) 138 Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 53(21June 1996 OPINION 1840 Bagrus hoevenii Bleeker, 1846 (currently Hemibagrm hoevenii; Osteichthyes, Siluriformes): neotype designated Keywords. Nomenclature;taxonomy;Osteichthyes; Siluriformes;catfish;Hemibagms hoevenii. Ruling (1 Under the plenary powers all previous fixations of type specimens for the nominal species Bagrushoevenii Bleeker, 1846 are hereby set aside and specimen no. ZRC 37472 in the Zoological Reference Collection at the Department ofZoology, National University ofSingapore, is designated as the neotype. (2) The name hoeveniiBleeker. 1846, as published in thebinomen Bagrushoevenii andasdefined bytheneotypedesignatedin(1)above,isherebyplacedontheOfficial List ofSpecific Names in Zoology. History ofCase 2934 An application for the designation ofa neotype for BagrushoeveniiBleeker, 1846 was received from Dr Maurice Kottelat (Cornol. Switzerland) and Dr Kelvin K.P. Lim& DrPeterK.L. Ng(National UniversityofSingapore. RepublicofSingapore)on 11 April 1994. After correspondence the case was published in BZN 51: 320-322 (December 1994). Notice ofthe case was sent to appropriatejournals. Decision ofthe Commission On 1 December 1995 the members ofthe Commission were invited to vote on the proposals published in BZN 51: 322. At the close ofthe voting period on 1 March 1996 the votes were—as follows: Affirmative votes 22: Bayer, Bock, Cocks, Cogger, Coriiss, Hahn. Halvorsen, Heppell. Kabata, Kraus, Lehtinen, Macpherson. Mahnert, Martins de Souza, Minelli. Nielsen, N—ye. Ride. Savage, Starobogatov. Stys, Trjapitzin Negative votes 4: Bouchet, Dupuis, Holthuis and Schuster. Bouchet commented: 'The authors of the application have demonstrated that Bleeker'smaterial in Leidenisamixtureofnon-typeandpossibly-typespecimens, of several species ofBagrus including hoevenii. and probably ofspecimens from Java, Sumatra and Borneo. I approve theirdecision to designate a neotype to stabilize the name Bagrus hoevenii. However, for the designation to be convincing, evidence should be given that the neotype is conspecific with Bleeker's original concept of hoevenii, based on his description and type locality. This might be thecasewith their neotype from Peninsular Malaysia, but I am disturbed by the statement (para. 5 of the application) that the authors "have been unable to find recent specimens from Java (the type locality) referable to B. hoevenii'. This could indicate that B. hoevenii has become extinct on Java and that their neotype designation is the best course of action to stabilize the name, or it could mean that their 'hoevenii' from Peninsular Malaysia is not conspecific with Bleeker's original hoevenii. Until this point is discussed I find it appropriate to vote against the proposed neotype designation'. Bulletin ofZoological Nomenclature 53(2)June 1996 139 DupuisalsovotedagainstbecausetheproposedneotypewasnotfromJava. Holthuis commented: 'AsthetypelocaHtyofBagrushoeveniiBleeker, 1846isJava,andaslater materialidentifiedbyBleekerasthisspeciescamefromSumatraand Borneo, itseems illogical todesignatea specimen fromoutsidethese threelocalitiesastheneotype. As B. hoeveniiis 'an economically important catfish" it should not have been difficult to obtain a specimen from Java. Ifthis proved to be impossible I would have preferred a specimen examined and illustrated by Bleekertobetheneotype, provided that this specimen was in a sufficiently good condition'. Original reference The following is the original reference to the name placed on an Official List by the ruling given in the present Opinion: hoevenii, Bagrus, Bleeker, 1846, Nutuw- en Geneeskiindig Archiefvoor Neerland's Indie, 3(2): 154.