) 62 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature53(1) March 1996 OPINION 1827 Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (Insecta, Diptera): Musca lancifer Harris, |1780| designated as the type species, and a neotype designated for M. lancifer Keywords. Nomenclature; taxonomy; Diptera; Hydrophoria; Hydrophoria lancifer. Ruling Under the plenary powers: (1 (a) all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] are hereby set aside and the male specimen labelled "England, Surrey: Bookham Common, Broadway North, 25.x.1969, A.C. & B. Pont' in the Department of Entomology, The Natural History Museum. London, is designated as the neotype; (b) all previous fixations of type species for the nominal genus Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 are hereby set aside and Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] is designated as the type species. (2) The name Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 (gender: feminine), type speciesbydesignation undertheplenarypowersin (1)(b)above Muscakmcifer Harris, [1780], is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology. (3) The name lancifer Harris, [1780], as published in the binomen Musca lancifer and as defined by the neotype designated in (l)(a) above (specific name ofthe typespeciesoiHydrophoriaRobineau-Desvoidy, 1830),isherebyplacedonthe Official List ofSpecific Names in Zoology. History ofCase 2858 An application for the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species of Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 was received from Dr Graham CD. Griffiths {University ofAlberta. Edmonton. Alberta, Canada) on 21 July 1992. Aftercorrespondencethecasewaspublished in BZN51: 28-30(March 1994). Notice ofthe case was sent to appropriatejournals. Commentsin support from DrCurtisW. Sabrosky(Medford. NewJersey, U.S.A.) and from Dr RogerW. Crosskey (The NaturalHistory Museum, Lorulon, U.K.)were published in BZN 51: 258-259 (September 1994). Dr Crosskey supported the designation of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780] as the type species ofHydrophoria but noted that it was highly desirable to define the meaning of the name lancifer by a neotype. A specimen in the Natural History Museum, London, was proposed as the neotype by Mr D.M. Ackland (do The University Museum. Oxford. U.K.) and the author ofthe application (BZN 52: 74; March 1995). Musca lancifer was described and illustrated on p. 126, pi. 36, fig. 59 by Harris, [1780]. It was noted on the voting paper that the title page ofHarris's An exposition ofEnglish insects isdated 1776and a numberofpapersandcatalogueshavecited the work with thisdate. However, Pont & Michelsen (1982), followingothers, suggested that thework waspublished infiveparts,each with 10platesandcorrespondingtext. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 53(1) March 1996 63 and(p. 26)setoutthedateforeachpart. Part4,comprisingpages 100-138andplates 31^0, was given as "?1780'. Decision ofthe Commission On 1 September 1995 the membersoftheCommission were invited to vote on the proposals pubHshed in BZN 51: 29-30 and 52: 74. At the close ofthe voting period on 1 December 1995—the votes were as follows: Affirmative votes 23: Bayer, Bock, Bouchet, Cocks, Corliss, Hahn, Halvorsen, Heppell, Holthuis, Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson, Mahnert, Martins de Souza. Minelli, Ni—elsen, Nye, Savage, Schuster, Starobogatov, Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes 2: Cogger and Dupuis. No votes were received from Ride and Ueno. Cogger commented: 'While the purpose of the application is to maintain the long-standing sense of Anthomyia conka Wiedemann, 1817 as the type species of Hydrophuria. it is proposed todesignateastype asenior subjective synonym (Musca lancifer Harris, [1780]). Should this synonymy be rejected by later workers on taxonomic grounds then the intention ofthe application would be overturned. This problem could be avoided either by using the plenary powers to designate A. conica as the type species ofHydrophoria or, ifthere is some special advantage (ofwhich I amunaware)inhavingMuscalanciferasthetype, thenitwouldbebettertodesignate the type specimen ofA. conica in Vienna (noted by Ackland & Griffiths in BZN 52: 74) as the neotype of M. lancifer, rather than the specimen in London proposed by Ackland & Griffiths, so that A. conica becomes a junior objective synonym of M. lancifer'. Dupuis corrmiented: 'Theconcept ofHydrophoria, established since the time of Macquart (1835), Duponchel (1845) and Rondani (1866), as typified by Anthomyia conica Wiedemann, 1817, lasted 147 years. The synonymy of Musca lancifer Harris, [1780]with A. conicaisa mere 13 yearsold (Pont & Michelson, 1982) and only 'most probable', hence the desirability of a neotype claimed by Crosskey (BZN51: 258-259). I think thisneotype unnecessary. Inmy viewA. conicashould be chosen as the type species and M. lancifer should be placed on the Official Index". Original references The followingaretheoriginal references to thenames placed on Official Lists by the ruling given in the present Opinion: Hydrophoria Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830, Memoirespresentespar divers savants a I'Academie Royale des Sciences de I'Institut de France, (2)2: 503. lancifer, Musca, Harris, [1780], An exposition ofEnglish insects, part 4, p. 126.