The family-group names of the Ichneumoninae (Hymenoptera: Ichneumonidae)

9 Pages·1995·4.8 MB·English

by  D B Wahl

HYM. RES.
J.
Vol. 4, 1995, pp. 285-293
The Family-Group Names of the Ichneumoninae
(Hymenoptera: Ichneumionidae)
David B. Wahl and W.R.M. MASONt
(DBW) American Entomological Institute, 3005 SW 56th Ave., Gainesville, FL 32608, U.S.A.;
(WRMM) Biological Resources Division, CLBRR, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa,
Ontario KIA 0C6,Canada
—
Abstract. The family-group names in the subfamily Ichneumoninae are listed. Valid names are
in accordance with the InternationalCodeofZoological Nomenclatureand differences with the names
used by Townesare discussed. Thehistoricalbackground toTownes' rejectionofcertainOpinions
of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature is examined; we conclude Townes
m
was error.
The subfamily Ichneumoninae consti- ture 1985; hereafter referred to as "the
tutes an exceedingly large and diverse Code"), he sometimes used junior syn-
group of parasitoid wasps, and is one of onyms of his ow^n authorship in prefer-
the most taxonomically and nomenclatur- ence to older names of other authors or
ally confusing groups of ichneumonids. failed to cite proper dates and authorship
The genera w^ere never revised by for family-group names (cf. Protichneu-
Townes as part of his monographs of ich- monini Heinrich, 1934 vs. Heresiarchini
neumonid subfamilies. His taxonomic Ashmead, 1900, and Ichneumonini Ash-
ideas on the subfamily were recorded in mead, 1895 instead of Ichneumonini La-
the regional catalogs put out by him and treille, 1802 (Heinrich 1977: 10, 57).
his collaborators (Townes et al 1961;
Townes et al 1965; Townes & Townes TOWNES AND OPINIION 159
1966; Townes & Townes 1973). These Townes (1957, 1969) wrote at length
groupings and generic concepts are often about his reasons for considering certain
at odds with those of other authors, most Opinions of the Commission invalid. The
notably Heinrich, who published mono- summarizes Townes'
following general
graphs on the ichneumonines of the Ne- views: "There is, however, a spurious
arctic, sub-Saharan Africa, and Southeast "Opinion of the International Commis-
Asia. The situation is especially confusing sion" (no. 178) that was published under
because Townes based
family-group the personal responsibility of Francis
names on the oldest included genus and Hemming, without the knowledge or
refused to recognize the validity of cer- consent of the International Commission,
tain Opinions issued by the International and without an official vote of the Com-
Commission for Zoological Nomencla- mission on the matter. Citations of this
ture (hereafter referred to as "the Com- "Opinion" have been misleading.
mission") (Townes 1969). While Heinrich (Townes & Townes 1981). Most hymen-
endeavored to use nomenclature in ac- opterists, outside of ichneumonid spe-
cordance with the International Code of cialists, do not accept Townes' arguments
Zoological Nomenclature (International (Day 1981 is an exception). Townes' ex-
Commission for Zoological Nomencla- tensive ichneumonid work has lead many
286 Journal of Hymenoptera Research
students of that group to follow his no- ieterus and Colpognathus, genera placed
menclature. We do not, however, accept by others in Phaeogenini (Townes, pers.
Townes' position or his supporting ver- comm. to DBW). Moreover, Townes
sion of history; a detailed account of our placed the genera Heterischnus and Liisius
view is given in Appendix I. Opinion 159, in a separate tribe, Heterischnini. Perkins,
which deals with application of the ich- Diller, and Rasnitsyn & Siitan have all
neumonid names Ichneumon, Pimpla, and maintained Heterischnus in the Phaeogen-
Ephialtes, is considered by us to be a valid ini. Wahl is examining the relationships
publication of the Commission. of these genera as part of a forthcoming
TRIBAL CONCEPTS revision; preliminary results indicate that
all the aforementioned genera constitute
Correct nomenclature for family-group a monophyletic group, and they are here
taxa in Ichneumonidae, excluding Ichneu- treated as one tribe. With the inclusion of
moninae, has been published by Fitton & Alomya, the correct tribal name is Alo-
Gauld (1976; 1978). We here present the myini; Townes & Townes (1951: 276) hav-
results of our investigations of ichneu- ing made a first-revisor decision between
monine family-group names, using the the Forster names Alomyoidae and
Code to determine the validity of the 46 Phaeogenoidae (published simultaneous-
names. ly in 1869). The subtribal divisions of
As mentioned above, Townes and Hein- Diller (1981; 1994) are not used here,
rich disagreed on the matter of tribal pending further study.
boundaries and composition (Gauld 1984: 2. Platylabini-Eurylabini-ZimmeriinL
184-185). In the absence of a worldwide Townes (Townes et al 1961; Townes et al
monographic treatment of the subfamily, 1965; Townes & Townes 1973) consistent-
we have for the most part adopted the ly placed the genera Eurylabus and Cotih-
tribal classification used by Gauld (1984). eresiarches (= Zimmeria) in the Platylabini.
