BZN Volume 63, Part 3, 30 September 2006

Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 30 September 2006 in Volume 63, 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 usage of the specific name of Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) by the designation of a neotype (Case 3315; see BZN 63: 8–11)

(1) P. Schuchert
Muséum d’histoire naturelle, 1, route de Malagnou, CH-1211 Genève, Switzerland

  Marques & Vervoort proposed to designate a neotype for Eudendrium tenellum, despite the original type specimen still existing. The original type material of E. tenellum is of limited use as it lacks hydranths, but its nematocysts agree with the assertion that it is conspecific with E. capillare Alder, 1856 (based on my own observations of the type specimen and also a conclusion tentatively given by Marques & Vervoort). Although the nominal species E. tenellum was not objectively recognisable, several authors, although not a significant number, referred material to this species, mostly without examining the taxonomically essential nematocyst capsules. Without this information, the species identification within Eudendrium is not possible (this includes E. capillare). While many of the previous records are likely to have been of E. capillare (although most of these records cannot now be checked), some records were recognized as belonging to other species with different nematocysts, including E. tenellum described by Hirohito.
  Because only a few records of E. tenellum are actually based on nematocyst types, I disagree with Marques & Vervoort that E. tenellum sensu Hirohito is a well known and widespread species and that this usage should be stabilized. Hirohito’s E. tenellum has a polysiphonic colony, while E. tenellum is otherwise portrayed as monosiphonic. This suggests that most other records of E. tenellum are unlikely to belong to the same species as Hirohito’s material. I am not convinced that the use of E. tenellum sensu Hirohito corresponds to general usage as claimed by the authors. I think it is likely that many previous records of E. tenellum were in fact of E. capillare—possibly as many or even more as of E. tenellum sensu Hirohito—which makes it preferable to maintain the original type fixation.
  Eudendrium tenellum was originally described from the western Atlantic, from a region that also falls within the known distribution of E. capillare. By designating a specimen from Japan as the neotype, the scope of the original distribution of E. tenellum will be completely changed. This is certainly undesirable. Furthermore, the Code requires that a neotype should come as nearly as practicable from the original type locality.
  mI therefore suggest that the current type fixation is maintained and E. tenellum be treated as a subjective synonym of E. capillare, while Hirohito’s material be assigned to a new nominal species.
  To summarise why I oppose the application by Marques & Vervoort:
(1) the original type and the proposed neotype come from biogeographically very distant areas (tropical W-Atlantic versus temperate N-Pacific);
(2) the original type material still exists and provides sufficient data to allow E. tenellum to be tentatively synonymized with the well known species E.
capillare;
(3) many records of E. tenellum probably refer to E. capillare, and do not match well with the species scope of the proposed neotype material;
(4) E. tenellum sensu Hirohito cannot be considered a widespread and well-known species and should be assigned to a new nominal species.

(2) A.C. Marques
Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, R. Matão, Trav. 14, 101, 05508–900, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

