Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 275 Case 3093 NEMONYCHiDAE Bedel, November 1882 (Insecta, Coleoptera): proposed precedence over cimberididae Gozis, March 1882, and Cimberis Gozis, 1881: proposed conservation of usage Christopher H.C. Lyal Department ofEntomology, The Natural History Museum, Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: [email protected]) M.A. Alonso-Zarazaga Depto. de Biodiversidady Biologia Evolutiva. Museo Nacional de Ciencias Maturates (CSIC), Jose Gutierrez Abascal 2, E-28006 Madrid, Spain (e-mail: [email protected]) Abstract. The purpose of this application, under Article 23.9.3 of the Code, is to conservethe usageoftheweevil(curculionoidea) family name nemonychidae Bedel, 1882 (November) by giving it precedence over the senior name cimberididae Gozis, 1882 (March). In addition, it is proposed that current usage of the generic name Cimberis Gozis, 1881 is conserved by validating Kuschel's (1959) designation of Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as its type species. Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; curculionidae; nemonychidae; cimberididae; Cimberis; Nenwnyx; Rhinomacer attelaboides; Rhinomacer lepturoides. 1. The generic name Rhinomacer Geoflfroy, 1762 has been variously applied to species of two unrelated families of Coleoptera, causing grave confusion. Deter- mining the correct application of Rhinomacer is a necessary prerequisite to dealing with the family-group names involved. The genus Rhinomacer was described by Geoffrey, 1762 (p. 269). He included eleven species that were described but, since the work was not binominal these were not given single specific names. In one case, he included a reference to a binomen, Attelabus coryli Linnaeus, 1758, but as he did not cite this name, the species is unavailable as type species. Gozis (1881, p. cxii) designated 'Rhinomacer violaceus Scopoli (= betuli Fabricius)' as type species but, again, as neither name was cited by Geoffroy, they cannot be used. Geoffrey's work was suppressed for all nomenclatural purposes (Opinion 228, 1954) but, following a later examination of generic names (Kerzhner, 1991), Rhinomacer Geoffroy 1762 was placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology (Opinion 1754, 1994), being suppressed for priority but not for homonymy. 2. A use of Rhinomacer Geoffroy is to be found in Miiller (1764, p. xiii), with no species included. Kerzhner (1991, p. 124) considered Rhinomacer Geoffroy in Miiller to be available from this publication, but not with the type species designated by Gozis (1881, p. cxii), since neither name given by Gozis was included. Later, Miiller 276 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 (1776, p. 90) included 15 available species by name. One ofthese, Rhinomacer coryli Miiller. 1776 (ajunior synonym of Ciirciilio nitens Scopoli, 1763). was designated as type species by Silfverberg (1978, p. 118). Since Ciirciilio nitens Scopoli is the valid name ofthe type species ofAttelabus Linnaeus, 1758, RJiinomacer Miiller. 1776 (not Geoffroy) is a subjective synonym of Attelabus Linnaeus. 1758. Kerzhner (1991, p. 124) believed this designation to be invalid, since Rhinomacer coryli Miiller is not a nominal species but a misidentification of Attelabus coryli Linnaeus, 1758. However, taking this as a deliberate use of a misidentification under the Code (see Articles 69.2.4 and 70.4.2) Silfverberg's reasoning can be accepted. Miiller (1776) made no reference to earlier uses ofthe name, and it cannot be assumed that he was referring to Rhinomacer Geoffroy. Even if he was, since Rhinomacer Geoffroy is suppressed for the Principle of Priority, it cannot take precedence over Rhinomacer Miiller, although the latter name is preoccupied by RJiinomacer Geoffroy. 3. Fabricius (1781, p. 199) described a new genus Rhinomacer, including a single species, Rhinomacer ciirculioides Fabricius, 1781, which is the type species by monotypy. No reference was made to earlier uses of the name, and it cannot be assumed that he was referring to Rhinomacer Geoffroy or Rhinomacer Miiller. Fabricius's genus is a junior homonym of Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762. and is currently a synonym of Mycterus Clairville, 1798 in the family \ncTERiDAE Blanchard, 1845. 4. Fabricius (1787, p. 123) added a second speciestohisgenus Rhinomacer, namely R. attelaboides Fabricius, 1787. Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1787 is a redescription of Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781. Fabricius subsequently (1801, p. 429) described a third species, Rhinomacer lepturoides Fabricius (now in Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 (p. 96), where it is type species by monotypy on p. 152). A fourth species, Rhinomacer variiis Fabricius (1798, p. 164) has not been mentioned by other authors, and is incertae sedis; it will not be mentioned again in this paper. 