Townes had intended to treat the subfam- Other authors (Heinrich 1967, 1974; Per-
ily as a fifthvolume ofhis series ofgeneric kins 1959; Rasnitsyn & Siitan 1981) put
monographsbut funding and health prob- them in the Eurylabini and Zimmeriini,
lems interfered. Townes' thoughts on ich- respectively. When Heinrich (1934) first
neumonine classification are reflected in described the Eurylabini, he recognized
his regional catalogs and in the arrange- the Eurylabus group and the Goedartia
ment of the American Entomological In- group. Townes (Townes et al 1961) broke
stitute collection. up the tribe, placing Eurylabus in the Pla-
Before proceeding with a listing of the tylabini and the Goedartia group in its
family-group names, we give a brief con- own tribe, Goedartiini. Neither Eurylabus
sideration of problems in certain tribes nor Cotiheresiarches exhibits the character-
and subtribes. istic small convex clypeus of Platylabus
1. Alomyini-Phaeogenini-Heteris- and its relatives, and only Cotihersiarches
chnini. Confusion reigns concerning the has a flattened petiole. Until detailed
composition of the tribe. European au- studies are made on platylabine generic
thors (Perkins 1959; Diller 1981; Rasnit- relationships, we believe it best for now
syn & Siitan 1981) have traditionally to recognize Eurylabini and Zimmeriini
placed Alomya in a tribe or subfamily of as separate tribes.
its own. Townes consistently put it with 3. Goedartiini-Compsophorini. When
the group of genera, centered about originally proposed by Townes et al
Phaeogenes, that previously cited workers (1961), Goedartiini included Goedartia,
referred to as Phaeogenini. Townes be- Maraces, Charitojoppa, and Habrojoppa.
lieved Alomya to be closely related to Cen- Compsophorini was described by Hein-
Volume 4, 1995 287
rich (1967) and included Compsophorus, son (1979) emended Amblytelina to Am-
Oxyjoppa, Eccoptosagelliis, Tosquinetia, Ep- blytelesina but this is not in accordance
ijoppa, Charitojoppa, Hahrojoppa, and Pyr- with the Code, as such cases are to be re-
amidamhlys; Goedartia was explicitly ex- ferred to the Commission. A request to the
cluded from the tribe. Townes (Townes & Commission is being prepared.
Townes 1973) synonymized Heinrich's 6. Protichneumonini-Heresiarchini.
Compsophorini under Goedartiini. Hein- Townes called this tribe Ichneumonini,
rich (1975) placed only Goedartia, Maraces, due to his views on the validity of Opin-
and Pseudomaraces in Goedartiini, retain- ion 159. Carlson (1979) and Gupta (1987)
ing his original concept of two tribes. have used this interpretation as well, but
Townes' concept of Goedartiini is based all other authors have used Protichneu-
on: 1) a wide mandible that is not tapered monini. Depending upon the treatment of
apically, 2) the occipital carina that meets Heresiarches and related genera, however,
the hypostomal carina at the mandibular Protichneumonini may not be the correct
base, and 3) the cell l+2Rs (areolet) of the name. Perkins (1959) and Rasnitsyn & Sii-
fore wing that is pointed above, not trun- tan (1981) maintain Heresiarches in a sep-
cate (Townes et al 1961). Heinrich (1967) arate tribe, Heresiarchini. Townes always
pointed out that Goedartia differs from kept the genus in his Ichneumonini and
Compsophoriis and its relatives in many de- Heinrich did likewise in the equivalent
tails of the head and mesosoma, including Protichneumonini. Heinrich (Heinrich
the male flagellum. Until fundamental 1960: 21) discussed the situation and he
studies are made of the relationshipswith- later recognized the group as a subtribe of
in the stenopneusticine Ichneumoninae, it Protichneumonini. This arrangement ne-
seems best to maintain Heinrich's concept cessitates changing the tribal name to Her-
of two tribes. esiarchini, as pointed outby Perkins (1959:
4. Ichneumonini. As mentioned previ-
Coinuogsmllymy,,isIwsceihonanecucwmeapotsnitnvhaialtiidsOlpytihniesisocunoerdr1.e5c9Atcocnfoartmdhe-e z2M8eafr7cn.L)T.iesraoyga,inj1iu.8n1Ti9roor(gMiahncoiLmbeaoasyne,ydm1o81n9o)Tf,robTgiarisosegdiPdaoanne-
GdfoyurreotdthooenHtteiriinnbieriwtcahha'stsuTbseoelwidenfebsythacCtaalrJlloespdopniJnoip(p1i9wn7ai9s.) t(hTerogciodalee)o.ptCearrolussonge(n19u7s9)TermoxendFaebdriTcriou-s
splteirreisvc.etslcytohaemmNTe.oowttrnooepRsi.cpWao.lsiCgtariroolnuspotno)(b.Ge.IcfHoeorirnneercitcb,hei,-t bgdieannirceetfoewrTirrteodhguttoshietnhiCeobdCeuo,tmamtshiissssuiicsohnn.ocatsAeinsreaaqcruceeosrt-to
should be noted that Joppini is the correct to the Commission is being prepared.
