. BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 221 CommentontheproposedconfirmationofunavailabilityofthenameFususHelbling, 1779(Mollusca,Gastropoda) (Case2729;see BZN48: 92-96,244-246;49: 68-70) Richard E. Petit P.O. Box30. NorthMyrtleBeach,South Carolina29582, U.S.A. DruidWilson 859EastOsceolaAvenue,Lake Wales,Florida33853, U.S.A. Wewishto replytopublishedcommentsopposingourapplicationfortherejection ofFi/5W5Helbling, 1779. Holthuis(BZN48: 244-245)comments thatall ourargumentsare basedon specu- lations about Helbling's concepts and also quoted Hemming's statement about '...intermediatetermsidenticalincharacterwiththosewhichitisnowaskedshouldbe rejected...'. Iftermswhichare'identicalincharacter'canberecognized,whycannota termnoteven'identicalincharacter'bemoreeasilyrecognized? Yokes (BZN 48: 245-246) attempts to discredit our application by reference to CommissionactionsuppressingXancus[Roding], 1798infavorofthelater Turbinella Lamarck, 1799, an action opposed by all malacologists who wrote a comment. However,Yokesquoted Keen's 1957statement aboutthe'supposedlyfirmgroundof priority'. Itisthisfirmgroundthatweareseekinginthisapplication. Yokes also made the statement that 'every relevant work published in the last 60 years has used Fusinus...\ ignoring references in paragraphs 14 and 15 of our application. WeparticularlyobjecttothestatementmadebyBeu,Marshall&Ponder(BZN49: 68-70) that since 1906 '... the usage ofFusinus in this sense has become the normal, thoroughly accepted practice by 100% ofmalacologists and paleontologists'. This is contrarytoreferencesgiveninparagraphs 14and 15oftheapplicationandadditional usagesofFususBruguiere. 1789asavalidnamecanbeeasilylocated.Asearchofonlya fewminuteslocated suchusagebyNickles(1950), Knudsen(1956). Pasteur-Humbert (1962), Barnard (1959, 1969), Ondrejickova (1972) and Kensley (1973). A thorough searchoftheliteraturewouldcertainlyuncovermoreusagesofFususBruguiere. Itisouropinion that theonlyobjection to thisapplicationwith anyvalidityis that it will upset 'stability'. The genus typified by the species Fusus (or Fusinus) colus (Linnaeus, 1758) has not been critically monographed, or even studied in depth, in recent years and it is a matterofconjecture at this point as to howmany species will remaininthegenusafterataxonomicrevision. Additionalreferences Barnard, K.H. 1959. Contributions to the knowledge ofSouth African marinemollusca. Part 2. Gastropoda: Prosobranchiata: Rhachiglossa. Annalsofthe South African Museum.45: 1-237. Barnard,K.H. 1969.ContributionstotheknowledgeofSouthAfricanmarinemollusca.Part6. Supplement.AnnalsoftheSouthAfricanMuseum.47:595-661 Kensley,B. 1973.Sea-shellsofSouthernAfrica.Gastropods.225pp.Cape&TransvaalPrinters, CapeTown. . 222 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 Knudsen,J.1956.MarineprosobranchsoftropicalWestAfrica(Stenoglossa).Atlantide-Report, 4:7-110. Nickles,M. 1950.Mollusquestestacesmarinsdelacoted'Afrique.269pp.Lechevalier,Paris. Ondrejickova, A. 1972. Eggenburgian molluscs ofSouthern Slovakia. Zbornik Geologickych ViedZapadneKarpatw 16:5-147. Pasteur-Humbert,C. 1962.LesmollusquesmarinstestacesduMaroc.Cataloguenoncritique. 1. Lesgasteropodes. TravauxdeilnstitutScientifiqueCherifien,SerieZoologie,23: 1-224. CommentsontheproposaltoremovethehomonymybetweenCLAVIDAEMcCrady, 1859(Cnidaria,Hydrozoa)andCLAVINAECasey, 1904(MoIIusca,Gastropoda) (Case2710;seeBZN48: 192-195;49: 144-145) (1) JohnK.Tucker 404S. BankerStreet, Effingham.Illinois62401, U.S.A I am unable to agree on the need for the proposals ofCernohorsky, Cornelius & Sysoevconcerningthemollusksubfamilyname. The issue at stake is the maintenance ofnomenclatural stability and the authors contendthattheirproposedactionwillachievethis.Applicationsofthisnatureusually involvetheconservatioiiofanameasithasbeenusedbuttheirproposalintroducesa newspelling,clavusinae. I understand the desire to preserve the Powell (1942) system ofsubfamily classifi- cation in the turridae and how that might seem to be related to nomenclatural stability, but it is my belief that the proposals will neither preserve nor improve stabihty. Iftheauthors believe that Clavusde Montfort, 1810cannot becontained in the DRiLLiiNAE then they should define the characters that separate clavinae (or clavusinae) from Olsson's 1964(and Morrison's 1965, p. 2)drilliinae. I myselfdo not believe that nomenclatural stability exists in theturridae at the subfamily level. Every author who has considered a subfamily classification has come to a unique conclusion,andnotallauthorsworkingongenerausuallyincludedintheclavinae(or drilliinae) recognize the subfamily as valid; for example, Nordsieck (1968) placed Clavusintheturrinae(althoughin 1977hechangedhismind). It seems to me that the turrid name clavinae does not need Commission action." Most post-Powell authors who recognize the group do so primarily on the radular morphology. McLean (1971), in particular, defined the clavinae as based on the possession of a prototypic radular type. If, as most authors agree, the prototypic radularstateisanancestralconditionthentheclavinae(ordrilliinae)aredefinedby a plesiomorphic character state. Only apomorphic character states can be used to determine monophyly. Therefore, from a cladistic point of view, the clavinae (or drilliinae)iseitheraparaphyletic orpolyphyletic taxon. Ican seeno benefit froma ruling concerning the name ofa taxon that will almost certainly be found to include multiplesistertaxathatgaverisetotheothersubfamiliesoftheturridae. Additionalreferences Morrison,J.P.E. 1965.OnthefamiliesofTurridae. Report.AmericanMalacologicalUnion,32: 1-2.