BZN Volume 66, Part 4, 18 December 2009

Comments

---

Comments with the following titles were published on 18 December 2009 in Volume 66, Part 4 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).

A list of open cases and instructions on submitting comments are available.

 

 

Comment on Palaemon rosenbergii De Man, 1879 (currently Macrobrachium rosenbergii; Crustacea, Decapoda): proposed conservation of usage by designation of a neotype
(Case 3428; see BNZ 65: 288–292)

Ernest H. Williams, Jr.
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 9000, Mayagu¨ez, Puerto Rico 00680–9000 (e-mail: ernest.williams1@upr.edu)
Dallas E. Alston
Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, P.O. Box 9000, Mayagüez, Puerto Rico 00680–9000 (e-mail: dallas.a@upr.edu)
  We have worked with Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man, 1879) for 35 years in Puerto Rico. EHW began working with a commercial shrimp farm in Cabo Rojo in 1975 and afterwards with other farms (Williams & Bunkley-Williams, 1999a, b; Williams & Sindermann, 1992; Williams et al., 2001). DEA began his research and that of his students on this animal at the Lajas Experiment Station in 1980 (e.g. Alston, 1989, 1991; Alston & Garcia-Pérez, 2000; Garcia-Pérez & Alston, 2000; Garcia-Pérez et al., 2000; Cole et al., in press) and cooperated on disease work (Alston & Bunkley-Williams, manuscript).
  This shrimp was partially selected for aquaculture because of its lack of aggression (Alston, 1991). Despite frequent escapes in Puerto Rico, it has never become established. It has only been accidentally introduced in a couple of Caribbean localities where the native shrimp have been virtually eliminated (Williams et al., 2001). Despite product recognition and a high market value for this product in Puerto Rico, commercial aquaculture has had mixed results. It seems best suited for inland areas where it does not compete with marine shrimp or in polyculture with such fish as tilapia.
  AFS and FAO have attempted to establish an approved common name (vernacular name) for this animal (e.g. FAO, 2009; McLaughlin et al., 2005; Williams et al., 1989) but have been virtually ignored in the cacophony of divergent, and often inappropriate, common names (e.g. freshwater prawn, freshwater Malaysian prawn, freshwater shrimp, Freshwater Shrimp, Fresh water[sic] Shrimp, giant freshwater prawn, giant fresh water[sic] prawn, giant freshwater shrimp, giant Malaysian prawn, giant Maleysian[sic] prawn, giant prawn, giant river prawn, Malaysian freshwater prawn, Malaysian prawn, prawn, scampi). The lack of any consistently used common name makes the stability of the scientific name all the more important.
  We support the petition of Wowor & Ng (2007, 2008) to conserve the scientific name Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man, 1879) for this well-known and commercially important animal. Loss or re-application of this name would create confusion for aquaculture, conservation organisations, regulatory agencies, and the general public. This name has been very widely used in a myriad of publications in the sense suggested by Case 3428 for many decades without opposition or conflicting or alternative names.
Additional references
Alson, D.E. 1989. Macrobrachium culture: a Caribbean perspective. World Aquaculture, 20(1): 19–23.
Alston, D.E. 1991. Culture of crustaceans in the Caribbean. World Aquaculture, 22(1): 64–68.
Alston, D.E. & Sampaio, C.M.S. 2000. Nursing systems and management. Pp. 112–125 in New, M.B. & Valenti, W.C. (Eds.), Freshwater prawn culture: the farming of Macrobrachium rosenbergii. Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Coyle, S.D., Alston, D.E. & de Souza Sampaio, C.M. in press. Nursery systems and management. Pp. 108–126 in New, M.B. Cotroni-Valenti, W., Tidwell, J.H., D’Abramo, L.R., & Kutty, M.N. (Eds.). Freshwater prawns: Biology and farming. Chapter 7. Fishing News Books, a Division of Blackwell Science, Oxford, United Kingdom.
FAO. 2009. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAO Species Identification and Data Programme (SIDP). Species Fact Sheets, Macrobrachium rosenbergii (De Man, 1879). http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2608/en
Garcia-Perez, A. & Alston, D.E. 2000. Comparisons of male and female morphotypes distribution of freshwater prawn, Macrobrachium rosenbergii, in monoculture versus polyculture with Nile tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus. Caribbean Journal of Science, 36: 340–342.
Garcia-Pérez, A., Alston, D.E. & Cortés-Maldonado, R. 2000. Growth, survival, yield, and size distributions of freshwater prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii and tilapia Oreochromis niloticus in polyculture and monoculture systems in Puerto Rico. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society, 31: 446–451.
McLaughlin, P.A., Camp, D.K., Angel, M.V., Bousfield, E.L., Brunel, P., Brusca, R.C., Cadien, D., Cohen, A.C., Conlan, K., Eldredge, L.G., Felder, D.L., Goy, J.W., Haney, T., Hann, B., Heard, R.W., Hendrycks, E.A., Hobbs, H.H., Holsinger, J.R., Kensley, B., Laubitz, D.R., LeCroy, S.E., Lemaitre, R., Maddocks, R.F., Martin, J.W., Mikkelsen, P., Nelson, E., Newman, W.A., Overstreet, R.M., Poly, W.J., Price, W.W., Reid, J.W., Robertson, A., Rogers, D.C., Ross, A., Schotte, M., Schram, F.R., Shih, C-T., Watling, L., Wilson, G.D.F. & Turgeon, D.D. 2005. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, 31: 1–533.
Williams, A.B., Abele, L.G., Felder, D.L., Hobbs, H.H., Jr., Manning, R.B., McLaughlin, P.A. & Perez Farfante, I. 1989. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: Decapod crustaceans. American Fisheries Society Special Publication, 17: 1–77.
Williams, E.H., Jr. & Bunkley-Williams, L. 1999a. Aquaculture exotics in the Caribbean. American Fisheries Society 129th Annual Meeting, Abstracts Volume, 132: 338.
Williams, E.H., Jr. & Bunkley-Williams, L. 1999b. Aquaculture exotic introductions in the Caribbean. Proceedings of the Association of Marine Laboratories of the Caribbean, 29: 5.
Williams, E.H., Jr. & Sindermann, C.J. 1992. Effects of disease interactions with exotic organisms on the health of the marine environment. Proceedings of the Introductions and Transfers of Marine Species Workshop, South Carolina Sea Grant, 1: 71–77.
Williams, E.H., Jr., Bunkley-Williams, L., Lilyestrom, C.G., & Ortiz-Corps, E.A.R. 2001. A review of recent introductions of aquatic invertebrates into Puerto Rico and implications for the management of nonindigenous species. Caribbean Journal of Science, 37: 246–251.

