BZN Volume 62, Part 3, 30 September 2005

Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 30 September 2005 in Volume 62, 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 proposed conservation of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937 (Insecta, Isoptera)
(Case 3292; see BZN 62: 8–13)

Yves Roisin
Behavioral & Evolutionary Ecology—CP 160/12, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Avenue F.D. Roosevelt 50, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium

  1. The objective of the application is to conserve the names Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890, Microcerotermes Silvestri, 1901 and NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937, by suppressing the name Eutermes Heer, 1849, because it threatens Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890 (and the family-group name based upon it, NASUTITERMITINAE Hare, 1937).
  These two generic names Nasutitermes and Microcerotermes are obviously in broad use for important termites and should be conserved. The question is whether they are actually threatened by Eutermes Heer, 1849 to a point which justifies the suppression of the latter. As pointed out by Engel & Krishna (paras. 1, 2, 6) the type species of Eutermes Heer, 1849 is Termes (Eutermes) debilis Heer, 1849 as designated by Banks (1919, p. 482). The type specimen of T. debilis is presently untraceable. It is an imago described as in amber (‘Bernstein’). Neither its age nor its geographic locality are known. Heer’s description (Heer, 1849, p. 35) and illustration (pl. III, fig. 6) are not diagnostic at the generic level. According to Hagen’s (1858) observations, this imago is in gum copal and possibly represents a Recent species from Porto Rico now placed in Microcerotermes, but this assignment is far from conclusive. There is, at best, only weak evidence for considering Eutermes to be a senior synonym of Microcerotermes. Synonymy with Nasutitermes is even less likely. These genera differ from each other to such an extent that they are today placed in different subfamilies. Suspecting that either of them might be a synonym of Eutermes, Heer is symptomatic of the poor characterization of this latter genus. Of course, should the type specimen of T. debilis be found, its study might confirm the synonymy of Eutermes with Nasutitermes, Microcerotermes or another termite genus in use. Engel & Krishna asked the Commission to suppress the name Eutermes as a preventive measure, because the resolution of its identity might create instability. Such a ruling would seem premature to me, because no synonymy with potentially destabilising consequences is suggested by current taxonomic knowledge. Such synonymy remains only a mere possibility in case of a very hypothetical future revision, after which Eutermes might just as well be recognized as a distinct genus. The Commission should not encourage initiatives aimed at suppressing dubious names before they are adequately characterized for fear they might ultimately turn out to be senior synonyms of well-known taxa. I therefore recommend that the Commission does not use its plenary power, as requested by Engel & Krishna (para. 11(1)(a)), to suppress the name Eutermes Heer, 1849.

  2. The second objective of this application is to clarify the status of the type species of Nasutitermes Dudley, 1890. The status of this nominal genus has been discussed by various authors, most recently Constantino (2002), who concluded that Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910 was validly designated as type species by Emerson (1925, p. 379). Engel & Krishna (para. 3), however, returned to the designation by Banks (in Banks & Snyder, 1920, p. 69) of Termes morio Latreille, 1805 as type species of Nasutitermes. There are two problems with this designation: (1) T. morio was not among the species originally included in Nasutitermes; (2) T. morio is not a new name, but refers to specimens which Latreille misidentified as T. morio Fabricius, 1793. Emerson (1925, p. 379) considered that the name Nasutitermes costalis (Holmgren, 1910) should replace Termes morio Latreille and concluded that ‘N. costalis (Holmgren) will be the type species of Nasutitermes’. Engel & Krishna referred to Article 70.3 of the Code (‘Misidentified type species’) to conclude that the type species should be chosen from the nominal species previously cited as type species (in this case, Termes morio Fabricius, 1793) or the taxonomic species actually involved (Eutermes costalis Holmgren, 1910). However, Article 67.9 states that the provisions of Article 70.3 apply only if a validly fixed type species is later found to have been misidentified. Since Termes morio was not among the originally included nominal species (Article 67.2), it was not validly fixed by Banks as type species of Nasutitermes and Article 70.3 is not applicable. The discussion by Engel & Krishna of the consequences of the application of Article 70.3 to this case is irrelevant. Termes morio Fabricius is not available for type species fixation and E. costalis Holmgren is not the only alternative. The relevant question is whether Emerson’s (1925) statement constitutes a valid designation of E. costalis Holmgren as type species. It is clear that Emerson accepted the designation of T. morio, but only considered that the name of the species had to be changed. For this reason, Engel & Krishna rejected Emerson’s statement as a new type species designation. However, according to Constantino (2002, p. 534), the fact that Emerson’s reasoning was wrong does not invalidate the type species designation. Article 69.1.1 states that ‘. . . an author is deemed to have designated one of the originally included nominal species as type species, if he or she states (for whatever reason, right or wrong) that it is the type or type species’. It is clear that we should follow Constantino in accepting that Emerson (1925) validly designated E. costalis as type species of Nasutitermes, even though his argument was wrong. No ruling of the Commission is needed in this case, since E. costalis is in current use as type species of Nasutitermes. The Commission could, however, use its specific powers (Article 78.2.3) to ‘interpret the provisions of the Code’ and confirm that Emerson’s (1925) statement, reproduced above, does constitute a valid type species designation.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 (currently Chlosyne nycteis; Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 3280; see BZN 62: 79–83)

(1) David M. Wright
124 Heartwood Drive, Lansdale, PA 19446, U.S.A.

