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 Rosacea Quoy & Gaimard,
1827 (Cnidaria, Siphonophora) and the conservation
of Desmophyes annectens Haeckel, 1888 and Rosacea
plicata Bigelow, 1911
(Case
3309; see BZN
61: 149-153)
Dhugal J. Lindsay
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth
Science and Technology, 2-15 Natsushima-cho,
Yokosuka, Japan 237-0061.
I am writing in support of the
application by Mapstone & Pugh. Use of the name ‘Rosacea
plicata’ for the taxon known as Desmophyes
annectens would cause considerable confusion and
not serve the interests of nomenclatural stability.
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,
171-173; 62: 28-29)
Miguel A. Alonso-Zarazaga
Departamento de Biodiversidad
y Biología Evolutiva, Museo
Nacional de Ciencias Naturales (CSIC),
José Gutiérrez Abascal
2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain.
In Jameson & Howden’s
application (BZN 59: 246-248) as well as in the comment
on Jameson & Howden’s application by Krell,
Ziani & Ballerio (BZN 60: 303-311), a mistake was
made regarding the gender of the generic name Bolboceras Kirby,
1819. This name is compounded by the stem bolbo-
(from the Greek word bolbós, ‘bulb’)
and ending stem –ceras (from the Greek
word kéras – genitive kératos – meaning ‘horn’)
for the bulbose apex of the clypeal horn. Gender of a
genus is to be taken from the final component (Article
30.1.1) and kéras is neuter. Moreover,
this ending is so common in generic names that it has
been placed among the Examples of Article 30.1.2 for
a neuter ending, an example overlooked by the above mentioned
authors.
I therefore request that the proposals are modified
as follows:
(2) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology the following names:
(a) Bolboceras Kirby, 1819 (gender: neuter),
type species by subsequent designation by Curtis (1829) Scarabaeus
mobilicornis Fabricius, 1775, with the endorsement
that it is to be given precedence over the name Odonteus Samouelle,
1819 whenever the two are considered to be synonyms.
Comment
on the proposal to remove the homonymy between CLIONIDAE
Rafinesque, 1815 (Mollusca) and CLIONIDAE d’Orbigny,
1851 (Porifera)
(Case
3211; see BZN
60: 99-102; 61: 167-169)
Philippe Bouchet
Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle, 55
rue Buffon, 75005 Paris, France.
I oppose Willan et al.'s comments
for nomenclatural (para. 1 below) and taxonomic (para.
2) reasons.
1. Willan et al. argued that the family-group name CLIONIDAE
Rafinesque, 1815 has ‘neither validity nor standing’ and
that ‘the next available name must be brought into
use’. I agree with Willan et al.'s interpretation
of ‘Clione R. Clio Brown’ and
I agree that the type genus of the family name should
be regarded to be Clione Rafinesque, 1815, not Clione Pallas,
1774. However, a family-group name based on a junior
homonym, although invalid, is still an available name
(Articles 11.7, 39; and flow chart on pp. 123 and 260
of the Code, which however does not form part of the
Code). Thus, we run into the absurd situation that CLIONIDAE
Rafinesque, 1815, as an available name, is a senior homonym
of any subsequent CLIONIDAE based on Clione Pallas,
1774.
2. Willan et al. argued that the first author who unequivocally
used a family CLIONIDAE based on Clione Pallas
was Gray (1847) and that the first author who used a
family name CLIIDAE based on Clio Linnaeus,
1767 was Menke (1828). This is incorrect and reflects
the persisting confusion surrounding the spelling and
taxonomic extensions of the names Clio and Clione.
All authors prior to Gray (1847), including Menke, used Clio and Clione for
the gymnosome (Table 1); for the thecosome, they used Cleodora Péron & Lesueur.
Although Gray synonymized Cleodora with Clio Linnaeus,
1767, subsequent authors continued to classify the latter
in CLEODORIDAE, CAVOLINIIDAE, or HYALAEIDAE. I maintain
my earlier analysis of the case as presented in the original
application, i.e. Jeffreys (1869) is the first author
to have used the thecosome genus name Clio as
valid, and to have classified it in a family name based
on it.
3. It is clear that, ever since Rafinesque (1815), there
has been a continuous usage of a family name with the
stem clio-, based on Clio or Clione,
with authorship attributed to different authors, but
consistently extended to designate gymnosomes and not
thecosomes. This should be reflected by a ruling of the
Commission that the type genus of CLIONIDAE Rafinesque,
1815, Clione, should be attributed to Pallas,
1774 and not to Rafinesque, 1815. The rest of the original
application remains unchanged.
Additional references
Adams, H. & Adams, A. 1853-1858. The
genera of recent Mollusca arranged according to their
organisation, 2 volumes of text, 1 volume of plates.
J. van Voorst, London. [Published in parts; volume
1, part 2, pp. 33-64, February 1853].