 

Comments on the proposed conservation of Termes serratus Froggatt, 1898 and Termes serrula Desneux, 1904 (Insecta, Isoptera, TERMITINAE)
(Case 3385; see BZN 64: 83–86, 185–187, 65: 47–49, 132–136)

(1) Theodore A. Evans
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division of Entomology, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 2600 (e-mail: theo.evans@csiro.au)
  I have read Jones’ (2007, 2008) (BZN 64: 83–86; 65: 47–49) proposal to conserve the junior specific names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898) for an Australian species and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux, 1904) for a southeast Asian species, and Roisin & Pasteels’ (2000; 2007 BZN 64: 185–157) and Roisin’s (2008) argument to use the senior specific name Microcerotermes serratus (Haviland, 1898) for the Southeast Asian species and use the synonym Microcerotermes parviceps Mjöberg, 1920 for the Australian species. I wish to offer some views as an Australian-based researcher of termite ecology and management of pest termites in Australia.
  I include in this comment 39 publications not previously cited by Roisin & Pasteels (2000, 2007), Jones (2007, 2008) or Kirton (2008). There are 22 publications using the name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt): Froggatt, 1915; Hill, 1921; Noirot, 1956; Gay, 1961; Anonymous, 1972–1973; Braithwaite, 1985; Hadlington, 1987; Braithwaite et al., 1988; Spain & Reddell, 1996; Andersen et al., 1998; Myles, 1999; Hinz, 2001; Lavelle & Spain, 2001; Dawes-Gromadzki, 2003, 2008a, 2008b; Dawes- Gromadzki & Spain, 2003; Gerozisis & Hadlington, 2004; Ahmed et al., 2005; Rasib, 2008; Staunton et al., 2008; Woodman et al., 2008; 17 publications using the name Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux, 1904): Kemner, 1934; Tho, 1982; Chey, 1997; Eggleton et al., 1997; Jeeva, 1998; Homathevi, 1999; Jeeva et al., 1999; Gillison, 2000; Gillison et al., 2003; Wolseley et al., 2001; Gathorne-Hardy et al., 2001, 2006; Homathevi et al., 2002; Rahman & Tawatao, 2003; Donovan et al., 2007; Lee, 2007; Anonymous, 2008; and one publication that uses both (Hegh, 1922).
  The senior name Microcerotermes serratus (Haviland) has been used only once since the original description and the synonym Microcerotermes parviceps Mjöberg, 1920 was used once before Hill (1942) synonymised it with serratus (excluding Roisin & Pasteels, 2000). In contrast, of the 77 publications used by Roisin & Pasteels (2000, 2007), Jones (2007, 2008), Kirton (2008) and in this comment, the name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) was used as valid in 46 publications and the name Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) was used as valid in 31 publications. These numbers do not include the original descriptions (Haviland, 1898; Froggatt, 1898; Desneux, 1904).
  The junior names have been used continuously over the past century: the table below shows the chronological distribution of all names from all 80 publications in Roisin & Pasteels (2000, 2007), Jones (2007, 2008), Kirton (2008) and in this comment, sorted to decade. A = description of serratus Froggatt, B = description of serratus Haviland, C = change of serratus to serrula for Malaysia species, D = first description of parviceps Mjöberg, E = Hill (1942) synonymised parviceps under serratus Froggatt, F = Roisin & Pasteels (2000) synonymised parviceps under serratus Haviland.

Decade	Serratus Froggatt Australian	Parviceps Mjöberg Australian	Serratus Haviland Malaysian	Serrula Desneux Malaysian
1890–1899	A		B
1900–1909	1+C		C	C
1910–1919	2		1	1
1920–1929	4	1+D		1
1930–1939				1
1940–1949	1	E
1950–1959	4			1
1960–1969	1		1
1970–1979	3
1980–1989	8			5
1990–1999	10			7
2000–2009	11+F	F	F	15+F

 

