274 BulletinofZoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 In ourview, and contrary to that ofDrsT. Zieglerand W. Bohme (BZN 55: 112), the ability to use stable nomenclature for the inclusion of species and subspecies in CITES and other conservation legislative documentation is an important issue. Taxonomists aretheservantsofall those who usescientificnamesandworkto serve those needs, not to establish an authority to which everyone must subscribe whether in accord with stability or not. We believe that our aim must be to provide an environment of nomenclatural stability in which biologists may work with confidence. Additional reference Reh^k, I. & Velensky, P. 1997. Biology of the varanids Vannjusprasinus. V. nidicollis and K sahadoriiin captivity. Gazella, lA: 108-138. [In Czech; English summary]. Comment on the proposed suppression ofall prior usages ofgeneric and specific names of birds (Aves) by John Gould and others conventionally accepted as published in the Proceedings ofthe ZoologicalSociety ofLondon (Case 3044; see BZN 54: 172-182; 55: 176-185) (1) Murray D. Bruce and Ian A.W. McAllan P.O. Box 180. Tunaimirra. New South Wales 2074. Australia WearetheauthorsoftheoriginalpaperunderconsiderationasCase3044. Various points covered by Schodde & Bock (1997). the comments ofOlson (1998) and the response of Schodde & Bock (1998) [as cited above] require further comment. It should also be noted that ourpaper, although dated 1990, was published in 1991, as pointed out by McAllan (1992). 1. Inconsistencies in the use ofreports published in The Athenaeum, The Literary Gazette and The Analyst prompted our review ofthese serials. The first two were of considerable importance for many years as general sources ofinformation covering the sciences and other fields. The third was a short-livedjournal from the 1830s and one ofseveral from this period affecting zoological nomenclature. As an example of inconsistency, we pointed out that although The Athenaeum is accepted for Balaeni- cepsrex(averybriefbutadequatedescription)inastandardwork(Kahl, 1979),there were other names variously mentioned or overlooked, with equal claims to priority. Also, wedeplored the proposal forsuppression ofa name from TheLiterary Gazette without the actual reference being examined (LeCroy, 1988; LeCroy & Bock, 1989), an action invalid for other reasons, as we discussed (Bruce & McAllan, 1991). 2. The latter example prompted us to provide verbatim extracts of the relevant references in our paper to facilitate an evaluation ofour findings and to avoid the argument ofthe rarity or inaccessibility ofthe sources (a pointless criticism in view of the rarity and inaccessibility ofmany sources long accepted in avian nomencla- ture). We found hundreds ofnomina nuda in our investigations but only discussed those names identifiable by descriptive details. For example, we did not discuss /)[wor«w]. dromaeoides because it is a nomen nudum in The Literary Gazette. The only nomen nudum we did discuss was Sittaferrugineoveniris in The Athenaeum Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 275 because Hartert & Steinbacher (1932) accepted it as an available synonym of 5. castanea. As to the other names, these were interpreted under the application of the3rd EditionoftheCodetothestatusofthenamesat theirtimeofpublication last century. Forexample, Chrysococcyxminulilluswasindeedthesmallestcuckooofthis group known at the time, and the Proceedings ofthe Zoological Society ofLondon [PZS] reference also stated this point (Gould, 1859). 3. We also covered mammals in the same format as birds (McAllan & Bruce, 1990). So far, there has been no attempt at blanket suppression of our findings, probably because the catalogue ofAustralian mammals already had been published (Walton, 1988). Infact, someofourfindingshavebeenusedinmajorreferenceworks (Corbet & Hill, 1992; Wilson & Reeder, 1993). 4. Olson's example of The Zoologist as another possible source of earlier publication ofnames is a valid point and needs furtherinvestigation. At the timewe chose to exclude from our study long-running natural history serials well known to specialists of the period, e.g. Annals and Magazine of Natural History. A more important pointis thatifweextendedourresearch todailynewspapers, wemayfind further earlier dates of publication of many more names. For example, Sulloway (1982) cited a report of a Zoological Society meeting from 1837 in three dailies (Morning Herald. Morning Chronicle, Standard) before its appearance in The Athenaeum. Newspapers often have been used as the original references of avi—an names, e.g. The Sydney Morning Herald(Trichoglossus [- Charmosyna]—amabilis Mayr, 1945; see also Watling, 1982); The Kentucky Gazette (Chlidonias Rhoads, 1912; see also Peters, 1934); of 37 names proposed