Comment on the proposed conservation of the usage of the generic name of Drosophila Fallén, 1823 (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 3407; see BZN 64: 238–242, 65: 55–56, 137–150, 214–215, 304–307)
Jan Máca
Czech Agency of Nature Conservation (AOPK), Nám. Prěmysla Otakara 34, CZ-37001 České Budějovice, Czech Republic (e-mail: jan.maca@nature.cz)
The nomenclature of the genera related to Drosophila, as used in recent taxonomic papers, is based on the paper of Sturtevant (1942). However, Throckmorton (e.g. 1962) and subsequent authors recognised that the taxonomic relationships within the group are partly different and showed them on cladograms, without suggesting nomenclatural changes. Now it is quite apparent that the conception of Throckmorton is, in principle, correct and its modifications are presently discussed. After forty seven years, time is now more than mature to reflect the changes in the nomenclature. If the Commission maintains Drosophila funebris (Fabricius, 1787) as type species of the genus Drosophila Fallén, there are two possibilities how to reflect the situation: 1. Sophophora Sturtevant, 1939 would be elevated to the rank of genus and consequently many geneticists, physiologists, etc. would have to adopt the name Sophophora melanogaster for their favourite research subject. 2. Alternatively, more than ten currently independent genera would be connected with the genus Drosophila (see comment by P. Štys, BZN 65(2): 144). In this case, the currently independent genera Scaptomyza, with about fifteen subgenera, and probably Hypselothyrea, Phorticella and Zaprionus, with two subgenera each, would become part of the genus Drosophila. It is evident that the names of these genera, and/or their subgenera, could not then be used as genus-group names.
On the other hand, accepting the proposition to use the name Drosophila s. s. for the genus based on D. melanogaster Meigen,1830 would also bring various constraints, as discussed in BZN 65(1) and 65(2). Apparently there is no perfect solution and I do not intend to anticipate the decision of the Commission. However, if D. melanogaster is to be accepted as type species of the genus Drosophila, the name of the present subgenus Drosophila (based on Musca funebris Fabricius, 1787) has to be changed at the same time. This nomenclatural act needs a comment.
Apparently no suitable genus-group name, other than Drosophila, has ever been used for the present type species D. funebris. The only available name, Oinopota Kirby in Kirby and Spence, 1815, is based on Musca cellaris Linnaeus, 1758. Type material of M. cellaris does not exist. Although Meigen (1830) considered M. cellaris synonymous with M. funebris Fabricius, 1787, most subsequent authors have not accepted this synonymy and M. cellaris is considered a nomen nudum (e.g. Brake & Bächli, 2008). Moreover M. cellaris was not originally included in Drosophila and, in my opinion, cannot become the type species of the taxon currently known as Drosophila s.str.
There are several genus-group names used for various subordinate taxa of the present genus Drosophila. The names Idiomyia Grimshaw, 1901 and Hypenomyia Grimshaw, 1901 should not be taken into consideration; they have been used for endemic Hawaian species now considered by many authors, including Brake & Bächli (2008), to belong to the genus Idiomyia Grimshaw, although this arrangement is not unequivocally accepted. Consequently the two names used by Duda, 1923 are the candidates. In the application (BZN 64(4): 239), the name Chaetodrosophilella Duda, 1923 (p. 40) is suggested for the present subgenus Drosophila (anticipated there to be raised to the genus level). However, Chaetodrosophilella has been used as a valid name only once before, notably for the group based on, and including only, Drosophila quadrilineata de Meijere, 1911 from southeast Asia and Micronesia, and has already been replaced by Chaetodrosophila Duda, 1924a in his subsequent publication. Therefore I do not consider it very suitable for a subgenus of several hundred species. The other genus-group name used by Duda, 1923 (p. 47) is Spinulophila. Duda soon transferred to Spinulophila the common cosmopolitan species immigrans Sturtevant, 1921 (misidentified as ‘tripunctata Loew, 1862: Becker, 1908’ by Duda, 1924a, but recognized as ‘D. immigrans Sturtevant ?’ by Duda, 1924b), which is often used as an object of genetic, physiological and ecological research, and the term ‘immigrans group’ has been commonly used for more than sixty years (Sturtevant, 1942) for a group currently comprising almost 100 species. The ‘immigrans group’ is close to the ‘funebris group’ and all taxonomic treatments show that they are congeneric. Furthermore Spinulophila has been, from the very beginning, used for a group which is not monotypic.
Other genus-group names used for subordinate taxa of the present Drosophila (Acrodrosophila Duda, 1924a, Spinodrosophila Duda, 1924a, Sordophila Wheeler, 1949, disregarding unjustified emendations) are younger. They are also apparently disqualified because they represent groups of one to several species limited to one of the zoogeographical regions (considering the Holarctic region as a single unit). The same applies to the names presently used for the other extant subgenera of Drosophila, which moreover represent taxa unrelated to Drosophila funebris.
In summary: if the name Drosophila were to be used for the genus based on D. melanogaster Meigen, 1830, I suggest giving the present subgenus Drosophila the name Spinulophila Duda, 1923 (although this name does not have page priority over Chaetodrosophilella Duda, 1923), mainly because Spinulophila originally represents a well known group of numerous species, including one cosmopolitan species and several others important for genetic research, the group being clearly congeneric with D. funebris (Fabricius, 1787), type species of Drosophila.
Additional references
Brake, I. & Bächli, G. 2008. Drosophilidae (Diptera). World catalogue of insects, vol. 9. 412 pp. Apollo Books, Stenstrup. [including quotations of further relevant papers].
Duda, O. 1924a. Beitrag zur Systematik der Drosophiliden unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der paläarktischen u. orientalischen Arten (Dipteren). Wiegmann’s Archiv für Naturgeschichte (A), 90(3): 172–234.
Duda, O. 1924b. Revision der europäischen Arten der Gattung Drosophila Fallén (Dipt.). Entomologiske Meddelelser, 14: 246–313.
Grimshaw, P.H. 1901. Diptera. Pp. 1–92, pls.1–3 in Sharp, D. (Ed.), Fauna Hawaiiensis, 3(1). University Press, Cambridge.
Throckmorton, L.H. 1962. The problem of phylogeny in the genus Drosophila. The University of Texas Publication, 6205: 207–343.
Comment on the proposed conservation of AULACOSCELINAE Chapuis, 1874 (Insecta, Coleoptera, ORSODACNIDAE or CHRYSOMELIDAE)
(Case 3398; see BZN 65: 97–105).