  Article 23.9.11 has not been met because the senior name has been used as valid after 1899.
  The conditions of Article 23.9.1.2 have been met because the junior name M. serratus has been used in 34 publications and M. serrula has been used in 27 publications in the last 50 years, both spanning periods greater than 10 years.
  Roisin & Pasteels (2007) argued that their change would not cause substantial confusion for two reasons. The first reason was a lack of study on these species. However, both species have been recorded many times as part of biological surveys in natural forest and human modified lands (Ferrar & Watson, 1970; Holt & Coventry, 1982; Collins, 1984; Braithwaite, 1985; Braithwaite et al., 1988; Nkunika, 1988; Holt et al., 1993; Eggleton et al., 1997, 1999; Andersen et al., 1998; Hinz, 2001; Wolseley et al., 2001; Homathevi, 2002; Jones et al., 2002, 2003; Dawes-Gromadzki, 2003; 2008a, 2008b; Dawes-Gromadzki & Spain, 2003; Gathorne-Hardy et al., 2001, 2006; Gathorne-Hardy, 2004; Donovan et al., 2007). These 23 studies represent a substantial amount of biological study of these species.
  The second reason was that these two species were not well known. Yet three lines of evidence show that they are well known. (1) A combined total of 76 publications use these names as valid. (2) The names are used in multiple government reports (Anonymous, 1972–1973; Braithwaite, 1985; Andersen et al., 1998; Gillison, 2000; Hinz, 2001; Anonymous, 2008; Woodman et al., 2008). (3) Both M. serratus and M. serrula are recognised as pest species by Australian and Malaysian Federal and State governments; ten official websites are listed below. The Australia Standard for pest termite management has included the name Microcerotermes serratus in various publications from 1966 to 1993. All pest control officers in Australia are familiar with the Standard for their industry, and several publications aimed at educating and/or regulating the pest control industry in Australia include the name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1915; Hill, 1921; Gay, 1961; Hadlington, 1987, 1996; Verkerk, 1990; Gerozisis & Hadlington, 2004; Stauton et al., 2006); note two private company websites listed below. The situation in Malaysia is not dissimilar as pest control publications include the name Microcerotermes serrula (Rahman & Tawatao, 2003; Lee, 2007).
  I therefore support the application by Jones to the Commission to conserve the specific names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux). These names are in widespread and entrenched usage in Australia and Malaysia. A strict application of the Principle of Priority as advocated by Roisin & Pasteels (2000, 2007) would cause considerable confusion, scientifically, in industry and government.
Additional references
Ahmed, S., Khan, R.R. & Mahmood, T. 2005. Effect of cultural practices on subterranean termites in wheat at Faisalabad, Pakistan. Pakistan Entomologist, 27: 27–31.
Andersen, A., Morrison, S., Belbin, L., Ashwath, N. & Brennan, K. 1998. The role of ants in minesite restoration in the Kakadu region of Australia’s Northern Territory, with particular reference to their use as bio-indicators (Supervising Scientist Report 130). 107 pp. Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Darwin.
Anonymous. 2008. The Penang National Park. Volume 2: supporting studies and additional information for the management of Penang National Park. 287 pp.
Anonymous. 1972–1973. Alligator Rivers region environmental fact finding study. 190 pp. CSIRO, Canberra.
Braithwaite, R.W. 1985. The Kakadu fauna survey: an ecological survey of Kakadu National Park. Darwin. 1295 pp. Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service. Darwin.
Braithwaite, R.W., Miller, L. & Wood, J.T. 1988. The structure of termite communities in the Australian tropics. Austral Ecology, 13: 375–391.
Chey, V.K. 1997. Amazing termites of Sepilok. Borneo, 2–3: 6–9.
Dawes-Gromadzki, T. & Spain, A. 2003. Seasonal patterns in the activity and species richness of surface-foraging termites (Isoptera) at paper baits in a tropical Australian savanna. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 19: 449–456.
Dawes-Gromadzki, T.Z. 2003. Sampling subterranean termite species diversity and activity in tropical savannas: an assessment of different bait choices. Ecological Entomology, 28: 397–404.
Dawes-Gromadzki, T.Z. 2008. Abundance and diversity of termites in a savanna woodland reserve in tropical Australia. Australian Journal of Entomology, 47: 307–314.
Dawes-Gromadzki, T.Z. 2008. The termite (Isoptera) fauna of a monsoonal rainforest near Darwin, northern Australia. Australian Journal of Entomology, 44: 152–157.
Donovan, S.E., Griffiths, G.J.K., Homathevi, R. & Winder, L. 2007. The spatial pattern of soil-dwelling termites in primary and logged forest in Sabah, Malaysia. Ecological Entomology, 32: 1–10.
Eggleton, P., Homathevi, R., Jeeva, D., Jones, D.T., Davies, R.G. & Maryati, M. 1997. The species richness and composition of termites (Isoptera) in primary and regenerating lowland dipterocarp forest in Sabah, East Malaysia. Ecotropica, 3: 119–128.
Froggatt, W.W. 1915. White Ants. Farmers’ Bulletin 60: 1–47. Department of Agriculture, State of New South Wales.
Gathorne-Hardy, F.J., Syaukani, & Eggleton, P. 2001. The effects of altitude and rainfall on the composition of the termites (Isoptera) of the Leuser Ecosystem (Sumatra, Indonesia). Journal of Tropical Ecology, 17: 379–393.
Gathorne-Hardy, F.J., Syaukani & Inward, D.J.G. 2006. Recovery of termite (Isoptera)
assemblage structure from shifting cultivation in Barito Ulu, Kalimantan, Indonesia. Journal of Tropical Ecology, 22: 605–608.
Gay, F.J. 1961. The control of termites in Australia. Symposia Genetica et Biologia Italia, 11: 47–60.
Gerozisis, J. & Hadlington, P. 2004. Urban Pest Management in Australia. 348 pp. Sydney, UNSW Press.
Gillison, A.N. 2000. Above ground biodiversity assessment working group summary report 1996–1999: Impact of different land uses on biodiversity and social indicators. 160 pp. ASB Working Group Report, World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), Nairobi.
Gillison, A.N., Jones, D.T., Susilo, F.X. & Bignell, D.E. 2003. Vegetation indicates diversity of soil macroinvertebrates: a case study with termites along a land-use intensification gradient in lowland Sumatra. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 3: 111–126. (appendix 2, electronic supplement 5 part 2).
Hadlington, P. 1987. Australian Termites and Other Common Timber Pests. 2nd edition. 126 pp. UNSW Press, Sydney.
Hegh, E. 1922. Les termites: partie générale. 756 pp. Brussels, Société Anonyme.
Hill, G. 1921. The white ant pest in northern Australia. 26 pp. Commonwealth of Australia, Institute of Science and Industry, Bulletin 21.
Hinz, D.A. 2001. Termites as ecological indicators of mine-land rehabilitation in tropical Australia. Pp. 84–89, in Klessa, D.A. (Ed.) The rehabilitation of Nabarlek uranium mine. Report 160, Supervising Scientist, Darwin.
Homathevi, R. 1999. Diversity and ecology of forest termite (Isoptera) populations in Sabah, East Malaysia, with special reference to the Termes-Capritermes clade. PhD. thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kota Kinabalu.
Homathevi, R., Bakhtiareffendi, Y., Mahadimenakbar, D., Maryati, M., Jones, D.T. & Bignell, D.E. 2002. A comparison of termites (Insecta: Isoptera) assemblages in six primary forest stands in Sabah, Malaysia. Malayan Nature Journal, 56: 225–237.
Jeeva, D. 1998. Greenhouse gas emissions by termites in tropical rain forest of Danum Valley, Sabah, Malaysia. MSc thesis. Universiti Malaysia Sabah, Kona Kinabalu.
Jeeva, D., Bignell, D.E., Eggleton, P. & Maryati, M. 1999. Respiratory gas exchanges of termites from the Sabah (Borneo) assemblage. Physiological Entomology, 24: 11–17.
Kemner N.V.A. 1934. Systematische und biologische studien über die Termiten Javas und Celebes’. Kungliga Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar, 13: 1–241.
Lavelle, P. & Spain, A.V. 2001. Soil Ecology. 654 pp. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Lee, C.-Y. 2007. Perspective in urban insect pest management in Malaysia. pp. 104. Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang.
Myles, T.G. 1999. Review of secondary reproduction in termites (Insecta: Isoptera) with comments on its role in termite ecology and social evolution. Sociobiology, 33: 1–91.
Noirot, C. 1956. Les sexués de remplacement chez les termites supérieurs (Termitidae). Insectes Sociaux, 3: 145–158.
Rahman, H. & Tawatao, N. 2003. Isoptera. Pp. 121–133, in Maryati, M., Homathevi, R., Takuji, T. & Mahadimenakbar, D. (Eds). Introductory course to entomology. Bornean Biodiversity & Ecosystems, Conservation Programme. publication 21. BBECP Secretariat, Kota Kinabalu.
Rasib, K.Z. 2008. Feeding preferences of Microcerotermes championi (Snyder) on different timbers dried at different temperatures under choice and no choice trials. Nature Proceedings (Pakistan) (hdl:10101/npre.2008.2048.1).
Spain, A.V. & Reddell, P. 1996. Delta C-13 values of selected termites (Isoptera) and termite-modified materials. Soil Biology & Biochemistry, 28: 1585–1593.
Staunton, I., Gerozisis, J. & Hadlington, P. 2008. Urban Pest Management in Australia. Sydney, UNSW Press.
Tho, Y.P. 1982. Studies on the taxonomy and biology of termites (Isoptera) of Peninsular Malaysia, PhD thesis. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen.
Wolseley, P., Jones, D.T. & Ellis, L. 2001. Species composition of lichens, bryophytes and termites under different forest conditions in Hulu Tabalong, South Kalimantan, Indonesia. 63 pp. Environmental working paper No. 25. South and Central Kalimantan Production Forest Programme, and European Commission.
Woodman, J.D., Baker, G.H., Evans, T.A., Colloff, M.J. & Andersen, A.N. 2008. Soil biodiversity and ecology, emphasising earthworms, termites and ants as key macroinvertebrates (Report CEN22). 127 pp. Australian Government, National Land & Water Resources Audit, Canberra.
Websites
The name Microcerotermes serratus is found on eight Australian Government websites:
Australian Government, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts; Australian Biological Resources Study:
  http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/onlineresources/ fauna/afd/taxa/Microcerotermes_serratus/names
Australian Government, Department of Agricultural, Fisheries and Forestry, Pests and Diseases Image Library:
  http://www.padil.gov.au/browseSpecies.aspx?menu=s1&group=3&id=46&taxa= Isoptera
Australian Government, National Land & Water Resources Audit:
  http://nlwra.gov.au/files/products/national-land-and-water-resourcesaudit/ pn21446/pn21446.pdf
Australian Government, National Health and Medical Research Council:
  http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/PUBLICATIONS/synopses/withdrawn/dp1.pdf
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Australian National Insect Collection:
  http://anic.ento.csiro.au/database/specimen_map.aspx?BiotaID=24812
Government of the State of New South Wales, Department of Primary Industries, Agricultural Scientific Collections Unit:
  http://www.agric.nsw.gov.au/Hort/ascu/staff/taxalist.htm
Government of the Northern Territory, Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport:
  http://nt.gov.au/nreta/environment/assessment/register/ord/pdf/eisch8.pdf
Australian Museum; Fauna Net:
  http://www.faunanet.gov.au/MNLDetail.cfm?Kingdom=Fauna&NameID= INISOPT069gns
The name Microcerotermes serrula is found on two Malaysian Government websites:
Malaysia Government, Department of Wildlife and National Parks:
  http://www.wildlife.gov.my/
Malaysia Government, Forest Research Institute:
  http://www.frim.gov.my/
The name Microcerotermes serratus is found on two private pest control company websites:
Allgone Pest – Brisbane Queensland
  http://www.allgonpest.com.au/index.php?pgid=35
Superway – Brisbane Queensland
  http://superway.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id= 22&Itemid=38
The names Microcerotermes serratus and M. serrula are found on six international websites:
  http://www.cybertruffle.org.uk/cgi-bin/nome.pl?organism=94644&glo=eng
  http://www.biolib.cz/cz/taxontermlists/id579552/
  http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/M/Microcerotermes _Genus.asp
  http://ctd.mdibl.org/detail.go?type=taxon&acc=139992
  http://sib.uniprot.org/taxonomy/139992
  http://ib.ist.hokudai.ac.jp/~tendo/etools/gene/inv.organism

(2) James W. Creffield
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Division of Materials Science & Engineering, Clayton, Victoria, Australia, 3169 (e-mail: Jim.creffield@csiro.au)
  I have carefully read Jones’s proposal in conjunction with the arguments of Roisin & Pasteels (2000); BZN 64: 185–187 and Roisin (2008). I have also studied the argument put forward by Theodore A. Evans in support of Jones’s case (this issue). My conclusion is that I wish to fully support the views of both Jones and Evans, by strongly recommending that the specific names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) and Microcerotermes serrula (Desneux) be conserved.

