Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 9 
REPORT ON MR. C. W. SABROSKY'S PROPOSAL FOR THE 
SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF THE PAMPHLET 
ENTITLED " NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX 
AILES " BY J. W. MEIGEN, 1800. Z.N.(S).191 
By R. V. Melville {Assistant Secretary, International Commission on Zoological 
Nomenclature) 
Foreword 
The subjoined report, as explained in its introductory paragraphs, was 
designed to show how Mr. C. W. Sabrosky's proposal for the suppression of 
Meigen's Nouvelle Classification des M ouches a deux Ailes could be completed ; 
that is, it was envisaged as an integral part of that proposal, and 
in accordance with that view, was submitted to the Commission for a vote on 
7 October 1959. At the close of the Voting Period on 7 January 1960, 24 
Commissioners had voted in favour, and 2 against the proposals contained in 
the report. 
Professor J. Chester Bradley, President of the Commission, whilst voting 
in favour of these proposals, took the view that they constituted virtually 
a new application to the Commission ; that no vote on Mr. Sabrosky's original 
appUcation (B.Z.N. 6 : 131-141) had been formally taken ; and that an 
Opinion embodying the result of the vote on the report would be premature 
and irregular. In his view, the report should first have been published in the 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature and then presented to the Commission 
as a proposal alternative to that of Mr. Sabrosky, so that the latter could 
clearly be seen to have been expressly subjected to a vote. By this course, 
dipterists who had not already been consulted (see p. 17 below), and workers 
in the other groups aflFected, would have been given an opportunity to comment 
on the issues involved. 
In order to avoid the possibility of doubt arising now or in the future as to 
the vahdity of the vote taken on this most comphcated issue, Mr. Melville's 
report is now pubUshed below and the prescribed pubhc notice of the possible 
use by the Commission of its Plenary Powers in the manner indicated, is being 
given. If, after the expiry of six months from the date of this pubhcation, 
no objection has been received to the proposals embodied in the report, the 
vote already taken by the Commission will be regarded as rejecting 
Mr. Sabrosky's original proposal (total suppression of Meigen's 1800 names) 
and accepting the modified version set out by Mr. Melville below, and an 
Opinion will be pubUshed giving effect to that decision. If, on the other hand, 
objections are received, these will be circulated to the Commission with a 
BuU. zool. Nomend., Vol. 18, Part 1. December 1960. 
10 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
One -Month Voting Paper in which each member of the Commission will be 
asked whether, in the hght of those objections, he wishes to change his previous 
vote. If the effect of these supplementary votes is to uphold the previous 
vote by a two-thirds majority the situation will remain unchanged. If, on the 
other hand, the previous vote is not upheld, the resultant Opinion will give 
afifirmative effect to Mr. Sabrosky's original proposal, and the modified proposals 
will be lost. 
N. D. EILEY 
Honorary Secretary, 
International Commission 
on Zoological Nomenclature 
Introduction 
This report had been nearly completed by Mr. Francis Hemming at the 
time when he was compelled by ill-health to resign the office of Secretary to 
the Commission. The purpose of the report is to present to the Commission 
proposals for the completion of Mr. Sabrosky's proposal (received in 1951) for 
the suppression under the Plenary Powers of J. W. Meigen's pamphlet entitled 
Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a Deux Ailes (1800). 
2. Meigen's Nouvelle Classification is probably without rival for the amount 
of confusion and lack of uniformity in zoological nomenclature to which it has 
given rise during the last fifty years, and Mr. Sabrosky, as a specialist in Diptera 
(the group mostly concerned), is to be congratulated on his action in bringing 
the matter to the attention of the Commission. His proposal, however, 
although apparently simple, cannot be adopted without the most careful con- 
sideration, for the mere suppression of the work in question would have the 
most far-reaching effects on the nomenclature of other groups of animals. As 
will be more fully explained below, the fact that Meigen's pamphlet was almost 
completely overlooked for more than a century after its pubhcation led to many 
junior homonyms coming into existence, while the rediscovery of the work has 
led to the replacement of some (but by no means aU) of those homonyms by 
other names which have come into general use. It has therefore been necessary 
to consider individually each one of the new generic names pubhshed in the 
Nouvelle Classification and to decide whether it should be suppressed only so 
as to vaUdate its counterpart junior synonym in Diptera ; whether it should 
be suppressed so as to vahdate a junior homonym in Diptera or in some other 
group ; or whether it should be suppressed so as not to validate a homonym 
which has been replaced. This report therefore begins with a brief history 
of the Nouvelle ClassifixMlion in Section I. Section II summarises the work 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 11 
done by Mr. Sabrosky in analysing the relative usage of Meigen's 1800 names 
and of later names for the same genera and in ascertaining the wishes of 
Dipterists on the question of whether the 1800 names should be suppressed. 
Section III describes the action needed to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky 's proposal 
and Sections IV, V and VI set out the procedure required to place on Official 
Lists the names validated by the suppression of the 1800 names. Section VII 
outlines the treatment to be accorded to Meigen's pamphlet and Section VIII 
explains the way in which the bibUographic references are arranged. Section 
IX indicates future developments in respect of deficiences in the present report 
and Section X puts before the Commission the specific proposals required to 
give effect to IVIr. Sabrosky's proposal. Details of the generic, specific and 
family-group names involved are relegated to a series of Appendices. For 
convenience of reference, each name is numbered throughout this Report 
with the number of the Meigen, 1800, generic name with which it is connected. 
I. The Historical Background 
3. Meigen's Nouvelle Classification is an 8vo pamphlet of forty pages 
published in Paris. On the title page it is dated both according to the French 
Revolutionary Calendar and according to the Christian Era as "AN VIII 
(1800 v.s.)". The Revolutionary Year VIII ran from 23 September 1799 to 
22 September 1800, so that pubUcation must have taken place before the latter 
date. Meigen's "Avant-Propos " is dated " le premier Germinal an 7 " (i.e. 
21 March 1799) and Baumhauer's " Introduction " is dated " le 10 Messidor 
an 7 " (i.e. 28 June 1799). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this 
small pamphlet, which need not have taken long to print, was probably pub- 
lished early in 1800. 
4. The title-page reads " Nouvelle/Classification/des/Mouches A Deux 
Ailes/(Diptera L.)/d'apres un plan tout nouveau/par J. G. Meigen/(vignette)/a 
Paris/chez J. J. Fuchs, Librairie, Rue/des Mathurins, No. 334. /De I'lmprimerie 
de H. L. Perronneau/Rue du Battoir, No. 8/(rule)/AN VIII (1800 v.s.)." In 
this work, which was offered as a " prodrome " to a projected larger work, the 
Diptera are divided into eighty-eight (88) genera, each provided with a short 
diagnosis in French and the number of species (all European) which he recognised 
as belonging to each genus. In no case, however, is any nominal species cited 
by name. Of these 88 nominal genera, 25 had already been named by previous 
authors and 63 were new. On fm-ther consideration, Meigen seems to have 
abandoned the " plan tout nouveau " of the Nouvelle Classification, for in 1803, 
in his " Versuch einer neuen GattungsEintheUung der europaischen zweifliighgen 
Insekten " (Mag. f. Insektenk. (lUiger) 2 : 259-281) he put forward a revised 
scheme in which he made no reference to the Nouvelle Classification of 1800 
and in which only two of the new names proposed in 1800 were used. The 
total number of genera recognised was now 114, each briefly diagnosed, and 
each (with few exceptions) with one or more nominal species referred to it. 
5. FoUo^\dng the pubhcation of the Versuch of 1803, the Nouvelle Classifica- 
tion of 1800 disappeared into obscurity for 105 years. This was no doubt due 
12 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
to the great influence exercised by Meigen's later works, especially his Klassifica- 
tion Wild Beschreibung der europdischen zweiflugligen Insekten (Diptera) (1804) 
and his seven-volume Systematische Beschreibung der bekannten europdischen 
zweiflugligen Insekten (1818-1838), in both of which the system outhned in the 
Versuch of 1803 was used, whOe no reference was made to the Nouvelle 
Classification of 1800. The neglect of this latter work was also no doubt due in 
part to the rarity of the pamphlet, and the great difficulty of interpreting the 
new genera estabhshed in it through the omission by Meigen of any particulars 
as to the species referred by him to those genera. In 1908, however, the 
position was completely changed by the publication by Friedrich Hendel of his 
"J. G. Meigen : Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a Deux Ailes (Diptera 
L.)" (Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien), in which, by a close comparison of the German 
diagnoses of 1803 with the French diagnoses of 1800, he was able to synonymise 
many of the new genera published in the earher work with genera published 
in the later work. 
6. Hendel's re -introduction of the Meigen names of 1800 was strongly 
opposed by most dipterists and shortly afterwards the late Dr. J. M. Aldrich 
asked the Commission to give a ruling against the availabihty of those names. 
At that time — some years before the granting to the Commission of Plenary 
Powers to suspend the Regies in the interests of stability — Dr. Aldrich 's 
appUcation could be judged only on the narrow ground of whether or not the 
Nouvelle Classification had been " pubUshed " in the sense of Article 25 of the 
Regies. The Commission found that it had been so pubhshed and accordingly 
in Opinion 28 (1910 ; Smithson. Misc. Publ. 1989 : 66-67) it ruled that the 
generic names in the Nouvelle Classification of 1800 were to be given precedence 
over those of the Versuch of 1803 in every case where the names concerned were 
available names. 
7. Opinion 28, taken in conjunction with D. W. Coquillett's " The type- 
species of the North American genera of Diptera " (1910 ; Proc. U.S. nat. 
Mus. 37 : 499-622), in which many of Meigen's 1800 names were recognised, 
led to the acceptance of those names by a number of workers. A much larger 
number, however, refused to accept these names. An attempt was made to 
deal with the resultant disastrous confusion and lack of uniformity in the 
nomenclature of Diptera by the Fifth International Entomological Congress 
at Paris in 1932, but in a sparsely attended meeting a motion in favour of the 
acceptance of the 1800 names was carried by a small majority. This resolution 
was forwarded for consideration by the Commission at its Lisbon session in 1935. 
By this time, the tide had begun to flow in the direction of favouring stabiHty 
of nomenclature and the Commission, recognising that this end would not be 
served by the adoption en bloc of the 1800 names, decided to seek a solution by 
inviting dipterists to submit proposals in regard to individual cases in which, 
in their opinion, the acceptance of the 1800 names would lead to greater con- 
fusion than uniformity. This decision was published as Opinion 152 (1944 ; 
Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 181-196). The rarity of the Nouvelle 
Classification was such that very few dipterists had ever seen a copy, the 
majority having had to rely on Hendel's paper of 1908. It therefore appeared 
to the Office of the Commission that the intention expressed in Opinion 152 
BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 13 
would be promoted if Meigen's pamphlet were re-issued in facsimile, thus 
providing many zoologists with their first opportunity of judging the work as 
a whole. The Council of the Zoological Society of London generously placed 
the Society's copy at the Commission's disposal, and the facsimile was published 
in September 1945 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 119-160). The Meigen question 
was again considered by the Commission at its Paris session in 1948, by which 
time a larger number, though still only a minority, of dipterists had come to 
accept the 1800 names. The Commission decided (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
4 : 557-558) to take all practicable steps to promote appUcations in the terms 
of Opinion 152 for or against the suppression of the 1800 names, in the hope 
that, by the issue of a series of Opinions, all the names concerned would 
eventually be dealt with. 
8. The publication of the foregoing decision led to the submission to the 
Commission of a number of individual apphcations regarding particular names, 
and five of these were pubUshed in 1951 {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 134-160). 
This in turn aroused afresh the interest of dipterists in the Meigen problem and 
led to the submission by Mr. Sabrosky in September 1951 of the proposal for 
the suppression of Meigen's Nouvelle Classification which is now laid before the 
Commission for final settlement. 
11. Mr. Sabrosky's investigation of the relative usage of the Meigen, 1800 
names and of later names for the genera concerned and his census of the wishes 
of dipterists on the question of the suppression of the 1800 names 
(a) Relative usage of the Meigen (1800) names and of later names for the 
genera concerned 
9. In submitting his proposal for the suppression of Meigen's pamphlet 
{Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131-141), Mr. Sabrosky took note of the fact that 
the dipterists were divided into two groups, those in one group accepting, and 
those in the second refusing to accept the 1800 names, and he therefore' con- 
cluded that a quantitative analysis of the relative size of the two groups, in 
personnel and in output of publications, would provide a useful factor in 
judging the merits of his apphcation. The results of his investigations were 
presented in three tables, and these deserve careful study, not only because 
of then- intrinsic interest, but because they show conclusively, contrary to 
assertions made by some of the supporters of the 1800 names, that the usage 
of these names, far from constituting a substantial percentage of total usage, 
formed in fact only a small minority usage. The first table summarises usage in 
" major pubUcations ", divided into (1) the Uterature of the Order Diptera, 
(2) the literature of general Entomology and (3) the Uterature of general 
Zoology. The second table summarises recent usage as expressed in the 
Zoological Record for 1939, 1947 and 1948 and the Bibliogr. Agr. for 1950 and 
the third table compares usage in the years 1911-1930 with that in the years 
1931-1950 so as to show changes in practice m those two periods. The tables 
are reproduced below : 
14 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
TABLE I 
Summary of usage in major publications 
(See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 137) 
1800 Mixed 
Diptera 
Catalogues . . 
Manuals, etc. 
Faunal Lists 
General Entomology 
Textbooks . . 
Zoological Record 
Guides and Handbooks 
Others 
General Zoology 
Totals (263) . . 
Proportion of total usage 
usage 
usage 
Usage of 
later names 
Bull. Ent. Research (England) 
Journ. Econ. Entom. (U.S.A.) 
TABLE III 
(See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 139) 
1911-1930 
Number Per cent. 
of using later 
papers names 
75 95 
73 89 
1931-1950 
Number Per cent. 
of 
papers 
34 
51 
using later 
names 
97 
90 
10. These tables show convincingly that the 1800 names are accepted by 
only a small minority of authors in only a small minority of pubhshed works 
over the whole field of zoological hterature and in aU countries, and that the 
preponderance of the usage of later names for the same genera tended to 
increase slightly with the passage of time up to 1950. 
(b) Census of the wishes of dipterists on the question of the suppression 
of the 1800 names 
11. It does not necessarily follow, from the evidence presented in the 
tables above, that an equally preponderant majority of workers would favour 
the suppression of the 1800 names by the use of the Plenary Powers, and it 
was accordingly judged essential to obtain a representative statement of the 
wishes of dipterists on this point before submitting Mr. Sabrosky's proposal to 
the Commission for a decision. For this purpose 400 separates of his paper in 
the Bulletin were made available to Mr. Sabrosky to be circulated to dipterists 
with a questionnaire. The number actually circulated was 370 (U.S.A. and 
Canada 112 ; Latin America 49 ; United Kingdom 41 ; Europe 95 ; Africa 
25 ; Asia 30 ; Australasia 18). Six months later Mr. Sabrosky sent an analysis 
of the 188 replies received, representing the following percentages of the copies 
Bulletin of Zoological NomencMure 15 
O 0) 
3 
<3 
O 
00 
^ 2 
« .S 
3 
4) ^ 
CM i 
S3 O &I 
•3 cS 
Pm 's 
a o &i 
^ rt 2 
Pm 
fl 
a's p, o 00 c 
. 05 t- CO . O 
►M e*5 •* Tj< V. »« 
»« 05 05 05 Os <3J 
g ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 
^ o 
o PS 
16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
of the questionnaire distributed : — U.S.A. and Canada 63% ; Latin America 
39% ; United Kingdom 59% ; Europe 44% ; Africa 44% ; Asia 33% ; 
Australasia 56%. Mr. Sabrosky's report on these replies (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
9 : 225-240 ; 1954) brought out the following saUent points. Of the zoologists 
who repUed, 171 (80%) stated that their field of work involved the disputed 
1800 names. Of the 171, 114 (70%) stated that they used later names and 
49 (30%) the 1800 names. In the two largest areas (U.S.A. & Canada ; 
Continental Europe) 59 and 53% respectively of the zoologists replying said 
that they used later names and the combined total for the rest of the world 
(58 repUes) showed 91% as using those names. On the crucial question " Do 
you vote for the present proposal to suppress the Meigen 1800 names ? " 
155 (85%) rephed " Yes " and 28 (15%) replied " No ". 
III. Action required to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky's proposal 
12. From the evidence summarised in paragraphs 8 to 11 above it is clear 
that current usage and current opinion among Dipterists are alike in favour of 
the rejection of the Meigen 1800 names so as to validate the names in general 
use. It has already been explained m the Introduction, however, that to 
achieve this by simply suppressing the Nouvelle Classification under the Plenary 
Powers would have far-reaching disruptive effects on the current nomen- 
clature of other groups, owing to the existence of many junior homonyms of 
Meigen 1800 names, some of which have been replaced since Hendel (1908) 
resuscitated Meigen's work. 
13. Each of the new generic names in the Nouvelle Classification has there- 
fore been considered individually, and it has been found that they fall into 
three principal groups. There are first those names for which no junior 
homonyms exist ; these should be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of 
Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy so as to validate the 
junior synonyms applied to the same genera. Secondly, there are the names 
of which junior homonyms exist, whether in the Diptera or in some other 
group, and which cont'iiiue n general use, no replacement names existing ; 
in this group, the Meiger- ISOO names should be suppressed for the purposes of 
the Law of Priority (so as to validate the junior synonyms in Diptera) and for 
those of the Law of Hoirtnymy (so as to vahdate the junior homonyms). 
Thirdly, there are those names of which the junior homonyms have been 
replaced ; here the Meigen 1800 names should be suppressed for the purposes 
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, so as to 
vaUdate the junior sjaionyms in Diptera without giving a new lease of life to 
the junior homonyms in question and so invalidating the replacement names. 
This task, and the collecting of the data necessary to place on the Ofiicial List 
of Generic Names in Zoology the names, to be adopted in place of the Meigen, 
1800 names has been very laborious, and it is for this reason that so much time 
has elapsed since the publication in 1954 of Mr. Sabrosky's report on the rephes 
to his questionnaire {Bull. zool. Nomencl. 9 : 225-240). 
14. The investigations have been carried out in the Commission's office by 
Miss Diana Noakes, B.Sc. and particular thanks are due to her for the patience, 
care and skill which she devoted to this work. The closing stages were 
BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 
completed by Miss Margaret Spillane, B.Sc, in the same spirit of devotion. 
Mr. Sabrosky's public-spirited action in bringing the problem to the attention 
of the Commission and his strenuous efforts to provide it with objective 
data to form the basis of a decision have been outUned above. He also 
submitted a report on consultations between himself and non-entomological 
colleagues in the United States National Museum in regard to names in other 
groups which are junior homonyms of the Meigen (1800) names. The warmest 
thanks are due to the Trustees and Librarians of the British Museum (Natural 
History) and to the Councils and Librarians of the Zoological and Royal 
Entomological Societies of London for the facihties granted to Miss Noakes 
and Miss Spillane and for help in tracing references. Professor L. W. Grensted, 
the Consulting Classical Adviser to the Commission, furnished a report on the 
gender of the generic names which are proposed below to be placed on the 
Official List. In the later stages of the investigation many specialists in the 
Diptera and in other groups were consulted in respect of particular names, and the 
grateful thanks of the Commission are due to them. They are : The following 
members of the staff of the British Museum (Natural History), London : — 
Mr. E. B. Britton, Dr. W. E. China, Mr. R. L. Coe, Dr. L. R. Cox, F.R.S., 
the late Dr. F. W. Edwards, Dr. P. Freeman, Mr. H. Oldroyd, Mr. S. Prudhoe, 
Dr. W. J. Rees, Mr. N. D. Riley, Dr. N. Tebble, Mr. P. E. S. Whalley ; 
Dr. W. J. Hall and the late Dr. F. van Emden, Commonwealth Institute of 
Entomology, London ; Mr. A. B. Acton, University of Glasgow, Scotland ; 
the late Professor M. L. Aczel, Tucuman, Argentina, Professor C. P. Alexander, 
Amherst, Mass., U.S.A., Professor G. W. Byers, Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A., 
J. E. Collin, Esq., Raylands, Newmarket, England, Dr. N. B. Eales, Reading, 
England, Professor Dr. H. Engel, Amsterdam, Netherlands, the late Capt. 
