Comments
with the following titles were published
on 28 September 2001 in Volume 58, Part
3 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 proposed conservation of
the specific name of Chiton lepidus Reuss,
1860 (currently Lepidochitona lepida;
Mollusca, Polyplacophora)
(Case 3156; see BZN 57:
207-209)
(1) Philippe
Bouchet
Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle,
SS Rue de Buffon, F-75005 Paris, France
The
purpose of the application by Enrico Schwabe
is to conserve the name Lepidochitona
lepida (Reuss, 1860) despite it being
a junior primary homonym of Chiton lepidus Gould,
1859. The name Lepidochitona lepida relates
to a fossil species from the Miocene of Europe;
in the last 100 years it has been used in
only nine publications by six independent
authors (one of these publications is a catalogue
of available names and does not critically
evaluate the systematics of the taxon involved).
Under these circumstances I consider that
the name Chiton lepidus Reuss, 1860
does not merit setting aside the Principle
of Homonymy, and I object to the use of the
plenary power to conserve it.
(2) Enrico
Schwabe
Munchhausenstrasse 21, D-81247 Munich,
Germany
The
name for the European Miocene species Chiton
lepidus Reuss, 1860 is indeed a junior
primary homonym of Chiton lepidus Gould,
1859, the name for a Recent Indo-Pacific
species. However, as I made clear in para.
4 of my application, neither species has
been included in the original genus since
1883, when Rochebrune placed lepidus Reuss
in Tonicia Gray, 1840. Shortly after,
Pilsbry (1893) also removed lepidus Gould
from Chiton (and placed it in Ischnochiton Gray,
1847). Under Article 23.9.5 of the Code,
the junior of two homonymous names should
not automatically be renamed if the names
have not been treated as congeneric since
1899: a case should be brought to the Commission
while existing usage of both names is maintained,
and this is what I have done.
The senior homonym lepidus Gould, 1859 has not been used as
a valid name for more than a decade and the species is known as Lepidozona
luzonica (Sowerby, 1842). The junior homonym lepidus Reuss, 1860
has been in use since its publication and has no junior synonyms. To rename lepidus Reuss
at this late stage because of a long out-of-date primary homonymy would cause
unnecessary confusion, and anyway the earlier name would always have to be
cited. I urge the Commission to approve my proposal.
It is pointless to argue over trifles but nevertheless I point out that
in para. 3 of my application I cited nine publications by nine (not `six independent')
authors to demonstrate the usage of lepidus Reuss. Since publication
of the case I have found an additional three publications in which Reuss's
name has been cited (a list of these works is held by the Commission Secretariat).
Comment
on the proposed conservation of 31 species-group
names originally published as junior primary
homonyms in combination with Buprestis Linnaeus,
1758 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case
3149; see BZN
58: 24-31)
Svatopluk
Bily
Department of Entomology, National
Museum, Kunratice 1, CZ 148 00 Praha 4,
Czech Republic
I
should like to support the application of
Charles Bellamy to conserve the 31 names
originally published as junior primary homonyms
in Buprestis. The proposal is in
accord with the Code; all the names mentioned
were widely and commonly used throughout
the 20th-century and to change them would
cause a lot of difficulties and confusion.
Comment
on the proposed designation of a neotype
for Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker,
1885 (Reptilia, Archosauria)
(Case
3165; see BZN
58: 34-36)
Axel Hungerbiihler
Museum of Paleontology, University
of California, 1101 Valley Life Sciences
Building, Berkeley, CA 94720, ZI. S. A.
I
am writing in support of Sankar Chatterjee's
application to replace the fragmentary lectotype
of Parasuchus hislopi Lydekker,
1885 by designating a nearly complete skeleton
as the neotype. I fully agree with his reasoning.
Many phytosaur taxa (including the type species of Phytosaurus Jaeger,
1828) were established on isolated teeth and very fragmentary material. Since
Chatterjee (1978) the specific name hislopi has been consistently
employed for the basal phytosaur taxon represented by the skeletons and other
material from the Maleri Formation, though not for other poorly preserved Indian
phytosaur material such as Brachysuchus maleriensis Huene, 1940 and
undescribed specimens from younger beds. Defining Parasuchus hislopi by
means of an articulated skeleton rather than the fragmentary material of Lydekker
(1885) clarifies the application of the generic and specific names, and removes
any temptation to establish a new name based on the skeletons.