  In his comment (above), Schuchert objected to the proposal to designate a neotype for Eudendrium tenellum, arguing that the original type specimen is still existing, although it is of limited value. His arguments are (1) that the original type and the proposed neotype come from biogeographically very distant areas (tropical W-Atlantic versus temperate N-Pacific); (2) that the original type material still exists and provides sufficient data to allow E. tenellum to be tentatively synonymized with the well known species E. capillare; (3) that many records of E. tenellum probably refer to E. capillare, and do not match well with the species range of the proposed neotype material; (4) that E. tenellum sensu Hirohito cannot be considered a widespread and well known species and that this material would be better assigned to a new nominal species.
  The solution proposed by Schuchert, included in item (4) above, would also resolve the taxonomic problem although in a different way. I do not object to Schuchert’s solution but some considerations in his arguments and other facts may lead to a decision.
  Concerning item (1) above, the original application (Marques & Vervoort, 2006) made clear that the neotype we proposed for Eudendrium tenellum was not in accord with the original sense of the author, but would satisfy the use of the species in the sense of subsequent authors. It follows that the geographic location of Allman’s holotype is not a concern in the solution of the problem, as argued by Schuchert. This was the reason why we proposed a neotype from Japan, because the material is well preserved and reflects the morphology of the species as used by authors since 1950 (as
far as I know, the binomen E. tenellum is cited in 22 references since 1950, but only five by three different authors include descriptions). Furthermore, neotypes from other localities were proposed in analogous cases (e.g. Lindner & Calder, 2000; see also Opinion 1986, BZN 59: 51, March 2002).
  Concerning item (2) above, the description of Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (p. 8, pl. 4, figs. 3–4) is incomplete and could refer to many species in the genus Eudendrium. The nematocysts of the type material of E. tenellum may indeed corroborate the hypothesis that the species is conspecific with E. capillare Alder, 1856 (see Naumov, 1960, p. 224; Christiansen, 1972, p. 290; Marques & Vervoort, 2006, p. 9; and Schuchert’s comments). However, the same cnidome and trophosomal morphology of E. capillare is observed in many other species of Eudendrium that would require sexual characters to be clearly diagnosed (see discussion in Marques, 2001, pp. 349–350). As a consequence, specimens of E. capillare are recorded for many places, being considered possibly cosmopolitan (Watson, 1985, p. 185; Marques, Peña Cantero & Vervoort, 2000, p. 201). Therefore, the synonymy of E. tenellum with E. capillare must be regarded as tentative as highlighted by Marques &
Vervoort (2006, p. 9).
  Concerning item (3) above, the widespread occurrence of E. capillare, as already demonstrated, is most probably an artifact resulting from imprecise historical taxonomy and generalizations. Schuchert suggests that ‘many records of E. tenellum probably refer to E. capillare’, but this generalization on the synonymy does not resolve the taxonomic problem that has arisen and given rise to the chaotic situation found for the poorly defined and presumably cosmopolitan species E. capillare. In fact, Marques & Vervoort (2006, p. 9) gave a partial (but not exhaustive) list of authors who recorded specimens assigned to E. tenellum, but there are at least 65 references to the species. There is no possibility of determining how many of these references are, indeed, to E. capillare, and most records should be ignored if no further study of the original material is possible.
  Item (4) above is the most important aspect of Marques & Vervoort’s and
Schuchert’s proposals, and in which we disagree. This refers to the acceptance of E. tenellum auct. Basically, Schuchert considered the neotype inappropriate because it is ‘fascicled’ and, therefore, would differ from most of the records previously assigned to E. tenellum. This would indeed make the neotype unrepresentative of the meaning of previous authors and therefore unsuitable to be considered as widespread and well known. However, the colony is unfascicled, as correctly described by Hirohito (1988,
p. 88). We (Marques & Vervoort, 2006, p. 9, caption of fig. A) mistakenly described the colony as fascicled and generated the confusion. Therefore, it is not possible based only on morphology (unless for those studies including description of the gonophores, as in Calder, 1972), to determine whether colonies previously described as E. tenellum refer to E. capillare or to the proposed neotype.
  Finally, the genus Eudendrium has many nominal species (over 100) that do not fit with well-established species. Based on these arguments, I propose to follow the suggestion Vervoort and I put forward, even though Schuchert’s proposal would also resolve the nomenclatural problems.

Additional references

Lindner, A. & Calder, D.R. 2000. Case 3166. Campanularia noliformis McCrady, 1859 (currently Clytia noliformis; Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 57(3): 140–143.
Marques, A.C. & Vervoort, W. 2006. Eudendrium tenellum Allman, 1877 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): proposed conservation of usage of the specific name by the designation of a neotype. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 63(1): 8–11.
Watson, J.E. 1985. The genus Eudendrium (Hydrozoa: Hydroida) from Australia. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Victoria, 97(4): 179–221.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Helix papillaris Müller, 1774 (currently Papillifera papillaris; Mollusca, Gastropoda)
(Case 3319; see BZN 62: 130–133; 63: 46–47, 130–131)

F. Giusti and G. Manganelli
Dipartimento di Scienze Ambientali, Università di Siena, Via Mattioli 4,
I-53100 Siena, Italy (e-mail for Prof. Giusti: giustif@unisi.it)

