Opinion 1710 J. C. Megerle's (1801-1805) Auction Catalogues of Insects: suppressed for nomenclatural Purposes, with the specific names of Saperda albogiittata Megerle, 1803 (currently Apomecyna Alboguttata; Coleoptera) and Hippobosca variegata Megerle, 18

4 Pages·1993·0.86 MB·English

by  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

)
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature50(1)March1993 79
OPINION 1710
J.C. Megerle's(1801-1805) auction cataloguesofinsects: suppressed
for nomenclatural purposes, with the specific names ofSaperda
albogiittata Megerle, 1803 (currently Apomecynaalboguttata;
Coleoptera) and Hippobosca variegata Megerle, 1803 (Diptera)
conserved
Ruling
(1 Undertheplenarypowers:
(a) the works entitled Catalogus insectorum..., Appendix ad catalogum tnsec-
toruin... and CatalogusduarumcollectiotiemEleuteratorum... publishedby
Megerle(1801-1805)areherebysuppressedfornomenclaturalpurposes;
(b) the following specific names are hereby ruled to be availabledespite having
beenpublishedinasuppressedwork:
(i) alboguttataMegerle, 1803,aspublishedinthebinomenSaperdaalbogut-
tata;
(ii) variegataMegerle, 1803,aspublishedinthebinomenHippobosca varie-
gata.
(2) ThefollowingnamesareherebyplacedontheOfficialListofSpecificNames
inZoology:
(a) alboguttata Megerle, 1803, aspublished in thebinomen Saperdaalboguttata
andasconservedin(l){b)(i)above;
(b) variegata Megerle, 1803, as published in the binomen Hippobosca variegata
andasconservedin(l){b)(ii)above.
(3) The works entitled Catalogus itisectorutn.... Appendix ad catalogum insec-
torum... and Catalogus duarum collectionem Eleuteratorum published by Megerle
(1801-1805)andsuppressedin(l)(a)aboveareherebyplacedontheOfficialIndexof
RejectedandInvalidWorksinZoology.
HistoryofCase2671
AnapplicationforcataloguesbyJ.C.Megerle(1801-1805)toberuledunavailable
fornomenclaturalpurposes,togetherwiththeconservationofthespecificnamesof
SaperdaalboguttataandHippoboscavariegata,bothofMegerle(1803),wasreceived
from Dr I.M. Kerzhner {ZoologicalInstitute, Academy ofSciences, St Petersburg.
Russia)on 12July 1988. Aftercorrespondence thecase was pubhshed in BZN 48:
206-209(September 1991). Noticeofthecasewassenttoappropriatejournals.
ItwasnotedonthevotingpaperthattheapplicationhadthesupportofMrR.D.
Pope (Coleoptera) and Dr R.W. Crosskey (Diptera) (both ofTheNaturalHistory
Museum,London. U.K.)andDrHansSilfverberg(UniversitetetsZoologiskaMuseum,
Helsingfors, Finland).
DecisionoftheCommission
On 1 September 1992themembersoftheCommissionwereinvitedtovoteonthe
proposalspublishedinBZN48:208.Atthecloseofthevotingperiodon1 December
1992thevoteswereasfollows;
80 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature50(1)March1993
—
Affirmativevotes 27: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Cogger, Corliss, Dupuis,
Hahn, Halvorsen, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert,
MartinsdeSouza,Minelli,Nielsen,Nye.Ride,Savage,Schuster.Starobogatov,Stys,
Trjapitzin,Ueno,—Willink
Negativevotes 1:Thompson.
NovotewasreceivedfromHeppell.
Bayercommented:Twouldopposethesuppressionofanybonafidescientificwork
thatmayhavehadthemisfortunetobecomerare,butIbelievethatagoodcasecan
be made for rejecting auction catalogues such as those ofMegerle. Even though
producedbyconventionalprintinganddoubtlessissuedinsubstantialnumbers,their
obvious purpose was to sell the items listed rather than 'to provide a permanent
scientificrecord"(Article8oftheCode).ItseemslikelythatMegerle,eventhoughhe
was a curator of the Wiener Hofmuseum, was more concerned with selling the
catalogueditemsthanwithadvancingscientificknowledge. Itseemstomethatthis
andotherauctioncataloguescouldveryreasonablyberejectedasunavailableonthe
groundsofnotbeingintendedforscientificrecord'.
