Comments
with the following titles were published on 30
September 2003 in Volume 60, 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).
Comment
on the draft proposal to emend the Code with respect
to trace fossils
(Proposal;
see BZN
60: 141-142)
P.K. Tubbs (formerly
Executive Secretary, International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature)
16 New Road, Ham, Richmond, Surrey TW10 7HY, U.K.
The comment
by Bertling et al. suggests that the Code’s provisions
relating to ichnotaxa (taxa based on fossils of animal ‘works’)
need emending, but it is based on definitions of ‘work
of an animal’,
‘ichnotaxon’ and ‘trace fossil’ (see
their para. 2) which differ from the meanings in the
Code. When the meanings given in the Code Articles
and Glossary are used, the supposed difficulty disappears
and there is no need for a Code emendment.
Article 1.2.1 states that the Code applies to ‘names based on the
fossilized work of organisms (ichnotaxa), . . . ’, and in the Glossary ‘work
of an animal’ is defined as ‘The result of the activity of an animal
(e.g. burrows, . . . galls, . . . nests, . . . cocoons, . . . tracks), but
not part of the animal. The term applies to trace fossils (see ichnotaxon)
. . . ’. Article 42.2.1 refers to ‘names for trace fossils (ichnotaxa)’.
Under Article 72.5.1, ‘an example of the fossilized work of an animal’ is
eligible to be the name-bearing type of a nominal taxon. Contrary to the interpretation
of Bertling et al. names based on fossilized galls, cocoons, etc. are ichnotaxa,
exactly like those based on fossilized tracks. All these fossils, not of animals
themselves but resulting from their activities, are commonly called trace fossils.
The confusion perhaps arises from the Glossary, where an ichnotaxon is
said to be ‘A taxon based on the fossilized work of an animal, including
fossilized trails, tracks or burrows (trace fossils) made by an animal’.
This wording (carried forward from the previous edition of the Code) does confirm
that taxa based on fossil galls, cocoons etc. are ichnotaxa, but it should
not be interpreted to mean that such specimens cannot be called trace fossils.
However, since the present authors have had doubts it would have been better
if ‘(trace fossils)’ had been placed before the first comma, or
even omitted altogether, so that the term could not be thought to have a very
restricted meaning. Comparison of Articles 1.2.1 and 42.2.1 (see above) shows
that ‘fossilized works of animals’ and ‘trace fossils’
are synonymous and that nominal taxa based on such
material are ichnotaxa.
Bertling et al. propose (para. 3) to define ‘work of an animal’ as ‘trace
fossils (including burrows, . . . nests) as well as secretions such as eggs,
. . . pupal cases, . . . and plant galls’. However, ‘works’ do
not have to be fossil. Eggs (and most pupal cases) are not secretions (nor
indeed are plant galls), but are life stages or parts of animals, not ‘works’;
nominal taxa based on their fossils are not ichnotaxa but are subject to all
the normal provisions of the Code (see Article 17.3). The present definition
is both shorter and more accurate.
Bertling et al. (para. 4) refer to the nomenclatural treatment of ichnofamilies,
and say that criteria for their establishment should not differ from those
of other ichnotaxa. There are in fact no such special criteria. In particular,
it is recommended that the principle of typification should be extended to
ichnofamilies. However, this principle already applies in the usual way, since
Articles 29 and 63 apply to the typification and formation of ichnofamilies
exactly as to other family taxa. The only difference between ichnofamilies
and ‘normal’ families lies in Article 23.7.3, which states that
names established for an ichnotaxon [at any rank] do not compete in priority
with names based on animals themselves.
A further point made by Bertling et al. is that Article 1.3.6 should
be revoked; this allows the availability of names established before 1931 that
were based on the ‘work’ of extant (i.e. not extinct) animals.
It should however be noted that these non-fossil names do not relate to ichnotaxa
and are subject to the Code’s normal provisions. The authors state that
they are not aware of any such names that are in use: nor am I, but this does
not mean that they do not exist! As Bertling et al. say, any names that have
passed out of use can be dealt with under the Code in the usual way. The revocation
of Article 1.3.6 would also affect other provisions (such as Article 23.3.2.3),
and it might raise unforeseen problems of homonymy. As a general principle
it is rash to revoke or emend any Code provision unless there is a clear need
to do so and the consequences have been taken into account.