P. Jolivet
67, Bd Soult, 75012 Paris, France (e-mail: timarcha@club-internet.fr)
Despite having studied Greek and Latin in High School and been good at those, I prefer the traditional approach and I am 100% for MAGASCELINAE, LAMPROSOMINAE and AULACOSCELINAE, so I support this proposition.
Comment on the proposed precedence of the generic name Ataenius Harold, 1867 over Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 3377; see BZN 64: 39–42; 123; 65: 307–309)
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)
I strongly support the conservation of the name Ataenius Harold, 1867 because changing a name for one of the largest genera of SCARABAEIDAE, that is amongst the most frequently used scarab names in the taxonomic, ecological and applied literature and has even been adopted as a common name for an important pest species, would cause widespread confusion. This confusion would be even more severe since its senior synonym, Aphodinus Motschulsky, 1862 shows only a one letter difference to an even more frequently used scarab name, Aphodius Illiger (with counts for 186 references between 2002 and 2008 in Zoological Record, searched on 28 December 2008).
Ataenius has continuously and frequently been used since its description. Howden & Smetana’s (BZN 64: 40) statement that this name has been used in at least nine papers since the synonymy between Aphodinus and Ataenius was established by Dellacasa et al. (2001) is an underestimate. A list of 126 papers using Ataenius as valid between 2002 and 2008 is held by the Secretariat. Howden & Smetana (BZN 64: 40) also state that Ataenius has a history of use in over a hundred references. Since this name has been used at least 126 times during the last eight years alone, this estimate is likely to be wrong by an order of magnitude. Aphodinus Motschulsky has obviously not gained recognition in the scientific community. It has apparently been noted but deliberately rejected by leading taxonomists. Stebnicka (2007) lists Aphodinus as a senior synonym of Ataenius but considers it incorrectly as a nomen oblitum. Smith & Skelley (2007, p. 33) also list Aphodinus as an older synonym, and likewise use Ataenius as valid. Ratcliffe & Paulsen (2008) cite both those publications but do not even mention Aphodinus and use Ataenius as valid. The only authors to consider Aphodinus Motschulsky as valid with ‘Ataenius Harold, 1867: 100 (partim)’ as a junior synonym are Dellacasa et al. (2001, p. 36) but they are unsure whether the type species of Aphodinus is congeneric with the type species of Ataenius, and one of them expressed support for Case 3377 in a comment in BZN 65: 307–308.
Fifteen references documenting use in the taxonomical literature were given in the Application (BZN 64: 40) and the leading authority on this taxon, Z. Stebnicka, indicates about 150 taxonomical references in her comment (BZN 64: 123). Ataenius is frequently mentioned in the ecological literature also (e.g. Deloya et al., 2007; Koller et al., 2007; Steinbauer & Weir, 2007; Utz et al., 2007; Horgan, 2008; Pawson et al., 2008). Ataenius spretulus (Haldeman) is a common turfgrass pest in Ontario and the United States, reported from 41 states and causing damage on golf courses in at least 23 states (Tashiro, 1987; Jo & Smitley, 2006) resulting in an extensive body of applied literature, e.g. Weaver & Hacker (1978), Vittum (1995, p. 35), Kido et al. (1996, p. 12), Smitley & Davis (1999, p. 53), Labonte (2002), Dreistadt et al. (2003, p. 2), Koppenhöfer et al. (2004, p. 88), Williamson et al. (2005, p. 803), Baghzouz et al. (2006, p. 4139), Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs (2008, p. 4). Ataenius has even been adopted as a common name in the form of ‘black turfgrass ataenius’/ ‘black turfgrass Ataenius’ or ‘BTA’ in the pest control literature (e.g. Grewal, 1999, p. 288; Willmott, 2000; Rogers & Potter, 2002, p. 12; Fresenburg et al., 2003: 7; Hodgson, 2007, pp. 1–2 and most other references mentioned in this paragraph) and has been approved as common name by the Entomological Society of America (Werner, 1982, p. 7; Bosik, 1997, p. 13). Ataenius is not only a commonly used name in pest control, but some Ataenius species are threatened and have entered the conservation literature. Ataenius superficialis, the Big Pine Key Dung Beetle, and A. woodruffi, Woodruff’s Dung Beetle, were listed by the IUCN as vulnerable and endangered, respectively (Groombride, 1993, p. 171). These and other Ataenius species are used in the conservation and planning literature (Woodruff & Deyrup, 1994a–f; Deyrup, 1994; Drewry, 1994; MacAllister & Harper, 1998, p. 26; Mazzotti et al., 2002; Scott, 2003, p. 72).
The change of such a widespread name because of a subsequent type species designation in another genus causing Ataenius to be a junior subjective synonym should be avoided, particularly since one of the authors of this designation does not appreciate its consequences. Had Dellacasa et al. (2001) chosen another one of the originally included species, Aphodius compacticollis Motschulsky, as type species, Ataenius would not be threatened. Asking the Commission to use its plenary power to change the type species of Aphodinus to A. compacticollis would mitigate, but not solve the problem. Ataenius would no longer be threatened but the well-established though less frequently used genus-group name, Aganocrossus Reitter, 1895, would be instead. A. compacticollis was claimed to be a senior synonym of A. urostigma Harold, 1862 (Kozhantshikov, 1916, p. 192) which belongs to this subgenus or genus. However, this synonymy needs revision (Bordat & Dellacasa, 1996, p. 148). With the taxonomy of A. compacticollis being unresolved, changing the type species of Aphodinus is no feasible alternative to Howden & Smetana’s original proposal (BZN 64: 40).
Branco & Dellacasa (BZN 65: 307–308) supported maintaining Ataenius as a valid name but claimed that it was threatened by another senior synonym, Auperia Jacquelin-Duval, 1857, because the type species of this genus, Scarabaeus stercorator, designated by Dellacasa himself in 1988, is currently included in Ataenius. However, Dellacasa’s type species designation is invalid. Auperia was introduced by Jacquelin- Duval (1857, p. 50) as replacement name for ‘Euparia, Erichs., Arch. f. Naturg., 1847, I, 110’ on the grounds that the name Euparia had been used before by Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville and the name Euparius by Schönherr. However, Euparius is not a homonym of Euparia (Article 56.2), and Erichson (1847, p. 110) did not describe a new genus Euparia, but simply used ‘Euparia Lepell. et Serv. Encycl. meth. X. 1825’ in which he described two new species. There is no genus ‘Euparia Erichson’, only Euparia Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville. Since the author is not part of the scientific name (Article 51.1) but only a bibliographic reference, Euparia as used by Erichson as subsequent user (Article 51.2.1) is actually Euparia Le Peletier de Saint- Fargeau & Serville, thus Auperia Jacquelin-Duval being a replacement name for the latter. According to Article 67.8 Auperia Jacquelin-Duval, as a replacement name, has the same type species as the genus is is intended to replace. The type species of Euparia Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville is Euparia castanea Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, by monotypy (Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1828, p. 357). The type species of Auperia Jacquelin-Duval is the same. It is irrelevant that Auperia was an unnecessary replacement name since Article 67.8 applies to all nomina nova. Therefore, Auperia is a junior objective synonym of Euparia and does not threaten Ataenius.
