Copies
of these General articles and Nomenclatural
Notes 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).
General Article
Zoological
nomenclature - reflections on the recent
past and ideas for our future agenda
Alessandro
Minelli
Department of Biology, University
of Padova, Via Ugo Bassi 58 B, 135131 Padova,
Italy
A
couple of weeks after the start of my service
as President of the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, a paper of mine
appeared in this Bulletin (Minelli, 1995)
in which I outlined some major challenges
to be faced by biological nomenclature in
response to the changing paradigms of biological
systematics. Now, with the approaching end
of my six-year term as President, I wish
to look in retrospect at the recent history
of the Commission, briefly touching on successes
and failures alike, and to outline what I
now see, from the vantage point of my experience,
as further challenges and responsibilities
awaiting us; by `us' I mean not merely the
Commission but all those active in the field
of zoological (or biological) taxonomy.
The main message I will try to convey in this open letter is that a major
effort is necessary in order to better integrate the Commission's work into
the daily practice of taxonomists world-wide (and also, in a sense, vice versa).
The
Commission and the zoological community
I have come to realise how poorly known amongst zoologists is the activity
(or often even the existence) of the Commission. The Code, despite
the thousands of copies printed and sold and the translations now available
in several languages, is far from being on the shelves of all practising taxonomists.
The Bulletin is only present in a relatively few libraries, mostly
in the richer countries, and is largely ignored as a taxonomist's working tool.
As a consequence, the rulings which have been issued by the Commission throughout
its history are very often overlooked, despite their obvious relevance and
the existence of two most useful volumes that provide an index and summary
of them (Melville & Smith, 1987; Smith, 2001). Questions of nomenclature
are sometimes discussed by zoologists, on a personal level, with ICZN members,
but this usually happens because the latter are individually known and appreciated
within the local, national or taxonomically specialist community as being knowledgeable
in these matters, rather than because of their official affiliation with the
Commission. Many more queries are addressed to the Commission's Secretariat
in London (more numerous indeed than the limited human and material resources
available there can readily cope with). Nevertheless, all these questions are
just the tip of a huge iceberg of problems of nomenclature floating through
the zoological community, sometimes over years and decades without ever being
adequately resolved.
Some steps have been taken, however, in order to increase the public
awareness of the importance of zoological nomenclature, thus improving the
visibility of the Code and the Commission's activity. It is not irrelevant,
in my view, that a journal such as Science devoted to the fourth edition of
the Code a two-column article in its 7 January 2000 issue (Pennisi,
2000), that is in the very week the new Code came into effect. Neither
is it irrelevant that an appreciated and widely read monthly such as Trends
in Ecology and Evolution hosted my paper on The names of animals in its
December 1999 issue (Minelli, 1999). The organizers of the XVIII International
Congress of Zoology (Athens, August 2000) selected nomenclature as subject
for a General Discussion session that was more than satisfactorily attended.
The titles and Abstracts of applications and Commission rulings published in
the Bulletin are now displayed on the Commission's Website (www.iczn.org)
and so are exposed to a very wide audience.
The time is ripe for `renegotiating' the relationships between the Commission
and the zoological community. I am not speaking of constitutional matters,
such as ICZN's affiliation with the International Union of Biological Sciences
- in this area, I do not see any reason for proposing changes to the current
state of affairs - but of the question: how should the problems of nomenclature
be addressed in the near future? To better explain my mind, let me deal with
new names and old names separately.
Up to now, the Commission has only dealt with new names when writing
or updating the relevant provisions in the Code; those rules are then
placed in taxonomists' hands and implementation becomes the responsibility
of individual workers. Each year thousands of new names thus enter zoological
nomenclature through the most diverse bibliographic outlets, some of them exceedingly
obscure. A feedback from this activity of taxonomists world-wide will reach
the Commission only if, and when, names are found to involve problems which
individuals cannot (or do not know how to) solve for themselves. In the meantime,
of course, those names have become, in their turn, old names.
Two sets of questions then arise. First, are there any means to improve
the way problems with old names are currently addressed by the Commission?
Would it be possible to actively involve the whole zoological community in
this process? Second, should the Commission take any active role in the `production'
of new names? Specifically, should (or could) the Commission be involved in
any future system of name registration? My answer to all these questions is
yes. I will briefly try to explain why I think so.
Availability
of tools
The Code and the rulings issued by the Commission in response
to submitted problems are, or should be, basic tools for all work in zoological
taxonomy. For instance, the latest Code is notable in that it allows
individuals to take actions to maintain the prevailing usage of names in many
circumstances which previously would have needed formal decisions by the Commission.
With the publication of the fourth edition of the Code, some
steps have been taken in order to increase its public accessibility. The production
of texts in various languages has been strongly encouraged and, for the first
time, all of them are equal in authority. At the time of writing the Code is
available in English, French, German, Japanese, Russian and Spanish, and Chinese
and Ukrainian texts are in an advanced state of preparation; others may follow.
There are proposals to produce the Code on CD, supported by adequate
searching software, and for a companion or guide which will be easier to understand
than the complex wording of the existing Code.
Beyond this, however, I should like to mention two more advanced targets.
The first is a future availability of the Code to any user,
free of all cost. The only impediment to the adoption of this policy has been,
and still is, the precarious financial position of the Commission. The revenue
from the sales of the Code and subscriptions to the Bulletin are,
at present, the main source of income which permits the existence of its publications
and Secretariat. Technically, it would be easy to have an electronic version
of the Code, with searching software, placed on a freely accessible Website.
