BZN Volume 60, Part 1, 31 March 2003

Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 31 March 2003 in Volume 60, Part 1 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

Copies of these Comments can be obtained free of charge from the Executive Secretary, The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail:iczn@nhm.ac.uk).

Comments on the Neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates (Protozoa, Ciliophora)
(General Article, see BZN 59: 165-169)

(1) J.O. Corliss
P.O. Box 2729, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, U.S.A.

  I am in agreement with my colleague Foissner that it is often impossible, when attempting to establish needed neotypification of species of ubiquitous or cosmopolitan microscopic protists (e.g. the ciliates; Finlay, 2002), to determine the exact or original type locality or, even if this is known and accessible, to guarantee the presence there of the same species at some particular later date. It follows that carefully studied material (considered by an expert to be identical) should be acceptable. New neotype material – when preserved on glass slides after proper fixation and staining – is to be favored over drawings or illustrations, often made long ago when only a few characteristics might have been known or thought important, even though the latter are acceptable under the Code as holotypes for many organisms.
  Proper neotype material, made available to workers around the world, will allow detailed three-dimensional re-examination of the specimens on the slide. Although today the modern techniques of electron microscopy and molecular studies are very helpful for analyses of taxonomic and evolutionary interrelationships among groups of protists, the morphological and anatomical details made visible – under light (including phase) microscopes of high magnification and high resolution – are still sufficient to differentiate morphospecies of the great majority of protists, certainly the ciliates (Lee & Soldo, 1992).
  Further misidentifications and misnamings, still great problems in taxonomic protistology and thus biodiversity studies (Corliss, 2002) of these minute organisms, can be prevented by avoiding an over-rigid application of Article 75.3.6 of the Code, which requires that a neotype designation should provide ‘evidence that the neotype came as nearly as practicable from the original type locality’. The words ‘as nearly as practicable’ provide the required degree of flexibility.

Additional references
Corliss, J.O. 2002. Biodiversity and biocomplexity of the protists and an overview of their significant roles in maintenance of our biosphere. Acta Protozoologica, 41: 199-219.
Finlay, B.J. 2002. Global dispersal of free-living eukaryote species. Science, 296: 1061-1063.
Lee, J.J. & Soldo, A.T. (Eds.). 1992. Protocols in Protozoology. 588 pp. Society of Protozoologists, Lawrence, Kansas.

(2) Professor Dr Weibo Song
Laboratory of Protozoology, Ocean University of China, Qingdao 266003, Peoples Republic of China

  As an alpha-taxonomist working with protozoa, I fully agree with Foissner’s opinion. Almost all protozoa, especially the ciliates, have been subjected to a billion years of distribution and migration and must now be considered to be fully cosmopolitan. The concept of a ‘local species or taxon’ is meaningless with regard to these animals. For example, Paramecium caudatum is morphologically and genetically similar throughout the world, even between continents such as Asia and Australia that have been separated for hundreds of million of years.
  I agree also that the lack of proper type material is causing great problems for colleagues working in a number of fields that relate to protozoan animals. Most described taxa do not have type material preserved. In some cases no material was retained and in other cases where material is available it is often poorly preserved and useless for identification.
  In my opinion, Article 75.3.6 should be interpreted flexibly for protozoans and especially for free-living ciliates. This article should not become a barrier to the preparation where necessary of ciliate neotypes that will provide stability to the taxonomy and nomenclature of this important group of animals.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the generic names Porites Link, 1807, Galaxea Oken, 1815, Mussa Oken, 1815 and Dendrophyllia Blainville, 1830 (Anthozoa, Scleractinia)
(Case 2900: see BZN 52: 142-147, 328-329)

