Comments
with the following titles were published on 30
September 2004 in Volume 61, 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 proposal to emend the spelling of CLIONIDAE
d'Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida) to CLIONAIDAE
to remove homonymy with CLIONIDAE Rafinesque, 1815
(Mollusca)
(Case
3211; see BZN
60: 99-102)
Richard C. Willan
and Belinda Alvarez
Museum & Art Gallery of the Northern Territory,
G.P.O. Box 4646, Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
0801
Robert Burn
3 Nantes Street, Newtown, Geelong, Victoria,
Australia 3220
Hamish G. Spencer
Department of Zoology, University of Otago, P.O.
Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand
We are pleased
to see that the homonymy between CLIONIDAE Rafinesque,
1815 (Mollusca, Pteropoda, Gymnosomata) and CLIONIDAE
d'Orbigny, 1851 (Porifera, Hadromerida) has finally
been raised. It would have been resolved a long time
ago were it not for the ambiguity over Rafinesque’s
(1815) use of
‘Clione R. Clio Brown’ for
the type genus of his subfamily ‘Clionidia’.
Nonetheless, we support the proposal by Bouchet & Rützler
as a logical and practical solution by changing the
name of the junior homonym to CLIONAIDAE. This change
will cause no disruption for molluscan specialists
and minimal disruption for sponge specialists, particularly
because the change has already been foreshadowed in
the influential book Systema Porifera.
We believe that the proposal by Bouchet & Rützler does not fully
cover the present case. We therefore offer the following additional data for
consideration by the Commission so as to achieve closure of all aspects of
this application.
Our analysis of the molluscan genus-group taxa proposed by Rafinesque
in his Analyse (1815, pp. 139-148; for an English translation see:
Cain, 1990, pp. 176-180) (for a list see: Iredale, 1911, p. 262) indicates
each and every one to be a new or replacement name, not taken over from previous
authors. There is no reason whatsoever to make an exception in the present
instance, or to accept at face value
‘Clione R.’ as the same as the
earlier introduction by Pallas (1774) of a genus name
of the same spelling.
The name Clione Rafinesque, 1815, introduced as ‘G.6. Clione R. Clio Brown’,
is indeed a junior homonym of Clione Pallas, 1774. As such it is unavailable
as the type genus of a family name (see Article 39). Therefore, a family-group
name ‘Clionidia Rafinesque, 1815’ has neither validity nor standing,
and the next available name must be brought into use.
As pointed out by Bouchet & Rützler in their application, the
similarity of the names Clio Linnaeus, 1767 (Mollusca, Thecosomata)
and Clione Pallas, 1774 (Mollusca, Gymnosomata) has meant that usage
of them both has been extremely confused. Gray (1840, p. 151), to whom the
family name has been attributed by several authors, used CLIONIDAE, however
the only included genus was Clio Linnaeus, 1767, which cannot be construed
as the type genus. Unequivocal usage of a family-group name based solely upon Clione Pallas,
1774 appears to rest with Gray (1847, p. 204), as CLIONIDAE, thus fortunately
retaining priority of this family name in Mollusca. Gray (1850, p. 124) later
used the spelling CLIONEIDAE and yet another variant, CLIONACEA, was employed
by Philippi (1853, p. 295).
The name CLIOIDAE, currently in use for the thecosomatous family of molluscs
based on Clio Linnaeus, 1767, is incorrectly formed from the Greek
root. Woodward (1854, p. 208) was the first to use the correct spelling CLIIDAE,
but 26 years earlier Menke (1828, p. 5) had introduced a family taxon CLIODINAE
based upon the type genus ‘Clio, Br.’, = Clio Linnaeus,
1767. Although the suffix –INAE is incorrect for a family name (Article
29.2), the name is still available. Thus, with a corrected suffix and original
authorship and date (Article 11.7.1.3), the family name is CLIIDAE Menke, 1828
and henceforth CLIIDAE Menke, 1828 should be used as the correct name for the
family of thecosomes, not CLIOIDAE. Menke (1830, p. 9) also spelled the name
CLIOIDAE, but that is an incorrect subsequent spelling of CLIIDAE.