Changes to the financial basis must be made as soon as possible, and indeed
might actually happen if the scientific community becomes really aware of the
service being offered to it by the Commission and its Secretariat.
My second belief is that in the near future we should try to re-write
the Code itself in a much simpler and more user-friendly way than
has been traditional. I am not speaking here of changes in what makes a name
available or valid, or in the application of the principle of priority (or
other principles) to homonyms or synonyms; nor of the role and power of the
Commission to deal with the relatively rare cases which are controversial or
where the Code does not provide a solution. I am speaking instead
of the way the rules have been presented in the successive Code editions.
The obvious desirability of producing a guide to the Code, or of developing
simple and powerful searching tools by which to electronically find the Articles
of relevance to a particular problem, means in my view that the current rules
could be written in a more straightforward way. The price to pay, of course,
would be a break with the traditional layout, but this should not imply a break
with established rules of nomenclature. Of course, these rules can be changed,
and no doubt some will be, but that is another subject.
Together with the free availability of the Code, I hope we shall
be able to offer the zoological community free and easy access to all the Opinions and
other rulings issued by the Commission in its 106 years of existence. Digitalization
of all relevant documents is currently being considered.
Discussion
of cases
At its meeting held in Athens in August 2000 the Commission discussed
at length (see BZN 57: 202-206) procedures which might be
adopted in the near future, in order to render the discussion of cases more
effective, that is (i) with a larger involvement of the zoological community
and (ii) with some degree of decentralization in the management of the discussion,
thus obtaining (iii) a substantial reduction in the average time between the
submission of the case and the Commission's decision. A small committee has
continued working on this subject and the results of this exploration, jointly
with the Trust (not-for-profit company) set up in the U.K. to administer the
Commission's financial affairs, will be available shortly. With my Presidential
term expiring, I must refrain from promising the adoption of any specific measure.
Nevertheless, it is probable that the Commission will quickly move towards
a large use of internet facilities for the discussion of cases. Specialist
nomenclature committees of international zoological societies and qualified
internet discussion groups may be co-opted by the ICZN for handling individual
cases, in order to provide a richer and better argued documentation to be forwarded
to the Commission for its eventual ruling. Involving more people in the actual
discussion of cases may open the way to a larger involvement of the zoological
community also in other vital events in the Commission's life, such as the
election of new Commissioners.
Registration of new names
I should like to come back to the subject of names for newly recognised
taxa. The Code Discussion Draft which was widely circulated in 1995 included
proposed rules for the registration of all new names. The public discussion
elicited by that document demonstrated that the concept of registration was
generally acknowledged as valuable, even though some were opposed in principle.
However, the further work of the Commission and its Editorial Committee, in
the light of the comments provided by many zoologists from different countries,
proved that it was not possible to retain those rules in the final text of
the fourth edition of the Code because of difficulties in finding
an acceptable way to implement registration. This is not the place to examine
the different options we discussed, or the objections raised to them. What
truly matters is to stress that the Commission has never abandoned the hope
of making registration into a fact, so that all names become visible rather
than being buried in the steadily growing mountain of mostly inaccessible publications.
I am firmly convinced of the need for the Commission to be closely involved
with any form or mechanism of registration, whatever kind of agency will be
eventually responsible for it. Very interesting suggestions for cooperation
in this respect have been advanced by the publishers of Zoological Record,
an acknowledged primary tool of every active taxonomist.
New
taxonomies and nomenclatures
The Commission cannot (and does not!) quietly sleep in an ivory tower
without paying attention to deveopments around it, whether actual or suggested,
and in the recent literature much has been written of `challenges' to the traditional
zoological Code and, equally, to its botanical companion.
When I became ICZN President there was much interest and apprehension
about the `BioCode' initiative (see BZN 53: 148-166,
September 1996). Several drafts of a unified Code to be eventually adopted
for new names of all organisms (bacterial, botanical and zoological) were produced
and some lively bursts of discussion developed at international meetings and
on the internet. The project was eventually abandoned, mainly owing to manifest
difficulties in satisfactorily dealing with already existing names and to unwillingness
of many botanists and zoologists alike to part with their traditional rules
and to accept registration of new names. For all those who took part in writing
or discussing the BioCode drafts, however, this was a useful experience
in that it invited a closer study of the long experience underlying the other Codes,
and it brought about some minor but useful convergences in the most recent
editions of these and to the establishment of a standing International Committee
on Bionomenclature to facilitate liaison between the bodies responsible for
the Codes (see BZN 58: 6-7).
Things are very different with the `PhyloCode' (see Forey, 2001),
not just because this initiative is still being actively pursued by its proponents
and is the subject of sustained debate, but because of the basic conceptual
issues involved in the contrast between the traditional (`Linnaean') Codes
and the proposed PhyloCode. In my 1995 paper, I wrote that `We must
expect that the development of cladistics will increasingly ask for a revised
biological nomenclature', and this is exactly what is happening with the PhyloCode.
To be sure, to be a cladist does not automatically mean to be in favour of
the new proposal. For example, this has been strongly criticized by cladists
such as Nixon & Carpenter (2000) and Forey (2001), who do not subscribe
to this plea for abandoning Linnaean nomenclature. The next few years will
be interesting in this respect.
I like the challenges and the debates, but I cannot conclude other than
by repeating the closing words of my 1999 paper, that is: `One can imagine
that in the future Linnaean and not-Linnaean classification may exist side-by-side.