E. R. Goffe, King's Somborne, Hants, England, Professor Elmo Hard3^ 
Hawaii, Dr. A. M. Hemmingsen, Copenhagen, Denmark, Dr. W. Hennig, 
Berlin, Germany, Professor Dr. E. M. Hering, BerUn, Germany, Dr. W. D. 
Hincks, Manchester, England, Professor Dr. T. Jaczewski, Warsaw, Poland, 
Dr. E. L. Kessel, San Francisco, Cahfornia, U.S.A., Dr. G. Kruseman, 
Amsterdam, Professor J. Lane, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Dr. H. Lemche, Copen- 
hagen, Professor G. Marcuzzi, Padua, ItPlv? Dr. T. C. S. Morrison-Scott, 
London, Dr. E. G. Munroe, Ottawa, On+<irio, Canada, Professor Dr. J. Nast, 
Warsaw, Dr. W. F. Rapp, Urbana, Illinois, U.S.A., Dr. F. R. Shaw, Amherst, 
Mass., U.S.A., Dr. J. Smart, Cambridge, England, Dr. A. Stone, Washington, 
D.C., Professor A. Thienemann, Plon, Germany, Dr. S. L. Tuxen, Copenhagen, 
Denmark, Dr. J. R. Vockeroth, Ottawa, Canada. 
15. In order that the members of the Commission may be able to foUow 
the successive steps needed to deal with the present case, it is necessary that 
they should first have before them a Ust of the generic names primarily involved. 
These are the 88 names published in the Nouvelle Classification and they are 
listed in Appendix I, where the 63 new names first published in that work are 
given in Part A and the 25 names established by earUer authors and used by 
Meigen are listed in Part B (see p. 24). 
16. Of the 63 new generic names, all of which will be suppressed under the 
Plenary Powers if Mr. Sabrosky's proposal is put into effect, three have already 
18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
been suppressed b}' the Commission. Particulars of these are given in Appendix 
II (see p. 25). The number of names still to be dealt with is thus reduced to 60. 
17. Of these 60 names, tliree are junior homon3Tns of names previously 
pubUshed for genera in other groups. Each of the senior homonyms is a vahd 
name in general use and should thus be placed on the Official List. Particulars 
are given in Appendix III (see p. 25). 
18. There then remam 57 names to be divided into the thi-ee groups 
described in paragraph 13 above. These are catalogued beloAv as follows : — 
1 name (Apivora Meigen, 1800) to be placed on the Official Index as a 
junior objective synonjmi of a name placed on the Official List in Opinion 
441 {Volucella Geoffroy, 1762) ; 
26 names without junior homonjTns, to be suppressed for the purposes of 
the Law of Priority but not for those of the La\\- of Homonymy (Appendix 
IV, Part A, p. 26) ; 
16 names with junior homonyms which have been replaced, to be sup- 
pressed in the same manner (Appendix IV, Part B, p. 26; the replaced junior 
homonjTns, to be placed on the Official Index, are included in Appendix 
V, Part K, p. 44) ; 
14 names \\ith jimior homonyms which have never been replaced (with 
one exception ; but the replacement name has never been adopted) to 
be suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the 
Law of HomonjTuy (Appendix IV, Part C, p. 27). 
It may be noted here that the junior homonyms vaUdated by the sup- 
pression of this last group of 14 names consist of five generic names in Diptera, 
two in Scyphozoa, two in Polj^chaeta, one in Coleoptera, two in Lepidoptera, 
one in Gastropoda and one in Mammaha. 
IV. Names which would need to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology in the event of the acceptance by the Commission of Mr. Sabrosky's 
Proposal 
19. In order to complete the action involved in giving effect to Mr. Sabrosky's 
proposal it is necessary now to consider, first the names to be placed on the 
Official List as the counterparts in Diptera of the Meigen 1800 names, and 
secondly, the names (in Diptera and in other groups) vahdated by the sup- 
pression of certain of the Meigen 1800 names for the pmposes of the Law of 
Homonymy. The first step in this part of the investigation is to determine 
what is the vaUd type-species of each of Meigen's 63 new genera, each of which 
was estabhshed with a brief description but without any included species. 
When Hendel first revived those names in 1908, the Code had been in existence 
only three years and gave no guidance on problems of this nature, and Opinion 
46, adopted four years later, did not provide a satisfactory solution. An 
objective basis for solving such problems was first proAaded by the Paris 
(1948) Congress (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 158-159, 346) when it ruled that the 
type-species of a genus estabhshed without any included species must be that 
species, or must be chosen from among those species, first subsequently referred 
to it. In the fight of this decision a careful study has been made of Hendel's 
BvlUtin of Zoological Nomenclature 19 
paper and of the important works by Coquillett (1910) and Stone (1941) and 
it has been possible to determine the type-species of all but four of the Meigen 
1800 genera in question. In the case of these four exceptions {Orithea, 
Salpyga, Titia, Cyanea), no species has ever been referred to them nor have 
they been sjTionymised Anth other genera, so that their names remain nomina 
dubia and no question of a counterpart name in Diptera arises. 
20. When these four nomina dubia and the three names already dealt with 
are subtracted from the 63 new generic names proposed by Meigen in 1800, 
there remain 56 names for which the valid counterparts in Diptera have to 
be found. Investigations carried out with the help of speciahsts have shown 
that in 31 cases the names currently in use for these genera fulfil all require- 
ments of the Code. These generic names, Usted in Appendix V, Part A (p. 27), 
will be directly vahdated by the suppression under the Plenary Powers of the 
corresponding Meigen 1800 names and they can accordingly be placed on the 
Official List without further delay. Three further cases, briefly set out in 
Appendix V, Part B (p. 29), are the subjects of applications published in the 
Bulletin, and require separate consideration for this reason. The counterpart 
names involved fulfil all the necessary conditions and no Plenary Powers action 
is called for other than that involved in suppressing the Meigen 1800 names in 
each case (i.e. other than that involved in approving Mr. Sabrosky's original 
proposal). These cases are thus segregated from Part A of this Appendix 
only on formal grounds because separate appUcations, not yet voted upon by 
the Commission, have been pubUshed on them. In a further 21 cases (including 
five unpublished appUcations to the Commission), there are obstacles of one 
kind or another which cannot be overcome without a more far-reaching use 
of the Plenary Powers. Summaries of these cases are given in Appendix V, 
Part C (p. 39) for information only. Action camiot be taken on them until they 
have been published in the Bulletin and pubUc notice has been given of the 
possible use of the Plenary Powers. So far as the present ruling is concerned, 
therefore, it is recommended that the Commission should expressly postpone 
the consideration of these names to a later occasion. 
21. It will readily be seen that counterpart Dipteran names can be found 
in the terms of the preceding paragraph for only 55 of the 56 names involved. 
The one remaining case is the counterpart name to replace Apivora Meigen, 
1800, and this in fact already exists. The nominal genus Apivora was first 
provided with included species by Hendel (1908) and the species in question 
were Musca inanis Linnaeus, 1758, Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758, Musca 
inflata Fabricius, 1794 and Musca bombylans Linnaeus, 1758. Coquillett 
(1910 : 508) selected Musca pellucens as the t3rpe-species of Apivora and of 
Pterocera Meigen, 1803. The same species had, however, already become the 
tjrpe-species of Volucella Geofiroy, 1762 by selection by Curtis (1833, Brit. 
Ent. 1 : pi. 452), so that Apivora Meigen 1800 and Pterocera Meigen 1803 
were alread}' junior objective synonyms of Volucella at the time when, in 
Opinion 441 (1957) the Commission used its Plenary Powers to vahdate the 
generic name Volucella Geoffto^^ 1762, and placed it on the Official List with 
Musca pellucens Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species. The attention of the Com- 
mission was not then drawn to the fact that Apivora Meigen 1800 and 
20 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Pterocera Meigen 1803 were invalid junior objective sjmonyms of Volucella 
GeoiTroy, 1762, but this defect should now be remedied by placing these two 
generic names on the Official Index. At the same time Pterocera Meigen, 1803, 
is a junior homonym of Pterocera Lamarck, 1799 (Mem. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 
1 : 72) (Class Gastropoda). Tliis name, which is not now in general use, is 
itself a junior objective synonym of Lambis [Roding], 1798, because the type- 
species of both is Sirombus latnbis Linnaeus, 1758 {Syst. Nat. ed. 10 : 743) (of 
Lambis by absolute tautonymy and of Pterocera Lamarck by monotypy). 
Pterocera Lamarck should therefore be placed on the Official Index and Lambis 
[Roding], with the name of its type-species, on the Official List. 
22. Parts D to H of Appendix V (p. 39) are concerned with names involved 
in the present case tlirough the operations of the Law of Homonymy. Part D 
lists eight generic names which are junior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names listed 
in Appendix IV, Part D and which can themselves be placed on the Official 
List, and Part E gives tlu'ee further such homonyms for which further par- 
ticulars are requii'ed. Parts F and G give respectively details of one senior 
homonym of a Meigen 1800 name which can be placed on the Official List 
and of two other senior homonyms for which information is still sought. Part 
H lists seven generic names adopted in place of junior homonyms of Meigen 
1800 names which are fit to be placed on the Official List. 
23. It is convenient at this point to consider the 25 generic names estab- 
lished by ear her authors and used by Meigen in 1800. Seven of these have 
already been dealt with by the Commission and placed on the Official List, as 
follows : Musca Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 82) ; Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758 (Opinion 
106) ; Bibio, Scatopse and Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 (Opmion 441) ; Stratiomys 
Geoffroy, 1762 (Opinion 442) ; and Hirtea Scopoh, 1763 (Opinion 441). In 
the case of eleven of the remaining names, current usage has been found on 
investigation to be in fuU agreement with the Code, so that they can be placed 
directly on the Official List (Appendix V, Part I (p. 42)). The remaining seven 
names cannot for various reasons be dealt with immediately by the Com- 
mission : particulars are given in Section J of Appendix V (p. 42). 
24. Finally, part K of Appendix V (p. 44) lists a large number of names which 
are objectively invaUd for various reasons and which can therefore be placed 
on the Official Index in the event of Mr. Sabrosky's essential proposal being 
approved. These names consist of junior homonyms, junior objective synonyms, 
unjustified emendations and erroneous subsequent spellings of names involved 
in other parts of the present case. 
V. Names to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology in the 
event of the acceptance by the Commission of Mr. Sabrosky's proposal 
25. It is necessary now to consider the type-species of each of the genera 
considered in the preceding section and to determine whether the name which 
is, under the Rules, that of the type-species, is the oldest available name for 
the species in question. In 58 cases this requirement is met and these specific 
names can be placed directly on the Official List ; they are listed in Part A of 
Appendix VI (p. 50). In Section B of that Appendix (p. 53) are given names 
which are subjectively considered to be senior synonyms of the type-species of 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 21 
others of the genera involved, and it is recommended that these names, as the 
vahd names for their species, be also placed on the Official List. 
VI. Family-group name problems 
26. As might be expected, the existence over the last fifty years of two 
names for a large number of genera (a Meigen 1800 name and another name) 
has led to the duplication of a number of family-group names. If the proposal 
to suppress the 1800 names is accepted, then the family-group names will, 
under the provisions of Declaration 20, be automatically rejected. In nearly 
every case, however, these names were already invalid as junior synonyms of 
earher names based on the generic names in use prior to Hendel's paper of 
1908. Part A of Appendix VII (p. 53) gives those of the names in tliis group 
which are recommended for addition to the Oflficial Index, and names based on 
the generic names listed in Appendix V, Part B are listed in Appendix VII, 
Part B (p. 54). Various invalid spellings of family-group names based on 
generic names involved in this case are listed in Appendix VII, Part C (Order 
Diptera) (p. 54) and one invalid spelling of a family-group name in Polychaeta 
is given in Part D (p. 56). Both these groups of names should be placed on the 
Official Index. 
27. Particulars are given in Appendix VTII of the familj^-group names 
involved in this case which are currently regarded as valid and which should 
thus be placed on the Official List. These are divided into : — Part A (p. 56), 
names in the Order Diptera based on counterparts of Meigen 1800 generic 
names ; Part B (p. 57), names based on generic names established by earlier 
authors ; Part C (p. 58), names for which the original references are still wanted ; 
Part D (p. 58), one name in a group other than Diptera based on a junior 
homonym of a Meigen 1800 name. 
VII. Treatment to be accorded to Meigen's Nouvelle classification (1800) 
28. It is an essential part of the proposals contained in this report that a 
number of the new generic names proposed by Meigen in 1800 should be 
suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the 
Law of Homonymy. It follows from this that the work itself must continue 
to exist in relation to the rights which those names A\ill retain under the Law 
of Homonymy. It is therefore proposed that the title of the Nouvelle Classi- 
fication be placed on the Oflficial List of Works Approved as Available in 
Zoological Nomenclature subject to an endorsement that, in view of the action 
taken by the Commission under its Plenary Powers, the work is available 
only for the purposes of the Law of Homonymy in relation to those names 
first published in it which have been suppressed for the purposes of the Law 
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy. 
VIII. Bibliographic references 
29. In order to simplify the reading of this report and of the Appendices, 
all the bibliographic references concerned have been gathered into a separate 
Appendix (Appendix IX, p. 58), where they are Hsted in alphabetical order of 
authors and in chronological sequence of successive works by the same author. 
22 Bvlletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
IX. Future developments 
30. In spite of all the help received from specialists, and in spite of the 
work done in the Commission's office, there still remain (April, 1959) a number 
of names of which the status is doubtful and for which the original reference is 
unknown or incomplete (see Appendix V, Parts C, E, G, and J and Appendix 
VIII, Sections C, D, and E). Efforts to fill these gaps continue and any further 
results obtained will be communicated to the members of the Commission 
with this report. Meanwhile it is recommended that the Commission should, 
if it accepts the proposals set out in the following paragraph, state in the 
ruling to be dehvered on this case, that those names are expressly postponed 
for further consideration. 
X. Recommendations 
31. In order to give effect to Mr. Sabrosky's proposal, it is recommended 
that the Commission should : — 
(1) use its Plenary Powers : 
(a) to suppress for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homon3rmy the 42 generic names in the 
Order Diptera pubhshed by Meigen in 1800 and hsted in 
Appendix IV, Parts A and B ; 
(b) to suppress for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of 
the Law of Homonymy the 14 generic names in the Order 
Diptera published by Meigen in 1800 and listed in Appendix 
IV, Part C ; 
(2) place on the Official Index of Rejected and InvaUd Generic Names in 
Zoology : 
(a) the 42 generic names proposed in (l)(a) above to be suppressed 
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the 
Law of Homonymy ; 
(b) the 14 generic names proposed in (l)(b) above to be suppressed 
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of 
Homonjony ; 
(c) the three generic names hsted in Appendix III (invaUd jimior 
homonjTus published by Meigen in 1800) ; 
(d) the 124 invahd generic names hsted in Appendix V, Part K ; 
(3) place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology : 
(a) the 31 generic names in Diptera listed in Appendix V, Part A, 
each to replace one of the names proposed in (1) above to be 
suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; 
(b)the generic names Chironomus Meigen, 1803, Dilophus Meigen, 
1803 and Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] as defined in 
Appendix V, Part B ; 
(c) the seven generic names Hsted in Appendix V, Part D (junior 
homonyms in Diptera or in other groups vahdated through 
the proposed suppression in (l)(b) above of certain Meigen, 1800 
names under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the 
Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) ; 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 23 
(d) the generic name Petaurista Link, 1795, as defined in Appendix V, 
Part F ; 
(e) the nine generic names defined in Appendix V, Part H (to replace 
junior homonyms of Meigen, 1800 names) ; 
(f) the eleven generic names estabUshed by authors prior to Meigen, 
1800 and listed in Appendix V, Part I ; 
(g) the generic name Lambis [Roding], 1798 (gender : feminine), 
type-species, by monotypy, Strombus lambis Linnaeus, 1758 
(Class Gastropoda) (see paragraph 22 above) ; 
(4) postpone for further consideration the generic names fisted in Appendix V, 
Parts C (except Platypeza Meigen, 1803), E, G and J ; 
(5) place on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : 
(a) the 58 specific names listed in Appendix VI, Part A, each repre- 
senting the t}^e-species of a genus whose name is recommended 
in (3) above to be placed on the Official List of Generic Names 
in Zoology ; 
(b) the six specific names fisted in Appendix VI, Part B, each being 
the oldest name subjectively available for the type-species of 
such a genus ; 
(6) place on the Official Index of Rejected and Invafid Family-group Names 
in Zoology : 
(a) the thirteen family-group names Hsted in Appendix VTI, Part A, 
each based on a generic name proposed in (1) above to be 
suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; 
(b) the two family-group names fisted in Appendix VII, Part B, each 
based on a generic name proposed in (1) above to be suppressed 
under the Plenary Powers ; 
(c) the 61 incorrect original spellings of family-group names fisted in 
Appendix VII, Parts C and D ; 
(7) place on the Official List of Family-group Names in Zoology : 
(a) the fifteen family-group names listed in Appendix VIII, Part A, 
each based on the counterpart of a Meigen, 1800 name proposed 
in (1) above to be suppressed under the Plenary Powers ; 
(b) the thirteen names fisted in Appendix VIII, Part B, based on 
generic names established by earfier authors and used by 
Meigen ui 1800 ; 
(8) postpone for further consideration the 12 family-group names fisted in 
Appendix VIII, Parts C and D ; 
(9) place the title of the work " Nouvelle Classification des MouchesaDeux 
Ailes " pubfished by J. W. Meigen in 1800 on the Official List of Works 
Approved as Available in Zoological Nomenclature subject to an 
endorsement that the work is available only for the purposes of the 
Law of Homonymy in relation to the generic names proposed to be 
suppressed under the Plenary Powers in (l)(a) above for the purposes 
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy, 
24 
Bulletin oj Zoological Nomenclature 
APPENDIX I 
LIST OF THE EIGHTY-EIGHT GENERIC NAMES CONTAINED IN MEIGEN'S 
" NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES MOUCHES A DEUX AILES " (1800) 
Part A 
63 names first published in the " Nouvelle Classification " 
: 13 1 Flabellifera 
: 14 3 Polymeda 
4 Liriope 
5 Pales 
: 15 6 Orithea 
7 Amphinome 
8 Petaurista 
: 16 9 Euphrosyne 
10 Phryne 
11 Zelmira 
12 Fungivora 
: 17 13 Lycoria 
14 Tendipes 
: 18 15 Pelopia 
16 Helea 
17 Phalaenula 
18 Itonida 
: 19 20 Polyxena 
21 Melusina 
: 20 22 Amasia 
25 PAi7ia 
: 21 26 Erinna 
28 Eulalia 
: 22 30 Potamida 
31 Hermione 
: 23 33 Chrysops 
34 Chrysozona 
24 37 Dionaea 
25 40 Lapria 
27 44 Coryneta 
45 Noeza 
46 /p^is 
Part B 
25 names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen, 1800 
14 2 TtjpwZa Linnaeus, 1758 : 585 
19 19 Cuhx Linnaeus, 1758 : 602 
20 23 Scathopse GeofFroy, 1762 : 450 
24 Hirtea Scopoli, 1763 : 367 
21 27 Sicus ScopoU, 1763 : 369 
22 29 Stratiomys Geoffroy, 1762 : 449, 475 
23 32 Ceria Fabricius, 1794 : 277 
24 35 Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758 : 601 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 26 
36 Bibio Geoffrey, 1762 : 450, 568 
: 25 38 Empis Linnaeus, 1758 : 603 
39 Asilus Linnaeus, 1758 : 605 
: 26 41 Erax Scopoli, 1763 : 359 
42 Conops Linnaeus, 1758 : 604 
43 Myopa Fabricius, 1775 : 798 
: 28 47 Sargus Fabricius, 1798 : 549 
48 Rhagio Fabricius, 1775 : 761 
49 Anthrax Scopoli, 1763 : 358 
: 29 50 Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758 : 584 
51 Bomhylius Linnaeus, 1758 : 606 
: 32 60 Rhingia ScopoU, 1763 : 358 
: 33 63 Thereva LatreiUe, 1796 : 167 
64 Syrphus Fabricius, 1775 : 762 
: 37 77 Musca Linnaeus, 1758 : 589 
: 40 86 Stomoxys Geoffroy, 1762 : 449, 538 
87 Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758 : 607 
APPENDIX II 
THREE GENERIC NAMES ALREADY SUPPRESSED BY THE COMMISSION 
46 Iphis Meigen, 1800, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Direction 
49 in order to validate Iphis Leach, 1817 (Class Crustacea, Order Decapoda) 
which had been placed on the Official List in Opinion 73, 1922, when it was 
not realised that Leach's name was a homonym of Meigen's name. 