  We thank Welter-Schultes (BZN 63: 46–47) for expounding frankly his ideas on how to manage problems of nomenclature in his refusal of our application. We stress, however, that his ideas are not in line with the Code. For example, he writes (p. 46): ‘I think that a simple species taxon possibly being threatened by a senior synonym alone does not justify an application to the Commission. Helix papillaris is not the type species of an important genus . . .’ and a few lines further on: ‘Species names have to be replaced by older synonyms . . . Although Papillifera papillaris is a well-known name, I could also live with this name being changed’. These phrases indicate that he disagrees with some of the main principles of the Code, namely:
(1) ‘The Code . . . provides the name that is to be used for a taxon whatever
taxonomic limits and rank are given to it’ (Point 2 of Principles, p. xix);
(2) ‘Nomenclatural rules are tools that are designed to provide maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom. . . . Therefore the rules must enable the Principle of Priority to be set aside on occasions when its application would be destructive of stability or universality, or would cause confusion’ (Point 4 of Principles, p. xx).
  The latter point is particularly interesting in our case, because in the last 50 years papillaris has been cited much more often than bidens (a list of citations is held by the Commission Secretariat).
  In any case, as we demonstrated in our application, problems of priority are secondary: Turbo bidens Linnaeus, 1758 is not a senior synonym of Helix papillaris Müller, but a different species characterized by reddish shell (‘rufescens’) with simply crenulate suture (‘sutura subcrenata’).
  Almost anything is possible, but the suggestion that Linnaeus may have examined an ‘old and eroded’ shell in which ‘the white dots’ (the dots are presumably papillae) ‘are expressed much more faintly than in fresh shells’, seems unlikely, since Linnaeus described the shell as ‘pellucida’, i.e. transparent and therefore fresh.
  Confusion between the two species is impossible since the description given by Müller (1774) for his Helix papillaris is anything but ‘not clear enough’ as Welter-Schultes claims (against Giusti & Manganelli, 2005, p. 131, para. 6). Indeed, it includes certain characters which, coexisting in a shell, are absolutely diagnostic of Müller’s species: shell ashen-grey (‘cinerea’) with sutures bordered by a reddish band and with white papillae (‘intersectiones anfractuum fuscescunt, punctis elevatis sive papillis parvis candidis pulchre interstinctae’).
  As clearly stated by Giusti & Manganelli (2005, p. 132), the purpose of designating a neotype was only to establish a landmark for future morphological and molecular studies.
  The fact that Linnaeus (1767) included Bonanni (1684) in the list of references has no practical consequences, if not as a source of confusion, because Turbo bidens remains that defined by Linnaeus (1758).
  Finally, the last paragraph of Welter-Schultes’s comment contains personal
considerations which are irrelevant to the present problem. These considerations could be more appropriately advanced in the event of a revision of the Code.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 (Arachnida, Araneae) by the suppression of Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896
(Case 3331; see BZN 63: 17–19)

Otto Kraus
Zoologisches Institut & Zoologisches Museum, Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3,
20146 Hamburg, Germany

  There is no need to conserve the name Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909. Decisive reasons for this view were mentioned in para. 2 of the original application: ‘The CORINNIDAE remains one of the most poorly-studied families of spiders . . .’; see also similar remarks in the applicant’s para. 4. Since their original introduction and until at least 1995, all names in question were not used again, and afterwards in a very few exceptions: Castianeira fulvipes Simon, 1896, Cambalida coriacea Simon, 1909 and Cambalida fulvipes Simon, 1909. No prevailing usage exists. Hence, stability of practically unused names cannot be threatened. The case should be solved by regular application of the Code. One species should be named Cambalida fulvipes (Simon, 1896), with the junior subjective synonym C. coriacea Simon, 1909. According to Article 60 of the Code and without any harm, the secondary homonymy in the other species should be solved by replacing C. fulvipes Simon, 1909 by a new substitute name.

