) . BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(1)March 1991 57 Pocock,R.I. 1893.AcontributiontothestudyofNeotropicalscorpions.AnnalsandMagazineof NalitmlHistory,(6)12(68):77-103. Sherborn,CD.&Woodward,B.B. 1906.—Notesonthedatesofpublicationofthenaturalhistory portions ofsome French voyages— 'Voyage autour du monde... la Coquille pendant... 1822-25...byL.I. Duperrey", Ec. acorrection. AnnalsandMagazineofNaturalHistory, (7)17(99):335-336. Thorell,T. 1876. Etudesscorpiologiques.AttidellaSocielaItalianadiScienzeNaturali.Milano, 19:75-272. Wood, H.C. 1863. On the Pedipalpi ofNorth America. Journal ofthe Academy ofNatural SciencesofPhiladelphia,(2)5(4):357-376. CommentsontheproposedconservationofthespecificnameArtemiafranciscana Kellogg, 1906(Crustacea,Branchiopoda) (Case2728;seeBZN47: 178-183) (1 P. Sorgeloos,P. Lavens&W.Tackaert Artemia Reference Center, Faculty of Agricultural Science, Rijksuniversiteit Gent, Rozier44, B-9000Gent, Belgium Itiswithgreatinterestthatwehaveread theproposedconservationofthenameof thebroadlydistributedNorthAmericanbrineshrimpspeciesArtemiafranciscana. SincethepublicationofBowenetal. (1978)thisnamehasbeenfullyacceptedinthe literature.ExceptforthepaperbyAmatDomenech(1980;seeBZN47: 180,para.6)we do notknowofanyrecentpublicationwhichhasusedasynonymo{franciscana,and wesupporttheproposalsonBZN47: 180-181 (2) FranciscoAmat Institut de Acuicultura de Torre de la Sal, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas,RiberodeCabanes, 12595 TorredelaSal, Castellon, Spain I support theproposalsbyBelkand Bowen,whichwillclarify thenomenclatureof NorthAmericanArtemia. (3) Support for the proposals on BZN 47: 180-181 has also been received from the following: ProfC. Barigozzi{DipartimentodiGeneticaediBiologiadeiMicrorganismi, Universita degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 26. 20133 Milano, Italy); Dr Laura Torrentera Blanco {Department of Zoology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin53706,f/.S.^.);DrA.M.Maeda-Martinez(/«5///M/eo/£co/ogj,Universityof Gent,K.Ledeganckstraat35.B-9000Gent,Belgium);DrGraziellaMura{Dipartimento diBiologiaAnimaleedell'Uomo, UniversitadiRoma 'LaSapienza',Roma,Italy). CommentsontheproposedprecedenceofBathynomusA.MilneEdwards, 1879 (Crustacea,Isopoda)overPalaegaWoodward, 1870 (Case2721;seeBZN47: 27-29,212-213,290-293) (1) SergiodeAlmeida Rodrigues Instituto de Biociencias, Universidade de Sao Paulo, Caixa Postal 11461 Sao Paulo, , Brazil In my opinion Bathynomus should be given precedence over Palaega. To drop the widely recognized name Bathynomus would create a lot oftrouble among non- 1 58 BulletinofZoologicalNomenclature48(1)March199 specialistsonCrustaceawithoutbringingsignificantbenefittotaxonomy,asthegenus Palaegaseemstobequiteobscure. (2) NielL.Bruce QueenslandMuseum,P.O. Box300, SouthBrisbane, Queensland4101,Australia Palaega,asdefinedbythetypespeciesP.carteriWoodward, 1870,isunambiguously distinct from Bathynomus. In all extant Bathynomus species the pleotelson posterior margin is truncate or subtruncate and provided with a number of distinct widely separated prominent spines. The pleotelson itself is always relatively short (about 0.67-0.86aslongaswide(Bruce, 1986)). InPalaegacarteritheposteriormarginofthe pleotelsonissmoothlycurvedorroundedandisfinelyserratewithaprominentmedian point;thepleotelsonisnearlyaslongaswide(ratio0.94,0.95(Woodward, 1870)). Wieder & Feldmann (1989) made a fundamental error in assuming that because Palaega goedertorum appeared indistinguishable from Bathynomus it followed that Bathynomusand Palaegawere synonymous. Palaega, asconstituted by thecurrently includedspecies,isnotavalidgenus.Wieder&Feldmann(1989)themselvesacknowl- edgethatitisaformgenuswithrepresentativesfromseveralfamilies. Speciessuchas P. lamnae Bowman, 1971 and P.pumila Gall & Grauvogel, 1971 are not congeneric withthetypespeciesandcouldbelongtodifferentfamilies. ThediagnosesprovidedbyWieder&Feldmannarenotcongruentwithcontempor- arydiagnosesofextantisopodtaxaandcannotthereforebeappliedtoextantisopods. Their diagnosis to the cirolanidae effectively diagnoses only the Flabellifera. Similarly,theirdiagnosisforPalaegacouldbeappliedtoseveralfamilies.Thereislittle utilityinsynonymising aprecisely defined genus with a name that approximates to a groupoffamilies. In summary, it is my opinion that Palaega carteri Woodward is not congeneric with Bathynomus. Notwithstanding, some fossil isopods could well be species of Bathynomus.Inordertomaintainstabilityintheuseo^BathynomusIstronglyurgethe Commissionthat,inallcasesofconflict,BathynomusbegivenprecedenceoverPalaega andIthereforefullysupporttheproposalofMartin&Kuck. CommentontheconservationofSemblisFabricius, 1775(Insecta,Trichoptera)bythe designationofPhryganeaphalaenoidesLinnaeus, 1758asthetypespecies (Case2655;seeBZN45: 275-277;Opinion 1596;seeBZN47: 154^155) I.M. Kerzhner Zoologicallnstitute,AcademyofSciences,Leningrad199164, U.S.S.R. Ishouldliketomakeasmallcorrectiontothehistoryofthiscase;itdoesnotaff"ect theruhng. HemerobiuslutariusLinnaeus, 1758wasfirstdesignatedasthetypespecies oiSemblisFabricius, 1775byBlanchardin 1845(p.311),not[1848,p. 539]asstatedon BZN 45: 275. Blanchard,C.E. 1845.Histoiredesinsectes,vol.2.524pp.Didot,Paris.