Table Of Content

BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(2)June1991 147 (l)(b). Thereisno such nameas PtinusGeoffroy, 1762. ThenamePtilinusappears on p. 64 of Geoffroy (1762). This is not, as suggested by Thompson, an 'incorrect original spelling' ofPtinus sensu Linnaeus. 1767, but is an entirely different nominal genuswhichisconsideredindetailby Kerzhner(BZN48: 123). Ptilinusisplacedinthe familyanobiidae. (l)(c). Aspointed out by Borowiec(BZN45: 194, para. 4)and Gentry in hercom- mentabove,MylahrissensuGeoffroy(1762)isaseniorsynonymofBruchusLinnaeus, 1767.whereasMylahrisFabricius, 1775(typespeciesMeloecichoriiLinnaeus, 1758by Latreille's(1810)designation)isinthemeloidae. Itwouldbetaxonomicallyconfusing toattributethemeloid(oilbeetle)genericnametoGeoffroy. (2)and(3). DrawbackstotheseproposalsbyThompsonareimplicitintheabove. (4). Asmentionedabove, PtilinusGeoffroy, 1762isnotanincorrectspellingofthe namePtinus.TheconservationofthenamesBruchusLinnaeus, 1767,PtinusLinnaeus, 1767andMylahrisFabricius, 1775,threatenedbyseniorsynonymsand/orhomonyms which first appeared in Geoffroy (1762). has been proposed by Borowiec (BZN 45: 194-196); this course has been supported by Kerzhner (BZN 48: 107-134) and by Kerzhner&Kirejtshukintheircommentabove.DrBorowiec'sobjectiveofconserving long-establishedusagecanbeachieved,andprotracteddiscussionofthefirstavailable authorshipofthenamesBruchusandMylahrisinanothertaxonomicsensebeavoided, bysubstitutingthefollowingforproposals(1)and(5)on BZN45: 195. TheInternationalCommissiononZoologicalNomenclatureisasked: (1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the purposesofboththePrincipleofPriorityandthePrincipleofHomonymy: (a) BruchusGeoffroy in Miiller. 1764andall uses ofthename Bruchuspriorto thepublicationofBruchusLinnaeus. 1767; (b) MylahrisGeoffroyinMiiller. 1764andallusesofthenameMylahrispriorto thepublicationofMylahrisFabricius, 1775; (5) toplaceontheOfficialIndexofRejectedandInvaHdGenericNamesinZoology thefollowingnames: (a) BruchusGeoffroyinMiiller. 1764.assuppressedin(l)(a)above; (b) MylahrisGeoffroyinMiiller, 1764,assuppressedin(l)(b)above. Commentsontheneedforstabilityinfishfamily-groupnames (SeeBZN47: 97-100, 138) (1) J.S.Nelson DepartmentofZoology, FacultyofScience, University ofAlherta, Edmonton, Canada T6G2E9 IfullyagreewithAlwyneWheeler'scomments.Hemadeastrongcaseandpresented itwell. In preparing my new edition (1984) ofFishes ofthe worldit was not originally my intentionto followSteyskal (1980)but, seeingin theimmediatelyprecedingfewyears certain colleagues following his recommendations, I reluctantly (and regrettably) 1 148 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(2)June1991 accepted most ofhischanges. I wrote a paragraph on my reluctance and a listing of thosechangesnotaccepted(1984,Preface,p.viii). IconsiderthatWheelerhasdoneavaluableserviceinpresentinghisviews. Additionalreference Nelson,J.S. 1984.Fishesoftheworld,Ed.2.xv,523pp.Wiley&Sons,NewYork. (2) P.J. Miller DepartmentofZoology, The University,BristolBS8lUG,England, U.K. I should like to express my strong support for Alwyne Wheeler's views on this matter. The situation described by Wheeler, resulting from the strict application of Latin grammar by Steyskal (1980). is absolutely ridiculous, and quite out ofkeeping with the Code's main aim of stability in nomenclature. There should be a blanket decisionbytheCommission,rejectingallthechangesmadebySteyskal. CommentontheproposedprecedenceofhomalopteridaeBleeker, 1859over BALiTORiDAESwalnsop, 1839(Osteichthyes,Cypriniformes) (Case2703;seeBZN47: 277-279) PeterK.L.Ng& KelvinK.P. Lim Department ofZoology, National University ofSingapore, Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore051 WedonotagreewithHieronimus'sproposaltogivehomalopteridaeBleeker, 1859 precedence over balitoridae Swainson, 1839. We do not believe that changing the namefromhomalopteridaetobalitoridaewillcauseanyconfusionamongscientists andseriouslydoubtitsimpactinpopularcircles. Hieronimus (para. 3) states that 'Kottelat (1988, p. 489) himselfadmits that the replacement ofhomalopteridae by balitoridae creates additional confusion in the suborderCobitoidei. IcannotfollowKottelatinhisopinionthatanimmediateintro- ductionofthefamily-groupnamebalitoridae,whichhadbeenoverlookedforabout 150years,wouldhelptocreateastablenomenclature'.Thisiserroneousandmislead- ing. Kottelat actuallywrote: 'Consideringrecentandexpectedchangesin systematics andnomenclaturein Cobitoidei... replacementofhomalopteridaewithbalitoridae shouldnotcreatemuchadditionalconfusion.Conservationofhomalopteridaewould be possible only by use ofthe plenary powers by the International Commission on ZoologicalNomenclature. Thiswould require a longprocedureand thus, immediate introductionofthevalidnamebetterhelpstocreateastablenomenclature'. Kottelat's rationale behind not applying to the Commission was precisely to avoid the nomen- claturalproblemsthefamilynameofthetorrentloachesnowfaces: whetheritistobe balitoridae according to the Principle of Priority, or homalopteridae following Article 79. Hieronimus appears to have misunderstood Kottelat's action and a problem faced by all taxonomists engaged in revisionary studies. Ifthe intention is