A number of authors have used Paleorhinus Williston, 1904 for
any genus of basal phytosaurs, either including Parasuchus (which
is incorrect for priority reasons) or rejecting Parasuchus as a nomen
dubium. Paleorhinus has indeed become a well-known and widely applied
name in the technical literature over the last 40 years, and one objection
to the application might be that clarification of Parasuchus could
lead to the rejection of Paleorhinus. However, the application of
the name Paleorhinus itself is not without ambiguity. I recently re-studied
the type specimen of the type species Paleorhinus bransoni (results
as yet unpublished). The specimen is so poorly preserved that a distinction
of Paleorhinus bransoni from other basal phytosaur species is problematic.
Furthermore, I found it difficult to recognize with confidence features that
justify a synonymy of Paleorhinus with any other nominal genus of
basal phytosaurs such as Promystriosuchus Case, 1922, Francosuchus Kuhn,
1932, Ebrachosuchus Kuhn, 1936 or Parasuchus as employed
by Chatterjee (1978). Most of the characters suggested so far in favour of
a synonymy (e.g. Westphal, 1976; Chatterjee, 1978; Ballew, 1989; Hunt & Lucas,
1991) only describe the more primitive organization relative to more advanced
phytosaurs that all these taxa have in common, but do not indicate that these
forms are more closely related to each other than to any other non-basal phytosaur.
Nomenclatural stability is hardly achieved by replacing a nomen dubium
(Parasuchus, as defined by the original material) with a name of uncertain
or at best debatable application (Paleorhinus). The application of
names among basal phytosaurs must be fixed and the taxa in question need to
be re-studied, before decisions on the synonymy of specific and generic names
can be presented. In contrast to most other type specimens involved (with the
exception of those of Ebrachosuchus), the proposed neotype for Parasuchus
hislopi is well-preserved, and it is one of the very few complete phytosaur
skeletons known. I recommend that the Commission use its plenary power to approve
Sankar Chatterjee's proposal.
Additional
reference
Westphal, F. 1976. Phytosauria.
Pp. 99-120 in Kuhn, O. (Ed.), Handbuch
der Palaoherpetologie, vol. 13, Thecodontia.
Fischer, Stuttgart.
Comments
on the proposed precedence of the specific
name of Euphryne obesus Baird,
1858 over that of Sauromalus ater Dumeril,
1856 (Reptilia, Sauria)
(Case
3143; see BZN
58: 37-40)
(1) Harry
L. Taylor
Biology, Regis University, 3333 Regis
Boulevard, Denver, Colorado 80221-1099,
U.S.A.
I
support the proposal to give the name Sauromalus
obesus (Baird, 1858) precedence over S.
ater Dumeril, 1856.
Prof Montanucci and his colleagues are to be commended for (1) an exceptionally
thorough and objective evaluation of the evidence, and (2) making the herpetological
community aware of the problem through two detailed publications in Herpetological
Review (Montanucci, 2000 and 2001).
It is clear that nomenclatural stability should obtain in this case.
(2) Kenney
L. Krysko
Division of Herpetology, Florida Museum
of Natural History, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida 32611, U.S.A.
I
have read Case 3143. I agree with the authors
and believe that they make a strong argument
for using the name Sauromalus obesus in
preference to S. ater.
Comment on the proposed designation of neotypes for Vespertilio
pipistrellus Schreber, 1774 and V. pygmaeus Leach,
1825 (currently Pipistrellus pipistrellus and P.
pygmaeus; Mammalia, Chiroptera)
(Case 3073; see BZN 56:
182-186; 57: 49-50, 113-116; 58:
60-61)
Victor Van
Cakenberghe
Department of Biology, Universiteit
Antwerpen, Universiteitsplein 1, B-2160
Antwerp (Wilrijk), Belgium
Jones & Parijs
(1993) showed that the European pipistrelle
known as Pipistrellus pipistrellus (Schreber,
1774) consists of two cryptic species. Jones & Barratt
(1999) adopted the name P. pipistrellus for
the 45 kHz phonic type and P. pygmaeus (Leach,
1825) for the 55 kHz phonic type; for over
160 years authors had considered pygmaeus to
be a synonym for P. pipistrellus and
did not use it as a valid name. Leach (1825)
had said that V. pygmaeus was considerably
smaller than V. pipistrellus. However,
size differences between the phonic types
are very minute and, based on the data of
Barlow et al. (1997), some specimens could
be erroneously attributed. In normal circumstances
the type specimen can be used to shed some
light, but the holotype of V. pygmaeus is
a badly damaged juvenile and cannot be assigned
to either phonic type.
