Comments On The Proposed Conservation Of Some Generic Names First Proposed In Histoire Abregee Des Insectes Qui Se Trouvent Aux Environs De Paris (Geoffroy, 1762) (Crustacea, Insecta)

5 Pages·1992·1.5 MB·

by  L B Holthuis

BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 223
Nordsieck,F. 1968. Dieeuropiiischen Meeres-Geshauseschnecken (Prosobranchiaj vomEismeer
bisKapverdenunciMittelmeer.viii,273pp.,31 pis. Fischer,Stuttgart.
Nordsieck,F. 1977. The TurridaeoftheEuropeanseas. 131 pp.,26pis. LaConchiglia,Rome.
(2) DaleR. Calder
Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S2C6; Department ofZoology, University ofToronto,
Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5SlAl
LesterD. Stephens
DepartmentofHistory, UniversityofGeorgia,Athens, Georgia30602, U.S.A.
AlbertE. Sanders
TheCharlestonMuseum, Charleston, SouthCarolina29401 U.S.A.
,
We support the proposal of Cernohorsky, Cornelius & Sysoev to remove the
homonymybetweenthefamily-groupnamesclavidaeMcCrady, 1859(Cnidaria)and
CLAViNAECasey, 1904(Mollusca)bychangingthelattertoclavusinae. Replacement
orrespellingofthe seniorhomonym, widely used in the literature on hydrozoans for
morethanacentury,wouldnotservetheinterestsofnomenclaturalstability.
Commentsontheproposedconservationofsomegenericnamesfirstproposedin
HistoireabregeedesinsectesquisetrouventauxenvironsdeParis(Geoffroy, 1762)
(Crustacea,Insecta)
(Case2292; seeBZN48: 107-134;49: 71-72, 149-150)
(1) L.B. Holthuis
NationaalNatuurhistorischMuseum,Postbus9157,2300RA Leiden, TheNetherlands
I have the greatest admiration for the thoroughness and expertise with which Dr
Kerzhner treated this case and so has made possible a final decision concerning
Geoffroy's generic names, many ofwhich have been 'illegally' used since Geoffroy's
workwasrejected fornomenclaturalpurposesin 1954(Opinion228). Thereareafew
points,however, thatneedsomecomment.
(i) AsstatedbyKerzhnerandCameron(BZN48: 107-108, 133-134),Muller(1764)in
theintroductiontohisFaunaInsectorumFridrichsdalinasimplylistedGeoffroy'snames
andtheirLinnaeanequivalentsintabularform.ThisdoesnotmaketheGeoffroynames
availableasfromMiiller's1764work,sinceArticle11d(ii)oftheCodesaysthat'thestatus
ofapreviouslyunavailablenameisnotchanged byitsmerecitationaccompanied bya
referencetotheworkinwhichthenamewaspublishedbutwasnotmadeavailable'.
(ii) Idonotfeelcompetenttocommentontheinsectnamesinthisapplication, but
candosoonthetwocrustaceanones(seeBZN48: 111-112).Itseemslikelythatamong
theinsectgenericnamesofGeoffroy(1762)therearemanythatcouldbeusedwithout
interventionbytheCommission,althoughwithalaterauthorshipanddate.
(iii) AsellusGeoffroy, 1762isunavailablefromGeoffroy(1762)underOpinion228,
orfromMuller(1764).ThefirstuseofAsellusasanavailablegenericnameseemstobe
bySchaeffer(1766)in hisElementaEntomologica,an unpaginated workconsistingof
four sections and an index. Asellus is given on the 16th page of Section 3 with a
numberofcharactersandareferencetoplate22,theexplanationofwhichagaingives
224 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992
characters; the description and figure make Asellus available, even though Schaeffer
didnotusespecificnames.
(iv) Schluga (1767, p. 46) used bothAsellusand Binoculusin a list ofthegeneraof
'Insecta',withshortdiagnoses;aswithSchaeffernospecificnameswerementionedin
thework.
(v) ThegenususuallycitedasAsellusGeoffrey, 1762(or,wrongly, 1764)shouldbe
correctly referred to as Asellus Schaeffer, 1766 (Section 3, p. [16] and pi. 22), and
BinoculusshouldbecitedasBinoculusSchluga, 1767(p.46). Binoculuswassuppressed
inOpinion 502(January 1958),buttheauthorshipwasgivenasMiiller(1776)andthis
shouldbechanged.
