Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 209 COMMENT ON PROPOSED SUPPRESSION UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS OF HESPERITES POMPECKJ, 1895 (CEPHALOPODA, AMMONOIDEA).* Z.N.(S.) 1873 (see this volume, pages 62-64) By Ellis L. Yochelson (U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.) I protest the action of D. T. Donovan in the case requesting suppression of Hesperites for purposes of the Law of Priority. Although I am in sympathy with the problem, I feel that it does not fall within the province of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. The International Rules and International Commission are concerned with nomenclature. They are not concerned with biology. It has been stated repeatedly, but bears further repetition, that divisions in the animal kingdom and the names applied to these divisions are two distinct entities. Organisms and the names of organisms impinge on one another, but they cannot be mixed indiscriminately. Hesperites Pompeckj and its type species Hesperites clarae Pompeckj are names in good standing in the literature, having been proposed in accord with the International Rules. It may very well be that the form supposed to be of Triassic age is actually younger. Even if there is unanimous agreement on this point among workers on Mesozoic ammonites, it is entirely irrelevant. The age of Hesperites is a biologic problem in a broad sense, but under no possible interpretation can this be considered a nomenclatural problem. Should the International Commission embark on a course of attempting to dispose of those fossils which are thought to have been mixed as to locality, it may be in-undated with relatively trivial cases that are in no way germane to nomenclatural practice. I feel that the International Commission should restrict its activities entirely to nomenclatural problems. ' Publication authorized by the Director, U.S. Geological Survey. Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 26, Parts 5/6. April 1970.
BioStor