5. Olivier (1807, pp. 450, 457) placed Rhinomacer ciirculioides Fabricius (the type species of Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781) in the genus Mycterus. He noted that the genus originally included only the mycterid, but that Fabricius had subsequently included two non-congeneric species (both are now recognised as nemonychidae Bedel. 1882 (p. 3). Olivier chose to use the name RInnomacer (Olivier. 1807, p. 459) exclusively for the two nemonychid species Rinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 (p. 123) and Rhinomacer lepturoides Fabricius, 1801 (p. 429). Olivier thus mis- identified Fabricius'sgenus, sincethereisnoclearevidence that hewascreatinga new genus. 6. In 1823 (col. 1136), Schoenherr designated the nominal species Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787 as the type species for 'Rhinomacer Fabr. Oliv.". He also created the family name rhinomacerides, used by later authors for a genus Rhinomacer including R. attelaboides but not R. curculioides. It is evident that Schoenherr was using Olivier's concept ofthe genus, not that ofFabricius. Shuckard (1840, p. 53) used 'rhinomaceridae Shuck.' for Rhinomacer Fabricius (containing attelaboides). Schoenherr's use was followed by Thomson (1859, p. 127), who changed the family name ending to rhinomacerina, cited Geoffroy as author of the genus, and stated the type species to be R. attelaboides. The family name rhinomacerides Schoenherr, 1823 is unavailable, beingbased on a misidentified type genus. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 277 7. In a general discussion of the different genera named Rhinomacer and of Fabricius's muddling nomenclatural procedures. Gozis (1881, p. cxii) proposed the new genericname Cmiberisto replace RhmoiiuicerofFabricius, 1787, not mentioning Olivier. No species is strictly mentioned in his treatment in connection with Cimheris, although he noted Fabricius's (1787) inclusion of R. attelaboides in Rhinomacer. Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1787 is nomenclaturally identical with Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781. Therefore, Cimberis is a junior synonym of Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781 and should beincluded in the synonymy oiMycterusClairville, 1798 in mycteridae as an unnecessary replacement name. However, it has neverbeen used in this sense, always being considered a member ofthe cimberididae or nemonychidae. 8. The family name cimberidae (correctly cimberididae; see Kuschel, 1959) was proposed by Gozis (1882, p. 58) as a replacement name for rhinomaceridae of authors. Strictly speaking, this name is a synonym ofmycteridae Blanchard, 1845. However, it has been used in curculionoidea either as a subfamily ofnemonychidae or as a family ofits own, usually wrongly attributed to Bradley (1930, p. 261), which isjust a later use. 9. The family-group name rhinomacerini continued to be used for a group including Nemonyx (e.g. Voss, 1931, p. 162), and Rhinomacer for a genus including attelaboides (e.g. Voss, 1932, p. 12). Anderson (1947, p. 515), followed by Hatch (1971, p. 335), correctly pointed out that Rhinomacer Fabricius, 1781 was a pythid (mycterid), but incorrectly retained Cimberis and cimberidae. 10. O'Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 18) correctly identified Cimberis Gozis, 1881 as a pythid (presently mycteridae), following the logic expressed in paragraph 6 above. O'Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 18) proposed the new name Neocimberis as a replacement name for the concept of Cimberis sensu auctt. in nemonychidae and designated as type species Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787. However, Neocimberis is unavailable since, although replacement names can be proposed for available homonymic names, misidentified genera must be described as new and satisfy the provisions ofArticle 13 ofthe Code. Cimberis auctt. is a misidentification, andNeocimberisO'Brien & Wibmer lacks a description(Article 13.1.1) ora reference to such (Article 13.1.2). O'Brien & Wibmer (1982, p. 18) replaced cimberini and rhinomacerini with the new name neocimberini. This is also unavailable, since its type genus is unavailable. 