name as proposed by Hoogmoed & Savage
(BZN 64: 60–63). The senior name Brachyura Kuhl & van
Hasselt, 1822 has not been used for well over a century and is
virtually forgotten. The name Atractus Wagler, 1828, on
the other hand is recognized by a wide range of biologists, inasmuch
as it applies to the largest genus of colubrid snakes in the New
World.
Comment on the proposed
conservation of Columba roseogrisea Sundevall, 1857 (currently
Streptopelia roseogrisea; Aves, COLUMBIDAE)
(Case 3380:
see BZN 64: 108–112,
118–122)
Thomas M. Donegan
ProAves Foundation, 33 Blenheim Road, Caversham, Reading, U.K.
(e-mail: thomasdonegan@yahoo.co.uk)
I noted in Case 3380 that the wild and domestic
species names given to the chicken Gallus
domesticus and red junglefowl
Gallus gallus may require Commission attention in future.
However, the name Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758, p. 158),
which is usually applied to the red junglefowl, is senior to the
name sometimes given to the domestic chicken Gallus
domesticus (Gmelin, 1789, p. 737). Widespread usage of ‘Gallus
domesticus (Linnaeus, 1758)’ or ‘Gallus
gallus domesticus
(Linnaeus, 1758)’ in recent ornithological literature and
perpetuated in Case 3380 is an incorrect citation.
The relative priority of Gallus gallus and Gallus
domesticus (in
the context of wild and domestic names) does not require the Commission’s
attention because the species name for the wild population is senior
to the species name for the domestic population. If the two names
are considered synonymous or a trinomial is used, the wild species
name Gallus gallus (Linnaeus, 1758) has priority under
the Principle of Priority (Article 23.1 of the Code).
The above
matter was mentioned only by way of introduction in Case 3380 and
does not affect the facts or recommendations in Case 3380.