Mark J. Grygier
Lake Biwa Museum, Oroshimo 1091, Kusatsu, Shiga 525-0001, Japan

  I sympathize with the intent of Prof Potts’s application. The DENDROPHYLLIIDAE are the dominant coral reef-dwelling hosts of the PETRARCIDAE, parasitic crustaceans that belong to my major group of interest, the Ascothoracida. Nonetheless, the Commission cannot properly act upon these proposals without a clear demonstration that the consequences of following the Code are intolerable. Examination of relevant literature kindly made available to me by Dr S.D. Cairns (Smithsonian Institution) shows that some parts of the application are unnecessary. In particular, the following points were not addressed by Prof Potts:

1. If Porites Link, 1807 is rejected as a junior homonym, what is the next available synonym to replace it (see Article 23.3.5 of the Code)? Has the next available synonym ever been widely used and how widely is it known now?
  According to the synonymy provided by Wells (1956, p. F393), Stylaraea Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 is the next junior synonym of Porites Link, 1807, although only questionably. In fact, this genus, with a single living species, is generally regarded as separate from Porites within the PORITIDAE (see Veron, 1986, p. 234). If synonymy with Stylaraea is rejected, then Cosmoporites Duchaissing & Michelotti, 1860 and Neoporites Duchaissing & Michelotti, 1860 (published simultaneously) are the next and apparently only other junior synonyms available. Neither of these names has ever enjoyed the widespread usage hitherto accorded to Porites Link, and it would probably be undesirable to replace Porites with one of them.

2. If Porites Link, 1807 is rejected as a junior homonym of Porites Cuvier, 1798, the family name PORITIDAE Gray, 1842 must be replaced by the next available junior synonym or, lacking any, a name based on the replacement generic name (see Article 39). If there is an available junior synonym, what is it, has it ever been widely used, and how widely is it known now?
  I have been unable to determine whether any family-group names based on other genera included in the PORITIDAE (or on their synonyms) have ever been proposed.

3. When were the names Galaxea and Mussa first published by an author later than Oken (1815)? If there are no intervening synonyms, these names could be retained and re-attributed to their proper authors and dates under the Code.
  The first use of Galaxea following Oken (1815) was that of Milne-Edwards & Haime (1851, p. 70), who provided a diagnosis as well as a reference to Oken’s work. According to Wells (1956, p. F412), Galaxea has no junior synonyms; therefore authorship of this genus could be attributed to Milne-Edwards & Haime, 1851 with no further repercussions. It is unnecessary to conserve Oken (1815) as author of this genus. Milne-Edwards & Haime (1851, pp. 70-71) included 13 nominal species in Galaxea without naming a type species. As Galaxea fascicularis was listed among them, Vaughan’s (1918) designation of this species as the type species of Galaxea remains valid but the generic name remains threatened by Porites Cuvier, 1798, as described in Prof Potts’s application.
  According to Matthai (1928, p. 202), the first use of Mussa following Oken (1815) was by Dana (1848) [sic] (actually 1846, S.D. Cairns, pers. comm.). According to Wells (1956, p. F418), there is an intervening junior synonym Lithodendron Schweigger, 1819 which would thus replace Mussa if Oken’s authority is not approved. Prof Potts stated that Mussa has perhaps only two valid species, so replacement of Mussa by Lithodendron, while undesirable, might not be intolerable. Lithodendron and Mussa share the same type species Madrepora angulosa Pallas, 1766 therefore the priority threat posed by Porites Cuvier also exists for Lithodendron.

4. Family-group names would not be endangered whether Porites Cuvier replaced Galaxea, Mussa or Dendrophyllia as a senior synonym. All three family-group names based on these genera (GALAXEINAE Vaughan & Wells, 1943, MUSSIDAE Ortmann, 1890 and DENDROPHYLLIDAE Gray, 1847) would remain unchanged because Porites Cuvier is not the basis of any available family-group name and because the replacement would have taken place after 1961 (see Article 40.2). It is unnecessary for them to be placed on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology as Prof Potts has proposed.