by Wilhelm Blasius, 20 first appeared in a local newspaper, Braunschweigische Anzeigen, and it isaccepted as the original publication source in standard references (cf. Hinkelmann & Heinze, 1990); as wel—l as various Australian examples (Whitley, 1938, as indicated by Schodde & Bock seealsoWhittell, 1954,e.g. underDiggles, Ramsay;andIngram, 1990forDe Vis). Indeed, given the number of Australasian taxa named in newspapers, we are amazed that Schodde & Bock had any problem with our findings at all. 5. As Schodde & Bock pointed out, we were present at the SCON meeting in Vienna in August 1994. In considering the issue ofsuppression we voted neither for nor against. We assumed that at least one ofus, a memberofSCON (MDB), would see a draft ofthe proposed submission for comment prior to any publication in the Bulletin of Zoological Notnenclature, or at least receive advice that it was to be submitted. Knowingthat several yearsmayelapsebetweenproposaland submission, we were surprised to see it appear in the Bulletin in 1997 in a form where any input from us had been denied. 6. We regarded our paper as a forum for further assessment ofour findings and expected some ofour conclusions to be revised. We summarised our interpretations in an appendix and indicated where suppression seemed appropriate. However, no action had been taken by us on these points as we awaited further discussion ofour paper and also intended to expand our investigations on related issues in other publications, particularly that ofnewspapers as sources ofnames. 7. We did not expect BZN to be the forum for discussion. Olson's interpretations have clarified some ofour findings with consequent ad hoc changes to the original proposal by Schodde & Bock. These changes demonstrate our point that further revision ofour findings was needed, not total suppression as a quick solution. 276 BulletinofZoological Nomenclature 56(4) December 1999 8. The proposal for blanket suppression is obviously because ofconcerns by the seniorauthor, R. Schodde,toavoidconsideringthepossibleeffectsofourfindingson Australianbirds. Weassumethat the findingsofOlson requiring Schodde& Bock to emend their original proposal are because they do not affect Australian birds. In stark contrast to this approach, compare how such issues affecting North American birds are handled. For example. Banks & Browning (1995) discussed a number of cases, including at least two where suppression is required. Their findings indicate thatOberholser(1974)isthechiefsourcerequiringtheirattention. Thesearealldealt with onacasebycasebasis. Weassume that ifOberholser'spublication had been on Australian birds, the entire work would have been submitted to the Commission for blanket suppression. 9. Themotive behind the submission forsuppression seems to be moreconcerned withchangesto original citations and dates than with the issue ofnomenclature. On the one hand, Schodde & Bock credit 'any zoologist with a knowledge of the alphabet' as being able to handle the growing subsidiary literature ofsuppression of names, yet also patronise them as beingendlesslyconfused ifourfindings were to be absorbedintotheliterature.ArewetoassumethatAustralianzoologistsinparticular are more prone to confusion than others? 10. Schodde & Bock are also concerned about changes to original citations of avian names as they appear in standard references, many now out ofdate (original citations and standard references). Such changes have always been a very small proportion of the total, e.g. North American birds (Olson, 1987; see also AOU, 1997). Emending and correcting citations continues, particularly with the dating of older works, e.g. Banks & Browning (1979), Browning & Monroe (1991), Poggi (1996) and Wheeler (1998). Changes to dates ofcitations are readily accepted where necessary (e.g. Schodde & Mason, 1997), yet while clarifying inconsistencies, they conflict with thosealreadypublished in standard references. Shouldwesuppressdate corrections because of this conflict? Schodde & Bock imply such a necessity, particularly ifa species subsequently has been 'gazetted by legislation', in thecase of Psepholus chrysopterygius, but this change does not affect its protection under law. As to standard references cited by Schodde & Bock, the Catalogue ofBirds in the British Museum, long out ofdate, was based on the 12th edition ofLinnaeus [1766], not the 10th [1758], asnow. The Catalogueisalsoasourceofnumerousemendations toestablishednamesonthegroundsofpurism,apracticenolongeraccepted. Peters's Check-list of Birds of the World, our current standard reference (Bock, 1990), nevertheless has instances oferroneous and confused citations and dates, incorrect synonymies, overlooked subspecies and even a name where thecitation could not be found (but see Mees, 1986, p. 