Some years earlier, Férussac (1822, p. xxv) introduced the vernacular
family-group name ‘Les Clios’, the included genera being Clio Linnaeus,
1767 and Clione Pallas, 1774. However, his tabular key qualification ‘c)
Sans test’
indicates that he was in fact referring solely to the
gymnosome Clione Pallas, 1774.
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked to modify and extend the points of the original application by Bouchet & Rützler
as follows:
(1) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names
in Zoology the following names;
(a) CLIONIDAE Gray, 1847, type genus Clione Pallas,
1774 (Mollusca);
(b) CLIIDAE Menke, 1828, type genus Clio Linnaeus,
1767 (Mollusca);
(2) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and
Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, the name Clione Rafinesque,
1815 (a junior homonym of Clione Pallas, 1774,
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
in (2)(b) in the application) (Mollusca);
(3) to place on the Official List of Rejected and Invalid
Family-Group Names in Zoology the names:
(a) CLIONIDIA Rafinesque, 1815 (an invalid name based
upon the junior homonym Clione Rafinesque,
1815, non Clione Pallas, 1774, placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology in para.
7 (2)(b) in the application) (Mollusca);
(b) CLIOEIDAE Gray, 1850 (an incorrect subsequent spelling
of CLIONIDAE in (1)(a) above) (Mollusca);
(c) CLIONACEA Philippi, 1853 (an incorrect subsequent
spelling of CLIONIDAE in (1)(a) above) (Mollusca);
(d) CLIODINAE Menke, 1828 (an incorrect original spelling
of CLIIDAE in (1)(b) above) (Mollusca);
(e) CLIOIDEA Menke, 1830 (an incorrect subsequent spelling
of CLIIDAE in (1)(b) above) (Mollusca);
(f) CLIOIDAE van der Spoel, 1967 (an incorrect subsequent
spelling of CLIIDAE in (1)(b) above) (Mollusca).
Additional
references
Cain, A.J. 1990. Constantine Samuel Rafinesque
Schmaltz on classification, etc. Tryonia, 20:
1-240.
Férussac, A.E.J. de. 1821-1822. Tableaux
Systématiques des Animaux Mollusques, etc. xlvi, 110
pp. Bertrand, Paris.
Gray, J.E. 1840. Synopsis of the Contents
of the British Museum, Ed. 42. 370 pp. London.
Gray, J.E. 1850. Systematic arrangement of the
figures Pp. 63-124 in Gray, M.E., Figures of Molluscous Animals.
London.
Iredale, T. 1911. On some misapplied molluscan
generic names. Proceedings of the Malacological Society of
London, 9: 253-263.
Menke, C.T. 1828. Synopsis Methodica Molluscorum .
. . 91 pp. Pyrmonti.
Menke, C.T. 1830. Synopsis Methodica Molluscorum .
. . , 2nd Edition. 168 pp. Pyrmonti.
Philippi, R.A. 1853. Handbuch der Conchyliologie
und Malacozoologie. 548 pp. Halle.
Woodward, S.P. 1851-1856. A Manual of the
Mollusca . . . 486 pp., 24 pls. London.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of prevailing usage
of TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer,
1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (Insecta,
Isoptera)
(Case
3244; see BZN
60: 119-123, 303)
Michael S. Engel
Division of Entomology, Natural History Museum,
Snow Hall, 1460 Jayhawk Boulevard, University of
Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-7523, U.S.A.
Kumar Krishna
Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum
of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street,
New York, N.Y. 10024-5192, U.S.A.
1. This comment touches
on two points arising from our application (BZN
60: 119-123) relating to the proposed conservation
of the prevailing usage of TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911, Termopsis Heer,
1849 and Miotermes Rosen, 1913.
2. First, Dr Alonso-Zarazaga
(BZN 60: 303) has provided points
of clarification on the proposed conservation of usage
of the three names concerned. He has very correctly
noted that in our application the gender of Termopsis was
accidentally and quite erroneously labeled as masculine,
when it is indeed feminine. His emendations to our
request are valued and we wholeheartedly recommend
that they be adopted.