5. What criteria should be used for choosing a type species for Porites Cuvier if it is not suppressed, and thus to determine whether Porites would replace Galaxea, Mussa or Dendrophyllia?
  Dendrophyllia is by far the most speciose genus threatened. It serves as the basis of higher level taxa up to the suborder and has no problems of authorship so it should be retained under any circumstance. As shown above, Galaxea also has no problems of authorship or synonyms even if Oken (1815) remains disallowed. The generic name Mussa would be replaced anyway if not made available from Oken (1815) therefore its replacement by Porites Cuvier would probably be least disruptive of the three choices. Perhaps the application by Prof Potts could have been be made simpler by including a designation of Madrepora angulosa as type species of Porites Cuvier, thus making Mussa its objective junior synonym. Then all that would be needed is conservation and inclusion in the Official List of Mussa (or Lithodendron, if the Commission votes against the availability of Mussa from Oken (1815)). Dendrophyllia and Galaxea would no longer require special attention in this regard.

Additional references
Dana, J.D. 1846. United States Exploring Expedition during the Years 1838, 1839, 1840, 1841, 1842 under the Command of Charles Wilkes, U.S.N., vol. 7. Zoophytes. vii, 740 pp. Philadelphia.
Duchaissing, P. & Michelotti, J. 1860. Mémoire sur les coralliares des Antilles. Memorie della Reale Accademie della Scienze de Torino, (2)19: 279-365.
Matthai, G. 1928. A monograph of the Recent meandroid Astraeidae. Catalogue of the madreporarian corals in the British Museum (Natural History), vol. 7. v, 288 pp. London.
Milne-Edwards, H. & Haime, J. 1851. Monographie des polypiers fossiles des terrains palæozoïques, précédée d’un tableau général de la classification des polypes. Archives du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle, Paris, 5: 1-502.
Schweigger, A.F. 1819. Beobachtungen auf naturhistorischen Reisen . . . Anatomisch-physiologische Untersuchungen über Corallen: nebst ein Anhange, Bemerkungen über die Bernstein enthaltend. xii, 127 pp. Berlin.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Achatina janii De Betta & Martinati, 1855 (currently Cecilioides janii; Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 3233; see BZN 59: 77-81)

Ruud A. Bank
Graan voor Visch 15318, NL-2132 EL Hoofddorp, The Netherlands

Gerhard Falkner
Bayerische Staatssammlung für Paläontologie und historische Geologie, Richard-Wagner-Strasse 10/11, D-80333 München, Germany

Edmund Gittenberger
Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 9517, NL-2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

  We ask the Commission, for the sake of universality in the scientific names of animals, not to make use of its plenary power to suppress the name Cecilioides veneta in favour of C. janii. The reason for this is that we do not agree with Giusti & Manganelli (BZN 59: 79) that C. veneta (Strobel, 1855) is a ‘virtually unused name’. In the last hundred years, C. veneta has been used in two well-known monographs dealing with the malacofauna of the Südtirol (Riezler, 1929, p. 161) and the Dolomites (Thorson, 1930, p. 229). In addition, we do not agree with Giusti & Manganelli (BZN 59: 77) that after the publication of De Betta’s work (1864), the specific name of C. janii (De Betta & Martinati, 1855) was used ‘by virtually all subsequent authors’. In fact, the name C. aciculoides (De Cristofori & Jan, 1832) was used for the snail species under consideration by Ehrmann (1933, p. 78), Eder (1914, p. 85), Mermod (1930, p. 371) and Jaeckel (1962, p. 147). Only after Giusti’s 1976 work was C. janii used for this Cecilioides species.
  Recently the name C. veneta has been used in two important monographs: the Checklist of the European Continental Mollusca (CLECOM checklist) (Falkner, Bank & von Proschwitz, 2001, p. 45) and the checklist of French continental molluscs (Falkner, Ripken & Falkner, 2002, pp. 42, 116). The primary goal of the CLECOM initiative is to produce a stable nomenclature for European non-marine molluscs by carrying out nomenclatural revisions based on the provisions of the Code. The CLECOM initiative is widely accepted.