59 Tylos Meigen, 1800, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 369 
in order to vaUdate (a) Micropeza Meigen, 1803 (Order Diptera) and (b) Tylos 
Audouin, 1826 (Class Crustacea, Order Isopoda). The family-group names 
involved were dealt with in Direction 41. 
72 Titania Meigen, 1800, suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Opinion 
348 m order to vahdate Chlorops Meigen, 1803. The family-group name 
involved was dealt with in Direction 28. 
APPENDIX III 
THREE JUNIOR HOMONYMS PUBLISHED BY MEIGEN IN 1800 TO BE 
PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX OF REJECTED AND INVALID 
GENERIC NAMES IN ZOOLOGY 
Meigen, 1800 name A junior homonym of For counterpart name 
in Diptera see 
7 Amphinome Amphinome Brugiere, [1792] : Appendix V A 
ix, 44 (Class Polychaeta) see 
Appendix V G 
8 Petaurista Petaurista Link, 1795 : 52-78 Appendix V C 
(Class Mammalia) see 
Appendix V F 
65 Tritonia Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 : 387 Appendix V A 
(Class Gastropoda) see 
Appendix V G 
26 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
APPENDIX IV 
56 MEIGEN 1800 GENERIC NAMES TO BE SUPPRESSED UNDER THE 
PLENARY POWERS 
Part A 
26 names without junior homonyms 
Law of Priority but not for 
Meigen, 1800 
name 
1 Flabellifera 
3 Polymeda 
6 Orithea 
11 Zelmira 
12 Fungivora 
13 Lycoria 
14 Tendipes 
16 Helea 
17 Phalaenula 
18 Itonida 
34 Chrysozona 
40 Lapria 
44 Coryneta 
For counterpart 
name in Diptera 
see 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
none (a nomen 
dubium) 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V B 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
to be suppressed 
those of the Law 
Meigen, 1800 
name 
52 Omphrale 
54 Musidora 
55 Cleona 
56 Cypsela 
57 Dorilas 
68 Tubifera 
71 Trepidaria 
73 Scopeuma 
74 Statinia 
78 Salpyga 
80 Salmacia 
82 Larvaevora 
83 Rhodogyne 
for the purposes of the 
of Homonymy 
For counterpart 
name in Diptera 
see 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V B 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
none (a nomen 
dubium) 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Part B 
16 names to be suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for 
those of the Law of Homonymy as senior homonyms of other names for which 
replacement names are in current use 
Meigen, 1800 
name 
9 Euphrosyne 
10 Phryne 
15 Pelopia 
20 Polyxena 
21 Melusina 
22 Amasia 
25 Philia 
30 Potamida 
For counterpart 
name in Diptera 
see 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V B 
Meigen, 1800 
name 
53 Clythia 
58 Atalanta 
62 Antiopa 
66 Zelima 
67 Lampetia 
69 Cinxia 
79 Titia 
Appendix V C 85 Calirrhoe 
For counterpart 
name in Diptera 
see 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
none (a nomen 
dubium) 
Appendix V A 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
27 
Part C 
14 names to be suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of 
the Law of Homonymy so as to validate junior homonyms which have not been 
replaced 
For counterpart Meigen, 1800 
Meigen, 1800 
name 
4 Liriope 
5 Pales 
26 Erinna 
28 Eulalia 
31 Hermione 
33 Chrysops 
37 Dionaea 
name in Diptera 
see 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
45 Noeza 
61 Chrysogaster 
70 Penthesilea 
75 Euribia 
81 Echinodes 
84 Crocuta 
88 Cyanea 
For counterpart 
name in Diptera 
see 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V C 
Appendix V A 
Appendix V A 
none (a nomen 
dubium) 
APPENDIX V 
GENERIC NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OR (IN 
ADDITION TO THOSE IN APPENDIX IV) ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX 
Part A 
31 generic names which represent the counterparts of Meigen 1800 names 
suppressed under the Plenary Powers in Appendix IV 
1 Ctenophora Meigen, 1803 : 263 (gender : feminine), tjrpe-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 379, Tipula at'rata Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- 
part of Flabellifera Meigen, 1800 
4 Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803 : 262 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 379, Tipula contaminata Linnaeus, 1758. 
Counterpart of Liriope Meigen, 1800 
5 Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803 : 262 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Tipula dorsalis Fabricius, 1781. Counterpart of Pales Meigen, 1800 
7 Limonia Meigen, 1803 : 262 (gender : feminine), tjrpe-species by selection 
by Westwood, 1840: 129, Tipula tripunctata Fabricius, 1781. Counterpart 
of ^m^/w'nome Meigen, 1800 
9 Macrocera Meigen, 1803 : 261 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Curtis, 1837 : pi. 637, Macrocera lutea Meigen, 1804. Counterpart 
of Euphrosyne Meigen, 1800 
13 Sciara Meigen, 1803 : 263 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- 
typy, Tipula thomae Linnaeus, 1767. Counterpart of Lycoria Meigen, 1800 
18 Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803 : 261 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Tipula pini De Geer, 1776. Counterpart of Itonida Meigen, 1800 
20 Cordyla Meigen, 1803 : 263 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotjrpy, Cordyla fusca Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Polyxena Meigen, 1800 
26 Xylophagus Meigen, 1803 : 266 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Nemotelus cinctus De Geer, 1776. Counterpart of Erinna Meigen, 
1800 
28 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
28 Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 : 265 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Westwood, 1840 : 130, Mmca hydroleon Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- 
part oi Eulalia Meigen, 1800 
31 Oxycera Meigen, 1803 : 265 (gender : feminine), type-species, by selection 
by Curtis, 1833 : pi. 441, Miisca trilineata Linnaeus, 1767. Counterpart of 
Hermione Meigen, 1800 
33 Chrysops Meigen, 1803 : 276 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Tahanus caecutiens Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Chrysops 
Meigen, 1800 
34 Haematopota Meigen, 1803 : 267 (gender : feminine), tj'pe-species, by 
monotypy, Tabanus pluvialis Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Chrysozona 
Meigen, 1800 
40 Laphria Meigen, 1803 : 270 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 389, Asilus gibbosus Linnaeus, 1758. Counter- 
part of Lapria Meigen, 1800 
45 Hybos Meigen, 1803 : 269 (gender : masculine), tjrpe-species, by selection 
by Curtis, 1837 : pi. 661, Hybos funebris Meigen, 1804. Counterpart of Noeza 
Meigen, 1800 
53 Platypeza Meigen, 1803 : 272 (gender : feminine), tjrpe-species, by selection 
by Blanchard, 1849 : pi. 170, fig. 7, Platypeza fasciata Meigen, 1804. Counter- 
part of Clythia Meigen, 1800 
54 Lonchoptera Meigen, 1803 : 272 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Lonchoptera lutea Panzer, 1809. Counterpart of Mttsidora Meigen, 
1800 
55 Callomyia Meigen, 1804 : 311 (gender : feminine), tjrpe-species, by 
monotypy, Callomyia elegans Meigen, 1804. Coimterpart of Cleona Meigen, 
1800 
58 Clinocera Meigen, 1803 : 271 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Clinocera nigra Meigen, 1804. Coimterpart of Atalanta Meigen, 
1800 
62 Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803 : 275 (gender : neuter), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 396, Musca bicincta Liimaeus, 1758. Coimter- 
part of Antiopa Meigen, 1800 
65 Spilomyia Meigen, 1803 : 273 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Williston, 1886 : 244, Musca diophthalma Linnaeus, 1758. Coimter- 
part of Tritonia Meigen, 1800 
67 Merodon Meigen, 1803 : 274 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
selection by Westwood, 1840 : 137, Syrphus clavipes Fabricius, 1781. Counter- 
part oi Lampetia Meigen, 1800 
69 Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 : 274 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 394, Musca lappona Liimaeus, 1758. Counter- 
part of Cinxia Meigen, 1800 
70 Criorrhina Meigen, 1822 : 236 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Westwood, 1840 : 136, Syrphus asilicus Fallen, 1816. Counterpart 
of Penthesilea Meigen, 1800 
71 Calobata Meigen, 1803 : 276 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 29 
monotypy, Musca petronella Linnaeua, 1758. Counterpart of Trepidaria 
Meigen, 1800 
73 Scathophuga Meigen, 1803 : 277 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Mv^ca merdaria Fabricius, 1794. Counterpart of Scopeuma 
Meigen, 1800 
81 Eriothrix Meigen, 1803 : 279 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, through Musca lateralis Fabricius, 1775, Eriothrix lateralis Hendel, 
1908. Coimterpart of Echinodes Meigen, 1800 
82 Tachina Meigen, 1803 : 280 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Wachtl, 1894 : 142, Musca grossa Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart 
of Larvaevora Meigen, 1800 
83 Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803 : 278 (gender : neuter), type-species, by 
monotypy, 3Iusca rotundata Linnaeus, 1758. Counterpart of Rhodogyne 
Meigen, 1800 
84 Bucentes Latreille, 1809 : 339 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
monotj'py, Bucentes cinereus Latreille, 1809, a replacement name for Musca 
geniculata De Geer, 1776. Comiterpart of Crocuta Meigen, 1800 
85 Prosena St. Fargeau & Serville, 1828 : 499, 500 (gender : feminine), 
type-species, by original designation, Stomoxys siberita Fabricius, 1775. Counter- 
part of Calirrhoe Meigen, 1800. 
Part B 
Three counterpart names in Diptera concerning which specific 
proposals have been published in the " Bulletin " 
14 Chironomus Meigen, 1803 : 260 (counterpart of Tendipes Meigen, 
1800), see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 151-152, 1951. Z.N.(S.) 469 
The two generic names involved here are objective synonyms, for Tipula 
plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, is the type-species of Tendipes by selection by 
Coquillett, 1910 : 260, and of Chironomus by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 
377. The particular proposal before the Commission (by Dr. John Smart) 
is that the Plenary Powers be used to suppress Tendipes so as to vaUdate 
Chironomus — that is, in the same sense as Mr. Sabrosky's primary proposal. 
He is supported by Dr. Alexander and Dr. Shaw, by Dr. Marcuzzi and by 
Mr. Acton. The opposite view (that Tendipes should be placed on the Official 
List and Chironomus rejected) is taken by Mr. Alan Stone and Dr. Hennig. 
In an unpublished contribution on this case. Dr. G. Kruseman asks that the 
Plenary Powers be used to set aside all designations of a type-species hitherto 
made for Tendipes so as to designate Chironomus barbipes Staeger, 1839 : 561. 
This proposal is defective in two respects : (a) Dr. Kruseman is of the opinion 
that no vahd type -designation has ever been made for Tendipes, and he 
overlooks CoquiUett's selection of Tipula plumosa ; (b) under the Rules 
Tendipes and Chironomus are objective synonyms, and they have always been 
so regarded. Dr. Kruseman adduces no evidence that they have been, or 
should in future be, used as independent names. Substantially, therefore, 
30 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
the choice before the Commission is simply between Dr. Smart's proposal 
(which is ill line with the main Sabrosky proposal) to suppress Tendipes and 
vahdate Chironomus, and Dr. Stone's proposal in the exactly opposite sense. 
This is perhaps one of the most important individual cases in the whole 
complex. The family chironomidae is very large and widely distributed, 
as is the genus Chironomus itself, and the confusion caused by the resuscitation 
of the name Tendipes (which has given rise to the family-name tendipedidae) 
is therefore all the greater. There is stronger support for the suppression of 
Tendipes than there is for its addition to the Official List. 
25 Dilophus Meigen, 1803 : 264 (counterpart of PUlia Meigen, 1800), 
see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 153-155, 1951. Z.N.(S.) 498 
This is another case of a choice between two objective synonyms, for 
Tipula febrilis Linnaeus, 1758 : 588, is the type-species of Philia by selection 
by Coquillett, 1910:588, and of Dilophus by Latreille, 1810:422, 381. 
Professor Elmo Hardy originally asked that Philia be placed on the Official 
List and Dilophus rejected, but he has since withdrawn this proposal which was 
in consequence supported only by the late Professor Aczel. Dr. Stone, 
Dr. Hennig, Dr. Alexander and Dr. Shaw all wish to see Philia suppressed 
under the Plenary Powers and Dilophus vaUdated (in line with Mr. Sabrosky 's 
main proposal) and in this they are now supported by Professor Hardy. 
57 Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803] (counterpart of Dorilas Meigen, 1800), 
see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 2 : 140-149, 346-348, 1951. Z.N.(S.) 221 
The tjrpe-species of Dorilas, by designation by Coquillett, 1910 : 535, is 
Pipunculus campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] : 463. This is also the type- 
species of Pipunculus, by monotypy, and of Microcera Meigen, 1803 : 273, 
by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 569. Microcera, however, has never come 
into use since Meigen himself (1824 : 19) synonymised it with Pipunculus. 
Mr. Rapp proposes that Dorilas be suppressed under the Plenary Powers 
so as to vahdate Pipunculus (in hne with Mr. Sabrosky's main proposal) and 
he is supported by Dr. Smart, Dr. Alexander, Dr. Shaw and Mr. Oldroyd. 
The opposite view is taken by Dr. Stone, Professor E. D. Hardy, Professor 
Aczel and Dr. Hennig. 
Part C 
Brief particulars of names which represent the counterparts 
of Meigen 1800 names and which should be 
postponed for further consideration 
3 Erioptera Meigen, 1803 : 262 (counterpart of Polymeda Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1406 
Erioptera was established without included species. In 1804 (: 50-52) 
Meigen referred six species to it, including E. grisea Meigen, 1804 : 51, E. lutea 
Meigen, 1804 : 52, and E. ater [sic] Meigen, 1804 : 50. Curtis (1835 : pi. 557) 
designated Tipula flavescens Linnaeus, 1758 as type-species, but this is invaUd 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 31 
because the species was not one of those originally included. The first vahd 
designation was of E. grisea by Blanchard, [1846] : pi. 163, fig. 3 (see Stone, 
1941 : 413), and Coquillett (1910 : 540) selected E. lutea. These two species 
are not now regarded as congeneric. 
Molophilus Curtis, 1833 : pi. 444, has as type-species, by original designation, 
M. brevipennis Curtis, 1833 (ibid.) and this is a junior subjective synonym of 
Erioptera atra Meigen, which is stiU regarded as congeneric with E. grisea 
Meigen but not with E. lutea. Current usage seems to adopt Erioptera in the 
sense of E. lutea and Molophilus in the sense of M. brevipennis {=ater), and 
speciaUsts are asked to say whether they wish the Plenary Powers to be used 
to stabilise this usage. 
8 Trichocera Meigen, 1803 : 262 (counterpart of Petaurista Meigen, 1800). 
21 Atractocera Meigen, 1803 : 263 (counterpart of Melusina Meigen, 
1800). Z.N.(S.) 1407 
The type-species of Trichocera (by monotypy) and of Petaurista (by mono- 
typy : the sole species referred to the genus by Hendel, 1908 : 47) is Tipula 
hiemalis De Geer, 1776 : 360. This is currently considered congeneric with 
Tipula regelationis Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, which is the type-species oi Atractocera 
by monotypy, and of Melusina by selection by Hendel, 1908 : 50. Of these 
four genera, Petaurista is invahd as a junior homonym oi Petaurista Link, 1795, 
(see Appendix III) and the other three are synonyms of one another. 
In 1818 (: 290) Meigen said that he had misidentified Tipula regelationis 
in 1803 and proposed Simulia [sicl ornata for the species which he had then had 
before him, but under the Rules, he must be presumed to have correctly 
identified his species (see Stone, 1941 : 412), so that the true regelationis is the 
vaUd type-species of Atractocera. Coquillett (1910 : 512, 567) and other 
authors, however, regard Simulium ornatum as the type-species of Atractocera, 
which thus becomes a subjective junior synonym of Simulium LatreUle, 
[1802-1803] : 426 (type-species, by monotypy, Rhagio colombaschensis F&hTicms, 
1787 : 333), and these authors regard ornatum and coloynbaschensis as distinct 
species of Simulium. Under the Rules, however, Atractocera (which is not in 
general use) is a synonym of Trichocera, not of Simulium. 
It is not at present clear how stabUity would best be preserved in this case, 
but speciahsts are asked to comment on the following : that Trichocera (type- 
species Tipula hiemalis) and Simulium (t3rpe- species Rhagio colombaschensis) 
be placed on the Official List of Generic Names and that the specific names 
hiemalis, colombaschensis, regelationis and ornata be placed on the Official 
List of Specific Names. No action is called for in respect of Atractocera. 
10 Anisopus Meigen, 1803 : 264 (counterpart of Phryne Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1408 
Anisopus was first estabUshed without any included species, and of the 
two species first referred to it by Meigen in 1804, Anisopus fuscus Meigen, 
1804 : 103 (a junior subjective synonym of Tipula fuscata Fabricius, 1775 : 755) 
was selected as type-species by Coquillett in 1910 (: 507). Anisopus thus 
became a senior subjective synonym of Rhyphus Latreille, [1804-1805] : 291 
32 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
(type-species, by monotypy, Tipula fenestrarum [sic] = T. fenestralis Scopoli, 
1763 : 322) ; and a juioior subjective synonym of Sylvicola Harris, 1776 : 100, 
by virtue of Coquillett's (1910 : 610) selection oi Sylvicola brevis Harris, which 
is a junior sjoionym of fenestralis Scopoh, as tjrpe-species of Sylvicola. [The 
generic name Sylvicola was estabhshed in the Index to Harris's work as the 
name for thirteen species described in his text as " Dipterae Sylvicolae ".] 
Sylvicola thus becomes the oldest available name for the genus to which 
Tipula fenestralis Scopoli, Sylvicola brevis Harris, Tipula fuscata Fabricius 
and T.fusca Meigen are all referred, but it is not known whether it or one of the 
junior sjmonyms is in general use. SpeciaUsts are asked to comment on the 
three following alternatives : — 
(1) that Sylvicola Harris (type-species S. brevis Harris) be placed on the 
Official List of Generic Names, with fenestralis Scopoli on the Official 
List of Specific Names as the oldest available name for that species ; 
(2) that Anisoptis be placed on the Official List of Generic Names with 
A. fuscus Meigen as type-species and with fuscata Fabricius on the 
Official List of Specific Names as the oldest available name for that 
species ; 
(3) that Rhyphus LatreiUe and the name of its type-species (fenestralis 
Scopoh) be placed on the Official Lists. 
