Comments On The Proposal To Remove The Homonymy Between Clavidae Mccrady, 1859 (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa) And Clavinae Casey, 1904 (Mollusca, Gastropoda)

2 Pages·1992·0.59 MB·English

by  John K Tucker

.
222 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992
Knudsen,J.1956.MarineprosobranchsoftropicalWestAfrica(Stenoglossa).Atlantide-Report,
4:7-110.
Nickles,M. 1950.Mollusquestestacesmarinsdelacoted'Afrique.269pp.Lechevalier,Paris.
Ondrejickova, A. 1972. Eggenburgian molluscs ofSouthern Slovakia. Zbornik Geologickych
ViedZapadneKarpatw 16:5-147.
Pasteur-Humbert,C. 1962.LesmollusquesmarinstestacesduMaroc.Cataloguenoncritique. 1.
Lesgasteropodes. TravauxdeilnstitutScientifiqueCherifien,SerieZoologie,23: 1-224.
CommentsontheproposaltoremovethehomonymybetweenCLAVIDAEMcCrady,
1859(Cnidaria,Hydrozoa)andCLAVINAECasey, 1904(MoIIusca,Gastropoda)
(Case2710;seeBZN48: 192-195;49: 144-145)
(1) JohnK.Tucker
404S. BankerStreet, Effingham.Illinois62401, U.S.A
I am unable to agree on the need for the proposals ofCernohorsky, Cornelius &
Sysoevconcerningthemollusksubfamilyname.
The issue at stake is the maintenance ofnomenclatural stability and the authors
contendthattheirproposedactionwillachievethis.Applicationsofthisnatureusually
involvetheconservatioiiofanameasithasbeenusedbuttheirproposalintroducesa
newspelling,clavusinae.
I understand the desire to preserve the Powell (1942) system ofsubfamily classifi-
cation in the turridae and how that might seem to be related to nomenclatural
stability, but it is my belief that the proposals will neither preserve nor improve
stabihty. Iftheauthors believe that Clavusde Montfort, 1810cannot becontained in
the DRiLLiiNAE then they should define the characters that separate clavinae (or
clavusinae) from Olsson's 1964(and Morrison's 1965, p. 2)drilliinae. I myselfdo
not believe that nomenclatural stability exists in theturridae at the subfamily level.
Every author who has considered a subfamily classification has come to a unique
conclusion,andnotallauthorsworkingongenerausuallyincludedintheclavinae(or
drilliinae) recognize the subfamily as valid; for example, Nordsieck (1968) placed
Clavusintheturrinae(althoughin 1977hechangedhismind).
It seems to me that the turrid name clavinae does not need Commission action."
Most post-Powell authors who recognize the group do so primarily on the radular
morphology. McLean (1971), in particular, defined the clavinae as based on the
possession of a prototypic radular type. If, as most authors agree, the prototypic
radularstateisanancestralconditionthentheclavinae(ordrilliinae)aredefinedby
a plesiomorphic character state. Only apomorphic character states can be used to
determine monophyly. Therefore, from a cladistic point of view, the clavinae (or
drilliinae)iseitheraparaphyletic orpolyphyletic taxon. Ican seeno benefit froma
ruling concerning the name ofa taxon that will almost certainly be found to include
multiplesistertaxathatgaverisetotheothersubfamiliesoftheturridae.
Additionalreferences
Morrison,J.P.E. 1965.OnthefamiliesofTurridae. Report.AmericanMalacologicalUnion,32:
1-2.
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