Additional references
Eder, L. 1914. Zur Fauna der Gehäusetragenden Landschnecken des Kantons Tessin. 150 pp. Werner-Riehm, Basel.
Ehrmann, P. 1933. Mollusca. In Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G., Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 2, pt. 1. 264 pp., 13 pls. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig.
Falkner, G., Ripken, Th.E.J. & Falkner, M. 2002. Mollusques continentaux de France. Liste de référence annotée et bibliographie. Patrimoines naturels, 52: 1-350.
Jaeckel, S.G.A. 1962. Ergänzungen und Berichtigungen zum rezenten und quartären Vorkommen der mitteleuropäischen Mollusken. In Brohmer, P., Ehrmann, P. & Ulmer, G., Die Tierwelt Mitteleuropas, vol. 2, pt. 1. 264 pp., 13 pls. Quelle & Meyer, Leipzig.
Mermod, G. 1930. Catalogue des invertébrés de la Suisse. Fascicule 18. Gastéropodes. Georg, Genève.

(2) Folco Giusti and Giuseppe Manganelli
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Università di Siena, Via Mattioli 4, I-53100 Siena, Italy

  In their comment above, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger have not produced a single argument to falsify the important points in our application (see paras. 6 and 7 in BZN 59: 79). For example, they note that the name Cecilioides veneta (Strobel, 1855) has been used in ‘two well-known monographs’ dealing with the malacofauna of the Südtirol (Riezler, 1929 and Thorson, 1930). However, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger (2000, p. 100) recorded that they discovered the name C. veneta by ‘digging in the old literature’. If the name was so well known, why was ‘digging’ required to discover it? The use of C. veneta by Riezler and Thorson was noted in our application.
  Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger also disagree that De Betta’s (1864) adoption of the name Achatina janii was followed by virtually ‘all subsequent authors’. We have shown this to be the case in our application. In para. 5 of our application, we recorded that there were at least 27 publications by 33 different authors between 1971 and 1999 (a period of 29 years) in which the name had been used. This considerable amount of usage contrasts with the two monographs and four references produced by Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger for the use of C. veneta during the last hundred years. These publications are demonstrably not all subsequent to the paper by Giusti (1976).
  Some time ago (see Giusti, 1976, p. 234) it became clear to us that the continued use of the name C. aciculoides sensu De Betta, 1852 by some authors (mainly German zoologists) occurred because De Betta’s papers (and those of other Italian authors who adopted the replacement name C. janii) remained unknown because of language difficulties.
  Finally, Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger note that the aim of the CLECOM initiative is the production of a stable nomenclature for European non-marine molluscs based on the provisions of the Code. Obviously, this aim is not unique to the CLECOM group; all malacologists are concerned with this task. The CLECOM initiative may be ‘widely accepted’, but some of its nomenclatural proposals have been questioned by some malacologists. Bank, Falkner & Gittenberger themselves (2000) noted that ‘the name Cecilioides veneta (Strobel, 1855) has to be used for a species which has in the past been referred to as C. aciculoides or C. janii’. Replacement of the well-known name C. janii is contrary to the Code and its provisions for maintaining stability in nomenclature (see Article 23.9.3).

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Chrysodema Laporte & Gory, 1835 and Iridotaenia Deyrolle, 1864 (Insecta, Coleoptera) by the designation of C. sonnerati Laporte & Gory, 1835 as the type species of Chrysodema
(Case 3193; see BZN 59: 185-187, 281)

Richard Westcott
Entomology Museum, Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol, N.E. Salem, Oregon, U.S.A.

  I support this proposal wholeheartedly, as it will conserve the existing usage of the generic names for two large, well known and widely studied groups of beetles.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 (Insecta, Diptera)
(Case 3130; see BZN 59: 196-197)

Jeffrey M. Cumming and J. Richard Vockeroth
Systematic Entomology Section, ECORC, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0C6 Canada