(vi) Summarizing, I propose thattherequestsin Kerzhner'spara. B.3 on BZN48:
112bechangedasfollows:
(1) abandon;
(2)(b) amendauthorshipof^wocw/mj'Miiller, 1776toSchluga, 1767;
.
(3) amendauthorshipoiAsellusGeoffroy, 1762toSchaeffer, 1766;
(4) asfor(3);
(5)(b) asfor(2)(b).
Thesechangesarepurelyeditorial.
(2) HansSilfverberg
UniversitetetsZoologiskaMuseum,Jdrnvdgsgatan 13, SF-00100Helsingfors,Finland
DrKerzhner'sapplicationisverythorough,andhepresentsgoodargumentsforhis
solutiontotheoldproblemofGeoffroy'snames.Hisapplicationpreservescurrentuse,
andisthereforeinthespiritoftheCode.TheprocedureIoncesuggested(1978;Notulae
Entomologicae,58: 117-119),thatisattributingthenamestoMiiller(1764),mayhave
stretched the Code but did not break it, and did not require Commission action.
However, I do not oppose Kerzhner's proposals except for a detail relating to one
particularname.
TheexceptionisPeltis(seepara. K.22onBZN48: 122). AsexplainedbyKerzhner,
GeoffroyuseditinasensedifferentfromcurrentuseandMiiller(1776)wasthefirstto
include nominal species (including the currently accepted type species Silphagrossa
Linnaeus, 1758)inthegenus.IconsiderthatPeltisshouldbetakenfromMiiller(1776)
andnot,assuggestedbyKerzhner,fromKugelann(1792),whomerelyfurtherrestric-
tedthegenus. Kerzhner'sproposals(6)(r)and(9)(k)inpara. K.30shouldbeamended
accordingly.
(3) P.K.Tubbs
ExecutiveSecretary,InternationalCommissiononZoologicalNomenclature
1. As discussed in Dr Kerzhner's application (BZN48: 109, para. A.7) Geoffroy's
1762 Histoireabregee...contained 59newgenericnames. IfKerzhner'sproposalsand
those ofDr Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196) are approved 40 ofGeoff'roy's names will
have been conserved, and 14 will have been suppressed to conserve the usage ofthe
same or other names from laterauthors. In the remainingfivecases senior Linnaean
synonymsareinuse.
2. TheCommissionattemptedtodealwiththestatusofGeofTroy'sgenericnamesin
Opinion228. ItwasnotedinthatOpinionthat'insomecasestherejectionofnamesas
Bulletinot'ZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 225
firstpublishedbysuchauthors[asGeoffrey]wouldclearlygiverisetogreatconfusion'.
TherulingintheOpiniondenyingavailabilitytomanygenericnamesinestablisheduse
whichwerepublished inGeoffroy'swork,on thegroundthathehad usedpolynomial
specificnames,hasprovedtobeunfortunate.Thedecisionwasapprovedatameeting
in July 1948, and in the Proceedingsand again in 1952 (BZN 7: 198-199) 'specialists'
wereinvitedtoapplyfortheconservationofappropriateGeoffroynames. Despitethe
receipt ofseveral applications [all later agreed] the Opinion was published in April
1954.Itwillhavetakenfourdecadesandimmenseeffortsbynumerousauthors,andby
theCommissionanditsSecretariat,toremedytheneverintendedconsequences.Sofar
lessthanhalfofthenameshavebeenfinallydealtwith. IfDrKerzhner'sapplicationis
not successful the 'illegal' nomenclature referred to by Kerzhner and Holthuis will
continue.Iearnestlyrecommendacceptanceoftheapplication,withsomeamendments
asdiscussedbelow.
3. SixteenGeoffroy nameshavealreadybeenconservedinnineseparateOpinions,
and Kerzhner has proposed the conservation of24 more (including two at present
attributed to later authors). In every instance this is based on well established usage,
and comments in support ofsome have been published. Eight names published by
Geoffroy have been in established use in the different senses oflater authors: Crahro
Fabricius, 1775 has already been conserved, Bruchus Linnaeus, 1767 and Mylabris
Fabricius, 1775 have been proposed by Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196), and Kerzhner
hasproposedconservationoftheremainingfivejuniorhomonyms.
4. Kerzhnerhasproposedthatallthe40Geoffroynameswhichhavebeen,orshould
be,conservedbytheCommission'splenarypowersshouldbeattributedtotheHistoire
abregee,i.e.toGeoffroy,1762.However,hehassuggestedthattheonesnotinuseshould
be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Names with the authorship
'Geoff"roy in Miiller, 1764'. Miiller (1764) presented a comparison of Linnaean and
Geoffroy namesand descriptions. Thecitation 'Geoffroy in Miiller, 1764' iscumber-
someand undesirable (Pope, BZN49: 71); itsvalidity hasbeen disputed by Holthuis
(above),andthereisnologicalreasonwhyit(orMiiller,1764)shouldbethereferencefor
the rejected names and Geoff'roy, 1762 that for the conserved ones. This is further
discussedinpara. 7below.