(3) Nathan Lo
School of Biological Sciences, The University of Sydney, Room 132, Macleay Building A12, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia (e-mail: nathan@usyd.edu.au)
I am in complete agreement with the ideas proposed by T.A. Evans (this issue).

(4) Ross H. Crozier
School of Marine and Tropical Biology, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD 4811, Australia (e-mail: ross.crozier@jcu.edu.au)
  It is now clear that the names M. parviceps and M. serratus (Haviland) have been essentially forgotten since their descriptions until rediscovered by Roisin & Pasteels, whereas M. serratus (Froggatt) and M. serrula have been used in significant literature in the Asian and Australian regions.
  It is worth remembering the main purpose of scientific nomenclature, namely to provide stable links between scientific studies so that researchers know the identities of species worked on by others in relation to their own studies. The other purpose is to accurately reflect similarities between organisms in higher classification systematics. The proposal by Roisin & Pasteels would do extreme damage to the first aim while doing nothing to assist the second, because no systematic changes are envisaged, only taxonomic ones.
  It is bad enough when one name is substituted for another, but when a well-used name is transferred from one species to another, the resulting confusion is rather extreme. It is not enough to suggest that appending ‘Haviland’ to the name M. serratus would automatically make all clear. Firstly, most journals no longer require or even favour the addition of authors’ names to species names. Secondly, most authors, if needing to meet this requirement, simply check the first paper in their reprint collection which gives the author’s name. Authors’ names are therefore a valueless crutch; attention has to be given to the best names to use and the Code is clear that stability is important, giving guidelines on how this can be achieved.
  I therefore fully support continued use of the names Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt) and M. serrula, and recommend that the name M. serratus (Haviland) be formally suppressed.

(5) Tracey Dawes
Tropical Ecosystems Research Centre, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 564 Vanderlin Drive, Berrimah Northern Territory Australia 0828 (e-mail: Tracy.Dawes@csiro.au)
  I have recently been advised that there is the potential for the Commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to vote against the conservation of the name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt, 1898). If this is the case, I believe that this will result in M. serratus becoming M. parviceps and the species M. serrula of Borneo now becoming M. serratus.
As an Australian senior research scientist specialising in termite ecology for over 10 years I have grave concerns if such an outcome was reached. I cannot support such a name change primarily due to the high degree of ongoing confusion and inconvenience that such a name change would bring about. This is primarily because (i) M. serratus is a well-known and recognised species of Australian termite and the change would assign this species a name that is unfamiliar, and (ii) this results in a relatively less well-known termite species from Borneo being suddenly assigned a name that has been associated with a well-known Australian termite for 100 years.
Additionally, for termite researchers wanting to classify termites, there is a relatively small but valuable set of reference works that are used. These include Hill (1942), Gay & Calaby (1970), Watson & Gay (1991) and Watson & Abbey (1993). In the event of the above name change, all these works would then carry the incorrect name for M. serratus and this would require significant effort, cost and time to rectify. The pest industry is also extensive across Australia and a name change would results in the entire industry carrying the incorrect name on all their pest literature. Also, all specimens in collections across the country and elsewhere would have to be relabelled.
From my knowledge and experience I do believe that in a broader context there will be significant and widespread negative consequences if such a name-change was permitted to occur. Such a change would lead to significant confusion and nomenclatural inconsistencies. Please consider this as a letter of support for the conservation of the name Microcerotermes serratus (Froggatt).
Additional references
Watson, J.A.L. & Gay, F.J. 1991. Isoptera (Termites). Pp. 330–347 in CSIRO (Ed.), The Insects of Australia. A textbook for students and research workers. 2nd Ed. vol. 1. Melbourne University Press, Melbourne.
Watson, J.A.L., Miller, L.R. & Abbey, H.M. 1998. Isoptera. Pp. 163–250 in Houston, W.W.K & Wells, A. (Eds.), Zoological Catalogue of Australia. Vol. 23. Archaeognatha, Zygentoma, Blattodea, Isoptera, Mantodea, Dermaptera, Phasmatodea, Embioptera, Zoraptera. xiii, 464 pp. CSIRO Publishing Melbourne, Australia.

 

Comments on the proposed establishment of availability of Balintus d’Abrera, 2001, Gulliveria d’Abrera & Bálint, 2001, Salazaria d’Abrera & Bálint, 2001, Megathecla Robbins, 2002 and Gullicaena Bálint, 2002 (Insecta, Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE)
(Case 3458; see BZN 65: 188–193, 66: 271–272)