  We support the application of Brooks, Wheeler & Evenhuis (made under Article 23.9.3 of the Code) for conservation of the generic name Pelastoneurus Loew, 1861 by suppression of the generic name Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Although it is a junior synonym, the name Pelastoneurus has been used by almost all authors for this diverse and widespread genus of flies. Suppression of the generic name Paracleius has been previously recommended by Robinson (1970) and Dyte (1975).
  Furthermore, use of the senior synonym Paracleius would continue to cause confusion with the generic name Paraclius Loew, 1864, which is used for a separate nominal genus with a nearly cosmopolitan distribution. The genus Paraclius was established by Loew (1864, p. 97) in the same publication in which he (pp. 99-100) considered Paracleius to be a senior subjective synonym of Pelastoneurus. In proposing the name Paraclius, Loew (1864) indicated that he was creating a new genus that was not congeneric with Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Loew stated (1864, pp. 99-100) that he saw 'no inconvenience in retaining the newly coined name . . . Paraclius, for the new genus I intend to establish and to define here'. However, Kertész (1909, p. 230) emended the spelling of Paracleius Bigot, 1859 to Paraclius and listed Paraclius Kertész as a senior synonym of Pelastoneurus Loew. Apparently Kertész was not aware that his emended name was preoccupied by Paraclius Loew, 1864. This confusion has continued with several regional catalogues (namely Foote et al., 1965; Robinson, 1970; Dyte, 1975 and Negrobov, 1991, but not Dyte & Smith, 1980) incorrectly treating Paraclius Loew, 1864 as an emendation of Paracleius Bigot, 1859. Despite this confusion Robinson (1970) correctly listed Paracleius as a senior synonym of Pelastoneurus, although this synonymy was not listed in the other regional catalogues mentioned, including the one by Dyte & Smith (1980).

Additional references
Kertész, C. 1909. Catalogus Dipterorum Hucusque Descriptorum, vol. 6. 362 pp. Budapest.
Loew, H. 1864. Monographs of the Diptera of North America. Part II. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, 6(2 [= pub. 171]): 1-360.
Negrobov, O.P. 1991. Family Dolichopodidae. Pp. 11-139 in Soos, A. & Papp, L. (Eds.), Catalogue of Palaearctic Diptera, vol. 7. Dolichopodidae – Platypezidae. 291 pp. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (currently Nemophora violella; Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 3188; see BZN 59: 30-33)

(1) Erik J. van Nieukerken
National Museum of Natural History, Naturalis, PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

1. I am not in agreement with the proposal put forward in this application. Kozlov's proposal to suppress the name Tinea cupriacella Hübner, 1819 in order to conserve the name of Nemotois violellus Herrich-Schaeffer in Stainton, 1851 (which he considers to be a junior synonym of T. cupriacella) centres around three problems. These are: (i) the status of Hübner's name, (ii) the parthenogenetic nature of the species currently known as Nemophora cupriacella (Hübner, 1819), and (iii) the supposed 'confusion' around the name T. cupriacella.

2. I agree with any action that will conserve the name Nemophora violella, but strongly disagree with the proposal to suppress the well-known name Nemophora cupriacella for the moth species that feeds on several Dipsacaceae species. The suppression of a name in use for 180 years as a result of re-examination of a very old plate does not follow the spirit of the Code. Thus, I would like to support the alternative proposal, indicated by Kozlov (BZN 59: 32), which involves the designation of a neotype for Tinea cupriacella. My argument in support of this approach follows the three points listed above.

The status of Hübner's name

3. Tinea cupriacella was made available only by an illustration of the moth. Type material is not known to exist and Hübner provided no description of the species. The moth shown on the colour plate is clearly an adelid moth, and resembles species of the genus Nemophora. The long antennae indicate that it is a male, and its identification by Kozlov as the species currently called Nemophora violella could be correct. However, the figure could also represent one of a number of related species, including the (unknown) male of N. cupriacella of present authors. All later authors based the identity of N. cupriacella on the works of Herrich-Schaeffer (1854, p. 96) and Zeller (1853, p. 57), who described and distinguished both N. cupriacella and N. violella (see below).