147). However, such necessary changes are, like our findings and those forNorthAmerican birds, a very small proportion ofthe total. A number of citations in standard references are incorrect for other reasons. For example, the original name for the Sooty Albatross Diomedea [= Phoehetria]fusca is cited to Hilsenberg(1822), but ifonechecks the quoted source, one will find that the name actually appeared earlier in a German newspaper and the standard citation is merely an abstract ofit. A further problem with many original citations is that they contain no information relevant to the subsequent acceptance of a taxon. For example, Geophapsscriptapeninsuhie,namedin 1922, wasnotcorrectlydiagnosedfor 60years(Frith, 1982). A more unusualexample is thecaseofCorvusmellori, aname . Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 56(41 December 1999 277 proposedasasubspeciesin 1912andsubsequentlyappliedtoanewspeciesidentified in 1967 because the type specimen ofmellori (since lost) apparently belonged to it. Mayr (1971) considered the taxon to be a new species even though 'our queer rules of nomenclature" required the application of a name whose author 'did not appreciate at all the distinctness ofthis bird". 11 Schodde & Bock accuse Olson and us of shoddy research in relation to Bonaparte (1855). First ofall, Schodde & Bock misquote the name, it should read 'Somaieria v.-nigrum" (Bonaparte included the hyphen). Bonaparte's discussion is indeed anecdotal but the young bird quoted from his account by Schodde & Bock relates to one shown to Bonaparte by a 'M. Hardy, de Dieppe" from Hardy's private collection. Bonaparte then links his remarks on this specimen to several specimens, and drawings made before they were collected, seen in London with Gray at the British Museum. He then indicated that he agreed with Gray that in imitation ofa name used for a butterfly by Linnaeus, the distinctive marking of this new species could be represented bySomateria v.-nigrum. Bonaparteclearlylinked thedistinctive new name, based on the duck's most diagnostic character, to the British Museum type material. We consider the name identifiable from Bonaparte (1855). On the matter of interpreting these remarks as joint authorship of Bonaparte & Gray, Bonaparte gave an explicit example in his preceding paragraph where we find 'Xylocotajamesoni,Jard.et Bp.". Yetifoneturnstostandardreferences(Peters, 1934; Hellmayr& Conover, 1948) thisjoint attribution is indicatedin quotation marksbut authorship is credited solely to Bonaparte. If the conclusion ofSchodde & Bock is accepted, then there are literally hundreds of cases where authorship needs to be emended in the citations of original sources of names. Such an action would not conflict with the provisions ofArt. 50 ofthe Code. 12. TheconcludingcommentsofSchodde& Bock focusonchanges to thesources ofnames as being of greater concern than any real effect our paper may have on nomenclatural stability. In our opinion, the argument that quoting an earlier source ofanamevs. PZSobscuresimportantdetailsdoesnotprecludeuseofanearliervalid publication ofa name. The Code isconcerned with thesourceofa namemeetingthe definition ofa publication (Art. 8), not where it is published. The argument ofthe role oforiginal citations as sources ofinformation on type specimens is misleading not only because PZSdoes not always mention them (as with most ofGould's) but becausethereareagreatnumberofexamplesoflatertypedesignations(e.g. Schodde & Mason, 1997). Moreover, Gould himself did not acknowledge his own earlier publication ofmany ofhis new names (Bruce & McAllan, 1991, p. 455). 13. We conclude that where established nomenclature may be affected by an unnecessarychange ofname orapplication ofname, not thepublished sourceofthe name,thensuppressionmaybewarranted.Otherwise,asinNorthAmerica'scase,we preferthediscussion and resolution ofissues ofnomenclatureon acase bycasebasis with anyneed forformalsuppressionapplied assparinglyaspossible. Weopposethe concept ofblanket suppression, as proposed in Case 3044 by Schodde & Bock, and support a more reasoned approach where only specific cases requiring suppression are proposed. Additional references AOU [American Ornithologists' Union). 1997. Forty-first supplement to the American Ornithologists" Union check-list ofNorth American birds. Auli. 114: 542-552. 278 BulletinofZoological Nomenclature56(4) December 1999 Banks, R.C. & Browning, M.R. 1979. Correct citations for some North American bird taxa. Proceedings ofthe BiologicalSociety of Washington, 92; 195-203. Banks, R.C. & Browning,M.R. 1995. Comments on thestatusofrevived old names forsome North American birds. Auk. 112: 633-648. Bock,W.J. 1990. Aspecialreview: Peters'[sic]'Check-listofBirdsoftheWorld"andahistory ofavian checklists. Aul<. 