Comments On The Proposed Precedence Of Homalopteridae Bleeker 1859 Over Balitoridae Swainson 1839 Osteichthyes Cypriniformes

3 Pages·1991·0.92 MB·English

by  M Kottelat

BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(4)December1991 333
misidentificationofatypespecies,ratherthanassertingauthoritativelythat Vipioisthe
seniorsynonym ofCremnops, van Achterberg(1982)should have referred thecase to
the Commission (Article 70b). The use of Vipio as the senior synonym ofCremnops
would be very disruptive to current usage, since Cremnops has been fairly recently
revised in both North America and Europe (Marsh, 1961; Nixon, 1986), and many
common speciesarewell known underthat name. On theotherhand, theproposal of
vanAchterberg(1982)hasnotgainedanysortofgeneralacceptance.AlthoughQuicke
(1987)did followvan Achterbergand usedIsomecusKriechbaumer, 1895 asthevalid
name for Vipio auctt., this position was reversed in Quicke & Sharkey (1989) where
Vipiowasonce again used as the valid name for thegenus in the braconinae. Nixon
(1986)arguedagainsttheuseofthename Vipiointheagathidinae.Thedesignationof
AgathislongicaudaBoheman, 1853asthetypespeciesofVipioisaviablesolutionthat
preservesthestabilityofbothgenericnamesin thesensethattheyhavebeen used for
many years. It would be most desirable for the Commission to find in favour ofthe
proposalofWharton&Mason.
Additionalreference
Marsh, P.M. 1961. A taxonomic study ofthe genus Cremnops Foerster in America north of
Mexico(Hymenoptera,Braconidae).AnnalsoftheEntomologicalSocietyofAmerica,54(6):
851-861.
CommentsontheproposedprecedenceofHOMALOPTERIDAEBleeker, 1859over
BALITORIDAESwainson, 1839(Osteichthyes,Cypriniformes)
(Case2703;seeBZN47: 277-279;48: 148-150,253)
(1) MauriceKottelat
ZoologischeStaatssammlung,Mtinchhausenstrasse21,D-8000Miinchen60.Germany
IreadwithsomesurpriseHerrHieronimus'sapplication(BZN47:277-279).Thisis
based on a review of only part of the literature and does not reflect even a basic
understanding ofthe taxa concerned. While disagreeingcompletely with it, I wish to
makethefollowingobservations.
I (Kottelat, 1988) restored the family-group name balitoridae Swainson, 1839,
rather than using homalopteridae Bleeker, 1859, because balitoridae is the
senior name and because there are taxonomic problems in applying the name
homalopteridae. These derive from uncertainty about the type genus ofthe family,
HomalopteravanHasselt, 1823.ThetypespeciesH. ocellatavanderHoeven, 1833.as
describedandillustrated,cannotberecognizedwithcertainty.Allegedtypematerialin
twomuseums(AmsterdamandLeiden)cannotbeidentifiedbeyonddoubtasbeingthe
types (see Hora, 1932); I am also notconvinced that the specimens represent a single
species. In addition, the name H. ocellata has usually been associated with a species
(sensuValenciennesinCuvier&Valenciennes, 1846;Weber&deBeaufort, 1916)very
diff"erent from van der Hoeven's and this usagestill persists in fisheries reports and is
standard practice in the country concerned (Indonesia). Moreover, Homaloptera as
presentlyunderstoodisacatch-allgenuswhichwillprobablybesplitintotwoorthree
genera oncecorrectly revised. I would not exclude the possibility that forthe sake of
stabiUtya furtherapplication wouldbeneededatthat time todesignate anothertype
1
334 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(4)December199
species for Homaloptera or replacement type material for H. ocellata. On the other
hand, Balitora Gray, 1830 has recently been revised and the type species. B. brucei
Gray, 1830,isknownfromgoodseriesofmuseumspecimens.Aneotypehasalsobeen
designated (Kottelat, 1988). The advantage of using the senior family-group name
(basedonawelldefinedmonophyleticgenuswhosetypespeciesiswellknownandwith
good, recently-describedtypematerial)instead ofthejuniorname(basedonapoorly
describedandpoorlyknowntypespecieswithdubioustypematerial)isobvious.
The family homalopteridae sensu Sawada (1982), or balitoridae sensu Kottelat
(1988),coversacompletelydifferent phylogeneticassemblagefromhomalopteridae
aspreviously used. Para. 2 ofHieronimus'sapplicationcompletelyfails toappreciate
thatthepresentconceptofrelationshipsfollowsSawada(1982)andisradicallydiffer-
ent from that in all the workscited in the application. Thehomalopteridaeofthese
authorsincludesabout40species(mostlyknown fromoneorafewspecimens),while
the BALITORIDAE as now understood includes balitoridae auctt., gastromyzonidae
auctt.,NEMACHEiLiNAEandvaillantellinae(bothformerlyplacedincobitidae)anda
few genera whose position had earlier been uncertain, thus comprising a complex
group ofmore than 500 valid species. The introduction ofthe correct family-group
name almost simultaneously with the completely revised systematics did not create
additionalconfusion; onthecontrary,thiswasthemostconvenientwaytoreducethe
riskofconfusion.Thereislittledoubtthatthoseauthorswhonowusebalitoridaeare