tribal name. The Joppini of Townes and Heinrich placed Callajoppm and related
Ichneumonini of Heinrich are essentially genera in the Trogini as a subtribe, Calla-
the same except that Heinrich placed Pseii- joppina. Townes instead put these genera
doplatylabus, AcantJwjoppa, and related in the Heresiarchini, restricting Trogini to
genera in the Joppocryptini (referred to as the parasitoids of Papilionidae and other
Acanthojoppini in Heinrich'spublications) Papilionoidea. This arrangement is fol-
and placed Tetragonochora in a tribe of its lowed here but it should be noted that the
own (Heinrich, 1934). Callajop^pa-group is part of a continuum
5. Amblytelina. Amblytelina based on linking certain Heresiarchini with the Tro-
Amblytelcs Wesmael is a junior homonym gini (Gauld 1984: 184-185; Heinrich 1968:
of Amblytelides Blackburn, 1892 (Black- 82, 1977: 284), thus making the placement
burn, 1892) based on the coleopterous ge- of this group in one tribe or another a sub-
nusAmblytelus Erichson (Carabidae). Carl- jective decision.
288 Journal of Hymenoptera Research
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES OF THE
6. Ctenocalini Heinrich, 1938.
ICHNEUMONINAE
Ctenocalini Heinrich, 1938: 25, 40-41. Type-
ICHNEUMONINAE
Latreille, 1802. genus: Ctenocalus Szepligeti.
1. Alomyini Forster, 1869 (incl. Heterischnini 7. Goedartiini Townes et al, 1961.
of Townes) Goedartiini Townes et al, 1961: 399, 458.
Alomyoidae Forster, 1869: 144, 194. Type- Type-genus: Goedartia Boie.
genus: Alomya Panzer. 8. Compsophorini Heinrich, 1967.
Phaeogenoidae Forster, 1869: 144, 191.
Wesmael. [Compsophorina Heinrich, 1962: 688. Not
Type-genus: Phaeogenes
Dicaelotina Holmgren, 1889: 343. Type-ge- available under Article 13 of the Code.]
nus: Dicaelotus Wesmael. Compsophorini Heinrich, 1967: 25. Type-
Diadromina Holmgren, 1889: 345. Type-ge- genus: Compsophorus Saussure.
nus: Diadromus Wesmael. 9. Ischnojoppini Heinrich, 1938.
Epitomina Holmgren, 1889: 347. Type-ge- IschnojoppiniHeinrich, 1938: 25, 117. Type-
nus: Epitomus Forster. genus: Ischnojoppa Kriechbaumer.
Gnathoxina Holmgren, 1889: 344. Type-ge-
nus: Gnathoxys Wesmael. 10. Listrodromini Forster, 1869.
Herpestomina Holmgren, 1889: 344. Type- Listrodromoidae Forster, 1869: 144, 194.
genus: Herpestonius Wesmael. Type-genus: Listrodromus Wesmael.
Oronotina Holmgren, 1889: 343. Type-ge- 11. Oedicephalini Heinrich, 1934. (= Noto-
nus: Oronotus Wesmael.
semini of Townes)
Stenodotina Schmiedeknecht, 1903: 262.
Type-genus: Stenodontus Berthoumieu. Oedicephalini Heinrich, 1934: 67, 118-119.
Heterischnini Townes et al, 1961: 337, 458. Type-genus: Oedicephalus Cresson.
Type-genus: Heterischnus Wesmael. Notosemini Townes et al, 1961: 338, 459.
Chauviniina Diller, 1981: 95, 98. Type-ge- Type-genus: Notosemus Forster.
nus: Chauinnia Heinrich. 12. Ichneumonini Latreille, 1802. (= Joppiniof
Dicaelodontina Diller, 1994: 126. Type-ge- Townes in part)
nus: Dicaelodontus Diller. (The following are incertae sedis within the
2. Platylabini Berthoumieu, 1904. (= Pristi- tribe, as the type genera were never for-
cerotini of Townes) mally assigned to a subtribeby Heinrich:
Platylabini Berthoumieu, 1904: 4. Type-ge- Joppinen Kriechbaumer, 1898: 2. Type-ge-
nus: Plati/labus Wesmael. nus: joppa Fabricius.
[PristaceratiniTownes&Townes, 1951: 280. Merolidini Brethes, 1909. Type-genus: Mer-
Not available under Article 13 of the olides Brethes. (The type and sole speci-
Code. Incorrect spelling.] men of Merolides arechavaletai Brethes is
Pristicerotini Townes et al, 1961: 393, 458. lost; Townes (1966; pers. comm.) placed
Type-genus: Pristiceros Gravenhorst. it in Joppini, near Limerodes.)
3. Eurylabini Heinrich, 1934. Tetragonochorini Heinrich, 1934: 64, 67.
Type-genus: Tetragonochora Kriechbau-
Eurnyulsa:bEiunriylHaebiunsriWceh,sm1a9e3l4.: 64-67. Type-ge- mer. (Townes (Townes & Townes, 1966)
placed this genus in his Joppini.)
4. Zimmeriini Heinrich, 1934.
a. Ichneumonina Latreille, 1802.
[Zimmerini Heinrich, 1934: 67. Type-genus:
{ZimmeriaHeinrich) = CotiheresiarchesTe- Ichneumonides Latreille, 1802: 318. Type-
lenga. Incorrectly formed stem.] genus: Ichneumon Linnaeus.