107: 629-648. Browning, M.R. & Monroe, B.L.,Jr. 1991. Clarifications andcorrectionsofthedatesofissue of some publications containing descriptions of North American birds. Archives of Natural History. 18: 381^05. Corbet,G.B. & Hill,J.E. 1992. Mammalsofthe Imhmalayan region: asystematicreview. 350 pp. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Frith, H.J. 1982. Pigeonsanddoves ofAustralia. 304 pp. Rigby, Adelaide. Could, Mr. 1= J.|. 1859. [On twonew speciesofbirds, onebelongingto thefamilyCuculidae, the other to the Coturniceae). Proceedings ofthe Zoological Societv ofLondon. 1859: 128-129. Hartert, E. & Steinbacher, F. 1932 [-1938]. Die Vogelderpalaarktischen Fauna. Erganzungs- band. viii, 602 pp. Friedlander, Berlin. Hellmayr,C.E. & Conover, B. 1948. Catalogueofbirds oftheAmericasand adjacentislands. Part 1. Field Museum ofNaturalHistory. ZoologicalSeries. 13: 1-383. Hilsenberg, K. 1822. Beschreibung einer neuen Albatros art. Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- undHeilkunde. 3: col. 74. [commonly cited as Froriep (or Froriep's) Notizen]. Hinkelmann, C. & Heinze, G.-M. 1990. Die Typus exemplare der von Wilhelm Blasius beschriebenen Vogel. Braunschweigische nalurkundliche Schriften. 3: 609-628. Ingram, G.J. 1990. The works of Charles Walter De Vis, alias 'Devis', alias 'Thickthora'. Memoirsofthe QueenslandMuseum. 28: 1-34. LeCroy, M. 1988. Semioplera wallacii Gray. 1859 (Aves, Paradisaeidae): proposed confir- mation as the correct spelling. Bulletin ofZoologicalNomenclature. 45: 212-213. LeCroy, M. & Bock, W.J. 1989. Comments on the proposed conservation of the speUing Semioptera wallacii Gray. 1859 (Aves. Paradisaeidae). Bulletin ofZoological Nomencla- ture. 46: 49-50. McAllan, I.A.W. 1992. EarlyrecordsoftheHooded ParrotPsepholusdissimilisCollett, 1898. Bolletino del Museo regionalediScien:enaturali Torino. 10: 89-95. McAllan, I.A.W.& Bruce,M.D. 1989 [= 1990]. Someproblemsin vertebratenomenclature. I. Mammals. Bolletino delMuseo regionale di Scienze naturale Torino. 7: 443-460. Mayr, E. 1945. The correct name ofthe Fijian Mountain Lorikeet. Auk. 62: 139-140. Mayr,E. 1971. Newspeciesofbirdsdescribedfrom 1956to 1965.JournalftirOrnithologie.112: 302-316. Mees, G.F. 1986. A list of the birds recorded from Bangka Island, Indonesia. Zoologische Verhcmdelingen. 232: 1-176. Oberholser,H.C. 1974. ThebirdlifeofTexas.2vols,xxviii, 1069pp. UniversityofTexasPress, Austin. Olson,S.L. 1987. Ontheextentandsourceofinstabilityinaviannomenclature,asexemplified by North American birds. Auk, 104: 538-542. Peters, J.L. 1934. Check-list ofbirds ofthe world, vol. 2. xviii, 401 pp. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. Poggi, R. 1996. Use ofarchives forn—omenclatural purposes: clarifications and corrections of thedatesofissue forvolumes 1 8 (1870-1876)ofthe.AnnalidelMuseocivtcodiStoria Naturaledi Genova. ArchivesofNatural History. 23: 99-105. Rhoads, S.N. 1912. Additions to the known ornithological publications ofC.S. Rafinesque. .4uk. 29: 191-198. Sulloway, F.J. 1982. Darwin'sconversion: the Beaglevoyageanditsaftermath. Journalofthe Hi.storyofBiology. 15: 325-396. Walton, D.W. (Ed.). 1988. Mammalia. Zoological catalogue ofAustralia, vol. 5. x, 274 pp. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra. Watling, D. 1982. Birds ofFiji, Tonga andSamoa. 176 pp. Millwood Press, Wellington. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature56(4) Decetnber 1999 279 Wheeler, A. 1998. Dates of publication of J.E. Gray's 'Illustrations of Indian Zoology^ (1830-1835). ArchivesofNaturalHistory, 25: 345-354. Whittell, H.M. 1954. The literature of Australian birds: a history and a bibliography of Australian ornithology, .xii, 116, 788 pp. Paterson Brokensha, Perth. Wilson, D.E. & Reeder, D.M. (Eds). 1993. Mammal species ofthe World: a laxonomic and geographic reference. 1312 pp. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington. (2) Richard Schodde Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO Wildlife andEcology, G.P.O. Box 284. Canberra Cilv, ACT. 2601, Australia Waiter J. Boclc Department ofBiological Sciences, Columbia University, New York, NY10027, U.S.A. Systematic ornithology is indebted to Bruce and McAllan on two particular counts. First, at considerable effort, they sifted out and collated a raft ofundiscov- ered first publications ofbird names in several popularmid-18th century periodicals so comprehensively (Bruce & McAllan, 1991) that the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature (SCON) ofthe International Ornithological Congress could deal with theirtreatment quickly and effectively (Schodde& Bock, 1997). This course has now been opened to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, by Case 3044 which the SCON (and we) commend. Bruce and McAllan's second contribution is their present