As far as I know, the first author applying a name to the 55 kHz form
was Elizabeth Kalko (1995, p. 862), who stated `Following the classification
of several authors, I recognise Pipistrellus p. mediterraneus Cabrera,
1904 as a subspecies of Pipistrellus pipistrellus. My distinction
is based largely on the higher terminal frequency in P. p. mediterraneus of
southern Spain compared with that of P. p. pipistrellus in Central
Europe. Furthermore, it is likely that P. p. mediterraneus corresponds
to the `55 kHz' sonic type described by Jones & Parijs (1993) and hence
may represent a distinct species'. It is clear that she did not actually claim
that the 55 kHz form was mediterraneus, but the reasons to accept this name
are certainly no less valid than those for pygmaeus. V. p. mediterraneus is
a clearly defined taxon of which a lectotype has been designated by Ibanez & Fernandez
(1989), and numerous specimens are available. The remarks made by Jones &
Barratt in para. 6 of their application that
the name mediterraneus would be misleading
and that Leach's name pygmaeus is
much older (Hutson, BZN 57:
115-116; Jones, BZN 57:
116) have no value. Being `misleading' does
not constitute a reason to reject a taxonomic
name; Leach's name is indeed much older,
but there is no proof that it represented
the 55 kHz phonic type.
If one of the many supposed synonyms of P. pipistrellus described
prior to that of mediterraneus in 1904 is found to represent the 55
kHz type, that would indeed lead to a change in the name for the taxon; this
would be unfortunate, but not exceptional. An example in Pipistrellus can
be found among the African species. For a long period of time the name P.
deserti Thomas, 1902 denoted one of the northern African species. Qumsiyeh
(1982) argued that the correct name for this taxon should be P. aegyptius (Fischer,
1829), a name which is generally in use since then. However, Kock (1999) showed
that aegyptius should be considered as a nomen dubium, and that the
name deserti should be used again. So over a period of a few years,
the name of this species changed twice. Another even more drastic example can
be found in Scotophilus, where Robbins (1978) showed that the name S.
nigrita actually referred to the largest African form and not to the medium-sized
form, which since then has been called S. dinganii. Thus prior to
1978 S. nigrita referred to the largest African form and subsequent
references (probably) refer to the middle-sized form. These changes, which
have a much heavier impact than simply replacing one name by another, have
now been accepted by almost everyone. Therefore, I do not see any problem in
calling the 55 kHz phonic type P. mediterraneus Cabrera, 1904, which
clearly was that taxon, and in the future changing the name to one of the older
synonyms if it can be proven to be applicable.
The proposal of a neotype for Vespertilio pygmaeus seems premature,
and I suggest that this name should be treated as a nomen dubium and be ignored.
The fact that no objections were received to Case 3073 when it was discussed
at a workshop at the 7th European Bat Research Symposium (Krakow, August 1999;
see Jones, BZN 57: 116, para. (d)) is of no significance.
In conclusion, I agree with Helversen, Mayer & Kock (BZN
57: 113-114, para. 4) in accepting the neotype of V. pipistrellus Schreber,
1774 put forward by Jones & Barratt, and in proposing that the name P.
mediterraneus Cabrera, 1904 should be put on the Official List instead
of V. pygmaeus Leach, 1825.
Additional
references
Kock, D. 1999. The Egyptian Vespertilio
pipistrellus aegyptius Fischer 1829,
a nomen dubium. (Mammalia, Chiroptera, Vespertilionidae). Senckenbergiana
Biologica, 79: 101-105.