3. Secondly, we have
recently discovered that in a short note on termite
classification Holmgren (1910, p. 285) made available
the subfamily name STOLOTERMITINAE for Stolotermes Hagen,
1858 (p. 105), type species by monotypy Hodotermes (Stolotermes) brunneicornis Hagen,
1858 (p. 105). Thus the name STOLOTERMITINAE has priority
by one year over the name TERMOPSIDAE, which Holmgren
proposed as new in his 1911 monograph (p. 35). Accordingly,
we propose that, in addition to the proposals put forward
in BZN 60: 121, TERMOPSIDAE be given
precedence over STOLOTERMITINAE whenever their type
genera are placed in the same family-group taxon.
4. Our full proposal
therefore reads as follows:
The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
is accordingly asked:
(1) to use its plenary power:
(a) to rule that the family-group name TERMOPSIDAE
Holmgren, 1911 and other family-group names based on Termopsis Heer,
1849 are to be given precedence over STOLOTERMITINAE
Holmgren, 1910 and other family-group names based on Stolotermes Hagen,
1858 whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon;
(b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species
for the nominal genus Termopsis Heer, 1849
and to designate Termopsis bremii Heer, 1849
as type species;
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology the following names:
(a) Termopsis Heer, 1849 (gender: feminine),
type species by designation in (1)(b) above Termopsis
bremii Heer, 1849;
(b) Miotermes Rosen, 1913 (gender: masculine),
type species by original designation Termopsis
procera Heer, 1849;
(c) Stolotermes Hagen, 1858 (gender: masculine),
type species by monotypy Hodotermes (Stolotermes) brunneicornis Hagen,
1858;
(3) to place on the Official List of Specific Names
in Zoology the following names:
(a) bremii Heer, 1849, as published in the
binomen Termopsis bremii (specific name of
the type species of Termopsis Heer, 1849);
(b) procera Heer, 1849, as published in the
binomen Termopsis procera (specific name of
the type species of Miotermes Rosen, 1913);
(c) brunneicornis Hagen, 1858, as published
in the binomen Hodotermes brunneicornis (specific
name of the type species of Stolotermes Hagen,
1858);
(4) to place on the Official List of Family-Group Names
in Zoology the following names:
(a) TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 (type genus Termopsis Heer,
1849), with the endorsement that it and other family-group
names based on Termopsis are to be given precedence
over STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 and other family-group
names based on Stolotermes Hagen, 1858 whenever
their type genera are placed in the same family-group
taxon;
(b) STOLOTERMITINAE Holmgren, 1910 (type genus Stolotermes Hagen,
1858), with the endorsement that it and other family-group
names based on Stolotermes are not to be given
priority over TERMOPSIDAE Holmgren, 1911 and other
family-group names based on Termopsis Heer,
1849 whenever their type genera are placed in the same
family-group taxon.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a grant from the National
Science Foundation, U.S.A. (DEB-9870097 to K. Krishna
and D.A. Grimaldi).
Additional
reference
Holmgren, N. 1910. Das System der
Termiten. Zoologischer Anzeiger, 35:
284–286.
Comments
on the proposed precedence of NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel,
November 1882, over CIMBERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882,
and the proposed conservation of usage of Cimberis Gozis,
1881 (Insecta, Coleoptera)
(Case 3093;
see BZN
60: 275-280)
(1) Analia A. Lanteri
Museo de La Plata, Universidad Nacional de La
Plata, 1900 La Plata, Argentina
I write in
support of the proposal by Christopher Lyal and Miguel
Alonso-Zarazaga regarding the conservation of the family
name NEMONYCHIDAE Bedel, November 1882 by giving it
precedence over CIMERIDIDAE Gozis, March 1882. Without
any doubt the proposed conservation of the name will
help the stability of weevil nomenclature. I have carefully
read Case 3093 and I consider that the proposal is
well justified.
(2) Antonio Velázquez
de Castro
Departamento de Biología Animal, Facultad
de Biología, Universidad Complutense de Madrid,
Spain
I have read
Case 3093 concerning NEMONYCHIDAE and I write in support
of the point of view of the authors. I have been working
with CURCULIONOIDEA for 20 years and I agree with the
opinion of the authors.