11. Kuschel (1959, p. 234) cited as type species for Cimberis Gozis the nominal species Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787. Later, he (1989, pp. 132-133) suggested that (1) Rhinomacer Olivier, 1807 was, as a deliberate change from Fabricius's concept, nomenclaturally distinct, and applicable only to nemonychid weevils; (2) Cimberis Gozis had been proposed specifically and only for Rhinomacer attelaboides. Kuschel (1989) concludes: 'as a result, the author of Rhinomacer auctorum, or ofauthors, or of Fabricius, 1787 is a matter ofcourse Olivier (1807). The name Cimberis is legitimate and valid for the nemonychid genus because it was proposed to replace Rhinomacer 'Fabricius 1787', which equals 'of authors', which equals Olivier, 1807, and because ofa direct reference to R. attelaboides Fabricius.' This conclusion contravenes the Code dispositions, as shown above. 12. As shown in theprevious paragraphs, RhinomacerattelaboidesFabricius, 1787, a member of nemonychidae or cimberididae, is not included in any valid genus. Despite O'Brien & Wibmer's actions, the genus name used almost exclusively since 278 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 Gozis (1881) is Cimberisand changing this situation would be against the stability of nomenclature. Cimberis has never been related to pythidae (mycteridae) other than in O'Brien & Wibmer (1982). 13. The family name cimberididae Gozis, 1882 was published on the 1st March while nemonychidae Bedel, 1882 was published in November (to be dated on the 30th). If our proposal to conserve Cimberis Gozis in its current sense is accepted, cimberididae would have precedence over nemonychidae. This procedure would upset the current nomenclature and so we propose that nemonychidae should be given precedence over cimberididae. The family has been revised world- wide by Kuschel (1954. 1959, 1989, 1993, 1994) and he has used the name nemonychidae. 14. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature is accordingly asked: (1) to use its plenary power: (a) to rule that thefamily-group name nemonychidae Bedel, 1882 (November) and other family-group names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher. 1845 are to be given precedence over cimberididae Gozis, 1882 (March) and other family-group names based on Cimberis Gozis, 1881 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) to set aside all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Cimberis Gozis, 1881 prior to the designation made by Kuschel (1959) of Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787; (2) to place on the Official List ofGenericNames in Zoology the following names: (a) Cimberis Gozis, 1881 (gender: feminine), type species by subsequent designation by Kuschel (1959) Rhinomacer attelaboides Fabricius, 1787; (b) Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 (gender: masculine), type species by monotypy Rhinomacer leptiiroides Fabricius, 1801; (3) to place onthe Official List ofSpecific Names inZoologythe followingnames: (a) attelaboides Fabricius, 1787, as published in the binomen Rhinomacer attelaboides (specific name of the type species of Cimberis Gozis. 1881); (b) leptiiroides Fabricius, 1801, as published in the binomen Rhinomacer lepturoides (specific name of the type species of Nemonyx Redtenbacher. 1845); (4) to place on the Official List ofFamily-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) cimberididae Gozis, 1882, type genus Cimberis Gozis, 1881, with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Cimberis are not to be given priority over nemonychidae Bedel, 1882 and other family-group names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (b) nemonychidae Bedel, 1882, type genus Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845, with the endorsement that it and other family-group names based on Nemonyx Redtenbacher, 1845 are to be given precedence over cimberididae Gozis. 1882 and other family-group names based on Cimberis Gozis. 1881 whenever their type genera are placed in the same family-group taxon; (5) to place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology the following names: Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 60(4) December 2003 279 (a) Rhinomacer Fabricius. 1781 (a junior homonym of Rhinomacer Geoffroy, 1762); (b) Neocimberis O'Brien & Wibmer, 1982 (a nomen nudum); (6) to place on the Official Index ofRejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology the following names: (a) RHiNOMACERiDES Schocnhcrr, 1823 (based on a misidentified type genus); (b) ciMBERiDAE Gozis, 1882 (an original incorrect spelling for cimberididae). Acknowledgement We are very grateful for the assistance and advice ofMr Richard Thompson, The Natural History Museum, London. References Anderson, W.H. 1947. Larvae of some genera of Anthribidae. Annals ofthe Entomological Society ofAmerica. 