MartinsdeSouzanotedthatS.Breuning(1960;Cataloguedeslamiairesdumonde,
p. 131)gaveApomecynahislrioFabricius, 1792asaseniorsubjectivesynonymoiA.
albogutlala(Megerle, \SO'i).
Thompson commented as follows: 'Kerzhner requested the suppression of
Megerle'scatalogsastheacceptanceofthenamesestablishedtherein"wouldgreatly
disturb the stability ofnomenclature". Unfortunately, few data were provided to
substantiatethisclaim.Thetworeferencescitedinpara.7(Schenkling, 1935;Horn,
1937)arearticlesaboutMegerle,thecatalogs,andoldauctionsanddidnotaddress
nomenclatural issues. No documentation is provided for the "no less than 20
currentlyusedspecificnames"that"wouldbeinvalidasjuniorprimaryhomonyms".
Dataareprovidedonlyfortwogenericnamesandinbothofthesecasesthesituation
isnotexactlyasstatedbyKerzhner(para.7).Forthebeetlegenusthereneedsonly
be a change in date (1803 instead of 1807) and spelling (Doriphora instead of
Doryphora) as Megerle attributed the name to lUiger. As for Centrotus, Megerle
attributed the name to Fabricius. On the problem oftype species no details are
provided. However, in thecase ofboth thesenames, the Commissioncould easily
correctthedetailswithouthavingtosuppresstheworkasawhole.
Kerzhner proposed the conservation of two specific names from Megerle but
argued(para.9)thattwootherspecificnamesthathavebeenrecentlynotedasvalid
should not be conserved as such action is not "substantiated by usage or to be
appropriate". When has the principle ofpriority become inappropriate and been
supersededbythatofusage?Neitherofthesetwonamesiswidelyused. Accepting
PyrgotaundatafromMegerle(asWiedemanndidhimselOdoesnotinvolveachange
ofanameincurrentuse:thejuniornameXylotachalybeaWiedemannhasonlybeen
usedafewtimesinthelast50yearssoitcannotbearguedthatitis"substantiated
byusage",evenifusagewasaprinciplethattheCodeendorsed!
The use ofthe names published in Megerle's catalogs may "greatly disturb the
stabilityofnomenclature"inthefuture,butsofarnoevidencehasbeenpresentedfor
BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature50(1)March1993 81
suchinstability.TheCommissionisaskedtosuppresspublicationscontainingmany
namesbecausethereappeartobeproblemswithtwogenericnames,buttoconserve
two specific names which are being used currently. The Commission should not
suppress works simply because theywaypose problems and, in thecase ofactual
problems,itshoulddealwiththenames,nottheworks.TheCommissionsuppressed
Geoffrey's 1762 Histoireabregeedesinsectes... buteventuallyhas had to ruleon
eachnameinthatwork.IftheCommissionhaddealtwiththenamesinsteadofthe
work in the first place much effort would have been saved. So, the Commission
shoulddealwithonlythe Megerlenamesthatposerealproblems. Sofartherehas
been no evidence presented that any Megerle name presents a serious problem to
stabilityofnomenclature".
Editorialnote. As noted in para. 2 ofthe application, only one original set of
Megerle'scataloguesisknown toexist. In submittingthecaseDrKerzhnerwrote:
'With current techniques for making copies these catalogues, which are extreme
bibliographicrarities,mayreceivewidedistribution.Thisrepresentsaseriousthreat
to stability ofnomenclature. Proponents ofstrict priority mayfind the catalogues
grounds for changing dozens of currently used names, although this would of
courseviolatetheCode.Arecentpublicationseemstomearealforerunnerofthis
situation;thereforeImakehastetosubmitthisproposal,which I havelonghadin
mind".
Thecomment from DrR.W. Crosskey(DepartmentofEntomology. TheNatural
History Mu.wiim. London), noted on the voting paper, said (in part): 'We in the
Diptera Section aretotally/octheapplication. It is necessary toconserve Megerle
authorshipforHippohoscavariegata,averywellknownOldWorldectoparasite.The
Commission should immediately support Kerzhner"s proposal to head ofT any
diggingout ofpointless old names froma "work"" not intended to bemainstream
scienceandaboutasobscureastheycome".