Qumsiyeh, M.B. 1982. The bats of Egypt. Special
Publication of the Museum of the Texas Tech. University, 23:
1-102.
Robbins, C.B. 1978. Taxonomic identification and
history of Seotophilus nigrita (Schreber) (Chiroptera:
Vespertilionidae). Journal of Mammalogy, 59:
212-213.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of usage of
15 mammal specific names based on wild
species which are antedated by or contemporary
with those based on domestic animals
(Case 3010; see BZN 53:
28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54:
119-129, 189; 55: 43-46,
119-120; 56: 72-73, 280-282)
(1) Hans-Peter
Uerpmann
Institut fur Ur- und Fruhgeschichte
und Archaologie des Mittelalters, Schloss
Hohentubingen, Burgsteige 11, 72070 Tubingen,
Germany
The
majority of comments on the application by
Gentry, Clutton-Brock & Groves have been
in favour of the conservation of usage of
15 mammal specific names based on wild species
which are antedated by or contemporary with
those based on domestic animals. However,
some concerns remain with regard to the consequences
of the implementation of the proposals (see
Grubb in BZN 56: 280-282).
Some of Grubb's concerns relate to issues
which are wholly theoretical but it is nonetheless
clear that nomenclatural usages have developed
which are not in complete conformity with
the strictest interpretation of the Code.
Most zoologists, however, are aware that
nomenclature is a tool and that names in
use must remain stable despite some workers'
reservations about deliberately setting aside
provisions of the Code.
Comments opposing the application have mainly been made by scientists
for whom the problems of names for wild species and their derived domesticates
are of only theoretical importance. Most of the supportive comments have been
submitted by colleagues dealing with animal history, archaeo- or palaeo-zoology
and other fields of science (or day-to-day life) where the separate treatment
of wild and domestic animals is of practical concern. Actually, this latter
group has long been acting according to the proposal now submitted by Gentry,
Clutton-Brock &
Groves. A ruling by the Commission in favour
of the application will simply legalise the
result of an evolution of zoological nomenclature
during the past century, and failure of the
application is unlikely to reverse this evolution.
Most of the workers - including myself -
who have been using all or some of the 15
specific names for wild species as listed
by Gentry et al. (BZN 53:
34) have done so in complete awareness of
the situation (see Gentry et al. in BZN
54: 127-129).
The problem, as perceived by the opponents of the proposal, is that a
ruling by the Commission in favour will sanction duplicate names for the 15
species listed by Gentry et al. This is, however, not the case. Domestic animals
have been separated from nature by human influences. They are artefacts - as
shown by the various attempts to devise schemes for their naming, none of which
has been universally accepted (see Groves in BZN 52: 139-140
and Gentry et al. in BZN 53: 29-31). While their Linnaean
names, like Eguus caballus, may be used for them as scientific names,
these cannot be attached to the names of their wild ancestors in the form of
trinomina. I agree with Grubb when he writes (BZN 56: 282)
that `workers dealing with wild mammals are intelligent beings. They would
understand what was meant by Camelus bactrianus ferus, Bubalus
bubalis arnee or Equus caballus przewalskii', but is it plausible
to suppose that these particular wild species need three names instead of two,
and why is there no Equus caballus caballus?
The `confusion' and `destabilisation' feared by Schodde (BZN
54: 123) and Bock (BZN 54: 125) as a result of approval
of the proposal will not materialise because the requested ruling will only
stabilise the existing status quo. On the other hand, the unfortunate use of
Linnaeus's names, based on domesticates, for wild ungulates in the 1993 edition
of Mammal species of the world, edited by Wilson and Reeder, is really confusing
because of the inconsistent use of younger names, based on wild species, in
the case of some carnivores. To excuse this as a minor oversight in the middle
of an enormous accomplishment (Gardner in BZN 54: 125) is
correct with regard to the accomplishment but is also symptomatic of the instability
following the editorial attempt to stick to the earliest names, whether based
on a wild species or a domestic derivative.
In reality a ruling in favour of the proposal would neither result in
`dual' names nor would it create a precedence for other fields of zoological
nomenclature. The list of animals which were first described and named as domesticates,
and for which there are distinct names in use for their wild progenitors, is
clearly limited, and thus also would be the ruling by the Commission. In addition,
the `intelligent beings' working with wild mammals (and also those working
with domesticates) would continue to understand that the older, Linnaean names
for domesticates are not applicable to the wild species in question.