The parthenogenetic nature of the species currently known as Nemophora cupriacella (Hübner, 1819)

4. The parthenogenetic nature of N. cupriacella was not recognized before 1978 (Suomalainen, 1978). However, many earlier authors mentioned that they only knew females of this species (e.g. Zeller, 1853 (p. 57); Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854 (p. 97); Frey, 1856 (p. 83); Stainton, 1859 (p. 301); Wocke 1874 (p. 47); Sorhagen, 1886 (p. 155); Disqué, 1901 (p. 201) and Razowski, 1978 (p. 83)).

5. Parthenogenesis is a relatively rare phenomenon in the Lepidoptera and best known in the family PSYCHIDAE (see Vandel, 1931; Robinson, 1971; Suomalainen, Lokki & Saura, 1979). At the moment there is no doubt that N. cupriacella is parthenogenetic in North and Northwest Europe (see Suomalainen, 1978; K. Bland (pers. comm.); van Nieukerken, 1993). However, no recent data are available for southern parts of Europe.

6. In many cases Lepidopteran parthenogenesis is not a universal condition (see Vandel, 1931; Robinson, 1971); bisexual populations may occur in parts of the distribution area. Even in fully parthenogenetic populations, males occur now and then as the result of a ‘genetic defect’. Such males have been reported in the otherwise parthenogenetic nepticulid Ectoedemia argyropeza (Zeller, 1839) (see Bond & van Nieukerken, 1987) and Stigmella microtheriella (Stainton, 1854) (see Laštuvka & Laštuvka, 1997 (p. 39); L. Aarvik, pers. comm.) and in the psychid Luffia ferchaultella (Stephens, 1828) (see Henderickx, 1982). Therefore, it is possible that male specimens of N. cupriacella do occur from time to time.

7. So even if N. cupriacella is a parthenogenetic species, it is still possible that Hübner had a male specimen either from an as yet unknown bisexual population or an incidental male from a parthenogenetic population.

The supposed 'confusion' around the name T. cupriacella

8. Kozlov's case is built on the alleged confusion around the name T. cupriacella. Actually, the usage of both the name N. cupriacella and the name N. violella has been relatively consistent since 1853.

9. Many authors could not understand why they were unable to find male N. cupriacella (e.g. Zeller, 1853 (p. 57); Herrich-Schaeffer, 1854 (p. 97)). It is striking that both these authors got their males from southern Europe. This could be an indication that bisexual populations existed there. On the other hand, they may have misidentified their specimens. Later authors (e.g. Heath & Pelham-Clinton, 1976; Küppers, 1980) mismatched several taxa in search for males of N. cupriacella and provided incorrect and confusing descriptions and illustrations of male specimens and their genitalia. However, this was not the case for the females.

10. According to Kozlov, the only feature that has been used consistently to distinguish between N. cupriacella and N. violella is their respective larval foodplants. However, there are two other characters that immediately separate the females of both species. These are the colour of the hairs on the labial palps and the length of the palps themselves. N. cupriacella has predominantly yellow hairs on longer palps (Figure 1). N. violella has completely black hairs on shorter palps (Figure 2). More interesting is that both Zeller (1853, pp. 58, 62) and Herrich-Schaeffer (1854, p. 97) use these characters in their descriptions, as do some of the later authors (e.g. Heinemann, 1870 (pp. 83-84); Snellen, 1882 (p. 498), Lycklama à Nijeholt, 1929 (p. 49)). To cite the last author (translated from Dutch): ‘Snellen [in a paper in 1889] . . . considered both to be one species, but he did not mention the clear difference in size and hairs of the palps given by Zeller’. Most other authors overlooked this character, although Küppers (1980, p. 330) mentioned it for N. cupriacella, but not for N. violella.