Zimmeriini Heinrich; Rasnitsyn & Siitan, [Pterocorminae Heinrich, 1949: 256. Not
1981: 510. Justified emendation. available under Article 13 of the Code.]
5. Ceratojoppini Heinrich, 1938. b. Gyrodontina Schmiedeknecht, 1902.
CeratojoppiniHeinrich, 1938: 25, 121.Type- Gyrodontini Schmiedeknecht, 1902: 9, 28.
genus: Ceratojoppa Cameron. Type-genus: Gyrodonta Cameron.
Volume 4, 1995 289
Cratichneumonina Heinrich, 1967: 27. ed the type species of Tragus Panzer in
Type-genus: Cratichneumon Thomson. his treatment of the genus and had the
same generic concept]
[c. Amblytelina Viereck, 1918.] [TrogusinaCarlson, 1979: 538. Illegal emen-
[Amblytelinae Viereck, 1918: 74. Type-ge- dation. Article 55(b) of the Code.]
nus: Amblyteles Wesmael. Amblytelina
based on Amhlyidcs Wesmael is a junior ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
homonym of Amblytelides Blackburn,
c1o8l9e2op(tBelraocuksburgne,nu1s892A:mb8h5/)t,eblaussedEroicnhstohne ikcnRhoownbleeeurdmtgoenCdia.drlWsfoeanm'wisilsygh-egntreoortuoshpiatnnykamtihneessfhoialsrliognwrgaitnhegifsuflolrliystthaeoci-fr
(Carabidae)] advice and comments: John Barron, Yves Bosquet,
[Amblytelesina Carlson, 1979: 507. Illegal TerryErwin,IanGauld,HenriGoulet,CD.Michener,
emendation. Article 55(b) of the Code.] CharlesPorter,AlexandrRasnitsyn,MichaelSharkey,
d. Hoplismenina Heinrich, 1967. G. Stuart Walley, and Robert Wharton.
Hoplismenina Heinrich, 1967: 26. Type-ge- LITERATURE CITED
nus: Hoplismenus Gravenhorst.
Anonymous, 1943. Theofficial recordoftheapprov-
e. Aethioplitina Heinrich, 1967. al by the Twelfth International Congress of Zo-
Aethioplitina Heinrich, 1967: 27. Type-ge- ologyofthereportsubmittedby the Internation-
nus: Acthioplites Heinrich. al Commission on Zoological Nomenclatureand
13. Joppocryptini Viereck, 1918. otfiontshesaudbompittitoend bbyytthheeCIonntgerrensatsioonfalthCeormemsiolsu--
Joppocryptinae Viereck, 1918: 73. Type-ge- sion. Bulletin ofZoological Nonieiiclaturc 1: 63.
nus: foppociyptus Viereck. Ashmead,W.H. 1900. OrderHymenoptera.InSmith,
Acanthojoppini Heinrich, 1934: 65, 67, 138. J.B. 1900. Insects ofNewJersey; a list ofthe species
Type-genus: {Acauthojoppa Cameron) = occurring in New Jersey, ivith notes on those ofeco-
EccopHosageKriechbaumer. Townes (1966) nomic importance. MacCrellish & Quigley, Tren-
placed this genus in his Joppini. ton. 755 pp.
Berthomieu, V. 1904. Fam. Ichneumonidae, subfam.
14. Heresiarchini Ashmead, 1900 (= Ichneu- Ichneumoninae. Genera Insectonim 18: 1-87.
monini of Townes; includes part of Trogini Blackburn, T. 1892. Notes on Australian Coleoptera,
of Heinrich). with descriptions of new species. Parts. X-XII.
a. Protichneumonina Heinrich, 1934. Proceedings of the Linnean Society of Neiv South
Wales (2) 7: 65-151.
Protichneumonini Heinrich, 1934: 66, 84. Brethes,J. 1909. HimenopterosnuevosdelasRepub-
Type-genus: Protichneumon Thomson. licas del Plata y del Brasil. Anales del Museo na-
b. Heresiarchina Ashmead, 1900. cionaldehistoria naturalde BuenosAires 19: 49-69.
Carlson, R.W. 1979. Family Ichneumonidae. In: K.V.
HeresiarchiniAshmead, 1900: 567. Type-ge- Krombein, P.D. Hurd, D.R. Smith, and B.D.
nus: Heresiarches Wesmael. Burke (eds.). Catalog ofHymenoptera in American
c. Apatetorina Heinrich, 1967. North of Mexico, vol. 1, Smithsonian Institution
Press, Washington, D.C. 1198 pp.
Apatetorina Heinrich, 1967: 26,50.Type-ge- Day, M.C. 1981. A revision of Pompilus Fabricius
nus: Apatetor Saussure. (Hymenoptera:Pompilidae)with furthernomen-
d. Callajoppina Heinrich, 1962. clatural and biological considerations. Bulletin of
the British Museum (Natural History) (Entomology)
Callajoppina Heinrich, 1962: 809-810. Type- 42(1): 1-42.
genus: Callajoppa Cameron. Diller, E. 1981. Bermerkungen zur Systematik der
[15. Trogini Forster, 1869.] Phaeogenini mit einem vorlaufigen Katalog
der Gattungen (Hymenoptera, Ichneumoni-
[Trnuosg:oiTdraaeguFsorPsatenrz,er1.86T9r:og1i4n4i, b18a8s.edTyopne-Tgrea-- Dillerd,aeE).. E1n9t94o.mofBaeusncahr2e:i9b3u-n1g1e1n. einer neuen Subtri-
gus Panzer is a junior homonym of Tro- bus, neuer Gattungen und Arten der Tribus
gidae MacLeay, 1819 (MacLeay, 1819: Phaeogenini (Insecta: Hymenoptera: Ichneumon-
136), based on the coleopterous genus idae: Phaeogenini). Annelen des Naturhistorischen
Trox Fabricius. Although Forster cites Museums in \Nien 96B: 125-136.
