Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 55(1) March 1998 37 Comments on the proposed conservation of the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackiand, 1991 (Reptilia, Squamata) (Case 3043; see BZN 54: 100-103, 250-251) ( 1 ) Jeanette Covacevich and Patrick Couper Vertebrate Section, Queensland Museum, PO Box 3300, South Brisbane, Queensland 4101, Australia We believe that the specific name of Varanus teriae Sprackiand, 1991 should not be conserved, and that for the following reasons the appropriate name is Varanus keithhornei (Wells & Wellington, 1985). 1 . There is no reason to suspend the application of the Principle of Priority to conserve the specific name of V. teriae. In terms of common usage the case is weak. The history of V. teriae is short (only six years); notwithstanding the fact that it has been used more frequently than the prior name V. keithhornei, we believe that usage does not justify the conservation of V. teriae. 2. As the Commission declined to vote on the application to suppress the work by Wells & Wellington (see BZN 48: 337-338, December 1991), the name V. keithhornei is available. Though the description is poor, it is detailed enough to ensure that no confusion exists (or ever could exist) about either the taxon so named or the holotype. Wells & Wellington (1985, p. 21) clearly identify Queensland Museum specimen J31566 as the holotype of Odatria keithhornei and describe the species as '. . . readily identified by referring to the excellent diagnostic and descrip-tive data in Czechura (1980)'. Czechura had provided a very detailed description and illustration of this specimen, under the name Varanus prasinus Schlegel, 1839, and V. keithhornei (Wells & Wellington, 1985) is available under Article 13a(ii) of the Code. The same specimen is also the holotype of V. teriae Sprackiand, 1991. 3. We (Covacevich & Couper, 1994) have already formally treated V. teriae as a synonym of V. keithhornei, in accordance with the Principle of Priority; Sprackiand, Smith & Strimple do not mention this in their application to conserve V. teriae (although they have done so in their reply (BZN 54: 250) to a comment by Prof L.B. Holthuis on this case). The synonymy has now been recognised several times: Irwin (1996); Kirschner, Miiller & Seufer (1996); Irwin & Irwin (1997); and in the Queensland Nature Conservation Regulations, 1997. 4. In our view the name V. keithhornei was not "obscurely published', as stated by Sprackiand et al. in their application. The Wells & Wellington (1985) work became an international cause celebre, creating (initially at least) fears of impending taxonomic havoc. If only because these authors rejected 'virtually every tenet of the voluntary Code of Ethics' (BZN 48: 338) and achieved something approaching notoriety, their work was both extremely well known and widely discussed. Sprackiand et al. allude at length (para. 4 of their application) to difficulties in obtaining a copy of Wells & Wellington (1985) where '... new varanid names might exist ...'. However understandable, even excusable, ignorance of the literature may sometimes be for taxonomists, it should not (we believe) be used as a rationale to overthrow the Principle of Priority. Furthermore, one letter to any herpetological
BioStor