Burmeister, H. 1837. Handbuch
der Naturgeschichte, vol. 2,
Zoologie. i-xii, 369-858 pp. Enslin,
Berlin.
Menke, C.T. 1828. Synopsis
methodica molluscorum generum omnium
et specierum earum quae in museo
Menkeano adservantur, xii, 91
pp. Pyrmonti.
Menke, C.T. 1830. Synopsis
methodica molluscorum generum omnium
et specierum earum quae in museo
Menkeano adservantur, Ed. 2.
xvi, 169 pp. Pyrmonti.
Philippi, R.A. 1853. Handbuch
der Conchyliologie und
Malacozoologie. xx,
547 pp. Anton, Halle.
Wiegmann, A.F.A. & Rüthe,
J.F. 1832. Handbuch
der Zoologie. vi, 621 pp. Lüderitz,
Berlin.
Wiegmann, A.F.A. & Rüthe, J.F. 1843. Handbuch
der Zoologie, ed. 2. iv, 670 pp. Lüderitz,
Berlin.
Woodward, S.P. 1851-1856. A
manual of the Mollusca; or, rudimentary
treatise of Recent and fossil shells.
xvi, 486 pp., 24 pls. Weale, London.Table
1. Early classifications of the thecosome
and gymnosome genera Clio and Clione.
Comment
on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Macropodus
concolor Ahl, 1937 (Osteichthyes, OSPHRONEMIDAE)
(Case 3255;
see BZN
60: 206-207; 61: 114-116, 173-174, 256-257)
The professional systematic ichthyologists
listed below (1-17) have individually submitted comments
indicating that they consider the application to be pointless
and unhelpful. They all recorded their preference for
using the correct name for this species, Macropodus
spechti Schreitmüller, 1936, concurring with
the comments of Kottelat, Kullander, Fang, Britz & Ferraris
(BZN 61: 114-116) and recommend that the Commission rejects
the proposals.
(1) Roberta Barbieri (Hellenic Centre
for Marine Research, Institute of Inland Waters, P.O.
Box 712, 190 13 Anavyssos, Greece)
(2) Marcelo R. de Carvalho (Departamento
de Biologia (FFCLRP), Universidade de São Paulo,
Av. dos Bandeirantes, 3900, Ribeirão Preto,
SP, 14040-901 Brasil)
(3) Brian Coad (BCoad@mus-nature.ca)
(4) I-Shiung Chen (iscfish@yahoo.com.tw)
(5) Panos S. Economidis (Aristotle
University, Karakasi str. 79, GR-54453 Thessaloniki,
Greece)
(6) Renny Kurnia Hadiaty (Ichthyological
Laboratory, Div. of Zoology, Research Center for Biology,
Indonesian Institute of Sciences (LIPI), Jl. Raya Bogor
Km 46, Cibinong 16911, Indonesia)
(7) Tan Heok Hui (Raffles Museum
of Biodiversity Research, National University of Singapore,
Science Drive 2, Kent Ridge, Singapore 117543, Republic
of Singapore)
(8) Juraj Holick (Institute of Zoology,
Slovak Academy of Sciences, Dubravska cesta 9, 845
06 Bratislava, Slovakia)
(9) Joseph S. Nelson (Department
of Biological Sciences, The University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9, Canada)
(10) Heok Hee Ng (Fish Division,
Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, 1109 Geddes
Avenue, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109-1079, U.S.A.)
(11) Jørgen Nielsen (Zoological
Museum, Universitetsparken 15, 2100, Copenhagen Ø,
Denmark)
(12) Lynne R. Parenti (Department
of Vertebrate Zoology, Smithsonian Institution, PO
Box 37012, National Museum of Natural History, 20013-7012,
Washington, D.C.)
(13) Rohan Pethiyagoda (Wildlife
Heritage Trust, 95 Cotta Road,Colombo 8, Sri Lanka)
(14) Lukas Ruber (Museo Nacional
de Ciencias Naturales, Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, 28006
Madrid, Spain)
(15) Ulrich Schliewen (Zoological
State Collection, Muenchhausenstr, 21, D-81247 Munich,
Germany)
(16) Chun-guang Zhang (Fish Division,
Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Beijing, China)
(17) E. Zhang (Institute of Hydrobiology,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430072, Hubei Province,
P.R. China)
(18) Fabian Herder Zoologisches
Forschungsinstitut und Museum Alexander Koenig, Adenauerallee
160, 53113 Bonn, GermanyJörg Freyhof Institute
of Freshwater Ecology and Fisheries, Müggelseedamm
310, 12561 Berlin, Germany
1. The comment by Schindler & Staeck
(see BZN 61: 256-257) comprises, in our opinion, a series
of invalid arguments and apparent misinterpretations
of the Code, aimed to preserve the name Macropodus
concolor Ahl, 1937 over the older available name M.
spechti Schreitmüller, 1936. As stated correctly
by Kottelat et al. (BZN 61: 114-116), Macropodus
concolor Ahl, 1937 is a permanently unavailable
junior primary homonym of M. concolor Schreitmüller,
1936 and a junior objective synonym of M. spechti.