Comment on the proposed precedence of the specific name of Buprestis sexsignata Say, 1839 (Insecta, Coleoptera) over those of Chrysobothris ignipes Gory & Laporte, 1838 and Chrysobothris germari Gory & Laporte, 1838
(Case 3302; see BZN 63: 36–38)

Richard L. Westcott
Plant Division, Oregon Department of Agriculture, 635 Capitol NE, Salem, OR 97301–2532, U.S.A.

  In my opinion there can be no reasonable objection to accepting this proposal. The species is widespread and common in the eastern United States and has been cited many times in the literature. T.C. MacRae provides clear evidence why the Gory & Laporte names should be considered nomina oblita. To resurrect either of them from synonymy, thus making invalid a widely used name, Chrysobothris sexsignata (Say),would cause much confusion and work against stability.
  Therefore, I urge the acceptance of MacRae’s proposal.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Celaenorrhinus ratna Fruhstorfer, 1908 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 3339; see BZN 63(2): 114–117)

Rienk de Jong
Department of Entomology, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum Naturalis,
PO Box 9517, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands

  The authors have made a strong case which I fully endorse. In many cases
identification is not easy among Asian Celaenorrhinus species. With ca. 100 names available it is important that nomenclatural matters do not hamper identification and access to literature. The authors have made a thorough search of the relevant literature, and we can be confident that the name proposed to be suppressed has not ever been used since its introduction in 1907, except for the record mentioned. To further support their claim I like to add that the most complete worldwide catalogue of names in HESPERIIDAE to date, Bridges (1994), a considerably enlarged version of Bridges (1988), incorrectly listed as Bridges (1993, 1998), does not mention Matsumura’s name either. The correct references are:

Bridges, C.A. 1983. Lepidoptera: Hesperiidae, Notes on Species-group names. 274 pp. Bridges, Urbana.

Bridges, C.A. 1988. Catalogue of Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera: Rhopalocera). 590 pp. Bridges, Urbana.

Bridges, C.A. 1994. Catalogue of the Family-group, Genus-group and Species-group names of the Hesperiidae (Lepidoptera) of the World. 644 pp. Bridges, Urbana.

Comment on the proposed conservation of Palamopus E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?)
(Case 3348; see BZN 62: 237–239; 63: 49–50, 131–133)

Emma C. Rainforth
School of Theoretical and Applied Science, Ramapo College of New Jersey,
505 Ramapo Valley Road, Mahwah NJ 07430, U.S.A. (e-mail: erainfor@ramapo.edu)

