) Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 52(3)September 1995 263 Comment on the proposed designation of5. pseudobrowniana Kempf, 1971 as the type species ofScottia Brady & Norman, 1889 (Crustacea, Ostraeoda) (Case 2896; see BZN 51: 304-305; 52: 178) Renate Matzke-Karasz Wilhelmshoher Allee 182. 34119 Kassel. Germany I am fully familiar with the situation mentioned in this case, having recently published a study of Scottia and allied genera (Matzke-Karasz, 1995). Scottia was based on the livingspecies latercalledS.pseudobrowniana, and I entirelysupport the proposals. Additional reference Matzke-Karasz, R. 1995. Aktuelle Gattungs- und Artmerkmale bei Scottia. Cyclocypris und Mesocypris (Ostraeoda). Sonderveroffentlicluingen des Geologischen Instituts der Universitatzu Koln, no. 97. Comments on the proposed conservation ofLironeca Leach, 1818 (Crustacea, Isopoda) as the correct original spelling (Case 2915; see BZN 51: 224-226; 52: 67-69, 178-179) (1 Thomas E. Bowman Department ofInvertebrate Zoology, National Museum ofNatural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington. D.C. 20560, U.S.A. Three ofthe authors (Drs Holthuis, Brandt and Bruce; see BZN 52: 67-69) who have commented on this case have not addressed the key point (BZN 51: 224, para. 3) that Leach's publishing eight generic names as anagrams ofCaroline or Carolina and another that failed by a single easily mistaken letter ('v' for 'r') to be a ninth anagram constitutes 'in the original publication itself ... clear evidence of an inadvertenterror" (Article 32c(ii) oftheCode). Holthuisand Brucedo not dispose of this argument at all, but simply declare that there is no such evidence. Brandt says that printing errors are irrelevant, but if this were so the Code would not contain Article 32c(ii). (2) Ernest H. WiUiams, Jr. & Lucy Bunkley Williams Department ofMarine Sciences. University ofPuerto Rico. P.O. Box 908. Lajas, Puerto Rico 00667 WeagreewithDrBowman inhiscommentabove: Drs Holthuis, BrandtandBruce do not address the principal argument. Their comments are ofinterest in providing additional background and history but do nothing to refute the proposals in the application. Sincetheyhaveintroducedauxiliaryissueswewill statea primarypoint, eventhough it is technicallyirrelevant. TheLironecaspellingwouldhave thepositive 264 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature52(3) September 1995 effect of preserving the intent of the original author (which is beyond dispute: see BZN 51: 224, para. 4), while the Livoneca spelling would have the negative effect of promoting a misspelling or misprint. We trust the ruling will preserve reality with Liroiieca, not the surrealism ofthe Livoneca spelling. (3) Gianni Bello Istimio Avion. C.P. 61. 70042 Mola di Bari, Italy 1 wish to support theproposal by Williams& Bowman toconserveLironecaasthe correct original spelling ofthe name ofa genus ofparasitic isopods. I agree with all the points in the application, and in addition I would like to stress that the vast majority of zoological names have meanings even though this is not obligatory. These meanings are very helpful to workers who have to memorize names. Unfortunately in Leach's time Recommendation 25B of the Code did not exist, and he did not state the derivation of his names of parasitic isopod genera. Nevetheless his intention is perfectly evident: eight of the names are based on anagrams ofthe personal name Caroline or Carolina. The spelling Livoneca, on the other hand, hasno meaning. I maintain that whereverpossible the original intention ofthe author ofscientific names should be respected. Comment on the proposed conservation ofAspidiphorus Ziegler in Dejean, 1821 (Insecta, Coleoptera) as the correct original spelling, and the placement of ASPiDiPHORiDAE Kiesenwettcr. 1877 (1859) on the Official List (Case 2918; see BZN 52: 44-47) Alfred F. Newton, Jr. and Margaret K. Thayer Department ofZoology. FieldMuseum ofNatural History, Chicago. Illinois 60605. U.S.A. The application by Dr Joseph McHugh clearly sets out the relevant facts concerning the name Aspidiphorus and we completely agree with the proposed conservation ofthis spelling over the original spelling Arpidiphorus. We also agree with the facts presented concerning the family names aspidiphori- DAKandSPHINDIDAE, butstronglydisagreewiththeconclusion thatpriorityshouldbe followed here and aspidiphoridae be used over sphindidae. Until new data on both family-group names was presented recently (Lawrence & Newton, 1995; Pakaluk, Slipiiiski & Lawrence, 1994; and para. 5 of the present application)sphindidaewasthoughttohavepriorityoveraspidiphoridae, butmore precise dating of the part of Jacquelin du Val's (1859-1863) work in which sphindidae was established suggests a date of 1860 or 1861, after establishment of coniporidae Thomson, 1859 (from which aspidiphoridae derives its date, as indicatedin para. 8oftheapplication).Thesefactsandarecenttaxonomicconsensus that Aspidiphorus belongs in the sphindidae do require adoption ofthe seniorname aspidiphoridae for the family according to the Code. There is no doubt that the name sphindidae is better known than aspidiphoridae and it has, to our knowledge, been universally used for this family whether