Stebnicka (2002, p. 742) erroneously considered Auperia Jaquelin-Duval a nomen nudum although it was introduced as a replacement name, hence fulfilling the requirements of Article 12.2.3 to be available by indication. She uses the name Auperia Chevrolat, 1864 as valid and she designates A. denominata Chevrolat, 1864 as its type species (according to Article 70.3). However, Chevrolat (1864, p. 413) did not describe a new genus but referred to Jacquelin-Duval’s Auperia (‘Auperia stercorator Jac. Duval, loc. cit., p. 117’). There is no ‘Auperia Chevrolat’ and Stebnicka’s type species designation is invalid since it relates to Auperia Jacquelin-Duval the type species of which is determined by the type species of the name it was supposed to replace (Article 67.8). No action of the Commission is required relating to the genus-group name Auperia. Consequently, Branco & Dellacasa’s other requests (BZN 65: 308) are also unnecessary.
I suggest that the Commission votes on Howden & Smetana’s original requests (BZN 64: 40) with the only correction that, as indicated by Branco & Dellacasa (BZN 65: 307), the type species of Ataenius was first designated by Chapin (1940) and not Cartwright (1974).
Additional references
Baghzouz, M., Devitt, D.A. & Morris, R.L. 2006. Evaluating temporal variability in the spectral reflectance response of annual ryegrass to changes in nitrogen applications and leaching fractions. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 27: 4137–4157.
Bordat, P. & Dellacasa, G. 1996. Aphodius (Aganocrossus) postpilosus Reitter, 1895, bona species (Coleoptera Aphodiidae). Bollettino della Società Entomologica Italiana, 128: 143–150.
Bosik, J.J. 1997. Common names of insects & related organisms 1997. 238 pp. Entomological Society of America, Lanham.
Deloya, C., Parra-Tabla, V. & Delfín-González, H. 2007. Fauna de coleópteros Scarabaeidae laparosticti y Trogidae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeoidea) asociados al bosque mesofilo de montaña, cafetales fajo sombra y comunidades derivadas en el centro de Veracruz, México. Neotropical Entomology, 36: 5–21.
Deyrup, M. 1994. Family Scarabaeidae, status undetermined, Strohecker’s Ataenius Ataenius stroheckeri Cartwright. Pp. 431–433 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Dreistadt, S.H., Harivandi, M.A., Costa, H. & Hartin, J.S. 2003. Lawn insects. integrated pest management for the home gardener. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Pest Notes Publication, 7476: 1–6. 74
Drewry, G. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; animal candidate review for listing as endangered or threatened species. Federal Register, 59: 58982–59028.
Fresenburg, B., Barrett, B. & Fishel, F. 2003. Integrated pest management turfgrass and insects. 20 pp. University of Missouri, MU Extension, Columbia.
Grewal, P.S. 1999. Factors in the success and failure of microbial control in turfgrass. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 4: 287–294.
Groombridge, B. (Ed.). 1993. 1994 IUCN Red List of Threatened Animals. lv, 286 pp. IUCN, Gland.
Hodgson, E. 2007. White grubs. Utah Pests Fact Sheet, ENT-104–07: 1–3.
Horgan, F.G. 2008. Dung beetle assemblages in forests and pastures of El Salvador: a functional comparison. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 2961–2978.
Jo, Y.-K. & Smitley, D.R. 2006. Impact of soil moisture and mowing height on Ataenius spretulus (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) selection of golf course turf habitat in choice tests. HortScience, 41: 459–462.
Kido, K., Cowles, R.S. & Paine, T.D. 1996. The black turfgrass ataenius is a problem for golf courses in lower desert region of California. California Turfgrass Culture, 46: 12–13.
Koller, W.W., Gomes, A., Rodrigues, S.R. & Goiozo, P.F.I. 2007. Scarabaeidae e Aphodiidae coprófagos em pastagens cultivadas em área do cerrado sul-mato-grossense. Revista Brasileira de Zoociências, 9: 81–93.
Koppenhöfer, A.M., Fuzy, E.M., Crocker, R.L., Gelernter, W.D. & Polavarapu, S. 2004. Pathogenicity of Heterorhabditis bacteriophora, Steinernema glaseri, and S. scarbaei (Rhabditida: Heterorhabditidae, Steinernematidae) against 12 white grub species (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae). Biocontrol Science and Technology, 14: 87–92.
Kozhantshikov, V. 1916. Septième contribution à l’étude des Aphodiini (Coleoptera, Scarabaeidae). Revue Russe d’Entomologie, 16: 192–208.
Labonte, J. 2002. A new turfgrass pest in Oregon. Oregon Department of Agriculture Nursery News, Oct. 2002: 3.
MacAllister, B.A. & Harper, M.G. 1998. Management of Florida scrub for threatened and endangered species. US Army Corps of Engineers, Construction Engineering Research Laboratories, Technical Report, 99/19: 1–94.
Mazzotti, F.J., Hudson Kelley, M.E., McKercher, L. & Graham, J.A. 2002. Wildlife in peril: South Florida. Circular, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, 1427: 1–24.
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs. 2008. 2008 Supplement turfgrass management recommendations. Ontario Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs Publication, 384S: 1–20.
Pawson, S.M., Brockerhoff, E.G., Meenken, E.D. & Didham, R.K. 2008. Non-native plantation forests as alternative habitat for native forest beetles in a heavily modified landscape. Biodiversity and Conservation, 17: 1572–1148.
Ratcliffe, B.C. & Paulsen, M.J. 2008. The scarabaeoid beetles of Nebraska. Bulletin of the University of Nebraska State Museum, 22: i–iv, 1–568.
Reitter, E. 1895. Einige neue Coleopteren aus Korea und China. Wiener Entomologische Zeitung, 14: 298–210.
Rogers, M.E. & Potter, D.A. 2002. Biological control of white grubs by parasitic wasps. USGA Green Section Record, 40(6): 9–12.
Scott, C. 2003. Endangered and threatened animals of Florida and their habitats. 315 pp. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Smitley, D. & Davis, T. 1999. Causes of black turfgrass ataenius and aphodius outbreaks on golf courses. Golf Course Management, 67(5): 53–57.