(3) Marek Wanat
Museum of Natural History, Sienkiewicza 21, PL
50-335 Wroclaw, Poland
I support the
proposals by Lyal & Alonso-Zarazaga. The application
concerning the family name NEMONYCHIDAE is long-known
and one of the most complicated nomenclatural problems
involving family-group names in Coleoptera. I think
that these proposals provide the best solution for
the conservation of NEMONYCHIDAE as the valid name
for this weevil family.
Conservation of the current usage of Cimberis Gozis, 1881 and
the designation of Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as its
type species would best serve stability of the nomenclature in this group.
Comment
on the proposed precedence of Bolboceras Kirby,
1819 (July) (Insecta, Coleoptera) over Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 (June)
(Case
3097; see BZN
59: 246-248, 280-281; 60: 303-311; 61:
43-45, 110-114)
Ales Smetana
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Central Experimental
Farm, K.W. Neatby Bldg., Ottawa, ON K1A OC6, Canada
Before the
manuscript of Case 3097 was submitted for publication,
I was given by the junior author (Howden) the opportunity
to comment on it. I pointed out a number of inaccuracies
and errors that actually made the Case unacceptable
for consideration. I offered to discuss the matter
further, but was never approached.
The authors demonstrated either a remarkable ignorance of nomenclatural
principles, or more likely chose to manipulate and / or circumvent them by
presenting incorrect evidence in their crusade against Odonteus.
My criticisms are as follows (in the sequence as the matter appeared
in the text of the original application):
1. The type species
of Odonteus is Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius,
1775, not Scarabaeus mobilicornis Marsham,
1802. There is no ‘Scarabaeus mobilicornis Marsham,
1802’. Marsham’s usage is a subsequent
reference to Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius,
1775, since Marsham clearly cited Fabricius as the
author. To state that Scarabaeus mobilicornis Marsham,
1802 ‘is a junior primary homonym’ of Scarabaeus
mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775 is therefore an incorrect,
misleading statement. Consequently, paragraphs 2(b)
and 3(b) in the application (BZN 59:
247) are particularly unacceptable.
2. Odontaeus Dejean,
1821 is undoubtedly an incorrect subsequent spelling
of Odonteus Samouelle, 1819, as was correctly
pointed out by Krell et al. (BZN 60:
304). The argument by Jameson & Howden (BZN
61: 44) that Odontaeus Dejean, 1821
represents a different taxon because Dejean included,
in addition to the type species, several additional
previously described species, is difficult to comprehend
and is erroneous. Since when does a monotypic genus
become a different taxon when additional species are
subsequently added? The statement that ‘Samouelle
(1819) attributed Odonteus to Köppe,
whereas Dejean (1821) attributed Odontaeus to
Megerle’
is insignificant and misleading. The act of publication
of Odonteus / Odontaeus was clearly
done by Samouelle and by Dejean. Neither Köppe
nor Megerle had anything to do with it. At the time
(early 19th century) it was often customary to mention
the names of collectors / dealers from whom materials
were obtained. I cannot help feeling that these arguments,
as well as many other statements, were used by the
authors in an attempt to introduce into the case confusion
and instability which in fact do not exist. The fact
that Cartwright (1953, p. 96) synonymized Odontaeus Dejean
with Bolboceras Kirby is irrelevant and the
act was invalid anyway.
3. The statement that ‘the
name Odonteus was not used after initial publication
until . . . Krell (1990)’ is incorrect and misleading,
as already pointed out by Krell et al. (BZN
60: 304). It was based on the erroneous concept
that Odontaeus Dejean, 1821 is a taxon different
from Odonteus Samouelle (see para. 2 above).
I fully agree with the comments by Krell et al. (BZN
60: 304) who documented the established and
frequent use of Odonteus in Europe in taxonomic,
faunistic and conservation literature in a long list
of references. The validity of this stands and is not
affected by the attempt by Jameson & Howden (BZN
61: 44) to discredit most of the references
given by Krell et al. (BZN 60: 304)
by using Article 23.9.6 incorrectly.