Or maybe not. At any rate, the publication of the new zoological Code could
be a good opportunity to open the debate. Otherwise, both parties are likely
to go astray: Linnaean-style taxonomists on one side, patiently continuing
to produce names that others may be unwilling to use, and phylogenists on the
other, perhaps too ready to change the rules. It took one century from Linnaeus
to the Strickland Code, and another sixty years to the Regles. Let's
talk to one another. Rules can still evolve but a Code, historically, follows
and consolidates practice. It does not establish it from scratch.'
But the dialogue we need to develop is not just the dialogue between
the `phylocoders' and the defenders of Linnaean nomenclature. Starting from
a common awareness of the importance of biological systematics, of which nomenclature
is a humble but necessary arm, we must all cooperate in developing a common
strategy in order to raise, internationally as well as locally, the institutional
and financial support that systematic biology fully deserves (Boero, 2001).
With a better supported taxonomy, with ICZN's activities much more closely
intertwined with taxonomic research than they are at present, and with a much
better use of internet facilities, our old Commission should be able to adequately
fulfil, well into the new century, its institutional role at the service of
zoology.
A personal
note
Let me close on a more personal note.
During my six-year term as President there has been a substantial turnover
in the Commission's membership. Of the 27 members present at the beginning,
15 (F.M. Bayer, L.R.M. Cocks, J.O. Corliss, G. Hahn, O. Halvorsen, D. Heppell,
L.B. Holthuis, Z. Kabata, P.T. Lehtinen, LW.B. Nye, J.M. Savage, R. Schuster,
Y.I. Starobogatov, V.A. Trjapitzin and S.-I. Ueno) retired or left between
then and 2000. I wish to thank all of them once more for their valuable contribution
to the Commission's work.
In May this year David Ride retired from the Commission after 38 years
of service. Twice President, and editorial Chairman of the third (1985) edition
of the Code, David chaired very sensibly and competently the Editorial
Committee for the fourth edition. We worked in very close contact between 1996
and 1999, until the new Code was eventually released to the printer.
To David I wish to renew the most sincere thanks and appreciation, of the whole
Commission and personally mine, for his unique commitment to the Commission
and the Code.
I wish also to extend my words of thanks and appreciation to four more
people who will retire soon from their very long and productive association
with the Commission: in alphabetic order, Harold Cogger, ICZN Vice-President
for many years, including the first ones of my term; Claude Dupuis, most perceptive
and careful textual critic and wordsmith; Otto Kraus, my energetic predecessor
as President; and Philip Tubbs, our knowledgeable and enthusiastic Secretary
for 16 years. All were members of the Code Editorial Committee.
I should also like to thank Jeremy Smith and Anthea Gentry, members of
the Secretariat, for their long, loyal and invaluable service to the work of
the Commission.
The Commission's membership has not just registered losses. Seventeen
new members (M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga, W. Bohme, D.J. Brothers, DR. Calder, W.N.
Eschmeyer, N.L. Evenhuis, R.A. Fortey, R.B. Halliday, LM. Kerzhner, G. Lamas,
S.F. Mawatari, P.K.L. Ng, L. Papp, D.J. Patterson, G. Rosenberg, D.X. Song
and J. van Tol) have been elected between 1996 and now, representing fourteen
different countries, all continents and a wide range of taxonomic fields. Some
of them have already had the opportunity of contributing to the Commission's
work in a very substantial way. With them, and with the remaining members of
the `old guard', is the challenge of placing zoological nomenclature on an
increasingly sounder footing, with the active involvement of the whole zoological
community.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to Bill Eschmeyer
and Philip Tubbs for sharing with me their
views, not necessarily coinciding with my
own, on most of the items mentioned in this
article.
References
Boero, F. 2001. Light after dark:
the partnership for enhancing expertise in
taxonomy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 16:
266.
Nixon, K.C. & Carpenter, J.M. 2000. On the
other `phylogenetic systematics'. Cladistics, 16:
298-318.
Forey, P.L. 2001. The PhyloCode: description
and commentary. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 58:
81-96.
Melville, R.V. & Smith, J.D.D. (Eds.). 1987. Official
Lists and Indexes of names and works in zoology. 360 pp.
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Minelli, A. 1995. The changing paradigm of biological
systematics: new challenges to the principles and practice of
biological nomenclature. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 52:
303-309.
Minelli, A. 1999. The names of animals. Trends
in Ecology and Evolution, 14: 462-463.
Pennisi, E. 2000. Zoology naming rules eased. Science, 287:
26.
Smith, J.D.D. (Ed.). 2001. Official Lists
and Indexes of names and works in zoology. Supplement 1986-2000.
136 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
General
Article
Corrections
of authorship and date for gastropod (Mollusca)
family-group names placed on the Official
List and Official Index
Philippe
Bouchet and Jean-Pierre Rocroi
Museum national d'Histoire naturelle, SS rue Buffon, 75005
Paris, France (e-mail: bouchet@mnhn.fr)
Abstract. Of
the 90 gastropod (Mollusca) family-group
names placed on the Official List (76 names)
or the Official Index (14 names), 36 have
been entered with an erroneous source of
original publication, resulting in the name
being listed with wrong author and/or date.
The present paper rectifies errors in the
List (29 names) and the Index (7 names).
The corrections change the date of precedence
of the 29 erroneously cited potentially valid
names on the List by 1 to 54 years, but,
as far as we have ascertained, this will
not cause nomenclatural instability. We determined
that the remaining 54 gastropod family-group
names on the Official List or Index were
listed with current references.