(1) Robert K. Robbins
Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History, Stop 105, PO Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013–7012 U.S.A. (e-mail: RobbinsR@SI.edu)
Gerardo Lamas
Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos, Apartado 14–0434, Lima-14, Perú (e-mail: glamasm@unmsm.edu.pe)
  This is a reply to the comment by Craig (BZN 66: 271–272) on Case 3458.
  This matter arose when d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) proposed eight generic names in the LYCAENIDAE (Lepidoptera). An application on the availability of these names (Robbins & Lamas 2008b) noted that the words in d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) differentiated the type species. Similarly, the characters in d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) differentiated the type species. The proposed interpretation (Robbins, 2002; 2004; Robbins & Lamas 2008a, b) was that d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) had differentiated the type species for each new generic name, contradicting Article 13.1.1 of the Code which requires differentiation of the new genus. Craig now proposes the alternative interpretation that d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) intended to differentiate each genus.
  The first theme of our response to Craig is that promoting the stability and universality of names was the nomenclatural philosophy underlying all of our publications related to Case 3458 (Robbins, 2002; 2004; Robbins & Lamas, 2008a, b). The second theme of our response is that Craig’s criticisms lack supporting reasons, explanations, and evidence.
  Craig writes ‘‘The bone of contention revolves around a minor and rather trivial perceived technicality. Taking the example cited by the applicants, under the heading ‘Genus Annamaria d’Abrera & Balint gen. nov.’ the authors (in d’Abrera, 2001) wrote ‘. . . However, is distinguished from Evenus by . . .’ followed by several distinguishing characters of the wing veins and androchonial [sic] patches. This was clearly ‘a definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon’ in the sense of the Code (Article 13.1.1), in other words the authors’ purpose in including this paragraph was to differentiate the new genus.’’
  Our response is that Craig took the quote out of context. In the actual description, d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) wrote ‘In NEOTROPICAL VII:1107 treated as Evenus draudti. Likewise by other workers. However, is distinguished from Evenus by . . .’ The subject of the first sentence is unequivocally the type species, not the genus. The subject of the second sentence is the type species. There is no indication that the subject of the third sentence is different. And in accord with this idea, the characters that d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) gave distinguish the type species, not the other species that they placed in Annamaria. Irrespective of whether this is a ‘minor and rather trivial perceived technicality’, Craig provides no evidence to support the notion that d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) intended to differentiate the genus.
  Craig writes ‘Chopiniana [sic] is presumably equally sound in the absence of any comments to the contrary.’ Is Chopinia d’Abrera (Chopiniana is a misspelling) nomenclaturally sound? The original description of Chopinia clearly listed characters that differentiate the male of the type species, Thecla mazurka Hewitson, from Macusia Kaye; none of these characters were noted to differentiate Chopinia from Macusia, in violation of Article 13.1.1. For this reason, we consider Chopinia to be unavailable (Robbins, 2004; Robbins & Lamas, 2008b). Craig continues ‘This suggests that it is not the taxonomic concepts that the applicants find ambiguous or unacceptable, but rather the names themselves and/or their authorship.’ This inappropriate statement is unsupported by fact.
  Concerning the monotypic genera proposed by d’Abrera & Bálint (2001), Craig writes ‘Although denied by the applicants, the characters of the type species are the characters of their respective monotypic genera; there are no other characters the authors could have provided to differentiate these taxa.’ We are perplexed why Craig asserts that we denied that the characters of a monotypic genus are the same as those of the type species. Rather, we had originally accepted the availability of the monotypic genera because differentiating the type species of a monotypic genus could be interpreted as being equivalent to differentiating the genus (Robbins & Lamas, 2008b). However, in reviewing the original version of our application, an anonymous Commissioner responded ‘As one of the authors of this potential Case is actually a Commissioner, I sent a mail to all Commissioners with the examples given above asking for advice on how exactly to interpret Article 13.1. The replies I got agree with my own interpretation that the monotypic genera are NOT made available through the description of the type species and only congener.’ Our application agreed with this viewpoint because we knew of no compelling reasons to the contrary.
  Craig writes ‘Yet the Commission is being asked to reward this error of Robbins (2002) by making Megathecla available, while rejecting most of the new genera of d’Abrera & Bálint (in d’Abrera, 2001) as a punishment for their ambiguous phraseology.’ We are perplexed how Craig can view a Commission decision as a reward or a punishment. The words ‘reward’ and ‘punishment’ do not occur in the Code. As we understand it, the Commission is charged with promoting the stability and universality of names, not with rewarding or punishing authors or applicants.
  Craig writes ‘The Commission should not consider rejecting some generic names that are inconvenient to the applicants while making others available.’ Robbins & Lamas (2008b) provided evidence that their nomenclatural proposal was the most stable solution. We are perplexed by, and object to, Craig’s assertion that our proposal was motivated by inconvenience, especially since he does not provide a single reason why these names would be ‘inconvenient’.
  Craig writes ‘Such a ruling would engender ill-feeling and a sense of injustice and would exacerbate the nomenclatural confusion currently caused by this issue.’ Although ‘ill-feeling and a sense of injustice’ are not specifically mentioned in the Code, a sense of fair and equal treatment is arguably an important foundation for all human endeavours. It is exactly the reason why the Code and its objectives apply to everyone fairly and equally. In this case, d’Abrera & Bálint (2001) unfortunately did not follow the rules, and Robbins & Lamas (2008b) addressed the question of how best to achieve the objectives of the Code. In what way can that be construed as unjust? How can it engender ill-feeling? Once again, Craig’s assertions of ill-feeling and injustice are not accompanied by supporting evidence.
  The reason for the application by Robbins & Lamas (2008b) was that a ruling by the Commission, one way or the other, would stabilise the currently confused nomenclature of the generic names proposed by d’Abrera & Bálint (2001). Craig does not explain his assertion that such a ruling would ‘exacerbate’ confusion, and quite frankly, we are perplexed by this statement.
  Craig writes ‘The Commission would be rubberstamping various breaches of good zoological practice (see the Code, Appendix A, Code of Ethics) that have already occurred in the course of this matter.’ Craig does not specify the ‘breaches’, but we can think of several ethical issues related to ‘this matter’. The only one, however, that has seriously hindered the promotion of the stability and universality of names, to which all provisions of the Code are subservient, was when d’Abrera & Bálint’s nomenclatural actions did not meet the requirements of Article 13.1.1. This ‘breach’ resulted in an unstable nomenclature that is now taking the time of the Commission and the Secretariat.
  Craig writes ‘It would also set an unacceptable precedent that any taxonomist who might interpret the description of an earlier taxon as being inadequate, or as meaning something which conflicts with the Code, could correctly declare it unavailable and rename it her/himself.’ We are truly perplexed with this sentence for two reasons. First, nomenclatural changes are made all the time; how can the changes proposed by Robbins & Lamas (2008b) be rationally called an ‘unacceptable precedent’? Second, the objective of changing nomenclature is to stabilise names, as in the application of Robbins & Lamas (2008b), not to ‘rename it her/himself’.
  Robbins & Lamas (2008b) provided evidence that their nomenclatural solution was the most stable one with regard to usage in published papers and on websites. Craig proposes an alternative nomenclatural solution, but does not provide a single piece of evidence to support its stability with regard to current and past usage. Even if the solution that we proposed is not a good one (and we explained in our application why we think that it is the best one), our solution is consistent with the objectives of the Code. Alternatively, Craig’s solution and his criticisms of our solution are, at best, inconsistent with the objectives of the Code.

(2) Marcelo Duarte
Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP 04263–000, Brazil (e-mail: mduartes@usp.br)
  I have been following the ongoing debate on Case 3458 (BZN 65: 188–193). I have also had the opportunity to read an unpublished reply (now BZN 66: 349–351) by Robbins & Lamas to Craig’s comment (BZN 66: 271–272) on this case. I disagree with Craig’s interpretations and consider them incorrectly supported according to the meaning of Article 13.1 of the Code. Robbins & Lamas (2008) were very meticulous and correct with their support, explanation, and reasons for proposing (1) the availability of five generic names; (2) four generic names to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, and four specific names to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names on Zoology; (3) eight generic names to be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. The intention of the present comment is to support Case 3458 which was, in my opinion, properly intended to stabilise the usage of names in Neotropical butterflies.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Chrysophanus florus Edwards, 1884 (currently Lycaena florus) (Insecta, Lepidoptera, LYCAENIDAE) by designation of a neotype for Polyommatus castro Reakirt, 1866 (currently Lycaena castro)
(Case 3450; see BZN 66: 136–143; 273)

Clyde F. Gillette
3419 El Serrito Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah 84109, U.S.A.(e-mail: CFG_Utah_bfs@live.com)
  This comment is sent for the purpose of offering complete support for the conservation of the taxon Lycaena florus and the designation of a (new) neotype for the taxon occasionally known as Lycaena castro.
  Dr James A. Scott has presented a very fine, detailed case for this position and I will not attempt to condense, repeat, or elaborate on his statements, but I will state that I completely and wholeheartedly support his position on this matter.
  I am a very strong researcher into the butterfly genus Lycaena (Coppers). I have personally used the subspecific (or specific) name florus over the name castro for decades.

