In my opinion, if the Commission decides to support this application that would be against the rules of the Code and would create bad precedent.
The authors showed the invalidity of the early type designation of Drosophila:Musca cellaris Linnaeus, 1758 (p. 597) by Curtis, 1833 (p. 473) of which the systematic status has never been clarified (and thus invalid); and Musca funebrisFabricius, 1787 (p. 345) by Macquart, 1835 (p. 549) at the same time placed in synonymy with M. cellaris Linnaeus, 1758 (thus equally invalid).
The case to conserve the usage of the name Drosophila Fallén, 1832 overSophophora Sturtevant, 1939, for Drosophila melanogaster, is probably the most important ever to have been submitted for a ruling by the Commission in its 113-year history. Drosophila melanogaster, commonly referred to (especially by nontaxonomists) as simply ‘Drosophila’, is the most widely studied animal, apart, possibly, from Homo sapiens, in human history.
Please note that the correct date for Falle´n’s establishment of the nameDrosophila is 1823, rather than 1832, as stated in the title and the abstract of the application published in BZN 64: 238–242.
I strongly support John Oswald’s application to conserve the specific names Hemerobius elegans Stephens, 1836 and Hemerobius elegans Guérin-Méneville, 1844 for two species of lacewings in separate, well-recognized families. The duplication of names has not led to any confusion for over 150 years, and there is not even a remote likelihood that it would do so in the future. In contrast, suppression of the junior homonym would require additional name changes in a small genus that has already undergone several recent alterations.
The specific name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898) has been used since its publication to refer to an Australian termite, while the specific name M. serrula (Desneux, 1904) has been used since its publication to refer to a species from Southeast Asia. Because both names are invalid, Roisin & Pasteels (2000, p.
I am writing to support the application of Dr Paolo Triberti of the Muso civico di Storia Naturale in Verona (Case 3376) on the proposed conservation of the specific name Lithocolletis oxyacanthae Frey, 1855 (currently Phyllonorycter oxyacanthae; Insecta, Lepidoptera) by giving it precedence over Lithocolletis pomonella Zeller, 1846.
While acting as referees to the paper ‘The Phyllonorycter species from the
I read Paolo Triberti’s application (Case 3376) about the synonymy ofPhyllonorycter oxyacanthae (Frey, 1855) and Phyllonorycter pomonella (Zeller, 1846). In my opinion it is correct and in accordance with the Code’s recommendations.
I support the action proposed by Martin Spies. Both the genus nameOrthocladius and the subfamily name ORTHOCLADIINAE are now very well-founded in chironomid taxonomy and nomenclature, and a subsequent change in these names would cause much confusion among both taxonomists and freshwater ecologists.