If either of the last two choices is preferred, then some means will have to be 
found of suppressing the senior synonym or synonyms involved. 
11 Platyura Meigen, 1803 : 264 (counterpart of Zelmira Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1409 
Platyura was estabhshed without any included species, and of the five species 
first referred to it by Meigen in 1804 (: 101-102), P. marginalis Meigen, 1804 : 101, 
was selected as type-species by Blanchard, [1846] : pi. 164, fig. 10. Usage has, 
however, generally followed a later and therefore invahd selection of P. fasciata 
Meigen, 1804 : 101, made by Zetterstedt, 1851 : 4077, which was also designated 
as tjnpe-species of Zelmira by CoquiUett in 1910 (: 621). Under the first 
selection, Platyura becomes a senior objective synonym of Apemon Johannsen, 
1909 : 20 (type-species, by original designation, Platyura pectoralis CoquiUett, 
1895 : 199) and, assuming the suppression of Zelmira in accordance with 
Mr. Sabrosky's primary proposal, there is no name available for the genus 
containing Platyura fasciata) Meigen. Thus if the Rules are strictly followed, 
Zelmira (tjrpe-species fasciata) and Platyura (type-species marginata) would 
be placed on the Official List and Apemon would become a junior synonym of 
Platyura. Alternatively the Plenary Powers could be used to designate 
fasciata as the type-species of Platyura and to place Apemon (tjrpe-species 
pectoralis) on the Official List. The specific name marginalis Meigen, 1804 
could at the same time be placed on the Official List of Specific Names as a 
vaUd specific name in its own right. 
12 Mycetophila Meigen, 1803 : 263 (counterpart of Fungivora Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 717 
Professor John Lane and Dr. Paul Freeman, in an unpublished apphcation 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 33 
to the Commission, point out that Meigen (1803 : 263) originally included 
two species in Mycetophila, namely, Tipula fungorum " De Gear " and Tipula 
agarici seticornis " De Greer " [of which the latter should apparently be cited 
as Tipula agarici de Villers, 1789 : 393]. De Geer's Tipula fungorum included 
(a) larval stages of at least two species of ? Mycetophila and (b) the adult male 
of the species now known as Mycetophila fungorum (De Geer, 1776). T. agarici 
seticornis T)e Geer, 1776 : 367, is a nomen dubium, but the description appears 
to refer to a species of Trichonta Winnertz, 1863 : 847. 
Confusion has been introduced by later authors, for Olivier (1811) described 
material of Tipula fungorum as agarici. Winnertz (1863 : 879) jA&ced fungorum 
in his new genus Exechia and Johannsen (1909) designated /«7igror%m as type- 
species of Exechia and agarici as type-species of Mycetophila. The latter 
selection was adopted by CoquiUett (1910 : 545). Thus under the Rules 
Trichonta must give place to Mycetophila, with type-species the indeterminate 
agarici, and Mycetophila must give place to Exechia, with ty^e-s^ecies fungorum, 
while Exechia must give way to its earliest available synonym, which appears 
to be Brachydicrania Skuse, 1888. 
In 1804 (: 91) Meigen renamed his Mycetophila fungorum of 1803 as M.fusca. 
This species is always regarded as a species of Exechia, and the true fungorum 
De Geer as a species of Mycetophila. The appUcants therefore seek the use 
of the Plenary Powers to set aside all designations of type-species for Mycetophila 
and Exechia hitherto made and to designate Tipula fungorum De Geer, 1776, 
as tjrpe-species of Mycetophila and Mycetophila fusca Meigen, 1804, as type- 
species of Exechia. 
15 Tanypus Meigen, 1803 : 261 (counterpart of Pelopia Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1410 
The type-species of Tajiypus (by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442,377) 
and of Pelopia (by selection by CoquiUett, 1910 : 586) is Tipula cincta Fabricius, 
1794 : 246, but this species is unrecognisable, so that both generic names are 
nomina dubia. Thienemann (1916) suggests that the Plenary Powers could be 
used to designate Tipula monilis Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, as t3rpe-species of 
Pefopia, and either T.CttZici/brmis Linnaeus, 1767 : 978, or Tanypus punctipennia 
Meigen, 1818 : 61, as type-species of Tanypus, but there is no evidence at hand 
to put before the Commission to justify overriding the fact that the two generic 
names are objective synonyms of one another. 
16 Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803 : 261 (counterpart of Helea Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.)1411 
The type-species of Ceratopogon, by monotypy, is Tipula barbicornis 
Linnaeus, 1767 : 974, but this species is unrecognisable, so that the generic 
name is a nomen dubium. CoquiUett (1910 : 520, 549) and other authors have 
regarded Ceratopogon communis Meigen, 1804 : 27, as the valid name for the 
species cited as barbicornis Linnaeus by Meigen in 1803 and have taken it as 
the type-species of Ceratopogon. Thienemami (1916), however, suggests that 
Ceratopogon lucorum Meigen, 1818 : 72, should be taken as the type-species. 
Comments are sought on the merits of these two proposals, either of which 
would require the use of the Plenary Powers to bring it into effect. 
34 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
17 Psychoda Latreille, 1796 : 152 (counterpart of Phalaenula Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1412 
Psychoda, was established without any included species, but in [1802-1803] : 
424 Latreille referred a single species to it, and this species {Tipula phalaenoides 
Linnaeus, 1758 : 588) is therefore the type-species by monotypy. Trichoptera 
Meigen, 1803 : 261, has the same type-species, by selection by CoquiUett, 
1910 : 616. In the same paper (: 587) CoquHlett designated Trichoptera 
ocellaris Meigen, 1804 : 44, as the type-species of Phalaenula, but this was 
invahd, because the species was not among those first referred to Phalaenula 
by Hendel in 1908 ; these species were Tipula phalaenoides " Fab." (i.e. 
Linnaeus, as above) and T. hirta " Fabricius " (i.e. Linnaeus, 1761 : 438). 
The specific name ocellaris was proposed by Meigen for the species which he 
had identified as Tipula hirta in 1803, but this does not alter the fact that he 
must be presiuned, under the Rules, to have identified his species correctly 
in the first instance, so that T. ocellaris (which is now referred to Clytocerus 
Eaton, 1904, a genus far removed from Psychoda) is not eUgible for selection 
as the type-species of either Trichoptera or Phalaenula. 
CoquUlett's designation of the type-species of Trichoptera was made in the 
form " Psychoda alternata Say (as Tipula phalaenoides Fabricius) " because 
P. alternata Say (1824 : 358) is generally agreed to be the vahd name for 
Tipula phalaenoides Fabricius, non Luinaeus. This again does not alter the 
fact that, imder the Rules, the species identified by Fabricius must be presumed 
to be the true phalaenoides, and that that species is the vaUd type-species of 
Trichoptera. 
Latreille, [1802-1803], in the passage referred to above, stated imder 
Psychoda " Exemples. Tipula phalaenoides Linn., ou le genre psychodes de 
mon Precis . . . Celui de phalaenule de Meigen ", and although this estab fishes 
the type-species of Psychoda, it does not do so for Phalaenula, because the generic 
name was cited in the vernacular. Dr. Paul Freeman, to whom the above 
information is due, presents three alternative solutions to this problem, and 
speciahsts are asked to comment on them (he prefers the first alternative) : — 
(1) assuming the suppression of Phalaenula \mder the Plenary Powers (in 
conformity with Mr. Sabrosky's main proposal), to place Psychoda 
on the Ofl&cial List with Tipula phalaenoides Linnaeus as type- 
species, and Trichoptera on the Official Index as a junior objective 
synonym of Psychoda ; 
(2) to use the Plenary Powers to designate Trichoptera ocellaris Meigen as 
type-species of Trichoptera, thus displacing Clytocerus ; 
(3) to use the Plenary Powers to designate Psychoda alternata Say as the 
type-species of Trichoptera, thus making that genus a junior subjective 
synonym of Psychoda. 
21 Atractocera Meigen, 1803 : 263 (counterpart of Meluaina Meigen, 1800), 
see above imder 8 Trichocera Meigen, 1803. 
22 Penthetria Meigen, 1803 : 264. Z.N.(S.) 548 
Professor Elmo Hardy points out that this genus was synonymised with 
Amasia Meigen, 1800, by Hendel, 1908 (: 50). But the generic name ^WMwia 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 35 
has never been used, no species have ever been referred to it, and Hendel's 
synonymy has never been accepted, so that Amasia is generally considered to be 
a nomen dubium, never having been defined in terms of an included species. 
Penthetria was also estabhshed without included species, but in 1804 (: 104) 
Meigen referred the single species P. funebris Meigen, 1804 to it and this is the 
type-species by monotypy. This unpubhshed appUcation thus involves the 
use of the Plenary Powers to suppress Amasia (in hne with the Sabrosky pro- 
posal) and to place Penthetria, as defined above, on the Official List. 
30 Chippium LatreiUe, [1802-1803] : 448 (counterpart of Potamida Meigen, 
1800). Z.N.(S.) 1413 
Chippium was estabhshed with two included species, Stratiomys ephippium 
and S. microleon Fabricius, 1775 : 759, neither of which was designated or 
indicated as type-species. In [1804^1805] (: 341) LatreiUe emended the generic 
name to Ephippium (a junior homonjrm of Ephippium, [Roding], 1798) and 
in 1810 (: 442, 384) stated that Stratiomys ephippium was the type-species. 
Some authors have given Ephippium Latreille priority over Clitellaria Meigen, 
1803 : 265, of which 8. ephippium is also the tj^e-species, by monotypy. 
In 1902 (: 191) Bezzi proposed Ephippiomyia as a replacement name for 
Ephippium Latreille, non [Roding]. The four names Chippium Latreille, 
[1802-1803], Clitellaria Meigen, 1803, Ephippium Latreille, [1804-1805], and 
Ephippiomyia Bezzi, 1902 are thus aU objective synonyms of one another, 
but the first and oldest has never been used and the third is an invahd junior 
homonym. 
Speciahsts are asked to comment on the tentative proposal that the Plenary 
Powers be used to suppress Chippium ; that Clitellaria be placed on the Official 
List ; and that Ephippium Latreille and Ephippiomyia Bezzi be placed on the 
Official Index. 
37 Platyptera Meigen, 1803 : 269 (counterpart of Dionaea Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1414 
The type-species of Platyptera is Empis platyptera Panzer, 1794 : tab. 23, 
by absolute tautonymy. This specific name is considered to be a junior 
synonym of Empis marginata Fabricius, 1784 : 364, which is placed in the 
subgenus Rhamphomyia Meigen, 1822 : 42. EngUsh zoologists generally use 
Platyptera as a subgenus of Empis for the group of Empis borealis Linnaeus, 
1758 : 603, and Rhamphomyia either as a subgenus of Empis or as a separate 
genus. There is not yet enough information on this case to frame tentative 
proposals for the criticism of specialists. 
44 Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 : 269 (counterpart of Coryneta Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1415 
Tachydromia was estabhshed with two included species, Musca cursitans 
Fabricius, 1775 : 782, and M. cimicoides [sic] Fabricius, 1779 : 253. In 1822 
(: 70) Meigen stated that he had misidentified Mu^ca cimecoides Fabricius in 
1803 and renamed his species Tachydromia connexa. Curtis, 1833 : pi. 477, 
selected Musca arrogans Linnaeus, 1767 : 995, (which he regarded as a synonym 
36 Bulletin oj Zoological Nomenclature 
of M. cimicoides [sic]) as type-species of Tachydromia, but this is, of course, 
invalid. Coquillett (1903, 1910) selected T. co7ineza as type-species, but this 
is equally invalid. According to Mr. Oldroyd, Musca arrogans is still regarded 
as the vaUd name of the true 31. cimecoides Fabricius, and M. arrogans and 
T. connexa are both cmrently placed in Tachydromia. Speciahsts are therefore 
asked to comment on the tentative proposal that the Plenary Powers be used 
to designate Tachydromia connexa Meigen, 1822, as the type-species of TocAy- 
dromia Meigen, 1803. 
52 Hypselura Meigen, 1803 : 273 (counterpart of Omphrale Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 549 
The tjrpe-species of Hypselura, by monotypy, is Musca senilis Fabricius, 
1794 : 33, a junior synonym oi M . fenestralis Linnaeus, 1758 : 597. This latter 
is the type-species, by monotypy, of Scenopinus Latreille, [1802-1803] : 463, 
so that Hypselura and Scenopinus are subjective sjmonyms. Since Scenopinus 
is in general use, there seems to be no obstacle to placing it on the Ofl&cial 
List, but the advice of speciahsts is sought on the current status of Hypselura 
and as to whether M. fenestralis Linnaeus and M. senilis Fabricius should be 
regarded as congeneric (following Kertesz, 1909) or not (following Krober, 
1937). In the latter case, Hypselura can also be placed on the Official List. 
53 Platypeza Meigen, 1803 : 272 (counterpart of Clythia Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 542 
This is a simple case of a choice between two objective synonyms, for 
Platypeza fasciata Meigen, 1804 : 310, is the type-species of Clythia, by designa- 
tion by Coquillett, 1910 : 525, and of Platypeza by selection by Blanchard, 
1849 : pi. 170, fig. 7. Professor Kessel, in an unpublished apphcation, asks 
that Clythia be placed on the Official List and Platypeza rejected (in direct 
opposition to Mr. Sabrosky's primary proposal). 
This case can in fact be dealt with in the course of the present ruling ; 
for if Mr. Sabrosky's proposal is accepted, Platypeza will be automatically 
validated and can be placed on the Official List, while if his proposal is rejected, 
Clythia will be placed on the Official List and Platypeza on the Official Index. 
56 Borborus Meigen, 1803 : 276 (counterpart of Cypsela Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1416 
The type-species of Borborus, by selection by Curtis, 1833 : pi. 469, is 
Musca subsultans Linnaeus, 1767 : 993, which is a nomen dubium. Coquillett 
(1910 : 530) selected M. subsultans Fabricius, 1794 : 392, as the type-species 
of Cypsela ; this species is recognisable and it is clear that Fabricius misapphed 
the Linnean name. The Fabrician species is, however, regarded as congeneric 
with Sphaerocera curvipes LatreiUe, [1804r-1805]: 394, the type-species, by 
monotypy, of Sphaerocera Latreille, 1804 : 24. The advice of speciahsts is 
sought as to whether Borborus and Sphaerocera are used in competition for 
the same genus, and if so which is the more widely used ; or whether they are 
treated as distinct genera, and if so what should be taken as the type-species of 
Borborus ? Should the Plenary Powers be used to suppress Musca subsultans 
Linnaeus, 1767 so as to vahdate M. subsultans Fabricius, 1794 ? 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 37 
61 Chrysogaster Meigen, 1803 : 274 (counterpart of Chrysogaster Meigen, 
1800). Z.N.(S.) 1417 
Meigen in 1803 placed three species in this genus, coemiteriorum, metallintis 
and umhrarum, all attributed to Fabricius. Zetterstedt (1843 : 816) selected 
Chrysogaster solstitialis FaMen, 1817 : 56, as type-species, but this was invalid 
because the species was not one of the originally included species and because 
he synonymised it with doubt with "Musca coemiteriorum Linn. Fn. svec. 
1842 ? " (a name pubUshed before 1758). Specialists are asked to say whether 
Musca coemiteriorum Linnaeus, 1758 : 597, M. coemiteriorum Fabricius, 
1787 : 339, and M. coemiteriorum Meigen, 1803, are identical or not. Should 
M . coemiteriorum Linnaeus, 1758, be designated as type-species of Chrysogaster, 
or should the Plenary Powers be used to designate C. solstitialis Fallen ? 
66 Eumeros Meigen, 1803 : 273 (counterpart of Zelima Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1418 
Meigen established Eumeros with two included species, Musca segnis 
Linnaeus, 1758 : 595, and Musca pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 : 594. Syritta 
St. Fargeau & Serville, 1828 : 808, was established with 31. pipiens as type- 
species by monotypy, so that under Opinion 6, M. segnis became the type- 
species of Eumeros. This species was designated type-species of Zelima by 
Coqumett(1910 : 621) and of Z?/Zo to Meigen, 1822 : 211, by Curtis (1832 : pi. 409). 
Thus Zelima, Eumeros and Xylota are objective synonyms. 
Mr. J. E. CoUin points out in an unpublished application that Xylota was 
proposed as a replacement name for Heliophilus Meigen, 1803 : 273, on account 
of a supposed homonymy with Heliophila in Botany, so that under the Rules 
the two genera should have the same type-species. The type-species of 
Heliophilus is Musca sylvarum Linnaeus, 1758 : 592, by designation by Coquillett, 
1910 : 550. Mr. CoUin proposes that Heliophilus (which is technically available) 
should be suppressed under the Plenary Powers in order to avoid confusion 
with the Syrphid genus Helophilus Meigen, 1822 : 368, and that Curtis's type- 
selection for Xylota be validated. 
It appears that Xylota is more widely used than its senior objective 
synonym Eumeros. This may be because in 1804 (: 20) Meigen emended 
Eumeros to Eumerus and then, in 1822 (: 202), proposed Eumerus for an entirely 
different genus (again a Syrphid) for which Eumerus Meigen, 1822, non 1804 
is consistently used. It is therefore proposed that Eumeros Meigen, 1803 be 
suppressed under the Plenary Powers, that the unjustified emendation Eumerus 
Meigen, 1804 be placed on the Official Index and that Eumerus Meigen, 1822, 
be vahdated under the Plenary Powers and placed on the Official List (its type- 
species is Syrphus tricolor Fabricius, 1798 : 563, by designation by Curtis, 
1839 : pi. 749) ; and that Xylota (with type-species M. segnis) be also vahdated 
under the Plenary Powers. 
68 Elophilus Meigen, 1803 : 274 (counterpart of Tubifera Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1419 
The type-species of Elophilus, by selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 395, 
is Musca tenax Linnaeus, 1758 : 591. The same species is the type-species of 
Tubifera by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 618. In 1832, however (: pi. 432), 
38 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Curtis selected that species as the tjrpe-species oi Eristalis Latreille, 1804 : 194, 
and chose Musca pendula Linnaeus, 1758 : 591, as the type-species of Elophilus, 
and this invahd action has been generally followed. Mr. CoUin states in an 
unpubhshed apphcation that Elophilus and Eristalis are invahd under the Rules 
as junior objective synonyms of Tubifera, and that the rejection of Elophilus 
would necessitate the proposal of a new name for the pendula-group. He also 
states that Fabricius (1805 : 233) emended Elophilus to Helophilus and that 
this emendation has been universally adopted (it is not clear, however, how 
this name is related to Helophilus Meigen, 1822, mentioned under the preceding 
item). He supports Mr. Sabrosky's proposal to suppress Tubifera Meigen, 1800, 
and suggests that the Plenary Powers be used to vaUdate Curtis's designation 
of Musca pendula as type-species of Elophilus and to vahdate Fabricius's 
emendation of this name to Helophilus. Eristalis (with M. tenax as tjrpe- 
species) and Helophilus (M. pendula) could then be placed on the Official List. 
74 Dictya Meigen, 1803 : 277 (counterpart of Statinia Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1420 
Sack (1939 : 56) selected Musca umbrarum Linnaeus, 1758 : 599, as type- 
species of Dictya, but it is not known if this is the earUest t3rpe-designation 
for this genus. Hendel's selection (1924 : 211) of Musca marginata Fabricius, 
1775 : 784, as type-species of Statinia was invahd, because this was not one of 
the two species (" M. cucullaria, umbrarum Fab.") which he had first attributed 
to the genus in 1908, and Stone (1941 : 414) was in error in following this. 