There
are currently 90 gastropod family-group names
placed on the Official List or the Official
Index as recorded in the volume Official
Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology published
in 1987 and the Supplement 1986-2000 published
in 2001. In the course of compiling a nomenclator
of molluscan supraspecific names, we have
discovered that a high proportion (40%) of
these names have been entered with an erroneous
source of original publication, resulting
in the name being listed with wrong author
and/or date.
Under the third (1985) edition of the Code, `a name entered
in an Official List [was] deemed to have any authorship, date, publication,
name-bearing type, and additional qualification (such as precedence) attributed
to it in the relevant Opinion or Direction' (Article 78f(iii)). A correction
to the List or Index could not be made as routine book-keeping work, but necessitated
a vote by the Commission under the plenary power. To conform with the provisions
of the Code, the present list of corrections was submitted as an application
in October 1997 (Case 3056, receipt announced in BZN 55: 1),
but has not been published. In the meantime, the fourth edition of the Code came
into force on 1 January 2000; it states that `the status of a name entered
in an Official List is subject to the ruling(s) in any relevant Opinion(s)'
(Article 80.6), but also that `Official corrections to errors and omissions
... may be published by the Commission without further vote . . .' (Article
80.4).
The purpose of the present article is to rectify the errors in the List
(29 names) and the Index (7 names), and the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature is
the most appropriate forum to publish these corrections in a consolidated manner.
In addition, we also consider one of the names (CUTHONIDAE) placed on the List
in 1966 (Opinion 773) for which the criteria of availability at the time of
its original publication had not been met. We determined that the remaining
54 gastropod family-group names in the Official List or Index were listed with
proper references. The corrections change the date of precedence of the 29
erroneously cited potentially valid names on the List by 1 to 54 years. However,
as far as we have ascertained, the corrections will not cause nomenclatural
instability.
Names on the Official List are in bold type and those on the Official
Index are in non-bold type.
ACANTHINULINAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Pilsbry, 1926, in
Tryon, Manual of Conchology. (2)27:
186.
CORRECTION: Steenberg, 1917 [5 October], Videnskabelige
Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, 69:
14.
ACICULIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 344, 1955) Woodward,
1854, Manual of the Mollusca. London,
Weale: 178.
CORRECTION: Gray, 1850, Figures of Molluscous
Animals, 4: 121. (Original
spelling ACICULADAE).
ACMAEIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 344, 1955) Carpenter,
1857, Catalogue of the Reigen Collection
of Mazatlan Shells in the British Museum:
202.
CORRECTION: Forbes, 1850, Report of the
19th Meeting of the British Association for
the Advancement of Science (Birmingham, 1849),
Notices and Abstracts of Communications:
76 (Original spelling AcMAEADAE).
AEOLIDIIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 779, 1966) d'Orbigny,
1834 [sic, should be 1839], Mollusques Echinodermes,
Foraminiferes et Polypiers, recueillis aux
Iles Canaries. In Webb & Berthelot, Histoire
Naturelle des Iles Canaries, Zoologie:
42.
CORRECTION: Gray, 1827, Plates to Zoology:
plate Mollusca. Vol. 7, pl. 3 in:
Smedley, Rose & Rose (Eds.), Encyclopaedia
Metropolitana. (Original spelling EOLIDAE)
AKERIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 539, 1959) Pilsbry, 1893, in Tryon, Manual
of Conchology, 15:
350.
CORRECTION: Mazzarelli, 1891, Zoologischer
Anzeiger, 14: 243.
(Original spelling Aceridae, based on Acera,
an incorrect subsequent spelling (Opinion
539) of Akera O.F. Muller, 1776).
REMARKS: It should be noted that Pilsbry
(1893, p. 350) himself wrote `Subfamily AKERIDAE
(ACERIDAE Mazzarelli)', although, strangely
enough, he considered himself to be the author
of AKERIDAE.
Early nineteenth century authors used the
vernacular family name `Aceres'. Latreille
(1825, p. 177) first latinized it as `ACERA',
but it did not include, explicitly or implicitly,
Akera. The latinized family name `ACERA (Aceres,
Cuv.)' was used by Menke (1830, p. 12) and
explicitly included `Akera, Cuv.'.
However, Cuvier (1810, p. 1) merely used
the vernacular `Aceres' to designate gastropods
without tentacles. This was a descriptive
term opposed to `Diceres' (gastropods with
two tentacles) and `Tetraceres' (gastropods
with four tentacles), first proposed by Blainville
(1816, p. 52), and later latinized (Blainville,
1825, p. 487), but not based on an available
generic name. Usage of the descriptive terms
`Aceres', `Diceres' and `Tetraceres', or
of their latinized form, was abandoned after
1840, but the first valid introduction of
a family-group name based on Akera was
by Mazzarelli (1841). No current usage attributes
AKERIDAE to any of these early 19tb century
authors.
AMPHIBOLIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 479, 1957) H. & A. Adams,
1855, The Genera of Recent Mollusca, 2:
268.
CORRECTION: Gray, 1840 [16 October], Synopsis
of the Contents of the British Museum,
(Ed. 42): 128, 149.
APLYSIIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 1182, 1981) Swainson, 1840, A
Treatise on Malacology: 247, 248, 251.