4. The usage of Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 does not seriously cause ‘further nomenclatural
confusion due to its homonymy with Odonteus Agassiz,
1838’. The name Odonteus Agassiz, 1838
(Pisces), conveniently not mentioned by Jameson & Howden
(BZN 61: 43), was given the replacement
name Odonteobolca by Krell in 1991.
5. In the dispute
about the type species of Bolboceras Kirby,
1819, Jameson & Howden (BZN 60:
304) stated that ‘Curtis (1829, p. 259) unequivocally
established the type species of Bolboceras Kirby
as Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius’.
Curtis’s designation of
‘Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius’ was
an invalid act because Scarabaeus mobilicornis Fabricius
was not one of the originally included species. Krell
et al. (BZN 60: 307) were, therefore,
correct in requesting that the Commission designate Scarabaeus
quadridens Fabricius, 1781 as the type species
of Bolboceras Kirby, 1819, since it is one
of the three originally included species (‘quadridens Linn.’, cephus and australasiae)
and the species upon which Kirby erected the genus Bolboceras.
6. The reference for
Kirby (1819), given in Jameson & Howden (BZN
59: 248) is not quite correct. They were,
in fact, referring to the article (XXVIII) immediately
following the article ‘A century of insects......(XXVII)’
given in their references. The correct reference for
Kirby (1819) is given below.
In summary,
due to the numerous erroneous and misleading statements
in the application, as well as in the subsequent comments
by Jameson & Howden (BZN 61: 43-45),
some of which were already noted by Krell et al. (BZN
60: 303), I seriously question the validity
of Case 3097. Therefore, I strongly oppose Jameson & Howden’s
application to give Bolboceras Kirby, 1819
(July) precedence over Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 (June) and fully support the alternative proposals
to the Commission by Krell et al. (BZN 60:
307).
Additional
references
Kirby W. 1819. XXVIII. Description
of several new species of insects collected in New
Holland by Robert Brown. Esq. F.R.S. Lib. Linn. Soc. Transactions
of the Linnean Society of London, 12:
454- 478.
Krell, F.-T. 1991. Odonteobolca nom.
nov. for Odonteus Agassiz, [1838] (Osteichthyes, Perciformes). Bulletin
du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle, section
C, 12: 351- 352.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of the specific name
of Macropodus concolor Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes, Perciformes)
(Case
3255; see BZN
60: 206-207; 61: 114-116)
(1) Hans-Joachim Paepke
c/o Museum fur Naturkunde der Humboldt-Universitat,
Institut fur Systematische Zoologie, Invalidenstrasse
43, D-10115, Berlin, Germany
In response
to the comment by Kottelat et al. (BZN 61:
114-116), I and the authors of the application can
only hope that the Commission does not follow their
recommendation to reject the proposals. The application
to conserve the specific name of Macropodus concolor Ahl,
1937 was correctly prepared and contained good arguments.
We hope that the Commission will approve the proposals
published in BZN 60: 207.
(2) Jorg Freyhof
Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries,
Muggelseedamm 310, 12561 Berlin, Germany
Fabian Herder
Zoologisches Forschunginstitut und Museum Alexander
Koenig, Adenauerallee 160, D-53113 Bonn, Germany
In our review
of the genus Macropodus, we needed to clarify
the nomenclature of the included species. We followed
the Code. The Commission has to decide if it sticks
to the rules of the Code or accepts the view of the
petitioners who try to hide that earlier authors (Vierke,
1986; Paepke, 1994) ignored the following articles
and incorrectly applied the nomen oblitum regulations.
Macropodus spechti Schreitmuller, 1936 was described before M.
concolor Schreitmuller, 1936 or M. concolor Ahl, 1937 and is
therefore the oldest available name applied to this fish species. All names
are based on the same material. Schreitmnller (1936b) himself suggested giving
priority to M. concolor, which is totally irrelevant to the Code.
Article 23.9 cannot be applied because Macropodus spechti was
established in 1936 and was therefore used as the valid name after 1899.
The authors stated that Macropodus spechti was a forgotten name.
