Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 57( I ) March 2000 45 Rice, S.A. 1991. Reproductive isolation in the Polydora ligni complex and the Srreblospio henedicti complex (Polychaeta: Spionidae). Bulletin of Marine Science. 48: 'i'il-AAl. Williams, J.D. & Radashevsky, V.I. 1999. Morphology, ecology, and reproduction of a new Polvdora species from the east coast of North America (Polychaeta: Spionidae). Ophelia. 51(2): 115-127. (2) Mary E. Petersen Zoological Museum. Uniyersity of Copenhagen. Universitetsparken 15. DK-2100 Copenhagen 0. Denmark I strongly urge that the proposed conservation of the specific name of the polychaetous annelid Pulydora wehsieri Hartman in Loosanoff & Engle, 1943 (SPIONIDAE) and designation of a lectotype for this species be supported. The application by Radashevsky & Williams (BZN 55: 212-216) is clearly presented and well argued. It requests conservation of the specific name websteri for the species seen and described by Hartman (1943), and not for the distinct species (P. caeca Webster, 1879) for which Hartman intended it to be a new replacement name (nomen novum) because of homonymy with the older Leucodorum coecum Orsted, 1843 (currently Dipolydora coeca). As pointed out by Radashevsky & Williams, the species described by Hartman is well known and widely distributed, whereas the species seen and described by Webster (1879) has until recently not been recognized. The authors mention (paras. 6 and 10) only two known finds of the species since it was described: material of S.H. Hopkins from off Virginia (the type locality of P. caeca), and more recently live material from Rhode Island. Hartman's original material of Polydora websteri is extant, and a proposed lectotype, in agreement with Hartman's description and also with that of others who have used the name, has been selected and redescribed by Radashevsky (1999). Williams & Radashevsky (1999) have also provided a careful and detailed description of a new nominal species, P. neocaeca Williams & Radashevsky, 1999 based on material from Rhode Island, and very clearly indicated that their material fits the description of P. caeca from Virginia by Webster. This acknowledges that two taxonomic species are involved and promotes stability in maintaining the present usage and type locality of P. websteri. The proposals made by Radashevsky and Williams in their application are well considered and I suggest that supporting their application will promote the greatest nomenclatural stability. Comment on the proposed designation of Cuma rathkii Kreyer, 1841 as the type species of Diastylis Say, 1818 (Crustacea, Cumacea) (Case 3078; see BZN 56: 174-176) L.B. Holthuis Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Postbus 951 7, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands Dr Gerken's application is most welcome and actually long overdue. The unfortunate fact that Diastylis has a type species of doubtful identity has been known
BioStor