5. ProfHolthuis has suggested above that the crustacean name Asellus should be
placed on the Official List with the authorship ofSchaeffer (1766), rather than being
conserved from Geoffroy (1762) as suggested by Kerzhner. Theargument is that it is
unnecessarytousetheCommission'splenarypowerstoconservetheauthorshipofthe
name. UAselluswere an isolatedcase thiswould beundeniable, but, asalreadymen-
tioned, 16ofthe40namesinusehavealreadybeenconservedwithGeoff'roy'sauthor-
ship. Ifno more were to be, the Official List would contain 16attributed to Geoffroy
(1762), 14toSchaeff"er(1766)and 1 toSchluga(1767),despitethefactthatallhadbeen
publishedinthesamework Thenameshaveformorethantwocenturiesbeenreferredto
.
Geoffroy,andnottoSchaefferorSchluga.Therearefurthercomplications:forinstance
Pvrof/j/oo'Schluga, 1767'wouldneedtobeconserved(cf.Kerzhner'spara.K.26)bythe
suppression ofthespelling Pyrochora Schaeffer, 1766. Rejected nameson theOfficial
IndexwouldbeassignedsometoSchaefferandsometoSchluga. Allthiswouldbethe
'chaosandarbitraryattributiontodifferentauthorsanddates'deploredbyKerzhnerin
hispara. A.7. Morework anddelaywouldbeneeded toachieve thisundesirableend,
whereastheeffortneededtoconservetheGeoff'roynameshasalreadybeeninvestedby
226 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992
DrKerzhnerandothers,includingtheCommission. Forthesereasons,thesuggestion
ofProfHolthuisregardingAsellushasconsiderabledisadvantages. However, thefor-
malproposalsinKerzhner'sapplicationhavebeenstructuredsothattheCommission
willbeaskedtovoteonaname-by-nameprocedure(seepara.A.8),anditwilltherefore
beeasilypossible,althoughentirelyanomalous,toattributeAsellustoSchaeffer, 1766
andtohave39namesconservedfromGeoffroy, 1762.
6. I am convinced that only the acceptance of Kerzhner's application can give
stability; it is in accord with historical reaUty and with the 'invitation to specialists'
issuedinassociationwiththe 1954Opinion.
7. AproceduraldifficultyarisesinthecaseofthoseGeoflFroynameswhicharesenior
homonyms or synonyms ofnames in use, and whose conservation is therefore not
requestedbyKerzhnerorBorowiec.TheseareAcrydium,Binoculus,Bruchus,Byrrhus,
Cistela, Cucujus,Formicaleo,Melolontha,Mylabris,Peltis,Rhinomacer, Tetigoniaand
Tritoma. At the present moment these names cannot be suppressed from Geoffroy
(1762),eventhoughthiswasdoneforCrabroinOpinion 144(1943),sincetheyarenot
availablefromthatworkasaconsequenceofOpinion228.TheiravailabiHtyfromthe
work of Miiller (1764) has been challenged as mentioned in para. 4 above. All of
Geoffroy'snamesareavailablefromeitherSchaeffer(1766)orSchluga(1767),but,as
pointedoutinpara.5,itwouldbeextremelyconfusingtointroducethese'new'author-
ships(evenforpurposesofsuppressiononly).Byfarthemoststraightforwardcourseis
to takeallthenamesfromwheretheyappeared, Geoffroy'swork. All 59newgeneric
namesthereinhavenowbeenconsideredindetail,eitherinOpinionsalreadymadeorin
theapplicationsofKerzhnerandBorowiec.TheresultisthatOpinion228hasbeenin
effect totally superseded, even though by instalments; the logical conclusion is the
revocationofthatOpinionandthisisproposedbelow.Itshouldbeemphasizedthatthe
validityofnonamewillbeaffectedbythisseeminglydrasticstep.Alsoproposedbelow
areminoramendmentstoKerzhner'sformalproposalsincorporatingthosewhichhave
beenpublishedincomments,andtheadditionofForbicina,Hepaand TinaeaGeoffroy
to the Official Index asjunior objective synonyms of Linnaean names. As already
mentioned,theCommissionwillbeaskedtovoteonaname-by-namebasisinallcases.