Smith, A.B.T. & Skelley, P.E. 2007. A review of the Aphodiinae (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of southern South America. Zootaxa, 1458: 1–80.
Stebnicka, Z.T. 2007. The genus Ataenius Harold, 1867 (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) of New World. Iconography. Institute of Systematics and Evolution of Animals, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków.
Steinbauer, M.J. & Weir, T.A. 2007. Summer activity patterns of nocturnal Scarabaeoidea (Coleoptera) of the southern tablelands of New South Wales. Australian Journal of Entomology, 46: 7–16.
Tashiro, H. 1987. Turfgrass Insects of the United States and Canada. xiv, 391 pp. Cornell University Press, Ithaca.
Utz, R.M., Ratcliffe, B.C., Moore, B.T. & Hartman, K.J. 2007. Disproportionate relative importance of a terrestrial beetle family (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) as a prey source for central Appalachian brook trout. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 136: 177–184.
Vittum, P.J. 1995. Black turfgrass ataenius. Pp. 35–37 in Brandenburg, R.L. & Villani, M.G. (Eds.)., Handbook of Turfgrass Insect Pests. Entomological Society of America, Lanham, MD.
Weaver, J.E. & Hacker, J.D. 1978. Bionomical observations and control of Ataenius spretulus in West Virginia. Current Report, Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, West Virginia University, 72: 1–16.
Werner, F.G. 1982. Common names of insects and related organisms 1982. Entomological Society of America, [College Park, MD].
Williamson, R.C., Walston, A.T. & Soldot, D. 2005. Influence of organic-based fertilizers and root zone mixes on the incidence of black turfgrass ataenius (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae)
infestations on golf courses. International Turfgrass Society Research Journal, 10: 803–810.
Willmott, J.D. 2000. Practical turf pest monitoring. Rutgers Turfgrass Proceedings, 31(1999): 1–5.
Woodruff, R.E. & Deyrup, M. 1994a. Family Scarabaeidae. Threatened. Fox Squirrel Scarab. Ataenius sciurus Cartwright. Pp. 369–370 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Woodruff, R.E. & Deyrup, M. 1994b. Family Scarabaeidae. Rare. Havana Ataenius. Ataenius havanensis Balthasar. Pp. 378–379 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Woodruff, R.E. & Deyrup, M. 1994c. Family Scarabaeidae. Status undetermined. Woodruff’s Ataenius. Ataenius woodruffi Cartwright. Pp. 427–428 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Woodruff, R.E. & Deyrup, M. 1994d. Family Scarabaeidae. Status undetermined. Big Pine Key Ataenius. Ataenius superficialis Cartwright. Pp. 428–430 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Woodruff, R.E. & Deyrup, M. 1994e. Family Scarabaeidae. Status undetermined. Sand Pine Scrub Ataenius. Ataenius saramari Cartwright. Pp. 433–435 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Woodruff, R.E. & Deyrup, M. 1994f. Family Scarabaeidae. Status undetermined. Florida Coast Scarab. Ataenius rudellus Fall. Pp. 435–436 in Deyrup, M. & Franz, R. (Eds.), Rare and Endangered Biota of Florida. Volume IV. Invertebrates. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Comments on the proposed conservation of Buettneria Case, 1922 (Amphibia)
(Case 3420; see BZN: 64: 252–254, 65: 60–62, 217–219, 310–314)
Andrew R. Milner
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: andrew.milner@nhm.ac.uk)
I oppose the petition of Lucas et al. for the Commission to use their plenary power to conserve Buettneria Case, 1922 in preference to either of the senior homonyms. Both the initial proposal to conserve Buettneria Case, 1922 and the comments supporting this proposal ignore the full content of Article 23.9.1 of the Code. This includes Article 23.9.1.1 stating that a precondition for consideration is that the senior homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899. Buettneria Karsch, 1888 (1889) was used by Ragge (1962) and Buettneria Simroth, 1888 was used by Van Goethem (1975 et seq.) and Schileyko (2002), as noted by Hausdorf (BZN 65: 313). Thus neither of the senior homonyms of Buettneria is a nomen oblitum, and to conserve Buettneria Case, 1922 in preference to either would be to overturn Article 23.9.1.1. This in turn would be an effective statement that the Law of Priority no longer applies to infrequently studied taxa, of which there are many hundreds of thousands. I suggest that this wider implication should be given consideration by the Commission when they consider this issue. Article 23.9.1.1 exists in this explicit form to protect the priority of infrequently studied taxa. The proposal for conservation of Buettneria Case, 1922 uses the disingenuous but meaningless term ‘virtual nomen oblitum’ to describe Buettneria Karsch, 1888 (1889) to evade the basic issue that it is not a nomen oblitum and is protected by Article 23.9.1.1. In my view, Article 23.9.1.1 precludes all consideration of conservation of Buettneria Case, 1922.
Discrimination between the competing claims of Buettneria Karsch, 1888 (1889) and Buettneria Simroth, 1888 is a more legitimate topic for the Commission to consider and falls within the realms of opinion. My view is that i) Simroth himself replaced the name Buettneria with Buettnerella and that if, as original author, he felt it necessary to do this, this should have been respected by later workers; ii) when Van Goethem (1975) revived Buettneria Simroth, 1888, he failed to treat it as a nomen oblitum as it was under Article 23b.i in the prevalent (1964) edition of the Code of Nomenclature. In that edition of the Code, which would have still been operative in 1975, the fifty year rule defined nomina oblita. The history of Buettneria Karsch, 1888 (1889) may be brief but it is immaculate.
In conclusion, I support Mueller’s (2007) published proposal that the junior homonym Buettneria Case, 1922 be replaced by its junior synonym Koskinonodon Branson & Mehl, 1929. My preference would be for the seniority of Buettneria Karsch to be recognised, but under Article 23.9.1.1 both of the senior homonyms have a stronger case than Case’s juniormost homonym.
(2) Philippe Bouchet
Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle, 55 rue de Buffon, 75005 Paris, France (e-mail: pbouchet@mnhn.fr)
As a zoologist working on invertebrates, I feel belittled by the nature of the arguments put forth in favour of conserving the name Buettneria Case, 1922, against Buettneria Simroth, 1888. The technical arguments have by now been, in my opinion, adequately addressed in the comments published on this case. At face value, the number of usages is indeed overwhelmingly in favour of Buettneria Case, 1922, but I would argue that this comparison is unfair. We have, on one hand, a fossil vertebrate from the land of plenty, North America, and on the other hand, a land snail from the heart of Africa. It does not take a diviner or advanced bibliometrics to predict that the former will get considerably more attention than the second. When measured by museum exhibits, graduate courses, and scientific expertise available, the land snails are bound to lose against vertebrates. The name Buettneria Simroth, 1888, accounts for a minuscule number of usages not because it is a ‘virtual nomen oblitum’, but simply because it is the fate of most invertebrate taxa to attract very limited attention. The urocyclids are a very diverse family of semi-slug land snails in Africa south of Sahara, with hundreds of described species and certainly hundreds more to be described. Yet, the monographs of the family by van Goethem (1977) and van Mol (1970), now over 30 years old, have barely been outdated by subsequent additional publications. In the case of Buettneria leuckarti Simroth, 1888, the type species described from Angola, no field work has been carried out in that country for decades because of the civil war and insecurity.