Bertling et al. have formed the impression that the Code draws a distinction
between fossilized tracks and other ‘works’
such as galls, coprolites and nests. This is not the
case (and the previous edition used the same wordings).
I might add that during the formulation of the present
Code, many ichnologists made suggestions, and these
led inter alia to the requirement that after 2000 new
ichnogenera must have a type species (Articles 13.3.3,
66.1). I do not believe that Bertling et al. have demonstrated
the need for any changes to the Code’s provisions,
but it would be helpful if future editions were to
include a Glossary entry for ‘trace fossil’,
making it clear that the term is synonymous with ‘fossilized
work of an animal’. As a member of the former
Editorial Committee, I regret that this omission was
overlooked during the revision of the Glossary.
Comments
on the neotypification of Protists, especially Ciliates
(Protozoa, Ciliophora)
(General
Article; see BZN
59: 165-169; 60: 48-49, 143)
(1) Michael A. Sleigh
Biodiversity and Ecology Division, School of
Biological Sciences, University of Southampton, Bassett
Crescent East, Southampton S016 7PX, U.K.
As the Managing
Editor of the European Journal of Protistology,
I support Wilhelm Foissner’s proposal. In his
paper, Foissner has written in favour of the practice
of neotypification of species, with good quality type
material preserved in ways that portray diagnostic
features and lodged in collections that permit re-examination
and comparison with other specimens. In almost every
issue of our journal we publish papers concerned with
the description of species which require comparison
with inadequately described and untypified species,
many of them originally named in the 19th or early
20th centuries. Often authors conclude that a newly-collected
specimen, which can be fully described and preserved,
cannot be distinguished from a previously illustrated,
but inadequately described, type. Such studies provide
a basis for valuable neotypification to stabilise the
nomenclature for future work.
However, very often the newly described specimens were not collected
in the same location as the originally named organism. By strict application
of Article 75.3.6 of Code, the newly described specimen cannot be regarded
as a neotype because it was found in a different locality from the original
type. Many, indeed probably most, protozoa are cosmopolitan, and are also very
patchily distributed according to their microhabitat requirements. These microhabitats
are usually transient, so that the species may have become extinct in the type
location long ago, but may be abundant in other places where the conditions
now suit them. Therefore, to insist that neotype material of protozoa must
be obtained from the locality of original discovery may be unrealistic, or
even impossible. The same probably applies to microscopic organisms of other
groups occupying similar ecological niches. If this locality restriction is
formally waived in the case of protozoa, then more of the taxonomists working
with protozoa will be encouraged to deposit useful neotype material of the
species they study in suitable type collections. In addition, journal editors
will be in a position to encourage, or insist on, such deposition.
(2) Inácio
Domingos da Silva Neto
Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil
I support Wilhelm
Foissner’s proposal that the neotypes of protists,
especially Ciliates, should be freed from the type
locality regulation of Article 75.3.6 of the Code.
(3) Jerzy Sikora
Department of Cell Biology, Nencki Institute
of Experimental Biology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warszawa, Poland
Wilhelm Foissner
presents a convincing argument concerning the neotypication
of protists. As Editor of Acta Protozoologica,
I am interested in clarification of nomenclatural problems.
Not being a specialist in systematics and taxonomy,
I rely on Dr. Foissner’s opinion and expertise.
He undoubtedly enjoys the respect of people dealing
with protists, especially heterotrophic ciliates. Therefore
I consider his appeal to the Commission concerning
waiving Article 75.3.6 of the Code to be a reasonable
and valuable initiative.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of usage of Acmaeodera Eschscholtz,
1829 and Acmaeoderella Cobos, 1955 (Insecta,
Coleoptera) by designation of Buprestis cylindrica Fabricius,
1775 as the type species of Acmaeodera
(Case
3258; see BZN
60: 31-33)
(1) Vladimir Sakalian
Institute of Zoology, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
1 Tzar Osvoboditel Blvd., 1000 Sofia, Bulgaria
I support this
application, because it will ensure stability by conserving
the current usage by all contemporary authors of these
generic names.