An unfortunate result has been that some authors have needlessly discarded 
Coremacera Rondani, 1856 : 106, (type-species, by original designation, 
M. marginata Fabricius) as though it were a junior objective synonym of 
Statinia. 
Hendel (1908 : 64) synonymised Dictya not only with Statinia but also 
with Tetanocera " DumerU, 1798, sens, lat.", but this latter name cannot be 
traced (it may perhaps refer to the French vernacular " Tetanocere " Dumeril, 
1798; see Cresson, 1920: 55). The earhest use of Tetanocera appears to be by 
Latreille, 1804 : 196 (tj^e-species, by monotypy, Musca graminum Fabricius, 
1775 : 785). In 1920 (: 54) Cresson pubhshed Chaetomacera (type-species, by 
original designation, M. elata Fabricius, 1781 : 441) as a replacement name for 
" Tetanocera Dumeril, 1806 ", but the name then used by Dumeril (: 282) was 
Tetanocerus and he included no species in the genus. It appears, however, that 
Tetanocera, wrongly attributed to Dumeril, 1806 (and as such a junior homonym 
of Tetanocera Latreille, 1804) is in general use with M. elata Fabricius treated 
as its type-species. The advice of speciahsts is therefore sought on the 
following questions : — 
(1) Should Dictya be placed on the Official List with Musca umbrarum 
Linnaeus, 1758, as type-species ? 
(2) Should Coremacera Rondani, 1856, be placed on the Official List with 
Musca margirmta Fabricius, 1775, as type-species ? 
(3) Should the Plenary Powers be used to suppress Tetanocera Dumeril, 
1798, (acheirony m) and Tetanocera Latreille, 1804, so as to vahdate 
that name from whatever author so emended Tetanocerus Dumeril, 
BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 39 
1806, and to designate Musca elata Fabricius, 1781, as its type-species? 
(4) Should Chaetomacera Cresson, 1920, be placed on the Official Index (as 
a junior objective synonym of " Tetanocera ") ? 
(5) Should any of these questions be modified by reason of the fact that 
any or all of the following species are regarded as congeneric : Musca 
umbrarum Linnaeus, 1758, M. graminum Fabricius, 1775, and M. elata 
Fabricius, 1781 ? 
76 Trypeta Meigen, 1803 : 277 (counterpart of Eurihia Meigen, 1800). 
Z.N.(S.) 1421 
The type-species of Trypeta, by selection by Coquillett, 1910 : 618, is 
Musca artemisiae Fabricius, 1794 : 351, and according to Mr. Oldroyd this is 
the oldest available name for the species and the generic name, thus defined, 
is in general use. Spilographa Loew, 1862 : 39, (type-species, by selection by 
CoquiUett, 1910 : 607, Trypeta hamifera Loew, 1846 : 496) is treated as a junior 
synonym of Trypeta, since the oldest available name for this species is Tephritis 
immaculata Macquart, 1835, considered congeneric with M. artemisiae. It is 
not clear, however, whether or no Trypeta and Spilographa are currently 
employed in different senses and the advice of specialists is sought on this 
point. 
80 Gonia Meigen, 1803 : 280 (counterpart of Salmacia Meigen, 1800) 
Z.N.(S.) 1422 
Gonia contained no species until Meigen (1826 : 2-7) referred thirteen species 
to it. One of these, Musca capitata De Geer, 1775 : 3, was selected as type-species 
by Curtis (1835 : pi. 533) and is usually so regarded. It seems, however, that 
Wiedemann (1819 : 25) had ah-eady, before Meigen, referred his two new species 
G. bimaculata and G.fasciata to the genus, so that one of these must be the type- 
species, but it is not clear whether Gonia Wiedemami is to be treated as a subse- 
quent usage or as a junior homonym of Gonia Meigen, 1803. Specialists are 
asked to say whether they wish the Plenary Powers to be used to designate 
M. capitata as type-species of Gonia or whether either G. bimacukUaor G.fasciata 
Wiedemann should be regarded as its type-species. 
Part D 
Seven generic names which are junior homonyms of names suppressed 
for both priority and homonymy (see Appendix IV, Part D) and 
which can thus be placed on the Offlcial List 
26 Erinna H. & A. Adams, 1855 : 120 (gender : feminine), type-species, 
by original designation, Erinna newcombi H. & A. Adams, 1855 (Class Gastro- 
poda) 
37 Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, [1830] : 253 (gender : feminine), type- 
species, by selection by Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 64, Tachina forcipata 
Meigen, 1824 (Order Diptera) 
40 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
45 Noeza Walker, 1866 : 1839 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- 
typy, Noeza telegraphella Walker, 1866 (Order Lepidoptera) 
70 Penthesilea Ragonot, [1891] : 439 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Penthesilea sacculalis Ragonot, [1891] (Order Lepidoptera) 
75 Euribia LatreUle, [1802-1803] : 458 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Hendel, 1927:37, Musca cardui Linnaeus, 1758 (Order Diptera) 
81 Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869 : 253 (gender : masculine), type-species, 
by monot5rpy, Hetaerius setiger Leconte, 1859 (Order Coleoptera) 
84 Crocuta Kaup, 1818 : 1145 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
monotypy, Canis crocuta Erxleben, 1777 (Class Mammalia) 
Part E 
Three names of the same sort as those in Part D above 
postponed for further consideration 
4 Liriope Lesson, 1843 : 39 (Class Scyphozoa). Z.N.(S.) 1423 
This genus was established with two included species, L. cerasiformis 
Lesson, 1843 and Medusa proboscidalis Forsk&l, 1775. The latter is the tjrpe- 
species of Geryonia Peron & Lesueur, 1810, by selection by Mayer, 1910 and 
this, under Opinion 6, would make L. cerasiformis the type-species of Liriope, 
in accord with current practice. The Commission needs to be assured, however, 
that there is no earher type-selection for Liriope or for Geryonia, and the 
advice of speciahsts is needed on this point. 
28 Eulalia Savigny, 1822 : 45 (Class Polychaeta). Z.N.(S.) 104 
This genus was estabhshed with two included species, Nereis viridis and 
N. maculata O. F. Miiller, 1776. The former is currently regarded as the 
type-species of Etilalia, but it is not known on what grounds. Moreover, both 
the specific names mentioned appear to be homonyms rather than subsequent 
usages of N. viridis and N. maculata Limiaeus, 1767 : 1086. Information is 
therefore needed on the earliest type-designation for Eulalia and on the 
relationship of the Miillerian and Lirmean specific names. 
31 Hermione Blainville, 1828 : 457 (Class Polychaeta). Z.N.(S.) 1424 
The type-species, by monotypy, of this genus is Halithea hystrix Lamarck, 
1818 : 307, but it is not known whether this is the oldest available name for the 
species nor whether it is in current use. 
Part F 
A senior homonym of a Meigen 1800 name to be placed on 
the Official List 
8 Petaurista Link, 1795 : 52-78 (gender : feminine) type-species, by abso- 
lute tautonymy, Sciurus petaurista Pallas, 1766 : 54 (Class Mammalia), 
BvMetin of Zoological Nomenclature 41 
Part G 
Two senior homonyms of Meigen 1800 names postponed 
for further consideration 
7 Amphinome Bruguiere, [1792] : ix, 44 (Class Polychaeta) Z.N.(S.) 1425 
The type-species of this genus is reported to be "Aphrodite rostrata Pallas, 
1780 ", but it is not known why, nor whether this is the oldest available name 
for the species in question and in current use. 
65 Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 : 387 (Class Gastropoda). Z.N.(S.) 1215 
This genus was estabhshed without any included species, but in 1801 
Lamarck referred the single species Doris clavigera 0. F. Miiller, 1776, to it, 
and this is therefore the valid t3^e-species, by monotypy. This species is 
now, however, referred to Limacia O. F. Miiller, 1781, while Tritonia is inter- 
preted by reference to T. hombergii Cuvier, 1803. In an unpubhshed appUca- 
tion. Dr. Henning Lemche, a specialist in the group concerned, asks that the 
Plenary Powers be used to designate Tritonia hombergii Cuvier, 1803 as the 
type-species of Tritonia Cuvier, 1798. 
Part H 
Nine generic names to replace junior homonyms of Meigen 
1800 names and to be placed on the Official List 
10 Triphysa ZeUer, 1850 : 308, 311 (gender : feminine), type-species, 
by monotypy, through Phryne Herri ch-Schaefifer, [1844] : 90, Papilio tircis 
StoU, [1782] (Order Lepidoptera) 
10 Calybia Kirby, 1892 : 446 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- 
typy, through Phryne Grote, 1865, Phryne immaculata Grote, 1865 (Order 
Lepidoptera) 
21 Melusinella Metcalf, 1952 : 230 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Funkhouser, 1927 : 214, through Melusina St&l, 1867 : 552, 
Ceresa nervosa Fairmaire, 1846 (Order Hemiptera) 
58 Cerogenes Horvath, 1909 : 532 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, through Atalanta Stal, 1861 : 149, Phenax auricoma Burmeister, 
1835 (Order Hemiptera) 
62 Antiopula Bergroth, 1894 : 163 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
monotypy, through Antiopa Stil, 1863 : 47, Antiopa pumila Stal, 1863 (Order 
Hemiptera) 
66 Graphium Scopoh, 1777 : 433 (gender : neuter), tjrpe-species, by selection 
by Hemming, 1933 : 199, Papilio sarpedon Linnaeus, 1758 (Order Lepidoptera) 
(a generic name regarded as a senior synonym oiZelima Fabricius, 1807). 
67 Xanthia LatreiUe, 1818 : 29 (gender : feminine), type-species, through 
Lampetia Curtis, 1830, Noctua croceago [Dennis & SchifFer miiller], 1775 (Order 
Lepidoptera) 
42 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
69 Madates Strand, 1910 : 19 (gender : masculine), type-species, by original 
designation, through Cinxia Stal, 1862 : 105 and Datames Horvath, 1909 : 631, 
Cimex limhatus Fabricius, 1803 (Order Hemiptera) 
79 Titiella Bergroth, 1920 : 29 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- 
typy, through Titia St&l, 1866 : 105, Acocephalus punctiger St&l, [1855] (Order 
Hemiptera). 
Part I 
Eleven names established by earlier authors and used by Meigen, 
1800, to be placed on the Official List 
19 Cuhx Linnaeus, 1758 : 602 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 376, Culex pipiens Limiaeus, 1758 
35 Tahanus Linnaeus, 1758 : 601 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 385, Tahanus hovinus Lirmaeus, 1758 
38 Empis Linnaeus, 1758 : 603 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 390, Empis pennipes Linnaeus, 1758 
39 Asilus Linnaeus, 1758 : 605 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 389, Asilus crabroniformis Linnaeus, 1758 
42 Conops Linnaeus, 1758 : 604 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Ciu-tis, 1831 : pi. 377, Conops flavipes Limiaeus, 1758 
47 Geosargus Bezzi, 1907 : 53 (a replacement name for Sargus Fabricius, 
1798 : 549 non Walbaum, 1792 : 586) (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
selection by LatreiUe, 1810 : 442, 384, through Sargus Fabricius, 1798, Mu^ca 
cuprarius Linnaeus, 1758 
48 Rhagio Fabricius, 1775 : 761 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 387, Musca scolopacea Linnaeus, 1758 
51 Bombyliiis Linnaeus, 1758 : 606 (gender : masculine), type-species, by 
selection by LatreUle, 1810 : 443, 392, Bombylius major Linnaeus, 1758 
60 Rhingia ScopoU, 1763 : 358 (gender : feminine), type-species, by mono- 
typy^, Conops rosfrata Linnaeus, 1758 
63 Thereva Latreille, 1796 : 167 (gender : femuiine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 443, 388, Musca plebeia Linnaeus, 1758 
87 Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758 : 607 (gender : feminine), type-species, by 
selection by Latreille, 1810 : 444, 407, Hippobosca equina Linnaeus, 1758 
Part J 
Seven generic names established by earlier authors and used 
by Meigen in 1800, postponed for further consideration 
2 Tipuh, Linnaeus, 1758 : 585. Z.N.(S.) 896 
The placing of this important generic name on the Official List is delayed 
by a taxonomic problem, for the nomenclatorial status of the name is clear. 
The type-species ofthe genus is Ti^JwZa o^racea Linnaeus, 1758 : 585, by selection 
by Latreille, 1810 : 442, 379, and this is the oldest available name for the 
species and is in cmrent use . Dr. Lemche points out, however, in an impublished 
BvUetin of Zoological NomendcUure 43 
application, that the specific name has been apphed to three different, though 
closely related species, and that the conservation of the name in the sense of 
majority-usage requires the designation of a neotype.* Further advice on this 
point from specialists in the Tipuhd flies is desirable. 
27 Sicus ScopoU, 1763 : 369. Z.N.(S.) 1426 
The type-species of this genus is Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761 : 468, 
by selection by CoquUlett, 1910 : 605, and this is the oldest available name for 
the species and is in current use. Before the generic name can be placed on the 
Official List, however, the status of Sicus Latreille, 1796 : 158, and Sicus 
Fabricius, 1798 : 547, 554, must be made clear. The type-species of Sicu^ 
Latreille, by monotypy, is Musca cimecoides Fabricius, 1779 : 253, and the 
generic name is a senior sjmonym of Tachydromia Meigen, 1803 (see Part C 
above). No t3rpe-selection is known for Sicus Fabricius. Conops ferruginea 
Linnaeus is one of the included species, so that the generic name could be a 
junior objective synonym of Sicus ScopoU were it not that Fabricius seems to 
have misidentified Conops ferruginea Linnaeus. See also 43 Myopa below. 
32 Ceria Fabricius, 1794 : 277. Z.N.(S.) 1427 
This genus was established without any included species. The type- 
species is Cina [sic] clavicornis Fabricius, 1798 : 557, by selection by Latreille, 
1810 : 443, 396, but the specific name is invalid as a junior primary homonjTn. 
Moreover, Ceria Fabricius is itself a junior homonym of Ceria ScopoU, 1763 : 351 , 
which is a junior subjective synonym of Scatopse Geofiroy, 1762. See 64 
Syrphus below. 
41 Erax ScopoU, 1763 : 359. Z.N.(S.) 1435 
The type-species of this genus is Erax harhatus ScopoU, 1763 : 360, by selection 
by CoquiUett, 1910 : 539. This species is congeneric, or even conspecific, -with 
Asilus punctatus Fabricius, 1781 (placed in Dasypogon by Meigen, 1804 : 251), 
which in turn is the same as Asilus punctipennis Meigen, 1820 : 330. A . punctatus 
is regarded as the type -species of Protophanes Loew, 1860 : 143, which originaUy 
included A. punctipennis also. Macquart, 1838, used Erax in a widely different 
sense from ScopoU, and Hine, 1919, designated Erax rufiharbis Macquart, 
1838 : 232, as type-species of Erax Macquart non ScopoU. Erax is currently 
used in this strictly invaUd sense, aUowing Protophanes, which is technicaUy 
a synonym of Erax, to be used for the Palaearctic species for which ScopoU 
originaUy intended Erax. It seems, however, that other generic names are 
involved in this case and it is not yet clear how or to what extent the Plenary 
Powers may need to be invoked in order to conserve current usage. 
43 3Iyopa Fabricius, 1775 : 798. Z.N.(S.) 1428 
The first vaUd type-designation for this genus was made by LatreiUe, 
1810 : 444, 398, who selected Conops ferruginea Linnaeus, 1761. The generic 
name thus became a junior objective synonym of Sicus ScopoU, 1763 (see 
above), but in fact it is generaUy interpreted according to a later designation 
of Conops huccata Linnaeus, 1758 : 605, by Curtis, 1838 : pi. 677. The Plenary 
Powers may thus be needed to conserve current usage of Myopa and Sicus. 
* A neotj'pe has been designated since this report was drafted. See Bull. zool. Nomencl. 
17 : 209-213. N.D.R. 
44 BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 
49 Anthrax Scopoli, 1763 : 358. Z.N.(S.) 1429 
The type-species of this genus, by monotypy, is Musca morio Linnaeus, 
1758 : 590, but it is not known whether this is the oldest available name for 
the species nor whether it is in current use. 
64 Syrphus Fabricius, 1775 : 762. Z.N.(S.) 1430 
Curtis (1839 : pi. 753) designated Musca lucorum Linnaeus, 1758 : 592, as 
the type-species of this genus. The same species is type of Leucozona Schiner, 
1860 : 214, by monotypy. Westwood, 1840 : 137, designated " Musca rufi- 
cornis Linnaeus " as type-species of Syrphus ; he presumably intended Musca 
ruficornis Fabricius, 1794 : 314. Rondani, 1844 : 459, designated Musca 
ribesii Linnaeus, 1758 : 593, as type-species. In spite of efforts by Coquillett 
(1910 : 611) and Goffe (1933 : 78) to re-estabhsh Curtis's prior designation, 
usage has consistently followed Rondani, because this fixes the generic name 
to a group of species preying on aphids in the sense in which Meigen had used 
the name. IVIr. Collin proposes, in an unpubHshed appHcation, that the 
Plenary Powers be used to designate ribesii as the type-species of Syrphus 
and lucorum as the type-species of Leucozona, but no comments from other 
specialists are available at present on this suggestion. 