There is no article in the Code that says that the name of a bird or a primate should have priority over the name of a mite or a snail. The name Buettneria Simroth, 1888, has not been rediscovered as a result of book archaeology. Instead, it was captured by nomenclators, it appeared in relevant treatises and textbooks, and it was used by the zoologists when they had to deal with the taxon the name applies to. Vertebrate palaeontology survived the name Brontosaurus giving way to Apatosaurus, so I see no reason why Buettneria Simroth, 1888 should now be displaced by Buettneria Case, 1922.
Additional reference
Van Mol, J.J. 1970, Révision des Urocyclidae (Mollusca, Gastropoda, Pulmonata). Anatomie – Systématique – Zoogéographie. 1ère partie. Annales du Musée Royal de l’Afrique Centrale, Sciences Zoologiques, 180: 1–234.
Comment on the proposed precedence of Anolis chrysolepis Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (Reptilia: Squamata) over Draconura nitens Wagler, 1830
(Case 3446; see BZN 65: 205–213)
John E. Cadle
Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA, U.S.A. (e-mail: jcadle@calacademy.org)
As a taxonomist actively studying the systematics and biogeography of South American reptiles, I strongly support the proposal by Myers (BZN 65: 205–213) that the Commission use its plenary power to give the name chrysolepis Duméril & Bibron, 1837 (published as Anolis chrysolepis) precedence over the name nitens Wagler, 1830 (published as Draconura nitens) when the two names are considered synonyms. The name nitens Wagler (1) cannot be unambiguously applied to any known taxon; (2) has been applied to diverse populations spread across a large region of South America; (3) is not tied to a specific taxon because its type specimen has been lost; and (4) perhaps applies to a forgotten lizard species with a distinctive colour pattern unknown in any of the forms of Anolis chrysolepis. D. nitens Wagler is a nomen dubium as defined by the Code. In contrast, the name chrysolepis (1) unambiguously applies to a particular taxon and has an extant lectotype; (2) has been in use for nearly the same amount of time as the name nitens; and (3) was used in a landmark taxonomic revision that applied the concept of refugia to South America; the name was subsequently used in nearly half a century of literature on South American biogeography as well as other systematic studies. For these reasons, Anolis chrysolepis should have precedence over Draconura nitens when the two names are considered synonyms.
Comments 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, 65: 62)
(1) Otto Kraus
Zoologisches Institut & Museum, Universitaet Hamburg, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3, 20126 Hamburg, Germany (e-mail: otto.kraus@zoologie.uni-hamburg.de)
Having studied the original application as well as succeeding comments, including J.M. Savage’s views, I strongly support the original proposals submitted by S.A. Thomson (BZN 63: 187–193). Historical confusion in the application of names for turtles in various regions of Australia and Papua was, and still is, primarily caused by unresolved problems in taxonomy. This is illustrated by the fact ‘that half of the species of turtles from Australia have been described since 1980, and all but one of these since 1994’ (Thomson, 2007, BZN 64 128). The taxonomy of populations in Northern Australia and Papua still needs clarification. Under such conditions and as already stated by U. Fritz (BZN 65: 62), the artificial attempt to conserve previous usage by a neotype selection would simply conserve a single case within a whole series of historical misapplications (and affect the status of the name Macrochelodina Wells & Wellington, 1985). The original application combines a minimum of nomenclatural change with a maximum of future taxonomic freedom.
(2) Arthur Georges
Institute for Applied Ecology, University of Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia (e-mail: georges@aerg.canberra.edu.au)
I am writing in support of the proposed precedence of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890 over Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841. Further, I support usage of the available name Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 for the species known as Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841 that has been misapplied for the past 40 years.
Savage (BZN 64: 68) suggested in his application to the Commission to set aside all previous designations of a 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.
Recent work in our lab, contained in the recently submitted Ph.D. thesis of Erika Alacs and soon to be published, shows two quite divergent clades within what is currently regarded as Chelodina rugosa Ogilby 1890. One distinct clade has a geographic range covering much of the northern territory, and almost certainly includes the type locality of Chelodina oblonga Gray, 1841. The other distinct clade has a geographic range covering southern New Guinea and Cape York, which includes the type locality of Chelodina rugosa Ogilby, 1890. I do not regard the populations containing these divergent mitochondrial haplotypes as biological species, but it certainly opens the real possibility that they may be demonstrated to be so in future studies involving a broader range of genetic and morphological markers.
This presents a clear problem if the solution suggested by Savage (BZN 64: 68) is adopted. Two named taxa with type specimens drawn from the same biological species would be undesirable in our view, and the possibility should not be admitted.
The proposition by Thomson is sensible in that it eliminates the problem as outlined above, and gives appropriate recognition to the person who originally described the south-western Australian species as Chelodina colliei Gray, 1856 (used for 136 years). Thomson’s Case 3351 and Comment in BZN 64: 127–128 are reasonable and provide the best solution to this nomenclatural problem.
Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34)
(1) George R. Zug
Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC, 20013–7012 U.S.A. (email: zugg@si.edu)
I support the application of Frazier to conserve Geochelone gigantea Schweigger, 1812 by the acceptance of a neotype designation. Frazier (2006a, 2006b) detailed the confusion and nomenclatural instability that has resulted from Bour’s (1982)
proposal of Dipsochelys. While some turtle systematists have followed Bour’s proposal, others have not, and the general biological community, especially ecologists and herpetoculturists, have continued to use Geochelone gigantea or Aldabrachelys gigantea. Given the uncertainty regarding the specific identity of the type, which was poorly illustrated, Bour upset nomenclatural stability of the Aldabran giant tortoise by his failure to follow the principle of the earlier Code (1961 – Article 23b(iii)) to request an evaluation by the Commission on the advisability of changing the widely used (i.e. outside the turtle community) name Geochelone gigantea that had instant recognition by the public and biologists for nearly three-quarters of a century. Frazier’s (2006a) designation of a neotype fixes the name Geochelone gigantea Schweigger to the giant tortoises of Aldabra. The discovery of Schweigger’s purported type specimen (Bour, 2006) immediately followed the designation of the neotype, and the publication of this discovery continues to foster nomenclatural confusion. The chain of evidence for the purported holotype has too many uncertainties, and these will continue to cause arguments on the assignment of the nomen gigantea whereas the acceptance of the neotype designation resolves the problem and promotes nomenclatural stability.