opposition (above) to Case3044. Becauseofitstortuousnature,theirargumentexposeswithglaringclarity the real consequences of opting instead for 'reasoned" case-by-case discussion and resolution ofthe namesin question. It would embroil us in didacticword-games and protracted debates that could carry on for years and, apart from keeping key issues ofnomenclature and source references for names in limbo, involve the Commission in up to 20Opinions, and potentially many more. The prospect is daunting, and out ofall proportion to the importance ofthe issue; quite frankly, Bruce and McAllan have 'lost the plot'. In contrast. Case 3044, which has as its sole objective themaintenance ofstability forthe nomenclature and source references of6genericand45 specificnames, oflfers a simple, straight-forward single-Opinion solution: it clears the decks ofthe so-far unused names and references. Its grounds have already been covered and explained in detail by Schodde & Bock (1997, 1998) and need no further advocacy here. Morever, itsprovisionsarethepreferredsolutionbythegreatmajorityoftheSCON, and,westressagain, werepassedwithoutdissentattheViennameetingoftheSCON at which both Bruce and McAllan were present. Only the case of Somateria v-nigrum G.R. Gray needs revisiting because issues raised by Bruce and McAllan affect a recommendation of Case 3044. We have consulted two different copies ofthe paper in which Bonaparte (1855) first used the name, and in both it is spelled simply 'v.ttigrum', without the hyphen (cf. Bruce & McAllan). More importantly, we continue to find no explicit and unambiguous connection between the juvenile diagnosed by Bonaparte and the undescribed material in the British Museum named 'Somateria v.nigrum\ Such ambiguity and 280 BulletinofZoological Nomenclature56(4| December 1999 differences ofinterpretation are further reason for treating Gray's (1856) use ofthe name as the first available, as proposed in Case 3044. In conclusion, Bruce and—McAllan take us to task for not consulting them on the formulation ofCase 3044 but have obviously forgotten why. At the meeting at which the SCON directed us to prepare the proposal, we asked themtodoit. Theyrefused, oneofthemcommentingto theeffect that theyhaddone their part in digging up the unused names and now it was up to others to provide solutions. Comment on the proposed conservation ofusage of 15 mammal specific names based on wild species which are antedated by or contemporary with those based on domestic animals (Case 3010; see BZN 53: 28-37, 125, 192-200, 286-288; 54: 119-129, 189; 55: 43-46, 119-120; 56: 72-73) Peter Grubb 35 Downhills Park Road, London N176PE. U.K. 1. Gentry, Clutton-Brock & Groves address a contentious issue and their recom- mendations have received much support, but the consequences oftheir application are still unclear. Their agenda obliges us to consider wild names to the exclusion of other issues. Yet beyond this restricted remit it raises questions which should be answered prior to adjudication on the application itself Approval may otherwise amount to a fait accompli, leaving problems to be settled by further appeal to the Commission. The submission suggests that there is a majority usage which should override application of the Code; junior species names should be retained for populationswhichareregardedasconspecificwithothers, towhichseniornamesare assigned. The Commission is effectively asked to rule that certain species-group names are to be applied to particular populations within taxa (hence restraining the subjective use ofsynonymy), without requesting a general ruling on their priority. The application is therefore unusual. In the guise of a nomenclatural ruling, it is eliciting a systematic decision from the Commission (see Gardner in BZN 54: 125-126). DoubtlesstheCommissionwillcarefullyconsiderwhetherit isappropriate to use its plenary powers in such a context. 2. The formal request 'that the name for each of the wild species" listed is not invalid by virtue ofbeing antedated by a name based on a domestic form' does not — specifythat thewildnamesmust—beused in the form ofbinomina. A trinomen for example Bos tatirusprimigenius would be within the letter ofthe request, for the wild name would retain validity. Although this is not what Gentry et al. intend, it is theliteralmeaningoftheirformal request thatmust beaddressed. Perhapsit requires revision. 3. The application has insufficient space to discusseach ofthe 15 taxa separately. Such different instances as Camelusfenis and Canis lupus are lumped together. Not all the species have experienced 'traditional" separate naming for wild and domestic forms. Bos nniliis. Camelusferus, Buhalus arnee and Equus ajricanus were foisted upon the scientific community as replacements for species names based on domestic