Opinion 1623 Risomurex Olsson & Mcginty, 1958 (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Ricinula deformis Reeve, 1846 designated as the type species

2 Pages·1991·0.56 MB·English

by  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

66 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(1)March1991
OPINION 1623
Risomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958(Mollusca, Gastropoda): Ricinula
deformis Reeve, 1846designated asthetypespecies
Ruling
(1) Undertheplenarypowersallpreviousfixationsoftypespeciesforthenominal
genusRisomurexOlsson& McGinty, 1958 areherebysetasideand Ricinuladeformis
Reeve, 1846isdesignatedasthetypespecies.
(2) ThenameRisomurexOlsson&McGinty, 1958(gender:mascuhne),typespecies
bydesignationundertheplenarypowersin(1)aboveRicinuladeformisReeve, 1846,is
herebyplacedontheOfficialListofGenericNamesinZoology.
(3) ThenamedeformisReeve, 1846, aspublishedinthebinomenRicinuladeformis
(specific name ofthe type species ofRisomurex Olsson & McGinty, 1958), is hereby
placedontheOfficialListofSpecificNamesinZoology.
HistoryofCase2507
AnapplicationtodesignateRisomurexmosquitensisKemperman&Coomans, 1984
asthetypespeciesofRisomurexOlsson&McGinty, 1958,inplaceofthemisidentified
'Engina schrammi Crosse, 1863', was received from Drs Th. C.H. Kemperman &
H.E. Coomans {Instituut voor TaxonomischeZoologie, Amsterdam, The Netherlands)
on4February 1985.AftercorrespondencethecasewaspublishedinBZN43: 191-192
(July 1986).Noticeofthecasewassenttoappropriatejournals.
CopiesofacommentbyDrsE.H.Yokes{TulaneUniversity,Neu-Orleans, U.S.A.)&
R. Houart {Institut Royal des Sciences Naturelles, Brussels, Belgium), in which a
modificationtothesolutionoftheproblemwasproposed,weresenttotheauthorsof
theapplicationin 1986andagainin 1987.Theauthorsdidnotreplyandthecomment
was eventually published in BZN 46: 187 (September 1989); copies were sent to the
applicantsbutagaintherewasnoreply.
Yokes&HouartconsideredthatKemperman&Coomans's(1984)speciesRisomurex
mosquitensishad been described much earlierby Reeve (1846, Ricinula, pi. 6, fig. 44,
text)asRicinuladeformis. Yokes&Houartthereforeproposed that Ricinuladeformis
Reeve, 1846, thespeciesdescribedas'Enginaschrammf byOlsson& McGinty(1958)
andaseniorsubjectivesynonymofRisomurexmosquitensis, shouldbedesignatedthe
typespeciesofRisomurex,inaccordwiththeir 1986revisionofthegenus(seeBZN46:
187).Theholotypeofdeformis,no. 1968472intheNaturalHistoryMuseum,London,
wasillustratedbyReeve(1846,pi.6,fig.44)andbyYokes&Houart(1986,pi. 2.fig. 1
(incorrectlycitedasspecimenno. 196872)).
Itwasnoted on thevotingpaperthat although EnginaschrammiCrosse, 1863, the
nominaltypespeciesofRisomurex,isincludedinthegenus,neithertheoriginalauthors
norYokes&Houart(1968, p. 68; BZN46: 187)considered thisnominal speciestobe
taxonomically suitable as the type. Yokes & Houart also said that E. schrammi is a
juniorsubjectivesynonymofRicinularoseaReeve, 1846,andisrepresentedonlybythe
holotype.
Two alternatives were off"ered for voting: proposal B, the original proposals by
Kemperman & Coomans (BZN 43: 191-192), and proposal C, the designation of
Ricinula deformis Reeve, 1846 as the type species of Risomurex as in the revised
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(1)March1991 67
proposals by Yokes & Houart (BZN 46: 187). Both B and C involved the use ofthe
plenarypowersandagreementforthiswassoughtinproposalA.Commissionerswere
invitedtorecordapreferenceforBorCevenifvotingagainstA.
DecisionoftheCommission
On 1 September 1990 themembers ofthe Commission wereinvited to vote. At the
closeofthevotingperiodon 1 Dec—ember 1990thevoteswereasfollows:
Proposal A. Affirmative votes 25: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Corliss, Dupuis, Hahn,
Heppell,Kabata,Kraus,Lehtinen,Macpherson,Mahnert,MartinsdeSouza,Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Thompson,
Trjapitzin, Ueno,—Willink
Negativevo—tes 2: CoggerandHolthuis.
ProposalB —1: Kabata.
Proposal C 24: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, CorHss, Dupuis, Hahn, Heppell,
Holthuis, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli,
Mroczkowski, Nielsen, Nye, Ride, Savage, Schuster, Thompson, Trjapitzin, Ueno,
Willink.
NovoteswerereceivedfromHalvorsen.
Novoteforproposal BorCwasreceivedfromStarobogatov.
VotingagainstproposalA,Coggercommented:'Differentspecialistsdisagreeonthe
status or subjective synonymy ofEnginaschrammiCrosse, 1863, and as neitherpro-
posalBorCaddressestheissuesofstabilityoruniversality,replacementofthenominal
typespeciesisunwarranted',andHolthuisnoted: 'Enginaschrammiisaspeciesofthe
genus Risomurex, and since its holotype is extant there seems to be no good reason
for the use ofthe plenary powers to make a different nominal species the type ofthe
genus'. VotingforthedesignationofRicimdadeformisasthetypespecies,Thompson
commented:'Ifmosquitensisisajuniorsynonymofdeformisanddeformiscorresponds
tothespeciesthatOlsson&McGintybasedtheirgenuson,thenitshouldbedesignated
thetype.Whyburdenuserswithanothersynonymy?'.
Originalreferences
The followingarethe original referencesto the namesplacedonOfficial Listsbythe ruling
giveninthepresentOpinion:
deformis,Risomurex,Reeve, 1846,Conchologiaiconica:or,illustrationsoftheshellsofmolluscous
animals, Ricinula,pi.6,fig.44,text.
RisomurexOlsson&McGinty, 1958,BulletinofAmericanPaleontology,39(177):40.