  1. Moser (see BZN 63: 131–133, para. 1) suggests that Sauroidichnites does not need to be suppressed because it is not a valid ichnogeneric name. However, when Sauroidichnites was named (Hitchcock, 1837) it was used only at the ichnogeneric level (being used only in binominal combinations with ichnospecies), and not as a supra-ichnogeneric taxon; it was only later used (homonymously) as a supraichnogeneric taxon (Hitchcock, 1841). Thus, from its first usage, Sauroidichnites is a valid and available ichnogeneric name, and requires either suppression or conservation. If we were to follow Moser’s arguments in para. 1, and instead argue that Sauroidichnites and the other pre-1845 ichnogenera were not (or not intended to be) ichnogeneric names (valid and/or available or otherwise), but only supraichnogeneric names, then the pre-1845 ichnospecies names would not be valid (validity requiring that the ichnospecific name is associated with an ichnogeneric name, whether that be valid or available or not; Article 11.9.3). In turn, the next valid and available names would be those published (for the most part) in 1845 – which include many objective synonyms of the earlier names. We have then completely destabilized Early Jurassic tetrapod ichnological nomenclature – because, since 1915, all workers in the field have used the older (pre-1845) names. Fortunately, all of the pre-1845 ichnogeneric names (Ornithichnites, Sauroidichnites, Batrachoidichnites, Tetrapodichnites) can be shown to have been used in binominal nomenclature (and thus used as ichnogeneric names), and so the species associated with them are valid and available (unless other reasons are present).
  2. Ornithichnites palmatus Hitchcock, 1836 (currently Palamopus palmatus) is the type species of Sauroidichnites Hitchcock, 1837 by explicit bibliographic reference; Ornithichnites palmatus is both valid and available from its original publication (Hitchcock, 1836). When Hitchcock (1845) renamed and reclassified all of his ichnites, he stated the type species of Palamopus to be Palamopus anomalus; but P. anomalus is the same species as O. palmatus, having the same description and being based on the same material (including having the same type specimen); Palamopus anomalus is merely an unjustified replacement name for Ornithichnites palmatus. Therefore, P. anomalus was never a valid name, although it is an available name. Thus, the type ichnospecies of Palamopus is Ornithichnites palmatus.
3. Moser (para. 4) suggests that I was incorrect in stating that four works had used Palamopus as the ichnotaxon name. He speculates that Kuhn (1963) did not consider pre-1845 names to be valid; however, the simple fact that Kuhn gave an 1841 date for palmatus indicates he did consider pre-1845 names valid and available. Moser (para. 4) also suggests that Kuhn (1963) and others (e.g. Haubold, 1971) followed Hay (1902) in not accepting the pre-1845 names; however Lull (1915, revised in 1953) and Hay (1930) used and accepted the availability and validity of the pre-1845 ichnospecific
names (but only the availability, and not the validity, of the pre-1845 ichnogeneric names); Hay (1930) also explicitly stated that he did not consider his 1902 work to be nomenclaturally binding. Lull’s 1953 tome is considered the key modern reference for Early Jurassic ichnology (and Hitchcock’s material in particular), and its nomenclatural system (i.e. Hitchcock’s pre-1845 species names) is followed by modern workers and is infused throughout the literature. Finally, Olsen & Padian (1986) only tentatively subjectively synonymized Palamopus palmatus and Batrachopus deweyi – using Palamopus rather than Sauroidichnites as the valid ichnogeneric ‘home’ for the ichnospecies palmatus. Of the few workers (other than Hitchcock) that have even mentioned this ichnotaxon since 1844 (see Rainforth, 2005 and Moser, 2006), it is critical to note that none has considered Sauroidichnites to be the valid ichnogeneric name; they have all treated Palamopus or one of its subjective or objective synonyms as the valid name.
  4. Moser (para. 5) suggests that my previous (Rainforth, 2005) reasoning does not support the suppression of Sauroidichnites. I stress, however, that 100% of the usage – (whether ‘prevailing’ or not by the current Code’s standards) since 1844 has been of an ichnogeneric name other than Sauroidichnites (whether that be Palamopus or an objective or subjective synonym), and usage of palmatus rather than anomalus as the valid (and available) name. Due to the inherent problems with retention of Sauroidichnites (alluded to by Lucas, 2006), which is both valid and available as an ichnogeneric name from its original publication (in which it was only used as an ichnogenus, not as a supra-ichnogeneric taxon), it is important that it be suppressed. Contra to Moser (para. 6), we cannot simply argue the name away as an unavailable name (on the basis of homonymy with a supra-ichnogeneric taxon) to get rid of the problem, because, in the original publication (Hitchcock, 1837), the name is only used in binominal combination, i.e. as an ichnogenus; it was not used as a supra-ichnogeneric name until 1841.
  5. A final philosophical note. Edward Hitchcock’s concept of ichnogenera changed in 1845, when the ichnospecies previously referred to Sauroidichnites were transferred to seven ichnogenera including Palamopus (the destination for the type ichnospecies of Sauroidichnites). It is desirable to retain Palamopus, because Hitchcock’s three pre-1845 ichnogenera were named as the footprints made by three different classes of tetrapods, whereas the 1845 and later ichnogenera were named under a new philosophy in which ichnogenera were distinguished with much higher morphological resolution, representing individual animal species or genera. As a result, Palamopus and Sauroidichnites are philosophically different, and have different diagnoses, descriptions, and species compositions. Retaining Sauroidichnites (in place of Palamopus) for Ornithichnites palmatus would thus essentially be mixing ichnotaxonomic apples (the 1836–1844 ichnogenera) and oranges (the 1845 and later ichnogenera).

Additional reference

Hay, O.P. 1930. Second Bibliography and Catalogue of the Fossil Vertebrata of North America. Carnegie Institute of Washington Publication, 390–2: 1–1074.