  I support the application by Calhoun, Miller & Miller requesting that the name Melitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1847 is conserved, and the problematic name Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1835 is suppressed. Being familiar with this contentious situation in North America, and having served as reviewer for papers from both sides of the issue, I agree with the conclusions of the authors.
  From historical research we know that the drawing by John Abbot, used as the template for the illustration of M. ismeria by Boisduval & Le Conte (1833, pl. 46), was copied faithfully by Abbot five times. The evidence (six drawings of the same insect by Abbot) confirms that Abbot painted the insect we know as Dryas gorgone Hübner, 1810.
  Therefore, the designation by Gatrelle (1998) of a neotype that makes M. ismeria and M. nycteis synonyms was incorrect.
  In my opinion, the available options are: (1) to suppress the name M. ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte (as proposed in para. 14(1)), or (2) to invalidate the recently designated neotype of M. ismeria. I prefer option 1, which effectively executes both.

(2) Mark Salvato
1765 17th Avenue SW, Vero Beach, Florida, U.S.A.

  I fully agree with authors John V. Calhoun, Lee D. Miller & Jacqueline Y. Miller regarding the conservation of the scientific name Mylitaea nycteis Doubleday, 1947 as proposed in Case 3280.
  In the recent literature Calhoun (2003, 2004) has presented overwhelming evidence that indicates M. nycteis is the appropriate name for the butterfly in question and that M. ismeria should be suppressed. We now know that the original Abbot drawing used by Boisduval & Le Conte (1835) to describe M. ismeria was actually a drawing of M. gorgone. Therefore, the insect M. ismeria was erroneously named in 1835, as no such insect existed then and all specimens observed to date are either of nycteis or gorgone. In 1847, Doubleday correctly named M. nycteis from examination of a drawing that indeed was of a new insect. The name ismeria is not synonymous with nycteis as Gatrelle (1998) suggests; the name ismeria applies to an insect that never actually existed. The scientific name Mylitaea ismeria should be suppressed as Calhoun, Miller & Miller suggest and this butterfly should continue to be referred to correctly as Mylitaea nycteis.

(3) Dale F. Schweitzer
Terrestrial Invertebrate Zoologist, NatureServe, 1761 Main Street, Port Norris, NJ 08349, U.S.A.

  I am writing in support of the petition before you by Calhoun, Miller & Miller regarding Case 3280. I strongly urge use of the Commission’s plenary power to suppress the name Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte, 1835 and to place it on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names in Zoology to preserve 158 years of nomenclatural stability. As an experienced professional lepidopterist, past curator, author of five moth species, and contributor to a major conservation database, I cannot think of a case where suppression is more warranted among North American Lepidoptera.
  As is well documented in the petition before you regarding Case 3280, the names Melitaea ismeria Boisduval & Le Conte and M. nycteis Doubleday have both been around for over 150 years although, being butterflies, generic combinations have changed often. The petition gives a very complete history of these names. Gatrelle’s recent neotype designation would upset over 150 years of stability and is counter even to the one 20th century worker, J.H. McDunnough, to have examined an actual Boisduval specimen (perhaps the holotype or a syntype) who synonymized ismeria to gorgone, see the petition point 10. Prior to Gatrelle’s radical change, no author had suggested that M. nycteis and M. ismeria refer to the same species. M. ismeria has almost universally been treated as conspecific with what is now Chlosyne gorgone (the senior name), which is also the conclusion of the exhaustive study by John Calhoun, the lead author of the petition, or treated as a nomen incognitum. In contrast the name nycteis has been applied universally to the same widespread and familiar butterfly since it was first proposed 158 years ago. The current (but pre-Gatrelle) combination Chlosyne nycteis (Doubleday) also is in use in virtually every taxonomic and conservation database and web site that deals with North American butterflies, not to mention most major Lepidoptera collections in the world and many publications popular and scientific.
  Gatrelle’s case is not conclusive (see petition points 8–11). Calhoun’s argument in a respected peer reviewed journal that ismeria is conspecific with gorgone appears to be the stronger one based on the evidence. Note in particular items 8 and 10 in the petition. Calhoun apparently did, and Gatrelle apparently did not, locate the original Abbott plate upon which the name was based. Some of the ancient figures involved might be best identified as ‘unrecognizable’ rather than as any taxon. I have seen at least one personally and did not know which of these familiar species, if any, it represents. Calhoun’s review and findings, upon which this petition is largely based, agree with, or at least do not contradict, virtually every author before him, except for Gatrelle. Gatrelle’s article notably did not appear in a peer-reviewed periodical. Unfortunately his ill-advised neotype designation appears to me to be valid and, if any workers followed it, it would needlessly upset 158 years of nomenclatural stability for a widespread North American butterfly and is counter to the conclusions of all other authors who have commented on the matter. This would needlessly create a lot of confusion, at least in the short term.
  I would support this petition in the name of nomenclatural stability even if I agreed with Gatrelle’s conclusions regarding the true identity of Melitaea ismeria, and in my opinion he should have petitioned to have the name suppressed. Therefore I hope the Commission will resolve this matter by suppressing this poorly founded and little used name, rather than allow it to replace a long-standing familiar name based on very questionable conclusions and an ill-advised neotype designation.

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Eterusia cingala Moore, 1877 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)
(Case 3295; see BZN 62: 18–20)

W. Gerald Tremewan
Pentreath, 6 Carlyon Road, Playing Place, Truro, Cornwall TR3 6EU, U.K.

  I fully support the application brought before the Commission by Dr Shen-Horn Yen.