136 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature Spuler, a., 1910. Die Schmetterlinge Europas. Stuttgart, II, p. 30. Staudinger, O., and Rebel, H., 1901. Catalog der Lepidopteren des Palaearctischen Faunengehietes. Berlin, p. 281. TuLLGREN, A., 1941. Svenska FJdriiar. Stockholm, p. 239. Valle, K. J., 1946. Suomen Eldimet Animalia Fennica. 5 Suurperhoset. IV Geometrae, p. 68. VoRBRODT, K., and Muller-Rutz, J., 1914. Die Schmetterlinge der Schweiz. Bern, p. 35. Zerny, H., and Beier, M. (in Kiikenthal-Krumbach, Handbuch der Zoologie, Insecta — 25 Ordnung Lepidoptera), 1936, p. 1711. COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES FOR PURPURA BRUGUlfeRE, 1789. Z.N.(S.) 1621 (see volume 21, pages 235-239) By C. O. van Regteren Altena {Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historic, Leiden, The Netherlands) I agree with Dr. Keen that the proposals at the end of her paper present the best solution of the problems she dealt with. For me there is only one exception : I should prefer the family name Purpuridae to that of Thaisidae, but I must admit that the arguments in favour of these two possibilities practically balance each other. By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. {La Jolla, California, U.S.A.) This application deals with several matters not very closely related, which might better have been submitted separately. I wish to comment upon only one of these, the proposed substitution of the little used family name thaididae for the older and more frequently used name purpuridae. I am opposed to this step for the following reasons : First, the name purpuridae is the older of the two, it dates from 1839 in any case, while THAIDIDAE Originated in 1913, as has been stated. Secondly, the name purpuridae is the commonly accepted name. The name THAIDIDAE has never come into general usage. Third, the old rule was that the family name should be derived from that of the nominate genus, which is Purpura. Thais at best is not more than a subgenus of Purpura. Consequently the use of the family name thaididae might easily result in confusion, since it is derived from a group of only subgeneric rank. It is true that Thais was for a while used as a generic name, and the reason for such use should have been accounted for in the application. These are the facts : The name Purpura dates from 1789, as has been correctly stated by the author of the application. When Dall realized that Martyn had used the name Purpura in a different sense as early as 1 784, he followed the rule that requires that a genus should take the same name as its oldest subgenus and employed Thais for the entire genus in the broad sense as well as for the subgenus under it. When the Universal Conchologist of Martyn was suppressed availability was restored to Purpura Bruguiere, 1789, for which reason I would amend Dr. Keen's application, and suppress the unnecessary name thaididae. COMMENT ON THE PROPOSALS CONCERNING THE NAME GARI SCHUMACHER, 1817 Z.N.(S.) 1461 By Joshua L. Baily, Jr. {P.O. Box 1891, La Jolla, California) The revised proposals by Dr. Henning Lemche on the problems grouped around the generic name Gari Schumacher Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 (5) : 323, 1964, meet with my approval except for one detail. I do not think that the names Gari and Garuin Dall, 1900, should be allowed to co-exist, as they are not different names but only Bull. zool. Nomencl., Vol. 22, Part 2. May 1965.
BioStor