Part K 
124 invalid generic names to be placed on the Official Index 
1 Tanyptera LatreiUe, 1804 : 188, a jimior objective sjmonym of Ctenophora 
Meigen, 1803 
1 Ctenophora Blackwall, 1870 : 401 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym 
of Ctenophora Meigen, 1803 
4 Liriope Rathke, 1843 : 60 (Class Crustacea), a junior homonym of 
lAriope Lesson, 1843 
4 Liriope Gistl, [1847] : 563 ; 1848 : 171 (Class Gastropoda), a junior 
homonym oi Liriope Lesson, 1843 
4 Liriope Gegenbavu", 1856 : 256 (Class Scyphozoa), a junior homonym of 
Liriope Lesson, 1843 
4 Ptychoptera Christoph, 1880 : 83 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803 
5 Pales Dejean, 1835 : 408 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of 
Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 and a nomen nudum 
5 Pales Koch, 1850 : 64 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Pales 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
5 Pales Gray, 1867 : 234 (Class Zoantharia), a junior homonym of PaUs 
Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830 
7 Limnohia Meigen, 1818 : 116, a junior objective synonym of Limonia 
Meigen, 1803 
7 Limonia J. L. R. Agassiz, 1846 : 211 (Order Lepidoptera), an unjustified 
emendation of Lemonia Hiibner, [1820] 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 46 
7 Limonia Thorell, 1870 : 190 (Class Arachnida), an unjustified emendation 
of Leimonia Koch, 1847 
8 Petaurista Desmarest, 1820 : 268 (Class Mammalia), a junior homonym 
of Petaurista Link, 1795 
8 Petaurista Berthold, 1827 : 400 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of 
Petaurista Link, 1795 
8 Petaurista Reichenbach, [1863] : 105 (Class Mammalia), a junior homo- 
nym of Petaurista Link, 1795 
8 Trichocera de Haan, [1833] in Siebold : 16 (Class Crustacea), a junior 
homonym of Trichocera Meigen, 1803 
9 Euphrosyne Savigny, 1822 : 45 (Class Polychaeta), a junior homonym 
of Euphrosyne Meigen, 1800 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Euphrosine Lamarck, 1818 
9 Euphrosyne Gray, 1866 : 214 (Class MammaUa), a junior homonym of 
Euphrosyne Meigen, 1800 
9 Macrocera Latreille, 1810 : 339, 439 (Order Hymenoptera), a junior 
homonym of Macrocera Meigen, 1803 
10 Phryne Oken, 1816 : 210 (Class Amphibia), a junior homonym of 
Phryne Meigen, 1800 
10 Phryne Herrich-Schaeflfer, [1844] : 90 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior 
homonym of Phryne Meigen, 1800 
10 Phryne Grote, 1865 : 246 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Phryne Meigen, 1800 
12 Mycetophila GyUenhal, 1810 : 541 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym 
of Mycetophila Meigen, 1803 
15 Pelopia H. Adams, 1868 : 16 (Class Pelecypoda), a junior homonym of 
Pelopia Meigen, 1800 
15 Tanypus Oppel, 1812 : 159 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Tanypus 
Meigen, 1803 
15 Tanypus Keyserhng, 1882 : 1415 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym 
of Tanypus Meigen, 1803 
17 Trichoptera Lioy, 1864 : 1109 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of 
Trichoptera Meigen, 1803 
17 Trichoptera Strobl, 1880 : 64 (Order Diptera), a jimior homonjrm of 
Trichoptera Meigen, 1803 
18 Cecidomia Passerini, 1849 : 70, an erroneous subsequent speUing of 
Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803 
18 Cecidomyza Zetterstedt, 1850 : 3673, an erroneous subsequent spelling 
of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803 
20 Polyxena Blainville, 1834 : 278 (Class Scyphozoa), a junior homonym 
of Polyxena Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Poiyzenia 
Eschscholtz, 1829 
20 Cordyla BUlberg, 1820 : 96 (Order Odonata), a junior homonym of 
Cordyla Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Cordulia 
[Leach], [1815] 
21 MelusirM StSl, 1867 : 652 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of 
Melusina Meigen, 1800 
46 BuUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 
21 MelusiTia Haekel, 1880 : 534 (Class Scyphozoa), a junior homonym of 
Meliisina Meigen, 1800 
21 Simulia Meigen, 1818 : 289, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Simulium Latreille, [1802-1803] 
22 Amasia Dejean, 1835 : 411 (Order Coleoptera), a nomen nudum and a 
junior homonym of Amasia Meigen, 1800 
22 Amasia Chapuis in Lacordaire, 1874 : 313 (Order Coleoptera), a junior 
homonj^m of Amasia Meigen, 1800 
22 Penthetria Cabanis, 1847 : 331 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of 
Penthetria Meigen, 1803 
22 Penthetria Edwards, 1881 : 80 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Penthetria Meigen, 1803 
25 Philia [Oken], 1829 : 1111 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of 
Philia Meigen, 1800 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Philine Ascanius, 
1772 
25 Philia Schioedte, (1842) : 279 (Order Hemiptera),a jimior homonym of 
Philia Meigen, 1800 and an imnecessary replacement name for Calliphara 
Germar, 1839 
25 Philia Koch, 1846 : 54 (Class Arachnida), a junior homonym of Philia 
Meigen, 1800 
25 Dilophus VieiUot, 1816 : 34 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Dilophv^ 
Meigen, 1803 
26 Erinna Moerch, 1865 : 387 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of 
Erinna H. & A. Adams, 1855 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Eremina 
Pfeiffer, 1855 
27 Coenomyia LatreiUe, 1796 : 159, a jxmior objective synonym of Sicus 
Scopoh, 1763 
28 Odontomya LatreiUe, 1809 : 274, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 
28 Odonthomya Rondani, 1856 : 170, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 
28 Odonthomyia BeUardi, 1859 : 232, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Odontomyia Meigen, 1803 
30 Potamida Schweigger, 1820 : 720, 770 (Class Gastropoda), a junior 
homonjTn of Potamida Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling 
of Potamides Brongniart, 1810 
30 Potamida J.L.R. Agassiz, 1846 : 306 (Class Pelecypoda), a junior 
homonym of Potamida, Meigen, 1800, and an unjustified emendation of Potamida 
Swainson, 1840 
31 Hermione Forbes & Goodsir, (1840) : 82 (Class Polychaeta), a junior 
homonym of Hermione BlarnviUe, 1828 
31 Hermione Gray, 1852 : 306 (Class Pelecjrpoda), a jimior homonym of 
Hermione Blainville, 1828 
31 Hermione Meyrick, 1883 : 526 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Hermione Blainville, 1828 
31 Oxycera Giebel, 1875 : 785 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Oxycera 
Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Oxycerca Gray, 1842 
BvHetin of Zoological Nomendaiure 47 
MeZ/^mT/""^""' ^^^^■■''^- 20, a junior homonym of Pk^typtera 
Meigen 803 and an erroneous subsequent spelling of PlatypL Meigen Tfo3 
p4;.^Xrn.I8r ''''■''' ^'''- ^'--^' ^ ^-^- ^-onym'lf 
W PUUyptera Valenciennes m Cuvier & Valenciennes \mi l->i ir<, 
Pisces), a junior homonym of Pteypfe™ Meigen 1803 ' ' ' 
^ulf «;:, S'^'' "** ^ ^*' ^-^ ™-- ^b-^-t spemng of 
LinfLifs: ms""''"^' "'' ^ '' '^'^^^ ^™'- ^ i""- '«.™ of ^«'- 
iJL™^*""'' '""• ' = *'^ '°'"- ^-»). - i"-- io^onj^ of Asaus 
Lin^Ll"*''^"' '*"' ^ "' <«-^ ^™»). - i^o^ iomonym of Ml.. 
41 Dasypogon Leconte, 1861 : 170 (Order rnlpnT.f«ro\ „ ■ • u 
of i)a.y^o^o« Meigen, 1803 toleoptera), a jumor homonym 
42 Cono^5 Walckenaer & Gervais, 1847 : 382 (Class Ararhnirl^^ . ■ • 
homonym of Conom LinnaPii^ ^n^Q a ^ Araciimda), a jumor 
Oo„oj«Templetonf^^l83T ' '" '"°°'°"'' ""'=«9''»» 'lulling of 
r4I:Se^;°SS' ''"^'''' *" '"™~™ -»-^'-' 'P^l^S of 
of rt^^SSin'Tir' '''' ■ ''■'■ ^" — - -^-J-n. spelUng 
*.;: wXaurn'm^IbirkS; '°*^ "^^'"^'' ^ ''^- "-o-J- of 
„jf «-"- I-oepMe, 1802 : 167. a junior homonjnn of Sargus Walbaum, 
of «'L,1:1:Sfr,Vr ^ *' '°^''^' ''""'-'• * '"■^- ""'ooWve s^non^n. 
Bo^J:^Cl!Xi ""' ^ *' '*"" ^'»^'^-'' ^ i™ homonym of 
53 Clytkia H. Milne Edwards lS3fl ■ l^-:* iru.^ u j 
homonym of Clvthia Mei»en lam j ' ' ' Hydrozoa), a junior 
ayKallouroux 1812 ' "' *"" "" '"■"<=<»" subsequent speUing of 
C^lZgfn.tsoo'""' '''' ' '' """^' *^^"'^^^»- ^ i"-or homonym of 
«,S.'i^$:n.S'' ''"'^'' <°'"' ^"^^O^'- ^ i-^ior homonym of 
"..^Me^^fsof "' "'' ^ "'»■ ^" ^™"-- ^t-l-nt speUing of CaUo- 
Oafe4fMl^„',8M ''^ ^°^^'^- ''^^ •■ ''■ - -i-'iflod emendation of 
aJl^:'S:$n,?8S' "** ■■ '"• ^" "™^<™' -^-^-nt apelhng of 
LatSll^uS^tf "' '*" ^ '"• ° ''^"^ °^'^'"- »y"°->- of «p„„«„^ 
48 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
57 Microcera Mannerheim, 1831 : 486 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym 
of Microcera Meigen, 1803 
57 Microcera Zetterstedt, 1837 : col. 33 ; 1838 : 672 (Order Diptera), a 
junior homonym of Microcera Meigen, 1803 
57 Microcera Lioy, 1864 : 906 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym of 
Microcera Meigen, 1803 
58 Atalanta Stil, 1861 : 149 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of 
Atalanta Meigen, 1800 
58 Atalanta Seeley, 1864 : 50 (Class Pelecjrpoda), a junior homonym of 
Atalanta Meigen, 1800 
58 Atalanta Kjiocker, 1869 : 617 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym 
of Atalanta Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Atlanta 
Lesueur, 1817 
58 Clinocera DeyroUe, 1864 : 116 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of 
Clinocera Meigen, 1803 
58 Clinocera Reitter, 1906 : 459 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of 
Clinocera Meigen, 1803, and an erroneous subsequent spelling of Clinocrara 
Thomson, 1859 
60 Rhyngia Rondani, 1844 : 459 (Order Diptera), an erroneous subsequent 
spelling of Rhingia Scopoli, 1763 
62 Antiopa Alder & Hancock, 1848 : 190 (Class Gastropoda), a junior 
homonym of Antiopa Meigen, 1800 
62 Antiopa StS,l, 1862 : 47 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homon3TB of 
Antiopa Meigen, 1800 
65 Tritonia Turton, 1825 : 365 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of 
Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 
65 Tritonia Geyer, 1832 : 25 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of 
Tritonia Cuvier, 1798 
65 Spilomya Oken, 1815 : 513, an erroneous subsequent spelhng oiSpilomyia 
Meigen, 1803 
66 Zelima Fabricius, 1807 : 279 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
oiZelima Meigen, 1800 
66 Zetides Hiibner, [1819] : 85 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior objective 
synonym of Oraphium Scopoli, 1777 
66 Chlorisses Swainson, 1832 : pi. 89 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior objective 
synonym of G^raphium ScopoU, 1777 
67 Lampetia Stephens, 1829 : 43 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 
67 Lampetia Curtis, 1830 : pi. 153 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Lampetia Meigen, 1800 
67 Lampetia Boie, 1837 : 536 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym of 
Lampetia Meigen, 1800 
67 Lampetia Chun, 1880 : 282 (Class Ctenophora), a junior homonym of 
Lampetia Meigen, 1800 
68 Elophilus Labbe, 1935 : 312 (Class Gastropoda), a junior homonym of 
Elophilus Latreille, 1804 
BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 49 
69 Cinxia StS.1, 1862 : 105 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Cinxia 
Meigen, 1800 
69 Sericomya Oken, 1815 : 515, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 
69 Sericomya Rondani, 1844:451, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 
69 Sericomyza Zetterstedt, 1838 : 589, an erroneous subsequent spelling 
of Sericomyia Meigen, 1803 
70 Criorhina WiUiston, 1886 : 209, an erroneous subsequent speUing of 
Criorrhina Meigen, 1822 
70 Chriorhyna Rondani, 1844 : 456, an erroneous subsequent speUing of 
Criorrhina Meigen, 1822 
72 Titania J. L. R. Agassiz, [1846] : 67 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior 
homonym of Titania Meigen, 1800, and an imjustified emendation of Titonio 
Hiibner, [1825] 
73 Scatophaga Fabricius, 1805 : 203, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Scathophaga Meigen, 1803 
74 Dictya J. L. R. Agassiz, 1846 : 123 (Order Diptera), a junior homonym 
of Z)ic<i/a Meigen, 1803, and an unjustified emendation of Dyctia Robineau- 
Desvoidy, 1830 
74 Dictya de Chaudoir, 1871 : 123 (Order Coleoptera), a junior homonym of 
Dictya Meigen, 1803 
74 Dictya Kobayashi, 1933 : 137 (Class Trilobita), a junior homonym of 
Dictya Meigen, 1803 
75 Euribia Rang, 1827 : 320, 328 (Class Pteropoda), a jxmior homonym of 
Eurihia Latreille, 1802 
76 Pterocera Lamarck, 1799 : 72 (Class Gastropoda), a junior objective 
synonym oi Lamhis [Roding], 1798 
76 Pterocera Meigen, 1803 : 275, a junior homonym of Pterocera Lamarck, 
1799 and a junior objective synonym of Volucella Geoflfroy, 1762 
76 Apivora Meigen, 1800, a junior objective synon3rm of Volucella Geofiroy 
1762 
.79 Titia Hermann, 1804 : 135 (Class Aves), a junior homonym of Titia 
Meigen, 1800 
79 Titia St&l, 1866 : 105 (Order Hemiptera), a junior homonym of Titia 
Meigen, 1800 
80 Gonia Heinemann, [1870] : 331 (Order Lepidoptera), a junior homonym 
of Oonia Meigen, 1803 
81 Echinodes Trouessart, 1879 : 274 (Class Mammalia), a jimior homon3an 
of Echinodes Zimmermann, 1 869 
81 Echinodes Jacquet, [1889] : 1888 (Order Coleoptera), a jimior homonym 
o{ Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869 
81 Eriothryx Schiner, [1868] : 292, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Eriothrix Meigen, 1803 
82 Echinomya Latreille, [1804-1805] : 377, a junior objective synonym of 
Tachina Meigen, 1803 
50 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
83 Gymnosoma Quatrefages, [1866] : 482 (Class Polychaeta), a junior 
homonym of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803 
83 Gymnosomia LatreiUe, 1829 : 511, an erroneous subsequent spelling of 
Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803 
85 Calirrhoe Reichenbach, 1828 : 99 (Class Cephalopoda ?), a junior homo- 
njTQ of Calirrhoe Meigen, 1800, and an erroneous subsequent speUing of Callirhoe 
Mont fort, 1810 
87 Hippoboscus Gray, 1832 : 778, an erroneous subsequent speUing of 
Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758 
APPENDIX VI 
SPECIFIC NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST 
Part A 
58 specific names of type-species of genera listed 
in Appendix V 
1 atrata Linnaeus, 1758 : 586, as published in the binomen Tipula atrata 
(type-species of Ctenophora Meigen, 1803) 
4 contaminata Linnaeus, 1758 : 586, as pubhshed in the binomen Tipula 
contaminata (type -species of Ptychoptera Meigen, 1803) 
5 dorsalis Fabricius, 1781 : 403, as pubhshed in the binomen Tipula dorsalis 
(type-species oi Nephrotoma Meigen, 1803) 
7 tripunctata Fabricius, 1781 : 405, as pubhshed in the binomen Tipula 
tripunctata (type-species of Limonia Meigen, 1803) 
8 petaurista Pallas, 1766 : 54, as pubhshed in the binomen Sciurus petaurista 
(t3^e-species of Petaurista Luik, 1795) 
9 lutea Meigen, 1804 : 46, as pubhshed in the binomen Macrocera lutea (type- 
species of Macrocera Meigen, 1803) 
10 immaculata Grote, 1865 : 246, as published m the binomen Phryne 
immaculata (type-species of Calybia Kirby, 1829) 
14 plumosa Linnaeus, 1758 : 587, as pubhshed in the binomen Tipula 
plumx}sa (type-species of Chironomus Meigen, 1803) 
18 pini De Geer, 1776 : 417, as pubhshed in the binomen Tipula pini (type- 
species of Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 
19 pipiens Linnaeus, 1758 : 602, as pubhshed in the binomen Culex pipiens 
(type-species of Culex Linnaeus, 1758) 
20 fusca Meigen, 1804 : 93, as pubhshed in the binomen Cordyla fusca (type- 
species of Cordyla Meigen, 1803) 
21 nervosa Fairmaire, 1846 : 289, as pubhshed in the binomen Ceresa 
nervosa (type-species oi Melusinella Metcalf, 1952) 
Bvlletin of Zoological Nomendature 61 
25 febrilis Linnaeus, 1758 : 588, as published in the binomen Tipula 
febrilis (type-species of Dilophus Meigen, 1803) 
26 cinctus De Geer, 1776 : 183, as published in the binomen Nemotelua 
cinctus (type-species of Xylophagus Sleigen, 1803) 
26 newcombi H. & A. Adams, 1855 : 120, as published in the binomen 
Erinna newcombi (type species oi Erinna H. & A. Adams, 1855) 
28 hydroleon Lmnaeus, 1758 : 589, as pubhshed in the binomen Mtisca 
hydroleon (type-species of Odontomyia Meigen, 1803) 
31 trilineata Limiaeus, 1767 : 980, as pubhshed in the binomen Musca 
trilineata (type-species of Oxycera Meigen, 1803) 
33 caecutiens Linnaeus, 1758 : 602, as pubhshed in the binomen Tabanus 
caecutiens (type-species of Chrysops Meigen, 1803) 
34 pluvialis Linnaeus, 1758 : 602, as pubhshed in the bmomen Tabanus 
pluvialis (type-species of Haematopota Meigen, 1803) 
35 bovinus Linnaeus, 1758 : 601, as published in the binomen Tabanus 
bovinus (tj^e-species of Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758) 
37 forcipata Meigen, 1824 : 272, as pubhshed in the binomen Tachina 
forcipata (type-species of Dionaea Robineau-Desvoidy, 1830) 
38 pennipes Linnaeus, 1758 : 604, as pubhshed in the binomen Empia 
pennipes (type-species of Empis Linnaeus, 1758) 
39 crabroniformis Linnaeus, 1758 : 605, as pubhshed in the binomen Asilus 
crabroniformis (type-species of Asilus Limiaeus, 1758) 
40 gibbosu^ Linnaeus, 1758 : 605, as pubhshed in the binomen Asilus 
gibbosus (tj^e-species of Laphria Meigen, 1803) 
42 flavipes Liimaeus, 1758 : 604, as pubhshed in the binomen Conops 
flavipes (tjrpe-species of Conops Linnaeus, 1758) 
45 telegraphella Walker, 1866 : 1839, as pubhshed in the binomen Noeza 
telegraphella (tjrpe -species of Noeza Walker, 1866) 
47 cupraria Linnaeus, 1758 : 598, as pubhshed in the binomen Musca 
cupraria (type-species of Geosargus Bezzi, 1907) 
48 scolopacea Linnaeus, 1758: 590, as published m the bmomen Musca 
scolopacea (type-species of Rhagio Fabricius, 1775) 
51 major Linnaeus, 1758 : 606, as pubhshed in the binomen Bombylius 
major (type-species of Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 