(2) Ted C. MacRae
Monsanto, 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield,
Mo 63017, U.S.A.
I support this
application, because adherence to priority would require
massive and unjustified nomenclatural rearrangement.
(3) Svatopluk Bílý
Department of Entomology, National Museum, Prague,
Czech Republic
I support this
application, because it is the right approach to maintaining
nomenclatural stability in this group of beetles.
(4) Allen Sundholm
96 Turrella Street, Turrella 2205, Sydney, N.S.W.,
Australia
I support this
application, in the interests of stability.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of Ovula gisortiana Passy,
1859 over Cypraea coombii J. de C. Sowerby
in Dixon, 1850.
(Case
3220; see BZN
59: 173-175)
J.A. Todd
Department of Palaeontology, The Natural History
Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K.
I write in opposition
to the proposal to give precedence to Gisortia
gisortiana (Passy, 1859) over G. coombii (J.
de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850) should they be considered
to be synonymous.
Since Schilder’s redescription of Gisortia coombii (J.
de C. Sowerby in Dixon, 1850) in 1929 from five specimens (one of which he
subsequently (Schilder, 1930, p. 128) correctly recognized as a probable French
specimen referable to G. tuberculosa (Duclos)), only four additional specimens
of this species have found their way into the Natural History Museum collections
in London. I know of no other specimens elsewhere in public museums. Through
examination, I have been able to precisely localize all of these specimens
in a modern stratigraphical context. Labels on recently collected material,
combined with the preservation, matrix and contained fossils in the material
Schilder examined, indicate that this species has been collected from only
a thin stratigraphical interval (units E2ii to E4) of the Earnley Formation
(previously part of the Lower Bracklesham Beds) of early Lutetian age from
Bracklesham Bay, West Sussex (see Curry et al., 1978). This is despite these
highly fossiliferous foreshore rock exposures being regularly exposed and collected
from by many persons over at least the past 25 years. Gisortia coombii is
evidently a rare species with a very limited stratigraphic range, but that
does not make it a forgotten one.
As Gisortia coombii has been found very rarely and from just
one small locality in Britain, it is hardly surprising that its name has received
limited use. Nevertheless, Pacaud & Dolin omit to mention that this species
was featured (and considered valid) in the systematic compendium of Schilder
(1930) that is still the most complete treatment of this group. This work cannot
be considered merely ‘a nomenclator or other index or list of names’
(Article 23.9.6 of the Code), but a brief yet thorough
systematic treatment, with identification keys to all
then recognized species, complete synonymies, details
of individual specimens, two tables of shell measurements
and character states and two plates of illustrations.
Notwithstanding Schilder’s work, the systematics of Gisortia species
is still very uncertain for the six reasons that he enumerated in 1930. Of
these, two (his points 4 and 6) are particularly germane with respect to the
current application. First, ‘many specimens are known only from one of
a few species, so that some may be varieties of other species, for the variability
of some common species is rather considerable’ (Schilder, 1930, pp. 118-119).
Secondly, ‘most writers have had no opportunity to examine original specimens
from foreign countries and to compare them with the species of their own country’ (p.
119). Quite simply, Pacaud & Dolin fail to make a convincing case for the
identity of G. gisortiana and G. coombii, though it is possible
that future detailed systematic work might establish this. No new data have
been published on the newly collected French material to which the authors
allude. The current considerable uncertainties in species status are highlighted
by Dolin & Dolin (1983) considering G. gisortiana as synonymous
with another nominal species, G. gigantea (Quenstedt, 1836), but that
opinion, which is identical with Vredenburg’s (1927), is not mentioned
in this application.
