. 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. BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature49(3)September1992 223 Nordsieck,F. 1968. Dieeuropiiischen Meeres-Geshauseschnecken (Prosobranchiaj vomEismeer bisKapverdenunciMittelmeer.viii,273pp.,31 pis. Fischer,Stuttgart. Nordsieck,F. 1977. The TurridaeoftheEuropeanseas. 131 pp.,26pis. LaConchiglia,Rome. (2) DaleR. Calder Department of Invertebrate Zoology, Royal Ontario Museum, 100 Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S2C6; Department ofZoology, University ofToronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5SlAl LesterD. Stephens DepartmentofHistory, UniversityofGeorgia,Athens, Georgia30602, U.S.A. AlbertE. Sanders TheCharlestonMuseum, Charleston, SouthCarolina29401 U.S.A. , We support the proposal of Cernohorsky, Cornelius & Sysoev to remove the homonymybetweenthefamily-groupnamesclavidaeMcCrady, 1859(Cnidaria)and CLAViNAECasey, 1904(Mollusca)bychangingthelattertoclavusinae. Replacement orrespellingofthe seniorhomonym, widely used in the literature on hydrozoans for morethanacentury,wouldnotservetheinterestsofnomenclaturalstability. Commentsontheproposedconservationofsomegenericnamesfirstproposedin HistoireabregeedesinsectesquisetrouventauxenvironsdeParis(Geoffroy, 1762) (Crustacea,Insecta) (Case2292; seeBZN48: 107-134;49: 71-72, 149-150) (1) L.B. Holthuis NationaalNatuurhistorischMuseum,Postbus9157,2300RA Leiden, TheNetherlands I have the greatest admiration for the thoroughness and expertise with which Dr Kerzhner treated this case and so has made possible a final decision concerning Geoffroy's generic names, many ofwhich have been 'illegally' used since Geoffroy's workwasrejected fornomenclaturalpurposesin 1954(Opinion228). Thereareafew points,however, thatneedsomecomment. (i) AsstatedbyKerzhnerandCameron(BZN48: 107-108, 133-134),Muller(1764)in theintroductiontohisFaunaInsectorumFridrichsdalinasimplylistedGeoffroy'snames andtheirLinnaeanequivalentsintabularform.ThisdoesnotmaketheGeoffroynames availableasfromMiiller's1764work,sinceArticle11d(ii)oftheCodesaysthat'thestatus ofapreviouslyunavailablenameisnotchanged byitsmerecitationaccompanied bya referencetotheworkinwhichthenamewaspublishedbutwasnotmadeavailable'. (ii) Idonotfeelcompetenttocommentontheinsectnamesinthisapplication, but candosoonthetwocrustaceanones(seeBZN48: 111-112).Itseemslikelythatamong theinsectgenericnamesofGeoffroy(1762)therearemanythatcouldbeusedwithout interventionbytheCommission,althoughwithalaterauthorshipanddate. (iii) AsellusGeoffroy, 1762isunavailablefromGeoffroy(1762)underOpinion228, orfromMuller(1764).ThefirstuseofAsellusasanavailablegenericnameseemstobe bySchaeffer(1766)in hisElementaEntomologica,an unpaginated workconsistingof four sections and an index. Asellus is given on the 16th page of Section 3 with a numberofcharactersandareferencetoplate22,theexplanationofwhichagaingives