Tragus Gravenhorst, Gravenhorst includ- Fitton, M.G. & Gauld, l.D. 1976. The family-group
290 Journal of Hymenoptera Research
names ofthe Ichneumonidae (excluding Ichneu- clature to the Twelfth International Congress of
moninae) (Hymenoptera). Systematic Entomology Zoology, Lisbon,September1935. BulletinofZoo-
1: 247-258. logical Nomenclature 1: 53-69.
Fitton, M.G. & Gauld, I.D. 1978. Further notes on Hemming, M.F. 1945a. Opinion 159. Opinions and
family-group names of Ichneumonidae (Hyme- declarations rendered by the Interyiational Commis-
noptera). Systematic Entomology3: 245-247. sion on ZoologicalNomenclature2: 275-290.
Forster,A. 1869. Synopsis der Familien und Gattun- Hemming, M.F. 1945b. Plenary conference between
gen der Ichneumoniden. Verhandlungen des Na- thePresidentoftheInternationalCommissionon
turhistorischen Vereins der Preussischen Rheinlande Zoological Nomenclature and the Secretary to
und Westfalens 25: 135-221. the InternationalCommission. Bulletin ofZoolog-
Gauld, I.D. 1984. An introduction to theIchneumonidae ical Nomenclature 1: 70-86.
ofAustralia. British Museum (Natural History), Holmgren, A.E. 1889. Ichneumonides pneustici. Ich-
London. 413 pp. neumonologia Suecica 3: 343-466.
Gupta, V.K. 1987. The Ichneumonidae of the Indo- International Commission for Zoological Nomencla-
Australian Area (Hymenoptera). Memoirs of the ture. 1985. InternationalCodeofZoologicalNomen-
American Entomological Institute41: 1-1210. clature, Third Edition, Adopted by the XX General
Heinrich, G. 1934. Die Ichneumoninae von Celebes: AssemblyoftheInternationalUnionofBiologicalSci-
bearbeitet auf Grund der Ausbeute der Celebes- ences. International Trust for Zoological Nomen-
expedition G. Heinrich 1930-1932. Mitteilungen clature/University of California Press, London.
aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 20: 1-263. 338 pp.
Heinrich, G. 1938. Les Ichneumonides de Madagas- Kriechbaumer,J. 1898. BeitragzueinerMonographie
car. 3. Ichneumonidae-Ichneumoninae.Memoires derJoppinen,einerUnterfamiliederIchneumon-
de VAcademicMalgache 25: 1-138. iden. BerlinerentomologischeZeitschrift 43: 1-166.
Heinrich, G. 1949. (Hym. Ichneum.) Die Pterocor- Latreille,P.A. 1802. HistoireNaturelle, Generateetpar-
minae der Hahnheide. Bombus 60: 257-258. ticuliere, des Crustaces et des Insectes, Tome troisie-
Heinrich, G. 1960. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumon- me. Paris, 468 pp.
inaeStenopneusticaewith particularreferenceto MacLeay, W.S. 1819. Horaeentomologicae:oressayson
the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). I. Cana- theannuloseanimals 1(1): 1-524.
dian Entomologist Supplement 15: 1-87. Perkins,J.F. 1959. Ichneumonidae,keytosubfamilies
Heinrich, G. 1962. Synopsis of Nearctic Ichneumon- and Ichneumoninae 1. Handbook for the Identifi-
inaeStenopneusticaewithparticularreferenceto cation ofBritish Insects 7(2ai): 1-116.
the northeastern region (Hymenoptera). VI. Ca- Rasnitsyn, A.P. & Siitan, U.V. 1981. Ichneumoninae
nadian Entomologist Supplement 27: 677-802. [in Russian]. In D.R. Kasparyan (ed.), [A guide
Heinrich, G. 1967. Synopsis and reclassification ofthe to the identification of insects of the European
IclmeumoninaeStenopneusticaeofAfricasouthofthe part of the USSR. Vol. 3. Hymenoptera]. Opre-
Sahara (Hymenoptera). 1: 1-250. Farmington State delitelifaune SSSR, no. 129: 1-688. Nauka Press,
College Press, Maine. Moscow. 688 pp.
Heinrich, G. 1968. Burmesische Ichneumoninae IV. Schmiedeknecht, O. 1902. Opuscula Ichneumonologia
Entomologisk tidskrift 89: 77-106. 1(1): 1-80. Blankenburg i Thiiringen.
Heinrich,G. 1974. BurmesischeIchneumoninaeVIII. Schmiedeknecht, O. 1903. Opuscula Ichneumonologia
Annates Zoologici31: 407^57. 1(4): 241-320. Blankenburgi Thiiringen.
