Comment On The Proposal To Conserve Oecothea Haliday In Curtis, 1837 And To Designate Helomyza Fenestralis Fallen, 1820 As The Type Species

2 Pages·1993·0.43 MB·English

by  Neal L Evenhuis

.
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature50(3)September1993 235
(3) P.G.Jupp
Arbovirus Unit. Nationcil Institutefor Virology, University ofthe Witwatersrand,
PrivateBagX4. Sandringham. 2131 SouthAfrica
Iwouldliketosupportthisapplication,particularlytheconservationofthenames
ofAe. (N.)circumhiteohisand Ae. (N.)nuinloshi. Both thesespeciesareimportant
vectorsofarbovirusesanditwouldcauseunnecessaryambiguityiftheirnameswere
changed.
Ae. circwnluteolushasbeenincriminatedasvectorofseveralarboviruses,notably
Wesselbron,Bunyamwera,Pongola,SpondweniandRiftValleyfeverviruses.Ihave
giventheCommissionSecretariatalistofsixreferences.
Commentontheproposaltoconserve OecotheaHalidayinCurtis, 1837andto
designateHelomyzafenestralisFallen, 1820asthetypespecies(Insecta,Diptera)
(Case2836:seeBZN50:44-47)
Neal L. Evenhuis
Department ofEntomology, Bishop Museum, P.O. Box 19000 A, Honolulu, Hawaii
96817. U.S.A.
WayneN. Mathis
DepartmentofEntomology. SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, D.C.20560, U.S.A.
F.ChristianThompson
SystematicEntomologyLaboratory, USDA. doSmithsonianInstitution, Washington,
D.C. 20560, USA.
We support the basic intent of this application, but some corrections and
commentsareneeded.
1 TheCommissionneednotuseitsplenarypowerstoruleonwhatisalreadytrue
undertheCode.Henceproposal(l)(a)issuperfluousandshouldbedeletedfromthe
application. Thompson & Mathis (1980, p. 86) clearly documented that the name
OecotheaHalidayisavailablefromCurtis(1837)undertheprovisionsofArticlelid
ofthethencurrentCode(1leofthepresentedition).
2. WhileThompson&Mathis(1980)didusetheword"lapsus"inassociationwith
the spelling Aecothea, they did so only after declaring the name 'an unjustified
emendationofOecothea'.TheirconclusionwasthesameasWoznica&Zatwarnicki's
suggestion(theirpara. 2).
3. ThestatementsbyWoznica&Zatwamicki(para. 1)that'itisnotclearthatthe
four species ... were originally included' and "... Oecothea Haliday was proposed
without any clearly included species' are disputed in Curtis's own words, as was
clearly outlined by Thompson & Mathis (1980, p. 82). The only thing that is not
explicit,butinretrospectisnowobvioustous,istheassociationofthespecificname
fenestralis Fallen with Oecothea. Clearly, the four species that immediately follow
OecotheaintheAddendawereassociatedwiththatnamebyCurtis.Thekeyphrase
inCurtis'sownwords(p.vi)is'...althoughmanyoftheformer[-synonyms]which
intersect long genera will most probably be eventually adopted, and it may often
236 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclalure50(31September1993
happenthat(///thespeciesfollowingsuchgenericnameswouldnotbeconsideredby
theAuthorwhoproposedthenameasbelongingtohisgroup, theoneimmediately
following is always a typical species ...". In his Addenda Curtis placed the name
Oecotheaafterspecies 17, whichmeant that Oecoihea wasinserted immediately in
front of species 18, feneslralis Fallen. Hence, as fenestralis Fallen is the one
immediatelyfollowing Oecothea, itwasa"typicalspecies'.
4. Woznica&Zatwarnickisaythat"theabsenceofthespeciesnumberedbetween
18and23meantthattheprecisepositionatwhichOecothearelatedtothemaintext
was not indicated". However, as stated in his introduction, Curtisdealt with large
DipteragenerabyusingthenumbersofMeigen.Therearegapsasthereweremany
speciesin Meigenthatwerenotknownfrom Britain.
5. In conclusion, we endorse the application to establish formally what Curtis
originallyintended,whichwastocreditthenameOecotheato Halidayandtohave
HelowyzafenestralisFallen, 1820asthetypespecies.
CommentsontheproposeddesignationofaneotypeforCoelophysisbaud(Cope,
1887)(Reptilia,Saurischia)
(Case2840:seeBZN49: 276-279:50: 147-151)
(1) Hilde L. Schwartz
EarthandEnriroimientalSciences. M.S. D469. LosAlamosNationalLaboratory.Los
Alamos. NewMexico87545. U.S.A.
IwouldliketoexpressmysupportforthepurposeoftheapplicationbyColbert
etal., that is, toconservethename Coelophysisbauriand to reject Rioarribasauriis
colberti Hunt & Lucas. 1991. My own research on New Mexican Triassic rocks
reveals no stratigraphic justification for the new genus Rioarribasaurus, and the
additionalconsiderations ofpriority and widespread current usage I believemake
the name Rioarriba.uiwus colberti a source of taxonomic confusion rather than
clarification.
(2) R.E. Molnar
QueenslandMuseum. P.O. Box3300. South Brisbane. Queensland4101. Australia
Iwishtopresentanargumentdistinct from, andmorephilosophicalthan, those
presentedbyColbertetal. intheirapplication,whichIsupport.Tomethereseems
abasicphilosophicandmethodologicdifferencebetweentheapproachofColbertto
thetaxonomyofCoelophysisandthatofHunt&Lucas.Colbertseemstosubscribe
totheschooloftaxonomyverylargelyinfluencedbyG.G.SimpsonandE. Mayrin
which fossils are recognized as only examples which have been 'selected' from a
populationoflivingorganisms.Theselivingorganismsvariedamongthemselves,and
hence recognition of diagnostic characters of a taxon, and referral of future
discoveriestothetaxon,dependonthecharacterstatesasexhibitedbythehypodigm,
ofwhich the type specimen is the name-bearer. In organisms exhibiting marked
sexual dimorphism, for example, the holotype might be a male specimen and yet
femaleshavethesameoperationalsignificanceasmales.