53 fasciata Meigen, 1804 : 310, as pubhshed in the binomen Platypezafasciata 
(type-species of Platypeza Meigen, 1803) 
54 lutea Panzer, 1809 : tab. 20, 21, as published m the binomen Loncho- 
ptera lutea (type-species of Lonchoptera Meigen, 1804) 
55 elegans Meigen, 1804 : 311, as pubhshed in the binomen Callomyia 
elegans (tjrpe-species of Callomyia Meigen, 1804) 
57 campestris Latreille, [1802-1803] : 463, as pubhshed in the bmomen 
Pipunculus campestris (type-species of Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]) 
58 nigra Meigen, 1804 : 292, as pubhshed in the binomen Clinocera nigra 
(type-species of Clinocera Meigen, 1803) 
58 auricoma Burmeister, 1835 : 168, as pubhshed in the binomen Phenax 
auricoma (type-species of Cerogenes Horvdth, 1909) 
52 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
60 rostrata Linnaeus, 1758 : 604, as published in the binomen Conops 
rostrata (type-species of Rhingia Scopoh, 1763) 
62 bicincta Linnaeus, 1758 : 592, as published in the binomen Musca bicincta 
(type-species of Chrysotoxum Meigen, 1803) 
62 pumila St&l, 1863 : 47-48, as pubUshed in the binomen Antiopa pumila 
(type-species of Antiopula Bergroth, 1894) 
63 plebeia Linnaeus, 1758 : 589, as pubUshed in the binomen Musca 
plebeia (type-species of Thereva LatreUIe, 1796) 
65 diophthalma Luinaeus, 1758 : 593, as pubhshed in the binomen Muaca 
diophthalma (type-species oi Spilomyia Meigen, 1803) 
66 sarpedon Linnaeus, 1758 : 461, as pubhshed in the binomen Papilio 
sarpedon (type-species of Graphium Scopoh, 1777) 
67 clavipes Fabricius, 1781 : 427, as pubhshed in the binomen Syrphus 
clavipes (type-species of Merodon Meigen, 1803) 
67 croceago [Dennis & Schiffermiiller], 1775 : 86, as pubhshed in the binomen 
Noctua croceago (type-species of Xanthia Latreille, 1818) 
69 lappona Linnaeus, 1758 : 591, as published in the binomen Musca 
lappona (type-species oi Sericomyia Meigen, 1803) 
69 limbatus Fabricius, 1803 : 176, as pubhshed in the binomen Cimex 
limbatus (type-species of Madates Strand, 1910) 
70 asilicus Fallen, 1816 : 22, as published in the binomen Syrphus asilicua 
(type-species of Criorrhina Meigen, 1822) 
70 sacculalis Ragonot, [1891] : 439, as pubhshed in the binomen Penthesilea 
sacculalis (type-species of Penthesilea Ragonot, [1891]) 
71 petronella Linnaeus, 1758 : 598, as pubhshed in the binomen Musca 
petronella (type-species of Calobata Meigen, 1803) 
75 cardui Linnaeus, 1758 : 600, as pubhshed in the binomen Musca cardui 
(t)rpe-species of Euribia LatreiUe, [1802-1803]) 
76 lambis Linnaeus, 1758 : 743, as pubhshed in the binomen Strombus 
lambis (type-species of Lambis [Roding, 1798]) 
79 punctiger St&l, [1855] : 98, as pubhshed in the binomen Acocephalus 
punctiger (type-species of Titiella Bergroth, 1920) 
81 setiger Leconte, 1859 : 316, as pubhshed in the binomen Hetaerius setiger 
(type-STpecies of Echinodes Zimmermann, 1869) 
82 grossa Linnaeus, 1758 : 596, as published in the binomen Musca groasa 
(type-species of Tachina Meigen, 1803) 
83 rotundata Lmnaeus, 1758 : 596, as pubhshed in the binomen Muaca 
rotundata (type-species of Gymnosoma Meigen, 1803) 
84 geniculata De Geer, 1776 : 38, as published ui the buiomen Musca 
geniculata (type-species of Bucentes Latreille, 1809) 
84 crocuta Erxleben, 1777 : 578, as pubhshed in the binomen Canis crocuta 
(type-species of Crocuta Kaup, 1828) 
85 siberita Fabricius, 1775 : 798, as published in the binomen Stomoxys 
siberita (type -species of Prosena St. Fargeau & Serville, 1828) 
87 equina Linnaeus, 1758 : 607, as published in the binomen Hippoboaca 
equina (type-species of Hippoboaca Linnaeus, 1758) 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 
Part B 
Six specific names wliich are senior subjective synonyms of 
nominal type-species and whicli are the oldest available 
names for the species concerned 
5 pavida Meigen, 1824 : 398, as published in the binomen Tachina pavida 
(the oldest available name for the type-species of Pales Robineau-Desvoidy, 
1830) 
10 phryne Pallas, 1771 : 470, as published in the binomen Papilio phryne 
(the oldest available name for the type-species of Triphysa Zeller, 1850) 
13 hemerobioides ScopoU, 1763 : 324, as pubhshed in the binomen Tipula 
hemerobioides (the oldest available name for the type-species of Sciara Meigen, 
1803) 
45 grossipes Linnaeus, 1767 : 988, as published in the binomen Musca 
grossipes (the oldest available name for the type-species of Hybos Meigen, 1803) 
73 stercoraria Linnaeus, 1758 : 599, as pubhshed in the binomen Mv^ca 
stercoraria (the oldest available name for the type-species of Scathophaga Meigen, 
1803) 
81 rufomaculata De Geer, 1776 : 28, as pubhshed in the binomen Musca 
rufomaculata (the oldest available name for the type -species of Eriotkrix 
Meigen, 1803) 
APPENDIX VII 
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL INDEX 
OF REJECTED AND INVALID FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY 
Part A 
* Thirteen names based on Meigen 1800 generic names and invalidated 
by the suppression of those generic names under the Plenary Powers 
4 LiMOPEiDAE GofFe, 1932 : 61 (type-genus Liriope Meigen, 1800) 
8 PETAUKiSTiDAE Lindner, 1930 : 11 (type-genus Petaurista Meigen, 1800) 
10 PHKYNEiDAE Lindner, 1930 : 1 (type-genus Phryne Meigen, 1800) 
12 FUNorvoRiDAE Landrock, 1926 : 1 (type-genus Fungivora Meigen, 1800) 
13 LYCOKHDAE Lengersdorf, 1928 : 1 (t3rpe-genus Lycoria Meigen, 1800) 
16 HELEIDAE Goetghebuer & Lenz, 1933 : 1 (type-genus Helea Meigen, 1800) 
18 ITONIDIDAE Felt, 1913 : 127 (type-genus Itonida Meigen, 1800) 
21 MELUSiNiDAE GofFe, 1932 : 61 (type-genus Melv^ina Meigen, 1800) 
52 OMPHBALiDAE Kxober, 1926 : 1 (type-genus Omphrale Meigen, 1800) 
53 CLYTHnDAE Czerny, 1930 : 1 (type-genus Clythia Meigen, 1800) 
64 MirsiDORiDAE Goffe, 1932 : 62 (type-genus Musidora Meigen, 1800) 
56 CYPSELiDAE GoflFe, 1932 : 64 (type-genus Cypsela Meigen, 1800) 
82 LAKVAEVOEIDAE GofiFe, 1932 : 64 (type-genus Larvaevora Meigen, 1800) 
54 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Part B 
Two family-group names based on generic names concerning which specific 
proposals are laid before the Commission (see Appendix V, Part B) 
14 TENDiPEDiDAE GoflFe, 1932 : 61 (type-genus Tendipes Meigen, 1800) 
57 DORiLAiDAE Kertesz, 1910 : 367 (type-genus Dorilas Meigen, 1800) 
Part C 
Incorrect original spellings of family-group names in Diptera 
2 TiPULAEiAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 419 (type-genus Tipula Linnaeus, 
1758) 
2 TiPULABiDES [Lcach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758) 
7 LIMNOEHNA Rondani, 1856 : 38 (type-genus Limnobia Meigen, 1818) 
9 MACKOCEEiNA Roudanl, 1856 : 40 (type-genus Macrocera Meigen, 1803) 
10 BHYPHITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 387 (type-genus Rhyphus Latreille, 
[1804-1805]) 
10 RHYPHH Zetterstedt, 1842 : 9, 85 (type-genus Rhyphus Latreille, [1804- 
1805]) 
10 RIPHIDAE Rondani, 1856 : 18 (type-genus Rhyphus Latreille, [1804-1805]) 
12 MYCETOPHiLiTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 386 (type-genus Mycetophila 
Meigen, 1803) 
14 CHIRONOMITES Newman, (1834) : 379 (type-genus Chironomus Meigen, 
1803) 
16 CERATOPOGONTTES Newman, (1834) : 379 (type-genus Ceratopogon Meigen, 
1803) 
17 PSYCHODITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 388 (type-genus Psychoda LatreiHe, 
1796) 
17 PSYCHODIDES Zetterstedt, 1840 : vi, 824 (type-cenus PsycJwda Latreille, 
1796) 
18 CECiDoaniTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 386 (type-genus Cecidomyia 
Meigen, 1803) 
18 CECIDOMYITES Newman, 1835 : 181 (type-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 
1803) 
18 CECIDOMYIADAE Harris, 1841 : 421 (type-genus CecidomyiaMeigen, 1803) 
18 CECIDOMYZIDES Zetterstedt, 1842 : 10, 90 (type-genus Cecidomyia 
Meigen, 1803) 
19 cuLiciTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 388 (type-genus Cuhx Liimaeus, 1758) 
21 siMULHTES Newman, (1834) : 379 (tjrpe-genus Simulium Latreille, 
[1802-1803]) 
21 SIMULIDES Zetterstedt, 1842 : 9, 85 (type-genus Simulium Latreille, 
[1802-1803]) 
26 XYLOPHAGITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 393 (type-genus Xyhphagm 
Meigen, 1803) 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55 
28 ODONTHOMYNA Rondani, 1856: 35 (type-genus Odontomyia Meigen, 1803) 
35 TABANH Latreille, [1802-1803] : 438 (type-genus Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758) 
35 TABANIDES [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758) 
35 TABANiTES Newman,(1834): 379, 389 (type-genus Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758) 
38 EMPiDES [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Empis Linnaeus, 1758) 
38 EMPiTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 392 (type-genus Empis Linnaeus, 1758) 
39 ASiLici Latreille, [1802-1803] : 432 (type-genus Asiliis Linnaeus, 1758) 
39 ASILIDES [Leach], [1815] : 161 (type-genus Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 
39 ASILITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 392 (type-genus Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 
40 LAPHRHNA Rondani, 1856 : 32 (type-genus Laphria Meigen, 1803) 
41 DASYPOGONINA Rondani, 1856 : 32 (type-genus Dasypogon Meigen, 1803) 
42 CONOPSARIAE LatreiUe, [1802-1803] : 442 (type-genus Conops Linnaeus, 
1758) 
42 CONOPSIDES [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Conops Limiaeus, 1758) 
42 CONOPITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 390 (type-genus Conops Liimaeus, 1758) 
43 MYOPINA Rondani, 1856 : 21 (type-genus Myopa Fabricius, 1775) 
44 TAcraoROMYNA Rondani, 1856 : 30 (type-genus Tachydromia Meigen, 
48 RHAGIONIDES Latreille, [1802-1803] : 440 (type-genus Rhagio Fabricius, 
1775) 
49 ANTHRACiDES [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus ^w^^raa; ScopoU, 1763) 
50 OESTRiDES [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Oestrus Limiaeus, 1758) 
50 OESTRITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 391 (type-genus Oestrus Linnaeus, 1758) 
51 BOMBYLASn Latreille, [1802-1803] : 427 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 
1758) 
51 BOMBYLIDES [Leach], [1815] : 162 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 
51 BOMBILHTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 389 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 
1758) 
51 BOMBYLIADAE Harris, 1841 : 406 (type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 
52 scENOpmn Meigen, 1824 : xi. 111 (type-genus Scenopinus Latreille, 
[1802-1803]) 
54 LONCOPTiRiDAE Rondani, 1856 : 13 (tjrpe-genus Lonchoptera Meigen, 
1803) 
56 BORBOEiTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 396 (type-genus Borborus Meigen. 
1803) 
57 PiPUNCiJLiNi Zetterstedt, 1842 : 4, 45 (type-genus Pipunculus Latreille, 
[1802-1803]) 
62 CHRYSOTOXiTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 394 (type-genus Chrysotoxum 
Meigen, 1803) 
63 THEREVITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 391 (type-genus Thereva Latreille, 
1796) 
68 EEISTALITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 394 (type-genus Eristalis LatreiUe. 
1804) 
72 CHLOBOPINA Rondani, 1856 : 26 (type-genus Chlorops Meigen, 1803) 
73 SOATOPHAGITES Newman, (1834) : 379, 395 (type-genus Scatophaga 
Meigen, 1803) 
56 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
74 TETANOCEBiTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 395 (type-genus Tetanocera 
Latreille, 1804) 
80 GOifiDAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 728 (t3rpe-genus Gonia Meigen, 
1803) 
82 TACHTNAKiAE Macquart, 1835 : 59 (type-genus Tachina Meigen, 1803) 
82 TACHTNADAE Harris, 1841 : 411 (type-genus TacAwa Meigen, 1803) 
82 ECHINOMYDAE Robuieau-Desvoidy, 1830 : 610 (type-genus Echinomya 
LatreiUe, [1802-1803]) 
87 HTPPOBOSCiTES Newman, (1834) : 379, 397 (type-genus Hippobosca 
Linnaeus, 1758) 
87 HippoBOSCADAE Harris, 1841 : 18 (type-genus Hippobosca Linnaeus, 1758) 
Part D 
One incorrect original spelling of a family-group name not in 
Diptera 
7 AMPHTNOMAE Savigny, [1822] : 822 (type-genus Amphinome Bruguiere, 
[1792], Class Polychaeta) 
APPENDIX Vm 
FAMILY-GROUP NAMES TO BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL 
LIST OF FAMILY-GROUP NAMES IN ZOOLOGY 
Part A 
Fifteen names validated through the suppression of Meigen 
1800 generic names 
4 PTYCHOPTEBiDAE Kertesz, 1902 : 275 (type-genus Ptychoptera Meigen, 
1803) 
13 sciARiNAE Zetterstedt, 1840 : 825 (type-genus Sciara Meigen, 1803) 
14 CHiRONOMiDAE Newman, (1834) : 379 (correction of chironomites) 
(type-genus Chironomus Meigen, 1803) 
16 ceratopogonidae Newman, (1834) : 379 (correction of ceratopogonites) 
(type-genus Ceratopogon Meigen, 1803) 
18 cecidomyhdae Newman, (1834) : 379, 386 (correction of cecidomhtes) 
(t3rpe-genus Cecidomyia Meigen, 1803) 
26 xylophaginae Newman, (1834) : 379, 393 (correction of xylophagites) 
(type-genus Xylophagus Meigen, 1803) 
40 LAPHRHNAE Rondani, 1856 : 32 (correction of LAPHBnNA) (type-genus 
Laphria Meigen, 1803) 
BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature G»J 
44 TACHYDROMirNAE Rondani, 1856 : 30 (correction of tachidromyna) 
(type-genus Tachydromia Meigen, 1803) 
45 HYBOTiNAE Meigen, 1820 : x, 346 (type-genus Hyhos Meigen, 1803) 
54 LONCHOPTERiNAE Macquart, 1835 : 13 (type-genus Lonchoptera Meigen 
1803) 
57 PiPUNCCXiDAE Zetterstedt, 1842 : 4, 45 (correction of pipuncxilini) (type- 
genus Pipunculus Latreille, [1802-1803]) 
59 mcROPEZiDAE Loew, 1862 : 38 (type-genus Micropeza Meigen, 1803) 
72 CHI.OROPIDAE Rondani, 1856 : 26 (correction of chloropina) type- 
genus Chlorops Meigen, 1803). [Correction of the original reference for this 
family-group name given in Direction 28] 
80 GONiiNAE Robineau-Desvoidy, 1863 : 728 (correction of gonidae) type- 
genus Gonia Meigen, 1803) 
82 TACHINIDAE Macquart, 1835 : 59 (correction of tachinariae) (type- 
genus Tachina Meigen, 1803). 
Part B 
Thirteen names based on generic names established by authors 
earlier than Meigen, 1800 
2 tipulidae Latreille, [1802-1803] : 419 (correction of tipulariae) (type- 
genus Tipula Linnaeus, 1758) 
19 cuuciDAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 388 (correction of culicites) (type- 
genus Cuhx Linnaeus, 1758) 
35 TABANiDAE LatreiUe, [1802-1803] : 438 (correction of tabanh) (type- 
genus Tabanus Linnaeus, 1758) 
38 EMPiDiDAE [Leach], [1815] : 161 (correction of empides) (type-genus 
Empis Linnaeus, 1758) 
39 AsnJDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 432 (correction of ashjci) (type-genus 
Asilus Linnaeus, 1758) 
42 CONOPIDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 442 (correction of conopsariae) 
(type-genus Conops Linnaeus, 1758) 
43 MYOPiNAE Rondani, 1856 : 21 (correction of myopina) (type-genus 
Myopa Fabricius, 1775) 
48 RHAGiONiDAE Latreille, [1802-1803] : 440 (correction of rhagionides) 
(type-genus Rhagio Fabricius, 1775) 
49 anthracinae [Leach], [1815] : 162 (correction of akthkacides) (type- 
genus Anthrax ScopoH, 1763) 
51 bombylhdae LatreiUe, [1802-1803] : 427 (correction of bombylarh) 
(type-genus Bombylius Linnaeus, 1758) 
63 THEREviDAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 391 (correction of therevites) 
(type-genus Thereva Latreille, 1796) 
87 HippoBosciDAE Newman, (1834) : 379, 397 (correction of mppoBOSCrrEs) 
(^■ype-genus Hippobosca Lmnaeus, 1758) 
58 BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Part C 
Eleven names for which information is required 
3 ERIOPTERINI ; 7 LIMONITNAE ; 8 TRICHOCEBIDAE ; 10 ANISOPODIDAE ; 
15 TANYPODINAE ; 30 CLITELLARIINAE ; 34 HAEBIATOPOTINAE ; 56 SPHAERO- 
CERIDAE ; 58 CLINOCERARINAE ; 71 CALOBATINAE ; 75 TRYPETIDAE 
Part D 
One name in a group other than Diptera 
7 AMPHINOMIDAE Savlgny, [1822] : 822 (correction of amphinomae) (type- 
genus Amphinome Bruguiere, [1792], Class Polychaeta) 
APPENDIX IX 
References 
Adams, H., 1868, Proc. zool. Sac. Land. 1868 : 14-17 
& Adams, A., 1854-1858, The genera of Recent Mollusca 2, London 
& , 1855, Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 23 : 119-124 
Agassiz, J. L. R., 1846, Nomencl. zool. Index univ., Solothurn 
, 1846, Nomencl. zool. Lepidoptera, Solothurn 
, 1862, Contrib. nat. Hist. U.S.A. 4 
Alder, J., & Hancock, A., 1848, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (2) 1 : 189-192 
Bechstein, J. M., 1802, Orn. Taschenb. 1 
BeUardi, L., 1859, Saggio Ditt. Messic. 1 {3Iem. R. Accad. Torino 19 : 201-277) 
Berendt, C, 1845, Bernst. bef. org. Reste 1(1), Berlin 
Bergroth, E., 1894, Rev. ent. France 13 : 152-163 
, 1920, Ark. Zool. 12 (17) 
Berthold, A. A., 1827, in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr., Weimar 
Bezzi, M., 1902, Z. syst. Hym. Dipt. (Konow) 2 : 190-192 
, 1907, Wien. ent. Ztg., 26 : 51-56 
Billberg, G. J., 1820, Enum. Ins. Mus. Billherg, Stockholm 
Bjerkander, C, 1778, K. svensk. Vetensk.-Akad. Handl. 39 : 240-241 
Blackwall, J., 1870, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (4) 5 : 394-405 
Blainville, H. M. D. de, 1828, Diet. Sci. nat. 57, Paris 
, 1834, Man. Actin., Paris 
Blanchard, C. E., [1846], in Cuvier, Regne anim. [ed. 3 (Disciples' ed.)] 14 
(Ins. Atlas 2), Paris 
, 1849, ibid. 7 (Ins. 3) 
Boie, F., 1837, Naturh. Tidsskr. 1 : 521-549 
Brisson, M. J., 1760, Ornithologia, 6 vols., Paris 
Bruguiere, J. G., [1792], Ency. mAth. Vers 1 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 69 
Bunneister, C. H. C, 1835, Handb. Ent. 2, Berlin 
Cabanis, J., 1847, Arch. Nat. 13(1) : 308-352 
Chapuis, F., 1874 in Lacordaire, Hist. nat. Ins., Gen. Col. 10 
Chaudoir, M. de, 1871, Bull. Sac. imp. Nat. Moscou 43(2) : 111-255 
Christoph, H., 1880, Bull. Sac. imp. Nat. Moscou 55(2) : 33-121 
Chun, C, 1880, F. Fl. Neapol. 1 (Naples, zool. Stat.) 