 

Comments on the proposed conservation of usage of Testudo gigantea Schweigger, 1812 (currently Geochelone (Aldabrachelys) gigantea; Reptilia, Testudines)
(Case 3463; see BZN 66: 34–50, 80–87, 169–186)

(1) Pat Matyot
Seychelles Islands Foundation (SIF), c/o P.O. Box 321, Mahé, Seychelles (e-mail: pat.matyot@sbc.sc)
  One of the premises for considering the name Testudo dussumieri as appropriate for the Aldabra tortoise is that Gray’s (1831, p. 9) brief diagnosis refers to a specimen in the Leiden Museum, allegedly collected by ‘M. Dussumiere’ on ‘Insula Aldebra’. Hubrecht (1881, p. 44) reported a ‘young specimen’ in the spirit collections of this museum, stating: ‘The locality from whence the specimen was brought is sharply fixed. Dussumier himself on his travels in the tropics collected it in the island of Aldabra . . .’. Recently, Bour (2006, p. 21) designated this specimen (RMNH 3231) as the lectotype of T. dussumieri. However, there is no evidence that Dussumier ever visited Aldabra, or that the lectotype is from this atoll.
  Neither Dussumier himself, in his own published accounts of his collecting (e.g. correspondence in Mémoires du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle of 1827, volume 15, pages 377–384), nor others who have reported on his travels (reviews by Arvy (1972) and Laissus (1973)) ever mention Aldabra as one of the localities visited by him. Dussumier was an obsessive if not compulsive fish collector, but none of his specimens (many referred to in Cuvier and Valencienne’s 1828–1848 Histoire des Poissons) are known to have been collected in the waters of Aldabra. A study of the labels of Dussumier’s fish specimens in the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (MNHN) in Paris found no mention of Aldabra as a collection locality (Philippe Keith, MNHN, personal communication). Finally, the atoll is never mentioned in any of Dussumier’s manuscript notebooks or papers in the archives of the MNHN in Paris (personal observation).
  On the other hand, it is known that Dussumier called at the granitic islands of Seychelles, including Mahé. Mahé is mentioned specifically on the labels of some of his fish specimens in the MNHN, e.g. Scomberoides tala (Cuvier, 1832), Etelis carbunculus Cuvier, 1828, Parupeneus rubescens (Lacepède, 1801) and Upeneus sulphureus Cuvier, 1829. Moreover, he collected birds, reptiles and amphibians known to occur only in the granitic islands of Seychelles, and unknown from low lying, coralline outer islands like Aldabra Atoll, e.g. a chameleon, a snake and a tree frog mentioned in his letter published 1827 (referred to above), the dove Streptopelia picturata rostrata (Bonaparte, 1855) (label quoted by Voisin et al., 2005) and the sunbird Nectarinia (Cinnyris) dussumieri Hartlaub, 1860 (Oustalet (1878)). The young tortoise mentioned by Duméril & Bibron (1835, p. 114: ‘Nous soupçonnons appartenir à la Tortue Éléphantine, une très jeune Chersite de treize centimètres de longueur, qui a été rapportée des îles Séchelles et donnée au Muséum d’histoire naturelle par M. Dussumier.’) – apparently the same specimen that was later mentioned by Hubrecht (1881) – must also have been collected in the granitic islands of Seychelles, not Aldabra, one of the islands in the Mozambique Channel area that Duméril & Bibron (1835) listed under the distribution of T. elephantina. At the time of Dussumier’s travels ‘Seychelles’ did not officially include Aldabra, which is more than 1000 km to the southwest of Mahé. Aldabra’s administrative status was unclear well into the second half of the 19th century, with both the British (who had already taken over the granitic Seychelles) and the French still eyeing the atoll. It was only in 1879 that the British Board of Civil Commissioners petitioned for additional islands, including Aldabra, to form part of Seychelles, politically speaking. It was not until 1892 – nine years after Dussumier’s death – that a British ship was sent to confirm formal possession of Aldabra and its inclusion in the dependency of Seychelles (McAteer, 2000, pp. 176–178).
  Moreover, the manner in which Gray allegedly obtained at least some specimens collected by Dussumier creates doubt as to the correctness or completeness of the collecting data he received with the specimens. The mollusc expert Geoffrey Nevill, in a letter dated 5th March 1883 to the Azorean naturalist Francisco Arruda Furtado, discussing the slug Mariaella dussumieri Gray, 1855, (from a French collection purchased in London according to Gray) reported: ‘. . . there was a great row – the French party said Gray was tempting men to steal and sell him their specimens – all Dussumier’s coll[ection] belonged to Jardin des Plantes. Gray retorted and said it was not his fault, if the officers of the Paris Museum sold their specimens on the sly . . .’ (Arruda, 2002). Discussing the same slug, Humbert (1862) pointedly described as ‘singulier’ (i.e. strange) that Dussumier’s specimens from Mahé in the MNHN had made their way to London and been sold to the British Museum. Mariaella dussumieri, said by Gray (1855) to have been collected by Dussumier on ‘Mahi near Sechelles’, is now not included in the molluscan fauna of Seychelles by Gerlach (2006).
  In any case, it would be very atypical of Dussumier, an ‘infatigable collecteur’ (Cuvier, 1831), to collect only a young tortoise and no other specimen from Aldabra, when one considers the wealth of animal life, birds especially, encountered later by (e.g.) Abbott (1894). To conclude, there is no evidence that Dussumier ever landed on Aldabra and, therefore, no evidence that the Leiden Museum specimen designated by Bour (2006) as the lectotype of T. dussumieri was collected on Aldabra Atoll. Hence, adopting the actions petitioned in Case 3463 is the simplest, least disruptive way to bring lasting nomenclatural stability to the Aldabra tortoise, and comply fully with the spirit of the Code.
Additional references
Abbott, W.L. 1894. Notes on the natural history of Aldabra, Assumption and Glorioso Islands, Indian Ocean. Proceedings of the United States National Museum, 16: 759–764.
Arruda, L.M. 2002. Correspondência científica de Francisco Arruda Furtado. 788 pp. Instituto Cultural de Ponta Delgada.
Arvy, L. 1972. Jean-Jacques Dussumier, master mariner and cetologist (1792–1883). Investigations on Cetacea, 4: 263–269, pls. 1–5.
Cuvier, G. 1831. Rapport fait à l’Académie des Sciences sur les collections rapportées récemment de la mer des Indes par M. Dussumier de Bordeaux. Bulletin des Sciences Naturelles et de Géologie, 25: 108–110.
Gerlach, J. 2006. Terrestrial and freshwater Mollusca of the Seychelles islands. 141 pp. Backhuys, Leiden.
Gray, J.E. 1855. Catalogue of Pulmonata or air-breathing Mollusca in the collection of the British Museum, Part 1. iv, 92 pp. British Museum (Natural History), London.
Humbert, A. 1862. Description d’un nouveau genre de Mollusque Pulmoné terrestre de Ceylan (Tennentia). Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée, 14(2e série): 417–430.
Laissus, Y. 1973. Notes sur les voyages de Jean-Jacques Dussumier (1792–1883). Annales de la Société des Sciences Naturelles de Charente-Maritime, 5(5–9): 387–406.
McAteer, W. 2000. Hard times in Paradise – The History of Seychelles 1827–1919. xiv, 322 pp. Pristine Books, Seychelles.
Oustalet, M.E. 1878. Etude sur la faune ornithologique des îles Seychelles. Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris, (7)2: 161–206.
Voisin, C., Voisin, J.-F., Jouanin, C. & Bour, R. 2005. Liste des types d’oiseaux des collections du Muséum national d’Histoire naturelle de Paris, 14: Pigeons (Columbidae), deuxième partie. Zoosystema, 27(4): 839–866.