Heinrich, G. 1975. Burmesische Ichneumoninae X. Stiles, C.W. 1936. Notice of possible suspension of
Annates Zoologici 32: 441-514. rulesofnomenclatureincertaincases. Science83:
Heinrich, G. 1977. Ichneumoninae of Florida and 552-553.
neighboring states (Hymenoptera: Ichneumoni- Townes, H. 1944-1945. A catalogue and reclassifi-
dae, subfamily Ichneumoninae). Arthropwds of cationoftheNearcticIchneumonidae.Memoirsof
Florida and neigliboring landareas 9: 1-350. the American EntomologicalSociety 11(1-2): 1-925.
Hemming, M.F. 1943a. On the Lisbon decisions of Townes, H. 1957. The name Psammochares versus
the InternationalCommissionon ZoologicalNo- Pompilus. SystematicZoology6: 151-156.
menclature. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 1: Townes, H. 1969. ThegeneraofIchneumonidae,vol.
1-4. 1. Memoirs ofthe American Entomological Institute
Hemming, M.F. 1943b. The official record of pro- 11: 1-300.
ceedings of the International Commission on Townes, H., Momoi, S. & Townes, M. 1965. A cata-
Zoological Nomenclatureat theirsessionheld at logue and reclassification ofthe Eastern Palearc-
Lisbon in September 1935. Bulletin of Zoological tic Ichneumonidae. Memoirs ofthe American En-
Nomenclature 1: 5^9. tomological Institute5: 1-661.
Hemming, M.F. 1943c. The report submitted by the Townes, H. & Townes, M. 1951. Family Ichneumon-
InternationalCommissiononZoologicalNomen- idae. /;;: C.F.W. Muesebeck, K.V. Krombein &
Volume 4, 1995 291
—
H.K.To—wnes.HymenopteraofAmericaNorthof 1936 When it waspointed out that the requiredad-
Mexico synopticcatalog.AgricultureMonograph vance noticehad notbeen published regardingthe
2: 1-1420. proposed changes, the Commission published no-
Townes, H. & Townes, M. 1966. A catalogue and tices in 1936 that it would officially consider Brad-
reclassification of the Neotropic Ichneumonidae. ley—'s list at some future time.
Memoirs ofthe American Entomological Institute 8: 1939 Karl Jordan and Francis Hemming met and
1-367. made a decision between themselves. The au-
Townes, H. & Townes, M. 1973. A catalogue and thorityfortheiractionwasthatupon adjournment
reclasssificationofthe Ethiopian Ichneumonidae. of the Lisbon sessions, they were to "take such
MemoirsoftheAmerican EntomologicalInstitute 19: other action as might appear to them necessary or
1-416. expedient ... togiveeffecttothedecisionsreached
Townes, H. & Townes, M. 1981. A revision of the by the Commission at the Lisbon Session . . ."
Serphidae (Hymenoptera). Memoirs ofthe Ameri- (Hemming 1945a). "The direction upon adjourn-
can Entomological Institute32: 1-541. ment of the Lisbon meeting of the Commissioners
Townes, H., Townes, M. & Gupta, V.K. 1961. A cat- to Jordan and Hemming to put into effect the de-
alogueandreclassificationoftheIndo-Australian cisions of the meeting did not give Jordan and
Ichneumonidae. Memoirs of the American Ento- Hemming power to make the decisions ... "
mological Institute 1: 1-522. (T—ownes 1957).
Viereck,H.L. 1918. A listoffamiliesand subfamilies 1943 Following this, Bradley's proposals never
of Ichneumon-flies or the superfamily Ichneu- came up again for decision. Townes contacted
monoidea (Hymenoptera). Proceedings ofthe Bio- James L. Peters, the acting secretary at Lisbon and
logical SocietyofWashington 31: 69-74. asked whether any further action had been taken
on the Bradleynames. Petersreplied thattheques-
APPENDIX 1 tionoftheichneumonidnameshad neverbeencir-
culated. Furthermore, he stated that "no vote had
Townes' arguments regarding the invalidity of been taken on thesubjectofthesethreenames . . ."
Opinion 159 were put forth in Townes (1957, 1969); (Townes 1969).