(2) Katy Beaver
Plant Conservation Action group & L’Ilot, Glacis (or PO Box 392), Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles (e-mail: kbeaver@seychelles.net)
I would like to support the petition to conserve the name of the Aldabra tortoise as Testudo gigantea.
As secretary of the Science Committee of the Seychelles Islands Foundation (which manages Aldabra Atoll) for some years, it was often frustrating to find so many names given to this animal icon of the atoll. The use of the specific name gigantea I support unreservedly.
In education and awareness work, which I am much involved with, in particular for local people and for tourists, it has been a constant headache to know how or what to call the Giant Tortoise, which is important both in local culture and history, and also as a famous and prominent animal found in Seychelles. Sometimes it is not necessary to use a Latin name, but when this information is given for all other species in the text, it seems odd not to put one for the Giant Tortoise. Most people cannot fathom why there should be so much fuss made over a Latin name, and the fact that there have been so many different names is quite an embarrassment! For the sake of sanity as well as science I welcome this petition and fully support it.
(3) Karen A. Bjorndal
Department of Zoology, PO Box 118525, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A. (e-mail: kab@zoology.ufl.edu)
I support the petition to conserve the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812, for the Aldabra tortoise. I agree with Frazier that T. gigantea is the established name. As explained in Case 3463, it has been in continuous use for more than 100 years and has been widely used in the scientific literature. It is important to settle this nomenclatural issue because there has been considerable confusion since 1982. The neotype for T. gigantea (USNM 269962) that was designated in 2006, should be maintained.
(4) Charles R. Crumly
University of California Press, 2120 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 94704 USA. (e-mail: chuck.crumly@ucpress.edu)
I write in strong support of the petition by Jack Frazier to conserve the usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 by the designation of a neotype. Further, I agree that Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 should be suppressed.
The arguments of Frazier are compelling, logical, well-reasoned, and will result in the least amount of confusion – especially among scholars unfamiliar with the ancient, arcane, difficult to interpret and sometimes difficult to access literature. The most obvious advantage of adopting Frazier’s application is the stabilisation of a name familiar and in wide use for over 100 years. In the last 25 years, great confusion has prevailed, partly caused by those that support a name other than gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise. Indeed, those that have rejected gigantea have, with equal misplaced certainty, suggested significantly different flawed proposals.
The need to stabilise the name for the Aldabra tortoise is becoming more and more serious due to the potential risk of extinction. The only extant population is on a remote and isolated island and is vulnerable. Hypothesised sea level changes represent a real threat to a low lying island such as Aldabra. Maintenance of the neotype with its documented collection locality on Aldabra is the most convenient and least ambiguous means by which to preserve the best name for Aldabra tortoises. The usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the Aldabra tortoise is obvious, appropriate and least disruptive, and should be conserved.
(5) Indraneil Das
Institute of Biodiversity and Environmental Conservation, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, 94300 Kota Samarahan, Sarawak, Malaysia (e-mail: hamadryad2004@hotmail.com)
I am writing in support of the petition by J. Frazier to conserve the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812, in the interest of nomenclatural universality and stability. The nomen Testudo gigantea for the Aldabra tortoise, a species of great conservation concern, has been in use for over a century. Thus, resurrection of the nomen oblitum Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831 and invalidation of neotype designation for T. gigantea is not deemed worthy of support, particularly since the rediscovery of the supposed holotype is not unequivocally proven.
(6) A.W. Diamond
Wildlife Ecology, University of New Brunswick P.O. Box 4400, Fredericton, NB, Canada E3B 5A3 (e-mail: diamond@unb.ca)
I write briefly in support of the case made by J. Frazier for the conservation of the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger 1812 and suppression of Testudo dussumieri Gray 1831.
I have read J. Frazier’s case carefully in its entirety, and am impressed by the rigour with which he has navigated what can only be described as the tortuosities of tortoise nomenclature. His credentials are impeccable and his case incontrovertible.
Great confusion has been caused in this area recently and there is a clear need to set the record straight as J. Frazier proposes.
(7) Clive Hambler
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford OX1 3PS, U.K. (e-mail: clive.hambler@zoo.ox.ac.uk)
I very strongly support the petition from Frazier to stabilise the nomenclature of this species in the relatively straightforward way proposed, using USNM 269962 as the neotype of T. gigantea.
The species name gigantea is very widely used, far more than any alternatives, and has been for decades. Almost all the ecologists who work on this species, including myself, have used and still use the name Geochelone gigantea (e.g. Bourn et al., 1999). There has been very unwelcome confusion in some quarters about the name, with proposals to use Dipsochelys elephantina or Dipsochelys dussumieri, although most experts on the ecology of the species have ignored this. The confusion was exacerbated by the failure of some authors to appreciate phenotypic plasticity in the species.
As the petition demonstrates there have been a number of proposed name changes, which hopefully will not be adopted and all of which I have ignored (fortunately, as it proves). To minimise further confusion, I advise people to continue to use gigantea unless there is an overwhelming reason not to. I would be far more at ease with a proposed change of generic name (if taxonomic evidence became strong enough) than a different species name.
As an ecologist and conservationist, I want strong links to be retained between the diverse publications on this species which is IUCN Red Listed and which arouses wide public interest. I have used the name Geochelone gigantea for several references to this species in my own textbook on conservation (Hambler, 2004, pp. 7, 361) and 82 other publications ( Hambler et al., 1985, 1993; Hambler, 1994; Linfield et al., 1993; Seaward et al., 1996). Both editions of a major student textbook on biogeography (Whittaker, 1998, 2007) also use this name. It is readily apparent that the species name gigantea is embedded in a wide range of literature from different biological disciplines which students may encounter early in their studies.
In addition to literature which is easy to find the name gigantea is used in a number of unpublished reports from British university student expeditions (e.g. from Oxford in 1983, 1988, 1990 and Southampton in 1982), available from the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers) and in various university libraries.
In teaching at undergraduate level and above, and in conservation literature, I advise that until there is a decision from the Commission it is highly desirable to continue to use gigantea; this will make links between publications, and ecological progress, much easier for students and practitioners. It is not in the interests of education or biology to maintain the current volatility which has already gone on too long. To my mind, the main value of pointing students towards the other names is as an illustration of the great intricacies of some scientific and nomenclatural controversy.
