Table Of ContentBulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(2)June1991 147
(l)(b). Thereisno such nameas PtinusGeoffroy, 1762. ThenamePtilinusappears
on p. 64 of Geoffroy (1762). This is not, as suggested by Thompson, an 'incorrect
original spelling' ofPtinus sensu Linnaeus. 1767, but is an entirely different nominal
genuswhichisconsideredindetailby Kerzhner(BZN48: 123). Ptilinusisplacedinthe
familyanobiidae.
(l)(c). Aspointed out by Borowiec(BZN45: 194, para. 4)and Gentry in hercom-
mentabove,MylahrissensuGeoffroy(1762)isaseniorsynonymofBruchusLinnaeus,
1767.whereasMylahrisFabricius, 1775(typespeciesMeloecichoriiLinnaeus, 1758by
Latreille's(1810)designation)isinthemeloidae. Itwouldbetaxonomicallyconfusing
toattributethemeloid(oilbeetle)genericnametoGeoffroy.
(2)and(3). DrawbackstotheseproposalsbyThompsonareimplicitintheabove.
(4). Asmentionedabove, PtilinusGeoffroy, 1762isnotanincorrectspellingofthe
namePtinus.TheconservationofthenamesBruchusLinnaeus, 1767,PtinusLinnaeus,
1767andMylahrisFabricius, 1775,threatenedbyseniorsynonymsand/orhomonyms
which first appeared in Geoffroy (1762). has been proposed by Borowiec (BZN 45:
194-196); this course has been supported by Kerzhner (BZN 48: 107-134) and by
Kerzhner&Kirejtshukintheircommentabove.DrBorowiec'sobjectiveofconserving
long-establishedusagecanbeachieved,andprotracteddiscussionofthefirstavailable
authorshipofthenamesBruchusandMylahrisinanothertaxonomicsensebeavoided,
bysubstitutingthefollowingforproposals(1)and(5)on BZN45: 195.
TheInternationalCommissiononZoologicalNomenclatureisasked:
(1) to use its plenary powers to suppress the following generic names for the
purposesofboththePrincipleofPriorityandthePrincipleofHomonymy:
(a) BruchusGeoffroy in Miiller. 1764andall uses ofthename Bruchuspriorto
thepublicationofBruchusLinnaeus. 1767;
(b) MylahrisGeoffroyinMiiller. 1764andallusesofthenameMylahrispriorto
thepublicationofMylahrisFabricius, 1775;
(5) toplaceontheOfficialIndexofRejectedandInvaHdGenericNamesinZoology
thefollowingnames:
(a) BruchusGeoffroyinMiiller. 1764.assuppressedin(l)(a)above;
(b) MylahrisGeoffroyinMiiller, 1764,assuppressedin(l)(b)above.
Commentsontheneedforstabilityinfishfamily-groupnames
(SeeBZN47: 97-100, 138)
(1) J.S.Nelson
DepartmentofZoology, FacultyofScience, University ofAlherta, Edmonton, Canada
T6G2E9
IfullyagreewithAlwyneWheeler'scomments.Hemadeastrongcaseandpresented
itwell.
In preparing my new edition (1984) ofFishes ofthe worldit was not originally my
intentionto followSteyskal (1980)but, seeingin theimmediatelyprecedingfewyears
certain colleagues following his recommendations, I reluctantly (and regrettably)
1
148 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(2)June1991
accepted most ofhischanges. I wrote a paragraph on my reluctance and a listing of
thosechangesnotaccepted(1984,Preface,p.viii).
IconsiderthatWheelerhasdoneavaluableserviceinpresentinghisviews.
Additionalreference
Nelson,J.S. 1984.Fishesoftheworld,Ed.2.xv,523pp.Wiley&Sons,NewYork.
(2) P.J. Miller
DepartmentofZoology, The University,BristolBS8lUG,England, U.K.
I should like to express my strong support for Alwyne Wheeler's views on this
matter. The situation described by Wheeler, resulting from the strict application of
Latin grammar by Steyskal (1980). is absolutely ridiculous, and quite out ofkeeping
with the Code's main aim of stability in nomenclature. There should be a blanket
decisionbytheCommission,rejectingallthechangesmadebySteyskal.
CommentontheproposedprecedenceofhomalopteridaeBleeker, 1859over
BALiTORiDAESwalnsop, 1839(Osteichthyes,Cypriniformes)
(Case2703;seeBZN47: 277-279)
PeterK.L.Ng& KelvinK.P. Lim
Department ofZoology, National University ofSingapore, Lower Kent Ridge Road,
Singapore051
WedonotagreewithHieronimus'sproposaltogivehomalopteridaeBleeker, 1859
precedence over balitoridae Swainson, 1839. We do not believe that changing the
namefromhomalopteridaetobalitoridaewillcauseanyconfusionamongscientists
andseriouslydoubtitsimpactinpopularcircles.
Hieronimus (para. 3) states that 'Kottelat (1988, p. 489) himselfadmits that the
replacement ofhomalopteridae by balitoridae creates additional confusion in the
suborderCobitoidei. IcannotfollowKottelatinhisopinionthatanimmediateintro-
ductionofthefamily-groupnamebalitoridae,whichhadbeenoverlookedforabout
150years,wouldhelptocreateastablenomenclature'.Thisiserroneousandmislead-
ing. Kottelat actuallywrote: 'Consideringrecentandexpectedchangesin systematics
andnomenclaturein Cobitoidei... replacementofhomalopteridaewithbalitoridae
shouldnotcreatemuchadditionalconfusion.Conservationofhomalopteridaewould
be possible only by use ofthe plenary powers by the International Commission on
ZoologicalNomenclature. Thiswould require a longprocedureand thus, immediate
introductionofthevalidnamebetterhelpstocreateastablenomenclature'. Kottelat's
rationale behind not applying to the Commission was precisely to avoid the nomen-
claturalproblemsthefamilynameofthetorrentloachesnowfaces: whetheritistobe
balitoridae according to the Principle of Priority, or homalopteridae following
Article 79. Hieronimus appears to have misunderstood Kottelat's action and a
problem faced by all taxonomists engaged in revisionary studies. Ifthe intention is