Gisortia species are largely characterized by their general
proportions and the features developed in the thick layers of callus that cover
their shells (Vredenburg, 1927; Schilder, 1930). At present, there are neither
studies of intrapopulational variation among putative adults, nor ontogenetic
studies of the development of the callus in any one species. Consequently it
is quite uncertain how specimens from widely separated localities, of differing
sizes and possibly ontogenetic ages, can be adequately compared in a systematic
context (compare the size of the type specimens: Pacaud & Dolin, figs.
1 and 2). Gisortia shells appear to have relatively few discrete and
constant characters and it seems likely that fruitful systematic re-evaluation
of this group will require the use of morphometric methods.
To conclude, I regard the current application as essentially taxonomic
rather than nomenclatural in nature. The proposed taxonomic act is unsubstantiated
and premature. I regard each of the four actions proposed in this case as unnecessary.
In the future by using appropriate techniques it may be possible to demonstrate G.
gisortiana to be a subjective synonym of G. coombii, and the
type species of Gisortia would then be correctly known under this
name. However, given the lack of systematic or other detailed work on Gisortia over
the past seventy years – rather than passing references to this strange
looking cowry — I believe that were this to happen systematic stability
would be essentially unaffected.
Additional
references
Curry, D.,
King, A.D., King, C. & Stinton, F.C. 1978.
The Bracklesham Beds (Eocene) of Bracklesham Bay
and Selsey, Sussex. Proceedings of the Geologists’
Association, 88: 243-254.
Dolin, C. & Dolin, L. 1983. Révision
des Triviacea et Cypraeacea (Mollusca, Prosobranchiata) éocènes
récoltés dans les localités de Gan (Tuilerie
et Acot) et Bosdarros (Pyrénées Atlantiques, France). Mededelingen
van de Werkgroep voor Tertiaire en Kwartaire Geologie, 20(1):
5-48.
Quenstedt, F.A. 1836. Beiträge zur Petrefaktenkunde.
Archiv für Naturgeschichte, (2)1: 245-250.
Comment
on proposed conservation of the 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; 58)
Hobart M. Smith
EPO Biology, University of Colorado, Boulder,
CO 80309-0334, U.S.A.
I support this
application, as it is important to conserve current
usage of these two widely used names.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name
of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes,
Perciformes)
(Case
3255; see BZN
60: 206-207)
Hans-Joacim Paepke
c/o Museum für Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universität,
Institut für Systematische Zoologie, Invalidenstrasse
43, D-10115 Berlin, Germany
Axel Zarske
Staatliche Naturhistorische Sammlungen, Ichthyologische
Abteilung, Königsbrücker Landstrasse 159,
D-01109 Dresden, Germany
We strongly
support the application by Schindler & Staeck to
conserve the specific name Macropodus concolor Ahl,
1937 (family OSPHRONEMIDAE). Since its introduction
the senior synonym M. spechti Schreitmüller,
1936 had not been used as the valid name for the species
until it was resurrected by Freyhof & Herder (2002).
Their action to replace the long accepted specific
name of M. concolor does not promote stability
and was in contravention of the Preamble and Article
23.2 of the Code.
Unfortunately the problem of M. concolor versus M. spechti is
only the tip of the iceberg. A number of similar ornamental fish names like M.
spechti (mostly of infrasubspecific rank) are hidden in the old popular
aquarist literature. Such names were often published without correct diagnosis
or designation of type specimens and are therefore generally disregarded in
favour of a junior synonym based on a solid scientific description like M.
concolor.
We fear that other ichthyologists could follow the example given by Freyhof & Herder
(2002). More names still hidden in the old popular literature could be exhumed
in favour of the Principle of Priority and contrary to the promotion of stability.
See Kullander
& Britz (2002) concerning the replacement of the
well known name Badis burmanicus Ahl in Arnold & Ahl,
1936 by the name Badis rubra Schreitmüller,
1923. Such a trend would lead to instability of nomenclature
and cause what would otherwise be unnecessary work
for the Commission. Therefore we strongly support
Schindler & Staeck´s application.
Additional
reference
Kullander,
S.O. & Britz, R. 2002. Revision of the
family Badidae (Teleostei: Perciformes) with description
of a new genus and ten new species. Ichthyological
Exploration of Freshwaters, 13(4):
295-372.