Additional references
Bourn, D., Gibson, C., Augeri, D., Wilson, C.J., Church, J. & Hay, S.I. 1999. The rise and fall of the Aldabran giant tortoise population. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 266: 1091–1100.
Hambler, C. 1994. Giant tortoise Geochelone gigantea translocation to Curieuse Island (Seychelles): success or failure? Biological Conservation, 69: 293–299.
Hambler, C. 2004. Conservation. x, 368 pp. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York.
Hambler, C., Hambler, K. & Newing, J.M. 1985. Some observations on Nesillas aldabranus, the endangered brush warbler of Aldabra Atoll. Atoll Research Bulletin, 290: 1–22.
Hambler, C., Newing, J.M. & Hambler, K. 1993. Population monitoring for the flightless rail Dryolimnas cuvieri aldabranus. Bird Conservation International, 3: 307–318.
Linfield, M.C.J, Raubenheimer, D., Hambler, C. & Speight, M.R. 1993. Leaf miners on Ochna ciliata (Ochnaceae) growing on Aldabra Atoll: patterns of herbivory in relation to goat browsing and exposure to the sun. Ecological Entomology, 18: 332–338.
Seaward, M.R.D., Hambler, C. & Aptroot, A. 1996. Bryophytes and Lichens of Aldabra. Tropical Bryology, 12: 29–33.
Whittaker, R.J. 1998. Island biogeography: ecology, evolution and conservation. xi, 285 pp. Oxford University Press, New York.
Whittaker, R.J. & Ferna´ndez-Palacios, J.M. 2007. Island biogeography: ecology, evolution and conservation. 2nd ed. xii, 401 pp. Oxford University Press, New York.
(8) Thomas Leuteritz
Monitoring and Assessment of Biodiversity Program, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, 1100 Jefferson Drive SW, Suite 3123, Washington, DC 20560–0705, U.S.A. (e-mail: tejl@hawaii.edu)
I support the proposed conservation of usage of the specific name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812, by maintenance of a designated neotype, and suppression of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. I agree with Frazier (BZN 66: 34) that T. gigantea is the established name for the Aldabra tortoise (i.e. it has been in continuous use for over 100 years, and it has been recognised as the oldest name for the Aldabra tortoise for more than 50 years). Furthermore, as Frazier documented, there has been much nomenclatural chaos, and it is necessary to stabilise the nomenclature of the Aldabra tortoise.
(9) Nirmal Jivan Shah
Nature Seychelles, P.O. Box 1310, The Center for Environment and Education, Roche Caiman, Mahe, Seychelles (e-mail: nature@seychelles.net)
We wish to support the petition by Jack Frazier. We strongly recommend that Testudo gigantea be used to refer to the Aldabra Giant Tortoise. We note that this is the name Gazetted by the Seychelles Government in ‘Wild Animals (Giant Land Tortoises) Protection (Amendment) Regulations (1999. S.I. 39 of 1999)’.
T. gigantea has been used for over 100 years in hundreds of publications thus proving it is the established name. The current confusion in nomenclature caused by only a few authors is proving to be more than a nuisance and hindering progress in science and conservation. It is therefore a high priority to have one established name for the Aldabra Giant Tortoise. We believe it would be parsimonious to standardise the name as Testudo gigantea.
(10) James B. Murphy
Department of Herpetology, National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC 20560–0705, U.S.A. (e-mail: jbmurphy2@juno.com)
Please consider my comments on Case 3463: (1) Testudo gigantea is the established name for the Aldabra tortoise (i.e. it has been in continuous use for over 100 years, it has been recognised as the oldest name for the Aldabra tortoise for more than 50 years, it is widely used in the literature, etc.; (2) there has been nomenclatural chaos, particularly since 1982; (3) it is necessary to stabilize the nomenclature and fix the name of the Aldabra tortoise and (4) the simplest way to achieve this is by maintaining the neotype for T. gigantea (USNM 269962) that was designated in 2006.
(11) Ian R. Swingland
Ultra Green Group, Singapore; Conservation Research & Development, Mauritius; Sustainable Forestry Management, London; Moulin Vert, Normandy; DICE, Kent; Earthwatch Institute, Boston and Oxford; Darwin Initiative, UK Government, London; Herons Hall, Nash, Canterbury, Kent CT3 2JX, U.K. (e-mail: ian@herons-hall.co.uk)
I fully support the retention of the name Geochelone gigantea for two reasons: i) it must retain a common usage stability which is allowed within the ICZN rules, and ii) I am tired of constant changes being made to the name as though it was a game, no doubt for very legitimate taxonomic reasons. The arguments and precedents and parsimony analysis may have produced all sorts of errors in the past but there are many other scientists working on the chelonians in ecology, behaviour, genetics, population studies, and other aspects of their biology who find all this indecision and constant changing of the Latin binomial very unhelpful to the science or the conservation of the species. I will always use Geochelone gigantea as a matter of principle and clarity however erroneous that is. We know what species we are dealing with here and there is no risk of confusion to misdirect conservation efforts; I must say the idea of fiddling about with names, when tortoises are burning and could use our taxonomic help, I find very distasteful. I worked on this species for 10 years, two of which I lived on Aldabra Atoll. I was later the Founding Chairman of the IUCN SSC Tortoise Specialist Group, and then Director of the First World Congress of Herpetology. Please accept my total support for this move to retain the original name in common usage.
(12) David Bourn
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 29th Floor, Yuchengco Tower 1, RCBC Plaza, 6819 Ayala Avenue, Makati City 1200, Metro Manila, Philippines (e-mail: david.mackenzie.bourn@gmail.com)
As a long-standing participant in various field studies of tortoises on Aldabra Atoll, Seychelles, I am pleased to support the above petition by Jack Frazier of the Smithsonian Institution. In my considered opinion, the continuing nomenclatural uncertainty has prevailed for far too long, and needs to be resolved as soon as possible to avoid perpetuating further ambiguity and confusion.
(13) Oguz Turkozan
Adnan Menderes Universitesi, Fen Edebiyat Fakultesi, Biyoloji Bolumu, 09010 Aydin, Turkiye (e-mail: oguzturkozan@yahoo.com)
I support the proposal to conserve the name of the Aldabra tortoise, Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812, for the following reasons: while T. gigantea is the established name for the Aldabra tortoise (i.e. it has been in continuous use for over 100 years and has been recognised as the oldest name for the Aldabra tortoise for more than 50 years) there has been considerable nomenclatural instability since 1982. I consider necessary to stabilise the nomenclature by maintaining the neotype for T. gigantea (USNM 269962) that was designated in 2006.