aware ofrecent developments in the interrelationships ofthe Cobitoidei, while those
whopersistwithhomalopteridaearenot.
Thefirstsentenceofpara. 3oftheapplication,whichreports'Kottelat(1988,p.489)
himself admits that the replacement of homalopteridae by balitoridae creates
additional confusion in the suborder Cobitoidei' is a complete misrepresentation of
what Iactuallywrote. Thiswas: 'Consideringrecentandexpectedchangesin system-
atics and nomenclature in Cobitodei (see for example Sawada, 1982 and Kottelat,
1986, 1987) replacementofhomalopteridaebybalitoridaeshould notcreatemuch
additionalconfusion'. AsanauthorworkingonthisgroupoffishesIdidnotconsider
that'theapplicationofthePrincipleofPrioritywoulddisturbstabilityanduniversality
or cause confusion' (Article 23b ofthe Code). In fact, being mindful ofthe need for
stability,Iexplicitlystated(Kottelat, 1988,p.489): 'Conservationofhomalopteridae
would bepossibleonlybyuseoftheplenarypowersoftheInternationalCommission
onZoologicalNomenclature. Thiswouldrequirealongprocedureand thus,immedi-
ate introduction ofthe valid name better helps create a stable nomenclature'. I still
maintainthat adoptionofthecorrectnamewasthebest solution forstabilityandthe
namebalitoridaehasnowbecomeestablishedbyexistingusage.
Iamalsorathersurprisedbypara.4oftheapplication: 'Kottelatexpectschangesin
systematics and nomenclature in suborderCobitoidei. Under thesecircumstances all
possible attempts have to be made to stabilize nomenclature'. Does the petitioner
intend that we should no longersynonymizenames, ortry toidentifytypespecies, or
trace type specimens in order not to affect 'stabilized' nomenclature? No amount of
effort to stabilize thenomenclaturewillprevent theinevitablechangesthatwill result
fromthesystematicrevisionoftheserelativelylittleknowngroupsoffishes.
Hieronimus argued (para. 2) that the name homalopteridae has been widely
accepted and lists as evidence six titles of what he calls 'recent publications'. It is
noteworthythatallbutoneofthesewerepublished before 1954. Isthisevidencethat
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(4)December1991 335
thereplacementofhomalopteridaewillactuallythreatenstability?Hefailedtomen-
tionthatalmostnoonebesidesthesefewauthorshasbeenworkingon'homalopterids'
(sensu prior) and that other uses occur only in a few lists and bibliographies. Note-
worthy also is the fact that besides basic systematic literature, there are only two
publications dealing with aspects ofthe biology ofthese fishes. On the other hand,
nowherehasthepetitionermentionedthedegreeofacceptanceand usageofthename
BALiTORiDAE since its re-introduction in July 1988. It seems that an objective presen-
tation ofthecase requires that the use ofboth balitoridae and homalopteridae be
summarized.Thiswouldshowthatbalitoridaehasbeenadoptedalmostimmediately
andthat,besidesthepetitioner's,nocommentagainstitsusehasbeenpublishedinthe
ichthyological literature. On thecontrary, it hasbeen widely accepted. A list (held by
theCommissionSecretariat)of21 referencesofpapers,booksandworksdemonstrates
useofbalitoridaeinsteadofhomalopteridaesinceJuly 1988,andalsothatthename
changehasbeenimmediatelyfollowedinSouthand SoutheastAsiawheremostofthe
fishes occur. It is noteworthy that balitoridae is the name used in the Newsletter of
Systematic Ichthyology and in Eschmeyer's (1990, p. 447) Genera ofRecent Fishes,
which is without doubt a milestone publication on fish nomenclature this century.
Adoptionofnamesotherthanthoseusedinsuchareferenceworkwillcertainlycreate
confusion.Thenamebalitoridaehasalsoentered usageinconservationbiologyand
appearsinthelUCN's(1990)RedList.
IthereforerequestthattheCommissionrejectHieronimus'sapplication.
Additionalreferences
Eschmeyer,W.N. 1990. Catalogofthegenera ofrecentfishes. 697 pp. California Academy of
Sciences,SanFrancisco.
lUCN. 1990. 1990lUCNRedListofthreatenedanimals. 192pp. lUCN,Gland,Switzerland.
(2) J.S. Nelson
DepartmentofZoology, FacultyofScience, UniversityofAlberta, Edmonton, Canada,
T6G2E9
I accepted, although reluctantly, the use of the family-group name balitoridae
Swainson, 1839 rather than homalopteridae Bleeker, 1859. I agree with the views
of Kottelat (above) and think it would be a step backwards to bring back
homalopteridae. It is sometimes diflficult to decide between stability, priority,
commonsense,justicetoauthors,andotherfactors.However,Ifeelthattheinterestsof
zoologicalnomenclaturewouldbebestservedbynowstayingwithbalitoridae.
CommentontheproposedprecedenceofICHTHYOPHIIDAETaylor, 1968(Amphibia,
Gymnophiona)overEPICRIIDAEFitzinger, 1843
(Case2616andOpinion 1604;seeBZN45: 207-209,46: 134,47: 166-167and48:
152-155)
HobartM.Smith
122Ramaley, CampusBox334,Boulder. Colorado80309-0334, U.S.A.
I strongly support the conservation of the name ichthyophiidae (perhaps more
correctlyichthyopheidae)Taylor, 1968sinceithasbeenwidelyadoptedandnoother