Comments On The Proposed Conservation Of The Specific Name Of Artemia Franciscana Kellogg, 1906 (Crustacea, Branchiopoda)

2 Pages·1991·0.55 MB·English

by  A B Williams

1
246 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(3)September199
Keen, M. 1957. In. Opinion 489. Validation under the plenary powers of the generic name
TurbinellaLamarck, 1799(ClassGastropoda),asthenameforthesacredChankShellof
India. OpinionsandDeclarationsrenderedby theInternationalCommission on Zoological
Nomenclature.17: 155-178.
Woodring,W.P. 1928. MiocenemollusksfromBowden,Jamaica. Part2. Gastropodsanddiscus-
sionofresults.CarnegieInstitute,Washington,Publicationno.385.564pp.,40pis.
Yokes, E.H. 1964. The genus Turbinella (Mollusca, Gastropoda) in the New World. Tulane
StudiesinGeology,2(2):39-68.
CommentontheproposedconservationofCeratitesnodosusSchlotheim, 1813
(Cephalopoda,Ammonoidea)
(Case2732;seeBZN48: 31-35)
GerhardHahn
BerlinerStrasse31,D-3576Rauschenberg,Germany
Ceratitesnodosusasusedtodayisaveryimportantindexfossilinthebiostratigraphy
of the Triassic Muschelkalkfacies. To shift the specific name nodosus to the taxon
knowntodayasCeratites(Doloceratites)robustusrobustus(asprescribedbytheCode,
followingthepaperofRieber&Tozer, 1986)wouldseriouslydisturbbiostratigraphic
practice.ThereforeIsupporttheproposalofDrUrlichstoconserveC.nodosusasused
today.
CommentsontheproposedconservationofthespecificnameofArtemiafranciscana
Kellogg, 1906(Crustacea,Branchiopoda)
(Case2728;seeBZN47: 178-183;48: 57)
(1) AustinB.Williams
NOAA/NMFS Systematics Laboratory, NHB-163, Smithsonian Institution,
Washington,D.C.20560, U.S.A.
Theauthorsofthiscasehavegiven averythoroughhistoryofthenamesinvolved,
A.franciscanaandfourseniorsubjectivesynonyms.
Leaving aside the nomen dubium Artemia guildingi Thompson, 1834, ifArtemia
from Great Salt Lake (presumably A. fertills Verrill, 1869 and A. utahensis
Lockington, 1876) are indistinguishable from A.franciscana Kellogg, 1906 of San
Francisco Bay on the basis ofmorphology, cross-fertility and similarity ofisozyme
patterns,andspecimensfromeitherregionaremorphologicallyindistinguishablefrom
A. gracilis Verrill, 1869 of New England, why not let Packard's (1883) and Amat
Domenech's(1980) acceptance ofthepriority of^4.gracilisprevail [see BZN47: 180,
paras. 6and 7]?Thecaseseemstoboildowntowhetherpriorityrulesorconvenience
andreadyavailabilityofmaterialoverrules.
Verrill(1869a)stated,concerninghismaterialfromConnecticut,that'Inonetub,in
whichthewaterhadadecidedlymilkyappearance,[specimens]weresoabundantthat
hundreds could be obtained in a few minutes... Search was made in the pools from
which the water had been taken, but no Artemiae were found, though doubtless
1
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(3)September199 247
from theseplacestheprogenitorsofthoseinhabitingthe tubsmust have been taken'.
These observations and VerrilFs (1869b) later statements suggest that occurrence of
A gracilisinthetubsnearNewHavenwasnotafreak,thoughevidentlyararityinNew
.
England. Evaporationpondsforsalt,oncecommonintheeast,arenotsotoday,butif
presentconceivablycouldharborthespecies.AsstatedinBZN47: 178,para.2,Verrill
describedA.gracilisandhistypematerialisintheYalePeabody Museum.
(2) ThomasE. Bowman
Division ofCrustacea, NHB-163, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, B.C. 20560,
U.S.A.
I agree that it is desirable to dispose of the names guildingi, based on a single
specimen from an unspecified locality in the West Indies, andgracilis, from a region
not inhabited by Artemiaand which might have been introduced from either Europe
or the western United States. That leaves available for the North American species
the specific namesfertilis Verrill, 1869, utahensis Lockington, 1876 andfranciscana
Kellogg, 1906. That these threenamesapplytoa singlespeciesisclearfrom breeding
andisozymestudies,and Bowenetal.(1978)shouldhavefollowedtheCodeandused
the oldest name,fertilis. Unfortunately, this action was perpetuated in the papers
publishedsubsequentto 1978andcitedbyBelk&Bowenintheirapplication.
NowtheCommission isbeingasked todisregardpriorityand to legitimizea name
that has been in use for the short period ofabout a dozen years. The Commission
shouldnotmakeBowen&Belk'serrorpermanent. Byplacingguildingiandgracilison
theOfficialIndexandtakingnootheraction,itcouldmakefertilistheoldestavailable
nameandhencethevalidnamefortheNorthAmericanspeciesofArtemia.Thisisthe
surestwaytoobtainstabilityinthelongrun.
(3) JoelW. Martin
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, 900 Exposition Boulevard, Los
Angeles, California9007, U.S.A.
Belk & Bowen have presented a convincingcase for giving precedence to Artemia
franciscana Kellogg, 1906 over the previous but little used specific names guildingi,
gracilis,fertilis and utahensis. In the interest of stability, because A.franciscana is
already the commonly accepted name for the North American species of Artemia,
Isupporttheapplication.
(4) L.B. Holthuis
NationaalNatuurhistorischMuseum,Postbus9517,2300RA Leiden, TheNetherlands
I know next to nothing about Branchiopoda, except that the nomenclature is in a
mess.
Browne &, Halanych (1989; Crustaceana, 57(1): 57-71) used a most peculiar
nomenclature,throwingout/I..?a//«fl(onp.59:'ThthinomQnArtemiasalina{h., 1758)
long used by many investigators, is no longer taxonomically valid'), and they used
nameslike/I. tunisianaandA.parthenogenetica(aswellasA.franciscana)withoutany
regardtothepossibleexistenceofoldersynonyms. Ibelievethatuntilthewholeofthe