CORRECTION: Lamarck, 1809, Philosophic
Zoolagique, 1: 320
[as the vernacular `les Laplysiens', latinized
as LAPLYSIANA by Children, 1823, Quarterly
Journal of Science, Literature
& the Arts, 15: 232]. Also introduced
[as LAPLYSIANA] by Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse
de la Nature: 142,
Current usage. APLYSIDAE is attributed to
Lamarck, 1809 by, e.g., Franc (1968, p. 849),
Nordsieck (1972, p. 42), Ros (1975, p. 307),
Cattaneo & Barletta (1984, p. 203), Cervera
et al. (1988, p. 19), Ortea & Martinez
(1990, p. 17), and Sabelli et al. (1992,
p. 436); it is attributed to Swainson, 1840,
with reference to Opinion 1182 by Hoisaeter
(1986, p. 103); and to Rafinesque, 1815 by,
e.g., Abbott (1974, p. 342), Arakawa & Hoshino
(1982, p. 134), Rios (1985, p. 181), Fukuda
(1992, p. 75), and Tracey et al. (1993, p.
155). There is thus no single `generally
accepted' (in the sense of Article 11.7.2)
usage of the author and date of APLYSIIDAE.
Attributing it to Lamarck appears to be the
parsimonious option.
AZECINAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Kennard & Woodward,
1926, Synonymy of the British non-marine
Mollusca: xvi, 144.
CORRECTION: Watson, 1920 [2 May], Proceedings
of the Malacologieal Society of London, 14(1):
24.
CHROMODORIDIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 1375, 1986) Bergh,
1892, Malacologische Untersuchungen in:
Reisen im Archipel der Philippinen von Dr.
C Semper, Theil, Wissenschaftliche Resultate.
Section 2, vol. 3, part 18, p. 1103.
CORRECTION: Bergh, 1891 [October], Zoologische
Jahrbucher (Abteilung fiir Systematik, Geographie
und Biologic der Thiere), 6:
137.
COMINELLINAE
LIST: (Opinion 479, 1957) P. Fischer,
1884, Manuel de Conchyliologie, 7:
624.
CORRECTION: Gray, 1857 [9 May], Guide
to the systematic distribution of Mollusca
in the British Museum. Part I: 15.
CUTHONIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 773, 1966) Odhner, 1934, British
Antarctic (Terra Nova) Expedition 1910, Natural
History Report, Zoology. 7(5):
278.
REMARKS: The name CUTHONIDAE was introduced
without a description and was not available
under Article 13a of the Code at the time
of Opinion 773 [now Article 13.1]. It was
first diagnosed by Odhner, 1939, Det
Kongelige Norske Videnskabers Selskabs, Skrifter, 1939(1):
53. The name CUTHONIDAE satisfies the conditions
of Article 13.2.1 and is available from Odhner
(1934).
HELICARIONIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 1678, 1992) Bourguignat, 1883, Annales
des Sciences Naturelles, (Zoologie).
Art. 2, (6)15: 9.
CORRECTION: Bourguignat, 1877, Bulletin
de la Societe des Sciences Physiques et Naturelles
de Toulouse, 3: 64.
A correction to Godwin-Austen, 1882, Land
and freshwater Mollusca of India, Part
2: 65 was notified in BZN, 50(4):
313 and published in the 2001 Supplement
to the Official Lists and Indexes.
HELICELLINAE [based
on Helicella Ferussac, 1821]
LIST: (Opinion 431, 1956) Hesse, 1926, Archiv
fur Molluskenkunde, 58(3):115.
A correction to Ihering, 1909, Verhandlungen
der zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in
Wien, 1909: 429 was published in the
1987 Official Lists and Indexes.
HELICELLINAE
(based on Helicella Lamarck, 1812, not an
available name) INDEX: (Opinion 431, 1956)
Chenu, 1859, Manuel de Conchyliologie, 1:
421. CORRECTION: H. & A. Adams, 1855
[January], The Genera of Recent Mollusca, 2:
112.
HYGROMIINAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Geyer,
1909, Unsere Land- and Susswasser-Mollusken.
(Ed. 2): 11.
CORRECTION: Tryon, 1866 [6 October], American
Journal of Conchology, 2(4):
306.
LAURIINAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Thiele,
1931, Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1(2):
509.
CORRECTION: Steenberg, 1925 [18 June], Videnskabelige
Meddelelser fra Dansk Naturhistorisk Forening, 80:
201.
LYMNAEIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 495, 1957) Rafinesque,
1815, Analyse de la Nature: 144.
COMMENT: Lamarck, 1812, Extrait du cours
de zoologie: 116 established the vernacular
name `les Lymneens' which was subsequently
latinized (as LYMNAEANA) by Children, y 1823, Quarterly
Journal of Science, Literature & Arts, 15:
242. Although the name LYMNAEIDAE has generally
been credited to Lamarck in the 19th century
literature, current usage refers this family
name to Rafinesque (e.g., Franc, 1968, p.
528; Starobogatov, 1970, p. 46; Tracey et
al., 1993, p. 158; Giusti et al., 1995, p.