The nomen oblitum regulation was only valid between 6 Nov 1961 and 1 Jan 1973
(Article 23.12). The first author who stated that M. spechti is a
nomen oblitum was Vierke (1986), followed by Paepke (1994). Both ignored the
Code in declaring that M. spechti is a nomen oblitum. These works
are well known to the small German aquarist community interested in this species
(to which the petitioners belong) and it is hard to understand why a name should
be forgotten if printed in books available for 16 and eight years respectively.
We note that in a very short time span the name Macropodus spechti became
known and accepted in this small circle and is now taking over. A Google search
on 13 March 2004 for M. spechti yielded 84 occurrences for the `new
unknown name', against only 467 for the `old well established name'. This is
clear evidence that the change of name is not creating a problem and was widely
known and accepted within less than two years.
Comments
on the proposed conservation of usage of the specific
name Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards,
1869 (Aves, Galliformes) by the designation of a
neotype
(Case
3266; see BZN
60: 211-214; 61: 47-48, 117-119)
(1) U. B. Göhlich & C.
Mourer-Chauviré
Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Centre des
Sciences de la Terre, 27-43 Boulevard du 11 Novembre
1918, F-69622 Villeurbanne Cedex, France
(1) In reply to the
comment by Mlíkovský
(BZN 61: 117-119), we write in support
of our application (BZN 60: 211-214)
proposing the designation of the scapula (MNHN Av 2895),
one of the two syntypes of Palaeortyx phasianoides Milne-Edwards,
1869, as the neotype. Mlíkovský
(2000), not following Recommendation 74A of the Code,
had chosen the other syntype as the lectotype, a humerus
(MNHN Av 2896) which had already been excluded from P.
phasianoides by Ballmann (1969b, p. 31) (see para.
3 of the application). Mlíkovský’s
argument, that the humerus is more diagnostic than
the scapula, is not in accord with the fact that the
syntype humerus (MNHN Av 2896) lacks its proximal and
distal ends. In addition he (Mlíkovský,
2000, p. 93) selected the lectotype in the same publication
in which he had identified it as a pathological specimen
of the anatid Mionetta blanchardi (Milne-Edwards,
1863) thereby putting the well known phasianid species P.
phasianoides in synonymy with the anatid species M.
blanchardi. We (BZN 60: 213;
in press) also recently found that the syntype humerus
(MNHN Av 2896) is not a pathological specimen of M.
blanchardi but belongs to Ameripodius alexis Mourer-Chauviré,
2000, a galliform (family QUERCYMEGAPODIIDAE). We proposed
the designation of the syntype scapula (MNHN Av 2895)
as the neotype for P. phasianoides because
it was clearly identified as aphasianid (see Göhlich
& Mourer-Chauviré, in press).
(2) In contrast to
the comment by Mlíkovský, that the scapula
cannot be identified within the Galliformes because
it is less diagnostic and that ‘Göhlich
& Mourer-Chauviré did not even try to identify
the scapula fragment’, we (Göhlich & Mourer-Chauviré,
in press) described several morphologic characters
on which the syntype scapula (MNHN Av 2895) can clearly
be identified as a phasianid and with which P.
phasianoides can be separated from several other
fossil and recent galliforms, such as Palaeocryptonyx and Coturnix.
(3) Direct comparisons
by Göhlich
& Mourer-Chauviré of the syntype humerus
(MNHN Av 2896) with the holotype and paratype material
of A. alexis, with other humeri from P.
phasianoides from the type locality and with M.
blanchardi, resulted in the identification of
the syntype humerus as belonging to A. alexis.
The syntype humerus shaft (MNHN Av 2896) can be identified
as A. alexis by means of the strong longitudinal
crest on its caudal surface of the shaft, and therefore
is not an unsupported observation as indicated by
Mlíkovský in his comment.
(4) Mlíkovský also
incorrectly argued that Mourer-Chauviré (2000,
p. 481), when describing A. alexis, concluded
that the syntype humerus (MNHN Av 2896) was not identical
with A. alexis. This statement runs counter
to facts! Mourer-Chauviré (2000) did not even
mention the syntype humerus (MNHN Av 2896) of P.
phasianoides. Mourer-Chauviré (2000, p.