Schindler & Staeck’s arguments are discussed
below.
2. Schindler & Staeck claimed
that Schreitmüller’s work (1936a, b) was published
in popular aquarium magazines in contrast to Ahl’s
work, published in a zoological journal. This is irrelevant
since all of these works satisfy the criteria of publication
under the Code (see Chapter 3, Articles 8 and 9).
3. Schindler & Staeck misinterpreted
the Code when they argued that M. concolor Ahl,
1937 is not acceptable because it is a junior primary
homonym of M. concolor Schreitmüller, 1936
and because Schreitmüller (1936b) disclaimed the
intention to create a nomen novum. The Code regulates
the disclaiming of whole publications (Article 8.2) and
names and acts in a published work (Article 8.3). These
Articles refer to the publication in which the disclaimer
is printed. There is no provision in the Code for a retroactive
disclaimer. Similarly misleading, Schindler & Staeck
argued that Schreitmüller did not publish his 1936b
work with the purpose to provide a public and permanent
record. In fact, he did publish the article 1936b in
a widely distributed aquarium journal, giving a permanent
record to the public. Maybe his intention was not to
give a permanent record of the name M. opercularis
concolor Schreitmüller, 1936, but this is exactly
what he did. Therefore, the argument that Article 8.1.1
was not being fulfilled has to be rejected. Schindler & Staeck
erred again, citing Article 13 they claimed that Schreitmüller’s
(1936) work does not fulfil the requirements of a formal
description. This is clearly not the case as Article
13.1.2 explicitly allows the citation of a bibliographic
reference giving the required characters. This means
that Schreitmüller (1936b), besides reproducing
his original figure, incorporated all characters included
in his original description of M. spechti (1936a).
Therefore, Schreitmüller’s 1936b work fulfils
the formal requirements of descriptions as argued by
Kottelat et al. (BZN 61: 114-116) exactly as did his
earlier publication (1936a).
4. There is no reason to doubt that
Schreitmüller (1936b) used the name Macropodus
opercularis concolor for the first time as a valid
taxon. It is easy to reverse Schindler & Staeck’s
argument: why should Schreitmüller have published
his 1936b statement, if not for introducing the new name?
5. Schindler & Staeck argued that M.
concolor Schreitmüller, 1936, like M.
spechti Schreitmüller, 1936, was a nomen
oblitum. As explained elsewhere in detail (see BZN
60: 206-207; 61: 173-174 and Herder & Freyhof,
2002), M. spechti Schreitmüller, 1936
is not a nomen oblitum. Paepke’s 1994 act declaring M.
spechti Schreitmüller, 1936 as a nomen oblitum
was de facto not admissible, because it was published
after 1 January 1973 (Article 23.12). Schindler & Staeck’s
arguments to treat M. spechti as a nomen oblitum
have been disproved (see BZN 61: 114-117; 173-174).
Though they repeated their view (BZN 61: 256-257),
they failed, as Paepke (BZN 61: 173) did, to give any
valid argument for their repeated demand.
6. Schindler & Staeck recorded that
Paepke (1994), not Freyhof & Herder (2002), published
the first revision of the genus Macropodus.
However, this is irrelevant to the case discussed here.
7. The argument opposing our application
that the Black Paradise Fish could be compared to cases
of commercially important species (Kottelat et al., BZN
61: 114-116) is specious. From our fieldwork in Vietnam,
we can agree that the species is known to some local
people around Hue under its local but not under the scientific
name. We visited many fish markets within the distribution
area of Macropodus in Vietnam but recorded only
one specimen in a basket of mixed small fish. In fact
we doubt that the name M. concolor is used in
Vietnam. We have been unable to see a single reference
to it in the Vietnamese literature. It is hard to understand
why the exceptional conservation of a taxon only used
as an aquarium pet should be given more importance than
that of the commercially highly important rainbow trout Oncorhynchus
mykiss, which was renamed following the Code.
8. Schindler & Staeck criticized
Herder & Freyhof for having used the name M.
concolor Ahl themselves before publishing their
revision Herder & Freyhof (2002). We fail to see
the pertinence of the argument. We maintain that this
was the only responsible attitude awaiting the publication
of our nomenclatural conclusions.
9. To conclude, all of the arguments
given by Schindler & Staeck (BZN 60: 206-207; 61:
256-257) are flawed or result from a misunderstanding
of the Code. Paepke (BZN 61: 173) also did not give any
valid argument. Although we recognize Schindler & Staeck’s
as well as Paepke’s efforts to find arguments for
preserving a name which has been used by aquarists for
many years, we recommend that the Commission does not
approve the application.