169). It may appear inconsistent to accept
some of Lamarck's vernacular names (see,
e.g., APLYSIIDAE and TRITONIDAE herein, and
many bivalve family-group names in current
use) and reject others. However, names are
to be evaluated individually on a case by
case approach and on these grounds it seems
justified to accept the author and date of
LYMNAEIDAE
NARICIDAE
INDEX: (Opinion 1009, 1974) Recluz, 1846,
[`1845'], Magasin de Zoologie,
(2)7(9): 6. CORRECTION:
The author and reference are correct, but
the citation of the date suggests that
the work was published in 1846 rather than
in the nominal year, 1845. This does not
appear to be correct. The folios containing
Recluz' work are dated `Octobre 1845' on
the last printed line of the first page
starting the folio, and a copy in the mollusc
library of the Museum national d'Histoire
naturelle in Paris bears a manuscript note
in the upper left corner of page 49: `1er`
Xbre' [=1 October]. The Secretariat does
not hold any information that justifies
the date 1846 and the date 1845 should
be accepted. NARICIDAE is a junior objective
synonym of VANIKORIDAE Gray, 1840.
OTINIDAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Chenu, 1859, Manuel
de Conchyliologie, 1:
479.
CORRECTION: H. & A. Adams, 1855 [September], The
Genera of Recent Mollusca, 2:
249.
PALUDINIDAE
INDEX: (Opinion 573, 1959) Gray, 1840, Synopsis
of the contents of the British Museum.
Ed. 42: 117.
CORRECTION: Fitzinger, 1833, Beitrkge
zur Landeskunde Oesterreich's unter der Enns, 3:
109 (as `Gruppe' Paludinoidea). First used
as the vernacular `Les Paludinides' by Risso,
1826, Histoire Naturelle ... de 1'Europe
Meridionale, 4: 100,
but there is no current usage to attribute
the name to Risso. PALUDINIDAE is based on
the name Paludina Ferussac, 1812 (a junior
objective synonym of Viviparus Montfort,
1810).
PELTIDAE
INDEX: (Opinion 811, 1967) Winckworth, 1931, Plymouth
Marine Fauna. (Ed. 2): 267.
CORRECTION: Vayssiere, 1885, Annales
du Musee d'Histoire naturelle de Marseille,
Zoologie, 2(3): 104.
PLANORBIDAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Gray, 1840, in Turton, Manual
of the land and fresh-water shells of the
British Islands. (Ed. 2): 256.
CORRECTION: Rafinesque, 1815, Analyse
de la Nature: 143. Original spelling
(subfamily) PLANOxBIA (of the family TROCHINIA).
REMARKS: Rafinesque based the family-group
name PLANORBIDAE on `Planorbis Geof.'.
This is Planorbis of Geoffroy (1767,
p. 12), a work placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Works by
Opinion 362. Planorbis was first
made available by O.F. Muller (1774, p. 152),
who refers explicitly (e.g., pp. 154, 157,
159, 160, etc.) to Geoffroy, so that the
reference by Rafinesque to `Planorbis Geof.'
unambiguously denotes the taxon now attributed
to Muller. The family PLANORBIDAE is attributed
to Rafinesque, 1815 in many current publications,
following H.B. Baker (1956, p. 133). By attributing
PLANORBIDAE to Rafinesque, 1815, this name
takes the same precedence as the name ANCYLIDAE
Rafinesque, 1815 (placed on the Official
List by Direction 41). Starobogatov (1967,
p. 293) acted as First Reviser and gave relative
precedence to the name PLANORBIDAE over ANCYLIDAE
Rafinesque, 1815, which he attributed to
the subfamily ANCYLINAE within the PLANORBIDAE.
PURPURIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 886, 1969) Broderip, 1839, Penny
Cyclopaedia, 14: 321.
CORRECTION: Children, 1823, Quarterly
Journal of Science, Literature
& the Arts, 16:
54 [original spelling PURPURIFERA, latinization
of the vernacular `les Purpuracees' of
Lamarck, 1809, Philosophie Zoologique,
1: 322]. Current usage. In Opinion 886
THAIDIDAE/INAE Jousseaume, 1888 was given
precedence over PuRPUxIDAE/INAE (there
attributed to Broderip, 1839). Attributing
the name PURPURIDAE to Lamarck (1809)
would cause nomenclatural instability
because PURPURIDAE would then have precedence
over MURICIDAE Rafinesque, 1815. THAIDINAE
is used for a subfamily within MuRICIDAE
Rafinesque, 1815.
REALIINAE
INDEX: (Opinion 973, 1971) Pfeiffer, 1858, Monographia
Pneumonopomorum Viventium, suppl. 1:
153.
CORRECTION: Pfeiffer, 1853 [12 February], Catalogue
of Phaneropneumona or Terrestrial Operculated
Mollusca in the Collection of the British
Museum: 217 [original
spelling REALIANA].
RETUSIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 568, 1959) Thiele, 1931, Handbuch
der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1:
189 [sic, error for p. 389].
CORRECTION: Thiele, 1925 [before 10 November], Deutsche
Tiefsee-Expedition 1898-1899, 17(2):
234.
RUMINIDAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Thiele,
1931, Handbuch der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1(2):
554.
CORRECTION: Wenz, 1923 [5 June], Fossilium
Catalogus, I, Pars 20: 875.
RUNCINIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 811, 1967) Gray, 1857, Guide
to the systematic distribution of Mollusca
in the British Museum. Part I: 204.
CORRECTION: H. & A. Adams, 1854 [October], The
Genera of Recent Mollusca, 2:
42.
SCHIZOSTOMIDAE
INDEX: (Opinion 1470, 1988) Eichwald, 1871, Geognostica
paldeontologische Bemerkungen, uber die Halbinsel
Mangischlak und die Aleutischen Inseln:
119.
CORRECTION: Bronn, 1849, Index Palaeontologicus, 2(B):
421 [original spelling SCHIZOSTOMICA].