(14) Jay M. Savage
Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4614 U.S.A. (e-mail: savy1@cox.net)
I wish to fully support the application by Jack Frazier relating to the name Testudo gigantea. Previous authors have manipulated the evidence as it relates to this name to allow them to propose new ones. Many years of usage in this case should trump speculation as to the origin of the type specimen which in any case cannot definitely be identified.
(15) Gisella Caccone
YIBS-Molecular Systematics and Conservation Genetics Lab, ESC 140, Yale University, 21 Sachem Street, New Haven, CT 06520–8106, U.S.A. (e-mail: adalgisa.caccone@yale.edu)
As a concerned scientist working for the past 20 years on evolutionary genetics and conservation of Giant Galapagos tortoises, both in Aldabra and Galapagos, I have been made aware that there is a case submitted to the Commission to fix the specific name of the Aldabra tortoises once and for all to gigantea.
I completely and enthusiastically support this case. It would be a great service to the scientific and management community if the name of the Aldabra tortoise were fixed and the obvious choice is the established / customary / accustomed name of gigantea.
In the past years there have been a series of names proposed and used which have confused the issue and misinterpreted and misused taxonomic rules. For those of us working on conservation issues this has rendered our efforts much less effective; we cannot protect what we cannot name and identify precisely.
I really hope that the Commission can decide in favour of case 3463.
(16) James F. Parham
The Field Museum of Natural History (Biodiversity Synthesis Center), 1400 S. Lake Shore Dr., Chicago, IL 60605, U.S.A.; and Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences, 55 Music Concourse Drive, Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA 94118, U.S.A. (e-mail: jparham@fieldmuseum.org)
I support the petition described in Case 3463 to conserve the name Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 for the Aldabra tortoise by retaining USNM 269962 as the neotype of this taxon and suppressing Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831. There has been substantial nomenclatural chaos and confusion about what is the correct name for Aldabra tortoises. For over 100 years, the name Testudo gigantea was widely used for Aldabran tortoises. Testudo gigantea was designated as the type species of Aldabrachelys by Loveridge and Williams (1957) and the names Geochelone gigantea and Aldabrachelys gigantea remain the most widely used names for Aldabran tortoises today. This is despite the fact that Bour (1982) created confusion by claiming that the type of Testudo gigantea was certainly a Mascarene tortoise (genus Cylindraspis) and then later (Bour, 2006) claiming that it refers to a South American tortoise (genus Chelonoidis). The rediscovery of the holotype of T. gigantea is not unequivocally proven and will continue to provoke debate about the name and nomenclatural instability. Therefore the simplest solution is to maintain USNM 269962 as the neotype of T. gigantea and suppress T. dussumieri Gray, 1831, as recommended by Frazier (2006) and detailed in Case 3463.
(17) Anders G.J. Rhodin
Chelonian Research Foundation, 168 Goodrich St., Lunenburg, MA 01462 USA Chair, IUCN/SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group (e-mail: rhodincrf@aol.com)
I support the petition by Frazier to conserve the names Aldabrachelys and Testudo gigantea for the Aldabra giant tortoise. Though strict adherence to the Code might require the name changes proposed by Bour and Gerlach, the question of the identity of the recently rediscovered purported holotype of gigantea makes these changes not only undesirable but also uncertain. Stabilising the nomenclature through acceptance of the unequivocally identified neotype of gigantea would resolve the confusion and uncertainty regarding this taxon. The name gigantea has been associated with Aldabra tortoises for most of the last 100 years and that stability needs to be conserved. Additionally, from a conservation perspective, destabilising the nomenclature of this threatened species (IUCN Red List status Vulnerable) increases its risk through obfuscation of its name, creating potential loophole exceptions in laws and regulations concerning its protection.
Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype
(Case 3390; see BZN 64: 182–184, 261–262; BZN 65: 314–317)
(1) Zhonghe Zhou
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100044, China (e-mail: zhouzhonghe@ivpp.ac.cn)
I write to support Bock & Bühler’s proposal to set aside the single feather holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica in the Berlin and München Museums and to conserve the usage of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype, BMNH 37001 in the Natural History Museum, London. The major reasons are as follows:
Firstly, hundreds of feathered dinosaurs have been found dating from the late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous of northeastern China in the last 15 years (Zhang et al., 2008), which indicates that presence of feathers can no longer be treated as a diagnostic character for birds, and it is possible that the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861, represented by a single isolated feather, could be a different taxon from that now represented by several skeletal specimens referred to this species. I believe that stability is best served by conserving the usage of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 that has been widely known for about one and a half centuries; however, it also seems important and necessary to set aside the holotype feather and designate a neotype for this avian species.
Secondly, BMNH 37001 represents the first reported skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica (Owen, 1863). This has been much more extensively studied and is possibly more commonly associated with the name than the holotype feather, so it should have the priority to be selected as the neotype specimen despite the fact that several other well preserved skeletons referrable to the same species are also known (Mayr et al. 2007).
Finally, I believe that if this proposal is accepted, it will clarify a long standing historical issue in avian taxonomy, and the isolated feather that is currently the holotype of Archaeopteryx lithographica will be regarded as a referred specimen of this species.
Additional references
Mayr, G., Pohl, B., Hartman, S. & Peters, D.S. 2007. The tenth skeletal specimen of Archaeopteryx. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 149: 97–116.
Owen, R. 1863. On the Archaeopteryx of von Meyer, with a description of the fossil remains of a long-tailed species, from the lithographic limestone of Solenhofen. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 153: 33–47.
Zhang, F., Zhou, Z., Xu, X., Wang, X. & Sullivan, C. 2008. A bizarre Jurassic maniraptoran from China with elongate ribbon-like feathers. Nature, 455: 1105–1108.
(2) Gareth J. Dyke
School of Biology and Environmental Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland (e-mail: gareth.dyke@ucd.ie)
Gary W. Kaiser
Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, Canada(e-mail: gansus@shaw.ca)
We support Bock & Bühler’s proposal to set aside the holotype specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 and to conserve this name by designating specimen BMNH 37001 in the Natural History Museum (the ‘London specimen’) as the neotype. We echo the comments in this regard made by Barrett & Milner (BZN 64: 261–262) and add our opinion that, while a name is a useful tool, where usage is extensive, common sense is more important than hermetic bureaucracy. Vertebrate palaeontologists have for years effectively treated ‘the London specimen’ as the type of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861; in any case it will likely never be possible to confidently determine whether the isolated feather (the current ‘holotype’ of this taxon) pertains to the same species. The Commission should make the sensible decision in this case.
.
