Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 49 Lloyd T. Findley CIAD-Unidad Guaymas, Guaymas, Sonora, Mexico Carter R. Gilbert University ofFlorida, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A. Robert N. Lea California Fish and Game, Monterey, California, U.S.A. Nicholas E. Mandrak Great Lakes Laboratoryfor Fisheries andAquatic Sciences, Burlington, Ontario, Canada James D. Williams United States Geological Survey, Gainesville, Florida, U.S.A. We, members of the Committee on Names of Fishes, a joint committee of the American Fisheries Society and the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, support the proposal by Collette & Parin that the Commission use its plenary power and reinstate the specific name ofSphyraenaacus Lacepede, 1803. We beheve that the petitioners make an excellent case for this action. In our various editions ofCommon andscientificnamesoffishes . . . , ourcommittee used the specific nameas Strongyluraacusin 1960and as Tylosurusacusin 1970, 1980, 1991 and 2004. During the preparation ofthe 2004 edition (Nelsonet al., 2004), wewere prepared to follow Opinion 900 and accept the suppression of the name Tylosurus acus (Lacepede, 1803) and use Tylosurus imperialis (Rafinesque, 1810). However, given analyses that almost all authors, both in systematic and non-systematic literature, continue to use the specific name acus, as earlier advocated by Collette & Berry, 1965 (p. 391) and with which we agree, we continued to use acus. Present usage is compatible with the fact that the type locality for the oldest available name, T. acus, is the West Indies, while that for T. imperialis is the Mediterranean Sea. Amending the rulingin Opinion 900 (1) and placing the name acus, as pubhshed in the binomen Sphyraena acus Lacepede, 1803, on the Official List ofSpecific Names in Zoology as proposed in BZN 62: 234 will have the greatest stabilizing effect. Comment on the proposed conservation of Palamopiis E. Hitchcock, 1845 (Ichnotaxa, Reptilia?) (Case 3348; see BZN 62: 237-239) Spencer G. Lucas New Mexico Museum ofNatural History and Science, 1801 Mountain Road NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87104-1375. U.S.A. I support Emma Rainforth's (BZN 62: 237-239) application to conserve Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845 and suppress its senior objective synonym Scniroidi- clmites Hitchcock, 1837. I base my support of her application on the following 50 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 63(1) March 2006 considerations: Sauroidichnites Hitchcock, 1837 is the senior objective synonym of Palamopus Hitchcocic, 1845 but has not been used as a valid name after 1899, so it isanomen oblitum; PalamopusHitchcock, 1845 hasbeen usedsince 1899, thoughnot in a sufficient number ofworks by enough authors during the last 50 years to satisfy the conditions ofArticle 23.9.1.2. Nevertheless, all ofthe usage since 1845 has been ofthe name Palamopus. Furthermore, most workers have considered Lull (1953) to be the standard work on Connecticut Valley tracks, and Lull used Palamopus. Haubold (1971), in another standard compendium, also used Palamopus. Rainforth (2005, pp. 356-361) reviewed in detail the tortured ichnotaxonomic history ofPalamopusand also reviewed (pp. 436-439) the even more tortured history of Sauroidichnites. These reviews demonstrate that Sauroidichnites is the more problematical name. Thus, forexample, Ornithichnitespalmatus is the type species of Sauroidichnites, but most authors have erroneously considered its type species to be S. barrattii, which is a nomen nudum. The name Sauroidichnites reflects Hitchcock's earlyphilosophy in namingthe Connecticut Valleyfootprints he studied. He thought that these footprints represented three classes of vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles and birds) and coined an ichnogeneric name for each class: Batrachoidichnites, Sauroidichnites and Ornithoidichnites. respectively. Each broadly construed ichno- genus encompassed many ichnospecies. In 1845, Hitchcock abandoned that philosophy and coined new ichnogeneric names more similar to the kinds of ichnogeneric names coined since. Palamopus Hitchcock, 1845, with one ichnospecies, is such a name. Most significantly, in 1845 Hitchcock abandoned his own name Sauroidichnites and did not use it again. In summary, the confused ichnotaxonomic name Sauroidichnites was based on an antiquated and long abandoned philosophy ofichnotaxonomy. The original author ofSauroidichnites abandoned it in 1845 and it has not been used since. Palamopus is a less confused ichnotaxonomic name and all 20th century usage has been of Palamopus. Therefore, it makes sense to suppress Sauroidichnites and conserve the name Palamopus.