hisversionoftherelevanteventsmaybesummarized
as follows from these two references except where TownesthusconcludedthattheCommissionnever
otherwise noted: took action. AccordingtoTownes,Hemming argued
— the requirements for suspending the Rules had been
1913 At the Monaco International Congress of Zo- met by: 1) a vote in 1935 before publication of the
ology, the Commission was delegated authorityto cases, 2) publication in 1936 that the cases would be
suspendthe Rulesand declareonvariouscases,on considered, 3) the fact that no Commissioner wrote
the authority of the Congress. him after 1936 with objections. Townes rejects these
Suspensionscouldbe madeonly underthefollow- arguments because: 1) the vote must be taken after
ing procedures: publication,2)only12CommissionerswereinLisbon
ab.. pNoTfehonetfsiivlveoeosntssepisteschoiauffnnidteoedhnerepuCcbyoolenmiasrcmi'aidstseirsnoaonittsoii.ncoenistihnautntawsnouicohmroaumssoursie-n aamernnesd,nat3co)tniulsaaywlfaotriretenaiqinuungenstauthnnesifooamlrcoitcuauiastlveovdmtoeetl.eeettFibtienynrgas,alllilwsyh,1ni8olTteCoowtthmnhemeeissrseasqnmuioeiotrneaed-s-
c. Iffavtohreovfotseusipsenasi%onm.ajority of the full Commis- itshtast, twhaesBcriardcluelyatpeedtiitnion1,92s8igannedd bisyn5o9thtyhmeensoapmteera-s
Cstihooenng,Crobemusmtsins(oswthiueonrnaenmsiupmseotcuirsfei,peodirnatfrtabhivetorrfaatociftossnutwsopoteuhnelsdinoebnxe,t aTthrhaeTethtitphsyrepeeras-seescnspoteuaecnmditeeiisnnrgfe,1oc9roh3g5oIn,cwileezuvxweecidrnenp,botyno,iTmnioEptwthshnieeaclsctr.aeussc,eiaalonfdiCnrfPii/opmrtpmulasa-.
made.)
— tion. While the Monaco Congress listed the condi-
1935 J.C. Bradley presented a list of generic names tions underwhich the Rules could ordinarilybe sus-
at the Commission meeting in Lisbon, requesting pended. Secretary C.W. Stiles {Compte Rendu 1913:
suspension of the Rules in these cases. Bradley re- 892-893) pointed out the following: "Upon a unani-
quested new type-species designations for Ichneu- mous vote, "By-Laws" may be temporarily
mon, Pimpla, and Ephialtes. Six out of 18 Commis- "suspended", that is to say, they may be set aside
sioners attended the Lisbon meeting and six tem- and the bodv takes action on the matter under con-
porary Commissionerswere appointed. Ten outof sideration unrestricted by the provisions of the By-
12 were present when the Bradley proposal was Laws; and such action, if taken under a "Special
presented and approved. No notice of intention to Rule" framed for the case at hand or without refer-
consider these names had been published in ad- ence to any rules, except the "Constitution" and rec-
vance of the Lisbon meeting. ognized "Parliamentary Rules", has all the validity
292 Journal of Hymenoptera Research
ofan action taken underthe "By-Laws". Thus, ifthe mentionthattheCommissionsuspendeditsBy-laws,
Congress confers upon the Commission the plenary as provided by parliamentaryprocedures.
power to suspend the Regies in any given case, it At the Commission's third session, it agreed "un-
practicallysays totheCommission: "Ifyou carryout dersuspensionoftheRules" tosetasidecurrenttype
theprecautionsprovidedforin theSupplementalRe- designations for the names on the Bradley list and
port,youmaydecideanygivencasearbitrarilywith- declarenewones.Forichneumonids,theCommission
out referencetothe Regiesoryou may makea "Spe- agreed to reject EpMaltes Schrank 1802 and to desig-
cial Rule" to govern that particular case, and this nate the following type species:
Congress will accept your decision as being just as Ichneumon L.: Iclmeumon extensorius L.
authoritative as if you had made this ruling strictly Pimpla Fabricius: Ichneumon instigator Fabricius
inaccordwiththeCode." A planofthiskind is thor- Epiiialtes Gravenhorst: Ichneumon manifestor L.
oughly in accordwithrecognized parliamentarycus- The Commission "came to the conclusion that the
toms and ithas the great advantage of avoiding the more radical of the proposals submitted by the
necessity of introducing "ExcepHons" to the Rules." [ICEN] provided themostsatisfactorysolutionofthe
This is the background against which the events of difficultiespresentedbythepresentcase."(Hemming
1935 occurred. 1945a: 282). Townes neglected to mention the ICEN
Contrary to Townes' statement, Bradley's petition involvement and chose to portray the Commission
of 1935 was the same as that circulated in 1928. It decisions as part ofan illegal and arbitrary process.
was presented to the International Committee of En- The Commission's fifth meeting on 18 Sept. 1935
tomological Nomenclature (ICEN) in Madrid in the saw 11 of the 12 Commissioners present; it was
week preceding the opening of the Twelfth Interna- agreedthatPresidentJordan "andthenewSecretary,
tional Congress of Zoology in Lisbon (Hemming whenelected,shouldbeauthorized tomakesuch ar-
1943a). Thepetitionwasconsideredand a numberof rangements, and to take such actions, as might ap-
proposals were made by the ICEN concerning reso- pear to them necessaryor expedient . . ." and "to se-
lution ofthe problems (Hemming 1945a: 282). curetheduepublicationoftheOpinionsagreedupon
The ICEN's recommendations for this and other from time to timeby theCommissionattheir Lisbon
cases were laid before the Commission at its second Session."(Hemming1943b:48).TheCommissionalso
meeting on 16 Sept. 1935. Because it had not been unanimously agreed to adopt as their report to the
possiblefortheCommissiontomeetpriortotheCon- Congress the draft prepared by Hemming (ibid., p.
gress, there were only 7}/i days to discuss the cases 47). This report (Hemming 1943c), which duly noted
and prepare a report to the Congress. PresidentJor- the suspension of the By-laws, was approved by the
dan felt it best to take the pending cases into imme- Congress (Anonymous, 1943).