(2) Marinus S. Hoogmoed
Museu Paraense Emilio Goeldi/CZO, Caixa Postal 399, 66017–970 Belém, Pará, Brazil (e-mail: hoogmoed_apires@terra.com.br)
  In my opinion Frazier’s proposal is completely unnecessary, because the facts are clear and the rules of the ICZN provide solutions for this situation. I support the arguments presented by Bour & Pritchard (BZN 66: 169–174).
  Both Bour (1984) and Pritchard (1986) came to the conclusion that the type specimen of Testudo gigantea used by Schweigger (1812) was not an Aldabra tortoise. Based on differences between Schweigger’s description and Aldabra tortoises and the fact that the specimen came from Brazil, Pritchard (1986) reached the conclusion that Schweigger’s type specimen was a large Chelonoidis denticulata (Linnaeus, 1766), a South American tortoise. At the time this hypothesis could not be checked because the type specimen seemed to be missing. Bour (2006) reported the rediscovery of the type specimen in the Paris museum collection, and indeed it turned out to be a C. denticulata. Bour’s description and the pictures he published do not leave any doubt about its correct identification as C. denticulata. Thus, Pritchard (1986) turned out to be right. The minor differences in measurements given by Schweigger (1812) and the present measurements in mm can easily be explained because of the different system used by Schweigger in 1812 and our metric system. Schweigger used feet, inches and lines, but he did not specify which of many options; he could have used the Paris foot because he was working in Paris, but as he was German he also could have used the Rheinlandish foot, and there are more possibilities, none of them providing the same metric measurements, but all well within the area of the published metric measurements. Thus, I think these minor differences can not be used to invalidate the rediscovery of the holotype of Testudo gigantea. I have no doubt that Bour’s (2006) conclusions are correct. Frazier (2006), in order to stabilise nomenclature of the Aldabra tortoise (thus for purely nomenclatural reasons), designated a neotype of Testudo gigantea. This designation does not qualify under the conditions set out in Article 76.3.6, which states that a neotype should come as nearly as possible from the original type locality, in this case Brazil. Designating a neotype from Aldabra is a bit too far away from Brazil. The claim of Frazier (BZN 65: 34) that the neotype was designated to stabilise the nomenclature of the Aldabra tortoise is not very impressive, considering the different names that have been used in the past 25 years, as shown by Frazier (BZN 65: 34–43) himself. There was not much to stabilise. After the rediscovery of the holotype of Testudo gigantea, the designation of a neotype becomes void anyway (Article 75.8) and the specimen designated as neotype (USNM 269962) no longer has any name-bearing status. Bour (1984, 2006) pointed out the existence of a juvenile Aldabra tortoise in the collections of the Natural History Museum in Leiden, The Netherlands (RMNH 3231, from Aldabra, collected by J.-J. Dussumier) that was one of the two syntypes of Testudo dussumieri Gray, 1831, and Bour (2006) designated this specimen as the lectotype of that taxon.
  Thus we are faced with the rather simple situation that a long lost holotype has been rediscovered without the shadow of a doubt about its identity. This holotype belongs to a different species from the Aldabra tortoise and its name and all other names attached to it, including generic names, fall into the synonymy of Chelonoidis denticulata. For the next available name there is a well-preserved, unequivocally identified lectotype, which should serve as name-bearing type for the Aldabra tortoises. The specific name dussumieri has already been in regular use since 1995, generally in the combination Dipsochelys dussumieri (Gray, 1831), a name that I think is correct and based on a lectotype without doubts regarding identity and type locality. This way the situation really would be stabilised, but in a different way from that proposed by Frazier.
  Many of the comments in favour of Frazier’s proposal emphasise the risk that a name-change would pose for the conservation of this taxon. I fail to see the problem, as there is no doubt about the identity of the taxon to be protected, i.e. the tortoise living on Aldabra Island. Statements that a different name would jeopardise this protection are exaggerated, as international bodies like CITES are able to change names of species on their lists with few problems and without jeopardising the protection of the taxa in question. And the same holds true for governments and their agencies. As for the argument that much of the older ecological literature uses the specific name gigantea, this is true, but that does not signify that the name could not be changed. It would be a rather simple equation to point out that ‘gigantea’ has now become ‘dussumieri’, independent of genus name. Due to changing taxonomic insights, the species has gone through a number of generic name changes that never attracted much attention and were accepted without much ado.
  I recommend that the ICZN rejects the proposal of Frazier to use its plenary power (in my opinion a measure of last resort) to conserve the use of Testudo gigantea and suppress the name Testudo dussumieri. The articles of the Code clearly point out what to do in cases such as the present one, and no intervention of the Commission should be necessary.

(3) Jeremy Austin
Australian Centre for Ancient DNA (ACAD), School of Earth & Environmental Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Darling Building, North Terrace Campus, South Australia 5005, Australia (e-mail: jeremy.austin@adelaide.edu.au)
  I am writing to you in strong support of Case 3463 to stabilise the name of the Aldabra tortoise. During my time as a research fellow at the Natural History Museum (London) I conducted phylogenetic and population genetic analyses of both living and museum material from the Seychelles, including Aldabra. At the time the nomenclatural instability was a major issue, for scientific understanding of the evolutionary history of these tortoises but more importantly for conservation of surviving populations. Since then the issues surrounding the name of the Aldabra tortoise appear to have become even more mired in a debate which ultimately cannot be resolved using historical museum collections alone. The recent proposal to establish an unambiguous neotype has great merit, from the perspective of stabilising the taxonomy of this very important species (it is the only surviving giant tortoise in the Indian Ocean) and to assist with conservation of the species. Continued debate about the name of the Aldabra tortoise will only serve to distract from and complicate these important conservation efforts.
  Once again, I strongly support Case 3463 made by Dr Frazier and sincerely hope the ICZN will pass a ruling in favour of the proposal.

(4) Thomas Althaus
CITES Animals Committee (e-mail: thomas.althaus@bvet.admin.ch)
  In my function as acting Chair of the CITES Animals Committee (since 2002), I write these lines to you in regard to the issue of stabilising the name of the Giant Aldabra Tortoise as Testudo gigantea. I wish to support the opinion expressed by Dr Ute Grimm (BZN 66: 283) and confirm that this represents the position of the CITES Animals Committee.
  For many years now it has been the policy of the Animals Committee and its nomenclature specialists to agree to and adopt taxonomic name changes of CITESlisted species only very reluctantly and very conservatively. The reason is that any change in nomenclature and in particular in CITES nomenclature leads to a highly complicated and expensive chain of follow-up events like adjusting each and every document, publication (including legislation) and computer file on trade data etc. in the 175 CITES Parties, not to mention the adjustment of every instruction material, identification manual and the information about this for all stakeholders (traders, scientific institutions, border control agents, government agencies etc.). The conservation gain for the species involved from such an exercise, which binds a lot of  resources, is practically zero or could have even a negative impact on the species concerned, as described by Dr Grimm in her comment. It is therefore no surprise that the Animals Committee supports that the names Aldabrachelys and Testudo gigantea for the Giant Aldabra Tortoise be conserved and T. dussumieri Gray, 1831 be suppressed.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Archaeopteryx lithographica von Meyer, 1861 (Aves) by designation of a neotype