InhiscommentaboveDrThompsonmentionsthattherejection(notsuppression)
in 1954bytheCommissionofGeofrroy"s 1762workinitsentiretywasunfortunate
andthatitwouldhavesavedmuchsubsequentefforthadthegenericnamestherein
been considered individually. There is, however, an essential difference between
Geoffroy"svolumesandthe Megerlecatalogues:40ofthe 59newgenericnamesin
theformerwereandareusedasvalid(seeBZN48: 107),whereasthegreatmajority
ofMegerle"smanynewnameshaveneverbeen used. Kerzhner(para. 7) remarked
that 20accepted specific names arejuniorprimary homonyms ofunused Megerle
namesandthatothersmaywellbejuniorsynonymsofcataloguenames;toreviewthe
latter category individually is not feasible, and to do so for the former would be
withoutobviousbenefittostabilityofnomenclature.
TheconservationoiDoryphoraandCentrotus,thetwogenericnamesmentionedin
the application and in DrThompson"s comment, was not Dr Kerzhner"s primary
purposi. Under"Doriphora111."Megerle(1805,p. [8];seepara. 7oftheapplication)
listed three nominal species, none of them being among the eight included in
DoryphoraIlliger, 1807.ThetypespeciesofDoryphorais Chrysomelapunctatissima
Olivier, 1790by thedesignation ofLatreille (1810). The "Centrotus F.' ofMegerle
(1802b, p. [14]) would have Membracis clavata Fabricius, 1787 (now placed in
CyphoniaLaporte, 1832)asthetypebymonotypy,whereasthetypespeciesofthe
.
82 BullelinofZoologicalNomenclature50(1)March1993
accepted Centrotus Fabricius, 1803 is Cicada cornuia Linnaeus, 1758 by the
designationofCurtis(1830).
Originalreferences
ThefollowingaretheoriginalreferencestothenamesplacedonanOfficialListbytheruling
giveninthepresentOpinion:
albogutlala,Saperda,Megerle,[1803].Appendixadcatahguminseclorum,quaemenseNovem-
brisMDCCCIIViennaeAustriaeauclionislegevendilafuere,p.[10].
variegata, Hippobosca. Megerle, [180j]. Appendix ad catahgum insectorum, quae mense
NovembrisMDCCCIIViennaeAuslriaeauclionislegevenditafuere,p.[17].
Thefollowingaretheoriginalreferencestotheworks,allwiththeauthorship[J.C.Megerle],
placedonanOfficialIndexbytherulinggiveninthepresentOpinion:
[1801]. Calalogus inseclorum, quae Viennae Austriae die XIV et sequentibus Decembris
MDCCCIauclionislegedislrahunlur.
[1802a].Appendixadcatahguminseclorum.quaemenseDecembrisMDCCCIViennaeAuslriae
auctionilegevenditafuere
[1802b]. Calalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Auslriae die IX et sequentibus Novembris
MDCCCIIauclionislegedislrahunlur.
[1803a]. Appendix ad catahgum insectorum, quae mense Novembris MDCCCII Viennae
Austriaeauclionislegevenditafuere.
[1803b]. Calalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriaedie28 Novembris 1803auclionis lege
dislrahunlur.
[1804a].Appendixadcatahguminseclorum.quaemenseNovembrisMDCCCIIIauclionislege
vendilafuere.
[1804b]. Calalogus duarum collectionem Eleuleralorum die XIV Maji MDCCCIV Viennae
Auslriaeauctionelegevendendarum.
[1804cl. Calalogus insectorum, quae Viennae Austriae die XX el sequentibus Seplembris
MDCCCIVauclionislegedislrahunlur.
[1804d]. Appendix ad catahgum insectorum. quae mense Seplembris MDCCCIV Viennae
Auslriaeauclionislegevenditafuere.
[1805a].Calalogusinsectorum,quae ViennaeAuslriaedie[daynotindicated]JuniiMDCCCV
auclionislegedislrahunlur.
[1805b]. Appendix adcatahgum insectorum. quaemenseJuniiMDCCCV Viennae Austriae
auclionislegevenditafuere.