STRUTHIOLARIINAE
LIST: (Opinion 479, 1957) P. Fischer, 1884, Manuel
de Conchyliologie: 677. CORRECTION:
Gabb, 1868 [3 November], American Journal
of Conchology, 4(3):
147 [original spelling STRUTHIOLARINAE].
SUBULINIDAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Thiele, 1931, Handbuch
der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1(2):
549.
CORRECTION: Fischer & Crosse, 1877, Mission
scientifique au Mexique et dans Z'Amerique
Centrale. Recherches Zoologiques (7), 1(6):
592.
THAIDIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 886, 1969) Suter,
1913, Manual of the New Zealand Mollusca:
420. A correction to Jousseaume, 1888, Memoires
de la Societe Zoologique de France, 1:
179 [original spelling THAISIDAE] was published
in the 1987 Official Lists and Indexes.
TRITONIIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 668, 1963) H. & A. Adams,
1858, The Genera of Recent Mollusca, 2:
62.
CORRECTION: Lamarck, 1809, Philosophie
Zoologique, 1: 320
(as the vernacular `les tritoniens', latinized
as TRITONIANA by Children, 1823, Quarterly
Journal of Science, Literature
& the Arts, 15:
222).
Current usage. TRITONODAE is attributed to
Lamarck, 1809 by, e.g., Franc (1968, p. 873),
Nordsieck (1972, p. 65), Ros (1975, p. 332),
Schmekel & Portmann (1982, p. 141), McDonald
(1983, p. 120), Hoisaeter (1986, p. 107),
Bertsch & Mozqueira (1986, p. 47), Cervera
et al. (1988, p. 38) and Rolan et al. (1991,
p. 113); it is attributed to H. & A.
Adams, 1858 by, e.g., Sabelli et al. (1992,
p. 446) and Cattaneo-Vietti et al. (1990,
p. 22); and to Menke, 1828 by, e.g., Abbott
(1974, p. 368) and Rios (1985, p. 188). There
is thus no single `generally accepted' (in
the sense of Art. 11.7.2) usage of the author
and date of TRITONIIDaE. Attributing it to
Lamarck appears to be the parsimonious option.
TURBINELLIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 489, 1957) Swainson,
1840, A Treatise on Malacology: 75.
CORRECTION: Swainson, 1835, The elements
of modern conchology: 13, 20.
VALLONIIDAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Pilsbry,
1900, Proceedings of the Academy of Natural
Sciences of Philadelphia, (1900): 564.
CORRECTION: Morse, 1864 [17 March], Journal
of the Portland Society of Natural History, 1:
5, 21 [original spelling (subfamily) VALLONINAE].
VERTIGINIDAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Stimpson,
1851, Shells of New England: 53.
CORRECTION: Fitzinger, 1833, Beitrkge
zur Landeskunde Oesterreich's unter der Enns, 3:
109 (original spelling (`Gruppe') VERTIGINOIDEA).
VITREINAE
LIST: (Direction 27, 1955) Thiele, 1931, Handbuch
der systematischen Weichtierkunde, 1(2):
587.
CORRECTION: H.B. Baker, 1930 [24 April], The
Nautilus, 43(4): 122.
XANCIDAE
INDEX: (Opinion 489, 1957) Woodring, 1928, Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Publication
No. 385: 250.
CORRECTION: Pilsbry, 1922 [4 January], Proceedings
of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 73:
342.
XENOPHORIDAE
LIST: (Opinion 715, 1964) Philippi, 1853, Handbuch
der Conchyliologie und Malacozoologie:
185.
CORRECTION: Troschel, 1852, Archiv fur
Naturgeschichte, 18(2):
280 [original spelling XENOPHORACEA].
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to a number of colleagues who have drawn our attention
to little-known sources of molluscan family-group names and who have provided
photocopies of rare references, notably R. Burn (Geelong, Australia), G. Falkner
(Worth-Horlkofen, Germany), A. Kabat (Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), J. Pickering
(London, U.K.). A. Kabat and G. Rosenberg (Philadelphia, U.S.A.) read the manuscript
before publication and agreed with the conclusions.
References
Abbott, R.T. 1974. American
Seashells. 663 pp. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York.
Arakawa, K.Y. & Hoshino, T. 1982. Molluscan
fauna of the Seto inland sea, Japan. 181 pp. Hiroshima Shell
Club.
Baker, H.B. 1956-1957. Family names in Pulmonata. The
Nautilus, 69(4): 128-139. Addenda and errata: The
Nautilus, 70(l): 34 [1956]; 70(4): 141-142
[1957].
Bertsch, H. & Mozqueira Osuna, A. 1986.
A new species of Tritonia (Nudibranchia) from southern California
and Baja California. The Nautilus, 100(2):
46-49.
Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1816. Troisieme memoire
sur les animaux mollusques; sur 1'ordre des Polybranches. Bulletin
des Sciences par la Soci&e Philomatique de Paris, Zoologie,
[29 avril 1815]: 51-53.
Blainville, H.M.D. de. 1825. Manuel de malacologie
et de conchyliologie. viii, 664 pp. Levrault, Paris.
Cattaneo, R. & Barletta, G. 1984. Elenco
preliminare dei molluschi opistobranchi viventi nel Mediterraneo
(Sacoglossa, Pleurobranchomorpha, Acochlidiacea, Aplysiomorpha,
Nudibranchia). Bollettino Malacologico, 20(9-12):
195-218.