(Case 3390; see BZN 64: 182–184, 261–262; 65: 314–317; 66: 87–88)
Kevin Padian Museum of Paleontology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720–4780, U.S.A. (e-mail: kpadian@berkeley.edu)
  I disagree with the proposal by Bock & Bühler to designate a neotype for Archaeopteryx lithographica because there is no demonstrated need to do so. First, there is no reasonable disagreement that the name was applied to the feather, the first specimen discovered, by Hermann von Meyer (1861). There is a possibility that von Meyer later intended the name also to apply to the first discovered skeletal specimen, which is now in the Natural History Museum in London, although this is ambiguous and in any case irrelevant, because the referral of the skeleton was secondary. It has been noted that some authors have mistakenly regarded this skeletal specimen as the type, but that is not a reason to change it.
  Secondly, there is no convincing evidence that the feather and the ten skeletal specimens do not belong to the same taxon. Although at one time or another most of these individual specimens have been given a different taxonomic name by various authors (Elzanowski, 2002), it has been on the basis of minor and inconsistent variations. No comprehensive anatomical and morphometric study, incorporating all possible hypotheses of populational, ontogenetic, sexual, and teratological variation, has shown convincingly that more than one taxon is represented in this material. Furthermore, no non-archaeopterygid theropod from the Solnhofen limestones is known to have possessed feathers, let alone feathers that correspond to the holotype. Nor has it been shown that the holotype feather is taxonomically distinct from those found in other specimens of Archaeopteryx from Solnhofen. Although it is true that the single feather provides few diagnostic characteristics, unless there is good reason to think that more than one taxon is represented among these specimens, there is nothing to correct.
  Third, the presence of feathers in other fossil birds, for example those of the Jehol Biota in China, noted by some authors, is irrelevant to this case. The fossils of the Jehol Biota are some 20 million years younger than Archaeopteryx; they preserve a variety of types of feathers and proto-feathers, many of which are not found in Archaeopteryx or any later bird (Padian et al., 2001), and they represent a variety of theropod taxa not found in the Solnhofen limestones, none of which belong to ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE.
  Finally, if a neotype were to be designated, it should be based on the best available skeletal specimen, regardless of the order of discovery. In that case the London specimen would not be the optimal choice, because although it preserves some very good and unusual features, such as the braincase, it is not as complete as the Berlin specimen, which is perhaps the most famous individual fossil in the world, judging from its ubiquitous representation in textbooks, advertisements, and other media. The Berlin specimen moreover is completely feathered, and its size suggests that it is adult or nearly so, in contrast to the Eichstatt specimen, which is also complete but lacks feathers and is generally regarded as a juvenile.
  Names and type specimens should be conserved when there is no reason to think that the holotype and referred specimens, however incomplete, belong to different taxa. Until and unless a convincing case is made, on the basis of careful variational analyses of all available specimens, that one or more skeletal specimens cannot belong to the taxon represented by the holotype feather, they should all be referred to Archaeopteryx lithographica. In the event that one or more skeletal specimens must belong to a different taxon, then such specimens should be given a different name, as has been sometimes proposed by various authors (Elzanowski, 2002). For all these reasons the feather should remain the holotype until there is consensus that more than one species is represented in the fossil population at Solnhofen.
Additional references
Elzanowski, A. 2002. Archaeopterygidae (Upper Jurassic of Germany). Pp. 129–159 in Chiappe, L.M. & Witmer, L.M. (Eds.), Mesozoic birds: above the heads of dinosaurs. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Padian, K., Ji. Q. & Ji. S.-A. 2001. Feathered dinosaurs and the origin of flight. Pp. 117–135, pls. 1–3, in Carpenter, K. & Tanke, D. (Eds.), Mesozoic vertebrate life. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Von Meyer, H. 1861. Archaeopteryx lithographica (Vogel-Feder) und Pterodactylus von Solnhofen. Neues Jahrbuch für Mineralogie, Geologie und Palaeontologie, 1861: 678–679.

 

Comment on the proposed conservation of usage of Mastodon waringi Holland, 1920 (currently Haplomastodon waringi; Mammalia, Proboscidea) by designation of a neotype
(Case 3480; see BZN 66: 164–167)

Marco P. Ferretti
Earth Science Department, University of Firenze, via G. La Pira 4, 50121 Firenze, Italy (e-mail: mferretti@unifi.it)
The alfa-taxonomy of Haplomastodon is still controversial and I agree with Lucas (Case 3480) that the name of the only recognised South American species of this Pleistocene proboscidean genus should be stabilised.
  Two names were recurrently used for this taxon: Mastodon waringi Holland, 1920 (now Haplomastodon waringi) and Mastodon chimborazi Proaño, 1922 (now Haplomastodon chimborazi, not H. chimborazai as erroneously reported by Lucas). Of the two, the usage of the name H. waringi is indeed far more widespread in the literature, after the systematic revision of Simpson & Paula Couto (1957). However, several authors questioned the validity of this species (e.g. Hoffstetter, 1955; Ficcarelli et al., 1995, Ferretti, 2008; Ferretti, in press). As a matter of fact, Lucas himself, having revised the type material from Pedra Vermelha, Brazil, concluded that ‘M’. waringi Holland, 1920 should be considered as a nomen dubium because it is based on undiagnostic material (Lucas, 2008; BZN 62: 164–167). I completely agree with this conclusion, and have expressed the same opinion in my revision of Ecuadorian Haplomastodon (Ferretti, in press). On the other hand, the species ‘M’. chimborazi Proaño, 1922 is valid, as the original description and available published figures of the type skeleton from Punin, Ecuador clearly distinguish it from other similar brevirostrine gomphotheres. Despite this, the name H. chimborazi has received a minor consent among specialists, though it has continued to be used up to this day (Arauz, 1950; Costales Samaniego, 1950; Hoffstetter, 1950, 1952, 1955, 1986; Ficcarelli et al., 1995, 2003, Coltorti et al., 1998; Ferretti, in press). To note is that, contrary to common opinion, the type skeleton of ‘M’. chimborazi was not completely lost in the 1929 fire of the Quito University. Hoffstetter (1952: 195) in fact identified, among the palaeontologial collection of the Universidad Central de Ecuador, Quito, three skeletal elements, namely the atlas and two humeri, belonging to the original type specimens described by Proaño. The left and right humeri are currently kept at the Museo de Historia Natural of the Instituto de Ciencias Naturales (MICN) of the Universidad Central de Ecuador (UCE), Quito (catalog numbers MICN-UCE 1982 and 1981, respectively; Ferretti, in press). The atlas has not yet been located, though this specimen might well be in another collection of the UCE (Ferretti, in press). For these reasons, the proposal of Ficcarelli et al. (1995) to designate a neotype of the species is not valid according to the ICZN rules.
  In conclusion, the evidence discussed above requires, in my opinion, that the name waringi be abandoned in favour of chimborazi. In so doing, priority is saved as it is recognised that ‘M.’waringi is a nomen dubium and that ‘M.’chimborazi is the oldest valid name with a diagnostic type.
Additional references
Arauz, J. 1950. Nueva historia de los Mastodontes ecuatorianos. Boletin de Informaciones Cientificas Nacional, 3(26–27): 419–425.
Coltorti, M., Ficcarelli, G., Jahren, H., Rook, L. & Torre, D. 1998. The last occurrence of Pleistocene megafauna in the Ecuadorian Andes. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 11(6): 581–586.
Costales Samaniego, A. 1950. Masthodon Chimborazi Proaño. Boletin de Informaciones Cientificas Nacional, 3(35): 372–375.
Ferretti, M.P. [in press]. The anatomy of Haplomastodon chimborazi (Proboscidea) from the Late Pleistocene of Ecuador and its bearing on the phylogeny and systematics of South American gomphotheres. Geodiversitas.
Ficcarelli, G., Coltorti, M., Moreno Espinosa, M., Pieruccini, P., Rook, L. & Torre, D. 2003. A model for the Holocene extinction of the mammal megafauna in Ecuador, South America. Journal of South American Earth Sciences, 15: 835–845.
Hoffstetter, R. 1952. Les Mammifères Pléistocènes de la Republique de l’Equateur. Mémoires de la Societé Géologique de France, 66: 1–391.
Hoffstetter, R. 1986. High Andean mammalian faunas during the Plio-Pleistocene. Pp. 218–245 in Vuilleumier, F. & Monasterio, N. (Eds.), High altitude tropical biogeography. Oxford University Press, New York.

 

.  

 

  

.