16 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature OPINION 1015 SOLENIUS LEPELETIER & BRULL6, 1834 (INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA): DESIGNATION OF A TYPE-SPECIES UNDER THE PLENARY POWERS RULING. — (1) Under the plenary powers all designations of type-species made prior to this Ruling for the genus Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 are hereby set aside, and the nominal species Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 is hereby designated to be the type-species of that genus. (2) The generic name Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834 (gender : mascu- line), type-species, by designation under the plenary powers in (1) above, Solenius interruptus Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834, is hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the Name Number 1996. (3) The specific name interruptus Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834, as published in the binomen Solenius interruptus (type-species of Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834) is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology with the Name Number 2522. HISTORY OF THE CASE (Z.N.(S.) 1827) The present case was submitted to the office of the Commission by Dr. H. K. Court and Dr. A. S. Menke in September 1967. The application was sent to the printer on 4 October 1967 and was published on 18 January 1968 in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 356-358. Public Notice of the possible use of the plenary powers in the present case was given in the same part of the Bulletin as well as to the other prescribed serial publications (Constitution Art. 12b; Bull. zool. Nomencl. 21 : 184) and to seven entomological serials. No comment was received. DECISION OF THE COMMISSION On 13 November 1969 the Members of the Commission were invited to vote under the Three-Month Rule on Voting Paper (69)51 either for or against the proposal set out in Bull. zool. Nomencl. 24 : 357. At the close of the voting period on 13 February 1970 the state of the voting was as follows: Affirmative votes — twenty-two (22), received in the following order: China, Yokes, Obruchev, Eisenmann, Mayr, Alvarado, Simpson, Holthuis, do Amaral, Lemche, Tortonese, Starobogatov, Jaczewski, Melville, Binder, Evans, Bonnet, Ride, Kraus, Forest, Mertens, Brinck. Negative votes — one (1): Sabrosky. Voting Papers not returned — one (1): Munroe. In returning his negative vote. Dr. Sabrosky made the following comment (7.1.1970): "I vote against the proposals, albeit somewhat reluctantly, because I disagree with several stages in the history of the case, while agreeing with the desire to retain Solenius in its accustomed meaning for a group of crabronid wasps. Bull. zool. Nomencl, Vol. 31, Part 1. July 1974. Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature 17 "This is clearly a case of misidentified type-species and therefore properly should have been decided under Article 70. The misidentification was clearly recognized by Richards (1935) and the proposal by Benson et al. (1947) was based upon that fact. It is unfortunate that this case was not settled long ago upon that basis. "The present apphcants note Pate's rejection of Westwood (1839) as type designation, and they cite Direction 32 (1956) of the International Commission, published almost 20 years after Pate's catalogue. However, it is of more significance and relevance to note the Commission's Opinion 71, published in 1922 (15 years prior to Pate's catalogue), which stated that Westwood's 'typical species' 'are to be accepted as definite designations of genotypes.' Pate's action was in defiance of a duly rendered Opinion of the Commission, and moreover was contrary to the then long-held views 'by workers of the 1 800's and early 1900's'. Hence the action was unjustified on both legalistic grounds and on usage. I do not favour the acquiescence to this defiance that would be implied by approval of the present application. I would much prefer to see Crabro continuus Fabricius designated as type of Solenius." The Secretary communicated this information to Dr. Court on 8th June 1970, but received no reply. When Dr. Menke reopened the question (13.x. 1971) he was sent a copy of the Secretary's letter to Dr. Court, and replied as follows to Dr. Sabrosky's comment : Dr. Menke (19.1.1972): "It is true, as Dr. Sabrosky points out, that Pate defied the rules of the ICZN in determining the type-species of Solenius, but I would hate to see a ruling in which continuus was made the type of the taxon. To do so would mean that the large crabronine genus Ectemnius would become a junior synonym of Solenius, and that the subgenus of Lestica currently known as Solenius would be without a name. This change would upset usage that has been common in the most significant crabronid hterature for some 30 years. I think in this instance that stabihty is more desirable than a furtherance of the seesaw interpretation of the name Solenius which Dr. Sabrosky seems to feel is warranted because of Pate's illegal practice. I don't condone Pate's action, but it is after all more in the realm of unfortunate history now." The outcome of the case is as though it had been dealt with under Article 70, since the designation of the type-species so made appears to be the one that best serves stability of nomenclature. The Opinion is therefore being pubhshed. Original References The following are the original references for names placed on the OflBcial Lists by the Ruhng given in the present Opinion : interruptus, Solenius, Lepeletier & BruUe, 1834, Ann. Sac. ent. Fr. 3 : 683-810 Solenius Lepeletier & Brulle, 1834, Ann. Soc. ent. Fr. 3 : 683-810 CERTIFICATE I certify that the votes cast on Voting Paper (69)51 were cast as set out above, that the proposal contained in that Voting Paper has been duly adopted 18 Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature under the plenary powers, and that the decision so taken being the decision of the International Commission, is truly recorded in the present Opinion No. 1015. R. V. MELVILLE Secretary International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature London 3 January 1974