Cattaneo-Vietti, R., Chemello, R. & Giannuzzi-Savelli,
R. 1990. Atlas of Mediterranean nudibranchs.
264 pp. La Conchiglia, Roma.
Cervera, J.L., Templado, J., Garcia-Gomez, J.C., Ballesteros,
M., Ortea, J.A., Garcia, F.J., Ros, J. & Luque, A.A. 1988.
Catalogo actualizado y comentado de los Opistobranquios (Mollusca
Gastropoda) de la Peninsula Iberica, Baleares y Canarias, con
algunas referencias a Ceuta y la isla de Alboran. Iberus,
suppl. 1: 1-83.
Cuvier, G. 1810. Memoire sur les Aceres, ou
Gasteropodes sans tentacules apparens. Annales du Museum
d'Histoire naturelle, 16: 1-18, 1 pl.
Franc, A. 1968. Sous-classe des Pulmones (pp.
325-607) and Sous-classe des Opisthobranches (pp. 608-893) in Grasse,
P.-P. (Ed.) Traite de Zoologie, tome 5, fascicule 3.
1083 pp. Masson, Paris.
Fakuda, H. 1992. A review of the molluscan
fauna of Yamaguchi prefecture, western Japan. 99, xxvi pp.,
50 pls. Yamaguchi Museum.
Geoffroy, E.L. 1767. Traite sommaire des
coquilles, tant fluviatiles que terrestres, qui se trouvent aux
environs de Paris. 143 pp. Musier, Paris.
Giusti, F., Manganelli, G. &
Schembri, P.J. 1995. The non-marine molluscs of the
Maltese I Islands. Museo Regionale di Scienze Naturali
[Torino], Monografze, 15: 1-607.
Hoiseater, T. 1986. An annotated check-list
of marine molluscs of the Norwegian coast and adjacent waters. Sarsia, 71:
73-145.
Latreille, P.A. 1825. Familles naturelles
du Regne animal exposees succinctement et dans un ordre analytique,
avec l'indication de leurs genres. 570 pp. Bailliere, Paris.
Mazzarelli, G. 1891. Intorno all'apparato riproduttore
di alcuni Tectibranchi. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 14:
233-243.
McDonald, G.R. 1983. A review of the nudibranchs
of the California coast. Malacologia, 24(1-2):
114-276.
Melville, R.V. & Smith, J.D.D. (Eds.). 1987. Official
Lists and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology. 366 pp.
International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Menke, C.T. 1828. Synopsis methodica molluscorum
generum omnium et specierum earum quae in museo Menkeano adservantur.
xii, 91 pp. Pyrmonti.
Menke, C.T. 1830. Synopsis methodica mollu.scorum
generum omnium et specierum earum quae in museo Menkeano adservantur..
. . xvi, 169 pp. Pyrmonti.
Maller, O.F. 1774. Vermium terrestrium et fluviatilium
... Vol. 2. 214 pp. Havniae et Lipsiae [Copenhagen and
Leipzig].
Nordsieek, F. 1972. Die europkischen
Meeresschnecken (Opisthobranchia mit Pyramidellidae; Rissoacea).
327 pp. Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart.
Ortea, J. & Martinez, E. 1990. Moluscos
opistobranquios de Cabo Verde: Anaspidea (Aplysiomorpha). Publicaoes
Ocasionais da Sociedade Portuguesa de Malacologia, 15:
17-42.
Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la Nature,
ou tableau de l'univers et des corps organises. 224 pp.
Palermo.
Rios, E.C. 1985. Seashells of Brazil.
329 pp., 102 pls. Museu Oceanografico, Rio Grande.
Rolan, E., Rolan-Alvarez, E. & Ortea, J. 1991.
Sobre la captura en Galicia (NO de Espana) de Tritonia hombergi Cuvier,
1803 y Babakina anadoni (Ortea, 1979) comb. nov. (Mollusca: Nudibranchia). Iberus, 10(1):
113-117.
Ros, J. 1975. Opistobranquios (Gastropoda: Euthyneura)
del litoral iberico. Investigacion Pesquera, 39(2):
269-372.
Sabelli, B., Giannuzzi-Savelli, R. & Bedulli, D. 1992. Catalogo
annotato dei molluschi marini del Mediterraneo. Vol. 2,
pp. 346-499. Libreria Naturalistica Bolognese, Bologna.
Schmekel, L. & Portmann, A. 1982. Opisthobranchia
des Mittelmeeres. Nudibranchia and Saccoglossa. Fauna e Flora
del Golfo di Napoli, 40. 410 pp. Springer,
Berlin.
Smith, J.D.D. (Ed.). 2001. Official Lists
and Indexes of Names and Works in Zoology Supplement 1986-2000.
136 pp. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London.
Starobogatov, Ya.I. 1967. K postroeniyu sistemy
presnovodnykh legochnykh molluskov. [On the systematization of
freshwater pulmonate molluscs.] Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta
Akademii Nauk SSSR, 42: 280-303.
Starobogatov, Ya.I. 1970. Fauna molluskov
i zoogeograficheskoe rajonirovanie kontinental'nykh vodoemov
zemnogo shara [The molluscan fauna and zoogeographical zoning
of the continental water bodies of the world]. 372 pp. Nauka,
Leningrad.
Tracey, S., Todd, J.A. & Erwin, D.H. 1993.
Mollusca: Gastropoda. Pp. 131-167 in Benton, M.J. (Ed.), The
Fossil Record 2. 845 pp. Chapman & Hall, London.