11. Kozlov's remark that all authors relied on earlier sources for information relating to the larval foodplants of these species is overstated. Several authors did rear the species and could separate them successfully (e.g. Disqué, 1901 (p. 206); Stange in Disqué, 1901 (p. 206); Lycklama à Nijeholt, 1929 (p. 49); Lycklama à Nijeholt, 1932 (p. x)). The records of Sedum as hostplant for N. cupriacella go back to the record by Schmid (cited in Rössler, 1867) who found overwintering larvae on Sedum. However, Sedum is not the primary hostplant of N. cupriacella; its early stages are confined to flowers of Dipsacaceae. The early stages of N. violella are confined to flowers of Gentiana and Gentianella. In later larval instars they live on the soil, feeding on the basal leaves of their host plants and probably also on the leaves of other plants. Most current fieldworkers can easily recognise both species by their associated hostplants.

12. In conclusion, the identity of the figure labelled as Tinea cupriacella by Hübner cannot be unambiguously identified, but two taxonomic species known as N. cupriacella and N. violella have been recognised during the last 150 years (at least in female specimens) on the basis of Herrich-Schaeffer’s and Zeller's descriptions. Many authors have misidentified their material, particularly male specimens, because the species are similar and males probably absent in Nemophora cupriacella. However, nomenclatural changes should not be used to cover up misidentifications and poor taxonomy. The names N. cupriacella and N. violella are well known amongst northern European lepidopterists and have in recent years also been used in nature conservancy reports (van Nieukerken, 1993). Change of one of these names into a completely new one as proposed by Kozlov should not be endorsed as it will upset nomenclatural stability.

13. I therefore propose that the existing usage of the names N. cupriacella and N. violella be maintained by designating a neotype for T. cupriacella. The most suitable specimen for the neotype is deposited in The Natural History Museum, London. The specimen has the following data labels: ?, POLAND: Glogów; 'Scab. succisa | Torfwiesen | Glogau | Zeller 1/ [18]53'; 'Stainton Coll. |Brit. Mus.|1893-134'.

14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked:

(1) to use its plenary power to set aside all previous type fixations for the nominal species Tinea cupriacella Hübner, 1819 and to designate the specimen proposed in para. 13 above as neotype;

(2) to place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology the following names:
(a) cupriacella Hübner, 1819, as published in the binomen Tinea cupriacella and as defined by the neotype designated in (1) above;
(b) violellus Herrich-Schäffer in Stainton, 1851, as published in the binomen Nemotois violellus.

Acknowledgements
  A draft of this paper has been circulated for comments amongst a number of European lepidopterists. I am grateful for advice or comments from Jaroslaw Buszko, Ole Karsholt, Mikhail Kozlov, Zdenek Laštuvka, Niels Peder Kristensen, Gaden Robinson, Klaus Sattler, Jan van Tol and Kevin Tuck.

Additional references

Bond, K.G.M. & Nieukerken, E.J. van. 1987. Discovery of male Ectoedemia argyropeza (Zeller) (Lepidoptera: Nepticulidae) in south-west Ireland. Entomologist's Gazette, 38: 191-195.
Heinemann, H. von. 1870. Die Schmetterlinge Deutschlands und der Schweiz. Abtheilung 2 (Kleinschmetterlinge) Band 2. (Die Motten und Federmotten). Heft 1. 388 pp. Braunschweig [year cited incorrectly as 1877 in BZN 59: 32].
Henderickx, H. 1982. Découverte d'une chrysalide male de Luffia au sein d'une population de l'espèce parthénogénetique Luffia ferchaultella Stephens (Lep., Psychidae). Alexanor, 12: 195-198.
Laštuvka, A. & Laštuvka, Z. 1997. Nepticulidae Mitteleuropas. Ein illustrierter Begleiter (Lepidoptera). 229 pp. Brno.
Lycklama à Nijeholt, H.J. 1929. Aantekeningen omtrent Nederlandsche Microlepidoptera [Notes on Dutch Microlepidoptera]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 72: 42-58. [In Dutch].
Lycklama à Nijeholt, H.J. 1932. [no title]. Tijdschrift voor Entomologie, 75: ix-xii. [In Dutch].
Nieukerken, E.J. van. 1993. De langsprietmotjes van blauwe knoop en klokjesgentiaan [Fairy moths from Devil's bit scabious and Marsh gentian.]. Pp. 88-96, in Swaay, C.A.M. van & Halder, I. van (Eds.), Jaarboek Natuur, PGO - flora en fauna. Wageningen. [In Dutch].
Razowski, J. 1978. Motyle (Lepidoptera) Polski. Czesc 3. Heteroneura, Adeloidea [Lepidoptera of Poland, part 3]. Monografie Fauny Polski, 8: 1-137. [In Polish].
Robinson, R. 1971. Lepidoptera genetics. 687 pp. Oxford.
Rössler, A. 1867. Verzeichnis der Schmetterlinge des Herzogthums Nassau, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der biologischen Verhältnisse und der Entwicklungsgeschichte. Jahrbuch des Nassauischen Vereins für Naturkunde, 19, 20: 99-442 (reprint paginated 1-342).
Stainton, H.T. 1859. Manual of British Butterflies and Moths, xi, 480 pp. London.
Suomalainen, E., Lokki, J. & Saura, A. 1979. Evolution in parthenogenetic populations. Aquilo Ser Zoologica, 20: 83-91.
Vandel, A. 1931. La Parthénogenèse. xix, 412 pp. Paris.