40: 489-517. Bedel, L. 1882, Faune des Coleopteres du Bassin de la Seine, vol. 6. Rhynchophora. Annates de la Societe entomologiqiie de France. (6)2(3). Publication Hors Serie: 1-16. Bradley, J.C. 1930. The names ofcertain Rhynchophora. Bulletin ofthe Brookhn Entomo- logical Society. 25(5): 259-262. Fabricius, J.C. 1781. Species insectoruin exhibentes eoriim dijferentias specificas. synonyina auctorum. locanatalia. metamorphosinadiectisobservationibus, descriptionibus, vol. 1. viii, 552 pp. Hamburgii et Kilonii. Bohn. Fabricius, J.C. 1787. Mantissa insectorum sistens eorum species niiper detectas adiectis cluiracteribus genericis. differentiis specificis. emendationibus. observationibus. vol. 1. xx, 348 pp. Proft, Hafniae. Fabricius, J.C. 1798. Supplementum Entomologiae Systematicae. 511 pp. Proft et Storch, Hafniae. Fabricius, J.C. 1801. Systema eleutheratorum secundum ordines, genera, species: adiectis synonimis, locis, observationibus, descriptionibus. vol. 2. 687 pp. Bibliopoli Academici Novi, Kiliae. Geoffroy, E.L. 1762. Histoire abregee des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris; dans lacjuellecesanimanxsontrangessuivantuiiordremethodique. vol. 1. xxviii, 523 pp., 10pis. Durand. Paris. Gozis,M.des. 1881. Quelquesrectificationssynonymiquestouchantdifferentsgenresetespeces de Coleopteres fran^ais (Ire partie). Annates de ta Societe entomotogique de France. (6)l(3)(Bulletin): cxii-cxiii. Gozis, M. des. 1882. Synopsis du genre Tropideres Schoenherr et description d'une espece nouvelle. Feuille des Jeunes Naturalistes, 12(137): 58-59. Hatch,M.H. 1971. ThebeetlesofthePacificNorthwest. UniversityofWashingtonPublications in Biology. 16: i-xiv, 1-662. Kerzhner, I.M. 1991. Histoire abregee des insectes qui se trouvent aux environs de Paris (Geoffroy, 1762): proposed conservation ofsome generic names (Crustacea and Insecta). Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature. 48(2): 107-134. Kuschel, G. 1954. La familia Nemonychidae en la region neotropical. Revisia Chilena de Historia Natural. 54: 97-126. Kuschel, G. 1959. Nemonychidae. Belidae y Oxycorynidae de la fauna chilena. con algunas consideraciones biogeograficas. Investigaciones Zoologicas Chilenas. 5: 229-271. Kuschel, G. 1989. The Nearctic Nemonychidae (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Eutomologica Scandinavica. 20: 121-171. Kuschel, G. 1993. The PalaearcticNemonychidae (Coleoptera: Curculionoidea). Annates de la Societe entomotogique de France, (n.s.)29(l): 23^6. Kuschel, G. 1994. Nemonychidae of Australia, New Guinea and New Caledonia. /;; Zimmerman, E.C. (Ed.), Australian Weevils. 1: 563-637. 280 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 60(4) December2003 Miiller, O.F. 1764. Fauna Insectonim Fhdrichsdalina, sivemethodicadescriptio insectorumagri fridrichsdalensis. cum charactehbus genericis et specificis. nominihus irivialihus. locis natalibus. iconibus allegatis. novisque pluribus speciebus addiiis. xxiv. 96 pp. lo. Findr. Gleditschii. Hafniae et Lipsiae. Miiller, O.F. 1776. Zoologia Danicae prodromus. seu animalium Daniae et Norvegiae indige- narum characteres. nomina, et syimtmna imprimis popidarium. 32. 282 pp. Hallager. Hafniae. O'Brien, C.W. & VVibmer, G.J. 1982. Annotated checklist ofthe weevils (Curculionidae sensu lato) ofNorthAmerica, Central America, and the West Indies (Coleoptera: Curculionoi- dea). Memoirs ofthe American Entomological Institute, 34: i-i.\. 1-382. Olivier, A.G. 1807. Entoinologie. ou Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. avec leurs caracieres generiques et specifiques. lew description, lew synotmnie, et leiir figure enliiminee. Coleopteres, vol. 5. 612 pp. Desray. Paris. Schoenherr, C.J. 1823. Curculionides [Tabula synoptica famihae Curculionidum]. Isis von Oken. 1823(10): cols. 1132-1146. Shuckard,W.E. 1840. TheBritish Coleopteradelineatedconsistingoffiguresofallthegeneraof British Beetles drawn in outline by W. Spry, M.E.S. vii, 83 pp.. 8 pis. Bohn. London. Silfverberg, H. 1978. The coleopteran genera of Miiller 1764. Notulae Entomologicae. 58: 117-119. Thomson, C.G. 1859. Skandinaxiens Coleoptera. synoptiskt bearbetade. vol. 1. 10. 290 pp. Berlingska Boktryckeriet. Lund. Voss,E. 1931. MonographicderRhynchitinen-TribusRhinomaceriniund Rhinorhynchini. II. Teil der Monoaraphie der Rh\nchitinae-Pterocohnae. Entomologische Blatter. 27(4): 162-167. Voss,E. 1932. MonographicderRhynchitinen-TribusRhinomaceriniundRhinorhynchini. II. Teil der Monographie der Rhynchitinae-Pterocolinae. Entomologische Blatter, 28(1): Acknowledgement ofreceipt ofthis application was published in BZN 55: 137. Comments on this case are invited for publication (subject to editing) in the Bulletin: they should be sent to the Executive Secretary. I.C.Z.N., c/o The Natural History Museum. Cromwell Road, London SW7 5BD, U.K. (e-mail: iczn(^nhm.ac.ukj.