481) stated that the ‘four different species
of the genus Palaeortyx . . . are typical
phasianids, whereas the series of bones attributed
to Ameripodius is quite distinct from the
Phasianids’. When arguing that Ameripodius differs
from P. phasianoides it was not necessary
to give a new definition of P. phasianoides because
Ballmann (1969b) had already excluded the syntype humerus
(MNHN Av 2986) from P. phasianoides.
(5) Göhlich & Mourer-Chauviré
(BZN 60: 211-214) cited several references
which support the interpretation that P. phasianoides is
a universally accepted taxon always used in a sense
of a galliform. In his comment Mlíkovský described
the publications of Lydekker (1891), Lambrecht (1933),
Brodkorb (1967) and Bochenski (1997) as ‘simple’
catalogues. In fact, Lydekker (1891), Lambrecht (1933)
and Brodkorb (1967) are publications in which several
new avian taxa are described and especially in the
last the systematics and taxonomy of galliformes were
critically revised. Therefore, these publications cannot
be considered as ‘simple’ catalogues.
(6) Mlíkovský also
mentioned that Göhlich & Mourer-Chauviré also
overlooked the fact that the names Palaeortyx longipes Milne-Edwards,
1869 and Palaeocryptonyx gaillardi Ennouchi,
1930 have been applied to P. phasianoides (Mlíkovský,
2002, pp. 154-155). We have not overlooked this fact
but consider this as another problem which is different
from our application. However, we want to clarify that
it was Ballmann (1969a, p. 182) who put Palaeocryptonyx
gaillardi into synonymy with Palaeocryptonyx
edwardsi (Depéret, 1887). We agree completely
with Ballmann and emphasize the taxonomic and morphologic
differences between Palaeortyx and Palaeocryptonyx,
as described in Göhlich & Mourer-Chauviré
(in press). In addition, it was again Ballmann (1969b,
p. 182) who first indicated that P. longipes is
synonymous with P. phasianoides: ‘Je
crois avoir des raisons de penser que Palaeoperdix
longipes Milne-Edwards est un synonyme de Palaeortyx
phasianoides’. We agree also completely
with this point (see Göhlich & Mourer-Chauviré,
in press) and therefore regard Ballmann as the first
reviser (regarding fixation of species priority).
(7) As already described
by Göhlich
& Mourer-Chauviré (BZN 60:
211-214), the approach of Mlíkovský (2000,
2002) causes considerable disruption and confusion
affecting Palaeortyx phasianoides, Mionetta
blanchardi and Ameripodius alexis. Because
of an incorrect determination, Mlíkovský (2000)
placed the accepted and well known fossil phasianid
species Palaeortyx phasianoides in synonymy
with the fossil anatid taxon Mionetta blanchardi.
The specimen that he referred to Mionetta blanchardi is
neither M. blanchardi nor P. phasianoides,
but it is Ameripodius alexis (see para. 3
above). Mlíkovský
(2000) in designating a lectotype for P. phasianoides did
not explain why he did not recognise the syntype scapula
(MNHN Av 2895) as a P. phasianoides; he (Mlíkovský,
2000, p. 93) argued that ‘its [syntype scapula]
taxonomic identity remains unresolved at present’.
The comparisons of Göhlich
& Mourer-Chauviré (in press) resulted in
morphological and metrical characters which identify
the syntype scapula as a typical phasianid belonging
to the taxon P. phasianoides and distinguishable
from other fossil and recent phasianids. Accepting
the syntype humerus (MNHN Av 2896) as the lectotype
would result in the invalidity of the taxa Palaeortyx
phasianoides and Ameripodius alexis;
the latter would become a junior synonym of P. phasianoides.
Because the chosen lectotype humerus is not a phasianid
but belongs in the family QUERCYMEGAPODIIDAE, P.
phasianoides would have to be excluded from the
genus Palaeortyx. The rest of the material,
formerly known and described from different localities
as P. phasianoides, would have to be redescribed
and given a new name.
Additional
reference
Göhlich, U.B. & Mourer-Chauviré,
C. (In press). Revision of the phasianids
(Aves, Galliformes) from the Lower Miocene of St.-Gérand-le-Puy
(France). Palaeontology.
(2) Gerald Mayr
Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Division of Ornithology,
Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt/M., Germany
I have read
and fully support this application.