Figure 1. Nemophora cupriacella (Hübner), female palps seen from lateral view: many yellow hairs and some black ones, relatively long palps (compared with eye width). Netherlands, Denekamp, 20.vii.1992, netted around Succisa pratensis, E.J. van Nieukerken.

Figure 2. Nemophora violella (Herrich-Schaeffer), female palps seen from lateral view: only some black hairs, shorter palps (compared with eye width). Netherlands, Staverden, 20.vii.1992, netted on wet heathland near Gentiana pneumonanthe, E.J. van Nieukerken.

(2) Zdenek Lastuvka
Department of Zoology and Agriculture, Mendel University of Agriculture and Forestry, Brno, Czech Republic

  I am not in agreement with the proposal presented in Case 3188. Instead, I favour conservation of the name N. cupriacella (Hübner, 1819) for the species that feeds on Scabiosa and Succissa by designation of a neotype as suggested by Kozlev (BZN 59: 32) and outlined in detail by van Nieukerken in comment (1) above. The spirit of the current Code does not support the suppression of a well understood name just because it may now be applied to a taxon other than that to which it was originally applied. Suppression of the name N. cupriacella would not be in the best interests of nomenclatural stability.

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1838 and Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782 (currently Phymaturus palluma; Reptilia, Sauria) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782
(Case 3225; see BZN 60: 38-41)

Robert E. Espinoza
Department of Biology, California State University, Northridge, California 91330-8303, U.S.A.

  As a physical ecologist who studies Phymaturus lizards, I give my full support to this application. The unique biology of the lizards belonging to the genus Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1838 and, in particular, the species currently known as Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) are of great interest to physiologists, ecologists and behaviorists for a number of reasons. First, this species is herbivorous. As such, it occupies a trophic niche that is rarely exploited by modern reptiles and is virtually unknown among the smaller species (i.e. those with a body mass less than 40 g) such as Phymaturus. Second, the species currently known as Phymaturus palluma is viviparous (gives birth to live young) with an extraordinarily large offspring clutch mass relative to the body mass of the female. Third, females of this species appear to form close and lasting post-birth associations with their offspring (i.e. parental care), which is also quite rare among squamate reptiles. Finally, Phymaturus palluma lives in an extreme biotope at high elevations (to 4000 m) and under very dry conditions (less than 200 mm precipitation per year). This species has already been a focal point of numerous ecophysiological studies and will be the subject of many other research projects, allowing the investigation of phenomena not previously studied in squamate reptiles.
  For these reasons it is imperative that the current usage of these names is conserved and stability established. The confusion of names in the literature caused by the actions by Cei, Cei & Lescure and Veloso et al. has already caused problems in communication and information retrieval. I urge the Commission to rule in favour of conserving the current usage of the names Phymaturus Gravenhorst, 1838 and Phymaturus palluma (Molina, 1782) by designation of a neotype for Lacerta palluma Molina, 1782.