8. Icommentseparately(BZN49:227-228)onDrBorowiec'sapplication(BZN45:
194^196),andonthenameAcrydium(BZN49:228-229).
9. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly
asked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to rule that, notwithstanding the use ofpolynomial
specificnamesintheworkbyE.L. Geoffroy(1762)entitledHistoireabregeedes
insectes quise trouvent aux environs de Paris, generic names published in that
workaredeemedavailablefornomenclaturalpurposes;
(2) to delete this work from the Official Index ofRejected and Invalid Works in
Zoological Nomenclature, and to place it on the Official List of Works
Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature with an endorsement to
reflecttherulingrequestedin(1)above;
(3) tomakesucheditorialchangesintheOfficialListsandIndexesasarenecessary
fromtherulingsrequestedin(1)and(2)above,togetherwithpreviousOpinions;
(4) to accept the following amendments to the proposals published by I.M.
KerzhnerinBZN48: 107-133(referencesbeinggiventohisparagraphsineach
case):
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 227
(i) amend all references to Geoffroy in Miiller, 1764 to read Geoffroy, 1762;
(ii) B.3 (2) (a)withdraw[coveredbydeletionof(5)(a)below];
(b)amend Miiller, 1776toreadGeoffroy, 1762;
(5) (a)deletethisentryfromOfficial Index;
(b)amend Miiller, 1776toreadGeoffroy, 1762;
C.2 [new para.] add Forbicina Geoffroy, 1762 to Official Index as ajunior
objectivesynonymofLepismaLinnaeus, 1758;
D.3 nochanges[apartfromamendmentofGeoffroyinMiiller, 1764];
E.2 (I)and(2)amendGeoffroyin Fourcroy, 1785toreadGeoffroy, 1762;
F.2 [newpara.]addHepaGeoffroy, 1762toOfficialIndexasajuniorobjec-
tivesynonymofNepaLinnaeus, 1758;
G.2 nochanges[apartfromamendmentofGeoffroyinMiiller, 1764];
H.5 (3)(b)amend(Olivier, 1791)toread(Fabricius, 1781);
J.3 add new (4) to amend entry for Tinaea Geoffroy, 1762 on the Official
IndextorecordthatitisajuniorobjectivesynonymofTineaLinnaeus,
1758;
K.30(3)(a)and(c)amendauthorshipstoreadGeoffroy, 1762;
(3)(b)and(7)(f)omit;
(6)(r),(7)(e)and(9)(k)amendKugelann, 1792toread Miiller, 1776;
(8)amendMiiller, 1776toreadGeoffroy, 1762.
References
Schaeffer,J.C. 1766.Elementaentomologica. 168pp, 133pis.Weiss,Ratisbonae.
Schluga, J.B. 1767. Primae lineaecognitionisinsectorum cumfigurisaeneis. I, 47, 4pp., 2 pis.
Kraus,Vienna.
CommentontheproposedconservationofBruchusLinnaeus, 1767,PtinusLinnaeus,
1767andMylabrisFabricius, 1775(Insecta,Coleoptera)
(Case2618; seeBZN45: 194^196;48: 143-147)
P.K.Tubbs
ExecutiveSecretary,InternationalCommissiononZoologicalNomenclature
1. ThegenericnamesBruchusandMylabriswerefirstpublished,withdescriptions,
onpp. 163and266ofGeoffroy's 1762Histoireabregeedesinsectesquisetrouventau.x
environsdeParis.TheyappearedagaininMiiller(1764)andSchaeffer's 1766Elementa
Entomologica. The latter two works included no species in any genus, but Geoffroy
employedpolynomialspecificnamesandforthisreasonhisworkwasruledinOpinion
228 to be unavailable; the new generic names were not excepted but specialists were
askedforadvice.Theauthorshipofthesenames,asof1764,hasbeengivenas'Miiller'
by Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196) and as 'Geoffroy in Muller' by Kerzhner (BZN 38:
5-7; 48: 107-133), Kerzhner & Kirejtshuk (BZN 48: 143-144) and myself(BZN 48:
146-147). However, doubt exists as to whether, under Article 1Id ofthe Code, any
namesweremadeavailableinMiiller'swork,andithasbeenproposed(BZN49: 226)
thatgenericnamesshouldnowbeacceptedashavingbeenmadeavailableinGeoffroy
(1762); this course has already been accepted by the Commission in 16 particular
instances. If Kerzhner's proposals (BZN 48: 107-133) and those of Borowiec are