diateconsiderationand"forthispurposesuspendthe Noticeofthepossible suspensionofthe Ruleswas
By-laws of the Commission to such extent as might published in May 1936 (Stiles 1936). Except for
be necessary for theperiod ofthe presentCongress." Townes' allegation, there is no evidence that the ad-
(Hemming 1943b: 10-11). At that meeting, 10 out of vertisementwas published at the urging ofscientists
11 Commissioners present in Lisbon were in atten- concerned that no published notices had been made
dance; Walter Arndt, an alternate, did not attend the prior to the Lisbon sessions. It was done on the au-
fiveCommissionmeetingsand TeisoEsaki waselect- thority of the Commission operating under the sus-
ed to the Commission at this particular session. The pension of the By-laws.
attending Commissioners passed the usual parlia- After the 1936 advertisement, one communication
mentary unanimous consent to suspend the By-laws was received regarding the ichneumonid names. It
(note this was not an emendaiion of the By-Laws, bore thesignatureofS.A. Rohwerin thename ofthe
which wouldhave required an affirmativevoteof12 Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
members (ICZNBy-laws,ArticleVIII,Sect. I)). Itwas Society of Washington (Hemming 1945a). The letter
agreed to give immediate consideration to all sub- was against the proposed new type-species; append-
mitted cases that it was felt had reached the stage at ed to the letter was a note of dissent, in favor of the
whichadecisioncouldbemade.Togiveeffecttothis, proposed nomina conservanda, by R.A. Cushman, one
use would be made of the By-law suspension that oftheprominent ichneumonologistsof the day.
had just been agreed upon. Since this involved vio- Copies of the letter were immediately sent to the
lating the normal procedures for "suspension of the otherCommissionersbutno memberexpressed him-
Regies" in thattheprescribedadvertisementhad not selfasagreeingwiththeRohwerpointofview (ibid.,
beenpublishedoneyearpreviously,thevariouscases p. 286). Jordan and Hemming met on 19 June 1939
and theCommission'sdecisionswouldbeadvertised under the authorityofthe Resolutionadopted by the
as soon as possibleaftertheconclusionofthe Lisbon Commission on 18 Sept. 1935 (Hemming 1945b).
meetings and no Opinions would be published until TheytooknotethatnoCommissionerhadresponded
after one year from the date of the advertisement's to the Rohwer communication. In their opinion, no
dispatch. Nowhere does Townes, in his recounting. newfactshadbeenbroughtforththatwerenotbefore
Volume4, 1995 293
the Commission in 1935. Given this, they "decided Pimplini (= Ephialtini ofTownes)
the proper course . . . was to give effect to the deci- ICZN name Townes name
CsioomnmsisinsiothnisatmatthteeLrisrbeoanchSeedssiboyn t.h.e. aInndtetrhnearteifonoarle Apc1c8h6t9his Forster, Ephmltes Schrank, 1802
that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible."
(Hemming 1945a: 287). The resulting Opinion 159 (type-species: Ich- (type-species:Ichneumon
was published in 1945 (ibid.). neumon rufatus compunctorL.)
Townes was preparing to publish a catalog ofNe- L.)
arctic Ichneumonidae (Townes 1944-1945) when he Piitipla Fabricius, Coccygominnis Saussure,
wrote to Peters in 1943. He took Peters' advice and 1804 1892
used names based on priority; they both apparently (type-species: Ich- (type-species: Coccygomi-
expected the matter to be voted on by the Commis- neumon instiga- mus madecassus Saus-
sion, with the outcome uncertain. Jordan and Hem- tor L.) sure)
ming,however,weregiven theauthoritytomakede- Ichneumoninae
cisionsby virtueoftheCommissionactingunder the Ichneumonini (= Joppini ofTownes)
valid suspension of the By-laws. Townes' objections ICZN name Townes name
toHemming'slistingoftheusualproceduresforsus-
pending the Rules (i.e., one year's notice of suspen- Icluu'uinoti L., 1758 Pterocormus Forster,
sion in two or more of five journals, etc) are irrele- 1850
vant. Hemming apparently used these stock phrases (type-species: Ich- (type-species: Ichneumon
as boilerplate. neumon extenso- latrator Fabricius)
At this point, the reader might wonder why such rius L.)
effort has been spent on an arcane issue. From our Heresiarchini (= Ichneumonini ofTownes, Proti-
viewpointsas ichneumonologists,itisimportantthat chneumonini of Heinrich)
Townes' arguments be put to rest in order to attain ICZN name Townes name
a stable ichneumonid nomenclature. Outside Ichneu-
monidae, there always remains the possibility that Coelichneumon Ichneumon L., 1758
Thomson, 1893
someone will read Townes' version of events and
raise havoc in groups that heretofore have attained (type-species: Ich- (type-species: Ichneumon
relative nomenclatural stability. neumon comita- comitator L.)
In summary, rejectionofTownes' argumentsgives tor L.)
the following generic names:
Pimplinae
Ephialtini (= Pimplini ofTownes)
ICZN name Townes name
Epliialtes Graven- Piuipla Fabricius, 1804
horst, 1829
(type-species: Ich- (type-species: Ichneumon
neumon
manifes- manifestor L.)
tor L.)