CoquiUett, D. W., 1895, Canad. Ent. 27 : 199-201 
, 1903, Proc. ent. Soc. Washington 25 : 245-272 
, 1910, Proc. U.S. nat. Mus. 37 : 499-622 
Cresson, E. T., 1920, Trans, ent. Soc. Amer. 46 : 27-89 
Curtis, J., 1826, Brit. Ent., pi. 106, London 
, 1830, Brit. Ent., pi. 153 
, 1830, Guide brit. Ins., London 
, 1831, Brit. Ent., pi. 377 
, 1832, Brit. Ent., pis. 409, 432 
, 1833, Brit. Ent., pis. 444, 452 
, 1835, Brit. Ent., pis. 553, 557 
, 1837, Brit. Ent., pis. 637, 661 
, 1838, Brit. Ent., pi. 677 
, 1839, Brit. Ent., pis. 749, 753 
Cuvier, G., 1803, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 480-496 
, G. L. C. F. D., 1798, Tabl. elem. Paris 
, 1829, Regne anim. (ed. 2) 2, Paris 
Czerny, L., 1930, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, fam. 42(a), Stuttgari; 
De Geer, C, 1776, Mem. Ins. 6, Stockholm 
Dejean, P. F. H. A., 1835, Cat. Col, ed. 2, 5, Paris 
[Denis, M. & Schififermiiller, I.], 1775, Ank. syst. Verz. Schmett. Wiener 
Gegend 
Desmarest, A. G., 1820, Ency. meth. (Mamm.) 1 
DeyroUe, H., 1864, Ann. Soc. ent. Beige 8 : 1-312 
Dumeril, A. M. C, 1806, Zool. anal, Paris 
Eaton, A. E., 1895, Ent. mon. Mag., 29 : 120-130 
- — , 1904, ibid. 40 : 55-59 
Edwards, F. W., 1920, Mesure Arc merid. Amer. Sud 10 : 143-162, Paris 
, Henry, 1881, Papilio 1 : 80-81 
Enderiein, G., 1935, Sitzungsber. Ges. naturf. Freunde Berlin, Jahrg. 1935 : 246- 
250 
Erxleben, J. C. P., 1777, Syst. Anim. 
Fabricius, J. C, 1775, Syst. Ent., Flensburg & Leipzig 
1779, Reise Norwegen, Hamburg 
1781, Spec. Ins. 2, Hamburg 
1781, Mantissa Ins. 1, 2, Copenhagen 
1794, Ent. Syst. 4, Copenhagen 
1798, Suppl Ent. Syst., Copenhagen 
1803, Syst. Rhyng., Brunswick 
1805, Syst. Antliat., Brunswick 
1807, Mag. Insektenk. (lUiger) 6 : 279-289 
60 BvUetin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Fairmaire, L., 1846, Ann. Soc. ent. France, (2) 4 : 265-320 
FaUen, C. F., [1811], K. svenska Vetensk.-Akad. nya Handl. 31(4) : 253-287 
, 1816, Dipt. Svec. (Syrph. 2), Lund 
, 1817, ibid. (Syrph. 3), Lund 
Fauvel, A., 1902, Rev. Ent. France 21 : 40-43 
Felt, E. P., 1913, BuU. U.S. State Mus., 165, Rept. State Entomologist- 
Appendix 
Forbes, E., & Goodsir, J., (1840), Rep. brit. Assoc. 1839 (Notices), 79-82 
ForskM, P., 1775, Descr. Anim. [op. post. ed. Niebuhr], Copenhagen 
Funkhouser, W. D., 1927, General Catalogue Hem.iptera,¥ei,sc.\ (Membracidae), 
Northampton, Mass. 
Gegenbaur, C, 1856, Z. wiss. Zool. 8 (no. 2) : 202-273 
Geofiroy, E. L., 1762, Hist, abreg. Ins. 2, Paris 
Geyer, C., 1832, in Hiibner, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 4, Augsburg 
Giebel, C. G. A., 1875, Thes. orn. 2, fasc. 2, Leipzig 
Gistl, J., & Bromme, [1847], Handb. Nat. 1850, Stuttgart 
, J. von N. F. X., 1848, Nat. Thierr., Stuttgart 
Gmelin, J. F., [1790], Syst. Nat. (ed. 13) 1, (5), Leipzig 
Goetghebuer, H., & Lenz, F., 1933, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 13(a), 
Stuttgart 
Goffe, E. R., 1932, Trans, ent. Soc. S. Engl. 8 : 58-64 
, 1933, ibid. 8 : 77-83 
Gray, G., 1832, in Griffith's Cuvier, Anim. Kingd. (Ins.) 15, London 
, J. E., 1852 [op. post, of W.E. Leach], Syn. Moll. g. Brit., London 
, 1866, Proc. zool. Soc. Land. 1866 : 211-216 
, 1867, ibid. 1867 : 233-240 
Grote, A. R., 1865, Proc. ent. Soc. Philad. 5 : 227-255 
GyUenhal, L., 1810, Ins. Svec. 1 Coleopt. 1(2) 
Haan, W. de, [1833], in Siebold, Fauna, Japon. (Crust.), Leiden 
Haekel, E., 1880, Monogr. Medusen, Denkschr. med.-naturw. Gea. Jena 1 
Harris, M., 1776, Exp. Eng. Ins., London 
Harris, T. W., 1841, Rep. Ins. Mass. inj. Veg. [ed. 1], Boston 
Heinemann, H. von, [1870], Schmett. Deutschl. u. Schweiz 2 (Kleiji-Schmett. 2) 
Heft 1 (1877), Brunswick 
Hemming, F., 1933, Entomologist 66 : 196-200 
Hendel, F., 1908, Verh. zool.-bot. Ges. Wien 58 : 43-69 
, 1924, Konowia 2 (1923) : 203-215 
, 1927, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 49, Stuttgart 
Hermann, J., 1804, Obs. Zool., Paris 
Herrich-SchaeflFer, G. A. W., [1844], Schmett. Europ. 1, Regensberg 
Hine, J. S., 1919, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 12 : 103-154 
Horvath, G., 1909, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Hung. 7 : 631-632 
Hiibner, J., [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. 1818 : 17-176, Augsburg 
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1910, Opinion 28, 
Smithson. Publ. 1989 : 66-67 
, 1944, Opinion 152, Ops. Decls. Int. Comm. zool. Nomend. 2 : 181-196 
, 1950, BuU. zool. Nomend. 4 : 158-159, 346, 557-558 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 61 
Jacquet, E., [1889], Ann. Soc. ent. France 6 : cxun-cxLV 
Johannsen, 0. A., 1909, Gen. Ins. 93 (Dipt. Mycet.) 
Kaup, J. J., 1828, Isis (Oken) 21 : 1144r-1150 
Kertesz, C, 1902, Cat. Dipt. 1, Budapest (Mus. Nat. Hung.) 
, 1910, ibid. 7 
Keyserling, E. von, 1882, in Koch (Keyserling), Arachn. Auatr. 1, Nuremberg 
Kirby, W. F., 1892, Cat. Lep. Het. 1, London & BerUn 
Kloet, G. S., & Hincks, W. D., 1945, Check List brit. Ins., Stockport, England 
Knocker, H. H., 1869, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1868 : 615-622 
Kobayashi, T., 1933, Jap. J. Geol. Geogr. 11 : 55-155 
Koch, C. L., 1846, Die Arachn. 13(2), Nuremberg 
, 1850, Ueber Arachn. 5, Nuremberg 
Krober, 0., 1925, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 27, Stuttgart 
Labbe, A., 1935, Bull. Soc. zool. France 60 : 312-317 
Lacepede, B. G. E. de la V., 1802, Hist. nat. Paris in Bu£Fon, Hist. nat. (1794- 
1804 ed.) 
Lamarck, J. B. P. de, 1799, Mem. Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1 : 63-91 
, 1818, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. 5, Paris 
Landrock, K., 1926, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 18, Stuttgart 
LatreiUe, P. A., 1796, Precis Caract. Ins., Paris 
, [1802-1803], Hist. nat. gin. partic. Crust. Ins. 3, Paris {in Sonnini's 
Buffon) 
, 1804, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. 24, Paris 
, [1804-1805], Hist. nat. gen. partic. Crust. Ins. 14, Paris {in Sonnini's 
Buffon) 
, 1809, Gen. Crust. Ins. 4, Paris 
, 1810, Consid. gen. Anim,. Crust. Arachn. Ins., Paris 
, 1818, Nouv. Diet. Hist. nat. (nouv. ed.) 23 : 29 
, 1829, in Cuvier, Rigne Anim. (ed. 2) 1, Paris 
[Leach, W. E.], [1815], Edinb. Ency. 9(1), Edinburgh 
Leconte, J. L., 1859, Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 1859 : 310-317 
--— , 1861, Smithson. Misc. Coll. 3(3) 
Lengersdorf, F., 1928, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 7, Stuttgart 
Lesson, R. P., 1843, in Roret's Suite a Buffon, Hist. nat. Zooph., Acalephes, 
Paris 
Lindner, E., 1930, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. la, lb, Stuttgart 
Link, H. F., 1795, Beytr. Nat. 1(2), Rostock & Leipzig 
Linnaeus, C, 1746, Fauna svecica [ed. 1], Stockholm 
, 1758, Syst. Nat., ed. X (1). Stockholm 
, 1761, Fauna svecica (ed. 2), Stockholm 
, 1767, Syst. Nat. ed. XII (q) 2, Stockhohn 
Lioy, Da P., 1864, Atti 1st Veneto (3) 9(2) : 879-910, 989-1027, 1087-1126, 
1311-1352 
Loew, H., 1846, Linn. Entom. (Ent. Verein Stettin) 11 : 319-530 
, 1860, Dipt.- Fauna Siidafr., Berhn [ex Abh. naturw. Ver. Sachs. Thiir. in 
Halle, 2] 
, 1862, Smithson. Misc. Coll. 6 (Art. 1) 
62 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
, 1862, in Peters, W. C. H., Reise Mossambique, pt. 5, Diptera, Berlin 
Macquart, P. J. M., 1823, Rec. Trav. Sac. amat. Sci. Lille 1 : 137-165 
, 1835, Hist. nat. Ins. 2, Paris 
Mannerheim, C. G., 1831, Mem. pres. Acad. imp. Sci. St. Petersb. 1(5) : 415-502 
Mannheims, B., 1952, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 15, Stuttgart 
Mayer, A. G., 1910, Medusae of the World 3, Scyphomedusae {Carnegie Inst. 
Wash. Publ. 109) 
Meigen, J. W., 1800, Nouvelle Class. Mouches a deux Ailes, Paris (fascimile ed. 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 119-160) 
, 1803, Mag.f. Insektenk. (lUiger) 2 : 259-281 
, 1804, Klass. Beschr. europ. zweifl. Ins., Brunswick 
, 1818-1838, Syst. Beschr. bek. europ. zweifl. Ins., Aachen and Hamm. 1, 
1818 ; 2, 1820 ; 3, 1822 ; 4, 1824 ; 5, 1826 ; 6, 1830 ; 7, 1838 
Menge, A., 1854, in Berendt, Bernst. Reste 1(2), Berlin 
Metcalf, Z. P., 1952, J. Wash. Acad. Sci. 42 : 226-231 
Meyrick, E., 1883, N.Z.J. Sci. 1 : 526-531 
Milne Edwards, H., 1836, in Lamarck, Hist. nat. Anim. s. Vert. (ed. 2), 2, Paris 
and London 
Moerch, O. A. L., 1865, J. Conchyl. 13 [(3) 5] : 376-396 
Montfort, D. de, 1810, Conch, syst. 1, Paris 
Miiller, O. F., 1776, Zool. dan. Prodr., Copenhagen 
, 1781, Zool. dan. (Danm. Norges Dyrs Hist.), Copenhagen 
Nozeman, C. & Vosmaer, P., 1758, [Moehring's] Geslach. Vogel 2 
Newman, E., (1834), Ent. Mag. 2 : 379-431 
, 1835, Grammar Ent., London 
Oken, L., 1815, Lehrb. Nat. 3(1) and 5, Leipzig and Jena 
, 1816, ibid. 3(2) 
[ ], 1829, Isis (Oken) 22 : 1111 
Olivier, M., 1811, Ency. meth., Hist. nat. Ins. 8 
Oppel, M., 1812, Denkschr. k. Akad. Wiss. Miinchen 1811-1812 : 159-166 
Pallas, P. S., 1766, Misc. zool.. The Hague 
Panzer, G. W. F., 1794, F. Ins. Germ., Heft 24, Nuremberg 
, 1809, ibid. Hefte 103, 108 
Passerini, C, 1849, Cont. Atti Accad. Econ.-Agr. Georgofili Firenze 27 : 70-79 
Peron, F., & Lesueur, C. A., 1810, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 14 : 325-366 
Quatrefages de Breau, J. L. A. de, [1866], Hist. nat. Annel. 2 (1865), Paris 
(Roret's Suite a BuflFon) 
Ragonot, E.-L., [1891], Ann. Soc. ent. France (6) 10 : 435-546 
Rang, M., 1827, Ann. Sci. nat. 12 : 320-329 
Rathke, H., 1843, Nova Acta Acad. Leop. Carol. 20(1) : 1-264 
Reichenbach, H. G. L., 1828, Zool. Thierr. 9, Dresden 
, [1863], Central-Atlas zool. Garten Lief. 20, 21, Dresden and Leipzig 
Reitter, E., 1906, in Heyden, Reitter & Weise, Cat. Col. Eur. Caucas. Armen. 
(ed. 2), Paskau 
Robineau-Desvoidy, A. J. B., 1830, Mem. pres. Acad. roy. Sci. Inst. France 2 
(Essai Myod.) 
, 1847, Ann. Soc. ent. France 1847 : 283 
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 63 
, 1863, Hist. nat. Dipt. Env. Paris, 2 vols., Paris 
[Rdding, P. F.], 1798, Museum Boltenianum 2, Hamburg 
Rondani, C, 1844, N. Ann. Sac. nat. Bologna (2) 2 : 443-459 
, 1856, Dipt. Ital. 1, Parma 
Rossi, F. W., 1848, Syst. Verz. zweifl. Ins., Vienna 
Sabrosky. C. W., 1951, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131-141 
, 1954, ibid. 9 : 225-240 
Sack, P., 1939, in Lindner, Die Fliegen, Fam. 37, Stuttgart 
St. Fargeau, A. L. M., & ServiUe, J. G. A., 1825, Ency. meth., Ins. 10(1) • 1-344 
, & , 1828, ibid. 10(2) : 345-832 
Samouelle, G., 1819, Ent. useful Comp., London 
Savigny, M. J. C. L. de, 1822, Hist. nat. Egypte 1(3), Syst. Annel. (Paris 
Commission d'Egjrpte) 
Say, T., 1824, in Keating, Exped. Peter River 2, Philadelphia 
Schiner, I. R., 1860, Wien. ent. Monatsber. 4 : 208-216 
, [1868], Reise Novara, Zool. 2, Dipt., Vienna 
Schioedte, J. C, (1842), Naturh. Tidsskr. 4 : 279-312 
Schweigger, A. F., 1820, Handb. Nat., Leipzig 
ScopoU, G. A., 1763, Ent. Cam., Vienna 
, 1777, Introd. Hist, nat., Prague 
Seeley, H. G., 1864, Geologist 7 : 44-50 
Smart, J., 1944, Ann. Mag. nat. Hist. (11) 11 : 261-272 
Staeger, C, 1839, Naturh. Tidsskr. 2 : 549-600 
Stal, C, [1855], Of vers. k. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. 12 : 89-100 
, 1861, Stettin ent. Z. 22 : 129-153 
. 1862, ibid. 23 : 81-118 
, 1863, Ann. Sac. ent. France (4) 3 : 25-58 
, 1866, Hem. Afr. 4, Stockhohn 
, 1867, Ofvers. k. Vetensk.-Akad. Forhandl. 24 : 491-560 
Stephens, J. F., 1829, Nom. brit. Ins., London 
StoU, C, [1782], in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4(32), Amsterdam 
Stone, A., 1941, Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 34 : 404-418 
St?rand, E., 1910, Soc. ent. Frankfurt Jahrg. 25 : 19 
Strobl, G., 1880, XIV Progr. Ober. Oymnas. Benedict, zu Seitenstetten (Dipt. 
1< unde Seitenstetten) 
Swainson, W., 1832, Zool. illustr. (2) 2, London 
Thienemann, A., 1916, Archiv.f. Hydrobiol. Suppl.-Bd. 2 : 483-554 
Thorell, T., 1870, N. Acta Soc. Uppsala (3) 7(2) : no. 1 
Trouessart, E. L., 1879, Rev. Mag. Zool. (3) 7 : 218-285 
Turton, W., 1825, Zool. Journ. 2(7) : 361-367 
Valenciennes, A., 1837, in Cuvier & Valenciennes, Hist. nat. Poissons 12, Paris 
Vieillot, L. J. P., 1816, Analyse Ornith., Paris 
Villers, C. J. de, 1789, C. Linnaei Ent. Fn. Svec. descr. aucta 3, Leiden 
Wachtl, F. A., 1894, Wien. ent. Z. 13 : 140-144 
Walbaum, J. J., (1788)-1793, P. Artedi Renov. Ichth. (3), ed. 2 Greifswahl 
Mckenaer, C. A., & Gervais, F. L. P., 1847, Apteres 4 (Roret's Suite a Buffon) 
W alker, Francis, 1866, List. Spec. Lep. Ins. Coll. B.M. 35 • 1839 
64 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 
Westwood, J. 0., 1840, Introd. mod. Class. Ins. 2 Synopsis Gen., London 
Winnertz, J., 1863, Verh. zool.-hot. Ges. Wien 13 (Abh.) : 637-964 
Wiedemann, C. R. W., 1819, Zool. Mag. 1(3) : 1-40 
Williston, S. W., 1886, Bull. U.S. nat. Mus. 31 
Zeller, P. G., 1850, Stettin ent. Ztg. 11 : 308-313 
Zetterstedt, J. W., 1837, Isis (Oken) 30 : 837 
, 1838, Ins. Lapp. Descr. (1) Leipzig 
, 1840, ibid. (1) 
, 1842 Dipt. Scand. 1, Lund 
, 1843, ibid. 2 
, 1850, ibid. 9 
, 185], ibid. 10 
Zimmermann, C, 1869, in Leconte, Trans, ent. Soc. Amer. 2 : 243-259 
COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED USE OF THE PLENARY POWERS TO VALIDATE 
THE GENERIC NAME IDOTEA FABRICIUS, 1798, AND MATTERS CONNECTED 
THEREWITH. Z.N.(S.) 412 
(See Volume 17, pages 178-184.) 
By Henning Lemche ( Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark) 
It is always much easier for the few specialists in a certain group to remember changes of 
anmes and to realize what recently dug-out names stand for. The diflSculties in changes of generic 
names for reasons of priority are much more strongly felt by the general zoologists who use 
Buch names only now and then but, on the other hand, meet a much larger number of them. 
The name Mesidotea, now proposed to be suppressed for reasons of priority, is such a name 
which is well known by quite a large number of zoologists working in ecology and zoogeography, 
whereas Saduria is almost completely imknown. 
Hence, I propose to accept the proposals of Dr. Heegaard and Dr. Holthuis as set out in 
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 17 : 182-184 with the following changes : 
(l)(e) add " to suppress the generic name Saduria Adams, 1852, for the purposes of the Law 
of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy " ; 
(2)(e) replace by " Mesidotea Richardson, 1905 (gender : feminine) type-species, by designa- 
tion by Heegaard and Holthuis, 1960, Oniscus entomon Linnaeus, 1758 " ; 
(3)(f) replace by " entomon Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the binomen Oniscus entomon 
(type-species of Mesidotea Richardson, 1905) " ; 
(4)(i) replace by "Saduria Adams, 1852, as suppressed \mder the plenary powers in (l)(e) 
above ".