I hope that the Commission will take a pragmatic approach to the problem
of the names for the 15 mammal species based on wild taxa which are antedated
by or contemporary with those based on domesticates. I strongly support the
proposal by Gentry, Clutton-Brock & Groves.
(2) Anthea
Gentry
Littlewood, Copyhold Lane, Cuckfzeld,
Haywards Heath, West Sussex RH17 SEB, U.
K.
Juliet Clutton-Brock
Working Group on Nomenclature, International
Council of Archaeozoology, c/o Department
of Zoology, The Natural History Museum,
Cromwell Road, London S W7 SBD, U.K.
Colin P.
Groves
Department of Archaeology and Anthropology,
The Australian National University, Canberra,
A. C. T. 0200, Australia
Our
application seeks to ensure the stability
of 15 specific names for wild species where
these are traditionally distinct from those
of their domestic derivatives. As Prof H.-P.
Uerpmann has noted above, our proposals are
not radical and their approval by the Commission
will merely ratify current usage. Implemention
of the proposals will allow workers the taxonomic
freedom to decide whether or not domesticates
are included in the species concept. Nonetheless,
Dr Peter Grubb (BZN 56:
280-282) has questioned the application and
taxonomic limits of the names based on wild
populations.
We respond to Grubb's points in the order in which he submitted them.
1. In contrast
to Grubb's statement, our application seeks
to solve a very long-standing nomenclatural
problem and not one of systematics. The taxonomic
status of domestic forms in relation to their
wild progenitors is a decision for individual
workers. In practice, since wild species
and their domesticates are recognizable entities
and it is usually desirable to separate them,
their names are treated as distinct and have
been for a number of years.
2. Zoological
names are labels for biological taxa. It
would be theoretically possible for the name
of a wild ancestor to be treated as a subspecies
of the name for its domestic derivative,
as in the example Bos taurus primigenius quoted
by Grubb, but this would be eccentric and
to our knowledge has not occurred (see also
the comment above by Prof H.-P. Uerpmann).
3. Grubb
noted that names based on wild populations
were introduced for a number of wild taxa
distinct from names based on their domestic
derivatives (see Bohlken, 1958, for Bos
mutus, B. gaur and Bubalus
arnee). These names for wild species
were subsequently taken up by researchers
on domestication. There has been a growing
need for their use and they have been increasingly
adopted during the second half of the 20th
century, as demonstrated by the many supportive
comments on this case. There is, in fact,
a wealth of literature in the fields of anthropology,
archaeo-zoology and the history of domestication,
published in papers, reviews, books, excavation
reports and serials (for example, the authoritative Journal
of Archaeological Science), in which
these names are continually employed but
these works are not normally cited in Zoological
Record. To revert now to names based
on domestic forms for these wild species
(whether or not the domesticates are treated
as conspecific) would cause immense confusion
and would be a truly retrograde step.
4. There
is no confusion with names that refer to
both the wild species and its domestic derivative,
and there are many examples of such names
in use (Oryctolagus cuniculus, used
for the western Mediterranean wild rabbit
and the almost world-wide feral rabbit, is
one such). Problems arise only when separate
names for the wild species and domestic form
have been adopted and that for the latter
is then transferred (as has been done by
a minority of workers) to the wild taxon.
5. As noted
by Prof Uerpmann (above), approval of our
proposals by the Commission will merely ratify
the current nomenclatural situation: names
based on wild populations will continue to
be used for wild species and will include
those for domestic forms if these are considered
conspecific. As noted in para. 1 above, wild
species and their domesticates are usually
treated as distinct, and thus so are their
names, but it is for each worker to decide
the taxonomic limits of the wild species
(see our previous explanatory comment in BZN
54: 128-129).
6 and 7.
Attribution of the correct specific name
for a wild species, based on a wild population,
will not be affected by modifications to
the history of domestication as it unfolds
with greater knowledge (see, in particular,
the comment by Prof A. Mones in BZN
56: 72-73 on the domestication of
the guinea pig).
We commend our application to the Commission.
